Witchcraft .—It is not easy to draw a clear distinction between magic and witchcraft. Both are concerned with the producing of effects beyond the natural powers of man by agencies other than the Divine (cf. Occult Art, Occultism). But in witchcraft, as commonly understood, there is involved the idea of a diabolical pact or at least an appeal to the intervention of the spirits of evil. In such cases this supernatural aid is usually invoked either to compass the death of some obnoxious person, or to awaken the passion of love in those who are the objects of desire, or to call up the dead, or to bring calamity or impotence upon enemies, rivals, and fancied oppressors. This is not an exhaustive enumeration, but these represent some of the principal purposes that witchcraft has been made to serve at nearly all periods of the world’s history. In the traditional belief, not only of the dark ages, but of post-Reformation times, the witches or wizards addicted to such practices entered into a compact with Satan, abjured Christ and the Sacraments, observed “the witches’ sabbath”—performing infernal rites which often took the shape of a parody of the Mass or the offices of the Church—paid Divine honor to the Prince of Darkness, and in return received from him preternatural powers, such as those of riding through the air upon a broomstick, assuming different shapes at will, and tormenting their chosen victims, while an imp or “familiar spirit” was placed at their disposal, able and willing to perform any service that might be needed to further their nefarious purposes.
The belief in witchcraft and its practice seem to have existed among all primitive peoples. Both in ancient Egypt and in Babylonia it played a conspicuous part, as existing records plainly show. It will be sufficient to quote a short section from the recently recovered Code of Hammurabi (about 2000 B.C.). “If a man”, it is there prescribed, “has laid a charge of witchcraft upon a man and has not justified it, he upon whom the witchcraft is laid shall *o to the holy river; he shall plunge into the holy river and if the holy river overcome him, he who accused him shall take to himself his house.” In the Holy Scripture references to witchcraft are frequent, and the strong condemnations of such practices which we read there do not seem to be based so much upon the supposition of fraud as upon the “abomination” of the magic in itself. (See Deut., xviii, 11-12; Ex., xxii, 18, “wizards thou shalt not suffer to live”—A. V. “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”.) The whole narrative of Saul‘s visit to the witch of Endor (I Kings, xxviii) implies the reality of the witch’s evocation of the shade of Samuel; and from Lev., xx, 27: “A man or woman in whom there is a pythonical or divining spirit, dying let them die: they shall stone them: Their blood be upon them”, we should naturally infer that the divining spirit was not a mere imposture. The prohibitions of sorcery in the New Testament leave the same impression (Gal., v, 20, compared with Apoc., xxi, 8; xxii, 15; and Acts, viii, 9; xiii, 6). Supposing that the belief in witchcraft were an idle superstition, it would be strange that the suggestion should nowhere be made that the evil of these practices only lay in the pretending to the possession of powers which did not really exist.
We are led to draw the same conclusion from the attitude of the early Church. Probably that attitude was not a little influenced by the criminal legislation of the Empire as well as by Jewish feeling. The law of the Twelve Tables already assumes the reality of magical powers, and the terms of the frequent references in Horace to Canidia allow us to see the odium in which such sorceresses were held. Under the Empire, in the third century, the punishment of burning alive was enacted by the State against witches who compassed another person’s death through their enchantments (Julius Paulus, “Sent.”, V, 23, 17). The ecclesiastical legislation followed a similar but milder course. The Council of Elvira (306), can. vi, refused the holy Viaticum to those who had killed a man by a spell (per maleficium) and adds the reason that such a crime could not be effected “without idolatry”; which probably means without the aid of the Devil, devil worship and idolatry being then convertible terms. Similarly canon xxiv of the Council of Ancyra (314) imposes five years of penance upon those who consult magicians, and here again the offense is treated as being a practical participation in paganism. This legislation represented the mind of the Church for many centuries. Similar penalties were enacted at the Eastern council in Trullo (692), while certain early Irish canons in the far West treated sorcery as a crime to be visited with excommunication until adequate penance had been performed. None the less the general desire of the clergy to check fanaticism is well illustrated by such a council as that of Paderborn (785). Although it enacts that sorcerers are to be reduced to serfdom and made over to the service of the Church, a decree was also passed in the following terms: “Whosoever, blinded by the devil and infected with pagan errors, holds another person for a witch that eats human flesh, and therefore burns her, eats her flesh, or gives it to others to eat, shall be punished with death”. Altogether it may be said that in the first thirteen hundred years of the Christian era we find no trace of that fierce denunciation and persecution of supposed sorceresses which characterized the cruel witch hunts of a later age. In these earlier centuries a few individual prosecutions for witchcraft took place, and in some of these torture (permitted by the Roman civil law) was apparently employed. Pope Nicholas I, indeed (A.D. 866), prohibited the use of torture, and a similar decree may be found in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. In spite of this it was not everywhere given up. Also we must notice that a good many suspected witches were subjected to the ordeal of cold water, but as the sinking of the victim was regarded as a proof of her innocence, we may reasonably believe that the verdicts so arrived at were generally verdicts of acquittal. On many different occasions ecclesiastics who spoke with authority did their best to disabuse the people of their belief in witchcraft. This for instance is the general purport of the book, “Contra insulsam vulgi opinionem de grandine et tonitruis” (Against the foolish belief of the common sort concerning hail and thunder), written by Saint Agobard (d. 841), Archbishop of Lyons (P.L., CIV, 147). Still more to the point is the section of the work, “De ecclesiasticis disciplinis” ascribed to Regino of Prum (A.D. 906). In § 364 we read: This also is not to be passed over that “certain abandoned. women, turning aside to follow Satan, being seduced by the illusions and phantasms of demons, believe and openly profess that in the dead of night they ride upon certain beasts along with the pagan goddess Diana and a countless horde of women and that in these silent hours they fly over vast tracts of country and obey her as their mistress, while on other nights they are summoned to pay her homage.” And then he goes on to remark that if it were only that the women themselves were deluded it would be a matter of little consequence, but unfortunately an immense number of people (innumera multitudo) believe these things to be true and believing them depart from the true Faith, so that practically speaking they fall into Paganism. And on this account he says “it is the duty of priests earnestly to instruct the people that these things are absolutely untrue and that such imaginings are planted in the minds of misbelieving folk, not by a Divine spirit, but by the 3 spirit of evil” (P.L., CXXXII, 352; cf. ibid., 284). It would, as Hansen has shown (Zauberwahn, pp. 81-82), be far too sweeping a conclusion to infer that the Carlovingian Church by this utterance proclaimed its disbelief in witchcraft, but the passage at least proves that in regard to such matters a saner and more critical spirit had begun to prevail among the clergy. The “Decretum” of Burchard, Bishop of Worms (about 1020), and especially its 19th Book, often known separately as the “Corrector”, is another work of great importance. Burchard, or the teachers from whom he has compiled his treatise, still believes in some forms of witchcraft—in magical potions, for instance, which may produce impotence or abortion. But he altogether rejects the possibility of many of the marvellous powers with which witches were popularly credited. Such, for example, were the nocturnal riding through the air, the changing of a person’s disposition from love to hate, the control of thunder, rain, and sunshine, the transformation of a man into an animal, the intercourse of incubi and succubi with human beings. Not only the attempt to practice such things but the very belief in their possibility is treated by him as a sin for which the confessor must require his penitent to do a serious assigned penance. Gregory VII in 1080 wrote to King Harold of Denmark forbidding witches to be put to death upon presumption of their having caused storms or failure of crops or pestilence. Neither were these the only examples of an effort to stem the tide of unjust suspicion to which these poor creatures were exposed. See for example the Weihenstephan case discussed by Weiland in the “Zeitschrift f. Kirchengesch.”, IX, 592.
On the other hand, after the middle of the thirteenth century, the then recently-constituted Papal Inquisition began to concern itself with charges of witchcraft. Alexander IV, indeed, ruled (1258) that the inquisitors should limit their intervention to those cases in which there was some clear presumption of heretical belief (manifeste hceresim saperent), but Hansen shows reason for supposing that heretical tendencies were very readily inferred from almost any sort of magical practices. Neither is this altogether surprising when we remember how freely the Cathari parodied Catholic ritual in their “consolamentum” and other rites, and how easily the Manichwan dualism of their system might be interpreted as a homage to the powers of darkness. It was at any rate at Toulouse, the hotbed of Catharan infection, that we meet in 1275 the earliest example of a witch burned to death after judicial sentence of an inquisitor, who was in this case a certain Hugues de Baniol (Cauzons, “La Magie”, II 217). The woman, probably half crazy, “confessed” to having brought forth a monster after intercourse with an evil spirit and to having nourished it with babies’ flesh which she procured in her nocturnal expeditions. The possibility of such carnal intercourse between human beings and demons was unfortunately accepted by some of the great schoolmen, even, for example, by St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure. Nevertheless within the Church itself there was always a strong common-sense reaction against this theorizing, a reaction which more especially manifested itself in the confession manuals of the close of the fifteenth century. These were largely compiled by men who were in actual contact with the people, and who realized the harm effected by the extravagances of these superstitious beliefs. Stephen Lanzkranna, for instance, treated the belief in women who rode about at night, hobgoblins, were-wolves, and “other such heathen nonsensical impostures”, as one of the greatest of sins. Moreover this common-sense influence was a powerful one. Speaking of the synods held in Bavaria, so unfriendly a witness as Riezler (Hexennrozesse in Bavern, p. 32) declares that” among the official representatives of the Church this healthier tendency remained the prevalent one down to the threshold of the witch-trial epidemic, that is until far on in the sixteenth century”. Even as late as the Salzburg Provincial Synod of 1569 (Dalham, “Concilia Salisburgensia”, p. 372), we find indication of a strong tendency to prevent as far as possible the infliction of the death penalty in cases of reputed witchcraft, by insisting that these things were diabolical illusions. Still there can be no doubt that during the fourteenth century certain papal constitutions of John XXII and Benedict XII (see Hansen,” Quellen and Untersuchungen”, pp. 2-15) did very much to stimulate the prosecution by the inquisitors of witches and others engaged in magical practices, especially in the south of France. In a witch trial on a large scale carried on at Toulouse in 1335, out of sixty-three persons accused of offenses of this kind, eight were handed over to the secular arm to be burned and the rest were imprisoned either for life or for a long term of years. Two of the condemned, both elderly women, after repeated applications of torture, confessed that they had assisted at witches’ sabbaths, had there worshipped the Devil, had been guilty of indecencies with him and with the other persons present, and had eaten the flesh of infants whom they had carried off by night from their nurses (Hansen, “Zauberwahn”, 315; and “Quellen and Untersuchungen”, 451). In 1324 Petronilla de Midia was burnt at Kilkenny in Ireland at the instance of Richard, Bishop of Ossory; but analogous cases in the British Isles seem to have been very rare. During this period the secular courts proceeded against witchcraft with equal or even greater severity than the ecclesiastical tribunals, and here also torture was employed and burning at the stake. Fire was the punishment juridically appointed for this offense in the secular codes known as the “Sachsenspiegel” (1225) and the “Schwabenspiegel” (1275). Indeed during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries no prosecutions for witchcraft are known to have been undertaken in Germany by the papal inquisitors. About the year 1400 we find wholesale witch-prosecutions being carried out at Berne in Switzerland by Peter de Gruyeres, who, despite the assertions of Riezler, was unquestionably a secular judge (see Hansen, “Quellen, etc.”, 91 n.), and other campaigns—for example in the Valais (1428-1434) when 200 witches were put to death, or at Briancon in 1437 when over 150 suffered, some of them by drowning,—were carried on by the secular courts. The victims of the inquisitors, e.g. at Heidelberg in 1447, or in Savoy in 1462, do not seem to have been quite so numerous. In France at this period the crime of witchcraft was frequently designated as “Vauderie” through some confusion seemingly with the followers of the heretic, Peter Waldes. But this confusion between sorcery and a particular form of heresy was unfortunately bound to bring a still larger number of persons under the jealous scrutiny of the inquisitors.
It will be readily understood from the foregoing that the importance attached by many older writers to the Bull, “Summis desiderantes affectibus”, of Pope Innocent VIII (1484), as though this papal document were responsible for the witch mania of the two succeeding centuries, is altogether illusory. Not only had an active campaign against most forms of sorcery already been going on for a long period, but in the matter of procedure, of punishments, of judges, etc., Innocent’s Bull enacted nothing new. Its direct pur-port was simply to ratify the powers already conferred upon Henry Institoris and James Sprenger, inquisitors, to deal with persons of every class and with every form of crime (for example, with witchcraft as well as heresy), and it called upon the Bishop of Strasburg to lend the inquisitors all possible support.
Indirectly, however, by specifying the evil practices charged against the witches—for example their intercourse with incubi and succubi, their interference with the parturition of women and animals, the damage they did to cattle and the fruits of the earth, their power and malice in the infliction of pain and disease, the hindrance caused to men in their conjugal relations, and the witches’ repudiation of the faith of their baptism—the pope must no doubt be considered to affirm the reality of these alleged phenomena. But, as even Hansen points out (Zauberwahn, 468, n. 3), “it is perfectly obvious that the Bull pronounces no dogmatic decision”; neither does the form suggest that the pope wishes to bind anyone to believe more about the reality of witchcraft than is involved in the utterances of Holy Scripture. Probably the most disastrous episode was the publication a year or two later, by the same inquisitors, of the book “Malleus Maleficarum” (the hammer of witches). This work is divided into three parts, the first two of which deal with the reality of witchcraft as established by the Bible, etc., as well as its nature and horrors and the manner of dealing with it, while the third lays down practical rules for procedure whether the trial be conducted in an ecclesiastical or a secular court. There can be no doubt that the book, owing to its reproduction by the printing press, exercised great influence. It contained, indeed, nothing that was new. The “Formicarius” of John Nider, which had been written nearly fifty years earlier, exhibits just as intimate a knowledge of the supposed phenomena of sorcery. But the “Malleus” professed (in part fraudulently) to have been approved by the University of Cologne, and it was sensational in the stigma it attached to witchcraft as a worse crime than heresy and in its notable animus against the female sex. The subject at once began to attract attention even in the world of letters. Ulrich Molitoris a year or two later published a work, “De Lamiis”, which, though disagreeing with the more extravagant of the representations made in the “Malleus”, did not question the existence of witches. Other divines and popular preachers joined in the discussion, and, though many voices were raised on the side of common sense, the publicity thus given to these matters inflamed the popular imagination. Certainly the immediate effects of Innocent VIII’s Bull have been greatly exaggerated. Institoris started a witch campaign at Innsbruck in 1485, but here his procedure was severely criticised and resisted by the Bishop of Brixen (see Janssen, “Hist. of Germ. People”, Eng. tr., XVI, 249-251). So far as the papal inquisitors were concerned, the Bull, especially in Germany, heralded the close rather than the commencement of their activity. The witch-trials of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were for the most part in secular hands. One fact which is absolutely certain is that, so far as Luther, Calvin, and their followers were concerned, the popular belief in the power of the Devil as exercised through witchcraft and other magical practices was developed beyond all measure. Naturally Luther did not appeal to the papal Bull. He looked only to the Bible, and it was in virtue of the Biblical command that he advocated the extermination of witches. But no portion of Janssen’s “History” is more unanswerable than the fourth and fifth chapters of the last volume (vol. XVI of the English edition, in which he attributes a large, if not the greater, share of the responsibility for the witch mania to the Reformers.
The penal code known as the Carolina (1532) decreed that sorcery throughout the German empire should be treated as a criminal offense, and if it purported to inflict injury upon any person the witch was to be burnt at the stake. In 15August 72us of Saxony imposed the penalty of burning for witchcraft of every kind, including simple fortunetelling. On the whole, greater activity in hunting down witches was shown in the Protestant districts of Germany than in the Catholic provinces. Striking examples are given by Janssen. In Osnabrilck, in 1583, 121 persons were burned in three months. At Wolfenbuttel in 1593 as many as ten witches were often burned in one day. It was not until 1563 that any effective resistance to the persecution began to be offered. This came first from a Protestant of Cleues, John Weyer, and other protests were shortly afterwards published in the same sense by Ewich and Witekind. On the other hand, Jean Bodin, a French Protestant lawyer, replied to Weyer in 1580 with much asperity, and in 1589 the Catholic Bishop Binsfeld and Father Delrio, a Jesuit, wrote on the same side, though Delrio wished to mitigate the severity of the witch trials and denounced the excessive use of torture. Bodin’s book was answered amongst others by the Englishman Reginald Scott in his “Discoverie of Witchcraft” (1584), but this answer was ordered to be burned by James I, who replied to it in his, “Daemonologie”
Perhaps the most effective protest on the side of humanity and enlightenment was offered by the Jesuit Friedrich von Spee (q.v.), who in 1631 published his “Cautio criminalis” and who fought against the craze by every means in his power. This cruel persecution seems to have extended to all parts of the world. In the sixteenth century there were cases in whichwitches were condemned by lay tribunals and burned in the immediate neighborhood of Rome. Pope Gregory XV, however, in his Constitution, “Omnipotentis” (1623), recommended a milder procedure, and in 1657 an Instruction of the Inquisition brought effective remonstrances to bear upon the cruelty shown in these prosecutions. England and Scotland, of course, were by no means exempt from the same epidemic of cruelty, though witches were not usually burned. As to the number of executions in Great Britain it seems impossible to form any safe estimate. One statement declares that 30,000, another that 3000, were hanged in England during the rule of the Parliament (Notestein, op. cit. infra, p. 194). Stearne the witchfinder boasted that he personally knew of 200 executions. Howell, writing in 1648, says that within the compass of two years near upon 300 witches were arraigned, and the major part executed, in Essex and Suffolk only (ibid., 195). In Scotland there is the same lack of statistics. A careful article by Legge in the “Scottish Review” (October, 1891) estimates that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries “3400 persons perished”. For a small population such as that of Scotland, this number is enormous, but many authorities, though confessedly only guessing, have given a much higher estimate. Even America was not exempt from this plague. The well-known Cotton Mather, in his “Wonders of the Invisible World” (1693), gives an account of 19 executions of witches in New England, where one poor creature was pressed to death. In modern times, considerable attention has been given to the subject by Hexham and others. At the end of the seventeenth century the persecution almost everywhere began to slacken, and early in the eighteenth it practically ceased. Torture was abolished in Prussia in 1754, in Bavaria in 1807, in Hanover in 1822. The last trial for witchcraft in Germany was in 1749 at Wurzburg, but in Switzerland a girl was executed for this offense in the Protestant Canton of Glarus in 1783. There seems to be no evidence to support the allegation sometimes made that women suspected of witch-craft were formally tried and put to death in Mexico late in the nineteenth century (see Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, XXXII, 1887, p. 378).
The question of the reality of witchcraft is one upon which it is not easy to pass a confident judgment. 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, but no one can read the literature of the subject without realizing the awful cruelties to which this belief led and without being convinced that in 99 cases out of 100 the allegations rest upon nothing better than pure delusion. The most bewildering circumstance is the fact that in a large number of witch prosecutions the confessions of the victims, often involving all kinds of satanistic horrors, have been made spontaneously and apparently without threat or fear of torture. Also the full admission of guilt seems constantly to have been confirmed on the scaffold when the poor sufferer had nothing to gain or lose by the confession. One can only record the fact as a psychological problem, and point out that the same tendency seems to manifest itself in other similar cases. The most remarkable instance, perhaps, is one mentioned by St. Agobard in the ninth century (P.L., CIV, 158). A certain Grimaldus, Duke of Beneventum, was accused, in the panic engendered by a plague that was destroying all the cattle, of sending men out with poisoned dust to spread infection among the flocks and herds. These men, when arrested and questioned, persisted, says Agobard, in affirming their guilt, though the absurdity was patent.