The Project Gutenberg eBook of The history of witchcraft and demonology
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The history of witchcraft and demonology
Author: Montague Summers
Release date: October 28, 2025 [eBook #77145]
Language: English
Original publication: New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926
Credits: Charlene Taylor, Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF WITCHCRAFT AND DEMONOLOGY ***
The History of Civilization
_Edited by C. K. OGDEN, M.A._
The History of Witchcraft
The History of Civilization
_Edited by C. K. OGDEN, M.A._
HARRY ELMER BARNES, Ph.D., Consulting American Editor.
_The volumes already published are_:
*SOCIAL ORGANIZATION W. H. R. Rivers, F.R.S.
*A THOUSAND YEARS OF THE TARTARS Professor E. H. Parker
*THE THRESHOLD OF THE PACIFIC Dr. C. E. Fox
THE EARTH BEFORE HISTORY Edmond Perrier
PREHISTORIC MAN Jacques de Morgan
LANGUAGE Professor J. Vendryes
*HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF CHRISTIANITY Professor P. de Labriolle
*CHINA AND EUROPE Adolf Reichwein
*LONDON LIFE IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY M. Dorothy George
A GEOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION TO HISTORY Professor Lucien Febvre
*THE DAWN OF EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION V. Gordon Childe, B.Litt.
MESOPOTAMIA: BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN CIVILIZATION Prof. L. Delaporte
*THE ÆGEAN CIVILIZATION Professor Gustave Glotz
*THE PEOPLES OF ASIA L. H. Dudley Buxton
*THE MIGRATION OF SYMBOLS Donald A. Mackenzie
*LIFE AND WORK IN MODERN EUROPE Professor Georges Renard
*TRAVEL AND TRAVELLERS OF THE MIDDLE AGES Edited by Prof. A. P. Newton
*CIVILIZATION OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS Rafael Karsten
RACE AND HISTORY Professor E. Pittard
FROM TRIBE TO EMPIRE Professor A. Moret
*A HISTORY OF WITCHCRAFT Montague Summers
*ANCIENT GREECE AT WORK Professor G. Glotz
THE FORMATION OF THE GREEK PEOPLE Professor A. Jardé
*THE ARYANS V. Gordon Childe, D.Litt.
PRIMITIVE ITALY Professor Léon Homo
ROME THE LAW-GIVER Professor J. Declareuil
THE ROMAN SPIRIT Professor A. Grenier
_In preparation_:
*LIFE AND WORK IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE Professor Boissonade
*A HISTORY OF MEDICINE C. G. Cumston, M.D.
ANCIENT PERSIA AND IRANIAN CIVILIZATION Professor C. Huart
*ANCIENT ROME AT WORK Paul Louis
THE LIFE OF BUDDHA E. H. Thomas, D.Litt.
* _An asterisk indicates that the volume does not form part of the French
collection “L’Évolution de l’Humanité.”_
_A complete classified list of the SERIES will be found at the end of
this volume._
[Illustration: PLATE I
THE DEPARTURE FOR THE SABBAT. David Teniers
[_frontispiece_]
The History of Witchcraft and
Demonology
By
MONTAGUE SUMMERS
_Initiati sunt Beelphegor: et comederunt sacrificia mortuorum._
_Et immolauerunt filios suos, et filias suas dæmoniis_
_Et effuderunt sanguinem innocentem. Et fornicati sunt in
adinuentionibus suis._—PSALM CV.
[Illustration]
NEW YORK
ALFRED A. KNOPF
1926
_To_
_PATRICK,_
_in memory of Loreto and Our Lady’s Holy House, as also
of Our Lady’s miraculous Picture at Campocavallo, Our
Lady of Pompeii, La Consolata of Turin, Consolatrix
Afflictorum in S. Caterina ai Funari at Rome, la Santissima
Vergine del Parto of S. Agostino, the Madonna della Strada
at the Gesù, La Nicopeja of San Marco at Venice,
Notre-Dame-de-Bonne-Nouvelle of Rennes, Notre-Dame de
Grande Puissance of Lamballe, and all the Italian and
French Madonnas at whose shrines we have worshipped._
Printed in Great Britain at
_The Mayflower Press, Plymouth_. William Brendon & Son, Ltd.
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION vii
CHAPTER
I. THE WITCH: HERETIC AND ANARCHIST 1
II. THE WORSHIP OF THE WITCH 51
III. DEMONS AND FAMILIARS 81
IV. THE SABBAT 110
V. THE WITCH IN HOLY WRIT 173
VI. DIABOLIC POSSESSION AND MODERN SPIRITISM 198
VII. THE WITCH IN DRAMATIC LITERATURE 276
BIBLIOGRAPHY 315
INDEX 347
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PLATE
I. THE DEPARTURE FOR THE SABBAT (David Teniers) _Frontispiece_
PAGE
II. THE WORLD TOST AT TENNIS. 4to., 1620 8
(_Facsimile title-page._)
III. COMPENDIVM MALEFICARVM. MEDIOLANI, 1626 82
(_Facsimile title-page of second edition._)
IV. OFF TO THE SABBAT (Queverdo) 120
V. THE SABBAT (Ziarnko) 144
VI. THE WITCH OF ENDOR (W. Faithorne) 178
(_Frontispiece to Sadducismus Triumphatus_, 1681)
VII. S. JAMES VISITS THE WARLOCK’S DEN (Pieter Breughel) 250
VIII. THE WITCH OF EDMONTON. 4to., 1658 290
(_Facsimile title-page._)
INTRODUCTION
The history of Witchcraft, a subject as old as the world and as wide as
the world,—since I understand for the present purpose by Witchcraft,
Sorcery, Black Magic, Necromancy, secret Divination, Satanism, and
every kind of malign occult art,—at once confronts the writer with a
most difficult problem. He is called upon to exercise a choice, and his
dilemma is by no means made the easier owing to the fact he is acutely
conscious that whichever way he may decide he is laying himself open to
damaging and not impertinent criticism. Since it is essential that his
work should be comprised within a reasonable compass he may elect to
attempt a bird’s-eye view of the whole range from China to Peru, from the
half-articulate, rhythmic incantations of primitive man at the dawn of
life to the last spiritistic fad and manifestation at yesterday’s séance
or circle, in which case his pages will most certainly be thin and often
superficial: or again he may rather concentrate upon one or two features
in the history of Witchcraft, deal with these at some length, stress some
few forgotten facts whose importance is now neglected and unrealized,
utilize new material the result of laborious research, but all this at
the expense of inevitable omissions, of hiatus, of self-denial, the
avoidance of fascinating by-ways and valuable inquiry, of silence when he
would fain be entering upon discussion and exposition. With a full sense
of its drawbacks and danger I have selected the second method, since in
dealing with a topic such as Witchcraft where there is no human hope of
recording more than a tithe of the facts I believe it is better to give
a documented account of certain aspects rather than to essay a somewhat
huddled and confused conspectus of the whole, for such, indeed, even at
best is itself bound to have no inconsiderable gaps and lacunæ, however
carefully we endeavour to make it complete. I am conscious, then, that
there is scarcely a paragraph in the present work which might not easily
be expanded into a page, scarcely a page which might not to its great
advantage become a chapter, and certainly not a chapter that would not be
vastly improved were it elaborated to a volume.
Many omissions are, as I have said, a necessary consequence of the plan I
have adopted; or, indeed, I venture to suppose, of any other plan which
contemplates the treatment of so universal a subject as Witchcraft. I
can but offer my apologies to these students who come to this History to
find details of Finnish magic and the sorceries of Lapland, who wish to
inform themselves concerning Tohungaism among the Maoris, Hindu devilry
and enchantments, the Bersekir of Iceland, Siberian Shamanism, the blind
Pan Sus and Mutangs of Korea, the Chinese Wu-po, Serbian lycanthropy,
negro Voodoism, the dark lore of old Scandinavia and Islam. I trust my
readers will believe that I regret as much as any the absence of these
from my work, but after all in any human endeavour there are practical
limitations of space.
In a complementary and companion volume I am intending to treat the
epidemic of Witchcraft in particular localities, the British Isles,
France, Germany, Italy, New England, and other countries. Many famous
cases, the Lancashire witch-trials, the activities of Matthew Hopkins,
Gilles de Rais, Gaufridi, Urbain Grandier, Cotton Mather and the Salem
sorceries, will then be dealt with and discussed in some detail.
It is a surprising fact that amongst English writers Witchcraft in
Europe has not of recent years received anything like adequate attention
from serious students of history, who strangely fail to recognize the
importance of this tragic belief both as a political and a social factor.
Magic, the genesis of magical cults and ceremonies, the ritual of
primitive peoples, traditional superstitions, and their ancillary lore,
have been made the subject of vast and erudite studies, mostly from an
anthropological and folk-loristic point of view, but the darker side of
the subject, the history of Satanism, seems hardly to have been attempted.
Possibly one reason for this neglect and ignorance lies in the fact that
the heavy and crass materialism, which was so prominent a feature during
the greater part of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in England,
intellectually disavowed the supernatural, and attempted not without
some success to substitute for religion a stolid system of respectable
morality. Since Witchcraft was entirely exploded it would, at best,
possess merely an antiquarian interest, and even so, the exhumation of
a disgusting and contemptible superstition was not to be encouraged.
It were more seemly to forget the uglier side of the past. This was
the attitude which prevailed for more than a hundred and fifty years,
and when Witchcraft came under discussion by such narrowly prejudiced
and inefficient writers as Lecky or Charles Mackay they are not even
concerned to discuss the possibility of the accounts given by the earlier
authorities, who, as they premise, were all mistaken, extravagant,
purblind, and misled. The cycle of time has had its revenge, and this
rationalistic superstition is dying fast. The extraordinary vogue of
and immense adherence to Spiritism would alone prove that, whilst the
widespread interest that is taken in mysticism is a yet healthier sign
that the world will no longer be content to be fed on dry husks and the
chaff of straw. And these are only just two indications, and by no means
the most significant, out of many.
It is quite impossible to appreciate and understand the true lives of men
and women in Elizabethan and Stuart England, in the France of Louis XIII
and his son, in the Italy of the Renaissance and the Catholic Reaction—to
name but three countries and a few definite periods—unless we have
some realization of the part that Witchcraft played in those ages amid
the affairs of these kingdoms. All classes were concerned from Pope to
peasant, from Queen to cottage gill.
Accordingly as actors are “the abstracts and brief chronicles of the
time” I have given a concluding chapter which deals with Witchcraft as
seen upon the stage, mainly concentrating upon the English theatre.
This review has not before been attempted, and since Witchcraft was so
formidable a social evil and so intermixed with all stations of life it
is obvious that we can find few better contemporary illustrations of it
than in the drama, for the playwright ever had his finger upon the public
pulse. Until the development of the novel it was the theatre alone that
mirrored manners and history.
There are many general French studies of Witchcraft of the greatest
value, amongst which we may name such standard works as Antoine-Louis
Daugis, _Traité sur la magie, le sortilège, les possessions,
obsessions et maléfices_, 1732; Jules Garinet, _Histoire de la Magie
en France depuis le commencement de la monarchie jusqu’à nos jours_,
1818; Michelet’s famous _La Sorcière_; Alfred Maury, _La Magie et
l’Astrologie_, 3rd edition, 1868; L’Abbé Lecanu, _Histoire de Satan_;
Jules Baissac, _Les grands Jours de la Sorcellerie_, 1890; Theodore de
Cauzons, _La Magie et la Sorcellerie en France_, 4 vols., 1910, etc.
In German we have Eberhard Hauber’s _Bibliotheca Magica_; Roskoff’s
_Geschichte des Teufels_, 1869; Soldan’s _Geschichte der Hexenprozesse_
(neu bearbeitet von Dr. Heinrich Heppe), 1880; Friedrich Leitschuch’s
_Beitræge zur Geschichte des Hexenwesens in Franken_, 1883; Johan
Dieffenbach’s _Der Hexenwahn vor und nach der Glaubensspaltung in
Deutschland_, 1886; Schreiber’s _Die Hexenprozesse im Breisgau_; Ludwig
Rapp’s _Die Hexenprozesse und ihre Gegner aus Tirol_; Joseph Hansen’s
_Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Hexenwahns_, 1901; and
very many more admirably documented studies.
In England the best of the older books must be recommended with necessary
reservations. Thomas Wright’s _Narratives of Sorcery and Magic_, 2 vols.,
1851, is to be commended as the work of a learned antiquarian who often
referred to original sources, but it is withal sketchy and can hardly
satisfy the careful scholar. Some exceptionally good writing and sound,
clear, thinking are to be met with in Dr. F. G. Lee’s _The Other World_,
2 vols., 1875; _More Glimpses of the World Unseen_, 1878; _Glimpses in
the Twilight_, 1885; and _Sight and Shadows_, 1894, all of which deserve
to be far more widely known, since they well repay an unhurried and
repeated perusal.
Quite recent work is represented by Professor Wallace Notestein’s
_History of Witchcraft in England from 1558 to 1718_, published in
1911. This intimate study of a century and a half concentrates, as its
title tells, upon England alone. It is supplied with ample and useful
appendixes. In respect of the orderly marshalling of his facts, garnered
from the trials and other sources—no small labour—Professor Notestein
deserves a generous meed of praise; his interpretation of the facts and
his deductions may not unfairly be criticized. Although his incredulity
must surely now and again be shaken by the cumulative force of reiterated
and corroborative evidence, nevertheless he refuses to admit even the
possibility that persons who at any rate affected supernatural powers
held clandestine meetings after nightfall in obscure and lonely places
for purposes and plots of their own. If human testimony is worth
anything at all, unless we are to be more Pyrrhonian than the famous
Dr. Marphurius himself who would never say, “Je suis venu; mais; Il me
semble que je suis venu,” when in 1612 Roger Nowell had swooped down on
the Lancashire coven and carried off Elizabeth Demdike with three other
beldames to durance vile in Lancaster Castle, Elizabeth Device summoned
the whole Pendle gang to her home at Malking Tower, in order that they
might discuss the situation and contrive the delivery of the prisoners.
As soon as they had forgathered, they all sat down to dinner, and had
a good north country spread of beef, bacon, and roast mutton. Surely
there is nothing very remarkable in this; and the evidence as given in
Thomas Potts’ famous narrative, _The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches
in the countie of Lancaster_ (London, 1613), bears the very hall-mark
and impress of truth: “The persons aforesaid had to their dinners Beefe,
Bacon, and roasted Mutton; which Mutton (as this Examinates said brother
said) was of a Wether of Christopher Swyers of Barley: which Wether was
brought in the night before into this Examinates mothers house by the
said Iames Deuice, the Examinates said brother: and in this Examinates
sight killed and eaten.” But Professor Notestein will none of it. He
writes: “The concurring evidence in the Malking Tower story is of no
more compelling character than that to be found in a multitude of
Continental stories of witch gatherings which have been shown to be the
outcome of physical or mental pressure and of leading questions. It seems
unnecessary to accept even a substratum of fact” (p. 124). In the face
of such sweeping and dogmatic assertion mere evidence is no use at all.
For we know that the Continental stories of witch gatherings are with
very few exceptions the chronicle of actual fact. It must be confessed
that such feeble scepticism, which repeatedly mars his summary of the
witch-trials, is a serious blemish in Professor Notestein’s work, and in
view of his industry much to be regretted.
Miss M. A. Murray does not for a moment countenance any such summary
dismissal and uncritical rejection of evidence. Her careful reading
of the writers upon Witchcraft has justly convinced her that their
statements must be accepted. Keen intelligences and shrewd investigators
such as Gregory XV, Bodin, Guazzo, De Lancre, D’Espagnet, La Reynie,
Boyle, Sir Matthew Hale, Glanvill, were neither deceivers nor deceived.
The evidence must stand, but as Miss Murray finds herself unable to
admit the logical consequence of this, she hurriedly starts away with
an arbitrary, “the statements do not bear the construction put upon
them,” and in _The Witch-Cult in Western Europe_ (1921) proceeds to
develop a most ingenious, but, as I show, a wholly untenable hypothesis.
Accordingly we are not surprised to find that many of the details
Miss Murray has collected in her painstaking pages are (no doubt
unconsciously) made to square with her preconceived theory. However much
I may differ from Miss Murray in my outlook, and our disagreement is, I
consider, neither slight nor superficial, I am none the less bound to
commend her frank and courageous treatment of many essential particulars
which are all too often suppressed, and in consequence a false and
counterfeit picture has not unseldom been drawn.
So vast a literature surrounds modern Witchcraft, for frankly such is
Spiritism in effect, that it were no easy task to mention even a quota
of those works which seem to throw some real light upon a complex and
difficult subject. Among many which I have found useful are Surbled,
_Spiritualisme et spiritisme_ and _Spirites et médiums_; Gutberlet,
_Der Kampf um die Seele_; Dr. Marcel Viollet, _Le spiritisme dans ses
rapports avec la folie_; J. Godfrey Raupert, _Modern Spiritism_ and
_Dangers of Spiritualism_; the Very Rev. Alexis Lépicier, O.S.M., _The
Unseen World_; the Rev. A. V. Miller, _Sermons on Modern Spiritualism_;
Lapponi, _Hypnotism and Spiritism_; the late Monsignor Hugh Benson’s
_Spiritualism_ (_The History of Religions_); Elliot O’Donnell’s _The
Menace of Spiritualism_; and Father Simon Blackmore’s _Spiritism: Facts
and Frauds_, 1925. My own opinion of this movement has been formed not
only from reading studies and monographs which treat of every phase of
the question from all points of view, but also by correspondence and
discussion with ardent devotees of the cult, and, not least, owing to
the admissions and warnings of those who have abandoned these dangerous
practices, revelations made in such circumstances, however, as altogether
to preclude even a hint as to their definite import and scope.
The History of Witchcraft is full of interest to the theologian, the
psychologist, the historian, and cannot be ignored. But it presents a
very dark and terrible aspect, the details of which in the few English
studies that claim serious attention have almost universally been
unrecorded, and, indeed, deliberately burked and shunned. Such treatment
is unworthy and unscholarly to a degree, reprehensible and dishonest.
The work of Professor Notestein, for example, is gravely vitiated,
owing to the fact that he has completely ignored the immodesty of the
witch-cult and thus extenuated its evil. He is, indeed, so uncritical, I
would even venture to say so unscholarly, as naïvely to remark (p. 300):
“No one who has not read for himself can have any notion of the vile
character of the charges and confessions embodied in the witch pamphlets.
It is an aspect of the question which has not been discussed in these
pages.” Such a confession is amazing. One cannot write in dainty phrase
of Satanists and the Sabbat. However loathly the disease the doctor must
not hesitate to diagnose and to probe. This ostrich-like policy is moral
cowardice. None of the Fathers and great writers of the Church were thus
culpably prudish. When S. Epiphanius has to discuss the Gnostics, he
describes in detail their abominations, and pertinently remarks: “Why
should I shrink from speaking of the things you do not fear to do? By
speaking thus, I hope to fill you with horror of the turpitudes you
commit.” And S. Clement of Alexandria says: “I am not ashamed to name the
parts of the body wherein the fœtus is formed and nourished; and why,
indeed, should I be, since God was not ashamed to create them?”
A few authors have painted the mediæval witch in pretty colours on
satin. She has become a somewhat eccentric but kindly old lady, shrewd
and perspicacious, with a knowledge of healing herbs and simples, ready
to advise and aid her neighbours who are duller-witted than she; not
disdaining in return a rustic present of a flitch, meal, a poult or eggs
from the farm-yard. And so for no very definite reason she fell an easy
prey to fanatic judges and ravening inquisitors, notoriously the most
ignorant and stupid of mortals, who caught her, swum her in a river,
tried her, tortured her, and finally burned her at the stake. Many modern
writers, more sceptical still, frankly relegate the witch to the land of
nursery tales and Christmas pantomime; she never had any real existence
other than as Cinderella’s fairy godmother or the Countess D’Aulnoy’s
Madame Merluche.
I have even heard it publicly asserted from the lecture platform by
a professed student of the Elizabethan period that the Elizabethans
did not, of course, as a matter of fact believe in Witchcraft. It
were impossible to imagine that men of the intellectual standard of
Shakespeare, Ford, Jonson, Fletcher, could have held so idle a chimæra,
born of sick fancies and hysteria. And his audience acquiesced with no
little complacency, pleased to think that the great names of the past had
been cleared from the stigma of so degrading and gross a superstition. A
few uneducated peasants here and there may have been morbid and ignorant
enough to dream of witches, and the poets used these crones and hags with
effect in ballad and play. But as for giving any actual credence to such
fantasies, most assuredly our great Elizabethans were more enlightened
than that! And, indeed, Witchcraft is a phase of and a factor in the
manners of the seventeenth century, which in some quarters there seems a
tacit agreement almost to ignore.
All this is very unhistorical and very unscientific. In the following
pages I have endeavoured to show the witch as she really was—an evil
liver; a social pest and parasite; the devotee of a loathly and obscene
creed; an adept at poisoning, blackmail, and other creeping crimes; a
member of a powerful secret organization inimical to Church and State;
a blasphemer in word and deed; swaying the villagers by terror and
superstition; a charlatan and a quack sometimes; a bawd; an abortionist;
the dark counsellor of lewd court ladies and adulterous gallants; a
minister to vice and inconceivable corruption; battening upon the filth
and foulest passions of the age.
My present work is the result of more than thirty years’ close attention
to the subject of Witchcraft, and during this period I have made a
systematic and intensive study of the older demonologists, as I am
convinced that their first-hand evidence is of prime importance and
value, whilst since their writings are very voluminous and of the
last rarity they have universally been neglected, and are allowed to
accumulate thick dust undisturbed. They are, moreover, often difficult
to read owing to technicalities of phrase and vocabulary. Among the most
authoritative I may cite a few names: Sprenger (_Malleus Maleficarum_);
Guazzo; Bartolomeo Spina, O.P.; John Nider, O.P.; Grilland; Jerome
Mengo; Binsfeld; Gerson; Ulrich Molitor; Basin; Murner; Crespet; Anania;
Henri Boguet; Bodin; Martin Delrio, S.J.; Pierre le Loyer; Ludwig Elich;
Godelmann; Nicolas Remy; Salerini; Leonard Vair; De Lancre; Alfonso de
Castro; Sebastian Michaelis, O.P.; Sinistrari; Perreaud; Dom Calmet;
Sylvester Mazzolini, O.P. (Prierias). When we supplement these by the
judicial records and the legal codes we have an immense body of material.
In all that I have written I have gone to original sources, and it has
been my endeavour fairly to weigh and balance the evidence, to judge
without heat or prejudice, to give the facts and the comment upon them
with candour, sincerity, and truth. At the same time I am very well aware
that several great scholars for whom I have the sincerest personal regard
and whose attainments I view with a very profound respect will differ
from me in many particulars.
I am conscious that the rough list of books which I have drawn up does
not deserve to be dignified with the title, Bibliography. It is sadly
incomplete, yet should it, however inadequate, prove helpful in the
smallest way it will have justified its inclusion. I may add that my
Biblical quotations, save where expressly otherwise noted, are from the
Vulgate or its translation into English commonly called the Douai Version.
IN FESTO S. TERESEIÆ, _V._
1925.
THE HISTORY OF WITCHCRAFT
CHAPTER I
THE WITCH: HERETIC AND ANARCHIST
“Sorcier est celuy qui par moyens Diaboliques sciemment s’efforce
de paruenir a quel que chose.” (“A sorcerer is one who by commerce
with the Devil has a full intention of attaining his own ends.”) With
these words the profoundly erudite jurisconsult Jean Bodin, one of
the acutest and most strictly impartial minds of his age, opens his
famous _De la Demonomanie des Sorciers_,[1] and it would be, I imagine,
hardly possible to discover a more concise, exact, comprehensive, and
intelligent definition of a Witch. The whole tremendous subject of
Witchcraft, especially as revealed in its multifold and remarkable
manifestations throughout every district of Southern and Western Europe
from the middle of the thirteenth until the dawn of the eighteenth
century,[2] has it would seem in recent times seldom, if ever, been
candidly and fairly examined. The only sound sources of information are
the contemporary records; the meticulously detailed legal reports of
the actual trials; the vast mass of pamphlets which give eye-witnessed
accounts of individual witches and reproduce evidence _uerbatim_ as
told in court; and, above all, the voluminous and highly technical
works of the Inquisitors and demonologists, holy and reverend divines,
doctors _utriusque iuris_, hard-headed, slow, and sober lawyers,—learned
men, scholars of philosophic mind, the most honourable names in the
universities of Europe, in the forefront of literature, science,
politics, and culture; monks who kept the conscience of kings, pontiffs;
whose word would set Europe aflame and bring an emperor to his knees at
their gate.
It is true that Witchcraft has formed the subject of a not inconsiderable
literature, but it will be found that inquirers have for the most
part approached this eternal and terrible chapter in the history of
humanity from biassed, although wholly divergent, points of view, and
in consequence it is often necessary to sift more or less thoroughly
their partial presentation of their theme, to discount their unwarranted
commentaries and illogical conclusions, and to get down in time to the
hard bed-rock of fact.
In the first place we have those writings and that interest which may be
termed merely antiquarian. Witchcraft is treated as a curious by-lane
of history, a superstition long since dead, having no existence among,
nor bearing upon, the affairs of the present day. It is a field for
folk-lore, where one may gather strange flowers and noxious weeds. Again,
we often recognize the romantic treatment of Witchcraft. ’Tis the Eve
of S. George, a dark wild night, the pale moon can but struggle thinly
through the thick massing clouds. The witches are abroad, and hurtle
swiftly aloft, a hideous covey, borne headlong on the skirling blast. In
delirious tones they are yelling foul mysterious words as they go: “Har!
Har! Har! Altri! Altri!” To some peak of the Brocken or lonely Cevennes
they haste, to the orgies of the Sabbat, the infernal Sacraments, the
dance of Acheron, the sweet and fearful fantasy of evil, “Vers les
stupres impurs et les baisers immondes.”[3] Hell seems to vomit its
foulest dregs upon the shrinking earth; a loathsome shape of obscene
horror squats huge and monstrous upon the ebon throne; the stifling air
reeks with filth and blasphemy; faster and faster whirls the witches’
lewd lavolta; shriller and shriller the cornemuse screams; and then a
wan grey light flickers in the Eastern sky; a moment more and there
sounds the loud clarion of some village chanticleer; swift as thought the
vile phantasmagoria vanishes and is sped, all is quiet and still in the
peaceful dawn.
But both the antiquarian and the romanticist reviews of Witchcraft may
be deemed negligible and impertinent so far as the present research is
concerned, however entertaining and picturesque such treatment proves to
many readers, affording not a few pleasant hours, whence they are able
to draw highly dramatic and brilliantly coloured pictures of old time
sorceries, not to be taken too seriously, for these things never were and
never could have been.[4]
The rationalist historian and the sceptic, when inevitably confronted
with the subject of Witchcraft, chose a charmingly easy way to deal with
these intensely complex and intricate problems, a flat denial of all
statements which did not fit, or could not by some means be squared with,
their own narrow prejudice. What matter the most irrefragable evidence,
which in the instance of any other accusation would unhesitatingly have
been regarded as final. What matter the logical and reasoned belief of
centuries, of the most cultured peoples, the highest intelligences of
Europe? Any appeal to authority is, of course, useless, as the sceptic
repudiates all authority—save his own. Such things could not be. We must
argue from that axiom, and therefore anything which it is impossible
to explain away by hallucination, or hysteria, or auto-suggestion,
or any other vague catch-word which may chance to be fashionable at
the moment, must be uncompromisingly rejected, and a note of superior
pity, to candy the so suave yet crushingly decisive judgement, has
proved of great service upon more occasions than one. Why examine the
evidence? It is really useless and a waste of time, because we know that
the allegations are all idle and ridiculous; the “facts” sworn to by
innumerable witnesses, which are repeated in changeless detail century
after century in every country, in every town, simply did not take place.
How so absolute and entire falsity of these facts can be demonstrated
the sceptic omits to inform us, but we must unquestioningly accept his
infallible authority in the face of reason, evidence, and truth.
Yet supposing that with clear and candid minds we proceed carefully to
investigate this accumulated evidence, to inquire into the circumstances
of a number of typical cases, to compare the trials of the fifteenth
century in France with the trials of the seventeenth century in England,
shall we not find that amid obvious accretions of fantastic and
superfluous detail a certain very solid substratum of a permanent and
invaried character is unmistakably to be traced throughout the whole?
This cannot in reason be denied, and here we have the core and the
enduring reality of Witchcraft and the witch-cult throughout the ages.
There were some gross superstitions; there were some unbridled
imaginations; there was deception, there was legerdemain; there was
phantasy; there was fraud; Henri Boguet seems, perhaps, a trifle
credulous, a little eager to explain obscure practices by an instant
appeal to the supernormal; Brother Jetzer, the Jacobin of Berne, can
only have been either the tool of his superiors or a cunning impostor;
Matthew Hopkins was an unmitigated scoundrel who preyed upon the fears of
the Essex franklins whilst he emptied their pockets; Lord Torphichen’s
son was an idle mischievous boy whose pranks not merely deluded both
his father and the Rev. Mr. John Wilkins, but caused considerable
mystification and amaze throughout the whole of Calder; Anne Robinson,
Mrs. Golding’s maid, and the two servant lasses of Baldarroch were
prestidigitators of no common sleight and skill; and all these examples
of ignorance, gullibility, malice, trickery, and imposture might easily
be multiplied twenty times over and twenty times again, yet when every
allowance has been made, every possible explanation exhausted, there
persists a congeries of solid proven fact which cannot be ignored, save
indeed by the purblind prejudice of the rationalist, and cannot be
accounted for, save that we recognize there were and are individuals and
organizations deliberately, nay, even enthusiastically, devoted to the
service of evil, greedy of such emotions and experiences, rewards the
thraldom of wickedness may bring.
The sceptic notoriously refuses to believe in Witchcraft, but a sanely
critical examination of the evidence at the witch-trials will show that a
vast amount of the modern vulgar incredulity is founded upon a complete
misconception of the facts, and it may be well worth while quite briefly
to review and correct some of the more common objections that are so
loosely and so repeatedly maintained. There are many points which are
urged as proving the fatuous absurdity and demonstrable impossibility of
the whole system, and yet there is not one of these phenomena which is
not capable of a satisfactory, and often a simple, elucidation. Perhaps
the first thought of a witch that will occur to the man in the street
is that of a hag on a broomstick flying up the chimney through the
air. This has often been pictorially impressed on his imagination, not
merely by woodcuts and illustrations traditionally presented in books,
but by the brush of great painters such as Queverdo’s _Le Départ au
Sabbat_, _Le Départ pour le Sabbat_ of David Teniers, and Goya’s midnight
fantasies. The famous Australian artist, Norman Lindsay, has a picture
_To The Sabbat_[5] where witches are depicted wildly rushing through
the air on the backs of grotesque pigs and hideous goats. Shakespeare,
too, elaborated the idea, and “Hover through the fog and filthy air”
has impressed itself upon the English imagination. But to descend from
the airy realms of painting and poetry to the hard ground of actuality.
Throughout the whole of the records there are very few instances when
a witness definitely asserted that he had seen a witch carried through
the air mounted upon a broom or stick of any kind, and on every occasion
there is patent and obvious exaggeration to secure an effect. Sometimes
the witches themselves boasted of this means of transport to impress
their hearers. Boguet records that Claudine Boban, a young girl whose
head was turned with pathological vanity, obviously a monomaniac who
must at all costs occupy the centre of the stage and be the cynosure of
public attention, confessed that she had been to the Sabbat, and this
was undoubtedly the case; but to walk or ride on horseback to the Sabbat
were far too ordinary methods of locomotion, melodrama and the marvellous
must find their place in her account and so she alleged: “that both she
and her mother used to mount on a broom, and so making their exit by the
chimney in this fashion they flew through the air to the Sabbat.”[6]
Julian Cox (1664) said that one evening when she was in the fields
about a mile away from the house “there came riding towards her three
persons upon three Broom-staves, born up about a yard and a half from the
ground.”[7] There is obvious exaggeration here; she saw two men and one
woman bestriding brooms and leaping high in the air. They were, in fact,
performing a magic rite, a figure of a dance. So it is recorded of the
Arab crones that “In the time of the Munkidh the witches rode about naked
on a stick between the graves of the cemetery of Shaizar.”[8] Nobody can
refuse to believe that the witches bestrode sticks and poles and in their
ritual capered to and fro in this manner, a sufficiently grotesque, but
by no means an impossible, action. And this bizarre ceremony, evidence
of which—with no reference to flying through the air—is frequent, has
been exaggerated and transformed into the popular superstition that
sorcerers are carried aloft and so transported from place to place, a
wonder they were all ready to exploit in proof of their magic powers. And
yet it is not impossible that there should have been actual instances of
levitation. For, outside the lives of the Saints, spiritistic séances
afford us examples of this supernormal phenomenon, which, if human
evidence is worth anything at all, are beyond all question proven.
As for the unguents wherewith the sorcerers anointed themselves we have
the actual formulæ for this composition, and Professor A. J. Clark, who
has examined these,[9] considers that it is possible a strong application
of such liniments might produce unwonted excitement and even delirium.
But long ago the great demonologists recognized and laid down that of
themselves the unguents possessed no such properties as the witches
supposed. “The ointment and lotion are just of no use at all to witches
to aid their journey to the Sabbat,” is the well-considered opinion
of Boguet who,[10] speaking with confident precision and finality, on
this point is in entire agreement with the most sceptical of later
rationalists.
The transformation of witches into animals and the extraordinary
appearance at their orgies of “the Devil” under many a hideously
unnatural shape, two points which have been repeatedly held up to
scorn as self-evident impossibilities and proof conclusive of the
untrustworthiness of the evidence and the incredibility of the whole
system, can both be easily and fairly interpreted in a way which offers
a complete and convincing explanation of these prodigies. The first
metamorphosis, indeed, is mentioned and fully explained in the _Liber
Pœnitentialis_[11] of S. Theodore, seventh Archbishop of Canterbury
(668-690), capitulum xxvii, which code includes under the rubric _De
Idolatria et Sacrilegio_ “qui in Kalendas Ianuarii in ceruulo et in
uitula uadit,” and prescribes: “If anyone at the Kalends of January goes
about as a stag or a bull; that is, making himself into a wild animal
and dressing in the skin of a herd animal, and putting on the heads of
beasts; those who in such wise transform themselves into the appearance
of a wild animal, penance for three years because this is devilish.”
These ritual masks, furs, and hides, were, of course, exactly those the
witches at certain ceremonies were wont to don for their Sabbats. There
is ample proof that “the Devil” of the Sabbat was very frequently a
human being, the Grand Master of the district, and since his officers
and immediate attendants were also termed “Devils” by the witches some
confusion has on occasion ensued. In a few cases where sufficient
details are given it is possible actually to identify “the Devil” by
name. Thus, among a list of suspected persons in the reign of Elizabeth
we have “Ould Birtles, the great devil, Roger Birtles and his wife, and
Anne Birtles.”[12] The evil William, Lord Soulis, of Hermitage Castle,
often known as “Red Cap,” was “the Devil” of a coven of sorcerers. Very
seldom “the Devil” was a woman. In May, 1569, the Regent of Scotland was
present at S. Andrews “quhair a notabill sorceres callit Nicniven was
condemnit to the death and burnt.” Now Nicniven is the Queen of Elphin,
the Mistress of the Sabbat, and this office had evidently been filled
by this witch whose real name is not recorded. On 8 November, 1576,
Elizabeth or Bessy Dunlop, of Lyne, in the Barony of Dalry, Ayrshire,
was tried for sorcery, and she confessed that a certain mysterious Thom
Reid had met her and demanded that she should renounce Christianity and
her baptism, and apparently worship him. There can be little doubt that
he was “the Devil” of a coven, for the original details, which are very
full, all point to this. He seems to have played his part with some
forethought and skill, since when the accused stated that she often saw
him in the churchyard of Dalry, as also in the streets of Edinburgh,
where he walked to and fro among other people and handled goods that were
exposed on bulks for sale without attracting any special notice, and was
thereupon asked why she did not address him, she replied that he had
forbidden her to recognize him on any such occasion unless he made a sign
or first actually accosted her. She was “convict and burnt.”[13] In the
case of Alison Peirson, tried 28 May, 1588, “the Devil” was actually her
kinsman, William Sympson, and she “wes conuict of the vsing of Sorcerie
and Witchcraft, with the Inuocatioun of the spreitis of the Deuill;
speciallie in the visioune and forme of ane Mr. William Sympsoune, hir
cousing and moder-brotheris-sone, quha sche affermit wes ane grit scoller
and doctor of medicin.”[14] _Conuicta et combusta_ is the terse record of
the margin of the court-book.
One of the most interesting identifications of “the Devil” occurs in the
course of the notorious trials of Dr. Fian and his associates in 1590-1.
As is well known, the whole crew was in league with Francis Stewart, Earl
of Bothwell, and even at the time well-founded gossip, and something more
than gossip, freely connected his name with the spells, Sabbats, and
orgies of the witches. He was vehemently suspected of the black art; he
was an undoubted client of warlocks and poisoners; his restless ambition
almost overtly aimed at the throne, and the witch covens were one and
all frantically attempting the life of King James. There can be no sort
of doubt that Bothwell was the moving force who energized and directed
the very elaborate and numerous organization of demonolaters, which was
almost accidentally brought to light, to be fiercely crushed by the
draconian vengeance of a monarch justly frightened for his crown and his
life.
In the nineteenth century both Albert Pike of Charleston and his
successor Adriano Lemmi have been identified upon abundant authority as
being Grand Masters of societies practising Satanism, and as performing
the hierarchical functions of “the Devil” at the modern Sabbat.
God, so far as His ordinary presence and action in Nature are concerned,
is hidden behind the veil of secondary causes, and when God’s ape, the
Demon, can work so successfully and obtain not merely devoted adherents
but fervent worshippers by human agency, there is plainly no need for him
to manifest himself in person either to particular individuals or at the
Sabbats, but none the less, that he can do so and has done so is certain,
since such is the sense of the Church, and there are many striking cases
in the records and trials which are to be explained in no other way.
That, as Burns Begg pointed out, the witches not unseldom “seem to have
been undoubtedly the victims of unscrupulous and designing knaves, who
personated Satan”[15] is no palliation of their crimes, and therefore
they are not one whit the less guilty of sorcery and devil-worship, for
this was their hearts’ intention and desire. Nor do I think that the man
who personated Satan at their assemblies was so much an unscrupulous and
designing knave as himself a demonist, believing intensely in the reality
of his own dark powers, wholly and horribly dedicated and doomed to the
service of evil.
[Illustration: PLATE II
THE WORLD TOST AT TENNIS. The First Quarto
[_face p. 8_]
We have seen that the witches were upon occasion wont to array
themselves in skins and ritual masks and there is complete evidence
that the hierophant at the Sabbat, when a human being played that rôle,
generally wore a corresponsive, if somewhat more elaborate, disguise.
Nay more, as regards the British Isles at least—and it seems clear that
in other countries the habit was very similar—we possess a pictorial
representation of “the Devil” as he appeared to the witches. During the
famous Fian trials Agnes Sampson confessed: “The deuell wes cled in ane
blak goun with ane blak hat vpon his head.... His faice was terrible, his
noise lyk the bek of ane egle, greet bournyng eyn; his handis and leggis
wer herry, with clawes vpon his handis, and feit lyk the griffon.”[16]
In the pamphlet _Newes from Scotland, Declaring the Damnable life and
death of Doctor Fian_[17] we have a rough woodcut, repeated twice, which
shows “the Devil” preaching from the North Berwick pulpit to the whole
coven of witches, and allowing for the crudity of the draughtsman and
a few unimportant differences of detail—the black gown and hat are not
portrayed—the demon in the picture is exactly like the description Agnes
Sampson gave. It must be remembered, too, that at the Sabbat she was
obviously in a state of morbid excitation, in part due to deep cups of
heady wine, the time was midnight, the place a haunted old church, the
only light a few flickering candles that burned with a ghastly blue flame.
Now “the Devil” as he is shown in the _Newes from Scotland_ illustration
is precisely the Devil who appears upon the title-page of Middleton and
Rowley’s Masque, _The World tost at Tennis_, 4to, 1620. This woodcut
presents an episode towards the end of the masque, and here the Devil
in traditional disguise, a grim black hairy shape with huge beaked
nose, monstrous claws, and the cloven hoofs of a griffin, in every
particular fits the details so closely observed by Agnes Sampson. I
have no doubt that the drawing for the masque was actually made in the
theatre, for although this kind of costly and decorative entertainment
was almost always designed for court or some great nobleman’s house we
know that _The World tost at Tennis_ was produced with considerable
success on the public stage “By the Prince his Seruants.” The dress,
then, of “the Devil” at the Sabbats seems frequently to have been an
elaborate theatrical costume, such as might have been found in the stock
wardrobe of a rich playhouse at London, but which would have had no such
associations for provincial folk and even simpler rustics.
From time to time the sceptics have pointed to the many cases upon record
of a victim’s sickness or death following the witch’s curse, and have
incredulously inquired if it be possible that a malediction should have
such consequences. Whilst candidly remarking that personally I believe
there is power for evil and even for destruction in such a bane, that a
deadly anathema launched with concentrated hate and all the energy of
volition may bring unhappiness and fatality in its train, I would—since
they will not allow this—answer their objections upon other lines. When
some person who had in any way annoyed the witch was to be harmed or
killed, it was obviously convenient, when practicable, to follow up the
symbolism of the solemn imprecation, or it might be of the melted wax
image riddled with pins, by a dose of subtly administered poison, which
would bring about the desired result, whether sickness or death; and
from the evidence concerning the witches’ victims, who so frequently
pined owing to a wasting disease, it seems more than probable that lethal
drugs were continually employed, for as Professor A. J. Clark records
“the society of witches had a very creditable knowledge of the art of
poisoning,”[18] and they are known to have freely used aconite, deadly
nightshade (belladonna), and hemlock.
So far then from the confessions of the witches being mere hysteria
and hallucination they are proved, even upon the most material
interpretation, to be in the main hideous and horrible fact.
In choosing examples to demonstrate this I have as yet referred almost
entirely to the witchcraft which raged from the middle of the thirteenth
to the beginning of the eighteenth century, inasmuch as that was the
period when the diabolic cult reached its height, when it spread as a
blight and a scourge throughout Europe and flaunted its most terrific
proportions. But it must not for a moment be supposed, as has often been
superficially believed, that Witchcraft was a product of the Middle
Ages, and that only then did authority adopt measures of repression
and legislate against the warlock and the sorceress. If attention has
been concentrated upon that period it is because during those and the
succeeding centuries Witchcraft blazed forth with unexampled virulence
and ferocity, that it threatened the peace, nay in some degree, the
salvation of mankind. But even pagan emperors had issued edicts
absolutely forbidding goetic theurgy, confiscating grimoires (_fatidici
libri_) and visiting necromancers with death. In A.U.C. 721 during
the triumvirate of Octavius, Antony, and Lepidus, all astrologers and
charmers were banished.[19] Maecenas called upon Augustus to punish
sorcerers, and plainly stated that those who devote themselves to magic
are despisers of the gods.[20] More than two thousand popular books of
spells, both in Greek and Latin, were discovered in Rome and publicly
burned.[21] In the reign of Tiberius a decree of the Senate exiled all
traffickers in occult arts; Lucius Pituanius, a notorious wizard, they
threw from the Tarpeian rock, and another, Publius Martius, was executed
_more prisco_ outside the Esquiline gate.[22]
Under Claudius the Senate reiterated the sentence of banishment:
“De mathematicis Italia pellendis factum Senatus consultum, atrox
et irritum,” says Tacitus.[23] During the few months he was emperor
Vitellius proceeded with implacable severity against all soothsayers and
diviners; many of whom, when accused, he ordered for instant execution,
not even affording them the tritest formality of a trial.[24] Vespasian,
again, his successor, refused to permit scryers and enchanters to set
foot in Italy, strictly enforcing the existent statutes.[25] It is clear
from all these stringent laws, and the list of examples might be greatly
extended, that although under the Cæsars omens were respected, oracles
were consulted, the augurs honoured, and haruspices revered, the dark
influences and foul criminality of the reverse of that dangerous science
were recognized and its professors punished with the full force of
repeated legislation.
M. de Cauzons has expressed himself somewhat vigorously when speaking
of writers who trace the origins of Witchcraft to the Middle Ages:
“C’est une mauvaise plaisanterie,” he remarks,[26] “ou une contrevérité
flagrante, d’affirmer que la sorcellerie naquit au Moyen-Age, et
d’attribuer son existence à l’influence ou aux croyances de l’Eglise.”
(It is either a silly jest or inept irony to pretend that Witchcraft
arose in the Middle Ages, to attribute its existence to the influence or
the beliefs of the Catholic Church.)
An even more erroneous assertion is the charge which has been not
infrequently but over-emphatically brought forward by partial
ill-documented historians to the effect that the European crusade against
witches, the stern and searching prosecutions with the ultimate penalty
of death at the stake, are entirely due to the Bull _Summis desiderantes
affectibus_, 5 December, 1484, of Pope Innocent VIII; or that at any
rate this famous document, if it did not actually initiate the campaign,
blew to blasts of flame and fury the smouldering and half-cold embers.
This is most preposterously affirmed by Mackay, who does not hesitate
to write[27]: “There happened at that time to be a pontiff at the head
of the Church who had given much of his attention to the subject of
Witchcraft, and who, with the intention of rooting out the supposed
crime, did more to increase it than any other man that ever lived. John
Baptist Cibo, elected to the papacy in 1485,[28] under the designation
of Innocent VIII, was sincerely alarmed at the number of witches, and
launched forth his terrible manifesto against them. In his celebrated
bull of 1488, he called the nations of Europe to the rescue of the Church
of Christ upon earth, ‘imperilled by the arts of Satan’” which last
sentence seems to be a very fair statement of fact. Lecky notes the Bull
of Innocent which, he extravagantly declares, “gave a fearful impetus to
the persecution.”[29] Dr. Davidson, in a brief but slanderous account
of this great pontiff, gives angry prominence to his severity “against
sorcerers, magicians, and witches.”[30] It is useless to cite more of
these superficial and crooked judgements; but since even authorities of
weight and value have been deluded and fallen into the snare it is worth
while labouring the point a little and stressing the fact that the
Bull of Innocent VIII was only one of a long series of Papal ordinances
dealing with the suppression of a monstrous and almost universal evil.[31]
The first Papal Bull directly launched against the black art and its
professors was that of Alexander IV, 13 December, 1258, addressed to
the Franciscan inquisitors. And it is worth while here to examine
precisely what was the earlier connotation of the terms “inquisitor”
and “inquisition,” so often misunderstood, as our research, though
brief, will throw a flood of light upon the subject of Witchcraft, and,
moreover, incidentally will serve to explain how that those writers who
assign the beginnings of Witchcraft to the Middle Ages, although most
certainly and even demonstrably in error, have at any rate been very
subtilely and easily led wrong, since sorcery in the Middle Ages was
violently unmasked and the whole horrid craft then first authoritatively
exposed in its darkest colours and most abominable manifestations, as
had indeed existed from the first, but had been carefully hidden and
scrupulously concealed.
By the term Inquisition (_inquirere_ = to look into) is now generally
understood a special ecclesiastical institution for combating or
suppressing heresy, and the Inquisitors are the officials attached to
the said institution, more particularly judges who are appointed to
investigate the charges of heresy and to try the persons brought before
them on those charges. During the first twelve centuries the Church was
loath to deal with heretics save by argument and persuasion; obstinate
and avowed heretics were, of course, excluded from her communion, a
defection which in the ages of faith, naturally involved them in many and
great difficulties. S. Augustine,[32] S. John Chrysostom,[33] S. Isidore
of Seville[34] in the seventh century, and a number of other Doctors
and Fathers held that for no cause whatsoever should the Church shed
blood; but, on the other hand, the imperial successors of Constantine
justly considered that they were obliged to have a care for the material
welfare of the Church here on earth, and that heresy is always inevitably
and inextricably entangled with attempts on the social order, always
anarchical, always political. Even the pagan persecutor Diocletian
recognized this fact, which heretics, until they obtain the upper hand,
have throughout the ages consistently denied and endeavoured to disguise.
For in 287, less than two years after his accession, he sent to the
stake the leaders of the Manichees; the majority of their followers were
beheaded, and a few less culpable sent to perpetual forced labour in the
government mines. Again in 296 he orders their extermination (_stirpitus
amputari_) as a sordid, vile, and impure sect. So the Christian Cæsars,
persuaded that the protection of orthodoxy was their sacred duty, began
to issue edicts for the suppression of heretics as being traitors
and anti-social revolutionaries.[35] But the Church protested, and
when Priscillian, Bishop of Avila, being found guilty of heresy and
sorcery,[36] was condemned to death by Maximus at Trier in 384, S. Martin
of Tours addressed the Emperor in such plain terms that it was solemnly
promised the sentence should not be carried into effect. However, the
pledge was broken, and S. Martin’s indignation was such that for a long
while he refused to hold communion with those who had been in any way
responsible for the execution, which S. Ambrose roundly stigmatized as a
heinous crime.[37] Even more crushing were the words of Pope S. Siricius,
before whom Maximus was fain to humble himself in lowliest penitence, and
the supreme pontiff actually excommunicated Bishop Felix of Trier for his
part in the deed.
From time to time heretics were put to death under the civil law to
which they were amenable, as in 556 when a band of Manichees were
executed at Ravenna. Pope Pelagius I, who was consecrated that very
year, when Paulinus of Fossombrone, rejecting his authority, openly
stirred up schism and revolt, merely relegated the recalcitrant bishop
to a monastery. Saint Cæsarius of Arles, who died in 547, speaking[38]
of the punishment to be meted out to those who obstinately persevere
in overt paganism, recommends that they should first be remonstrated
with and reprimanded, that they should if possible be thus persuaded of
their errors; but if they persist certain corporal chastisement is to be
given; and in extreme cases a course of domestic discipline, the cutting
of the hair close as a mark of indignity and confinement within doors
under restraint, may be adopted. There is no hint of anything more than
private measures, no calling in of any ecclesiastical authority, far
less an appeal to any punitive tribunal.
In the days of Charlemagne the aged Elipandus, Archbishop of Toledo,
taught an offshoot of the Nestorian heresy, Adoptionism, a crafty but
deadly error, to which he won the slippery dialectician Felix of Urgel.
Felix, as a Frankish prelate, was summoned to Aix-la-Chapelle. A synod
condemned his doctrine and he recanted, only to retract his words and to
reiterate his blasphemies. He was again condemned, and again he recanted.
But he proved shifty and tricksome to the last. For after his death
Agobar of Lyons found amongst his papers a scroll asserting that of this
heresy he was fully persuaded, in spite of any contradictions to which he
might hypocritically subscribe. Yet Felix only suffered a short detention
at Rome, whilst no measures seem to have been taken against Elipandus,
who died in his errors. It was presumably considered that orthodoxy could
be sufficiently served and vindicated by the zeal of such great names as
Beatus, Abbot of Libana; Etherius, Bishop of Osma; S. Benedict of Aniane;
and the glorious Alcuin.[39]
Some forty years later, about the middle of the ninth century,
Gothescalch, a monk of Fulda, caused great scandal by obstinately and
impudently maintaining that Christ had not died for all mankind, a
foretaste of the Calvinistic heresy. He was condemned at the Synods
of Mainz in 848, and of Kiersey-sur-Oise in 849, being sentenced to
flogging and imprisonment, punishments then common in monasteries
for various infractions of the rule. In this case, as particularly
flagrant, it was Hinemar, Archbishop of Rheims, a prelate notorious
for his severity, who sentenced the culprit to incarceration. But
Gothescalch had by his pernicious doctrines been the cause of serious
disturbances; and his inflammatory harangues had excited tumults,
sedition, and unrest, bringing odium upon the sacred habit. The sentence
of the Kiersey Synod ran: “Frater Goteschale ... quia et ecclesiastica
et ciuilia negotia contra propositum et nomen monachi conturbare iura
ecclesiastica præsumpsisti, durissimis uerberibus te cagistari et
secundum ecclesiasticas regulas ergastulo retrudi, auctoritate episcopali
decernimus.” (Brother Gothescalch, ... because thou hast dared—contrary
to thy monastic calling and vows—to concern thyself in worldly as well
as spiritual businesses and hast violated all ecclesiastical law and
order, by our episcopal authority we condemn thee to be severely scourged
and according to the provision of the Church to be closely imprisoned.)
From these instances it will be seen that the Church throughout all those
centuries of violence, rapine, invasion, and war, when often primitive
savagery reigned supreme and the most hideous cruelty was the general
order of the day, dealt very gently with the rebel and the heretic, whom
she might have executed wholesale with the greatest ease; no voice would
have been raised in protest save that of her own pontiffs, doctors,
and Saints; nay, rather, such repression would have been universally
applauded as eminently proper and just. But it was the civil power who
arraigned the anarch and the misbeliever, who sentenced him to death.
About the year 1000, however, the venom of Manichæism obtained a new
footing in the West, where it had died out early in the sixth century.
Between 1030-40 an important Manichæan community was discovered at
the Castle of Monteforte, near Asti, in Piedmont. Some of the members
were arrested by the Bishop of Asti and a number of noblemen in the
neighbourhood, and upon their refusal to retract the civil arm burned
them. Others, by order of the Archbishop of Milan, Ariberto, were brought
to that city since he hoped to convert them. They answered his efforts
by attempts to make proselytes; whereupon Lanzano, a prominent noble and
leader of the popular party, caused the magistrates to intervene and when
they had been taken into the custody of the State they were executed
without further respite. For the next two hundred years Manichæism
spread its infernal teaching in secret until, towards the year 1200,
the plague had infected all Italy and Southern Europe, had reached
northwards to Germany, where it was completely organized, and was not
unknown in England, since as early as 1159 thirty foreign Manichees had
privily settled here. They were discovered in 1166, and handed over to
the secular authorities by the Bishops of the Council of Oxford. In high
wrath Henry II ordered them to be scourged, branded in the forehead, and
cast adrift in the cold of winter, straightly forbidding any to succour
such vile criminals, so all perished from cold and exposure. Manichæism
furthermore split up into an almost infinite number of sects and systems,
prominent amongst which were the Cathari, the Aldonistæ and Speronistæ,
the Concorrezenses of Lombardy, the Bagnolenses, the Albigenses,
Pauliciani, Patarini, Bogomiles, the Waldenses, Tartarins, Beghards,
Pauvres de Lyon.
It must be clearly borne in mind that these heretical bodies with their
endless ramifications were not merely exponents of erroneous religious
and intellectual beliefs by which they morally corrupted all who came
under their influence, but they were the avowed enemies of law and
order, red-hot anarchists who would stop at nothing to gain their ends.
Terrorism and secret murder were their most frequent weapons. In 1199
the Patarini followers of Ermanno of Parma and Gottardo of Marsi, two
firebrands of revolt, foully assassinated S. Peter Parenzo, the governor
of Orvieto. On 6 April, 1252, whilst returning from Como to Milan, as he
passed through a lonely wood S. Peter of Verona was struck down by the
axe of a certain Carino, a Manichæan bravo, who had been hired to the
deed.[40] By such acts they sought to intimidate whole districts, and to
compel men’s allegiance with blood and violence. The Manichæan system was
in truth a simultaneous attack upon the Church and the State, a desperate
but well-planned organization to destroy the whole fabric of society, to
reduce civilization to chaos. In the first instance, as the Popes began
to perceive the momentousness of the struggle they engaged the bishops to
stem the tide. At the Council of Tours, 1163, Alexander III called upon
the bishops of Gascony to take active measures for the suppression of
these revolutionaries, but at the Lateran Council of 1179 it was found
these disturbers of public order had sown such sedition in Languedoc that
an appeal was made to the secular power to check the evil. In 1184 Lucius
III issued from Verona his Bull _Ad Abolendam_ which expressly mentions
many of the heretics by name, Cathari, Patarini, Humiliati, Pauvres de
Lyon, Pasagians, Josephins, Aldonistæ. The situation had fast developed
and become serious. Heretics were to be sought out and suitably punished,
by which, however, capital punishment is not intended. Innocent III,
although adding nothing essential to these regulations yet gave them
fuller scope and clearer definition. In his Decretals he precisely
speaks of accusation, denunciation, and inquisition, and it is obvious
that these measures were necessary in the face of a great secret society
aiming at nothing less than the destruction of the established order,
for all the sectaries were engaged upon the most zealous propaganda,
and their adherents had spread like a network over the greater part of
Europe. The members bore the title of “brother” and “sister,” and had
words and signs by which the initiate could recognize one another without
betraying themselves to others.[41] Ivan de Narbonne, who was converted
from this heresy, in a letter to Giraldus, Archbishop of Bordeaux, as
quoted by Matthew of Paris, says that in every city where he travelled he
was always able to make himself known by signs.[42]
It was necessary that the diocesan bishops should be assisted in their
heavy task of tracking down heretics, and accordingly the Holy See had
resource to legates who were furnished with extraordinary powers to
cope with so perplexing a situation. In 1177 as legate of Alexander
III, Peter, Cardinal of San Crisogono, at the particular request of
Count Raymond V, visited the Toulouse district to check the rising tide
of Catharist doctrine.[43] In 1181, Henry, Abbot of Clairvaux, who had
been in his suite, now Cardinal of Albano, as legate of the same Pope,
received the submission of various heretical leaders, and, so extensive
were his powers, solemnly deposed the Archbishops of Lyons and Narbonne.
In 1203 Peter of Castelnau and Raoul were acting at Toulouse on behalf
of Innocent III, seemingly with plenipotentiary authority. The next year
Arnauld Amaury, Abbot of Citeaux, was joined to them to form a triple
tribunal with absolute power to judge heretics in the provinces of Aix,
Arles, Narbonne, and the adjoining dioceses. At the death of Innocent III
(1216) there existed an organization to search out heretics; episcopal
tribunals at which often sat an assessor (the future inquisitor) to watch
the conduct of the case; and above all the legate to whom he might make a
report. The legate, from his position, was naturally a prelate occupied
with a vast number of urgent affairs—Arnauld Amaury, for example, was
absent for a considerable time to take part in the General Chapter
at Cluny—and gradually more and more authority was delegated to the
assessor, who insensibly developed into the Inquisitor, a special but
permanent judge acting in the name of the Pope, by whom he was invested
with the right and the duty to deal legally with offences against the
Faith. And as just at this time there came into being two new Orders, the
Dominicans and Franciscans, whose members by their theological training
and the very nature of their vows seemed eminently fitted to perform the
inquisitorial task with complete success, absolutely uninfluenced by any
worldly motive, it is natural that the new officials should have been
selected from these Orders, and, owing to the importance attached by the
Dominicans to the study of divinity, especially from their learned ranks.
It is very obvious why the Holy See so sagaciously preferred to assign
the prosecution of heretics, a matter of the first importance, to an
extraordinary tribunal rather than leave the trials in the hands of the
bishops. Without taking into consideration the fact that these new duties
would have seriously encroached upon, if not wholly absorbed, the time
and activities of a bishop, the prelates who ruled most dioceses were
the subject of some monarch with whom they might have come in conflict
on many a delicate point which could easily be conceived to arise, and
the result of such disagreement would have been fraught with endless
political difficulties and internal embarrassments. A court of religious,
responsible to the Pope alone, would act more fairly, more freely,
without fear or favour. The profligate Philip I of France, for example,
during his long, worthless, and dishonoured reign (1060-1108), by his
evil courses drew upon himself the censure of the Church, whereupon
he banished the Bishop of Beauvais and revoked the decisions of the
episcopal courts.[44] In a letter[45] to William, Count of Poitiers,
Pope S. Gregory VII energetically declares that if the King does not
cease from molesting the bishops and interfering with their judicature
a sentence of excommunication will be launched. In another letter the
same pontiff complains of the disrespect shown to the ecclesiastical
tribunals, and addressing the French bishops he cries: “Your king, who
sooth to say should be termed not a king but a cruel tyrant, inspired
by Satan, is the head and cause of these evils. For he has notoriously
passed all his days in foulest crimes, in seeking to do wickedness and to
ensue it.”[46] The conflict of the bishops of a realm with an unworthy
and evil monarch is a commonplace of history. These troubles could
scarcely arise in the case of courts forane.
The words “inquisition” and “inquisitors” began definitely to acquire
their accepted signification in the earlier half of the thirteenth
century. Thus in 1235 Gregory IX writes to the Archbishop of Sens: “Know
then that we have charged the Provincial of the Order of Preachers in
this same realm to nominate certain of his brethren, who are best fitted
for so weighty a business, as Inquisitors that they may proceed against
all notorious evildoers in the aforesaid realm ... and we also charge
thee, dear Brother, that thou shouldest be instant and zealous in this
matter of establishing an Inquisition by the appointment of those who
seem to be best fitted for such a work, and let thy loins be girded,
Brother, to fight boldly the battles of the Lord.”[47] In 1246 Innocent
IV wrote to the Superiors of the Franciscans giving them leave to recall
at will: “those brethren who have been sent abroad to preach the Mystery
of the Cross of Christ, or to seek out and take measure against the
plague sore of heresy.”[48]
All the heresies, and the Secret Societies of heretics, which infested
Europe during the Middle Ages were Gnostic, and even more narrowly,
Manichæan in character. The Gnostics arose almost with the advent of
Christianity as a School or Schools who explained the teachings of Christ
by blending them with the doctrines of pagan fantasts, and thus they
claimed to have a Higher and a Wider Knowledge, the Γνῶσις the first
exponent of which was unquestionably Simon Magus. “Two problems borrowed
from heathen philosophy,” says Mansel,[49] “were intruded by Gnosticism
on the Christian revelation, the problem of absolute existence, and
the problem of the Origin of Evil.” The Gnostics denied the existence
of Free-will, and therefore Evil was not the result of Man’s voluntary
transgression, but must in some way have emanated from the Creator
Himself. Arguing on these lines the majority asserted that the Creator
must have been a malignant power, Lord of the Kingdom of Darkness,
opposed to the Supreme and Ineffable God. This doctrine was taught by
the Gnostic sects of Persia, which became deeply imbued with the religion
of Zoroaster, who assumed the existence of two original and independent
Powers of Good and of Evil. Each of these Powers is of equal strength,
and supreme in his own dominions, whilst constant war is waged between
the two. This doctrine was particularly held by the Syrian Gnostics, the
Ophites, the Naasseni, the Peratæ, the Sethians, amongst whom the serpent
was the principal symbol. As the Creator of the world was evil, the
Tempter, the Serpent, was the benefactor of man. In fact, in some creeds
he was identified with the Logos. The Cainites carried out the Ophite
doctrines to their fullest logical conclusion. Since the Creator, the
God of the Old Testament, is evil all that is commended by the Scripture
must be evil, and conversely all that is condemned therein is good. Cain,
Korah, the rebels, are to be imitated and admired. The one true Apostle
was Judas Iscariot. This cult is very plainly marked in the Middle Ages
among the Luciferians; and Cainite ceremonies have their place in the
witches’ Sabbat.[50]
All this Gnostic teaching was summed up in the gospel of the Persian
Mani, who, when but a young man of twenty-six, seems first to have
proclaimed in the streets and bazaars of Seleucia-Ctesiphon his supposed
message on Sunday, 20 March, 242, the coronation festival of Shapur I.
He did not meet with immediate success in his own country, but here
and there his ideas took deep root. In 276-277, however, he was seized
and crucified by the grandson of Shapur, Bahram I, his disciples being
relentlessly pursued. Whenever Manichees were discovered they were
brought to swift justice, executed, held up to universal hatred and
contempt. They were considered by Moslems as not merely Unbelievers,
the followers of a false impostor, but unnatural and unsocial, a menace
to the State. It was for no light cause that the Manichee was loathed
and abhorred both by faithful Christian and by those who proclaimed
Mohammed as the true prophet of Allah. But later Manichæism spread
in every direction to an extraordinary degree, which may perhaps be
accounted for by the fact that it is in some sense a synthesis of the
Gnostic philosophies, the theory of two eternal principles, good and
evil, being especially emphasized. Moreover, the historical Jesus,
“the Jewish Messias, whom the Jews crucified,” was “a devil, who was
justly punished for interfering in the work of the Æon Jesus,” who was
neither born nor suffered death. As time went on, the elaborate cosmogony
of Mani disappeared, but the idea that the Christ must be repudiated
remained. And logically, then, worship is due to the enemy of Christ,
and a sub-sect, the Messalians or Euchites, taught that divine honours
must be paid to Satan, who is further to be propitiated by means of every
possible outrage done to Christ. This, of course, is plain and simple
Satanism openly avowed. Carpocrates even went so far as to aggravate the
teaching of the Cainites, for he made the performance of every species
of sin forbidden in the Old Testament a solemn duty, since this was the
completest mode of showing defiance to the Evil Creator and Ruler of the
World. This doctrine was wholly that of mediæval witches, and is flaunted
by modern Satanists. Although the Manichees affected the greatest purity,
it is quite certain that not unchastity but the act of generation alone
was opposed to their views; secretly they practised the most hideous
obscenities.[51] The Messalians in particular, vaunted a treatise
_Asceticus_, which was condemned by the Third General Council of Ephesus
(431) as “that filthy book of this heresy,” and in Armenia, in the fifth
century, special edicts were passed to restrain their immoralities, so
that their very name became the equivalent for “lewdness.” The Messalians
survived unto the Middle Ages as Bogomiles.
Attention has already been drawn to the striking fact that even
Diocletian legislated with no small vigour against the Manichees, and
when we find Valentinian I and his son Gratian, although tolerant of
other bodies, passing laws of equal severity in this regard (372), we
feel that such interdiction is especially significant. Theodosius I, by
a statute of 381, declared Manichees to be without civil rights, and
incapable of inheriting; in the following year he condemned them to
death, and in 389 he sternly directed the rigorous enforcement to the
letter of these penalties.
Valentinian II confiscated their goods, annulled their wills, and sent
them into exile. Honorius in 399 renewed the draconian measures of his
predecessors; in 405 he heavily fined all governors of provinces or
civil magistrates who were slack in carrying out his orders; in 407 he
pronounced the sect outlaws and public criminals having no legal status
whatsoever, and in 408 he reiterated the former enactments in meticulous
detail to afford no loophole of escape. Theodosius II (423), again,
repeated this legislation, whilst Valentinian III passed fresh laws in
425 and 445. Anastasius once more decreed the penalty of death, which
was even extended by Justin and Justinian to convert from Manichæism who
did not at once denounce their former coreligionists to the authorities.
This catena of laws which aims at nothing less than extermination is of
singular moment.
About 660 arose the Paulicians, a Manichæan sect, who rejected the Old
Testament, the Sacraments, and the Priesthood. In 835 it was realized
that the government of this body was political and aimed at revolution
and red anarchy. In 970 John Zimisces fixed their headquarters in
Thrace. In 1115 Alexis Comnenus established himself during the winter
at Philippopolis, and avowed his intention of converting them, the only
result being that the heretics were driven westward and spread rapidly in
France and Italy.
The Bogomiles were also Manichees. They openly worshipped Satan,
repudiating Holy Mass and the Passion, rejecting Holy Baptism for some
foul ceremony of their own, and possessing a peculiar version of the
Gospel of S. John. As Cathari these wretches had their Centre for France
at Toulouse; for Germany at Cologne; whilst in Italy, Milan, Florence,
Orvieto, and Viterbo were their rallying-points. Their meetings were
often held in the open air, on mountains, or in the depths of some lone
valley; the ritual was very secret, but we know that at night they
celebrated their Eucharist of Consolamentum, when all stood in a circle
round a table covered with a white cloth and numerous torches were
kindled, the service being closed by the reading of the first seventeen
verses of their transfigured gospel. Bread was broken, but there is a
tradition that the words of consecration were not pronounced according to
the Christian formula; in some instances they were altogether omitted.
During the eleventh century, then, there began to spread throughout
Europe a number of mysterious organizations whose adherents, in a
secrecy that was all but absolute, practiced obscure rites embodying
their beliefs, the central feature of which was the adoration of the
evil principle, the demon. But what is this save Satanism, or in other
words Witchcraft? It is true that when these heresies came into sharp
conflict with the Catholic Church they developed on lines which lost
various non-essential accretions and Eastern subtleties of extravagant
thought, but the motive of the Manichæan doctrines and of Witchcraft is
one and the same, and the punishment of Manichees and of witches was the
same death at the stake. The fact that these heretics were recognized
as sorcerers will explain, as nothing else can, the severity of the
statutes against them, evidence of no ordinary depravity, and early in
the eleventh century Manichee and warlock are recognized as synonymous.
The sorcery of the Middle Ages, says Carl Haas, a learned and impartial
authority, was born from the heresies of earlier epochs, and just as
Christian authority had dealt with heresy, so did it deal with the spawn
witchcraft. Both alike are the result of doubts, of faithlessness, a
disordered imagination, pride and presumption, intellectual arrogance;
sick phantasy both, they grow and flourish apace in shadow and sin, until
right reasoning, and sometimes salutary force, are definitely opposed to
them. The authors of the _Malleus Maleficarum_ clearly identify heresy
and Witchcraft. When the Prince Bishop of Bamberg, John George II Fuchs
von Bornheim, (1623-33), built a strong prison especially for sorcerers,
the _Drudenhaus_, he set over the great door a figure of Justice, and
inscribed above Vergil’s words: _Discite iustitiam moniti et non temnere
Diuos_ (_Æneid_, VI, 620),
(Behold, and learn to practise right,
Nor do the blessed Gods despite).
To the right and the left were engraved upon two panels, the one Latin,
the other German, two verses from the Bible, 3 Kings ix. 8, 9; which are
Englished as follows: “This house shall be made an example of: every
one that shall pass by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss, and say:
Why hath the Lord done thus to this land, and to this house? And they
shall answer: Because they forsook the Lord their God, who brought their
fathers out of the land of Egypt, and followed strange gods, and adored
them, and worshipped them: therefore hath the Lord brought upon them
all this evil.” This is a concise summary of the basic reason for the
prosecution of witches, the standpoint of Christian authority, whose
professors justly and logically regarded sorcery as being in essence
heresy, to be suppressed by the same measures, to be punished with the
same penalties.
In connexion with the close correlation between Witchcraft and heresy
there is a very remarkable fact, the significance of which has—so far
as I am aware—never been noted. The full fury of prosecution burst over
England during the first half of the seventeenth century, that is to
say, shortly after the era of a great religious upheaval, when the work
of rehabilitation and recovery so nobly initiated by Queen Mary I had
been wrecked owing to the pride, lust, and baseness of her sister. In
Scotland, envenomed to the core with the poison of Calvin and Knox,
fire and cord were seldom at rest. It is clear that heresy had brought
Witchcraft swiftly in its train. Ireland has ever been singularly free
from Witchcraft prosecutions, and with the rarest exceptions—chiefly, if
not solely, the famous Dame Alice Kyteler case of 1324—the few trials
recorded are of the seventeenth century and engineered by the Protestant
party. The reason for this exemption is plain. Until the stranger forced
his way into Ireland, heresy had no foothold there. That the Irish firmly
believed in witches, we know, but the Devil’s claws were finely clipped.
In 1022 a number of Manichees were burned alive by order of Robert I.
They had been condemned by a Synod at Orleans and refused to recant
their errors.[52] A contemporary document clearly identifies them with
witches, worshippers of the Demon, who appeared to them under the form
of an animal. Other abominable rites are fully set forth, comparable to
the pages of Sprenger, Bodin, Boguet, De Lancre, Guazzo, and the rest.
The account runs as follows: “Before we proceed to other details I will
at some length inform those who are as yet ignorant of these matters,
how that food which they call Food from Heaven is made and provided. On
certain nights of the year they all meet together in an appointed house,
each one of them carrying a lantern in his hand. They then begin to sing
the names of various demons, as though they were chanting a litany,
until suddenly they perceive that the Devil has appeared in the midst
of them in the shape of some animal or other. As he would seem to be
visible to them all in some mysterious way they immediately extinguish
the lights, and each one of them as quickly as he can seizes upon the
woman, who chances to be nearest at hand.... When a child happens to
be born ... on the eighth day they all meet together and light a large
fire in their midst, and then the child is passed through the fire,
ceremonially, according to the sacrifices of the old heathen, and
finally is burnt in the flames. The ashes are collected and reserved,
with the same veneration as Christians are wont to reserve the Blessed
Sacrament, and they give those who are on the point of death a portion
of these ashes as if it were the Viaticum. There appears to be such
power infused by the Devil into the said ashes that a man who belongs
to these heretics and happens to have tasted even the smallest quantity
of these ashes can scarcely ever be persuaded to abandon his heresies
and to turn his thoughts towards the true path. It must suffice to give
only these details, as a warning to all Christians to take no part in
these abominations, and God forbid that curiosity should lead anybody to
explore them.”[53]
At Forfar, in 1661, Helen Guthrie and four other witches exhumed the
body of an unbaptised infant, which was buried in the churchyard near
the south-east door of the church, “and took severall peices thereof,
as the feet, hands, a pairt of the head, and a pairt of the buttock,
and they made a py thereof, that they might eat of it, that by this
meanes they might never make a confession (as they thought) of their
witchcraftis.”[54]
The belief of 1022 and 1661 is the same, because it is the same
organization. The very name of the Vaudois, stout heretics, survives in
Voodoo worship, which is, in effect, African fetishism or Witchcraft
transplanted to America soil.
In 1028 Count Alduin burned a number of Manichees at Angoulême, and the
chronicle runs: “Interea iussu Alduini flammis exustæ sunt mulieres
maleficæ extra urbem.”[55] (About this time certain evil women, heretics,
were burned without the city by the command of Alduin.) The Templars,
whose Order was suppressed and the members thereof executed on account
of their sorceries, were clearly a Society of Gnostic heretics, active
propagandists, closely connected with the Bogomiles and the Mandæans or
Johannites.[56]
It is true that in his recent study _The Religion of the Manichees_,[57]
Dr. F. G. Buskitt, with a wealth of interesting detail and research, has
endeavoured to show that the Bogomiles, the Cathari, the Albigenses,
and other unclean bodies only derived fragments of their teaching from
Manichæan sources, and he definitely states “I think it misleading to
call these sects, even the Albigensians, by the name of Manichees.” But
in spite of his adroit special pleading the historical fact remains;
although we may concede that the abominable beliefs of these various
Gnostics were perhaps a deduction from, or a development of, the actual
teaching of Mani. Yet none the less their evil was contained in his
heresy and a logical consequence of it.
In the early years of this century important discoveries of Manichæan
MSS. have been made. Three or four scientific expeditions to Chinese
Turkestan brought back some thousands of fragments, especially from the
neighbourhood of a town called Turfan. Many of these screeds are written
in the peculiar script of the Manichees, some of which can be deciphered,
although unfortunately the newly found documents are mere scraps, bits of
torn books and rolls, and written in languages as yet imperfectly known.
Much of the new doctrine is of the wildest and most fantastic theosophy,
and the initiate were, as we know, sufficiently cunning not to commit
the esoteric and true teachings to writing, but preferred that there
should be an oral tradition. One important piece, the _Khuastuanift_,
i.e. “Confession,” has been recovered almost in its entirety. It is
in the old Turkestan Turkish language, and seems full of the most
astounding contradictions or paradoxes, a consensus of double meanings
and subtleties.
The question is asked whether we ought to consider Manichæism as an
independent religion or a Christian heresy? Eznih of Kolb, the Armenian
writer of the fifth century, when attacking Zoroastrianism, obviously
treats Manichæism as a variety of Persian religion. The orthodox
documents, however, from Mark the Deacon onwards treat Manichæism as in
the main a Christian heresy and this is assuredly the correct view. There
is in existence a polemical fragment, a single ill-preserved pair of
leaves, in which the Manichæan writer pours forth horrid blasphemies and
vilely attacks those who call Mary’s Son (_Bar Maryam_) the Son of Adonay.
It may be worth while here to say just a word correcting a curious
old-fashioned misapprehension which once prevailed in certain quarters
concerning the Albigenses, an error of which we occasionally yet catch
the echoes, as when Mrs. Grenside wrote that the Albigenses were “a sect
of the 14th century which, owing to their secret doctrine, endured much
ecclesiastical persecution.”[58] The impression left, and it is one
which was not altogether uncommon some seventy years ago, is that the
Albigensian was a stern old Protestant father, Bible and sword in hand,
who defended his hearth and home against the lawless brigands spurred
on to attack him by priestly machinations. Nothing, of course, could be
further from the truth. The Albigensian was a Satanist, a worshipper of
the powers of evil, and he would have found short shrift indeed, fire
and the stake, in Puritan England under Cromwell, or in Calvinistic
Scotland had his practices been even dimly guessed at by the Kirk. As Dr.
Arendzen well says[59]: “Albigensianism was not really a heresy against
Christianity and the Catholic Church, it was a revolt against nature, a
pestilential perversion of human instinct.”
Towards the end of the nineteenth century a _Neo-Gnostic Church_ was
formed by Fabre des Essarts, but that great pontiff Leo XIII promptly
condemned it with fitting severity as a recrudescence of the old
Albigensian heresy, complicated by the addition of new false and impious
doctrines. It is said still to have a number of unhappy adherents.
These Neo-Gnostics believe that the world is created by Satan, who is a
powerful rival to the omnipotence of God. They also preach a dangerous
communism, speciously masqued under some such titles as the “Brotherhood
of Man” or the “Brotherhood of Nations.”
In 1900, after a letter from Joanny Bricaud,[60] the patriarch of
universal Gnosticism at Lyons, where, in 1913, he was residing at 8, rue
Bugeaud, the Neo-Gnostics joined with the Valentinians, a union approved
by their pseudo-Council of Toulouse in 1903. But some years later Dr.
Fugairon of Lyons, who adopted the name of Sophronius, amalgamated all
the branches, with the exception of the Valentinians, under the name
of the _Gnostic Church of Lyons_. These, however, although excluded,
continued to follow their own way of salvation, and in 1906 formally
addressed a legal declaration to the Republican Government defending
their religious rights of association. Truly might Huysmans tell us that
Satanism flourished at Lyons, “où toutes les hérésies survivent,” “where
every heresy pullulates and is green.” These Gnostic assemblies are
composed of “perfected ones,” male and female. The modern Valentinians,
it is said, have a form of spiritual marriage, bestowing the name
of Helen upon the mystic bride. The original founder of this sect,
Valentinus, was, according to S. Epiphanius (_Hæresis_ XXXI) born in
Egypt, and educated at Alexandria. His errors led to excommunication and
he died in Cyprus, about A.D. 160-161. His heresy is a fantastic medley
of Greek and Oriental speculation, tinged with some vague colouring of
Christianity. The Christology of Valentinus is especially confused. He
seems to have supposed the existence of three redeemers, but Christ, the
Son of Mary, did not have a real body and did not suffer. Even his more
prominent disciples, Heracleon, Ptolemy, Marcos, and Bardesanes, widely
differed from their master, as from one another. Many of the writings
of these Gnostics, and a large number of excerpts from Valentinus’s own
works yet survive.
One or two writers of the nineteenth century remarked that there seemed
to be some connexion between certain points of the Sabbat ceremonial and
the rites of various pagan deities, which is, of course, a perfectly
correct observation. For we have seen that Witchcraft as it existed in
Europe from the eleventh century was mainly the spawn of Gnostic heresy,
and heresy by its very nature embraced and absorbed much of heathendom.
In some sense Witchcraft was a descendant of the old pre-Christian magic,
but it soon assumed a slightly different form, or rather at the advent
of Christianity it was exposed and shown in its real foul essence as the
worship of the Evil Principle, the Enemy of Mankind, Satan.
It may freely be acknowledged that there are certain symbols common to
Christianity itself and to ancient religions. It would in truth be very
surprising if, when seeking to propagate her doctrines in the midst of
Græco-Roman civilization, the Church had adopted for her intercourse with
the people a wholly unknown language, and had systematically repudiated
everything that until then had served to give expression to religious
feeling.
Within the limits imposed by the conventions of race and culture, the
method of interpreting the emotions of the heart cannot be indefinitely
varied, and it was natural that the new religion should appropriate and
incorporate all that was good in a ritual much of which only required
to be rightly interpreted and directed to become the language of the
Christian soul aspiring to the one True God. Certain attitudes of
prayer and reverence, the use of incense and of lamps burning day and
night in the sanctuary, the offering of ex-votos as a testimony to
benefits received, all these are man’s natural expressions of piety and
gratitude towards a divine power, and it would be strange indeed if their
equivalents were not met with in all religions.
Cicero tells us that at Agrigentum there was a much-venerated statue
of Hercules, of which the mouth and chin were worn away by the many
worshippers who pressed their lips to it.[61] The bronze foot of the
statue of the first Pope, S. Peter, in Rome has not withstood any
better the pious kisses of the faithful. Yet he were a very fool who
imagined that modern Christians have learned anything from the Sicilian
contemporaries of Verres. What is true is that the same thought in
analogous circumstances has found natural expression after an interval of
centuries in identical actions and attitudes.
Among the Greeks, heroes, reputed to be the mortal sons of some divinity,
were specially honoured in the city with which they were connected by
birth and through the benefits they had conferred upon it. After death
they became the patrons and protectors of these towns. Every country,
nay, almost every village, had such local divinities to whom monuments
were raised and whom the people invoked in their prayers. The centre
of devotion was generally the hero’s tomb, which was often erected in
the middle of the agora, the nave of public life. In most cases it was
sheltered by a building, a sort of chapel known as ἡρῷον. The celebrated
temples, too, were not infrequently adorned with a great number of
cenotaphs of heroes, just as the shrines of Saints are honoured in
Christian churches.[62] More, the translations of the bones or ashes
of heroes were common in Greece. Thus in the archonship of Apsephion,
469 B.C., the remains of Theseus were brought from Scyros to Athens,
and carried into the city amid sacrifices and every demonstration of
triumphal joy.[63] Thebes recovered from Ilion the bones of Hector, and
presented to Athens those of Œdipus, to Lebadea those of Arcesilaus, and
to Megara those of Aigialeus.[64]
The analogy between these ancient practices and Christianity may be
pushed further yet. Just as, in our own churches, objects that have
belonged to the Saints are exposed for the veneration of the faithful, so
in the old temples visitors were shown divers curiosities whose connexion
with a god or a hero would command their respect. At Minihi Tréguier we
may reverence a fragment of the Breviary of S. Yves, at Sens the stole
of S. Thomas of Canterbury, at Bayeux the chasuble of S. Regnobert, in
S. Maria Maggiore the cincture and veil of S. Scholastica; so in various
localities of Greece were exhibited the cittara of Paris, the lyre of
Orpheus, portions of the ships of Agamemnon and Æneas. Can anything
further be needed to prove that the veneration of Holy Relics is merely a
pagan survival?
Superficially the theory seems plausible enough, and yet it will not
stand a moment before the judgement of history. The cultus of the
Saints and their Relics is not an outcome of ancient hero-worship, but
of reverence for the Martyrs, and this can be demonstrated without any
possibility of question. So here we have two very striking parallels,
each of which has an analogous starting-point, two cults which naturally
develop upon logical and similar lines, but without any interdependence
whatsoever. Needless to say, the unbalanced folklorist, who is in general
far too insufficiently equipped for any such inquiry, has rushed in with
his theories—to his own utter undoing. And so, with regard to Witchcraft,
there appear in the rites of the Sabbat and other hellish superstitions
to be ceremonies which are directly derived from heathendom, but this, as
a matter of fact, is far from the case. Accordingly we recognize that the
thesis of Miss M. A. Murray in her anthropological study _The Witch-Cult
n Western Europe_,[65] although worked out with nice ingenuity and no
little documentation, is radically and wholly erroneous. Miss Murray
actually postulates that “underlying the Christian religion was a cult
practised by many classes of the community” which “can be traced back
to pre-Christian times, and appears to be the ancient religion of
Western Europe.” We are given a full account of the chief festivals of
this imaginary cult, of its hierarchy, its organization, and many other
details. The feasts and dances—the obscene horrors of the Sabbat—“show
that it was a joyous religion”! It is impossible to conceive a more
amazing assertion. Miss Murray continues to say that “as such it must
have been quite incomprehensible to the gloomy Inquisitors and Reformers
who suppressed it.” The Reformers, for all their dour severity, perfectly
well appreciated with what they were dealing, and the Inquisitors, the
sons of S. Dominic who was boundless in his charity and of S. Francis,
whose very name breathes Christ-like love to all creation, were men of
the profoundest knowledge and deepest sympathies, whose first duty it
was to stamp out the infection lest the whole of Society be corrupted
and damned. Miss Murray does not seem to suspect that Witchcraft was
in truth a foul and noisome heresy, the poison of the Manichees. Her
“Dianic cult,” which name she gives to this “ancient religion” supposed
to have survived until the Middle Ages and even later and to have been
a formidable rival to Christianity, is none other than black heresy and
the worship of Satan, no primitive belief with pre-agricultural rites,
in latter days persecuted, misinterpreted, and misunderstood. It is
true that in the Middle Ages Christianity had—not a rival but a foe,
the eternal enemy of the Church Militant against whom she yet contends
to-day, the dark Lord of that city which is set contrariwise to the City
of God, the Terrible Shadow of destruction and despair.
Miss Murray with tireless industry has accumulated a vast number of
details by the help of which she seeks to build up and support her
imaginative thesis. Even those that show the appropriation by the cult
of evil of the more hideous heathen practices, both of lust and cruelty,
which prevailed among savage or decadent peoples, afford no evidence
whatsoever of any continuity of an earlier religion, whilst by far
the greater number of the facts she quotes are deflected, although
no doubt unconsciously, and sharply wrested so as to be patent of the
signification it is endeavoured to read into them. Miss Murray speaks,
for example, of witches “who, like the early Christian martyrs, rushed
headlong on their fate, determined to die for their faith and their
God.”[66] And later, discussing the “Sacrifice of the God,” a theme which
it is interesting and by no means impertinent to note, folklorists have
elaborated in the most fanciful manner, basing upon the scantiest and
quite contradictory evidence an abundant sheaf of wildly extravagant
theories and fables, she tells us that the burning of witches at the
hands of the public executioner was a “sacrifice of the incarnate
deity.”[67] One might almost suppose that the condemned went cheerfully
and voluntarily to the cruellest and most torturing punishment, for
the phrase “Self-devotion to death” is used in this connexion. On the
contrary, we continually find in the witch-trials that the guilty, as
was natural, sought to escape from their doom by any and every means;
by flight, as in the case of Gilles de Sillé and Roger de Bricqueville,
companions of Gilles de Rais; by long and protracted defences, such as
was that of Agnes Fynnie, executed in Edinburgh in 1644; by threats and
blackmail of influential patrons owing to which old Bettie Laing of
Pittenween escaped scot-free in 1718; by pleading pregnancy at the trial
as did Mother Samuel, the Warbois witch, who perished on the gallows 7
April, 1593; by suicide as the notorious warlock John Reid, who hanged
himself in prison at Paisley, in 1697.
Of the theoretical “Sacrifice of the incarnate deity” Miss Murray writes:
“This explanation accounts for the fact that the bodies of witches, male
or female, were always burnt and the ashes scattered; for the strong
prejudice which existed, as late as the eighteenth century, against any
other mode of disposing of their bodies; and for some of the otherwise
inexplicable occurrences in connexion with the deaths of certain of the
victims.”[68] Three instances are cited to prove these three statements,
but it will be seen upon examination that not one of these affords the
slightest evidence in support of the triple contention. In the first
place we are informed that “in the light of this theory much of the
mystery which surrounds the fate of Joan of Arc is explained.” How
is not divulged, but this is capped by the astounding and indecorous
assertion that S. Joan of Arc “belonged to the ancient religion, not to
the Christian.” It is superfluous to say that there is not a tittle of
evidence for such an amazing hypothesis in reference to the Saint.
Gilles de Rais, whose execution is next quoted by Miss Murray in support
of her postulate, proves a singularly unfortunate example. We are told
that “like Joan he was willing to be tried for his faith,” by which is
meant the imaginary “Dianic cult.” This is a purely gratuitous assertion,
not borne out in any way by his behaviour at his trial, nor by the
details of any authoritative account or report of the proceedings. Gilles
de Rais was hanged on a gibbet above a pyre, but when the heat had burned
through the rope the body was quickly taken up from the blazing wood, and
afterwards buried in the neighbouring Carmelite church. One may compare
the execution of Savonarola and his two fellow friars on 25 May, 1498.
They were strangled at the gallows, their bodies committed to the flames,
and their ashes carefully gathered and thrown into the Arno. Gilles de
Rais was condemned by three distinct courts; by the Holy Inquisition,
the presidents being Jean de Malestroit, Bishop of Nantes, and Jean
Blouyn, vice-inquisitor, O.P., S.T.M., on charges of heresy and sorcery;
by the episcopal court on charges of sacrilege and the violation of
ecclesiastical rights; by the civil court of John V, Duke of Brittany, on
multiplied charges of murder.
The third case quoted by Miss Murray is that of Major Weir, who “offered
himself up and was executed as a witch in Edinburgh.” Thomas Weir, who
was a hypocritical Puritan, a leader “among the Presbyterian strict
sect,” and regarded as a Saint throughout Edinburgh, had all the while
secretly led a life of hideous debauchery and was stained with the most
odious and unnatural crimes. In 1670, which was the seventieth year of
his age, he appears to have been stricken with terrible fits of remorse
and despair; the pangs of his guilty conscience drove him to the verge of
madness and his agony could only be eased by a full, ample, and public
confession of his misdeeds. For a few months his party, in order to avoid
the scandal and disgrace, contrived to stifle the matter, but a minister
“whom they esteemed more forward than wise” revealed the secret to the
Lord Provost of the city, and an inquiry was instituted. The wretched old
man, insistently declaring that “the terrors of God which were upon his
soul urged him to confess and accuse himself,” was arrested, together
with his crazy sister Jean, who was implicated in his abominations. “All
the while he was in prison he lay under violent apprehension of the
heavy wrath of God, which put him into that which is properly called
despair,” and to various ministers who visited him he declared, “I know
my sentence of damnation is already sealed in Heaven ... for I find
nothing within me but blackness, darkness, Brimstone, and burning to the
bottom of Hell.”[69] The whole account gives a complete and perfectly
comprehensible psychological study. So sudden a revulsion of feeling, the
loathing of foul acts accompanied by the sheer inability to repent of
them, is quite understandable in a septuagenarian, worn out in body by
years of excess and enfeebled in mind owing to the heavy strain of hourly
acting an artificial and difficult rôle. The intense emotionalism of the
degenerate has not infrequently been observed eventually to give way to
a state of frenzied anguish, for which the alienist Magnan coined the
name “Anxiomania,” a species of mental derangement that soon drives the
patient to hysterical confession and boundless despair. “I am convinced,”
says one writer with regard to Major Weir, “of the prisoner having
been delirious at the time of his trial.”[70] His sister frantically
accused her brother of Witchcraft, but it is remarkable that in his case
this charge was not taken up and examined. I do not say that Weir was
not supposed to be a warlock; as a matter of fact he was notoriously
reputed such, and strange stories were told of his magic staff and other
enchantments, but Witchcraft was not the main accusation brought against
him in the official courts. He was found guilty of adultery, fornication,
incest, and bestiality, and on these several counts sentenced to be
strangled at a stake betwixt Edinburgh and Leith, on Monday, 11 April,
1670, and his body to be burned to ashes. Jean Weir was condemned for
incest and Witchcraft and hanged on 12 April in the Grassmarket at
Edinburgh. To the last this miserable lunatic placed “a great deal of
confidence in her constant adherence to the Covenant, which she called
_the cause and interest of Christ_.”[71]
It will be seen that Miss Murray’s citation is incorrect and therefore
impertinent. Major Weir was not executed “as a witch.” Moreover, both
he and Gilles de Rais were actually strangled, and such examples must
entirely fail to account “for the fact that the bodies of witches, male
or female, were always burnt and the ashes scattered,” especially since
in the latter case, as we have noticed, the body was honourably buried in
the church of the Whitefriars. In fine, to endeavour to connect, however
ingeniously, the fate of S. Joan of Arc, the execution of Gilles de Rais
and Major Weir, with the folklorists’ theory of “the sacrifice of the
incarnate deity” is merest fantasy.
The gist of the whole matter lies elsewhere. Death at the stake was the
punishment reserved for heretics. As we have already noticed, Diocletian
ruthlessly burned the Manichees: “We order then that the professors and
teachers be punished with the utmost penalties, which is to say they
are to be burned with fire together with all their execrable books and
writings.”[72] The Visigoth code condemned pagans or heretics who had
committed sacrilege to the flames, and together with them it grouped all
Manichees: “It is known that many Proconsuls have thrown blasphemers to
the beasts, nay, have even burned some alive.”[73] The Visigoth code of
Rekeswinth (652-672) punishes Judaizers with death, “aut lapide puniatur,
aut igne cremetur.” (Let them be stoned or burned with fire.) But it was
actually in the eleventh century that the civil power first generally
ordained the penalty of the stake for the heretics, who were, it must
always be remembered, mad anarchists endeavouring to destroy all social
order, authority, and decency. “In Italy even many adherents of this
pestilential belief were found, and these wretches were slain with the
sword or burned at the stake,”[74] writes Adhémar de Chabannes, a monk
of Angoulême, about the middle of the eleventh century. In a letter of
Wazon, Bishop of Liège, there is an allusion to similar punishments which
were being inflicted in Flanders.
A striking example of the heretical anarchists who troubled Europe about
the beginning of the twelfth century may be seen in Tanchelin[75] and
his followers. This fanatic, who was originally a native of Zealand,
journeyed throughout Flanders preaching his monstrous doctrines
everywhere he could find listeners and especially concentrating upon
the city of Antwerp. In 1108 and 1109 he appeared at Arras and Cambrai,
persuading many evil and ignorant persons to accept his abominable
tenets. The tares were thickly sown, and it is terribly significant that
some three centuries later, about 1469, there was a fearful epidemic of
sorcery throughout the whole district of the Artois, in reference to
which the anonymous author—probably an Inquisitor—of a contemporary work
entitled _Erreurs des Gazariens ou de ceux que l’on prouve chevaucher
sur un balai ou un bâton_ expressly identified such heretics as the
Gazariens, who are Cathari, and the Vaudois (Poor Lombards) with warlocks
and sorcerers. In 1112 Tanchelin, who had actually visited Rome itself,
was upon his return arrested and thrown into prison at Cologne, whence,
however, he managed to escape, and accompanied by an apostate priest
Everwacher and a Jew Manasses, who had formerly been a blacksmith, at
the head of a formidable band of three thousand ruffians, outlaws, cast
gamesters, brigands, murderers, beggars and thieves, the parbreak of
every slum and stew, he terrorized the whole countryside, the people
being afraid, the bishops and secular princes seemingly unable to resist
him.
The teaching of Tanchelin was, as might be expected, largely incoherent
and illogical, the ravings of a frantic brain, but none the less
dangerous and wholly abominable. The Church was, of course, directly
attacked and blasphemed. With abuse and foul language, extraordinarily
like the language of the so-called Reformers in the sixteenth century,
the hierarchy and all ecclesiastical order were repudiated and
contemned, priests and religious in particular were to be persecuted
and exterminated since the priesthood was a fiction and a snare; the
Sacrifice of Holy Mass was a mockery, all Sacraments were void and empty
forms, useless for salvation[76]; the churches themselves were to be
accounted as brothels and markets of shame. “This very spawn of Satan
and black angel of woe declared that the churches, dedicated to God’s
worship, were bawdy-houses. That, at Holy Mass there was no Sacrifice
at the hands of the priest; the Service of the Altar was filth, not a
Sacrament.”[77] Tanchelin declared himself to be the Messiah, God, the
Son of God, the Perfect Man, the sum of all the divine emanations in one
system, upon whom had descended and in whom abode the pleroma of the Holy
Spirit. “This miserable wretch advanced from evil to evil and at length
proceeded to such an extremity of unheard-of wickedness that he gave
himself out to be God, asserting that if Christ be God because the Holy
Ghost dwelt in Him, he himself was not less than and of the same nature
as God, seeing that he enjoyed the plenitude of the Holy Ghost.”[78] Here
the Gnostic character of his teaching is very apparent. He even caused a
temple to be erected in his honour where he was worshipped with sacrifice
and hymns. His followers, indeed, regarded this lunatic wretch with such
an excess of veneration that the dirty water from his bath was actually
collected in phials and solemnly distributed among them, whereof they
partook as of a sacrament.
It must be borne in mind that Tanchelin’s programme did not solely
comprise a negation of Christian dogma; this we find in most of the
innovators at the time of the so-called Reformation, but his ultimate
aim was to effect a social revolution, to overturn the existing order
of things and produce communistic chaos with himself as overlord
and dictator. The way for anarchy could only have been paved by the
destruction of the Church, the supreme representative of authority and
order throughout the world, and it was accordingly against the Church
that this superman launched his fiercest diatribes. To further his ends
he encouraged, nay, commanded, the open practice of the foulest vices;
incest, adultery, fornication were declared to be works of spiritual
efficacy; unmentionable abominations flaunted themselves in the face
of day; virtue became an offence; men were driven to vice and crime,
and anon they gradually sank in a stupor of infamy and sheer boneless
degradation.
The unfortunate town of Antwerp came directly under Tanchelin’s
influence. Here he reigned as king, surrounded by vile and obsequious
satellites who ground the miserable citizens to the dust and filled each
street and corner with orgies of lust and blood. There is a strange and
striking parallel between the details of his foul career and the Russian
tyranny to-day. Little wonder that in 1116 a priest, maddened by the
outrages and profanities of this hellish crew, scattered the heretic’s
brains upon the deck of his royal barge as one afternoon he was sailing
in pompous state down the river Schelde: “After a life of infamy,
bloodshed, and heresy, whilst he was sailing on the river he was struck
on the head by a certain priest and falling down died there.”[79] All
unfortunately, however, the pernicious errors of Tanchelin did not expire
with their author. Antwerp remained plunged in dissipation and riot, and
although strenuous efforts were made to restore decency and order, at
first these seemed to be entirely nugatory and fruitless. Burchard, the
Bishop of Cambrai, at once sent twelve of his most revered and learned
canons under the conduct of Hidolphe, a priest of acknowledged sagacity
and experience, to endeavour to reform the town by word and example, but
it seemed as though their efforts were doomed to failure and ill-success.
At length, almost in despair, the good prelate begged S. Norbert,[80] who
some three years before had founded his Order at Prémontré, to essay the
thankless and wellnigh impossible task. Without demur or hesitation the
Saint cheerfully undertook so difficult a mission and accompanied only by
S. Evermonde,[81] and Blessed Waltman, together with a few more of his
most fervent followers he arrived at Antwerp without delay to begin his
work there towards the end of 1123. Success at once crowned his efforts;
in an incredibly short space of time the people confessed their errors,
abuses were reformed, the leprous town cleansed of its foulness, public
safety, order, and decorum once again established, and, what is extremely
striking to notice, the old chroniclers draw attention to the fact that
a large number both of men and women in deepest penitence brought to S.
Norbert quantities of consecrated Hosts which they had purloined from
the tabernacles and kept concealed in boxes and other hiding-places to
utilize for charms and evil invocations, to profane in devil-worship and
at the Sabbat. So marvellous was the change from darkness to light that
year by year the Premonstratensian Order upon the Saturday[82] after the
Octave of Corpus Christi solemnly observes a fitting memorial thereof in
the glad Feast of the Triumph of Holy Father Norbert.
In this incident of the stolen Hosts the connexion between Gnostic
heresy and Satanism is clearly seen. It was in such soil as the
antinomianism of Tanchelin that the poisoned weeds of sorcery would
thrive apace. The authorities recognized that drastic measures must be
employed, and at Bonn a company of impure fanatics who attempted to
disseminate his ideas were incontinently sent to the stake.
The other arguments brought forward by Miss Murray to support her thesis
of the continuity of a primitive religion are mainly “the persistence
of the number thirteen in the Covens, the narrow geographical range
of the domestic familiar, the avoidance of certain forms in the
animal transformations, the limited number of personal names among
the women-witches, and the survival of the names of some of the early
gods.”[83] Even if these details could be proved up to the hilt and
shown to be pertinent the evidence were not convincing; it would at best
point to some odd survivals, such as are familiar in an hundred ways to
every student of hagiography, history, myths and legends, old religions,
geography, iconography, topography, etymology, anthropology, and
antiquarian lore in a myriad branches. If we examine the matter broadly
we shall find that these circumstances are for the most part local, not
general, that in many instances they cannot be clearly substantiated, for
the evidence is conflicting and obscure.
“The ‘fixed number’ among the witches of Great Britain,” Miss Murray
notes, “seems to have been thirteen,”[84] and certainly in many cases
amongst the English trials the coven appears to have consisted of
thirteen members, although it may be borne in mind that very probably
there were often other associates who were not traced and involved and
so escaped justice. Yet Miss Murray does not explain why the number
thirteen should form any link with an earlier ritual and worship. On the
other hand, the demonologists are never tired of insisting that Satan is
the ape of God in all things, and that the worshippers of evil delight
to parody every divine ordinance and institution. The explanation is
simple. The number thirteen was adopted by the witches for their covens
in mockery of Our Lord and His Apostles.
“The narrow geographical range of the domestic familiar” is not at all
apparent, and it were futile to base any presumption upon so slender
a line of argument. “The avoidance of certain forms in the animal
transformation” is upon a general view of Witchcraft found to be nothing
other than the non-occurrence of the lamb and the dove, and these two
were abhorred by sorcerers, seeing that Christ is the Lamb of God, Agnus
Dei, whilst the Dove is the manifestation of the Holy Ghost.[85] There is
one instance, the trial of Agnes Wobster at Aberdeen in 1597, when the
Devil is said to have appeared to the witch “in the liknes of a lamb,
quhom thou callis thy God, and bletit on the, and thaireftir spak to
the.”[86] But this rare exception must be understood to be a black and
deformed lamb, not the snow-white Agnus Dei. In pictures of the Doctors
of the Church, particularly perhaps S. Gregory the Great and S. Alphonsus
de Liguori, the Dove is seen breathing divine inspiration into the ear
of the Saint who writes the heavenly message, thus directly given by God
the Holy Ghost. So in a Franco-German miniature of the eleventh century
in the _Hortus Deliciarum_ we see a black hideous bird breathing into the
ear of a magician thoughts evil and dark. This cloudy and sombre spirit,
violent in its attitude and lean in body stretches its meagre throat
towards the ear of the wicked man, who, seated at a desk, transcribes
upon a parchment the malevolent and baleful charms which it dictates. It
is in fact the Devil.[87]
With reference to the argument based upon “the limited number of personal
names among the women-witches” this simply resolves itself into the fact
that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there were in general
use (particularly amongst the peasantry) far fewer personal names than
have been employed of more recent years. To assert “that the name
_Christian_ clearly indicates the presence of another religion”[88] is
simple nonsense. It may be noticed, too, how many of the names which
Miss Murray has catalogued in such conscientious and alas! impertinent
detail are those of well-known Saints whose cult was universal throughout
Europe: Agnes, Alice, Anne, Barbara, Christopher, Collette, Elizabeth,
Giles, Isabel, James, John, Katherine, Lawrence, Margaret, Mary, Michael,
Patrick, Thomas, Ursula—and the list might be almost indefinitely
prolonged.
“The survival of the names of some of the early gods” is also asserted.
In connexion with Witchcraft, however, very few examples of this can
be traced even by the most careful research. An old charm or two, a
nonsense rhyme, may now and again repeat some forgotten meaningless word
or refrain. Thus in a spell used by the witches of the Basses-Pyrénées,
cited by De Lancre (1609), we find mention of the old Basque deity
Janicot: “In nomine patrica, Aragueaco Petrica, Gastellaco Ianicot,
Equidæ ipordian pot.” Bodin gives a dance-jingle, “Har, har, diable,
diable, saute icy, saute là, ioüe icy, ioüe là,” to which the chorus
was “sabath sabath.” Miss Murray tells us that the Guernsey version
“which is currently reported to be used at the present day,” runs: “Har,
har, Hon, Hon, danse ici.”[89] Hon was an old Breton god, and there are
still remote districts whose local names recall and may be compounded
with that of this ancient deity. It is significant that in one case we
have a Basque deity, in the other a Breton; for Basque and Breton are
nearly, if obscurely, correlated. Such traces are interesting enough,
but by no means unique, hardly singular indeed, since they can be so
widely paralleled, and it were idle to base any elaborate argument
concerning the continuity of a fully organized cult upon slight and
unrelated survivals in dialect place-names and the mere doggerel lilt of
a peasant-song.
There is in particular one statement advanced by Miss Murray which goes
far to show how in complete unconsciousness she is fitting her material
to her theory. She writes: “There is at present nothing to show how much
of the Witches’ Mass (in which the bread, the wine, and the candles were
black) derived from the Christian ritual and how much belonged to the
Dianic cult [the name given to this hypothetical but universal ancient
religion]; it is, however, possible that the witches’ service was the
earlier form and influenced the Christian.”[90] This last sentence is in
truth an amazing assertion. A more flagrant case of hysteron-proteron
is hardly imaginable. So self-evident is the absurdity that it refutes
itself, and one can only suppose that the words were allowed to remain
owing to their having been overlooked in the revision of a long and
difficult study, a venial negligence. Every prayer and every gesture
of Holy Mass, since the first Mass was celebrated upon the first
Maundy Thursday, has been studied in minutest detail by generations of
liturgiologists and ceremonialists, whose library is almost infinite
in its vastness and extent from the humblest pamphlets to the hugest
folios. We can trace each inspired development, when such an early phrase
was added, when such a hallowed sign was first made at such words in such
an orison. The witches’ service is a hideous burlesque of Holy Mass, and,
briefly, what Miss Murray suggests is that the parody may have existed
before the thing parodied. It is true that some topsy-turvy writers
have actually proclaimed that magic preceded religion, but this view
is generally discredited by the authorities of all schools. Sir James
Frazer, Sir A. L. Lyall, and Mr. F. B. Jevons, for example, recognize “a
fundamental distinction and even opposition of principle between magic
and religion.”[91]
In fine, upon a candid examination of this theory of the continuity of
some primitive religion, which existed as an underlying organization
manifested in Witchcraft and sorcery, a serious rival feared and hated
by the Church, we find that nothing of the sort ever survived, that
there was no connexion between sorcery and an imaginary “Dianic cult.”
To write that “in the fifteenth century open war was declared against
the last remains of heathenism in the famous Bull of Innocent VIII”[92]
is to ignore history. As has been emphasized above, the Bull _Summis
desiderantes affectibus_ of 1484 was only one of a long series of Papal
ordinances directed against an intolerable evil not heathenism indeed,
but heresy. For heresy, sorcery, and anarchy were almost interchangeable
words, and the first Bull launched directly against the black art was
that of Alexander IV, 1258, two hundred and twenty-six years before.
That here and there lingered various old harmless customs and festivities
which had come down from pre-Christian times and which the Church had
allowed, nay, had even sanctified by directing them to their right
source, the Maypole dances, for example, and the Midsummer fires which
now honour S. John Baptist, is a matter of common knowledge. But this is
no continuance of a pagan cult.
From the first centuries of the Christian era, throughout the Middle
Ages, and continuously to the present day there has invariably been an
open avowal of intentional evil-doing on the part of the devotees of the
witch-cult, and the more mischief they did the more they pleased their
lord and master. Their revels were loathly, lecherous, and abominable, a
Sabbat where every circumstance of horror and iniquity found expression.
This in itself is an argument against Miss Murray’s theory, as none of
the earlier religions existed for the express purpose of perpetrating
evil for evil’s sake. We have but to read the eloquent and exquisite
description of the Eleusinian Mysteries by that accomplished Greek
scholar Father Cyril Martindale, S.J.,[93] to catch no mean nor mistaken
glimpse of the ineffable yearning for beauty, for purity, for holiness,
which filled the hearts of the worshippers of the goddess Persephoneia,
whose stately and impressive ritual prescribing fasts, bathing in
the waters of the sea, self-discipline, self-denial, self-restraint,
culminated in the Hall of Initiation, hallowed by the Earth-Mother,
Demeter, where the symbolic drama of life, death, and resurrection was
shown by the Hierophant to those who had wrestled, and endured, and were
adjudged worthy. How fair a shadow was this, albeit always and ever a
shadow, of the imperishable and eternal realities to come! How different
these Mysteries from the foul orgies of witches, the Sabbat, the black
mass, the adoration of hell.
In truth it was not against heathenism that Innocent VIII sounded the
note of war, but against heresy. There was a clandestine organization
hated by the Church, and this was not sorcery nor any cult of witches
renewing and keeping green some ancient rites and pagan creed, but a
witch-cult that identified itself with and was continually manifested in
closest connexion with Gnosticism in its most degraded and vilest shapes.
There is a curious little piece of symbolism, as it may be, which has
passed into the patois of the Pyrenees. Wizards are commonly known as
_poudouès_ and witches _poudouèros_, both words being derived from
_putere_, which signifies to have an evil smell. The demonologists
report, and it was commonly believed, that sorcerers could often be
detected by their foul and fetid odour. Hagiographers tell that S.
Philip Neri could distinguish heretics by their smell, and often he was
obliged to turn away his head when meeting them in the street. The same
is recorded of many other Saints, and this tradition is interesting
as it serves to show the close connexion there was held to be between
magic and heresy.[94] Saint Pachomius, the cenobite, could distinguish
heretics by their insupportable stench; the abbot Eugendis could tell
the virtues and vices of those whom he met by the perfume or the stink.
Saint Hilarion, as S. Jerome relates, could even distinguish a man’s sins
by the smell of a warm garment or cloak. Blessed Dominica of Paradise,
passing a soldier in the street, knew by the foul smell that he had
abandoned the faith, to which, however, her fervid exhortations and
prayers eventually restored him. Saint Bridget of Sweden was wellnigh
suffocated by the fetor of a notorious sinner who addressed her. Saint
Catherine of Siena experienced the same sensations; whilst Saint
Lutgarde, a Cistercian nun, on meeting a vicious reprobate perceived a
decaying smell of leprosy and disease.
On the other hand, the Saints themselves have diffused sweetest
fragrances, and actually “the odour of sanctity” is more than a mere
phrase. One day in 1566, when he had entered the church at Somascha, a
secluded hamlet between Milan and Bergamo, S. Charles Borromeo exclaimed:
“I know by the heavenly fragrance in this sanctuary that a great Servant
of God lies buried here!” The church, in fact, contained the body of
S. Jerome Emiliani, who died in 1537. S. Herman Joseph could be traced
through the corridors of Steinfeld by the rare perfumes he scattered
as he walked. The same was the case with that marvellous mystic S.
Joseph of Cupertino. S. Thomas Aquinas smelt of male frankincense. I
myself have known a priest of fervent faith who at times diffused the
odour of incense. Maria-Vittoria of Genoa, Ida of Louvain, S. Colette,
S. Humiliana, were fragrant as sweet flowers. S. Francis of Paul and
Venturini of Bergamo scattered heavenly aromas when they offered the Holy
Sacrifice. The pus of S. John of the Cross gave forth a strong scent of
lilies.
Miss Murray has worked out her thesis with no inconsiderable ingenuity,
but when details are considered, historically examined, and set in their
due proportions, it must be concluded that the theory of the continuity
of an ancient religion is baseless. Her book is called _A Study in
Anthropology_, and here we can, I think, at once put our finger upon
the fundamental mistake. Anthropology alone offers no explanation of
Witchcraft. Only the trained theologian can adequately treat the subject.
An amount of interesting material has been collected, but the key to the
dark mystery could not be found.
Yet, as our investigations have shown, it was not so far to seek.
In the succinct phrase of that profound and prolific scholar Thomas
Stapleton[95]: “Crescit cum magia hæresis, cum hæresi magia.” (The weed
heresy grows alongside the weed witchcraft, the weed witchcraft alongside
the weed heresy.)
NOTES TO CHAPTER I.
[1] _Paris. Jacques du Puys._ 4to. 1580. The preface, addressed to De
Thou, is signed: “De _Laon_, ce xx iour de _Decembre_, M.D.LXXIX.” There
were nine editions before 1604. The most complete is _Paris_, 4to. 1587.
In addition to the text it contains ten extra pages only found here
giving the trial of a sorcerer, Abel de la Rue, executed in 1582.
[2] The first Papal bull dealing with sorcery was issued by Alexander
IV, 13 December, 1258. The last Papal Constitution concerned with this
crime is that of Urban VIII, _Inscrutabilis iudiciorum Dei altitudo_,
1 April, 1631. The last regular English trial seems to have been that
of an old woman and her son, acquitted at Leicester in 1717. In 1722
the last execution of a Scottish witch took place at Loth; both English
and Scottish statutes were repealed in 1735. The Irish Statute was not
repealed until 1821. At Kempten in Bavaria, a mad heretic, a woman, was
executed for sorcery in 1775. In the Swiss canton of Glaris, a wench
named Anna Goeldi, was hanged as a witch, 17 June, 1782. Two hags were
burned in Poland on the same charge as late as 1793.
[3] Roland Brévannes. _Les Messes Noires_, Iⁱᵉʳ tableau, scène VII.
[4] I have actually heard it categorically laid down by a speaker in
a Shakespearean debate, a litterateur of professed culture, that the
Elizabethans could not, of course, really have believed in witchcraft.
[5] In the Exhibition of this artist’s work at the Leicester Galleries,
London, in March, 1925.
[6] ... qu’elle, & sa mère montoient sur vne ramasse, & que sortans le
contremont de la cheminée elles alloient par l’air en ceste façon au
Sabbat. Boguet, _Discours_, p. 104.
[7] Glanvill, Part II. p. 194.
[8] Julius Wellhausen. _Reste arabischen Heidenthums_, p. 159. Berlin,
1897.
[9] _Apud_ Miss Murray’s _The Witch-Cult_. (1921). Appendix V. pp. 279-80.
[10] Boguet, _Discours_. XVI. 4.
[11] Benjamin Thorpe, _Monumenta Ecclesiastica_, II. p. 34. London, 1840.
The _Liber Pœnitentialis_ was first published complete by Wasserschleben
in 1851; a convenient edition is Migne, _P.L._ XCIX.
[12] _Calendar of State Papers._ Domestic, 1584.
[13] Sir Walter Scott, _Demonology and Witchcraft_, Letter V, gives the
narrative of this case, but in the light of later research his version
must be slightly corrected.
[14] Pitcairn. I. pt. ii. p. 162.
[15] _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_, New Series,
vol. X. Edinburgh.
[16] Sir James Melville, _Memoirs_. Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh. pp. 395-6.
[17] London. “for _William Wright_.” N.D. [1591]. The woodcut is on the
title-page verso, and signature [c.ij.] verso. The pages are not numbered.
[18] _Flying Ointments._ _Apud_ Miss Murray’s _Witch-Cult in Western
Europe_, p. 279. It may be noted that the scandals of the Black Mass
under Louis XIV were closely concerned with wholesale accusations of
poisoning. La Voisin was a notorious vendor of toxic philtres. The
possibility of poisoning the King, the Dauphin, Colbert and others was
frequently debated.
[19] Dio Cassius. XLIX. 43. p. 756. ed. Sturz.
[20] _Idem._ LII. 36. p. 149.
[21] Suetonius. _Augustus._ 31.
[22] Tacitus. _Annales._ II. 32. _More prisco._ “Ut eum infelici arbori
alligatum uirgis cædi, et postremo securi percuti iuberent.” Muret.
[23] XII. 32.
[24] Suetonius. _Vitellius._ 14.
[25] Dio Cassius. LXVI. 10.
[26] _La Magie et la Sorcellerie._ Paris. (1912.) I. p. 33.
[27] _Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions_, II. p. 117.
[28] The dates are as inaccurate as the statements. Giovanni Battista
Cibò was elected Pope 29 August, 1484; and the Bull was issued in the
December of that year, not in 1488.
[29] _Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe_, c. 1.
[30] _Dictionary of Universal Biography._ VIII. (1890).
[31] A more detailed treatment will be found in the present writer’s _The
Geography of Witchcraft_, where the Bull is given _in extenso_.
[32] _Epist._, c.n. 1.
[33] _Hom._, XLVI. c. 1.
[34] _Sententianum_, III. iv. nn. 4-6.
[35] Theodosius II. _Nouellæ_, tit. III. A.D. 438.
[36] Uanissimus [Priscillianus] et plus iusto inflatior profanarum rerum
scientia: quin et magicas artes ab adolescentia cum exercuisse creditum
est. Sulpicius Severus. II. 47.
[37] H. C. Lea in his _History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages_,
(1888) I. 215, asserts that Leo I justified the act, and that successive
edicts against heresy were due to ecclesiastical influence. This is the
exact opposite of historical truth, and the writer has not hesitated to
transfer words of the Emperor to the Pope.
[38] In a sermon published in 1896 by Dom Morin _Revue benédictine_, c.
xiii. p. 205.
[39] _Epistola Elipandi ad Alcuinum_, Migne. Pat. Lat. CXCVI. p. 872.
Alcuin. _Opera Omnia._ Migne Pat. Lat. C-CI, especially _Liber Albini
contra hæresim Felicis_; _Libri VII aduersus Felicem_; _Aduersus
Elipandum Libri IV_. Florez, _España sagrada_. V. p. 562. Menendez y
Pelayo, _Historia de los heterodoxos españoles_, Madrid, 1880, I. p. 274.
[40] The martyrdom of S. Peter is a well-known subject in art. Titian’s
masterpiece in the Dominican church of SS. Giovanni e Paolo at Venice was
destroyed by a fire on 16 August, 1867. But there are exquisite paintings
of the scene by Lorenzo Lotto and Bellini. S. Peter, whose shrine is in
San Eustorgio, Milan, was canonized 25 March, 1253, by Innocent IV. Major
Feast, 29 April.
[41] Muratori. _Antiquitates italicæ medii æui_, Milan, 1738-42.
[42] Gabriel Rossetti, _Disquisitions_, vol. I. p. 27.
[43] Gervasius Dorobernensis, _Chronicon_.
[44] _Vita S. Romanæ._ n. 10; Acta SS. die, 3 Oct. p. 138. S. Gregorii
VII. Lib. I. Epistola 75, _ad Philippum_.
[45] Labbe. _Sacrosancta concilia._ 18 vols. folio. 1671. Vol. X. col. 84.
[46] Quarum rerum rex uester, qui non rex sed tyrannus dicendus est,
suadente diabolo, caput et causa est, qui omnem aetatem suam flagitiis et
facinoribus polluit. _Idem_, vol. X. col. 72.
[47] Sane ... prouinciali ordinis prædicatorum in eodem regno dedimus
in mandatis, ut aliquibus fratribus suis aptis ad hoc, inquisitionem
contra illos committeret in regno præfato ... fraternitati tuæ ...
mandamus quatenus ... per alios qui ad hoc idonei uidebuntur, festines
... procedere in inquisitionis negotio et ad dominicum certamen accingi.
Ripoll et Brémond, _Bullarium ordinis S. Dominici_, I. p. 80. (8 vols.
Romæ. 1737, _sqq._).
[48] Fratres ... qui ad prædicandum crucem uel inquirendum contra
prauitatem hæreticam ... sunt deputati. Wadding. _Annales Minorum._ ed.
secunda. 24 vols. Romæ, 1732, _sqq._ III. 144.
[49] _Gnostic Heresies._
[50] Jules Bois. _Le Satanisme et la Magie_, c. 6.
[51] It is true that S. Augustine does not bring a charge of depravity
against the Manichæans, but they veiled their vices with the greatest
caution, and S. Augustine was simply a catechumen, one of the Auditors,
who would have known nothing of these esoteric abominations.
[52] Extra ciuitatis educti muros in quodam tuguriolo copioso igne
accenso ... cremati sunt. _Gesta synodi Aurelianensis._ Arnould.
_L’Inquisition._ (Paris, 1869). VI. p. 46.
[53] Sed antequam ad conflictum ueniamus, de cibo illo, qui cœlestis
ab illis dicebatur, quali arte conficiebatur, nescientibus demonstrare
curabo. Congregabantur si quidem certis noctibus in domo denominata,
singuli lucernas tenentes in manibus, ad instar letaniæ demonum nomina
declamabant, donec subito Dæmonem in similitudine cuiuslibet bestiolæ
inter eos uiderent descendere. Qui statim, ut uisibilis ille uidebatur
uisio, omnibus extinctis luminaribus, quamprimum quisque poterat,
mulierem, quæ ad manum sibi ueniebat, ad abutendum arripiebat, sine
peccati respectu, et utrum mater, aut soror, aut monacha haberetur,
pro sanctitate et religione eius concubitus ab illis æstimabatur; ex
quo spurcissimo concubitu infans generatus, octaua die in medio eorum
copioso igne accenso probabatur per ignem more antiquorum Paganorum; et
sic in igne cremabatur. Cuius cinis tanta ueneratione colligebatur atque
custodiebatur, ut Christiana religiositas Corpus Christi custodire solet,
ægris dandum de hoc sæculo exituris ad uiaticum. Inerat enim tanta uis
diabolicæ fraudis in ipso cinere ut quicumque de præfata hæresi imbutus
fuisset, et de eodem cinere quamuis sumendo parum prælibauisset, uix
unquam postea de eadem heresi gressum mentis ad uiam ueritatis dirigere
ualeret. De qua re parum dixisse sufficiat, ut Christicolæ caueant se ab
hoc nefario opere, non ut studeant sectando imitari. Schmidt. _Histoire
et doctrine des Cathares ou Albigeois._ Paris. 1849. I. p. 31.
[54] G. R. Kinloch. _Reliquiæ Antiquæ Scoticæ._ Edinburgh, 1848.
[55] Adhémar de Chabannes. (A monk of Angoulême.) _Chronicon, Recueil des
historicus_, vol. X. p. 163.
[56] Fabré Palaprat. _Recherches Historiques sur les Templiers_, Paris.
1835.
[57] Cambridge University Press, 1925.
[58] _The Philosopher_, July-August, 1924.
[59] _The Philosopher_, January-March, 1925. _The Albigenses_, pp. 20-25.
The whole article, which is written with extraordinary restraint, should
be read.
[60] He is the author of _Éléments d’Astrologie_; _Un disciple de Cl. de
Saint-Martin, Dutoit-Membrini_; _Premiers Éléments d’Occultisme_; _La
petite Église anticoncordataire, son histoire, son état actuel_; _J. K.
Huysmans et le Satanisme_; _Huysmans, Occultiste et Magicien_.
[61] _In Uerrem._ IV. 43.
[62] H. Th. Pyl, _Die griechischen Rundbauten_, 1861, pp. 67, _sqq._
[63] Plutarch, _Theseus_ 36; _Cimon_ 8.
[64] Pausanias is the chief authority on this point. See Rohde _Psyche_,
I. p. 161.
[65] Clarendon Press, 1921.
[66] _The Witch-Cult in Western Europe_, p. 16. It is true that the
Brethren of the Free Spirit, anarchists, who vaunted the Adamite heresy,
in the Thirteenth century, went to the stake with pæans of joy. But they
were probably drugged. J. L. Mosheim, _Ecclesiastical History_. London.
1819. III. p. 278. _sqq._ The Adamites were a licentious sect who called
their church Paradise and worshipped in a state of stark nudity. They
were Gnostics and claimed complete emancipation from the moral law. They
lived in shameful communism. Bohemian Adamites existed as late as 1849.
In Russia the _teleschi_, a branch of the sect known as the “Divine Men,”
performed their religious rites in a state of nature, following the
example, as they asserted, of Adam and Eve in Paradise. These assemblies
were wont to end in promiscuous debauchery.
[67] _Idem._ p. 161.
[68] _Witch-Cult in Western Europe_, p. 161.
[69] _Additional Notices of Major Weir and his Sister_; Sinclar’s
_Satan’s Invisible World_. (Reprint. 1875).
[70] _Criminal Trials_, 1536-1784; Hugo Arnot, 4to, 1785.
[71] _Ravillac Rediuius_, Dr. George Hickes, 4to, 1678.
[72] Iubemus namque, auctores quidem et principes, una cum abominandis
scripturis eorum seueriori pœnæ subiici, ita ut flammeis ignibus
exurantur. Baronius, 287, 4.
[73] Scio multos [Proconsules] et ad bestias damnasse sacrilegos,
nonnullos etiam uiuos exussisse. _Lex Romana Visigothorum nouella_,
XLVIII. tit. xiii. c. 6-7.
[74] Plures etiam per Italiam tunc huius pestiferi dogmatis sunt reperti,
qui aut gladiis, aut incendiis perierunt.
[75] Tanchelinus, Tandemus, Tanchelmus. The history of this important
revolutionary movement has been carefully studied. The following
authoritative books are a few from many of great value and learning.
_Corpus documentorum Inquisitionis hereticæ prauitatis neerlandicæ_, ed.
Dr. Paul Frédéricq, vol. I, p. 15 _et sqq._ Ghent. 1889; _Tanchelijn_ by
Janssen in the _Annales de l’académie Royale d’archéologie de Belgique_,
vol. XXIII, p. 448 _et sqq._ 1867; Foppens, _Historia Episcopatus
Antuerpiensis_, p. 8 and p. 146, Brussels, 1717; Dierxsens, _Antuerpia
Christo nascens et crescens_, vol. I, p. 88, Antwerp, 1773; Poncelet,
_Saint Norbert et Tanchelin_ in the _Analecta bollandiniana_, vol. XIII,
p. 441, 1893; Schools, _Saint Norbert et Tanchelin à Anvers_ in the
_Bibliothèque norbertine_, vol. II, p. 97, 1900; De Schapper, _Réponse
à la question: Faites connaître l’hérésiarque Tanchelin et les erreurs
qu’il répandit au commencement du XIIIᵉ siècle_ [an error for _XIIᵉ
siècle_] in the _Collationes Brugenses_, vol. XVII, p. 107, 1912. L.
Vander Essen, _De Katterij van Tanchelm in de XIIᵉ eeuw_ in _Ons Geloof_,
vol. II, p. 354, 1912; _Antwerpen en de H. Norbertus_ in the _Bode van
Onze Lieve Vrouw van het H. Hert van Averbode_, Nos. 18 and 19, pp.
207-211 and 217-220, 1914.
[76] “That most vile and abandoned scoundrel had become so open and
utterly depraved an enemy to the Christian faith and all religious
observance that he denied any respect was due to Bishops and priests;
moreover, he affirmed that the reception of the most holy Body and Blood
of Our Lord availed nothing to eternal life and man’s salvation.” “Erat
quidem ille sceleratissimus et christianæ fidei et totius religionis
inimicus in tantum ut obsequium episcoporum et sacerdotum nihil esse
diceret, et sacrosancti corporiset sanguinis Domini J. C. perceptionem
ad salutem perpetuam prodesse denegeret.” _Vita Noberti archiepiscopi
Magdeburgensis, Vita A. Monument. Germ. Scriptores_, vol. XII. p. 690,
ed. G. A. Pertz, Hanover, Berlin.
[77] “Immo uere ipse angelus Sathanæ declamabat eccelsias Dei lupinaria
esse reputanda. Nihil esse, quod sacerdotum officio in mensa dominica
conficeretur; pollutiones, non sacramenta nominanda.” _Lettre des
chanoines d’Utrecht au nom de leur diocèse à Frédéric, archevêque de
Cologne._ _Apud_ Frédéricq, vol. I. n. 11.
[78] Talibus nequitiæ successibus miscro homini tanta sceleris accessit
audacia, ut etiam se Deum diceret, asserens, quia, si Christus ideo Deus
est, quia Spiritum Sanctum habuisset, se non inferius nec dissimilius
Deum, quia plenitudinem Spiritus Sancti accepisset. _Idem._
[79] Qui tandem post multos errores et cædes, dum nauigaret, a quodam
presbytero percussus in cerebro occubuit. _Sigiberti continuatio._
Apud _Monument. Germ. Scriptores_, vol. VI, p. 449. See also, Johannes
Trithemius, _Annales Hirsaugienses_, vol. I, p. 387, Saint-Gall, 1690; Du
Plessis d’Argentré, _Collectio iudiciorum_, vol. I, p. 11 _sqq._ Paris,
1728; Schmidt, _Histoire et doctrine des Cathares ou Albigeois_, vol. I,
p. 49, Paris, 1849.
[80] There is a contemporary _Uita Norberti_ of which two recensions
have been published: _Uita A._ by R. Wilmans in the _Mon. Germ. Hag._,
SS., vol. XIII, pp. 663-706, Hanover, 1853; _Uita B._ by Surius, _De
probatis Sanctorum historiis_, vol. III, pp. 517-547, Cologne, 1572.
Other authoritative works are: J. Van der Sterse, _Uita S. Norberti_,
Antwerp, 1622; Du Pré, _La Vie du bienheureux saint Norbert_, Paris,
1627; Ch. Hugo, _La Vie de St. Norbert_, Luxembourg, 1704; G. Madelaine,
_Histoire de St. Norbert_, Lille, 1886; B. Wazasek, _Der Hl. Norbert_,
Vienna, 1914. An excellent brief but scholarly account is _The Life of S.
Norbert_, London, 1886, by my late revered friend Abbot Geudens, C.R.P.
[81] Feast, 17 February.
[82] Formerly kept upon the Sunday.
[83] _Op. cit._, pp. 16, 17.
[84] _Op. cit._, p. 191.
[85] For a full and detailed statement see Didron’s great work,
_Iconographie chrétienne_, Paris, 1843.
[86] _Spalding Club Miscellany_, I, p. 129. Aberdeen, 1841.
[87] At their black mass the witches of the Basses-Pyrénées (1609) when
the host was elevated said “Corbeau noir, corbeau noir.” De Lancre,
_Tableau de l’Inconstance des mauvais Anges_, Paris, 1613.
[88] _Op. cit._, p. 255.
[89] _Op. cit._, p. 165. It is not at all evident that “the word _diable_
is clearly Bodin’s own interpellation for the name of the god,” indeed
this assumption is purely gratuitous to support the argument, and cannot
be admitted.
[90] _Op. cit._, pp. 14, 15. I would not dwell upon the offensiveness of
this suggestion, since it is, I am sure, unintentional.
[91] _Golden Bough_, Part I. vol. I. p. xx. Third Edition. 1911.
[92] _Op. cit._, p. 19.
[93] _The Goddess of Ghosts_, pp. 137-158.
[94] Cassiodorus, _Hist. Eccl._, VII, 11. _fin._ speaks of the
_fetidissimus fons_ of heresy.
[95] 1535-1598. His works were collected in four folio volumes, Paris,
1620, prefaced by Henry Holland’s _Uita Thomæ Stapletoni_. An original
portrait is preserved at Douai Abbey, Woolhampton.
CHAPTER II
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_.
CHAPTER III
DEMONS AND FAMILIARS
One of the most authoritative of the older writers upon Witchcraft,
Francesco-Maria Guazzo, a member of the Congregation of S. Ambrose ad
Nemus,[1] in his encyclopædic _Compendium Maleficarum_, first published
at Milan, 1608, has drawn up under eleven heads those articles in which a
solemn and complete profession of Witchcraft was then held to consist:
_First_: The candidates have to conclude with the Devil, or some other
Wizard or Magician acting in the Devil’s stead, an express compact by
which, in the presence of witnesses they devote themselves to the service
of evil, he giving them in exchange his pledge for riches, luxury, and
such things as they desire.
_Secondly_: They abjure the Catholic Faith, explicitly withdraw from
their obedience to God, renounce Christ and in a particular manner the
Patronage and Protection of Our Lady, curse all Saints, and forswear
the Sacraments. In Guernsey, in 1617, Isabel Becquet went to Rocquaine
Castle, “the usual place where the Devil kept his Sabbath: no sooner had
she arrived there than the Devil came to her in the form of a dog, with
two great horns sticking up: and with one of his paws (which seemed to
her like hands) took her by the hand: and calling her by her name told
her that she was welcome: then immediately the Devil made her kneel down:
while he himself stood up on his hind legs; he then made her express
detestation of the Eternal in these words: _I renounce God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost_; and then caused her to worship and
invoke himself.”[2] De Lancre tells us that Jeannette d’Abadie, a lass
of sixteen, confessed that she was made to “renounce & deny her Creator,
the Holy Virgin, the Saints, Baptism, father, mother, relations, Heaven,
earth, & all that the world contains.”[3] In a very full confession made
by Louis Gaufridi on the second of April, 1611, to two Capuchins, Father
Ange and Father Antoine, he revealed the formula of his abjuration of
the Catholic faith. It ran thus: “I, Louis Gaufridi, renounce all good,
both spiritual as well as temporal, which may be bestowed upon me by
God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, all the Saints of Heaven, particularly my
Patron S. John-Baptist, as also S. Peter, S. Paul, and S. Francis, and
I give myself body and soul to Lucifer, before whom I stand, together
with every good that I may ever possess (save always the benefit of the
sacraments touching those who receive them). And according to the tenour
of these terms have I signed and sealed.”[4] Madeleine de la Palud, one
of his victims, used a longer and more detailed declaration in which
the following hideous blasphemies occurred: “With all my heart and most
unfeignedly and with all my will most deliberately do I wholly renounce
God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; the most Holy Mother of God; all the
Angels and especially my Guardian Angel, the Passion of Our Lord Jesus
Christ, His Precious Blood and the merits thereof, my lot in Paradise,
all the good inspirations which God may give me in the future, all
prayers which are made or may be made for me.”[5]
_Thirdly_: They cast away with contempt the most Holy Rosary, delivered
by Our Lady to S. Dominic;[6] the Cord of S. Francis; the cincture of S.
Augustine; the Carmelite scapular bestowed upon S. Simon Stock; they cast
upon the ground and trample under their feet in the mire the Cross, Holy
Medals, _Agnus Dei_,[7] should they possess such or carry them upon their
persons. S. Francis girded himself with a rough rope in memory of the
bonds wherewith Christ was bound during His Passion, and a white girdle
with three knots has since formed part of the Franciscan habit. Sixtus
IV, by his Bull _Exsupernæ dispositionis_, erected the Archconfraternity
of the Cord of S. Francis in the basilica of the Sacro Convento at
Assisi, enriching it with many Indulgences, favours which have been
confirmed by pontiff after pontiff. Archconfraternities are erected not
only in Franciscan but in many other churches and aggregated to the
centre at Assisi. The Archconfraternity of Our Lady of Consolation, or
of the Black Leathern Belt of S. Monica, S. Augustine and S. Nicolas
of Tolentino, took its rise from a vision of S. Monica, who received
a black leathern belt from Our Lady. S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, and
S. Simplicianus all wore such a girdle, which forms a distinctive
feature of the dress of Augustinian Eremites. After the canonization
of S. Nicolas of Tolentino it came into general use as an article of
devotion, and Eugenius IV in 1439 erected the above Archconfraternity.
A Bull of Gregory XIII _Ad ea_ (15 July, 1575) confirmed this and added
various privileges and Indulgences. The Archconfraternity is erected in
Augustinian sanctuaries, from the General of which Order leave must be
obtained for its extension to other churches.
[Illustration: PLATE III
COMPENDIVM MALEFICARVM. Francesco-Maria Guazzo. Title-page of Second
Edition
[_face p. 82_]
_Fourthly_: All witches vow obedience and subjection into the hands
of the Devil; they pay him homage and vassalage (often by obscene
ceremonies), and lay their hands upon a large black book which is
presented to them. They bind themselves by blasphemous oaths never
to return to the true faith, to observe no divine precept, to do no
good work, but to obey the Demon only and to attend without fail the
nightly conventicles. They pledge themselves to frequent the midnight
assemblies.[8] These conventicles or covens[9] (from _conuentus_) were
bands or companies of witches, composed of men and women, apparently
under the discipline of an officer, all of whom for convenience’ sake
belonged to the same district. Those who belonged to a coven were, it
seems from the evidence at trials, bound to attend the weekly Esbat.
The arrest of one member of a coven generally led to the implication
of the rest. Cotton Mather remarks, “The witches are organized like
Congregational Churches.”
_Fifthly_: The witches promise to strive with all their power and to
use every inducement and endeavour to draw other men and women to their
detestable practices and the worship of Satan.
The witches were imbued with the missionary spirit, which made them
doubly damnable in the eyes of the divines and doubly guilty in the eyes
of the law. So in the case of Janet Breadheid of Auldearne, we find that
her husband “enticed her into that craft.”[10] A girl named Bellot, of
Madame Bourignon’s academy, confessed that her mother had taken her to
the Sabbat when she was quite a child. Another girl alleged that all
worshippers of the Devil “are constrained to offer him their Children.”
Elizabeth Francis of Chelmsford, a witch tried in 1566, was only about
twelve years old when her grandmother first taught her the art of
sorcery.[11] The famous Pendle beldame, Elizabeth Demdike “brought vp her
owne Children, instructed her Graundchildren, and tooke great care and
paines to bring them to be Witches.”[12] At Salem, George Burroughs, a
minister, was accused by a large number of women as “the person who had
Seduc’d and Compell’d them into the snares of Witchcraft.”
_Sixthly_: The Devil administers to witches a kind of sacrilegious
baptism, and after abjuring their Godfathers and Godmothers of Christian
Baptism and Confirmation they have assigned to them new sponsors—as it
were—whose charge it is to instruct them in sorcery: they drop their
former name and exchange it for another, generally a scurrilous and
grotesque nickname.
In 1609 Jeanette d’Abadie, a witch of the Basses-Pyrénées, confessed
“that she often saw children baptized at the Sabbat, and these she
informed us were the offspring of sorcerers and not of other persons, but
of witches who are accustomed to have their sons and daughters baptized
at the Sabbat rather than at the Font.”[13] June 20, 1614, at Orleans,
Silvain Nevillon amongst other crimes acknowledged that he had frequented
assemblies of witches, and “that they baptize babies at the Sabbat with
Chrism.... Then they anoint the child’s head therewith muttering certain
Latin phrases.”[14] Gentien le Clerc, who was tried at the same time,
“said that his mother, as he had been told, presented him at the Sabbat
when he was but three years old, to a monstrous goat, whom they called
l’Aspic. He said that he was baptized at the Sabbat, at Carrior d’Olivet,
with fourteen or fifteen other children....”[15]
Among the confessions made by Louis Gaufridi at Aix in March, 1611, were:
“I confess that baptism is administered at the Sabbat, and that every
sorcerer, devoting himself to the Devil, binds himself by a particular
vow that he will have all his children baptized at the Sabbat, if this
may by any possible means be effected. Every child who is thus baptized
at the Sabbat receives a name, wholly differing from his own name. I
confess that at this baptism water, sulphur, and salt are employed: the
sulphur renders the recipient the Devil’s slave whilst salt confirms his
baptism in the Devil’s service. I confess that the form and intention are
to baptize in the name of Lucifer, Belzebuth and other demons making the
sign of the cross beginning backwards and then tracing from the feet and
ending at the head.”[16]
A number of Swedish witches (1669) were baptized: “they added, that he
caused them to be baptized too by such Priests as he had there, and made
them confirm their Baptism with dreadful Oaths and Imprecations.”[17]
The giving of a new name seems to have been very general. Thus in May,
1569, at S. Andrews “a notabill sorceres callit Nicniven was condemnit to
the death and burnt.” Her Christian name is not given merely her witch’s
name bestowed by the demon. In the famous Fian case it was stated that
when at the meeting in North Berwick kirk Robert Grierson was named great
confusion ensued for the witches and warlocks “all ran hirdie-girdie,
and were angry, for it was promised that he should be called Robert
the Comptroller, for the expriming of his name.”[18] Euphemia McCalyan
of the same coven was called Cane, and Barbara Napier Naip. Isabel
Goudie of Auldearne (1662) stated that many witches known to her had
been baptized in their own blood by such names as “Able-and-Stout,”
“Over-the-dike-with-it,” “Raise-the-wind,” “Pickle-nearest-the-wind,”
“Batter-them-down-Maggy,” “Blow-Kate,” and similar japeries.
_Seventhly_: The witches cut off a piece of their own garments, and as a
token of homage tender it to the Devil, who takes it away and keeps it.
_Eighthly_: The Devil draws on the ground a circle wherein stand the
Novices, Wizards, and Witches, and there they confirm by oath all their
aforesaid promises. This has a mystical signification. “They take this
oath to the Demon standing in a circle described upon the ground,
perchance because a circle is the Symbol of Divinity, & the earth God’s
footstool and thus he assuredly wishes them to believe that he is the
lord of Heaven and earth.”[19]
_Ninthly_: The sorcerers request the Devil to strike them out of the book
of Christ, and to inscribe them in his own. Then is solemnly brought
forward a large black book, the same as that on which they laid their
hands when they did their first homage, and they are inscribed in this
by the Devil’s claw.
These books or rolls were kept with great secrecy by the chief officer
of the coven or even the Grand Master of a district. They would have
been guarded as something as precious as life itself, seeing that they
contained the damning evidence of a full list of the witches of a
province or county, and in addition thereto seems to have been added a
number of magic formulæ, spells, charms, and probably, from time to time,
a record of the doings of the various witches. The signing of such a book
is continually referred to in the New England trials. So when Deliverance
Hobbs had made a clean breast of her sorceries, “She now testifi’d, that
this _Bishop_ [Bridget Bishop, condemned and executed as a long-continued
witch] tempted her to sign the _Book_ again, and to deny what she had
confess’d.” The enemies of the notorious Matthew Hopkins made great
capital out of the story that by some sleight of sorcery he had got
hold of one of these Devil’s memorandum-books, whence he copied a list
of witches, and this it was that enabled him to be so infallible in his
scent. The Witch-Finder General was hard put to it to defend himself from
the accusation, and becomes quite pitiful in his whining asseverations of
innocence. There is a somewhat vague story, no dates being given, that
a Devil’s book was carried off by Mr. Williamson of Cardrona (Peebles),
who filched it from the witches whilst they were dancing on Minchmoor.
But the whole coven at once gave chase, and he was glad to abandon it and
escape alive.
Sometimes the catalogue of witches was inscribed on a separate parchment,
and the book only used to write down charms and spells. Such a volume was
the Red Book of Appin known to have actually been in existence a hundred
years ago. Tradition said it was stolen from the Devil by a trick. It
was in manuscript, and contained a large number of magic runes and
incantations for the cure of cattle diseases, the increase of flocks, the
fertility of fields. This document, which must be of immense importance
and interest, when last heard of was (I believe) in the possession of the
now-extinct Stewarts of Invernahyle. This strange volume, so the story
ran, conferred dark powers on the owner, who knew what inquiry would be
made ere the question was poised; and the tome was so confected with
occult arts that he who read it must wear a circlet of iron around his
brow as he turned those mystic pages.
Another volume, of which mention is made—one that is often confused[20]
with, but should be distinguished from, these two—is what we may term
the Devil’s Missal. Probably this had its origin far back in the midst
of the centuries among the earliest heretics who passed down their
evil traditions to their followers, the Albigenses and the Waldenses
or Vaudois. This is referred to by the erudite De Lancre, who in his
detailed account of the Black Mass as performed in the region of the
Basses-Pyrénées (1609) writes: “Some kind of altar was erected upon the
pillars of infernal design, and hereon, without reciting the _Confiteor_
or _Alleluya_, turning over the leaves of a certain book which he held,
he began to mumble certain phrases of Holy Mass.”[21] Silvain Nevillon
(Orleans, 1614) confessed that “the Sabbat was held in a house.... He
saw there a tall dark man opposite to the one who was in a corner of
the ingle, and this man was perusing a book, whose leaves seemed black
& crimson, & he kept muttering between his teeth although what he said
could not be heard, and presently he elevated a black host and then
a chalice of some cracked pewter, all foul and filthy.”[22] Gentien
le Clerc, who was also accused, acknowledged that at these infernal
assemblies “Mass was said, and the Devil was celebrant. He was vested
in a chasuble upon which was a broken cross. He turned his back to the
altar when he was about to elevate the Host and the Chalice, which were
both black. He read in a mumbling tone from a book, the cover of which
was soft and hairy like a wolf’s skin. Some leaves were white and red,
others black.”[23] Madeleine Bavent, who was the chief figure in the
trials at Louviers (1647), acknowledged: “Mass was read from the book
of blasphemies, which contained the canon. This same volume was used in
processions. It was full of the most hideous curses against the Holy
Trinity, the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, the other Sacraments and
ceremonies of the Church. It was written in a language completely unknown
to me.”[24] Possibly this blasphemous volume is the same as that which
Satanists to-day use when performing their abominable rites.
_Tenthly_: The witches promise the Devil sacrifices and offerings at
stated times; once a fortnight, or at least once a month, the murder of
some child, or some mortal poisoning, and every week to plague mankind
with evils and mischiefs, hailstorms, tempest, fires, cattle-plagues and
the like.
The _Liber Pœnitentialis_ of S. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury
668-690, the earliest ecclesiastical law of England, has clauses
condemning those who invoke fiends, and so cause the weather to change
“si quis emissor tempestatis fuerit.” In the _Capitaluria_ of Charlemagne
(died at Aachen, 28 January, 814), the punishment of death is declared
against those who by evoking the demon, trouble the atmosphere, excite
tempests, destroy the fruits of the earth, dry up the milk of cows, and
torment their fellow-creatures with diseases or any other misfortune.
All persons found guilty of employing such arts were to be executed
immediately upon conviction. Innocent VIII in his celebrated Bull,
_Summis desiderantes affectibus_, 5 December, 1484, charges sorcerers
in detail with precisely the same foul practices. The most celebrated
occasion when witches raised a storm was that which played so important
a part in the trial of Dr. Fian and his coven, 1590-1, when the witches,
in order to drown King James and Queen Anne on their voyage from
Denmark, “tooke a Cat and christened it,” and after they had bound a
dismembered corpse to the animal “in the night following the said Cat
was convayed into the middest of the sea by all these witches, sayling
in their riddles or cives, ... this doone, then did arise such a tempest
in the sea, as a greater hath not bene seene.”[25] The bewitching of
cattle is alleged from the earliest time, and at Dornoch in Sutherland
as late as 1722, an old hag was burned for having cast spells upon the
pigs and sheep of her neighbours, the sentence being pronounced by the
sheriff-depute, Captain David Ross of Little Dean. This was the last
execution of a witch in Scotland.
With regard to the sacrifice of children there is a catena of ample
evidence. Reginald Scot[26] writes in 1584: “This must be an infallible
rule, that euerie fortnight, or at the least euerie month, each witch
must kill one child at the least for hir part.” When it was dangerous or
impossible openly to murder an infant the life would be taken by poison,
and in 1645 Mary Johnson, a witch of Wyvenhoe, Essex, was tried for
poisoning two children, no doubt as an act of sorcery.[27] It is unknown
how many children Gilles de Rais devoted to death in his impious orgies.
More than two hundred corpses were found in the latrines of Tiffauges,
Machecoul, Champtocé. It was in 1666 that Louis XIV was first informed of
the abominations which were vermiculating his capital “des sacrilèges,
des profanations, des messes impies, des sacrifices de jeunes enfants.”
Night after night in the rue Beauregard at the house of the mysterious
Catherine la Voisin the abbé Guibourg was wont to kill young children for
his hideous ritual, either by strangulation or more often by piercing
their throats with a sharp dagger and letting the hot blood stream into
the chalice as he cried: “Astaroth, Asmodée, je vous conjure d’accepter
le sacrifice que je vous présente!” (Astaroth! Asmodeus! Receive, I
beseech you, this sacrifice I offer unto you!) A priest named Tournet
also said Satanic Masses at which children were immolated; in fact the
practice was so common that la Chaufrein, a mistress of Guibourg, would
supply a child for a crown[28] piece.
_Eleventhly_: The Demon imprints upon the Witches some mark.... When
this has all been performed in accordance with the instructions of those
Masters who have initiated the Novice, the latter bind themselves by
fearful oaths never to worship the Blessed Sacrament; to heap curses on
all Saints and especially to abjure our Lady Immaculate; to trample under
foot and spit upon all holy images, the Cross and Relics of Saints; never
to use the Sacraments or Sacramentals unless with some magical end in
view; never to make a good confession to the priest, but always to keep
hidden their commerce with hell. In return the Demon promises that he
will at all times afford them prompt assistance; that he will accomplish
all their desires in this world and make them eternally happy after their
death. This solemn profession having been publicly made each novice has
assigned to him a several demon who is called _Magistellus_ (a familiar).
This familiar can assume either a male or a female shape; sometimes he
appears as a full-grown man, sometimes as a satyr; and if it is a woman
who has been received as a witch he generally assumes the form of a rank
buck-goat.
It is obvious that there is no question here of animal familiars, but
rather of evil intelligences who were, it is believed, able to assume
a body of flesh. The whole question is, perhaps, one of the most dark
and difficult connected with Witchcraft and magic, and the details of
these hideous connexions are such—for as the Saints attain to the purity
of angels, so, on the other hand, will the bond slaves of Satan defile
themselves with every kind of lewdness—that many writers have with an
undue diffidence and modesty dismissed the subject far too summarily
for the satisfaction of the serious inquirer. In the first place, we
may freely allow that many of these lubricities are to be ascribed to
hysteria and hallucinations, to nightmare and the imaginings of disease,
but when all deductions have been made—when we admit that in many cases
the incubus or succubus can but have been a human being, some agent of
the Grand Master of the district,—none the less enough remains from the
records of the trials to convince an unprejudiced mind that there was
a considerable substratum of fact in the confessions of the accused.
As Canon Ribet has said in his encyclopædic _La Mystique Divine_, a
work warmly approved by the great intellect of Leo XIII: “After what
we have learned from records and personal confessions we can scarcely
entertain any more doubts, and it is our plain duty to oppose, even if
it be but by a simple affirmation on our part, those numerous writers
who, either through presumption or rashness, treat these horrors as idle
talk or mere hallucination.”[29] Bizouard also in his authoritative
_Rapports de l’homme avec le démon_ writes of the incubus and succubus:
“These relations, far from being untrue, bear the strongest marks of
authenticity which can be given them by official proceedings regulated
and approved with all the caution and judgement brought to bear upon them
by enlightened and conscientious magistrates who, throughout all ages,
have been in a position to test plain facts.”[30]
It seems to me that if unshaken evidence means anything at all, if
the authority of the ablest and acutest intellects of all ages in all
countries is not to count for merest vapourings and fairy fantasies, the
possibility—I do not, thank God, say the frequency—of these demoniacal
connexions is not to be denied. Of course the mind already resolved
that such things cannot be is inconvincible even by demonstration,
and one can only fall back upon the sentence of S. Augustine: “Hanc
assidue immunditiam et tentare et efficere, plures talesque asseuerant,
ut hoc negare impudentiæ uideatur.”[31] In which place the holy doctor
explicitly declares: “Seeing it is so general a report, and so many
aver it either from their own experience or from others, that are of
indubitable honesty and credit, that the sylvans and fawns, commonly
called incubi, have often injured women, desiring and acting carnally
with them: and that certain devils whom the Gauls call _Duses_, do
continually practise this uncleanness, and tempt others to it, which is
affirmed by such persons, and with such confidence that it were impudence
to deny it.”
The learned William of Paris, confessor of Philip le Bel, lays down:
“That there exist such beings as are commonly called incubi or succubi
and that they indulge their burning lusts, and that children, as it
is freely acknowledged, can be born from them, is attested by the
unimpeachable and unshaken witness of many men and women who have been
filled with foul imaginings by them, and endured their lecherous assaults
and lewdness.”[32]
S. Thomas[33] and S. Bonaventura,[34] also, speak quite plainly on the
subject.
Francisco Suarez, the famous Jesuit theologian, writes with caution
but with directness: “This is the teaching on this point of S. Thomas,
who is generally followed by all other theologians.... The reason for
their opinion is this: Such an action considered in its entirety by
no means exceeds the natural powers of the demon, whilst the exercise
of such powers is wholly in accordance with the malice of the demon,
and it may well be permitted by God, owing to the sins of some men.
Therefore this teaching cannot be denied without many reservations and
exceptions. Wherefore S. Augustine has truly said, that inasmuch as
this doctrine of incubi and succubi is established by the opinion of
many who are experienced and learned, it were sheer impudence to deny
it.”[35] The Salmanticenses—that is to say, the authors of the courses
of Scholastic philosophy and theology, and of Moral theology, published
by the lecturers of the theological college of the Discalced Carmelites
at Salamanca—in their weighty _Theologia Moralis_[36] state: “Some deny
this, believing it impossible that demons should perform the carnal
act with human beings,” but they affirm, “None the less the opposite
opinion is most certain and must be followed.”[37] Charles René Billuart,
the celebrated Dominican, in his _Tractatus de Angelis_ expressly
declares: “The same evil spirit may serve as a succubus to a man, and
as an incubus to a woman.”[38] One of the most learned—if not the most
learned—of the popes, Benedict XIV, in his erudite work _De Seruorum
Dei Beatificatione_, treats this whole question at considerable length
with amplest detail and solid references, Liber IV, Pars i. c. 3.[39]
Commenting upon the passage “The sons of God went unto the daughters of
men” (Genesis vi. 4), the pontiff writes: “This passage has reference
to those Demons who are known as incubi and succubi.... It is true that
whilst nearly all authors admit the fact, some writers deny that there
can be offspring.... On the other hand, several writers assert that
connexion of this kind is possible and that children may be born from
it, nay, indeed, they tell us that this has taken place, although it
were done in some new and mysterious way which is ordinarily unknown to
man.”[40]
S. Alphonsus Liguori in his _Praxis confessariorum_, VII, n. 111, writes:
“Some deny that there are evil spirits, incubi and succubi; but writers
of authority for the most part assert that such is the case.”[41]
In his _Theologia Moralis_ he speaks quite precisely when defining the
technical nature of the sin witches commit in commerce with incubi.[42]
[43] This opinion is also that of Martino Bonacina,[44] and of Vincenzo
Filliucci, S.J.[45] “Busembaum has excellently observed that carnal
sins with an evil spirit fall under the head of the technical term
_bestialitas_.”[46] This is also the conclusion of Thomas Tamburini,
S.J. (1591-1675); Benjamin Elbel, O.F.M. (1690-1756);[47] Cardinal
Cajetan, O.P. (1469-1534) “the lamp of the Church”; Juan Azor, S.J.
(1535-1603); “in wisdom, in depth of learning and in gravity of judgement
taking deservedly high rank among theologians” (Gury); and many other
authorities.[48] What a penitent should say in confession is considered
by Monsignor Craisson, sometime Rector of the Grand Seminary of Valence
and Vicar-General of the diocese, in his Tractate _De Rebus Uenereis ad
usum Confessariorum_.[49] Jean-Baptiste Bouvier (1783-1854) the famous
bishop of Le Mans, in his _Dissertatio in Sextum Decalogi Præceptum_[50]
(p. 78) writes: “All theologians speak of ... evil spirits who appear in
the shape of a man, a woman, or even some animal. This is either a real
and actual presence, or the effect of imagination. They decide that this
sin ... incurs particular guilt which must be specifically confessed,
to wit an evil superstition whereof the essence is a compact with the
Devil. In this sin, therefore, we have two distinct kinds of malice, one
an offence against chastity; the other against our holy faith.”[51] Dom
Dominic Schram,[52] O.S.B., in his _Institutiones Theologiæ Mysticæ_
poses the following: “The inquiry is made whether a demon ... may thus
attack a man or woman, whose obsession would be suffered if the subject
were wholly bent upon obtaining perfection and walking the highest paths
of contemplation. Here we must distinguish the true and the false. It is
certain that—whatever doubters may say—there exist such demons, incubi
and succubi: and S. Augustine asserts (_The City of God_, Book XV,
chapter 23) that it is most rash to advance the contrary.... S. Thomas,
and most other theologians maintain this too. Wherefore the men or women
who suffer these impudicities are sinners who either invite demons ...
or who freely consent to demons when the evil spirits tempt them to
commit such abominations. That these and other abandoned wretches may be
violently assaulted by the demon we cannot doubt ... and I myself have
known several persons who although they were greatly troubled on account
of their crimes, and utterly loathed this foul intercourse with the
demon, were nevertheless compelled sorely against their will to endure
these assaults of Satan.”[53]
It will be seen that great Saints and scholars and all moral theologians
of importance affirm the possibility of commerce with incarnate evil
intelligences. The demonologists also range themselves in a solid phalanx
of assent. Hermann Thyraus, S.J.,[54] in his _De Spirituum apparitione_
says: “It is so rash and inept to deny these (things) that so to adopt
this attitude you must needs reject and spurn the most weighty and
considered judgements of most holy and authoritative writers, nay, you
must wage war upon man’s sense and consciousness, whilst at the same
time you expose your ignorance of the power of the Devil and the empery
evil spirits may obtain over man.”[55] Delrio, in his _Disquisitiones
Magicæ_, is even more emphatic: “So many sound authors and divines
have upheld this belief that to differ from them is mere obstinacy and
foolhardiness; for the Fathers, theologians, and all the wisest writers
on philosophy agree upon this matter, the truth of which is furthermore
proved by the experience of all ages and peoples.”[56] The erudite
Sprenger in the _Malleus Maleficarum_ has much the same.[57] John Nider,
O.P. (1380-1438) in his _Formicarius_, which may be described as a
treatise on the theological, philosophical, and social problems of his
day, with no small acumen remarks: “The reason why evil spirits appear as
incubi and succubi would seem to be that ... they inflict a double hurt
on man, both in his soul and body, and it is a supreme joy to devils thus
to injure humankind.”[58] Paul Grilland in his _De Sortilegio_ (Lyons,
1533) writes: “A demon assumes the form of the succubus.... This is the
explicit teaching of the theologians.”[59]
“It has often been known by most certain and actual experience that
women in spite of their resistance have been overpowered by demons.”
Such are the words of the famous Alfonso de Castro, O.F.M.,[60] whose
authoritative pronouncements upon Scripture carried such weight at the
Council of Trent, and who was Archbishop-elect of Compostella when he
died. Pierre Binsfeld, _De confessione maleficarum_, sums up: “This is a
most solemn and undoubted fact not only proved by actual experience, but
also by the opinion of all the ages, whatever some few doctors and legal
writers may suppose.”[61]
Gaspar Schott, S.J. (1608-66), physicist, doctor, and divine, “one
of the most learned men of his day, his simple life and deep piety
making him an object of veneration to the Protestants as well as to the
Catholics of Augsburg,” where his declining years were spent, lays down:
“So many writers of such high authority maintain this opinion, that it
were impossible to reject it.”[62] Bodin, de Lancre, Boguet, Görres,
Bizouard,[63] Gougenot des Mousseaux,[64] insist upon the same sad facts.
And above all sounds the solemn thunder of the Bull of Innocent VIII
announcing in no ambiguous phrase: “It has indeed come to our knowledge
and deeply grieved are we to hear it, that many persons of both sexes,
utterly forgetful of their souls’ salvation and straying far from the
Catholic Faith, have (had commerce) with evil spirits, both incubi and
succubi.”[65]
I have quoted many and great names, men of science, men of learning,
men of authority, men to whom the world yet looks up with admiration,
nay, with reverence and love, inasmuch as to-day it is difficult,
wellnigh inconceivable in most cases, for the modern mind to credit the
possibility of these dark deeds of devilry, these foul lusts of incubi
and succubi.[66] They seem to be some sick and loathly fantasy of dim
mediæval days shrieked out on the rack by a poor wretch crazed with agony
and fear, and written down in long-forgotten tomes by fanatics credulous
to childishness and more ignorant than savages. “Even if such horrors
ever could have taken place in the dark ages,”—those vague Dark Ages!—men
say, “they would never be permitted now.” And he who knows, the priest
sitting in the grated confessional, in whose ears are poured for shriving
the filth and folly of the world, sighs to himself, “Would God that in
truth it were so!” But the sceptics are happier in their singleness
and their simplicity, happy that they do not, will not, realize the
monstrous things that lie only just beneath the surface of our cracking
civilization.
It may not impertinently be inquired how demons or evil intelligences,
since they are pure spiritual beings, can not only assume human flesh
but perform the peculiarly carnal act of coition. Sinistrari, following
the opinion of Guazzo, says that either the evil intelligence is able to
animate the corpse of some human being, male or female, as the case may
be, or that, from the mixture of other materials he shapes for himself
a body endowed with motion, by means of which he is united to the human
being: “ex mixtione aliarum materiarum effingit sibi corpus, quod mouet,
et mediante quo homini unitur.”[67] In the first instance, advantage
might be taken, no doubt, of a person in a mediumistic trance or hypnotic
sleep. But the second explanation seems by far the more probable. Can
we not look to the phenomena observed in connexion with ectoplasm as
an adequate explanation of this? It must fairly be admitted that this
explanation is certainly borne out by the phenomena of the materializing
séance where physical forms which may be touched and handled are built
up and disintegrated again in a few moments of time. Miss Scatcherd,
in a symposium, _Survival_,[68] gives certain of her own experiences
that go far to prove the partial re-materialization of the dead by the
utilization of the material substance and ectoplasmic emanations of the
living. And if disembodied spirits can upon occasion, however rare, thus
materialize, why not evil intelligences whose efforts at corporeality are
urged and aided by the longing thoughts and concentrated will power of
those who eagerly seek them?
This explanation is further rendered the more probable by the recorded
fact that the incubus can assume the shape of some person whose embraces
the witch may desire.[69] Brignoli, in his _Alexicacon_, relates that
when he was at Bergamo in 1650, a young man, twenty-two years of age,
sought him out and made a long and ample confession. This youth avowed
that some months before, when he was in bed, the chamber door opened and
a maiden, Teresa, whom he loved, stealthily entered the room. To his
surprise she informed him that she had been driven from home and had
taken refuge with him. Although he more than suspected some delusion,
after a short while he consented to her solicitations and passed a night
of unbounded indulgence in her arms. Before dawn, however, the visitant
revealed the true nature of the deceit, and the young man realized he had
lain with a succubus. None the less such was his doting folly that the
same debauchery was repeated night after night, until struck with terror
and remorse, he sought the priest to confess and be delivered from this
abomination. “This monstrous connexion lasted several months; but at last
God delivered him by my humble means, and he was truly penitent for his
sins.”[70]
Not infrequently the Devil or the familiar assigned to the new witch
at the Sabbat when she was admitted must obviously have been a man,
one of the assembly, who either approached her in some demoniacal
disguise or else embraced her without any attempt at concealment of his
individuality, some lusty varlet who would afterwards hold himself at
her disposition. For we must always bear in mind that throughout these
witch-trials there is often much in the evidence which may be explained
by the agency of human beings; not that this essentially meliorates their
offences, for they were all bond-slaves of Satan, acting under his
direction and by the inspiration of hell. When the fiend has ministers
devoted to his service there is, perhaps, less need for his interposition
_in propria persona_. Howbeit, again and again in these cases we meet
with that uncanny quota, by no means insignificant and unimportant,
which seemingly admits of no solution save by the materialization of
evil intelligences of power. And detailed as is the evidence we possess,
it not unseldom becomes a matter of great difficulty, when we are
considering a particular case, to decide whether it be an instance of a
witch having had actual commerce and communion with the fiend, or whether
she was cheated by the devils, who mocked her, and allowing her to deem
herself in overt union with them, thus led the wretch on to misery and
death, duped as she was by the father of lies, sold for a delusion and by
profitless endeavour in evil. There are, of course, also many cases which
stand on the border-line, half hallucination, half reality. Sylvine de
la Plaine, a witch of twenty-three, who was condemned by the Parliament
of Paris, 17 May, 1616, was one of these.[71] Antoinette Brenichon, a
married woman, aged thirty, made a confession in almost exactly the same
words. Sylvine, her husband Barthélemi Minguet, and Brenichon were hanged
and their bodies burned.
Henri Boguet, a Judge of the High Court of Burgundy, in his _Discours des
Sorciers_, devotes chapter xii to “The carnal connexion of the Demons
with Witches and Sorcerers.” He discusses: 1. The Devil knows all the
Witches, & why. 2. He takes a female shape to pleasure the Sorcerers,
& why. 3. Other reasons why the Devil (has to do) with warlocks and
witches.[72] Françoise Secretain, Clauda Ianprost, Iaquema Paget, Antoine
Tornier, Antoine Gandillon, Clauda Ianguillaume, Thieuenne Paget, Rolande
du Vernois, Ianne Platet, Clauda Paget, and a number of other witches
confessed “their dealings with the Devil.”[73] Pierre Gandillon and his
son George also confessed to commerce with the Demon. Under his third
division Boguet lays down explicit statements on the matter.[74][75]
This unnatural physical coldness of the Demon is commented upon again and
again by witches at their trials in every country of Europe throughout
the centuries. I have already suggested that in some cases there was a
full materialization due to ectoplasmic emanations. Now, ectoplasm is
described[76] as being to the touch a cold and viscous mass comparable
to contact with a reptile, and this certainly seems to throw a flood of
light upon these details. It may be that here indeed we have a solution
of the whole mystery. In 1645 the widow Bash, a Suffolk witch, of Barton,
said that the Devil who appeared to her as a dark swarthy youth “was
colder than man.”[77] Isobel Goudie and Janet Breadheid, of the Auldearne
coven, 1662, both asserted that the Devil was “a meikle, blak, rock man,
werie cold; and I fand his nature als cold, a spring-well-water.”[78]
Isabel, who had been rebaptized at a Sabbat held one midnight in
Auldearne parish church, and to whom was assigned a familiar named the
Red Riever, albeit he was always clad in black, gave further details
of the Devil’s person: “He is abler for ws that way than any man can
be, onlie he ves heavie lyk a malt-sek; a hudg nature, uerie cold, as
yce.”[79]
In many of the cases of debauchery at Sabbats so freely and fully
confessed by the witches their partners were undoubtedly the males who
were present; the Grand Master, Officer, or President of the Assembly,
exercising the right to select first for his own pleasures such women as
he chose. This is clear from a passage in De Lancre: “The Devil at the
Sabbat performs marriages between the warlocks and witches, and joining
their hands, he pronounces aloud
Esta es buena parati
Esta parati lo toma.”[80]
And in many cases it is obvious that use must have been made of an
instrument, an artificial phallus employed.[81]
The artificial penis was a commonplace among the erotica of ancient
civilizations; there is abundant evidence of its use in Egypt, Assyria,
India, Mexico, all over the world. It has been found in tombs; frequently
was it to be seen as an ex-voto; in a slightly modified form it is yet
the favourite mascot of Southern Italy.[82] Often enough they do not
trouble to disguise the form. Aristophanes mentions the object in his
_Lysistrata_ (411 B.C.), and one of the most spirited dialogues (VI) of
Herodas (_circa_ 300-250 B.C.) is that where Koritto and Metro prattle
prettily of their βαύβων, whilst (in another mime, VII) the ladies visit
Kerdon the leather-worker who has fashioned this masterpiece. Truly
Herodas is as modern to-day in London or in Paris as he ever was those
centuries ago in the isle of Cos. _Fascinum_, explains the _Glossarium
Eroticum Linguæ Latinæ_,[83] “Penis fictitius ex corio, aut pannis
lineis uel sericis, quibus mulieres uirum mentiebantur. Antiquissima
libido, lesbiis et milesiis feminis præsertim usitatissima. _Fascinis_
illis abutebantur meretrices in tardos ascensores.” As one might expect
Petronius has something to say on the subject in a famous passage where
that savage old hag[84] Œnothea fairly frightened Encolpius with her
_scorteum fascinum_, upon which an erudite Spanish scholar, Don Antonio
Gonzalez de Salas, glosses: “Rubrum penem coriaceum ut Suidas exsertim
tradit uoce φαλλόι. Confecti & ex uaria materia uarios in usus olim
_phalli_ ex ligno, _ficu_ potissimum qui _ficulnei_ sæpius adpellati,
ex _ebore_, ex _auro_, ex _serico_, & ex _lineo panno_, quibus Lesbiæ
tribades abutebantur.”[85] And Tibullus, speaking of the image of
Priapus, has:[86]
Placet Priape? qui sub arboris coma
Soles sacrum reuincte pampino caput
Ruber sedere cum rubente fascino.
The Church, of course, condemned with unhesitating voice all such
practices, whether they were connected (in however slight a degree) with
Witchcraft or not. Arnobius, who regards all such offences as detestable,
in his _Aduersus Nationes_, V (_circa_ A.D. 296), relates a curiously
obscene anecdote which seems to point to the use of the fascinum by the
Galli, the priests of Berecynthian Cybele,[87] whose orgies were closely
akin to those of Dionysus. And the same story is related by Clement
of Alexandria Προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς Ἕλληνας (_circa_ A.D. 190); by Julius
Firmicus Maternus, _De Errore profanarum Religionum_ (A.D. 337-350);
by Nicetas (_ob._ _circa_ A.D. 414) in a commentary on S. Gregory of
Nanzianzus, oratio XXXIX; and by Theodoret (_ob._ _circa_ A.D. 457)
_Sermo octaua de Martyribus_. Obviously some very primitive rite is in
question.
Lactantius, in his _De Falsa Religione_ (_Diuinarum Institutionum_,
I, _circa_ A.D. 304), speaks of a phallic superstition, akin to the
fascinum, as favoured by the vestals, and implies it was notoriously
current in his day. That eminent father, S. Augustine, _De Ciuitate
Dei_, VII, 21, gives some account of the fascinum as used in the rites
of Bacchus, and when he is detailing the marriage ceremonies (VI,
9), he writes: “Sed quid hoc dicam, cum tibi sit et Priapus nimius
masculus, super cuius immanissimum et turpissimum fascinum sedere nona
nupta iubeatur, more honestissimo et religiosissimo matronarum.” The
historian, Evagrius Scholasticus (_ob._ post A.D. 504), in his _Historia
Ecclesiastica_ (XI, 2), says that the ritual of Priapus was quite open
in his day, and the fascinum widely known. Nicephorus Calixtus, a later
Byzantine, who died about the middle of the fourteenth century but whose
Chronicle closed with the death of Leo Philosophus, A.D. 911, speaks of
phallic ceremonies and of the use of ithy-phalli.[88]
Council after council forbade the use of the fascinum, and their very
insistence of prohibition show how deeply these abominations had taken
root. The Second Council of Châlon-sur-Saône (813) is quite plain and
unequivocal; so are the synods of de Mano (1247) and Tours (1396).
Burchard of Worms (died 25 Aug., 1025) in his famous _Decretum_ has:
“Fecisti quod quædam mulieres facere solent, ut facere quoddam molimen
aut mechinamentum in modum uirilis membri, ad mensuram tuæ uoluptatis,
et illud loco uerendorum tuorum, aut alterius, cum aliquibus ligaturis
colligares, et fornicationem faceres cum aliis mulierculis, uel aliæ
eodem instrumento, siue alio, tecum? Si fecisti, quinque annos per
legitimas ferias pœniteas.” And again: “Fecisti quod quædam mulieres
facere solent, ut iam supra dicto molimine uel alio aliquo machinamento,
tu ipsa in te solam faceres fornicationem? Si fecisti, unum annum per
legitimas ferias pœniteas.”
Other old Penitentials have: “Mulier qualicumque molimine aut per seipsum
aut cum altera fornicans, tres annos pœniteat; unum ex his in pane et
aqua.”
“Cum sanctimoniali per machinam fornicans annos septem pœniteat; duos ex
his in pane et aqua.”
“Mulia qualicumque molimine aut seipsam polluens, aut cum altera
fornicans, quatuor annos. Sanctimonialis femina cum sanctimoniali per
machinamentum polluta, septem annos.”
It is demonstrable, then, that artificial methods of coition, common
in pagan antiquity, have been unblushingly practised throughout all
the ages, as indeed they are at the present day, and that they have
been repeatedly banned and reprobated by the voice of the Church. This
very fact would recommend them to the favour of the Satanists, and
there can be no doubt that amid the dark debaucheries which celebrated
the Sabbats such practice was wellnigh universal. Yet when we sift
the evidence, detailed and exact, of the trials, we find there foul
and hideous mysteries of lust which neither human intercourse nor the
employ of a mechanical property can explain. Howbeit, the theologians
and the inquisitors are fully aware what unspeakable horror lurks in the
blackness beyond.
The animal familiar was quite distinct from the familiar in human shape.
In England particularly there is abundance of evidence concerning them,
and even to-day who pictures a witch with nut-cracker jaws, steeple hat,
red cloak, hobbling along on her crutch, without her big black cat beside
her? It is worth remark that in other countries the domestic animal
familiar is rare, and Bishop Francis Hutchinson even says: “I meet with
little mention of _Imps_ in any Country but ours, where the Law makes
the feeding, suckling, or rewarding of them to be Felony.”[89] Curiously
enough this familiar is most frequently met with in Essex, Suffolk, and
the Eastern counties. We find that animals of all kinds were regarded
as familiars; dogs, cats, ferrets, weasels, toads, rats, mice, birds,
hedgehogs, hares, even wasps, moths, bees, and flies. It is piteous
to think that in many cases some miserable creature who, shunned and
detested by her fellows, has sought friendship in the love of a cat or
a dog, whom she has fondled and lovingly fed with the best tit-bits she
could give, on the strength of this affection alone was dragged to the
gallows or the stake. But very frequently the witch did actually keep
some small animal which she nourished on a diet of milk and bread and
her own blood in order that she might divine by its means. The details
of this particular method of augury are by no means clear. Probably the
witch observed the gait of the animals, its action, the tones of its
voice easily interpreted to bear some fanciful meaning, and no doubt a
dog, or such a bird as a raven, a daw, could be taught tricks to impress
the simplicity of inquirers.
The exceeding importance of blood in life has doubtless been evident
to man from the earliest times. Man experienced a feeling of weakness
after the loss of blood, therefore blood was strength, life itself, and
throughout the ages blood has been considered to be of the greatest
therapeutic, and the profoundest magical, value. The few drops of
blood the witch gave her familiar were not only a reward, a renewal of
strength, but also they established a closer connexion between herself
and the dog, cat, or bird as the case might be. Blood formed a psychic
copula.
At the trial of Elizabeth Francis, Chelmsford, 1556, the accused
confessed that her familiar, given to her by her grandmother, a notorious
witch, was “in the lykenesse of a whyte spotted Catte,” and her
grandmother “taughte her to feede the sayde Catte with breade and mylke,
and she did so, also she taughte her to cal it by the name of Sattan and
to kepe it in a basket. Item that euery tyme that he did any thynge for
her, she sayde that he required a drop of bloude, which she gaue him
by prycking herselfe, sometime in one place and then in another.”[90]
It is superfluous to multiply instances; in the witch-trials of Essex,
particularly whilst Matthew Hopkins and his satellite John Stearne were
hot at work from 1645 to 1647 the animal familiar is mentioned again
and again in the records. As late as 1694 at Bury St. Edmunds, when
old Mother Munnings of Hartis, in Suffolk, was haled before Lord Chief
Justice Holt, it was asserted that she had an imp like a polecat. But
the judge pooh-poohed the evidence of a pack of clodpate rustics and
directed the jury to bring a verdict of Not Guilty.[91] “Upon particular
Enquiry,” says Hutchinson, “of several in or near the Town, I find most
are satisfied it was a very right Judgement.” In 1712 the familiar of
Jane Wenham, the witch of Walkerne, in Hertfordshire, was, at her trial,
stated to be a cat.
In Ford and Dekker’s _The Witch of Edmonton_ the familiar appears upon
the stage as a dog. This, of course, is directly taken from Henry
Goodcole’s pamphlet _The Wonderfull Discouerie of Elizabeth Sawyer_
(London, 4to, 1621), where in answer to this question the witch confesses
that the Devil came to her in the shape of a dog, and of two colours,
sometimes of black and sometimes of white. Some children had informed
the Court that they had seen her feeding imps, two white ferrets, with
white bread and milk, but this she steadfastly denied. In Goethe’s
_Faust_, Part I, Scene 2, Mephistopheles first appears to Faust outside
the city gates as a black poodle and accompanies him back to his study,
snarling and yelping when _In Principio_ is read. This is part of the
old legend. Manlius (1590), in the report of his conversation with
Melanchthon, quotes the latter as having said: “He [Faust] had a dog
with him, which was the devil.” Paolo Jovio relates[92] that the famous
Cornelius Agrippa always kept a demon attendant upon him in the shape
of a black dog. But John Weye, in his well-known work _De Præstigiis
Dæmonum_,[93] informs us that he had lived for years in daily attendance
upon Agrippa and that the black dog, _Monsieur_, respecting which such
strange stories were spread was a perfectly innocent animal which he
had often led about himself in its leash. Agrippa was much attached to
his dog, which used to eat off the table with him and of nights lie in
his bed. Since he was a profound scholar and a great recluse he never
troubled to contradict the idle gossip his neighbours clacked at window
and door. It is hardly surprising when one considers the hermetic works
which go under Agrippa’s name that even in his lifetime this great man
should have acquired the reputation of a mighty magician.
Grotesque names were generally given to the familiar: Lizabet; Verd-Joli;
Maître Persil (parsley); Verdelet; Martinet; Abrahel (a succubus); and
to animal familiars in England, Tissy; Grissell; Greedigut; Blackman;
Jezebel (a succubus); Ilemanzar; Jarmara; Pyewackett.
The familiar in human shape often companied with the witch and was
visible to clairvoyants. Thus in 1324 one of the accusations brought
against Lady Alice Kyteler was that a demon came to her “quandoque in
specie cuiusdam æthiopis cum duobus sociis.” The society met with at
Sabbats is not so easily shaken off as might be wished.
NOTES TO CHAPTER III.
[1] Two local Milanese Orders, the Apostolini of S. Barnabas and the
Congregation of S. Ambrose _ad Nemus_, were united by a Brief of
Sixtus V, 15 August, 1589. 11 January, 1606, Paul V approved the new
Constitutions. The Congregation retaining very few members was dissolved
by Innocent X in 1650. The habit was a tunic, broad scapular, and capuche
of chestnut brown. They were calced, and in the streets a wide cloak of
the same colour as the habit.
[2] E. Goldsmid, _Confessions of Witches under Torture_, Edinburgh, 1886.
[3] ... renoncer & renier son Createur, la saincte Vierge, les Saincts,
le Baptesme, pere, mere, parens, le ciel, la terre & tout ce qui est au
monde. _Tableau de l’Inconstance des mauvais Anges_, Paris, 1613.
[4] Je, Louis Gaufridi, renonce à tous les biens tant spirituels que
temporels qui me pourraient être conferés de la part de Dieu, de la
Vierge Marie, de tous les Saints et Saintes du Paradis, particulièrement
de mon patron Saint Jean-Baptiste, Saints Pierre, Paul, et François, et
me donne corps et âme à vous Lucifer ici présent, avec tous les biens que
je posséderai jamais (excepté la valeur des sacrements pour le regard de
ceux qui les recurent). Ainsi j’ai signé et attesté. _Confession faicte
par messire Loys Gaufridi, prestre en l’église des Accoules de Marseille,
prince des magiciens ... à deux pères capucins du couvent d’Aix, la
veille de Pasques le onzième avril mil six cent onze._ A Aix, par Jean
Tholozan, MVCXI.
[5] Je renonce entièrement de tout mon cœur, de toute ma force, et de
toute ma puissance à Dieu le Père, au Fils et au Saint-Esprit, à la très
Sainte Mère de Dieu, à tous les anges et spécialement à mon bon ange, à
la passion de Notre Seigneur Jésus Christ, à Son Sang, à tous les mérites
d’icelle, à ma part de Paradis, à toutes les inspirations que Dieu me
pourrait donner à l’avenir, à toutes les prières qu’on a faites et
pourrait faire pour moi.
[6] S. Pius V, Bull _Consueuerunt_, 17 September, 1569: Bl. Francisco de
Possadas, _Vida di Santo Domingo_, Madrid, 1721.
[7] In England at this date it was felony to possess an _Agnus Dei_.
[8] _Spondent quod ... ad conuentus nocturnos diligenter accedent._
[9] Coven, coeven, covine, curving, covey, are among the many spellings
of this word.
[10] R. Pitcairn, _Criminal Trials_, Edinburgh, 1833.
[11] _Examination of Certain Witches_, Philobiblion Society, London,
1863-4.
[12] Thomas Potts, _Discoverie of Witches_.
[13] ... qu’elle a veu souuent baptiser des enfans au sabbat, qu’elle
nous expliqua estre des enfans des sorcieres & non autres, lesquelles ont
accoutumé faire plustost baptiser leurs enfans au sabbat qu’en l’église.
Pierre de Lancre, _Tableau de l’Inconstance des mauvais Anges_, Paris,
1613.
[14] ... qu’on baptise des enfans au Sabbat auec du Cresme, que des
femmes apportent, & frottent la verge de quelque homme, & en font sortir
de la semence qu’elles amassent, and la meslent auec le Cresme, puis
mettant cela sur la teste de l’enfant en prononçant quelques paroles en
Latin. Contemporary tract, _Arrest & procedure faicte par le Lieutenant
Criminel d’Orleans contre Siluain Neuillon_.
[15] ... dit que sa mère le presenta (dit-on) en l’aage de trois ans
au Sabbat, à vn bouc, qu’on appelloit l’Aspic. Dit qu’il fut baptisé
au Sabbat, au Carrior d’Oliuet, auec quatorze ou quinze autres, & que
Jeanne Geraut porta du Chresme qui estoit jaune dans vn pot, & que
ledit Neuillon ietta de la semence dans ledit pot, & vn nommé Semelle,
& brouilloient cela auec vne petite cuilliere de bois, & puis leur en
mirent à tous sur la teste.
[16] J’advoue comme on baptise au Sabath et comme chacun sorcier fait vœu
particulièrement se donnant au diable et faire baptiser tous ses enfants
au Sabath (si faire se peut). Comme aussi l’on impose des noms à chacun
de ceux qui sont au Sabath, différents de leur propre nom. J’advoue
comme au baptême on se sert de l’eau, du soufre et du sel: le soufre
rend esclave le diable et le sel pour confirmer le baptême au service du
diable. J’advoue comme la forme et l’intention est de baptiser au nom
de Lucifer, de Belzebuth et autres diables faisant le signe de la croix
en le commençant par le travers et puis le poursuivant par les pieds et
finissant à la tête. Contemporary tract, _Confession faicte par messire
Loys Gaufridi, prestre en l’église des Accoules de Marseille, prince des
magiciens_, MVCXI.
[17] Anthony Hornech’s appendix to Glanvill’s _Sadducismus Triumphatus_,
London, 1681.
[18] _Newes from Scotland_, London, W. Wright, 1592.
[19] Præstant Dæmoni ... iuramentum super circulo in terram sculpto
fortasse quia cum circulus sit Symbolum Divinitatis, & terra scabellum
Dei sic certe uellet eos credere se esse Dominum cœli & terræ. Guazzo,
_Compendium_, I. 7, p. 38. I have corrected the text, which runs “uellet
eos credere eum esset ...”
[20] Even by so industrious a searcher as Miss M. A. Murray.
[21] Dressant quelque forme d’autel sur des colon̅es infernales, & sur
iceluy sans dire le _Confiteor_, ny l’_Alleluya_, tournant les feuillets
d’vn certain liure qu’il a en main, il commence à marmoter quelques mots
de la Messe. De Lancre, _Tableau_, p. 401.
[22] ... que le Sabbat se tenoit dans vne maison.... Vit aussi vn grand
homme noir à l’opposite de celuy de la cheminée, qui regardoit dans vn
liure, dont les feuillets estoient noirs & bleuds, & marmotait entre ses
dents sans entendre ce qu’il disoit, leuoit vne hostie noire, puis vn
calice de meschant estain tout crasseux.
[23] On dit la Messe, & que c’est le Diable qui la dit, qu’il a vne
Chasuble qui a vne croix: mais qu’elle n’a que trois barres: & tourne le
dos à l’Autel quand il veut leuer l’Hostie & le Calice, qui sont noirs, &
marmote dans vn liure, duquel le couuerture est toute velue comme d’vne
peau de loup, auec des feuillets blancs & rouges, d’autres noirs.
[24] On lisait la messe dans le livre des blasphèmes, qui servait de
canon et qu’on employait aussi dans les processions. Il renfermait les
plus horribles malédictions contre la sainte Trinité, le Saint Sacrement
de l’autel, les autres sacrements et les cérémonies de l’Eglise, et il
était écrit dans une langue qui m’était inconnue. Görres, _La Mystique
Divine_, trad., Charles Sainte-Foi, V. p. 230. There is a critical
recension of _Die christliche Mystik_ by Boretius and Krause, Hanover,
1893-7.
[25] _Newes from Scotland_, London, W. Wright (1592).
[26] Book III. p. 42.
[27] T. B. Howell, _State Trials_, London, 1816. IV, 844, 846.
[28] S. Caleb, _Les Messes Noires_, Paris, s.d.
[29] Après ce que nous ont appris les livres et les âmes, il ne nous est
pas permis de douter, et notre devoir est de combattre, ne fût-ce que
par un simple affirmation, les nombreux auteurs qui, effrontément ou
témérairement, traitent ces horreurs de fables ou d’hallucinations. _La
Mystique Divine_, nouvelle édition, Paris, 1902. III, pp. 269, 270.
[30] Ces histoires, loin d’être fabuleuses, ont toute l’authenticité
que peut leur donner une procédure instruite avec tout le zèle et le
talent que pouvaient y apporter des magistrats éclairés et consciencieux,
auxquels, à toutes les époques, les faits ne manquaient pas. Libre III.
c. 8.
[31] _De Ciuitate Dei_, xv. 23. I quote Healey’s translation, 1610.
[32] Esse eorum (qui usualiter incubi uel succubi nominantur) et
concupiscentiam eorum libidinosam, necnon et generationem ab eis esse
famosam atque credibilem fecerunt testimonia uirorum et mulierem qui
illusiones ipsorum, molestiasque et improbitates, necnon et uiolentias
libidinis ipsorum, se passos fuisse testificati sunt et adhuc asserunt.
_De Universitate_, Secunda Pars, III. 25.
[33] Si tamen ex coitu dæmonum aliqui interdum nascuntur, hoc non est per
semen ab eis decisum, aut a corporibus assumptis; sed per semen alicuius
hominis ad hoc acceptum, utpote quod idem dæmon qui est succubus ad
uirum, fiat incubus ad mulierem. _Summa_, Pars Prima, quæstio 1, a 3. at
6.
[34] Succumbunt uiris in specie mulieris, et ex eis semen pollutionis
suscipiunt, et quadam sagacitate ipsum in sua uirtute custodiunt,
et postmodum, Deo permittente, fiunt incubi et in uasa mulierum
transfundunt. _Sententiarum_, Liber II, d. viii, Pars Prima, a 3. q. 1.
[35] Docet S. Thomas ... et consentiunt communiter reliqui theologi....
Ratio huius sententiæ est quia tota illa actio non excedit potestatem
naturalem dæmonis, usus autem talis potestatis est ualde conformis prauæ
uoluntati dæmonis, et iuste a Deo permitti potest propter aliquorum
hominum peccata. Ergo non potest cum fundamento negari, et ideo non
immerito dixit Augustinus, cum de illo usu multis experientiis et
testimoniis constet, non sine impudentia negari. _De Angelis_, l. iv. c.
38. nn. 10, 11.
[36] Begun in 1665 by Fra Francisco de Jésus-Maria (_ob._ 1677).
[37] Negant aliqui, credentes impossible esse quod dæmones actum carnalem
cum hominibus exercere ualent. Sed tenenda est ut omnino certa contraria
sententia. _Theologia moralis_, Tr. xxi. c. 11. p. 10. nn. 180, 181.
[38] Idem dæmon qui est succubus ad uirum potest fieri incubus ad
mulierem. In his monumental _Summa S. Thomæ hodiernis Academiarum moribus
accomodata_, 19 vols. Liège, 1746-51.
[39] _De Seruonem Dei Beatificatione_, Romæ, MDCCXC, Cura Aloysii
Salvioni. Tom. VII. pp. 30-33.
[40] Quæ leguntur de Dæmonibus incubis et succubis.... Quamuis enim
prædicti concubitus communiter admittantur, sed generatis a nonnullis
excludetur ... alii, tamen, tum concubitum, tum generationem fieri
posse, et factam fuisse existimauerunt, modo quodam nouo et inusitate,
et hominibus incognito. Sancho de Avila, bishop of Murcia, Jaen, and
Siguenza, S. Teresa’s confessor (_ob._ December, 1625), in a commentary
on Exodus discusses the curious question: _An Angeli de se generare
possint?_
[41] Quidam hos dæmones incubos uel succubos dari negarunt; sed
communiter id affirmant auctores.
[42] Ad bestialitatem autem reuocatur peccatum cum dæmone succubo, uel
incubo; cui peccato superadditur malitia contra religionem; et præterea
etiam sodomiæ, adulterii, uel incestus, si affectu uiri, uel mulieris,
sodomitico, adulterino uel incestuoso cum dæmone coeat. Lib. III, Tract
iv. c. 2. Dubium 3.
[43] The word bestialitas has theologically a far wider signification
than the word _bestiality_. In 1222 a deacon, having been tried before
Archbishop Langton, was burned at Oxford on a charge of bestiality. He
had embraced Judaism in order to marry a Jewess. Professor E. P. Evans
remarks: “It seems rather odd that the Christian lawgivers should have
adopted the Jewish code against sexual intercourse with beasts, and
then enlarged it so as to include the Jews themselves. The question was
gravely discussed by jurists whether cohabitation of a Christian with
a Jewess, or _vice versa_, constitutes sodomy. Damhouder (_Prax. rer.
crim._ c. 96 n. 48) is of the opinion that it does, and Nicolaus Boer
(_Decis._, 136, n. 5) cites the case of a certain Johannes Alardus, or
Jean Alard, who kept a Jewess in his house in Paris and had several
children by her: he was convicted of sodomy on account of this relation
and burned, together with his paramour, ‘since coition with a Jewess
is precisely the same as if a man should copulate with a dog’ (_Dopl.
Theat._ ii, p. 157). Damhouder includes Turks and Saracens in the same
category.” _The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals_,
p. 152. London, 1906.
[44] An oblate of S. Charles, d. 1631.
[45] 1566-1622. His _Synopsis Theologiæ Moralis_ is a posthumous work,
published 1626.
[46] Bene ait Busembaum quod congressus cum dæmone reducitur ad peccatum
bestialitatis. Hermann Busembaum, S.J., 1600-1668.
[47] _Theologia moralis decalogalis et sacramentalis._ Venice, 1731.
[48] Præter autem crimen bestialitatis accedit scelus superstitionis. An
autem, qui coit cum dæmone apparente in forma conjugatæ, monialis, aut
consanguiniæ, peccet semper affective peccato adulterii, sacrilegii, aut
incestus? Uidetur uniuerse affirmare Busembaum cum aliis ut supra.
[49] Paris, 1883.
[50] A private manual only delivered to priests.
[51] Omnes theologi loquuntur de congressu cum dæmone in forma uiri,
mulieris aut alicuius bestiæ apparente, uel ut præsente per imaginationem
repræsentato, dicuntque tale peccatum ad genus bestialitatis reuocandum
esse, et specialem habere malitiam in confessione declarandam, scilicet
superstitionem in pacto cum dæmone consistentem. In hoc igitur scelere
duæ necessario reperiuntur malitiæ, una contra castitatem, et altera
contra uirtutem religionis. Si quis ad dæmonem sub specie uiri apparentem
affectu sodomitico accedat, tertia est species peccati, ut patet. Item si
sub specie consanguineæ aut mulieris conjugatæ fingatur apparere, adest
species incestus uel adulterii; si sub specie bestiæ, adest bestialitas.
[52] 1722-1797. He was a monk of Bans, near Bamberg.
[53] Quæri potest utrum dæmon per turpem concubitum possit uiolenter
opprimere marem uel feminam cuius obsessio permissa sit ob finem
perfectionis et contemplationis acquirendæ. Ut autem uera a falsis
separemus, sciendum est quod dæmones (incubi et succubi, quidquid dicant
increduli) uere dantur: immo hoc iuxta doctrinam Augustini (lib. 15, _de
Ciuit. Dei_, cap. 23) sine aliqua impudentia negati nequit: ... Hoc idem
asserit D. Thomas, aliique communiter. Hic uero, qui talia patiuntur,
sunt peccatores qui uel dæmones ad hos nefandos concubitus inuitant, uel
dæmonibus turpia hæc facinora intentantibus ultro assentiuntur. Quod
autem hi aliique praui homines possint per uiolentiam a dæmone opprimi
non dubitamus: ... et ego ipse plures inueni qui quamuis de admissis
sceleribus dolerent; et hoc nefarium diaboli commercium exsecrarentur,
tamen illud pati cogebantur inuiti. D. Schram, _Theologia Mystica_, I.
233, scholium 3, p. 408. Paris, 1848.
[54] 1532-1591. Provincial of the Jesuit province of the Rhine.
[55] Congressus hos dæmonum cum utriusque sexus hominibus negare, ita
temerarium est, ut necessarium sit simul conuellas et sanctissimorum et
grauissimorum hominum grauissimas sententias, et humanis sensibus bellum
indicas, et te ignorare fatearis quanta sit illorum spirituum in hæc
corpora uis utque potestas. C. x. n. 3.
[56] Placuit enim affirmatio axiomatis adeo multis, ut uerendum sit ne
pertinaciæ et audaciæ sit ab eis discedere; communis namque hæc est
sententia Patrum, theologorum et philosophorum doctiorum, et omnium fere
sæculorum atque nationum experientia comprobata. Liber II, quæstio 15.
[57] Asserere per incubos et succubos dæmones homines interdum procreari
in tantum est catholicum, quod eius oppositum asserere est nedum dictis
Sanctorum, sed et traditioni sacræ Scripturæ contrarium. _Pars prima,
quæstio_ 3.
[58] Causa autem quare dæmones se incubos faciunt uel succubos esse
uidetur, ut per luxuriæ uitium hominis utramque naturam lædant, corporis
uidelicet et animæ, qua in læsione præcipue delectari uidentur. This
divine was a prominent figure at the Council of Bâle. I have used the
Douai edition, 5 vols. 1602.
[59] Dæmon in forma succubi se transformat, et habet coitum cum uiro ...;
accedit ad mulierem in forma scilicet uiri.... Ita firmant communiter
Theologi.
[60] Certissima experientia sæpe cognitum est fœminas etiam inuitas a
dæmonibus fuisse compressas. _De justa hæreticorum punitione_, Lib. I. c.
xviii. Salamanca, 1547.
[61] Hæc est indubitata ueritas quam non solum experientia certissima
comprobat, sed etiam antiquitas confirmat, quidquid quidam medici et
iurisperiti opinentur. _Conclusio quinta._
[62] Affirmatiuam sententiam tam multi et graues tuentur auctores, ut
sine pertinaciæ nota ab illa discedi non posse uidatur.
[63] _Rapports de l’homme avec le démon._
[64] _Les hauts phénomènes de la magic._
[65] Sane ad nostrum, non sine ingenti molestia, peruenit auditum quod
... complures utriusque sexus personæ, propriæ salutis immemores et a
fide catholica deuiantes, cum dæmonibus incubis et succubis abuti.
[66] The Dean of S. Paul’s (_Christian Mysticism_, 1899, p. 265) urbanely
dismisses the whole subject with a quotation from Lucretius:
Hunc igitur terrorem animi, tenebrasque necessest
Non radii solis, neque lucida tela diei
Discutiant, sed naturæ species ratioque. (I. 147-49.)
These Fears, that darkness that o’erspreads our Souls,
Day can’t disperse, but those _eternal_ rules
Which from firm Premises true _Reason_ draws,
And a deep insight into _Natures_ laws. (_Creech._)
[67] _De Dæmonialitate_, 24.
[68] _Survival_, by various authors. Edited by Sir James Marchant,
K.B.E., LL.D. London and New York.
[69] So in Middleton’s _The Witch_, when the young gallant Almachildes
visits Hecate’s abode, she exclaims:
’Tis Almachildes—the fresh blood stirs in me—
The man that I have lusted to enjoy:
I’ve had him thrice in incubus already.
And in a previous scene Hecate has said:
What young man can we wish to pleasure us,
But we enjoy him in an incubus?
[70] Ce commerce monstreux dura plusiers mois; mais Dieu le délivra enfin
par mon entremise et il fit pénitence de ses péchés.
[71] Auoir esté au Sabbat; ne sçait comme elle y fut transportée ...
qu’au Sabbat le Diable cogneust charnellement toutes les femmes qui y
estoient, & elle aussi la marqua en deux endroicts.... Que le Diable
la cogneu vne autrefois, & qu’il a le membre faict comme un cheual, en
entrant est froid comme glace, iette la semence fort froide, & en sortant
la brusse comme si c’estoit du feu. Qu’elle receut tout mescontentement
que lors qu’il eut habité auec elle au Sabbat, vn autre homme qu’elle ne
cognoist fit le semblable en presence de tous, que son mary s’appercut
quand le Diable eut affaire auec elle, & que le Diable se vint coucher
auprez d’elle fort froid, luy mit la main sur le bas du ventre, dont
elle effrayée en ayant aduerty son mary, il luy dict ces mots, Taise-toy
folle, taise-toy. Que son mary vit quand le Diable la cogneust au Sabbat,
ensemble cet autre qui la cogneust après.
[72] L’accouplement du Demon avec la Sorcière et le Sorcier.... 1. Le
Demon cognoit toutes les Sorcieres, & pourquoy. 2. Il se met aussi en
femme pour les Sorciers, & pourquoy. 3. Autres raisons pour lesquelles le
Demon cognoit les Sorciers, & Sorcieres.
[73] ... qui Satan l’auoit cogneue charnellement.... Et pource que les
hommes ne cedent guieres aux femmes en lubricité.
[74] Il y a encor deux autres raisons pour lesquelles le Diable
s’accouple auec le Sorcier: La premiere, que l’offense est de tant plus
grande: Car si Dieu a en si grande haine l’accouplement du fidelle auec
l’infidele (Exodus xxxiv., Deuteronomy xxxvii.), à combien plus forte
raison détesterait celuy de l’homme auec le Diable. La seconde raison
est, que parce moyen la semence naturelle de l’homme se pert, d’où vient
que l’amitié qui est entre l’homme & la femme, se conuertit le plus
souuent en haine, qui est l’vn des plus grands mal-heurs, qui pourroient
arriuer au mariage.
[75] In chapter xiii Boguet decides: l’accouplement de Satan auec le
Sorcier est réel & non imaginaire.... Les vns donc s’en mocque̅t ... mais
les confessions des Sorciers qui j’ay eu en main, me font croire qu’il en
est quelque chose! dautant qu’ils ont tout recogneu, qu’ils auoient esté
couplez auec le Diable, & que la semence qu’il iettoit estoit fort froide
... Iaquema Paget adioustoit, qu’elle auoit empoigné plusiers fois auec
la main le me̅bre du Demon, qui la cognoissoit, & que le membre estoit
froid comme glace, lo̅g d’vn bon doigt, & moindre en grosseur que celuy
d’vn homme: Tieuenne Paget, & Antoine Tornier adioustoient aussi, que le
membre de leurs Demons estoit long, & gros comme l’vn de leurs doigts.
[76] Heuze, _Do the Dead Live?_ 1923.
[77] John Stearne’s _Confirmation and Discovery of Witchcraft_.
[78] Robert Pitcairn, _Criminal Trials_, Edinburgh, 1833, III. pp. 603,
611, 617.
[79] _Idem._
[80] Le Diable faict des mariages au Sabbat entre les Sorciers &
Sorcieres, & leur joignant les mains, il leur diet hautement
Esta es buena parati
Esta parati lo toma.
Mais auant qu’ils couchent ensemble, il s’accouple auec elles, oste la
virginité des filles. Lancre, _Tableau de l’Inconstance_, p. 132.
[81] This has been emphasized by Miss Murray in _The Witch-Cult in
Western Europe_ (“The Rites”), but she did not realize that the fascinum
was well-known to demonologists, and the use thereof severely reprobated
_sub mortali_ by the Church.
[82] See G. Belluci, _Amuletti Italiani antichi e contemporanei_; also
_Amuletti italiani contemporanei_. Perugia, 1898.
[83] Auctore P.P. Parisiis, MDCCCXXVI.
[84] Crudelissima anus. _Petronii Satirae._ 138. p. 105. Tertium edidit
Buecheler. Berlin. 1895.
[85] _Titi Petronii Satyricon_, Concinnante Michaele Hadrianide.
Amstelodami, 1669. Amongst the figures on the engraved title-page is a
witch mounted on her broomstick.
[86] _Priapeia._ LXXXIV.
[87] For whose impudicities see S. Augustine, _De Ciuitate Dei_, VII. 26.
[88] Priapi lignei in honorem Bacchi.
[89] Francis Hutchinson, _Historical Essay_, London, 1718.
[90] _Witches at Chelmsford_, Philobiblion Society, VIII.
[91] Francis Hutchinson, _Historical Essay on Witchcraft_, 1718.
[92] _Elogia Doctorum Uirorum_, c. 101.
[93] Liber II.; c. v.; 11, 12.
CHAPTER IV
THE SABBAT
The Assemblies of the witches differed very much from each other in an
almost infinite number of ways. On certain ancient anniversaries the
meeting was always particularly solemn, with as large an attendance as
possible, when all who belonged to the infernal cult would be required
to present themselves and punishment was meted out to those who proved
slack and slow; at other times these gatherings would be occasional,
resorted to by the company who resided within a certain restricted area,
it might be by only one coven of thirteen, it might be by a few more, as
opportunity served. There were also, as is to be expected, variations
proper to each country, and a seemingly endless number of local
peculiarities. There does not clearly appear to be any formal and fair
order in the ceremonies throughout, nor should we look for this, seeing
that the liturgy of darkness is of its essence opposed to the comely
worship of God, wherein, as the Apostle bids, all things are to be done
“decently and in order.”[1] The ceremonial of hell, sufficiently complex,
obscure, and obscene, is even more confused in the witches’ narratives
by a host of adventitious circumstances, often contradictory, nay, even
mutually exclusive, and so although we can piece together a very complete
picture of their orgies, there are some details which must yet remain
unexplained, incomprehensible, and perhaps wholly irrational and absurd.
“Le burlesque s’y mêle à l’horrible, et les puérilités aux abominations.”
(Ribet, _La Mystique Divine_, III. 2. Les Parodies Diaboliques.) (Mere
clowning and japery are mixed up with circumstances of extremest horror;
childishness and folly with loathly abominations.) In the lesser
Assemblies much, no doubt, depended upon the fickle whim and unwholesome
caprice of the officer or president at the moment. The conduct of the
more important Assemblies was to a certain extent regularized and more
or less loosely ran upon traditional lines. The name Sabbat may be held
to cover every kind of gathering,[2] although it must continually be
borne in mind that a Sabbat ranges from comparative simplicity, the
secret rendezvous of some half a dozen wretches devoted to the fiend,
to a large and crowded congregation presided over by incarnate evil
intelligences, a mob outvying the very demons in malice, blasphemy, and
revolt, the true face of pandemonium on earth.
The derivation of the word Sabbat does not seem to be exactly
established. It is perhaps superfluous to point out that it has nothing
to do with the number seven, and is wholly unconnected with the Jewish
festival. Sainte-Croix and Alfred Maury[3] are agreed to derive it from
the debased Bacchanalia. Sabazius (Σαβάζιος) was a Phrygian deity,
sometimes identified with Zeus, sometimes with Dionysus, but who was
generally regarded as the patron of licentiousness and worshipped with
frantic debaucheries. He is a patron of the ribald old Syrian eunuch
in Apuleius: “omnipotens et omniparens Dea Syria et sanctus Sabadius
et Bellona et Mater Idaea (ac) cum suo Adone Venus domina”[4] are the
deities whom Philebus invokes to avenge him of the mocking crier.
Σαβαζεῖν is found in the Scholiast on Aristophane (_Birds_, 874), and
σαβαῖ, a Bacchic yell, occurs in a fragment of the _Baptæ_ of Eupolis;
the fuller phrase εὐοῖ Σαβοῖ being reported by Strabo the geographer. The
modern Greeks still call a madman ζαβός. But Littré entirely rejects any
such facile etymology. “Attempts have been made to trace the etymology of
the Sabbat, the witches’ assembly, from _Sabazies_; but the formation of
the word does not allow it; besides, in the Middle Ages, what did they
know about _Sabazies_?”[5]
Even the seasons of the principal Assemblies of the year differ in
various countries. Throughout the greater part of Western Europe one of
the chief of these was the Eve of May Day, 30 April;[6] in Germany[7]
famous as Die Walpurgis-Nacht. S. Walburga (Walpurgis; Waltpurde; at
Perche Gauburge; in other parts of France Vaubourg or Falbourg) was born
in Devonshire _circa_ 710. She was the daughter of S. Richard, one of the
under-kings of the West Saxons, who married a sister of S. Boniface. In
748 Walburga, who was then a nun of Wimbourne, went over to Germany to
found claustral life in that country. After a life of surpassing holiness
she died at Heidenheim, 25 February, 777. Her cultus began immediately,
and about 870 her relics were translated to Eichstadt, where the
Benedictine convent which has charge of the sacred shrine still happily
flourishes. S. Walburga was formerly one of the most popular Saints in
England, as well as in Germany and the Low Countries. She is patroness of
Eichstadt, Oudenarde, Furnes, Groningen, Weilburg, Zutphen, and Antwerp,
where until the Roman office was adopted they celebrated her feast four
times a year. In the Roman martyrology she is commemorated on 1 May, but
in the Monastic Kalendar on 25 February. The first of May was the ancient
festival of the Druids, when they offered sacrifices upon their sacred
mountains and kindled their May-fires. These magic observances were
appropriately continued by the witches of a later date. There was not a
hill-top in Finland, so the peasant believed, which at midnight on the
last day of April was not thronged by demons and sorcerers.
The second witches’ festival was the Eve of S. John Baptist, 23 June.
Then were the S. John’s fires lit, a custom in certain regions still
prevailing.[8] In olden times the Feast was distinguished like Christmas
with three Masses; the first at midnight recalled his mission as
Precursor, the second at dawn commemorated the baptism he confessed, the
third honoured his sanctity.
Other Grand Sabbat days, particularly in Belgium and Germany, were S.
Thomas’ Day (21 December) and a date, which seems to have been movable,
shortly after Christmas. In Britain we also find Candlemas (2 February),
Allhallowe’en (31 October), and Lammas (1 August), mentioned in the
trials. Wright, _Narratives of Sorcery and Magic_ (I. p. 141), further
specifies S. Bartholomew’s Eve, but although a Sabbat may have been held
on this day, it would seem to be an exceptional or purely local use.
During a famous trial held in the winter of 1610 at Logrono, a town of
Old Castille, by the Apostolic Inquisitor, Alonso Becerra Holguin, an
Alcantarine friar, with his two assessors Juen Valle Alvarado and Alonso
de Salasar y Frias, a number of Navarrese witches confessed that the
chief Sabbats were usually held at Zugarramurdi and Berroscoberro in the
Basque districts, and that the days were fixed, being the vigils of the
“nine principal feasts of the year,” namely, Easter, Epiphany, Ascension
Day, the Purification and Nativity of Our Lady, the Assumption, Corpus
Christi, All Saints, and the major festival of S. John Baptist (24 June).
It is certainly curious to find no mention of Christmas and Pentecost
in this list, but throughout the whole of the process not one of the
accused—and we have their evidence in fullest detail—named either of
these two solemnities as being chosen for the infernal rendezvous.[9]
Satan is, as Boguet aptly says, “Singe de Dieu en tout,”[10] and it
became common to hold a General Sabbat about the time of the high
Christian festivals in evil mockery of these holy solemnities, and he
precisely asserts that the Sabbat “se tient encor aux festes les plus
solemnelles de l’année.”[11] (Is still held on the greatest festivals
of the year.) So he records the confession of Antide Colas (1598), who
“auoit esté au Sabbat à vn chacun bon iour de l’an, comme à Noel, à
Pasques, à la feste de Dieu.” The Lancashire witches met on Good Friday;
and in the second instance (1633) on All Saints’ Day; the witches of
Kinross (1662) held an assembly on the feast of Scotland’s Patron, S.
Andrew, 30 November, termed “S. Andrew’s Day at Yule,” to distinguish it
from the secondary Feast of the Translation of S. Andrew, 9 May. The New
England witches were wont to celebrate their chief Sabbat at Christmas.
In many parts of Europe where the Feast of S. George is solemnized with
high honour and holiday the vigil (22 April) is the Great Sabbat of
the year. The Huzulo of the Carpathians believe that then every evil
thing has power and witches are most dangerous. Not a Bulgarian or
Roumanian farmer but closes up each door and fastens close each window at
nightfall, putting sharp thorn-bushes and brambles on the lintels, new
turf on the sills, so that no demon nor hag may find entry there.
The Grand Sabbats were naturally held in a great variety of places,
whilst the lesser Sabbats could be easily assembled in an even larger
number of spots, which might be convenient to the coven of that district,
a field near a village, a wood, a tor, a valley, an open waste beneath
some blasted oak, a cemetery, a ruined building, some solitary chapel or
semi-deserted church, sometimes a house belonging to one of the initiates.
It was advisable that the selected locality should be remote and deserted
to obviate any chance of espionage or casual interruption, and in many
provinces some wild ill-omened gully or lone hill-top was shudderingly
marked as the notorious haunt of witches and their fiends. De Lancre says
that the Grand Sabbat must be held near a stream, lake, or water of some
kind,[12] and Bodin adds: “The places where Sorcerers meet are remarkable
and generally distinguished by some trees, or even a cross.”[13] These
ancient cromlechs and granite dolmens, the stones of the Marais de Dol,
the monolith that lies between Seny and Ellemelle (Candroz), even the
market-crosses of sleepy old towns and English villages, were among the
favourite rendezvous of the pythons and warlocks of a whole countryside.
On one occasion, which seems exceptional, a Sabbat was held in the
very heart of the city of Bordeaux. Throughout Germany the Blocksburg
or the Brocken, the highest peak of the Hartz Mountains, was the great
meeting-place of the witches, some of whom, it was said, came from
distant Lapland and Norway to forgather there. But local Blocksburgs
existed, or rather hills so called, especially in Pomerania, which
boasted two or three such crags. The sorcerers of Corrières held their
Sabbat at a deserted spot, turning off the highway near Combes; the
witches of la Mouille in a tumbledown house, which had once belonged to
religious; the Gandillons and their coven, who were brought to justice
in June, 1598, met at Fontenelles, a forsaken and haunted spot near
the village of Nezar. Dr. Fian and his associates (1591) “upon the
night of Allhollen-Even” assembled at “the kirke of North-Berrick in
Lowthian.” Silvain Nevillon, who was executed at Orleans, 4 February,
1615, confessed “que le Sabbat se tenoit dans vne maison,” and the full
details he gave shows this to have been a large château, no doubt the
home of some wealthy local magnate, where above two hundred persons could
assemble. Isobel Young, Christian Grinton, and two or three other witches
entertained the Devil in Young’s house in 1629. Alexander Hamilton,
a “known warlock” executed at Edinburgh in 1630, confessed that “the
pannel took him one night to a den betwixt Niddrie and Edmiston, where
the devill had trysted hir.” Helen Guthrie, a Forfar witch, and her
coven frequented a churchyard, where they met a demon, and on another
occasion they “went to Mary Rynd’s house, and sat doune together at the
table ... and made them selfes mirrie, and the divell made much of them
all” (1661). The Lancashire witches often held their local Sabbat at
Malking Tower. From the confession of the Swedish witches (1670) at Mohra
and Elfdale they assembled at a spot called _Blockula_ “scituated in a
delicate large Meadow.... The place or house they met at, had before it
a Gate painted with divers colours; ... In a huge large Room of this
House, they said, there stood a very long Table, at which the Witches did
sit down; And that hard by this Room was another Chamber in which there
were very lovely and delicate Beds.”[14] Obviously a fine Swedish country
house, perhaps belonging to a wealthy witch, and in the minds of the
poorer members of the gang it presently became imaginatively exaggerated
and described.
Christian Stridtheckh _De Sagis_ (XL) writes: “They have different
rendezvous in different districts; yet their meetings are generally held
in wooded spots, or on mountains, or in caves, and any places which are
far from the usual haunts of men. Mela, Book III, chapter 44, mentions
Mount Atlas; _de Vaulx_, a warlock executed at Etaples in 1603, confessed
that the witches of the Low Countries were wont most frequently to meet
in some spot in the province of Utrecht. In our own country, the Mountain
of the Bructeri, which some call Melibœus, in the duchy of Brunswick, is
known and notorious as the haunt of witches. In the common tongue this
Mountain is called the _Blocksberg_ or _Heweberg_, _Brockersburg_ or
_Vogelsberg_, as _Ortelius_ notes in his _Thesaurus Geographicus_.”[15]
The day of the week whereon a Sabbat was held differed in the various
districts and countries, although Friday seems to have been most
generally favoured. There is indeed an accumulation of evidence for every
night of the week save Saturday and Sunday. De Lancre records that in
the Basses-Pyrénées “their usual rendezvous is the spot known as Lane du
Bouc, in the Basque tongue _Aquelarre de verros, prado del Cabron_, &
there the Sorcerers assemble to worship their master on three particular
nights, Monday, Wednesday, Friday.”[16] Boguet says that the day of
the Sabbat varied, but usually a Thursday night was preferred.[17] In
England it was stated that the “Solemn appointments, and meetings ... are
ordinarily on Tuesday or Wednesday night.”[18] Saturday was, however,
particularly avoided as being the day sacred to the immaculate Mother of
God.
It is true that the hysterical and obscene ravings of Maria de Sains, a
witness concerned in the trial of Louis Gaufridi and who was examined
on 17-19 May, 1614, assert that the Sabbat used to be held on every day
of the week. Wednesday and Friday were the Sabbats of blasphemy and the
black ass. To the other days the most hideous abominations of which
humanity is capable were allotted. The woman was obviously sexually
deranged, affected with mania blasphematoria and coprolalia.
Night was almost invariably the time for the Sabbat, although, as Delrio
says, there is no actual reason why these evil rites should not be
performed at noon, for the Psalmist speaks of “the terror of the night,”
the “business that walketh about in the dark,” and of “the noonday
devil.”[19] (“Non timebis a timore nocturno ... a negotio perambulante
in tenebris; ab incursu et dæmonio meridiano.”) And so Delrio very aptly
writes: “Their assemblies generally are held at dead of night when the
Powers of Darkness reign; or, sometimes, at high noon, even as the
Psalmist saith, when he speaks of ‘the noonday devil.’ The nights they
prefer are Monday and Thursday.”[20]
The time at which these Sabbats began was generally upon the stroke
of midnight. “Les Sorciers,” says Boguet, “vont enuiron la minuict
au Sabbat.”[21] It may be remembered that in the _Metamorphoseon_ of
Apuleius, I, xi, the hags attack Socrates at night “circa tertiam
ferme uigiliam.” Agnes Sampson, “a famous witch”—as Hume of Godscroft
in his Account of Archibald, ninth Earl of Angus, calls her—commonly
known as the wise wife of Keith, who made a prominent figure[22] in
the Fian trials, 1590, confessed that the Devil met her, “being alone,
and commanded her to be at North-Berwick Kirk the next night,” and
accordingly she made her way there as she was bid “and lighted at the
Kirk-yard, or a little before she came to it, about eleven hours at
even.”[23] In this case, however, the Sabbat was preceded by a dance
of nearly one hundred persons, and so probably did not commence until
midnight. Thomas Leyis, Issobell Coky, Helen Fraser, Bessie Thorn, and
the rest of the Aberdeen witches, thirteen of whom were executed in
1597, and seven more banished, generally met “betuixt tuell & ane houris
at nycht.”[24] Boguet notes that in 1598 the witch Françoise Secretain
“adioustoit qu’elle alloit tousiours au Sabbat enuiron la minuit, &
beaucoup d’autres sorciers, que i’ay eu en main, ont dit le mesme.” In
1600 Anna Mauczin of Tubingen confessed that she had taken part in witch
gatherings which she dubbed _Hochzeiten_. They seem to have been held by
a well just outside the upper gate of Rotenburg, and her evidence insists
upon “midnight dances” and revelling. A Scotch witch, Marie Lamont, “a
young woman of the adge of Eighteen Yeares, dwelling in the parish of
Innerkip” on 4 March, 1662, confessed most ingenuously “that when shee
had been at a mietting sine Zowle last, with other witches, in the night,
the devill convoyed her home in the dawing.”[25]
The Sabbat lasted till cock-crow, before which time none of the assembly
was suffered to withdraw, and the advowal of Louis Gaufridi, executed at
Aix, 1610, seems somewhat singular: “I was conveyed to the place where
the Sabbat was to be held, and I remained there sometimes one, two,
three, or four hours, for the most part just as I felt inclined.”[26]
That the crowing of a cock dissolves enchantments is a tradition of
extremest antiquity. The Jews believed that the clapping of a cock’s
wings will make the power of demons ineffectual and break magic spells.
So Prudentius sang: “They say that the night-wandering demons, who
rejoice in dunnest shades, at the crowing of the cock tremble and scatter
in sore affright.”[27] The rites of Satan ceased because the Holy
Office of the Church began. In the time of S. Benedict Matins and Lauds
were recited at dawn and were actually often known as _Gallicinium_,
Cock-crow. In the exquisite poetry of S. Ambrose, which is chanted at
Sunday Lauds, the praises of the cock are beautifully sung:
Light of our darksome journey here,
With days dividing night from night!
Loud crows the dawn’s shrill harbinger,
And wakens up the sunbeams bright.
Forthwith at this, the darkness chill
Retreats before the star of morn;
And from their busy schemes of ill
The vagrant crews of night return.
Fresh hope, at this, the sailor cheers;
The waves their stormy strife allay;
The Church’s Rock at this, in tears,
Hastens to wash his guilt away.
Arise ye, then, with one accord!
No longer wrapt in slumber lie;
The cock rebukes all who their Lord
By sloth neglect, by sin deny.
At his clear cry joy springs afresh;
Health courses through the sick man’s veins;
The dagger glides into its sheath;
The fallen soul her faith regains.[28]
A witch named Latoma confessed to Nicolas Remy that cocks were most
hateful to all sorcerers. That bird is the herald of dawn, he arouses men
to the worship of God; and many an odious sin which darkness shrouds will
be revealed in the light of the coming day. At the hour of the Nativity,
that most blessed time, the cocks crew all night long. A cock crew
lustily at the Resurrection. Hence is the cock placed upon the steeple
of churches. Pliny and Ælian tell us that a lion fears the cock; so the
Devil “leo rugiens” flees at cock-crow.
“Le coq,” says De Lancre, “s’oyt par fois es Sabbats sonna̅t la retraicte
aux Sorciers.”[29]
The witch resorted to the Sabbat in various manners. If it were a
question of attending a local assembly when, at most, a mile or two had
to be traversed, the company would go on foot. Very often the distance
was even less, for it should be remembered that in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, and indeed, as a matter of fact, up to a quite
recent date, when the wayfarer had gone a few steps outside the gates
of a town or beyond the last house in the village he was enfolded in
darkness, entirely solitary, remote, eloined. If footmen with flambeaux,
at least the humbler linkboy, were essential attendants after nightfall
in the streets of the world’s great cities, London, Rome, Paris,
Madrid,[30] how black with shadows, dangerous, and utterly lonesome
was the pathless countryside! Not infrequently the witches of necessity
carried lanterns to light them on their journey to the Sabbat. The
learned Bartolomeo de Spina, O.P.,[31] in his _Tractatus de Strigibus
et Lamiis_ (Venice, 1533), writes that a certain peasant, who lived at
Clavica Malaguzzi, in the district of Mirandola, having occasion to rise
very early one morning and drive to a neighbouring village, found himself
at three o’clock, before daybreak, crossing a waste tract of considerable
extent which lay between him and his destination. In the distance he
suddenly caught sight of what seemed to be numerous fires flitting to
and fro, and as he drew nearer he saw that these were none other than
large lanthorns held by a bevy of persons who were moving here and there
in the mazes of a fantastic dance, whilst others, as at a rustic picnic,
were seated partaking of dainties and drinking stoups of wine, what time
a harsh music, like the scream of a cornemuse, droned through the air.
Curiously no word was spoken, the company whirled and pirouetted, ate
and drank, in strange and significant silence. Perceiving that many,
unabashed, were giving themselves up to the wildest debauchery and
publicly performing the sexual act with every circumstance of indecency,
the horrified onlooker realized that he was witnessing the revels of
the Sabbat. Crossing himself fervently and uttering a prayer he drove
as fast as possible from the accursed spot, not, however, before he had
recognized some of the company as notorious evil-doers and persons living
in the vicinity who were already under grave suspicion of sorcery. The
witches must have remarked his presence, but they seem to have ignored
him and not even to have attempted pursuit. In another instance Fra
Paolo de Caspan, a Dominican of great reputation for piety and learning,
reports that Antonio de Palavisini, the parish priest of Caspan in the
Valtellina, a territory infected with warlocks, most solemnly affirmed
that when going before daybreak to say an early Mass at a shrine hard by
the village he had seen through clearings in the wood an assembly of men
and women furnished with lanterns, who were seated in a circle and whose
actions left no doubt that they were witches engaged in abominable rites.
In both the above cases the lanterns were not required in the ceremonies
of the Sabbat, and they must have been carried for the purely practical
purpose of affording light.
Very often when going to a local Sabbat the coven of witches used to
meet just beyond the village and make their way to the appointed spot in
a body for mutual help and security. This is pointed out by Bernard of
Como, a famous scholar, who says: “When they are to go to some spot hard
by they proceed thither on foot cheerily conversing as they walk.”[32]
The fact that the dark initiates walked to the Sabbat is frequently
mentioned in the trials. Boguet, who is most exact in detail, writes:
“Sorcerers, nevertheless, sometimes walk to the Sabbat, and this is
generally the case when the spot where they are to assemble does not lie
very far from their dwellings.”[33] And in the interrogatory, 17 May,
1616, of Barthélemi Minguet of Brécy, a young fellow of twenty-five,
accused with seventeen more, we have: “He was then asked in what place
the Sabbat was held the last time he was present there.
“He replied that it was in the direction of Billcron, at a cross-road
which is on the high-road leading to Aix, in the Parish of Saint
Soulange. He was asked how he proceeded thither. He replied that he
walked to the place.”[34]
When Catharine Oswald of Niddrie (1625) one night took Alexander Hamilton
“a known warlock” “to a den betwixt Niddrie and Edmiston, where the
devill had trysted hir,” it is obvious that the couple walked there
together.
On one occasion the truly subtle point was raised whether those who
walked to the Sabbat were as guilty as those who were conveyed thither by
the Devil. But De Lancre decides: “It is truly as criminal & abominable
for a Sorcerer to go to the Sabbat on foot as to be voluntarily conveyed
thither by the Devil.”[35]
Major Weir and his sister seem to have gone to a meeting with the
Devil in a coach and six horses when they thus drove from Edinburgh to
Musselburgh and back again on 7 September, 1648. So the woman confessed
in prison, and added “that she and her brother had made a compact with
the devil.”[36]
[Illustration: PLATE IV
OFF TO THE SABBAT. Queverdo
[_face p. 120_]
Agnes Sampson, the famous witch of North Berwick (1590), confessed “that
the _Devil_ in mans lickness met her going out to the fields from her
own house at _Keith_, betwixt five and six at even, being alone and
commanded her to be at _North-berwick_ Kirk the next night. To which
place she came on horse-back, conveyed by her Good-son, called Iohn
Couper.”[37] The Swedish witches (1669) who carried children off to
Blockula “set them upon a _Beast_ of the _Devil’s_ providing, and then
they rid away.” One boy confessed that “to perform the Journey, he took
his own Fathers horse out of the Meadow, where it was feeding.”[38] Upon
his return one of the coven let the horse graze in her own pasture, and
here the boy’s father found it the next day.
In the popular imagination the witch is always associated with the
broomstick, employed by her to fly in wild career through mid-air. This
belief seems almost universal, of all times and climes. The broomstick
is, of course, closely connected with the magic wand or staff which was
considered equally serviceable for purposes of equitation. The wood
whence it was fashioned was often from the hazel-tree, witch-hazel,
although in De Lancre’s day the sorcerers of Southern France favoured the
“Souhandourra”—_Cornus sanguinea_, dog-wood. Mid hurricane and tempest,
in the very heart of the dark storm, the convoy of witches, straddling
their broomsticks, sped swiftly along to the Sabbat, their yells and
hideous laughter sounding louder than the crash of elements and mingling
in fearsome discord with the frantic pipe of the gale.
There is a very important reference to these beliefs from the pen of the
famous and erudite Benedictine Abbot, Regino of Prüm (A.D. 906), who in
his weighty _De ecclesiasticis disciplinis_ writes: “This too must by
no means be passed over that certain utterly abandoned women, turning
aside to follow Satan, being seduced by the illusions and phantasmical
shows of demons firmly 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 those silent hours they
fly over vast tracts of country and obey her as their mistress, whilst
on certain other nights they are summoned to do her homage and pay
her service.”[39] The witches rode sometimes upon a besom or a stick,
sometimes upon an animal, and the excursion through the air was generally
preceded by an unction with a magic ointment. Various recipes are given
for the ointment, and it is interesting to note that they contain
deadly poisons: aconite, belladonna, and hemlock.[40] Although these
unguents may in certain circumstances be capable of producing definite
physiological results, it is Delrio who best sums up the reasons for
their use: “The Demon is able to convey them to the Sabbat without the
use of any unguent, and often he does so. But for several reasons he
prefers that they should anoint themselves. Sometimes when the witches
seem afraid it serves to encourage them. When they are young and tender
they will thus be better able to bear the hateful embrace of Satan who
has assumed the shape of a man. For by this horrid anointing he dulls
their senses and persuades these deluded wretches that there is some
great virtue in the viscid lubricant. Sometimes too he does this in
hateful mockery of God’s holy Sacraments, and that by these mysterious
ceremonies he may infuse, as it were, something of a ritual and
liturgical nature into his beastly orgies.”[41]
Although the witch is universally credited with the power to fly through
the air[42] to the Sabbat mounted upon a besom or some kind of stick, it
is remarkable in the face of popular belief to find that the confessions
avowing this actual mode of aerial transport are extraordinarily few.
Paul Grilland, in his tractate _De Sortilegiis_ (Lyons, 1533), speaks of
a witch at Rome during whose trial, seven years before, it was asserted
she flew in the air after she had anointed her limbs with a magic
liniment. Perhaps the most exactly detailed accounts of this feat are to
be found in Boguet,[43] than whom scarcely any writer more meticulously
reports the lengthy and prolix evidence of witches, such evidence as he
so laboriously gathered during the notorious prosecutions throughout
Franche-Comté in the summer of 1598. He records quite plainly such
statements as: “Françoise Secretain disoit, que pour aller au Sabbat,
elle mettoit un baston blanc entre ses iambes & puis prononçait certaines
paroles & dés lors elle estoit portée par l’air iusques en l’assemblée
des Sorciers.” (Françoise Secretain avowed that in order to go to the
Sabbat she placed a white stick between her legs & then uttered certain
words & then she was borne through the air to the sorcerers’ assembly).
In another place she confessed “qu’elle avoit esté vne infinité de fois
au Sabbat ... & qu’elle y alloit sur vn baston blanc, qu’elle mettoit
entre ses iambes.” (That she had been a great number of times to the
Sabbat ... and that she went there on a white stick which she placed
between her legs.) It will be noticed that in the second instance she
does not explicitly claim to have been borne through the air. Again:
“Françoise Secretain y estoit portée [au Sabbat] sur vn baston blanc.
Satan y tra̅sporta Thieuenne Paget & Antide Colas estant en forme d’vn
homme noir, sortans de leurs maison le plus souuent par la cheminée.”
“Claudine Boban, ieune fille confessa qu’elle & sa mère montoient sur vne
ramasse, & que sortans le contremont de la cheminée elles alloient par
l’air en ceste façon au Sabbat.” (Françoise Secretain was carried [to the
Sabbat] on a white stick. Satan, in the form of a tall dark man conveyed
thither Thieuenne Paget & Antide Colas, who most often left their house
by way of the chimney.... Claudine Boban, a young girl, confessed that
both she and her mother mounted on a besom, & that flying out by the
chimney they were thus borne through the air to the Sabbat.) A marginal
note explains _ramasse_ as “autrement balai, & en Lyonnois coiue.”
Glanvill writes that Julian Cox, one of the Somerset coven (1665), said
“that one evening she walkt out about a Mile from her own House and
there came riding towards her three persons upon three Broom-staves,
born up about a yard and a half from the ground. Two of them she
formerly knew, which was a Witch and a Wizzard.” It might easily be
that there is some exaggeration here. We know that a figure in one of
the witch dances consisted of leaping as high as possible into the air,
and probably the three persons seen by Julian Cox were practising this
agile step. A quotation from Bodin by Reginald Scot is very pertinent in
this connexion. Speaking of the Sabbat revels he has: “And whiles they
sing and dance, euerie one hath a broome in his hand, and holdeth it vp
aloft. Item he saith, that these night-walking or rather night-dansing
witches, brought out of _Italie_ into _France_, that danse which is
called _La Volta_.”[44] Sir John Davies in his _Orchestra or A Poeme on
Dauncing_ (18mo, 1596) describes the lavolta as “A loftie iumping, or a
leaping round.” De Lancre observes that after the regular country dance
at the Sabbat the witches sprang high into the air. “Après la dance ils
se mettent par fois à sauter.”[45] At their assembly certain of the
Aberdeen witches (1597) “danced a devilish dance, riding on trees, by a
long space.” In an old representation of Dr. Fian and his company swiftly
pacing round North Berwick church withershins the witches are represented
as running and leaping in the air, some mounted on broomsticks, some
carrying their besoms in their hands.
There was discovered in the closet of Dame Alice Kyteler of Kilkenny, who
was arrested in 1324 upon the accusation of nightly meeting a familiar
Artisson and multiplied charges of sorcery, a pipe of ointment, wherewith
she greased a staff “upon which she ambolled and gallopped thorough
thicke and thin, when and what manner she listed.”[46] In the trial of
Martha Carrier, a notorious witch and “rampant hag” at the Court of Oyer
and Terminer, held by adjournment at Salem, 2 August, 1692, the eighth
article of the indictment ran: “One _Foster_, who confessed her own share
in the Witchcraft for which the Prisoner stood indicted, affirm’d, that
she had seen the prisoner at some of their _Witch-meetings_, and that it
was this _Carrier_, who perswaded her to be a Witch. She confessed that
the Devil carry’d them on a pole, to a Witch-meeting: but the pole broke,
and she hanging about _Carriers_ neck, they both fell down, and she then
received an hurt by the Fall, whereof she was not at this very time
recovered.”[47]
In many of these instances it is plain that there is no actual flight
through the air implied; although there is a riding a-cock-horse of
brooms or sticks, in fact, a piece of symbolic ritual.
It is very pertinent, however, to notice in this connexion the actual
levitation of human beings, which is, although perhaps an unusual, yet
by no means an unknown, phenomenon in the séances of modern spiritism,
where both the levitation of persons, with which we are solely concerned,
and the rising of tables or chairs off the ground without contact with
any individual or by any human agency have occurred again and again
under conditions which cannot possibly admit of legerdemain, illusion,
or charlatanry. From a mass of irrefutable evidence we may select some
striking words by Sir William Crookes, F.R.S., upon levitation. “This
has occurred,” he writes, “in my presence on four occasions in darkness;
but ... I will only mention cases in which deductions of reason were
confirmed by the sense of sight.... On one occasion I witnessed a chair,
with a lady sitting on it, rise several inches from the ground.... On
another occasion the lady knelt on the chair in such manner that the
four feet were visible to us. It then rose about three inches, remained
suspended for about ten seconds, and then slowly descended....
“The most striking case of levitation which I have witnessed has been
with Mr. Home. On three separate occasions have I seen him raised
completely from the floor of the room.... On each occasion I had full
opportunity of watching the occurrence as it was taking place. There
are at least a hundred recorded instances of Mr. Home’s rising from the
ground.”[48]
Writing in July, 1871, Lord Lindsay said: “I was sitting with Mr. Home
and Lord Adare and a cousin of his. During the sitting Mr. Home went
into a trance, and in that state was carried out of the window in the
room next to where we were, and was brought in at our window. The
distance between the windows was about seven feet six inches, and there
was not the slightest foothold between them, nor was there more than a
twelve-inch projection to each window, which served as a ledge to put
flowers on. We heard the window in the next room lifted up, and almost
immediately after we saw Home floating in air outside our window.”[49]
William Stainton Moses writes of his levitation in August, 1872, in the
presence of credible witnesses: “I was carried up ... when I became
stationary I made a mark [with a lead pencil] on the wall opposite to my
chest. This mark is as near as may be six feet from the floor.... From
the position of the mark on the wall it is clear that my head must have
been close to the ceiling.... I was simply levitated and lowered to my
old place.”[50]
When we turn to the lives of the Saints we find that these manifestations
have been frequently observed, and it will suffice to mention but a few
from innumerable examples.
S. Francis of Assisi was often “suspended above the earth, sometimes
to a height of three, sometimes to a height of four cubits”; the
same phenomenon has been recorded by eye-witnesses in many instances
throughout the centuries. Among the large number of those who are
known to have been raised from the ground whilst wrapt in prayer are
the stigmatized S. Catherine of Siena; S. Colette; Rainiero de Borgo
San-Sepolcro; S. Catherine de Ricci; S. Alphonsus Rodriguez, S.J.;
S. Mary Magdalen de Pazzi; Raimond Rocco; Bl. Charles de Sezze; S.
Veronica Giuliani the Capuchiness; S. Gerard Majella, the Redemptorist
thaumaturge; that wondrous mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich; Dominica
Barbagli (died in 1858), the ecstatica of Montesanto-Savino (Florence),
whose levitations were of daily occurrence. S. Ignatius Loyola whilst
deeply contemplative was seen by John Pascal to be raised more than a
foot from the pavement; S. Teresa and S. John of the Cross were levitated
in concurrent ecstasies in the shady locutorio of the Encarnacion, as
was witnessed by Beatriz of Jesus and the whole convent of nuns;[51]
S. Alphonsus Liguori whilst preaching in the church of S. John Baptist
at Foggia was lifted before the eyes of the whole congregation several
feet from the ground;[52] Gemma Galgani of Lucca, who died 11 April,
1903, was observed whilst praying one evening in September, 1901, before
a venerated Crucifix, to rise in the air in a celestial trance and to
remain several minutes at some distance from the floor.[53] Above all,
S. Joseph of Cupertino (1603-63), one of the most extraordinary mystics
of the seventeenth century, whose whole life seemed one long series of
unbroken raptures and ecstasies, was frequently lifted on high to remain
suspended in mid-air. Such notice was attracted by this marvel that his
superiors sent him from one lonely house of Capuchins or Conventuals
to another, and he died at the little hill town of Osimo, where his
remains are yet venerated. For many years he was obliged to say Mass
at a private altar so inevitable were the ecstasies that fell upon him
during the Sacrifice. There are, I think, few sanctuaries more sweet and
more fragrant with holiness than this convent at Osimo. During a most
happy visit to the shrine of S. Joseph I was deeply touched by the many
memorials of the Saints, and by the kindness of the Fathers, his brethren
to-day. S. Philip Neri and S. Francis Xavier were frequently raised from
the ground at the Elevation, and of the ascetic S. Paul of the Cross
the Blessed Strambi writes: “Le serviteur de Dieu s’éleva en l’air à
la hauteur de deux palmes, et cela, à deux reprises, avant et après
la consecration.”[54] (The servant of God during Holy Mass was twice
elevated in the air to a height of two hand-breadths from the ground
both before and after the Consecration.) It is well known that in a
certain London church a holy religious when he said Mass was not unseldom
levitated from the predella, which manifestation I have myself witnessed,
although the father was himself unconscious thereof until the day of his
death.
But, as Görres most aptly remarks,[55] although many examples may be
cited of Saints who have been levitated in ecstasy, and although it is
not impossible that this phenomenon may be imitated by evil powers—as,
indeed, it undoubtedly is in the cases of spiritistic mediums—yet nowhere
do we find in hagiography that a large number of Saints were in one
company raised from the earth together or conveyed through the air to
meet at some appointed spot. Is it likely, then, that the demons would
be allowed seemingly to excel by their power a most extraordinary and
exceptional manifestation? It must be remembered, also, that save in very
rare and singular instances, such as that of S. Joseph of Cupertino,
levitation is only for a height of a foot or some eighteen inches, and
even this occurs seldom save at moments of great solemnity and psychic
concentration.
A question which is largely discussed by the demonologists then arises:
Do the witches actually and in person attend the Sabbat or is their
journey thither and assistance thereat mere diabolic illusion? Giovanni
Francesco Ponzinibio, in his _De Lamiis_,[56] wholly inclines to the
latter view, but this is superficial reasoning, and the celebrated
canonist Francisco Peña with justice takes him very severely to task for
his temerity. Peña’s profound work, _In Bernardi Comensis Dominicani
Lucernam inquisitorum notæ et eiusdem tractatum de strigibus_,[57]
a valuable collection of most erudite glosses, entirely disposes of
Ponzinibio’s arguments, and puts the case in words of weighty authority.
Sprenger in the _Malleus Maleficarum_, I, had already considered
“How witches are bodily transported from one place to another,”
and he concludes “It is proven, then, that sorcerers can be bodily
transported.”[58] Paul Grilland inquires: “Whether magicians & witches
or Satanists are bodily & actually conveyed to and fro by the Devil,
or whether this be merely imaginary?” He freely acknowledges the
extraordinary difficulty and intricacy of the investigation, beginning
his answer with the phrase “Quæstio ista est multum ardua et famosa.”[59]
(This is a very difficult and oft-discussed question.) But S. Augustine,
S. Thomas, S. Bonaventure, and a score of great names are agreed upon the
reality of this locomotion, and Grilland, after balancing the evidence to
the nicety of a hair wisely concludes: “Myself I hold the opinion that
they are actually transported.”[60]
In his _Compendium Maleficarum_ Francesco Maria Guazzo discusses (Liber
I. 13) “Whether Witches are actually and bodily conveyed from place
to place to attend their Sabbats”; and lays down: “The opinion which
many who follow Luther & Melancthon hold is that Witches only assist at
these assemblies in their imagination, & that they are choused by some
trick of the devil, in support of which argument the objectors assert
that the Witches have very often been seen lying in one spot and not
moving thence. Moreover, what is related in the life of S. Germain is
not impertinent in this connexion, to wit, when certain women declared
that they had been present at a banquet, & yet all the while they
slumbered and slept, as several persons attested. That women of this
kind are very often deceived in such a way is certain; but that they
are always so deceived is by no means sure.... The alternative opinion,
which personally I hold most strongly, is that sometimes at any rate
Witches are actually conveyed from one place to another by the Devil,
who under the bodily form of a goat or some other unclean & monstrous
animal himself carries them, & that they are verily and indeed present at
their foul midnight Sabbats. This opinion is that generally held by the
authoritative Theologians and Master Jurisprudists of Italy and Spain,
as also by the Catholic divines and legalists. The majority of writers,
indeed, advance this view, for example, Torquemada in his commentary
on Grilland, Remy, S. Peter Damian, Silvester of Abula, Tommaso de
Vio Gaetani, Alfonso de Castro, Sisto da Siena, O.P., Père Crespet,
Bartolomeo Spina in his glosses on Ponzinibio, Lorenzo Anania, and a vast
number of others, whose names for brevity’s sake I here omit.”[61]
This seems admirably to sum up the whole matter. In the encyclopædic
treatise _De Strigibus_[62] by an earlier authority, Bernard of Como, the
following remarkable passage occurs: “The aforesaid abominable wretches
actually & awake & in full enjoyment of their normal senses attend these
assemblies or rather orgies, and when they are to go to some spot hard
by they proceed thither on foot, cheerily conversing as they walk. If,
however, they are to meet in some distant place then are they conveyed by
the Devil, yet by whatsoever means they proceed to the said place whether
it be on foot or whether they are borne along by the Devil, it is most
certain that their journey is real and actual, and not imaginary. Nor
are they labouring under any delusion when they deny the Catholic Faith,
worship and adore the Devil, tread upon the Cross of Christ, outrage the
Most Blessed Sacrament, and give themselves up to filthy and unhallowed
copulations, fornicating with the Devil himself who appears to them in a
human form, being used by the men as a succubus, & carnally serving the
woman as an incubus.”[63]
The conclusion then is plain and proven. The witches do actually and
individually attend the Sabbat, an orgy of blasphemy and obscenity.
Whether they go thither on foot, or horseback, or by some other means is
a detail, which in point of fact differs according to the several and
infinitely varied circumstances.
It is not denied that in some cases hallucination and self-deception
played a large part, but such examples are comparatively speaking few
in number, and these, moreover, were carefully investigated and most
frequently recognized by the judges and divines. Thus in the _Malleus
Maleficarum_ Sprenger relates that a woman, who had voluntarily
surrendered herself to be examined as being a witch, confessed to the
Dominican fathers that she nightly assisted at the Sabbat, and that
neither bolts nor bars could prevent her from flying to the infernal
revels. Accordingly she was shut fast under lock and key in a chamber
whence it was impossible for her to escape, and all the while carefully
watched by lynx-eyed officers through a secret soupirail. These reported
that immediately the door was closed she threw herself on the bed where
in a moment she was stretched out perfectly rigid in all her members.
Select members of the tribunal, grave and acute doctors, entered the
room. They shook her, gently at first, but presently with considerable
roughness. She remained immobile and insensible. She was pinched and
pulled sharply. At last a lighted candle was brought and placed near
her naked foot until the flesh was actually scorched in the flame. She
lay stockish and still, dumb and motionless as a stone. After a while
her senses returned to her. She sat up and related in exact detail the
happenings at the Sabbat she had attended, the place, the number of the
company, the rites, what was spoken, all that was done, and then she
complained of a hurt upon her foot. Next day the fathers explained to her
all that had passed, how that she had never stirred from the spot, and
that the pain arose from the taper which to ensure the experiment had
been brought in contact with her flesh. They admonished her straightly
but with paternal charity, and upon the humble confession of her error
and a promise to guard against any such ill fantasies for the future, a
suitable penance was prescribed and the woman dismissed.
In the celebrated cases investigated by Henri Boguet, June, 1598, young
George Gandillon confessed to having walked to the Sabbat at a deserted
spot called Fontenelles, near the village of Nezar, and also to having
ridden to the Sabbat. Moreover, in his indictment the following occurs:
“George Gandillon, one Good Friday night, lay in his bed, rigid as a
corpse, for the space of three hours, & then on a sudden came to himself.
He has since been burned alive here with his father & his sister.”[64]
Since Boguet, who is one of our chief authorities, discusses the Sabbat
with most copious details in his _Discours des Sorciers_ it will not be
impertinent to give here the headings and subdivisions of his learned and
amply documented chapters.[65]
Chapter XVI. How, & in what way Sorcerers are conveyed to the
Sabbat.
1. _They are sometimes conveyed there mounted on a stick,
or a broom, sometimes on a sheep or a goat, & sometimes by
a tall black man._
2. _Sometimes they anoint themselves with ointment, &
sometimes not._
3. _There are some people, who although they are not
Sorcerers, if they are anointed, are none the less carried
off to the Sabbat. The reason for this._
4. _The unguent, & the ointment are actually of no use
to the Sorcerers, and do not in effect carry them to the
Sabbat._
5. _Sorcerers are sometimes conveyed to the Sabbat by a
blast of wind & a sudden storm._
Chapter XVII. Sorcerers may sometimes walk to the Sabbat on
foot.
Chapter XVIII. Is the journey of Sorcerers to the Sabbat merely
imagination?
1 & 3. _Reasons for supposing this to be the case, &
examples._
2. _Indications, owing to which it may be supposed, that a
certain woman paid a purely imaginary visit to the Sabbat._
4. _Reasons for supposing that the journey of Sorcerers to
the Sabbat, is a real expedition and not imaginary._
5. _How we are to understand what is related concerning
Erichtho, & Apollonius; the first of whom raised a soldier
to life, & the latter a young girl._
6. _Sorcerers cannot raise the dead to life. Examples._
7. _Neither can heretics perform miracles. Examples._
8. _The Author’s opinion concerning the subject of this
chapter._
9. _Satan most frequently deceives mankind. Examples._
Chapter XIX.
1. _Sorcerers go to the Sabbat about midnight._
2. _The reason why the Sabbat is generally held at night._
3. _Satan delights in darkness & blackness, which are
opposite to the whiteness and light that please Heaven._
4. _At the Sabbat Sorcerers dance back to back. For the
most part they wear masks._
5 & 8. _When the cock crows the Sabbat immediately comes to
an end, and vanishes away. The reason for this._
6. _The voice of the cock frightens Satan in the same way
as it terrifies lions & serpents._
7. _Several authors relate that demons fear a naked sword._
Chapter XX. The days on which the Sabbat is held.
1. _The Sabbat may be held on any day of the week, but
particularly on a Friday._
2. _It is also held on the greatest festivals of the year._
Chapter XXI. The places where the Sabbat is held.
1. _According to many writers the place where the Sabbat is
held is distinguished by a clump of trees, or sometimes by
a cross. The Author’s opinion on this point._
2. _A remarkable account of a place where the Sabbat was
held._
3. _There must be water near the place where the Sabbat is
held. The reason for this._
4. _If there is no water in the place, the Sorcerers dig a
hole in the ground and urinate in this._
Chapter XXII. The proceedings at the Sabbat.
1. _The Sorcerers worship the Devil who appears under the
form of a tall black man, or as a goat. They offer him
candles & kiss his posterior._
2. _They dance. A description of their dances._
3. _They give themselves up to every kind of filthy
abomination. The Devil transforms himself into an Incubus &
into a Succubus._
4. _The hideous orgies & foul copulations practised by the
Euchites, & Gnostics._
5. _The Sorcerers feast at the Sabbat. Their meat & their
drink. The way in which they say grace before and after
table._
6. _However, this food never satisfies their appetites, &
they always arise from table as hungry as before._
7. _When they have finished their meal, they give the Devil
a full account of all their actions._
8. _They again renounce God, their baptism, &c. How Satan
incites them to do evil._
9. _They raise dark storms._
10. _They celebrate their mass. Of their vestments, & holy
water._
11. _Sometimes to conclude the Sabbat Satan seems to be
consumed in a flame of fire, & to be completely reduced to
ashes. All present take a small part of these ashes, which
the Sorcerers use for their charms._
12. _Satan is always the Ape of God in everything._
As the procedure in the various Sabbats differed very greatly according
to century, decade, country, district, nay, even in view of the station
of life and, it would seem, the very temperaments of the assembly,
it is only possible to outline in a general way some of the most
remarkable ceremonies which took place on the occasions of these infernal
congregations. An intimate and intensive study of the Sabbat would
require a large volume, for it is quite possible to reconstruct the rites
in every particular, although the precise order of the ritual was not
always and everywhere the same.
Dom Calmet, it is true, has very mistakenly said: “To attempt to give
a description of the Sabbat, is to attempt a description of what does
not exist, & what has never existed save in the fantastic & disordered
imagination of warlocks & witches: the pictures which have been drawn of
these assemblies are merely the phantasy of those who dreamed that they
had actually been borne, body & soul, through the air to the Sabbat.”[66]
Happy sceptic! But unfortunately the Sabbat did—and does—take place;
formerly in deserted wastes, on the hill-side, in secluded spots, now,
as often as not, in the privacy of vaults and cellars, and in those lone
empty houses innocently placarded “To be Sold.”
The President of the Sabbat was in purely local gatherings often the
Officer of the district; in the more solemn assemblies convened from a
wider area, the Grand Master, whose dignity would be proportionate to
the numbers of the company and the extent of his province. In any case
the President was officially known as the “Devil,” and it would seem
that his immediate attendants and satellites were also somewhat loosely
termed “devils,” which formal nomenclature has given rise to considerable
confusion and not a little mystification in the reports of witch trials
and the confessions of offenders. But in many instances it is certain—and
orthodoxy forbids us to doubt the possibility—that the Principle of
Evil, incarnate, was present for the hideous adoration of his besotted
worshippers. Such is the sense of the Fathers, such is the conclusion
of the theologians who have dealt with these dark abominations.
Metaphysically it is possible; historically it is indisputable.
When a human being, a man, occupied the chief position at these meetings
and directed the performance of the rites, he would sometimes appear
in a hideous and grotesque disguise, sometimes without any attempt at
concealment. This masquerade generally took the shape of an animal, and
had its origin in heathendom, whence by an easy transition through the
ceremonial of heretics, it passed to the sorcerer and the witch. As early
as the _Liber Pœnitentialis_ of S. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury,
668-690, we have a distinct prohibition of this foul mummery. Capitulum
xxvii denounces the man who “in Kalendas Ianuarii in ceruulo et in uitula
uadit.” “If anyone at the kalends of January goes about as a stag or a
bull; that is making himself into a wild animal and dressing in the skin
of a herd animal, and putting on the head of beasts; those who in such
wise transform themselves into the appearance of a wild animal, penance
for three years because this is devilish.”
Among the many animal forms which the leader of the Sabbat (the “Devil”)
assumed in masquerade the most common are the bull, the cat, and above
all the goat. Thus the Basque term for the Sabbat is “Akhelarre,” “goat
pasture.” Sometimes the leader is simply said to have shown himself in
the shape of a beast, which possibly points to the traditional disguise
of a black hairy skin, horns, hoofs, claws, and a tail, in fact the
same dress as a demon wore upon the stage.[67] In an old German ballad,
_Druten Zeitung_, printed at Smalcald in 1627, “to be sung to the tune of
_Dorothea_,” it is said that the judges, anxious to extort a confession
from a witch, sent down into her twilight dungeon the common hangman
dressed in a bear’s skin with horns, hoofs, and tail complete. The
miserable prisoner thinking that Lucifer had indeed visited her at once
appealed to him for help:
Man shickt ein Henkersnecht
Zu ihr in Gefängniss n’unter,
Den man hat kleidet recht,
Mit einer Bärnhaute,
Als wenns der Teufel wär;
Als ihm die Drut anschaute
Meints ihr Bühl kam daher.
Here we have a curious and perhaps unique example of the demoniac
masquerade subtly used to obtain evidence of guilt by a trick. The
Aberdeen witch Jonet Lucas (1597) said that the Devil was at the Sabbat
“beand in likenes of ane beist.” But Agnes Wobster of the same company
declared that “Satan apperit to them in the likenes of a calff,” so
possibly two masquerades were employed. Gabriel Pellé (1608) confessed
that he attended a Sabbat presided over by the Devil, and “le Diable
estoit en vache noire.”[68] Françoise Secretain, who was tried in August,
1598, saw the Devil “tantost en forme de chat.” Rolande de Vernois
acknowledged “Le Diable se presenta pour lors au Sabbat en forme d’vn
groz chat noir.”[69] To the goat there are innumerable allusions. In the
Basses-Pyrénées (1609): “Le Diable estoit en forme de bouc ayant vne
queue & audessous vn visage d’homme noir.” (The Devil appeared in the
form of a goat having a tail & his fundament was the face of a black
man.) Iohannis d’Aguerre said that the Devil was “en forme de bouc.”[70]
“Marie d’Aguerre said that there was in the midst of the ring an immense
pitcher whence the Devil issued in the form of a goat.” Gentien le Clerc,
who was tried at Orleans in 1614, “said that, as he was told, his mother
when he was three years old presented him at the Sabbat to a goat whom
they saluted as l’Aspic.”[71] “Sur le trône,” writes Görres, “est assis
un bouc, ou du moins la forme d’un bouc, car le démon ne peut cacher ce
qu’il est.”[72]
In 1630 Elizabeth Stevenson, _alias_ Toppock, of Niddrie, avowed to
her judges that in company with Catharine Oswald, who was tried for
being by _habite and repute_ a witch, and Alexander Hamilton, “a known
warlock,” she went “to a den betwixt Niddrie and Edmiston, where the
devill had trysted hir, where he appeared first to them like a foall,
and then like a man, and appointed a new dyet at Salcott Muire.” When
one of Catharine Oswald’s intimates, Alexander Hunter, _alias_ Hamilton,
_alias_ Hattaraick, a “Warlok Cairle” who “abused the Countrey for a long
time,”[73] was apprehended at Dunbar he confessed that the Devil would
meet him riding upon a black horse, or in the shape of a _corbie_, a cat,
or a dog. He was burned upon Castle Hill, Edinburgh, 1631.
Sometimes those who are present at the Sabbat are masked. Canon Ribet
writes: “Les visiteurs du sabbat se cachent quelquefois sous des
formes bestiales, on se couvrent le visage d’un masque pour demeurer
inconnus.”[74] (Those who attend the Sabbat sometimes disguise themselves
as beasts, or cover their faces to conceal their identities.)
At the famous Sabbat of one hundred and forty witches in North Berwick
churchyard on All Hallow e’en, 1590, when they danced “endlong the
Kirk-yard” “John Fian, missellit [masked] led the ring.” The Salamanca
doctors mention the appearance at the Sabbats of persons “aut aperta,
aut linteo uelata facie,”[75] “with their faces sometimes bare,
sometimes shrouded in a linen wimple.” And Delrio has in reference to
this precaution: “Facie interdum aperta, interdum uelata larua, linteo,
uel alio uelamine aut persona.”[76] (Sometimes their faces are bare,
sometimes hidden, either in a vizard, a linen cloth, or a veil, or a
mask.)
In the latter half of the eighteenth century the territory of Limburg was
terrorized by a mysterious society known as “The Goats.” These wretches
met at night in a secret chapel, and after the most hideous orgies, which
included the paying of divine honours to Satan and other foul blasphemies
of the Sabbat, they donned masks fashioned to imitate goats’ heads,
cloaked themselves with long disguise mantles, and sallied forth in bands
to plunder and destroy. From 1772 to 1774 alone the tribunal of Foquemont
condemned four hundred Goats to the gallows. But the organization was not
wholly exterminated until about the year 1780 after a regime of the most
repressive measures and unrelaxing vigilance.
Among certain tribes inhabiting the regions of the Congo there exists a
secret association of Egbo worshippers. Egbo or Ekpé is the evil genius
or Satan. His rites are Obeeyahism, the adoration of Obi, or the Devil,
and devil-worship is practised by many barbarous races, as, for instance,
by the Coroados and the Tupayas, in the impenetrable forests between the
rivers Prado and Doce in Brazil, by the Abipones of Paraguay, as well as
by the Bachapins, a Caffre race, by the negroes on the Gold Coast and the
negroes of the West Indies. In the ju-ju houses of the Egbo sorcerers
are obscene wooden statues to which great veneration is paid, since by
their means divination is solemnly practised. Certain festivals are
held during the year, and at these it is interesting to note that the
members wear hideous black masks with huge horns which it is death for
the uninitiated to see.
The first ceremony of the Sabbat was the worship of, and the paying
homage to the Devil. It would seem that sometimes this was preceded by
a roll-call of the evil devotees. Agnes Sampson confessed that at the
meeting in North Berwick, when the whole assembly had entered the church,
“The _Devil_ started up himself in the _Pulpit_ like a mickle black man,
and calling the Row, every one answered _Here_. _Mr. Robert Grierson_
being named, they all ran _hirdie girdie_, and were angry: for it was
promised he should be called _Robert_ the _Comptroller_, _alias Rob_
the _Rower_, for expriming of his name. The first thing he demanded was
whether they had been good servants, and what they had done since the
last time they had convened.”
The witches adored Satan, or the Master of the Sabbat who presided in
place of Satan, by prostrations, genuflections, gestures, and obeisances.
In mockery of solemn bows and seemly courtesies the worshippers of the
Demon approach him awkwardly, with grotesque and obscene mops and mows,
sometimes straddling sideways, sometimes walking backwards, as Guazzo
says: Cum accedunt ad dæmones eos ueneraturi terga obuertunt & cessim eum
cancrorum more supplicaturi manus inuersas retro applicant.[77] But their
chief act of homage was the reverential kiss, _osculum infame_. This
impious and lewd ritual is mentioned in detail by most authorities and
is to be found in all lands and centuries. So Delrio writes: “The Sabbat
is presided over by a Demon, the Lord of the Sabbat, who appears in some
monstrous form, most generally as a goat or some hound of hell, seated
upon a haughty throne. The witches who resort to the Sabbat approach the
throne with their backs turned, and worship him ... and then, as a sign
of their homage, they kiss his fundament.” Guazzo notes: “As a sign of
homage witches kiss the Devil’s fundament.” And Ludwig Elich says: “Then
as a token of their homage—with reverence be it spoken—they kiss the
fundament of the Devil.”[78] “Y al tiempo que le besan debajo de la cola,
da una ventosidad de muy horrible olor,” adds the Spanish _Relacion_,
“fetid, foul, and filthy.”
To cite other authorities would be but to quote the same words. Thomas
Cooper, indeed, seems to regard this ceremony as a part of the rite
of admission, but to confine it to this occasion alone is manifestly
incorrect, for there is continual record of its observance at frequent
Sabbats by witches of many years standing. “Secondly,” he remarks, “when
this acknowledgement is made, in testimoniall of this subiection, Satan
offers his back-parts to be kissed of his vassall.”[79] But in the dittay
of the North Berwick witches, all of whom had long been notorious for
their malpractices, “_Item_, the said Agnis Sampson confessed that the
divell being then at North Barrick Kerke, attending their comming, in the
habit or likenesse of a man,[80] and seeing that they tarried over long,
hee at their comming enjoyned them all to a pennance, which was, that
they should kisse his buttockes, in sign of duety to him, which being put
over the pulpit bare, every one did as he had enjoyned them.”[81]
One of the principal charges which was repeatedly brought against
the Knights Templars during the lengthy ecclesiastical and judicial
processes, 1307-1314, was that of the _osculum infame_ given by the
juniors to their preceptors. Even so prejudiced a writer as Lea cannot
but admit the truth of this accusation. In this case, however, it has
nothing to do with sorcery but must be connected with the homosexuality
which the Order universally practised.
There are some very important details rehearsed in a Bull, 8 June,
1303, of the noble but calumniated Boniface VIII, with reference to the
case of Walter Langton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry (1296-1322),
and treasurer of Edward I, when this prelate was accused of sorcery
and homage to Satan: “For some time past it has come to our ears that
our Venerable Brother Walter Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield has
been commonly defamed, and accused, both in the realm of England and
elsewhere, of paying homage to the Devil by kissing his posterior, and
that he hath had frequent colloquies with evil spirits.”[82] The Bishop
cleared himself of these charges with the compurgators. Bodin refers to
Guillaume Edeline, who was executed in 1453 as a wizard. He was a doctor
of the Sorbonne, and prior of St. Germain en Laye: “The aforesaid sire
Guillaume confessed ... that he had done homage to the aforesaid Satan,
who appeared in the shape of a ram, by kissing his buttocks in token of
reverence and homage.”[83] A very rare tract of the fourteenth century
directed against the Waldenses among other charges brings the following:
“Item, in aliquibus aliis partibus apparet eis dæmon sub specie et figura
cati, quem sub cauda sigillatim osculantur.” (The Devil appears to them
as a cat, and they kiss him _sub cauda_.)[84]
Barthélemy Minguet of Brécy, a young man of twenty-five, who was tried
in 1616, said that at the Sabbat “he often saw [the Devil] in the shape
of a man, who held a horse by its bridle, & that they went forward to
worship him, each one holding a pitch candle of black wax in their
hands.”[85] These candles, as Guazzo tells us, were symbolic and required
by the ritual of the Sabbat, not merely of use for the purpose of giving
light: “Then they made an offering of pitch black candles, and as a
sign of homage kissed his fundament.”[86] The candles were ordinarily
black, and one taper, larger than the rest, was frequently carried by the
Devil himself. At the North Berwick meeting when the witches were all to
assemble in the church, “_Iohn Fein_ blew up the Kirk doors, and blew in
the lights, which wer like _Mickl black candles sticking round about the
Pulpit_.”[87] Boguet relates that the witches whom he tried confessed
that the Sabbat commenced with the adoration of Satan, “who appeared,
sometimes in the shape of a tall dark man, sometimes in the shape of a
goat, & to express their worship and homage, they made him an offering
of candles, which burned with a blue light.”[88] John Fian, also, when
doing homage to the Devil “thought he saw the light of a candle ... which
appeared blue lowe.” This, of course, was on account of the sulphurous
material whence these candles were specially compounded. De Lancre
expressly states that the candles or flambeaux used at the Sabbat were
made of pitch.
An important feature of the greater Sabbats was the ritual dance, for the
dance was an act of devotion which has descended to us from the earliest
times and is to be found in every age and every country. Dancing is a
natural movement, a primitive expression of emotion and ideals. In the
ancient world there can have been few things fairer than that rhythmic
thanksgiving of supple limbs and sweet voices which Athens loved, and
for many a century was preserved the memory of that day when the young
Sophocles led the choir in celebration of the victory of Salamis.[89]
The Mystæ in the meadows of Elysium danced their rounds with the silver
clash of cymbals and with madly twinkling snow-white feet. At the solemn
procession of the Ark from Cariathiarim (Kirjath Jearim) King David
“danced with all his might before the Lord, ... dancing and leaping
before the Lord.” S. Basil urges his disciples to dance on earth in order
to fit themselves for what may be one of the occupations of the angels
in heaven. As late as the seventeenth century the ceremonial dance in
church was not uncommon. In 1683 it was the duty of the senior canon to
lead a dance of choir-boys in the Paris cathedral. Among the Abyssinian
Christians dancing forms no inconsiderable part of worship. Year by
year on Whit Tuesday hundreds of pilgrims dance through the streets
of Echternach (Luxemburg) to the shrine of S. Willibrod in S. Peter’s
Church. Formerly the devotees danced three times round the great Abbey
Courtyard before proceeding to the sanctuary. But beyond all these the
dance has its own place in the ritual of Holy Church even yet. Three
times a year in Seville Cathedral—on Holy Thursday, upon Corpus Christi
and the Immaculate Conception—Los Seises dance before a specially
constructed altar, exquisitely adorned with flowers and lights, erected
near the outer door of the grand western entrance of the cathedral. The
ceremony in all probability dates from the thirteenth century.
The dresses of the boys, who dance before the improvised altar at
Benediction on Corpus Christi, are of the period of Philip III, and
consist of short trousers and jackets that hang from one shoulder, the
doublets being of red satin, with rich embroidery. Plumed white hats with
feathers are worn, also shoes with large scintillating buckles. On Holy
Thursday the costume is also red and white, whilst it is blue and white
for “the day of the Virgin.”
The eight boy choristers—with eight others as attendants—dance, with
castanets in their hands, to a soft organ obbligato, down the centre of
the cathedral to the decorated altar, advancing slowly and gracefully.
Here they remain for about a quarter of an hour, singing a hymn, and
accompanying it (as the carols of the olden time) with dance and
castanets. They sing a two-part hymn in front of the altar, forming in
two eights, facing each other, the clergy kneeling in a semicircle round
them.
Assuredly I cannot do better than quote Mr. Arthur Symons’ verdict on
this dance as he saw it a few years back in Seville: “And, yes, I found
it perfectly dignified, perfectly religious, without a suspicion of
levity or indecorum. This consecration of the dance, this turning of a
possible vice into a means of devotion, this bringing of the people’s
art, the people’s passion, which in Seville is dancing, into the church,
finding it a place there, is precisely one of those acts of divine
worldly wisdom which the Church has so often practised in her conquest of
the world.”
Not too fantastically has a writer suggested that High Mass itself in
some sense enshrines a survival of the ancient religious dance—that
stately, magnificent series of slow movements which surely may express
devotion of the most solemn and reverent kind, as well as can the colour
of vestment or sanctuary, or the sounds of melody.
Since the dance is so essentially religious it must needs be burlesqued
and buffooned by God’s ape. For the dance of the witches is degraded,
awkward, foul, and unclean. These very movements are withershins, as
Guazzo points out: “Then follow the round dances in which, however, they
always tread the measure to the left.”[90] “The Sorcerers,” says Boguet,
“dance a country-dance with their backs turned one to the other.”[91]
This, of course, being the exact reverse of the natural country-dance.
“Sometimes, although seldom,” he adds, “they dance in couples, &
sometimes one partner is there, another here, for always everything is
in confusion.”[92] De Lancre writes of witches’ revels: “They only dance
three kinds of brawls.... The first is _à la Bohémienne_ ... the second
with quick trippings: these are round dances.”[93] In the third Sabbat
measure the dancers were placed one behind another in a straight line.
An old Basque legend reported by Estefanella Hirigaray describes how the
witches were wont to meet near an old limekiln to dance their rounds, a
ceremony regarded throughout that district as an essential feature of
the Sabbat. De Lancre notes the brawls _à la Bohémienne_ as especially
favoured by sorcerers in Labourd. Sylvester Mazzolini, O.P. (1460-1523),
Master of the Sacred Palace, and the great champion of orthodoxy
against the heresiarch Luther, in his erudite _De Strigimagia_[94]
relates that in Como and Brescia a number of children between eight and
twelve years old, who had frequented the Sabbat, but had been happily
converted by the unsparing patience of the Inquisitors, at the request
of the Superiors gave exhibitions of these dances when they showed such
extraordinary adroitness and skill in executing the most intricate
and fantastic figures that it was evident they had been instructed
by no mere human tutelage. Marco de Viqueria, the Dominican Prior of
the Brussels monastery, closely investigated the matter, and he was a
religious of such known acumen and exceptional probity that his testimony
soon convinced many prelates at Rome who were inclined to suspect some
trickery or cunning practice. In Belgium this Sabbat dance was known as
_Pauana_.
In the Fian trial Agnes Sampson confessed that “They danced along the
_Kirk-yeard_, _Geilic Duncan_ playing on a _Trump_, and _John Fein_
mussiled led the _Ring_. The said _Agnes_ and her daughter followed next.
Besides these were _Kate Gray_, _George Noilis_ his wife, ... with the
rest of their Cummers above an hundred Persons.”[95] She further added
“that this Geillis Duncane did goe before them, playing this reill or
daunce uppon a small trumpe, called a Jewe’s trumpe, untill they entered
into the Kerk of North Barrick.”[96] “These confessions made the King
[James I, then James VI of Scotland] in a wonderfull admiration, and sent
for the saide Geillis Duncane, who, upon the like trumpe, did play the
saide daunce before the kinges maiestie.”
Music generally accompanied the dancers, and there is ample evidence that
various instruments were played, violins, flutes, tambourines, citterns,
hautboys, and, in Scotland, the pipes. Those of the witches who had
any skill were the performers, and very often they obliged the company
awhile with favourite airs of a vulgar kind, but the concert ended in
the most hideous discords and bestial clamour; the laws of harmony
and of decency were alike rudely violated. In August, 1590, a certain
Nicolas Laghernhard, on his way to Assencauria, was passing through the
outskirts of a wood when he saw through the trees a number of men and
women dancing with filthy and fantastic movements. In amaze he signed
himself and uttered the Holy Name, whereupon the company perceiving him
took to flight, but not before he had recognized many of these wretches.
He was prompt to inform the ecclesiastical tribunals, and several persons
being forthwith questioned freely acknowledged their infamies. Amongst
these a shepherd named Michael, who enjoyed a considerable reputation for
his musical talents and strangely fascinating voice, confessed that he
was the piper at the local Sabbat and that his services were in constant
requisition. At the lesser Sabbats (_aquelarre_) of Zugarramurdi, a
hamlet of Navarre, some six hundred souls, in the Bastan valley, some
twelve leagues from Pampluna, one Juan de Goyburu was wont to play upon
the flute, and Juan de Sansin the tambourine. These two unhappy wretches,
having shown every sign of sincerest contrition, were reconciled to the
Church.
Sinclar in his Relation XXXV, “Anent some Prayers, Charms, and Avies,
used in the _Highlands_,” says: “As the Devil is originally the Author
of _Charms_, and _Spells_, so is he the Author of several baudy Songs,
which are sung. A reverend Minister told me, that one who was the Devils
Piper, a wizzard confest to him, that at a Ball of dancing, the Foul
Spirit taught him a Baudy song to sing and play, as it were this night,
and ere two days past all the Lads and Lasses of the town were lilting
it throw the street. It were abomination to rehearse it.” Philip Ludwig
Elich precisely sums up the confused scene: “The whole foul mob and
stinkard rabble sing the most obscene priapics and abominable songs in
honour of the Devil. One witch yells, _Harr, harr_; a second hag, Devil,
Devil; jump hither, jump thither; a third, Gambol hither, gambol thither;
another, _Sabaoth, Sabaoth_, &c.; and so the wild orgy waxes frantic what
time the bedlam rout are screeching, hissing, howling, caterwauling, and
whooping lewd wassail.”[97] Of all the horrors of the Sabbat the climax
was that appalling blasphemy and abominable impiety by which the most
Holy Sacrifice of the Altar was mocked and burlesqued in hideous fashion.
And since no Christian will receive the Blessed Sacrament save he be duly
fasting as the Church so strictly enjoins, the witches in derision of
Christ’s ordinance satiate their appetites with a wolfish feast and cram
themselves to excess with food of all kinds, both meat and drink, before
they proceed to the ritual of hell. These orgies were often prolonged
amid circumstances of the most beastly gluttony and drunkenness.
Guazzo writes: “Tables are laid and duly furnished, whereupon they set
themselves to the board & begin to gobbet piecemeal the meats which the
Devil provides, or which each member of the party severally brings with
him.”[98] De Lancre also says: “Many authors say that sorcerers at the
Sabbat eat the food which the Devil lays before them: but very often
the table is only dressed with the viands they themselves bring along.
Sometimes there are certain tables served with rare dainties, at others
with orts and offal.” “Their banquets are of various kinds of food
according to the district & the quality of those who are to partake.”[99]
It seems plain that when the local head of the witches, who often
presided at these gatherings _absente diabolo_, was a person of wealth or
standing, delicacies and choice wines would make their appearance at the
feast, but when it was the case of the officer of a coven in some poor
and small district, possibly a meeting of peasants, the homeliest fare
only might be served. The Lancashire witches of 1613, when they met at
Malking Tower, sat down to a goodly spread of “Beefe, Bacon, and roasted
Mutton,” the sheep having been killed twenty-four hours earlier by James
Device; in 1633 Edmund Robinson stated that the Pendle witches offered
him “flesh and bread upon a trencher, and drink in a glass,” they also
had “flesh smoaking, butter in lumps, and milk,” truly rustic dainties.
Alice Duke, a Somerset witch, tried in 1664, confessed that the Devil
“bids them _Welcome_ at their _Coming_, and brings them _Wine_, _Beer_,
_Cakes_, and _Meal_, or the like.”[100] At the trial of Louis Gaufridi
at Aix in 1610 the following description of a Sabbat banquet was given:
“Then they feasted, three tables being set out according to the three
aforesaid degrees. Those who were employed in serving bread had loaves
made from wheat privily stolen in various places. They drank malmsey
in order to excite them to venery. Those who acted as cup-bearers had
filched the wine from cellars where it was stored. Sometimes they ate the
tender flesh of little children, who had been slain and roasted at some
Synagogue, and sometimes babes were brought there, yet alive, whom the
witches had kidnapped from their homes if opportunity offered.”[101] In
many places the witches were not lucky enough to get bumpers of malmsey,
for Boguet notes that at some Sabbats “They not unseldom drink wine but
more often water.”[102]
[Illustration: PLATE V
THE SABBAT. Ziarnko
[_face p. 144_]
There are occasional records of unsavoury and tasteless viands, and there
is even mention of putrefying garbage and carrion being placed before his
evil worshippers by their Master. Such would appear to have been the case
at those darker orgies when there was a manifestation of supernatural
intelligences from the pit.
The Salamanca doctors say: “They make a meal from food either furnished
by themselves or by the Devil. It is sometimes most delicious and
delicate, and sometimes a pie baked from babies they have slain or
disinterred corpses. A suitable grace is said before such a table.”[103]
Guazzo thus describes their wine: “Moreover the wine which is usually
poured out for the revellers is like black and clotted blood served in
some foul and filthy vessel. Yet there seems to be no lack of cheer at
these banquets, save that they furnish neither bread nor salt. Isabella
further added that human flesh was served.”[104]
Salt never appeared at the witches’ table. Bodin gives us the reason that
it is an emblem of eternity,[105] and Philip Ludwig Elich emphatically
draws attention to the absence of salt at these infernal banquets.[106]
“At these meals,” remarks Boguet, “salt never appears.”[107] Gentien le
Clerc, who was tried in Orleans in 1615, confessed: “They sit down to
table, but no salt is ever seen.”[108] Madeleine de la Palud declared
that she had never seen salt, olives, or oil at the Devil’s feasts.[109]
When all these wretches are replete they proceed to a solemn parody of
Holy Mass.
At the beginning of the eighteenth century Marcelline Pauper of the
Congregation of the Sisters of Charity of Nevers was divinely called
to offer herself up as a victim of reparation for the outrages done to
the Blessed Sacrament, especially by sorcerers in their black masses at
the Sabbat. In March, 1702, a frightful sacrilege was committed in the
convent chapel. The tabernacle was forced open, the ciborium stolen, and
those of the Hosts which had not been carried away by the Satanists were
thrown to the pavement and trampled under foot. Marcelline made ceaseless
reparation, and at nine o’clock of the evening of 26 April, she received
the stigmata in hands, feet, and side, and also the Crown of Thorns.
After a few years of expiation she died at Tulle, 25 June, 1708.
The erudite Paul Grilland tells us that the liturgy is burlesqued in
every detail: “Those witches who have solemnly devoted themselves to
the Devil’s service, worship him in a particular manner with ceremonial
sacrifices, which they offer to the Devil, imitating in all respects the
worship of Almighty God, with vestments, lights, and every other ritual
observance, and with a set liturgy in which they are instructed, so
that they worship and praise him eternally, just as we worship the true
God.”[110] This abomination of blasphemy is met with again and again in
the confessions of witches, and although particulars may differ here
and there, the same quintessence of sacrilege persisted throughout the
centuries, even as alas! in hidden corners and secret lairs of infamy it
skulks and lurks this very day.
What appears extremely surprising in this connexion is the statement of
Cotton Mather that the New England witches “met in Hellish _Randezvous_,
wherein the Confessors (i.e. the accused who confessed) do say, they have
had their Diabolical Sacraments, imitating the _Baptism_ and the _Supper_
of our Lord.”[111] At the trial of Bridget Bishop, _alias_ Oliver, at
the Court of Oyer and Terminer, held at Salem, 2 June, 1692, Deliverance
Hobbs, a converted witch, affirmed “that this _Bishop_ was at a General
Meeting of the Witches, in a Field at _Salem_-Village, and there partook
of a Diabolical Sacrament in Bread and Wine then administered.” In the
case of Martha Carrier, tried 2 August, 1692, before the same court,
two witnesses swore they had seen her “at a Diabolical Sacrament ...
when they had Bread and Wine Administered unto them.” Abigail Williams
confessed that on 31 March, 1692, when there was a Public Fast observed
in Salem on account of the scourge of sorcery “the Witches had a
_Sacrament_ that day at an house in the Village, and that they had
_Red Bread_ and _Red Drink_.” This “Red Bread” is certainly puzzling.
But the whole thing, sufficiently profane no doubt, necessarily lacks
the hideous impiety of the black mass. A minister, the Rev. George
Burroughs, is pointed to by accumulated evidence as being the Chief of
the Salem witches; “he was Accused by Eight of the Confessing Witches as
being an Head Actor at some of their Hellish Randezvouses, and one who
had the promise of being a King in Satan’s kingdom”; it was certainly he
who officiated at their ceremonies, for amongst others Richard Carrier
“affirmed to the jury that he saw Mr. George Burroughs at the witch
meeting at the village and saw him administer the sacrament,” whilst Mary
Lacy, senr., and her daughter Mary “affirmed that Mr. George Burroughs
was at the witch meetings with witch sacraments.”[112]
The abomination of the black mass is performed by some apostate or
renegade priest who has delivered himself over to the service of evil and
is shamefully prominent amongst the congregation of witches. It should be
remarked from this fact that it is plain the witches are as profoundly
convinced of the doctrines of Transubstantiation, the Totality,
Permanence, and Adorableness of the Eucharistic Christ, and of the power
also of the sacrificing priesthood, as is the most orthodox Catholic.
Indeed, unless such were the case, their revolt would be empty, void at
any rate of its material malice.
One of the gravest charges brought against the Templars and in the
trials (1307-1314) established beyond any question or doubt was that of
celebrating a blasphemous mass in which the words of consecration were
omitted. It has, indeed, been suggested that the liturgy used by the
Templars was not the ordinary Western Rite, but that it was an Eastern
Eucharist. According to Catholic teaching the Consecration takes place
when the words of institution are recited with intention and appropriate
gesture, the actual change of the entire substances of bread and wine
into the Body and Blood of Christ being effected in virtue of the words
_Hoc est enim Corpus meum; Hic est enim Calix sanguinis mei_.... This
has been defined by a decree of the Council of Florence (1439): “Quod
ilia uerba diuina Saluatoris omnem uirtutem transsubstantiationis
habent.” (These divine words of Our Saviour have full power to effect
transubstantiation.) But the Orthodox Church holds that an Epiklesis is
necessary to valid consecration, the actual words of Our Lord being
repeated “as a narrative” [διηγηματικῶς],[113] which would seem logically
to imply that Christ’s words have no part in the form of the Sacrament.
In all Orthodox liturgies the words of Consecration are found together
with the Epiklesis, and there are in existence some few liturgies,
plainly invalid, which omit the words of Consecration altogether. These
are all of them forms which have been employed by heretical sects; and it
may be that the Templars used one of these. But it is far more probable
that the words were purposely omitted; the Templars were corroded with
Gnostic doctrines, they held the heresies of the Mandæans or Johannites
who were filled with an insane hatred of Christ in much the same way
as witches and demonolaters, they followed the tenets of the Ophites
who venerated the Serpent and prayed to him for protection against the
Creator, they adored and offered sacrifice before an idol, a Head, which,
as Professor Prutz holds, represented the lower god whom Gnostic bodies
worshipped, that is Satan. At his trial in Tuscany the knight Bernard of
Parma confessed that the Order firmly believed this idol had the power
to save and to enrich, in fine, flat diabolism. The secret mass of the
Templars may have burlesqued an Eastern liturgy rather than the Western
rite, but none the less it was the essential cult of the evil principle.
In 1336 a priest who had been imprisoned by the Comte de Foix, Gaston III
Phébus, on a charge of celebrating a Satanic mass, was sent to Avignon
and examined by Benedict XII in person. The next year the same pontiff
appointed his trusty Guillaume Lombard to preside at the trial of Pierre
du Chesne, a priest from the diocese of Tarbes, accused of defiling the
Host.
Gilles de Sillé, a priest of the diocese of S. Malo, and the Florentine
Antonio Francesco Prelati, formerly of the diocese of Arezzo, were wont
to officiate at the black masses of Tiffauges and Machecoul, the castles
of Gilles de Rais, who was executed in 1440.
A priest named Benedictus in the sixteenth century caused great scandal
by the discovery of his assistance at secret and unhallowed rites.
Charles IX employed an apostate monk to celebrate the eucharist of
hell before himself and his intimates, and during the reign of his
brother the Bishop of Paris burned in the Place de Grève a friar named
Séchelle who had been found guilty of participating in similar profane
mysteries. In 1597 the Parliament of Paris sentenced Jean Belon, curé of
S. Pierre-des-Lampes in the Bourges diocese, to be hanged and his body
burned for desecration of the Sacrament and the repeated celebration
of abominable ceremonies.[114] The Parliament of Bordeaux in 1598
condemned to the stake Pierre Aupetit, curé of Pageas, near Chalus
Limousin. He confessed that for more than twenty years he had frequented
Sabbats, especially those held at Mathe-goutte and Puy-de-Dôme, where he
worshipped the Devil and performed impious masses in his honour.[115]
August 14, 1606, a friar named Denobilibus was put to death at Grenoble
upon a similar conviction. In 1609 the Parliament of Bordeaux sent Pierre
De Lancre and d’Espagnet to Labourd in the Bayonne district to stamp
out the sorcerers who infested that region. No less than seven priests
were arrested on charges of celebrating Satan’s mass at the Sabbat. Two,
Migalena, an old man of seventy, and Pierre Bocal, aged twenty-seven,
were executed, but the Bishop of Bayonne interfered, claimed the five
for his own tribunal and contrived that they should escape from prison.
Three other priests who were under restraint were immediately set free,
and wisely quitted the country. A twelvemonth later Aix and the whole
countryside rang with the confessions of Madeleine de la Palud who “Dit
aussi que ce malheureux Loys magicien ... a controuvé le premier de dire
la messe au sabatt et consacrer Véritablement et présenter le sacrifice à
Lucifer.”[116] It was, of course, mere ignorance on her part to suppose
that “that accursed Magician Lewes did first inuent the saying of Masse
at the Sabbaths,” although Gaufridi may have told her this to impress
her with a sense of his importance and power among the hierarchies of
evil. Certainly in her evidence the details of the Sabbat worship are
exceptionally detailed and complete.
They are, however, amply paralleled, if not exceeded, by the narrative
of Madeleine Bavent, a Franciscan sister of the Third Order, attached
to the convent of SS. Louis and Elizabeth at Louviers. Her confessions,
which she wrote at length by the direction of her confessor, des Marets,
an Oratorian, meticulously describe scenes of the most hideous blasphemy
in which were involved three chaplains, David, Maturin Picard, the curé
of Mesnil-Jourdain, and Thomas Boullé, sometime his assistant. Amongst
other enormities they had revived the heresy of the Adamites, an early
Gnostic sect, and celebrated the Mass in a state of stark nudity amid
circumstances of the grossest indecency. Upon one Good Friday Picard
and Boullé had compelled her to defile the crucifix and to break a
consecrated Host, throwing the fragments upon the ground and trampling
them. David and Picard were dead, but Boullé was burned at Rouen, 21
August, 1647.[117]
During the reign of Louis XIV a veritable epidemic of sacrilege seemed
to rage throughout Paris.[118] The horrors of the black mass were said
in many houses, especially in that of La Voisin (Catherine Deshayes)
who lived in the rue Beauregard. The leading spirit of this crew was
the infamous abbé Guibourg, a bastard son—so gossip said—of Henri de
Montmorency. With him were joined Brigallier, almoner of the Grande
Mademoiselle; Bouchot, director of the convent of La Saussaye; Dulong, a
canon of Notre-Dame; Dulausens, vicar of Saint-Leu; Dubousquet; Seysson;
Dussis; Lempérier; Lépreux; Davot, vicar of Notre-Dame de Bonne-Nouvelle;
Mariette, vicar of Saint-Séverin, skilled in maledictions; Lemeignan,
vicar of Saint-Eustache, who was convicted of having sacrificed
numberless children to Satan; Toumet; Le Franc; Cotton, vicar of St.
Paul, who had baptized a baby with the chrism of Extreme Unction and then
throttled him upon the altar; Guignard and Sébault of the diocese of
Bourges, who officiated at the black mass in the cellars of a house at
Paris, and confected filthy charms under conditions of the most fearful
impiety.
In the eighteenth century the black mass persisted. In 1723 the police
arrested the abbé Lecollet and the abbé Bournement for this profanity;
and in 1745 the abbé de Rocheblanche fell under the same suspicion. At
the hotel of Madame de Charolais the vilest scenes of the Sabbat were
continued. A gang of Satanists celebrated their monstrous orgies at
Paris on 22 January, 1793, the night after the murder of Louis XVI. The
abbé Fiard in two of his works, _Lettres sur le diable_, 1791, and _La
France Trompée_ ... Paris, 8vo, 1803, conclusively shows that eucharistic
blasphemies were yet being perpetrated but in circumstances of almost
impenetrable secrecy. In 1865 a scandal connected with these abominations
came to light, and the Bishop of Sens, in whose diocese it occurred, was
so horrified that he resigned his office and retired to Fontainebleau,
where he died some eighteen months later, practically of shock. Similar
practices were unmasked at Paris in 1874 and again in 1878, whilst it is
common knowledge that the characters of Joris Karl Huysmans’ _Là-Bas_
were all persons easy of identification, and the details are scenes
exactly reproduced from contemporary life.[119] The hideous cult of evil
yet endures. Satanists yet celebrate the black mass in London, Brighton,
Paris, Lyons, Bruges, Berlin, Milan, and alas! in Rome itself. Both South
America and Canada are thus polluted. In many a town, both great and
small, they have their dens of blasphemy and evil where they congregate
unsuspected to perform these execrable rites. Often they seem to
concentrate their vile energies in the quiet cathedral cities of England,
France, Italy, in vain endeavour to disturb the ancient homes of peace
with the foul brabble of devil-worship and all ill.
They have even been brought upon the public stage. One episode of _Un
Soir de Folie_, the revue (1925-6) at the Folies Bergère, Paris, was
“Le Sabbat et la Herse Infernale,” where in a Gothic cathedral an actor
(Mons. Benglia) appeared as Satan receiving the adoration of his devotees.
At the more frequented Sabbats the ritual of Holy Mass was elaborately
burlesqued in almost every detail. An altar was erected with four
supports, sometimes under a sheltering tree, at others upon a flat rock,
or some naturally convenient place, “auprès d’vn arbre, ou parfois auprès
d’vn rocher, dressant quelque forme d’autel sur des colonés infernales,”
says De Lancre.[120] In more recent times and to-day when the black mass
is celebrated in houses such an altar is often permanent and therefore
the infernal sanctuary can be builded with a display of the full
symbolism of the hideous cult of evil. The altar was covered with the
three linen cloths the ritual enjoins, and upon it were six black candles
in the midst of which they placed a crucifix inverted, or an image of
the Devil. Sometimes the Devil himself occupied this central position,
standing erect, or seated on some kind of monstrous throne. In 1598,
at a celebrated witch-trial before the Parliament of Bordeaux with the
Vicar-general of the Bishop of Limoges and a learned councillor Peyrat
as assessors, Antoine Dumons of Saint-Laurent confessed that he had
frequently provided a large number of candles for the Sabbat, both wax
lights to be distributed among those present and the large black tapers
for the altar. These were lit by Pierre Aupetit, who held a sacristan’s
reed, and apparently officiated as Master of the Ceremonies when he was
not actually himself saying the Mass.[121]
In May, 1895, when the legal representatives of the Borghese family
visited the Palazzo Borghese, which had been rented for some time in
separate floors or suites, they found some difficulty in obtaining
admission to certain apartments on the first floor, the occupant of
which seemed unaware that the lease was about to expire. By virtue of
the terms of the agreement, however, he was obliged to allow them to
inspect the premises to see if any structural repairs or alterations were
necessary, as Prince Scipione Borghese, who was about to be married,
intended immediately to take up his residence in the ancestral home with
his bride. One door the tenant obstinately refused to unlock, and when
pressed he betrayed the greatest confusion. The agents finally pointed
out that they were within their rights to employ actual force, and that
if access was longer denied they would not hesitate to do so forthwith.
When the keys had been produced, the cause of the reluctance was soon
plain. The room within was inscribed with the words _Templum Palladicum_.
The walls were hung all round from ceiling to floor with heavy curtains
of silk damask, scarlet and black, excluding the light; at the further
end there stretched a large tapestry upon which was woven in more than
life-size a figure of Lucifer, colossal, triumphant, dominating the
whole. Exactly beneath an altar had been built, amply furnished for the
liturgy of hell: candles, vessels, rituals, missal, nothing was lacking.
Cushioned prie-dieus and luxurious chairs, crimson and gold, were set
in order for the assistants; the chamber being lit by electricity,
fantastically arrayed so as to glare from an enormous human eye. The
visitors soon quitted the accursed spot, the scene of devil-worship
and blasphemy, nor had they any desire more nearly to examine the
appointments of this infernal chapel.[122]
The missal used at the black mass was obviously a manuscript, although
it is said that in later times these grimoires of hideous profanity have
actually been printed. It is not infrequently mentioned. Thus De Lancre
notes that the sorcerers of the Basses-Pyrénées (1609) at their worship
saw the officiant “tournant les feuillets d’vn certain liure qu’il a en
main.”[123] Madeleine Bavent in her confession said: “On lisait la messe
dans le livre des blasphèmes, qui servait de canon et qu’on employait
aussi dans les processions.”[124] The witches’ missal was often bound in
human skin, generally that of an unbaptized babe.[125] Gentien le Clerc,
tried at Orleans, 1614-1615, confessed that “le Diable ... marmote dans
un liure duquel la couuerture est toute veluë comme d’vne peau de loup,
auec des feuillets blancs & rouges, d’autres noires.”
The vestments worn by the celebrant are variously described. On rare
occasions he is described as being arrayed in a bishop’s pontificalia,
black in hue, torn, squalid, and fusty. Boguet reports that a witch
stated: “Celuy, qui est commis à faire l’office, est reuestu d’vne chappe
noire sans croix,”[126] but it seems somewhat strange that merely a plain
black cope should be used, unless the explanation is to be found in the
fact that such a vestment was most easily procurable and no suspicion of
its ultimate employment would be excited. The abbé Guibourg sometimes
wore a cope of white silk embroidered with fir-cones, which again seems
remarkable, as the symbolism is in no way connected with the Satanic
rites he performed. But this is the evidence of Marguerite, La Voisin’s
daughter, who was not likely to be mistaken.[127] It is true that the
mass was often, perhaps, partially erotic and not wholly diabolic in the
same sense as the Sabbat masses were, but yet Astaroth, Asmodeus, and
Lucifer were invoked, and it was a liturgy of evil. On other occasions
Guibourg seems to have donned the orthodox eucharistic chasuble, stole,
maniple, girdle, alb, and amice. In the thirty-seventh article of his
confession Gaufridi acknowledged that the priest who said the Devil’s
mass at the Sabbat wore a violet chasuble.[128] Gentien le Clerc, tried
at Orleans in 1614-1615, was present at a Sabbat mass when the celebrant
“wore a chasuble which was embroidered with a Cross; but there were
only three bars.”[129] Later a contemporary witness points to the use
of vestments embroidered with infernal insignia, such as a dark red
chasuble, the colour of dried blood, upon which was figured a black buck
goat rampant; a chasuble that bore the inverse Cross, and similar robes
adorned by some needle with the heraldry of hell.
In bitter mockery of the _Asperges_ the celebrant sprinkled the witches
with filthy and brackish water, or even with stale. “The Devil at the
same time made water into a hole dug in the earth, & used it as holy
water, wherewith the celebrant of the mass sprinkled all present, using
a black aspergillum.”[130] Silvain Nevillon, a sorcerer who was tried
at Orleans in 1614-1615, said: “When Tramesabot said Mass, before he
commenced he used to sprinkle all present with holy water which was
nothing else than urine, saying meanwhile _Asperges Diaboli_.”[131]
According to Gentien le Clerc: “The holy water is yellow ... & after
it has been duly sprinkled Mass is said.”[132] Madeleine de la Palud
declared that the sorcerers were sprinkled with water, and also with
consecrated wine from the chalice upon which all present cried aloud:
_Sanguis eius super nos et super filios nostros._[133] (His blood be upon
us and upon our children.)
This foul travesty of the holiest mysteries began with an invocation
of the Devil, which was followed by a kind of general confession, only
each one made mock acknowledgement of any good he might have done, and
as a penance he was enjoined to utter some foul blasphemy or to break
some precept of the Church. The president absolved the congregation by
an inverse sign of the Cross made with the left hand. The rite then
proceeded with shameless profanity, but De Lancre remarks that the
_Confiteor_ was never said, not even in a burlesque form, and _Alleluia_
never pronounced. After reciting the Offertory the celebrant drew back
a little from the altar and the assembly advancing in file kissed his
left hand. When the Queen of the Sabbat—the witch who ranked first after
the Grand Master, the oldest and most evil of the witches (“en chasque
village,” says De Lancre, “trouuer vne Royne du Sabbat”)—was present she
sat on the left of the altar and received the offerings, loaves, eggs,
any meat or country produce, and money, so long as the coins were not
stamped with a cross. In her hand she held a disc or plate “vne paix ou
platine,” engraved with a figure of the Devil, and this his followers
devoutly kissed. In many places to-day, especially Belgium, during Holy
Mass the pax-brede (_instrumentum pacis_) is kissed by the congregation
at the Offertory, and universally when Mass is said by a priest in the
presence of a Prelate the pax-brede is kissed by the officiant and the
Prelate after the _Agnus Dei_ and the first appropriate ante-communion
prayer.
Silvain Nevillon, who was tried at Orleans in 1614-15, avowed: “The Devil
preached a sermon at the Sabbat, but nobody could hear what he said, for
he spoke in a growl.”[134]
At the Sabbat a sermon is not infrequently delivered, a farrago of
impiety and evil counsel.
The hosts are then brought to the altar. Boguet describes them as dark
and round, stamped with a hideous design; Madeleine Bavent saw them as
ordinary wafers only coloured red; in other cases they were black and
triangular in shape. Often they blasphemed the Host, calling it “Iean le
blanc,” just as Protestants called it “Jack-in-the-box.” The chalice is
filled, sometimes with wine, sometimes with a bitter beverage that burned
the tongue like fire. At the _Sanctus_ a horn sounded harshly thrice,
and torches burning with a sulphurous blue flare “qui est fort puante”
were kindled. There was an elevation, at which the whole gang, now in
a state of hysterical excitement and unnatural exaltation, burst forth
with the most appalling screams and maniac blasphemies, rivalling each
other in filthy adjurations and crapulous obscenities. The protagonist
poured out all the unbridled venom that diabolic foulness could express,
a stream of scurrility and pollution; hell seemed to have vomited its
reeking gorge on earth. _Domine adiuua nos, domine adiuua nos_, they
cried to the Demon, and again _Domine adiuua nos semper_. Generally all
present were compelled to communicate with the sacrament of the pit, to
swallow morsels soiled with mud and ordures, to drink the dark brew of
damnation. Gaufridi confessed that for _Ite missa est_ these infernal
orgies concluded with the curse: “Allez-vous-en tous au nom du diable!”
Whilst the abbé Guibourg cried: “_Gloria tibi, Lucifero!_”
The black mass of the Sabbat varied slightly in form according to
circumstances, and in the modern liturgy of the Satanists it would appear
that a considerable feature is made of the burning of certain heavy and
noxious weeds, the Devil’s incense. In the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries the use of incense is very rare at the Sabbat, although Silvain
Nevillon stated that he had seen at the Sabbat “both holy water and
incense. This latter smelled foul, not fragrant as incense burned in
church.”[135]
The officiant nowadays consecrates a host and the chalice with the actual
sacred words of Holy Mass, but then instead of kneeling he turns his back
upon the altar,[136] and a few moments later—_sit uenia uerbis!_—he cuts
and stabs the Host with a knife, throwing it to the ground, treading upon
it, spurning it. A part, at least, of the contents of the chalice is
also spilled in fearful profanation, and not infrequently there further
has been provided a ciborium of consecrated Hosts, all stolen from
churches[137] or conveyed away at Communion in their mouths by wretches
unafraid to provoke the sudden judgement of an outraged God. These the
black priest, for so the celebrant is called by the Devil worshippers,
scatters over the pavement to be struggled and fought for by his
congregation in their madness to seize and outrage the Body of Christ.
Closely connected with the black mass of the Satanists and a plain
survival from the Middle Ages is that grim superstition of the Gascon
peasant, the Mass of S. Sécaire.[138] Few priests know the awful ritual,
and of those who are learned in such dark lore fewer yet would dare to
perform the monstrous ceremonies and utter the prayer of blasphemy. No
confessor, no bishop, not even the Archbishop of Auch, may shrive the
celebrant; he can only be absolved at Rome by the Holy Father himself.
The mass is said upon a broken and desecrated altar in some ruined or
deserted church where owls hoot and mope and bats flit through the
crumbling windows, where toads spit their venom upon the sacred stone.
The priest must make his way thither late attended only by an acolyte
of impure and evil life. At the first stroke of eleven he begins; the
liturgy of hell is mumbled backward, the canon said with a mow and a
sneer; he ends just as midnight tolls. The host is triangular, with
three sharp points and black. No wine is consecrated but foul brackish
water drawn from a well wherein has been cast the body of an unbaptized
babe. The holy sign of the cross is made with the left foot upon the
ground. And the man for whom that mass is said will slowly pine away, nor
doctor’s skill nor physic will avail him aught, but he will suffer, and
dwindle, and surely drop into the grave.[139]
Although there is, no doubt, some picturesque exaggeration here the main
details are correct enough. A black, triangular wafer is not infrequently
mentioned in the witch-trials as having been the sacramental bread of
the Sabbat, whilst Lord Fountainhall[140] in describing the devilish
communion of the Loudian witches says: “the drink was sometimes blood,
sometimes black moss-water,” and many other details may be closely
paralleled.
When the blasphemous liturgy of the Sabbat was done all present gave
themselves up to the most promiscuous debauchery, only interrupting
their lasciviousness to dance or to spur themselves on to new enormities
by spiced foods and copious draughts of wine. “You may well suppose,”
writes Boguet, “that every kind of obscenity is practised there, yea,
even those abominations for which Heaven poured down fire and brimstone
on Sodom and Gomorrah are quite common in these assemblies.”[141] The
erudite Dominican, Father Sebastian Michaelis, who on the 19 January,
1611, examined Madeleine de la Palud concerning her participation in
Sabbats, writes[142] that she narrated the most unhallowed orgies.[143]
The imagination reels before such turpitudes! But Madeleine Bavent (1643)
supplied even more execrable details.[144] Gentien le Clerc at Orleans
(1614-1615) acknowledged similar debauchery.[145] Bodin relates that
a large number of witches whom he tried avowed their presence at the
Sabbat.[146] In 1459 “large numbers of men & women were burned at Arras,
many of whom had mutually accused one another, & they confessed that
at night they had been conveyed to these hellish dances.”[147] In 1485
Sprenger executed a large number of sorcerers in the Constance district,
and “almost all without exception confessed that the Devil had had
connexion with them, after he had made them renounce God and their holy
faith.”[148] Many converted witches likewise confessed these abominations
“and let it be known that whilst they were witches demons had swived
them lustily. Henry of Cologne in confirmation of this says that it
is very common in Germany.”[149] Throughout the centuries all erudite
authorities have the same monstrous tale to tell, and it would serve no
purpose merely to accumulate evidence from the demonologists. To-day the
meetings of Satanists invariably end in unspeakable orgies and hideous
debauchery.
Occasionally animals were sacrificed at the Sabbat to the Demon. The
second charge against Dame Alice Kyteler, prosecuted in 1324 for sorcery
by Richard de Ledrede, Bishop of Ossory, was “that she was wont to offer
sacrifices to devils of live animals, which she and her company tore limb
from limb and made oblation by scattering them at the cross-ways to a
certain demon who was called Robin, son of Artes (Robin Artisson), one of
hell’s lesser princes.”[150]
In 1622 Margaret McWilliam “renounced her baptisme, and he baptised her
and she gave him as a gift a hen or cock.”[151] In the Voodoo rites of
to-day a cock is often the animal which is hacked to pieces before the
fetish. Black puppies were sacrificed to Hecate; Æneas offers four jetty
bullocks to the infernal powers, a coal-black lamb to Night;[152] at
their Sabbat on the Esquiline Canidia and Sagana tear limb from limb
a black sheep, the blood streams into a trench.[153] Collin de Plancy
states that witches sacrifice black fowls and toads to the Devil.[154]
The animal victim to a power worshipped as divine is a relic of remotest
antiquity.
The presence of toads at the Sabbat is mentioned in many witch-trials.
They seem to have been associated with sorcerers owing to the repugnance
they generally excite, and in some districts it is a common superstition
that those whom they regard fixedly will be seized with palpitations,
spasms, convulsions, and swoons: nay, a certain abbé Rousseau of the
eighteenth century, who experimented with toads, avowed that when one of
these animals looked upon him for some time he fell in a fainting fit
whence, if help had not arrived, he would never have recovered.[155] A
number of writers—Ælian, Dioscorides, Nicander, Ætius, Gesner—believe
that the breath of the toad is poisonous, infecting the places it
may touch. Since such idle stories were credited it is hardly to be
surprised at that we find the toad a close companion of the witch. De
Lancre says that demons often appeared in that shape. Jeannette d’Abadie,
a witch of the Basses-Pyrénées, whom he tried and who confessed at
length, declared that she saw brought to the Sabbat a number of toads
dressed some in black, some in scarlet velvet, with little bells attached
to their coats. In November, 1610, a man walking through the fields near
Bazas, noticed that his dog had scratched a large hole in a bank and
unearthed two pots, covered with cloth, and closely tied. When opened
they were found to be packed with bran, and in the midst of each was a
large toad wrapped in green tiffany. These doubtless had been set there
by a person who had faith in sympathetic magic, and was essaying a
malefic spell. No doubt toads were caught and taken to the Sabbat, nor is
the reason far to seek. Owing to their legendary venom they served as a
prime ingredient in poisons and potions, and were also used for telling
fortunes, since witches often divined by their toad familiars. Juvenal
alludes to this when he writes:
“I neither will, nor can Prognosticate
To the young gaping Heir, his Father’s Fate
Nor in the Entrails of a Toad have pry’d.”[156]
Upon which passage Thomas Farnabie, the celebrated English scholar
(1575-1647) glosses thus: “He alludes to the office of the Haruspex who
used to inspect entrails & intestines. Pliny says: The entrails of the
toad (_Rana rubeta_), that is to say the tongue, tiny bones, gall, heart,
have rare virtue for they are used in many medicines and salves. Haply
he means the puddock or hop-toad, thus demonstrating that these animals
are not poisonous, their entrails being completely inefficacious in
confecting poisons.”[157] In 1610 Juan de Echalar, a sorcerer of Navarre,
confessed at his trial before the Alcantarine inquisitor Don Alonso
Becerra Holguin that he and his coven collected toads for the Sabbat,
and when they presented these animals to the Devil he blessed them with
his left hand, after which they were killed and cooked in a stewpot with
human bones and pieces of corpses rifled from new-made graves. From
this filthy hotch-potch were brewed poisons and unguents that the Devil
distributed to all present with directions how to use them. By sprinkling
corn with the liquid it was supposed they could blight a standing field,
and also destroy flowers and fruit. A few drops let fall upon a person’s
garments was believed to insure death, and a smear upon the shed or sty
effectually diseased cattle. From these crude superstitions the fantastic
stories of dancing toads, toads dressed _en cavalier_, and demon toads at
the Sabbat were easily evolved.
There is ample and continuous evidence that children, usually tender
babes who were as yet unbaptized, were sacrificed at the Sabbat. These
were often the witches’ own offspring, and since a witch not unseldom was
the midwife or wise-woman of a village she had exceptional opportunities
of stifling a child at birth as a non-Sabbatial victim to Satan. “There
are no persons who can do more cunning harm to the Catholic faith than
midwives,” says the _Malleus Maleficarum_, Pars I, q. xi: “_Nemo fidei
catholicæ amplius nocet quam obstetrices._” The classic examples of
child-sacrifice are those of Gilles de Rais (1440) and the abbé Guibourg
(1680). In the process against the former one hundred and forty children
are explicitly named: some authorities accept as many as eight hundred
victims. Their blood, brains, and bones were used to decoct magic
philtres. In the days of Guibourg the sacrifice of a babe at the impious
mass was so common that he generally paid not more than a crown-piece for
his victim. “Il avait acheté un écu l’enfant qui fut sacrifié à cette
messe.” (“The child sacrificed at this mass he had bought for a crown.”)
These abominable ceremonies were frequently performed at the instance of
Madame de Montespan in order that Louis XIV should always remain faithful
to her, should reject all other mistresses, repudiate his queen, and in
fine raise her to the throne.[158] The most general use was to cut the
throat of the child, whose blood was drained into the chalice and allowed
to fall upon the naked flesh of the inquirer, who lay stretched along
the altar. La Voisin asserted that a toll of fifteen hundred infants had
been thus murdered. This is not impossible, as a vast number of persons,
including a crowd of ecclesiastics, were implicated. Many of the greatest
names in France had assisted at these orgies of blasphemy. From first to
last no less than two hundred and forty-six men and women of all ranks
and grades of society were brought to trial, and whilst thirty-six of
humbler station went to the scaffold, one hundred and forty-seven were
imprisoned for longer or shorter terms, not a few finding it convenient
to leave the country, or, at any rate, to obscure themselves in distant
châteaux. But many of the leaves had been torn out of the archives, and
Louis himself forbade any mention of his favourite’s name in connexion
with these prosecutions. However, she was disgraced, and it is not
surprising that after the death of Maria Teresa, 31 July, 1683, the king
early in the following year married the pious and conventual Madame de
Maintenon.
Ludovico Maria Sinistrari writes that witches “promise the Devil
sacrifices and offerings at stated times: once a fortnight, or at least
each month, the murder of some child, or an homicidal act of sorcery,”
and again and again in the trials detailed accusation of the kidnapping
and murder of children are brought against the prisoners. In the same
way as the toad was used for magical drugs so was the fat of the child.
The belief that corpses and parts of corpses constitute a most powerful
cure and a supreme ingredient in elixirs is universal and of the highest
antiquity. The quality of directly curing diseases and of protection
has long been attributed to a cadaver. Tumours, eruptions, gout, are
dispelled if the afflicted member be stroked with a dead hand.[159]
Toothache is charmed away if the face be touched with the finger of a
dead child.[160] Birthmarks vanish under the same treatment.[161] Burns,
carbuncles, the herpes, and other skin complaints, fearfully prevalent in
the Middle Ages, could be cured by contact with some part of a corpse.
In Pomerania the “cold corpse hand” is a protection against fire,[162]
and Russian peasants believe that a dead hand protects from bullet wounds
and steel.[163] It was long thought by the ignorant country folk that the
doctors of the hospital of Graz enjoyed the privilege of being allowed
every year to exploit one human life for curative purposes. Some young
man who repaired thither for toothache or any such slight ailment is
seized, hung up by the feet, and tickled to death! Skilled chemists boil
the body to a paste and utilize this as well as the fat and the charred
bones in their drug store. The people are persuaded that about Easter a
youth annually disappears in the hospital for these purposes.[164] This
tradition is, perhaps, not unconnected with the Jewish ritual sacrifices
of S. William of Norwich (1144); Harold of Gloucester (1168); William of
Paris (1177); Robert of Bury S. Edmunds (1181); S. Werner of Oberwesel
(1286); S. Rudolph of Berne (1294); S. Andreas of Rinn (1462); S. Simon
of Trent, a babe of two and a half years old (1473); Simon Abeles, whose
body lies in the Teyn Kirche at Prague, murdered for Christ’s sake on
21 February, 1694, by Lazarus and Levi Kurtzhandel; El santo Niño de la
Guardia, near Toledo (1490), and many more.[165]
The riots which have so continually during three centuries broken out in
China against Europeans, and particularly against Catholic asylums for
the sick, foundling hospitals, schools, are almost always fomented by an
intellectual party who begin by issuing fiery appeals to the populace:
“Down with the missionaries! Kill the foreigners! They steal or buy our
children and slaughter them, in order to prepare magic remedies and
medicines out of their eyes, hearts, and from other portions of their
dead bodies.” Baron Hübner in his _Promenade autour du monde_, II (Paris,
1873) tells the story of the massacre at Tientsin, 21 June, 1870, and
relates that it was engineered on these very lines. In 1891 similar
risings against Europeans resident in China were found to be due to the
same cause. Towards the end of 1891 a charge was brought in Madagascar
against the French that they devoured human hearts and for this purpose
kidnapped and killed native children. Stern legislation was actually
found necessary to check the spread of these accusations.[166]
In the Navarrese witch-trials of 1610 Juan de Echelar confessed that a
candle had been used made from the arm of an infant strangled before
baptism. The ends of the fingers had been lit, and burned with a clear
flame, a “Hand of Glory” in fact. At Forfar, in 1661, Helen Guthrie
and four other witches exhumed the body of an unbaptized babe and made
portions into a pie which they ate. They imagined that by this means no
threat nor torture could bring them to confession of their sorceries.
This, of course, is clearly sympathetic magic. The tongue of the infant
had never spoken articulate words, and so the tongues of the witches
would be unable to articulate.
It is a fact seldom realized, but none the less of the deepest
significance, that almost every detail of the old witch-trials can be
exactly paralleled in Africa to-day. Thus there exists in Bantu a society
called the “Witchcraft Company,” whose members hold secret meetings at
midnight in the depths of the forest to plot sickness and death against
their enemies by means of incantations and spells. The owl is their
sacred bird, and their signal call an imitation of its hoot. They profess
to leave their corporeal bodies asleep in their huts, and it is only
their spirit-bodies that attend the magic rendezvous, passing through
walls and over the tree-tops with instant rapidity. At the meeting they
have visible, audible, and tangible communication with spirits. They
hold feasts, at which is eaten the “heart-life” of some human being, who
through this loss of his heart falls sick and, unless “the heart” be
later restored, eventually dies. Earliest cock-crow is the warning for
them to disperse, since they fear the advent of the morning-star, as,
should the sun rise upon them before they reach their corporeal bodies,
all their plans would not merely fail, but recoil upon themselves,
and they would pine and languish miserably. This hideous Society was
introduced by black slaves to the West Indies, to Jamaica and Hayti,
and also to the Southern States of America as Voodoo worship. Authentic
records are easily procurable which witness that midnight meetings were
held in Hayti as late as 1888, when human beings, especially kidnapped
children, were killed and eaten at the mysterious and evil banquets.
European government in Africa has largely suppressed the practice of
the black art, but this foul belief still secretly prevails, and Dr.
Norris[167] is of opinion that were white influence withdrawn it would
soon hold sway as potently as of old.
A candid consideration will show that for every detail of the Sabbat,
however fantastically presented and exaggerated in the witch-trials of so
many centuries, there is ample warrant and unimpeachable evidence. There
is some hallucination no doubt; there is lurid imagination, and vanity
which paints the colours thick; but there is a solid stratum of fact, and
very terrible fact throughout.
And as the dawn broke the unhallowed crew separated in haste, and hurried
each one on his way homewards, pale, weary, and haggard after the night
of taut hysteria, frenzied evil, and vilest excess.
“Le coq s’oyt par fois és sabbats sonna̅t le retraicte aux
Sorciers.”[168] (The cock crows; the Sabbat ends; the Sorcerers scatter
and flee away.)
NOTES TO CHAPTER IV
[1] Omnia autem honeste et secundum ordinem fiant. I Cor. xiv. 40.
[2] Miss Murray, misled no doubt by the multiplicity of material,
postulates two separate and distinct kinds of assemblies: The Sabbat, the
General Meeting of all members of the religion; the Esbat “only for the
special and limited number who carried out the rites and practices of the
cult, and [which] was not for the general public.” _The Witch-Cult in
Western Europe_, p. 97. Görres had already pointed out that the smaller
meetings were often known as _Esbats_. The idea of a “general public” at
a witches’ meeting is singular.
[3] On a voulu trouver l’etymologie du sabbat, réunion des sorciers,
dans les _sabazies_; mais la forme ne le permet pas; d’ailleurs comment,
au moyen âge aurait on connu les sabazies? Saint-Croix, _Recherches sur
les mystères du paganisme_; Maury, _Histoire des religions de la Grèce
antique_.
[4] _Metamorphoseon_, VIII. 25.
[5] Miss Murray thinks that Sabbat “is possibly a derivative of
_s’esbattre_, ‘to frolic,’” and adds “a very suitable description of the
joyous gaiety of the meetings”!!
[6] Miss Murray mistakenly says (p. 109) that May Eve (30 April) is
called Roodmas or Rood Day. Roodmas or Rood Day is 3 May, the Feast of
the Invention of Holy Cross. An early English calendar (702-706) even
gives 7 May as Roodmas. The Invention of Holy Cross is found in the
Lectionary of Silos and the Bobbio Missal. The date was not slightly
altered. The Invention of Holy Cross is among the very early festivals.
[7] Especially in the North and North-East. Bavaria, Wurtemberg, and
Baden, knew little of this particular date.
[8] In the _Rituale_ we have “Benedictio Rogi, quæ fit a Clero extra
Ecclesiam in Uigilia Natiuitatis S. Joannis Baptistæ.” (Blessing of a
pyre, which the Clergy may give on the Vigil of the Nativity of S. John
Baptist, but outside the Church.) This form is especially approved for
the Diocese of Tarbes.
[9] _Relacion de las personas que salieron al auto de la fé que los
inquisidores apostólicos del reino de Navarra y su distrito, celebraron
en la ciudad De Logroño, en 7 y 8 del mes de noviembre de 1610 años_,
1611.
[10] _Discours des Sorciers_, XXII. 12. Tertullian’s _Diabolus simia Dei_.
[11] _Idem_, XX. 2.
[12] _Tableau_, p. 65.
[13] Les lieux des assemblées des Sorciers sont notables et signalez de
quelques arbres, ou croix. _Fleau_, p. 181.
[14] Anthony Horneck; Appendix to Glanvill’s _Sadducismus Triumphatus_.
London, 1681.
[15] Locus in diuersis regionibus est diuersus; plerumque autem
comitia in syluestribus, montanis, uel subterraneis atque ab hominum
conuersatione dissitis locis habentur. _Mela._ _Lib._ 3. _cap._ 44.
montem Atlantem nominat; _de Vaulx_ Magus Stabuleti decollatus, fatebatur
1603, in Hollandia congregationem frequentissimam fuisse in Ultraiectinæ
ditionis aliquo loco. Nobis ab hoc conuentu notus atq; notatus mons
Bructerorum, Melibœus alias dictus in ducatu Brunsuicensi, uulgo _der
Blocksberg oder Heweberg_, Peucero, _der Brockersberg_, & Tilemanno
Stellæ, _der Vogelsberg_, perhibonte _Ortelio in Thesauro Geographico_.
For the Bructeri see Tacitus, _Germania_, 33: Velleius Paterculus, II,
105, i. _Bructera natio_, Tacitus, _Historiæ_, IV, 61.
[16] ... le lieu où on le trouue ordinairement s’appelle Lanne de bouc,
& en Basque _Aquelarre de verros, prado del Cabrón_, & là des Sorciers
le vont adorer trois nuicts durant, celle du Lundy, du Mercredy, & du
Vendredy. De Lancre, _Tableau_, p. 62.
[17] Boguet, _Discours des Sorciers_, p. 124.
[18] _A Pleasant Treatise of Witches_, London, 1673.
[19] Psalm xc.
[20] Conuentus, ut plurimum ineuntur uel noctis mediæ silentio, quando
uiget potestas tenebrarum; uel interdiu meridie, quo sunt qui referant
illud Psalmistæ notum de dæmonio meridiano. Noctes frequentiores, quæ
feriam tertiam et sextam præcedunt. Delrio, _Disquisitiones Magicæ_, Lib.
II. xvi.
[21] _Discours_, XIX. 1. “The Sorcerers assemble at the Sabbat about
midnight.”
[22] Her indictment consists of fifty-three points.
[23] Spottiswoode’s _Practicks_.
[24] Spalding Club, _Miscellany_, I.
[25] MS. formerly in the possession of Michael Stewart Nicolson, Esq.
[26] ... je me trouvais transporté au lieu où le Sabatt se tenait, y
demeurant quelquefois une, deux, trois, quatre heures pour le plus
souvent suivant les affections.
[27]
Ferunt uagantes Dæmonas
Lætas tenebras noctium
Gallo canente exterritos
Sparsim timere et credere.
[28]
Nocturna lux uiantibus
A nocte noctem segregans,
Præco diei iam sonat,
Iubarque solis euocat.
Hoc nauta uires colligit,
Pontique mitescunt freta:
Hoc, ipsa petra Ecclesiæ,
Canente, culpam diluit.
Surgamus ergo strenue:
Gallus iacentes excitat,
Et somnolentes increpat,
Gallus negantes arguit.
Gallo canente, spes redit,
Ægris salus refunditur,
Mucro latronis conditur,
Lapsis fides reuertitur.
The translation in text is by Caswall, 1848.
[29] _Tableau_, p. 154.
[30] For London, see Dr. Johnson’s _London_ (1738):
Prepare for death, if here at night you roam,
And sign your will before you sup from home.
In 1500 Paolo Capello, the Venetian Ambassador, wrote: “Every night they
find in Rome four or five murdered men, Prelates and so forth.” During
the reign of Philip IV (1621-1665) the streets of Madrid, noisome,
unpaved, were only lit on the occasion of festal illuminations.
[31] 1475-1546.
[32] Quando uadunt ad loca propinqua uadunt pedestres mutuo se inuicem
inuitantes. _De Strigibus_, II.
[33] Les Sorciers neâtmoins vont quelquefois de pied au Sabbat, ce qui
leur aduient principalement, lors que le lieu où ils font leur assemblée,
n’est pas guieres eslongé de leur habitation. _Discours_, c. xvii.
[34]
Enquis en quel lieu se tint le Sabbat le dernier fois qu’il y
fut.
Respond que ce fut vers Billeron à un Carroy qui est sur le
chemin tendant aux Aix, Parroisse de Saincte Soulange, Iustice
de ceans.
Enquis de quelle façon il y va.
Respond qu’il y va de son pied.
De Lancre, _Tableau_, pp. 803-805.
[35] Aussi vilain & abominable est au Sorcier d’y aller de son pied que
d’y estre transporté de son consentement par le Diable. _Tableau_, p. 632.
[36] Sinclar, _Satan’s Invisible World Discovered_ (Reprint 1875), VII.
[37] _Idem_, p. 25.
[38] _Idem_, pp. 175, 178.
[39] Illud etiam non omittendum quod quædam sceleratæ mulieres retro post
Satanam conuersæ, dæmonum illusoribus et phantasmatibus seductæ credunt
se et profitentur nocturnis horis cum Diana paganorum dea et innumera
multitudine mulierum equitare super quasdam bestias et multa terrarum
spatia intempestæ noctis silentio pertransire eiusque iussionibus uelut
dominæ obedire, et certis noctibus ad eius seruitium euocari. Minge,
_Patres Latini_, CXXXII. 352.
[40] See Professor A. J. Clark’s note upon “Flying Ointments.”
_Witch-Cult in Western Europe_, pp. 279-280.
[41] Posset dæmon eas transferre sine unguento, et facit aliquando;
sed unguento mauult uti uariis de causis. Aliquando quia timidiores
sunt sagæ, ut audeant; uel quia teneriores sunt ad horribilem illum
Satanæ contactum in corpore assumpto ferendum; horum enim unctione
sensum obstupefacit et miseris persuadet uim unguento inesse maximam.
Alias autem id facit ut sacrosancta a Deo instituta sacramenta inimice
adumbret, et per has quasi cerimonias suis orgiis reuerentiæ et
uenerationis aliquid conciliat. Delrio, _Disquitiones magicæ_, Liber II,
qᵗᵒ xvi.
[42] In antiquity we have the case of Simon Magus, who was levitated in
the presence of Nero and his court.
[43] Henri Boguet, the High Justice of the district of Saint-Claude, died
in 1616. The first edition (of the last rarity) of his _Discours des
Sorciers_ is Lyons, 1602; second edition, Lyons 1608; but there is also a
Paris issue, 1603. Pp. 64 and 104.
[44] Scot, _Discoverie of Witchcraft_ (1584). Book III. p. 42.
[45] De Lancre, _Tableau_, p. 211.
[46] Thomas Wright, _Proceedings against Dame Alice Kyteler_, Camden
Society. 1843.
[47] Cotton Mather, _Wonders of the Invisible World_, 1693. (Reprint,
1862. P. 158.)
[48] _Quarterly Journal of Science_, January, 1874.
[49] J. Godfrey Raupert, _Modern Spiritism_. 1904. Pp. 34, 35. See also
Sir W. Barrett, _On the Threshold of the Unseen_, p. 70.
[50] Arthur Lillie, _Modern Mystics and Modern Magic_, 1894, pp. 74, 75.
[51] David Lewis, _Life of S. John of the Cross_ (1897), pp. 73-4.
[52] See the Saint’s own letter (written in 1777) to the Bishop of
Foggia. _Lettere di S. Alfonso Maria de’ Liguori_ (Roma, 1887), II. 456 f.
[53] Philip Coghlan, C.P. _Gemma Galgani_ (1923), p. 62. For fuller
details see the larger biography by Padre Germano.
[54] _Vie du B. Paul de la Croix._ (French translation.) I. Book ii. c. 3.
[55] _La Mystique Divine._ Traduit par Sainte-Foi. V. viii. 17. p. 193.
[56] Giovanni Francesco Ponzinibio was a lawyer whose _De Lamiis_ was
published at Venice, 1523-4. It called forth a reply, _Apologiæ tres
aduersum Joannem Franciscum Ponzinibium Iurisperitum_, Venice, 1525. The
edition of _De Lamiis_ I have used is Venice, 1584, in the _Thesaurus
Magnorum iuris consultorum_. This reprint was met by Peña’s answer and
two treatises by Bartolomeo Spina, O.P.
[57] Rome, 1584.
[58] De modo quo localiter transferentur [sagæ] de loco ad locum....
Probatur quod possint malefici corporaliter transferri.
[59] An isti Sortilegi & Strigimagæ siue Lamiæ uere & corporaliter
deferantur a dæmone uel solum in spiritu? _De Sortilegiis_, VII.
[60] Sum modo istius secundæ opinionis quod deferantur in corpore.
[61] Doctrina multi eorum qui sequuti sunt Lutherum, & Melanctonem,
tenuerent Sagas ad conuentus accedere animi duntaxat cogitatione, &
diabolica illusione interesse, allegantes quod eorum corpora inuenta
sunt sæpe numero eodem loco iacentia, nec inde mora fuisse, ad hoc illud
pertinens quod est in uita D. Germani, de mulierculis conuiuantibus, vt
uidebantur, & tame̅ dormierant dormientes. Huiusmodi mulierculas sæpe
numero decipi certum est, sed semper ita fieri non probatur.... Altera,
quam uerissimam esse duco, est, nonnunquam uere Sagas transferri a Dæmone
de loco ad locum, hirco, uel alteri animali fantastico vt plurimum eas
simul asportanti corporaliter, & conuentu nefario interesse, & hæc
sententia est multo communior Theologorum, imò & Iurisconsultorum Italiæ,
Hispaniæ, & Germaniæ inter Catholicos; hoc idem tenent alii quam plurimi.
Turrecremata super Grillandum,[A] Remigius,[B] Petrus Damianus,[C]
Siluester Abulensis,[D] Caietanus[E] Alphonsus a Castro[F] Sixtus
Senensis[G] Crespetus[H] Spineus[I] contra Ponzinibium, Ananias,[J] &
alii quam plurimi, quos breuitatis gratia omitto. _Per Fratrem Franciscum
Mariam Guaccium Ord. S. Ambrosii ad Nemus Mediolani compilatum._
Mediolani. Ex Collegii Ambrosiani Typographia. 1626.
[A] _De hæreticis et sortilegiis._ Lugduni. 1536.
[B] Nicolas Remy, _De la démonolâtrie_.
[C] Epistolarum, IV. 17.
[D] Silvester of Avila.
[E] Tommaso de Vio Gaetani, O.P. 1469-1534.
[F] Alfonso de Castro, Friar Minor. (1495-1558). Confessor to Charles V
and Philip II of Spain.
[G] Sisto da Siéna, O.P. Bibliotheca Sancta ... (Liber V). Secunda
editio. Francofurti. 1575. folio.
[H] Père Crespet, Celestine monk. _Deux livres de la haine de Satan et
des malins esprits contre l’homme._ Paris. 1590.
[I] Bartholomeo Spina, O.P. _De lamiis._ _De strigibus._ Both folio.
Venice, 1584. _Apologiæ tres aduersus Joannem Franciscum Ponzinibium
Jurisperitum._ Venice. 1525. Giovanni Francesco Ponzinibio wrote a
_Dedamiis_ of which I have used a late edition. Venice. 1584.
[J] Giovanni Lorenzo Anania, _De natura dæmonum_: libri iiii. Venetiis.
1581. 8vo.
[62] _De Strigibus_, II. I have used the reprint, 1669, which is given
in the valuable collection appended to the _Malleus Maleficarum_ of that
date, 4 vols. 4to.
[63] Ad quam congregationem seu ludum præfatæ pestiferæ personæ uadunt
corporaliter & uigilantes ac in propriis earū sensibus & quando uadunt
ad loca propinqua uadunt pedestres mutuo se inuicem inuitantes. Si aute̅
habent congregari in aliquo loco distanti tunc deferuntur a diabolo, &
quomodocunque uadant ad dictum locum siue pedibus suis siue adferantur
a diabolo uerū est quod realiter et ueraciter & no̅ pha̅tastice, neque
illusorii abnegant fide̅ catholicam, adorant diabolum, conculcant crucem,
& plura nefandissima opprobria committunt contra sacratissimum Corpus
Christi, ac alia plura spurcissima perpetrant cum ipso diabolo eis in
specie humana apparenti, & se uiris succubum, mulieribus autem incubum
exhibenti.
[64] George Gandillon, la nuict d’vn Ieudy Sainct, demeura dans son
lict, comme mort, pour l’espace de trois heures, & puis reuint à soy en
sursaut. Il a depuis esté bruslé en ce lieu auec son père & vne sienne
sœur.
[65] Chapitre xvi. Comme, & en quelle façon les Sorciers sont portez au
Sabbat.
1. _Ils y sont portez tantost sur un baston, ou ballet, tantost
sur un mouton ou bouc, & tantost par un homme noir._
2. _Quelquefois ils se frotte̅t de graisse, & à d’autres non._
3. _Il y en a, lesquels n’estans pas Sorciers, & s’estans
frottez, ne delaissent pas d’estre transportez au Sabbat, & la
raison._
4. _L’onguent, & la graisse ne seruent de rien aux Sorciers,
pour leur transport au Sabbat._
5. _Les Sorciers sont quelquefois portez au Sabbat par un vent
& tourbillon._
Chapitre xvii. Les Sorciers vont quelques fois de pied au Sabbat.
Chapitre xviii. Si les Sorciers vont en ame seulement au Sabbat.
1 & 3. _L’affirmatiue, & exemples._
2. _Indices, par lesquels on peut coniecturer, qu’vne certaine
femme estoit au Sabbat en ame seulement._
4. _La negatiue._
5. _Comme s’entend ce que l’on dit d’Erichtho, & d’Apollonius
lesquels resusciterent l’un un soldat, & l’autre une ieune
fille._
6. _Les Sorciers ne peuuent resusciter un mort, & exemples._
7. _Non plus que les heretiques & exemples._
8. _Opinion de l’Autheur sur le suiect de ce chapitre._
9. _Satan endort le plus souuent les personnes, & exemples._
Chapitre xix.
1. _Les Sorciers vont enuiron la minuict au Sabbat._
2. _La raison pourquoy le Sabbat si tient ordinairement de
nuict._
3. _Satan se plait aux tenebres, & à la couleur noire, estant
au contraire la blancheur agreable à Dieu._
4. _Les Sorciers dansent doz contre doz au Sabbat, & se
masquent pour la plus part._
5, 8. _Le coq venant à chanter, le Sabbat disparoit aussi tost,
& la raison._
6. _La voix du coq funeste à Satan tout ainsi qu’au lyon, & au
serpent._
7. _Le Demon, selon quelques uns a crainte d’vne espée nue._
Chapitre xx. Du iour du Sabbat.
1. _Le Sabbat se tient à un chacun iour de la semaine, mais
principalement le Ieudy._
2. _Il se tient encor aux festes les plus solemnelles de
l’année._
Chapitre xxi. Du lieu du Sabbat.
1. _Le lieu du Sabbat est signalé, selon aucuns, de quelques
arbres ou bien de quelques croix, & l’opinion de l’autheur sur
ce suiect._
2. _Chose remarquable d’vn lieu pretendu pour le Sabbat._
3. _Il faut de l’eau au lieu, où se tient le Sabbat, &
pourquoy._
4. _Les Sorciers, à faute d’eau, urinent dans un trou, qu’ils
font en terre._
Chapitre xxii. De ce qui se fait au Sabbat.
1. _Les Sorciers y adorent Satan, estăt en forme d’homme noir,
ou de bouc, & luy offrent des chandelles, & le baisent aux
parties honteuses de derriere._
2. _Ils y dansent, & de leurs danses._
3. _Ils se desbordent en toutes sortes de lubricitez, & comme
Satan se fait Incube & Succube._
4. _Incestes, & paillardises execrebles des Euchites &
Gnostiques._
5. _Les Sorciers banquettent au Sabbat, de leurs viandes, &
breuuages, & de la façon qu’ils tiennent à benir la table, & à
rendre graces._
6. _Ils ne prennent cependant point de gout aux Viandes, &
sortent ordinairement auec faim du repas._
7. _Le repas paracheué, ils rendent conte de leurs actions à
Satan._
8. _Ils renoncent de nouueau à Dieu, au Chresme, &c. Et comme
Satan les sollicite à mal faire._
9. _Ils y font la gresle._
10. _Ils y celebrent messe, & de leurs chappes, & eau benite._
11. _Satan se consume finalement en feu, & se reduit en cendre,
de laquelle les Sorciers prennent tous, & a quel effet._
12. _Satan Singe de Dieu en tout._
[66] Vouloir donner une description du Sabbat, c’est vouloir decrire ce
qui n’existe point, & n’a jamais subsisté que dans l’imagination creuse
& séduite des Sorciers & Sorcieres: les peintures qu’on nous en fait,
sont d’après les rêveries de ceux & de celles qui s’imaginent d’être
transportés à travers les airs au Sabbat en corps & en ame. _Traité sur
les Apparitions des Esprits_, par le R. P. Dom Augustin Calmet, Abbé de
Sénones. Paris, 1751, I. p. 138.
[67] See the woodcut upon the title-page of Middleton & Rowley’s _The
World tost at Tennis_, 4to, 1620.
[68] De Lancre, _L’Incrédulité_, p. 769.
[69] Boguet, _Discours des Sorciers_.
[70] De Lancre, _Tableau_, p. 217.
[71] De Lancre, _L’Incrédulité_, p. 800.
[72] Görres, _La Mystique Divine_, traduit par Charles Sainte-Foi. V.
viii. 19. p. 208.
[73] George Sinclar, _Satan’s Invisible World Discovered_, Relation XVII.
[74] _La Mystique Divine_, 1902 (Nouvelle édition). III. p. 381.
[75] _Tractatus_, xxi. c. 11. P. xi. n. 179.
[76] _Disquisitiones Magicæ_, Lib. II. qᵗᵒ x.
[77] _Compendium Maleficarum_, p. 78.
[78] “Solent ad conuentum delatæ dæmonem conuentus præsidem in solio
considentem forma terrifica, ut plurimum hirci uel canis, obuerso ad
illum tergo accedentes, adorare ... et deindo, homagii quod est indicium,
osculari eum in podice.”[K] Guazzo notes: “Ad signum homagii dæmonem
podice osculantur.”[L] And Ludwig Elich says: “Deinde quod homagii
est indicium (honor sit auribus) ab iis ingerenda sunt oscula Dæmonis
podici.”[M]
[K] _Disquisitiones Magicæ_, Lib. II. qto xvi.
[L] _Compendium Maleficarum_, I. 13.
[M] _Dæmonomagia_, Quæstis x.
[79] _Mystery of Witchcraft._
[80] It may be remembered that, as related elsewhere, there is strong
reason to suppose Francis Stewart, Earl of Bothwell, grandson of James V,
was “the Devil” on this occasion, as he was certainly the Grand Master of
the witches and the convener of the Sabbat.
[81] _Newes from Scotland, declaring the damnable Life of Doctor Fian._
London. W. Wright. [1592].
[82] Dudum ad audientiam nostram peruenit, quod uenerabilis frater
noster G. Conuentrensis et Lichefeldensis episcopus erat in regno Angliæ
et alibi publice defamatur quod diabolo homagium fecerat et eum fuerat
osculatus in tergo eique locutus multotius.
[83] Confessa ledit sire Guillaume ... avoir fait hommage audit ennemy
en l’espèce et semblance d’ung mouton en le baisant par le fondement en
signe de révérence et d’hommage. Jean Chartier, _Chronique de Charles
VII_ (ed. Vallet de Viriville). Paris, 1858. III. p. 45. Shadwell, who
has introduced this ceremony into _The Lancashire Witches_, II, (The
Scene Sir _Edward’s_ Cellar), in his notes refers to “Doctor _Edlin_ ...
who was burn’d for a Witch.”
[84] _Reliquiæ Antiquæ_, vol. I. p. 247.
[85] Il a veu [le diable] quelque fois en forme d’homme, tenant son
cheval par le frein, & qu’ils le vont adorer tenans vue chandelle de poix
noir en leurs mains, le baisent quelque fois au nombril, quelque fois au
cul. De Lancre, _L’Incredulité_, p. 25.
[86] Tum candelis piceis oblatis, vel vmbilico infantili, ad signum
homagii eum in podico osculantur, Liber I. xiii.
[87] _Satan’s Invisible World Discovered_, Relation III.
[88] ... qui apparait là, tantost en forme d’vn grand homme noir,
tantost en forme de bouc, & pour plus grand hommage, ils luy offrent
des chandelles, qui rendent vne flamme de couleur bleüe. _Discours des
Sorciers_, p. 131.
[89]
εἴθε λύρα καλὴ γενοίμην ἐλεφαντίνη,
καί με καλοὶ παίδες φέροειν Διονύσιον ες χορόν.
(Fain would I be a fair lyre of ivory, and fair boys carrying me to
Dionysus’ choir.)
[90] Sequuntur his choree quas in girum agitant semper tamen ad læuam
progrediendo. _Compendium Maleficarum_, I. xiii.
[91] Les Sorciers, dansent & font leurs danses en rond doz contre doz.
[92] Quelquefois, mais rarement, ils dansent deux à deux, & par fois l’vn
çà & l’autre là, & tousiours en confusion.
[93] On n’y dançoit que trois sortes de bransles.... La premiere c’est à
la Bohemienne.... La seconde c’est à sauts: ces deux sont en rond. Sir
John Davies in his _Orchestra or A Poeme on Dauncing_, London, 18mo,
1596, describes the seven movements of the Cransles (Crawls) as:
_Upward_ and _downeward_, _forth_ and _back againe_,
_To this side_ and _to that_, and _turning round_.
[94] II. 1.
[95] Sinclar, _Satan’s Invisible World Discovered_, III.
[96] _Newes from Scotland_,(1592).
[97] Tota turba colluuiesque pessima fescenninos in honorem dæmonum
cantat obscenissimos. Hæc cantat _Harr, harr_; illa Diabolo, Diabolo,
salta huc, salta illuc; altera lude hic, lude illic; alia Sabaoth,
Sabaoth, &c.; immo clamoribus, sibilis, ululatibus, propicinis furit ac
debacchatur. _Dæmonomagia_, Quæstio x.
[98] Hi habent mensas appositas & instructas accumbunt & incipiunt
conuiuari de cibis quos Dæmon suppeditat uel iis quos singuli attulere,
_Compendium Maleficarum_, I. xiii.
[99] Les liures disent que les sorciers mangent au Sabbat de ce que
le Diable leur a appresté: mais bien souue̅t il ne s’y trouue que des
viandes qu’ils ont porté eux mesmes. Parfois il y a plusieurs tables
seruies de bons viures & d’autres fois de tres meschans. “Les Sorciers
... banquettent & se festoient,” remarks Boguet, “leur banquets estans
composez de plusieurs sortes de viandes, selon les lieux & qualitez des
personnes.” _Tableau_, p. 197. _Discours des Sorciers_, p. 135.
[100] Sinclar, _Invisible World Discovered_, Relation XXIX.
[101] Ils banquêtent, dressant trois tables selon les trois diversités
des gens susnommés. Ceux qui ont la charge du pain, ils portent le pain
qu’ils font de blé dérobé aux aires invisiblement en divers lieux. Ils
boivent de la malvoisie, pour eschauffer la chair à la luxure, que les
députés portent, la dérobant des caves où elle se trouve. Ils y mangent
ordinairement de la chair des petits enfants que les députés cuisent à
la Synagogue et parfois les y portent tout vifs, les dérobant à leurs
maisons quand ils trouvent la commodité. Père Sébastien Michaëlis, O.P.
_Histoire admirable de la possession_, 1613.
[102] On y boit aussi du vin, et le plus souvent de l’eau.
[103] Conuiuant de cibis a se uel a dæmone allatis, interdum
delicatissimis, et interdum insipidis ex infantibus occisis aut
cadaueribus exhumatis, præcedente tamen benedictione mensæ tali coetu
digna. _Salamanticenses_, Tr. xxi. c. 11. P. 11. n. 179.
[104] Uinum eorum præterea instar atri atque insinceri sanguinis in
sordido aliquo scipho epulonibus solitum propinari. Nullam fere copiam
rerum illic deesse afferunt præterqua̅ panis et salis. Addit Dominica
Isabella apponi etiam humanas carnes. _Compendium Maleficarum_, I. xiii.
[105] _De la Démonomanie_, III. 5.
[106] _Dæmonomagio_, Quæstio vii.
[107] Il n’y a jamais sel en ces repas. _Discours des Sorciers_.
[108] On se met à table, où il n’a iamais veu de sel.
Shadwell draws attention to this detail: _The Lancashire Witches_, II,
the Sabbat scene; where Mother Demdike says:
See our Provisions ready here,
To which no Salt must e’er come near!
[109] Père Sébastien Michaëlis, O.P. _Histoire admirable_, 1613.
[110] Isti uero qui expressam professionem fecerunt, reddunt etiam
expressum cultum adorationis dæmoni per solemnia sacrificia, quæ ipsi
faciunt diabolo, imitantes in omnibus diuinum cultum, cum paramentis,
luminaribus, et aliis huiusmodi, ac precibus quibusdam et orationibus
quibus instructi sunt, adeo ipsum adorant et collaudant continue, sicut
nos uerum Creatorem adoramus. _De Sortilegiis_, Liber II. c. iii. n. 6.
[111] _The Wonders of the Invisible World_. A Hortatory Address, p. 81.
[112] J. Hutchinson, _History of Massachusett’s Bay_, II. p. 55. (1828.)
[113] _Euchologion_ of the Orthodox Church, ed. Venice, 1898, p. 63.
[114] Baissac, _Les grands jours de la Sorcellerie_ (1890), p. 391.
[115] Calmeil, _De la folie_, I. p. 344.
[116] Sébastien Michaëlis, _Histoire admirable_. 1613. Translated as
_Admirable Historie_. London, 1613.
[117] Desmarest, _Histoire de Magdelaine Bavent_. Paris. 4to. 1652.
[118] For full details see François Ravaisson, _Archives de la Bastille_,
Paris, 1873, where the original depositions are given.
[119] _Là-Bas_ appeared in the _Echo de Paris_, 1890-1.
[120] _Tableau_, p. 401. For the full account of these ceremonies I have
chiefly relied upon Guazzo; Boguet, _Discours_, XXII, 10; De Lancre, pp.
86, 122, 126, 129; and Görres, _Mystique_, V. pp. 224-227. It hardly
seems necessary to give particular citations here for each circumstance.
[121] De Lancre, _Tableau_, IV. 4.
[122] _Corriere Nazionale di Torino_, Maggio. 1895.
[123] De Lancre, _Tableau_, p. 401.
[124] Görres, _Mystique_, V. p. 230.
[125] Roland Brévannes, _L’Orgie Satanique_, IV. Le Sabbat, p. 122.
[126] _Discours_, p. 141.
[127] S. Caleb, _Messes Noires_, p. 153.
[128] _Confession faicte par Messire Loys Gaufridi_, A Aix. MVCXI.
[129] A vne Chasuble qui a vne croix; mais qu’elle n’a que trois barres.
[130] Le Diable en mesme temps pisse dans vn trou à terre, & fait de
l’eau beniste de son vrine, de laquelle celuy, qui dit la messe, arrouse
tous les assistants auec vn asperges noir. Boguet, _Discours_, p. 141.
[131] ... lors que Tramesabot disoit la Messe, & qu’auant la commencer
li iettoit de l’eau beniste qui estoit faicte de pissat, & faisoit
la reverence de l’espaule, & disoit _Asperges Diaboli_. De Lancre,
_L’Incredulité_.
[132] L’eau beniste est iaune comme du pissat d’asne, & qu’apres qu’on la
iettée on dit la Messe.
[133] Michaëlis _Histoire admirable_, 1613. Miss Murray, _The
Witch-Cult_, p. 149, suggests that this sprinkling was “a fertility
rite”! An astounding theory. This blasphemy, of course, alludes to the
curse of the Jews, S. Matthew xxvii. 25.
[134] Que le Diable dit le Sermo au Sabbat, mais qu’on n’entend ce qu’il
dit, parce qu’il parle com̅e en gro̅dant. Which suggests the wearing of a
mask, or, at least, a voice purposely disguised.
[135] Dit qu’il a veu bailler au Sabbat du pain benist & de l’encens,
mais il ne sentoit bon comme celuy de l’Eglise.
[136] So in the Orleans trial Gentil le Clerc confessed that the Devil
“tourne le dos à l’Autel quand il veut leuer l’Hostie & le Calice, qui
sont noirs.”
[137] Silvain Nevillon, (1614-1615). Dit aussi auoir veu des Sorciers &
Sorcieres qui apportoient des Hosties au Sabbat, lesquelles elles auoient
gardé lors qu’on leur auoit baillé à communier à l’Eglise.
[138] Presumably S. Cæsarius of Arles, 470-543, who incidentally was
famous for eradicating the last traces of Pagan superstitions and
practices. He imposed the penalty of excommunication upon all those who
consulted augurs and wore heathen amulets. The Gnostics were especially
notorious for their employment of such periapts, talismans, and charms.
[139] J. F. Bladé, _Quatorze superstitions populaires de la Gascogne_,
pp. 16 _sqq._ Agen. 1883.
[140] _Decisions._ Edinburgh, 1759.
[141] Ie laisse à penser si l’on n’exerce pas là toutes les especes de
lubricités veu encor que les abominations, qui firent foudre & abismer
Sodome & Gomorrhe, y font fort communes. Boguet, _Discours_, c. xxii. p.
137.
[142] _Histoire admirable_, 1613.
[143] Finalement, ils paillardent ensemble: le dimanche avec les diables
succubes ou incubes; le jeudi, commettent la sodomie; le samedi la
bestialité; les autres jours à la voie naturelle.
[144] The Louviers process lasted four years, 1643-7.
[145] Après la Messe on dance, puis on couche ensemble, hommes auec
hommes, & auec des femmes. Puis on se met à table.... Dit qu’il a cognu
des hommes & s’est accouplé auec eux; qu’il auoit vne couppe on gondolle
par le moyen de laquelle toutes les femmes le suiuoient pour y boire.
[146] Apres la danse finie les diables se couchere̅t auecques elles, &
eure̅t leur co̅pagnie.
[147] ... grand nombre d’hommes & femmes furent bruslees en la ville
d’Arras, accusees les vns par les autres, & co̅fesserent qu’elles
estoient la nuict transportees aux danses, & puis qu’ils se couploient
auecques les diables, qu’ils adoroient en figure humaine.
[148] ... toutes generalement sans exception, confessoient que le diable
auoit copulation charnelle auec elles, apres leur auoir fait renoncer
Dieu & leur religion.
[149] ... c’est à sçauoir que les diables, ta̅t qu’elles auoient esté
Sorcieres, auoie̅t eu copulation auec elles. Henry de Cologne confirmant
ceste opinion dit, qu’il y a rien plus vulgaire en Alemaigne.
[150] ... quod sacrificia dabant dæmonibus in animalibus uiuis, quæ
diuidebant membratim et offerebant distribuendo in inferne quadruuiis
cuidam dæmoni qui se facit appellari Artis Filium ex pauperioribus
inferni. _Dame Alice Kyteler_, ed. T. Wright. Camden Society. 1843. pp.
1-2.
[151] _Highland Papers_, III. p. 18.
[152] _Æneid_, VI. 243-251.
[153] Horace, _Sermonum_, I. viii.
[154] _Dictionnaire Infernal_, ed. 1863, p. 590.
[155] Salgues, _Des erreurs et des prejugés_, I. p. 423.
[156] III. 44-45.
[157] Alludit ad Haruspicis officium, qui exta & viscera inspiciebat.
Plinius inquit: _Ex ranæ rubetæ uisceribus; id est, lingua, ossiculo,
licne, corde, mira fieri posse constat, sunt enin plurimis medicaminibus
referta_. Forte intelligit rubetam uel bufonem, indicans se non esse
ueneficum, nec rubetarum extis uti ad uenefica. Cf. also Pliny, _Historia
Naturalis_, XXXII. 5.
[158] Ravaisson, _Archives de la Bastille_, VI. p. 295 _et alibi_. The
interrogatories of these scandals may be found in volumes IV and V of
this work.
[159] L. Strackerjan, _Aberglaube und Sagen aus dem Herzogthum Oldenburg_
(1867), I. 70.
[160] _Königsberger Hartung’sche Zeitung_, 1866. No. 9.
[161] V. Fossel. _Volksmedicin und medicinischer Aberglaube in
Steiermark_, Graz, 1886.
[162] U. Jahn, _Zauber mit Menschenblut und anderen Teilen des
menschlichen Körpers_, 1888.
[163] A. Löwenstimm, _Aberglaube und Strafecht_, (_Die Volksmedizin_),
1897.
[164] V. Fossel, _Volksmedicin_, _ut supra_.
[165] Adrian Kembter, C.R.P., writing in 1745 enumerates 52 instances,
and his last is dated 1650. This number might be doubled, and extends
until the present century. H. C. Lee, in an article, _El santo nino de la
Guardia_, has signally failed to disprove the account. See the series of
forty-four articles in the _Osservatore Cattolico_ March and April, 1892,
Nos. 8438-8473.
[166] _Le Temps_, Paris, 1 Feb. and 23 March, 1892.
[167] _Fetichism in West Africa_, New York, 1904.
[168] De Lancre, _Tableau_, p. 154.
CHAPTER V
THE WITCH IN HOLY WRIT
In the course of the Holy Scriptures there occur a great number of
words and expressions which are employed in connexion with witchcraft,
divination, and demonology, and of these more than one authority has
made detailed and particular study. Some terms are of general import,
one might even venture to say vague and not exactly defined, some are
directly specific: of some phrases the signification is plain and
accepted; concerning others, scholars are still undecided and differ more
or less widely amongst themselves. Yet it is noteworthy that from the
very earliest period the attitude of the inspired writers towards magic
and related practices is almost wholly condemnatory and uncompromisingly
hostile. The vehement and repeated denunciations launched against the
professors of occult sciences and the initiate in foreign esoteric
mysteries do not, moreover, seem to be based upon any supposition of
fraud but rather upon the “abomination” of the magic in itself, which
is recognized as potent for evil and able to wreak mischief upon life
and limb. It is obvious, for example, that the opponents of Moses, the
sorcerers[1] Jannes and Mambres, were masters of no mean learning and
power, since when, in the presence of Pharaoh, Aaron’s rod became a live
serpent, they also and their mob of disciples “fecerunt per incantationes
Ægyptiacas et arcana quædam similiter,” casting down their rods, which
were changed into a mass of writhing snakes. They were able also to bring
up frogs upon the land, but it was past their wit to drive them away.
We have here, however, a clear acknowledgement of the reality of magic
and its dark possibilities, whilst at the same time prominence is given
to the fact that when it contests with the miraculous power divinely
bestowed upon Moses it fails hopelessly and completely. The serpent,
which was Aaron’s rod, swallows all the other serpents. The swarms of
mosquitoes and gadflies which Aaron caused to rise in myriads from the
dust the native warlocks could not produce, nay, they were constrained
to cry “Digitus Dei est hic”; whilst a little later they were unable to
protect even their own bodies from the pest of blains and swelling sores.
None the less a supernatural power was possessed by Jannes and Mambres
as truly as by Moses, although not to the same extent, and derived from
another, in fact, from an opposite and antagonistic source.
Even more striking is the episode of Balaam, who dwelt at Pethor, a
city of Mesopotamia (the Pitru of the cuneiform texts), and who was
summoned thence by Balak, King of Moab, to lay a withering curse upon
the Israelites, encamped after their victory over the Amorrhites at the
very confines of his territory. The royal messengers come to Balaam “with
the rewards of divination in their hand,” a most illuminating detail,
for it shows that already the practice of magical arts is rewarded with
gifts of great value.[2] In fact when Balaam refuses, although with
reluctance, to accompany the first embassy, princes of the highest rank
are then sent to him with injunctions to offer him rank and wealth or
whatsoever he may care to ask. “I will promote thee to very great honour,
and I will do whatsoever thou sayest unto me; come, therefore, and curse
this people,” are the king’s actual words. After great difficulties, for
Balaam is, at first, forbidden to go and only wins his way on condition
that he undertakes to do what he is commanded and to speak no more than
he is inspired to say, the seer commences his journey and is met by
the king at a frontier town, and by him taken up “unto the high places
of Baal,” to the sacred groves upon the hill-tops, where seven mystic
altars are built, and a bullock and a ram offered upon each. Balaam then
senses the imminent presence of God, and withdraws swiftly apart to some
secret place where “God met” him. He returns to the scene of sacrifice
and forthwith blesses the Israelites. Balak in consternation and dismay
hurries him to the crest of Pisgah (Phasga), and the same ceremonies are
performed. But again Balaam pours forth benisons upon the people. A third
attempt is made, and this time was chosen the summit of Peor (Phogor), a
peculiarly sacred sanctuary, the centre of the local cult of Baal Peor,
whose ancient worship comprised a ritual of most primitive obscenity.[3]
Again the sevenfold sacrifice is offered upon seven altars, and this
time Balaam deliberately resists the divine control, a vain endeavour,
since he passes into trance, and utters words of ineffable benediction
gazing down the dim avenues of futurity to the glorious vision of the
Madonna, Stella Jacob, and her Son, the Sceptre of Israel. Beating his
clenched hands together in an access of ungovernable fury the choused and
exasperated king incontinently dismisses his guest.
It must be remarked that throughout the whole of this narrative, the
details of which are as interesting as they are significant, there is on
the part of the writer a complete recognition of the claims put forth by
Balaam and so amply acknowledged and appreciated by Balak. Balaam was a
famous sorcerer, and one, moreover, who knew and could launch the mystic
Word of Power with deadly effect. Among the early Arabs as among the
Israelites the magic spell, the Word of Blessing or the Curse, played a
prominent part. In war, the poet, by cursing the enemy in rhythmic runes,
rendered services not inferior to the heroism of the warrior himself.
So the Jews of Medina used to bring into their synagogues images of
their hated enemy Malik b. al-Aglam; and at these effigies they hurled
maledictions each time they met. The reality of Balaam’s power is clearly
the key-note of the Biblical account. Else why should his services be
transferred to the cause of Israel? Balak’s greeting to the seer is no
empty compliment but vitally true: “I wot that he whom thou blessest is
blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed.” Not impertinent is the
bitter denunciation in the song of Deborah, Judges v. 23, “Curse ye me
Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants
thereof; because they came not to the help of the Lord against the
mighty!” (A.V.) Belief in the potency of the uttered word has existed at
all times and in all places, and yet continues to exist everywhere to-day.
Although Balaam prophesied it must be borne in mind that he was not a
prophet in the Scriptural sense of the term; he was a soothsayer, a
wizard; the Vulgate has _hariolus_,[4] which is derived from the Sanskrit
_hira_, entrails, and equivalent to _haruspex_. This term originally
denoted an Etruscan diviner who foretold future events by an inspection
of the entrails of sacrificial victims. It was from the Etruscans
that this practice was introduced to the Romans. It is probable that
Balaam employed the seven bullocks and rams in this way, the technical
_extispicium_, a method of inquiry and forecasting which seems to have
been almost universal, although the exact manner in which the omens
were read differed among the several peoples and at various times. It
persisted, none the less, until very late, and indeed it is resorted to,
so it has been said, by certain occultists even at the present day. It is
known to have been practised by Catherine de’ Medici, and it is closely
connected with the dark Voodoo worship of Jamaica and Hayti. S. Thomas,
it is true, has spoken of Balaam as a prophet, but the holy doctor
hastens to add “a prophet of the devil.” The learned Cornelius à Lapide,
glossing upon Numbers xxii and xxiii writes: “It is clear that Balaam
was a prophet, not of God, but of the Devil.... He was a magician, and
he sought for a conference with his demon to take counsel with him.”[5]
He is of opinion that the seven altars were erected in honour of the
Lords of the Seven Planets. Seven is, of course, the perfect number, the
mystic number, even as three; and all must be done by odd numbers. The
woman in Vergil who tries to call back her estranged lover Daphnis by
potent incantations cries: _numero deus impare gaudet_. (Heaven loves
unequal numbers.) Eclogue viii. 75 (_Pharmaceutria_). S. Augustine, S.
Ambrose, and Theodoret consider that when Balaam on the first occasion
withdrew hastily saying “Peradventure the Lord will come to meet me,” he
expected to meet a demon, his familiar. But “God met Balaam.” The very
precipitation and disorder seem to point to the design of the sorcerer,
for as in the Divine Liturgy all is done with due dignity, grace, and
comeliness, so in the functions of black magic all is hurried, ugly, and
terrible.
One of the most striking episodes in the Old Testament is concerned with
necromancy, the appearance of Samuel in the cave or hut at Endor. Saul,
on the eve of a tremendous battle with the Philistines, is much dismayed
and almost gives away to a complete nervous collapse as he sees the
overwhelming forces of the ruthless foe. To add to his panic, when he
consulted the Divine Oracles, no answer was returned, “neither by dreams,
nor by Urim, nor by prophets.” And although he had in the earlier years
of his reign shown himself a determined represser of Witchcraft, in his
dire extremity he catches at any straw, and bids his servants seek out
some woman “that hath a familiar spirit,” and his servants said to him,
“Behold there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor,” which is
a miserable hamlet on the northern slope of a hill, lying something south
of Mount Tabor.
The phrase here used, rendered by the Vulgate “pytho” (Quærite mihi
mulierem habentem pythonem) and by the Authorized Version “familiar
spirit,” is in the original _’ôbh_,[6] which signifies the departed
spirit evoked, and also came to stand for the person controlling such a
spirit and divining by its aid. The Witch of Endor is described as the
possessor of an _’ôbh_. The LXX. translates this word by ἐγγαστράμυθος,
which means ventriloquist, either because the real actors thought that
the magician’s alleged communication with the spirit was a mere deception
to impose upon the inquirer who is tricked by the voice being thrown
into the ground and being of strange quality—a view which mightily
commends itself to Lenormant [7] and the sceptical Renan[8] but which
is quite untenable—or rather because of the belief common in antiquity
that ventriloquism was not a natural faculty but due to the temporary
obsession of the medium by a spirit. In this connexion the prophet
Isaias has a remarkable passage: Quærite a pythonibus, et a diuinis qui
strident in incantationibus suis. (Seek unto them that have familiar
spirits, and unto wizards that peep and that mutter. _A.V._) Many Greek
and Latin poets attribute a peculiar and distinctive sound to the voices
of spirits. Homer (_Iliad_, XXIII, 101; _Odyssey_, XXIV, 5, and 9) uses
τρίξειν, which is elsewhere found of the shrill cry or chirping of
partridges, young swallows, locusts, mice, bats,[9] and of such other
sounds as the creaking of a door, the sharp crackling of a thing burned
in a fire. Vergil _Æneid_, III, 39, speaks of the cry of Polydorus from
his grave as _gemitus lacrimabilis_, and the clamour of the spirits in
Hades is _uox exigua_. Horace also in his description of the midnight
Esbat on the Esquiline describes the voice as _triste et acutum;_
(_Sermonum_, I. viii, 40-1):
singula quid memorem, quo pacto alterna loquentes
umbrae cum Sagana resonarent triste et acutum.
Statius, _Thebais_, VII, 770, has “stridunt animæ,” upon which Kaspar von
Barth, the famous sixteenth-century German scholar, annotates “Homericum
hoc est qui corporibus excedentes animas stridere excogitauit.” So in
Shakespeare’s well-known lines, _Hamlet_ I, 1:
the sheeted dead
Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets.
When he had been informed of this witch Saul, accordingly, completely
divested himself of the insignia of royalty and in a close disguise
accompanied only by two of his most trusted followers similarly muffled
in cloaks, he painfully made his way at dead of night to her remote and
squalid hovel. He eagerly requested her to exercise her powers, and to
raise the spirit of the person whom he should name. At first she refused,
since some years before the laws had been stringently enforced and the
penalty of death awaited all sorcerers and magicians. Not unreasonably
she feared that these mysterious strangers might be laying a trap for
her, to imperil her life. But the concealed king persuaded her, and bound
himself by a mighty oath that she should come to no harm. Whereupon she
consented to evoke the soul of the prophet Samuel, as he desired. The
charm commenced, and after the vision of various familiars—the woman
said: Deos uidi ascendentes de terra—and S. Gregory of Nyssa explains
these as demons, τὰ φαντάσματα,—Samuel appeared amid circumstances of
great terror and awe, and in the same moment the identity of her visitant
was recognized (we are not informed how) by the sybil.[10] In a paroxysm
of rage and fear the haggard crone turned to him and shrieked out: “Why
hast thou deceived me? For thou art Saul.” The king, however, tremblingly
reassured her for her own safety, and feeling that he was confronted
by no earthly figure—he could not see the phantom, although he sensed
a presence from beyond the grave—he asked: “What form is he of?” And
when the beldame, to whom alone the prophet was visible, described the
spirit: “An old man cometh up, and he is covered with a mantle,” Saul at
once recognized Samuel, and fell prostrate upon the ground, whilst the
apparition spake his swiftly coming doom.
[Illustration: PLATE VI
THE WITCH OF ENDOR.
[_face p. 178_]
Here we have a detailed scene of necromancy proper. There are, it
is true, some remarkable, and perhaps unusual, features: the witch
alone sees the phantom, but Saul instantly knows who it is from her
description; he directly addresses Samuel, and he hears the prediction of
the dead prophet. The whole narrative undoubtedly bears the impress of
actuality and truth.
There are several interpretations of these incidents. In the first place
some writers have denied the reality of the vision, and so it is claimed
that the witch deceived Saul by skilful trickery. This hardly seems
possible. It is not likely that she would have run so grave a risk as the
exercise, or pretended exercise, of magical arts must entail were she
a mere charlatan; an accomplice of remarkably quick wit and invention
would have been necessary to carry out the details of the plot; it is
surely incredible that they should have ventured upon so uncompromising a
denunciation of the king and have foretold so evil an end to his house.
In fact the whole tenor of the story conflicts with this explanation,
which is not allowed by the Fathers. Theodoret, it is true, inclines
to suppose that some deception was practised, but he hesitates to
maintain an unequivocal opinion in the matter. In his _Quæstiones in I
Regum_ Cap. xxviii he asks πῶς τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἐγγαστρίμυθον νοητέον;[11]
and says that some think that the witch actually evoked Samuel, others
believe the Devil took the likeness of the prophet. The first opinion he
characterizes as impious, the second foolish.
S. Jerome, whose authority would, of course, be entirely conclusive, does
not perhaps pronounce definitely; but his comments sufficiently show, I
think, that he regarded the apparition as being really Samuel. In his
tractate _In Esaiam_, III, vii, he writes: “Most authors think that a
clear sign was given Saul from the earth itself and from the very depths
of Hades when he saw Samuel evoked by incantations and magic spells.”[12]
And again, _In Ezechielem_, Lib. IV; xiii, the holy doctor, speaking of
witches, has: “they are inspired by an evil spirit. The Hebrews say that
they are well versed in baleful crafts, necromancy and soothsayings,
such as was the hag who seemed to raise up the soul of Samuel.”[13]
Some authors directly attribute this appearance of Samuel to an evil
spirit, who took the form of the prophet in order to dishearten Saul
and tempt him to despair. Thus S. Gregory of Nyssa in his letter _De
pythonissa ad Theodosium_[14] says that the Devil deceived the witch,
who thus in her turn deceived the king. S. Basil expressly lays down
(_In Esaiam_, VIII. 218): “They were demons who assumed the appearance
of Samuel.”[15] And he conjectures that, inasmuch as the denunciation
of Saul was strictly true in every detail, the demons having heard
the sentence delivered by God merely reported it. Among the Latins
Tertullian, more than a century before, had written: “And I believe that
evil spirits can deceive many by their lies; for a lying spirit was
allowed to feign himself to be the shade of Samuel.”[16]
The preponderance of opinion, however, is decidedly in favour of a
literal and exact understanding of the event, that it was, in effect,
Samuel who appeared to the guilty monarch and foretold his end. Origen
argues upon these lines, basing his reasons upon the plain statements
of Holy Writ: “But it is distinctly stated that Saul knew it was
Samuel.”[17] And later he adds: “The Scripture cannot lie. And the words
of Scripture are: And the woman saw Samuel.”[18] Elsewhere when treating
of evil spirits he precisely states: “And that souls have their abiding
place I have made known to you from the evocation by the witch of Samuel,
when Saul requested her to divine.”[19] S. Ambrose also says: “Even after
his death Samuel, as Holy Scripture informs us, prophesied of what was to
come.”[20] We have further the overwhelming witness of S. Augustine, who
in more than one place discusses the question at some length, and decides
that the phantom evoked by the sibyl was really and truly the soul of the
prophet Samuel. Thus in that important treatise _De Doctrina Christiana_,
commenced in 397 and finally revised for issue in 427, he has: “The shade
of Samuel, long since dead, truly foretold what was to come unto King
Saul.”[21] Whilst a passage in the even more famous and weighty _De Cura
pro mortuis gerenda_, written in 421, asserts: “For the prophet Samuel,
who was dead, revealed the future to King Saul, who was yet alive.”[22]
Josephus believed the apparition to have been summoned by the witch’s
necromantic powers, for in his _Jewish Antiquities_, VI, xiv, 2, when
dealing with the story of Endor, he chronicles: “[Saul] bade her bring up
to him the soul of Samuel. She, not knowing who Samuel was, called him
out of Hades,”[23] a remarkable testimony.
Throughout the whole of the Old Testament the sin of necromancy is
condemned in the strongest terms, but the very reiteration of this ban
shows that none the less evocation of the dead was extensively and
continuously practised, albeit in the most clandestine and secret manner.
The Mosaic law denounces such arts again and again: “Go not aside after
wizards, neither ask any thing of soothsayers, to be defiled by them: I
am the Lord your God” (Leviticus xix. 31); “The soul that shall go aside
after magicians and soothsayers, and shall commit fornication with them,
I will set my face against that soul, and destroy it out of the midst of
its people” (Leviticus xx. 6). Even more explicit in its details is the
following prohibition: “Neither let there be found among you any one ...
that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let
there be any wizard, nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic
spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead. For
the Lord abhorreth all these things” (Deuteronomy xviii. 10-12). Hence it
is obvious that the essential malice of the sin lay in the fact that it
was _lèse-majesté_ against God, such as is also the sin of heresy.[24]
This is, moreover, clearly brought out in the fact that the temporal
penalty was death. “A man, or woman, in whom there is a pythonical
or divining spirit, dying, let them die” (Leviticus xx. 27). And the
famous statute, Exodus xxii. 18, expressly says: “Wizards thou shalt not
suffer to live.” Nevertheless, necromancy persisted, and on occasion,
such as during the reign of Manasses, thirteenth king of Juda (692-638
B.C.),[25] it no longer lurked in dark corners and obscene hiding-holes,
but flaunted its foul abomination unabashed in the courts of the palace
and at noon before the eyes of the superstitious capital. In the days of
this monarch divination was openly used, omens observed, pythons publicly
appointed, whilst soothsayers multiplied “to do evil before the Lord, and
to provoke Him” (4 Kings [2 Kings] xxi. 6). The ghastly rites of human
sacrifice were revived, and it was common knowledge that the sovereign
himself, upon the slightest and most indifferent pretexts, resorted to
_extispicium_, the seeking of omens from the yet palpitating entrails
of boys devoted to this horrid purpose. “Manasses shed also very much
innocent blood, till he filled Jerusalem up to the mouth” (4 Kings [2
Kings] xxi. 16). We may parallel the foul sorceries of the Jewish king
with the detailed confession of Gilles de Rais, who at his trial “related
how he had stolen away children, detailed all his foul cajolements,
his hellish excitations, his frenzied murders, his ruthless rapes and
ravishments: obsessed by the morbid vision of his poor pitiful victims,
he described at length their long-drawn agonies or swift torturings;
their piteous cries and the death-rattle in their throats; he avowed that
he had wallowed in their warm entrails; he confessed that he had torn
out their hearts through large gaping wounds, as a man might pluck ripe
fruit.”[26] The demonolatry of the sixth century before Christ is the
same as that of fourteen hundred years after the birth of Our Lord.
As has been previously noticed, Balaam employed bullocks and rams for
_extispicium_, and nine centuries later, in the book of Ezechiel (xxi.
21), Esarhaddon is represented as looking at the liver of an animal
offered in sacrifice with a view to divination. “For the king of Babylon
stood in the highway, at the head of two ways, seeking divination,
shuffling arrows: he inquired of the idols, and consulted entrails. On
his right hand was the divination of Jerusalem, to set battering rams, to
open the mouth in slaughter.” The mode of sortilege by arrows, belomancy,
to which allusion is here made was extensively practised among the
Chaldeans, as also by the Arabs. Upon this passage S. Jerome comments:
“He shall stand in the highway, and consult the oracle after the manner
of his nation, that he may cast arrows into a quiver, and mix them
together, being written upon or marked with the names of each people,
that he may see whose arrow will come forth, and which city he ought
first to attack.”
Among the three hundred and sixty idols which stood round about the Caaba
of Mecca, and which were all destroyed by Mohammed when he captured the
city in the eighth year of the Hejira, was the statue of a man, made of
agate, who held in one hand seven arrows such as the pagan Arabs used in
divination. This figure, which, it is said, anciently represented the
patriarch Abraham, was regarded with especial awe and veneration.
The arrows employed by the early Arabs for magical practices were more
generally only three in number. They were carefully preserved in the
temple of some idol, before whose shrine they had been consecrated. Upon
one of them was inscribed “My Lord hath commanded me”; upon another “My
Lord hath forbidden me”; and the third was blank. If the first was drawn
the inquirer looked upon it as a propitious omen promising success in the
enterprise; if the second were drawn he augured failure; if the third,
all three were mixed again and another trial was made. These divining
arrows seem always to have been consulted by the Arabs before they
engaged in any important undertaking, as, for example, when a man was
about to go upon a particular journey, to marry, to commence some weighty
business.
In certain cases and in many countries rods were used instead of arrows.
Small sticks were marked with occult signs, thrown into a vessel and
drawn out; or, it might be, cast into the air, the direction they
took and the position in which they fell being carefully noted. This
practice is known as rhabdomancy. The LXX, indeed, Ezechiel xxi. 21, has
ῥαβδομαντεία not βελομαντεία, and rhabdomancy is mentioned by S. Cyril of
Alexandria.
In the Koran, chapter V, The Table or The Chapter of Contracts, “divining
arrows” are said to be “an abomination of the work of Satan,” and the
injunction is given “therefore avoid them that ye may prosper.”
It is noticeable that in the early Biblical narrative one form of
divination is mentioned, if not with approval, at any rate without overt
reproach. Upon the occasion of the second journey of Jacob’s sons to
Egypt to buy corn in the time of famine, Joseph gave orders that their
sacks were to be filled with food, that each man’s money was to be put
in the mouth of his sack, but that in the sack of Benjamin was also to
be concealed the “cup, the silver cup.” And the next morning when they
had set out homewards and were gone a little way out of the city they
were overtaken by a band of Joseph’s servants under the conduct of his
steward who arrested their progress and accused them of the theft of
the cup: “Is not this it in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed
he divineth? Ye have done evil in so doing” (_A.V._). The Vulgate has:
“Scyphus quem furati estis, ipse est in quo bibit dominus meus et in quo
augurari solet: pessimam rem fecistis” (Genesis xliv. 5). And later when
they are brought back in custody and led into the presence of Joseph
he asks them: “Wot ye not that such a man as I can certainly divine?”
Vulgate: “An ignoratis quod non sit similis mei in augurandi scientia?”
In the first place it cannot be for a moment supposed that Joseph’s
claim, which here he so publicly and so emphatically states, to be
a diviner of no ordinary powers was a mere device for the occasion.
From the prominence given to the cup in the story it is clear that his
steward regarded it as a vessel of especial value and import, dight with
mysterious properties.
This cup was used for that species of divination known as hydromantia,
a practice almost universal in antiquity and sufficiently common at the
present day. The seer, or in some cases the inquirer, by gazing fixedly
into a pool or basin of still water will see therein reflected as in a
mirror a picture of that which it is sought to know. Strabo, XVI, 2,
39, speaking of the Persians, writes: παρὰδε τοῖς πέρσαις οἱ Μάγοι καὶ
νεκυομάντεις καὶ ἔτι οἱ λεγόμενοι λεκανομάντεις καὶ ὑδρομάντεις. King
Numa, according to one very ancient tradition, divined by seeing gods in
a clear stream. “For Numa himself, not being instructed by any prophet
or Angel of God, was fain to fall to hydromancy: making his gods (or
rather his devils) to appear in water, and instruct him in his religious
institutions. Which kind of divination, says Varro, came from Persia and
was used by Numa and afterwards by Pythagoras, wherein they used blood
also and called forth spirits infernal. Necromancy, the Greeks call it,
but necromancy or hydromancy, whether you like, there it is that the dead
seem to speak” (_S. Augustine De Ciuitate Dei_. VII. 35).[27]
Apuleius in his _De Magia_,[28] quoting from Varro, says: “Trallibus de
euentu Mithridatici belli magica percontatione consultantibus puerum
in aqua simulacrum Mercuri contemplantem, quæ futura erant, centum
sexaginta uersibus cecinisse.” In Egypt to-day the Magic Mirror is
frequently consulted. A boy is engaged to gaze into a splash of water,
or it may be ink or some other dark liquid poured into the palm of the
hand, and therein he will assuredly see pictorially revealed the answers
to those questions put to him. When a theft has been committed the Magic
Mirror is invariably questioned thus. In Scandinavia the country folk,
who had lost anything, would go to a diviner on a Thursday night to see
in a pail of water who it was had robbed them.[29] All the world over
this belief prevails, in Tahiti and among the Hawaiians, in the Malay
Peninsula, in New Guinea, among the Eskimos.
Similar forms of divination are those by things dropped into some liquid,
a precious stone or rich amulet is cast into a cup, and the rings
formed on the surface of the contents were held to predict the future.
Again warm wax or molten lead is poured into a vessel of cold water,
and significant letters of the alphabet may be spelled out or objects
discerned from the shapes this wax or lead assumes; or again, the empty
tea-cup is tilted and from the leaves, their size, shape, and the manner
in which they lie, prognostications are made. This is common in England,
Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Lithuania, whilst in Macedonia coffee-dregs
are employed in the same manner.
But whether the seer be Hebrew patriarch or Roman king and the divination
dignified by some occult name, Ceromancy (the melting of wax),
Lecanomancy (basins of water), Oinomancy (the lees of wine), or whether
it be some old plaid-shawled grandam by her cottage fire peering at the
leaves of her afternoon tea, the object is the same throughout the ages,
for all systems of divination are merely so many methods of obscuring the
outer vision, in order that the inner vision may become open.
As was inevitable hydromantia lent itself to much trickery, and
Hippolytus of Rome, presbyter and antipope (_ob._ _circa_ A.D. 236),
in his important polemic against heretics, _Philosophumena_,[30] IV,
35, explains in detail how persons were elaborately duped by the
pseudo-magicians. A room was prepared, the roof of which was painted blue
to resemble the sky, there was set therein a large vessel full of water
with a glass bottom, immediately under which lay a secret chamber. The
inquirer gazed steadfastly into the water, and the actors walking in the
secret chamber below would seem as though they were figures appearing in
the water itself.
In view of the severe and general condemnation of magical practices found
throughout Holy Writ it is remarkable that the Pentateuchal narrative
does not censure Joseph’s hydromantic arts. Indeed, except in the book
Genesis, it is seldom that any forms of presaging or the use of charms
are noted save with stern reprobation. In Isaias iii. 2, however,
the Kōsēm, magician or diviner, is mentioned with singular respect.
“Ecce enim dominator Dominus exercituum auferet a Jerusalem et a Juda
ualidum et fortem omne robur panis et omne robur aquæ, fortem, et uirum
bellatorem, iudicem, et prophetam, et _hariolum_, et senem.” Here the
Authorized Version deliberately mistranslates and obscures the sense:
“For, behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem
and from Judah, the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread and the
whole stay of water, the mighty man and the man of war, the judge and
the prophet, and _the prudent_, and the ancient.” “The Prudent” is by no
means a rendering of Kōsēm which “hariolus” perfectly represents.
In the thirteenth chapter of Genesis we have a most detailed and striking
narrative of sympathetic magic. Jacob, who is serving Laban, is to
receive as a portion of his hire all the speckled and spotted cattle,
all the brown among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the
goats. But the crafty old Syrian prevented his son-in-law by removing
to a distance, a journey of three days, all such herds as had been
specified, “and Jacob fed the rest of Laban’s flocks. Thereupon Jacob
took rods of green poplar, hazel, and chestnut, and peeled these rods in
alternate stripes of white and bark, and he put them in the gutters in
the watering-troughs when the flocks came to drink.” The animals duly
copulated, and “the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth
cattle, ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.” Moreover, it was only when
the stronger cattle conceived that Jacob set the rods before their eyes,
so that eventually all the best of the herds fell to his share. The
names of the trees are in themselves significant. The poplar in Roman
folklore was sacred to Hercules,[31] and as it grew on the banks of
the river Acheron in Epirus it was connected with Acheron, the waters
of woe in the underworld, a confused tradition which is undoubtedly of
very early origin. So Pausanias has: τὴν λευκην ὁ Ἡρακλῆς πεφυκυῖαν παρὰ
τὸν Ἀχέροντα εὔρετο ἐν Θεσπρωτιᾳ ποταμόν· In seventeenth-century England
poplar-leaves were accounted an important ingredient in hell-broths and
charms. The hazel has been linked with magic from remotest antiquity,
and the very name witch-hazel remains to-day. The chestnut-tree and its
nuts seem to have been associated with some primitive sexual rites. The
connexion is obscure, but beyond doubt traceable. In that most glorious
marriage song, the Epithalamium of Catullus, as the boys sang their
Fescennines of traditional obscenity nuts were scattered among the
crowd.[32] Petronius (Fragmentum XXXIII, ed. Buecheler, Berolini, 1895)
mentions chestnuts as an amatory gift:
aurea mala mihi, dulcis mea Marcia, mittis
mittis et hirsutae munera castaneae.
In Genesis again is recorded a most interesting and instructive example
of the belief in the magic efficacy of plants. “And Reuben went in the
days of wheat harvest and found mandrakes in the field and brought them
to his mother Leah” (xxx. 14 A.V.). Reuben brings his mother mandrakes
(Love Apples), which Rachel desires to have. Whereupon Leah bargains
with Rachel, and the latter for a portion of the fruit consents that
Jacob shall that night return to the bed of his elder wife, who indeed
conceives and in due time she bare Issachar. Leah ate of the mandrake as
a charm to induce pregnancy, and no disapproval of such use is expressed.
A similar theme is treated in Machiavelli’s famous masterpiece of
satirical comedy _La Mandragola_,[33] written between 1513 and 1520,
and performed by request before Leo X in the April of the latter year.
It had already been acted in Florence. In this play Callimaco is bent
upon securing as his mistress Lucrezia, the wife of a gullable doctor of
laws, Messer Nicia, whose one wish in life is to get a son. Callimaco is
introduced as a physician to Nicia, to whom he explains that a potion
of mandragora administered to the lady will remove her sterility, but
that it has fatal consequences to the husband. He must perish unless
some other man be first substituted whose action will absorb the poison,
and leave Lucrezia free to become the mother of a blooming family. This
plot is fully worked out, and by the services of his supple confederates
Callimaco is introduced to Lucrezia’s bedchamber as the necessary victim,
and gains his desire.
Mandrakes and mallows were potent in all forms of enchantment, and about
the mandrake in particular has grown up a whole library of legend, which
it would require much time and space thoroughly to investigate. Western
lore is mainly of somewhat a grim character, but not entirely, and by the
Orientals mandrake is regarded as a powerful aphrodisiac. So in Canticles
VII, 13, we have: Mandragoræ dederunt odorem. (The mandrakes give a
fragrant smell.) In antiquity mandrakes were used as an anæsthetic.
Dioscorides alludes to the employment of this herb before patients have
to be cut or burned; Pliny refers to its odour as causing sleep during
an operation; Lucian speaks of it as used before cautery; and both Galen
and Isidorus have passages which mention its dormitive quality. The
Shakespearean allusions have rendered this aspect familiar to all.
The Arabs and ancient Germans thought that a powerful spirit inhabited
the plant, an idea derived, perhaps, from the fancied resemblance
of the root to the human form. Ducagne has under Mandragore: “Pomi
genus cuius mentio fit, Gen. xxx. 14. nostris etiam notis sub nomine
_Mandragores_, quod pectore asseruatum sibi diuitiis acquirendis idoneum
somniabunt.” And Littré quotes the following from an old chronicle of
the thirteenth century: “Li dui compaignon [un couple d’éléphants] vont
contre Orient près du paradis terreste, tant que la femelle trouve une
herbe que on apele mandragore, si en manjue, et si atize tant son masle
qu’il en manjue avec li, et maintenant eschaufe la volenté de chascun,
et s’entrejoignent à envers et engendrent un filz sanz plus.” In the
_Commentaria ad Historiam Caroli VI et VII_ it is related that several
mandrakes found in the possession of Frère Richard, a Cordelier, were
seized and burned as savouring of witchcraft.
It seems certain that the teraphim, which Rachel stole from her father
(Genesis xxxi, 19, and 31-35), and which when he was in pursuit she
concealed by a subtle trick, were used for purposes of divination. From
the relation of the incident it is obvious that they were regarded of
immense value—he who had conveyed them away was, if found, to die the
death—and invested with a mysterious sanctity. Centuries later, during
the period of drastic reform, King Josias (639-608 B.C.) would no longer
tolerate them: “Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the
wizards, and the images [teraphim], and the idols, and all abominations
that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem did Josiah put
away” (2 Kings xxiii. 24. A.V.). The Vulgate has: “Sed et pythones,
et hariolos, et figuras idolorum, et immunditias, et abominationes,
quæ fuerant in terra Juda et Jerusalem, abstulit Josias.” In Ezechiel
xxi. 21, Esarhaddon is said to have divined by teraphim as well as by
belomancy; and in Zacharias (x. 2) the teraphim are stated on occasion
to have deceived their inquirers, “simulacra locuta sunt inutile,” “the
idols have spoken vanity.” Notwithstanding this it is obvious from Osee
(Hosea) iii. 4, that divination by teraphim was sometimes permitted:
“Dies multos sedebunt filii Israel sine rege, et sine principe, et sine
sacrificio, et sine altari, et sine ephod, et sine teraphim.” “The
children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a
prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an
ephod, and without teraphim.”
The learned Cornelius à Lapide glossing on Genesis xxxi writes: “Idola,
_teraphim_ quod significat statuæ humanæ siue humaneas formas habentes
ut patet, I. Reg. xix.” The allusion is to the deception practised by
Michal on Saul’s messengers, when putting one of the teraphim in bed
and covering it with quilts she pretended it was David who lay sick.
“Secundo,” continues à Lapide, “nomen _theraphim_ non appropriatum est in
eas statuas, quæ opera dæmonorum deposci debent, ut patet Judicum, xviii,
18,” the reference being to the history of Micas. Calvin very absurdly
says: “Theraphim sunt imagines quales habent papistæ.”
Spencer[34] is of opinion that these teraphim were small images or
figures, and the point seems conclusively settled by S. Jerome, who in
his twenty-ninth Epistle, _De Ephod et Teraphim_, quotes 1 Kings xix.
15, and uses “figuras siue figurationes” to translate μορφώματα of
Aquila of Pontus. This writer was the author of a Greek version of the
Old Testament published _circa_ A.D. 128. About eight years before he
seems to have been expelled from the Christian community, by whom he was
regarded as an adept in magic. The work of Aquila, who studied in the
school of Rabbi Akiba, the founder of Rabbinical Judaism, is said by S.
Jerome to have attained such exactitude that it was a good dictionary to
furnish the meaning of the obscurer Hebrew words. The Targum of Jonathan
commenting upon Genesis xxxi. 19, puts forward the singular view that the
teraphim, concealed by Rachel, consisted of a mummified human head.
In the book Tobias we have a detailed and important account of exorcism,
and one, moreover, which throws considerable light upon the demonology of
the time. Tobias, the son of Tobias, is sent under the guidance of the
unknown Angel, S. Raphael, to Gabelus in Rages of Media, to obtain the
ten talents of silver left in bond by his father. Tobias, whilst bathing
in the Tigris is attacked by a monstrous fish, of which he is told by his
Angel protector to reserve the heart, liver, and gall; the first two of
these are to prevent the devil who had slain seven previous husbands of
Sara, the beautiful daughter of Raguel, from attacking him. They arrive
at the house of Raguel, and Tobias seeks the hand of Sara. She, however,
is so beloved by the demon Asmodeus that seven men who had in turn
married her were by him put to death the night of the nuptials, before
consummation. Tobias, however, by exorcism, by the odour of the burning
liver of the fish, and by the help of S. Raphael, routs Asmodeus, “Then
the Angel Raphael took the Devil, and bound him in the desert of upper
Egypt.” The story which must be accepted as fact-narrative was originally
written during the Babylonian exile in the early portion of the seventh
century, B.C. It plainly shows that demons were considered to be capable
of sexual love, such as was the love of the sons of God for the daughters
of men recorded in Genesis (vi. 2). One may compare the stories of the
Jinns in Arabian lore. Asmodeus is perhaps to be identified with the
Persian _Aëshma daêva_, who in the _Avesta_ is next to Angromainyus, the
chief of the evil spirits. The introduction of Tobias’s dog should be
remarked. The dog accompanies his master on the journey and when they
return home “the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before,
and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning
and wagging his tail.” Among the Persians a certain power over evil
spirits was justly assigned to the faithful dog.
The New Testament evidence for the reality of magic and divination
is such that cannot be disregarded by any who accept the Christian
revelation.
In the Gospels we continually meet with possession by devils; the miracle
wrought in the country of the Gerasenes (Gergesenes) (S. Matthew viii.
28-34), the dumb man possessed by a devil (S. Matthew ix. 32-34), the
healing of the lunatic boy who was obsessed (S. Matthew xvii. 14-21), the
exorcism of the unclean spirit (S. Mark i. 23-27), the casting out of
devils whom Christ suffered not to speak (S. Mark i. 32-34), the exorcism
in the name of Jesus (S. Mark ix. 38), the demons who fled our Lord’s
presence crying out “Thou art Christ, the son of God” (S. Luke iv. 41),
the healing of those vexed with unclean spirits (S. Luke vi. 18), and
many instances more.
Very early in the Apostolic ministry appears one of the most famous
figures in the whole history of Witchcraft, Simon, who is as Simon
Magus, sorcerer and heresiarch. At the outbreak of that persecution
(_circa_ A.D. 37) of the Christian community in Jerusalem which began
with the martyrdom of S. Stephen, when Philip the Deacon went down to
Samaria, Simon, a native of Gitta, was living in that city. By his magic
arts and by his mysterious doctrine, in which he announced himself as
“the great power of God,” he had made a name for himself and gained
many adherents. He listened to Philip’s sermons, was greatly impressed
by them, he saw with wonder the miracles of healing and the exorcisms
of unclean spirits, and like many of his countrymen was baptized and
united with the community of believers in Christ. But it is obvious that
he only took this step in order to gain, as he hoped, greater magical
power and thus increase his influence. For when the Apostles S. Peter
and S. John came to Samaria to bestow upon those who had been baptized
by Philip the outpouring of the Holy Ghost which was accompanied by
heavenly manifestations Simon offered them money, saying, “Give me also
this power,” which he obviously regarded as a charm or occult spell. S.
Peter forthwith sharply rebuked the unholy neophyte, who, alarmed at this
denunciation, implored the Apostles to pray for him.
Simon is not mentioned again in the New Testament, but the first
Christian writers have much to say concerning him. S. Justin Martyr,
in his first _Apologia_ (A.D. 153-155) and in his dialogue _Contra
Tryphonem_ (before A.D. 161), describes Simon as a warlock who at the
instigation of demons claimed to be a god. During the reign of the
Emperor Claudius, Simon came to Rome, and by his sorceries won many
followers who paid him divine honours. He was accompanied by a lewd
concubine from Tyre, Helena, whom he claimed was Heavenly Intelligence,
set free from bondage by himself the “great power.”
In the _Pseudo-Clementine Homilies_ (probably second century) Simon
appears as the chief antagonist of S. Peter, by whom his devilish
practices are exposed and his enchantments dissolved. The apocryphal
_Acts of S. Peter_, which are of high antiquity,[35] give in detail the
well-known legend of the death of Simon Magus. By his spells the warlock
had almost won the Emperor Nero to himself, but continually he was being
foiled and thwarted owing to the intercession of the Apostle. At last
when Cæsar demanded one final proof of the truth of his doctrines, some
miracle that might be performed at midday in the face of all Rome, Simon
offered to take his flight into the heavens—a diabolical parody of the
Ascension—so that men might know his power was full as mighty as that of
Him whom the Christians worshipped as God.
A mighty concourse gathered in the Forum: Vestal Virgins, Senators,
Equites, their ladies, and a whole rabble of lesser folk. In the
forefront of a new Imperial box sat the Lord Nero Claudius Cæsar Augustus
Germanicus, on one side his mother, Agrippina, on the other Octavia
his wife. Magic staff in hand the magician advanced into the midst of
the arena: muttering a spell he bade his staff await his return, and
forthwith it stood upright, alone, upon the pavement. Then with a deep
obeisance to the ruler of the known world Simon Magus stretched forth
his arms, and a moment more with rigid limbs and stern set face he rose
from the ground and began to float high in air toward the Capitol. Like
some monstrous bird he rose, and hovered fluttering in space awhile. But
among the throng stood S. Peter, and just as the sorcerer had reached
the topmost pinnacles of the shrine of Juno Moneta, now Santa Maria in
Aracœli, where brown Franciscans sing the praises of God, the first Pope
of Rome kneeled down, lifted his right hand and deliberately made a
mighty Sign of the Cross towards the figure who usurped the privileges
of the Incarnate Son of Mary. Who shall say what hosts of hells fled at
that moment? The wizard dropped swift as heavy lead; the body whirled
and turned in the air; it crashed, broken and breathless, at the foot of
the Emperor’s seat, which was fouled and bespattered with black gouts
of blood. At the same moment with a ringing sound the staff fell prone
on the pavement. The flag upon which S. Peter kneeled may be seen even
until this day in the Church of Santa Francesca Romana. For, in order to
commemorate the defeat of the warlock, Pope S. Paul I (757-767) built
a church upon the site of his discomfiture, and in 850 Pope S. Leo IV
reconstructed it as Santa Maria Nova, which gave place to the present
fane dedicated in 1612.
But the fame of Simon Magus as a wizard has been swallowed up in his
ill repute as a heretic; so early do heresy and magic go hand in hand.
He was the first Gnostic, whose disciples the Simonians, an Antinomian
sect of the second century, indulged the sickest fantasies. Menander,
the successor of Simon, proclaimed himself the Messiah and asserted that
by his baptism immortality was conferred upon his followers. He also was
regarded as a mighty magician, and the sect which was named after him,
the Menandrians, seems to have lasted for no inconsiderable time.
In his missionary journeys S. Paul was continually combating Witchcraft.
At Paphos he was opposed by the sorcerer Elymas; in Philippi a medium,
“a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination,” “spiritum
pythonem,” followed him along the streets crying out and naming him
as “a servant of the most high God,” until he exorcized the spirit;
at Ephesus, a hotbed of sorcery and superstition, he converted many
diviners and witches, who cleansed their souls by the Sacrament of
Penance, and burned their conjuring books, a library of no mean value.
It amounted indeed to fifty thousand drachmas (£2000), and one may
suppose that in addition to manuscripts there were amulets of silver and
gold, richly wrought and jewelled. In Ephesus, also, had foregathered a
large number of vagabond Jews, exorcists. The chief characteristic of a
Jewish exorcism was the recitation of names believed to be efficacious,
principally names of good angels, which were used either alone, or
in combination with El (God); and, indeed, a blind reliance upon the
sound of mere names had long been a settled practice with these amateur
sorcerers, who considered that the essence of their charms lay in the
use of particular names declaimed in a particular order, which differed
on several occasions. It was this belief, no doubt, that induced the
seven sons of Sceva, who had witnessed S. Paul’s exorcisms in the name
of Jesus, to try upon their own account the formula “I conjure thee by
Jesus whom Paul preacheth,” an experiment disastrous to their credit.
For in one case the patient cried out “Jesus I know, and Paul I know,
but who are ye?” and leaped upon them with infernal strength, beating
and wounding them, so that they fled for safety from the house, their
limbs bruised and their garments torn, to the great scandal of the
neighbourhood.
For the fact of demoniac possession the authority of Christ Himself is
plainly pledged; whilst Witchcraft is explicitly ranked by S. Paul with
murder, sedition, hatred, and heresy (Galatians v. 20-21). S. John,
also, twice mentions sorcerers in a hideous catalogue of sinners. There
can be no doubt whatsoever that the reality of Witchcraft is definitely
maintained by the New Testament writers,[36] and any denial of this
implicitly involves a rejection of the truth of the Christian revelation.
Among the Jews of a later period, and probably even to-day, various
diseases are said to be induced by demons, who, it is instructive to
notice, haunt marshy places, damp and decayed houses, latrines, squalid
alleys, foul atmospheres where sickness is bred and ripened.
Josephus (_ob._ A.D. 100) relates that God taught Solomon how demons were
to be expelled, a “science useful and sanitative to men.” He also gives
an account of Eliezar, a celebrated exorcist of the time, whom, in the
presence of the Emperor Vespasian, the historian actually saw casting
out evil spirits. The operator applied to the nose of the possessed
a ring having attached to it a root which Solomon is said to have
prescribed—“Baaras,” a herb of magical properties, and one dangerous for
the uninitiate to handle. As the devils came forth Eliezar caused them
to pass into a basin filled with water, which was at once poured away.
It may be noticed also that demonology plays an important part in the
Book of Enoch (before 170 B.C.). Even in the Mishna there are undoubted
traces of magic, and in the Gemara demonology and sorcery loom very
largely. Throughout the Middle Ages Jewish legend played no insignificant
part in the history of Witchcraft, and, especially in Spain, until the
nineteenth century at least, there were prosecutions, not so much for
the observance of Hebrew ceremonies as is often suggested and supposed,
but for the practice of the dark and hideous traditions of Hebrew magic.
Closely connected with these ancient sorceries are those ritual murders,
of which a learned Premonstratensian Canon of Wilthin, Adrian Kembter,
writing in 1745, was able to enumerate no less than two-and-fifty,[37]
the latest of these having taken place in 1650, when at Cadan in Bohemia,
Matthias, a lad of four years old, was killed by certain rabbis with
seven wounds. In many cases the evidence is quite conclusive that the
body, and especially the blood of the victim, was used for magical
purposes. Thus with reference to little S. Hugh of Lincoln, after various
very striking details, the chronicler has: “Et cum exspirasset puer,
deposuerunt corpus de cruce, et nescitur qua ratione, euiscerarunt
corpusculum; dicitur autem, quod ad magicas artes exercendas.” In 1261
at Forcheim in Bavaria the blood of a murdered boy was used to sprinkle
certain thresholds and doors. In 1285 at Munich a witch was convicted of
selling Christian children to the Jews, who carefully preserved the blood
in curious vessels for secret rites. In 1494 at Tyrnau twelve vampires
were executed for having opened the veins of a boy whom they had snared,
and having drunk his warm blood thence whilst he was yet alive. A deed
of peculiar horror was discovered at Szydlow in 1597 when the victim was
put to death in exquisite tortures, the blood and several members of the
body being partaken of by the murderers. In almost every case the blood
was carefully collected, there can be no doubt for magical purposes, the
underlying idea being the precept of the Mosaic law: Anima enim omnis
carnis in sanguine est:[38] For the life of all flesh is in the blood
thereof.
NOTES TO CHAPTER V
[1] _Khartummim._ The same word is used to describe the magicians whom
Pharaoh summoned to interpret his dream, _Genesis_ xli. 8, where the
Vulgate has _coniectores_. _Exodus_ viii. 11, the Vulgate reads: “Uocauit
autem Pharao sapientes et maleficos.”
[2] It is perhaps worth mentioning that even the most modernistic
commentators assign the history of Balaam to the oldest document of the
Hexateuch, that they call the Jehovistic.
[3] In his commentary on the ninth chapter of the prophet Osee (Hosea),
S. Jerome says: “Ingressi [sunt] ad Beel-Phegor, idolum Moabitarum
quem nos PRIAPUM possumus appelare.” And Rufinus on the same prophet
has: “Beel-Phegor figuram Priapi dixerunt tenere.” (They entered in
unto Beel-Phegor, the idol of the Moabites, whom we may identify with
PRIAPUS.... Beel-Phegor is said to have had the same shape as Priapus.)
[4] Balaam hariolus a Domino mittitur ut decipiat Balac filium Beor. _In
Ezechielem_, IV. xiv. Migne, _Patres Latini_, XXV. p. 118. (Baalam, a
soothsayer, is sent by God to deceive Balac, son of Beor.)
[5] Balaam fuisse prophetam non Dei, sed diaboli constat.... Fuit ipse
magus, et dæmonis alloquium quærebat, eumque consulere.
[6] The word is usually found with _yidde ’onim_ (from _yada_, “to
know,”) and they are generally considered to be identical in meaning. But
W. R. Smith, _Journ. Phil._, XIV. 127, makes the following distinction:
Yidde ’oni is a familiar spirit, one known to him who calls it up; the
’ôbh is any spirit who may be invoked by a spell and forced to answer
questions.
[7] _Divination, et la science des présages_, Paris, 1875. p. 161 ff.
[8] _History of the People of Israel_, 3 vols., London, 1888-91. I. p.
347.
[9] Cf. Ovid, _Metamorphoseon_, IV, 412-3, of bats:
Conatæque loqui, minimam pro corpore uocem
Emittunt; peraguntque leues stridore querelas.
[10] Josephus says that Samuel told the witch it was Saul.
[11] Migne, _Patres Græci_, LXXX. p. 589.
[12] Plerique putant Saulem signum accepisse de terra et de profundo
inferni quando Samuelem per incantationes et artes magicas uisus est
suscitasse. Migne, _Patres Latini_, XXIV. p. 106.
[13] ... inspirantur diabolico spiritu. Has autem dicunt Hebræi maleficis
artibus eruditas per necromantias et pythicum spiritum qualis fuit illa
quæ uisa est suscitare animam Samuelis. _Idem_, XXV. p. 114.
[14] Migne, _Patres Græci_, XLV. pp. 107-14.
[15] Δαίμονες γαρ ἦσαν οἱ κατασχηματίζουτες ὲαυτοὺς εἰς τὸ τοῦ Σαμουὴλ
πρόσωπον. _Idem_, XXX. p. 497.
[16] Et credo quia [spiritus immundi] mendacio possunt; nec enim
pythonico tunc spiritui minus liciut animam Samuelis effingere. (_De
Anima_, LVII.) Migne, _Patres Latini_, II. p. 749.
[17] Ἀλλὰ γέγραπται, ὁτὶ ἔγνω Σαουλ ὅτι Σαμουὴλ ἔστι.
[18] ἐπεὶ οὐ δύναται ψευδέσθαι ἡ Γραφη. τὰ δε ῥήματα τῆς Γραφῆς ἐστὶν·
Καὶ εἶδεν ἡ γυνὴ τὸν Σαμουήλ. (_In librum Regum._ Homilia II.) Migne,
_Patres Græci_, XII. p. 1013.
[19] καὶ ὅτι μένουσιν αὶ ψυχαὶ, ἀπέδειξα ὑμῖν ἐκ τοῦ καὶ τὴν Σαμουὴλ
ψυχὴν κληθῆναι ὑπὸ τῆς ἐγγαστριμμύθου, ὡς ἠξίωσιν ὁ Σαουλ. (_In I.
Regum._ XXVIII.) _Idem_, XII.
[20] Samuel post mortem, secundum Scripturæ Testimonium futura non
tacuit. _I. Regum._ XXVIII. 17 _et seq._ (_In Lucam._ I. 33.) Migne,
_Patres Latini_. XV. p. 1547.
[21] Imago Samuelis mortui Saul regi uera prænuntiauit. _Idem_, XXXIV. p.
52. And _De Cura_, XL. p. 606.
[22] Nam Samuel propheta defunctus uiuo Sauli etiam regi futura prædixit.
[23] Whiston’s translation. Ed. 1825. Vol. I, p. 263.
[24] So _1 Kings_ (_Samuel_) xv. 23: “Because it is like the sin of
witchcraft, to rebel.” Heresy and rebellion are fundamentally the same.
[25] Schrader, _Die Keilenscheiften und das alte Testament_, Giessen, 2nd
ed., 1883.
[26] ... raconta ses rapts d’enfants, ses hideuses tactiques, ses
stimulations infernales, ses meurtres impétueux, ses implacables viols;
obsédé par la vision des ses victimes, il décrivit leurs agonies
ralenties ou hâtées, leurs appels et leurs râles; il avoua s’être vautré
dans les élastiques tiédeurs des intestins; il confessa qu’il avait
arraché des cœurs par des plaies élargies, ouvertes, telles que des
fruits mûrs. _Là-Bas_, J. K. Huysmans, c. xviii.
[27] Healey’s translation, 1610.
[28] _De Magia_, XLVII.
[29] _The Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia_, Sven Nilsson. 3rd
edition. 1868. p. 241.
[30] The original title is κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος. A Refutation of
all Heresies. The first book had long been known; books IV-X, which had
been discovered a short time previously, were first published in 1851
(Oxford) by Miller as the work of Origen, but edited by Duncker and
Schneidewin as by Hippolitus, eight years later, Göttingen, 1859. The
first chapters of the Fourth, and the whole of the Second and Third Books
are still missing.
[31] Theocritus, II. 121. Κρατὶ δ’ ἔχων λεύκαν Ἡρακλέος ἱερὸν ἔρνος.
Vergil. _Eclogue_ VIII, 61: Populus Alcidæ gratissima. _Æneid_, VIII,
276: Herculea bicolor quem populus umbra....
[32] Pliny (_Historia Naturalis_, XV. 86) says walnuts were thrown, and
it appears from an inscription that this custom prevailed on birthdays
as well as at weddings. But originally, at any rate, chestnuts were also
used. In time the meaning became obscured, and as nuts were used in all
kinds of games they merely became synonymous with playthings.
[33] The play is referred to in 1520 as _Messer Nicia_, and the first
edition printed at Florence _circa_ 1524 has the title _The Comedy of
Callimaco and Lucrezia_, but the Prologue definitely gives the name _La
Mandragola_ (_The Mandrake_), and this is used in all later editions. The
story has been imitated by La Fontaine; the play itself (which is still
acted in Italy) has been repeatedly translated, at least six times into
French and five times into German, but as yet no English version has been
published.
[34] _De Legibus Hebræorum ritualibus earumque rationibus_, 2 vols.,
Tubingæ, 1732.
[35] Not later than A.D. 200. They were well known to Commodian, who
wrote about A.D. 250.
[36] This is, of course, the view of the Fathers, and even later
theological writers (e.g. Alfred Edersheim, Delitzsch, Rev. Walter Scott)
accept this literal truth.
[37] In his book _Acta pro Ueritate Martyrii corporis, & cultus publici
B. Andreæ Rinnensis_, Innsbruck, 1745. Blessed Andrew, a child, was
killed at Rinn in the Tyrol, 12 July, 1462. A systematic investigation
would, no doubt, wellnigh double the number of instances recorded by
Kembter, and there are 15 for the eighteenth, 39 for the nineteenth
century. In 1913 Mendil Beiliss was tried upon the charge of ritually
murdering a Russian lad, Yushinsky.
[38] Leviticus xvii. 14.
CHAPTER VI
DIABOLIC POSSESSION AND MODERN SPIRITISM
The phenomenon of diabolic possession, the mere possibility of which
materialists and modernists in recent years have for the most part
stoutly denied, has, nevertheless, been believed by all peoples and at
all periods of the earth’s history. In truth he who accepts the spiritual
world is bound to realize all about him the age-long struggle for empery
of discarnate evil ceaselessly contending with a thousand cunning
sleights and a myriad vizardings against the eternal unconquerable powers
of good. Nature herself bears witness to the contest; disease and death,
cruelty and pain, ugliness and sin, are all evidences of the mighty
warfare, and it would be surprising indeed if some were not wounded in
the fray—for we cannot stand apart, each man, S. Ignatius says, must
fight under one of the two standards—if some even did not fall.
The ancient Egyptians, whose religion of boundless antiquity is
pre-eminent in the old world for its passionate earnestness, its purity,
and lofty idealism certainly held that some diseases were due to the
action of evil spirits or demons, who in exceptional circumstances had
the power of entering human bodies and of vexing them in proportion to
the opportunities consciously or unconsciously given to their malign
natures and influences. Moreover, the Egyptians were regarded as being
supremely gifted in the art of curing the diseases caused by demoniacal
possession, and one noteworthy instance of this was inscribed upon a
stele and set up in the temple of the god Khonsu at Thebes so that all
men might learn his might and his glory.[1] When King Rameses II was in
Mesopotamia the various princes made him many offerings of gold and gems,
and amongst other came the Prince of Bekhten, who brought his daughter,
the fairest maiden of that land. When the king saw he loved her and
bestowed upon her the title of “Royal spouse, chief lady, Rā-neferu”
(the beauties of Ra, the Sun-god), and taking her back to Egypt he
married her with great pomp and hallowed solemnity. In the fifteenth
year of the king’s reign there arrived at his court an ambassador from
the Prince of Bekhten, bearing rich presents and beseeching him “on
behalf of the lady Bent-ent-resht, the younger sister of the royal
spouse Rā-neferu, for, behold, an evil disease hath laid hold upon her
body,” “wherefore,” said the envoy, “I beseech thy Majesty to send a
physician[2] to see her.” Rameses ordered the books of the “double house
of life” to be brought and the wise men to choose from their number one
who might be sent to Bekhten. They selected the sage Tehuti-em-heb, who
in company with the ambassador forthwith departed on their journey,
and when they had arrived the Egyptian priest soon found the lady
Bent-ent-resht was possessed of a demon or spirit over which he was
powerless. Wellnigh in despair the Prince of Bekhten sent again to the
king begging him to dispatch even a god to his help.
When the ambassador arrived a second time Rameses was worshipping in the
temple of Khonsu Nefer-hetep at Thebes, and he at once besought that
deity to allow his counterpart Khonsu to go to Bekhten and to deliver
the daughter of the prince of that country from the demon who possessed
her. Khonsu Nefer-hetep granted the request, and a fourfold measure of
magical power was imparted to the statue of the god which was to go to
Bekhten. The god, seated in his boat, and five other boats with figures
of gods in them, accompanied by a noble attendance of horses and chariots
upon the right and the left, set out for Bekhten, where in due course
they were received with great honour. The god Khonsu was brought to the
place where the princess was, magical ceremonies were performed, and the
demon incontinently departed. Khonsu remained in Bekhten three years,
four months, and five days, being worshipped with the utmost veneration.
One night, however, the Prince had a dream in which he saw a hawk of
gold issue from the sacred shrine and wing its way towards Egypt. In
the morning the Egyptian priests interpreted his dream as meaning that
the god now wished to return, and accordingly he was escorted back in
superb state, and with him were sent grateful gifts and thank offerings
innumerable to be laid in the temple of Khonsu Nefer-hetep at Thebes.
The Greeks of the earlier civilization were inclined generally to
attribute all sickness to the gods, who again often by this particular
means took almost immediate revenge upon those who had insulted their
images, profaned their sanctuaries, or derided their worship. Thus
Pentheus who resists the introduction of the mysteries of Dionysus
into Thebes is driven mad by the affronted deity.[3] The madness of
Ajax, and that of the daughters of Proetus,[4] who imagined themselves
changed into cows, shows us that this belief went back to heroic times.
In later days Demaratus and his brother Alopecos were driven lunatic
(παραφρονήσαν) after having found the statue of Artemis Orthosia, and
this was considered to be the power of the goddess.[5] The frenzy which
attacked Quintus Fulvius was regarded as a punishment, a possession by
evil spirits on account of his sacrilege in having stolen the marble roof
of the temple of Juno Lacinia at Locri.[6]
Pythagoras taught that the ailments both of men and of animals are due
to demons who throng the regions of the air, and this doctrine does no
more than state clearly what had been more or less vaguely believed from
the dawn of human history. Wherefore Homer in the _Odyssey_, speaking
of a man who is racked by a sore disease, says that a hateful demon is
tormenting him: στυγερὸς δέ οἱ ἔχραε δαίμων, V, 396. (But a hateful demon
griped him fast.) The word κακοδαιμονία, possession by an evil spirit, in
Aristophanes signifies “raving madness,” and the verb κακοδαιμονάω, to be
tormented by an evil spirit, is used by Xenophon, Demosthenes, Dinarchus,
and Plutarch[7] amongst other authors.
Many philosophers believed that each man has a protecting daimon, who in
some sense personifies his individuality. It followed that lunatics and
the delirious were afflicted with madness by these spirits who guided
them, and accordingly the Greek names for those distraught are highly
significant: ἐνεργούμενοι (in later Greek, persons possessed of an evil
spirit), δαιμονιόληπτοι (influenced by devils), θεόληπτοι, θεόβλαβες
(stricken of God), θεόμανες (maddened by the gods); and so Euripides has
λύσσα θεομανής, and again θεομανης πότμος.[8] The very name μανία given
by the Greeks to madness was derived from the root-word _man, men_,[9]
which occurs in the Latin _Manes_, and indeed the Romans thought that
a madman was tormented by the goddess Mania, the mother of the Lares,
the hallucinations of lunatics being taken to be spectres who pursued
them.[10] And so a madman was _laruarum plenus_, _laruatus_,[11] one whom
phantoms disturbed; as in Plautus, where the doctor says: “What kind of
a disease is this? Explain. Unfold, old sire, I say. Art thou crazed
(_laruatus_) or lunatic? Tell me now.”[12]
The frantic exaltation which thrilled the Galli, and the Corybantes
when they celebrated the Dionysia, seems to have been epidemic, and was
universally attributed to divine possession. There are many allusions to
the connexion between the rites of Cybele and Dionysus. Apollodorus[13]
says Dionysus was purified from madness by Rhea at the Phrygian Cybela,
and was then initiated into her rites and took her dress; thence he
passed into Thrace with a train of Bacchanals and Satyrs. Strabo,[14] on
the other hand, thinks the rites were brought from Thrace by colonists
from that country into Phrygia; he even quotes a fragment from the
_Edoni_ of Æschylus[15] as proving the identity of the cultus of Dionysus
and Cybele. So also we have in Euripides, _Bacchæ_, 58,
Up, and wake the sweet old sound,
The clang that I and mystic Rhea found,
The Timbrel of the Mountains.[16]
It is interesting to remark that Nicander of Claros,[17] who was
a physician, in his _Alexipharmaca_ (Ἀλεξιφάρμακα), speaking of a
particular form of lunacy, compares the shrieks uttered by patients with
those of a priestess of Rhea, when on the ninth day she makes all whom
she encounters in the streets tremble at the hideous howl of the Idæan
Mother; κερνοφόρος ζάκορος βωμίστρια Ῥείης is the exact phrase.[18]
In the _Hippolytus_ (141 _sqq._) the Chorus speaking to Phædra says:
Is this some spirit, O child of man?
Doth Hecat hold thee perchance, or Pan?
Doth She of the Mountains work her ban,
Or the Dread Corybantes bind thee?[19]
And in the _Medea_ (1171-2) we have: “She seemed, I wot, to be one
frenzied, inspired with madness by Pan or some other of the gods.”[20]
Here τινὸς θεῶν, says Paley, alludes to Dionysus or Cybele. Madness was
sometimes thought to be sent by Pan for any neglect of his worship, so in
the _Rhesus_ Hector cries (36-7): “Can it be that you are scared by the
fear-causing stroke of Pan of old Kronos’s line?”[21]
Aretæus, the medical writer, who is especially celebrated for his
accuracy of diagnosis, in his _De signis chronicorum morborum_, VI,
describes Corybantic frenzy as a mental malady and says that patients
may be soothed and even cured by the strains of soft music.[22] We have
here then the same remedy as was applied in the case of Saul, whom, we
are told, “an evil spirit from the Lord troubled,”[23] and to whose court
David, the sweet harper, was summoned. This seems to be the only instance
of demoniac possession in the Old Testament and although the Hebrew word
_rûah_ need not absolutely imply a personal influence, if we may judge
from Josephus[24] the Jews certainly gave the word that meaning in this
very passage.
It may be well here clearly to explain the difference between possession
and obsession, two technical terms sometimes confounded. By obsession
is meant that the demon attacks a man’s body from without;[25] by
possession is meant that he assumes control of it from within. Thus S.
Jerome describes the obsessions which beset S. Hilarion: “Many were
his temptations; day and night did the demons change and renew their
snares.... As he lay down how often did not nude women encircle him?
When he was an hungered how often a plenteous board was spread before
him?”[26] S. Antony the Great, also was similarly attacked: “The devil
did not let to attack him, at night assuming the form of some maiden
and imitating a woman’s gestures to deceive Antony.”[27] These painful
phenomena are not uncommon in the lives of the Saints. Very many
examples might be cited, but one will suffice, that of S. Margaret of
Cortona,[28] the Franciscan penitent,[29] who was long and terribly
tormented: “Following her to and fro up and down her humble cell as
she wept and prayed [the devil] sang the most filthy songs, and lewdly
incited Christ’s dear handmaid, who with tears was commending herself to
the Lord, to join him in trolling forth bawdy catches ... but her prayers
and tears finally routed the foul spirit and drove him far away.”[30]
The theologians, however, warn us to be very cautious in dealing
with so difficult a matter, and the supreme authority of S. Alphonsus
Liguori advises us that by far the greater part of these obsessions are
distressing hallucinations, neurasthenia, imagination, hysteria, in a
word, pathological: “It is advisable always to be very suspicious of
such diabolic attacks, for it cannot be gainsaid that for the most part
they are fancy, or the effect of imagination, or weakness, especially
when women are concerned.”[31] Dom Dominic Schram presses home the same
point with equal emphasis: “Very often what are supposed to be demoniacal
obsessions are nothing else than natural ailments, or morbid imaginings,
or even distractions or actual lunacy. Wherefore it is necessary to deal
with these cases most carefully, until the peculiar symptoms clearly show
that it is actual obsession.”[32]
Demoniac possession is frequently presented to us in the New Testament,
and we have the authority of Christ Himself as to its reality. The
infidel argument is to deny the possibility of possession in any
circumstances, either on the hypothesis that there are no evil spirits
in existence, or that they are powerless to influence the human body
in the manner described. But whatever view Rationalists may adopt—and
they are continually shifting their ground—no reader of the Scriptural
narrative can deny that Christ by word and deed showed His entire belief
in possession by evil spirits. And if Christ were divine how came He to
foster and encourage a delusion? Why did He not correct it? Only two
answers can be supposed. Either He was ignorant of a religious truth, or
He deliberately gave instructions that He knew to be false, frequently
acting in a way which was something more than misleading. To a Christian
either of these explanations is, of course, unthinkable. The theory of
accommodation formulated by Winer[33] may be accepted by Modernists, but
will be instantly condemned by all others. Accommodation is understood
as the toleration of harmless illusions of the day having little or
no connexion with religion. Even if this fine piece of profanity were
allowed, which, of course, must not be the case, the argument could not
be applied here, indeed it seems wholly repugnant even in regard to a
Saint, but entirely impossible in consideration of the divinity of Christ.
The victims of possession were sometimes deprived of speech and sight:
“Then was offered to him one possessed of a devil, blind and dumb: and
he healed him, so that he spoke and saw” (S. Matthew xii. 22). Sometimes
they had lost speech alone: “Behold, they brought him a dumb man,
possessed with a devil, and after the devil was cast out the dumb man
spoke” (S. Matthew ix. 32, 33); also “And he was casting out a devil, and
the same was dumb: and when he had cast out the devil the dumb spoke”
(S. Luke xi. 14). In many cases the mere fact of possession is mentioned
without further details: “they presented to him such as were possessed
by devils, and lunatics ... and he cured them” (S. Matthew iv. 24); “and
when evening was come, they brought to him many that were possessed with
devils, and he cast out the spirits with his word” (S. Matthew viii. 16);
“And, behold a woman of Canaan, who came out of those coasts, crying out,
said to him: Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David: my daughter is
grievously troubled by a devil ... Then Jesus answering, said to her:
O woman, great is thy faith: be it done to thee as thou wilt: and her
daughter was cured from that hour” (S. Matthew xv. 22-28); “And when
it was evening after sunset they brought to him all that were ill and
that were possessed with devils”; “And he cast out many devils, and he
suffered them not to speak, because they knew him”; “And he was preaching
in their synagogues, and in all Galilee, and casting out devils” (S. Mark
i. 32, 34, 39); “And the unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down
before him: and they cried, saying: Thou art the Son of God” (S. Mark
iii. 11, 12); “And devils went out from many, crying out and saying: Thou
art the Son of God” (S. Luke iv. 41); “And they that were troubled with
unclean spirits were cured” (S. Luke vi. 18); “And in that same hour, he
cured many of their diseases, and hurts, and evil spirits” (S. Luke vii.
21). The exorcism of the man “who had a devil now a very long time,” and
who dwelt among the tombs in the country of the Gerasens (Gadarenes) is
related by S. Luke (viii. 27-39). The possessed is tormented by so many
unclean spirits that they proclaim their name as Legion: he is endowed
with supernatural strength so that he breaks asunder bonds and fetters:
the devils recognize Christ as God, and Our Lord converses with them,
asking how they are called. Immediately the devils have been cast out the
man is clothed, peaceable, reasonable, and quiet, “in his right mind.”
At the foot of Mount Tabor a young man is brought by his father to be
healed. The youth is possessed of a dumb spirit, “who, wheresoever he
taketh him dasheth him, and he foameth, and gnasheth with the teeth, and
pineth away.” When Jesus approached, “immediately the spirit troubled
him; and being thrown down upon the ground, he rolled about foaming.”
The patient had been thus afflicted “from his infancy, and oftentimes
hath he cast him into the fire and into waters to destroy him.” Our
Lord threatened the spirit, and forthwith expelled it. (S. Mark ix.
14-28.) It should be noticed that it is the demons who are addressed
on these occasions, not their victims. In the face of this catena of
Biblical evidence and the various circumstances attending these exorcisms
it is impossible to maintain that the possessed suffered merely from
epilepsy, paralysis, acute mania, or any other such disease. In fact the
Evangelists carefully separate natural maladies from diabolic possession:
“He cast out the spirits with his word: and all that were sick he healed”
(S. Matthew viii. 16); “They brought to him all that were ill and that
were possessed with devils ... and he healed many that were troubled with
divers diseases and he cast out many devils” (S. Mark i. 32, 34). In the
original Greek the distinction is still more clearly and unmistakably
shown: πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας καὶ τοὺς δαιμονιζομένους. Saint Matthew,
again, differentiates: “they presented to him all sick people that were
taken with divers diseases [ποικίλαις νόσοις] and torments [βασάνοις]
and such as were possessed by devils [δαιμονιζομένους] and lunatics
[σεληνιαζομένους] and those who had the palsy [παραλυτικούς] and he
cured them,” iv. 24. Moreover, Our Lord expressly distinguishes between
possession and natural disease; “Behold I cast out devils and do cures,”
are the Divine Words; ἰδοὺ ἐκβάλλω δαιμόνια καὶ ἰάσεις ἀποτελῶ (S. Luke
xiii. 32).
That the demoniacs were often afflicted with other diseases as well is
highly probable. The demons may have attacked those who were already
sick, whilst the very fact of obsession or possession would of itself
produce disease as a natural consequence.
According to S. Matthew x. 1, Our Lord gave special powers to the
Apostles to exorcize demons: “And having called his twelve disciples
together, he gave them power over unclean spirits to cast them out, and
to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.” And S.
Peter, when describing the mission and miracles of Christ, stresses this
very point: “Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost,
and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were
possessed by the devil,” τοὺς καταδυναστευομένους ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου (Acts
x. 38). Our Lord Himself directly appeals to His power over evil spirits
as a proof of His Messiahship: “If I by the finger of God cast out
devils; doubtless the kingdom of God is come upon you”; εἰ δὲ ἐν δακτύλῳ
Θεοῦ ἐκβάλλω τά δαιμόνια, ἄρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ (S.
Luke xi. 20).
Whilst yet on earth Christ empowered the Apostles to cast out demons
in His Name, and in His last solemn charge He promised that the same
delegated power should be perpetuated: “These signs shall follow them
that believe: in my name they shall cast out devils”; σημεῖα δὲ τοῖς
πιστεύσασι ταῦτα παρακολουθήσει· ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δαιμόνια ἐκβαλοῦσι
(S. Mark xvi. 17.) But the efficacy of exorcism was conditional, not
absolute as in the case of Our Lord Himself, for He explained, upon an
occasion when the Apostles seemed to fail, that certain spirits could
only be expelled by prayer and fasting. Moreover, a perfect belief and
complete command are necessary for the exorcizer. τότε προσέλθοντες οἱ
μαθηταὶ τῷ Ἱησοῦ κατ ἰδίαν εἶπον, Διατί ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἠδυνήθημεν ἐκβαλεῖν
αὐτό; ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς, Διὰ τὲν ὀλιγοπιστίαν ὑμῶν· ... τοῦτο δὲ
τὸ γένος οὐκ ἑκπορεύεται εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ ... (S. Matthew
xvii. 19-21). S. Paul, and no doubt the other Apostles and Disciples,
regularly made use of this exorcizing power. Thus, at Philippi, where
the girl “having a pythonical spirit ... who brought to her masters
much gain by divining” (παιδίσκην τινὰ ἔχουσαν πεῦνμα πύθωνα ... ἥτις
ἐργασίαν πολλὴν παρεῖχε τοῖς κυρίοις αὐτῆς μαντευπμένη)[34] met S. Paul
and S. Luke and proclaimed them as servants of the most high God, S. Paul
“being grieved, turned, and said to the spirit: I command thee, in the
name of Jesus Christ, to go out from her. And he went out the same hour”
(Acts xvi. 16-18). And at Ephesus, a hot-bed of magic and necromancy,
“God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. So that even
there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons,
and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of
them” (Acts xix. 11, 12). Those who do not imagine that the powers Our
Lord perpetually bestowed upon the Apostles and their followers abruptly
ceased with the thirty-first verse of the twenty-eighth chapter of The
Acts of the Apostles, realize that the charisma of exorcism has continued
through the ages, and in truth the Church has uninterruptedly practised
it until the present day.
The Exorcist is ordained by the Bishop for this office, ordination to
which is the second of the four minor orders of the Western Church. Pope
Cornelius (251-252) mentions in his letter to Fabius that there were then
in the Roman Church forty-two acolytes, and fifty-two exorcists, readers,
and door-keepers, and the institution of these orders together with the
organization of their functions, seems to have been the work of the
predecessor of Cornelius, Pope Saint Fabian the Martyr (236-251).
The rite of the Ordination of Exorcists, “De Ordinatione Exorcistarum,”
is as follows: First, the Book of Exorcisms, or in its place the
Pontifical or Missal must be ready at hand; _Pro Exorcistis ordinandis
paretur liber exorcismorum, cuius loco dari potest Pontificale uel
Missale_ (A Book of Exorcisms must be prepared for those who are to
be ordained Exorcists. Howbeit in place thereof the Pontifical or the
Missal may be handed to them) runs the rubric. When the Lectors have been
ordained, the Bishop resuming his mitre takes his place upon his seat or
faldstool at the Epistle side of the altar, and the Missal with the bugia
being brought by his acolytes he proceeds to read the Gradual, or (if it
be within the Octave of Pentecost) the _Alleluia_. Meantime the Gradual
is sung by the choir. When it is finished, he rises, takes off his mitre,
and turning to the altar intones the third collect. He next sits again,
resumes his mitre, and the third Lection is read. Two chaplains assist
him with bugia and book whence he reads the Lection. The Archdeacon now
summons the ordinandi, who approach, holding lighted tapers in their
hands, and kneel before the Bishop, who solemnly admonishes them with the
prayer:
“Dearest children who are about to be ordained to the office of
Exorcists, ye must duly know what ye are about to undertake. For an
Exorcist must cast out devils; and announce to the people that those
that may not be present at the sacrifice should retire; and at the altar
minister water to the priest. Ye receive also the power of placing your
hand upon energumens, and by the imposition of your hands and the grace
of the Holy Spirit and the words of exorcism unclean spirits are driven
out from the bodies of those who are obsessed. Be careful therefore
that as ye drive out devils from the bodies of others, so ye banish all
uncleanness and evil from your own bodies lest ye fall beneath the power
of those spirits who by your ministry are conquered in others. Learn
through your office to govern all imperfections lest the enemy may claim
a share in you and some dominion over you. For truly will ye rightly
control those devils who attack others, when first ye have overcome
their many crafts against yourselves. And this may the Lord vouchsafe to
grant you through His Holy Spirit.”[35] After which the Bishop hands to
each severally the Book of Exorcisms (or Pontifical or Missal), saying:
“Receive this and commit it to thy memory and have power to place thy
hands upon energumens, whether they be baptized, or whether they be
catechumens.”[36] All kneel, and the Bishop, wearing his mitre, stands
and prays:
“Dearest brethren, let us humbly pray God the Father Almighty that He
may vouchsafe to bless these his servants to the office of Exorcists
that they may have the power to command spirits, to cast forth from
the bodies of those who are obsessed demons with every kind of their
wickedness and deceit. Through His only begotten Son Jesus Christ Our
Lord who with Him liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, world without end. _R._ Amen.”[37] Then, his mitre having been
removed, he turns to the altar with “Oremus” to which is given the reply
“Flectamus genua” with “Leuate,” and the last prayer is said over the
kneeling exorcists: “Holy Lord, Almighty Father, Eternal God vouchsafe
to bless these thy servants to the office of Exorcists; that by the
imposition of our hands and the words of our mouth they may have power
and authority to govern and restrain all unclean spirits: that they may
be skilful physicians for Thy Church, that they may heal many and be
themselves strengthened with all Heavenly Grace. Through Our Lord Jesus
Christ Thy Son who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy
Spirit one God world without end. _R._ Amen.” And then, at a sign from
the Archdeacon, they return to their places.[38]
It should be remarked that the Exorcist is specifically ordained “to cast
out demons,” and he receives “power to place his (your) hands upon the
possessed, so that by the imposition of his (your) hands,[39] the grace
of the Holy Ghost, and the words of exorcism, evil spirits are driven out
from the bodies of the possessed.” The very striking term _spiritualis
imperator_ is strictly applied to him, and God the Father is earnestly
entreated to grant him the grace “to cast out demons from the bodies of
the possessed with all their many sleights of wickedness.” Nothing could
be plainer, nothing could be more solemn, nothing could be more pregnant
with meaning and intention. The Order and delegated power of Exorcists
cannot be minimized; at least, so to do is clean contrary to the mind of
the Church as emphatically expressed in her most authoritative rites. In
actual practice the office of Exorcist has almost wholly been taken over
by clerics in major orders, but this, of course, in no way affects the
status and authority of the second of the four minor orders.
Every priest, more especially perhaps if he be a parish priest, is
liable to be called upon to perform his duty as Exorcist. In doing so
he must carefully bear in mind and adhere to the prescriptions of the
_Rituale Romanum_, and he will do well to have due regard to the laws of
provincial or diocesan synods, which for the most part require that the
Bishop should be consulted and his authorization obtained before exorcism
be essayed.
The chief points of importance in the detailed instructions under
twenty-one heads prefixed to the rite in the _Rituale_ may thus be
briefly summarized: (1) The priest or exorcist should be of mature age,
humble, of blameless life, courageous, of experience, and well-attested
prudence. It is fitting he should prepare himself for his task by
special acts of devotion and mortification, by fervent prayer and by
fasting (S. Matthew xvii. 20). (2) He must be a man of scholarship and
learning, a systematic student and well versed in the latest trends and
developments of psychological science. (3) Possession is not lightly
to be taken for granted. Each case is to be carefully examined and
great caution to be used in distinguishing genuine possession from
certain forms of disease. (4) He should admonish the possessed in so
far as the latter is capable, to dispose himself for the exorcism by
prayer, fasting, by confession, and Holy Communion, and while the rite
is in progress he must excite in his heart a most lively faith in the
goodness of God, and perfect resignation to the divine will. (5) The
exorcism should take place in the Church, or some other sacred place, if
convenient, but no crowd of gazers must be suffered to assemble out of
mere curiosity. There should, however, be a number of witnesses, grave
and devout persons of standing, eminent respectability, and acknowledged
probity, not prone to idle gossip, but discreet and silent. If on account
of sickness or for some legitimate reason the exorcism takes place in a
private house it is well that members of the family should be present;
especially is this enjoined, as a measure of precaution, if the subject
be a woman. (6) If the patient seems to fall asleep, or endeavours to
hinder the exorcist in any way during the rite he is to continue, if
possible with greater insistence, for such actions are probably a ruse
to trick him. (7) The exorcist, although humble and having no reliance
upon himself alone, is to speak with command and authority, and should
the patient be convulsed or tremble, let him be more fervent and more
insistent; the prayers and adjurations are to be recited with great
faith, a full and assured consciousness of power. (8) Let the exorcist
remember that he uses the words of Holy Scripture and Holy Church, not
his own words and phrases. (9) All idle and impertinent questioning of
the demon is to be avoided, nor should the evil spirit be allowed to
speak at length unchecked and unrebuked. (10) The Blessed Sacrament is
not to be brought near the body of the obsessed during exorcism for fear
of possible irreverence; Relics of the Saints may be employed, but in
this case every care must be most scrupulously observed that all due
veneration be paid to them; the Crucifix and Holy Water are to be used.
(11) If expulsion of the evil spirit, who will often prove obstinate, is
not secured at once, the rite should be repeated as often as need be.
It will be seen that the Church has safeguarded exorcism with
extraordinary precautions, and that everything which is humanly possible
to prevent superstition, indecorum, or abuse is provided for and
recommended. Again and again the warning is repeated that so solemn, and
indeed terrible, an office must not lightly be undertaken. The actual
form in present use is as follows:[40]
THE FORM OF EXORCISING THE POSSESSED
[TRANSLATED FROM THE “ROMAN RITUAL.”]
_The Priest, having confessed, or at least hating sin in his
heart, and having said Mass, if it possibly and conveniently
can be done, and humbly implored the Divine help, vested in
surplice and violet stole, the end of which he shall place
round the neck of the one possessed, and having the possessed
person before him, and bound if there be danger of violence,
shall sign himself, the person, and those standing by, with
the sign of the Cross, and sprinkle them with holy water, and
kneeling down, the others making the responses, shall say the
Litany as far as the prayers._
_At the end the Antiphon._ Remember not, Lord, our offences,
nor the offences of our forefathers, neither take Thou
vengeance of our sins.
Our Father. _Secretly._
℣ And lead us not into temptation.
℟ But deliver us from evil.
_Psalm_ liii.
_Deus, in Nomine._
_The whole shall be said with_ Glory be to the Father.
℣. Save Thy servant,
℟. O my God, that putteth his trust in Thee.
℣. Be unto him, O Lord, a strong tower,
℟. From the face of his enemy.
℣. Let the enemy have no advantage of him,
℟. Nor the son of wickedness approach to hurt him.
℣. Send him help, O Lord, from the sanctuary,
℟. And strengthen him out of Sion.
℣. Lord, hear my prayer,
℟. And let my cry come unto Thee.
℣. The Lord be with you,
℟. And with thy spirit.
Let us pray.
O God, Whose property is ever to have mercy and to forgive:
receive our supplications and prayers, that of Thy mercy
and loving-kindness Thou wilt set free this Thy servant (or
handmaid) who is fast bound by the chain of his sins.
O holy Lord, Father Almighty, Eternal God, the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ: Who hast assigned that tyrant and apostate
to the fires of hell; and hast sent Thine Only Begotten Son
into the world, that He might bruise him as he roars after
his prey: make haste, tarry not, to deliver this man, created
in Thine Own image and likeness, from ruin, and from the
noon-day devil. Send Thy fear, O Lord, upon the wild beast,
which devoureth Thy vine. Grant Thy servants boldness to fight
bravely against that wicked dragon, lest he despise them that
put their trust in Thee, and say, as once he spake in Pharaoh:
I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go. Let Thy
right hand in power compel him to depart from Thy servant N.
(or Thy handmaid N.) ✠, that he dare no longer to hold him
captive, whom Thou hast vouchsafed to make in Thine image, and
hast redeemed in Thy Son; Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in
the Unity of the Holy Spirit, ever One God, world without end.
Amen.
_Then he shall command the spirit in this manner._
I command thee, whosoever thou art, thou unclean spirit, and
all thy companions possessing this servant of God, that by
the Mysteries of the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection and
Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, by the sending of the Holy
Ghost, and by the Coming of the same our Lord to judgment,
thou tell me thy name, the day, and the hour of thy going out,
by some sign: and, that to me, a minister of God, although
unworthy, thou be wholly obedient in all things: nor hurt this
creature of God, or those that stand by, or their goods in any
way.
_Then shall these Gospels, or one or the other, be read over
the possessed._
The Lesson of the Holy Gospel according to S. John i. 1. _As he
says these words he shall sign himself and the possessed on the
forehead, mouth, and breast._ In the beginning was the Word ...
full of grace and truth.
The Lesson of the Holy Gospel according to S. Mark xvi. 15. At
that time: Jesus spake unto His disciples: Go ye into all the
world ... shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
The Lesson of the Holy Gospel according to S. Luke x. 17. At
that time: The seventy returned again with joy ... because your
names are written in heaven.
The Lesson of the Holy Gospel according to S. Luke xi. 14. At
that time: Jesus was casting out a devil, and it was dumb ...
wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
℣. Lord, hear my prayer,
℟. And let my cry come unto Thee.
℣. The Lord be with you,
℟. And with thy Spirit.
Let us pray.
Almighty Lord, Word of God the Father, Jesus Christ, God and
Lord of every creature: Who didst give to Thy Holy Apostles
power to tread upon serpents and scorpions: Who amongst other
of Thy wonderful commands didst vouchsafe to say—Put the
devils to flight: by Whose power Satan fell from heaven like
lightning: with supplication I beseech Thy Holy Name in fear
and trembling, that to me Thy most unworthy servant, granting
me pardon of all my faults, Thou wilt vouchsafe to give
constancy of faith and power, that shielded by the might of Thy
holy arm, in trust and safety I may approach to attack this
cruel devil, through Thee, O Jesus Christ, the Lord our God,
Who shalt come to judge the quick and the dead, and the world
by fire. Amen.
_Then defending himself and the possessed with the sign of the
Cross, putting part of his stole round the neck, and his right
hand upon the head of the possessed, firmly and with great
faith he shall say what follows._
℣. Behold the Cross of the Lord, flee ye of the contrary part,
℟. The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed.
℣. Lord, hear my prayer,
℟. And let my cry come unto Thee.
℣. The Lord be with you,
℟. And with thy spirit.
Let us pray.
O God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, I call upon Thy
Holy Name, and humbly implore Thy mercy, that Thou wouldest
vouchsafe to grant me help against this, and every unclean
spirit, that vexes this Thy creature. Through the same Lord
Jesus Christ.
THE EXORCISM.
I exorcise thee, most foul spirit, every coming in of the
enemy, every apparition, every legion; in the Name of our
Lord Jesus ✠ Christ be rooted out, and be put to flight from
this creature of God ✠. He commands thee, Who has bid thee be
cast down from the highest heaven into the lower parts of the
earth. He commands thee, Who has commanded the sea, the winds,
and the storms. Hear therefore, and fear, Satan, thou injurer
of the faith, thou enemy of the human race, thou procurer
of death, thou destroyer of life, kindler of vices, seducer
of men, betrayer of the nations, inciter of envy, origin of
avarice, cause of discord, stirrer-up of troubles: why standest
thou, and resistest, when thou knowest that Christ the Lord
destroyest thy ways? Fear Him, Who was sacrificed in Isaac, Who
was sold in Joseph, was slain in the Lamb, was crucified in
man, thence was the triumpher over hell. _The following signs
of the Cross shall be made upon the forehead of the possessed._
Depart therefore in the Name of the Father ✠, and of the Son ✠,
and of the Holy ✠ Ghost: give place to the Holy Ghost, by this
sign of the holy ✠ Cross of Jesus Christ our Lord: Who with
the Father, and the same Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth ever
one God, world without end. Amen.
℣. Lord, hear my prayer.
℟. And let my cry come unto Thee.
℣. The Lord be with you.
℟. And with thy spirit.
Let us pray.
O God, the Creator and Protector of the human race, Who hast
formed man in Thine own Image: look upon this Thy servant N.
(_or_ this Thy handmaid N.), who is grievously vexed with
the wiles of an unclean spirit, whom the old adversary, the
ancient enemy of the earth, encompasses with a horrible dread,
and blinds the senses of his human understanding with stupor,
confounds him with terror, and harasses him with trembling
and fear. Drive away, O Lord, the power of the devil, take
away his deceitful snares: let the impious tempter fly far
hence: let Thy servant be defended by the sign ✠ (_on his
forehead_) of Thy Name, and be safe both in body, and soul.
(_The three following crosses shall be made on the breast of
the demoniac._) Do Thou guard his inmost ✠ soul, Thou rule his
inward ✠ parts, Thou strengthen his ✠ heart. Let the attempts
of the opposing power in his soul vanish away. Grant, O Lord,
grace to this invocation of Thy most Holy Name, that he who up
to this present was causing terror, may flee away affrighted,
and depart conquered; and that this Thy servant, strengthened
in heart, and sincere in mind, may render Thee his due service.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
THE EXORCISM.
I adjure thee, thou old serpent, by the Judge of the quick
and the dead, by thy Maker, and the Maker of the world: by
Him, Who hath power to put thee into hell, that thou depart
in haste from this servant of God N., who returns to the
bosom of the Church, with thy fear and with the torment of
thy terror. I adjure Thee again ✠ (_on his forehead_), not in
my infirmity, but by the power of the Holy Ghost, that thou
go out of this servant of God N., whom the Almighty God hath
made in His Own Image. Yield, therefore, not to me, but to the
minister of Christ. For His power presses upon thee Who subdued
thee beneath His Cross. Tremble at His arm, which, after the
groanings of hell were subdued, led forth the souls into light.
Let the body ✠ (_on his breast_) of man be a terror to thee,
let the image of God ✠ (_on his forehead_) be an alarm to thee.
Resist not, nor delay to depart from this person, for it has
pleased Christ to dwell in man. And think not that I am to be
despised, since thou knowest that I too am so great a sinner.
God ✠ commands thee. The majesty of Christ ✠ commands thee. God
the Father ✠ commands thee. God the Son ✠ commands thee. God
the Holy ✠ Ghost commands thee. The Sacrament of the Cross ✠
commands thee. The faith of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul,
and of all the other Saints ✠, commands thee. The blood of
the Martyrs ✠ commands thee. The stedfastness (_continentia_)
of the Confessors ✠ commands thee. The devout intercession of
all the Saints ✠ commands thee. The virtue of the Mysteries of
the Christian Faith ✠ commands thee. Go out, therefore, thou
transgressor. Go out, thou seducer, full of all deceit and
wile, thou enemy of virtue, thou persecutor of innocence. Give
place, thou most dire one: give place, thou most impious one:
give place to Christ in Whom thou hast found nothing of thy
works: Who hath overcome thee, Who hath destroyed thy kingdom,
Who hath led thee captive and bound thee, and hath spoiled thy
goods: Who hath cast thee into outer darkness, where for thee
and thy servants everlasting destruction is prepared. But why,
O fierce one, dost thou withstand? why, rashly bold, dost thou
refuse? thou art the accused of Almighty God, whose laws thou
hast broken. Thou art the accused of Jesus Christ our Lord,
whom thou hast dared to tempt, and presumed to crucify. Thou
art the accused of the human race, to whom by thy persuasion
thou hast given to drink thy poison. Therefore, I adjure thee,
most wicked dragon, in the Name of the immaculate ✠ Lamb, Who
treads upon the lion and adder, Who tramples under foot the
young lion and the dragon, that thou depart from this man ✠
(_let the sign be made upon his forehead_), that thou depart
from the Church of God ✠ (_let the sign be made over those
who are standing by_): tremble, and flee away at the calling
upon the Name of that Lord, of Whom hell is afraid; to Whom
the Virtues, the Powers, and the Dominions of the heavens are
subject; Whom Cherubim and Seraphim with unwearied voices
praise, saying: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth. The
Word ✠ made Flesh commands thee. He Who was born ✠ of the
Virgin commands thee. Jesus ✠ of Nazareth commands thee; Who,
although thou didst despise His disciples, bade thee go bruised
and overthrown out of the man: and in his presence, having
separated thee from him, thou didst not presume to enter into
the herd of swine. Therefore, thus now adjured in His Name ✠,
depart from the man, whom He has formed. It is hard for thee
to wish to resist ✠. It is hard for thee to kick against the
pricks ✠. Because the more slowly goest thou out, does the
greater punishment increase against thee, for thou despisest
not men, but Him, Who is Lord both of the quick and the dead,
Who shall come to judge the quick and the dead, and the World
by fire. ℟. Amen.
℣. Lord, hear my prayer.
℟. And let my cry come unto thee.
℣. The Lord be with you.
℟. And with thy spirit.
Let us pray.
O God of heaven, God of earth, God of the Angels, God of the
Archangels, God of the Prophets, God of the Apostles, God of
the Martyrs, God of the Virgins, God, Who hast the power to
give life after death, rest after labour; because there is none
other God beside Thee, nor could be true, but Thou, the Creator
of heaven and earth, Who art the true King, and of Whose
kingdom there shall be no end: humbly I beseech Thy glorious
majesty, that Thou wouldest vouchsafe to deliver this Thy
servant from unclean spirits, through Christ our Lord. Amen.
THE EXORCISM.
I therefore adjure thee, thou most foul spirit, every
appearance, every inroad of Satan, in the Name of Jesus Christ
✠ of Nazareth, Who, after His baptism in Jordan, was led into
the wilderness, and overcame thee in thine own stronghold: that
thou cease to assault him whom He hath formed from the dust
of the earth for His own honour and glory: and that thou in
miserable man tremble not at human weakness, but at the image
of Almighty God. Yield, therefore, to God ✠ Who by His servant
Moses drowned thee and thy malice in Pharaoh and his army in
the depths of the sea. Yield to God ✠ Who put thee to flight
when driven out of King Saul with spiritual song, by his most
faithful servant David. Yield thyself to God ✠ Who condemned
thee in the traitor Judas Iscariot. For He touches thee with
Divine ✠ stripes, when in His sight, trembling and crying out
with thy legions, thou saidst: What have I to do with Thee,
Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Art Thou come hither to
torment us before the time? He presses upon thee with perpetual
flames, Who shall say to the wicked at the end of time—Depart
from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the
devil and his angels. For thee, O impious one, and for thy
angels, is the worm that dieth not; for thee and thy angels
is the fire unquenchable prepared: for thou art the chief of
accursed murder, thou the author of incest, thou the head of
sacrileges, thou the master of the worst actions, thou the
teacher of heretics, thou the instigator of all uncleanness.
Therefore go out ✠ thou wicked one, go out ✠, thou infamous
one, go out with all thy deceits; for God hath willed that man
shall be His temple. But why dost thou delay longer here? Give
honour to God the Father ✠ Almighty, before Whom every knee is
bent. Give place to Jesus Christ ✠ the Lord, Who shed for man
His most precious Blood. Give place to the Holy ✠ Ghost, Who by
His blessed Apostle Peter struck thee to the ground in Simon
Magus; Who condemned thy deceit in Ananias and Sapphira; Who
smote thee in Herod, because he gave not God the glory; Who by
his Apostle Paul smote thee in Elymas the sorcerer with a mist
and darkness, and by the same Apostle by his word of command
bade thee come out of the damsel possessed with the spirit
of divination. Now therefore depart ✠, depart, thou seducer.
The wilderness is thy abode. The serpent is the place of thy
habitation: be humbled, and be overthrown. There is no time now
for delay. For behold the Lord the Ruler approaches closely
upon thee, and His fire shall glow before Him, and shall go
before Him; and shall burn up His enemies on every side. If
thou hast deceived man, at God thou canst not scoff: One
expels thee, from Whose Sight nothing is hidden. He casts thee
out, to Whose power all things are subject. He shuts thee out,
Who hast prepared for thee and for thine angels everlasting
hell; out of Whose mouth the sharp sword shall go out, when He
shall come to judge the quick and the dead, and the World by
fire. Amen.
_All the aforesaid things being said and done, so far as there
shall be need, they shall be repeated, until the possessed
person be entirely set free._
_The following which are noted down will be of great
assistance, said devoutly over the possessed, and also
frequently to repeat the_ Our Father, Hail Mary, _and_ Creed.
_The Canticle._ Magnificat.
_The Canticle._ Benedictus.
_The Creed of S. Athanasius._
_Quicunque uult._
Psalm xc. _Qui habitat._
Psalm lxvii. _Exurgat Deus._
Psalm lxix. _Deus in adiutorium._
Psalm liii. _Deus, In Nomine Tuo._
Psalm cxvii. _Confitemini Domino._
Psalm xxxiv. _Iudica, Domine._
Psalm xxx. _In Te, Domine, speraui._
Psalm xxi. _Deus, Deus meus._
Psalm iii. _Domine, quid multiplicasti?_
Psalm x. _In Domino confido._
Psalm xii. _Usquequo, Domine?_
_Each Psalm shall be said with_ Glory be to the Father, &c.
_Prayer after being set free._
We pray Thee, O Almighty God, that the spirit of wickedness may
have no more power over this Thy servant N. (_or_ Thy handmaid
N.), but that he may flee away, and never come back again: at
Thy bidding, O Lord, let there come into him (_or_ her) the
goodness and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom we have
been redeemed, and let us fear no evil, for the Lord is with
us, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the Unity of the Holy
Ghost, ever one God, world without end. ℟. Amen.
A shorter form of exorcism, which, being general, differs in aim and use,
was published by order of Pope Leo XIII and may be found in the later
editions of the _Rituale Romanum_, “Exorcismus in Satanam et Angelos
apostalicos.”[41] After the customary invocation _In nomine_ ... the rite
begins with a prayer to S. Michael, the solemn adjuration of some length
follows with versicles and responses, a second prayer is next recited,
and the whole concludes by three aspirations from the Litany: “From the
deceits and crafts of the Devil; O Lord, deliver us. That it may please
Thee to rule Thy Church so it shall alway serve Thee in lasting peace and
true liberty; We beseech Thee, hear us. That Thou wouldst vouchsafe to
beat down and subdue all the enemies of Thy Holy Church; We beseech Thee,
hear us.” _And the place is sprinkled with Holy Water_,[42] is the final
rubric.
The Baptismal Exorcism and exorcisms such as those of water, salt,[43]
and oil, it were perhaps impertinent to treat of here. It may, however,
be noticed that in the ceremony of the Blessing of the Waters[44]
(approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 6 December, 1890),
performed on the Vigil of the Epiphany, there occurs a solemn “Exorcismus
contra Satanam et Angelos apostalicos,” followed by “Exorcismus salis”
and “Exorcismus aquæ.”
There are recorded throughout history innumerable examples of obsession
and demoniacal possession, as also of potent and successful exorcism. It
is, of course, quite possible, and indeed probable, that many of these
cases were due to natural causes, epilepsy, acute hysteria, incipient
lunacy, and the like. But, none the less, when every allowance has been
made for incorrect diagnosis, for ill-informed ascriptions of rare and
obscure forms of both physical and mental maladies, for credulity, honest
mistakes, and exaggerations of every kind, there will yet remain a very
considerable quota which it seems impossible to account for and explain
save on the score of possession by some evil and hostile intelligence.
But nobody is asked to accept all the instances of diabolic possession
recorded in the history of the Church, nor even to form any definite
opinion upon the historical evidence in favour of any particular
case. That is primarily a matter for historical and medical science.
And, perhaps, even at the present day and among civilized races this
phenomenon is not so rare as is popularly supposed.
The annals of Bedlam, of many a private madhouse, and many an asylum
could tell strange and hideous histories. And if we may judge from the
accounts furnished by the pioneers of the Faith in missionary countries
the evidences of diabolical agency there are as clearly defined and
unmistakable as they were in Galilee in the time of Christ.[45]
Demoniacal possession is frequently described and alluded to by the early
fathers and apologists in matter-of-fact terms which leave no shadow of
doubt as to their belief in this regard. Indeed the success of Christian
exorcism is often brought forward as an argument for the acceptance of
the Divinity of the founder of Christianity. It would be an easy, but
a very lengthy process, to make a catena of such passages from Greek
and Latin authors alike.[46] S. Justin Martyr (_ob._ _circa_ A.D. 165)
speaks of demons flying from “the touch and breathing of Christians”
(_Apologia_, II, 6), “as from a flame that burns them,” adds S. Cyril
of Jerusalem (_ob._ 385-6: _Catechesis_, XX, 3). Origen (_ob._ 253-4)
mentions the laying on of hands to cast out devils, whilst S. Ambrose[47]
(_ob._ 397), S. Ephrem Syrus[48] (_ob._ 373), and others used this
ceremony when exorcizing. The holy sign of the Cross also is extolled by
many Fathers for its efficacy against all kinds of diabolic molestation;
thus Lactantius writes: “Nunc satis est, huius signi [Crucis] potentiam,
quantum ualeat exponere. Quanto terrori sit dæmonibus hoc signum,
sciet, qui uiderit, quatenus adiurati per Christum, de corporibus, quæ
obsederint, fugiant,”[49] _Diuinarum Institutionum_, IV, xxvii.[50] S.
Athanasius (_ob._ 373), _De Incarnatione Uerbi_, XLVII; S. Basil (_ob._
379), _In Esaiam_, XI, 249; S. Cyril of Jerusalem, _Catechesis_, XIII;
S. Gregory of Nazianzus (_ob._ _circa_ 389), _Carmen aduersus Iram_, 415
_sqq._, all have passages of no little weight to the same effect. S.
Cyril, _Procatechesis_, IX; and S. Athanasius, _Ad Marcellum_, XXIII,
recommend that the prayers of exorcism and the adjuration should as far
as possible repeat the exact words of Holy Scripture.
In the annals of hagiography we find from the earliest days until our
own time very many instances of possession, very many cases where a poor
afflicted wretch has been released and relieved by the power and prayer
of some Saint or holy servant of God.[51]
Thus in the life of S. Benedict, that noble, calm, dignified, prudent,
great-souled, and high-minded hero, there are recorded several
occasions upon which he was confronted by extraordinary manifestations
of evil spirits who resisted the building of his monastery upon the
crest of Monte Cassino, where Satanism had been previously practised.
It is not said that there were any visible appearances, save to S.
Benedict alone,[52] but a succession of untoward accidents, of abnormal
occurrences and constant alarms, plainly showed that the Saint was
contending against superhuman difficulties. More than once he found it
necessary to exorcize certain of his monks,[53] and so marked was his
triumph over these malignant and destructive influences that he has
always been venerated in the Church as a most potent “effugator dæmonum,”
and is confidently invoked in the hour of spiritual peril and deadly
attack. Great faith also is placed in the Medal of Saint Benedict. This
medal, originally a cross, is dedicated to the devotion in honour of the
Patriarch. One side bears the figure of the Saint holding a cross in his
right hand, and the Holy Rule in his left. Upon the other is a cross
together with the following letters arranged on and around it: C.S.P.B.,
Crux Sancti Patris Benedicti (The Cross of the holy Father Benedict).
C.S.S.M.L., Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux (May the holy Cross be my Light).
N.D.S.M.D., Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux (Let not the Devil be my guide).
U.R.S.: N.S.M.U.: S.M.Q.L.: I.U.B.: Uade Retro Satana: Nunquam Suade
Mihi Uana: Sunt Mala Quæ Libas: Ipse Uenena Bibas. (Begone, Satan, never
suggest things to me, what thou offerest is evil, drink thou thyself thy
poison).[54] The “Centenary” form of the medal (struck at Monte Cassino
in 1880 to commemorate the 13th centenary of the birth of S. Benedict in
480) has under the figure the words: _Ex S.M. Cassino MDCCCLXXX_. Upon
the same side round the edge runs the inscription: Eius in obitu n̅r̅o
præsentia muniamur (May we be protected by his presence at the hour of
our death), and the word PAX appears above the cross.
It is doubtful when the Medal of S. Benedict originated, but during
a trial for Witchcraft at Natternberg, near the abbey of Metten, in
Bavaria, during the year 1647, the accused women testified that they had
no power over Metten which was under the particular protection of the
cross. Upon investigation a number of painted crosses surrounded by the
letters which are now engraved upon Benedictine medals were found on the
walls of the abbey, but their signification had been wholly forgotten. At
length, in an old manuscript, written in 1415, was discovered a picture
representing S. Benedict holding in one hand a staff which ended in a
cross, and in the other a scroll. On the staff and scroll were written
in full the formulas of which the mysterious letters were the initials.
Medals with the figure of S. Benedict, a cross, and these letters began
now to be struck and rapidly spread over Europe. The medals were first
authoritatively approved by Benedict XIV in his briefs of 23 December,
1741, and 12 March, 1742.
In the case of the possessed boys of Illfurt (Alsace) they exhibited the
utmost horror and dread of a Medal of S. Benedict.
These medals are hallowed with a proper rite[55] in which the adjuration
commences: “Exorcizo uos, numismata, per Deum Patrem ✠ omnipotentem....”
“I exorcize ye, medals, through God the Father ✠ Almighty.... May the
power of the adversary, all the host of the Devil, all evil attack,
every spirit and glamour of Satan, be utterly put to flight and driven
far away by the virtue of these medals....”[56] The prayer runs: “O Lord
Jesus Christ ... by Thy most Holy Passion I humbly pray and beseech Thee,
that Thou wouldest grant that whosoever devoutly invoketh Thy Holy Name
in this prayer and petition which Thou Thyself hast taught us, may be
delivered from every deceit of the Devil and from all his wiles, and that
Thou wouldest vouchsafe to bring Thy servant to the harbour of salvation.
Who livest and reignest....”[57]
S. Maurus also, the beloved disciple of S. Benedict, was famous for the
cures he wrought in cases of possession.[58] Visiting France in 543 he
became founder and superior of the abbey of Glanfeuil, Anjou, later
known by his name, St. Maur-sur-Loise.[59] The relics of S. Maurus after
various translations were finally enshrined at St. Germain-des-Prez.
In the eleventh century an arm of the Saint had been with great
devotion transferred to Monte Cassino, where by its touch a demoniac
was delivered. This is related by Desiderius,[60] who was abbot at that
time, and afterwards became Pope, Blessed Victor III (_ob._ 16 September,
1087). Throughout the Middle Ages the tomb of S. Maur at St. Germain was
a celebrated place of pilgrimage, and the possessed were brought here in
large numbers to be healed.[61]
The Holy Winding Sheet of Besançon, again, was greatly resorted to for
the relief and cure of possession. This venerable relic, being one of
the linen cloths used at the burial of Christ, was brought to Besançon
in 1206 by Otto de la Roche, and the feast of its arrival (_Susceptio_)
was ordered to be kept on 11 July. At present it is a double of the first
class in the cathedral, St. Jean, and of the second class throughout the
diocese.
Novenas made in the church at Bonnet, near Nantes, were popularly
supposed to be of especial efficacy in healing possession.
It is, of course, impossible even briefly to catalogue the most important
and striking of the numberless cases of possession recorded throughout
the centuries in every country and at every era. Of these a great number
are, no doubt, to be attributed to disease; very many to a commixture of
hysteria and semi-conscious, or more frequently unconscious, fraud; some
few to mere chousing; and, if human evidence is worth anything at all,
many actually to diabolic influence.
There were some curious episodes in England during Queen Elizabeth’s
reign, when a third-rate Puritan minister, John Darrel, made a
considerable stir owing to his attempts at exorcism. This idea seems
to have been suggested to him by the exorcisms of the famous Jesuit
missionary priest, William Weston, who after having been educated at
Oxford, Paris, and Douai, entered the Society on 5 November, 1575, at
Rome. He then worked and taught in Spain, until he was called to his
native mission, actually arriving in England, 20 September, 1584. In
the course of his labours, which at that dangerous time were carried
on in circumstances of extremest peril, he was required to perform the
rite of exorcism upon several distressed persons, who were for the most
part brought to him at the houses of two zealous Catholics, Sir George
Peckham of Denham, near Uxbridge, and Lord Vaux of Hackney, both of
which gentlemen had suffered in many ways for their faith. With regard
to the patients we can only say that we lack evidence to enable us to
decide whether the cases were genuine, or whether they were merely sick
and ailing folk; but we can confidently affirm that there is no suspicion
of any fraud or cozenage. Father Weston is acknowledged to have been
a man of the most candid sincerity, intensely spiritual, and of no
ordinary powers. Although the rites, in which several priests joined,
were performed with the utmost secrecy and every precaution was taken to
prevent any report being spread abroad, somebody gossiped, and in about a
year various exaggerated accounts were being circulated, until the matter
came before the Privy Council. A violent recrudescence of persecution at
once followed, many of the exorcists were seized and butchered for their
priesthood, the rest, including Weston, were flung into jail, August,
1586. A long period of imprisonment ensued, and in 1599 Weston was
committed to the Tower, where he suffered such hardships that he wellnigh
lost his sight. Eventually in 1603 he was banished, and spent the rest of
his days at Seville and Valladolid. He was rector of the latter college
at the time of his death, 9 June, 1615.[62]
It was in 1586, just when the exorcisms of the Jesuit fathers had
unfortunately attracted so widespread attention and foolish comment,
that John Darrel, although a Protestant and lacking both appropriate
ordination and training, rashly resolved to emulate their achievements.
He was young, not much more than twenty, he was foolhardy and he was
ignorant, three qualities which even in our own time often win cheap
notoriety. It seems that he was first called in to cure a young girl of
seventeen, Katherine Wright, who lived at Mansfield, Nottingham. Darrel
forthwith pronounced that she was afflicted by an evil spirit, and he
prayed over her from four o’clock in the morning till noon, but entirely
without result. He then declared that the wench had been bewitched and
that the demon, moreover, was sent by one Margaret Roper, with whom the
patient had recently quarrelled. The girl backed his story, and the
accused woman was at once taken into custody by the constable. When,
however, she appeared before Mr. Fouliamb, a justice of the peace, not
only was she incontinently discharged, but Darrel received a smart rebuff
and found himself in no small danger of arrest.
This mischance sufficiently scared the would-be exorcist, and for some
ten years he disappeared from view, only to come before the public again
at Burton-upon-Trent, where he was prominent in the sensation and the
scandal that centred round Thomas Darling, a young Derbyshire boy. This
imaginative juvenal was subject to fits—real or feigned—during which he
had visions of green angels and a green cat. Betimes his conversation
became larded with true Puritan cant, and he loved to discourse with
godly ministers. A credulous physician suggested that the lad was
bewitched, and very soon afterwards it was noticed that the reading
aloud of the Bible, especially certain verses in the first chapter of S.
John’s Gospel, threw him into frantic convulsions. He also began a long
prattling tale about “a little old woman” who wore “a broad thrimmed
hat,” which proved amply sufficient to cause two women, Elizabeth
Wright, and her daughter, Alse Gooderidge, long vehemently suspected of
sorcery, to be examined before two magistrates, who committed Alse to
jail. Next those concerned summoned a cunning man, who used various rough
methods to induce the prisoner to confess. After having been harried and
even tortured the wretched creature made some rambling and incoherent
acknowledgements of guilt, which were twisted into a connected story. By
now Darling had been ill for three months, and so far from improving, was
getting worse.
At this juncture, exactly the dramatic moment, John Darrel, full of
bluff and bounce, appeared upon the scene, and forthwith took charge
of affairs. According to his own account his efforts were singularly
blessed; that is to say the boy got better and the sly Puritan claimed
all the credit. Alse Gooderidge was tried at the assizes, convicted by
the jury, and sentenced to death by Lord Chief Justice Anderson; “She
should have been executed but that her spirit killed her in prison,” says
John Denison the pamphleteer! The whole affair greatly increased Darrel’s
reputation.
Not long after a much-bruited case of alleged possession in Lancashire
gave him further opportunity to pose in the limelight. Ann Starchie, aged
nine, and John, her brother, aged ten, were seized with a mysterious
disorder; “a certaine fearefull starting and pulling together of her
body” affected the girl, whilst the boy was “compelled to shout” on his
way to school. Both grew steadily worse until their father, Nicholas
Starchie, consulted Edmund Hartley, a notorious conjurer of no very fair
repute. Hartley seems to have quieted the children by means of various
charms, and the father paid him something like a retaining fee of forty
shillings a year. This, however, he insisted should be increased, and
when any addition was denied, there were quarrels, and presently the
boy and girl again fell ill. The famous Dr. Dee was summoned, but he
was obviously nonplussed, and whilst he “sharply reproved and straitly
examined” Hartley, in his quandary could do or say little more save
advise the help of “godlie preachers.” The situation in that accursed
house now began to grow more serious. Besides the children three young
wards of Mr. Starchie, a servant, and a visitor, were all seized with the
strange disease. “All or most of them joined together in a strange and
supernatural loud whupping that the house and grounde did sounde therwith
again.” Hartley fell under suspicion, and was haled before a justice
of the peace, who promptly committed him to the assizes. Evidence was
given that he was continually kissing the Starchie children, in fact,
he kept embracing all the possessed, and it was argued that he had thus
communicated an evil spirit to them. He was accused of having drawn magic
circles upon the ground, and although he stoutly denied the charge, he
was convicted of felony and hanged at Lancaster. John Darrel and his
assistant, George More, minister of a church in Derbyshire, undertook
to exorcize the afflicted, and in a day or two, after long prayers and
great endeavours, they managed to expel the devils. Here we have folly,
imposture, and hysteria all blended together to make a horrible tale.
At this time Darrel was officiating as a minister at Nottingham, where
there happened to be living a young apprenticed musician, a clever and
likely lad, William Somers, who some years before had met Darrel at
Ashby-de-la-Zouch, where both had been resident. It appears that the boy
had once met a strange woman, whom he offended in some way, and suddenly
he “did use such strang and idle kinde of gestures in laughing, dancing,
and such like lighte behaviour, that he was suspected to be madd.” The
famous exorcist was sent for on the 5th of November, 1597, and forthwith
recognized the signs of possession. The lad was suffering for the sins of
Nottingham. Accordingly sermons were delivered and prayers were read in
true ranting fashion, and when Darrel named one after the other fourteen
signs of possession the patient, who had been most carefully coached,
illustrated each in turn.
It is possible that Darrel had to some extent mesmeric control over
Somers, whose performance was of a very remarkable nature at least, for
“he tore; he foamed; he wallowed; his face was drawn awry; his eyes would
stare and his tongue hang out”; together with a thousand other such apish
antics which greatly impressed the bystanders. Finally the boy lay as if
dead for a quarter of an hour, and then rose up declaring he was well and
whole.
However, obsession followed possession. The demon still assailed him, and
it was not long before Master Somers accused thirteen women of having
contrived his maladies by their sorcery. Darrel, the witch-finder, had
by this time attained a position of no small importance in the town,
being chosen preacher at S. Mary’s, and he was prepared to back his
pupil to the uttermost. Yet even his influence for some reason did not
serve, and all but two of the women concerned were released from prison.
Next certain unbelieving citizens had the bad taste to interfere, and to
carry off the chief actor to the house of correction, where he pretty
soon confessed his impostures, in which, as he acknowledged, he had been
carefully instructed by Darrel. The matter now became a public scandal,
and upon the report of the Archdeacon of Derby the Archbishop of York
appointed a commission to inquire into the facts. Brought before these
ministers, not one of whom could possibly have had any means of forming a
correct judgement, Somers retracted his words, asserted that he had been
induced to slander Darrel, and thereat fell into such fits, foamings, and
contortions that the ignoramuses were convinced of the reality of his
demoniac possession.
At the Nottingham assizes, however, things went differently. Summoned to
court and encouraged by the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Edmund Anderson,[63]
to tell the truth the wretched young man made a clean breast of all his
tricks. The case against Alice Freeman, the accused, was dismissed, and
Sir Edmund, shocked at the frauds, wrote a weighty letter to Whitgift,
the Archbishop of Canterbury. Darrel and More were cited to the Court of
High Commission, where Bancroft, Bishop of London, two of the Lord Chief
Justices, the Master of Requests, and other high officials heard the
case. It is obvious that Bancroft really controlled the examination from
first to last, and that he combined the rôles of prosecutor and judge.
Somers now told the Court how he had been in constant communication with
Darrel, how they had met secretly when Darrel taught him “to doe all
those trickes which Katherine Wright did” and later sent him to see and
learn of the boy of Burton. In fact Darrel made him go through a whole
series of antics again and again in his presence, and it was after all
these preliminaries and practice that the lad posed as a possessed person
at Nottingham and was prayed over and exhibited. The vulpine Puritan
was fairly caught. No doubt the Bishop of London may have been a trifle
arbitrary, but after all he was dealing with a rank impostor. Darrel and
More were deposed from the ministry, and committed to close prison.
The whole of this case is reported by Samuel Harsnett, chaplain to
Bancroft, in a book of three hundred and twenty-four pages, _A Discovery
of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel, Bacheler of Artes_....
London, 1599, and a perfect rain of pamphlets followed. Both Darrel and
More answered Harsnett, drawing meantime a number of other persons into
the paper fray. We have such works as _An Apologie, or defence of the
possession of William Sommers, a young man of the towne of Nottingham....
By John Darrell, Minister of Christ Jesus_ ... a black letter brochure
which is undated but may be safely assigned to 1599; _The Triall of
Maist. Dorrel, or A Collection of Defences against Allegations_ ...
1599;[64] and Darrel’s abusive _A Detection of that sinnful, shamful,
lying, and ridiculous discours of Samuel Harshnet_, 1600. There are
several allusions in contemporary dramatists to the scandal, and Jonson
in _The Divell is an Asse_, acted in 1616, V, 3, has:
It is the easiest thing, Sir, to be done.
As plaine as fizzling: roule but wi’ your eyes,
And foame at th’ mouth. A little castle-soape
Will do’t, to rub your lips: And then a nutshell,
With toe and touchwood in it to spit fire,
Did you ner’e read, Sir, little _Darrel’s_ tricks,
With the boy o’ _Burton_, and the 7 in _Lancashire_,
Sommers at _Nottingham_? All these do teach it.
And wee’l give out, Sir, that your wife ha’s bewitch’d you.
It is probable that in his books Harsnett is to a large extent the
mouthpiece of the ideas of Bancroft,[65] whose opinions must have
carried no small weight seeing that in 1604 he became Archbishop of
Canterbury. But Harsnett himself was also a man who could well stand
alone, a divine marked out for the highest preferments. As Master of
Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, Vice-chancellor of that University, Bishop
of Chichester, Bishop of Norwich, and finally in 1628 Archbishop of
York,[66] he was certainly one of the most prominent men of the day. His
views, therefore, are not only of interest, but may be regarded as an
expression of recognized Anglican authority. Bancroft, who was a bitter
persecutor of Catholics, seems to have turned over a quantity of material
he had collected to Harsnett, who in 1603 published a verjuiced attack
upon the priesthood in particular and upon the supernatural in general
under the title of _A Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures_.[67]
This violent and foolish polemic with its heavy periods of coarse
ill-humour and scornful profanity jars upon the reader like the harsh
screeching of some cankered scold. True, it has a certain force due to
the very vehemence and elaborate gusto of the wrathful ecclesiastic,
the force of Billingsgate and deafening vituperation bawled by leathern
lungs and raucous tongue. As a sober argument, a reasoned contribution
to controversy and debate, the thing is negligible and has been wholly
forgotten. Nevertheless, historically Harsnett and Bancroft are
important, for it was the latter who drew up, or at least inspired,
carried through Convocation, and at once enforced the Canons generally
known as those of 1604, of which number 72 lays down: “No minister or
ministers shall ... without the license or direction (_mandatum_) of the
Bishop ... attempt upon any pretence whatsoever either of possession or
obsession, by fasting or prayer, to cast out any devil or devils, under
pain of the imputation of imposture or cozenage, and deposition from the
ministry.”
This article seems definitely intended to fix the position of the
Church of England.[68] The whole question of exorcism had, in common
with every other point of Christian doctrine, caused the most acrid
disagreement. The Lutherans retained exorcism in the baptismal rite and
were both instant and persevering in their exorcisms of the possessed.
Martin Luther himself had a most vivid realization of and the firmest
belief in the material antagonism of evil. The black stain in the castle
of Wartburg still marks the room where he flung his ink-horn at the
Devil. The silly body, the blind, the dumb, the idiot, were, as often
as not, afflicted by demons; the raving maniac was assuredly possessed.
Physicians might explain these evils as natural infirmity, but such
physicians were ignorant men; they did not know the craft and power of
Satan. Many a poor wretch who was generally supposed to have committed
suicide had in truth been seized by the Fiend and strangled by him.
The Devil could beget children; had not Luther himself come in contact
with one of them?[69] At the close of the sixteenth century, however,
an interminable and desperate struggle took place between the believers
in exorcism and the Swiss and Silesian sectaries who entirely discarded
exorcism,[70] either declaring it to have belonged only to the earliest
years of Christianity or else trying to explain away the Biblical
instances on purely rationalistic grounds. In England baptismal exorcism
was retained in the First Prayer Book of 1549, but by 1552, owing to
the authority of Martin Bucer, we find it entirely eliminated. Under
Elizabeth the ever-increasing influence of Zurich and Geneva, to which
completest deference was paid, thoroughly discredited exorcisms of any
kind, and this misbelieving attitude is repeatedly and amply made clear
in the sundry “Apologies” and “Defences” of Jewel and his followers.
A letter of Archbishop Parker in 1574[71] with reference to the proven
frauds of two idle wenches, Agnes Bridges and Rachel Pinder,[72] shows
that he was thoroughly sceptical as to the possibility of possession, and
his successor, the stout old Calvinist Whitgift, was certainly of the
same mind.
In 1603 five clergymen attempted exorcism in the case of Mary Glover, the
daughter of a merchant in Thames Street, who was said to be possessed
owing to the sorceries of a certain Elizabeth Jackson. John Swan, “a
famous Minister of the Gospel,” took the lead in this business, which
made considerable noise at the time. The Puritans were not unnaturally
anxious to vindicate their powers over the Devil and they seem avidly
to have grasped at any such opportunity that offered. Swan did not fail
to advertise his supposed triumph in _A True and Breife Report of Mary
Glover’s Vexation and of her deliverance by the meanes of fastinge and
prayer_, 1603; moreover, after her deliverance he took her home to be
his servant “least Satan should assault her again.” Old Mother Jackson
was indicted, committed by Sir John Crook, the Recorder of London, and
actually sentenced by Sir Edmund Anderson, the Lord Chief Justice, to
be pilloried four times and be kept a year in prison. Unfortunately for
the would-be exorcists and their pretensions King James, whose shrewd
suspicions were aroused, sent to examine the girl, a physician, Dr.
Edward Jorden, who detected her imposture, in which, I doubt not, she had
been well coached by the Puritans. Dr. Jorden recounted the circumstance
in his pamphlet _A briefe discourse of a disease called the Suffocation
of the Mother, Written uppon occasion which hath beene of late taken
thereby to suspect possession of an evill spirit_ (London, 1603). The
ministers were extremely chagrined, and one Stephen Bradwell even took up
the cudgels in a tart rejoinder to Jorden, which was singularly futile
as his lucubrations remain unpublished.[73] It is not improbable that
this performance had its share of influence on Bancroft when he drew up
article 72 of the 1604 Canons.
Francis Hutchinson in his _Historical Essay on Witchcraft_ (1718)[74]
doubts whether any Bishop of the Church of England ever granted a licence
for exorcism to any one of his clergy, and indeed the case which is given
by Dr. F. G. Lee,[75] who relates how Bishop Seth Ward of Exeter assigned
a form under his own signature and seal in January, 1665, to the Rev.
John Ruddle, vicar of Altarnon, is probably unique. And even so, this
was not strictly speaking an instance of exorcism, at least there was no
deliverance of a person possessed. Mr. Ruddle records in his MS. Diary
that in a lonely field belonging to the parish of Little Petherick[76]
an apparition was seen by a lad aged about sixteen, the son of a certain
Mr. Bligh. The ghost, which was that of one Dorothy Durant, who had died
eight years before, appeared so frequently to the boy at this same spot
which he was obliged to pass daily as he went to and from school, that
he fell ill and at last confessed his fears to his family, who treated
the matter with ridicule and scolded him roundly when they saw that jest
and mockery were of no avail. Eventually Mr. Ruddle was sent for to argue
him out of his foolishness. The vicar, however, was not slow to perceive
that young Bligh was speaking the truth, and he forthwith accompanied his
pupil to the field, where they both unmistakably saw the phantom just as
had been described. After a little while Mr. Ruddle visited Exeter to
interview his diocesan and obtain the necessary licence for the exorcism.
The Bishop, however, asked: “On what authority do you allege that I am
entrusted with faculty so to do? Our Church, as is well known, hath
abjured certain branches of her ancient power, on grounds of perversion
and abuse.” Mr. Ruddle quoted the Canons of 1604, and this appears to
have satisfied the prelate, who called in his secretary and assigned a
form “insomuch that the matter was incontinently done.” But the worthy
vicar was not permitted to depart without a thoroughly characteristic
caution: “Let it be secret, Mr. Ruddle,—weak brethren! weak brethren!”
The MS. Diary gives some details of the manner in which the ghost was
laid, and it is significant to read that the operator described a circle
and a pentacle upon the ground further making use of a rowan “crutch”
or wand. He mentions “a parchment scroll,” he spoke in Syriac and
proceeded to demand as the books advise; he “went through the proper
forms of dismissal and fulfilled all, as it was set down and written in
my memoranda,” and then “with certain fixed rites I did dismiss that
troubled ghost.” It would be interesting to know what form and ceremonies
the Bishop prescribed. It does not sound like the details of a Catholic
exorcism, but rather some superstitious and magical ritual. From what is
related the form can hardly have been arranged for the nonce.
Although exorcism was not recognized by Protestants there are instances
upon record where an appeal has been made by English country-folk for
the ministrations of a Catholic priest. In April, 1815, Father Edward
Peach of the Midland District, was implored to visit a young married
woman named White, of King’s Norton, Worcestershire. She had for two
months been afflicted with an extraordinary kind of illness which doctors
could neither name nor cure. Her sister declared that a young man of bad
repute, whose hand had been rejected, had sworn revenge and had employed
the assistance of a reputed wizard at Dudley to work some mischief.
However that might be, the unhappy girl seemed to lie at death’s door;
she raved of being beset day and night by spirits who mocked and moped
at her, threatening to carry her away body and soul, and suggesting
self-destruction as the only means to escape them. The clergyman of the
parish visited and prayed with her, but no good resulted from all his
endeavours. It so happened that a nurse who was called in was a Catholic,
and horrified at the hideous ravings of the patient she procured a bottle
of holy water, with which she sprinkled the room and bed. A few drops
fell upon the sufferer, who uttered the most piercing cries, and screamed
out, “You have scalded me! You have scalded me!” The paroxysm, however,
passed, and she fell for the first time during many weeks into a sound
slumber. After some slight improvement for eight and forty hours she was
attacked by violent convulsions, and her relatives, in great alarm, on
Tuesday in Rogation Week, 2 May, 1815, sent a special messenger to beg
Father Peach to come over immediately.
When the priest appeared the girl was being held down in bed by two women
who were forced to put forth all their strength, and as soon as she saw
him—he was a complete stranger to her nor could his sacred profession
be recognized by his attire—so terrible were her struggles that her
husband was bound to lend his aid also to master her writhing limbs.
Presently she fell into a state of complete exhaustion, and Father Peach,
dismissing the rest of the company, was able to talk to her long and
seriously. He seems to have been quite satisfied that it was a genuine
case of diabolic possession, and his evidence, carefully expressed and
marshalled with great moderation, leave no reasonable doubt that this
strange sickness owned no natural origin. In the course of conversation
it appeared that she had never been baptized. A simple instruction was
given and finding her in excellent dispositions Father Peach at once
baptized her. During the administration of this sacrament she trembled
like a leaf, and as the water fell upon her she winced pitifully, a spasm
of agony distorting her countenance. She afterwards averred that it gave
her as much pain as if boiling water had been poured upon her bare flesh.
Immediately afterwards there followed a truly remarkable change in her
health and spirits; her husband and sister were overjoyed and thought
it no less than a miracle. The next day Father Peach visited her again
and noticed a rapid improvement. Save for a slight weakness she seemed
perfectly restored, and, says the good father, writing a twelvemonth
later than the event from notes he had taken at the time, there was no
return, nor the least lingering symptom of her terrible and distressing
malady.
In its issue of 11 October, 1925, _The Sunday Express_, under the heading
“Evil Spirit Haunts A Girl,” devoted a prominent column to the record of
some extraordinary happenings. The account commences:
“Haunted for twelve months and more by a mischievous spirit—called a
Poltergeist—driven almost to a state of distraction, threatened with a
lunatic asylum, and then cured by the help of a band of spirit Indians,
is the extraordinary experience of the nineteen-year-old Gwynneth Morley,
who lives with her widowed mother at Keighley, and who was employed in
the spinning mills of Messrs. Hay and Wright.”
These phenomena were communicated to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who
informed Mr. Hewet McKenzie, with the result that the girl was brought
to London for psychic treatment, Mr. McKenzie being “honorary principal
of the British College of Psychic Science,” an institution which is
advertised as the “Best equipped Centre for the study of Psychic
Science in Britain,” and announces “Lectures on Practical Healing,”
“Public Clairvoyance,” “A Small Exhibition of notable water colours ...
representing Soul development, or experience of the Soul in ethereal
conditions.” “The College” is, I am given to understand, a well-known
centre for spiritistic séances.
Gwynneth Morley worked in Mr. McKenzie’s family for three months “as a
housemaid, under close observation, and receiving psychic treatment.
“Day by day the amazing manifestations of her tormenting spirit were
noted down. In between the new and full moon the disturbances were worse.
Everything in the room in which Gwynneth happened to be would be thrown
about and smashed. Tables were lifted and overturned, chairs smashed to
pieces, bookcases upset, and heavy settees thrown over.
“In the kitchen of Holland Park the preparation of meals, when Gwynneth
was about, was a disconcerting affair. Bowls of water would be spilt and
pats of butter thrown on the floor.
“On another occasion when Gwynneth was in the kitchen the housekeeper,
who was preparing some grape fruit for breakfast, found that one half
had disappeared and could be found neither in the kitchen nor in the
scullery. She got two bananas to take its place, and laid them on the
table beside her; immediately the missing grape fruit whizzed past her
ear and fell before her and the bananas vanished. Some ten minutes later
they were found on the scullery table.
“All this time Gwynneth was being treated by psychic experts. Every week
the girl sat with Mr. and Mrs. McKenzie and others. It was found that she
was easily hypnotised, and that tables moved towards her in the circle.
“At other times during the cure the Poltergeist seemed to accept
challenges. One night after a particularly exciting day, Mrs. Barkel
magnetised her head and quietened her, and Mrs. McKenzie suggested that
she should go to bed, saying ‘Nothing happens when you get into bed.’
Going up the stairs a small table and a metal vase crashed over, and a
little later a great noise of banging and tearing was heard in Gwynneth’s
room. When Mrs. McKenzie went into the room it looked as if a tornado had
swept over it.
“After an active spell from June 21 to June 25 the spirit behaved itself
until July 1, when the girl had a kind of fit. Suddenly she fell off her
chair with her hands clenched. They laid her on a bed, and she fell into
another fit. She gripped her own throat powerfully.
“Since that evening she has had no further attacks, nor have there been
any disturbances.”
The main cause of this apparent cure is said to be the mediumship of Mrs.
Barkel.
“On many occasions Mrs. Barkel gave Gwynneth excellent clairvoyance,
describing deceased relatives, friends, and incidents in her past life
which the girl acknowledged and corroborated.
“One near relative, says Mr. McKenzie, whose life had been misspent,
and who had been a heavy drinker, was clearly seen. The girl feared and
hated this personality, in life and beyond death, and had herself often
seen him clairvoyantly before the disturbances began at all. Through
Mrs. Barkel’s spirit guide, Mr. McKenzie got into touch with him, and
he promised to carry out any instructions that might be given for the
benefit of the girl.
“The request was made that he should withdraw altogether from any contact
with her and not return except by request. ‘Professor J.,’ a worker on
the other side, became interested. Mr. McKenzie asked that a band of
Indians, who sometimes profess to be able to help, should take Gwynneth
in hand and protect her from the assaults of disturbing influences.
“The following day Mrs. Barkel described an Indian who had come to
help, and improvements were noted from about this date. The ‘professor’
encouraged the treatment by suggestion, and told Mr. McKenzie that in a
few weeks, with the help of the Indian workers, he would place the medium
in an entirely new psychic condition. Mr. McKenzie says that the promise
was kept.”
I have quoted this case at some length owing to the prominence
afforded it in a popular and widely read newspaper. That the facts are
substantially true I see no reason at all to doubt. It is an ordinary
instance of obsession, and will be easily recognized as such by those
priests whose duty has required them to study these distressing
phenomena. That the interpretation put upon some of the occurrences is
utterly false I am very certain. The clairvoyance is merely playing with
fire—I might say, with hell-fire—by those who cannot understand what they
are about, what forces they are thus blindly evoking. “Professor J.” and
“the band of Indians,” indeed all these “workers on the other side” are
nothing else than evil, or at the least gravely suspect intelligences,
masquerading as spirits of light and goodness. If, indeed, the girl is
relieved from obsession one cannot but suppose some ulterior motive lurks
in the background; it is but part of a scheme organized for purposes
of their own by dark and secret powers ever alert to trick and trap
credulous man. The girl, Gwynneth Morley, should have been exorcized by
a trained and accredited exorcist. These amateurs neither know nor even
faintly realize the harm they may do, the dangers they encounter. A bold
mind, such as that of Guazzo, might specify their attempts—well-meaning
as they are, no doubt—in terms I do not care to use.
At Illfurt, five miles south of Mulhausen in Alsace, is a monument
consisting of a stone column thirty feet high surmounted with a statue
of the Immaculate Conception, and upon the plinth of the pillar may
be read the following remarkable inscription: _In memoriam perpetuam
liberationis duorum possessorum Theobaldi et Josephi Burner, obtentæ per
intercessionem Beatæ Mariæ Uirginis Immaculatæ, Anno Domini 1869_.
Joseph Burner[77] and Anna Maria, his wife, were poor but intelligent
persons, who were not merely respected but even looked up to for their
probity and industry by their fellow-villagers of Illfurt. The family
consisted of five children, the eldest son, Thiébaut, being born on
21 August, 1855, and the second, Joseph, on 29 April, 1857. They were
quiet lads of average ability, who, when eight years old, were sent
in the usual course to the local elementary school. In the autumn of
1864 both were seized with a mysterious illness which would not yield
to the ordinary remedies. Dr. Levy, of Altkirch, who was called in to
examine the case acknowledged himself completely baffled, and a number
of other doctors who were afterwards consulted declared themselves
unable to diagnose such extraordinary symptoms. From 25 September,
1865, the two boys displayed most abnormal phenomena. Whilst lying
on their backs they spun suddenly round like whirling tops with the
utmost rapidity. Convulsions seized them, twisting and distorting every
limb with unparalleled mobility, or again their bodies would for hours
together become absolutely rigid and motionless so that no joint could
be bent, whilst they lay motionless as stocks or stones. Fearful fits
of vomiting often concluded these attacks. Sometimes they were dumb
for days and could only gibber and mow with blazing eyes and slabbering
lips, sometimes they were deaf so that even a pistol fired close to their
ears had not the slightest effect.[78] Often they became fantastically
excited, gesticulating wildly and shouting incessantly. Their voices
were, however, not their normal tones nor even those of children at all,
but the strong, harsh, hoarse articulation of rough and savage men. For
hours together they would blaspheme in the foulest terms, cursing and
swearing, and bawling out such hideous obscenities that the neighbours
took to flight in sheer terror at the horrible scenes, whilst the
distracted parents knew not whence to turn for help or comfort. Not only
did the sufferers use the filthy vocabulary of the lowest slums, but
they likewise spoke with perfect correctness and answered fluently in
different languages, in French, Latin, English, and even in most varied
dialects of Spanish and Italian, which could by no possible means have
been known to them in their normal state. Nor could they at any time have
heard conversation in these languages and subconsciously assimilated
it. A famous case is on record where a servant girl of mean education
fell ill and during a delirium began to mutter and babble in a language
which was recognized as Syriac. This was considered to be accounted
for when it was discovered that formerly she had been in service in a
house where there was lodging a theological student, who upon the eve
of his examinations used to walk up and down stairs and pace his room
saying aloud to himself Syriac roots and vocables, which she thus often
overheard and which in this way registered themselves in her brain. But
there could not be any such explanation in the case of Thiébaut and
Joseph Burner, since they did not merely reel out disconnected words and
phrases in any one or two tongues, but conversed easily and sensibly
in a large variety of languages and even in dialects. This has always
been considered one of the genuine signs of diabolic possession, as is
stated in the third article of _De Exorcizandis Obsessis a Dæmonio_: “3.
In primis, ne facile credat, aliquem a dæmonio obsessum esse, sed nota
habeat ea signa, quibus obsessus dignoscitur ab iis, qui uel atra bile,
uel morbo aliquo laborant. Signa autem obsidentis dæmonis sunt: ignota
lingua loqui pluribus uerbis, uel loquentem intelligere; distantia et
occulta patefacere; uires super ætatis seu conditionis naturam ostendere;
et id genus alia, quæ cum plurima concurrunt, maiora sunt indicia.”
Moreover, both Thiébaut and Joseph Burner repeatedly and in exactest
detail described events which were happening at a distance, and upon
investigation their accounts were afterwards found to be precisely true
in every particular. Their strength was also abnormal, and often in
their paroxysms and convulsions it needed the utmost exertions of three
powerful men severally to hold these lads who were but nine and seven
years old.
It was noticed at the very beginning of these maladies that the patients
were thrown into the most violent fits and every symptom of disease and
disorder exacerbated by the presence of any sacramental such as holy
water, or medals, rosaries, and other objects which had been blessed
according to the ritual. They seemed particularly enraged by the blessed
Medal of S. Benedict and pictures of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour. On
one occasion Monsieur Ignace Spies, the _Maire_ of Selestat, a man of
exceptional devotion and piety, held before their eyes a Relic of S.
Gerard Majella,[79] the Redemptorist thaumaturge, when their shrieks
and yells were truly terrific, finally dying away in inhuman whines
and groans of despair. It so happened that a Corpus Christi procession
passed the house, opposite which an Altar of Repose had been erected. The
children, who were in bed, knew nothing of this and seemed to lie in a
deep stupor. However, as the Blessed Sacrament approached their behaviour
is said to have been indescribable. They poured forth torrents of filth
and profanity, distorting their limbs into a thousand unnatural postures,
their eyes almost starting from their heads, a crisis which was succeeded
by a sudden horrible composure, whilst they crept away into the furthest
corners of the room moaning, panting, and retching as if in mortal agony.
Above all, pictures and Medals of Our Lady and the invocation of Her Most
Holy Name filled the possessed with terror and rage. At any mention of
“the Great Lady,” as they termed Her, they would curse and howl in so
monstrous a way that all who had heard them shook and sweated with fear.
The abbé Charles Brey, parish priest of Illfurt, quickly made up his
mind as to the diabolic nature of the phenomena. It was an undoubted
case of possession, since in no other way could what was taking place
be explained. Accordingly he sent to his diocesan, Monsignor Andreas
Räss (1842-87) a full account of such extraordinary and fearful events.
The Bishop, however, was far from satisfied that these things could not
be accounted for naturally. In fact it was only after three or four
years’ delay that at the instance of the Dean of Altkirch he decided to
order a special ecclesiastical investigation. He finally appointed for
this task three acute theologians, Monsignor Stumpf,[80] Superior of
his Grand Seminary at Strasburg; Monsignor Freyburger, Vicar-General of
the diocese; and Monsieur Sester, rector of Mulhausen. These priests,
then, presented themselves unexpectedly at the Burner’s house on Tuesday
morning, 13 April, 1869, at 10 o’clock. It was found that Joseph Burner
had already concealed himself, and it was only after a prolonged search
he could with difficulty be dragged from under his bed where he had taken
refuge. Thiébaut feigned to be unconscious of the presence of strangers.
The inquiry lasted for more than two hours, and it was not until past
noon that the investigators left the house. Meanwhile they had witnessed
the most hideous scenes, and their minds were quite made up as to the
reality of the possession. They shortly presented their report to the
Bishop, who then, and not until then, allowed himself to be convinced of
the facts.
Even so, the prudent prelate ordered fresh precautions to be taken. At
the beginning of September, 1869, Thiébaut was conveyed in the company
of his unhappy mother, to the orphanage of S. Charles at Schiltigheim,
where he was to be lodged whilst the case was investigated _de nouo_
by Monsignor Rapp, Monsignor Stumpf, and Father Eicher, S.J., Superior
of the Jesuit house at Strasburg. At the same time Father Hausser, the
chaplain of S. Charles, and Father Schrantzer, a well-known scholar and
psychologist, were to keep the boy systematically but secretly under the
closest observation.
It was decided to proceed to exorcism, and a priest of great reverence
and experience, Father Souquat, was commissioned by the Bishop to
perform the solemn rite. At two o’clock on Sunday, 3 October, Thiébaut
was forcibly brought into the chapel of S. Charles, which hitherto he
had always sedulously avoided, and when compelled to enter he uttered
without intermission such hoarse yells that it was necessary to remove
him for fear of scandal and alarming the other inmates. The lad,
however, was now held fast by the abbés Schrantzer and Hausser, assisted
by Charles André, the gardener of the establishment, a stalwart and
muscular Hercules. The sufferer stood upon a carpet spread just before
the communion rails, his face turned towards the tabernacle. He struggled
and writhed in the grasp of those who were restraining him; his face
was scarlet; his eyes closed; whilst from his swollen and champing lips
there flowed down a stream of thick yellowish froth which fell in great
viscous gouts to the floor. The Litanies began, and at the words “Sancta
Maria, ora pro nobis” a hideous yell burst from his throat. The exorcizer
unmoved continued the prayers and gospels of the Ritual. Meanwhile the
possessed blasphemed and defied their utmost efforts. It was resolved to
recommence upon the following day. Thiébaut, accordingly, was confined
in a strait jacket and strapped down in a red arm-chair, around which
stood the three guards as before. The evil spirit roared and howled in
a deep bass voice, raising a terrific din; the boy’s limbs strained
and contorted but the bonds held tight; his face was livid; his mouth
flecked with the foam of slobbering saliva. In a firm voice the priest
adjured the demon; he held the crucifix before his eyes, and finally a
statue of Our Lady with the words: “Unclean spirit, disappear before
the face of the Immaculate Conception! She commands! Thou must obey!
Thou must depart!” The assistants upon their knees fervently recited the
_Memorare_, when the air was rent by a yell of hideous agony, the boy’s
limbs were convulsed in one sharp convulsion, and suddenly he lay still
wrapped in a deep slumber. At the end of about an hour he awoke gently
and gazed about him with wondering eyes. “Where am I?” he asked. “Do you
not know me?” questioned the abbé Schrantzer. “No, father, I do not,” was
the reply. In a few days Thiébaut was able to return home, worn and weak
but bright and happy. Of all that happened during those fateful years
he had not the smallest recollection. He returned to school, and was in
every respect a normal healthy boy.
Joseph, who had grown steadily worse, was meantime secluded from his
brother, pending the preparations for his exorcism. On 27 October he was
taken very early in the morning to the cemetery chapel near Illfurt.
Only the parents, Mons. Ignace Spies, Professor Lachemann, and some half
a dozen more witnesses were present, as the affair was conducted in the
utmost privacy. At six o’clock the abbé Charles Brey said Mass, after
which he exorcized the unhappy victim. During three successive hours
they renewed prayers and adjurations, until at last some present began
to feel discouraged. But the glowing faith of the priest sustained them,
and at length with a loud groan that sounded like a deep roar the boy,
who had been struggling and screeching in paroxysms of frantic fury all
the while, fell back into a deep swoon and lay motionless. After no long
pause he sat up, opened his eyes as awaking from sleep, and was overcome
with amazement to find himself in a church with strange people around him.
Neither Thiébaut nor Joseph ever experienced any recurrence of this
strange malady. The former died when he was only sixteen years old on 3
April, 1871. The latter, who obtained a situation at Zillisheim, died
there in 1882 at the age of twenty-five.
An even more recent case of possession, which has been authoritatively
studied in minutest detail and at first hand, presents many of the same
features.[81] Hélène-Joséphine Poirier, the daughter of an artisan
family—her father was a mason—was born on 5 November, 1834, at Coullons,
a small village some ten miles from Gien in the district of the Loire.
Whilst still young she was apprenticed to Mlle Justine Beston, a working
dressmaker, and soon became skilful with her needle and a remarkable
embroideress. Already she had attracted attention by her sincere and
modest piety, and was thought highly of by the parish priest, M.
Preslier, a man of unusual discernment and the soundest common sense.
On the night of 25 March, 1850, she was suddenly awakened by a series
of sharp raps, which soon became violent blows, as if struck upon the
walls of the small attic where she slept. In terror she rushed into her
parents’ room next door, and they returned with her to search. Nothing
at all could be discovered, and she was persuaded to go back to bed.
Although they could actually see no cause for alarm her parents had heard
the extraordinary noises. “From this date,” says M. Preslier, “the life
of Hélène in the midst of such terrible physical and moral suffering that
she might well have given utterance to the complaints of holy Job.”[82]
These manifestations to Hélène Poirier may not unfittingly be compared
with the famous “Rochester knockings,” the phenomenon of the rappings
at Hydesville in 1848 at the house of the Fox family, which by many
writers is considered to be the beginning of that world-wide movement
known as Spiritism or Spiritualism in its modern manifestations and
recrudescence.[83]
Some months after this event Hélène suddenly fell rigid to the ground as
if she had been thrown down by some strong hands. She was able to get
up immediately but only to fall again. It was thought she was epileptic
or at any rate seized with some unusual attack, some fit or convulsion.
But after a careful observation of her case Dr. Azéma, the local
practitioner, shrewdly remarked: “Nobody here but the Priest can cure
you.” From this time disorders of spirit and physical maladies increased
with unprecedented rapidity and violence. “Her physical and mental
sufferings, which began on 25 March, 1850, continued until her death on
8 January, 1914, that is to say during a period of sixty-four years.
But those of diabolic origin ceased towards the end of 1897. So the
diabolic attacks actually lasted for some seven-and-forty years, and for
six years of this time she was possessed.”[84] It was in January, 1863,
it first became undeniably evident that her sufferings, her spasms, and
painful trances had a supernatural origin. The abbé Bougaud, Archdeacon
of Orleans, having interviewed her, advised that she should be brought
to the Bishop, Monsignor Dupanloup, and made arrangements for her to
stay at a Visitation convent in the suburbs, promising that a commission
of theologians and doctors should examine her case. On Thursday, 28
October, 1865, Hélène accordingly commenced a retreat at the convent,
where she was kindly received. M. Bougaud saw her for about two minutes,
and she was handed an official order which would allow her access to the
Bishop without waiting for a summons from his lordship or any other
undue delay. But there was some misunderstanding, for on the Friday a
doctor of high repute called at the convent, as he had been requested,
interrogated and examined her for some three-quarters of an hour and then
roundly informed the Mother Superior that she was mad, stark mad, and
had better be sent home at once. He seems to have impressed the Bishop
with his report, for Monsignor Dupanloup sent a messenger to direct the
nuns to dismiss her forthwith, and accordingly she was perforce taken
back to Coullons after a fruitless journey of bitter disappointments and
discouragement. Many persons now began to regard her with suspicion, but
in the following year, 1866, the Bishop, whilst visiting Coullons for
an April confirmation, granted her an interview which caused him very
considerably to modify his first opinion, and M. Bougaud, who saw her in
September, declared himself convinced of the supernatural origin of the
symptoms she displayed.
The most terrible obsessions now attacked her, and more than once she
was driven to the verge of suicide and despair. “From 25 March, 1850,
until March, 1868, Hélène was _only obsessed_. This obsession _lasted 18
years_. At the end of this time she was _both obsessed and possessed_ for
13 months. From this double agony of obsession and possession she was
completely delivered by the exorcisms, which the Bishop had sanctioned,
at Orleans, on 19 April, 1869. Four months’ peace followed, until with
heroic generosity she voluntarily submitted to new inflictions.
“At the end of August, 1869, she accepted from the hands of Our Lord
the agony of a new obsession and possession in order to obtain the
conversion of the famous general Ducrot. When he was converted, she was
delivered from her torments at Lourdes on 3 September, 1875, the cure
being effected by the prayers of 15,000 pilgrims who had assembled there.
_The obsession and possession in their new form_ had lasted five years.
During the forty years which passed before her death, she was never again
subject to possession, but she was continually obsessed, the attacks now
being of short duration, now long and severe. The sufferings of every
kind which she endured as well she offered with the intention of the
triumph and good estate of God’s priests. Why she was originally thus
persecuted by the Devil for nineteen years, and with what intention she
offered those torments from which she was delivered by the exorcisms
directed by the Bishop, must always remain a secret.”[85] On Tuesday,
13 August, 1867, a supernormal impulse came over her to write a paper
full of the most hideous blasphemies against Our Lord and His Blessed
Mother, and, what is indeed significant, to draw blood from her arm and
to sign therewith a deed giving herself over body and soul to Satan.
This she happily resisted after a terrible struggle. Upon the following
28 August reliable witnesses saw her levitated from the ground on two
distinct occasions. With this phenomenon we may compare the levitation
of mediums at spiritistic séances. Sir William Crookes in _The Quarterly
Journal of Science_, January, 1874, states that “There are at least a
hundred recorded instances of Mr. Home’s rising from the ground.” Of the
same medium he writes: “On three separate occasions have seen him raised
completely from the floor of the room.”
In March, 1868, it became evident that the poor sufferer was actually
possessed. Fierce convulsive fits seized her; she suddenly fell with
a maniacal fury and a deep hoarse voice uttered the most astounding
blasphemies; if the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary were spoken in her
presence she gnashed her teeth and literally foamed at the mouth; she was
unable to hear the words _Et caro Uerbum factum est_ without an access
of insane rage which spent itself in wild gestures and an incoherent
howling. She was interrogated in Latin, and answered the questions
volubly and easily in the same tongue. The case attracted considerable
attention, and was reported by the Comte de Maumigny to Padre Picivillo,
the editor of the _Civiltá Cattolica_, who gave an account thereof to the
Holy Father. The saintly Pius IX[86] showed himself full of sympathy, and
even sent through the Comte de Maumigny a message of most salutary advice
recommending great caution and the avoidance of all kinds of curiosity or
advertisement.
In February, 1869, when interrogated by several priests Hélène gave most
extraordinary details concerning bands of Satanists. “In order to gain
admission it is necessary to bring one or more consecrated Hosts, and to
deliver these to the Devil, who in a materialized form visibly presides
over the assembly. The neophyte is obliged to profane the Sacred Species
in a most horrible manner, to worship the Devil with humblest adoration,
and to perform with him and the other persons present the most bestial
acts of unbridled obscenity, the foulest copulations. Three towns, Paris,
Rome, and Tours, are the headquarters of the Satanic bands.”[87] She also
spoke of a gang of devil-worshippers at Toulouse. It is obvious that a
mere peasant woman could have no natural knowledge of these abominations,
the details concerning which were unhappily only too true.
In the following April Hélène was taken to Orleans to be examined and
solemnly exorcized. The interrogatories were conducted by Monsieur
Desbrosses, a consultor in theology for the diocese, Monsieur Bougaud,
and Monsieur Mallet, Superior of the Grand Seminary. They witnessed the
most terrible crisis; the sufferer was tortured by fierce cramps and
spasms; she howled like a wild beast; but they persisted patiently.
Mons. Mallet questioned her on difficult and obscure points in theology
and philosophy using now Latin, now Greek. She replied fluently in
both tongues, answering his queries concisely, clearly, and to the
point, incontestable proof that she was influenced by some supernormal
power. Two or three days later the Bishop was present at a similar
examination, and forthwith commissioned his own director, Monsieur Roy,
a professor at the Seminary, to undertake the exorcisms. With him were
associated Monsieur Mallet, the parish priest of Coullons, and Monsieur
Gaduel, Vicar-General of the diocese. Two nuns and Mlle Preslier held
the patient. It was found necessary to repeat the rite five times upon
successive days. On the last occasion the cries of the unhappy Hélène
were fearful to hear. She writhed and foamed in paroxysms of rage; she
blasphemed and cursed God, calling loudly upon the fiends of hell;
she broke free from all restraint, hurling chairs and furniture in
every direction with the strength of five men; it was with the utmost
difficulty she could be seized and restrained before some serious
mischief was done; at last with an unearthly yell, twice repeated, her
limbs relaxed, and after a short period of insensibility she seemed to
awake, calm and composed, as if from a restful slumber. The possession
had lasted thirteen months from March, 1868, to April, 1869.
Into the details of her second possession from 23 August, 1869, until 3
September, 1874, it is hardly necessary to enter at any length. Monsieur
Preslier noted: “The second crisis of possession was infinitely more
terrible than the first; 1st, owing to the length; the first lasted
thirteen months, the second five years. 2nd, the first was relieved with
a number of heavenly consolations, but very little solace was obtained
during the second. 3rd, there was much bodily suffering in the first, in
the second there were far keener mental sufferings and more exquisite
pain.”[88] She was finally and completely delivered at Lourdes on
Thursday, 3 September, 1874. It is not to be supposed that she passed the
remaining forty years of her life without occasional manifestations of
extraordinary phenomena. After much sickness, cheerfully and smilingly
borne, she made a good end in her eightieth year, on 8 January, 1914, and
is buried in the little village cemetery of her native place.
We have here the case of a woman who was mediumistic and clairvoyant
to an almost unexampled degree, and it is very certain that if these
would-be fortune-tellers and mages who so freely advertise their powers
in many spiritistic journals to-day truly realized to what terrible
dangers and very real psychic perils the use and even the mere possession
of such faculties expose them, they would, so far from trafficking in
the presumption of abnormal gifts, regard them with caution and indeed
shrink from any occult practice at all, lest haply they become the prey
of controls and influences so cunning, so potent for evil, as to merge
them body and soul in untold miseries and shadows darker even than the
bitterness of death.
The modern Spiritistic movement, so strongly supported by recent
scientific utterances, is increasingly affecting all classes and
conditions of society, and is beginning in every direction to undermine
and actually to usurp the religious belief and convictions of thousands
of earnest and seriously inclined but not very accurately informed or
well-instructed persons. The basis of the movement is the claim that the
spirits of the dead are continually seeking to communicate and, indeed,
communicating with us through the agency of sensitives, so that it is
possible to get into touch and to converse with our dear ones who have
passed from this life. It is hardly necessary to emphasize the almost
infinite consolation and comfort such a doctrine holds for the bereaved,
how eagerly and with what yearning mourners will embrace such teaching,
and how perseveringly and with what tender agonies of an hungered love
they will devote themselves to the practices they imagine will place
them in closest connexion and communion with those whom they have lost
awhile, but whose voices they ever long to hear, whose faces they long
to see once again. It is a matter of common knowledge that during and
since the Great War Spiritism has increased tenfold; many who were wont
to laugh at it, who refused to listen to its claims and scorned it as
futile nonsense, are now among its most enthusiastic devotees. In truth
there must be few of us who cannot appreciate the irresistible influence
such beliefs will have upon the mind. Spiritism is seemingly full of joy,
and hope, and promise, and happiness. It will wipe all tears of sorrow
from poor human eyes; it is balm to the wounded heart; divine solace and
sympathy; the barriers of death are broken down; mortality is robbed of
its terrors.
Were it true, could we summon to our side the spirits of those whom
we have so fondly cherished and converse with them of things holy and
eternal, could we learn wisdom from their fuller knowledge, could we be
assured in their own sweet accents of their fadeless love, could we now
and again be comforted with a sight of their well-known faces, the touch
of their hands upon ours, were it God’s will that this should be so, then
assuredly Spiritism is a most blessed and sacred thing, consolation to
the afflicted, succour to the distressed, a shining light upon earth’s
dark ways, a very ready help to us all. But if on the other hand there
is reason and grave reason to suppose that the spirits, with whom it is
possible under certain exceptional conditions and by certain remarkable
devices to establish a contact, although often claiming to be departed
friends or relatives and supporting their contention (we acknowledge)
with no little plausibility, are again and again found to be masquerading
intelligences, in some cases undoubtedly actors of excellence who play
their part for a time with consummate skill, but who have never at any
séance whatsoever anywhere been able conclusively to demonstrate their
identity, if in fact these manifesting intelligences are deceivers,
imposing for purposes of their own a fraudulent impersonation upon those
who with breaking hearts are so eagerly longing to communicate with son
or husband fallen in battle, it may be, or on some lone shore, if they
are proven liars, if their messages are trivial, ambiguous, cryptic,
incapable of verification, shifty, ignorant, nay worse, blasphemous and
hideously obscene, then are we justified—and we are in point of fact
fully and completely justified—in concluding that the spirits are not
those of the departed, but evil intelligences who never have been and
never will be incarnate, unclean spirits, demons, and then assuredly
Spiritism is most foul, most loathly, most dangerous, and most damnable.
The mediums, who of their own will freely open the door to these spirits,
who invite them to enter, stand in the most deadly peril. A Spiritist of
many years’ experience who saw not too late the hazard and abandoned that
creed, writes as follows: “Spirit communion soon absorbs all the time,
faculties, hopes, fears, and desires of its devotees, and herein lies one
of the greatest dangers of spiritualism. Infatuated by communication with
the unseen inhabitants of the hidden world, the medium loses his or her
interest in the things pertaining to everyday life and interest. A soft
and pleasing atmosphere appears to surround them. The realities of flesh
and blood are lost in ideal dreaming and there is no incentive to break
away from a state of existence so agreeable, no matter how monstrous are
the delusions practised by the spirits. Their consciences are so callous
as if seared with a hot iron, sin has to them lost its wickedness, and
they are willing dupes to unseen beings who delight to control their
every faculty. Very seldom has a full-fledged spiritualist been able to
comprehend the necessity and blessedness of the religion of Jesus Christ,
and to withdraw from the morbid conditions into which he has fallen....
“For about three months I was in the power of spirits, having a
dual existence, and greatly tormented by their contradictory and
unsatisfactory operations.... They tormented me to a very severe extent,
and I desired to be freed from them. I lost much of my confidence in
them, and their blasphemy and uncleanness shocked me. But they were
my constant companions. I could not get rid of them. They tempted me
to suicide and murder, and to other sins. I was fearfully beset and
bewildered and deluded. There was no human help for me. They led me
into some extravagances of action, and to believe, in a measure, a few
of their delusions, often combining religion and devilry in a most
surprising manner.”[89]
[Illustration: PLATE VII
S. JAMES VISITS THE WARLOCK’S DEN. Breughel
[_face p. 250_]
In my own experience, I myself, not once, but over and over again, have
seen all these symptoms unmistakably marked in those whose sole interest
and aim in life seemed to be a constant attendance at séances. I have
watched, in spite of every effort unable to check and dissuade, the
fearfully rapid development of such characteristics in persons who have
begun to dabble with Spiritism, at first no doubt in moods of levity
and wanton curiosity, but soon with hectic anxiety and the most morbid
absorption. Some fifteen years ago in a well-known English provincial
town a circle was formed by a number of friends to experiment with
table-turning, psychometry, the planchette, ouija-boards, crystal-gazing,
and the like. They were, perhaps, a little tired of the usual round
of social engagements, dances, concerts, bridge, the theatre, dinner
parties, and all those mildly pleasurable businesses which go to make
up life, or at least a great portion of life, for so many. They wanted
some new excitement, something a little out of the ordinary. A lady,
just returned home from a prolonged visit to London, had (it seems) been
taken to some Spiritistic meeting, and she was full of the wonders both
witnessed and heard there. The sense of the eerie, the unknown, lent a
spice of adventure too. The earlier meetings were informal, first at one
house, now at another. They began by being infrequent, almost casual, at
fairly long intervals. Next a certain evening each week was fixed for
these gatherings, which soon were fully attended by all concerned. No
member would willingly miss a single reunion. Before long they met twice,
three times, every evening in the week. Professional mediums were engaged
who travelled down from London and other great cities, some at no small
distance, to give strange exhibitions of their powers. I myself met two
of these experts, a man and a woman, both of whose names I have since
seen advertised in Spiritistic journals of a very recent date, and I am
bound to say that I was most unfavourably impressed in each instance.
Not that I for a moment think they were fraudulent, nor do I suspect
any vulgar trickery or pose; they were undoubtedly honest, thoroughly
convinced and sincere, which makes the matter ten times worse. And so
from being mere idle triflers at a new game, incredulous and a little
mocking, the whole company became besotted by their practices, fanatics
whose thoughts were always and ever centred and concentrated upon their
communion with spirits, who talked of nothing else, who seemed only to
live for those evenings when they might meet and enter—as it were—another
world. Argument, pleading, reproof, authority, official admonishment,
all proved useless; one could only stand by and see the terrible thing
doing its deadly work. The symptoms were exactly as above described. In
two cases, men, the moral fibre was for a while apparently destroyed
altogether; in another case, a woman, there was obsession, and persons
who either knew nothing of, or had no sort of belief in, Spiritism,
whispered of eccentricities, of outbursts of uncontrolled passion and
ravings, which pointed to a disordered mind, to an asylum. All sank into
a state of apathy; former interests vanished; the amenities of social
intercourse were neglected and forgotten; old friendships allowed to
drop for no reason whatsoever; a complete change of character for the
worse, a terrible deterioration took place; the physical health suffered;
their faces became white and drawn, the eyes dull and glazed, save
when Spiritism was discussed, and then they lit with hot unholy fires;
one heard covert gossip that hinted of crude debauch, of blasphemous
speeches, of licence and degradation. Fortunately by a series of
providential events the circle was broken up; outside circumstances
compelled the principals to fall away, and what was doubtless a more
potent factor than any, one or two were suddenly brought to realize
the deadly peril and the folly of their proceedings. It proved a hard
struggle indeed to rid themselves of the controls to which they had
so blindly and so utterly submitted; their wills were weakened, their
health impaired; more than once they slid back again into the old danger
zone, more than once they were on the verge of giving up the contest in
despair. But under direction and availing themselves of those means of
grace the Church so bounteously proffers they persevered, and were at
length made clean.
There must be many who have had similar experiences, who know intimately,
even if they have not actually had to rescue and to guide, those who have
been meshed and trapped by Spiritism and are endeavouring to escape.
They will appreciate how difficult is the task, they will realize how
pernicious, how potent, how evil, such toils may be. Nobody who has had
to deal with sensitives, with poor dupes who are eager to abandon their
practices, can think lightly of Spiritism.
That Spiritism opens the door to demoniac possession, so often classed
as lunacy, is generally acknowledged by all save the prejudiced and
superstitious. As far back as 1877 Dr. L. S. Forbes Winslow wrote in
_Spiritualistic Madness_: “Ten thousand unfortunate people are at the
present time confined in lunatic asylums on account of having tampered
with the supernatural.” And quoting an American journal he goes on to
say: “Not a week passes in which we do not hear that some of these
unfortunates destroy themselves by suicide, or are removed to a lunatic
asylum. The mediums often manifest signs of an abnormal condition of
their mental faculties, and among certain of them are found unequivocal
indications of a true demoniacal possession. The evil spreads rapidly,
and it will produce in a few years frightful results.... Two French
authors of spiritualistic works, who wrote _Le Monde Spirituel_ and
_Sauvons le genre humain_, died insane in an asylum; these two men were
distinguished in their respective professions; one as a highly scientific
man, the other as an advocate well learned in the Law. These individuals
placed themselves in communication with spirits by means of tables. I
could quote many such instances where men of the highest ability have, so
to speak, neglected all and followed the doctrines of Spiritualism only
to end their days in the lunatic asylum.”
Some half a dozen years ago an inquiry was undertaken and there was
circulated an interrogatory or _enquête_ which invited opinions upon (1)
“the situation as regards the renewed interest in psychic phenomena”;
(2) whether this “psychic renewal” denoted a “passing from a logical and
scientific (deductive) to a spiritual and mystic (inductive) conception
of life,” or “a reconciliation between the two, that is between science
and faith”;[90] (3) “the most powerful argument for, or against, human
survival”; (4) “the best means of organizing this (psychic) movement in
the highest interest, philosophical, religious and scientific, of the
nation, especially as a factor of durable peace.” Five-and-fifty of the
answers were collected and published under the title _Spiritualism: Its
Present-Day Meaning_,[91] a book which certainly makes most interesting
and illuminating if extremely varied reading. Being a symposium, all
schools of thought are represented, and I would venture to add that among
the contributions are some outpourings which evince no thought at all, a
fact which is of itself not without considerable significance. We have
the unflinching logic and sound common-sense of Father Bernard Vaughan,
whose verdict is reiterated by the Rev. James Adderley and the Rev. J.
A. V. Magee; the concise, outspoken, pertinent and telling comments of
General Booth; the vague hopelessly inadequate flotsam of Dr. Percy
Dearmer,[92] vapid stuff which makes a theologian writhe; the sweet
sugary sentimentalism of Miss Evelyn Underhill, so anæmic, so obviously
popular, and so ingenuously miscalled mysticism; the dull worthless dross
of Mr. McCabe’s superstitious materialism; the feverish panicky special
pleading of the convinced Spiritists. Here, too, we have much that
directly bears out our present contention, the medical evidence of such
names as Sir Bryan Donkin; Dr. W. H. Stoddart, who treats of “The Danger
to Mental Sanity”; with Dr. Bernard Hollander on “The Peril of Spirits”;
and Dr. A. T. Schofield on “The Spiritist Epidemic.” Thus Dr. Stoddart
writes: “In some cases the spiritualistic hallucinations so dominate
the whole mental life that the condition amounts to insanity; and I
can confirm Sir Bryan Donkin’s statement that spiritualistic inquiries
tend to induce insanity.”[93] Dr. Hollander is even more emphatic: “The
practice is a dangerous one. Persons become intoxicated with spirits of
that nature as others do with spirits of another kind. And similarly, as
not all persons who take alcohol get drunk, so not all spiritualists show
the effects of their indulgences.... But that is no proof against the
harmful nature of these practices, and, as a mental specialist, I confess
I have seen victims of both, and that the one addicted to material
spirits is the easier to treat.”[94] Spiritism, Dr. Schofield points
out, “has been known to Christians for 2000 years. Any benefit derived
therefrom is more than neutralized by the very doubtful surroundings and
character of the supposed revelation (I say ‘supposed’ because it has
been known so long). If, however, it must be coupled with the dangers,
horrors, and frauds that so often in modern Spiritism accompany the
knowledge of the unseen, we are almost as well without it, at any rate
from such a source.... There can be no doubt the epidemic will eventually
subside, but before it does, the vast mischief of a spiritual tidal wave
of very doubtful origin will be most disastrously done, and thousands
of unstable souls will be wrecked in spirit, if not in mind and body
as well.... To class it as a religion is an insult to the faith of
Christ.”[95]
Sir William Barrett utters a word of grave import: “All excitable
and unbalanced minds need to be warned away from a subject that may
cause, and in many cases has caused, serious mental derangement.”[96]
“Spiritualism,” says Father Bernard Vaughan, “only too often means loss
of health, loss of morals and loss of faith. Consult not Sir Oliver Lodge
or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle or Mr. Vale Owen, but your family medical
adviser, and he will tell you to keep away from the séance-room as you
would from an opium den. In fact, the drug habit is not more fatal
than the practice of Spiritualism in very many cases. Read the warning
note sounded by Dr. Charles Mercier, or by Dr. G. H. Robertson or by
Colonel R. H. Elliot, and be satisfied that yielding to Spiritualism is
qualifying for an asylum. You may not get there but you deserve to be
an inmate.”[97] The following letter written by Miss Mary G. Cardwell,
M.B., Ch.B., from the Oldham Union Infirmary, speaks for itself: “One
day recently I admitted a woman of thirty-five years to the hospital of
which I have the honour to be resident medical officer. She was sent in
as incapable of looking after herself or her family. She told me that she
was a medium, having been introduced into Spiritualism by a man, also
a medium, who said he could thereby help her over some family worries.
As a direct result of this, she has neglected her children, so that the
public authorities have removed them from her care, her home is ruined,
and she herself is a mental and moral wreck. She had paid the other
medium for his services by the sacrifice of her virtue.”[98] And this is
no isolated, no exceptional, instance. I have myself known precisely
similar cases.
Occasionally some particularly shocking incident will find its way into
the public Press and we have records such as the following, which was
headed “Family of Eleven Mad. Burning Mania after Séance. Child to be
Sacrificed.
“The story of an entire family of eleven persons, in the village of
Krucktenhofen, Bavaria, going out of their minds after a spiritualistic
séance is sent by the Exchange Paris correspondent, quoting the _Berliner
Tageblatt_.
“Renouncing the goods of this world, the father, mother, three sons, two
elder daughters, and subsequently the remaining four younger members of
the family, joined in burning their furniture and bedding.
“Finally, the three-months-old child of one of the daughters was about
to be burnt when neighbours interfered. The whole family is now in an
asylum.” (_Daily Mirror_, 19 May, 1921.)
“Camouflage it as you will, Spiritualism with its kindred superstitions,
such as necromancy and occultism, is a recrudescence of the old, old
practices cultivated in the days of long ago.”[99] In other words this
“New Religion” is but the Old Witchcraft. There is, I venture to assert,
not a single phenomenon of modern Spiritism which cannot be paralleled in
the records of the witch trials and examinations; not a single doctrine
which was not believed and propagated by the damnable Gnostic heresies of
long ago.
Some of the definitions of Spiritism given by spiritists themselves
are sufficiently startling. They frankly tell us that “Spiritualism is
the science or art of communion with spirits.... It does not follow
that because a communication comes from ‘the unseen,’ it is therefore
from God, as a revelation. It may be from the latest dead lounger, as
an amusement,”[100] or, I would add, from a demon as a snare. There
is something inexpressibly ugly and revolting about this cold-blooded
necromancy defined in set categorical terms.
Modern Spiritism is usually considered to have had its origin in America.
In the year 1848 there lived at Hydesville, Wayne, New York State, a
family of the Methodist persuasion named Fox; a father, mother, and two
daughters, Margaretta and Katie, aged fifteen and twelve respectively.
During the month of March all the household began to declare that they
were kept awake at night by the most extraordinary noises, loud knockings
on the wall, and footsteps. The children amused themselves by trying
to imitate the noises; they tapped on the wainscot, and to their great
surprise answering taps came back, so that they found they could get into
communication with the unknown agency. They would ask a question and
invite it to respond with one sharp rap for “no” and three for “yes,” and
thus it continually replied. They further held actual conversations in
this way by repeating the alphabet and establishing a regular code. Mrs.
Fox then began to make inquiries concerning the former occupants of the
house, and soon discovered that a pedlar named Charles Rayn was said to
have been murdered in the very bedroom where her two girls were sleeping,
and that his body had been buried in the cellar. Public curiosity was
aroused, and it was now generally believed that it was the spirit of the
unfortunate victim who haunted the farm-house, endeavouring to convey
some message to those whom he had left. Actually no body was found in
the cellar, and the alleged murderer whose name was given, appeared
at Hydesville and “threw very hot water on the story.” Later when the
family moved to Rochester—it is said they were practically driven out of
Hydesville by the Methodist minister there—the rappings followed them,
and the whole town was speedily on the tiptoe of excitement. It was
then given out that the noises were communications from the spirits of
those recently dead, and that the Fox girls, who apparently attracted
them, were gifted with some special faculty which rendered intercourse
of this kind possible. People soon began to flock round them asking
their assistance in getting messages from their departed relatives and
friends; the two girls held regular séances, and netted a fair sum of
money. It was not long before other persons discovered that they also
possessed this extraordinary faculty of attracting spirit manifestations,
and of getting into communication with the other world at will. But
the Fox sisters were first in the field, and to them came a continuous
stream of persons with well-filled pockets from all parts of America.
There was also opposition, which sometimes took a very violent form.
As early as November, 1850, an attack was made upon Margaretta Fox,
who was staying at West Troy in the house of a Mr. Bouton. A rough mob
surrounded the premises, stones were thrown at the windows, and shots
fired, whilst both men and women uttered threats and imprecations against
the “unholy witch-woman within.” At one of the séances Dr. Kane, a famous
Arctic explorer was present, and he was so fascinated by the beauty of
Margaretta Fox that he never rested until he had taken her away from
her sordid and harmful surroundings, had her educated at Philadelphia,
and finally, much to the annoyance of his relations, who loathed any
connexion with the Fox family, made her his wife.
Dr. Kane died soon after his marriage, but in the book published by his
widow there are several references to his abhorrence of Spiritism. “Do
avoid spirits,” he urges, “I cannot bear to think of you as engaged in a
course of wickedness and deception.” For ten years Mrs. Kane did indeed
abandon it; in fact in August, 1858, she was baptized as a Catholic at
New York; but then,[101] owing perhaps to the pinch of poverty, she
again took up work as a medium, and was received back with acclamations
by the whole Spiritistic community. From that moment dates her steady
deterioration, both physical and moral.
Kate Fox, Mrs. Jencken as she had become, the wife of a London barrister,
was the mother of a baby whom popular talk credited with mediumistic
powers of the most extraordinary kind. The whole Spiritistic following
prophesied a brilliant future for the poor child, of whom, however, there
is nothing recorded save that he was sadly neglected by his miserable
mother, who died of chronic alcoholism in June, 1892. Mrs. Kane survived
her sister for nine months, a pitiable and hopeless wreck, craving only
for drink. The last few weeks of her life were spent in a derelict
tenement house. “This wreck of womanhood has been a guest in palaces and
courts. The powers of mind now imbecile were the wonder and the study
of scientific men in America, Europe, and Australia.... The lips that
utter little else now than profanity, once promulgated the doctrine of a
new religion.”[102] It would, indeed, be difficult to conceive anything
more sordid and more miserable than this sad and shocking story of utter
degradation. The collapse and moral corruption of the first apostles of
modern Spiritism should surely prove a timely warning and a danger signal
not to be mistaken.[103]
In the earliest days of Spiritism the subject was investigated by men
like Horace Greeley, William Lloyd Garrison, Robert Hare, professor of
chemistry in the University of Pennsylvania, and John Worth Edmonds,
a judge of the Supreme Court of New York State. Conspicuous among the
spiritists we find Andrew Jackson Davis, whose work _The Principles of
Nature_ (1847), dictated by him in trance, contained theories of the
universe closely resembling those of the Swedenborgians. From America the
movement filtered through to Europe, and when in 1852 two mediums, Mrs.
Haydon and Mrs. Roberts, came to London, not merely popular interest but
the careful attention of the leading scientists of the day was attracted.
Robert Owen, the Socialist, frankly accepted the Spiritistic explanation
of the various phenomena, while Professor De Morgan, the mathematician,
in his account of a sitting with Mrs. Haydon declared himself convinced
that “somebody or some spirit was reading his thoughts.” In the spring
of 1855 Daniel Dunglas Home (Hume)—Home was the son of the eleventh
Lord Home and a chambermaid at the Queen’s Hotel, Southampton, but was
brought up in America—who was then a young man of twenty-two, crossed
to England from America. In 1856 Home was received into the Church at
Rome by Father John Etheridge, S.J., and he then gave a promise to
refrain from all exercise of his mediumistic powers, but in less than
a year he had broken his pledge and was living as before. This famous
medium is almost the only one who, as even Podmore admits, was never
clearly convicted of fraud. Sir David Brewster, the scientist, and Dr.
J. J. Garth Wilkinson, a scholar of unblemished integrity and one of the
leading homœopathic physicians, both avowed that they were incapable of
explaining the phenomena they had witnessed by any natural means. It was
in 1855 that the first English periodical dealing exclusively with the
subject, _The Yorkshire Spiritual Telegraph_, was published at Keighley,
in Yorkshire. In 1864 the Davenport brothers visited England, and in 1876
Henry Slade. Amongst English mediums the Rev. William Stainton Moses
became prominent in 1872,[104] and about the same year Miss Florence
Cook, so well known for the materializations of “Katie King,” which
were scrupulously investigated by the late Sir William Crookes. In 1873
and in 1874, however, the trickery of two mediums, Mrs. Bassett and Miss
Showers, was definitely exposed.[105] In 1876 and 1877 the sensitive
“Dr.” Monck was at the height of his reputation, and both Dr. Alfred
Russel Wallace, F.R.S., and the late Archdeacon Colley state that in
various séances with him they witnessed on several occasions phenomena,
including materialization, under rigid test conditions which admitted
of no dispute as to their genuineness. It is true that in 1876 Monck
had been in trouble and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment under
the Vagrant Act. About the same time William Eglinton, who figures in
Florence Marryat’s work _There is No Death_, appeared on the scenes
and for a while loomed largely in the public eye. He became famous for
his slate-writing performances as well as his materializations. He
was, however, exposed by Archdeacon Colley, who during the discussion
which had centred round a medium named Williams, detected in fraudulent
practices during séances in Holland, wrote to _The Medium and Daybreak_
to say: “It unfortunately fell to me to take muslin and false beard from
Eglinton’s portmanteau.... Some few days before this I had on two several
occasions cut pieces from the drapery worn by, and clipped hair from the
beard of, the other figure representing Abdullah. I have the pieces so
cut off beard and muslin still. But note that when I took these things
into my possession I and a medical gentleman (25 years a Spiritualist and
well known to the old members of the Movement) found the pieces of muslin
cut fit exactly into certain corresponding portions of the drapery thus
taken.”[106]
The medium Slade, who was famous for slate-writing, was upon one
occasion suddenly seized as he was about to put the slate under the
table. His hands were held fast, and when the slate was snatched from
him it was seen to be already covered with characters. Anna Rothe, who
died in 1901, a medium well known for her apports of flowers, suffered
a term of imprisonment in Germany on a charge of fraud. When Baily, the
Australian sensitive, visited Italy he refused to sit under the strict
conditions which were arranged in answer to a challenge of his powers.
Charles Eldred of Clowne, an adept at materialization, employed a chair
skilfully made with a double seat, and in this recess were discovered the
whole paraphernalia he employed in his performances.
Mrs. Williams, an American medium, who for a long while was a centre of
spiritistic attention at Paris, used to materialize a venerable doctor
with a flowing beard who was sometimes accompanied by a young girl
dressed in white. At one circle Mons. Paul Leymaric gave a prearranged
signal. He and a friend each laid hold of one of the apparitions; a
third spectator seized Mrs. Williams’ assistant; and a fourth turned on
the lights. Mons. Leymaric was seen to be struggling with the medium,
who had donned a grey wig and a long property beard; the young girl was
a mask from which were draped folds of fine white muslin and which she
manipulated with her left hand. Miller, a Californian medium, was more
than suspected of producing spirits from gauze and nun’s veiling.[107]
From one of the mediums of Mons. de Rochas, Valentine, there emanated
mysterious lights, which moved quickly hither and thither during the
séances. Colonel de Rochas, when this manifestation was once at its
height, suddenly switched on a powerful electric torch and Valentine was
seen to have slipped off his socks and to be waving in the air his feet,
which were covered with some preparation of phosphorus.[108] As early as
June, 1875, a photographer named Buguet was convicted of selling faked
photographs of spirits by which he netted a very pretty sum.[109]
It is notorious that in Spiritistic séances and circles charlatanry and
swindling of every kind are rife; that again and again mediums have
been convicted of fraud; that not infrequently all kinds of properties,
stuffed gloves, gauzes, yards of diaphanous muslin, invisible wires,
hooks, beards, wigs, have been discovered; that the use of luminous
paint is very effective and far from uncommon; that a sliding trap or
panel may on occasion prove of inestimable service; that we must allow
for self-deception, delusions, suggestion, hypnotism even; but when all
has been said, when we candidly acknowledge the imposture, the adroit
legerdemain, the conjurer’s clever tricks, the significant _mise en
scène_, the verbal wit and quibbling, the deliberate and subtle cozenage
contrived by shrewd minds and the full play of dramatic instinct and
energy, nevertheless there yet remain numbers of instances when it has
been repeatedly proven that acute and trained observers have witnessed
phenomena which could not by any possibility whatsoever have been
fraudulently produced; that clear-headed, cold-hearted, suspicious, hard
men of science with every sense keenly alert at that very moment have
conversed with, inspected, nay, actually handled, materialized forms and
figures no personation could have devised and manifested.
The proceedings against Monck plainly showed that he had at any rate
a firm belief in his own psychic powers, and although Eglinton was
detected in a trick upon more than one occasion there is irrefutable
evidence to prove that in other instances when he assisted at séances
any normal mode of production of the phenomena seen there was quite
impossible. A large number of Miller’s manifestations also were
genuine.[110] The same may be said of very many mediums. This means,
in fine, that although the manifestations of almost any medium may in
some cases have been artificially contrived, such phenomena are not on
any account to be adjudged _always_ fraudulent, and even if the charge
of imposture could be brought home far more conclusively than has so
far been possible as regards the majority of sensitives, yet it were
a false inference indeed to deduce therefrom that all phenomena are
equally fraudulent and devised. It is only the recklessly illogical mind
and the loose thinker who will in the face of absolutely conclusive
proof of genuine manifestations continue to maintain that a certain
quota of quackery can invalidate the whole. Writers of the temper of
Messrs. Edward Clodd, Joseph McCabe, J. M. Robertson must, of course, be
expected to condemn Spiritism without knowing the facts or weighing the
evidence as an obvious absurdity which calls for no serious refutation.
But this, I think, matters little. The superstitious dogmatism of the
materialist is gravely discredited nowadays. True, the sort of book
he produces is widely circulated and very successful within certain
limits. We should expect tenth-rate ideas which could only emanate from
a lack of understanding, a total want of imagination, and no training
in metaphysics or philosophy, to have a direct appeal to the immature
intelligences, the uneducated vulgar and the blatant yet presumptuous
ignorance, which alone are eager for this kind of outmoded fare.
In France Spiritism was first proclaimed by a pamphlet of Guillard
_Table qui danse et Table qui répond_. The way had been long paved owing
to the interest which was generally taken in the doctrines of Emanuel
Swedenborg. Balzac had published in 1835 his esoteric hybrid _Séraphita_
(_Séraphitus_), a fanciful yet interesting work, in which there are many
pages of theosophic philosophy. Perhaps he meant these seriously, but
it is impossible to take them as other than flights of romance. In 1848
Cohognet more immediately heralded Guillard by publishing at Paris the
first volume of his _Arcanes de la vie future devoilées_, which actually
contains what purport to be communications from the dead. In 1853
séances were being held at Bourges, Strasburg, and Paris, and a regular
furore ensued. Nothing was talked of but the wonders of Spiritism,
which, however, soon met an opponent, Count Agénor de Gasparin, a Swiss
Protestant, who carefully investigated table-turning with a circle of
his friends and came to the conclusion that the phenomena originated
in some physical force of the human body. It must be admitted that his
_Des Tables Tournantes_ (Paris, 1854) is unconvincing and to some extent
superficial, but more perhaps could hardly be expected from a pioneer in
so tortuous an investigation. The Baron de Guldenstubbe, on the contrary,
declared his firm belief in the reality of these phenomena and spirit
intervention in general. His work _La Réalité des Esprits_ (Paris, 1857)
eloquently argued for his convictions, whilst _Le Livre des Esprits_
(Paris, 1853) by M. Rivail or Rival, better known under his pseudonym
Allan Kardec, became a world-wide textbook to the whole subject. In these
early days the most distinguished men were wont to meet in the rue des
Martyrs at Paris for séances. Tiedmen Marthèse, governor of Java; the
academician Saint-René-Taillandier; Sardou, with his son; Flammarion; all
were constant visitors. The notorious Home was, it is said, expelled from
France after a séance at the Tuileries, during which he had touched the
arm of the Empress with his naked foot, pretending that it was a caress
from the tiny hands of a little child who was about fully to materialize.
No one, I think, could be surprised to know that the famous Joris Karl
Huysmans, an epicure in the byways of the occult, made many experiments
in Spiritism, and séances were frequently held at No. 11 rue de Sèvres
where he lived. Extraordinary manifestations took place, and upon one
occasion at least the circle effected a materialization of General
Boulanger, or an apparition of the General appeared to them.
At the present time Spiritism is as widely spread in France as in
England, if indeed not far more widely. Thus _La Science de l’Ame_ is a
new bi-monthly journal issued under the auspices of _La Revue Spirite_.
It has articles on Magnetism and Radio-activity, the analysis of the
soul, and vital radiations. In the number of _La Revue Spirite_, which
commences the year 1925, Mons. Camille Flammarion prints a signed letter
from Heliopolis, which describes a first experience of a séance, where
the death of the writer’s father was predicted in six months and took
place ten days after the allotted time. Elsewhere in the issue are
particulars of the International Congress of Spiritism which was to be
held at Paris in September, 1925, and would be open to all Federations,
Societies, and Groups everywhere. An immense concourse was expected.
The President is Mr. George F. Berry, a well-known name in English
Spiritistic circles, and the compliment of honorary membership is paid to
Léon Denis,[111] Gabriel Delanne, Sir William Barrett, and Ernest Bozzano.
A glance at the pages of any Spiritistic journal in England will show
almost endless activities in every direction. In one issue of the
weekly _Light_ (Saturday, 21 February, 1925) we have amongst other
announcements nine “Sunday’s Society Meetings” in various districts of
London, with addresses on Wednesdays and Thursdays. The following seems
sufficiently startling and a close enough imitation: “_St. Luke’s Church
of the Spiritual Evangel of Jesus the Christ, Queen’s-road, Forest
Hill, S.E._—Minister: Rev. J. W. Potter. February 22nd, 6.30, Service,
Holy Communion and Address. Healing Service, Wed., Feb. 25th, 7 p.m.”
In the next column are details of “Rev. G. Vale Owen’s Lecture Tour.”
The “London Spiritualist Alliance, Ltd.” has a list of meetings. There
are discussion classes and demonstrations of clairvoyance, psychometry,
and Mystic Pictures. Among “Books that will Help you” we find _Talks
with the Dead_, _Report on Spiritualism_, _The Aquarian Gospel of
Jesus the Christ_—(is this used at St. Luke’s Church of the Spiritual
Evangel?)—_Spirit Identity, Spiritualism_, and many more of similar
import. There is a “British College of Psychic Science” where Mr. Horace
Leaf, a medium of some repute, lectures on “The Psychology and Practice
of Mediumship,” Mrs. Barker demonstrates Trance Mediumship, and Mrs.
Travers Smith the Ouija-Board and Automatic Writing. There is a “London
Spiritual Mission” and a “Wimbledon Spiritualist Mission.” At Brighton
“St. John’s Brotherhood Church” provides “The Spiritual Evangel of Jesus
the Christ,” “Minister, Brother John.” And all this is scarcely a tithe
of the various announcements and advertisements.
However grotesque, and indeed often puerile in its bombast and
grandiloquence, such a mass of heterogeneous notices may seem we must
remember that these people are in deadly earnest, and I doubt not but
their meetings and assemblies are well attended by enthusiastic devotees.
In a report of an address by the Rev. G. Vale Owen at the “Spiritualist
Community Services in the County Hall” on Sunday evening, 15 February,
1925, I read “all seats were filled long before the advertised hour
for starting. The doors were closed and many for a time were denied
admission. A little later they were allowed to enter and take up
positions along the edges of the dais and other odd places about the
hall.”[112] This, of course, was possibly some exceptional occasion, but
there is no indication that such was the case. Mr. Vale Owen may be a
very eloquent speaker and able to hold his audience spell-bound with the
magic of his words. It must assuredly be his manner and not his matter,
for his so-called revelations of the life beyond the grave, written under
control and presumed to be directly derived from spirit agency, which
appeared in _The Weekly Dispatch_ are vapid, inept, idle, and insipid to
the last degree. Such banal ramblings would provoke a smile, were it not
for the pity that any person can be so self-deluded, and can apparently
induce others to give credit to his silliness.
There have been large numbers of mediums in recent years who owing to
one cause or another attracted considerable attention from time to
time, and there are many well-known contemporary sensitives widely
practising to-day. Mrs. Verrall and Mrs. Holland, who were believed to
have obtained spirit messages from the late F. W. H. Myers, occupied
the serious attention of the Society of Psychical Research[113] for a
considerable period; Mrs. Piper is an automatic writer of no little
repute; Mr. Vout Peters specializes in psychometry and clairvoyance;
Mr. Vearncombe and Mrs. Deane have recently enjoyed their full share
of notoriety;[114] the Rev. Josie K. Stewart (Mrs. Y.), a lady hailing
from the United States, has a gift for the production of “writing and
drawings on cards held in her hand”; Mrs. Elizabeth A. Tomson, in spite
of being detected of fraud at a Spiritistic “Church” in Brooklyn, still
has devoted followers; Franek Kluski, Stella C., and Ada Besinnet, are
in the forefront of American mediums; whilst the famous Goligher circle
at Belfast was carefully and patiently investigated for no less than
three months by Dr. Fournier d’Albe, who has published the result of
his experiences.[115] The very cream of these occult manifestations
is materialization, the most complex problem of all, which has been
described as “the exercise of the power of using of the matter of the
medium’s and the sitters’ bodies in the formation of physical structures
on a principle totally unknown to ordinary life, although probably
present there.”[116] Recently (1922) Erto, the Italian medium, appears to
have been the subject of careful experiments at the French Metaphysical
Institute during a period of several months, those who assisted being
pledged to silence until a decision had been reached. The particular
phenomena produced by or in his presence were chiefly characterized by
the radiation of an extraordinary light about his person. At the end
of 1922 two papers appeared in _La Revue Métapsychique_ on the part of
Dr. Sanguinetti and Dr. William Mackenzie of Genoa indicating their
assurance (1) that every scientific precaution had been taken, and
(2) that the phenomena were genuine. However, the experiments seem to
have continued and later there appeared in _Le Matin_ an enthusiastic
contribution by Dr. Stephen Chauvet, which caused Dr. Gustave Geley,
Director of the Metaphysical Institute, to come forward in confirmation
of the testimony. It is only fair to add that immediately afterwards
Dr. Geley to a certain extent retracted his statement, as he suggested
that the psychic lights could be produced with _ferro-cerium_, and
it was thought that traces of this substance could be found on Erto’s
clothes. The medium protested his innocence of any deception, and offers
himself for further experiments. A writer in _Psychica_ is inclined to
believe that the phenomena were genuine, but that later some fraud may
have been practised owing to waning power. This is possibly the case,
for that the radiations were at first supernormal cannot, I think, be
gainsaid in view of the high testimony adduced. For this phenomenon Mr.
Cecil Hush and Mr. Craddock have sat repeatedly; of the extraordinary
manifestations of the late Eusapia Palladino there can be no reasonable
doubt at all; the materializations of Mlle “Eva Carrère,”[117] although
on several occasions not altogether successful, are at other times
supported by the strongest evidence; Nino Pecoraro, who is described as
“a remarkably muscular young Neapolitan,” is famous for “ectoplasmic
effects”; and Stanislava P., Willy S., the Countess Castelvicz, and
very many more psychics possess these supernormal powers, although, as
we might expect, they have to be used with the utmost caution and often
prove very exhausting to the subject. After all, it must be remembered
that probably under certain conditions materialization cannot take place,
whilst under favourable conditions it can be completely effected. For an
exhaustive and authoritative discussion of the whole matter the Baron Von
Schrenck-Notzing’s _Phenomena of Materialization_ (Kegan Paul, 1923),
should be consulted. The 225 photographic reproductions are of the utmost
importance, whilst the investigations were carried on under conditions
of such pitiless severity to eliminate any hypothesis of fraud that the
mediums cannot but have been subjected to the intensest physical and
moral strain.
Among recent psychic phenomena very general attention has been attracted
by what is known as “The Oscar Wilde Script,” which was widely discussed
in 1923-24. Briefly, this purports to be a number of communications which
were delivered by the spirit of the late Oscar Wilde at the rate of 1020
words in an hour by means of automatic writing through the mediumship
of Mrs. Travers Smith (Mrs. Hester M. Dowden)[118] and a certain Mr. V.
True, there were published in _The Sunday Express_ pages which had a
superficial resemblance to the more flashy characteristics of Wilde’s
flamboyant style, but it seemed as if the wit and point had vanished,
leaving only a somewhat heavy and imitative prose; one had a sense of
damp fireworks, and personally I do not for a moment accept this script
as being inspired or dictated by Wilde. I hasten to add that I do not
suggest there was any conscious fraud or trickery on the part of those
concerned; it is quite probable that these psychic messages were conveyed
by some intelligence of no very high standing, and the result in fine is
not of any value. It is said that a three act play is being or has been
communicated through the ouija-board from what purports to be Wilde. This
I have not read, and therefore I am not in a position to pronounce upon
it.
Spiritism is upheld by many distinguished names. Sir Oliver Lodge,
F.R.S., has battled on its behalf, as also have Sir William Barrett,
F.R.S., and Sir William Crookes, F.R.S., Professors Charles Richet,
Janet, Bernheim, Lombroso, and Flammarion lend it the weight of their
authority, whilst Sir Conan Doyle has poured forth his benedictions upon
occultism of every kind.[119] He has even presided over the opening
of a most attractive bookshop in Victoria Street, Westminster, where
Spiritistic publications are sold.
How then are we to regard this mighty movement at which it were folly
to sneer, which it is impossible to ignore? The Catholic Church does
neither. But none the less she condemns it utterly and entirely. Not
because she disbelieves in it, but because she believes in it so
thoroughly, because she knows what is the real nature of the moving
forces, however skilfully they may disguise themselves, however quick
and subtle their shifts and turns, the intelligences which inform and
direct the whole. It is a painful subject since (I reiterate) many
good people, no doubt many thoughtful seekers after truth, have been
fascinated and swept along by Spiritism. They are as yet conscious of
neither physical nor moral harm, and, it may be, they have been playing
with the fire for years. Nay more, Spiritism has been a sweet solace
to many in most poignant hours of bitter sorrow and loss; wherefore
it is hallowed in their eyes by tenderest memories. They are woefully
deceived. Hard as it may seem, we must get down to the bed-rock of
fact. Spiritism has been specifically condemned on no less than four
occasions by the Holy Office,[120] whose decree, 30 March, 1898, utterly
forbids all Spiritistic practices although intercourse with demons be
strictly excluded, and communication sought with good spirits only.
Modern Spiritism is merely Witchcraft revived. The Second Plenary Council
of Baltimore (1866), whilst making ample allowance for prestidigitation
and trickery of every kind, warns the faithful against lending any
support whatsoever to Spiritism and forbids them to attend séances even
out of idle curiosity, for some, at least, of the manifestations must
necessarily be ascribed to Satanic intervention since in no other manner
can they be understood or explained.
NOTES TO CHAPTER VI
[1] E. de Rougé, _Étude sur une stèle Égyptienne_, Paris, 1858: E. A. W.
Budge, _Egyptian Magic_, VII.
[2] _Rekh Khet_, “knower of things.”
[3] Euripides, _Bacchæ_: passim; Ovid, _Metamorphoses_, III. 513, _sqq._;
Apollodorus, III. v. 2.; Hyginus, _Fabulæ_, 184; Nonnus, _Dionysiaca
(Bassarica)_, XIV, 46.
[4] Sophocles, _Ajax_; Pindar, _Nemea_, VII, 25; Ovid, _Metamorphoses_,
XIII, 1-398.
[5] Pausanias, III, xvi, 6.
[6] Valerius Maximus, I, 11, 5. Lacinium was a promontory on the east
coast of Bruttium, a few miles south of Croton, and forming the western
boundary of the Tarentine gulf. The remains of the temple of Juno Lacinia
are still extant, and have given the modern name to the promontory, _Capo
delle Colonne_ or _Capo di Nao_ (ναός).
[7] Xenophon, _Memorabilia_, II. i. 5; Demosthenes, XCIII, 24; Dinarchus,
CI, 41; Plutarch, _Lucullus_, IV.
[8] Euripides, _Orestes_, l. 854, and l. 79.
[9] Cf. μάντις.
[10] Cf. Vergil _Æneid_, IV. 471-3:
Agamemnonius scænis agitatus Orestes
armatam facibus matrem et serpentibus atris
cum fugit, ultricesque sedent in limine Diræ.
(Or as the Atridan matricide
Runs frenzied o’er the scene,
What time with snakes and torches plied
He flees the murdered queen,
While at the threshold of the gate
The sister-fiends expectant wait.)
[11] Plautus, _Amphitruo_, II. 2. 145. Nam hæc quidem edepol lauarum
plenast.
[12]
Quid esset illi morbi, dixeras? Narra, senex.
Num laruatus, aut cerritus? fac sciam.
_Menæchmei._ V. I, 2. Apuleuis has _laruans_ = a madman: “hunc
[pulcherrimam Mercurii imaginem] denique qui laruam putat, ipse est
laruans.” (_Laruatus_ is a poorer reading in this passage.) _Cerritus_,
a rare word, is contracted from _cerebritus_ (_cerebrum_), and not
connected with Ceres, as was formerly suggested. Cf. Horace, _Sermonum_,
II, iii. 278.
[13] _Bibl._ III, v, 1.
[14] 471, _sqq._
[15] 56, Nauck.
[16]
τἀπιχώρἰ ἐν πόλει φρυγῶν τύμπανα,
Ῥέας τε μητρὸς ἐμά θ’ εὑρήματα.
[17] _Circa_ 185-135 B.C.
[18] Professor Leuba, _The Psychology of Religious Mysticism_ Kegan Paul,
London, 1925, p. 11 _sqq._ has some very important references to the
worship of Dionysus.
[19]
σὺ γὰρ ἔνθεος, ὦ κούρα,
εἴτ’ ἐκ Πανὸς εἴθ’ Ἑκάτας
ἢ σεμνῶν Κορυβάντων
φοιτᾷς, ἢ ματρὸς ὀρείας.
[20]
δόξασά που
ἢ Πανὸς ὀργὰς ἢ τινὸς θεῶν μολεῖν.
[21]
ἀλλ’ ἦ Κρονίου Πανὸς τρομερᾷ
μάστιγι φοβεῖ;
[22] Pythagoras prescribes music for mental disorders, Eunapius _Uita
philosophurum_, 67; and Cælius Aurelianus by his references shows that
this was a common remedy in such cases, _De Morbis Chronicis (Tardarum
Passionum)_ VI. Origen, _Aduersus Celsum_, III, x, and Martianus Capella
_De Nuptiis Philologiæ et Mercurii_ IX, 925, have similar allusions.
[23] 1 Kings xvi. 14 (A.V. 1 Samuel xvi. 14): “Exagitabat eum [Saul]
spiritus nequam a Domino.”
[24] _Antiquitates Iud._, VI, viii, 2; ii, 2.
[25] _La Mystique Divine_, Ribet, II, ix, 4, it is true, speaks of
“l’obsession intérieure,” but he makes the above distinction, and
further says: “L’obsession purement intérieure ne diffère des tentations
ordinaires que par la véhémence et la durée.”
[26] Multæ sunt tentationes eius, et die noctuque uariæ dæmonum
insidiæ.... Quoties illi nudæ mulieres cubanti, quoties esurienti
largissimæ apparuere dapes? _Uita S. Hilarionis._ VII. Migne. vol. XXIII.
col. 32.
[27] Sustinebat miser diabolus uel mulieris formam noctu induere,
feminæque gestus imitari, Antonium ut deciperet. S. Athanasius, _Uita S.
Antonii_, V. Migne. vol. XXVI. col. 847.
[28] Feast (duplex maius apud Minores), 22 February.
[29] It may perhaps not be amiss to point out that S. Margaret before
her conversion was by no means the woman of scandalous life so many
biographers have painted her.
[30] Sectando per cellam orantis et flentis, cantauit [diabolus]
turpissimas cantationes, et Christi famulam lacrymantem et se Domino
commendantem procaciter inuocabat ad cantum ...; tentantem precibus et
lacrymis repulit ac eiecit. Bollandists, 22 February. Vol. VI.
[31] Ceterum consilium est semper de talibus inuasionibus suspicionem
habere, non enim negandum maiorem earum partem esse aut fictiones,
aut imaginationes, aut infirmitates, præsertim in mulieribus. _Praxis
confessariorum_, n. 120.
[32] Sæpissime, quæ putantur dæmonis obsessiones, non sunt nisi morbi
naturales, aut Naturales imaginationes, uel etiam inchoata aut perfecta
amentia. Quare caute omnino procedendum, usquedum per specialissima signa
de obsessione constet. _Theologia mystica_, I. n. 228.
[33] _Biblisches Realworterbuch_, Leipsig, 1833.
[34] This word is found nowhere else in the New Testament, and wherever
it is used in the LXX, it is invariably of the sayings of lying prophets,
or those who practised arts forbidden by the Jewish Law. Thus of the
witch of Endor (1 Kings (1 Samuel) xxviii. 8) μάντευσαι δή μοι ἐν τῷ
ἐγγαστριομύθῳ, and (Ezechiel xiii. 6) βλέπουτες ψευδῆ, μαντευόμενοι
μάταια.
[35] Ordinandi, filii charissimi, in officium Exorcistarum, debitis
noscere quid suscipitis. Exorcistam etenim oportet abiicere dæmones; et
dicere populo, ut, qui non communicat, det locum; et aquam in ministerio
fundere. Accipitis itaque potestatem imponendi manum super energumenos,
et per impositionem manuum uestrarum, gratia spiritus sancti, et
uerbis exorcismi pelluntur spiritus immundi a corporibus obsessis.
Studete igitur, ut, sicut a corporibus aliorum dæmones expellitis,
ita a mentibus, et corporibus uestris omnem immunditiam, et nequitiam
eiiciatis; ne illis succumbatis, quos ab aliis, uestro ministerio,
effugatis. Discite per officium uestrum uitiis imperare; ne in moribus
uestris aliquid sui iuris inimicus ualeat uindicare. Tunc etenim recte
in aliis dæmonibus imperabitis, cum prius in uobis eorum multimodam
nequitiam superatis. Quod nobis Dominus agere concédât per Spiritum suum
sanctum.
[36] Accipite, et commendate memoriæ, et habete potestatem imponendi
manus super energumenos, siue baptizatos, siue catechumenos.
[37] Deum Patrem omnipotentem, fratres charissimi, supplices deprecamur,
ut hos famulos suos bene ✠ dicere dignetur in officium Exorcistarum;
ut sint spirituales imperatores, ad abiiciendos dæmones de corporibus
obsessis, cum omni nequitia eorum multiformi. Per unigenitum Filium suum
Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, qui cum eo uiuit et regnat in unitate
Spiritus sancti Deus, per omnia sæcula sæculorum. _R._ Amen.
[38] Domine sancte, Pater omnipotens, æterne Deus, bene ✠ dicere dignare
hos famulos tuos in officium Exorcistarum; ut per impositionem manuum,
et oris officium, potestatem, et imperium habeant spiritus immundos
coercendi: ut probabiles sint medici Ecclesiæ tuæ, gratia curationum
uirtuteque cœlesti confirmati. Per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Filium
tuum, qui tecum uiuit, et regnat in unitate Spiritus sancti Deus, per
omnia sæcula sæculorum. _R._ Amen. _Post hæc, suggerente Archidiacono,
redeunt ad loca sua._
[39] Sulpitius Severus (d. 420-5) in his _Dialogues_, III (II), 6;
(Migne, _Patres Latini_, XX, 215) tells us that S. Martin of Tours was
wont to cast out demons by prayer alone without the imposition of hands
or the use of the formulæ recommended to the clergy. Similar instances
occur in the lives of the Saints.
[40] Translated from the _Rituale Romanum_. There are several forms
extant, some authorized, but more, perhaps, unauthorized. There is
an authorized form in the Greek _Euchologion_. It commences with the
Trisagion, and Psalms, _Domine exaudi_ (cxlii.), _Dominus regit me_
(xxii.), _Dominus illuminatio mea_ (xxvi.), _Esurgat Deus_ (lxvii.),
_Miserere_ (lvi.), _Domine ne in furore_ (vi.), _Domine exaudi orationem_
(ci.). Then follows the Consolatory Canon, with a long Hymn addressed to
Our Lord, Our Lady, and All Saints. Next the priest anoints the patient,
saying a prayer over him, and so the office closes.
[41] It is also given in the _Horæ Diurnæ O.P._, Rome, 1903, where an
indulgence of 300 days is attached, plenary once a month.
[42] Ab insidiis diaboli, libera nos Domine; Ut Ecclesiam tuam secura
tibi facias libertate seruire, te rogamus, audi nos; Ut inimicos sanctæ
Ecclesiæ humiliare digneris, te rogamus, audi nos. _Et aspergatur locus
aqua benedicta._
[43] Holy water, the commonest of the sacramentals, is a mixture of
exorcised salt and exorcised water.
[44] Of Eastern origin. It should be remembered that the Baptism of
Christ in Jordan is commemorated on the Epiphany. In the present Breviary
office in Nocturn I the first response for the day, the Octave, and
the Sunday within the Octave deal with the Baptism, as does the second
response. The antiphon to the Benedictus and the Magnificat antiphon at
Second Vespers also make mention of the same mystery. In Rome the Latin
rite of the Blessing of the Waters is pontificated by a Cardinal at
S. Andrea della Valle on 5 January, about 3.30 p.m., at the church of
the Stimmate of S. Francesco at 9.30 a.m. on the Feast itself. On the
Vigil the Oriental rite is performed at the Greek church of S. Atanasio,
beginning about 3.30 a.m.
[45] See Wilson, _Western Africa_; and the article “Possession
diabolique” by Waffelaert in the _Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi
catholique_, Paris, 1889. The opinion of the Cistercian Dom Robert de la
Trappe (Dr. Pierre-Jean-Corneille Debreyne), who, whilst acknowledging
that the demoniac possessions as detailed in the New Testament are _de
fide_, supposes that all other cases are to be attributed to fraud or
disease, must be severely censured as regrettably rash and even culpable.
_Essai sur la théologie morale_, IV. p. 356.
[46] S. Justin. Martyr, _Apologia_, VI; _Dialogues_, XXX, LXXXV: Minutius
Felix, _Octavius_, XXVII; Origen, _Contra Celsum_, I, 25; VII, 4, 67:
Tertullian, _Apologia_, XXII, XXIII.
[47] Paulinus, _Uita Ambrosii_, 28, 43.
[48] S. Gregory of Nyssa, _De Uita Ephraem_.
[49] Upon this passage Servatius Galle (1627-1709), a Dutch minister at
Haarlem, in his edition of Lactantius, 1660, writes the most absurd note
I have ever met with in any commentator.
[50] Published between 304-313. De Labriolle, _Histoire de la Littérature
Latine Chrétienne_, p. 272.
[51] A very full and scholarly monograph upon this subject may
be recommended: _La Réalité des Apparitions Démoniaques_, by Dom
Bernard-Marie Maréchaux, Olivetan, O.S.B., Paris, Téqui, 1899.
[52] It is true that on one occasion S. Maurus, who was with S. Benedict,
beheld an apparition, and S. Benedict once enabled a monk to see a
similar vision.
[53] One of Sodoma’s exquisite frescoes at Monte Oliveto (Siena) depicts
an exorcism by S. Benedict.
[54] The letters have been thus translated by Dom Benedict McLaughlin of
Ampleforth:
Holy Cross be thou my light,
Put the evil one to flight.
Behind me Satan speedily,
Whisper not vain things to me.
You can give but evil, then
Keep it for yourself. Amen.
[55] All English Benedictine priests hold the special faculty to use
this (bestowed 23 February, 1915), and it has also been granted to many
others, religious and seculars.
[56] Omnis virtus aduersarii, omnis exercitus diaboli, et omnis incursus,
omnis phantasma Satanæ, eradicate et effugare ab his numismatibus....
[57] Domine Iesu Christe ... per hanc tuam sanctissimam passionem
humiliter exoro; ut omnes diabolicas insidias et fraudes expellas ab eo,
qui nomen sanctum tuum, his litteris ac characteribus a te designatis,
deuote inuocauerit, et eum ad salutis portum perducere digneris. Qui
uiuis et régnas....
[58] The _Rituale Romanum_ has “Benedictio Infirmorum cum Ligno SS.
Crucis, D.N.J.C. _seu_ Signum S. Mauri Abbatis.” This is a blessing of
the sick with a Relic of the Holy Cross and the invocation of S. Benedict
and S. Maurus.
[59] The _Uita S. Mauri_ (Mabillon, _Acta S.S. O. S.B._, I, 274)
is ascribed to a companion, the monk Faustus of Monte Cassino.
Père Delehaye, in his unfortunate and temerarious work _Légendes
Hagiographiques_ (translation. London, 1907), indecorously attacks this
and treats S. Maurus with scant respect. A worthy defence was made by
Adlhoch, _Stud. u. Mittheil._, 1903, 3; 1906, 185. According to Peter the
Deacon he also wrote a _Cantus ad B. Maurum_.
[60] Blessed Victor III. _Dialogues_, I, 2.
[61] Abbé Lebeuf. _Histoire du diocèse de Paris_, V. 129 _sqq._
[62] Portraits of him are preserved at Rome and Valladolid.
[63] A hearty believer in witchcraft. He had sent at least one witch to
the gallows, and another to prison.
[64] Apparently the work of Darrel himself, but in the Huth catalogue (V,
1643) ascribed to James Bamford.
[65] Darrel in his _Detection of that sinnful, shamful, lying, and
ridiculous discours of Samuel Harshnet_, 1600, writes: “There is no
doubt but that S.H. stand for Samuell Harsnet, chapline to the Bishop of
London, but whither he alone, or his lord and hee, have discovered this
counterfeyting and cosonage there is the question. Some think the booke
to be the Bishop’s owne doing: and many thinke it to be the joynt work of
them both.”
[66] On 10 November, 1629, he was sworn of the Privy Council.
[67] Whence Shakespeare derived the names of various evil spirits whom
Edgar mentions in _King Lear_.
[68] I do not conceive that at the present time many, if any, Bishops
of the Church of England would license exorcism. Certainly the more
scientifically minded and modernistic Lords Spiritual of the Anglican
bench have rid themselves of such an idle superstition. How they would
explain Our Blessed Lord’s words and actions I do not pretend to know,
but I suppose that according to their wider knowledge Christ—_sit uenia
uerbis_—was mistaken in this as in other particulars.
[69] _Colloquia Mensalia_, passim.
[70] It is difficult to see how the teachings of such a Protestant leader
as Gaspar von Schwenckfeld (1489-90—1561) are anything save tantamount to
mere personal morality and a vague individual pietism. A critical edition
of his numerous works is in course of publication under the editorship
of Hartranft, Schlutter, and Johnson: _Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum_, I,
Leipzig, 1907.
[71] Parker’s _Correspondence_, Parker Society, Cambridge, 1856, pp.
465-6.
[72] By vomiting pins and straws they had made many believe that they
were bewitched, but the tricks were soon found out and they were
compelled to public penance at S. Paul’s. There is a black letter
pamphlet _The discloysing of a late counterfeyted possession by the devyl
in two maydens within the Citie of London_ [1574], which describes
this case. See also Holinshed, _Chronicles_ (ed. London, 1808), IV, 325,
and Stow _Annales_, London, 1631, p. 678. But the fact that there are
malingerers does not mean there are none sick.
[73] _Marie Glover’s late woefull case.... A defence of the truthe
against D. J. his scandalous Impugnations_, British Museum, Sloane
MSS., 831. Sinclar, _Satan’s Invisible World Discovered_, Edinburgh,
1685, Relation XII quotes an account of Mary Glover from Lewis Hughes’
_Certaine Grievances_ (1641-2); and hence Burton, _The Kingdom of
Darkness_, and Hutchinson, _Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft_, both
assign a wrong date (1642) to the occurrence.
[74] Enlarged edition, 1720.
[75] _The Other World_, London, 1875, I, pp. 59-69. The incident is
narrated by Fortescue Hitchins, _The History of Cornwall_, Helston, 1824,
II, pp. 548-51; and also in fuller detail by the Rev. R. S. Hawker,
_Footprints of Former Men in Far Cornwall_, London, 1870, who quotes from
Ruddle’s MS. Diary.
[76] Six miles north of S. Columb and three miles due south from Padstow.
[77] A full and documented account of these strange happenings may be
found in _Lucifer, or the True Story of the Famous Diabolic Possession in
Alsace_, London, 1922, with the Imprimatur of the Bishop of Brentwood.
Compiled from original documents by the abbé Paul Sutter and translated
by the Rev. Theophilus Borer.
[78] Jesus ... comminatus est spiritui immundo, dicens illi: Surde et
mute spiritus, Ego præcipio tibi, exi ab eo: et amplius ne introcas in
eum. _Euan. sec. Marcum._ IX. 25.
[79] 1726-1755. This great Saint was then Venerable; he was beatified by
Leo XIII, 29 January, 1893, and canonized by Pius X, 11 December, 1903.
His feast is kept on 16 October.
[80] Peter Paul Stumpf succeeded Andreas Räss as Bishop of Strasburg,
1887-1890.
[81] _Une Possédée Contemporaine_ (1834-1914). _Hélène Poirier de
Coullons_ (_Loiret_). Paris, Téqui, 1924. An ample study, profusely
documented, of 517 pages, edited by M. le Chanoine Champault of the
diocese of Orleans.
[82] A partir de cette époque, la vie d’Hélène s’écoulera au milieu de
souffrances physiques et morales si grandes, que dans sa bouche les
plaintes de Job ne seraient point déplacées.
[83] Mr. G. R. S. Mead, however, in this connexion not impertinently
recalls the “controlling” of members of the Shaker communities by what
purported to be spirits of North American Indians. This was prior to 1848.
[84] Ses souffrances physiques et morales, commencées le 25 mars,
1850, se poursuivirent jusqu’à sa mort, 8 janvier, 1914, soit pendant
soixante-quatre ans. Toutefois les vexations diaboliques cessèrent vers
la fin de 1897. Ces vexations durèrent donc près de quarante-sept années,
dont six de possession.
[85] Du 25 mars, 1850, au courant de mars, 1868, Hélène _fut seulement
obsédée. Cette obsession dura donc 18 années_. Au bout de ce temps et
pendant 13 _mois_ elle fut _obsédée et possédée tout ensemble_.
De I’obsession et de la possession elle fut complètement délivrée par les
exorcismes officiels, à Orléans, le 19 avril, 1869.
Suivirent quatre mois de tranquillité, jusqu’au recommencement volontaire
et généreux de ses peines.
A la fin d’août, 1869, elle accepta de la main de Notre Seigneur les
tourments d’une nouvelle obsession et possession afin d’obtenir la
conversion du célèbre général Ducrot. La conversion obtenue, elle fut
délivrée à Lourdes le 3 septembre, 1875, par les prières des 15,000
pèlerins qui s’y trouvaient réunis. _Obsession et possession renouvelées_
avaient duré cinq ans.
Plus jamais, pendant les quarante ans qu’elle avait encore à vivre, elle
ne fut possédée; mais elle continua à être obsédée tantôt plus, tantôt
moins. Les souffrances de toutes sortes, qu’elle endura alors, eurent
pour but d’obtenir le salut et le triomphe du clergé.
Quant aux raisons et au but des premières persécutions diaboliques
qu’elle subit pendant dix-neuf ans et dont elle fut délivrée par
les exorcismes officiels, ils sont restés inconnus. _Une Possédée
Contemporaine_ (1834-1914), pp. 171-2.
[86] A fragment of the soutane of this most holy Pontiff was taken to
Hélène and during one of her fits placed upon her forehead. At the
contact she cried out: “Le Pape est un saint, oui un grand saint.” (The
Pope is a Saint, truly a great Saint!)
[87] Pour y être admis, il faut apporter une ou plusiers hosties
consacrées, les remettre au démon qui, sous forme corporelle ou visible,
préside l’assemblée. Il faut les profaner d’une manière horrible, adorer
le démon lui-même et commettre avec lui et les autres sociétaires les
actes d’impudicité les plus révoltants. Trois villes: Paris, Rome, et
Tours sont les sièges de cette société infernale.
[88] La seconde possession fut plus terrible que la première. 1ᵉ: Par la
durée; la première fut de treize mois, la seconde de cinq ans. 2ᵉ: La
première fut adoucie par de nombreuses consolations surnaturelles; la
seconde très peu. 3ᵉ: Les dévices abondèrent dans la première; dans la
seconde les avanies morales l’emportèrent de beaucoup sur les avanies
physiques. _Une Possédée Contemporaine_ (1834-1914), p. 405.
[89] _Spirit Possession_, Henry M. Hugunin, published in Sycamore, Ill.,
U.S.A.
[90] One should note the implication that science and faith are opposed.
Dr. Wilfred T. Grenfell pointedly comments: “This question seems inept.
To me the terms are not in antithesis, i.e. logical _v._ spiritual.”
[91] Edited by Huntly Carter. Fisher Unwin, 1920.
[92] Whose contribution, _From Non-Religion to Religion_, opens with the
following ineptitude: “I think that the renewal of Spiritualism is mainly
due to a real increase in our knowledge of psychical facts.” This phrase
could only have been written by one wholly ignorant of mystical theology,
and, it would seem, of historical Christianity.
[93] _Spiritualism, Its Present-Day Meaning_, p. 258.
[94] _Idem_, p. 269.
[95] _Idem_, pp. 270-1.
[96] _Idem_, p. 245.
[97] _Idem_, p. 206.
[98] _Idem_, pp. 206-7.
[99] _Idem_, p. 205. The words are those of Father Bernard Vaughan.
[100] “Seventeen Elementary Facts concerning Spiritualism.” _Light_, 21
February, 1925. Here we also have the frank avowal: “Modern Spiritualism
is only a revival of phenomena and experiences that were well known in
ancient times.” It should be remarked that similar phenomena, believed
to be a genuine case of haunting, occurred at the house of Mr. Samuel
Wesley, at Epworth, Lincolnshire, in 1716, and attracted universal
attention. It is said that the knockings at the house of Parsons, Cock
Lane, West Smithfield, in 1760, were proved to be fraud, but I do not
know that the case has ever been candidly studied.
[101] She took part in a séance on 25 October, 1860, but this seems to
have been exceptional.
[102] _Washington Daily Star_, 7 March, 1893, quoted in _The Medium and
the Daybreak_, 7 April, 1893.
[103] In the “educational” primers prepared by certain spiritists for use
by children the story of the Fox Sisters is told in glowing colours to a
point, but the history of their downfall is suppressed.
[104] He died at Bedford, 5 September, 1892. His control was the spirit
Imperator, who claimed to be the prophet Malachias. For a very full
biography see Arthur Lillie’s _Modern Mystics and Modern Magic_. London.
1894.
[105] For Mrs. Bassett see _The Medium_, 11 April and 18 April, 1873, pp.
174 and 182; for Miss Showers, _The Medium_, 8 May and 22 May, pp. 294
and 326.
[106] _Medium and Daybreak_, 15 November, 1878, p. 730.
[107] _L’Eclair_, 6 April, 1909.
[108] Dr. Grasset, _L’Occultisme_, pp. 56, _sqq._; p. 424.
[109] _Procès des Spirites_, 8vo. Paris. 1875.
[110] _La Revue Spirite_ and _L’Echo du Mentalisme_, Nov., 1908.
[111] Who apparently believes that Spiritism is authorized by the
Scriptures, and that many of the prophets, nay, even Our Divine Lord
Himself, were but mediums.
[112] _Light._ Saturday, 21 February, 1925, p. 89.
[113] Organized in 1882 for the scientific examination of “debatable
phenomena.”
[114] See the Report presented 11 May, 1922, and published by The Magic
Circle, Anderton’s Hotel, Fleet Street.
[115] _The Goligher Circle, May to August, 1921._ Experiences of E. E.
Fournier d’Albe, D.SC. London, Watkins, 1922.
[116] _The Classification of Psychic Phenomena_, by W. Loftus Hare. _The
Occult Review_, July, 1924, p. 38.
[117] Her real name appears to be Marthe Béraud. Professor Richet is
satisfied that in his experiments with this medium at the Villa Carmen
(Algiers) in 1905 genuine materialization was effected.
[118] Who, as noted above, specializes in the Ouija-Board and Automatic
Writing.
[119] He has written such works as _The New Revelation_, and compiled
_The Spiritualists’ Reader_, “A Collection of Spirit Messages from many
sources, specially prepared for Short Readings.”
[120] In all of whose documents the distinction is clearly drawn between
legitimate scientific investigation and superstitious abuses.
CHAPTER VII
THE WITCH IN DRAMATIC LITERATURE
The English theatre, in common with every other form of the world’s
drama, had a religious, or even more exactly a liturgical, origin.
At the Norman Conquest as the English monasteries began to be filled
with cultured French scholars there is evidence that Latin dialogues,
the legends of saints and martyrs, something after the fashion of
Hrotsvitha’s comedies, which we do not imagine to have been a unique
phenomenon, found their way here also, and from recitation to the
representation of these was an easy and indeed inevitable step. For it is
almost impossible to declaim without appropriate action. From the very
heart of the liturgy itself arose the Mystery Play.
The method of performing these early English guild plays has been
frequently and exactly described, and I would only draw attention to one
feature of the movable scaffold which passed from station to station,
that is the dark cavern at the side of the last of the three sedes,
Hell-mouth. No pains were spared to make this as horrible and realistic
as might be. Demons with hideous heads issued from it, whilst ever and
anon lurid flames burst forth and dismal cries were heard. Thus the
Digby S. Mary Magdalen play has the stage-direction: “a stage, and Helle
ondyrneth that stage.” At Coventry the Cappers had a “hell-mouth” for
the Harrowing of Hell, and the Weavers another for Doomsday. This was
provided with fire, a windlass, and a barrel for the earthquake. In
the stage-directions to Jordan’s Cornish Creation of the World Lucifer
descends to hell “apareled fowle wᵗʰ fyre about hem” and the place is
filled with “every degre of devylls of lether and spirytis on cordis.”
Among the “establies” required for the Rouen play of 1474 was “Enfer fait
en maniere d’une grande gueulle se cloant et ouvrant quant besoing en
est.” The last stage-direction of the _Sponsus_, a liturgical play from
Limoges,—assigned by M. M. W. Cloetta and G. Paris to the earlier half of
the twelfth century—which deals with the Wise and Foolish Virgins runs as
follows: “_Modo accipiant eas [fatuas uirgines] dæmones et præcipitentur
in infernum_.”
The Devil himself is one of the most prominent characters in the Mystery,
the villain of the piece. So the York cycle commences with _The Creation
and the Fall of Lucifer_. Whilst the Angels are singing “Holy, Holy,
Holy” before the throne of God, Satan appears exulting in his pride to
be cast down speedily into hell whence he howls his complaint beginning
“Owte, owte! harrowe!” There is a curious incident in the episode of the
Dream of Pilate’s wife. Whilst she sleeps Satan whispers in her ear the
vision which moves her to try to stay the condemnation of Jesus whereby
mankind is to be redeemed. The last play of the York cycle is the _Day of
Judgement_.
In like manner the Towneley cycle opens with _The Creation_, and
presently we have the stage-direction _hic deus recedit à suo solio &
lucifer sedebit in eodem solio_. The scene soon shifts to hell when we
hear the demons reproaching Lucifer for his pride. After the creation of
Adam and Eve follows Lucifer’s lament. In the long episode of _Doomsday_
a number of demons appear and are kept inordinately busy.
The Devil was represented as black, with goat’s horns, ass’s ears, cloven
hoofs, and an immense phallus. He is, in fact, the Satyr of the old
Dionysiac processions, a nature-spirit, the essence of joyous freedom
and unrestrained delight, shameless if you will, for the old Greek
knew not shame. He is the figure who danced light-heartedly across the
Aristophanaic stage, stark nude in broad midday,[1] animally physical,
exuberant, ecstatic, crying aloud the primitive refrain, Φαλῆς, ἑταῖρε
Βακχίου, ξύγκωμε, νυκτεροπλάνητε, μοιχε, παιδεραστά, (Phales, boon mate
of Bacchus, joyous comrade in the dance, wanton wanderer o’ nights,
fornicating Phales), in a word he was Paganism incarnate, and Paganism
was the Christian’s deadliest foe; so they took him, the Bacchic
reveller, they smutted him from horn to hoof, and he remained the
Christian’s deadliest foe, the Devil.[2]
It was long before the phallic demon was banished the stage, for strange
as it may seem, positive evidence exists that he was known there as late
as Shakespeare’s day. In 1620 was published in London by Edward Wright
_A Courtly Masque: The Deuice called, The World tost at Tennis_. “As it
hath beene diuers times Presented to the Contentment of many Noble and
Worthy Spectators: By the Prince his Seruants.” It was “Inuented and set
downe by Tho: Middleton, Gent, and William Rowley, Gent.” The title-page
presents a rough engraving of the various characters in this masque,
doubtless from a sketch made at the actual performance. Outside the main
group stands a hideous black figure “The Diuele,” who made his appearance
towards the end to take part in the last dance, furnished with horns,
hoofs, talons, tail, and a monstrous phallus. It may be remarked that
these horns are prominent on the goat-like head (a clear satyr) of the
Devil in _Doctor Faustus_ as depicted on the title-page of the Marlovian
quarto. A phallus, to which reference is made in the text, was also worn
by the character dressed up as the monkey (_Bavian_) in the May-dance
scene in Shakespeare & Fletcher’s _The Two Noble Kinsman_, Act III, 5,
1613. It is worth remembering that troops of phallic demons formed a
standing characteristic of the old German carnival comedy. Moreover,
several of the grotesque types of the Commedia dell’ arte in the second
decade of the seventeenth century were traditionally equipped in like
manner.[3] That the Devil was so represented in the English theatre
is important. It gives us the popular idea of the Prince of Evil, and
incidentally throws a side-light upon much of the grotesque and obscene
evidence in the contemporary witch-trials.
In Skelton’s lost _Nigramansir_ one of the stage directions is stated to
have been “Enter Balsebub with a beard,” no doubt the black vizard with
an immense goatish beard familiar to the old religious drama. Presumably
the chief use of the Necromancer, who gives his name to this play, was
indeed but to speak the Prologue which summons the Devil who buffets and
kicks him for his pains. However, we only know the play from Warton,
who describes it as having been shown him by William Collins, the poet,
at Chichester, about 1759. He says: “It is the Nigramansir, a morall
_Enterlude_ and a pithie, written by Maister Skelton laureate, and plaid
before the King and other estatys at Woodstoke on Palme Sunday. It was
printed by Wynkyn de Worde in a thin quarto, in the year 1504. It must
have been presented before Henry VII, at the royal manor or palace at
Woodstock in Oxfordshire, now destroyed. The characters are a Necromancer
or conjurer, the devil, a notary public, Simony, and Philargyria or
Avarice. It is partly a satire on some abuses in the Church.... The
story, or plot, is the trial of Simony and Avarice.” Beyond what Warton
tells us nothing further is known of the play. Ritson, _Bibliographia
Poetica_, 106, declared: “it is utterly incredible that the _Nigramansir_
... ever existed.” It has been shown, too, that Warton as a literary
historian is not infrequently suspect, and E. G. Duff, _Hand Lists of
English Printers_, can trace no extant copy of this “morall _Enterlude_.”
In the English moralities the Devil plays an important part, and, as
in their French originals or analogues, he is consistently hampering
and opposing the moral purpose or lesson which the action of these
compositions is designed to enforce. In the later English plays also
which evolved with added regularity from these interludes the Devil is
always a popular character. He is generally attended by the Vice, who
although in some sort a serving-man or jester in the fiend’s employ,
devotes his time to twitting, teazing, tormenting, and thwarting his
master for the edification, not unmixed with fun, of the audience. In
_The Castell of Perseverance_ Lucifer appears shouting in good old
fashion “Out herowe I rore,” just as he was wont to announce himself in
the Mysteries, and he is wearing his “devil’s array” over the habit of a
“prowde galaunt.” Wever’s _Lusty Juventus_ has unmistakable traces of the
slime of the evil days of Edward VI, in whose reign it was written, and
when the Devil calls Hipocrisy to his aid we are prepared for a flood of
empty but bitter abuse which embodies the sour Puritan hatred against the
Catholic Church, and towards the end, under the misnomer God’s Merciful
Promises, we are not surprised to meet a tiresome old gentleman who
cantingly expounds the doctrine of Justification by Faith.
In the interlude to which Collier has assigned the name _Mankind_
Mischief summons to her aid the fiend Titivillus, who had appeared in
the _Judicium_ of the Towneley Mysteries. Once the Devil’s registrar and
tollsman, he is best known as “Master Lollard.” According to a silly old
superstition Titivillus was an imp whose business it was to pick up the
words any priest might drop and omit whilst saying Mass.
When we pass to the beginnings of the regular drama we find an extremely
interesting play that introduces, if not magic, at least fortune-telling,
John Lyly’s “Pleasant Conceited Comedie” _Mother Bombie_, acted by the
children of Paul’s and first printed in 1594. Although the plot is of
the utmost complexity and artificiality it does not seem to be derived,
as are most of Lyly’s stories, from any classical or pseudo-classical
source, whilst the cunning old woman of Rochester, who supplies the
title, has in fact little to say or do, except that her intervention
helps to bring about the unravelling of a perfect maze and criss-cross of
incidents. When Selena addresses the beldame with “They say, you are a
witch,” Mother Bombie quickly retorts “They lie, I am a cunning woman,” a
passage not without significance.
Upon a very different level from Lyly’s play stands Marlowe’s magnificent
drama _The Tragical History of Dr. Faustus_. The legend of a man who
sells his soul to the Devil for infinite knowledge and absolute power
seems to have crystallized about the sixth century, when the story of
_Theophilus_ was supposed to have been related in Greek by his pupil
Eutychianus. Of course, every warlock had bartered his soul to Satan, and
throughout the whole of the Middle Ages judicial records, the courts of
the Inquisition, to say nothing of popular knowledge, could have told of
a thousand such. But this particular legend seems to have captured the
imagination of both Western and Eastern Christendom; it is met with in
a variety of forms; it was introduced into the collections of Jacopo à
Voragine; it found its way into the minstrel repertory through Rutebeuf,
a French _trouvère_ of the thirteenth century; it reappeared in early
English narrative and in Low-German drama. Icelandic variants of the
story have been traced. It was made the subject of a poem by William
Forrest, priest and poet, in 1572; and it also formed the material for
two seventeenth-century Jesuit “comedies.”
That the original Faust was a real personage,[4] a wandering conjurer and
medical quack, who was well known in the south-west of the German Empire,
as well as in Thuringia, Saxony, and the adjoining countries somewhere
between the years 1510-1540, does not now admit of any serious doubt.
Philip Begardi, a physician of Worms, author of an _Index Sanitatis_
(1539), mentions this charlatan, many of whose dupes he personally knew.
He says that Faust was at one time frequently seen, although of later
years nothing had been heard of him. It has indeed been suggested the
whole legend originated in the strange history of Pope S. Clement I and
his father Faustus, or Faustinianus, as related in the _Recognitions_,
which were immensely popular throughout the Middle Ages. But Melanchthon
knew a Johannes Faustus born at Knütlingen, in Wurtemberg, not far from
his own home, who studied magic at Cracow, and afterwards “roamed about
and talked of secret things.” There was a doctor Faustus in the early
part of the sixteenth century, a friend of Paracelsus and Cornelius
Agrippa, a scholar who won an infamous reputation for the practice of
necromancy. In 1513 Conrad Mutt, the Humanist, came across a vagabond
magician at Erfurt named Georgius Faustus Hermitheus of Heidelberg.
Trithemius in 1506, met a Faustus junior whose boast it was that if
all the works of Plato and Aristotle were burned he could restore them
from memory. It seems probable that it was to the Dr. Faustus, the
companion of Paracelsus and Cornelius[5] Agrippa, that the legend became
finally and definitely attached. The first literary version of the story
was the _Volksbuch_, which was published by Johann Spies in 1587, at
Frankfort-on-the-Main, who tells us that he obtained the manuscript “from
a good friend at Spier,” and it soon afterwards appeared in England
as _The History of the Damnable Life and Deserved Death of Dr. John
Faustus_, a chap-book to which Marlowe mainly adhered for the incidents
in his play. The tragedy was carried across to Germany by the English
actors who visited that country in the last years of the sixteenth and
the earlier part of the seventeenth century, and thus, while it was
itself derived from a German source, it greatly influenced, if it did
not actually give rise to, the treatment of the same theme by the German
popular drama and puppet-play. These were seldom printed, and usually for
the most part extemporized, keeping all the while more or less closely
to the theme. Scheible in his _Kloster_ (1847), Volume V, gives the
excellent Ulm piece, and there are marionette versions edited by W. Hamm
(1850; English translation by T. C. H. Hedderwick, 1887), O. Schade
(1856), K. Engel (1874), Bielschowsky (1882), and Kralik and Winter
(1885).
Lessing projected two presentations of the story, and Klinger worked the
subject into a romance, _Fausts Leben, Thaten, und Höllenfahrt_ (1791;
translated into English by George Barrow in 1826). A bombast tragedy was
published by Klingemann in 1815, whilst Lenau issued his epico-dramatic
_Faust_ in 1836. Heine’s ballet _Der Doctor Faust, ein Tanzpoem_ appeared
in 1851. The libretto for Spohr’s opera (1814) was written by Bernard.
Goethe’s masterpiece, planned as early as 1774, was given to the world in
1808, but the second part was delayed until 1831.
General evidence points to 1588 as the date of the first production of
Marlowe’s _Doctor Faustus_, for it seems certain that the ballad of the
_Life and Death of Doctor Faustus the great Conjurer_, entered in the
Stationers’ Register, February, 1589, did not precede but was suggested
by the drama. The first extant quarto is 1604, but already it had been
subjected to more than one revision. Upon the stage _Doctor Faustus_
long remained popular, and in England, at least, however fragmentary
Marlowe’s tragedy may be it has never been supplemented by any other
literary handling of its theme. Old Prynne in his _Histriomastix_
(1633) retails an absurd story to the effect that the Devil _in propria
persona_ “appeared on the stage at the _Belsavage_ Playhouse in Queen
_Elizabeth’s_ days” whilst the tragedy was being performed, “the truth
of which I have heard from many now alive who well remember it.” It was
revived after the Restoration, and on Monday, 26 May, 1662, Pepys and
his wife witnessed the production at the Red Bull, “but so wretchedly
and poorly done that we were sick of it.” It was being performed at the
Theatre Royal in the autumn of 1675, but no details are recorded. In
1685-6 at Dorset Garden appeared William Mountfort’s _The Life and Death
of Doctor Faustus, Made into a Farce, with the Humours of Harlequin
and Scaramouch_, a queer mixture of Marlowe’s scenes with the Italian
_commedia dell’ arte_. Harlequin was acted by nimble Thomas Jevon, the
first English harlequin, and Scaramouch by Antony Leigh, the most
whimsical of comedians. At the end of the third act after Faustus has
been carried away by Lucifer and Mephistopheles, his body is discovered
torn in pieces. Then “Faustus _Limbs come together. A Dance and Song_.”
This farce was continually revived with great applause, and during the
whole of the eighteenth century Faust was the central figure of pantomime
after pantomime. Nearly forty dramatic versions of the Faust legend might
be enumerated. Many are wildly romantic and were especially beloved of
the minor theatres: such are _Faustus_ by G. Soane and D. Terry, produced
at Drury Lane 16 May, 1825, with “O” Smith as Mephistopheles; H. P.
Grattan’s _Faust, or The Demon of the Drachenfels_ performed at Sadlers
Wells, 5 September, 1842, with Henry Marston, Mephistopheles, T. Lyon,
Faust, “the Magician of Wittenberg,” Caroline Rankley, Marguerite; T.
W. Robertson’s _Faust and Marguerite_, played at the Princess’s Theatre
in April, 1854: some are operatic; the ever-popular _Faust_ of Gounod,
with libretto by Barbier and Carré, first seen at the Théâtre Lyrique,
Paris, in 1859; and Hector Berlioz’ _The Damnation of Faust_, which,
adapted to the English stage by T. H. Friend, was performed at the Court,
Liverpool, 3 February, 1894; many more are burlesques, descendants
of the eighteenth-century farces, amongst which may be remembered F.
C. Burnard’s _Faust and Marguerite_, S. James, 9 July, 1864; C. H.
Hazlewood’s _Faust: or Marguerite’s Mangle_, Britannia Theatre, 25 March,
1867; Byron’s _Little Doctor Faust_ (1877); _Faust in Three Flashes_
(1884); _Faust in Forty Minutes_ (1885); and the most famous of all the
travesties _Faust Up to Date_, produced at the Gaiety, 30 October, 1888,
with E. J. Lonnen as Mephistopheles and Florence St. John as Marguerite.
In France the _Faust_—après Goethe—of Theaulou and Gondelier first seen
at the Nouveautés, 27 October, 1827, had a great success, and in the
following year no less than three pens, Antony Béraud, Charles Nodier,
and Merle, combined to produce a _Faust_ in three acts, the music of
which is by Louis Alexandre Piccini, the grandson of Gluck’s famous
rival. In 1858 Adolphe Dennery gave the Parisian stage _Faust_, a “drame
fantastique” in five acts and sixteen tableaux, a drama of the Grattan
school, effective enough in a lurid Sadlers Wells way, which is, at any
rate, a vein greater dramatists have exploited with profit and applause.
Of more recent English dramas which have the Faust legend as their theme
the most striking is undoubtedly the adaptation by W. G. Wills from the
first part of Goethe’s tragedy, which was produced at the Lyceum 19
December, 1885, with H. H. Conway as Faust; George Alexander, Valentine;
Mrs. Stirling, Martha; Miss Ellen Terry, Margaret; and Henry Irving,
Mephistopheles. Not merely in view of the masterpieces of Marlowe and
Goethe, but even by the side of theatrical versions of the legend
from far lesser men the play itself was naught, a superb pantomime, a
thing helped out by a witches’ kitchen, by a bacchanalia of demons, by
chromo-lithographic effects, by the mechanist and the brushes of Telbin
and Hawes Craven, but it was informed throughout and raised to heights
of greatness, nay, even to awe and terror, by the genius of Irving as
the red-plumed Mephistopheles, that sardonic, weary, restless figure,
horribly unreal yet mockingly alert and alive, who dominated the whole.
To attempt a comparison between Marlowe and Goethe were not a little
absurd, and it is superfluous to expatiate upon the supreme merits of
either masterpiece. In Goethe’s mighty and complex work the story is
in truth refined away beneath a wealth of immortal philosophy. Marlowe
adheres quite simply to the chap-book incidents, and yet in all profane
literature I scarcely know words of more shuddering dread and complete
agony than Faust’s last great speech:
Ah, Faustus,
Now hast thou but one bare hour to live.
And then thou must be damned perpetually!
The scene becomes intolerable. It is almost too painful to be read, too
overcharged with hopeless darkness and despair.
As it is in some sense at least akin to the Faust story it may not be
impertinent briefly to mention here an early Dutch secular drama, which
has been called “one of the gems of Dutch mediæval literature,” _A
Marvellous History of Mary of Nimmegen, who for more than seven years
lived and had ado with the Devil_,[6] printed by William Vorsterman of
Antwerp about 1520. It is only necessary to call attention to a few
features of the legend. Mary, the niece of the old priest Sir Gysbucht,
one night meets the Devil in the shape of _Moonen with the single eye_.
He undertakes to teach her all the secrets of necromancy if she will but
refrain from crossing herself and change her name to Lena of Gretchen.
But Mary, who has had a devotion to our Lady, insists upon retaining
at least the M in her new nomenclature, and so becomes Emmekin. “Thus
Emma and Moonen lived at Antwerp at the sign of the Golden Tree in the
market, where daily of his contrivings were many murders and slayings
together with every sort of wickedness.” Emma then resolves to visit
her uncle, and insists upon Moonen accompanying her to Nimmegen. It is
a high holiday and she sees by chance the mystery of _Maskeroon_ on a
pageant-waggon in a public square. Our Lady is pleading before the throne
of God for mankind, and Emma is filled with strange remorse to hear such
blessed words. Moonen carries her off, but she falls and is found in a
swoon by the old priest, her uncle. No priest of Nimmegen dared shrive
her, not even the Bishop of Cologne, and so she journeyed to Rome, where
the Holy Father heard her confession and bade her wear in penitence three
strong bands of iron fastened upon neck and arms. Thus she returned to
Maestricht to the cloister of the Converted Sinners, and there her sorrow
was so prevailing and her humility so unfeigned that an Angel in token of
Divine forgiveness removed the irons as she slept.
And go ye to Maestricht, an ye be able
And in the Converted Sinners shall ye see
The grave of Emma, and there all three
The rings be hung above her grave.[7]
Magic and fairy-land loom large in the plays of Robert Greene, whose
place in English literature rests at least as much upon his prose-tracts
as on his dramas. It seems to me fairly obvious that _The Honourable
History of Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_, which almost certainly dates
from 1589, although the first quarto is 1594, was composed owing to the
success of Marlowe’s _Doctor Faustus_. Greene was not the man to lose an
opportunity of exploiting fashion, and with his solid British bent I have
no doubt he considered an old English tale of an Oxford magician would be
just as effective as imported legends from Frankfort and Wittenberg. To
say that the later play is on an entirely different level is not to deny
it interest and considerable charm. But in spite of Bacon’s avowal
Thou know’st that I have divèd into hell
And sought the darkest palaces of fiends;
That with my magic spells great Belcephon,
Hath left his lodge and kneeled at my cell,
his sorceries are in lighter vein than those of Faustus; moreover neither
his arts nor the magic of Friar Bungay form the essential theme of the
play, which also sketches the love of Edward, Prince of Wales (afterwards
Edward I) for Margaret, “the fair Maid of Fressingfield.” It is true
Bacon conjures up spirits enough, and we are shown his study at Brasenose
with the episode of the Brazen Head. It may be noted that Miles, Bacon’s
servant, is exactly the Vice of the Moralities, and at the end he rides
off farcically enough on the Devil’s back, whilst Bacon announces his
intention of spending the remainder of his years in becoming penitence
for his necromancy and magic.
In Greene’s _Orlando Furioso_, 4to, 1594, which is based on Ariosto,
canto XXIII, we meet Melissa, an enchantress: and in _Alphonsus, King
of Arragon_, 4to, 1599, which is directly imitative of _Tamburlaine_,
a sibyl with the classical name Medea, conjures up Calehas “in a white
surplice and cardinal’s mitre,” and here we also have a Brazen Head
through which Mahomet speaks. A far more interesting play is _A Looking
Glasse for London and England_, 4to, 1594, an elaborated Mystery upon
the history of the prophet Jonah and the repentance of Nineveh. Among
the characters are a Good Angel, an Evil Angel, and “one clad in
Devil’s attire,” who is soundly drubbed by Adam the buffoon. In 1598
was published, “As it hath bene sundrie times publikely plaide,” _The
Scottish Historic of Iames the fourth, slaine at Flodden. Entermixed
with a pleasant Comedie, presented by Oboram, King of Fayeries._ But
the fairies only appear in a species of prose prologue, and in brief
interludes between the acts.
George Peele’s charming piece of folk-lore _The Old Wives’ Tale_
introduces among its quaint commixture of episodes the warlock Sacripant,
son of a famous witch Meroe,[8] who has stolen away and keeps under a
spell the princess Delia. His power depends upon a light placed in a
magic glass which can only be broken under certain conditions. Eventually
Sacripant is overcome by the aid of a friendly ghost, Jack, the glass
broken, the light extinguished, and the lady restored to her lover and
friends.
Other magicians who appear in various dramas of the days of Elizabeth and
her immediate successors are Brian Sansfoy in the primitive _Sir Clyomon
and Sir Clamydes_, 4to, 1599; the Magician in _The Wars of Cyrus_; Friar
Bacon, Friar Bungay, and Jaques Vandermast in Greene’s _Friar Bacon and
Friar Bungay_, Merlin and Proximus in the pseudo-Shakespearean _The Birth
of Merlin_, where the Devil also figures; Ormandini and Argalio in _The
Seven Champions of Christendom_, where we likewise have Calib, a witch,
her incubus Tarpax, and Suckabus their clownish son; Comus in Milton’s
masque; Mago the conjurer with his three familiars Eo, Meo, and Areo in
Cokain’s _Trappolin Creduto Principe, Trappolin suppos’d a Prince_, 4to,
1656, excellent light fare, which Nahum Tate turned into _A Duke and No
Duke_ and produced at Drury Lane in November, 1684, and which in one form
or another, sometimes “a comic melodramatic burletta,” sometimes a ballad
opera, sometimes a farce, was popular until the early decades of the
nineteenth century.
Seeing that actors are “the abstracts and brief chronicles of the time,”
it is not surprising to find that Witchcraft has a very important part
in the theatre of Shakespeare. Setting aside such a purely fairy fantasy
as _A Midsummer-Night’s Dream_, such figures as the “threadbare juggler”
Pinch in _The Comedy of Errors_, such scenes as the hobgoblin mask
beneath Herne’s haunted oak, such references as that to Mother Prat, the
old woman of Brainford, who worked “by charms, by spells, by the figure,”
or the vile abuse by Richard, Duke of Gloucester, of “Edward’s wife, that
monstrous witch, Consorted with that harlot strumpet Shore,” we have
one historical drama _King Henry VI_, Part II, in which an incantation
scene plays no small part; we have one romantic comedy _The Tempest_, one
tragedy _Macbeth_, the very motives and development of which are due to
magic and supernatural charms. It must perhaps be remarked that _King
Henry VI_, Part I, is defiled by the obscene caricature of S. Joan of
Arc, surely the most foul and abominable irreverence that shames English
literature. It is too loathsome for words, and I would only point out the
enumeration in one scene where various familiars are introduced of the
most revolting details of contemporary witch-trials, but to think of such
horrors in connexion with S. Joan revolts and sickens the imagination.
In _King Henry VI_ (Part II) the Duchess of Gloucester employs John Hume
and John Southwell, two priests; Bolingbroke, a conjurer; and Margery
Jourdemain, a witch, to raise a spirit who shall reveal the several
destinies of the King, and the Dukes of Suffolk and Somerset. The scene
is written with extraordinary power and has not a little of awe and
terror. Just as the demon is dismissed ’mid thunder and lightning the
Duke of York with his guards rush in and arrest the sorcerers. Later the
two priests and Bolingbroke are condemned to the gallows, the witch in
Smithfield is “burn’d to ashes,” whilst the Duchess of Gloucester after
three days’ public penance is banished for life to the Isle of Man.
The incidents as employed by Shakespeare are fairly correct. It is
certain that the Duchess of Gloucester, an ambitious and licentious
woman, called to her counsels Margery Jourdemain, commonly known as the
Witch of Eye, Roger Bolingbroke an astrologer, Thomas Southwell, Canon of
S. Stephen’s, a priest named Sir John Hume or Hun, and a certain William
Wodham. These persons frequently met in secret, and it was discovered
that they had fashioned according to the usual mode a wax image of the
King which they melted before a slow fire. Bolingbroke confessed, and
Hume also turned informer; and in 1441 Bolingbroke was placed on a high
scaffold before Paul’s Cross together with a chair curiously carved and
painted, found at his lodging, which was supposed to be an instrument of
necromancy, and in the presence of Cardinal Beaufort of Winchester, Henry
Chicheley, Archbishop of Canterbury, and an imposing array of bishops,
he was compelled to make abjuration of his wicked arts. The Duchess of
Gloucester, being refused sanctuary at Westminster, was arrested and
confined in Leeds Castle, near Maidstone. She was brought to trial with
her accomplices in October, when sentence was passed upon her as has been
related above. Margery Jourdemain perished at the stake as a witch and
relapsed heretic; Thomas Southwell died in prison; and Bolingbroke was
hanged at Tyburn, 18 November.
In _The Tempest_ Prospero is a philosopher rather than a wizard, and
Ariel is a fairy not a familiar. The magic of Prospero is of the
intellect, and throughout, Shakespeare is careful to insist upon a
certain detachment from human passions and ambitions. His love for
Miranda, indeed, is exquisitely portrayed, and once—at the base
ingratitude of Caliban—his anger flashes forth, but none the less, albeit
superintending the fortunes of those over whom he watches tenderly,
and utterly abhorring the thought of revenge, he seems to stand apart
like Providence divinely guiding the events to the desired issue of
reconciliation and forgiveness. Even so, the situation was delicate to
place before an Elizabethan audience, and how nobly and with what art
does Shakespeare touch upon Prospero’s “rough magic”! In Sycorax we
recognize the typical witch, wholly evil, vile, malignant, terrible for
mischief, the consort and mistress of devils.
There are few scenes which have so caught the world’s fancy as the wild
overture to _Macbeth_. In storm and wilderness we are suddenly brought
face to face with three mysterious phantasms that ride on the wind and
mingle with the mist in thunder, lightning, and in rain. They are not
agents of evil, they are evil; nameless, spectral, wholly horrible. And
then, after the briefest of intervals, they reappear to relate such
exploits as killing swine and begging chestnuts from a sailor’s wife,
to brag of having secured such talismans as the thumb of a drowned
pilot, businesses proper to Mother Demdike or Anne Bishop of Wincanton,
Somerset. Can this change have been intentional? I think not, and its
very violence and quickness are jarring to a degree. The meeting with
Hecate, who is angry, and scolds them “beldames as you are, Saucy and
overbold” does not mend matters, and in spite of the horror when the
apparitions are evoked, the ingredients of the cauldron, however noisome
and hideous, are too material for “A deed without a name.” There is a
weakness here, and it says much for the genius of the tragedy that this
weakness is not obtrusively felt. Nevertheless it was upon this that
the actors seized when for theatrical effect the incantation scenes had
to be “written up” by the interpolation of fresh matter. Davenant also
in his frankly operatic version of _Macbeth_, produced at Dorset Garden
in February, 1672-3 elaborated the witch scenes to an incredible extent,
although by ample conveyance from Middleton’s _The Witch_ together with
songs and dances he was merely following theatrical tradition.[9]
There seems no reasonable doubt that _The Witch_ is a later play than
_Macbeth_, but it is only fair to say that the date of _The Witch_
is unknown—it was first printed in 1778 from a manuscript now in the
Bodleian—and the date of _Macbeth_ (earlier than 1610, probably 1606) is
not demonstrably certain. _The Witch_ is a good but not a distinguished
play. Owing to the incantation scenes and its connexion with _Macbeth_
it has acquired an accidental interest, and an enduring reputation. The
witches themselves, Hecate and her crew, stand midway between the mystic
Norns of the first scene in _Macbeth_, and the miserable hag of Dekker
in _The Witch of Edmonton_; they are just a little below the Witches in
_Macbeth_ as they appear after the opening lines. There is a ghastly
fantasy in their revels which is not lessened by the material grossness
of Firestone the clown, Hecate’s son. They raise “jars, jealousies,
strifes, and heart-burning disagreements, like a thick scurf o’er life,”
and although their figures are often grotesque their power for evil is
not to be despised. Much of their jargon, their charms and gaucheries
complete, are taken word for word from Reginald Scott’s _Discoverie of
Witchcraft_, London, 1584.
The village witch, as she appeared to her contemporaries, a filthy old
doting crone, hunch-backed, ignorant, malevolent, hateful to God and man,
is shown with photographic detail in _The Witch of Edmonton; A known True
Story_ by Rowley, Dekker, and Ford, produced at the Cockpit in Drury Lane
during the autumn or winter of 1621. It seems to have been very popular
at the time, and not only was it applauded in the public theatre, but it
was presented before King James at Court. It did not, however, find its
way into print until as late as 1658.
[Illustration: PLATE VIII
THE WITCH OF EDMONTON. The First Quarto
[_face p. 290_]
The trial and execution (19 April, 1621) of Elizabeth Sawyer attracted
a considerable amount of attention. Remarkable numbers of ballads and
doggerel songs were made upon the event, detailing her enchantments,
how she had blighted standing corn, how a ferret and an owl constantly
attended her, and of many demons and familiars who companied with her
in the prison. Not only were these ditties trolled out the day of the
execution but many were published as broadsides, and sold widely.
Accordingly the Newgate Ordinary hastened to pen _The Wonderfull
Discoverie of Elizabeth Sawyer, a Witch, Late of Edmonton, Her
Conviction, and Condemnation, and Death, Together with the Relation of
the Divels Accesse to Her, and Their Conference Together_, “Written by
Henry Goodcole, Minister of the Word of God, and her Continual Visiter in
the Gaole of Newgate,” Published by Authority, 4to, 1621. This tractate
is in the form of a dialogue, question and answer, between Goodcole and
the prisoner, who makes ample confession of her crimes.
In some ways _The Witch of Edmonton_ is the most interesting and valuable
of the witch dramas, because here we have the hag stripped of the least
vestige of glamour and romance presented to us in the starkest realism.
We see her dwelling apart in a wretched hovel, “shunned and hated like
a sickness,” miserably poor, buckl’d and bent together, dragging her
palsied limbs wearily through the fields, as she clutches her dirty rags
round her withered frame. And if she but dare to gather a few dried
sticks in a corner she is driven from the spot with hard words and blows.
What wonder her mouth is full of cursing and revenge?
’Tis all one
To be a witch as to be counted one.
Then appears the Black Dog and seals a contract with her blood. She
blights the corn and sends a murrain on the cattle of her persecutors;
here a horse has the glanders, there a sow casts her farrow; the maid
churns butter nine hours and it will not come; above all a farmer’s wife,
whom she hates, goes mad and dies in frantic agony; mischief and evil
run riot through the town. But presently her familiar deserts her, she
falls into the hands of human justice, and after due trial is dragged to
Tyburn shrieking and crying out in hideous despair. It is a sordid and a
terrible, but one cannot doubt, a true picture.
It is obvious that in this drama[10] Frank Thorney, a most subtle and
minute study of weakness and degeneracy, is wholly Ford’s. Frank Thorney
may be closely paralleled with Giovanni in _’Tis Pity She’s a Whore_.
Winnifride, too, has all the sentimental charm of Ford’s heroines,
Annabella and Penthea.
Carter is unmistakably the creation of Dekker. Simon Eyre and Orlando
Friscobaldo are the same hearty, bluff, hospitable, essentially honest
old fellows. To Dekker also I would assign Mother Sawyer herself.
Rowley’s hand is especially discernible in the scenes where Cuddy Banks
and the clowns make their appearance.
It may be mentioned that Elizabeth Sawyer figures in Caulfield’s
_Portraits, Memoirs, and Characters of Remarkable Persons_, 1794; and she
is also referred to in Robinson’s _History and Antiquities of the Parish
of Edmonton_ with a woodcut “from a rare print in the collection of W.
Beckford, esq.”
A second drama which was also actually founded upon a contemporary trial
is Heywood and Brome’s _The Late Lancashire Witches_, “A Well Received
Comedy” produced at the Globe in 1634.[11] In the previous year, 1633, a
number of trials for Witchcraft had drawn the attention of all England to
Pendle Forest. A boy, by name Edmund Robinson, eleven years of age, who
dwelt here with his father, a poor wood-cutter, told a long and detailed
story which led to numerous arrests throughout the district. Upon All
Saints’ Day when gathering “bulloes” in a field he saw two greyhounds,
one black, the other brown, each wearing a collar of gold. They fawned
upon him, and immediately a hare rose quite near at hand. But the dogs
refused to course, whereupon he beat them with a little switch, and
the black greyhound started up in the shape of an old woman whom he
recognized as Mother Dickenson, a notorious witch, and the other as a
little boy whom he did not know. The beldame offered him money, either to
buy his silence or as the price of his soul, but he refused. Whereupon
taking something like a Bridle “that gingled” from her pocket she threw
it over the little boy’s head and he became a white horse. Seizing young
Robinson in her arms they mounted and were conveyed with the utmost speed
to a large house where had assembled some sixty other persons. A bright
fire was burning on the hearth with roast meat before it. He was invited
to partake of “Flesh and Bread upon a Trencher and Drink in a Glass,”
which he tasted, but at once rejected. He was next led into an adjoining
barn where seven old women were pulling at seven halters that hung from
the roof. As they tugged large pieces of meat, butter in lumps, loaves
of bread, black puddings, milk, and all manner of rustic dainties fell
down into large basins which were placed under the ropes. When the seven
hags were tired their places were taken by seven others. But as they
were engaged at their extraordinary task their faces seemed so fiendish
and their glances were so evil that Robinson took to his heels. He was
instantly pursued, and he saw that the foremost of his enemies was a
certain Mother Lloynd. But luckily for himself two horsemen, travellers,
came up, whereupon the witches vanished. A little later when he was sent
in the evening to fetch home two kine, a boy met him in the dusk and
fought him, bruising him badly. Looking down he saw that his opponent had
a cloven foot, whereupon he ran away, only to meet Mother Lloynd with a
lantern in her hand. She drove him back and he was again mauled by the
cloven-footed boy.[12]
Such was the story told to the justices and corroborated by Robinson’s
father. A reign of terror ensued. Mother Dickenson and Mother Lloynd were
at once thrown into jail, and in the next few days more than eighteen
persons were arrested. The informer and his father netted a good sum
by going round from church to church to point out in the congregations
persons whom he recognized as having been in the house and barn to which
he was led. A little quiet blackmail of the wealthier county families,
threats to disclose the presence of various individuals at the witches’
feast, brought in several hundreds of pounds.
The trial took place at Lancaster Assizes and seventeen of the accused
were incontinently found guilty. But the judge, completely dissatisfied
with so fantastic a story, obtained a reprieve. Four of the prisoners
were sent up to London, where they were examined by the Court physicians.
King Charles himself also questioned one of these poor wretches and,
discerning that the whole history was a fraud, forthwith pardoned all who
had been involved. Meantime Dr. John Bridgeman, the Bishop of Chester,
had also been holding a special inquiry into the case. Young Robinson
was lodged separately, being allowed to hold no communication with his
relatives, and when closely interrogated he gave way and confessed that
the scare from beginning to end had been manœuvred by his father, who
carefully coached him in his lies. In spite of this fiasco the talk did
not die down immediately, and there were many who continued to maintain
that Mother Dickenson was indeed a witch, however false the evidence on
this occasion might be. It must be remembered, moreover, that twenty-two
years before, in the very same district, a coven of thirteen witches, of
whom the chief was Elizabeth Demdike, had been brought to justice, “at
the Assizes and Generall Gaole-Delivery, holden at Lancaster, before Sir
Edward Bromley and Sir James Eltham.” Old Demdike herself—she was blind
and over eighty years of age—died in prison, but ten of the accused were
executed, and the trial, which lasted two days, occasioned a tremendous
stir.
It seems not at all improbable that Heywood had written a topical play
in 1612 dealing with this first sensational prosecution, and that when
practically the same events repeated themselves in the same place less
than a quarter of a century after he and the ever-ready Brome fashioned
anew the old scenes. In the character of the honourable country-gentleman
Master Generous, whose wife is discovered to be guilty of Witchcraft,
there is something truly noble, and his tender forgiveness of her crime
when she repents is touched with the loving pathos that informs _A
Woman Kilde with Kindnesse_, whilst his agony at her subsequent relapse
is very real, although Heywood has wisely refrained from any attempt
to show a broken heart save by a few quite simple but poignant words.
The play as a whole is a faithful picture of country life, homely
enough, yet not without a certain winsome beauty. The comic episodes
are sufficiently broad in their humour; we have a household turned
topsy-turvy by enchantment, a wedding-breakfast bewitched: the kitchen
invaded by snakes, bats, frogs, beetles, and hornets, whilst to cap all
the unfortunate bridegroom is rendered impotent. In Act II we have the
incident of a Boy with a switch (young Edmund Robinson) and the two
greyhounds. Gammer Dickison carries him off against his will “to a brave
feast,” where we see the witches pulling ropes for food:
Pul for the poultry, foule and fish,
For emptie shall not be a dish.
In Act V the Boy tells Doughty the story of his encounter with the Devil:
“He came to thee like a boy, thou sayest, about thine owne bisnesse?”
they ask him, and the whole scene meticulously follows the detailed
evidence given before the judge at Lancaster. Of the witches, Goody
Dickison, Mal Spencer, Mother Hargrave, Granny Johnson, Meg, Mawd, are
actual individuals who were accused by Robinson; Mrs. Generous alone
is the poet’s fiction. When Robin, the blunt serving-man, refuses to
saddle the grey gelding she shakes a bridle over his head and using
him as a horse makes him carry her to the satanical assembly. There is
a mill, which is haunted by spirits in the shape of cats, and here a
soldier undertakes to watch. For two nights he is undisturbed, but on
the third “_Enter_ Mrs. Generous, Mal, _all the_ Witches and _their
Spirits_ (_at severall dores_).” “_The_ Spirits _come about him with a
dreadfull noise_,” but he beats them thence with his sword, lopping off
a tabby’s paw in the hurly-burly. In the morning a hand is found, white
and shapely, with jewels on the fingers. These Generous recognizes as
being his wife’s rings, and Mrs. Generous, who is in bed ill, is found to
have one hand cut off at the wrist. This seals her fate. All the witches
are dragged in and in spite of their charms and bug-words are identified
by several witnesses including the boy who “saw them all in the barne
together, and many more, at their feast and witchery.”
The play was evidently produced just after the Lancaster Assizes, whilst
four of the accused were in the Fleet prison, London, for further
examination, and the King’s pardon had not as yet been pronounced. This
is evident from the Epilogue, which commences:
Now while the witches must expect their due,
By lawfull justice, we appeale to you
For favourable censure; what their crime
May bring upon ’em ripens yet of time
Has not reveal’d. Perhaps great mercy may,
After just condemnation, give them day
Of longer life.
It will be convenient to consider in this connexion a drama largely
founded upon Heywood and Brome, and produced nearly half a century later
at the Duke’s House, Dorset Garden, Shadwell’s _The Lancashire Witches
and Teague o Divelly, the Irish Priest_, which was first seen in the
autumn of 1681 (probably in September). The idea of using magic in a
play was obviously suggested to Shadwell by his idolized Ben Jonson’s
_Masque of Queens_, performed at Whitehall, 2 February, 1609. In close
imitation of his model Shadwell has further appended copious notes to
Acts one, two, three, and five, giving his references for the details of
his enchantments. In the Preface (4to, 1682) he naïvely confesses: “For
the magical part I had no hopes of equalling _Shakespear_ in fancy, who
created his witchcraft for the most part out of his own imagination (in
which faculty no man ever excell’d him), and therefore I resolved to take
mine from authority. And to that end there is not one action in the Play,
nay, scarce a word concerning it, but is borrowed from some antient, or
modern witchmonger. Which you will find in the notes, wherein I have
presented you a great part of the doctrine of witchcraft, believe it who
will.” And he has indeed copious citations from Vergil, Horace, Ovid,
Propertius, Juvenal, Tibullus, Seneca, Tacitus, Lucan, Petronius, Pliny,
Apuleius, Aristotle, Theocritus, Lucian, Theophrastus; S. Augustine, S.
Thomas Aquinas; Baptista Porta; Ben Jonson (_The Sad Shepherd_); from
the _Malleus Maleficarum_ of James Sprenger, O.P., and Henry Institor
(Heinrich Kramer), written _circa_ 1485-89, from Jean Bodin’s (1520-96)
_La Demonomanie des Sorciers_, 1580; the _Dæmonolatria_, 1595, of Nicolas
Remy; _Disquisitionum Magicarum libri six_ of Martin Delrio, S.J.
(1551-1608); _Historia Rerum Scoticarum_, Paris, 1527, of Hector Boece
(1465-1536); _Formicarius_, 5 vols., Douai, 1602, of John Nider, O.P.
(1380-1438); _De Præstigiis Dæmonum_, 1563, by the celebrated John Weyer,
physician to the Duke of Cleves; _De Gentibus Septentrionalibus_,[13]
Rome, 1555, by Olaus Magnus, the famous Archbishop of Upsala; _Discoverie
of Witchcraft_, 1584, by Reginald Scot; _Dæmonomagia_, by Philip Ludwig
Elich, 1607; _De Strigimagis_, by Sylvester Mazzolini, O.P. (1460-1523),
Master of the Sacred Palace and champion of the Holy See against
the heresiarch Luther; _Compendium Maleficarum_ (Milan, 1608), by
Francesco Maria Guazzo of the Congregation of S. Ambrose; _Disputatio
de Magis_ (Frankfort, 1584), by Johan Georg Godelmann; _Tractatus de
Strigiis et Lamiis_ of Bartolommeo Spina, O.P.; the _Decretum_ (about
1020) of Burchard, Bishop of Worms; the _De Sortilegiis_ (Lyons, 1533)
of Paolo Grilland; the _De Occulta Philosophia_ (Antwerp, 1531) of
Cornelius Agrippa; the _Apologie pour tous les Grands Hommes qui ont
este faussement supconnez de Magie_ (1625) of Gabriel Naudé, librarian
to Cardinal Mazarin; _De Subtilitate_ (libri XXI, Nuremberg, 1550) of
Girolamo Cardano, the famous physician and astrologer; _De magna et
occulta Philosophia_ of Paracelsus; _IIII Livres des Spectres_ (Angers,
1586) by Pierre le Loyer, Sieur de Brosse, of which Shadwell used the
English version (1605) _A treatise of Specters_ ... translated by Z.
Jones.
It will be seen that no less than forty-one authors, authorities on
magic, are quoted by Shadwell in these notes, whilst not infrequently the
same author is cited again and again, and extracts of some length, not
merely general references, are given.
But for all this parade of learning, perchance because of all this parade
of learning, Shadwell’s witch scenes are intolerably clumsy, they are
gross without being terrible. Shadwell was a clever dramatist, he was
able to draw a character, especially a crank, with quite remarkable
vigour, and his scenes are a triumph of photographic realism. True, he
could not discriminate and select; he threw his world _en masse_ higgledy
piggledy on to the stage, and as even in the reign of the Merry Monarch
there were a few tedious folk about, so now and again—but not very
often—one chances upon heavy passages in Shadwell’s robust comedies. On
the other hand _The Sullen Lovers_, _Epsom Wells_, _The Virtuoso, Bury
Fair_, _The Squire of Alsatia_, _The Volunteers_, in fact all his native
plays, are full of bustle and fun, albeit a trifle riotous and rude
as the custom was. Dryden, who very well knew what he was about, for
purposes of his own cleverly dubbed Shadwell dull. And dull he has been
dubbed ever since by those who have not read him. But Shadwell had not a
spark of poetry in his whole fat composition. And so his witches become
farcical, yet farcical in a grimy unpleasant way, for we are spared
none of the loathsome details of the Sabbat, and should anyone object,
why, there is the authority of Remy or Guazzo, the precise passage from
Prierias or Burchard to support the author. Indeed we feel that these
witches are very real in spite of their materialism. They present a clear
picture of one side of the diabolic cult, however crude and crass.
Even so, these incantation scenes are not, I venture to think, the worst
thing in the play. The obscene caricature of the Catholic priest, Teague
o Divelly, is frankly disgusting beyond words. He is represented as
ignorant, idle, lecherous, a liar, a coward, a buffoon, too simiously
cunning to be a fool, too basely mean to be a villain. It is a filthy
piece of work, malignant and harmful prepense.[14]
But Shadwell showed scant respect for the Protestants too, since Smerk,
Sir Edward Hartfort’s chaplain, is described as “foolish, knavish,
popish, arrogant, insolent; yet for his interest, slavish.”
It is hardly a matter for surprise that after the play had been in the
actors’ hands about a fortnight complaints from such high quarters were
lodged with Charles Killigrew, the Master of the Revels, that he promptly
sent for the script, which at first he seems to have passed carelessly
enough, and would only allow the rehearsals to proceed on condition
that a quantity of scurrilous matter was expunged. Even so the dialogue
is sufficiently offensive and profane. There was something like a riot
in the theatre at the first performance, and the play was as heartily
hissed as it deserved. Yet it managed to make a stand: those were the
days of the Third Exclusion Bill and rank disloyalty, but the tide was
on the turn, a rebel Parliament had been dissolved on the 28th March, on
the 31st of August Stephen College, a perjured fanatic doubly dyed in
treason and every conceivable rascality, had met his just reward on the
gallows, whilst the atrocious Shaftesbury himself was to be smartly laid
by the heels in the November following. That part of the dialogue which
was not allowed to be spoken on the stage Shadwell has printed in italic
letter,[15] and so we plainly see that the censor was amply justified in
his demands. The political satire is of the muddiest; the railing against
the Church is lewd and rancorous.
Such success as _The Lancashire Witches_ had in the theatre—and it was
not infrequently revived—was wholly due to the mechanist and the scenic
effects, the “flyings” of the witches, and the music, this last so
prominent a feature that Downes does not hesitate to call it “a kind of
Opera.”
In Shadwell’s Sabbat scenes the Devil himself appears, once in the form
of a Buck Goat and once in human shape, whilst his satellites adore
him with disgusting ceremonies. The witches are Mother Demdike, Mother
Dickenson, Mother Hargrave, Mal Spencer, Madge, and others unnamed.
Elizabeth Demdike and Jennet Hargreaves belonged to the first Lancashire
witch-trials, the prosecutions of 1612; Frances Dickenson and Mal Spencer
were involved in the Robinson disclosures of 1633; so it is obvious
that Shadwell has intermingled the two incidents. In his play we have a
coursing scene where the hare suddenly changes to Mother Demdike; the
witches raise a storm and carouse in Sir Edward’s cellar something after
the fashion of Madge Gray, Goody Price, and Goody Jones in _The Ingoldsby
Legends_; Mal Spencer bridles Clod, a country yokel, and rides him to a
witches’ festival, where Madge is admitted to the infernal sisterhood;
the witches in the guise of cats beset a number of persons with horrible
scratchings and miauling, Tom Shacklehead strikes off a grimalkin’s paw
and Mother Hargreave’s hand is found to be missing: “the cutting off the
hand is an old story,” says Shadwell in his notes. It will be seen that
the later dramatist took many of his incidents from Heywood and Brome,
although it is only fair to add that he has also largely drawn from
original sources.
Shortly after the Restoration was published a play dealing with one of
the most famous of English sibyls, _The Life of Mother Shipton_. “A New
Comedy. As it was Acted Nineteen dayes together with great Applause....
Written by T[homas] T[homson].” Among the Dramatis Personæ appear Pluto,
the King of Hell, with Proserpina, his Queen; Radamon, A chief Spirit;
Four other Devils. The scene is “The City of York, or Naseborough Grove
in Yorkshire.” It is a rough piece of work, largely patched together
from Middleton’s _A Chaste Maid in Cheapside_ and Massinger’s _The City
Madam_, whilst the episodes in which Mother Shipton is concerned would
seem to be founded on one of the many old chap-books that relate her
marvellous adventures and prophetic skill. Agatha Shipton (her name
is usually given as Ursula) is complaining of her hard lot when she
encounters Radamon, a demon who holds high rank in the court of Dis. He
arranges to meet her later, and returns to his own place to boast of his
success. He reappears to her dressed as a wealthy nobleman; he marries
her; and for a while she is seen in great affluence and state. At the
commencement of Act III she finds herself in her poor cottage again. As
she laments Radamon enters, he informs her who he really is, and bestows
upon her magical powers. Her fame spreads far and wide, and as popular
story tells, the abbot of Beverley in disguise visits her to make trial
of her art. She at once recognizes him, and foretells to his great
chagrin the suppression of the monasteries with other events. In the end
Mother Shipton outwits and discomforts the devils who attempt to seize
her, she is vouchsafed a heavenly vision, and turns to penitence and
prayer. The whole thing is a crude enough commixture, of more curiosity
than value.
There are some well-written episodes in Nevil Payne’s powerful tragedy
_The Fatal Jealousie_,[16] produced at Dorset Garden early in August,
1672. Among the characters we have Witch, Aunt of Jasper, the villain
of the piece. Jasper, who is servant to Antonio, applies to his aunt to
help him in his malignant schemes. At first he believes she is a genuine
sorceress, but she disabuses him and frankly acknowledges:
I can raise no Devils,
Yet I Confederate with Rogues and Taylors,
Things that can shape themselves like Elves,
And Goblins——
Her imps _Ranter_ and _Swash_, _Dive_, _Fop_, _Snap_, _Gilt_, and
_Picklock_, are slim lads in masquing habits, trained to trickery. None
the less they manage an incantation scene to deceive Antonio and persuade
him that his wife, Caelia, is false. An “Antick Dance of Devils” which
follows is interrupted by the forcible entry of the Watch. The Aunt shows
Jasper a secret hiding-place, whereupon he murders her and conceals the
body in the hole. He pretends that she was in truth a witch and has
vanished by magic. The Captain of the Watch, however, had detected her
charlatanry long before, and presently a demon’s vizor and a domino are
found on the premises. Later a little boy, who is caught in his devil’s
attire, confesses the impostures, and trembling adds that in one of their
secret chambers they have discovered their mistress’s corpse stabbed to
death. Finally Jasper is unmasked, and only escapes condign punishment by
his dagger. The character of the Witch is not unlike that of Heywood’s
_Wise Woman of Hogsdon_, although in _The Fatal Jealousie_ the events
take a tragic and bloody turn. Smith acted Antonio; Mrs. Shadwell,
Caelia; Mrs. Norris, the Witch; and Sandford was famous in the rôle of
Jasper.
There are incantation scenes in Dryden’s tragedies, but these hardly come
within our survey, as the magicians are treated romantically, one might
even say decoratively, and certainly here no touch of realism is sought
or intended. We have the famous episode in _The Indian-Queen_ (produced
at the Theatre Royal in January, 1663-4), when Zempoalla seeks Ismeron
the prophet who raises the God of Dreams to prophesy her destiny;[17]
in the fourth act of _Tyrannick Love_ (Theatre Royal, June, 1669), the
scene is an Indian cave, where at the instigation of Placidius the
magician Nigrinus raises a vision of the sleeping S. Catharine, various
astral spirits appear only to fly before the descent of Amariel, the
Saint’s Guardian-Angel; in _Œdipus_, by Dryden and Lee (Dorset Garden,
December, 1678), Teresias plays a considerable part, and Act III is
mainly concerned with a necromantic spell that raises the ghost of Laius
in the depths of a hallowed grove. In _The Duke of Guise_, moreover
(Theatre Royal, December, 1682), there is something of real horror in the
figures of Malicorne and his familiar Melanax, and the scene[18] when the
miserable wizard, whose bond is forfeit, is carried shrieking to endless
bale, cannot be read without a shudder even after the last moments of
Marlowe’s _Faustus_. Act IV of Lee’s _Sophonisba_ (Theatre Royal, April,
1675) commences with the temple of Bellona, whose priestesses are shown
at their dread rites. Cumana is inspired by the divinity, she raves in
fury of obsession, there is a dance of spirits, and various visions are
evoked.
In Otway’s curious rehandling of _Romeo and Juliet_ which he Latinized
as _The History and Fall of Caius Marius_ produced at Dorset Garden in
the autumn of 1679, the Syrian witch Martha only appears for a moment to
prophesy good fortune to Marius and to introduce a dance of spirits by
the waving of her wand.
Charles Davenant’s operatic _Circe_ (Dorset Garden, March, 1676-7) is
an amazing distortion of mythological story. There are songs without
number, a dance of magicians, storms, dreams, an apparition of Pluto in a
Chariot drawn by Black Horses, but all these are very much of the stage,
stagey, born of candle-light and violins, hardly to be endured in cold
print. Ragusa, the Sorceress in Tate’s _Brutus of Alba: or the Enchanted
Lovers_ (Dorset Garden, May, 1678) is a far more formidable figure. Tate
has managed his magic not without skill, and the conclusion of Act III,
an incantation, was deservedly praised by Lamb. Curiously enough the
plot of _Brutus of Alba_ is the story of Dido and Æneas, Vergil’s names
being altered “rather than be guilty of a breach of Modesty,” Tate says.
But Tate supplied Henry Purcell with the libretto for his opera _Dido
and Æneas_, wherein also witches appear. It must not be forgotten that
_Macbeth_ was immensely popular throughout the whole of the Restoration
period, when, as has been noted above, the witch scenes were elaborated
and presented with every resource of scenery, mechanism, dance, song, and
meretricious ornament. Revival followed revival, each more decorative
than the last, and the theatre was unceasingly thronged. Duffett
undertook to burlesque this fashion, which he did in an extraordinary
Epilogue to his skit _The Empress of Morocco_, produced at the Theatre
Royal in the spring of 1674, but for all his japeries _Macbeth_ never
waned in public favour.
Spirits in abundance appear in the Earl of Orrery’s unpublished tragedy
_Zoroastres_,[19] the principal character being described as “King of
Persia, the first Magician.” He is attended by “several spirits in black
with ghastly vizards,” and at the end furies and demons arise shaking
dark torches at the monarch whom they pull down to hell, the sky raining
fire upon them. It was almost certainly never acted, and is the wildest
type of transpontine melodrama.
Edward Ravenscroft’s “recantation play” _Dame Dobson, or, The Cunning
Woman_ (produced at Dorset Garden in the early autumn of 1683) is an
English version of _La Devineresse; ou les faux Enchantements_ (sometimes
known as _Madame Jobin_), a capital comedy by Thomas Corneille and Jean
Donneau de Vise. This French original had been produced in 1679, and
both the stage-craft and the adroit way in which the various tricks and
conjurations are managed must be allowed to be consummately clever. An
English comedy on a similar theme is _The Wise Woman of Hogsdon_, the
intricacies of which are a triumph of technique. _La Devineresse_ was
published in 1680 with a frontispiece picturing a grimalkin, a hand of
glory, noxious weeds, two blazing torches and other objects beloved of
necromancy. There are, moreover, eight folding plates which embellish
the little book, and these have no small interest as they depict
scenes in the comedy. But _Dame Dobson_ cannot be accounted a play of
witchcraft; it is no more than an amusing study of dextrous charlatanry.
The protagonist herself[20] is of that immortal sisterhood graced by
Heywood’s sibyl, of whom it is said “She is a cunning woman, neither hath
she her name for nothing, who out of her ignorance can fool so many that
think themselves wise.”
Mrs. Behn, in her amusing comedy _The Luckey Chance; or, An Alderman’s
Bargain_, produced at Drury Lane in the late winter of 1686, 4to, 1687,
has made some play with pretended magic in the capital scenes where
Gayman (Betterton) is secretly brought by the prentice Bredwel (Bowman),
disguised as a devil, to the house of Lady Fulbank (Mrs. Barry). Here
he is received by Pert, the maid, who is dressed as an old witch, and
conducted to his inamorata’s embraces. But the whole episode is somewhat
farcically treated, and it is, of course, an elaborate masquerade for the
sake of an intrigue.[21]
Shadwell in 1681 took Witchcraft seriously, and notwithstanding the
half-hearted disclaimer in his address “To the Reader” that prefaces
_The Lancashire Witches_ I think he was sensible enough to recognize the
truth which lies at the core of the matter in spite of the grotesqueness
of the formulæ and spells doting hags and warlocks are wont to employ.
Witchcraft was still a capital offence when some fifteen years later
Congreve lightly laughed it out of court. Foresight (_Love for Love_),
“an illiterate old Fellow, peevish and positive, superstitious, and
pretending to understand Astrology, Palmistry, Phisiognomy, Omens,
Dreams, etc.,” is in close confabulation with his young daughter’s Nurse,
when Angelica his niece trips in to ask the loan of his coach, her
own being out of order. He says no, and presses her to remain at home,
muttering to himself some old doggerel which bodes no good to the house
if all the womenfolk are gadding abroad. The lady fleers him, twits him
with jealousy of his young wife: “Uncle, I’m afraid you are not Lord
of the Ascendant, ha! ha! ha!” He is obstinate in his refusal; and she
retorts: “I can make Oath of your unlawful Midnight Practices; you and
the Old Nurse there.... I saw you together, through the Key-hole of
the Closet, one Night, like _Saul_ and the Witch of _Endor_, turning
the Sieve and Sheers, and pricking your Thumbs to write poor innocent
Servants’ Names in Blood about a little Nutmeg-Grater, which she had
forgot in the Caudle-Cup.” “Hussy, Cockatrice,” storms the old fellow
beside himself with rage. Angelica mocks him even more bitterly, accuses
him and the Nurse of nourishing a familiar, “a young Devil in the shape
of a Tabby-Cat,” and with a few last thrusts she departs, trilling with
merriment, in a sedan-chair.
To return for a brief space to an earlier generation when it would have
hardly been possible, or at least highly inadvisable, to treat Witchcraft
in this blithesome mood, of two plays that would almost certainly have
been of great interest in this connexion we have only the names, _The
Witch of Islington_, acted in 1597, and _The Witch Traveller_, licensed
in 1623.
In addition to _The Masque of Queens_, which as has already been
noted, served to some extent for a model to Shadwell when inditing his
encyclopædic notes on magic, Ben Jonson in that sweet pastoral _The Sad
Shepherd_ introduces a Scotch witch, Maudlin. The character is drawn with
vigorous strokes; realism mingles with romance.
During the quarrel scene which opens _The Alchemist_ Face threatens
Subtle:
I’ll bring thee, rogue, within
The statute of sorcerie, _tricesimo tertio_
Of Harry the Eight.
Dapper the gull asks Subtle for a familiar, as Face explains (I, 2):
Why, he do’s aske one but for cups, and horses,
A rifling flye: none o’ your great familiars.
And later in order to trick him thoroughly Dol Common appears as the
“Queene of Faerie.” The Queen of Elphin or Elfhame, who is particularly
mentioned in the Scotch witch-trials, seems to be identical with the
French Reine du Sabbat. In 1670 Jean Weir confessed: “That when she
keeped a school at Dalkeith, and teached childering, ane tall woman came
to the declarant’s hous when the childering were there; and that she had,
as appeared to her, ane chyld upon her back, and one or two at her foot;
and that the said woman disyred that the declarant should imploy her to
spick for her to the Queen of Farie, and strik and battle in her behalf
with the said Queen, (which was her own words).”[22]
Beaumont and Fletcher afford us but few instances of witchcraft in the
many dramas that conveniently go under their names. We have, it is true,
a she-devil, Lucifera, in _The Prophetess_, but the incident is little
better than clowning. Delphia herself is a severely classical pythoness
far removed from the Sawyers, Demdikes, and Dickensons Sulpitia, in _The
Custom of the County_ dons a conjurer’s robe and at Hippolita’s bidding
blasts Zenocia almost to death by her spells, but yet she is more bawd
than witch. Peter Vecchio in _The Chances_, “a reputed wizard,” is as
sharp and cozening a practitioner as Forobosco, the mountebank, a petty
pilferer, who is exposed and sent to the galleys at the end of _The Fair
Maid of the Inn_; or Shirley’s Doctor Sharkino[23] whom silly serving-men
consult about the loss of silver spoons and napkins; or Tomkis’s
Albumazar; nay, Jonson’s Subtle himself.[24]
In Marston’s _Sophonisba_ (4to, 1606) appears Erictho, borrowed from
Lucan. The Friar in Chapman’s _Bassy d’Ambois_ (4to, 1607) puts on a
magician’s habit, and after a sonorous Latin invocation raises the
spirits Behemoth and Cartophylax in the presence of Bussy and Tamyra.
A far more interesting drama than these is Shirley’s _S. Patrick for
Ireland_, acted in Dublin, 1639-40, which has as its theme the conversion
of Ireland by S. Patrick and the opposition of the Druids under their
leader Archimagus. The character of S. Patrick moves throughout with a
quiet spiritual dignity that has true beauty, and the magicians in their
baffled potency for evil are only less effective. This drama is a work of
stirling merit, to which I would unhesitatingly assign a very high place
in Shirley’s theatre. We are shown the various attempts upon S. Patrick’s
life: poison is administered in a cup of wine, the Saint drinks and
remains unharmed; Milcho, a great officer, whose servant S. Patrick once
was, locks him and his friends in a house and fires it. The Christians
pass out unscathed through the flames which devour the incendiary. In
the last scene whilst S. Patrick sleeps Archimagus summons a vast number
of hideous serpents to devour him, but the Apostle of Ireland wakes, and
expels for ever all venomous reptiles from his isle, whereon the earth
gapes and swallows the warlock alive. Particularly impressive is the
arrival of S. Patrick, when as the King and his two sons, his druids
and nobles, are gathered in anxious consultation at the gates of their
temple, they see passing in solemn procession through the woods a fair
company with gleaming crosses, silken banners, bright tapers and incense,
what time the sweet music of a hymn strikes upon the ear:
Post maris sæui fremitus Iernæ
(Nauitas cœlo tremulas beante)
Uidimus gratum iubar enatantes
Littus inaurans.
(Now that we have crossed the fierce waves of ocean to Ireland’s coast,
and Heaven has blessed its poor fearful wanderers, wending our way along
with joy do we see a sunbeam of light gilding these shores.)
As Marlowe’s _Dr. Faustus_ has already been treated in this connexion it
may not be altogether impertinent very briefly to consider some three
or four other Elizabethan plays in which the Devil appears among the
Dramatis Personæ, even if he act no very prominent part. These for the
most part fluctuate between the semi-serious and merest buffoonery. Thus
the prologue of _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_ (4to, 1608), in which
the enchanter Peter Fabell tricks the demon who has come to demand the
fulfilment of his contract, is at the opening managed with due decorum,
but it soon adopts a lighter, and even trivial, vein. William Rowley’s
_The Birth of Merlin, or The Childe hath found his Father_ (not printed
until 1662) is a curious medley of farce and romance, informed with a
certain awkward vigour and not wholly destitute of poetry. Dekker’s _If
it be not good, the Divel is in it_ (4to, 1612), which may be traced
to the old prose _History of Friar Rush_, depicts the exploits of three
lesser fiends who are dispatched to spread their master’s kingdom in
Naples. It is an unequal play, the satire of which falls very flat, since
it is obvious that the poet was not sincere in his extravagant theme.[25]
Ben Jonson’s _The Devil is an Ass_, acted in 1616, is wholly comic. Pug,
“the less devil,” who visits the earth, and engages himself as servant to
a Norfolk squire, Fabian Fitzdottrel, is hopelessly outwitted on every
occasion by the cunning of mere mortals. Eventually he finds himself
lodged in Newgate, and in imminent danger of the gallows were he not
rescued by the Vice, Iniquity, by whom he is carried off rejoicing to
the nether regions. His fate may be compared with that of Roderigo in
Wilson’s excellent comedy _Belphegor: or, The Marriage of the Devil_
(produced at Dorset Garden in the summer of 1690), who with his two
attendant devils flies back to his native hell to escape the woes of
earth.
In _The Devil’s Charter_, however, by Barnaby Barnes (1607), we have
what is undoubtedly a perfectly serious tragedy, which if not exactly
modelled upon, at least owes many hints to Marlowe’s _Faustus_. It is
flamboyant melodrama and wildly unhistorical throughout, a very tophet of
infernal horror. The chief character is a loathsome caricature of Pope
Alexander VI,[26] and, as we might expect, all the lies and libels of
Renaissance satirists and Protestant pamphleteers are heaped together to
portray an impossible monster of lust and crime. The filthiest scandals
of Burchard, Sanudo, Giustiniani, Filippo Nerli, Guicciardini, Paolo
Giovio, Sannazzaro and the Neapolitans, have been employed with one might
almost say a scrupulous conscientiousness. The black art, in particular,
occupies a very prominent place in these lurid scenes. Alexander has
signed a bond with a demon Astaroth, and it is to this contract that all
his success is ascribed. In Act IV there is a long incantation when the
Pope puts on his magical robes, takes his rod and pentacle, and standing
within the circle he has traced conjures in strange terms, commencing
a Latin exorcism which tails off into mere gibberish. Various devils
appear, and he is shown a vision of Gandia’s murder by Cæsar,[27] with
other atrocities. At the climax of the piece we have the banquet with
Cardinal Adrian of Corneto, and whilst the guests talk “The Devill
commeth and changeth the Popes bottles.” The Borgias are poisoned, and
in a far too protracted “Scena Ultima” Alexander discourses and disputes
frantically with the demons who appear to mock and torment him. There
is the old device of an ambiguous contract; presently a “Devil like a
Poast” enters winding a horn to summon the unhappy wretch, who raves
and shrieks out meaningless ejaculations as he is dragged away amid
thunder and lightning. This sort of thing pandered to the most brutalized
appetites of the groundlings, and _The Devil’s Charter_ may be summed up
as a disgusting burlesque not without its quota of vile stuff that is so
repulsive as to be physically sickening.
Upon a careful consideration of those seventeenth-century plays which
have Witchcraft as their main theme, and leaving on one side, for our
purpose, the essentially romantic treatment of the subject, however
realistic some details of the picture may be, it is, I think, beyond
dispute that _The Witch of Edmonton_ in the figure of Mother Sawyer
offers us the best contemporary illustration of the Elizabethan witch.
The drama itself is one of no ordinary merit and power, whilst the
understanding and restraint which set the play apart from its fellows
also raises it to the level of genuine tragedy. It should be noticed that
we see a witch, so to speak, in the process of making. Mother Sawyer is
in truth the victim of the prejudices of the village hinds and ignorant
yokels. When she first appears it is merely as a poor old crone driven
to desperation by her brutal neighbours; the farmers declare she is a
witch, and at length persecution makes her one. She is malignant and evil
enough once the compact with the demon has been confirmed; she longs from
the first to be revenged upon her enemies and mutters to herself “by
what art May the thing called Familiar be purchased?” But, in one sense,
she is urged and hounded to her destiny, and the authors, although never
doubting her compact with the powers of darkness, her vile and poisonous
life, show a detached but very real sympathy for her. It is this touch
of humanity, the pathos and pity of the poor old hag, repulsive, wicked,
and baleful as she may be, which must place _The Witch of Edmonton_ in my
opinion among the greatest and most moving of all Elizabethan plays.
It is no pleasant task to turn now to the theatre of the eighteenth
century in this connexion. The witch became degraded; she was comic,
burlesqued, buffooned; a mere property for a Christmas pantomime:
_Harlequin Mother Bunch_, _Mother Goose_, _Harlequin Dame Trot_, Charles
Dibdin’s _The Lancashire Witches, or The Distresses of Harlequin_[28]
whose tinsel, music, and mummery drew all the macaronis and cyprians in
London to the Circus during the winter of 1782-3.
Some subtle premonition of the great success of Harrison Ainsworth’s
powerful story _The Lancashire Witches_—for this and the macabre
_Rookwood_ are probably the best of the work of a talented writer now
unduly depreciated and decried—seems to have suggested to the prolific
Edward Fitzball his “Legendary Drama in Three Acts,” _The Lancashire
Witches, A Romance of Pendle Forest_, produced at the Adelphi Theatre,
3 January, 1848. It was quick work, for it was only a month before,
3 December, 1847, that Ainsworth, writing to his friend Crossley of
Manchester, states that he has accepted the liberal offer of the _Sunday
Times_—£1000 and the copyright to revert to the author on the completion
of the work—that his new romance _The Lancashire Witches_ should make
its appearance as a serial in the paper. He had already sketched out
the plan, and he must have given Fitzball an idea of this, or at least
have allowed the dramatist the use of some few rough notes, for although
the play and the novel have little, one might say nothing essential,
in common, the chief character in the theatre, Bess of the Woods, “140
years old, formerly Abbess of S. Magdalen’s, doomed for her crimes to an
unearthly age,” is none other than the anchoress Isolde de Heton.[29]
The fourth scene of the second act presents the ruins of Whalley Abbey
by moonlight. During an incantation the picture gradually changes; the
broken arches form themselves into perfect masonry; the ivy disappears
from the windows to show the ruby and gold of coloured glass; the
decaying altar glitters with piled plate and the gleam of myriad tapers.
A choir of nuns rises from the grave to dance with spectral gallants.
Among the votaries are Nutter, Demdike, and Chattox “Three Weird Sisters,
doomed for their frailties to become Witches.” But they utter no word,
and have no part save this in the action. This scene must have proved
extraordinarily effective upon the stage. It owes much to the haunted
convent in Meyerbeer’s _Robert le Diable_, produced at the Académie
Royale in November, 1831, and given in a piratical form both at Drury
Lane and Covent Garden within a few weeks. Nor is it comparable to its
original. In Fitzball’s melodrama O. Smith appeared as Gipsy Dalian, a
new character; and Miss Faucit (Mrs. Bland) as Bess of the Woods. The
play, for what it is, a luridly theatrical and Surrey-side sensation,
has merit; but to speak of it in the same breath as Middleton or even as
Barnes would be absurd.
Shelley’s genius has with wondrous beauty translated for us scenes from
Calderon’s _El Magico Prodigioso_, one of the loveliest songs of the
Spanish nightingale. On another plane, admittedly, but yet, I think,
far from lacking a simple comeliness of its own and surely not without
most poignant pathos, is Longfellow’s New England Tragedy _Giles Corey
of the Salem Farms_.[30] The honest sincerity of Cotton Mather, the
bluff irascible heartiness of Corey himself, the inopportune scepticism
of his wife—which to many would seem sound common sense—the hysteria
of Mary Walcot, the villainy of John Gloyd, all these are sketched
with extraordinary power, a few quiet telling touches which make each
character, individual, alert, alive.
In the French theatre we have an early fourteenth-century _Miracle de
Nostre Dame de Robert le Dyable_, and in 1505 was acted _Le mystère du
Chevalier qui donna sa femme au Diable_, à dix personnages. As one might
well expect during the long classical period of the drama Witchcraft
could have found no place in the scenes of the French dramatists. It
would have been altogether too wild, too monstrous a fantasy. And so it
is not until the 24 floréal, An XIII (11 June, 1805) that a play which
interweaves sorcery as its theme is seen at the Théâtre français, when
_Les Templiers_ of Raynouard was given there. A few years later _Le
Vampire_, a thrilling melodrama by Charles Nodier and Carmouche, produced
on 13 August, 1820, was to draw all idle Paris to the Porte-Saint-Martin.
In 1821 two facile writers quick to gauge the public appetite, Frédéric
Dupetit-Mèré and Victor Ducagne, found some favour with _La Sorcière, ou
l’Orphelin écossais_. Alexandre Dumas, and one of his many ghosts Auguste
Maquet, collaborated (if one may use the term) in a grandiose five-act
drama _Urbain Grandier_, 1850. _La Sorcière Canidie_, a one-act play
by Aurélien Vivie, produced at Bordeaux in 1888 is of little account.
_La Reine de l’Esprit_ (1891) of Maurice Pottecher is founded to some
extent on the _Comte de Gabalis_, whilst the same author’s three-act
_Chacun cherche son Trésor_, “histoire des sorciers” (1899) was not a
little helped by the music of Lucien Michelet. There are many excuses
for passing over with a mere mention _Les Noces de Sathan_ (1892), a
“drama ésoterique,” by Jules Bois, and _Les Basques ou la Sorcière
d’Espelette_, a lyric drama in three acts by Loquin and Mégret de
Belligny, produced at Bordeaux in 1892, has an interest which is almost
purely local. Alphonse Tavan’s _Les Mases_ (sorciers), a legendary drama
of five acts of alternating prose and verse seen in 1897 was helped out
by every theatrical resource, a ballet, chorus, mechanical effects, and
confident advertisement. Serge Basset’s _Vers le Sabbat_ “évocation de
sorcellerie en un acte” which appeared in the same year need not be
seriously considered. Nor does an elaborate episode “Le Sabbat et la
Herse Infernale,” wherein Mons. Benglia appeared as Satan, that was seen
in the Folies Bergère revue, _Un Soir de Folie_, 1925-6, call for more
than the briefest passing mention.
In more recent days Victor Sardou’s _La Sorcière_ is a violent, but
effective, melodrama. Produced at the Théâtre Sarah-Bernhardt, 15
December, 1903, with De Max as Cardinal Ximenes and Sarah Bernhardt as
the moresque Zoraya, it obtained a not undeserved success. The locale of
the tragedy is Toledo, anno domini 1506; Act IV, the Inquisition scene;
and Act V, the square before the Cathedral with the grim pyre ready for
the torch, were—owing to the genius of a great actress—truly harrowing.
Of course it is very flamboyant, very unbalanced, very unhistorical, but
in its gaudy theatrical way—all the old tricks are there—_La Sorcière_
had an exciting thrill for those who were content to be unsophisticated
awhile.
John Masefield’s adaptation from the Norwegian of Wiers-Jennsen, _The
Witch_,[31] a drama in four acts, is a very different thing. Here we
have psychology comparable to that of Dekker and Ford. Nor will the
performances of Miss Janet Achurch as Merete Beyer and Miss Lillah
McCarthy as Anne Pedersdotter easily be forgotten. As a picture of the
horror of Witchcraft in cold Scandinavia, the gloom and depression of
formidable fanaticism engendered by Lutheran dogma and discipline with
the shadow of destiny lowering implacably over all, this is probably the
finest piece of work dealing in domestic fashion with the warlock and the
sorceress that has been seen on the English stage since the reign of wise
King James three hundred years ago.
NOTES TO CHAPTER VII
[1] The _Floralia_, the most wanton of Roman festivals, commenced on
the fourth day before the Kalends of May, and during these celebrations
the spectators insisted that the _mimæ_ should play naked, “agebantur
[_Floralia_] a meretricibus ueste exutis omni cum uerborum licentia,
motuumque obscænitate,” says the old commentator on Martial I, 1.
“Lasciui Floralia laeta theatri” Ausonius names them, _De Feriis
Romanis_, 25. Lactantius, _De Institutionibus Diuinis_, I, 20, writes:
“Celebrantur ergo illi ludi cum omni lasciuia, conuenientes memoriæ
meretricis. Nam praeter uerborum licentiam, quibus obscænitas omnis
effunditur; exuuntur etiam uestibus populo flagitante meretrices;
quæ tunc mimorum funguntur officio; et in conspectu populi usque ad
satietatem impudicorum luminum cum pudendis motibus detinentur.” Both S.
Augustine and Arnobius reprehend the lewdness of these naked dances. At
Sens during the Feast of Fools, when every licence prevailed, men were
led in procession _nudi_. Warton (_History of English Poetry_, by T.
Warton, edited by W. C. Hazlitt, 4 vols., 1871), II, 223, states that in
the Mystery Plays “Adam and Eve are both exhibited on the stage naked,
and conversing about their nakedness; this very pertinently introduces
the next scene, in which they have coverings of fig-leaves.” In a
stage-direction of the Chester Plays we find: “Statim nudi sunt.... Tunc
Adam et Eua cooperiant genitalia sua cum foliis.” Chambers, _The Mediæval
Stage_, II, 143, doubts whether the players were actually nude, and
suggests a suit of white leather. Warton, however, is probably right.
[2] Phales was an early deity, very similar to Priapus, and closely
associated with the Bacchic mysteries. For the refrain see _The
Acharnians_, 263-265.
[3] See Callot’s series of character-etchings, _I Balli di Sfessanio_.
[4] Not to be confused with the printer Fust, as was at one time
frequently supposed.
[5] In Marlowe’s play Faust welcomes “German Valdes and Cornelius.” Who
Valdes is has not been satisfactorily explained. The suggestion of Dr.
Havelock Ellis that Paracelsus seems intended is no doubt correct.
[6] Translated from the Middle Dutch by Harry Morgan Ayres, with an
Introduction by Adriaan J. Barnouw. _The Dutch Library_, The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff. 1924.
[7] The International Theatre Society gave a private subscription
performance of _Mary of Nimmegen_ at Maskelyne’s Theatre on Sunday, 22
February, 1925. But such a play, presenting crowded scenes of burgher
life, the streets, the market-place, to be effective demands a large
stage and costly production.
[8] Meroe is the hag “saga et diuina” in Apuleius, _Metamorphoseon_, I.
[9] _Macbeth_ was tinkered at almost from the first. Upon the revival of
the play immediately after the Restoration the witch scenes were given
great theatrical prominence. 7 January, 1667, Pepys declared himself
highly delighted with the “divertissement, though it be a deep tragedy.”
[10] _The Witch of Edmonton_ was revived under my direction for two
performances at the Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith, 24 and 26 April, 1921.
Sybil Thorndike played the Witch, Russell Thorndike, the Familiar; Ion
Swinley, Frank Thorney; Edith Evans, Ann Ratcliffe; and Frank Cochrane,
Cuddy Banks.
[11] 4to 1634: _Stationers’ Register_, 28 October.
[12] In a famous Scotch trial for witchcraft, 1661, Jonet Watson of
Dalkeith confessed “that the Deivill apeired vnto her in the liknes of
ane prettie boy, in grein clothes.”
[13] Liber III. _De Magis et Maleficis Finnorum._
[14] Tegue o’ Divelly was acted by Antony Leigh, the most famous comedian
of his day, and an intimate friend of Shadwell.
[15] Curiously enough Halliwell in _The Poetry of Witchcraft_, a private
reprint of Heywood and Shadwell’s plays, 80 copies only, 1853, has not
reproduced the italic letter but gives all the dialogue in roman to the
great detriment of this edition.
[16] Licensed for printing 2 November, 1672, and published quarto with
date 1673.
[17] At a later revival Ismeron’s recitative “Ye twice ten hundred
Deities” was set by Purcell.
[18] Dryden’s. He wrote the first scene of the first act, the whole
of the fourth act, rather more than one-half of act five, and Lee is
responsible for the rest of the tragedy.
[19] For a full analysis and critical examination of _Zoroastres_ see my
article in the _Modern Language Review_, XII, Jan., 1917.
[20] The title-rôle Dame Dobson was played by Mrs. Corey, a mistress of
broad comedy, who was much admired for her humour by Samuel Pepys.
[21] Mrs. Behn owes a hint to Shirley’s _The Lady of Pleasure_, licensed
by Sir Henry Herbert, 15 October, 1635; 4to. 1637. It must be confessed
that she has managed her scenes with more wit and spirit than the older
dramatist, whose charming verse is perhaps too seriously poetical for the
actual situation.
[22] George Sinclar, _Satan’s Invisible World Discovered_, 1685. Reprint,
Edinburgh, 1871. Supplement, I, p. xii.
[23] _The Maid’s Revenge_, acted 1626, printed 1639.
[24] Compare Mopus in Wilson’s _The Cheats_ (acted in 1662); Stargaze
in _The City Madam_; Rusee, Norbrett, and their accomplices in _Rollo_;
Iacchelino in Ariosto’s _Il Negromante_; and a score beside.
[25] Sir Adolphus Ward, _English Dramatic Literature_, 1899, II, 465,
says that Langbaine wrongly supposed the source of this play to be
“Machiavelli’s celebrated _Novella_ on the marriage of Belphegor.” But
this is hardly correct. Langbaine wrote: “The beginning of his Play seems
to be writ in imitation of _Matchiavel’s_ Novel of _Belphegor_: where
_Pluto_ summons the Devils to Councel.”
[26] For a fitting account of Alexander VI see _Le Pape Alexandre VI et
les Borgia_, Paris, 1870, by Père Ollivier, O.P.; also Leonetti _Papa
Alessandro VI secondo documenti e carteggi del tempo_, 3 vols., Bologna,
1880. _Chronicles of the House of Borgia_, by Frederick, Baron Corvo,
1901, may be studied with profit. Monsignor de Roo’s _Material for a
History of Pope Alexander VI_, 5 vols., Bruges, 1924, is of the greatest
value, and completely authoritative.
[27] The murderer of the Duke of Gandia is unknown to history, if not to
historians.
[28] The songs only are printed, 8vo, 1783.
[29] Fosbrooke, _British Monachism_, says that in the reign of Henry VI
one Isolde de Heton petitioned the King to let her be admitted as an
anchoress in the Abbey of Whalley. But afterwards she left the enclosure
and broke her vows, whereupon the King dissolved the hermitage.
[30] The incidents are historically correct. See Cotton Mather’s _Wonders
of the Invisible World_. Corey refusing to plead was pressed to death.
[31] Originally produced 10 October, 1910, at the Royalty, Glasgow: in
London, 31 January, 1911, at the Court. Revived at the Court, 29 October,
1913, when it ran for a month, and was afterwards included in the
subsequent three weeks’ repertory season.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This Bibliography does not aim at anything beyond presenting a brief and
convenient hand-list of some of the more important books upon Witchcraft.
It does not even purport to give all those monographs to which reference
is made in the body of this study. A large number of books I have
thought it superfluous to include. Thus I have omitted general works of
reference such as the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, Du Cange’s _Glossarium
ad scriptores mediæ et infimæ latinitatis_, Dugdale’s _Monasticon_; daily
companions such as the Missal, the Breviary, the Bible; Homer, Vergil,
Horace, Ovid, Petronius, Lucan; Shakespeare, Marlowe, Ford, Dryden,
Burton’s _Anatomy of Melancholy_, and English classics; those histories
which are on every library shelf, Gibbon, Lingard, Ranke; and such
histories as the _Cambridge Modern History_.
On the other hand, I have of purpose included various books which may not
seem at first sight to have much connexion with Witchcraft, although they
are, as a matter of fact, by no means impertinent. In order to appreciate
this vast subject in all its bearings, even the desultory or amateur
investigator should at least be fairly grounded in theology, philosophy,
and psychology. The student must be a capable theologian.
I have devoted some particular attention to the works of the
demonologists, now almost universally neglected, but a close study of
which is essential to the understanding of occultism and the appreciation
of the grave dangers that may lurk there.
I am only too conscious of the plentiful lacunæ in this Bibliography.
However, to attempt anything like a complete catalogue—if, indeed, it
were possible to essay so illimitable a task—would involve the listing of
very many thousands of books, and would itself require no inconsiderable
a tale of volumes.
I need hardly point out that side by side with works of the highest
importance it has been found necessary to include a few of no great
value, which yet have their use to illustrate some one point or special
phase.
GENERAL
CAILLET, ALBERT L. _Manuel bibliographique des sciences psychiques
ou occultes, science des Mages, hermétique, astrologie, Kabbale,
Francmaçonnerie, médecine ancienne, mesmérisme, sorcellerie,
singularités, etc._ 3 vols. Paris, 1913.
GRÆSSE, JOHAN GEORG THEODOR. _Bibliotheca magica et pneumatica._ Leipzig,
1843. (In spite of obvious defects a very valuable bibliography.)
YVE-PLESSIS, R. _Bibliographie française de la sorcellerie._ Paris, 1900.
(An immense and exhaustive work on French books.)
AARON THE GREEK [Simon Blocquel]. _La Magie rouge._ Paris, 1821.
ABNER, THEODORE. _Les apparitions du Diable._ Brussels, 1879.
ACONTIUS. _Stratagemata Satanæ._ Libri VIII. Basle, 1565.
_Acta Sanctorum._ Par les Bollandistes. Antwerp, Tongerloo, Brussels,
1644 _sqq._ Reprinted, Paris, 1863 _sqq._
ADHÉMAR DE CHABANNES. _Chronicle_: in _Monumenta Germaniæ historica_. Ed.
G. A. Pertz, etc. Vol. IV.
AGOBARD, S. _Opera omnia._ Migne, _Patrologia latina_. Vol. CIV.
AGRIPPA, HEINRICH CORNELIUS. _La philosophie occulte de Henr. Corn.
Agrippa ... traduite du latin_ [par A. Levasseur]. 2 vols. Hague, 1727.
_Œuvres magiques ... mises en français par Pierre d’Aban._
Rome, 1744. (Of the last rarity. There are other editions,
Liège, 1788; Rome, 1800; Rome, 1744 (_circa_ 1830); but all
these are extremely scarce.)
ALANUS (Alain de Lille). _Aduersus hæreticos et Waldenses._ Ed. J.
Masson. Paris, 1612.
ALANUS, HENRICUS. _Ciceronis de Divinatione et de Fato._ 1839.
ALBERT, LE PETIT. _Alberti Parui Lucii libellus de mirabilibus Naturæ
arcanis._ (This treatise which tells how to confect philtres, make
talismans, use the hand of glory, discover treasures, etc., has been very
frequently translated into French, generally under the running title _Les
secrets merveilleux de la magie naturelle et cabalistique_....)
BL. ALBERTUS MAGNUS, O.P. _Opera omnia._ Ed. Father Peter Jammy, O.P. 21
vols. Lyons, 1651, etc.
_De alchimia._ (This treatise is said to be doubtful.)
_De secretis mulierum._ (This work is certainly not from the
pen of the great Dominican doctor, to whom, however, it was
universally ascribed. There are a vast number of editions, and
translations, especially into French. _Les secretz des femmes
et homes ... stampato in Torino par Pietro Ranot_, N.D. _circa_
1540. _Les secrets admirables du grand Albert._ Paris, 1895.)
_Commentaria._ Lib. IV, dist. 34. _An maleficii impedimento
aliquis potest impediri a potentia cocundi._ (_Nœud de
l’aiguillette._)
ALEXANDER III, POPE. _Epistolæ_ apud _Regesta R. R. Pontificum_. Nos. 10,
584-14, 424. Ed. Jaffé. And Löwenfeld’s _Epistolæ Pontif. Rom. ineditæ_.
Leipzig, 1885.
ALEXIS. _Secreti del reverendo Donno Alessio Piemontese._ Venice, 1555.
(Attributed by Girolamo Muzio to the alchemist Girolamo Ruscelli.)
ALLARD, PAUL. _Histoire des persécutions._ 5 vols. Paris, 1892.
_Julien l’Apostat._ 3 vols. Paris, 1900.
ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, S. _Theologia Moralis._ 9 vols. Malines, 1828. Also
ed. P. Gaudé, C. SS. R. Rome, 1905.
ALVARO, PELAYO. _De Planctu Ecclesiæ._ Venice, 1560.
AMBROISE DA VIGNATE (_c._ 1408). _Tractatus de Hæreticis._ Rome, 1581.
AMBROSE, S. _Opera omnia._ Ed. Paolo Angelo Ballerini. 6 vols. Folio.
Milan, 1875.
ANANIA, GIOVANNI LORENZO. _De Natura Dæmonum._ Apud Vol. II. _Malleus
Maleficarum._ 1669.
_Anonymi Gesta Francorum et Aliorum Hierosolymitanorum._ Oxford.
ANTONELLI, G. PROF. _Lo spiritismo._ _Fede e Scienza_, II. 11, 12. Rome.
ANTONINUS, O. P. S. _Confessionale._ Florence, 1496.
ANTONIO A SPIRITU SANCTO, O.D.C. _Directorium Mysticum._ Paris, 1904.
AREMI (LE SAGE). _Secrets de vieux Druide._ Lille, 1840.
ARETINI, ANGELO. _Tractatus de maleficiis._ 1521.
ARIES, MARTIN. _De superstitionibus maleficorum._ Rome, 1559.
ARIMINENSIS, AUGUSTINUS. _Additiones in Angeli Aretini Tractatum de
maleficiis._ Milan, 1514.
ARNAULD DE VILLENEUVE. _De Maleficiis._ Lyons, 1509.
ARNOULD, ARTHUR. _Histoire de l’Inquisition._ Paris, 1869.
AROUX. _Mystères de la Chevalerie et de l’amour platonique._ 1857-8.
ARPE (PETR. FRID.). _De Prodigiosis Naturæ et Artis Operibus Talismanes
et Amuleta._ Hamburg, 1717.
ATHANASIUS, S. _Opera omnia._ Migne, _Pat. Græci_. Vols. XXIII-XXVIII.
ATWOOD, M. A. _A Suggestive Inquiry into the Hermetic Mystery._
AUGUSTINE, S. _Opera omnia._ Migne, _Pat. Lat._ Vols. XXXIX-XLVII.
_De Ciuitate Dei._ Ed. J. E. C. Welldon, D.D., Dean of Durham.
2 vols. 1924. (The introduction and appendices must be used
with caution.)
_Confessiones._ Ed. P. Knöll. _Corpus Scriptorum Eccl.
Latinorum_ (Vienna.) XXXIII.
D’AUTUN, JACQUES. _L’Incredulité savante._ Lyons, 1674.
D’AVALLON, ANDRÉ, ET CONDIS. _Dictionnaire de droit canonique._
AZPILCEUTA, MARTIN. _Opera omnia._ 3 vols. Lyons, 1589.
BACO, R. _De secretis operibus magiæ._ Paris, 1542.
BACON, ROGER. _Epistola de secretis operibus._ Hamburg, 1608; 1618. (The
same work as _De mirabili potestate artis et naturæ et de nullitate
magiæ_. Paris, 1542; Oxford, 1604; London, 1859.)
BAISSAC, JULES. _Les grands jours de la sorcellerie._ Paris, 1890.
BALLERINI, ANTONIO, S.J. _Opus theologicum morale._ 7 vols. Prati, 1892.
BANG. _Norske Hexeformularer._ Christiania, 1902.
BARONIUS, CESARE VEN. _Annales ecclesiastici._ 38 vols. Lucca, 1738-59.
BARRETT. _Magus or Celestial Intelligencer; Being a complete system of
Occult Philosophy, etc._ 1801.
BASIL, S. _Opera omnia._ Paris, 1839.
BASIN, BERNARDUS. _De artibus magicis._ 1482; and Paris, 1506.
BECANUS, MARTIN, S.J. _Opuscula Theologica sive Controversiæ Fidei inter
Catholicos et Hæreticos hujus temporis._ Duaci, 1634.
BEER, M. _Social Struggles in the Middle Ages._ London, 1924.
BEKKER, BALTHASAR. _De Betoverde Wereld._ 4 vols. Amsterdam, 1691-93.
BENEDICT XIII. _Vita del Sommo Pontefice Benedetto XIII._ Venezia, 1737.
BENEDICT XIV, POPE. _De Beatificatione et Canonizatione._ 9 vols. Rome,
1787.
BENOIST, J., O.P. _Histoire des Albigeoises et des Vaudois._ Paris, 1691.
BERNARD, S. _Opera omnia._ Migne, _Pat. Lat._ CLXXXII-CLXXXV.
BERNARD OF COMO, O.P. _Lucerna inquisitorum hæreticæ prauitatis ... et
eiusdem Tractatus de Strigibus...._ Milan, 1566; Rome, 1584.
BERNARD OF LUXEMBURG, O.P. _Catalogus hæreticorum omnium._ Erfurt, 1522.
BERTAGNA, J. B. _De casuum reseruatione in Sacramento Pœnitentiæ._ Turin,
1868.
BERTHIER, O.P. _L’Étude de la Somme Théologique de S. Thomas d’Aquin._
Paris, 1905. (Appendix III. _Spiritisme et hypnotisme d’après S. Thomas._)
BESTERMAN, THEODORE. _Crystal-Gazing._
BIEL, GABRIEL. _Supplementum in 28 distinctiones ultimas 4ti magistri
sententiarum._ (1486.) Basle, 1520.
BINSFELD, PETER. _De Confessionibus Maleficorum._ Treves, 1589.
BODIN, JEAN. _De la démonomanie des sorciers._ Paris, 1580.
_Le fleav des demons et sorciers._ Nyort, 1616.
BOGUET, HENRY. _Discours des Sorciers._ 3rd ed. Lyons, 1590.
BOISSARDUS, JAN. JAC. _De Diuinatione et Magicis Prasetigiis._
Oppenheimii, 1615.
BONAVENTURA, S. _Opera omnia._ 10 vols. Quaracchi, 1882-1902.
BRAND, J. _Observations on Popular Antiquities._ 2 vols. 1813.
BRETT, G. S. _A History of Psychology._ Vol. I, Ancient and Patristic;
Vol. II, Mediæval and Early Modern; Vol. III, Modern Psychology.
BROGNOLI, O.F.M. _Alexicacon, hoc est de maleficiis._ Venice, 1714.
BRUNUS, CONRADUS. _De hæreticis et schismaticis._ Rome, 1584.
BUDGE, SIR E. A. WALLIS. _Tutankhamen: Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian
Monotheism, with Hieroglyphic Texts of Hymns to Amen and Aten._
_Egyptian Magic._ Third Impression. London, N.D. [1923].
_Bullarium Papæ Benedicti XIV._ Rome, 1746.
BURCHARD, WORMACIENSIS. _Decretum._ Migne, _Pat. Lat._ Vol. CLX.
BURKITT, F. G. _The Religion of the Manichees._ Cambridge, 1925.
BUTLER, ALBAN. _Lives of the Saints._ 1756-9; 2 vols. Dublin, 1833.
BZOVIUS, A. _Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ._ Apud Zilettum, _q.u._
CÆSALPINUS, ANDREAS. _Dæmonum inuestigatio._ Florence, 1580.
CAIETANUS, THOMAS. _De Maleficiis._ 1500.
CALMET, AUGUSTIN DOM, O.S.B. _Traité sur les Apparitions des Esprits, et
sur les Vampires._ 2 vols. Paris, 1751.
CAPPELLO, S.J., FELIX M. _De Censuris._ Rome, 1919.
CARENA. _Tractatus de officio Sanctæ Inquisitionis._ Lyons, 1669.
CASSINIS, SAMUEL DE. _Question de la strie._ 1505.
CAUZ, C. F. DE. _De Cultibus Magicis._ 1771.
CHARLEY, T. _News from the Invisible World._ Wakefield, n.s. (_circa_
1850).
CHRYSOSTOM, S. JOHN. _Opera omnia Græce._ Edidit H. Savile. 8 vols.
Etonæ, 1612.
CHURCHWARD, ALBERT. _The Arcana of Freemasonry._
CIRVELIUS, PETRUS. _De magica superstitione._ 1521.
_Clementis Alexandrini Opera._ 2 vols. Venice, 1757.
_Collectanea Chemica._ (Select Treatises on Alchemy and Hermetic
Medicine.) 1893.
COLLIN DE PLANCY, J. A. S. _Dictionnaire Infernal._ Editio princeps.
2 vols. Paris, 1818. (I have used the sixth, and last, edition, one
vol. Paris, H. Plon. 4to, 1863. The six editions differ widely from one
another. This famous work is valuable, but often uncritical and even
erroneous.)
COLLIUS, FRANCIS. _De Animabus Paganorum._ Milan, 1622.
CONCONIER. _L’âme humaine._ Paris, 1890.
_L’hypnotisme franc._ Paris, 1898.
CONDROCHIUS, BAPTISTA. _De morbis ueneficis ac ueneficiis._ Libri IV.
Venice, 1595.
COUNCELL, R. W. _Apologia Alchymiæ._
CRESPET, PÈRE CELESTINE. _La haine de Sathan contre l’homme._ Paris, 1590.
CROWE, CATHERINE. _The Night Side of Nature._ 2 vols. 1848. (A standard
work; very frequently reprinted.)
CUTHBERT, O.S.F.C., FATHER. _God and the Supernatural._ London, 1920.
DANEAU, LAMBERT. _Les Sorciers._ 1574. There is an English tr. _A
Dialogue of Witches_, 1575. [London?]
DAYNES, GILVBERT W. _The Untrodden Paths of Masonic Research._
DE LANCRE, PIERRE. _Tableau de l’inconstance des mavvais anges et
démons._ Paris, 1612.
_L’incredvlité et mescréance dv sortilège._ Paris, 1622.
_Du Sortilège._ 1627. (This is the rarest of De Lancre’s books, and very
little known.)
DELASSUS, JULES. _Les Incubes et les Succubes._ Paris, 1897.
DELEHAYE, H., S.J. _Légendes Hagiographiques._ Brussels, 1906. Trans. by
Mrs. V. M. Crawford as _The Legends of the Saints_. (_The Westminster
Library._)
DELRIO, MARTIN ANTON, S.J. _Disquisitionum Magicarum Libri Sex._ Louvain,
1599.
_Devil, History of the, Ancient and Modern, with a Description of the
Devil’s Dwellings._ Durham, 1822.
DIANA, R. P. D. ANTONINUS. _Resolutiones morales._ Lyons, 1633.
DIDRON, M. _Iconographie chrétienne. Histoire de Dieu._ Paris, 1843. Eng.
tr. 2 vols, by E. J. Millington. London, 1851. Bohn’s Library.
DOBBINS, F. S. _False Gods, or the Idol Worship of the World._ Boston,
_circa_ 1870.
DORAT, S.J., JOSEPH. _Psychologia._ Vol. VI of _Summa Philosophiæ
Christianæ_. 8 vols. Rome.
DRAGO, LUIGI VINCENZO. _Il materialismo e il dogma._ _Fede e Scienza._
IV, 40 Rome.
DULAURE, J. A. _Des Cultes qui ont précédé et amené l’idolâtrie._ 1805.
_Des Divinités Génératrices._ Paris, 1805.
DU PREL, CARL. Tr. C. C. Massey. _The Philosophy of Mysticism._ 2 vols.
London, 1889.
ELICH, PHILIP LUDWIG. _Dæmonomagia, siue de dæmonis cacurgia._ Frankfort,
1607.
ENNEMOSER, JOSEPH. _The History of Magic._ 2 vols. London, 1854.
ERASTUS, THOMAS. _De lamiis seu strigibus._ Basle, 1577.
_Errores Gazariorum seu illorum qui scobam uel baculum equitare
probantur._ 1450.
EVENIUS, SIGISMUND. _Dissertatio physica de magia._ 1512.
EWICK, JOHN. _De sagorum quos uulgo ueneficos appellant natura._ Bremen,
1584.
EYMERIC, O.P., NICHOLAS. _Directorium Inquisitorum._ Rome, 1585; Venice,
1607.
FERRERES, S.J., I. B. _Theologia Moralis._ 11th ed. Rome, 1921.
FRANZELIN, S.J., CARDINAL I.B. _De Deo Uno._ Rome.
FRAZER, SIR JAMES. _Folk-Lore in the Old Testament._ London, 1923.
FREDERICQ, DR. PAUL. _Corpus documentorum Inquisitionis hæreticæ
prauitatis neerlandicæ._ 5 vols. Ghent, 1889 _sqq_.
_Geschiednes der Inquisitie de Neerlanden tot aen hare
herinrichting onder Keizer Karel V_ (1025-1520). Ghent, 1892
_sqq._
FREUD, SIGISMUND. _Totem and Taboo. Resemblances between the Psychic
Lives of Savages and Neurotics._ London, 1919.
GAFFARELLUS, JAC. _Curiositates Inauditæ._ Hamburg, 1706.
GAMS, PIUS BONIFACIUS, O.S.B. _Die Kirchengeschichte von Spanien._ 5
vols. Regensburg, 1862.
GARRIGON-LEGRANGE, O.P., REGINALD. _De Reuelatione._ 2nd ed. 1921.
GAYA, LOUIS DE. _Cérémonies nuptiales de toutes les nations._ Paris, 1680.
GEBHART, EMILE. _L’Italie mystique._ Paris, 1893.
GEILER, JOHANN. _Die Emeis. Dies ist das Buch von der Omeissen._ 1516.
GEMELLI, O.F.M., AGOSTINO. _Psicologia e Biologia._ Rome, 1920.
_Non Moechaberis._ Milan, 1923.
GERBERT. _Epistolæ._ Migne. _Pat. Lat._ Vol. CXXXIX.
GERUASIUS OF TILBURY. _Otia imperialia._ Written _circa_ 1214.
GIESSLER, J. C. L. _Ecclesiastical History._ Eng. tr. 1853.
GILLY, WILLIAM STEPHEN. _Narrative of Researches among the Vaudois._
London, 1824.
GIUSTINIANUS, BERNARDUS. _Historia Generale della Monarchia Spagnuola
Antica, e Moderna._ Venezia, 1674.
GODELMANN, JOHAN GEORG. _Disputatio de Magis_. Frankfort, 1584.
_Tractatus de Magis._ 1591.
GODWIN, WILLIAM. _Lives of the Necromancers._ London, 1834.
GÖRRES, JOHANN JOSEPH. _Die christliche Mystik._ 4 vols. 1836-42. French
translation: _La Mystique Divine, Naturelle, et Diabolique_.... 5 vols.
Paris, 1861.
GOUGENOT DES MOUSSEAUX, HENRI ROGER.
_Dieu et les Dieux._ Paris, 1854.
_Mœurs et pratiques des Démons._ Paris, 1854.
_La magie au dix-neuvième siècle._ Paris, 1860.
_Les médiateurs et les moyens de la magie._ Paris, 1863.
_Les hauts phénomènes de la magie._ Paris, 1864.
(Vampires; the Incubus and the Succubus.)
GOUJET, ABBÉ. _Histoire des inquisitions._ 2 vols. Cologne, 1759.
GREGOROVIUS, FERDINAND. _Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittlealter._ 7
vols. 5th ed. Stuttgard and Berlin, 1903 _sqq._
GREGORY VII, POPE S. _Epistolarum libri_ apud Mansi _Sacrorum conciliorum
nona ... collectio_. Florence, 1759. Also _S. Gregorii VII epistolæ et
diplomata_. Ed. Horoy. Paris, 1877.
GREGORY XV, POPE. _Gesta Pontificum Romanorum._ Venice, 1688. IV, 522-36.
GREGORY THE GREAT, POPE S. _Opera omnia._ Ed. J. B. Gallicoli. 17 vols.
Venice, 1765-76. Reprinted by Migne. _Pat. Lat._ LXXV-LXXIX.
GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, S. _Opera omnia._ Paris, 1609-11. Migne. _Pat. Gr._
4 vols. XXXV-XXXVIII.
GREGORY OF TOURS, S. _Scriptores Rerum Merouinginarum apud monumenta
Germaniæ historica._ I, Pt. I, pp. 1-30. 1884-5.
GRILLANDUS, PAULUS. _De sortilegiis._ Lyons, 1533.
GUAITA, STANISLAS DE. _Essais de sciences maudites._ Paris and Brussels,
1886.
GUAZZO, FRANCESCO MARIA, AMBROSIAN. _Compendium Maleficarum._ Milan,
1608. (One of the most valuable of the earlier writers.)
GUI, BERNARD. _Practica Inquisitionis hæreticæ prauitatis._ Ed. Mgr. C.
Douais. Paris, 1886.
GURY, S.J., I. P. _Theologia moralis._ 15th ed. Rome, 1907. Cum
supplemento, Acta et Decreta nouissima. 2 vols. Rome, 1915.
HALES, ALEXANDER OF. _Summa uniuersæ theologiæ._ Cologne, 1622.
HANSEN, J. _Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Hexenwahns._
Bonn, 1901.
HARTMANN, FRANZ. _The Life of Phillippus Theophrastus Bombast, of
Hohenheim, known by the name of Paracelsus, and the Substance of his
Teachings. Magic, White and Black._
HASKINS, CHARLES HOMER. _Studies in the History of Mediæval Science._
London, 1924.
HAUBER, E. D. _Bibliotheca magica et scripta magica._ 1738-45.
HAURÉAU, B. _Histoire de la Philosophie Scolastique._ Paris, 1880.
HECKETHORN, CHARLES WILLIAM. _Secret Societies of All Ages and
Countries._ 2 vols. London, 1897.
HEDELIN, FRANÇOIS. _Des Satyres, Brutes, Monstres et Demons._ Paris,
1627. Reprinted, Liseux, 1888.
HEINER, FREDERICH. _De Processu Criminali Ecclesiastico._ Rome, 1920.
HEISTERBACH, CÆSARIUS. _Dialogus Miraculorum._ _Circa_ 1225. Reprints,
1861, 1901.
HERRMANN. _Institutiones Theologiæ Dogmaticæ._ 2 vols. Rome, 1914.
HETZENAUER, O.M.C., MICHAEL. _Commentarius in librum Genesis._ Rome, 1910.
HILDEBERT, S. _Opera omnia._ Paris, 1708.
HINCMAR. _Opera omnia._ Migne, _Pat. Lat._ Vols. CXXV, CXXVI.
HOCHSTRATEN, JACOB VON. _Quam grauiter peccent quærentes auxilium a
maleficiis._ 1510.
HOFFMANN, FRIDOLIN. _Geschichte des Inquisition._ 2 vols. Bonn, 1878.
HOLMES, EDMOND. _The Albigensian or Catharist Heresy._ London, 1925.
(A truly amazing defence of the Albigensians. The author has
completely misunderstood their heresies.)
HOWEY, M. OLDFIELD. _The Horse in Magic and Myth._ London, 1923.
HUEBER. _Menologium S. Francisci._ Munich, 1608.
HUGON, R. P. _De Deo Uno et Trino._ 2 vols. Rome.
_Inquisition._ _Orden que Comunmente se Guarda en el Santo Oficio de la
Inquisition._ Valencia, 1736. (Contains all the forms and procedure of
the Holy Office.)
IVES, GEORGE. _A History of Penal Methods._ 1914. Chapter II: “The Witch
Trials.” (The whole volume is valuable.)
JACOLLIOT, LOUIS. _Occult Science in India and among the Ancients._
JACQUERIUS, NICOLAS. _Flagellum Dæmonum Fascinariorum._ 1458.
JADEROSA, FEDERICO. _Theologia Moralis._ Rome, 1922.
JAUER, NICOLAUS VON. _Tractatus de superstitionibus._ 1405.
JENNINGS, HARGRAVE. _The Rosicrucians: their Rites and Mysteries._
JORDANUS DE BERGAMO. _Quæstio de strigis._ 1476. MS. 3446. Bibliothèque
nationale, Paris.
KELLY, EDWARD. _The Alchemical Writings of Edward Kelly._ Trans. from the
Hamburg Edition of 1676. 1893.
KHUNRATH, H. _Amphitheatrum Sapientiæ Æternæ Solius Veræ,
Christiano-Kabalisticum, Diuino-Magicum, nec non Physico-Chymicum,
Tertriunum, Catholicon._ Hanover, 1609.
KRAKEWITZ VON, ALBERT JOACHIM. _De theologia dæmonum._ Wittenberg, 1715.
KRONE. _Fra Dolcino und die Patarerer._ Leipzig, 1844.
LAURENT-NAGOUR. _Occultismus und Liebe_, 1903.
LAVATER, LOYS. _De spectris, lemuribus, etc._ Geneva, 1570.
LEA, HENRY CHARLES. _History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages._ New
York, 1887; London, 1888; and 3 vols., 1906.
_Superstition and Force._ Philadelphia, 1866. 3rd ed., 1878;
4th ed., 1892.
_Studies in Church History._ Philadelphia, 1869.
_History of the Inquisition in Spain._ 4 vols. London, 1906-7.
_The Inquisition in the Spanish Dependencies._ New York, 1908.
(The works of Henry Charles Lea, lengthy and laborious as they
are, must be used with the utmost caution and need continually
to be corrected. They are insecure, and bitterly biased, since
even when facts are not widely distorted a wrong interpretation
is inevitably placed upon them. Their value and merit can but
be regarded as fundamentally shaken. The following criticism
will be found useful: Paul Maria Baumgarten: _Die Werke von
Henry Charles Lea und verwandte Bücher_, 1908. Eng. tr.: _H. C.
Lea’s Historical Writings: A critical inquiry into their method
and merit_. 1909.)
LEE, FREDERICK GEORGE, D.D. _The Other World._ 2 vols. London, 1875.
_More Glimpses of the World Unseen._ 1878.
_Glimpses in the Twilight._ 1885.
_Sights and Shadows._ 1894.
(Scholarly and valuable works.)
LEHMANN. _Aberglaube._ 2nd ed. 1908.
LEHMKUHL, S.J., AUG. _Casus conscientiæ._ 2 vols. Rome, 1913.
LE LOYER, PIERRE. _Discours et histoires des spectres._ Paris, 1605.
LÉVI, ELIPHAS (ALPHONSE LOUIS CONSTANT). _The History of Magic._ Trans.
by Arthur Edward Waite. 1922.
_The Paradoxes of the Highest Science._ (Footnotes by a Master of the
Wisdom.)
_Transcendental Magic._ (Translated, annotated, and introduced by Arthur
Edward Waite.)
LEYSER, AUGUST. _De crimine magiæ._ Wittenberg, 1737.
LICOSTHENES, CONRAD. _De prodigiis et ostentis._ 1557.
LOCATI, UMBERTO. _Opus iudiciale inquisitorum._ Rome, 1572.
LOMBARD, PETER. _Quatuor Libri Sententiarium._ Printed 1472. Paris, 1892.
(Best edition is that found in the Commentary of S. Bonaventura. _Opera
S. Bonauenturæ._ Quaracchi, 1885, I-IV.)
LOMEIER, J. _Epimenides sive De Ueterum Gentilium Lustrationibus
Syntagma._ Zutphen, 1700.
LOTTINI, O.P., GIOVANNI. _Compendium Philosophiæ Scholasticæ._ 3 vols.
Rome, 1912.
LUANCO, J. RAMÓN DE. _Ramón Lull considerado come Alquimista._ Barcelona,
1870.
LULL, BL. RAMÓN. _Opera omnia._ 10 vols. Mainz, 1721-42.
MACKAY, CHARLES. _Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions._ 2 vols.
London, 1852. (Must be used with caution, very frequently reprinted.)
MADDEN, R. R. _Phantasmata._ 2 vols. 1857.
MAIER, M. _Themis Aurea_ (on the Rosicrucians). Frankfurt, 1618.
MAMOR, PIETRO. _Flagellum maleficorum._ _Circa_ 1462.
MANGETUS. _Bibliotheca Chemico Curiosa._ 1702.
MARÉCHAUX, O.S.B., BERNARD-MARIE. _La Réalité des Apparitions
Angéliques._ Paris, 1901.
MARCHESE. _Diario Domenicano._ Naples, 1668-81.
MARTINDALE, C. C., S.J. _Antichrist._ C.T.S. (Do. 83).
_Theosophy._
MAURITIUS, E. _De denunciatione sagarum._ Tubingen, 1664.
MAYER, J. B. _Ancient Philosophy._ Cambridge, 1895.
MAYO, HERBERT. _On the Truths contained in Popular Superstitions._
Edinburgh, 1851.
MAZZARA. _Leggendario francescano._ Venice, 1721.
MAZZELLA, HOR. _Prælectiones Scholastico-Dogmaticæ._ 4 vols. Rome.
MAZZOLINI (MOZOLINI, PRIERIAS), O.P., SYLVESTER. _De strigimagorum libri
III._ Rome, 1521.
MECHLINIA, JOHANNES DE. _Utrum perfecta dei opera possint impediri
dæmonis malicia._ _Circa_ 1450.
MEMMINGIUS, NICOLAS. _Admonitio de superstitionibus magicis uitandis._
_s.l._ 1575.
MENANT, JOACHIM. _Les Yezidiz. Episodes de l’histoire des adorateurs du
Diable._ Paris, 1892.
MENGO, GIROLAMO, CAPUCHIN. _Flagellum Dæmonum._ Bologna, 1578.
_Euersio dæmonum e corporibus oppressis._ Bologna, 1588.
_Fustis dæmonum._ Bologna, 1589.
_Menologium Cisterciense._
MERCER, REV. J. E. _Alchemy: its Science and Romance._
MERIC, MGR. _L’Autre vie._ 13 ed. Paris, 1919.
_L’Imagination et les Prodigues._ Paris, 1918.
_Revue de Monde Invisible._ Edited by Mgr. Meric. 1909—in
continuation.
MICHELET, JULES. _La sorcière._ Paris, 1862. (This original edition is of
the last rarity. Reprinted 1862.)
MIRANDOLA, G. P. P. DELLA. _Strix siue de ludificatione dæmonum._ 1523.
MOLITOR, ULRICH. _De lamiis et phitonicis mulieribus, teutonice unholden
uel hexen._ 1489.
MOREAU, PAUL. _Des Aberrations du Sens Génésique._ 4th ed. 1887.
MOSHEIM, J. J. VON. _Institutes of Ecclesiasticæ History._ Eng. tr. 2nd
ed. 1850.
MURNER, O.M., THOMAS. _De phitonico contractu._ 1499.
MURRAY, MARGARET ALICE. _The Witch-Cult in Western Europe._ Oxford, 1921.
NAUDÉ, GABRIEL. _Apologie pour tous les grands hommes qui ont esté
faussement soupconnez de magie._ Paris, 1625.
NEALE, REV. JOHN MASON. _The Unseen World._ 1847.
NEVIUS, REV. JOHN L. _Demon Possession and Allied Themes._ New York, 1893.
NIDER, JOHAN, O.P. _Formicarius._ 5 vols. Douai, 1602.
_Occult Review, The._ (In continuation.)
PAPUS (pseud, of Gérard Encausse). _Absolute Key to Occult Science: The
Tarot of the Bohemians._ Trans. by A. P. Morton. 1896.
PARACELSUS (Aureolus Philippus, i.e. Theophrastus Bombast von Hohenheim).
_Philosophy Reformed and Improved._ Made English by H. Pinnell. 2 vols.
1657.
PARAMO, LUDOVICO À. _De origine et progressu officii Sanctæ
Inquisitionis._ Madrid, 1598.
PASCH, G. _De operationibus Dæmonum duo problemata curiosa utrum possint
generare et utrum homines in bestias transformari._ 1684.
—— PATRICIUS, FR. _Magia Philosophica._ Hamburg, 1593.
PEEBLES, J. M. _The Demonism of the Ages._ Battle Creek, Mich., 1904.
PEÑA, FRANCESCO. _Inquirendorum hæreticorum lucerna._ Rome, 1572.
PERRY, W. J. _The Origin of Magic and Religion._
PEUCER, CASPAR. _Commentarius De Præcipuis Generibus Diuinationum._
Witenberga, 1560.
PIGNATARO, F. S. J. _De Disciplina Pœnitentiali._
PONS, VINCENT. _De potentia Dæmonum._ Aquis Sextiis, 1613.
PONZINIBIO, FRANCESCO. _De lamiis._ Apud _Thesaurus iurisconsultorum_.
Venice, 1584.
PRUMMER, O.P., DOMINIC. _Manuale Theologiæ Moralis secundum principia S.
Thomæ Aquinatis._ 3 vols. Rome, 1915.
PRYCE, F. N. _The Fame and Confession of the Fraternity of R. C.,
commonly of the Rosie Cross._ London, 1652.
QUÉTIF-ECHARD. _Scriptores Ordinis Prædicatorum._ 2 vols. Paris, 1719.
RAMUS, S.J., LE PÈRE MARIE. _La Dévotion à Sainte Anne._ Lyons, 1888.
REDGROVE, H. STANLEY. _Alchemy, Ancient and Modern._
REGINO, ABBOT OF PRÜM. _Libri duo de synodalibus causis._ Migne. _Pat.
Lat._ Vol. CXXXII.
REMY, NICOLAS (Remigius). _Dæmonolatriæ libri tres._ Lyons, 1595.
_Repertorium penitile de prauitate hæreticorum._ 1494.
RÉVILLE, A. _The Devil._ London, 1871.
RIBADENEIRA, S.J., PEDRO. _Uita Ignatii._ Naples, 1572.
RIBET, M. J. _La Mystique Divine._ 4 vols. Paris, 1895.
RICARDUS, ANGENTNUS. _De præstigiis et incantationibus dæmonum._ Basle,
1568.
RICHALMUS, B. (Reichhelm). _Liber de Insidiis Dæmonum._ _Circa_ 1270.
RÖMER, WILHELM. _Die Hexenbulle des Papster Innocenz VIII._ Schaffhausen,
1889.
ROSKOFF, GUSTAV. _Geschichte des Teufels._ 2 vols. Leipzig, 1859.
ROYAS, À J. _De Hæreticis._ Apud Zilettum, _q.u._
SABETTI, ALOYSIUS, S.J. _Compendium Theologiæ Moralis._ Ed. Uicesima
Quinta. Recog. a Timotheo Barrett, S.J. 1916. (Tractatus VI. 2. _De
Uitiis Religioni Oppositis._ 3. _De Diuinatione._ 4. _De Magia et
maleficio._)
SAINT-HEBIN, ALEXANDRE. _Du culte de Satan._ Paris, 1867.
SBARALEA. _Bullarium Franciscanum._ 5 vols. Rome, 1759 sqq.
SCHELTEMA, JACOBUS. _Geschiedenis der Heksenprocessen, eene bijdrage tot
den roem des vaderlands._ Haarlem, 1828.
SCHERARTZ, SIGISMUND. _Libellus de spectris._ Wittenberg, 1620.
SCHMIDT. _Histoire et Doctrine de la secte des Cathares ou Albigeois._
Paris, 1849.
SCHRAM, DOMINIC, O.S.B. _Institutiones Theologiæ Mysticæ._ 2 vols.
Ausburg, 1774. (A most valuable work.)
SCHWAB, J. B. _Jean Gerson._ Würzburg, 1858.
SCOTUS, DUNS. _Opera omnia._ 12 vols. Ed. Wadding. Lyons, 1639. Reprint,
26 vols. (Vives) Paris, 1891-95.
SIMANCAS. _De Catholicis Institutionibus._ Apud Zilettum, _q.u._
SINISTRARI, O.M., LUDOVICO MARIA. _Opera omnia._ Rome. 3 vols. 1753-4.
_De Dæmonialitate._ First published by Liseux. Paris, 1875.
Eng. tr. _Demonality, or Incubi and Succubi._ Paris, 1879.
SOCINUS, MARIANUS. _De sortilegiis._ _Circa_ 1465.
SOLE, JACOBUS. _De Delictis et Pœnis._ Rome, 1920.
SPEE, S.J., FREDERICK. _Cautio criminalis._ 1631. Cologne, 1632.
SPENCE, LEWIS. _An Encyclopedia of Occultism: a Compendium of Information
on the Occult Sciences, Occult Personalities, Psychic Sciences, Magic,
Demonology, Spiritism, and Mysticism._ London, 1920.
_Spicilegium dæmonolatriæ._ _Circa_ 1330.
SPINA, BARTOLOMEO, O.P. _Tractatus de Strigibus et Lamiis._ Venice, 1523.
SPRENGER, O.P., JAMES and KRAMER (Institor), HEINRICH. (_Editio
princeps_) _Malleus Maleficarum_. Nuremburg, 1494 and 1496. Cologne,
1489 and 1494. Frankfort, 1582. Cologne, 1511 and 1520. Lyons, 1595
and (a fuller edition) 1620. (There are several other issues.) Of this
authoritative work I have used the Lyons edition.
_Sumptibus Claudii Bovrgeat._ 4 vols. 1669, which contains the following
valuable collections:—
Vol. I.
NIDER, O.P., JOHN. _Formicarius de maleficiis._
SPRENGER and KRAMER. _Malleus Maleficarum._
Vol. II.
ANANIA, GIOVANNI LORENZO. _De Natura Dæmonum._
BASIN, BERNARD. _De Artibus magicis._
BERNARD OF COMO, O.P. _De Strigibus._ (With the annotations of Francesco
Peña.)
CASTRO, O.M., ALFONSO À. _De impia Sortilegarum hæresi._
DE VIGNATE, AMBROSE. _Quæstio de Lamiis._ (With a commentary by Peña.)
GERSON, JOHN. _De Probatione Spirituum. De erroribus circa artem magicam
reprobatis._
GRILLAND, PAUL. _De Sortilegiis._
LEONE, GIOVANNI FRANCESCO. _De Sortilegiis._
MOLITOR, ULRICH. _De Pythonicis mulieribus._
MURNER, O.M., THOMAS. _De Pythonico Contractu._
SIMANCAS, IAGO. _De Lamiis._
SPINA, O.P., BARTOLOMEO. _De Strigibus._
_In Ponzinibium de Lamiis Apolegia._
Vol. III
GORICHEN, HEINRICH DE. _De superstitioris quibusdam casibus._
MAMOR, PIETRO. _Flagellum maleficorum._
MENGO, GIROLAMO, CAPUCHIN. _Flagellum Dæmonum._
_Fustis Dæmonum._
STAMPA, PIETRO ANTONIO. _Fuga Satanæ._
Vol. IV.
_Ars exorcistica tribus partibus._
(It is hardly possible to overestimate the value of this collection.)
STEAD, W. T. _Real Ghost Stories._ Reprinted from “The Review of
Reviews,” 1891-2. London, 1897.
STEINER, RUDOLF. _Les Mystères antiques et le Mystère chrétien._ Paris,
1920.
STENGESIUS, G. _De Monstris et Monstrosis._ 1647 (?).
STRIDTHECKH, CHRISTIAN. _De Sagis, siue Fœminis, commercium cum Malo
Spiritu habentibus._ Leipzig, 1691.
SUTTER, PAUL ABBÉ. _Lucifer._ Tr. by the Rev. Theophilus Borer. London,
1922.
TAGEREAU, VINCENT. _Discours sur l’impuissance de l’homme et de la
femme._ Paris, 1612.
TAILLEPIED, FRÈRE NOEL. _Psichologie, ou traité de l’apparition des
Esprits._ Paris, 1588; and many other eds.
TARREGA, RAIMUNDUS. _De inuocatione dæmonum._ _Circa_ 1370.
TARTAROTTI, GIROLAMO. _Del Congresso Notturno delle Lammie._ Rovereto,
1749.
TAXIL, JEAN. _Traicté de l’Epilepsie._ Lyons, 1602. C. XVII (pp. 150-162)
treats of demoniacs, sorcerers, and possession.
THEATINUS, JOHANN BAPISTA. _Aduersus artem magicam et striges._ _Circa_
1510.
_Theatrum Diabolorum._ 1587.
S. THOMAS AQUINAS. _Opera omnia iussu edita Leonis XIII., P.M._ The
Leonine edition.
THUMMIUS, THEODORE. _De Sagarum impictate._ Tubingen, 2nd ed., 1666.
TINCTOR, JOHANNES. _Sermo de secta Uaudensium._ 1460.
TOMASETTI. Ed. _Bullarium ... Romanorum Pontificum._ 22 vols. Turin,
1857, etc.; and Naples, 1867-85.
TRIEZ, ROBERT DU. _Les ruses, finesses, et impostures des Esprits
malins._ Cambrai, 1563.
TRITHEMIUS, JOHANNES. _Liber Octo quæstionum._ 1508.
_Antipalus Maleficiorum._ 1508.
TUBERVILLE, A. S. _Mediæval Heresy and the Inquisition._ London, 1920.
UGOLINI, ZANCHINO. _De Hæreticis._ Apud Zilettum, _q.u._
ULRICHS, K. H. _Incubus, Urningsliebe, und Blutgier._ Leipzig, 1869.
ULYSSE, ROBERT. _Les signes d’infamie au Moyen Age._ Paris, 1891.
URSTISIUS. _Germanicæ historiæ scriptores._ Frankfort, 1585.
VAIR, LEONARD. _Trois livres des charmes, sorceleges, ov enchantments....
Faits en latin par Leonard Vair et mis en Francois par Iulian Bavdon,
Angeuin._ Paris, 1583.
DE VALLE DE MOURA. _De incantationibus._ 1620.
VALOIS, N. _La France et le Grand Schisme d’Orient._ Paris, 1896-1902
VAUGHAN, THOMAS (Eugenius Philalethes). _Magical Writings of Thomas
Vaughan._ Edited by Arthur Edward Waite. 1888.
_Veritable Dragon Rouge ou il est traite de l’Art de commander les
esprits infernaux aeriens et terrestres, faire apparaitre les morts ...
plus La Poule Noire._ Sur l’Edition de 1521 [_circa_ 1900].
VERPOORTEN, G. P. _De Dæmonum existentia._ 1779.
VICECOMES, GIROLAMO. _Lamiarum siue striarum opusculum._ 1460, printed
1490.
VILLALPANDO, FRANCISCO TORREBLANCA. _Dæmonologia sive de Magia Naturali,
Dæmoniaca, licitia, et illicita._ Mainz, 1603.
VINCENTIUS, JOANNES. _Liber aduersus magicas artes et eos qui dicunt
eisdem nullam inesse efficaciam._ _Circa_ 1475.
VINETUS, JOANNES. _Tractatus contra dæmonum inuocatores._ _Circa_ 1450.
Printed 1480.
VIVET, O.P., JOHN. _Tractatus contra dæmonum inuocatores._ (_Sine l. et
d._) Black letter.
WAITE, ARTHUR EDWARD. _Book of Black Magic, and of Pacts, including the
Rites and Mysteries of Goëtic Theurgy, Sorcery, and Infernal Necromancy._
1898.
_Mysteries of Magic._ A Digest of the Writings of Eliphas Lévi.
1886.
_The Occult Sciences._ 1891.
_The Real History of the Rosicrucians._ 1887
_Studies in Mysticism._ 1906.
WAKE, C. S. _Serpent Worship._ 1888.
WARD, J. S. M. _Freemasonry and the Ancient Gods._
WEYER, JOHAN (Wierus). _De præstigiis dæmonum et incantationibus et
uenificiis._ Basle, 1563. _De Lamiis_ and _Pseudo-monarchia Dæmonum_ are
appended to the ed. of 1577.
WRIGHT, DUDLEY. _Druidism._ London, 1924.
_The Eleusinian Mysteries and Rites._
_Masonic Legend and Tradition._
_Vampires and Vampirism._ 2nd ed. London, 1925.
WRIGHT, THOMAS. _Narratives of Sorcery and Magic._ 2 vols. 1851.
WULF, M. DE. _History of Mediæval Philosophy._ Eng. tr. 1909.
WÜNSCHELBURG, JOHANNES. _Tractatus de superstitionibus._ _Circa_ 1440.
ZANCHERIUS, UGOLINI. _Tractatus de hæreticis._ Mantua, 1567. Rome, 1579.
ZILETTUS. _Tractatus Uniuersi iuris._ Venice, 1633.
SCRIPTURAL AND ORIENTAL
BAUDISSEN, GRAFEN WOLF WILHELM. _Studien zur semitischen
Religionsgeschichte._ 2 vols. Leipzig, 1876 and 1878.
BOCHARTUS, SAM. _Hierozoicon._ Ed. Tert. Lugd. et Traj., 1682.
BOUSSET, W. _The Antichrist Legend._ Trans, by A. H. Keane. London, 1896.
BRECHER. _Das transcendentale Magie und magische Heilarten im Talmud._
Wien, 1850.
BRINTON, D. G. _Religions of Primitive Peoples._ London and New York,
1897.
CHARLES, R. H. _The Book of Enoch._ Oxford, 1893.
CONSTANS. _Relation sur une epidemie d’hystero-demonopathie._ Paris, 1863.
CORNILL, CARL HEINRICH. _The Culture of Ancient Israel._
CROOK, W. _Folklore of Northern India._ 2 vols. 2nd ed. London, 1896.
DAVIES, T. WITTON. _Magic, Divination and Demonology._ London, 1898.
(This work should be used with reserve.)
DENNYS, B. N. _The Folklore of China._ London, 1876.
EDERSHEIM, ALFRED. _Life and Times of the Messiah._ London, 1888.
GINSBERG. _The Kabbalah._ London, 1865. Reprinted, 1925.
GRANGER, F. _The Worship of the Romans._ London, 1895.
GRANT, JAMES. _The Mysteries of all Nations._ Leith, 1880.
HILLEBRANDT. _Ritualliteratur. Vedische Opfer und Zauber._ Strasburg,
1897.
HUGHES, T. P. _Dictionary of Islam._ London, 1885.
HUMMELAUR DE, S. J. _Commentarius in libros Samuel._ (_I et II Regum._)
Rome.
KING, J. _Babylonian Magic and Sorcery._ London, 1896.
KOHUT, A. _Jüdische Angel. und Dämonologie._ Leipzig, 1866.
LENORMANT, F. _Chaldean Magic._ London, 1877.
_Divination, et la science des presages._ Paris, 1875.
LESÊTRE. _Dictionnaire de la Bible._ (Sub uoce _Demoniaques_.)
MARTIGNY. _Dictionnaire des antiquités chrétiennes_ (p. 312). Paris, 1877.
MASPERO. _Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient._
MEINERS, PROF. _Geschichte aller Religionen._ 2 vols. 1806.
MICHAELIS, J. D. _Commentaries on the Laws of Moses._ From the German. 4
vols. London, 1814.
PAUVERT. _La vie de N. S. Jésus-Christ._
PERRONE, S.J., GIOVANNI. _De Deo creatore._ Pt. I, c. v, prop. 1, 11.
PICK, BERNHARD. _The Cabala._
SCHENKEL, D. _Bibel-Lexicon._
SCHRADER. _Die Keilinschriften u. d. alte Testament._ 2nd ed. Geissen,
1883.
SMIT, J. _De Demoniacis in Historia Evangelica Dissertatio Exegetico
Apologetica._ Romæ, 1913.
SPENCER. _De Legibus Hebræorum ritualibus earumque rationibus._ Ed. C. M.
Pfaff. 2 vols. Tubingæ, 1732.
STEHELIN, J. P. _Traditions of the Jews._ 2 vols. London, 1743.
STRAENE, A. W. _A Translation of the Treatise Chagigah, from the
Babylonian Talmud._ Cambridge, 1891.
TERTULLIAN. _Apologia._ Migne, _Pat. Lat. I_.
TIELE, C. P. _Geschichte der Religion im Alterthum._ Vol. I. Gotha, 1896.
VIGOUROUX. _Les livres saints et la critique rationaliste._ Paris, 1891.
TORREBLANCA. _De Magia._ Ed. novissima. Lugduni, 1678.
WAFFELAERT. _Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique._ Paris,
1889. (Sub uoce Possession diabolique.)
WEBER, TERD. VON. _Jüdische Theologie._ 2te verbesserte Auflage. Leipzig,
1897.
WIEDEMANN, ALFRED. _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians._ London, 1897.
ZIMMERN. _Die Beschwörungstafeln Surpu._ Leipzig, 1896.
ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND
_Abbotsford Club Miscellany._ Vol. I. Edinburgh, 1837.
ADY, THOMAS. _A Candle in the Dark._ London, 1656.
ARNOT, HUGO. _Criminal Trials._ Edinburgh, 1785.
ASHTON, JOHN. _The Devil in Britain and America._ London, 1896.
BAXTER, RICHARD. _Certainty of the World of Spirits._ London, 1691.
BEAUMONT, JOHN. _Historical Treatise of Spirits._ London, 1705.
BEDE, VEN. _Ecclesiastical History_ (ed. Giles). London, 1843.
BERNARD, RICHARD. _Guide to Grand-Iury men._ London, 1627.
BLACK, G. F. _Scottish Antiquary_, Vol. IX. Edinburgh, 1895.
_Blackwood’s Magazine_, Vol. I. Edinburgh, 1817.
BOULTON, R. _Compleat History of Magick, Sorcery and Witchcraft._ 2 vols.
London, 1715.
BOVETT, R. _Pandæmonium._ London, 1658.
BRAND, JOHN. _History and Antiquities of ... Newcastle._ London, 1789.
BROMHALL, THOMAS. _Treatise of Spectres._ London, 1658.
BURNS, BEGG. _Proceedings of Soc. of Antiquaries of Scotland._ New
Series. Vol. X. Edinburgh.
BURTON, JOHN HILL. _Criminal Trials._ London, 1852.
BUTLER, SAMUEL. _Hudibras._ (Ed. Zachary Grey.) 2 vols. Cambridge, 1744.
_Calendar of State Papers. Domestic._ 1584. London, 1865.
_Camden Society. Lady Alice Kyteler._ London, 1843.
COOPER, THOMAS. _Mystery of Witchcraft._ London, 1617.
_Pleasant Treatise of Witches._ London, 1673.
COTTA, JOHN. _Infallible, true and assured Witch._ London, 1625.
_Trial of Witchcraft._ London, 1616.
_County Folklore_, III. London, 1901.
DALYELL, JOHN GRAHAME. _Darker Superstitions of Scotland._ Edinburgh,
1834.
DAVENPORT, JOHN. _Witches of Huntingdon._ London, 1646.
DAVIES, J. CEREDIG. _Welsh Folklore._ Aberystwith, 1911.
_Denham Tracts._ London, 1895.
DRAGE, W. _A Physical Nosonomy ... with Daimonomagia._ 1665.
FAIRFAX, EDWARD. _Demonologia_ (ed. W. Grainge). Harrogate, 1882.
FORBES, WILLIAM. _Institutes of the Law of Scotland._ Edinburgh, 1722-30.
FOSTER. _Tryall of Ann Foster._ Northampton, 1881.
FOUNTAINHALL, LORD. _Decisions._ Edinburgh, 1759.
FULLER, THOMAS. _Church History of Britain._ London, 1655. And edition of
J. S. Brewer. Oxford, 1845.
GARDINER, RALPH. _England’s Grievance Discovered._ London, 1655.
GAULE, JOHN. _Select cases of Conscience._ London, 1646.
GERISH, WILLIAM BLYTH. _Relation of Mary Hall of Gadsden._ 1912.
_The Divel’s Delusions._ Bishops Stortford, 1914.
_The Severall Practices of Johane Harrison._ 1909.
GIBBONS, A. _Ely Episcopal Records._ Lincoln, 1891.
GIFFARD, GEORGE. _Discourse of the subtill Practices of Devilles._
London, 1587.
_Dialogue concerning Witches_, _Percy Society_, VIII. London,
1843.
GILBERT, WILLIAM. _Witchcraft in Essex._ London, 1909.
GLANVILL, JOSEPH. _Sadducismus Triumphatus._ London, 1681.
GOLDSMID, E. _Confessions of Witches under Torture._ Edinburgh, 1886.
HALE, JOHN. _A Modest Enquiry_ (ed. Burr). New York, 1914.
HALE, SIR MATTHEW. _Collection of Modern Relations._ London, 1693.
HECTOR, WILLIAM. _Judicial Records of Renfrewshire._ Paisley, 1876.
HELE, N. F. _Notes of Jottings about Aldeburgh._ Ipswich, 1890.
HIBBERT, SAMUEL. _Description of the Shetland Isles._ Edinburgh, 1822.
_Highland Papers. Vol. III. Witchcraft in Bute._ Edinburgh, 1920.
HOLLAND, HENRY. _A treatise against Witchcraft._ Cambridge, 1590.
HOLLINGSWORTH, A. G. _History of Stowmarket._ Ipswich, 1844.
HORNECK, ANTHONY. _Appendix to Glanvill’s Sadducismus Triumphatus._
London, 1681.
HORNES, N. _Dæmonologie and Theologie._ London, 1650.
HOWELL, JAMES. _Familiar Letters._ (Ed. Joseph Jacobs.) London, 1890-2
HOWELL, THOMAS BAYLY. _State Trials._ London, 1816.
HUNT, WILLIAM. _History of the English Church._ London, 1901.
HUTCHINSON, BISHOP FRANCIS. _Historical Essay._ London, 1718.
INCH. _Trial of Isabel Inch._ Ardrossan, _circa_ 1855.
JAMES, I. _Demonologie._ Edinburgh, 1597.
_Journal of Anatomy._ Vols. XIII and XXV. London, 1879, 1891.
_Justiciary Court of Edinburgh, Records of Proceedings._ Edinburgh, 1905.
KINLOCH, GEORGE RITCHIE. _Reliquiæ Antiquæ Scoticæ._ Edinburgh, 1848.
KNAPP AND BALDWIN. _Newgate Calendar._ London, 1825.
LAMONT, JOHN. _Diary, Maitland Club._ Edinburgh, 1830.
LAW, ROBERT. _Memorialls._ (Ed. Sharpe.) Edinburgh, 1818.
_Lawes against Witches and Conivration. Published by Authority._ London,
1745.
LYNN LINTON, MRS. _Witch Stories._ London, 1861 and 1883. (A diligent but
uncritical work.)
MACKENZIE, SIR G. _Laws and Customs of Scotland._ Edinburgh, 1699.
MAITLAND, S. R. _Puritan Thaumaturgy._
_Maitland Club Miscellany._ Vol. II. Glasgow, 1840.
MASON, J. _Anatomie of Sorcery._ 1612.
MELVILLE, SIR CHARLES. _Memoirs._ _Bannatyne Club._ Edinburgh.
_Moore Rental._ _Chetham Society._ Vol. XII. Manchester, 1847.
MORE, HENRY. _Antidote against Atheism._ London, 1655.
_Narrative of the Sufferings of a young Girle._ Edinburgh, 1698.
NICHOLLS, JOHN. _History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester._
London, 1795-1815.
NICOLL, JOHN. _Diary._ _Bannatyne Club._ Edinburgh, 1836.
NOTESTEIN, WALLACE. _History of Witchcraft in England._ Washington, 1911.
OSBORNE, FRANCIS. _Traditional Memoirs of the Reigns of Q. Elizabeth and
King James I._ London, 1658.
_Miscellany of Sundry Essays._ London, 1659.
OWEN, H. and BLAKEWAY, J. B. _History of Shrewsbury._ London, 1825.
_Percy Society_, _Giffard’s Dialogues of Witches_. London, 1843.
PERKINS, WILLIAM. _Discourse of the damned Art of Witchcraft._ Cambridge,
1608.
PETERSON. _Tryall of Mrs. Joan Peterson._ _Thomason Tracts._ London, 1652.
PETTO, SAMUEL. _A faithful Narrative._ London, 1693.
_Philobiblion Society._ _Examination of certain Witches._ London, 1863-4.
PIKE, L. O. _History of Crime in England._ London, 1873.
PITCAIRN, ROBERT. _Criminal Trials._ Edinburgh, 1833.
_Pittenweem, A true and full Relation of the Witches of._ Edinburgh, 1704.
POLLOCK and MAITLAND. _History of English Law._ 2nd ed. Cambridge, 1898.
_Prodigious and Tragicall History._ London, 1652.
QUIBELL, JAMES EDWARD. _Hierakonpolis._ II. London, 1902.
_Register of the Privy Council of Scotland._ Edinburgh, 1881.
_Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum._ Edinburgh, 1886.
ROBERTS, ALEXANDER. _Treatise of Witchcraft._ London, 1616.
_Sadducismus Debellatus._ London, 1698.
SANDYS, GEORGE. _Relation of a Journey._ London, 1632.
SAUNDERS, W. H. B. _Legends and Traditions of Huntingdonshire._ 1888.
SCOT, REGINALD. _Discoverie of Witchcraft._ London, 1584.
SCOTT, SIR WALTER. _Demonology and Witchcraft._
_Scottish History Society._ Vol. XXV. Edinburgh, 1896.
SEYMOUR, S. JOHN D. _Irish Witchcraft and Demonology._ Dublin, 1913.
SHARPE, CHARLES K. _Historical Account of Witchcraft in Scotland._
London, 1884.
SHAW. _Elinor Shaw and Mary Phillips._ Northampton, 1866.
SINCLAR, GEORGE. _The Hydrostaticks._ Edinburgh, 1672.
_Satan’s Invisible World Discovered._ Edinburgh, 1871.
SMITH, CHARLOTTE FELL. _John Dee (1527-1608)._ London, 1909.
_Spalding Club Miscellany._ Aberdeen, 1841.
SPOTTISWODE, JOHN. _History of the Church of Scotland._ Edinburgh,
1847-50.
STEPHEN, SIR J. F. _History of the Criminal Law in England._ London, 1883.
STEVENSON, J. _Chronicon de Lanercost._ _Maitland Club._ Glasgow, 1839.
STEWART, WILLIAM GRANT. _Popular Superstitions of the Highlands._
Edinburgh, 1823.
STRYPE, JOHN. _Annals of the Reformation._ London, 1709-31. Oxford, 1824.
_Surtees Society._ Vol. XL. Durham, 1861.
TAYLOR, JOHN. _Tracts relating to Northamptonshire._ Northampton, 1866.
THORPE, BENJAMIN. _Monumenta Ecclesiastica._ London, 1840.
VETTER, THEODOR. _Relations between England and Zurich during the
Reformation._ London, 1904.
VICKARS, K. H. _Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester._ London, 1907.
WAGSTAFFE, JOHN. _Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft._ London, 1671.
WALSH. _Examination of John Walsh._ London, 1566.
WHITAKER, T. D. _History of Whalley._ London, 1818.
WILKINS, DAVID. _Concilia Magnæ Britanniæ._ London, 1737.
WILSON, ARTHUR. _Life and Reign of James I._ London, 1653.
_Witchcraft, Collection of rare and curious tracts on._ Edinburgh, 1891.
_Witchcraft, Collections of rare and curious Tracts relating to._ London,
1838.
_Witchcraft Detected._ 1826.
ZIMMERMAN, G. _De Mutata Saxonum veterum religione._ 1839.
ENGLAND: THE PAMPHLET LITERATURE
(Arranged in chronological order)
_The Examination and confession of certaine Wytches at Chensforde in the
Countie of Essex before the Quenes maiesties Judges, the XXVI daye of
July Anno 1566._
_A Rehearsall both straung and true of hainous and horrible actes
committed by Elizabeth Stile, alias Rockingham, Mother Dutten, Mother
Devell, Mother Margaret. Fower notorious Witches apprehended at Winsore
in the Countie of Barks, and at Abington arraigned, condemned and
executed on the 28 daye of Februarie last anno 1579._
_A Detection of damnable driftes, practised by three Witches arraigned at
Chelmsforde in Essex ... whiche were executed in Aprill 1579._ 1579.
_The apprehension and confession of three notorious Witches arraigned and
by Justice condemnede in the Countye of Essex the 5 day of Julye last
past._ 1589.
_A True and just Recorde of the Information, Examination and Confessions
of all the Witches taken at St. Oses in the countie of Essex: wherefore
some were executed, and other some entreated accordingly to the
determination of Lawe.... Written orderly, as the cases were tryed by
evidence, by W. W._ 1582.
_The most strange and admirable discoverie of the three Witches of
Warboys, arraigned, convicted and executed at the last assizes at
Huntingdon._ London, 1593.
(This was one of the most famous cases of English Witchcraft. A
whole literature grew up in connexion therewith. In _Notes and
Queries_, Twelfth Series, I, 1916, p. 283 and p. 304, will be
found: “The Witches of Warboys: Bibliographical Note,” where
twenty-eight entries are made.)
_The most wonderfull and true storie of a certaine Witch named Alse
Gooderidge of Stapenhill, who was arraigned and convicted at Darbie....
As also a true Report of the strange Torments of Thomas Darling, a boy
of thirteen years of age, that was possessed by the Devill, with his
horrible Fittes and terrible apparitions by him uttered at Burton upon
Trent, in the county of Stafford, and of his marvellous deliverance._
London, 1597. [By John Denison.]
_The Arraignment and Execution of 3 detestable Witches, John Newell,
Joane his wife, and Hellen Calles; two executed at Barnett, and one at
Braynford, 1 Dec. 1595._
_The severall Facts of Witchcrafte approved on Margaret Haskett of
Stanmore, 1585._ Black letter.
_An Account of Margaret Hacket, a notorious Witch, who consumed a young
Man to Death, rotted his Bowells and back bone asunder, who was executed
at Tiborn, 19 Feb. 1585._ London, 1585.
_The Examination and Confession of a notorious Witch named Mother Arnold,
alias Whitecote, alias Glastonbury, at the Assise of Burntwood in July,
1574: who was hanged for Witchcraft at Barking._ 1575.
(The four preceding pamphlets although referred to by Lowndes
and other bibliographers apparently have not been traced.)
_A true report of three Straunge Witches, lately found at Newnham Regis._
(Not traced. Hazlitt, _Handbook_, p. 231.)
_A short treatise declaringe the detestable wickednesse of magicall
sciences, as Necromancie, Coniuration of Spirites, Curiouse Astrologie
and such lyke.... Made by Francis Coxe._ [London, 1561.] Black letter.
_The Examination of John Walsh, before Master Thomas Williams, Commissary
to the Reverend father in God, William, bishop of Excester, upon certayne
Interrogatories touchyng Wytch-crafte and Sorcerye, in the presence of
divers gentlemen and others, the XX of August, 1566._ 1566. Black letter.
_The discloysing of a late counterfeyted possession by the devyl in two
maydens within the Citie of London._ [1574.] Black letter.
_The Wonderfull Worke of God shewed upon a Chylde, whose name is William
Withers, being in the Towne of Walsam ... Suffolk, who, being Eleven
Yeeres of age, laye in a Traunce the Space of tenne Days ... and hath
continued the Space of Three Weeks._ London, 1581.
_A Most Wicked worke of a Wretched Witch (the like whereof none can
record these manie yeares in England) wrought on the Person of one
Richard Burt, servant to Maister Edling of Woodhall in the Parrish
of Pinner in the Countie of Myddlesex, a myle beyond Harrow. Latelie
committed in March last, An. 1592 and newly recognized acording to the
truth. By G. B. maister of Artes._ [London, 1593.]
_A defensative against the poyson of supposed prophecies, not hitherto
confuted by the penne of any man; which being eyther uppon the warrant
and authority of old paynted bookes, expositions of dreames, oracles,
revelations, invocations of damned spirits ... have been causes of great
disorder in the commonwealth and chiefly among the simple and unlearned
people._ _Circa_ 1581-3.
_The scratchinge of the wytches._ 1579.
_A warnynge to wytches._ 1585.
_A lamentable songe of Three Wytches of Warbos, and executed at
Huntingdon._ 1593.
(The three preceding are ballads. See Hazlitt, _Bibliographical
Collections and Notes_, 2nd Series. London, 1882.)
_A poosye in forme of a visyon, agaynste wytche Crafte, and Sosyrye._
_A Breife Narration of the possession, dispossession, and repossession
of William Sommers.... Together with certaine depositions taken at
Nottingham._ 1598.
_An Apologie, or defence of the possession of William Sommers, a yong
man of the towne of Nottingham.... By John Darrell, Minister of Christ
Jesus._ [1599?] Black letter.
_The Triall of Maist. Dorrel, or A Collection of Defences against
Allegations...._ 1599.
(Apparently written by Darrel himself; but the Huth catalogue
(V. 1643) ascribes it to James Bamford.)
_A brief Apologie proving the possession of William Sommers. Written by
John Dorrel, a faithful Minister of the Gospell, but published without
his knowledge...._ 1599.
_A Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel, Bacheler of
Artes...._ London, 1599. (By Samuel Harsnett.)
_A True Narration of the strange and grevous Vexation by the Devil of
seven persons in Lancashire...._ 1600. Written by Darrel.
(Reprinted in 1641, and again in the _Somers Tracts_, III.)
_A True Discourse concerning the certaine possession and dispossession of
7 persons in one familie in Lancashire, which also may serve as part of
an Answere to a fayned and false Discoverie.... By George More, Minister
and Preacher of the Worde of God...._ 1600.
_A Detection of that sinnful, shamful, lying, and ridiculous discours of
Samuel Harshnet._ 1600. (By Darrel in answer to Harsnett.)
_A Summarie Answere to al the Material Points in any of Master Darel
his bookes, More especiallie to that one Booke of his, intituled, the
Doctrine of the Possession and Dispossession of Demoniaks out of the word
of God. By John Deacon [and] John Walker, Preachers._ London, 1601.
_A Survey of Certaine Dialogical Discourses, written by John Deacon and
John Walker.... By John Darrell, minister of the gospel...._ 1602.
_The Replie of John Darrell, to the Answer of John Deacon, and John
Walker concerning the doctrine of the Possession and Dispossession of
Demoniakes...._ 1602.
_A True and Breife Report of Mary Glover’s Vexation, and of her
deliverance by the meanes of fastinge and prayer.... By John Swan,
student in Divinitie...._ 1603.
Elizabeth Jackson was indicted on the charge of having
bewitched Mary Glover, but Dr. Edward Jorden, who examined the
girl declared her an hysterical impostor in his pamphlet.
_A briefe discourse of a disease called the Suffocation of the Mother,
Written uppon occasion which hath beene of late taken thereby, to suspect
possession of an evill spirit...._ London, 1603.
_A history of the case of Catherine Wright._
_The strange Newes out of Sommersetshire, Anno 1584, tearmed, a dreadfull
discourse of the dispossessing of one Maggaret Cooper at Ditchet, from a
devill in the likenes of a headlesse beare. Discovery of the Fraudulent
Practices of John Darrel._ 1584.
_The Most Cruell and Bloody Murther committed by an Inn-keepers Wife
called Annis Dell, and her Sonne George Dell, Foure Years since.... With
the severall Witch-crafts and most damnable practices of one Iohane
Harrison and her Daughter, upon several persons men and women at Royston,
who were all executed at Hartford the 4 of August last past 1606._
London, 1606.
_The Witches of Northamptonshire._
_Agnes Browne_
_Arthur Bill_
_Joane Vaughan_
_Hellen Jenkenson_
_Mary Barber_
_Witches_
_Who were all executed at Northampton the 22 of July last. 1612._ 1612.
_The severall notorious and lewd Cosenages of Iohn West and Alice West,
falsely called the King and Queene of Fayries ... convicted.... 1613._
London, 1613.
_The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the countie of Lancaster. With
the Arraignment and Triall of Nineteene notorious Witches, at the Assizes
and Gaole deliverie, holden at the Castle of Lancaster, upon Munday, the
seventeenth of August last, 1612. Before Sir James Altham, and Sir Edward
Bromley._ London, 1613.
(Reprinted by the Chetham Society, edited James Crossley. 1845.
One of the most famous of the witch-trials.)
_Witches Apprehended, Examined and Executed, for notable villanies by
them committed both by Land and Water. With a strange and most true trial
how to know whether a woman be a Witch or not._ London, 1613.
_A Booke of the Wytches Lately condemned and executed at Bedford,
1612-1613._
_A Treatise of Witchcraft.... With a true Narration of the Witchcrafts
which Mary Smith, wife of Henry Smith, Glover, did practise ... and
lastly, of her death and execution.... By Alexander Roberts, B.D. and
Preacher of Gods Word at Kings-Linne in Norffolke._ London, 1616.
_The Wonderful Discoverie of the Witchcrafts of Margaret and Phillip
Flower, daughters of Joan Flower neere Bever Castle: executed at
Lincolne, March 11, 1618. Who were specially arraigned and condemned
... for confessing themselves actors in the destruction of Henry, Lord
Rosse, with their damnable practises against others the Children of the
Right Honourable Francis Earle of Rutland. Together with the severall
Examinations and Confessions of Anne Baker, Joan Willimot, and Ellen
Greene, Witches of Leicestershire._ London, 1619.
_Strange and wonderfull Witchcrafts, discovering the damnable Practises
of seven Witches against the Lives of certain noble Personages and others
of this Kingdom; with an approved Triall how to find out either Witch or
any Apprentise to Witchcraft._ 1621. Another edition in 1635.
_The Wonderfull discoverie of Elizabeth Sawyer ... late of Edmonton,
her conviction, condemnation and Death.... Written by Henry Goodcole,
Minister of the word of God, and her continuall Visiter in the Gaole of
Newgate...._ 1621.
(Reprinted in Vol. I (lxxxi-cvii) of Bullen’s recension of the
Dyce-Gifford Ford. 3 vols. London, 1895.)
_The Boy of Bilson: or A True Discovery of the Late Notorious Impostures
of Certaine Romish Priests in their pretended Exorcisme, or expulsion of
the Divell out of a young Boy, named William Perry...._ London, 1622.
_A Discourse of Witchcraft As it was acted in the Family of Mr. Edward
Fairfax of Fuystone in the County of York, in the year 1621._ Edited by
R. Monckton Milnes (Lord Houghton) for Vol. V of _Miscellanies of the
Philobiblon Soc._ London, 1858-1859. (The editor says the original MS. is
still in existence.)
_A Most certain, strange and true Discovery of a Witch, Being overtaken
by some of the Parliament Forces, as she was standing on a small
Planck-board and sayling on it over the River of Newbury, Together with
the strange and true manner of her death._ 1643.
_A Confirmation and Discovery of Witch-craft ... together with the
Confessions of many of those executed since May, 1645.... By John
Stearne._
_The Examination, Confession, Triall, and Execution of Joane Williford,
Joan Cariden and Jane Hott: who were executed at Faversham, in Kent ...
all attested under the hand of Robert Greenstreet, Maior of Faversham._
_A true and exact Relation of the severall Informations, Examinations,
and Confessions of the late Witches arraigned ... and condemned at the
late Sessions, holden at Chelmsford before the Right Honorable Robert,
Earle of Warwicke, and severall of his Majesties Justices of Peace, the
29 of July, 1645._
_A True Relation of the Arraignment of eighteene Witches at St.
Edmundsbury, 27th August, 1645.... As Also a List of the names of those
that were executed._
_Strange and fearfull newes from Plaisto in the parish of Westham neere
Bow foure miles from London._ London, 1645.
_The Lawes against Witches and Conjuration, and Some brief Notes and
Observations for the Discovery of Witches. Being very Usefull for these
Times wherein the Devil reignes and prevailes.... Also The Confession of
Mother Lakeland, who was arraigned and condemned for a Witch at Ipswich
in Suffolke.... By Authority._ London, 1645.
_Signes and Wonders from Heaven.... Likewise a new discovery of Witches
in Stepney Parish. And how 20. Witches more were executed in Suffolk this
last Assize. Also how the Divell came to Sofforn to a Farmer’s house in
the habit of a Gentlewoman on horse backe._ London [1645].
_Relation of a boy who was entertained by the Devil to be Servant to him
... about Credition in the West, and how the Devil carried him up in the
aire, and showed him the torments of Hell, and some of the Cavaliers
there, etc., with a coppie of a Letter from Maior Generall Massie,
concerning these strange and Wonderfull things, with a certaine box of
Reliques and Crucifixes found in Tiverton Church._ 1645.
(A ridiculous, but not uninteresting, publication.)
_The Witches of Huntingdon, their Examinations and Confessions...._
London, 1646.
(The Dedication is signed by John Davenport.)
_The Discovery of Witches: in answer to severall Queries, lately
Delivered to the Judges of Assize for the County of Norfolk. And now
published by Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder. For the Benefit of the Whole
Kingdome...._ London, 1647.
(The most famous of the “Hopkins series.”)
_A strange and true Relation of a Young Woman possest with the Devill.
By name Joyce Dovey dwelling at Bewdley neer Worcester.... Also a Letter
from Cambridge, wherein is related the late conference between the Devil
(in the shape of a Mr. of Arts) and one Ashbourner, a Scholler of S.
Johns Colledge ... who was afterwards carried away by him and never heard
of since onely his Gown found in the River._ London, 1647.
_The Full Tryals, Examination and Condemnation of Four Notorious Witches,
At the Assizes held in Worcester on Tuseday the 4th of March.... As also
Their Confessions and last Dying Speeches at the place of Execution, with
other Amazing Particulars...._ London, no date.
_The Divels Delusions or A faithfull relation of John Palmer and
Elizabeth Knot two notorious Witches lately condemned at the Sessions of
Oyer and Terminer in St. Albans._ 1649.
_Wonderfull News from the North, Or a True Relation of the Sad and
Grievous Torments Inflicted upon the Bodies of three Children of Mr.
George Muschamp, late of the County of Northumberland, by Witchcraft....
As also the prosecution of the sayd Witches, as by Oaths, and their own
Confessions will appear and by the Indictment found by the Jury against
one of them, at the Sessions of the Peace held at Alnwick, the 24 day of
April, 1650._ London, 1650.
_The strange Witch at Greenwich haunting a Wench, 1650._
_A Strange Witch at Greenwich, 1650._
_The Witch of Wapping, or an Exact and Perfect Relation of the Life and
Devilish Practises of Joan Peterson, who dwelt in Spruce Island, near
Wapping; Who was condemned for practising Witchcraft, and sentenced to be
Hanged at Tyburn, on Munday the 11th of April, 1652._ London, 1652.
_A Declaration in Answer to several lying Pamphlets concerning the Witch
of Wapping, ... shewing the Bloudy Plot and wicked Conspiracy of one
Abraham Vandenhemde, Thomas Crompton, Thomas Collet, and others._ London,
1652.
_The Tryall and Examinations of Mrs. Joan Peterson before the Honourable
Bench at the Sessions house in the Old Bayley yesterday._ [1652.]
_Doctor Lamb’s Darling, or Strange and terrible News from Salisbury;
Being A true, exact, and perfect Relation of the great and wonderful
Contract and Engagement made between the Devil, and Mistris Anne
Bodenham; with the manner how she could transform herself into the shape
of a Mastive Dog, a black Lyon, a white Bear, a Woolf, a Bull, and a
Cat.... The Tryal, Examinations, and Confession ... before the Lord Chief
Baron Wild.... By James [Edmond?] Bower, Cleric._ London, 1653.
_Doctor Lamb Revived, or, Witchcraft condemn’d in Anne Bodenham ... who
was Arraigned and Executed the Lent Assizes last at Salisbury, before the
Right Honourable the Lord Chief Baron Wild, Judge of the Assize.... By
Edmund Bower, an eye and ear Witness of her Examination and Confession._
London, 1653. (Bower’s second and more detailed account.)
_A Prodigious and Tragicall History of the Arraignment, Tryall,
Confession, and Condemnation of six Witches at Maidstone, in Kent, at the
Assizes there held in July, Fryday 30, this present year, 1652. Before
the Right Honorable, Peter Warburton.... Collected from the Observations
of E. G. Gent, a learned person, present at their Convictions and
Condemnation._ London, 1652.
_The most true and wonderfull Narration of two women bewitched in
Yorkshire: Who comming to the Assizes at York to give Evidence against
the Witch after a most horrible noise to the terror and amazement of all
the beholders, did vomit forth before the Judges, Pins, wool.... Also a
most true Relation of a young Maid ... who ... did ... vomit forth wadds
of straw, with pins a crosse in them, iron Nails, Needles, ... as it
is attested under the hand of that most famous Phisition Doctor Henry
Heers...._ 1658.
_A more Exact Relation of the most lamentable and horrid Contract with
Lydia Rogers, living in Pump-Alley in Wapping, made with the Divel....
Together with the great pains and prayers of many eminent Divines...._
1658.
_The Snare of the Devill Discovered: Or, A True and perfect Relation of
the sad and deplorable Condition of Lydia the Wife of John Rogers House
Carpenter, living in Greenbank in Pumpe alley in Wappin.... Also her
Examination by Mr. Johnson the Minister of Wappin, and her Confession. As
also in what a sad Condition she continues...._ London, 1658.
_Strange and Terrible Newes from Cambridge, being A true Relation of the
Quakers bewitching of Mary Philips ... into the shape of a Bay Mare,
riding her from Dinton towards the University. With the manner how she
became visible again ... in her own Likeness and Shape, with her sides
all rent and torn, as if they had been spur-galled, ... and the Names
of the Quakers brought to tryal on Friday last at the Assizes held at
Cambridge...._ London, 1659.
_The Power of Witchcraft, Being a most strange but true Relation of the
most miraculous and wonderful deliverance of one Mr. William Harrison
of Cambden in the County of Gloucester, Steward to the Lady Nowel...._
London, 1662.
_A True and Perfect Account of the Examination, Confession, Tryal,
Condemnation and Execution of Joan Perry and her two Sons ... for the
supposed murder of William Harrison, Gent...._ London, 1676.
_A Tryal of Witches at the assizes held at Bury St. Edmonds for the
County of Suffolk; on the tenth day of March, 1664._ London, 1682; and
1716.
_The Lord’s Arm Stratched Out in an Answer of Prayer or a True Relation
o; the Wonderful Deliverance of James Barrow, the Son of John Barrow of
Olaves Southwark, London, 1664._ (A Baptist tract.)
_The wonder of Suffolke, being a true relation of one that reports he
made a league with the Devil for three years, to do mischief, and now
breaks open houses, robs people daily ... and can neither be shot nor
taken, but leaps over walls fifteen feet high, runs five or six miles in
a quarter of an hour, and sometimes vanishes in the midst of multitudes
that go to take him. Faithfully written in a letter from a solemn person,
dated not long since, to a friend in Ship-Yard near Temple-bar, and ready
to be attested by hundreds...._ London, 1677.
_Daimonomageia: a small Treatise of Sicknesses and Diseases from
Witchcraft and Supernatural Causes.... Being useful to others besides
Physicians, in that it confutes Atheistical, Sadducistical, and Sceptical
Principles and Imaginations...._ London, 1665.
_Hartford-shire Wonder. Or, Strange News from Ware, Being an Exact and
true Relation of one Jane Stretton ... who hath been visited in a strange
kind of manner by extraordinary and unusual fits...._ London, 1669.
_A Magicall Vision, Or a Perfect Discovery of the Fallacies of
Witchcraft, As it was lately represented in a pleasant sweet Dream to a
Holysweet Sister, a faithful and pretious Assertor of the Family of the
Stand-Hups, for preservation of the Saints from being tainted with the
heresies of the Congregation of the Doe-Littles._ London, 1673. (Hazlitt,
_Bibliographical Collections_, fourth series, _s. u._ Witchcraft.)
_A Full and True Relation of The Tryal, Condemnation, and Execution of
Ann Foster ... at the place of Execution at Northampton. With the Manner
how she by her Malice and Witchcraft set all the Barns and Corn on Fire
... and bewitched a whole Flock of Sheep...._ London, 1674.
_Strange News from Arpington near Bexby in Kent: Being a True Narrative
of a yong Maid who was Possest with several Devils...._ London, 1679.
_Strange and Wonderful News from Yowell in Surry; Giving a True and Just
Account of One Elizabeth Burgess, Who was most strangely Bewitched and
Tortured at a sad rate._ London, 1681.
_An Account of the Tryal and Examination of Joan Buts, for being a Common
Witch and Inchantress, before the Right Honourable Sir Francis Pemberton,
Lord Chief Justice, at the Assizes...._ 1682. Single leaf.
_The Tryal, Condemnation, and Execution of Three Witches, viz.,
Temperance Floyd, Mary Floyd, and Susanna Edwards. Who were Arraigned at
Exeter on the 18th of August, 1682._ London, 1682.
_A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against Three Witches,
viz., Temperance Lloyd, Mary Trembles, and Susanna Edwards, who were ...
Convicted at the Assizes holden ... at ... Exon, Aug. 14, 1682. With
their several Confessions ... as also Their ... Behaviour, at the ...
Execution on the Twenty fifth of the said Month._ London, 1682.
_Witchcraft discovered and punished Or the Tryals and Condemnation of
three Notorious Witches, who were Tryed the last Assizes, holden at
the Castle of Exeter ... where they received sentence of Death, for
bewitching severall Persons, destroying Ships at Sea, and Cattel by Land.
To the Tune of Doctor Faustus; or Fortune my Foe._
(A ballad. Roxburghe Collection. Broadside.)
_The Life and Conversation of Temperance Floyd, Mary Lloyd and Susanna
Edwards ...; Lately Condemned at Exeter Assizes; together with a full
Account of their first Agreement with the Devil: With the manner how they
prosecuted their devilish Sorceries...._ London, 1687.
_A Full and True Account of the Proceedings at the Sessions of Oyer
and Terminer ... which began at the Sessions House in the Old Bayley
on Thursday, June 1st, and Ended on Fryday, June 2nd, 1682. Wherein is
Contained the Tryall of Jane Kent for Witchcraft._
_Strange and Dreadful News from the Town of Deptford in the County of
Kent, Being a Full, True, and Sad Relation of one Anne Arthur._ 1684-5.
One leaf, folio.
_Strange newes from Shadwell, being a ... relation of the death of Alice
Fowler, who had for many years been accounted a witch._ London, 1685.
_A True Account of a Strange and Wonderful Relation of one John Tonken,
of Pensans in Cornwall, said to be Bewitched by some Women: two of which
on Suspition are committed to Prison._ London, 1686.
_News from Panier Alley; or a True Relation of Some Pranks the Devil hath
lately play’d with a Plaster Pot there._ London, 1687.
_A faithful narrative of the ... fits which ... Thomas Spatchet ... was
under by witchcraft...._ 1693.
_The Second Part of the Boy of Bilson, Or a True and Particular Relation
of the Imposter Susanna Fowles, wife of John Fowles of Hammersmith in the
Co. of Midd., who pretended herself to be possessed._ London, 1698.
_A Full and True Account Both of the Life: And also the Manner and Method
of carrying on the Delusions, Blasphemies, and Notorious Cheats of Susan
Fowls, as the same was Contrived, Plotted, Invented, and Managed by
wicked Popish Priests and other Papists._
_The trial of Susannah Fowles, of Hammersmith, for blaspheming Jesus
Christ, and cursing the Lord’s Prayer...._ London, 1698.
_The Case of Witchcraft at Coggeshall, Essex, in the year 1699. Being the
Narrative of the Rev. J. Boys, Minister of the Parish._ Printed from his
manuscript in the possession of the publisher (A. Russell Smith). London,
1901.
_A True and Impartial Account of the Dark and Hellish Power of
Witchcraft, Lately Exercised on the Body of the Reverend Mr. Wood,
Minister of Bodmyn. In a Letter from a Gentleman there, to his Friend in
Exon, in Confirmation thereof._ Exeter, 1700.
_A Full and True Account of the Apprehending and Taking of Mrs. Sarah
Moordike, Who is accused for a Witch, Being taken near Pauls’ Wharf
... for having Bewitched one Richard Hetheway.... With her Examination
before the Right Worshipful Sir Thomas Lane, Sir Oven Buckingham, and Dr.
Hambleton in Bowe-lane._ 1701.
_A short Account of the Trial held at Surry Assizes, in the Borough of
Southwark; on an Information against Richard Hathway ... for Riot and
Assault._ London, 1702.
_The Tryall of Richard Hathaway, upon an Information For being a Cheat
and Imposter. For endeavouring to take away the Life of Sarah Morduck,
For being a Witch at Surry Assizes...._ London, 1702.
_A Full and True Account of the Discovery, Apprehending, and taking of
a Notorious Witch, who was carried before Justice Bateman in Well-Close
on Sunday, July the 23. Together with her Examination and Commitment to
Bridewel, Clerkenwell._ London, 1704.
_An Account of the Tryals, Examination, and Condemnation of Elinor Shaw
and Mary Phillips...._ 1705.
_The Northamptonshire Witches...._ 1705.
_The Devil Turned Casuist, or the Cheats of Rome Laid open in the
Exorcism of a Despairing Devil at the House of Thomas Bennington in
Oriel.... By Zachary Taylor, M.A., Chaplain to the Right reverend Father
in God, Nicholas, Lord Bishop of Chester, and Rector of Wigan._ London,
1696.
_The Surey Demoniack, Or an Account of Satan’s Strange and Dreadful
Actings, In and about the Body of Richard Dugdale of Surey, near Whalley
in Lancashire. And How he was Dispossest by Gods blessing on the Fastings
and Prayers of divers Ministers and People._ London, 1697.
_The Surey Imposter, being an answer to a late Fanatical Pamphlet,
entituled The Surey Demoniack._ By Zachary Taylor. London, 1697.
_A Vindication of the Surey Demoniack as no Imposter: Or, A Reply to
a certain Pamphlet publish’d by Mr. Zach. Taylor, called The Surey
Imposter...._ By T. J., London, 1698.
_Popery, Supersitition, Ignorance and Knavery very unjustly by a letter
in the general pretended; but as far as was charg’d very fully proved
upon the Dissenters that were concerned in the Surey Imposture._ 1698.
Written by Zachary Taylor.
_The Lancashire Levite Rebuked, or a Vindication of the Dissenters from
Popery, Superstition, Ignorance, and Knavery, unjustly Charged on them by
Mr. Zachary Taylor...._ London, 1698.
_The Lancashire Levite Rebuked, or a Farther Vindication._ 1698.
_Popery, Superstition, Ignorance, and Knavery, Confess’d and fully
Proved on the Surey Dissenters, from a Second Letter of an Apostate
Friend, to Zach. Taylor. To which is added a Refutation of T. Jollie’s
Vindication...._ London, 1699. Written by Zachary Taylor.
_A Refutation of Mr. T. Jolly’s Vindication of the Devil in Dugdale; Or,
The Surey Demoniack._ London, 1699.
_The Portsmouth Ghost, or A Full and true Account of a Strange,
wonderful, and dreadful Appearing of the Ghost of Madam Johnson, a
beautiful young Lady of Portsmouth, Shewing, 1. Her falling in Love with
Mr. John Hunt, a Captain in one of the Regiments sent to Spain. 2. Of his
promising her Marriage, and leaving her big With Child. 3. Of her selling
herself to the Devil to be revenged on the Captain. 4. Of her ripping
open her own Belly, and the Devil’s flying away with her Body, and
leaving the Child in the room.... 7. Of her Carrying [the Captain] away
in the night in a flame of fire._ Printed and sold by Cluer Dicey and Co.
in Aldermary Church Yard, Bow Lane. _Circa_ 1704.
_A Looking Glass for Swearers, Drunkards, Blasphemers, Sabbath Breakers,
Rash Wishers, and Murderers. Being a True Relation of one Elizabeth
Hale, in Scotch Yard in White Cross Street; who having sold herself to
the Devil to be reveng’d on her Neighbours, did on Sunday last, in a
wicked manner, put a quantity of Poyson into a Pot where a Piece of Beef
was a boyling for several Poor Women and Children, Two of which dropt
down dead, and Twelve more are dangerously Ill; the Truth of which will
be Attested by several in the Neighbourhood. Her Examination upon the
Crowners Inquest and her Commitment to Newgate._ Printed by W. Wise and
M. Holt in Fleet Street, 1708.
_The Witch of the Woodlands; Or, The Cobler’s New Translation._ Printed
and Sold in Aldermary Church Yard, Bow Lane, London. No date, but about
1710. This pamphlet merely relates an old legend, but is interesting as
reproducing with appropriate woodcuts intimate details of the mediæval
Sabbat.
_An Account of the Tryal, Examination, and Condemnation of Jane Wenham,
on an Indictment of Witchcraft, for Bewitching of Matthew Gilston and
Anne Thorne of Walcorne, in the County of Hertford...._
_A Full and Impartial Account of the Discovery of Sorcery and Witchcraft,
Practis’d by Jane Wenham of Walkerne in Hertfordshire, upon the bodies of
Anne Thorn, Anne Street, &c. ... till she ... receiv’d Sentence of Death
for the same, March 4, 1711-12._ London, 1712.
_Witchcraft Farther Display’d. Containing (I) An Account of the
Witchcraft practis’d by Jane Wenham of Walkerne, in Hertfordshire, since
her Condemnation, upon the bodies of Anne Thorne and Anne Street.... (II)
An Answer to the most general Objections against the Being and Power of
Witches: With some Remarks upon the Case of Jane Wenham in particular,
and on Mr. Justice Powel’s procedure therein...._ London, 1712.
_A Full Confutation of Witchcraft: More particularly of the Depositions
against Jane Wenham, Lately Condemned for a Witch; at Hertford. In which
the Modern Notions of Witches are overthrown, and the Ill Consequences
of such Doctrines are exposed by Arguments; proving that, Witchcraft is
Priestcraft.... In a Letter from a Physician in Hertfordshire, to his
Friend in London._ London, 1712.
_The Impossibility of Witchcraft, Plainly Proving, From Scripture and
Reason, That there never was a Witch; and that it is both Irrational and
Impious to believe there ever was. In which the Depositions against Jane
Wenham, Lately Try’d and Condemned for a Witch, at Hertford, are Confuted
and Expos’d._ London, 1712.
_The Belief of Witchcraft Vindicated; proving from Scripture, there have
been Witches; and from Reason, that there may be Such still. In answer to
a late Pamphlet, Intituled, The Impossibility of Witchcraft...._ By G.
R., A.M. London, 1712.
_The Case of the Hertfordshire Witchcraft Consider’d. Being an
Examination of a book entitl’d, A Full and Impartial Account...._ London,
1712.
_A Defense of the Proceedings against Jane Wenham, wherein the
Possibility and Reality of Witchcraft are Demonstrated from Scripture....
In Answer to Two Pamphlets Entituled: (I) The Impossibility of
Witchcraft, etc. (II) A Full Confutation of Witchcraft._ By Francis
Bragge, A.B., London, 1712.
_The Impossibility of Witchcraft Further Demonstrated, Both from
Scripture and Reason ... with some Cursory Remarks on two trifling
Pamphlets in Defense of the existence of Witches._ 1712.
_An Account of The Tryals, Examination and Condemnation of Elinor Shaw
and Mary Phillips (Two notorious Witches) on Wednesday the 7th of March,
1705, for Bewitching a Woman, and two children.... With an Account of
their strange Confessions._ This is signed at the end, “Ralph Davis,
March 8, 1705.” It was followed very shortly by a completer account,
written after the execution, and entitled:
_The Northamptonshire Witches, Being a true and faithful account of the
Births, Educations, Lives, and Conversations of Elinor Shaw and Mary
Phillips (The two notorious Witches) That were Executed at Northampton
on Saturday, March the 11th, 1705 ... with their full Confession to the
Minister, and last Dying Speeches at the place of Execution, the like
never before heard of.... Communicated in a Letter last Post, from Mr.
Ralph Davis of Northampton, to Mr. William Simons, Merchantt in London._
London, 1705.
_The Whole Trial and Examination of Mrs. Mary Hicks and her Daughter
Elizabeth, But of Nine Years of Age, who were Condemn’d the last Assizes
held at Huntingdon for Witchcraft, and there Executed on Saturday, the
28th of July, 1716 ... the like never heard before; their Behaviour
with several Divines who came to converse with ’em whilst under their
sentence of Death; and last Dying Speeches and Confession at the place of
execution._ London, 1716. There is a copy in the Bodleian Library.
(These last three pamphlets are almost certainly spurious.)
_A Terrible and seasonable Warning to young Men. Being a very particular
and True Relation of one Abraham Joiner a young Man about 17 or 18 Years
of Age, living in Shakesby’s Walks in Shadwell, being a Ballast Man by
Profession, who on Saturday Night last pick’d up a leud Woman, and spent
what Money he had about him in Treating her, saying afterwards if she
wou’d have any more he must go to the Devil for it, and slipping out
of her Company, he went to the Cock and Lyon in King Street, the Devil
appear’d to him, and gave him a Pistole, ... appointing to meet him the
next Night at the World’s End at Stepney; Also how his Brother perswaded
him to throw the Money away, which he did; but was suddenly Taken in a
very strange manner; so that they were fain to send for the Reverend Mr.
Constable and other Ministers to pray with him, he appearing now to be
very Penitent...._ Printed for J. Dulton, near Fleet Street. _Circa_ 1718.
_A Timely Warning to Rash and Disobedient Children Being a strange and
wonderful Relation of a young Gentleman in the Parish of Stepheny in the
Suburbs of London, that sold himself to the Devil for 12 years to have
the Power of being revenged on his Father and Mother, and how his Time
being expired, he lay in a sad and deplorable Condition to the Amazement
of all Spectators._ Edinburgh: Printed Anno 1721.
_The Kentish Miracle, Or, a Seasonable Warning to all Sinners Shewn in
The Wonderful Relation of one Mary Moore, whose Husband died some time
ago, and left her with two Children, who was reduced to great Want....
How the Devil appeared to her, and the many great Offers he made to her
to deny Christ, and enter into his Service; and how she confounded Satan
by powerful Arguments ... with an Account how an Angel appeared to her
and relieved her...._ Edinburgh: Printed in the Year 1741.
(This is probably a reprint. The style of the pamphlet seems
some thirty or forty years earlier.)
_Trial of Thomas Colley, to which is annexed some Further Particulars of
the Affair from the Mouth of John Osborne._ 1751. (The trial took place
at Hertford Assizes, 30 July, 1751.)
_Remarkable Confession and Last Dying Words of Thomas Colley._ 1751.
FRANCE
BARTHÉTY, H. _La sorcellerie en Béarn et dans le pays basque._ Pau, 1879.
BERNOU, J. _La chasse aux sorcières dans le Labourd_ (1609). Agen, 1897.
BEUGNOT, A. _Histoire de la destruction du Paganisme en occident._ 2
vols. Paris, 1835.
BOIS, JULES. _Le Satanisme et la magie. Les Petites Religions de Paris._
BONNEMÈRE, EUGÈNE. _Histoire des Camisardes des Cévennes._ Paris, 1869.
BOUCHARD, H. E. _Annette Taudet, ou les sorciers du Poitou au XIXme
siècle._ Paris, 1867.
BOURIGNON, ANTOINETTE. _La Parole de Dieu._ Amsterdam, 1683.
_La vie extérieure._ Amsterdam, 1683.
BOURNON, JACQUES. _Chroniques de la Lorraine._ Nancy, 1838.
BRÉVANNES, ROLAND. _L’Orgie Satanique._ Paris, 1904.
BRICAUD, JOANNY. _J. K. Huysmans et le Satanisme._ Paris, 1912.
_Huysmans, occultiste et magicien._ Paris, 1913.
_Un disciple de Cl. de Saint-Martin._ Paris, 1911.
_Eléments d’Astrologie._ Paris, 1911.
_Premiers Elements d’Occultisme._ Paris, 1912.
CANNAERT, J. B. _Olim: procès des sorcières en Belgique sous Philippe
II._ Ghent, 1847.
CAUFEYNON ET JAF, DRS. _Les Messes Noires._ Paris, 1905. (A valuable
work.)
CAUZONS, THEODORE DE. _La Magie et la Sorcellerie en France._ 4 vols.
Paris, 1900, etc. (A very important study.)
CHABLOZ, FRITZ. _Les sorcières neuchatéloises._ Neuchatel, 1868.
CHRISTIAN, PAUL (Paul Pitois). _Histoire de la Magie._ Paris, 1870.
CLOSMADEUC, DR. G. DE. _Les sorciers de Lorient._ Vannes, 1885.
DEBAY, DR. A. _Histoire des sciences occultes._ Paris, 1860.
DE LA MARTINIÈRE. _Voyage des Pais Septentrionaux._ Paris, 1682.
_Discours sur la mort et condamnation de Charles de Franchillon Baron de
Chenevieres, exécuté ... pour Crime de Sortilège et de Magie._ Paris,
1626.
DRAZOR, H. R. _Histoire tragique de trois magiciens qvi ont accvsé à la
mort Mazarin en Italie._ Paris, 1649.
ELVEN, HENRY VON. _La Tradition._ Vol. V. Paris, 1891.
FIGUIER, LOUIS. _Histoire du merveilleux dans les temps modernes._ 4
vols. Paris, 1860-1.
FONTENELLE, BERNARD LE BOVIER DE. _Histoire des oracles._ Paris, 1687.
(Often reprinted.)
FOURNIER, ALBAN. _Epidémie de Sorcellerie en Lorraine._ Nancy, 1891.
GARINET, JULES. _Histoire de la magie en France._ Paris, 1818.
GARSAULT, F. ALEXANDRE. _Faits des causes célèbres et intéressantes._
Amsterdam and Paris, 1757.
HARON, ALFRED. _La Tradition._ Vol. VI. Paris, 1892.
_Histoire prodigieuse et espouvantable de plus de deux cens 50 sorciers
et sorcières emmenez pour leur estre fait et parfait leur procès au
parlement de Tholoze._ Paris, 1649.
_Histoire véritable des crimes horribles commis à Boulogne par deux
moynes, deux gentils-hommes, et deux damoiselles, sur le S. Sacrement de
l’Autel, qu’ils out fait consumer à une Cheure et à un Oye, et sur trois
enfants, qu’ils ont fait distiler sur la lambique._ Paris, 1651.
_Histoire véritable de l’exécrable Docteur Vanini, autrement nommé
Luciolo._ Paris, 1619.
JAF, LE DR. _Physonomie du vice._ Paris, _circa_ 1903.
_L’Amour secret._ Paris, _circa_ 1904.
_Journal d’un bourgeois de Paris._ Panthéon Litteraire. Paris, 1838.
LADAME, DR. _Procès criminel de la dernière sorcière brulée à Genève, le
6 avril, 1652._ Paris, 1888.
LAVANCHY, L’ABBÉ J. M. _Sabbats ou synagogues sur les bords du lac
d’Annecy._ Annecy, 1885.
LECANU, L’ABBE. _Histoire de Satan._ 1861.
LECOCQ, AD. _Les sorciers de la Beauce._ Chartres, 1861.
LEMOINE, JULES. _La Tradition._ Vol. VI. Paris, 1892.
_Les Enfers Lubriques._ Paris, _circa_ 1900.
LES GOUVELLES, LE VICOMTE HIPPOLYTE. _Apparitions d’une âme du Purgatoire
en Bretagne._ 4th ed. Paris, 1919. (An apparition which visited Jeanne
Audouis [Sœur Marie des Sept Douleurs]).
_Les sorceleries de Henry de Valois, et les oblations qu’il faisoit au
Diable dans le bois de Vincennes._ 15 pp. Paris, 1589.
(This attack on Henry III has been reprinted several times; as
by Cimber and Darignon _Archives curieuses de l’Histoire de
France_. Vol. XII, and L’Estoile, _Journal de Henri III._)
LILLIE, ARTHUR. _The Worship of Satan in Modern France._ 1896.
LOUÏSE, TH. _De la sorcellerie et de la justice criminelle à
Valenciennes._ Valenciennes, 1861.
_Magie._ 2 vols. Paris, _circa_ 1904.
MATTER, JACQUES. _Histoire critique du gnosticisme._ 3 vols. Paris, 1828.
MAURY, ALFRED. _Histoire des religions de la Grèce antique._ 3 vols.
Paris, 1857-9.
_La Magie et l’Astrologie._ Paris, 1860. (Often reprinted.)
MONNOYER, JULES. _La sorcellerie en Hainault ... avec analyse de procès
pour sortilèges (1568-1683)._ Mons, 1886.
MONSEUR, EUGÈNE. _Le folklore Wallon._ Brussels, 1892.
ROUÉ, PAUL. _Causes sales._ Paris, 1902.
SALVERTE, A. J. E. B. DE. _Essai sur la Magie._ Brussels, 1817.
SCHURÉ, EDOUARD. _Les grandes légendes de France._ 19th ed. Paris, 1922.
SIMONET, L’ABBE. _Realité de la Magie._ Paris, 1819.
THUIS, L’ABBÉ JEAN-BAPTISTE. _Traite des superstitions qui regardent les
Sacraments._ 3 vols. Paris, 1703. Reprinted 4 vols., 1741; and 4 vols.,
1777.
_Tradition, La._ Vol. V contains Van Elvan’s _Les Procès de sorcellerie
au moyen âge_. Paris, 1891. Vol. VI contains Harou’s _Sorciers et
sorcières_. Paris, 1892, also Lemoine’s _Sorcellerie contemporaine_.
Paris, 1892.
UN BADAUD (Paul Marrin). _Coup d’œil sur la Magie as XIXme siècle._
Paris, 1891.
_Coup d’œil sur les thaumaturges et les médiums du XIXme
siècle._ Paris, 1891.
WAITE, ARTHUR EDWARD. _Devil-Worship in France._ London, 1896.
FRANCE: SPECIAL CASES
_Madeleine Bavent_
YVELIN, DR. _Examen de la possession des religieuses de Louviers._ Paris,
1643.
_Responce à l’Examen de la possession des religieuses de Louviers_, n.d.
_Récit véritable de ce qui s’est fait et passé à Louviers, touchant les
religieuses possédées_, n.d.
LE GAUFFRE. _Exorcismes de plusieurs religieuses de la ville de Louuiers
en présence de Monsieur le Penitencier d’Evreux et de Monsieur Le
Gauffre._
LE BRETON, JEAN. _La défense de la vérité touchant la possession des
religieuses de Lovviers._ Evreux, 1643.
DELANGLE. _Procès-verbal de Monsieur le Penitencier d’Evreux._ Paris,
1643.
_Trois questions touchant l’accident arrivé aux religieuses de Louviers_,
n.d.
DESMARETS, PÈRE. _Histoire de Magdelaine Bavent, religieuse du monastère
de Saint-Louis de Louviers avec sa confession générale et testamentaire,
ou elle déclare les abominations, impietez et sacrilèges qu’elle a
pratiqué et veu pratiquer, tant dans ledit monastère qu’au Sabbat._
Paris, 1652.
HUMIER. _Discours théologique sur l’histoire de Magdelaine Bavent._
Nyort, 1659.
MORIN, LOUIS RENÉ. _Histoire de Louviers._ Rouen, 1822.
DIBON. _Essai historique sur Louviers._ Rouen, 1836.
DU BOIS, L. _Recherches archéologiques ... sur la Normandie._ Paris, 1843.
PIERART, Z. _La magnétisme, le somnambulisme et le spiritualisme dans
l’histoire. Affaire curieuse des possédées de Louviers._ Paris, 1858.
_Marie Benoist, La Bucaille_
_Arrest donné par la chambre ordonée par le Roy au temps des vacations
contre Marie Benoist._ Rouen, 1699.
_Le tableau prétendu de la pénitence ou le caractère de la dévotion de
sœur Marie Bucaille, accusé d’être sorcière._ Rouen, 1699.
_Almanach historique, ecclésiastique et politique du Diocèse de Coutances
pour l’année 1774._
_La Cadière and Père Girard_
_Justification de demoiselle Catherine Cadière._ 1731.
_Factum pour Marie Catherine Cadière contre le Père J.-B. Girard,
jésuite, où ce religieux est accusé de l’avoir portée par un abominable
Quietisme aux plus criminels excès de l’impudicité._ Hague, 1731.
LOUIS, BISHOP OF TOULON. _Mémoires des faits qui se sont passés sous
les yeux de M. l’Evêque de Toulon, lors de l’origine de l’affaire du P.
Girard, jésuite, et de la Cadière._ Toulon, 1731.
CHAUDON. _Réponse a l’écrit qui a pour titre “Mémoires des faits, etc.”_
Aix, 1731.
_Les véritables sentiments de Mademoiselle Cadière ... écrits de sa
propre main._ Aix, 1731.
BOYER D’AIGUILLES. _Conclusions de M. le procureur général du roi ... au
sujet de procès d’entre le P. Girard...._ n.d.
_Sentence de monsieur l’official de l’évêché de Toulon, qui renvoie le P.
Girard absous des accusations...._ n.d.
_Leonora Galigai_
_La Juste pvnition de Lycaon, Florentin, Marquis d’Ancre._ Paris, 1617.
_Arrest de la Cour de Parlement contre le marechal d’Ancre et sa femmé,
prononce et exécuté à Paris le 8 juillet, 1617._
_Harangve de la marquise d’Ancre, estant sur l’echaffaut._ 1617.
_Bref récit de ce qui s’est passé pour l’exécution ... de la marquise
d’Anchre._ Paris, 1617.
_Discours sur le mort de Eléonor Galligay, femme de Conchine, marquis
d’Ancre._ Paris, 1617.
_La Médée de la France, dépeinte en personne de la Marguerite d’Ancre._
Paris, 1617.
_Louis Gaufridi and Madeleine de la Palud_
_Arrest de la Covr de Parlement de Provence, portant condamnation
contre Messire Louis Gaufridi ... convaincu de Magie et autres crimes
abominables...._ Aix, 1611.
_Confession faicte par Messire Lovys Gaufridi, prestre en l’église
Accoules de Marseille, prince de magiciens depuis Constantinople jusques
à Paris...._ Aix, 1611.
FONTAINE, JACQUES. _Discovrs des marqves des sorciers ... sur le subiect
di procez de ... Louys Gauffridy._ Paris, 1611.
MICHAËLIS, PÈRE. _Histoire admirable de la possession et conversion d’une
pénitente séduite par un magicien...._ Paris, 1612.
DOOMS. _Actes des exorcismes faits à la Sainte-Baume ... sur Louis
Copeau, Magdeleine de la Palud et Louis Gauffridy._ Douai, 1613.
ROSSET, FRANÇOIS DE. _Les histoires tragiqves de nostre temps._ Paris,
1614.
LENORMANT DE CHIREMONT, J. _Histoire véritable, mémorable de ce qvi c’est
passé sovs l’exorcisme de trois filles possédées ès pais de Flandre ...
ou il est avssi traité de la police du Sabbat._ Paris, 1623.
GINESTE, RAOUL. _Louis Gaufridi et Magdeleine de la Palud._ Paris, 1904.
(A modern study which must be used with reserve.)
_Urbain Grandier_
_Interrogatoire de maistre Urbain Grandier, prêtre, curé de Saint
Pierre-du-Marché de Loudun, avec les confrontations des religieuses
possédées contre ledict Grandier._ Paris, 1634.
_Arrest et condamnation de mort contre Maistre Vrbain Grandier ...
atteint et convaincu du crime de magie._ Paris, 1634.
_Relation veritable de ce qui s’est passé à la mort du curé de Loudun,
bruslé tout vif le vendredi 18 aoust 1634._
TRANQUILLE, PÈRE. _Véritable relation des justes procédures observées au
faict de la possession des Ursulines de Loudun._ Paris, 1634.
_La démonomanie de Lodun, qui montre la véritable possession des
religieuses urselines et autres séculières._ La Flèche, 1634.
DUNCAN, MARC. _Discours de la possession des religieuses Ursulines de
Loudun._ 1634.
_Récit véritable de ce qui s’est passé à Loudun contre Maistre Urbain
Grandier._ Paris, 1634.
LA FOUCAULDIÈRE, M. DE. _Les effets miraculeux de l’église romain sur les
estranges et affroyables action des démons._ Paris, 1635.
_Relation de la sortie du démon Balam du corps de la mère prieure des
ursulines de Loudun._ Paris, 1635.
SURIN, PÈRE. _Lettre écrite à Monseigneur l’Evêque de Poictiers par un
des Pères Jésuites qui exorcisèrent à Loudun._ Paris, 1635.
_La gloire de St. Joseph, victorieux des principaux démons de la
possession des Ursulines de Loudun._ Le Mans, 1636.
LUCHÉ, PÈRE MATHIEU DE. _Les interrogatoires et exorcismes nouvellement
faites à un démon sur le sujet de la possession des filles urcellines de
Loudun._ Paris, 1637.
SAINTE-CATHERINE. _Le grand pécheur converty, représenté dans les deux
estats de la vie de M. de Queriolet._ Lyons, 1690.
AUBIN. _Histoire des diables de Loudun._ Amsterdam, 1693.
LA MÉNARDAYE, M. DE. _Examen et discussion critique de l’histoire des
diables de Loudun._ Paris, 1747.
_Histoire abrégée de la possession des Ursulines de Loudun._ Paris, 1828.
DUMAS, ALEXANDRE. _Crimes célèbres._ 6 vols. Paris, 1839-41. (A highly
romantic treatment. This survey must be used with caution.)
SAUZÉ, CHARLES. _Etude médico-historique sur les possédées de Loudun._
Paris, 1840.
LERICHE, L’ABBÉ. _Etudes sur les possessions en général et sur celle de
Loudun en particulier._ Paris, 1859.
LEGUÉ, DR. G. _Documents pour servir à l’histoire médicale des possédées
de Loudun._ Paris, 1874.
_Urbain Grandier et les possédées de Loudun._ Paris, 1880.
JEAN DE POITIERS. _Les diables de Loudun._ Paris, 1878.
_S. Joan of Arc_
LENGLET-DUFRESNOY, L’ABBÉ N. _Histoire de Jeanne d’Arc._ Paris, 1753-4.
GUILBERT. _Eloge historique de Jeanne d’Arc._ Rouen, 1803.
BUCHON, J. A. _Chronique et procès de la Pucelle d’Orléans._ Paris, 1817.
LE BRUN DES CHARMETTES. _Histoire de Jeanne d’Arc._ Paris, 1817.
QUATREMÈRE-ROISSY, J. A. _Quelques pièces curieuses sur le mariage
prétendu de Jeanne d’Arc._ Paris, 1830.
QUICHERAT, JULES. _Aperçus nouveaux sur l’histoire de Jeanne d’Arc._
Paris, 1841.
_Relation inédite sur Jeanne d’Arc._ Orléans, 1879.
BEAUREGARD, B. DE. _Histoire de Jeanne d’Arc._ Paris, 1847.
MICHELET, JULES. _Jeanne d’Arc._ Paris, 1853.
BRIERE DE BOISMONT, DR. A. _De l’hallucination historique, ou étude ...
sur les voix et les révélations de Jeanne d’Arc._ Paris, 1861.
VALLET DE VIRIVILLE. _Procès de condamnation de Jeanne d’Arc._ Paris,
1867.
O’REILLY, E. _Les Deux Procès de condamnation ... de Jeanne d’Arc._
Paris, 1869.
ROBILLARD DE BEAUREPAIRE. _Recherches sur le procès de condamnation de
Jeanne d’Arc._ Rouen, 1869.
CHEVALIER, A. _Jeanne d’Arc. Bio-Bibliographie._ Montbeliard, 1878.
LUCE, SIMÉON. _Jeanne d’Arc à Domremy._ Paris, 1886.
LÉO TAXIL, G. J. P. and FESCH, PAUL. _Le Martyr de Jeanne d’Arc._ Paris,
1890.
BEAUREPAIRE, CHARLES DE. _Notes sur les juges et les assesseurs du procès
de condamnation de Jeanne d’Arc._ Rouen, 1890.
_La Voisin and her Confederates_
DUFEY DE L’YONNE. _La Bastille, mémoires pour servir à l’histoire
secrète...._ Paris, 1833.
CLÉMENT, PIERRE. _La police de Paris sous Louis XIV._ Paris, 1866.
RAVAISSON, FRANÇOIS. _Archives de la Bastille._ 17 vols. Paris, 1866-74.
MONTIFAUD, M. DE. _Racine et la Voisin._ Paris, 1878.
LOISELEUR, JULES. _La Saint-Barthélemy, l’affaire des poisons et Mme de
Montespan._ Paris, 1882.
JOURDY, G. _La Citadelle de Besançon ... ou épilogue de l’Affaire des
poisons._ 1888.
LEGUÉ, DR. G. _Medécins et empoisonneurs au XVIIme siècle._ Paris, 1890.
NASS, DR. L. _Les empoisonnements sous Louis XIV._ Paris, 1898.
FUNCK-BRENTANO, F. _Le drame des poisons._ Paris, 1899.
_Palladism_
BATAILLE (Dr. Hacks). _Le diable au XIXme siècle ou les mystères du
Spiritisme._ Paris, 1893.
MARGIOTTA, D. _Le Palladisme. Culte de Satan._ Grenoble, 1895.
VAUGHAN, MISS DIANA. (i.e. LÉO TAXIL.) _Le Palladium régénéré et libre.
Lien des groupes lucifériens independants._ Paris, 1895.
_Mémoires d’une ex-palladiste._ Paris, 1896.
_La Restauration du Paganisme. Transition décrétée par le
Sanctum Regnum, pour préparer l’etablissement du culte public
de Lucifer._ Paris, 1896.
SURLABRÈCHE, E. _La confusion de Satan._ Paris, 1896.
PAPUS. _Catholicisme, satanisme et occultisme._ Paris, 1897.
_Gilles de Rais_
MEURET, F. C. _Annales de Nantes._ Nantes, _circa_ 1840.
_Petite histoire nantaise ... du Barbe-Bleue nantais, ou du Maréchal de
Retz._ Nantes, 1841.
STENDHAL, H. BEYLE. _Mémoires d’un touriste._ Paris, 1854.
GUERAUD, ARMAND. _Notice sur Gilles de Rais._ Rennes, 1855.
MARCHEGAY. _Récit authentique de l’exécution de Gilles de Rays._ Nantes,
s.d.
LACROIX, PAUL. _Crimes étranges. Le maréchal de Rays._ Brussels, 1855.
BOSSARD, L’ABBÉ E. _Gilles de Rais ... dit Barbe-Bleue._ Paris, 1885.
HUYSMANS, J. K. _La Magie en Poitou. Gilles de Rais._ 1899.
_The Templars_
MESSIE, PIERRE (Pedro Mexia). _Les diverses leçons de Pierre Messie._
Paris, 1556.
DUPUY, PIERRE. _Traité concernant l’histoire de France._ Paris, 1654.
_Histoire de l’abolition de l’ordre des Templiers._ Paris, 1779.
NICOLAÏ, FREDERIC. _Essai sur les accusations intentées aux Templiers et
sur le secret de cet ordre._ Amsterdam, 1783.
GROUVELLE, P. _Mémoires historiques sur les Templiers._ Paris, 1805.
RAYNOUARD, F. J. M. _Monumens historiques relatifs à la condamnation des
Chevaliers du Temple._ Paris, 1813.
REY, E. _Etude sur les Templiers._ Arcis-sur-Aube, 1891.
HAMNER, JOSEPH DE. _Mémoires sur deux coffrets gnostiques du Moyen-Age du
cabinet de M. le duc de Blacas._ Paris, 1832.
BARGINET, F. A. _Discours sur l’histoire civile et religieuse de l’ordre
du Temple._ Paris, 1833.
MAILLARD DE CHAMBURE, C. H. _Régles et statuts secrets des Templiers._
Paris, 1841.
HAVEMANN. _Geschichte des Ausgangs des Tempelherrenordens._ Stuttgart,
1846.
MIGNARD, T. J. A. P. _Monographie du coffret de M. le duc de Blacas._
Paris, 1852.
DAUNANT, DE. _Le procès des Templiers._ Nimes, 1863.
LOISELEUR, JULES. _La doctrine secrète des Templiers._ Paris, 1872.
GAIDOZ, H. _Note sur un statuette en bronze représentant un homme assis
les jambes croisées._
PRUTZ, HANS DR. _Geheimlehre und Geheimstatuten des Tempelherren-Ordens._
Berlin, 1879.
_Entwicklung und Untergang des Tempelherrenordens._ Berlin,
1888.
JACQUOT, F. _Défense des Templiers._ Paris, 1882.
CURZON, HENRI DE. _La Règle du Temple._ Paris, 1886.
SCHOTTMULLER. _Der Untergang des Tempelordens._ 2 vols. Berlin, 1887.
LAVOCAT. _Procès des frères et de l’ordre du Temple._ Paris, 1888.
NAEF, F. _Recherches sur les opinions religieuses des Templiers._ Nimes,
1890.
GMELIN. _Schuld oder Unschuld des Templerordens._ Stuttgart, 1893.
ITALY
_Archivio storico italiano._ 4 serie. Florence, 1842-85.
BOFFITO. _Gli eretici in Piemonte._ 1897.
BONNI, F. _L’Inquisizione e i Calabro-Valdesi._ Milan, 1864.
BORELLI. _Editti antichi e nuovi._ Turin, 1681.
BORGIA, STEFANO. _Memorie istoriche della pontificia cittá di Benevento._
Rome, 1769.
CANTÙ, CESARE. _Gli Eretici d’Italia._ 3 vols. Turin, 1865-7.
_Storia della Diocesi di Como._ 2 vols. Como, 1829-31.
CAPPELLETTI. _Le Chiese d’Italia._ Venice, 1844.
CARUTTI. _Storia della citta di Pinerolo._ Pinerolo, 1893.
CASTRO, G. DE. _Il Mondo Segreto._ 9 vols. Milan, 1864.
_Arnaldo da Brescia._ Leghorn, 1875.
CATTANI, FRA. _Discorso sopra la Superstizione dell’ Arte Magica._
Florence, 1567.
CIGOGNA, STROZZI. _Pelagii de gli incanti._ Vicenza, 1605
CORIO, B. _L’Istoria di Milano._ Padua, 1646.
DANDALO, C. T. _La Signora di Monza._ Milan, 1855.
DE BLASIO, PROF. ABELE. _La Mala Vita a Napoli._ Naples, 1905.
DEJOB. _De l’influence du concile de Trente._ Paris, 1884.
FOLENGO, GIROLAMO. _Opus Macaronicum._ 2 vols. Mantua, 1771.
GALVANI. _Osservazioni sulla Poesia de’ Trovatori._ Modena, 1839.
GIANNONE, P. _Istoria civile del Regno di Napoli._ 7 vols. Naples, 1770.
GORI. _Storia di Chiusi._
GRIMALDO, CONSTANTINI. _Dissertatione in cui si investiga quali sian le
operazioni che dependono della magia._ Rome, 1751.
GUICCIARDINI, FRANCESCO. _Delle istorie d’Italia._ 8 vols. Florence,
1818. Also ed. Resini. 5 vols. Turin, 1874.
LAMI. _Lezioni d’antichitá toscane._ 2 vols. Florence, 1766.
LELAND, C. G. _Etruscan Remains._ London, 1892.
_Lettera dal Inquisitore da Barzalone allo Inquisitore de Novara_, n.d.
MASTRIANI, F. _I Vermi._ 2 vols. Naples, 1877.
_Misteri dell’ Inquisizione._ Paris, 1847. (A catchpenny.)
MONNIER, M. _La Camorra._ Paris, 1863.
MURATORI, L. A. _Rerum italicarum scriptores._ 28 vols. Milan, 1723 _et
seq._
_Continuatio opera Jo. Mar. Tartini._ 2 vols. Florence, 1748-80.
_Antiquitates italicæ medii aevi._ 6 vols. Milan, 1738.
_Annali d’Italia._ 5 vols. Milan, 1838.
MUTINELLI. _Storia Arcana d’Italia._ 4 vols. Venice, 1858.
MUZI. _Memorie ecclesiastiche e civili di Cittá di Castello._ Rome,
1842-7.
NICEFORO, A. E SIGHELE. _La Mala Vita a Roma._ Rome, 1899.
_L’Italia barbara._ Rome, 1898.
NOVELLIS. _Biografia Saviglianese._ Turin, 1840.
OGNIBEN, ANDREA. _I Guglielmiti del secolo XIII._ Perugia, 1847.
PECCI, GIOVANNI ANTONIO. _Storia del vescovado della cittá di Siena._
Lucca, 1748.
PELLET, M. _Naples contemporaine._ Paris, 1894.
PERINI, O. _Storia delle Societá Segrete._ 2 vols. Milan, 1863.
ROSSETTI, GABRIELE. _Disquisitions on the Antipapal Spirit ... its Secret
Influence...._ 2 vols. 1834. (Translated by Miss C. Ward.)
SEGNI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA. _Del vero cristiano contra l’arte planetaria._
Ferrara, 1592.
SILVAGNI, D. _La Corte e la Societá Romana nei XVIII e XIX secoli._ 2nd
ed. 3 vols. Florence, 1882-5.
_Successo di Giustitia fatta nella cittá di Munich di sei scelerati
strigoni._ Genoa, 1641.
TOCCO. _L’Eresia nel medio Evo._ Florence, 1884.
TORRICELLO. _Dialogo di Otto Lupano, nel qual si ragiona delle statute e
miracoli de demoni e spiriti._ Milan, 1540.
TURLETTI. _Storia di Savigliano._
UGHELLI. _Italia sacra._ 10 vols. Venice, 1721.
VAYRA, P. _Le Streghe nel Canarese (Curiositá di Storia Subalpina)._ 1874.
VIZZINI, A. _La Mafia._ Rome, 1880.
NORTH AMERICA
_A True though Sad Relation of Six Sea-men_ (_Belonging to the_ Margaret
_of_ Boston) _Who Sold Themselves to the_ Devil _And were Invisibly
Carry’d away_. A pamphlet of 8 pages. N.D. _Circa_ 1698.
BANCROFT. _History of the United States._
BURR, GEORGE LINCOLN. _Narratives of the Witchcraft Cases._ New York,
1914.
_The Witchcraft Persecutions._ Univ. of Pennsylvania
Translations and Reprints. Vol. III. No. 4. Philadelphia, 1903.
CALEF, ROBERT. _The Wonders of the Invisible World._ Boston, 1700.
DRAKE, SAMUEL G. _Annals of Witchcraft._ 1869.
GREEN, SAMUEL ABBOTT. _Groton in the Witchcraft Times._ Cambridge, Mass.,
1883.
HUTCHINSON, JOHN. _History of the Province of Massachuset’s Bay._
KITTREDGE, G. L. _Notes on Witchcraft._ American Antiquarian Soc.
Proceedings. N.S. xviii. 1906-7.
MATHER, COTTON. _The Wonders of the Invisible World._ Boston, 1693.
MATHER, INCREASE. _Remarkable Providences._ Boston, 1683-4.
NEAL, D. _History of New England._ London, 1747.
NEVINS, W. S. _Witchcraft in Salem Village._ Boston, 1892.
POOLE, W. F. _Salem Witchcraft._ Boston, 1869.
TAYLOR, JOHN. _The Witchcraft Delusion in Colonial Connecticut._ New
York, n.d.
UPHAM, CLEMENT WENTWORTH. _History of Salem Witchcraft._ 2 vols.
UPHAM, CAROLINE E. _Salem Witchcraft in Outline._ Illustrated. 3rd ed.
Salem, Mass., 1891.
(This is mainly a compendium of C. W. Upham’s larger work.)
WINSOR, J. _The Literature of Witchcraft in New England._ 1896.
(Reprinted from Proc. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1895.)
GERMANY
BUCHINGER. _Julius Echter von Melpresbrunn._
DIECKHOFF. _Die Waldenser im Mittelalter._ Gottingen, 1851.
DIEFFENBACH, JOHANN. _Der Hexenwahn vor und nach der Glaubensspaltung in
Deutschland._ Mainz, 1886.
DUHR. _Stellung des Jesuiten in den deutschen Hexenprozessen._ Freiburg,
1900.
DURINGSFELD. _Das festliche Jahr._ Leipzig.
FLÜGEL, G. _Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schriften._ Leipzig, 1862.
GAAR, G. S. J. _Christliche Anred nächst dem Scheiterhaufen, worauff der
Leichnam Mariæ Renatæ, einer durchs Schwert hingerichtetin Zauberin, den
21ten Jun. An. 1749, ausser der Stadt Würzburg, verbrennet worden, an ein
Zahlreich versammeltes Volk gethan...._ (Contemporary and important.)
GLAUBRECHT, OTTO. _Die Schreckensjahre von Lindheim._ Stuttgart, 1886.
_Handbuch der deutschen Mythologie._
HANSEN, JOSEPH. _Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Hexenwahns
und der Hexenverfolgung im Mittelalter._ Bonn, 1901. (A valuable and
important study.)
HELBING. _Die Tortur, Geschichte der Folter, etc._ 2 vols. Berlin, 1902.
_Historia tragica adolescentis prænobilis Ernesti ab Ernberg._ (Written
by his confessor, a Jesuit father. Collect. Gropp. Vol. II, pp. 287,
_sqq._)
HORST, GEORG CONRAD. _Dæmonomagie, oder Geschichte des Glaubens an
Zauberei und dæmonische Wunder._ Frankfort. 2 vols. 1818.
HORST, VICTOR. _Zauberbibliothek._ 6 vols.
KESSLER. _Mâni Forschungen über die manichäissche Religion._ 2 vols.
Berlin, 1889, _sqq._
_Kleiner Beitrag zur Geschichte des Hexenwesens im 16 Jahrhundert._
Trier, 1830.
KOPP. _Die Hexenprozesse und ihre Gegner in Tyrol._ Innsbruck, 1874.
KRONE. _Fra Dolcino und die Patarerer._ Leipzig, 1844.
LEHMANN. _Aberglaube und Zauberei._ Stuttgart, 1908.
LEITSCHUH, FRIEDRICH DR. _Beitræge zur Geschichte des Hexenwesens in
Franken._ Bamberg, 1883.
_Der letzte Hexenprocess in Deutschland._ Pirna, 1849.
LOSCHART, OSWALD, C.R.P. _Die wahrhafte und umständliche Nachricht von
dem Zufalle, so das jungfräuliche Kloster Unterzell Nächst Würzburg
betroffen, verfasset im Jahr 1749._ 1749.
MEYER, LUDWIG. _Die Periode der Hexenprocesse._
MÜLLER, KARL. _Die Waldenser und ihre einzelnen Gruppen bis zum Anfang
des 14 Iahrhunderts._ Gotha, 1886.
OCHSENBEIN. _Aus dem Schweizer Volksleben des XV Iahrhunderts._ 1881.
PAULUS. _Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess in 16 Jahrh._ Freiburg, 1910.
RAPP, LUDWIG. _Die Hexenprozesse und ihre Gegner aus Tyrol._
REINSBURG, O. F. VON. _Bavaria Landes und Volkskunde des Königreichs
Bayern._ Munich, 1860-66.
RIETZLER. _Hexenprozesse in Bayern._ Stuttgart, 1896.
SCHERR, J. _Hammerschläge und Historien._ Vol. II. sub _Die letzte
Reichshexe_.
SCHINDLER. _Der Aberglaube des Mittelalters._ Breslau, 1858.
SCHREIBER. _Die Hexenprozesse im Breisgau._
SCHUMACHER, H. A. _Die Stedinger, Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Wesenmarschen._ Bremen, 1865.
SILBERSTEIN, AUGUST. _Denksäulen im Gebeite der Cultur und Literatur._
Vienna, 1879.
SOLDAN-HEPPE. _Geschichte der Hexenprozesse._ 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1880.
(Soldan’s famous work “neu gearbitet von Dr. Heinrich Heppe.”)
STECK, RUDOLFF. _Die Akten des Jetzerprozesses nebst dem Defensorium._
Basel, 1904.
STEINER. _Geschichte der Stads Dieburg._ Darmstadt, 1829.
TRUMMER, C. _Vorträge über Tortur, Hexenverfolgungen, Vehmgerichte,
etc._, in _Der Hamburgischen Rechtsgeschichte_. Vol. I.
VOLK, FR. _Hexen in der Landvogtei Ortenau und Reichstadt Offenburg._
WITZSCHEL, AUGUST. _Sitten, Sagen, und Gevräuche aus Thuringen._ Vienna,
1878.
_Wunderbarliche Geheimnussen der Zauberey._ 4to. 1630.
ZINGERLE, IGNAZ, DR. _Barbara Pachlerin, die Sarnthaler Hexe._ Innsbruck,
1858.
SPIRITISM
“ADEPTE, UN.” _Katie King, Histoire de ses Apparitions._ Paris, 1879.
BALLOU, ADIN. _Spirit Manifestations._ Boston, 1852; Liverpool, 1853.
BENSON, VERY REV. MGR. HUGH. _Spiritualism._ C.T.S. No. 36.
BLACKMORE, S.J., SIMON AUGUSTINE. _Spiritism, Facts and Frauds._ London,
1925. (The best concise study of the subject. The work is fairly and
authoritatively written, and the conclusions are eminently sane.)
BROWSON. _The Spirit-Rapper._ Boston, 1854. In Vol. IX of Works. Detroit,
1884.
BUTT, G. BASEDEN. _Modern Psychism._ London, 1925.
CAPRON, E. W. _Modern Spiritualism._ New York, 1855.
CARRINGTON, HEREWARD. _Physical Phenomena._ 1920.
_The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism._ Boston, 1902.
CARTER, HUNTLY. _Spiritualism, Its Present-Day Meaning. A Symposium._
London, 1920.
COATES, JAMES. _Seeing the Invisible: practical studies in Psychometry_,
etc.
CRAWFORD, W. J. _Experiments in Psychical Science._
_The Reality of Psychic Phenomena._
_Some practical Hints for those investigating ... Spiritualism._
DELANNE, G. and G. BOURNIQUET. _Ecoutons les Morts._ Paris, 1923.
DUNRAVEN, EARL OF. _Experiences in Spiritualism with D. D. Home._
DURVILLE. _Le Fântome des Vivants._ Paris, 1909.
FOURNIER D’ALBE, E. E. _The Goligher Circle, May to August, 1921._
London, 1922.
GASPARIN, COUNT AGENOR DE. _Des tables tournantes._ Paris, 1854.
GURNEY, MYERS, and PODMORE. _Phantasms of the Living._ 2 vols. London,
1886.
GUTHERLET. _Der Kampf und die Seele._ 2nd ed. Mainz, 1903.
JUNG, J. H. _Theorie der Geisterkunde._
LANSLOTO, O.S.B., D. I. _Spiritism Unveiled._ St. Louis, 1913. (An
excellent and most valuable work.)
LEPICIER, O.S.M., ALEXIS. _The Unseen World._ London, 1906.
LILLIE, ARTHUR. _Modern Mystics and Modern Magic._ London, 1894.
LODGE, SIR OLIVER. _Raymond, or Life after Death._ London, 1916
PAILLOUX, C. S. _Le Magnetisme, le Spiritisme, et la possession._
RAUPERT, J. GODFREY. _Spiritistic Phenomena; their interpretation._
_New Black Magic._ 1924.
_Modern Spiritism._ London, 1907.
SARGENT, EPES. _Planchette or the Despair of Science._ Boston, 1869.
SCHRENCK-NOTZING, BARON VON. _Phenomena of Materialization._ Trans. by E.
E. Fournier d’Albe. London, 1923.
SEMENOFF, MARC. _Introduction à la vie secrète._ Paris, 1925.
SPICER, HENRY. _Sights and Sounds; the Mystery of the Day._ London, 1853.
SURBLED. _Spiritualism et spiritisme._ Paris, 1898.
_Spirites et mediums._ Paris, 1901.
THURSTON, S.J., HERBERT F. _The Problems of Materialization._ _The
Month_, Oct., 1922. (And a number of valuable articles which have been
published of recent years in _The Month_.)
TRETHEWY, A. W. _The Controls of Stainton Moses._ London, 1925.
WALLACE, A. R. _Miracles and Modern Spiritualism._ London, 1897.
INDEX
Abraham, Statue of, 183
Accommodation theory, false, 203
_Ad Abolendam_, Bull of Lucius III, 17
Ælian, 118, 158
Æneas sacrifices to Night, 158
Ætius, 158
African witchcraft, 163
Agrippa, Cornelius, 103, 296
Akiba, Rabbi, 190
Albertus Magnus, Blessed, 64
Albigenses, 17, 27, 28, 62, 87
_Alchemist, The_, 304-5
Aldonistæ, 17
Alduin, Count, 26
Alexander III, 17, 18
Alexander IV, 13, 43, 64
_Alphonsus, King of Arragon_ (Greene), 287
Alphonsus Liguori, S., 41, 68-9, 92, 126, 203
Alphonsus Rodriguez, S.J., 126
Ambrose, S., 14, 117, 176, 180, 224
Anania, Lorenzo, 128, 167
Andreas, S., of Rinn, 162, 197
Anne Catherine Emmerich, 126
Antony, S. (the Great), 202
Apollodorus, 201
Apuleius, Lucius, 111, 116, 184, 296
Aquila of Pontus, 190
Aquinas, S. Thomas, 45, 64, 91, 128, 176, 296
Arab witches, 5
Aretæus, 202
Ariberto, Archbishop of Milan, 16
Aristophanes, 98, 200
Aristotle, 296
Arnauld Amaury, 18
Arnobius, 99
Arrows, Divination with, 182-3
_Asceticus_, heretical treatise, 22
Asmodeus, 190
Asperges, mock, at witches’ mass, 154
Athanasius, S., 224
Augustine of Hippo, S., 13, 64, 100, 128, 176, 180, 184, 296
Aupetit, Pierre, 149, 152
Azor, S.J., Juan, 92
Bacon, Lord, 65
Bagnolenses, 17
Balaam, 174, _sqq._
Balac, 174, _sqq._
Baltimore, Second Council of, 61
Balzac, Honoré de, 263
Bancroft, Richard, Archbishop of Canterbury, 229-30
Baptism at the Sabbat, 84-5
Barbagli, Domenica (ecstatic), 126
Barrett, Sir William, 255, 264, 268
Basil, S., 180, 224
Basque Sabbats, 112-13, 115
_Basques, Les_, 311
Bavent, Madeleine, 87, 149, 153, 155, 157
Becquet, Isabel, 81
Beghards, 17
Bekhten, The Prince of, 198-200
Belon, Jean, 149
_Belphegor_, 307
Benedict XII, 65
Benedict XIV, 69, 92, 223
Benedict, S., 117, 222-23
Benedict, S., Medal of, 240
Benedictus (a sorcerer), 148
Bernard of Como, 120, 129
Berry, Mr. George F., 264
Besançon, The Holy Winding Sheet of, 224
Besinnet, Ada, 266
Billuart, O.P., Charles René, 92
Binsfeld, Bishop Pierre, 61, 94
_Birth of Merlin, The_, 287, 306
Bishop, Bridget, 76, 146
Black book or roll of witches, 85-6
Blackstone’s _Commentaries_, 63
Blessing of the Waters (Epiphany), 220
Blocksburg, The, 114, 115
Blockula, 121
Blood used to seal compacts, 67-8
Bocal, Pierre, 149
Bodin, Jean, 1, 65, 94, 114, 123, 145, 157, 296
Bogomiles, 17, 22, 23, 27
Boguet, Henri, 5, 6, 58, 94, 97, 113, 116, 117, 122, 130-3, 139, 141,
145, 157
Bois, Jules, 311
Bonacina, Martino, 92
Bonaventura, S., 64, 91, 128
Boulanger, General, 264
Boullé, Thomas, 150
Bourignon, Antoinette, 70, 83
Bournement, Abbé, 150
Bouvier, Jean-Baptist, Bishop of Le Mans, 92-3
Boyle, Robert, 65
Brey, Abbé Charles, 240-3
Bricaud, Joanny, 28
Brignoli, 96
Broomstick, The Witches’, 121-4
Browne, Sir Thomas, 65
_Brutus of Alba_, 302
Bulls dealing with sorcery, 46
Burchard of Worms, 100, 297
Burner, Thiébaut and Joseph, The Possession of, 238-43
Burroughs, George, 84, 147
Busembaum, S.J., Hermann, 106
Buskitt, Dr. F. G., 27
_Bussy d’Ambois_, 305
C., Stella, 266
Cæsarius, S., of Arles, 14
Cainites, 21
_Caius Marius_, 301-2
Caligula, 55
Calmet, Augustin Dom, 133
Camisards, 62, 78
Candles, black, used at Sabbat, 139
Canidia, 158
Carino, the Manichee, 17
Carpocrates, 22
Carrère, Mlle Eva, 267
Carrier, Martha, a Salem witch, 124, 145
_Castell of Perseverance, The_, 279
Castelvicz, Countess, 267
Castro, Alfonso de, 94, 128, 167
Cathari, 17, 23, 27, 37
Catherine de Medici, 176
Catherine de Ricci, S., 126
Catherine of Siena, S., 45, 126
Charles IX of France, causes black mass to be performed, 148
Charles de Sezze, Bl., 126
Charolais, Madame de, 150
Chesne, Pierre du, 148
Cincture of S. Monica, 82-3
Clement XI, 63
Clement of Alexandria, 99
Cockcrow, Sabbat ends at, 117-18
Colette, S., 126
College, Stephen, 298
Colley, Archdeacon, 260
Collin de Plancy, 158
Coman, Widow, 76
Concorrezenses, 17
Consolamentum, Manichæan rite, 23
Contract of witches with the Devil, 65-70, 81
Cook, Florence, 260
Cord of S. Francis, 82
Cornelius, Pope, 207
Cornelius à Lapide, 176
Covens, number of members in, 40;
organization of, 83
Cox, Julian, 5, 123
Craddock, Mr., 267
Craisson, Mgr., 92
Crespet, Père, 128, 167
Crookes, F.R.S., Sir William, 124, 246, 260, 268
Cross, Recovery of the True, 56
Cullender, Rose, 76
_Custom of the Country, The_, 305
Cybele, The rites of, 201-2
Cyprian of Antioch, S., 69
Cyril, S., of Jerusalem, 224
Cyril, S., of Alexandria, 182
D’Abadie, Jeannette, 81, 84
_Dame Dobson_, 302-3
Dance, at the Sabbat, 139-43;
Religious, 140;
at Seville (Los Seises), 140-1
Danæus, Lambert, 58
Darling, Thomas, 226
Darrel, John, 224-30
Davenport brothers, 259
David, Abbé, 150
Davies, Sir John, 123
Deane, Mrs., 266
Deborah (Debbora), Song of, 175
Dee, Dr. John, 227
De Lancre, 58, 63, 87, 94, 98, 118, 120, 123, 141, 144, 149, 150,
151, 153, 154, 159
Delrio, S.J., Martin Anton, 71, 93, 116, 137, 296
Demaratus, 200
Demdike, Elizabeth, 84, 294, 299
Demosthenes, 200
Denobilibus, 149
_De Rebus Uenereis ..._, 92
Devil, a man, Grand Master of the Sabbat, 7;
theological teaching concerning, 51-4;
in animal disguise at the Sabbat, 134-7
_Devil’s Charter, The_, 307-8
_Devil is an Ass, The_, 307
Dianic cult, imaginary, 43
_Dido and Æneas_, 302
Dinarchus, 200
Diocletian, 13, 22, 36
Dionysus, The rites of, 201-2
Dioscorides, 158
Divine, men who have claimed to be, 55-7
Divining Cup of Joseph, The, 183-4
Domitian, 55
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan, 235, 255, 268
Dryden, 301
Dualistic religion, 21
Ducrot, General, 245
_Duke and No Duke_, 287
_Duke of Guise, The_, 301
Duny, Amy, 76
Dupanloup, Mgr., Bishop of Orleans, 244-5
D’Urfey, Tom, 78
Echalar, Juan de (sorcerer), 159
Edeline, Guillaume, 66
Edmonds, John Worth, 259
Egbo sorcerers, 136-7
Eglinton, William, 60, 260, 262
Egyptian, belief in possession, 198-200;
magicians and Moses, 59
Eicher, S.J., Father, 241
Elbel, O.F.M., Benjamin, 92
Eldred, Charles, 261
Eleusinian Mysteries, 44
Elich, Philip Ludwig, 143, 145, 296
Eliezar, 194-5
Elipandus of Toledo, 15, 56
Elymas the sorcerer, 193
_Empress of Morocco, The_ (Duffett), 302
Endor, The Witch of, 176-84
Ephrem Syrus, S., Doctor Ecclesiæ, 224
Ermanno of Parma, 17
Erto (medium), 266-7
Etheridge, S.J., Father John, 259
Euchites, 22
Eugenius IV, 83
Euripides, 201-2
Evagrius Scholasticus, 100
Executions, Last European, 46
Exorcism, The rite of, 209-19;
A shorter, 220;
Baptismal, 220
Exorcists, Anglican canon concerning, 230-3;
Attempted by Puritan ministers, 232;
Minor Order of, 207;
Ordination of, 207-9
Eznih of Kolb, 27
Fabre des Essarts, 28
_Fair Maid of the Inn, The_, 305
False Christs, 57
Familiars, animal, 40, 41
Farnabie, Thomas, 159
Fascinum, 98-101
_Fatal Jealousie, The_, 300-1
_Faust_ (Goethe), 103
Faust Legend, Dramatic versions of the, 280-4
Feasting at the Sabbat, 144-5
Felix of Urgel, heretic, 15
Fian, Doctor, and his confederates, 72, 85, 88, 116, 124, 139, 142
Fiard, Abbé, 150
Filliucci, S.J., Vincenzo, 92
Fox family (mediums), 256-9
_Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_, 285-6
Francis, Elizabeth, 102
Francis of Assisi, S., 125
Francis Xavier, S., 126
Fugairon, Dr., of Lyons, 28
_Gallicinium_, 117
Garrison, William Lloyd, 250
Gasparin, Agénor de, 263
Gaufridi, Louis, 72-3, 82, 84-5, 116, 144, 149, 155
Gazariens, 37
Gemma Galgani, 126
Gerard Majella, S., 126, 240
Gerson, 65
Gesner, 158
Gil, of Santarem, Blessed, 69
_Giles Corey_, 310
Gilles de Rais, 33, 34, 36, 89, 148, 160
Glanvill, 65
_Glossarium Eroticum_, 99
Gnostic, The first, 193
Gnostic Church of Lyons, 29
Gnostics, 20
“Goats, The” (secret society), 136
Godelmann, Johann, 297
Görres, Johann Joseph, 94, 127
Gothescalch of Fulda, heretic, 15, 16
Gottardo of Marsi, 17
Grandier, Urbain, 73
Greek heroes, The cult and relics of, 30, 31
Greeley, Horace, 259
Gregory VII, S., 19
Gregory IX, 20
Gregory XIII, 83
Gregory XV, 65
Gregory, S., of Nyssa, 178, 180
Gregory of Nanzianzus, S., 99, 224
Grilland, Paul, 94, 122, 127, 128, 145, 167, 297
Grimoires, 11, 68
Guardia, El santo Nino de la, 162
Guazzo, Francesco Maria, 65, 81-9, 95, 128, 137, 141, 144, 145, 167,
297
Guibourg, Abbé, 89
(and his confederates), 150, 153, 160
Guldenstubbe, Baron de, 263
Guthrie, Helen, a Forfar witch, 26
Hare, Robert, 259
Harold of Gloucester, 162
Harsnett, Samuel, 229-30
Hartley, Edmund, 227
Haydon, Mrs. (medium), 259
Heliogabalus, 55
Henry II of England, 16
Heraclius, 56
Herod Agrippa I, 55
Herodas, 98-9
Hilarion, S., 202
Hinemar, Archbishop of Rheims, 15
Hippolytus, 185
Holland, Mrs. (medium), 266
Holt, Lord Chief Justice, 102
Home, Daniel D. (medium), 125, 246, 259, 263
Homer, 201
Hopkins, Matthew, 4, 102
Horace, 296
Horner, Elizabeth, 76
Hosts, as used at witches’ mass, 15, 155, 156-7;
Stolen from churches, 156
Hugh of Lincoln, S., 195
Humiliati, 17
Hush, Mr. Cecil, 267
Hutchinson, Bishop Francis, 101-2, 109
Huysmans, J. K., 29, 151, 264
Hydesville, Home of Fox family, 256-7
Hydromantia, 184
_If It Be Not Good, The Divel is in it_, 306-7
Ignatius Loyola, S., 126
Illfurt, Case of possession at, 238-43
Incense, noxious weeds burned for, in witches’ rites, 156
Incubi, 89-103
_Indian-Queen, The_, 301
Innocent III, 18
Innocent IV, 20
Innocent VIII, 12, 43, 44, 88, 94
_Institutiones Theologiæ Mysticæ_ (Schram), 93
Ireland, Witchcraft in, 25
Isidore of Seville, S., 13
_James the Fourth_ (Greene), 286
Janicot, Basque deity, 42
Jerome, S., 179, 182, 202
Jetzer, Brother, a Jacobin of Berne, 4
Joan, S., of Arc, false theories concerning, 33, 34
Johannites, 148
John XXII, 64
John Chrysostom, S., 13
John George II, Prince-Bishop of Bamberg, 24
John of the Cross, S., 45, 126
Jonson, Ben, 296
Joseph of Cupertino, S., 126-7
Josephins, 17
Jovio Paolo, 103
Judas Iscariot, 21
Juno Lacinia, 200
Justin Martyr, S., 224
Juvenal, 159, 296
Kembter, C.P.R., Adrian, 172, 195
Khlysti, 56
Khonsu, god of Thebes, 198-200
Khosroes (Khusran) II of Persia, 56
Kincaid, John, 74
_King Henry VI_ (Part II), 287-9
Kluski, Franek, 266
Kōsēm (magician), 186
Kyteler, Dame Alice, 25, 103, 124, 158
Laban and Jacob, 186
_Là-Bas_ (Huysmans), 151
Lactantius, 99-100, 224
_Lancashire Witches, The_ (Ainsworth), 309
_Lancashire Witches, The_ (Dibdin), 309
_Lancashire Witches, The_ (Fitzball), 309-10
_Lancashire Witches, The_ (Shadwell), 296-9, 303
Langton, Walter, Bishop of Coventry, 138
_Laruatus_ (= crazed), 201
_Late Lancashire Witches, The_, 292-6
Leaf, Mr. Horace, 265
Lecollet, Abbé, 150
Lemmi, Adriano, 8
Leo IV, Pope, S., 193
Leo XIII, 28, 90, 220
Levitation, 124-7, 246
_Liber Pœnitentialis_ of S. Theodore, 6, 88, 134
_Life of Mother Shipton, The_, 299-300
Lodge, Sir Oliver, 268
Louis XIV, 160, 161
_Love for Love_, 80, 303-4
Lucan, 296
Luciferians, 21
Lucius III, 17
_Luckey Chance, The_, 303
Lunacy, Induced by Spiritism, 253-6
_Lusty Juventus_, 279
Luther, Martin, 231
_Macbeth_, 289-90
Machiavelli Niccolo, 187
Magdalena de la Cruz, 69-70
_Magico Prodigioso, El_, 310
Maiolo, Simon, 61
_Malleus Maleficarum_, 24, 63, 94, 127, 129, 160, 296
Manasses, King of Juda, 181
Mandæans, 148
_Mandragola, La_, 187-8, 197
Mandrakes, 187-8
Mani, 21, 22
Mania, Roman goddess, 201
Manichees, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 32, 36, 148
_Mankind_, 279
Manlius, 103
Margaret of Cortona, S., 202
Maria Maddalena de Pazzi, S., 126
Marion, Elie, 62, 78
Mark, The Devil’s, 70-5, 89
Martin, S., of Tours, 14
_Mary of Nimmegen_, 284-6
Masks worn at the Sabbat, 136-7
_Masque of Queens_, 296, 304
Mass, mock, 87
Mass of S. Sécaire, 156-7
Mass, Witches’, origin of, 42-3;
liturgy of, 145-57
Maternus, Julius Firmicus, 99
Mather, Cotton, 83, 145
Maurus, O.S.B., S., 223-4
May-fires, 112
Mazzolini, O.P., Sylvester, 142, 296
Medal of S. Benedict, 222-3
Melancthon, 103, 128
Menander (heretic), 193
_Merry Devil of Edmonton, The_, 306
Messalians, 22
Michaelis, Sebastian Ven., 157
Middleton, Thomas, 9, 108
Midsummer bonfires, 43
_Midsummer-Night’s Dream_, 287
Miller (medium), 261-2
Missal, Devil’s, 87
Montanus, 56
Montespan, Madame de, 160
More, George, 227-9
Moses, 59, 173
Moses, William Stanton, 125, 259
_Mother Bombie_, 280
Mousseaux, Gougenot des, 94
Munnings, Mother, 102
Murray, Miss M. A., 31, 32, 33, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 75
Mystery Plays, 276-8
_Mystique Divine, La_ (Ribet), 90, 110
Naasseni, 21
Name given to witches, 85
Naudé, Gabriel, 297
Neo-Gnostic Church, 28
Neri, S. Philip, 44
Nevillon, Silvain, 84
_Newes from Scotland_, 9
Nicander, 158, 201
Nicephorus Calixtus, 100
Nicetas, 99
Nicniven, “a notabill sorceres,” 7, 85
Nider, O.P., John, 94, 296
_Nigramansir_, 278-9
Nipple, Supernumerary, 75-7
Norbert, S., 39, 49, 50
North-Berwick Kirk, 116, 121, 138, 142
Numa, Second King of Rome, 184
Odour of Sanctity, 45
_Œdipus_ (Dryden and Lee), 301
Ointment, Flying, 6
_Old Wives’ Tales, The_ (Peele), 286-7
Ophites, 21, 148
Origen, 180
_Orlando Furioso_ (Greene), 286
Orthodox Eucharist, 147-8
_Osculum infame_, 137-9
Ovid, 296
Owen, Rev. G. Vale, 255, 264-5
P., Stanislava, 267
Palladian Temple (_Templum Palladicum_), discovered in Rome, 152-3
Palladino Eusapia, 267
Palmer, John, a wizard, 76
Palud, Madeleine de la, 82, 149, 154, 157
Paolo de Caspan, O.P., Fra, 119
Pasagians, 17
Patarini, 17
Paterson, a pricker, 74-5
Paul, S., 193-4, 206-7
Paul I., Pope S., 193
Paul of the Cross, S., 126
Pauliciani, 17, 23
Pauper, Marcelline, 145-6
Pausanias, 187
Pauvres de Lyon, 17
Pax, burlesqued by witches, 155
Peach, Father Edward, 234-5
Peckham, Sir George, 224
Pecoraro, Nino, 267
Pelagius I, 14
Peña, Francesco, 127
Pentheus, 200
Peratæ, 21
Peter Damian, S., 128, 167
Peter, S., 191-3
Peter of Verona, S., 17
Peter Parenzo, S., 17
Peters, Mr. Vout, 266
Petronius Arbiter, 99, 109, 187, 296
Phædra, 201
Philip I of France, 19
Philip Neri, S., 44, 126
Philip the Deacon, 191
Philippi, a medium healed at, 206-7
Picard, Maturin, 150
Pike, Albert, of Charleston, 8
Piper, Mrs., 266
Pius IX, 246
Plautus, 201
Pliny, 118, 159, 296
Plutarch, 200
Poirier, Possession of Hélène-Josephine, 243-8
Ponzinibio, Giovanni Francesco, 127, 166, 167
Porta, Baptista, 296
Possession of devils in the Gospels, 191, 203-6
Prelati, Antonio Francesco, 148
Prickers of witches, Official, 74-5
Priscillian of Avila, heretic, 14
Propertius, 296
Prosecution of witches by the Cæsars, 11, 12
Protestant exorcism, 232-3
Prudentius, 117
Prynne, William, 282
Psychic Science, British College of, 235-8
Pythagoras, 200
Quintus Fulvius, 200
Raimond Rocco, 126
Rameses II, 198-9
Raphael, S., 190
Read, Mary, 76
Red Book of Appin, 86-7
Regino of Prüm, 121
Reid, Thom, 7
Relics, The cultus of, 31
_Religion of the Manichees, The_, 27
Remy, Nicolas, 118, 128, 167
Richet, Professor Charles, 268
Robert I of France, 25
_Robert le Diable_, 310
Robert of Bury S. Edmunds, 162
Robinson, Anne, 4
Rocheblanche, Abbé de, 150
Rosary, The Holy, 82
Rothe, Anne, 260
Rousseau, Abbé, 158
Rowley, William, 11
Rudolph, S., of Berne, 162
S., Willy (medium), 267
Sabazius, 111
Sabbat, Dances at the, 139-43;
Derivation of name, 111;
Feasting at, 143-5;
Liturgy of, 145-7;
Methods of travelling to the, 118-33;
Music at the, 142-3;
When held, 111-6;
Where held, 113-7
Sacrament, Diabolical, of Salem witches, 146-7
Sacrifice, of animals, 158-60;
of children, 88-9, 160;
of the God, hypothetical, 33-6
_S. Patrick for Ireland_, 305-6
Salmanticenses, 91-2, 145
Samuel, Ghost of, 178-81
Saturday, why no Sabbat held on, 116
Saul, 202
Sawyer, Elizabeth, 58-9, 76, 102, 290-2, 308
Scapular, Carmelite, 82
Sceva, The seven sons of, 194
Schott, S.J., Gaspar, 94
Schram, O.S.B., Dominic, 93
Schrenck-Notzing, Baron von, 267
Scot, Reginald, 69, 88, 123
_Secret Commonwealth, The_ (Robert Hink), 71
Seneca, 296
Sethians, 21
_Seven Champions of Christendom, The_, 287
Seville Cathedral, Ritual dance at, 140-1
Shadwell, Mrs., 301
Shadwell, Thomas, 75, 296-9
Shrill voice of ghosts, 177-8
Sillé, Gilles de, 148
Silvester of Abula, 128, 167
Simon Abeles, 162
Simon Magus, 20, 191
Simon, S., of Trent, 162
Sinistrari, Ludovico Maria, 65, 71, 78, 95, 161
_Sir Clyomon and Sir Clamydes_, 287
Sisto da Siena, 128, 167
Slade (a medium), 260
_Soir de Folie, Un_ (revue), 151, 311
Somers, William, 227-30
_Sophonisba_ (Lee), 301
_Sophonisba_ (Marston), 305
_Sorcière Canidie, La_, 311
_Sorcière, La_ (Dupetit-Mèré and Ducagne), 310
_Sorcière, La_ (Sardou), 311
Soulis, Lord William, of Hermitage, 7
Speronistæ, 17
Spina, Bartolomeo de, 119, 128, 167, 297
Spiritism, Condemned by the Catholic Church, 268-9
Spiritism, Some present-day activities of, 264-5
Spiritistic churches and assemblies, 264-5, 266
Spiritualism, its present-day meaning, 254-5
Sprenger, James, vide _Malleus Maleficarum_
Stapleton, Thomas, 46
Starchie, Nicholas, 227
Statius, 178
Stearne, John, 102, 108
Stewart, Francis, Earl of Bothwell, 8
Stewart, Mrs. Josie K., 266
Strabo, 184, 201
Stridtheckh, Christian, 115
Stumpf, Peter-Paul, Bishop of Strasburg, 241
Suarez, S.J., Francesco, 52, 54, 68, 91
_Summis desiderantes_, Bull of Innocent VIII, 12, 43, 88
Symons, Arthur, 141
Tacitus, 296
Tamburini, S.J., Thomas, 92
Tanchelin and his anarchy, 36-40, 49
Targum of Jonathan, 190
Tartarins, 17
Tartary, Wizards in, 59, 60
Tea-leaves used in divination, 185
_Tempest, The_, 287, 289
Templars, The, 26, 138, 147-8
_Templiers, Les_, 310
Teraphim, 189-90
Teresa, S., 126
Tertullian, 180
Theodore, S., of Canterbury, 6, 88, 134
Theodoret, 99, 176, 179
Theodosius II, 23
Thurston, S.J., Father, 63
Thyraus, S.J., Hermann, 93
Tibullus, 99, 296
Titivillus, 279-80
Toads, associated with Sabbat, 158-9
Tobias, 190-1
Tomson, Mrs. Elizabeth A., 266
_Trappolin Creduto Principe_, 287
Travers-Smith, Mrs., 265, 267
_Trial of Witchcraft, The_ (John Bell), 70-1
Tuileries, Séance at, 263
Turrecremata (Torquemada), Juan de, 128
_Two Noble Kinsmen, The_, 278
_Tyrannick Love_, 301
V., Mr., 267
Valentine (medium), 261
Valentinian I, 22
Valentinian II, 22
Valentinian III, 23
Valentinians, heretical sect, 29
Valentinus, heretic, 29
_Vampire, Le_, 310
Vaudois, 26, 37, 87
Vaughan, S.J., Bernard, 254-5
Vearncombe, Mr., 266
Vergil, 176, 296
Veronica Giuliani, S., 126
Verrall, Mrs., 266
Vestments worn at witches’ mass, 153-4
Victor III Bl. (Desiderius), 224
Vio Gaetani, Tommaso de, 128, 167
Visigoth code, 36
Voisin, Catherine la, 89, 160
Voisin, Marguerite la, 153
Voodooism, 26, 158, 163
Walburga, S., 111-2
Waldenses, 17, 87
Walpurgis-Nacht, Die, 111
Ward, Seth, Bishop of Exeter, 233
_Wars of Cyrus, The_, 287
Weir, Major Thomas, 34-6, 120
Wenham, Jane, 102
Werner, S., of Oberwesel, 162
Weston, S.J., William, 224-5
Weyer, John, 103, 296
Wilde, Oscar, Alleged script by, 267-8
William of Paris, boy martyr, 162
William, S., of Norwich, 162
Williams, Mrs. (medium), 261
Willibrod, S., Ritual at shrine of, 140
Winer, 203
_Wise Woman of Hogsdon_, 303
_Witch, The_ (Middleton), 108, 290
_Witch, The_ (Wiers-Jennsen), 311-2
_Witch of Edmonton, The_ (Ford and Dekker), 102, 290-2, 308
_Witch of Islington, The_, 304
_Witch Traveller, The_, 304
Witchcraft forbidden in the Bible, 181-2
_World tost at Tennis, The_, Masque, 9, 10, 278
Wright, Elizabeth, 75-6
Wright, Katherine, 225-6
_Zoroastres_, 302
THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION
A COMPLETE HISTORY OF MANKIND FROM PREHISTORIC TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY
IN UPWARDS OF 200 VOLUMES DESIGNED TO FORM A COMPLETE LIBRARY OF SOCIAL
EVOLUTION
_Editor_: C. K. OGDEN, of Magdalene College, Cambridge
_Consulting American Editor_: Professor HARRY ELMER BARNES.
A. PRE-HISTORY AND ANTIQUITY
I INTRODUCTION AND PRE-HISTORY
*Social Organization _W. H. R. Rivers_
The Earth Before History _E. Perrier_
Prehistoric Man _J. de Morgan_
*The Dawn of European Civilization _V. Gordon Childe_
A Linguistic Introduction to History _J. Vendryes_
A Geographical Introduction to History _L. Febvre_
Race and History _E. Pittard_
*The Aryans _V. Gordon Childe_
From Tribe to Empire _A. Moret_
*Woman’s Place in Simple Societies _J. L. Myers_
*Cycles in History _J. L. Myers_
*The Diffusion of Culture _G. Elliot Smith_
*The Migration of Symbols _D. A. Mackenzie_
II THE EARLY EMPIRES
The Nile and Egyptian Civilization _A. Moret_
*Colour Symbolism of Ancient Egypt _D. A. Mackenzie_
The Mesopotamian Civilization _L. Delaporte_
The Ægean Civilization _G. Glotz_
III GREECE
The Formation of the Greek People _A. Jardé_
*Ancient Greece at Work _G. Glotz_
The Religious Thought of Greece _C. Sourdille_
The Art of Greece _W. Deonna_ and _A. de Ridder_
Greek Thought and the Scientific Spirit _L. Robin_
The Greek City and its Institutions _G. Glotz_
Macedonian Imperialism _P. Jouguet_
IV ROME
Ancient Italy _L. Homo_
The Roman Spirit in Religion, Thought, and Art _A. Grenier_
Roman Political Institutions _L. Homo_
Rome the Law-Giver _J. Declareuil_
Ancient Economic Organization _J. Toutain_
The Roman Empire _V. Chapot_
*Ancient Rome at Work _P. Louis_
The Celts _H. Hubert_
V BEYOND THE ROMAN EMPIRE
Germany and the Roman Empire _H. Hubert_
Persia _C. Huart_
Ancient China and Central Asia _M. Granet_
*A Thousand Years of the Tartars _E. H. Parker_
India _(Ed.) S. Lévi_
*The Heroic Age of India _N. K. Sidhanta_
*Caste and Race in India _G. S. Ghurye_
*The Life of Buddha as Legend and History _E. H. Thomas_
B. CHRISTIANITY AND THE MIDDLE AGES
I THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTIANITY
Israel and Judaism _A. Lods_
Jesus and the Birth of Christianity _C. Guignebert_
The Formation of the Church _C. Guignebert_
The Advance of Christianity _C. Guignebert_
*History and Literature of Christianity _P. de Labriolle_
II THE BREAK-UP OF THE EMPIRE
The Dissolution of the Western Empire _F. Lot_
The Eastern Empire _C. Diehl_
Charlemagne _L. Halphen_
The Collapse of the Carlovingian Empire _F. Lot_
The Origins of the Slavs _(Ed.) P. Boyer_
*Popular Life in the East Roman Empire _N. Baynes_
*The Northern Invaders _B. S. Phillpotts_
III RELIGIOUS IMPERIALISM
Islam and Mahomet _E. Doutté_
The Advance of Islam _L. Barrau-Dihigo_
Christendom and the Crusades _P. Alphandéry_
The Organization of the Church _R. Genestal_
IV THE ART OF THE MIDDLE AGES
The Art of the Middle Ages _P. Lorquet_
*The Papacy and the Arts _E. Strong_
V RECONSTITUTION OF MONARCHIC POWER
The Foundation of Modern Monarchies _C. Petit-Dutaillis_
The Growth of Public Administration _E. Meynial_
The Organization of Law _E. Meynial_
VI SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EVOLUTION
The Development of Rural and Town Life _G. Bourgin_
Maritime Trade and the Merchant Gilds _P. Boissonnade_
*Life and Work in Medieval Europe _P. Boissonnade_
*The Life of Women in Medieval Times _Eileen Power_
*Travel and Travellers of the Middle Ages _(Ed.) A. P. Newton_
VII INTELLECTUAL EVOLUTION
Education in the Middle Ages _G. Huisman_
Philosophy in the Middle Ages _E. Bréhier_
Science in the Middle Ages _Abel Rey_ and _P. Boutroux_
VIII FROM THE MIDDLE AGES TO MODERN TIMES
Nations of Western and Central Europe _P. Lorquet_
Russians, Byzantines, and Mongols _(Ed.) P. Boyer_
The Birth of the Book _G. Renaudet_
*The Grandeur and Decline of Spain _C. Hughes Hartmann_
*The Influence of Scandinavia on England _M. E. Seaton_
*The Philosophy of Capitalism _T. E. Gregory_
*The Prelude to the Machine Age _D. Russell_
*Life and Work in Modern Europe _G. Renard_
_A special group of volumes will be devoted to_
(1) SUBJECT HISTORIES
*The History of Medicine _C. G. Cumston_
*The History of Money _T. E. Gregory_
*The History of Costume _M. Hiler_
*The History of Witchcraft _M. Summers_
*The History of Taste _J. Isaac_
*The History of Oriental Literature _E. Powys Mathers_
*The History of Music _Cecil Gray_
(2) HISTORICAL ETHNOLOGY
*The Ethnology of India _T. C. Hodson_
*The Peoples of Asia _L. H. Dudley Buxton_
*The Threshold of the Pacific _C. E. Fox_
*The South American Indians _Rafael Karsten_
* An asterisk denotes that the volume does _not_ form part of the French
collection, _L’Evolution de l’Humanité_.
_In the Sections devoted to MODERN HISTORY the majority of titles will be
announced later. Many volumes are, however, in active preparation, and of
these the first to be published will be_
*The Restoration Stage _M. Summers_
*London Life in the Eighteenth Century _M. Dorothy George_
*China and Europe in the Eighteenth Century _A. Reichwein_
The _New York Times_ calls this series “An adventure in letters and
learning whose range is so audacious as to challenge the imagination to
conceive it in its full implication.... A new type of vision on the whole
perspective of historical science.”
The _Chicago Evening Post_: “The scope is to be comprehensive and
the performance so far has been brilliant. Mr. Knopf will have done
the public an invaluable service by thus putting at its disposal an
authoritative history of the world, entirely in English, each field
covered by a man who has mastered it.... The History of Civilization
ought to prove a force not only in the spread of knowledge, but in the
propagation of international good-will.”
James T. Shotwell writes: “The History of Civilization, edited by Mr.
Ogden of Magdalene College, Cambridge, marks a new stage in the History
of History. Hitherto we have had co-operative surveys of sections of
European History, but they have all suffered from limitations of space.
The various contributors have been obliged by the editors to put into a
chapter material which ordinarily would call for a whole volume. This
great History leaves the author a real freedom to cover his subject
adequately, and once this is granted, the chief editorial problem is to
secure the outstanding authority in the particular subject. The list of
authors in this series could hardly be bettered. Each writer can bring a
distinct contribution apart from the data with which he deals; each great
phase of human evolution is presented here in a masterful survey and fits
well into the general synthesis.
“Turning from the special volumes to the work as a whole, one finds
a conception of history which corresponds to the demands of those
interested in the social and intellectual development of Europe, while
alongside of it the political story still furnishes the traditional
framework. It is a living picture of a vast movement, splendidly
conceived and sure to be adequately executed.”
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF WITCHCRAFT AND DEMONOLOGY ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
