An Unusual Inquisition : Translated Documents from Heinricus Institoris's Witch Hunts in Ravensburg and Innsbruck [1 ed.] 9789004423800, 9789004423787

Citation preview

“An Unusual Inquisition”

Studies in Central European Histories Founding Editors Thomas A. Brady and Roger Chickering Edited by David M. Luebke (University of Oregon) Celia Applegate (Vanderbilt University) Editorial Board Steven Beller (Washington, D.C.) Marc R. Forster (Connecticut College) Atina Grossmann (Columbia University) Peter Hayes (Northwestern University) Susan Karant-Nunn (University of Arizona) Mary Lindemann (University of Miami) H.C. Erik Midelfort (University of Virginia) David Sabean (University of California, Los Angeles) Jonathan Sperber (University of Missouri) Jan de Vries (University of California, Berkeley)

VOLUME 67

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/sceh

“An Unusual Inquisition” Translated Documents from Heinricus Institoris’s Witch Hunts in Ravensburg and Innsbruck

By

Christopher S. Mackay

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Johann Jakob Wick, Das xv Buoch begryfft die nüwen zyttungen Wunder und zeichen die sich in disem 1577 Jar zugetragen und verloffen habend. Zürich, ca. 1577, p. 98. Zentralbibliothek Zürich, Ms F 26, fol. 226r. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Mackay, Christopher S., 1962- author. Title: An unusual inquisition : translated documents from Heinricus  Institoris’s witch hunts in Ravensburg and Innsbruck / by Christopher S.  Mackay. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2020. | Series: Studies in central  European histories, 1547–1217 ; volume 67 | Includes index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019054301 (print) | LCCN 2019054302 (ebook) | ISBN  9789004423787 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004423800 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Institoris, Heinrich, 1430-1505. Malleus maleficarum. |  Witchcraft—Early works to 1800. | Demonology—Early works to 1800. |  Criminal procedure (Canon law)—Early works to 1800. Classification: LCC BF1569.I5723 M33 2020 (print) | LCC BF1569.I5723  (ebook) | DDC 272/.2—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019054301 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019054302

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1547-1217 ISBN 978-90-04-42378-7 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-42380-0 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Kelliae Dominae Meae quae multis me variisque semper adjuvat opibus.

∵

Contents Acknowledgements ix Introduction 1 Bibliography 80 Translation Notes 83 List of Decretals Cited 87

Texts 1

Letter from the Burgermasters and City Council of Ravensburg to Archduke Sigismund of the Tyrol, December 17, 1484 91

2 Urfehde (Guarantee of Good Behavior) for a Woman Presumably Questioned for Witchcraft by Institoris, Ravensburg, October 23, 1484 94 3

Instruction from Bishop Georg of Brixen to His Ecclesiastical Subordinates, July 23, 1485 98

4

Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to Institoris, September 21, 1485 101

5

Letter from Bishop Georg of Brixen to Archduke Sigismund, September 21, 1485 104

6

Letter from Archduke Sigismund of Austria to Bishop Georg of Brixen, October 8, 1485 107

7

Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to Sigismund Sämer, Parish Priest of Axams, Undated 108

8

Vernacular Protocol 111

9

Protocols of the Hearings Conducted against the Seven Arrested Women 143

viii

Contents

10

Articles of Suspected Crimes and List of Questions for the Further Investigation of the Seven Suspects after Their Release 174

11

Record of the Proceedings against the Seven Accused, October 29 and 31 and November 3, 1485 203

12

Letter from Bishop Georg of Brixen to Institoris, November 14, 1485 216

13

Letter from Bishop Georg of Brixen to an Unnamed Parish Priest in Innsbruck, November 14, 1485 217

14

Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to a Brother Nicholas, February 9, 1486 218

15

Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to Institoris, February 9, 1486 220

16

Brixen Memorandum 222 Index 295

Acknowledgements My heartfelt thanks to David M. Luebke for his help in finding a home for this manuscript, for his care in editing the text, and for his useful suggestions for improvements. And as always, I need to express my thanks to my wife Kelly MacFarlane for her help both in proofing the text and in so many other regards.

Introduction I had often cowled in the slumbrous heavy air, Closed my inanimate lids to find it real, As I knew it would be, the colourful spires And painted roofs, the high snows glimpsed at the back, All reversed in the quiet reflecting waters – Not knowing then that Dürer perceived it too. Now I find that once more I have shrunk To an interloper, robber of dead men’s dream, I had read in books that art is not easy But no one warned that the mind repeats In its ignorance the vision of others. I am still The black swan of trespass on alien waters. Dürer: Innsbruck 1495, by “Ern Malley”

∵ The Malleus Maleficarum is undoubtedly the best known treatise on witchcraft from the early modern period.1 Published in 1486, only a generation after the introduction of printing by moveable type in Western Europe, the work served to popularize the new conception of magic and witchcraft that is known in modern scholarship as satanism or diabolism, and it thereby played a major role in the savage efforts undertaken to stamp out witchcraft in Western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.2 The Malleus thus has a very significant role in the intellectual and cultural development of early modern Western Europe. It purports to be the work of two men, Jacob Sprenger and Henricus Institoris. What role Sprenger played in the composition is unclear, 1  The title means “Hammer of witches” and signifies that the work’s intended purpose was to implement the eradication of witches; for the background to the title, see Mackay (2009), 7 and (2011), vol. 1, 142. The work will henceforth be referred to as the Malleus and cited as MM (with the citation numbers referring to the internal divisions of the text on the basis of the first edition of 1487 as described in Mackay [2009] 42 and Mackay [2011] vol. 1, 173–4). 2  For general introductions to this period, see Kieckhefer (2014) and Levack (2016). For the general significance of the Malleus, see Behringer et al. (2000) 9–98 and Behringer (2001); and for the later influence of the Malleus, see Schnyder (1992). Much of the present introduction is adapted from Mackay (2009) and (2011).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_002

2

Introduction

whereas much evidence attests to Institoris as the main agent in the writing of the book.3 Both men were inquisitors, whose job it was to ferret out and punish those guilty of heresy against the Catholic Church, and the Malleus operates on the premise that those who practice witchcraft are the worst heretics imaginable. In the years 1484 and 1485, Institoris was involved in two major prosecutions of witches, respectively in Ravensburg and Innsbruck, and both events are referred to several times in the Malleus.4 In both towns, Institoris instituted an investigation into the activities of witches, with varying results. In Ravensburg, two women were eventually examined under torture and then burned alive for the satanic crimes they confessed to. In Innsbruck, on the other hand, Insistoris focused on seven women whom he believed to be guilty of similar crimes, but there the local authorities were not convinced of his understanding of witchcraft or his methods of investigation, and in the end his efforts were thwarted.5 Both sets of events had a major influence on the composition of the Malleus. The text directly alludes to the events on numerous occasions, the conception of witchcraft that Institoris used in the prosecutions of witches in Ravensburg and Innsbruck is the one that the Malleus argues for, and a major purpose of the Malleus is to refute precisely the sort of opposition to this conception and to his methods of investigation and prosecution that Institoris encountered in Innsbruck. As it turns out, substantial documentation has survived for these two seminal events in Institoris’s personal activity as inquisitor. Some of this material has previously been published, but in an incomplete manner that misrepresented the actual presentation of the material. These deficiencies are particularly glaring with the material from Innsbruck. In the companion volume, I fully publish the original material that gives the totality of the evidence.6 This volume contains a full translation of all this material, which gives an illuminating picture of the events that seemingly made a significant impression on Institoris at precisely the time when he was composing the Malleus. Basically, Institoris had a strong belief in a comparatively new understanding of the nature of witchcraft and of the motives of those who practiced it, and he met with considerable resistance among those whom he tried to convince of his understanding.

3  For a discussion of the controversy, see Mackay (2011) vol. 1, 103–121. 4  For the terminology for “witches,” see the note on the translation on p. 73. 5  The title of the present book refers to a phrase used to characterize Institoris’s inquisitorial procedure by the skeptical Bishop Georg of Brixen; see Document 7. 6  Mackay (2021).

Introduction

3

The poem quoted at the start of this introduction comes from a well-known literary hoax in Australia, and the poem itself discusses a painting by the Renaissance artist Albrecht Dürer that was one of a series that Dürer painted of Innsbruck only a decade after Institoris conducted his inquisition there. In brief, two Australian poets, James McAuley and Harold Stewart, though themselves modernists, nonetheless took exception to certain trends in contemporary poetry, and decided to perpetrate a hoax on a literary journal (the intriguingly named Angry Penguins) by submitting fictitious poems that they themselves wrote as parodies of the stylistic traits they despised. The hoax took the form of submitting them to the journal via a letter written by the fictitious Edith Malley, who claimed to have found the poems among the affects of her recently deceased young brother Ernest “Ern” Malley.7 The introductory poem about Innsbruck (which apparently began life as a legitimate work by McAuley, which was later adapted for the hoax) raises a number of suggestions regarding Institoris’s activities as a witch hunter. First, in the poem, the narrator speaks of the feelings about Innsbruck that he experiences as a result of a visual portrayal of the city, imagining that he could “glimpse” it as Dürer did. In the Malleus, Institoris argued for a view of witchcraft as forming (at times) part of a satanic conspiracy to undermine Christendom. As will be discussed below, while witchcraft did exist, the satanic version did not, but those who accepted Institoris’s “vision” would go on over the course of the next century and a half or so to condemn many thousands of people (mostly women) to be burned alive over such allegations. In effect, just as Dürer was said to influence the viewer into accepting his view of the city, those who read the Malleus were influenced to adopt its conceptions and act upon them. This “influence” refers to both those who directly read the work and later demonologists whose works elaborated on the theory propounded in the Malleus. All the demonologists (including Institoris) laid great weight on the confirmation of the existence of the satanic conspiracy of witchcraft, and the events that Institoris experienced in Innsbruck (and earlier in Ravensburg) played a significant part in his “demonstration” of his theory. But Institoris was not merely imposing his “hoax” on future generations, and of course it was anything but a “hoax” in his own mind. Rather, he was using his preconceived notions of witchcraft, which were already present in his mind before he got to Ravensburg, as a way of interpreting the world around him. In effect, he was “hoaxing” himself. And the documents presented here give us a detailed picture (admittedly filtered already through Institoris’s own mind) of the events that were presented to him in Innsbruck (and to a lesser extent 7  For a full treatment of the “Ern Malley” incident, see Heyward (1993).

4

Introduction

in Ravensburg). We can both examine how Institoris himself evaluated the “evidence” before him in such a way as to allow him to lodge very serious accusations of criminal behavior at the time. And we can also see how he would soon thereafter choose to present these same events to the readers of the Malleus. In short, the documents here allow us to check his “portrait” of the satanic activities supposedly carried out in Innsbruck with our own (perhaps less prejudiced) “view” of the city (via the documentation he himself provides). The following introduction is meant to place the translated documents in their historical and intellectual setting. Here, I first give a brief discussion of the institutional and intellectual setting of the events described in our documents. Next, I give an analysis of these events themselves. 1

The Life of Institoris

Henricus Institoris (the Latinized form of the German name Heinrich Kramer) was born around 1430 in the Alsatian town of Schlettstadt (modern Séléstat).8 He joined the local Dominican convent but went on to be attached to a number of other convents in the southern German-speaking lands. Like Sprenger, he became a professor of theology, but unlike Sprenger he did not pursue an academic career. Instead, Institoris was more interested in missions among the laity, and he tended to work on his own. He was deeply involved in the sale of indulgences, and in particular he undertook a number of tasks connected with the defense of papal privileges and the enforcement of orthodoxy. He spent his last years combatting the Hussite heresy in Bohemia, where he died in 1505.9 Institoris clearly had a strong personality, and was something of an individualist. He got into a certain amount of strife with his fellow friars, and at one time went so far as to rebuke the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III in a sermon, for which he himself was censured by the Order. But none of this undermined the clear trust that was placed in Institoris by his superiors, who continued to employ him on important tasks. Institoris was a respected figure, who preached before the king of Bohemia, was entertained by the wealthy family of the Fuggers in Augsburg, and was consulted by the city council of Nuremberg on the correct method of prosecuting witches. Institoris was apparently a man

8  For more details, see Mackay (2011) vol. 1, 83–103. 9  As a sign of Institoris’s general reputation, see Hirzig (2008) for his engagement in important ecclesiastical circles in the last decade of his life and his influence on Italian witch hunting through his spreading his distinctive views of witchcraft among important Dominicans.

Introduction

5

who enjoyed writing.10 In addition to the Malleus, the Brixen Memorandum (henceforth referred to as the Memorandum and cited as BM) written for the bishop of Brixen (doc. 16 here) and the Nuremberg Handbook (henceforth referred to as the Handbook and cited as NH), he composed works in defense of papal supremacy and against the Hussites.11 Institoris enjoyed the support of Popes Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII and was appointed by them as inquisitor for heretical depravity in a number of German dioceses.12 Unlike Sprenger, Institoris enjoyed the task of acting as an itinerant inquisitor. In the Malleus (108C),13 he claims to have had forty-eight women condemned for the crime, and in the later Nuremberg Handbook (NH 9v) the number rises to two hundred.14 2

The Dominican Order

The Dominican Order was founded by Dominic, who was involved in the attempt to counteract the influence of the Cathar heresy15 in southern France 10  For a discussion of Institoris’s personality as reflected in his literary output, see Segl (1988). 11  The Nuremberg Handbook is my name for a document that Institoris was asked in 1491 by the city council of Nuremberg to write on the topic of prosecuting witches. The work was published in an unsatisfactory way in Jerouschek (1992), with a transcription of only the first third of the work that was written in German (the rest covers the topic in more depth in Latin), and a barely legible photocopy of the whole thing. I hope to publish in the foreseeable future a text and translation of the entire work. 12  After an initial appointment in 1482 by Sixtus, Innocent issued the bull Summis desiderantes to overcome obstructions placed in the way of Sprenger and Institoris by secular authorities. Since the bull incorporated text written by Institoris that laid out his understanding of witchcraft, Institoris would later cite the bull frequently as a validation of his views (doing so in both Ravensburg and Innsbruck). For the text, see MM 1*–2B*; for discussion of it, see Mackay (2011) vol. 1, 121–126. 13  The method of citation of the Malleus used here refers to the marginal notations from my editions, which reflect the arrangement of the text in the first edition of 1486, this method making it possible to find a very specific section of the text regardless of whether one is looking it up in the Latin original or the translation. 14  Behringer et al. (2000) 55–58 suggest other locations where Institoris could conceivably have been involved in inquisitions against witches, but there is no evidence for any such activity on his part apart from the texts presented here. 15  The Cathars were a Christian sect who adopted the “dualist” view that saw the material world as a defective creation by an evil divine being (as distinct from the true God), that there was an ongoing battle in this world between the good and the evil God, and that they, the Cathars, alone were aware of this reality. For a general treatment of the Cathars, see Lambert (2002).

6

Introduction

during the years immediately preceding the start of the Albigensian Crusade16 in 1209, and after the defeat of the Cathars conceived the notion of founding a new order specifically dedicated to the task of preaching.17 The new order was then approved in late 1216 and early 1217. Members of the new order pledged themselves to celibacy and poverty and were to gain their livelihood through begging; for this reason they and the Franciscans, who were founded along similar lines at this time, are known as mendicants from the Latin word for “begging.” Instead of living apart from the world in monasteries like traditional monks, the mendicants were to live amongst the general populace and spread the orthodox interpretation of the Gospel. (The mendicants were known as friars to distinguish them from traditional monks.) Accordingly, the official title of the new order is the Order of Preachers, though they eventually came to be known informally as the Dominicans after their founder. The new order proved to be very popular. It soon spread throughout western Europe, and an administrative system grew up to manage its affairs. While the Dominican friars were to work among the general populace, they were attached to a local priory or convent under the control of the local prior. Broader areas were termed provinces, and the chapter or central administration of each province oversaw the province’s priories and was headed by a provincial. There was also a general chapter for the entire order located in Rome. Given the circumstances of the order’s foundation, it is hardly surprising that it should view its chief task as the combating of heresy. In addition, since the Dominican order, unlike the older monastic orders, was founded through explicit papal recognition, it took upon itself the defense of the supremacy of the papacy within the church. Since the heretics whom the members of the new order would be called upon to refute were often well versed in scripture, Dominic decided from the start that his friars would devote large amounts of time to the study of the Bible in general and of theology in particular. In the heady decades that followed the order’s foundation, large numbers of scholars joined the Order, including the great scholastics Albert and his protege Thomas Aquinas. The order developed an elaborate system of internal education. Each priory had its own school, and for the more adept students a number of general houses of study (studia generalia) were founded. These Dominican centers of learning often formed 16  The Albigensian Crusade was called by Pope Innocent III to suppress the Cathars, and over the course of two decades, the staunchly Catholic nobility of northern France under the leadership of the French crown captured areas considered to be strongholds of Cathar belief and strove to stamp out the heresy. 17  For more on the Dominicans, see Mackay (2011) vol. 1, 12–14; for a general history of the order, see Hinnebusch (1966–1973).

Introduction

7

close relations with local universities. For instance, Institoris’s colleague as inquisitor and the apparent co-author of the Malleus, Jacob Sprenger, was a prominent academic in the University of Cologne, being a member of its prestigious theology department. These circumstances made it perfectly natural for the popes to see in the Dominicans an extremely suitable reservoir of potential inquisitors. Their zealous defense of traditional orthodoxy and tenacious advocacy of papal prerogatives meant that they could be trusted to make an accurate assessment of potential heresy, and that their learning would allow them to deal with the evasions of accused heretics. 3 Inquisition The words inquisition and inquisitor are derived from Latin terms meaning “investigation” (cf. the alternative English derivative “inquest”) and “investigator.”18 The institution of the inquisition arose in the early thirteenth century in connection with efforts to stamp out the Cathar heresy in southern France. There was dissatisfaction with the unwillingness or inability of local diocesans (bishops in their capacity as judges of ecclesiastical matters) to stamp out heretical activities in their dioceses, and in the years around 1200, various popes issued a number of bulls (papal ordinances, so-called because of the “bullae” or seals attached to them) providing for various measures to be taken against heretics, who were deemed to be equivalent to traitors and upon conviction were to be turned over to the secular authorities for suitable punishment (execution). The death penalty could not be carried by the Church on its own, so at the same time secular states indicated their cooperation by enacting the requisite legislation, and in the German context the relevant laws were a series of harsh measures against heretics issued by the Emperor Frederick II in the 1220s and 1230s. These measures laid the legal foundation for the inquisition’s jurisdiction over heretics, and the inquisition itself came to be established as a permanent institution when the bishops continued to show themselves unequal to the task of suppressing heresy in southern France. In the aftermath of the Albigensian Crusade, an attempt was made to stamp out heresy through 18  For more on the inquisition, see Mackay (2011) vol. 1, 8–11; for a general history of the institution, see Deane (2011). The regular medieval inquisition is not to be confused with the much more famous Spanish inquisition, which was set up in 1478 by the Spanish crown and operated under the state control, or the Roman inquisition, which was set up by the papacy in sixteenth-century to stamp out any Protestant tendencies in Italy.

8

Introduction

investigations carried out by the pope’s legate, but this was an ad hoc measure that did not provide a general solution. The medieval inquisition was finally instituted through the appointment of members of the newly founded mendicant orders (especially Dominicans, less frequently Franciscans) as inquisitors, such appointments already being attested in the 1220s. In the beginning, these appointments were ad hoc affairs, but the efficiency of the system soon became obvious and over the next few decades it was regularized into a permanent institution. Even when the bishops were properly trained in the matter of dealing with heretics (and many were not), they were distracted by many other administrative duties, but the Dominicans appointed as inquisitors were thoroughly trained in theological matters and felt it to be their particular task to hunt out and eradicate heresy (and they eventually worked out an elaborate procedure for detecting the often secret devotees of prohibited forms of worship). Sometimes the inquisitors were appointed by provincials (heads of the provinces of the Dominican Order), and at other times they received direct appointment from the pope, as was the case with Sprenger and Institoris. The title for such inquisitors was inquisitor heretice pravitatis (“inquisitor of heretical depravity”). Whether appointed by the local provincial or the pope, these inquisitors acted on delegated papal authority and were trusted to act on their own initiative in investigating, tracking down and stamping out local instances of heresy. In effect, the inquisitors were to serve as itinerant agents whose mission it was to eradicate any form of religious deviation, and anything that could be construed as heresy was subject to their jurisdiction.19 A major bone of contention arose in the form of turf wars between the bishops and the new institution of the inquisition, which encroached upon the bishops’ previously recognized jurisdiction in the sphere of suppressing heresy. Eventually, it was decided that the local bishop and the inquisitor should work in cooperation, but loopholes in the regulations readily allowed the inquisitor to go his own way if necessary.

19  The institution of the more or less independent inquisitor of heretical depravity was rendered obsolete over the course of the sixteenth century by the need for a more concerted effort to eradicate religious dissent, when those governments that wished to suppress the new religious ideas in defense of the Catholic Church had to undertake extreme and coordinated measures that were incompatible with the capricious ad hoc procedures of the old inquisition.

Introduction

4

9

Torture in the “Inquisitorial” Method of Investigation

There is not a great deal of talk of the use of torture in the actual attestation of Institoris’s activities laid out in our documents, but it clearly played a major role in the conviction of the two witches at Ravensburg, and its use is envisaged by Institoris for the later investigations in Innsbruck (which never took place). Also, Institoris does talk about it in the Memorandum he prepared for the bishop of Brixen for this purpose. Hence, it is appropriate to talk about the theoretical and practical issues involving the use of torture in such investigations. The use of torture arose in conjunction with the revival of Roman law that started in the eleventh century in Italy and gradually spread to the north.20 In the autocratic administrative structure of the later Roman Empire, the governor conducted criminal investigations and trials himself, and was authorized to use torture under certain circumstances as a tool of investigation. This system was laid out in the criminal procedure described in the law code of Justinian that formed part of the Roman legal texts that were taught in the Italian universities, and as the elaborate procedures of Roman law began in continental Europe to drive out earlier medieval jurisprudence, which lacked any comparable theoretical texts, the so-called inquisitorial procedure took root. (Here “inquisitorial” means simply that the magistrate in charge conducts the investigation and trial himself, and the term applies to the practices of both secular courts conducted along such lines and those of the inquisition.) The Roman jurists were fully aware that questioning under torture could easily lead to false answers (the innocent might admit to something they had not done as a result of the pain, while guilty people with strong constitutions could endure the pain without confessing), and the medieval jurists came up with complicated procedures to overcome these difficulties. Basically, torture was prohibited unless there was a reasonably strong prima facie case against the suspect, and it could be applied only twice. If the suspect survived two sessions without confessing, he or she had to be absolved. In addition, the suspect was supposed to give factual details that only the criminal could have known. In practice, however, the supposed procedural protections were useless if the magistrate was convinced of the suspect’s guilt. The traditional method of examination was the practice known as the strappado, whereby the suspect’s hands were tied behind his (or her) back and then 20  For more detail on the medieval use of torture in criminal investigation, the inquisitorial method of investigation and Institoris’s own views on the topic, see Mackay (2011) vol. 1, 67–80.

10

Introduction

s/he was hauled off the ground with a pulley attached to his/her hands. This had the effect of putting all the weight of the body on the shoulders, which would eventually become disjointed (an effect that could be hastened by either attaching weights to the feet or letting the suspect drop and then precipitously halting the fall before he hit the ground). This simple but brutal method could be effective enough in extracting a confession from anyone, but in the mania to extract confessions during the major periods of witch hunting, the accusation of witchcraft was treated as a crimen exceptum (that is, a charge exempted from the usual legal precautions), and extreme measures were taken to ensure that the suspects admitted the “truth.” But these pitfalls were not what concerned Institoris. Quite the contrary. He was concerned that the use of torture in criminal investigation would lead to the release of genuine witches. In the first place, it was thought that witches were able to make themselves immune to pain through the so-called sorcery of silence (maleficium taciturnitatis), and thus would escape the torture without confessing. The reliance on Eymerich (see below) as the main source in Book 3 of the Malleus somewhat obscures the point, but the Handbook makes it clear that Institoris was very impatient with secular courts that absolve those of whose guilt he was certain because of what he viewed as a mere technicality (the ability to endure two sessions of torture without confessing), particularly as he thought that the very fact of their practicing witchcraft allowed them to thwart the procedure. Instead, he advocates the use of conjecture to divine who is guilty, and argues at some length in the Handbook that it is better to convict on the basis of conjecture than on the basis of a confession extracted through torture. Already in the inquisition at Ravensburg, Institoris was aware of the problem of the sorcery of silence and made a special point of mentioning it to the local magistrates to their surprise (doc. 1 here), and he also speaks of it in the Memorandum (doc. 16). This is not to say that Institoris objected on principle to the use of torture in investigating witchcraft. Quite the contrary, since it was used in the Ravensburg investigation (doc. 2 and MM 146A, D), and Institoris advocates its use in later investigations of certain suspects at Innsbruck, namely Barbara Selachin and Barbara Hüfeysen (see the end of the articles against each, respectively docs. 10/2 and 4).21 Significantly, the point is not to gain a confession but to seek further information about other witches and acts of witchcraft (as overtly

21  For the early modern naming conventions used here to refer to women, see the section on “Personal Names and their Translation” (pp. XX–XX).

Introduction

11

stated about Selachin).22 Indeed, in connection with Selachin, he directly specifies that a continued denial on her part while being questioned under torture would not be taken as a sign of innocence. The use of conjecture to determine guilt is rooted in the procedure outlined by the inquisitor Nicholas Eymerich in his Directorium Inquisitorum, a handbook on inquisitorial procedure that Institoris made much use of in composing the Memorandum and in Book 3 of the Malleus.23 With regular heretics, their crime had to do with the beliefs hidden in their mind, which they would try to conceal with evasions and misrepresentations, and the inquisitor had to outsmart them by formulating questions that would trap them into revealing the truth of their heretical beliefs. With witches, the act that caused the harm was physically removed from the effect (and indeed according to the theory had no direct physical connection with the harm, which was simply inflicted by a demon to make it seem as if witchcraft were actually effective).24 Thus, Institoris was applying to a new but in some ways comparable situation the method of judgment through conjecture that Eymerich advocated. 5

Contemporary Magical Practices

Now it is time to turn to the question of the realities of practicing witchcraft that Institoris confronted in his inquisitorial activities. First, we have to be specific about the concept that is understood by the terms “witchcraft” and “magic.” For present purposes, we will take it to mean the manipulation of the physical world through the use of special words and procedures. It could easily be argued that the practices of the medieval Church would fall under this definition, but since most contemporaries would have excluded such practices from the category, we will also ignore these here, and consider as “magical” only such practices as would not have been considered legitimate rites of the Church.

22  Note that he also advocates the use of torture on the potter implicated in Selachin’s bewitchment of Gertrud Rötin (see the end of the articles about Selachin, Doc. 10/1). Here again, the purpose is not to establish guilt but to force information out of someone already considered guilty. 23  Eymeric was a Dominican who lived in the fourteenth century. There is no modern edition of the Directorium. 24  The implications of the separation of the witch’s practices from the harm that results are discussed at greater length below.

12

Introduction

In considering pre-modern beliefs about manipulation of the physical world, we have to try and “think away” the category of “science” that comes so naturally to our minds. Today, we think of ourselves as having a clear and substantive understanding of the principles that underlie the behavior of matter around us and of the objects (living and inanimate) that are made of matter. In the medieval period, while there was some understanding of such principles among the educated, even for them much of the operations of the world was mysterious, and this would have been all the more true of the general populace. The belief that the use of mysterious words and procedures could cause real effects in the physical world dates back to well before Classical antiquity, and in the medieval period often involved formulas, objects and procedures “borrowed” from Christian rites. At best, such practices were considered superstitious by the ecclesiastical authorities, and to a greater or lesser degree they could be thought to involve demonic invocation (implicit or overt). Institoris was very much a man given to theorizing. After all, the main claim to fame for the Malleus is not that it gives the first description of the diabolic interpretation of witchcraft. Rather, the Malleus presents an exhaustive argumentation in favor of the new interpretation on the basis of earlier scholastic discussion. The Ravensburg and Innsbruck material is especially significant because it allows us to see the state of Institoris’s thinking on the interpretation of witchcraft and how he was using this to understand actual accusations of witchcraft at precisely the time when he was composing the Malleus. First I give a brief outline of the theory of witchcraft that Institoris argues for in the Malleus, and then I discuss how this relates to the inquisitions carried out in Ravensburg and Innsbruck. 6 Satanism The great persecutions of witchcraft that lasted from the fifteenth until the early seventeenth centuries were based upon a new notion of witchcraft that can be termed satanism (or diabolism), an intellectual construct that is known in modern scholarship as the “elaborated theory of witchcraft.”25 This view saw the supposed witch as participating in an evil society presided over by Satan himself and dedicated to the infliction of malevolent acts of witchcraft (maleficia) on others. This new conception is characterized by six 25  For more on the elaborated theory of witchcraft, see Mackay (2011) vol. 1, 46–52.

Introduction

13

basic beliefs about the activities of those considered guilty of this form of witchcraft: 1) A pact entered into with the Devil (and concomitant apostasy from Christianity), 2) Sexual relations with the Devil, 3) Aerial flight for the purpose of attending: 4) An assembly presided over by Satan himself (at which initiates entered into the pact, and incest and promiscuous sex were engaged in by the attendees), 5) The practice of maleficent magic, 6) The slaughter of babies. The general area and time in which this concept arose are clear enough, but the process by which this new conception developed from earlier interpretations of witchcraft and magic is still obscure.26 The new conception is first attested in four works written in Latin and German within a decade or so of the 1430s.27 There is, however, some indication that in the late fourteenth century certain supposed activities associated with witchcraft were already being conceived of in terms of the elaborated theory. The characteristics of the elaborated theory of witchcraft all appear in the Malleus, but the Handbook gives a simpler definition: “this depravity of witches 26  The new conception of witchcraft derives from the lies told about the heretical sect known as the Waldensians by their orthodox foes. The Waldensians were the followers of Waldo of Lyon, a rich merchant who decided to adopt an ascetic way of life and to preach his views. His dogma was thoroughly orthodox, but the result of his refusal to recognize the Church’s monopoly on preaching was that at the Third Lateran Council in 1179 he and his followers were prohibited from preaching. As a result of their refusal to comply they were condemned as heretics by Pope Lucius III in 1184. Waldo attracted a devoted following, and in northern Italy a small community of Waldensians has persisted down to the present day, despite the aggressive attempts over the centuries of the Catholic Church to stamp them out. As part of the campaign to suppress the sect, many lies were told about their practices, and in particular they were associated with witchcraft. The development of the hostile view of them seems to have been as follows. First, the heretical Waldensians were conceived of as tools of Satan, and thus the traditional calumnies about heretics, including the murder of babies and the practice of maleficent sorcery, were ascribed to them. Eventually, the Waldensians became so associated with sorcery that deformed versions of their name could become terms for “witch” in Romance languages. In the next step, the sect that practices witchcraft was no longer associated specifically with the Waldensians. Instead, it was associated with women in general, becoming the “Heresy of Witches,” the medieval term for the “elaborated theory” of witchcraft. For the Waldensians, see Audisio (1999). 27  For a treatment of these sources, see Bailey (1996).

14

Introduction

consists of two elements: the heresy and apostasy from the Faith and the temporal loss that she inflicts” (NH 20v). The reference to heresy signifies adherence to the tenets of the sect as a result of the homage that they pay to Satan, while apostasy signifies the rejection of the Christian faith that the witches adopted at baptism. The second element consists of the harm that is obligatorily inflicted by the witches as a result of their adherence to the sect. Thus, the other elements of the modern definition of the elaborated theory of witchcraft are simply subsumed into this twofold scheme. One might ask whether it is not possible that there were in fact satanic sects that subjectively believed that they were carrying out the will of Satan (whatever the actual truth of the matter). To this the simple answer is no, on the basis of the following considerations. 1)

There is no independent corroboration of any such activity on the part of anyone. The sole evidence for this activity comes from the theoretical discussions and judicial investigations of those who believed in the existence of a form of maleficent witchcraft. 2) All confessions to such activity are of no evidentiary value as they were extracted through the use or the threat of (often extreme) torture. 3) The stories told about the practitioners of the elaborated theory of witchcraft were also told about any number of previous heretics in the past, and there is no reason to believe that anyone actually engaged in these activities. Rather, the self-image of the official forms of Christianity necessitated the corollary notion that any deviation from orthodoxy could only be based on adherence to Satan, and thus it was natural to imagine that the most unspeakable crimes were being carried out by perceived heretics. 4) The demonological works make much of the supposed fact that the confessions of the accused are concordant in the details given about the practices of maleficent witchcraft, but it should be emphasized that there is in fact a great deal of variation in the specifics. While the general outline of the practices of the “sect of sorceresses” was known in various locations, the details were made up according to the notions held by the local investigators. That is, there was no single “elaborated theory,” but a number of local variations that reflect the overall notion. Unless there were a number of such sects that operated by different (physically impossible) methods, the logical conclusion is that the self-contradictory nature of the various versions of the elaborated theory derives from the fact that there was in fact no such sect at all, and that the variations reflect the fundamental disconnect between the theory and reality.

Introduction

7

15

Magical Practices among the Common People

We have to distinguish between the objective and subjective interpretation of the reality of “magic.” Most people today (though by no means all) would reject the reality of producing physical effects in the material world through witchcraft. But the question of whether people could actually achieve anything through magic is entirely different from the question of whether they thought they could, and much of the preserved accusations made in the course of the Innsbruck inquisition reflects various forms of this sort of folk magic.28 There can be no doubt that there were people at the time of the Malleus who engaged in magical practices. For our purposes, the issue is what sort of magical practices were being engaged in at the time of the Ravensburg and Innsbruck inquisitions, and how Institoris interpreted these in light of the satanic interpretation of witchcraft (the “Heresy of Witches”) that he would soon advocate in the Malleus. On the basis of modern research on witchcraft we can be sure that the association of magical practices with satanism, that is, a heretical cult under the direct supervision of the Devil himself, is false. As we have already seen, there is no external evidence to indicate that even when people were involved in magical practices, they conceived of themselves as acting in accordance with the conception of witchcraft laid out in the Malleus. Rather, the sorts of views propagated by tracts like the Malleus were imposed on the traditional nonsystematic magical beliefs of popular culture. Basically, the peasants may well have thought that with the right procedures one could steal the milk from the neighbor’s cow or make someone impotent or give him the evil eye. What did not exist, either objectively or subjectively, was a heretical cult of evildoers who inflicted pointless harm at the instigation of Satan. A major distinction of magical practices in the medieval period concerns a division on the basis of the status of the practitioners. There was a sort of “high” magic that involved the educated, which in medieval reality tended to mean renegade priests. This magic was practiced with grimoires or books of learned enchantments.29 The Malleus indicates overtly (MM 91C) that it does not deal with this sort of magic. Instead, it treats the variety of magic practiced by illiterate, mostly female, members of the lower orders of society. To some extent

28  For a general discussion of this sort of magic, see Bever (2008), and for the Austrian context in particular, see Dienst (1986). 29  For grimoires in general, see Davies (2009); for an edition of one that survives, see Kiekhefer (1997).

16

Introduction

this refers to the peasantry, as is indicated by the many incidents involving farm activities in Book 2 of the Malleus. On the other hand, the amatory witchcraft involving impotence and related phenomena that figures prominently in the Malleus is often an aspect of urban life (as is the case with the Ravensburg and Innsbruck inquisitions). Furthermore, unlike “educated” witchcraft, which was strongly associated with men, the sort of “everyday” witchcraft of the lower orders that Institoris thinks of himself as dealing with was generally associated with women (see below). 8

Witchcraft as a Distinctively Female Crime

During the period of witch hunting, the clear majority of the accused were female, though there were a substantial number of accused males. In the Malleus, there is some discussion of male “witches,” but this is very limited and takes the form of male archers who invoke the devil’s aid in directing their aim.30 It is clear that in Institoris’s mind, the devotees of the “Heresy of Witches” are female (as the very name indicates).31 The complicated issue of why witchcraft was so strongly associated with women in the early modern period is beyond the scope of this introduction. Certainly, the events in Ravensburg and Innsbruck figure prominently in Institoris’s discussion of the female nature of witchcraft in the Malleus, though presumably he began the inquisition in Ravensburg with the conception already in his mind. That is, the preconception guided his understanding of events that came to his attention there (and later in Innsbruck). Presumably, the involvement of females in those events (as he saw them) simply strengthened his overall understanding. Certainly, all the cases known to us in Ravensburg and in Innsbruck (both the ones he chose to prosecute for participation in the Heresy of Witches and the lesser charges that he left to the bishop to prosecute) involve female accused. There is, of course, no way to know if among the denunciations that he heard but rejected as having no substance involved men. Be that as it may, the events in Ravensburg and Innsbruck shaped Institoris’s description of the role of women in witchcraft that he gave in the Malleus. Both of the women convicted at Ravensburg offered stories about how witches 30  For more thoughts on the female element in Institoris’s thought, see Mackay (2009) 25–27. For general treatments of women in early modern witchcraft and witch hunting, see Roper (2004) and Levack (2016) 128–135; for male “witches,” see Apps and Gow (2003). For the treatment of male “witches” in the MM, see 147A–152A. 31  For witchcraft as a crime to which females are particularly prone, see MM 40A–46A.

Introduction

17

are inducted into the Heresy of Witches: Agnes the Bathkeeper got into trouble with the demon who managed her by not leading astray into the heresy a pious young woman she was ordered to seduce in this way (MM 93D–94A), and she herself had been inducted in a similar way (MM 94B), while her companion in evil Anna of Mindelheim was accosted by a demon when she was on her way to have illicit sex with her boyfriend, and after agreeing to join the heresy engaged in the illicit sexual practices associated with it for the next eighteen years (MM 94B–C). These two anecdotes illustrate the extent to which in Institoris’s mind the Heresy of Witches was associated with sexuality. A special method of inducing young women into the heresy was when such a woman had indulged in sexual relations with a man whom she wished to entice into marriage, and then became despondent when he rejected her as a potential wife in favor of a more suitable woman who was chaste (MM 94C).32 As an example of this concept, Institoris relates in some detail the story of one of the accused at Innsbruck (unnamed here, but he is referring to the case of Helena Scheuberin; the various accused are discussed below). She had engaged in precisely such a sexual relation with a man, who then rejected her in favor of a wife taken from abroad. Oddly, the man invited his ex-girlfriend to the wedding, where she proceeded to make threats to the newly-wed wife, who soon became ill in just the way threatened (MM 94C–D).33 Clearly, Institoris set a great store on the role of these tales of sexual relations in the Heresy of Witches, and at Innsbruck he began his questioning of the first accused on precisely this topic (which was also the point on which these proceedings were derailed; see below). Even if Institoris already had this connection between sexual behavior and the Heresy of Witches in his mind before he got to Ravensburg, the presentation of his understanding of that relationship in the Malleus certainly shows that the recent events in those two towns had a significant influence on how he chose to present his conception to the reader.

32  Note that there is also a class element to Institoris’s conception in that the rejected “loose” woman is clearly of a lower social standing than the respectable woman who eventually marries the man in question. 33  In addition to Scheuberin, pretty much the same story is told of Widow Schneiderin. Oddly, testimonies H and J of the vernacular protocol (doc. 8/3) tell how Gerd Koller’s daughter and Cuntz Zimmerman’s wife Anna were accused of having made pretty much the same sort of threat against the man with whom they had had relations and whom they hoped to marry at his wedding to another woman. The denunciations even allege unspecified harm resulting from items of witchcraft that were found (the first denunciation is vague on this point, but the second is quite specific). Why Institoris chose not to conceive of these accusations as examples of the Heresy of Witches is unclear.

18 9

Introduction

Conjecture as a Method of Investigation

As noted in the discussion about the use of torture to extract the truth in accusations of witchcraft, one of the difficulties of investigating the charge is the physical separation of crime and result. That is, the witch supposedly “produced” the harm on the victim by invoking the devil or one of his demons to carry it out, but the actual harm took place elsewhere and often at a different time.34 Under such circumstances, basically the only way to prove such a crime was through the perpetrator’s admission. However, as noted above, the idea that the “sorcery of silence” could protect the accused against the pain otherwise induced through examination under torture meant not only that this method of determining the truth, which was otherwise considered generally successful (or at least the best method available), was unsuitable for ferreting out the truth about witches, but that the guilty could actually get off scot free if they twice refused to confess under torture (such being the accepted practice in regular criminal cases). Because of this, Institoris was generally opposed to the use of torture.35 But he did have a way around this seeming legal impasse: the use of human reason. This was facilitated by the claim that witches were obliged to make their evil intentions clear through the uttering of unnecessary threats. These they were supposedly instructed to make by their demonic rulers so that God’s anger at the failure of the secular authorities to prosecute acts of witchcraft would make him all the more likely to allow further acts to take place. The threats did mean, however, that those who were aware of their significance could take advantage of them to “divine” the guilt of the witches by connecting subsequent and otherwise inexplicable forms of harm (generally in the form of illnesses) to the preceding threats, which supposedly predicted what 34  See MM 222C–223A and 232B–C for discussions of the responsibility of witches for the harms that result from their acts of witchcraft despite the fact that these acts are in and of themselves meaningless and the harm is actually inflicted by demons. 35  His reliance on the adaptation of preceding authors when composing the Malleus sometimes obscures his thought, but in the Handbook, where he speaks much more frequently in his own voice, he expresses his dislike of the use of torture. To undermine the legitimacy of the use of torture as a tool of investigation, he actually tells (12r) an anecdote about a man who was executed as the result of an admission of murder extracted under torture but soon thereafter the man he supposedly killed turns up alive. But the real reason for his hostility to the use of torture is, as already noted, the possibility of a witch having to be released through a legal “loophole” if the demon helps her out via the sorcery of silence. Instead, Institoris argues, it is far preferable to make use of conjecture based on the supposedly preceding threats to determine the guilt of the accused (the Second Incidental Question, NH 12r–v, is devoted to arguing for this proposition).

Introduction

19

misfortune precisely would follow and when. In his discussion of Scheuberin’s guilt in the Malleus (MM 94C), Institoris cites the threats and their subsequent fulfilment as proof of her guilt, and in one of his much later discussions of threatening words, he quotes her words directly (MM 207C; see also the vaguer 222D and 232B). He already had this conception in his mind during the Innsbruck inquisition itself, as is made plain in Article Four against Widow Schneiderin (doc. 10/6). Once again, Institoris clearly had the events of his earlier inquisition on his mind as he presented his conception of witchcraft in the Malleus. 10

Cosmic Context of the Heresy of Witches

As a final point in discussing Institoris’s conception of witchcraft, it is worth noting that Institoris situated his understanding in the context of a final battle between God and the devil.36 The idea was that the behavior of witches had gotten worse since about 1400 because the devil realized that the End Times were at hand, and the devil was attempting to postpone the end of the world (and of his power on earth) by various means that involved increased and increasingly heinous activity on the part of the witches who were operating at his behest. But none of the various conceptions associated with this idea make an appearance in the present documents, so these matters can be set aside.37 11

Ravensburg: 1484

Ravensburg was an important city in the Swabian League of southern Germany. It became an Imperial free city in 1276 and prospered in the late middle ages as a center in the production of linen. The second half of the fifteenth century saw turbulence in southern Germany, as the Swiss confederation and Archduke Sigismund of Tyrol struggled against one another. Ravensburg had 36  For a discussion of the broader context of witchcraft in terms of the ongoing battle between God and the devil, see Mackay (2011) vol. 1, 59–62. 37  See MM 138C for the main statement of the idea. Basically, getting the witches to kill unbaptized children would lessen the number of souls admitted to heaven (since the souls of children who died before baptism were thought to go to a separate location known as limbo), which in turn would postpone the arrival of the End Times. There would be an attendant benefit to the devil if the acts of the witches went unpunished in that this would anger God, who would in turn allow further such acts to be perpetrated as a form of punishment.

20

Introduction

been a member of a league of other cities around the Bodensee (a large lake on the border between present-day Germany and Switzerland), but this fell apart in 1475. In the 1480s the archduke instituted a policy of establishing defensive alliances with the Imperial free cities in Swabia, which felt threatened by the aggression of the Duke of Bavaria-Munich, and in May of 1484 he signed such a treaty with Ravensburg, which secured his protection at the price of 150 florins per year.38 It is against the background of the city’s desire to seek the archduke’s good will that Institoris entered into the history of the city. We are informed of the events of the inquisition conducted by Institoris in Ravensburg from both literary and documentary sources. Institoris himself refers to it on numerous occasions in Book 2 of the Malleus.39 The documentary evidence consists of a letter (doc. 1) discovered in the early twentieth century in the Tyrolean archives in Innsbruck and of a related document (doc. 2) preserved in the archives of the city of Ravensburg that pertains to the release of one of the suspects.40 The letter was written by the burgermasters and city council to Archduke Sigismund on December 17, 1484. The account in the letter can be taken as definitive, as it was drawn up by the magistrates of Ravensburg soon after the events described to inform Archduke Sigismund of the proceedings. According to the letter, the archduke had himself sent a letter informing the magistrates that an unnamed inquisitor belonging to the Dominican Order would come to the city to investigate and punish witches. In this letter, the archduke had also asked to be kept apprised of the proceedings. The letter makes no indication of what prompted the archduke to be involved in the proceedings or what had instigated the inquisition. The phraseology of the letter makes it clear, however, that the inquisition arose outside of Ravensburg rather than being set in motion by the city government. In any event, the Dominican arrived at harvest time. He had copies of a papal bull posted throughout the city on church doors, and then preached for several days about witchcraft. Next, he called upon the residents to report whatever they knew, whether through personal knowledge or hearsay, about harm suffered by humans and farm animals and about people with reputations for such acts. A large number of denouncers thronged to the inquisitor, who questioned them about the circumstances of the crimes. Next, he showed the protocol of 38  For this diplomatic activity, see Baum (1987) 420–422. 39  The Malleus is cited by part and question for Parts 1 and 3 (e.g., “MM 1.2”=“Part 1, Question 2”), but for Part 2, the citations give part, question and chapter (e.g., “MM 2.1.2”=“Part 2, Question 1, Chapter 2”). 40  The letter was first published in Müller (1910). The text of the document is published here for the first time.

Introduction

21

his investigations to the magistrates, who then had an unknown number of suspects placed in the city prison. The religious aspects of the investigation are not touched on in the letter (such details were irrelevant to the letter’s purpose). In the inquisition that took place in Innsbruck the following year, after the initial depositions, Institoris had the local diocesan (bishop with legal authority) delegate to him his, the bishop’s, legal prerogatives in conducting the investigation (see docs. 3 and 4). The same must have happened for the proceedings in Ravensburg (which belonged to the diocese of Constance). After the initial depositions in Innsbruck, Institoris conducted formal proceedings against seven women, and a number of local friars attested in the protocols are also attested as being present during the hearings (see doc. 9). There is no direct evidence of such participation in Ravensburg, but on June 18, 1485, Pope Innocent VIII issued two letters, apparently at Institoris’s request, in praise of Abbot Johannes of the Benedictine monastery of Weingarten (one letter was to Archduke Sigismund and the other to the abbot himself).41 It is an easy guess that the grounds for this commendation was the assistance provided for Institoris’s inquisition, as the monastery was located outside Ravensburg.42 Presumably, the abbot provided the friars who would have taken part in Institoris’s proceedings in Ravensburg. Of the women taken into custody, two confessed to dedicating themselves to the devil and committing debauchery with him, to causing hailstorms, and to laming humans and animals over the course of many years. Accordingly, the magistrates, in cooperation with the inquisitor, sentenced them to be burned at the stake. Almost as an afterthought, the magistrates informed the archduke of special procedures recommended to them by the inquisitor for their investigations: raising the suspects from the ground when arresting them, and shaving them, the latter practice being connected with the fact that failure to cry during questioning under torture is a sign of guilt. The relationship is not spelled out, but the point is that shaving is part of an attempt to thwart the socalled sorcery of silence whereby the wearing of amulets allows the suspects to endure the torment, the point being to detect any amulets hidden in hair. 41  Hansen (1901) pt. 1, docs. 37, 38 = Schnyder (1993) docs. 30, 31. 42  The second letter states that “we have been informed that you fervently undertake the defense of the Faith against heretics, and of how much effort and favor you bestow on inquisitors” (relatum est nobis quod feruenter defensionem fidei suscipis contra hereticos quantumque operis [Hansen: opere] et fauoris inquisitoribus prestas). The actual purpose of the commendation to the archduke is to ask him to protect the abbot, which suggests that there was lingering bad feeling in certain quarters about the events of the preceding year. Given the course of events in Innsbruck in 1485, this would by no means be an unlikely circumstance in Ravensburg.

22

Introduction

Comparison of this straightforward account with Institoris’s disjointed reporting of the events in Ravensburg reveals general agreement on the overall course of events. In section 147A of the Malleus, Institoris directs the reader to the protocol deposited in the archives at Ravensburg for confirmation of his account of the confessions that resulted from his inquisition there. Though this statement does not exclude the possibility that he kept a copy for himself, it would be more natural to assume that this copy in Ravensburg was the only one.43 If this is so, then the version of events in the Malleus was based on memory, in which case it would not be surprising if Institoris misremembered or forgot certain details or even confused or conflated events from one inquisition with those of another. Perhaps a more significant source of distortion would be his attempt to “make sense” of the events on the basis of his theoretical understanding of witchcraft. That is, he may have “reconfigured” events (either at the time or retrospectively) in conformity with his sense of what was “really” going on. The major disagreement between the magistrates’ account and Institoris’s relates to the events that led to the establishment of an inquisition in Ravensburg. In sections 145D–146A of the Malleus, Institoris claims that a public outcry was caused by a damaging hailstorm that took place twenty-eight German miles (nearly 130 English miles44) from Ravensburg and was considered to be the result of witchcraft, and that it was word of this outcry that caused him to come to the town and conduct an inquisition. In his account, word of this is brought to the inquisitor by his scribe. The statement in the magistrates’ letter, on the other hand, indicates that the impetus to establish the inquisition came entirely from outside the town. The archduke first sends a letter informing them of a Dominican’s arrival, which duly takes place. The magistrates say nothing of a storm being the instigating factor in the inquisition (though a nearby storm is eventually ascribed to the two burned witches). Since, however, Institoris has no qualms about noting elsewhere (MM 136D) the archduke’s involvement in the inquisition in Innsbruck, there would appear to be no reason for Institoris to conceal it here. It is conceivable that he has in this instance confused some 43  He makes a similar statement in MM 95A regarding the protocol of the inquisition in Innsbruck (which wound up in Brixen). Apart from any other considerations, what good would it have done him to lug around a personal copy of the proceedings long after their conclusion? 44  A traditional German mile was much longer than an English mile, equaling approximately five of the latter, though there was much variation (something like 7500–9000 meters in a German mile as opposed to 1609 for an English one). (Early modern astronomers ascribed fifteen German miles to one degree of the equator, which gives an equivalence of about 4.6 English miles given that a degree equals 69 English miles.)

Introduction

23

storm that did take place at a great distance from Ravensburg with the cause of his interest in that town. On the other hand, perhaps a storm that took place far away was in some way associated with witchcraft in Ravensburg, and this caused Institoris to request a letter of introduction from the archduke. After all, something must have impelled Institoris’s arrival in the town. Whatever led to the idea of starting an inquisition in Ravensburg, it is clear that the local authorities eagerly cooperated with Institoris. Their letter to the archduke was written precisely to demonstrate their cooperation, and Institoris himself corroborates this. Inquisitors themselves had no staff (apart from a scribe) or facilities and had to rely on the local secular government for these indispensable aids to their investigation. Institoris mentions (MM 146A) the arrest and imprisonment of the suspects by the Ravensburg authorities and specifies that the questioning under torture was carried out by various members of the city council. In particular, he singles out one burgermaster (Konrad Gäldrich, whose name he misremembered) for praise because of his “zealotry on behalf of the Catholic faith.” It is impossible to know why Institoris had such kind words for only one of the burgermasters, entirely omitting any reference to his colleague Klaus Suntheim.45 In any event, it was the city council (or at least its designated judge) that condemned the two convicted witches to be burned alive, and the city’s employees who carried out the executions. Institoris gives several details regarding the acts of witchcraft that supposedly went on in Ravensburg. He makes it clear that the two women burned were Anna of Mindelheim and Agnes the Bathkeeper, and presumably the unascribed stories relate to them. In the guise of a woman, the devil importuned a man for sex but disappeared when he consumed holy salt (MM 88C). A man rejected his girlfriend, who retaliated by making his penis seem to disappear, and after a conversation with a knowledgeable and sympathetic girl in a bar, he choked the ex-girlfriend witch until she agreed to restore him to health (MM 115B–C). Agnes was supposed to seduce to evil a certain rich man’s daughter, but she protected herself with the sign of the cross (MM 93D–94A). Both of the accused confessed before final sentence that the devil had enjoined them to seduce holy virgins and widows (MM 111B). Agnes killed horses and domestic animals with the cooperation of a demon, and in particular she 45  Interestingly, among the guarantors of good behavior in the document (doc. 2) made out for one of the suspected witches who was released in connection with Ravensburg investigations were her son-in-law Heinrich Suntheim and another burgermaster named Hans Suntheim (the name is spelled “Sunthain”). Conceivably, they had some family relationship with the burgermaster of 1484 that may have dampened his enthusiasm for the inquisition. In any event, there is no reason to think he obstructed it, though clearly his colleague made a much better impression on Institoris.

24

Introduction

killed twenty-three horses belonging to a carter, and was deterred from killing a twenty-fourth only by his threat to kill her if she did so (MM 143D–144C). Although these stories are compatible with the rather vague statements in the magistrates’ letter about the crimes of the convicted, there is no way to confirm or refute Institoris’s details. Seemingly, all these details are to be ascribed to the accusations of those who came to Institoris and were questioned. At any rate, he relates the questioning and confessions of the condemned witches at length as the ultimate proof of their guilt (MM 145D–147A). The two accused were held separately, and Agnes was questioned under torture first. While hauled up by the strappado, she denied the accusations, but once released she “miraculously” became willing to confess everything. Not only did she admit to the accusations, but supposedly without prompting and without anyone having made such an accusation, she admitted to denying the faith and having sex with a demon. In particular, she admitted in detail to helping the demon cause a storm in a field outside of the city, specifying the tree under which she had done this and the separate tree under which Anna of Mindelheim had acted as a witness. The next day, Anna confessed to everything at the very start of her questioning under torture, and her story about witnessing Agnes’s causing the storm with the demon agreed with Agnes’s story in every detail.46 On this basis, the two of them were executed the next day. The most prominent crime in the account of the questioning is the storm caused in certain fields outside the city, and it is hard to know whether this has some connection with Institoris’s seemingly anomalous indication that it was the outcry about a storm that led to the establishment of the inquisition. It should be noted at this point that the three elements in the proceedings that so struck the imagination of the magistrates – lifting the suspects upon their arrest, shaving them and the fact that their failure to cry was to be taken as a sign of being under the influence of witchcraft – are all clearly described in the Malleus even if there is no mention of Ravensburg in the relevant passages.47 As for the actual identities of the two executed women, there is no attestation of them in the archival records in Ravensburg.48 The name Bader (presumably, the German version of balneatrix or “bath keeper”) is recorded for 46  There is no particular reason to doubt the authenticity of Institoris’s understanding of what she said, but in the absence of a direct transcription of the actual questioning, there is no way to be sure that Anna was not “led” to such a confession through questions drawn up on the basis of Agnes’s testimony. For Institoris’s discussion of such “interrogatories” with sample questions, see MM 3.6. 47  The footnotes to the end of doc. 1 cite the relevant passages in the Malleus. 48  For the details, see Schmauder (2007) 51–52.

Introduction

25

a number of taxpayers of the time, but there is no Agnes mentioned among them, and no reason to connect the bearers of the name with Agnes.49 As for Anna (of) Mindelheim, there is one mention in the tax records for 1482 of an old woman named Greta Mindelheim, who had no house and was assessed for a very small tax payment. There is no way to determine if she had any relationship with Anna. In any event, the lack of any attestation of the condemned women suggests that the victims of the inquisition were women of low standing in the community. The letter to Archduke Sigismund indicates that an unspecified number of women were arrested in addition to the two who were convicted and burned. A guarantee of non-retaliation (Urfehde) against the authorities (doc. 2) drawn up in the name of one of these women, Els Frauendienst, indicates that she at least was a woman of comparative prominence in the community. At any rate, she had substantial backing from her family. The guarantee is attested to by her husband, three sons by him, three sons-in-law (presumably likewise married to the daughters of her marriage), and two other citizens of the town. Perhaps the lack of standing of the two convicted women had something to do with their being sentenced to death.50 The preservation in the Ravensburg archive of Urfehden from several years after Institoris’s inquisition suggests that the city authorities in Ravensburg continued to act against suspected witches in the immediate years after Institoris moved on.51 At any rate, there’s no reason to associate Institoris with the later cases (and it seems unlikely that any suspect arrested in 1484 would be released only some years later, since the magistrates’ account to Archduke Sigismund seems to speak of the investigations as being concluded). 12

Brixen: 1485–1486

The success of the inquisition in Ravensburg in late 1484 seems to have prompted Institoris to engage in another attempt to root out a den of witches, this time in Archduke Sigismund’s own capital Innsbruck. Unlike the situation 49  Schmauder (2007) 51 raises the possibility that the woman in question was actually a servant of one of the well-to-do Baders. There is no way to exclude such an eventuality, but likewise no positive reason to posit such a relationship. 50  Schmauder (2007) 52. Three other women who later produced Urfehden (see next note), whom there’s no reason to associate with Institoris’s proceedings, were likewise of social prominence and supported by a number of male guarantors. 51  The guarantees were drawn up on behalf of women accused of witchcraft in 1486, 1489 and 1490.

26

Introduction

in Ravensburg, we have no indication of what motivated Institoris to pick this venue for his activities, but he must have set the wheels in motion soon after leaving Ravensburg. At any rate, on June 18, 1485, Pope Innocent VIII issued three bulls, presumably at Institoris’s request. One was sent to the archbishop of Mainz, directing that the confraternities set up to help Institoris and Sprenger in their capacity as inquisitors should be filled with men of the highest social status and that since the inquisitors cannot operate everywhere, the archbishop should appoint in each of the dioceses of Upper Germany a man to exercise the same authority as the inquisitors had themselves.52 The second is addressed to Archduke Sigismund of the Tyrol. The pope asks him as a good Catholic prince to cooperate with unnamed inquisitors or their delegates and to induce and urge others to do the same, particularly in the suppression of “witches of both sexes” (maxime vero contra reprimendos maleficos vtriusque sexus).53 The archduke is instructed not to allow appeal to the “trial by whitehot iron,” a pet peeve of Institoris’s, and instead to use proceedings according to canon and imperial law.54 The pope concludes by commending to the archduke Abbot Johannes of the Benedictine monastery at Wingarten near Ravensburg (site of Institoris’s inquisition in the preceding year), who presumably is expected to be involved in such activity. The third letter is addressed to the abbot, informing him of the commendation sent to the archduke (though it refers to actions against “heretics” in general rather than witches specifically).55 These documents were presumably drawn up at the request of Institoris, but since they do not pertain directly to his own proceedings, they are not reproduced here. They do, however, show that Institoris was interested in hunting witches at this time, and he himself became directly involved in an inquisition in the archduke’s capital of Innsbruck. This inquisition would figure prominently in the Malleus, which Institoris finished within about a year of the end of his participation in the legal proceedings in Innsbruck. It is alluded to several times in the work, and until the nineteenth century, that was all that was known about it. Then in 1890, Hartmann Ammann published a report on a group of documents found by him in the diocesan archives in Brixen that pertain to this inquisition, and in 1910 he published another large document from the archive.56 Unfortunately, these publications do not give a complete or reliable picture of the contents of the documents. The second does provide 52  Hansen (1901) pt. 1 doc. #37=Schynder (1993) doc. #29. 53  Hansen (1901) pt. 1 doc. #38=Schnyder (1993) doc. #31. 54  For Institoris’s hostility to the practice of trial by ordeal, see MM 3.17, NH 2.9. 55  Hansen (1901) pt. 1 doc. #39. 56  Ammann (1890) and (1911). Dienst (1987) 106 n. 125 promised a full edition of the Brixen archive, but this work has never appeared.

Introduction

27

the full text of a memorandum on the practices to be followed in legally prosecuting witches, but the transcription is not entirely reliable. The situation with the other material is far less satisfactory. The text of the letters pertaining to Institoris’s activities is given in full, but the rest of the documentation, which consists of Institoris’s record (protocol) of his inquisitorial proceedings, is given only in outline. Any German language text is transcribed, but the extensive Latin material is often merely summarized (at times misleadingly). Furthermore, the records are digested into a chronological analysis of the proceedings, which gives no sense of the actual layout of the documents or their content in context. 13

Events Described in the Brixen Documents

On July 23, 1485, Bishop Georg of Brixen issued an order (doc. 3) to his ecclesiastical subordinates at the request of Institoris, who presumably had seen him shortly before.57 In this document, the bishop directs the addressees to cooperate with Institoris in the inquisition that he is about to conduct, and the bishop cites as the authorization of Institoris’s activities the papal bull Summis desiderantes. In a later letter to Archduke Sigismund (doc. 5), the bishop mentions a request for advice on the part of the archduke in a letter of his that Institoris had delivered to the bishop. It is conceivable that such a letter was similar to the letter that the archduke wrote to the magistrates of Ravensburg requesting their cooperation in his inquisition, but it seems more likely that this letter was written only in September (see doc. 5 translation, n. 46). Institoris’s next step was to proceed to Innsbruck, where he preached against the Heresy of Witches for fifteen days straight and then on every holy day for 57  Wilson (1996) gives an account of the events in Innsbruck. To a large extent, this is just narrative. He claims (n. 31) to have obtained a copy of the full records preserved in Brixen, but he never cites any passage that does not appear in Ammann (1890). His animus against Institoris is palpable, and some of his assertions are unreliable. For instance, on p. 94 he writes, “The records of the depositions and interrogations clearly indicate that Institoris blatantly violated established ecclesiastical procedure on a number of occasions, including the gratuitous employment of torture” with the accompanying endnote citing Ammann (1890) 54, 56. The two pages cited are simply recapitulations of the questioning of two accused witches, and the only reference to torture concerns Institoris’s suggestion (doc. 9/1) that in the future the potter should be questioned under torture. Institoris in fact never had anybody tortured in Innsbruck, and so far as I can tell, the cited pages give no evidence whatsoever of any procedural irregularity. Presumably, Wilson is merely echoing the obviously biased (and largely groundless) objections lodged against Institoris by the commissary general and the legal advocate for the accused (see doc. 11/2–3).

28

Introduction

two months (see doc. 10/8).58 Though this is not directly attested, he must have issued a general summons in which he called upon the congregants to come before him to give depositions on any relevant acts or suspicions regarding such activities that they were aware of through personal knowledge or rumor.59 We may hypothesize that the initial fifteen-day series of sermons was meant to convince the inhabitants of the seriousness of the threat posed by witchcraft, and that the taking of depositions began at the end of this intense period of preaching, with the subsequent sermons meant to maintain the ardor of the congregants against the witches while he conducted his proceedings. If this is so, then since the first deposition is recorded on August 9, he must have started preaching around July 26. As just noted, the first recorded deposition took place on August 9, the last on September 14. Document 8 contains a number of these, but the series is not complete, as the depositions given against the seven women eventually accused were to have been included in the documents sent to Brixen but seemingly were not (the depositions are alluded to in doc. 9/5, where it is stated that the bishop would be able to refer to them60). In addition, the end of doc. 8 contains a summary of testimony given against women residing in the vicinity of Innsbruck, but the details are omitted. Depositions were taken on the following days (one on each day unless a parenthetical number is added to indicate the number of depositions given on that day): August 9 (5), 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 29 September 1, 2, 3 (3), 5 (2), 6 (2), 8 (2), 9, 10, 14 This list does not give a full indication of all the testimony, as Case JJ contains seven cases against six (or conceivably five) separate women. Also, the information given about the accused from small towns outside Innsbruck is very circumscribed. There were three accused in Hall. One has three separate depositions against her, another has one deposition (made in Innsbruck), and the third has one. Five women in Amras are specified with no detail at all. Finally, in Kematen, a specific accusation is recorded against one woman.

58  In the Memorandum (doc. 16/1), Institoris gives a series of steps to be taken when an accused person is to be released, and steps 1–5 give a good indication of how he must have conducted the initial stages of his inquisition in Innsbruck. 59  For the procedure of issuing this summons, see MM 194D–195B. 60  See doc. 9, n. 46.

Introduction

29

Institoris also had to assure himself of the cooperation of the local authorities, namely the diocesan (bishop with jurisdiction), Bishop Georg of Brixen, and the archduke. Apparently at the end of the initial period of deposition taking in mid-September, he talked to the archduke about his intentions. At any rate, letters dated September 21 (docs. 4 and 5) respond to the recent arrival of a herald with messages from Innsbruck. It seems that in one letter, the inquisitor asked the bishop to take part in the proceedings. He may also have asked the bishop to delegate to him his powers if he was not able to participate himself, and in any case this is what the bishop did (doc. 5), indicating that he had wanted to go to Innsbruck for other reasons as well but was prevented by illness (in doc. 14 of the following February he complains of suffering from gout). The bishop was already unhappy about Institoris’s proposed course of action. In delegating his authority, he explicitly specifies that Institoris had to abide by the provision of canon law that directed that the names of denouncers had to be revealed to those denounced so long as there was no danger of retaliation. Clearly, he was dubious about secret proceedings in this instance. In addition, he urges Institoris to either ask the archduke to provide him with legal advisors or solicit such advice from them in writing. It is to be noted that in his Handbook of 1491, Institoris complains repeatedly about the interference of such advisors, who thwart the prosecution of (in Institoris’s mind obviously guilty) witches on the basis of legal technicalities. Certainly, the advisors appointed to the court by the bishop would play a role in the derailment of Institoris’s proceedings in late October. The bishop ends by indicating that since inquisitorial proceedings had fallen into obsolescence in the bishopric, the inquisitor had to adhere to the restrictions laid out by the bishop. In his letter to Institoris (doc. 4), the bishop also mentions having received a copy of some submission that Institoris had given to the archduke. The bishop praises this submission for its academic treatment of passages from both Old and New Testament (see doc. 4), so it must have been a memorandum of some sort outlining the theoretical basis of his proceedings. Presumably, Institoris was making the case for his satanic interpretation of witchcraft. In addition, Institoris himself alludes in his later protocols against the main suspects (see below) to a set of depositions regarding one of these cases that contains information not otherwise attested in the surviving documentation, and he notes that this “protocol” had been given to the “vicar general” (presumably, the bishop’s; see doc. 9/5 with n. 46). This document may well have provided the bishop with Institoris’s discoveries so far and his interpretation of them. It is not clear whether at the same time he informed the archduke of the specific suspicions about witchcraft that he harbored on the basis of the initial depositions taken in August and September.

30

Introduction

Institoris also appears to have kept the archbishop apprised of his intentions. At any rate, the archduke was uncertain of his own role in the proceedings and asked the bishop’s opinion on this matter in a letter (not preserved) sent by the herald along with the one from Institoris. In his response (doc. 5), the bishop, who was clearly a trusted advisor, told the archduke that canon law obligated him to extend full cooperation to the inquisitor. He added that Institoris’s proceedings had been completely proper to that stage, which made it all the more appropriate for the archduke to assist him. After this affirmation of Institoris’s procedures, the bishop spends the second half of his letter expressing his misgivings about the likely outcome. He puts forward the view that while grave crimes (he cites the abuse of an image of the crucifixion through lashing, which shows that he was aware of some of the accusations made in the depositions) were to be strictly punished, in his view lesser offenses deserved only (mild) penalties and penances. Once it was made clear that such acts were not to be tolerated, they could be punished severely in the future, but in the meanwhile, those guilty of such acts at the present time would be more appropriately treated in a merciful manner. This course, the bishop advised, would be the best way to correct such sins. The bishop suggests to the archduke that he should urge Institoris to adopt the policy of mercy, but adds that if the inquisitor insists on severity, the archduke would be obligated to go along with this. The bishop’s letter does not specify what he thinks these lesser misdeeds consist of, but presumably he was referring to the various acts of amatory magic that are attested in the depositions. In any case, even with the lashing of the crucifix, it is clear that the bishop is simply offended by the act itself. That is, there is no indication at all in his letter that he puts a satanic interpretation on even the most severe crimes that had been alleged, much less on the lesser acts of magic. However the bishop would have assessed the severity of the various accusations, it is clear that there was a fundamental difference in interpretation between him and Institoris. Whereas Institoris saw all acts of witchcraft as forming part of a satanic conspiracy, the bishop gives no sense of even an awareness of such a conception. The bishop’s failure to share the inquisitor’s understanding of the nature of the crimes would lead to the later breakdown in the proceedings.61 In any event, the bishop advises the archduke to propose to the inquisitor that he follow the procedure outlined by the bishop. There is no evidence that the archduke did make such a proposal. Certainly, Institoris

61  Note that at the end of the articles against Selachin (doc. 10/2), Institoris makes it clear that he is perfectly well aware of the bishop’s more lenient attitude.

Introduction

31

continued with his proceedings on the basis of his own understanding of the crimes that had been committed. Three documents provide very extensive (though hardly complete) information about Institoris’s proceedings. Document 8 contains summaries of a large number of initial depositions for cases that were not prosecuted at all, though in some instances Institoris clearly felt that the cases should be proceeded with at a later date. This information records depositions made by people who came to Institoris in response to his general summons ordering anyone aware of heretical practices (in this case, the Heresy of Witches) through direct knowledge or hearsay to come to him and report this.62 There are thirty-one specific cases (designated with the letters A through HH) involving one accused woman each and a total of fifty-two identified deponents. These cases all relate specifically to crimes committed directly in Innsbruck. Case JJ involves a cursory notice about six women from outside the town and mentions four deponents (clearly not the total). The end of the document consists of a summary notice of nine more denounced women resident outside Innsbruck, with six deponents. The total amounts to forty-six denounced women and sixty-two identified deponents. The earliest deposition relating to the thirty-one Innsbruck cases is dated to August 9 and the latest to September 10. Case JJ relating to cases outside of the town is dated to September 14. But these were clearly not all the depositions called forth by the general summons. Further depositions were given during this period against seven women whose cases Institoris chose to examine further (in six cases, as Röslin’s mother was dealt with only in terms of the case against the daughter). Institoris alludes repeatedly in the document about the later proceedings against these women (doc. 11) to a protocol that had been given to the bishop’s vicar and an accompanying list of witnesses as if the bishop would have access to these documents, but unfortunately these are not to be found in the Brixen archives. What we do have is a later redaction (doc. 9) of the testimony given by those witnesses between October 8 and October 21 when, on the basis of their earlier (no longer extant) depositions, these witnesses were summoned by name and made to give sworn testimony (in addition, there is reference to a relevant deposition that was made in the initial investigation but whose deponent was for some reason not questioned in October; see doc. 9/5). In addition, Institoris drew up articles of points of suspicion (doc. 10) for further questioning of the denounced women by the bishop. These articles are mostly based on the testimony preserved in doc. 9, but sometimes include points not mentioned in the testimony, which presumably reflects other information in the now lost initial 62  See n. 55.

32

Introduction

depositions. Here is a list of the seven denounced women and the dates on which testimony was given against them: 1) 2)

Barbara Selachin (three depositions on October 17). Barbara Hüfeysen (one deposition each on October 8 and 17, two unattributed accusations, and mention of a witness from the lost protocol). 3) Röslin (Rosina Hochwartin) and her mother Barbara (five depositions, three on October 19, two on the 21st, with one of these last consisting of evidence by two spouses). 4) Agnes Schneiderin (one deposition on October 16). 5) Barbara Pflieglin (three depositions on October 17; one is the same as testimony given against Hüfeysen). 6) Helena Scheuberin (three depositions on October 13, two on the 15th, one on the 18th and one on the 19th consisting of evidence from a servant and his employer; plus a legal inquiry on October 4 regarding the disparaging words that she was reported to have uttered about Institoris’s preaching). Thus, we have twenty separate depositions given by twenty witnesses (in two instances, a single piece of testimony involves two witnesses, and one piece is cited against two accused), one witness from the earlier depositions, and at least two more implied in the earlier depositions. Institoris’s exact procedure is hard to detect. Though the testimony about one woman sometimes appears to be gathered together (e.g., October 17 was all about Pflieglin), at other times, the testimony about a given woman is spread over a number of days (this is especially the case with Scheuberin). The cases are arranged (in the same order in both the protocols and the articles) on the basis of the degree to which Institoris felt the accused could be directly convicted of participation in the Heresy of Witches. Selachin and Hüfeysen (cases one and two) are clearly considered to be caught directly in the Heresy of Witches. He has little to say overtly about Röslin and her mother (case three, doc. 10/5), and thinks that Widow Schneiderin (case four) could be dealt with via penance (doc. 10/6). As for Pflieglin, she is simply implicated by association with Hüfeysen’s misdeeds and is not really “caught” (doc. 10/6) in that he overtly notes that Pflieglin is merely implicated in the crimes of Hüfeysen (see Institoris’s evaluations of her culpability at the start and end of the articles against her, respectively doc. 10/6 and 10/7). With the last case, that of Scheuberin, Institoris overtly states in the heading to the articles against her that he has placed her last because she can only be punished if the preceding suspects are punished in that she is vaguely implicated (doc. 10/7–8). Basically, the main case against her is that she poisoned a knight, which is not taken to be evidence of witchcraft as such. It is true that she is accused of causing

Introduction

33

a death that involves a threat and subsequent harm, but in the articles he argues directly that a person can be penalized for engagement in the Heresy of Witches merely on the basis of reputation (Article Five in doc. 10/8), and while there is direct evidence against her for causing harm to the man who jilted her and his wife, for some reason, he appears to believe that the evidence against her is not strong, despite that fact that it is the victims themselves who give the evidence (the case is discussed in Article Six in doc. 10/8; note in particular how he goes on within it to claim that there are many potential witnesses against other witches and against Scheuberin in particular, but these refused to come forward, which seems to suggest that he felt the evidence of the deponents needed corroboration). Yet, Institoris twice indicates that the most guilty were Selachin, Hüfeysen and Scheuberin, all of whom he thinks should be turned over to the secular authorities for execution for the secular harm they cause without obstruction by the ecclesiastical authorities (doc. 10/2 in the summary at the end of the articles about Selachin, and doc. 10/9 at the end of the articles against Scheuberin). It would appear then that Institoris feels that since she can be convicted of causing harm and of being a self-confessed heretic, the secular authorities can easily condemn her to death on those grounds, but he feels uncomfortable with overtly convicting her in his own court of participation in the Heresy of Witches, which is why her case appears last (however much he dislikes the woman). On October 8, the very day on which Institoris conducted the first interrogation of witnesses against the seven arrested women, the archduke wrote the bishop a letter (doc. 5) notifying him that Institoris had arrested them and asking him to send either his commissary (administrative representative) or some other suitable person to assist Institoris in the proceedings. There is no way to know for sure what prompted this letter, but perhaps Institoris had taken the bishop’s advice and requested help from the archduke, who in turn threw the ball back into the bishop’s court by asking him to appoint an assistant for the inquisitor. The bishop reacted by sending a letter (doc. 7) to Sigismund Samer, the parish priest of Axams (a small town outside Innsbruck). The bishop apologized to Samer for the inconvenience of the appointment, indicating that no one else was available. He emphasized that he had already urged Institoris that in light of the unusual nature of the proceedings (by local standards, at any rate), the more lenient course involving abjuration and absolution would be preferable. Clearly, the bishop was by this point actively attempting to ensure that those taking part in the proceedings on his behalf would try to steer them in the direction that he wished (and which the bishop must have known Institoris did not wish). This letter must have been sent to Samer fairly quickly, as he is already attested serving as a witness to testimony taken on October 13.

34

Introduction

Nonetheless, Institoris appears to have been largely left to his own devices in conducting the examination of the witnesses in October. Apart from the appearance of Samer at one interrogation on October 13 and a second one on October 15, it was only various members of a rostrum of assorted religious (that is, members of religious orders) who attended the interrogations as witnesses. The situation took a rather different turn on October 29. There is no direct indication in the preserved protocol (doc. 11) of the proceedings on that day (and their continuance on October 31) as to what exactly was supposed to take place, but it seems that Institoris meant to pass final judgment ( judicium) on the accused. If so, things had been arranged so that this would not at all be the outcome. Present for these proceedings were Institoris plus three unspecified members of his roster of religious witnesses, as well as the parish priest Sigismund Samer, whom the bishop had asked to attend the interrogations of October. A new member of the panel was Paul Wann, a doctor of theology. As a canon of Passau (a town on the Inn downriver from Innsbruck on the Bavarian riverbank), he was clearly a member of the secular clergy, and the fact that he would later concur with Samer in recommending an end to the proceedings indicates that he too was an appointment of the bishop. Finally, Christian Turner was present in his capacity as the commissary general of the bishop, just as the archduke had suggested in his letter of October 8 (doc. 6). The course of events suggests that these episcopal appointees were ready to thwart the inquisitor, who seemingly had no idea of what was coming. The proceedings began at about 9 am. Institoris decided to begin with Scheuberin.63 In any case, right from the start he got into some sort of wrangling with her that the protocol disdains to report. After she swore to tell the truth, he first asked about her residence and marital status. With this innocuous establishment of the denounced woman’s identity out of the way, he turned to the substance of the case by asking about her virginity and “secret matters” (presumably referring to sexual activity). At this point, the first indication emerged 63  It may seem a little odd to start with her given that her case appears last in the protocols (doc. 9) and articles (doc. 10). However, Institoris clearly felt a particular animus against her because of her denunciation of his practices in giving sermons against witches (doc. 10/8) and the threat that she actually made against him in person, which he claims to have been astonished at (doc. 9/12). It is perhaps a sign of how much importance he placed on the information he had received that she disparaged his speaking that he conducted an official interrogation with her (for some reason in the presence of Widow Schneiderin) on October 4, four days before the first proper hearing (regarding Hüfeysen on October 8).

Introduction

35

of the troubles that he was about to encounter, as the commissary general immediately rejected this line of questioning as irrelevant. It may have been irrelevant to the secular clergy present, but it was at the heart of Institoris’s understanding of the crimes that had been committed in Innsbruck, since the testimony that he had collected indicated that Scheuberin had been the sexual lover of a man who had thrown her over to marry another woman and that in revenge Scheuberin had threatened the woman at her wedding and then bewitched her. Turner’s brusque rejection of this line of questioning shows that he shared (gave voice to?) the bishop’s rejection of Institoris’s equation of the sexual peccadiloes of womenfolk with their invocation of Satan in furtherance of exacting vengeance on the men who had jilted them and the women they went on to marry (the locus classicus for this idea is MM 94C–95C). With this introductory line of questioning thwarted, Institoris decided to turn to the testimony of the witnesses themselves. Here, he once more ran up against obstruction on the part of the commissary general, who immediately objected that Institoris had not drawn up this information in the form of properly formulated articles (like those that Institoris later submitted to the bishop in doc. 10). Whatever may have been the case with accepted procedure in secular courts, this objection was entirely misguided when it came to the proceedings of inquisitors. As Institoris notes on numerous occasions, the papal bull “Statuta” specifically and explicitly directs that “in a case involving the Faith the proceeding is summary, straightforward and informal, without the screeching and posturing of advocates in courtrooms” (MM 199B). That is, cases should be tried in the spirit of what would today be called “natural justice.” This means that the point is simply to determine the truth of the case without recourse to legal technicalities in the proceedings, and surely quibbling about the form in which the evidence was presented is exactly the sort of pleading that the bull was meant to forestall.64 In any event, Institoris was given an hour to draw up the requisite articles, an hour having already passed by this point. When the court reconvened at 11 a.m., Institoris found yet another obstacle in his path. Now Johannes Merwait of Wending, a licentiate in canon law and a doctor of medicine, appeared with credentials as the legal representative of all the accused women. This must have been a bolt out of the blue for the 64  Naturally, this interpretation should not be taken as arguing that the procedure implied by the bull is in fact just. The point is not what we would think of the proceedings today but what the relevant legal situation was at the time. There should be no doubt that what Institoris was doing was perfectly correct according to the provisions of canon law, and hence that the commissary general was wrong to have ruled against Institoris.

36

Introduction

inquisitor! The women had been in custody for something like four weeks now, so Merwait’s appearance on behalf of all of them must have taken place through the cooperation of the authorities in letting him communicate with them (as well as their apparent neglect of mentioning this to Institoris, who seemingly had no previous knowledge of Merwait’s involvement in the case). In any event, Merwait showed up with a certified document showing his position as the women’s advocate and he then demanded that a new document to this effect be drawn up by the notary recording the present proceedings. Another hour’s adjournment was granted for this purpose. Once the proceedings resumed at noon and Merwait was duly recognized as the representative of the women, he began to assail Institoris for his actions as investigator and to take exception on this basis to his serving as judge. He made five charges. 1)

Institoris did not employ a notary who had been sworn in by himself and the bishop, as the bull provided. 2) He investigated “hidden sins,” which was not his prerogative nor provided for by the bull. 3) He should have examined the accused on the basis of properly drawn-up articles. 4) He merely arrested the women on the basis of pre-existing reputation without having first drawn up the case properly, again in violation of the bull. 5) In all this, he acted without a proper notary. This is pretty thin stuff. Charge one is simply incorrect. The bull mentions a specific notary as acting for Institoris and his inquisitorial colleague Jacob Sprenger as their notary and explicitly provides for the replacement of that notary by either of the inquisitors.65 It says nothing about the notary being sworn by the local bishop. As for the lack of provision for the investigation of “hidden sins” in the bull, the whole point of the bull was to overcome exactly such a 65  Kieckhefer (2006) 27–28 supports the charge on the grounds that the testimony of the vernacular depositions (doc. 8) is set down in a cursory manner (without witnesses to the deposition, location etc. being noted), in contrast to the detailed record keeping of such peculiarities in the Latin protocols (doc. 9). But the whole point of the latter is precisely to provide exactly this information, whereas the vernacular protocols lay out only the cursory initial depositions, which were to be treated in greater detail at a later date if the case was to be proceeded with (as in doc. 9), and the major cases of doc. 9 must themselves have had initial notices like those of doc. 8, which were dispensed with in the records provided to the archbishop once they were superseded by the later, fuller depositions.

Introduction

37

claim, namely that certain crimes were not covered by the inquisitors’ previous appointment.66 To cut short such objections, the bull gave the inquisitors “full and unrestricted power to carry out the office of such inquisition” (officium inquisitionis huiusmodi exequi licere), so Merwait’s objection here is clearly void. The fourth objection about the lack of articles is particularly interesting, as it would suggest that Merwait was being fed his lines by Turner (after all, Merwait had not been present earlier in the morning when Turner made precisely this complaint himself). Finally, the charge about the lack of a proper notary is to some extent merely a restatement of the first charge, and no more valid than it. On the basis of his five charges, Merwait then asked that Institoris be removed as judge and replaced with the vicar general of the bishop of Freising. Such a very specific request must have been arranged in advance, and given the clear indications of cooperation between Turner and Merwait, the assumption is close to hand that Turner had been involved in the choice. (The dropping of the charges against the women would make the replacement a moot point.) Institoris asked to have a written copy of the complaints lodged against him, and Merwait agreed. All of this must have been astonishing to Institoris, but worse was to come. Merwait actually asked the commissary general to order Institoris’s arrest on the grounds that as a member of a mendicant order he would not be able to post bail to answer these charges. That a senior inquisitor who had held the ear of two popes (Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII) and preached before the Holy Roman Emperor (Frederick III) should be assailed for improper procedure must have been shocking enough, but for it to be demanded that he should be imprisoned – ! Merwait now brought the proceedings to a halt by declaring that he had advised his clients not to cooperate any further since Institoris was not a valid judge (a contention that surely was not his to decide). He demanded a copy of the bull and the protocols, and after turning over written copies of his complaints to Institoris, he also provided copies to Turner. Institoris then consulted the three religious and the two secular clergymen on the panel, but not, it would seem, Turner, before issuing his interlocutory (procedural) decision about Merwait’s complaints. It is significant that the boilerplate text indicating that the other members of the panel were consulted was replaced with the overt statement that the two secular clergymen specified that if Institoris wished to continue with the case, they would not object, but their advice was that he should not do so. Institoris did not take the hint 66  See esp. MM 1B*. For a discussion of this aspect of the bull, see Mackay (2011) vol. 1, 123–124.

38

Introduction

and declared himself competent to act as judge, whereupon Merwait indicated his intention to appeal to the pope in Rome. Turner stated that he would respond to Merwait’s objections against Institoris by Monday, and for his part, Institoris stated that he would decide by the same time whether to allow the appeal to Rome.67 At this point, the proceedings broke off until Monday. As soon as the proceedings reconvened on October 31, a lot of disputation not surprisingly ensued. The details are omitted in the protocol, and the upshot was that Merwait insisted upon a decision about his appeal, which Institoris had presumably been trying to ignore. Merwait thereupon called upon Turner to rule on his objections, which the commissary proceeded to do. Without any specificity at all, Turner merely said that after having considered the objections, he decided that the proceedings had in fact been invalidated because of the irregularities. The denounced women were to be released on the condition that guarantors could provide surety that the women would abide by any subsequent rulings in the matter. With that, the proceedings were over. It seems pretty clear that arrangements had been made behind the scenes by the commissary general – at the very least with the bishop’s consent and perhaps in consultation or cooperation with him – to halt the proceedings. Merwait seems pretty clearly to have been acting in tandem with Turner, even parroting objections first raised by the commissary general. The two secular clergy on the panel were by their own words pushing Institoris in the direction of giving up the case (one of them, Sigismund Samer, having been told by the bishop, when he asked Samer [doc. 7] to assist Institoris, that he should urge the inquisitor to err on the side of leniency, a course that Institoris clearly was not inclined to follow). Indeed, the very notary who drew up the proceedings did so in a way prejudicial to Institoris. He omits the names of the three religious on the panel as if they are not important (unlike the named secular clergy), does not bother to record Institoris’s initial exchange with Scheuberin as if his words were of no significance, and editorializes that Institoris’s initial questions about her sexual background were not relevant (presumably, echoing Turner’s interpretation). Surely, this procedure must indicate that the protocol was intentionally drawn up with a bias against Institoris. Why exactly did the bishop decide to thwart Institoris in this way? It is clear from his correspondence before the proceedings that he did not share Institoris’s understanding of witchcraft, and statements of his in letters from the period after the trial show that he became increasingly exasperated

67  It seems like a perverse procedure, but MM 254D–256C makes it clear that the judge against whom the appeal is being lodged decided whether to allow the appeal to proceed.

Introduction

39

with Institoris. Apart from such theoretical considerations, there is also a human aspect to the case. In his correspondence of November 14 (docs. 13, 14), the bishop makes it clear that “some people” were stirred up by the arrests, which presumably refers to the friends and relatives of the denounced women. These people no doubt worked behind the scenes to get the bishop to halt the proceedings. Another unknown element is the attitude of the archduke (apart from anything else, the case against Röslin and her mother was directly connected to supposed bad relations between her and her husband on the one hand and the archduke on the other). Given that the archduke had explicitly consulted the bishop about how to deal with Institoris, it has to be assumed that at the very least the bishop took the archduke’s attitude into consideration, and it stands to reason that the archduke at least agreed with the decision to thwart Institoris’s proceedings (for more on the archduke, see the next section). The sureties were duly given (doc. 11/7) on Thursday, November 3, and the women released. The bishop clearly wanted to be done with the whole affair. On November 14, just two weeks after the halting of the proceedings, he wrote a letter to Institoris (doc. 12) advising him to leave Innsbruck as soon as possible because of the animosity felt against him as a result of the proceedings. The bishop does not spell things out, but the clear implication is that Institoris was in personal danger. The letter was sent first to an unnamed parish priest in Innsbruck, who received a letter of his own (doc. 13) in which he was asked by the bishop to help the messenger deliver the letter and to urge Institoris to leave promptly if he did not immediately comply with the bishop’s advice. The bishop ends the letter to the priest with a statement about the inappropriateness of Institoris’s proceedings, which again confirms that the bishop had a direct influence on the course of events on October 29 and 31. But Institoris did not leave for months. On February 9, 1486, the bishop passed on to Brother Nicholas of the cathedral choir a letter for Institoris (doc. 14). Seemingly, the bishop did not trust his own abilities to compose a suitable letter, as he asked the brother to write to Institoris the content that he would find in the attached letter (doc. 15). The bishop indicates that he will pay the expenses of passing on the letter. He also makes it clear to the brother that he has entirely lost patience with Institoris (to the extent that the letter is a curious mixture of German and Latin, perhaps indicating that the bishop was uncomfortable about expressing his reservations about the inquisitor openly in simple German). He notes that whereas Institoris’s early writings had seemed to be of high academic quality, his personal meeting with Institoris at the cathedral in the presence of the cathedral chapter had given him the impression

40

Introduction

that Institoris was senile.68 This assertion is corroborated by the statement that Institoris presupposed things that had not been proven. Presumably, what the bishop means is that whereas Institoris used his overall conception of the Heresy of Witches to infer from the practices of the denounced women the participation of Satan in those practices, the bishop himself entertained no such overall conception and therefore rather than taking such practices as themselves constituting evidence of satanism, he required overt proof of a satanic element in the magical practices in order to reach such an extreme conclusion. We know that the cases against the seven women were never resumed, but the sureties given on November 4 (doc. 11/6–7) indicate that the possibility was open, and in his letter of February 9 (doc. 15) the bishop speaks as if he will continue the cases on his own without the need of assistance from Institoris (to whom it is made clear that his previous mishandling of the case makes his further participation counter-productive). The bishop also notes in his cover letter to Brother Nicholas (doc. 14) that Institoris would have been happy to continue to be involved in the prosecutions, a circumstance to which the bishop was strongly opposed. Seemingly, the bishop was treating Institoris diplomatically by indicating to him that while he should leave, the cases would go on resulted in Institoris being unwilling to depart. It is this background that allows us to understand how and why the documentation regarding Institoris’s proceedings from August through October wound up in the bishop’s archives. Several references show that the documents were drawn up in the present form after the release of the denounced women on November 3.69 The vernacular deposition contains references to how some of the deponents are to be called again (e.g., cases S, Y, CC, JJ), which indicates that Institoris foresaw a continuation of even those cases. The relevance of the protocol of the examination of the witnesses for the six cases that were prosecuted (doc. 9) is self-evident, and the articles and list of questions for those six cases (doc. 10) not only make good the complaint about failing to draw up such articles that was raised against Institoris by Turner and Merwait 68  The date of this meeting is unknown. Given that there is no evidence for any trip to Brixen before the abrupt end of the proceedings in late October, perhaps Institoris journeyed there in the late fall, and his demeanor in the aftermath of the collapse of the proceedings made a bad impression on the bishop (who by this point was no doubt ill-disposed towards the inquisitor). 69  E.g., in the vernacular depositions (doc. 8) under case JJ, it is stated that Michil Zimmermannin (that is, the wife of Michael Zimmermann) fled upon the arrest of the seven women and returned following their release. The release is also mentioned in the Memorandum (doc. 16/1).

Introduction

41

but provide at the end of the case a summary of how the guilt of the accused was manifested in the cases and how Institoris envisioned that each defendant should be punished. Finally, Institoris drew up a very elaborate memorandum (the Memorandum, doc. 16) to show how the cases against the accused were to be investigated and adjudicated.70 Both the articles and the Memorandum are addressed to someone styled “your Most Reverend Paternity” (reuerendissima paternitas vestra), who must be the bishop. There can be no doubt that whatever Institoris may have thought about the circumstances that led to his removal from the case, he was certain that the bishop would continue with the prosecutions and wished to further this intention by sharing with him his own technical expertise in the matter.71 It seems clear that either the bishop was very good at concealing from the inquisitor his own distaste for his conceptions and procedure or Institoris was a very obtuse man (or conceivably both). 14

Institoris’s Conceptualization of the Denunciations

Institoris clearly had put a lot of thought into understanding in an abstract way and internalizing the (comparatively) new “elaborated” theory of witchcraft, which he laid out in such length in the Malleus. The documentation from the inquisitions conducted by him in Innsbruck and (to a lesser extent) previously in Ravensburg allow us to see how he took denunciations about activities supposedly involving witchcraft and applied his theorizing to make sense of these. In the end, he selected the denunciations regarding eight women and drew these up in the form of six separate cases. After the failure of the proceedings in October of 1485, he passed on a large dossier of materials to aid the bishop in what was supposed to be further legal proceedings on the basis of the information that Institoris had brought to light. From this circumstance, we are allowed to see what aspects of the six cases (as he chose to understand them) so troubled Institoris, since at the same time he included the information about cases that he considered serious enough to bring to the bishop’s attention but not worthy of his own involvement as inquisitor. 70  For reasons of logical presentation, the Memorandum is placed after the trial protocols and articles, but it should be borne in mind that in the MS it appears after the vernacular testimony (doc. 8) and before the Latin protocols (doc. 9). This text is very similar in content to MM Book 3. 71  Note the positive mention of the bishop in MM 95A, which gives no sense if Institoris harbored any bad feelings about him.

42

Introduction

Let us examine the main charges in the six cases, arranged by order of declining culpability (according to Institoris). 1)

Helena Scheuberin a) She murdered a knight, who was ostensibly poisoned, though perhaps witchcraft was involved. b) She was sexually involved with a man, who broke it off with her to marry a respectable woman. Invited to the wedding, Scheuberin threatened the new wife (German words quoted), who remained bewitched for seven years. c) She is involved with Hüfeysen. d) She disbelieves Institoris’s understanding of witches and witchcraft (heresy). e) When questioned by Institoris about her rejection of his views, she threatened him (German words quoted).

2)

Barbara Selachin a) After an incident in which Selachin apparently trampled on the victim’s plants and had an altercation about it, the victim fell ill and was then visited by a potter who was sexually involved with Selachin and was able to use a magical procedure to demonstrate that witchcraft was the cause and then helped the victim find the devices causing it (voodoo doll, cloth containing seeds, wood from a gallows, and the thigh of an unbaptized infant). b) As a result of a land deal, Selachin threatened the victim (German words quoted), and when the victim subsequently threatened to take her to court, Selachin threatened her again (another German quote), and the victim fell ill. Devices were later found under the bed (seeds, bones, stones). c) For unclear reasons, Selachin twice threatened the victim when they bumped into each other on the street, and after the second time, the victim’s body permanently dried up. Selachin rejected attempts to intervene with her.

3)

Barbara Hüfeysen a) When using a magical means to cure Pflieglin’s headache, she was criticized for superstition by Pflieglin’s maid, whom Hüfeysen then threatened (German words quoted). An illness then ensued, and when Pflieglin’s husband criticized her for neglecting her duties, he suspiciously found a cloth containing powder and seeds, and when this was burned, the illness stopped.

Introduction

b)

c) d)

43

After a dispute with lodgers who were leaving her house, she threatened the victim (German words quoted), who promptly became ill. A miraculous vision then instructed the victim to sweep under her porch, and when she swept flesh out from there and burned it, she became cured. She is said to know how to use magical means to affect judges and to free a man (her husband) from prison. She is said to instruct other women in witchcraft.

4)

Widow Schneiderin a) She is said to have been the girlfriend of a man, who then ended the relationship to marry someone else. Schneiderin then threatened him and his wife (German words quoted), and when he became ill, she sent people to him to ask if he suspected her. Later, she accompanied the wife (to whom the husband had not reported her threats) to the baths, and when the wife returned, she was mentally and physically ill. Upon (illegally) consulting a female soothsayer, the husband was told to search the couch cushions, which the wife had taken to the baths, and upon finding unspecified items for witchcraft, he burned these and the wife’s health was in part restored. b) Allegedly she claimed to know a woman who could inflict maleficent magic.

5)

Röslin (Rosina Hochwartin) and her mother Barbara a) Her husband is employed by the archduke to keep charge of his artillery, and she is accused of having bewitched with powder a cloth given by the archduke to a colleague of her husband and his wife, so that when they used the cloth to make clothing, they became ill when wearing these garments. No threats are quoted, but German words are quoted from the time when the garment was infected with the powder, which seems equivalent to a threat. b) She is said to have brought in from a distant town a woman who was to bewitch the archduke. c) She is said to have used a dead man’s head and dead mice for magical purposes. d) The mother is apparently involved only through guilt by association.

6)

Barbara Pflieglin a) She is the associate of alleged witches. b) She is considered implicit in Hüfeysen’s bewitching of her (Pflieglin’s) maid by not intervening when Hüfeysen threatened her.

44

Introduction

c) d)

She is said to know how to cause maleficent magic. She is said to know how to instruct other women in magic.

Clearly, the main criterion for the selection of these cases was the presence of maleficent magic that results in bodily harm (whether physical or mental) and was foreshadowed by an altercation and (usually) a direct threat made to the victim. The quotation of the German words in the Latin record shows the importance that Institoris placed on these as a sign of guilt. The fact that the illness was caused by witchcraft is demonstrated by the discovery of devices causing the magical result, and that when these items are destroyed, the illness abates in whole or part (which presumably means that some other such items have gone undiscovered72). Such are the main charges against Selachin, Hüfeysen, Scheuberin, and Widow Schneiderin, the main suspects. Institoris attempts to present the case against Röslin in similar terms, though the German words quoted are only an implicit threat (and are not even uttered in the victim’s presence). The case against Pflieglin is basically one of guilt by association, which also applies to Röslin’s mother. In this regard, it is worth noting that Institoris has it in mind that there are two “covens” of witches in Innsbruck.73 One consists of Scheuberin and Hüfeysen (doc. 10/4, 9) and the other of Scharerin, Sixin, Jos Molerin (wife of Jos Moler), and Pflieglin (doc. 10/4). As Institoris himself notes, the only one of the second group to be arrested was Pfliegel, and that solely because of her involvement with Hüfeysen, and not because of whatever disreputable activities the second group was up to.74 Clearly, Institoris was aware of the existence of groups of females formed for the purpose of using magic, but not all such groups were part of the Heresy of Witches. They were all subject to ecclesiastical censure, but only the latter were of concern to Institoris in his capacity as inquisitor. Another item that is associated with the charges is the use of items from unbaptized infants who have been murdered, this practice being a notable 72  At any rate, Institoris adds in this assertion in MM 135D in recounting the illness suffered by Gertrude Rötin at the instigation of Selachin; see doc. 9, n. 10. 73  The Latin term he uses is societas (origin of the English word “society”). Institoris quotes Agnes the Bathkeeper as referring to Anna of Mindelheim as her consodalis “companion” (MM 94B, 146C), and he uses the same term himself in reference to the members of a group of witches (105B). But in the first passage where Agnes uses the term consodalis, she is responding to a judge’s questions about her socia, which is the noun (“ally,” “associate”) of which societas is the abstraction. At any rate, the Latin societas (“association,” “fellowship”) has a neutral sound about it (unlike the prejudicial English term “coven”) and basically signifies a group of people who are united for a common purpose. 74  Institoris alludes several times to the need to find out more about their activites: item HH of the vernacular protocol (doc. 8); penultimate item in the last article against Hüfeysen (doc. 10/4), first item in last article against Röslin (doc. 10/5).

Introduction

45

element of the Heresy of Witches.75 This is attested of Selachin twice (doc. 10/1) and of Röslin (doc. 10/5). Now, how exactly the deponents of these discoveries characterized what they supposedly found is unrecoverable at this point, but Institoris himself presumably “guided” them in interpreting what they had seen. Can it really be expected that the deponents had actually identified the bones as those of unbaptized infants? Finally, we have the sexual element, which would cause him so much grief during the proceedings on October 31. Both Scheuberin and Widow Schneiderin are characterized in pretty much identical terms (broadly speaking) as having previously been “loose” women who had tried to seduce men into marrying them by providing them with sex and were then cast aside in favor of respectable chaste wives. They then avenged themselves on their ex-boyfriends and their wives through maleficent magic. In this, the course of events has some similarity to the story of how Anna of Mindelheim was inducted into the Heresy of Witches by a demon who accosts her as she is on her way to visit her boyfriend, upon whom she is bestowing her sexual favors (MM 94B–C). The demon offers to do her bidding, and she agrees to this and indulges in unspecified sexual activity (with the demon) for the next eighteen years. But there is no evidence here of the boyfriend casting her aside, and immediately after Anna’s story, this concept is directly tied by Institoris to the events in Innsbruck (MM 94C–95A). Seemingly, it was the events that Institoris “uncovered” in Innsbruck that made him connect the sadness felt by loose young women who are cast aside with their induction into the Heresy of Witches. In evaluating the situation that faced Institoris and how he chose to evaluate the evidence brought before him, it must be borne in mind that while the current state of the documentation makes it look as if the protocols and articles drawn up against the seven accused lead in directly to the proceedings of October 31 (doc. 11), this is not at all the case. One of the charges laid against Institoris is precisely his failure to have at hand articles such as those contained in doc. 10, which the preserved articles were intended to remedy. Hence, we do not know exactly what Institoris’s thinking was during the investigative period leading up to the proceedings on October 31. Presumably, the procedure would have been similar in Ravensburg, but there the “truth” of the matter was brought to light via the use of torture on the accused. Why exactly did Institoris not have articles drawn up in October? Was it that he was not himself fully aware of the exact nature of the case, which would come to light during the 75  For the crucial importance of killing unbaptized babies and using their bodies in witches’ rites for Institoris’s theoretical understanding of the Heresy of Witches, see Mackay (2011) vol. 1, 62.

46

Introduction

torture to which the accused were to be sentenced on October 31? There is no way to know what exactly Institoris’s thoughts were at that time, since the evidence we have was drawn up by him after the humiliation he suffered during the proceedings in late October and early November. He was clearly not of the opinion that he had been treated unfairly by the bishop of Brixen and seems to have expected him to continue with the cases. That being so, it behooved him to present the evidence he had in a way that justified his own prosecution of the women in question. Perhaps it was only in retrospect that the case against Pflieglin looks so feeble (a fault that a confession by her would no doubt have rectified). Is it going too far to say that it was the need to justify his case via inferential evidence combined with the pre-existing notion that witches could protect themselves during questioning under torture by means of the sorcery of silence that led Institoris to become such a strong advocate in the Malleus (and especially in the later Handbook) of using conjecture rather than torture as the best method of convicting witches? There is, of course, no way to tell, but it certainly is the case that his later theoretical discussions of how to prosecute witches deviates from the straightforward procedure that he previously followed in Ravensburg of convicting on the basis of confessions extracted through torture. In any case, we have to imagine Institoris being faced in the late summer with a large number of denunciations which he had to make sense of. He must have eliminated a fair number of denunciations in which he saw no substance (and which have left no mark in the record). It is hard to believe that after calling upon everyone with any knowledge or suspicion of activities involving witchcraft to come forward with these, he would not have gotten reports that struck him as groundless or misguided. And of all this information, he selected out cases that to his mind fell under the rubric of the Heresy of Witches. Basically, these involved the infliction of harm after a (frequently pointless) altercation between witch and victim, sometimes sexual vengeance being the witch’s motive. Regardless, threatening words tend to “foreshadow” the eventual harm, which is “caused” by the placement of “magical” items on the property of the victim and can be “undone” through burning these items. 15

Social Relations

Let us now consider these cases not from Institoris’s point of view but from that of the deponents. What led them to bring these cases? The stories told by the deponents show that the women they accused were neither chosen randomly nor selected from strangers known for engaging in witchcraft. Rather,

Introduction

47

they were acquaintances of the deponents, whom the deponents chose to blame for illnesses that befell them. Though one can speculate on the social relationships among victim and accused in the vernacular protocol (doc. 8), the generally brief descriptions of the circumstances given there leave a lot of uncertainty. With the seven accused whom Institoris chose to prosecute for participation in the Heresy of Witches, there is enough information to make it possible to get a sense of the interactions that give rise to the accusations. Here, we review the main grounds for the denunciations.76 15.1 Barbara Selachin Gertrud Rötin suspected her neighbor Barbara Selachin of causing an illness on the grounds that Selachin had a longstanding reputation as a witch, and had had a dispute with Rötin about who was responsible for trampling plants in her garden.77 Seemingly, after some sort of comment from Rötin about the damage (Rötin claims that she was merely talking to herself and that Selachin suddenly turned up, but this is hardly plausible), Selachin asked Rötin if she thought that she (Selachin) was responsible, and Rötin passive-aggressively responded that Selachin knew full well who was responsible. Seemingly, there was no love lost between the two women, and the encounter that supposedly led to the infliction of the harm through witchcraft is seemingly trivial. Soon after the start of the illness, Selachin’s male friend (the potter) visits Rötin and uses a magical means (pouring lead into water) to determine whether she was bewitched and how. Once this procedure demonstrates witchcraft, he helps the woman’s husband find the items causing the harm. No explanation is provided for why the potter intervened to reveal and undo the witchcraft. Institoris seems to find him complicit on the grounds that he must have known what had happened from Selachin herself, but an objective interpretation seems to suggest that he was actually working against her intentions if she was actively inflicting harm though witchcraft. Elisabeth Thomanin (wife of Master Thoman) reported that twelve years previously, her husband had bought a piece of land from Selachin’s husband, and since this sale displeased Selachin (for unstated reasons), she verbally threatened Thomanin and her husband in the presence of witnesses, 76  Dienst (1987) is based on access to the full records in Brixen, but her discussion, which is restricted to looking at the material as a reflection of “magical conceptions and practices in the regular life of the common people” (magische Vorstellungen und Praktiken im Alltag des Volkes, 88), is mostly just paraphrase of the denunciations as laid out in the documents (which no doubt was useful for readers with access only to the incomplete presentation of this material in Ammann [1890]). 77  The story is laid out in docs. 9/1–2 and 10/1.

48

Introduction

indicating that she would make them crippled and lame. When Thomanin replied that she would take Selachin before a judge, she replied that she did not care and knew how to affect judges.78 Thomanin and her husband subsequently became swollen. Items for witchcraft were then found in the couch, and wet stones under the bed, which led to Thomanin sweating, an illness that stopped once the stones were removed. Katherina Schmidlerin reported that she had previously had an altercation with Selachin concerning the burning of some bridge (with Selachin having made an unspecified threat), and subsequently, while going about her own business, Schmidlerin bumped into Selachin, who seemingly challenged her provocatively.79 When Schmidlerin remonstrated with her for this behavior and threatened to take her before a judge, Selachin overtly threatened her health. After falling ill, Schmidlerin sent women to intervene on her behalf with Selachin, who rejected the request (and when Schmidlerin then asked the women to repeat the story before a judge, they declined on the grounds that they did not want to get on the bad side of a woman like her). At a later date, Schmidlerin and Selachin again encountered one other on the street, and Selachin reiterated her contempt for Schmidlerin, going so far as to spit on the ground. Seemingly, Selachin was a woman of strong personality who had a reputation for witchcraft (however conceived), which she was not afraid to speak of to others (if the reported words are in any way accurate). She tried to intimidate those who threatened to take her to court for this, and was willing to express her contempt for her perceived enemies both to them themselves and to those who attempted to intervene. Her accusers present themselves as women who did nothing to provoke her enmity, though they were willing to take her to court because of her threatening behavior. 15.2 Barbara Hüfeysen Ludwigen Wagenstallin (the wife of Ludwig Wagensta(h)l) reported that when she had previously worked as a maid for Pflieglin and Pflieglin had a serious headache, Hüfeysen used a magical practice to ease the pain, and when the maid criticized her for this superstition, Hüfeysen threatened her, and she then became ill.80 Pflieglin’s husband then came around to criticize her for neglecting the farm animals (part of her duties), and “by accident” found in the barn items for witchcraft, which he helped her burn, whereupon she got better. As with the case of Selachin’s potter friend intervening to help Rötin in a similar 78  The story is laid out in docs. 9/2 and 10/1–2. 79  The story is laid out in docs. 9/2–3 and 10/2. 80  The story is laid out in docs. 9/3–4 and 10/3.

Introduction

49

way, a man associated (in this instance indirectly) with the witch helps out the victim. Margaretha Grunenpachin (the wife of a man named Grünenbach, to use modern orthography) reported that she and her husband had been lodgers of Hüfeysen, and when it was time for them to leave, Hüfeysen became angry (for reasons unclear, but presumably she did not wish them to cease being her lodgers), she threatened them with blinding and lameness.81 For this, she was chastised by two female witnesses (it would seem), but she responded by challenging them to take her to court. The subsequent illness was then cured by a miraculous intervention (rather than the influence of knowledgeable humans). At an uncertain point in the course of events, Grunenpachin apparently threatened to take Hüfeysen to court. At any rate, in response, Hüfeysen claimed to be able to affect the behavior of judges and to get the imprisoned out of jail. Whereas Selachin was accused of witchcraft by women outside her circle of social acquaintances (that is, women with whom she did not have personal interactions and who she had her altercations with “out in public”), Hüfeysen was accused by women that she had direct familiarity with (the maid of a supposed witch who was her acquaintance, and a lodger in her own house). As presented in the protocol, she is a belligerent woman who makes no bones about indicating who she does not like and in threatening with harm those she considers her enemies. She is also accused of being a major figure in a group of witches (including Scheuberin while, oddly, Pflieglin, whom she is said to be trying to “cure,” is reported to be part of another group of witches). In connection with this, she supposedly instructs other women in witchcraft.82 She resembles Selachin in being able to influence the judicial system to the detriment of her adversaries. 15.3 Röslin (Rosina Hochwartin) In a confusingly told story, Röslin’s husband was one of the men in charge of the archduke’s artillery, and she bewitched a colleague of her husband (i.e., another man in charge of the artillery) name Jörg and the colleague’s wife named Dorothea.83 One time at the armory, Jörg had asked the archduke to give him a court garment, and instead the archduke offered him (presumably fancy) cloth from which to have such a garment made. He then instructed Röslin’s husband to retrieve the cloth from his chamberlain. At some point, Röslin supposedly 81  The story is laid out in docs. 9/4 and 10/3. 82  See doc. 9/5 and 10/4. 83  The story is laid out in docs. 9/5–6 and 10/4–5.

50

Introduction

bewitched the two garments made from this cloth (a shirt for Jörg and a blouse for his wife). The suggestion is that the clothes arrived bewitched, at least in terms of Jörg, who became sick upon wearing the shirt. The procedure for his wife was more complicated, with the sister of the tailor taking back the blouse that he had made for Dorothea in order to fix something, and the suggestion is that instead the blouse was taken to Röslin, who then smeared magical paste into it, so that when Dorothea got the blouse back, she fell ill as soon as she put it on (the logical incompatibility of this version with the cloth arriving at Jörg’s house already bewitched is implicit in the uncertainty about the method of bewitching the shirt but the difficulty is unresolved). The method of delivering the blouse to Röslin is not entirely certain, but Röslin’s maid, Elsa, supposedly had confirmed in a deposition made at the time seeing her smear the paste into the garment before delivery. Supposedly, Röslin had fallen into the archduke’s disfavor because of witchcraft and her husband had been dismissed because of this, and this led to Dorothea coming to suspect her, but when exactly this dismissal took place and how that relates to the previous denunciation made by the maid Elsa is unclear. In any event, there is no doubt that the professional competition of the two husbands was at the heart of Dorothea’s accusation against Röslin, who seemingly made no overt indication of hostility towards either Jörg or his wife. At the end of the protocol against Röslin there are several witnesses who corroborate that knowledge of the bewitching of the garment was widespread.84 Elsa the maid is mentioned in this, and presumably she is the ultimate source of the story that eventually got back to Dorothea and Jörg. Apparently, she had even made a public denunciation at the time, but it is hard to believe that this was the case without anything having been done about it (or any citation of an official document apart from the report of this from the witness). The witnesses add to the hearsay by claiming to have heard of her involvement in using a dead man’s head and dead mice in magic, but there is no substance to this. Hans Spiess, who would also make an accusation against Scheuberin (supposedly Hüfeysen’s confederate in witchcraft), accused Hüfeysen of bringing in a witch named Magdalena Siberin from distant Lindau at the time when Hüfeysen was in the archduke’s bad graces, the purpose being that Siberin would bewitch the archduke so that he would restore her to favor.85 This witch supposedly made the acquaintance of four men during the journey, and she told them of her intentions. These men then mentioned this to Spiess, who in turn informed the archduke. Being warned, the archduke declined to accept 84  Docs. 9/7. 85  The story is laid out in docs. 9/6 and 10/5.

Introduction

51

any petition from Siberin, and Spiess himself refused a large bribe from her to hand over a petition. The story obviously involves no direct interaction between Röslin and Spiess, and his motives in bringing the story forward are unclear. Röslin’s mother Barbara is also accused, but for no greater reason than the likelihood of her aiding her daughter.86 Seemingly, Röslin did nothing in particular to bring about these denunciations of her, which for the most part go back to the rumor-mongering of her ex-maid. The Spiess story is connected with the period when Röslin was apparently in the archduke’s ill favor because of accusations that have something to do with witchcraft. If such really was the cause, then this may have promoted general rumors about her being a witch. On the other hand, the claim that witchcraft was responsible for the disfavor could have been “read back” at a later date into the memory of the disfavor once Elsa the maid spread rumors of Röslin’s involvement with witchcraft. 15.4 Widow Schneiderin Hans Portner (a porter in the service of Archduke Sigismund) claimed that he had had sexual relations with Agnes, now Widow Schneiderin (the widow of Peter Schneider), presumably before her marriage, but then decided to marry someone else.87 Agnes then came to him to ask if he has gotten married to a certain woman. Portner asks who she has in mind, and she responds with a physical description. He then admits to this. Seemingly, the marriage took place without her knowledge, which presumably indicates that the personal bond between him and Agnes was not substantial (i.e., the relationship did not extend much beyond occasional sex). She then threatens the health of both of them. An illness (still occurring) then resulted. He became suspicious of her only when she sent people to ask if he knew who was responsible, and they eventually admitted that she had sent them. This would seem to imply that the illness took place at some later date. As for the wife, Agnes visited her several times, and at some point asked her to accompany her to the public baths. Portner agreed to this, not having told the wife of the threat (meaning that he at this point did recall the threat but nonetheless agreed to the request?), and upon her return from the baths, the wife became ill (both physically and mentally). Portner claimed to have come to suspect Agnes because her earlier threat, the fact that the wife became ill after the trip to the baths, and the fact that upon (illegally) consulting a female soothsayer, she informed him of the 86  See doc. 10/5. 87  The story is laid out in docs. 9/8 and 10/5–6.

52

Introduction

bewitching and told him to search the cushions that the wife had taken to the baths. Once the items found in the cushions were burned, the wife (it would seem) partly recovered her health. The story as told is ridiculous. The temporal relationship between Portner’s illness and that of his wife is unclear, and given the threat against both of them, the seemingly independent discovery of the bewitchment makes no sense (that is, once Agnes’s actions against one of the spouses was discovered, those against the other should also be understood, since Agnes supposedly threatened them both). The story about the wife’s bewitchment (told on a second day of deposition) seems to have nothing to do with the preceding one of Portner’s. Furthermore, the idea that the husband would allow his cast-off sexual partner to be a regular visitor of his wife is totally implausible under any circumstances, much less when she had supposedly threatened the both of them (and surely that circumstance implies that his illness took place subsequently, but if that was the case, why did he need the questioning from the people sent by Agnes to ask if he knew who was responsible for his illness to finally figure out that it was her?). The motive ascribed to Agnes is obvious, but given that the irrational presentation of the story brings the totality of it into question, there is no way to guess what, if any, of it had some basis in the truth. Presumably, he had had sexual relations with her prior to marriage, but the accusation of her having directly threatened the two spouses at some point (presumably) soon after the marriage is hard to credit given that his subsequent behavior betrays no suspicion of her. It is conceivable that he did allow some sort of relationship between her and the wife if the latter had no inkling of the previous relationship between her husband and Agnes, but surely she could not in that case have previously made the quoted threats. In any event, it would seem that after illness befell him and his wife, he came to feel that Agnes was the cause via witchcraft, and the details were elaborated by Portner once he eventually decided to ascribe the illness to witchcraft from her. Presumably, the story of consulting the soothsayer is true, and on the basis of whatever she said, he did find “stuff” in the cushions, which seemed to confirm an attribution of the illness to witchcraft. Could this be the stage at which he came to decide that his old girlfriend (and acquaintance of his wife?) was the likely culprit, and then he made up the incident with the threatening words (perhaps distorting something that had been said?). Portner claims to have complained to the archduke about her activity in witchcraft, but given that nothing came of this, the claim again seems unlikely. It is remarkable that a stray reference indicates that Portner worked in the armory, the place where Röslin’s husband worked with Jörg and his wife, whom

Introduction

53

she supposedly bewitched. Could it be that such accusations were rife there, and that this influenced Portner in seeking in witchcraft an explanation for his and his wife’s illnesses? 15.5 Barbara Pflieglin No one came forward to accuse Pflieglin directly.88 Institoris infers her guilt on three grounds. First, because Wagenstallin was employed as Pflieglin’s servant when she criticized Hüfeysen for her superstitious cure of Pflieglin’s headache, he takes Pflieglin’s failure to rebuke Hüfeysen for her threat against the maid as agreement with it. Second, a deponent supposedly spoke approvingly of her current arrest because she had previously given his wife a nut to use to inflict witchcraft on him. Third, Dorothea the wife of Jörg the gun master, who had accused Röslin, also claimed that Pflieglin was aware of Röslin’s attempts against the archduke, but this was just hearsay based on the rumors spread by Röslin’s ex-maid Elsa. Clearly, Pflieglin’s legal problems are attributable to Elsa’s big mouth. 15.6 Barbara Scheuberin A number of witnesses came forward to denounce Scheuberin for having killed a knight named Jörg Spiess.89 Several of these were his ex-servants, and another appears to have been the Hans Spiess who denounced Röslin for her supposed efforts to bring in a woman named Magdalena Siberin to help her regain the archduke’s favor.90 The stories told are very similar. An Italian doctor is said to have informed the knight that he had to break off relations with Scheuberin or he would die. The nature of these relations is not specified, but one time he came home from a dinner at her place and said that he’d eaten something that he could not get over, then giving a servant money to go get medicine for his stomach ache. Finally, the knight’s sister (not a deponent) is said to have claimed that in his final words the knight blamed Scheuberin for his death, and when asked why she did not do something about it, she claimed to be too poor. The presentation of the evidence suggests that direct poisoning was the cause rather than witchcraft (that is, she supposedly gave him something in his food that had the natural quality of being lethal and did not need the intervention of demons to kill).

88  For this, see docs. 9/9 and 10/6–7. 89  The story is laid out in docs. 9/10–11 and 10/8. 90  Spiess was not a relative but a close friend who (for unknown reasons) adopted the knight’s last name.

54

Introduction

Seemingly, the knight was involved, perhaps sexually, with Scheuberin in a relationship that those around him did not approve of. The uniformity of the testimony could be taken as a sign that all the deponents had been in communication with each other, and the “proof” of Scheuberin’s guilt was worked out (consciously or otherwise) among them. A more direct accusation of the use of witchcraft is made by a wife and husband, whose names are not preserved.91 She indicated that seven years before she had come to Innsbruck from a distant town in Bavaria to marry her husband and claimed that at her wedding an unknown woman had threatened her with ill health. Not knowing the woman, she asked the women present who she was, and they said it was Scheuberin. The woman claimed to have become ill within a month of her marriage and to have remained so ever since. Her husband then claimed that he had had sexual relations with Scheuberin while both were single, and while she was keen to marry him, he rejected her in favor of the bewitched wife. There is no indication of what the wife’s illness is, and no evidence apart from the supposed threatening words. The circumstances of this story are rather reminiscent of the threats made by Widow Schneiderin against Hans Portner and his new wife, the main differences being that here there is no threat to the husband, and that the story lacks any detail apart from the threat itself. It is hard to know what exactly to make of Scheuberin’s social standing. Clearly, the knight Jörg Spiess’s servants, friend, and sister did not approve of his relationship with her, choosing to blame her for his death on evidence that appears to be rather flimsy. The story of her having seven years before threatened a newly married wife likewise seems insubstantial. But, of course, Institoris had a strong reason to dislike her for her objections to his preaching on the topic of witches.92 She criticized him for revealing their methods and talking of nothing but them. Institoris makes it sound as if she is speaking in defense of witches, but it sounds as if her objections are rooted in enmity towards them (see Article Two in doc. 10/8 with notes). What conclusions can we make about the circumstances that led Institoris to accuse these seven women of participation in the Heresy of Witches? Selachin and Hüfeysen appear to have been pugnacious women who perhaps did claim to have magical powers that they used to their advantage (or so they thought) in confrontations with people around them. The stories of Röslin’s witchcraft appear to have been generated by the rivalry between her husband 91  The story is laid out in docs. 9/11–12 and 10/8–9. 92  See docs. 9/12 and 10/8.

Introduction

55

and his colleague at the archduke’s armory. The story of the poisoned cloth and/or garments is internally illogical and seems to have been come up with as a way of explaining the deponents’ illness (rather than being generated by direct confrontation between them and her), while the story of her bringing in the woman from Lindau seems to be some sort of misconstrual of an effort on Röslin’s part to get back into the archduke’s favor. (Röslin’s mother was involved in the case merely via guilt by association.) The story of Widow Schneiderin’s bewitching of Hans Portner and his wife is as incoherent and implausible as the one about Röslin’s poisoning of the cloth, and it may have its root in Portner’s consultation of a soothsayer to find an explanation for his and his wife’s illness. That is, the accusation does not derive from any threatening interaction between the accused and the supposed victims, but from the husband’s own imagination (presumably, the accusation against the exgirlfriend comes from him). The accusation of the use of witchcraft by Scheuberin against a married couple whose names are unrecoverable is a less detailed variant of the story about Widow Schneiderin. Could it in some way be derived from it? The other main charge against Scheuberin involves a flimsy poisoning charge, which seems to derive from the dislike felt for her by those around the supposed victim (the similarity of their depositions suggesting that at the least, they had spoken amongst themselves on the topic and “coordinated” their stories). In any event, the rather precipitous way in which Scheuberin both rejected Institoris’s teaching on the topic of witches and bluntly told him what she thought about him no doubt influenced Institoris in his hostility towards her. Finally, there was no personal enmity against Pflieglin in terms of depositions directed against her specifically, and she was simply tied up by implication with the case against Hüfeysen. In sum, there is no uniformity in the origins of these cases. A few women (Selachin and Hüfeysen) had apparently “invited” their supposed victims to believe them to have been actively engaging in malevolent witchcraft (which Institoris could then construe as manifestations of the Heresy of Witches), while in other instances (Röslin, Widow Schneiderin and Scheuberin), the “victims” came to their own conclusions about who had “caused” chronic and incurable illnesses, distorting their recollections of the past in the process. And in two cases (Röslin’s mother and Pflieglin), the cases rested more on Institoris’s powers of inference than any actual accusations made in the denunciations (a circumstance that may have contributed to Institoris’s case against Scheuberin).

56 16

Introduction

Domestic Background of the Accused

In Ravensburg, we saw that the two women convicted and burned for witchcraft were of comparatively lowly social origins, whereas those who were released upon the guarantees of good behavior by relatives were comparatively well-to-do. In Innsbruck, the entirety of Institoris’s accusations failed and the accused were released under the same conditions as those in Ravensburg.93 Whether he could have secured convictions of the accused women who did not have the support of male relatives considered respectable cannot be determined, but certainly the families of those he did accuse apparently acted in concert to oppose him with legal means (Johannes Merwait was adopted as their joint and sole legal representative by all the accused; see doc. 11/2). The records give some indication of the economic circumstances of the accused. Selachin was the neighbor of a homeowner (doc. 9/1) and presumably had a similar sort of house, and her husband had sold a plot of land (over her objections) to the husband of a victim for the purpose of building a house (doc. 9/2), which suggests a certain amount of capital. On the other hand, she had an encounter with another victim when she was carrying vegetables on her head and another one when she was carrying thorns on her shoulders (doc. 9/3). These indications of agricultural activity on her part suggest that she was hardly affluent. Her conduct was vouched for by a cobbler (doc. 11/7), and not her husband. Hüfeysen had lodgers in her house (doc. 9/4), and she both had servants of her own (doc. 9/5) and was friends with Pflieglin (doc. 9/3), who could also afford a maid. Her husband was imprisoned at one point for an unspecified offense (doc. 9/5). Like Selachin, her behavior was guaranteed by a (different) cobbler and not her husband (doc. 11/7). Röslin was the wife of one of the archduke’s gun masters (doc. 9/5), which suggests an important (quasi-professional) military status. Certainly, her husband is attested as directly interacting with the archduke (doc. 9/5), and she was well enough known to him to have supposedly been banished (along with her husband) from his service for reasons connected with witchcraft (doc. 9/6). She was also accused of importing a witch for the purpose of bewitching the archduke in order to restore her to his good graces, and this woman supposedly tried to bribe a knight with a large sum of money to take a petition to the archduke when the witchcraft plan failed (doc. 9/6). The good behavior of Röslin herself was guaranteed by a judge of the monastery of Wilten and another man whose 93  As Kieckhefer (2006) 25–26 notes, while the accused were not of the lowest status, they certainly did not belong to the highest echelons of society, having nothing to do with the aristocratic and patrician classes.

Introduction

57

status is unspecified, while her mother Barbara’s guarantor was a locksmith (doc. 11/7). Overall, the impression is one of a well-connected commoner. The Widow Schneiderin seems to come from the same circle as Röslin. The denunciation against her came from a man who likewise worked at the armoury and had supposedly complained to the archduke.94 She was vouched for by her son and another burgher (doc. 11/7). Pflieglin’s legal problems basically come from Hüfeysen’s interactions with her (Pflieglin’s) servant (doc. 9/3–4). The servant found out about the witchcraft from Pflieglin’s husband when he was mad at her for neglecting the care of the animals and “found” the devices for witchcraft above the barn door. The ownership of animals and a barn suggests a well-to-do family involved in farming, and seemingly the family had only the one servant (at any rate, the girl would seem to have had animal tending duties in addition to helping Pflieglin in the house). Again, this suggests “yeoman” status. On the other hand, the same judge who vouched for Hüfeysen also vouched for her friend Pflieglin, who had two other burgher guarantors of unknown status. In addition, Institoris was of the opinion that her (and her husband’s?) property sufficed to take care of his expenses, the precise sum of which we unfortunately do not know (doc. 10/7). Finally, Scheuberin seems to have associated with higher circles than the other suspects.95 At any rate, the main charge against her concerns her involvement with a knight, who refused to dismiss her as his “girlfriend” despite numerous suggestions by other people that he do so (doc. 9/10–11). Interestingly, Scheuberin is the only one of the accused to have her husband guarantee her good behavior (doc. 11/7). Overall, it would seem that the women whom Institoris identified as his main suspects by no means belonged to the highest levels of society, but nonetheless they were all reasonably well-to-do and had strong ties among males who were respectable members of the community. The archduke’s apparent disinclination to go along with the inquisitor’s plans in conjunction with the bishop’s disbelief in his radical views about witchcraft may have sufficed by themselves to derail his plans to have these women convicted and executed for witchcraft. The efforts of their family members to stand up for them in the face of his accusations and to cooperate with the court members appointed by the archduke and bishop who were opposed to Institoris’s efforts were enough to bring his inquisitorial intentions to naught. 94  Be it noted, however, that the deponent had had sex with her but jilted her in order to marry another woman. Conceivably, the reason for the refusal to marry her had some social aspect to it, but as the story is told, the rejection seems to be rooted in basically moral considerations. 95  Of course, the archduke is the highest individual in local society, but the interactions of various accused with him are basically professional rather than personal.

58 17

Introduction

The Main Suspects as Members of the Heresy of Witches

Institoris decided to proceed decisively against seven women in six cases. These were apparently the cases that seemed to Institoris to best fit his conception of the Heresy of Witches. Each case is discussed from this point of view,96 and they are arranged according to the order in which he placed them in the protocols (doc. 9) and articles (doc. 10) dealing with them.97 17.1 Barbara Selachin a) Barbara Selachin first provoked her neighbor through trampling her plants and then challenged her to accuse her of doing it. As a result of this quarrel, Selachin caused her neighbor physical harm through placing a voodoo doll and other items for witchcraft (including the bones of unbaptized babies) on her property. A friend of the victim (a potter) who was previously involved with Selachin sexually uses a superstitious procedure to determine if the illness is caused through witchcraft, and then shows the victim’s husband where to find the items, with the voodoo doll exactly mimicking the location of the victim’s pain. Presumably, the potter learned of the location of the items from the witch herself. b) As a result of a dispute involving property sold to a woman and her husband by Selachin’s husband, she quarreled with the woman and threatened to cripple and lame her. The woman and her husband became ill (she swelled up and her husband’s eyes closed through swelling), and items causing the illness were found in the bed, including dead baby bones. These items also made the deponent think during childbirth that she was flying with goats. In addition, the deponent would sweat in bed, but once three wet stones were found in the bed and disposed of, the sweating stopped. c) Selachin had a quarrel with a woman about the burning of a bridge, and at a subsequent encounter with her threatened to cause her harm with rose thorns. The woman then became sick through her body being overly damp, and Selachin supposedly pretty much admitted to causing the harm when two women tried to intercede with her on behalf of the victim. No items were found, and the harm continues to the present day. 96  Dienst (1987) discusses these cases, but her perspective is quite different (see n. 76). Kieckhefer (2006) treats the material from a legal perspective, but his analysis is at times hindered by the inadequate presentation of the evidence in Ammann (1890). 97  For some reason, he chose to begin the examination of the women with Scheuberin (see n. 63).

Introduction

59

Hence, Selachin is conceived of as having committed three substantive acts of malevolent witchcraft for no readily apparent reason. 17.2 Barbara Hüfeysen a) After Pflieglin’s servant criticizes Barbara Hüfeysen for using superstitious means for self-serving purposes in supposedly trying to cure Pflieglin’s headache, Hüfeysen threatens to make her sick in three days. Three days later, the servant gets a terrible headache and develops pustules, and Pflieglin’s husband happens to find items for witchcraft that are hidden by the barn. After these are burned, the servant regains her health. b) The victim and her husband were lodgers in Hüfeysen’s husband’s house, and when they move out, Hüfeysen angrily threatens to make the wife blind and lame (a threat for which she is rebuked by bystanders). The harm ensues, but the victim is told in a dream by the Virgin Mary to sweep under the stairs. She does this and finds items, which she burns and is then restored to health. c) Hüfeysen claims to have the power to affect a judge so that he can do nothing to harm her, and supposedly used such a procedure on behalf of her husband when he was in prison. d) Is said to instruct other women in practices of witchcraft to influence men’s affections, and also knows how to cause death through superstitious fasting. e) Is said to belong to two associations of witches. Thus, in addition to two acts of malevolent witchcraft, Hüfeysen is apparently a leading figure in her association of witches, instructing others in the craft and being able to influence judges through magic. 17.3 Röslin (Rosina Hochwartin) and Her Mother Barbara a) Röslin (more fully Rosina Hochwartin)’s husband is a gun master, and out of envy she tainted with witchcraft a cloth used to make special court attire for the other gun master and his wife. When the wife’s garment was taken back by the tailor for some repair, she may also have used the opportunity to bewitch it further. The other gun master and his wife both became sick when they put on their new clothing. Her illness lasted half a year, her husband’s ten weeks. The servant who helped Röslin smear the harmful powder on the cloth previously reported the event at city hall. b) In order to regain the archduke’s favor (which Röslin had lost because of her reputation for witchcraft), Röslin and her mother imported from abroad a woman who knew a special craft to influence him. Unfortunately for them, the woman had a loud mouth and because of this, word of the plot reached the

60

Introduction

archduke. This woman also vainly tried to buy influence to get the archduke to change his mind. c) Vague rumors also speak of the use of a boiled head and a dead mouse for the same purpose. The main accusation is the malevolent magic, but there is also vague talk of other superstitious means being used for the same goal. 17.4 Widow Schneiderin Before her marriage, Agnes the widow Schneiderin (the widow of Peter Schneider) was the sexual girlfriend of a man who jilted her in favor of a respectable wife. Widow Schneiderin vaguely threatened the wife at her wedding, and then bewitched her subsequently when the two went to the baths together by putting items for witchcraft in her cushions. The wife became both physically and mentally ill, but the advice of a diviner made it possible to find and destroy these items, which resulted in a partial recovery. The husband supposedly complained to the archduke about the situation. This incident of malevolent witchcraft is the sole charge against the widow. 17.5 Barbara Pflieglin a) Barbara Pflieglin is supposedly complicit in Hüfeysen’s witchcraft against her (Pflieglin’s) servant, because she did not defend the servant when Hüfeysen threatened her, the bewitching took place in her house, and Pflieglin’s own husband was aware of what was going on (he knew the location of the items, and supposedly told his wife not to be involved with such things or she would get into trouble). b) She once gave a man’s wife a nut to use in a superstitious practice to retain his affections. c) She may have been involved in Röslin’s plot to use witchcraft against the archduke. d) She was involved in the same association of witches as Hüfeysen. Clearly, the charges against Pflieglin are much less specific and rest on much vaguer evidence (often no more than inference) than those against the previous suspects. 17.6 Helena Scheuberin a) Helena Scheuberin caused the death of the knight Jörg Spiess through some sort of tainted food, it being unclear whether this was witchcraft or mere poisoning. An Italian doctor had, however, previously warned the knight against familiarity with her, but no one’s censure had been able to prevail upon him to give her up, which suggests witchcraft. In any event, he accused her upon his deathbed of having killed him.

Introduction

61

b) In her youth, she had been the sexual girlfriend of a man, but he took a wife from abroad instead. Scheuberin was present at the wedding and vaguely threatened the health of the bride to her face. She fell ill within a month and has been sick for the seven years since then. c) Scheuberin refused to attend Institoris’s preaching about witches and deterred others from attending, and she cursed him for spreading information about practices pertaining to witchcraft in his sermons. She even spat in his presence before being arrested, and in detention denounced him to his face for his preaching. d) Associates with other witches, especially Hüfeysen. Institoris is somewhat ambivalent about Scheuberin. He clearly is greatly offended by her denunciation of his preaching, which led him to justify his preaching in several passages. Yet, he makes it clear in his discussion of her case at the end of the articles (doc. 10/7–8) that he thinks the case against her is much less strong, since conviction of her depends on conviction of the preceding suspects. He seems to be doubtful about the means of killing the knight, though apparently he does not doubt that she was responsible. Still, the accusation of having bewitched her previous boyfriend’s wife sounds very similar to the accusation against Widow Schneiderin. Perhaps the crucial difference is that no actual items for witchcraft were ever found (though the supposedly continuous illness may be taken to indicate that they do exist). Given this circumstance, the threat by itself is seemingly not taken by Institoris as being compelling evidence. Perhaps he felt that the conviction of the other witches with whom Scheuberin was said to consort would provide the final crucial piece of (implicit) evidence to make her conviction unassailable. 18

Institoris’s Conception of Witchcraft

Given that the inquisitorial procedure laid out in the Malleus is already discernible in the limited information available about the events in Ravensburg in 1484, it should come as no surprise that the extensive information preserved from the Innsbruck inquisition of the following year gives much more elaborate indications that Institoris was operating by the theory of witchcraft advocated in the Malleus.98 The major outlines of this theory in practical terms are as follows: 98  Of Institoris’s practice in Innsbruck, Kieckhefer (2006) 19–20 says: “In large measure the inquisitor was building on a kind of folk demonology, and his beliefs were not entirely different from those of the people who came forward to give depositions … Still, the folk demonology implied here [in the depositions] is not the same as the inquisitor’s

62

Introduction

1) A young woman seeks to entice a man with sexual favors, but he ultimately rejects her in order to marry a respectable woman. The jilted woman then is preyed upon by either Satan himself or a woman already seduced into the Heresy of Witches (the locus classicus for this idea is MM 94C–95C). The new convert then uses witchcraft to inflict severe physical harm on her ex-lover’s new wife and sometimes also on the man himself. 2) Entry into the Heresy of Witches distinctively involves the overt denial (abnegation) of the Catholic faith (see MM 2.1.2). 3) The heresy operates through organized local associations (“covens”) of witches (not discussed as a topic of its own, but see, for example, MM 97D, 105B), who work to induct new members (MM 93D–94B, 111B) and to instruct young women in the methods of practicing witchcraft. 4) The witch necessarily reveals her malevolent intentions through a threat uttered to the eventual victim (see, for example, MM 206C, 207C–D, 208A, 222C–D, 232B–C). After the harm has been inflicted, she may also give indications of guilt by asking the victim whether s/he considers her the responsible party. Several major elements of the presentation of the Malleus are missing in the Innsbruck material:

demonology. The depositions assume a purely instrumental manipulation of the Devil or of the demonic as a means of sorcery. The inquisitor at every relevant point assumed an ongoing relationship of allegiance to the Devil, a pact, an abjuration of the faith, an attack on Christendom, participation in a diabolical plot against society, including infanticide. The distinction is not fully developed, as it becomes in the Malleus, but whenever demon matters are raised it is clear that Kramer’s [i.e., Institoris’s] conceptions are preconceptions.” I do not disagree with the overall conception, but I would certainly change the emphasis. My interpretation of the evidence is that the distinction is in fact entirely discernible in both Ravensburg and Innsbruck. Later Kieckhefer (2006) 21 says: “Most basically, Kramer was a man who always wanted to interpret his evidence. He had a strong proclivity to ask, ‘What are the further implications of these crimes?’… More basically, what distinguishes Kramer’s mentality is his inclination – grounded perhaps in a kind of bastard scholasticism – to theorize well beyond his evidence.” I would say that this last sentence puts the procedure back-to-front. Institoris is not further “theorizing” on the basis of what he sees. Rather, he has a fully formed conception of the operations of the Heresy of Witches (exactly as laid out in the Malleus, which was soon finished), and he forces this preconception on the evidence for basically traditional folk magic (which may or may not have involved demonic involvement in the minds of its practitioners, but which, on the basis of the evidence we can see in the depositions, was not conceived of by the locals as involving anything even remotely resembling his understanding of the Heresy of Witches).

Introduction

63

1) the destruction of crops through unnatural rain and hail storms (MM 2.1.14); 2) injuries inflicted on farm animals (MM 2.1.15); 3) conveyance over long distance through demonic assistance to attend meetings of witches (MM 2.1.3); 4) engaging in sex with demons (MM 2.1.4). The first two are presumably absent because of the basically urban setting of the inquisition, and the same basic explanation applies to the third (i.e., the local associations of witches were large enough that there was no need to travel long distances). As for the fourth, since no such activity actually took place, it could only be extracted from the accused through questioning under torture, a stage of the proceedings that Institoris never reached in Innsbruck (but contrast the confessions extracted at Ravensburg: MM 94C, 108C). 19

Lesser Cases

The vernacular protocol (doc. 8) contains denunciations that Institoris did not think merited further involvement on his own part but which he decided to bring to the bishop’s attention for him to deal with. That is, these were cases worthy of ecclesiastic censure but not suitable for an inquisitor engaged in suppressing the Heresy of Witches to involve himself in.99 The succinct summary provided by Institoris for each case is certainly not as extensive as the information he gives for the six main cases, but nonetheless it is sufficient to make it possible to determine why he chose not to proceed further with them himself.100 Most of these cases do involve direct accusations of witchcraft. Indeed, some of them concern the infliction of physical harm by means of witchcraft. However, while such cases do involve an accusation of a threat having been uttered by the supposed witch, in all of these there is little or no direct evidence of the device(s) of witchcraft by which the harm is supposedly inflicted 99  See the introduction to doc. 8 for the reason for concluding that the cases do not represent a full listing of all the information lodged with him by various deponents but merely summarizes those depositions that Institoris thought worthy of further legal attention. 100  Dienst (1987) treats the witchcraft material in the various Brixen documents as illustrations of “everyday” life. Specifically, she deals with the reason why the denunciations were made (that is, what the material tells us about personal relations) and what sorts of “means” are attested as magical practices. Most of the material comes from the vernacular depositions, though the instances of magic from the main cases are also treated. For Kieckhefer (2006)’s treatment, see n. 96.

64

Introduction

(Testimonies B, E, F, J, K, Q, S, T, Y, DD, GG, JJ and the charge against Britzing’s wife; Testimony C is little more than a vague accusation). In a few others, no substantive harm is alleged to have resulted (A, G, H, EE). If one compares these allegations to the cases which Institoris chose to pursue further, it is clear that (in his mind at any rate and as he chose to characterize them) the latter cases involved a much fuller and more direct chain of causation between the threat and the subsequent harm. The remaining cases do have some element of witchcraft in them but the relevant activities do not involve the infliction of physical harm. There are a number pertaining to amatory magic (i.e., the use of magic to influence a man’s affections: Testimonies C, R, T, AA, FF). Though Institoris includes these here, he makes little use of such practices in the Malleus and in fact the traditional attitude of canon lawyers and inquisitors on the use of witchcraft for such purposes was one of comparative indifference.101 Other acts covered by these depositions include stealing milk (Testimonies L, Y), finding stolen objects (Testimonies N, Y, X, Z), and assorted magical practices that presumably involved the invocation of demons: Testimony A (demons bring a husband home), M (placing an item for purposes of witchcraft under an altar), O (use of red scrapings from an image of St. Christopher), P (putting mandrake under an altar, using fasting for wicked ends), CC (wanting a name to cause harm), the case at the end of the alphabetic list (use of demons to make men appear for work), a woman from Hall who uses Jews’ turds. Testimonies C and AA include the giving of instructions to young women, and a large number include mere bad reputation for witchcraft and familiarity with known witches (A, M, O, S, Y, Z, BB, various cases at the end, unnamed woman who wants Jews’ turds). One deposition involves a case of sacrilege whose connection to witchcraft is unclear (D).102 Ten cases in particular are noteworthy for containing elements that resemble those of the six cases that Institoris decided to prosecute. 1) In Case G, a woman with a bad reputation makes a threat against the deponent, and after something made of wax was thrown into his house by unknown parties, he and his wife have remained (it would seem) in ill health. There are no hidden devices for witchcraft, and the harm is unspecified. 101  In Directorium Inquisitorum 2.43 (see n. 659), Eymeric cites Oldradus (de Ponte or di Lodi), a famous jurist of the early fourteenth century, as stating that the acts of giving a woman love potions (pocula amatoria), making images to attract women’s love, and even invoking demons to tempt a woman’s chastity, while “base, foul, and mortal sins,” nonetheless do not smack manifestly of heresy. 102  The bishop learned of this case and clearly took it much more seriously than Institoris did (doc. 5).

Introduction

65

2) In Case H, a man was threatened by his jilted ex-girlfriend, and the harm took the form of his being unkind to his wife and being unable to sleep. Some items were found in their bed and on a coat that had been in the ex-girlfriend’s possession, but the discovery of these things has no apparent connection with his recovery from his minor illness. There is little substantive illness, and there is no connection between the discovery of the items and the end of such affects as are claimed. 3) In Case J, a jilted ex-girlfriend threatened the deponent’s wife, who has suffered serious illness for three years. The case does seem to fit into the pattern for the Heresy of Witches, and it is presumably the lack of any evidence for devices of witchcraft that makes Institoris set it aside. 4) In Case K, a woman and a man had a pre-existing enmity, and at one time, he found some other woman going around in his house and when questioned, she could provide no reason for her actions. When he subsequently became lame, he blamed the first woman, inferring that the second one had something to do with using witchcraft against him. The problem with this denunciation is that there is no threat by the first woman and no evidence for devices of witchcraft. In effect, the whole accusation is nothing but inference on the victim’s part. It is also worth noting that the deponent also used the services of two diviners, who supposedly confirmed his suspicions, but Institoris is clearly dubious about such evidence. 5) In Case Q, a woman was often sick, and because it seemed that she was only sick while in bed, some other woman (apparently) discovered devices under the bed. The problem is that there is no threat, no specificity about the illness, and no indication that the discovery of the supposed devices led to a cure. There is also no reason given for why the accused should have used witchcraft against the victim, much less any threats made by her. 6) In Case T, a man alleges that his wife bewitched him one night by coming in with some other woman and giving him a piece of gingerbread. He claims to have been impotent for seven years as a result, and presumably his reference to being impotent with regards to “any” women means that his wife was acting in response to previous adultery on his part. There is also a vague claim that he felt pain as a result of her having groped his head and back at night. Here, we do not have pointless threats against strangers, but a wife’s vengeance against a straying husband. Also, the supposed cause is not hidden devices but the ingestion of supposedly bewitched food and the inflection of harm via direct contact. None of this fits with the normal modus operandi of Institoris’s accused witches. 7) In Case Y, a woman is accused of having bewitched the second wife of the man who used to be the husband of her sister (who presumably died in the interim). The accusation is that the accused sent the new wife padding for her

66

Introduction

headgear, and after putting this on the wife got the pox and became mentally ill, but after a half year, material was found in the padding, and once this was removed, the illness stopped. The causation of witchcraft is reasonably clear (though the vague nature of the stuff allegedly found in padding may have been unconvincing to Institoris as devices for witchcraft), but no particular reason for the enmity is alleged, and there are certainly no threats. Conceivably, there was no love lost between the new wife and her husband’s ex-sister-in-law, but there’s no indication of hostility felt by the latter against the former. 8) In Case DD, the deponent claims that the accused woman told her that she (the accused) had a female enemy, whom she would bewitch to affect her sex drive, which she did, as evidenced by the fact that the woman’s body later dried up and she became lame, and as a result she died within a year. First, the accusation is mere hearsay (i.e., not from the actual victim), second, there is no threat, and third, there are no devices for witchcraft. 9) In Case HH, a woman is accused of having threatened a woman and her husband in connection with some dispute involving a lost chicken. Subsequently, the husband was blinded in both eyes and the deponent in one. But the period of time involved for the harm to take place was fairly long (a half year), and there is no mention of devices for witchcraft. 10) In Case JJ, the deponent claims that in the past when the accused woman was lodging with her and her husband, she got angry about something and threatened to “be rid” of them. Subsequently, after catching some minnows, the accused woman gave the deponent some, and when she and her husband ate some, they both developed some sort of illness that impeded their sleep and caused paralysis. While there is a clear threat here, the method of affecting the victims is tainted food, and no devices for witchcraft are mentioned. While these cases all share some characteristics of the six cases that Institoris pursued as falling under the rubric of the Heresy of Witches, each lacks an important element. The general conception of the Heresy of Witches is that a witch makes a threat of causing ill-health against others (frequently the witch’s previous boyfriend who jilted her and his new wife), within the specified period of time the victims suffer physical harm, devices for witchcraft are discovered, and as a result the illness is fully or partially cured (in the latter instance, other devices presumably have remained undiscovered). The fact that Institoris informed Bishop Georg of these other cases indicates that he does think that there were sufficient indications that some sort of crime involving witchcraft had taken place as to warrant further investigation. But to Institoris’s mind, these indications were not sufficient to move forward with these cases as examples of the Heresy of Witches.

Introduction

20

67

The “Reality” of Witchcraft in Innsbruck

Did the events that Institoris preserves in the records he passed on to the bishop of Brixen actually take place in Innsbruck? Naturally, there is no way to know for sure at this late date, but some of the evidence sounds plausible enough, like the dropping of lead in water to divine the nature of an illness (as the potter did for Selachin’s victim) or the use of a trick involving water to “alleviate” a headache (as Hüfeysen does to Pflieglin). It is also certainly likely enough that various women associated with witchcraft said rude things to neighbors and acquaintances. It is even conceivable that the people to whom the rude things were said did fall ill, but since these events often took place many years prior to the lodging of the denunciations, any such connection, even if it really had taken place, would have been subject to retrospective reevaluation, and it is just as plausible that people with chronic illnesses for which they had no medical explanation or cure searched around for some “explanation” and found it in their disputes with supposed witches. As for them having found items like seeds and bones and then recovered after burning these, it is conceivable that some such course of events may have taken place and in any case these events again took place long before and could have been “reimagined” in the interim. It is also perfectly plausible that Institoris “guided” his informants in the way that they presented their reports through leading questions. And it is likewise hardly beyond the realm of possibility that there were groups of female friends and acquaintances who were involved in the use of “magic” of one variety or another. But one thing stands out in all the evidence that Institoris presents of the magic activities in Innsbruck. While there is much use of various elements of what one might call “folk magic,” there is not one word about the involvement of the devil or demons. It is remarkable that Agnes the Bathkeeper and Anna of Mindelheim revealed their involvement with the satanic powers only after the use of torture (MM 146A, D). In effect, what we see in the material put together by Institoris is his attempt to make sense of the folk practices that were denounced to him in terms of his own preconceptions about the existence of such a satanic conspiracy. He is attempting as far as possible to “mould” the evidence into the form specified by his theoretical understanding, but it seems clear that the evidence he presents does not readily lend itself to such an interpretation unless one is already so convinced of the preconception that it infuses one’s fundamental understanding of reality. It would take the application of torture to render this interpretation of the facts more “plausible” through the personal confessions of the accused, an eventuality which

68

Introduction

was thwarted by the derailing of Institoris’s intentions during the proceedings on October 31. 21

The Events of Innsbruck as Related in the Malleus

The chronology of the composition of the Malleus is completely unknown. Certainly, the book appears to be ready for sale by December, 1486, and so must have been in production during the fall.103 Presumably, Institoris had the manuscript of the text pretty much finished by the summer of that year. As we have seen, he was still in Innsbruck in February of that year. That such a long and complicated book could have been put together in just a few months is hard to imagine, so it seems likely that the composition began before Institoris left Innsbruck. But there is no way to tell when the process began, and the work could have been in gestation long before Institoris arrived in Innsbruck. What we do know is that Institoris incorporated into the text of the Malleus a number of events that came to light during the course of his investigations there, and it would be useful to compare what he says in the work against what the surviving documentation indicates about those anecdotes. There are two main sections where Institoris cites anecdotes relating to Innsbruck, and these both fall in Book 2 of the Malleus, which treats the practices of witches. In the first (MM 94C–95A), Institoris recounts the story told against Scheuberin (doc. 9.2) according to which she was jilted by her lover and in retaliation threatened his new wife at the reception after the wedding. Never having seen the ex-girlfriend witch before, the wife had to ask bystanders who she was, and soon fell ill, just as the witch threatened. None of the participants are named in the version in the Malleus, and the names of the deponents are no longer recoverable. In any event, the version in the Malleus agrees in substance and detail with the story as it is related in the protocol. At the end, Institoris claims that a whole book could be written about the town, which he does not name directly. He does, however, specify that it lies in the diocese of Brixen and notes that a written account was drawn up and deposited with the bishop of Brixen, whom Institoris cites in confirmation of his account. From this statement, it would seem that Institoris no longer had a copy of the protocol in his possession. The other major section in which Institoris discusses the anecdotes collected in Innsbruck consists of the whole of section 2.1.12 of the Malleus (MM 134B–136D), which treats the manner in which witches can inflict 103  For the evidence on the date of publication, see Mackay (2011) vol. 1, 136–139.

Introduction

69

physical illness on people. Most of the information here is readily relatable to specific passages in the document in Brixen, but some not. The first anecdote (MM 134B–135A) is a long retelling of the charge made by Gertrud Rötin (doc. 9/7) that when she rebuked Hüfeysen for the superstitious nature of her alleged cure of Pflieglin’s headache, Hüfeysen threatened her and she then became ill. Pflieglin’s husband then happened to find a tied up cloth containing various items suggestive of the illness, and when these were cast into a fire upon his suggestion, Rötin got better. The version in the Malleus has much direct quotation of the (unnamed) victim, and the story agrees with the version in the protocol against Hüfeysen, including the supposition that the husband’s discovery of the items used for the witchcraft implied that he was in some way privy to the act of witchcraft. Next comes another long story (MM 135A–D) with much direct quotation of the (unnamed) deponent, who in this case turns out to be Rötin, who testified against Selachin (doc. 9/1). After the deponent was wondering to herself who had trampled on her garden, her neighbor showed up and asked if the deponent suspected her. In the Malleus, the deponent is terrified and lamely comments that the steps show the loss, whereas in the corresponding protocol, she states more bluntly that the neighbor knows the truth. In both accounts, the witch/neighbor threatens that the deponent will soon become sick, which soon transpires. In her painful illness, the deponent is visited by a potter, who offers to use a superstitious method of determining whether the illness is the result of witchcraft. When this procedure using molten lead poured into water indicates that witchcraft is the cause, the potter and the deponent’s husband examine the threshold of the house and find a wax image with needles jabbed into it in directions corresponding to the deponent’s pains as well as other items used to cause witchcraft. The Malleus adds a significant detail not found in the original documentation: when the image is thrown into fire, she somewhat, but not entirely, regains her health.104 The potter is again suspected of having inside information from the witch, this time because he had been her lover. At this point, Institoris launches into a generalization (MM 136A). First, he again claims that so many events involving witchcraft took place in this town that a whole book could be written about them. He remarks upon the large number of instances of physical harm inflicted by witches as attested by the depositions that he took in Innsbruck, noting how the illness corresponds to the preceding threats in terms of the nature of the illness, the time it would 104  See doc. 9, n. 10 for an explanation of why Institoris later felt it necessary to add in this detail.

70

Introduction

start, and its duration. He then connects these injuries with the large number of girlfriends jilted by their high-ranking boyfriends in favor of more respectable women as wives, a jump in logic that seems justified neither by the statements in the Malleus nor the testimony in the Brixen protocols. The next anecdote (MM 136B) is much more succinct than the previous ones. Institoris claims that when a cook of the archduke’s married a young woman, his witch ex-girlfriend threatened the wife in public, and she soon took ill and died. This story sounds suspiciously like the one involving Scheuberin’s threat against her boyfriend’s new wife, but the detail about the husband being a cook and the specific public threat cannot be attested in the Brixen material. After making a passing reference to the killing of a knight (MM 136B), which presumably refers to the death of Jörg Spiess that was supposedly perpetrated by Scheuberin (doc. 9/7–8), Institoris relates an anecdote about a nobleman’s son. His witch girlfriend wanted to have sex with him, and when he sent word through a servant that he was too busy with business matters, she uttered a threat against her boyfriend to the servant, and he soon died. This vague story seems to have no correspondence in the surviving documentation in Brixen. Institoris next (MM 136B) mentions that witches have the ability to prevent judges from acting against them, which must correspond to a deposition given against Hüfeysen to the effect that she had claimed that she could do this by wrapping her fingers around her thumb, provided that she saw him first (doc. 9/4, 10/3). Institoris then goes on to mention the sorcery of silence (doc. 9/4). This also relates to the statement made in her protocol (doc. 9/3–4) that she was said to be able to make sure that her husband, who was incarcerated at the time, could not be compelled to confess so long as she had four threads of any garment that he had worn. Institoris later alludes to this accusation in his discussion of the sorcery of silence (MM 215A), where he gives more details and directly states that the case in question involved Innsbruck. The last anecdote in this chapter of the Malleus (136C–D) concerns the charges made against the baptized Jewish woman, Ennel Notterin (case D of the vernacular protocol, doc. 8). Institoris correctly notes that the charge consisted of flogging an image of the crucifixion and the utterance of blasphemous words concerning the Virgin Mary. He explicitly notes that the words, which he refrains from quoting, are preserved in the documents, and so they are. He adds that the accused an (unnamed) female Jew, had seduced other women to join the Heresy of Witches, noting that one of them named Walpurgis made a deathbed confession about this. There is no attestation of such an event in the preserved documents. Institoris concludes the chapter by noting (MM 136D) that he has retold these stories not as a rebuke to the archduke but as an illustration of his efforts to stamp out witches with the assistance of the bishop of Brixen. There

Introduction

71

is nothing in his words to suggest that Institoris is anything but sincere in this statement, and if he did harbor some animosity towards either the archduke or the bishop because of the derailment of his proceedings in Innsbruck but felt compelled to check his anger (a form of self-restraint not otherwise attested in his character), he could just as well have omitted any mention of them at all. Seemingly, the bishop’s diplomatic treatment of the inquisitor left no hard feelings. Finally, there is a stray reference to Innsbruck in Institoris’s discussion of how ecclesiastical procedures like crossing oneself or taking holy salt were efficacious in warding off the unwanted sexual attentions of witches. Following more elaborate anecdotes concerning other cities, Institoris vaguely notes (MM 165D) that a very rich young man of Innsbruck was able to protect himself against a number of witches through such means. Nothing in the surviving documentation can be related to this story. In conclusion, it can be said that Institoris’s references to the events in Innsbruck are quite accurate, a circumstance that is remarkable if Institoris did not in fact have a copy of the proceedings in his possession. It is also worth noting that the references to Innsbruck are very limited. Outside of section 2.1.12 of the Malleus, there are only three references to Innsbruck (MM 94C–95A, 165D, 215A). If the Malleus had been composed exclusively in the period after the abortive proceedings of later October, 1485, one would expect the references to be more widely diffused in the text. The concentration in a single chapter with very limited mention elsewhere seems to suggest that the references were inserted into a text that was already basically written rather than worked into it during the course of its initial composition. Finally, the tenor of the references to the bishop of Brixen in the Malleus seems to mesh with those in the documentation that Institoris submitted to the bishop in indicating that Institoris did not attribute to the bishop any personal responsibility for the miscarriage of his investigations in Innsbruck. 22

Brixen and the Tyrol

The political situation in the Tyrol in the medieval period is hard to map onto the modern system of nation states that has existed in the area since the end of the First World War. The area is basically German-speaking, and its geopolitical importance is derived from the Brenner Pass, which allowed the passage of armies from Germany into Italy, a vital consideration for the German kings (or Holy Roman Emperors if crowned as such by the pope) who wished to control Italy. From the eleventh century on, the emperors used the prince bishops of Chur, Trent and Brixen to control this region (Chur eventually fell

72

Introduction

under the influence of Switzerland to the west, but the other two remained key possessions for the Habsburg emperors into the twentieth century). Over the years, the prince bishops’ secular authority tended to be taken over by temporal powers, this being the count of the Tyrol in the case of the bishop of Brixen. Strictly speaking, the counts were the vassals of the bishop, but the bishops were eventually subordinated to the counts. In 1363, the position of count of the Tyrol was taken over by the expanding Habsburg dynasty, to which Archduke Sigismund belonged. There is one man who had a strong influence on the course of events, but this influence is hard to judge. That man is Archduke Sigismund. The aging member of a junior branch of the Habsburg dynasty that was soon to go extinct, he apparently had some interest in witchcraft. He appears as an interlocutor in a literary dialogue about witchcraft, and while this tells us nothing about his personal views, it certainly demonstrates the author’s conception of a man likely to discuss such matters.105 Though there is some direct evidence for his influence on the events of 1485 (docs. 5, 6, 7), there are much more important aspects where his effect on the course of events has to be inferred. The dynasty began as counts of Habsburg in southwestern Germany,106 with a number of other holdings in the area.107 Rudolf was elected Holy Roman Emperor in 1273, and in 1282 became count of Austria, a position the family 105  The work is Ulricus Molitoris’s De laniis et phythonicis mulieribus, which took a comparatively moderate position regarding witchcraft. In the dialogue, Sigismund himself is presenting as having a skeptical attitude about the reality of witchcraft. In literary works taking the form of dialogues involving real (including living) people, there was no obligation to have the characters represent the views held by the real people whose name they bear. Furthermore, it is quite clear that the character named Sigismund is merely a literary device who poses the questions that the other speakers then answer. Hence, the “skeptical” attitude is not really a clearly delineated position but rather a means for setting up the actual discussion. Still, the author would run the risk of alienating the real person if he portrays the character named after that person as reflecting views uncongenial to the real person. Since the work appeared in print in 1489, the skepticism attributed to Sigismund could conceivably reflect the views of the archduke in the aftermath of the inquisition of 1485, but the beginning of the work alludes to the recent executions of witches, which must refer to something other than the Innsbruck inquisition, and unless these events actually predated 1485, it would appear that the archduke did not adopt a skeptical view about witch hunting as a result of the Innsbruck inquisition. In any event, the attitude in the work tells us nothing of the archduke’s views prior to the start of the inquisition. 106  “Germany” here signifies the broader area inhabited by German speaking populations rather than the area of the modern state called Germany. As it is, the original holdings of the Habsburgs (the castle Habichtsburg) actually lie in the far northwestern section of present-day Switzerland. 107  For a convenient history of the dynasty, see Curtis (2013).

Introduction

73

would hold until 1918. When Archduke Rudolf IV of Austria died in 1364, he was at first succeeded by his brothers Albrecht and Leopold, but in 1379 they divided the family territories, with Albrecht taking Upper and Lower Austria, while Leopold received the remaining territory to the west, including the Tyrol. Upon Leopold’s death in 1386, his branch split again, with one son, Ernst, taking Inner Austria (Styria to the east of the Tyrol), while Ernst’s younger brother Friedrich founded the so-called Tyrolean line (this line actually also controlled all the various family possessions spread to the west across southern Germany). Friedrich was succeeded in 1439 by his minor son Sigismund, the man in our document. Sigismund is not well thought of in the historical record. Though he undertook a number of efforts to expand his power in southern Germany (part of the family plan to become new dukes of Swabia), nothing much came of these. Despite having a large income from the many mining activities in his territories (his nickname der Münzreiche or “money bags” attests to this), he was constantly falling into debt. The Ernestine branch of the family was more successful, with Sigismund’s cousin Friedrich succeeding to the extinct Albertine branch and becoming Holy Roman Emperor. In 1490, the childless and hapless Sigismund was compelled to abdicate in favor of Friedrich’s son and heir, Maximilian (Sigismund would live another six years). The bishop of Brixen held an important position within the territory of the counts of the Tyrol (whose capital of Innsbruck lay within the diocese of Brixen). In 1450, Pope Nicholas V appointed as bishop of Brixen the important ecclesiastical dignitary and papal diplomat Nicholas of Kues, against the wishes of the archduke, who had the cathedral chapter elect his own chancellor instead.108 Nicholas prevailed, but he never had good relations with the archduke. An assertive reformer, he also provoked opposition from a number of quarters in the diocese. Relations between the archduke and the bishop became so bad that when Sigismund threatened Nicholas, the pope excommunicated him and placed his territory under interdict. Nicholas was forced to leave the bishopric for Italy in late 1458, never to return (he carried out various tasks for Pius II until his death in 1464). In the meanwhile, Sigismund seized control of the bishopric. 108  The man’s Latinized name is Nicholas Cusanus, the latter signifying “from the small town of Kues” (in the Rhineland). This is generally rendered in English “of Cusa,” as if the name signified some town in Italy. There was no place in medieval Europe called Cusa, so it is ridiculous to speak as if the Latin name refers to anything but a town in Germany. In any event, for a treatment of the man in general, see Bellitto etc. (2004), and for a discussion of his career specifically in the context of his position as bishop of Brixen, see Gelmi (1984) 100–109, Duclow (2004) 38–44.

74

Introduction

It is against this recent conflict that one has to assess the attitude of Nicholas’s successor, Georg Golser, the bishop with whom Institoris interacted.109 Golser was of comparatively lowly origins from the town of Gols (hence his last name) in the archbishopric of Salzburg. After studying at the University of Vienna in the late 1430s, he became a canon in Brixen in 1440. When Nicholas was forced to leave the bishopric, Golser was appointed by the chapter to act as its plenipotentiary in trying to mend relations between Nicholas and the archduke. He clearly must have had the chapter’s confidence, and starting in 1460, he took on the title doctor decretarum (“doctor of canon law”). Upon Nicholas’s death, the chapter elected Golser bishop (presumably with the archduke’s consent if not at his request), but the pope rejected this on the grounds that since the territory was still under interdict, the chapter had no right to conduct an election. The pope made an appointment of his own, and so did the Emperor Frederick III (who had been given a lifetime privilege of appointing a number of bishops including that of Brixen). It was not until 1471 that Golser was secure in his position. He then set about calmly attempting to restore the bishop’s authority after Sigismund’s half-decade of control. Golser was apparently accepted as bishop by Sigismund, and the misfortunes of his predecessor were no doubt never far from his mind in dealing with the archduke. By 1482, Golser was in sufficiently poor health that he appointed a “coadjutor” (a sort of assistant bishop) with the right of succession. This man, Melchior of Meckau, frequently served the archduke as an adviser, which shows the extent to which Golser had regularized relations between the bishopric and the archduke, and Melchior duly succeeded Golser upon his death in 1488. In 1484, Institoris had enlisted the assistance of the local municipal authorities of Ravensburg for his inquisition in Ravensburg by having the archduke write them a letter of introduction on his behalf (see doc. 1). Since the city was not under the archduke’s direct control and Institoris could have approached them on his own, he must have believed that his previous relationship with the archduke made it worth his while to approach the city council through him. At the very least, this implies a certain amount of sympathy for Institoris and his project regarding witch hunting on the part of the archduke. The archduke would have had to have a much more direct influence on events in Innsbruck. The city was his own capital, and the secular authorities there were his subordinates. Nothing is heard directly about their involvement in Institoris’s affairs, but at the very least, they would have had to take the seven main suspects into custody and keep them in prison. Though the cases never 109  For Gosler, see Gelmi (1984) 109–110.

Introduction

75

reached the point of questioning the suspects under torture, Institoris clearly had this in mind, and secular authorities would have had to carry this out. Some of the proceedings against the main suspects actually took place in the archduke’s own court (doc. 9/8). The archduke must have allowed the inquisition to start in the first place, but there is no way to know how enthusiastic he was about this.110 The initiative could entirely have come from Institoris, and there is no way to gauge how he reacted to this apart from his having granted permission for Institoris to proceed with his plan. At any rate, by mid-September, he wrote to the bishop of Brixen asking how far he was obligated to assist the inquisitor (doc. 5), which would seem to suggest that the archduke was already less than eager to go along with Institoris at a time when the extent of his investigations must have been reasonably clear. In early October, the archduke was asking the bishop to appoint his commissary or some other learned man to assist Institoris (doc. 6). At first, the bishop appointed a local parish priest to this task (doc. 7), but eventually his commissary, Christian Turner, appeared (along with the parish priest) in the major proceedings against the main suspects in late October (doc. 11). In addition to these men, Paul Wann, a canon of Passau cathedral, also appears in the proceedings, and while Turner was overtly acting in his capacity as the bishop’s representative to obstruct Institoris’s case, once the whole proceedings were brought to a halt, Wann went out of his way to speak on behalf of the archduke, pointing out that while the archduke had been willing to defray the costs of the proceedings to this point, he declined to do so henceforth, in effect placing a practical obstacle in the way of any continuation of the cases without actually saying so in so many words. The record clearly indicates that a lot of care was taken about this declaration, which appears at the end of the proceedings and is specifically marked out in the protocol (doc 11/5).111 These very deliberate words cannot have been made off the cuff. Rather, they must reflect careful consultation with the archduke as the final stages of the inquisition played themselves out. There is no way to know to what extent the archduke was involved in the maneuverings that led to the appointment of Merwait as the defendants’ legal counsel and the apparent collusion between him and Turner in thwarting Institoris (and even threatening him with arrest!), but it is pretty much inconceivable that Turner could have acted this way or that his 110  The discussion of the case in Baum (1987) 436–441 is basically nothing more than a paraphrase of the information provided by Institoris himself in the Malleus and by the Brixen materials as laid out by Ammann (1890), with a certain amount of animus against Institoris thrown in. Seemingly, there is no external information preserved in the archives about the archduke’s involvement in the case. 111  The words are even carefully reformulated to make the sense absolutely clear.

76

Introduction

superior, the bishop of Brixen, would have taken this course of action without knowing that he had the archduke’s support. Of course, the bishop’s own distaste for Institoris (and his theorizing) gave him every reason to be happy to obstruct him, but given the legal implications of the case, it is very hard to believe that the bishop (and his representative) was not actively carrying out the archduke’s wish in adopting this policy. It is particularly striking that the archduke himself was implicated as a potential victim of witchcraft in Institoris’s case. The case involving Röslin (and her mother) all pertained to the court (docs. 9/5–6, 10/4–5). Her husband was a gun master (a significant technical military office112), and she was accused to having bewitched cloth that had been given by the archduke himself to her husband’s gun master rival and his wife. She was accused of having imported a witch to regain the archduke’s favor when she was supposedly in his bad graces (because of a suspicion for witchcraft!). After the imported witch failed in her primary mission, she also botched an attempt to use bribery to influence the archduke. Finally, she supposedly used (or intended to use) a dead mouse and a boiled dead man’s head to bewitch the archduke. Given that Röslin (and her mother) were released along with the other suspects, the conclusion is unmistakable that the archduke was unmoved by these accusations. 23

Documents Reproduced Here

Here is a list of the documents that appear in the present volume. For each of the documents as numbered here, there is an indication of its content, the current location of the text, and its number (if present) in Ammann’s original publications of the Brixen material and/or in the collection of documents given in the introduction of Schnyder’s edition of the Malleus.113 The situation with the two documents pertaining to the Ravensburg inquisition is clear enough. 1)

Letter from the burgermasters and city council of Ravensburg to Archduke Sigismund of Austria, December 17, 1484. Tiroler Landesarchiv, Abteilung Pestarchiv XXXVb, 19 (==Müller (1910), Schnyder #28). A single sheet, with address on the recto and main text on the verso.

112  For the importance of the position of gun master, see doc. 9, n. 51. 113  See Ammann (1890) for all of the material apart from the Memorandum (doc. 16), which is published in Ammann (1911); and the letters appear as part of the life of Institoris given in Schnyder (1993) 47–54.

Introduction

2)

77

Urfehde (guarantee of good behavior) for a woman presumably questioned for witchcraft by Institoris, Ravensburg, October 23, 1484. Ravensburg Stadt-Archiv Urkunde 1116.

The documents about the Innsbruck inquisition, while all preserved in the diocesan archive of the bishopric of Brixen, are of disparate origins. Here is the order in which the documents are presented here, with the same information as above. 3) Instruction from Bishop Georg of Brixen to his ecclesiastical subordinates, July 23, 1485. Brixen Diocesan Archive. Preserved in two copies: 1) Hofakten 2267/2 (copy of Institoris’s original sent back to the bishop by Institoris), and 2) Consistorial Codices, Investiturae antiquae Vol. 1 Nr. 194/90 (the bishop’s own copy of his original) (=Schnyder #32). 4) Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to Institoris, September 21, 1485. Brixen Diocesan Archive. Preserved in two copies: 1) Hofakten 2267/4 (copy of Institoris’s original sent back to the bishop by Institoris), 2) Consistorial Codices, Investiturae antiquae Vol. 1 Nr. 201/97 (the bishop’s own copy of his original) (= Ammann #3, Schnyder #35). 5) Letter from Bishop Georg of Brixen to Archduke Sigismund, September 21, 1485. Brixen, Diocesan Archives, Consistorial Codices, Investiturae antiquae Vol. 1 Nr. 200 (=Ammann #2, Schnyder # 34). 6) Letter from Archduke Sigismund of Austria to Bishop Georg of Brixen, October 8, 1485. Brixen Diocesan Archive. Hofakten 2267/5 (=Ammann #4, Schnyder #37). 7) Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to Sigismund Sämer, parish priest of Axams, undated (mid October, 1485). Brixen Diocesan Archive. Hofakten 2267/6 (= Ammann #5, Schnyder #38). 8) Vernacular Protocol. Hofakten 2267/3. 9) Latin Protocols against the seven accused women. Brixen Archive, Hofakten 2267/7. 10) Latin Articles of suspected crimes and list of questions for the further investigation of the seven suspects after their release. Brixen Archive, Hofakten 2267/9. 11) Record of the proceedings against the seven accused, October 29 and 31 and November 3, 1485. Hofakten 2267/10. Turner’s decision and the list of fidejussores are also recorded on separate sheets that contain drafts of these sections. 12) Letter from Bishop Georg of Brixen to Institoris, November 14, 1485. Hofakten 2267/11 (=Ammann #8, Schnyder #42). This letter is written on a separate sheet of paper that was inserted at the end of the Institoris

78

13) 14) 15) 16)

Introduction

dossier. On the same sheet as the next document (both Ammann and Schnyder print the next document first, but the letters appear in the order given here), but the two letters were clearly written by different scribes. Letter from Bishop Georg of Brixen to an unnamed parish priest in Innsbruck, November 14, 1485. Hofakten 2267/11 (=Ammann #7, Schnyder # 41). See preceding document for a discussion of this text. Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to a Brother Nicholas, February 9, 1486. Hofakten 2267/12 (= Ammann # 6, Schnyder #43). A single separate sheet inserted at the end of the main book (doc. 15 is on the reverse side). Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to Institoris, February 9, 1486. Hofakten 2267/12 (=Ammann #9, Schnyder #44). See description of the preceding document. Brixen Memorandum. Hofakten 2267/8 (=Ammann 1910, Schnyder #40). This document is a procedural discussion of how to prosecute cases. As delivered by Institoris to Bishop Georg, it appears between the protocols against the seven denounced women (doc. 9) and the articles about their cases (doc. 10), but has been placed out of chronological order because its great length and analytical content would interrupt the “story line” that appears in the preceding documents.

Hence, the documents appear from the following sources: 1) The copies kept in the diocesan archives of letters sent by Bishop Georg to others and the original text sent to him by Archduke Sigismund: docs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15 2) Diocesan protocol of the hearing of October 31, 1485 and the subsequent disposition of the cases: doc. 11 3) The dossier of items sent by Institoris to Bishop Georg on the assumption that he would proceed with the prosecutions. The materials sent by Institoris consist of the follow: a) The papal bull Summis desiderantes (not reproduced here as the text is the same as that given in MM 1*–2b*); b) Letters from Bishop Georg to Institoris and the bishop’s ecclesiastical subordinates (these letters are also preserved among the copies of bishop’s own correspondence): docs. 3, 4; c) The vernacular protocol containing depositions for cases that Institoris did not wish to prosecute himself as inquisitor but expected the bishop to proceed with: doc. 8;

Introduction

79

d) A Latin protocol containing the depositions given against the six women whom Institoris would accuse of participation in the Heresy of Witches: doc. 9;114 e) A list of witnesses for the Latin depositions (doc. 9), similar to the one that appears at the end of the vernacular protocol (doc. 8), but apparently, this was meant to be a separate document and there is no trace of it in the Brixen archive; f) The Brixen Memorandum laying out instructions on how Institoris thought cases involving the Heresy of Witches should be prosecuted: doc. 16 (reproduced here at the end to facilitate understanding of the course of events in the fall of 1485); g) Articles against the seven women whom Institoris decided to proceed against and whose prosecution he expected the bishop to continue: doc. 10.

114  Note that in doc. 9/5 Institoris indicates that he had previously handed over to the bishop’s commissary general a protocol. Presumably, this was a vernacular document similar to doc. 8 and laying out in less elaborate manner the testimony given against the seven women accused of the Heresy of Witches. No trace of this document survives.

Bibliography Ammann, Hartmann. “Der Innsbrucker Hexenprozess von 1485.” Zeitschrift des Ferdinandeums für Tirol und Voralberg 34 (1890): 1–87. Ammann, Hartmann. “Eine Vorarbeit des Heinrich Institoris für den Malleus Maleficarum.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Ergänzungsband 8 (1911): 461–504. Apps, Lara and Andrew Gow. Male Witches in Early Modern Europe. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2003. Armitage, Natalie. “European and African Figural Ritual Magic: The Beginnings of the Voodoo Doll Myth.” In The Materiality of Magic: An Artifactual Investigation into Ritual Practices and Popular Beliefs, edited by Natalie Armitage and Ceri Houlbrook. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 2015. Pp. 85–101. Audisio, Gabriel. The Waldensian Dissent: Persecution and Survival, c. 1170–c. 1570. Translated by C. Davison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Bailey, Michael. “The Medieval Concept of the Witches’ Sabbath.” Exemplaria 8 (1996): 419–439. Bär, Michael. “Paulus Wann – ein Passauer Domprediger.” In Ostbairische Lebensbilder, vol. 2, edited by Egon Boshof. Passau: Dietmar Klinger, 2005. Pp. 51–65. Baum, Wilhelm. Sigmund der Münzreiche: Zur Geschichte Tirols und der habsburgischen Länder im Spätmittelalter. Bozen: Athesia, 1987. Behringer, Wolfgang. “Heinrich Kramers ‘Hexenhammer’: Text und Kontext.” In Frühe Hexenverfolgung in Ravensburg und am Bodensee, edited by Andreas Schmauder. Konstanz: UVK, 2001. Pp. 83–125. Behringer, Wolfgang and Günter Jerouschek, eds. Der Hexenhammer: Malleus Maleficarum. Translated by Werner Tschacher. Munich: dtv, 2000. Bellitto, Christopher M., Thomas M. Izbicki and Gerald Christianson, eds. Introducing Nicholas of Cusa: A Guide to a Renaissance Man. New York: Paulist Press, 2004. Bever, Edward. “Varieties of Maleficium.” In The Realities of Witchcraft and Popular Magic in Early Modern Europe: Culture, Cognition and Everyday Life, edited by Edward Bever. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Pp. 1–39. Blauert, Andreas. “Die Ravensburger Urfehden als Zeugnisse der Ravensburger Hexenverfolgung.” In Frühe Hexenverfolgung in Ravensburg und am Bodensee, edited by Andreas Schmauder. Constance: UVK, 2007. Pp. 65–81. Brundage, James A. Medieval Canon Law. London and New York: Longman, 1995. Curtis, Benjamin. The Habsburgs: The History of a Dynasty. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Davies, Owen. Grimoires: A History of Magic Books. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_003

Bibliography

81

Deane, Jennifer. A History of Medieval Heresy and Inquisition. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Dienst, Heide. “Magische Vorstellungen und Hexenverfolgungen in den österreichischen Ländern (15.–18. Jahrhundert).” In Wellen der Verfolgung in der österreichische Geschichte, edited by Erich Zöllner. Vienna: Ö sterreichischer Verbundesverlag, 1986. Pp. 70–94. Dienst, Heide. “Lebensbewältigung durch Magie: Alltägliche Zauberei in Innsbruck gegen Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts.” In Alltag im 16. Jahrhundert: Studien zu Lebensformen in mitteleuropäischen Städten, edited by Alfred Kohler and Heinrich Lutz. Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1987. Pp. 80–116. Dreher, Alfons. Geschichte der Reichsstadt Ravensburg. Weissenhorn: Anton H. Konrad, 1972. Duclow, Donald F. “Life and Works.” In Introducing Nicholas of Cusa: A Guide to a Renaissance Man, edited by Christopher M. Bellitto, Thomas M. Izbicki and Gerald Christianson. New York: Paulist Press, 2004. Pp. 25–56. Gelmi, Josef. Die brixener Bischöfe in der Geschichte Tirols. Bozen: Athesia, 1984. Grimm, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Munich: Taschenbuch Verlag, 1999. Hansen, Joseph. Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Hexenwahns und der Hexenverfolgungen im Mittelalter. Bonn: Universitäts-Buchdruckerei, 1901. Herzig, Tamar. “Bridging North and South: Inquisitorial Networks and Witchcraft Theories on the Eve of the Reformation.” Journal of Early Modern History 12 (2008): 361–82. Heyward, Michael. The Ern Malley Affair. Brisbane: Queensland University Press, 1993. Hinnebusch, William A. The History of the Dominican Order. 2 vols. New York: Alba House, 1966–1967. Hoffmann-Krayer, Eduard and Hanns Bächtold-Stäubli, eds. Handwörterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens. 10 vols. Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1927–1942. Jerouschek, Günter. Nürnberger Hexenhammer 1491 von Heinrich Kramer (Institoris). Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1992. Kieckhefer, Richard. European Witch Trials: Their Foundations in Popular and Learned Culture, 1300–1500. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. Kieckhefer, Richard. Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer’s Manual of the Fifteenth Century. University Park: The Pennsylvania State Press, 1997. Kieckhefer, Richard. “Magic at Innsbruck: The Case of 1485 Reexamined.” In Religion und Magie in Ostmitteleuropa: Spielräume theologischer Normierungsprozesse in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, edited by Thomas Wünsch. Berlin: Lit, 2006. Pp. 11–29.

82

Bibliography

Kieckhefer, Richard. Magic in the Middle Ages. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Lambert, Malcolm. The Cathars. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. Landersdorfer, Anton. “Sixtus von Tannberg, Bischof von Freising (1474–1495).” In Christenleben im Wandel der Zeit, volume 1: Lebensbilder aus der Geschichte des Bistums Freising, edited by Georg Schwaiger. Munich: Erich Wewel, 1987. Pp. 103–113. Levack, Brian. The Witchhunt in Early Modern Europe. 4th ed. London: Routledge, 2016. Mackay, Christopher S. Hammer of Witches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Mackay, Christopher S. Malleus Maleficarum. 2d ed. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Mackay, Christopher S. Est insolitum inquirere taliter: Latin and German Documents from Heinricus Institoris’s Witch Hunts in Ravensburg and Innsbruck. Leiden: Brill, 2021. Müller, Karl Otto. “Heinrich Institoris, der Verfasser des Hexenhammer und seine Tätigkeit als Hexeninquisitor in Ravensburg im Herbst 1484.” Württemburgische Vierteljahrsheft für Landesgeschichte 19 (1910): 397–417. Rider, Catherine. Magic and Impotence in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Roper, Lyndal. Witch Craze. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. Schmauder, Andreas. “Frühe Hexenverfolgung in Ravensburg: Rahmenbedingungen, Chronologie und das Netzwerk der Personen.” In Frühe Hexenverfolgung in Ravensburg und am Bodensee, edited by Andreas Schmauder. Constance: UVK, 2007). Pp. 29–63. Schnyder, André. “Der ‘Malleus maleficarum’: Fragen und Beobachtungen zu seiner Druckgeschichte sowie zur Rezeption bei Bodin, Binsfeld und Delrio.” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 74 (1992): 323–364. Schnyder, André. Malleus Maleficarum von Heinrich Institoris (alias Kramer) unter Mithilfe Jakob Sprengers aufgrund der dämonologischen Tradition zusammengestellt: Kommentar zur Wiedergabe des Erstdrucks von 1487 (Hain 9238). Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1993. Segl, Peter. “Henricus Institoris: Persönlichkeit und literarisches Werk.” In Der Hexenhammer. Entstehung und Umfeld des Malleus maleficarum von 1487, edited by Peter Segl. Cologne: Böhlau, 1988. Pp. 103–126. Wilson, Eric. “Institoris at Innsbruck: Henrich Institoris, the Summis Desiderantes, and the Brixen Witch-Trial of 1485.” In Popular Religion in Germany and Central Europe, 1400–1800, edited by Robert W. Scribner and Trevor Johnson. New York: St. Martin’s, 1996. Pp. 87–100. Zarnecke, Friedrich. Die deutschen Universitäten im Mittelalter: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Charakteristik derselben. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel, 1857.

Translation Notes 1 “Witch” There are a number of Latin words for “witch” (e.g., lamia, striga, venefica), but in his Latin writings Institoris invariably uses the term malefica, which (as Institoris frequently notes with reference to Isidore of Seville’s discussion of the word’s etymology1) literally means “evil doer.” In my previous English renderings of the Malleus, I use the expressions “sorcerer,” “sorceress” and “sorcery” to render the Latin maleficus/-a, maleficium for reasons that have to do with the need to maintain a single set of etymologically related words to reflect the unity of expression in the Latin.2 In part, this has to do with the frequent use of the masculine maleficus as either a specifically male counterpart to the feminine malefica or as a generalizing term (with the masculine at times appearing where the feminine is clearly demanded by internal logic). The natural English translation of malefica is of course “witch,” and since problems pertaining to the use of maleficus are not relevant to the present texts (basically, the lack in English of a straightforward term for a “male witch”), it seemed reasonable to revert to the regular English terms “witch” and “witchcraft.” This also extends to the “Heresy of Witches” (rather than “Sorceresses”) as the translation for heresis maleficarum. Though the general preference of “witchcraft” as the translation of maleficium should perhaps result in the phrase maleficium taciturnitatis being translated as “witchcraft of silence,” the use of “witchcraft” in a concrete sense is unnatural in English, so in this instance I have retained the translation “sorcery,” which seems to give a better sense of the original (one might entertain “spell of silence,” but “spell” in this sense might be misleading). 2

Personal Names and Their Translation

Last names are a development of the later middle ages. Everyone was given a personal name at birth, and with the more complicated social relations that arose with urban life, second names began to develop as descriptive terms to distinguish individuals with the same given name. In the present age, we assume that everyone has a last name, which is traditionally inheritable from 1  Cited, for example, in MM 15C. 2  For full explanation, see Mackay (2009) 57, (2011) vol. 2, 7.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_004

84

Translation Notes

the father (though of course such traditions are now in flux). For males at least, such names are normally permanent, and few people consider their literal signification (e.g., a last name like Black says nothing about its bearer’s complexion, and Miller tells us nothing about its bearer’s profession). The situation in early modern Germany was much more fluid. In the late medieval/early modern period in Germany, a man in an urban setting generally was known by a last name that often served to designate his actual profession. Someone named Michael Zimmerman was literally a carpenter (the meaning of the German noun Zimmermann). There could be a certain fluidity in such designations. For instance, Jörg the armorer is given two alternative last names, Zugmeister and Buchsenmeister, both being synonyms for “armorer” (the former an archaic form of Zeugmeister). Such professionspecific names were not inherited, and so a son would have a different last name if he pursued a different profession from his father. Thus, the son of Peter Schneider was Heinrich Tischler, the father having been a tailor and the son being a table maker (see the translation of doc. 11/7 with n. 53). In addition to such professional terms, there were also “geographic” ones that distinguished individuals by their place of origin or present residence. There are several examples of such names among the people identified in the Brixen documents, namely our armorer Jörg, who, in addition to his two professional names, was called über der Brücke (“across the bridge”), Wolfgang im Spital and Adelheit in Spital (deponents in doc. 8, Testimonies C and Q), and Ludwig Moler (doc. 8, deponent list to Testimony Z). The situation was less straightforward with women. For the most part, they were not expected to have an independent life without the presence of a controlling male. In their maidenhood, they were simply identified by their father’s name (e.g., “Veronica the daughter of Siphoufer”). Once married, they were identified with their husband’s name, to which the feminine grammatical ending -in or (more rarely, generally after “n”) -en was appended.3 3  Insight into the fluidity of practice in this regard comes from a jocular speech (de fide concubinarum) written about 1500 for scholastic entertainment by Paulus Olearius (see Zarnecke [1857] 94–95). Dorothea, the concubine of a canon named von Grünbach, is upset because when she goes to a public bath, she is referred to only by her first name by the female proprietor of the establishment, while the other women are called by an honorific derived from their husband’s name, for instance, “myn frow von Schwartzenberg.” When Dorothea complains about the situation to her paramour, he replies, “Look, good Dorothea, my mother is still alive and she’s known generally as die Grünbechin [i.e., by the feminine form of his father’s and his own last name, with mutation of the vowel in “bach”]. If you were to overlap with her in this last name, there would be confused chaos, since you could be taken as my mother or my mother as my concubine” (Ecce bona Dorothea, mater mea adhuc superstes est, que vulgo die Grünbechin appellatur. Si tu in hoc cognomine cum ea concurreres,

Translation Notes

85

Normally, this was added after the man’s last name, but sometimes it was appended to both the man’s first and last name. Thus, Margaretha the wife of Peter Schneider could be designated as Peter Schneiderin (doc. 9/8). In this way, the “housewife of Conrad Kleuber” (haußfraw Cůnrad Kleiber) is called simply “Kleuberin” (doc. 8, Testimony CC). Less frequent is the usage whereby the wife of Ludwig Wagensta(h)l is called Ludwigen Wagenstallin (doc. 9/3), with the feminine ending being added to the man’s first name as well.4 This practice is more or less equivalent to the older English custom of preceding the husband’s name with “Mrs.” as a way of distinguishing his wife (e.g., referring to Peter Schneider’s wife Agnes as Mrs. Peter Schneider). Naturally, in normal discourse the woman continued to be called by her given name, and occasionally both the given name and the feminine version of the husband’s name appear together (e.g., “Bärbel Caspar Schmidlerin,” Bärbel being a diminutive form of Barbara). This use of the feminine form of a male name has no correspondence in English, so it is difficult to render such names into idiomatic modern English. One way to do so would be to add “Mrs.” to the man’s name, but in terms of early modern usage, this would sound honorific. The documents never apply the German title Frau to these women, and the use of merely the feminine form of the husband’s name is a form of social disparagement. That is, the practice of calling a woman by the feminine version of the husband’s name without any sort of honorific (such as Hausfrau) was a way of referring to women of the lower social classes by their social “superiors.” Accordingly, I have retained the feminine forms of the man’s last name, and the reader has to be aware that a name like “Scheuberin” actually signifies “the wife of Scheuber.” Among the large number of women’s names that appear in these documents, the actual existence of the husband is most often not overtly attested, but it would appear to be a reasonable assumption. There is, however, one significant instance where there is serious doubt about this practice. One of the seven women arrested and investigated more fully in October is known consistently in the protocol and articles about her as “Röslin,” which fieret confusum chaos, aut enim tu pro matre, aut mater pro concubina mea apud ignotos posset dijudicari.). Presumably, the same disinclination would apply to having a wife adopt her husband’s name during his own mother’s lifetime, and perhaps she would still be known by her own father’s name until the demise of her mother-in-law. (For what it is worth, in the speech the canon suggests to the concubine that she adopt a name derived from two other official positions that he holds, which further confirms the freedom with which names could be made up on an ad hoc basis.) 4  “Ludwigen” is the archaic form for the oblique cases of the name “Ludwig,” so it would seem that this is actually the genitive case of the name.

86

Translation Notes

seemingly implies a husband with the last name Rösl or Rösel. However, in the proceedings of late October, she is named Rosina Hochwartin/Hochwardin (doc. 11/2, 7), which seems to suggest a husband named Hochwardt. Given this name, one would interpret Röslin as a hypochoristic (shortened) form of Rosina (“Rosie”) with the diminutive ending “-lein” added to it in its earlier form (i.e., with the vowel appearing as a long “i” rather than a diphthong). It is hard to see why this woman alone should have been referred to in this colloquial fashion, but under the circumstances, it would appear that she was called by this nickname in place of her formal name (presumably, “Hochwardin” is the form to be expected). In the absence of any external information to explain this peculiarity of nomenclature, the exact meaning of “Röslin” cannot be determined. Finally, a word about how German names are rendered. My normal practice in translating early modern texts is to anglicize names that have a straightforward corresponding version in English. The editors of this series, however, have insisted on retention of Germanic forms (even for historical figures), so the translation generally reflects the forms used in the original text, which sometimes differ from those of modern German orthography, though if there is just minor deviation from modern usuage, the latter is used to avoid pointless pedantry (e.g., “Heinrich” is used in doc. 2 for the original “Hainrich”; also the occasional orthography of “sm” or “sn” is replaced with the modern “schm”/“schn,” e.g., “Schneiderin” instead of “Sneiderin”). For the most part, names appear either only once or repeatedly. In the latter case, there is generally a uniformity in the form used in the texts, and when there is variation, the most common form is adopted for the sake of consistency.

Decretals Cited A number of papal decretals are cited by title in the work. Instead of repeating the modern citations in various places, the following list gives the citations for all decretals mentioned in the text or referred to in footnotes. Accusatus: Liber Sextus 5.2.8 Ad abolendam: Liber Extra 5.7.9 Cum contumacia: Liber Sextus 5.2.7 Saepe contigit: Clementines 5.11.2 Excommunicamus (1): Liber Extra 5.7.13 and 15 Excommunicamus (2) itaque: Liber Extra 5.7.13 Gravem: Liber Extra 5.37.13 In favorem fidei: Liber Sextus 5.2.5 Inter solicitudines: Liber Extra 5.34.10 Multorum querela: Clementines 5.3.1 Per tuas: Liber Extra 2.20.48 Quoniam: Liber Sextus 5.2.2 Statuta: Liber Sextus 5.2.20 Super eo: Liber Sextus 5.2.4 Ut inquisitionis: Liber Sextus 5.2.18 Ut officium: Liber Sextus 6.2.11

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_005

Texts

∵

Document 1

Letter from the Burgermasters and City Council of Ravensburg to Archduke Sigismund of the Tyrol, December 17, 1484 In accordance with an earlier letter from the archduke, the magistrates explain to him the course of the inquisition conducted by an inquisitor whose arrival they had been informed of in the archduke’s earlier letter. German text.

…

[1]1 To the Most Illustrious Prince and Lord, Lord Sigismund, Archduke of Austria, of Styria, Carinthia, the Craina, etc., our Most Gracious Lord. [2] Most Illustrious Prince and Most Gracious Lord, our Princely Grace! First, be our subordinate and completely voluntary service ready at all times with all diligence for your princely grace. As your Princely Grace had a letter written to us (and this has arrived) that a doctor of the Order of Preachers2 was to come to us to investigate and punish witches and sorceresses.3 He would bring some of these witches before us in the Council Hall through his art, and then was to have these and some others besides burned. This was accompanied by a request, your Princely Grace, to give a basic account of the course of events and of how they transpired. In conformity with this document of your Grace, we received him, as is fitting, with all diligence according to his rank, and in order for your Grace to learn what is true, we add the following. 1  Numerals in square brackets indicate the unnumbered pages of the original documents. 2  Order of Preachers is the official name of the Dominican Order of friars. 3  The two terms for “witch” are merely German synonyms (Hexen and Unholden), and the two terms used in the English are just an attempt to mimic this dual terminology (without any suggestion that the two words reflect different categories).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_006

92

TEXTS: Document 1

In the previous harvest time of this year, such a doctor arrived in our city with a papal bull4 regarding his commendation and his undertaking, and he had a transcription (copy) of this posted on the church doors.5 For some days thereafter, he preached in the pulpit,6 and under the highest papal ban,7 he ordered the entire multitude of men and women as follows: any person or persons who knew any witches (sorceresses),8 or heard from anybody that they knew them or held them in suspicion or that a bad reputation had come over them, such as when harm had befallen somebody in terms of people or livestock,9 which was held in some suspicion, these people were to come to him in obedience to the aforementioned order and denounce to him such witches (suspected persons with a bad reputation), as well as their circumstances (what each person knew about them, whether seen or heard from other people). At this point, a great thronging of many people took place, with many women and men going to him, and after he heard the people under their vow and oath, and showed us the catalogue,10 4   Not the famous bull Summis desiderantes, which was issued only on December 5 of the present year, but the earlier appointment the provisions of which had been disputed by those opposed to Institoris’s activities (MM 1B*). 5  Müller (1910) 405 suggests that the text was at least partially translated into German. There is no evidence for such a practice, and it is more likely that the text was left in Latin. The point was to demonstrate Institoris’s legal authority, not to advertise topics for debate. In any event, Müller also speaks of “transcriptions and copies” (Abschriften und Kopien), but the Latin seu is used very commonly to indicate a synonym (for the pupose of legal fullness to forestall any disputes regarding terminology). Hence, there was only one document. 6  In the procedure borrowed from Eymeric (see doc. 10, n. 124) and laid out in the Malleus, this directive about making denunciations is to be set out in written form (MM 194D–195B). The bull Summis desiderantes, however, which was drawn up on the basis of a text provided by Institoris, grants Institoris (and Sprenger) the right to “propound the Word of God to the congregation … whenever this will be beneficial and they decide to do so” (MM 2A*). No doubt it was more effective to call for denunciations in the course of a sermon that also explained how witchcraft was to be understood. 7  No such bans are mentioned in the Malleus, but they are described at length in NH 10r, where they are set out for the purpose of obliging secular authorities to cooperate with the inquisition, it being particularly noted that they apply to those who permit use of the ordeal by glowing iron. 8  Here, Hexen and Unholden are connected with ald (“or”=Latin seu) as if they are synonyms. 9  Note how the description of witchcraft given here resembles the prefatory words of Summis desiderantes (MM 1A*-1B*), whose text ultimately goes back to a preliminary draft drawn up by Institoris himself (see Mackay [2011] vol. 1, 121–126). 10  Schnyder (1993) 47 n. 79 indicates that no trace of this document can be found in the archives of Ravensburg. The German word Ingeschrift should indicate a list or inventory, and since the document mentioned here led to the arrest of suspects, presumably some sort of list of the accused (and the charges lodged against them?) is meant. The definite article suggests that this was the only document known to the magistrates, and this in

93

TEXTS: Document 1

we thereupon brought certain womenfolk into our prison.11 Two of these confessed that they had dedicated themselves to the devil and with him practiced their trickery of depravity, as well as helping make hail and stormy weather, laming and crippling people and livestock, and carrying out many other acts of witchcraft trickery over the course of many years and much time. Accordingly, we had them executed by fire. In this, he also gave us to understand that if one is going to seize them, one should raise these persons up off the ground and not set them back down on it.12 One should also have them shaved.13 In particular, the reason was, he said, that if you question (torture) them and they do not cry, then such persons are witches (sorceresses).14 We did not want to withhold this from your Princely Grace, being ones who desire to prove themselves and to be found completely willing and absolutely not disinclined at all times in pleasing and compliant service to your Princely Grace with diligent subordination. Issued on the Friday after St. Lucy’s Day,15 ’84 a.d. Your Grace’s Subordinate and Loyal Burgermasters and Council in Ravensburg

turn suggests that what is really meant is something corresponding to the protocol that Institoris showed to the bishop of Brixen (doc. 8). Certainly, in MM 147A, Institoris directs the reader to the protocol (processus) deposited in the Ravensburg city hall for confirmation of his version of events. 11  Doc. 2 records the surety given by one of these when she was released. 12  For the justification for picking them up off the ground, see MM 203C, NH 8v. 13  In BM (doc. 16/7), MM 214C and NH 8v it is explicitly directed that the entire body is to be shaved, but MM 215B–C oddly contrasts the more lenient procedure in Germany with that of foreign inquisitors (northern Italy is mentioned) in that in the foreign counties the suspects are entirely shaved, but in Germany, since the shaving of the “secret places” is thought to be shameful, only the hair of the head is shaved and a drink of holy water with a drop of holy wax in it is given (presumably instead). 14  The point is that it was thought that hidden amulets could protect the accused from feeling the pain of questioning in the so-called “sorcery of silence” (maleficium taciturnitatis); for treatment of the topic, see MM 214C–215C. Elsewhere (MM 211D), Institoris also recommends removal of the clothing for the purpose of detecting the amulets, but perhaps the magistrates of Ravensburg take it for granted that the shaved women are naked. For the idea that witches cannot cry while being examined under torture, see MM 213B–D, NH 2.7. 15  December 17.

Document 2

Urfehde (Guarantee of Good Behavior) for a Woman Presumably Questioned for Witchcraft by Institoris, Ravensburg, October 23, 1484 Even those who are accused of a crime but released may nonetheless harbor resentment of the mere fact of their arrest. This sentiment is all the more likely if the questioning in connection with the accusation involved physical torture. Hence, those who were released after the authorities decided that they were not guilty were frequently asked to provide a document declaring their own intention not to avenge the arrest. This declaration, known as an Urfehde, would also be joined in by a number of guarantors, who jointly and separately agreed to recompense the authorities if the terms of the declaration were violated (that is, if any attempt was made to wreak vengeance upon the authorities either through court action or by extra-legal means). In effect, this document was meant to forestall direct revenge from the suspect or a feud carried on by the suspect’s relatives.1 The phraseology of such documents is reasonably formulaic, and much of the language used in the present document can be attested elsewhere. There are four such Urfehden preserved in the archives at Ravensburg.2 The present one is from 1484, and the later ones date to 1486, 1489 and 1490. All are written in different hands. The 1486 document is very similar in language, but the two later documents, while generally similar in overall sense, have a number of substantial deviations in phraseology. The three later documents probably do not relate to Institoris’s activities in 1484. It seems unlikely (apart from any other considerations) that the woman released on April 9, 1486 (the date of the second Urfehde) was finally being discharged after having been arrested in the fall of 1484, and the letter to Archduke Sigismund (doc. 1) speaks of the inquisition as if it was concluded, with the two executions mentioned in it being the ones carried out, which would be an odd way to speak of the situation if some suspects were still under investigation and in prison.

1  For a discussion of the general format of the documents and their legal significance, see Blauert (2007), 65–68. 2  For discussion of the Urfehden from Ravensburg as evidence for the proceedings against witches in Ravensburg, see Blauert (2007) and Schmauder (2007).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_007

95

TEXTS: Document 2

The present document gives no details about the case apart from the statement that it involves the suspect’s reputation for witchcraft, which justifies the authorities’ investigation of her. Given the document’s date in October, the suspect, Els3 Frauendienst, must have been accused in connection with Institoris’s inquisition of the fall of 1484. Whether she was released before the questioning had reached the stage of torture cannot be determined. Perhaps the intercession of the large number of relatives who agreed to be involved in the Urfehde sufficed by itself to secure her release. For similar documents being drawn up in connection with the release of the accused witches in Innsbruck, see doc. 11/8–9.

…

I, Els Frauendienst, legitimate wife of Hans Frauendienst the locksmith in Ravensburg, openly declare with this document and make known to everyone: when a severe and great reputation for the wicked, manifest evil of witchcraft came upon me, and there was at hand evident cause and motivation for this, on account of which I was brought to the prison of the foresightful, honorable and wise burgermasters and council of Ravensburg,4 and these men, my gracious lords, and certainly might have undertaken to treat me more angrily and harshly instead of granting me compassion, and at the same time also considered the high and earnest petition presented to them by my aforementioned husband and likewise by my legitimate sons, sons-in-law and our other good friends, and thereupon and forthwith, in praise of Almighty God and His worthy mother Mary, graciously released me from such prison, accordingly I have, being free of all bonds, released and uncompelled, and also with good sense and good will and with the knowledge of the aforementioned legitimate husband, sons, sons-in-law and friends, made an audible, sincere and lawful promise and physically sworn to God and the saints an oath with upraised fingers and instructed words, that I shall and will never at any time maliciously repay, criticize, report or avenge my imprisonment or anything that happened, took place or transpired therein or thereamong with words, counsels or deeds or anything else against the aforementioned my lords of Ravensburg, their city 3  Variant of “Elsa,” a hypochoristic (i.e., abridged) form of the name “Elisabeth.” 4  The phraseology seems to indicate an admission of guilt, but this clause is merely formulaic for all such documents. Since the document is drawn at the discretion of the authorities, they insist that no indication be made that they are in any way at fault. Hence, it is normal for the suspect to admit that the authorities had had good cause to pursue an investigation (even if in the end they decided to release the suspect).

96

TEXTS: Document 2

and community, along with anybody else of their people who pertains to or is responsible to them, be they spiritual or secular, and also those who gave assistance or deed to this imprisonment of mine and are reported or conveyed in connection with it, doing so neither by words, counsels nor deeds, secretly or openly, by myself or getting someone else to do it, with any judgments or cases, spiritual or secular, in any way or manner whatsoever. If it should be the case that at any time in the future I had or got a complaint to lodge against my aforementioned lords of Ravensburg (their city or community), or against any of their people, whoever he or they are, whatever the case concerned, about this I shall and will, by my aforementioned sworn oath, always let myself be made content by them and theirs under the law, as they are released with praise by the Holy Empire, without any deceit. Altogether for even greater and better security and certainty, I have set, assigned and made bound to them and theirs as right and collective guarantors and sureties the honorable Hans Frauendienst, the legitimate husband aforementioned, Bastian,5 Dias6 and Hans, all three named Frauendienst, my sons, Heinrich Suntain, Conrad Romayer and Caspar Licht, all three of my legitimate sons-in-law, Hans Suntain Swordsmith,7 Paulin8 Kerler and Jacob Wurm, all burghers here in Ravensburg. If it should happen that I become forgetful in this and not uphold everything that is written here in this document by me or that they are ever otherwise cited or set upon by anyone else on account of this imprisonment, with the aforementioned my lords of Ravensburg and theirs ever undergoing expenses or injuries for this, however and in whatever manner or form this should happen, all such injury I and my heirs, as well as the aforementioned guarantors and sureties and all their heirs, shall, uncompelled, make good and restore, or they, theirs, and their assistants may in every way set upon, coerce, burden and harass me, as well as the guarantors and sureties and all our heirs and goods movable and immovable, jointly or separately, that they wish, in a spiritual or secular court or without a court, so long as these are always performed in accordance with the text of this document and are done irreproachably, without any cost or injury to them whatsoever. In addition, after such behavior on my part, I shall thereafter be considered and be a perjured, dishonorable, 5  Hypochoristic form of the name “Sebastian.” 6  Hypochoristic form of the name “Matthew” (“Matthäus” in German, with many variants like “Mattias”). 7  In the early modern period, people frequently had an “additional” last name in the form of their profession. 8  German form of the Roman name Paulinus, probably deriving from the late-antique St. Paulinus of Trier (rather than his contemporary, St. Paulinus of Nola).

TEXTS: Document 2

97

convicted woman, and at that point these, my lords of Ravensburg and anyone on their behalf, may pass judgment on me or have it passed concerning my body and life as if on one whose body and life were forfeited and dispossessed by lawful condemnation, and thereafter I and the aforementioned guarantors and sureties withdraw and remove ourselves and all our heirs and goods from all courts, rights and everything that might ever be or be cited in contradiction to this, so that everything or anything else at all neither shall nor may protect or defend us in any way or manner. We, the aforewritten guarantors and sureties, by name Hans Frauendienst, Bastian, Dias and Hans Frauendienst, all three siblings, Heinrich Suntain, Conrad Ronmayer,9 Caspar Licht, Hans Suntain Smith,10 Paulin Kerler and Jacob Wurm, declare and obligate all of us, our heirs and goods, entirely inseparably behind one another, to this aforementioned matter, bond, guarantee and surety forever in accordance with the text of this document, as everyone promises, vows and pledges, also in addition by our good word in the way of an oath, for ourselves and our heirs, to live faithfully by it and to adhere to it and to give satisfaction to it to the best of our the abilities of each of us, without deceit. As a true and permanent record of all this, we, the aforementioned Els Frauendienst, Hans Frauendienst Senior, her legitimate husband, Bastian Frauendienst, Dyas and Hans Frauendienst, all three Frauendiensts, her legitimate sons, Heinrich Suntain, Conrad Romayer and Caspar Licht, her sons-in-law, Hans Suntain, Paul Kerler and Jacob Wurm, have all with earnest intent asked and beseeched the pious, steadfast and honorable councilors, Lord Friedrich Humpis of Pfaffenweiler and Ulrich Wochen, sub-landvogt,11 that on behalf of us and of our heirs as well as their heirs and heirs’ heirs, they both publicly append their seals, always without injury, to this document.12 This was issued on the Saturday before the Day of Sts. Simon and Jude the Two Apostles,13 a.d. 1484.

9   This name is spelled here twice without the “n”. Perhaps here “mm” was spelled sloppily? 10  Here “Smith” is used to reflect the fact that the word “swordsmith” used above appears in abbreviated form. 11  “Landvogt” is the title for the administrator of a geographical district. 12  After more than five hundred years, the seals are still duly appended to the document. 13  The joint feast day for these two saints falls on October 28. In 1484, this date was a Thursday, so the preceding Saturday was October 23.

Document 3

Instruction from Bishop Georg of Brixen to His Ecclesiastical Subordinates, July 23, 1485 The bishop instructs all priests in his diocese to cooperate with Institoris in accordance with his papal appointment as inquisitor. Specifically, Institoris himself or anyone delegated by him is to be allowed to preach to or to instruct the congregation in connection with the inquisition. Latin text. Directly preceding this document is a copy of the bull Summis desiderantes, which was clearly meant to serve as validation for the letter, which cites the bull. Since the transcription of the bull in the archives is based on the same copy (Institoris’s) on which the transcription printed in the Malleus (1A*–2B*) was based and the text here does not differ from the printed text, there is no need to repeat the text.

…

Georgius, by the grace of God bishop of Brixen, bids salvation in the Lord to each and every abbot, provost, prior, dean, vice-dean, and rector of a parish church, or to their placeholders and perpetual vicars, and to the other priests (curates and non-curates) located anywhere in my city and diocese.1 We have received with the reverence that was appropriate a letter of the most holy father in Christ and our lord, Lord Innocent VIII, by divine providence pope, sealed with his true lead bull hanging from silk threads of red and grey

1  Terms for the convoluted hierarchy of local ecclesiastical establishments. Abbots and priors headed monasteries or convents. Deans and provosts were senior officials in any collegiate or chapter churches (including the cathedral). Rectors were the priests who held the income of a parish, and vicars were those who actually carried out the ecclesiastical functions there in their stead (especially if the income of the parish belonged to a monastery). Curates were those priests who were in charge of a parish (many monks became priests without holding a cure (ecclesiastic appointment), that is, a church with its congregation for which the priest was responsible). In effect, the letter is addressed to anyone who had taken on the sacrament of the priesthood, whether in charge of a particular church or not.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_008

TEXTS: Document 3

99

color, complete, intact, and undamaged, and completely lacking any fault or suspicion. This was presented to us on the part of the venerable and religious man in Christ, beloved Heinricus Institoris of the Order of Preachers, professor of sacred theology and inquisitor of heretical depravity, the principal principally named in this apostolic letter, which has the text “Innocencius episcopus seruus seruorum dei, ad futuram rei memoriam. Summis desiderantes affectibus, prout pastoralis sollicitudinis cura requirit vt fides catholica …” ending with “datum Rome apud Sanctum Petrum, anno incarnacionis dominice Mo cccco octuagesimo quarto, pontificatus nostri anno primo.”2 After the presentation of this apostolic letter to us and its receipt by us, it was requested of us with due insistence on the part of this Brother Heinricus Institoris that we deign to admit into our city and diocese this apostolic letter and Brother Heinricus as well as any who have been or will be substituted (delegated) by him for the execution of that letter. Hence, in our desire to humbly and devoutly obey this request, or rather this apostolic order, we have admitted, and by the text of this letter admit, Brother Heinricus and others substituted by him to everyone located in our city and diocese for the purpose of carrying out the office of this inquisition according to the content and text of the apostolic letter. Therefore, strictly enjoining each and every one of the aforementioned under the penalties and censures contained in the bull, we order that when the aforementioned Brother Heinricus or those who have been or will be substituted by him have come to you or to another of you in order to preach the word of God in furtherance of the office of the inquisition or to instruct the congregation about this so that they will not follow such errors or the illusions caused by demons, you will admit them with goodwill and receive and treat them with reverence.3 Accordingly, trusting in the mercy of Omnipotent God and the authority of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, we grant with mercy in the Lord to those who are truly repentant and have truly confessed who will give aid, favor and any assistance to this inquisition out of

2  The point of quoting the opening and closing sections of the document is allow it to be identified in future if some question should arise as to the exact document (two different documents could begin or end with the same text, but coincidental identity of the two sections in two different documents was virtually impossible). 3  Summis desiderantes specifically authorizes Institoris (and Sprenger) to preach whenever and as often as they thought appropriate on the topic of witchcraft (MM 2A*–2B*).

100

TEXTS: Document 3

zeal for the Faith, to each and everyone one of them, forty days of indulgences regarding penances enjoined upon them.4 Issued at Brixen under the seal of our vicariate, on July 23, a.d. 1485. 4  An indulgence of forty days (that is, a remission of forty days from one’s future purification in purgatory before being admitted to heaven) was a standard reward for those giving general assistance to the inquisition (this figure recurs frequently in Eymeric’s Directorium Inquisitorum, for which see doc. 10 n. 124), the handbook on inquisitorial practice that Institoris used as the main basis for composing Malleus Book 3). The point of the specification of those who “are truly repentant and have truly confessed” is to refute that accusation that people who gained indulgences were in effect purchasing their way out of punishment for their crimes. According to the theory of indulgences, the Church was merely assisting those who really were sorry in getting their punishment in the afterlife reduced.

Document 4

Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to Institoris, September 21, 1485 The bishop delegates to the inquisitor his own role in the proceedings, enjoining Institoris to reveal the names of the accusers to the accused and to avail himself of the advice of advisers appointed by Archduke Sigismund, as the bishop suggests to the archduke (doc. 5). Latin text.

…

To the inquisitor of heretical depravity Respectable and Venerable Father, many greetings. Your Paternity1 should know that I have received your letter through the herald of the most illustrious lord, Archduke Sigismundus of Austria, as well as the writings that your Paternity presented to his Most Illustrious Lordship.2 We particularly commend your Paternity’s solicitude, which studiously engaged in masterly fashion with individual passages of Old and New Law3 relating to the matter of the inquisition. It would certainly be most pleasing for us if we had been able both to assist and to collaborate with your Paternity in this work personally, as we had intended to come soon to the town of Innsbruck for these and other reasons. Ill health in body has taken such hold of us, however, that it was only with the greatest pain on account of sufferings in the joints that we were able to read so many writings. So that the undertaken work will not be impeded by our absence and in order to satisfy the constitution4 of Clement V issued in 1  I.e., Institoris. The term signifies the “position of being a father” (i.e., a priest), and is simply a formal way of addressing a priest (like a religious version of terms like “your Serenity” and “your Lordship”). 2  Neither Institoris’s earlier letter to the bishop nor the writings that Institoris presented to the archduke are preserved. 3  The thrust of this distinction is not entirely clear. The most obvious pair would be Old and New Testaments, but while a number of passages from the former are cited by Institoris as authorizing the persecution of witches, there are no relevant passages from the latter. In the introductory section of the Memorandum (doc. 16/1), he cites passages from the Old Testament and from the Roman Code of Justinian (still considered valid in the fifteenth century), and presumably this is what is meant here by the two kinds of law. 4  I.e., the sort of papal enactment generally termed in English a “decretal.”

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_009

102

TEXTS: Document 4

the Council of Vienne,5 by the text of this letter, we make, in the presence of the notary and witnesses listed below, a plenary grant to your Paternity of our powers of conducting proceedings and passing sentence, provided that there is no deviation from the constitution of Boniface (Chap. “Statuta” § “Cessante,” in “Heretics,” Liber Sextus),6 as your Paternity in your wisdom will be well able to provide for. It would, nonetheless, be a good idea for your Paternity to call in7 some of the learned councilors of our most illustrious and most powerful prince or to ask that advice be given by them.8 We are writing9 to said most illustrious prince that by the favor10 of the Orthodox Faith and in obedience to the Apostolic See, he should, when requested through invocation by your Paternity, deign to assist and give aid to your Paternity and to lead you along, so that grave sins of this kind may be avoided and corrected,11 that in accordance with holy sanctions issued regarding secular powers,12 he should satisfy invocations made by you in your capacity as inquisitor of heretical depravity and acquiesce in your actions, and that he should enjoin that this should likewise be done by the other subjects of his Serenity. Finally, we are commending your Most Worthy Paternity to his Serenity. We properly declare that while

5  The relevant decretal is Multorum querela, which orders the cooperation of the inquisitor and the local bishop in carrying out an inquisition and allows one to delegate his role to the other, which is what Georg is doing here. 6  The passage cited mandates that the names of the accusers be revealed to the accused if there is no risk to the former of intimidation or retribution from the latter (Institoris discusses at length the question of whether or not to reveal the names in MM 204B–205B). It is interesting that at this early stage in the investigation, the bishop already chooses to be insistent about revealing the names. Institoris had been engaged in gathering depositions for several weeks at this point, and the accompanying doc. 5 makes it clear that the bishop was already aware (through the now lost letter mentioned at the start of this letter?) of some of the more sensational findings; perhaps he was already disturbed by the procedures used by Institoris. 7  The verb adhibere is a technical term for bringing in advisors to sit in on one’s council. 8  In the proceedings in late October, Paul Wann both speaks up on behalf of the archduke and overtly notes his appointment by the archduke as a participant (doc. 11/7). Presumably, Institoris complied with the bishop’s suggestion and the archduke appointed Wann as the result of a request by Institoris. 9  In doc. 5, delivered by the same courier. 10  One would expect “in favor of.” 11  Note in particular the terminology “avoid and correct” (euitentur ac emendentur). These are words for dealing with objectionable but not particularly harmful behavior, and this is certainly not the way to speak of a satanic conspiracy to inflict the most heinous forms of injury imaginable. Clearly, the differences in the bishop’s and Institoris’s interpretation of witchcraft are apparent at an early stage in the investigation. 12  See doc. 5, no. 4.

103

TEXTS: Document 4

proceedings of this kind have almost fallen into disuse,13 nonetheless, it is in accordance with the true standard of the law that the proceeding ought to be conducted in the manner stated before. Farewell, your Paternity. Issued at Brixen on the Day of St. Matthew the Apostle,14 a.d. ’85. Notary: Lord15 Erasmus Pugfinger16 Witnesses: Leonard Ruttensteiner, parish priest in Prutz Johannes of Rust and17

13  Presumably, he means inquisitions regarding heresy rather than witchcraft; cf. his similar statement in his letter to Sigmundis Sämer (doc. 7). 14  Sept. 21. 15  Merely a title of respect for someone who holds a university degree. 16  This section is omitted from Institoris’s copy of the letter (i.e., it is preserved only in the copy of the letter retained in the bishop’s own records). It is hard to see why the notary of a personal letter should be recorded, not to mention why it should have witnesses. Could it be that this information was meant for some other document and was accidentally added here? 17  The name of the third witness was inadvertently omitted.

Document 5

Letter from Bishop Georg of Brixen to Archduke Sigismund, September 21, 1485 The bishop informs the archduke of the arrival of Institoris, of the acceptable nature of the proceedings so far, and of the archduke’s obligation to support the inquisitor. He suggests that while major crimes should be dealt with severely, it would be preferable to deal more leniently with lesser offenses as a form of correction, urging the archduke to press the inquisitor to adopt this policy but noting his obligation to go along if the inquisitor is unwilling. German text.

…

[1] To my Gracious Lord of Austria to give information regarding the inquisition of heretical depravity Illustrious, High-born Prince! Gracious Lord, as your Princely Grace sent us a directive which the worthy doctor of sacred scripture, the inquisitor, delivered,1 and your Grace requests counsel in this matter, Serene Lord, the matter pertains to our position as bishop. When an inquisitor comes at the behest of the Holy See in Rome, we are obliged to deal with this situation together with the inquisitor and to let him exercise our authority in this.2 Since the matter of witchcraft and witches violates the honor of God, we advise that in order to assist the Christian Faith 1  This letter is not preserved. Seemingly, the German verb antworten is used here to mean “deliver, turn over” (=überantworten) instead of the more common meaning “answer.” Since the previous letter (of the same day) indicates that Institoris’s letter had reached the bishop through the archduke’s herald, Institoris could not have “delivered” the letter from the archduke himself. As the archduke’s request for counsel pertains to the present course of events, the letter must be a new one, and presumably the bishop is speaking vaguely in reference to a letter that Institoris delivered indirectly by dispatching it with his own via the herald. Perhaps what happened is that the archduke first sent the directive to Institoris via his messenger, and then Institoris passed it along with his own letter via the same messenger. 2  This cooperation is mandated by the decretal Multorum querela, as the bishop notes in doc. 3.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_010

TEXTS: Document 5

105

and in obedience to our holy father the pope, and especially in accordance with the penal constitution3 in several passages of common papal written law issued forcefully to secular lords and authorities without distinction,4 your Grace should offer the inquisitor assistance, help and support, so that such evils and sins will be punished. We also inform your Grace that his procedure and undertaking are established and handled in a completely prudent and orderly manner in accordance with the written law, and that we are also sharing our power with him, having sent it to him through a document with this messenger. The aforementioned doctor always has to proceed according to the proper form in such matters, and for this reason, it is all the more proper not to leave him alone in this but to support him. However, Gracious Lord, as in many matters grace is ordained when the persons who transgress are in appreciable numbers, your Grace might be granted your request by the consent of this inquisitor, or perhaps it will seem to him to be a good idea, that the weightier matters, such as dishonoring and abusing God with lashes or nailing images,5 as well as situations in which people are endangered in their lives and the like, would be severely dealt with and punished in judgment, and other matters that arise would be punished in judgment with penalties and penances, and the lesser ones, in which one person leads another astray, with penances, and a strict directive would be issued that henceforth no one should undertake to engage in such witchcraft, and those, on the other hand, who would violate this would be strictly punished as the laws provide. It could be inquired of the inquisitor whether he would allow or had the power to proceed on the basis of mercy in case by means of mercy, [2] the error could be eradicated with that much more propriety, and the people would undergo and perform atonement and penance, as your Grace could better assess in conjunction with the doctor than we can write. If, however, he would not wish to grant this or did not have the power for it and calls upon your Princely Grace for protection and help, then your Grace should not deny

3  I.e., decision. The Latin term used is also the same as the one for the decretal itself in which the decision is made (see doc. 4, n. 4). 4  In NH 23r, Institoris cites Ad abolendam and both chapters Excommunicamus to prove the obligation of temporal powers to yield to ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matters of heresy, but he emphasizes Ut inquisitionis § Prohibemus, which is probably what the bishop has in mind here. 5  The bishop was clearly already aware of the accusations made against Ennel Notterin (see doc. 8 under testimony D). “Image” is the technical term for religious depictions, in this case the crucifixion is meant (as the relevant accusation makes clear).

106

TEXTS: Document 5

him this, so that the great sins and un-Christian works will be punished, to the glory and honor of God. With that, we entrust ourselves and our house of God to your Grace. Issued at Brixen on the Day of St. Matthew the Apostle,6 ’85. Georg, by the grace of God Bishop of Brixen

6  Sept. 21.

Document 6

Letter from Archduke Sigismund of Austria to Bishop Georg of Brixen, October 8, 1485 In accordance with the suggestion made to Institoris by the bishop in doc. 5, the archduke asks the bishop to assign his commissary or another learned man to assist the inquisitor. German text.

…

[1] To our honorable dear friend and chancellor Lord Georg, Bishop of Brixen [2] Honorable dear friend! So when the inquisitor arrived among them for that purpose,1 he had seven women taken into prison here, and so that he may all the more properly and correctly proceed in this matter according to the legal order, we earnestly ask you with zeal that you send your commissary2 or some other learned and virtuous man for this purpose, or first command someone learned to counsel and assist him in the matters.3 You will do us a great favor in this. Issued at Innsbruck on the Friday before St. Dennis’s day,4 a.d. ‘85. Sigismund, by the grace of God Archduke of Austria

1  Presumably, Institoris already had it in mind before he arrived to arrest the witches he expected to find. 2  For the position of commissary, see n. 665. 3  The sense of the last alternative is not entirely clear. Does the duke foresee someone giving legal advice before the proceedings (as opposed to actual participation in the proceedings, as in the first alternative)? 4  October 8.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_011

Document 7

Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to Sigismund Sämer, Parish Priest of Axams, Undated The bishop asks in accordance with a request made by the archduke in doc. 6 that Sämer take part in the proceedings of the inquisition. The request must have been dispatched promptly after the arrival of the archduke’s letter of October 8, as Sämer is already attested as a witness to testimony given against Helena Scheuberin on October 15. In Latin.

…

[1] To Sigismundus Sämer1 parish priest in Axams2 With regards to heretical depravity [2] Venerable Lord Licentiate!3 The most illustrious lord, our prince, has written to me that I should send some learned man or delegate someone from outside to assist the inquisitor of heretical depravity,4 and since it was not possible to send someone conveniently, 1  This man’s name is spelled in several different ways. Here and in doc. 11/1 (assuming that the man mentioned in that document is the same) the name appears without any diacritical mark (Samer). In doc. 11/2, it appears with an umlaut as Sämer, and in 11/5, the umlauted vowel is marked with a circle that somewhat resembles a superscript “u”: Såmer. Perhaps it was on the basis of this form that Ammann (1890) uniformly refers to the man as Saumer (both Sämer and Saumer are attested as German family names), but that form is clearly wrong. 2  A small town to the southwest of Innsbruck. 3  A licentiate is someone who has fulfilled all the academic requirements for a university degree but has chosen not to pay the high fees required in order to be awarded the degree (a common practice). 4  I.e., the request made in doc. 6.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_012

TEXTS: Document 7

109

I have delegated your esteemed self. I therefore ask that you take part so that he can not lament that he could not get a learned man. I would have happily delegated Lord Licentiate Fuchsmagen,5 but I was afraid that he was busy with other matters. I have urged the lord inquisitor to the effect that since it is unusual in these lands to conduct an inquisition in this way, he should act in accordance with his sheet (summons) that he pinned up, and both piously receive those who abjure heresies and errors and bestow absolution. Please be so good as to inform, as conveniently as you can, any women who may be culpable to return to the embrace of Holy Mother Church in the manner stated before. There is no more convenient way to put this affair to rest without danger, since an inquisition of the law is so unusual in these mountains. I think that in this way, sins of this kind will cease, and fear of the inquisition will deter these and other persons, so that they will come back to their senses.6 Let us pray to and beseech the Highest God to arrange this affair for the salvation of souls and make any grave sins of this kind that may have been committed cease.7 I could not do anything other than adhere to the written law and take part etc. as far as I can on account of the loyalty I owe to the Apostolic See, but the lord inquisitor can grant grace in person according to the content of the law.8 Farewell, and let us pray for each other that we be saved. Your very close friend, G E9 (by a known hand10 and in a hurry)

5  Presumably, John Fuchsmagen of Hall (ca. 1450–1510), who was the most celebrated Tyrolian scholar and humanist of the period. A jurist and antiquarian, he acted as an advisor to Archduke Sigismund and would go on to serve as a diplomat for the Holy Roman Emperors Frederick III and Maximilian. 6  “Come back to their senses” (resipiscant) is the technical term for when a Catholic has deviated from behavior or doctrine deemed acceptable by the Church and has returned (generally through the admonition or compulsion of the authorities) to orthodox practice. 7  Note how the bishop’s phraseology makes it sound as if the very existence of the sorts of misdeeds being investigated by Institoris is a dubious proposition. 8  Note how the text suggests that it was only Institoris’s papal appointment that made the bishop go along with a course of action that he finds disagreeable. The bishop still hopes that Inquisitor will act mildly in meting out punishment, an eventuality that he had good reason to view as unlikely at this point. 9  I.e., Georgius episcopus (“bishop Georg”). 10  I.e., the handwriting should be known to the recipient (presumably, the bishop’s own; he notes in the signature to doc. 13 that he wrote it himself).

110

TEXTS: Document 7

We are delegating to the lord suffragan and commissary11 the task of completing the visitation of the diocese so that we can celebrate the synod.12 The other lords13 are engaged in the vintage and the provisioning for the upcoming year, so all the learned men are busy with their own affairs, nor is it14 necessary for the lord inquisitor, who seems to be and is a very learned man and one expert in these affairs.

11  For the meaning of commissary, see doc. 11 n. 3. 12  It is not clear why these final sentences were added after the signature. 13  I.e., senior ecclesiastics. 14  The assistance of the ecclesiastics.

Document 8

Vernacular Protocol This document was drawn up after the collapse of the cases against the seven suspects on October 31. Institoris expected Bishop Georg to continue the investigations nonetheless, and here he provides the bishop with a summary of depositions involving suspects apart from the seven who were proceeded against. This document falls into three distinct sections: 1) depositions pertaining to suspects resident in Innsbruck, 2) a much more succinct summary of depositions pertaining to suspects in outlying towns, 3) a list of the names of the witnesses keyed to the summaries by means of letters. The first section is mostly in German apart from the sentence at the end of each summary which indicates in Latin the relevant letter in the list of witnesses. However, the last few summaries shift for no readily apparent reason to Latin, and the second section on suspects outside of Innsbruck continues entirely in Latin. Though the present document was drawn up after the events of October 31–November 3 (doc. 11), it is nonetheless placed here because the content refers to the substance of Institoris’s investigations at the earlier stage of his involvement. The text as we have it reveals several layers of redaction. The original depositions must have been drawn up by the names of the deponent in chronological order, but for cases A–HH, they have been rearranged by the names of the accused, with several depositions at times being listed for each. The names of the witnesses were then removed from the depositions and listed separately at the end, with a system of cross referencing by letter matching the case and the relevant list. The procedure of separating the names from the deposition was part of a procedure to allow the accused to see the accusations without revealing the names (see MM 208B–C), and the bishop had insisted on such a procedure (see doc. 4). Presumably, Institoris never actually used this procedure before, as it is misapplied here. The individual depositions and the deponents for a given case are to be listed by letter, not the individual cases and the totality of the evidence. In any event, the note after the list of the witnesses for case Y was apparently drawn up by Institoris after the depositions were complete as an indication of who should be arrested, and the interlinear notes indicating which accused had been arrested were made in October before the trials. Yet, the discussion of Zimmermannin in case JJ clearly speaks of her return after the release in early November of the eight women who were arrested the previous month. We can also be sure that the document does not contain a complete register of all the people who came to give information about witches to the inquisitor. There is

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_013

112

TEXTS: Document 8

no testimony about the seven women that Institoris decided to prosecute. This is because he gave a full indication of their testimony when they were called back to be questioned in more detail on these cases (doc. 9). Accordingly, Institoris omitted the original testimony about them, which must have been interspersed among the surviving depositions here. The second omission is conjectural. Presumably, people must have come to Institoris whose testimony he rejected. No doubt, some witnesses would have seemed personally unreliable (for instance, because of mental instability or some other personal trait that Institoris thought rendered the witness incapable of making a valid accusation). Others may well have lodged complaints that Institoris either thought implausible or may even have judged not to be “magical” at all. At any rate, it strains credibility to imagine that every single witness gave testimony that Institoris considered reasonable and listed in his summary here. Surely, these are the valid cases that remained after the testimony about the seven main suspects was removed. In effect, these are the remaining cases that Institoris thought the bishop would want to pursue after the main ones were dealt with.

…

[1] Act of the inquisition of heretical depravity [2] Against Saitenmacherin at Anbrugg.1 She threatened a man who has2 her daughter that she would bring it about that in a year he would have to be hanged or go blind.3 He took heavy suspicion4 and knowledge from his housewife, who at that time saw that she rolled up a hair that had come from the complainant’s head and that she took it from him as if she was going to louse him, and she tied it to a small piece of wood and stuck it in the wall

1  “Die Anbruck” (as Institoris calls it; the modern designation takes the form “Anbrugg”) is the region by the bridge over the Inn (like an area called “Bybridge” in English). Presumably, her husband was known as “Saitenmacher an der Anbruck” (like “Wolfgang im Spital” below as a witness to Testimony C and “Jörg Buchsenmeister über der Brücke”; see doc. 10, n.68). 2  I.e., as his wife. 3  Saitenmacherin’s son-in-law would return nearly three weeks later to lodge accusations against an associate of his mother-in-law’s (see testimony EE), who he said had an association with her. 4  “Heavy suspicion” is the technical term for the highest form of suspicion (also called “violent”); see MM 3.19 (221A–224D).

TEXTS: Document 8

113

in the kitchen. Her daughter (the complainant’s wife) found it and threw it into the fire. Item. She also said to the daughter, “If your husband does not come back today, then in three days he’ll have to go blind.” It is to be noted that the complainant had gone to a market called Eckenfeld5 in Bavaria to which the husband of the evil woman had sent him so that he was to take care of the enmity since he had had to leave the market,6 and was to burn down the market, and when he would not do this, the mother-in-law became his enemy, and they wished to do him harm. Item. She has not been to church in more than a year, and yet she is able to go to the bathhouse.7 Item. When her husband is away for a long time, she sticks her head out the window and names nine streets through the land, and brings it about with the devils that her husband has to come. The names of the witnesses are contained on the list of witnesses under letter A.8 Item. Zu Schretterin9 is strongly denounced, by at least three persons under oath, and there is also a general reputation that she bewitched a maiden named Apollonia, who was married to Jergen Kuchschreiber, so that she had to die. For she said to her in the presence of Guntherin, who heard it, “You little whore, you’ve taken my lad from me. Things shall never go well

5  Modern Eggenfelden. A small town halfway between Landshut and Passau, it had a fairly prosperous market at this time. 6  Presumably, the father-in-law had been forced out of the market and the son-in-law was supposed to exact vengeance. 7  Bathhouses generally had a bad reputation for unsavory activities (like prostitution), though perhaps all that is meant here is self-indulgence. According to article twenty-one of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), adult Catholics were required to make confession at least once a year and to take communion at least on Easter. The point here is that she has time for a (questionable) frivolity but does not fulfill her minimal religious obligation to attend church. 8  Sentence in Latin. 9  Her husband’s name was Zu Schretter. She is also mentioned in the proceedings against Röslin (doc. 9/7), and her maid is mentioned in Case O.

114

TEXTS: Document 8

for you!” Apollonia also gathered in her final moment that she had inflicted death on her.10 The names of the witnesses are contained on the list of witnesses under the letter B.11 Old Rendlin is denounced, first, as to how she first wished to bewitch Christian Engelsberger, and then to poison him and bewitch him in the body.12 When he would not13 love her and she thought he held someone dearer than her, she made an attempt on him twice, one time with minnows that she had killed in her shame14 and ground into paste with other material to poison him with,15 which she herself had to admit to the fellow, and then with a powder in which a number of bones were placed. This she gave to a person named Steinel (now residing in Meran16) enclosed in a letter, and she was to throw the powder between the fellow and the wench Magdalena (lawful wife of Wolfgang), and when Steinel asked what would happen to them, she said that they would certainly find out. But Steinel did not want to do that and she revealed this to Magdalena and Christian and also to her husband17 Welfil Vasser. Item. She is supposed to have helped a woman named Engelspengler’s daughter in the Silver Lane18 to kill a child. 10  Institoris set great store by deathbed accusations: see MM 133C and the accusation of Hüfeysen by Jörg Spiess (doc. 10/10). 11  Sentence in Latin. 12  Since antiquity, poisoning and witchcraft were frequently conflated, since the use of “drugs” was often accompanied by magical chants. Indeed, the Latin word for poisoner (venefica) was a synonym for “witch.” 13  There is no negation in this sentence, but the sense seems to demand it. 14  I.e., vagina. For a similar placement of items there in connection with witchcraft aimed at securing a man’s love, see Testimony AA. 15  For the use of paste/dust from dead animals/babies in witchcraft, see MM 113D, 114C–D, 214D and the articles against Hüfeysen (doc. 10/4). For the use of bones in similar contexts, see MM 96D; 134D, 135D (both referring to events in Innsbruck); and 143D–144A (referring to the Ravensburg inquisition). Whereas the first use of witchcraft seems to be aimed at (re)gaining the man’s affections, the instance here is a form of vengeance, presumably after the supposed witch gave up hope of winning the man’s affections. 16  About 40 km to the west southwest of Brixen, Meran (Italian Merano) is another Germanspeaking town (like Brixen) of the south Tyrol that was unjustly awarded to Italy by the Treaty of St. Germain that was imposed on Austria after the First World War. 17  The German Wirt is ambiguous (it could mean “husband,” “head of household” like Latin paterfamilias, or “landlord” or “innkeeper”). Since Wirtin was used just before to mean “wife” (in reference to Magdalena), “spouse” seems the most likely sense here. 18  German Silber Gasse, where the deponent Treinlie is said to have lived; for more on this street, see n. 131.

TEXTS: Document 8

115

Item. Someone lives with her named Dorothea, who also has a very bad reputation. Item. She has a great retinue of young wenches whom she is teaching.19 Item. She goes around20 a lot with black cats and dogs, which give an evil indication.21 The names of the witnesses are contained on the list of witnesses under the letter C.22 Ennel23 Notterin, a baptized Jewess, and Ennel the wife of Heinz Satelsknecht, and a woman who was called Apollonia who is dead (the others are still alive) whipped a martyr image24 of Jesus with switches one evening five years ago, and in the process said many blasphemous words against God.25 Apollonia told this to the witnesses listed on the list of witnesses. Item. Bärbel26 (Caspar Schmidin27), in whose house this happened, says that Ennlie whipped the image, but this baptized Jewess, she also said wickedly of Our Dear Lady, “May you have pain in your mind just as Mary had in her slot28 when she bore Jesus.”29 19  For other accusations of “instructing” young women in witchcraft, see Cases Z and AA here and the accusations against Hüfeysen (docs. 9/5 and 10/4) and Pflieglin (doc. 10/7). 20  This verb can be used in a purely figurative sense (“deals with”). 21  It is interesting that the presence of black animals is said to furnish evidence against the accused. “Familiars” do not elsewhere play an important part in Institoris’s conception of the practices of witches. 22  Sentence in Latin. 23  This name is properly a diminutive of “Anna” (“Ännel” in modern German, with the diminutive ending “-el” both displacing the final vowel of the original form and causing umlauting in the initial vowel). The name appears to be in free variation with “Ennli.” Perhaps the explanation is that the new form was sufficiently far removed from the original that its origin was unclear and the feminine ending “-ie” was added to make the name sound more suitable for a female. 24  I.e., a depiction of the crucifixion. 25  This offense is alluded to in MM 136C. 26  Bärbel is a diminutive of Barbara. 27  I.e., her husband was named Caspar Schmid (=modern Schmidt). 28  A term for “vagina.” 29  This offense is alluded to in MM 136C. Seemingly, the point here is to inflict pain on an unnamed third woman through sympathetic magic. That is, this woman was to suffer in the same way that Mary did when giving birth to Jesus. It would appear, however, that the additional words specifying the time when Mary gave birth are someone’s elaboration. At

116

TEXTS: Document 8

The names of the witnesses on the list of witnesses under letter D.30 Elsa Böhmennin.31 She is supposed to have bewitched her32 sister Elsa, who was the wife of Schuster, twice, once so that she became lame, the second time so that she died. The reason was that Böhmennin’s husband had her sister in his house, and she heard that he held the other woman dearer than her. When she told him to get her out of the house, he would not do it. In this way, the suffering continued for her. The names of the witnesses are contained in the list of witnesses under the letter E.33 A wife called Kleiberin in Hettingen34 is supposed to have killed her own son because he took a wife against her35 will, so that she herself said that if she fasted for three Sundays, he could not survive the year, which in fact happened. She also bewitched a poor man, so that he [3] had great suffering in one foot.36 The names of the witnesses on the list of witnesses under the letter F.37 Steurerin has an evil reputation as a witch, and she also one time threatened Matthias Ehinger, “Trust me, I’ll pay you back. I certainly know the craft.” In this way, some wax that was wondrously shaped on the inside was thrown into his house, and some man who lives at Steurerin’s place brought it. In this way it has been five years that the married couple have been living together as a couple.38

any rate, the preceding words constitute a rhyme (dir werd also we in deinem sin / als der Marien wart in irer krin) and so it seems that the jingle ends at krin. 30  Sentence in Latin. 31  I.e., the wife of someone name Böhmen. 32  The pronoun refers to the deponent, Margreta Tullingerin. Apparently, for unknown reasons, Margreta’s half-sister Elsa was living in Böhmen’s house, where she incurred the jealousy of his wife Elsa. 33  Sentence in Latin. 34  Hettingen = modern Hatting, a village 18 km west of Innsbruck. Presumably, the husband’s name was Kleiber in Hettingen. 35  I.e., Kleiberin’s. 36  This refers to the deponent. “Poor” refers to his affliction rather than to his social status. 37  Sentence in Latin. 38  In what way? If Institoris means “bewitched,” it is odd that there are no details.

TEXTS: Document 8

117

The names of the witnesses on the list of witnesses under letter G.39 Gerd Koller’s daughter bewitched Martin Graff so that he could show no mercy to his wife,40 and also bewitched him so that in twelve weeks he could get no sleep. He got certainty about this, first because one time he was going to force her to help him and she said it was not yet time.41 Item. She’d been his mistress and thought that he would take her as his wife, and when he took someone else, she said, “I will leave you a parting gift that you will certainly come to know.”42 Item. His wife Greta43 found in her bed a spindle with three sorts of things wrapped around it: string and woolen thread with human hair. Item. Woven onto a string that he has had on his coat for two years he found human hair and hair from the woman’s part44 during this week when I preached.45 She had woven this for him, since she borrowed the string one time from him, and later gave it back to him. The names of the witnesses on the list under letter H.46 Cunz47 Zimmerman’s wife named Anna bewitched the wife of someone named Hans48 Rhein, so that she’s had great jabbings in her neck, in her back, and in 39  Sentence in Latin. 40  For another instance of a husband “showing his wife no mercy” as a sign of bewitchment, see Case FF. 41  I.e., it was not yet time for the witchcraft to stop? 42  A running motif in Institoris’s thought is the idea that jilted girlfriends bewitch their lovers and/or his new wife as a form of vengeance (the locus classicus for this idea is MM 94C–95C). 43  Nickname of “Margaret.” 44  “Woman’s part” is an intentionally obscure translation of the German der frauen glid. The noun Glied properly refers to an articulated limb, but among its many extended meanings it signifies the penis. From this, the word was generalized to refer simply to the reproductive organs. The term Frauenglied (literally “woman’s member”) is attested in the meaning “vagina” (see Grimm [1999] s.v. B2d), and pubic hair must be the intended sense here. 45  “I” refers to Institoris. 46  Sentence in Latin. 47  Diminutive of “Conrad.” 48  The name Hans used here sometimes seems to have established itself as a name independent of Johannes, of which it is a diminutive, but the deponent’s given name appears as Johannes in the list of witnesses.

118

TEXTS: Document 8

her side for three years49 now, without stop. The certainty that she did it is that she thought that Hans Rhein would marry her, and when Hans would not do this but took the wife that he now has, she said one time, “Look, you want to take her and not me. You shall know that things will never go well for her with you,” and this is how it happened. Item. Widow Vinstertaleren50 said to someone named Anna Muschin, whose house Hans Rhein lives in, that Anna the wife of Zimmerman inflicted the illness on the woman. The names of the witnesses on the list under letter J.51 Schwingelmentlin bewitched Sigmund Sacklin, the prince’s barber. There was great suspicion because when there was enmity between them one Sunday morning, Schwingelmentlin sent a woman named Mirenbergerin, who is now said to be in St. Michael,52 to his house, and when he found her secretly going around in the house and asked her why she was going around, and she would not admit it to him and he later became lame, he then held her in suspicion. Item. He had two diviners asked (although this is forbidden), and they too told him this, although the Devil can both lie and tell the truth.53 Name of the witness on the list under letter K.54 Rotfelder’s55 maid Trenlin is under suspicion that she takes the milk from cows. When one person from whom the milk was taken was instructed that she should hang a milk jug over the fire, and if she smashed it in the name of 49  Literally, “for the third year,” which could conceivably mean not much more than two years. 50  I.e., the wife of a man named Finstertaler. A Finstertaler also turns up in Testimony X. 51  Sentence in Latin. Since the letters “i” and “j” were considered orthographic variants of a single letter, there is no “i” (the “j” form generally prevailed with capital letters). 52  The modern commune (Gemeinde) of Gnadenwald, about 35 km east of Innsbruck, has a parish church dedicated to St. Michael. Perhaps this parish is meant here. 53  “Diviners” are those who claim to be able to use “supernatural” powers to reveal the truth. Even if they purport to be acting from good motives, Institoris is deeply suspicious of such practitioners, whom he believes to be acting through cooperation with demonic forces, their purpose being to dupe the unwary into believing in their powers and engaging in such practices themselves (see, e.g., MM 93B, NH 53v). The statements about such diviners must be Institoris’s own commentary rather than part of the deponent’s words. 54  Sentence in Latin. 55  A Rotfelderin is cited as a witness in testimony against Röslin (doc. 9/6).

TEXTS: Document 8

119

the Devil, the person would have to come,56 it happened in this way that the person came crying and then came to grief.57 The name of the witness on the list under letter L.58 [4] Anna the wife of Hans Yoya59 is strongly accused of laying bound witchcraft60 under the altar cloths. Item. Has two daughters at her place who are greatly in suspicion. Witnesses on the list under the letter M.61 Schulmeister and wife62 Dorothea engage a lot in returning to people what has been stolen from them.63 They deal with death shrouds, and for this are to be warned to desist. Witness’s name is contained on the list of witnesses under the letter N.64

56  For this procedure, see MM 153B–C. It was Institoris’s discussion of this practice in a sermon that caused Scheuberin to take such violent exception to his methods (see doc. 10/8). In the mainly agrarian society of pre-modern Germany, stealing milk via magic was a widespread (or at least much feared) practice as shown by the extensive entry on the “milk spell” (Milchhexe) in HDA 6.295–352. Interestingly, in col. 338 an undated protocol from Innsbruck is cited as giving precisely the procedure laid out here and in the Malleus without any awareness of the similarity. 57  The German expression sich übel gehaben means “to feel bad,” and is frequently used of women’s lamentation upon receipt of bad news (like the death of a relative). Here the “grief” must mean that the women brought in this way was in some way penalized (for an example of such a practice, see MM 158A–158B). It is only in the list of the deponents’ names that it is stated that the procedure was put into practice and implicated Trenlin. 58  Sentence in Latin. 59  The same name is given for the deponent. Obviously, the name of either the deponent or the accused has been mistakenly replaced by the other one. 60  I.e., an item for witchcraft that had been tied up in some way. In MM 112C–D (see also 113D–114A), the practice of placing items under the altar to make them suitable for witchcraft is mentioned; also see Case P. 61  Sentence in Latin. 62  The words “and wife” are inexplicably in Latin. 63  Using magic to reveal stolen or lost items is a common practice in folk magic, but it receives little attention in the Malleus, as it has no place in the conception of magic as part of the satanic conspiracy (for a reference to such practice, see MM 139B–C). 64  Sentence in Latin.

120

TEXTS: Document 8

There are persons who deal with arts65 to summon the Devil (but they are thought never to confess it66), either for love or for other illness on the part of people. Trenlie, the onetime wife67 of Lenz68 Buchlin,69 said the persons run around a lot in the countryside.70 Also,71 Zu Schretterin72 has a maid called Bärbel who is supposed to know many arts, and how73 she scrapes red from the image of St. Christopher and sometimes from the devil’s picture, to carry out witchcraft with this.74 The names of the witnesses are contained in the list under letter O.75 Against Seutzin in der Vorstadt.76 She lays mandrake under the altar cloths, and if nine masses are said over it, she cannot lose a judgment before the law.77 65  I.e., magical practices (as in “black arts”). 66  See docs. 9/5 and 10/4 (with n. 599) for a similar injunction. The point is that if the practices are mentioned during confession (to a priest), they lose their efficacy. Institoris takes this injunction to be prima facie evidence that those involved are aware of their nefarious nature. 67  The word “wife” is in Latin. The modifier “onetime” presumably means that the husband is now dead, though it is unclear why she should not have been described as “widow.” 68  German “Lenz,” a nickname for “Lawrence” (German “Lorenz”). 69  Of course, the identification of the deponent was supposed to be excised from the summary! In any event, Trenlie also gave a deposition in Case G. 70  Presumably, the implication is that they are up to no good and wish to conceal whatever they are up to. 71  Seemingly, this is the Latin item rendered in German. 72  Also mentioned in Case B. 73  This is presumably dependent upon an understood phrase like “The deponent said …”. 74  The standard medieval imagery of St. Christopher portrays him as a giant carrying a baby (who proves to be Jesus) across a river and holding a staff (it later figures in his miracles). He normally wears a red cloak (or sometimes tunic). In the legend, an arrow shot at the saint to execute him is deflected against the cruel emperor, who loses an eye, and after the saint is beheaded, the emperor applies some of his blood to restore his eye. Perhaps the red was taken from the image in connection with the miraculous powers of his blood. 75  Sentence in Latin. 76  The German term Vorstadt signifies an urban area outside of a city’s walls. To the south of the fortified “old city” (Altstadt) of Innsbruck there arose an outlying settlement whose proximity to the prince’s residence encouraged the construction of homes by the leading aristocratic families (see Dienst [1987] 85). The area corresponds to the present-day Maria-Theresa-Strasse. Presumably, the husband was known as Seutz in der Vorstadt. 77  The use of mandrake (mandragore) for magical purposes dates back at least to antiquity. It is a root that resembles either a phallus or a human torso, and it is used for amatory purposes. Famously, it was believed to shout out a lethal scream upon being extracted from the earth, which led to no end of complications in acquiring it. For the altar cloth, see n. 60.

TEXTS: Document 8

121

Item. She said that she would fast for three Sundays.78 Tollinger79 then said, “If she’s going to fast, she’s fasting for revenge. So this applies to me as soon as to someone else, since she’s no friend to me.” The name of the witness is contained on the list of witnesses under letter P.80 Ennlie Scheurin placed witchcraft under the bed of Hans Lemckel and his wife Ennlie, so that she was dry81 for a half year and died. The suspicion is heavy82 because another woman wished to learn why it was the case that while the woman lay in bed she had pain, and out of bed she had no sickness, and she revealed this witchcraft.83 Name of the witness on the list under letter Q.84 Old Fenden85 instructed someone who is called Richardin and is the housewife of a loader86 that she should go up a gallows and take something from the thief,87 and whoever she touched with it would have to love her. The reason why she learned this was that when Richardin had a daughter, someone had made her pregnant and no longer wished to do her any good. Names of the witnesses on the list under letter R.88

78  Fasting for three Sundays turns up as a magical practice (there for causing death) in the accusations against Röslin (doc. 9/5). 79  Seutzin’s neighbor and one of the deponents in the preceding section. 80  Sentence in Latin. 81  The German dür literally means “dry, dried up” and so “barren, sterile.” This idea is connected with the medieval theory of humors, which held that the healthy body consisted of the four “humors,” which were associated with various qualities, including dryness and wetness. The two biles (“yellow” and “black”=fire and water) were associated with dryness, and blood (=air) and phlegm (=water) with wetness. For further examples of “dryness” as a result of witchcraft, see Testimony DD and Selachin’s threat against Schmidlerin (docs. 9/2 and 10/2). 82  For the sense, see n. 4. 83  Apparently, this other woman became suspicious about the supposed fact that Lemckel was only sick while in bed and discovered whatever was found under the bed. 84  Sentence in Latin. 85  I.e., the wife of a man named Fend. 86  I.e., someone employed to load or unload wagons. Perhaps the man’s name was Aufleger (=German for “loader”). 87  I.e., some thief who had been hanged, with his body left on the gallows as a warning. 88  Sentence in Latin.

122

TEXTS: Document 8

I do not know whether it is to be believed about Old Scharerin that she is supposed to have bewitched the wife of the veterinarian to death.89 He charges that she threatened him when she would not let her in to her daughter in the house.90 She has at her place a woman called old Schwebin, and he also says that she too said that she would have to pay for it in bed. She also laughed a lot when she was carried dead in front of the house. The bearers are supposed to have heard this, but I have not asked them.91 He also said how she is supposed to have spoken to a maiden named Apollonia who is at Jörg Büchsenmeister’s place,92 that she had to die and never get better. The maiden does not say it like this, however, but instead that she might lie there for a half year and would nonetheless93 die.94 Names of the witnesses on the list under the letter S.95 One man lodges the accusation against his own housewife that she has bewitched him for seven years now, so that he is in constant sickness and is not potent towards any woman.96 For she came one time with another woman named Magdalena (she’s a vagrant) when he was asleep in the bedroom, and they woke him up and gave him a piece of gingerbread, which [5] he ate. Then his wife said, “Look how he’s swallowed it up,” and the other one, “It’ll finish him off.” In this way, he became a sick man. 89  Seemingly, this woman is cited in the Latin articles (see n. 154). 90  No reason is indicated for the circumstances under which Scharerin sought and was refused entry to the daughter, but the anecdote in MM 137B–138A suggests that the daughter was about to give birth and Scharerin wished to act as midwife (presumably for evil purposes). It is not clear why the husband should have been threatened if it was his wife who refused Scharerin entry. In any event, Scharerin is mentioned in the material against Hüfeysen as a member of an association of suspected witches (docs. 9/5, 10/4). 91  This statement makes it clear that this entry is more than simply a report of the unnamed veterinarian’s testimony. Rather, Institoris is including with the deposition some specifics from his subsequent investigation, which led him to be doubtful about the deposition. 92  For the name Büchsenmeister, see doc. 9, n. 49. 93  The concessive sense is presumably that even though the illness was not fatal for a long while, it would eventually do her in. 94  Note that this maiden is not listed as a deponent, so the information reported here must derive from a question Institoris subsequently put to her in his attempt to evaluate the deponent’s evidence. In any event, though Institoris does not say so directly, presumably part of the uncertainty of this case is that the woman supposedly threatened with death still seems to be among the living! 95  Sentence in Latin. 96  This would seem to imply that he had tried this, without success. Presumably, it was a sense of guilt that impeded his performance, though perhaps the “knowledge” that he had been bewitched had a psychological effect.

TEXTS: Document 8

123

Item. The wife said to the menial with whom she was carrying on,97 “I’ll finish him off so he cannot act against you or me.” Item. She gave him evil gropings on the head and back at night, at which point great pain followed for him. Witness on the list under the letter T.98 There are also many in the villages of Kematen,99 Amras100 and also at Hall,101 such as Silberstichin, and also Prieglin, who makes cows lame. Item. Deckerin, who has bewitched many men. Item. Pechtin, also Hiefeyserin, of whom the tanner102 can say much. Item. In Hettingen103 there is Welfel Schneiderin.104 She takes milk from the cows.105 Item. Klauberin always threatens, “You’re not going to eat any bushels of my salt.” Item. In Anbruck there is old Knöllin, who blinded a man.106 97  The verb zuhalten is a colloquial way of describing unfavorably the situation in which a man and a woman have sexual relations outside of marriage (Grimm [1999] s.v. 5). Oddly, the Grimm brothers cite a seventeenth-century example that is pretty much a verbatim repetition of the expression used here: “dasz die frau im hause mit dem knechte offtmals zugehalten, und solches offt getrieben.” 98  Sentence in Latin. 99  A village about 10 km due west of Innsbruck (not to be confused with Kemeten on the eastern border of Austria). 100  A village about 5 km southeast of Innsbruck on the river Inn near Ampass (it was incorporated into Innsbruck in 1938). 101  A small town about 10 km to the east of Innsbruck. 102  Or perhaps Gerber (German for “tanner”) is the man’s name (as well as his profession). 103   Present-day Hötting. This village on the north bank of the Inn opposite Innsbruck was incorporated into the latter in 1938. 104  Presumably the wife of Welfel Schneider. 105  For the procedure, see MM 142B–C. 106  This item should not be listed here, as Anbrugg is a section of Innsbruck (see n. 1), and the list of deponents makes it clear that this item is exceptional in that while the other deponents are not listed since they are villagers who do not come to town, the two witnesses for this crime are accessible. In any event, the case is actually discussed at length in Case JJ.

124

TEXTS: Document 8

Item. In Ampass107 there is Andre Fierer who reveals stolen things with arts.108 Item. In Predl109 old Reindlin110 has a very bad reputation. Witnesses on the list under letter V.111 Item. Testimony came against Vinstertalerin112 that she taught a maiden named Veronica the daughter of Siphoufer that on account of a theft she should engage in laying bones in bottles and doing other things, and that under threat of eternal damnation she promised not to tell anyone, and the person was also not supposed to tell anyone.113 Witnesses on the list under letter X.114 Item. There is great suspicion against Wolf’s daughter, the housewife of the miller115 at Hettingen, first that she bewitched Ludwig Koch’s second housewife with padding that she sent her (Ludwig’s first wife was her sister), and as soon as she put on the padding,116 pox appeared on her head and she became very raving and crazy in the head. So, after half a year, when she wanted to have the padding torn apart, she found in it hair, lime, wax and other filth. When that was taken away, her situation got better. Witnesses on the list under the letter Y.117

107  A small town between Innsbruck and Hall. 108  For this practice, see n. 63. 109  A village near Ambras on the River Sill. 110  Presumably, the wife of someone named Reindel. 111  Sentence in Latin. Since the letters “u” and “v” were considered orthographic variants of a single letter, there is no “u” (the “v” form generally prevailed with capital letters). 112  Widow Vinstertalerin is mentioned in Testimony J. 113  Seemingly, Vinstertalerin made the promise and Veronica (the deponent or “person”) was also obliged not to tell anyone. The injunction to keep quiet here must have the same basic motivation as the similar injunction not to mention such practices in confession (see n. 66), but the vaguer prohibition here presumably seemed less damning in Institoris’s eyes. 114  Sentence in Latin. 115  As indicated by the list of witnesses for Testimony Z, the designation “the miller” (des molers) refers to both the man’s profession and his last name, so that his wife may be the Jos Molerin mentioned in the Latin material against Hüfeysen (see n. 154). 116  This sort of padding refers specifically to a ring made of straw or the like that women placed on theirs heads in order to cushion baskets that they would carry on their heads. 117  Sentence in Latin.

TEXTS: Document 8

125

Against Michil Zimmermennin in Anbruck there is a general repute that she is a witch.118 Item. She teaches the young maids to overcome their husbands.119 Witnesses on the list under the letter Z.120 Against Elsa Heiligkrutzin, who is the sacristan’s121 sister. She teaches people122 to bewitch their husbands123 so that they have to take it,124 and that they are to buy a black hen,125 as one waits for it,126 and take the heart out of it alive, lay it in their secret place,127 and give it to the men to eat.128 Witnesses on the list under the letters AA.129

118  She is the wife of Michael Zimmerman, who is is also mentioned at the start of the subsequent section on “foreigners.” See also discussion of her in n. 154. 119  For other instances of “instructing” young women in witchcraft, see Testimony C and the next one. 120  Sentence in Latin. 121  Again, the term “Moeßner” (modern German Messner) could be either an occupation or a last name (or both). A sacristan (or sexton) was the secular person in charge of the physical structure of a local church. 122  I.e., young women (see Testimony C and the previous one). 123  The German could mean “men” in general, but the amatory context (see next note) and the parallel in the list of deponents to Testimony Y suggest that “their husbands” is meant. 124  What the husbands have to “take” is entirely unclear. Seemingly, something significant has been omitted from the original denunciation. 125  In MM 145C, a story from Nider’s Formicarius is related, in which a man tells of throwing a black rooster into the air to induce demons to cause a rainstorm. 126  The sense of this is also obscure. The reading wie mans beit is clear, and beit is apparently the third person singular present of the old verb beiten (“wait (for)”). But the verb is not transitive (it normally takes a genitive complement or a prepositional phrase with auf; see Grimm [1999] s.v.). In any event, is this a reference to the thing the men have to take? Does “while one waits for it” signify the women waiting for whatever it is that they want their husbands to take? 127  I.e., vagina (just as in the Italian parallel cited in the next note). For a similar act for magical purposes in an amatory context, see deposition C. 128  Kieckhefer (1976) 58 provides an extremely close parallel from Italy to the procedure delineated here. A witch would advise women whose husband has taken a concubine to do the following to win back his affections: She was to take the heart of a hen and put into it some of her own thigh (=pubic) hairs and some fingernail clippings from her husband, and then place the heart within her vagina and take nine steps holding a holy candle. Next, she was to cook the heart and the contents along with some plants and then feed it to her husband. 129  Sentence in Latin.

126

TEXTS: Document 8

Against Rub Kolerin.130 She frequently threatens people that they would have to go lame in the hands and feet. Resides in the Silver Lane.131 Item. Oswalt Kolerin also has a very bad reputation. Witness on the list under the letters BB.132 Against midwife Bleidlerin. She said to133 Anna Kleuberin, the housewife of Conrad Kleuber,134 when she was lodging at her place, that she was supposed to find out how the other midwife called Kollerin was called by her Christian name. For she wished to make her not attend to the women much.135 She did not wish to do this, however. Item. Tuesday nights, Lent nights and Saturday nights, she buried elder under the ashes and in the morning [6] she carried it with her daughter Ursula under a yoke under the Inn Bridge.136 She does not know which yoke, however. Witness on the list under the letters CC.137 Against Kracherin, the housewife of Johannes the tailor,138 a midwife, the person who is written down in the list says that she said to her that she had an enemy, Glöckner’s housewife, whom she would make lust after no man, which

130  That is, the wife of Rub Koler, Rub being a nickname for “Robert.” 131  Silbergasse is the old name for the present-day Universitätsstrasse (University Street); the street received this name because it led to a silver smelting facility located by the small river Sill that empties into the Inn east of Innsbruck. This term indicated the new district to the east of the old city (Altstadt) in the direction of the Sill that arose in the mid fifteenth century as a fashionable area for the aristocracy to build houses in (Dienst [1987] 85). 132  Sentence in Latin. 133  The text says “against,” which is presumably a mistake of composition or transcription. 134  The text calls the woman Kleuberin but her husband Kleiber, which shows how capricious early modern orthography could be. 135  This midwife is perhaps one of the two women accused in the preceding deposition. It is remarkable that the woman’s given name was apparently not well known. Presumably, the name was required for magical purposes. 136  The Inn Bridge signifies an important bridge over the Inn located just downstream from Hall. In German, the term “yoke” could signify a beam supporting a bridge. 137  Sentence in Latin. 138  The name “Johannes the tailor” appears in Latin. Perhaps, his German name was something like “Johann Kracher der Schneider.”

TEXTS: Document 8

127

in fact happened. For afterwards the person became dry139 and lame, so that she died within a year. Witness on the list under the letters DD.140 Against Andres Kromerin in Anbrugg. Has an association with Saiten­ macherin.141 One man says that she threatened him, and that three times she pushes him on the shoulder and drags him from the church by the hair.142 Does not know why but he thinks that if she is questioned, she has much to tell. Witness on the list under the letters EE.143 Ennlie Forsterin in the suburb144 is a nurse. She placed a large, half-gilded nut under Hans Lamp’s head, and since that time he has shown no mercy to his wife and wants to kill her and is attached to Ennlie.145 She is certainly to be questioned.146 Witness in the list under the letters FF.147 Against Goltschmiden of Imst148 the witness and two other persons say how they are being bewitched to death, from which they are still lame in their limbs. This is written in the Latin protocol.149 Witnesses in the list of witnesses under the letters GG.150

139  For “dryness,” see n. 81. 140  Sentence in Latin. 141  For Saitenmacherin, see Case A. 142  The deponent is Saitenmacherin’s son-in-law, Ulrich Pogner, who also gave a deposition in Case A. 143  Sentence in Latin. 144  See n. 76. 145  For another instance of a husband “showing his wife no mercy” as a sign of bewitchment, see Case H. 146   This refers to the continuation of the investigation that Institoris expected from Bishop Georg. 147  Sentence in Latin. 148  That is, the wife of someone called Goldschmidt, who may have been a goldsmith and presumably came from Imst, a small town 55 km west of Innsbruck on the Inn. 149  There is apparently no such mention in the Latin protocol. 150  Sentence in Latin.

128

TEXTS: Document 8

Item. Sixin Beckin,151 and her sister old Kunistin,152 and a woman called Ennlie who has Margreta (Stofl Beckin)’s brother as her lawful husband153 – the three of them also have serious articles in the Latin protocol.154 Witnesses in the list under the letters HH.155 151  It is unusual that here the wife’s name is rendered by adding feminine ending “-in” to both his first and last names (though Ludwigen Wagenstalin in the Latin articles appears to follow the same procedure). Perhaps the peculiarity here is an attempt to distinguish the wives of the two Becks. Six is a shortened form of the papal name Sixtus. 152  One would normally assume that Kunistin signifies the wife of a man named Kunist (i.e., “Küh(e)nst”?), but since one of the accusers is young Kinistin, who is also known as Ennlie the wife of Jörg Beyser (thus the witness list), it would seem that this form was based on some other relationship. Unfortunately, the relationship between the two women named Kinisten/Kunisten is unclear (the “i”/“u” variation is common in the language of the protocol and signifies nothing, particularly if the “u”=“ü”). One might guess that the name means “daughter of Künst,” but seemingly women’s names are not elsewhere formed from their father’s name, and in any event, since old Kunistin’s sister is mentioned as an accused and the young Kinist is an accuser, it would be strange that her being a sister of the two accused should pass unnoticed. Perhaps the accuser was a cousin? 153  That is, Ennlie is the wife of the brother of Margreta, the wife of Stofl Beck (Stofl is a southern German nickname for Christopher), who (along with her mother) was one of the accusers, and the roundabout description of Ennlie’s relationship is generated by the fact that it is being viewed from the point of view of the accuser. The relationship between Six Beck and Stofl Beck is not stated, but the easiest assumption is that they are brothers (though possibly cousins). In this case, the case basically involves the bad relations between Margreta (and her mother) and her various sisters-in-law. First, there is her unnamed brother’s wife (Ennlie), then the unnamed wife of her husband’s brother (or cousin) Six’s wife and her sister old Kunisten. To add to the dysfunction of this family, further accusations were made by the young Kinisten, who must be some relation of the old one and her sister. 154  In the Latin articles against Hüfeysen, it is stated that there was an association of Röslin, Scharerin, Sixin, Jos Molerin, and Pflieglin, it being added that the middle three were not arrested but are named in the vernacular protocol (doc 10/5; also see doc. 9/4). The present deposition has the only mention of the name Six in the vernacular protocol, and whereas the other two names in the present deposition do not correspond with the other two names in the Latin protocol, Scharerin is mentioned in Testimony S above, while there seems to be no direct reference to a Jos Molerin (see n. 115 for possible indirect reference). (Ammann [1890] 47 n. 3 cites deposition P in connection with these references, but there seems to be no relevance.) Conceivably what happened is that the mention of Sixin Beckin prompted Institoris to recall the notice in the Latin articles that Sixin was seriously suspected along with two other women, and he erroneously cites this fact in connection with Sixin and the other two women listed here. Is it possible that the reference to Sixin signifies her husband’s first name and that in the later references Institoris forgot the man’s last name? Sixin also turns up in that form as a bystander to an event in doc. 10/6. 155  Sentence in Latin.

TEXTS: Document 8

129

Item. A fugitive from the Engadine156 named Gilge157 resides at Wilten.158/159 Item. Also in Wilten is someone called Fallerin. Item. The beautiful Goltschmiden in the Vorstadt160 has a very bad reputation.161 In162 the city of Innsbruck in Anbrugg163 Michil Zimmermannin164 is very suspect; she had taken flight when the others were placed in detention, but she returned when they were released.165 This woman is suspected of being able to make a storm all of a sudden according to her will. So, it is said that one time neighboring women were drawing out the “horwettin,”166 that is, the line, and needed men to make knots to tie the line, and because no men were 156  The Engadine is the long alpine valley (in modern Switzerland) where the Inn river has its headwaters. 157  “Gilge(n)” is one of the many variations among German speakers for the French saint Aegidius/Giles. 158  Wilten is the name of a monastery in Innsbruck. 159  Note that this should be Case JJ, but while there is a relevant entry in the list of witnesses, Institoris has omitted to mention it here (seemingly it should have one, as the three items listed separately here actually are written together in a block in the manuscript, as is the case with the other individual cases). Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that this case is markedly different in content from the ones that proceed. Instead of encompassing various accusations lodged against a single defendant, this “case” is actually a collection of individual accusations, some of which concern a single accused woman. In any event, the summaries here are rather perfunctory and lack any detail. 160  See n. 76. 161  Is this the Anna Goltschmiden mentioned in two items below? At any rate, it is odd that her beauty should be noted. Was that a common term for her or is Institoris showing that he had an eye for the ladies? 162  At this point, the language of the document shifts from German to Latin until the list of witnesses, at which point it switches back to German. 163  In German (presumably the phrase an der Anbruck was thought difficult to render in Latin; for the sense, see n. 1). 164  That is, the wife of Michael Zimmerman. 165  This sentence makes it clear that at least this final summary in Latin of depositions was drawn up after the release on November 2 of the seven arrested suspects. See the mention of Zimmermannin in the notice of women to be arrested that follows Case Y. 166  I have had no success in finding this word in any dictionaries, and the fact that Institoris not only quotes the original German in the Latin text but feels compelled to explain it for his German-speaking Latin readers indicates that this was some sort of oddity even in German. In the pre-industrial period, the technical terms for crafts often developed local variants that had little currency elsewhere, and presumably that is the case here. In any event, what is being discussed is the procedure of pulling taut and tying down the line on a loom, an operation that needed a lot of (male) brawn. Perhaps the first element in the word is the equivalent of modern Haar (cf. the spelling in Testimonies A and Y).

130

TEXTS: Document 8

present, the informed-on woman said, “I will make more men gather,” and once a storm was made, more men gathered and made knots for them. At this point there is doubt about the witness because the name was omitted in the list of witnesses,167 but the case is manifest in its own right. Item. Old Knöllin168 is accused by Margareta Knetrin169 and Barbra Falcknerin that her husband was blinded by Knöllin. She holds as the reason for suspicion the fact that when Knöllin had lost a chicken and it had been found, this Margareta and Falcknerin met Knöllin on the bridge, and when they asked whether the chicken had been found, she replied, “Yes, but half a year from now you will have enough of the chicken.”170 Hence, it later happened that for four years now Margareta’s husband has been blinded in both eyes and Barbra in one.171 Item. Such-and-such witness as is contained in the list under the letters JJ172 makes a deposition against Anna Goltschmidin that once when the aforementioned Katherina173 was lodging with her and she was outraged because of some deed, the aforementioned Anna Goltschmidin said, “Ich will mich enker abhelfen oder Gott töte mich” [“I’ll rid myself of you or may God strike me dead!”]. Afterwards, it happened that once when she was fishing for minnows, and she gave this Katherina some to eat, Katherina together with her husband 167  This seems to imply that from the start the testimony and the list of deponents were kept separately. In any event, the facts that the preceding items in this case lack any mention of the deponent, that the next item contains the names within it but these are not mentioned in the list, and that the deponent for the item after that is the sole deponent to appear in the list suggests that the previous items were like the present one in having no deponent noted in the initial list. 168  The name die alt Knöllin is in German, while “aged” is in Latin. The German adjective is given to a number of women without being translated into Latin, and presumably, the translation of it here is merely a random occurrence. Her case is mentioned in summary manner in Case V. 169  Presumably the wife of a man named Kneter. 170  As the story is told, it is hard to see what Knöllin is upset about. Does she imagine Knetrin and Falcknerin had something to do with the disappearance of the chicken? 171  Institoris mentions the accusers Kneterin and Falcknerin (with slight variation in their names) in the list of witnesses to Case V. 172  This phrase was inserted to replace the words “Katherina, the housewife of Master Hausen.” Seemingly, after the present clean text was already written, Institoris realized (during the proofing of the text?) that he should not have mentioned the name of the deponent in the text and should instead have simply cited the witness list. 173  The word “aforementioned” presumably comes from the original document setting out her deposition, as Katherina is in fact the (here) previously unnamed deponent and her name would have stood in the heading of the original deposition.

TEXTS: Document 8

131

wished to eat at the same time174 and they suffered a great illness so that they could neither sleep nor eat nor even move their limbs. Item. Dorothea says the same thing, that the aforementioned Anna said against Katherina’s husband: “Du partierter Schelm, ich will mich euer abhelfen, oder Gott töte mich” [“you swindled rogue, I’ll rid myself of you!”], and it happened as stated above. This Dorothea is not speaking truthfully, however, because she was ill at that time and came to know this as if on the basis of conjectures.175 [7] About Foreigners176 In Hall there is a certain powerful woman with a bad reputation, whom I informed your Most Reverend Paternity about some time ago.177 It is asserted that this woman is strongly suspected of the Heresy of Witches by all the inhabitants of that town, and wondrous things were stated about her in depositions when the inquisition was conducted in that town.178 Against her the first witness179 contained in the list of witnesses gave a deposition that at the time when he was in her service, she sent him repeatedly to the sewers of the Jews

174  “Eat at the same time” (simul commedere) is perhaps a clumsy Latinization of the German zusammenessen (“eat together”). 175  It is funny that Institoris should be so dismissive of conjecture since his own procedure is very much based on conjecture (as argued at length in the Handboook). Presumably, the use of conjecture was available only to trained professionals like himself (note the contemptuous attitude towards those who are unaware of the inquisitor’s “tricks of the trade” in MM 199A). 176  Meaning “foreign to Innsbruck,” i.e., residents of neighboring towns. 177  Presumably, Institoris felt uncomfortable about revealing the woman’s name in case she became aware that she had been named by him and attempted to use her power against him. The circumstances under which he mentioned her to Bishop Georg are unknown (for “Reverend Paternity” as a term of address to the bishop, see docs. 10/9, 16/1). In any event, the form of address shows that the summary was meant for the bishop’s consultation, and in its present form was drawn up for this specific purpose. 178  The Latin clearly indicates that the statement about the depositions forms part of the indirect statement of what was asserted, but this must be clumsy composition. Note that Institoris conducted his inquisition in Hall as well as Innsbruck. 179  Presumably, this refers to the list whose heading appears after the list keyed by letters of the alphabet but whose content was omitted. The vague way of referring to the list and its deponents in this and the next two cases suggests that there was no intention to cite the list directly.

132

TEXTS: Document 8

in Innsbruck to fetch Jews’ turds for her, which he sometimes did, sometimes omitted to do, fetching other ones for her.180 Item. Another witness made a deposition regarding bad reputation, stating that she is defamed everywhere and that she has great familiarity with one witch who resides in Schwaz181 and is called Zwickenstainen,182 and he asserts that this Zwickenstainen is very much suspected and defamed. The third witness183 says that she removed two small strings184 from the back of a wolf. He does not know whether for good or ill, but suspects that she used them for committing acts of witchcraft. Item. In Innsbruck someone made a deposition that one woman who wanted to bewitch the duke in order to regain his love, which she had lost, had sent a young student from Innsbruck to the informed-on woman in Hall so that from her room he could send her certain things wrapped up together that she knew full well. A certain priest had made arrangements on the streets to prevent this and hinder the evil deeds by observing the young man’s return, and so it happened that when the young man was detained on the road and forced with threats to give a deposition about the details and to show the things, among other horrors there was an umbilical cord or its skin, cut from the body of a newborn boy. Item. In Hall there is Britzing the carpenter. His wife is greatly suspect, being accused by a witness on the list of witnesses that she bewitched him on the left side and thigh. He holds as the grounds for suspicion the fact that when the carpenter and the carpenter husband of the informed-on woman were working in Lanetz,185 the deponent had greater crowds and favor. Second, because he suspects that one time on a Thursday night it happened after many threats (mutual enmity) that he was bewitched by her.

180  It would appear that already in the fifteenth century it was hard to get good help. In any event, Dienst (1987) 84 indicates that while there were isolated references to Jews in Innsbruck, there is no evidence for an organized Jewish community apart from the implication of the present passage. Seemingly, the sewer refers to the drainage from a comparatively small number of Jews living together. 181  Approximately 30 km east of Innsbruck on the river Inn, Schwaz enjoyed great prosperity in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries because of nearby mining operations. 182  The name is given in German with the definite article. 183  There is no indication of why this separate deposition does not have an “item” of its own. 184  Sinews? 185  Perhaps Lienz, a town about 100 km southeast of Innsbruck.

TEXTS: Document 8

133

Item. In Amras there is a woman who is called Silberstickin.186 Item. The widow Senstin in the same place. Item. Prieglin. Item. Pechtin. Item. Trunserin. These women are all from a single manor on the basis of bad reputation,187 and hence the witnesses are to be questioned about the bad reputation. In Kematen one mile188 from Innsbruck there is a woman called Cunz Schmidin who bewitched a certain woman named Dorothea to the point of causing a very severe illness, so that she lost the use of all her limbs. She took as grounds for suspicion first the fact that they were both potent girlfriends etc.,189 and Dorothea was a virgin, and second that Dorothea once found the informed-on woman by her blouse when she was coming out of the 186  Oddly, Silberstickin and Prieglin are already mentioned (along with other women) in Testimony V, which overtly indicates that they reside in outlying villages. There one of these is called “Ammeros,” but the name translated here as “Amras” (the modern name) actually appears in the manuscript with an erroneous “z” at the start of it. Has Institoris somehow confused himself into thinking that there was a second village with the name “Zammeros” and here repeats some of the same information in different format? Without the list of witnesses for the present version, it is difficult to conjecture how exactly this confusion arose. Ammann (1890) 24 with n. 2 is clearly aware of the connection between the two different notices, but makes no comment on the change in name. 187  Presumably, the word “suspected” has been omitted. 188  One German mile, which was much longer than an English one (Introduction, n. 44). 189  The MS reads amisie, which is meaningless. The simplest correction is to the appropriate form of the unusual word amasia, which appears several times in the Malleus. This word signifies a man’s girlfriend or mistress, and perhaps this notion suggests more overt sexual terms implied by “etc.” Since the stories that Institoris tells often involve such a girlfriend turning to witchcraft after giving her sexual favors to her boyfriend who then jilts her to marry someone more respectable (the locus classicus for this idea is MM 94C–95C), perhaps the point of Dorothea’s being called a virgin is that while both of them had boyfriends, Dorothea was not a “loose” girl (and by implication the other girl was). Cf. the deposition directly above regarding Britzing the carpenter, where the first grounds for suspicion are a competition in which the supposed victim got the better of the accused, and then suffered a malady that is ascribed to envy. Seemingly, the same logic is at work here, with Schmidin resenting Dorothea for having retained her virginity. On the other hand, the other woman obviously did manage to find a husband (Cunz Schmid). Perhaps the enmity dates back to earlier days.

134

TEXTS: Document 8

baths, and when she asked what she was doing, she responded that she was not doing anything but had approached it by chance. Afterwards, Dorothea fell into a very severe illness for almost a year, and once when she was mulling over the old incident, she examined the blouse and found a device for witchcraft sewed in it. Because she was immediately cured after she removed it, she considered her strongly suspect. .

[9] A Witness is Ulrich Pogner190 and his housewife Margreta, who is the daughter of Saitenmacherin. Aug. 21. B The witnesses regarding Zu Schretterin are Dorothea the wife of Matthias Fend, Katherina the wife of Peter Kirschner, Dorothea Brotbeckerin; Guntherin is willing, if it is necessary, to swear as well;191 and there is the common repute. Aug. 16. C The witnesses regarding old Rendlin are Christian Engelsberger (a weaver); item, Magdalen Halbfingerin, the housewife of Wolfgang im Spital;192 item, Welfil Vasser, to whom it was also said; item, Treinli, who at that time lived in the Silver Lane193 at Jacob Dagwerker’s place. Aug. 19. D The witnesses Ennlie Lippin, who then lived at Cüntzil Mertger’s daughter’s place. 190  Also, the deponent in Testimony EE. 191  The exact sense of this willingness is unclear. Was she present and gave some confirmation of the others’ testimony without swearing herself, though she expressed a willingness to do so? 192  I.e., the area around the hospice (Spital). 193  For this street, see n. 131.

TEXTS: Document 8

135

Item. The woman in whose house the matter with the martyr image took place is Caspar Schmidin,194 who chided the women. She too can speak of this, and has sworn the oath. Item. Sigmund Schmid, the son of Caspar Jordan, has also sworn. Aug. 16 and 18. E Margreta Tullingerin, who heard this from Elsa, who is dead (a bodily brother).195 Aug. 11. F Little Christian Weber, who also heard it from someone else who is a woman, and he is the one who is sick in one foot. Aug. 9. G Matthias Ehinger and his housewife. Item. Lenzin Buchlin196 speaks of the general reputation. Sept. 1. H Martin Graff and his housewife under sworn oath. 194  The text simply says “Caspar S(ch)mid,” but the feminine relative pronoun shows that the feminine ending “-in” has been accidentally omitted from the name. 195  “Bodily brother” must signify “germane sibling” (i.e., they shared the same mother, but had different fathers; see also n. 32). 196  She also appears in Testimony O, where her first name appears as Trenlie. The terminology there makes it clear that the husband’s name was Lenz Buchlin, so the procedure used here to make this name femine in specifying his wife is somewhat irregular (with the feminine ending “-n” attached only to the husband’s first name; presumably it was omitted from the last name because it already ended in “in”). In any event, she presumably mentioned Steurerin in her deposition of Aug. 9 rather than reappearing today simply to mention her bad reputation in connection with the testimony of Matthias Ehinger and his wife.

136

TEXTS: Document 8

Aug. 25. J Johannes Rhein and his housewife Ella Herting, also under sworn oath.197 Sept. 3. K Sigmund Sacklin himself swore regarding himself that things are like this. Aug. 9. [9] L Cristin Ypfhoferin, who says that Trenlin came up to the house complaining. Sept. 6. M Anna the wife of Hans Yoya.198 Item. Those who are in Spital199 are also able to say much about this.200 Sept. 2. N Hans Zeiger. Also speaks of someone in the Ampass parish named Fierer, who also deals with stolen things. Aug. 17.

197  Note that the phrase “also under sworn oath” clearly picks up the indication in the preceding item, even though the latter comes from a substantially earlier date. That is, the comment here at least comes not directly from the original item but has been rephrased specifically for the present context. 198  This name may be wrong; see n. 59. 199  In the neighborhood of the hospice. 200  Note the vagueness of the supposed witnesses. Is this a suggestion for a source of future witnesses rather than an indication of previous ones?

TEXTS: Document 8

137

O Trenlin, wife of Lenz Buchlin.201 Item. Margreta, Ulrich Schusterin.202 Item. Tollinger, who lives next door to Seutzin,203 also knows for sure. Aug. 9. P Elsbeth Velcklin, to whom the person gave two mandrakes so that she should put them under the altar cloths. Sept. 8. Q Adelheit im Spital,204 who heard this from the women. Sept. 5. R Klärle205 the daughter of Leonhart Zimmerman and wife of Christof Maurer. Aug. 9. S The veterinarian and also the woman that he had with him in the palace would have to be questioned.206 Aug. 9.

201  Also listed for Testimony G. 202  That is, Margaret was the wife of Ulrich Schuster. 203  For Seutzin, see the next deposition. 204  For the sense of the prepositional phrase, see n. 192. 205  On the assumption that the manuscript’s “Klörle” represents “Klärle,” a diminutive of Clara. 206  Seemingly, only the veterinarian was a deponent. It is not clear from the summary of the deposition who the woman he has with him is or what she has to do with the story.

138

TEXTS: Document 8

T Hans Spiegel. He belongs207 to Judge Möringer. Sept. 6. V Witnesses from the villages. I have drawn up their denunciations succinctly as they do not belong to a parish here,208 but in Anbrugg witnesses about the man who was blinded are Margareta Ketnerin and Barbara Falcknerin.209 Sept. 10. X Veronica the daugher of Siphoufer and the young man at the sacristan’s210 place. Sept. 2. Y Sigmund the Barber, the housewife of Master Bernhard the Barber, and Oswald Stoffer’s wife, as those from whom they heard this are dead, but Müleckin,211 to whom it happened, is still alive at the house of the abbot of St. George’s.212

207  Presumably, this probably signifies some sort of status as a serf. 208  This explanation is a little puzzling on the surface of it. Doc. 3 authorized Institoris to operate throughout the entire diocese. Presumably, “here” signifies “in Innsbruck,” and Institoris himself was unwilling to go to the trouble to go interview these people, even in an adjacent location. 209  The Anbrugg incident is listed under Case JJ, where Margareta Kneterin and Barbra Falcknerin accuse Knöllin (presumably Institoris is going by memory here, which explains why he gets Kneterin’s name wrong and gives a slight variation in Falcknerin’s first name). 210  For the sense, see n. 121. 211  It is odd that Müleckin (“wife of Mühlecke”) is the name given for what should be the wife of Ludwig Koch. Since the other witnesses are speaking for the dead, could it be that Koch was now dead and his widow married someone named Mühlecke before winding up in the abbot’s household? 212  “at the house … St. George’s” is in Latin. Presumably, the famous Benedictine monastery on the Georgenberg (“Mt. St. George”) just east of Schwaz downriver from Innsbruck is meant.

TEXTS: Document 8

139

Item. Mühleckin knows women who can bewitch their husbands to fall in love.213 The previous two women also said this. Aug. 23. It seems to me that the persons written hereafter would have to be arrested:214 Old Rendlin and Dorothea who lives with her. Item. Ennlie Notterin (already arrested),215 the baptized Jewess Elsa Böhmennin.

213  This is actually testimony, but Institoris added it in here because this is simply a vague, second-hand report from the deponents about the supposed knowledge of this absent victim. 214  More indication that this document gives instructions for subsequent investigations to be carried out by someone other than Institoris. The first three items refer to the depositions taken on August 18 (Testimony C), 19 (Testimony D) and 23 (the one immediately preceding Testimony Y), which perhaps suggests that the list of women who should be arrested was drawn up at that time. But the last item refers to the immediately following deposition (Testimony Z), which was not held until September 5. The placement of this list here and the interlinear addition about the arrest of some of the women make it hard to see at what stage in the composition of the document this comment was inserted or who it was intended for. 215  The parenthetical phrase is an interlinear addition in Latin. This and the interlinear addition cited in the next note suggest that the list of women to be investigated was drawn up soon after the conclusion of taking depositions on or about September 14 and before the actual arrests in connection with the investigations of them in October, at which point the legal notice of the arrests was entered interlinearly in Latin. Yet, the reference in Case JJ to Zimmermannin (cited below here) speaks of her flight after the arrest of the seven and her return after their release, which proves that the present document was drawn up after November 2. Hence, the interlinear Latin notes must have been copied over from the original document.

140

TEXTS: Document 8

Item. At Hettingen there are two, one is called Bärbel Hiefeysen (already arrested),216 the other the miller’s217 housewife, who is Wolf’s daughter.218 Item. One is called Michil Zimmermannin, who frequently leads astray young daughters by teaching them arts to bewitch their husbands.219 Z Hans Zeuger. Item. Ludwig Moler in the outer city is also able to speak (he can be required). Sept. 5. AA The witness is Heinrich Schneidrin, named Elisabeth. Sept. 3, I guess.220 BB Also, the previous Elisabeth.221 216  The parenthetical phrase is an interlinear addition in Latin. Barbara Hüfeysen is one of the women whose cases were formally proceeded with (doc. 9/3–4 and doc. 10/3–4). There is no reference to her in the actual deposition here, which presumably means that the information about her was excised when the material was summarized for the bishop’s benefit. That must mean that the present document was drawn up in knowledge of the proceedings of October. As for the name, Bärbel is just a diminutive for Barbara, and the different orthography for the last name is of no significance; perhaps the form here goes back to what was written down in the initial records of the depositions made in the summer, before Institutoris eventually settled on “Hüfeysen” as the form he preferred for the woman’s name. 217  Or the text could mean “Moler’s” wife, depending on whether this was taken as a name (see n. 305). 218  To judge by the case against Hüfeysen, the two women seem to have nothing in common apart from their place of residence. 219  Or “men” (see n. 313). 220  See MM 144B for estimo (“I reckon”) being used by Institoris about himself precisely to signify a guess about a number. Presumably, the date was accidentally omitted in the original document, and Institoris was forced to guess at it. 221  The heading and name are struck out. As the actual name in BB begins with “item,” it would seem that it was not the original first item in the testimony. Perhaps, the first part of the testimony for this case concerned one of the women later arrested, and a mistake was made in editing out this information.

TEXTS: Document 8

141

BB Item. Thomas Schwembil, resides here.222 Aug. 13. CC DD223 Witness against the two midwives224 is Anna Kleuberin, who would then have to be questioned amicably.225 Sept. 9. EE Witness is Ulrich Pogner.226 Sept. 8. FF The witness is written down in the protocol.227 Aug. 15. [8] GG Witnesses are Johannes Ellinck of Bernau228 and his housewife Katherina and her sister Dorothea. 222  Presumably in Innsbruck. 223  The double lettering shows that the list of witnesses was drawn upon the basis of the charges. That is, the deponent here made reports at the same time against two separate women, and each distinct accusation received its own summary (CC and DD). When the separate list of witnesses was later drawn up, there was no need to list the two cases separately, since they were drawn up side-by-side and both were ascribed to a single deponent. 224  Oddly, the one deponent made accusations against two separate midwives in two entirely distinct cases. 225  That is, he is to be questioned as a cooperative witness; contrast the “harsh” questioning of the potter (doc. 10/1). 226  Also the deponent in Case A. 227  There appears to be no relevant story in the Latin protocol. Perhaps Institoris has confused this story involving a nut with the one about Hüfeysen giving Übelherr’s wife a halfgilded nut to put under his head (docs. 9/9, 10/7). 228  A town about 15 kilometers west of Graz.

142

TEXTS: Document 8

Sept. 3. HH Witnesses Walpurg and her daughter Margaretha Stoffil Beckin.229 Item. Young Kunistin,230 Ennil231 the wife of Jörg Beyser. Aug. 29. JJ Item. The housewife of Master Hans with the beard (eye doctor232), who is called Katherina, is not in Innsbruck233 now. Sept. 14. Item. Note that the aforementioned witnesses are to be summoned and questioned anew because they simply appeared voluntarily and not because of a personal summons, with the protestation, however, that they are willing to appear again when summoned. Witnesses regarding foreigners234

229  For their connection to this convoluted case, see n. 153. 230  For the sense of her name and her relationship to the accused, see n. 152. 231  Presumably a mistake for “Ennli(e).” 232  The phrase is a Latin addition. 233  The text originally said “not at Hall.” 234  This is centered as a heading, and while the depositions about foreigners do not have the elaborate cross references by letter that appear in the earlier depositions, the deposition concerning the carpenter Britzing does refer to a list of witnesses. Clearly, the heading here was meant to introduce this list, and its omission cannot be explained. See n. 179 for evidence that there was no intention in the main text to cite specific deponents in the same manner as with the cases in Innsbruck.

Document 9

Protocols of the Hearings Conducted against the Seven Arrested Women On the basis of the depositions given individually by those who responded to Institoris’s general summons calling for denunciations, Institoris instituted formal proceedings against seven women that he considered to be involved in the Heresy of Witches. He personally summoned relevant witnesses on the basis of the initial denunciations and examined them under oath before witnesses, the present document recording these detailed examinations. After the proceedings were suspended on October 31 (see doc. 11/4), Institoris provided Bishop Georg with this record of the collection of evidence, so that he could proceed with the cases. The depositions against each woman are brought together even though they were sometimes given on different days. From the comments made by Institoris at the beginning and end of the corresponding articles (doc. 10) about the treatment he thought each woman deserved, it is clear that the cases are listed in the order of the degree to which he thought the women could be convicted of participation in the Heresy of Witches. Whereas the first five (Selachin, Hüfeysen, Röslin together with her mother Barbara, and Schneiderin) were in his mind “caught in heresy,” Pflieglin was only “very suspect,” and Scheuberin was only implicated in that heresy by the cases of the other women and thus placed at the end (though her animus towards Institoris and his proceedings made her particularly obnoxious in his eyes). In Latin, with direct quotation in German of significant statements cited by the deponents.

…

[1] Proceedings against Selachin In the name of the Lord, amen. On Oct. 17, a.d. 1486. Through the report of public repute and communication by clamorous information, it has come repeatedly to the ears of the venerable and religious gentleman, Lord1 Brother Heinricus Institoris of the Order of Preachers, Professor 1  This title is just a mark of respect for a man of higher learning. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_014

144

TEXTS: Document 9

of Sacred Theology, and Inquisitor of Heretical Depravity in the dominion of Archduke Sigismund of Austria through special appointment by the Holy Apostolic See, that Barbara Selachin has done against the Faith such things of such severity that they cannot and should not be tolerated with conniving eyes since they result in insult to the majesty of God and in harm to the Catholic Faith, and so he resorted to informing himself and examining the witnesses in the manner that follows. Such-and-Such witness Name (as contained in the list of witnesses2) was summoned and placed under oath, and asked if she knew Barbara Selachin, she responded yes, and added that she had had knowledge of her for twenty-six years.3 Asked what she had heard about Selachin’s reputation, she responded that the general report had always been that she commits acts of witchcraft. Further asked whether she had not heard any other things about her reputation or had not seen or heard something about her deeds with respect to acts of witchcraft or learned about these in any way at all, she responded that she would speak on the basis of great suspicion and relate things that Selachin had probably committed regarding her, speaking as follows: that it was on account of a certain quarrel that had arisen between her and the denounced woman on account of damages inflicted in her garden in that the footsteps of the person inflicting and causing the damage could be seen coming from the house of the denounced woman. One time when she was grumbling to herself about who was causing her harm, the denounced woman showed up and asked whether she held her suspected of inflicting the damages.4 When she replied, “You know full well if you did it,” it happened after an exchange of many words that the denounced woman left in outrage and was always her enemy. Then, when the aforementioned deponent fell into a very serious illness, including even the loss of her senses, it happened after several days that a certain potter whose name is contained in the list of witnesses5 (because he is himself considered seriously suspect) approached the deponent to console her, and 2  No such list is preserved in the Brixen archives. Institoris refers to this list repeatedly in the present document, so he obviously intended to include it in the material he passed on to the bishop. Could it be that it was accidentally omitted, like the list of witnesses at the end of doc. 8? In any event, the names of the deponents identified here by reference to this missing list can sometimes be recovered from the corresponding articles (doc. 10), but sometimes there is no mention of the relevant deponent’s name there. 3  According to the articles (doc. 10/1), the witness is Gertrud Rötin. 4  The whole story related in this deposition is repeated in MM 135B–D. 5  The name does not appear in the corresponding articles (doc. 10/1). Since the Latin figulus keeps being used of him, perhaps the man’s name was Töpfer (German for “potter”; cf. the use of carpentarius for Zimmermann, doc. 10, n. 67).

TEXTS: Document 9

145

among many words this potter said to her that the illness had been inflicted on her by a witch through witchcraft, and as a sign of this being true, he said that she should pour molten lead into water.6 When the lead had been poured in, it took on the sort of form that the things with which the acts of witchcraft had been performed had. The potter ordered the woman and her husband to look under the threshold of the house in which they were then living, and when her husband tried this with the potter, he found in the presence of the potter a wax image one palm long made in the form of a woman, this image being completely pierced through and full of holes.7 There were also two needles fixed in the image, one from the side of the chest to the left shoulder, and the other from the side of the chest to the back, and in the same way that these needles were fixed in the wax image, there were likewise two very severe pains fixed in the body of the woman giving the deposition, although she was otherwise afflicted with serious pains throughout her body since the image also had holes everywhere. They also found two pieces of cloth under the threshold. In one piece were included seeds of different varieties, and in these pieces there was also a piece of wood split off a gallows,8 as well as bones from the thighs of unbaptized children.9 Some ashes, some threads from altar decorations, and many other things were also present.10 Questioned further to get her to tell the 6  For more on this sort of procedure, see MM 156D–157A; for a variant procedure, see MM 155B. 7  For the threshold as a frequent location for placing devices for witchcraft, see HDA 7.1526–1532 s.v. “Schwell.” For the use of “voodoo dolls” in “figurative magic” (meaning a form of sympathetic magic in which an image of a person is endowed with magical powers through something special from the person being attached to the figure, with the result that harm done to the figure is “transferred” to the person), see Armitage (2015), esp. 87–90 for the European tradition. 8  One has to wonder how one could tell the origin of a piece of wood. The wood is not mentioned in MM 135D. 9  For the crucial importance of killing unbaptized babies and using their bodies in witches’ rites for Institoris’s theoretical understanding of the Heresy of Witches, see Mackay [2011] vol. 1, 62. The appearance of this concept here presumably reflects Institoris’s intrusion of his own theoretical understanding of witchcraft into the deponent’s testimony. Note that in MM 135D, bones are mentioned, but nothing is said of their origin. 10  In Institoris’s later recounting of this story in the Malleus, he has the victim state overtly that she burned the items for witchcraft, but did not fully recover her health (MM 135D). She then presses the potter to learn why, and he says that there are other items that he cannot find (and which are presumably responsible for the partial continuation of the harm). Given that there is absolutely no evidence for any of this either here or in the corresponding articles (see esp. doc. 10, n. 18), presumably the version of the story in the Malleus reflects a later realization on Institoris’s part that the story related by the deponent has a hole in it. In several other stories here, once the items are found, they are burned, whereupon the victims regain their health (so for Wagenstalin and Grunenpachin on 4, and the

146

TEXTS: Document 9

whole truth of the event, the woman making the deposition added that when the molten lead was poured into the water, some parts of it took on the form of various seeds, and some the form of threads, while one part of the lead took on the form of the image of a woman in the manner of the wax image found under the threshold. Item. The deponent said that when the lord inquisitor had issued the general summons,11 the potter pleaded with the woman making the deposition and told her not to tell anyone that he had shown [2] her the things written above that were contained under the threshold. Item. Asked further how the aforementioned potter had known that those things were hidden there, the woman responded that he had been a lover of the denounced woman and this was how it had been known to him, perhaps because the denounced woman had shown him the manner of bewitching, etc. These proceedings were conducted in the year, month and day noted above, in the presence of the lord inquisitor and Brother Johannes Rosenbart, Paulus Cael12 Schirmmeister,13 and Brother Wolfgangus of the Order of Preachers, chaplain at the moment of the lord inquisitor and of the Holy Office of the Inquisition.14 Item. In the same year and month as above, there appeared Such-and-Such witness Name (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses).15 Summoned, put under oath, and questioned about the name and reputation, she responded that she knew her and had interacted with her a number of times. Questioned further as to whether she suspected the denounced woman of being a witch, threatened wife on 8 gets a partial recovery); see MM 207D for a summary of the notion. Seemingly, Rötin said nothing about her subsequent health, and Institoris did not realize until he was writing up the account given in the Malleus that he should have pursued this element of the story. 11  I.e., the notice given out by Institoris in his initial preachings on the subject of witches enjoining anyone with knowledge (direct or through hearsay) of their activities should come forward to him with this. 12  This would appear to be the name Kahl spelled in Low German orthography (i.e., the man or his family originated in northern Germany). 13  Schirmmeister signifies a “fencing master.” If the term here indicates the man’s profession, this seems like a strange choice for witness. Perhaps it is a nickname? 14  It is strange that this concluding notice does not end with a mention of the notary, since all the subsequent ones include him. 15  Elisabeth, the wife of Master Thoman, according to the articles (doc. 10/1).

TEXTS: Document 9

147

or of engaging in or undertaking acts of witchcraft, she responded that she neither knew nor was able to say anything other than what had happened to her, and the incident was like this. “Twelve years ago, my husband bought from Selachin’s husband a place for building a house.” This displeased Selachin, and so she said to the deponent one day, “Ich will machen daß ir kein gesunden Tag oder Stund haben mögen, und müßt erkrumpen und erlähmen, und müßt aus dem Haus affen, das ist, kriechen auf allen Vieren” [“I’ll cause you to have no healthy days or hours, and you’ll have to become crippled and lame, and ape your way out of the house, that is, crawl on all fours”]. Certain women of her family heard this, some of whom are dead and some still reside in Telz.16 And when the deponent retorted to the denounced woman that she would accuse her before the judge, she responded, “I don’t care. Ich kann ihm wohl tun, daß er mir nicht tun mag” [“I can certainly make him not be able to do anything to me”], straightaway the woman giving the deposition was swollen up in all her body after the passage of a short period of time, and her husband’s eyes would grow without pain to the point of closing, to such an extent that he was forced to open his eyes with his fingers and prevent them from closing. The illness of the woman giving the deposition has lasted until the present time.17 Item. Asked further why she suspected that she had this illness as a result of witchcraft committed by the denounced woman, she responded that she once looked in the bedding and found tied up in a piece of cloth various seeds, and bits of the bones of a child who was not reborn,18 and of the bones of a goat. Hence, she always thought while in childbirth that she was flying with goats. Item. She added that she found three constantly wet stones, of which one was a saline (salty) stone, the second a grey one like a blister, and the third one was a flint. The woman giving the deposition would sweat while resting in bed for as long as those stones lay there under the bed. Once these stones were removed, her sweats stopped.19 16  The small town of Telfs, about 27 km west of Innsbruck, is probably meant. 17  This is odd given that items for witchcraft are discovered in the next two sections. One would imagine that the destruction of these should “cure” the harm. Institoris would no doubt reply that not all the items were found (as he claimed in MM 135D with reference to the harm inflicted on Rötin). 18  I.e., reborn through baptism; for the sense, see n. 9. 19  The effect of the wet stones is one of sympathetic magic. Just as the stones “sweat,” the victim loses water through sweating, which results in her becoming “dry.” Salt has the effect of increasing thirst, and presumably the detail that one of the stones is salty is added because the stone would contribute to the “dryness” of the victim.

148

TEXTS: Document 9

These proceedings were conducted on 17th day of the year and month noted above, in the presence of the lord inquisitor, Brother Johannes Rosenbart of the Order of Minorites,20 Brother Wolfgangus of the Order of Preachers, chaplain at the moment of the lord inquisitor and of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, Paulus Cael Schirmmeister, and of myself, the notary public.21 Item. In the same year and month as above, there appeared Such-and-Such witness Name (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses).22 Summoned and placed under oath, and questioned about the name and reputation of the aforementioned Selachin, she responded that she knew her well, and regarding the reputation, she responded that she had a bad reputation with reference to carrying out acts of witchcraft, on the grounds that they once had certain threatening words after the burning of the bridge, and when the deponent bumped into the denounced woman on the road called Spruch Gasse and was carrying on her head a handful of vegetables, the denounced woman said to the deponent, “Kommst du her, du Bösewichtin, du Schälkin” [“Come here, you evil-doer, you criminal”].23 And when she replied, “I have never been like that or liked people like that. Come with me to the judge,” the denounced woman added, “Ich will mich wohl rechen, und daß du nimmer dürr solt werden an Leib noch an Güte” [“I’ll certainly avenge myself, and make sure that you will never become dry in body or goods”]. And so it happened that on the next day the deponent began to get ill in body and to dry out until the present day.24 20  The official name of the Franciscan order. 21  The notary names himself at the end of the document. 22  Katherina Schmidlerin according to the corresponding article (doc. 10/2). 23  The recapitulation of the story here may make it sound as if the dispute about the burning of the bridge and the encounter on the road were separate events, but the corresponding articles (doc. 10/2) make it clear that angry words exchanged on the road pertained to the burning. It is nowhere made clear why Selachin is angry with the deponent or what her threat had to do with the burning. Had the deponent implicated her in this? 24  Here we have a noticeable discrepancy between the German original and the Latin translation. Both here and in the corresponding article (doc. 10/2), the Latin indicates that the deponent became dry (i.e., barren); for other instances of dryness being a result of witchcraft, see Cases Q and DD in doc. 8 with n. 81. But the German clearly says the opposite, that the threat was that the deponent would never become dry, that is, that she would become “wet.” Since the immediately preceding accusation actually does involve the infliction of wetness on Thomanin, one might think that Institoris has confused what the threat was, but while the body could be afflicted with either wetness or dryness, when it comes to possessions (mentioned in the German), only the metaphor of dryness seems applicable. The almost verbatim repetition of the threat and the interpretation in the corresponding article shows that Institoris was sure of both the German words and his

TEXTS: Document 9

149

The deponent also asserted that one time [3] when she bumped into the denounced woman in the true25 Lent along the road that is called Lenteleren26 carrying rose needles on her shoulders, she said to the deponent, “You see.27 Damit will ich dich zurichten, das du wohl innen wirst” [“With this I’ll finish you off, which you’ll certainly notice”]. When the deponent sent to her two women who are now dead to ask that she admit her to mercy and remove the illness that she had inflicted on her, she responded, “If I had not inflicted it on her, I would still do so.” After they came back and related her response, and the deponent asked them to stand by her before the judge to bear witness about these words, they responded, “She is a very bad woman. We want to be done with her.” In this way, the woman giving the deposition remains in her illnesses until the present day. It also happened that when the denounced woman passed the deponent on St. Lawrence’s Day28 in the present year, she spat on the ground and said, “You are not worthy of my looking at you.” These proceedings were conducted on 17th day of the year and month noted above, in the presence of the aforementioned inquisitor etc., Brother Wilhelm Behringer, Brother Heinricus29 Hofman, and of myself, the notary public (as above). Proceedings against Hüfeysen (in the first article, Pflieglin is also suspect) In the name of the Lord. Amen. On October 18, 1485 a.d. Through the report of public repute and communication by clamorous information, it has come repeatedly to the ears of the venerable and religious gentleman, Brother Heinrich Institoris of the Order of Preachers, Professor of Sacred Theology, and Inquisitor of Heretical Depravity in the dominion of Archduke Sigismund of Austria through special appointment by the Holy Apostolic See interpretation of them. Perhaps his recollection of the words taken out of context was faulty (replacing “dry” with “prosperous” seems to restore the sense, so conceivably he confused the literal phraseology with the general sense). 25  There is no doubt of the reading here, but the sense of “real” Lent is uncertain. Presumably, it refers to “Holy Week,” when the various forms of abstinence of the Lenten season are observed more strictly. 26  Called Lettenleren in the articles. 27  The Latin vides tu is a literal translation of the German siehstu (=modern German siehst du), an importunate injunction. 28  August 10 (i.e., during the period when Institoris was taking depositions). 29  The man’s name regularly appears in the hybrid form “Heinricus,” which confuses the German “Heinrich” with the Latinized “Henricus.” The same hybrid is used for Institoris’s name.

150

TEXTS: Document 9

that Hüfeysen has done against the Faith such things of such severity that they cannot and should not be tolerated with conniving eyes since they result in insult to the majesty of God and in harm to the Catholic Faith, and so he resorted to informing himself and examining the witnesses in the manner that follows. Such-and-Such witness Name (as is contained on the list of witnesses) was summoned and placed under oath,30 and being questioned about the name, reputation etc., she responded that she knew the woman that Hüfeysen would visit, Pflieglin, with whom the woman giving this deposition was living at the time, and to whom what follows happened. One time, when Pflieglin was sick in her head, as the deponent thought but did not know whether she was really in pain or not, Hüfeysen showed up one day to cure her.31 She took a spindle and inserted a needle and thread, and placed it in the middle of a dish. Next, she put boiled water from a new bottle into the dish, pouring it over the new spindle and thread. She added that if in violation of nature the water rose back up into the bottle and the dish appeared dry, then it had happened as a result of witchcraft, and she would have to be healed. Then it did happen that when the denounced woman placed the dish on Pflieglin’s head, the water reentered the bottle in violation of nature, so that the dish appeared completely moistureless and dried out. It also happened that as long as the dish was kept on the sick Pflieglin’s head, she would assert [4] that the was healthy, but when it was removed, she would assert that the pain returned. She would also say that she felt fine in the presence of the denounced woman (Hüfeysen) but poorly in her absence. Hence, when the deponent saw superstitious acts of this sort and said in rebuke to Hüfeysen, “Daß dich der Teufel hinführe! Je mehr daß du’s anpfuchzst, je weher ir ist” [“The Devil take you! The more you hiss at it, the more pain she has.”], Hüfeysen then replied, “Gott gebe [God grant], not three days will pass, daß dir pfuchzen also Not tut als der Frau” [“until the hissing will cause you distress just as it does to the lady”].32 Thus it happened that on the 30  Ludwigen Wagenstallin according to the articles. The relevant portion of this testimony is repeated in the articles below against Pflieglin. 31  The following incident is related in MM 134B–135A. 32  The verb anpfuchzen is one of a number of words ((an)fauchtzen, (an)pfuchzen) that ultimately derive from the interjection Pfauch, which is literally the hissing sound made by animals like cats, geese and hamsters when they feel threatened by the approach of a hostile creature (see all those words in Grimm [1999], but especially Pfauch; oddly, there is no entry for anpfuchzen as such, but it is referred to in the short one for anfauchzen). In the human sphere, these words can then be used of someone making a hissing noise in response to activity by someone else that the person considers shameful. But it surely cannot be the case that Hüfeysen is hissing at Pflieglin to express her disapprobation (after all, Hüfeysen is the person carrying out the magical procedure), and it is not clear

TEXTS: Document 9

151

third day such pain seized the deponent as she had never experienced, in two regards. First, she always thought that fire was being poured over her head, because of which she was virtually driven insane amidst the constant pains. Second, itchy black pustules appeared all over her body, so that there was not a single healthy spot on her body wider than a needle point. Thus, she remained in pain for two or three days. The head of the household, who was also the husband of Pflieglin, in whose house these events were happening, was outraged on account of the animals that were being neglected because of the illness of the servant girl (the deponent), and wishing to enter the cow shed with the servant girl, he by chance saw over the door of the shed a certain piece of linen cloth tied around with a string. He took the opportunity to look when he heard the squeaking of mice, and so upon seeing the piece tied up, he said to the deponent, “What did you put in the place?” When she responded, “Nothing,” he replied that she should take down the piece. Since she was unable to take it down given her illness, he took it down by himself and looked for a knife to open it with. After someone else gave him a knife, he opened it and found grey powder (corruption) after the fashion of a child’s turd and human hairs, also various seeds of grain and barley. It happened that after the aforementioned items were cast into the fire and burned up, the deponent was suddenly cured. Item. She added that Pflieglin’s husband urged her quite often to stay away from such things, asserting that the time would come that she would put her hands over her head in light of her difficulties.33 These proceedings were conducted on the year, month and day noted above, in the presence of the aforementioned inquisitor etc., Brother Wilhelmus Behringer, Brother Heinricus Hofman of the Order of Preachers, and of myself, the notary public and scribe of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Item. In the year and month as above, on the 8th day. There appeared Such-andSuch witness Name (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses).34 Summoned, put under oath, and questioned about the name and reputation, she said that she knew her for ten years or thereabouts, and, regarding the what the point of the hissing is. Seemingly, the noise forms part of the ritual and the servant girl is claiming that it actually makes Pflieglin’s headache worse. In her response, Hüfeysen seems to accept this implication, now threatening to turn the harm caused by the hissing against the servant girl. 33  Putting her hands on top of her head must be a gesture of distress. 34  Margaretha Grunenpachin, according to the articles (doc. 10/3).

152

TEXTS: Document 9

reputation, that she had always had a bad one in terms of committing acts of witchcraft. Regarding an evident deed that happened to her, she reported the following, saying, “One time, my husband and I were in the house of the denounced women35 as cohabitants,36 and when the deadline on which we wished to leave her house was at hand, the denounced woman said in outrage, ‘Ich will dich blind und lahm machen, und wie ich dich haben will’ [‘I will make you blind and lame, and the way that I want to have you’].” Two other women heard this, one of whom is called Glickin and the other Kepplerin (they are both dead), and Glickin said, “Bärbel, Bärbel, du soltest dir laßen ehe ein Finger abhauen dann solche Worte reden” [“Bärbel, Bärbel, you should have one of your fingers cut off sooner than say such things”]. The denounced woman then replied, “Go and give testimony against me.” In this way, the deponent immediately began to be blinded and lose the use of all her limbs. Next, the Blessed Virgin appeared to her in the night, ordering her to sweep under the stairs of the house in which she was. For in doing this, she would necessarily be cured. So, immediately carrying out the Blessed Virgin’s command, she grabbed a broom and began to sweep under the stairs, and while sweeping she found many astonishing pieces of flesh. After these were found, by the advice of other people she threw them into the fire and after this was immediately cured. Item. The deponent said that the denounced woman said to her, “When you’ve accused me before the judge, I’ll just put my thumb in my hand and cover it with my four fingers, and then no judge at all can inflict anything on me. This is true when I see the judge first, but otherwise not.”37 Item. The deponent also related that she could free a thief or brigand from prison, and that the judge could not inflict anything on him provided that she had four threads from his clothing, so that thereby he would not be able to confess anything.38 She also added that it made no difference if those threads were from any garment of his so long as he had worn it once.39 35  The manuscript says “of the denouncer,” but this must have been a mental slip during composition of the text. 36  I.e., inhabiting the house together with the other women rather than “cohabiting” with each other. 37  For a discussion of precisely the idea that the witch has to see the judge first in order to affect him, see MM 214A–C (where oddly there is no reference to the Brixen material). 38  This refers to the “sorcery of silence” discussed so often by Institoris; see BM (doc. 16/7), MM 212C–213A, 215A, NH 38v–r. The phraseology of the final clause here makes it sound as if the accused would not be able to confess, though the Malleus indicates that the effect was to make the accused impervious to the pain of questioning under torture. 39  This ability is cited in MM 215A.

TEXTS: Document 9

153

These proceedings were conducted in the first examination,40 in the presence of the aforementioned inquisitor etc., with Brother Wolfgangus of Basel, Brother Casparus of Freiburg present, in the house of residence, in the year, month and day as above. [5] Item.41 There is a reputation against the aforementioned woman that she instructs maidens and other person as to how demons are to be invoked for love or the infliction of illnesses, but on the condition that they not make confession, because if they confess, then they would be unable to do so.42 Item. She gives instruction about three Sundays for fasting on behalf of someone’s death.43 Item. Reputation regarding two associations, with Scheuberin and Hüfeysen in one, and in the other Röslin, Scharerin,44 Pfleiglin, Sixin, Jos Molerin.45 Item. In the protocol handed over to the vicar46 it is stated that a certain man whose name is contained in the list of witnesses heard from his wife, who also 40  In MM 208C–D, there is mention of a “second examination” in connection with interrogating a suspect. Neither there nor here is the exact distinction between these two examinations made clear. 41  Note that this and the following two items have no indications that they formed part of formal proceedings carried out in the legal manner. Presumably, Institoris did not actually conduct hearings about these charges and merely tags them on here at the end of the record of evidence received during the proper hearings. The summary nature of these notices calls to mind the similar format of the vernacular depositions (doc. 8). 42  For Institoris’s comments, see doc. 10/4 (with n. 63); also, see Testimony P (doc. 8, with n. 19 for refs. to other examples) for a similar injunction. 43  Presumably the sense is that a procedure involving fasting over three Sundays can cause someone’s death. 44  Denounced for committing murder through witchcraft in the vernacular protocols (doc. 8, Testimony S), though Institoris is doubtful about the matter. 45  A Sixin is denounced in vernacular case HH, where it is overtly noted that the three women named there had serious articles against them in the Latin protocol. Oddly, however, the other two women there are Kinisten (the interpretation of this name is unclear) and another Beckin. Furthermore, Scharerin is mentioned in case S, while the wife of the miller (moler) of Hettingen mentioned in case Y may be Jos Molerin. See doc. 8, nn. 115 and 154 for further discussion. 46  This protocol must be the documentation of the original depositions made by the witnesses at their initial visit to Institoris in accordance with the general summons that he made in his sermons that those with knowledge of acts of witchcraft or rumors about

154

TEXTS: Document 9

heard it from a certain clothes washer woman in the Kirschental,47 that when Hüfeysen’s husband was incarcerated, the denounced woman (Hüfeysen) prepared a table by placing four loaves on the four corners and a dish in the middle, and when she was asked by the servant girls what the meaning of this was, she responded she wanted to free her husband, and if she had three threads of her husband’s clothes, she would free him from prison. The wife is in agreement. Proceedings against Röslin48 and her mother In the name of the Lord, amen. On Oct. 19, a.d. 1486. Through the report of public repute and communication by clamorous information, it has come repeatedly to the ears of the venerable and religious gentleman, Brother Heinricus Institoris of the Order of Preachers, Professor of Sacred Theology, and Inquisitor of Heretical Depravity in the dominion of Archduke Sigismund of Austria through special appointment and delegation by the Holy Apostolic See, that Röslin and her mother have done against the Faith such things of such severity that they cannot and should not be tolerated with conniving eyes since they result in insult to the majesty of God and in harm to the Catholic Faith, and so he resorted to informing himself and examining the witnesses in the manner that follows. Such-and-such witness Name (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses) was put under oath and summoned,49 and being questioned about the name and reputation of Röslin responded that she knew her, also adding them should come forward. Such a document would have been similar to the vernacular protocol (doc. 8). Nothing more is known of this document. As for the vicar, this term signifies a subordinate appointed by a bishop to oversee his administrative responsibilities. The man referred to must be Christian Turner, who is otherwise referred to as the “commissary general,” another way of describing a vicar general. In any event, the point of mentioning this document is that while for unknown reasons, these witnesses were not questioned during the course of the present proceedings, he cites their earlier depositions as further evidence of Hüfeysen’s guilt. 47  The name of a gully in Hötting (see doc. 8, n. 103) by which a small stream entered the Inn. Presumably the neighborhood by the gully is meant. 48  For the interpretation of this woman’s name, see the section on “Personal Names and their Translation” in the Introduction (pp. 84–86). 49  Dorothea, the wife of Jörg the gun master, according to the corresponding articles (doc. 10/4). There were two terms for his position – Zeugmeister and Büchsenmeister – and he seems to have been known by both (as well as by a geographical last name; see doc. 10. n. 68).

TEXTS: Document 9

155

that by some people she was suspected of having engaged in acts of witchcraft. She also added that she held her suspect because of the incident that follows. One time, when the archduke of Austria came to the house of the husband of the deponent to see his work and jobs, among other things the husband of the deponent asked the aforementioned prince to give him a court garment.50 The duke responded, “I’ll give you a whole cloth,” and so it happened that when the duke was in the other armory,51 he said to Röslin’s husband named Jörg Moderm,52 “I strictly entrust to you the task of going to the chamberlain. Have a whole cloth given to you for my friend Jörg” (naming the denouncer).53 So Röslin’s husband went and brought the cloth to his house where he was residing. The cloth remained there for a certain period of time. Röslin said to her servant girl named Elsa (nicknamed Big Els, who now has a carpenter as husband),54 “I do not want to send them the cloth, but first I want to put something in.” So at night, with the aforementioned Elisabeth holding a candle in her hand, the denounced woman put both her hands in the folds of the cloth and held in her hands a white paste like salt. She said to the maid, “I’m afraid that this [6] won’t do any good because she’ll dip it in water or have it scraped. 50  I.e., attire fit for wearing at court (German Hofkleid). 51  The Latin bombardarum domus (“house of guns”) is presumably a literal translation of the German Büchsenhaus or Zeughaus. It would seem that each of the two gun masters was in charge of an armory of his own. A gun master was a professional in charge of managing a piece of artillery, which he may even have cast himself. It was thus more of a “professional” than a military position, and while it did have a certain amount of prestige in the military hierarchy, it was basically a position involving engineering rather than command (which belongs to upper-class officers). Oddly enough, one cannon cast for the archduke survives. It somehow wound up in the possession of the Knights Hospitaller, who used it in their fortifications on the island of Rhodes, leaving it there when they were forced in 1522 to abandon the island at the end of a long siege by the Ottomans. In 1862, the Ottoman sultan Abdul Aziz gave it as a present to the French Emperor Napoleon III, and as a result it is still preserved in Paris. The inscription on the gun indicates that the gun was named Katherina (perhaps in honor of the archduke’s young wife), having been cast in 1487 by Jörg Endarfer. For this gun, see Baum (1987) 463. It would seem that either the archduke had more than two gun masters or at least one of the two mentioned in the depositions had been replaced within two years of Institoris’s inquisition. 52  In the proceedings on October 29 she is called Rosina Hochwartin (doc. 11/2, 7), which would seem to indicate that her husband’s name was Hochwart (see doc. 11, n. 13). The name appears only here, and while it is clear that the final letter is an “m,” it could also be “in” or “ni” if the dot was omitted (as is often the case). 53  The parenthetical clause is misleading. It is masculine, whereas the present deponent is a woman. The informant in question is the deponent’s husband, whose testimony is mentioned at the end of the present deposition. 54  This parenthesis is a quaint way of indicating in Latin that the man’s name was Zimmerman (German for “carpenter”).

156

TEXTS: Document 9

But it’s no use.55 I’ll certainly persuade the tailor to send me the shirt once it’s made.” Item. The deponent added, when further questioned, that her husband’s shirt was presented to him, but whether it was previously in the denounced woman’s house and handed over by the tailor, she did not know. She did affirm, however, that when her husband put the shirt on, he had immediately been made ill. She had conceived suspicion about the denounced woman because the denounced woman had incurred the prince’s outrage, so that she was dismissed from the armory along with her husband, as one suspected of witchcraft. Everything was revealed at the city hall by Big Els.56 Item. The reason why the deponent considered the denounced woman suspected as a witch was that she had bewitched his shirt. Item. The deponent said the same thing, that the aforementioned Big Els had related this same deed of Röslin’s in Zugmeisterin’s house,57 and Sixin,58 Rotfelderin,59 Kirschenerin, and Halbschirnen60 were present. 55  Big Els’s comment quoted at the end of this session indicates that this sentence means that washing out the paste will not thwart her plans because the paste is so heavily embedded in the cloth that it will not wash out, but the next sentence here suggests that the reason that washing will do no good is that she will be sure to reapply the witchcraft after the cloth is turned into a garment. But if that is her intent, what is the point of applying the initial witchcraft? Perhaps, she intends to do it twice just to make sure! In any case, this conception has to do with trying to make sense of the two separate and basically incompatible versions of the bewitching (one involving the cloth before it is turned into garments and the other taking place after the tailor’s sister takes possession again of the blouse, as is indicated below in the text). 56  That is, she previously made an independent denunciation of these events with the city authorities (some years before, as the corresponding articles indicate). 57  Seemingly, Zugmeisterin (“wife of the Zugmeister”) signifies the deponent. It is odd for her to be named as if she were someone other than the deponent. The reference at the start of this sentence to the deponent saying the “same thing” seems to suggest that this item is not actually testimony of Dorothea but a statement of someone else that has been inserted into her testimony. If so, this is most likely a statement made by the deponent’s husband, whose deposition is mentioned at the end of the present one, but seemingly contained nothing but confirmation of the wife’s, which is exactly what is stated here. 58  Herself a member of the association of suspected witches that also included Röslin (above on 4 and doc. 10/5). 59  The maid of a woman of the same name is accused of stealing milk in the vernacular depositions (doc. 8, Testimony L). 60  In two proceedings below, Halbschirnen was also present, and it would seem that she gave testimony in the original depositions but does not appear in the present proceedings (see n. 69).

TEXTS: Document 9

157

Item. The deponent said about the blouse that after her blouse had been made, the sister of the tailor’s wife came to her asking her to hand the blouse over to her for a short time because the tailor had neglected to do something. The deponent handed her blouse over, and the tailor’s sister took it back. The deponent did not know for certain, however, whether the blouse was taken back to the tailor’s house or to Röslin’s, but the blouse was later brought back to her, and after she put it on, she was immediately made ill and the illness lasted for the length of one year, her health being bad every day, while her husband’s illness lasted ten weeks. Item. The deponent said to Big Els, “If you’d warned me, I would have removed the witchcraft through washing.” Big Els responded, “You wouldn’t have accomplished anything because she smeared the paste on so well with her hands that it couldn’t really be destroyed.” These proceedings were conducted in the year, month and day noted above, in the presence of the lord inquisitor etc., Brother Wilhelmus Behringer, Brother Heinricus Hofman of the Order of Preachers, and of myself, the notary public and scribe of the lord inquisitor and of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Item. The husband of the aforementioned deponent, being called, summoned and questioned, agrees with this in all regards, on the year, month and day as above. Such-and-such witness Name etc. (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses) was put under oath and summoned,61 and being questioned about the name and reputation of Röslin, he responded that he had named her, but as for her reputation, he responded that she had been named as a witch on the basis of the reputation held by many people.62 Asked what he himself thought about her in terms of such business, he said that she was suspect in his eyes. As for carrying out acts of witchcraft, he replied with what follows. One time when Röslin was in the prince’s bad graces, it happened that she sent for a certain woman named Magdalena Siberin, who now resides in Lindau.63 When she arrived with four men with whom she had associated herself on the road, 61  Hans Spiess, according to the corresponding articles (doc. 10/5). He would give testimony four days later (on October 19) about Scheuberin (doc. 9/10). 62  The next sentence suggests that here Spiess was taken to be equivocating. 63  There are a number of towns named Lindau, but the obvious choice for the present reference is the one on the north shore of the southeast end of the Bodensee (a large lake on the Swiss-German border), about twenty-five kilometers to the south-southeast of

158

TEXTS: Document 9

with these men she happened to enter the Rumler Inn, in which the deponent was lodging, and because the aforementioned Magdalena had, while on the road with the men, often mentioned the prince and among other things had said that in Insbruck there were two women, a mother and daughter (naming Röslin as the daughter) with whom she would carry out certain practices on the prince so that he would by all means receive her in favor and would have to do everything they wanted, the aforementioned four men, being in the inn, recalled the aforementioned words (supply, “the words that Magdalena had uttered on the road”) and made mention of them to the deponent. After he warned the duke as a loyal subject, and prevented any petition from being handed over to him on behalf of either Magdalena or the other two women, it happened that the aforementioned Magdalena promised the deponent ten florins64 if he would present one petition to the duke, which he declined to do. These proceedings were conducted on Oct. 19, a.d. 1485, in the presence of the lord inquisitor etc., Brother Wilhelmus Behringer, Brother Heinricus Hofman of the Order of Preachers, and of myself, the notary public and scribe of the lord inquisitor and of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. [7] Item. Such-and-Such witness Name (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses) was placed under oath and summoned,65 and being questioned regarding the name and reputation of the aforementioned denounced woman, she responded that she knew her, adding about the reputation that she was called a witch by many people and considered to be suspected of carrying out acts of witchcraft. She related that one time in the evening there was a banquet (on August 4th past) in the house of Sigmund the one-time barber of the duke, Halbschirnen, and the wife of the aforementioned Sigmund; item, Zu Schretterin;66 item, Heinz Kugler, the servant of some nobleman, who was staying in the house of the aforementioned Sigmund, and on the other side at Ravensburg (see MM 165B for an anecdote that takes place in Lindau). The town is about 200 km from Innsbruck, so bringing a “helper” from so far away was clearly no minor step. 64  A florin was properly a gold coin issued by Florence that was a standard for exchange. However, a large number of other jurisdictions issued similar coins also called florins. Whatever the exact coin meant, clearly the sum of money offered was large. Seemingly, we have here an old-fashioned attempt at buying influence in place of witchcraft. 65  The name of the witness is not preserved in the articles. 66  The woman accused in case A of the vernacular protocol (doc. 8).

TEXTS: Document 9

159

a different table sat the deponent along with the children of the house. When those sharing the meal came to speak of acts of witchcraft and how a baptized Jewess together with two other Christian women had whipped an image of the Crucifix and jabbed it with needles, uttering blasphemous words,67 the deponent asserted that Halbschirnen then related how a servant girl of Röslin by the name of Els Zimmermannin had told her how one time when Röslin wanted to bewitch a certain new cloth that had been given as a present by the duke to someone else, so that whoever put it on would be bewitched to the point of sustaining serious illnesses, at that time the aforementioned Els had to hold a light, and because she could not do this properly, she had to hand the light over to a certain child.68 The aforementioned Els heard the following words from the mouth of Röslin as she was smearing the cloth: “Euch soll nimmer Glück angehen” [“Luck shall never come to you”]. The aforementioned Halbschirnen agrees that she heard it said as stated above.69 These proceedings were conducted on the year and month noted above, on the 21st day, in the presence of the lord inquisitor etc., Brother Wilhelmus Behringer, Brother Heinricus Hofman of the Order of Preachers, and Johannes Rosenbart of the Order of Minorites, onetime chaplain of the duke of Austria, and of myself, the notary public and scribe of the lord inquisitor and of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Item. Such-and-such witness Name etc. (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses) was put under oath and summoned,70 and being questioned about the name and reputation of Röslin, she responded that she knew her on the basis of common, not specific knowledge. Regarding her reputation, she responded that she did not know and was not able to say anything specific except what she had heard by report, saying that the accused women themselves had said to the goldsmith71 that they had boiled the head of a dead man, and further that the goldsmith gave a report to the deponent, in the hearing

67  See case D of the vernacular protocol (doc. 8). 68  Note the reference above to holding a candle in the evidence given above by Dorothea, the gun master’s wife. 69  Surely this is an editorial comment rather than part of the deponent’s testimony. Presumably, Halbschirnen made this statement in the initial (non-extant) vernacular depositions (see n. 21), but she did not give evidence in the present proceedings. 70  The name of the witness is not preserved in the articles. 71  Presumably, someone named Goldschmidt or the like.

160

TEXTS: Document 9

of others. She also adds that from repute she had heard that the denounced women had placed a mouse under the threshold of the armory.72 These proceedings were conducted in the year, month and day noted above, with the same witnesses present, having been called and asked to, and in the presence of the lord inquisitor, and of myself, the notary public and scribe of the lord inquisitor etc. Item. Such-and-such witness Name etc. (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses) was put under oath and summoned,73 and being questioned about the name and reputation of Röslin, she responded that she knew her, and regarding the reputation she said that the denounced woman had a bad reputation among many people on account of carrying out acts of witchcraft, adding that she too considered her suspect as a witch because of the things that she had heard from Röslin’s female servant,74 namely that Röslin had given her a mouse to place on the prince’s body while he was asleep, for the purpose of obtaining from him whatever she asked for.75 These proceedings were conducted on the year and month and on such day of it as noted above, with the same witnesses present, having been called and asked specifically for this purpose, in the presence of myself, the notary public written below, before the lord inquisitor. [8] Proceedings against Agnes, Widow Peter Schneiderin In the name of the Lord, amen. On Oct. 16, a.d. 1486.

72  For the threshold as a frequent location for placing devices for witchcraft, see HDA 7.1526– 1532 s.v. “Schwell.” 73  The identity of this deponent is not recoverable from the articles. 74  Presumably, Big Els. 75  How would Röslin’s servant have access to the archduke during his sleep? In any event, is this the practice that Margaretha Siberin, the witch summoned from Lindau, suggested? Finally, is this story a variant of the one told just above about the mouse being placed under the threshold of the armory? Also see n. 99 for a conceivable reference to a statement about Pflieglin having been made at this point.

TEXTS: Document 9

161

Through the report of public repute and communication by clamorous information, it has come repeatedly to the ears of the venerable and religious gentleman, Brother Heinricus Institoris of the Order of Preachers, Professor of Sacred Theology, and Inquisitor of Heretical Depravity in the dominion of Archduke Sigismund of Austria through special appointment by the Holy Apostolic See, that Agnes called the Widow Peter Schneiderin has done against the Faith such things of such severity that they cannot and should not be tolerated with conniving eyes since they result in insult to the majesty of God and in harm to the Catholic Faith, and so he resorted to informing himself and examining the witnesses in the manner that follows. Such-and-such witness Name (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses) was put under oath and summoned,76 and being questioned about the name and reputation of Peter Schneiderin, he responded, “I want to relate the things that happened to me.” First, he was able to perform carnal acts with her. Second, when he wanted to cut off relations with her and take a wife, the denounced woman came to him one morning at the armory and said to him, “Have you taken that woman as wife?” When he asked “Who?” she replied, “Das gelbe Dirnel” [“the blonde girl”]. Then he said, “What’s it to you? Yes, I married her.” Then the denounced woman placed one hand in the other and with some vigor said, “So sei meine Treue an eines Eids statt. Ich will dir und ihr tun, daß ir keinen gesunden Tag nimmer bei einander haben sollen” [“Let my word take the place of an oath for you. I will make you and her never have a healthy day with each other”]. And whatever I do not know, I have a woman at my place who knows how to do such things.” In this way, it happened that he has remained ill to the present time. Item. He added that he had gotten another grounds for suspicion regarding her from the fact that during his illness the denounced woman had repeatedly sent to him to ask whether he considered her suspect, and while the deponent pretended not to know, asking, “Who is that woman who is sending to me like this?” “when77 no one specified, I myself said, ‘Is it her?’” (that is, the denounced woman), and when they said yes, from this he conceived even more suspicion, on account of the words uttered before.

76  Hans Portner, according to the corresponding articles (doc. 10/5). 77  Here the narrative slips momentarily into direct quotation of the witness’s testimony.

162

TEXTS: Document 9

Third,78 he asserted that he had complained to the duke about her regarding the witchcraft that had been inflicted on him by her, saying that he would be glad to have her placed under arrest.79 These proceedings were conducted on the year month and day noted above, in the presence of the lord inquisitor etc., with Master Johannes Roessbach, Brother Wilhelmus Behringer of the Order of Preachers, the chaplain for the moment of the lord inquisitor being present there as witnesses specifically called and asked for this purpose, and of myself, the notary public and scribe written below of the lord inquisitor and of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, in the prince’s court. Item. Such-and-such witness Name (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses) was put under oath and summoned,80 and being questioned in regard to his wife, he asserted that he considered the aforementioned denounced woman suspected of having bewitched his wife on him, and he has this suspicion on the basis of three points. First, on account of the threatening words81 described above that were uttered by her to him and his wife. Second, his wife being unaware of the aforementioned threatening words as he had not revealed them to her, the denounced woman visited his wife several times, asking her to go to a natural bath with her, and after the husband agreed82 and she took cushions with her to the baths, the wife returned from the baths lame and bewitched, though she had entered healthy, and in addition she returned crazy. For this reason, he conceived greater suspicion against the denounced woman. Third, though in violation of the Church’s prohibition, he consulted a certain female diviner,83 and she said that this had been inflicted on her as a result of witchcraft, and as a sign of this she told him to search in the cushions because there he would find the things with which the witchcraft had been 78  This presumably picks up from the two statements made two paragraphs above. 79  Properly, “her” should be translated “himself,” but presumably the reflexive pronoun is being used simply as a third-person personal pronoun. In any event, it would seem that nothing came of this denunciation to the archduke. 80  Clearly, this is simply a continuation of the preceding examination. 81  The concept is laid out fully in article four of the first interrogatory about Widow Schneiderin (see doc. 10/6 with n. 618). For the idea that witches necessarily reveal themselves with threatening words that precede the commission of witchcraft, see n. 82. 82  Under the circumstances, Portner’s acquiescence seems inexplicable. 83  That is, a “helpful” practitioner of witchcraft. Institoris is deeply suspicious of such people, believing their practices to involve the invocation of Satan and to be inherently untrustworthy; see MM 190A–B, 215C; NH 3.5 (48v). For another instance of consulting female diviners, see doc. 8, Case K.

163

TEXTS: Document 9

carried out. When he looked, he found a piece of cloth there in which various things were tied up, numbering eighteen items. All of these he cast into the fire by the advice of the diviner, recovering reason and, to some extent, health.84 These proceedings were conducted on the year, month and day noted above, with the same men present, in the presence of myself, the notary written below. [9] Proceedings against Pflieglin In the name of the Lord, amen. On Oct. 17, a.d. 1485, etc.85 Such-and-such witness Name (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses) was put under oath and summoned,86 and being questioned about the name and reputation of the aforementioned denounced woman, he responded that he knew her and had learned from rumor that she had engaged in deeds involving acts of witchcraft, adding that he had learned this only from vague report. Specifically, however, he added that once when that Hüfeysen was in his house, she uttered these words to the deponent: that Hüfeysen herself would give him her word that Pflieglin could cause the person who would not love him87 to have a pain in the stomach to the point of death. The deponent being questioned further about the manner that she spoke in, Hüfeysen responded,88 “This is what the denounced woman89 does. She just takes a reed and places it in the current, and as long as the water flows through the reed, the man or woman that she designates suffers the flux.” 84  Grammatically, there is no doubt that this last phrase refers to the subject of the verb “cast.” The preceding information and the corresponding article clearly indicate, however, that the recovery of reason and health should refer to the wife. Since there is no explicit subject, it is possible to render the subject of “cast” as “she,” but there is nothing in the Latin to suggest a shift in subject, and it is preferable to imagine that the sentence is clumsily written. For a possible explanation of why the wife only partially recovered her health, see n. 10. 85  For the explanation for the lack of the usual introductory formula, see n. 90. 86  Hans Schuster according to the articles (doc. 10/7). 87  The manuscript reads “him” here, but the corresponding article (doc. 10/7) says “her.” The latter makes more sense, and the change in Latin (“u” to “a”) is slight and paleographically easy. 88  Seemingly, what is meant is “he responded that Hüfeysen said …” 89  Presumably this explanatory phrase has been intruded into the quotation by Institoris.

164

TEXTS: Document 9

These proceedings were conducted on the year, month and day noted above, with Brother Wolfgangus, Paulus Cael Schirmmeister etc. present, in the presence of myself, the notary. Such-and-Such witness mentioned above against Hüfeysen, that is, the woman who was bewitched in her entire body via sores and pus from the top of her head to the soles of her feet, in conformity with the threatening words that Hüfeysen had cast at her, namely that three days would not pass without greater pains seizing her than she (Pflieglin) had.90 This generates vehement suspicion that Pflieglin was herself complicit in inflicting the witchcraft and in the method by which it must have been inflicted, on the basis of three considerations. First, it was in her house, and at the time when the deponent was employed in her service that that act of witchcraft is known to have happened throughout her body.91 Item.92 Because the threatening words were uttered by Hüfeysen in Pflieglin’s presence and Pflieglin herself did not protect her servant or chastise the threatener, it is clear that the witchcraft happened by her consent, or at least with her knowledge. Second, because Pflieglin’s husband saw and found the things with which the act of witchcraft had been committed, as is clear in the first deposition of the first witness,93 it is presumed that the husband knew this from information provided by his wife.94 Third, the husband, considering his wife (the denounced woman) suspect, several times ordered her in persuasion to stay away from such things, or else the time would come for her to place her hands over her head on account of her difficulties. These proceedings were conducted on the year, month and day noted above, with the same people as above being present.

90  This long sentence apparently has no main verb. In any event, the present testimony is merely a repetition of the more detailed version given above (doc. 9/4–5) of the testimony of Ludwigen Wagenstallin against Hüfeysen. The date and list of witnesses for the two pieces of testimony are identical, and the repetition here explains the unusual procedure of omitting the initial indication of the witness having been summoned and put under oath. 91  But how does this suggest Pflieglin’s complicity? Seemingly, this piece of evidence is to be taken in conjunction with the following one, the point being that the deponent was a servant of the suspect’s, and the latter’s failure to protect her is an indication of her involvement in inflicting the harm. 92  Here, the Latin item is used to introduce a second “point” within a second “reason.” 93  I.e., in the protocol against Hüfeysen. This provides clear evidence of the present protocol having been redacted for submission to the bishop. 94  Why could he not have heard it directly from Hüfeysen?

165

TEXTS: Document 9

Such-and-Such witness Name (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses) is to be summoned and questioned etc.95 because at the time when the denounced woman was arrested, he said as if in congratulations to the burgermaster, “Good job she’s been arrested, because one time she handed over a nut to my wife so that she could bewitch me.” These proceedings were conducted in the presence of the Minorite96 etc., and of Brothers Wilhelmus and Hermanus,97 and of myself etc. Item. Her case is aggravated by the deposition of the gun master’s wife,98 who asserted that the denounced woman knew about Röslin’s inflicting an act of witchcraft on the duke, but as to whether she consented in this, the deponent asserted that she did not know this. The deponent did add, however, that she had learned this from the account of Röslin’s servant.99 [10] Proceedings against Scheuberin In the name of the Lord, amen. On October 13, a.d.1486. Through the report of public repute and communication by clamorous information, it has come repeatedly to the ears of the venerable and religious gentleman, Brother Heinricus Institoris of the Order of Preachers, Professor of Sacred Theology, and Inquisitor of Heretical Depravity in the dominion 95  This must be the man identified simply as Übelherr in the corresponding article (doc. 10/7). 96  Presumably, this refers to Johannes Rosenbart the minorite (above 7). Perhaps the presence of the inquisitor himself is ignored in this very abbreviated notice, but it is difficult to see how this man can only be cited by his order. Perhaps this is a mistake for “inquisitor” (as the initial position in the formula suggests). 97  The abbreviated attestation has simply “her,” which would seem to indicate the name Herman. But no Brother Herman is attested elsewhere among the witnesses. Perhaps this is a mistake for Heinrich Hofman (the unusually large number of abbreviations in this notice of the witnesses suggests that the notary was in a hurry for some reason). 98  I.e., Dorothea (see n. 49). 99  I.e., Big Els (Elisabeth Zimmermannin). Actually, there is no such statement (or even discussion of an attempt to bewitch the archduke) in her evidence (doc. 9/5–6), but the subsequent evidence of a witness whose name is not preserved does contain a statement that the witness had heard from Röslin’s servant (i.e., Big Els) that Röslin had given her a mouse to use to bewitch the archduke (doc. 9/7). Perhaps here Institoris has confused the two witnesses.

166

TEXTS: Document 9

of Archduke Sigismund of Austria through special appointment by the Holy Apostolic See, that Helena, called Scheuberin, of Innsbruck has done against the Faith such things of such severity that they cannot and should not be tolerated with conniving eyes since they result in insult to the majesty of God and in harm to the Catholic Faith, and so he resorted to informing himself and examining the witnesses in the manner that follows. Such-and-such witness Name (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses) was put under oath and summoned,100 and being questioned as to whether he knew the aforementioned Scheuberin, he responded yes. Item. Questioned about her reputation, particularly with regard to matters pertaining to the Faith, he responded that in regards to reputation, she had a bad reputation, as he will bear witness, and in regards to matters pertaining to the Faith, the rumor here in the locale was that she had consorted with persons under suspicion with regards to carrying out acts of witchcraft, notably with one woman who is called Hüfeysen. Item. The same man being questioned further as to what more the reputation claimed, he responded that the reputation is that she killed a certain knight named Jörg Spiess. Questioned further about the manner, he said that he knew only what he had heard from the rumor, namely that an Italian doctor had told the aforementioned knight not to approach the woman Helena called Scheuberin any more, or else he would have to die. Item. From the knight’s kinswoman he heard that in his final moment the knight came to a realization and said, “The reason why I’m dying is that that woman killed me.”101 These proceedings were conducted on the aforementioned year, month and day, in the presence of the aforementioned inquisitor etc. and Lord Sigismundus the licentiate in decretals102 and parish priest in Axams,103

100  The name of the witness is not recoverable from the articles. 101  For another deathbed accusation see Testimony B in doc. 8 (with n. 10 for the importance Institoris placed on such accusations). 102  “Decretals” mean papal decisions, so the term here signifies canon law in general. 103  It seems hard to escape the conclusion that the person cited is Sigismund Sämer, the licentiate and parish priest of Axams, recipient of doc. 7. Here (and below) the town’s name is spelled Aixem. There is no doubt about the reading, but in both that doc. and

TEXTS: Document 9

167

as well as Brother Wolfgangus, and of myself, the notary public by apostolic authority and scribe of the lord inquisitor. Item. In the same year and month, on its 15th day, there appeared Such-andSuch witness Name (as his name contained on the list of witnesses).104 Put under oath, summoned, and questioned as to whether he knew Scheuberin, he responded yes. Item. Questioned as to whether he knew this aforementioned knight, he responded yes, but he added that he had an intimate friendship with him, as a result of which he had also received the same last name. Item. Questioned about Scheuberin’s reputation, he responded that she has a bad one. Nonetheless, questioned about her reputation in regards to matters pertaining to the Faith, he responded that he could say nothing more except principally what the aforementioned knight Jörg Spiess said at the moment of his death and in fact even repeated when apparently dying, saying the following: “The reason why I’m dying is that that woman killed me,” and in this way he died, as is proven below through other witnesses.105 Item. This same man related that by hearing from a number of people, he had learned and heard that a certain Italian doctor had ordered the aforementioned knight not to approach the often mentioned woman (Helena Scheuberin) any more, or else he could not avoid that death, but the aforementioned knight, paying no attention to the doctor, approached the often mentioned woman and incurred death, and in this way he died. These events were known to the whole population on the basis of general reputation. These proceedings were conducted on the year, month and day noted above, in the presence of the lord inquisitor and Master Johannes doc. 11/1, the town is called Angsam(s), and it is not clear why it should be rendered differently here. 104  Given that the deponent indicates below in the text that he shares the dead knight’s last name, this must be Hans Spiess (doc. 10/8). He gave testimony four days earlier (on October 15) about Röslin (doc. 9/6). 105  Does this indicate that the testimony here is mere hearsay (which needs external confirmation) or is Institoris simply pointing out the later corroboration? Certainly, if the deponent had been present at Spiess’s death, one would expect this to have been explicitly indicated. Note that the previous deponent ascribed information about the knight’s final words to his kinswoman (sister), which is presumably the source of the information here too.

168

TEXTS: Document 9

Roessbach, and of the notary Conradus Herencons, Brother Wolfgangus, and of myself, the notary public and scribe of the lord inquisitor. Item. In the year and month noted above, on the 19th day of it, there appeared Such-and-Such witness Name etc.106 Placed under oath, summoned, and questioned as to whether he had knowledge of Scheuberin, he responded yes. Item. Questioned about her reputation, especially in regards to matters pertaining to the Faith, he responded that in regards to reputation, she had a bad reputation. In regards to matters relating to the Faith, he said that she killed the aforementioned knight Jörg Spiess. Item. Questioned as to how she had killed him, through acts of witchcraft or in some other manner, he responded that he knew nothing about this except that having once had a meal at the time of the last Lent, after he got better from the first illness, the aforementioned knight came to his house, and sitting on a chair, he put his arms on his knees and said in the presence of one male servant by the name of Jörg (now Ringsmaul’s servant) and of a certain young man who lives with Lord Ulricus of Schlandersberg, “Ich hab eine Lecke107 gegessen, der ich nicht überwinde” [“I’ve eaten a lick that I can’t get over”],108 and with that [11] he gave the young man two kreuzer109 to get some theriac110 from the apothecary’s. Item. Such-and-such witness Name (whose name etc.) was put under oath and summoned,111 and asked about his knowledge of the knight and of Scheuberin 106  The name of the deponent is not recoverable from the articles. For the possibility that this is Ringsmaul, see n. 111. 107  The German word Lecke (related to the English “lick”) seems to refer to various sorts of salted meal fed to domestic animals in the Tyrol (see Grimm [1999] s.v. Lecke). Could the use here be jocular (note that the food is not specified in the corresponding articles, where the knight is said to have eaten “something”)? 108  The German verb überwinden can signify “surviving” or “getting over” an illness or the like, and that’s the sense here (and in the next few depositions). 109  A Kreuzer was a silver coin with the device of the cross (German Kreuz) on it. 110  A common cure-all thought to be an antidote for poisoning. 111  It is peculiar that the preceding testimony has no independent list of witnesses at the end, and seemingly it and the present testimony are treated as a single procedural item. Such a procedure is attested elsewhere in the testimony for spouses (in this way, the Zeugmeister confirms his wife’s testimony above in doc. 9/6, the bewitched wife and her husband are also treated this way below in doc. 9/12). Could it be that the present testimony of an exservant of the dead knight’s was paired with that of his new employer, who is the preceding witness? According to the previous testimony, the only two witnesses to these words

TEXTS: Document 9

169

listed above, he responded that he knew the knight, and added that he had been in his service. Asked further what he had said about the knights’s death,112 he replied that one time last Lent, the knight came home and sat in a chair, having finished a dinner with the denounced woman after he had gotten well following the first illness. Sitting on the chair, he said, “Ich habe eine Lecke gegessen, der ich nimmer überwinde” [“I’ve eaten a lick that I’ll never get over”], and with that he gave two kreuzer to a youth to fetch theriac from the apothecary’s. These proceedings were conducted in the year and month noted above, on its 19th day, in the presence of the lord inquisitor, and of Master Johannes Roessbach, Brother Wilhelmus Behringer, Heinricus Hoffman, and of myself, the notary public (as above). Item. Such-and-Such witness Name etc.,113 put under oath, summoned and questioned about service with and knowledge of the aforementioned deceased knight, asserted that he had been in his service, and questioned as to what he said about the knight’s death, he responded that when the knight came home during the previous Lent and was resting on a chair, he said,114 “Ich habe eine Lecke gegessen, der ich nimmer überwinde” [“I’ve eaten a lick that I’ll never get over”]. Item. The same man being asked further, he said that he had been present and heard when the Italian doctor said to the knight while pointing towards his own hand with his fingers, “Herr, du wirst nimmer Reue haben” [“Lord, you’ll never (again) have regret”], and suddenly the knight turned his face and neck away from the doctor and fell down.115 were the servant Jörg, who was now in the employ of Ringsmaul, and a young man who now lived with Lord Ulrich of Schlandersberg. Since the deposition here refers to the young man who was sent to get the theriac, presumably the deponent is Jörg. In that case, the previous testimony would be that of Ringsmaul. 112  Comparison with the next deposition indicates that the text should say “said” rather than “had said” (that is, the question put to him was “What do you say about the knight’s death?”). 113  For the possibility that this is the young man now living with Lord Ulrich of Schlandersberg, see n. 111. 114  In the Latin, the speaker is clearly someone other than the knight (that is, the phrase “he said” here refers to someone else), but this seems to be a matter of defective Latin since it is clear from other reports of this statement that the knight is speaking. 115  The doctor’s words are ambiguous as quoted in the German. The adverb nimmer means “never” in modern German, but in earlier German it meant more specifically “never again” or “no longer” (see Grimm [1999] s.v. 1). Does the doctor mean that Spiess will have

170

TEXTS: Document 9

These proceedings were conducted on the year and month noted above, on its 13th day, in the presence of the Lord Inquisitor, Brother Wolfgangus, Brother Casparus of Freiburg, in the house of Innkeeper Rumler. Item. Such-and-Such witness Name etc.116 Placed under oath, summoned and questioned about the reputation and all the other methods listed above, he responded that he finally117 heard from the sister of the deceased knight Spiess that the same denounced woman mentioned above killed this knight “in einem Kindes Fleisch” [“with a piece of child’s flesh”], and when the deponent asked, “How can you put up with this?,” she responded, “I am too poor, and so can’t avenge myself.” These proceedings were conducted in the year and month noted above, on its 13th day, in the presence of the Lord Inquisitor, Brother Wolfgangus, Brother Casparus of Freiburg, in the house of Innkeeper Rumler, and of118 witnesses called specifically for this purpose and asked. Item. In the year, month noted above, there appeared Such-and-Such witness etc. Name (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses).119 Put under oath, summoned, and questioned about the name and reputation of the often aforementioned Scheuberin, he finally120 said that he had heard from the kinswoman of the knight that the kinswoman had heard him say the following: “The reason why I’m dying is that that woman killed me.” These proceedings were conducted on the year and month noted above, on its 15th day, in the presence of the inquisitor, and Lord Sigismundus the licentiate in decretals and parish priest in Aixem,121 as well as Brother Wolfgangus, and of myself, the notary of the lord inquisitor. “no more regrets” because he’s on the point of death? Presumably, the gesture of pointing at his hand helped make the sense clear, but what that gesture signifies I do not know. 116  The name of the deponent is not preserved in the articles. 117  There’s no doubt that in the Latin the adverb modifies the clause with “heard” as its main verb, but the next deposition suggests that the word really should modify “responded” in the preceding clause. Presumably, the adverb signifies that this statement was made after previous statements that were not thought worthy of inclusion in the record. 118  This last phrase appears to be meaningless. Surely, the “witnesses” were the friars previously noted. 119  The name of the deponent is not preserved in the articles. 120  See n. 117. 121  For the town’s name, see n. 506.

TEXTS: Document 9

171

Item. In the year and month noted above, there appeared Such-and-Such witness Name (whose name is contained on the list of witnesses).122 Placed under oath, summoned and questioned about the name and reputation of the aforementioned Scheuberin, she responded regarding the name that she knew her, and regarding the reputation, she said that she was considered suspected as a witch in her opinion because she presumed that she had been bewitched by her in her body and all her limbs. The same woman being questioned, for what reason, she responded that her husband had brought her from an area in Bavaria and joined with her in matrimony, and when the denounced woman was actually invited to the celebration of the wedding [12] on account of the acquaintance that she had previously had with the husband, the denounced woman came up to me123 during the wedding and said to me, “Du solt nicht viel güter und gesunder Tage hier haben” [“You shall not have many good and healthy days here”]. Since she did not know her, she asked some other woman who that woman was who had spoken to her, and she responded that it was Scheuberin. As for her having said that she should not have many healthy days, this was proven true in that I was only healthy from St. Matthew’s day124 until St. Gall’s day,125 and I see that since then until now I’ve been bewitched by her for seven years. To the same effect, the husband of the aforementioned woman, being placed under oath, summoned, and questioned about the knowledge126 and familiarity that he had with the denounced woman, he responded that he had known her quite often during the time when he was single and she was single. He added that Scheuberin herself would have been glad to have him,127 and when he did not want to, she saw that she had been spurned by him and so inflicted this witchcraft on his wife, he suspects. These proceedings were conducted on the aforementioned year and month noted above, on its 18th day, in the presence of the inquisitor, and

122  The name of the deponent is not preserved in the articles. This story is recounted at length in MM 94C–D (as told by the husband). 123  From here on, the account varies between the first and third person. 124  September 21. 125  October 16. 126  This word (cognicio) is not the one normally used in these texts for knowledge in the sense of acquaintance (noticia), and the word is derived from the verb used for “knowing someone carnally” (as later in this passage). 127  I.e., as her husband.

172

TEXTS: Document 9

Brother Wolfgangus, and Master Roessbach, and of the notary public of the lord inquisitor and of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Item. The inquisitor asserts that it was conveyed and communicated128 quite often to his ears that the denounced woman was spurning and had spurned his sermons, and that when he was in the pulpit, she always left the church, giving a curse with the following words: “Daß dir das Fallenübel in deinen grauen Schädel falle. Wenn will dich der Teufel hinführen?” [“May the falling sickness129 fall into your grey skull! When will the Devil take you away?”]. The inquisitor would never have believed that she had spoken in this way if he had not heard these words from her own mouth when she was in custody. When the inquisitor asked why she had spoken in this way, the denounced woman responded, “The reason why I spoke is that you never preach anything but heresy.” When the inquisitor further inquired, “How so?” she responded, “Because you only preach against witches.”130 These proceedings were conducted on Oct. 4th, in the year and month noted above, in the presence of the other woman in detention (Schneiderin).131 I, Johannes Kanter of the diocese of Utrecht,132 public notary by holy apostolic authority, state that inasmuch as all the depositions of the witnesses were made in the manner and form stated before, with such witnesses, having been specifically called for this purpose and requested, being present as they are ascribed133 above, and in the presence of the lord inquisitor delegated by the 128  This pair of verbs is used to reflect the (forced) jingle of two synonyms in the Latin. 129  I.e., epilepsy. 130  For more on Scheuberin’s objections to Institoris’s preaching, see Article Two of his accusations against her (doc. 10/8). 131  Note that this “proceeding” took place several days before the second one (the deposition given against Hüfeysen on October 8 by Margaretha Grunenpachin; doc. 10/3), without any of the customary religious witnesses and in the presence of only the other suspect (Schneiderin). Presumably, Institoris had a run-in with Scheuberin on October 4 and was so struck by what she said that he drew up a deposition of his own to attest to her words. 132  Or conceivably Maastricht (the two towns had the same name in Latin, being distinguished by differing adjectives, but no adjective appears here). 133  The form used here (appositi=“ascribed”) is anomalous. The verb apponere normally signifies “applying” one thing to another (like an appendix to a literary work). Presumably, the sense is that the witnesses to the proceedings, who would normally be described as adhibiti (“called in” to a council; see doc. 4 with n. 7), are described here as being “added on” because their names appear in procedural tags “attached” at the end of the content of each deposition.

TEXTS: Document 9

173

Apostolic See, and of myself, the already mentioned notary, I have accordingly drawn up these chapters and written them with my own hand, and have also signed this and sealed it with my usual and customary name and seal, having been asked and requested to do so as a sign of and in testimony to each and every one of the foregoing statements.134

134  Note that this paragraph has been struck out. Presumably, after being transcribed along with the rest of the document, it was deleted since the copy was not in fact signed and sealed by the original notary.

Document 10

Articles of Suspected Crimes and List of Questions for the Further Investigation of the Seven Suspects after Their Release This document was drawn up by Institoris to aid Bishop Georg in his further investigation into the cases of the seven suspects after their release on October 31 (see doc. 11/4). In connection with the Ravensburg inquisition, Institoris notes (MM 146B) that Agnes the Bathkeeper was questioned under torture regarding articles drawn up on the basis of testimony from witnesses with reference to harm inflicted on humans and farm animals (super articulos ex depositione testium circa nocumenta hominibus et iumentis illata), and presumably those articles would have taken the same form as the ones here.

…

The present document has a different origin, however. One of the complaints lodged against Institoris by the accused witches’ lawyer Johannes Merwait was that Institoris had failed to draw up articles against them (doc. 11/1). Institoris was given a brief recess to make good this alleged fault, and within an hour came back with the required articles. Those must have been very cursory given the limited time and hurried circumstances, but Institoris must also have taken to heart the need to produce such a document. The present text is clearly more than just a series of articles discussing the specific accusations against the individual suspects. First, it provides detailed questions that correspond directly to the evidence taken during the second questioning of the original deponents (doc. 9), at times giving additional information not preserved in that questioning. In effect, the text is meant to be a guidebook for whoever will go on with the cases (as Institoris had been led to expect would happen), not only indicating what the charges are but also suggesting lines of questioning that will have to be formulated on the basis of the responses given by the accused. In addition to being a guide for the expected further questioning of the accused, the document also indicates how Institoris wants the cases to be adjudicated. The treatment of each suspect’s case concludes with a paragraph outlining how the person in question should be sentenced. The person addressed in these sections is “your paternity,” which must mean the bishop of Brixen. While Institoris did agree in the aftermath of the collapse of his case in late October 1485 to withdraw from further participation in the cases, he clearly wanted to influence the course of further proceedings.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_015

TEXTS: Document 10

175

In the manuscript, the Brixen Memorandum (doc. 16) intervenes between the Latin protocols (doc. 9) and the present Latin articles, and it is clear that the articles presuppose that the reader has already read the Memorandum, which is cited several times. Because the latter is so extensive and its content is largely independent of the investigations themselves, it is placed at the end of the present work so as not to interrupt the flow of the material directly pertaining to the investigations.

[1] Articles and list of questions regarding the trial of Selachin, who is violently suspected through evidence and indications of the fact and is judged to be caught in the Heresy of Witches. Item. First, that1 after questions regarding name, status, Catholic faith,2 and finally regarding the Heresy of Witches, whether at some time she was instructed about grasping after good will or love etc.3 Second, she is to be questioned about the knowledge (if she has any) about a certain respectable person named Gertrud Rötin. For this is the first deponent in the sheet of witnesses.4 Item. To be questioned about the time when the acquaintance was made, because she5 asserted that she has known her for twenty-six years. Item. To be questioned regarding friendship and familiarity first. Item. Very carefully about enmity, because if this were capital, it would debar the deponent, and it is called capital when death has been inflicted or attempted through means that would be inducive,6 such as through serious (lethal)

1  The syntax here is very clumsy. Presumably, the intended sense is “(The) first (step in the proceedings is) that (she is to be asked) after questions regarding … whether she was ever informed …” 2  Originally, the text mentioned only “name, status, faith,” and the adjective “Catholic” and everything in the sentence after “faith” are a later addition. 3  Presumably this refers to asking the person being interrogated whether she was told she could gain someone’s favor by providing false testimony. 4  Seemingly a list of witnesses similar to the one at the end of the vernacular depositions (doc. 8) was to be provided, but no such list is preserved among the surviving material. Apparently, the omission was inadvertent (see n. 78; also note the omission of the list of foreign witnesses at the end of doc. 8). 5  Rötin. 6  I.e., inducing death.

176

TEXTS: Document 10

wounds.7 For this reason, she is to be questioned carefully about the cause of the enmity, and if the denounced woman recited any frivolous causes, the judge would reject them, as he has to.8 Thus, if she were to allege capital or sufficient reasons, the judge does not have to believe it unless it is confirmed by the testimony of two or three people.9 Item. The judge should note that the deponent made a deposition under oath that it was not out of hatred or love, greed or fear that the deponent wished to make the deposition against her, but merely to avoid the censures of the Church10 and to succour the danger to the Faith. On the basis of these statements, the allegations of the denounced woman regarding enmity are very strongly rebutted.11 Item. That the deponent was bewitched in her whole body.12 Item. That devices for witchcraft were found under the threshold of the house. Item. Found through the agency of a certain potter who still lives in Innsbruck and at the same time through that of the husband of the bewitched woman (the deponent). 7   For the determination about the validity of testimony given by enemies, see the Memorandum at the end of Method 12 (doc. 16/21) and MM 3.5 (198C–D) and 3.12 (208A–209D). 8   In MM 3.12 Institoris does everything he can to restrict the notion of “enmity,” defining it as narrowly as possible. The point is to reduce the number of circumstances that bar testimony hostile to the accused. This attitude derives from the general inclination among inquisitors to gain as much evidence as possible against suspected heretics, and this attitude plays into the hands of those who wish to seek out witches. Here, Institoris speaks as if the rejection of “frivolous” claims by the accused of enmity on the part of the witnesses is something that is obligatory for the judge. 9   For the provision about two or three witnesses, see BM (doc. 16/1), MM 196D–197C. 10  I.e., the penalties (“papal bans”) laid out in the initial general summons against those who have knowledge of witches but fail to come forward. These penalties are mentioned in doc. 1 n. 119 and are alluded to by Bishop Georg in his letter of introduction for Institoris (doc. 3). 11  I.e., the mere fact that the deponent has denied under oath that he or she is giving information for any purpose other than compliance with the general summons is taken to be ipso facto a refutation of any claim of enmity by the accused. This logic means, of course, that all such claims will be rejected, since the deponents always have to make such a sworn declaration. 12  This and the subsequent statements of fact are issues about which the accused is to be questioned.

TEXTS: Document 10

177

Item. That the devices were13 a wax image, one palm in length and with holes all over, and significantly with two needles through the chest as far as the shoulders, in which positions the deponent had very severe pains from the chest as far as the shoulders. Item. Two pieces of cloth had been found. In one various seeds that could serve as a person’s food were enclosed, and in the other, the legs of unbaptized infants,14 hairs, and various amulets.15 She should be questioned regarding all of this, and as if from afar.16 First, as to whether she had ever heard of these things that they had been found in such-and-such a way and in such-and-such a location under such-and-such a threshold of the house. Item. That Such-and-Such person (the deponent) had been bewitched. Item. What sort of knowledge she had had of the potter, because it is contained in the trial protocol that this potter was able to perform carnal acts with the witch. For this reason, he gained knowledge of those things (devices for witchcraft) and of the location where they were hidden (the witch17 indicated it to him).18 13  This initial sentence is phrased as if to include the objects described in the next item. 14  For the significance, see doc. 9, n. 9. 15  The word for “amulets” (philateries) is derived from the “phylacteries” used by the ancient Jews, that is, parchments with sacred texts that were suspended from the body. The medieval word signified any sort of object hung in this way for magical purposes, without these necessarily having texts on them. 16  “From afar” means “indirectly.” As shown at the start of the next set of articles (regarding the deposition of Thomanin), the indirect nature of the questioning means not overtly indicating what the inquisitor wishes to learn (say, “Are you considered by others to be a witch?”) and instead using a more general form of question that does not make it clear what issue in particular he wishes to be informed about (for instance, “Are there rumors about you?”). 17  Note how the terminology “witch” presupposes guilt. 18  Note that in MM 135D, the potter is portrayed as saying that there were additional items for witchcraft located elsewhere that he was unable to find, which is the reason why the victim does not fully regain her health after some such items are discovered. This quote is almost certainly a fiction made up by Institoris (see doc. 9, n. 10). If the deponent had actually claimed that the potter had directly stated that he was aware of all the items but could not find them all, this fact should have formed the substance of an article about which he was to be questioned. The vague formulation here seems clear proof that she did not in fact make such a claim, and that Institoris’s later version of what she said is fictitious.

178

TEXTS: Document 10

Item. The potter now suffers from gout, and he would have to be questioned harshly19 because he too is gravely suspected of heresy, and would have to be questioned under torture because he could reveal more things, significantly because at the time of the inquisition he enjoined the deponent that she should not approach me or give me any indication about past actions. He is to be questioned about his experimentum20 by which, when lead is melted and poured in water, the shapes of all the things (the aforementioned devices) appeared in the water. Item. These questions should take place after an oath has first been given by the witch on the four holy gospels of God, in the presence of a notary and witnesses, on such-and-such day and hour of such-and-such year.21 List of questions regarding this witch, Selachin, concerning another person bewitched by her There is also another person bewitched by the aforementioned Selachin named Elisabeth (Master Thomanin). She is first to be questioned from afar22 (to keep her from forming a suspicion against the deponent that she was informed on by her) first as to whether she knew the parents or kin of this Elisabeth,23 second regarding the mutual friendship and familiarity formed between them,24 and regarding the place of residence, and regarding the time (it was twelve years ago). Item. Regarding enmity, and the reason if she should grant that there is any. Item. Regarding knowledge of the deponent’s illness.

19  I.e., as a hostile witness; contrast the “amicable” treatment of the deponent in the witness list to Testimony CC DD (doc. 8). 20  A technical term for a magical “spell” (literally something tested through experience and thereby proven effective). Before the development of modern scientific method, the distinction between science and magic was often hazy, and any sort of procedure that would (or was thought to) result in a physical change was termed an “experimentum”(not to be confused with a modern “experiment”). 21  The final clauses give the wording that is to be used in recording the proceedings (as can be seen from the final section of the actual protocols). In effect, Institoris is here giving procedural information. 22  See n. 16. 23  The protocol does not make the thrust of this question clear. 24  I.e., between Selachin and the deponent.

TEXTS: Document 10

179

Item. Whether the illness had taken place before a certain place for building a house had been bought by the deponent’s husband from the witch’s husband, because this purchase was the reason for the discord between the women, so that Selachin said against the deponent the threatening words contained in the protocol: “Ich will machen daß ir keinen gesunden Tag haben mußt, und mußt erkrümmen und erlähmen” [“I will make you have no healthy day and become crippled and lame”], all of which happened. She is to be questioned about the individual details. Item. Regarding the words that she said, that she would take no notice of being accused before the judge, because she knew the art so that he would not be able to inflict anything on her or harm her. Item. Regarding the witchcraft inflicted on the deponent’s husband, whose eyes would always grow to the point of closing without pain. Item. Regarding the devices for witchcraft that the deponent found in the bedding. In one piece of cloth there were also various kinds of seeds, and bones of a non-baptized infant25 and bones of a goat. Item. Regarding the three wet stones, on account of which she suffered, [2] suffering constant sweats, and once they were removed, the sweating stopped. Let the protocol26 be inspected (on the basis of it a list of other questions can be formed if necessary). List of questions regarding the third person bewitched by this same Selachin Item. The aforementioned Selachin a second time bewitched a certain secular person27 whose name is Katherina Schmidlerin. As before, she should be questioned first from afar28 regarding knowledge in general and afterwards regarding familiarity in particular. Item. Regarding friendship.

25  For the significance of this, see doc. 9, n. 9. 26  I.e., the evidence given on October 17 (doc. 9/2). 27  I.e., one without official position in the church. 28  See n. 16.

180

TEXTS: Document 10

Item. It should be said to her29 that Katherina is not the deponent but someone else in place of her, indeed that there were many. Item. Regarding enmity (as discussed before) and her origin. Item. Regarding the burning of the bridge twelve years ago, because the threatening words had arisen from that burning, so that the denounced woman said to the deponent when the deponent bumped into her in the Spruch Lane, “Kommst du do hier. Ich will dir machen, daß du nimmer dürr solt werden an Leib noch an Gut” [“You over there, come here. I’ll make you never become dry in body or in goods.”]. In this way, the next day she began to get sick and to become dry until the present.30 To be questioned regarding knowledge of this illness. Item. Regarding the words that she uttered in the Lettenleren31 road when she was carrying rose thorns.32 She said to the deponent, “Look. Domit will ich dich ausrichten, daß du wohl innen wirst” [“With this I’ll straighten you out, so that you’ll certainly notice”]. Item. To be questioned regarding the two dead women who had been sent by the deponent to win favor for her with the witch. When they requested this on behalf of the deponent, the witch replied, “If I hadn’t inflicted those illnesses on her, I would still do so.” Item. Regarding all the foregoing there is public talk and repute. These notes have been set down against Selachin, and if she should persist in her denial about these, nonetheless because of the evidence and indications of the deed33 as well as the statements of the witnesses, she is to be abandoned 29  I.e., Selachin. 30  The Latin seems to say the exact opposite of what the German threat would lead one to expect; for a discussion of this discrepancy, see doc. 9, n. 24. 31  Called “Lenteleren” in the protocol. 32  For the use of thorns in causing witchcraft, see MM 137B–138A. There, the thorns are actually inserted magically into the victim. Who knows what exactly the thorns here are meant to do, but surely the implication is that they were involved in the subsequent illness. In any event, why exactly would the suspect have been carrying a load of thorns in real life? 33  For the use of indications and evidence of the deed in condemning the accused, see the discussion in the Memorandum at the end of Method Twelve (doc. 16/21 plus doc. 16, n. 12). Oddly, in MM 202C, Institoris gives as an example of an indication of the deed

TEXTS: Document 10

181

to the secular arm to be struck with the ultimate punishment, as Method Six, as well as Method Twelve, state,34 and she would also have to be exposed to questioning under torture. Not that she would be considered not guilty and innocent if she persists in her denial, but so that she would be questioned about other witches and other acts of witchcraft that had been committed.35 So too,36 if she persists in her denial while refusing either to ask for mercy or to abjure heresy. If, however, she asks for mercy and is prepared to make the abjuration, and your Most Reverend Paternity37 is at all willing to bestow mercy, then four remedies are to be applied in accordance with the four factors that aggravate her situation in that she is defamed, suspect, excommunicate,38 and caught in heresy on account of the evidence of the deed. In connection with the defamation, then, she has to purge herself canonically, with at least thirty co-purgers according to the formula handed over to your Reverend Paternity.39 If she fails in this purging, she is to be considered convicted. In connection with the grave, indeed violent, suspicion,40 she ought to abjure all heresy with the penalty for the relapsed if she backslides.41 In connection with the excommunication, she should be absolved. These three procedures should take place in public in the presence of the people on a holy day. In connection with being caught, public penitence will be given in the place for burning,42 as is contained in those Methods Six and Twelve, that is, carrying crosses, being restricted to the in connection with witchcraft, a woman saying, “You will never have healthy days” and some physical harm then ensuing, but while the quoted words sound quite similar with the threats supposedly made by the likes of Selachin, Hüfeysen, Widow Schneiderin and Scheuberin, no connection with the Innsbruck accusations is made in that passage. 34  I.e., these sections of the Memorandum (doc. 16), which Institoris expects the bishop to have already read. 35  Institoris felt that the use of torture to extract a confession from a witch was pointless since witches could use the “sorcery of silence” to endure the pain, but he does allow for the use of torture to ascertain guilt (as proven by being bewitched with the sorcery of silence) and to extract the names of other witches from them (see the discussion at the end of BM Method Three [doc. 16/6–7]). 36  I.e., she should be abandoned to the secular arm. 37  I.e., Bishop Georg. 38  In these articles Institoris characterizes all the suspects apart from Scheuberin as being excommunicate. Nothing more is known of this. Presumably, he excommunicated them himself, and when the women were all eventually released with guarantees of good behavior (doc. 11/6–7), the bishop absolved them of the excommunication, though nothing directly is said about this. 39  For this procedure, see BM Method Two (doc. 16/4–5). 40  Legal suspicion was divided into three grades: light, heavy (vehement) and violent (see MM 221C–222C). 41  For the significance, see doc. 16, n. 66. 42  I.e., the place where convicted heretics are publicly burned alive.

182

TEXTS: Document 10

city or her own house as a perpetual prison that she may not leave without permission, and preceding the cross with uncovered hair, according to the method of the diocese. If, however, the secular court wishes to carry out its duty, your Reverend Paternity may not impede this.43 If, I say, these things are done, your Reverend Paternity will always remain blameless and without censure before the Apostolic See.44 It would be a good idea, however, for this Selachin together with another who follows (Hüfeysen) as well as that Scheuberin to be abandoned to the secular court even if they ask for forgiveness. I wished, however, to conduct the procedure with the piety to which your Paternity inclines.45 In addition, the witnesses examined by me twice46 may be examined anew by your Reverend Paternity. If they do not shrink from doing so, they may set themselves before the gazes of the witches and refute them face to face. Clearly, this would be very helpful, although they should not be forced to.47 [3] Articles and list of questions regarding the trial of Hüfeysen, who is similarly defamed, suspect and caught in the Heresy of Witches Item. After the questions regarding name, status and faith, namely whether she believes that witches exist or can harm humans, domestic animals and

43  In MM 224C–D, Institoris is emphatic that if the secular authorities wish to execute convicted witches on account of the temporal losses that they have inflicted, any forgiveness that the religious authorities involved may grant to the accused cannot hinder the execution. Presumably, that passage was inspired by the present one. 44  That is, Institoris is implicitly threatening the bishop with censure from the pope if he does not continue the investigations in a manner acceptable to Institoris (cf. the later story of his rebuke of a prelate on the Rhine for unacceptable procedure in dealing with witches and the prelate’s request that Institoris not inform the pope of this, as recounted in NH 3v). 45  This indicates that Institoris was well aware of the bishop’s more lenient attitude towards punishing those accused of witchcraft (see doc. 4) and sought to be accommodating. 46  I.e., in the original depositions given in response to the general summons (not preserved in the documentation sent by Institoris to the bishop) and a second time in the specific investigations preserved in the Latin protocols (doc. 9). 47  In MM 209B, Institoris notes that the victims of witchcraft are often eager to confront the suspect directly. Below in the articles against Hüfeysen (3), the deponent Margaretha Grunenpachin is said to be eager to do this.

TEXTS: Document 10

183

the fruits of the earth on the basis of divine permission,48 that if, after being instructed at some length, she were to deny altogether that they exist, as they commonly do, she is now rendered suspect. If, however, she pretends not to know or even admits the truth, that they exist, she should be questioned as to whether she ever received information about them from some woman.49 Let her be questioned about her knowledge of Pflieglin with respect to time and also to the familiarity that was long ago entered into between them. She should also be questioned regarding one person who is now married but some time ago was a female servant of Pflieglin herself, by name of Ludwigen Wagenstallin (that’s the name of this deponent).50 Item. Regarding friendship and familiarity first, next regarding enmity, investigating it quite carefully if there should be any between them. Let her be questioned as to whether she had once wanted to heal the aforementioned Pflieglin when she was suffering from a pain in the head. Item. According to the responses, if she admits to anything, she is to be questioned as to what remedies she was going to cure her with. Item. To be questioned as to why she treated that woman with a dish that had a needle with a thread fixed in the center of it. Item. How in violation of nature, when the opening of a jar was placed over the water put in the dish, the water was lifted up and entered the jar, and the dish was left dry and desiccated. Item. From what cause it happened that for as long as the dish was above the head of the sufferer (Pflieglin), the entire pain in her head would actually

48  This phrase appears as a pithy summation of the activities of the Heresy of Witches at the end of the first paragraph of the “author’s justification” of the Malleus (2A), and the phrase appears repeatedly in the work. It is basically a short formulation of the more elaborate description of the sect’s activities that appears in the bull Summis desiderantes (MM 1A*). For a use of the phrase in the Memorandum, see doc. 16/2. 49  Seemingly, the point here is a “fishing expedition” to track down a previous witch who initiated the suspected into the heresy. 50  In MM 134B, the deponent is said to be married to one of the archduke’s associates (vni ex familiaribus archiducis matrimonio copulata), but there is no mention of this in the Brixen material.

184

TEXTS: Document 10

cease, and whenever the aforementioned dish was taken away, the whole pain would then return.51 Item. To be questioned regarding the threatening words cast at Ludwigen etc. (the deponent), in that when the deponent had criticized her, that is, the denounced witch, on the grounds that she was engaging in such practices only for profit and with a superstitious art, the denounced woman then said to the deponent, “Three days won’t pass, dir wird Pfugsten also Not tun als der Frau” [“hissing will bring you distress just as it did to the lady”]. Item. How precisely three days later, just as she had predicted, huge pains seized the deponent throughout her body, so that itchy black pustules covered her body to such an extent that on her body there was not a healthy patch even the width of a needle. Item. How the pain was constant in the head of Pflieglin herself,52 so that it always seemed to her that fire was being formed on her head.53 Item. To be questioned as to how the head of the household was able to suddenly find the device for witchcraft above the door of the stable. Item. Who informed the head of the household of this, since no one except either his wife (Pflieglin) or the denounced woman.54

51  For the idea that a witch’s “cures” are really just a fraud by which the demon causing the illness simply stops doing so as a way of making another witch seem to be able to “restore health,” see MM 155A, 252C. 52  This must be a slip of composition. The protocol (doc. 9/4) makes it clear that this pain was suffered by the deponent. 53  It is significant that whereas as the deponent claimed in the protocol (doc. 9/3) that it felt as if fire was being poured on her (infunderetur), here Institoris describes this as fire being formed on her (informaretur). Forma is the technical scholastic term for the abstract “shape” by which coarse matter is formed into a physical object, and the use of it in this context suggests that deceitful manipulation of people’s senses by the devil to make them see things that are not really there (see MM 1.10 [58B–62D] and 2.2.8 [118D–121A]). In effect, Institoris has reconfigured the deponent’s neutral description of her sensation in conformity with his preconceptions of satanic participation in the event. 54  A verb meaning something like “could know this” seems to be lacking at the end of this clause.

TEXTS: Document 10

185

Item. That55 regarding the things found in this way, namely grey-colored powder. Item. About powders resembling the excrement of a child. Item. Like pus. Item. About human hairs and various seeds of grain and barley. Item. From what cause it happened that after the aforementioned devices were thrown into the fire, the deponent was then suddenly healed of every illness, and not before, namely when they were not burned. Item. To be questioned regarding the words of her husband, who urged Pflieglin several times to stay away from such things, as otherwise she would be dragged one day before a judge. (Regarding this last point it will be better for Pflieglin to be questioned.) List of questions about another person affected with sorcery by this same Hüfeysen Item. This same Hüfeysen bewitched a certain other secular person named Margareta Grunenpachin. Item. This Margareta was cohabiting with her husband in Hüfeysen’s house.56 Item. When they wanted to leave her, she said in outrage to Margareta the deponent, “Ich will dich blind und lahm machen, und wie ich dich haben will” [“I will make you blind and lame, and the way I want to have you”]. She is to be questioned in accordance with this, after the questions posed about name, status, friendship and enmity (always from afar57). Item. To be questioned regarding two women, namely Glickin and Kepplerin, who had heard the aforementioned threatening words.

55  Presumably, “she should be questioned.” 56  I.e., she and her husband were cohabitants with Hüfeysen. 57  See n. 16.

186

TEXTS: Document 10

Item. To be questioned regarding her having said that she knew an art so that when she held her thumb under the four fingers, then no judge at all would be able to harm her. Also, when she saw them first.58 Item. If she had just four threads from the clothing of someone in prison, she would free him from prison, from any garment at all provided that he had worn that garment once. I think that Margaretha the deponent offered to refute this denounced woman in public face to face regarding the foregoing, but she is not to be forced to do so, the decision being left to her.59 [4] Item. To be questioned about an act of witchcraft committed on her husband, who was at one time in prison.60 Item. When Hüfeysen’s husband was in prison, he was freed through a certain superstitious practice of the denounced woman according to his own assertion, in connection with which she is to be questioned regarding the four loaves placed on the table in accordance with its four corners. Item. To be questioned regarding the answer given to her female servants when they asked what those things accomplished for her. Item. To be questioned regarding having wished for four threads from her husband’s clothing so that she could free him from prison. Let the protocol be examined and a list of questions formed on the basis of its contents. Item. To be questioned regarding two associations of witches in the city of Innsbruck, with Scheuberin and Hüfeysen in one and Röslin, Scharerin, Sixin, Jos Molerin and Pflieglin in the other, the middle three of whom were not

58  The protocol shows (doc. 9/4) that this means that her “art” affected the judge only if she saw him first. 59  Clearly, this information was not written in any of Institoris’s records, since he is working by memory. 60  For some reason, the formatting changes at this point. This “item” is centered like a heading, and the subsequent material is blocked off into discrete paragraphs, which is not the formatting used elsewhere (there all the items appear without distinction in a long block of text, whereas here the text is broken up into the individual “items”).

TEXTS: Document 10

187

placed in detention but were noted in the vernacular trial protocol along with the other thirty.61 Item. To be questioned regarding the instruction given to the other virgins and married women for the purpose of invoking demons so that they would be able to cause love or illnesses, and regarding the three Sundays for fasting about the death of someone.62 Because such things are not to be confessed, the witnesses can be examined anew about the foregoing, notwithstanding the fact that among many other people there is public talk and repute about all of it.63 This woman, I say, would have to be exposed to questioning under torture, not that in connection with the foregoing, where the evidence and indications of the fact are in agreement, truth would finally be necessary,64 since those facts condemn her sufficiently (even if she persists in her denial), but for other reasons, as discussed above in the protocol of Selachin,65 and so that the denial of the Faith (alliance made with the Devil) can be investigated.66 Because her case is aggravated in four regards, that is, because she is defamed, suspect, excommunicate, and caught in heresy through the evidence of the deed, as is another as well, Selachin, therefore she should also be punished with four remedies, as set out above, namely canonical purgation, public abjuration, and absolution with perpetual penance.

61  Actually, there are thirty-one cases in the vernacular protocol (doc. 8). For more information on the women mentioned here, see doc. 9, n. 45. There is no indication in the Latin protocol (doc. 9/3) of the source of this article. 62  For the sense, see doc. 9, n. 43. 63  The point is that Hüfeysen supposedly told the women she instructed that the practices would not work if they mentioned them in confession. This indicated to Institoris that those who carried out such practices would have been aware of the satanic nature of what they were doing, which in turn aggravated their offense and meant that they should be brought in for questioning, even though their activities were common knowledge (i.e., plenty of other deponents were available). See Testimony O (doc. 8) for a similar injunction not to confess. 64  I.e., it would be necessary to get the truth finally via examination under torture. In Institoris’s mind, the truth is already known, and the point of further examination is to get the details of the witch’s previous practices and to extract the names of other witches. 65  Presumably, the reference is actually to the discussion at the end of the articles relating to her above. 66  Note how further questioning under torture offers the opportunity to press upon the (now convicted) accused the notions of satanic involvement in their magical practices held by the investigator. For the denial of the faith (a central element in Institoris’s conception of witchcraft), see MM 2.1.2 (98C–100D).

188

TEXTS: Document 10

Articles and list of questions about the proceedings of Röslin and her mother. After questions regarding the name, status, and Catholic Faith, and finally regarding the Heresy of Witches as to whether she was at some time instructed about wooing or sowing discords etc. Item. Whether she recognized these. Afterwards get down to the articles. The first is that a certain number of years ago, she (Röslin) had been publicly accused as a witch at the city hall by a certain female servant of both the mother and the daughter whose name is Elisabeth Zimmermannin, though she is now married to a certain carpenter67 (she is now named Big Els and is no longer in service to them). She is therefore to be questioned regarding knowledge of witches, as a result of which she can now be seen to be defamed. The second article is that this Elisabeth reported to the gun master, whose name was Jörg Büchsenmeister über der Brücke,68 who has a wife named Dorothea, that this Röslin had bewitched against them, namely the husband and wife, a certain cloth that had been given to them by the duke at such-andsuch time and day (at this point let the protocol be examined).69 When the cloth was being bewitched by means of a certain powder so that those who put it on would immediately be made ill, this servant woman, namely, Elisabeth, had to hold a candle. She is to be questioned regarding this. The third article is that the grounds for the enmity between the denounced woman and this Jörg was that the husband of the denounced woman was 67  That is Mr. Zimmerman (which is the German for carpenter). The point of “though” seems to be that she was not married at the time, and so was not yet called “Zimmermannin.” 68  Büchsenmeister (gun master) is a synonym for Zeugmeister, which is apparently what this man is called in the Latin protocol (doc. 9/6 with n. 49). “Über der Brücke” is a geographical designation (for some reason he was associated with the area across the bridge, presumably on the other side of the River Inn). It was common practice for a last name to be derived from local geography (as opposed to a profession). 69   The protocol does not in fact specify the time and date, nor does it state that Zimmermannin reported anything to the gun master. Rather, it is to the wife that Big Els reveals the plot, and the detailed main testimony is the wife’s, with the husband merely confirming what she said. Does Institoris subconsciously think the testimony more convincing if it comes from the husband? Certainly, he cannot be intentionally trying to mislead, since his own protocol demonstrates the inaccuracy of what he says here.

TEXTS: Document 10

189

also a gun master just like Jörg, but because the husband of the informed-on woman had been dismissed from the armory by the prince while Jörg retained his friendship, for this reason and so on.70 Let the protocol be examined and questions formulated.71 Fourth article. This Jörg fell into a very serious illness as soon as he put on the new shirt, and for this reason he had to cast the shirt away. With that, he got better. Let the protocol be examined and a list of questions formulated regarding the paste because they are made by diabolical art out of unreborn72 boys. Fifth article. That after Jörg’s wife put on a blouse made of the aforementioned cloth, she immediately fell into a very serious illness, [5] and after incurring it, she continued to have it for an entire year. Item. The aforementioned Big Els (wife of the carpenter73) said to Dorothea that even if she had washed the blouse well, she would still not have accomplished anything because she had smeared the cloth in it a great deal. The sixth article is that Elisabeth said to this Dorothea at the time of my inquisition: “I could tell many things to that father inquisitor, but my husband told me not to because he favors the husband of the denounced woman.”74 Item. The mother is to be questioned as to how she instructed her daughter, because it is probable that she was responsible for all the deeds carried out by the daughter.75 About all of this there is public talk and repute.

70  The phrase “and so on” (etc.) was used in scholastic argumentation to indicate in an abbreviated manner that the conclusion has been reached if this conclusion was already stated at the outset as the topic of the discussion. Here, the point is presumably to avoid restating the details laid out in the protocol. 71  That is, the future investigator is to formulate the exact questions on the basis of the Latin protocol (doc. 9). 72  I.e., not reborn metaphorically through baptism. For the sense, see doc. 9, n. 9. 73  Again, just a quaint Latinism for the German name Zimmerman. 74  The last clause is probably just an editorial comment by Institoris, but as it stands, it seems to form part of the quotation of Big Els’s words. 75  Basically, Institoris has no specific accusations to make against Röslin’s mother, who is implicated in these affairs through Big Els having been the servant of both women and because Siberin claimed to have been coming to work for both of them (see next list of questions). Accordingly, he has assumed that the mother was likewise a witch and had instructed her daughter.

190

TEXTS: Document 10

List of questions about this woman regarding other things done by her. Article one. This Röslin, wishing to appease the prince’s outrage, sent to the town of Lindau for a certain woman named Magdalena Siberin, who knew this sort of art to perfection. She is to be questioned about the mutual acquaintance that they entered into, and regarding that art. The second article is that Magdalena, coming from Lindau in the company of four men she had met on the way, told them how two women, a mother and daughter,76 had sent for her, and that with them she would carry out practices on the duke, so that he would admit them to mercy. Let her be questioned about this. Third article. Those four men related the details in Rimlie’s77 Inn to a certain loyal servant of the duke, Hans Spiess, who is himself marked down as the first deponent in the sheet of witnesses but is the second in order.78 This man advised the prince as well about everything. The fourth is that this deponent prevented any petition from being tendered to the duke, whether on behalf of Röslin and her mother or of another witch, although Magdalena offered ten florins to the deponent if he would present just one single petition to the duke. Let her be questioned regarding this. Another list of questions about this woman One article is that the other women, being gathered together, cooked the head of one dead man,79 and they were among these women. Let Röslin together with her mother and Sixin be questioned regarding this. 76  Inasmuch as there seems to be virtually no detail about the mother’s activity, it was perhaps her association with the summons sent to Siberin that led to her inclusion in the charges. 77  Elsewhere the name is always Rumler’s. 78  Presumably this means that he gave his testimony second but appears first in the list. This indicates that Institoris actually did draw up a new list (like the one appended to the end of doc. 8) that rearranged the order of the witnesses compared to their original order. Somehow this list failed to wind up with the material preserved in the bishop’s archive. 79  The corresponding deposition in the Latin protocol gives no specification of who these women are, but presumably they are the “association” of witches consisting of Röslin, Scharerin, Sixin, Jos Molerin and Pflieglin that Hüfeysen was said to be a part of in the penultimate article against her (4).

TEXTS: Document 10

191

The second. They placed a dead mouse under the threshold of the armory. Item. They placed such a one or a similar one upon the prince while he was sleeping.80 Item. They are to be questioned regarding various associations of witches. Even if they persist in their denial, these women are nonetheless defamed, suspect, excommunicate and caught, and for this reason they are to be given penance and punishment with the four remedies noted above. Articles and list of questions about the proceedings of Agnes, the Widow of Peter Schneider. First, after the due questions (as above) regarding name, status and Catholic Faith, and the breaking of the Faith by witches etc.: the first article is that she had carnal acts with a certain man named Hans Portner (he is now a porter of the prince). The deponent admits this, and the denounced woman is to be questioned because other acts ensued from that one.81 Second article. When the deponent took a wife and wished to cut off relations with the denounced woman, she came to him one morning in outrage. Among many other words contained in the protocol, she said the following words: “So sei dir meine Treue an eines Eides statt. Ich will dir und ihr tun, daß ihr keinen gesunden Tag nimmer bei einander haben sollen” [“Let my word be in the place of an oath for you. I’ll make you and her never have a healthy day with each other”], as a result of which words the deponent has remained ill down to the present. To be questioned regarding the details.

80  In the actual testimony (doc. 9/7), Röslin’s maid was supposedly told to do this by her mistress, whereas here the action is attributed to the whole association of suspected witches. In any event, the protocol says only that she was given the mouse to place it on the duke, with the implication that the scheme was not actually carried out. 81  The Latin verb subsequi is the standard term used by Institoris for an injury “ensuing” from a threat made by a witch (see doc. 16, n. 173). Here, he refers to the idea that women becoming witches “ensues” from them giving sex to men they hope to marry and then engaging in witchcraft after being jilted.

192

TEXTS: Document 10

[6] The third article is that among the aforementioned threatening words she also said that in case she did not know how to inflict such illnesses on him, she did know one woman through whom she would carry out those practices. She is to be questioned carefully about that woman. The fourth article is that when the deponent was ill and had no suspicion about the denounced woman that the illness had befallen him as a result of her acts of witchcraft, the witch nonetheless rendered herself suspect to him by herself, repeatedly sending him messengers asking whether he held her in suspicion of having bewitched him, as is more clearly stated in the protocol. She is to be questioned as to why she did this even though he had had no suspicion of her, and why she made herself suspect. At this point, it is to be noted that it is characteristic of witches that they can never harm someone unless they make themselves manifest, either by words or by exposing themselves to being seen, and as a result of some contrived reason or on account of some dispute.82 For this is enjoined on them by the demons for the greater insult to the Creator and to the Faith when they publicly and with impunity harm Christians in this way.83 This is known through experience and from their own confessions. For they say that if this were not true, they would harm everyone without distinction. They in fact can harm their greatest enemies the least, and their friends and members of their household to a greater extent.84 List of questions about this woman and other deeds of hers

82  The utterance of needless “threatening words” (verba minatoria) by witches to their future victims is a fundamental element of Institoris’s conception of witchcraft. His use of pre-existing material in the Malleus makes this idea seem less prominent (see, for example, MM 206C, 207C–D, 208A, 222C–D, 232B–C), but in the Nuremberg Handbook, where Institoris speaks more freely in words of his own composition, the idea is prominent (see, for example, NH 2.3). 83  It is a constant refrain in the Malleus that the practices of the Heresy of Witches were intentionally designed to offend God, who in retaliation gives his permission (which is indispensable for the “functioning” of witchcraft) for mankind to be further afflicted through new acts of witchcraft (see the elaborate discussion in MM 1.12–17 [64C–81C]). 84  See MM 85C, where it is simply asserted that witches are unable to harm those who carry out public justice (with more on this idea in MM 87B–C). There is no explanation given for this claim (taken from the earlier author Johannes Nider), which is made simply to dismiss the obvious objection to ascribing such ability to do harm on the part of the witches, namely why, then, do they not use this ability to harm their persecutors?

TEXTS: Document 10

193

The first article is that the aforementioned words, which she had uttered to the husband in the wife’s absence, she had nonetheless uttered in the plural, stating that she would bewitch him along with his wife. The wife would be ignorant of everything, and the husband had indicated nothing to her. Nonetheless, wishing to bewitch her through other means as discussed in the preceding notable point,85 she once asked the husband to allow his wife to enter a natural bath with her, and after he granted this and the wife brought certain cushions with her, in that bath she immediately became lame in every limb. She86 should be questioned about this. The second article is that even though she87 had entered healthy, she left the bath having been made ill in this way, and as the pains got worse upon her return home, she completely lost her reason. Her husband then conceived a greater suspicion about the threatening words that she had cast at him, as if she had been bewitched by the denounced woman, on account of hatred as stated before. The third article is that the deponent, wishing to make himself more certain, consulted a certain female diviner (in violation of the Church’s prohibition),88 and when she had indicated to him that his wife had been bewitched by a certain woman, as a sign of this they were supposed to look among the cushions because things and devices for witchcraft were inserted there. When the husband gave this a try and began to look, he found eighteen varieties of things tied up: bones, hairs, seeds and varieties of flesh. It is proper for her to be questioned about all of this. The fourth article is that when he had thrown the aforementioned things into the fire in accordance with the diviner’s advice, once they were consumed, the woman who had been made ill then regained her reason, and also her health for the most part. On the basis of all this, the denounced woman, like the other preceding ones, is judged, defamed, suspect, excommunicate, and, in light of the evidence of the deed, caught, in all regards deserving to be given penance and punishment 85  “Notable point” is a technical term in the academic jargon of scholasticism for a significant element in an argument. 86  The widow. 87  The wife. 88  For “diviners,” see doc. 9, n. 83.

194

TEXTS: Document 10

with the four remedies as discussed in the preceding articles. In addition, it is to be noted that this witch too admitted to the individual threatening words, but added that she had uttered them as a result of envy and rancor, an excuse that might be relevant if other indications were not present along with the very evidence of the deed.89 Articles and list of questions about the proceedings of Pflieglin Of all the women, this one is not found to be caught, although she is very defamed and suspect on account of the preceding articles. The first article is that she had many great familiarities with witches, and for this reason was often shouted at by her own husband to keep away from those things on account of the future dangers that would one day result for her, but she never kept away from them. For this reason, she has also fallen into bad repute, particularly on account of Hüfeysen, who was very familiar with her. To be questioned about this. [7] The second is that Hüfeysen herself, being at one time in the house of the deponent (Hans Schuster), publicly asserted that Pflieglin herself knew many ways to cause love, and that she could cause a bad stomach ache for someone who would not love her. She is to be questioned about this. The third article. The aforementioned Hüfeysen asserted that Pflieglin knew how to cause flux in the stomach without any cessation or remedy by placing a certain cane (reed) in flowing water, and as long as the water flowed through it, the sufferer would suffer from flux in the stomach. Here it should be noted that a witch against a witch is allowed to give testimony against but not for, since only capital enemies are debarred, as demonstrated elsewhere.90 89  For the idea that witches claim that their threatening words merely reflect the sort of meaningless squabbling that women are prone to, see MM 206B (with 211C and 232D). The idea is laid out very clearly here in Method Twelve of the Memorandum (doc 16/21). 90  The reference is to the discussion of mortal enmity in Method Twelve of the Memorandum (doc. 16). The logic is that a witch could be considered a hostile witness, but mere hostility is not sufficient grounds for rejecting her testimony. This conception does not, of course, take into account the possibility that such testimony may be malicious, and in any event,

TEXTS: Document 10

195

The fourth article is that when Hüfeysen herself, as is stated in the protocol, wanted to take away the pain in her head from Pflieglin through acts of witchcraft, as was explained above, in connection with this Pflieglin’s servant was bewitched through itching and pus from the top of her head to the soles of her feet. Through the acts of witchcraft committed in Pflieglin’s presence91 and house, she is herself rendered very suspect, on the basis of three things. First, threatening words were uttered by Hüfeysen about Pflieglin’s servant in her house and presence, as was stated, even though she ought to have protected the servant and censured the person making threats. She by no means did this, as is clear from the deposition of the servant, Ludwigen Wagenstallin, and for this reason it seems that she consented to that witchcraft. Second, Pflieglin’s husband saw and found the things and devices with which the witchcraft had been commited, above the door, namely of the stable, as Hüfeysen’s protocol states, and from this it is concluded that the husband knew this on the basis of information from his wife (Pflieglin). Third, on the basis of the husband’s rebukes that she should keep away from illegalities of this kind, and on the basis of these he was aware of her evil works.92 The fifth article is that she taught other womenfolk various things, and for this reason at the time of her arrest someone whose name is contained in the list of witnesses, namely Übelherr, said to the burgermaster that she had once handed over a nut to his wife to bewitch him. It can be seen that she should be questioned about all of this. Item. Because there is agreement about her regarding various acts of witchcraft committed in Innsbruck against the prince, such as the dead mouse and the boiled head. Item. Also, regarding other associations of evil women. This woman, then, because she is not caught but very suspect and at the same time defamed as well as excommunicate, is first to be purged according to the

what we have here is not proper testimony given under oath but hearsay. For further discussion of allowing the testimony of heretics (and so witches) against other heretics but not when it is in their favor, see MM 3.4 (198A–C). 91  Actually, only the threat was made in her presence; there is no evidence about the actual commission of the witchcraft (as is stated directly below in one point). 92  “Works” (opera) is the Catholic technical term for acts that bring religious merit or (in this case) demerit.

196

TEXTS: Document 10

canon with eight or ten men.93 Also, because she is suspect, she has to abjure all heresy94 and afterwards be absolved, the penance being enjoined on her that she should stand with a lit candle outside a church on certain days, and also fasting on bread and water, as well as a monetary penance in connection with the expenses made by me because she is wealthy (I will recite these expenses at the end).95 Articles and list of questions in connection with the trial of Scheuberin, who, though denounced and placed in detention first, is now placed in the final position, not on account of a lesser number of crimes, but because it is difficult for her to be punished unless the preceding ones have been punished, on account of a vague adherence to very many.96 This woman is suspect in connection with double heresy, namely a heresy of the Faith and the Heresy of Witches,97 and in addition is very defamed about the death of a certain Knight Spiess, not just in Insbruck but also all around in the neighboring lands, and especially among the nobles and the powerful. Whether she killed him with poison or witchcraft remains in doubt, though the common repute holds that it was by witchcraft because she was in service to acts of witchcraft since her youth inasmuch as in her single years and outside of the marriage bed she engaged in acts of witchcraft, as is demonstrated in the protocol. In addition, she had familiarity with witches and suspects in adultery, and in such a way that she maintained neither her period of time as a virgin nor her marital status without infamy, [8] as is clear in the protocol. For this reason, just as it is difficult for a respectable person with a good reputation to get a bad reputation for heresy, and it is incumbent upon inquisitors to investigate above all about the denounced person’s respectability in way of life, 93  For this procedure, see Method Two of the Memorandum (doc. 16/4–5). 94  See doc. 16, n. 66. 95  Unfortunately, no record has been preserved of Institoris’s promised list of expenses. Note that there is a monetary incentive for the authorities to convict in that this allows them to “recoup” their expenses. 96  The referent of “very many” is not entirely clear, but it seems to refer to “crimes” (it is either masculine or neuter, and so cannot refer to other witches). That is, there are a large number of crimes that the accused is associated with, but only in a vague way. 97  The meaning of “double heresy” is that whereas the Heresy of Witches is not an actual heresy in the sense of a dispute about a doctrine of the church (see the “Satanism” section of the Introduction, pp. 12–14), and so the witches held to belong to this “heresy” are not heretics in the traditional sense, Scheuberin actually does dispute Institoris’s views on witches as being heretical (as laid out in Article Two below) and is therefore a heretic in the traditional sense.

TEXTS: Document 10

197

so too, conversely, is it easy for a person who is disrespectable in the habits of the Faith and has a bad reputation to get a bad reputation for heresy. Indeed, the general rule is that all witches have been in service to carnalities and adulteries from youth,98 as experience has always shown.99 Accordingly, your Most Reverend Paternity has to conduct proceedings regarding her cautiously and with cleverness because she is deceitful, spirited and pushy, as is the manner of such people. The first article is that not only did she harass me with constant rebukes from the start (I had scarcely been in town for three days) so that one time when I passed by her and did not acknowledge her,100 she spat on the ground, publicly uttering these words: “Pfui dich, du schnöder Mönch. Daß dich das Fallendübel” etc. [“Fie on you, you criminal monk! To you the falling sickness should …”],101 and for this reason I had to investigate her name and life for the first time. But what is more serious is that when I was preaching, first everyday for fifteen days and then on individual holy days over the course of two months,102 she not only did not attend the sermons at all but even held others back as much as she could. I found all of this out through the accounts of many people. The second article, through which she is also rendered seriously suspected of heresy, is that she asserted to certain women standing with her that the Catholic doctrine disseminated by me in public was heretical, saying the following words: “Wenn führt der Teufel den Mönch weg, er bringt nichts dann Ketzerei. Daß ihn das Fallendübel in sein grauen Schädel angehe!” [“When the devil leads 98  It is this presumption that caused Institoris to embark during the hearing of October 29 on the line of questioning about the suspects’ sexual behavior that was objected to, bringing the proceedings to a halt. 99  This phrase about “experience” is a constant refrain in the Malleus, the idea being that Institoris’s conception of witchcraft is demonstrated and corroborated through the actual experience of witchcraft in the real world. Of course, that “experience” is itself governed by one’s preconceptions, so the logic is basically circular. We interpret the world as being full of witchcraft as we understand it, which in turn is supposed to validate the preconception that generates the “experience.” 100  The exact sense of agnoscere is unclear. One would normally take it to mean “recognize” (as below in Article Six), but since Institoris goes on to say that as a result of this encounter, he had to inquire after her name, there seems to be no reason for Scheuberin to expect him to know her. Could the meaning be “acknowledge” in a more general sense? For an anecdote about a priest getting into trouble with a witch because of rudeness during a chance encounter in public, see MM 100B–D. 101  The verb is omitted from the final German clause here, but can be supplied from the next article. 102  Presumably early August to mid October.

198

TEXTS: Document 10

a monk astray, he brings nothing but heresy. May the falling sickness affect him in the head!”]. When I asked the reason why she asserted that the doctrine of the Church was heretical, she answered, because I had preached nothing except against Unholden [“witches”], and added that I had given the method of striking a milk jug for getting knowledge of a witch who has taken milk from the cows.103 But when I asserted that I had cited such things against those who would carry out such practices, rebuking them and not instructing them, she asserted that in future too she would never attend my sermons after release.104 If she were not to be censured and blamed on the basis of these things, they would still render her vehemently suspect of heresy. The third article is that she is considered very suspected of the death of the knight among all the inhabitants of the town, and while it is uncertain whether she killed him with poison or in some other way through witchcraft, nonetheless because she was always considered defamed as a witch, it is presumed that even though he was killed through eating, as is stated in the protocol, this is still thought to have happened through eating food that had been bewitched and not through simple poison.105 She is to be questioned at this point regarding her public adultery practiced with the aforementioned knight, and this for many years. Item. That the knight was so seduced in his mind that no persuasion on the part of his friends could induce him to cut off relations with her,106 even 103  This is mentioned in vernacular case L (September 6). Note that the complaint is not about his hostility to witches but to his release of information about their practices. Institoris, because of his own conclusion that she is a witch, tries to make it sound as if her criticism is rooted in her heretical beliefs, but it would seem that her criticism is itself rooted in hostility towards witches. 104  Since the protocol in which this exchange is recorded is dated to October 4 (doc. 9/12), Scheuberin could never have known of her release, which took place only in early November after the trials against the suspects went awry in late October (doc. 11/4–7). In that case, the specification of never attending his sermons after her release is presumably Institoris’s own editorial comment and Scheuberin herself said only “in future.” Perhaps the point was to make it look as if the continued prosecution was all the more imperative if her contumely was to go on even after her release. 105  Note the faulty (circular) logic. The knight is thought to have died through eating and so because Scheuberin is suspected of witchcraft, it is concluded that the food must have been bewitched. 106  For the idea that witches can use their art to ensnare men in their affections, see MM 1.7 (esp. 48D–49A) and 2.2.3 (esp. 164C–D). Here Institoris must mean that Spiess’s unflagging attachment to Scheuberin, despite the dissuasion of those close to him and the losses he suffered, can only be attributed to the use of witchcraft on her part.

TEXTS: Document 10

199

after suffering damage to many things.107 The witnesses noted down in the sheet are to be questioned, notably the steward Eberhard of Freiberg, Hans Lencker, Hans Spiess. Nor is there any doubt that witches can cause the seduction of minds to feeling love or hatred in this way, as is known to your Most Reverend Paternity.108 The fourth article is that the aforementioned knight, in his final moments, said upon returning from a meal at the time of Lent that he had eaten something that he could never digest, and afterwards, with his final breath, said to his sister, “She,” namely Scheuberin, “killed me.” It can clearly be seen that she is to be questioned under torture about this and abandoned for these matters to the secular court.109 Being suspected of heresy, however, she is also subject to the ecclesiastical forum and the passing of judgment by the inquisitor.110 Why she is suspected of heresy is made clear in the subsequent sections. The fifth article is that she also had dealings and familiarity with those suspected of the Heresy of Witches, notably with Hüfeysen. This situation, as expressed in law, renders the denounced person vehemently suspected of heresy.111 It is clear in Chapter “Inter sollicitudines” (Extra, “On the canonical purging”) that on account of bad reputation for heresy the canonical purging was imposed on a certain deacon and on account of familiarity with heretics

107  The expression “damage(s)” (damna) is used routinely in the Malleus to describe the losses in property, crops and animals that people suffer as a result of witchcraft. There is no indication in the corresponding protocols of the nature of these supposed losses. In any event, the ability of witches to secure men’s affections through their craft is a recurrent theme in the Malleus (see 1.7 in particular). 108  Note that the need to make this assertion seems to suggest that Institoris felt that he had to win over the bishop to a view about which he suspected the bishop of being doubtful. 109  I.e., after questioning under torture regarding this witchcraft, she is to be turned over to the secular authorities for conviction in their court and execution on the basis of secular laws against witchcraft, since ecclesiastical courts were not allowed to pass the death sentence. 110  See the introductory question of Book 3 of the Malleus (184A–193D) for a prolonged (and confusing) discussion of whose jurisdiction witches are subject to. 111  For vehement suspicion, see n. 40.

200

TEXTS: Document 10

public abjuration was imposed on him, and on account of the scandal he was deprived of his benefice112 until the scandal died down.113 The sixth article is that when she was still single, she deprived a certain person of bodily health until the present time, and that she publicly asserted in front of her that she would inflict this on her, though this bewitched person had never known the witch or had ever had a litigious word with her. Rather, attending the wedding, she went up to her unprovoked and without being presented with any cause, and said, “Du solt nicht viel gesunder Tage hier haben” [“You shall not have many healthy days here”], and so it has happened down to the present. The reason why she inflicted that illness is stated in the protocol, that is, because the husband of the ill woman, at the time when he and she were single, knew her carnally, just as many others had, and for this reason, because he rejected her and took someone else as his wife, she wanted to inflict this evil. But [9] it should also be noted that as God is my witness,114 I learned from the accounts of very many people in Innsbruck that more than one hundred men would have made depositions against the persons under detention, particularly Scheuberin, but they were kept back for two reasons. First, because of the fear of the names of the deponents being made public.115 Second, because they presumed what has now happened, that is, deficient execution of their duty by higher officials.116

112  The term “benefice” properly refers to the right of an ecclesiastic to receive remuneration on the basis of carrying out his religious functions. During the medieval period, the right to make appointments to ecclesiastical positions that came with an income became the “possession” of various individuals or institutions, and a position as priest granted in this way was called a “benefice” (from the Latin word for “favor”). 113  This case is also reported in MM 250A. 114  Note how this protestation of sincerity suggests that Institoris felt that he would be doubted on this point. 115  See MM 3.9 (204A–205B) for a discussion of whether the names of deponents are to be revealed to suspects. Following regular inquisitorial practice, Institoris argues against this on the grounds that if the accused heretics find out the identity of their accusers, they could use their secular influence to intimidate or even kill the deponents. In the more immediate context, Institoris is implicitly replying to the bishop’s earlier insistence (doc. 4) that the names had to be revealed. 116  A recurrent theme throughout the Malleus and the Nuremberg Handbook is the refusal of the secular authorities to carry out what Institoris views as their obligation to exterminate witches. Indeed, he often considers them as their protectors.

TEXTS: Document 10

201

Therefore, because she is defamed, suspect, and caught in the Heresy of Witches,117 it would be right for her, along with at least the first two, namely Selachin and Hüfeysen, to be abandoned to the secular court if they at all persist in their denial. All the same, because I have left everything to the discretion of your Paternity, let those things be done through which your Paternity could be found both blameless before the All-highest and without censure before the Apostolic See, and on account of which glory and merit would increase for you.118 It would be a very good idea for me to be present because of the Apostolic authority,119 which I cannot transfer, and it is with the hope of finding confirmation, as far as I can, with that See that I am declining.120 I will always consider your Most Reverend Paternity to be excused.121 It is to be noted in addition that because legitimate lines of defense are not to be denied for the sake of respectability,122 even though proof is not to be admitted against violent suspicion, including a woman caught through the evidence of the deed, as is demonstrated in the methods of passing sentence 117  Scheuberin is the only one of the major suspects that Institoris does not characterize as being excommunicate. Given that he openly accuses her of heresy for directly challenging his preaching on the matter of the heresy of witches, this borders on the astonishing. 118  Here Institoris phrases in a positive manner the idea expressed negatively at the end of the articles against Selachin, namely that the bishop will win reward from God and praise from the pope for successful prosecution of witches or conversely censure for failing to do so. 119  I.e., Institoris’s functions as inquisitor by papal appointment. 120  The Latin sub spe rate habitionis is based on a garbling of the phrase rati habitio, a legalism from the Digest that means “upholding [of something as] ratified.” The legal term pertains to a situation in which someone has carried out an act on behalf of another person who is not present and knows nothing of the act. The “ratihibition” then signifies the retroactive “confirmation” of the act by the person on whose behalf it was carried out (a legal maxim holds that omnis ratihibitio retrotrahitur et mandato priori aequiparatur “every ratihibition is carried back into the past and is equated with a prior order”). It would appear that Institoris is anxious about his decision potentially preventing the bishop from proceeding without him and hopes that the pope will approve (presumably if the bishop were to complain about any ostensible lack of cooperation on Institoris’s part). Note that in docs. 14 and 15, the bishop for his part emphatically rejects the notion that he needs Institoris’s cooperation in pursuing the cases (in the second letter saying this to Institoris himself), and, oddly, Institoris seems to recognize this position (at least in part) in the Memorandum (see the second paragraph of Method One, doc. 16/3). 121  Presumably, Institoris means that because he is not transferring the apostolic authority, he will not hold the bishop accountable for not doing whatever he could otherwise do with that authority. 122  Presumably, “respectability” refers to the reputation of the court. Note how in MM 202D, Institoris is concerned with giving the proceedings the external appearance of fairness (regardless of what is actually being done).

202

TEXTS: Document 10

(Methods Six and Twelve). For it is related in Chapter “Saepe contingit” (in the Clementines) that the judge has to reject obstructive exceptions, appeals and delays since he has to conduct the proceedings in a straightforward, simple manner without the screeching of lawyers and courts, which is a very good idea in matters involving the Faith.123 But if they ask for a representative or advocate, let this not be denied to them, provided that in accordance with the Directorium Inquisitionis,124 such a man is a respectable and circumspect zealot for the Faith, and carefully upholds the terms for a true and circumspect representative in cases involving the Faith.125 Even if he asks for the names of the deponents, these will not by any means be revealed when there is fear of danger,126 or if they were revealed to him separately,127 let this be done under oath subject to the appropriate censures etc. Hence, let him also induce them to save their lives and to submit to any penance at the discretion of the bishop and inquisitor etc.

123  For a discussion of the applicability of this decretal to investigations of heresy, see MM 199B–C. 124  This is the work of the Spanish inquisitor Nicholas Eymeric that forms the basis of the Memorandum (and MM Book 3). It is normally called the Directorium Inquisitorum (“guidebook for inquisitors”), but there is no doubt of the reading here (“guidebook of the inquisition”). 125  The question of what sort of person should be assigned to the accused as an advocate is discussed in MM 3.10 (205B–206B). 126  That is, a risk of harm to the deponents if their names become known to the accused. MM 3.12 (208A–209D) gives an elaborate discussion of how the accusations can be made known to the accused in such a way as not to reveal the identifies of the accusers at the same time. 127  I.e., the list is revealed separately from testimony so that the various depositions cannot be directly matched up with the specific deponents (see MM 208B–C).

Document 11

Record of the Proceedings against the Seven Accused, October 29 and 31 and November 3, 1485 In the proceedings against the seven accused women, a lawyer appears on their behalf and challenges the validity of Institoris’s proceedings on the basis of procedural irregularity. Institoris rules that he has acted properly, but the representative of Bishop Georg upholds the challenge and suspends the proceedings. The accused are then released after putting up surety to appear if the proceedings should be resumed. In Latin.

…

[1] In the case of the Inquisition against certain women under detention in Innsbruck In the name of the Lord, amen. At 9 o’clock or thereabouts on Saturday, October 29, a.d. 1485, indiction 3,1 year 2 of the pontificate of our most holy lord, Pope Innocent VIII. Before the venerable and excellent fathers and lords, Master Christianus Turner, licentiate2 in decretals and commissary general3 of the Church of Brixen in spiritual matters, specially delegated for the case written below by the most reverend father in Christ and lord, Lord Georgius, Bishop of Brixen; Master Paulus Wann, canon of Passau, doctor of sacred theology; and Master Sigismundus Sämer,4 licentiate in decretals, parish priest in Axams; as well as the venerable father, Brother Heinricus Institoris of the Order of Preachers, inquisitor of heretical depravity through special appointment by

1  Indictions were a recurring cycle of fifteen-year periods that the Catholic Church picked up from the bureaucratic practices of the Late Roman Empire. The notation here (based on the so-called papal indiction, which was also used in Germany) signifies the third year of the fifteen-year period that began on December 25, 1482 or January 1, 1483 (practice varied with regard to the starting point). 2  See doc. 7, n. 3. 3  A title “commissary general” designates the man delegated by the bishop to deal with spiritual matters at a distance that he could not attend to himself. 4  For the form of this man’s name, see doc. 7 n. 1.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_016

204

TEXTS: Document 11

the Apostolic See; and three other religious,5 and the notary employed, and in the presence of me, the notary public listed below, the proceedings written below were conducted. Item. First, the lord inquisitor sent to have Helena Scheyberin6 summoned to him as a witch under detention. She appeared, and after many words were put to her by the inquisitor,7 she finally swore by the four gospels of God to tell the truth in response to the questions of the father lord inquisitor. First, asked where she was born and raised, she responded that she was born and raised in the town of Innsbruck (of the diocese of Brixen), and has now been married for eight years or thereabouts. Husband: Sebastianus Scheuber. Regarding her way of life, she said she was of a good way of life. Item. He wished to question her about her virginity and other secret matters that hardly concern that case.8 The aforementioned lord commissary, on the other hand, was unwilling to take part in these matters because it was irrelevant. Item. He wished to examine her further regarding certain depositions made by witnesses because he had not yet formed articles etc. The lord commissary, on the other hand, rejected this again and protested before me and the witnesses (the aforementioned lords) about the lord inquisitor’s complete neglect of drawing up the articles etc. regarding the previous reputation of the accused woman. The case was therefore suspended until 11 o’clock in order for the articles to be drawn up. 5  It would seem to be a sign of the hostility displayed towards Institoris in the drawing up of this document that it was not thought worthwhile to record the names of the three friars assisting Institoris. As it is, seven are attested in the examinations of the deponents (Casparus of Freiburg, Heinricus Hofman, Johannes Roessbach, Johannes Rosenbart, Paulus Cael Schirmmeister, Wilhelmus Behringer, and Wolfgangus of Basel), and presumably three of these men attended the present proceedings. 6  Scheuberin’s (and her husband’s) name is spelled “Scheyberin” in this document, but the form that appears regularly elsewhere will be used in the rest of this document. 7  It is hard to see why it was felt necessary to note this if the content of these statements was not worth recording. Given the hostility towards Institoris evident elsewhere in this document, the intent may be to cast him in a bad light for pointless contentiousness. 8  The relative clause is remarkable as an editorial comment by the notary (presumably, at the commissary’s instigation) castigating Institoris for procedural impropriety.

TEXTS: Document 11

205

These proceedings were conducted in the town of Innsbruck of the diocese of Brixen, in the town hall in the larger chamber there, on the day and year written before, in the presence of me, the notary public, and of the witnesses, namely the aforementioned lords. [2] Item. At 11 o’clock, a little bit later in the aforementioned day, the aforementioned Helena Scheuberin was brought back, and the lord inquisitor wished to examine her about certain articles. There likewise appeared (note: the commissary concurred with the presence)9 the venerable and outstanding gentleman, Lord Johannes Merwait of Wending,10 licentiate in decretals and doctor in medicine, legal representative in the capacity of legal representative11 for said Helena Scheuberin and the other women in detention. He was without mandate, but he wished to prove (show) his good faith (appointment) through a certain notary public. Him having been sent for,12 said legal representative insisted that the appointment take place anew before me. On the same day, at 12 o’clock, Helena Scheuberin, Rosina Hochwartin,13 her mother Barbara, Barbara Pflüglin,14 Barbara Hüfeysen,15 Barbara Selachin, and Agnes Schneiderin, being present in person, all together and each apart, jointly and separately, appointed as their legal representative in these matters said Lord Johannes of Wending to plead and defend their cause and causes at law 9   The parenthetical phrase appears in the margin, opposite the second line of the long description of Merwait. Seemingly, the notary wants to make it very clear that the commissary general supported the man’s appearance. 10  Ammann (1890) refers to the man as “Merwais,” but there is no doubt that the name ends in “t.” “Wending” presumably signifies the small town of Wemding in northern Bavaria. 11  This verbose expression reflects the pleonastic legal expression procurator et procuratorio nomine, which signifies that Merwait both was their legal advocate in general and was acting in that capacity right now. 12  The text is rather unclearly composed, but the context suggests that there was a request for this unnamed notary to be sent for (to corroborate the document at Institoris’s request?), but (perhaps to expedite matters in the interim?) Merwait demanded a repetition of the formalities through the present notary. 13  It is odd that she is called “Rosina Harwardin” in these proceedings, but in all of the previous documentation simply “Röslin” (for a discussion of the interpretation of this name, see the note on names at the end of the introduction). In the protocol (doc. 9/5), an anecdote calls her husband Jörg Moderm. Was he an earlier husband? 14  Spelled “Phlueglin” in this document. 15  Spelled “Huefeysnin” in this document, as if Hüfeysen was the masculine form to which the feminine ending -in was added.

206

TEXTS: Document 11

etc., with the full power to make substitutions, make promises in the best format, etc., jointly and separately, etc. These proceedings were conducted in the aforementioned place, in the presence of the lord inquisitor together with the aforementioned religious present there, and with the Lord Masters Paulus Wann and Sigismundus Sämer asked and requested as witnesses. Item. The legal representative acting in the capacity of legal representative for the mentioned women took exception verbally against the lord inquisitor as follows. Exceptions16 First. Whereas the inquisitor ought to have had with him a notary public who would have sworn, at the hands of the lord bishop (the ordinary of the place) and of himself, to draw up documents faithfully in cases of this kind, as the bull also provided.17 It would seem that this was by no means done, as is clear from the protocol, to which he refers. Second. He conducted the inquisition regarding hidden sins, which again does not pertain18 to him nor does the bull state this.19 Third. He should have examined the women regarding articles about bad reputation, which he also did not do because he had not yet drawn up articles of this kind.20 Fourth. Regarding previous bad reputation, he just seized the women before he instituted the proceedings in the proper set-up, and so he again violated the text of the bull. 16  I.e., legal objections (as in “I take exception to” something). 17  Actually, the bull Summis desiderantes says nothing of the kind. Rather, it specifies that Johannes Gremper is to act as their notary, but allows that he could be replaced by anyone appointed by Institoris or his inquisitorial colleague Jacob Sprenger. There is no mention at all of a need for the local bishop to swear in the notary. 18  The verb was inadvertently omitted, but the general sense is clear. 19  This is an odd objection. The Directorium Inquisitorum that Institoris bases his legal thinking on belabors the point that inquisitors often have to work hard to find out what heretics really think, as they often use subterfuges to conceal their unorthodox views. 20  Note how this charge derives from the complaint lodged by the commissary general immediately before Merwait’s appearance. This seems to be pretty clear evidence of collusion between the two men in the attempt to thwart Institoris.

TEXTS: Document 11

207

Fifth. Whatever he carried out he carried out (did) without (lacking) a notary public, or at any rate without one admitted (approved) by the ordinary of the place.21 [3] Item. With these and many other things having been set out (cited) verbally, he rejected and rejects the lord inquisitor as being a suspect judge in this cause. He selected as the judge in deciding the case the lord deacon and vicar general22 in Freising of the most reverend lord, the Bishop of Freising,23 citing as the reason for suspicion the fact that said lord inquisitor did not conduct the proceedings in accordance with the text of the apostolic bull, and he refers to the trial protocol. Item. These and other things having been set out (cited) verbally, the lord inquisitor asked that those exceptions should be given in writing. This the legal representative promised to give in writing tomorrow, a deadline to which the lord inquisitor consented. Item. The legal representative acting in the capacity of legal representative (as above) asked the lord commissary in place of the lord bishop of Brixen to take the lord inquisitor into custody. Item (legal representative’s petition). The legal representative acting in the capacity of legal representative (as above) asked that he24 administer justice for 21  This is just a restatement of point one, and is equally invalid as an objection. The notary Johannes Kanter was generally present, which satisfied the requirements of the bull. 22  Ammann (1890) 68–69 states that Merwait suggested that both the bishop of Freising and his vicar were to serve as replacements for Institoris as the judge, but this appears to be a misunderstanding of the ambiguous abbreviations used in describing the bishop. It is clear that only one substitute judge is foreseen, and the endings of the words describing the dean make it clear that he is the direct object of the verb (and presumably Ammann read the genitive ending -mi as merely the accusative -m in the case of the abbreviation for reuerendissimi). 23  The prince-bishop of Freising (a town to the northeast of Munich) at this time was Sixtus of Tannberg (r. 1474–1495), on whom see Landersdorfer (1987). Freising was the location of the see to which Munich was long subordinate, though Munich had long since surpassed Freising in importance (it was only in 1821 that the bishop’s seat was finally moved to Munich, and Freising still has administrative significance in the see). In effect, the bishop of Freising was the bishop of Munich. 24  Presumably the commissary (see next item).

208

TEXTS: Document 11

his part in accordance with what had been cited and proved, and because the lord inquisitor was not in a position to pay,25 order him to be handed over to custody etc. (as above). He openly and publicly enjoined Scheuberin (who was present) and the other women, jointly and separately, not to give the lord inquisitor any responses to his questions because he was no longer their judge, but to respond privately to the lord commissary of the Church of Brixen in place of the lord of Brixen. Item. Said legal representative acting in the capacity of legal representative (as above) asked for copies of the bull and of the protocols. He protested that he wanted to dwell on these. Item. The often mentioned legal representative acting in the capacity of legal representative (as above) offered the exceptions after an interval. The lord inquisitor received the originals for himself. Afterwards, he handed over and assigned copies of these to the lord commissary etc. These things having been done and the exceptions having been offered in writing, the lord inquisitor with his religious and the lord masters, Doctor Paulus Wann and Sigismundus Sämer, the two of whom said that it would be not by their counsel but with their consent if he wished to conduct further proceedings,26 issued his interlocutory decision,27 as follows. [4] Interlocutory Decision of the Lord Inquisitor The lord inquisitor gave pronouncement that he was a competent judge in this case. The legal representative acting in the capacity of legal representative 25  Presumably, the sense is that as a mendicant Institoris cannot provide any monetary surety to appear in court and so must be held in custody. 26  This relative clause replaced boiler plate text indicating “with mature and well-considered counsel having been taken” (regularly used of legal decision making). Seemingly, at some point after this innocuous indication of deliberations was set down, the two members of the panel appointed by the bishop wanted it to be made clear that while they were willing to abide by any decision by Institoris to go on with the legal proceedings, their advice was that he not do so. 27  An interlocutory decision was a preliminary procedural ruling in a case (as opposed to the final sentence or decision).

209

TEXTS: Document 11

(as above) protested about appealing from this interlocutory decision to the Holy Apostolic See. After an interval, he offered the appeal in writing along with the customary protest. Item. The lord commissary general of the Church of Brixen in place of the bishop gave himself the following Monday as the deadline for deliberating and likewise for giving pronouncement regarding the exceptions offered by the legal representative of the women. Item. The lord inquisitor likewise gave himself the following Monday as the deadline for deliberating about granting the attachment (bestowing the appeal) or not.28 Proceedings conducted on Saturday, in the presence of … in the aforementioned place (as above). On the Last Monday of October29 On the same day, with the aforementioned lords convening in the house of the respectable gentleman Conradus Gunther (burger in Innsbruck) and with many statements having been made on one side and the other about this, the legal representative in the capacity of legal representative (as above) first wished to dwell on the appeal recently lodged. The lord inquisitor was unwilling to give (bestow on) him an affirmative cover letter. In the end, the legal representative in the capacity of legal representative (as above) withdrew to the side, and then asked the lord commissary in the place of the lord bishop to look carefully at the trial protocols of this lord inquisitor against such women and to have him informed,30 after they have been looked at, whether they were properly instituted in accordance with the legal system.

28  If the accused appealed against the judge, the judge would make a ruling about the appeal in the form of an affirmative or negative attachment (which would be attached to the appeal as it moved to the appellate judge). The procedure is described at length in MM 254D–257D. 29  October 31. 30  Merwait would appear to be asking Turner to let him know through some intermediary of the decision about the legality of the proceedings, it apparently being assumed that Turner would not do so in person. On the other hand, perhaps this is merely a formal way of simply asking Turner to inform him of his answer to the question.

210

TEXTS: Document 11

Finally, the legal representative in the capacity of legal representative (as above) wishes and intends to insist on the nullity of the proceeding of the lord inquisitor on the basis of the reasons previously alleged via the exception, as is stated above. He then protested that he and his side should by no means be obligated to make a superfluous proof.31 Item. These things have been alleged, set out and done, the lord commissary of the Church of Brixen in the place of the lord bishop interposed (pronounced) his decree (interlocutory decision) in such a case in the following manner. [5] Decree (Interlocutory Decision) of the Lord Commissary of the Church of Brixen in the Case of the Inquisition Having carefully looked at the trial protocol of the venerable father, Lord Heinricus Institoris, Inquisitor of Heretical Depravity, which he instituted in the town of Innsbruck (of the diocese of Brixen) against certain women named in that protocol, and having also inspected the exceptions raised on the other side in the name of the aforementioned women, I, Lord Christianus Turner, acting in the name of the diocesan bishop, say in concurrence and interlocution that this trial was instituted in violation of the legal system and that given the exceptions it has been (is to be) invalidated with reference to a certain group of the women, and that the women in detention on account of this are to be released, with the proviso that in order to do away with the scandal that has arisen and the clamor among the people, they should first provide suitable surety about standing the law32 regarding a new inquisition or the imposition of the canonical purging without any exception. Read and passed by the aforementioned venerable father, Master Christianus Turner, licentiate in decretals and commissary general of the Church of Brixen in spiritual affairs, on the last Monday of October, ’85 a.d., in the presence of said lord inquisitor with three other religious as well as the venerable and honorable gentlemen and lords, Master Paulus Wann, doctor of sacred theology, canon of Passau, Master Sigismundus Sämer, licentiate in decretals, parish priest in Axams, Johannes Blanckenhayn, collaborator, and Ulricus Buchler, 31  Presumably, this means that Merwait thought he had already demonstrated his case. 32  The phrase de stando jure (literally “standing the law”) is a legalism that refers to obeying procedural decisions in a case.

TEXTS: Document 11

211

chaplain in Innsbruck, priests of the dioceses of Naumberg33 and Chur,34 having been summoned and requested as witnesses for the foregoing. The legal representative of the women approved and praised such a interlocutory decision in the presence of said witnesses. After the decree was pronounced on the basis of the special commission drawn up in the personal hand of the lord, the most reverend lord bishop of Brixen, the same lord commissary revoked, in the presence of the same witnesses, the letter of admission35 assigned to the lord inquisitor in the case of the inquisition. The lord inquisitor refused to turn over the letter. The lord commissary protested before me, the public notary, and the aforementioned witnesses. Protest, which would concern such matters (cases). On the same day, the aforementioned venerable and excellent lord, Doctor Paulus Wann, as one summoned by the most illustrious prince and lord, Lord Sigismundus of Austria etc.,36 declared in this capacity before me, the notary, and the aforementioned witnesses, how his serenity had summoned him and the other learned men to that place on this account, and in these matters had shown, and continues to show, himself to be a most Christian prince because of his obedience to the Holy See and the Orthodox37 Faith, and that he has 33  Naumberg is a diocese in Upper Saxony. 34  Chur is a diocese in what is now eastern Switzerland. 35  I.e., doc. 3. 36  Wann was clearly appointed by the archduke to assist Institoris in his proceedings (in doc. 4 the bishop had advised Institoris to seek learned advisors from the archduke, and Wann was presumably chosen as a result of such a request). Wann himself (ca. 1420–1489) was an important man (for his life, see Bär [2005]). He was a well-educated man who had long held the position of preacher at Passau cathedral (a collection of his sermons was published posthumously). Holder of a doctorate in theology (and possessor of a good background in Latin too), he had academic connections with the neighboring University of Vienna (and also had a benefice outside the city), so he was active in Hapsburg territory (though Archduke Sigismund’s possessions were at the opposite end of Austria). To gauge by this man, it would seem that the archduke appointed to Institoris’s court men of greater prominence than the bishop of Brixen did. 37  I.e., Catholic. The terms “catholic” and “orthodox” are used in Late Antiquity of the officially recognized form of Christianity, and the latter could be used in the medieval period of the Catholic church. (It is a modern distinction to use “Catholic” to describe the successor church in Latin-speaking western Europe, while the Greek-speaking church that

212

TEXTS: Document 11

done other things and would do them today.38 In addition, he declared that to the extent that a new proceeding would be instituted against them, this would be without expense to his serenity, with the witnesses (as above) present in the same place.39 Note. The aforementioned most illustrious lord, our lord prince, has had all the expenses for the lord inquisitor with his people and for the detained women with the guards paid.40 These proceedings were conducted in the house of the respectable gentlemen Conradus Ratfelder (otherwise called Gunther), burger of Innsbruck, on the day and year as above. Bartholomeus Hagen notary of the foregoing wrote this with his own hand [6] Take note of the articles as to how the women are to be released from prison and how the guarantors will give surety First, the women (each separately) will obligate themselves, in front of the notary and witnesses, at the hands of the lord commissary general of the Church of Brixen in place of the lord bishop that if some or any of them take flight or otherwise disdain to abide by the law and judgment of the Church, they should ipso facto and ipso jure be considered and deemed convicted of acts of witchcraft and of the other denunciations of crimes lodged against them,41 and they developed in the Byzantine Empire [and other churches in eastern Europe that derived from it] is termed “Orthodox.”) 38  Seemingly, the last clause is just a clumsy way of saying that the archduke had performed other acts showing him to be a good Christian prince and would continue to do so. 39  Note that when Ammann (1890) 71–72 paraphrases this protestation of Wann’s, he makes it sound as if the archduke himself had stated it, and on this basis scholarly discussion about the proceedings generally talks as if Sigismund spoke. 40  This paragraph is a marginal note to emphasize the content of the preceding paragraph. Apparently, the notary was anxious to make sure that the archduke’s representative’s comments about his generosity did not go unnoticed. 41  The legalisms ipso facto and ipso jure signify that any attempt to evade the court’s judgments through flight is to be taken as an admission of guilt, and on that basis they would

TEXTS: Document 11

213

should, each of them, wherever they are found, be condemned as such, with all exceptions being excluded. That is, the women (each separately) obligated themselves, with a promise by hand with the force of a sworn oath, at the hands of said lord commissary in front of me the notary and the witnesses, each obligating herself as stated before. Item. The guarantors of the women should be foresightful men living under the jurisdiction of the most serene prince and possessing as much as all the women as a group probably have in property. They will obligate themselves, in front of the notary and witnesses, at the hands of said lord commissary as stated before, according to the two statements written below. First, let them guarantee42 that the women, jointly or separately, by themselves or through other persons, will not inflict, or cause to be inflicted, any insult or harm on the lord inquisitor on account of his procedure and the imprisonment, under any contrived excuse, by word or deed, outside of lawful procedure, or in any way harass or hinder him in any way, in any place, or do so to anyone, of whatever status, who has acted or given a deposition in the cause of the inquisition, subject to a fine of fifty marks,43 which the guarantors are bound, as the principals, to pay without delay to the inquisitor whenever a contravention has been committed. Second, whoever among these women has taken flight or failed to obey the judgment of the Church, the guarantors (each of them) will be bound to make payment in full to the treasury in accordance with the common estimate of all the moveable and real property of a contumacious runaway woman of this kind.

be automatically subject to the appropriate punishment for the original charge without further legal proceedings. 42  This provision is equivalent to the Urfehde given on behalf of the woman released in Ravensburg (see doc. 2). 43  A mark was only a unit of account whose value in actual currency varied. Here one mark perhaps represents 120 groschen (grossi) or 200 shillings. In any event, it was a large sum of money.

214

TEXTS: Document 11

[7] Item. Written below are the guarantors who obligated themselves at the hands of the aforementioned lord commissary with a promise by hand44 with the force of a sworn oath with reference to the foregoing, in front of me, the notary, and the witnesses written below. Each of them obligated himself, alone and in full for his own part, in accordance and conformity with the articles written before. Names of the Guarantors For Helena Scheuberin:

Sebastianus Scheuber, her lawful husband with all his property etc.

For Rosina Hochwartin:

Thomas Metz, judge in Wilten,45 and Petrus Tischler of residence in Innsbruck (each in full).

For her mother Barbara:46 Christianus Sachs, locksmith,47 burger there.48 For Barbara Pflüglin:49  Thomas Metz, judge in Wilten, and Ulricus Pech and Leonardus Pflug, burgers there (each in full).

44  See doc. 16/5 (with n. 61) for a description of how an oath was made by hand and for an explanation of the symbolism of the gesture. In case of conviction for perjury, the two raised fingers (along with the tongue) were amputated (see NH 4v–5r for Institoris’s outrage when a deponent was dealt with in this way after his accusation of witchcraft failed). 45  Wilten is a Premonstratensian abbey in Innsbruck. The Premonstratensians or Norber­ tines are an order of canons regular founded by St. Norbert in the French town of Prémontré in 1120. 46  Note that no last name is given for Barbara, who is identified merely in terms of her relationship with her daughter. Ammann (1890) 59 refers to the pair as “die Rosina (Hochwartin) und ihre Mutter Barbara Rȯ slin,” but there is no justification for this name for the mother. I have come across the name “Barbara Röslin” being given to the daughter, which presumably ultimately rests on some misunderstanding of the form(s) in Ammann. 47  Here “Slosser” (=modern German Schlüsser) could be taken as an (occupational) last name (the word is capitalized, which perhaps suggests an alternative personal name). 48  I.e., Innsbruck. 49  I.e., Pflieglin (the variation is phonetically insignificant). Interestingly, her husband does not give surety. Perhaps he was unwilling to do so if he actually had told her that she would come to grief for her involvement in witchcraft (doc. 10/3)!

215

TEXTS: Document 11

For Barbara Huefeysnin:50 Ludovicus51 Amman, cobbler,52 burger there. For Barbara Selachin:

Stephanus Helbling, cobbler,53 burger there.

For Agnes Schneiderin: Heinricus Tischler54 (son) and Claus Kischman, burgers in Innsbruck (each in full). These proceedings were conducted in said town of Innsbruck (of the diocese of Brixen) in the main chamber in the city hall there, on Thursday, November 3, in the aforementioned year of indiction and pontificate, in the presence there of the honorable and foresightful gentlemen and lords Johannes Zurner, parish priest in Matrei,55 Michaelis Witt, primissary,56 Johannes Rasoris,57 chaplain in Innsbruck, priests of the dioceses of Brixen and Salzburg, and Christianus Kehlhaimer, judge, Stephanus Pfister (also known as Sapp), Ulricus Schwatz, burgers there in Innsbruck, and Wolfgangus Valkner, of residence there, having been summoned and specifically requested as witnesses for the foregoing. In witness of the foregoing Bartholomeus Hagen, notary public, wrote this with his own hand 50  Again called “Hüfeisnin” (see n. 674). 51  I.e., Ludwig. 52  Again, “Schuster” (=“cobbler”) may be the man’s name as well as his occupation. 53  Again, “Schuster” may be the man’s name as well as his occupation. 54  Note how the son’s last name is different from that of his mother Agnes and her dead husband Peter. Unless he is the child of a previous marriage, the explanation must be that the father was in fact a tailor (Schneider) and the son a carpenter (Tischler). 55  Presumably, Matrei am Brenner, a village about 17 km to the south of Innsbruck. 56  “Primissarius” is another term for “vicar.” 57  The last name is presumably a Latinized version of a name like Scherer (this practice of converting German last names into Latin patronymics in the genitive case was common among academics, e.g., Institoris for Kramer [both the Latin institor and the German Krämer mean “peddler”]).

Document 12

Letter from Bishop Georg of Brixen to Institoris, November 14, 1485 The bishop urges Institoris to leave Innsbruck and return to his convent on account of the bad feelings that he had stirred up through his inquisition. In Latin.

…

Venerable Father! Because I have come to understand that some people’s spirits are stirred up against your Paternity, it seemed an altogether good idea to advise your Paternity to leave this place in light of present circumstances, the sooner the better. Many people are fed up, and they think that the procedure of your Paternity is unusual or take it badly. Accordingly, as one who ought to push aside (forestall) scandals and dangers as much as possible, I advise your Paternity to betake yourself to the location of your usual residence and not to tarry1 in this place. This is very beneficial. I know what I am writing, I am by no means writing without mystery2 or lightly. Accordingly, may your Paternity please take this in good stead. I wish your Paternity farewell. From Brixen, hurriedly, on the day …3 G., Bishop of Brixen 1  The phrase “or postpone leaving” has been struck out. 2  The bishop seems to have confused himself with the implicit double negative of “by no means … without.” Presumably, he meant to say that he was not writing obscurely. 3  The date has been omitted in the copy.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_017

Document 13

Letter from Bishop Georg of Brixen to an Unnamed Parish Priest in Innsbruck, November 14, 1485 The bishop requests that the recipient help with the delivery to Institoris of the enclosed letter (doc. 12) if he has not already left, and to urge the inquisitor to leave if he does not immediately comply with the letter’s request. In Latin.

…

To the parish priest in Innsbruck With regards to the inquisitor Very dear brother, with commendation1 I offer the usual affection and most ready desire to please. I am writing to the inquisitor, as your Paternity will see from the enclosed copy. If he has not left and it seems advisable for it to be given to him, please send some young man to show my messenger the house in which he lives, so that he can deliver my letter to him. If he does not leave right away, then in my stead may your Paternity please tell him that so many scandals have arisen because of his bad proceedings that he should not remain in the place, so that nothing will result from that or happen to him, as he does not understand many things. What he did is very uncalled for. Farewell. From Brixen, November 14. Your very good friend, G. Bishop (by his own hand)

1  Presumably of himself.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_018

Document 14

Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to a Brother Nicholas, February 9, 1486 The bishop expresses to the choir master of the cathedral his exasperation with Institoris’s continued presence in his diocese. The initial section is basically in German, but the bishop uses a number of Latin phrases (mostly, but not exclusively, for harsh judgments about Institoris). Here, the Latin is left in the letter and translated in square brackets. The final main paragraph begins in German but the remainder of the letter is entirely in Latin, and this section is simply translated.

…

Dear Brother Nicholas, first my services.1 I am altogether sick of the monk being in the bishopric. Write to him as you will find in the attached copy and send him the letter expensis meis [at my expense]. I find in the pope’s bull that he has served as inquisitor for many popes, but he struck me as having become quite childish propter senium [because of old age] when I heard him here in Brixen with the chapter.2 I have advised him that he should leave for his cloister and stay there. Ipse realiter mihi delirare videtur [he really seems to me to be crazy]. He would perhaps still be happy to proceed in the matter of the women, but I will not let him get involved, so much has he erred previously in his procedure. What he demonstrated at first in writing was magisterial,3 but in practica sua apparuit fatuitas sua quia multa presupposuit que non fuerunt probata [in his practice his foolishness 1  An epistolary greeting (i.e., the writer offers his goodwill to the addressee). 2  I.e., the chapter of the cathedral. The occasion of this visit is unknown. Could it be that Institoris journeyed to Brixen to deliver the protocols, articles and Memorandum in person? 3  “Magisterial” means “worthy of a master” (i.e., a university graduate). Perhaps the reference here is to the Memorandum, but the phrase “at first” would seem to suggest a document from the early stages of the proceedings before the bishop became convinced that Institoris’s procedure was vitiated. In that case, he may have in mind the now lost memorandum from Institoris to the archduke that the bishop praised in his letter to Institoris of September 21 (doc. 4). There is also an early form of the protocols that was turned over to the commissary general (doc. 9/5 with n. 46). Finally, Institoris refers in the Memorandum to a seemingly elaborate legal discussion that he intends to send to the bishop at a later date (doc. 16/2 with n. 21; whether this document was ever actually sent is unknown).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_019

TEXTS: Document 14

219

became clear in that he presupposed many things that were not proven]. I must proceed in this matter ex officio ordinario [on the basis of my position as bishop] and certainly do not need him for that.4 I am also not employing him for that. I am also not doing that to our gracious lord. I will bring these matters to his grace as soon as I can come to his grace with propriety, et in presencia vestra [and in your presence] if it is necessary to speak with them ut dimittant in futurum leuitates suas, fiat. Si volunt esse obedientes in hoc, relaxabitur captura etc. Non sunt omnia nunc scribenda [so that they will cast off their trivialities in future, so be it. If they are willing to be obedient in this, the arrest and so on will be remitted. Not everything should be put in writing at the present time]. I have not forgotten your written petition, but5 everything has to be pleaded for with our very gracious, divine lord.6 I certainly have no doubt that he will be stern for a long time, and he will be especially gracious. If so great a prince is inflexible for the moment, and it is not known what the source is, patience is necessary. God will arrange everything for the better. My left knee is especially gouty, as is the whole left foot. I think this is caused by an evil conjunction of Saturn and Mars.7 Fare very well, my father and most trusted friend. Ash Wednesday,8 ’86. Further. I recently spoke about the statute of nobles etc. Because it seems to me useless in many respects and because I would like to recall it etc., I will give the help and assistance that are possible for me for the purpose of your promotion as if I were acting on my own behalf. Be completely certain. You should not consider anything doubtful in any regard.

4  I.e., the bishop rejects the need on his part for the transfer by the inquisitor of his papal authority as inquisitor, which Institoris was defensive about when he declined to transfer it (next-to-last paragraph in doc. 10/9). 5  Here the text shifts to Latin, which continues to the end of the letter. 6  The bishop now informs the addressee about some matter for which the bishop is to intervene with the archduke on behalf of the addressee. 7  Like many people in the late medieval and early modern periods, the bishop believed that the planets had a physical influence on terrestrial affairs, including personal health (the distinction between astrology and astronomy was by no means clear cut). 8  February 9 (both Ammann and Schnyder give the date as February 8).

Document 15

Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to Institoris, February 9, 1486 The bishop demands that Institoris finally leave his diocese. This is the letter that the addressee of doc. 14 was to deliver to Institoris. In Latin.

…

To the inquisitor of heretical depravity Venerable doctor! I am very astonished that you remain in my diocese, in a place so close to the court in which errors were committed and things reached the point of dissensions, not to say scandals. The most gracious lord, the archduke, granted you as a mark of honor permission to leave in peace like this.1 It does not seem helpful for your Paternity to involve himself regarding those persons. Rather, the burden falls to me. It has not been possible so far to speak with the lord prince on this topic, but I will do so later given that nothing can be done fruitfully without his excellency’s assistance. It is to be feared that the women’s husbands or friends could commit some offense against your Paternity. In conducting the business, I do not need your presence,2 which could do more harm than good. I will do what will seem appropriate by my authority as ordinary. Your Paternity really ought to withdraw to your monastery, as I urged before. You should not be annoying to other people. I have often told your Paternity that 1  Clearly the archduke had decided that while it would be best for Institoris to leave in the aftermath of the failure of the prosecutions, he should suffer no consequences on that account. Nothing further is known of this decision. The phraseology suggests that the permission to leave was a favor, which implies that Institoris was subject to legal consequences for his conduct during the inquisition. 2  See doc. 14, n. 4.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_020

TEXTS: DOCUMENT 15

221

you would accomplish nothing in the diocese under the present circumstances but should depart. In fact, I actually thought that you had long since left. Good bye. From Brixen, Ash Wednesday,3 ’86. G(eorgius) Bishop

3  February 9 (as with the preceding document, Ammann and Schnyder both give the date as the 8th).

Document 16

Brixen Memorandum Institoris wrote this text to inform Bishop Georg about what he took to be the appropriate method of prosecuting witches. (The text bears no heading, and for convenience’ sake, I refer to it as the Memorandum or BM.) The text appears between the Latin protocol recording the depositions that Institoris took down about the accused (doc. 9) and the articles (doc. 10) that he foresaw as being used in the future prosecutions that he was under the impression would go on even after he was removed from the case on Oct. 31. The articles allude several times to the procedures laid out in the Memorandum, which Institoris expected to be read before the articles were. It is simply because the large extent of this text would make it hard to read the protocols and articles, which closely cohere in content, as a unit, and because the theoretical nature of the Memorandum makes it quite distinct from the practical considerations of the protocols and articles and the chronological story laid out in the other documents that I have placed the Memorandum by itself at the end of the documents. The Memorandum is for the most part a preliminary version of the legal material laid out in Book 3 of the Malleus, both treatments having three sections. The Memorandum has a short introductory section on the number of witnesses. Next, another short section deals with arguments parish priests can use to demonstrate the existence of witchcraft. By far the largest section covers the methods of sentencing witches. Like Book 3 of the Malleus, the Memorandum is mainly based on the Directorium Inquisitorum of Nicholas Eymeric, but there are numerous deviations in the treatment.1 In particular, much of the ecclesiastical procedure that still appears in the Memorandum (e.g., the granting of indulgences to those who take part in the legal procedure against heretics or attend the resulting public abjuration or execution) is excised in the Malleus. It is not the case, however, that the version in the Malleus merely curtails the presentation in the Memorandum. At one point, Eymeric shows off his skill at preaching by inserting (rather pointlessly) a sample sermon at the beginning of a legal formula, and while this text is omitted in the Memorandum (Method Thirteen, 22), it duly appears in the Malleus (245C–246A), which at the very least shows that the Malleus was composed through direct consultation of the text of Eymeric and not simply through modification of a draft of the Memorandum that Institoris may have retained. Apparently, Institoris did not keep a copy of the Memorandum for himself, or even if he did, he used the original text of Eymeric for composing the Malleus. Thus, when the text of the 1  For Eymeric’s Directorium Inquisitorum, see doc. 10, n. 124.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423800_021

223

TEXTS: Document 16

Malleus agrees with Eymeric against the Memorandum, this is the result of Institoris using the text of Eymeric directly in a new process of adaptation, while agreement of the Memorandum and the Malleus against Eymeric is to be attributed to defects in Institoris’s copy of Eymeric. In any event, compared to the Memorandum, the corresponding sections of the Malleus omit large amounts of technical detail, especially regarding the treatment of confessed and contrite heretics (for example, in Methods Seven and Eight), since such procedures are superfluous if the convicted witches were to be executed by the secular authorities. Presumably, the tiresome process of writing all this out here led Institoris to conclude that it was a waste of time to discuss such procedures when these would never actually be needed under the circumstances.

…

[1] Question on the number of witnesses: do two suffice? It is asked whether it is lawful for a bishop to condemn someone for heresy on the testimony of two witnesses.2 The response in Question Seventy-one of the Directorium3 is that two non-conflicting witnesses, that is, witnesses who do not disagree in either the main point or in the ancillary details – for instance, they agree regarding the Heresy of Witches and in other matters concerning the time, place and so on, which are called ancillary details – are sufficient according to the letter of the law, since there is a general rule that every word stated by two or three people is valid, but by the standard of legal fairness two do not seem to suffice for this crime. One reason is the enormity of the crime, since proofs ought to be clearer than broad daylight (Digest, “On Proofs”) and heresy is counted among the more severe crimes. If it is stated that in connection with this crime lighter proofs are sufficient because someone can be detected through light evidence (Title of the Code, “Heretics,” Law 2 at the end, where it states: “Those who are revealed by even light evidence to deviate from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion are classified as heretics”; to the same effect, Chapter “Accusatus,” which begins, “If a light or moderate suspicion …”: “Although he is to be severely punished, he should not be punished with the penalty for those who have relapsed into heresy”), the response is that light suspicion suffices for presumption, but not for condemnation to 2  This section corresponds to MM 3.2 (196D–197B). 3  I.e., Eymeric, Directorium 3.71. The citations given here refer to Francisco Peña’s edition printed in Venice in 1595.

224

TEXTS: Document 16

execution or life imprisonment.4 The other reason is the truncation of legal procedure in connection with this crime, in that it is the case both that the denounced person does not see the witnesses and that their names are not revealed to him in a situation where serious danger could threaten them, as is stated in Chapter “Statuta” (“Heretics,” Liber Sextus),5 so that the denounced person cannot guess them. Instead, the judge is obliged to examine, by himself on the basis of his office, the enmity of the witnesses, and if they have given confused testimony, to question them again about the source of their knowledge, which he can do (Extra, “Witnesses,” “Per tuas”). For the more the denounced person has his ability to defend himself taken away from him, the more incumbent it is upon the judge to conduct a careful investigation. Hence, in a situation where two witnesses are found in agreement against someone, I would not wish to condemn him for so great a crime, especially if he has a good reputation. The case is otherwise if he has a bad one. Guido Fulcodii, who later became Pope Clement IV and also wrote the Clementines, agrees with this in Question Fifteen (“To inquisitors”).6 Your Reverend Paternity will consider that the persons released had a bad reputation for many years.7 None of those women was not a manifest adulteress. In fact, Scheuberin herself had a bad reputation at the stage when she was single, as is clear in the protocol, and committed witchcraft. In fact, it is a general rule that all witches were persons with bad reputations concerning carnal acts as either adulteresses or concubines of noblemen or priests,8 and for this reason they persuade both priests and other judges not to believe such things or act upon them.

4  From here on, the text cites a number of texts from civil and canon law. For the method of citation, see Mackay (2011) vol. 2, 1–2. For a discussion of the legal background, see Mackay (2011) vol. 1, 63–80. For a general treatment of canon law, see Brundage (1995). 5  See p. 87 of the Introduction for a list of the Latin chapters of decretals cited here and their locations in the various books of canon law. 6  The author in question is Guy Foulques, a French lawyer who entered holy orders after the death of his wife and rose to high ecclesiastic office before he was elected pope (as Clement IV, 1265–68). The corpus of canon law known as the Clementines was actually issued by Clement V. 7  This paragraph has no correspondence in either the Directorium or the Malleus. Note the reference to Scheuberin’s release, which shows that this document was drawn up after the release of the accused on November 3, 1485 (doc. 11/6). “Your paternity” refers to Bishop Georg (as in doc. 8/7). 8  The thought expressed here recurs in general reflections in the Malleus (136A) on witchcraft in Innsbruck.

TEXTS: Document 16

225

It9 goes on as follows. The Archdeacon agrees with Guido at greater length on the word “Testium” [“of witnesses”], in the beginning of § “Verum” of Chapter “Ut officium” (“Heretics,” Liber Sextus) and at the end of the gloss on Chapter “(In) fidei ( favorem).” So does Johannes Andree on § “Addicimus” of Chapter “Excommunicamus itaque” (Extra “Heresies”), where it says that the bishop will make three or more men of reliable testimony swear to tell the truth if they know of the existence of heretics in the parish. What then will the bishop do when two lawful witnesses agree about a person of good reputation? The response on the basis of the “Questions” of Guido is that if lightly suspected, such a person will purge himself according to the canon, and if he is vehemently suspected, the bishop should have him make an abjuration at the same time that he purges himself, or even question10 him. The case is different, however, if he is violently suspected.11 What should be done when the witnesses are conflicting but agree on the main point, for example, if one gives testimony that the person bewitched a human and the other that it was an animal, both agreeing on the main point, namely the Heresy of Witches? Guido responds in reference to heresy regarding the Faith that while no one should be condemned on the basis of presumption (“Presumptions,” “Litteras”), nonetheless, if he has a bad reputation on the basis of ill-report, purging should be imposed along with abjuration because of the vehement suspicion that arises from the statements of the witnesses; the case is otherwise when he is suspected on the basis of indications of the deed. On the other hand, regarding the Heresy of Witches, someone is condemned by the testimony of one person in a situation where general rumor and evident deed (indications of the deed) are worked up.12 The evidence of the deed consists of factual testimony and not merely verbal (23, q. 2 “De his vero,” 9  I.e., Eymeric, Directorium Q. 71. 10  Presumably under torture. 11  For the various grades of suspicion, see doc. 10, n. 40. 12  In the medieval legal theory of proof, “evidence of the deed” is direct evidence of guilt (for instance, a preacher giving a sermon advocating a heretical view is direct proof of him being a heretic), while an “indication of the deed” is a direct suggestion that falls short of proof (for instance, being seen walking down a street looking disturbed and carrying a bloody knife at the time when someone was murdered nearby through stabbing is a strong but not conclusive indication of guilt). Handbook 2.3 gives a particularly elaborate discussion of the two forms of proof; see also Malleus 3.7 (202A–D). Institoris does understand the theoretical distinction between the two forms of proof, but in practice he tends to conflate the evidence leading to one or the other conclusion, with the result that he tends to favor the conclusion of guilt.

226

TEXTS: Document 16

28 “Priusquam” and 82 “Proposuisti”;13 the glosses on these passages should be noted), and when the general rumor is upset, someone is condemned by one person’s testimony (4, q. “Testes” § “Sapienti”).14 Also, when the general rumor is not worked up and there are no indications of the deed, then one witness does not provide proof but does provide presumption (Extra, “Inheritances from the Intestate”), and the person could be exposed to torture according to the severity of the crime. Next, in the “Letter of the Alban Cardinal, legate of the Apostolic See, to Inquisitors,”15 which begins: “Since the Lord Pope recently …” it says, “When the witnesses are conflicting in their statements but agree on the substance or gist of the matter, it is left to the discretion of the inquisitors to proceed as they 13  This sort of vague reference refers to Gratian’s Decretum, which was the first collection of canon law to be composed and served as a basic textbook; hence, it was not felt necessary to cite its title. 14  The claim that a person of bad reputation may be legally condemned on the basis of one person’s testimony is false. The last assertion is an adaptation of an earlier section of Eymeric (3.61) in which he gives rules of thumb for determining when someone should be exposed to questioning under torture: “The second rule is that if someone is found to have a bad reputation for heresy and it is proven that he has witnesses from knowledge against him, this person is to be questioned under torture, as is explained in 4, q. 3, ‘Si testes’ § ‘sepe’ along with the notes on there (‘Witnesses’). While one witness and reputation are said to make half-full proof, a single witness alone is said to make a valid indication, as Azo notes in Summa de Questionibus. For these constitute two vehement indications, and two vehement indications suffice for torture, as is explained in the notes on Chapter ‘Praeterea’ (‘Witnesses’). Although it is stated that one witness is not a witness and that the statement of one witness is the statement of none, this is true of condemnation but not of presumption. For two or more witnesses make full proof and one does not, but nonetheless a single witness makes a half proof, as was just stated above. This is true of civil matters, but in criminal cases, while a single witness does not make a halffull proof, as is stated by the Doctors (Pandect, ‘Excuses of Guardians,’ Law 2), he will make a valid indication, as Azo notes in the Summa (cited above).” This statement has been incorrectly cited here as grounds for condemnation, even though Eymeric is quite explicit in stating that the testimony of a single witness, even with the bad reputation, does not suffice for condemnation (though it does for exposure to torture). In the Malleus, the comparable discussion of the grounds for condemnation (197C) adheres to Eymeric’s conception. 15  Albano (ancient Alba Longa, a town in the hills south of Rome) is one of the seven socalled suburbicarian sees in the vicinity of Rome whose bishops automatically become cardinals. The identity of the author of this piece of inquisitorial instruction was apparently lost over the course of time. In his sixteenth-century commentary on Eymeric (620 2D–621 1A [references of this kind refer to the layout in Peña’s edition of 1595, signifying the page, column and column subsection]), Francisco Peña has nothing specific to say about the identity of the man, whom he conjectures to have been active at the time of the suppression of the Albigensians or Waldensians (see Intoduction, n. 26).

TEXTS: Document 16

227

see fit with the help of God, particularly if there is consistency in the general rumor and the character and reliability of the people giving testimony against the person subject to the inquisition.” The case is otherwise concerning the Heresy of Witches. [2] Orders and instructions for priests and rectors of churches about conducting their own inquisition to wipe out the Heresy of Witches. First, Your Paternity can order that preachers of the Word of God should repeatedly and frequently advise the congregation to refrain from similar acts,16 citing the severity of the crime and the offence to God’s majesty, which surpasses that of all other heresies.17 First, while other, straightforward heretics have doubts about certain Articles of the Faith, these witches of both sexes18 altogether deny the Faith, handle the Sacraments of the Church irreverently, even if they take them (for example, putting the Sacrament of the Eucharist under and not on top of the tongue,19 also concealing such unspeakable crimes in the Sacrament of Confession and confessing only venial faults20), and with 16  This section is entirely Institoris’s composition. Seemingly, he felt that the parish priests of Innsbruck needed encouragement from the bishop to get them to give suitable sermons on the topic of heresy. As this failing is repeatedly emphasized in the Malleus, this section is an indication that Institoris’s concerns in this regard date to his experiences in Innsbruck. Since his papal appointment as inquisitor authorized him to speak on the topic of witches as often as he felt appropriate, it was reasonable enough for him to instruct the bishop on the topic, even if he did not have any authority to compel the bishop. The very fact that he should have addressed the bishop with seemingly friendly advice in this way suggests that he felt confident in the bishop’s cooperation. That is, the bishop had managed his procedural (and doctrinal) disagreement with Institoris in such a way that Institoris was simple (or obtuse) enough not to realize the extent of the bishop’s rejection of his conceptions. 17  For the offense against God and its place in Institoris’s conception of witchcraft, see doc. 10, n. 83. For the idea that witchcraft exceeds all other crimes, see MM 1.14 (71A–75B). 18  Male “witches” play a very limited role in Institoris’s conception. In the Malleus, his own treatment is pretty much restricted to warriors who used magic on their weapons (MM 2.1.16 [147A–152A]), and this treatment seems to have little bearing on his regular discussion. Institoris also incorporates material from Nider that gives a significant role to male witches (MM 87B, 114C, 145C–D), but this seems to have had little effect on Institoris’s own conception. 19  This practice is censured in MM 113D. 20  The practice of refraining from mentioning sins during confession is ascribed to witches in MM 93B. For Hüfeysen’s injunction that those women that she instructed in magical practices should not confess their activities, see doc. 9/5 with n. 42.

228

TEXTS: Document 16

reference to sanctified items they carry out superstitious acts, which may hardly be explained, as is contained in a certain document, a copy of which I intend to dispatch.21 Second, the seriousness of this heresy can be understood in terms of the temporal harm, in that there are those who inflict various sorts of harm on humans, domestic animals and the fruits of the earth,22 as can be clearly grasped from the document mentioned above. Third, no one among the faithful should doubt the existence of witches and those who are able to inflict such forms of harm with the help of demons as a result of God’s permission. There are many reasons for this. First. Such people are suspected as heretics when they obstinately persist in this error, for various reasons. For opposing both the tradition of Holy Scripture and the determinations of the Holy Doctors23 contains a suspicion of heretical depravity. Indeed, such a person is considered a suspected heretic. Those who deny the existence of witches contradict the aforesaid traditions of the Scriptures, as is clear from many passages of Holy Scripture. For if there are no witches, why does Exodus 22[:18] order: “You will not allow a witch to live upon the earth”? Also, why does Leviticus 19[:6] order:24 “As for the soul that resorts to magi and soothsayers and that fornicates with them, I will set My face against that soul and kill it from the midst of My people”? This is also stated 21  This document is unfortunately not preserved in the diocesan archives. To judge by the reference here and in the next few paragraphs, it validated a number of Institoris’s fundamental beliefs, attesting to the abuse of the sacraments by witches, their infliction of harm on humans, domestic animals and crops, their ability to be transferred physically through the devil’s assistance, and the dedication of children to the devil by midwives (all these practices represent major elements in Institoris’s understanding of witchcraft). The term instrumentum (“document”) suggests a non-literary composition. Since the Malleus was composed around this time, perhaps this document was some sort of preliminary memorandum that arranged cases of witchcraft under various headings that summarized the main points of Institoris’s conception of witchcraft. See doc. 4 for the bishop’s commendation of Institoris for a document of legal content that he had sent to the archduke and that the bishop had seen. It seems unlikely that in a document intended for a layman like the archduke Institoris would have gone into the sorts of very technical details that the work referred to here in the Memorandum apparently contained. 22  Institoris’s standard terminology for describing the activity of the Heresy of Witches. For an example of its use in the Brixen material, see 10/3 with n. 48. 23  I.e., authorities (generally writers) recognized by the Church as upholders of official doctrine. The term tends to encompass the major writers from antiquity like Augustine and Jerome, but Institoris also includes major scholastic theologians. 24  From here to the end of the paragraph, see MM 8C (an adaptation of Nider).

TEXTS: Document 16

229

elsewhere in many passages concerning the magicians of pharaoh (Exodus 7 and 1 Kings) and Saul (1 Chron. 10[:13]). The extent to which they can cause harm is also clear from the traditions of the Holy Doctors. They are properly called witches on account of the great size of the crime according to Isidore: “It is they who stir up the elements” (understand, “to cause hail and rain storms”) “disturb the minds of men” (understand, “causing love, hate and friendship”25) “and also without the drinking of any poison they end the lives of people simply with the violence of their chants,” that is, as a result of the violence of some spell of witchcraft. The same appears in 26, Question 6 “Nec miris” § “Magi,” (based on Augustine).26 The Doctors say the same on Book Two of Pronouncements, Distinctions 7 and 8, for instance Thomas, Albert, Bonaventure and Scotus, who expressly explain various doubts concerning magicians and the practices they follow on the basis of the demons’ power. Many other examples could be cited, and if someone contradicts them, he would justly be considered a suspected heretic. Second. This error is clearly dangerous in priests and very dangerous in the Church. For the laymen who ought to punish such crimes hesitate as a result of such an error on the part of pastors, and their ability to punish such acts is amputated.27 Hence, third. When witches are strengthened in their breaking of the Faith, they constantly increase, as experience has unfortunately demonstrated.28 It should also be noted that certain simple people base themselves to such a extent upon certain examples from the legends of the saints that they feel no shame in defending their error on the basis of a false understanding of these passages. They say that in a home where he was being entertained, St. Germain once conjured such beings and in the end it was found that they were not real 25  For the most part, Institoris’s conception of witchcraft encompasses the use of witchcraft to inflict harm on enemies and to retain the sexual attention of men rather than the acquisition of friendship, but here he may have in mind the employment of a suspected witch by Röslin and her mother to win over the archduke (doc. 9/6). 26  For the quotations of Isidore and Augustine, see MM 15C. 27  Very similar imagery and terminology appear in the approbation of the Malleus issued by the Theological Faculty of the University of Cologne (MM 3B*). Presumably, the text there was provided by Institoris himself. 28  That the activities of the Heresy of Witches leads to the “augmentation” of their numbers is a constant refrain in the Malleus (91D, 92D, 104C–D, 108C, 139C, 141B).

230

TEXTS: Document 16

women but demons.29 They also cite Chapter “Episcopi” of 26, Question 2: “Whoever believes that some creature can be created or changed for better or worse or turned into another shape or likeness other than by the creator of all things … is worse than an infidel.”30 These arguments provide no obstacle. As for the first one, which concerns St. Germain, it is conceded that it is true, but as for such things always happening and in all instances, the opposite is clear from the witches’ own confessions. They say that they are transported in two different ways according to their desire, either in dreams, if they so wish, or physically, if that is what they want.31 (The copy of the document mentioned before should be examined.32) The words of the canon also provide no obstacle. It is speaking of a change in substance, that is, when the substance of the human is turned into the substance of an animal, which is possible only for God. This does not exclude an apparition through prestidigitation, which usually happens in the instances mentioned. (Precept One of Nider’s Preceptorium should be read on this point.33) Finally, if witches did not in fact exist, why do the laws decree that they should be punished with the ultimate penalty, that is, with execution (Title of the Code “Witches,”34 Law “Nemo,” Law “Culpa” and Law “Nulla”)? Instead, the civil35 laws are most savage against all diviners and witches.36

29  The story of St. Germain is also discussed in MM 105C, 133A–B. 30  The canon “Episcopi” (a text of uncertain origin from the Carolingian period; see Mackay [2011], vol. 1, 42–46). This authoritative text argues that woman who imagine themselves to be interacting with demons are deluded, and hence it was necessary for Institoris to refute it (or at least argue against its normal interpretation), since his conception of witchcraft very much depended on the real interaction of witches and demon; see, for example, MM 104D–105B. 31  In MM 97A–B this conception is attributed to a young woman of Breisach who talked her way out of an accusation of being a witch. 32  See n. 21. 33  See MM 62A–B for an adapation of Nider Praeceptorium 1.11.7 in refutation of the skeptical interpretation of the canon “Episcopi.” 34  The Latin maleficorum should mean “evil-doers,” but it is no doubt taken here in the narrow sense of “witches” (in the generalizing masculine form, which in my translation of the MM I would render as “sorcerers”). 35  I.e., temporal. 36  See MM 9C–D for a discussion of these laws.

TEXTS: Document 16

231

Ultimately, that witches exist and inflict various forms of harm is clear from the recently issued Papal Bull,37 a copy of which your Most Reverend Paternity has. It is also clear from the executions carried out in the vicinity by other inquisitors, for instance the one in Wurms, who had more than forty burned in a single year.38 Second, your Reverend Paternity may ordain that the congregation has the right, granted specifically to each individual, to denounce to their parish priest women suspected of witchcraft and of this error, whether this comes to them on the basis of reputation or of knowledge that has been heard or is otherwise certain, and that they should not fail to do so on account of the fear of some penalty, since the names of those who give depositions will not be revealed in any court and so on, as is contained in the formula of the inquisition. (These procedures are part of a bishop’s duties, as was explained above39 through Chapter “Excommunicamus” § “Addicimus.”) Third, when women are denounced in this way, whether through the hearing of confessions (not that witches confess such things, but sometimes someone who is making confession may, at the insistence of the confessor, denounce suspected women) or in some other way by which they are denounced to him, the curate40 is obligated to report them to his ordinary. Fourth, curates should urge bailiffs and the rulers of the earth to pay the greatest attention to midwives, so that these should always be under oath and have a good reputation.41 For experience has proven through the report of witches who were burned up in various places that midwives have inflicted greater in37  I.e., the bull Summis desiderantes, which was issued on Dec. 5, 1484. Though the bull’s content was mainly procedural, it begins with a preface about the activities of witches that supports Institoris’s conception of witchcraft, which is hardly surprising since this text derives from Institoris’s own petition requesting the bull (see Mackay [2011] vol. 1, 121–126). In any event, Institoris clearly set much store by this papal endorsement of his views, placing a copy of it at the very start of the Malleus and inserting a copy of the text at the beginning of the dossier of documents he sent to Bishop Georg, with the intention that the text was to convince the reader of the validity of his interpretation of witchcraft. 38  I.e., the inquisitor of Como mentioned several times in the MM (64A, 215C), though there the town is called Burbia in Latin and Wurmser Bad in German (and the number of victims is forty-one). The modern name is Bormio (a village of the Italian Alps in Lombardy). 39  In the first section of the Memorandum. 40  For the sense of “curate” (and of the related title “rector” used in the title to this section), see doc. 3, n. 1. 41  The main discussion of the crimes of midwives is MM 2.1.13 (137B–141D). For the suggestion that they should be obliged to operate by government license under an oath, see MM 252C.

232

TEXTS: Document 16

juries on the Church, since they either immediately offer babies to the Devil or kill them in order to procure certain pastes from their limbs by the instructions of the Ancient Serpent, in order that their baptism will be impeded.42 To the contrary, it should be ordained that when the child is born, they should immediately raise it high up above the ground and offer it, saying, “God Almighty, receive Your creation, so that in the Holy Font of Baptism it should be reborn as an eternal offering to You.” A midwife burned up in Thann confessed to having killed more than forty children.43 In the copy of the document, various discussions of these can also be found. [3] Every proceeding concerning the Faith, Most Revered Father, is to be brought to a due end in one of thirteen methods. After all the acts, proceedings, and evidence in the case have been seen and carefully examined by various panels of experts, the denounced person is found: Art. 1) either to be completely absolved of heresy, or Art. 2) merely to have a bad reputation about heresy in general, so that no deposition about anything in particular is given against him, or Art. 3) to be in some way worthy of being exposed to questioning under torture, or Art. 4) to be lightly suspected of heresy, or Art. 5) to be vehemently suspected of heresy, or Art. 6) to be violently suspected of heresy, or Art. 7) to have a bad reputation about heresy and to be at the same time commonly suspected, or Art. 8) to have confessed heresy and to be repentant and not truly relapsed, or Art. 9) to have confessed heresy and to be penitent but to have probably relapsed, or Art. 10) to have confessed heresy and to be impenitent, but not to have relapsed in reality, or Art. 11) to have confessed heresy and to be impenitent and to have certainly relapsed, or Art. 12) not to have confessed but to be convicted of heresy through lawful witnesses and other legal means, or Art. 13) to be convicted of heresy, but to be a fugitive (contumaciously absent).44 42  For concept, see doc. 9, n. 9. 43  See MM 138B. 44  This list corresponds to MM 224D–225A.

TEXTS: Document 16

233

The harborers, defenders, impeders, and abettors of heretics are subject to the same penalties as those caught in heresy, since the Heresy of Witches surpasses any simple heresy regarding the Faith on account of the heinousness of the crime in that it holds the accessories to it not simply in doubt about the Faith as is the case with simple heretics, but in the apostasy and denial of the Faith along with various injuries to creatures.45 Accordingly, all its harborers, defenders, impeders and so on are included in the same methods of sentencing, so that a person denounced for harboring, defending or abetting the Heresy of Witches is found:46 1) 2) 3) 4)

either to be absolved, being completely innocent of abetting, defending, etc., or to have only a bad reputation about them in general, or to be in some way worthy of being exposed to questioning under torture, or only to be lightly suspected of one of them, or to be vehemently suspected of it,

and so on down to the last one listed above. Method One of bringing to an end and passing sentence in proceedings concerning the Heresy of Witches – it now remains to explain this heresy specifically, and this method is easier compared to all the others – is when the person denounced for the Heresy of Witches is found, after the proceedings have been carefully examined with a good panel of experts, to be totally innocent of the crime of heresy, in that he47 is not convicted by his own confession or by evidence of the deed or the lawful production of witnesses,48 or to be otherwise suspected or to have a bad general reputation about this crime, and is found merely to have been denounced by someone or some people in a less than just

45  Denial of the faith (MM 2.1.2 [95D–100D]) and the commission of unprovoked harm are fundamental elements in Institoris’s conception of witchcraft. 46  This whole paragraph (Institoris’s own composition) is very poorly written, and the last sentence (here) is particularly garbled. It seems pretty clear that the translation given here reflects the intended sense, though it actually says that “they are included with their harborers” etc. 47  Since all the formulas for dealing with the accused are adapted from Eymeric and Eymeric was speaking of the treatment of heretics in general, the formulas here continue to use the generalizing masculine, even though the suspects that Institoris has in mind are, of course, women. 48  These are the regular requirements for conviction in the contemporary procedure of criminal law.

234

TEXTS: Document 16

manner, in that they gave their depositions on the basis not of some noteworthy suspicions but rather of fickleness or a vague report.49 Regarding such a person, the following procedure is to be followed. He is to be absolved by the bishop and inquisitor, jointly or separately (in this instance, one can conduct the proceedings against them alone according to the gloss of Johannes Andree on Chapter “Multorum” § “Duro tamen … verum” [“Heretics,” Liber Sextus], but not in others) in a sentence of the following content. “We, (Name), Bishop of Such-and-Such City, and Brother (Name) of Such-andSuch Order, Inquisitor of Heretical Depravity in the lands of the Lord Such-and-Such through special appointment by the Apostolic See, noted that you, Such-and-Such of Such-and-Such place and of Such-and-Such diocese, were denounced to us for heretical depravity, it being stated that you committed such-and-such act of witchcraft or that you defended Such-and-Such witch or received her in hospitality, freed her from prison, and so on, and we also noted that these statements were not the sort that we could or should let pass with conniving eyes. Therefore, we resorted to conducting an inquisition into whether the aforesaid charges were based upon some truth, receiving witnesses, examining you, granting lines of defence, and otherwise acting in accordance with the sanctions of the Canon. Accordingly, having seen and carefully examined all the transactions and dealings in this case, having held a panel of men expert both in the law and [4] in the faculty of Theology, and having recalled it several times, we are now sitting in tribunal in the manner of judges passing judgment, keeping before our eyes God alone and the truth of the case, with the Sacrosanct Gospels placed in our presence so that our judgment may come forth from the face of God and our eyes may see fairness, and will proceed to our definitive sentence in the following manner, invoking the name of Christ. Whereas by all the things which we have seen and heard and which have been brought forward and offered, transacted and proceeded with before us, in the present case we do not find that anything has been legally proven against you concerning the matters for which you were denounced before us, we pronounce, declare and give as our definitive sentence against you that no legal transaction has taken place before us on account of which you can and should be judged to be a heretic or defender (and so on) of heretics or should be considered to be suspected of heretical depravity in any way. Hence, from this moment we release you totally from the present instance, inquisition and court. 49  This method corresponds to MM 3.20.

TEXTS: Document 16

235

“This sentence was passed” and so on. Another, shorter version of the same.50 “We, (Name), Bishop of Such-and-Such City, having seen and diligently examined each and every act and proceeding in the present case and having maturely and carefully held a solemn panel of experts in Holy Theology and the Law, are now sitting in tribunal in the manner of judges passing judgment, keeping before our eyes God alone, with the Sacrosanct Gospels placed in our presence so that our judgment may come forth from the face of God and our eyes may see fairness. On this day, hour, and place, assigned to you, Such-and-Such of Such-and-Such place of Such-and-Such diocese for hearing the definitive sentence, as our sentence we declare, pronounce and define in your presence that none of the things for which you were denounced before us, namely that in reference to the Heresy of Witches (or heresies) you said or did (and so on), have been lawfully proven before us so that on account of this you should be considered a heretic or someone suspected of heresy. Therefore, by the present sentence of ours we absolve you and release you from the present instance and from our court. “This sentence was passed …” Care should be taken that it is never stated in any sentence that the denounced person is innocent or blameless, but only that it not was proven legally against him. Hence, if he is again denounced afterwards in the course of time and the charge is then legally proven, he can be condemned regardless of the sentence that absolved him. When someone has been denounced for receiving, defending or otherwise abetting heretics or heretical depravity, he is to be absolved in the same way as stated when nothing is proven against him legally. Method Two of passing sentence follows. The second method of bringing to an end proceedings involving the Faith is when the denounced person is found, after a careful examination of the merits of the proceedings with a good panel of experts, only to have a bad reputation for such heresy in some village, city or province (in terms of a general bad reputation, that is, when no heresy in particular or the commission of an act of 50  This is omitted in the Malleus.

236

TEXTS: Document 16

witchcraft is known).51 In that case, when the denounced person in this way is not convicted by his own confession or by evidence of the deed or by the lawful production of witnesses, and there are no indications proven against him at all except precisely this bad reputation, then the following procedure is to be followed concerning him. First, in this circumstance a sentence cannot be passed absolving the denounced person in the straightforward manner described in the previous method. In that case, as was stated, the denounced person who was absolved did not have a bad reputation, but here he does, and for this reason the sentence should be passed not for but against him, imposing on him the purging prescribed by the Canon. Second, in this case, the bishop and inquisitor will jointly and not separately – unless one entrusts his role to the other according to Chapter “Multorum” (“Heretics,” in the Clementines) – pass sentence in the following manner (or in one of similar meaning). “We, (Name), by God’s mercy Bishop of Such-and-Such City, and Brother (Name) of the Order of Preachers,52 Inquisitor of Heretical Depravity in the lands of the Lord Such-and-Such through special appointment by the Apostolic See, consider that after an examination of the merits of the proceedings conducted by us against you, Such-and-Such of Such-and-Such diocese, who have been denounced to us for such-and-such heretical depravity, namely that of the Waldensians53 (or the Leonists54 or Luciferians55)” – the heresy or 51  This method corresponds to MM 3.21 [225D–227B]. 52  Being a good Dominican, Eymeric assumes in his sample formulas that the inquisitor would likewise be a Dominican, but in reality any mendicant could be appointed (some were Franciscans). The specification is left in by Institoris here and in the subsequent formulas, but he would regularly excise such references in the corresponding sections of the Malleus (where the formulas were theoretically intended for secular judges, but nonetheless retained a large amount of their ecclesiastical phraseology). 53  For the Waldensians, see Introduction n. 26. Since this and the following three names of heretics were inserted into Eymeric’s text by Institoris, the choice of these terms in particular presumably reflects Institoris’s attempt both to show off his erudition and to pick traditional heresies associated with Satan. 54  Seemingly, this term is simply a synonym for “Waldensian” (the “Leo” element being merely a deformation of Lyon, Waldo’s home town). 55  Strictly speaking, these heretics had nothing to do with Lucifer (=Satan). At the Council of Ariminum in 359, the Emperor Constantius II forced the bishops of the western part of the Empire, who universally upheld the view of the Trinity espoused at the Council of Nicaea in 325, to accept the Arian interpretation that was popular in the Greek-speaking

TEXTS: Document 16

237

the Article of the Faith for which he had a reputation for having erred should be stated, or if he had a reputation regarding the Heresy of Witches, and so on – “we do not find you to have confessed or to have been convicted of the aforementioned stain, or to be otherwise suspected even lightly of it, except that we find that you legally and truly have a general bad reputation among both the good and the bad people in Such-and-Such village, city or diocese. Accordingly, in order for this bad reputation to be purged and for you to be of good odor among the congregation of the faithful, we impose upon you the purging prescribed by the Canon in the lawful way, assigning to you such-andsuch day of such-and-such month and such-and-such hour of that day. At that time, you are to appear in person before us in order to purge your bad reputation with a group composed of such-and-such a number of people of your estate, these co-purgers [5] being people who are Catholic in faith and proven in way of life, who know your behavior and way of life, not so much at the present time as in the past. We indicate that if you fail in this purging, we will consider you convicted, as is the desire of the Canon’s sanctions.” Here again, a few things should be considered.56 1) In terms of the bad reputation, someone gains a bad reputation in the crime of heresy, as was related on another sheet,57 not only among good and

east and favored by the emperor. This decision was soon revoked, and the west reverted to its Nicene views. But Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari in Sardinia condemned any bishops who had acquiesced in the decision at Ariminum, even though they had been received back into the Church. When Eymeric elsewhere (245 1D) discusses this supposed sect (no followers of Lucifer had existed for a thousand years even in Eymeric’s time), he is aware that the man for whom it was named was not Satan, but nonetheless alludes to the similarity of name. What Institoris actually knew of these heretics is less clear, but he must have chosen this heresy as an example because of its satanic-sounding name. 56  Note that steps 1–5 give a good sense of how Institoris himself must have proceeded in the earlier stages of his inquisition in Innsbruck. 57  Does he mean the mysterious document previously turned over to the vicar (doc. 9, n. 46)? Seemingly, the bishop was already in possession of this sheet of paper, which seems to exclude the elaborate document that he intended to send to the bishop (see n. 21). Certainly, the term sheet (cedula) is otherwise used only of the separate list of witnesses (as in the end of doc. 8 and the list that was to have accompanied doc. 10), so its appearance in this context is surprising. To judge by the repeated references to it throughout the present text, this previous document appears to have contained fairly detailed information regarding the inquisitorial procedure as laid out by Eymeric, in which case it is hard to see why Institoris has to go over the same material again at such length.

238

TEXTS: Document 16

respectable people but also among low-class and criminal people.58 In this the new provisions differ from the ancient ones,59 and in this the reasoning is given that someone can be convicted of heresy by low-class, criminal people, and therefore he can gain a bad reputation, and so on.60 2) It should be considered that when the bishop or inquisitor wishes to conduct an inquisition regarding the bad reputation, he should first have a general summons posted (your Most Reverend Paternity also has the formula for this). First, he should have the preacher clearly explain this summons to the congregation from the pulpit in the vernacular. 3) When witnesses are impelled by the general summons to appear in order to give depositions, then on the basis of his office the judge should hear them alone or along with a notary and witnesses. If he does so alone, he should indicate to them that they would appear again after they have been personally admonished and summoned, and alone like this he should write down the women’s depositions, registering the names of the witnesses separately on another sheet of paper. 4) Before they give deposition, he should make them bodily touch the Holy Scriptures (Gospels) or an image of the Crucifix and swear an oath that they would not conceal or assert and so on anything as a result of hatred, love, greed or terror, and he should lay this out in the following verbal formula. “Also swer ich ein luter Wahrheit zusagen, was mir wissen ist von her sagen oder von eigener Wissenschaft der sachen halb, der Unholden oder anders Unglaubens wegen, als mir Gott helf und all Heiligen.” [“I swear to tell the pure truth about what is known to me by hearsay or by my own knowledge of the matter regarding witches or other lack of Faith. So help me God and all the Saints!”] Also, the judge should explain the seriousness of the oath, in that two pusheddown fingers represent the damnation of the soul and body as a result of a false

58  This provision is derived from a class-based understanding of respectability. Well-to-do people are considered inherently more reliable and trustworthy than those without any status in society, whose word for something is normally not accepted without some sort of external corroboration. 59  For the distinction between the old and new provisions regarding the inquisition, see MM 190C (also 220C; 221A, C). 60  Sections 1–5 have no correspondence in Eymeric and must reflect Institoris’s own procedure.

TEXTS: Document 16

239

oath, just as the three raised ones represent the Holy Trinity, which he receives in witness of the truth.61 5) He should carefully note if the deposition concerns only a bad reputation, so that the deposition relates to nothing in particular and is based only on hearsay. He should also make a careful investigation about the circumstances of the reputation, for instance the time and which respectable persons it arose from. For while the judge does not have to reject disreputable and criminal people, the origin of the reputation must be noted in terms of the respectability of the persons. 6) He should make sure that the co-purgers regarding the reputation are not simply men of proven way of life and character, as was stated before, but also of sufficient number (ten, twenty or thirty according to the seriousness of the crime and whether he had a greater or lesser reputation in places of greater or lesser significance), and that these should be persons of his own status, as was related elsewhere.62 A layman has to stand up for a layman, a man under religious vows has to stand for another man under such vows, a nobleman for a nobleman, and similarly a bishop should be admitted for purging with bishops, an abbot with abbots, and a priest with priests (“Purging according to the Canon,” “Quotiens”).63 7) He should note that if he is unwilling to purge himself, he should be excommunicated, and if he endures this excommunication for a year with obstinate spirit, from then on he is condemned as a heretic according to Chapter “Excommunicamus itaque” § “Qui autem.”

61  For this form of oath, see MM 195D, NH 6v. This traditional ecclesiastical gesture for benediction (with the last two fingers folded over the palm) is already attested in Late Antiquity, but its origin is unclear (the raising of the three fingers was later associated with the Trinity). The Constitutio Carolina (the criminal code issued for the Holy Roman Empire in 1532 by the Emperor Charles V) notes (sec. 107) that “it is the customary practice in the Holy Empire to cut off of perjurers the two fingers by which they swore” (seemingly it was thought that it was the depression of the two last fingers that created the operative gesture). 62  Another reference to the mysterious “sheet” cited in Consideration 1? 63  Here Institoris has somewhat garbled Eymeric’s meaning. When the latter gives the example of bishops, abbots and priests, he does so to illustrate the point that when it is ordained that the co-purgers are supposed to be “of the same order” as the main purger, this is to be interpreted broadly, so that when the purger is a bishop, it is not just bishops but also abbots and priests who may serve as co-purgers.

240

TEXTS: Document 16

If he decides to purge himself but fails in the purging, then, as was stated elsewhere, if he does not have as many co-purgers of the same status as was enjoined upon him, he should be considered convicted, and then condemned as a heretic according to the first Chapter “Excommunicamus” § “Addicimus” in the phrase “Qui non si.”64 8) The judge should note that upon the arrival of the deadline assigned to the denounced person for purging himself according to the Canon, he should appear for purging along with his co-purgers in person before the bishop or inquisitor in the place where he had the bad reputation. Then, placing his hand over a book of the Gospels, he should say, “I swear on these four Holy Gospels of God, that such-and-such heresy” – stating it – “for which I have a bad reputation I have never held or believed or taught and do not believe or hold it.” In this way he will deny under oath what he had a reputation for, whatever it is. Once this is done, all the co-purgers will, one after the other, put their hand on the book mentioned before, and each will say, on the instructions of the judge if he does not know the formula for swearing, “And I swear on these Holy Gospels of God that I believe that he has sworn the truth.” 9) The judge should enjoin that if the denounced person has a bad reputation in many places, in all those places he should publicly profess the Catholic Faith and make a public declaration of his loathing of the heresy for which he is known to have a bad reputation. He should not say, “I never believed that there was such a heresy, nor do I still believe that such witches exist,” but “I believe that these witches are eternally damned unless they come to their senses.”65 64  In NH 16r, Institoris actually gives the advice that if the judge wants to secure a suspected witch’s conviction, he should secretly determine how many co-purgers she is likely to be able to provide and then require a larger number, thereby guaranteeing her failure. 65  Eymeric has a long section (430 col. 1A–431 col. 1E) in which he lays out ten separate linguistic tricks by which heretics attempt to weasel their way out of trouble when being interrogated by an inquisitor about their beliefs by reconfiguring the question and/or responding with an equivocal response that seems to give a satisfactory response but is meant internally by the heretic to mean something different. Eymeric’s categories and his many examples are very specific (dealing with particular disputed doctrines) and much more elaborate than the examples given here, which are presumably Institoris’s own creation. Institoris’s point is that when the witches say that there was no heresy, what they supposedly mean is not that witches do not exist but they do not really constitute a heresy and so the witches are not really heretics. One imagines that he came up with this line of thought because of Scheuberin’s denunciation of him for his preaching heresy (doc. 9/12). Since the Heresy of Witches was a concoction of the inquisitorial imagination, it seems to be out of the question that any real suspect actually produced the equivocations suggested here.

TEXTS: Document 16

241

10) The judge should make sure to inform the person who has been purged in this way that if he relapses into the heresy that has just purged, then he will be considered a relapsed person and as a relapsed person will be handed over to the secular court according to Chapter “Ad abolendam” § “Illos quoque.” If, on the other hand, he lapses into a different heresy about which he has not previously purged himself, it would be different. These statements are true of straightforward heresy, but it is different with the Heresy of Witches. In addition to the purging prescribed by the Canon, they must also abjure all heresy, and for this reason, if they lapse into any heresy, they are judged as relapsed.66 [6] Method Three of passing sentence follows. The third method of finishing and terminating proceedings involving the Faith is when the person denounced for heresy, after a careful consideration of the merits of the proceedings with a good panel of experts, is found to be inconsistent in his statements or to have indications against him sufficient for questioning, that is, for him to be exposed to questioning under torture, with the proviso that if he concedes nothing under the questioning, he is to be considered blameless and innocent.67 This is true when the denounced person is not caught by his own confession or by evidence of the deed or the lawful production of witnesses, and there are no indications sufficient for such suspicion that he has to abjure heresy, but he is nonetheless inconsistent in his confessions or else there are indications sufficient not for creating a light or serious suspicion of heresy but for questioning under torture. Valid indications that should result in him having to reveal certain things pertaining to heresy about himself or others are if, for instance, he had close familiarity with someone who had a bad reputation for heresy, or hatefully abused the clergy or inquisitors in various conversations, or did not believe in the existence of witches, or

66  Those who relapsed into heresy after making an abjuration were subject to execution. If the person abjured only the specific form of heresy for which they were initially convicted, then they could be executed only for relapsing into that form. If the original abjuration encompassed all heresy, however, then a subsequent conviction for any form of heresy would result in execution. 67  This method corresponds to MM 3.22 (227B–228D).

242

TEXTS: Document 16

frequently disparaged the censures of the Church, and then sometimes confesses these and other things, and at other times denies them.68 Regarding such a person, the following procedure is to be followed. First, an interlocutory sentence is to be passed against and not for the denounced person, and therefore while it should be passed by the inquisitor and bishop jointly and not separately according to Chapter “Multorum” (“Heretics,” in the Clementines), nonetheless by my agreement69 you, Most Reverend Father, will be able to pass it so that if the denounced person tenaciously persists in his denial and is unwilling, despite the urging of upright men, to confess the truth, a sentence that seems to savor of a definitive sentence will be passed in the manner of the following text, as is stated elsewhere.70 “We, (Name), by God’s mercy bishop of Such-and-Such city (and so on), note, after a careful examination of the merits of the proceeding conducted by us against you, Such-and-Such of Such-and-Such place of Such-and-Such diocese, that you are inconsistent in your confessions and that there are nonetheless many indications that are sufficient for exposing you to questioning under torture, and therefore, in order for the truth to be had from your own mouth and for you to cease henceforth to offend the ears of the judges, as an interlocutory measure we declare, judge and sentence that on the present day at such-andsuch hour you should be subjected to questioning under torture. “This sentence was passed …” Second, it is to be noted that since it was stated that there are two reasons for which the denounced person is to be exposed to questioning under torture, namely inconsistency in confessing and indications sufficient for questioning, the judge should make sure that if both are found against the denounced person, both should be set down in the sentence.71 If, however, these two 68  This again brings to mind Scheuberin’s disparagement of Institoris’s preaching. 69  That is, at the time that Institoris agreed to withdraw from the case and leave it to the bishop to pursue the case (see doc. 12). 70  Another reference to the “sheet.” 71  This paragraph is an adaptation of a section at the end of the relevant method in Eymeric. Institoris omits much of Eymeric, and the next few paragraphs are his own composition. The omitted material discusses how the inquisitor should not proceed immediately to the use of torture, but should resort to it only after trying to induce the accused to tell the truth voluntarily through the passage of time and encouragement.

TEXTS: Document 16

243

criteria do not coincide, but there is only one, for instance indications without inconsistency or inconsistency without indications, what is found should be set down in the sentence. Third, it should be noted that because this method of sentencing to questioning under torture obtains in connection with those in connection with whom neither the person’s own confession nor the lawful production of witnesses nor the evidence of the deed or indications concerning some suspicion obtain, but when the denounced person confesses nothing during the questioning under torture, he should then be considered free, blameless and innocent,72 accordingly the judge should behave very discreetly towards such a person and conduct the proceedings by every method as is fully related elsewhere in writing. In addition to the foregoing, the bishop may wish to know in which other situations apart from the ones already treated someone should be exposed to questioning under torture. Specifically, in a situation involving witches, if there are, in addition to indications relating to questioning under torture, indications relating to the Heresy of Witches, then, in that case, could the denounced man/woman73 be exposed to torture in a similar sentence, so that if he conceded nothing, he would then be considered blameless and innocent? The response is that in terms of the present topic denounced people are divided into two categories. Some have indications proven against them because of which they ought to make an abjuration, being lightly or vehemently suspected of heresy (as will be explained in Methods Four and Five of passing sentence). These people should not be questioned on account of the indications which have been 72  In the Handbook, Institoris complains bitterly and repeatedly about this procedure of secular criminal practice. In his mind, the ability of witches to use the “sorcery of silence” (MM 3.15 [213A–216A]) to get through torture without confessing not simply vitiates the procedure as a means of finding the truth about them but in fact gives them an easy opportunity to escape conviction. Here, he is surprisingly indifferent to this possibility, particularly since he goes on to mention the sorcery of silence below. This apparent discrepancy derives from the fact that here he has to express himself through the (partially adapted) words of Eymeric, who is speaking only of “regular” heretics. 73  At this point, Institoris makes an isolated use of an orthographic practice that turns up repeatedly in the Handbook. When a Latin word appears with a grammatical ending that indicates gender, he appends to the word in superscript format the corresponding ending for the other gender. In this instance, the word “denounced” takes the generalizing masculine ending, so Institoris felt compelled to add the feminine ending since he was fully aware that he really had female suspects in mind.

244

TEXTS: Document 16

proven against them, because questioning is admitted in default of other proofs. But proceedings can be conducted against them in accordance with what has been proven against them, and they will make an abjuration as people who are suspected but not caught. There are other denounced people who confess nothing before the questioning, or even during it, and sometimes they confess during the questioning but not before. About these people the following procedure is to be observed. If the person confesses nothing before or during the questioning, and nothing is proven against him because of which he could or should make an abjuration of heresy or be condemned for heresy, but he has indications sufficient for questioning under torture, this is the sort of person being dealt with here, and it was just stated (in Method Three) that if he confesses nothing, he should be considered blameless and innocent. If he confesses during the questioning, then these statements relate either to a situation involving the bad reputation alone or to one involving the bad reputation and suspicion. If it is a situation involving reputation alone, then he will purge himself according to the Canon. If suspicion is worked up at the same time, then if it is only light or vehement, he will first make an abjuration and purge himself according to the heinousness of the crime. If there are indications relating to violent suspicion (as will be explained in Method Six), he is to be imprisoned for life or handed over to the secular arm. In the questioning under torture, the method written down elsewhere should be followed completely,74 namely that the judge should not be very eager to question someone under torture and that the denounced person should not be questioned under torture with novel or new-fangled methods – this would be altogether superfluous in connection with witches, who are rendered virtually incapable of sensing the torture through acts of witchcraft, although they may be relevant in connection with straightforward heretics – without the shedding of blood, and after a suitable period of time, fittingly extended, has been given to the denounced person and he has been advised repeatedly to tell the truth without torture. Nonetheless, witches75 should by all means be exposed to questioning under light torture [7] in order to test whether they are under the influence of the sorcery of silence. In the situation where they do not 74  Here Institoris resumes adapting Eymeric; once again, “elsewhere” refers to the “sheet.” 75  Ammann reads rufe (“red-haired”) in front of this word. This reading is clearly wrong, and the strokes are seemingly just a garbled and abandoned start of malefice (“witch”).

TEXTS: Document 16

245

shed tears or notice the pain, then she will be considered a witch bewitched by herself.76 If the judge still thinks that she should be exposed to torture, he should do this with the intention of having her betray other witches and not with a consideration that other proofs cited against her in a situation where she is unwilling to confess should be considered of no validity.77 For this would result in great injury to the office78 and damage to the Faith. Therefore, since it is a general rule that questioning under torture is inflicted only in default of other proofs, the judge should be circumspect, always declaring that the person would still have to be punished according to what has been proven regardless of that torture. The reason why he should expose her to torture is to gain knowledge of other witches.79 He should have her shaved over her entire body and he should act as has been described elsewhere.80 He should note that if she seeks the judgment of the glowing iron, he should then consider her certainly as a witch.81 Just recently, the present-day pope, Innocent, prohibited this form of judgment in his letter to the Archduke of 76  For the “sorcery of silence” and the way that a supposed indifference to the pain is taken as prima facie evidence of guilt, see MM 213B–D and NH 38v–r. Note the perversity that torture is to be used not to determine guilt through the extraction of verifiable information but to determine guilt through the supposed evidence of a lack of ability to cry (=bewitchment through the “sorcery of silence”=being a witch). In the Malleus passage, Institoris allows that witches can cry for real in the presence of the guards but not of the judge, and in Handbook 2.7 he goes further in arguing that they use onions to make themselves seem to cry when they “actually” cannot. In effect, Institoris has already made up his mind about guilt and is arguing away evidence to the contrary. 77  This sentence and the next were written by Institoris and do not derive from Eymeric, so they must reflect his views about the use of torture (cf. the statement in MM 159C). 78  Presumably, the office of the inquisition in general, whether exercised by an inquisitor or a bishop. 79  This is entirely illogical, since he just claimed that they are insensible to the pain. 80  For the shaving of the accused (to discover any amulets hidden in connection with the sorcery of silence), see MM 214B–C and NH 8v, 38r. Oddly, in the Malleus passage, Institoris goes on at length about how the practice of inquisitors in Germany differs from that of foreign inquisitors because the German ones (presumably meaning himself) restrict themselves to shaving women’s heads because shaving them elsewhere was considered degrading. This very clear differentiation of his own practice is puzzling since by his own evidence it was false. 81  See MM 3.17 for a discussion of why this sort of judgment by ordeal was to be rejected.

246

TEXTS: Document 16

Austria (provision is made for this elsewhere in the law).82 Complaints83 had reached the Pope’s ears that certain temporal lords were allowing this form of judgment in violation of the legal prohibition, and that many witches had escaped by means of it with the help of demons, as experience has demonstrated.84 Method Four of passing sentence follows. Method Four of passing sentence and finishing proceedings involving the Faith is when the person denounced for heresy, after a careful examination of the merits of the proceedings with a good panel of legal experts, is found to be, in addition to what has previously been discussed, only lightly suspected of heresy.85 This is when the person denounced for heresy is not caught by his 82  On June 18, 1485, Pope Innocent VIII issued three letters concerning witchcraft in Germany. The first (Schnyder [1993] #37) is addressed to the Archbishop of Mainz and concerns steps that he can take to facilitate the inquisition in Upper Germany. This letter directly alludes to the appointment of our Institoris and Jacob Sprenger as inquisitors in this region, and the whole series of letters was presumably motivated by some request of theirs. The next letter (#38) is the one alluded to here. This letter was addressed to the archduke and after commending him for his zealous defence of the faith in general and for his actions “against a sect of heretics and witches” in particular, it requests that he continue to do so in future and instruct others to follow his lead in offering them assistance “especially against witches of both sexes who need to be repressed, so that they will not in any way be allowed to use the judgment of the glowing iron, as is provided in the law, but will have the due penalties inflicted on them in light of the nature of their crimes according to the provisions of the Holy Canons and the imperial laws” (maxime vero contra reprimendos maleficos vtriusque sexus, ne aliquo pacto ad iudicium candentis ferri admittantur, prout iure cautum habetur, sed iuxta sanctorum canonum instituta et leges imperiales pro qualitate scelerum debitis penis afficiantur), terminology which is clearly repeated here. The rest of this letter commends Abbot John of the monastery in Weingarten in the diocese of Constance to the archduke for being a keen assistant of the inquisitors (the Benedictine monastery of Weingarten is directly north of Ravensburg, and presumably the abbot had helped Institoris during his inquisition in that town during the fall of the preceding year), and letter #39 is a personal commendation to the abbot for the same reason. Since the event that led to the unease about the judgment by glowing iron took place on March 14 of the same year (see n. 84), presumably this is what impelled Institoris (and also apparently Sprenger) to request the letter to the archduke. (And Institoris must also have availed himself of the opportunity to put in a good word for the abbot.) 83  The pope’s letter (Schnyder [1993] #38) begins by stating that the pope had received his information about the archduke’s zeal from “trustworthy reports” (… ex fidedignis relatibus accepimus et re etiam ipsa compertum habemus …). Presumably, this means the information provided to him by Institoris (and Sprenger) in their request for assistance. 84  This seems to refer only to the incident in which an accused witch was released on March 14, 1485 after successfully passing this ordeal; see MM 219C–D. 85  This method corresponds to MM 3.23 (228D–230A).

TEXTS: Document 16

247

own confession or by evidence of the deed or by the lawful production of witnesses, and there are otherwise no strong (vehement) indications against him regarding that form of heresy but ones judged by the panel to be only moderate and light and such that because of them he can and should, as someone lightly suspected of heresy, abjure as such a person the heresy for which he has been denounced. If such a person relapses, he is not punished with the penalty appropriate for the relapsed, although he would in that case have to be punished more severely than would be the case if he had not previously made the abjuration according to the beginning of Chapter “Accusatus” (“Heresies,” Liber Sextus).86 Concerning such a person the following procedure is to be followed. If he is publicly considered suspect, he will make the abjuration publicly in a church. Otherwise, he should make the abjuration in the palace of the bishop or in the convent of friars where the inquisitor is lodging or in the room of the bishop or inquisitor, depending on whether he was considered and reputed to be suspected of heresy among a greater or smaller number of men. The method of making the arrangements for the abjuration will be as follows. The person to make the abjuration should come to the church where it has been determined by the panel that he should make the abjuration, though first it should be ordered throughout the churches on the preceding Sunday that on such-and-such day everyone should attend the sermon that the inquisitor or someone in place of the bishop will give regarding and on behalf of the Faith. In an appropriate location a tower or reredos or catafalque will be set up, and the person to make the abjuration will stand and not sit upon this, so that all may see him. His head will be bare, and guards will surround him. Once the sermon has been given during the Mass, and the clergy and congregation are gathered there, in place of the bishop the inquisitor (preacher) will say, in connection with the impugned heresy for which the person to make the abjuration was denounced, how this man placed high up on the tower was considered, on the basis of such-and-such and such-and-such indications and deeds, suspected of such-and-such impugned heretical depravity, and that for this reason it was suitable for him to purge himself of it by making an abjuration as someone lightly suspected. Once this is said, a book of the Gospels will be placed before the person who is to make the abjuration, and once it is placed, he will place his hand on it and abjure the heresy in the following manner. 86  See n. 66.

248

TEXTS: Document 16

“I, Such-and-Such of Such-and-Such diocese, inhabitant of Such-and-Such city (or place), have been placed in judgment before you, the Lord Bishop of Such-and-Such city and Brother Such-and-Such, the Inquisitor of Heretical Depravity in the lands subject to the rule of Lord Such-and-Such, and touching with my own hands the Sacrosanct Gospels that have been set before me, I swear that I believe in heart and profess by mouth the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith that the Sacrosanct Roman Church believes, confesses, preaches, and observes. “Also, I swear that I believe in heart and profess by mouth that all heretics who have a different view about the Articles of the Faith and the Sacraments of the Church are eternally damned if they do not come to their senses.87 “Consequently, I abjure, deny and retract the Heresy of Witches, about which you, Lord Bishop and Inquisitor,” – if an inquisitor is in fact present – “hold me suspect, and which is harmful to the Catholic Faith and to humans, domestic animals and the fruits of the earth, as well as abjuring all their most unspeakable and foul works. “Also, I swear that I never believed or believe this heresy, or adhered or adhere to it, or will ever believe or adhere to it, or taught it or intend to teach it. “If I ever do commit any of these acts, which God forbid, I readily submit myself to the penalties of the law appropriate for those who have made such an abjuration, being prepared to endure every kind of penitence which, in light of these acts or words of mine for which you justly consider me suspect, you will wish to enjoin upon me. I swear that I will carry out the penance to the best of my abilities and will in no way obstruct it. “So help me God and these Sacrosanct Gospels!” This abjuration should be performed in the vernacular, so that it can be understood by everyone. When it is finished, the bishop or inquisitor can tell him publicly in the vernacular the following words or ones of similar meaning. 87  The reference here to the damning of heretics is Institoris’s own composition, which presumably reflects his own extreme hostility to them (no doubt heretics would agree, differing only on the definition of heresy). Eymeric’s own examples (omitted here) of the sorts of beliefs that heretics are to be compelled to recant are far more specific (and plausible as representative views of real heretics).

TEXTS: Document 16

249

“My son, for the suspicion which we had about you, and not unreasonably so, you have made an abjuration and by abjuring purged yourself. In future, you should make sure for your own good that you do not fall into this heresy which you have abjured. [8] For if you repent, you will not be turned over to the secular arm, since you made the abjuration as one suspected lightly and not vehemently, but in that case you will be punished much more strongly than would be the case if you had not made the abjuration, and then you will be considered to be someone who is vehemently rather than a moderately suspected. Then, in the situation where you made an abjuration as such a person and will again lapse into sin, you will be punished with the penalty appropriate for one who is relapsed and you will be turned over without mercy to the secular court to be stricken with the death penalty.” If he makes the abjuration in secret in the bishop’s hall or (and so on), that is, when the act is not done in public, he will make the abjuration in a similar manner. When the things are complete, the sentence will be passed in the following manner. “We, (Name), by God’s mercy bishop of Such-and-Such city, and Brother Suchand Such (and so on)” – if an inquisitor is present – “in the lands subject to the rule of Lord Such-and-Such, note that after seeing and carefully considering the merits of the proceedings conducted by us against you, Such-and-Such, who have been denounced to us for heretical depravity, we find that you have committed such-and-such and such-and-such acts (and so on)” – these should be listed – “which render you lightly suspected of heresy. Because of them we rightly hold you to be such and make you, as someone lightly suspected of the aforementioned stain, abjure that heresy. In order that the crimes committed by you should not remain unpunished and in order that you should be made more cautious in future, on the mature and considered advice of the panel of many great legal experts and also of men under religious vows that was convened regarding and concerning these matters, and having before our eyes God alone and the Irrefutable Truth of the Holy Catholic Faith and having placed the Sacrosanct Gospels before us, in order that our judgment may come forth from the face of God and that our eyes may see only fairness, sitting before the tribunal in the manner of judges passing judgment, we condemn you, Such-and-Such, who are placed in judgment before us, and sentence you, or rather sentence you to penance, in the following manner. From now on you should never knowingly visit, defend or be a receiver of witches, or read, hold

250

TEXTS: Document 16

or have their books”88 (the crimes for which he was considered suspected of this heretical depravity should be listed). “This sentence (or sentence to penance) was passed …” The notary should make sure that he writes down in the protocol that this abjuration was made by someone considered lightly and not vehemently suspected of heresy. Otherwise, there could be great danger.89 Once the sentence has been read in this way, the bishop or inquisitor may, according to the privilege “Prae cunctis,”90 confer an indulgence of forty or twenty days upon all those who attended the sermon and abjuration, adding that whoever gave aid, council or favor, so that the person who just made the abjuration did so, has three years of indulgence.91 Method Five of passing sentence follows, and this is the first of those that can be followed in connection with witches (those who are vehemently suspected but do not confess their guilt). Method Five of bringing an end to and finishing proceedings involving the Faith is when the person denounced for heresy, after a careful examination of the merits of the proceedings with a good panel of legal experts, is found 88  The reference to books is a meaningless holdover from the text adapted from the Directorium, where real heretics are discussed. In Institoris’s conception, witches were basically illiterate women of low social standing (see MM 91C). 89  That is, the penalty for the relapse of vehemently suspected abjurers would be more severe. 90  Urban IV’s apostolic letter “Prae cunctis” granted various privileges to inquisitors that were confirmed by subsequent popes. 91  Medieval theology held that some people who were not worthy of eternal damnation would be condemned to spend a limited period of torment in purgatory (“place of purification”) before being admitted to heaven, and that by virtue of the “power of the keys” the pope was able to remit any term in purgatory in whole or part. This remission was called an indulgence, and famously Luther’s denial of the pope’s right to do any such thing was the immediate cause of his breach with the Catholic church. Inquisitors were able to exercise this power on behalf of the pope, and Eymeric includes numerous references to the indulgences to be granted to those who assisted the prosecution of the heretic being dealt with and to the lesser indulgences for those who witnessed any public proceedings. Since the present work is intended to provide instructions for ecclesiastical proceedings, Institoris retains all such sections, but since the corresponding sections of the Malleus are meant to illustrate the proceedings of a secular judge, he excises all this information in that work.

TEXTS: Document 16

251

to be vehemently suspected of heresy.92 This is when the person denounced for heretical depravity is not found to be legally caught by his own confession or by evidence of the fact or by the lawful production of witnesses, but there are great and serious indications proven against him, ones that are judged by the panel to be such that they render him vehemently suspected of heretical depravity. Concerning such a person, the following procedure is to be followed. He ought to abjure this heretical depravity as someone suspected of such heresy, so that if he later relapses, he is punished with the penalty appropriate for the relapsed. That is, he will be handed over to the secular arm to be stricken with the death penalty according to the beginning of Chapter “Accusatus” (“Heretics,” Liber Sextus). He will make a public or private abjuration depending on whether he is considered suspect publicly or privately, and whether among a greater or lesser number of people, and whether they are of great or slight importance, as was just stated concerning the person who was lightly suspected of heresy, and he has to abjure heresy as such a person. The method of making arrangements for the abjuration is the following. If it is determined by the panel that the denounced person should make the abjuration in the cathedral or in some other solemn church, then for a few days beforehand on the part of the bishop or the inquisitor a public injunction should be made to the congregation in all the churches of that city or of the place where this abjuration is to be performed that on such-and-such day in suchand-such church a sermon will be given about the Faith, that there will be no sermon in that city except there, and that they should therefore come and they will have the customary indulgence. On the same day, the inquisitor will notify the convents of the religious that on such-and-such day there will be no sermon in that place except his own. Meanwhile, the preacher should be careful to compose his sermon by drawing it up according to the material that is being dealt with and by informing the congregation of the Truth of the Faith as an attack on the heresy for which the denounced person has to make the abjuration, and he should also draw up the abjuration and the sentence with the bishop (or vicar) of that city (place). In the evening of the day preceding the abjuration, he should order that in the middle of the church a high seat should be placed in which the person to make the abjuration will be placed. Upon the arrival of the Sunday for making the abjuration and for hearing the imposition of the sentence (penance) upon the person who is to make the 92  This method corresponds to MM 3.24 (320A–231D).

252

TEXTS: Document 16

abjuration, the inquisitor or preacher will make a general sermon. [9] After this is done, the acts for which the person to make the abjuration is convicted and the others as a result of which he is vehemently suspected of heresy should be read in public by the notary or a cleric. Afterwards, the inquisitor (preacher) will say to him, “Oyez! On the basis of the acts that have been read out here, you are vehemently suspected of this heresy in our eyes, and therefore it is necessary for you to purge yourself and to abjure this heresy.” Then, there will be placed before the person to make the abjuration a book containing the Gospels, and he will place a hand upon it. If he knows how to read proficiently, the following abjuration will be handed to him in writing and he will read it before the entire congregation. If he does not know how to read proficiently, the notary should read the text at a deliberate pace and the person to make the abjuration will repeat it in a loud and comprehensible voice in the following manner. The notary or cleric will say, “I, Such-and-Such from Such-and-Such place,” and the other will repeat it verbatim; the one will say, “am placed in judgment” and the other will repeat it verbatim (in the vernacular); and so on until the abjuration is finished. He will make the abjuration according to the following text. “I, Such-and-Such from Such-and-Such place of Such-and-Such diocese, have been in person placed in judgment before the Lord Bishop of Such-and-Such city and Brother Such-and-Such the Inquisitor” – if he is present – “and touching bodily with my own hands the Sacrosanct Gospels that have been placed in my presence, I swear that I believe in heart and profess by mouth the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith that the Apostolic Roman Church teaches, professes, preaches, and holds. “Also, I swear that I believe in heart and profess by mouth that every heretic, schismatic, apostate and infidel is to be tortured with eternal flames.93 “Also, I abjure, deny and reject the Heresy of Witches, which, through the help of demons, surpasses all other heresies in its damage to the Holy Church of God.94 “Also, I swear that I have never believed in this heresy, and that I do not believe in it now and will not believe in it, and that I do not adhere to it at present or

93  See n. 819. 94  This is an addition of Institoris’s.

TEXTS: Document 16

253

intend to, and that I have not taught it and do not intend to teach it and will not do so. “Also, I swear and promise that such-and-such and such-and-such acts” – these should be stated – “because of which you consider me vehemently suspected of heresy of this kind” – for instance, procuring love or hatred through certain plants or unusual and sacrilegious scriptures – “I will never do or see to it that they are done. “If I do commit any of these acts in the future, which God forbid, I readily submit myself to the penalties appropriate under the law for those who have relapsed, being prepared to undergo every kind of penance that, in light of the acts and words of mine for which you consider me vehemently suspected of this heresy, you will decide to impose upon me. I swear and promise to carry it out to the best of my abilities and in no way to obstruct it. “So help me God and these Sacrosanct Gospels!” This abjuration should be performed in the vernacular, so that it may be understood by everyone, unless it is done only before ecclesiastical persons who understand the Latin language proficiently. If, on the other hand, he makes the abjuration privately, that is, in the palace of the bishop or in the chapter of friars or in the room of the bishop or inquisitor, that is, when the act is not performed in public, he will make the abjuration in a similar manner. When this abjuration is complete, the bishop or inquisitor will publicly say there to the person who has made the abjuration the following words or ones of similar meaning. “My son, as for the suspicion which we had about you, you have purged it with the abjuration that you have made. Nonetheless, I wish to make you more cautious. From now on you should be careful about how you act. If in future you do or say such-and-such because of which it would be proven that you have lapsed into the abjured heresy, you will be turned over without mercy to the secular arm to be stricken with the death penalty. Therefore, you should above all distance yourself from consorting with people who in common deviate in their way of life and character from others, so that they cannot make you lapse into heresy.” The notary should make sure that he writes down in the record how “suchand-such abjuration was made by Such-and-Such as a person vehemently

254

TEXTS: Document 16

suspected of heresy,” the purpose being that if he relapses, it would be known how he should be punished, because it would be with the penalty appropriate for the relapsed. When these things are complete, the sentence (penance) will be passed in the following manner. “We, (Name), Bishop of Such-and-Such city, and” – if present – “Brother (Name), Inquisitor of Heretical Depravity, note that you, Such-and-Such from Such-and-Such place and of Such-and-Such diocese, committed, as is legally apparent to us from the careful examination of the merits of the proceedings, such-and-such and such-and-such acts” – these should be listed – “because of which we rightly consider you to be vehemently suspected of such-and-such heresy, so that we have, by the advice of our great panel of legal experts and at the urging of justice, made you make an abjuration as someone suspected in this way. In order that you should be made more cautious for the future, that you should not be rendered more prone to perform similar acts, and that the crimes should not remain unpunished, so that you may serve as an example to other criminals, by the mature and well-considered advice of the panel that was convened regarding and concerning these matters and that consisted of many great legal experts in law and of masters (doctors) in the faculty of Theology, sitting before the tribunal in the manner of judges passing judgment, having before our eyes only God and the truth of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith and with the Sacrosanct Gospels placed before us, in order that our judgment may come forth from the face of God, [10] we condemn in the form that follows, or rather sentence to penance, you, Such-and-Such, who are in person placed here in our presence. You should not hereafter presume to do or say or teach such-and-such and such-and-such things.” The things he is convicted of having committed that resulted in him being considered vehemently suspected of this heresy should be set down along with any other things for which, if he commits them, he would lightly incur relapse. Other injunctions should be imposed upon him as the circumstances of the case demand and dictate, such as that he should never knowingly have nigromantic or heretical books95 or associate with suspected or abjured witches with himself, and the like. 95  Institoris is trying to adapt Eymeric’s text (about the books used by real heretics) to his own purposes. “Nigromancers” (a medieval deformation of “necromancer”) is the term for the learned, normally clerical practitioners of black magic involving “grimoires” or books of spells (for these, see Davies [2009]), which Institoris is equating with books on heretical doctrine. Yet, not only does Institoris think that the women involved in the Heresy of Witches are illiterate, but in MM 91C he actually makes an overt contrast between them and the users of grimoires.

TEXTS: Document 16

255

“Although you ought to be marked out with crosses, nonetheless on account of our desire to deal with you in a pious manner, every Sunday for a year, you will stand at the doors of such-and-such parish church while the Rites of the Mass are celebrated, holding a burning candle weighing one pound in your hands. A year later you, if you survive, or someone else in your place, will go on pilgrimage to Rome or to the Blessed Virgin.96 “This sentence was passed …” Also, note that in addition such people can, as will be explained below, be imprisoned for a certain period of time (not for life). After this sentence has been both passed and read through, the bishop or inquisitor can do three things. The first is to go back to certain points in the penance and to explain these to the person upon whom the penance has been imposed, so that he will be rendered more cautious, informing him that he should observe the penance imposed upon him, since otherwise he would incur relapse and could be justly punished as an impenitent. The second is to confer, in accordance with the privilege “Prae cunctis,” an indulgence of forty or twenty days on each and every person who attended his sermon and the abjuration. The third is to explain to the congregation that all those who gave aid, council or favor, so that the aforementioned Such-and-Such abjured heretical depravity – for instance, those who denounced him, gave depositions against him, attended the panel, or read the abjuration (sentence) – have three years of indulgence. In conclusion, he should warn the congregation that whoever knows some heretic or someone who is suspected of or has a bad reputation for heresy has to inform the bishop or this inquisitor (or their representative) and has three years of indulgence according to the cited privilege and in addition has eternal reward in Heaven.97 It should be noted that those suspected of heresy and not caught, whether they are suspected vehemently or lightly, should not receive life imprisonment

96  “To the Blessed Virgin Mary” means “to a shrine dedicated to her” (cf. MM 156B). These specifications are not in Eymeric, who speaks vaguely of “such-and-such pilgrimage”, and they presumably reflect Institoris’s own notions. 97  Note how highly Institoris values his own work!

256

TEXTS: Document 16

(immuration98), because this is the penalty for those who were heretics and afterwards repented, as is made clear in the second Chapter “Excommunicamus” (“Heresies”) and in Chapter “Quando” (“Heresies,” Liber Sextus), but they can, because of the crimes for which they are considered suspect, be relegated to prison for a fixed period and afterwards, as is thought fit, released according to Chapter “Ut commissi” (“Heresies,” Liber Sextus). Those suspected in this way should not be marked out with crosses,99 unless the great heinousness of the crime so demands, which can be the case concerning witches (crosses are the sign of a repentant heretic, but the suspects were not considered heretics, and so should not be marked out in this way). As was stated before, however, it can be enjoined upon them that for a year or for …100 they should stand on specific solemn days at the doors of specific churches and so on, as was described above. Method Six of passing sentence follows. This is the second one regarding witches (those who are violently suspected of witchcraft and do not confess their guilt). Method Six of bringing an end to proceedings involving the Faith is when the person denounced for heretical depravity, after a careful examination of the merits of the proceedings with a good panel of legal experts, is found to be violently suspected of heresy.101 This is when the denounced person is not found to be legally caught by his own confession or by evidence of the deed or by the lawful production of witnesses, but there are indications which are not merely light or vehement but very strong and very violent ones that rightly render the denounced person violently suspected of this heresy and because of which such a person ought to be judged as someone violently suspected of this heresy. For instance, because of something that he said or did, or because he endured excommunication for a year or more when lightly suspected of 98  While imprisonment is not considered unusual as a form of punishment in the modern world, in the Middle Ages it was exclusively a form of ecclesiastic penalty. The sentence of immuration (literally, “walling in”) was not intended as a form of punishment per se but was meant to isolate the penitent from society and compel him to think about (and repent for) his crimes against God (and the church). 99  I.e., forced to wear clothing with a cross sewn onto it as a public mark of being a convicted heretic (for this procedure, see MM 234B and the description of them at the end of the next method). 100  The second period of time was accidentally omitted. 101  This method corresponds to MM 3.25 (232A–234C).

TEXTS: Document 16

257

heresy (not in a case involving the Faith, because that would not lack a suspicion of heretical depravity: “Penalties,” Chapter “Gravem”), or because when summoned regarding the Faith he does not appear but contumaciously refuses to do so, because of which he is excommunicated. In that case, the light suspicion turns into a vehement one, and when he endures this excommunication for a year in an obstinate spirit, he becomes violently suspected of heresy. For the vehement suspicion turns into a violent one against which no defence is allowed. Rather, from then on such a person is to be condemned as a heretic. (All of these statements are explained by Chapter “Cum contumacia” and the notes on it [“Heretics,” Liber Sextus].) Regarding this person, the following practice is to be followed. He may not in fact be a heretic in that he has no error in his mind and no obstinacy in his will about holding this error, as the Archdeacon102 notes on the topic of the cited chapter, but he is still to be condemned as a heretic because of the violent suspicion, against which no proof is admitted. Such a heretic and someone suspected in this way is condemned as follows. If he is unwilling to veer back, to abjure the heresy and to present worthy satisfaction, he/she103 is turned over to the secular arm to be punished with a fitting penalty according to Chapter “Ad abolendam” § “Praesenti.” If, on the other hand, he is willing and agrees for real, he abjures the heresy and should be imprisoned for life according to the second Chapter “Excommunicamus” (“Heresies”). Similarly, if someone who is violently suspected of heresy in this way [11] and is to be judged as a heretic is unwilling to veer back and to fly to the embrace of the Church or to abjure the heresy and give suitable satisfaction at the discretion of the bishop and inquisitor, he is turned over to the secular arm to be struck with execution. If, on the other hand, he is willing to do these things and agrees for real, he will make the abjuration and in his sentence will be imprisoned for life and condemned. The method of making arrangements for the abjuration is as follows.

102  “The Archdeacon” is the standard name for the canon lawyer Guido de Baysio (†1313), who was appointed archdeacon of Bologna. His best known work was his commentary on the Liber Extra. 103  For the two genders, see n. 73.

258

TEXTS: Document 16

As was stated in the preceding Methods Four and Five of finishing proceedings involving the Faith, the bishop and inquisitor will reach an agreement about a Sunday or Feast Day on which this abjuration will be made. Once this is done, he should have an announcement made throughout all the churches of that city (place), suspending all sermons and so on. The procedure should be the same as has been stated elsewhere, and your Most Reverend Paternity has this in writing,104 namely that a garment should be made with two pieces of cloth on it, in front and in back, on which there are two crosses of saffron-colored cloth and so on, and that the person to make the abjuration should stand in a high location in the middle of the congregation, and so on, and that once the sermon is finished, he should be asked whether he is willing to veer back and make a public abjuration, and that he will be absolved of the sentence of excommunication and a moderate penance will be enjoined upon him, and so on. It is also noted there that if he is unwilling, he will then be handed over to the secular arm. If he is willing, then a book of the Gospels is to be set down, and he will make the abjuration contained there.105 It is also written down there how after the abjuration he is to be absolved from the sentence of excommunication, and how after the absolution the sentence should be passed and the penance declared regarding the dark clothing that he has to wear on the four principal Feasts of the Glorious Virgin Mary106 and on other feasts at church doors, and how the bishop can lessen or increase or revoke the sentence, in whole or part, as many times as he sees fit in accordance with penitent’s endurance and the signs of devotion on his part, and that if he does not follow the penance, then he should be punished as an impenitent heretic, and he should be advised of this by the bishop. The granting of indulgences to the congregation is also written down. Method Seven follows, which is to be observed for and against witches, when the witch is found to have a bad reputation and to be at the same time suspected in general but not in particular, and she does not confess her guilt. Method Seven of bringing an end to and finishing proceedings involving the Faith is when the person denounced for heretical depravity, after a careful 104  Another reference to the “sheet” previously given by Institoris to the bishop (see n. 57). 105  I.e., in the “sheet.” 106  Certainly, three must be the Solemnity of Mary, Annunciation and Assumption. Perhaps the fourth is her Nativity rather than the Immaculate Conception (Thomas Aquinas, the favored scholastic theologian of the Dominicans, was famously hostile to the doctrine, though by the fifteenth century the Dominicans had abandoned their opposition to it).

TEXTS: Document 16

259

examination of the merits of the proceedings with a good panel of legal experts, is found to be suspected of heresy and at the same time to have a general bad reputation.107 This is when the denounced person is not found to be legally caught by his own confession or by evidence of the deed or by the lawful production of witnesses, but he is found to have a general bad reputation and indications are also found against him which render him otherwise lightly or vehemently suspected of heretical depravity, for instance, because he had a close association with heretics, like the person who is the topic of discussion in the Chapter “Inter sollicitudines” (“Canonical Purging”).108 On account of the bad reputation, the purging prescribed by the Canon is to be enjoined upon such a person, and on account of the suspicion he ought to make an abjuration of heresy according to the cited Chapter “Inter sollicitudines.” Regarding such a person the following procedure is to be followed. Having a general bad reputation for heresy and, in addition to the bad reputation, being considered suspected of heretical depravity on the basis of other indications, he will first purge himself in public in the following manner.109 A notice about a general sermon is made for several days beforehand in all the churches of the city (place) in which the purging and abjuration are to be made, all other sermons being suspended on the appointed day. When the day appointed for these things approaches, the person to be purged and to make the abjuration is raised up on a high seat in the middle of the congregation, and a sermon about the Faith is given in the manner stated above in the other methods of finishing proceedings involving the Faith. Once all this, I say, is first done, the instances of guilt on the part of the person to be purged and to make the abjuration should be read by the notary or monk (cleric), and after the reading the person with the bad reputation will purge himself in the following manner. The person to be purged will appear in person with his co-purgers, who are of the number that was granted to him and who are such as know his way of life and character in past and present and who are of his status and order (as was stated in Method Two of bringing to an end proceedings involving the Faith). 107  This method corresponds to MM 3.26 (234C–236B). 108  “Inter sollicitudines” discusses the case of a French deacon whose name came up as a suspected heretic during an episcopal inquisition. Though there was no specific accuser, he apparently knowingly sought out familiarity with known heretics. 109  The subsequent detailed account of how to conduct the purging is omitted in the Malleus.

260

TEXTS: Document 16

They will stand before the bishop and inquisitor (in the place where the person to be purged is known to have the bad reputation about this heresy), and a book of the Gospels will be placed before them. The person with the bad reputation will place a hand on it and say, “I swear on these four Sacrosanct Gospels that such-and-such heresy” – stating it – “about which I had a bad reputation I have never held or believed in or taught it, and I do not hold or teach it.” That is, under oath he will deny what he had a bad reputation for, whatever this is. Once this is done, the co-purgers will place their hands on this book of the Gospels, and each will say, “And I swear on these four Gospels of God that I believe that he has sworn the truth.” Then, he will be purged according to the Canon. Having completed this purgation, the person with the bad reputation will directly, as one otherwise and on the basis of other indications suspected of the heresy of which he is considered suspected, hold the previously mentioned book containing the Gospels that was placed before him, and make the abjuration in the following manner. “I, Such-and-Such, from Such-and-Such place of Such-and-Such diocese, have in person been placed in judgment before my Venerable Lords, (Name), the Bishop of Such-and-Such city and the Brother (Name) the Inquisitor, and holding bodily with my own hands the Sacrosanct Gospels that have been set before me, I swear that I believe by heart and profess by mouth the Holy Catholic Faith that the Roman Church believes, professes, preaches and follows, [12] and I consequently abjure, deny and retract every heresy that rears up against the Holy and Apostolic Church, whatever sect or error it belongs to. “Also, I swear that I believe by heart and profess by mouth that such-andsuch” – the Catholic Article contrary to that heresy for which he has a bad reputation and is otherwise suspected should be stated. For instance, if he has a bad reputation for the Heresy of Witches, which denies the Faith and they offer body and soul to the Devil and carry out carnal acts with incubus and succubus demons, inflict various injuries on humans, domestic animals and the fruits of the earth, he should say the following.110 110  This detailed abjuration specifically of the Heresy of Witches is of course an addition of Institoris’s. It has no correspondence in the Malleus, where Institoris is content with a highly abridged version of Eymeric’s abjuration. Presumably, here Institoris felt the need to adapt the abjuration at length for the purpose of assisting Bishop Georg in punishing

TEXTS: Document 16

261

a) “I swear that I believe in heart and profess by mouth that I should inviolably maintain the Faith that I took up in the Sacred Font of Baptism, even at risk of my salvation, always being subject to obedience to the Apostolic See. b) “Also, I swear that I believe by heart and profess by mouth that Christ the Lord is the redeemer of souls and savior of the soul and body of all those who adhere to Him in true faith, hope and charity, and as at the time of my baptism, now too I renounce the Devil and all his excesses and most foul works.111 c) “Also, I swear that all witches who in any way inflict harm on humans, domestic animals and the fruits of the earth commit these acts through God’s permission112 with the help of demons, with whom along with all the evil angels113 of Satan they will be tortured with eternal flames, being handed over to them in body and soul. “Also, I swear that I have never adhered to or believed in this heresy or other heresies firmly,114 and that I do not at present adhere to or believe in them, although on account of my instance of guilt I have a bad reputation as a result of the things that I wickedly did, because of which I had to purge myself and am otherwise rightly suspected in your eyes of having believed those heresies with a firm heart. some of the Innsbruck suspects in this way, whereas such a procedure was of comparatively little point in the Malleus, since Institoris’s aim there was clearly to encourage the execution of witches on account of their secular crimes. The phraseology here gives a good synopsis of Institoris’s overall conception of the Heresy of Witches. It is remarkable that while the use of torture in Ravensburg led to two confessions to sexual relations with demons (MM 146B, D), there is not the least hint of this in the extensive evidence regarding the depositions made against the accused in Innsbruck. 111  The last clause here mimics the phraseology of baptism, but whereas the baptismal formula speaks only of the devil’s “works” (opera), here Institoris adds the adjective (“foul”) derived from the term (spurcicie) he uses regularly in the Malleus to describe the sexual relations with demons that he considers to be an inherent element in the Heresy of Witches. 112  The phrase “through God’s permission” is a marginal addition. As the Malleus belabors the point that it is only through the permission of God that Satan can carry out acts of witchcraft, here Institoris was presumably bothered by the implication that witches could work their evil merely with the help of demons, so he made the addition to make it clear that their assistance was fruitless without God’s permission. 113  Demons were considered to be angels that Lucifer persuaded to follow him when he rebelled against God and who act as his subordinates. 114  The words “other … firmly” are a garbling of Eymeric’s text. He says simply “this heresy (or heresies, if there are several).”

262

TEXTS: Document 16

“Also, I swear that I will never present as dogma, preach or teach that heresy (those heresies) or otherwise instruct anyone in or about them. Rather, I swear and promise that if I ever know anyone who holds, believes in or teaches any of the previously mentioned heresies or any other ones, I will immediately and as soon as possible inform you, my lords the bishop and the inquisitor, or one of you or your representatives or successors. “Also, I swear that such-and-such acts that I did, on account of which I justly have a bad reputation for this heresy and in addition you consider me suspect” – these should be listed – “I will never in future do or say or see to it that they are done. “Also, I swear and promise that every kind of penance that you will decide to impose upon me for the foregoing I will fulfill to the best of my abilities and will not obstruct in any regard. “So help me God and these Holy Gospels! “If in the future I act contrary to these oaths and abjurations – which God forbid – I, in the present time with reference to the future, freely subject, bind and obligate myself to the penalties appropriate under the law for such people, so that I will be punished with them, when it is legally proven that I committed such acts.” It should be noted at this point that if the indications are of such a kind and so strong that with or without the bad reputation that has been mentioned they render this person with the bad reputation vehemently suspected of heresy, then he will make a general abjuration of heresy in the manner described, and if he relapses into any heresy at all, he will be punished with the penalty appropriate for the relapsed, as is stated in Chapter “Inter sollicitudines” (“Purging Prescribed by the Canon”) and in Chapter “Accusatus” (“Heresies,” Liber Sextus). If the indications are so moderate and light that even with the bad reputation they render him suspected of heresy not vehemently but only lightly, then it is sufficient for him to make a specific abjuration of the heresy for which he is considered suspect and not a general or simple abjuration. Hence, if he relapses into another form of heresy, he will not be punished with the penalty appropriate for the relapsed, but if he does relapse into the same heresy, on account of the abjuration, that is, because he made the abjuration when

TEXTS: Document 16

263

lightly suspected, he will not be punished with the penalty appropriate for the relapsed, although he will be punished more harshly than would otherwise be the case if he had not made the abjuration, all of this being explained in the beginning of Chapter “Accusatus” (“Heresies,” Liber Sextus). Regarding the purging prescribed by the Canon, it is a doubtful point whether he should be struck with the penalty appropriate for the relapsed, that is, with the death penalty, if after the purging prescribed by the Canon he relapses into the same form of heresy as the one for which he purged himself in the manner prescribed by the Canon. It seems that the answer is that he should be according to the first Chapter “Excommunicamus,” § “Addijcimus,” phrase “Vel si post purgationem,” and Chapter “Ad abolendam” § “Illos quoque” (“Heresies” in the old ones115). The notary should make sure that he writes in the records whether the person made the abjuration as someone suspected lightly or strongly of heresy, because this makes a big difference, as is stated elsewhere.116 This purging and abjuration will be carried out in the vernacular if they are performed in public before speakers of the vernacular. If they are carried out only before lettered men and by lettered men, they can be performed in Latin. If they are carried out in public (as it seems they should be on account of the bad reputation, because the bad reputation that he has is a public one), they should be carried out with solemnity in a church, that is, as has frequently been stated, on a Feast Day and after a sermon has first been announced and other sermons suspended for that day, and with the person to make the abjuration placed in the middle of the congregation, so that he can be seen by everyone. Once the instances of guilt on his part have first been read there by the notary (or someone under religious vows or a member of the secular clergy) and the foregoing have been carried out, the inquisitor (or his representative) and the bishop will publicly declare to him the danger that threatens him if he relapsed into heresy (the danger of this was stated above). When these things are complete, the sentence (sentence to penance) will be passed in a formula of the following content. 115  Presumably manuscripts (the phrase does not appear in the printed text of Eymeric, but since it does appear in the corresponding section of the Malleus [235C], this must have been the reading given by Institoris’s text of the Directorium). 116  Seemingly another reference to the “sheet” (see n. 57).

264

TEXTS: Document 16

[13] “We, (Name), Bishop of Such-and-Such city and” – if he is present – “Brother (Name) of the Order of Preachers (and so on), Inquisitor of Heretical Depravity in the lands of the Lord Such-and-Such by special appointment of the Apostolic See, noted carefully that you, Such-and-Such, from Such-and-Such place of Such-and-Such diocese, were denounced to us for such-and-such heretical depravity,” – these should be listed – “and wishing, as was our obligation, to be judicially informed as to whether you have fallen into this condemned heresy, we resorted to conducting an inquisition, examining witnesses, summoning and questioning you under oath, and doing the other things that were to be done by us, conducting the proceeding as was fitting. Having done these things, having seen, carefully scrutinized and at the same time examined the merits of the proceedings in this case, having weighed each and every one of the transactions and dealings in a level scale, and having many times convened regarding and concerning these matters a mature and thoughtful panel of theologians and legal experts, we found that you had a general bad reputation for this heresy in Such-and-Such place (places) among good and important people, because of which, as ordered by the Canon’s regulations, we enjoined upon you the purging prescribed by the Canon, by which you purged yourself and at the same time your co-purgers purged you. We also found that you committed such-and-such acts,” – these should be listed – “because of which we not unreasonably held you to be vehemently suspected” – or “lightly”; whether it is the one or the other should be stated – “with reference to the heretical depravity mentioned before. Because of these things we made you, as one suspected in this way of heresy, abjure the heresy.” It should say “every heresy” if he has made the abjuration as someone vehemently suspected, and “the heresy mentioned above,” if he did so as one lightly suspected. “Because we cannot and ought not to tolerate in any way such things as you did, but rather are forced to shun them at the urging of justice, in order that you will be rendered more cautious in future, that crimes will not remain unpunished, that the others will not be rendered more prone to commit such acts, and that injuries to the Creator will not be tolerated with indifference, We, the aforementioned bishop and inquisitor, sitting before the tribunal in the manner of judges passing judgment, with the Sacrosanct Gospels set before us, in order that our judgment should come forth from the face of God and our eyes should see fairness, in the following manner sentence (sentence to penance) you, the aforementioned Such-and-Such, who have been purged and made an abjuration and are in person placed here before us in this place and hour assigned to you. You are obligated” and so on. Punishments considered more conducive to the honor of

TEXTS: Document 16

265

the Faith and to the extermination of heretical depravity should be set down, that is, that on prescribed Sundays and Feast Days he should have to stand at the entrance of such-and-such or such-and-such church with a candle of suchand-such weight in his hand while the Rites of the Mass are being celebrated and with his head uncovered if it is a man (with hair dangling before her face if it is a woman) and with feet bare (if the cold is not excessive) and offer the previously mentioned candle at the altar, and that he should have to fast on prescribed Fridays, and that for a fixed period of time he should not dare to leave that place but should have to present himself on prescribed days of the week to the bishop (or his representative) or his parish priest, and similar things that it will seem to be necessary to enjoin depending on the dictates and nature of the instances of guilt, it not being possible to give one general rule. “This sentence was passed …” When the sentence has been passed, it should be carried out. It will be possible for it to be remitted or lessened or changed according to whether the case, the correction of the penitent and his humility demand these things, since the bishop and inquisitor have this power (according to the law, as is explained in Chapter “Ut commissi” in “Heresies,” Liber Sextus). Method Eight follows, which is also serviceable for witches who confess their guilt. Method Eight of bringing to an end proceedings involving the Faith and of passing sentence is when the person denounced for heretical depravity, after a careful examination of the merits of the proceedings with a good panel of legal experts, is found to have confessed heresy, but to be penitent, and not otherwise to have relapsed in fact.117 This is when the denounced person confesses in court before the bishop and inquisitor under oath that it is true that for such-and-such length of time he remained and persisted in that sort of heretical depravity for which he was denounced or in another, and believed and adhered to it, but afterwards, upon the instruction of the bishop and the inquisitor, wishes to veer back and return to the embrace of the Church and to abjure both that heresy and every other one and to make satisfaction in the manner that they chose to ordain, and it is not found that he ever made an abjuration of any other kind of heresy but is now prepared to make an abjuration with a ready spirit. 117  This method corresponds to MM 3.27 (236B-238A).

266

TEXTS: Document 16

The procedure to be followed in the case of such a person is as follows. Granted that he remained for many years in this heresy and in any other ones, and believed in and practiced them and represented them as dogma, and led many others to errors, if in the end he agrees to abjure those heresies for real and to make appropriate satisfaction at the discretion of the bishop and the inquisitor, he is not to be handed over to the secular arm to be stricken with the death penalty, nor, if he is a cleric, is he to be degraded,118 but he is to be granted mercy according to Chapter “Ad abolendam,” § “Praesenti” (Extra, “Heretics”). Having first abjured the heretical depravity, he is to be remanded to life imprisonment according to the second Chapter “Excommunicamus” § “Si quis,” once the benefit of Absolution has been granted to him and what is customarily enjoined upon such people according to Chapter “Ut Officium” has been enjoined upon him, provided that careful precaution is taken to make sure that he is not returning fraudulently with feigned pretence and is instead acting as a wolf in the guise of a sheep by concealing himself. The method of making arrangements for the abjuration is the following.119 First, the bishop and the inquisitor will reach an agreement about the making of this abjuration on a particular Sunday or Feast Day. This should not, I say,120 be a Sunday in Advent or Lent or some other very solemn day like the Day of the Nativity of the Lord or Easter or the like, because it is proper for sermons not to be suspended on those day and for everyone to go to his parish church, which could not happen if this abjuration was to take place on that day, both because the sermons would be suspended and because everyone would gather in the church where the abjuration was to be made. Once this specific Sunday or Feast Day is agreed upon, then on the preceding Sunday or Feast Day that precedes by a few days the day fixed in advance for the person to make the abjuration, an order will be given on the part of the bishop and inquisitor [14] to all the curates of all the churches of the city (place) where the abjuration is to be made and to all the religious who have to preach to the congregation 118  “Degradation” is the technical term for stripping a man in holy orders of his ordained ministries (meaning positions with the church); the idea is also called “defrocking.” 119  The extensive details that follow about how to carry out the abjuration are omitted in the Malleus. Again, the omission was motivated by Institoris’s understanding that confessed witches were to be executed by the secular authorities, which renders the long procedure here superfluous. 120  This makes it sound as if Institoris is being very emphatic on this point. In fact, the reading in Eymeric’s original text is merely “in fact” (quidem), which was apparently misread (miscopied?) at some point as “I say” (inquam).

TEXTS: Document 16

267

on that day that they should inform the congregation publicly and clearly that on such-and-such Sunday (or Feast Day) the inquisitor or someone in place of the bishop will give a general sermon about the Faith, that everyone should therefore go there to hear and see what will be done, and that on the part of Our Lord the Pope they will receive the usual indulgence (forty days), also announcing that on that day there will be no other sermon in that place. Once this is done, on the part of the bishop and inquisitor word should be sent to the houses of the religious who preach the Word of God, informing their superiors that on the following Sunday or Such-and-Such Feast Day the inquisitor or someone in place of the bishop will give a general sermon for the Faith in such-and-such church, that he is suspending all other sermons for that day, so that no one will preach in that place and so on, but each superior should send two or four brothers (as he sees fit) to attend the sermon, the abjuration and the passing of sentence. In the meanwhile, the inquisitor will compose his sermon according to the topic that he will treat. Together with the bishop he will also make the arrangements for drawing up in writing the instances of guilt, for the forming of the abjuration and sentence, for the place, and for setting high up in the middle of the congregation in the previously mentioned church a seat in which the person to make the abjuration and to be sentenced is to be placed so that he will be seen by everyone. He will also make arrangements for making the dark garment in the manner of the scapular121 of the religious (without the hood), which will be made of dark (or some other colored) cloth and have stitched into it in front and back crosses of saffron-colored cloth (weaving), as was also stated above, measuring three palms long, two palms diagonally and a half palm wide. Once all these preparations are complete, upon the arrival of the day previously set for the person to make the abjuration, the person to make the abjuration will be immediately placed at the start of the Mass in the previously mentioned seat high up in the middle of the congregation or in a place in which he can be gazed upon without hindrance. He will be surrounded by attendants of the secular or ecclesiastical court and will stand with his head uncovered (or, if a women, with hair dangling before her face). Once the Gospel has been spoken in the customary way, the inquisitor or someone else will in his preaching 121  A garment distinctive of those under religious vows. An outer garment the width of the body with a hole in the center for the head, it hung down to knee length or longer in both the front and back, with the sides open.

268

TEXTS: Document 16

detest122 and rebuke the heresy (or heresies) in which the person to make the abjuration has been caught by his own confession. Once the sermon is finished, the inquisitor will state the following words or ones of similar meaning, standing in the pulpit. “This person who is placed high up here has fallen into the heresy against which I preached to you, holding it and committing a great offense regarding it. That this is so, you shall hear.” After this is said, he will immediately order the notary there (or the person under religious vows or cleric who is present there in the pulpit), to whom he has handed over the sheet containing the instances of guilt on the part of the person to make the abjuration, to read the sheet, and he will obey. The sheet (writing) should consist of the following text.123 “These are the instances of guilt and evil works against the Catholic Faith” – if it is a witch, the phrase “and the commonwealth” should be added124 – “which Such-and-Such present here committed and which by his own mouth he confessed in court to having committed. “In connection with the foregoing, he confesses with his own mouth and under oath that for so many years he remained and persevered in this heresy and error, namely” – it should be listed. “Also, he confesses that he represented this heresy as dogma and many times persuaded many others of it in the following manner … “Also, he confesses that he fell into this heresy in the following manner.” If it is a witch, it should be stated that she was led astray by Such-and-Such, a witch and old woman, in such-and-such manner and so on, that she led astray so many young women, and that she persisted in it for so many years.125 All the instances of guilt on her part should be listed in this way. 122  Though the English derivative refers to a mental attitude of disgust at something, the Latin verb detestari signifies a public declaration of this attitude (basically calling upon the listeners to note the speaker’s expression of disgust). 123  This text is greatly curtailed in the Malleus. 124  Institoris is regularly bitter about the idea (as he saw it) that the laity were concerned only about the harm to themselves and their property caused by witchcraft and ignored the religious aspects of the offense (see esp. MM 142C–D). 125  Here Institoris seems pretty clearly to have in mind the testimony of the two witches convicted in Ravensburg. For seduction by old women (as well as their attempting to seduce young girls themselves), see MM 93D–94C, and for the length of their subservience to the demons, see MM 108C.

TEXTS: Document 16

269

Once this has been read through, then if the inquisitor sees by means of certain signs that he has been properly converted and he presumes that when asked he will not deny the truth, he will ask him, “Do all these statements stand in truth as they are written?” When the person responds with “Yes,” he will add, “Do you wish to persevere in these heresies? If you do, you will be damned forever and at the present time you will also lose your body. Or do you wish to deny and abjure them in order that you may save your soul and preserve your body?” When the person says, “I do not wish to remain in them, and am right willing to renounce and retract them,” the inquisitor will say, “You have adhered to sane counsel.” If the inquisitor is hesitant as to whether he is properly converted and suspects that when he is asked after the reading of the instances of guilt whether these statements stand in truth concerning his having committed the heresies, he would deny the truth and excuse himself on account of his shame and that the congregation would be scandalized, then in that case he should not bother to ask him whether or not the statements that have been read out stand in truth. Rather, with reference to the read-out statements he should ask him in the manner stated whether he wishes to remain in those heresies or to deny and abjure them. When the response is given that he wishes to deny and abjure, then a book of the Gospels should be placed before the person to make the abjuration. Once this is done, then with his hood (if he has one) taken off and on bended knees with his hands placed on the Gospels, he should read the abjuration himself if he knows how to read. Otherwise, the notary (or someone under religious vows or a cleric) will repeat the content in short phrases as follows. The notary will say in the vernacular, “I, Such-and-Such of Such-and-Such place and of Such-and-Such diocese,” and the person making the abjuration will repeat, “I, Such-and-Such of Such-and-Such place,” stating it. The notary will say, “placed before you, the Lords Bishop and Inquisitor,” and the person making the abjuration will repeat this, and so on. Each should speak in a loud voice, so that each may be made out. The abjuration will be the following. “And I, Such-and-Such, from Such-and-Such place of Such-and-Such diocese, have in person been placed in judgment before my Venerable Lords, (Name), the Bishop of Such-and-Such city, and Brother (Name), the Inquisitor of Heretical Depravity in the lands of Lord Such-and-Such (and so on), and

270

TEXTS: Document 16

holding bodily with my own hands the Sacrosanct Gospels that have been set before me, I swear that I believe by heart and profess by mouth the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith that the Roman Church believes in, professes, preaches and follows, and consequently abjure, deny and retract every heresy that rears up against the Holy and Apostolic Church, whatever sect or error it belongs to. “Also, I swear that I believe in and profess by mouth” – look above in Method Seven under the three symbols consisting of the letters a, b and c. Next, he should say: [15] “Consequently, I abjure, deny, detest and retract the heresy damned by the Sacrosanct Church, namely the Heresy of Witches, into which I have fallen in my wretchedness, having held and believed in it for so many years, and having presented it as a dogma and taught,126 defended and concealed it and had it concealed, showing myself to be a hypocrite and false Christian in receiving the Sacraments, of which thing I repent with all my heart.” If he has confessed to having fallen into several heresies, he will abjure each individually, so that if he held nothing127 about excommunication or the Sacrament of the Eucharist, he will give an explanation about each.128 “Also, I both swear and promise that from now on I will not hold, believe in or adhere to any of the aforementioned heresies or any other, or present any depravity of heresy as dogma or teach or instruct anyone in it, or knowingly hold 126  This phraseology (borrowed from Eymeric) about dogma and teaching obviously refers to regular heresy and has little relevance to witchcraft. 127  I.e., had no belief in the validity of these doctrines. 128  The power to excommunicate would naturally be rejected by those who rejected the coercive power of the Church to discipline members, while the Catholic doctrine of the real conversion of the bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of Christ during the right of communion was disputed by many in the later medieval period. For instance, in the condemnation of the radical English theologian issued by Pope Gregory XI in 1377, articles 1–3 rejected Wycliffe’s views on the eucharist and articles 10–14 covered Wycliffe’s rejection of the use of excommunication (he basically argued that the Church could only excommunicate with knowledge that God himself had excommunicated the person in question, and Wycliffe then advocated the view that those who used excommunication without such knowledge were themselves excommunicate!). Such theological niceties clearly have no place in the present context and are simply carried over from Eymeric’s much more theoretical discussion of heresy.

TEXTS: Document 16

271

any heretical books. Rather, I swear and promise that if I know that anyone is tainted with any stain of heresy or presents such things as dogma or teaches or instructs anyone in any heresy (error) or has heretical books or writings, as soon as possible I will denounce them by informing you, Lord Bishop or Inquisitor, or one of your successors or one of your or their representatives. “Also, I both swear and promise that I will not refuse the penance that is to be imposed upon me by you for the foregoing or contravene it in any way. Rather, I will fulfill it to the best of my abilities. “Also, I both swear and promise that I will not flee or absent myself except at your pleasure and with your consent and permission. Rather, I swear and promise that whenever and however many times I am required by you (both or either of you)129 or in the name or by the order of one of your representatives and successors or one of their representatives, I will present myself as soon as possible. “So help me God and these Sacrosanct Gospels! “If in the future I act contrary to these oaths and abjurations – which God forbid! – I wish to be immediately considered as someone who has relapsed, and in the present time with reference to the future, I freely subject, bind and obligate myself to the penalties appropriate under the law for such people, so that I will be punished with them, if and when it is legally proven in court, whether I have not confessed,130 that I committed such acts in violation of the present oaths and abjurations.” The notary should be careful and make sure that he writes in the acts (protocol) that the aforementioned person swore as someone caught in heresy by 129  For some reason, Institoris seems to have decided to rewrite Eymeric’s clear enough text and made a hash of it. The translation reflects the original version (and it is hard to see why Institoris should have objected to it, since the proceedings at Innsbruck first rested on the bishop allowing Institoris to act in his place, and the putative proceedings envisioned for the future presuppose the reverse procedure). Institoris’s substitute text (seu vestri amborum seu vestri) is ungrammatical and seemingly incomplete; perhaps the intended sense was “whether both of you or [one of] you.” 130  Here, Eymeric’s original text is poorly composed (seemingly seu me confessum means “whether [or not] I have confessed,” but the syntax is obscure), but Institoris (or his text of Eymerich) has made it much worse by reading me (“me”) as non (“not”), which not only leaves no subject for the verb “commit” but seems to reverse the sense of the clause! In any event, the defective text given by Institoris is translated literally here.

272

TEXTS: Document 16

his own confession, so that if he relapses, he will be punished with the penalty appropriate for the relapsed. Once this abjuration has been made, the inquisitor can say to him words to the following effect. “My Dearest, in that you made the abjuration, you have adhered to sound counsel, since you have escaped Hell and will, with God’s help and if you wish, enter Paradise. But let me warn you to be careful, in acting, speaking and behaving. For if in future you are to lapse into any heresy (error) at all or if in future you grant favor in heresy to a person or persons whom you know to be in some heresy (error), you will be handed over without mercy to the secular arm to be struck with execution. For this reason, I advise you to be careful and to flee heretics and suspects and to always associate with good Catholic men who are not at all suspected of heresy.” Since the person who is in this way caught in heretical depravity is excommunicate according to the first and second Chapters “Excommunicamus” (“Heretics”) and he returns to the embrace of the Church through the abjuration, the benefit of Absolution is to be bestowed on him according to the beginning of Chapter “Ut officium” (“Heresies,” Liber Sextus). Hence, after this warning the inquisitor can say to him, “My son, since you believed in and adhered to the previously mentioned heresies, you were excommunicated, because every such person is excommunicated by law, but now that you have abjured, denied and retracted such heresies, you seem penitent and converted, and for this reason I absolve you of this sentence of excommunication and restore you to the Sacraments of the Church. Now you will be a participant in the goods of the Church, so long as you make very sure that it is with a true heart and a faith not feigned that you have returned to the Unity of the Church and that you observe the injunctions and orders that were laid upon you by us. Otherwise, you would not be absolved. But I am confident that you are truly converted and will observe the penitence that will be enjoined upon you, and for this reason I wish to absolve you. Bend your knees.” When this is done, he can say, “God have mercy131 … Kyrie … ✠,132 Christ … Kyrie …,133 Our Father … lead us not …134 Save Your servant, My God, whose hopes are in You.135 The Lord be with you … Let us pray! Extend, O God, to 131  Start of Psalm 67. 132  This symbol is an indication that the speaker should make the sign of the cross. 133  The first words of the first three lines of the “kyrie” section of the mass. 134  The beginning and start of the last section of the “pater noster.” 135  Psalm 86:2.

TEXTS: Document 16

273

Your servant the right hand of Your heavenly help, so that with a true heart he may search for You and acquire what he seeks in a suitable manner. Let us pray! Present, we beseech, O Lord, to this servant of Yours the worthy fruit of penitence, so that by the gift of Your Grace he may be reformed for Your Holy Church, from the purity of which he had deviated by falling into heresy. Through Christ, Our Lord. Amen.” He should add: “And by the Apostolic Authority that I enjoy in this regard I absolve you of the sentence of major excommunication136 in which you were ensnared for having fallen into damned heresy by believing it, and I restore you to the Sacraments of the Church. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” After these things are complete, the inquisitor should say to him, “My son, the Church has now admitted you to Her mercy, and you have been made one [16] of Her sons. But in order that you may be more careful about the future, that God may indulge to you as much sin as you have committed, and that you may be an example to others, the Lord Bishop and I will impose upon you a penance that is not so great as you have earned but is so great that you are able to bear it. Do not be afraid if it seems harsh to you, for if you persevere well, you will find mercy in us.” Then the inquisitor should order the notary (or a person under religious vows or cleric), to whom he has handed over the sentence and who is present there in pulpit for the reading of it, to read it. The sentence will be passed immediately in the following manner.137 “We, (Name), Bishop of Such-and-Such city, and Brother (Name) of the Order of Preachers (and so on), specifically appointed as Inquisitor of Heretical Depravity in the lands subject to the rule of Lord Such-and-Such by the Holy See, noted that you, Such-and-Such, from Such-and-Such place of 136  “Major” excommunication refers to the overt and direct act of excommunicating someone. Anyone excommunicated in this way was supposed to be avoided by good Catholics, and a “minor” excommunication was incurred automatically by anybody who did interact with a person upon whom a major excommunication was imposed. While the major excommunication could only be revoked by the ecclesiastic who imposed it (or the pope), any confessor could undo the minor sort. Because it was sometimes difficult to avoid those with a major excommunication, the minor variety came to be increasingly ignored, and the category was finally abolished in the nineteenth century. 137  Only at this point does Institoris resume copying Eymeric in the Malleus.

274

TEXTS: Document 16

Such-and-Such diocese, were denounced to us for heretical depravity by the report of public rumor and by the communication of trustworthy informants. Our heart was very keenly wounded by the denunciation that you were tainted with that depravity for many years to the great detriment of your soul, and because it is incumbent upon us, on the basis of the task entrusted to us, to plant the Holy Catholic Faith in the hearts of men and to root out heretical depravity from their minds, we wished, as we were and are obligated, to be more reliably informed regarding and concerning these matters and to see if the uproar that had reached our ears was based upon any truth, in order that if the truth was so, we might make provision for an opportune and salubrious cure. Hence, we resorted to conducting an inquisition, examining witnesses and summoning you, and, in the most suitable way we could, we questioned you under oath regarding and concerning the denunciations made against you, and did each and every thing that was to be done by us according to the dictates of justice and the regulations of the Canon. Since it was our wish to bring a fitting end to your case and to see clearly what had been discovered, that is, whether you were walking in darkness or in the light and whether or not you were tainted with the stain of heresy, we ordained that a solemn panel of experts both in the faculty of Sacred Theology and in Canon and civil law should be convened before us, knowing that according to the Canon’s regulations a judgment that is confirmed by the opinions of very many men is irreproachable. Having therefore convened the sensible, mature and thoughtful panel of the aforementioned experts regarding and concerning each and every transaction and dealing in the present case, and having seen and carefully scrutinized the merits of the case and having weighed in a level scale each and every one of the contents of it, we found that you have, by your own confession received by us in court under oath, been caught in many instances of heretical depravity, finding that over the years you often and frequently believed by heart and affirmed by mouth that such-and-such” – all the heresies into which he fell should be listed individually. For instance, “into the Heresy of Witches, because she bewitched Such-and-Such person, also, such-and-such beast or Such-and-Such humans; also, instructed Such-and-Such in such-and-such; also, denied the Faith to the Devil; also, offered body and soul to the Devil (and so on).” In the case of the straightforward heresy of the Waldensians138 or Luciferians139 and so on, it should be stated what his belief was, and so on.

138  See Introduction, n. 26. 139  See n. 55.

TEXTS: Document 16

275

“But since the Merciful Lord, the Granter of Mercy, sometimes permits certain people to lapse into various heresies and errors, not only in order that Catholic men who are learned in the words of Holy Scripture should be trained, but also in order that those who have lapsed in the Faith may thereafter become more humble and roused in the works of penitence, after carefully examining the merits of the case, we found that in adherence to the saner advice frequently urged upon you by ourselves and other upright men, you salubriously flew back to the embrace of Holy Mother Church and to Her Unity, detesting these errors and heresies, and when you recognized the indisputable truth of the Holy Catholic Faith, you imposed it on140 your inner bowels. For this reason we followed in the footsteps of Him Who wishes no one to be destroyed, and granted you the public warning that bestows help and consists of abjuration, causing you, under the present circumstances, to make a public assurance by abjuring under oath all these heresies and every other heresy. When this abjuration was complete, we absolved you of the sentence of the major excommunication in which you were ensnared as a result of the lapse into heresy, and in reconciling you to Mother Church we restored you to the Church’s Sacraments, provided that you returned to the Unity of the Church with a true heart and unfeigned faith, as we believe and hope that you have done. “Since it would be very inappropriate to avenge injuries to temporal lords while tolerating with indifference injuries to the God of the Heavens, the Creator of everything, because it would be a much more serious thing to harm eternal than temporal majesty,141 and in order that He Who feels mercy for sins should be merciful to you and you should be an example to everyone else, that crimes should not remain unpunished, and that you should be rendered not more prone but more disinclined to commit any other unlawful acts, we, the aforementioned Bishop and inquisitor, who are the judges in this case involving the Faith, sitting before the tribunal in the manner of judges passing judgment, by and with the counsel of the aforementioned experts in Sacred Theology and Law, with the Sacrosanct Gospels set before us, in order that our judgment should come forth from the face of God and our eyes should see fairness, and keeping only God and the Irrefutable Truth of the Orthodox Faith before our eyes, in this place, day and hour previously assigned to you for hearing the definitive sentence (penance) to be enjoined upon you, we condemn you, Such-and-Such, who are in person placed before us, as follows, out of mercy 140  The is a misreading of Eymeric, who spoke of “fixing it in” the bowels. 141  Similar phraseology turns up in Institoris’s apology in the Malleus for mentioning the archduke (136D–137A).

276

TEXTS: Document 16

leaving you only your life. First, you should immediately be clad in a dark garment after the fashion of the tunic of soldiers [17] or the scapular of monks (without the hood), with crosses made of saffron-colored cloth, one in front and the other in back, these measuring three palms long, two palms diagonally and half a palm wide. You must wear this garment with the crosses over your other clothing for all the time of your life as a sign of penance, and if it is destroyed, you are obliged to wear another, since the crosses are symbols of a penitent person. Hence, you should not abhor them but love them, since the Lord Jesus Christ humbly bore a cross on his shoulders. “Also, we condemn you and sentence you to the penance that after being clad in this garment, you should immediately be placed, clad in the garment with crosses, at the top of the stairs at such-and-such entrance of this church. You should stand there until lunch time, in such a way that you can be seen from afar by those entering and leaving, and later you should be brought back to the same place and stairs clad in the aforementioned garment with crosses at the first tolling for vespers and stay there in this way until sunset. “Also, in our sentence we condemn you to stand clad in the aforementioned garment with crosses on such-and-such Sunday or Feast Day at the top of the stairs at the entrance of Such-and-Such church from the beginning to the end of Mass, and on such-and-such Sunday or Feast Day in similar manner at the entrance of Such-and-Such church, and on such-and-such and such-andsuch …” All or many parish and monastic churches should be listed, especially those in which the congregation that gathers there is larger, and solemn days of the year should be assigned, like Christ’s Nativity, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, Ascension and the four Feasts of the Glorious Virgin (in greater or smaller numbers as demanded by the sin of the accused). “Also, in our sentence we condemn you to life imprisonment, so that you will constantly be tormented there with the bread of pain and the water of adversity, intentionally and explicitly reserving for ourselves the absolute right to lessen, increase, change or revoke this sentence (penance) in whole or part, if, when, how, and as often as this will seem necessary to us. “This sentence was passed” and so on. When this has been read, the inquisitor should go through the following text or one of similar meaning word by word and read it out to the person upon

TEXTS: Document 16

277

whom sentence has been passed. “My son, your sentence (penance) consists of your bearing crosses throughout the entire span of your life, standing wearing them on the stairs at the entrance of Such-and-Such churches, and being in perpetual imprisonment on a diet of bread and water. But, my son, do not take this hard, because I assure you that if you endure with patience, you will find mercy in us. Do not be doubtful or despair, but hope tenaciously.” When these words have been spoken, the sentence should be turned over for appropriate execution. The dark garment mentioned above should be put on him immediately, and he should be put at the top of the stairs so that he can be seen from afar by those leaving the church. The staff of the secular court should surround him. At lunch time he should be taken to the prison, and afterwards the other things should be done in the way set down in the sentence. While he is being clad and taken to the entrance, the inquisitor should do three things. 1) He should bestow forty days of indulgence on everyone who attended these acts of the Faith at the church. 2) He should publicly declare that all those who gave counsel, aid or favor, so that he abjured heresy and returned to the Unity of the Church, as well as those who made denunciations, gave testimony or counsel or read the instances of guilt, abjuration and sentence, and the assistants who kept guard over him have three years of indulgence on the part of Our Lord the Pope. 3) Everyone should be informed that whoever knows someone who is a heretic or has a bad reputation or is suspected of heresy and denounces him to the inquisitor will have three years of indulgence on the part of Our Lord the Pope, and therefore they should take thought and make a denunciation if they know or have heard any of these matters. With this it is over. It should be noted that the bishop and inquisitor may dispense with, lessen or commute this sentence (penance), depending on whether the correction, penance and humility of the criminals appear greater or lesser, according to the beginning of Chapter “Ut commissi.” It should be noted, however, that after those who are caught in heresy in this way have converted, they differ in their conversion when they return.

278

TEXTS: Document 16

There are some who, though they believed in heresies and taught them as dogma, nonetheless as soon as they have been caught by bishops and inquisitors and are informed by them of the Truth of the Catholic Faith and of the opposite of what they had previously believed in, veer back from their errors and agree to abjure them, and do so in fact. The treatment of these people should be more lenient, in terms both of the sentence (penance) itself and of lessening (dispensing with) it. Hence, in connection with these people it is easier to dispense with some things, especially life imprisonment and being emaciated on bread and water for life, and partially, if not totally, dispensing with other things, particularly the wearing of the crosses. For it is very appropriate and beneficial to assign to such people the whole city (place) as their prison, but to impose the wearing of the crosses for a long time, since wearing the crosses can not only serve as a form of great satisfaction on the part of those who wear them but is also meritorious on account of the fairly substantial shame that they endure while wearing them. It can be and is a significant example to other people. Hence, it is more difficult to dispense with the crosses. There are others who both believed in heresies and taught them as dogma, and, after being caught by the bishop and inquisitors and fully informed by them of these heresies and of their depravity and the contrary Catholic Truth, refuse to veer back from their errors. Instead, they contumaciously persist for periods of time and in the end, perhaps more through fear of death than love of the truth, veer back, or rather pretend that they are veering back, and make the abjuration.142 Such people are very rarely really converted, but do so only falsely, playing the wolf in the guise of a lamb. Hence, not much credence should be placed in the conversion of those who were brought to the abjuration with such difficulty, and for this reason the treatment of such people is to be more cautious. They should not be readily let out of prison, but should be kept in it for very many years or for life in order to prevent them from tainting others. Women should also not be allowed in to them, because they are weak and are easily subverted.143 Nor should simple men be let in, but only proven Catholic men who are zealots for the Faith and by no means suspect in their faith. For such people have deceived many and tainted many, and have committed very 142  The section in which Eymeric ruminates on the authenticity of compelled abjurations naturally is omitted in the Malleus, where the guilt of the accused is determined through logical reasoning on the basis of supposed facts. 143  These words are Eymeric’s, referring to the susceptibility of women to regular heretical thought (rather than specifically the subversion into witchcraft).

TEXTS: Document 16

279

many frauds. They have quite often and for the most part recommitted their crime and returned to their vomit, and were burned up in the flames relapsed and impenitent. [18] This is what experience, which is the instructor of facts, clearly has taught and does teach in various parts of the world.144 Method Nine of bringing an end to a proceeding involving the Faith and of passing sentence is when the person denounced for heretical depravity, after a careful consideration of the merits of the proceedings with a good panel of legal experts, is found to have confessed heresy and to be repentant but to have relapsed in reality.145 This is when the denounced person confesses in court before the bishop and inquisitor that he has under other circumstances abjured every heresy, and it is found that this was legally the case and that he afterwards believed in such-and-such heresy (error) or that he had made a specific abjuration of some heresy in particular and later returned to it, but afterwards, adopting sounder counsel, he repents, holds Catholic beliefs, and returns to the Unity of the Church. The Sacraments of Penitence and the Eucharist should not be denied to such a person if he makes a humble request, but however much he may repent, he is nonetheless to be handed over to the secular arm as a relapsed person to be stricken with the death penalty. (This is understood of the situation when it is found that he made the abjuration as someone caught in heresy or as someone vehemently and not simply lightly suspected of heresy.) The procedure to be followed in the case of such a person is as follows. If it is concluded in the mature and thoughtful panel of experts, which is convened several times if necessary, that the denounced person is legally relapsed, the bishop or judge will send to the denounced person in prison two or three upright men (preferably men under religious vows or clerics) who are zealots for the Faith and who are not suspect or unwelcome in the eyes of the denounced person but welcome acquaintances. These men will go in to him at a suitably chosen hour and speak to him about contempt for this world, the miseries of the present life, and the joys and glory of Paradise. Finally, after 144  This phrase comes from Eymeric, but it obviously resonated a great deal with Institoris, who expresses the idea repeatedly in the Malleus. The “experience” of witchcraft as revealed through his investigations and the confessions of witches is thought by him to lend credibility to his theory. 145  At this point Institoris abandoned the practice of giving the individual sections headings. This method corresponds to MM 3.28 (238B–240C).

280

TEXTS: Document 16

these preliminary remarks, they will indicate to him on the part of the bishop and inquisitor that he cannot escape death in this world, and that he should therefore take thought for the salvation of his soul and arrange for the confession of his sins and the taking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. They will visit him often, urging him to repent and to endure, strengthening him to the best of their abilities in the Catholic Truth. They should be eager to get him to confess and bestow the Sacrament of the Eucharist on him if he makes a humble request. For the Sacraments of this kind are not to be denied to such people according to Chapter “Super eo” (Liber Sextus, “Heretics”). When the Sacraments have been taken and the denounced person is well prepared for Salvation in the judgment of the aforementioned men, then after two or three days during which he is to be strengthened in the Catholic Faith and urged to repent, the bishop and inquisitor will give to the bailiff of the place or the chief magistrate of the secular court the order that at such-and-such day and hour (not on a Feast Day) he should appear with his staff in such-and-such street (place) (outside the church) to receive from his court a certain relapsed person whom the bishop and inquisitor will hand over to him, and that on the morning of that day or the preceding one he should have a public announcement made by crier throughout the city (place) in the places or streets where other announcements are normally made by crier, namely that on such-andsuch day and hour in such-and-such place the inquisitor will give a sermon for the Faith and the bishop and the inquisitor will condemn a certain person who has relapsed into heretical depravity, handing him over to the secular arm. It should be noted at this point that if the person who has relapsed in this way is in Holy Orders, or is otherwise a priest, or is attired in the colors of an order (religious vow),146 then before he is turned over, he should be stripped of the prerogative of every ecclesiastical Order.147 Deprived in this way of each ecclesiastical office and benefice,148 he should be left to be punished with the appropriate penalty at the discretion of the secular power, as is stated in Chapter “Ad abolendam” § “Praesenti” (“Heretics”).

146  Members of the various religious orders, whether monastic or mendicant, wore specific habits, and the various orders often acquired popular nicknames based on the dominant colors of their habit. For instance, among monks, the Benedictines were known as “black monks” and the Carthusians and Cistercians as “white” ones, while among mendicants, Franciscans were known as “grey friars” and Dominicans as “black friars.” 147  This paragraph on how to deal with a heretical priest is naturally omitted in the Malleus. 148  For “benefice,” see doc. 10, n. 112.

TEXTS: Document 16

281

When such a person is to be degraded from his Orders and handed over to the secular court, the bishop should convene the prelates and monks of his diocese, because the bishop can now (though he could not in the past) by himself, along with the prelates and various other monks and experts of his diocese, degrade149 someone in Holy Orders when he is to be left to the secular arm or immured150 for life for heretical depravity, according to Chapter “Quoniam” (Liber Sextus, “Heretics”).151 Upon the arrival of the day fixed for degrading the relapsed person and handing him over to the secular arm (if he is in Holy Orders) or for abandoning him to it (if he is a layman),152 the congregation gathers in some street (place) outside the church and a sermon is made by the inquisitor, while the relapsed person is placed there in a high location with the secular court in attendance. If the relapsed person is to be degraded, he is set before the bishop dressed and fitted-out as he should be when acting as a priest in his Order, and the bishop, wearing his pontificals153 and assisted by the prelates of his diocese, will degrade him from his Orders, beginning with the highest and continuing step by step to the lowest. When bestowing each Holy Order, the bishop uses the words ordained for this by the Church, and so too when degrading him he can use other words of an opposite sense in connection with removing the chasuble and the stole154 (degrading). When this degrading is finished (it should be done according to the manner obligatory by law or custom), the official will order the notary (or person under religious vows or cleric) to read the sentence. Whether it concerns a layman or a degraded cleric, the sentence will be passed after the fashion of the following text. 149  See n. 118. 150  For the concept, see n. 98. 151  The decretal “Quoniam” (issued by Gregory IX, pope 1227–1241 and a major figure in establishing the inquisition) allowed bishops, when it was a matter of removing a priest for heresy, to dispense with the need to secure the cooperation of other bishops in the degradation (on the grounds that it was sometimes difficult to get the requisite number to meet). The words here echo those of the decretal. 152  In the Malleus, the terms “handing over” someone (tradere) and “abandoning” him (relinquere) to the secular authorities are synonyms, and the distinction made here involving the status of the person is unique (for details, see Mackay [2011], vol. 2 n. 69). 153  Ceremonial attire for a bishop. 154  The chasuble and stole are garments that are specifically worn by priests. The former is the smock-like outer garment, while the latter is a sort of long scarf that goes around the neck and whose two ends hang down in front from the shoulders.

282

TEXTS: Document 16

“We, (Name), by God’s mercy Bishop of Such-and-Such city, and Brother (Name) of the Order of Preachers (and so on), noted, after being legally informed, that you, Such-and-Such, from Such-and-Such place and of Such-andSuch diocese, were denounced before us” – if such was the case; or “before Such-and-Such, the Bishop and Inquisitor (and so on)” – “for such-and-such heretical depravity or depravities” – these should be listed – “in which heresies, as has been legally determined, you were caught by your own confession and convicted by witnesses, and that after persisting in them for such-and-such time with obdurate spirit” – everything should be explained – “but you adopted saner counsel and made a public abjuration of these heresies in Such-andSuch place, renouncing and retracting them by the formula customary in the Church, and that because of this the aforementioned bishop and inquisitor, [19] believing that you were truly converted to the embrace of the Holy Church of God, absolved you of the sentence of excommunication in which you were ensnared, provided that you had returned to the Unity of the Church with a true heart and unfeigned faith, and imposed salubrious penance on you. Now, however, after the passage of such-and-such number of years since these events, you have been once more denounced to us for having fallen into the heresies that you abjured” – they should be listed. “Although it was unpleasant for us to hear such things about you, nonetheless, under the compulsion of justice, we resorted to conducting an inquisition, examining witnesses and summoning and questioning you under oath, as well as doing each and every thing that should be done according to the Canon’s regulations. Since we wished to bring a fitting end to the present case, we ordered a solemn panel of experts both in the faculty of Theology and in Canon and civil law to be assembled, and having convened the mature and thoughtful panel of these men regarding and concerning each and every one of the transactions and dealings, and having looked at and carefully examined the merits of the case and weighed everything in a level scale in the obligatory manner, we found legally, on the basis both of witnesses and of your own confession received in court, that you have fallen again into the heresies that you abjured. For we found that you said (or did) such-and-such things” – everything should be listed. “Because of this and by the advice of the panel mentioned above, we rightly held and hold you as a relapsed person according to the Canon’s regulations. We report this with grief and grieve in reporting it. “At the urging of ourselves and of upright Catholic men, you have, by God’s inspiration, returned to the embrace of the Church and to the Truth of its Faith, detesting the aforementioned errors and heresies and holding Catholic beliefs and avowing the Catholic Faith, and we have therefore allowed you to take

TEXTS: Document 16

283

the Church’s Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist humbly requested by you. But since the Church of God does not know what more to do regarding and concerning you, in that it behaved in such a merciful way towards you, as we mentioned before, and you fraudulently took advantage of the Church’s trust by falling into the heresies that you abjured, we, therefore, the Bishop and Inquisitor, the aforementioned judges, sitting before the tribunal in the manner of judges passing judgment, with the Sacrosanct Gospels placed before us in order that our judgment should come forth from the face of God and our eyes should see fairness, holding before our eyes only God, the Irrefutable Truth of the Holy Faith and the extermination of heretical depravity, in this place, day and hour previously assigned to you for hearing the final sentence, by our sentence judge you, Such-and-Such, to be truly relapsed into heretical depravity, though repentant. We cast you out of our ecclesiastical court as someone truly relapsed, and we abandon you (hand you over) to the secular arm. Yet, we earnestly ask this secular court to moderate its sentence on you to avoid shedding your blood or endangering your life.”155 Then, the inquisitor should bestow the customary indulgence (forty days, as stated elsewhere156), and Our Lord the Pope bestows three years of indulgence on all those who gave counsel, aid or favor, so that this relapsed person was converted to the Faith. With this, as the bishop and inquisitor withdraw, the secular court should carry out its duty. It should be noted that while the bishop and inquisitor should undertake the most vigorous efforts, both in their own person and through others, to cause the relapsed person to repent and convert to the Catholic Faith, nonetheless, after he repents and it is concluded in the panel’s deliberations that although he is repentant, he is truly relapsed and as such should be handed over to the secular arm, they should not indicate to him in person that he is to be punished with such a penalty, because the face of the judge terrifies the person to be condemned and his words lead the person subject to punishment to be impenitent rather than to endure. For this reason, the judges should not have him brought into their presence at this point or before the sentence or after it, in order to prevent him being moved in spirit against them, which should be avoided with particular care in a capital case like this one. Instead, as has 155  This last sentence is rank hypocrisy. It is obviously the full expectation that the secular authorities will execute the convicted heretic precisely on the basis of his conviction in the ecclesiastical court, as shown by the end of the next paragraph. 156  Presumably, the “sheet” (see n. 57).

284

TEXTS: Document 16

been mentioned, they should send to him some upright men (preferably men under religious vows and clerics) who are not unwelcome but welcome to him. These men should indicate to him the coming sentence of death that will be inflicted, strengthen him in the Faith, urge him to endure, and after the sentence they should be his companions, console him and pray with him without leaving until he returns his spirit to his Creator. Let them therefore be careful, taking heed not to say anything because of which the relapsed person would forestall his death.157 For in that case they would be rendered irregular,158 and from a situation where they should have acquired merit, they would take away punishment and guilt. It should also be noted that sentences in which someone is turned over to the secular court do not normally take place on a Feast (Solemn) Day or in a church. Instead, they happen outside in some street, because it is a sentence that leads to death and it is more seemly for such a sentence to be passed on a non-feast day outside the church, since Feast Days and churches are dedicated to the Lord. Method Ten of bringing an end to proceedings involving the Faith and of passing sentence is when the person denounced for heretical depravity, after a careful examination of the merits of the proceedings with a good panel of legal experts, is found to have confessed heresy and to be impenitent and yet not relapsed.159 This is when the denounced person confesses in court by his own mouth that he believes in such-and-such things, which are clearly heretical, and defends them. After being informed by the bishop and inquisitor that these things are heretical, he is unwilling to believe them, and instead defends these things before them; he is also unwilling to abjure or deny (retract) them, and instead persists in them with an obstinate spirit. It is also not found that he has ever abjured heresy. So long as this person perseveres in his obstinate undertaking in this way, he is a truly impenitent, but not a relapsed, heretic. This situation is found very seldom in the Heresy of Witches, because when they confess their guilt, they never do this voluntarily or present themselves 157  This last phrase is a round-about way of saying “commit suicide before execution.” 158  “Irregularity” is the technical term for the incapacity to exercise sacramental orders, such as the priesthood. Irregularity can arise from inherent ineligibility (ex defectu) or from personal misconduct (ex delicto). One crime in the latter category is homicide, and presumably inducing suicide through ill-considered speech is here considered to fall under this rubric. 159  This method corresponds to MM 3.29 (240C–241C).

TEXTS: Document 16

285

as being willing to defend this error, [20] since common thinking loathes such errors.160 But if they are impenitent, they should be immediately left to the secular arm to be punished with the death penalty. The method of abandoning161 and passing sentence can be clearly deduced from the foregoing, with merely the change of a few words, namely “Such-andSuch of Such-and-Such place (and so on) confesses and confessed in court that she persisted in the Heresy of Witches for such-and-such period of time and inflicted such-and-such number of injuries, of such-and-such size, on the faithful of Christ at the suggestion of the Devil.” Each act that she committed should be listed individually. “We, being obliged by our office to exterminate heresy, wished to lead you back to the Path of Truth, to save your soul and make a profit of it, but you, being162 given over to a wicked sense, contumaciously and obstinately persevere in your perverse errors with an obdurate spirit. Therefore, since you are deservedly removed163 from the congregation of the Lord and the Church of God does not know what to do with you, we, the frequently cited bishop and inquisitor who are the judges in a case involving the Faith, sitting before the tribunal (and so on, as above), in our sentence judge that you are truly ensnared in the Heresy of Witches and unrepentant, and should truly be handed over and abandoned to the secular arm. Thus, we cast you out of our ecclesiastical court as an unrepentant heretic and turn you over (abandon you) to the secular arm (the power of the secular court), earnestly beseeching that court to moderate its sentence on you so as to avoid shedding your blood” and so on (as above). Also, with the bestowing of indulgences (as above). (If the person is impenitent in connection with straightforward heresy regarding the Faith, then once more some words in the sentence should be changed as necessity dictates.)

160  That is, whereas real heretics at times refuse to abandon their views and seek to defend them openly, the inherent evil of the Heresy of Witches explains in Institoris’s mind the fact that no accused witches ever try to defend the tenets of the sect (a fact more readily explained by the fact that there was no such sect), and that they can be compelled to admit to their participation in the heresy only through torture. 161  I.e., handing the accused over to the secular arm for execution. 162  The Latin form here gives both the male and female endings (see n. 73). 163  See preceding note.

286

TEXTS: Document 16

Nonetheless, one should not hasten to the sentence with such a person.164 First, he should be informed often and repeatedly about the Faith by learned men, being kept in a dark and harsh prison for, say, half or a whole year, well chained with iron fetters. For the misfortune and distress caused by prison sometimes opens up such people’s understanding. Sometimes, if such people have small children and a wife, they are also brought in to soften their hearts. If, after being waited for in this way, he is unwilling to veer back or to be changed by either prosperity or adversity, then the bishop and inquisitor will make their arrangements for handing him over to the secular arm. They will inform the bailiff, and an announcement should be made along with everything laid out in Method Nine and the sentence should be passed. A doubt arises in connection with the Heresy of Witches (or even straightforward heresy). When he is being led off after the sentence to be burned up, or when he is being tied to the stake to be burned up, and he says that he is willing to veer back and repent, what then should be done? Concerning a simple heretic in the Faith (one who has not, as previously stated, relapsed) I say that such a person should be treated differently than a witch. For that person (the straightforward heretic) should by all means be granted mercy, but as to whether he should be imprisoned for life or should be fully discharged, it is stated in the Directorium that since no great faith should be placed in such a conversion, it is believed that while it is not provided in the law that he should be immured for life according to the gloss on the phrase “Audientia …” in Chapter “Ad abolendam” § “Praesenti” and the second Chapter “Excommunicamus” (“Heresies”) (because if he was converted through fear of the penalty, then he would certainly fall into it again and cause infection, which one reads has often happened).165 As for witches, if they repent and are granted mercy, nonetheless on account of the temporal losses that they have inflicted, the secular 164  Again, the following considerations about how to deal with the confirmed heretic and whether to believe a last-minute offer of abjuration at the time of execution are omitted as irrelevant in the Malleus. 165  This broad generalization is based on a specific anecdote that Eymeric tells in this regard: “In fact, this is what happened in the city of Barcelona in Catalonia. There were three men who were handed over to the secular arm as impenitent heretics, and after one of them, who was a priest, was exposed to the flames and he was partially burned on one side, he shouted that he should be taken out because he wished to make the abjuration and was repentant. This was done, but whether rightly or wrongly, I do not know. When he was accused fourteen years later, he was found to have remained continuously in the heresy and to have tainted many others. Unwilling to convert, he was again abandoned to the secular arm as an impenitent and relapsed person and consumed by the flames.”

TEXTS: Document 16

287

court can carry out its duty in this way if there was actually no denial of the Faith, but just an invocation of demons.166 Method Eleven concerns someone who has relapsed and is impenitent and who has made such a confession with his own mouth and is convicted of relapse.167 As was previously discussed in Method Ten, such people are very seldom found in the Heresy of Witches, but when they are found, clearly they should, as was stated there, be handed over in the sentence to the secular court, provided that it is stated in the sentence that s/he168 has relapsed. Regarding other heretics in the Faith, as was stated in Method Ten, the proceedings should be carried out without haste, if a profit could somehow be made of his soul through learned and upright men about whom there is no suspicion that they could be led astray by him. When, after being properly waited for, he perseveres in his errors, then sentence should be proceeded to by the methods stated above, and in a situation where he veers back while being led off to be burned up, the ecclesiastical court should not readmit him on the grounds that he has relapsed. He169 could, however, readmit him to the extent of bestowing on him the benefit of Absolution before death, and if he asks for this devoutly, he should not deny him the Sacrament of the Eucharist according to Chapter “Super eo” (“Heresies,” Liber

166  For the right of the secular court to deal with repentant witches, see MM 224C–D. The reference at the end to there being no denial of the faith means that in that case the user of witchcraft was not actually a participant in the Heresy of Witches (which necessitated such a denial; see MM 2.1.2 [95D–100D]) but merely an “invoker of demons” (a lesser but nonetheless still heinous crime; for the invocation of demons by diviners, see MM 16C, 19B, 77D, 79D; by nigromancers, see MM 30C, 179A; by astrologers and magicians, see MM 73D, 188D; by people trying to counteract the effects of witchcraft, see MM 251C plus the extensive discussion of this situation throughout the unnumbered introductory question to MM 2.2 [152A–158D]). What Institoris means is that even if the witch did not belong to the Heresy of Witches, the mere use of witchcraft through the invocation of demons was by itself sufficient to warrant execution at the hands of the secular authorities. Note in particular that in his later discussion of the accusation made against him by Scheuberin regarding his mentioning methods of witchcraft in his sermons (doc. 9/12), Institoris characterizes the magical procedure as involving the invocation of demons (MM 142B–C). 167  This method corresponds to MM 3.30 [241C–242C]. 168  For the dual-gender form, see n. 73. 169  I.e., the ecclesiastic judge.

288

TEXTS: Document 16

Sextus). (Regarding these provisions he170 should be advised that they do not escape death through these sorts of Sacraments.)171 Method Twelve concerns someone who is caught in heresy either by the evidence of the deed or the lawful production of witnesses but not by his own confession.172 This is when, after a careful discussion of the merits of the proceedings with a good panel of experts, the denounced person is found and convicted of heretical depravity either through evidence of the deed in that he disseminated heresy publicly, or in connection with the Heresy of Witches an act of witchcraft ensued after threatening words,173 or he is convicted through lawful witnesses (“lawful” means those against whom the denounced person can raise no legal objection, for instance, by alleging mortal enmity, which will be explained below), but nonetheless the person convicted and caught in this way firmly persists in his denial. Since it is by this method (as well as by Method Six discussed above) that witches should be condemned and sentenced for their heresy, it should be treated at greater length.174 In terms of the practice to be observed it should be noted that while the present Method Twelve agrees with the one treated in Method Six in that in each such a person is sentenced to life imprisonment if in admitting his guilt he humbly requests mercy or is abandoned to the secular court to be punished with execution if he does not admit his guilt but nonetheless is convicted either by the evidence of the deed or by the lawful production of witnesses, nonetheless they differ in the following regards. First, on the topic 170  Again, the judge. 171  The whole treatment in this section is very cursory compared to Eymeric’s discussion, presumably because it was expected that a convicted witch would be executed by the secular court for “temporal losses” as stated at the end of the preceding method. It is noteworthy that while the thought stated in the final parenthesis here is implied by Eymeric, he is much less clear, stating only that while a person who repents under such circumstances should not be denied the sacraments, he is nonetheless not received by the ecclesiastical court or granted mercy. The much balder indication here that the execution is to continue seems to reflect anxiety that the intervention of the bishop might hinder this outcome (see Institoris’s insistence in doc. 9/2 that Selachin must be executed by the secular court and that the bishop cannot stand in the way of this, and his similar anxiety regarding Scheuberin in doc. 9/9). 172  This method corresponds to MM 3.31 (242D–245A). 173  For the concept of (needless) threatening words preceding the commission of witchcraft, see doc. 10, n. 82. The verb “follow” used here (subsequi) is Institoris’s standard terminology for the resulting harm (MM 94D, 202C, 222D, 226A, 232B). 174  This methodological discussion has no correspondence in the Malleus, since the whole of Book 3 is a treatment of this issue.

TEXTS: Document 16

289

of Method Six it is a question of those who are only violently suspected, [21] while here it is a question of those who have been caught, and being caught signifies more than being suspected does, since everyone who is caught is also suspected, but not everyone who is suspected is caught, since it is not someone lightly or vehemently suspected who is said to be caught but only someone violently suspected. Also, there it is a question of indications of the deed, even in the absence of the evidence of the deed or the lawful production of witnesses or a confession by his own mouth,175 while here it is a question of the evidence of the deed or the lawful production of witnesses, even in the absence of a confession by his own mouth. When these considerations are taken into account, it is no wonder if they are punished with the same penance. How is the sentence to be modified in terms of witches, when they are said to be caught?176 It is to be noted that the following is stated in the Directorium (Question Eighty-nine) on the basis of Bernard’s Ordinary Gloss177 on the phrase “deprehensi” [“caught”] in Chapter “Ad abolendam” § “Praesenti”: “Caught by the evidence of the deed, that is, that he publicly acted or preached against the Faith, either through lawful proof by means of witnesses or by his own confession.” Chapter “Super quibusdam” (Extra, “The Meaning of Words”) seems to have the same purport. There the text speaks of certain obligatory articles, and later it says, “Your Devotion asked us who manifest heretics are, and regarding this we thought that the response should be that among manifest heretics are to be understood those who publicly preach or profess (defend) errors contrary to the Catholic Faith, or those who have been convicted or confessed before their superiors or have been condemned by their sentence.” By similar reasoning, just as heretical depravity in the heart is judged on the basis of inappropriately uttered words, so too is it on the basis of the witches’ words and works that their heresy regarding the denial of the Faith is caught. Those caught in this way, that is, by the evidence of the deed though acts of witchcraft inflicted 175  For the relationship of the various forms of proof to each other, see n. 12. The personal confession was normally required for conviction in secular courts, but here Institoris advocates conviction only on the basis of circumstantial deduction (conjecture). 176  The original start of the second clause was heavily struck out, and the translation reflects the (not very satisfactory) new text, which is drastically shorter. The second clause seemingly was originally, “and in what way exactly are they called ‘caught’?”. 177  “Ordinary gloss” is the medieval term for the commentary on a work that was considered definitive. The reference here is to the commentary of Bernard of Parma, a thirteenthcentury Italian canon lawyer, on the Liber Extra.

290

TEXTS: Document 16

by them on bodies and creatures, when threatening words preceded this, are treated here in Method Twelve, but when there are only violent indications, for instance, that devices for carrying out acts of witchcraft are found under the threshold of the house or in its furnishings,178 and in addition threatening words preceded, then this pertains to Method Six.179 Since mention is made here in Method Twelve of the lawful witnesses against whom the denounced person can raise no objection, it should be noted that in default of other proofs those who are infamous180 and those who are privy to or participants in the crime, as well as excommunicates and those who are ensnared in any other crimes, are admitted to give testimony in a case involving the Faith according to Chapter “In fidei favorem.” Indeed, so can even perjurers according to Chapter “Accusatus” § “Licet non periuri” (“Heretics,” Liber Sextus).181 It is only enmity that excludes them, and not just any sort but only mortal enmity. For experience teaches that when it comes to the enmities of women, just as they arise quickly, so too are they suddenly dispersed.182 178  For searching the suspect’s home, see MM 166A, 175A, 200D, 203B. 179  Note the only real distinction between the two treatments is the “reality” of an ensuing harm. If the supposed witch makes a threat and materials for witchcraft are found but there is no apparent harm inflicted, she is merely violently suspected of witchcraft, but so long as she does not confess, she is not executed unless she refuses to abjure the heresy (so Method Six). If, however, there is actual harm that results from the threat, then the suspect is automatically convicted (and executed). 180  “Infamy” (infamia) is a technical term from Roman law signifying the disgrace resulting from disreputable behavior on account of which a person is debarred from giving testimony in court. The same term is used by Institoris to describe the “bad reputation” that witches acquire. 181  This discussion corresponds to MM 3.4 (198A–198C). 182  In MM 198D–199A Institoris makes more or less the same point, noting that women are prone to becoming upset to the point of forming enmities, and while this does to some extent undermine their credibility, accusations made under such circumstances can be used with other evidence to establish guilt. At the end of the discussion, he smugly notes that whereas some people are inclined to totally discount women’s testimony because of their quarrelsome nature, they are wrong about this because they do not possess the necessary logic skills to ferret out the truth (presumably unlike himself). Here, the argument is somewhat different. The aim is the same (to find an excuse to admit the testimony of hostile deponents), but the rationale is that since such feminine rancor is fleeting, past enmity is no reason to debar the testimony of a woman who had quarreled with the accused in the past. That, of course, is irrelevant if the deponent is still angry at the accused, but Institoris is eager to come up with any justification for not debarring hostile testimony in a situation where he wishes to convict. (In MM 207B he comes up with the further excuse that since everybody hates witches, it is not surprising that the deponents are hostile to a reputed witch, and so their testimony should not be ruled out on grounds of enmity.)

TEXTS: Document 16

291

Enmity is called mortal because a death has in fact been inflicted among them or one was intended or those things that are conducive of death or a means for it or serious or fatal wounds ensued and similar things that are manifestly indicative of the perversity and ill-will of the perpetrator against the victim.183 For this reason, it is presumed that just as he intended bodily death against him by that method, that is, by inflicting a wound, he would also intend to do so through this method, that is, by foisting upon him the crime of heresy, and that just as he wished to take away his life, he would wish to take away his reputation. Hence, such mortal enemies are excluded by law from giving testimony. As for other enmities, especially serious ones, although they do not completely debar, nonetheless, they weaken their statements to some extent, so that full faith should not be placed in their attestations. Still, with other supporting evidence and the statements of other witnesses, they can provide full proof.184 In a situation where the names of those who have given depositions (testimony) are revealed to the denounced person, for instance, because he gives sufficient assurance that he would not avenge himself on them in any way, then when he alleges enmities against them, he ought to produce witnesses to attest that this enmity was mortal.185 Once this is proven, such people are deservedly excluded from giving testimony. If, on the other hand, there are also other witnesses not of this sort, then not only should they not be excluded but it is permissible to conduct the proceedings according to their statements. (These statements are based on the Directorium and on the statements of the Archdeacon regarding the number of witnesses in connection with Chapter “Ut officium” § “verum” on the word “testium.”186) The proceedings against such a person should then be conducted as follows. If he persists in his denial after being held in a harsh prison and being frequently 183  For the discussion of mortal enmity, see MM 3.5 (198C–199A). 184  “Full proof” is a technical term signifying enough evidence for conviction (whereas various degrees of partial proof result in other outcomes, such as probable cause for examination under torture). Also see nn. 12 and 14. 185  For the issue of whether to reveal the names of the deponents to the accused, see MM 3.9 (204A–205B). 186  Carrying over Eymeric’s citation of the Archdeacon (for the name, see n. 102) here is puzzling. In Eymeric’s treatment of the number of witnesses necessary for conviction (3.72), he cites this section of the Archdeacon, but this portion of Eymeric’s discussion is not relevant to the issue at hand.

292

TEXTS: Document 16

instructed that he should save his life and ask for grace by confessing his crime and so on, and so, if after being waited for for a suitable period of time he altogether persists in his denial, the bishop and inquisitor should make their arrangements to abandon him to the secular arm. They should not expose him to question under torture, with the result that if he confesses nothing, he would have to be considered blameless,187 because, as has often been stated, they should be exposed to this only in default of other proofs. They should gather the method of making their arrangements for the abandonment and so on from the foregoing. After the sermon has been given and his crimes read out from high up in public, the sentence should be passed (this can also be inferred from preceding sections). “We, by God’s mercy Bishop … and Brother … Inquisitor of Heretical Depravity …” If he does agree to make an abjuration and to give satisfaction at the discretion of the inquisitor and bishop, then he should, as a penitent heretic, make a public abjuration of every heresy according to the formula treated above in Method Eight of bringing to an end proceedings involving the Faith. Method Thirteen (the last one) of bringing an end to proceedings involving the Faith and of passing sentence is when the person denounced for heretical depravity, after a careful examination of the merits of the proceedings with a good panel of legal experts, is found to be convicted of heretical depravity, but is a fugitive (contumaciously absent) and has been given a suitable period of time.188 This occurs in three situations. The first is when the denounced person is caught in heresy by his own confession or by evidence of the deed or by the lawful production of witnesses, but has fled (absented himself) and been unwilling to appear when legally summoned. The second situation is [22] when someone who has first been denounced and then considered somewhat (lightly) suspect through the receipt of some sort of information against him is for this reason summoned to answer a charge involving the Faith, and then, because he has been excommunicated for contumaciously refusing to appear, he is excommunicate, and the excommunicate endures this excommunica187  The standard procedure in secular criminal courts, which Institoris was bitterly opposed to on the assumption that witches use the sorcery of silence to become numb to the pain and thereby secure acquittal. 188  This method corresponds to MM 3.32 (245B–248B).

TEXTS: Document 16

293

tion with obstinate spirit, always absenting himself contumaciously. The third situation is when someone directly hinders the sentence (proceedings involving the Faith) of a bishop or inquisitor, or has given help, counsel or favor to this end. Such a person is struck with the sword of excommunication, and if he has endured this excommunication for a year with obdurate spirit, he is to be condemned as a heretic according to § “Prohibemus” of Chapter “Ut inquisitionis.” In the first situation, such a person is to be condemned as an impenitent heretic according to § “Praesenti” of Chapter “Ad abolendam,” and in the second and third situations he is to be judged as an impenitent heretic but is to be condemned like or as a penitent heretic if he asks for grace, according to Chapter “Cum contumacia” and § “Prohibemus” of Chapter “Ut inquisitionis.” In the case of him and of such people and of anyone, the bishop may summon him and order a notice to be posted on the doors of the churches where he committed his crimes or established his residence. In the second and third cases, this is after he has been waited for for a year and been warned to return, and in the first, this is if he has refused to return (the details will be stated in the summons). It is then concluded at the end:189 “Wherefore, we, the bishop and inquisitor who are the judges in the aforementioned cases involving the Faith, both require and peremptorily demand by this official decree of ours that you, the frequently mentioned Such-and-Such, who are lurking, fleeing and fugitive, should, on such-and-such day of suchand-such month of such-and-such year, appear in person before us in suchand-such cathedral church of Such-and-Such diocese to hear the definitive sentence. We declare that whether or not you appear, we will proceed to our definitive sentence against you, as the law and justice will urge. “In order that our summons should come to your notice and that you should not be able to defend yourself on the grounds of ignorance, it is our wish and order that this present letter containing our demand and summons should be posted publicly at the doors of the aforementioned cathedral. “In witness of the individual details of this, we have ordered that our present letter be impressed with our seal (and so on).”

189  At the end indeed! For some reason, Eymeric chose at this point to insert into his formula a long sermon-like passage that is ignored here but quoted at length in the Malleus (245D–246A) along with more formula that is also omitted here.

294

TEXTS: Document 16

Upon the arrival of the deadline,190 if the fugitive appears and agrees to make a public abjuration of every heresy, then if he humbly asks to be granted mercy, he will be granted it if he has not relapsed, and if he has been caught by his own confession or by the lawful production of witnesses, he will make the abjuration and repent as a penitent heretic according to the method treated above in Method Eight. But if he is violently suspected, and when summoned to make a response about the Faith refused to appear and was for this reason excommunicated and remained in the excommunication for a year with an obstinate spirit and then repents, mercy will be granted and he will make an abjuration of every heresy and will repent as a heretic violently suspected of heresy according to the method treated above in Method Six. If he does appear and does not agree to make the abjuration, he will be handed over to the secular arm as a true impenitent heretic according to the method as discussed above in Method Ten. If he contumaciously refuses to appear, then if he is in Holy Orders, he will be degraded, being stripped of his Office, not in reality but in word.191 If he is a layman, sentence will be passed upon him in his absence as it was in his presence, as above in Method Ten. If he was not otherwise caught and merely was summoned to give a response regarding the Faith when denounced and considered suspect, and then was excommunicated because he refused to appear, and stayed in the excommunication for more than a year with an obdurate spirit, and in the end refused to appear, then he is not to be judged a heretic, but as a denounced and suspected (reputed) one, and should be condemned as such. (What was discussed before should be set down in the sentence.)

190  I.e., the deadline set for his appearance in court. 191  I.e., symbolically defrocked, since the actual procedure of removing his priestly garb cannot be performed in his absence.

Index Abdul Aziz, Ottoman sultan 155n51 Adelheid im Spital 84, 137 Agnes the Bathkeeper 17, 23–25, 44n73, 67 Albertus (scholastic) 6, 229 Albrecht of Austria 73 Albigensian Crusade 6n16, 7 Ammann, Ludovicus 215 Ampass 124, 136 Amras 28, 133 Anbrugg, region of Innsbruck 123, 124, 127, 128 Andree, Johannes 225, 234 Anna of Mindelheim 17, 23–25, 44n73, 67 Apollonia (victim of Zu Schretterin) 113–114 Apollonia (accomplice of Ennel Notterin)  115 Apollonia (victim of Scharerin) 120 Aquinas, St. Thomas 6, 229, 258n106 Archdeacon, canonist (Guido de Baysio)  257, 291n186 Ariminum, Council of 236n55 Augustine, St. 229 Axams 33, 166, 203, 210 Barbara, mother of Röslin 43, 51, 57, 143, 154, 158, 188, 189n75, 190, 205, 214, 229n25 Bärbel, maid of Zu Schretterin 120 Beck, Stofl 128 Beckin, Sixin 128, 153 Beckin, Margareta (Stoflin) 128, 142 Behringer, Wilhelm 149, 151, 157, 158, 162, 169, 204n5 Bernau 141 Bernard of Palms, canonist 289 Bernhard the Barber 138 Beyser, Jörg 142 Bleidlerin 126 Böhmennin, Elsa 116, 139 Blanckenhayn, Johannes 210 Bonaventure, St. 229 Bormio 231n38 Britzing 132 Brixen 71–76 Archive of 25–26 Brotbeckerin, Dorothea 135

Buchler, Ulricus 210 Buchlin, Lenz(in) 120, 135 Buchlin, Trenlie 120, 137 Cael, Paulus 146, 148, 164, 204n5 Carthusian Order 280n146 Casparus, Brother 170, 204n5 Cathars, heresy of the 5–6, 7, 49–50 Charles V, holy Roman emperor 239n61 Chur 71, 211 Cistercian Order 280n146 Clement IV, pope 224n6 Constantius II, Roman emperor 236n55 Contitutio Carolina 239n61 Dagwerker, Jacob 134 Deckerin 123 Dienst, Heide 26n56, 47n76, 63n100 Dominican Order 5–7, 8, 236n52, 280n146 Dorothea, associate of Rendlin 113, 139 Dorothea, sister of Johannes Ellinck 141 Dorothea, wife of Matthias Fend 134 Dorothea, wife of Jörg the gunmaster  49–50, 52, 156 Dorothea, victim of Cunz Schmidin 133–134 Eberhard of Freiberg 199 Eckenfeld (Eggenfeld) 113 Ehinger, Matthias 116, 135 Ellinck, Johannes 141 Endarfer, Jörg 155n51 Engadine 128 Engelsberger, Christian 114, 134 Ennel, wife of Heinz Satelsknecht 115 Ennil, wife of Jörg Beyser 142 Ennlie, sister-in-law of Stofl Beckin 127 Ernst of Inner Austria 73 Eymerich, Nicholas 11, 64n101, 100n4, 202n124, 222–223, 226n14, 236nn52, 55, 237n57, 240n65, 242n71, 248n87, 255n96, 260n110, 271n130, 278nn142, 143, 279n144, 293n189 Fallerin 129 Falcknerin 130, 138 fasting, used in magic 120

296

Index

Fend, Matthias 134 Fenden 120 Fierer, Andre 124, 136 Fosterin, Ennlie 127 Foulques, Guy 224n6 Franciscan Order 6, 8, 148, 236n52, 280n146 Frauendienst, Bastian 96–97 Frauendienst, Dias 96–97 Frauendienst, Els 95–97 Frauendienst, Hans (father) 96–97 Frauendienst, Hans (son) 96–97 Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor 7 Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor 37, 109n5 Freising 207n23 Friedrich of Tyrol 73 Fuchsmagen, John 109n5

hen, used in magic 125 Herencons, Conrad 168 Hermanus, Brother 165 Herting, Ella 136 Hettingen 140 Hiefeyserin 123 Hettingen 116, 123 Hochwartin, Rosina see Röslin Hofman, Heinricus 149, 151, 157, 158, 165n97, 169 Hospitaller, Knights 155n51 Hüfeysen, Barbara 32, 34n63, 43–44, 48–49, 50, 54, 56, 57, 59, 67, 69, 70, 128n154, 140, 143, 149–154, 163–164, 182–187, 194–195, 199, 201, 205, 215 Hüfeysen’s husband 43, 59, 154, 186, 189 Humpis, Friedrich 97

Germain, St. 230 Gilge 128 gingerbread, used in witchcraft 65 Glickin 152, 185 Glöckner’s wife 126 Gnadenwald 118 Goldschmiden of Imst 127 Goldschmiden of the Vorstadt 129 Goldschiden, Anna 130–131 Golser, Georg, bishop of Innsbruck 27, 38–40, 66, 70, 74, 98–110, 143, 203, 216–221, 260n110 Graff, Greta 117 Graff, Martin 117, 135 Gregory XI, pope 270n128, 281n151 Gremper, Johannes 206n17 grimoires 254n95 Grunenbachin 49, 145n10, 185 Guido, canonist 225 Gunther, Conradus 209, 212 Guntherin 113, 134

Imst 127 Innocent VIII, Pope 5, 21, 26, 37, 98, 203, 245, 246n82 Innsbruck 31, 211, 215 Inquisition in 27–41, Events in compared with account in Malleus Maleficarum 68–71, 145n10, 224n7, 245n76 Inquisition 7–8 Institoris, Heinricus Apperance in proceedings against Innsbruck witches 143, 149, 161, 165, 203–204 Conception of witchcraft 3–4, 41–46, 54–55, 61–66, 67, 101–102 Career 4–5 Inquisition in Ravensburg 20–23, 91–93 Inquisition in Innsbruck 27–41, 99, 101–103, 111–112, 143, 203–212, 216–221 Relationship with Scheuberin 61, 197–198 Isidore, St. 229

Hagen, Bartholomeus 215 Halbfingerin 134 Halbschirnen 156, 159 Hall 28, 64, 123, 131 Hans, Master, doctor 142 Heiligkrutzin, Elsa 125 Helbling, Stephanus 215

Jews 64, 131–132, 177n15 Johannes, abbot of Wingarten 26, 246n82 Johannes of Rust 103 Jordan, Caspar 135 Jörg, über der Brucke, gunmaster 49–50, 51, 188–189

Index Kanter, Johannes 172 Katherina, wife of Johannes Ellinck 141 Katherina, wife of Master Hausen 130–131 Katherina, wife of Peter Kirschner 134 Kehlhaimer, Christianus 215 Kematen 28, 123, 133 Kepplerin 152, 185 Ketnerin, Margareta 130, 138 Kerler, Paulin 96–97 Kieckhefer, Richard 58n96, 61n98 Kinisten see Kunisten Kirschental 154 Kirschner, Peter 134 Kirschenerin 156 Kischman, Claus 215 Klärle, wife of Christof Maurer 137 Klauberin 123 Kleiberin 116 Kleuber, Conrad 126 Kleuberin, Anna 126, 141 Knetrin, Margareta see Ketnerin, Margareta Knöllin 130 Koch, Ludwig 124, 138n211 Kolerin, Oswalt 126 Kolerin, Rub 126 Koller, Gerd 17n33, 117 Kollerin 126 Kracherin, Johannes 126 Kromerin, Andreas 127 Kuchsschreiber, Jergen 113 Kunisten 127, 142, 153n45 Lamp, Hans 127 Lanetz (Lienz?) 132 Legal procedure Institoris’s procedure in Innsbruck attacked 34–39 conjecture 18–19 inquisition 7–8, 91–93 in Innsbruck 27–41, 99, 101–103, 111–112, 143 in Ravensburg 91–93, 101–103 use of torture 9–11, 18, 23, 24, 27v57, 46, 67, 93, 178, 181, 187, 199, 226, 233, 241–245, 291v184, 292 number of witnesses 223–227 shaving (to find amulets) 21, 24, 93, 245

297 Lemckel, Hans 121 Lenteleren, road 149 Leonists 236 Leopold of Tyrol 73 Licht, Caspar 96–97 Lindau 157, 190 Lippin, Ennlie 134 Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari 237n55 Luciferians 236, 274 Luther, Martin 250n91   Maastricht 172n132 Magic see Witchcraft Magdalena (wife of Wolf) 114 Malley, Ernest 3 mandrake 64, 120, 137 Mary, Virgin 50, 59, 70, 95, 115, 152, 255, 258 Matrei 215 Maurer, Christof 137 Maximliam, holy Roman emperor 109n5 McAuley, James 3 Meran (Merano) 114 Merwait, Johannes 35–38, 174, 205, 207n22 Metz, Thomas 214 Metzger, Cüntz 134 Mirebergerin 118 Möderm, Jörg 155, 205n13 Moler, Ludwig 84, 140 Molerin, Jos 44, 124n115, 153, 186, 190n79 Molitoris, Ulrich 72n105 Möringer, Judge 138 mouse, used in magic 160, 165n99, 190, 195 Müleckin 138–139 Munich 207n23 Muschin, Anna 118 Napoleon III, French emperor 155n51 Naumberg 211 nomenclature, practice of in Early Modern German and translation 83–86 Nicholas V, pope 73 Nicholas of Kues (Cusanus) 73 Nicholas, Brother 39, 218–219 Nider, Johannes 192n84, 230 nigromancers 254n95 Notterin, Ennel 70, 105n5, 115, 139 Nuremberg Handbook 4–5

298

Index

Olearius, Paulus 84n3

Ruttensteiner, Leonard 103

Pech, Ulricus 214 Pechtin 123, 133 Pflieglin, Barbara 32, 43–44, 48, 49, 53, 57, 60, 67, 69, 128n154, 150–151, 153, 163–165, 183–185, 186, 190n79, 194–196, 205, 214 Pflieglin’s husband 42, 57, 59, 60, 69, 151, 164, 185, 194–195 Pflieglin’s maid see Wagenstallin, Ludwigen Pfister, Stephanus 215 Pflug, Leonardus 214 Pius II, pope 73 Pogner, Margareta 134 Pogner, Ulrich 134 Pogner, Ulrich 134, 141 Portner, Hans 51–52, 191 Predl 124 Prieglin 123, 133 Pugfinger, Erasmus 103

Sachs, Christianus 214 Sacklin, Sigmund 117, 136 Saitenmacherin an der Anbrug 112–113, 126, 133 Samer/Sämer, Sigismund(us) 33, 34, 108–110, 166, 203, 206, 208, 210 Satanism 12–14 Scharerin 44, 122, 128n154, 153, 186, 190n79 Scheuberin, Helena 17, 32, 34, 35, 43, 44, 47, 53–54, 57, 60–61, 70, 143, 165–172, 182, 186, 196–201, 204–205, 208, 214 Scheuber, Sebastianus 57, 204, 214 Scheuerin, Ennlie 121 Shirmmeister see Cael, Paulus Schmid, Sigmund 135 Schmidin, Bärbel 115 Schmidin, Caspar 115, 135 Schmidin, Cunz 133–134 Schmidlerin, Katerina 48, 179 Schneider, Heinrich 140 Schneider, Peter 84, 215n53 Schneiderin, Elisabeth 140 Schneiderin, (Widow) Agnes 17n33, 32, 34n63, 43, 44, 51–53, 57, 60, 143, 161–163, 172, 191–194, 205, 215 Schneiderin, Welfel 123 Schulmeister 119 Schulmeister, Dorothea 119 Schuster, Hans 194 Schusterin, Margreta 137 Schwatz, Ulricus 215 Schwaz 132 Schwebin 122 Schwembil, Thomas 141 Schwingelmentlin 117 Scotus, scholastic 229 Selachin, Barbara 11, 32, 43, 44, 47–48, 49, 54, 56, 58–59, 67, 143–149, 175–182, 187, 205, 215 Selachin’s husband 56, 58, 147 Senstin 133 Seutzin 120, 137 Siberin, Magdalena 50–51, 157–158, 160n75, 190 Sigismund(us), Archduke of Tyrol 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 51, 57, 59, 60, 72–75, 91–93,

Rasoris 215 Ravensburg History of 19–20 Inquisition in 19–25, 91–97, 246n82, 261n110, 268n125 Rendlin 114–115, 139 Reindlin 124 Richardin 120 Ringsmaul 168, 169n111 Rhein, Hans/Johannes 117–118, 136 Rhodes 155n51 Roessbach, Johannes 162, 167–168, 169, 172, 204n5 Ro(n)mayer, Conrad 96–97 Rosenbart, Johannes 146, 148, 165n96, 204n5 Röslin 32, 43, 44, 49–51, 52, 56, 59–60, 76, 85–86, 128n154, 143, 153, 154–160, 186, 188–191, 205, 214, 229n25 Röslin’s husband 42, 76, 86, 155, 205n13 Ratfelder see Gunther Rotfelder 118 Rotfelderin 156 Rötin, Gertrude 44n.72, 69, 175 Rudolf IV, holy Roman emperor 72–74 Rummler Inn 158, 170, 190

299

Index 104–107, 143, 149, 155, 161, 165–166, 211, 245–246 Sigmund the Barber 138 Silberstichin 123, 133 Silver Lane (Silbergasse) 114, 126, 134 Sixin 153, 186, 190 Sixtus IV, Pope 5, 44 Sixtus, bishop of Freising socery of silence 10, 18, 21, 48, 70, 93n14, 152n38, 181n38, 243n72, 244, 245nn76, 80, 292n187 Spiegel, Hans 138 Spiess, Hans 50–51, 199 Spiess, Jörg 54, 70, 166–170, 196, 198–199 Spital 84, 136 Sprenger, Jacob 1–2, 5, 7, 246n82 Steinel 114 St. George, Monastery of 138 Stewart, Harold 3 Stoffer, Oswald 138 Summis desiderantes (papal bull) 5n12, 27, 36, 92nn4 and 6, 98–99 (with n3), 231 Suntain, Hans 96–97 Suntain, Heinrich 96–97 Suntheim, Klaus 23 Telz (Telfs?) 147 Thoman, Master 47 Thomanin, Elisabeth 47–48, 178 Tischler, Heinrich 84, 215 Tischler, Petrus 214 Tollinger 137 Trenlie, witness against Rendlin 134 Trenlin, maid of Rotfelder 118, 136 Trent 71 Trunserin 133 Tullingerin, Margreta 116n32, 135 turds, human, used in witchcraft 64, 131 Turner, Christian(us) 34, 35, 38, 75, 203, 210 Übelherr 195 Ulricus, Lord of Schlandersberg 168, 169n111 Unbaptize children, murder of 19n37 Urban IV, pope 250n90 Urfehde (guarantee of immunity) 25, 94–97, 213n42 Ursula, daughter of Conrad Kleuber 126 Utrecht 172

Valkner, Wolfgangus 215 Vasser, Welfil 114, 134 Velcklin, Elsbeth 137 Veronica, daughter of Siphoufer 84, 124 Vinstertaleren 118, 124 Vorstadt, of Innsbruck 120, 128 Wagenstallin, Ludwigen 42, 43, 48, 53, 56, 85, 145n10, 164n90, 195 Waldensians, heresy of 13n26, 236, 274 Wann, Paul(us) 34, 75, 203, 206, 208, 210, 211 Weber, Christian 135 Weingarten, monastery of 246n82 Wilhelmus, Brother 165 Wilson, Eric 27n57 Wilten 56, 129, 214 Witchcraft breaking spell by casting items into fire 69, 113, 152, 163, 185, 193 Institoris’s conception of 3–4, 41–46, 54–55, 61–66, 67 items used in bones 42, 45, 58, 67, 114, 124, 145, 147, 179, 193 hair 112, 117, 124, 125n128, 151, 177, 185, 193 hen 125 milk jug broken to discover milk stealer 118–119, 198 milk of cows, stealing 15, 64, 118, 123, 156n59 minnows 66, 114, 130 murdered unbaptized children 19n37, 42, 44–45, 58, 145, 177, 179 needle and thread in dish of water 150, 183 needles 69, 145, 149, 159, 177 nuts 53, 60, 127, 141n227, 165, 195 red paint from image of St. Christopher 64, 120 seeds 42, 67, 145–147, 151, 177, 179, 185, 193 stones 42, 48, 58, 147, 179 threads 70, 117, 145, 146, 152, 154, 186 turds 64, 132, 151 wax image 64, 69, 116, 145–146, 177 wood 42, 112, 145

300 Witchcraft (cont.) diviners employed to discover witchcraft 60, 65, 118, 162–163, 193, 230 medieval concept of 11–12 popular practices of 15–16 threatening words 19, 46, 52, 54, 148, 162, 164, 179, 184, 185, 192–195, 288, 290 threshold as place for depositing magical items 69, 145–146, 160, 176, 177, 191, 290 Witches, Heresy of 15–17, 27, 31–33, 40, 44–47, 54–55, 58, 62–66, 70, 79, 83, 131, 143, 175, 182, 183n48, 188, 192n83, 196, 199, 201, 223, 225, 227, 228n22, 229n28, 233, 235, 237, 240n65, 241, 243, 248, 252, 254n95, 260, 261nn110, 111, 270, 274, 284–288 Witt, Michaelis 215 Wolfgang im Spital 84, 134 Wochen, Ulrich 97 Wolfgangus, Brother 146, 148, 164, 167, 168, 170, 172, 204n5 Wolf’s daughter 124, 140

Index Women Involvement in witchcraft 16, 17 Social status of accused witches 46–55 Domestic circumstances of accused witches 56–57 Wurm, Jacob 96–97 Wycliffe, John 270n128 Yoya, Hans 119, 136 Ypfhoferin, Cristin 136 Zeuger, Hans 140 Zimmerman, Cunz 117 Zimmerman, Leonhart 137 Zimmerman, Michael 84 Zimmermanin, Anna 17n33, 117, 118 Zimmermanin, Elizabeth/Els(a) 155–157, 188–189 Zimmermanin, Michil 125, 129, 139n215 Zu Schretterin 113, 120 Zeckenstainen 132 Zeiger, Hans 136 Zugmeisterin see Dorothea, wife of Jörg the gunmaster Zurner, Johannes 215