Johann Wier: Debating the Devil and Witches in Early Modern Europe 9789048541041

Citation preview

Johann Wier

Renaissance History, Art and Culture This series investigates the Renaissance as a complex intersection of political and cultural processes that radiated across Italian territories into wider worlds of influence, not only through Western Europe, but into the Middle East, parts of Asia and the Indian subcontinent. It will be alive to the best writing of a transnational and comparative nature and will cross canonical chronological divides of the Central Middle Ages, the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period. Renaissance History, Art and Culture intends to spark new ideas and encourage debate on the meanings, extent and influence of the Renaissance within the broader European world. It encourages engagement by scholars across disciplines—history, literature, art history, musicology, and possibly the social sciences—and focuses on ideas and collective mentalities as social, political, and cultural movements that shaped a changing world from ca 1250 to 1650. Series editors Christopher Celenza, Georgetown University, USA Samuel Cohn, Jr., University of Glasgow, UK Andrea Gamberini, University of Milan, Italy Geraldine Johnson, Christ Church, Oxford, UK Isabella Lazzarini, University of Molise, Italy

Johann Wier Debating the Devil and Witches in Early Modern Europe

Michaela Valente

Translated by Theresa Federici

Amsterdam University Press

This publication is a revised translation of Michaela Valente. Johann Wier: Agli albori della critica razionale dell’occulto e del demoniaco nell’Europa del Cinquecento. Florence: Leo ­S. ­Olschki, 2003

Cover illustration: Maria Rosaria Pistello, Insieme (private collection) Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout isbn 978 94 6298 872 9 e-isbn 978 90 4854 104 1 doi 10.5117/9789462988729 nur 684 © M. Valente / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2022 Translation © T. Federici / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2022 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Every effort has been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book. Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher.

There’s a sign on the wall, but she wants to be sure ’Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings In a tree by the brook, there’s a songbird who sings Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven You know R. Plant- J. Page, Stairway to Heaven



Table of Contents

Introduction

9

1. History and historiography Wier and the witch-hunts

13

2. Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557) 1. Agrippa and the French apprenticeship 2. Working in Gelderland and Cleves 3. Wier’s faith

33 35 45 50

3. Inside the labyrinth of spells The origin and development of the De Praestigiis Daemonum (1557–1568) 1. The De praestigiis 2. The theologian and the physician: on the punishment for witches 3. Translations of the De praestigiis

61

70 78

4. Between magic and science 1. The circle of Oporinus and Basel 2. Against Paracelsus

81 81 88

61

5. Vince te ipsum Towards the twilight: from 1569 to 1588 1. The twilight 2. Against Scalichius 3. The physician Wier

101 118 122

6. Demons, sorcerers, and witches 1. Satan and his army 2. Magicians 3. Witches 4. The distinction between magicians and witches

127 127 134 137 147

7. Scepticism and toleration 1. Erasmus between scepticism and toleration 2. Erasmus and Wier

151 151 155

101

8. Reading and refuting Wier 1. Appreciations and critics 2. The Debate with Erastus 3. Bodin against Wier 4. Wier’s legacy in English and Germanic debates 5. Wier in the XVIIth century 6. After Descartes: the disenchantment of the world

173 173 176 183 186 194 198

Conclusion

209

Bibliography (primary sources)

213

Bibliography (secondary sources)

221

Index

259



Introduction Abstract This book deals with a fascinating and original claim in sixteenth-century Europe: witches should be cured, not executed. It was with this claim that the physician and scholar Johann Wier (1515–1588) challenged the dominant idea. For his defence of witches, more than three centuries later Sigmund Freud chose to put Wier’s work among his ten books to be read by everyone. According to Wier, Satan is responsible for seducing witches; therefore, witches do not deserve to be executed, but they must be cured for their melancholy. When witch-hunting was rising, Wier was the first to use some of the arguments adopted in the emerging debate on religious tolerance in defence of witches. This is the first overall study of Wier that offers an innovative view of his thought by highlighting Wier’s sources and his attempts to involve theologians, physicians, and philosophers in his f ight against cruel witch-hunts. Johann Wier: Debating the Devil and Witches situates and explains his claim as a result of a moral and religious path as well as the outcome of his medical experience. The book aims at providing an insightful examination of Wier’s works in order to read his pleas while simultaneously emphasizing the duty of every good Christian to not abandon anyone who strays from the flock of Christ. For these reasons, Wier was overwhelmed by bitter confutations such as those of Jean Bodin, but he was also celebrated for his outstanding and prolific heritage in debating religious tolerance.

In 1563, Johann Wier, a physician from Brabant, published his work, the De praestigiis daemonum, in Basel at the printing house of Oporinus into Europe of his day: a dominating Europe that looked out at the world and sought to conquer it. In this work, Wier presents witches as victims of demonic illusion, who did not deserve the death penalty, but who were, rather, in need of re-education. Drawing upon a complex analysis of the phenomenon of witchcraft, Wier expounded the initial ideas that set forth

Michaela Valente. Johann Wier. Debating the Devil and Witches in Early Modern Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789462988729_intro

10 

Johann Wier

the very process that was to lead to the gradual abandonment of arguments based on the supernatural element to explain otherwise inexplicable events and phenomena. Despite his deeply held conviction of the reality and existence of demonic action, he triggered the process of questioning the supernatural, demonstrating the inconsistencies that underpinned some of the premises used to justify the witch-hunts. With a wealth of practical experience in the field of medicine, Wier scrupulously investigated many cases of presumed witchcraft, unmasking the tricks used by some imposters who exploited people’s credulity for financial gain or to condemn their enemies. Albeit Wier never called into question the existence of the devil, indeed, from the very title of his work, it is evident that his attention was focussed on the devil and his army, nonetheless reaffirming that all actions fell within the divine plan. In this way, Wier took up a position against the risk of attributing to the devil a power that was equal to the divine, falling into Manichaeism. As we shall see, however, his orthodox position implied contradictions and aporias, which engendered furious debate amongst his illustrious readers, both contemporary and over the ages, thus rendering Wier’s work the test bed for demonological debate for many generations. The strength and lucidity of his arguments contributed unequivocally to the process of “disenchantment” with the world and to the death of the devil. Wier’s objectives, however, extended further and opened into scientific and medical reflections, embracing the political condition of an age ravaged by war and by religious violence, reaching a proposal that cannot be limited to women accused of witchcraft. The shadow of Erasmus fell long over Wier, together with his own often-dramatic first-hand experience of coercion practices that highlighted all their inherent limits. His plea to abandon an entire system of belief and practices in favour of a return to the evangelical messages clearly resounds on every page of his work. For too long, Wier’s thought has been confined to the defence of witches, which is, as I shall demonstrate, limiting. For a variety of reasons, Wier can be considered an exponent of an idea that had initially been defeated, then, overcoming much resistance, progressively become asserted and imposed. His investigation of demonic tricks persuaded him that human consciousness is fallible and, therefore, that yielding to the message of the Gospels, the only message able to guiding people towards the righteous path, is fundamental. For this reason, Wier defended the right to err and to become lost, in order to retrace one’s steps and f ind, once again, the path of righteousness.

Introduc tion

11

This work was first published in 2003 in the prestigious series edited by Antonio Rotondò, Studi e testi per la storia religiosa del Cinquecento, by Olschki. In that edition, the reader can find a number of detailed studies and references to original sources. The current text is different, updated in respect of new research, and aimed not only at academic readers. I have attempted to consider and to respond to some observations that, over the years, have been raised directly to me or that have emerged from the lively and boundless debate within historiography. The completion of a monograph is an opportunity to reflect on the various stages of life and study. The need to express gratitude combines with the pleasure of partaking in scholarly exchange and returning a crumb of what has been so generously received. I have found answers to my growing questions, my doubts, but also stimuli and ideas for reflection in conversations, sometimes daily, other times occasional. Margherita Isnardi Parente, Antonio Rotondò, and Paolo Simoncelli supported and encouraged me in this work from the very start, scholars, whose love and passion for research is contagious, and advocates of the effectiveness of teaching as a civic duty, I am grateful to them for having tolerated with pleasant irony my recurrent enthusiasm and disappointments. Twenty years on from my earlier work, my Ph.D. Thesis, on Wier, I remain profoundly and sincerely grateful to them. Equally important were my conversations with Eugenio Canone, Matteo Duni, Germana Ernst, Carlos Gilly, Lucia Felici, Erik C. Midelfort, Giovanni Romeo, and Paola Zambelli, who read and discussed various versions of the work. Alberto Aubert, Anna Maria Lazzarino del Grosso, and Mario F. Leonardi all followed my research from the very start. Indelible, intelligent, and no less important are the discussion with friends, Andrea, Marta, Giovanni, Vincenzo, Margherita, Alberto, Marco, Paolo, Elena, Francesco, and many others who do not need to be listed here: thank you all! This book is now completely different from the first version in Italian, thanks to stimulus from Monica Azzolini, Federico Barbierato, Guido Dall’Olio, Angela De Benedictis, Hans de Waardt, Simon Ditchfield, Irene Fosi, Marco Gervasoni, Guido Giglioni, Charles D. Gunnoe, Tamar Herzig, Virginia Krause, Howell Lloyd, Kimberly Lynn, Jan Machielsen, Armando Maggi, Louise Nyholm Kallestrup, Gary Waite, and Charles Zika. Alessandro and Stefano are living proof that habit can neither bend nor stifle curiosity. Grazie di cuore to Erik Midelfort, Gary Waite, Jan Machielsen and Charles Zika, who generously and patiently read and suggested corrections to the English text.

12 

Johann Wier

From the stimulating environment of the Dipartimento di Scienze Umanistiche, sociali e della formazione of the Università del Molise, I want to thank Isabella Lazzarini, a brilliant scholar and a dear friend, always intelligently optimistic and curious. It is to her that I owe the support and help in this prestigious editorial endeavour. Thanks also to Theresa Federici for her rigorous work as translator. Thank you also to Erika Gaffney and all the editorial staff of Amsterdam University Press for their support and help. I am also grateful to some younger readers, students, and scholars who were able to raise new questions, amongst them I would like to mention Marco Albertoni, Fabiana Ambrosi, Manuela Bragagnolo, and Stefano Colavecchia. Grateful thanks also go to the staff of the libraries and archives in Italy and elsewhere, in which we still find the increasingly rare people who truly love their work. The publication of this book has been supported through ministerial funding from FFABR. More than words: thank to Maria Rosaria for her artistic opera and to Mario for his never- ending support. I dedicate this book, in gratitude, to my siblings Phania and Giaime, who have always brought my feet back to the ground, but who are also my favourite “wingmen”, and together with them, Ettore. Rome, September 2020. M. V.

1.

History and historiography Wier and the witch-hunts Abstract The topic of witch-hunts has been widely studied across the ages. Multiple complex interpretations have been offered to explain how the phenomenon arose, developed, and f inally ended, thus tackling the diff iculties inherent in a historical fact that occurred everywhere and over a signif icant period of time. This chapter takes up some of these stages, focussing on the interpretation and critique of Wier’s thought. Wier was celebrated as the f irst advocate of witches and later def ined as a forerunner of psychiatry, while others condemned him as a magician. Key words: Witch-hunts, Witchcraft, Historiography, Freud

Girolamo Tartarotti, in his Del congresso notturno delle lamie (1749), observed that judges, from the mid-fifteenth century, had continued to pass sentence of capital punishment despite the criticisms, perplexities, and protests over the very existence of witchcraft.1 The condemnation of the senseless spilling of innocent blood continued into the Enlightenment, when witch-hunts were still under way. Tartarotti, however, had discovered a number of scholars, including Johann Wier, who had attempted to resist the hunting of and the superstition around witches. In a letter dated September 7, 1743, Tartarotti

1 ‘Sicché dopo tre secoli, che con molto calore viene agitata questa questione, siamo ancora sulle difficoltà di prima, e gli sforzi di tanti ingegni per illustrarla non hanno potuto persuadere tutti, e far sì che i Giudici non mettessero sì agevolmente le mani nel sangue di queste miserabili’, G. Tartarotti, Del congresso notturno delle lammie libri tre, in Rovereto, a spese di Giambattista Pasquali, 1749, p. XXIX. See Quaglioni, D. ‘Tradizione criminalistica e riforme nel Settecento. Il Congresso notturno delle Lammie di Girolamo Tartarotti (1749)’, in Studi di storia del diritto medioevale e moderno, a c. di F. Liotta, (Bologna: Monduzzi, 1999).

Michaela Valente. Johann Wier. Debating the Devil and Witches in Early Modern Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789462988729_ch01

14 

Johann Wier

acknowledged Wier as having unsurpassedly altered the course of the discussion on demonology.2 While a new form of rationalism crusaded against superstition from the mid-sixteenth century, the courts of law continued to adopt a variety of approaches; thus, in some areas, a decline in trials and beliefs can be seen, whereas elsewhere there was an upsurge in the number of trials.3 This refers only to the genesis and decline of witch-hunts, since belief in magic and witchcraft evidently has still not died out in the present day. Besides political, institutional, and religious causes, many scholars maintain that the witch-hunts took their shape due to the convergence of high and low culture, and that they gradually declined as the intellectual elites began to doubt the existence of witchcraft, in the wake of new Cartesian philosophy, just as many grew perplexed and indignant over the nonchalance with which legal authorities established and conducted the trials. 4 In the present study, I follow this intellectual debate; the daily practice of turning to magic or the supernatural in order to solve all manner of problems, to cure ills, and to hunt treasures, will remain in the background.5 Tartarotti’s dispirited considerations vis-à-vis the longevity of beliefs and trials remained both valid and embraced until the mid-nineteenth century, when they turned into a fresh drive to study the witch-hunts through the tools of the newly founded social sciences. This period saw the publication of the works of Joseph Hansen and Henry Charles Lea, which remain

2 Lettere inedite dell’abate Jacopo Tartarotti a Francesco Rosmini-Serbati con note, (Trento: Monauni, 1879), p. 29. 3 R. Porter, Witchcraft and Magic in Enlightenment, Romantic and Liberal Thought, in The Athlone History of Witchcraft and Magic in Europe. The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, ed. by B. Ankarloo and S. Clark (London: The Athlone Press, 1999), pp. 191–282 and Späte Hexenprozesse: Der Umgang der Aufklärung mit dem Irrationalen, hrsg. von W. Behringer, S. Lorenz, und D. R. Bauer, (Bielefeld: Verlag für Regionalgeschichte, 2016). 4 O. Davies, Decriminalising the Witch: The Origin of and Response to the 1736 Witchcraft Act, in Witchcraft and the Act of 1604, ed. by J. Newton and J. Bath, (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 207–232 and E. Bever, ‘Witchcraft Prosecutions and the Decline of Magic’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 40, (2009): pp. 263–293. For England, see P. Elmer, Witchcraft, Witch-Hunting, and Politics in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). 5 See my Superstitione, heresia e ignorantia, Teoria e prassi inquisitoriale in alcuni casi di maleficia, in Prescritto e proscritto. Religione e società nell’Italia moderna (sec. XVI–XIX), a cura di G. Dall’Olio et alii, (Roma: Carocci, 2015), pp. 65–83; Everyday Magic in Early Modern Europe, ed. by Kathryn A. Edwards, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2015) and M. Bailey, Fearful Spirits, Reasoned Follies. The Boundaries of Superstition in Late Medieval Europe, (New York: Cornell University Press, 2017).

History and historiogr aphy

15

relevant and useful to this day.6 Heir to Hansen and Lea’s interpretation was George Lincoln Burr, a prolific scholar and publicist of an important collection of works on witchcraft at Cornell University, to the extent that he called himself ‘a witch hunter in the bookshops’.7 At the same time, in his pioneering work The Golden Bough (1890), James Frazer addressed the romantic and mythopoeic interpretation put forward by Jules Michelet in his work La Sorcière (1862), maintaining, with a hallmark of positivism, that the Scientific Revolution had swept away all traces of medieval culture and superstition, an idea that was in part taken up and developed by Max Weber, who highlighted the progressive disenchantment of the world following the Reformation.8 Later, from an anthropological perspective, and based only on partial documentation, Margaret Murray’s work created a seismic shift, taking the perspective of the witches, when she demonstrated (1921) that behind witchcraft may lie a legacy of pagan culture through the continuation of the cult of Diana: witches were not, therefore, “innocent”, but were persecuted for practising a contested rite. The development of anthropological sciences contributed to a greater understanding of the debate, as the importance and influence of the works of Evans Pritchard on the Azande demonstrates, and subsequently this became essential premise for many historians of the calibre of Alan Macfarlane.9 However, the next step in gaining a clear understanding of the multifaceted question of witches and witchcraft required even greater effort: admitting that a certain notion of magic had been important in European culture should not compromise the rational foundation of that European culture, in particular in the sciences and philosophy.10 Thus, from the 1950s 6 J. Hansen, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Hexenwahns und der Hexenverfolgungen im Mittelalter, (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1963 (1st ed. 1901); Id., Zauberwahn, Inquisition, und Hexenprozessen im Mittelalter und die Entstehung grossen Hexenverfolgung, (München: R. Oldenbourg, 1900) and H. C. Lea, Materials Toward a History of Witchcraft, arranged and edited by A. C. Howland, (New York: 1939). 7 G. L. Burr, A Witch-Hunter in the Book-shops, n.p., 1902; Id., His Life and Selections From His Writings, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1943). See J. Machielsen, The War on Witchcraft. Andrew Dickson White, George Lincoln Burr, and the Origins of Witchcraft Historiography, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021). 8 See R. Scribner, ‘The Reformation, Popular Magic, and the ‘Disenchantment of the World’’, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 23 (1993), pp. 475–494 and A. Walsham, ‘The Reformation and the Disenchantment of the World Reassessed’, The Historical Journal, 51 (2008), pp. 497–528. 9 E. Evans Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1937). See A. Macfarlane, Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England: A Regional and Comparative Study, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970). 10 P. Zambelli, White Magic, Black Magic in the European Renaissance from Ficino and Della Porta to Trithemius, Agrippa, Bruno, (Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 218–253.

16 

Johann Wier

onward, Eugenio Garin, Frances Yates, Paolo Rossi, and Paola Zambelli have substantially renewed the historiography of the history of science, analysing the field of magic. In this way, they showed traces of the influence of the group of scholars surrounding Aby Warburg, including Ernst Cassirer. Another stimulus towards opening up the historiography began in the 1960s through student and intellectual protest movements and the beginnings of feminism.11 This period gave us the important works of Hugh Trevor Roper, 12 Julio Caro Baroja, 13 Keith Thomas, 14 and the benandanti of Carlo Ginzburg, 15 pupil of Delio Cantimori, historian of heretics. Echoes of Michel Foucault’s suggestions, able to offer a new interpretative lens for many phenomena, can certainly be perceived in many of these studies.16 An overview of witchcraft historiography highlights a startling lack of German contributions: Behringer posits that this absence should be understood as an appendix to the tragic experience of Nazism, with German historiography withdrawing into the rationalist paradigm. Indeed, the weight of the implications caused by Heinrich Himmler’s interest in witchcraft cannot be overlooked. Himmler, himself a practitioner of magic rituals, established the Hexenkartothek project, hypothesizing that the witch-hunts 11 Palgrave Advances in Witchcraft Historiography, ed. by J. Barry and O. Davies, (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2007). See also Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations, ed. by M. Douglas, (London: Tavistock publications 1970); Hexenwissen: zum Transfer von Magie- und ZaubereiImaginationen in interdisziplinärer Perspektive, hrsg. von H. Sieburg, R. Voltmer und B. Weimann, (Trier: Spee, 2017) and W. de Blécourt, Contested Knowledge: The Historical Anthropologist’s Approach to European Witchcraft, in Cultures of Witchcraft in Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present, edited by J. Barry, O. Davies, C. Usborne, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), pp. 1–22. See Witchcraft and Masculinities in Early Modern Europe, ed. by A. Rowlands. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) and S. Federici, Caliban and the Witch: Women, The Body, and Primitive Accumulation, (London: Penguin Books, 2020 (1st ed. 2004). 12 H. R. Trevor-Roper, The European Witch Craze of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, in Id., The European Witch Craze of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries and Other Essays, (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), pp. 90–192. 13 J. Caro Baroja, The World of the Witches, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1975 (1st ed. 1961). 14 K. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, (New York: Scribner, 1971). See Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Centres and Peripheries, ed. by J. Barry, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). 15 C. Ginzburg, The Night Battles: Witchcraft and Agrarian Cults in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983 (1st ed. 1966) and F. Nardon, Benandanti e inquisitori nel Friuli del Seicento, prefazione di A. Del Col, (Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste, 1999). 16 On Foucault, see H. C. E. Midelfort, Witchcraft, Madness, Society, and Religion in Early Modern Germany. A Ship of Fools, (Aldershot: Ashgate-Variorum 2013), passim.

History and historiogr aphy

17

had been organized by the Church of Rome in order to eliminate German culture, which had supposedly been kept alive by the witches.17 The great works of reconstruction and synthesis (primarily the tireless work of Brian Levack, who, from the first edition in 1987, has continued to update his work, which has been translated into many languages) have been accompanied by documents of fundamental importance discovered in the archives of cases and trials.18 The absence of any form of direct testimony on the part of the supposed witches themselves doubtless complicates the matter; indeed, of the few traces that remain, all have been manipulated.19 In 1983, Stuart Clark laid down a further challenge to those who still supported the interpretation of witchcraft and witch-hunts as the fruit of ignorance— a view laden with stereotypes and prejudice—by demonstrating that 17 W. Behringer, Witchcraft and the Law in Bavaria: Popular Magic, Religion, and the State in Modern Germany, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997 (1 st ed. 1987). See Himmlers Hexenkartothek. Das Interesse des Nationalsozialismus an der Hexenverfolgung, hrsg. von S. Lorenz, (Bielefeld: 1999). For Germany see Alison Rowlands, Witchcraft Narratives in Germany: Rothenburg, 1561–1652 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003); L. Roper, Witch Craze: Terror and Fantasy in Baroque Germany, (Yale: Yale University Press, 2004) and T. Robisheaux, The Last Witch of Langenburg: Murder in a German Village, (New York–London: W.W. Norton, 2009). 18 B. P. Levack, The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe, (London: Longman, 1987). See Articles on Witchcraft, Magic, and Demonology: a Twelve Volume Anthology of Scholarly Articles, edited with introductions by B. P. Levack, (New York: Garland Publishing, 1992); New Perspectives on Witchcraft, Magic and Demonology, ed. by B. P. Levack, 6 vols., (New York–London: Routledge, 2001); The Witchcraft Sourcebook, ed. by B. P. Levack, (London: Routledge, 2004). See G. K. Waite, Heresy, Magic, and Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); W. Behringer, Witches and Witch-Hunts: a Global History, (Cambridge: Polity, 2004); J. Demos, The Enemy Within. 2000 Years of Witch-Hunting in the Western World, (New York: Viking, 2008); M. Gaskill, Witchcraft: a Very Short Introduction, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); G. Klanickzay, ‘A Cultural History of Witchcraft’, Magic, Ritual and Witchcraft, 5 (2010), pp. 188–212; J. Goodare, The European Witch-Hunt, (New York: Routledge, 2016); J. Callow, Embracing the Darkness: a Cultural History of Witchcraft, (London: I.B. Tauris, 2017); R. Hutton, The Witch: a History of Fear, from Ancient Times to the Present, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017); M. Gibson, Rediscovering Renaissance Witchcraft. Witches in Early Modernity and Modernity, (London–New York: Routledge, 2018) and Demonology and Witch-Hunting in Early Modern Europe, ed. by J. Goodare and alii, (London–New York: Routledge, 2020). 19 See my ‘Caccia alle streghe: storiografia e questioni di metodo’, Dimensioni e problemi della ricerca storica, (1998), pp. 99–118; M. Duni, Caccia alle streghe: nuove tendenze storiografiche e prospettive (1986–2006), in Non lasciar vivere la malefica. Le streghe nei trattati e nei processi (secoli XIV–XVII), a cura di D. Corsi e M. Duni, (Firenze: Firenze University Press, 2008), pp. 1–18; E. Midelfort, Witchcraft, in Reformation and Early Modern Europe: A Guide to Research, ed. by D. M. Whitford, (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2008), pp. 355–395 and my essay ‘Ancora a proposito di streghe: alcuni recenti studi’, Bruniana & Campanelliana, XXII (2016), pp. 655–663.

18 

Johann Wier

demonology represents an important science. However, despite the passing of time, it is clear that the call to overcome this particular interpretation has not been entirely accepted, as Sarah Ferber has recently, and correctly, felt obliged to relaunch it.20 The mare magnum of intellectual and popular culture that provides the substrate for the persecution of witches has yet to be explored. While to date the history of witchcraft has been predominantly the story of persecution, the time has now come to begin an analysis of the doctrinal, theological, scientific, and cultural dimensions lato sensu of a phenomenon that was by no means exclusively popular. This diffidence in examining high culture is the legacy of the historicist and positivist tradition: the question, posed by Lucien Febvre, as to why some significant individuals, such as Jean Bodin, had fallen into the trap of superstition, still lingers.21 Confusion over the natural or supernatural, together with the conflict between scientific and historical evidence, has hindered a serious analysis of many works previously considered and read through a distorted and deformed lens. This spell was broken by the collection of studies, The Damned Art of Witchcraft, edited by Sidney Anglo, in which the principal treatises22 on witchcraft are examined, and, more recently, by Stuart Clark, who in Thinking with Demons23 intended to cover a much wider disciplinary spectrum than traditional studies. Clark had previously discussed the necessity of tackling demonological texts anew, abandoning the entirely anachronistic perspective of rationalism.24 On closer inspection, he argues that these treatises have also been neglected because of the idea that the accusations of witchcraft were often devoid of the 20 S. Clark, ‘French Historians and Early Modern Popular Culture’, Past and Present, 100 (1983), pp. 62–99; S. Ferber, Psychotic Reactions? Witchcraft, the Devil and Mental Illness, in Emotions in the History of Witchcraft, ed. by L. Kounine and M. Ostling, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 231–245. 21 L. Febvre, Au coeur religieux du XVI siècle, (Paris: SEVPEN, 1957). See D. Wootton, ‘Lucien Febvre and the Problem of Unbelief in the Early Modern Period.’ The Journal of Modern History, 60 (1988), pp. 695–730 and F. A. Campagne, ‘Witchcraft and the Sense-of-the-Impossible in Early Modern Spain: Some Reflections Based on the Literature of Superstition (ca.1500–1800)’, The Harvard Theological Review, 96 (2003), pp. 25–62. 22 The Damned Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft, ed. by S. Anglo, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977). 23 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997). See S. Houdard, Les sciences du diable. Quatre discours sur la sorcellerie: 15e.–17e. siècle, préface d’A. Boureau, (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1992) and Fictions du Diable. Démonologie et littérature de saint Augustin à Léo Taxil, s. dir. Fr. Lavocat, P. Kapitaniak, (Genève: Droz, 2007). See The Science of Demons: Early Modern Authors Facing Witchcraft and the Devil, ed. by J. Machielsen, (London: Routledge, 2020). 24 S. Clark, ‘Inversion, Misrule and the Meaning of Witchcraft’, Past & Present, 87 (1980), pp. 98–127.

History and historiogr aphy

19

impact of learned theories. The standard interpretation is that charges and accusations were, conversely, motivated by the exasperated social tensions that were created in certain situations. In this perspective, functionalist theory was adopted to interpret them, as in the studies of Robin Briggs.25 The analysis of treatises of demonology, however, clearly shows the cultural premises and the legacy of classical culture in the creation of the image of a witch, reconstructing the tightly woven fabric of sources, from patristic texts and Scripture to law and literature. The myth of the sorceress, the woman with magical powers, has been widespread since antiquity. In addition to Homer’s Circe, in the Fasti, Ovid defines the strix as an anthropomorphic nocturnal bird that searches out new-born babies to drink their blood. The development from strix to witch emerged out of classical culture, and it is represented in the Malleus Maleficarum in what appears to be a short step, but is anything but. As some studies into iconography have revealed, the image of the witch evolved, acquiring new features as various aspects began to merge.26 The image of a witch we know today was produced by the culture of the sixteenth century: the transformation of the medieval witch into the Renaissance malefica took place by passing from credulitas to infidelitas, from superstition to heresy. The Church’s desire to repress all forms of dissent certainly influenced this transformation; in the bull Vox in rama (1233) heretics were equated with Satan worshippers and when, in 1326, with the Super illius specula, John XXII permitted inquisitorial intervention against those suspected of witchcraft, equating them with heretics, the process of demonization became irreversible, but not final.27 A change can also be seen in the demonological treatises. Innocent VIII, with the bull Summis desiderantes (1484), opened up a new phase in the history of witch-hunts, 25 Witches and Neighbours. The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft, (London: Fontana Press, 1996). 26 C. Zika Appearances of Witchcraft. Visual Culture and Print in Sixteenth-Century Europe, (London,: Routledge, 2005). See M. A. Sullivan, ‘The Witches of Dürer and Hans Baldung Grien’, Renaissance Quarterly, 53 (2000), pp. 333–401; L. C. Hults, The Witch as Muse. Art, Gender, and Power in Early Modern Europe, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011, (1st ed. 2005); L. Roper, The Witch in the Western Imagination, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2012) and C. Zika, Images of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe, in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. by B. P. Levack, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 134–166 and Id., ‘The Witch and Magician in European Art’, in The Oxford Illustrated History of Witchcraft, ed. by O. Davies, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 134–166. 27 R. Kieckhefer, Magic and its Hazards in the Late Medieval West, in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft, pp. 13–31.

20 

Johann Wier

and the Malleus Maleficarum of Sprenger and Krämer translated into practice the regulations of the bull, summarizing the new perspectives of the late-fifteenth century Church.28 With the Malleus witchcraft became the most serious sin/crime, the crimen exceptum; thus, witches deserved the most serious of punishments, as they had been turned from simple heretics into apostates. What is more, Krämer and Sprenger went even further and asserted that the crime was so serious as to be worse even than the sins of fallen angels (q.XVII, p. pars). The Malleus Maleficarum represents a sort of Bible for the new demonology and forms the legal source that legitimized the persecution of witches by both lay and ecclesiastical authorities. Thus, the stage was set for an upsurge in trials. The determining factor in the scholarly debate came from the Aristotelian philosopher Pietro Pomponazzi. With his discussion on the immortality of the soul, he called into question the very foundations of religion and the system of eternal rewards and punishments on which the ecclesiastical hierarchy was based. Furthermore, in the De incantationibus, published posthumously in Basel in 1556 by the heretic Guglielmo Grataroli, Pompo­­nazzi attributed prodigious phenomena to the influence of the stars, rejecting demonic intervention, and acknowledging the innocence of witches.29 Reality or illusion? This question has been central to the debate on witchcraft and magic over the centuries and to the explanations offered up in various ages: the intensity of the various phases of persecution depended on the prevalence of one or the other of these hypotheses. Is it possible to alter the course of nature by use of supernatural forces, be them divine or demonic—or is this merely an illusion? If these forces are shown to be real, there is an evident necessity for incisive and immediate action involving 28 H. Institoris -J. Sprenger, Malleus Maleficarum, ed. and trans. by C. Mackay, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). See S. Anglo, Evident Authority and Authoritative Evidence: The Malleus Maleficarum, in The Damned Art, pp. 1–32; N. Cohn, Europe’s Inner Demons. An Inquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt, (Rev. ed. New York: Pimlico, 1993); H. P. Broedel, The Malleus Maleficarum and the Construction of Witchcraft: Theology and Popular Belief, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003) and T. Herzig, ‘Flies, Heretics, and the Gendering of Witchcraft’, Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft, 5 (2010), pp. 51–80. See R. Kieckhefer, European Witch Trials: Their Foundation in Popular and Learned Culture, 1300–1500, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976) and R. Voltmer, Preaching on Witchcraft? The Sermons of Johannes Geiler of Kaysersberg (1445–1510), in Contesting Orthodoxy in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Heresy, Magic and Witchcraft, ed. by V. L. Nyholm Kallestrup and R. M. Toivo, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), pp. 193–215. 29 G. Zanier, Ricerche sulla diffusione e fortuna del De incantationibus di Pomponazzi, (Firenze: La nuova Italia, 1975); Pietro Pomponazzi: tradizione e dissenso, a cura di M. Sgarbi, (Firenze: Olschki, 2010) and C. Martin, Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History and Philosophy in Early Modern Science, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014).

History and historiogr aphy

21

judges and institutions as well as the Church; however, if the hypothesis that they are an illusion prevails, a battle of a different sort is needed, one that is more theoretical one. The biblical warnings of Exodus 22:18 had long existed, but took on new relevance when at the beginning of the modern age they were evoked to support persecution. The Canon Episcopi, a document dating from the tenth century, had notably limited all forms of persecution, as it defined as illusions both flight and witches’ Sabbath, considering the women who practised fertility rituals for a plentiful harvest to be the heirs of pagan traditions and thus not to be considered witches. Moreover, those who believed in these tales were considered and condemned as credulous and heretics.30 In order to bypass this obstacle, the demonological debate in the earlysixteenth century adopted a new interpretation of the Canon, according to which the phenomena referred to in the text were very different from those authorities were facing at that time. In this way, persecution of witches could proceed unhindered without undermining the authority of an important ecclesiastic document.31 As a consequence, in the Italian Peninsula a period of heated debates began, involving theologians and inquisitors such as Bartolomeo Spina, jurists such as Paolo Grillando, Andrea Alciati, and Giovan Francesco Ponzinibio, and philosophers such as Pietro Pomponazzi, as well as controversial and eclectic authors such as Girolamo Cardano.32 At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Franciscan Samuele de Cassinis wrote a short treatise based on theological elements, the Quaestio lamiarum (1505), in which he denied the reality of demonic activity; the Dominican Vincenzo Dodo replied in the Apologia contro li difensori delle strie, asserting and supporting the legitimacy and the necessity of inquisitorial action.33 Ponzinibio also lined up in defence of witches, not 30 M. D. Bailey, Battling Demons: Witchcraft, Heresy, and Reform in the Late Middle Ages, (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003) and M. Klaassen, The Transformations of Magic: Illicit Learned Magic in the Later Middle Ages and Renaissance, (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012). See R. Kieckhefer, European Witch Trials: Their Foundations in Popular and Learned Culture, 1300–1500, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976). 31 T. Herzig, ‘Bridging North and South: Inquisitorial Networks and Witchcraft Theory on the Eve of the Reformation’, Journal of Early Modern History, 12 (2008), pp. 361–382. 32 P. Maxwell-Stuart, The Contemporary Historical Debate, 1400–1750, in Palgrave Advances in Witchcraft Historiography, pp. 11–32. 33 R. Ristori, sub voce, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (henceforth DBI), vol. 21, (Roma: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, 1978), pp. 487–489; M. Valente, Cassinis, Samuele, in Encyclopedia of Witchcraft. The Western Tradition, ed. by R. Golden, vol. 1, (Santa Barbara (Ca): ABC-Clio, 2006), pp. 172–173 and Ead., Dodo, Vincente, ivi, pp. 287–288. See M. Duni, I dubbi

22 

Johann Wier

only from a legal perspective, but also from a theological one, reasserting the value of the Canon Episcopi rejecting the equation witch = heretic, and arguing that lay lawyers had to assist the inquisitors throughout the trials.34 Shortly afterwards, Bartolomeo Spina attacked Ponzinibio, restating the exclusive right of theologians to interpret the Canon Episcopi and their exclusive competence to define heresy. He also argued that the evil caused by witches was a just punishment for the ungodly and a test for the pious.35 Spina had been a pupil of Silvestro Mazzolini, known as Prierias, who not only concerned himself with witches but was also one of the first opposers of Luther.36 In De strigimagarum, in order to save the Canon, Prierias introduced a distinction between the followers of Diana and the modern form of the strigimaghe. Many doubts remained, however, such as why God permitted evil; Grillando, in his Tractatus de haereticis et sortilegiis, by reaffirming individual free will, underscored the responsibility of the witches, who chose to devote themselves to Satan.37 In his work Strix, Giovan Francesco Pico della Mirandola, who had already expressed his concerns over the spread of witchcraft in his other works, provides one of the first examples of political use of witchcraft accusations, when Pico suggests that his adversary (in issues of inheritance) may be a follower of Satan.38 sulle streghe, in I vincoli della natura. Magia naturale e stregoneria nel Rinascimento, a cura di G. Ernst e G. Giglioni, (Roma: Carocci, 2012), pp. 203–221 and F. Conti, Witchcraft, Superstition, and Observant Franciscan Preachers. Pastoral Approach and Intellectual Debate in Renaissance Milan, (Turnhout: Brepols 2015). 34 Gian Francesco Ponzinibio, Tractatus de lamiis, (Pavia: per magistrum Iacob de Burgo Franco, 1511). Thanks to Matteo Duni: See M. Duni, Law, Nature, Theology and Witchcraft in Ponzinibio’s De lamiis (1511), in Contesting Orthodoxy in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, pp. 217–232. See C. Ginzburg, ‘The Philosopher and the Witches: An Experiment in Cultural History’, Acta Ethnographica Hungarica, XXXVII (1991–1992), pp. 283–292. 35 Bartolomeo Spina, Quaestio de strigis, una cum Tractatu de Praeminentia Sacrae Theologiae et quadruplici apologia de lamiis contra Ponzinibium, (Venetiis: 1523). 36 See M. Tavuzzi, Prierias: the Life and Works of Silvestro Mazzolini da Prierio, 1456–1527, (London: Duke University Press, 1997) and G. Dall’Olio, The Devil of Inquisitors, Demoniacs and Exorcists in Counter-Reformation Italy, in The Devil in Society in Early Modern Europe, edited by R. Raiswell with P. Dendle, (Toronto: CRRS, 2012), pp. 511–536. 37 Paolo Grillando, Tractatus de haereticis et sortilegiis, (Veneunt Lugd.; apud Iacobum Giuncti, 1536). 38 Giovan Francesco Pico, Strega o delle illusioni del demonio nel volgarizzamento di Leandro Alberti, a c. di A. Biondi, (Venezia: Marsilio, 1989); Id., La Sorcière, ed. by A. Perifano, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007). See P. Burke, Witchcraft and Magic in Renaissance Italy: Gianfrancesco Pico and his Strix, in The Damned Art, pp. 32–52; A. Perifano, La demonologia come demonolatria nella Strix di Giovanfrancesco Pico della Mirandola, in Non lasciar vivere la malefica, pp. 83–96 and A. Maggi, In the Company of Demons. Unnatural Beings, Love and Identity in the Italian Renaissance,

History and historiogr aphy

23

Faced with such resolution, doubt began to manifest and, in Parergon juris (1538), Andrea Alciati voices his perplexity concerning the reality of witchcraft, suggesting that the alleged witches should be treated with hellebore, a plant with curative properties for madness that had been administered since antiquity, and not with fire: in his view, they warranted treatment, not death.39 Convinced that witchcraft was an illusion and that these witches were no more than poor women or mendicants, sometimes with knowledge of medicinal herbs, Girolamo Cardano tackled this question on a number of occasions, in particular in the De varietate rerum, in which he maintains that many of these women were ill and did not warrant capital punishment. Cardano, however, avoided both discussing this issue from a theological perspective and exploring it within the sensitive terrain of scriptural exegesis, despite having already taken position against the existence of the witches’ Sabbath. The scientific interpretation of some phenomena previously deemed to be supernatural was also followed by Giovan Battista Della Porta, who, in 1558, published the Magia naturalis, a work destined for great success and many translations. Amongst other things, Della Porta maintains that witches are victims of illusions caused by the use of hallucinogenic substances and, as such, their confessions would be the fruit of visions caused by these substances. Della Porta also adds a medical scientific explanation following first-hand observation of a self-confessed witch. This work was swiftly added to the Index of Prohibited Books, forcing the author to reconsider his position, withdrawing his interest in arts that were considered illicit. 40 The Lutheran Reformation brought about something of a decline in the theoretical debate on the witch-hunts.41 There were no significant differences between Catholic and Protestant demonology, save for the analysis of the causes. Leaving aside the positions of Luther and Calvin, it is important to note the Commentarius de praecipuis divinationum generis by Caspar (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008). See Astrologia e magia nel Rinascimento. Teorie, pratiche, condanne, (Pisa: Il campano, 2014). 39 R. Abbondanza, sub voce, in DBI, I, 1960, pp. 69–77; W. E. Monter, Witchcraft in France and Switzerland: The Borderlands during the Reformation, (Ithaca: 1976), pp. 46–49; M. Duni, Alciati, Andrea, in Encyclopedia of Witchcraft 1, pp. 29–30; Id., Under the Devil’s Spell: Witches, Sorcerers, and the Inquisition in Renaissance Italy, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2007) and W. Stephens, The Sceptical Tradition in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft, pp. 101–121. 40 See my Della Porta inquisito, censurato e proibito, in La ‘Mirabile’ natura. Magia e scienza in Giovan Battista Della Porta (1615–2015), a cura di M. Santoro, (Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2016), pp. 233–240. 41 G. K. Waite, Sixteenth-Century Religious Reform and the Witch-Hunts, in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft, pp. 485–506.

24 

Johann Wier

Peucer, which introduced the notion of melancholy as a source of visions, a theme previously developed by Melanchthon in the Commentarius de anima. 42 Another world, however, existed at the time, namely that of the radical Reformation, in which the topic of evil and the devil developed in its own way that was divergent from the orthodox churches. The Dutch radical Reformation is particularly worthy of mention, revolving around David Joris, who also spent some time in Basel, and Menno Simons; in this, the devil became a projection of the evil present in all individuals, a position that leads to significantly limiting demonic action and to negating the possibility of a pact with the devil. 43 Around the 1570s, the parameters of the doctrinal debate took shape: those in favour of the witch-hunts emphasized the exceptional nature of the crime of witchcraft in order to justify the use of special doctrinal and legal means, while the critics, founding their arguments on the Canon Episcopi, maintained the phenomenon to be illusory. Throughout the sixteenth century, two Old Testament figures dominated in the debate on witchcraft: Job and Samuel, the king who disobeyed divine law and became the basis for the debate on demonic apparitions. The question concerning reality or illusion returned, a question that could be expanded to the entire debate: did Satan have actual power or was it just illusory? Job is particularly interesting as a role model, the victim of tribulations that he faced with the spirit of sacrifice and profound faith. It is not by chance that Wier cites precisely these two figures in the epilogue of his work, indicating Job to be the appropriate role model and inviting readers not to allow themselves to be tricked by demonic apparitions as Samuel was. In the second half of the sixteenth century, the persecution of witches began again. 44 The question had become ever more intriguing, as the ‘suc42 Caspar Peucer, Commentarius de praecipuis divinationum generibus, (Wittenberg: 1553). See P. Aretini, I fantasmi degli antichi tra Riforma e Controriforma. Il soprannaturale greco-latino nella trattatistica teologica del Cinquecento, (Bari: Levante, 2000), passim. 43 Clark, Thinking with Demons, pp. 542–544. See Witchcraft in the Netherlands From the Fourteenth to the Twentieth Century, ed. by M. Gijswijt-Hofstra and W. Frijhoff, (Rotterdam: Universitaire Pers, 1991); G. K. Waite, Eradicating the Devil’s Minions: Anabaptists and Witches in Reformation Europe, 1525–1600, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007) and Id., Joris, David. In: Lexikon zur Geschichte der Hexenverfolgung, hrsg. v. G. Gersmann, K. Moeller und J.-M. Schmidt, in: historicum.net. 44 G. Romeo, Inquisitori domenicani e streghe in Italia tra la meta del Cinquecento e i primi decenni del Seicento, in Praedicatores, inquisitores. III. I domenicani e l’Inquisizione romana, a cura di C. Longo, (Roma: Istituto storico domenicano, 2008), pp. 309–344 and Id., Inquisizione, Chiesa e stregoneria nell’Italia della Controriforma: nuove ipotesi, in Non lasciar vivere la malefica, pp. 53–64. See L. Spruit, Magic and the Roman Congregations of the Holy Office and the Index,

History and historiogr aphy

25

cess’ of a number of works indicates; from the first edition of the Magia naturalis by Giovan Battista Della Porta in 1558 to the publication of Wier’s De praestigiis (1563), it is evident that readership on the subject had increased and demonology had lost its elitist connotations: alongside classical sources, Scripture, and the scientific explanation offered by Pythagoras, rather than by Aristotle, appeared popular anecdotes, rapidly gaining greater literary dignity. It is in this confluence of high and popular cultures, interwoven in a way that becomes difficult to disentangle, that many exempla are established. In treatises, the heuristic value of anecdotal accounts gained ground. Picking up the tradition of humanist scepticism, linked to the Dutch theologians and rich with criticisms put forward in the legal world of the trials, Johann Wier gathers and develops all these aspects: in respect of previous positions taken up in defence of witches, he places himself at the centre of a dense network of cultural ties and relations that link him to a much wider perspective. Furthermore, his originality can be seen in his intention to analyse the situation with a uniform method that comprised theology, medicine, law, and philosophy. His defence of witches certainly resulted from a summary of various pleas, but it was also the basis for a rich and lively debate. His defence was the outcome of many battles, and a challenge and provocation for new ones. The deluge of definitions that has poured down on Johann Wier (1515–1588) from 1563 to the present day has served no other purpose than to fragment the profile of this medical doctor from the Duchy of Brabant.45 His efforts in providing a coherent solution to the debate on the witch-hunts has been entirely disregarded and misunderstood by many of those who have grappled with his thought. For this reason, Wier has, over the centuries, been scathingly called atheistic and fawningly called a knight; he has been held up as a hero, and has been considered to be a sorcerer. 46 Many have lined up to exalt or condemn Wier, despite never having studied his works, on one of the two contrasting sides: in favour of or in La magia nell’Europa moderna tra antica sapienza e filosofia naturale, a cura di F. Meroi, (Firenze: Olschki, 2007), pp. 363–380. 45 H. Eschbach, ‘Dr. med. Johannes Wier, der Leibarzt Herzogs Wilhelm III. von Cleve-JulichBerg. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Hexenprozesse’, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Niederrheins, 1(1886), pp. 57–174; E. T. Withington, Dr. John Weyer and the Witch Mania, in Studies in the History and Method of Science, ed. by C. Singer, (London: 1917); G. Ehrligh, ‘Johann Weyer and the Witches’, New England Journal of Medicine, 263 (1960), pp. 245–246. 46 C. Gilly, Qui negat diabolum, atheus est. Atheismus und Hexenwahn, in Atheismus im Mittelalter, hrsg. von O. Pluta und F. Niewoehner, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999), pp. 337–354.

26 

Johann Wier

against the persecution of witches. As we shall see, the De praestigiis is a wide-ranging treatise, one rich in debate and in references to sources, anecdotes, and discussions. However, following the initial erudite fervour it suddenly created amongst the principal scholars in Europe, with different editions and translations, the text was not edited for a significant period. It was the initiative of Martin Schoock, a professor at the University of Groningen and author of a De scepticismo, that enabled Wier’s thought to have a second spring when, in 1659, he published Wier’s Opera omnia. 47 Declaring himself to be honoured at giving a voice to one so erudite, Petrus van den Berge, the editor of the Opera omnia, defined Wier as ‘ Medicus et Philosophus undiquaque doctissimus’48 Following the innovation of Cartesian epistemology, then, the apparently compromising character of Wier’s thought offered an excellent solution: at no point does he negate the power of the devil, rather he reconsiders the question of witches under a new light. In the eighteenth century, despite the Enlightenment debate that, regarding witches, saw sides drawn up with Muratori on the one side with his Trattato della forza della fantasia umana (1745), and Tartarotti to Gianrinaldo Carli on the other, the condemnation of Wier as a defender of witches endured in some authors. 49 The same polemical tone was adopted in the work of Antoine Portal, who, with the Enlightenment fully established, continued to maintain that Wier had abused popular naivety: ‘il abusa de la crédulité publique; il n’est point d’impiété qu’il n’ait racontée’.50 47 La querelle d’Utrecht, René Descartes et Martin Schoock; textes établis, traduits et annotes par T. Verbeek; préface de J.-L. Marion, (Paris: Les impressions nouvelles, 1988); T. Verbeek, Descartes and the Dutch. Early Reactions to Cartesian Philosophy: 1637–1650, (Carbondale: Edwardsville, 1992), ad indicem. 48 Wier, Opera omnia. Quorum contenta versa pagina exhibet. Editio nova et hactenus desiderata. Accedunt indices rerum & verborum copiosissimi, Amstedolami, apud Petrum vandem Berge, sub signo Montis Parnassi, 1659. 49 M. Pott, Aufklärung und Aberglaube: die deutsche Frühaufklärung im Spiegel ihrer Aberglaubenskritik, (Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1992); Beyond the Witch Trials: Witchcraft and Magic in Enlightenment Europe, ed. by O. Davies and W. de Blécourt, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004); E. Bever, ‘Witchcraft Prosecutions and the Decline of Magic’, and E. Cameron, Enchanted Europe: Superstition, Reason and Religion, 1250–1750, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). See F. Venturi, Settecento riformatore, I, Da Muratori a Beccaria, (Torino: Einaudi, 1969); L. Parinetto, Magia e ragione: una polemica sulle streghe in Italia intorno al 1750, (Firenze: La nuova Italia, 1974) and Girolamo Tartarotti 1706–1761. Un intellettuale roveretano nella cultura europea del Settecento, Atti della Accademia Roveretana degli Agiati. Cl. di Scienze umane, Lettere ed Arti, a. CCXLVI (1996). 50 A. Portal, Histoire de l’anatomie et de la chirurgie, (Paris: chez P. Fr. Didot, 1770), p. 652.

History and historiogr aphy

27

Wier’s courage was finally recognized by a number of authors over the course of the nineteenth century:51 acclaim for his defence of medicine against theology is a recurrent theme in many works, to the point of becoming almost a myth of the victory of psychiatry over demonology, as Vandermeersch writes.52 The turning point occurred in 1865 with the lecture delivered by Auguste Axenfeld in the Faculty of Medicine in Paris, attended by the famous neurologist Désiré Bourneville, student of JeanMartin Charcot.53 Throughout his career, Charcot collected analogies on hysterical pathology and cases of witchcraft, noting that demonic possession was often attributed as the cause in cases of madness. Spurred on by the reflections of Axenfeld and Charcot, Bourneville took the initiative to publish a translation of Wier’s work into French, which had appeared in 1579, in the literary series Bibliothèque Diabolique (1882–1902).54 The first biography of Johann Wier followed a few years later, by Carl Binz, a pharmacist and medical historian. An excellent work with a strong imprint of positivism, it did not, however, do justice to the complexity of Wier’s thought.55 A further 40 years passed before attention was once more directed to Wier: in 1940 the study of another medical historian, Leonard Dooren,56 was published, which took up Binz’s findings. Some decades later, the Dutch neurologist Cobben published his study, which was later translated, although in a slightly abridged form, into English.57 51 See M. M. A. Macario, ‘Etudes cliniques sur la Démonomanie’, Annales medico-psychologiques, 1 (1843), pp. 440–485. 52 P. Vandermeersch, ‘The Victory of Psychiatry over Demonology: the Origin of the NineteenthCentury Myth’, History of Psychiatry, 2 (1991), pp. 351–363. 53 A. Axenfeld, Jean Wier et la Sorcellerie. Article paru dans les Conférences historiques faites pendant l’année 1865 à la Faculté de médecine de Paris, (Paris: Germer Baillière, 1866), pp. 383–443. See B. Brais, Desiré Magloire Bourneville and French Anticlericalism during the Third Republic, in Doctors, Politics and Society, ed. by D. Porter and R. Porter, (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1993), pp. 107–139 54 Histoires, disputes et discours des illusions et impostures des diables, des magiciens infâmes, sorcières et empoisonneurs, des ensorcelez et démoniaques et de la guérison d’iceux,’ Avant-propos’ de D. Bourneville et une ‘Biographie de Jean Wier’, par A. Axenfeld, (Paris: aux bureaux du ‘Progrès médical’, 1885). On Charcot, see S. Ferber, ‘Charcot’s Demons: Retrospective medicine and historical diagnosis in the writings of the Salpêtrière school’, in Illness and Healing Alternatives in Western Europe, ed. by M. Gijswit-Hofstra, H. Marland, H. de Waardt, (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 120–140. 55 C. Binz, Doctor Johann Weyer: Ein rheinischer Arzt, der erste Bekämpfer des Hexenwahns, 2. umgearb.u. verm. Aufl., (Berlin: 1896). 56 L. Dooren, Doctor Johannes Wier, Aalten, De Graafschap N.V., 1940. 57 J. J. Cobben, Jan Wier, Devils, Witches, and Magic, (Philadelphia: Dorrance, 1976 (1 st ed. 1960). In 2002 a new, enlarged edition was published with a preface written by H. de Waardt. J.J. Cobben, Duivelse Bezetenheid, beschreven door dokter Johannes Wier, 1515–1588 (Rotterdam: Erasmus Publishing, 2002).

28 

Johann Wier

Another turning point occurred in 1935, when the Russian psychoanalyst and historian of psychiatry Gregory Zilboorg conferred on Wier the title of ‘father of modern psychoanalysis’.58 Zilboorg thus inherited and reintroduced the interest in Wier shown by Sigmund Freud, who had included the De praestigiis amongst his ten fundamental and essential books for humanity, together with the works of Copernicus and Darwin.59 Various indications in Freud’s letters are testament to his reading of the Malleus Maleficarum and the De praestigiis and his fascination for Wier’s discourse on a number of questions, probably echoing the influence of his mentor, the neurologist Charcot.60 The nascent science of psychology concerned itself with the witch-hunts and thus also with Wier, giving important dues to his discovery: in this vein, Gregory Zilboorg, in the 1940s, read in the pages of the De praestigiis justification for medical authority to cure witches who were considered to be mentally ill,61 an interpretation that was later adopted by the historian of psychology George Mora.62 At the end of the 1960s, however, at the heart of a dispute that also touched psychoanalysis, Zilboorg’s interpretation was criticized by an academic competitor, Thomas Szasz, who argued that in recognizing Wier as the father of psychiatry, which occurred only in the twentieth century, Zilboorg had distorted reality in order to argue for the idea of “liberatory” psychiatry.63 At the same time as this new interpretation, Wier came to the attention 58 G. Zilboorg, The Medical Man and the Witch During the Renaissance, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1935), p. 207. Different opinion is held by T. J. Schoenemann, ‘The Role of Mental Illness in the European Witch Hunts of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: an Assessment’, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 13 (1977), pp. 337–351; Id., ‘Criticisms of the Psychopathological Interpretation of Witch-hunts: A Review’, American Journal of Psychiatry, 134 (1982), pp. 1028–1032. 59 J. M. Masson, The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, 1887–1904, (Cambridge Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1986), pp. 224–225. See E. E. Garcia, ‘Johann Weier and Sigmund Freud: A Psychoanalytic Note on Science, Narcissism and Aggression.’ American Imago, 46 (1989), pp. 21–36. 60 N. Spanos, ‘Witchcraft in Histories of Psychiatry: A Critical Analysis and an Alternative Conceptualization’, Psychological Bulletin, 85 (1978), pp. 417–439 and H. Westerink, ‘Demonic Possession and the Historical Construction of Melancholy and Hysteria’, History of Psychiatry, 2014, pp. 335–349: 338. See T. G. Benedek, ‘A Comparison of the Psychological Insights of Petrarch and Johann Weyer,’ in Mental Health, Spirituality, and Religion in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Age, ed. by A. Classen, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), pp. 424–463. 61 G. Zilboorg, A History of Medical Psychology, (New York: Norton, 1941), p. 234. 62 G. Mora, ‘On The 400th Anniversary of Johann Weyer’s ‘De praestigiis daemonum’: Its Significance for Today’s Psychiatry,’ American Journal of Psychiatry,120 (1963): pp. 417–428. 63 T. Szasz, The Manufacture of Madness: a Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1997 (1st ed. 1971), pp. 11–13.

History and historiogr aphy

29

of Thorndike, who dedicated, in his masterful work, an insightful exam in his chapter ‘The Literature of Witchcraft and Magic after Wier’. Thorndike presents Wier as the first to oppose witchcraft before reviewing all aspects, in a tract that could be defined as rationalist to the extent of exhibiting undisguised disappointment in ‘superstitious’ beliefs.64 These stimulating and evocative readings nonetheless remain partial and deprive Wier of his complexity, reducing him into rigid and at times inadequate interpretative frameworks. Without wishing to commit the same error for which we are reproaching others by generalizing a series of variegated cogent judgements, however, save for some comforting exceptions, the treatment of Wier shows the implacable persistence of unquestioning interpretative approaches that have been handed down unchallenged. Since the 1940s the forced reading of Wier as father of modern psychoanalysis has drawn many into the trap of reading the De praestigiis from a misleading and, above all, anachronistic perspective. The persistence of this tendency can be seen in the 1991 English translation of the work, equipped with valuable annotations.65 At the same time, the insistence on the defence of witches has limited analysis of Wier’s other works and activities, reducing, in part, their relevance. The ambitious purpose taken up in these pages is precisely that of attempting to restore the complete profile of this elusive character who lived in the shadow of, firstly, Agrippa, and, later, of his eminent adversaries, Bodin especially, or of his epigones, such as Scot, who were able to resolve the contradictions in which Wier had entangled himself. The aim of this book is to provide a holistic and unified (rather than single) vision of the work and of its author, one that brings together cultural stimuli and the seeds of debate, locating them within the main debates within sixteenth century culture, thus revealing a dense network of relations that deserves to be known and understood. In the late 1970s, in a conference on madness, Sidney Anglo delivered a paper on the debate between Bodin and Wier, intending, however, to invalidate the image of Wier as the first author to oppose the witch-hunts. Indeed, Anglo had identified a predecessor: already in 1547, Jason Pratz, author of the De cerebri morbis, ‘makes a similar point concerning the way in which demons insinuate themselves into melancholics’.66 Anglo then 64 L. Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, (New York: Macmillan, 1923–1958), p. 515. 65 J. Weyer, Witches, Devils and Doctors in the Renaissance, Weyer’s De Praestigiis Daemonum, ed. by G. Mora, (New York: Medieval and Renaissance Studies and Texts, 1991). 66 S. Anglo, Melancholia and Witchcraft: The Debate between Wier, Bodin and Scot, in Folie et deraison à la Renaissance, (Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1976), pp. 209–222: 211, n. 10.

30 

Johann Wier

proceeded to judge Wier’s arguments to be so weak as to easily be confused with those of Jean Bodin. In a later—and more fitting—initiative, studies on the main demonological treatises were collected, and Christopher Baxter was given the task of writing about Wier, about whom he traces an extremely critical description. Despite acknowledging, almost grudgingly, some of Wier’s merits, he concludes with an entirely negative evaluation, evaluation that served to scale down Wier’s contribution to the debate on the witchhunts.67 Aiming to locate Wier’s thought between belief in witchcraft and the witch-hunts, the work of Nahl, indebted to Binz and Cobben, offers a traditional image of the doctor, with no particular innovation.68 With a comprehensive overview of Wier’s philosophical concept and with attention to its theoretical and practical applications, Margherita Isnardi Parente, while certainly appreciating Wier’s originality of thought, highlights the aporetic nature of his work, which made it an easy target for his astute detractors, Jean Bodin and Thomas Erastus.69 A conference dedicated to the figure of Wier as the first opposer of the witch-hunts and to the research inspired by him took place in Wolfenbüttel, in 1987.70 Acknowledging Wier for having generated new interest regarding the question of witchcraft, Gerhild Scholz Williams offered a new interpretation of Wier’s thought, linking his intentions of removing the witches from the clutches of the judges and the inquisitors to feelings of misogyny.71 In conclusion, the figure of Wier remains burdened by a shadow—one that has not entirely faded. In the search for evidence of modernity and forward-looking characteristics, any evidence in Wier’s thought, that may invalidate the chosen hermeneutic paradigm, must, by necessity, be “disregarded”. One of Wier’s principal interpreters is the American historian Erik Midelfort, who, since his earliest research, has tackled Wier’s thought and activities by contextualizing them within a composite cultural environment, 67 C. Baxter, Johann Weyer’s De Praestigiis Daemonum: Unsystematic Psychopathology, in The Damned Art, pp. 53–75. See C. Bené, Jan Wier et les procès de sorcellerie ou l’érasmisme au service de la tolérance, in Acta conventus neo-latini Amstelodamensis, (München: Fink, 1979), pp. 58–73. 68 R. van Nahl, Zauberglaube und Hexenwahn im Gebiet von Rhein und Maas. Spätmittelalterlicher Volksglaube im Werk Johann Weyers, Bonn, Röhrscheid Verlag 1983. See M. Saatkamp, Die Hexenwahn und seine Gegner: Dr Weyer (Wier) und die Grafen von Tecklenburg. (Tecklenburg: Edition Howe, 1988). 69 M. Isnardi Parente, Le ‘vecchierelle pazze’ di Johann Wier, in J. Wier, Le streghe, a cura di A. Tacus, (Palermo: Sellerio, 1991), pp. 9–12. 70 Vom Unfug der Hexenprocesses. Gegner der Hexenverfolgung von Johann Weyer bis Friedrich Spee, hrsg. von H. Lehmann und O. Ulbricht, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992). 71 Defining Dominion: the Discourses of Magic and Witchcraft in Early Modern France and Germany, (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1995).

History and historiogr aphy

31

such as the German world in general, without omitting considerations on the medical problem.72 Together with Benjamin Kohl, he edited the abridged version of the English translation of the De praestigiis, using the German translation prepared by Wier himself as their source,73 after having dedicated constant attention to the figure of Wier, recontextualizing him in his own times. Midelfort has discussed Wier on many occasions and has recently defined him as the most relevant ‘psychiatric thinker’ and the most accurate defender of a cure for madness.74 Midelfort has placed his analysis of Wier’s works within a broader spectrum, linking them to various scientific, religious, and political appeals underway in his time, without shying away from the limitations of Wier’s position and without indulging in eulogy: ‘In addition to voicing this human and practical critique, Weyer (Wier) wanted to show that witchcraft constituted an impossible crime’.75 More recently, Charles Gunnoe has examined the relationship between Wier and Erastus, drawing a number of important conclusions from both a theological and a scientific perspective,76 and Hans de Waardt and Gary Waite have investigated the complex question of Wier’s religious faith, to which we shall return later, duly locating it within the Dutch political and cultural environment of the time. Lastly, a very recent work on Wier by Vera Hoorens has attracted much criticism for its historical inaccuracies and excessively caustic arguments; nonetheless, this work has undoubtedly contributed to the debate through the discovery of previously unknown archival documents, and by suggesting a new reading of Wier as a Calvinist and strongly at odds with the Catholic Church.77 72 H. C. Erik Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Transformation of the Insanity Defense, in The German People and the Reformation, ed. by R. Po-Cha-Hsia, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988), pp. 234–261. 73 J. Wier, On witchcraft: an abridged translation of Johann Weyer’s De praestigiis daemonum, ed. by B. G. Kohl and H.C. E. Midelfort, (Asheville, N.C.: Pegasus Press, 1998). 74 A History of Madness in Sixteenth-Century Germany, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), p. 20. 75 Midelfort-Kohl, Introduction, in Wier, On Witchcraft, p. XXI. 76 C. D. Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate. A Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation, (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2010), passim. 77 V. Hoorens, Een ketterse arts voor de heksen. Jan Wier (1515–1588) (Amsterdam: Bakker, 2011). See some reviews: S. Vanden Broecke, Studium 5 (2012), pp. 252–254; H. de Waardt, BMGN—Low Countries Historical Review, 128 (2013), p. 23 and W. de Blécourt, in Church History and Religious Culture, 94 (2014), pp. 101–106. See V. Hoorens, Why did Johann Weyer write De praestigiis daemonum?: How Anti-Catholicism inspired the Landmark Plea for the Witches. BMGN—Low Countries Historical Review, 129 (2014), pp. 3–24.

32 

Johann Wier

Wier was the first to write a systematic treatise arguing, with complex reasoning, that witches ought not to be sentenced to capital punishment; however, his originality lies elsewhere. Amongst the arguments at his disposal to support his thesis, he chose to equip himself with the humanistic armour of philology. Indeed, recourse to philological criticism enabled Wier to confute and deconstruct the Scriptural basis for the witch-hunts, by recovering the Hebrew text and the Greek text of the Septuagint. This is another sign of his originality, his role as a witness to a historical era, and as a conveyor of substantial innovations and of disconcerting doubts: that the proposal to cease the killing of witches came from a man who believed in, and who was afraid of, diabolic action and was afraid of it. In a political and religious world characterized by continuous reform and counter-reform, in which every form of dissent became a punishable offence to the orthodox religions, a general sense of unease pervaded. This uncertainty became the catalyst in the search for a scapegoat, which focussed on the figure of the witch. In a cruel and bloody process akin to pagan ritual, the witch-hunts became a way to earn the ‘grace’ of a God who seemed increasingly distant and indifferent to the fate of humanity. Wier was amongst those individuals who opposed this view.78

78 S. Kinzler, Weyer, Johann. In Lexikon zur Geschichte der Hexenverfolgung, hrsg. v. G. Gersmann, K. Moeller u. J.-M. Schmidt, in: historicum.net; C. Kaltscheuer, Johann Weyer, in: Internetportal Rheinische Geschichte.

2.

Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557) Abstract Wier’s biography is reconstructed in this chapter, from his education with Agrippa to his studies in France where he came into contact with some of the most important physicians of the time. As a professional physician, Wier could see past many of those events unjustly attributed as witchcraft to identify the demonic tricks beneath. With his arrival at the court of Cleves, an Erasmian laboratory of religious coexistence of different Christian faiths, Wier’s own religious beliefs were questioned, a topic that remains actively debated within historiography. Key words: Agrippa of Nettesheim, Medicine, Protestantism, Spiritualism

As an author on important bibliographic works on physicians and philosophers, Melchior Adam is perhaps the first source on Wier’s life. His notes on the life of Wier, published in 1620, became the foreword to the 1659 edition of Wier’s Opera Omnia.1 Indeed, Wier himself provides significant biographical information throughout his works; he was born in 1515 in Grave, Northern Brabant, as he tells us in the De praestigiis.2 His birthplace, bordering areas of different political and cultural influences, explains the reason behind the variety of spellings of his name that are in use: Weyer in the German form, Wier in the Dutch form, and Wierus in Latin. He was also known by the Latin surname Piscinarius as the Latin term piscina is translated as wiert, which resembles his own surname.3 There is disagreement amongst Wier’s biographers on some points, such as the social condition of his family. His epitaph defines him as being of 1 M. Adam, Vitae Germanorum medicorum qui seculo superiori, et quod excurrit, claruerunt, (Heidelberg: 1620), pp.186–188. 2 Wier, Witches, p. 272. Binz, Doctor Johann Weyer, p. 2; van Nahl, Zauberglaube und Hexenwahn, p. 37; Hoorens, Een ketterse arts voor de heksen, p. 26. 3 Witches, Devils and Doctors, p. XXXII.

Michaela Valente. Johann Wier. Debating the Devil and Witches in Early Modern Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789462988729_ch02

34 

Johann Wier

noble origin, 4 an understanding shared by Cobben, while, according to Axenfeld, Wier was from a family plébéienne et très honnête.5 Evidence of the social standing of Wier’s family can also be seen in the excellent level of education attained by him.6 Wier’s interest in demons was present from infancy, as he shows in an anecdote told in his works: while living at home with his family, he had an encounter with a household god, one of the Lares familiares. The use of pagan figures for Christian purposes was by no means uncommon and had been an established use from Renaissance humanist times. In this case, Wier used the encounter to prove the existence of demons. It is far from unusual to find within biographies and autobiographies of scholars of the time such tales of regular encounters with or visits from demons. Bodin referred to a spirit who visited him, and Girolamo Cardano also disclosed that he had experienced encounters with demons from infancy.7 Through his story of the presence of a household demon, Wier also recalled his parents, Theodorus and Agnes Rhordam, and his siblings. His father was involved in commercial activity, and the household demon used to predict the arrival of merchants—an important event for the whole family’s subsistence—by making sacks of hops fall over.8 This phenomenon occurred a number of times and Wier witnessed it in the company of his brothers.9 Among scholars, only Withington has recognized the importance of this biographical note.10 There are many explanations for the silence, or omission, of this autobiographical account by Wier’s biographers, amongst which the evident positivistic hallmarks of late-nineteenth century studies stands out. The preference has always been to give greater prominence to the rationalistic traits of Wier’s thought and works, rather than pick up such anecdotes that, to our eyes at least, seem ambiguous. Nonetheless, neglecting this element of apparent contradiction, as was clear to Wier’s contemporary detractors, diminishes and undervalues the importance of his thoughts and arguments. 4 Wier’s tombstone is in the Church of Tecklenburg, in Westfalia; the text has been published in J. Wier, Histoires, Disputes et Discours, des Illusions et Impostures des diables, p. XLII. 5 Cobben, Jan Wier, p. 6 and Axenfeld, Biographie, in J. Wier, Histoires, Disputes, p. X. 6 Adam, Vitae Germanorum medicorum, p. 186. Hoorens, Een ketterse arts voor de heksen, p. 274. 7 A. Maggi, Satan’s Rhetoric. A Study of Renaissance Demonology, (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2001), pp. 198 e sgg. See Angels of Light?: Sanctity and the Discernment of Spirits in the Early Modern Period, ed. by C. Copeland, J. Machielsen, (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 8 Binz, Doctor Johann Weyer, p. 1. 9 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 71. 10 Withington, Dr. John Wier, p. 215.

Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557)

35

Wier’s bond with his two brothers, Arnold and Matthias, was very strong. Arnold was the head chef at the court of Count Hermann of Nieuwenaar, to whom Wier later dedicated his work De ira morbo.11 His other brother, Matthias, is of far greater interest in our analysis. Known as one of the major mystics of the Reformation, he was very active in doctrinal debate of the time, as his rich correspondence demonstrates.12 Matthias published a work that was to have notable success: it was later re-edited in 1652, translated into Latin in 1658 and into English in 1683.13 Given the good relations enjoyed by the brothers, it would be logical to suggest reciprocal influence on certain matters, and this further assists in shedding light on Johann’s ambiguous attitude towards religious aspects.14 Recently, Hans de Waardt has established the existence of a sister of Wier, Elizabeth, who married Charles Utenhove.15 Within the complexity of Wier’s education, the devotio moderna also played a part, thanks to the figure of Jan Hendrick Coolen.16

1. Agrippa and the French apprenticeship Wier’s meeting with his master, Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim, in 1530 was a def ining moment, and marked the start of a period of profound sharing and sincere discipleship. These were important years for Agrippa, too, in which he brought to fruition his principal works, the De occulta

11 Arnold ‘war küchenmeister des Grafen Hermann von Neuenahr und Moers geworden’, Binz, Doctor Johann Weyer, p. 179. Wier mentioned his brother, Arnold in De commentiis Jejuniis. 12 M. Weyer, Grondelicke Onderrichtinghe, (Frankfurt; 1579). See P. Poiret, Bibliotheca mysticorum, (Amsterdam: 1708), p. 128; G. Arnold, Historia et descriptio theologiae mysticae, (Frankfurt, apud Thomam Fritsch, 1702), pp. 569–570, Id., Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie, von Anfang des Neuen Testaments biss auff das Jahr Christi 1688, (Frankfurt: Thomas Fritsch, 1715), pp. 13–18; R. Pietsch, Matthieu Weyer, in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité ascétique et mystique doctrine et histoire, t. XVI, (Paris: Beauchesne 1994), cc. 1403–1404. 13 The Narrow Path of Divine Truth Described from Living Practice and Experience of its Three Great Steps…, (London: 1683). 14 Cobben, Jan Wier, Devils, Witches, p. 5 and Cronica. Ordo Sacerdotis. Three Texts on the Family of Love, ed. by A. Hamilton, (Leiden: Brill, 1988), p. 45 n. 15 H. de Waardt, ‘‘Lightning Strikes, Wherever Ire Dwells With Power’: Johan Wier on Anger as an Illness, in Diseases of the Imagination and Imaginary Disease in the Early Modern Period, ed. by Y. Haskell (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), pp. 255–70: 263. 16 This statement was published in the fifth edition, the 1577 one. See Wier, Witches, p. 28 and Midelfort-Kohl, Introduction, in J. Wier, On Witchcraft, p. XVII.

36 

Johann Wier

philosophia and the De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum.17 From this point, the lives of these two individuals, the master and the pupil, became entwined. The former led the latter, directing his reading and his curiosity, and suggesting to him, albeit involuntarily, a model; the pupil was able to fully honour the debt of gratitude he owed to his master, by disproving the legends that grew up around the figure of Agrippa. The young Wier was influenced and inspired by the eclectic and determined personality of his master, not just in terms of culture, but also in the immediate consequences that were to befall the lives of both Agrippa and Wier, and which were decisive in the development of reflections on the duties and the “laws” of the scholar. When their two lives converged, Agrippa seemed to have reached a point of stability with his work at the court of Margaret of Austria, where he enjoyed favourable conditions in which to conclude his activities with serenity. This was all to change when the period of accusations, condemnations, and inquests into his orthodoxy began. Despite his attempts at clarification, his problems at the imperial court progressively worsened, and Agrippa was forced to move from Antwerp to Malines. These growing suspicions over his orthodoxy hindered the publication of the De occulta philosophia through the fixed opposition of the Cologne inquisitor, Konrad Köllin, which only served to increase and develop Agrippa’s intolerance of and rebellion against the Inquisition.18 It is extremely difficult to attempt a precise reconstruction of Agrippa’s whereabouts during his tutelage of Wier. Agrippa’s rich correspondence with several scholars gives us the pattern of an intense period of movements and journeys: around 1530 Agrippa was in Antwerp and Wier joined him there 17 C. G. Nauert, Agrippa and the Crisis of Renaissance Thought, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965); P. Zambelli, ‘Scholastiker und Humanisten: Agrippa und Trithemius zur Hexerei, die natürliche Magie und die Entstehung kritisches Denkens’, Archiv für Kirchengeschichte, LXVII (1985), pp. 41–79. See also H. C. Agrippa von Nettesheim, De occulta philosophia libri tres, edited by V. Perrone Compagni, (Leiden: Brill, 1992); C. Lehrich, The Language of Demons and Angels: Cornelius Agrippa’s Occult Philosophy, (Leiden: Brill, 2003); S. Adorni Braccesi, ‘L’’Agrippa Arrigo’ e Ortensio Lando: fra eresia, cabbala e utopismo’, Historia Philosophica, 2005, pp. 97–113; Ead., ‘Fra eresia ed ermetismo: tre edizioni italiane di Enrico Cornelio Agrippa di Nettesheim’, Bruniana & Campanelliana, XIII (2007), pp. 11–29; P. Zambelli, ‘Un contributo su Agrippa (o sulla sua cerchia) dalla storiografia alchimistica’, Bruniana & Campanelliana, XXIII (2017), pp. 377–384 and V. Perrone Compagni, ‘Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). 18 C. Zika, Agrippa of Nettesheim and his Appeal to the Cologne Council in 1533: The Politics of Knowledge in Early Sixteenth-Century Germany, in Id., Exorcising our Demons: Magic, Witchcraft and Visual Culture in Early Modern Europe. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 99 ss.

Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557)

37

in order to receive tuition.19 In 1532, he left for Bonn, with Wier following him.20 The travels of his master, fleeing from the stupidity of his persecutors and searching for places and individuals who would welcome his thought, left indelible traces on the pupil and led Wier to develop an ideal of the humanist scholar who refused to succumb to any form of unjust regulation or persecution. Together with the “empirical” side of his knowledge, Wier followed Agrippa’s approach to learning and development, which envisaged a wide breadth of knowledge, as Agrippa opposed specialisms, maintaining that they were the enemy of pure knowledge.21 The aspiration of knowing, intellectual curiosity, and continuous research were to become constant elements in Wier’s life; he did not back down when confronted with objections moved by his antagonists, and he kept taking on the challenges of new cultural and scientific tendencies.22 After four years studying with his master, the moment came for Wier to choose his own path, and, in 1534, Wier went to Paris to concentrate on the study of medicine. At the same time, Agrippa was forced to flee to France following the imperial death sentence placed upon him for heresy. Although they were far apart, the close relationship did not dissolve and Wier remains the only reliable source for the final years of Agrippa’s life, before the latter’s death in 1535.23 Wier’s devotion to his master pervades the De praestigiis: although explicit citations are scarce within the text, the reflection of the teaching he received permeates the entire work, from its structure to its sources, but it is in the humanist spirit of the work that the influence of Agrippa can be most clearly perceived. Wier defined Agrippa as ‘my erstwhile host and revered teacher’. The greatest declarations of his cultural debt to his teacher and the deep respect he held towards him are found in Chapter 5 of the second book, in which Wier is compelled to refute some of the negative legends that had built up around Agrippa. First and foremost, he refutes Agrippa’s authorship of the work De ceremoniis, which was often published as the fourth part of the De occulta philosophia:24 Wier inserted this section 19 Dooren, Doctor Johannes Wier, p. 30. 20 Binz, Doctor Johann Weyer, p. 18 21 M. Van Der Poel, Cornelius Agrippa, the Humanist Theologian and his Declamations, (Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 28–30. 22 H. C. Agrippa von Nettesheim, Opera. In duos tomos concinne digesta, & nunc denuo, sublatis omnibus mendis … accuratissime recusa, (Lugduni: per Beringos fratres, 1553), pp. 937–939. 23 Van Der Poel, Cornelius Agrippa, p. 49. 24 Wier, Witches, p.111.

38 

Johann Wier

into the 1577 edition following his dispute with Gohory. The necessity of eschewing accusations and fleeing from doubts came from the image of Agrippa as an arch-wizard brought about by the De occulta philosophia.25 After refuting Agrippa’s authorship of the De ceremoniis, Wier moves on to Paolo Giovio’s accusation in his Elogia doctorum virorum (1546), and those of Andreas Hondorff in his Promptuarium exemplorum (1576): 26 these scholars maintained that Agrippa was a necromancer and, furthermore, that he was accompanied by the devil disguised as a black dog, accusations that condemned him to pass his final days alone and abandoned by everyone.27 Wier, who knew Agrippa well, unveiled the sources of this rumour. Agrippa was very attached to, and never wanted to be apart from, his dog, an attachment that gave rise to this rumour. Though critical of the attachment towards his dog, dismissing it as an infantile personality trait (‘Agrippa was too childishly fond of his dog’28), Wier thus explains the misunderstanding and demonstrates that this weakness can in no way be considered as a sign of a pact with the devil.29 Wier goes even further and tells of how his devotion to his dog Monsieur moved Agrippa to find a companion for him, whom he called Mademoiselle. Permeating the story is a thread of condescension and veiled reproach permeating the story towards his teacher’s naivety, a naivety that caused these rumours in the first place. On the basis of his direct experience, Wier certifies the exclusively animal nature of the dog, Agrippa’s inseparable friend. Credence was given to these rumours, however, because they took up the thread of other tales of demons taking on animal forms, in the same way as is seen in the Faust legend.30 The suspicion that Agrippa was a magician was aroused by the fact that, once, despite having shut away in his study alone with his dog for a number of days, Agrippa was nevertheless aware of recent events when he came out. Giovio believed that the source of the news and information was the demon that had assumed canine form, but Wier debunked this hypothesis too, highlighting the vast network of friends and correspondents who kept 25 Nauert, Agrippa, p. XII; Van Der Poel, Cornelius Agrippa, p. 1 sgg. 26 See M. Isnardi Parente, Il cane di Cornelio Agrippa. Una disputa di dotti su un cane e il diavolo, in Lo specchio oscuro: gli animali nell’immaginario degli uomini, a cura di L. Battaglia, (Torino: Satyagrapha editrice, 1993), pp. 77–88 and W. de Blécourt, A Man and His Dog. 27 Van Der Poel, Cornelius Agrippa, pp. 1–14. 28 Wier, Witches, p. 113. 29 See Isnardi Parente, Le ‘vecchierelle pazze’, pp. 9–12. 30 On Faustus, see C. Presezzi, Metamorfosi moderne di Simon Mago. Fortuna di una maschera polemica del cristianesimo delle origini e genesi della Faustsage nella prima età moderna, Ph.D. thesis, Dipartimento di Filosofia, Sapienza Università di Roma, forthcoming as a book.

Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557)

39

Agrippa informed of current events. Wier used the occasion to express his bewilderment at those scholars who spoke and wrote ‘so foolishly on the basis of an idle rumour that had circulated’.31 Another shadow that fell over the memory of Agrippa concerned his ties to Johannes Trithemius, whose work Steganographia was considered a manual for the practices of witchcraft.32 As a pupil of Agrippa, Wier had read Trithemius’s main work, which, despite having remained in manuscript form for a long period, nevertheless attracted wide circulation. Once again, in the second book, in Chapter 6 of the De praestigiis, Wier, after having set out the criticisms of Charles Bovelles, refers at the same time to Trithemius’s self-defence in the preface to his Polygraphia.33 Wier maintains that he had read and also transcribed a part of the Steganographia, in Agrippa’s home and without his teacher’s knowledge.34 To this point, Wier writes in defence of his teacher; however, Agrippa served as Wier’s model of both theory and action. Despite recent discussion and notable re-evaluation of its influence, the episode of the witch of Metz remains decisive.35 In 1519, during his stay at Metz as orator and advocatus of the city, Agrippa defended a peasant woman from the village of Voippy who had been accused of witchcraft.36 Due to the complete lack of adherence to legal procedure, the woman endured vexations and injustices entirely unacceptable to legal practices of the time, even to the eyes of contemporary spectators; in the absence of a judge, the woman was subjected to torture by the inquisitor and then left alone in the hands of her accusers, some of whom were notorious for their wickedness. In addition to her treatment, Agrippa also saw the accusation as unacceptable because of a lack of concrete evidence. The woman had been accused as the daughter of a witch and it was believed that witches consecrated their offspring to the devil. According to the inquisitor Nicholas Savin, such a “inherited” link to Satan was sufficient 31 Wier, Witches, p. 113. 32 N. L. Brann, Trithemius and Magical Theology, (Albany State: University of New York Press, 1999). 33 On Bovelles, see Joseph M. Victor, Charles de Bovelles 1479–1553: an Intellectual Biography, (Genève: Droz 1978) and Zambelli, White Magic, Black Magic in the European Renaissance, passim. 34 ‘Bovelles is accused of falsehood and impiety by Trithemius in the preface of his Polygraphia, addressed to Emperor Maximilianus. I myself once read that portion of the Books of Steganography which contained the figures and the names of the spirits, at the home of Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa (of happy memory), and I copied the material without his knowing it’, Wier, Witches, p. 116. 35 V. Hoorens and H. Renders, ‘Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa and Witchcraft: A Reappraisal’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, 43 (2012), pp. 3–18. 36 Nauert, Agrippa, pp. 58 e sgg.; Van Der Poel, Cornelius Agrippa, pp. 32–36.

40 

Johann Wier

to prosecute a woman, as it had always been proven in the past. Dismayed at the frivolous and superficial accusations, empty of theological or legal premises, Agrippa denounced the barbarous elements of the case. The dispute between Agrippa and Savin went beyond the usual debate between prosecution and defence, and became a clash of different and opposing worlds; on one side, the innovating spirit of Renaissance humanism, and, on the other, the defence of tradition and of orthodoxy. In his summation, Agrippa underlined the value of the sacrament of baptism and its positive effect of freeing those baptized from sin—and also from any decisions made by the defendant’s mother, that were, furthermore, difficult to prove. In other words, Agrippa’s view was that the accusations made by the inquisitor were to be dismissed because prosecuting a woman who had been freed of the sins of her mother through the sacrament of baptism was akin to calling into question the validity of the sacrament itself.37 By intelligently reversing the situation and inverting the roles, Agrippa concluded his defence by condemning the inquisitor himself as a heretic for renouncing the value of baptism, and, furthermore, contravening his duty of defending the faith. Despite threats from Savin, Agrippa did not allow himself to be intimidated, and managed to secure the woman’s return to Metz. The trial was suspended at that point due to the death of the judge, who, however, prior to his death, had proclaimed the innocence of the presumed witch.38 Beyond the immediate impact of this specific case, Agrippa’s defence put in doubt, for the first time, the legal premise of witch-hunts by discussing the accusation of witchcraft from a theological perspective, defeating, on evidence from Holy Scripture, the practice of persecuting witches or heretics that had been held as sacrosanct. Scriptural exegesis therefore became an important instrument in the legal debate and, following his teacher, Wier also had recourse to conduct an exegesis in order to demonstrate his own thesis.39 Furthermore, Agrippa developed another important reflection − on the condemnation of the arbitrary powers of the inquisitors, a direction embarked upon from the defence of Reuchlin. The echo of all these debates can be heard in De vanitate’s chapter ‘De arte inquisitorum’, in which Agrippa defines the 37 Agrippa, Opera, p. 754. Cfr. P. Zambelli, ‘Cornelio Agrippa, Sisto da Siena e gli Inquisitori’, Memorie Domenicane, III (1972), pp. 146–164; Ead., Scholastic and Humanistic Views of Hermeticism and Witchcraft, in Hermeticism and the Renaissance, ed. by I. Merkel- A. G. Debus, (Washington: Associated University Press, 1988), pp. 125–153. 38 See Agrippa, De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarium atque artium, in Id., Opera, II, pp. 218–220. 39 Withington, Dr. John Weyer.

Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557)

41

inquisitors as insatiable vultures avid for blood, (‘sanguisitibundi vultures’), accusing them of an abuse of their power. Research to date indicates that this polemical chapter of the De vanitate represents the final destination of a journey of many stages, in which Agrippa denounced the abuses of the inquisition and the obscurantism of the Church. Sisto of Siena and, subsequently, Wier, also refer to another of Agrippa’s works, the lost Adversus lamiarum inquisitores, which, according to Paola Zambelli, may have been the first part of a larger work. Indeed, Agrippa himself, in his Epistola clarissimis Coloniae senatoribus et consulibus, written on January 11, 1533, announced his decision to take on Fratrum Predicatorum sceleribus et haeresibus, taking up the defence of Neoplatonic and cabalistic tradition already undertaken by Ficino, Francesco Giorgio, and Reuchlin. Agrippa thus intended to warn about the risks of a closed political culture that had already been pursued, because this culture had led to the decadence of the university.40 The second important testimony of Agrippa’s work against the inquisitors can be found in one of the fundamental texts of the Counter Reformation, the Bibliotheca Sancta of Sisto of Siena, in which, after the initial definition of Agrippa as Lutheran, follows a brief analysis of his works. 41 According to Sisto, in order to demonstrate the illusory nature of witchcraft, Agrippa took up from the twenty-second Homily on Genesis of John Chrysostom. Against this interpretation, Sisto replied carefully, examining this point, and counterpoising other authorities including the Summis desiderantes of Innocent VIII. 42 Sisto’s second reference to Agrippa’s Adversus lamiarum inquisitores is also intended to demolish its content. 43 It is surprising that Sisto, siding in favour of the persecution of witches, refers to a work that was almost impossible to find, overlooking entirely the De praestigiis, which was published in the same years. It is possible that Sisto may have found the work in manuscript form or that transcribed sections had been sent to him—a common practice at that time. The third source for reconstructing the contents of Agrippa’s lost work is Wier himself, in Chapter 21 of the third book of the De praestigiis. 44 Once 40 In a letter from Bonn, 11 November 1533, Agrippa warned about the sophista’s aim to destroy bonas literas, in Agrippa, Opera, II, p. 1034. 41 Sisto da Siena, Bibliotheca Sancta, Lugduni, Sumptibus Philippi Tinghi Florentini, MDLXXV, p. 25. See F. Parente, Sisto da Siena, in Dizionario Storico dell’Inquisizione, a cura di A. Prosperi, (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2010), III, pp. 1440–1441 and Zambelli, White Magic, Black Magic in the European Renaissance, p. 70. 42 Zambelli, Cornelio Agrippa, Sisto da Siena e gli Inquisitori, p. 154. 43 Sisto da Siena, Bibliotheca Sancta, p. 163. 44 Wier, Witches, p. 239.

42 

Johann Wier

again, Wier shows himself to be a valid source for the reconstruction of the biography and bibliography of Agrippa, although the place to which he refers is the same as that cited by Sisto of Siena, a reason to suppose that Wier is, once again, defending his teacher. Nonetheless, the context in which the reference occurs and the tone in which it is written are not in the least argumentative; together with other authoritative opinions against the possibility of a union between demons and women, Wier recalls Agrippa’s word on an opinion already widely and authoritatively shared. What is surprising is that the reference is inserted only in the fifth edition of 1577, and is cited almost identically as by Sisto. Could Wier, therefore, have taken the text from Sisto? There is no doubt that Wier knew Sisto’s Bibliotheca Sancta because, in his Apologia adversus Scalichium, which we will analyse later, he refers to it explicitly, so it is possible that he may have wanted to “reply” to his adversary. Research to date, however, would suggest that it would be highly unlikely for Wier not to have known a work by his teacher that was known to Sisto. Recently, Hoorens and Renders have called into question both Agrippa’s critical position with regard to the witch-hunts, and the existence of the anti-inquisitorial pamphlet. 45 Currently, hypotheses concerning the existence of the pamphlet are based on conjecture, and, as such, any attempt to clarify the matter is more than welcome. It is surprising, however, that it is Sisto, a converted Jew, who takes up this case; are we to suppose that Sisto fashioned a reply to Agrippa without anyone informing him of these ideas? With reference to his overall position on the witch-hunts, Agrippa died before the phenomenon reached the dimensions that were to shock Wier into taking up his critical position he did. Erasmus, for example, a contemporary of Agrippa, only marginally entered into the discussion, with his characteristic detachment and irony, skimming the surface of the debate, as was his habit with arguments that did not completely inspire him or that held the scent of danger. 46 Defence of those accused of being witches, and an anti-inquisitorial stance, are therefore visible arguments in Agrippa’s thought that were taken on and further developed by Wier. There were, obviously, many other arguments; however, the focus here is on understanding how Wier developed the idea of religion as an imitation of superstition. In the third book of De occulta philosophia, Chapter 4, after reiterating that an individual cannot arrive 45 V. Hoorens and H. Renders, ‘Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa and Witchcraft’. 46 M. Valente, ‘Ludere stultitiam populi. Erasmo e le streghe’, Bruniana & Campanelliana, XIX (2013), pp. 397–408 and W. Frijhoff, ‘Erasmus’ Heritage. Priestly Doubts of the Magical Universe’, Erasmus Studies, 35 (2015), pp. 5–33.

Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557)

43

at vera religio (true religion) without divine intervention, Agrippa states that religion and superstition are similar and that superstition demands credulity, just as religion demands faith. 47 In the same way, Wier, in his fifth book, Chapter 17, reaffirms Agrippa’s statement: ‘Superstition requires gullibility, just as true religion requires faith […] the evidence shows (as Agrippa says) how superstition imitates religion’. 48 Wier’s analysis of and distinction between vera religio and superstitio depend on Agrippa, despite the passing of time between the articulation of the teacher and that of the pupil necessitating certain nuances. The distinction between religion and superstition had certainly been taken up and developed by Cicero in his De natura deorum (II.28.71–72), and the definition applied by Thomas Aquinas was also fundamentally important. With regard to magic, for which, despite his retraction in Chapter 48 of the De vanitate, ‘De praestigiis’, Agrippa continued to show interest, Wier held a critical position, considering it a form of corruption of the human spirit as, in order to access the secrets of nature, it was necessary to have recourse to the devil. 49 He draws no distinction between natural magic and demonic magic. Despite this difference, many elements of Agrippa’s thought influenced Wier, whose anti-Aristotelian and anti-Peripatetic arguments bear the hallmarks of his teacher’s influence, albeit tempered with an equally strong criticism of some aspects of Platonism, such as the power of magic words. Wier’s positioning distanced him from the De occulta philosophia towards a greater appreciation of the De vanitate scientiarum, imbued with irony and the heritage of Renaissance humanist theology. Throughout his life, Agrippa constantly expressed his ideal of tolerance, a tolerance that invited confrontation and the refusal of immovable dogma.50 For this reason, the defence of the woman in Metz takes on a role of primary importance in forming Wier’s thought.51 Wier’s tendency of blending religion, 47 Agrippa, De occulta philosophia, p. 411. 48 Wier, Witches, p. 415. 49 Agrippa, Opera II, p. 80. See Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, denuo recognitum et auctum per P. Stafford Allen et H. M. Allen, 12 vols., (Oxonii: In typographeo Clarendoniano, 1906–1958 (henceforth OE): IX, pp. 350–352 and Agrippa, Opera, pp. 993–994. See Zambelli, Cornelio Agrippa, Erasmo e la teologia umanistica, pp. 34–35. 50 H. C. E. Midelfort, A History of Madness in Sixteenth-Century Germany, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), p. 199. 51 According to Midelfort, ‘Probably more important to Weyer than any specific doctrines of Agrippa was his mentor’s example as a broadly learned, tolerant man with a distinct (perhaps even heretical) religious position of spiritualism’, Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Insanity Defense, p. 238.

44 

Johann Wier

medicine, and law certainly stems from Agrippa’s influence, and is defined by Midelfort as ‘unusual if not unorthodox’52. Following his early experience with Agrippa, Wier travelled to France for his medical studies, and there he found a stimulating environment for founding a rebirth of medical science and Galenism. Testimony to his experience in France can be found in the fifth chapter of the second book of the De praestigiis.53 Towards the end of 1534, for reasons that remain unclear, Wier left Paris and travelled to Orleans, where he remained for a short time and worked as tutor for the children of Francis I’s doctor, Noel Ramard. During his stay in France, a Catholic kingdom in which Lutheranism was spreading and where the seeds of early reform from within the Church were beginning to sprout, Wier witnessed events that led him to denounce ecclesiastical abuses and oppression. Through the work of the historian Johann Sleidanus, he came to know about the case of the wife of the mayor of Orleans, who, before dying, had asked to be buried ‘without commotion and ceremony’. Respecting his wife’s wishes, the mayor refused the custom of giving an offering to the Franciscans, who, in turn, reacted by insinuating that his wife’s soul would be subject to eternal damnation if the customary offering was not made. Wier saw this episode as highlighting the way in which the clergy betrayed the evangelical message: this anecdote, included in the De statu religionis by Sleidanus, was also taken up by Ludvig Lavater in his De spectris and by Reginald Scot, in his Discoverie of Witchcraft.54 These works demonstrate the common and widespread use of these anecdotes that were taken up as exempla. On his return to Paris in 1535, where he received the news of Agrippa’s death, Wier moved in social circles with individuals of undoubted prominence due to the great freedom enjoyed by French universities under the cultural politics launched by King Francis I.55 In this way, Wier knew the Spanish doctor Miguel Villanovano, better known as Miguel Servet, who was later a victim of Calvinist intransigence.56 Servet had also benefited from 52 Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Insanity Defense, p. 238. 53 Wier, Witches, p. 439. 54 R. Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by M. Summers, (New York: Dover, 1972), pp. 253–254. 55 Wier, Witches, p. 439. 56 R. H. Bainton, Hunted Heretics: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus, 1511–1553, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1953); C. Manzoni, Umanesimo ed eresia: M. Serveto, (Napoli: Guida 1974); Joseph Friedman, Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Total Heresy, (Genève: Droz, 1978); E. Feist Hirsch, ‘Michael Servetus and the Neoplatonic Tradition’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, XLII (1980), pp. 561–575 and M. Hillar, The Case of Michael Servetus (1511–1553): the Turning Point in the Struggle for Freedom of Conscience, (Lewiston: E. Mellen Press, 1997). See M. Servet, Obras

Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557)

45

the revival of medical science at the University of Paris; a pupil of Guinther d’Andernach, study companion of Andreas Vesalius, and an advocate of anatomic dissection, Servet, with his discovery of pulmonary circulation, represents one of the earliest cases in which theological speculation closely intertwined with scientific research.57 The figure of the medical doctor burst onto the European cultural landscape, having been previously confined within a professional role according to the rigid divisions of knowledge and for medicine’s subordinate role to theology. Alongside Servet and the French physician Jean Fernel, Wier was part of a group of scholars intending to contribute to the renewal of medical science in Paris.58 Wier’s participation in this group during his stay in Paris led to the hypothesis of presumed literary activity; however, this was nothing more than a misunderstanding, as Binz has clarified.59 Wier graduated in 1537 and obtained a license to practise medicine, after which he then returned to Grave, the city of his birth. For a long time it was believed that, after being awarded with his degree, Wier travelled in Africa and in Greece.60 Once more, Binz has been able to clarify the origin of this misunderstanding. The hypothesis of his travels, furthermore, contrasts with Wier’s own words in his Artzney Buch, in which Wier confirms that he practised the medical profession near Grave, after having graduated in France.

2. Working in Gelderland and Cleves Wier’s years of practical experience in the field are extremely important, as he was able to observe and experiment directly. After his experience in completas, por Á. Alcalá, (Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza, 2003–2007) and F. Van Stam, The Servetus Case: An Appeal for a New Assessment, (Genève: Droz, 2017). 57 A. G. Debus, Guintherius, Libavius and Sennert: the Chemical Compromise in Early Modern Medicine, in Science, Medicine and Society in the Renaissance. Essays to honor Walter Pagel, ed. by A. G. Debus, (London: Heinemann 1972), pp. 151–166; G. Schaff, Jean Gonthier d’Andernach (1497–1574) et la médecine de son temps, in Médecine et assistance en Alsace, XVIe –XXe siècle, sous la dir. de G. Livet, (Strasbourg: Istra, 1976), pp. 21–40; N. Siraisi, ‘Vesalius and the Reading of Galen’s Teleology’, Renaissance Quarterly, L (1997), pp. 1–37. See The Fabric of the Human Body: an Annotated Translation of the 1543 and 1555 Editions of ‘De humani corporis fabrica libri septem’, ed. by D. H. Garrison, M. H. Has, (Basel: Karger, 2014). 58 See Jean Fernel’s On the Hidden Causes of Things: Forms, Souls, and Occult Diseases in Renaissance Medicine, with an edition and translation of Fernel’s De abditis rerum causis by J. M. Forrester; introduction and annotations by J. Henry and J. M. Forrester, (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 59 Binz, Doctor Johann Weyer, p. 21. 60 See Foppens, Bibliotheca Belgica, p. 754 and Bibliotheca coloniensis, cura et studio Josephi Hartzeim, Coloniae Augustae Agrippinensium, MDCCXLVII, p. 208.

46 

Johann Wier

Grave, Wier was called to be a doctor to the city of Ravenstein in 1540; he then moved to the city of Arnhem in Gelderland in 1545, where he remained until 1550.61 In this second phase, having established good relations with the city’s government, as he himself recalls, in 1548 Wier contributed to the exile of a man, Jacobus Jodocus de Rosa, who maintained he commanded a demon.62 This episode appears to have been crucial to Wier, and again in 1548 he was faced with a case of mass diabolic possession, a circumstance which lead to him being considered a forerunner of the notion of collective psychopathology.63 In order to reveal the absurdity of the belief and the illusory nature of the deed, Wier wanted to test one of the most widespread convictions at the time: it was believed that those possessed by demons were able to hold sharp objects in their stomachs—objects that they would never have willingly swallowed -without causing serious injury. To demonstrate this belief to be false, Wier palpated and contorted the stomachs of many of the possessed in a variety of ways in order to cause the removal of these sharp objects; none of the patients felt any sharp pain, nor did they expel any objects. In this way, he demonstrated the belief to be suggestion and demolished, in front of people’s eyes, one of the elements used to prove the existence of demonic possession.64 In the same period, Wier came into contact with the curate of Groessen, Jacob Vallick, dismissed as a swindler who cheated the gullible with tricks derived from folk magic. Wier denounced him and uncovered his practices in the German translation of the De praestigiis in 1578; however, as Frijhoff has clarified, Wier misunderstood Vallick’s true intent, perhaps because he wanted to defend the prerogatives of high medicine that were threatened by the curate.65 In reality, Vallick, 61 Wier, Witches, p. 151. See Hoorens, Een ketterse arts voor de heksen, pp. 91–103. 62 Wier, Witches, p. 484. See Witchcraft in the Netherlands from the Fourteenth to the Twentieth Century, ad indicem; H. de Waardt, De praestigiis mythes en motivatie, in Cobben, Duivelse Bezetenheid, pp. 17–74: 35–36 and Id., Endor and Amsterdam: The Image of Witchcraft as a Weapon in the Political Arena, in Religion, the Supernatural and Visual Culture in Early Modern Europe. An Album Amicorum for Charles Zika, ed. by J Spinks and D Eichberger, (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 126–139: 135. 63 Mora, Introduction, p. LXIV. 64 Wier, Witches, p. 290. See R. S. Klinnert, Von Besessenen, Melancholikern und Betrügern: Johann Weyers. De Praestigiis Daemonum und die Unterscheidung der Geister, in Dämonische Besessenheit: Zur Interpretation eines kulturhistorischen Phänomens, hrsg. von H. de Waardt, J. M. Schmidt, H.C. E. Midelfort, S. Lorenz und D. Bauer, (Bielefeld: 2005), pp. 89–105. 65 W. Frijhoff, ‘Jakob Vallick und Johann Weyer: Kampfgenossen, Konkurrenten oder Gegner?’, in ‘Vom Unfug des Hexen-Processes’, pp. 65–88; Id., ‘Johan Wier en Jacob Vallick: medicus tegen pastoor?’ in Grenzen van genezing. Gezondheid, ziekte en genezen in Nederland, zestiende tot begin twintigste eeuw, ed. by W. de Blécourt, W. Frijhoff and M. Gijswijt-Hofstra, (Hilversum; Verloren, 1993), pp. 17–45.

Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557)

47

the author of a work in which he explains witchcraft and the maleficium by natural causes and wherein he proposes to “cure” witches with the word of God, was, in many respects, very close to Wier’s position. Over the course of his work, Wier, drawing on his previous experiences, denounced superstition and ineffective exorcist practices many times, and provided many anecdotes on these denunciations, including the story of an exorcist, the author of a work in which he sings his own praises, and who visited a monastery in Gelderland where he persuaded a nun that her health problems were due to a curse. Wier believed the exorcist’s only interest was extorting money, using credulity as a means.66 He strengthened the idea that many people turned to supernatural explanations in order to hide their inability to intervene or to mask their greed or other interests by making use of these widespread superstitions. Wier’s disdain for exorcisms grew even more during his stay in Gelderland because of a different case, one in which he was a powerless witness: one of his patients had been tricked by a man of the Church who had convinced her that she needed an exorcism, for which she had to pay, whilst Wier himself could have cured her.67 These episodes spurred Wier on to call for reform, denouncing all fraudulent practices that profited from ignorance and public fear, while also being removed from religious practices. Some biographers maintain that Wier held the role of medical professional to the imperial court during this time; however, as Nahl has shown, this was a misunderstanding.68 During this period, Wier married Judith Wintgens, the ‘conjunx mea’ he refers to in the De praestigiis, in the fifth book, Chapter 18, where he states that he had been able to successfully resolve a case of witchcraft thanks to the collaboration of his wife and his daughter, Sophia.69 Wier’s time in Gelderland equipped him with signif icant practical experience and allowed him to consolidate his theoretical knowledge. These were sufficient for him to be called to work in the court of the Duchy of Jülich and Cleves, which, under Duke William, had reached its greatest territorial expansion, including, for a very short time, Gelderland. At the 66 Wier, Witches, p. 150. 67 Ibid., p. 421. Levack underlines Wier’s experience, The Devil Within: Possession and Exorcism in the Christian West, (Yale: Yale University Press, 2013), pp. 75-77. 68 De praestigiis daemonum. Von Zauberey, woher sie iren ursprung hab, wie manigfeltig dieselbig sey, wie sie geschehe, welche damit verhafft seindt: und welcher massen den jenigen so damit befleckt, zuhelffen: auch von ordentucher straff derselben, sechs Bücher, von den Hochgelerten Herrn Johann Weyer [n.p.] Anno 1567, f. 32 r. 69 Wier, Witches, p. 416–17. See Hoorens, Een ketterse arts voor de heksen, p. 92.

48 

Johann Wier

death of William V in 1592, the Duchy fell to John William, whose death in 1609 marked the exhaustion and partition of the Duchy. In the first half of the sixteenth century, the Duchy of Cleves was at the centre of the interests of Charles V, Francis I, and the Schmalkaldic League.70 While everyone around him prepared for scenarios of war, Duke William entertained conciliatory projects, under the influence of Erasmus. Cleves had excellent and concrete possibilities of becoming the kingdom of Utopia. Erasmus’s hopes of seeing his political vision realized pushed him to suggest to Duke John III (1521–1539) that the young William be educated by Conrad von Heresbach.71 Erasmus set forth his greatest expectations in the education of the prince, and, in 1529, he dedicated his De pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis to the young William, a work that marks Erasmus’s second reflection on the importance of educating a prince, a subject that he had previously written on in his Institutio principis christiani.72 Erasmus did not simply sow the seeds of Renaissance humanism and wait for them to flower, he was engaged in an intense epistolary exchange with Heresbach, in which Melanchthon was also involved. This endeavour was also to be an illusion destined to shatter, just as the talks promoted by the emperor had failed. The Duke began reform to oppose the immorality and lack of preparation of the clergy, and to create the right conditions for a return ad fontes, while guaranteeing the renascentia literarum, the renascentia evangelii and, at the same time, preserving and recovering Christian unity.73 While the bloodshed of religious conf licts stained much of Europe, the Duchy of Cleves cultivated a spirit of tolerance and became a laboratory for interfaith cohabitation. These pacif ic projects clashed with the desire of Charles V to see the Low Countries united under his crown, and the duchy was thus crushed by the battle plans of the Valois and the Habsburgs. In 1543, Charles V defeated the Duke, and, inexorably, the Low Countries inexorably entered within the dominion of 70 J. Israel, The Dutch Republic. Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477–1806, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), p. 64. 71 Cfr. Der Niederrhein im Zeitalter des Humanismus. Konrad Heresbach und sein Kreis, hrsg. von M. Pohl, (Düsseldorf: Kalkar, 1997). 72 Erasmus, Declamatio de pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis, étude critique, traduction et commentaire par J.-C. Margolin, (Genève: Droz, 1966). 73 J. P. Dolan, The Influence of Erasmus, Witzel and Cassander in the Church Ordinances and Reform Proposals of the United Duchees of Cleve during the middle Decades of the 16th Century, (Münster: Aschendorff, 1957), p. 25 and H. L. Cox, ‘Prozessionbrauchtum des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit im Spiegel obrigkeitlicher Verordnung in Kurköln und den Vereingten Herzogtümern’, Rheinisch-westfälische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, XXII (1976), pp. 51–85.

Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557)

49

the Habsburgs, a process that culminated with the Pragmatic Sanction of 1548.74 Despite the resounding defeat and the re-establishment of Catholicism, some seeds of Erasmus’s politics remained and were taken forward by Duke William in a series of measures designed to moralize religion. The presence and activity of pacifist thinkers in the court of William led to a precise political orientation, at least concerning theory, and the expression of ideas; however, as always, theory has to collide with practice.75 Shortly after the defeat, in 1550, William V, on the advice of his chancellor Heresbach, Erasmus’s follower, called Wier to his court, where he was to remain for almost 30 years (1550–1578). Wier’s arrival fitted into the wider programme of adding prestige to the court, which culminated in 1562 with the establishment of the University of Duisberg. William, like many other sovereigns, loved to surround himself with the greatest minds of the age; in addition to Georgius Witzel and Georgius Cassander, the jurist Andreas Masius and Gerhard Mercator also frequented the court. Wier worked alongside other medical doctors, such as Reiner Solenander and Johann Echt, during his stay in Cleves, and he also had the opportunity to reacquaint himself with Johannes Sleidanus, one of the most incisive observers of European politics, with whom Wier was in contact when in France. The Duchy of Cleves, characterized by an environment rich in cultural and political stimuli, was celebrated by the Benedictine Antonius Hovaeus in a letter dated July 1563, in which he enthusiastically describes the ducal court as an expression of a common sense of belonging to an already declining cultural and political milieu.76 During his time in the ducal court, Wier continued medical practice and scientific research. In his Observationes medicae, Wier writes about the autopsy he conducted in 1557 on the Bishop of Cologne, who died of a malarial fever, and about the opportunity, this gave him to gain a greater understanding of a little-known disease.77 74 Israel, The Dutch Republic, pp. 64–69. 75 C. Schulte, Versuchte Konfessionelle Neutralität im Reformationszeitalter. Die Herzogtümer Jülich- Kleve- Berg unter Johann III und Wilhelm V. und das Fürstbistum Münster unter Wilhelm von Ketteler, (Münster: Lit, 1995) and now see E. Münster-Schröer, Hexenverfolgung und Kriminalität: Jülich-Kleve-Berg in der Frühen Neuzeit, (Essen: Klartext-Verlags GmbH 2017) and R. Voltmer, Im Namen der Dynastie. Medizin, Astrologie und Magie, Dämonomaie und Exorzismus am jülichklevischen Hof (1585–1609), in Herrschaft, Hof und Humanismus. Wilhelm V. von Jülich-Kleve-Berg und seine Zeit, hrsg. v. G. von Büren (Bielefeld: 2018), pp. 403–438. I thank Erik Midelfort for suggesting this book. 76 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 638. Eschbach, Dr. Med. Johannes Wier, pp. 57–174: 90. 77 Wier, Observationum medicarum liber, in Wier, Opera omnia, p. 908.

50 

Johann Wier

3. Wier’s faith The influence of Erasmus over the Duchy’s politics leads us to a question that is often discussed yet never concretely resolved: Wier’s religious faith. The Duchy was a political and cultural experiment within Europe, in which peaceful coexistence between Lutherans, Catholics, and Anabaptists (Münster was nearby) was both allowed and encouraged, and where differences of faith were softened in order to avoid conflict. These ambiguities within the sphere of religion were simply the outcome of efforts aimed at healing the divide between Protestants and Catholics from an Erasmian perspective. Wier’s practical experience in the Duchy, combined with the perspective he gained studying with Agrippa, favoured an outlook of compromise. This desire to overcome conflict and find agreement were characteristics that gave weight to the hypothesis that Wier held an Erasmian position; however, it is important to remember that these were core values of the environment in which Wier lived for several decades. The influence of his extended stay in Cleves is crucial to an understanding of Wier’s position; nonetheless, his period of study under Agrippa is of no lesser importance, and so we must return to Agrippa. Questions remain over the religious beliefs of both individuals. Despite having many Protestant friends, who pushed him to choose a side, Agrippa consistently refused to bow to the pressure and side with one or the other, preferring to adopt a Nicodemite position.78 Zambelli has demonstrated his closeness to the circle of Strasbourg, where the earliest theorizations of Nicodemism originated.79 What is certain is that simulation, esoterism, and research into adiaphora are so intertwined in the thought of Agrippa that it is difficult to separate them. Whereas Agrippa’s position remains clouded in the ambiguity of his time, this is not the case for Wier, who lived in a period of confessionalization, which creates further difficulties in understanding theoretical nuances and the divisions between scholars. Wier is Lutheran, Binz concludes. He based on the German translations of Wier’s work, particularly those sections that are markedly different from their corresponding Latin editions, notably the epilogue of the De praestigiis, which differs in tone or emphasis.80 In the German translation, Wier submits to the judgement of Christian churches (without further clarification): 78 OE, IX, p. 409 and Agrippa, Opera, pp. 999–1000. See P. Zambelli, Agrippa, Erasmo, p. 87. 79 P. Zambelli, ‘Magic and Radical Reformation in Agrippa of Nettesheim’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 39 (1976) pp. 69–103: 87 and Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Insanity Defense, p. 238. 80 Binz, Doctor Johann Weyer, p. 163.

Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557)

51

Damit ichs aber beschliesse, will ich alles, was ich geschrieben habe, dem Urteil der allgemeinen christlichen Kirchen unterworfen haben, und gerne widerrufen, so ich einiges Irrtums überzeugt werde.81

In the Latin editions, however, he appeals to the judgement of the Church at Rome (the translator into French also chooses, ‘Eglise catholique de Iesus Christ’): Nihil autem hic ita assertum volo, quod aequiori pro iudicio catholicae Christi ecclesiae non omnino submittam: palinodia mox spontanea emendaturus, si erroris alicubi convincar.82

It seems to me that this divergence may have a very simple explanation (one that borders on the obvious), as it is clear that the German translation would have predominantly circulated in areas in which Lutheranism triumphed, and so appeal to national churches would have been better received, whereas, in the Latin edition, which could expect wider distribution, Wier remained faithful to the Catholic Church in Rome. This hypothesis is supported by Gary Waite, who, like David Joris, demonstrated that Wier, when addressing a wider public, ‘wrote as if his theology was orthodox’.83 In the same way, Wier may have wished to promote the image of himself as Catholic. Despite having discussed Wier’s religious faith in the 1950s, an essay by the Jesuit Zwetsloot has been almost entirely overlooked by scholars. Behind the debate over religious faith, much broader questions arise. For example, Wier was considered as the ante litteram defender of witches, both Catholics and Protestants seek to lay claim to his religious faith.84 Zwetsloot 81 Von Teuffelsgespenst, Zauberern und Gifftbereytern, Schwartzkünstlern, Hexen und Unholden […]. Erstlich durch Johannem Weier in Latein beschrieben, nachmals von Johanne Fuglino verteutscht, (Frankfurt: Basse, 1586), p. 484. 82 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 572. Moreover, he argues: ‘I wish to assert noting in this book which I would not submit, without reservation, to the equitable judgement of the universal Church of Christ, being ready to make amends at once with a willing retraction in any point I am convicted of error’, Wier, Witches, p. 584. 83 G. Waite, Knowing the Spirit(s) in the Dutch Radical Reformation: From Physical Perception to Rational Doubt, 1536–1690, in Knowing Demons, Knowing Spirits in the Early Modern Period, ed. by M. D. Brock, R. Raiswell, D. R. Winter, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2018), pp. 23–54: 31. Waite suggested that Wier’s ‘religious notions fell much more into the spiritualistic camp’, Id., Eradicating the Devil’s Minions. Anabaptists and Witches in Reformation Europe, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), p. 26. 84 H. Zwetsloot S.J., ‘Johan Wier, zijn geschrift tegen de heksenwaan en zijn religieuze over­ tuiging’, Annalen van Het Thijmgenootschap, XLII(1954), pp. 1–23.

52 

Johann Wier

sought to examine the religious elements of the De praestigiis in order to compare them to Reformation doctrine. His analysis shows that Wier had nothing in common with Calvin and Luther: his argument against priests, his rather heterodox ideas concerning the sacraments, his notion of faith as the primary internal source of good works, thus excluding the possibility of Wier being Protestant. Other elements, such as his respect for good priests, his reverence for the Virgin Mary, and his acceptance of the value of good works and fasting, his positive concept of justification by faith, must lead to the conclusion that Wier was, indeed, Catholic. Furthermore, in his conclusion, Zwetsloot compares Wier’s theory of witchcraft with those of Calvin and Luther, further strengthening his argument that it is impossible to define Wier as Protestant. In comparison to the two interpretations that have already been discussed, Cobben’s is more nuanced, strongly insisting on the influence of the Erasmian environment in the court of Cleves, where the impact of the devotio moderna is also acknowledged, as is shown in a letter in which Wier cites the Nachfolgung Christi, the Imitatio Christi of Thomas a Kempis.85 Cobben proposes the idea of Wier as a convert to Lutheranism, though couches his words cautiously: ‘It is very likely that Wier eventually converted to Lutheranism’.86 To support these notions, Wier’s preferred sources, Augustine and the patristic authors, are cited. However, this idea is corroborated in the German translation of the De praestigiis, dedicated to the city of Bremen, and in the German translations of his medical works, in which his inclination towards Lutheranism is evident, though, from an examination of ‘De praestigiis daemonum, one may call Wier neither Roman Catholic nor Lutheran. One might best see Wier as a follower of Erasmian-Christian humanism’.87 Cobben’s conclusion is shared in the pioneering study by Trevor-Roper, for whom Wier’s Protestantism needs to be deduced, as it is never explicitly articulated, neither by Wier himself nor by his enemies; this is further proof of his Erasmian moderation.88 For Baxter, who sees the De praestigiis as ‘an ideological attack on Catholic idolatry’, there is no doubt that Wier was Lutheran and that Wier ‘exacerbated, far more than he relieved, the tensions which contributed to the European witch craze’.89 Midelfort, on more solid grounds, also maintains 85 Cobben, Jan Wier, p. 15; Dooren, Doctor Johannes Wier, p. 143 and de Waardt, Johan Wiers De Praestigiis mythes en motivatie, pp. 17–74. 86 Cobben, Jan Wier, p. 17. 87 Ibid., p. 18. 88 Trevor-Roper, The European Witch Craze. 89 Baxter, Unsystematic Psychopathology, p. 53 and 71.

Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557)

53

that Wier was Lutheran and that his ideological interpretation can be linked to Brenz, as we shall later see. Midelfort, however, does point out that the question of religious orthodoxy and the influence of the Reformation on the witch-hunts remains confused and driven by notable bias.90 For Midelfort, Wier’s constant attacks on fraudulent priests, false miracles, possessed cloisters, superstitious peasants, and exorcisms complicate any definition of Wier as a Catholic, but also as an Erasmian. The very conception of demonology shows Wier’s Protestantism; according to Midelfort, the devil is powerful and can interfere with everything, even peoples’ consciences, whereas Catholics placed a certain amount of faith in the virtue of ecclesiastical rituals.91 Wier’s eschatology and his concept of history (Geschichtsauffassung) are, in Midelfort’s view, clear and unequivocal signs of his Lutheran faith, and his derision of the Pope and criticism of the Mass must be understood from the same perspective.92 In the preamble to the Artzney Buch and in the German translation of the De praestigiis, there are further elements that Midelfort believes contribute to an unequivocal definition of Wier’s Lutheran faith.93 Nahl, on the other hand, moves aside the idea of the Erasmian position, taking up Cox’s hypothesis concerning ‘eine Forderung des erasmischen Reformkatholizismus’.94 Even when considering the German translation and his positioning against a number of practices, it must not be forgotten that Wier, even in the last edition that he himself edited in 1583, remained faithful to the teachings of the Church at Rome.95 Saatkamp, in favour of the hypothesis of Wier as a Protestant, analyses the relationship linking Wier to the Countess of Tecklenburg, maintaining that Wier may have participated in the Church in that State.96 Along similar lines, Elisa Slattery believes that Wier’s adhesion to—or at least inclination towards—Lutheranism can be seen not so much in his criticism of free will but in his idea of individuals as sinners.97 The nexus between Lutheranism and an apocalyptic, eschatological 90 H. C. E. Midelfort, ‘Witchcraft and Religion in Sixteenth-Century Germany: The Formation and Consequences of an Orthodoxy’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 62 (1971), pp. 266–278: 276. 91 Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Transformation, p. 239. 92 Id., Johann Weyer in medizinischer, theologischer und rechtsgeschichtlicher Hinsicht, in Vom Unfug des Hexen-Processes, pp. 53–64. 93 Id., A History of Madness, pp. 199–200. 94 Cox, Prozessionbrauchtum des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit. 95 Nahl, Zauberglaube und Hexenwahn, pp. 49–50. 96 Saatkamp, Die Hexenwahn und seine Gegner, p. 41. 97 ‘This is not to say, however, that Weyer destroyed notions of free will. But Weyer’s Lutheran bent made it clear that humans were inherently sinful creatures inhabiting imperfect bodies doing battle with an incredibly powerful devil. To persecute them for what they could not help,

54 

Johann Wier

vision such as Wier’s, however, does not seem so clear and incontrovertible, as most treatises on demonology are inspired by analogous sources. Again, Wier leaves his clear message in his works. In his German translation, in the Preface, Gary Waite finds some revelatory keys. Wier wrote: So it is that the matter has developed among us to the point that each one in his received religion cannot tolerate the meaning of the other (even though he is normally quiet, charming and gracious towards everyone, not rebellious, but Godfearing) and even though here is no divisiveness in the chief articles of our Christian faith but only in the form or time or some changes of the ceremonies or religion or words or matters that do not touch the saving Articles of the true, established Faith.98

Resolutely inclined towards the hypothesis of Wier as a Calvinist, Hoorens, taking up a comment by Baxter, maintains that Wier’s true purpose was to attack the Catholic Church, and finds a number of perspectives in Wier’s work that could be interpreted in this way, attempting, at the same time, to demonstrate the inconsistencies of alternative hypotheses.99 While I disagree with the conclusions Hoorens draws, her research successfully identifies a significant question: why did Wier write his work, and to what purpose? Wier, like many other sixteenth-century scholars, cannot be placed within the narrow confines of one form of orthodoxy or other; he was probably inclined towards the Reformation, as he appreciated the condemnation of the Church’s abuses of power. There are further aspects to consider, in addition to those already mentioned. Primarily, the striking absence of references to theological works by the Protestant Reformers, aside from Brenz, with whom Wier had an epistolary exchange, as we shall see.100 There are no references to the works of Calvin, and references to Luther relate to the historical instead of offering the possibility of repentance, was bound to create more misery and sorrow’, Elisa Slattery, ‘To Prevent a ‘Shipwreck of Souls’: Johann Weyer and De Praestigiis Daemonum’, Essays in History, 36 (1994), pp. 73–88: 88. 98 Waite, Eradicating the Devil’s Minions, p. 65. See Wier, Von Zauberey. Vorred, fol Avv-bir. 99 Hoorens, Why did Johann Weyer Write De praestigiis daemonum?, p. 12. 100 According to Karin Brinkmann Brown, ‘Weyer’s confessional allegiance has been disputed by historians because, although he gave no credence to Catholic rites and charm to counteract the power of the devil, his writings do not give a clear evidence of Protestant conversion. He appears to have been less concerned with doctrinal differences than with fostering a more human approach to the problem of witchcraft on both sides of the religious divide’, K. Brinkmann Brown, Weyer Johann, in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, (New York–Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 268.

Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557)

55

figure, not to his doctrine. There can be no motivation for these omissions, except for the desire to avoid openly siding with one approach or the other. Confirmation for the hypothesis of Wier as an Erasmian spiritualist can be found in his condemnation of and indignation towards exorcists, and of those who ‘dare to use this technique, and even to violate the example of the purer and newly emergent Church’.101 In his translation into English, Mora adds the word ‘Protestant’, but the original text is deliberately vague: praeter subnascentis Ecclesiae sincerioris exemplum.102 Whether this refers to the new church (and, if so, to which one?) or to a renewed church is unclear. This ambiguity remains in other sections of the De praestigiis: in Chapter 16 of Book 3, for example, there is veiled criticism of the Reformation in which the voice of the Gospel (ubi clarius sonare Evangelii vox creditur103) did not help magistrates to understand that it is not witches who ought to be persecuted: I am understandably compelled to wonder greatly, and regret deeply, that in years past, in those parts of the Empire and neighbouring regions where the voice of the Gospel is believed to ring out more clearly, when a vineyard has been ruined by storm or a harvest already in blade has been scattered, the magistrates have not turned their minds’ eyes to the hand of a testing or punishing God, rather have they neglected the hand of God and looked to the large number of poor, raving, mentally unstable women.104

‘Where the voice of the Gospel is believed to ring out more clearly’ is a critical assertion aimed at those who had protested against the Catholic Church, but who had then de facto adopted the very same measures—a veiled criticism in which Wier does not strike his adversary full centre, as this is not his aim. Demystifying demonic spells serves the purpose of enabling truth to prevail, and as a result ‘unity among Christian people will be more quickly reborn and more inviolably preserved’.105 The desire to recreate Christian unity in the second half of the sixteenth century, during which wars of religion raged, was widely shared, and many risked their lives for the illusion that the project could succeed, one example being Francesco Pucci. 101 Wier, Witches, p. 471. 102 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 455. 103 Ibid., p. 213. 104 Wier, Witches, pp. 216–217. 105 Ibid., p. 260.

56 

Johann Wier

It is not sufficient to refer to Wier’s ferocious criticism of priests who took advantage of ignorance and folklore, as this was not a matter exclusive to the Protestant Reformers; indeed, this critical view is also shared by many Catholic authors. It is furthermore important to draw attention to the absence of polemic against the Papacy as an institution, and the popes as historical figures, particularly contemporary pontiffs such as Leo X and Paul III, and there is no reference at all to the Council of Trent. Wier limits himself to taking up historical sources to underline a few episodes, such as the case of Sylvester II. What reasons could Wier have had for not using such a potent and far-reaching weapon of propaganda? Furthermore, Wier’s choice to omit concrete doctrinal sources seems motivated by the desire to leave a margin of freedom, not to narrow the field. Wier’s aim was to bring about a new morality through reform, which he thought was essential for denouncing evil, while leaving space for reconciliation. In the first chapter of the fifth book of the De praestigiis, Wier sets out his idea of faith: a faith that one should embrace, a faith upon which he should firmly take a stand. I do not propose a mere recitation of a prescribed formula of faith (which the Devil too might readily utter), nor again the faith loudly vaunted by those whose hearts are far from Christ—a hidden, sluggish, dead and barren faith. I urge the faith which renews the whole man, manifesting itself with lively virtue among the members of Christ—a fruitful faith which by God’s power brings safety to its possessor—the hallowed anchor, stem, and stern of our salvation—a rock set immovably against all Satan’s storm and onsets.106

A pure faith, then, that acts as a defence against the deceitful coils of Satan, a broad definition that excludes no denomination of Christianity, based as it is on fundamental principles, stripped of empty liturgy and formulae. Wier’s choice of Augustine as a source should not be interpreted from a reforming perspective; indeed, references to Augustine are ubiquitous in the works of Erasmus and many other Catholic thinkers. A relevant element can be gleaned from the way in which Wier considers witchcraft: Wier maintains that the witch ought to be re-educated, not killed. Admitting that even witches could be brought back within the fold of the Church of God, Wier goes as far as to construct a theory in which free will plays a decisive role and references to patristic writing contribute to the justification of these ideas. On a soteriological level, then, it appears 106 Ibid., p. 364.

Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557)

57

that Wier’s view was contiguous with Catholicism. Evidence to support this hypothesis can be seen in the value he places in the sacraments, and in baptism in particular—a value that exceeds the liturgical aspect, together with the possibility for all to repent and to convert. The scale of divine mercy and the resulting possibility of being re-admitted to the Church is another mark of Erasmus and the school of Basel (Curione). Wier uses the case of Peter to exemplify this point: the opportunity for conversion will be no more precluded for these persons than for others who sin grievously, and in fact far less so because they are deluded by a corrupt imagination. Indeed Peter, who but shortly before had been forewarned by Christ, denied Christ three times, against the fitness of his conscience, even taking an oath; and yet after acknowledging his error and weeping for what he had done, he was restored to grace.107

The arguments in favour of a Lutheran Wier heavily depend on the German translations of the De praestigiis and the Artzney Buch:108 with regard to the former, it is easy to understand the reasons for an appeal to national churches, whereas for the latter, the context is a commissioned work dedicated to the Countess of Tecklenburg, in which Wier, rightly following the customs of his time, praises some of her political and religious choices. It does not seem possible to marry this theory with a choice of Lutheranism, not least because it would be very difficult to explain Wier’s reasons for continuing to close the Latin editions of his work by declaring that he acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church. Another unsolvable difficulty remains: namely, that his brother, Matthias, as we have seen, participated in the Reformation, and was in contact with the main reformer theologians. Furthermore, as we shall later see, his son Dietrich would later take up service in the Calvinist court of Frederick III, Elector Palatine. Although it is true, as Midelfort maintains, that Luther defined himself as Catholic, it is also true that after the publication of the Antichrist in 1521 he rejected this term. Perhaps the argument could be made for Wier’s Nicodemism, but why then, once he was established in Tecklenburg, did he not openly declare his faith? This last question suggests the hypothesis that Wier was not motivated by clear-cut boundaries of faith. The longdesired project of reconciliation had by that time failed, but was still proudly defended; Wier seems to have been one of these defenders. Perhaps for Wier, 107 Wier, Witches, p. 175. 108 Midelfort-Kohl, Introduction, in Wier, On Witchcraft, pp. XXV–XXVII.

58 

Johann Wier

the dream of peace, the bonae litterae, and the battle against superstition were his true goals, with a declaration of orthodoxy taking a secondary role. Furthermore, as Kohl and Midelfort show: in the preface to his German translation of the De praestigiis he declared: ‘There is no division concerning the chief article of our Christian faith, but only in the form or time, or in some changes in ceremonies, or piety, or words’.109

In my opinion, therefore, Wier did not perceive theological interpretations as significant; these were not the subjects Wier chose to openly tackle. Intellectual proximity to the world of the Reformation is in some ways doubtless. Gary Waite, one of the greatest experts on David Joris, speculates that there was correspondence with Wier, identifying an influence in his reflection on the spiritualism of demonology, and therefore on the witch-hunts.110 There is a letter in Joris’s correspondence, dated 1555 and addressed to a Johan Chiyrur van Cleef, who may be identified as Wier.111 For different reasons and through different avenues of research, Hans de Waardt also arrives at the hypothesis of Wier as a spiritualist: close examination of his correspondence, the different editions of his De praestigiis, and his other publications reveal that he was not a follower of any of these creeds, but a spiritualist who rejected both the disruption of the Christian community by the Reformation and papal claims to worldwide authority.112

Wier could have been influenced by the movement of the Family of Love, as there is incontrovertible evidence that his brother Matthias was connected to them. In Letter XXI, addressed to Johann, Matthias articulates in great detail the subject matter of a pamphlet written by Dietrich Philips on the differences between regeneration and penitence, and on the permanence 109 Ibid., p. XXVII. Wier, Von Zauberey, Vorred, fol. a*4r. 110 G. K. Waite, Radical religion and the medical Profession: the Spiritualist David Joris and the Brothers Wier, in Radikalität und Dissent im 16. Jahrhundert, (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 2002), pp. 167–185. See Id., ‘Man is a Devil to Himself: David Joris and the Rise of a Sceptical Tradition towards the Devil in the Early Modern Netherlands (1540–1600)’, Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis, LXXV (1995), pp. 1–30: 9. 111 Waite, Radical religion, p. 172. See Clark, Thinking with Demons, p. 543-544. 112 H. de Waardt, ‘Witchcraft, Spiritualism, and Medicine: The Religious Convictions of Johan Wier’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, 42 (2011), pp. 369–391: 370.

Wier’s early years and apprenticeship (1515–1557)

59

of original sin; and, in his following letter, he discussed the familia caritatis and divine illumination based on a letter and a book that his brother had already sent to him. In a further letter, to his brother Arnold, Matthias wrote extensively on the opinions of H. N., behind which initials hid Hendrik Niclaes, the “father” of the Family of Love sect, and then he let his brother know that he had managed to dissuade Johann from joining.113 The suggestion of Wier drawing closer to the sect does not contrast in any way with the Nicodemite spiritualism that seems to have evolved from Agrippa, a spiritualism that must be understood as a more serious and profound understanding of the hermetic–Pythagorean silence.114 Both Waite and de Waardt highlight the importance and influence of the cultural environment of Basel, where debate on tolerance and its biblical foundations ignited through the study of philology. Recently, Frijhoff has effectively reconstructed the question of Erasmus’s influence on Wier and in the Duchy of Cleves. Considering a political framework that is often overlooked, Frijhoff points to the fact that the Duchy adhered to the Church at Rome, to the events that led to banning the Anabaptists, and also to the later judgement of the vicar apostolic in Holland, Filippo Rovenius.115 Considering the spiritualism gained from Agrippa, Wier’s intense relations and cultural exchanges with Basel, with exponents of Erasmus (Heresbach) and of Irenism (Cassander), but also his contact, albeit critical, with the Familists, permit the hypothesis—with due caution—that Wier ascribed to a form of doctrinal indifferentism that defies all definition. However, there is a further element that has been explored not yet: Wier’s religious ambiguity, his variability and adaptability of positions, and his unclear religious confession have greatly intrigued scholars, all of whom have given an important contribution to our understanding. But there may, however, be another, perhaps pragmatic, explanation in the Confessio augustana and its application. To live—and to practise the medical profession—in the Holy Roman Empire entails a peculiar condition, one that concerns crossing boundaries and finding a different faith, but whereby the enemy, Satan, remains the same. The decision not to openly align himself with a faith can be understood as a practical—as well as an ethical and theological—motivation. For Wier, the notion of choosing a form of Christianity could not, therefore, distract him from his goal: to 113 de Waardt, ‘Witchcraft, Spiritualism’, p. 378. 114 Zambelli, Scholastic and Humanist Views, p. 138. 115 Frijhoff, ‘Erasmus’ Heritage’, p. 24. See Waite, Eradicating the Devil’s Minions.

60 

Johann Wier

reveal demonic spells through which Satan could snatch the faithful. The Confessio legitimizes a de facto situation, the division between Lutherans and Catholics, while the Elector Palatine chose Calvinism, despite it not being officially recognized (although it was tolerated) at the time. Convinced of his cause of his cause to stop the needless spilling of the blood of witches, behind which he identified a problem of moral and political stagnation, Wier did not align himself with one Church or another, despite criticisms and calls for reform.

3.

Inside the labyrinth of spells The origin and development of the De Praestigiis Daemonum (1557–1568)

Abstract In 1563, Wier published his De praestigiis daemonum. The premises and evolution of this work is analysed in this chapter, from Wier’s choice to publish in Basel to the various editions that followed, which contained significant revisions. For the first time, providing explanations based on a variety of aspects, Wier defined actions that were considered to be witchcraft as demonic tricks, and not as reality. In this early phase, he debated on what punishment should be imposed on witches with the prominent theologian Johann Brenz. The French and German translations of his work attest to the positive reception Wier’s thought received. Key words: Devil, Basel, Illusions, Witches

1. The De praestigiis When faced with inexplicable events attributed to supernatural intervention, Wier, as a man of science and of culture, stressed the need to intervene. His desire was to contribute to the removal of the blanket of ignorance and to express a sense of human piety towards those who were unjustly considered witches.1 For many years, Wier had developed a sense of human compassion towards these women, whom he believed to be victims of demonic illusion, unjustly accused as responsible for events that they could not possibly have caused. Wier believed that in many cases it was the victim’s natural disposition towards melancholy that led them to confess, a confession almost always extorted by a judge. The experience of mass demonic possession in Arnhem had opened Wier’s eyes, leading him to reflect on the effects 1 Midelfort-Kohl, Introduction, in Wier, On Witchcraft, p. XXV.

Michaela Valente. Johann Wier. Debating the Devil and Witches in Early Modern Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789462988729_ch03

62 

Johann Wier

of prejudices, and from that moment on he began to collect material for inclusion in a work aimed at abolishing capital punishment for witchcraft. The example of Wier further confirms what historians have recently shed light on: the majority of authors of treatises on demonology across the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries either held ecclesiastical offices or were individuals who, in the course of everyday life, had an experience that brought them closer to supernatural events and related trials.2 Direct testimony and unmediated contact with a witch became the common thread amongst many of the authors on witch-hunts. In the same way as witnessing demonic episodes, the spectacle of demonic action, which also revealed the depths of human weakness, together with a widespread fear of the imminent end of the world, awoke in these men the necessity of taking a stand in relation to the witch-hunts. Together with God’s word, as revealed in Holy Scripture, medical science, politics, and law became important in order to understand the divine plan. Wier entered into this renewed tension motivated by an intense and laborious purpose: to indicate a way out from the incantamentorum labyrinthus, he presented himself as a new Theseus seeking liberation from the Minotaur/devil who made use of superstition and irrationality to influence and subjugate humanity. Wier meant to “save” the witches from their dreadful fate and liberate humanity from Satan’s clutches. In order to complete and then publish his work, given that life at court did not offer him the necessary freedom, Wier decided to retire to the castle of Hambach, where, in the winter of 1561–1562, he brought to fruition the project that he had, for a long time, wanted to finish.3 We know that the De praestigiis circulated in manuscript form from a letter written by one of its earliest readers, Wier’s friend Andreas Masius, a famous jurist and esteemed Hebrew scholar, who harshly judged its formal appearance as overly confused, but somewhat appreciated its content nevertheless. 4 Despite Masius’s criticisms, the friendship continued without any repercussions; Masius contributed to the circulation of the manuscript, presenting it to the chancellor of the Duke of Cleves, Heinrich Wezius, and to Johann Echt, another physician.5 Their opinions on the work are not known, but, 2 Clark, Thinking with demons, passim. 3 Wier, Opera omnia, *****4v. 4 Masius to Wier, March 15, 1562, in Briefe von Andreas Masius und Seinen Freunden 1538 bis 1573, hrsg. von M. Lossen, (Leipzig: Dürr, 1886), p. 341; Ibid. pp. 370–372. 5 Nahl, Zauberglaube und Hexenwahn, p. 68 sgg. See also Biesbrouck, Maurits et al., ‘Johann Bachoven von Echt (1515–1576) and his Work on Scurvy: An Omen of Vesalius’ Death?’, Acta medico-historica adriatica: AMHA, 16 (2018): pp. 203–238.

Inside the l abyrinth of spells

63

given that the Liber Apologeticus is dedicated to Wezius, they may well have been positive. The De praestigiis was granted an imperial privilege on November 4, 1562, which forbade any reproduction of the work without the author’s consent for the following 6 years (the extract is found only in the third edition of 1566), and was published in 1563 in octavos format in Basel, at the Officina Oporiniana. Wier’s decision to publish in Basel with Johannes Oporinus is significant. Oporinus was already renowned for his enterprising editorial adventures, from Guillaume Postel to Sebastian Castellio, which exposed him to various problems concerning the authorities.6 The city on the Rhine was the cradle of Erasmianism and many far-reaching scientific and cultural innovations. There, Wier found himself amongst like-minded individuals; his correspondence with Theodor Zwinger, Oporinus’s famous letter on Paracelsus, and Utenhove’s epigrams are evidence of these close relations. Zwinger was the central figure around whom the circle of Basel revolved. He had inherited the role of defender of appeals for freedom in Basel, which from the 1550s was at the heart of the debate on tolerance following the burning at the stake of Michael Servetus, who, as we have seen, Wier knew personally from his time staying in Paris, and later mentioned in his work.7 The work opens with a dedicatory letter to William V, and is followed by three epigrams to the reader (by Wier, Ewich, and Johannes Brachelius) and subsequently the praefatio ad lectorem. Comprising of f ive books, this first edition is not divided into chapters, leading to a confused and verbose structure that compromises its contents and reduced its impact. The work’s later division into chapters may have stemmed from one of Masius’s suggestions. Faced with the pervasive and rampant action of the devil and his army, Wier wanted to get to the heart of the matter in order to provide his reader with the necessary ball of string to successfully find their way out of what 6 M. Steinmann, Johannes Oporinus: ein Basler Buchdrucker um die Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts, (Basel-Stuttgart: Helbing u. Lichtenhahn, 1966), passim. See C. Gilly, Die Manuskripte in der Bibliothek des Johannes Oporinus, (Basel: Schwabe, 2001). 7 P. G. Bietenholz, Der italienische Humanismus und die Blütezeit des Buchdrucks in Basel: Die Basler Drucke italienischer Autoren von 1530 bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1959); Id., Basle and France in the Sixteenth Century: the Basle Humanists and Printers in their Contacts with Francophone Culture, (Genève: Droz, 1971); H. R. Guggisberg, Basel in the Sixteenth Century. Aspects of the City Republic before, during, and after the Reformation, (St. Louis: Centre for Reformation Research, 1982) e C. Gilly, Spanien und der Basler Buchdruck bis 1600. Ein Querschnitt durch die Spanische Geistesgeschichte aus der Sicht einer europäischen Buchdruckerstadt, (Basel und Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1985).

64 

Johann Wier

he called the labyrinth of spells (‘incantamentorum labyrinthus’).8 In order to leave the labyrinth, Wier argues for a return to authentic doctrine and the serenity of the Church of Christ. To find agreement on the fundamenta fidei, to cease wars of religion, and to love one’s neighbour were the weapons with which Wier hoped to combat Satan. While other demonological treatises often equate witches with Christians from rival confessions, Wier invites the cessation of this bloodshed amongst Christians of all kinds. Such calls have been made by others, both before and after the time of Wier, notably by Erasmus and Montaigne, but Wier was original in inserting them into demonological discourse. To break this apparent consensus amongst theologians, physicians, and jurists, Wier ambitiously takes up his arms: ‘I hear no voice, who takes pity on mortals, or who has laid bare the whole of this labyrinth, or who has even turned his hand to curing this fatal wound’.9 In the dedicatory letter addressed to Duke William, Wier identifies four areas within his argumentation: theological, philosophical, medical–scientific, and legal. Firstly, in order to unmask demonic tricks, Wier calls Holy Scripture as a witness; secondly, he refers to the authority of philosophers who indicate with natural reasons how demons deceive and pervert the imagination of witches; thirdly, through his medical and scientific knowledge, he identifies a number of pathologies that give rise to certain ailments; and, finally, he refers to penal law to discuss the punishment of mages, witches, and poisoners.10 The devil exerts his power through illusions and spells supported by his army of demons. The devil’s power to deceive is central to Wier’s argument. Where the Malleus Maleficarum emphasizes the actions of maleficae or witches, Wier, whenever possible, writes a malleus daemonum, focusing on the devil’s power and agency and not of the so-called witches themselves. He believed that the devil governed the world of darkness and drew strength from clouded minds; therefore, with the help and guidance of divine light, and with the strength of reason, Wier intended to illuminate the path to diminish this realm of darkness and of deceit. The first book thus 8 ‘Id autem est ille incantamentorum labyrinthus: cuius ut, invento qualicumque f ilo, explicandi commonstrarem viam multo aliam, quam hactenus observatam videre licuit, hoc institui Opus…’, Wier, Opera omnia, p.****. 9 ‘[D]um denique neminem audiam, qui mortalium misertus, aut totum hunc Labyrinthum nobis aperuerit, aut saltem exitiali medendo vulneri manum admoverit…’, Wier, Opera omnia, *****[4]. 10 Wier, De Praestigiis Daemonum et Incantationibus ac Veneficiis, (Basilea: ex officina Opo­ riniana, 1568), p. 7.

Inside the l abyrinth of spells

65

concerns the powers of the devil, his origin, and the limitations God placed on him, introducing a very remarkable concept of demonology in terms of his philosophical premises and the Platonist sources he adopted. The second book, in its three earliest editions, discussed magicians and witches together. The third book focusses on the possessed and those who believe themselves to be cursed, while the fourth book is concerned with prescribing cures for such apparent possessions or curses. Finally, the fifth book is dedicated to the punishments inflicted on witches, ‘a diabolo seductas, velut melancholia agitatas, vix autem haereticas’ (‘seduced by the devil, or moved by melancholy, first of all heretics’) and magicians, Magos sacrilegos: the clarity of Wier’s proposed distinction can already be seen from these descriptions. This last book in particular clearly shows Wier moving away from the medical realm. Professing great humility, Wier declared that he had no desire to compete with magistrates and lawyers, but that he was moved by a sense of compassion and wished to continue his investigation in the search for truth. Wier’s battle against evil sought to increase God’s glory and to halt the tyranny of the devil. Over the following 20 years, eight Latin editions were published (1563, 1564, 1566, 1568, 1577, and 1583),11 demonstrating the positive reception the work attained. These editions were not merely reprints, but reworkings of previous versions. Aside from the major alteration of dividing the work into chapters, each new edition introduced textual changes, sometimes moving whole passages from one book to another, often adding new sources, and, at times, modifying judgements or opinions, but rarely deleting sections. In addition to the division into chapters, significant variations can already be seen in the 1564 edition. Furthermore, the title page of the 1566 edition promised some ‘[a]dditiones ab autore, absoluto iam typis libro, demum missa: quas hoc loco subjcere potius, quam omittere, opere precium duximus’.12 These revisions were integrated into the following (fourth) edition of 1568, with the further inclusion of a sixth book.13 In previous editions, in the second book, Wier discussed de Magis infamibus, Lamiis & veneficis, eorumque potentia, whereas, in the fourth edition, the two topics are discussed separately and distinctly, with the second book examining magicians and the third book being devoted to witches. This edition also included further 11 According to Midelfort and Kohl, a bibliographer, Harald Sipek, would have found two variants from 1563 and from 1566 edition. Cfr. On Witchcraft, p. XLI. 12 Ioannis Wieri De praestigiis daemonum, et incantationibus ac veneficiis, 1566, p. 736. 13 I looked for a 1566 edition in six books in several main European libraries without success. I thank the librarians who answered my inquiries.

66 

Johann Wier

revisions, such as the inclusion of forewords to the treatise. In addition to the epigrams of Ewich and Brachelius that were already included in the first edition, a further two epigrams written by Charles Utenhove were added, one dedicated to Duke William and the other to Wier. Furthermore, in the same edition a long essay by George Buchanan was added after the Doctorum Epistolae, and would later become a chapter of future editions of the work.14 With a view to persuading princes, the work contains, from the third edition onwards, an address to sovereigns as an announcement of the imminent end of the world—an apocalyptical message unmasking the demonic plan of dual duplicity to wound Christian Europe. Satan works not only to mislead and disturb the minds of poor women, as we have already seen, but also to convince magistrates that killing these women is the correct solution. The laws that establish the death penalty for witches are not just laws, and so they must be changed. Such action of disobedience and resistance, Wier underlines, can only be taken by sovereign authorities, as they alone have the power to unveil and put an end to the presence of the devil’s deceit in the witch trials. According to this perspective, those who believe they are doing God’s work by persecuting witches are acting as the unwitting tools of the devil’s plans—a reversal of responsibilities. Only in this way would the ‘sereniore mentis oculo huiusmodi daemonum ludibria’ be revealed and the slaughter would stop, leading to public calm. A political dimension, therefore, is evident here as Wier defines the benefits for the state in introducing a new strategy for the witch-hunts.15 The work concludes—after the pronouncement by the Faculty of Theology in Paris of 1398, which was added to later editions—with an epilogue in which anti-Aristotelian and anti-Peripatetic arguments dominate. Wier distinguishes his own position on demonology, criticizing the Aristotelians who attributed all events to natural causes, following the philosophical conclusions of Pietro Pomponazzi to their radical extremes. This radical path would inexorably lead to negating the metaphysical basis of all religion and would, therefore, arrive at atheism.16 This outcome contrasts with Wier’s intentions. Wier, nonetheless, refers to Pomponazzi throughout 14 ‘E Georgi Buchanani Scoti poetae Satyra, quam Franciscani nomine inscripsit, descripta’, Wier, De praestigiis daemonum, et incantationibus ac veneficiis, 1568. 15 Hexenprozess und Staatsbildung—Witch-Trials and State-Building, hrsg. von J. Dillinger und J. Schmidt, (Bielefeld: 2008), and J. Dillinger, Politics and State-Building, in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft, pp. 528–547. 16 G. Zanier, Ricerche sulla diffusione e fortuna del De incantationibus di Pomponazzi, (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1975), pp. 57–58.

Inside the l abyrinth of spells

67

his work and appreciated his analysis, particularly for its ethical value and its intrinsic message of responsibility towards to a community, which, when faced with the inexplicable, tends to turn to supernatural explanations, attributing unacceptable power to intermediate bodies such as demons, and thus forgetting divine omnipotence. As Isnardi Parente has rightly shown, Pomponazzi, through his use of Aristotelian angelology and demonology, took up a coherent position within the debate, whereas Wier exposed himself to attacks and refutations by sharing his adversary’s principles while simultaneously disagreeing with his outcomes.17 Coherent with his premises, Wier should have rejected angels and demons as physical beings, but, in fact, he does not do so. Like Erasmus, however, Wier wanted to stay within the confines of orthodoxy in order to pursue his objective of creating a consolidated debating position, rather than contributing to further fragmentation. It is, in my opinion, for this very reason that Wier avoids giving any resolute statement of his religious faith, favouring an ambiguous fluidity. He attempts to target and expose aspects of fanaticism and superstition without choosing an explicit faith and then professing it. Yet, had Wier espoused Aristotelian theory, would he then have been shielded from confutations? I suggest that, if he had done so, his contradictions and aporetical discussion would have been coherent from a philosophical point of view. The objections and protestations he expressed concerned the request of indulgences for witches. Consequently some critics rushed to show this as contradictory in order to weaken the argument, but the crux of the matter is that Wier rejected the proposal. This was all contained within Wier’s controversial strategy of highlighting aporias and contradictions; the violent and indignant reaction was provoked by Wier’s proposal that women accused of witchcraft should not be condemned to death, an outcome that derives from his theological, philosophical, or scientific premises. Flattered by the approval his work received, Wier published, from the second edition onward, some of the praise he had been sent inserted after the epilogue to the work. Given the source, those praises represent only a partial perspective of the debate that Wier had opened. Three letters are published in the 1564 edition, one by the abbot of Echternach, Antonius Hovaeus, one by Balduinus Ronsseus,18 a physician from Gouda, and one by Johann Ewich, a physician in Duisburg. A further two letters were added in the 1566 edition: one by the theologian of Arnhem, Carolus Gallus, and 17 Isnardi Parente, Le vecchierelle pazze. 18 Cobben, Jan Wier, Devils, Witches, p. 143.

68 

Johann Wier

one from Caspar Borcholt to Bartolus Richius, Chancellor to the Count of Brunswick and Lüneberg. The 1577 edition also sees the inclusion of the letter by Theodor Zwinger. Interestingly, the author of the first letter, Anton Hovaeus, hid his identity behind an acronym, although his name was easy to decipher. It contains a series of rhetorical questions designed to celebrate the value and importance of the De praestigiis as a refined and erudite work.19 Beyond the flattery, Hovaeus denounces witch-hunts as an unfair and macabre legal practice that endangered and radically compromised the salvation of the state, as it calls into question one of the premises of the respublica christiana: God’s omnipotence.20 The letter creates the image of Wier as a hero capable of freeing some miseras aniculas from tyranny. The burning of these women at the stake would have been their certain doom were it not for men of sound judgement who were able to use their wisdom to properly fathom this question.21 Equally enthusiastic is the physician Balduinus Ronsseus in his letter of May 9, 1563. Ronsseus had received from Oporinus a ‘fragmentum operis tui’,22 but had previously heard of Wier’s fame through the praise of Daniel Brochius. He admired Wier’s courage for openly opposing a tradition whose authority was rooted in Holy Scripture, and for using the same Scripture in order to construct arguments to support his own argument. The exchange continued in 1564 when Ronsseus re-edited Wier’s De scorbuto.23 In June 1563, another physician, Johann Ewich, sang the praises of the De praestigiis, particularly for Wier’s battle against the death penalty for witches.24 Ewich also condemns physicians, lawyers, and theologians who fire off sniping arrows without considering that they might influence the lives of many other people, when they should, rather, think over, and not 19 Anton Hovaeus (+1568) wrote De arte amandi Christum, (Coloniae: apud Maternum Cholinum, 1566). 20 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 639. 21 Ibid., p. 640. 22 Ibid., p. 646. 23 B. Ronsse, De magnis Hippocratis lienibus, (Antverpiae: apud viduam Martini Nutijs, 1564), ff. 5r–6v. See N. Siraisi, Baudouin Ronsse as Writer of Medical Letters, in For the Sake of Learning. Essays in Honor of Anthony Grafton, ed. by A. Blair and A.S. Goeing, (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 2 vols., pp 123–139. 24 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 647. Ewich published several works, among them, see De officio fidelis et prudentis magistratus tempore pestilentiae rempub. a contagio praeseruandi liberandique libri duo, (Neapoli Nemetum: excudebat Matthaeus Harnisch, 1582) and De sagarum (quos vulgo Veneficos appellant) natura, arte, viribus, factis, (Bremen: 1584). See Binz, Doctor Johann Weyer, p. 84.

Inside the l abyrinth of spells

69

believe in fairy tales.25 The political dimension of the witch-hunts clearly emerges in Ewich’s comments maintaining that defeating the tyranny of the devil would benefit the state as well as the Kingdom of Christ, in addition to reclaiming the necessity of freedom of debate.26 Wier also included a letter from Caspar Borcholt, who had trained with the famous jurist, Jacques Cujas, that had been written to Bartolus Richius in August 1564. It follows a previous discussion on the various aspects of the witch-hunts—defining evil and malice—in which he celebrates the work as ‘ingeniose, acute & docte scriptum’.27 Carolus Gallus, a Calvinist minister and active polemicist against the Anabaptists, also appreciated the work, and, in December 1565, he acknowledged Wier’s merit in having revealed the thousandfold tricks of Satan. In particular, he clarified that the possessed are freed not by exorcisms or ceremonies, but through the virtue of faith in the Holy Spirit and respecting divine rule ‘through continuous prayer and fasting, through which true conversion to God is achieved’. Furthermore, Gallus agreed that the confessions of the witches were the result of delirium and dreams, exhorted through violence, as he had personally witnessed.28 For these reasons, he felt able to support Wier’s theories on the illusory nature of the power of witches. These declarations of appreciation and esteem are important, but the true success was in garnering the appreciation of one of the most authoritative scholars of the age. On April 10, 1566, Theodor Zwinger, author of the Theatrum Vitae Humanae, wrote to Wier. 29 The letter also reveals the friendly acquaintance between the two; Zwinger was the nephew of Oporinus, Wier’s publisher in Basel. Aware of the importance of Wier’s work, Zwinger recognized his success in opening people’s eyes to the bloodshed that was taking place, and for having dared to break a tragic and unjust 25 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 647. See Christian Zendri, ‘I giuristi e le streghe’, Storicamente, 4 (2008), 24. 26 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 647. 27 Ibid., p. 644. 28 Ibid., p. 643. 29 H. Karcher, Theodor Zwinger und seine Zeitgenossen, (Basel: Helbing und Lichtenhahn, 1956); C. Gilly, ‘Zwischen Erfahrung und Spekulation. Theodor Zwinger und die religiöse und kulturelle Krise seiner Zeit’, Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde, LXXVII (1977), pp. 57–137; M.-L. Portmann, Biographie des Basler Humanistenarztes Theodor Zwinger (1533–1588), verfasst von seinem Kollegen und Freund Felix Platter, in Zusammenhang: Festschrift für Marielene Putscher, hrsg. von O. Baur und O. Glandien, (Köln: Wienand, 1984), pp. 231–244; Ead., Paracelsus im Urteil von Theodor Zwinger’, Nova Acta Paracelsica, II (1987), pp. 15–32; L. Felici, ‘Theodor Zwinger’s Methodus Apodemica: An Observatory of the City as Political Space in the Late Sixteenth Century’, Cromohs, 14 (2009), pp. 1–18.

70 

Johann Wier

practice. Of far greater importance was Zwinger’s part in linking Wier’s argument to the more general renewal of the sciences. This is seen in the fact that the Swiss physician introduced Wier into the new scientific debate.30 The dialogue between Zwinger and Wier continued, and another letter, sent from Düsseldorf on December 26, 1566, thanks Zwinger for sending his recent commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Wier was inspired to draw a parallel between their battles, as both were fighting for love of the truth, against the Paracelsian school.31 It is probable that this epistolary relationship continued into other subjects, such as scientific matters: Zwinger, a keen scholar of Hippocrates, considered direct experience to be essential, which is also one of the characteristics of Wier’s preferred methods, and preferred scrupulous study to arguments, which he maintained were sterile. It was for this reason that he did not comply to the numerous requests for more anti-Paracelsian invectives. These letters and praises, published together, give an intriguing survey of his network, beyond confessional schemes; around Zwinger, some theologians, jurists, and physicians, whether Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist, agreed to save the witches.32

2. The theologian and the physician: on the punishment for witches In his constant search for allies in his battle against the death penalty for witches, Wier attempted to involve Johann Brenz, the Lutheran theologian of Württemberg.33 Wier, the physician, had glimpsed the possibility of finding agreement on the principle of tolerance, understood as an attempt to re-educate those who had moved away from orthodoxy. In the De haereticis an sint persequendi, Castellio had also included Brenz’s An magistratus iure possit occidere Anabaptistas, aut alios Hereticos, which maintained that those 30 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 645. 31 Basel, Universitätsbibliothek (UB), Frey-Grynaeum, I 11, f. 409r. See C. Gilly, Theodor Zwinger’s Theatrum humanae vitae: from Natural Anthropology to a Novum Organum of Sciences, in Magic, Alchemy and Science (15th –18th Centuries). The influence of Hermes Trismegistus, ed. by C. Gilly and C. van Heertum, (Firenze: Centro Di, 2002), pp. 265–273. 32 I am grateful to Jan Machielsen for his insightful comments and suggestions. 33 H. C. Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991); M. Valente, Satan est princeps huius saeculi… Caccia alle streghe e direzione spirituale in Johann Brenz, in Direzione spirituale tra ortodossia ed eresia. Dalle scuole filosofiche antiche al Novecento, a cura di M. Catto, I. Gagliardi e R. M. Parrinello, (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2002), pp. 197–217 and J. E. Estes, Christian Magistrate and Territorial Church: Johannes Brenz and the German Reformation. (Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies 2007 (1 st ed. 1982).

Inside the l abyrinth of spells

71

who condemn heretics to death would themselves be condemned to eternal damnation. In the hope of gaining support, Wier approached Brenz with his theories on witches. This, and other epistolary exchanges, open the Liber Apologeticus under the title De Lamiarum poena, where Wier answered some objections from three perspectives: theological, philosophical, and scientific. His exchange with Brenz addresses the theological, and, therefore, penal, aspect. To Jacques Gohory, Wier replied on medical and scientific questions and, finally, in confuting Scalichius, he discussed scientific arguments. Wier had high hopes that Brenz would be sympathetic to his argument. The theologian had been publicly sceptical about the reality of witchcraft. Wier translated into Latin from the original German a sermon by Brenz, Ein Predig von dem Hagel und Ungewitter, which had been published in 1539.34 The sermon is a response to a community’s visceral reaction to a violent storm. Convinced that witches were the cause, the parishioners had begun a witch-hunt so that the disaster would not repeat itself.35 The hunt for a witch responsible for the storm revealed, according to Brenz, a dualist theological concept; the power of Satan is subordinate to that of God, who consents for him to act. Giving the witch, and therefore Satan, such vast power transgresses the first commandment. For this reason, Brenz was moved to intervene, referring to the Book of Job, on which he had previously worked in 1526. Indeed, Job represents the ideal ethical role model for a victim of evil. A few years previously, Martin Plantsch, a pupil of the spokesman of nominalism, Gabriel Biel, had drawn attention to the guiding role of divine providence and had, furthermore, defined the role of witches and demons as the actors and not authors of this—ultimately divine—plan. Witch-hunting was thus stripped of one of its theological premises. Rather than fight the devil and eradicate his minions, Christians should imitate Job’s patience, accepting God’s will. God’s omnipotence was at the centre of this theological reflection, a fundamental premise of Augustine’s thought that had assiduously contributed to the defeat of dualist heresies.36 34 J. Brenz, Homilia de Grandine, in Pericopae Evangeliorum quae usitato more in praecipuis festis legi solent, (Ursellis: Excudebat Nicolaus Henricus, 1558), ff. 1327–1335; Ein Predig von dem Hagel und Ungewitter, in Evangelien der fürnembsten Fest- und Feyertagen […], übersetzt von Jacob Gretter, (Frankfurt: 1558); Predigt vom Hagel, Donner und allem Ungewitter, (Straßburg-Eisleben: 1565). 35 E. Midelfort, Witch Hunting in Southwestern Germany, 1562–1684: the Social and Intellectual Foundations, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972), pp. 36–38. 36 No Gods Except Me. Orthodoxy and Religious Practice in Europe, 1200–1600, ed. by C. Zika, (Parkville: University of Melbourne, 1991).

72 

Johann Wier

Writing after the Reformation, Brenz proposed a different reading of Job to that of Plantsch.37 For Brenz, witches are not even actors. They are not responsible for anything, and so confession they make on the product of their arts is false, as they do not understand the sequence of causal relations. An explanation of why witches, despite having no power, are able to threaten or foresee an event that then comes true, remained to be heard. Brenz believed that the devil could predict the arrival of a storm and make use of this knowledge to make witches believe themselves in possession of such powers. Witches, therefore, are both deceived and deceivers—they are convinced that they have powers (which they do not have) and so they confess to being witches. Using this reasoning, Brenz managed to reconcile the two aspects and he invited the community to examine its conscience without holding witches responsible for the event, and he did not negate the existence of the devil or witches. He denied their power.38 The theologian further clarifies the point, and this is by attributing the cause of natural events to witches is an indicator of idolatry, as it denies divine omnipotence and, furthermore, shows ignorance of the premise of divine law, to love only God.39 By believing in the power of the devil, people fall into the Marcionite heresy of two opposing divinities, a good god and a bad one. To better describe how the natural order is dependent on God’s will, Brenz used the following analogy: just as the birth of every human occurs thanks to the natural disposition of the mother’s body that God created, so it is for rain and for other naturally adding events. 40 It followed that only the ungodly could attribute such powers to witches; God sends storms to punish the ungodly so that they may recognize their sins, but also to warn the pious faithful. The power of the devil derives from God, who determines its limits, as God is the sole creator and controller of nature’s course. Satan, the enemy of mankind, acts within the limits set by God’s plan, he knows about coming events, but he is not responsible for them. He uses his knowledge to deceive people. Witchcraft, therefore, is a spiritual crime. 41 37 J. Brenz, On Hailstorms, translated by E. Midelfort, Were There Really Witches?, in Transition and Revolution: Problems and Issues of Renaissance and Reformation History, ed. by R. Kingdon, (Minneapolis: Burgess, 1974), pp. 189–223. 38 ‘Brenz’s views on witchcraft developed a more spiritual and moralizing tone with emphasis on God’s providence’, Midelfort, Witchcraft and Religion in Sixteenth-Century Germany, p. 272. 39 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 576. 40 Ibid., p. 577. 41 Ibid., p. 578.

Inside the l abyrinth of spells

73

In this way, Brenz alters the terms of the debate on demonology. He does not deny the power of the devil, but he re-evaluates it and subordinates it to God’s plan so that each individual is responsible for their own actions when faced with divine retribution. The example of Job allows him to define the limits of demonic power: ‘the devil is powerless without the consent of God’. Once the passivity and total powerlessness of witches in causing natural events are acknowledged, the question of their punishment becomes all the more complex. The warning in Exodus (22:18) commands that the witch must not be allowed to live, but it remains to be defined who the witch may be, after having demonstrated by this point that the powers usually attributed to them are non-existent. While both Brenz and Wier, then, both dismissed witches as fundamentally deceived, for Brenz they still deserved capital punishment. Thus, Brenz does not call into question Scriptural laws and imperial laws. According to him, witches deserve the death penalty not for their concrete action, but for their pact with the devil. It is important to remember that in Early Modern Europe, law punishes evil intention. Having clarified his views regarding punishment, Brenz continues to reflect on the profound causes of events. In his sermon, Brenz called for introspection. Feeling at the mercy of the power of witches and demons, individuals do not for a moment consider the hypothesis that they may deserve punishment or that they are being tested. The moral status quo caused by the witch-hunts must be broken. Brenz’s reiteration of God’s omnipotence, the negation of witches’ agency, and his denunciation of their accusers for not first looking at their own sins show clear analogies and similarities on which Wier’s objective, a common theory of demonology, could be founded. 42 From this point, Wier’s discussion departs from this point, foremost because, once it is accepted that witches were deluded by the devil, it becomes clear for Wier that the law does not refer to them, but rather to those magicians who usurp the evil and harmful arts. 43 Wier argued that the correct interpretation of the law shows that it refers to poisoners, who can indeed be punished: ‘it must refer to the poisoners, who are punished by the laws of Moses’. 44 The distinction between witches and poisoners, in Wier’s theory, assists in the interpretation of the law as, even if witches confess to their misdeeds, one cannot give credence to their ‘empty stories, trifles, and lies’, at times extorted by force, particularly if they had been 42 Ibid., p. 582. 43 Ibid., p. 583. 44 Ibid., p. 584.

74 

Johann Wier

deceived by the devil. On the contrary, the free will and the awareness of criminal intent of poisoners should be judged in a different way. Wier’s aim then is to persuade Brenz that the arguments he made to oppose the prosecution of Anabaptists should also be extended to the “deceived” witches. He thus uses Brenz’s own arguments against him. Brenz’s first consideration, which Wier re-employs, is that death by burning at the stake impedes the witch from redemption, and the second is that the threat of terrestrial punishment should not be used as a deterrent to sinful behaviour. Here one may capture the essence of Wier’s distinction between sin and crime: the witch must be punished because she breaks some of the rules and laws of civil life, but any judgement on her moral conduct should be God’s alone. Witches must be helped back to the right path, as the Gospel teaches, and faith in divine justice must remain firm at all times. Furthermore, Wier highlights the way in which the condition of witches constitutes a particular case, as their will is not free, but influenced by the devil. In considering this important difference, Wier acknowledges the use of coercion as a means of leading heretics back to orthodoxy (he is against the death penalty if they repent) but makes an exception for witches because of their weakness, provoked by melancholy (‘indoctae, ineptae et stupidae’—’illiterate, incapable, and stupid’). Wier argues that a distinction must be made between the free will of a sane individual and the mental incapacity of a witch. Furthermore, women must be punished less harshly than men ‘because of their stupidity of spirit, of mind, and their gullibility’. 45 Wier does not mean that witches should not be punished, only that the punishment should not be the same. Wier, then, proposes to re-educate witches, and in cases of serious crimes, a sentence of ‘exilium ad tempus’ could be considered, in addition to a monetary fine. 46 Wier’s suggested alternative punishments originate from his re-interpretation of the law of Moses (Exodus, 22:18). Wier believed that the Hebrew text and the translation of the Septuagint refers to poisoners, not witches. Only poisoners deserved death. After distinguishing the various forms of witches and poisoners—to which we shall later return—he concludes by stating his desire for a reply from the theologian, who was quick to oblige.47 Expressing his admiration for Wier’s work, Brenz recognizes his sincerity and purity of spirit, stressing the importance of his distinction between witches and poisoners in enabling a better understanding of the question 45 Ibid., p. 586. 46 Ibid., p. 586. Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus, pp. 340–350. 47 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 588.

Inside the l abyrinth of spells

75

and clarifying the premises. 48 Considering the witch-hunts to be madness, he thus shared Wier’s desire to urge magistrates towards prudence. Concerning the sermon De grandine, Brenz reveals that it had not been published by him, but by friends; he did not consider the question of the punishment of witches at any great depth in his works, he had merely hinted at it, although it warranted greater and more thorough consideration. Nonetheless, he accepts the invitation to examine the question and critically observes that imperial law is influenced ‘by the opinion of the common man’, but, in his opinion, it is not designed to punish will or false persuasion but rather the intention to cause damage. A witch, defined by Brenz as misera mulier, is guilty of wanting to poison the community, and for this she deserves punishment. 49 To better explain his view, Brenz cites the example of Abraham for the concept of conatus perfectus. Even in attempted homicide, it is the intention, rather than the act, that is punished. Unlike Wier’s interpretation of Exodus 22, Brenz sees no difference between witches and poisoners. His argument centres around the idea that ‘conatus perfectus habeatur pro facto et opere ipso’, that is, it matters little whether the action is concrete or illusory, what is punished by law is the intention, the desire to poison. Brenz does accept the distinction between those who are ‘criminal, melancholic, incapacitated, and those who err because of simple superstition’.50 He also acknowledges that melancholy, considered as an illness that acts on the mind, may constitute mitigating circumstances to take into consideration during the trial. Faced with the multitude and variety of incidents, Brenz then makes his famous judgement that it is preferable for a guilty person to go unpunished than to punish an innocent.51 The conclusion of Brenz’s letter is of relevance, as it shows glimpses of the emerging political dimension to the question of the witch-hunts. It is not the duty of the wise man to identify who should be responsible for healing, curing, saving, or rescuing witches, whether it should be a physician, a theologian, or the hangman.52 The importance of the question leaves aside scholarly discussion and returns fully within the political sphere. The witch-hunts have both theological and medical relevance, but both of 48 Ibid., p. 589. 49 Ibid., p. 590. 50 Ibid., p. 591. 51 Ibid. See M. Brecht, ‘Johannes Brenz und das Hexenwesen aufgrund bisher weitgehend unbeachteter Quellen’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung, 86 (2000), pp. 386–397. 52 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 591.

76 

Johann Wier

these are eclipsed by the political dimension. Brenz hoped for a solution that provided greater humanity but at the same time still insisted that a crime had been committed and the state must prosecute and punish the guilty party.53 With this exchange, Wier met his first objective, namely involving an eminent theologian in the debate on witches. With the dialogue established, Wier replied on July 18, 1566. Brenz had concluded his arguments by distinguishing between political rule and the state, theological rules, and those of medicine. Wier picks up from these observations by setting out his argument, stating that, in the name of Christ, magistrates are prosecuting witches and practising tyranny, with torture, denying one of the fundamental teachings of Christianity: compassion.54 Capital punishment goes against the teachings of the Gospel not only for heretics, but also for witches. Again, it is clear that Wier knew the works of Brenz in defence of the Anabaptists very well, as he often refers to the same arguments, perhaps hoping to convince Brenz that witches, like Anabaptists and other heretics, should not be condemned to death. To this end, Wier criticizes the law that responds ‘to the opinion of the common man’ by meeting the need of finding a guilty party, when the judgement should have been the outcome of careful and considered deliberation. Secondly, Wier challenges the concept of conatus perfectus, according to which the intention to commit a crime is also punished. The case of Abraham, whom God had ordered to kill his own son as a test of faith, is emblematic, but, according to Wier, there is a fundamental difference between the case of Abraham and the case of witches: Abraham had the ability to choose, whereas the witches do not.55 Furthermore, even supposing that the court of divine justice punishes the desire or the thought of adultery, the law must punish the actual crime and not the intention.56 Once again, Wier seems to be advancing a distinction between sin and crime. Furthermore, on the basis of this distinction, he condemns the behaviour and intention of the witch but maintains that these cannot be punished as 53 ‘Uterque enim eò resipiscimus, ut in maleficas exemplum ita statuatur, ne vel impunitate malum ingravescat, vel crudelitate innocentes aut quasi (quemadmodum Jurisconsulti loqui solent) opprimantur’, Ibid. 54 Ibid., p. 592. 55 ‘Quod Abraham adducis, qui in filium Isaacum stringens ensem impediebatur ab angelo, atque hunc Abrahami conatum pro facto ipso a Deo fuisse reputatum, & quod de befactis ibi dicatur, idem de malefactis intelligendum esse, hic certe velim nolim, contradicere cogor…’, Ibid., p. 593. 56 Ibid.

Inside the l abyrinth of spells

77

crimes, and, as such, opposes a widespread and consolidated legal tradition. As a consequence, a crime of the imagination born of a sick mind must be punished less harshly; a conviction that spurs Wier on to incessantly oppose laws he judges to be unfair, hoping to persuade Brenz to assume the same view.57 Wier’s next argument touches on a delicate matter, in which, with considerable rhetorical ability, he attempts to force Brenz into admitting that even the law could be mistaken and, as such must be corrected, as respecting such a law may cause more serious damage than questioning its validity. It is interesting to note the way in which Wier selects the subject of disobedience to an unfair law, a matter that had gained new signif icance due to the Protestant Reformers being considered heretics by the Church of Rome.58 The expediency of linking together the fate of heretics with that of witches was not original—Cornelius Agrippa, in the De vanitate, had already likened the two forms of persecution—but Wier’s impartial use of the argument was stronger. Indeed, this was one of the strongest arguments with which Wier hoped to provoke a reaction from Brenz. Comparing Reformers to witches (for their challenge to the Church of Rome) simply because of an erroneous interpretation of the law and of Scripture is a strong strategic move. Alluding to the doubt that sometimes resistance was legitimate, Wier hoped to obtain Brenz’s support. To do so, Wier returns to the interpretation of Exodus 22 to reiterate that Moses had referred to poisoners and not to witches, who were the victims of demonic illusion, because the will of witches is corrupted by this illusion.59 Amping up the rhetoric, Wier claimed that this cannot be in any way overlooked by a pious and Christian magistrate, who is obliged to remember this so as to impose a just punishment.60 It is the duty of secular and ecclesiastical authorities to re-educate these women and bring them back ‘to the light of truth’, not to abandon them to eternal damnation of the body and the soul. 57 Ibid., p. 594. 58 Wier, Opera Omnia, p. 594. See H. Braun, Juan de Mariana and Early Modern Spanish Political Thought, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007); R.C.F. von Friedeburg, Politik in der frühen Neuzeit. Die Legitimität öffentlicher Zwangsordnung, in Das Politische als Argument Graduiertenkolleg “Politische Kommunikation”, hrsg. von A. de Benedictis und L. Schorn-Schuette, (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2013), pp. 45–60. A. De Benedictis, Rebellion, Resistance and Revolution Between the Old and the New World: Discourses and Political Languages. An Introduction, in Rebellion, Resistance and Revolution Between the Old and the New World: Discourses and Political Languages, ed. by A. De Benedictis, Storicamente, 10 (2014), 31. 59 Wier, Opera Omnia, p. 595. 60 Ibid.

78 

Johann Wier

The controversy between Brenz and Wier was, according to Midelfort, ‘symptomatic of the kind of dispute that emerged in the later sixteenth century, as witchcraft became more and more a spiritual affair, a matter of the will, a problem in psychology’.61 Furthermore, it enables us to analyse Brenz’s position towards witches, particularly in respect of his knowledge of the political dimension the issue was taking on. With regard to the punishment of witches, Brenz did not present his views on acts of evil to warrant special legislation. This controversy also allows us to witness Wier being at odds with one of the protagonists of the theological debate of the time, despite leaving the encounter defeated, having not met the original objective he had set for himself. Even so, Wier’s mission was achieved with the involvement of Brenz in that discussion. It is worth noting that Brenz’s thought contributes to the development of a Protestant eschatology that does not differ greatly from the Catholic perspective on this point, as condemnation of the superstitious attribution of power to witches is found in both the Catholic and Protestant catechisms.

3. Translations of the De praestigiis The wide circulation of the De praestigiis was helped by vernacular translations into French and German. Indeed, in Wier’s lifetime there were nine unauthorized editions of the work, three in French and six in German.62 The French translation became part of the discussion in France on Paracelsism, whereas the German translation entered into the debate centred in Basel on the culture of magic. The De praestigiis was translated into German without authorization from Wier by Johann Füglin in Basel.63 According to Nahl, this vernacular version was based on the second edition of 1564.64 Füglin did not even have the presence of mind to notify Wier of his intention to render the De praestigiis into German. This slight caused an irritated and immediate reaction from Wier, who prepared his own German translation of the work, in which he expressed his perplexity over the reliability and

61 Midelfort, Witchcraft and Religion in Sixteenth-Century Germany, p. 274. 62 Midelfort-Kohl, Introduction, in J. Wier, On Witchcraft, p. XV, n.2. 63 Von verzeuberungen, verbiendungen, auch sonst viel und mancherley ge pler des Teuffels unnd seines gantzen Heers: Deszgleichen von versegnun gen und giftwercken, fünff bücher zum andem mal widerumb übersehen, gemehrt und gebessert … durch Johannem Füglinum … in Teutsche sprach gebracht (Basel: M.D.L.X.V). 64 Nahl, Zauberglaube und Hexenwahn, p. 64.

Inside the l abyrinth of spells

79

accuracy of the work of Füglin.65 The German translation undertaken by Wier himself is clearly more ordered; it is a reduced version, when compared with the Latin text, and is dedicated to the city of Bremen, where Wier’s friend Ewich worked. In addition to presenting a number of peculiarities that cannot be overlooked, Wier addressed his readers directly, providing even more anecdotes and references to cases (for instance, the anecdote concerning Jakob Vallick which was included in a more extended form when compared with its inclusion in the Latin edition).66 The vernacular French edition was the work of the physician Jacques Grévin, and was published in Paris by du Puys in 1567.67 The French translation, Cinq livres de l’imposture et tromperie des diables: des enchantements et sorcelleries, immediately took its place in the polemic over Paracelsism. Grévin had entered into a dispute with Loys de Launay on antimony, a fundamental element of Paracelsian medicine, and his choice to translate Wier’s work, with its criticism of Paracelsus and his school, is certainly no coincidence.68 The French text was also revised and published once again following Grévin’s translation. The editor of the second translation, published in Geneva in 157969 (thus following the fourth or fifth Latin edition), was anonymous; however, it is generally thought to be Simon Goulart.70 A 65 De praestigiis daemonum. Von Zauberey, woher sie iren ursprung hab, wie manigfeltig dieselbig sey, wie sie geschehe, welche damit verhafft seindt, sechs Bücher, von den Hochgelerten Herrn Johann Weyer [n.p.] Anno 1567. Nahl, Zauberglaube und Hexenwahn, p. 65. 66 W. Frijhoff, Witchcraft and its changing representation in Eastern Gelderland, from the XVIth to XXth centuries, in Witchcraft in the Netherlands, pp. 167–181 and Waite, Eradicating the Devil’s Minions, p. 25. 67 Cinq Livres De l’Imposture et Tromperie des Diables: des enchantements et sorcelleries … faits François par Jaques Grévin, (Paris: chez Jaques du Puys, MDLXVII). See Fernand-Demeure, ‘Deux médecins du XVI siècle: Jean Wier et Jacques Grévin’, Hippocrate, IV (1936), pp. 487–496; D. Rigo Bienaimé, Grévin poeta satirico e altri saggi sulla poesia del Cinquecento francese, (Pisa: Tip. editrice Giardini 1967); K. J. Evans, ‘Jacques Grévin’s Religious Attitude and the Family of Love’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, XLVII (1985), pp. 357–366; Ead., Grévin, Author of the Temple de Ronsard?, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, XLVII (1985), pp. 619–626; Y. Petry, Vision, Medicine, and Magic: Bewitchment and Lovesickness in Jacques Grevin’s Deux livres des venins (1568), in Religion and the Senses in Early Modern Europe, ed. by W. de Boer, (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 455–472 and R. Gorris Camus, ‘Un indéfinissable regret’. Lionello Sozzi et les ailes de l’âme’, Studi Francesi, (2016), pp. 24–53. 68 A. G. Debus, The French Paracelsians. The Chemical Challenge to Medical and Scientific Tradition in Early Modern France, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 21. 69 Histoires, Disputes et Discours, des Illusions et Impostures des diables, des magiciens infames, sorcières & empoisoinneurs. Des ensorcelez & démoniaques, & de la guérison d’iceux: Item de la punition que méritent les magiciens, les empoisonneurs, & les sorcières. Le tout comprins en Six Livres (augmentez de moitié en ceste dernière édition), (Genève: Pour Jaques Chovet, MDLXXIX). 70 Cobben, Jan Wier, p. 141.

80 

Johann Wier

keen observer of the turbulent situation in France, and the successor to Beza, Goulart undertook the work of censor in Geneva and desired to set out an ambitious project: to create a form of Protestant Academy, the first step of which would be the encyclopaedia of Guillaume Fabri, as a charter and programme for science in Protestant society.71 Thus, Goulart’s preface splendidly attests to the intertwining of political and scientific interests in perhaps their most famous manifestations—Bodin and Wier.72 In his admonition to the reader, Goulart recounted the controversy that was underway, explaining that, from the epistle onward, he felt obliged to go back to the original, as Grévin’s translation was not faithful, un peu adouci & ragencé. Goulart warned that, on the heated issue of scabreuse, his translation was not faithful either, as he wanted to avoid the risk of offending his readers.73 With the clear aim of showing his own equanimity and equidistant position in comparison with those who considered the death penalty just for witches, and those who, on the other hand, battled against it, the translator added to the end of the treatise Erastus’s two dialogues. Therefore, despite the imperial privilege, then, unauthorized editions of the De praestigiis were published, and the translation from Geneva was later republished in Paris in 1885. Füglin’s translation, on the other hand, was republished in many editions: in Basel in 1565, and the others in Frankfurt (two editions in 1566, one in five books and one in six books; another in 1569; another in five books in 1575; and, lastly, an edition in six books in 1586).74 These different editions of the various translations of the De praestigiis, parallel to the Latin editions and to the continued dissemination of Wier’s thought, testify to Wier’s widespread circulation and success.

71 L. C. Jones, Simon Goulart, 1543–1628: étude biographique et bibliographique, (Genève: Georg, 1917); O. Pot, ‘Une encyclopédie protestante autour de Simon Goulart’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LVI (1994), pp. 475–495; Simon Goulart, un pasteur aux intérêts vastes comme le monde, éd. par O. Pot, (Genève: Droz, 2013) and A. Graves Monroe, Post tenebras lux. Preuves et propagande dans l’historiographie engagée de Simon Goulart (1543–1628), (Genève: Droz, 2013). 72 See N. Zemon Davis, From Prodigious to Heinous, in L’histoire grande ouverte: hommages à Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, sous la direction d’A. Burguière, (Paris: Fayard, 1997), pp. 274–283. 73 Histoires, Disputes et Discours, des Illusions et Impostures des diables, p. XLVI. 74 Midelfort-Kohl, Introduction a Wier, On Witchcraft, p. XV.

4. Between magic and science Abstract In sixteenth-century Europe, research into rational causes of various events underwent profound cultural and scientific innovation: in medicine, Paracelsus called Galenism into question, proposing an alternative explanation for illnesses. Wier sided with the Galenic tradition but progressively took on board some ideas that came out of Paracelsism, despite considering Paracelsist physicians to be tricksters who profited from popular credulity. Wier’s polemic with Jacques Gohory, the first French Paracelsist, is examined. Key words: Paracelsus, Galenus, Gohory, Medicine

1. The circle of Oporinus and Basel Like many scholars, Wier wrote his works when the world was undergoing various profound changes, thanks to certain recent events (the discovery of the Americas and the Reformation) and innovative tools (printing). In such a revolutionary age, a strong challenge affected medical practice, that of Paracelsus. We cannot understand Johann Wier as a physician without studying the person who dominated sixteenth-century medicine, Paracelsus. Defending Galenism, Wier (who named one of his sons Galenus) had to tackle Paracelsism, but we can also find some important analogies between these two theories. Renaissance humanism heralded a renewed interest in natural magic, and intensified the search for divine elements in the study of nature, spurred on by the revived and intense study of the Greek language and the rediscovery of the Corpus Hermeticum and other equally important works.1 In turn, 1 A. Wear, Galen in the Renaissance, in Galen: Problems and Prospects, ed. by V. Nutton, (London: The Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, 1981), pp. 229–262; The Medical Renaissance of the Sixteenth Century, ed. by A. Wear, R. K. French and I. M. Lonie, (CambridgeNew York: Cambridge University Press, 1985); A. Carlino, La fabbrica del corpo. Libri e dissezione

Michaela Valente. Johann Wier. Debating the Devil and Witches in Early Modern Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789462988729_ch04

82 

Johann Wier

medical and natural philosophical research ushered in two new directions of study: a renewed interest and development in traditional medicine, based on mathematics and physics, and a deeper understanding of chemistry, rooted in a mystic and religious understanding of nature.2 The consequences of the revolution in philology and the printing press spilled over into scientific and medical texts. In 1525, the first Greek edition of the works of Galen appeared, and, in the following year, an edition of the Hippocratic corpus. Both works contributed to the contemporary attack on Arabic science that was widely adopted during the High–Late Medieval Ages.3 This revolution was marked by the surprising coincidence, highlighted by Debus, of publication in the same year (1543) of Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (influenced by the translation of Ptolemy’s Almagest), the De humani corporis fabrica of Vesalius, and the main Latin translation of the works of Archimedes. 4 As Gianna Pomata points out, new epistemic genres arose, many of which relied on observation and direct experience, fundamental aspects of both avenues of research.5 The Hippocratic–Galenic tradition was thus rediscovered by European Renaissance culture. The sixteenth century alone saw the publication of more than six hundred editions and translations of Galen’s work.6 This tradition was also widely held in high esteem because it boosted the central role of physicians and further legitimated their professional standing (they nel Rinascimento, (Torino: Einaudi, 1994); Natural Particulars. Nature and the Disciplines in Renaissance Europe, ed. by A. Grafton and N. Siraisi, (Cambridge, Mass.–London: The MIT Press, 1999) and N. Siraisi, History, Medicine, and the Traditions of Renaissance Learning, (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2007). 2 Debus, The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, (New York: 1977), passim. See V. Nutton, ‘Prisci dissectionum professores: Greek Texts and Renaissance Anatomists’, in The Uses of Greek and Latin: Historical Essays, ed. by A. C. Dionisotti, A. Grafton, and J. Kraye, (London: The Warburg Institute, University of London, 1988), pp. 111–126. 3 See R. J. Durling, ‘A Chronological Census of the Renaissance Editions and Translations of Galen’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 24 (1961), pp. 230–305 and P. Potter, ‘The ‘editiones principes’ of Galen and Hippocrates and their Relationship’, in Text and Tradition: Studies in Ancient Medicine and its Transmission, ed. by K.-D. Fischer, (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 243–261. 4 A.G. Debus, Man and Nature in the Renaissance, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990 (1 st ed. 1978), p. 14. See C. Webster, From Paracelsus to Newton: Magic and the Making of Modern Science, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 23 and Id., Paracelsus: Medicine, Magic and Mission at the End of Time. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008). 5 G. Pomata, ‘“Sharing Cases”: The Observationes in Early Modern Medicine.’ Early Science and Medicine, 15 (2010): pp.193–236. 6 Cfr. R. Klibansky-E. Panofsky-F. Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy, (New York: Basic Books, Inc. 1964). See N. Siraisi, Avicenna in Renaissance Italy, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987).

Be t ween magic and science

83

had previously been only marginal), providing a strong ethical vision and outlining what would constitute professional status. Most of the population did not consult physicians, for reasons of convenience and cost, but instead visited various traditional healers who practised forms of folk medicine. From a scientific perspective, Galenic medicine and aetiology were based on the theory of the four elements/humours (blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm), and the health of an individual depended on the balance of these elements. In order to diagnose an illness, knowledge of the human body became even more important. Religious reasons had prevented human dissection, but over the sixteenth century this limitation was increasingly ignored and Vesalius, with his studies in anatomy, brought to light Galen’s errors, despite continuing to adhere to Galenism and without calling the Roman physician’s methods into question. Galen’s strength was at the same time his weakness; his attempt to summarize and systematize into theorems was of great service to medicine, but also showed defects, as it reduced the complexity of nature into a logical system, just as Aristotle had done for other parts of nature. During this rebirth of Galenism, Theophrastus von Hohenheim, known as Paracelsus, arrived in Basel, where, in 1527, on the recommendation of Oecolampadius, he was nominated Professor of Physics, Medicine, and Surgery by the Civil Council.7 His lessons stood out for their originality and his violent criticism of the traditional theories of Galen and Avicenna, a vehemence that led to his departure from Basel in 1528. 8 Paracelsian medicine elicited a great deal of curiosity, but also significant resistance due to Paracelsus’s arrogance. While his attacks on Galenic medicine caused a great deal of notoriety and seemed to entail a wholesale rejection of ancient knowledge, his philosophy, in fact, incorporated many elements 7 See K. Sudhoff, Bibliographia Paracelsica, (Graz: Akademische Druck, 1958); W. Pagel, Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance, (New York: Karger, 1958); Paracelsus (1493–1541), hrsg. von H. Dopsch, K. Goldammer, P. F. Kramml, (Salzburg: A. Pustet, 1993); Analecta Paracelsica: Studien zum Nachleben Theophrast von Hohenheims im deutschen Kulturgebiet der frühen Neuzeit, hrsg. von J. Telle, (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1994); M. L. Bianchi, Introduzione a Paracelso, (Roma- Bari: Laterza, 1995); Paracelsus und seine internationale Rezeption in der frühen Neuzeit: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Paracelsismus, hrsg. von H. Schott und I. Zinguer, (Leiden: Brill, 1998); Paracelsus: the Man and his Reputation, his Ideas and their Transformation, ed. by O. P. Grell, (Leiden: Brill, 1998); Paracelsian Moments: Science, Medicine and Astrology in Early Modern Europe, ed. by G. Scholz Williams and C. D. Gunnoe, (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2002) and Paracelsus (Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, 1493–1541): Essential Theoretical Writings, edited and translated with a commentary and introduction by A. Weeks, (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2008). 8 See Paracelsus in Basel, Festschrift für Professor Dr. Robert-Henri Blaser, (Basel: 1979).

84 

Johann Wier

that originated in Gnostic, Platonic, and Hippocratic traditions. Within the wider context of the history of medicine, Paracelsus’s aetiology—the study of the causes of illnesses—was particularly innovative. Whereas Galenic aetiology attributed illness to the prevalence of one humour over the others, Paracelsus admitted the possibility of external causes, conceptualizing diseases as entering the human organism through respiration and diet. Paracelsus’s challenges to medical orthodoxy contributed to accusations of heresy, and his enemies even depicted his work as being a threat to the social order.9 In an original way, Paracelsus was the heir both to the Aristotelian tradition and the Galenic tradition (something that he contested, despite relying on their basis).Yet it would take until a generation after his death—under mysterious circumstances—in 1541, for his works to spawn a Paracelsian movement that represented him as a reformer on par with the leaders of the Protestant Reformation. The 1560s and 1570s saw the start of the collections and publications of the works of Paracelsus, the Luther of medicine, but also to the rediscovery of Hermetic texts.10 His radical attack on the classical tradition and his idea of a close connection between microcosm and macrocosm were soon to become the two defining characteristics of his philosophical–scientific theory. Within this wider context of reforming knowledge, medical and religious orthodoxies aligned. The debate on ancient Galenic versus modern Paracelsian medicine involved physicians and philosophers across Europe, including Thomas Erastus, Jacques Gohory, Petrus Severinus, Jean Fernel, and Adam von Bodenstein.11 Among many accusations, Paracelsus was said to be in league with the devil, the same charge laid against Agrippa and Wier, as discussed earlier. The earliest defender of Paracelsian medicine was the Swiss physician Adam von Bodenstein (1528–577), who refuted all charges against Paracelsus before 9 H. Trevor Roper, The Paracelsian Movement, in Id., Renaissance Essays, (London: Secker & Warburg, 1986), pp. 149–199: 159. See W.-D. Müller-Jahncke, Magic Medicine in the Writings of Paracelsus and the Paracelsians and the Rise of Chemistry, in Systèmes de pensée précartésiens, études réunies par I. Zinguer et H. Schott, (Paris: Champion, 1998), pp. 35–47 and T. Bulang, ‘Wissensgenealogien der frühen Neuzeit im Vergleich. Epistemische Entwürfe des Paracelsismus im wissensgeschichtlichen Kontext’, Daphnis, 48 (2020), pp. 38–64. 10 See Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe, ed. by W. R. Newman and A. Grafton, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001); The Hermetic Tradition from Late Antiquity to Early Humanism, ed. by P. Lucentini-I. Parri-V. Perrone Compagni, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003) and M. Azzolini, The Duke and the Stars. Astrology and Politics in Renaissance Milan, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2013). 11 Debus, The Chemical Philosophy, pp. 128–131 and Medicine and Society in the Renaissance. Essays to Honor Walter Pagel, ed. by A. G. Debus, 2 vols., (London: Heinemann, 1972), I, pp. 177–199.

Be t ween magic and science

85

revealing the relevant features of this new method. Beyond the medical debate about Paracelsus, a religious issue vividly emerged: the Paracelsians, the innovators, generally embraced Protestantism, whereas the Galenists remained Catholic.12 The renewed discussion on Paracelsus coincided with the publication by Pietro Perna of the Arbatel, which reaffirmed the necessity of a faith free from superstitions, a sort of manifesto on the possibility of moving from ignorance to science.13 Once again, Basel features in this idea, which reveals a network of cultural challenges. The debate widened with the participation of the Danish physician Severinus—who maintained that the reason for Galen’s success was his agreement with Aristotelian principles—and involved the greatest scholars of the age.14 From this debate, a tendency developed that saw scholars schooled in Galenism promoting accommodation of both scientific methods. A key example of reconciling the two schools can be seen in Guinter d’Andernach, teacher of Servetus and Vesalius, who in the latter part of his life developed an interest in Paracelsianism.15 In 1571, at the same time as Severinus published his Idea Medicinae Philosophicae and Erastus published his Disputationes, Guinter wrote a treatise in which he compared classical and modern medicine, attempting a reconciliation between the two scientif ic methods which, in his opinion, were not alternatives to 12 Debus, Paracelsianism and Chemical Philosophy, p. 233. See Medicine and the Reformation, ed. by O. P. Grell and A. Cunningham, (London: Routledge. 1995), pp. 78–100; Bridging traditions: Alchemy, Chemistry, and Paracelsian Practices in the Early Modern Era, ed. by K. Hunger Parshall, M. T. Walton, and B. T. Moran, Kirksville, Truman State University Press, 2015. See A.G. Debus, The English Paracelsians, London, Oldbourne Press, 1965, R. Stensgaard, ‘All is Well that Ends Well’, and the Galenico-Paracelsian Controversy’, Renaissance Quarterly, XXV (1972), pp. 173–188 and H. Guerlac, Guy De La Brosse and the French Paracelsians, in Science, Medicine and Society in the Renaissance. Essays to Honor Walter Pagel, ed. by A. G. Debus, (London: Heinemann, 1972), pp. 177–199. 13 A. Rotondò, Studi di storia ereticale del Cinquecento, (Firenze: Olschki, 2008), p. 571. See H. R. Guggisberg, Tolerance and Intolerance in Sixteenth Century Basle, in Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, ed. by O. P. Grell and B. Scribner, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 145–163. 14 See J. Shackelford, ‘Early Reception of Paracelsian Theory: Severinus and Erastus’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, XXVI (1995), pp. 123–135 e Id., The Chemical Hippocrates: Paracelsian and Hippocratic Theory in Petrus Severinus’ Medical Philosophy, in Reinventing Hippocrates, ed. by D. Cantor, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), pp. 59–88 and Id., A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine: the Ideas, Intellectual Context, and Influence of Petrus Severinus (1540/2–1602), (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2004). See Gilly, Paracelsianism for Philosophers: Petrus Severinus, in Magic, Alchemy and Science, pp. 219–240. 15 Debus, The Chemical Philosophy, pp. 135–145. See Principles of Anatomy according to the Opinion of Galen by Johann Guinter and Andreas Vesalius, ed. by V. Nutton, (London: Routledge, 2017).

86 

Johann Wier

one another.16 Johannes Albertus Wimpenaeus had put forward a similar proposal in his De concordia Hippocraticorum et Paracelsistarum in 1569. It is interesting that all these authors seek authority from antiquity, but what is even more interesting that that they all rediscover the importance of observation and direct experience in the wake of Hippocratic teaching in order to examine nature and discover its causes and effects. This broader context demands consideration for our analysis: implications of the dispute between Paracelsianism and Galenism could also be found in the question of the witch-hunts. Despite, at no point, doubting the existence and action of the devil, Paracelsus attempted to trace every phenomenon considered supernatural back to reason. In tackling the origin of the superstition, Paracelsus believed that the proliferation of belief in demons, witches, and saints was due to human incapacity to understand nature.17 Thus, he banishes all superstitious practices, considering them an instrument for drawing closer to Satan. In the Paramirum, he takes on the topic, recalling the duty of a physician to cast out superstition with the help of divine light. Paracelsian demonology modified the concept of demonic activity to the extent that historians of psychiatry have paid particular attention to Paracelsus, presenting him as anticipating theories concerning behavioural disorders.18 In the De sagis, Paracelsus affirms that human beings are influenced by planetary spirits and that witches are the companions of planetary evil spirits. Nevertheless, a good education could save someone from such a destiny.19 Paracelsus makes very little reference to the pact between witches and the devil, and is one of the first to define 16 Ioannis Guintherii Andernaci medici clarissimi De medicina veteri et nova tum cognoscenda, tum facienda commentarij duo, Basileas, ex officina Henricpetrina, 1571. 17 K. Schneller, Paracelsus: Von den Hexen und ihren Werken, in Aus der Zeit der Verzweifelung: Zur Genese und Aktualität des Hexenbildes, hrsg. v. G. Becker, (Frankfurt-am-Main: Suhrkamp, 1980), pp. 240–258; K. Goldammer, Der Göttliche Magier und die Magier in Natur: Religion, Naturmagie und die Anfänge der Naturwissenschaft vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Renaissance, mit Beiträgen zum Magie-Verständnis des Paracelsus, (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1991). 18 G. Zilboorg, The Medical Man and the Witch, ad indicem. 19 Paracelsus, De sagis et earum operibus, in Id., Philosophiae magnae, (Basel: 1569), pp. 214–239 and Id., Sämtliche Werke, hrsg. von K. Sudhoff und W. Matthiesse, (Münich–Berlin: Oldenbourg, 1922–1933), XIV, pp. 5–27. According to Scholz Williams, ‘The choice is made by man, not forced on him by the planet. Women who succumb to hatred and inf idelity do so because they are instructed in their dreams by the ascendants on how to harm others and how to seduce them to wantonness and pandering. Paracelsus stresses repeatedly that it is not the Devil, but the ascendent, who “spurs on bad deeds”‘, G. Scholz Williams, The Woman/the Witch: Variations on a Sixteenth-Century Theme (Paracelsus, Wier, Bodin), in The Crannied Wall: Women, Religion, and the Arts in Early Modern Europe, ed. by C. A. Monson, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992), pp. 119–128: 126.

Be t ween magic and science

87

a ‘witch syndrome’, through which many cases of deviance were saved.20 Likewise, Wier maintained that a witch was predisposed to demonic action due to melancholy—in other words, to a prevalence of black humour. Another clear analogy between Paracelsus and Wier is their attention to popular culture. Both scholars indicate their belief in the existence and activity of demons, which are ontologically inferior to the fallen angels, to whom they cannot be compared, but who also cannot be confused with humans due to their different spiritual nature. Further analogies can be seen in the shared hierarchy of demons of Platonist and Neoplatonist inspiration, which can also be traced in Wier’s Pseudomonarchia daemonum, as we shall later observe. Natural causes, not demonic causes, then, are recognized by both men, just as both men are against the death penalty for witches.21 Wier’s interest in Paracelsus, despite his theories being an intrinsic part of medicine and the lively scientific debate of the time, was also piqued through his good relations with Oporinus, the editor of his works and, perhaps, Paracelsus’s most famous student. For 3 years Oporinus was the famulus (pupil) of Paracelsus, yet the experience did not turn the printer into an unqualified admirer. He witnessed, first-hand, Paracelsus’s eccentricity and excesses. Oporinus collected his memories of his tutelage with Paracelsus in a letter addressed to his friends, ‘ad Medicos clarissimos Solenandrum & Wierum’. This letter helped furnish the evidence on which the accusations and defence of Paracelsus and his school were based for several centuries. Describing his maddening personality, his drunkenness, his dangerous laboratory experiments, his peremptory assertions against both Luther and the Pope, and other disgraceful details, Oporinus corroborates Paracelsus’s reputation as a bizarre, eccentric, and misanthropic man.22 Oporinus’s description mixes admiration for his teacher with fear of his extravagance, in passages that are highly ambiguous. His disdain for all social rules, and his total disinterest in religion and authority, rendered Paracelsus fascinating, but at the same time exposed him to criticism for his anarchic lifestyle. Oporinus certainly contributed to propagating the negative image of Paracelsus, but this image was already established, to the extent that Paracelsus himself had to reserve one of his Defensiones, the sixth, for refuting the ever more insistent accusations against him. 20 Clark, Thinking with Demons, p. 236. 21 B. Easlea, Witch-Hunting, Magic and the New Philosophy. An Introduction to the Debates of the Scientific Revolution 1450–1750, (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1980), p. 102. 22 U. Benzenhofer, ‘Zum Brief des Johannes Oporinus über Paracelsus’, Sudhoff Archiv zur Geschichte der Medizin, 73 (1989), pp. 55–63.

88 

Johann Wier

This letter by Oporinus represents important documentary evidence for understanding Wier’s anti-Paracelsian stance, as well as the tightly interconnected nature of the scientific activity of the age.23 The dating of this letter has been the subject of much debate. It was maintained that the letter dated from 1555, but Carlos Gilly has recently disproved this hypothesis, basing his argument on a previously unknown document discovered in the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel that enabled him to date the letter with precision to November 26, 1565.24 This definitive date for the letter provides an explanation for the absence of quotations from Paracelsus in the first two editions of the De praestigiis and the appearance of Paracelsus, in a negative light, in the later editions; it also allows us to clarify a number of variations in Wier’s text. The 1566 edition is particularly affected by this change of perspective, both in the text and in relation to Wier’s epistolary exchange with Zwinger, stimulated by this same letter to Oporinus. From 1565 onward, with the publication of Jacques Gohory’s Compendium (1567) and due to the debate in Paris between Jacques Grévin and Lois de Launey on the medical use of antimony, the Paracelsian question took on increasing relevance ultimately becoming crucial to the scientific culture.

2. Against Paracelsus The debate over Paracelsus involved prominent protagonists and embraced epistemological debate.25 The defence of scientific orthodoxy, and therefore of Galenism, intertwined with the defence of religious orthodoxy. Paracelsus was accused, among other things, of anti-trinitarianism. This charge was intended to entirely discredit and marginalize anyone by attributing to Paracelsus a doctrine that was considered radically anti-Christian. 26 Thus, the anti-trinitarian threat was used against many enemies. The antiParacelsians also criticized Paracelsus’ obscure terminology, which was full of neologisms, and particularly his scornful refusal of traditional medicine, which he dismissed as ineffective. In order to remedy the first difficulty, in 1583 Gerhard Dorn, a physician with a strong interest in alchemy, went 23 S. Domandl, Paracelsus, Weyrer, Oporin. Die Hintergründe des Pamphlets von 1555, in Paracelsus Werk und Wirkung, hrsg. von S. Domandl, (Wien: 1975), pp. 53–70, e 391–392. 24 C. Gilly, ‘Zwischen Erfahrung und Spekulation. Theodor Zwinger und die religiöse und kulturelle Krise seiner Zeit’, pp. 57–137: 93–94. 25 D. Daniel and C. Gunnoe, ‘Anti-Paracelsianism from Conrad Gessner to Robert Boyle: A Confessional History’, Daphnis 48(2020): pp. 104–139. 26 Rotondò, Studi di storia ereticale, p. 575.

Be t ween magic and science

89

as far as publishing a sort of dictionary of the essential terminology of the innovative Paracelsian medicine.27 Jacques Gohory more or less directly singled out Wier, perhaps in response to the famous public letter about Paracelsus that Oporinus addressed, in part, to Wier. Prior to the Compendium, the Paracelsian question had not much interested Wier. It must be noted, however, that Paracelsianism only became properly widespread from the 1560s. Only then did it take on the characteristic of challenging the authority of traditional knowledge that so concerned traditional physicians. It is probable that the success of the new science and the work of Gohory were contributing factors in Wier’s decision to intervene. In the part of his first book concerning his direct experience of Lares familiares, Wier’s attitudes are not so distant from those of Paracelsus. Recently, in a review of Paracelsian studies, the definition of ‘the school of Theophrastus Paracelsus’ has been traced back to Wier, further evidence of his significant presence in that debate. Nonetheless, the review left unanswered the question of whether the definition of school necessarily implies a Paracelsian theoretical nucleus that was shared amongst his followers.28 Wier’s criticism of the Paracelsian method can be reconstructed through the Latin editions of the De praestigiis, as the evolution of his ideas can be seen across the editions, as Carlos Gilly has demonstrated.29 We shall take into consideration only the explicit references to Paracelsus, given that the entire work is de facto a defence of Galenism. In the first two editions, the name of Paracelsus does not appear at all; then, in the third edition, an eloquent mention can be found in the second book, Chapter 18, where Wier accuses the followers of Paracelsus of a lack of study and of negligence, 27 Gerhard Dorn, Dictionarum Theophrasti Paracelsi, continens obscuriorum vocabulorum, quibus in suis scriptis passim vtitur, definitiones, (Frankfurt: Christoph Corvinus, 1583). 28 Wier, Witches, p. 153. According to Pumfrey, ‘Nevertheless it is apparently justified by contemporary references to a Paracelsian sect or, as Johann Weyer wrote, the ‘Paracelsist school (for that is what they want to be called)’. The usage implies that there was an essential core of Paracelsian concepts and practices. Paracelsians are therefore located according to their conformity to the core doctrines (although commentators have always found it difficult to agree about what these were)’, S. Pumfrey, The Spagyric Art; or the Impossible Work of Separating Pure from Impure Paracelsianism: a Historiographical Analysis, in Paracelsus: The Man and his Reputation, his Ideas and their Transformation, ed. by O. P. Grell, (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 21–51: 23. 29 ‘Almost without exception they were men from the medical world, such as Gasser, Stenglin, Weyer, Solenander, Marstaller or Reusser, who in the first years of the so-called ‘Paracelsian Revival’ loudly proclaimed the charge of heresy with respect to Paracelsus and his followers’, C. Gilly, ‘Theophrastia sancta’. Paracelsianism as a Religion in Conflict with the Established Churches, in Paracelsus: The Man and his Reputation, pp. 151–185: 156.

90 

Johann Wier

going as far as defining them as slaves to arrogance and egoism. He later attacks Paracelsus directly, making the following accusation that ‘he vaunts that he is the monarch of medicine, discoverer of the true art, and as such do his followers regard him and worship and venerate him’,30 whereas, through the tricks of his scientific method, he causes the death of many. Paracelsus defined himself as monarcha medicorum in his Paragranum and fully intended to demonstrate his superiority over all his authoritative predecessors.31 At this point, Wier’s criticism of Paracelsus is almost personal; he does not call into question the value or importance of alchemy, a sort of forerunner of chemistry, though attributing only a secondary role to them. In fact, we may argue that Wier’s limited openness towards chemistry reveals a non-prejudicial attitude to this methodological innovation. Wier’s writings also provide evidence for the spread of Paracelsianism. For instance, we learn of a noble in the Duchy of Jülich who was treated by a Paracelsian physician of note, whose name, however, is omitted. This Paracelsian had asked for payment for a preparation of mixtures with liquid gold, but, despite this preparation, the treatment was shown to be useless. In order to explain why the cures had failed, the Paracelsian maintained that the curse of a witch had made the entire healing process entirely ineffective. Through this emblematic case, Wier exposes the Paracelsian’s avidity and incompetence. Accusing rivals of greed was commonplace: Galen accused his predecessors of greed, Paracelsus accused the Galenists, and now Wier accused the Paracelsians of the same vice. Wier’s criticism is directed firstly at the ethical aspect and then, as a consequence, at the science of Paracelsian medicine.32 The evolution of Wier’s perception of the Paracelsian question can be clearly seen through the collation of the different editions of the De praestigiis. From the 1566 edition, he moves to deliberations on the Paracelsian movement, providing proof of the increasing circulation of the movement, repeated in the 1568 edition, up until the peremptory judgement found in the 1577 edition: There are many of this ilk, recently elated by the fumes of the fire of chemistry, who boast that they have arisen from the school of Theophrastus 30 Wier, Witches, p. 154. 31 T. Paracelsus, Sämtliche Werke, VII, pp. 63–65. According to Debus, ‘It is evident from the quotation that he was aware of the reference to the divine nature of the physician in Ecclesiasticus. Furthermore, he was fully convinced that it was an abomination to base one’s study of medicine upon heathen authors condemned by the Church’, Debus, The Chemical Philosophy, p. 52. 32 Wier, Witches, p. 154.

Be t ween magic and science

91

Paracelsus. They are the special slaves of arrogance, self-love, and vainglory, who can accomplish all things whatsoever by stentorian cries, and by promises and sesquipedalian words, in perfect imitation of their master.33

Another variation can be seen in this passage, concerning the title of Paracelsus’s work, the Paragranum: in the 1568 edition Wier explicitly cites the work, whereas in later editions he omits the title.34 In the 1566 edition, at the end of the De praestigiis, Wier inserts the Additiones,35 one of which concerns the name of the Paracelsian physician who Wier omitted from later editions. This variation is of great interest, as Wier, in a letter to Zwinger in 1566, spoke of the wide circulation of an anonymous text, the Thyrsus in Tergum Georgii Fedronis.36 It is not by chance that the circulation of this text had attracted Wier’s attention, as it is the 1566 edition of the De praestigiis in which his explicit reference appears.37 In the De praestigiis, Wier pursues his objective of saving alleged witches and thus concerns himself with all who, in one way or another, promote the witch-hunts. For this reason, Wier had to show the fallacy of many beliefs. Amongst these was the belief that demonic possession was real, and that this was proved by the fact that the supposedly possessed could retain foreign objects, often sharpened, inside their bodies. In the fourth book, Chapter 15, Wier endeavours to prove that this belief is false and that it can be used to deceive people, starting with the book by Jacob von Lichtenberg, in which a case that Wier tried to show to be false was described.38 Thus, Wier refutes “the inept and futile method by which hard materials of this sort are inserted into the body by Lamiae with the help of the Devil”.39 Furthermore, Wier argues: ‘Anyone imbued even slightly with a knowledge of nature will readily recognize that this line of reasoning is quite sterile’40. In the 1577 edition, Wier distanced himself, with the use of logical arguments, from such an opinion about that the Devil can insert objects without injuring or harming 33 Wier, Witches, p. 153. 34 Wier, De praestigiis 1568, p. 196. Wier, De praestigiis 1577, p. 219. 35 Wier, De praestigiis: Additiones, 1566, p. 736. 36 Letter, dated December 19, 1566, to Zwinger, Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, Frey-Grynaeum, I 11, f. 409. A copy of this book is held in Erlangen: Thyrsus onago in tergum Ge. Fedronis, (S.l., 1566). 37 See Gilly, ‘Zwischen Erfahrung und Spekulation’, p. 98 ff. 38 Jacob von Liechtenberg, Hexen Büchlein das ist ware Entdeckung und Erklärung oder Declaration für nämlichen Artickel der Zauberey, (Basel: Westheimer, Bartholomaeusl, 1545). 39 Wier, Witches, p. 319. 40 Ibid.

92 

Johann Wier

human bodies, that was shared by Paracelsus.41 Again, Wier argued against Paracelsus and his followers, labelling them impostors. It is clear that the Paracelsian question evolved over time; discussing some medical remedies and healing practices, Wier alters his way of referring to Paracelsian physicians, initially defined as ‘neoterici’, later as ‘Paracelsi lectores’, and finally as ‘Paracelsi sectatores’, in a crescendo that mirrors his progressive involvement in the scientific debate and the necessity of condemning the Paracelsian school and defending medical orthodoxy. Wier wanted to denounce all who tricked people and who ignored or overlooked the divine and natural order. For Wier, the actions of Paracelsian physicians relied on popular superstition to gain money. Further evidence of his increasing hostility towards Paracelsianism can be seen in Book 5, Chapter 22, in an essay that is present in both the third and fourth editions, but which is absent from the fifth edition. In this essay, Wier ironically wonders about the reasons for the pride that Paracelsians have, as their theories obfuscate minds, making them easy prey for demonic illusions. Wier opines that Paracelsus confuses reality with his occult practices. Moreover, according to Wier, Paracelsus’ followers imitate him. In order to liberate demonomaniacs (those who are obsessed by the idea of demons, attributing anything to demons, forgetting God’s will), Paracelsians adopt formulae that subsequently prove to be ineffective. As such, Wier aligns Paracelsianism with the spread of other dangerous and ineffective superstitious practices, and he again accuses his rivals of greed. 42 Laying claim to his own authority gained through study and experience, Wier launches a fierce and unbridled diatribe against those who use the supernatural to mask their own incompetence and ignorance: many, unable to clinically resolve the cases entrusted to them, suppose that there must be supernatural causes. To Wier, the Paracelsians number among them. In this way, rather than admitting their own incapacity, new physicians hide behind a hypothetical supernatural intervention. This accusation enables Wier to warn against impostors all too ready to vainly promote themselves in the name of their greed. In criticizing Paracelsus, Wier defends Galen and stigmatizes the virulent and almost iconoclastic behaviour of the new medicine. In the 41 Wier, De praestigiis 1577, p. 442. 42 Wier, Witches, p. 153–154. According to Pumfrey, ‘For Weyer, Paracelsians promoted superstition because, being ignorant of effective, orthodox, Galenic medicine, they dreamed up supernatural explanations of those natural diseases and cures which lay beyond their limited philosophical understanding’, Pumfrey, The Spagyric Art, p. 47.

Be t ween magic and science

93

medical and scientif ic sphere, Wier is a conservative, despite maintaining excellent relations with the circle of prominent Basel physicians, several of whom, such as Theodor Zwinger and Guinter d’Andernach, were moving closer to Paracelsian theories. Despite this proximity, Zwinger congratulated Wier for the battle he undertook against Paracelsus and his school, and for knowing how to defend classical medicine from modern sophistry. 43 Wier’s polemic against the Paracelsians obviously extended to the Medicae Observationes, in which he criticized and derided the physicians who followed the new approach.44 The agitated responses of both Wier and Erastus, as we shall see, testify to their concerns over the threat brought about by Paracelsianism and for the relations between the book of God and the book of nature. The part of the Liber Apologeticus dedicated to rejecting the theses set out by Jacques Gohory in his Compendium warrants close analysis. Within the debate between Galenists and Paracelsians that was taking on increasingly harsh characteristics, Gohory was to assume a central role. Indeed, he was later identified by Gabriel Naudé as the first advocate of Paracelsianism in France. 45 An erudite and curious man, Gohory was also attracted to the works of Machiavelli, of which he translated the Discorsi and the Principe into French, developed a love of poetry (and was, in fact, close to the circle of the Pléiade), and was interested in botany and pharmacy. 46 He founded a Lycium philosophal, which was destined to become a centre for the preparation of medicine, in addition to being a centre for the dissemination of 43 Gilly, ‘Zwischen Erfahrung und Spekulation’, p. 95. 44 ‘contra impudentes Fedronis Paracelsistae calumnias, qui pulsus animadversionem ridet in mendaci famosoque suo libello Germanico’, Wier, Opera omnia, p. 903. 45 D. P. Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella, (University Park (PA): The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000 (1st ed. 1958), pp. 96–106; O. Hannaway, sub voce, in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, V (New York: Scribner, 1972), pp. 447–448. See H. Baudry, Contribution à l’étude du paracelsisme en France (1560–1580). De la naissance du mouvement aus années de maturité: Le Demonosterion de Roche Le Baillif (1578), (Paris: Champion, 2005); D. Kahn, Alchimie et paracelsisme en France à la fin de la Renaissance (1567–1625), (Genève: Droz, 2007) and R. Gorris Camos, ‘Dans le labyrinthe de Gohory, lecteur et traducteur de Machiavel’, Laboratoire italien, 8 (2008). 46 N. Machiavelli, Les Discours de Nic. Macchiauel … Sur la premiere decade de Tite Liue, dez l’edification de la ville. Traduitz d’Italien en François, et de nouueau reueuz et augmentez par Jaques Gohory, Parisien, (Paris: Robert le Mangnier, 1571); Id., Le prince, Traduit d’italien en francoys…, (Paris: pour Robert Le Mangnier, 1571). See G. Procacci, Machiavelli nella cultura europea dell’età moderna, (Roma-Bari: Laterza 1995), pp. 126–128 and S. Anglo, Machiavelli. The First Century, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

94 

Johann Wier

Paracelsianism, and had accommodated important deliberations and debates such as his great discussion with Fernel. 47 In 1567, under the pseudonym of Leo Suavius, Gohory published his Compendium, a summary of the main Paracelsian doctrines, with a commentary on Paracelsus’s De vita longa. He demonstrates accurate knowledge, not just of the works of Paracelsus but also of the recent literature around Paracelsian thought, from Pierre Hassard to Adam von Bodenstein, even criticizing the edition of Paracelsus’s works prepared by Gerard Dorn. 48 The Compendium does not stand out for originality or for scientific cognizance, but its importance resides in the testimony it provides of the extent to which the scientific debate had spread. It is composed of a pars destruens and a pars construens: the former aimed to counter the attacks by enemies, and the latter to present Paracelsian theories. Supported by a strong philological tradition, Gohory became fascinated by Paracelsian thought, rich in cabalistic and magic elements, and felt the need to defend its reputation. Comparing, then, the De vita longa by Paracelsus with the De vita by Ficino, Gohory went as far as demonstrating the former’s dependence on the latter, particularly concerning the tripartition of the body into an elemental body, an astral body, and a supernatural body, a division that resembles Ficino’s tripartite division of body, spirit, and mind. 49 It is Gohory who singled out Wier for his attack against Paracelsus and for his controversial relationship with Agrippa.50 Following declarations of admiration and appreciation for Wier’s culture and preparation, Gohory, with an incisive turn of phrase, expresses his astonishment for what is, in his opinion, an attack on antiquity. Paracelsus takes up classical medicine, thus attacking him, in Gohory’s view, means attacking classical medicine.51 Gohory’s entire Compendium is a brilliantly constructed rebuttal of authors who were his contemporaries, but his rhetorical skills warrant further examination; despite his many previous attacks on Wier, Gohory expresses 47 R. Gorris Camos, L’Hysope et la rose: le Lycium philosophal de Jacques Gohory in Les Académies entre France et Italie, sous la direction de P. Galand, M. Deramaix, J. Vignes, (Genève: Droz, 2008), pp. 553–594. 48 J. Gohory, Theophrasti Paracelsi philosophiae et medicinae utriusque universae, compendium, ex optimis quibusque eius libris: Cum scholiis in libros IIII eiusdem de vita longa, plenos mysteriorum, parabolorum, aenigmatum, (Parisiis: in aedibus Rovillii, 1567), p. 16. See Debus, The Chemical Philosophy, p. 147. 49 W. Pagel, ‘Paracelsus and the Neoplatonic and Gnostic tradition’, Ambix, VIII (1960), pp. 125–166; Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic, pp. 96—106 and Debus, The Chemical Philosophy, p. 147. 50 Gohory, Compendium, p. 16. 51 Ibid., pp. 166–167.

Be t ween magic and science

95

his admiration, and, at the same time, his disappointment at the sight of the weaknesses in his adversary’s argument. Gohory laments—rhetorically—the position taken by a medicus probus, an individual moved by the most profound sense of Christianity, who abhors all forms of magic. Despite his admirations for Wier’s work, Gohory rhetorically professes that he is obliged to point out the incoherencies in his opponent’s position.52 Wier responds in his Liber Apologeticus, where he opens a dialogue with Brenz and where he roundly attacked his adversaries, Gohory and Scalichius, denying their competence and highlighting the inherent incoherence in their reasoning. Wier chose two interlocuters who nonetheless led him to re-evaluate his own writings and to grapple with relevant questions and pressing issues of his day.53 In his argument, over and above specific debates and adhering to the usual argumentative format in which the adversary is discredited by highlighting his weaknesses, Wier points out a number of contradictions: Gohory, for example, despite declaring his desire to spread the works of Paracelsus, had criticized Gerard Dorn’s translation of the works from German into Latin.54 Rhetorically, Wier expresses his shock, as both Gohory and Dorn should have the shared aim of disseminating Paracelsus’s works. In particular, Wier wonders what could give Gohory the right to evaluate the work of Dorn since he did not know German, which Wier refers to as ‘our language’. In the construction of his dismissal of Gohory’s work, Wier insinuates the suspicion that the French interpreter had not understood much of Paracelsus’s work. Gohory’s linguistic incompetence, in Wier’s opinion, exposed him to ridicule because he had shown himself unable to distinguish even the most basic and fundamental principles of the Paracelsian theoretical system.55 This incendiary language can be considered as a reaction to Gohory’s accusation of incoherence. Wier reacted fiercely to the accusation about his relationship to Agrippa. Gohory opines that Wier alternates between acknowledgement and disapproval of Agrippa, whereas 52 ‘Enimvero te diligo Vviere tanquam medicum probum, te colo tanquam Christianum virum à Magia infami abhorrentem, te praedico tanquam diligentem omnis antiquitatis exceptorem vel spicilegum: nulla ego, Deus opt. max. mihi non testis (ut loquuntur sed iudex esto) invidia adversum te, nulla calumnia ducor, imo tuum laborem, tuam lucubrationem exosculor, quemadmodum te praesentem libenter amplecterer’, Gohory, Compendium, p. 276. 53 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 623. 54 ‘Quid igitur dentis Theonini aculeis quoque mordicas praeter reliquos, eruditum Paracelsi Germani discipulum, & Chymicae artis mire peritum Gerardum Dorn, quem natione Germanum in transferendis Paracelsi libris in linguam Latinam, tu Gallum & nostrae linguae prorsus ignarus, palam calumniarum spinis configere audes?’, Ibid. 55 Ibid., p. 624.

96 

Johann Wier

he ought to hold a univocal position.56 In the same way, he reprimands Wier for his position on the sibyls, a position that he shares with Cardano and that stands in contrast to many other authoritative scholars. Gohory identified some contradictory issues in Wier’s work and, through them, he attacked the author. How can Wier defend the Archimagus Agrippa and then attack Paracelsus? The comments regarding Agrippa hit their mark, and were probably the reason behind Wier’s further intervention into his work; Wier recalls that his teacher had distanced himself from the De occulta philosophia in his address to the reader, and felt the need to reiterate this retraction in the De vanitate.57 Leaving to one side all that can be considered to be effective rhetorical devices, Wier’s almost irate reaction reveals a raw nerve concerning his relationship with his teacher and the cumbersome legacy this represented for his own intellectual autonomy. Wier throws the accusation of incoherence back at Gohory, who had contradicted himself by first praising and then attacking Hippocrates, Galen, and Avicenna. After clarifying the true purpose of the De occulta philosophia, Wier, with no intention of repeating himself regarding the De vanitate, invites his reader to read what he had written in his Apologia against Paulus Scalichius. He resolutely declared that it was not his responsibility to defend his former teacher, as Agrippa had—both anonymously and publicly—altered his previously held views on magic, Agrippa’s youthful passion.58 Agrippa’s past and his retraction had been accepted and understood, and thus his fame as an honest and erudite man had spread and been believed, Wier maintained.59 This assertion, a consistent, repeated, and certain defence of Agrippa, clearly betrays Wier’s discomfort when he was forced to deny the various stories. A raw nerve indeed, and one that appears when once again when Wier has to reject the accusation of Agrippian authorship of the fourth book of the De occulta philosophia;60 Gohory had insinuated that Agrippa, as a pupil of Trithemius, had taken on many of these elements.61 Once again, Wier has to claim Agrippa’s lack of involvement and limit the influence of Trithemius.62 56 ‘Quae inconstantia haec, quae vacillatio est?’, Gohory, Compendium, p. 278. 57 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 625. 58 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 625. 59 Ibid. 60 ‘[D]e te vetus illud scite usurpari hic potes: non est discipulus supra magistrum. Audi quanti Agrippa faciat Tritemium in praefatione’, Gohory, Compendium, p. 175. 61 Wier, Opera omnia, pp. 627–628. 62 Ibid., p. 628.

Be t ween magic and science

97

After rejecting every accusation levelled at Agrippa, while also distancing him from his former teacher, Wier highlights Gohory’s bad reputation and lack of trustworthiness.63 Furthermore, he insinuates that Gohory himself had used essays and prompts present in the De occulta philosophia, without acknowledging their authorship. In addition to stigmatizing his methods (‘petulanter et falso’), he emphasizes his errors in expounding Paracelsian medicine, presuming this was due to Gohory’s young age, as maturity would favour a style that is ‘modestius deliberatiusque (ut sperare volo)’.64 In this sharp exchange of reciprocal accusations of inconsistency, by having the last word Wier prevails; however, he pursued Gohory’s insidious criticisms, particularly those involving Agrippa. After declaring his distance (‘a me quidam sunt ab orthodoxae nostrae fidei sanctionibus aliena’)65 from such practices, he moves to an analysis of Gohory’s sources. Taking a step backwards, but once again using a rhetorical device, Wier entrusts the final blow to Erastus, a ‘doctissimus exercitatissimusque in hoc belligeranti genere’,66 who had confuted many Paracelsian arguments with inexorable and undeniable proof, not only from a medical and scientific perspective, but also from the perspective of philosophy: ‘vera curandi ratio ratio demonstratur, & Paracelsica solidissime confutatur’. In this debate, Wier recognized the clear victory of Erastus, medicinae Monarcham, who had denounced the ineffectiveness of superstitious cures. It was against Erastus, then, that Gohory ought to measure his furibundas fauces. Wier was not interested in picking up that challenge. With slanderous roar and the impetuosity of useless words, ‘sine ullius rationis adminiculo’, with accusations that were ‘horrid’, ‘irascible’, ‘surly’, in Wier’s view, the truth shall not be reached, nor shall it be defended: ‘the defence of truth must be plain, lucid, and modest’.67 Wier, therefore, adopted an unassuming tone to demonstrate, point by point, the ways in which Paracelsian doctrine was inadequate and invalid, even though Erastus’s earlier demolition meant that he should not have to do so. Even the Paracelsian concept of demonology, to Wier, showed its inefficiency and inefficacy, as it did not stand up to empirical proof, and, as such, the Paracelsian fallacies could be easily 63 ‘at fatearis necesse est, universum illud opus de occulta philosophia à Tritemio esse approbatum, cuius palinodiam ab ipso auctore in provectiori aetate promulgatam, candide supra commonstrari, in quo & a me quaedam sunt ab othodoxae nostrae fidei sanctionibus aliena, in praecedentibus scriptis ostensa’, Ibid., p. 626. 64 Ibid., p. 627. 65 Ibid., p. 629. 66 Ibid., p. 630. 67 Ibid., p. 631.

98 

Johann Wier

revealed. Once again it is the Paracelsi interpres, that is, Gohory, at whom Wier directs attention in order to re-establish the honour of medicine.68 With regard to Gohory’s opinions against him, Wier replies that his own arguments are based on Holy Scripture.69 Should the authority of Holy Scripture not be deemed sufficient, he calls in support from the scientific field to confirm, once more, the total necessity of competence in questions regarding the physical world. In reply to Gohory, Wier clarifies his position within the parameters of orthodoxy and the ancient tradition, especially the Galenic tradition, while also recognizing its limitations; he feels close to Plato and Socrates, but closer to the truth, in the name of which he is uncompromising.70 Undoubtedly lacking depth, Gohory’s critique had an internal coherence, which had the cumulative purpose of demolishing the foundations of Wier’s arguments. At no point does he openly accuse Wier of having misunderstood something or erred; indeed, he insinuates critical observations subtly, hiding them behind his shock at the fact that such an educated and esteemed man could have made such blunders. The rhetorical device enables the entire criticism to revolve around the way in which Wier believes himself to be superior, and yet consciously disregards all of those authoritative and scholarly sources that state the contrary to what Wier himself maintains. The rhetorical question, ‘tune Vviere tantis viris maior aut doctior?’,71 encapsulates emblematically Gohory’s spirit and the choice of his rhetoric. Despite Gohory’s finesse, Wier demonstrates that he is more than able to reply to the main accusation, asserting that a tradition’s authority does not always coincide with its roots in antiquity. In this way he admits to putting even the most authoritative texts to the test of historical progress, not least because tradition occasionally denies the fundamenta fidei or goes against the laws of nature and therefore cannot, and indeed must not, be accepted.72 His allusion to the ‘horrenda clades in nuptiis Lutetianis anno 1572. Augusti die 24’, that is the Saint Bartholomew’s Day massacre, is decidedly 68 ‘Quae hic, benevole Lector, in nostrae artis medicae laudem & honorem vere scripsi contra Paracelsi eiusque satelliti calumnias, ubi tam ineptus daemonis fugandi modus ab illis praescribitur, impudentissimus hic Paracelsi interpres ludibrium esse contendit’, Ibid. 69 Ibid., p. 632. 70 Ibid., p. 633. 71 Gohory, Compendium, p. 281. 72 ‘Historias praeterea vetustatis praeiudicio & authoritate conf irmatas non in omnibus semper à me commendari agnosco: quemadmodum si quae in iis deprehenduntur, quae vel sacratissimae fidei nostrae sunt adversa, vel ipsa rerum natura minime patitur’, Wier, Opera omnia, p. 633.

Be t ween magic and science

99

interesting.73 That event was used propagandistically as capital in the religious fight. Through this reference, Wier intended to draw attention towards a rational and responsible use of narration, one that must always be truthful. A further aspect rendering the fracture between Gohory and Wier irreconcilable concerns the idea of natural magic: ‘Adversus item magiam naturalem clausis me ferri oculis, tantum abest ut agnoscam (quanquam & hoc mendaciter, ut soles, impingis) quo etiam eandem debito suo celebrarim encomio’.74 Wier later reviews the theses proposed by Paracelsus and his followers in minute detail in order to highlight their fallacy and reaffirm his own position—referring to the extensive treatise contained within the De praestigiis—while not missing any opportunity to deride his adversary for the scientific incompetence, guesswork, and superficiality with which he summarized and interpreted Paracelsian theories. He lingers over questions of lycanthropy, of the sibyls, and of sexual encounters between demons and witches, referring at all times to his extensive writing on these within the De praestigiis. In Wier’s view, Gohory had frequently confused terrae coelum, muddling physical questions with metaphysical questions. In the list of calumnies perpetrated by Gohory, concerning the possibility of a demon coveting a woman, Wier also examines a work by Georgius Pictorius, who, in 1563, wrote the Pantoplion in which he juxtaposed exaltation in human and natural marvels with a rigid demonology that culminated in the request for the death penalty for witches.75 Only in the 1566 edition did Wier introduce the reference to Pictorius. Wier, albeit ironically, recognizes his adversary’s freedom to defame and slander the thoughts of others, while demanding the right to sit at the table of the Lord in the hope that a ray of light may illuminate Gohory’s mind.76 Lastly, addressing the readers, Wier reassures them that the answers to 73 Ibid., p. 634. 74 Ibid., p. 635. 75 Epitome de magiae speciebus ceremonialis; Isagoge de materia daemonum, (Lyon: 1562) and De illorum daemonum qui sub lunari collimitio versantur, ortu, nominibus… et quibus medijs in fugam conpellantur, isagoge …, (Basilea: per Henricum Petri, 1562). Cfr. Thorndike, A History of Magic, VI, pp. 399–406. See Clark, Thinking with Demons, pp. 277–278. Only in the 1566 edition, Wier introduces the mention to Pictorius, Wier, Opera omnia, p. 636. 76 ‘At tua maledicendi, criminandi & calumniandi libertate fruere, quamdiu voles, quum tibi connatum esse videatur: a me posthac fortassis non impedieris. Quid a meis sis expectaturus manibus, me in coelestis contubernii communionem ex Dei gratia per sanguinis Christi aspersionem sublato, experieris, nisi ad mentem redeas, & alios dentibus tuis virulentis impetere desinas’, Ibid., p. 637.

100 

Johann Wier

all of their questions could be found by reading the De praestigiis. He only deals with the Compendium due to the harsh attack he has been subjected to, but above all because he is concerned for the practical consequences of challenging classical medicine. Still, despite his rigorous defence of his position, the work of Paracelsus and his followers posed a major challenge that led Wier to rethink his own position: the contrast with the innovations of the Paracelsian system inflicted more wounds on his convictions than he was willing to admit. On more than one occasion a deeper knowledge of the Paracelsian texts emerges, particularly when highlighting the clear misunderstandings in Paracelsian therapies and aetiology. Through this intense comparison, Wier played a part in the medical-scientific debate of the age, attempting to carve out a space for himself within the landscape of European culture.

5.

Vince te ipsum Towards the twilight: from 1569 to 1588 Abstract In his later years, Wier’s professional practice as a physician continued successfully, as attested by the numerous consultations he gave, including, amongst others, the consultations provided to the poet Philip Sidney, who was fatally injured by the Spanish. In this period, marked by the invasion of Spanish troops and the damage they wrought, Wier published the Observationes medicae, the De ira morbo, a philosophical treatise, and the De lamiis, an abridged version of the De praestigiis. His adversary in this debate was the Croatian philosopher Paulus Scalichius. Key words: Medicine, Scalichius Paulus, Sidney Philip

1. The twilight Wier’s dedication to his scholarly works did not, however, distract him from continuing his professional activity within the court. In 1566 he successfully cured Duke William following a stroke. To show his gratitude, William gave him several properties, to which Wier refers when they were destroyed in 1582 during the passage of the Spanish troops.1 Over the previous 20 years, Wier had further confirmation of the success of the De praestigiis, and published a further two new editions (in 1577 and 1583); however, this had been a difficult time marked by losses in both his public and private life. In 1568 Wier’s close friend Oporinus (his publisher in Basel) died, and in the same period the political situation in the area surrounding the Duchy became increasingly critical, a development for which Wier himself was soon to pay the price. In addition, in 1572, Wier suffered the death of his wife Judith, a worthy and insightful collaborator, 1 Cobben, Jan Wier, p. 12.

Michaela Valente. Johann Wier. Debating the Devil and Witches in Early Modern Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789462988729_ch05

102 

Johann Wier

and, despite remarrying the equally collaborative and efficient Henrietta Holt 2 years later, Wier retained, as he notes in the De praestigiis, 2 the memory of his beloved first wife undiminished over time, so much so that he pays homage to her in his De ira morbo. Wier’s loyalty and deep family bonds to his original family and his affectionate devotion to Cornelius Agrippa are also present in the way Wier preserves the memory of his own family. In his work, he repeatedly made mention of the five children he had with Judith: Dietrich, a jurist and ambassador in the Court of the Prince-Elector Palatine;3 Heinrich, a physician; 4 Galenus, who later took his father’s place in the court of the Duke;5 Johannes, Archipraefectus;6 and Sophia. The pages of the De praestigiis include frequent anecdotes and events to which his children had been eyewitnesses. In 1560 in Paris, Dietrich and Heinrich had listened to the noted professor of Greek Adrien Turnèbe, who told of a Pietro of Brabant who was able to speak without moving his lips, a case of ventriloquism that caused astonishment.7 Elsewhere, Wier recounts another event, the show of a tightrope walker,8 that was witnessed by his eldest son, Dietrich. Dietrich and his brother Heinrich both graduated from the University of Bologna;9 Heinrich also studied law in the Studio Patavino in Padua (he was registered in 1562) and, in 1572, his third son, Galenus, also studied in Padua after having been in Florence and Montpellier.10 Wier’s ability 2 ‘My second wife, Henrietta Holt, whose lively faith makes her a fierce opponent of diabolical trickery’, Wier, Witches, p. 300. 3 Hoorens, Een ketterse arts voor de heksen, pp. 259–262. 4 Hendrik Smet, Miscellanea medica. Cum praestantissimis quinque medicis. D. Thoma Erasto, D. Henrico Brucaeo, D. Leuino Batto, D. Joannis Weyero, D. Henr. Weyero communicata, et in libros 12. digesta, (Frankfurt: impensis Jonae Rhodii, 1611), passim. 5 About Galenus Wier, see the Ph.D Thesis by Uta Müller, Leben und Wirken des niederrheinischen Arztes Galenus Weyer (1547–1619), Leibarzt der Herzöge Wilhelm III. und Johann Wilhelm von Jülich, Kleve und Berg, Bochum, Univ., Diss., 2001. 6 Johannes was at the University of Heidelberg while Erastus was Dean in 1573, C. D. Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus and his Circle of Anti-Paracelsians, in Analecta Paracelsica: Studien zum Nachleben Theophrast von Hohenheim im deutschen Kulturgebiet der frühen Neuzeit, hrsg. von J. Telle, (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1994), pp. 127–148: 139. 7 ‘My sons Theodore (now a Doctor of Law) and Heinrich (now a Doctor of Medicine)’, Wier, Witches, p. 142. See J. Lewis, Adrien Turnèbe (1512–1565): a Humanist Observed, (Genève: Droz, 1998). 8 ‘My son Theodore, a Doctor of Law, was an eyewitness, along with many other persons’, Wier, Witches, p. 59. 9 Binz, Doctor Johann Weyer, pp.173–176. 10 Matricula Nationis Germanicae Artistarum in Gymnasio Patavino (1553–1721), a cura di L. Rossetti, (Padova: Antenore, 1986), p. 18 and 33. Wier, Witches, p. 564.

Vince te ipsum

103

to provide his children with a university education illustrates the level of wealth and comfort that the medical profession brought him; unfortunately, Wier’s great fame as the defender of witches has subsequently eclipsed his fame as a doctor. Through these tales of his children, Wier celebrates a way of investigating reality, and the constant and continuous reference to eyewitness accounts takes on scientific significance within his work as a doctor; it was his medical thinking that helped him to refute superstitions by closely examining them through the lenses of reason and close observation. In so doing, he attempted to fuse together Galenic and Hippocratic methods. Thanks to his excellent reputation, Wier was often consulted for his medical opinions, thereby meeting with aristocrats and princes (this constant meeting with people of different confessions, as I have highlighted, explains his attitude to religious tolerance). A lengthy and intense example of these consultancies was with Countess Anna of Tecklenburg, whom, in 1596, he cured of ‘iliac passion’, as he wrote in his Observationes.11 Earlier than this, however, Wier had arrived at that German court to carry out the request of embalming the count’s parents, and later he himself was buried in Tecklenburg; his long-standing collaboration with the Countess lasted over 20 years.12 One of the most notable consequences of his relationship with Tecklenburg concerns Wier’s faith, as his appreciation of Lutheranism began within this context. The Countess’s father had embraced the Lutheran Reformation and become the architect of some important religious reforms. 13 Widowed early in life, the Countess found herself responsible for handling state administration; later, influenced by the De praestigiis, she decided to adopt a number of cautious measures regarding witch-hunts and demonstrated a certain level of interest in medicine, establishing a sort of special pharmacy to store various pharmaceutical mixtures. Wier continued his collaboration and intense activity at the court of the Duchy of Cleves, although this privileged relationship was destined to deteriorate and then to cease entirely when he allowed his son Galenus to replace him in his role on October 31, 1578. The reasons behind his withdrawal are unknown and not easy to reconstruct.14 A probable cause is that concerns over the wars that characterized the period drove Wier to 11 Wier, Observationes medicae, in Id., Opera, p. 996. See Midelfort, A History of Madness, p. 199. 12 Saatkamp, Die Hexenwahn und seine Gegner, p. 59. 13 Ibid., p. 60; Midelfort, History of Madness, p. 199. 14 Dooren, Doctor Johannes Wier, p. 17; Cobben, Jan Wier, p. 13.

104 

Johann Wier

withdraw himself from life at court in order to look after his estate, buoyed by the good reputation he had gained that guaranteed him continued work. The situation of the simmering conflict between Philip II and the Dutch nobility following Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull Super universas, which had established fourteen new bishoprics in Flanders, further deteriorated in 1567 with the arrival of the Duke of Alba, who imposed a repressive regime.15 The Spanish Governor immediately understood both the importance of the experiment of the court at Cleves, which had adopted a political stance of equidistance between Catholics and Protestants, and the danger it posed because it allowed for the coexistence of the different confessions of faith. For this reason, Alba immediately sought close relations with the ducal court, attempting to bring it within the Spanish sphere of influence, and he succeeded in doing so. That outcome further contributed to distancing Wier from the Duke. Faced with these events, Wier did not stand idly or silently by; on May 19, 1573, he met with Counts Johann and Ludwig of Nassau, brothers of William the Silent, and exhorted them to intervene in Haarlem (which was under siege at that time).16 Profoundly alarmed by the recent Spanish policies, Wier was even suspected of espionage in favour of the rebels. His son Dietrich, who worked for Frederick III, the Elector Palatine, wrote to the counts on May 31, 1573, to warn them of the great threat posed by the Spanish to the autonomy and liberty of Flanders, urging a military intervention.17 The following day, to counteract the propaganda circulated by the Spanish in order to divide local aristocrats, Dietrich Wier opposed the opinion of his father, who had expressed lucid resignation and sorrowful awareness of the tyrannical personality of the Duke of Alba. In fact, Johann believed that the Duke would never cease his action, even if the entire population were to be exterminated.18 The debate at the forefront of this conflict was not a question of faith, but of politics. Wier’s anti-Spanish stance seems to have been motivated by the fear of losing autonomy and by indignation at the brutal means of repression. 15 Israel, The Dutch Republic, pp. 145 ff. 16 See Correspondance de Philippe II sur les affaires des Pays-Bas, par L. P. Gachard, II, (Bruxelles: Muquardt, 1851), pp. 352 and following. See also A. Duke, Reformation and Revolt in the Low Countries, (London: The Hambledon Press, 1990), pp. 203–210. 17 Binz, Doctor Johann Weyer, p. 161. For Dietrich’s activities in earlier times, see Hoorens, Een ketterse arts voor de heksen, p. 259. The letter is in Archives ou correspondance inédite de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, par G. Groen van Prinsterer, IV (Leiden: Luchtmans, 1837), pp. 133–143. 18 Binz, Doctor Johann Weyer, p. 163. The text is published in Archives IV, pp. 143–152.

Vince te ipsum

105

Dietrich’s diplomatic actions in the service of the Prince Elector Palatine continued, with evidence indicating that he was awarded the role of Governor of Kaiserslautern. His father mentions this in a letter held in Hamburg which is undated, but which was certainly written after 1577, as he refers to the edition of the De praestigiis containing the Liber Apologeticus. While lamenting the cruelty and ferocity of the military advance, Wier maintains that it is the duty of the faithful to endure an unfair situation, but he attributes responsibility for the Dutch rebellion to Spanish severity (‘sic in Flandria manum violenta ingressi oppidum’) and predominantly to the introduction of the Spanish Inquisition, which was considered a political instrument. His plea for patience is repeated once again. Despite—or perhaps due to—the worsening of the political situation, Wier found time for the composition of other works and further revisions of the De praestigiis, to tackle the polemics with Gohory, Scalichius, and Erastus. Responding to the objections they raised, he clarified a number of points and anticipated other questions, such as those solicited by Gohory concerning Cornelius Agrippa. Over these years, Wier composed the Liber Apologeticus, the Pseudomonarchia daemonum, the De lamiis, the De ira morbo, and the De commentitiis jejuniis, which was added to the Medicarum Observationum liber and included in his Opera Omnia (1660). The Liber Apologeticus was added to the 1577 edition of the De praestigiis, in order to gather together the discussions with Brenz, Gohory, and Scalichius, and it is dedicated to Heinrich Wez, chancellor of the Duke of Cleves, whom Wier exalted for his clemency and merciful attitude towards witches. Despite inspiring many judges towards prudence and caution through his work, Wier believed that there was still much to do because, in his judgement, Satan was moving the inquisitors and the judges against the witches; magistrates condemned them to death all too lightly, and this had to be stopped.19 Wier’s challenge garnered both agreement and criticism, to which he replied in the De praestigiis, sometimes without explicitly naming his adversaries, wishing that they too would pursue the glory of God and Christian peace: Let those who think that this frank admonition applies to them recall that I make these remarks quite sincerely and earnestly. But if many men of carping disposition prefer to kick back and to grow haughty against me, whether in petulance or in all seriousness, they are free to do so, as 19 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 573.

106 

Johann Wier

far as I am concerned, provided only that they labour not against the testimony of conscience and truth, and that the glory of God and the peace and good of the Christian republic be their goal.20

Following on from the 1577 edition of the De praestigiis, Wier added the Pseudomonarchia daemonum, a curious little work. It is, in fact, a catalogue of demons, with descriptions of their various attributes and their actions.21 The significance of this work, as Wier explained, was to shed light on the description of the realm of demons, thus revealing their demonic tricks. In this way, in addition to revealing their tricks and deceits, Wier intended to deprive magicians of one of their instruments, the catalogue of demons, which had long been hidden and was supposed to be secretly handed down from magician to magician.22 It is thought that the work may have been composed following the model of the Steganographia by Trithemius. Cobben demonstrated that Reginald Scot, in his Discoverie of Witchcraft (1584), adopted the same structure in the second, third, and fourth chapters of Book XV, claiming to have discovered it via a manuscript of an anonymous ‘TR’ in 1570. The Pseudomonarchia was misread: Pierre de Lancre, like others, cited this catalogue as proof of the direct relationship between Wier and Satan.23 Wier adopted the model of the Clavicula Salomonis, the uselessness of which he intended to demonstrate. The Pseudomonarchia seems to aim to shed light on the demonic army for this apparent purpose—certainly not, as others claimed, to circulate instruments to bring people closer to Satan. Following an examination of Wier’s concept of demonology, the Pseudomonarchia should not be given too much theoretical weight: it does display a characteristic vein of irony and love of paradox. In this way, a work that allowed misunderstandings and uses never intended by its author should be brought back down to its reduced importance.24 This work is a satire, a condemnation of the risks of curiosity in embracing the magic arts; it expresses the hope that divine mercy may reform those who had 20 Wier, Witches, p. 223. 21 Dooren, Doctor Johannes Wier, pp. 83–86. 22 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 649. 23 Cobben, Jan Wier, p. 128 ep. 155. See P. de Lancre, On the Inconstancy of Witches: Pierre de Lancre’s Tableau de l’inconstance des mauvais anges et demons (1612), Edited by G. Scholz Williams et al., (Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2006), p. 48. 24 ‘Taken seriously, the style of Wier’s book and its adversary nature seem entirely appropriate and deserving of admiration, in that one would admire anyone who exposed the tricks of the mediums. Wier does not describe or label this work as a satire, but with subtlety appears again and again to arts’, Cobben, Jan Wier, p. 129.

Vince te ipsum

107

lost their way. The purpose of the work is clarified in the conclusion, after the list of demons. Wier reiterates the need to severely punish true magicians, authors of various atrocities.25 A closer reading, however, reveals the deeper purpose of showing regret and remorse for his ‘most wicked age’ (‘seculo scelestissimo’), an era afflicted by wars, and by the fracture and fragmentation of Christian unity. In order to avoid misunderstandings and any false interpretative construction, another two of Wier’s works were bound together: the De lamiis and the De commentitiis jejuniis.26 This volume, dedicated to Count Arnold of Bentheim, was intended as a denunciation of demonic deceptions. To oppose the triumph of the realm of Satan on earth, Wier proposed recourse to evangelical law as the only effective remedy to the proliferation of the devil, asserting that Jesus had liberated the world from demonic action.27 According to Wier, every kind of demonic trick or deception, even those committed by humans, such as false (that is, ostensibly miraculous) fasting, could be revealed through knowledge of the pure doctrine of Christ and of true religion. Wier believed that divine mercy, a fundamental principle of Christian doctrine, had been obscured by the presence and activity of the devil, leading to the terrible consequence of the witch-hunts with their heavy burden of immolations. Magistrates ought to strive for truth and not allow themselves to be confused by demonic tricks.28 From this perspective, and by calling for reason and a cessation of the massacre of the innocent, Wier wrote the De lamiis, which briefly presents the topics and debates so richly dealt with in the De praestigiis, in order to reach a wider readership and to persuade local rulers and magistrates. In the De lamiis, Wier was pleased that he had succeeded in mitigating some of the witch trials, but his battle against Satan was not over.29 The entire respublica literarum, Wier maintains in exaggeration, had expressed the most profound consensus, encouraging him 25 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 666. See F. Barbierato, Nella stanza dei circoli: Clavicula Salomonis e libri di magia a Venezia nei secoli XVII e XVIII, (Milano: Bonnard, 2002), pp. 51–53. 26 Cfr. Dooren, Doctor Johannes Wier, pp. 79–83. 27 ‘Verum enimvero quum indormientibus huic studio posteris, Evangelicae veritatis lux rursus coepisset obscurari, nervum ille denuo nactus, variis technis, & quibuscumque novis illusionibus (cujusmodi sunt & illae, quarum falso insimulantur nostrae Lamiae) Christi doctrinam pessundare, hominum mentes effascinare, oculosque perstringere conatus est’, Wier, Opera omnia, p. 669. 28 ‘At profecto non ab aeterno illo bonitatis & misericordiae fonte, innocentium hujusmodi lanienae ortum habent: verum ab immanissimo universae mortalitatis, & potissimum Ecclesiae Christi adversario tales suggeruntur carnificinae’, Ibid., pp. 670–671. 29 Ibid., p. 673.

108 

Johann Wier

to continue. Encouraged by a boastful claim of unanimity despite serious differences among the religious confessions that would have justified taking no position, Wier succeeds in not siding one way or the other, according to the sensible principles of humanist theology. From the very title of De lamiis, Wier clarifies his objective of saving witches: he wants to demonstrate that everything depends on Satan and his army of demons, while arguing that witches are only victims. He lingers over the definition of a witch in order to assist readers to escape the labyrinth of the issue without losing themselves in a confusion of definitions and falling into the ‘trap through which Satan spreads his darkness’.30 He frequently summarizes or shortens entire chapters of the De praestigiis, eliminating some proof, theoretical detail, and anecdotes that did not add much to the cogency of his argument but might potentially distract his readers from his central aim. The work is divided into 24 chapters; following his analysis of the categories of magician and poisoner, Wier moves on to witches, conducting his analysis on the basis of rationis & sacrosanctae Scripturae. The De lamiis does present some differences in content compared with the contemporaneous edition of the De praestigiis, emerging from his definition of lamia. The variations between the different editions centre on a detail of primary importance: he made no change to the illusory (‘praestigiosum’) pact or to the imaginary (‘imaginarium’) sexual coupling, through which a witch was believed to conquer power. What does change is Wier’s understanding of a “witch’s” motivation for turning to the devil—this was a point of contention in later debates. In the De lamiis Wier maintains that either a witch freely chooses to side with the devil, or she is forced or prompted by the devil; in the final two editions of the De praestigiis, Wier dropped this distinction because it was being used by his adversaries to refute him. De praestigiis (1568) p. 206

De lamiis (1577)

Hanc igitur appello quae ob foedus Praestigiosum, aut imaginarium cum Daemone initum propria ex suo delectu voluntate, vel maligno Daemonis instinctu impulsuve illiusque ope qualiacumque mala,

Lamiam appello, quae ob foedus Praestigiosum, aut imaginarium cum Daemone initum proprio ex suo delectu, vel maligno Daemonis instinctu impulsuve illiusque ope qualiacumque mala,

30 Ibid., p. 674.

p. 690

De praestigiis (1583) p. 161 Hanc autem dico, quae ob foedus Praestigiosum, aut imaginarium cum Daemone initum qualiacumque mala.

Vince te ipsum

109

Responding to the objections voiced against him, Wier subdivided his argument into different points, the foremost concerning the injunction in Exodus 22, which did not refer to witches, as none existed in the times of Moses.31 Outlining the differences between magicians and witches and once more condemning curiositas, Wier recalls and emphasizes the Pauline motto, ‘noli altum sapere’ (Rom. 11, 20), for magicians who transgress this warning, with the ambition of reaching a higher knowledge.32 In the concluding part, Wier appeals to leniency, rather than dirtying one’s hands with blood, in order to escape the labyrinth of traps laid by the devil. Should witches continue to be condemned to death, Wier admonishes, this unscrupulous behaviour would be judged in the court of Christ, who is the only one able to express final judgement on the salvation of individuals.33 The debate was not limited to witches; in the battle to uncover the tricks and falsehoods of the devil and of humanity, Wier takes on instances of false fasting. Thus, the De commentitiis jejuniis clarifies another aspect of his thought, only hinted at in the De praestigiis, where he had repeatedly encouraged the use of fasting. Fasting, in addition to its physiologically therapeutic virtues, could also be a means of warding off the devil through self-control of one’s body.34 As usual, this reflection draws upon his analysis and comment of a specific case; that of a young girl whose fasts were noted everywhere.35 In 1573, during his journey to accompany the eldest daughter of the Duke of Cleves, Maria Eleonora, to her wedding to Albert Frederick of Brandenburg, Wier was able to meet many scholars, as he recounts in the first paragraph of the De commentitiis jejuniis. In particular, he spent time with the doctors of the courts that hosted them, meeting, amongst others, Levinus Battus (1546–1591).36 He also spoke of this journey in Chapter 24 of Book 5 of the De praestigiis, regarding German exorcisms.37 31 Ibid., p. 735. 32 C. Ginzburg, The High and the Low. The Theme of Forbidden Knowledge in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, in Id., Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), p. 54 and ff. 33 Wier, Witches, p. 22 and 363. 34 ‘Hic jejunii, uti theriacae praesentissimae vires & encomium, oculis omnium semper opponendum hoc seculo dissolutissimo exulceratissimoque, ac animi & corporis morbis daemonumque insultui apprime obnoxio, ex Athanasio & Cypriano adducam’, Ibid., pp. 439–440. 35 Ibid., p. 671. 36 Adam, Vitae Germanorum medicorum, pp. 316–317. 37 Wier, Witches, p. 437. For Italy see V. Lavenia, ‘Tenere i malefici per cosa vera’. Esorcismi e censura nell’Italia moderna’, in Dal torchio alle fiamme. Inquisizione e censura, a cura di V. Bonani (Salerno: Biblioteca Provinciale di Salerno, 2005), pp. 129–172; G. Dall’Olio, Il diavolo e

110 

Johann Wier

In the secret huddle of physicians, Wier heard of the case of a 10-year-old girl, Barbara Kremers of Unna, who, after a short illness, did not eat for an entire year, staying in good health throughout. Wier, his curiosity piqued, wanted to investigate the case and was suspicious of the child’s health despite the extended fast.38 On receiving the Duke’s permission, Wier brought the girl to his house and subjected her to continual tests. With the help of his wife Judith, it was not difficult to discover the trick the girl had been using: Barbara, assisted by her sister, had been eating and drinking beyond the purview of other people. Wier managed to make her confess the truth and at the same time ensured that the two girls were not charged and were allowed to return to their parents without impediment.39 Through the case of Kremers, Wier uncovered another aspect that stimulated popular credulity without questioning the value of a practice, such as fasting, that he himself followed. The other cases examined also serve to reveal the tricks on which popular superstition were founded, while in no way diminishing in value a practice recommended by many examples from Holy Scripture. It is from a different perspective, and with a more difficult aim, that, in 1577, Wier wrote the De ira morbo, attempting to evaluate and consider the medical, scientific, theological, and philosophical aspects of anger as a whole, having as a model the work of Seneca. 40 An expression of his adherence to Galenic theory, De ira morbo gave Wier a chance to use Galenic aetiology la giustizia. Note sugli usi giudiziari della possessione e dell’esorcismo, in ‘Non lasciar vivere la malefica’, pp. 197–212 and E. Brambilla, Corpi invasi e viaggi dell’anima. Santità, possessione, esorcismo dalla teologia barocca alla medicina illuminista, (Roma: Viella, 2010). 38 See for other examples: Gerardus Bucoldianus, De puella, quæ sine cibo & potu vitam transigit, brevis narratio, (Paris: ex officina R. Stephani, 1542); Simone Porzio, De puella germanica, quae fere biennium vixerat sine cibo, potuque, (Florentiae: apud Laurentium Torrentinum, 1551). See C. Walker Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), passim. 39 Wier, De jejuniis commentitiis, in Id., Opera omnia, p. 759. See Adam, Vitae Germanorum medicarum, p. 187. 40 J. Wier, De Ira morbo, Ejusdem curatione philosophica, medica & theologica liber, (Basileae: Oporinus, 1577); see Dooren, Doctor Johannes Wier, pp. 70–79; H. Brabant, Médecins, malades et maladies de la Renaissance, (Bruxelles: La Renaissance du livre, 1966), p. 146; Hoorens, Een ketterse arts voor de heksen, pp. 247–271; H. de Waardt, ‘‘Lightning strikes, wherever ire dwells with power’: Johan Wier on Anger as an Illness”, pp. 255–270 and K. A.A. Enenkel, Neo-Stoicism as an Antidote for Public Violence before Lipsius’s De constantia: Johann Weyer’s (Wier’s) Therapy of Anger, De ira morbo (1577), in Discourses of Anger in the Early Modern Period, ed. by K. A.E. Enenkel and A. Traninger, (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 49–96. See A. Arcangeli, ‘Écrits sur la colère et système des passions au XVIe siècle’, L’Atelier du Centre de recherches historiques [En ligne], 11 | 2013, mis en ligne le 10 juillet 2013 https://journals.openedition.org/acrh/5312.

Vince te ipsum

111

in a penetrating analysis of the prevalence of black bile in temperaments inclined towards rage, which he examined both as a pathology of the body and as an illness of the spirit. With sensitivity and political foresight for those implicated in spreading rage, Wier’s pacifist nature clearly emerges, slung with his love and respect for humanity and for life. As he explains in his dedicatory preface, civil disorder, private disputes, and disasters all spring from one source: rage. 41 Three reasons had driven him to undertake De ira morbo. Firstly, having proved that “rage” had become epidemic, it was important to identify the cures that consider both body and soul, and to call for the doctor and the philosopher to intervene together. Secondly, he was convinced of the need to investigate evil, for which he deployed various theological perspectives. Finally, making room for his own personal reasons, he wrote the work in an attempt to assuage the pain caused by the death of his wife. Great strength of spirit is necessary to tame rage because it often stems from a natural predisposition. Reason undertakes an important function, having to regulate appetites, which must not be allowed to gain the upper hand. Moving on from his def inition of rage (admitting that it can also be a legitimate emotion, when provoked by injustices) as an emotion deriving from the privation or lack of something, Wier discusses the causes of rage with great care, through a medical and scientif ic analysis, and via literary and philosophical sources, from Homer to Aristotle. 42 Prior to proposing treatments, Wier highlights some of its destructive and inauspicious effects, touching upon the political consequences of a kind of rage in which arrogance blurred into tyranny. 43 Each argument, in its selection of patristic and literary sources, in the studied alternation between antiquity and contemporary history, converge to strengthen Wier’s idea; when faced with difficulty, even insurmountable difficulty, 41 ‘Proinde quando in nostri saeculi intuerer tum extremas calamitates, tum calamitatum occasiones, commentari volui aliquid de causis veris ac remediis certis ipsius Irae, e qua hodie privatae factiones, publica bella, caedes truculentae, ac inauditae immanitatis exempla in Christiani popelli cervices & fortunas miserrime exundant’, Wier, De ira morbo, in Id., Opera omnia, p. 773. 42 ‘Quid autem hic persequimur, quidque profligamus? Dicam breviter. Appetitus semper praesupponit privationem, quae est defectus rei. Non enim appeto quod possideo, sed quod deest. Quare si Ira appetitus est, quid deest quod appetam? Deest apparens justitia, tamquam bonum. Quomodo autem justitiam recuperavero aliter, nisi ut suum contrarium, nempe injuriam, depellam? Sic in gerendo bello quis finis? Pax…’, Wier, De ira morbo, in Id., Opera omnia, p. 778. 43 ‘Quamvis etenim perturbatio quaevis aciem mentis & judicium omne obscuret: tamen ira caliginem longe densiorem offundit, ut nec verum, nec utile, nec honestum cernere queat’, Ibid., pp. 795–797.

112 

Johann Wier

one must never let oneself go, but ‘conquer oneself’ (‘seipsum vincere’), as his motto proclaimed. 44 On the engraving depicting the face of Johannes, Wier features the monition vince te ipsum, not only as a warning but also, and perhaps most importantly, as a way of life. It is the first of a long series of precautions and advice on how to live well—controlling one’s impulses so that human nature, born in love, does not die in hate.45 As a model for his stoic work on anger, Seneca certainly played an important role, but it is also clear that philosophical motives of a just and upright individual are rooted in Wier and in his cultural milieu. With care and indignation, Wier traces a vivid panorama of his most wicked (‘scelestissimus’) century, in which admonishes those who stain themselves with blood and who would be judged in the court of Christ. 46 The frequent references to contemporary chronicles attempted to convert negative emotions into positive ones such as the conversion of rage into friendship. Viewed from a new perspective, any controversy could eventually be resolved with reciprocal benefits: ‘Quanto est gloriosus fructusiusque iram amicitia commutare?’47 As Enenkel has rightly observed, ‘if one looks more carefully at the way in which Weyer mentions contemporary outbursts of anger caused by religious and political conflicts, it becomes clear that he always refrains from direct attacks, deliberately avoids harsh, polemical criticism, and above all does not mention names’.48 This reluctance to launch open attacks or to engage in violent debate is characteristic of Wier, as, even when his adversary is clearly defined, Wier adopts a rhetorical strategy that leaves room for doubt. The desire to convert negative emotions into positive ones goes hand in hand with the well-known adage of John Chrysostom, nemo nisi a seipso laeditur, and thus Wier reflects on the internal consequences of rage. These are introduced by an array of examples from classical antiquity (predominantly gathered from Sabellico), in which he highlights the outcomes gained through clemency to demonstrate that moderate behaviour has positive effects even from a political perspective. 49 The political model promoted by Emperor Augustus knew how to gain the favour and approval of the people of his time, but it could also be useful to follow this example in the sixteenth 44 Ibid., p. 804. 45 Ibid., pp. 806–807. 46 Ibid., p. 782. 47 Ibid., p. 815. 48 Enenkel, Neo-Stoicism as an Antidote for Public Violence, p. 55. 49 Wier, De ira morbo, p. 816.

Vince te ipsum

113

century, a century ravaged by wars and civil conflicts, and disastrous events that, according to Wier, could have been contained had there been space for good will and love for one’s neighbour.50 In De ira morbo, Wier dwells on the ferocious behaviour of the Spanish in the Low Countries. Wier blasted the Spanish oppression at the hands of the Duke of Alba, particularly the bloody repression and sacking of the cities of Zutphen, Naarden, and Haarlem that were in revolt, and denounced the Duke’s heinous behaviour that led to the needless spilling of blood.51 Sad times and sorrowful events afflicted Europe, staining the land with the blood of war for an entire century, but Wier, in his work, never abandons his optimism and his faith in human nature.52 Following his description of the revolt in the Low Countries, he praises the English Queen Elizabeth, who successfully managed the best possible outcome of a plot hatched by the Duke of Norfolk, in 1569; after thwarting Norfolk’s latest plot and incarcerating him, Elizabeth granted him his freedom, once he had sworn that he would not conspire against her again.53 In 1572, however, the Duke was beheaded because he violated this oath; Wier thought it best to omit this outcome, because it would have weakened his defence of governmental clemency. The political landscape of continuous wars in the second half of the sixteenth century led Wier to reflect on the consequences of this attitude, leaving space to mention the exacerbation of rage as a root of the war, that had caused these disasters. In private and public life, everyone should avoid the error of rage, although it is intrinsic to human nature. Wier believed reason to be a breakwater that could allow mercy to prevail; once again, he shows his Erasmian-influenced anthropological optimism.54 A good Christian must abide by the teachings of meekness and search for peace, tolerating and converting rage into patience as Holy Scripture shows.55 50 Ibid., p. 834. 51 ‘Utinam parem barbari mansuetudinem a Christianis sensissent Geldrorum Zutphania, Hollandorum Nerda & Harlemium’, Ibid., p. 839. 52 Ibid., p. 831. 53 ‘porro omnium laudem post se relinquit illud cunctis seculis memorabile, & Christianae religionis principibus certe imitandum factum serenissimae reginae Angliae Elizabethae, vel hoc nomine solo immortalitate dignissimae, quae haud ita pridem anno sexagesimo nono supra millesimum quingentesimum, victis rebellium subditorum aliquot multis millibus, compressa ira clementer ignovit, domumque redire jussit, capto saltem seditionis huius authore duce Norfocio’, Ibid., p. 842. See M. Graves, Howard, Thomas, fourth Duke of Norfolck (1538–1572), in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (henceforth ODNB). 54 Wier, De Ira morbo, p. 874. 55 Ibid., p. 871.

114 

Johann Wier

Wier’s political discussion does not only treat current affairs, but also the essential characteristics of good government, without laying out a theory of political practice. The profound influence of Erasmus is palpable here too, and, as de Waardt has demonstrated, echoes the Conseil à la France desolèe by Sebastian Castellio.56 The conclusion of De ira morbo agrees perfectly with the overall development of Wier’s thought: we should act not against each other, but against the devil, if we want the victory of Jesus Christ.57 (non contra nos, sed adversus diabolum tantum iracundiam armemus, si coeleste regnum assequi velimus in Christo Jesu Domino nostro.)

Wier openly and frequently cited the model of Seneca, but Enenkel has shown that the De ira morbo must be considered in relation to Neostoicism as well, in particular with the De constantia of Justus Lipsius, published in 1583.58 In addition to his clear and documented agreement on many subjects, Lipsius provided an example of a certain ambiguity in terms of religion in that time. In addition to the physical and natural causes of the tragic events that were playing out at the time, Wier also identified Satan’s plan to distract humanity from battling him, and the need to redirect human energy in the right direction. While he hoped that De ira would teach both private and public ethics, searing disappointments were looming; with an edict of 1581, the Duke of Cleves reintroduced trial by water and torture in trials for witchcraft.59 This was a personal defeat for Wier, who had trusted in the foresight and intelligence of William’s government. With the bond of trust broken, Wier definitively abandoned the Duke’s court, from which he had already retired, leaving his son there, and devoted himself to his estate. Meanwhile, the Union of Utrecht, the banishment of William of Orange, and his later Apologia exemplify the shift of the political landscape.60 56 De Waardt, ‘‘Lightning strikes, wherever ire dwells with power’: Johan Wier, p. 264. 57 Wier, De Ira morbo, p. 875. 58 Enenkel, Neo-Stoicism as an Antidote for Public Violence, pp. 59 and ff. 59 After his stroke, the duke was under the influence of his ministers. Dooren, Doctor Johannes Wier, p. 47 and Cobben, Jan Wier, p. 13. E. Münster-Schröer, ‘Hexenverfolgungen in Jülich-Berg und der Einfluß Johann Weyers’, Spee-Jahrbuch, 7 (2000), pp. 59–102 and Herrschaft, Hof und Humanismus. Wilhelm V. von Jülich-Kleve-Berg und seine Zeit. 60 Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 208 ff.

Vince te ipsum

115

Despite the years of political and historical turmoil, Wier continued his medical practice, giving consultations even if questions of politics and religious politics probably distracted him from his scientif ic research. In three letters written between 1582 and 1583, Wier replies suggesting medicines mainly based on herbs. To the Countess of Berg, he counsels patience, a good diet, and a cure with the waters of spa. In the second letter, over a year later, but evidencing a close personal connection, in addition to suggesting medicines and cures, Wier offered to send a copy of the Imitatio Christi. In the third letter, written while he was convalescing, he informs the recipient, Mattia, of the precarious health of the Countess and reports that he himself had not completely recovered, attributing his slow convalescent progress to old age.61 In 1582, the passage of soldiers, led by Alessandro Farnese, across Wier’s properties caused such serious damage that Wier openly complains about in several letters.62 An innocent victim, unable to react or protect himself against these continuous attacks on his land, Wier sought protection from the Counts of Berg in a dynamic and unpredictable context with strong alliances leaning towards the Catholic Counter Reformation led by Farnese’s army that resulted in the War of Cologne (1583–1588).63 Wier refers to this war in a letter of May 22, 1583, when he reminds the recipient of his economic difficulties. Events of Wier’s personal life once again entwined with the history of Europe during the war against Philip II, and after the declaration of independence of the Republic of the United Provinces and the assassination of William of Orange. With the signing of the treaty of Nonsuch (August 20, 1585), Elizabeth I entered into an anti-Habsburg alliance with the newly formed Republic, entrusting the role of governor and commander of the English army to a rather reluctant Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.64 The undertaking had been prepared at length, taking into consideration the various cultural motives, and involving young and enthusiastic descendants of aristocratic families, including the poet Philip Sidney and his brother.65 61 Johann Wier. Three letters about the state of health of the Countess of Berg, Opuscula selecta Neerlandicorum de arte medica, 13 (1935), pp. 95–105. I thank Daniela Petriglia, librarian at the Department of Studi Politici, Sapienza Università di Roma, for her generous and professional help. 62 Dooren, Doctor Johannes Wier, pp. 134, 137, 138, 140. 63 J. Spohnholz, The Tactics of Toleration. A Refugee Community in the Age of Religious Wars, (Newark: Universitity of Delaware Press, 2011), p. 175. 64 Israel, The Dutch Republic, pp. 220–230 and A. Poot, Crucial Years in Anglo-Dutch Relations (1625–1642). The Political and Diplomatic Contacts, (Hilversum: Verloren, 2013), pp. 15 and ff. 65 See Relations politiques des Pays-Bas et de l’Angleterre, sous le règne de Philippe II, pub. par m. le baron Kervyn de Lettenhove, (Bruxelles: Hayez, 1888–1900).

116 

Johann Wier

Philip Sidney, as a distraught eyewitness to the Saint Bartholomew’s Day massacre, a keen expert on politics, and a friend of Giordano Bruno, despite having no experience of war, was nominated Governor of Flushing and sent into the battlefield. At the battle of Zutphen, in September 1586, the poet, who was wearing no armour, was wounded in the leg by musket fire. Despite immediate first aid, the situation seemed to worsen rapidly, followed by an unexpected recovery.66 Finally, his condition suddenly worsened; he sent Wier a heartfelt request for help, a heart-wrenching plea showing his lucid understanding of his own tragic predicament.67 The missive was accompanied by a longer letter from Wier’s nephew, Gisbert Enerwijn, dated October 16, 1586, and probably never sent, as Sidney died the very next day.68 Despite its brevity, Sidney’s plea is evidence of profound esteem for Wier’s medical competence and of a markedly informal acquaintance that was not formal in tone. Furthermore, it clarifies the diplomatic and political role Sidney could have assumed in the United Provinces; from the second half of the 1570s, parallel to his concerted political efforts to encourage the Dutch rebellion, Sidney had cultivated good relations with Dutch scholars, primarily with Justus Lipsius.69 Given the clear political, cultural, and confessional proximity between Tudor England and the Republic of United Provinces, the question remains as to whom could have facilitated relations between Sidney and Wier? The discovery of a previously overlooked document may be able to offer some new avenues of enquiry. A matter of days after Sidney’s heartfelt request, Wier wrote to the English doctor John James (1550–1601). This letter, dated November 4, 1586, was published in the monumental collection of Hessels and offers us a previously unknown insight into Wier’s fortunes and his contact with the English world.70 Despite having been 66 H. R. Woudhuysen, ‘Sidney, Sir Philip (1554–1586)’, ODNB, 2004; cfr. Sir Philip Sidney: 1586 and the Creation of a Legend, ed. by J. A. van Dorsten, D. Baker-Smith, A. F. Kinney, (Leiden: Brill, 1986), passim. See Calendar of State Papers Foreign, Elizabeth, Volume 21, Part 2, June 1586–March 1587, ed. by S. Crawford Lomas and A. B. Hinds, London, 1927, pp. 166–182 and L. Shenk, Learned Queen. The Image of Elizabeth I in Politics and Poetry. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), pp. 55–88. 67 A. P. van Schilfgaarde, ‚De laatste Brief van Sir Philip Sidney’, Bijdragen en Mededeelingen van de Vereeniging Gelre, 55 (1956), pp. 197–200 and in The Correspondence of Sir Philip Sidney, ed. by R. Kuin, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. xvi, lxii e 1318–1324: 1318 and 1323. 68 Calendar of State Papers Foreign, Elizabeth, 21, pp. 189–205. 69 R. Stillman, Philip Sidney and the Poetics of Renaissance Cosmopolitanism, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), passim. See B. Nicollier, Hubert Languet, 1518–1581: un réseau politique international de Melanchthon, (Genève: Droz, 1995), pp. 329 ff. 70 Ecclesiae londino-batavae archivum…, edidit Joannes Henricus Hessels, (Cantabrigiae : typis Academiae svmptibus Ecclesiae londino-batavae, 1887–1897), pp. 2–3. Epistulae et tractatvs cvm

Vince te ipsum

117

published long ago, this letter has never been taken into consideration by scholars of Wier. The recipient of the letter, John James, was a Cambridge graduate who then registered at the University of Leiden in 1578, from which he graduated in 1581.71 He became physician in Leicester and Sidney’s entourage; he accompanied both men in their missions to the Netherlands and was a useful mediator because of his long familiarity with Leiden.72 James was also one of the physicians who cared for Sidney following his injury at Zutphen, and for this he was given a bequest from the poet on his death. In the letter, written around a week after Sidney’s death, an event of which Wier did not seem to be aware, Wier recalls his debt of gratitude to James (although we do not know exactly what he was grateful for), and promises to mention him in meis scriptis publicis, which suggests a certain familiarity between them. In addition to attaching to the missive some juniper water, used as a cure for a variety of illnesses, he thoughtfully includes a treatment for a gunshot wound (‘curationem vulneris ex sphaerulae bombardicae ictu’), with advice on a series of measures and operations aimed at preventing the stagnation of body liquids. Together with details on surgical and postoperative practices, Wier provides an abundance of information on processes to facilitate the healing of wounds, scrupulously citing the medical and scientific sources from which he took the information. It seems reasonable to infer that these treatments were intended for Sidney’s wound. Maintaining a friendly tone, Wier expresses disappointment at not yet receiving a copy of his own medical work because army blockades had made the roads impassable: this probably refers to the second edition of Artzney Buch.73 He concludes the letter with thoughts and best wishes to Leicester and with greetings to other English notables, further evidence of a communication between Wier and the Tudor court. It would seem plausible, then, that James had facilitated the relationship between Wier and Sidney; though it remains unclear whether this relationship with the English started for scientific or political reasons. reformationis tvm Ecclesiae londino-batavae historiam illvstrante, pp. 820–822. 71 W. Munk, Roll of the Royal College of Physicians, (London: The college, 1878), I, p. 388, F. J. Pratt, sub voce, in ODNB, and E. Lane Furdell, The Royal Doctors, 1485–1714: Medical Personnel at the Tudor and Stuart Courts, (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2001), p. 190. 72 Ecclesiae, pp. 821–823. W. Nijenhuis, Adrianus Saravia (c.1532–1613): Dutch Calvinist, first Reformed Defender of the English Episcopal Church Order on the Basis of the Ius divinum, (Leiden: Brill, 1980), pp. 94 and ff.; M. Roobol, Disputation by Decree: the Public Disputations between Reformed Ministers and Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert as Instruments of Religious Policy during the Dutch Revolt (1577–1583), (Leiden: Brill, 2010). 73 Artzney-Buch von etlichen biß anher unbekandten und unbeschriebenen Kranckheiten, (Frankfurt a. M.: Nicolaus Bassee, 1583).

118 

Johann Wier

Other plausible and important reasons might have been the search for an alternative solution to the current European wars; Wier dearly hoped for a resolution into peaceful cohabitation. Through these contacts, Wier gained renown in England, to the extent that the diplomat George Gilpin, on June 29, 1588, recommended that the powerful—yet ailing—Francis Walsingham trust in an unidentified doctor who enjoyed the approbation of even ‘the old Wierus and other learned doctors’.74 For the full picture of Johann Wier’s importance, we need to look at all these other facets rather than studying only his role in the debate on demonology. Wier died in Tecklenburg, in 1588, following a sudden illness while in the city for a consultation on the health of the Count of Bentheim, Arnold IV, who in that very year introduced Protestantism to his domain:75 ‘Moritur septuagenario major Tecklemburgi, dum ad Arnoldum Comitem Benthemiensem proficitur, anno 1588 die 24 Februarii; sepultus illic in aede primaria, mendaci hoc encomio a filiis in memoriam parentis Lutherano apposite’.76 Cobben adds that, in one copy of the De praestigiis, a manuscript note on the first page stated that Wier had died of a cerebral haemorrhage.77

2. Against Scalichius In the Liber Apologeticus, between an epistolary exchange with the theologian Johann Brenz and a medical confutation of Paracelsism directed against Gohory, Wier takes on a dispute with Paulus Scalichius (1534–1575), a Croatian Renaissance philosopher and theologian known for his philosophical syncretism.78 Following his approach, Wier dealt with theology, science, and now, philosophy: the Liber Apologeticus reflects and reproposes the subdivision of arguments that Wier had already adopted in his other works. For the 74 Calendar of State Papers Foreign, Elizabeth, 21, part IV, p. 525. See my ‘Mi Weiere, veni veni’. Appunti su Johann Wier, Philip Sidney e John James’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LXXVII (2015), pp. 423–429. 75 Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 386. 76 Foppens, Bibliotheca Belgica, p. 754. 77 Cobben, Jan Wier, p. 13. 78 See M. Girardi KarŠulin, ‚Pavao Skalić. Eulogus ili o odvojenoj duši’, Prilozi, 35–36 (1992), pp. 27–39; Ead., ‘Basic Notions of Skalic’s Treatise Revolutio alphabetaria’, Prilozi, 43–44 (1996), pp. 195–210 and E. Banić-Pajnić, Skalić, Pavao, in Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy, ed. by M. Sgarbi, (Cham: Springer 2014); M. Rossi Monti, ‘Paulus Scalichius. His Thought, Sources, and Fortune.’ Prilozi za istraživanje hrvatske filozofske baštine, 45., br. 2, (90) (2019): pp. 339–382. https://hrcak.srce.hr/240964.

Vince te ipsum

119

theological issue, Wier discussed his arguments with Brenz to find an ally against the bloody repression of heretics and witches; then, examining the scientific approach, Wier faced Gohory in defence of the Galenic tradition and of Cornelius Agrippa; and finally, for the philosophical part, he argued with Scalichius in order to move towards raising a philosophical question concerned with the soul. The first edition of Salichius’s Encyclopaedia was published in 1559 by Oporinus, the publisher of Wier’s works, and followed by a fully revised second edition, in 1571. In dialogue form, through a dense discussion between Eubulus and Eulugus, Scalichius takes up his position on the main philosophical questions, including a rebuttal of Luther and a definition of true Christian doctrine.79 In Liber III (De anima separata eiusque passione, de rerum sympathia & antipathia, de barbarismo et de Ioannis Vuieri praestigiis), Scalichius examined the question of the soul and the limits of human gnoseology. In the second edition, he singled out Wier, presenting him as a physician who also engaged in discussion on the devil’s power to take on any form.80 Wier’s argument that the soul was ‘corpoream, & idcirco corruptibilem’, clearly inspired by Psellus, did not persuade Scalichius, who established the incorruptibility of the various types of body.81 Within his dissertation, Scalichius had cited Wier, especially regarding the theory of Psellus of the corporeality of demons, in order to object to his conception of the nature of the soul.82 In the Apologia adversus Paulum Scalichium, Wier, before replying point by point, presents himself as one who has contributed to the prestige and the success of the respublica christiana for having so tenaciously battled against 79 Paulus Princips de la Scala et Hun, Miscellaneorum tomus secundus, sive catholici epistemonis, contra quorundam corruptam ac depravatam encyclopaediam libri XV, (Coloniae: ex officina Theodori Graminaei, 1571), f. 2v. 80 Ibid., p. 218. See G. Giglioni, G. Phantastica Mutatio: Johann Weyer’s Critique of the Imagination as a Principle of Natural Metamorphosis, in Transformative Change in Western Thought. A History of Metamorphosis from Homer to Hollywood, ed. by I. Gildnehard and A. Zissos (London: Routledge, 2013), pp. 307–330: 321. 81 Scalichius, Miscellaneorum tomus secundus, p. 219. See M. Girardi KarŠulin, Pavao Skalić. Eulogus ili o odvojenoj duši. 82 Scalichius, Miscellaneorum tomus secundus, p. 219. See G. Paganini, ‘L’anthropologie naturaliste d’un esprit fort. Thèmes et problèmes pomponaciens dans le Theophrastus redivivus’, Dix-septième siècle, XXXVII (1985), pp. 349–378; A. Funkenstein, The Body of God in the 17th century Theology and Science, in Millenarianism and Messianism in English Literature and Thought 1650–1800, ed. by R. Popkin, (Leiden: Brill, 1988), pp. 149–175; Id., Teologia e immaginazione scientifica dal Medioevo al Seicento, (Torino: Einaudi, 1996), passim and M. Mulsow, Radikale Frühaufklärung in Deutschland, vol. II (Göttingen 2018), Chapter IX: ‘Die sterbliche Seele’, pp. 11–96.

120 

Johann Wier

Satan.83 He gets straight to the point, tackling the question of the soul and its relationship with the body, referring to Pico and Cornelius Agrippa. Scalichius accused Wier of believing in the corporeality of the soul and in its corruptibility, a concept that opened the door to radicalization, belief in the mortality of the spirit, and, consequently, to atheism. Consequently Wier replied by referring to Psellus and the theory of corporeality of the devil, the corporeality of a spiritual substance, as Tatianus confirmed, ‘carnea, sed spirituali concretione’. Wier was primarily concerned with defining the similarity between the human soul and the devil, that could imprint on the sensus phantasticus. Through this theory, Wier deals with the issue of metamorphosis, asserting that the supposed metamorphosis of creatures into other creatures is not real but rather a fruit of the imagination. Following a philosophical debate, Wier and Scalichius quoted many sources to discuss the destiny of the soul after death. Here, Agrippa had resolved this question by stating that the body would return to earth, whereas the mind would ascend to share in the vision of God. The soul, if pure, would therefore share the mind’s destiny; if deprived of its intellectual part, it would endure the tortures of corporeal qualities. Scalichius’s treatise is in fact taken almost in its entirety from Agrippa, whose long relevant chapter of the De occulta philosophia is, however, truncated, as Scalichius cites some sections and ignores others where Agrippa refers to patristic sources supporting his thesis. Wier underlines that: ‘Quanquam in eo contextu, quem tuum ex phrasi indubitanter nemo non iudicabit, qui in Agrippae libris minus sit versatus, pleraque inveniantur, quae a Catholica Ecclesia non ita probatum iri arbitrer’.84 He accused Scalichius of having plagiarized Agrippa. In a concise examination of Scalichius’s weak points, and the contradictions in his work, Wier leaves the Croatian philosopher with no answer, refuting accusations and notably overthrowing his responses.85 Intending, therefore, to defend himself from these accusations, he is considered unjust and unmotivated, rather than deliberately intending to refute the entire work. Through persistent comparison, Wier highlights the contradictions present in Scalichius’s reading of Psellus, inviting him to take a certain position: ‘Pselli sententia aut vera aut falsa’. 83 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 596. 84 Ibid., p. 597. 85 ‘Neque enim velut ille, frivolis altercationibus aut impotenti ulla concertandi libidine flagro, sed solo veritatis indagandae studio ardet animus: qui si aliter esset affectus, tamen & ingravescens aetas colluctandi fervorem extingueret, & scribendi libertatem ac ocium profectionis variae occupationesque assiduae surriperent’, ibid., p. 596.

Vince te ipsum

121

Wier hereby manages to corner his adversary: should Scalichius acknowledge the soundness of Psellan theory, his construction would crumble, undermined by its own foundations; if, on the other hand, Scalichius were to admit that the theory was false, how could he explain his frequent recourse to the Byzantine philosopher?86 In demonstrating to his reader the use Scalichius makes of the text, Wier refused to be drawn in further, so that he might not become distracted from his primary objective.87 Wier objects to his adversary’s observation by reiterating his theory of demonology, stating that his opponent had not correctly understood and had misread many parts of the text, referring to Scalichius’s own writing on the origin of magic.88 These reflections on the soul, prompted by Scalichius’s objections, led Wier to clarify his own thought regarding questions of demonology. With the support of Augustine, ‘eximium purioris Theologiae antistem’,89 Wier argues that magic must be exposed, and then, with the use of the Canon episcopi, he reaffirms the role of God’s priests in revealing demonic tricks, and clarifying that these spectres are caused by the evil spirit and not by the divine.90 With Scalichius’s arguments analysed and deconstructed for all to see, Wier states that he was not in the least persuaded by his opponent’s evidence, and, whilst acknowledging that all may err, Wier accuses him of indulging in the pleasure of slander.91 Wier believed Scalichius to have confused the universal with the specific, universale pro particulari, thus preventing him from being coherent and consequential in his arguments. Subsequently, Wier surveyed different points from Scalichius’s book and confuted them.92 Together with their skirmishes concerning those errors that each believed the other to have committed, the discussion on the demonic power to foresee and anticipate events that, according to Scalichius, depended on the angelic essence, is of more interest.93 Wier attributed the devil with some derivative powers from the angelic nature, stating that these primarily depended on 86 ‘Si vera, quod innuere videris, cum non solum nihil contradicas, sed etiam subdole ab objectionis vadimonio te expedire coneris, tua necessario vacillabit. Si ipsius falsa est est opinio, cur subticuisti responsionem?’, ivi, p. 600. 87 ‘Nollem autem longioris digressionis molestia a me fatigare in iis quae ex professo non in meam contumeliam’, ibid., p. 598. 88 Scalichius, Miscellaneorum tomus secundus, p. 225. 89 Wier, Opera omnia, p. 605. 90 Ibid. 91 Ibid., p. 611. 92 Ibid., pp. 611–612. 93 Scalichius, Miscellaneorum tomus secundus, p. 225.

122 

Johann Wier

divine will and permission. The first part of the Apologia adversus Scalichium closes with Wier’s confutation of his opponent’s theories: the demon cannot take on different bodies or transform from one species to another, but can take on the appearance of other beings, thus fooling people through their imagination. Following Augustinian theories on this matter, Wier shows that the devil works on imagination by convincing people of the reality of events, but can produce only images. Wier does not hold back in his accusations of Scalichius’s ill-preparedness and preferring slander to truth.94

3. The physician Wier Despite the enormous effort invested in the incessant elaboration of the De praestigiis, Wier continued to develop his studies of medicine, publishing with Oporinus in 1567 his Medicarum observationum liber. The work was dedicated to Antonius Hovaeus, Abbot of Echternach, who had previously written an encomiastic letter for Wier.95 This work falls into the genre of medical observations, in which the importance of reflection and empirical enquiry is expounded: ‘The Observationes as a genre emphasized practice as an important source of knowledge’.96 The approach is similar for every illness examined, beginning with a description before moving on to the causes and sometimes the prevention, symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. In the first book, Wier studies scurvy and quartan fever, and reserves a section for ‘de epidemica pleuritide, peripneumonia atque Angina pestilenti’, of which there was a widespread epidemic in Germany in 1564. In the second book, amongst other illnesses, Wier examines syphilis (the morbus gallicus), as well as the disease de Varenis (‘[t]his disease…we call in Latin varenos’, a kind of breakbone fever), which had risen to levels of epidemic in Southern Europe, providing 94 ‘Hanc profecto perinacem contra mea scripta, animi insolentiam non possum non mirari in tam celebri philosopho & viro principe’, Wier, Opera omnia, p. 608. See Giglioni, Phantastica Mutatio, p. 323. 95 Ioannis Wieri Medicarum observationum rararum liber I. De scorbuto; De quartana; De pestilentiali angina, pleuritide et peripneumonia; De hydro pis curatione; De curatione meatuum naturalium clausorum, et quibusdam alìis, (Basileae: per Ioannem Oporinum, 1567). See Binz, Doctor Johann Weyer, p. 149 ff., Cobben, Jan Wier, p. 134 ff.; Dooren, Doctor Johannes Wier, p. 88 ff. 96 Pomata, ‘Sharing Cases: The Observationes in Early Modern Medicine.’, pp. 193–236 and Ead., Observation Rising: Birth of an Epistemic Genre, ca. 1500–1650, in Histories of Scientific Observation. Ed. by L. Daston and E. Lunbeck, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), pp. 45–80.

Vince te ipsum

123

the first accurate description of the latter97. Within these descriptions of epidemics and pathologies of sexual organs, Wier recounts numerous cases, usually concealing the name of the patient as a safeguard. The originality and value of Wier’s research in the field of medicine have attracted the attention of medical historians, who have highlighted the importance of some of his studies.98 In concluding this biographic profile of Wier, it seems opportune to remember his fame as a physician. He was esteemed and cited for his scientific analyses and for having progressed medical science. Indeed, it is no coincidence that his name features in the letters of the greatest physicians of the age.99 Among the letters of Laurent Scholz, specifically the letter from October 1578, Dudith Sbardellati recommended reading the Observationes medicae to the doctor Wenceslaus Raphanus.100 Petrus Monavius, the imperial physician, also valued Wier’s contribution and wrote in a letter to Johann Weidner, dated December 1580, that he regretted not having a copy of Wier’s medical work.101 Around a year later, in 1581, Monavius recommended reading Wier’s work to Dudith, because, in the work, in addition to his defence of witches, some interesting data could be found on other illnesses: ‘Dr. Monavius advised me that a book written by Johann Wier, a defender of witches, has been published and there he discussed some diseases’ (‘Admonitus sum a Doct. Monavio ex aula Caesaris, editum esse librum à Johanno Wiero, docto illo sagarum patrono, in quo tum de aliis, tum de hoc morbo disseratur’).102 Monavius again, in a letter of October 20, 1582, to Scholz, affirmed that he had met all the great physicians 97 Ioannis Wieri Medicarum observationum rararum libri II, in Wier, Opera omnia, pp. 8801002: 946. That part was published in German in J. Wier, Artzney-Buch von etlichen biß anher unbekandten und unbeschriebenen Kranckheiten, (Frankfurt: Nicolaus Bassee, 1580). 98 E. Püschel, Les ‘Varen’, une maladie du Nord-Ovest de l’Europe, décrite par Iohann Weyer (1515–1588), in XVII Congrès international d’histoire de la médecine, Athènes- Cos, 4–14 septembre 1960, (Athènes: 1960), pp. 502–505 and Id., Die varen in der medizinischer literatur seit Johann Wier (1515–1588), in Medicinae et artibus. Festschrift für prof.dr.phil. Wilhelm Katner, (Düsseldorf: Triltsch, 1968), pp. 110–120; J. J. Cobben, ‚De Bra and Wier on varen’, Gewina, XVIII (1995), pp. 36–48. 99 N. Siraisi, Communities of Learned Experience: Epistolary Medicine in the Renaissance, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013). 100 Laurent Scholz, Epistolarum philosophicarum medicinalium ac chymicarum volumen, Francofurti ad Moenum, apud Andreae Wecheli haeredes, 1598, p. 26. See Andreas Dudith Sbardellati, Epistulae, editae curantibus L. Szczucki et T. Szepessy, 4 vol., (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1992–1998). 101 ‘Iohannis Wieri observationes ad manus non habeo’, Letter, Prague, 22 December 1580, Scholz, Epistolarum philosophicarum medicinalium ac chymicarum volumen, c. 419. 102 Ibid., cc. 35–36.

124 

Johann Wier

of the age, including Camerarius and Wier.103 Later, on December 5, 1583, he once again praises Wier’s contribution to science.104 Appreciation for Wier did not vanish after his life: in the early seventeenth century, the English physician Richard Banister (1570?–1626) published and translated into English a collection of pamphlets on ophthalmology, amongst which was Wier’s De scorbuto.105 Heinrich Smet, in his medical miscellany, entered not only the work of Johann Wier but also of Wier’s son, Heinrich, next to the advice of Thomas Erastus.106 Further dissemination of the treatise De scorbuto was provided in 1615 by Gregor Horst.107 The physician Steven Blankaart, in a work on sexually transmitted diseases that was also translated into German, bound together pamphlets by Descartes and Wier in a publication.108 Another enthusiastic admirer of Johann Wier and his professional abilities was the German Johann Schenck, who, in his Observationes medicae— a text destined to be published in many editions over the seventeenth century—emphasized the important contribution made by Wier to the understanding of certain illnesses that were rapidly evolving, ‘arcanorum naturae callentissimus doctissimusque aetatis nostrae’.109 103 Ibid., cc. 447–450: 449. 104 Ibid., c. 428. 105 Jacques Guillemeau, A worthy treatise of the eyes; containing the knowledge and cure of one hundreth and thirtene diseases, incident unto them / first gathered & written in French … and now translated into English, together with a profitable treatise of the scorbie [by J. Weyer]; & another of the cancer [by B. Textor] by A. H[unton]. Also … a work touching the preservation of the sight, set forth by W. Bailey D. of Phisick, (London: Printed by Robert Waldegraue for Thomas Man and William Brome, 1586). 106 Endimio Westfalorum morbo, die veren appellato, in Smet, Miscellanea medica, pp. 227–240. 107 Tractätlein von dem Schurbauch, beschrieben von … Johann Weyern, in Gregor Horst, Büchlein von dem Schorbock … mit angehencktem Rath in Pest Zeiten. Auffs newe durchsehen und vermehret, (Giessen: Gedruckt durch Nicolaum Hampelium, 1615), pp. 163–196. 108 S. Blankaart, Venus belegert en ontset. Oft verhandelinge van de pokken, en des selfs toevallen, met een grondige en zekere genesigne. Steunende meest op de gronden van Cartesius … / Item, een nauwkeurige beschryvinge der pokken door … F. Sylvius, T. Sydenham, en J. Wierus, (Amsterdam: T. ten Hoorn, 1685) and Id., Die belägert und entsetzte Venus, das ist chirurgische Abhandlung der sogenanten frantzossen, auch spanischen Pocken-Kranckheit, Drüpper, Sjankert, Klap-Ohren, etc. und andern sich dabey findenden Zufällen. Worinnen derselben vornemlich auf des weltbekanten Cartesii Gründe befestigte … Cur vollkömmlich angewiesen wird. Anietzo seiner unvergleichlichen Vortreffligkeit halber, nebst der beruffenen Medicorum Fr. Sylvii, Th. Sydenham, Joh. Wieri und Ant. Everaars, gleichmässigen accuraten Beschreibung dieses Ubels, Aus dem Niederländischen … übersetzet, (Leipzig: J.F. Gleditsch, 1690). 109 ‘Ioannes Vierus, arcanorum naturae callentissimus doctissimusque aetatis nostrae medicus, ante annos sedecim & ipse quoque Observationum medicarum rariorum librum primum in lucem protulit, multi iuga sane rerum medicarum cognitione refertum, novorum morborum,

Vince te ipsum

125

I have shown here, from a different perspective, how, within the history of medicine, the name and works of Johann Wier continued to circulate and to be a reference point for many subsequent studies that followed. Testament to this can be seen in the Thesaurus sanitatis (which included the Artzney Buch), which circulated widely in the seventeenth century.110

Scorbuti inprimis, Quartanae item, & Pestilentium atque Hydropis curatione, nec non meatuum clausorum ingeniosa chirurgia insignem. Cuius reliquos instituti huius libros velut omnium absolutissimos, & primo haud inferiores, ex foecundissimo Autoris ingenio, multorumque annorum apud magnates medica experientia conf irmato iudicio profecto expectamus’, J. Schenck, Observationes Medicae De capite humano, (Basileae: ex off icina Frobeniana, 1584), f. 5 r-v. 110 Thesaurus sanitatis; oder, Neu-eröffneter Schatz menschlicher Gesundheit, in welchem enthalten, wie man … Operationes et Experimenta chirurgica, oder aeusserliche Leibes-Gebrästen … tractiren und heilen … kan … Welchem mit angefüget 600. … Recepta … nebst einem teutsch- und lateinischen/ & … lateinisch und teutschen Vocabulario pharmaceutico, (Frankfurt: Bey Johann Friedrich Fleischern, 1725).

6. Demons, sorcerers, and witches Abstract Wier’s demonological thought centred around the primary role given to the devil and the demons, with an accurate discussion of demonology past and present: from the Malleus Maleficarum to the Malleus daemonum. Drawing upon these primary considerations, Wier distinguishes the category of magicians, who he considered responsible for their own actions, from the category of witches, who were physical and moral victims of demonic action. On philological, legal, philosophical, and medical grounds, Wier maintained that witches needed to be re-educated and not punished with capital punishment, whereas magicians, and especially poisoners, warranted more severe punishments. Wier systematically addresses all salient issues, from the pact with the devil to metamorphosis. Key words: Devil, Magicians, Witches

1. Satan and his army The witch-hunts arose from the idea that some people make a pact with the devil through which they acquire the power to cause maleficia (illnesses, material damages, or harmful events). Whether these powers were real or not, a consequence of this recourse to supernatural devilry was that witches had to be punished because Scripture ordered it. Johann Wier opposed this interpretation and, from the very title of his work De praestigiis daemonum et incantationibus, intended to reveal these tricks by the devil and his demonic army.1 Over the sixteenth century, even though Aristotelian theories continued to be dominant, especially at universities, Neoplatonic demonological 1 M. Closson, The Devil’s Curses: The Demonic Origin of Disease in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, in Imagining Contagion in Early Modern Europe, ed. by C.L. Carlin, (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. 63–76.

Michaela Valente. Johann Wier. Debating the Devil and Witches in Early Modern Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789462988729_ch06

128 

Johann Wier

theories surged in the works of Marsilio Ficino as a result of the rediscovery of Plotinus’s works, of Porphyry’s De abstinentia, of Proclus’s Commentarium in Alcibiadem Primum Platonis, of Iamblichus’s De mysteriis, and of Psellus’s De operatione daemonum.2 This renewed interest spurred intense reflection on the devil, leading in turn to the publication, in Basel, of at least three works within a 5-year period (1563–1568), including titles referring to the spells and strategies of Satan. These works include Wier’s work, the Stratagemata Satanae of Jacopo Aconcio, which maintains that Satan created doctrinal divisions, and the work of an English doctor called Richard Argentine.3 Argentine had already translated the sermons of Bernardino Ochino (1548), another writer who combined heterodoxy and demonological reflection. In his own work, Argentine intended to shed light on demonic mysteries and phenomena ‘that have no physical cause’; he condemned the prevalence of superstition, maintaining that the latter could be defeated by the word of God, and accused magistrates of falling prey to persecutory frenzy. 4 Argentine believed that once the light of true religion had been restored, it would disperse demons and send them cowering into the shadows. Wier’s De praestigiis was of a more traditional structure, with the first book, ‘The Devil, his origin, aims and power’ (‘De diabolo, eius origine, studio et potentia’), dedicated to analysing the power of the devil and its limitations. In order to reveal demonic tricks and illusions, Wier first had to consider their primary cause: the devil. Only after the devil’s intentions and powers had been recognized and understood could people analyse events and readily and surely discern their influence: Intending to explain the illusions and spells of demons, I shall begin with their principal cause—the devil—and his wiles, aims and power, so that when he is recognised and his authority and character understood, 2 Maggi, Satan’s Rhetorics, passim. See S. Clark, The Scientific Status of Demonology, in Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance, ed. by B. Vickers, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 351–374. See also Angels in Medieval Philosophical Inquiry: Their Function and Significance, ed. by Isabel Iribarren and Martin Lenz, (Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate, 2008). 3 See my Aconcio, in Fratelli d’Italia, a cura di M. Biagioni, L. Felici e M. Duni, (Torino: Claudiana, 2011), pp. 9–17. 4 Richard Argentine, De praestigiis et incantationibus Daemonum et necromanticorum liber singularis nunquam ante haec aeditus, (Basileae : 1568), p. 7. See Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic, p. 96 and Thorndike, A History of Magic, V, p. 161 ff.

Demons, sorcerers, and witches

129

everyone may be able to look into all his actions with the clear eye of the mind and henceforth distinguish them more readily and surely.5

Buoyed by the teachings of the Christian religion and the certainties of true faith, Wier rejected the opinion of Aristotle and the Peripatetics on the nonexistence of demons, without wholly endorsing Plato’s distinction either, and criticizing the opinions of Porphyry, Psellus, Proclus, Plotinus, and Iamblichus.6 Wier understood very well the risks involved in engaging in the witchhunting debate, as it seemed, to him, to present a clash of two different ontological principles: good and evil.7 In orthodox theology (both Protestant and Catholic) God and the devil were not ontologically equal. Wier called upon the authority of St. Augustine, who had witnessed a period of emergency in Christianity, and who had emphasized divine omnipotence as opposed to dualistic heresies; but Wier also tried to use this doctrine to diminish the responsibility of witches, whose actions were necessarily part of the divine plan. Augustine returned many times to the topic of the nature of demons, but his most important reflection on this can be found in the City of God: demons were not superior to a righteous man, who could elevate himself with his devoted mind until he reaches God’s embrace.8 This did not protect people from the influence of demons, for many let themselves be deluded into believing that they were angels and into trusting demons, leading to disastrous consequences. Wier’s thought follows a traditional framework and is based on the superiority of demons over human beings, an ontological superiority based on their spiritual nature and their creation prior to the creation of the material world. One of Wier’s preferred sources for this distinction is Gregory Nazianzen.9 Wier’s choice of sources is indicative of his demonological position: he cites the Oratio adversus Graecos by Tatian, citing his well-known position on the angelic nature as antecedent to human nature, which allowed him later to explain demonic influences on mankind. His use of patristic, scriptural, and philosophical sources, however, exposed ambiguities that subjected Wier to criticism, because they were the same sources as those used by his opponents.10 5 Wier, Witches, p. 3. 6 Ibid. 7 See the chapter on Eschatology in Clark, Thinking with Demons, pp. 335–345. 8 Augustini De civitate Dei, (Lipsiae: in aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1877), pp. 353–354. 9 Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 36, Paris, 1857–1867, pp. 359–428. 10 Isnardi Parente, Le vecchierelle pazze, p. 26 and Clark, Thinking with Demons, p. 200.

130 

Johann Wier

Using a gallery of various divinities, civilizations, and places, Wier shows that the devil could provoke everywhere the same types of adoration, thereby leading to the growth of idolatry, including in this category those who used pagan formulae in their exorcisms. According to Wier, Satan prospers in superstition and blindness and, when he hides behind a mask of orthodoxy, he represents a threat to the survival of humanity.11 The retention of many superstitions leads Wier to criticize ecclesiastical hierarchies and erudite individuals who ought to favour the progress of faith and, at times, unveil the arcana mundi. This criticism is levelled at religion in its entirety, as superstition prospers in all places, in this landscape, there are not enough strong opponents of Satan. The evil of which Wier speaks is one that has lost many of its Thomistic connotations in order to acquire new ones, nevertheless the power of demons remained part of the framework of theodicy: humanity was not at the mercy of the army of evil; evil merely tests mankind. Wier did identify characteristics that render demons ontologically superior to humanity, such as the sharpness of their senses and the speed of their movement, characteristics already highlighted by Augustine.12 Demons were, therefore, able to complete some physical actions, although others might only interfere with an individual’s mind in order to plant illusions. Philosophers and theologians agreed that the power of Satan and the fallen angels derived from their angelic essence, and, according to this view, Wier at least partially contradicted Neoplatonic demonology. How, then, does Satan achieve his objectives? In his discourse on this question, Wier offered one of the cornerstones of his defence of witches: the devil corrupts the mind with false images. This process of imprinting in imagination derives from Psellus, whom Wier read through Ficino, to whom he dedicated all of Chapter 14.13 Here Wier was clearly referring to the tradition that as11 ‘What is more, in this old age of the world, as these clearly visible devices falter, he stations himself in the true temple of God and lords it over the minds of men, transformed into an angel of light. In this way he avenges himself the more, with greater contempt for the Divine Majesty and greater ruin to men. This is the place to record the docking tricks by which the devil harasses even our own people. The simple are convinced that, unless tower bells are purified and sanctified by holy Baptism (the bath of regeneration, pertaining only to members of Christ) and by exorcisms (which should be employed only when the evil spirit is to be thrown down from his abode, and only by those who have the singular gift of putting him to flight)—all of this being done in the presence of sponsors and witnesses called together from all sides…’, Wier, Witches, p. 23. 12 Liber de divinatione daemonum, 3, 5. 13 Wier, Witches, p. 40–42. See G. Giglioni, Coping with Inner and Outer Demons: Marsilio Ficino’s Theory of the Imagination, in Diseases of the Imagination and Imaginary Disease in the Early Modern Period, ed. by Y. Haskell (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), pp. 19–51.

Demons, sorcerers, and witches

131

serted the corporeality of demons, in opposition to Gregory of Nyssa, for example. Tertullian had also declared that demons had a faint, almost air-like corporeality. The question of the corporeality of demons, beyond his historical and philosophical interest, became important in the debate on witch-hunting assuming that a demon could physically affect the corrupt mind of a witch. This argument led to relieving the witch of responsibility, so that on both medical and theological grounds she could not be legally condemned to death. Wier’s decision to draw on the contribution of Michael Psellus, the eleventh-century Byzantine philosopher, was strategic, as Psellus attempted to reconcile Neoplatonic ideas with Christian concepts.14 As such, Psellus’s work represented a problematic mediation between popular culture and high culture, between the image of the devil derived from sacred texts and hagiography and the image that emerged from popular texts of the age. The most important conclusion of Psellus’s speculation on demonology was his degradation of the devil from a spiritual level to a material level. In the sixteenth century, the demonological theory of Psellus was quite influential, particularly for its method, as it began with the different phenomena of demonic activity and, according to Ficino’s loose translation, came to focus attention on the question of diabolic corporeality.15 This new emphasis on Psellus was destined to lead to rich developments and to provide an interpretative model of “evil” that extended well beyond the boundaries of demonology.16 In particular, Wier adopts Psellus’s idea that a demon’s body, thanks to its nature, could better adapt itself to the will of the human soul, as it did not encounter material resistance.17 Similar to Ficino’s notion of the sensus phantasticus, the demon could insinuate itself into the soul, producing images and generating visions of unreal events. Accordingly, demons could take on shapes and colours and introduce them into the mind, where, through imagination, they would be understood by the individual. In this 14 ‘Here Psellos applied Neoplatonic ideas to Christianity in an original way: he offered a taxonomy of demons that bears little resemblance to the fallen angels of tradition or to the hierarchies of Dionysius’, J. Burton Russell, Lucifer. The Devil in the Middle Ages, (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1984), p. 41. 15 E. V. Maltese, Il diavolo in corpo: il tormento demoniaco tra Bisanzio e l’Occidente, in Il mio nome è sofferenza. Le forme e la rappresentazione del dolore, a cura di F. Rosa, (Trento: 1993), p. 220. 16 M. Cortesi and E. V. Maltese, Per la fortuna della demonologia pselliana in ambiente umanistico, in Dotti bizantini e libri greci nell’Italia del secolo XV, a cura di M. Cortesi e E. V. Maltese (Napoli: D’Auria, 1992), pp. 129–192. 17 Wier, Witches, p. 40.

132 

Johann Wier

way, the responsibility of witches was diminished, and thus they became more like victims. This position is further clarified in the third book, which discusses witches who have suffered the process of demonic intervention. Once one accepted the corporeality of demons, it became easy to accept their presence in the human world: their physical action on the minds of the poor old women accused of witchcraft became crucial when such women were put on trial. A more radical interpretation denying the existence of demons was proposed by Pietro Pomponazzi, to whom Wier refers, although his relationship to the Italian Aristotelian deserves closer attention. In the third book, Wier invoked Pomponazzi’s naturalistic explanation for events that were traditionally considered supernatural. But, while Wier could accept some of Pomponazzi’s conclusions, he generally disagreed with his position. In Chapter 23, book 1, Wier, grounding his arguments on the positions of a number of theologians and philosophers, distinguished evil demons from good angels, declaring that he was conforming to the opinion expressed ‘within the boundaries of holy doctrine and of our religion’.18 Delving into the details of the various positions, he proposes his own personal method of distinguishing between them: angels love and watch over humanity, while demons hate and seek to harm mankind.19 The definition of demonic powers was crucial: if there were no divinely imposed limits—that is to say, if the devil were free to use his power at will—humanity would have been annihilated already. God assigned to the devil the role of testing the pious and punishing the ungodly, as Holy Scripture taught. This idea seemed necessarily true because the hierarchy of angels and demons dated to the moment of creation.20 Demons, however, also possessed free will. When they sought to corrupt mankind, they no longer acted as direct ministers of God but rather as malign individuals when they sought to corrupt mankind. Only some people fall into demonic temptations, however, because they have weaknesses that render them more susceptible to demonic action. Wier then invites his readers to consider that 18 Ibid., p. 79. 19 ‘[T]he angels love us and watch over us, but the Devil hates both us and God; the angels rejoice in our welfare, at which the demons feel great sorrow; the former take care lest we stumble, the latter cause us to stumble, as is clear in Apocalypse, and in the case of Tobias’s son, and Job’, Ibid., p. 81. 20 ‘God, almighty and merciful though He is, sometimes (in accordance with His plan and our deserts) permits the demon to practice his docking deceptions and tyranny over men of every social rank; but He still does not indulge him in all matters and permit him to pursue all his purposes, nor does He allow him infinite license, constrained by no limits’, Ibid., p. 81.

Demons, sorcerers, and witches

133

these God-given powers remain within the divine plan that could in no way be subverted; the crux of the argument remained divine omnipotence. In the same way as demons could not go beyond the limits of their nature, witches: can do nothing beyond the innate strength of human nature, even if the demon cooperate a thousand times over; rather, because of their sex and age and as a result of the cold, moist, dense, sluggish constitution which renders their bodies unsuitable, they hinder the work of the demon’s fine and subtle substance, so that if he seeks out the cooperation of these women, he is disturbed and hindered in the performance of his task.21

Everything in the natural order occurs according to the divine will, as Holy Scripture taught. In this way, Wier invited his readers to ‘turn your mind’s eye to the book of truth’.22 Therefore, Wier maintained that God controlled and limited demonic power, whereas popular belief attributed limitless power to demons, making them into antagonists equal to God and favouring the progress of evil. Unlike God, the devil cannot create ex nihilo, he cannot transform bodies, and neither can he know the thoughts and emotions of mankind.23 In the final chapter of the first book, on the possibility that the devil could know the thoughts of mankind, based on exegesis of Matthew 6, Wier refers to Augustine, Anselm, Haymo, and John Cassian.24 It is clear, therefore, that Wier’s concept of angelology and demonology was traditional and represents his weak point, potentially exposing him to attack: ‘Wier, therefore, believed in the devil and his power, in a way attributing to him a direct power and minimizing or even negating the role of the witch as an active instrument. His demonology therefore became a more immediate presence and a more determining factor than it did for his theological and legal adversaries’.25 On the other hand, Wier’s thinking continued a traditional emphasis on divine omnipotence and could urge a rational investigation of phenomena before assigning them to supernatural causes. Like other physicians, Wier explained that many events that others had claimed to be demonic action actually had natural origins. But demons deceived and tricked witches, convincing them and driving them to confess 21 Ibid., p. 86. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid., p. 86. 24 Ibid., pp. 88–89. 25 Isnardi Parente, Le vecchierelle pazze, p. 25.

134 

Johann Wier

things they had not done. Through this reasoning, Wier reduced the responsibility of the women involved in witchcraft, and increased that of Satan.

2. Magicians In the second book of the De praestigiis, Wier defines the magus infamis through an analysis of cases narrated in Holy Scriptures; the descriptions of those who practised magic were often said to refer to witches, but, Wier argued, this was the result of faulty interpretations and inaccurate translations. With an examination of the seven most common Hebrew terms pertaining to the semantic area of magic, and supported by the philological competence of Andreas Masius, Wier demonstrates that none of these terms could refer to witches as they were commonly understood, but the application of each term was linked to a different cultural environment. In his opinion, the richness of the Hebrew text had been degraded and misunderstood through Greek and Latin translations—languages that did not have appropriate terms to conceive and render the various nuances. Unfortunately, dangerous consequences flowed from misunderstandings of these words and unimaginable powers were attributed to witches as a consequence.26 Continuing on the theme of linguistic nuance, Wier highlighted the limitations of German, in which a single word, ‘Zauberer’, signifies both a learned magician and a poor witch who had been tricked by the devil. This terminological ambiguity grouped in a single category the poor witch and the learned magician.27 Those responsible for the misunderstanding and its shameful effects were the German authors who, though trying to use Holy Scripture, misinterpreted these fundamental differences. Wier was well aware that learned magicians were not even punished as severely as witches were, despite their guilt being greater. Terminological confusion obscured the real purposes of the battle against evil and enabled savage magistrates to continue killing innocents instead of concentrating on the Satanic origin of these deceits. Wier’s prime objective, 26 Maggi, Sathan’s Rhetoric. 27 ‘Our fellow Germans use one and the same word Zauberer for the magician who is a professional deceiver and illusionist and often well educated, for the wise woman or witch who is deluded by the Devil because of her feeble-mindedness and corrupted imagination, and for the poisoner who make studied use of his drugs or poisons […] I am not ashamed to proclaim publicly that all German writers whom I have so far chanced to read in the vernacular have stumbled badly in this sort of argument …’, Wier, Witches, pp. 97–98.

Demons, sorcerers, and witches

135

therefore, remained a clarification of the difference, even from a lexical perspective, between magicians, witches, and poisoners in the light of reason and of Holy Scripture.28 After reiterating that divine permission for demonic action depended on an absence of faith, Wier defined a magician as one who voluntarily used knowledge gained directly from the devil, from books or from other magicians, in order to surpass the laws of nature.29 This description centres around the assumption that a magician consciously dedicated himself to the devil, just as detailed study of the Scripture, focussed on semantics, clarified the mental state of so-called witches; the aniculae (poor old women), whose minds were tormented by demons, were very different from the current understanding of witches. The definition of a magician was wider-ranging and included different classes of individuals, all of whom shared the common factor of free will, which could hardly apply to witches. The poisoner, for Wier, is fully aware of his actions and so he is worth of severe punishment. Diviners and necromancers were included in the category of magicians, with Wier clearly demonstrating that such men are ruled by egotism and narcissism. This discussion led Wier to address the question of the Witch of Endor (Sam. I:28):30 he believed that the spirit whom Saul invoked was not Samuel but Satan, because God would protect the souls of the dead and would never have permitted a human being or a demon to disturb their eternal rest. This argument proved to be a key point that was often taken up and analysed by Wier’s detractors. 28 ‘Amidst this variety of beliefs, lest a confusion of terminology obscure the issue, it has suited by purpose for many reasons to distinguish the infamous magician from the witch and the poisoner, so that in this debased age of ours, still so unlearned in matters of this sort, the specific characteristics may be made clear—which is the proper function of terminology—and the persons of whom I speak may be recognized and distinguished’, Wier, Witches, p. 98. 29 ‘I call magician anyone who willingly takes instruction from a demon or from other magicians or from books, who employs a formula of known or unknown exotic words (whether reciting it aloud, or muttering it, or affixing it (to some person or thing), or who employs any kind of magical signs, or exorcisms and dreadful execrations, or ceremonies and solemn rites, or many other practices in an illicit attempt of his own volition to summon forth a demon for some deluding, deceiving, or otherwise mocking task, so that the demon will reveal himself in some visible assumed form, or make himself …’, Ibid. 30 About the different biblical exegesis, see P. Lombardi, Il filosofo e la strega: la ragione e il mondo magico, (Milano: Cortina, 1997); F. Lecercle, Le retour du mort: Débats sur la sorcière d’Endor et l’apparition de Samuel (XVIe–XVIIIe siècle), (Genève: Droz, 2011) and C. Zika, The Witch of Endor Before the Witch Trials, in Contesting Orthodoxy in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, pp. 167–191.

136 

Johann Wier

After tracing the history of magic, mentioning the theurgy of Porphyry and analysing popular pagan practices, Wier lists the authors who desired to follow in the footsteps of these early magicians, such as Roger Bacon, Pietro d’Abano, Albert the Great, Arnaldus de Villa Nova, and Cecco d’Ascoli, all of whom had attempted to teach magic, but who had, in fact, merely managed to foolishly contradict themselves. The pact between magicians and demons, however, had drastic and tragic consequences, for many of the aforementioned scholars’s lives had ended badly. Clearly, Wier was referring here to the legend of Faust, the magician who defied civil and religious authorities but whose fate served as a warning and lesson to all.31 Magic was founded on deceit by demons who flattered humans in an attempt to change the course of nature, ignoring the fact that nothing could take place without divine permission.32 The deceitful nature of spells and their inconsistency, therefore, was clear: Quite different methods of enchantment have existed in all ages, one being more common than another at this or that time, or more popular in this or that region […] The demon acts in collusion and cooperation with all of this, or, we should say, promotes the whole affair (with God’s permission), because of the impiousness of the magician and the bystanders’ lack of belief.33

All forms of divination were based on superstitious rites ‘only for the purpose of encouraging impious credulity among men, and supporting their madness for idols, and exercising their cruelty’, as Ovid wrote.34 Furthermore, Wier argued that Scripture forbade all forms of divination (Deut. 18), as it violated the laws of God, nature, and man.35 In regretting the continued popularity of such practices, Wier emphasized his pious purpose: it is to be regretted that this pestilence steals frightfully along and rages against the whole Christian world, especially where the voice of the Gospel sounds forth less clearly and the truth of divine worship seems to be stained by all sorts of superstitious pagan rites, invented by the cunning of the Devil, no doubt, to deceive men.36 31 Wier, Witches, p. 108. 32 Ibid., p. 116. 33 Ibid., p. 117. 34 Ibid., p. 140. See Midelfort, A History of Madness, p. 202. 35 J. P. Coy, The Devil’s Art: Divination and Discipline in Early Modern Germany, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2020). 36 Wier, Witches, p. 150.

Demons, sorcerers, and witches

137

In his constant appeal for a return ad fontes, Wier blamed all those who abused their position and tricked ignorant people by peddling superstition. Amongst these, he condemned Paracelsian doctors who, in order to hide their own ignorance, attributed all cases they were unable to heal to witchcraft or divine intervention: ‘Satan, that relentless impostor from the beginning, was able easily to blind the eyes of the Paracelsists with his rubbish—they had already been clouded by the soot of chemistry’.37 Wier concludes his analysis of the tricks of magicians by recalling the case of Nero, narrated by Pliny: the emperor, though fascinated by magic, understood the error of practising it; he condemned and prohibited its use. Therefore, even pagans, if they were wise, arrived at the same conclusion as true Christians. This lesson from antiquity was paired with a reference to Scripture and to the condemnations in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

3. Witches The idea fuelling the witch-hunts was that there was a Satanic plot against humanity. From ancient times, popular legends, later transmitted through the highest forms of literature, conveyed the image of women devoted to the magic arts, persons who lived on the margins of society.38 Other factors, including widespread anxiety about the period of great upheaval that humanity was experiencing, led to this image becoming transformed, darkened, and associated with evil attributes in the early modern age; at that point, the idea of the witches’ sabbath and pact with the devil led to the belief that witches were the devil’s accomplices in his plan to lead humanity to perdition. This transformed image laid the foundation for mass persecutions.39 Within the European debate on the witch-hunts, Midelfort argues that the opposition to this persecution derived from calling at least one of the three constituent elements (diabolic pact, demonic power, divine permission) into question. 40 But, he adds, a different kind of opponent was perhaps more effective in the short term, namely, those who attacked the legal procedures by which witch-trials were conducted. 37 Ibid., p. 156. 38 M. Montesano, Classical Culture and Witchcraft in Medieval and Renaissance Italy, (Basingstoke: Palgrave 2018). 39 C. Ginzburg, Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches’ Sabbath. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004 (1st ed., 1989). See Le Sabbat des sorciers en Europe, XVe –XVIIe siècle, sous la direction de N. Jacques-Chaquin et M. Préaud, (Grenoble: J. Millon, 1993). 40 Midelfort, Witch Hunting in South Western Germany, p. 25.

138 

Johann Wier

The weakest of the contributing texts from Scripture related to the pact (Isaiah 28:15), as it is not clear why the devil would need human beings for his plans, a point of discussion among Wier’s adversaries. In the tight bond between high culture and popular culture, authors of demonological treatises recognized this new movement and began searching for sources to corroborate the idea of the pact. The third book, which is exclusively dedicated to witches, is a crucial innovation of the De praestigiis, in that it only appears from the fourth edition of 1568: Wier’s methodological choice underlines the importance he gave to the issue. Following the “canon” of previous demonological writing, Wier provides an overview of the image of the witch from Ovid and various vernacular folk traditions, via Virgil, Lucan, Homer, Horace, Apuleius, and others. 41 Only then does he define the term witch. In the same way as his treatment of the term magician, Wier, moving beyond the literal sense, demonstrates the lexical wealth of biblical text in contrast to the rigidity and limitations of the Greek and Latin languages. I use the term Lamia for a woman who, by virtue of a deceptive or imaginary pact that she has entered into with the demon, supposedly perpetrates all kinds of evil-doing, whether by thought or by curse or by glance or by use of some ludicrous object unsuited for the purpose. 42

This definition plays on the continuous oscillation between belief, opinion based on folklore, and rational reality in defining what a witch is believed to be capable of doing, and what she can actually do. Wier insisted that a witch’s altered mental state made her the preferred victim of demonic tricks, and, while a magician of sound mind and with free will chooses to acquire the magical arts, a witch experiences a condition of subordination. In his defence of witches, Wier aimed to demonstrate the illusory nature of the pact. 43 According to most earlier authors, witches were to be punished or even immolated for having entered into a pact with Satan because, specifically, their power of maleficium derived from this pact. In the Malleus Maleficarum (pt. 1, qu. 1, p. 10), the pact was the key moment 41 Wier, Witches, p. 165. See F. Lavocat, L’Arcadie diabolique. La fiction poétique dans le débat sur la sorcellerie (XVIe –XVIIe siècles), in Fictions du diable. Démonologie et littérature de saint Augustin à Léo Taxil, (Genève: Droz, 2007), pp. 57–84: 63–68. 42 Wier, Witches, p. 166. 43 ‘[T]he pact is illusory and that it is fabricated and confirmed by the deceptive appearance of a phantasm, or a fancy of the mind or the phantastical body of a blinding spirit; it is therefore of no weight’, Ibid., p. 173.

Demons, sorcerers, and witches

139

of agreement between the supernatural (the devil) and natural (the witch) planes of existence. Wier argued against this interpretation, hoping to demonstrate its illusory nature. Referring to various arguments, not least that of Roman law, the pact could not exist due to the incorporeality of Satan, to the incompatibility of the two contracting parties, and, especially, the witch’s inability to understand and exercise free will. 44 Underlining the words of St. Paul (2 Tim. 3:1–9), Wier reiterated the value of baptism and chrism that were renewed each time a believer, through repentance, returns to the road of salvation. In this way, Wier denied that apostasy, the distancing from God, was an irreversible process.45 He invited his readers to focus their mind’s eye on the deceit involved in a contract between the devil and a witch. A witch had no powers and what she believed she was accomplishing was, in fact, the action of Satan himself, who had no need for support or the extra powers of others, least of all a poor woman. Concerning the value of baptism, Wier wittily adopted an argument Agrippa had previously adopted in the case of the witch of Metz: if this deceitful pledge, especially composed for malicious purposes, in violation of God’s will, with no witnesses and none to give surety, will have so much weight that it cannot in any way be rescinded, and on the strength of it one person is compelled to follow the wishes of the other and obey his commands, then why will the pact previously ratified at the time of baptism, with solemn words and in the presence of guarantors, in accordance with the special wish and directive of God, not outweigh this pact with its own prerogatives, as it were?46

Agrippa had constructed his defence of the witch of Metz on the effectiveness of the sacrament; in different conditions and with an intention to establish a principle, Wier asserted that the pact entered into through baptism bound God and the Christian together, and was of more importance and value than any supposed pact with the devil. The value of baptism did not reside in the holy water used to bathe the head, but in faith, and remained unchanging even if a person recanted and rejected the Christian faith many times and subsequently repented. Satan’s game was precisely that of plunging a sinful person into despair; having lost all hope of salvation, some individuals aggravated their situation by committing crimes and 44 Ibid., p. 173. See Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Insanity Defense, passim. 45 Wier, Witches, p. 175. 46 Ibid., p. 174.

140 

Johann Wier

sinning further. However, the case of Peter was significant here, for he had denied Christ three times but was repentant and ‘restored to grace’. 47 In this instance, as elsewhere, Wier’s text raised wider issues: his vision of the broad reach of divine mercy for those who embraced the faith, leading to salvation, particularly for those who strayed, was by no means original to Wier. This demonic pact represented a deeply problematic aspect of Wier’s argument: as Parente remarks, ‘there was no doctrinal explanation on which to base his statement that any carnal union between the devil and a witch was not only impossible, but also unthinkable’. 48 Aware that his flat denials would persuade no one, he instead discussed the merit of this question. In order to enter into a pact, two conditions were necessary: a demon and a corrupt mind. A witch, however, was not able to understand the true meaning of the pact and, furthermore, the demon, without a body of flesh and blood, could not draw up an agreement. Wier’s analysis of the pact and its legal premises revealed a precise knowledge of the elements of Roman law onto which scholastic theory had attached the notion of a pact; Wier intended to demonstrate the invalidity of the notion of a pact between a demon and a witch, based on the principles of fraud (dolus malus) and other elements extracted from the Digest of Justinian. 49 Citing a part of the Malleus Maleficarum that described the supposed ceremonies between witch and demon, Wier highlighted the absurdity of the accusation of witchcraft, in which ‘all of Satan’s ordinances are found to be changeable, false and totally lacking in coherence’, just as the means of carrying out the rituals were ‘inept and defective’.50 Stuart Clark believes that grasping this contradiction, present throughout all demonological treatises, represents ‘the single most subversive thing that Weyer says about witchcraft’, and concludes with the following statement: ‘He was one of those rare insiders with an outsider’s perspective’.51 To demonstrate the pact to be illusory, Wier highlighted the witches’ vulnerability, focussing on those who were more inclined to become victims of the art and illusions of the devil.52 Wier believed that those who were 47 Ibid., p. 175. 48 Isnardi Parente, Le vecchierelle pazze, p. 27. 49 Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Insanity Defense, pp. 245–248. 50 Wier, Witches, pp. 171–173. 51 Clark, Thinking with Demons, pp. 145–146. 52 Wier, Witches pp. 180–181. See T. Maus de Rolley, La part du diable. Jean Wier et la fabrique de l’illusion diabolique, in Fictions du diable, pp. 109–130.

Demons, sorcerers, and witches

141

primarily affected included melancholics (whose vulnerability was due to natural causes) and the ungodly (whose vulnerability came from moral causes), but also those with little education in Christian religion, the envious, and mad, old women. He sketches out a wide and varied range. According to Wier, these persons (as fitting instruments) the devil waylays however he can, in his own time and place. He approaches, follows, and entices each in some special manner, since he knows from sure indications the interests and feelings of every heart.53 So, these people convinced themselves of things and events that ‘in fact are not real and do not take place, and often do not exist in the natural world’. Women were more susceptible due to their natural predisposition, being ‘inconstant, credulous, wicked, uncontrolled in spirit, and (because of its feelings and affections, which it governs only with difficulty) melancholic; Satan especially seduces stupid, worn out, unstable old women’, all the characteristics that rendered Eve ‘an instrument more suitable for his persuasion’54 . After demonstrating that the pact could not exist, Wier continued that witches were more inclined to experience demonic action and explains the process by which the demon imprints his illusions on the mind of the witch. Wier adopts Marsilio Ficino’s theory of the imagination in order to assert that if one acknowledges angelic intervention, one had to acknowledge demonic intervention. Giglioni has rightly highlighted this point: In De praestigiis daemonum, Weyer set out to show that, in order to set human knowledge free from the enchantments of the imagination, the first thing to do was to demonstrate that the oddest and most extraordinary phenomena of nature were in fact the product of ordinary operations pertaining to the representative faculties of the human mind.55

Wier’s analysis of melancholy, however, is very original in the ‘rebirth of Galenic observation’.56 Melancholics, Wier believed, had a distorted vision of reality caused by an imbalance in their humours, with an overabundance 53 Wier, Witches, p. 181. 54 Ibid., p. 181. 55 Giglioni, G. ‘Phantastica Mutatio: Johann Weyer’s Critique of the Imagination as a Principle of Natural Metamorphosis’, in Transformative Change in Western Thought. A History of Metamorphosis from Homer to Hollywood, ed. by I. Gildnehard and A. Zissos, (London: Routledge, 2013), p. 310. 56 Midelfort, Mad Princes of Renaissance Germany, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press 1994), passim.

142 

Johann Wier

of black humour.57 The pathology of melancholy, however, had a variety of forms and Wier describes those which he had encountered in various sources, both philosophical (Athenaeus of Naucratis) and legal (Grillando). Weakness of spirit prompted people to sin, not in order to satisfy the flesh, but to give in to temptation.58 Although Wier did not closely relate melancholy and demonic possession, he did state that each possessed person was undoubtedly affected by melancholy, as the nature of the illness itself targeted nerve centres and therefore made the person more susceptible to demonic action.59 Black humour corrupted the senses and altered mental perception, easing demonic intervention to take place; he believed that demonic action imprinted images on the optic nerve, images that were not made by the person themselves. When Wier intervened to dispel the myth of the girl who kept a knife inside her body after a meeting with a devil in the shape of a black dog, he explained that the ‘demon’s trickery and illusions had clouded the eyes of all’, and observing bitterly that ‘the Devil takes great delight in immersing himself in this humour, as being the proper moisture for himself and his activities by virtue of its analogous properties; with its assistance he induces wondrous phantasms and rare imaginings’.60 According to Roman law, those afflicted with melancholy were entitled to different penal treatment, and Wier repeated in various places quotations from the Digest on madness.61 After dealing with melancholy, Wier turned to the imagination, drawing upon Iamblichus, Ficino, and Aristotle to conclude that God had granted to demons the power of creating images.62 He returned once again to Augustine, according to whom sentient spirits could receive images created by demons, a theory that was also taken up by Institoris in the Malleus.63 Wier exalted 57 Midelfort, German people, p. 239 ff. Cfr. S. Anglo, Melancholia and Witchcraft, passim. 58 ‘Again typical of Wier, this crucial attempt to discredit the accumulated evidence of numberless trials is merely offered as an assertion, based upon earlier authority, which in any case leaves the Devil -as it were- in full command’, Anglo, Melancholia, p. 212. 59 Maggi, Satan’s Rhetoric, pp. 140–142. See V. Decaix, The Devil in the Flesh: On Witchcraft and Possession, in Embodiment: A History, ed. by J. E. H. Smith, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 299–306. 60 Wier, Witches, p. 314 and 315. 61 Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Insanity Defense, p. 244. 62 Wier, Witches, p. 185. 63 Ibid., pp. 186–187. See I. Maclean, The Renaissance Notion of Woman: a Study in the Fortunes of Scholasticism and Medical Science in European Intellectual Life, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983) and T. Herzig, Fear and Devotion in the Writings of Heinrich Institoris, in Emotions in the History of Witchcraft, ed. by L. Kounine and M. Ostling, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2016), pp. 19–35.

Demons, sorcerers, and witches

143

the saving power of Christian faith, which, through the example of Christ’s sacrifice, provided a model of how to live a Christian life. Following his in-depth assessment of Augustine’s position on demons and imagination, Wier homed in on some of the salient questions regarding the witch-hunts. Examining the sabbath, Wier focused on metamorphosis and flight, both being questions closely linked to demonic powers. With regard to human metamorphosis into animal form, he cited the fictional nature of the legends, widespread at the time, and of fictional works such as The Golden Ass.64 Metamorphosis was impossible, for example, werewolves were simply wolves controlled by Satan, who, in parallel, altered the imagination of some individuals and convinced them that they were lycanthropes ‘to trap these gullible men with their snares, and oppress the guiltless’.65 As he widely—and repeatedly—showed, ‘the Devil can neither create nor transform creatures’; these stories were simply ‘imaginary delusions of demons’.66 Concerning the question of demons transporting bodies, Wier resolved the issue by referring, once again, to Augustine to admit the possibility, while also underlining the necessity of divine permission—’only with God’s will and permission’—and citing passages from the Gospels (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25).67 Wier argued in the De praestigiis that witches were tricked and induced to believe that they possessed great powers. For example, while they could indeed predict a storm, they could not create a storm, even though demons took advantage of their ability to see into the future and tricked witches into thinking they could indeed cause the storm themselves. Referring to works by Boccaccio, Alfonso Spina, Ponzinibio, and Grillando, he denounced various demonic tricks. Amongst the many examples of demonic seduction, Wier tells the tale of a woman in Waldsassen, whom Wier knew about through Heinrich Wezius, who practised medicine and who predicted the future around the year 1555. This woman claimed to be part of a group ‘called vagabond spirits by the Germans, and that four times a year she left her body behind as though lifeless and wandered far abroad in the spirit—to solemn 64 Wier, Witches, p. 192. See Werewolf Histories, Ed. by W. de Blécourt, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) and M. del Mar Llinares García, ‘Pierre y Michel, dos hombres lobo de Besançon: religión, tortura y ciencia en la Francia del siglo XVI’, Memoria y civilización, 19 (2016), pp. 363–390. For a different interpretation, N. Metzger, ‘Battling Demons with Medical Authority: Werewolves, Physicians and Rationalization’, History of Psychiatry, 24 (2013), pp. 341–355. 65 Wier, Witches, p. 193. 66 Ibid., p. 194. 67 Ibid., p. 197.

144 

Johann Wier

assemblies, with her spirit flying forth’.68 Wier believed that the devil had persuaded the woman that she had powers and abilities that she did not, in fact, have. In this way, he dismissed the possibility of metamorphosis and flight. In respect of witches’ ability to cause meteorological events, Wier insisted that this was impossible, although he admitted that the devil could know about these events beforehand and could even trick witches into thinking that they were the cause; neither the devil nor the witches, however, had the ability to change the course of nature.69 Only God could decide to affect the course of nature, and it became the duty of those whose eyes were ‘penetrated by the light and rays of truth’ to change the opinions of judges and common people, helping them to give up idolatry: ‘they should also explain this most unspeakable form of idolatry whereby people attribute to Lamiae that which pertains to the Divine Majesty alone’.70 In order to pour scorn and ridicule onto the enormous power attributed to witches, Wier suggested that these powers be used as weapons against enemies; for example, they could be used ‘against the Turk, so that Germany might be relieved and delivered once and for all from the burden of assembling help against the perpetual foe of Christianity!’71 The sarcasm present in this and his following remarks gives an insight into the politics of the day and Wier’s indignation over the senseless wars that were wreaking unspeakable damage is palpable: I would like them to explain to me then, with whose assistance this dissension is sown and propagated amongst Christians. At whose prompting and with whose support does it come to pass that Christians, and especially their princes, swollen with haughtiness or insolence, so rashly promote wars often over nothing at all, and overturn peaceful cities and lay waste the most flourishing regions, and with great tyranny shed innocent blood as abundantly as possible?72

68 Ibid., p. 213. This tale resembles some of the Benandanti, described by Carlo Ginzburg, in his The Night Battles. I thank Prof. Midelfort for his suggestions on similar cases examined by W. Behringer, Shaman of Oberstdorf: Conrad Stoeckhlin and the Phantoms of the Night, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1998). See P. Burke, The Comparative Approach to European Witchcraft, in Early Modern European Witchcraft, p. 441. 69 Wier, Witches, p. 217. 70 Ibid. 71 Wier, Witches, p. 218. 72 Ibid.

Demons, sorcerers, and witches

145

Through this remark, Wier is suggesting that if they truly had demonic powers, witches could be deployed as a secret weapon of war. He referred to the conflict between Sweden and Denmark, in which the King had boasted of calling witches onto the battlefield in order to defeat his enemies; Wier ironically noted that he nonetheless lost the war. He polemically advanced the hypothesis that witches should be sent to battle instead of armies, so as to avoid the great waste of resources, both human and economic. This pacifist argument against the excesses and futility of war, which he advanced in both the third and the sixth book, echoed the discourse of Erasmus.73 The devil could only predict events that were about to happen, and could only try to persuade witches that they had the power to cause these events. Wier reported the eye-witness account of a scholar known to him who had observed a serious tempest that had lashed Germany and was shocked to learn that, in the aftermath of the storm, presumed witches were arrested and taken to trial and accused—unjustly—of having caused itself : ‘he saw nothing which could be interpreted as the work of Lamiae, even by twisting the evidence’.74 Wier reminded his readers that these tricks did not only originate with the devil and that there were also natural methods that could create such illusions. Wier cited the famous passage on unguent from the Magia naturalis of Giovan Battista Della Porta (taken from Grillando): a presumed witch who covered herself in an unguent fell into a deep lethargic slumber and when she awoke, she believed she had crossed mountains and seas, whereas she had not once left her bed.75 Della Porta supposed the images that crowded the minds of these women derived from a foodstuff that caused hallucinogenic, not magical, effects, a supposition also presented by Girolamo Cardano in the De subtilitate.76 Wier described a number of plants with hallucinogenic properties from many lands. In the fourth book, Wier discussed at length all the naturally occurring exceptional phenomena that were nonetheless attributed to witchcraft. His medical knowledge enabled him to explain that cysts, tumours, or cell clusters can form in the human body for many reasons, none of which had any link to the supernatural.77 Regarding the notion of sexual encounters between demons and witches, Wier referred to the De cerebri morbis of Jason Pratensis in order 73 Ibid., p. 219. 74 Ibid., p. 220. 75 Ibid., pp. 222–223. 76 Della Porta is mentioned since the first edition, J. Wier, De praestigiis daemonum, (Basel: Oporinus, 1563), c. 219. 77 Wier, Witches, p. 320–326.

146 

Johann Wier

to deny their existence. This is a key point, as from the Malleus (p. II, q. 1, c. 1) onward, it was believed that witches sealed their pact with the devil through sexual acts. Wier again turned to science for his evidence and considered the statements of supposed witches to be products of a melancholy that fostered this kind of ailment; evidence for this dated back to antiquity.78 He also invoked his own medical knowledge, gained through experience citing the case of a girl who confessed to having sexual relations, but who, on examination, was found to have her hymen intact, a fact that proved her declaration to be false.79 Once more, the devil’s trick had been uncovered. On this topic, Wier drew on Agrippa who, in turn, referred to Chrysostom, against the possibility of sex between humans and demons.80 The discussion of the possibility of physical relations between demons and humans was closely linked to that on childbirth, a topic widely discussed in demonological treatises (Malleus, pt. 2, qu. 2, ch. 1, p. 159). Wier discussed the famous anecdote alleging the satanic origins of Luther and refuted it, expressing his sorrow at the stupidity of humankind for believing in such an impossible act. Wier deemed the question too ridiculous to necessitate serious rebuttal, suggesting that opponents of Luther should use ‘other devices, truthful and not fictions of this sort’.81 Without dwelling for too long on the prurient curiosity that surrounded the topic of diabolical intercourse, Wier claimed that ‘like fables, they have departed from all truth’.82 Wier’s scepticism was obvious, and he maintained that these too were demonic tricks intended to deceive and cause the persecution of the innocent. The entire system of witchcraft trials would, however, collapse if it were possible to cast doubt on the veracity of the confessions that formed the most solid foundations for the trials. Wier claimed that Satan left witches mad and bereft of judgement, suffering from visions and dreams as they slept, and persuaded that they had had intercourse with the devil. Highlighting precisely these remarks, Midelfort described Wier as an advocate of the right to a legal defence and to medical treatment for their madness.83 78 Ibid., p. 232. 79 Ibid., p. 234. See Anglo, Melancholia and Witchcraft, p. 212. 80 Wier, Witches, p. 239. 81 Ibid., p. 244. 82 Ibid., p. 254. See E. Cameron, Enchanted Europe. Superstition, Reason and Religion, 1250–1750, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 181. A complete and accurate reading is in W. Stephens, Demon Lovers. Witchcraft, Sex and the Crisis of Belief, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002). 83 Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Transformation of the Insanity Defense.

Demons, sorcerers, and witches

147

At this point, Wier defined a third category, in addition to those of witches and magicians: poisoners (‘experts in this most deadly art that can be called venefic magic’), whom he described in a series of anecdotes, including some that took place in Italy and were recounted by Italian doctors—Matteo Corti and Anton Maria Betti, professors at Bologna University—skilled at detecting poisoners.84 Wier argued that poisoners were the only category to cause actual physical damage and, therefore, the only ones who should receive physical punishment. In his investigation into the powers of witches, Wier condemned superstitious beliefs and demonstrated their fraudulent nature, including the influence of Pomponazzi, through the De incantationibus and his other works,85 as well as that of Cardano are clear to see. Both of them, like Wier, dismissed these beliefs as absurd.

4. The distinction between magicians and witches The accepted view, based on Augustinian theories of free will, held that witches were responsible for their own choices and should be persecuted for that reason. In the Malleus Maleficarum, Sprenger and Institoris referred to St. Augustine’s theory to assert that the witch could choose, at least initially, to remove herself from the devil, and so she could not, therefore, be considered a victim of the devil. The witch was therefore guilty of apostasy and heresy as well as of conspiring against humanity. After the Church’s system of rewards and punishments had been thrown into crisis through Pomponazzi’s discussion on the mortality of the soul, an emphasis upon the devil as the true and undisputed source of witchcraft seemed to justify that system once again. God’s existence, to which much of medieval philosophy was devoted, became necessarily true once the existence of His adversary the devil had become obvious to all.86 This explains why Sylvester Prierias sharply criticized Pomponazzi and, at the same time, while simultaneously preparing a demonological treatise in which he inexorably blames witches, acknowledging no distinction between natural magic and demonic magic.87 84 Wier, Witches, p. 265. See A. De Ferrari, Corti, Matteo, in DBI, 29, 1983. 85 J. Céard, La nature et les prodiges. L’insolite au XVIe siècle en France, (Genève: Droz, 1977), p. 353. 86 Clark, Thinking with Demons, pp. 138–142. 87 Maggi, Sathan’s Rhetoric, pp. 21–53.

148 

Johann Wier

Wier intended to put an end to this ‘shipwreck of souls’88, as he called it, clarifying once and for all the distinction between magicians, witches, and poisoners in order to facilitate the establishment of different legal treatment toward witches, a topic that ultimately comprised the entirety of the sixth book.89 The persecution of witches had long been defended by referring to Exodus 22:18, a verse Wier believed could be best understood through an etymological explanation depending on the Septuagint, but also by using the commonly held view of rabbis and the explanation provided by Flavius Josephus, specifically, that the law of Moses, in Exodus 22, was directed at punishing poisoners. Witches should not be executed because, unlike magicians, they suffered the power of Satan through mental weakness, a weakness caused by melancholy. Furthermore, the witches of his times were totally different from those in the Holy Scriptures, another reason for rejecting Moses’s admonition, that was directed at a different world and time. Wier refused to consider the law of Moses in isolation, as doing so would relegate Christ’s mercy to the background. Wier believed that magicians and witches had very different levels of responsibility, and that they deserved very distinct punishments. Their different responsibilities originate from the different relationships they have with Satan and with demons: witches are victims of Satan, while magicians use Satan. Demons were ontologically superior to human beings and could not be bent to the will of inferior beings. Magicians make a pact with demons on the basis of shared aims and desires; every State must therefore attempt to eradicate them.90 But magicians who created nothing more than illusions deserved different measures, such as a warning and an invitation to repent. Wier suggested trying to redeem them by teaching them the true doctrine, but also that, if they refused to repent, they must be severely punished, following the example of Moses in Leviticus 24: ‘Seduced by the fumes of self-esteem and seeking prestige, [magicians] lay claim to an occult art and a science of which they are actually ignorant’.91 At this point, the criticisms and accusations that had remained vague became clear, as Wier describes the category describing most magicians: ‘religious by profession who do not hesitate to feign an occult art and to 88 Wier, Witches, p. 522. 89 Midelfort, A History of Madness, p. 197. 90 Wier, Witches, p. 481. 91 Ibid., p. 482.

Demons, sorcerers, and witches

149

boast that they can discern and cure maleficium’.92 Now, Wier started to focus on exorcists. Wier described them as devoid of scruples and scientific rigour; they attributed illnesses of natural origin to the maleficium of a specific woman, whom they then accused of witchcraft. They falsified reality and accused innocents with the sole aim of gaining fame and reputation, while remaining of the consequences; these were the people who should be condemned, because they spread libellous superstitions, disrupted the public peace, and fomented latent tensions between neighbours. Despite this, Wier observes, they could rely on their defenders because they hid their actions under the cloak of religion. A characteristic of Wier’s thought can be observed in his inclusion of exorcists as magicians, an idea that the Jesuit Delrio at least partially followed when he admitted some of the exorcists’ abuses, even though he claimed that some were ‘guided by true zeal’.93 Wier’s condemnation of exorcists did not stop there, but extended to consider exile for such individuals, even though he acknowledged that legislation in these matters lies with the civil authorities. Throughout his work, Wier was at pains to point out the abuses of those people more interested in their own gains than in the glory of God, maintaining that exorcisms are not only futile, but that they could be the cause of greater impiety, thereby violating the word of Scripture. As Wier hoped to show in his analysis of various cases, credulity, ignorance, and superstition enabled exorcists to practise their empty arts, with some of these cases highlighting the ridiculous and fraudulent aspects of those who claim to be practitioners, while other cases showed how natural pathologies had been mistaken for supernatural. If in doubt, Wier suggested consulting a doctor who could, following accurate analysis, exclude natural causes; otherwise ‘men of no scientific experience and little faith’ might attribute natural ailments such as ‘various convulsions, melancholia, epilepsy, suffocation of the uterus, decaying seed, and the many and varied effects of poisons’ to witchcraft.94 Only after a detailed and scrupulous examination could a doctor prudently refer the case ‘to a spiritual physician—a clergymen or a blameless minister of the Church, a man of sound doctrine who clings

92 Ibid., p. 481. 93 Wier, Witches, p. 464. See Martin Delrio, Disquisitionum magicarum Libri sex in tres tomos partiti, (Maguntiae: apud Ioannem Albinum, 1603), passim. Martín Del Rio, Investigations into Magic, ed. P. G. Maxwell-Stuart, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000). See J. Machielsen, Martin Delrio: Demonology and Scholarship in the Counter-Reformation, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). 94 Wier, Witches, p. 447.

150 

Johann Wier

to the mystery of faith with pure conscience’95 . Doctors could, in any case, intervene with primary cures because these victims were often afflicted by two evils (‘that of the body, produced from the melancholic humour, and that of the spirit, such as madness, grief, fear, hatred of life and despair’). By reconstructing her story, a minister of the Church might hope to understand why God had permitted Satan to afflict that individual. If the individual was dissolute, the minister should instil in her ‘the living word of God’, in order to gain awareness of the saving power of faith, and enable her to abandon Satan. Wier also condemned those who violated the majesty and use of the divine word by offering to cure certain illnesses with salt and holy water; he excoriated those who practised exorcism ‘verae virtutis exortibus’ using phrases taken from Holy Scripture in order to hide their deceit, and chastised those who used sacred or prohibited phrases.96 The rhetorical construction of Wier’s argument oscillates between direct experience, the pleasure of storytelling, and more abstract theory. Whereas his constant references to direct experience originated in his professional training and practice as a doctor, his pleasure in storytelling was reminiscent of Rabelais (for example, the tale of Katharina Loe and her attempts at resolving a family problem)97 and revealed the lessons he hoped to teach. His addressed his work to common people because they saw the supposed witches through different eyes, but he also aimed to unmask the impostors who made a profit from superstitions and constructed an erudite plea to rulers, judges, and churchmen, hoping to unite them in vanquishing the demonic foe. Wier’s quest, then, had practical implications that reverberated in the consciences of individuals and throughout the administration of the res publica.

95 Ibid. 96 Ibid., p. 446. 97 Ibid., p. 464. See Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Insanity Defense, passim.

7.

Scepticism and toleration Abstract The influence of Erasmus’s works is examined here both in terms of philological criticism and of their ethical repercussions on faith in general and on the issue of the witch-hunts. Wier, who cites widely from some of Erasmus’s works, derives from him inspiration for his original proposal: errors must be corrected but cannot be eliminated. By means of the question of witchcraft, Wier developed a reflection on toleration and on the possibility of being re-integrated into the Christian community. Key words: Erasmus, Toleration, Witch-hunt

1. Erasmus between scepticism and toleration Wier, through his scrupulous enquiry into the nature of demonology, intended to redefine witchcraft as a spiritual crime, and thus reduce the responsibility of the purported witches, using medical, philosophical, legal, and natural sources.1 He was by no means the first to take up the defence of witches, as Italian jurists Alciati and Ponzinibio, and general philosophers, such as Pomponazzi and Cardano, had already moved in this direction in the early sixteenth century, opposing those who exhorted repression in the wake of the Malleus Maleficarum. Recently, Duni highlighted that both positions also concealed an implicit defence of the competence of theologians and inquisitors in judicial matters, thereby contrasting with lay competency.2 In the conflicting positions of witch-hunters and witch-advocates, as though it were a call to arms, each side yearned to recruit the best minds to their own camp. Thus, Wier invoked Erasmus, from whom he had taken up the weapon of philology, the appeal for mercy, and the condemnation of the obtuseness and abuses found within the Church. Despite Erasmus never 1 Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Insanity Defense, passim. 2 Duni, Law, Nature, Theology and Witchcraft in Ponzinibio’s De lamiis (1511), p. 218.

Michaela Valente. Johann Wier. Debating the Devil and Witches in Early Modern Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789462988729_ch07

152 

Johann Wier

having written a systematic treatise on the matter, there are clues to his opinion.3 In numerous letters, Erasmus takes on the topic with an explicit view to mock popular credulity and to shine a spotlight on the weaknesses and absurdities of these beliefs. 4 Without wavering from his ironic tone, he discusses the topic in many of his works. For instance, in his Dilucida et pia explanatione symboli quod apostolorum dicitur, decalogi preceptorum, et dominicae precationis (1533), in addition to considering those who worship the moon to be idolaters and those who consecrate themselves to the devil as transgressing the first commandment, Erasmus also includes all those who practise magic or divinatory arts.5 Beyond these sporadic insights into his position, Erasmus did not enter ex professo into the debate on natural magic, a subject outside of his interests, but nonetheless remained shocked by the persecution of magicians and witches, believing them to be victims of superstition and ignorance. He is against capital punishment, as he believes the Old Testament law to be superseded by that of the Gospels and their message of forgiveness. His position, which gave rise to the De immensa dei misericordia (1524), matured with the fragmentation of Christian unity, when his view on toleration and correct behaviour towards heretics, together with the definition of heresy, dominated the debate. Most significantly, and for the first time, the repression imposed by the Church in Rome not only had a negligible impact but almost seemed to promote the spread of heresy.6 The fate of heretics is described in various places in Scripture, in order to re-educate or to ward off or eliminate heretics, particularly the parable of 3 See my Ludere stultitiam populi. Erasmo e le streghe; The Reception of Erasmus in the Early Modern Period, ed. by K. A. Enenkel, (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2013) and J. D. Müller, Citra pietatis dispendium: Erasmus von Rotterdam und das Problem der Toleranz vor dem konfessionellen Zeitalter, in Toleranzdiskurse in der Frühen Neuzeit, hrsg. von O. Bach und a. (Berlin: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2015, pp. 11–41). 4 Letter to Peter Richardot, Freiburg, November 19, 1533, in Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Rotterodami, X, Oxonii, Oxford University Press, 1941, (henceforth OE). 5 Frijhoff, ‘Erasmus’ Heritage, p. 17. 6 See La Liberté de conscience (XVIème –XVIIème siècles), éd. par H. R. Guggisberg—F. Lestringant—J.-C. Margolin, (Genève: Droz, 1991); A. Rotondo, Europe et Pays- Bas. Évolution, réelaboration et diffusion de la tolérance aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, (Firenze 1992); P. Zagorin, How the Idea of Toleration Came to the West, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003). See La formazione storica della alterità: studi di storia della tolleranza nell’età moderna offerti a Antonio Rotondò, promossi da H. Méchoulan, R. Popkin, G. Ricuperati, L. Simonutti, (Firenze: Olschki, 2001); B. J. Kaplan. Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007); A. Walsham, ‘Cultures of Coexistence in Early Modern England: History, Literature and Religious Toleration’, The Seventeenth Century, 28 (2013), pp. 115–137 and B. Kaplan, Reformation and the Practice of Toleration.

Scepticism and toler ation

153

the tares and the First Epistle to the Corinthians (11:9) on the necessity of heresy.7 There is also St Luke (14,13), that Compelle intrare that can justify forced conversion: the existence of different biblical passages (for tolerance and for forced conversion) affected the path and the debate to the religious and political toleration. Many theologians debated and clashed over the legitimacy of the Church to use coercion: prior to the Edict of 313 a. C., Lactantius and Tertullian supported religious freedom as a natural right and, as a result, they were recruited as defenders of toleration during the sixteenth century. During the Albigensian and Cathar Crusade, the trend in favour of coercion became established, and the papal bull, Vox in rama (1233), which equated heresy with witchcraft and which started the process of demonization, was by then an irreversible prelude to the later repression. At the time of the Reformation, dissent, particularly given its increasing dimensions, was not permitted by the Catholic Church. As a result, and despite awareness of the level of internal and external resistance, Church’s intransigence was imposed by means of repression and the coercion of consciences through the reinvigorated Inquisition, to which the secular courts in Reformed Europe responded.8 Within this context, the debate over Nicodemism was developed, corroborated by Erasmus’s biblical exegesis9 —particularly his commentary on Galatians 2:11–14, which was interpreted so as to assert the legitimate limits of the theory 7 See my Contro l’Inquisizione. Il dibattito europeo (XVI–XVIII secolo), (Torino: Claudiana, 2009). 8 A. Prosperi, La mort de l’hérétique: normes juridiques et pratique concrète au temps de l’inquisition romaine, in Ketzerverfolgung im 16. und frühen 17. Jahrhundert, hrsg. von S. Seidel Menchi, (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1992), pp. 159–174. See T. F. Mayer, The Roman Inquisition on the Stage of Italy, c. 1590–1640, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) and The Roman Inquisition. Centre versus Peripheries, ed. by K. Aron-Beller and C. Black, (Leiden: Brill, 2018). 9 See A. Rotondò, ‘Atteggiamenti della vita morale italiana del Cinquecento. La pratica nicodemitica,’ in Id., Studi di storia ereticale del Cinquecento, pp. 201–248 (1st ed. 1967); C. Ginzburg, Il nicodemismo. Simulazione e dissimulazione religiosa nell’Europa del ‘500, (Torino: Einaudi, 1970); A. Biondi, La giustificazione della simulazione nel Cinquecento, in Eresia e Riforma del Cinquecento, (Firenze–Chicago: Sansoni- The Newberry Library, 1974), pp. 7–68; C.M.N. Eire, ‘Calvin and Nicodemism: A Reappraisal’, The Sixteenth-Century Journal, 10 (1979), pp. 45–69, now in Id., War Against the Idols, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 234–275; P. Zagorin, Ways of lying: Dissimulation, Persecution, and Conformity in Early Modern Europe, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); J.-P. Cavaillé, ‘Nicodemism and Deconfessionalisation in Early Modern Europe’, Les Dossiers du Grihl [En ligne], mis en ligne le 30 mai 2012; Dissimulation and Deceit in Early Modern Europe, ed. by M. Eliav Feldon and T. Herzig, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2015); D. Denery II, The Devil Wins: A History of Lying from the Garden of Eden to the Enlightenment, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015); S. Miglietti, Nicodemism, in Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy. See P. G. Bietenholz, Simulatio, Erasme et les interprétations controversées

154 

Johann Wier

of truth. Erasmus focuses on the distinction between the terms simulatio and mendacium, asserting that only the latter ought to be condemned; he takes up Augustine’s interpretation on Peter’s guilt, but then, in his Latin translation of the commentary of John Chrysostom (1527), he returns to the hypothesis of the charitable lie.10 Concerning the legitimacy of simulation, he discussed the treatment to be reserved for those who do not return to orthodoxy. In 1522, in his Paraphrase of the Gospel of Matthew (11:30), Erasmus made his most important contribution to the subject of evangelical liberty: the yoke of Christ is gentle, it asks nothing but reciprocal charity. This differs from the law of Moses, as the Christi philosophia conforms to the nature of man.11 Both in theory and in practice, on several occasions Erasmus showed compassion towards those persecuted, both individuals, such as the case of Reuchlin, and groups, such as the Bohemian Hussites or the Anabaptists.12 Clearly, Erasmus’s defence of any heretic was based on the fact that the heresy of which they were accused could be tolerable, that it undermines neither the foundations of faith nor the ways of life of a society. In the background to the question of whether toleration towards some heretics could be admissible, therefore, leeway for witches can also be discerned. Heretics and witches were frequently equated on the basis of the first commandment, and, as both break religious unity and become apostate, they are considered allies of the devil, the only one to benefit from fragmentation. Furthermore, when Wier was writing, the debate on toleration became prominent after the immolation of Servet, the first victim of the intransigence in Geneva. Basel was the cradle of past (particularly by Erasmus) and present considerations on this matter, counting among many who published in favour of toleration de Galates 2: 11–14, in Actes du colloque international Erasme, par J. Chomarat, A. Godin et J.- C. Margolin, (Genève: Droz, 1990), pp. 161–169. 10 Erasmus, Opera Omnia, recognovit Johannes Clericus, (Lugduni Batavorum: 1703–1706) (henceforth LB): VIII, 288–290. See C. Béné, Érasme et Saint Augustin, ou influence de Saint Augustin sur l’humanisme d’Érasme, (Genève: Droz, 1969), pp. 189–280 and V. Lavenia, ‘Mendacium officiosum’: Alberico Gentili’s Ways of Lying, in Dissimulation and Deceit in Early Modern Europe, pp. 27–44. 11 LB VII, 69. 12 OE, IV, 1183, p. 439. Erasmus, in a letter to Louis Ber, April 13, 1529, compared the anabaptists and John the Baptist, OE, VIII, 2149. See OE, VIII, 2341. See Cfr. W. K. Ferguson, The Attitude of Erasmus toward Toleration, in Persecution and Liberty. Essays in Honor of George Lincoln Burr, (New York: The century, 1931), pp. 171–181; M. Turchetti, ‘Une question mal posée: Érasme et la tolérance. L’idée de Sygkatabasis’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LIII (1991), pp. 379–395. See C. Gilly, ‘Sebastiano Castellione, l’idea di tolleranza e l’opposizione alla politica di Filippo II’, Rivista storica italiana, CX (1998), pp. 144–165.

Scepticism and toler ation

155

(Castellio and Aconcio).13 Echoes of this debate permeate the work of Wier, who adopted the arguments on error and free will in order to continue his crusade against Satan.

2. Erasmus and Wier The influence of Erasmus can be seen in various details, such as the intent of “saving” witches from the stake.14 Twice in the De praestigiis, Wier explicitly cites Erasmus. Firstly, in the fifth book, Chapter 27, he recalls a letter, written in an ironic tone, intended to ridicule belief in witchcraft and to mock superstition (September 1528).15 The second reference is a literal quotation from the fourth part of An Apologia against a Number of Articles Presented by Certain Monks in Spain,16 in which Erasmus replied to the activities of a commission established in 1527 by Clement VII to investigate his works and expose their controversial points.17 The Apologia is Erasmus’s point by point reply to the articles of Valladolid, using the rhetorical method of controversy he had employed many times before, of claiming that his were proposals, not affirmations.18 For Bataillon, the Spanish monks considered Erasmus ‘‘a sort of official advocate for error’, the living negation of dogmatism, and therefore they confuted his thought with that remarkable severity.19 Indeed, in both Erasmus’s work and in his scriptural exegesis, there is no trace of a legitimization of

13 See S. Salvadori, Sebastiano Castellione e la ragione della tolleranza. L’ars dubitandi fra conoscenza umana e veritas divina (Milano: Mimesis, 2008) and Sébastien Castellion: des Écritures à l’écriture, Etudes réunies par M.C. Gomez-Géraud (Paris: Garnier, 2012). 14 See P. G. Bietenholz, Encounters with a Radical Erasmus: Erasmus’ Work as a Source of Radical Thought in Early Modern Europe, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008) and G. Dodds, Exploiting Erasmus: The Erasmian Legacy and Religious Change in Early Modern England, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009). 15 Wier, Witches, pp. 444–445. The reference to OE, VII, 2037, p. 462. 16 Erasmus, Apologia adversus articulos aliquot, per monachos quosdam in Hispaniis exhibitos, in LB, IX, cc.1015–1094 now in Erasmus, Collected Works: Controversies, translated and edited by C. Fantazzi, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018). See Gilly, Spanien und der Basler Buchdruck, p. 170. 17 OE, VII, 1858, pp. 574–575. See M. Bataillon, Érasme et l’Espagne, nouvelle édition en trois volumes, texte établi par D. Devoto; édité par les soins de C. Amiel, (Genève: Droz, 1991), I, p. 243 sgg. M. Avilés Fernàndez, Erasmo y la inquisiciòn: el libelo de Valladolid y la Apologìa de Erasmo contra los frailes espaňoles, (Madrid: Fundación Universitaria Espanola, 1980), passim. 18 Rummel, Erasmus and his Catholic Critics. (1523–1536), (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1989), p. 93. 19 Bataillon, Erasme et l’Espagne, I, p. 278.

156 

Johann Wier

the repression of heresy.20 In those verses of Scripture that are open to a restrictive interpretation (for example in John 15:6, where the punishment of heretics can be inferred), Erasmus attempts to soften this sense with his paraphrase, highlighting that faith in Christ is all that is needed to belong to the corpus Christianum, thus excluding human intervention in separating the tares from the wheat. In the Apologia adversus monachos, Erasmus openly favours toleration towards heretics, as Gilmore has shown.21 The Apologia builds on three points: 1) Erasmus refers to the authority and example of Augustine to show that the Church must turn towards teaching and not threatening, calling for a return ad fontes; 2) he indicates texts of canon law related to the non-liceity of the treatment allotted to heretics; and 3) he recalls the Fathers of the Church to explain his paraphrase of Matthew 23. Despite detesting heresy and judging ecclesiastical condemnations to be just, Erasmus stresses the contrast between the meekness on which the Church was founded and the repressive and bloody practices in vogue at the time. In his polemical argument, he is careful not to involve the entire institution, directing his condemnation only towards those who do not follow the evangelical precepts of mercy, and who instead opt for coercion. In this way, Erasmus instils doubt on whether severity, without considering any pleas, and the tradition of mercy can be reconciled, without claiming impunity. Erasmus offers no judgement on the merit or value of secular laws that relate to different needs, but he feels duty-bound to denounce the abuses of men of the Church who should be thinking of saving, not damning, in order to be consistent with Christ’s teaching. In addition to theological points, Erasmus warns against the involvement of secular authorities in the persecution of heretics. He refers to the heretics who often turned to the emperor or to secular power to defeat the Church, recalling that not even in the extreme case of the Donatists did orthodox Christians adopt such ferocious practices. The reference to Augustine returns in full force, for Erasmus was reluctant to involve temporal powers in an ecclesiastical matter, convinced that the only weapons permitted to bishops were those of prayer and the word of God, and that, should the evildoers remain unrepentant, they should be excommunicated.22 In the same vein as jurists considered exile to be civil death, the apostles and their successors 20 LB VII, c. 80. 21 M.-P. Gilmore, Les limites de la tolérance dans l’oeuvre polémique d’Érasme, in Colloquia Erasmiana Turonensia, (Paris: Vrin, 1972), pp. 713-736: 720. 22 Wier, Witches, p. 530.

Scepticism and toler ation

157

judged excommunication to be equal to capital punishment. According to Augustine, the use of force would obtain a great number of people who feigned belief because they were afraid of being killed. Christianity was at risk of crumbling if the pure and free choice and discovery of faith were to be hidden and overwhelmed by a fear of death. In the end, the advocates of violent repression prevailed, and a defeated Augustine approved its methods. The punishments, however, were mild, thus enabling honest conversions to Christianity. An array of practical advantages joining the ethical advantages emerged from adopting an attitude of moderation and meekness. Adopting Augustine as a model, Erasmus used words of profound disapproval to rail against immolation at the stake, which he believed to be cruel and contrary to the Gospel. The target of his polemic is finally revealed: those inquisitors who obey neither civil nor ecclesiastical law, but instead arbitrarily forge the law themselves.23 To remove every suspicion, Erasmus reiterates that he in no way accepts heresy, but maintains that the constant and laborious undertaking for the good of faith had led him to speak out against the barbarity of unnecessary persecution.24 Erasmus enters into dangerous territory by distinguishing between definite and doubtful error; concerning the first: ‘there is no need for theologians’, whereas the second necessitates consultation with the Church in Rome. Nonetheless, it is, for Erasmus, more difficult ‘to consign a man to the flames because of rubrics which the monks compose at will—’[t] his goes against the scholastic doctors’ or ‘[t]his is suspect (…), and countless other such cathegories- so that there is nothing, which is not open to slander at some point, if ill-will be present’.25 Erasmus, therefore, admits the existence of what could be considered basic interpretative nuances and, as such, ought not to be judged as heretical affirmations. Inspired by Christian clemency, Erasmus asserts that his soul is filled with pain even at the death penalty for murderers, but he can find comfort knowing that through those executions there would be a benefit to public peace. A Christian ruler, as distinct from a pagan one, for Erasmus, must follow religious precepts and work for the application of all laws with clemency and moderation. Hence, Erasmus appeals to the tradition of persuasion 23 Ibid., p. 531. 24 ‘No heresy has ever pleased me nor have I ever shown favour to any heretic (nor do I now, nor will I ever) save in the hope of healing (lest anyone suspect that I am saying these things for my own sake. I have not attached myself to anyone who has been removed from the fold of the Church; persevering with great constancy in my relationship with the Church I have called others back to communion with her’, Wier, Witches, p. 531. 25 Ibid., p. 533.

158 

Johann Wier

that repels that of repression, a tradition that existed in the heart of the Church in Rome, albeit overtaken by events, and that seems to survive underground, much like the inheritance of Humanist culture, to emerge later in the mid-seventeenth century.26 Erasmus returns to the teachings of the Gospel, insisting on the work of persuasion of those Christian apostles who never needed to force consciences. In doing so, he seeks to weaken, rather than delegitimize, the role of the inquisitors who had become, on many occasions, allied with the political power. The Inquisition, in his opinion, could only impose the death penalty in cases in which Christ’s majesty and the entire teachings of Christianity were put in doubt, comparatively, these marginal cases that were being brought to court should be left to the authority of the Pope and to Purgatory so as to maintain and not corrode the fundamenta fidei. Erasmus highlights that mechanism of suspicion which automatically renders guilty all those who are touched by it.27 At this point, Wier interrupts his direct citation of Erasmus, in Book 6 Chapter 18, from the fourth part of the Apologia—the section contra Sanctam hereticorum inquisitionem containing attacks on the exorbitant power of the inquisitors—seeking to minimize the debate redirecting it back towards philology and interpretative error. Wier instils doubt that the actions against purported witches and heretics often stem from greed. According to Clark, this long quotation from Erasmus serves to underline how Wier was inspired by ‘those ideals of moderation, even toleration, that the period that experienced it swept away’.28 The long section quoted from the Apologia is not the only evidence of the strong influence of Erasmus on Wier. For Midelfort, Wier adopts Erasmus, ‘the serious religious thinker for whom the views of the early Church retained an authority undiminished by 1000 years of Constantinian Caesaro-papism’, who looks back to an ecclesiastic tradition that drew strength from the parable of the tares, 29 concluding that no one should be killed for the crime of heresy.30 Through the equation of witches 26 M. Bragagnolo, Lodovico Antonio Muratori e l’eredità del Cinquecento nell’Europa del XVIII Secolo, (Firenze: Olschki, 2017). 27 LB IX, c. 1059. Wier, Witches, p. 535. 28 Clark, Thinking with Demons, p. 202. 29 Midelfort, A History of Madness, p. 200. 30 ‘With respect to the powers of the devil, however, Weyer did contradict himself. In his own experience, he regularly found natural causes for all of the supposed demonic wonders of his day, but on biblical authority he could not conclude that the devil had non physical powers any more. Considering the diabolically infested world of the New Testament, we can see Weyer’s problem. Weyer never fully resolved this confusion, this conflict between experience and doctrine, but

Scepticism and toler ation

159

and heretics in the bull Vox in Rama, Erasmus, and later, with notable adjustments, Wier, advanced the motion that heresy and witchcraft should be treated as spiritual crimes that thus require spiritual remedies. As Midelfort rightly highlights: ‘As a profound Erasmian, Weyer (Wier) felt the force of Erasmus’s plea that Christians should not do all of God’s work for Him, that vengeance was after all His, not ours. Heresy, in particular, did not merit the death penalty’.31 Like a new Theseus, Wier intended to provide a guiding line to exit the labyrinth created by the ‘business of demons’, and being a medical doctor, used to investigating ‘hidden things’, he was better equipped than many others.32 In the Twelve Tables, capital punishment was imposed for the magician and the poisoner, ‘not the deluded old woman who is ignorant of all arts. Every well-constituted government eradicates the art of the former’.33 Wier especially condemns those who violate the divine Word through intolerable affront to medicine, ‘the most sacred and useful of all the arts’, thus tricking simple folk. Many, in order to avoid torture, ‘prefer to offer their souls to God in innocence among the flames […] rather than endure continually the torture’.34 To further reinforce his argument, in Chapter 20 Wier recalls those authors who had envisaged readmission into the Church, without imposing any punishment, for those who repented. In particular, he refers to Ponzinibio, but he also manages to dig out instances in the Malleus Maleficarum in which absolution is called for instead of immolation. Preferring to present himself as a point of continuity with a Church tradition rather than as an innovator, Wier attempts to locate himself within a legal tradition that may even persuade inquisitorial intransigence. Of particular interest here is the reference (Book 6, Chapter 21) to the practice in Bologna, where witches were subjected to humiliation but were not harmed: the custom at Bologna was to strip them to the waist and lead them from the ancient palace riding backwards upon an ass, their bound hands holding the ass’s tail, while the executioner’s assistant walked slowly before them.35 his basic arguments did not hinge on it in any event’, Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Insanity Defense, p. 249. 31 Ibid., p. 204. 32 Wier, Witches, p. 479. 33 Ibid., p. 480. 34 Ibid., p. 490 35 Ibid., p. 539.

160 

Johann Wier

Furthermore, in order to satisfy the need of public punishment, this ritual was completed by having the woman condemned wear a particular type of headgear and led in procession through the town; during the procession, town’s population could hurl insults and throw stones without causing her any harm them, as they were in a sort of cage that protected them. After this punishment, the women were exiled. Wier observed that the moderation of the Bolognese ‘still savoured somewhat of the wisdom of ancient Italy—infinitely to be preferred to the tyranny of some other magistrates who rush all too quickly to the sacrificial fire’.36 Wier’s knowledge of Bologna sparked curiosity in John Tedeschi, who began investigating those sources from which Wier could have gained his insight into this practice.37 It seems likely that this source was an eyewitness account provided by Wier’s two sons, who had attended the University of Bologna. Wier frequently refers to eye-witness accounts from his acquaintances to narrate anecdotes and curiosities that lighten the tension of the De praestigiis. Witches (lamiae), therefore, did not need to be punished with immolation, and ought not to be considered amongst the heretics.38 Wier defines heretics by citing Aquinas, according to whom heresy did not derive from an error of the mind but rather from obstinacy. If these supposed witches do no harm to people and are responsible for no crime, they must be re-educated and not put to the stake. On the basis of a reduced intellectual capacity, considering all the mitigating factors he presented (melancholy, weak mindedness, dependence), Wier distinguishes witches from heretics, insisting on their unwitting link with Satan. Through his example, Jesus Christ had taught that one must always at least try to recover a lost sheep: He will search out the sheep that has become lost by following Satan, and he will lead it back to the fold of Christ. If she has wandered astray because of false beliefs, a careful test—by an examination of the article of Faith—will reveal the fact readily.39 36 Ibid. 37 J. Tedeschi, The Prosecution of Heresy. Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Europe, (New York: Medieval and Renaissance Studies and Texts, 1991). G. Dall’Olio, Eretici e inquisitori nella Bologna del Cinquecento, (Bologna: Istituto per la Storia di Bologna, 1999) and Id., L’attività dell’Inquisizione di Bologna dal XVI al XVIII secolo, in Storia di Bologna. Bologna nell’età moderna (secoli XVI–XVIII). Cultura, istituzioni culturali, Chiesa e vita religiosa, a cura di A. Prosperi, (Bologna: Bononia University Press, 2008), pp. 1097–1176. 38 Wier, Witches, p. 498. 39 Ibid., p. 498.

Scepticism and toler ation

161

Only through direct contact can it be established whether a woman is a pertinacious heretic or if, instead, she can be awoken from the lethargy of error so that she can ask to be readmitted into the Christian Church. It will be clearly seen whether she struggles stubbornly against sounder doctrine (and thus deserves the brand of heresy) or whether she changes her mind and wakes from the lethargy of error and mental impairment, longing with all her heart to be accepted again as a member of the Church and begging that prayers be said on her behalf. 40

Through contact with the witch, the whole Christian community has the opportunity, according to Wier, to re-examine itself and its behaviour. 41 Torture and the conditions in which witches are detained do not elude Wier’s condemnation. He accuses judges of not complying with regulations and laws. When the sentence is capital punishment, the convict is held in custody until the moment of execution, custody that is very different to incarceration.42 His condemnation of the horrors forced onto prisoners takes on great importance, going beyond the conditions of witches and expanding to question the future of hardly respected Christian teachings. Clemency and compassion are cruelly substituted with negligence and contempt. Wier raises a powerful accusation against the ‘bloodthirsty examiners’, a term previously adopted by Cornelius Agrippa in the De vanitate. 43 Wier contrasts this aspect of those practices he condemns with an evaluation of the positive consequences of rehabilitating witches, referring, for example, to Augustine who witnessed how among those who had converted many fought for the unity of Christianity. The influence of Erasmus can again be seen in Wier’s appeal to apply the teachings of the Gospels in every moment and aspect of individual and private life, showing hope for political practice, and addressing rulers so that they can provide a good example by their conduct in order to educate, and not violently repress, those who stray from the faith. Throughout the work, Wier oscillates between the certainty he gains from direct experience and the systematic doubt over the fallibility of 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid., p. 499. 43 ‘So that nothing might be overlooked in bringing this violent and tragic drama to a fitting conclusion, the bloodthirsty examiners are usually called in, and by their potions […] they trick women into confessing to unheard-of outrages and to things which do not exist in reality’, Ibid., p. 499.

162 

Johann Wier

human knowledge that leads him to make a plea to his readers not to judge others hastily, but rather to trust in divine justice. These Erasmian traits had already influenced Agrippa in defence of the foundations of Humanist theology. 44 The spirit of Erasmus resonates even more resoundingly in the period in which Wier lived, one torn apart by wars; Wier understood the risk in extending without limits the category of heresy—anyone could end up at the stake. Clearly, awareness emerged that people were at the mercy of varied and unclear interpretations. The privileged position of Erasmus in Wier’s thought can also be seen in his use of Augustine as a preferred source; an originality of Wier is that he does not limit himself to the Apologia, but shows knowledge of all Erasmus’s works, referring even to some Augustinian letters that Erasmus had used against Beda. Furthermore, Wier refers to sections in which Erasmus exalts the value of tolerating heresy in order to allow religious feeling to grow and suggests the souls of sinners should be soothed with mercy. Béné notes that ‘l’ensemble du De praestigiis nous offre de nombreuses citations de Jérôme, Lactance et Jean Chrysostome, mais toute l’œuvre est imprégnée de l’esprit d’Augustin. Alors que Chrysostome, le plus cité des Pères, compte 24 citations explicites, on en dénombre 83 pour le seul Augustin’. 45 With the fracture of Christian unity, the question of toleration and the definition of heresy took on new dimensions, so Wier sought to draw attention to the fate of the supposed witches, warning others not to be quick to judge, as the final judgement will be that of Christ. To this end, he asks for the use of Mosaic law to be reconsidered, because it has been superseded by evangelical freedom. A bitter observation, to which he returns in a number of places in his work, is that: Thus, more power than should have been was [sic] attributed to the Devil, the perverse belief in the efficacy of Lamiae grew stronger, and less faith was placed in the kindness of God and the power of Christ, especially in those regions where executions are still carried out on the strength of diabolical illusions, with no regard to right or wrong. 46

In his defence of witches as victims of demonic tricks, Wier could have avoided touching the raw nerve of the question of punishment of heretics; nevertheless, he states that the same treatment of clemency and ‘tolerance’ 44 Zambelli, Agrippa, Erasmo, passim. See Midelfort, A History of Madness, p. 198. 45 Bené, Jan Wier et les procès de sorcellerie, p. 68. 46 Wier, Witches, p. 317.

Scepticism and toler ation

163

ought to be extended to heretics and, consequently, also to the numerous reviled magicians, as they did not cause physical damage. As Elisa Slattery has rightly noted, ‘Weyer’s defense of heretics is both Erasmian and somewhat unnecessary to his defence of witches’.47 Wier does not, therefore, limit himself to witches and magicians; indeed, his view embraced all those who could in some way fall victim to demonic action, which sought to be divisive. These arguments echoed those themes developed by Castellio in his work in defence of the antitrinitarian Servet: on one side, an exhortation to pardon and to the Christian virtue of mercy, and on the other compassion for the error and to those who err. Once again, Basel was the crossroads for the generation of ideas and intellectual stimuli from every perspective, be it theological or scientific. As Gary Waite highlights, around Basel, Castellio and the Dutch Spiritualists, and David Joris, Hendrik Niclaes and Dirck Volckertz Coornhert, ‘pursued the ramifications of their dual identities to the point of suggesting that no particular external confession of faith or practice was divinely inspired’, that is, a path to toleration. 48 Spurred on by the complexities of his time, of reciprocal accusations of heresy and the persecution of witches, which serve to make Satan thrive, Wier stands tall as a ‘true advocate of toleration’, as de Waardt has described him;49 his battle against the death penalty, against the spilling of the blood of these witches, unwitting victims of Satan, led him to intervene in the debate over toleration for heretics. Through Erasmus, Wier demonstrates the Church’s extraneity to the tradition of persecution; moreover, they shared in their complete rejection of capital punishment. There were changes in attitudes towards persecution in two directions, one emphasizing persuasion of the heretic, and the other an increasing intransigence to any level of moderation. Béné identifies not only Wier’s dependence on the Apologia, but also on the Praise of Folly, the Querela pacis, and the Enchiridion.50 With regard to the long citation of Erasmus’s Apologia, from the third part, in which Erasmus appeals to the authority of the Church Fathers in order to justify his own scriptural exegesis. Reading this long citation, Béné observes that Wier, in a stand-alone chapter, substantially modified the 47 Slattery, ‘To prevent a ‘shipwreck of soul’, p. 86. 48 G. K. Waite, Conversos and Spiritualists in Spain and the Netherlands: The Experience of Inner Exile, c. 1540–1620, in Exile and Religious Identity, 1500–1800, ed. by J. Spohnholz and G. K. Waite, (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2014), pp. 157–169: 159. 49 H. de Waardt, Melancholy and Fantasy: Johan Wier’s Use of a Medical Concept in his Plea for Tolerance, in Illness and Literature in the Low Countries From the Middle Ages until the 21th Century, ed. by J. Grave, R. Honing, B. Noak, (Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2016), pp. 33–46: 41. 50 Bené, Jan Wier et les procès de sorcellerie, p. 60.

164 

Johann Wier

contents, amplifying the echo of toleration as he renounces the references to Jerome and to Theophilus in favour of John Chrysostom and Augustine.51 In particular, Wier integrates the Erasmian reference to Homily 47 on Matthew XIII with Homily 8 on Genesis II, in which Chrysostom compares heretics to sick people who need to be retaught, who could be sentenced to severe punishments, though not capital punishment, concentrating action on prayer for their return to the faith. Wier incessantly continues to search for other exhortations for patience and for pardon.52 Once again, we see his constant attention and effort in scaling down the responsibility on those who err, be it heretic or witch, and moving the emphasis onto the duty of compassion and mercy. In the face of pervasive demonic phenomenology, Wier delegitimates coercion of the spirit, highlighting that a conscience bent by force to accept and practise a faith remains easy prey for the devil.53 Scholars are divided on this point, as Slattery believes Wier intended to widen the category of magician in order to create a paradox.54 Furthermore, Wier’s passionate criticism of the use of torture seems to contradict Christopher Baxter’s interpretation of Wier’s limited Erasmianism. Baxter claims that the burdens and responsibilities with which witches were charged spilled over onto magicians and highlighted contradictions and aporias: ‘Weyer (Wier)’s evangelical escape route is more like a blind alley, and the scriptural thread leads him into inextricable tangles’.55 Wier, however, demonstrates on many occasions that at heart he had a correct application of the evangelical message. He wrote one of his most beautiful pages when he tells the famous case of Adolphus Clarenbach, one of the first martyrs of the Reformation, who, because of his religious convictions (Lutheran), in 1529 was taken to a tower in Cologne and cruelly tortured.56 There were ghosts 51 Ibid., p. 66. 52 Wier, Witches, p. 527. Cfr. Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Insanity Defense, p. 239 and Béné, Jan Wier et les procès de sorcellerie, p. 66. 53 Clark, Thinking with Demons, pp. 202–203. 54 ‘Weyer includes so many types of people in his category of the magician that it comes to resemble Erasmus’ use of folly in all senses of the word in The Praise of Folly. One could argue that we are supposed to read Weyer’s harsh words about magicians—numbered among them are priests, doctors, prestidigitators, and soothsayers—as a critique of what he saw wrong in his society rather than a prescription for punishment, Slattery, To Prevent a ‘Shipwreck of Soul’, p. 82. 55 Against the def inition of Wier as an Erasmian, Baxter stressed ‘the work is—in its very conception—an ideological attack on Catholic idolatry and superstition, and cannot be seen as an innocent work of Erasmian non-sectarian tolerance’, Baxter, Johann Weyer’s De praestigiis daemonum: Unsystematic Psychopathology, p. 54. 56 See Allein Gottes Wort: Vorträge, Ansprachen, Predigten, Besinnungen anlässlich des 450. Todestages der Märtyrer Adolf Clarenbach und Peter Fliesteden, hrsg. von A. Bluhm, (Köln: Rheinland-Verlag; Bonn, In Kommission bei Habelt, 1981).

Scepticism and toler ation

165

and demons in the tower, but Clarenbach, despite the torture, preserved within himself an ardent religious sentiment that enabled him to defeat the demons and send them away for ever. He defeated the demons, despite dying amongst the flames.57 The answer permeates Wier’s pages, as Waite suggested: ‘in his German translation of De praestigiis daemonum Wier described the principal effect of the manifold deceptions of Satan as religious intolerance’58. In the battle between good and evil, the witch should not be killed, but re-educated so that she may once more embrace the faith. If needs be, a financial punishment could be issued as a fair measure, regardless of the poverty of those accused of witchcraft. Exile could also be contemplated, Wier believed, in cases in which maintaining public peace necessitated this option. In Chapter 16 of Book 6, Wier honours the wisdom of some princes towards witches, praising Count Hermann of Nieuwenaar, an exemplum of moderation and farsightedness, because he had punished a witch with exile, thus rescuing her from her accusers and from those who were calling for her death: Not so very long ago, in the case of a Lamia who had confessed to all the usual crimes of these foolish people […] he quite intentionally punished her with exile, because he saw that the poor woman’s neighbours, still deceived by their unbelief, would never endure her.59

Wier remained faithful to Erasmus’s humanistic spirit in his use of patristic writings to explain the theory of toleration, and, in his relationship with Augustine, Erasmus’s preferred source who held an important place in Erasmus’s concept of piety and in his exegesis.60 The way both scholars conduct debates and disputes is also similar; they always sought to teach moderation and caution, maintaining that it was not the right time to be divided and opposed to each other, but instead to protect against increasing demonic action. Having indicated the route to leave behind the habitual atrocity of punishment, well aware of the protest and dissent he would garner, Wier accepted in silence each and every reaction as ‘recusare aut possum, aut volo’, hating as he did this form of confrontation. 57 Wier, Witches, p. 466. 58 Waite, Eradicating Devil’s Minions, p. 65. 59 Wier, Witches, p. 523. 60 Béné, Jan Wier et les procès de sorcellerie, p. 68.

166 

Johann Wier

We must now discuss the plausibility of speaking about toleration in regard to witchcraft, considering that in traditional studies on the history of toleration, there are no explicit treatises on the matter and perhaps only hints of the phenomenon.61 However, in studies on the witch-hunts, there has been a move to reflect on the extension of the concept of toleration in those authors who, like Wier, defended witches from the death penalty by virtue of a parallel proposed also by authors such as Pierre Bayle, for whom scepticism was etched into the persecution of witches. Before we begin, it is important to clarify that the proposed definition of tolerance does not consider tolerating magical practices, but exclusively as rejecting of the death penalty; in essence, taking up the call for mercy and the parable of the tares as a plea to leave evaluation to heaven’s court. Marijke GijswijtHofstra, examining the Dutch case, asserts that scepticism favours tolerance, while for Midelfort, Levack, and Gunnoe, the end of the persecution of witches was brought about by changes in penal regulations rather than by doubt.62 Stuart Clark suggests that the decline of trials was facilitated by religious pluralism, and Waite also argues strongly that religious pluralism helped the end of trials. Drawing attention to other factors, the war against Spain, for instance, compelled the authorities to diminish their effort in pursuing heretics and witches in the Netherlands.63 Certainly, problems of war, in the second half of the sixteenth century, cooled the motivation towards persecution, favouring the gradual introduction of a free religious coexistence, which had its theoretical legitimation in the sea of radical ideas that circulated, often in readapted forms.64 Further proof can be found in Catholic Poland, where, once the existence and indeed 61 Smith deals with ‘procedural toleration’ through which the persecuting society embraced toleration ‘not merely as prudence, but as a matter of principle’, W. B. Smith, The Persecution of Witches and the Discourse on Toleration in Early Modern Germany, in Topographies of Tolerance and Intolerance. Responses to Religious Pluralism in Reformation Europe, edited by M. E. Plummer and V. Christman, (Leiden: Brill, 2018), pp. 50–77: 77. See Feeling Exclusion: Religious Conflict, Exile and Emotions in Early Modern Europe, ed. by G. Tarantino and C. Zika, (London: Routledge, 2019). 62 M. Gijswijt-Hofstra, ‘Witchcraft and Tolerance: the Dutch Case’, Acta Ethnographica Hungarica, XXXVII (1991–1992), pp. 401–412: 411; Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus, p. 371. 63 Clark, Thinking with Demons, p. 545; G. K. Waite, Heresy, Magic and Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003), p. 194–196. See Duni, Skepticism, and E. Bever, ‘Witchcraft Prosecutions and the Decline of Magic’, pp. 263–293. 64 G. K. Waite, Knowing the Spirit(s) in the Dutch Radical Reformation: From Physical Perception to Rational Doubt, 1536–1690, in Knowing Demons, Knowing Spirits in the Early Modern Period, pp. 23–54. See also Frijhoff, Embodied Belief: Ten Essays on Religious Culture in Dutch History, (Hilversum: Verloren, 2002) and J. Spaans, Violent Dreams, Peaceful Coexistence. On the Absence of Religious Violence in the Dutch Republic, De Zeventiende Eeuw, 18 (2003), pp. 149–66.

Scepticism and toler ation

167

coexistence of more religious beliefs was permitted, the inclination towards witch-hunts was less than when rigid orthodoxy was followed.65 Likewise, abandoning persecutory legislation facilitated the process of secularization that progressively reduced the witch trials. It seems possible, therefore, to establish a direct relationship between the spread of practices of toleration and a decreased intensity of witch-hunts: in places in which diversity was no longer demonized, persecution reduced. When doctrinal boundaries are more porous and less clear cut, behaviour likewise shifted to become more indulgent towards the ‘other’.66 In the face of daily experience of the outcomes of the waves of persecution that came from demonic illusions, Wier strongly appeals to remorse and concern for the quantity of blood spilled that can be seen as a success for Satan. His refusal, albeit circumstantial, of the death penalty, his definition of witches, and then that of heretic, seem to offer him grounds for reflection and verification. Wier’s position therefore opened up spaces for others such as Montaigne, who, despite admitting the existence of witchcraft, attacked ‘persecutory zeal’ and favoured the right to doubt. In his Essais, Montaigne cautions his readers to critically consider those elements that may not be reliable because they are grounded exclusively in human, and therefore fallible, reasoning.67 To burn a person alive, he adds, there must be absolute certainty of infallibility. With a vein of scepticism, he distances himself from a cruel and unreasonable intolerance, preferring alternative interpretative hypotheses.68 Montaigne, however, belongs to a later stage, when the whole of Europe was experiencing wars of religion. The works of Wier are replete with a wealth of theoretical supporting texts, influenced by Erasmian thought and appeals to mercy, together with rebuttals against any negative sentiment. They present strongly 65 Levack, The Decline and End of Witchcraft Prosecutions, pp. 429–446. See M. Ostling, Between the Devil and the Host: Imagining Witchcraft in Early Modern Poland, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) and W. Wyporska, Witchcraft in Early Modern Poland, 1500–1800, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2013). 66 Some intriguing assessments are in W. Monter, Heresy Executions in Reformation Europe, 1520–1565, in Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, ed. by O. P. Grell and R. W. Scribner, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 48–64. 67 See J. Machielsen, ‘Thinking with Montaigne: Evidence, Scepticism and Meaning in Early Modern Demonology’, French History, 25 (2011), pp. 427–452. 68 See B. Ribeiro, ‘Montaigne on Witches and the Authority of Religion in the Public Sphere.’ Philosophy and Literature, 33 (2009), pp. 235–251. On France, see S. Ferber, Demonic Possession and Exorcism in Early Modern France, (London: Routledge, 2004) and V. Krause, Witchcraft, Demonology, and Confession in Early Modern France. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).

168 

Johann Wier

worded arguments only by mirroring opposing views, made in defence but never in attack. Wier’s continued appeal to leniency and to charity, recalling that almost all witches on trial ‘invoke the eternal God and implore His mercy’, an invocation that would be impossible for anyone who had truly strayed from God.69 To this end, Wier cites the case of Peter, comparing him to the hypothetical apostasy of witches by calling on people to consider human weaknesses more carefully and with greater clemency. Through this example, Wier urges compassion towards these common and poor sinners, since even Peter had erred. Using this rhetorical strategy of considering witchcraft as a spiritual crime (one that does not cause physical effects), Wier asks that witches are punished with spiritual remedies. Pursuing this interpretative path, he wonders which is worse: the desertion of a common soldier, or the desertion of an officer? He used the example of Peter, by his strength of reasoning, to make others reflect on this question: but let no one suppose that I have introduced these considerations in order to exaggerate the Apostle Peter’s denial of the Lord, but only to correct those persons who ascribe to our own powers, and not exclusively to God’s grace, the fact that we do not abjure the name of Christ at every hour and at every moment.70

Witches, therefore, must be offered the possibility to repent, to be brought once again into the fold of the Church and to remember that every sinner belongs to the Devil (1 John 8). Witches cannot even be compared to idolaters, as they ‘do not seek salvation from the Devil, nor do they believe therein. It is simply that they are deluded by him, and their imagination impaired’.71 Wier admits that if witches were to kill others, they would be subject to the law, but: I will still point out to you that sin of the will is punished by God and not by the magistrate, unless it begins to be translated into action, because only matters of behaviour are entrusted to a magistrate. Otherwise, thousands upon thousands of persons would be dragged off to torture daily for willing and longing for the death of others.72 69 Wier, Witches, p. 550. 70 Ibid., p. 551. 71 Ibid., p. 553. 72 Ibid.

Scepticism and toler ation

169

The Church must not close its doors to them, as only God may punish intention. Furthermore, once again Wier states that it is impossible for witches to have done all the things of which they are accused, as they are ‘uneducated, babbling, excessively stupid women. Being therefore deceived the more quickly by Satan, they rely upon certain apparitions, shadows, illusions and empty images, like old people in their second childhood’.73 Wier’s accusation is against those who are bloodthirsty and without compassion, while the moment had come to put an end to ‘the usual atrocity’ with inquests and trials conducted without careful consideration and with guesswork.74 Only poisoners, since they produce tangible damages, as Roman law prescribes, must be punished, but ‘the decision should be left to the fairness and judgement of the wise and prudent magistrate’.75 Chapter 27 is a summation in which Wier, anticipating some of the objections that might be made, recapitulates every argument in the defence of witches that he put forth in detail throughout the work, also offering precise legal references. In this way, he reaffirms that the physical and mental incapacity of witches must be cured rather than punished: moreover, witches should not be considered apostate, as the pact with the devil is nullified due to the disparity between the two parties.76 The credulity, deceit, fear, error, and ignorance associated with witches render their willpower even more vulnerable and for this reason they cannot be punished. From the debate on toleration, in my opinion, Wier takes up the question of error and ignorance, categories that could also be attributed to heretics, albeit in a veiled way. In this, he remains faithful to Aquinas, who insisted on the characteristic of pertinacity in error, and who favoured the path of recovery through teaching and the sustaining prayers of the community. Witches, according to Wier, merit understanding and compassion rather than severe punishment: ‘these women are deserving of commiseration rather than monstrous punishment’.77 The witches are themselves victims of the evil that afflicts them, as the demonic action is itself a punishment. An earthly magistrate is not a substitute for God, and God alone can read the hearts of individuals.78 Divine justice remains a mystery because, while 73 Ibid., p. 555. 74 Ibid., p. 557. 75 Ibid., p. 560. 76 ‘Abandoning God, the Lamiae formed a pact with the Devil and followed him, straying from the path of the Catholic religion; this is not only heresy, but also apostasy…’, Ibid., p. 568. 77 Wier, Witches, p. 571. 78 ‘[O]nly external things are punished among men; by means of these, internal things are tested and proved. We must also point out that even if the Lamiae suffer this compulsion and

170 

Johann Wier

humanity is able to gain insight into earthly matters, it would be as blind as a mole regarding spiritual matters that reside with God, just as the sun blinds. Following the example of Job, God’s tests must be welcomed and endured while remaining within the paths traced by the Gospels, without straying from them.79 These arguments hark back to the patristic tradition of Origen, who did not attribute blame to ignorance. Due to the gnoseological limits of mankind, spiritual matters are beyond its nature, ‘all human thought, […] because of the blindness of our intelligence and the depravity of our will. Therefore, if anyone offends and errs in this area, the punishment should be milder’.80 For Wier, the existence of the witch-hunts, therefore, created the risk of overshadowing divine omnipotence and paradoxically increasing the power of the devil. Such a conclusion is also an appeal to consider the whole issue differently. As de Waardt rightly observes, Wier intends ‘to exonerate the usual suspects in witch trials and to achieve that he twisted the medical concept of demonic possession a bit, just enough to deploy in the rhetoric of tolerance’.81 Clearly, Wier had recognized the limits of human reason and of the possibility of understanding spiritual matters. Accordingly, it appears that Wier’s work can be analysed, as a stage in the evolution of thought and the practice of tolerance, as an attempt to breathe life into Christian teachings in the best way possible, and in the knowledge of the presence of relentless, blinding, and entrapping demonic temptations. In bidding farewell to the readers of his work, Wier almost seems to want to settle the score with his opponents: those who rely exclusively on Pomponazzi, those who do not understand the risk of atheism, and those theologians who lay claim to exclusive jurisdiction in spiritual matters. Nor does he forget the impostors, ‘subverters of the Christian faith and disturbers of the public tranquillity’. Aware that he may indeed be wrong, Wier is ready to be corrected where necessary, but he trusts Scripture so as to remain ‘upon the paths which Evangelical truth points out, turning aside from the Devil’s frenzied illusions and slippery crossroads’.82 this fear as a result of some previous sin, they still cannot do that which we see these wretched women experiencing, nor should they be punished on the basis of what they do involuntarily and without rational judgement and only as a result of the preceding sin’, Ibid., p. 573. 79 Ibid., p. 572. 80 Ibid., p. 576. 81 De Waardt, Melancholy and Fantasy, p. 45. 82 Wier, Witches, p. 584. See Y. Petry, ‘Many Things Surpass our Knowledge’: An Early Modern Surgeon on Magic, Witchcraft and Demonic Possession’, Social History of Medicine, 25 (2012), pp. 47–64.

Scepticism and toler ation

171

As Gary Waite has shown, the persecution of Anabaptists and heretics in the first half of the sixteenth century, passed to the prosecution of old women as witches: ‘For Weyer, religious persecution was being transformed into witch-hunting by those infected with bloodlust’.83 Wier thus concludes his war for the benefit of doubt, which must instil mercy and compassion and put a halt to the holocaust, in order to re-establish the judgement of the only Judge. Wier believed that Satan was the enemy to fight and that, with true faith and through an attentive life, Christianity is protected from his attacks. The Bible indicates positive role models, such as Job, and cautions against following negative ones, such as Saul; through the light of faith one can escape the labyrinth of demonic spells.

83 Waite, Eradicating Devil’s Minions, p. 65.

8. Reading and refuting Wier Abstract Over the centuries, Wier’s proposals were discussed and either received or refuted by theologians, philosophers, and jurists; his arguments were praised or condemned by Catholics and Reformers who took up surprising positions. In any case, all these scholars had to engage with his work. In the sixteenth century, Thomas Erastus and Jean Bodin began the debate, and later other supporters, such as Reginald Scot and later Balthasar Bekker, radicalized Wier’s conclusions. The continuity and resistance of Wier’s legacy and how it adapted over time is highlighted in this chapter. The debate, which traversed European culture, is studded with consensus and criticism, and endured across the turning point of Cartesianism and Spinozism until the mid-seventeenth-century. Key words: Bodin Jean, Erastus Thomas, Scot Reginald, Bekker Balthasar

1. Appreciations and critics From the mid-f ifteenth to the late-nineteenth century the debate on magic and witchcraft in Europe saw several high points as well as turns of both unexpected virulence and broad new questions. As Stuart Clark has observed, ‘witchcraft authors were led to consider the deeper significance of magic and witchcraft as defining aspects of their age and, thus, keys to its meanings’.1 The De praestigiis accounts for many of the doubts that educated elites came to harbour after an early phase, and, as Charles Zika pointed out, Wier had a deep influence on the debate.2 For Midelfort, Wier represents radical opposition to the witch-hunts as he calls into question the idea of 1 Clark, Thinking with Demons, p. 316. 2 C. Zika, The Appearance of Witchcraft. Print and Visual Culture in Sixteenth-Century Europe, (London: Routledge, 2007), p. 170 and passim.

Michaela Valente. Johann Wier. Debating the Devil and Witches in Early Modern Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789462988729_ch08

174 

Johann Wier

the pact and the power of Satan to interfere with natural laws, creating a school of thought that was to reap notable results.3 With respect to such arguments, all those who entered the debate measured themselves against Wier’s thought, using them as a testbed for their own views. Immediate reactions to the De praestigiis, as we have seen, allowed Wier to sharpen his focus in later editions, adding detail and clarification when imparting his key arguments. But the debate continued after Wier’s death.4 For the first time, questions about the reality of witchcraft were being argued with recourse to biblical philology, to medical and natural science, to law, and to ethics. The existence of demons and their activity in the world was not and had never been, called into question without risking accusations of atheism.5 Alciati, Ponzinibio, and Cardano had raised doubts about the charges made against witches, as had Pomponazzi in his supernatural explanation of events that had their origins in nature. But no one before Wier had linked philological arguments with medical ones, calling into question the penal process itself. Nonetheless, the innovative vein of Wier’s ideas in this debate was weakened by the fact that he did not distance himself from the canonical and dominant philosophical tradition. The De praestigiis burst onto the European scene as a systematic treatise against the persecution of witches, which necessitated a rethink of the entire theory in order to take into consideration those changes that had taken place: the Protestant Reformation, as well as the discovery of new lands and the scientific revolution. Erasmus and other fundamental authors made this revision necessary in order to respond to the (theological and philosophical) difficulties in the Malleus Maleficarum.6 Wier’s success can be evaluated empirically, through the high number of citations of his work that spread across Europe, and even into areas such as the Italian territories, in which instruments of censure and coercion hindered freedom of access to some writings.7 Wier’s work was first blacklisted in the Index of Antwerp and Liège of 1569,8 the first of a series of inclusions in minor indices from the contempo3 Midelfort, Witch hunting in South Western Germany, p. 25 e sgg. 4 Hoorens, Een ketterse arts voor de heksen, pp. 335 ss. 5 Stephens, Demon Lovers: Witchcraft, Sex and the Crisis of Belief, p. 8 and ff. 6 S. Clark, Protestant Demonology: Sin, Superstition, and Society (c. 1520–c. 1630), in Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries, ed. by B. Ankarloo and G. Henningsen, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), pp. 35–82. 7 See my ‘Prime testimonianze della circolazione del De praestigiis Daemonum di Johann Wier in Italia’, Bruniana & Campanelliana, VI (2000), pp. 561–568. 8 Index des livres interdits, a cura di Jesus M. De Bujanda, (Genève: Droz, 1984–2002): VII, Index d’Anvers 1569, 1570, 1571, 1988, p. 618, 583, 663.

Reading and refuting Wier

175

rary Index of Maestro del Sacro Palazzo (the Master of the Sacred Palace), Paolo Costabili, of September 1576 in Turin,9 to a Neapolitan list of 1583, which makes a double condemnation of both book and author.10 It was only in August 1583 that the question of Wier was raised by the Congregation of the Index,11 and, on August 13, Wier was ranked among the first class of heretical authors.12 In the Index of Pope Clement VIII, in 1596, the De praestigiis was condemned entirely (‘omnino’) in the five-book edition.13 This final measure seems to indicate that the fate of Wier’s work was decided, with no further possibility of reconsideration. However, the De praestigiis is subsequently reassessed in the 1583 edition of a dossier from Naples containing a collection of expurgations proposed by the Augustinian Cherubino da Verona.14 This expurgation enables us to understand which demonological theories were approved by the Catholic censors and the perspective from which a sui generis work, such as the De praestigiis, was read. It appears that Cherubino da Verona held similar views to Wier regarding the battle against superstitious practices and the need to reshape the powers attributed to witches, themes Wier had retrieved from the works of St. Augustine himself. We may hypothesize that the censor supported a rethink on the part of the Congregation of the Index, and that the expurgation was, therefore, the starting point of a wider strategy aimed at bypassing the severe Roman examination, rather than an expurgation aimed at a general readership. In addition to proposing interventions in paragraphs that contained impiety, obscenity, or other elements whose content was best left unknown according to the Roman Church, greater caution also had to be used in instances that ran the risk of teaching magical practices. These interventions therefore fell within customary practice, and predominantly included the omission or expurgation of sections that involved priests while also removing the names of Reformers. The censor particularly 9 Ibid., p. 758. 10 P. Lopez, Inquisizione, stampa e censura nel Regno di Napoli tra ‘500 e ‘600, (Napoli: Edizioni del Delfino, 1974), pp. 312–322: 315–318. See Catholic Church and Modern Science, ed. by U. Baldini and L. Spruit, (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2010). 11 Città del Vaticano, Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede (henceforth ACDF), Index, Protocolli A, f. 86M. 12 ACDF, Index, Diari, I, 12v–13r. ACDF, Index, Protocolli K, f. 151v. 13 Index des livres interdits, IX: Index de Rome, 1590, 1593, 1596: avec étude des index de Parme 1580 et Munich 1582, 1994: p. 620. Cfr. U. Rozzo, Biblioteche italiane del Cinquecento tra Riforma e Controriforma, (Udine: Forum, 1994); P. Simoncelli, ‘Documenti interni alla Congregazione dell’Indice 1571–1590. Logica e ideologia dell’intervento censorio’, Annuario dell’Istituto storico italiano per l’età moderna e contemporanea, XXXV–XXXVI (1983–1984), pp. 189–215. 14 ACDF, Index, Epistolae, IV, f. 127r. See ACDF, Index, XXIII, f. 106v.

176 

Johann Wier

praised Wier for annulling all human claims about the power of magical practices, for encouraging individuals to trust only in God, and for supporting referrals to physicians rather than to magicians and wizards. Cherubino offers an intelligent reading of the work, showing understanding of the author’s aim. This represents an original feature, as expurgations are often consisted of superficial and gross simplifications.15 The expurgation is an important document reflecting the fate of the De praestigiis in Italy, and a testimony to the endurance of the seeds of Erasmian thought even within religious orders. In the same way, the requests for a reading licence received by the Congregation of the Index are also worthy of attention, as from these it clearly emerges that many scholars knew Wier’s work. Seeking access through other channels, the scientist and professor at the University of Padua, Girolamo Mercuriale, often asked in his correspondence with Theodor Zwinger for help in procuring works that were difficult to acquire on the Italian market. Amongst these we find in a letter of 1584, the Observationes medicae of Wier, and Simone Simoni’s pamphlet against Erastus.16

2. The Debate with Erastus In the second half of the sixteenth century, and concurring not by chance with the introduction of the Index of Prohibited Books, works on demonology had their focus reduced predominantly to questions of exorcism. This excluded the works of Bruno and Campanella since the Tridentine Index prohibited the circulation of works with astrological content. This ban was reinforced by the papal bull of Sixtus V, which was preceded by a bull of Pius V, the Hebreorum gens, which alluded to the divinatory and magical practices of the Jews—a curious case of fusing prejudice against Jews with prejudice against magic.17 In much of Europe, Wier’s work was considered a testbed, whereas it was almost entirely absent from the works of Italian authors—with the 15 Church, Censorship and Culture in Early Modern Italy, ed. by G. Fragnito, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); G. Fragnito, Proibito capire. la Chiesa e il volgare nella prima età moderna, (Bologna: il Mulino, 2005) and F. Barbierato, The Inquisitor in the Hat Shop. Inquisition, Forbidden Books and Unbelief in Early Modern Venice, (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012). 16 Letter, Padua, 8 December 1584, Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, Frey Grynaeum, II, 4, f. 202. 17 Bullarium Romanum, (Augustae Taurinorum: Seb. Franco et Henrico Dalmazzo editoribus, 1746), IV/III, pp. 57–59: 58. See O. Di Simplicio, Autunno della stregoneria. Maleficio e magia nell’Italia moderna, (Bologna: il Mulino, 2005) and M. Caffiero, Legami pericolosi. Ebrei e cristiani tra eresia, libri proibiti e stregoneria, (Torino: Einaudi, 2012).

Reading and refuting Wier

177

exception of Strozzi Cicogna’s Palagio degli Incanti, which availed itself of some of the anecdotes reported in the De praestigiis, despite its main theme being an assertion of the true existence of witchcraft 18—and the medico-legal questions of the Roman physician Paolo Zacchia, who critically challenged the interpretation of deception.19 Within the Italian peninsula, the persecution of witches was affected by the politics of the Holy See. With its decision in 1588 not to allow condemnation of accomplices to the Sabbath, and with the later Instructio pro formandis processibus in causis strigum (an important handbook addressed to inquisitors and bishops published in 1657, but circulated at an earlier date), the Church lay claim to cases in which recourse to the supernatural had heretical implications. Nonetheless, recent studies by Giovanni Romeo and Vincenzo Lavenia have discussed the interpretation of the Italian trials as moderate for their outcomes: it remains the case that centralized control by one organization, the Holy See, prevented excesses and abuses in some cases. However, the number of victims of the witch-hunts needs to be reassessed.20 From the second half of the sixteenth century, Wier’s ideas were read, acknowledged, and discussed in France, England, and in the Holy Roman Empire. In the Empire, Wier’s legacy was particularly influential for principles of law and legal reflections on the punishments imposed on witches.21 The debate moved towards questions of a procedural nature, particularly concerning the use of torture and capital punishment. In essence, the definition of witchcraft as a crimen exceptum requiring the use of extraordinary measures, including torture, in order to extract a confession, was called 18 Palagio de gl’incanti, (in Vicenza: ad instanza di Roberto Meglietti, 1562), p. 216 and 311. Cfr. P.C. Ioly Zorattini, ‘Il palagio de gl’incanti di Strozzi Cicogna, gentiluomo e teologo vicentino del Cinquecento’, Studi veneziani, IX (1969), pp. 365–398, and A. Maggi, In the Company of Demons, pp. 65–100. 19 P. Zacchia, Quaestionum Medico-legalium, tomi tres, (Frankfurt: sumptibus Joannis Baptistae Schonwetteri, 1666), p. 614. See Paolo Zacchia. Alle origini della medicina legale, 1584–1659, a cura di A. Pastore e G. Rossi, (Milano: FrancoAngeli, 2008) and V. Lavenia, Zacchia, Paolo, in Dizionario Storico dell’Inquisizione, p. 1711. See V. Lavenia, L’infamia e il perdono. Tributi, pene e confessione nella teologia morale della prima età moderna (Bologna: il Mulino, 2004) and Id., “Contes des bonnes femmes”? La medicina legale italiana, Naudé e la stregoneria”, Bruniana & Campanelliana, 10 (2004), pp. 299–318. See Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Insanity Defense, p. 254. 20 Romeo, Inquisizione, Chiesa e stregoneria nell’Italia della Controriforma: nuove ipotesi, in ‘Non lasciar vivere la malefica’, pp. 53–64, and Lavenia Stregoneria, Italia, in Dizionario storico dell’Inquisizione, III, pp. 1523–1530 and T. Herzig, Witchcraft Prosecutions in Italy. 21 H. Neuwaldt, Exegesis Purgationis sive Examinis Sagarum per Aquam frigidam, (Helmstedt: 1585); W. Scribonius, Examen epistolae et partis physiologiae de examine Sagarum per aquam frigidam, (s.l., 1589).

178 

Johann Wier

into question. Through Wier’s thoughts, medical arguments, such as about madness and melancholy, began to be used in the trials; clearly these were discussions on procedure that did not begin to contemplate the reliability of the accused or at least did not concentrate on that aspect.22 Against the backdrop of a Europe lacerated by incurable fissures, conflicts and attempts to define a new idea of power and sovereignty were not quite separate from arguments about witchcraft, as the contributions by Bodin, Erastus and James Stuart demonstrate.23 Early observations on political interests controlling witch trials were made by Wier himself, who supported the intervention of dukes and counts. The sovereign should be the prime opponent of demonic power on earth, and therefore it was the duty of the divinely ordained civil power to combat witches; in this way political treatises could also exploit the mystico-spiritual aspect of the question. The crime of witchcraft was equated with that of lese-majesty in betraying a pact with God, sanctioned through baptism, and consequently leading to breaking the pact made with the sovereign. The f irst voice to rise against Wier was that of a professor from the Universities of Heidelberg and Basel, Thomas Leiber, known as Erastus, who was credited with an important contribution to political theory, so-called Erastianism.24 Erastus first became interested in Wier after being implicated at the 1570 Diet of Speyer, in a trial involving anti-Trinitarianism, of which some of his friends were accused.25 He left unscathed due to the help of the powerful physician, Crato von Krafftheim, and undertook a refutation of Paracelsian medicine, even though, through an ironic twist of fate, he was called to Heidelberg through the intervention of the proParacelsian Prince Elector Otto Heinrich.26 The Erastian Disputationes 22 Clark, Thinking with Demons, p. 203. 23 P. Elmer, Towards a Politics of Witchcraft in Early Modern England, in Languages of Witchcraft: Narrative, Ideology and Meaning in Early Modern Culture, ed. by S. Clark, (London: Macmillan, 2001), pp. 101–118. See also C. R. Millar, Witchcraft, the Devil and Emotions in Early Modern England (London: Routledge, 2017). 24 C. D. Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate, pp. 135–260; W. Tilmann. ‘New Light on Antiparacelsianism (c. 1570–1610): The Medical Republic of Letters and the Idea of Progress in Science.’ The Sixteenth Century Journal, 43(2012), pp. 701–725. 25 See Bibliotheca dissidentium. IX, ed. by C. J. Burchill, (Baden-Baden & Bouxwiller: Koerner, 1989). See Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus, pp. 218–222. 26 C. Gunnoe and J. Shackelford, Johannes Crato von Krafftheim: Imperial Physician, Irenicist and Anti-Paracelsian, in Ideas and Cultural Margins in Early Modern Germany. Essays in Honor of H. C. Erik Midelfort, ed. by M. E. Plummer, R. Barnes, et al., (Aldershot: Ashgate Press, 2009), pp. 201–216 and C. D. Gunnoe and K. Häusler-Gross, Paracelsianism as Heresy: Thomas Erastus, Michael Toxites, and Elector August of Saxony, in Festschrift für Joachim Telle zum 75. Geburtstag, hrsg. von L. Balbiani und K. Pfister, (Heidelberg: MattesVerlag, 2014), pp. 67–82.

Reading and refuting Wier

179

were published by Pietro Perna, who had contributed to the diffusion and success of Paracelsian works, and who was keen to retain his Imperial privilege, therefore granting his services to Erastus’s fierce denunciation.27 In the Disputationes, Erastus discusses a variety of themes, from Creation to astronomical debates, and including natural magic and witches, maintaining throughout the anti-Paracelsian polemic that also resurfaces in the Repetitio. 28 He does not accept the distinction between natural and demonic magic, condemninig all arts, or so-called arts, that seek to place themselves above or against the laws of nature, which is a mirror for divine will.29 In the first dialogue, a section is reserved for the debate on witches and the just punishments for their crimes. The character of Furnius presents the opinions of both Wier and that of his opponent, leaving the author the possibility of cautiously and effectively creating a counter-argument. Throughout, Erastus demonstrates his thorough knowledge of Wier’s work, quashing Wier’s distinction between magician and witch by reiterating that every event is dependent on divine will.30 He shows the agreement between the various places in Scripture that mention demonic power, distinguishing between the various spirits that, despite the Fall, maintain their angelic nature.31 To Furnius’s objection to claims of the innocence of witches who are tricked by demons, Erastus replies that witches must be punished for the impiety of those who, breaking the first commandment, turn to the devil, and not for the witchcraft and atrocities they believe they are committing.32 What is being punished is, therefore, apostasy and curiosity, not only and exclusively the desire to poison, for curiosity was considered a demonic instrument and punished, as a reading of Noli altum sapere also demonstrates. 27 A. Rotondò, Studi di storia ereticale, pp. 479-576. See C. Gilly, Capital Punishment for Paracelsians: a Dear Wish of Thomas Erastus, in Magic, Alchemy and Science, pp. 247–252. 28 Repetitio disputationis de lamijs seu strigibus: in qua plene, solide, & perspicue, de arte earum, potestate, itemque poena disceptatur, authore Thoma Erasto. Libellus cum alijs omnibus, tum maxime ad gubernacula rerumpub. & iudicia sedentibus, utilis ac necessarius, (Basileae: apud Petrum Pernam, 1578). 29 Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus, p. 352. See S. Dall’Aglio, Da Girolamo Savonarola a Tommaso Erasto. Itinerari di una polemica astrologica tra Firenze e Heidelberg, in Studi in ricordo di Armando Saitta, (Milano: FrancoAngeli, 2002), pp. 42–71. 30 T. Erastus, Disputationes de medicina noua Philippi Paracelsi: in qua, quae de remediis superstitionis & magicis curationibus ille prodidit, praecipue examinantur, (Basileae: apud Petrum Pernam, 1572–1573), I: c. 187. 31 Ibid., c. 191. See Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus, p. 368. 32 Midelfort, Witch Hunting in South Western Germany, p. 56.

180 

Johann Wier

Witches are called evil because they ask demons to do evil, even if they do not commit the acts themselves. Erastus believed, then, that witches cannot be considered mere instruments of the devil, but the actual authors and instigators of evil. The situation of magicians is different to the fact that they do not make a manifest pact, whereas witches renounce God; in the same way, a defence based on ignorance cannot be accepted.33 According to Erastus, all those who desire to surpass the laws of nature are evil, and are seeking help from the devil either through a tacit or an explicit pact. Erastus counters attempts to demonstrate the vanity of this pact with the devil by responding that God judges according to His word and not according to human fantasies.34 Beyond continual Old Testament references, Erastus’s conclusion that nonetheless a less severe punishment could be considered in particular cases is rather surprising. In his view, the argument that the devil’s trickery diminishes guilt does not stand, as a pact with God has no equivalents in legal doctrine, and yet nobody calls this pact into question. Gender also features in his analysis, and he recalls the absolute fragility of the female sex, a fragility that leaves women exposed to, and even facilitates, the decision to err. He concludes the first dialogue by stating that witches are comparable to assassins and, as such, deserve the same punishment; however, the last word is left to the moderate Furnius, who seeks to distinguish between witches and poisoners.35 The demonological aspect, which in the Disputationes is sacrif iced and overshadowed by the other mountainous arguments, f inally f inds its place in the Repetitio, in which Erastus finds himself called to act by Wier, after the publication of the De lamiis and the polemical chapter of the De praestigiis. Having acknowledged the doctrine of his adversary, Erastus considers Wier’s work, and its aim to demonstrate the illusion of the crimes of witches. He judges Wier’s defence to be weak, to lack persuasion, and to be incomplete. For Erastus, a witch is a woman who, having rejected God and true religion, ties herself to a pact with an evil demon to learn his many secrets.36 Erastus identifies the evil intentions 33 Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus, p. 363. 34 T. Erastus, Disputationes de medicina noua, p. 199. See Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus, p. 364–368. 35 Erastus, Disputationes, pars quarta, 1572, p. 131. 36 ‘Saga est mulier, vel incantatrix, vel praestigiatrix, vel quomodo appellare cuique libet quae, abiurato prius Deo & religione vera, Cacodaemoni manifesta se stipulatiove mancipavit: (ut praeter alias pollicitationes ac spes) ab eo doceatur carminibus, herbis, rebus alijs per se innoxijs Elementa turbare, tempestates ciere, hominibus, iumentis, agris, frugibus nocere: aliaque mirabilia, & Naturae impossibilia facere’, Ibid., p. 24.

Reading and refuting Wier

181

of witches and thus claims that the death penalty is not only legitimate but also respects God’s law.37 Furthermore, Erastus refutes an appeal to evangelical freedom, clearly contrasting it to papal tyranny, as evangelical freedom in no way allows a reign of anarchy.38 Once he accepts the death penalty, Erastus reconsiders Wier’s arguments and those of many others who had examined the question through lexicographic research in order to demonstrate the lack of a philological basis for Wier’s proposal: the condemnation of magic is reiterated in various places and in various guises. On completing his dismantling of Wier’s key points, Erastus states that, by advancing such theories, Wier had continued the devil’s game and had caused a proliferation of the witchcraft sect. With increasing tempo and with an increasingly stringent argument, Erastus rejects the proposed distinctions between and comparisons of witches and magicians, thus demolishing what had been a key to Wier’s characteristic theory. He does, however, concede that Wier brought attention to the choice of a less gory modus moriendi (the mode of Dying) and whether capital punishment was deserved for those crimes. Erastus delivers a decisive blow to Wier, even declaring himself to be ready to change his mind should new, persuasive arguments be presented. Up to this point the confrontation proceeded in the public eye; his arguments were published and, as such, were designed and intended to be noticed. In parallel, a number of letters, and Wier’s strict reply to Erastus (recently identified by Gunnoe39) allow us to complete the picture. Gunnoe supposes that the De praestigiis was one of the first works Erastus read on Paracelsus, according to a letter Erastus wrote to Bullinger in October 1570. 40 In a letter of April 1572, to Zwinger, Erastus states that he was not favourably impressed by any critics of his anti-Paracelsian dispute ‘excepto Wiero’, who had demonstrated his dissent on the punishment of witches, dissent that he later explicitly formalized. Erastus subsequently wrote to Wier, inviting him to a public or private debate (‘ad defensionem seu privatam seu publicam’) 37 Ibid., pp. 45–46. 38 Ibid., p. 67. 39 ‘Erastus’ rebuttal reveals why Weyer’s ingenious arguments for clemency were unlikely to win widespread assent even among like-minded Protestants. Ultimately this debate contributes to our understanding of why neither Renaissance humanism and nor Protestantism successfully undermined the inherited witchcraft paradigm’, C. Gunnoe, The Debate between Johann Weyer and Thomas Erastus on the Punishment of Witches, in Constructing Publics, ed. J. Van Horn Melton, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), pp. 257–285. 40 Id., Thomas Erastus and his Circle of Anti-Paracelsians, p. 138.

182 

Johann Wier

and stating that, should he be persuaded of the falsity of his own assertions, he would not hesitate to publicly declare his error. 41 Erastus returns to the matter in a letter to Joachim Camerarius the Younger, 42 in which his persistent idea of a public debate re-emerges, even if Erastus reveals his own diff idence concerning any possibility of reaching an agreement, given the distance between their respective positions—a distance that was to transform into hostile rejection in the Repetitio. In a letter to Bullinger in January 1573, Erastus also expresses his disappointment at Wier’s intransigent position, which some considered him to have “caught” from the heresy of Schwenckfeld. 43 This last comment, a rumour the circulation of which Erastus contributed to, must be read as a precise definition of a heterodoxical tendency, rather than as an intentional discrediting of an adversary who could not even boast of adherence to or membership of a strong Church. The tones and the interlocutors with which Erastus discussed Wier are nonetheless gauges of the attention given to the subject and its advocates. This was clearly a sensitive issue on which a theologian of Erastus’s calibre felt obliged to comment and defend his own position. In Book 6, Chapter 24 of the 1577 edition of the De praestigiis, Wier responds to some of Erastus’s objections in order to reiterate and clarify once more his own position and, in doing so, causes another shift in the balance of his argument, 44 with the publication of the De lamiis and the Liber Apologeticus which emphasizes the approval he had gained. Erastus, in a letter of May 10, 1577, expresses his disappointment in his adversary, who had not only failed to take into consideration his observations but also went so far as to disseminate, in an abridged form, issues that were so hotly debated at the time. 45 Thus, the intentionally polemical origin of the Repetitio is revealed as Erastus’s response to Wier’s conceited tone. In a letter to Grynaeus, Erastus, in addition to expressing his admiration and respect for Wier, identifies his great culture, virtue, and piety, but also insinuates that Wier had avoided entering into a public debate focused on the punishment of witches. In a rather spiteful and sardonic way, Erastus reiterates his availability to resolve such a burning issue in order to save from 41 Erastus to Theodor Zwinger, Heidelberg, April 6 1572. Basel UB, Fr.Gr. Ms. II 4, f. 93. Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus, p. 345. 42 Erastus to Joachim Camerarius (Erlangen UB, Briefsammlung Trew, f. 386r), January 31 [1573]. I thank Carlos Gilly for this letter. Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus, p. 345–346. 43 Zürich, Staatsarchiv, E II 361, f.31 published by Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus, p. 348. 44 Wier, On Witchcraft, pp. 293–295. 45 Letter to Grynaeus, May 10, 1577, Basel, UB, G II 4, f. 207.

Reading and refuting Wier

183

danger and damnation the greatest number of people possible. 46 Erastus’s defensive tone may indicate a number of hypotheses encouraged by the sceptical behaviour of the authorities in Basel towards the witch-hunts. Having reiterated his openness to correcting any error ‘in hac disceptatione, in qua de salute hominum agitur’, he highlights the benefits for the res publica and for those magistrates who could be kept up to date immediately regarding the progress of the matter. 47 Erastus’s reaction nonetheless reveals further progress in demonological speculation and an increasingly astute use of biblical hermeneutics, accompanied by a scientific method in clear evolution. Erastus, like Brenz, considered witchcraft to be a spiritual crime, but, differently from Brenz, and aligned with the tradition of Heidelberg—of which Girolamo Zanchi is an example—the providential element was not accentuated. This drove him to request intransigent measures against witchcraft. 48 As Gunnoe rightly highlights, Erastus is characterized by ‘his limited first-hand familiarity with witch-trials and that the innocent may have wrongly suffered’. 49 However, a new attitude towards witches emerges from the various pressures and influences of the Basel circle as a result of the Erastus–Wier debate. In fact, the Palatinate, which largely adopted Wier’s recommendations concerning witch trials, proceeded with very few of them.

3. Bodin against Wier Following this direct attack from Erastus, who was the only opponent considered worthy of mention in the De praestigiis,50 Wier was subject to the rebuttal of Jean Bodin, a jurist. Even though Wier was aware of the risk of infringing on the sensitivity of scholars from other backgrounds, he prompted responses by declaring it his moral duty to enter the debate by virtue of his specific competences.51 46 Letter to Johann Jacobus Grynaeus, Basel, UB, G II 4, f. 268r a. 47 Ibid., f. 268v. Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, Rehdiger 203, n.25, published by Rotondò, Studi di storia ereticale, p. 365. 48 Midelfort, Witch hunting in South Western Germany, p. 57 and Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus, pp. 358–373. 49 Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus, pp. 370–371. 50 Wier, On Witchcraft, pp. 293–295. See for definitive point, Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus, p. 344 and pp. 373–374. 51 J. Bodin, On the Demon-Mania of Witches, translated by R. A. Scott; abridged with an introduction by J. L. Pearl, (Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 1995); J. Bodin, Demonomania de gli stregoni tradotta da Ercole Cato, a cura di A. Suggi, (Roma: Edizioni di

184 

Johann Wier

On seeing the De lamiis (1577), Bodin, with a number of important works already to his name, such as the Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem and the Six livres de la République, delayed the publication of his Démonomanie des sorciers in order to confute Wier.52 As Virginia Krause argues, ‘Bodin composed his treatise with the express purpose of awakening his contemporaries to what he saw as a mounting tide of Satanism’.53 From the outset, Bodin’s definition of a witch identified her full responsibility: ‘A witch is one who knowingly tries to accomplish something by diabolical means’.54 Rejecting the legal and judicial interpretation of Wier, Bodin demonized his adversary, accusing him of the worst possible atrocities, even having willingly spread magical practices and witchcraft strongly prohibited by God’s law, a fact—Bodin continues—that should come as no surprise from one who declares himself a disciple of Agrippa, ‘le plus grand Sorcier qui fut oncques de son age’.55 With regard to biblical exegesis, Bodin takes up Philo’s interpretation, and therefore favours an allegorical reading of the Bible, in contrast to the literal reading proposed by Wier. He then focuses on the interpretation of the term farmakeiς as referring only to poisoners, claiming this interpretation to be erroneous.56 Having dismissed the philological argument, Bodin scrutinizes various other points, attempting to show the logical and discursive contradictions in Wier’s argument so as to reject the explanation of melancholy as a cause of the confessions made by witches.57 For Bodin, witches are guilty of siding against God, against humanity, and, therefore, also against the State.58 From this perspective, the idea that the Démonomanie can be considered as contradictory to Bodin’s other work Storia e Letteratura, 2006); Id., De la démonomanie des sorciers. Edited by V. Krause, E. Macphail, C. Martin, with N. P. Desrosiers, N. Martin Peterson, (Genève: Droz, 2016). See The Reception of Bodin. Edited by H. A. Lloyd, (Leiden: Brill, 2013) and H. A. Lloyd, Jean Bodin, ‘this Pre-eminent Man of France’. An Intellectual Biography, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). 52 Bodin, De la démonomanie des sorciers, p. 437. 53 V. Krause, Listening to Witches: Bodin’s Use of Confession in De la Démonomanie des sorciers, in The Reception of Bodin, pp. 97–115: 98. See V. Krause, Witchcraft, Demonology, and Confession in Early Modern France. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). 54 Bodin, On the Demon-Mania of Witches, p. 45. 55 Bodin, De la démonomanie des sorciers, p. 440. 56 Ibid., p. 449. 57 Ibid., p. 451. 58 D. Quaglioni, I limiti della sovranità. Il pensiero di Jean Bodin nella cultura politica e giuridica dell’età moderna, (Padova: Cedam, 1992), passim and M. Leathers Kuntz, Religious Views in his Works: the Relationship of the Colloquium heptaplomeres to the Universae naturae theatrum and De la démonomanie des sorciers’ in Jean Bodin, ed. by J. H. Franklin, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), pp. 237–254.

Reading and refuting Wier

185

can be decisively rejected: Bodin considered pagans to be “preferable” to atheists, and he retained a modicum of consideration for paganism, whereas only words of condemnation were levelled at witches.59 According to Bodin, pagans are not able to recognize the true God, but they do develop a sense of religion, and therefore maintain some restraint on their lives and actions that atheists and witches do not. Like most demonologists, Bodin approached the question of witchcraft after participating in a trial.60 Not only did this experience persuade him of the serious need to heed Exodus’s advice on admonishing magistrates who let themselves be convinced by Wier’s argument, but the experience also became a test of truth. As Satan cannot force a person to renounce God, witches freely and openly choose to do so, as the devil demands pure and free will (‘Sathan ne force personne de renoncer à Dieu, ny de se vouer au Diable, ains au contraire sur toutes choses il demande une pure, franche, et liberale volonté de ses sugets, et contracté avec eux par conventions’).61 Bodin resolutely rejects the view that the pact could be annulled as illusory or false and claims that Wier did nothing more than fish out the ‘théories ridicules de ces Docteurs Italiens’ (Alciati and Ponzinibio). In any case, Bodin continues, the foundations of the arguments are entirely fallacious, as demons and spirits cannot be treated as if they were natural, for in this way the divine becomes confused with the earthly.62 Bodin’s rejection of Wier closes with a passionate plea to the magistrates that they do not allow Wier’s absurd and impious theories to prevail, and thereby fall into Satan’s net and allow the devil to develop and continue his action.63 In his demonological argument, Bodin replies to Wier point by point, rejecting each of his arguments and offering a framework for discussion that could have easily been applied in following debates while also dismissing the appeal to mercy as defence for magicians and witches. An irreconcilable position for Bodin, given his strong preference for laws based upon the Old Testament, contrasts decisively with the evangelical perspective held by Wier. Bodin’s God as Judge could not be easily reconciled with Wier’s God, who tested people but was also ready to forgive, acknowledging sinful 59 See D. Couzinet, On Bodin’s Method, in The Reception of Bodin, pp.39–65: 63 and my ‘La salvezza degli Stati: Atei, streghe, infedeli ed eretici nel pensiero di Bodin’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LXXXI (2019), pp. 291–308. 60 Bodin, De la démonomanie des sorciers, p. 461. 61 Ibid., p. 468. 62 Ibid., f. 473. 63 Baxter, Jean Bodin’s De la dèmonomanie des sorciers: The Logic of Persecution, in The Damned Art, pp. 76–105: 77. Cfr. J. Pearl, The Crime of Crimen, pp. 110–126.

186 

Johann Wier

humanity’s capacity to change. Patristic and legal authorities, as well as Scriptural authorities, referenced by Bodin in support of his argument show a decisive preference for the Hebrew tradition, a preference that rendered Bodin “suspect” of tendencies towards Judaism.64 Bodin’s argument is characterized by accurate rejection of Wier’s arguments and detailed criticism of his personal credibility. Nonetheless, Bodin borrows many anecdotes from the De praestigiis, as Martin has shown.65 The authority of Bodin’s words and their diffusion across Europe weighed heavily on the fate of Wier. Bodin also criticized Giovan Battista Della Porta—who Wier had commended—who became an indirect victim.66

4. Wier’s legacy in English and Germanic debates Wier’s work had a very different reception in England. Reginald Scot, a lawyer from Kent, published his Discoverie of Witchcraft (1584), comprising solid arguments and a personal cosmology prompted by the De praestigiis. Scot proposed original responses to the questions that afflicted the culture of the time, such as the question of magic and the nature of spirits and demons.67 Scot was involved in the continental debate on magic and witchcraft and was inspired by a series of factors that found their home in his work, not least the condemnation of judicial prejudice, which he attacked with in-depth critical arguments and with an analytical examination of classical and modern authorities. William Shakespeare drew heavily on this work in the 64 P. L. Rose, Bodin and the Great God of Nature. The Moral and Religious Universe of a Judaiser, (Genève: Droz, 1980), passim. See my The Works of Bodin under the Lens of Roman Theologians and Inquisitors, in The Reception of Bodin, pp. 219–235. 65 C. Martin, Bodin’s Reception of Johann Weyer in the Démonomanie des sorciers, in The Reception of Jean Bodin, pp. 117–135: 124. See L. Roper, The Witch in Western Imagination, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2012), p. 30. 66 N. Tarrant, ‘Giambattista Della Porta and the Roman Inquisition: Censorship and the Definition of Nature’s Limits in Sixteenth-Century Italy.’ The British Journal for the History of Science, 46 (2013): pp. 601–625 and S. Kodera, ‘Giambattista della Porta’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). 67 R. Scot, La sorcellerie démystifiée. Introduction et notes de P. Kapitaniak. Texte traduit de l’anglais par P. Kapitaniak et J. Migrenne, (Grenoble: Jerome Millon, 2015). S. Anglo, Reginald Scot’s Discoverie of Witchcraft: Scepticism and Sadduceeism, in The Damned Art, pp. 106–139: 106; P. Almond, England’s First Demonologist: Reginald Scot and ‘The Discoverie of Witchcraft’, (London: I.B. Tauris, 2011) and Id., Doubt and Demonology: Reginald Scot’s The Discoverie of Witchcraft, in Science (The) of Demons. Early Modern Authors Facing Witchcraft and the Devil, ed. by J. Machielsen, (London: Routledge, 2020), pp. 133-148. See also O. A. Darr, Marks of an Absolute Witch: Evidentiary Dilemmas in Early Modern England. (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011).

Reading and refuting Wier

187

creation of his characters from the world of magic, from Macbeth to The Tempest.68 With masterful and erudite balance, Scot wove together scholarly work with popular anecdotes, revealing not just his profound knowledge of the demonological debate but also an ingenious destructuring strategy. Another key to reading Scot’s work has recently been identified: the way his call to expose witches was grounded in his faith. For Scot witches were, in reality, papists (Catholics) who continuously attacked the monarchy during the reign of Elizabeth I.69 Thus, his work highlighted the surviving superstition of the papists, Through his frequent observations of the differences between the ‘religion of the gospel’ and ‘papism’, Scot maintains that only through the former can the tricks and superstitious beliefs from which the latter has prospered be revealed.70 This is a step forward from Wier, as the identified congenital weakness of Wier’s system—admission of the existence of the devil and demonic action in the world—is understood and overcome by Scot’s attempts to call into question the very belief in witches and demons. Scot successfully and brilliantly clarifies and resolves the contradictions and aporetic passages in Wier’s treatise. However, Wier’s influence on Scot is nonetheless undeniable, particularly in having understood that even Holy Scripture could be a subject of exegetical discussion, not just for theological understanding, but also for other matters such as politics and natural philosophy. This is indeed an outstanding achievement. Even if we ignore his disdainful identification of witches with Catholics aside, his definition of a witch does not differ much from that of Wier. He seems to have accepted Wier’s main conclusions and then reformulated them: witches are women which be commonly old, lame, bleare-eied, pale, fowle, and full of wrinkles: poore, sullen, superstitious, and papists; or such as knowe no religion: in whose drousie minds the divell hath goten a fine seat; so as, what mischeefe, mischance, calamitie, or slaughter is brought to passe, they are easily persuaded the same is done by themselves; imprinting in their minds an earnest and constant imagination hereof.71 68 K. Muir, The Sources of Shakespeare’s Plays, (London: Routledge, 2014) and Shakespeare’s Demonology. A Dictionary, ed. by M. Gibson and J. A. Esra, (London: Bloomsbury, 2016). See W. O. Gulstad, The Forms of Things Unknown: the Impact of Reginald Scot’s Skeptical Treatise, the Discoverie of Witchcraft, on a Midsummer Night’s Dream, King Lear, and the Tempest, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1994. 69 Kapitaniak, Introduction, in Scot, La sorcellerie démystifiée, pp. 14 and ff.. 70 Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, p. 110 e sgg. 71 Ibid., p. 4. See Anglo, Melancholia and Witchcraft, pp. 219 ff.

188 

Johann Wier

Rather than hiding behind a series of authorities, Scot revealed a strong sense of pragmatism as he did not limit himself to condemnation but delved further into his analysis: the threat of death leads many to follow the will of the persecutor, regardless of their belief, as demonstrated in the period of Bloody Mary, and, especially, in the example of St. Peter, who was an apostate (when he denies Jesus three times) to save his own life. If, therefore, even the saints submit to the laws of opportunism, how, and on whose authority, could witches escape them? Scot’s question appears throughout his work, inviting his readers towards compassion for these ‘poore soules’.72 In this way, he qualifies Wier’s condemnation of those accused of witchcraft. Divine law prohibits and as a consequence condemns witches and magicians, not for what they do, but because they give themselves powers due to God alone.73 Scot tackles the main point in Bodin’s successful confutation of Wier as based on a philological error: he accuses Bodin of having deliberately and forcibly distorted the translation of the term φαρμακεῖς as magos or Praestigiatores, when it is well known that the term refers to poisoners using medicine.74 Launching in this way a careful examination of the various Hebrew terms used in Holy Scripture for magicians and witches, Scot ably searches the summae of the time, defining them as ridiculous and, at times, even blasphemous fables and dreams. He often takes the opportunity to launch an invective against papist methods, such as when he speaks of the cruelties he believes worthy of cannibals in ‘popish sacrifices’ (referring to the celebration of Mass) or when he ridicules some of the decisions of the Council of Trent,75 ultimately asserting that consonances between papism and paganism are clear to see,76 or when he mocks the Catholic definition of superstition, locating himself fully within the cultural tradition of Reformed Christianity.77 In this way, with a notable love of paradox, Scot ridicules those who had believed in such fables, persuaded by ‘witchmongers’ or ‘papists’, claiming that they may be brought to believe that the moon is made of ‘green cheese’.78 While Scot’s dependence on Wier is difficult to quantify, there is no doubt that Wier’s work offered Scot the opportunity to compare his own views to 72 Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, p. 22. 73 Ibid., p. 66. 74 Ibid., p. 71. 75 Ibid., p. 114. 76 ‘Nevertheless, bicause in everie point you shall see how poperie agreeth with paganisme…’. Ibid., p. 145. 77 Anglo, Reginald Scot’s Discoverie, pp. 130–131. 78 Scot, The Discoverie, p. 227.

Reading and refuting Wier

189

those of a widely discussed contemporary work, thus equipping him with the stimulus to arrive at his more radical conclusions. In addition to trusting reason and the support of the senses to demystify witchcraft, Scot’s work is also characterized by biblical hermeneutics, thrusting him into one of the most important areas of controversy, which had already impacted on various fields of knowledge.79 For scepticism and pragmatism, Scot represents a decisive step forward in the demonological debate over the political use of the categories of witches and witchcraft, as Kapitaniak has shown.80 According to Mendez, the English demonological debate deals with religious concerns and should be examined in this light.81 Within the same decade, but from an entirely different perspective, the theologian Peter Binsfeld (1545–1598) structured his treatise on witches’ confessions, one of the main questions Wier himself brought to the debate, by contesting the value attributed to them during a trial.82 Binsfeld was perhaps the only writer who understood the profound impact of psychiatric pressures, gaining some results that, in contrast to Bodin, for example, led him to be more inclined towards understanding the various nuances of witchcraft belief: he examined every significant and relevant cases in order to identify the involvement of the people who practised them.83 Despite this relative openness, his true aims come clearly to light in his epistle to the reader, in which Binsfeld claims the existence of individuals, ‘hostes communis salutis’, who necessitate emergency measures and punishments commensurate with the seriousness of their crime. Binsfeld felt the need to scrutinize the possibility of believing confessions made by witches and to recognize the value of evidence against accomplices in order to liberate the State from diabolic power and set those who had been seduced onto the path of truth and salvation. In such areas where the witchcraft epidemic raged as it did in those areas considered by Binsfeld, scholars such as Wier, who spread doubt on the authenticity of the action of witches, were considered 79 See D. Wootton, Reginald Scot /Abraham Fleming /The Family of Love, in Languages of Witchcraft, pp. 119–138. 80 Kapitaniak, Introduction, in Scot, La sorcellerie démystifiée, pp. 10. 81 A. Mendez, “To Accommodate the Earthly Kingdom to Divine Will: Official and Nonconformist Definitions of Witchcraft in England (Ca. 1542–1630).” Preternature: Critical and Historical Studies on the Preternatural, 6 (2017), pp. 278–309. 82 Peter Binsfeld, Tractatus de confessionibus maleficorum et sagarum, (Augustae Treuirorum: ex officina typographica Henrici Bock), 1596. See J. Dillinger, sub voce in Encyclopedia of Witchcraft. The Western Tradition, 1, pp. 122–125 and R. Voltmer, Demonology and anti-demonology: Binsfeld’s De confessionibus and Loos’s De vera et falsa magia, in The Science of Demons, pp. 149–164. 83 Midelfort, A History of Madness, p. 216.

190 

Johann Wier

heretics and distant from the Christian faith.84 Nevertheless, leaving no room for accusations of superficiality, Binsfeld recognized that, in order for evil to be present, three conditions must be met: divine permission, satanic power, and free will (‘hominis malefici voluntatem libere consentientem’).85 God allows evil to exist so that the faithful can patiently endure their tribulations, and also in order to distinguish the good from the evil. Concerning the pact with the devil, it was imperative after Wier’s intervention to enter into a discussion of hypotheses concerning what is imagined and what is impossible, within reality or illusion, as much scholarly work was grounded on Wier’s conclusions. With this in mind, Binsfeld adopts the refutations proposed by Bodin and Erastus. On some points, however, Binsfeld takes up Wier’s positions, and these are important achievements of his work in rationalizing the world of magic and witchcraft; thus, he judges the transformation of men into animals86 to be false, both philosophically and in terms of true faith, and, likewise, considers the coitus between demons and witches to be impossible.87 Aside from these important claims, the nucleus of Wier’s thought is not taken up by Binsfeld, who preserves the value of the Canon Episcopi, stating that the women discussed therein were very different to the witches and evildoers at large in the present time; indeed, the latter renounced God explicitly and swore loyalty to the satanic sect. For Binsfeld, the negligence of magistrates caused a continued and ever more serious allegiance to Satan, and he was therefore duty bound to reawaken awareness on such delicate and damaging topics for the salvation of humanity.88 His analysis of the causes of the spread of beliefs that were so harmful to humanity is the same as Wier’s, namely, that a lack of faith, which creates fertile ground on which witchcraft can prosper. He also agrees on the solution: intensifying the work of evangelization to combat evil.89 It is worth noting that, as Erastus, on the Protestant side, Binsfeld opposed the idea of persecuting the accomplices of witches. In 1588, with a resounding innovation regarding the procedures of the Holy See, trials against the accomplices of those who confessed could not be prosecuted. It is relevant to refer here to Giovanni Romeo’s analysis of the political 84 Binsfeld, Tractatus de confessionibus, p. 3. 85 Ibid., p. 8. 86 Ibid., p. 200. 87 ‘Et in hoc articulo merito consentiunt Theologi cum omnibus, qui dicunt impossibilem esse coitum Daemonum cum mulieribus. Et hac annotata doctrina ruunt omnia argumenta, quae facit Ioan. Wierus in lib de Lamiis cap.13 & lib.3 De Praestigiis Daemonum cap.21’, Ibid., p. 218. 88 Ibid., pp. 126–129. 89 Ibid., pp. 129–138.

Reading and refuting Wier

191

intelligence of the inquisitors, who did not consider the use of confession to be a valid instrument outside the Italian territories.90 Another cultural heir to Wier’s legacy was Johann Georg Godelmann, a jurist from Rostock, who, in 1591, wrote the treatise De magis veneficis et lamiis, recte cognoscendis & puniendis,91 in which he adopts Wier’s position on the absolute innocence of witches, due to them being victims of demonic illusion. The work was condemned by the Roman Church, which saw within it the same elements as Wier’s De praestigiis.92 Godelmann thought that in the battle against Satan it was important, following on from Wier, to distinguish between magicians, witches, and poisoners.93 In Godelmann’s definition of witches, his dependence on Wier is extensive, including not only his theory but also his text. A comparison between Wier’s and Godelmann’s text shows a surprisingly high degree of uniformity. In various places, Godelmann expounds his conceptualization of the witch as an old woman who becomes a victim of Satan for such various reasons as credulity, bewilderment due to senility, melancholia, poverty, or adversity followed by desperation.94 Concerning the demonic pact, Godelmann again espouses Wier’s theories on the illusory nature of the pact and the devil’s preying on vulnerable witches through tricks, force, and fear, contrasted with the willing participation of magicians and poisoners to satisfy their own curiosity.95 Tricks, compulsion, ignorance, fear, and error rendered the pact void, as there was neither heresy nor any crime, as it ‘a solo animo pendet’ (‘depends only on the mind’), and willpower had been weakened. Concerning magicians and poisoners, on the other hand, these acquired their diabolic art from books or from Satan himself in order to conjure a demon: they had, in contrast, an awareness and a determination 90 G. Romeo, Inquisitori, esorcisti e streghe nell’Italia della Controriforma, (Firenze: Sansoni, 1990), passim; V. Lavenia, ‘Anticamente di misto foro’. Inquisizione, stati e delitti di stregoneria nella prima età moderna, in Inquisizioni: percorsi di ricerca, (Trieste: EUT, 2001), pp. 35–80; R. Decker, Witchcraft and the Papacy: An Account Drawing on the Formerly Secret Records of the Roman Inquisition, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008) and L. Kallestrup, Agents of Witchcraft in Early Modern Italy and Denmark, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015). 91 J. G. Godelmann, De magis veneficis et lamiis, recte cognoscendis & puniendis, libri tres. His accessit ad magistratum clarissimi & celeberrimi i.c.d. Iohannis Althusii admonitio, (Francoforti: ex officina typographica Nicolai Bassaei, 1591). See U. Rublack, The Astronomer and the Witch: Johannes Kepler’s Fight for his Mother, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 243. 92 See my ‘…conoscere a fondo le pessime arti de’ maliardi, per potersene guardare, e difendere…’. Sulla censura di alcuni trattati demonologici’, Dimensioni e problemi della ricerca storica, 2012, pp. 171–192. 93 Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Insanity Defense, pp. 250–251. 94 Godelmann, De magis veneficis et lamiis, p. 51. 95 Ibid., p. 8.

192 

Johann Wier

to proceed in their nefarious aim, and as such they can, and indeed must, be punished. Godelmann is entirely persuaded by Wier to the extent of questioning why a magistrate could enforce divine justice, punishing a crime whose judgement was not the concern of earthly courts—a question Wier had previously asked and that generated a plentiful contribution to the history of tolerance.96 A similar approach to Godelmann was adopted by Hermann Witekind (1522–1603), an alumnus of Melanchthon and a professor at the university of Heidelberg, where Erastus had also taught. For Witekind witches convince themselves, through demonic illusion, that they carry out impossible actions, and it is opportune therefore (drawing upon Alciati’s thought) to heal them with hellebore rather than with fire.97 He strongly reiterates all of Wier’s arguments, wasting no time on too many anecdotes that could distract the reader. In order to find a way out of the labyrinth of spells, Witekind proposes greater knowledge of the foundational elements of faith that would make people less exposed to demonic tricks.98 The reception of Wier’s work within Catholicism also took place, but with different results. Evidence for this comes from the case of Cornelius Loos, who stated in 1592 that everything witches were accused of was the result of imagination, before the prompt intervention of religious authorities forced him to retract the statement.99 The decision of a group of professors from the University of Leiden on the question of what evidence could be used in witch trials was more incisive and seems to echo Wier’s work.100 While the debate on judicial aspects of witchcraft continued to diverge increasingly between sceptics and witch-hunters on the continent, Scot’s ideas continued to circulate and be well-received in England. James Stuart, King James VI of Scotland (1566–1625), defended the more conservative line in his Daemonologie, published in 1597. Moreover, James was involved in some trials, which shed light on inner political plots against him; hence his 96 Ibid., p. 11. 97 Augustin Lercheimer (Hermann Witekind), Christlich bedencken vnd erjnnerung von Zauberey, (Heidelberg: 1585), f.117. See C. Binz, Augustin Lercheimer und seine Schrift wider den Hexenwahn, (Strassburg: Heitz, 1888) and Clark, Thinking with Demons, p. 206. See H. C. E. Midelfort, ‘Witch Craze?: Beyond the Legends of Panic’, Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft, 6 (2011), pp. 11–33. 98 Midelfort, Witch Hunting in South Western Germany, p. 57. 99 Lea, Materials Toward a History, pp. 601–604; P. C. van der Eerden, Cornelius Loos and Die Magia Falsa, in Vom Unfug des Hexenprocesses, pp. 136–160 and R. Voltmer, Demonology and Anti-Demonology: Binsfeld’s De confessionibus and Loos’s De vera et falsa magia, in The Science of Demons, pp. 149–164. 100 H. de Waardt, Witchcraft and Wealth: the Netherlands, in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft, pp. 232–248: 243.

Reading and refuting Wier

193

belief that he was the target of witches. His contribution sprang from his participation in a number of witch-trials held in 1589 that convinced the future king of the British Isles to actively confront this satanic emergency, a crusade against the devil.101 This issue stayed with him and, in 1604, one of the earliest acts of his reign as King of England was a statute against witchcraft, attempting to put into practice the theory he had previously delineated.102 Through James Stuart, fortunes changed for Wier’s writings and they took on an important political role a contrariis, in the sense that the battle against scepticism generated a treatise followed by a legal measure. Of greater importance, however, is the different way in which James VI, prior to leaving Scotland, treated some cases of witchcraft, particularly when the Privy Council intervened in favour of defendants who had been unjustly accused.103 In the opinion of Stuart Clark, the work of the King must be understood as an early expression of the ideal of sovereignty that also comprises an analogous theory of demonology within the wider cultural landscape of the time.104 Using a dialogue between the learned Epistemon and Philomathes, a seeker of knowledge, James attempts to disperse doubts concerning the true existence of witchcraft, doubts instilled by Reginald Scot and by Wier, and to justify the necessity of harsher punishments. Relying on Bodin’s work, James seeks to confirm the role of God as the sole possessor of power and demons as instruments of divine will. Holy Scripture and the confessions by witches provide evidence that confirms the existence of witchcraft, and hence James’s motivation for collecting evidence that is beyond all reasonable doubt. James I also identifies curiosity amongst the causes of diabolic entrapment; but curiosity only stimulates ‘the enticement of Magicians, or Necromancers’, whereas witches are seduced by greed or vindictive spirit.105 With regard to confessions, James Stuart encourages unthinking 101 J. Goodare, The Scottish Witchcraft Panic of 1597, in The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context, ed. by J. Goodare, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), pp. 51–72. See P.G. Maxwell-Stuart, A Royal Witch Theorist. James VI’s Daemonologie, in The Science of Demons, pp. 166–168. 102 Witchcraft and the Act of 1604. 103 Clark, King James’ Daemonologie: Witchcraft and Kingship, in The Damned Art, pp. 156–181: 162–163; Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI’s Demonology and the North Berwick witches, edited by L. Normand and G. Roberts, (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2000) and The Demonology of King James I: Includes the Original Text of Daemonologie …, ed. by D. Tyson, (Woodbury, Minn.: Llewellyn, 2011). 104 Clark, King James’ Daemonologie, p. 173. 105 James I, Daemonologie, p. 8. Cfr. P.G. Maxwell-Stuart, The Fear of the King is Death: James VI and the Witches of East Lothian, in Fear in Early Modern Society, ed. by W. G. Naphy and P. Roberts, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), pp. 209–225.

194 

Johann Wier

disbelief of the numerous absurdities that are contrary to divine theology and human philosophy alike. Papism, with its promotion of superstition, multiple spirits, and ghosts, was defeated, James argued, whereas the advent of the true religion, Anglicanism, drastically reduced these phenomena. The King also understood the true problem of negating the power of the devil—a descent into atheism. These views are most illuminating for what they reveal about James’s ambiguous behaviour towards those freed from diabolic possession by Papist methods that were considered heretical by the Anglican Church. In certain circumstances, then, exorcisms undertaken by Papists were not only considered essential, but also useful, and therefore true and real. Magicians and witches, according to divine law, must be punished by death, the sole exception being children too young to be able to choose. With James Stuart, and through the mediation of his work by Reginald Scot, Wier’s legacy reached the unexpected goal of instilling doubt in no less than a future English king.

5. Wier in the XVIIth century Wier’s work found favour during the seventeenth century, but received neither wholesale approval nor rejection. The question of witch-hunts remained open and the core texts in the theoretical debate remained the Malleus Maleficarum, the De praestigiis, and the Démonomanie des sorciers. Evidence for the complexity of the subject and its iteration over the seventeenth century can be found in the works of the Jesuits Martin Delrio and Friedrich von Spee, who aligned themselves with opposing sides in the debate. Despite their membership of the same religious order, these individuals found themselves in disagreement, albeit for procedural reasons.106 In the Disquisitiones magicae, a work that was later to become fundamental to Catholic demonology, Martin Delrio, a scholar much admired by Justus Lipsius, defined Wier as a heretic and as a disciple of Calvin, and warned his readers of the damage that could be caused by his opinions. For Delrio those who negate witchcraft are atheists (Book 5, s.16). Delrio bundles together 106 See The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Jesuits, ed. by T. Worchester, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017). For an intriguing interpretation of the Jesuits in a different epoch, see A. Guerra, La Compagnia introvabile. Forme di vita dei gesuiti fra soppressione e rinascita, in Los Jesuitas. Religión, política y educación (siglos XVI–XVIII), coord. J.Martinez-Millan, (Madrid: Universidad Comillas, 2012), pp. 1029–1042.

Reading and refuting Wier

195

heretics and witches, and suspects all those who, against the opinion of the Roman Church, openly defend witches. Despite this view, he upholds the value of the Canon Episcopi, which was considered inadequate and anachronistic for the time.107 The influence of Thomas Aquinas is very strong regarding the classical definitions and structure of his work, as Jan Machielsen’s careful analysis of edited and manuscript sources has shown.108 Delrio rejects Wier’s restrictive philological interpretation: ‘There has not been wanting, however, a certain person, strongly suspected of this offence and an avowed protector of witches, who would try to persuade his readers that this word […] should be restricted to poisoners. But this is easily refuted’.109 Despite the critique and rejection of Wier’s claims, the Disquisitiones do contain direct and indirect influences from the De praestigiis, both in their use of exempla (as was common in demonological treatises) and in the inspiration provided for some criticisms of those questions that were no longer blindly accepted. In the same way as Bodin’s Démonomanie and Remy’s Demonolatria, the 1607 Daemonomagia of the Lutheran Philipp Ludwig Elich suggests a close correlation between the spread of magical practices and the natural evil of humanity. Following a description of demonic powers, Elich was forced to engage with Wier’s thought, which he did with no originality, mostly by repeating Bodin’s arguments.110 The jurist Hermann Conring follows the same interpretive lines in his disputatio entitled De incantationis circa morbos efficacia, dismissing the conclusions of Wier and his followers as foolishness.111 Alarmed by Wier’s oeuvre and by the consequences it may have for witch trials, many hurried to find a remedy or to discredit opinions that could lead to impunity for those who were considered guilty of the most heinous crimes. Amongst these was Bartolomeo Agricola, who also discussed magicians, poisoners, and witches in his treatise on Pythagorean symbols.112 The problem of disbelief as a condition and harbinger of atheism was strongly felt in France 107 ‘Prorsus vero cum magistro suo Calvino impius est Vvierus…’, Delrio, Disquisitionum magicarum, l.I, p. 176. See Machielsen, Martin Delrio. 108 Machielsen, Martin Delrio, p. 231 and ff. 109 Delrio, Investigations into Magic, p. 33. 110 M. Philipus Ludwig, Daemonomagia, sive Libellus Erotematikòs, De Daemonis cacurgia, cacomagorum et lamiarum energia…, (Francofurti: impensa vero Conradi Nebenii, 1607), p. 54. 111 Hermann Conring, Disputatio inauguralis medica, De incantationis circa morbos efficacia, (Helmstadt: Henningi Mulleri, 1619), c. A3r. See L. Kounine, Satanic Fury: Depictions of the Devil’s Rage in Nicolas Remy’s Daemonolatria, in Emotions in the History of Witchcraft, pp. 57-76. 112 Bartolomeo Agricola, Symbolum Pythagorucum sive De iustitia in forum reducenda, (Frankfurt: Impensis Ioannis Caroli Unckelii, MDCXXI).

196 

Johann Wier

too, for which reason Pierre de Lancre sided against those who sought to avoid the burning of witches and magicians at the stake.113 Gabriel Naudé, on the other hand, intervened in defence of great figures who had been wrongly accused of magic, suggesting a middle-ground position between Bodin and Wier, who represent the two extremes.114 Even Francisco Torreblanca, an instrumental author within Catholic demonology, clashed with Wier, rejecting his distinctions between witches, magicians, and poisoners.115 Another outstanding contribution advocating a revision of attitudes to witch trials came from the German jurist Hermann Goehausen, who took up Wier’s theory and his defence of witches with subtle and ingenious originality. Goehausen argued that despite the seriousness of the crime the punishment must be commensurate with the damage done, and that judges could therefore decide not to punish witches with the death penalty.116 It is interesting that Goehausen references Wier and Wierians, as a group convinced of the illusion of witchcraft.117 In the first half of the seventeenth century, after the horror evoked by the persecutions in Franconia, a group of priests led by the Jesuit theologian Adam Tanner and comforted by the victories obtained in Bavaria in 1601 after which Duke Maximilian imposed harsh punishments for conducting irregular trials, set about organizing an end to such persecutions.118 As a result, in his 1627 reflections on scholastic theology, Tanner, ‘der entscheidende 113 P. de Lancre, On the Inconstancy of Witches. See M. McGowan, Pierre de Lancre’s Tableau des l’inconstance des mauvais anges et démons: The Sabbath Sensationalized, in The Damned Art, pp. 182–201 and J. Pearl, The Crime of Crimes: Demonology and Politics in France, 1560–1620, (Waterloo: Wilfried Laurier University Press, 1999), pp. 127–138. See T. Maus De Rolley and J. Machielsen, The Mythmaker of the sabbat: Pierre de Lancre’s Tableau de l’inconstance des mauvais anges et demons, in The Science of Demons, pp. 283–298. 114 G. Naudé, Apologie pour tous les grands personnages qui ont été faussement soupçonnés de magie, in Libertins du XVIIe siècle, I, éd. établie, présentée et annotée par J. Prévot, (Paris: Gallimard, 1998), pp. 137–380. See L. Bianchi, Tradizione libertina e critica storica da Naudé a Bayle, (Milano: FrancoAngeli, 1988) and A. Schino, Batailles libertines: la vie et l’œuvre de Gabriel Naudé, (Paris: Champion, 2020) (1st ed. 2014). 115 Don Francisco Torreblanca, Daemonologia, sive de magia naturali, daemoniaca… libri quatuor, (Moguntiae: impensis Ioh. Theowaldi Schoenwetteri, 1623). 116 H. Goehausen, Decisio trium quaestionum usu frequentium I. an proba aquae frigidae, qua veneficis explorandis in Westphaliae potissimum circulo iudices utuntur sit licita ac legitima? II. an ex plurium complicum nominatione iudex tuta conscientia possit personam nominatam torturae subiicere …? III. an nocturni veneficarum conventus reales et veri sint …?, (Rinteln: Typis exscripsit Petrus Lucius, 1629). Cfr. Lea, Materials Toward a History, pp. 806 e sgg. 117 Wieranismus became a heresy and synonimous of atheism, Gilly, Qui negat diabolum, p. 352. 118 Behringer, Witchcraft, p. 323, and pp. 234–235. See R. Decker‚Spee und Tanner aus der Sicht eines römischen Kardinal-Inquisitors’, Spee-Jahrbuch, 6 (1999), pp. 45–52.

Reading and refuting Wier

197

Meinungsführer der gemäßigten Katholiken’ (‘a key voice of the moderate Catholics’), attempted, without denying witchcraft, to eliminate the principle of crimen exceptum, through which terrible atrocities and arbitrary justice could be perpetrated.119 Witches were clearly guilty of the worst possible crime, and thus warranted capital punishment; however, the judge must appeal to a process appropriate to natural reason and justice.120 Interpreting the parable of the tares, the Jesuit warns of the risk that must be avoided at all costs: the killing of an innocent person.121 Direct experience was crucial in the evolution of the debate, not least from the perspective of the confessor and the person who accompanied the condemned to their execution. The Jesuit Friedrich Spee von Langenfeld, horrified by this unnecessary brutality, which led to the premature whitening of his hair, denounced in his Cautio criminalis those trials that were entirely arbitrary and exclusively based on the extensive use of torture.122 He accused the judges and also the princes who ought to have monitored the witch-hunts so as to prevent them reaching such devastating numbers. In his view, the witch-hunts arose from superstition and were fed by envy, slander, and gossip, to which causes Spee attributed the greater spread of witchcraft belief in Germany than in other countries. Despite acknowledging witchcraft as a crimen exceptum, Spee did not believe this justified recourse to special trials that directly contradicted reason and morality. The accusations and trials, furthermore, often sprang from the economic motivations of those who wished to appropriate the properties of the accused. With prudence and caution, however, the involvement of innocent people could be avoided.123 Although Spee does not refer directly to Wier, he is, however, influenced by Wier’s legacy, despite the two appeals to clemency drawn from different cultural environments and grounded in different motives.124 119 J. Dillinger, Tanner, Adam, in Encyclopedia of Witchcraft. The Western Tradition, 4, pp. 1106–1107. See W. Behringer, Zur Haltung Adam Tanners in der Hexenfrage: Die Entstehung einer Argumentationsstrategie in ihrem gesellschaftlichen Kontext, in Vom Umfug der Hexenprozesse, pp. 161–185: 162 and Id., Von Adam Tanner zu Friedrich Spee: Die Entwicklung einer Argumentationsstrategie (1590–1630) vor dem Hintergrund zeitgenössischer gesellschaftlicher Konflikte, in Friedrich Spee (1591–1635), hrsg. von T. van Oorschot, (Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 1993), pp. 154–175. 120 Tanner, Theologiae scolasticae, (Ingolstadt: Typis Ioannis Bayr, 1627), c. 983. 121 Ibid., c. 984. 122 F. von Spee, Cautio Criminalis, or a Book on Witch Trials. Translated and with an Introduction by M. Hellyer, (Charlottesville–London, University of Virginia Press, 2003). 123 Spee, Cautio criminalis, pp. 78–81. 124 J. Dillinger, ‘The Political Aspects of the German Witch-Hunts’, Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft, 3 (2008), pp. 62–81 and T. Robisheaux, The German Witch Trials, in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft, pp. 179–198.

198 

Johann Wier

The reform and renovation of the 1532 Constitutio criminalis Carolina, which created a common penal code across the whole Empire, was undertaken by Benedict Carpzow (1595–1666) in the second half of the seventeenth century.125 In his Practica Rerum Criminalium, particularly in Quaestio 48, Carpzow begins by comparing witchcraft to a crime of lese-majesty, and therefore deserving of capital punishment due to the severity of the crime. In conclusion, after having critically evaluated the appropriate punishment for witchcraft and in accordance with his own particular concept of majestas, he concludes that Wier’s claims were unacceptable, as Bodin had demonstrated, particularly since they were opposed to both divine and human laws.126 Through legal and procedural arguments, Carpzow acknowledged the reception of Wier in different ways, and to refute his claims in favour of the witches, he relied on Bodin’s refutation.

6. After Descartes: the disenchantment of the world The spread of Cartesian thought marked an upturn in the fate of Wier’s legacy among those who welcomed it and made it their own through philosophical innovation, as Cartesianism was embraced by both the advocates and the opponents of witch persecution, as Easlea has brilliantly demonstrated and Clark has conf irmed.127 Through its openly hypothetical nature, Cartesian physics in no way invalidated the belief in demons, which would have immediately suffered a backlash merely due to its mechanistic interpretation of nature. From the middle of the seventeenth century, learned critique besieged the auctoritates, subjecting them to careful scrutiny through the lens of reason and philology and rejecting any arguments that were not well-founded. The growing interest in primary sources led to new editions and renewed philological attention aimed at re-establishing the authenticity of texts by removing the veil of mediation and manipulation. The readings of Descartes and Spinoza flank 125 M. R. Di Simone, Il crimen magiae nelle fonti normative austriache, in Honos alit artes. Studi per il settantesimo compleanno di Mario Ascheri, IV, a cura di P. Maffei e G. M. Varanini, (Firenze: Firenze, University Press, 2014), pp. 207–216. 126 B. Carpzow, Practica Nova imperialis saxonica Rerum Criminalium, (Wittebergae: Sumptibus Haeredum D. Tobiae Mevii, 1652), p. 319. See Midelfort, A History of Madness, pp. 220-225 and G. Klanickzay, Hungary: The Accusations and the Universe of Popular Magic, in Early Modern European Witchcraft, pp. 219–255. 127 Easlea, Witch-Hunting, Magic and the New Philosophy, pp. 196–210 and Clark, Thinking with Demons, pp. 272–273.

Reading and refuting Wier

199

those of Hobbes and Locke, acting as catalysts for important changes in all fields of knowledge. As a result, a continuity of relevant themes emerged across the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.128 This continuity is all the more evident in Italy, where many of these ideas had been conceived and developed before being filtered through the Counter Reformation of the Catholic Church, spread and developed further in Northern Europe, only to bloom once more in the eighteenth century through the new wave brought about by Muratori and Benedict XIV. Many of these scholars laid claim to a primacy of critical knowledge through which they were able to emancipate themselves from the logic of homage to the Church. An analogous process took place in Spain through the Benedictine Benito Feijóo, who examined and condemned many superstitious beliefs, in particular those linked to demonic possession.129 As author of a judicium (opinion) on the works of Wier that featured as an introduction to the edition of Wier’s Opera Omnia, Martin Schook warrants greater attention. A professor at the University of Groningen, pupil of Gilbert Voetius, and a committed Aristotelian, Schook undertook a defence of Wier after gaining recognition for his contributions and collaborations to the polemics waged against the Remonstrants. Amongst Wier’s virtues, Schook credits him with having demonstrated the illusory nature of the pact, the unreliability of confessions as the result of delirium, and, finally, with having identified the responsibilities of magicians. Schook retraces the open debate over Wier’s work that includes a series of epigones, friends, and enemies, among Catholics and Protestants alike, citing the Daemonologie of King James and especially Reginald Scot, before moving on to discuss Erastus, whom he considered Wier’s greatest adversary: ‘Thomam Erastum, non modo Medicum & Philosophum incomparabilem, verum etiam Theologum

128 E. Garin, Dal Rinascimento all’Illuminismo. Studi e Ricerche, (Pisa: Nistri-Lischi, 1970), passim; A. Rotondò, Riforme e utopie nel pensiero politico toscano del Settecento, a cura di M. Michelini Rotondò, (Firenze: Olschki, 2008) and M. Ciliberto, Aurora rinascimentale e sole illuministico, in Il Contributo italiano alla storia del pensiero. Filosofia (2012). See A Companion to the Catholic Enlightenment in Europe, ed. by U. L. Lehner and M. Printy, (Leiden: Brill, 2010) and U. Lehner, The Catholic Enlightenment: The Forgotten History of a Global Movement, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). 129 M. Tausiet, ‘De la ilusión al desencanto: Feijoo y los ‘falsos posesos’ en la España del siglo XVIII’, Historia social, 54(2006), pp. 3–18. On Spanish demonology, see W. Monter, Witchcraft in Iberia, in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft, pp. 268–282; L. A. Homza, An Expert Lawyer and Reluctant Demonologist: Alonso de Salazar Frías, Spanish Inquisitor, in The Science of Demons, pp. 299–312 and Ead., Witch Hunting in Spain: the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, in The Routledge History of Witchcraft, ed. by J. Dillinger, (Abingdon: Routledge, 2020), pp. 134–144.

200 

Johann Wier

judiciosum’.130 Sharing Wier’s compassion for those who suffer, he commends the desire to make such an important work once again available to the Respublica literaria.131 In this way, Schook took part in a campaign for the dissemination of scepticism and Erasmianism. Around the 1670s, the founding fathers of philosophical radicalism launched their campaign against the supernatural, going as far as to deny the existence of Satan and demons.132 They did encounter, however, strong resistance and outright opposition, considering that even Descartes and Locke had sought compromises not to reject Satan’s power. Spinoza did not resort to any compromising solutions in his Tractatus Theologicus-Politicus, in which the existence of the devil and demons was denied for the first time. The cultural debate had reached a point that Jonathan Israel effectively called ‘The Death of the Devil’, declaring the advent of a new era, the father of whom was doubtless Wier, with his credulity curiously embraced in an Erasmian sense of compassion. It is easy to forget that while the early courageous and daring debates on the rights of conscience, and later of reason, were underway, an erudite demonological debate also prospered, which, by attempting to discuss the ontology of evil and the phenomenon of witchcraft, was to release humanity from its metaphysical ties. Henry More, a member of the prestigious Royal Society and the Cambridge Platonist school,133 was dazzled by the Cartesiana lux and introduced Cartesianism to England along with syncretic elements of Renaissance Neoplatonism, particularly those of Ficino and Bruno.134 In addition to anti-atheist apologetics and the use of Cartesianism as an antidote to the Aristotelianism inexplicably adopted by Socinianism, More also considered witchcraft. More, the leader of a group that included Ralph Cudworth, Joseph Glanvill, and Meric Casaubon, son of the great Isaac Casaubon, accused Wier of resting his arguments on the power of the devil in the world, and of basing his entire defence of witches on this (‘industrius ille Lamiarum 130 Martin Schoock, Judicium De Libris Joannis Wieri, Inscriptis De Praestigiis Daemonum, in J. Wier, Opera omnia, pp. 5–6. 131 Ibid. 132 J. Israel, Radical Enlightenment. Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 375. 133 The Cambridge Platonists in Philosophical Context. Politics, Metaphysics and Religion, ed. by. G. A. J. Roberts et al., (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1997). See P. Cristofolini, Cartesiani e sociniani: studio su Henry More, (Urbino: Argalia, 1974); A. R. Hall, Henry More. Magic, Religion Experiment, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990) and S. Hutton, ‘The Cambridge Platonists’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). 134 See G. Tarantino, Martin Clifford. Deismo e tolleranza nell’Inghilterra della Restaurazione, (Firenze: Olschki, 2000), passim.

Reading and refuting Wier

201

advocatus’).135 It was during this debate, more than at any other time, that the link between demons and theism emerged; by affirming the existence of witches and the devil, tangible proof of the existence of God could be observed. Thus, if you reject witch-hunts, you are an atheist, an argument that was a key to the defence of witchcraft prosecution during the England’s Stuart Restoration period, following the civil wars characterized by the insurgence of materialistic and atheist positions.136 An insight into these times can be seen in Joseph Glanvill, who in 1668 wrote the Saducismus triumphatus—published posthumously by More—in which he defended the credibility of well-documented stories of witches, maintaining that those who did not believe in witches were prey to something much worse than heresy.137 Disproving Wier thus became the pretext for stemming the drift of scepticism destined to nourish atheism. After having edited the angelic conversations of John Dee, 138 Meric Casaubon dedicated himself in 1668 to the analysis of credulity and incredulity, behaviours that, if taken to the extreme, could lead to a fall into superstition or atheism. Establishing the complexity of the spectrum of positions that could be taken on the matter, he warned of the inherent danger in adopting the more radical position of denying the existence of demons, as it led directly to atheism. Yet he maintained that denial of witchcraft was plausible, as it aimed at revealing demonic deception, that f illed the world. Among those who permitted and recognized ‘supernatural operations by devils and spirits’, Casaubon included Wier and referred to the incredible volume of stories included in his work, maintain 135 H. More, Antidotus adversus Atheismum, (Hildesheim: Olms, 1966), p. 97. See A. Coudert, Henry More and Witchcraft, in Henry More (1614–1667). Tercentary Studies of Henry More, ed. by S. Hutton, (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990), pp. 115–136. 136 T. H. Jobe, ‘The Devil in Restoration Science: The Glanvill-Webster Witchcraft Debate’, Isis, 72 (1981), pp. 343–356 and M. Heyd, ‘Be Sober and Reasonable’: The Critique of Enthusiasm in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries, (Leiden: Brill, 1995). 137 J. Glanvill, Saducismus triumphatus: or, full and plain evidence concerning witches and apparitions…, (Hildesheim–New York: Olms, 1978), pp. 267–268. See J. I. Cope, Joseph Glanvill, Anglican Apologist, (St. Louis: Washington University Press, 1956); R. Porter, Witchcraft and Magic in Enlightenment, Romantic and Liberal Thought, in The Athlone History of Witchcraft, pp. 198–199; J. Broad, ‘Margaret Cavendish and Joseph Glanvill:Science, Religion, and Witchcraft’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 38 (2007), pp. 493–505; J. Davies, ‘German Receptions of the works of Joseph Glanvill: Philosophical Transmissions from England to Germany in the late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Century’, Intellectual History Review, 26 (2016), pp. 81–90 and Ead., Science in an Enchanted World. Philosophy and Witchcraft in the Work of Joseph Glanvill, (London: Routledge, 2018). 138 M. R. G. Spiller, Concerning Natural Experimental Philosophy. Meric Casaubon and the Royal Society, (London–Nijhoff: The Hague, 1980).

202 

Johann Wier

that witches were not authors of any of these acts and ‘this opinion may seem to some, to have more of charity, than Incredulity’.139 Choosing a compromise solution, he protected himself by avoiding a discussion of those subjects on which there was great consensus, “, claiming that the vastness of the world and of knowledge should spur deeper reflection on topics as delicate as the existence of witches. The vastness of the world and of knowledge must spur deeper reflection on topics as delicate as the existence of witches, he claimed. Even limiting himself to a small part of the world, such as Europe, Casaubon states that over the previous 200 years worthy and brilliant individuals from all professions had affirmed the existence of witches, whereas very few had denied it. His judgement on Wier is interesting: Wier only wrote his works to gratify the prince of Cleves, and would never have ventured ‘into such trouble of spirit, and mind’, this great provocation to oppose the general belief.140 Casaubon thus sets out a series of judgements on Wier, defining him as a servile and subjugated courtier and sycophant. In 1678, the French philosopher Nicolas Malebranche examined the question of magic and witchcraft in the third book of his work on truth, following on from an introduction on error as the primary cause of evil. Malebranche suggests an uprooting of many beliefs about witchcraft in order to stop the witch trials. Without denying the existence of demonic magic, and through recourse to Holy Scripture, in particular the Gospels, on the notable reduction of demonic power following the advent of Jesus Christ, Malebranche traced a path that blatantly followed the unspoken legacy of Wier, one that was later taken up by Pierre Bayle in his Réponse aux questions d’un provincial, which dedicates several chapters to the issue.141 In order to halt these trials, in which many innocent lives were involved, it was necessary to persuade people that witches do not have extraordinary powers, but only make use of deception.142 This approach had a successful outcome in the Netherlands, where belief in witchcraft was almost entirely eradicated. In fact, were anyone to find themselves faced with a similar case, 139 M. Casaubon, Of Credulity and Incredulity in Things Natural, Civil, and Divine, (London: printed for T. Garthwait, 1668), p. 35. 140 Ibid., p. 46. 141 See L. Bianchi, Libre pensée et tolérance: Pierre Bayle et Guy Patin, in De l’Humanisme aux Lumières, Bayle et le protestantisme, textes recueillis par M. Magdelaine, M.-C. Pitassi, R. Whelan et A. McKenna, (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1996), pp. 611–621; G. Mori, Bayle philosophe, (Paris: Champion, 1999). 142 P. Bayle, Reponse aux questions d’un provincial, in Id., Oeuvre diverses, vol. III/2, à La Haye, 1727 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1966), p. 577.

Reading and refuting Wier

203

they referred it to physicians of the body or physicians of the mind.143 Pierre Bayle does not cite Wier, however, but refers to Erastus and François Hotman as exponents of the school of thought that espoused the death penalty for witches and magicians. He also denounces the abuses in witch trials that allowed the confiscation of goods, a potential motive for sovereigns not to intervene in these matters. The journey of scepticism, inaugurated by Wier and pursued by Montaigne, found in Malebranche and Bayle the precursors of an increasingly widespread attitude, one that heralded the royal edict of Louis XIV in July 1682 that called into question the very existence of the crime of witchcraft, distinguishing between real facts and pretended magic.144 Faced with a dynamic debate concerning the synthesis of seventeenthcentury Catholic demonology, it is of no surprise that another Jesuit, Gaspar Schott, a pupil of Athanasius Kircher, positioned himself in favour of the reality of witchcraft in his Physica curiosa. He neglected the problems of a procedural nature advanced by members of his own order, and indiscriminately plundered arguments from the De praestigiis.145 It fell once again to the Netherlands, with its culture imbued with Cartesian, Arminian, and Socinian thought, to bring forth the most advanced position: 146 the world was to awake from the spell it was under when the analysis of Balthasar Bekker, guided by Holy Scripture and by Reason, arrived at its conclusions, with the result of: ‘bannis de l’Univers cette abominable Créature pour l’enchaîner dans l’Enfer, afin que Jésus Notre Roi Supreme domine plus puissamment & plus sûrement’.147 According to Andrew Fix, Bekker definitively ruptured the link between the natural 143 H. de Waardt, Witchcraft and Wealth: the Netherlands, in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft, pp. 232–248. 144 R. Mandrou, Magistrats et sorciers en France au XVIIè siècle. Une analyse de psychologie historique. (Paris: Plon, 1968); A. Soman, ‘La décriminalisation de la sorcellerie en France’, Histoire, économie et société, 2‎ (1985), pp. 179–203 and N. D. Johnson and M. Koyama, ‘Taxes, Lawyers, and the Decline of Witch Trials in France’, Journal of Law and Economics, 57 (2014), pp. 77–111. See Bever, ‘Witchcraft Prosecutions and the Decline of Magic’, pp. 263–293 and B. P. Levack, The Decline and End of Witchcraft Prosecutions, in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe, pp. 429–446. 145 C. Schott, Physica curiosa, (Herbipoli: Hertz, 1662), p. 124. 146 Israel, The Dutch Republic, pp. 925 e sgg. 147 B. Bekker, Le monde enchanté, ***3r. In the Series, ‘Freidenker der Europaischen Aufklärung’ an anastatic reprint of the German translation has been published (Amsterdam, bey Daniel von Dahlen, 1693) with an introduction di Wiep van Bunge, B. Bekker, Die bezauberte Welt, vol. 2, (Stuttgart: Bad Cannstatt, Frommann-holzboog, 1997). See my Habent sua fata libelli. Il mondo incantato di Balthasar Bekker, in La centralità del dubbio, a cura di L. Simonutti e C. Hermanin (Firenze: Olschki, 2011), pp. 665–683

204 

Johann Wier

and metaphysical worlds, thanks to Cartesianism and to elements of Spinozian hermeneutics.148 For Bekker, those who still believed in the existence of the devil had not properly understood the fundamentals of Protestant doctrine, nor its differences from Papism. It was therefore necessary to interpret the Holy Scripture with the aid of Reason. Regarding Wier, ‘docteur très célébre’, Bekker recognized his intermediate, yet still advanced, position.149 With Bekker, the European crisis of conscience had begun. Bekker was the first to chain the devil in hell by taking up and developing the route opened up by Wier. The entire journey, through which Bekker was to liberate the world from the bonds of superstition, is studded with constant references to evidence from Scripture and to the guide of reason.150 With Cartesian philosophy, Spinozism, and renewed reason, and also with scrupulous Scriptural exegesis, 151 Bekker banished the devil from the late-seventeenth-century world in conjunction with the early political measures towards this same end adopted in Louis XIV’s France. Bekker aroused strong criticism, however, and represents an outpost of rational thought that flourished due to the cultural fabric of the Netherlands into which he was born and grew.152 The baton of Bekker’s radical philosophical criticism was passed to the jurist Christian Thomasius, who intended to challenge one of the leading criminologists of the age, Benedict Carpzow.153 In his De crimine magiae, Thomasius distanced himself from the legal tradition upheld by Carpzow in order to reconnect to the Cautio criminalis, Godelmann, and Bekker, 148 A. Fix, Fallen angels: Balthasar Bekker, Spirit belief, and Confessionalism in the Seventeenth Century Dutch Republic, (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1999), p. 10. 149 ‘Jean Wierus qui vivoit encore au commencement de la Réformation faite par le moien de Luther & de Calvin, avoit des ce temps-là mis en lumière son sentiment sur les illusions des Esprits, & sur les impostures des Sorcières, & il avoit pris un parti qui tenoit comme le milieu entre ce deux premieres opinions’, Bekker, Le monde enchanté, p. 328. 150 Bekker, Le monde enchanté, III, p. 385. 151 See G. Stronks, ‘The Significance of Balthasar Bekker’s The Enchanted World’, in Witchcraft in the Netherlands from the Fourteenth to the Twentieth Century, pp. 149–156 and W. van Bunge, ‘Balthasar Bekker’s Cartesian Hermeneutics and the Challenge of Spinozism’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, I (1993), pp. 55–79. 152 Israel, Radical Enlightenment, pp. 377–405. 153 F. Tomasoni, Christian Thomasius: spirito e identità culturale alle soglie dell’illuminismo europeo, (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2005); T. Ahnert, Religion and the Origins of the German Enlightenment: Faith and the Reform of Learning in the Thought of Christian Thomasius, (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2006) and I. Hunter, The Secularisation of the Confessional State: the Political Thought of Christian Thomasius, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Reading and refuting Wier

205

whilst stepping further forward.154 He credits Wier with having opened the debate, even though Wier had dealt with the question in a confused way, and identified a large number of beliefs and superstitions that obfuscated the truth. At the same time, Thomasius defended the followers of Bekker from the charge of atheism, defining them as “ademonistos” (rather than atheist). He primarily advanced proposals for procedural reform, such as that the burden of proof should lie with the accuser and not the accused. Thomasius’s greatest success, however, was with the 1714 decree which established that the King of Prussia would judge any cases of witchcraft, removing this power from the local courts, which were notoriously accustomed to upholding charges.155 At the same time, in his Discursus de cogitandi libertate (London, 1713), John Toland argued that the reign of Satan was destroyed by freedom of thought, to the extent that in the United Provinces, where such freedom existed, there were no more witches. Anthony Collins, in A Discourse of free thinking, continues on from Toland, and notes that it was this freedom that had defeated the beliefs in devils and witches in the Netherlands.156 The name of Wier endures into the eighteenth century as a point of reference for those tackling the question of demonology from a legal and philosophical perspective. Although the debate was waning in most of Europe, it was reignited in Italy. According to Franco Venturi, this disparity signals the distance of those Italian intellects who ‘remained closed within their shells of erudition and doctrine’ from the rationalism of the Enlightenment that was spreading across Europe.157 In order to open the eyes of the ‘moles’ (‘che il loro curto vedere così m’obbliga a nominargli’ [‘whose short-sightedness forces me to call them so’])158 and lead them towards the light, Girolamo Tartarotti wrote his Congresso notturno delle Lammie (The Nocturnal Meeting of the Witches), as he believed such narrow-mindedness to be one of the central points of the controversy over witches.159 Throughout 154 C. Thomasius, Disputatio juris canonici De origine ac progressu processus inquisitorii contra Sagas, (Halae Magdeburgicae: typis Johannis Christiani Zahnii, 1712). 155 Israel, Radical Enlightenment, p. 396 e sgg. 156 Anthony Collins, A discourse of free thinking, London, 1713, hrsg. von G. Gawlick, (Stuttgart: Frommann Verlag, 1965), p. 28. 157 Venturi, Settecento riformatore, p. 355. See D. Quaglioni, Tradizione criminalistica e riforme nel Settecento. Il Congresso notturno delle Lammie di Girolamo Tartarotti (1749), in Studi di storia del diritto medioevale e moderno, a c. di F. Liotta, (Bologna: Monduzzi, 1999), pp. 253–275. 158 Tartarotti, Del congresso notturno delle lamie, p. VII. 159 A. Trampus, ‘Dottrina magica’ e ‘scienza cabalistica’ nei rapporti tra Tartarotti, Gianrinaldo Carli e Scipione Maffei, in Girolamo Tartarotti 1706–1761. Un intellettuale roveretano nella cultura europea del Settecento, pp. 137–151.

206 

Johann Wier

the treatise, he frequently summons Wier to his defence. Initially Tartarotti expounds Wier’s legacy by listing all those who had positively or negatively engaged with his thought, thus planting the doubt that more Protestants than Catholics were opposed to him. In his discussion on witchcraft, and particularly regarding the prosecution of witches, Tartarotti favours a rationalistic revision of the debate and seems concerned not to slip up on philotheistic positions. He is therefore very careful not to deny the existence of the devil and his activities, attempting at the same time to invalidate some of the premises of witchcraft. While ably managing to disentangle the various arguments adopted by the accusers of witchcraft, Tartarotti does not deny diabolical magic, but partly proposes once more Wier’s aporetic style in a text that proceeds rationally before jeopardizing everything by becoming lost in anecdotes on demonic power. He also returns to the definition of a witch as a poor person, a peasant, as ignorant and unstable, and likely female, who acts at night and is more prevalent in northern Europe, or in the north of Italy and France.160 Tartarotti adopted and embraced the argument of melancholia as the explanation for the madness of witches, as Wier had typically argued by attributing to the devil the power to deceive those who were naturally predisposed.161 Tartarotti brought into circulation, probably for the first time in Italian, arguments that may have seemed obsolete at that time, as they had been widely used and dissected over the centuries. Later still to join the debate was Gianrinaldo Carli, professor at the University of Padua, who, in a letter to Tartarotti, reproached him for missing the opportunity of permanently cutting the umbilical cord to the past.162 He praises what could be considered to be those conclusions that were closely influenced by Wier, such as the distinction between the devil and madness, 160 ‘[P]er lo più persone povere, e di contado, e non ricche, e di città; sieno semplici e grossolane, deboli e leggiere di testa, e non acute, forti, e svegliate; piuttosto donne, che uomini; quasi sempre il fatto segua di notte, e non di giorno; e più abbondi questo male ne’ paesi frigidi, e poco colti, come nella Germania, ed altri luoghi settentrionali, che nell’Italia e nella Francia’, Ibid., p. 105. 161 ‘È adunque palpabile, che non il Demonio, ma l’atra bile, di cui le Streghe sono piene, dopo aver loro guasto il cerebro, le priva del senso comune a tutti gli uomini, cosicché tra bene e male non più distinguono, ridono avanti al rogo….’, ibid., p. 117. 162 E. Apih, sub voce, in DBI (vol. 20, Roma, 1977, pp. 161–167), see Nota introduttiva in Illuministi Italiani. Riformatori Lombardi, Piemontesi e toscani, a cura di F. Venturi, (Milano–Napoli: Ricciardi,1958), pp. 419–437; A. Trampus, ‘Gianrinaldo Carli at the centre of the Milanese Enlightenment’, History of European Ideas, XXXII (2006), pp. 456–476 and my Le favole cominciarono a passar per verità. Le fonti cinquecentesche del dibattito demonologico, in Gli illuministi e i demoni. Il dibattito su magia e stregoneria dal Trentino all’Europa, a cura di R. Suitner, (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2019), pp. 1–22.

Reading and refuting Wier

207

and the definition of a witch (despite not remaining silent on the subject of Wier’s credulity), for which, however, he also identified limits.163 Scipione Maffei also intervened in this dispute. Maffei adopted far more radical positions than Tartarotti in his works, firstly with his Arte magica dileguata (1750), then with his Arte magica distrutta (1790), written under a pseudonym,164 and later with his anonymous work Arte magica annichilata (1754), in which he begins from the assumption that the magical art does not exist and is merely ‘plebee sciocchezze’ (‘plebeians’ silliness’), ascribing the deeply rooted spread not to censure, since ‘paesi non mancano, dove liberamente si stampa’ (‘there are plenty of countries where it is possible to publish’), but to idolatry and superstition, based on Manichaeism.165 Tartarotti considered fables about witches to be ‘false and laughable’ and distinguished witches from magicians, noting that the same distinction had been made by ‘Giovanni Vier Medico Luterano, ma non ebbe seguaci’ (‘the Lutheran medic Wier, but he did not have followers’).166 Maffei reprised the Bekkerian themes of redemption through Jesus Christ, framing them in the right light and thus concluding that nobody in possession of intellect could believe that the devil volunteers to carry out works desired by a human being.167 By the mid-eighteenth century, the existence of the devil had been rejected by scholars across much of Europe. In Italy, the observations of the criminal lawyer Bartolomeo Melchiori stand out. While attributing appropriate recognition to Wier in this development, he redesigned the jurisdiction of courts in regard to witchcraft and limited the exceptional powers even in cases of crimen exceptum.168 At the end of the century, another Jesuit, Jan Bohomolec from Poland, again took up some of Wier’s arguments, 163 Gian Rinaldo Carli, Lettera intorno all’origine, e falsità della dottrina de’maghi e delle streghe, in Tartarotti, Del congresso notturno delle lamie, p. 319. 164 Scipione Maffei, Arte magica distrutta risposta di don Antonio Fiorio veronese arciprete di Tignale, e Valvestino, vicario foraneo, (In Trento: per G.A. Brunati, 1750). 165 Scipione Maffei, Arte magica annichilata libri tre, (in Verona: per Antonio Andreoni, 1754), p. 13 and 35. See F. Brunetti, Paolo Frisi e le discussioni sulla magia e sulla stregoneria, in Ideologia e scienza nell’opera di Paolo Frisi (1728–1784), a cura di G. Barbarisi, (Milano: FrancoAngeli, 1987): II, pp. 31–62 and Scipione Maffei nell’Europa del Settecento, a cura di G. P. Romagnani, (Verona: Consorzio editori veneti, 1998). 166 S. Maffei, Arte magica annichilata, p. 16. 167 ‘Non par possibile, che sano e spregiudicato intelletto persuader si possa, trovarsi un’Arte, con la quale si faccia forza al Demonio, e per la quale sopraumane maraviglie ogni vile e abietta persona possa ottenere’, ibid., p. 265. 168 Bartolomeo Melchiori, Dissertazione Epistolare inviata ad un professore di legge in confermazione del capitolo XIII della sua Miscellanea di Materie criminali intitolato degli omicidj commessi con un sortilegio, (in Venezia: appresso Pietro Bassaglia, 1750), p. 24. See M. R. Di Simone, La

208 

Johann Wier

in addition to those provided by Tanner and Spee, in order to fight legal practices used against witches.169 Over the nineteenth century, the figure of Wier assumed the romantic traits of a knight defending witches, armed with indomitable courage, in an age of bloodthirsty witch-hunters. As Jules Michelet wrote, ‘in spite of Wier, in spite of those true philosophers, Light and Toleration, a strong reaction towards darkness’.170 As is the fate of many authors, their works continue to be handed down over the centuries in order to be read and cited. Thus theologians, doctors, and jurists continued to engage with Wier’s legacy, at times forgetting the historical landscape to which his thought belonged. His ideas were certainly original, but they were rooted in a large cultural tradition. His original and indeed bold conclusions were generated from premises that were widely shared amongst European scholars of his time.

stregoneria nella cultura giuridica del Settecento italiano, in Girolamo Tartarotti (1706–1761). Un intellettuale roveretano nella cultura europea del Settecento, pp. 235–253. 169 Wyporska, Witchcraft in Early Modern Poland, pp. 69–174. 170 J. Michelet, La Sorcière: the Witch of the Middle Ages, (London: 1883), p. 202. See Porter, Witchcraft and Magic in Enlightenment, Romantic and Liberal Thought.

Conclusion Deeply rooted in theological, scientific, and legal considerations, Wier’s thought transects that of his time: his poor old witches, elderly and infirm, continue to this day to evoke compassion rather than terror or distain. For around two centuries, European cultural debate celebrated Wier’s legacy, and his defence of witches remained the test bed for all those who wished to try and tackle the question of witchcraft. Although unable to guide humanity out of the labyrinth of spells, Wier certainly showed the way and traced the path that was to direct later generations, laying claim to the right and duty of scholars to go against the flow, with strong ethical motivation, contrary to the spirit of the times. Later, in the nineteenth century, with the advent of social sciences and Positivism, Wier’s work was read from an anachronistic and warped perspective: the point from which we took our inspiration. Readings, studies, and practical medicine in particular placed Wier in direct contact with reality, allowing him to discover, behind nebulous accusations and dogged suspicions, deceit, superstition, and credulity. Concerning the question of whether witchcraft was reality or illusion, Wier did not hesitate in his response: it was an illusion. According to his judgement, demonic action very rarely intervened in reality. Furthermore, this intervention was in the body of the presumed witches, who convinced themselves of the impossible due to their melancholy; their ignorance did the rest. Wier did not know how to entirely break the chains of traditional knowledge (remaining faithful to Galenic theory) as some of his contemporaries did; he lacked the strength and intellectual audacity of others such as Reginald Scot, who denied demonic activity. However, from his essentially orthodox and conventional position, he nevertheless managed to raise an appeal. Wars and persecution condemned many to Satan, a dramatic consideration that contrasted with the evangelical message. Through his defence of witches, Wier reclaimed the meaning of charity and pity, thus seeking to halt the spilling of innocent blood. His mission was an attempt to save humanity from eternal perdition by offering everyone a chance of redemption.

Michaela Valente. Johann Wier. Debating the Devil and Witches in Early Modern Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789462988729_conc

210 

Johann Wier

Aware of the diff iculty of his both task and the vehemence of his adversaries, Wier expounded his theory with a pars destruens and a pars construens. From a medical perspective, he denied the possibility of a crime as the presumed witches suffered demonic action due to their melancholic pathology. From a scientific perspective, he confirmed that many of the actions attributed to witches were impossible according to the divine plan and, therefore, were only demonic phenomena. From a legal perspective, Wier considered the pact with the devil, through which these witches were purported to gain their powers, to be null and void due to the incapacity of the parties involved. Lastly, from a judicial point of view, he maintained that a confession from a person who is not of sound mind has no value, especially if this confession was extracted through torture. Furthermore, through philological exegesis, Wier showed that the warning in Exodus does not refer to witches but rather to magicians. Without pretention, he takes on all the aspects of witchcraft, from flight to metamorphosis, and to the question of incubus and succubus, and in so doing he reveals the demonic tricks and illusions that dull the senses. Faced with the discovery of Satan’s portentous acts, Wier, following Erasmus, invokes the many examples in Scripture that teach not to impose faith through coercion, but only through persuasion. Education leads to faith, and the strength of the Christian message lies in convincing people without recourse to threats or force. Brick by brick, the edifice of Wier’s intellect is established. He is an intellect that knows when to compromise in his efforts to recreate a single and united front with the aim of recovering those who have strayed from the path of righteousness, in order to expand the ranks of those who oppose the enemy of humanity, Satan, in all his guises. Fought on physical and especially moral grounds, this war fuelled Wier’s desire to break the mantle of superstition and credulity, so that the authentic word of God may triumph. The defence of witches, therefore, represents only the f irst brick in a much larger structure that becomes clear through further examination of Wier’s entire corpus, which ranges from demonic illusions to witches, from scientific observations to rage, from revealing Satan’s deeds to uncovering the human passions that lead to tragedy. Every evil is rooted in Satan, and it was at this root of all evil that Wier unequivocally took aim. Whereas Bodin prepared his Démonomanie des sorciers after having followed high-level European politics, including entering behind the scenes of the imperial state secrets, Wier launched his challenge from below. Using his experience as a physician who collects information, he evaluates evidence and symptoms, and then issues a diagnosis, remembering that ‘[a]nyone

Conclusion

211

may investigate the truth that lies hidden in the depths; the authority of antiquity should not outweigh that truth’.1 What is it, then, that distinguishes Wier from earlier “advocates of witches”? Clearly, it is not his arguments, since these all stem from a discussion of reality versus illusion. In fact Wier is the first true heir of the Humanistic tradition and philological innovation on the matter of demonology. His constant reference to Greek and Hebrew texts calls into question the Vulgate from a different perspective, and offers the debate a new perspective on the witch hunts: the almost exclusive competence of theologians in dealing with this question had been claimed many times, Spina used this argument against Ponzinibio, thus, with a philological and Scriptural argument, Wier closed—in his opinion definitively—the debate, laying claim to an interpretative space. In my research, however, I would like to emphasize Wier’s optimistic anthropology. This is a dimension on which scholars have not yet focused and one, I believe, when given due consideration, is a strong and recurrent theme seen in Wier’s confidence, namely, that, through education, people can return to the correct path. It is, perhaps, in this aspect, together with a position in which he admits doubts over the real possibilities of reaching knowledge, that Wier conceals his creed, a behaviour that has two possible explanations. The first is of a pragmatic nature: the stands that Wier took in public seek to teach an opportunism that is at odds with the religious wars of his time, which required explicit allegiances. However, his opportunism rests on the effects of these very wars, the division between opposing fanatic views, between proclamations and calls for martyrdom created behaviour and thought that legitimated religious pretences and concealments, from different perspectives. As a practising physician who “sold” his science, Wier had no interest in embellishing himself with a label that could prevent him from selling his services to others: he treated Catholics, Calvinists, and Lutherans out of respect for the Hippocratic Oath. Beyond this practical expedient, there is more to consider. In demonological thought, a previously overlooked question has begun to emerge, and it concerns scholars’ relationship with knowledge and its limits. The comparison with the supernatural and with the metaphysical fully involve this aspect and Wier admits that human knowledge is fallible.2 Once again, this aspect reverberates on the continuous contradiction and irreconcilability of experience and doctrine 1 Wier, Witches, p. 480. 2 T. Maus de Rolley, ‘La part du diable: Jean Wier et la fabrique de l’illusion diabolique’, Tracés. Revue de Sciences humaines [En ligne], 8 | 2005, mis en ligne le 20 janvier 2009, p. 123.

212 

Johann Wier

that characterize his works, but, as Midelfort has highlighted, his arguments nonetheless remain coherent and original.3 Wier knew how to collect stimuli and suggestions from various debates and adapt them to his purpose, from that of Paracelsism to the debate on toleration, both of which, it is no coincidence, initiated in Basel. Suggesting doubt as a means of investigating reality, Wier actively and unequivocally avoided taking sides, appealing at all times to Divine mercy. Wier’s God tested people but was also ready to forgive, acknowledging sinful humanity’s capacity to change. Developing in the shadow of Agrippa and of Erasmus, but without his teachers’ ambition, Wier sought to save witches and identify the starting point before the evil: by revealing Satan’s plan, humanity could leave the labyrinth of spells. His teaching was to be taken up long after. His name continued to emerge in the debate well into the twentieth century, attesting to the need for a reading of Wier that also considers his long-term influence and its variety of directions, clarifying the context in which those ideas were born and into which they were received. That is what I have tried to achieve.

3 Midelfort, Johann Weyer and the Insanity Defense, p. 249.



Bibliography (primary sources)

Archival sources Basel, Universitätsbibliothek Frey-Grynaeum, I 11 Frey-Grynaeum, II 4 Zürich, Staatsarchiv, E II 361 Erlangen, Universitätsbibliothek, Briefsammlung Trew, f. 386r Città del Vaticano, Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede (ACDF) Index, Protocolli A Index, Protocolli K Index, Diari, I Index, Epistolae, IV Index, XXIII

List of mentioned works by Wier Artzney-Buch von etlichen biß anher unbekandten und unbeschriebenen Kranckheiten, (Frankfurt: Nicolaus Bassee, 1580) Artzney-Buch von etlichen biß anher unbekandten und unbeschriebenen Kranckheiten, (Frankfurt: Nicolaus Bassee, 1583) Cinq livres de l’imposture et tromperie des diables, des enchantements et sorcelleries, pris du latin de Jean Wier … et faits françois par Jaques Grévin, (Paris: J. Du Puys, 1567) De Ira morbo, ejusdem curatione philosophica, medica et theologica liber, (Basel: ex officina Oporiniana, 1577) De Lamiis liber. Item de Commentitiis jejuniis… (Basel: Oporinum, 1577) De Lamiis, (Basel: Oporinum, 1582) De praestigiis daemonum: Von Teuffelsgespenst, Zauberern und Gifftbereytern, Schwartzkünstlern, Hexen und Unholden, darzu irer Straff, auch von den Bezauberten, und wie ihnen zuhelffen sey, Ordentlich und eigentlich mit sonderm fleiß in VI Bücher getheilet … Johann Weiers Apologia. – Pseudomonarchia Daemonum Auffs neuw ubersehen, unnd … durchauß gemehret und gebessert, (Frankfurt: Nicolaus Basseus, 1586)

214 

Johann Wier

De praestigiis daemonum, et incantationibus, ac veneficiis, libri V, (Basel: Oporinus, 1563) De praestigiis daemonum, et incantationibus, ac veneficiis, libri V recogniti, & ualde aucti. Accessit index amplissimus, (Basel: Oporinus, 1564) De praestigiis daemonum, et incantationibus ac veneficiis, (Basel: Oporinus, 1566) De praestigiis daemonum et et incantationibus ac veneficiis libri sex aucti & recogniti: accessit rerum & uerborum copiosus index, (Basel: ex officina Oporiniana, 1568) De praestigiis daemonum, et incantationibus ac veneficiis libri sex. Postrema editione quinta aucti et recogniti, (Basel: Oporinus, 1577) De praestigiis daemonum, et incantationibus ac veneficiis libri sex: cum Rerum ac Uerborum copioso Indice – Postrema Editione sexta aucti et recogniti, (Basel: ex Officina Oporiniana, 1583) Histoires, disputes et discours des illusions et impostures des diables, des magiciens infâmes, sorcières et empoisonneurs, des ensorcelez et démoniaques et de la guérison d’iceux,(Paris: aux bureaux du “Progrès médical”, 1885) Histoires, disputes et discours, des illusions et impostures des diables, des magiciens infames, sorcieres & empoisonneurs … le tout comprins en six livres (augmentez de moitié en ceste derniere edition) par Jean Wier … Deux dialogues de Thomas Erastus … touchant le pouvoir des sorcieres & de la punition qu’elles méritent, (Paris: Pour Jaques Chouet, 1579) Le streghe, a cura di Aurora Tacus, (Palermo: Sellerio, 1991) Medicarum observationum rararum Liber, (Basel: Oporinum, 1567) Medicarum observationum rararum Liber I, (Amsterdam: apud P. Montanum, 1657) Von verzeuberungen, verblendungen, auch sonst viel und mancherley gepler des Teuffels vnnd seines gantzen Heers: deßgleichen von versegnungen unn gifftwercken, fünff bücher zum andern mal widerumb übersehen, gemehrt und gebessert erstlich durch … Johann Wier … Nachmols aber, gemeiner Teutscher Nation zu gut durch Johannem Füglinum … in teutsche sprach gebracht und an tag gegeben, (Basel: Oporinus, 1565) Weyer, J. Witches, Devils and Doctors in the Renaissance, Weyer’s De Praestigiis Daemonum, ed. by G. Mora, (New York: Medieval and Renaissance Studies and Texts, 1991) Wier, J. On witchcraft: an abridged translation of Johann Weyer’s De praestigiis daemonum, ed. by B. G. Kohl and H. C. E. Midelfort, (Asheville, NC: Pegasus Press, 1998) Wier, J. Opera omnia. Quorum contenta versa pagina exhibet. Editio nova et hactenus desiderata. Accedunt indices rerum & verborum copiosissimi, (Amsterdam: apud Petrum vandem Berge, sub signo Montis Parnassi, 1659) Wier, J. Opera omnia … Editio nova, (Amsterdam: apud Petrum vandem Berge, sub signo Montis Parnassi, 1660)

Bibliogr aphy (primary sources)

215

Primary sources Adam, M. Vitae Germanorum medicorum qui seculo superiori, et quod excurrit, claruerunt, (Heidelberg: 1620) Agricola, B. Symbolum Pythagorucum sive De iustitia in forum reducenda, (Frankfurt: Impensis Ioannis Caroli Unckelii, 1521) Agrippa von Nettesheim, H. C. Opera. In duos tomos concinne digesta, & nunc denuò, sublatis omnibus mendis … accuratissimè recusa, (Lyon: per Beringos fratres, 1553) Agrippa von Nettesheim, H. C. De occulta philosophia libri tres, ed. by V. Perrone Compagni, (Leiden: Brill, 1992) Argentine, R. De praestigiis et incantationibus Daemonum et necromanticorum liber singularis nunquam ante haec aeditus, (Basel: 1568) Arnold, G. Historia et descriptio theologiae mysticae, (Frankfurt: apud Thomam Fritsch, 1702) Arnold, G. Unparteyische Kirchen-und Ketzer-Historie, von Anfang des Neuen Testaments biss auff das Jahr Christi 1688, (Frankfurt: Thomas Fritsch, 1715) Augustinus. A. De civitate Dei, (Lipsiae: in aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1877) Axenfeld, A. Jean Wier et la Sorcellerie. in Conférences historiques faites pendant l’année 1865 à la Faculté de médecine de Paris, (Paris: Germer Baillière, 1866) Bayle, P. ‘Reponse aux questions d’un provincial’, in Bayle P., Oeuvres diverses (vol. III/2), à La Haye, 1727, (Hildesheim: Olms, 1966) Bekker, B. Die bezauberte Welt, with introduction by W. van Bunge, (Stuttgart: Bad Cannstatt, Frommann–holzboog, 1997) Bekker, B. Le monde enchanté, (Amsterdam: Daniel von Dahlen, 1693) Bibliotheca coloniensis, cura et studio Josephi Hartzeim, (Coloniae Augustae Agrippinensium: 1747) Binsfeld, Peter. Tractatus De confessionibus maleficorum et sagarum, Augustae (Trevirorum, ex officina typographica Henrici Bock, 1596) Blankaart, S. Die belägert und entsetzte Venus, das ist chirurgische Abhandlung der sogenanten frantzossen, auch spanischen Pocken-Kranckheit, Drüpper, Sjankert, Klap-Ohren, etc. und andern sich dabey findenden Zufällen. Worinnen derselben vornemlich auf des weltbekanten Cartesii Gründe befestigte…Cur vollkömmlich angewiesen wird. Anietzo seiner unvergleichlichen Vortreffligkeit halber, nebst der beruffenen Medicorum Fr. Sylvii, Th. Sydenham, Joh. Wieri und Ant. Everaars, gleichmässigen accuraten Beschreibung dieses Ubels, Aus dem Niederländischen… übersetzet, (Leipzig: J. F. Gleditsch, 1690) Blankaart, S. Venus belegert en ontset. Oft verhandelinge van de pokken, en des selfs toevallen, met een grondige en zekere genesigne. Steunende meest op de gronden van Cartesius …/Item, een nauwkeurige beschryvinge der pokken door … F. Sylvius, T. Sydenham, en J. Wierus, (Amsterdam: T. ten Hoorn, 1685)

216 

Johann Wier

Bodin, J. De la démonomanie des sorciers. ed. by V. Krause, E. Macphail, C. Martin, N. P. Desrosiers, N. Martin Peterson, (Genève: Droz, 2016) Bodin, J. Demonomania de gli stregoni tradotta da Ercole Cato, a cura di A. Suggi, (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2006) Bodin, J. On the Demon-Mania of Witches, translated by R. A. Scott; abridged with an introduction by J. L. Pearl, (Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 1995) Brenz, J. Ein Predig von dem Hagel und Ungewitter, in Evangelien der fürnembsten Fest- und Feyertagen … übersetzt von Jacob Gretter, (Frankfurt: 1558) Brenz, J. ‘Homilia de Grandine’, in Brenz, J. Pericopae Evangeliorum quae usitato more in praecipuis festis legi solent, (Ursellis: Excudebat Nicolaus Henricus, 1558) Brenz, J. Predigt vom Hagel, Donner und allem Ungewitter, (Straßburg/Eisleben, 1565). Brenz, On Hailstorms, translated by H. C. E. Midelfort, Were There Really Witches?, in Transition and Revolution: Problems and Issues of Renaissance and Reformation History, ed. by R. Kingdon, (Minneapolis: Burgess, 1974), pp. 189–223 Bucoldianus, G. De puella, quæ sine cibo & potu vitam transigit, brevis narratio, (Parisiis: ex officina R. Stephani, 1542) Bullarium Romanum, (Augustae Taurinorum: Seb. Franco et Henrico Dalmazzo editoribus, 1746) Calendar of State Papers Foreign, Elizabeth, Volume 21, Part 2, June 1586–March 1587, ed. by S. Crawford Lomas and A. B. Hinds, (London: 1927) Casaubon, M. Of Credulity and Incredulity in Things Natural, Civil, and Divine, (London: printed for T. Garthwait, 1668) Collins, A. A Discourse of Free Thinking, (London, 1713), hrsg. G. Gawlick, (Stuttgart: Frommann Verlag, 1965) Conring, H. Disputatio inauguralis medica, De incantationis circa morbos efficacia, (Helmstadt: Henningi Mulleri, 1619) Delrio, M. Disquisitionum magicarum Libri sex in tres tomos partiti, (Maguntiae: apud Ioannem Albinum, 1603) Delrio, M. Investigations into Magic, ed. by P. G. Maxwell-Stuart, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000) Demonology (The) of King James I: Includes the Original Text of Daemonologie…, ed. by D. Tyson, (Woodbury, Minn.: Llewellyn, 2011) Dorn, G. Dictionarum Theophrasti Paracelsi, continens obscuriorum vocabulorum, quibus in suis scriptis passim vtitur, definitiones, (Francoforti: Christoph Corvinus, 1583) Dudith Sbardellati, A. Epistulae, ed. by L. Szczucki and T. Szepessy, 4 voll., (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1992–1998) Ecclesiae londino-batavae archivum…, ed. by Joannes Henricvs Hessels, 3 vol., (Cantabrigiae: typis Academiae svmptibus Ecclesiae londino-batavae, 1887–1897)

Bibliogr aphy (primary sources)

217

Erasmus, Collected Works: Controversies, translated and ed. by C. Fantazzi, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018) Erasmus, Declamatio de pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis, étude critique, traduction et commentaire par J.-C. Margolin, (Genève: Droz, 1966) Erasmus, Opera Omnia, recognovit Johannes Clericus, (Leiden: 1703–1706) Erastus, T. Disputationes de medicina noua Philippi Paracelsi: in qua, quae de remediis superstitionis & magicis curationibus ille prodidit, praecipue examinantur, (Basel: apud Petrum Pernam, 1572–1573) Erastus, T. Repetitio disputationis de lamijs seu strigibus: in qua plene, solide, & perspicue, de arte earum, potestate, itemque poena disceptatur, authore Thoma Erasto. Libellus cum alijs omnibus, tum maxime ad gubernacula rerumpub. & iudicia sedentibus, utilis ac necessarius, (Basel: apud Petrum Pernam, 1578) Ewich, J. De officio fidelis et prudentis magistratus tempore pestilentiae rempub. a contagio praeseruandi liberandique libri duo, (Neapoli Nemetum: excudebat Matthaeus Harnisch, 1582) Ewich, J. De sagarum (quos vulgo Veneficos appellant) natura, arte, viribus, factis, (Bremen: 1584) Fernel, J. On the Hidden Causes of Things: Forms, Souls, and Occult Diseases in Renaissance Medicine, with an edition and translation of Fernel’s De abditis rerum causis by J. M. Forrester; introduction and annotations by J. H. and J. M. Forrester, (Leiden: Brill, 2005) Glanvill, J. Saducismus Triumphatus: or, Full and Plain Evidence Concerning Witches and Apparitions…, London 1681 (Hildesheim–New York: Olms, 1978) Godelmann, J. G. De magis veneficis et lamiis, recte cognoscendis & puniendis, libri tres. His accessit ad magistratum clarissimi & celeberrimi i.c.d. Iohannis Althusii admonitio, (Frankfurt: ex officina typographica Nicolai Bassaei, 1591) Goehausen, H. Decisio trium quaestionum usu frequentium I. an proba aquae frigidae, qua veneficis explorandis in Westphaliae potissimum circulo iudices utuntur sit licita ac legitima? II. an ex plurium complicum nominatione iudex tuta conscientia possit personam nominatam torturae subiicere…? III. an nocturni veneficarum conventus reales et veri sint…?, (Rinteln: Petrus Lucius, 1629) Gohory, J. Theophrasti Paracelsi philosophiae et medicinae utriusque universae, compendium, ex optimis quibusque eius libris: Cum scholiis in libros IIII eiusdem de vita longa, plenos mysteriorum, parabolorum, aenigmatum, (Parisiis: in aedibus Rovillii, 1567) Grillando, P. Tractatus de haereticis et sortilegiis, (Lyon: apud Iacobum Giuncti, 1536) Guillemeau, J. A worthy treatise of the eyes; containing the knowledge and cure of one hundreth and thirtene diseases, incident unto them / first gathered & written in French … and now translated into English, together with a profitable treatise of the scorbie [by J. Weyer]; & another of the cancer [by B. Textor] by A. H[unton].

218 

Johann Wier

Also … a work touching the preservation of the sight, set forth by W. Bailey D. of Phisick, (London: Printed by Robert Waldegraue for Thomas Man and William Brome, 1586) Hansen, J. Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Hexenwahns und der Hexenverfolgungen im Mittelalter, (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1963 (1st ed., 1901)) Hansen, J. Zauberwahn, Inquisition, und Hexenprozessen im Mittelalter und die Entstehung grossen Hexenverfolgung, (München, R. Oldenbourg, 1900) Horst, G. Büchlein von dem Schorbock…mit angehencktem Rath in Pest Zeiten. Auffs newe durchsehen und vermehret, (Giessen: Gedruckt durch Nicolaum Hampelium, 1615) Hovaeus A. De arte amandi Christum, (Coloniae, apud Maternum Cholinum, 1566) Index des livres interdits, par J. M. De Bujanda, (Genève: Droz, 1984–2002) Institoris (Kramer) H., Sprenger, J. Malleus Maleficarum, ed. and translated. by C. Mackay, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) Lancre, P. de On the Inconstancy of Witches: Pierre de Lancre’s Tableau de l’inconstance des mauvais anges et demons (1612), ed. by G. Scholz Williams et al., (Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2006) Lercheimer A. (Hermann Witekind), Christlich bedencken vnd erjnnerung von Zauberey, (Heidelberg: 1585) Liechtenberg, J. von Hexen Büchlein das ist ware Entdeckung und Erklärung oder Declaration für nämlichen Artickel der Zauberey, (Basel: Westheimer, Bartholomaeusl, 1545) Machiavelli, N. Le prince, (Paris: pour Robert Le Mangnier, 1571) Machiavelli, N. Les Discours de Nic. Macchiauel … Sur la premiere decade de Tite Liue, dez l’edification de la ville. Traduitz d’Italien en François, et de nouueau reueuz et augmentez par Jaques Gohory Parisien (Paris: Robert le Mangnier, 1571) Maffei, S. Arte magica annichilata libri tre, (Verona: Antonio Andreoni, 1754) Maffei, S. Arte magica distrutta risposta di don Antonio Fiorio veronese arciprete di Tignale, e Valvestino, vicario foraneo, (Trento: G. A. Brunati, 1750) Matricula Nationis Germanicae Artistarum in Gymnasio Patavino (1553–1721), ed. by L. Rossetti, (Padova: Antenore, 1986) Melchiori, B. Dissertazione Epistolare inviata ad un professore di legge in confermazione del capitolo XIII della sua Miscellanea di Materie criminali intitolato degli omicidj commessi con un sortilegio, (Venezia: Pietro Bassaglia, 1750) Migne, J.-P. Patrologia Graeca, (Paris, 1857–1867) More, H. Antidotus adversus Atheismum, (Hildesheim: Olms, 1966) Naudé, G. Apologie pour tous les grands personnages qui ont été faussement soupçonnés de magie, in Libertins du XVIIe siècle, I, éd. établie, présentée et annotée par J. Prévot, (Paris: Gallimard, 1998) Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Rotterodami, X, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1941)

Bibliogr aphy (primary sources)

219

Paracelsus (Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, 1493–1541): Essential Theoretical Writings, ed. and translated with a commentary and introduction by A. Weeks, (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2008) Paracelsus, De sagis et earum operibus, in Id., Philosophiae magnae, (Basel: Perna, 1569), pp. 214–239 Peucer, C. Commentarius de praecipuis divinationum generibus, (Wittenberg: Crato,1553) Pico, G. F. La Sorcière, ed. by A. Perifano, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007) Pico, G. F. Strega o delle illusioni del demonio nel volgarizzamento di Leandro Alberti, a c. di A. Biondi, (Venezia: Marsilio, 1989) Poiret, P. Bibliotheca mysticorum, (Amsterdam: Wettstein, 1708) Ponzinibio, G. F. Tractatus de lamiis, (s.l.: Sylva, 1511) Portal, A. Histoire de l’anatomie et de la chirurgie, Paris: P. Fr. Didot, 1770) Porzio, S. De puella germanica, quae fere biennium vixerat sine cibo, potuque, (Florentiae: apud Laurentium Torrentinum, 1551) Relations politiques des Pays-Bas et de l’Angleterre, sous le règne de Philippe II, par M. le baron Kervyn de Lettenhove, (Bruxelles: Hayez, 1888–1900) Ronsse, B. De magnis Hippocratis lienibus, (Antverpiae: apud viduam Martini Nutijs, 1564) Scala P., Miscellaneorum tomus secundus, sive catholici epistemonis, contra quorundam corruptam ac depravatam encyclopaediam libri XV, (Coloniae: ex officina Theodori Graminaei, 1571) Scholz, L. Epistolarum philosophicarum medicinalium ac chymicarum volumen, (Frankfurt: apud Andreae Wecheli haeredes, 1598) Schott, C. Physica curiosa, (Herbipoli: Hertz, 1662) Scot, R. La sorcellerie démystifiée. Introduction et notes de P. Kapitaniak. Texte traduit de l’anglais par P. Kapitaniak et J. Migrenne, (Grenoble: Jerome Millon, 2015) Scot, R. The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by M. Summers, (New York: Dover, 1972) Scribonius, W. Examen epistolae et partis physiologiae de examine Sagarum per aquam frigidam, (s.l.: 1589) Servet, Obras completas, ed. Á. Alcalá, (Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza, 2003–2007) Sisto da Siena, Bibliotheca Sancta, (Lyon: Sumptibus Philippi Tinghi Florentini, MDLXXV) Smet, H. Miscellanea medica. Cum praestantissimis quinque medicis. D. Thoma Erasto, D. Henrico Brucaeo, D. Leuino Batto, D. Joannis Weyero, D. Henr. Weyero communicata, et in libros 12. digesta, (Frankfurt: impensis Jonae Rhodii, 1611) Spee, F. von. Cautio Criminalis, or a Book on Witch Trials. Translated and with an Introduction by M. Hellyer, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2003)

220 

Johann Wier

Spina, B. Quaestio de strigis, una cum Tractatu de Praeminentia Sacrae Theologiae et quadruplici apologia de lamiis contra Ponzinibium, (Venetiis 1523) Strozzi Cicogna, Palagio de gl’incanti, (Vicenza: ad instanza di Roberto Meglietti, 1562) Paracelsus, P. Sämtliche Werke, hrsg. von K. Sudhoff and W. Matthiesse, (Münich– Berlin: Oldenbourg, 1922–1933) Tanner, A. Theologiae scholasticae, (Ingolstadt: Typis Ioannis Bayr, 1627) Tartarotti, G. Del congresso notturno delle lammie libri tre, in (Rovereto: a spese di Giambattista Pasquali, 1749) Tartarotti, G. Lettere inedite dell’abate Jacopo Tartarotti a Francesco Rosmini-Serbati con note (Trento: Monauni, 1879) Thomasius, C. Disputatio juris canonici De origine ac progressu processus inquisitorii contra Sagas, (Halae Magdeburgicae: typis Johannis Christiani Zahnii, 1712) Torreblanca, Don F. Daemonologia, sive de magia naturali, daemoniaca…libri quatuor, (Moguntiae: impensis Ioh. Theowaldi Schoenwetteri, 1623) Vesalius, A. Fabric (The) of the Human Body: an annotated translation of the 1543 and 1555 editions of “De humani corporis fabrica libri septem”, ed. by D. H. Garrison, M. H. Has, (Basel: Karger, 2014) Weyer, M. Grondelicke Onderrichtinghe, (Frankfurt: a1579) Weyer, M. The Narrow Path of Divine Truth Described from Living Practice and Experience of Its Three Great Steps…, (London: 1683) Zacchia, P. Quaestionum Medico-legalium, tomi tres, (Francofurti: sumptibus Joannis Baptistae Schonwetteri, 1666)



Bibliography (secondary sources)

Acta conventus neo-latini Amstelodamensis, (München: Fink, 1979) Actes du colloque international Erasme, par J. Chomarat, A. Godin et J.- C. Margolin, (Genève: Droz, 1990) Adorni Braccesi, S. ‘Fra eresia ed ermetismo: tre edizioni italiane di Enrico Cornelio Agrippa di Nettesheim’, Bruniana & Campanelliana, XI (2007), pp. 11–29 Adorni Braccesi, S. ‘L’‘Agrippa Arrigo’ e Ortensio Lando: fra eresia, cabbala e utopismo’, Historia Philosophica, 2, (2005), pp. 1–17 Ahnert, T. Religion and the Origins of the German Enlightenment: Faith and the Reform of Learning in the Thought of Christian Thomasius, (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2006) Allein Gottes Wort: Vorträge, Ansprachen, Predigten, Besinnungen anlässlich des 450. Todestages der Märtyrer Adolf Clarenbach und Peter Fliesteden, hrsg. von A. Bluhm, (Köln: Rheinland-Verlag; Bonn: In Kommission bei Habelt, 1981) Almond, P. England’s First Demonologist: Reginald Scot and ‘The Discoverie of Witchcraft’, (London: I. B. Tauris, 2011) Almond, P. Doubt and Demonology: Reginald Scot’s The Discoverie of Witchcraft, in Science (The) of Demons. Early Modern Authors Facing Witchcraft and the Devil, ed. by J. Machielsen, (London: Routledge, 2020), pp. 133-148 Analecta Paracelsica: Studien zum Nachleben Theophrast von Hohenheims im deutschen Kulturgebiet der frühen Neuzeit, hrsg. von J. Telle, (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1994) Angels in Medieval Philosophical Inquiry: Their Function and Significance, ed. by Isabel Iribarren and Martin Lenz, (Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate, 2008) Angels of Light?: Sanctity and the Discernment of Spirits in the Early Modern Period, ed. by C. Copeland, J. Machielsen, (Leiden: Brill, 2012) Anglo, S. ‘Evident Authority and Authoritative Evidence: The Malleus Maleficarum’, in Damned (The) Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft, ed. by S. Anglo, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977), pp. 1–31 Anglo, S. ‘Melancholia and Witchcraft: The Debate between Wier, Bodin and Scot’, in Folie et deraison à la Renaissance, (Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1976), pp. 209–228 Anglo, S. Reginald Scot’s Discoverie of Witchcraft: Scepticism and Sadduceeism, in Damned (The) Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft, ed. by S. Anglo, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977), pp. 106–39 Anglo, S. Machiavelli. The First Century, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) Apih, E. ‘Carli, Gianrinaldo’, in DBI, 20, Roma, Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, 1977, pp. 161–167

222 

Johann Wier

Arcangeli, A. ‘Écrits sur la colère et système des passions au XVIe siècle’, L’Atelier du Centre de recherches historiques [En ligne], 11 | 2013, mis en ligne le 10 juillet 2013. https://journals.openedition.org/acrh/5312 Aretini, P. I fantasmi degli antichi tra Riforma e Controriforma. Il soprannaturale greco-latino nella trattatistica teologica del Cinquecento, (Bari: Levante, 2000) Articles on Witchcraft, Magic, and Demonology: a Twelve Volume Anthology of Scholarly Articles, ed. with introductions by B. P. Levack, (New York: Garland Publishing, 1992) Astrologia e magia nel Rinascimento. Teorie, pratiche, condanne, (Pisa: Il campano, 2014) Atheismus im Mittelalter, hrsg. von O. Pluta und F. Niewoehner, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999) Athlone (The) History of Witchcraft and Magic in Europe. The Middle Ages, ed. by K. Jolly, C. Raudvere, E. Peters, (London: The Athlone Press 2002) Athlone (The) History of Witchcraft and Magic in Europe. The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, ed. by B. Ankarloo and S. Clark, (London: The Athlone Press, 1999) Azzolini, M. The Duke and the Stars. Astrology and Politics in Renaissance Milan, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013) Bailey, M. D. Battling Demons: Witchcraft, Heresy, and Reform in the Late Middle Ages, (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003) Bailey, M. Fearful Spirits, Reasoned Follies. The Boundaries of Superstition in Late Medieval Europe, (New York: Cornell University Press, 2017) Bainton, R. H. Hunted Heretics: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus, 1511–1553, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1953) Banić-Pajnić, E. ‘Skalić, Pavao’, in Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy, ed. by M. Sgarbi, (Cham: Springer, 2014) Barbierato, F. Nella stanza dei circoli: Clavicula Salomonis e libri di magia a Venezia nei secoli XVII e XVIII, (Milano: Bonnard, 2002) Barbierato, F. The Inquisitor in the Hat Shop. Inquisition, Forbidden Books and Unbelief in Early Modern Venice, (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012) Baroja, J. C. The World of the Witches, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1975 (1st ed. 1961)) Bataillon, M. Érasme et l’Espagne: nouvelle édition en trois volumes, texte établi par D. Devoto, édité par les soins de C. Amiel, (Genève: Droz, 1991 (1st ed. 1937) Baudry, H. Contribution à l’étude du paracelsisme en France (1560–1580). De la naissance du mouvement aux années de maturité: Le Demonosterion de Roche Le Baillif (1578), (Paris: Champion, 2005) Baxter, C. ‘Jean Bodin’s De la dèmonomanie des sorciers: The Logic of Persecution’, in Damned (The) Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft, ed. by S. Anglo, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977), pp. 76–105

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

223

Baxter, C. ‘Johann Weyer’s De Praestigiis Daemonum: Unsystematic Psychopathology’, in Damned (The) Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft, ed. by S. Anglo, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977), pp. 53–75 Behringer, W. ‘Zur Haltung Adam Tanners in der Hexenfrage: Die Entstehung einer Argumentationsstrategie in ihrem gesellschaftlichen Kontext’, in Unfug (Vom) der Hexenprocesses. Gegner der Hexenverfolgung von Johann Weyer bis Friedrich Spee, hrsg. von H. Lehmann und O. Ulbricht, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), pp. 161–185 Behringer, W. ‘Von Adam Tanner zu Friedrich Spee: Die Entwicklung einer Argumentationsstrategie (1590–1630) vor dem Hintergrund zeitgenössischer gesellschaftlicher Konflikte’, in Friedrich Spee (1591–1635), hrsg. von T. van Oorschot, (Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 1993), pp. 154–175 Behringer, W. Witches and Witch-hunts: A Global History, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994) Behringer, W. Witchcraft and the Law in Bavaria: Popular Magic, Religion, and the State in Modern Germany, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997 (1st ed. 1987)) Behringer, W. Shaman of Oberstdorf: Chonrad Stoeckhlin and the Phantoms of the Night, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1998) Béné, C. Érasme et Saint Augustin, ou influence de Saint Augustin sur l’humanisme d’Érasme, (Genève: Droz, 1969) Bené, C. ‘Jan Wier et les procès de sorcellerie ou l’érasmisme au service de la tolérance’, in Acta conventus neo-latini Amstelodamensis, (München: Fink, 1979), pp. 58–73 Benedek, T. G. ‘A Comparison of the Psychological Insights of Petrarch and Johann Weyer’, in Mental Health, Spirituality, and Religion in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Age, ed. by A. Classen, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014) Benzenhofer, U. ‘Zum Brief des Johannes Oporinus über Paracelsus’, Sudhoff Archiv zur Geschichte der Medizin, 73 (1989), pp. 55–63 Bever, E. ‘Witchcraft Prosecutions and the Decline of Magic’, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 40 (2009), pp. 263–293 Beyond the Witch Trials: Witchcraft and Magic in Enlightenment Europe, ed. by O. Davies and W. de Blécourt, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004) Bianchi, L. ‘Libre pensée et tolérance: Pierre Bayle et Guy Patin’, in De l’Humanisme aux Lumières, Bayle et le protestantisme: mélanges en l’honneur d’Élisabeth Labrousse, textes recueillis par M. Magdelaine, M.-C. Pitassi, R. Whelan et A. McKenna, (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1996), pp. 611–621 Bianchi, L. Tradizione libertina e critica storica da Naudé a Bayle, (Milano: FrancoAngeli, 1988) Bianchi, M. L. Introduzione a Paracelso, (Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1995)

224 

Johann Wier

Bibliotheca dissidentium. IX, ed. by C. J. Burchill, (Baden-Baden & Bouxwiller: Koerner, 1989) Biesbrouck, M. et al., ‘Johann Bachoven von Echt (1515–1576) and his work on scurvy: An omen of Vesalius’ death?’, Acta medico-historica adriatica: AMHA, 16 (2018), pp. 203–238 Bietenholz, P. G. Der italienische Humanismus und die Blütezeit des Buchdrucks in Basel: Die Basler Drucke italienischer Autoren von 1530 bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1959) Bietenholz, P. G. Basle and France in the Sixteenth Century: the Basle Humanists and Printers in their Contacts with Francophone Culture, (Genève: Droz, 1971) Bietenholz, P. G. ‘Simulatio, Erasme et les interprétations controversées de Galates 2, 11–14’, in Actes du colloque international Erasme, par J. Chomarat, A. Godin et J.-C. Margolin, (Genève: Droz, 1990), pp. 161–169 Bietenholz, P. G. Encounters with a Radical Erasmus: Erasmus’ Work as a Source of Radical Thought in Early Modern Europe, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008) Binz, C.. Augustin Lercheimer und seine Schrift wider den Hexenwahn, (Strassburg: Heitz, 1888) Binz, C. Doctor Johann Weyer: Ein rheinischer Arzt, der erste Bekämpfer des Hexenwahns, (Berlin, 1896) Biondi, A. ‘La giustificazione della simulazione nel Cinquecento’, in Eresia e Riforma del Cinquecento, (Firenze-Chicago: Sansoni-The Newberry Library, 1974), pp. 7–68 Blécourt, W. de. A Man and His Dog: http://www.isfnr.org/files/DOGS.pdf Blécourt, W. de. ‘Contested Knowledge: The Historical Anthropologist’s Approach to European Witchcraft’, in Cultures of Witchcraft in Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present, ed. by J. Barry, O. Davies, C. Usborne, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), pp. 1–22 Brabant, H. Médecins, malades et maladies de la Renaissance, (Bruxelles: La Renaissance du livre, 1966) Bragagnolo, M. Lodovico Antonio Muratori e l’eredità del Cinquecento nell’Europa del XVIII Secolo, (Firenze: Olschki, 2017) Brais, B. ‘Desiré Magloire Bourneville and French Anticlericalism during the Third Republic’, in Doctors, Politics and Society, ed. by D. Porter and R. Porter, (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1993) Brambilla, E. Corpi invasi e viaggi dell’anima. Santità, possessione, esorcismo dalla teologia barocca alla medicina illuminista, (Roma: Viella, 2010) Brandy, H. C. Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991) Brann, N. L. Trithemius and Magical Theology, (Albany State: University of New York Press, 1999) Braun, H. Juan de Mariana and Early Modern Spanish Political Thought, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007)

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

225

Brecht, M. ‘Johannes Brenz und das Hexenwesen aufgrund bisher weitgehend unbeachteter Quellen’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung, 86 (2000), pp. 386–397 Bridging traditions: Alchemy, Chemistry, and Paracelsian Practices in the Early Modern Era, ed. by K. Hunger Parshall, M. T. Walton, and B. T. Moran, (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2015) Briefe von Andreas Masius und Seinen Freunden 1538 bis 1573, hrsg. von M. Lossen, (Leipzig: Dürr, 1886) Briggs, R. Witches and Neighbours. The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft, (London: Fontana Press, 1996) Brinkmann Brown, K. ‘Weyer Johann’, in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, (New York–Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 268 Broad, J. ‘Margaret Cavendish and Joseph Glanvill: Science, Religion, and Witchcraft’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 38, (2007), pp. 493–505 Broedel, H. P. The Malleus Maleficarum and the Construction of Witchcraft: Theology and Popular Belief, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003) Brunetti, F. Paolo Frisi e le discussioni sulla magia e sulla stregoneria, in Ideologia e scienza nell’opera di Paolo Frisi (1728–1784), a cura di G. Barbarisi, (Milano: FrancoAngeli, 1987), pp. 31–62 Bulang, T. ‘Wissensgenealogien der frühen Neuzeit im Vergleich. Epistemische Entwürfe des Paracelsismus im wissensgeschichtlichen Kontext’, Daphnis, 48 (2020), pp. 38–64 Bunge, W. van. ‘Balthasar Bekker’s Cartesian Hermeneutics and the Challenge of Spinozism’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 1 (1993), pp. 55–79 Burke, P. ‘Witchcraft and Magic in Renaissance Italy: Gianfrancesco Pico and his Strix’, in Damned (The) Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft, ed. by S. Anglo, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977), pp. 32–52 Burr, G. L. A Witch-Hunter in the Book-Shops, n. p., (1902) Burr, G. L. His Life and Selections From His Writings, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1943) Caffiero, M. Legami pericolosi. Ebrei e cristiani tra eresia, libri proibiti e stregoneria, (Torino: Einaudi, 2012) Callow, R. Embracing the Darkness: a Cultural History of Witchcraft, (London: I. B. Tauris, 2017) Cambridge (The) Platonists in Philosophical Context. Politics, Metaphysics and Religion, ed. by G. A. J. Roberts et al., (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1997) Cambridge (The) Encyclopedia of the Jesuits, ed. by T. Worchester, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017) Cameron, E. Enchanted Europe: Superstition, Reason and Religion, 1250–1750, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)

226 

Johann Wier

Campagne, F. A. ‘Witchcraft and the Sense-of-the-Impossible in Early Modern Spain: Some Reflections Based on the Literature of Superstition (ca.1500–1800)’, The Harvard Theological Review, 96 (2003), pp. 25–62 Carlino, A. La fabbrica del corpo. Libri e dissezione nel Rinascimento, (Torino: Einaudi, 1994) Catholic Church and Modern Science, ed. by U. Baldini and L. Spruit, (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2010) Céard, J. La nature et les prodiges. L’insolite au XVIe siècle en France, (Genève: Droz, 1977) Certeau, M. de. The Possession at Loudun, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996) Chasses aux sorcières et démonologie: entre discours et pratiques (XIVe–XVIIe siècles), éd. par M. Ostorero, G. Modestin, K. Utz Tremp, (Firenze: Sismel, 2010) Church, Censorship and Culture in Early Modern Italy, ed. by G. Fragnito, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) Clark, S. ‘King James’ Daemonologie: Witchcraft and Kingship’, in Damned (The) Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft, ed. by S. Anglo, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977), pp. 156–181 Clark, S. ‘Inversion, Misrule and the Meaning of Witchcraft’, Past & Present, 87 (1980), pp. 98–127 Clark, S. ‘French Historians and Early Modern Popular Culture’, Past & Present, 100 (1983), pp. 62–99 Clark, S. ‘The Scientific Status of Demonology’, in Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance, ed. by B. Vickers. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 351–374 Clark, S. ‘Protestant Demonology: Sin, Superstition, and Society (c. 1520–c. 1630)’, in Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries, ed. by B. Ankarloo and G. Henningsen, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), pp. 35–82 Clark, S. Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997) Closson, M. ‘The Devil’s Curses: The Demonic Origin of Disease in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, in Imagining Contagion in Early Modern Europe, ed. by C. L. Carlin (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. 63–76 Cobben, J. J. Jan Wier, Devils, Witches, and Magic, (Philadelphia: Dorrance, 1976 (1st ed. 1960)) Cobben, J. J. ‘De Bra and Wier on varen’, Gewina, XVIII, (1995), pp. 36–48 Cobben, J. J. Duivelse Bezetenheid, beschreven door dokter Johannes Wier, 1515–1588, preface by H. de Waardt, (Rotterdam: Erasmus Publishing, 2002) Cohn, N. Europe’s Inner Demons. An Inquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt, Rev. ed. (New York: Pimlico, 1993)

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

227

Companion to the Catholic Enlightenment in Europe, ed. by U. L. Lehner and M. Printy, (Leiden: Brill, 2010) Constructing Publics, ed. by J. Van Horn Melton, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002) Contesting Orthodoxy in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Heresy, Magic and Witchcraft, ed. by V. L. Nyholm Kallestrup and R. M. Toivo, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017) Conti, F. Witchcraft, Superstition, and Observant Franciscan Preachers. Pastoral Approach and Intellectual Debate in Renaissance Milan, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015) Cope, J. I. Joseph Glanvill, Anglican Apologist, (St. Louis: Washington University Press, 1956) Cortesi M. – Maltese E. V. ‘Per la fortuna della demonologia pselliana in ambiente umanistico’, in Dotti bizantini e libri greci nell’Italia del secolo XV, a cura di M. Cortesi e E. V. Maltese, (Napoli: D’Auria, 1992), pp. 129–192 Coudert, A. ‘Henry More and Witchcraft’, in Henry More (1614–1687). Tercentary Studies of Henry More, ed. by S. Hutton, (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990), pp. 115–136 Cox, H. L. ‘Prozessionbrauchtum des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit im Spiegel obrigkeitlicher Verordnung’, in Kurköln und den Vereingten Herzogtümern, Rheinisch-westfälische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, XXII (1976), pp. 51–85 Coy, J. P. The Devil’s Art: Divination and Discipline in Early Modern Germany, (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2020) Crannied (The) Wall: Women, Religion, and the Arts in Early Modern Europe, ed. by C. A. Monson, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992) Cristofolini, P. Cartesiani e sociniani: studio su Henry More, (Urbino: Argalia, 1974) Cultures of Witchcraft in Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present, ed. by J. Barry, O. Davies, C. Usborne, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017) Dall’Aglio, S. Da Girolamo Savonarola a Tommaso Erasto. Itinerari di una polemica astrologica tra Firenze e Heidelberg, in Studi in ricordo di Armando Saitta, (Milano: FrancoAngeli, 2002), pp. 42–71 Dall’Olio, G. Eretici e inquisitori nella Bologna del Cinquecento, (Bologna: Istituto per la Storia di Bologna, 1999) Dall’Olio, G. ‘Il diavolo e la giustizia. Note sugli usi giudiziari della possessione e dell’esorcismo’, in Non lasciar vivere la malefica. Le streghe nei trattati e nei processi (secoli XIV–XVII), a cura di M. Duni e D. Corsi., (Firenze: Firenze University Press, 2008), pp. 197–212 Dall’Olio, G. ‘L’attività dell’Inquisizione di Bologna dal XVI al XVIII secolo, in Storia di Bologna’, vol. 3/II, Bologna nell’età moderna (secoli XVI–XVIII). Cultura, istitu­ zioni culturali, Chiesa e vita religiosa, a cura di A. Prosperi, (Bologna: Bononia University Press, 2008), pp. 1097–1176

228 

Johann Wier

Dall’Olio, G. ‘The Devil of Inquisitors, Demoniacs and Exorcists in CounterReformation Italy’, in The Devil in Society in Early Modern Europe, ed. by R. Raiswell and P. Dendle, (Toronto: CRRS, 2012), pp. 511–536 Damned (The) Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft, ed. by S. Anglo, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977) Dämonische Besessenheit: Zur Interpretation eines kulturhistorischen Phänomens, hrsg. von H. de Waardt, J. M. Schmidt, H. C. E. Midelfort, S. Lorenz und D. Bauer, (Bielefeld: 2005) Darr, O.A. Marks of an Absolute Witch: Evidentiary Dilemmas in Early Modern England, (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011) David, J. Lexikon zur Geschichte der Hexenverfolgung, hrsg. von G. Gersmann, K. Moeller und J.-M. Schmidt, historicum.net: https://www.historicum.net/purl/ jezrp/ Davies, J. ‘German Receptions of the Works of Joseph Glanvill: Philosophical Transmissions from England to Germany in the late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Century’, Intellectual History Review, 26 (2016), pp. 81–90 Davies, J. Science in an Enchanted World. Philosophy and Witchcraft in the Work of Joseph Glanvill, (London: Routledge, 2018) Davies, O. ‘Decriminalising the Witch: The Origin of and Response to the 1736 Witchcraft Act’, in Witchcraft and the Act of 1604, ed. by J. Newton and J. Bath, (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 207–232 De Benedictis, A. ‘Rebellion, Resistance and Revolution Between the Old and the New World: Discourses and Political Languages. An Introduction’, in Rebellion, Resistance and Revolution Between the Old and the New World: Discourses and Political Languages, ed. by A. De Benedictis, Storicamente, 10(31) (2014): https:// storicamente.org/debenedictis_rebellion De Ferrari, A. Corti, Matteo, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, (Roma: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, 1983) De l’Humanisme aux Lumières, Bayle et le protestantisme, textes recueillis par M. Magdelaine, M.-C. Pitassi, R. Whelan et A. McKenna, (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1996) Debus, A. G. The English Paracelsians, (London: Oldbourne Press, 1965) Debus, A. G. ‘Guintherius, Libavius and Sennert: the Chemical Compromise in Early Modern Medicine’, in Science, Medicine and Society in the Renaissance. Essays to honor Walter Pagel, ed. by A. G. Debus, (London: Heinemann, 1972), pp. 151–166 Debus, A. G. The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, (New York: 1977) Debus, A. G. Man and Nature in the Renaissance, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990 (1st ed. 1978))

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

229

Debus, A. G. The French Paracelsians. The Chemical Challenge to Medical and Scientific Tradition in Early Modern France, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) Decker R. ‘Spee und Tanner aus der Sicht eines römischen Kardinal-Inquisitors’, in Spee-Jahrbuch, 6 (1999), pp. 45–52 Decker, R. Witchcraft and the Papacy: An Account Drawing on the Formerly Secret Records of the Roman Inquisition, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008) del Mar Llinares García, M., ‘Pierre y Michel, dos hombres lobo de Besançon: religión, tortura y ciencia en la Francia del siglo XVI’, Memoria y civilización, 19 (2016), pp. 363–390 Demonology and Witch-Hunting in Early Modern Europe, ed. by J. Goodare and alii, (London–New York: Routledge, 2020) Demos, J. The Enemy Within. 2000 Years of Witch-hunting in the Western World, (New York: Viking, 2008) Denery II, D. The Devil Wins: A History of Lying from the Garden of Eden to the Enlightenment. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015) Di Simone, M. R. ‘La stregoneria nella cultura giuridica del Settecento italiano’, in Girolamo Tartarotti 1706–1761. Un intellettuale roveretano nella cultura europea del Settecento, Atti della Accademia Roveretana degli Agiati. Cl. di Scienze umane, Lettere ed Arti, a., CCXLVI (1996), pp. 235–253 Di Simone, M. R. ‘Il crimen magiae nelle fonti normative austriache’, in Honos alit artes. Studi per il settantesimo compleanno di Mario Ascheri, IV, a cura di P. Maffei e G. M. Varanini, (Firenze: Firenze University Press, 2014), pp. 207–216 Di Simplicio, O. Autunno della stregoneria. Maleficio e magia nell’Italia moderna, (Bologna: il Mulino, 2005) Dillinger, J. ‘Binsfeld, Peter’, in Encyclopedia of Witchcraft: The Western Tradition, ed. by R. M. Golden, (Santa Barbara: ABC Clio, 2006), 1, pp. 122–125 Dillinger, J. ‘Tanner, Adam’, in Encyclopedia of Witchcraft: The Western Tradition, ed. by R. M. Golden, (Santa Barbara: ABC Clio, 2006), pp. 1106–1107 Dillinger, J. ‘The Political Aspects of the German Witch-Hunts’, in Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft, 3 (2008), pp. 62–81 Dillinger, J. ‘Politics and State-Building’, in Oxford (The) Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. by B. Levack, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 528–547 Discourses of Anger in the Early Modern Period, ed. by Karl A.E. Enenkel and A. Traninger, (Leiden: Brill, 2015) Diseases of the Imagination and Imaginary Disease in the Early Modern Period, ed. by Y. Haskell, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010)

230 

Johann Wier

Dissimulation and Deceit in Early Modern Europe, ed. by M. Eliav Feldon and T. Herzig, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2015) Dizionario Storico dell’Inquisizione, a cura di A. Prosperi (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2010) Doctors, Politics and Society, ed. by D. Porter and R. Porter, (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1993) Dodds, G. Exploiting Erasmus: The Erasmian Legacy and Religious Change in Early Modern England, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009) Dolan, J. P. The Influence of Erasmus, Witzel and Cassander in the Church Ordinances and Reform Proposals of the United Duchees of Cleve during the Middle Decades of the 16th Century, (Münster: Aschendorff, 1957) Domandl, S. ‘Paracelsus, Weyrer, Oporin. Die Hintergründe des Pamphlets von 1555’, in Paracelsus Werk und Wirkung, hrsg. von S. Domandl, (Wien: 1975), pp. 53–70; 391–392. Dooren, L. Doctor Johannes Wier, (Aalten: De Graafschap N.V., 1940) Duke, A. Reformation and Revolt in the Low Countries, (London: The Hambledon Press, 1990) Duni, M. ‘Alciati, Andrea’, in Encyclopedia of Witchcraft: The Western Tradition, ed. by R. M. Golden, (Santa Barbara: ABC Clio, 2006), pp. 29–30 Duni, M. ‘Skepticism’, in Encyclopedia of Witchcraft: The Western Tradition, ed. by R. M. Golden, (Santa Barbara: ABC Clio, 2006), pp. 1045–1046 Duni, M. Under the Devil’s Spell: Witches, Sorcerers, and the Inquisition in Renaissance Italy, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2007) Duni, M. ‘Le streghe e gli storici, 1986–2006: bilancio e prospettive’, in Non lasciar vivere la malefica. Le streghe nei trattati e nei processi (secoli XIV–XVII), a cura di M. Duni e D. Corsi, (Firenze: Firenze University Press, 2008), pp. 1–18 Duni, M. ‘I dubbi sulle streghe’, in I vincoli della natura. Magia naturale e stregoneria nel Rinascimento, a cura di G. Ernst e G. Giglioni, (Roma: Carocci, 2012), pp. 203–221 Duni, M. ‘Law, Nature, Theology and Witchcraft in Ponzinibio’s De lamiis’ (1511), in Contesting Orthodoxy in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Heresy, Magic and Witchcraft, ed. by L. Nyholm Kallestrup and R. M. Toivo, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), pp. 217–232 Durling, R. J. ‘A Chronological Census of the Renaissance Editions and Translations of Galen’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 24 (1961), pp. 230–305 Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries, ed. by B. Ankarloo and G. Henningsen, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) Easlea, B. Witch-Hunting, Magic and the New Philosophy. An Introduction to the Debates of the Scientific Revolution 1450–1750, (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1980)

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

231

Eerden, P. C. van der. ‘Cornelius Loos and Die Magia Falsa’, in Unfug (Vom)der Hexenprocesses. Gegner der Hexenverfolgung von Johann Weyer bis Friedrich Spee, hrsg. von H. Lehmann und O. Ulbricht, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), pp. 136–160 Ehrligh, G. ‘Johann Weyer and the Witches’, New England Journal of Medicine, 263 (1960), pp. 245–246 Eire, C. ‘Calvin and Nicodemism: A Reappraisal’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, 10 (1979), pp. 45–69 Elmer, E. Witchcraft, Witch-hunting, and Politics in Early Modern England, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) Elmer, P. ‘Towards a Politics of Witchcraft in Early Modern England’, in Languages of Witchcraft: Narrative, Ideology and Meaning in Early Modern Culture, ed. by S. Clark, (London: Macmillan, 2001), pp. 101–118 Embodiment: A History, ed. by J. E. H. Smith, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) Emotions in the History of Witchcraft, ed. by L. Kounine and M. Ostling, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2016) Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy, ed. by M. Sgarbi, (Cham: Springer, 2014) Encyclopedia of Witchcraft: The Western Tradition, ed. by R. M. Golden, Santa Barbara: ABC Clio, 2006) Enenkel, K. A. A. ‘Neo-Stoicism as an Antidote for Public Violence before Lipsius’s De constantia: Johann Weyer’s (Wier’s) Therapy of Anger, De ira morbo (1577)’, in Discourses of Anger in the Early Modern Period, ed. by K. A.E. Enenkel and A. Traninger, (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 49–96 Eresia e Riforma del Cinquecento, (Firenze-Chicago: Sansoni-The Newberry Library, 1974) Ernst, G. Religione, ragione e natura: Ricerche su Tommaso Campanella e il tardo Rinascimento, (Milan: FrancoAngeli, 1990) Eschbach, H. ‘Dr. med. Johannes Wier, der Leibarzt Herzogs Wilhelm III. von Cleve-Julich-Berg. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Hexenprozesse’, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Niederrheins, 1 (1886), pp. 57–174 Estes, J. E. Christian Magistrate and Territorial Church: Johannes Brenz and the German Reformation. (Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 2007) Evans, K. ‘Jacques Grévin’s Religious Attitude and the Family of Love’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, XLVII (1985), pp. 357–366 Evans, K., Grévin, Author of the Temple de Ronsard?, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, XLVII (1985), pp. 619–626 Everyday Magic in Early Modern Europe, ed. by K. A. Edwards, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2015)

232 

Johann Wier

Exile and Religious Identity, 1500–1800, ed. by J. Spohnholz and G. K. Waite, (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2014) Fear in Early Modern Society, ed. by W. G. Naphy and P. Roberts, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997) Febvre, L. Au coeur religieux du XVIe siècle, (Paris: SEVPEN, 1957) Federici, S. Caliban and the Witch: Women, The Body, and Primitive Accumulation, (London: Penguin Books, 2020) Feeling Exclusion: Religious Conflict, Exile and Emotions in Early Modern Europe, ed. by G. Tarantino and C. Zika, (London: Routledge, 2019). Feist H. E. ‘Michael Servetus and the Neoplatonic Tradition’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, XLII (1980), pp. 561–575 Felici, L. ‘Theodor Zwinger’s Methodus Apodemica: An Observatory of the City as Political Space in the Late Sixteenth Century’, Cromohs, 14 (2009), pp. 1–18: http://www.cromohs.unifi.it/14_2009/felici_zwinger.html Ferber, S. ‘Charcot’s Demons: Retrospective Medicine and Historical Diagnosis in the Writings of the Salpêtrière School’, in Illness and Healing Alternatives in Western Europe, ed. by M. Gijswit-Hofstra, H. Marland, and H. de Waardt, (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 120–140 Ferber, S. Demonic Possession and Exorcism in Early Modern France, (London: Routledge, 2004) Ferber, S. ‘Psychotic Reactions? Witchcraft, the Devil and Mental Illness’, in Emotions in the History of Witchcraft, ed. by L. Kounine and M. Ostling, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 231–245 Ferguson, W. K. ‘The Attitude of Erasmus Toward Toleration’, in Persecution and Liberty. Essays in Honor of George Lincoln Burr, (New York: The Century, 1931), pp. 171–181 Fernand-Demeure, ‘Deux médecins du XVIe siècle: Jean Wier and Jacques Grévin’, Hippocrate, IV (1936), pp. 487–496 Fernàndez, M. A. Erasmo y la inquisiciòn: el libelo de Valladolid y la Apologìa de Erasmo contra los frailes espaňoles, (Madrid: Fundación Universitaria Espanola, 1980) Fictions du diable. Démonologie et littérature de saint Augustin à Léo Taxil, éd. par F. Lavocat, P. Kapitaniak, M. Closson, (Genève: Droz, 2007) Fix, A. Fallen Angels: Balthasar Bekker, Spirit Belief, and Confessionalism in the Seventeenth Century Dutch Republic, (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1999) Folie et deraison à la Renaissance, (Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1976) For the Sake of Learning. Essays in honor of Anthony Grafton, ed. by A. Blair and A. S. Goeing, (Leiden: Brill, 2016)

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

233

Formazione (La)storica della alterità: studi di storia della tolleranza nell’età moderna offerti a Antonio Rotondò, promossi da H. Méchoulan, R. Popkin, G. Ricuperati, L. Simonutti, (Firenze: Olschki, 2001) Fragnito, G. Proibito capire. La Chiesa e il volgare nella prima età moderna, (Bologna: il Mulino, 2005) Fratelli d’Italia, a cura di M. Biagioni, L. Felici e M. Duni, (Torino: Claudiana, 2011) Friedeburg, R. C. F. von. ‘Politik in der fruehen Neuzeit. Die Legitimitaet oeffentlicher Zwangsordnung, in Das Politische als Argument Graduiertenkolleg ‘Politische Kommunikation’, hrsg. von A. de Benedictis und L. Schorn-Schuette, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), pp. 45–60 Friedman, J. Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Total Heresy, (Genève: Droz, 1978) Friedrich Spee (1591–1635), hrsg. von T. van Oorschot, (Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 1993) Frijhoff, W. ‘Witchcraft and its Changing Representation in Eastern Gelderland, from the XVIth to XXth centuries’, in Witchcraft in the Netherlands From the Fourteenth to the Twentieth Century, ed. by M. Gijswijt-Hofstra and W. Frijhoff, (Rotterdam: Universitaire Pers, 1991), pp. 167–181 Frijhoff, W. ‘Jakob Vallick und Johann Weyer: Kampfgenossen, Konkurrenten oder Gegner?’, in Unfug (Vom)der Hexenprocesses. Gegner der Hexenverfolgung von Johann Weyer bis Friedrich Spee, hrsg. von H. Lehmann und O. Ulbricht, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), pp. 65–88 Frijhoff, W. ‘Johan Wier en Jacob Vallick: medicus tegen pastoor?’ in Grenzen van genezing. Gezondheid, ziekte en genezen in Nederland, zestiende tot begin twintigste eeuw, van W. de Blécourt, W. Frijhoff and M. Gijswijt-Hofstra, (Hilversum: Verloren, 1993), pp. 17–45 Frijhoff, W. Embodied Belief: Ten Essays on Religious Culture in Dutch History, (Hilversum: Verloren, 2002) Frijhoff, W. ‘Erasmus’ Heritage. Priestly Doubts of the Magical Universe’, Erasmus Studies, 35 (2015), pp. 5–33 Funkenstein, A. ‘The Body of God in the 17th century Theology and Science’, in Millenarianism and Messianism in English Literature and Thought 1650–1800, ed. by R. Popkin, (Leiden: Brill, 1988), pp. 149–175 Garcia, E. E. ‘Johann Weier and Sigmund Freud: A Psychoanalytic Note on Science, Narcissism and Aggression’, American Imago, 46 (1989), pp. 21–36 Garin, E. Dal Rinascimento all’Illuminismo. Studi e Ricerche, (Pisa: Nistri-Lischi, 1970) Gaskill, M. ‘The Pursuit of Reality: Recent Research into the History of Witchcraft’, The Historical Journal, 51 (2008), pp. 1069–1088 Gaskill, M. Witchcraft: a Very Short Introduction, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) German (The) People and the Reformation, ed. by R. Po-Chia Hsia, (Ithaca: Cornell, 1988)

234 

Johann Wier

Gibson, M. Rediscovering Renaissance Witchcraft. Witches in Early Modernity and Modernity, (London–New York: Routledge, 2018) Giglioni, G. ‘Coping with Inner and Outer Demons: Marsilio Ficino’s Theory of the Imagination’, in Diseases of the Imagination and Imaginary Disease in the Early Modern Period, ed. by Y. Haskell, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), pp. 19-51 Giglioni, G. ‘Phantastica Mutatio: Johann Weyer’s Critique of the Imagination as a Principle of Natural Metamorphosis’, in Transformative Change in Western Thought. A History of Metamorphosis from Homer to Hollywood, ed. by I. Gildnehard and A. Zissos, (London: Routledge, 2013), pp. 307-330 Gilmore, M. P. Les limites de la tolérance dans l’oeuvre polémique d’Érasme, in Colloquia Erasmiana Turonensia, (Paris: Vrin, 1972), pp. 713-736 Gijswijt-Hofstra, M. ‘Witchcraft and Tolerance: the Dutch Case’, Acta Ethnographica Hungarica, XXXVII (1991–1992), pp. 401–412 Gilly, C. ‘Zwischen Erfahrung und Spekulation. Theodor Zwinger und die religiöse und kulturelle Krise seiner Zeit’, Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde, LXXVII (1977), pp. 57–137 Gilly, C. Spanien und der Basler Buchdruck bis 1600. Ein Querschnitt durch die Spanische Geistesgeschichte aus der Sicht einer europäischen Buchdruckerstadt, (Basel und Frankfurt: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1985) Gilly, C. ‘Sebastiano Castellione, L’idea di tolleranza e l’opposizione alla politica di Filippo II’, Rivista storica italiana, CX (1998), pp. 144–165 Gilly, C. ‘‘Theophrastia sancta’. Paracelsianism as a Religion in Conflict with the Established Churches’, in Paracelsus: the Man and his Reputation, his Ideas and their Transformation, ed. by O. P. Grell, (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 151–185 Gilly, C. Qui negat diabolum, atheus est. Atheismus und Hexenwahn, in Atheismus im Mittelalter, hrsg. von O. Pluta und F. Niewöhner, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999), pp. 337–354 Gilly, C. Die Manuskripte in der Bibliothek des Johannes Oporinus, (Basel: Schwabe, 2001) Gilly, C. ‘Paracelsianism for philosophers: Petrus Severinus’, in Magic, Alchemy and Science (15th–18th Centuries). The Influence of Hermes Trismegistus, ed. by C. Gilly and alii, (Firenze: Centro Di, 2002), pp. 219–240 Gilly, C. ‘Capital Punishment for Paracelsians: a Dear Wish of Thomas Erastus’, Magic, Alchemy and Science (15 th–18 th Centuries). The Influence of Hermes Trismegistus, ed. by C. Gilly and alii, (Firenze: Centro Di, 2002), pp. 247–252 Gilly, C. ‘Theodor Zwinger’s Theatrum humanae vitae: from Natural Anthropology to a Novum Organum of Sciences’, in Magic, Alchemy and Science (15th–18th Centuries). The Influence of Hermes Trismegistus, ed. by C. Gilly and alii, (Firenze: Centro Di, 2002), pp. 265–273

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

235

Ginzburg, C. Il nicodemismo. Simulazione e dissimulazione religiosa nell’Europa del ‘500, (Torino: Einaudi, 1970) Ginzburg, C. The Night Battles: Witchcraft and Agrarian Cults in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983 (1st ed. 1966)) Ginzburg, C. ‘The Philosopher and the Witches: An Experiment in Cultural History’, in Acta Ethnographica Hungarica, XXXVII (1991–1992), pp. 283–292 Ginzburg, C. Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method, (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1992) Ginzburg, C. Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches’ Sabbath, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004(1st ed. 1989)) Girardi KarŠulin, M. ‘Basic Notions of Skalic’s Treatise Revolutio alphabetaria’, Prilozi, 43–44 (1996), pp. 195–210 Girardi KarŠulin, M. ‘Pavao Skalić. Eulogus ili o odvojenoj duši’, Prilozi, 35–36 (1992), pp. 27–39 Girolamo Tartarotti 1706–1761. Un intellettuale roveretano nella cultura europea del Settecento, Atti della Accademia Roveretana degli Agiati. Cl. di Scienze umane, Lettere ed Arti, a., CCXLVI (1996) Goldammer, K. Der göttliche Magier und die Magierin Natur: Religion, Naturmagie und die Anfänge der Naturwissenschaft vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Renaissance, mit Beiträgen zum Magie-Verständnis des Paracelsus, (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1991) Goodare, J. ‘The Scottish Witchcraft Panic of 1597’, in Scottish (The) Witch-hunt in Context, ed. by J. Goodare, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), pp. 51–72 Goodare, J. The European Witch-Hunt, (New York: Routledge, 2016) Gorris Camos, R. ‘Dans le labyrinthe de Gohory, lecteur et traducteur de Machiavel’, Laboratoire italien, 8 (2008), pp. 195-228 Gorris Camos, R. ‘L’Hysope et la rose: le Lycium philosophal de Jacques Gohory’, in Les Académies entre France et Italie, éd. par P. Galand, M. Deramaix et J. Vignes, (Genève: Droz, 2008), pp. 553–594 Gorris Camus, R. ‘Un indéfinissable regret. Lionello Sozzi et les ailes de l’âme’, Studi Francesi, (2016), pp. 24–53 Graves, M. A. Post tenebras lux. Preuves et propagande dans l’historiographie engagée de Simon Goulart (1543–1628), (Genève: Droz, 2013) Guerlac, H. ‘Guy De La Brosse and the French Paracelsians’, in Science, Medicine and Society in the Renaissance, Essays to honor Walter Pagel, ed. by A. G. Debus, (London: Heinemann, 1972), pp. 177–199 Guerra, A. ‘La Compagnia introvabile. Forme di vita dei gesuiti fra soppressione e rinascita’, in Los Jesuitas. Religión, política y educación (siglos XVI–XVIII), coordinador J. Martinez-Millan, (Madrid: Universidad Comillas, 2012), pp. 1029–1042

236 

Johann Wier

Guggisberg, H. R. Basel in the Sixteenth Century. Aspects of the City Republic Before, During, and After the Reformation, (St. Louis: Centre for Reformation Research, 1982) Gulstad, W. O. The Forms of Things Unknown: the Impact of Reginald Scot’s Skeptical Treatise, the Discoverie of Witchcraft, on a Midsummer Night’s Dream, King Lear, and the Tempest, Ph.D Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, (1994) Gunnoe, C. ‘The Debate between Johann Weyer and Thomas Erastus on the Punishment of Witches’, in Constructing Publics, ed. by J. Van Horn Melton, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), pp. 257–285 Gunnoe, C. D. Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate. A Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation, (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2010) Gunnoe, C. D., Häusler-Gross, K. ‘Paracelsianism as Heresy: Thomas Erastus, Michael Toxites, and Elector August of Saxony’, in Festschrift für Joachim Telle zum 75. Geburtstag, hrsg. von L. Balbiani and K. Pf ister, (Heidelberg: MattesVerlag, 2014), pp. 67–82 Hall, A. R. Henry More. Magic, Religion Experiment, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990) Hermetic (The) Tradition from Late Antiquity to Early Humanism, ed. by P. Lucentini, I. Parri, V. Perrone Compagni, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003) Herrschaft Hof und Humanismus. Wilhelm V. von Jülich-Kleve-Berg und seine Zeit, hrsg. von G. von Büren u.a., (Bielefeld: 2018) Herzig, T. ‘Bridging North and South: Inquisitorial Networks and Witchcraft Theory on the Eve of the Reformation’, Journal of Early Modern History, 12 (2008), pp. 361–382 Herzig, T. ‘Flies, Heretics, and the Gendering of Witchcraft’, Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft, 5 (2010), pp. 51–80 Herzig, T. ‘Fear and Devotion in the Writings of Heinrich Institoris’, in Emotions in the History of Witchcraft, ed. by L. Kounine and M. Ostling, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2016), pp. 18–35 Hexenprozess und Staatsbildung – Witch-Trials and State-Building, hrsg. von J. Dillinger und J. Schmidt, (Bielefeld: 2018) Hexenwissen: zum Transfer von Magie- und Zauberei-Imaginationen in interdisziplinärer Perspektive, hrsg von H. Sieburg, R. Voltmer and B. Weimann, (Trier: Spee, 2017) Heyd, M. ‘Be Sober and Reasonable’: The Critique of Enthusiasm in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries, (Leiden: Brill, 1995) Hillar, M. The Case of Michael Servetus (1511–1553): the Turning Point in the Struggle for Freedom of Conscience, (Lewiston: E. Mellen Press, 1997) Himmlers Hexenkartothek. Das Interesse des Nationalsozialismus an der Hexenverfolgung, hrsg. von S. Lorenz, (Bielefeld: 1999)

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

237

Histories of Scientific Observation. ed. by L. Daston and E. Lunbeck, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011) Homza, L. A. ‘An Expert Lawyer and Reluctant demonologist: Alonso de Salazar Frías, Spanish Inquisitor’, in Science (The) of Demons. Early Modern Authors Facing Witchcraft and the Devil, ed. by J. Machielsen, (London: Routledge, 2020), pp. 299–312 Homza, L. A. ‘Witch Hunting in Spain: the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, in Routledge (The) History of Witchcraft, ed. by J. Dillinger, (Abingdon: Routledge, 2020), pp. 134–144 Hoorens, ‘Why did Johann Weyer write De praestigiis daemonum?: How AntiCatholicism inspired the Landmark Plea for the Witches’, BMGN – Low Countries Historical Review, 129 (2014), pp. 3–24: http://doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.9436 Hoorens, V. Een ketterse arts voor de heksen. Jan Wier (1515–1588), (Amsterdam: Bakker, 2011) Hoorens, V. and Renders, H. ‘Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa and Witchcraft: A Reappraisal’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, 43 (2012), pp.1–18 Houdard, S. Les sciences du diable. Quatre discours sur la sorcellerie: XVe.–XVIIe. siècle, préface d’A. Boureau, (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1992) Houdard, S. ‘Du spectacle de la possession à la scène intérieure et mystique’, in Fictions du Diable. Démonologie et littérature de saint Augustin à Léo Taxil, éd. par F. Lavocat, P. Kapitaniak, (Genève: Droz, 2007), pp. 251–266 Hults, L. C. The Witch as Muse. Art, Gender, and Power in Early Modern Europe, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011) (1st ed. 2005)) Hunter, I. The Secularisation of the Confessional State: the Political Thought of Christian Thomasius, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) Hunter, M. The Decline of Magic: Britain in the Enlightenment, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020) Hutton, R. The Witch: a History of Fear, from Ancient Times to the Present, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017) Hutton, S. ‘The Cambridge Platonists’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), ed. by E. N. Zalta: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ win2013/entries/cambridge-platonists/ Ideas and Cultural Margins in Early Modern Germany. Essays in Honor of H. C. Erik Midelfort, ed. by M. E. Plummer, R. Barnes, et al., (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009) Ideologia e scienza nell’opera di Paolo Frisi (1728–1784), a cura di G. Barbarisi (Milano: FrancoAngeli, 1987) Illness and Healing Alternatives in Western Europe, ed. by M. Gijswit-Hofstra, H. Marland, H. de Waardt, (London: Routledge, 1997) Illuministi (Gli) e i demoni. Il dibattito su magia e stregoneria dal Trentino all’Europa, a cura di R. Suitner, (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2019)

238 

Johann Wier

Imagining Contagion in Early Modern Europe, ed. by C. L Carlin, (London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005) Ioly Zorattini, P.C. ‘Il palagio de gl’incanti di Strozzi Cicogna, gentiluomo e teologo vicentino del Cinquecento’, Studi veneziani, IX (1969), pp. 365–398 Isnardi Parente, M. ‘Le ‘vecchierelle pazze’ di Johann Wier’, in J. Wier, Le streghe, a cura di A. Tacus, (Palermo: Sellerio, 1991) Isnardi Parente, M. ‘Il cane di Cornelio Agrippa. Una disputa di dotti su un cane e il diavolo’, in Specchio (Lo) oscuro: gli animali nell’immaginario degli uomini, a cura di L. Battaglia, (Torino: Satyagrapha editrice, 1993) Israel, J. The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall (1477–1806), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) Israel, J. Radical Enlightenment. Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) Jean Bodin, ed. by J. H. Franklin, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006) Jesuitas (Los). Religión, política y educación (siglos XVI–XVIII), coordinador J. Martinez-Millan, (Madrid: Universidad Comillas, 2012) Jobe, H. ‘The Devil in Restoration Science: The Glanvill-Webster Witchcraft Debate’, Isis, 72 (1981), pp. 343–356 Johnson N. D. and Koyama, M. ‘Taxes, Lawyers, and the Decline of Witch Trials in France’, The Journal of Law and Economics, 57 (2014), pp. 77–11 Jolly, K. Medieval Magic: Definitions, Beliefs, Practices, in Athlone (The) History of Witchcraft and Magic in Europe. The Middle Ages, ed. by K. Jolly, C. Raudvere, E. Peters, (London: The Athlone Press 2002), pp. 30–53 Jones, L.C. Simon Goulart, 1543–1628: étude biographique et bibliographique, (Genève: Georg, 1917) Kahn, D. Alchimie et paracelsisme en France à la fin de la Renaissance (1567–1625), (Genève: Droz, 2007) Kallestrup, L. Agents of Witchcraft in Early Modern Italy and Denmark, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) Kaltscheuer, C. ‘Johann Weyer’, in Internetportal Rheinische Geschichte, abgerufen unter: http://www.rheinische-geschichte.lvr.de/Persoenlichkeiten/johann-weyer/ DE-2086/lido/57c92e31ef6824.72704581 Kaplan, B. J. Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007) Kaplan, B. J. Reformation and the Practice of Toleration. Dutch Religious History in the Early Modern Era, (Leiden: Brill, 2019) Karcher, H. Theodor Zwinger und seine Zeitgenossen, (Basel: Helbing und Lichtenhahn, 1956) Ketzerverfolgung im 16. und frühen 17. Jahrhundert, hrsg. von S. Seidel Menchi, (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1992)

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

239

Kieckhefer, R. European Witch Trials: Their Foundation in Popular and Learned Culture, 1300–1500, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976) Kieckhefer, R. ‘Magic and its Hazards in the Late Medieval West’, in Oxford (The) Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. by B. Levack, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 159–178 Kinzler, S. ‘Weyer, Johann’, in Lexikon zur Geschichte der Hexenverfolgung, historicum.net: https://www.historicum.net/purl/45zva/ Klaassen, M. The Transformations of Magic: Illicit Learned Magic in the Later Middle Ages and Renaissance, (University Park, PA:, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012) Klanickzay, G. ‘Hungary: The Accusations and the Universe of Popular Magic’, in Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries, ed. by B. Ankarloo and G. Henningsen, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), pp. 219–255 Klanickzay, G. ‘A Cultural History of Witchcraft’, Magic, Ritual and Witchcraft, 5 (2010), pp. 188–212 Klibansky, R., Panofsky, E., and Saxl, F., Saturn and Melancholy, (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1964) Klinnert. R. ‘Von Besessenen, Melancholikern und Betrügern: Johann Weyers. De Praestigiis Daemonum und die Unterscheidung der Geister’, in Dämonische Besessenheit: Zur Interpretation eines kulturhistorischen Phänomens, hrsg. von H. de Waardt, J. M. Schmidt, H. C. E. Midelfort, S. Lorenz und D. Bauer, (Bielefeld, 2005) Knowing Demons, Knowing Spirits in the Early Modern Period, ed. by M. D. Brock, R. Raiswell, D. R. Winter, (London: Palgrave, 2018) Kodera, S. ‘Giambattista della Porta’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), ed. by E. N. Zalta: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ sum2015/entries/della-porta/ Kounine, L. Satanic Fury: Depictions of the Devil’s Rage in Nicolas Remy’s Daemonolatria, in Emotions in the History of Witchcraft, ed. by L. Kounine and M. Ostling, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2016), pp. 57-76 Kounine, L. Imagining the Witch. Emotions, Gender, and Selfhood in Early Modern Germany, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019) Krause, V. ‘Listening to Witches: Bodin’s Use of Confession in De la Démonomanie des sorciers’, in Reception (The) of Bodin, ed. by H. A. Lloyd, (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 97–115 Krause, V. Witchcraft, Demonology, and Confession in Early Modern France, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015) Languages of Witchcraft: Narrative, Ideology and Meaning in Early modern Culture, ed. by S. Clark, (London: Macmillan, 2001)

240 

Johann Wier

Lavenia, V. ‘Anticamente di misto foro’. Inquisizione, stati e delitti di stregoneria nella prima età moderna’, in Inquisizioni: percorsi di ricerca, (Trieste: EUT, 2001), pp. 35–80 Lavenia, V. ‘Contes des bonnes femmes’? La medicina legale italiana, Naudé e la stregoneria’, Bruniana & Campanelliana, X (2004), pp. 299–318 Lavenia, V. L’infamia e il perdono. Tributi, pene e confessione nella teologia morale della prima età moderna, (Bologna: il Mulino, 2004) Lavenia, V. ‘Tenere i malefici per cosa vera. Esorcismi e censura nell’Italia moderna’, in Dal torchio alle fiamme. Inquisizione e censura, a cura di V. Bonani, Salerno, Biblioteca Provinciale di Salerno, 2005, pp. 129–172 Lavenia, V. ‘Mendacium officiosum’: Alberico Gentili’s Ways of Lying, in Dissimulation and Deceit in Early Modern Europe, ed. by M. Eliav Feldon and T. Herzig, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2015), pp. 27–44 Lavocat, F. ‘L’Arcadie diabolique. La fiction poétique dans le débat sur la sorcellerie (XVIe–XVIIe siècles)’, in Fictions du diable. Démonologie et littérature de saint Augustin à Léo Taxil, sous la direction de F. Lavocat, P. Kapitaniak, M. Closson, (Genève: Droz, 2007), pp. 57–84 Lea, H. C. Materials Toward a History of Witchcraft, arranged and ed. by A. C. Howland, (New York: 1939) Leathers Kuntz, M. ‘Religious Views in his Works: the Relationship of the Colloquium heptaplomeres to the Universae naturae theatrum and De la démonomanie des sorciers’, in Jean Bodin, ed. by J. H. Franklin, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), pp. 237–254 Lecercle, L. Le retour du mort: Débats sur la sorcière d’Endor et l’apparition de Samuel (XVIe–XVIIIe siècle), (Genève: Droz, 2011) Leeson, P. T. and Russ, J. W. ‘Witch Trials’, The Economic Journal, 128 (2018), pp. 2066–2105 Lehner, U. The Catholic Enlightenment: The Forgotten History of a Global Movement, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) Lehrich, C. The Language of Demons and Angels: Cornelius Agrippa’s Occult Philosophy, (Leiden: Brill, 2003) Levack, B. P. The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe, (London: Longman, 1987) Levack, B. P. Witch-Hunting in Scotland: Law, Politics and Religion, (London: Routledge, 2008) Levack, B. P. ‘The Decline and End of Witchcraft Prosecutions’, in Oxford (The) Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. by B. Levack, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 429–446 Levack, B. P. The Devil Within: Possession and Exorcism in the Christian West, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2013) Lewis, J. Adrien Turnèbe (1512–1565): a Humanist observed, (Genève: Droz, 1998)

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

241

Liberté de conscience (La) (XVIème–XVIIème siècles), éd. par H. R. Guggisberg, F. Lestringant, J.-C. Margolin, (Genève: Droz, 1991) Lloyd, H. A. Jean Bodin, ‘This Pre-eminent Man of France’. An Intellectual Biography, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) Lombardi, P. Il filosofo e la strega: la ragione e il mondo magico, (Milano: Cortina, 1997) Lopez, P. Inquisizione, stampa e censura nel Regno di Napoli tra ‘500 e ‘600, (Napoli: Edizioni del Delfino, 1974) Macfarlane, A. Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England: A Regional and Comparative Study, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970) Machielsen, J. ‘Thinking with Montaigne: Evidence, Scepticism and Meaning in Early Modern Demonology’, French History, 25 (2011), pp. 427–452 Machielsen, J. Martin Delrio: Demonology and Scholarship in the Counter-Reformation, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) Machielsen, J. The War on Witchcraft. Andrew Dickson White, George Lincoln Burr, and the Origins of Witchcraft Historiography, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021). Maclean, I. The Renaissance Notion of Woman: a Study in the Fortunes of Scholasticism and Medical Science in European Intellectual Life, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983) Maggi, A. Satan’s Rhetoric. A Study of Renaissance Demonology, (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2001) Maggi, A. In the Company of Demons. Unnatural Beings, Love and Identity in the Italian Renaissance, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008) Magia (La)nell’Europa moderna tra antica sapienza e filosofia naturale, a cura di F. Meroi, Firenze: Olschki, 2007) Magic, Alchemy and Science (15th–18th Centuries). The Influence of Hermes Trismegistus, ed. by C. Gilly et alii, (Firenze: Centro Di, 2002) Mandrou, R. Magistrats et sorciers en France au XVIIè siècle. Une analyse de psychologie historique. (Paris: Plon, 1968) Manzoni, C. Umanesimo ed eresia: M. Serveto, (Napoli: Guida, 1974) Martin, C. Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History and Philosophy in Early Modern Science, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014) Martin, C. ‘Bodin’s Reception of Johann Weyer in the Démonomanie des sorciers’, in Reception (The) of Bodin, ed. by H. A. Lloyd, (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 117–135 Masson, J. M. The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, 1887–1904, (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1986) Maus de Rolley, T. ‘La part du diable. Jean Wier et la fabrique de l’illusion diabolique’, in Fictions du diable. Démonologie et littérature de saint Augustin à Léo Taxil, éd. par F. Lavocat, P. Kapitaniak, M. Closson, (Genève: Droz, 2007), pp. 109–130

242 

Johann Wier

Maus de Rolley, T. and Machielsen, J. ‘The Mythmaker of the Sabbat: Pierre de Lancre’s Tableau de l’inconstance des mauvais anges et demons’, in Science (The) of Demons. Early Modern Authors Facing Witchcraft and the Devil, ed. by J. Machielsen, (London: Routledge, 2020), pp. 283–298 Maxwell-Stuart, P. G. ‘The Fear of the King is Death: James VI and the Witches of East Lothian’, in Fear in Early Modern Society, ed. by W. G. Naphy and P. Roberts, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), pp. 209–225 Maxwell-Stuart, P. G. ‘The Contemporary Historical Debate, 1400–1750’, in Palgrave Advances in Witchcraft Historiography, ed. by J. Barry and O. Davies, (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2007), pp. 11–32 Maxwell-Stuart, P. G. ‘A Royal Witch Theorist. James VI’s Daemonologie’, in Science (The) of Demons. Early Modern Authors Facing Witchcraft and the Devil, ed. by J. Machielsen, (London: Routledge, 2020), pp. 166–184 Mayer, T. F. The Roman Inquisition on the Stage of Italy, c. 1590–1640, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) McGowan, M. ‘Pierre de Lancre’s Tableau des l’inconstance des mauvais anges et démons: The Sabbath Sensationalized’, in Damned (The) Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft, ed. by S. Anglo, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977), pp. 182–201 Medical (The) Renaissance of the Sixteenth Century, ed. by A. Wear, R. K. French and I. M. Lonie, (Cambridge–New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985) Medicine and Society in the Renaissance. Essays to honor Walter Pagel, ed. by A. G. Debus, (London: Heinemann, 1972) Medicine and the Reformation, ed. by O. P. Grell and A. Cunningham, (London: Routledge, 1995) Mendez, A. ‘To Accommodate the Earthly Kingdom to Divine Will: Off icial and Nonconformist Def initions of Witchcraft in England (Ca. 1542–1630)’, Preternature: Critical and Historical Studies on the Preternatural, 6 (2017), pp. 278–309. Metzger, N. ‘Battling Demons with Medical Authority: Werewolves, Physicians and Rationalization’, History of Psychiatry, 24 (2013), pp. 341–355 Michelet, J. La Sorcière: the Witch of the Middle Ages, (London: 1883) Midelfort, H. C. E. ‘Witchcraft and Religion in Sixteenth-Century Germany: The Formation and Consequences of an Orthodoxy’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 62 (1971), pp. 266–278 Midelfort, H. C. E. Witch-Hunting in Southwestern Germany, 1562–1684: the Social and Intellectual Foundations, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972) Midelfort, H. C. E. ‘Were There Really Witches?’, in Transition and Revolution: Problems and Issues of Renaissance and Reformation History, ed. by R. Kingdon, (Minneapolis: Burgess, 1974), pp. 189–223

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

243

Midelfort, H. C. E. ‘Johann Weyer and Transformation of the Insanity Defense’, in German (The) People and the Reformation, ed. by R. Po-Chia Hsia, (Ithaca: Cornell, 1988), pp. 234–261 Midelfort, H. C. E. ‘Johann Weyer in medizinischer, theologischer und rechtsgeschichtlicher Hinsicht’, in Unfug (Vom)der Hexenprocesses. Gegner der Hexenverfolgung von Johann Weyer bis Friedrich Spee, hrsg. von H. Lehmann und O. Ulbricht, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), pp. 53–64 Midelfort, H. C. E. Mad Princes of Renaissance Germany, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994) Midelfort, H. C. E. A History of Madness in Sixteenth-Century Germany, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999) Midelfort, H. C. E. ‘Witchcraft’, in Reformation and Early Modern Europe: A Guide to Research, ed. by D. M. Whitford, (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2008), pp. 355–395 Midelfort, H. C. E. ‘Witch Craze?: Beyond the Legends of Panic’, Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft, 6 (2011), pp. 11–33 Midelfort, H. C. E. Witchcraft, Madness, Society, and Religion in Early Modern Germany. A Ship of Fools, (Aldershot: Ashgate-Variorum, 2013) Millar, C. R. Witchcraft, the Devil and Emotions in Early Modern England, (London: Routledge, 2017) Millenarianism and Messianism in English Literature and Thought 1650–1800, ed. by R. Popkin, (Leiden: Brill, 1988) Mirabile(La) natura. Magia e scienza in Giovan Battista Della Porta (1615–2015), a cura di M. Santoro, (Pisa–Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2016) Monter, W. Witchcraft in France and Switzerland: The Borderlands during the Reformation, (Ithaca, NY, 1976) Monter, W. ‘Heresy Executions in Reformation Europe, 1520–1565’, in Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, ed. by O. P. Grell and R. W. Scribner, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 48–64 Monter, W. ‘Witchcraft in Iberia’, in Oxford (The) Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. by B. Levack, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 268–282 Montesano, M. ‘Supra acqua et supra ad vento’. Superstizioni, maleficia e incantamenta nei predicatori francescani osservanti (Italia, sec. XV), (Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, 1999) Montesano, M. Classical Culture and Witchcraft in Medieval and Renaissance Italy, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2018) Mora, G. ‘On The 400th Anniversary of Johann Weyer’s ‘De praestigiis daemonum’: Its Signif icance for Today’s Psychiatry’, American Journal of Psychiatry, 120 (1963), pp. 417–428

244 

Johann Wier

Mori, G. Bayle philosophe, (Paris: Champion, 1999) Muir, K. The Sources of Shakespeare’s Plays, (London: Routledge, 2014) Müller, J.D. ‘Citra pietatis dispendium: Erasmus von Rotterdam und das Problem der Toleranz vor dem konfessionellen Zeitalter’, in Toleranzdiskurse in der Frühen Neuzeit, hrsg. von O. Bach und a., (Berlin: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2015), pp. 11–41 Müller, U. Leben und Wirken des niederrheinischen Arztes Galenus Weyer (1547–1619), Leibarzt der Herzöge Wilhelm III. und Johann Wilhelm von Jülich, Kleve und Berg, (Bochum: University Dissertation, 2001) Müller-Jahncke, W.-D. ‘Magic Medicine in the Writings of Paracelsus and the Paracelsians and the Rise of Chemistry’, in Systèmes de pensée précartésiens, études réunies par I. Zinguer et H. Schott, (Paris: Champion, 1998), pp. 35–47 Mulsow, M. Radikale Frühaufklärung in Deutschland, (vol. 2), (Göttingen: 2018) Münster-Schröer, E. ‘Hexenverfolgungen in Jülich-Berg und der Einfluß Johann Weyers’, Spee-Jahrbuch, 7 (2000), pp. 59–102 Münster-Schröer, E. Hexenverfolgung und Kriminalität: Jülich-Kleve-Berg in der Frühen Neuzeit, (Essen: Klartext-Verlags GmbH, 2017) Nahl, R. van Zauberglaube und Hexenwahn im Gebiet von Rhein und Maas. Spätmittelalterlicher Volksglaube im Werk Johann Weyers, (Bonn: Röhrscheid Verlag, 1983) Nardon, F. Benandanti e inquisitori nel Friuli del Seicento, prefazione di A. Del Col, (Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste, 1999) Natural Particulars. Nature and the Disciplines in Renaissance Europe, ed. by A. Grafton and N. Siraisi, (Cambridge, MA–London, The MIT Press, 1999) Nauert, C. G. Agrippa and the Crisis of Renaissance Thought, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965) New Perspectives on Witchcraft, Magic and Demonology, ed. by B. P. Levack, (New York–London: Routledge, 2001) Nicollier, B. Hubert Languet, 1518–1581: un réseau politique international de Me­ lanchthon, (Genève: Droz, 1995) Niederrhein (Der) im Zeitalter des Humanismus. Konrad Heresbach und sein Kreis, hrsg. von M. Pohl, (Düsseldorf: Kalkar, 1997) No Gods Except Me. Orthodoxy and Religious Practice in Europe, 1200–1600, ed. by C. Zika, (Parkville: University of Melbourne, 1991) Non lasciar vivere la malefica. Le streghe nei trattati e nei processi (secoli XIV–XVII), a cura di D. Corsi e M. Duni, (Firenze: Firenze University Press, 2008) Nutton, V. ‘Prisci dissectionum professores: Greek Texts and Renaissance Anatomists’, in The Uses of Greek and Latin: Historical Essays, ed. by A. C. Dionisotti, A. Grafton, and J. Kraye, (London: The Warburg Institute, University of London, 1988), pp. 111–126 Ostling, M. Between the Devil and the Host: Imagining Witchcraft in Early Modern Poland, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

245

Oxford (The) Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. by B. Levack, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) Oxford (The) Illustrated History of Witchcraft and Magic, ed. by O. Davies, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) Paganini, G. ‘L’anthropologie naturaliste d’un esprit fort. Thèmes et problèmes pomponaciens dans le Theophrastus redivivus’, Dix-septième siècle, XXXVII (1985), pp. 349–377 Pagel, W. Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance, (New York: Karger, 1958) Palgrave Advances in Witchcraft Historiography, ed. by J. Barry and O. Davies, (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2007) Paolo Zacchia. Alle origini della medicina legale, 1584–1659, a cura di A. Pastore and G. Rossi, (Milano: FrancoAngeli, 2008) Paracelsian moments: Science, Medicine and Astrology in Early Modern Europe, ed. by G. Scholz Williams and C. D. Gunnoe, (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2002) Paracelsus (1493–1541), hrsg. von H. Dopsch, K. Goldammer, P. F. Kramml, (Salzburg: A. Pustet, 1993) Paracelsus in Basel, Festschrift für Professor Dr. Robert-Henri Blaser, (Basel: 1979) Paracelsus und seine internationale Rezeption in der frühen Neuzeit: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Paracelsismus, hrsg. von H. Schott und I. Zinguer, (Leiden: Brill, 1998) Paracelsus: the Man and his Reputation, his Ideas and their Transformation, ed. by O. P. Grell, (Leiden: Brill, 1998) Parinetto, L. Magia e ragione: una polemica sulle streghe in Italia intorno al 1750, (Firenze: La nuova Italia, 1974) Pearl, J. The Crime of Crimes: Demonology and Politics in France, 1560–1620, (Waterloo: Wilfried Laurier University Press, 1999) Perifano, A. La demonologia come demonolatria nella Strix di Giovanfrancesco Pico della Mirandola, in Non lasciar vivere la malefica. Le streghe nei trattati e nei processi (secoli XIV–XVII), a cura di M. Duni e D. Corsi., (Firenze: Firenze University Press, 2008), pp. 83–96 Perrone Compagni, V. ‘Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition) https://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/agrippa-nettesheim/ Petry, Y. ‘‘Many Things Surpass our Knowledge’: An Early Modern Surgeon on Magic, Witchcraft and Demonic Possession’, Social History of Medicine, 25 (2012), pp. 47–64 Petry, Y. ‘Vision, Medicine, and Magic: Bewitchment and Lovesickness in Jacques Grevin’s Deux livres des venins (1568)’, in Religion and the Senses in Early Modern Europe, ed. by W. de Boer, (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 455–472

246 

Johann Wier

Pietro Pomponazzi: tradizione e dissenso, a cura di M. Sgarbi, (Firenze: Olschki, 2010) Pietsch, P. ‘Matthieu Weyer’, in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité ascétique et mystique doctrine et histoire, (Paris: Beauchesne, 1994) Pomata, G. ‘Sharing Cases: The Observationes in Early Modern Medicine’, Early Science and Medicine, 15 (2010), pp. 193–236 Pomata, G. ‘Observation rising: birth of an epistemic genre, ca. 1500–1650’, in Histories of Scientific Observatio, ed. by L. Daston and E. Lunbeck, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), pp. 45–80 Porter, R. ‘Witchcraft and Magic in Enlightenment, Romantic and Liberal Thought’, in Athlone (The) History of Witchcraft and Magic in Europe. The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, ed. by B. Ankarloo and S. Clark, (London: The Athlone Press, 1999) Portmann, M.-L. ‘Biographie des Basler Humanistenarztes Theodor Zwinger (1533–1588), verfasst von seinem Kollegen und Freund Felix Platter’, in Zusammenhang: Festschrift für Marielene Putscher, hrsg. von O. Baur und O. Glandien, (Köln: Wienand, 1984), pp. 231–244 Portmann, M.-L. ‘Paracelsus im Urteil von Theodor Zwinger’, Nova Acta Paracelsica, II (1987), pp. 15–32 Pot, O. ‘Une encyclopédie protestante autour de Simon Goulart’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LVI (1994), pp. 475–495 Pott, M. Aufklärung und Aberglaube: die deutsche Frühaufklärung im Spiegel ihrer Aberglaubenskritik, (Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1992) Potter, P. ‘The ‘editiones principes’ of Galen and Hippocrates and their Relationship’, in Text and Tradition: Studies in ancient Medicine and its Transmission, ed. by K.-D. Fischer, (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 243–261 Praedicatores, inquisitores. III. I domenicani e l’Inquisizione romana, a cura di C. Longo, (Roma: Istituto Storico Domenicano, 2008) Prescritto e proscritto. Religione e società nell’Italia moderna (sec. XVI–XIX), a cura di G. Dall’Olio et alii, (Roma: Carocci, 2015) Presezzi, C. Metamorfosi moderne di Simon Mago. Fortuna di una maschera polemica del cristianesimo delle origini e genesi della Faustsage nella prima età moderna, Ph.D. thesis, Dipartimento di Filosofia, Sapienza Università di Roma, forthcoming as a book Pritchard, E. E. Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1937) Procacci, G. Machiavelli nella cultura europea dell’età moderna, (Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1995) Prosperi, A. ‘La mort de l’hérétique: normes juridiques et pratique concrète au temps de l’inquisition romaine’, in Ketzerverfolgung im 16. und frühen 17. Jahrhundert, hrsg. von S. Seidel Menchi, (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1992), pp. 159–174

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

247

Pumfrey, S. The Spagyric Art; or the Impossible Work of Separating Pure from Impure Paracelsianism: a Historiographical Analysis, in Paracelsus: The Man and his Reputation, his Ideas and their Transformation, ed. by O. P. Grell, Leiden, Brill, 1998, pp. 21–51 Püschel, E. ‘Die varen in der medizinischer literatur seit Johann Wier’ (1515–88), in Medicinae et artibus. Festschrift für prof.dr.phil. Wilhelm Katner, (Düsseldorf: Triltsch, 1968), pp. 110–120 Quaglioni, D. I limiti della sovranità. Il pensiero di Jean Bodin nella cultura politica e giuridica dell’età moderna, (Padova: Cedam, 1992) Quaglioni, D. ‘Tradizione criminalistica e riforme nel Settecento. Il Congresso notturno delle Lammie di Girolamo Tartarotti (1749)’, in Studi di storia del diritto medioevale e moderno, a cura di F. Liotta, (Bologna: Monduzzi, 1999), pp. 253–275 Querelle (La) d’Utrecht, René Descartes et Martin Schoock; par T. Verbeek, préface de J.-L. Marion, (Paris: Les impressions nouvelles, 1988) Rebellion, Resistance and Revolution Between the Old and the New World: Discourses and Political Languages, ed. by A. De Benedictis, Storicamente, 10 (2014): https:// storicamente.org/debenedictis_rebellion Reception (The) of Bodin, ed. by H. A. Lloyd, (Leiden: Brill, 2013) Reception (The) of Erasmus in the Early Modern Period, ed. by K. A. Enenkel, (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2013) Reformation and Early Modern Europe: A Guide to Research, ed. by D. M. Whitford, (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2008) Religion and the Senses in Early Modern Europe, ed. by W. de Boer, (Leiden: Brill, 2013) Ribeiro, B. ‘Montaigne on Witches and the Authority of Religion in the Public Sphere’, Philosophy and Literature, 33 (2009), pp. 235–251 Bienaimé, D. Grévin poeta satirico e altri saggi sulla poesia del Cinquecento francese, (Pisa: Tip. editrice Giardini, 1967) Robisheaux, T. The Last Witch of Langenburg: Murder in a German Village, (New York–London: W.W. Norton, 2009) Robisheaux, T. ‘The German Witch Trials’, inOxford (The) Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. by B. Levack, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 179–198 Roman (The) Inquisition. Centre versus Peripheries, ed. by K. Aron-Beller, C. Black, (Leiden: Brill, 2018) Romeo, G. Inquisitori, esorcisti e streghe nell’Italia della Controriforma, (Firenze: Sansoni, 1990) Romeo, G. ‘Inquisizione, Chiesa e stregoneria nell’Italia della Controriforma: nuove ipotesi’, in Non lasciar vivere la malefica. Le streghe nei trattati e nei processi (secoli XIV–XVII), a cura di M. Duni e D. Corsi, (Firenze: Firenze University Press, 2008), pp. 53–64

248 

Johann Wier

Romeo, G. ‘Inquisitori domenicani e streghe in Italia tra la meta del Cinquecento e i primi decenni del Seicento’, in Praedicatores, inquisitores. III. I domenicani e l’Inquisizione romana, a cura di C. Longo, (Roma: Istituto Storico Domenicano, 2008), pp. 309–344 Roobol, M. Disputation by Decree: the Public Disputations Between Reformed Ministers and Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert as Instruments of Religious Policy during the Dutch Revolt (1577–1583), (Leiden: Brill, 2010) Roper, L. Witch Craze: Terror and Fantasy in Baroque Germany, (Yale: Yale University Press, 2004) Roper, L. The Witch in the Western Imagination, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2012) Rose, P. L. Bodin and the Great God of Nature. The Moral and Religious Universe of a Judaiser, (Genève: Droz, 1980) Rossi Monti, M. ‘Paulus Scalichius. His Thought, Sources, and Fortune’, in Prilozi za istraživanje hrvatske filozofske baštine, 45/2 (90), (2019), pp. 339–382: https:// hrcak.srce.hr/240964 Rotondò, A. Europe et Pays-Bas. Évolution, réelaboration et diffusion de la tolérance aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, (Firenze: 1992) Rotondò, A. Riforme e utopie nel pensiero politico toscano del Settecento, a cura di M. Michelini Rotondò, (Firenze: Olschki, 2008) Rotondò, A. Studi di storia ereticale del Cinquecento, (Firenze: Olschki, 2008) Routledge (The) History of Witchcraft, ed. by J. Dillinger, (Abingdon: Routledge, 2020) Rowlands, A. Witchcraft Narratives in Germany: Rothenburg, 1561–1652, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003) Rozzo, U. Biblioteche italiane del Cinquecento tra Riforma e Controriforma, (Forum: Udine, 1994) Rublack, U. The Astronomer and the Witch: Johannes Kepler’s Fight for his Mother, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) Rummel, E. Erasmus and his Catholic critics (1523–36), (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1989) Russell, J.-B. Lucifer. The Devil in the Middle Ages, (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1984) Saatkamp, M. Die Hexenwahn und seine Gegner: Dr Weyer (Wier) und die Grafen von Tecklenburg. (Tecklenburg: Edition Howe, 1988) Sabbat (Le) des sorciers en Europe, XVe–XVIIe siècle, sous la direction de N. JacquesChaquin; Préaud, M., (Grenoble: J. Millon, 1993) Salvadori, S. Sebastiano Castellione e la ragione della tolleranza. L’ars dubitandi fra conoscenza umana e veritas divina, (Milano: Mimesis, 2008) Schaff, G. ‘Jean Gonthier d’Andernach (1497–1574) et la médecine de son temps’, in Médecine et assistance en Alsace, XVIe–XXe siècle, sous la dir. de G. Livet, (Strasbourg: Istra, 1976)

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

249

Schino, A. Batailles libertines: la vie et l’œuvre de Gabriel Naudé, (Paris: Champion, 2020 (1st ed. 2014)) Schneller, K. ‘Paracelsus: Von den Hexen und ihren Werken’, in Aus der Zeit der Verzweifelung: Zur Genese und Aktualität des Hexenbildes, hrsg. von G.e Becker, (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1980), pp. 240–258 Schoenemann, T. J. ‘Criticisms of the Psychopathological Interpretation of WitchHunts: A Review’, American Journal of Psychiatry, 134 (1982), pp. 1028–1032 Schoenemann, T. J. ‘The Role of Mental Illness in the European Witch Hunts of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: an Assessment’, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 13 (1977), pp. 337–351 Scholz Williams, G. ‘The Woman/the Witch: Variations on a Sixteenth-Century Theme (Paracelsus, Wier, Bodin)’, in Crannied (The) Wall: Women, Religion, and the Arts in Early Modern Europe, ed. by C. A. Monson, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992), pp. 119–128 Scholz Williams, G. Defining Dominion: the Discourses of Magic and Witchcraft in Early Modern France and Germany, (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1995) Schulte, C. Versuchte Konfessionelle Neutralität im Reformationszeitalter. Die Herzogtümer Jülich- Kleve- Berg unter Johann III und Wilhelm V. und das Fürstbistum Münster unter Wilhelm von Ketteler, (Münster: Lit, 1995) Science (The) of Demons. Early Modern Authors Facing Witchcraft and the Devil, ed. by J. Machielsen, (London: Routledge, 2020) Science, Medicine and Society in the Renaissance. Essays to honor Walter Pagel, ed. by A. G. Debus, (London: Heinemann, 1972) Scipione Maffei nell’Europa del Settecento, a cura di G. P. Romagnani, (Verona: Consorzio editori veneti, 1998) Scottish (The) Witch-Hunt in Context, ed. by J. Goodare, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002) Scribner, R. ‘The Reformation, Popular Magic, and the ‘Disenchantment of the World’’, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 23 (1993), pp. 346–365 Sébastien Castellion: des Écritures à l’écriture, Etudes réunies par M.C. GomezGéraud. Paris, Garnier, 2012. Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe, ed. by W. R. Newman and A. Grafton, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001) Shackelford, J. ‘Johannes Crato von Krafftheim: Imperial Physician, Irenicist and Anti-Paracelsian’, in Ideas and Cultural Margins in Early Modern Germany. Essays in Honor of H. C. Erik Midelfort, ed. by M. E. Plummer, R. Barnes, et al., (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009), pp. 201–216 Shakespeare’s Demonology. A Dictionary, ed. by M. Gibson and J. A. Esra, (London: Bloomsbury, 2016)

250 

Johann Wier

Shenk, L. Learned Queen. The Image of Elizabeth I in Politics and Poetry, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) Simon Goulart, un pasteur aux intérêts vastes comme le monde, par O. Pot, (Genève: Droz, 2013) Simoncelli, P. ‘Documenti interni alla Congregazione dell’Indice 1571–1590. Logica e ideologia dell’intervento censorio’, Annuario dell’Istituto storico italiano per l’età moderna e contemporanea, XXXV–XXXVI (1983–1984), pp. 189–215 Sir Philip Sidney: 1586 and the Creation of a Legend, ed. by J. A. van Dorsten, D. Baker-Smith, A. F. Kinney, (Leiden: Brill, 1986) Siraisi, N. Avicenna in Renaissance Italy, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987) Siraisi, N. ‘Vesalius and the Reading of Galen’s Teleology’, Renaissance Quarterly, 50 (1997), pp. 1–37 Siraisi, N. History, Medicine, and the Traditions of Renaissance Learning (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2007) Siraisi, N. Communities of Learned Experience: Epistolary Medicine in the Renaissance, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013) Siraisi, N. ‘Baudouin Ronsse as Writer of Medical Letters’, in For the Sake of Learning. Essays in honor of Anthony Grafton, ed. by A. Blair and A. S. Goeing, (Leiden: Brill, 2016) Slattery, E. ‘To Prevent a ‘Shipwreck of Souls’: Johann Weyer and De Praestigiis Daemonum’, Essays in History, 36 (1994), pp. 73–88 Sluhovsky, M. Believe Not Every Spirit: Possession, Mysticism, and Discernment in Early Modern Catholicism, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007) Smith, W. B. ‘The Persecution of Witches and the Discourse on Toleration in Early Modern Germany’, in Topographies of Tolerance and Intolerance. Responses to Religious Pluralism in Reformation Europe, ed. by M. E. Plummer and V. Christman, (Leiden: Brill, 2018), pp. 50–77 Soman, A. ‘La décriminalisation de la sorcellerie en France’, Histoire, économie et société, 2 (1985), pp. 179–203 Spaans, J. ‘Violent Dreams, Peaceful Coexistence. On the Absence of Religious Violence in the Dutch Republic’, De Zeventiende Eeuw, 18 (2003), pp. 149–66 Spanos, N. ‘Witchcraft in Histories of Psychiatry: A Critical Analysis and an Alternative Conceptualization’, Psychological Bulletin, 85 (1978), pp. 417–439 Späte Hexenprozesse: Der Umgang der Aufklärung mit dem Irrationalen, hrsg. von W. Behringer, S. Lorenz und D. R. Bauer, (Bielefeld: Verlag für Regionalgeschichte, 2016) Spiller, M. R. G. Concerning Natural Experimental Philosophie. Meric Casaubon and the Royal Society, (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1980) Spohnholz, J. The Tactics of Toleration. A Refugee Community in the Age of Religious Wars, (Newark: Universitity of Delaware Press, 2011)

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

251

Spruit, L. ‘Magic and the Roman Congregations of the Holy Office and the Index’, in La magia nell’Europa moderna tra antica sapienza e filosofia naturale, a cura di F. Meroi, (Firenze: Olschki, 2007), pp. 363–380 Steinmann, M. Johannes Oporinus: ein Basler Buchdrucker um die Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts, (Basel-Stuttgart: Helbing u. Lichtenhahn, 1966) Stensgaard, R. ‘All is Well that Ends Well, and the Galenico-Paracelsian Controversy’, Renaissance Quarterly, XXV (1972), pp. 173–188 Stephens, W. Demon Lovers: Witchcraft, Sex and the Crisis of Belief, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002) Stephens, W. ‘The Sceptical Tradition’, in Oxford (The) Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. by B. Levack, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 101–121 Stillman, R. Philip Sidney and the Poetics of Renaissance Cosmopolitanism, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008) Stronks, G. ‘The Signif icance of Balthasar Bekker’s The Enchanted World’, in Witchcraft in the Netherlands From the Fourteenth to the Twentieth Century, ed. by M. Gijswijt-Hofstra and W. Frijhoff, (Rotterdam: Universitaire Pers, 1991), pp. 149–156 Studi di storia del diritto medioevale e moderno, a cura di F. Liotta, (Bologna: Monduzzi, 1999), Sudhoff, K. Bibliographia Paracelsica, (Graz: Akademische Druck, 1958) Sullivan, M. A. ‘The Witches of Dürer and Hans Baldung Grien’, Renaissance Quarterly, 53 (2000), pp. 303–401 Szasz, T. The Manufacture of Madness: a Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1997 (1st ed.1971)) Tarantino, G. Martin Clifford. Deismo e tolleranza nell’Inghilterra della Restaura­ zione, (Firenze: Olschki, 2000) Tarrant, N. ‘Giambattista Della Porta and the Roman Inquisition: Censorship and the Definition of Nature’s Limits in Sixteenth-century Italy’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 46 (2013), pp. 601–625 Tausiet, M. ‘De la ilusión al desencanto: Feijoo y los ‘falsos posesos’ en la España del siglo XVIII’, Historia social, 54 (2006), pp. 3–18 Tavuzzi, M. Prierias: the Life and Works of Silvestro Mazzolini da Prierio, 1456–1527, (Durham–London: Duke University Press, 1998) Tedeschi, J. The Prosecution of Heresy. Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Europe, (New York: Medieval and Renaissance Studies and Texts, 1991) Text and Tradition: Studies in ancient Medicine and its Transmission, ed. by KlausDietrich Fischer, (Leiden: Brill, 1998) Thomas, K. Religion and the Decline of Magic, (New York: Scribner, 1971)

252 

Johann Wier

Thorndike, L. A History of Magic and Experimental Science, (New York: Macmillan, 1923–1958) Tilmann, W. ‘New Light on Antiparacelsianism (c. 1570–1610): The Medical Republic of Letters and the Idea of Progress in Science’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, 43 (2012), pp. 701–725 Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, ed. by O. P. Grell and R. W. Scribner, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) Toleranzdiskurse in der Frühen Neuzeit, hrsg. von O. Bach und a. (Berlin, Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2015) Tomasoni, F. Christian Thomasius: spirito e identità culturale alle soglie dell’Illuminismo europeo, (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2005) Topographies of Tolerance and Intolerance. Responses to Religious Pluralism in Reformation Europe, ed. by M. E. Plummer and V. Christman, (Leiden: Brill, 2018) Trampus, A. ‘‘Dottrina magica’ e ‘scienza cabalistica’ nei rapporti tra Tartarotti, Gianrinaldo Carli e Scipione Maffei’, in Girolamo Tartarotti 1706–1761. Un intellettuale roveretano nella cultura europea del Settecento, Atti della Accademia Roveretana degli Agiati. Cl. di Scienze umane, Lettere ed Arti, a. CCXLVI (1996), pp. 137–151 Trampus, A. ‘Gianrinaldo Carli at the Centre of the Milanese Enlightenment’, History of European Ideas, 32 (2006), pp. 456–476 Transformative Change in Western Thought. A History of Metamorphosis from Homer to Hollywood, ed. by I. Gilnehard and A. Zissos, (London: Routledge, 2013) Trevor-Roper, H. R. ‘The European Witch Craze of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, in Id., The European Witch Craze of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries and Other Essays, (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), pp. 90–192 Turchetti, M. ‘Une question mal posée: Érasme et la tolérance. L’idée de Sygkatabasis’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LIII (1991), pp. 379–395 Unfug (Vom)der Hexenprocesses. Gegner der Hexenverfolgung von Johann Weyer bis Friedrich Spee, hrsg. von H. Lehmann und O. Ulbricht, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992) Valente, M. ‘Caccia alle streghe: storiografia e questioni di metodo’, Dimensioni e problemi della ricerca storica, (1998), pp. 99–118 Valente, M. ‘Prime testimonianze della circolazione del De Praestigiis Daemonum di Johann Wier in Italia’, Bruniana & Campanelliana, VI (2000), pp. 561–568 Valente, M. ‘Satan est princeps huius saeculi…Caccia alle streghe e direzione spirituale in Johann Brenz’, in Direzione spirituale tra ortodossia ed eresia. Dalle scuole filosofiche antiche al Novecento, a cura di M. Catto, I. Gagliardi e R. M. Parrinello, (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2002), pp. 197–217 Valente, M. ‘Cassinis, Samuele’, in Encyclopedia of Witchcraft. The Western Tradition, ed. by R. Golden, 1, (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, 2006), pp. 172–173

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

253

Valente, M. Contro l’Inquisizione. Il dibattito europeo (XVI–XVIII secolo), (Torino: Claudiana, 2009) Valente, M. ‘Habent sua fata libelli. Il mondo incantato di Balthasar Bekker’, in La centralità del dubbio, a cura di L. Simonutti e C. Hermanin, (Firenze: Olschki, 2011), pp. 665–683 Valente, M. ‘Aconcio’, in Fratelli d’Italia, a cura di M. Biagioni, L. Felici e M. Duni, (Torino: Claudiana, 2011), pp. 9–17 Valente, M. ‘‘…conoscere a fondo le pessime arti de’ maliardi, per potersene guardare, e difendere…’. Sulla censura di alcuni trattati demonologici’, Dimensioni e problemi della ricerca storica, 2012, pp. 171–192 Valente, M. ‘Ludere stultitiam populi. Erasmo e le streghe’, Bruniana & Campanelliana, XIX (2013), pp. 397–408 Valente, M. ‘The Works of Bodin under the Lens of Roman Theologians and Inquisitors’, in Reception (The) of Bodin, ed. by H. A. Lloyd, (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 219–235 Valente, M. ‘Superstitione, heresia e ignorantia, Teoria e prassi inquisitoriale in alcuni casi di maleficia’, in Prescritto e proscritto. Religione e società nell’Italia moderna (sec. XVI–XIX), a cura di G. Dall’Olio et alii, (Roma: Carocci, 2015), pp. 65–83 Valente, M. ‘Mi Weiere, veni veni’, Appunti su Johann Wier, Philip Sidney e John James, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LXXVII (2015), pp. 423–429 Valente, M. ‘Della Porta inquisito, censurato e proibito’, in Mirabile(La) natura. Magia e scienza in Giovan Battista Della Porta (1615–2015), a cura di M. Santoro, (Pisa–Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2016), pp. 233–240 Valente, M. ‘Ancora a proposito di streghe: alcuni recenti studi’, Bruniana & Campanelliana, XXII (2016), pp. 655–663 Valente, M. ‘Le favole cominciarono a passar per verità. Le fonti cinquecentesche del dibattito demonologico’, in Gli illuministi e i demoni. Il dibattito su magia e stregoneria dal Trentino all’Europa, a cura di R. Suitner, (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2019), pp. 1–22 Valente, M. ‘La salvezza degli Stati: Atei, streghe, infedeli ed eretici nel pensiero di Bodin’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LXXXI (2019), pp. 291–308 Valente, M. ‘Against the Devil, the Subtle and Cunning Enemy. Johann Wier’s De Praestigiis Daemonum’, in Science (The) of Demons. Early Modern Authors Facing Witchcraft and the Devil, ed. by J. Machielsen, (London: Routledge, 2020), pp. 103–118 Van Der Poel, M. Cornelius Agrippa, the Humanist Theologian and his Declamations, (Leiden: Brill, 1997) Van Schilfgaarde, A. P. The Correspondence of Sir Philip Sidney, ed. by R. Kuin, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)

254 

Johann Wier

Van Stam, F. The Servetus Case: An Appeal for a New Assessment, (Genève: Droz, 2017) Vandermeersch, P. ‘The Victory of Psychiatry over Demonology: the Origin of the Nineteenth-Century Myth’, History of Psychiatry, 2 (1991), pp. 351–363 Venturi, F. Settecento riformatore. Da Muratori a Beccaria, (Torino: Einaudi, 1969) Verbeek, T. Descartes and the Dutch. Early Reactions to Cartesian Philosophy: 1637–1650, (Carbondale: Edwardsville, 1992) Victor, J. M. Charles de Bovelles 1479–1553: an Intellectual Biography, (Genève: Droz, 1978) Voltmer, R. ‘Preaching on Witchcraft? The Sermons of Johannes Geiler of Kaysersberg (1445–1510)’, in Contesting Orthodoxy in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Heresy, Magic and Witchcraft, ed. by L. Nyholm Kallestrup and R. M. Toivo, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), pp. 193–215 Voltmer, R. ‘Im Namen der Dynastie. Medizin, Astrologie und Magie, Dämonomaie und Exorzismus am jülich–klevischen Hof (1585–1609)’, in Herrschaft Hof und Humanismus. Wilhelm V. von Jülich-Kleve-Berg und seine Zeit, hrsg. von G. von Büren u.a., (Bielefeld: 2018), pp. 403–438 Voltmer, R. ‘Demonology and anti-demonology: Binsfeld’s De confessionibus and Loos’s De vera et falsa magia’, in Science (The) of Demons. Early Modern Authors Facing Witchcraft and the Devil, ed. by J. Machielsen, (London: Routledge, 2020), pp. 149–164 Waardt, H. de. ‘‘Lightning strikes, wherever ire dwells with power’: Johan Wier on Anger as an Illness’, in Diseases of the Imagination and Imaginary Disease in the Early Modern Period, ed. by Y. Haskell, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), pp. 255–270 Waardt, H. de. ‘Witchcraft, Spiritualism, and Medicine: The Religious Convictions of Johan Wier’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, 42 (2011), pp. 369–391 Waardt, H. de. ‘Witchcraft and Wealth: the Netherlands’, in Oxford (The) Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. by B. Levack, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 232–248 Waardt, H. de. ‘Melancholy and Fantasy: Johan Wier’s Use of a Medical Concept in his Plea for Tolerance’, in Illness and Literature in the Low Countries From the Middle Ages until the 21th Century, ed. by J. Grave, R. Honing, B. Noak, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), pp. 33–46 Waite, G. K. ‘Man is a Devil to Himself: David Joris and the Rise of a Sceptical Tradition towards the Devil in the Early Modern Netherlands (1540–1600)’, Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis, LXXV (1995), pp. 1–30 Waite, G. K. ‘Radical Religion and the Medical Profession: the Spiritualist David Joris and the Brothers Wier’, in Radikalität und Dissent im 16. Jahrhundert, (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 2002), pp. 167–185 Waite, G. K. Heresy, Magic and Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003)

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

255

Waite, G. K. Eradicating the Devil’s Minions: Anabaptists and Witches in Reformation Europe, 1525–1600, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007) Waite, G. K. ‘Sixteenth-Century Religious Reform and the Witch-Hunts’, Oxford (The) Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. by B. Levack, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 485–506 Waite, G. K. ‘Conversos and Spiritualists in Spain and the Netherlands: The Experience of Inner Exile, c. 1540–1620’, in Exile and Religious Identity, 1500–1800, ed. by J. Spohnholz and G. K. Waite, (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2014), pp. 157–169 Waite, G. K. ‘Knowing the Spirit(s) in the Dutch Radical Reformation: From Physical Perception to Rational Doubt, 1536–1690’, in Knowing Demons, Knowing Spirits in the Early Modern Period, ed. by M. D. Brock, R. Raiswell, D. R. Winter, (London: Palgrave, 2018), pp. 23–54 Walker Bynum, C. Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988) Walker, D. P. Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella, (University Park (PA): The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000, (1st ed. 1958)) Walsham, A. ‘The Reformation and the Disenchantment of the World Reassessed’, The Historical Journal, 51 (2008), pp. 497–528 Walsham, A. ‘Cultures of Coexistence in Early Modern England: History, Literature and Religious Toleration’, The Seventeenth Century, 28 (2013), pp. 115–137 Wear, A. Galen in the Renaissance, in Galen: Problems and Prospects, ed. by V. Nutton, (London: The Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, 1981), pp. 229–262 Webster, C. From Paracelsus to Newton: Magic and the Making of Modern Science, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) Webster, C. Paracelsus: Medicine, Magic and Mission at the End of Time, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008) Werewolf Histories, ed. by W. de Blécourt, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) Westerink, H. ‘Demonic Possession and the Historical Construction of Melancholy and Hysteria’, History of Psichiatry, 2014, pp. 335–349 Witchcraft (The) Sourcebook, ed. by B. Levack, (London: Routledge, 2004) Witchcraft and the Act of 1604, ed. by J. Newton and J. Bath, (Leiden: Brill, 2008) Witchcraft and Masculinities in Early Modern Europe, ed. by A. Rowlands, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations, ed. by M. Douglas, (London: Tavistock Publications, 1970) Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Centres and Peripheries, ed. by J. Barry, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI’s Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, ed. by L. Normand and G. Roberts, (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2000)

256 

Johann Wier

Witchcraft in the Netherlands From the Fourteenth to the Twentieth Century, ed. by M. Gijswijt-Hofstra and W. Frijhoff, (Rotterdam: Universitaire Pers, 1991) Withington, E. T. Dr. John Weyer and the Witch Mania, in Studies in the History and Method of Science, ed. by C. Singer, (London: 1917), pp. 189–224 Wootton, D. ‘Lucien Febvre and the Problem of Unbelief in the Early Modern Period’, The Journal of Modern History, 60 (1988), pp. 695–730 Wootton, D. ‘Reginald Scot /Abraham Fleming /The Family of Love’, in Languages of Witchcraft: Narrative, Ideology and Meaning in Early Modern Culture, ed. by S. Clark, (London: Macmillan, 2001), pp. 119–138 Wyporska, W. Witchcraft in Early Modern Poland, 1500–1800, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2013) Zagorin, P. Ways of lying: Dissimulation, Persecution, and Conformity in Early Modern Europe, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990) Zagorin, P. How the Idea of Toleration Came to the West, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003) Zambelli, P. ‘Cornelio Agrippa, Erasmo e la teologia umanistica’, Rinascimento, X (1970), pp. 29–88 Zambelli, P. ‘Cornelio Agrippa, Sisto da Siena e gli Inquisitori’, Memorie Domenicane, III (1972), pp. 146–164 Zambelli, P. ‘Magic and Radical Reformation in Agrippa of Nettesheim’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 39 (1976), pp. 69–103 Zambelli, P. ‘Scholastiker und Humanisten: Agrippa und Trithemius zur Hexerei, die natürliche Magie und die Entstehung kritisches Denkens’, Archiv für Kirchengeschichte, LXVII (1985), pp. 41–79 Zambelli, P. Scholastic and Humanistic Views of Hermeticism and Witchcraft, in Hermeticism and the Renaissance, ed. by I. Merkel and A. G. Debus, (Washington: Associated University Press, 1988), pp. 126–153 Zambelli, P. White Magic, Black Magic in the European Renaissance from Ficino and Della Porta to Trithemius, Agrippa, Bruno, (Leiden: Brill, 2007) Zambelli, P. ‘Un contributo su Agrippa (o sulla sua cerchia?) dalla storiografia alchimistica’, Bruniana & Campanelliana, XXIII (2017), pp. 377–384 Zanier, G. Ricerche sulla diffusione e fortuna del ‘De incantationibus’ di Pomponazzi, (Firenze: La nuova Italia, 1975) Zemon Davis, N. ‘From Prodigious to Heinous’, in L’histoire grande ouverte: hommages à Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, sous la direction d’A. Burguière, (Paris: Fayard, 1997), pp. 274–283. Zendri, ‘I giuristi e le streghe’, Storicamente, 4 (2008), no. 24. DOI: 10.1473/stor340 Zika, C. Exorcising our Demons: Magic, Witchcraft and Visual Culture in Early Modern Europe, (Leiden: Brill, 2003)

Bibliogr aphy (secondary sources)

257

Zika, C. The Appearance of Witchcraft. Print and Visual Culture in Sixteenth-Century Europe, (London: Routledge, 2005) Zika, C. ‘Images of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe’, in Oxford (The) Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. by B. Levack, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 134–166 Zika, C. ‘The Witch of Endor Before the Witch Trials’, in Contesting Orthodoxy in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Heresy, Magic and Witchcraft, ed. by L. Nyholm Kallestrup and R. M. Toivo, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), pp. 167–191 Zika, C. ‘The Witch and Magician in European Art’, in Oxford (The) Illustrated History of Witchcraft and Magic, ed. by O. Davies, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 134–166 Zilboorg, G. The Medical Man and the Witch During the Renaissance, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1935) Zilboorg, G. A History of Medical Psychology, (New York: Norton, 1941) Zwetsloot H. S. J., ‘Johan Wier, zijn geschrift tegen de heksenwaan en zijn religieuze overtuiging’, Annalen van Het Thijmgenootschap, XLII (1954), pp. 1–23

Index Abraham 75, 76 Aconcio, Jacopo 128, 155 Adam, Melchior 33 Africa 45 Agricola, Bartolomeo 195 Agrippa, Heinrich Cornelius von Nettesheim 29, 33, 36-44, 50, 59, 77, 84, 94-97, 102, 105, 119, 120, 139, 146, 161, 162, 184, 212 Albert Frederick of Brandenburg 109 Albertus Magnus (Albert the Great) 136 Albertoni, Marco 12 Alciati, Andrea 21, 151, 174, 185, 192 Álvarez Toledo, Fernando, duke of Alba 104, 113 Ambrosi, Fabiana 12 Anglo, Sidney 18, 29 Anne of Tecklenburg 103 Anselm, saint 133 Antwerp 36, 174 Apuleius 138 Aquinas, Thomas, saint 43, 195 Archimedes 82 Argentine, Richard 128 Aristotle 25, 83, 111, 129, 142 Arnaldus de Villa Nova 136 Arnhem 46, 61, 67 Arnold IV, count of Bentheim 107, 118 Athenaeus of Naucratis 142 Aubert, Alberto 11 Augustus, emperor 112 Augustine, saint 52, 56, 121, 129, 130, 133, 142, 143, 156, 157, 161, 162, 164, 165, 175 Avicenna 83, 96 Axenfeld Auguste 27, 34 Azzolini, Monica 11 Bacon, Roger 136 Banister, Richard 124 Barbierato, Federico 11 Baroja, Julio Caro 16 Basel 9, 20, 24, 57, 59, 63, 69, 78, 80, 83, 85, 93, 101, 128, 154, 163, 178, 183, 212 Bataillon, Marcel 155 Battus, Levinus 109 Bavaria 196 Baxter, Christopher 30, 52, 54, 164 Bayle, Pierre 166, 202, 203 Behringer, Wolfgang 16 Bekker, Balthasar 203-205 Béné, Charles 162, 163 Benedikt XIV, pope 199 Berge, Petrus van den 26 Betti, Anton Maria 147 Beza, Theodor de 80

Biel, Gabriel 71 Binsfeld, Peter 189-190 Binz, Carl 27, 30, 45, 50 Blankaart, Steven 124 Boccaccio, Giovanni 143 Bodenstein, Adam 84, 94 Bodin, Jean 18, 29, 30, 34, 80, 178, 183-186, 188, 189, 190, 193, 195, 196, 198, 210 Bohomolec, Jan 207 Bologna 102, 147, 159, 160 Bonn 37 Borcholt, Caspar 68, 69 Bourneville, Désiré M. 27 Bovelles, Charles 39 Brabant 9, 25, 33 Brachelius, Johannes 63, 66 Bragagnolo, Manuela 12 Bremen 52, 79 Brenz, Johann 53, 54, 70- 78, 95, 105, 118, 119, 183, Briggs, Robin 19 Brochius, Daniel 68 Bruno, Giordano 116, 176, 200, Brunswick 68 Buchanan, George 66 Bullinger, Heinrich 181, 182 Burr, George Lincoln 15 Calvin, John 23, 52, 54, 194, 204n, Cambridge 117, 200 Camerarius, Joachim, the Younger 124, 182 Campanella, Tommaso 176 Canone, Eugenio 11 Cantimori, Delio 16 Cardano, Girolamo 21, 23, 34, 96, 145, 147, 151, 174 Carli, Gianrinaldo 26, 206, 207 Carpzow, Benedict 198, 204 Casaubon, Isaac 200 Casaubon, Meric 200-202 Cassander, Georg 49, 59 Cassian, John 133 Cassinis, Samuele de 21 Cassirer, Ernst 16 Castellio, Sebastian 63, 70, 114, 155, 163 Cecco d’Ascoli 136 Charcot, Jean-Martin 27-28 Charles V Habsburg, emperor of Holy Roman Empire 48 Cherubino da Verona 175-176 Chrysostom, John 41, 112, 146, 154, 164 Cicero, Marcus Tullius 43 Cicogna, Strozzi 177 Circe 19 Clarenbach, Adolph 164-165

260  Clark, Stuart 17, 18, 140, 158, 166, 173, 193, 198 Clement VII, pope 155 Clement VIII, pope 175 Cleves 47-50, 52, 103-105, 109, 114, 202 Cobben, Jan Jacob 27, 30, 34, 52, 106 Colavecchia, Stefano 12 Collins, Anthony 205 Cologne 36, 49, 115, 164 Conring, Hermann 195 Coolen, Jan Hendrick 35 Coornhert, Dirck Volckertz 163 Copernicus, Nicolaus 28 Corti, Matteo 147 Costabili, Paolo 175 Crato von Krafftheim, Johann 178 Cudworth, Ralph 200 Cujas, Jacques 69 Curione, Celio Secondo 57 Dall’Aglio, Stefano 11 Daneau, Lambert 283, 310 Darwin, Charles 28 de Rosa, Jacobus Jodocus 46 Debus, Allen G. 82, 90 Dee, John 201 Della Porta, Giovan Battista 23, 25, 145, 186 Delrio, Martin 149, 194, 195 Descartes, René 124, 198, 200 Diana 15 Dodo, Vincenzo 21 Dooren, Leonard 27 Dorn, Gerard 88, 94, 95 Dudith Sbardellati, Andreas 123 Dudley, Robert, Earl of Leicester 115, 117 Duisberg 49 Duni, Matteo 11, 151 Düsseldorf 70 Easlea, Brian 198 Echt, Johann 48, 62 Echternach 85 Elich, Philip Ludwig 195 Elizabeth I Tudor, queen of England 113, 115, 187 Enenkel, Karl A. 112, 114 Enerwijn, Gisbert 116 England 116, 118, 177, 186, 192, 200, 201 Erasmus, Desiderius 10, 42, 48, 49, 50, 56, 57, 59, 64, 67, 114, 145, 151-159, 162, 164, 165, 174, 210, 212 Erastus, Thomas (Thomas Leiber) 30, 31, 84, 85, 93, 97, 102, 105, 124, 176, 178- 183, 190, 192, 199, 203, Erlangen 91 Ernst, Germana 11 Europe 26, 48, 50, 66, 73, 84, 113, 115, 122, 153, 167, 173, 174, 176, 178, 186, 199, 202, 205, 206 Evans Pritchard, Edward 15 Ewich, Johann 63, 66, 67, 68, 79

Johann Wier

Fabri, Guillaume 80 Farnese, Alessandro 115 Faust 38, 136 Febvre, Lucien 18 Federici, Theresa 12 Felici, Lucia 11 Ferber, Sarah 18 Fernel, Jean 45, 84, 94 Ficino, Marsilio 41, 94, 128, 130, 142, 200 Flanders 104 Florence 102 Flushing 116 Foucault, Michel 16 France 45, 49, 78, 80, 93, 177, 195, 204, 206 Francis I Valois, king of France 44, 48 Frankfurt a. M. 80 Frazer, James George 15 Frederick III Wittelsbach, Electoral Palatinate 57, 104 Freud, Sigmund 28 Frijhoff, Willem 46, 59 Füglin, Johann 78, 79, 80 Gaffney, Erika 12 Galen 82, 83, 90, 92, 96 Gallus, Carolus 67, 69 Garin, Eugenio 16 Gasser, Achilles Pirmin 89 Gelderland 46, 47 Geneva 79, 80, 154 Germany 122, 144, 145, 197 Gervasoni, Ettore 12 Gervasoni, Marco 12 Giglioni, Guido 11 Gijswijt-Hofstra, Marijke 166 Gilly, Carlos 11 Gilmore, Myron P. 156 Gilpin, George 118 Ginzburg, Carlo 16, 144 Giorgio, Francesco 41 Giovio, Paolo 38 Glanvill, Joseph 200, 201 Godelmann, Johann Georg 191, 192, 204 Goehausen, Hermann 196 Gohory, Jacques 38, 71, 84, 88, 89, 93, 94-99, 105, 118, 119 Gouda 67 Goulart, Simon 79, 80 Grataroli, Guglielmo 20 Grave 33, 45, 46 Greece 45 Gregory, Nazianzen 129 Gregory of Nissa 131 Grévin, Jacques 79, 88 Grillando, Paolo 21, 22, 142, 143, 145 Groningen 26, 199 Grynaeus, Johann Jacob 182 Guerra, Alessandro 11 Guillemeau, Jacques 124

261

Index

Guinter d’Andernach, Johann 85, 93 Gunnoe, Charles D. 11, 166, 181, 183 Haarlem 104, 113 Hambach 62 Hansen, Joseph 14 Hassard, Pierre 94 Heidelberg 102, 178, 182, 183, 192 Heresbach, Conrad von 48, 49, 59 Hermann, count of Nieuwenaar 35, 165 Herzig, Tamar 11 Hippocrates 70, 96 Hobbes, Thomas 199 Holland 59 Homer 111, 138 Hondorff, Andreas 38 Hoorens, Vera 31, 42, 54 Horst, Gregor 124 Hotman, François 203 Hovaeus, Antonius 49, 67, 68, 122 Iamblichus 129, 142 Innocent VIII, pope 19, 41 Isnardi Parente, Margherita 11, 30, 67, 140 Israel, Jonathan 200 Italy 147, 160, 176, 199, 205, 206, 207 James I Stuart, king of England, VI as king of Scotland 178, 192-194, 199 James, John 117 Jerome, saint 164 Jesus Christ 9, 51, 56, 57, 64, 69, 76, 107, 109, 112, 114, 140, 154, 160, 162, 168,188, 202, 207 Job 24, 71, 72, 73, 170, 171 John III of Cleve 48 John William of Cleve 48 John XXII, pope 19 Joris, David 24, 51, 58, 163 Jülich 47, 90 Justinian 140 Kaiserlautern 105 Kallestrup, Louise Nyholm 11 Kapitaniak, Pierre 189 Kent 186 Kohl, Benjamin G. 31, 58 Köllin, Konrad 36 Krämer, Heinrich (Institoris) 20, 142, 147 Krause, Virginia 11, 184 Kremers, Barbara 110 Lancre, Pierre de 106, 196 Launay, Louis de 79 Lavater, Ludwig 44 Lavenia, Vincenzo 177 Lazzarini, Isabella 12 Lazzarino Del Grosso, Anna Maria 11 Lea, Henry Charles 14, 15 Leiden 117

Leo X, pope 56 Leonardi, Mario F. 11 Lercheimer, Augustinus, see Witekind Levack, Brian P. 17, 166 Lipsius, Justus 114, 116, 194 Lloyd, Howell 11 Locke, John 199, 200 Loos, Cornelius 192 Louis XIV Bourbon, king of France 203, 204 Low Countries 48, 113 Lucan 138 Ludwig of Orange-Nassau 152-153 Luther, Martin 22, 23, 52, 54, 57, 119, 146, 204 Lynn, Kimberly 11 MacFarlane, Alan 15 Machiavelli, Niccolò 93 Machielsen, Jan 11 Maggi, Armando 11 Malebranche, Nicolas 202, 203 Malines 36 Mary I Tudor, queen of England 188 Masius, Andreas 49, 62, 63, 134 Masson, Jacques (Latomus) 230 Maximilian of Bavaria 196 Mazzolini, Silvestro, (Prierias) 22 Melancthon, Philip 24, 48, 192 Melchiori, Bartolomeo 207 Mercatore, Gerhard 49 Mercuriale, Girolamo 176 Metz 39, 40, 43, 139 Michelet, Jules 15, 208 Midelfort, H. C. Erik 11, 30, 31, 44, 52, 53, 57, 58, 78, 137, 144, 146, 158, 159, 166, 173, 212 Monavius, Petrus 123 Moncordius, Godoschalcus 40 Montaigne, Michel de 64, 167, 203 Montpellier 102 More, Henry 200 Moses 73, 74, 77, 109, 148, 154 Mowbray, Thomas, duke of Norfolk 113 Münster 50 Muratori, Ludovico Antonio 26, 199 Murray, Margaret 15 Naarden 113 Nahl, Rudolf van 30, 47, 53, 78 Naples 175 Naudé, Gabriel 93, 196 Niclaes, Hendrick 59, 163 Ochino, Bernardino 128 Oporinus, Johann 9, 63, 68, 69, 87- 89, 101, 119, 122 Origen 170 Orléans 44 Otto Heinrich of Wittelsbach, Electoral Palatinate 178 Ovid 19, 136, 138

262  Padua 102, 176, 206 Paracelsus, Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim 63, 79, 81-96, 99, 100, 181 Paris 27, 37, 44, 45, 63, 66, 79, 80, 88, 102 Paul III, pope 56 Paul IV, pope 104 Paul, saint 139 Perna Pietro 85, 179 Peter, saint 57, 140, 154, 168, 188 Petriglia, Daniela 115 Peucer, Caspar 24 Philip II Habsburg, king of Spain 104, 115 Philips, Dietrich 58 Pico della Mirandola, Giovan Francesco 22 Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni 120 Pictorius, Georgius 99 Pistello, Maria Rosaria 12 Pius V, pope 176 Plantsch, Martin 71, 72 Plato 98, 129 Plotinus 128, 129 Poland 246 Pomata, Gianna 82 Pomponazzi, Pietro 20, 21, 66, 67, 132, 147, 151, 170, 174 Ponzinibio, Gian Francesco 143, 151, 159, 174, 185, 211 Porphyry 129, 136 Portal, Antoine 26 Postel, Guillaume 63 Pratz, Jason (Pratensis) 29, 145 Proclus 128, 129 Prussia 205 Psellus 119, 120, 129, 130, 131 Pucci, Francesco 55 Pumfrey, Stephen 89 Rabelais, François 150 Ramard, Noël 44 Raphanus, Wenceslaus 123 Ravenstein 46 Remy, Nicolas 195 Renders, Hans 42 Reuchlin, Johann 40, 41, 154 Rhordam Agnes 34 Rome 17, 51, 53, 59, 77, 152, 157, 158 Romeo, Giovanni 11, 177, 190 Rostock 191 Rotondò, Antonio 11 Sabellico, Marco Antonio 112 Samuel 24, 135 Satan 19, 22, 24, 39, 56, 60, 64, 66, 69, 71, 72, 86, 105, 106, 107, 108, 120, 128, 130, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 141, 143, 146, 148, 150, 155, 160, 163, 165, 167, 169, 171, 174, 185, 190, 191, 200, 205, 209, 210 Saul 135, 171 Savin, Nicolas 39, 40

Johann Wier

Scalichius, Paulus 95, 96, 105, 118- 121 Scholz, Laurent 123 Scholz, Williams, Gerhild 30 Schook, Martin 26, 199, 200 Schott, Gaspar 203 Schwenckfeld, Caspar 182 Scot, Reginald 29, 44, 106, 186-189, 193, 194, 199, 209 Scotland 192, 193 Seneca 110, 112, 114 Servet, Miguel 44, 45, 63, 85, 154, 163 Severinus, Petrus 84, 85 Shakespeare, William 186 Sidney, Philip 115-117 Simoncelli, Paolo 11 Sipek Harald 65 Sisto da Siena 41, 42 Sixtus V, pope 176 Slattery, Elisa 53, 163, 164 Sleidanus, Johannes 44, 49 Smet, Heinrich 124 Socrates 98 Solenander, Reiner 49 Spain 166, 199 Spee, Friedrich von 194, 197, 208 Spina, Alfonso 143 Spina, Bartolomeo 21, 22, 211 Spinoza, Baruch 198, 200 Sprenger, Jakob 20, 147 Strasbourg 50 Suavius, Leo, vedi Gohory Jacques Sweden 145 Szasz, Thomas 28 Tanner, Adam 196, 208 Tartarotti, Girolamo 13, 26, 205- 207 Tatian 129 Tecklenburg 34, 53, 57, 103, 118 Tedeschi, John 160 Tertullian 131 Theophilus 164 Thomas a Kempis 52 Thomasius, Christian 204, 205 Thorndike, Lynn 29 Toland, John 205 Torreblanca, Francisco 196 Trevor-Roper, Hugh R. 16, 52 Trithemius, Johann 39, 96, 106 Turnèbe, Adrien 102 Unna 110 Utenhove, Charles 35, 66 Utrecht 114 Valente, Giaime 12 Valente, Mario 12 Valente, Phania 12 Valladolid 155 Vallick, Jakob 46, 79

263

Index

Venturi, Franco 205 Vesalius, Andreas 45, 82, 83, 85 Virgil 138 Voet, Gisbertus 199 Voippy 39 Waardt, Hand de 11, 31, 35, 58, 59, 114, 163, 170 Waite, Gary K. 11, 31, 51, 54, 58, 59, 163, 165, 166, 171 Walsingham, Francis 118 Warburg, Aby 16 Weber, Max 15 Wezius, Heinrich 62, 63, 105, 143 Wier, Arnold 35, 59 Wier, Dietrich 57, 102, 104 Wier, Elizabeth 35 Wier, Galenus 81, 102, 103 Wier, Heinrich 79, 102 Wier, Johannes 102 Wier, Matthias 35, 57-59 Wier, Sophia 47, 102 Wier, Theodorus 34

William of Orange- Nassau 104, 114, 115 William V Cleves 48, 49, 63, 101, 114 Wimpenaeus, Johannes Albertus 86 Wintgens, Judith 47 Witekind, Hermann 192 Withington, Edward T. 34 Witzel, Georg 49 Wolfenbüttel 88 Württemberg 70 Yates, Frances A. 16 Zacchia, Paolo 177 Zambelli, Paola 11, 16, 41, 50 Zanchi, Girolamo 183 Zika, Charles 11, 173 Zilboorg, Gregory 28 Zutphen 113, 116, 117 Zwetsloot, Hugo 51, 52 Zwinger, Theodor 63, 68, 69, 70, 88, 91, 93, 176, 181

The name of Johann Wier (Weyer) is not included in the index.