Witchcraft and Medicine (1484-17931) Published in conjunction with an exhibit at the NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE MARCH 25 - JULY 19.1974

SNEAK PEAK:

Belief in witchcraft goes far back into prehistoric
times. It continues today, not only among primitive
peoples, but also in many civilized nations. Witches’
covens, Satanism, black magic ~ these are among the
concepts recognized by numerous people both here
and abroad.
When early Christians incorporated the Old
Testament in their doctrines, they inherited with it
the pelief in witches manifested in such passages as
“Thou shalt suffer no witch to live” (Exodus xii, 18)
and “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft” (I Samuel
15:23). The account of the witch of Endor (I Samuel
28:7-25) is familiar to most industrious Sunday
School pupils. While some scholars argue that the
original Hebrew terms should not be translated as
“witch” or “witchcraft,” those were the words
officially accepted and thus interpreted by the
Church.
The procedures and organization of witch trials
were based on the Church’s trials for heresy by the
Inquisition, a tribunal established by Pope Lucius III
in 1184 for the repression of all kinds of breaches of
orthodoxy. The dividing line between heresy and
witchcraft was not at first very clear. Every heresy
was diabolical, and anyone convicted of practicing
magic was a heretic.
The original attitude of early Christians to
witchcraft resembled provisions of Roman law -
witches were not punished unless they harmed
someone. With the exception of St. Augustine,
Church authorities opposed the belief in witchcraft.
Their opinions were expressed especially in the
so-called Carron episcapi (Council of Ancyra, 9th
cent.). However, in the 13th century, witchcraft
became a crimen magiue and witch trials started
sporadically.
The gradual hardening of the Church’s attitude
toward witchcraft through the 12th to 15th centuries
did not meet with universal approval. Among the
physicianswho opposed it were Arnoldus de Villanova
(1235-1315?), a professor at the University of
Montpellier, and Pietro d’Abano (1250-l 3 16), who
taught medicine in Paris and, later, at the University
of Padua. The chief obstacle to witch hunts, however,
was the Canon episcopi, which was incorporated in
1284 in the Decretales Gregorii IX and thus became a
part of canon law.
In 1458 Nicolas Jacquier (Jaquerius), an
inquisitor, completed his Flagellum haereticorum
fascinariorum (not printed until 1581), in which he
rejected the application of the Canon episcopi in
witch trials. His rejection was based on the argument
that contemporary witchcraft was a new
phenomenon, and that witches comprised a new sect
- witch-heretics - who made pacts with the Devil,
celebrated sabbats (assemblies of witches to worship
the Devil), and flew by night.
intercourse with the Devil; inflicting illness or death
on their enemies, or damaging their property; eating
human flesh; murdering children; raising storms; and
preparing diabolical potions and philters. Hundreds of
other misdeeds were named in the confessions
extracted from the victims of unbearable torture.
Witchcraft itself was treason against God, since it
required that the witch sign a pact with the Devil.
Even the so-called “good” witches were punished
with death; wholly ignored or forgotten were the
provisions of old Roman law and the Constitutio
criminalis Carolina which required that the accused
have actually caused harm before punishment could
be applied.
Most witches’ trials were conducted by secular
authorities, especially in England, France, and
Germany, but ecclesiastical courts acted in some
cases, as in Italy or in German states governed by
bishops. Both, however, approved the use of torture
to ascertain the “truth,” ignoring the famous opinion
in Justinian’s Digests that “there are arguments for
and against the use of torture. Torture, however,
when used, is untrustworthy, perilous, and
deceptive.”
Wood engraving from Joost Damhouder, Enchiridion _,
Rotterdam, I554
2
It is almost impossible to conceive the horror of
the tortures to which accused persons were subjected.
The rack, mutilation, the press, submersion in water
(if the victim sank, he or she was innocent!), and fire
were only a few of the means of suffering used to
evoke confessions. If the accused later revoked his
confession, he was tortured again until he confessed
with finality.

TO BE CONTINUED... Buy now and enjoy the contents in full!