Back to top

Having analyzed the statements in the Canon Episcopi in such detail, it would be interesting and instructive to see what modern scholars say about it. Their statements about the Canon provide excellent examples of their thoughts about the more general historical question of Witchcraft as a whole. (Afterwards, it will be fascinating to compare the modern interpretations to what churchmen said about it at the time, over the past millennium; a brief summary of that question can be found here.)

Jacqueline Simpson writes that the Canon Episcopi concerns a "group of women who imagine they travel magically in company with some female supernatural being, whom the clerical writer equates with the Roman goddess Diana... since there is no mention here of cannibalism or magic murder, the 'Diana' round whom these women's fantasies centered must have been a benevolent figure, not a witch. Interestingly, when Burchard of Worms quoted this passage a hundred years later, he equated 'Diana' with Holda, a figure in German folklore who is on the whole kindly and protective." Holda is a patroness of "ploughs, crops, spinning and weaving," who visits farmsteads in midwinter and also brings gifts for children, thus similar to Austrian Bertha/Perchta – and, for that matter, similar also to the much-later Santa Claus. Like the earlier Austrian Goddess, she "may also lead the terrifying Wild Hunt... Presumably, Burchard had some reason to think that the women mentioned in the Canon Episcopi imagined themselves to be accompanying Holda on her nocturnal visitations."¹

The point here is an interesting one. The Canon must not be talking about Witches, because there is no mention of murder or cannibalism, or other horrid, destructive, or disgusting acts (she is apparently ignoring the mention of maleficam artem in the Canon's very first sentence). It is, obviously, about Paganism, but, to Simpson, it is not about Witches. Further, it is about women who have "fantasies," and who "imagined themselves" to do these things. The language she uses very effectively trivializes the deeply-held beliefs of these people.

To Norman Cohn, the importance of Canon rests in its contribution to the Church's image of Witchcraft. Before the "great witch hunt" could take place, he writes, "intellectuals had to convince themselves that witches could fly."² The Canon was both a help and a hindrance to this. On the one hand, it introduced the idea of night-rides. On the other, it claimed them all to be impossible, mere fantasies and dreams.

It is instructive to examine Cohn's discussion of the Canon.³ He translates only a portion of it, completely ignoring the opening passage which prescribes exile for users of Magic:

"... there are wicked women who, turning back to Satan and seduced by the illusions and phantasms of the demons, believe and openly avow that in the hours of the night they ride on certain animals, together with Diana, the goddess of the pagans, with a numberless multitude of women; and in the silence of the dead of night cross many great lands; and obey (Diana's) orders as though she were their mistress, and on particular nights are summoned to her service. Would that they alone perished in their perfidy, without dragging so many others with them into the ruin of infidelity! For a numberless multitude of people, deceived by this false view, believe these things to be true and, turning away from the true faith and returning to the errors of the pagans, think that there exists some divine power other than the one God."⁴

Cohn goes on to summarize and paraphrase more of the Canon. His paraphrase must be read carefully (emphasis added): "And the Canon reminds priests of their duty: they must, from the pulpit, warn their congregations that this is all an illusion, inspired not by the spirit of God but by that of Satan. For Satan knows how to deceive foolish women by showing them, while they sleep, all kinds of things and of people. But who has not, in dreams, gone out of himself, so that he believed he was seeing things which he never saw when awake? And who would be so foolish as to think that things that happened only in the mind have also happened in the flesh? Everyone must be made to realize that to believe such things is a sign that one has lost the true faith, and that one belongs not to God but to the devil."

It is perhaps significant that Cohn paraphrases this passage, rather than actually quoting a literal translation of it, for his paraphrase contains implications quite different from what a straightforward translation provides. For instance, the Canon does not say a person who is dreaming "believed he was seeing things which he never saw when awake;" the Canon says such a person has seen such things. It does not ask "who would be so foolish as to think that things that happened only in the mind have also happened in the flesh?" It asks about things which are done "in spirit" rather than being done "in the body." The Canon Episcopi does not say "this is all an illusion;" it condemns the belief in Diana as a Goddess, and says Satan creates an "illusion" of himself as Diana. A phrase such as Cohn's "this is all an illusion" implies that nothing at all happens; the Canon quite clearly insists things did happen, things which were orchestrated by a demon. Worse yet, after having criticized Murray for supposedly leaving out (what he says are) key passages in the Witch trials, Cohn omits from the Canon all references to the visions of the Prophets and the Apostles. Cohn accused Murray of textual manipulation, yet is obviously blatantly guilty of it himself.

But even in the passage he translates, there is the admission of this "numberless multitude" "returning to the errors of the pagans" because they "think that there exists some divine power other than the one God;" they serve Diana, "as though she were their mistress," "on particular nights," and so on, all sounding like a fairly firm Pagan religious structure. But Cohn comments on none of this.

Cohn's is a typical interpretation – that nothing was real, and it all might not have anything to do with Witchcraft anyway – even though he also presents another quote from Burchard which he says is about cannibalistic night-witches, and which contains a very close paraphrase of portions of Paragraph 2.⁵ Of the Canon, Cohn says: "… it has no obvious bearing on witchcraft at all. The women it criticizes do not imagine themselves as night-witches, but as devotees of a supernatural queen who leads and commands them on their nocturnal flights."⁶ This means Cohn does, indeed, allow that there were followers of Diana in the early tenth century – but he insists we shouldn't call them Witches. Nor does he quite admit they worshipped a Goddess; no, they were "devotees of a supernatural queen," language which, like Simpson's, seems intended to trivialize a non-biblical religious belief.

Cohn's image of the "night-witches" is very similar to the Roman image of early Christians. Cohn says the followers of Diana were not Witches because they didn't imagine themselves in ways which match this propagandistic image. By his reasoning, the early Christians should also be dismissed; they didn't imagine themselves as cannibalistic revolutionaries and magicians, but as followers of a supernatural king who rules the lands beyond death. But in fact, being devotees of a supernatural ruler does not preclude one from also being a member of an actual religion.

Not all scholars misinterpret the Canon as proclaiming everything to be mere dreams and fantasies. Midelfort says the Canon "condemned the belief that certain women rode out at night" ( – but this is not quite true; it condemned the belief of certain women who said they rode out at night – ) "on the backs of animals in the company of the goddess Diana, explaining that they were merely deluded into thinking that they did such things. Historians have long considered this crucial document convincing proof that they early Church rejected all notion of witchcraft." But, Midelfort realizes, the Canon "asserted that these women had fallen into serious heresy by attributing divine powers to a mere creature," i.e., Diana or a devil.⁷

Thus Midelfort agrees that the people described actually existed, and, further, "Far from dismissing such simple people as visionaries or lunatics, as so many scholars have supposed, the Canon condemned them as infidels" to be banished from parishes, a serious punishment. So, far from "flatly contradicting the whole theory of witchcraft," Midelfort says, the Canon set the guidelines for the Church's attitude until well into the eighteenth century. It was a "serious crime" comparable to "apostasy or heresy." It was not the Sabbat or night flight that was the essence of Witchcraft; it was the pact with demons, through which the Witches believed themselves to have been granted certain powers. All along, the argument was that Witches couldn't do all they said they did, but they were guilty anyway, for having made a pact with the Devil. It seems Midelfort also realizes the idea of "pact" is implicit in the Canon Episcopi.

Rossell Hope Robbins says the main crime involved in Witchcraft was invoking the Devil, and harm was secondary; and yet he maintains the Canon asserted, in effect, that belief in Witches was superstitious and heretical. No, Midelfort corrects Robbins, the Canon asserts the beliefs of Witches to be superstitious and heretical.⁸

Elliot Rose considers the Canon,⁹ and asks whether it was written by Regino, or by the Council of Ancyra, some 600 years earlier. He concludes it makes no difference to the central point he wishes to make. The Canon, he says, clearly states Witches as worshipping a Pagan deity, specifically Diana. (This is a fascinating point, and one not generally recognized: if the Canon is a late forgery, rather than actually being from the fourth century Council of Ancyra, it shows this practice – or the belief in it – at a very late date, around the turn of the millennium.)

Rose quotes a portion of the Canon. As with Cohn, what he leaves out of his excerpt is at least as important as what he provides. Some of the biases of the Standard School are obvious here as well, in his translation of mulierculae, "girls," as "worthless gossip," and mentam, "mind" as "imagination." The many ellipses in the following quote are all Rose's, as are the parentheticals:

... Nevertheless, it should not be omitted that some wicked women, won over to Satan's side (retro post Satanam conversae) and beguiled by deceits and hallucinations of devils, believe and profess that they ride out on beasts by night with Diana the goddess of the Heathen and a numberless multitude of women, and cover great distances in the silence of night, and on particular nights (certis noctibus) are summoned to this service. But would that they only perished in their faithlessness, and did not drag down many with them into the same unfaith! For a numberless multitude, beguiled by this false opinion, hold it to be true, and... revert to the error of the Heathen, when they suppose there is any divinity or spirit of power save the One God. Wherefore priests must preach to the people... with all urgency, that they may understand that this is altogether false and that such illusions are bred in faithless minds not by the Holy but by the Evil Spirit... Satan... when he gets possession of some worthless gossip's wits (mentem cujuscumque mulierculae)... leads astray the mind he holds captive, deluding it in dreams; and this faithless mind supposes that things experienced only in the imagination happened to the body, not to the spirit...¹⁰

Rose comments, "We may perhaps take the 'wicked women' involved to have been witches of the hagwife variety who claimed acquaintance with this 'Diana' to get themselves credit,"¹¹ and, since he has omitted the section on use of Magic, "Their spreading of pagan errors, with a possible motive of vainglory, may have been the extent of the 'wickedness' imparted to them..."¹² It may be asked on what grounds Rose is questioning their motives. He suggests the women made their statements "to get themselves credit," or for "vainglory;" but all the evidence there is – such as the Canon itself – depicts the women as entirely sincere. Rose recognizes this, however, saying, "they are represented as honestly deceived," which seems to preclude the cynical motives he just implied. At any rate, and most importantly, the "spreading of pagan errors" being the "extent of the 'wickedness'" is, of course, exactly the point. What the Church was objecting to was the continued existence of Pagan beliefs.

Rose refers to these night flights as being no more than mere "popular belief."¹³ Of course, that, too, is the point; these "Pagan errors" were indeed among the beliefs of the common people at the time. The Canon seems to be depicting a fairly widespread Pagan survival. "That witchcraft contained a tincture of paganism was common form," Rose says, "being attested by the reputable authority of the Canon Episcopi."¹⁴

Rose notes what an odd idea the night-flight is: "it seems to have been highly unusual even to invent such stories. Nobody seems ever to have observed witches in flight, and, considering that this was the one aspect of the Sabbat which reasonably might have had an eye-witness, it is strange that no more use of it was made by false accusers during the scares."¹⁵ By Occam's Razor, the most reasonable explanation for this curious lack of evidence is the simplest; perhaps the witnesses actually said things they thought were true, and actually gave testimony from their own experience. Since they never saw the night-flights, they didn't report them. Further, the very strangeness of the idea attests to the flights being a genuine belief; as Rose notes, it would be rather odd to invent such a story.

The Canon, Rose says, was "rationalistic," "concerned to condemn as a delusion a legend current over much of northern Europe of a nocturnal cavalcade of the dead; in this cavalcade some living women (who may well have been witches) claimed to have taken part, a claim that was condemned as tending to paganism." Rose says the association of Diana, Herodias, and other Goddesses, is accidental, but recognizes the probable real association of Herzog or Habonde. He says that originally the Canon probably wasn't really about witches at all, except accidentally; it was originally about an old Pagan superstition, which obviously (to Rose) is something other than Witchcraft.¹⁶ His reference to the folkloric motif of a "nocturnal cavalcade of the dead" will be explored in more detail at a later point in this study.

As for the Canon's influence in the following centuries, Rose remarks, "Many writers in the Middle Ages mention the foolish opinions of the insolent vulgar regarding witches but unfortunately when they do so they are merely paraphrasing the Canon Episcopi and not telling us anything about the actual beliefs of their unlearned contemporaries."¹⁷ In other words: ecclesiastical writers continued to talk about the night-rides with Diana for hundreds of years afterward. But Rose is saying these writings shouldn't be taken to indicate there still were people claiming, in those later centuries, to ride with Diana, because those later writers were merely quoting the old and hoary Canon instead of creating new condemnations. Had there still been people claiming to ride with Diana, he implies, later writers would have composed completely new fulminations about it, with completely new verbiage. But this is a silly argument. Ecclesiastical writers tend to rely on old precedents, and to quote old documents, even in discussions of continuing or contemporary problems. That's the reason why the Bible continues to be quoted, rather than having been scrapped long ago in favor of newer scriptures.

Back to top

Mention was made previously of the uncertainty about the age of the Canon Episcopi. Regino appeared to have credited it to the Council of Ancyra, 314 CE, and most medieval writers followed suit. A few credited it to St Augustine, whose writings date from less than a century after the Council. But modern scholars deny any connection between the Canon and either Augustine or the Council of Ancyra.

The Canon is given as Regino's chapter 364 of Book II of his Eccl. Disc. Part of the reason why the Canon was attributed to Ancyra is that it immediately follows chapter 363, a section which carries the heading, Ex concilio Anquirensi, "From the council of Anquira." The Canon itself is given the heading, Unde supra, "From the above," that is, what follows below logically proceeds from what was just said. Interestingly enough, the provision given as chapter 363 is also not to be found among the currently-accepted canons from Ancyra. Both chapters are in the midst of a very long section dealing with Magic, sex, and Pagan observances of many kinds. These things were obviously intimately associated with each other in the minds of writers such as Regino, as evidenced both by the arrangement of the material and by the frequent use of headings such as Unde supra and De eadem re, "On the Same Thing."

The association with Ancyra may be due to a misunderstanding, though if so, this raises more questions than it answers. Everywhere else Regino references Ancyra, he spells it Ancyra, and everywhere he does so, the provision he quotes is actually taken from the documented canons of that council. The sole exception is in chapter 363, where he spells it Anquira; and neither the provision of chapter 363, nor that of 364, Unde supra, are to be found among Ancyra's recorded canons. What accounts for the difference? Perhaps chapters 363 and 364 were taken from an unreliable source; or perhaps they refer to a different council held in the same city, some other year. There is another possibility, too; anquira is a Latin word which means "inquiry". So perhaps "council of anquira" is meant to be "council of inquiry," implying information which was obtained from some sort of inquisitorial board. But no such board is known to have existed; and if one is theorized, a great deal more research is needed.

Another reason why the Canon was associated with the Council of Ancyra is its subject matter. Nearly all of the provisions from Ancyra dealt with Magic, Pagan sacrifices and observances, and relapsi, that is, people who were relapsing to pre-Christian, Pagan custom, observance, and belief. If the Canon Episcopi is not from that council, at the least it quite obviously deals with the same problems. If Regino did compose the Canon himself in the early tenth century, this implies (as even Rose's argument would admit) that these issues were still pressing, six hundred years after the Council of Ancyra. There would then be a question to be asked only about detail: people were still doing Magic and still engaging in Pagan worship in the tenth century, and there were still people, newly converted to Christianity, who were being tempted to return to old Pagan ways. But were the Pagan ideas and observances of the tenth century similar in any way to those of the early fourth century, or to those of pre-Christian times? Or were people inventing new Pagan symbols and rites? Were the early tenth century followers of Diana (or Holda, or Herodias) a sew sect, or a continuation of a very old one? This is where the age of the Canon Episcopi becomes important – or at the least, the age of the ideas it contains.

It will be useful to briefly consider a short series of quotes from works by, or attributed to, St. Augustine. (This won't be a comprehensive or detailed analysis; but it will prove there were some concepts vital to the Canon Episcopi which were very much in Augustine's mind.) There is a work titled De Spiritu et Anima, "On Spirit and Soul," which was once credited to Augustine but is now assumed to be rather later, and so is attributed to "Pseudo-Augustine." (Lea guesses De Spiritu et Anima to be from the twelfth century, possibly having been written by Hugues de S. Victor,¹⁸ but Lea gives no basis for this guess.) Chapter 28 of that work is a very close paraphrase of portions of the Canon Episcopi, with a different opening statement. Here is a translation, with the paragraphs numbered to match the paragraph assignments used above for the Canon. As with the Canon itself, the division into paragraphs is artificial. In the original, there is no such division.

Setting aside the first paragraph for the time being, the text which is present here is virtually identical to parallel text from the Canon Episcopi. There are a few sentences missing, but what's here is almost indistinguishable from the Canon. One interesting difference in detail is the addition of the name Minerva. She was a Greco-Roman Goddess of the hunt, of war, and of thought and intelligence, with associations to weaving and to the Moon. The animal most commonly associated with Minerva was the owl, a nocturnal bird. This last may relate to the idea of night-flights.

One significant omission is the absence here of Paragraphs 3 and 6 from the Canon. Those paragraphs provide context, theological arguments, and biblical justification for the provisions of Paragraphs 2, 4, and 5. They are exactly the kind of manuscript glosses which are often added to a document in an attempt to give it support or to explain it to readers in later centuries. If someone was here quoting the Canon Episcopi as part of a late effort to forge a document and to fallaciously assign it to Augustine, it makes little sense to drop the scriptural and theological justifications, which would lend it support and an additional sense of authenticity. According to the common principles of textual analysis, glosses are almost invariably thought to be later accretions. This difference between the Canon and De Spiritu et Anima implies the latter document is the older one, with the Canon being based upon it.

Paragraph 2 talks of the "demonic illusions and phantasms" by which the night-riders are seduced. The first paragraph here explains how demons come by the ability to produce such illusions. Recall the Canon Episcopi's reference, in its first paragraph, to sortilegam and maleficam artem, that is, sorcery (specifically, divination) and malefic Magic. Paragraph 1 of the Canon claims these Magics were "devil-invented." The opening paragraph of De Spiritu et Anima explains how demons came to invent these Magics. Though the first words of De Spiritu et Anima are very different from the first words of the Canon Episcopi, they are intimately related in meaning.

This passage from De Spiritu et Anima is clearly the reason why some Medieval writers attributed the Canon to Augustine, since Augustine was thought to have written De Spiritu et Anima. As mentioned, modern scholars tend to doubt his authorship. But Augustine did, incontestably, write some similar things. If De Spiritu et Anima was not written by Augustine, it was based on a work which Augustine did write. Burchard quotes this piece, and gives it the title De natura daemonum, "On the nature of demons."¹⁹ This actually exists in a work by Augustine – in Chapter 3 of his De Divinatione Daemonum, "On Divination by Demons" – which Migne dates from about the period of 406 – 411 CE.²⁰

In this work, Augustine tries to explain why some people worship demons. The general sense of his thought is: it's true that demons have better senses, longer lives, and speedier bodies than humans. But people don't worship them because of any use of these powers, which could, admittedly, be used to subjugate humans. Instead, demons use these abilities to perform Magic, including forms of divination, and humans are awed by all this. It is the awe of humans in the face of demonic Magic, not the might of the demons in itself, which convinces people to worship demons.

Chapter 3 of De Divinatione Daemonum begins thus (and, once again, the division into sections is for ease of discussion, and is not in the original):

Section A provides the theme of the passage. The similarity of Section B to the opening of Chapter 28 of De Spiritu et Anima is truly striking. Section C is also relevant, for it provides the reason why Augustine thinks "demons" such as Diana are worshipped by people such as the sectarians of the Canon. It is a general statement, for which Paragraphs 2 through 6 of the Canon Episcopi can be seen as a specific example.

Of course, someone wanting to forge something like De Spiritu et Anima and falsely attribute it to Augustine could certainly have read De Divinatione Daemonum and stolen Section B from there. The similarity could then be due to plagiarism. The alternative is to postulate that Augustine quoted himself, without attribution. Was Augustine in the habit of repeating himself, changing just a few words here and there, when he wrote a new piece?

Indeed he was. Witness the following, from a letter written by Augustine, about the year 389 CE.²¹ In this passage, Augustine again stresses the superior abilities of aerial bodies as compared to earthly bodies. Additionally, he provides a theory for the mechanism by which daemons with aerial bodies might be able to affect the minds and emotions of humans, a theme which was seen in several places in the Canon and the supporting penitentials:

These sorts of ideas were very much in Augustine's mind: the powers of demons and the way they come by them, and the way they work their effects and influences upon humans, the reasons why humans worship them, the fact that humans worship them, the source of demonic Magic which then can be taught to their human worshippers, and so on – all of which are important elements in the Canon Episcopi. Other examples could be cited. One is in Book IV, Chap. 11 of Augustine's On the Trinity, titled "Miracles Which Are Done By Demons Are To Be Spurned." Augustine there repeats his assertions of demons' ability to "to do many things by means of aerial bodies, such as to cause marvel to souls which are weighed down by earthly bodies." He makes reference to "theatrical spectacles" (such as the tightrope-walking mentioned in Augustine's Letter IX); and he talks about the delusion of people's senses "whether awake or asleep,"²² a point obviously vital to the Canon Episcopi.

Back to top

What conclusions can be drawn from this detailed analysis?

First, the Canon Episcopi describes (or purports to describe) a Pagan sect, which believed in and claimed to use Magic, and which worshipped a Pagan Goddess. Many names were used for this Goddess, at least by the Church writers: so far, there's been Diana, Herodias, Minerva, and Holda. At least some of the members of this sect (mostly women, apparently) claimed to ride out at night upon certain beasts, in the company of their Goddess, with a great number of other people. The kinds of Magic they claimed to use included divination, the ability to affect the thoughts and emotions of other people, and the power to steal or damage others' goods. The Goddess they worshipped was held to be able to compel the sectarians in their night-rides. Apparently also, she was held able to create things, or to change their form, or to have other divine powers which Christians tend to reserve to Yhvh alone.

The author of the Canon Episcopi – whether Regino, Augustine, the Council of Ancyra, or someone else – viewed this Goddess (and, most likely, all other Pagan deities) as really Satan disguised. The author held the night-rides to be actual experiences, but performed "in spirit" and/or "by the soul," rather than physically, and compared them directly to the visions of the greatest of the biblical Prophets and Apostles. The things which this Goddess was held to be able to do were termed "delusions" or "illusions" or "phantasms;" that is, the Devil (or a devil) was held to be able to create believable illusions, so that when the spirit of the sectarian went traveling, it was these illusions which were seen.

The Canon author objected to the practice of Magic, users of which were held to gain their power and support from diabolic sources. Such people were to be expelled from parishes. The author also complained about "innumerable multitudes" who were being led to agree with the sectarians on various theological points. In Regino's time, these people were to be preached to, in an effort to dissuade them from their "errors." By the time of Burchard, they were additionally to be compelled to do penance, for either one or two years, simply for agreeing with the sectarians against the Church on various points of doctrine. From this, it can be assumed that in the intervening century, the preaching did little good. If anything, the problem grew worse.

Another document, De Spiritu et Anima, provided a Christian theory for the means by which demons gained the knowledge and ability to perform certain "wonders" (mira, miracles), including feats of divination and illusion or Magic. The bodies of the demons are "aerial" bodies, as contrasted with the "earthly" bodies of humans, and this gives demons keener senses, quicker movements, and longer lifespans. Because of these superior abilities, people were mistakenly led to worship some of the demons as if they were gods. De Spiritu et Anima goes on to specifically link these ideas to the night-riding sect of the Canon Episcopi; Diana was one such demon who was mistakenly thought to be a divinity. Though the Canon does not specifically speak of "flight" during the night-rides, the connection to Magic taught by creatures with "aerial bodies" may well imply it.

The age of De Spiritu et Anima is unknown, though it was for a long time ascribed to Augustine. The exact age of these documents is not relevant to their most important points, however. Regardless of when the Canon Episcopi and De Spiritu et Anima were written, or by whom, the basic ideas they contain are quite old. Already sometime in the fourth or fifth century, Augustine explained the abilities of demons and the reason for their false worship in exactly the way it's explained in De Spiritu et Anima. Contemporary with Augustine, the Council of Ancyra was concerned with relapsi – people who reverted to the use of Magic and to Pagan worship – which is exactly the central issue in the Canon Episcopi. These Christian attitudes toward Pagans are therefore at least as old as Augustine.

It remains to be seen if the idea of the night-ride is that old. This is one of the few ideas in the Canon Episcopi and De Spiritu et Anima which we have not yet traced to the fourth century.

There are a number of themes which appear in the Canon Episcopi, themes which are seen by modern scholars as being part of the "cumulative idea of Witchcraft," and which are generally thought to have been developed, or added in, rather late. These themes include the night-rides themselves, a set schedule of observances, the use of Magic, a pact or agreement with diabolic powers, and a regulated sect which opposed Christianity. Yet all of these ideas can be seem – or at the very least, the germs of them – already in the early tenth century at the very latest, far earlier than most scholars would allow.

It has not yet been demonstrated that ideas which the Canon Episcopi ascribed to this Pagan sect were actually believed in by anybody. The Canon itself claims there were many who held these beliefs, and who believed themselves to be able to do Magic and to go on the night-rides. In the era of Regino and Burchard, no torture was used in any attempt to force such confessions out of anyone, so it cannot be claimed that anyone professed these things because they were forced to do so. Indeed, since exile was the penalty for claiming to practice sortilegam and maleficam artem, or for claiming to ride with this Goddess, there would seem to be good incentive to deny doing these things. By Burchard's time, even agreeing with the sect on various theological points carried a penalty of penance. And the penitential versions of the Canon in both Regino and Burchard asked whether people believed these things of themselves; they did not seem to ask for informants who turned others in. So, although it has not yet been proven that anyone actually did believe these things of themselves, it is certain that Regino and Burchard thought there were people who did these things, and who believed themselves to do so. Further, as there is no evidence to the contrary, there is no a priori reason to suspect Regino and Burchard were mistaken on such points.

The ideas in the Canon Episcopi and related documents have been so far spoken of as if they were unique to the authors of those documents. But this is far from so. Many of these ideas, as has already been demonstrated, can be traced all the way back to Augustine. The penitentials and collections of Canon law which were assembled by Regino and Burchard were accepted by the Church as a whole for many centuries, as being authoritative doctrine. Indeed, nearly all of the material in both Regino and Burchard was derived from older Christian sources. It was not merely Regino and Burchard who objected to the worship of Diana, the Pagan Goddess, and who claimed her to really be a devil in disguise. This was the official Church policy. It had been so for many hundreds of years previously. It would continue to be so for many centuries after.

Back to top

¹ Simpson, Jacqueline. Library of the World’s Myths and Legends: European Mythology. Peter Bedrick Books, Lincolnwood, 1987, p105-106.

² Cohn, Norman Rufus Colin. Europe’s Inner Demons. Basic Books, New York, 1975, p205.

³ Cohn, ibid, p210ff.

⁴ Cohn, ibid, p212.

⁵ Cohn, ibid, p209. Elsewhere, I will soon present a discussion of this matter, Question 170 from the Corrector Burchardi.

⁶ Cohn, ibid, p212.

⁷ Midelfort, H.C. Erik. Witch-Hunting in Southwestern Germany 1562-1684: The Social and Intellectual Foundations. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1972, p15-17.

⁸ Midelfort, ibid, p15-17.

⁹ Rose, Elliot. A Razor for a Goat: A Discussion of Certain Problems in the History of Witchcraft and Diabolism. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1989 (reprint), p106ff.

¹⁰ Rose, ibid, p106; ellipses are Rose’.

¹¹ Rose, ibid, p109.

¹² Rose, ibid, p109-110.

¹³ Rose, ibid, p108-110.

¹⁴ Rose, ibid, p108-110.

¹⁵ Rose, ibid, p40-41.

¹⁶ Rose, ibid, p226.

¹⁷ Rose, ibid, p113.

¹⁸ Lea, Henry C.; Arthur Howland, ed. Materials Toward a History of Witchcraft. Introduction by George Lincoln Burr. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1939, p181. Also, Lea, Henry C, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. New York, 1888, vol III, p494.

¹⁸ Pseudo-Augustine; De Spiritu Et Anima; Migne, Jacques-Paul, ed. Patrologia Latina, from the Patrologiae Cursus Completus. 1844-1865, vol 40, p799.

¹⁹ Burchard of Worms; Ecclesiae Episcopi Decretorum, Book 10: De Incantatoribus et Auguribus [On Enchanters and Diviners], Chap 45; in Migne, ibid, vol 140, p844 – 845.

²⁰ Augustine; De Divinatione Daemonum; Migne, ibid, vol 40, p584.

²¹ Augustine; The Letters Of Augustine. Letter IX. A translation can be found in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series I (NPN1), 14 volumes, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. T & T Clark, Edinburg, 1885, vol 1.

²² Augustine; The Fifteen Books Of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop Of Hippo, On The Trinity. Book IV, Chap 11.14 (NPN1, vol 3).

Back to top