ERASING HISTORY: HOW WITCHCRAFT VANISHED

[KittyLane]

copyright © 2005 by David C. Petterson

INTRODUCTION
In order to talk about the history of Witchcraft, one must begin with
some understanding of what Witchcraft is. Histories can be created or
destroyed with the simple choice of a definition.

There have been many arguments over the possible existence of an
historical Witch-sect. The position taken in this paper is: The Church
has always known there were survivals of Paganism. Anthropologists know
this. Historians know it. Scholars know it. The only people who appear
not to know it are a few modern writers who claim Witchcraft to have
died out long ago, if it ever existed at all, and it is being today
invented from scratch.

However, virtually all theologians, anthropologists, historians, and
other scholars disagree with those modern Pagans who say Witches have a
history, and the Craft is a remnant of pre-Christian European Paganism.
The apparent contradiction comes in because most scholars mean something
very different by the word "Witch" from what is intended by modern Pagans.

The Church created a definition of the term in the Middle Ages, and
that's the definition still in use by most scholars. When Witches today
say something like, "Witchcraft was once a viable religious path, and
has survived to the present day," they mean "Ancient pre-Christian Pagan
faiths have survived." With this latter statement, few historians or
other scholars would disagree. The historians and scholars would simply
insist these survivals are not Witches. The scholars insist Witchcraft
was something "invented" by the Inquisition. But what was "invented" was
a new definition of the word "Witchcraft", and not Witchcraft itself.

Pagan religion survived, and the Church knew this very well. What the
Church invented is not Witchcraft - that is, Pagan religion, magic, and
belief - but a new and ludicrous definition of Witchcraft. It choose to
treat the pre-Christian religion of Europe as being a perverted form of
Christianity, thus implying it could not have existed before
Christianity did. This is the definition of "Witchcraft" still held by
virtually all historical scholars, even those who recognize the
survivals of ancient Pagan thought and worship. What scholars,
historians, and theologians mean by words such as "Witchcraft" and
"Sabbat" is not at all what we mean. When they say these things were
created in the Middle Ages, under the pressure of the Inquisition, or
when they say Witchcraft, if it ever existed at all, did not survive,
they are not saying what most people think they're saying.

Church documents exist which demonstrate these assertions, and which are
available for those who make the effort to find them, although they're
difficult to use and are almost always written in Latin. They are also
usually re-interpreted in such a way as to deny the Church was doing
what it was doing, and to support the historical consensus, which is
identical to the official line of the Church. Yet, if you actually read
the documents, you get a very different impression.

It's relevant to ask whether the Church's contemporary descriptions of
what was going on actually document what was going on, or whether those
descriptions depict nothing more than the imagination of the churchmen
themselves. When documents from the Church talk of folk customs and folk
beliefs, are they describing the real things real people did and
believed? Or are they describing the things cloistered churchmen
imagined the folk to have done and believed?

These are important questions, and they raise legitimate doubts about
the usefulness of the Church records. However, "legitimate doubt" is not
the same as "proven uselessness". Though the Church records are not
necessarily true, this does not imply they are necessarily false. It
falls to the intelligent reader to compare the information provided with
what's available from other sources - myth, archeology, anthropology,
and so on - and in that way to judge to what extent the records are useful.

What the Church records do indisputably convey is information on the
beliefs of the writers themselves, and the things they wanted others to
believe. The records quite clearly show what the Church thought it was
doing. The Church thought it was battling pre-Christian Paganism. It is
immensely useful to examine the Church's own claims - claims made at the
time, rather than reinterpretations made centuries later.

If the Church thought it was battling the survival of pre-Christian
Paganism, perhaps it was. We should compare what it said about the sect
it was fighting with what is known of pre-Christian and non-Christian
sects at the time, before, and in similar situations. If the Church's
claims for its non-Christian victims prove consistent with what is known
of non-Christian faiths in Europe and elsewhere, we're left with no
inherent reason to doubt what the Church records show. The next step
would be to examine archeological and other evidence, to see whether the
things the Church says were going on were really going on at the time
the Church says they were.

Below, we will follow one thread of this tangled weave. A particular
Church document will be examined, along with what was said about it in
the centuries following, and how it is viewed today. A very plain
progression will emerge, showing the evolution of the Church's attempted
erasure of Pagan history.

The Church openly stated it was battling a pre-existing faith in Europe.
The strategy used in this battle was to eliminate the belief in that
faith - not only to persecute people for holding to the religion itself;
not only to persecute those who believed the religion to still exist;
but even to condemn those people who believed the pre-Christian faiths
of Europe had once existed at all.

TO FLY BY NIGHT
A very influential document appeared near the beginning of the tenth
century. It's called the Canon Episcopi, or Capitulum Episcopi. It was
quickly accepted as authoritative, and it defined the Church's view of
Witchcraft for the next eight centuries. Even afterwards, theologians
had to take it into account and to show either how their views of
Witchcraft matched this document, or why their views should be accepted
in spite of differences from this document. Virtually all scholarly
books on the history of the Craft or of the Inquisition still mention it
today.

Most modern scholars hold to a common view of the Canon Episcopi
(hereafter referred to simply as the Canon). It's generally seen as
condemning belief in Witchcraft. That is, it does not condemn Witchcraft
itself, because there was no such thing, and never had been. Rather,
it's seen as condemning belief in the existence of Witches (and, as will
be shown, belief in the existence of certain related matters). According
to this interpretation, if you lived in the tenth or eleventh century,
and you believed there were Witches, you could be forced by the Church
to do penance under the provisions of the Canon.

What about the people who believed themselves to be Witches? Could they
be prosecuted under the Canon? The scholarly consensus says the Canon
does not condemn Witchcraft directly, because there were, at that time,
no existing Witches to condemn. One might ask: But if people believed
themselves to be Witches, isn't that what they were for historical
purposes? What makes a person a Witch - or a Christian, for that matter
- other than one's self-definition? Again, the scholarly consensus is:
There were no such people in the tenth or eleventh centuries. No one,
ever, believed him- or herself to be a Witch. However, a handful of
other people - perhaps just the churchmen and no one else - believed in
the belief in Witches, and sought to stamp it out.

According to this scholarly consensus, the Church did an about-face in
later centuries. It eventually began to persecute people under charges
of actual Witchcraft, not merely for belief in Witchcraft - that is, the
Church persecuted people because it felt like doing so, and trumped up
ridiculous charges of practicing Witchcraft (according to these
scholars, there still weren't any real Witches; there were, however,
accusations of being a Witch). And soon after that, it began to
persecute people for denying the existence of Witches.

Scholars are of two minds as to the reasons for this alleged about-face.
Some say superstition grew, and the Church began to believe the vague
rumors it had previously tried to stamp out. There still were no real
Witches, but the Church itself began to fall into the very errors it had
previously warned against.

Other scholars say Witches did begin to appear, but they appeared
because the Church had defined them so thoroughly. Opposition to the
Church had grown in isolated areas, because of some of the actions of a
few unscrupulous officials of the Church (note: opposition to the
Church, supposedly, came not because of any indigenous religion or
pre-existing belief of the people, but out of political, economic, or
social protest). Opposition parties began to adopt some of the customs
which the Church had said were those of the rumored-but-nonexistent
Witches. See, if you oppose an institution, you naturally adopt many of
the features the institution is opposed to; therefore, some dissenters
simply began doing the things the Church had condemned believing in.

Regardless of their view of the reasons for the Church's change in
policy, nearly all scholars are united in saying Witches could not have
existed before about the fourteenth century. They view Witchcraft as a
parody of Christian beliefs, and say it could not exist before the time
when the ideas it parodies had become a part of Christianity.

Let's repeat this, for it will be of vital importance later: Scholars
view Witchcraft as a Christian parody.

Their definition of Witchcraft requires tales of Sabbat orgies, pacts
with the Devil, and so forth. Some of these items don't appear in Church
records before about the fourteenth century. Since scholars assume the
first appearance of an idea in writing is the first appearance of the
idea in anyone's thought, these ideas are assumed to have not existed
before the fourteenth century. Since these ideas are seen as integral to
Witchcraft, Witchcraft could not exist before these ideas did, and
hence, not before the fourteenth century.

It's hard to see, though, how the early tenth-century Canon Episcopi
could be condemning belief in Witchcraft, if Witchcraft couldn't even be
conceived of until four hundred years later. But let's see what the
Canon actually has to say, rather than trusting what modern scholars and
churchmen say about it.

Below is a translation of the Canon Episcopi. Please note: The
paragraphing and paragraph numbers have been added for ease of reading
and discussion. There is no division whatever in the original. It is, in
fact, all one long paragraph. Some minor editing has also been done here
on punctuation, to make for somewhat easier reading.

-----~~~~~-----
THE CANON EPISCOPI

[1] To the end that bishops and their ministers work to labor with all
strength to entirely uproot from their parishes the pernicious and
devil-invented sorcery and malefic arts, if they find any man or woman
sectarian of this wickedness, they eject them dishonorably disgraced
from their parishes. Truly the Apostle agrees: "Avoid a heretic after
the first and second warning, knowing he is subverted who is of that
kind." They are subverted, and they are held captive by the devil, who,
leaving their creator, curry support from the devil. And therefore, such
a pest ought to be cleansed from the holy Church.

[2] This also is not to be omitted, that certain wicked women, turned
back toward Satan, seduced by demonic illusions and phantasms, believe
of themselves and profess to ride upon certain beasts in the nighttime
hours, with Diana, the Goddess of the Pagans, and an innumerable
multitude of women, and to traverse great spaces of earth in the silence
of the dead of night, and to be subject to her laws as of a Lady, and on
fixed nights be called to her service.

[3] But would that they alone perished in their falsehood, and did not,
through faithlessness, hand over many to ruin with themselves! For an
innumerable multitude, deceived by this false opinion, believe this to
be true, and so believing, avoid the straight faith, and are again
caught in the errors of the Pagans, by judging there to be anything of
divinity or divine will beyond the one God. Therefore, priests
throughout their churches are required to pronounce this crime to the
people, with all insistence, so this will be known to be lies in every
way; and not from a divine, but from a malignant spirit are such
phantasms imposed on the minds of the unfaithful.

[4] Since Satan himself, who transforms himself into an angel of light,
begins with the mind of whatsoever girl - and he will subjugate her to
himself through unfaithfulness and disbelief - he immediately transforms
himself into the species and resemblances of various persons; and the
mind which he holds captive, deluded in sleep, is shown things now
joyful, now mournful, and persons, now known, now unknown; through
deserted places he leads it away; and though only the spirit endures
this, the unfaithful mind believes this to happen not in the soul, but
in the body.

[5] Who truly has not, in sleep and at night, been summoned to visions
outside of himself, and seen many things asleep which never are seen
awake? Who in truth is stupid and foolish enough to decide all this
which is done only in the spirit, actually happens in the body, when
Ezekiel the Prophet saw visions of the Lord in the spirit, not in the
body; and John the Apostle saw and heard the sacred things of the
Apocalypse in the spirit, not in the body, just as he himself declares:
"Firmly I say, I was in the spirit." And Paul does not dare to declare
he was snatched away in the body.

[6] Therefore, publicly announce to all: any who believe such and
similar things destroys the faith, and whoever has not the straight
faith in God, is not his, but is of whom he believes, that is, the
devil. For about our Lord is written: "All things are made by him, and
without him nothing is made." Whoever, then, believes anything can be
made, or any creature can be changed to better or worse, or transformed
into another species or resemblance - except by the Creator himself who
made all things, and through whom all things are made - is an unbeliever
beyond doubt.
-----~~~~~-----

Regino of Prüm (c. 906 CE) published the Canon, and credited it to the
Council of Ancyra (314 CE). Most modern commentators feel it is
contemporary with Regino, and he might have written it; but there is
also some evidence of it being older. By 1020 CE, it had been modified
slightly, adding vel cum Herodiade ("or with Herodias") after "Diana,
the goddess of the pagans" in paragraph 2; and in the final paragraph,
after "beyond doubt an infidel", et pagano deterior ("and worse than
pagan"). In nearly all authoritative versions from the mid-eleventh
century onward, these additions were part of the Canon.

It would be hard to overstate the importance of this document.
Regardless of how it's interpreted, and regardless of its age or author,
the Canon gives us a glimpse into a fascinating and little-understood
phase of Western religion. Perhaps we're looking at the Church's
superstitions in the early tenth century; or perhaps at the Church's
limited understanding of a rival religious path; or at bits of folklore
which were, for various reasons, strongly disapproved of by the Church.
In any case, the Canon - or the sect and beliefs it describes - had a
lasting impact on Western civilization, its folklore and imagery, even
its language.

The term "fly-by-night" has its roots in the Canon Episcopi - or, more
accurately, in the attitudes of the Church concerning the matters
described in the Canon. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, as a
noun, a "fly-by-night" is "One who flies by night; one addicted to
nocturnal excursions. Also slang, one who defrauds his landlord or
creditors by decamping in the night." The OED gives the following quote
from a dictionary dated 1796: fly-by-night is "an ancient form of
reproach to an old woman, signifying that she was a witch." Notice how
this older definition says nothing about defrauding creditors.

SORCERY AND MALEFICE
There are a number of interesting points to be made at once about the
Canon. First, most scholars insist this document forbids belief in
certain things. And perhaps it does, but not the things they say.
Interestingly enough, the Canon itself claims to condemn disbelief.
Paragraph 4 talks about women who are misled by their "infidelity and
incredulity", that is, "lack of faith" and "disbelief".

But start with Paragraph 1. (Please keep in mind: the division into
paragraphs has been added for ease of discussion; the original is not
divided into pieces in any way.) This provision clearly condemns the
practice of "the pernicious and devil-invented sorcery and malefic
arts". It says nothing about the belief in magic, but rather condemns
the practice of magic - as if magic could be practiced, was being
practiced, and could really have actual "pernicious" effects. If the
Church believed there were people practicing magic in the tenth century,
how can scholars insist the Church did not then also believe in Witchcraft?

Simple: scholars make a distinction between magic and Witchcraft. Magic
is sorcery; Witchcraft is a Christian parody. A follower of any religion
can be a sorcerer or magician. You don't even need religion at all. You
don't have to parody Christianity to work magic. Therefore, scholars
say, Paragraph 1 says nothing at all about the Church's belief in
Witchcraft.

It does, however, say a number of things about the Church's view of
magic. It says "sorcery and malefice" (evil magic) were "invented by the
devil", and people who practice it "seek the aid of the devil". At the
time, as Henry Charles Lea documents in great detail (in his _Materials
Toward a History of Witchcraft_), all magic was viewed as being
effective through enlisting the aid of devils, or demons. Paragraph 1 is
here agreeing with this, and stating this as the reason for opposing the
practice of magic: "they are held captive by the Devil, who, leaving
their creator, curry support from the Devil."

But who, or what, were devils and demons? What was the Church's view of
them? They were of two general types: fallen angels (that is, angels who
had joined in the rebellion of Satan against Yahweh), and the offspring
of illicit unions between these fallen angels and human women (as
described in Genesis 6:1-4 and the apocryphal book of Enoch). These
creatures, the Church said, were condemned to wandering the earth - or
were confined to various airy spaces - for all eternity, or at least
until the Final Judgement. Ancient peoples knew of these creatures, the
Church said, and worshipped them. This explained the existence of Pagan
Gods, who were really these evil fallen angels and their bastard children.

This must be understood thoroughly: Pagan Gods were believed, by the
Church, to really be these evil fallen angels, and their bastard
children. Which meant they were demons and devils. Which meant people
who sought the aid of Pagan Gods were really seeking the aid of demons
and devils, even if they didn't know it; and people who sought the aid
of demons and devils were really seeking the aid of Pagan Gods.

The Canon states this plainly. Paragraph 2 talks about women who
"believe" in "Diana, the Goddess of the Pagans"; but the final paragraph
says of those who follow the pattern described, "whoever has not the
straight faith in God, is not his, but is of whom he believes, that is,
the Devil." Diana is thus equated to the devil. "Pagan Gods" (including
Diana) on the one hand, and "demons" on the other, are the same thing.

Again, Lea documents all this in amazing detail. Still as late as the
tenth century - and, as we'll see, for a very long time after - the
Church viewed "Pagan Gods" and "demons" as synonymous terms. Anyone who
invoked ancient Gods was invoking demons, and vice versa. So when the
Canon speaks of "devil-invented" arts, it's talking about arts left over
from pre-Christian Paganism; people who "curry support from the Devil"
are seeking the aid of Elder Gods.

Let's be clear about one more term in this first paragraph. It quotes
one of the Apostles and says the practice of sorcery makes one a
"heretic". What does this word mean?

It's taken from a Greek term which means "to choose". A heretic is one
who chooses. Specifically, a heretic is one who chooses to disagree with
the doctrines of the Church. There have been many such people throughout
the history of Christianity. The Inquisition was set up specifically for
the purpose of stamping out heresy, that is, eliminating disagreement
with the Church's stand on a variety of theological matters.

At the time of the Canon, and for quite a while after, not all forms of
magic were considered heretical. Lea documents Church teachings which
held demons to possess certain powers and abilities. If you attempted to
compel a demon to do something which was within the power of the demon,
then, although you were doing something reprehensible in as far as you
were trafficking with evil forces, at least you weren't doing anything
heretical. You were still agreeing with the beliefs of the Church. For a
long time, the Inquisition was prohibited from dealing with magic of
this type, because it was not heretical, and the Inquisition was only
empowered to deal with heresy.

This is why Medieval sorcerers were often left alone by the Church; they
were ordering demons about, and ordering demons to do things which the
Church claimed were, indeed, within the power of demons. Therefore, they
were doing nothing heretical, and the Inquisition, for a long time,
wasn't allowed to touch them.

However, if you attempted to make the demon do something which the
Church had decided was reserved to the powers of Yahweh alone - such as
mess with someone's free will, or predict the future, or change the
appearance of an animal - that was heresy, and was a much more serious
crime. It had become a matter of disagreeing with the Church as to the
relative and proper powers of demons and of the Christian God. You were,
in effect, setting up a lesser being in Yahweh's place. You were
treating that lesser being as you would a god.

This is the reasoning behind the admonition in the final paragraph of
the Canon: "Whoever, then, believes anything can be made, or any
creature can be changed to better or worse, or transformed into another
species or resemblance - except by the Creator himself who made all
things, and through whom all things are made - is an unbeliever beyond
doubt." Only Yahweh can "make" things or "change" things; if you believe
otherwise, you're believing some other entity has the powers of Yahweh.
You are therefore an infidel - that is, you had no faith - "and worse
than pagan."

This was all of vital import, because the Inquisition was empowered to
deal with heresy, not with sorcery - that is, they could deal with
people's disagreement with doctrine, but not with what they were doing,
except in so far as their actions reflected their beliefs. What an
accused person believed was the critical consideration.

This is what the scholars mean when they separate "magic" from
"Witchcraft". To a scholar, "magic" or "sorcery" is any form of occult
working which agrees with Church definitions, and was thus not under the
jurisdiction of the early Inquisition. "Witchcraft" is heresy - that is,
a disagreement with the beliefs of the Church, and so was covered by the
Inquisition.

Where the Canon seems to disagree with many common earlier ideas is in
its characterization of all "sorcery and malific arts" as "heresy". It
is heretical, the Canon says, because it seeks the aid of the devil, and
people should rather be seeking the aid of "the creator". Thus, to the
author of the Canon (whether Regino or someone else), the practice of
magical arts indicates a heretical belief on the part of the
practitioner, the belief that "demons" (Pagan Gods) can have the powers
of Yahweh. The "demons" exist, the Canon says, but it's heresy to treat
them as Gods.

In effect, the first paragraph of the Canon is admitting - in fact,
insisting upon - the existence of Pagan Gods, and of people who seek
their aid, and of arts which were created either by those Gods or in
their honor. Rather than forbidding the belief in such things, as most
scholars contend, the first paragraph of the Canon is insisting upon them.
The beliefs it condemns are more subtle.

[KittyLane]

THE ERROR OF THE PAGANS
Most scholars see the first part of the Canon as entirely separate from
the rest of it. Bear in mind, the division here into paragraphs is ours,
and is not in the original. In fact, there is no division whatever in
the original, nothing to mark separate or unrelated sections. There is,
therefore, no reason to suppose what we have set apart as the first
paragraph to have been intended as anything other than an integral part
of the whole. There is no reason to suppose the people who practice "the
pernicious and devil-invented sorcery and malefic arts" are not the same
people who fly by night with Diana. This is especially so since the
closing paragraph seems to refer to all these at once. Yet most scholars
do see a division here, and insist the practice of sorcery is to be
considered separate from the night-flights.

Thus, most scholars pass over the first part about "sorcery and malefic
arts", "heretics", and "curry[ing] support from the Devil", and go right
to the night-flights with Diana.

This part, Paragraph 2, is usually seen as a "presage" of the Witches'
Sabbat. It is not an actual example of the Sabbat, say the scholars,
because there's no mention of wild orgies, pacts with the devil,
worshipping goats, sacrificing babies, or even actually getting anywhere
and doing anything; only of women who "believe of themselves and profess
to ride upon certain beasts in the nighttime hours, with Diana, the
Goddess of the Pagans..."

See, the ride on beasts to a meeting place the Sabbat was later used as
an element of the Sabbat, one incorporated into the evolving image of
the Sabbat which the Inquisition created in the fourteenth century. But
the ride by night is not, of itself, a Sabbat, since a Sabbat must
contain other features as well.

The first mention of a thing in writing, scholars believe, is the first
appearance of the idea in any form at all. If an idea does not appear in
writing before a certain date, the idea did not exist before that date.
If the women flying with Diana were actually getting anywhere and doing
anything - were actually having a Sabbat - the scholars say the Canon
would tell us so. It doesn't, so the idea of a Sabbat hadn't occurred to
anyone yet (although the phrases "fixed nights be called to her service"
and "be subject to her laws as of a Lady" should, one might think, imply
something happened somewhere, that is, some "service" was performed, and
"on fixed nights" which might imply a regular schedule; but scholars are
generally wont to pass on these phrases in silence).

Further, as the scholars point out, the Canon does not say the women
were actually flying with Diana. It says they believe they were flying
with Diana. It says, in fact, the women were "seduced by demonic
illusions and phantasms." The scholars say this proves nothing was
really going on; there was only the illusionary belief in things going
on, and, the scholars say, the Canon is condemning this belief. After
all, Paragraph 3 says, "an innumerable multitude, deceived by this false
opinion, believe this to be true..."

Other documents from about this period tell us "one third of all the
peoples of the world" are part of this delusion (see, for instance, the
immensely popular Romance of the Rose, a Medieval French poetic
romance). We have here the admission of the night-rides being believed
by "an innumerable multitude" and so being a wide-spread belief; but we
also have the Canon insisting it to be a "false opinion".

But what, exactly, is the "false opinion" being spoken of? What,
exactly, is being objected to here? Paragraph 3 goes on: "and so
believing, [people] avoid the straight faith; and are again caught in
the errors of the Pagans, by judging there to be anything of divinity or
divine will beyond the one God." We're back to the same heresy alluded
to in Paragraph 1, the heresy of granting divine powers to creatures
other than Yahweh. These are the "errors of the Pagans", i.e., it is
Pagan, rather then Christian, theology. That's the reason for objecting
to belief in the night-rides; not (necessarily) because they don't
happen, but because they involve recognizing divine powers in beings
other than Yahweh.

A careful reading, in fact, shows the Canon to insist the night-rides do
happen; but "in the spirit" rather than "in the body". Paragraph 3
mentioned the "demonic illusions and phantasms". Paragraph 4 expands on
this, and tells us what those illusions and phantasms are. Satan, it
says, "transforms himself into an angel of light," and "immediately
transforms himself into the species and resemblances of various
persons", "exhibiting things, joyful or mournful, and persons, known or
unknown". This results in the mind being "deluded in sleep;" and so
Satan "leads it [the mind] away," "through deserted places."

In other words, Satan takes on the appearance of Diana and of the beasts
on which the women think they ride. He even takes on the appearance of
the other women whom they think they see. He creates the illusions of
these things, so they appear to be real. Therefore, "unfaithful mind
believes this to happen not in the soul, but in the body."

Now, literalist scholars are accustomed to conventional reality. They
will insist the tenth-century churchmen were equally literalist, and so
they felt nothing was really going on - quite ignoring the activities of
Satan so vividly described. For, after all, something which happens just
in someone's mind, something which is a mere illusion, isn't really
happening at all, right? It's just a dream, a fantasy.

And, in fact, the Canon goes on to compare the night-rides to dreams.
Paragraph 5 says, "Who truly has not, in sleep and at night, been
summoned to visions outside of himself, and seen many things asleep
which never are seen awake? Who in truth is stupid and foolish enough to
decide all this which is done only in the spirit, actually happens in
the body..." The final phrase here seems to imply these things do have
some sort of reality - they are "done in spirit" - but scholars ignore that.

They also ignore the very telling remainder of this paragraph: "Ezekiel
the Prophet saw visions of the Lord in the spirit, not in the body; and
John the Apostle saw and heard the sacred things of the Apocalypse in
the spirit, not in the body, just as he himself declares: ‘Firmly I say,
I was in the spirit.' And Paul does not dare to declare he was snatched
away in the body." So the Canon is comparing the experience of riding by
night with Diana to the experiences of Ezekiel, John, and Paul. If we
are to believe the author of the Canon meant to say the night-rides had
no reality whatever, we'd have to also believe he means to say the
experiences of the Prophets and the Apostles also had no reality
whatever. It doesn't seem likely for him to be denying his own religion
in this way.

Rather, he's saying the experiences of the women on the night-rides was
of the same type as these other experiences. It was a vision, not a
physical occurrence; but a vision is every bit as important and real, in
a religious sense, as is a physical occurrence. The author of the Canon
points this out, citing Ezekiel and John and Paul as examples. However,
in the case of the night-rides, it's a vision, as Paragraph 3 says,
"imposed on the minds the unfaithful" rather than on devout Christians
or Jews; and the visions come "not from a divine, but from a malignant
spirit" - that is, they're inspired by the devil, taking the guise of
Diana, Goddess of the Pagans, and not by Yahweh.

This passage is incredibly embarrassing to scholars. It's hard for them
to insist the Canon claims the night-rides had no existence at all, when
the rides are so directly compared to the experiences of Paul and
Ezekiel and John. In fact, this passage is so embarrassing, many
scholars refuse even to acknowledge its existence. Norman Cohn's
influential study (_Europe's Inner Demons_) includes a discussion of the
Canon - but omits this passage, without comment, and without admitting
it's there. Likewise, Elliot Rose (_A Razor for a Goat_) also silently
censors this passage.

Those silent censorings are bad enough. One scholar goes much further.
Jeffrey Burton Russell, in his influential _History of Witchcraft_,
gives us the original Latin of the Canon; but truncates it, omitting
this passage with the comment, "The rest of the canon is a web of
scriptural passages and of no great relevance." It is almost impossible
to understand why Russell would drop this passage in favor of a
disparaging comment - certainly not for questions of space! No, quite
obviously, Russell was anxious to tell us what to think about the
omitted passage - so anxious, he didn't want any possibility of us
forming our own opinions.

The word "unfaithful" is also interesting here. Someone who is
"unfaithful" is someone not of the Christian faith - that is, a Pagan.
(In later centuries, similar words were often applied to Moslems; but
there were still very few Moslems in the early tenth century, and
Moslems have never claimed to ride by night with Diana, so it's unlikely
for that to have been the intent of the word here.) According to
Paragraphs 3 through 5, visions are given by Pagan gods to Pagan peoples
in just the way divine revelations are given to members of the biblical
tradition by the biblical god. The Canon says the women who ride by
night perform the same sort of activities as the prophets and apostles
do, and have the same sorts of relationships with "Diana, the Goddess of
the pagans" as the prophets and apostles had with Yahweh.

This is, in fact, the basis for the objections raised by the Canon; not
that the things believed in are entirely illusory, but "any who believe
such and similar things destroys the faith, and whoever has not the
straight faith in God, is not his, but is of whom he believes, that is,
the Devil." The Canon objects to these beliefs because they're
non-Christian. They're the beliefs of Pagans.

The Canon concludes, "Whoever, then, believes anything can be made, or
any creature can be changed to better or worse, or transformed into
another species or resemblance - except by the Creator himself who made
all things, and through whom all things are made - is an unbeliever
beyond doubt;" and, to make the point, slightly later editors added,
"and worse than pagan." Not only does the person in question lack
Christian faith; he or she actively shares the "errors of the Pagans"
and has a faith which is non-Christian.

Recall too, the first paragraph, which is integral with the rest. The
practice of magic is part of the whole syndrome, for it's an outward
sign of these heretical beliefs. The practice of magic signifies a "man
or woman sectarian of this wickedness" who believes these demons - that
is, Pagan Gods - have real powers which can be called upon and used. The
sect which believes itself to fly by night with Diana also practices magic.

Because the Canon has such connotations, because it makes plain what
it's condemning is a pre-Christian, Pagan faith, many commentators
insist not only that it does not describe a Sabbat; they say it does not
even describe Witchcraft! (See, for instance, Elliot Rose, Razor..., in
which he maintains the Canon was not originally meant to have anything
whatever to do with Witchcraft.) Witchcraft, remember, is held by
scholars to be a Christian parody. The Canon, on the other hand, is
obviously describing a whole range of entirely non-Christian ideas and
images and beliefs. It cannot, therefore, be describing Witchcraft.

[KittyLane]

WITCHCRAFT AND BELIEF
Some commentators make a point of the Canon's "late" date and
questionable credentials. Regino of Prüm, who published it in 906 CE,
credits it to the early fourth century; but, as mentioned, most scholars
(since the 1920's, anyway) say Regino wrote it himself and gave it a
false attribution. Regardless of when and by whom it was written, the
Canon quickly came to be regarded as authoritative; and, regardless of
whether modern scholars feel it was originally meant to apply to
Witchcraft, it almost immediately came to be used as such.

Further, if the scholars are correct in saying it was written in the
early tenth century, the Canon documents the existence - or, at the
least, belief in the existence - of Pagan worship, nearly nine hundred
years after the death of Christ. If scholars wanted to deny the late
survival of Paganism, they'd be better off sticking with Regino's dating
of the Canon to the 314 CE Council of Ancyra. If it was written in the
tenth century, we have to explain the survival of Pagan ideas and
imagery for an extra six hundred years.

This really isn't hard to do. The last temple to Isis was converted to a
church dedicated to Mary in the eighth century, barely 250 years before
Regino. Most scholars do not dispute the survival of Pagan faiths until
this late date. They simply insist Witchcraft had nothing to do with
these Pagan faiths.

It's hard to see how scholars can deny the Canon's connection both to
Paganism and to Witchcraft, when the Canon itself seems to be referring
to both, and seems to equate the two. But then, it could be argued, the
interpretation of the Canon just presented above is rather idiosyncratic
and may not reflect the ideas and understandings of the Church in the
tenth century and the centuries immediately following.

The interpretation given above disagrees with most modern scholars in
many important ways. It sees the Canon as describing, and condemning, a
religious sect which the author of the Canon believed actually existed.
Scholars say the Canon condemns belief in the night-rides, and denies
they have any reality. Scholars ignore any possibility of a connection
between the sect described by the Canon and older Paganism. In fact, the
scholars insist, the Canon says there was no such sect, no one actually
did or believed the things described therein (so don't you do it, either!).

But the interpretation presented in this paper says the author of the
Canon gave the same level of belief and credence to the night-rides as
he gave to the revelations of Paul and John and Ezekiel. He simply
condemned the night-rides because they represented the beliefs of a
faith other than Christianity.

Which interpretation is closer to that held by people of the time? In
the centuries immediately following Regino, did the Churchmen themselves
view the Canon as condemning women who ride by night with Diana? Or did
they see the Canon as condemning belief in women who ride with Diana?
Did the Church proceed to condemn magic, or belief in magic? Did the
Church condemn traffic with demons, or belief in traffic with demons?

And, if the Churchmen were condemning belief, why? Was it because they
thought such things are impossible, or because they wanted other people
to think they were impossible, and so to stop doing them? Did they
condemn belief in things no one was doing, or belief in things people
were doing, but which the Church didn't like?

DISCOVERING WITCHCRAFT
About a hundred years after Regino, Burchard of Worms (c. 1020)
published a series of questions for confessors. Priests were supposed to
ask these questions in order to discover the sins of their flocks. This
series of questions is known as the Corrector Burchardi (that is, "The
Corrector of Burchard" or "Burchard's Manual of Corrections"). In the
same book in which he published his Corrector, Burchard included a copy
of the Canon, complete with the additions noted above (the mention of
Herodias and of the folks spoken of being "worse than pagans").

Below are a number of Questions from the Corrector. The numbers
identifying these paragraphs are ours, added for ease of discussion.
Most of the translations are Lea's. (All of the quotes from Lea which
follow, unless otherwise specified, can be found on pages 180 through
198 of his _Materials Toward a History of Witchcraft_.) Paragraphs which
begin, "Ask after..." are advice directed to the priest; paragraphs
which begin "Have you... ?" are actual questions which the priest is
supposed to ask. Items 11 through 14 are simple descriptions of sins to
be rooted out, confessed, and penanced.

The questions of the Corrector Burchardi were used from the eleventh to
the fourteenth century. Lea says they show "in the eleventh century
there were popular beliefs, identical with the later ones, which must
have remained and been transmitted through generations. These were
undoubtedly derived from pagan sources, for much in Burchard's canons
shows that heathenism was still a living force in his time". This
feature will be seen repeatedly as the Questions are considered.

These Questions sometimes require punishment for belief, sometimes for
action, sometimes both. Whenever the belief is punishable, it's because
the belief is a Pagan belief. When the act is punishable, it's because
such an act implies an underlying Pagan belief. Even when the belief
alone is prohibited, these Questions do not say the believed-in action
is impossible or illusory. The Church is not denying such things happen,
nor that people actually do the things described. Rather, it's
attempting to eliminate the belief in them.

**1) Ask after the belief that certain women, deceived by the devil,
must of necessity, with a crowd of demons in the form of women whom the
foolish people call strigam holdam, on certain nights ride on certain
beasts. For belief in this, a penance of a year on legitimate feast days.**

Question 1 paraphrases Paragraph 2 of the Canon Episcopi, making plain
the connection between these two documents. It also puts to the lie any
claims that the Canon wasn't intended to apply to Witchcraft. Strigam
means "Witch", and is derived from strix, a screech-owl. Owls have
always been associated with Witches, and with Diana and Artemis. The
Queen of the Witches in Hebrew myth and legend is named Lilith, a name
which also means "screech-owl".

Of Question 1, Lea writes, "the offence is assumed to be in the belief
in such things, and there is introduced the idea of Holda (the Dame
Habonde) - opposed to the Unholde, or malignant witch." The name "Dame
Habonde" is one of many forms of Herodias, who was added to the Canon by
the time of the Corrector Burchardi. If Unholde is to be seen as a
"malignant witch," then the idea of a Witch must have been current at
the time. Furthermore, if Holde was in contrast to Unholde, the former
must have been a "good Witch", so the belief in a "good Witch" must also
have existed.

Neither Holde nor Unholde are Latin words; both were borrowed from
Germanic languages (for there are Teutonic and Germanic Goddesses of
this and similar names) indicating they were not ecclesiastical inventions.

So here, the Corrector Burchardi is objecting to belief in "certain
women" who "must of necessity" go on night-rides with Dame Habonde. At
first glance, this appears to deny the reality of the whole thing, and
to support the common scholarly interpretation of the Canon. But the
situation is far more complex than that. For one thing, part of the
objection rests in the phrase "must of necessity"; for if the women are
forced to do these things, it's a denial of free will. This would mean
they weren't responsible for their actions, and so shouldn't be punished
for them. The offence, then, at least in part, is heresy, that is,
disagreeing with Christian doctrine regarding free will.

Further, one who rides at night with the strigam holdam obviously also
believes in the divinity of Diana and Dame Habonde. As Lea says, the
offence is belief, not action; but Question 1 is unclear on exactly
which belief is being punished and forbidden. Is it belief in the
strigam holdam? in the crowd of demons? in the flights themselves? in
women who believe in flying? or in the Goddess-hood of Diana and Herodias?

**2) Ask after the belief, or the participation in that faithlessness
(perfidia), that enchanters and those who call themselves "storm
growers" can by the incantation of demons arouse tempests or change the
minds of men. For such belief or participation, one year's penance on
legitimate feast days. **

**3) Ask after the belief, or the participation in that unbelief, that a
woman by maleficia and incantations can change men's minds, that is,
from hate to love and from love to hate, or can by her incantations
convey away the goods of men. For such belief or participation, one year
penance on feasts.**

Questions 2 and 3, Lea says, "imply disbelief in the powers ascribed to
sorcerers (witches). Observe that the belief and the act are equally
punishable and the penance is light"; but do they really imply such
disbelief? Lea also says these two Questions "imply that the thing can
be done - not that it is an erroneous belief," which seems to contradict
his statement of disbelief.

"Participation" implies people are actually attempting these things, and
with some measure of success. So, although the belief is also being
punished, the reason for punishing the belief is not because the thing
is impossible. On the contrary, it's being punished because the thing is
possible and does happen and the Church wants people to stop doing it.

In saying these questions "imply disbelief in the powers ascribed to
sorcerers (witches)" - and note Lea's use here of the word "witches",
equating it to "sorcerers" - Lea is perhaps misled by the term perfidia.
These Questions are condemning the beliefs described because they're not
part of the Christian faith; thus, they are the beliefs of one who is
without the faith, or "faithless"; they are not "true" beliefs, but are
"unbeliefs".

So, in addition to punishing the act itself, the Corrector Burchardi
punishes the beliefs behind the act, in an attempt to make it less
likely for people to actually perform such an act. If no one holds the
tenets which make the act possible, it's less likely to be done.

This disputes the common scholarly perception of "sorcery" as something
unrelated to religion. Scholars often say "sorcery" is supposed to work
regardless of the belief, or lack of belief, on the part of the
practitioner. The Canon and the Corrector Burchardi both assume
otherwise; they assume the practice of sorcery indicates certain beliefs
on the part of the practitioner, otherwise he or she wouldn't bother to
do such things.

The ability to "change the minds" of others is considered to be in
contradiction to the idea of free will. To believe you can do such a
thing is to deny one of Christianity's cardinal tenets, the existence of
free will - or at least, it implies belief in the ability to contravene
free will. That's why the belief in this ability is punished; believing
this way, and acting on your belief, is giving to humans - or to demons
- powers which are reserved for Yahweh. This is a heresy.

Similar arguments explain the Church's opposition to belief in the
abilities to raise storms or to transport goods, which are other powers
which popular tradition gives to Witches or Pagan Gods, but which the
Church reserves to Yahweh. These beliefs are punished because they are
in opposition to Christian theology, not because they are inherently
magical, or because they don't work or are illusory, or even because
their effects are considered dangerous (this last being a matter for
civil, not ecclesiastical, courts).

**4) Have you believed as some believe that when they enter a house they
can destroy the young poultry and pigs by word or glance or hearing? If
you have believed or done so, one year's penance on legitimate feasts.**

The same considerations apply to Question 4; both the belief and the act
is punishable. The act is punished because it implies a specific belief;
the belief, as the Canon puts it, is "that any creature can be changed
to better or to worse" by anyone other than Yahweh.

**5) Ask after the belief that those who are vulgarly called the Fates
can at the birth of a man designate him for what they will, so that when
he chooses he can transform himself into a wolf, which the Teutons call
a Werewolf, or into some other figure. For the belief that the divine
image can be changed into another form or species by any one save God,
penance ten days on bread and water. **

**6) Ask after the belief that there are rural women called Sylvaticae,
who are corporeal and at will can show themselves to their lovers and
enjoy them and then disappear at will. For such belief, ten days'
penance on bread and water.**

On Questions 5 and 6, Lea says, "it is the mere belief that is
punishable," but it's important to be aware of what belief is being
punished. These Questions describe Pagan beliefs, straight out of
classical mythology. What's being punished here is holding to the tenets
and myths of an older religion.

**7) Have you done what some women do, believe that by their
fascinations and incantations they can transfer to themselves the honey
and milk of their neighbors? If you have so done, penance for three
years on legitimate feasts. **

**8) Have you done, as some women do at certain times of the year,
spread a table with some meat and drink and three knives, so that, if
those three sisters come who of old were called by the foolish,
Posterity or the Fates, they can regale themselves? If so, you must do
penance for a year on legitimate feast days.**

[KittyLane]

For Questions 7 and 8, Lea comments: "Here the act is the thing
punished." Number 7 is an obvious magical spell; number 8 describes a
Pagan ritual. Were people actually doing such things? If not, why would
the Church put such ideas into peoples' heads? ("I forbid you from
shoving peas up your nose.")

The act is being punished. Now, either the Church believed the magic
would work, or it believed the magic would fail. Scholars maintain that,
at this time, the Church was telling people not to believe in such
things, because they were illusions and didn't work. But if magical
spells are ineffective, why should the Church care when one is
performed? Refer back to the first Paragraph of the Canon; all "sorcery
and malefice", it says, are works of "the devil", i.e., Pagan Gods.
Magical spells such as in Question 7 require a belief in the power of
Pagan Gods.

There are two reasons why the Church might have objected to such actions
as these. Either the Church believed, in the eleventh century, that
there really were Witches who really did dangerous things (which would
contradict the usual scholarly interpretation of the Canon), or the
Church was objecting to particular items of Pagan theology and was
trying to stamp them out - i.e., the Canon was depicting an actual sect
which actually existed (which would also contract the usual view of the
Canon). These two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

Question 8 - leaving out food and drink for the Fates - depicts a
completely harmless action, not even a spell, one which couldn't affect
anyone, anywhere. Why object to it at all? Simple: Number 8 implies
respect, reverence, and worship given to Pagan Goddesses.

Questions 5 and 8 both refer to the Fates. The theological beliefs
behind these Questions are consistent, and contain common threads. We
wouldn't expect this in an assemblage of random bits and pieces,
gathered from empty folklore or a cleric's fevered imagination. We
would, however, expect such consistency from descriptions of a mature
and living religion.

**9) Ask after the belief that at night a woman in bed in her husband's
arms, with the doors closed, can go out and with other women, deceived
by similar error, traverse spaces of earth and without arms slay men,
baptized and redeemed with Christ's blood, and eat their cooked flesh
and replace their hearts with straw and wood or other things and then
revive them and give them further life. For such belief, a quarantine on
bread and water and seven years' penance.**

On Number 9, Lea says, "Here it is the belief... not the act, that is
punishable - but note the severity." Note also the similarity to
Shamanic initiation imagery. The belief would be recognized by any
anthropologist or comparative folklorist as of a sect utilizing
cross-gender initiations with imagery similar to that of Australian or
Siberian Shamans, or, for that matter, the tale of Actean and Diana. It
is objectionable for the same reasons as are 5, 6, and 8; it expresses a
Pagan belief.

**10) Ask after the belief that women, limbs of the devil, at night and
with closed doors can rise in the air and fight with others, giving and
receiving wounds. For such belief three years' penance on legitimate
feast days.**

Number 10 asks a similar question and provides a similar penance, but
somewhat less severe. The belief behind the imagery of Number 10 is in
line with the idea of battling for the fertility of the fields, a very
old concept documented by Ginzburg in _Night Battles_. (This is a
fascinating and important book, which documents the late history of a
pre-Christian Pagan sect called the benandanti, which survived through
the time of the Inquisition.) Question 5, which involved werewolves, is
also connected to this imagery, for many of the fighters Ginzburg
describes said they were fated to the battle, and changed themselves
into wolves to accomplish their role. (As a side note, both the
Greco-Roman Ares/Mars and the Teutonic and Norse Tiw began as fertility
and agricultural gods. They became gods of war rather late, probably
because of just this idea, battling to protect or insure the fertility
of the fields.)

Wolf imagery is common in Shamanic cultures, as is the idea of changing
oneself into a wolf. And, of course, Diana's hunting dogs were
barely-domesticated wolves. So these images are perfectly consistent
with known and documented Shamanic beliefs, as well as with European
myth and imagery. They also include a veiled reference to Diana (through
the Actean myth) and a blatant reference to shape changing, and thus to
the Canon. But it's all wildly opposed to Christian theology, which
insists the ability to change the form of a creature is an ability
reserved for Yahweh alone.

**11) Consulting magicians and employing them for maleficia, or
consulting diviners as to the future or those who cast lots or use
auguries and incantations. For this, two years penance on feasts. **

**12) Making ligatures and incantations, to be hidden in trees or cast
upon roads to preserve one's beasts and to destroy those of others. Two
years penance on feasts.**

**13) Conveying away by incantations the bees or milk of a neighbor.
Three years' penance on feast days. **

**14) When a lover is about to marry another woman, for ligaturing him
and rendering him impotent, forty days penance on bread and water.**

Questions, 11 through 14 all imply the acts condemned are possible,
effective, and are actually performed. They are, of course, the kinds of
charges which will later figure prominently in Inquisition Witch-trials.
They're all examples of just the sort of "sorcery and malefice"
condemned in Paragraph 1 of the Canon.

The usual scholarly interpretation of the Canon is that it condemns
belief in this sort of thing. Further, the scholars say this
interpretation was held for several hundred years after Regino. But on
the contrary, the Corrector Burchardi, published only a century after
the Canon, and using the Canon as a source and a guide and authority,
explicitly and implicitly accepts just the sorts of things in which the
scholars say the Canon forbids belief.

The Corrector Burchardi punishes the practice of these things as often
as it punishes belief; and when it punishes belief, what is forbidden is
documentable non-Christian doctrine and myth, or doctrine which is at
odds with the Church. The Corrector Burchardi appears to "ask after"
such things for the purpose of identifying members of a non-Christian
faith. Far from denying the existence of a Witch-sect, both the Canon
and the Corrector Burchardi insist upon it, and seek to discover and
punish its members.

FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES
Joannes Andreae, whom Lea calls "the leading canonist of his time",
wrote between the years 1305 and 1346. He asked whether sorcery was
heretical. He concludes it may be. If a demon is invoked to do something
which is within the demon's power - such as "inciting a woman to lust" -
the act is not heretical (though still a great crime) because that sort
of thing is the function of the devil anyway. But if a demon is invoked
to do something reserved to Yahweh, such as causing storms or predicting
the future, that is heresy. If the demon is "adored" - i.e., worshipped
- it is heresy regardless of what is asked [Lea, p208].

Another writer, mid-fifteenth century, also writes of the Canon and
says, "the folly of this belief is worse than paganism." Lea says, "The
Council of Amiens (c. 1410) forbids women to profess that they ride with
Diana or Herodias or Bizazia, for this is a demonic illusion... showing
it to be still a popular belief." But note which belief is being fought.
No one denies that there are women who think they fly at night with
Diana. Rather, these women are being told their experiences are "demonic
illusions". They only think they fly with Diana; actually, they fly with
demons, or not at all. In any case, the Council of Amiens assumed the
existence of people who hold this belief, that is, people who believe
themselves to fly by night. They assumed the sect existed, and were
fighting it. Even Lea seems to admit there were people who believed this
of themselves: it was "still a popular belief."

Lea says, "Juan de Torquemada (c. 1450) treats of the Can. Episcopi at
great length in true scholastic dialectics, proving that all which these
women assert is impossible; it is all an illusion produced by the demon
and those who believe it lose the faith. Thus he supports the Can.
Episcopi in every particular." But observe what he is supporting. There
really are women who say they ride by night with Diana, and there really
are demons (or a demon) who provides them this illusion or vision. Thus,
the sect exists, but Torquemada wants people to see its tenets - not the
sect itself - as "illusions". And recall who the Church said the demon
Diana really was: a Pagan Goddess.

And again: "St. Antonio (c. 1450), in his Confessionale, treats
night-flying as a sin to be confessed"; not belief in night-flying, but
actual flying by night. Yet Lea says, "Witchcraft, however, could not
have become prevalent in Tuscany in his time; for he makes no allusion
to it... even when treating of superstition and warning against recourse
to soothsayers and sorcerers, which is seeking help from the devil."

This illustrates, quite forcefully, the problem modern Pagans run up
against in trying to recapture our history from historical scholars. Lea
says Antonio does not have even any "allusion" to Witchcraft, though he
condemns night-flying, superstition, soothsaying, sorcery, and seeking
help from the devil (and "devil", remember, was the word the Church used
to signify "Pagan Gods").

What in the world does Lea mean by "Witchcraft", if none of these things?

We'll answer that question, but not yet.

HERESY AND PAGAN WORSHIP IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY
In the 1370's, a cleric named Nickolas Eymeric wrote extensively on the
subjects we're here interested in [Lea, pps 209-213]. Eymeric "Lays down
the rule that divination by natural means, such as chiromancy, etc., and
drawing lots, does not come under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition,"
because it does not involve demons, and simply holds there to be a
connection between events and the natural world. Thus, there is no
heresy, and the Inquisition has no authority.

But there is heresy in sorcerers who pay honor to demons, or who
"rebaptize children" - which apparently means, consecrating them to
other gods. There is also heresy in "divining the future or penetrating
the secrets of the heart" - mind reading - "or baptizing figurines" -
apparently, blessing statues, making them into graven images - "or
anointing with holy oil, or suffumigating the head of the dead" - all of
which, other than the divination, seem to be religious rites, not
strictly magical ones.

A later writer, Peña, who wrote a commentary on Eymeric's work in 1578,
adds that such things as the following are heretical: baptizing images,
uttering prayers to demons, sacrificing to them, kneeling to idols and
the like, all of which, again, sounds like non-Christian religious
observance.

Eymeric says there are three kinds of invocations of demons. "First,
when there is adoration, or latria, which may be exhibited in many
ways... [such as] offering sacrifices and prayers, promising obedience,
swearing by them, adjuring them by the name of a superior demon, singing
their praises, kneeling to them, observing chastity in reverence of
them, fasting or macerating the flesh, putting on white or black
garments in their honor, begging of them by characters, signs, and
unknown names [i.e., written spells or prayers or talismans], lighting
candles and burning incense, sacrificing birds or animals or burning
them, letting blood. All these are latria." All these also smack of
religious rites. In such cases, "there is heresy clear, and the
performer is to be punished for heresy, not for sorcery."

The second form of demon invocation is dulia: "mingling their names in
prayer with those of saints as mediators with God, lighting wax candles,
praying [to] God through their names and merits." This sounds like a
combination of Pagan and Christian rites, a syncretising recognition of
the equivalencies of Pagan and Christian notions of Godhood. It is also
amazingly similar to modern Voudoun practices. This, Eymeric says, "is
also heresy and the culprit is to be punished for heresy."

In the third form, "there is neither latria nor dulia, as when a circle
is described, a boy is placed in it and an object such as a mirror, a
sword, or a vase is set before him, while the performer reads from a
necromantic book and invokes the demon." We will let the reader
determine what other sort of ritual this resembles. In this case,
Eymeric says, "similarly, there is heresy... especially if he has asked
of the demon what exceeds the power of demons, as inquiring into the
future dependent upon God or on free will... To ask of the demon that
which is beyond his power - as to forecast the future, to raise or to
revive the dead - is to attribute to him the power of God and is
therefore heresy."

In support of this, Peña says the adoration of demons is idolatry, and
represents a kind of cult or religious sect. The important point in all
cases, the point leading to heresy, is worshipping demons or granting
them powers which are reserved to Yahweh - in other words, treating them
as Gods.

Eymeric said that these various forms of adoration of demons can be
called dulia and latria. These words had specific meanings in Catholic
usage, beginning in Medieval times. The OED derives them both from Greek
words meaning "servitude". How they came to mean this is not clear; but
witness the word serf, root for servant, which was derived from the name
of the tribe of Slavs after they were conquered and enslaved.

In Catholic technical usage, latria is servitude and honor directed
toward Yahweh; hence also the term idolatry, which is latria directed
toward an idol. By using these terms, Eymeric is objecting to Pagan
worship which treats entities other than Yahweh with the reverence which
he feels is appropriate only to Yahweh. Dulia, in Catholic usage, refers
to the lesser amounts of respect and servitude directed toward saints,
which are intermediaries between humans and Yahweh. (A special form,
hyperdulia, is reserved for Mary.)

Apuleius of Madura, in the second century CE, wrote of entities known as
lares and manes who were as intermediaries between men and Gods. Being a
Pagan, he thought this was a good idea, and indicated it was a very old
idea. The fourth-century Augustine, in his _The City of God_, argues
against Apuleius' theology at length. So, again, what Eymeric is
objecting to here is the religious observances of Pagans, observances
known to, and described by, both Apuleius and Augustine, a full
millennium earlier.

Lea writes, "Eymeric describes books which he has seized and read and
burnt. The _Clavicula Salomonis_ [Key of Solomon], he says, was used to
swear demons to tell the truth, as we Christians use the Gospels and the
Jews use the Law [Torah]" - a clear recognition of the Key as neither
Christian nor Jewish, and, in fact, as being a religious book on a par
with the Gospels or the Torah. "Then there is the book they call
_Thesaurus Necromantiae_ [Treasury of Necromancy, or "Book of Shades"],
inscribed to Honorious."

[KittyLane]

"From these and other books," Lea goes on, "and the confessions made to
him [Eymeric] and to other inquisitors it appears that in invoking
demons they pay them the honor of latria, sacrificing to them, adoring
them with prayers, devoting themselves to demons and promising them
obedience, swearing by demons and adjuring them in the name of a
superior demon, singing their praises and kneeling to them, promising
chastity out of reverence to them, fasting and macerating the flesh,
lighting lamps [candles], suffumigating them with incense, immolating
birds and other animals to them, making offerings of their own blood,
burning birds and other animals in their honor and making holocausts
[burnt offerings] of other things... In the judgment of the Church these
are not to be considered as sorcerers, but as heretics... they are to be
abandoned for execution to the secular arm like other heretics." The
penalty for heresy has become quite severe; and, again, what is being
punished is non-Christian religious observance.

Lea comments: "All this is regular demon worship, modeled on that of the
Church." Yet the Church did not do such things as "immolating birds and
other animals... making offerings of their own blood, burning birds and
other animals... making holocausts of other things," so it's difficult
to see how Lea can feel worship of this kind was "modeled on that of the
Church." On the other hand, such sacrifices were part of pre-Christian
religious observance, in Europe and elsewhere; and the other items on
Eymeric's list (adoration with prayers, lighting candles, and so on) are
parts of the religious observance of nearly every religion since the
time of Sumer.

Even Eymeric compares these observances to those of ancient Pagans; he
says they are the same as those described in 2 Kings, chapter 17, in
honor of Baal. (Lea doesn't include this bit of Eymeric's thought; see
Witchcraft in Europe, 1100-1700 edited by Kors and Peters, University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1972, page 87).

It's often said that the Inquisitors tortured people until they
confessed to anything the Inquisitors wanted to hear, and therefore such
"confessions" as alluded to above are worthless. At the moment, however,
we're interested only in what the Church thought it was doing, not in
what the people who were accused and forced to confess had actually been
doing. Even if all such confessions were forced, it's important and
valid to ask why the Inquisition was looking for the particular features
it looked for. The Church thought it was fighting against people with
non-Christian beliefs, who worshipped non-Christian Gods, often in ways
dissimilar to Christian rituals - but always in ways identical to
known pre-Christian rites.

Lea also says Eymeric quotes the Canon Episcopi in order to depict an
example of heresy. Evidently, Eymeric is classing the sect described in
the Canon in the same terms as those above. "He has a long and learned
disquisition on the invocation of demons," Lea writes, "sacrificing to
them and worshipping them. In this he cites the Can. Episcopi, the first
portion, ordering bishops to eject from their districts those who
practice sorcery and magic arts; also the second portion, concerning
Diana and Herodias - all of which is introduced to show that the
followers of Diana are heretics, to be punished as such. He says nothing
about the heresy of believing in the illusion... His only object in the
whole long dissertation is to prove that all magic and adoration of the
demon is heresy".

Note how Lea has tried to separate "the first portion" of the Canon from
"the second portion", attempting to differentiate between the
practitioners of "sorcery" on the one hand and the "the followers of
Diana" on the other. Yet Eymeric apparently makes no such distinction;
he cites both "portions" as examples of the "invocation of demons," and
of "sacrificing to them and worshipping them," for the purpose of
showing "that the followers of Diana are heretics."

Eymeric talks of "simple arts of divination," which are, he says, not
heretical - but he does not apply this to the "first portion" of the
Canon Episcopi. Instead, "when... there is invocation of the demon or
misuse of sacraments, such as rebaptising children, consecrating
figurines, and the like" - non-Christian religious rituals - "there is
heresy subject to the Inquisition."

Perhaps Lea's most interesting comment is this: "Yet Eymeric knows
nothing of the Sabbat... Eymeric knows nothing of witchcraft." Amid all
this magic, divination, religious ritual, adoration of demons (i.e.,
Pagan Gods), pledges of obedience, use of magical texts, sacrifices, and
on and on, there is no Sabbat and no Witchcraft. What in the world would
be Witchcraft or a Sabbat?

These are exactly the kinds of things modern Pagans mean when they speak
of "Sabbats" or "Witchcraft" or "Pagan rituals" (especially ancient
Pagan rituals - many items, such as blood sacrifices, are recognized as
part of our past but no longer part of our current rites). Lea does not
see any of this as "Witchcraft". Lea must mean something entirely
different by these terms than we do. So when a historian says,
"Witchcraft has no history. There were no Witches in the Middle Ages or
before. The Sabbat is a relatively new invention among the farcical
ideas created by the Church" - this all means something very different
from what modern Pagans think it means.

In point of fact, things we would recognize as "Pagan" or "Sabbats" or
"Witchcraft" were recognized by the Church from very early times -
certainly from the time of the Canon Episcopi straight through to the
time of Eymeric. It's relevant to ask whether these things were actually
happening, or whether they were a mere phantasm in the minds of people
such as Eymeric. But in any case, it is not true that the things we
recognize as Witchcraft weren't even conceived of until quite late,
which is what the historians seem to say. So when the historians say
such things, be careful to find out what they really mean.

Whatever do they mean?

HERESY AND PAGAN WORSHIP IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
Lea paraphrases Alfonso Tostato (c. 1440), whom he calls "the great
Spanish theologian of the fifteenth century." Lea believes there is a
change evident here. Until Tostato, Lea says, Church theologians
interpreted the Canon (correctly, in Lea's view) as forbidding belief in
the night-flights. Tostato, on the other hand, appears to believe the
flights actually took place, and insists the point of the Canon rested
in another direction entirely.

In talking about demons - whom Tostato categorizes as "fallen angels" -
in spite of having "fallen", Tostato says, "Demons have not lost their
natures, in which they equal good angels; indeed many demons excel many
of the good angels, for it is said that angels fell of all the orders
and the good angels have such power that they move the spheres, as we
are told by Scripture and the philosophers" - that is, early Christian
cosmology explained the motion of the planets by saying some of the more
powerful angels pushed them about. So Tostato is here saying, since
demons are fallen angels, some of them must be pretty powerful. And if
they can move the planets, surely they can carry people! If so, the
night-flights might not be mere illusions.

Lea's paraphrase of Tostato goes on: "Daily experience proves this power
of the demons, which I wish was not so well known, for we know of many
who have transported themselves in a moment from distant places by the
aid of demons. And this is so manifest that it would be imprudent to
deny it, when we meet a thousand witnesses who are conscious of it. And
there are witnesses that some by maleficent art, God permitting, force
others to come to them in a moment of time, and much of this would be
done if God did not forbid it...

"It is also true," Tostato says further, "what is said about women who
by night wander through various places, for often this has been found
out and judicially punished. And some who have wished to imitate their
nefarious ceremonies have fared badly. Nor can it be said that this
happens in sleep, for not only those who have suffered but many others
bear witness to this. Nor is there any reason to doubt it."

Lea's interpretation of the Canon disagrees with Tostato. As mentioned,
the common scholarly interpretation, which Lea shares, is that the Canon
forbids belief in flying by night. This is not the interpretation we
presented, and it's not Tostato's, either. So Lea says Tostato "goes on
to argue away the Can. Episcopi, asserting that it does not deny that
women can be transported by demons, but only forbids belief in the
assertion that they fly with Diana and Herodias and believe Diana to be
a goddess, which is paganism."

Again paraphrasing Tostato, Lea says, "Diana and Herodias are demons who
cause themselves to be venerated in the form of goddesses. So, when
these women say they ride on beasts, it is not true, for beasts cannot
fly through the air; but these are demons who take the shape of beasts
or of whatever else they please. It is also false that they [the women]
come in obedience to summons from Diana every night, for they come of
their own free-will and because they have a pact with the demon. It is
very rare for people to be carried against their will by demons and only
in special cases." Lea comments: "Note that this argument is based on
the transportation, etc. being true and does not touch the Can.
Episcopi, which pronounces it all a delusion."

Tostato goes on: "The error condemned is not that man can be
transported, but that Diana is regarded as a goddess. The assertion that
these are dreams may be true, for such dreams occur, but the sense of
the canon is that those lose the faith who regard Diana as a goddess."

In trying to discredit Tostato and his view of the Canon, Lea says, "A
few years earlier Tostato in his Commentary on Genesis had argued to the
contrary. He then said: 'There are women whom we call maleficae in Spain
who say that with an ointment and certain conjurations they are carried
to distant places where there are assemblies and enjoy all kinds of
pleasure. But this is an error, as has been found by their falling into
a stupor, insensible to blows and fire, and on awaking in a few hours
relating where they have been and what they have seen and done.'"

But these statements of Tostato's are not all contradictory, as Lea
would have us believe. Tostato does say some of the experiences may be
dreams. There was also a raging controversy at the time over whether
ointments are capable of causing flight; most theologians agreed they
were not, but also thought flight could come about as a result of being
transported by demons. Tostato also says the Canon forbids belief in
Diana and Herodias as goddesses, which is an issue entirely separate
from the question of the reality of flight; whether or not the Spanish
malefacae could fly has nothing to do with whether the Canon forbids
worship of Pagan gods and goddesses.

BUT DID THEY FLY?
What about this question of flight? Did people really believe they could
fly, or was this idea invented by Regino at the beginning of the tenth
century? And were there any people who believed they could, themselves,
fly, or was there simply a belief in other people being able to fly? And
did the common folk hold any of these beliefs, or was all this in simply
a figment of the imaginations of Churchmen?

On page 177 of Lea's book, he relates a fascinating case: "As early as
the beginning of the fifteenth century the illusion ascribed to the
witches' ointment was recognized" - that is, the witches' flying
ointment was known, and it was also known that such an ointment could
not really produce flight. It could only produce the illusion of flight.
"[Johannes] Nider [1517] relates that his preceptor told him of a
Dominican who, on reaching the village, found a ‘feminam quandam
dementatem' [‘woman of a certain madness'] - so demented that she
imagined herself to fly by night with Diana. He sought to disabuse her
and she promised to show him. On an appointed night he came with
trustworthy witnesses, she placed herself on a pannier [a large wooden
bowl used for kneading bread] and rubbed herself with ointment while
muttering spells, and fell asleep, with dreams of Domina Venus and other
superstitions so vivid that she moved and fell to the floor, injuring
her head but still lying in stupor. When she awoke he asked her if she
had been with Diana, when he had witnessed that she had not left the
place, and with wholesome exhortations he led her to detest her errors."

[KittyLane]

If we take this story at face value, then a number of interesting points
emerge. First, in contradiction to Lea's position: he says the
"illusion" of flight, "ascribed to the witches' ointment," was
recognized "as early as the beginning of the fifteenth century." Yet the
common interpretation of the Canon, which Lea shares, insists this
illusion was recognized five centuries earlier.

Another interesting point is the use of the names of Classical
Goddesses. It was recognized, as late as the fifteenth century, that the
people involved in this "illusion" thought they were seeing Diana and
Venus and other Pagan deities, not the Christian devil. Further - the
Church knew this. The people who said they could fly did not think they
were worshipping Satan. They thought they flew with Pagan deities such
as Venus and Diana.

But the more interesting question at the moment is whether this woman
truly "imagined herself to fly by night with Diana," or whether the
cleric who told the story made the whole thing up. Was there ever such a
woman at all, or is the entire story a piece of fiction? We really don't
have any way to know. The tale itself is the only evidence we have. So
our only option is to examine the claims involved, and see if there is
any inherent reason to accept or reject them. Does the story make sense?
Or is it patently absurd?

In point of fact, of course, tales of flying are common in Shamanic
cultures. Shamans do it all the time. Usually, as in the case of Don
Juan in Carlos Castenada's books, there is a drug which is taken to
induce the effect. The Medieval recipes for Witches' flying ointments
contain the same active ingredients, and people who have experimented
with them report that they do, indeed, induce the sensation of flying.
Not only is there no a priori reason to reject the tale; we find it is
entirely consistent with documented folk customs from all over the world.

The same sorts of Shamanic experiences were being created, by
substantially the same means, in Medieval Europe as in Shamanic rituals
and cultures worldwide. The Canon seems to be correct; the flight
happens "in the spirit" and not "in the body"; but to a Shaman, there's
no real difference. Only to a concretizing culture, devoid of spiritual
symbols, can the experience be viewed as "illusory" and of no validity
or value. The "illusion" spoken of by the Canon is not the "illusion" of
flight. Rather, it is the appearance of Diana and Herodias and the rest,
whom the Canon says are really Satan disguised; their appearance is
illusory.

There is also ample precedent in documented European culture for exactly
the imagery of a witch, flying ointment, and so on. The second-century
Roman author Apuleius wrote a novel called _The Golden Ass_. This is the
only ancient Roman novel to survive in complete form. Apuleius was an
initiate into the Mysteries of Isis and Osiris, which were still quite
popular in his day. He knew a lot about mysticism, magic, spirituality,
and related topics. We've already alluded to his mention of lares and manes.

_The Golden Ass_ relates an episode in which a Witch rubs her body with
a magic ointment, turns into a bird - an owl, the symbol of Lilith, the
strix, the root of the word strega, which is the Italian word for
"Witch" - and flies away. This image accords well with Don Juan, and
with the fifteenth century Witch we've just read about, and with the
Canon. It also proves the imagery of flying ointments and their
connection with Witches is at least as old as Apuleius. Given all this,
it's not certain how modern historical scholars can insist these ideas
didn't exist until the fourteenth century, twelve hundred years after
Apuleius wrote about them.

As of 1517, then, we can be pretty safe in saying there were still
people using flying ointments, and doing homage to Pagan deities such as
Diana and "Domina Venus". There were people who thought they could fly.
They did not worship Satan, and did not even imagine they did. They
worshipped old Pagan gods and goddesses, in a living, and still-existing
faith.

But the Church insisted they were worshipping demons. Did the Church
really understand what was going on? Did the Church truly think such
people were worshipping demons, or were they aware of the remnants of
ancient, pre-Christian Pagan sects? Did they misrepresent these people
on purpose, or through ignorance? When Tostato and Nider and Eymeric and
the rest write of "idolatry" directed at "demons", did they know the
"idolators" were not Satanists, but were members of a non-Christian, and
pre-Christian, faith?

Let's consider the writings of Fr. Joh. de Tabia, exactly contemporary
with Nider.

[KittyLane]

REDEFINING LABELS
With the publication of Sprenger and Kramer's _Malleus Maleficarum_, c.
1486, the terms of the debate changed. Prior to that time, as the
Corrector Burchardi shows, most aspects of Witchcraft and other heresies
were treated as minor sins, to be confessed and penanced, and then
forgotten. But by the time of Sprenger and Kramer's work, Witchcraft had
become a capitol offense. The Malleus contributed mightily to this
trend. It didn't cause the persecutions, but it lit a lot of fires.

Still, what was being punished was heresy, beliefs contrary to those of
the Church, and not the actual performance of Witchcraft. The
Inquisition had jurisdiction only over matters of faith, not over
action, which was a secular matter (or a matter for the confessional of
the parish priest). Actions entered into the Inquisitor's interest only
when actions could be taken as indication of belief. Most scholars take
this to mean people were not actually doing the things classified as
"Witchcraft", but we should also take it to mean people were actually
thinking the things alleged by the Inquisitors - or things similar,
since it's likely the Inquisitors gave us a warped view.

Now, scholars will insist even the beliefs alleged were not actually
believed by the accused, in the case of Witchcraft. People were
tortured, it's said, until they confessed to believing these things. But
note other cases of Inquisitorial persecution, of Christian protest
sects and Gnostic sects such as the Albingensians or Waldenses, or
non-Christian victims such as Jews and Moslems and Cathars. In these
cases, the scholars admit the Inquisition gave a fairly accurate (if
biased) depiction of the views of their victims. Only in the case of
Witchcraft do the scholars say no one actually believed anything like
what the Inquisition thought they believed.

But about the time of the Malleus, much in the Inquisition's approach
changed. As a telling indication of the changes, Lea extensively
paraphrases Fr. Joh. de Tabia (c. 1518). Lea says Tabia quotes the
Canon, then asks, "what shall we say as to those things that are daily
found by inquisitors and which experience teaches daily by absolute
instances, that both men and women go to these spectacles and are
carried bodily thither? For often they are found the next day in places
far removed, to which they were carried and left, returning home with
great labor. It is impossible for these to be dreams. So it is said that
in Pavia a girl was carried to a place" where, Tabia says, she
worshipped a Lady, stayed until dawn, and prayed for fertility. "The
inquisitors often find these things, and, if one wished to deny them, it
would be necessary to deny the senses. Therefore, it is necessary to say
that sometimes they are transported and sometimes they go in dreams" -
just as Tostato said. So far, this is very similar to Tostato's
position, a century earlier.

Tabia gives us valuable detail on what, exactly, the Canon forbids:
"Many apparitions appear to them in dreams, which they believe and are
deceived and imagine all that is described in the Cap. Episcopi, some of
which are impossible and heretical: 1, that this is done by the divine
spirit; 2, that they go with Diana; 3, that she is a goddess and so is
Herodias; 4, that this Diana has something of divinity which is outside
the true God; 5, that some believe that women can be changed into cats
or other creatures, which can really be done by God alone." In other
words, Tabia, like Tostato, says the Canon forbids viewing Pagan deities
as deities, rather than as demons or fallen angels. This is in contrast
to the view of historical scholars who insist the Canon is denying the
whole thing. No, Tabia says, the Canon is concerned not with denying the
flights, but with heretical notions relating to them.

Tabia continues, making his point plain: "From which certain conclusions
can be deduced: 1, that to hold any of these five [the heretical points
outlined above] is condemned; 2, that often these apparitions are
produced by the angel of Satan; 3, that it is not impossible for these
women to be carried to these places and really do much there, and to
deny this is to deny the senses; 4, that sometimes creatures appear to
be changed by diabolic illusions, but this is not true but only apparent."

The sin, then, is not believing in night-flights; it is believing in the
divinity of Diana.

These, however, are not the only issues and peoples Tabia is concerned
with. He goes on to discuss another group entirely: "But what shall we
say of those whom the inquisitors of Lombardy find and often burn - are
they those mentioned in the Cap. Episcopi? They are not, and there is no
mention of them in the canons. According to what is stated in some
councils of the doctors, and is given in the Malleus Maleficarum
composed by two prominent inquisitors, they are an entirely different
sect, greatly multiplying in various parts, as inquisitors continually
find. They are commonly called strigae, mascarae, lamii, or lamiae. In
some things they agree with the Cap. Episcopi, but differ in many."

Now, this is of vital importance. Let's be very clear on what Tabia is
saying. After agreeing with Tostato (that is, the sect described by the
Canon is worshipping Diana and Herodias, and their sin is that they
disagree with the positions of the Church, i.e., they are Pagans, not
Christians), Tabia goes on to say the people described by Sprenger and
Kramer in the Malleus Maleficarum are a different sect entirely. This
other sect, while it bears some resemblance to the sect of the Canon,
also differs in many respects.

Tabia lists some of the similarities between the two: "they agree in
voluptuous pleasure with demons at night - incubi with women and succubi
with men - and in believing things to be done in the body which are only
in imagination."

Then Tabia lists differences: "They differ in many [ways]; thus those of
the Cap. Episcopi are heretical in thinking there can be deity outside
of God and other matters stated above, but the secta strigarum is not
expressly heretical, but only presumptively, in paying divine honors to
him whom they believe to be the devil and an enemy to God; the former do
not renounce faith and baptism, but the latter do; the former do not
contemn the cross and sacraments, but the latter do. Moreover, the secta
strigarum works much evil, it tramples on cross and sacraments, it
sickens or kills men by its own powers of fascination or by natural
agents applied visibly or invisibly. Thus, when an old woman tortures or
pierces a figurine, the man is tortured or pierced. The former sect has
none of these things, but it says that women are transformed into cats
and men into demons or gods and goddesses."

Again, let's be very clear. The sect of the Canon is heretical because
they are Pagans, they worship Pagan gods and goddesses and hold beliefs
different from those of the Christians. They "do not renounce faith and
baptism" because they don't have the (Christian) faith and often weren't
baptized; these things are meaningless to them, so why bother to
renounce them? They do not do evil acts such as trampling on "cross and
sacraments" or making people sick or killing them. But they do hold
"there can be deity outside of God"; i.e., they worship other gods. They
also believe "women are transformed into cats" - the use of familiars
and shape-shifting, common Shamanic notions - "and men into demons or
gods and goddesses" - what he means by this is the belief in people
becoming powerful spirits after their deaths, the very idea spoken of in
Gardner's books in regard to the "mighty dead."

These people, the sect of the Canon, are heretics. Recall the definition
of the Greek word heresy; they choose a philosophy and religion other
than Christianity. They are Pagans. Tabia knew this, and states it
explicitly.

On the other hand, the sect described by Sprenger and Kramer in the
Malleus Maleficarum "tramples cross and sacraments", renounces "faith
and baptism", has contempt for "the cross and sacraments", "sickens or
kills men by its own powers of fascination or by natural agents". It
does all these things, but this sect "is not expressly heretical,"
because its members give "divine honors to him whom they believe to be
the devil and an enemy to God." In other words, they agree with the
Church on all theological issues and definitions; they simply side with
the enemy. They are classical Satanists. Tabia knew this as well, and he
differentiates between the two groups.

But notice the name which Tabia gives to Sprenger and Kramer's sect:
secta strigarum, "sect of Witches". He is defining the "non-heretical"
Satan-worshippers as "Witches". The only name he has for the older sect
is "those of the Cap. Episcopi." Now recall the Corrector Burchardi, 500
years earlier. The sect of the Canon is there referred to as strigam
holdam, "Good Witches" or "Witches of Holda". Tabia has redefined the
term striga, "Witch". We'll shortly return to the import of this.

Lea's paraphrase of Tabia concludes: "It was an error of the pagans that
men became demons, such as lares and manes, as St. Augustine shows in
his City of God [Book IX, Chapter 11]; and on this was based the sect of
the Cap. Episcopi. But the secta strigarum says that the spirit
appearing to them is the devil and an enemy of God, and consequently
there is no conversion into a good god or goddess, nor is it called to
the service of any goddess, as is the other." The sect of the Canon
views itself as worshiping a "good god or goddess," and is "called to
the service" of their Goddess; the sect of the Malleus "says that the
spirit appearing to them is the devil".

Lea comments: "All this illustrates the profound impression made by the
Malleus Maleficarum and the implicit faith with which it was received."
The only thing Lea sees is how the nonsense propounded by Sprenger and
Kramer replaced the nonsense which was there previously. He has been as
impressed by the Malleus as Tabia was. But there's something far more
important and interesting going on.

Tabia referred to Augustine's description of a sect which believed
people to change into spirits called lares and manes after their death,
and says this bit of theology described by Augustine was the basis for
the sect of the Canon. This is valuable, as the Canon doesn't tell us
this theological idea, so here we learn a little more about what the
"man or woman sectarian of this wickedness" believed.

The terms lares and manes are taken from Greek mythology, and are,
respectively, helpful and baleful sprites or Faeries. This is really the
same belief as in Celtic Faerie lore; the Faeries mentioned are the
spirits of Witches who have died. This is a common image in Celtic
lands, and is one of the connections between Witches and Faeries.

So here we see this connection between Witches and Faeries: in very
recent Faerie lore, in the early sixteenth century work of a cleric who
was describing the sect of the Canon, and in fourth century St. Augustine.

Where did Augustine get his information? Was this something he made up
for the purposes of spreading lies and rumors? Was the "sect of the Cap.
Episcopi" based on Augustine's writing, as Tabia may be seeming to
imply? No, Augustine says his source was the belief and writing of
Apuleius, the second-century Roman novelist and mystic, author of _The
Golden Ass_, and initiate into the Mysteries of Isis. Specifically,
Augustine mentions Apuleius' book, _The God of Socrates_ as the source
of his understanding of Apuleius' ideas. And this book does, indeed,
center around exactly this concept.

Tabia is telling us the connection between Witches and Faeries -
Apuleius' image of people becoming lares and manes after their death -
is the theological basis for the sect of the Canon, the "sorcerers and
maleficers" who fly by night with Diana, the Goddess of the Pagans. So
it made sense for Regino, in 906, to attribute the Canon to the
fourth-century Council of Ancyra. It was obviously describing the same
sect known to Apuleius in the second century, and ridiculed by Augustine
shortly after. In imagery, theology, and ritual, it was identical. No
wonder Regino's attribution went unquestioned for a thousand years,
until the twentieth century! (Indeed, because of these and other
similarities, some Inquisition-era writers attributed the Canon to
Augustine!)

The Church knew all along that the Canon sect was indistinguishable from
the sect described by Apuleius.

But wait, there's more. This sect is entirely separate from the sect
described by Sprenger and Kramer, for the one is Pagan (and therefore
heretical), and the other is not. The sect described in the Malleus
Maleficarum, Tabia says, worships the Devil and is therefore Satanic,
whereas the sect of the Canon is not; it's unrelated, and worships Diana
and Herodias.

In 1518, the Church knew the ancient Pagans were still around. They knew
these people worshipped Diana and Herodias, utilized flying ointments
and shape-shifting and other Shamanic imagery, and did not worship the
Devil. They knew Satanism was something else entirely. Whether or not
Sprenger and Kramer described a real "sect" - that is, regardless of
whether the Malleus Maleficarum was describing the real actions of real
people, or simply the fevered imaginations of two sadistic perverts -
the Church knew Satanism had nothing to do with the ancient Pagan sect
of the Canon Episcopi - and, further, up until the time of Tabia, the
"sect of the Canon Episcopi" were called "witches". Therefore, this
sect, the Witches, was ancient, Pagan, pre-Christian, and had nothing to
do with Satanism.

And the Church knew this.

But, starting with the time of Tabia, the form of Satanism described in
the Malleus is now called the secta strigarum, the "sect of witches".
Tabia called them "witches" and said they were a new sect. Modern
scholars believe him. They use the word "witch" in exactly the sense
Tabia used it, the sense Sprenger and Kramer used it, and say "witches"
didn't exist before their description first appeared in the Malleus
Maleficarum - which is the time Tabia says the "new sect" appeared.

CONCLUSIONS
According to scholars such as Lea, the Canon Episcopi was written to
make two points: 1) sorcery is bad - but not heretical - and 2) people
don't go on night-flights. As auxiliary points, scholars deduce the
following: 3) the Canon does not talk about Witchcraft or about Sabbats,
and 4) sorcery is entirely separate from both Witchcraft and
night-flying. Finally, scholars also conclude 5) no one was ever doing
any of this; no sorcery, Witchcraft, night-flying, or going to Sabbats.
Everything was first imagined by the Church, and then imposed by the
Inquisitors upon the popular imagination.

[KittyLane]

These scholars go on to say that by the time of Tabia, the
interpretation of the Canon Episcopi had evolved. By that later date, it
was no longer seen as prohibiting belief, but as requiring it. By the
early sixteenth century, the Canon was held to describe actual events,
sorcery had been declared heretical, Witchcraft and the Sabbat had been
invented - that is, the concept had been invented; no one was ever
actually going to Sabbats or engaging in Witchcraft - and the concept of
the Sabbat had gobbled up such elements as the flight by night described
in the Canon, which had originally been unrelated to the idea of Witchcraft.

We have tried to show the scholars' position to be at odds with the
evidence. In examining the actual words of the Canon, and also a series
of other documents and writings - the Corrector Burchardi (c. 1020), and
the works of Eymeric (c. 1370), Tostato (c. 1440), Nider (c. 1517) and
Tabia (c. 1518) - the Church's interpretation of the Canon Episcopi does
not appear to change substantially during this time period. All along,
the Canon was seen as describing a Pagan sect. What the Church objected
to was worship of Pagan Gods and Goddesses, not belief in people who fly
by night. It objected to the beliefs of the people who said they
themselves flew by night.

The evidence shows that, from the beginning, 1) at least some forms of
sorcery - those which saw divine powers in places other than Yahweh -
were considered heretical; 2) the central point made by the Canon was
that people shouldn't worship Pagan Gods; the Church held the night
flying to be illusory only in so far as Diana was "really" Satan
disguised; 3) the Canon was seen as talking about Witchcraft - strigam
Holdam - a concept which included 4) both heretical sorcery and
night-flying. And 5) the Church actually believed all along that people
were doing this stuff - or, at the least, the Church believed the
Witches believed it of themselves.

There are other points, absolutely vital, which have emerged. The sect
described in the Canon and in the associated later writings is entirely
consistent with ancient, pre-Christian European Paganism, and with
Shamanic practices from around the world. The Church believed that's
what it was. Perhaps most importantly, when the Church describes all
these things as "heretical", what they meant was "non-Christian". The
word "heresy" was a practical synonym for "Pagan".

There was, indeed, a change around the time of Tabia, just as the
scholars say. But it was not the change the scholars see. The label of
"Witchcraft" (Latin strigarum) had been associated with the sect
described in the Canon for five hundred years - longer, for Apuleius had
used it to describe concepts indistinguishable from those in the Canon
some seven hundred years before Regino. But by the early sixteenth
century, the label "Witchcraft" had become affixed to the Satanist
imagery of Sprenger and Kramer.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to examine whether the Malleus
Maleficarum had any basis in reality - that is, was there any reality
behind the sect and the practices described by Sprenger and Kramer? The
point here is, the definitions of key words had changed by that time;
and this also changed the scholars' view of history.

The Church decided the real enemy was the Satanist sect of Sprenger and
Kramer, a concept based on a parody of Christian symbolism. But Satanism
was not heretical, because it agreed with the Church on nearly all
points of doctrine. This was a problem, because the Inquisition had been
set up for one purpose, and one purpose only: to fight against
unorthodox doctrine. How, then, could it be made to fight the Satanists?

Simple: change the definition of heresy. Instead of "heresy" being a
near-synonym for "Paganism", it became a near-synonym for "parody".
Anything which was a parody of Christian ritual or theology became
heretical. We begin to see the trend in various Papal Bulls and other
documents, which talk of "misuse" of sacraments, holy water, consecrated
hosts, and the like. Satanism was a parody, and therefore a misuse, of
Christian symbols. With the redefinition, it could be labeled "heresy",
and attacked by the Inquisition.

The Church, of course, is interested in Eternal Truths, and isn't going
to admit it ever changed its definitions of anything. It was right all
along. So "heresy" must always have meant "parody". Later scholars,
growing up in a Christian-dominated culture, buy all the redefinitions
without question. When they see references to "heresy" in old documents,
they assume what's meant is "Christian parody". So when Eymeric talks of
the "heresies" of the Canon sect, the scholars assume the Canon sect had
based their rites on those of the Church. This isn't what the Church had
thought at the time, of course. But the Church isn't about to correct
the scholars.

A very similar redefinition happened to the word "Witch", but it was a
little more complicated. Even the scholars recognize that the sect of
the Canon was not what was described in the Malleus Maleficarum. But
since the Malleus describes Witches, the Canon must be describing
something other than Witches. And since nothing like what was in the
Malleus was described before the Malleus, there could not have been any
Witches at all before that time. There could not even have been the
concept of Witches before the Malleus. Therefore, Lea can confidently
say "Eymeric [in 1370] knows nothing of witchcraft," even though Eymeric
describes exactly what modern Witches mean by the term - and exactly
what Apuleius had meant by the term, and exactly what the Corrector
Burchardi had meant by the term.

What, then, the scholars wonder, was the sect of the Canon? They weren't
Witches; the Inquisition didn't invent Witches for another four hundred
years or so. They weren't Pagans; the Canon itself declared them
"heretics" (read: "Christian parodists"), and thousands of other laws,
regulations, Papal Bulls, trials, Correctories, and so on, did the same.
Since "heresy" now meant "Christian parody," we can suppose the Canon
sect was that; a group of Christian parodists. Christian parody isn't
Paganism, so the Canon sect wasn't Pagan.

But it also didn't look very Christian. There was very little Christian
imagery in the Canon and related documents, and nothing which could be
recognized as a parody of Christian imagery. It seemed totally
unrelated. It claimed things everyone knew to be impossible - people
don't really go flying at night, with Diana or anyone else.

Ah! there's the key; the sect was impossible. They were imagination.
They were nothing at all. Nothing had happened. There was no sect of the
Canon Episcopi.

Never mind that they were consistent with Apuleius and with Shamanic
imagery from all over the world. None of that stuff has anything to do
with Christianity, so it couldn't have anything to do with the Canon
sect, which was a sect of heretics, if it was anything.

But wait: the Church had been fighting the Canon sect. The Canon
Episcopi condemned it. The Corrector Burchardi condemned it. Dozens of
people, from Thomas Aquinas to Eymeric to Tostato to Tabia quoted the
Canon and condemned the sect it described. And the Church, the keepers
of Eternal Truth, couldn't have been wrong, couldn't have been fighting
a nonexistent enemy all that time. So what's really going on?

Ah. The Canon speaks of "illusions and phantasms". That's it. The Canon
itself was claiming the sect it described didn't exist. We've already
deduced this very fact; the sect couldn't exist. So that's what the
Canon must be saying. It was not condemning the beliefs of the sect; it
was condemning belief in the sect. It was not condemning night-flying
Witches; it was saying anyone who believed women could fly was a
heretic. Centuries later, when people were burned at the stake for
denying Witches could fly - well, that's because 1) Sprenger and Kramer
were nut cases; and 2) the Canon hadn't been talking about Witches
anyway, since it hadn't described Sprenger and Kramer's sect. Witchcraft
wasn't imagined by the Inquisition until centuries after the Canon.

Thus, scholars became convinced that Witchcraft, by whatever definition,
never existed at all. Its extensive documentation in the annals of the
Church records became documentation of sheerest fantasy. This suited the
Church just fine, because suddenly, no one believed in the ancient Pagan
Witch-sect anymore.

Another term was redefined. Magic, even when obviously involving Pagan
rites or Pagan deities, is not Witchcraft. If it involves demons, it's
heresy, and therefore a Christian parody. If it doesn't, it's mere
"sorcery", and has nothing to do with religion at all.

Witchcraft, magic, and heresy, had thus all been divorced from Paganism,
even though that's where all of them had their roots, and even though
the Church had known, for fifteen hundred years, that the Witches who
rode by night to their Sabbats with Diana and Herodias were Pagans and
worked Magic. The Church also knew this sect had been known to Apuleius
and to Augustine. The ancient sect of the Canon Episcopi had been sliced
into such tiny pieces - magic, sorcery, demon worship, heresy, and so on
- as to have nothing left. It was gone, vanished from history.

[KittyLane]

What do modern scholars mean by terms such as "Sabbat" and "Witchcraft"?
Lea, page 204: "It is easy to understand how the inquisitors... in
trying heretics, pushed their inquiries whenever any traces of sorcery
were found, and, with the resources of torture at their command,
gradually framed from popular superstition and theologic demonology a
consistent fabric concerning the Sabbat and its accessories to which the
accused was made to conform. This gradually spread among the people, who
were led to attribute all misfortunes to demons acting through witches
and were prompt to accuse all whom they suspected. In this mutual
interaction the evolution of the witchcraft craze is intelligible."
There had never been any Witchcraft. All there had been was a
"witchcraft craze." The "Sabbat" and "Witchcraft" were whatever the
Inquisition said they were, since the Inquisition had made them up.

These are the same definitions used by almost all scholars today. And so
it is generally believed that Witches have no history, and modern Wicca
was invented in 1954 by G. B. Gardner and Doreen Valiente, based on the
imagination of Margaret Murray and Charles Leland. (It is also
frequently charged that the Goddess was "added" to Wicca very recently,
by either Gardner or Valiente; yet notice how often the Medieval
documents we've quoted from deal with Diana and Herodias, Holda and
"Domina Venus"!)

But hidden within this passage from Lea is a vital phrase, hurried by,
scrupulously ignored by historians and churchmen alike: "popular
superstition". "Popular superstition" is the condescending label used to
signify the religion and beliefs of the common people. There was a
religion there, upon which, until the time of the Malleus, the Church
based its understandings of the imagery of the people it persecuted.

From the mid-sixteenth century on, the Church fought the sect described
by Sprenger and Kramer, the one Tabia described as a new sect, unrelated
to the old Pagans of the Canon Episcopi. Maybe the new Satanists didn't
even exist. Maybe they did. Maybe they almost did; maybe the Canon sect
was beginning to respond to previous centuries of persecution, and was
fighting back - which, to the Church, would certainly look Satanic. As a
matter of fact, this particular idea would exactly explain the Italian
Witch sect described by Leland in the 1890's. But it doesn't matter. The
point is, to an historian, it all looks like nothing more than phantoms
and Inquisitorial imagination.

Historians, churchmen, and scholars all became convinced, in later
years, that the Inquisition had invented the idea of Witchcraft, and
invented the imagery of the Sabbat - because they actually had invented
the images which later came to be used to define these terms. The
ancient Pagan religion, on the other hand, had really been there all
along, but was now ignored.

The history of Witchcraft was erased. It was redefined.

The combined efforts of the Medieval Church and modern scholars have
served to cloud and reinterpret the historical record. Up until the
early sixteenth century, the Church thought it was fighting the vestiges
of European Paganism. Was this what it actually was doing, or only what
it thought it was doing? The Church's own descriptions of its opponents
match what we know of pre-Christian and non-Christian religion
stunningly well. It's likely, then, that the sect of the Canon really
existed, and the Church really was really fighting it.

But starting in the sixteenth century, the redefinition of terms made it
possible to believe the supposed opponents of the Church had never
existed at all - or at least, had not existed until the Church
inadvertently created them through paranoid overzealousness.

And this is what is now generally believed, by the Church, by scholars
and historians, by most anthropologists, and even by increasing numbers
of modern Pagans, in spite of the overwhelming weight of historical
evidence to the contrary.

The historical record is clear and unambiguous. There really was a
Witch-cult in Western Europe, one descended from the ancient
pre-Christian earth-based religion, with roots reaching deep into
European soil. The Witches are not associated in any way with Satanism,
and the Church has known this all along. Murray was right, and the
Church knew this, too.

Hidden in the documents of the Church are the clues to the history of
Witchcraft. The evidence is there. It has simply been re-defined.

[KittyLane]

leave it to the church to hide stuff!