Which Follows from
the Preceding Question, Whether the Witch is to be
Imprisoned, and of the Method of Taking her. This is the
Third Action of the Judge
It
is asked whether, after she has denied the accusation,
the witch ought to be kept in custody in prison, when
the three aforesaid conditions, namely, her reputation,
the evidence of the fact, and the depositions of
witnesses, are in agreement; or whether she should be
dismissed with the security of sureties, so that she may
again be called and questioned. As to this question
there are three opinions.
First, it is
the opinion of some that she should be sent to prison,
and that by no means ought she to be dismissed under
bond; and they hold this opinion on the strength of the
reasoning brought forward in the preceding question,
namely, that she is to be considered as manifestly
guilty when all those three considerations are in
agreement.
Others,
again, think that before she is imprisoned she may be
dismissed with the safeguard of sureties; so that if she
makes her escape, she can then be considered as
convicted. But after she has been imprisoned because of
her negative answers, she is not to be released under
any safeguard or condition of bail, that is, when those
three considerations noted above are in agreement;
because in that case she could not subsequently be
sentenced and punished by death; and this, they say, is
the general custom.
The third
opinion is that no definite rule can be given, but that
it must be left to the Judge to act in accordance with
the gravity of the matter as shown by the testimony of
the witnesses, the reputation of the accused, and the
evidence as to the fact, and the extent to which these
three agree with each other; and that he should follow
the custom of the country. And they who hold this
opinion conclude by saying that if reputable and
responsible sureties are not to be procured, and the
accused is suspected of contemplating flight, she should
then be cast into prison. And this third opinion seems
to be the most reasonable, as long as the correct
procedure if observed; and this consists in three
things.
First, that
her house should be searched as thoroughly as possible,
in all holes and corners and chests, top and bottom; and
if she is a noted witch, then without doubt, unless she
has previously hidden them, there will be found various
instruments of witchcraft, as we have shown above.
Secondly, if
she has a maid-servant or companions, that she or they
should be shut up by themselves; for though they are not
accused, yet it is presumed that none of the accused's
secrets are hidden from them.
Thirdly, in
taking her, if she be taken in her own house, let her
not be given time to go into her room; for they are wont
to secure in this way, and bring away with them, some
object or power of witchcraft which procures them the
faculty of keeping silent under examination.
This gives
rise to the question whether the method employed by some
to capture a witch is lawful, namely, that she should be
lifted from the ground by the officers, and carried out
in a basket or on a plank of wood so that she cannot
again touch the ground. This can be answered by the
opinion of the Canonists and of certain Theologians,
that this is lawful in three respects. First, because,
as is shown in the introductory question of this Third
Part, it is clear from the opinion of many authorities,
and especially of such Doctors as no one would dare to
dispute, as Duns Scotus, Henry of Segusio and Godfrey of
Fontaines, that it is lawful to oppose vanity with
vanity. Also we know from experience and the confessions
of witches that when they are taken in this manner they
more often lose the power of keeping silence under
examination: indeed many who have been about to be
burned have asked that they might be allowed at least to
touch the ground with one foot; and when this has been
asked why they made such a request, they have answered
that if they had touched the ground they would have
liberated themselves, striking many other people dead
with lightning.
The second
reason is this. It was manifestly shown in the Second
Part of this work that a witch loses all her power when
she falls into the hands of public justice, that is,
with regard to the past; but with regard to the future,
unless she receives from the devil fresh powers of
keeping silent, she will confess all her crimes.
Therefore let us say with S. Paul: Whatsoever we do in
word or deed, let all be done in the name of the Lord
JESUS Christ. And if the witch be innocent, this form of
capture will not harm her.
Thirdly,
according to the Doctors it is lawful to counteract
witchcraft by vain means; for they all agree as to this,
though they are at variance over the question as to when
those vain means may also be unlawful. Therefore when
Henry of Segusio says that it is lawful to oppose vanity
with vanity, this is explained as meaning that he speaks
of vain means, not of unlawful means. All the more,
then, is it lawful to obstruct witchcraft; and it is
this obstruction which is referred to here, and not any
unlawful practice.
Let the Judge
note also that there are two sorts of imprisonment; one
being a punishment inflicted upon criminals, but the
other only a matter of custody in the house of
detention. And these two sorts are noted in the chapter multorum
querela; therefore she ought at least to be placed
in custody. But if it is only a slight matter of which
she is accused, and she is not of bad reputation, and
there is no evidence of her work upon children or
animals, then she may be sent back to her house. But
because she has certainly associated with witches and
knows their secrets, she must give sureties; and if she
cannot do so, she must be bound by oaths and penalties
not to go out of her house unless she is summoned. But
her servants and domestics, of whom we spoke above, must
be kept in custody, yet not punished.
|