See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264896397

Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa and Witchcraft: A Reappraisal

Article  in  Sixteenth Century Journal · March 2012

CITATIONS READS
0 471

2 authors:

Vera Hoorens Hans Renders

KU Leuven University of Groningen
66 PUBLICATIONS   1,215 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A new look at the name-letter effect View project

Interpersonal Consequences of Self-Superiority Beliefs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vera Hoorens on 25 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pre-print / uncorrected version of Hoorens, V. & Renders, H. (2012). Heinrich Cornelius
Agrippa and witchcraft: A reappraisal. The Sixteenth Century Journal, 43(1), 1-18.

Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa and witchcraft: A reappraisal

Vera Hoorens, Centrum voor Sociale en Culturele Psychologie, University of Leuven

Hans Renders, Biografie Instituut, University of Groningen

Abstract

The German scholar Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535) counts as an opponent of witch beliefs and

witch trials. However, the evidence for this image is less convincing than once thought. Agrippa's

involvement in a witch trial in the city of Metz was dictated by his position as a legal advisor to the

magistrate and was perhaps also inspired by personal animosity against the local inquisitor Nicolas Savin.

The favorable views of women Agrippa allegedly expressed in De nobilitate et praecellentia foemeneï

sexus do not imply that he opposed witch trials. In addition, it is unlikely that Agrippa has written the

treatise Adversus lamiarum inquisitores that was once attributed to him. His treatises De occulta

philosophia libri tres and particularly De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum et artium even show that

Agrippa endorsed elements of the cumulative witch concept and that he supported the punishment of

witches.

1
 Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa and witchcraft: A reappraisal

The German scholar Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa generally counts as an opponent of witch beliefs

and witch trials. The grounds for this image are his involvement in a witch trial in Metz in 1519

and his writings on witches in De occulta philosophia libri tres (Three books on occult

philosophy), De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum et artium (On the uncertainty and vanity of

sciences and arts), De nobilitate et praecellentia foemeneï sexus (On the nobility and the

excellence of the female gender), and the treatise considered as lost Adversus lamiarum

inquisitores (Against the inquisitors of witches). The present article contradicts the prevailing

view by showing that there is little evidence that Agrippa opposed witch beliefs and witch trials

and by highlighting the evidence that he did in fact support them. It shows that his involvement in

the Metz witch trial was probably driven by ulterior motives and that his allegedly positive view

of women – as expressed in De nobilitate et praecellentia foemeneï sexus – did not necessarily

imply a positive or lenient view of the witches. It shows how a close reading of De occulta

philosophia libri tres and De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum et artium leads to the

conclusion that Agrippa did believe in witches and that he supported their punishment. Finally, it

argues that if Adversus lamiarum inquisitores ever existed at all, it was spuriously attributed to

Agrippa.

Agrippa and the witches: The development of a reputation

Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa was born near Cologne in 1486. Although he did study at the

universities of Cologne and Paris it is unclear whether he ever obtained the doctoral degrees he

claimed to possess in theology, medicine, and law. He taught at the universities of Dôle and

Pavia, acted as a public lawyer in Metz, served as a physician in Genève, Fribourg, and Antwerp,

worked as a court astrologer to the French queen mother Louise de Savoie in Lyon, and became a
2
court historiographer to governor Margaret of Austria in Malines. Over the years he wrote

numerous treatises, the most famous ones being De incertitudine and De occulta philosophia.

Agrippa spent the last years of his life in Cologne and Bonn. He died in 1535 during a trip

through France.

Agrippa’s reputation has always been multifaceted. One element of it is that he was an

opponent of witch trials and witch beliefs. Importantly, this view did not originate as a

mainstream thought among Agrippa scholars. From Henry Morley and Auguste Prost to

Christopher Lehrich and Marc Van der Poel: Even though they briefly mentioned the Metz witch

trial or described it in great detail none of them inferred from it that Agrippa generally opposed

witch trials.1 Charles Nauert was the only major Agrippa scholar to refer – be it in passing – to

‘the tendency of Agrippa and the open effort of his pupil Wier to throw discredit on the

prosecution of witches’.2

1
E.g. Christopher I. Lehrich, The language of demons and angels: Cornelius Agrippa’s occult

philosophy (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 27. Henry Morley, The life of Henry Cornelius Agrippa von

Nettesheim, doctor and knight, commonly known as a magician (London: Chapman and Hall,

1856), 2: 57-64. Joseph Orsier, Henri Cornelis Agrippa: sa vie et son oeuvre d’après sa

correspondance, 1486-1535 (Paris: Bibliothèque Charcornac, 1911), 18. Auguste Prost,

Corneille Agrippa. Sa vie et ses œuvres (1881-1882, reprint, Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1965), 1:

319-327. Marc Van der Poel, Cornelius Agrippa, the humanist theologian and his declamations

(Leiden: Brill, 1997), 36-8.

2
Charles G. Nauert, Agrippa and the crisis of Renaissance thought (Urbana, IL: University of

Illinois Press, 1965), 325.

3
 In contrast with most Agrippa scholars, historians of the witch craze typically described

Agrippa as an opponent of the witch craze. Already in La Sorcière, published in 1862, the

nineteenth-century French historian Jules Michelet noted that ‘Agrippa, Lavatier and especially

Wyer (…) rightly said that if these wretched witches were the Devil’s toy, one should hold it

against the Devil rather than against them, and heal them instead of burning them’.3 Later on,

Hugh Trevor-Roper listed Agrippa as one of the ‘natural magicians’ who ranked ‘among the

enemies of the witch-craze.’4 A similar view was taken by Edward Peters, who named Agrippa a

‘critic of witch-trials’5, and by Renate Klinnert, who wrote that Agrippa took ‘an unequivocally

critical-negative position in issues of witchcraft’.6 Charles Zika hypothesized that Agrippa

3
‘Agrippa, Lavatier, Wyer surtout (…) dirent justement que si ces misérables sorcières sont le

jouet du Diable, il faut s’en prendre au Diable plus qu’à elles, les guérir et non les brûler’. I have

used the following edition: [Jules] Michelet, La Sorcière (Paris: GF Flammarion, 1966), 163. All

translations of quotes are the author’s.

4
H. R. Trevor-Roper, The European witch craze of the 16th and 17th centuries (Harmondsworth:

Penguin Books, 1969), 59.

5
Edward Peters, The magician, the witch, and the law (Hassocks: The Harvester Press, 1978), xi.

See also Alan Charles Kors and Edward Peters, Witchcraft in Europe 400-1700. A documentary

history (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001), 280.

6
‘in Hexereifragen eine eindeutig kritisch-ablehnende Position’: Renate S. Klinnert, “Von

Besessenen, Melancholikern und Betrügern. Johann Weyer’s De Praestigiis Daemonum und die

Unterscheiding des Geistes,” in Dämonische Besessenheit. Zur Interpretation eines

kulturhistorischen Phänomens / Demonic possession. Interpretation of a historico-cultural

4
seemed ‘to be denying a critical argument in the development of witchcraft theory in the fifteenth

and sixteenth centuries – the notion of the tacit pact between witch and devil’. Still according to

Zika ‘those following in the Canon Episcopi tradition, as Agrippa, would simply see such

superstition as foolish delusions without demonic involvement and deception’.7 Wolfgang

Behringer listed Agrippa among the opponents of witch-hunting along with Alciati, Wier, Scot,

Spee, and Thomasius because he ‘fought against witch burnings in the imperial city of Metz’ and

‘repeated this bold attack on the Malleus and on the large-scale witch trials in Italy in his famous

book Of the uncertainty and vanity of the Arts and Sciences’.8 Some authors specified that

Agrippa targeted the Witches’ Hammer. Brian Levack described Agrippa as a scholar who

‘criticized both the Malleus Maleficarum and the prosecution of witches’ and referred to

‘critiques of witch beliefs and prosecutions (…) in writings of men like Erasmus, Alciati,

Pomponazzi and Agrippa’.9

If the majority of Agrippa scholars did not present Agrippa as an opponent of the witch

beliefs and the witch trials, how has this image come into existence? We believe that Agrippa’s

phenomenon, ed. Hans De Waardt, Jürgen Michael Schmidt, H.C. Erik Midelfort, Sönke Lorenz

and Dieter R. Bauer (Bielefeld: Verlag für Regionalgeschichte, 2005), 89-105.

7
Charles Zika, Exorcising our demons. Magic, witchcraft and visual culture in early modern

Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 148. For the view that Agrippa saw witches as deluded old women

see also William E. Burns, Witch hunts in Europe and America. An encyclopedia (Westport:

Greenwood Press, 2003), 6.

8
Wolfgang Behringer, Witches and witch-hunts: A global history (Cambridge: Polity, 2004), 140

& 167-8.
9
Brian P. Levack, The witch-hunt in early modern Europe (London: Longman, 2006), 62 & 206.

5
association with his famous disciple Jan Wier (also known as Johann Weyer and as Johannes

Wierus) – who in De praestigiis daemonum and De lamiis criticized witch beliefs and witch trials

– offers a plausible explanation. Researchers with a primary interest in the life and works of Jan

Wier and particularly in his influence on the witch craze quite understandably sought for

formative influences on his intellectual development. Within this context, they searched for

evidence of his teacher Agrippa opposing witch beliefs and witch trials. The sheer multitude of

issues in which Agrippa got involved and about which he wrote was bound to make this search

fruitful.

Several authors indeed suggested that Agrippa’s views on the witches decisively

influenced his apprentice Wier.10 For instance, Agrippa’s nineteenth-century biographer Auguste

Prost wrote that Wier made himself known ‘by his boldness to speak out against the heinous

witch trials (…) worthy heir of the wisdom and humanity Agrippa showed in these issues’.11

Wier’s biographer Carl Binz described Agrippa as ‘the first who, admittedly only occasionally

but with all his might, struggled against the executors of the Bull of 1484 and of the Witches’

hammer’ and assumed that Wier wrote De praestigiis daemonum after ‘Agrippa’s thoughts from

Metz gradually took firm shape in him’.12 In the twentieth century, Jan Jacob Cobben wrote that

10
Burns, Witch hunts, 6. Thurston, Witch hunts, 226.
11
‘par sa hardiesse à s’élever contre les odieux procès de sorcellerie […] Digne héritier de la

sagesse et de l’humanité que montre Agrippa sur ces questions’: Prost, Corneille Agrippa, 2: 396.
12
‘der Erste, der, wenn ebenfals auch nur gelegentlich, aber mit dem ganzen Einsatz seiner

Person Front machte gegen die Executoren der Bull von 1484 und des Hexenhammers’ and ‘Die

Gedanken des Agrippa aus Metz gewannen allmählich bei im feste Gestalt’: Carl Binz, Doctor

6
‘it was Agrippa who sowed in Wier the seeds for his later work on the deceits of the devils and

spells and poisonings’.13 More recently, Wolfgang Ziegeler noted that ‘Weyer’s observations

about witchcraft and defense of his [Agrippa’s] teaching testify of Agrippa’s influence on him’.14

Michaele Valente wrote that ‘the defense of the witch in Metz certainly occupies a central place

in the thinking, but also and perhaps even more in the actions of Wier’.15 From there it was only a

small step to assume that the witches took a central place in Agrippa’s own thinking and he

opposed their persecution.

Once his reputation of an opponent of the witch trials got established, Agrippa-the-

defender-of-witches made his way into publications on the history of women and the

Johann Weyer, ein rheinischer Arzt, der erst Bekampfer des Hexenwahns (Berlin: A. Hirschwald,

1896, reprint, Wiesbaden: Sändig, 1969), 13 & 23-4.

13
‘het Agrippa is geweest, die bij Wier de kiem heeft gelegd voor zijn later werk over de

bedriegerijen van de duivels en betoveringen en vergiftigingen’: Jan Jacob Cobben, Johannes

Wier. Zijn opvattingen over bezetenheid, hekserij en magie (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1960), 7-8.
14
‘Agrippas Einfluβ auf ihn bezeugen Weyers Ausführungen zum Hexenwesen und die

Verteidigung seines Lehrers’: Wolfgang Ziegeler, Möglichkeiten der Kritik am Hexen- und

Zauberwesen. Zeitgenössische Stimmen und ihre soziale Zugehörigkeit (Köln: Böhlau, 1973),

196.
15
‘la difesa della strega a Metz occupa certo un posto centrale nella speculazione, ma anche e

forse sopratutto nell’azione di Wier’: Valente, Johann Wier, 36 & 46.

7
Reformation.16 He even became a hero in textbooks of psychology and psychiatry. Historians of

these disciplines often assume that witches were non-diagnosed mental patients. In their view, the

witch craze makes part of the history of their fields and its alleged opponents should be

considered precursors of their discipline. Several among these authors attribute a heroic role to

Agrippa. American psychiatrists Edwin R. Wallach and John Gach argued that ‘a few enlightened

minds raised doubts about the reality of witchcraft and the rationale for its suppression. Among

physicians, Agrippa, Cardan, and especially Weyer (…) protested’.17 In An introduction to the

history of psychology B.R. Hergenhahn wrote that ‘Not only did Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535)

argue against witch hunts, but he also saved many individuals from the ordeal of a witch trial’.18

Even among authors who wrote to criticize rather than to celebrate the history of psychiatry

Agrippa counts as an opponent of the witch trials. Thomas Szasz, one of the most prominent anti-

psychiatrists of the second half of the twentieth century, noted that Agrippa ‘fights against the

16
Heiko Augustinus Oberman, Masters of the Reformation: The emergence of a new intellectual

climate in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 174. See also Cissie C.

Fairchilds, Women in early modern Europe 1500-1700 (Harlow: Pearson Education, 2007), 256.
17
Edwin R. Wallach and John Gach, History of psychiatry and medical psychology (New York,

NY: Springer, 2008), 236.

18
B.R. Hergenhahn, An introduction to the history of psychology (Belmont CA, Australia:

Wadsworth Congage Learning, 2009), 495. See also Gerald C. Davison and John M. Neale,

Abnormal psychology: An experimental clinical approach (New York, NY: Wiley, 1982), 13.

8
belief in witchcraft’ and that ‘Thomas Ady, Cornelius Agrippa, Salazar de Frias, Friedrich von

Spee, and Johann Weyer are among the best-known critics of the witch-hunts’.19

The view of Agrippa as a critic of the witch craze has thus become the dominant view of

Agrippa among historians of the witch craze, women, and the Reformation, but also among

psychologists, psychiatrists, and the critics of these behavioral scientists. But how strongly did

Agrippa oppose witch beliefs and witch trials? Is it possible that he did not oppose them at all?

Answering these questions requires analyzing the evidence that allegedly supports the now

prevailing view and placing it in the context of Agrippa’s life and works.

The Metz witch trial of 1519

Agrippa was appointed a legal advisor to the magistrate of Metz in 1518. The next year a woman

was arrested for witchcraft in Woippy, a village just a few miles from Metz. After having been

jailed in her hometown she was sent to Metz to stand trial. The Dominican inquisitor Nicolas

Savin, who served as an assessor or a counselor to the court, advised to send her back to Woippy.

Once back in the hometown of her accusers the women was interrogated, tortured, jailed, and

deprived of food and water. Upon hearing about her ordeal the chapter of Metz ordered her

immediate return to Metz. Around that time judge Jean Leonard, who was responsible for her

case, fell ill, and died. On his deathbed he declared his regret over his involvement and begged

that the defendant be released. Remarkably, inquisitor Nicolas Savin seized the occasion to claim

jurisdiction over the case and to demand that the torture be continued. As far as we know, this is

where Agrippa came in. He pleaded for acquittal and managed to convince the new judge to set

19
Thomas Szasz, The manufacture of madness (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1970), 116 &

296.

9
the ‘witch’ free.20

On Agrippa’s involvement in the Metz witch trial we are informed by his letters to the

vicar of Metz and to the new judge.21 In his letter to the vicar – most likely Conrad le Payen who

at that time replaced cardinal John of Lorraine as a bishop – Agrippa complained about having

been denied the opportunity to defend the accused. He criticized the inquisitor who, in his view,

was corrupt and driven by envy. Moreover, the inquisitor confounded reason with the sophisms of

the Malleus maleficarum. Because of his association with the accusers he should never have been

admitted as an assessor. Even if he would have been independent, as an inquisitor Savin would

have had no jurisdiction because the case did not involve any proven heresy. In Agrippa’s view,

even the witnesses were unworthy: They had acted out of animosity against the defendant, they

had accepted bribes to take the stand, and they were either criminals, people of ill repute or

20
For a discussion of Agrippa’s letters about the case, see Ziegeler, Möglichkeiten der Kritik,

158-169. Morley, Life of Henry Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, 2: 57-64. Nauert, Agrippa,

59-60. Prost, Corneille Agrippa, 1: 319-326. About the Metz witch trial, see also: André Brulé,

Sorcellerie et emprise démoniaque à Metz et au pays messin (XIIe- XVIIIe siècles) (Paris:

L’Harmattan, 2006), 69-71.

21
Henricus Cornelius Agrippa ab Nettesheim, Opera in duos tomos (Lugdunum [Lyon]: per

Beringos fratres, 1550) 2: 752-4 (incomplete letter to the vicar) and 754-5 (incomplete letter to

the new judge). The full letters appeared in the edition of Agrippa’s treatise De beatissimae

Annae monogamia of 1534. On Conrad le Payen (ca. 1440-1529): Émile-Auguste Bégin,

Biographie de la Moselle ou histoire par ordre alphabétique de toutes les personnes nées dans ce

department, qui se sont fait remarquer par leurs actions, leurs talents, leurs écrits, leurs virtues,

ou leurs crimes (Metz: Verronnais, 1831), 3: 439.

10
women.

In his letter to the new judge Agrippa again argued that Savin was driven by corruption,

hypocrisy, and cruelty. The inquisitor, who should not have been involved in the case, was

inspired by the darkest pages of the Malleus maleficarum. Agrippa further stressed that Jean

Leonard had admitted to the illegal persecution of the woman and had begged on his dying bed to

set her free. Apart from pointing out these legal issues, the letter also contained theological

arguments. According to Savin the defendant was a witch because her mother had been one. As

the daughter of a witch the defendant indeed had either been conceived from the devil or had

been dedicated to the devil shortly after her birth. In Agrippa’s view, good Christians knew that

the baptism exorcized demons and that it simultaneously created an unbreakable bond with God.

Considering a woman a witch because her mother had included her in a devil’s pact therefore

amounted to heresy.

Agrippa also wrote about the Metz trial to Claudius Cantiuncula and to a correspondent

named Henricus.22 Claude Chansonnette, whom Agrippa named Claudius Cantiuncula, was a

professor of law at the University of Basle. About Henricus we only know that he was an

imperial counselor in Luxembourg. Both letters obviously accompanied documents that Agrippa

sent to his correspondents upon their request. In these letters he again summarized his procedural

and theological arguments.

22
Agrippa, Opera, 755-7 (letter to Claude Chansonnette). The letter to ‘Henricus’ appeared in De

beatissimae Annae monogamia. Except for their opening and ending both letters are identical.

About Claude Chansonette: Guido Kisch, Claudius Cantiuncula. Ein Basler Jurist und Humanist

des 16. Jahrhunderts (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1970). Alphonse Rivier, Claude

Chansonnette, Jurisconsulte Messin, et ses lettres inédites (Bruxelles: Hayez, 1878).

11
 At first sight, Agrippa’s involvement in the Metz case implies that he opposed witch trials

and witch beliefs. On second thought the Metz case was the single witch trial in which he ever

got involved – or, more correctly, in which his intervention is documented. This observation is

significant because shortly after Agrippa left Metz – which happened within a year after the trial

– inquisitor Savin resumed the witch hunt. Several women got arrested and an unknown number

had to flee the city. Agrippa knew about these events from the local priest Johannes Brennonius

whom he had befriended during his stay in Metz. If he truly felt strongly about the witches, he

could have again written to the judge and the vicar or urged local friends to intervene. Although it

is possible that he did try to influence the course of events, not a trace of such efforts has been

preserved.

In addition, it should be noted that Agrippa’s letters focused on procedural more than on

theological issues. Even his theological arguments were a far cry from saying that witches did not

exist. He did not deny that women might have intercourse with a devil. Nor did he deny that they

might get pregnant in the process or that witches dedicated their babies to devils. He only denied

was that children conceived during demonical intercourse were truly devil’s children and that

dedicating babies to the devil was effective beyond baptism.

Together, these arguments suggest that Agrippa did not feel strongly about witch beliefs

or even about the witch trials. So why did he get involved in the Metz witch trial in the first

place? One possibility is that he simply felt for this particular defendant. Another possibility is he

did not intervene out of compassion for the defendant but out of animosity against the inquisitor.

Suggesting that Agrippa felt a personal grudge against Savin, his letters referred to the inquisitor

in a derogatory manner. He described the inquisitor as a ‘carnifex’ (executioner) and a

‘fraterculus’ (small friar) whose main characteristics were that he was ‘perversus’, ‘crudelis’, and

‘blasphemus’. He sometimes even used the derogatory Latin pronoun ‘iste’ rather than the more
12
respectful ‘ille’. Yet, another and perhaps even more likely possibility is that Agrippa played the

role that his position as a legal advisor to the magistrate dictated.23 Officially, he did not even act

as the advocate of the defendant. Even if he had wanted to be, it would have been impossible

because, as he wrote to the vicar, in heresy and witchcraft cases ‘defensor non admittitur’ (a

lawyer for the defense is not permitted).

It is even thinkable that Agrippa’s personality made him decide to act in the Metz case.

Later in life he would get involved in at least one more trial – but not a witch trial. In 1529, while

Agrippa was dwelling in Antwerp, the English Sweating Disease hit the city. Agrippa remained

in the city to help cure the sick whereas official physicians fled. At least one would-be doctor

also remained in Antwerp to take care of those afflicted. The latter, a printer named Jan Thibault,

also wrote a treatise on the plague and worked as an astrologer. After the epidemic, the returning

official physicians sued him for unlawfully practicing medicine and for publishing

prognostications. Agrippa wrote at least one letter to the court on behalf of Thibault.24 It is very

well possible, therefore, that his involvement in the Metz case, if not entirely professional, was

because of his rebellious personality, which would tend to support the side of the underdog.

De occulta philosophia libri tres

When Agrippa went to Metz, he took with him a juvenile draft of De occulta philosophia. Yet it

would not be until the late twenties and early thirties – and hence long after he lived in Metz –

23
Van der Poel, Cornelius Agrippa, 36. Ziegeler, Möglichkeiten der Kritik, 151.
24
D. Müller-Jahncke, “Magie als Wissenschaft im frühen 16. Jahrhundert. Die Beziehungen

zwischen Magie, Medizin und Pharmazie im Werk des Agrippa von Nettesheim (1486-1535)”

(PhD diss., Philipps-Universität Marburg, 1973), 273-5. Orsier, Henri Cornelis Agrippa, 39.

Prost, Corneille Agrippa, 2: 41-244.

13
before he came around to revising and expanding the treatise and having it published.

Interestingly, several chapters of De occulta philosophia touch on the witches.

One quote in particular has been taken to show that Agrippa considered witchcraft a

delusion. In that passage he wrote about the conjuration of raising evil spirits ‘quae quidem anilis

dementia saepe in eiusmodi flagitiis errare deprehenditur’.25 It is probably on the basis of this

passage, in which Agrippa held the madness of old women (‘anilis dementia’) responsible for

their erroneous belief that they could conjure spirits that historian Robert Thurston noted that

Agrippa ‘had expressed his own skepticism about witches’ powers as early as 1510’.26

However, the full sentence in which the quote occurs reads as follows: ‘And it is not

unlike these cases [i.e. the conjuration and veneration of evil spirits in classical times], if what it

is the truth and not a fable what is read about the heresy of detestable Church-men and what is

similarly known about evil women whose wickedness the madness of old women often makes the

latter fall prey to. They and people like them raise demons and conspire with them.’27 Agrippa

25
E.g. Ziegeler, Möglichkeiten der Kritik, 187.
26
Robert Thurston, The witch hunts: A history of the witch persecutions in Europa and North

America (Harlow: Pearson Education, 2007), 226.

27
‘Neque istis dissimile est si modo veritas et non fabula est quod legitur de Templariorum

detestanda haeresi et similia horum de maleficis mulieribus constant, quae quidem anilis

dementia saepe in eiusmodi flagitiis errare deprehenditur. His igitur et horum similibus mali

daemones alliciuntur atque conspirant’: De occulta philosophia libri tres, Book 1, Chapter 39,

158. This and all subsequent references to De occulta philosophia libri tres are to the following

edition: Vittoria Perrone Compagni, ed., Cornelius Agrippa. De occulta philosophia libri tres

(Leiden: Brill, 1992).

14
thus argued that heretical Church-men and evil women (‘Templariorum detestanda haeresi’ and

‘maleficis mulieribus’) truly did conjure demons and conspired with them (‘daemones alliciuntur

atque conspirant’). This alone shows that he did believe in the existence of witches in the sense of

women who were in league with demons.

It is noteworthy that Agrippa stressed that both heretical church-men and evil women

were in league with the demons. He thus proposed no fundamental difference between male and

female witches. His use of male as well as female terms to denote witches (see also below) thus

seems to reflect his view that both men and women could be witches – so that either form could

be used – rather than a theoretically important distinction between the two gender groups.

In other chapters, Agrippa displayed a firm belief in malevolent magic. For instance, he

wrote that ‘fascinatores’ (‘bewitchers’, from the verb ‘fascinare’, ‘bewitch’) produced special

eyewash that helped them create visual illusions.28 He argued that some people could ‘bind’ other

individuals, places, animals, and objects with unguents, lights, enchantments, and other means.29

‘Fascinantes’ bound (‘fascinated’ or ‘bewitched’) fellow human beings with the power of their

spirit and through their gaze. They sometimes enhanced the power of their gaze with eyewash &

ointments.30 Witches – for whom Agrippa also used the male word ‘malefici’ – could even hurt

and kill other people by merely looking them.31 In the preface to De occulta philosophia he wrote

that one task of learned magicians was ‘ad destruendum maleficia’ – to undo sorceries.32

28
De occulta philosophia libri tres, Book 1, Chapter 20, 125.
29
De occulta philosophia libri tres, Book 1, Chapter 40, 158-9.
30
De occulta philosophia libri tres, Book 1, Chapter 50, 180-182.
31
De occulta philosophia libri tres, Book 1, Chapter 65, 225-7.
32
See also Ziegeler, Möglichkeiten der Kritik, 176.

15
 Are these statements to be taken seriously, knowing that he retracted De occulta

philosophia in his other major opus De incertitudine?33 At least two arguments suggest that it

should. First, the retraction itself is not very convincing. A close reading of the chapters of De

incertitudine in which he allegedly retracted De occulta philosophia reveals that only in some of

them did he contradict elements of the latter work.34 In addition, the specific wording of this

retraction reveals moral disapproval rather than intellectual rejection.35 It is important to note

indeed that Agrippa did not claim that he ceased to believe in the power of magic but only that he

had come to disapprove of it. Moreover, Agrippa revised and published De occulta philosophia

after he got De incertitudine printed. To all psychological standards, it is hard to believe that one

puts so much effort into a project from which one has previously distanced oneself.

Second, if we assume that De incertitudine must reflect Agrippa’s mature thinking better

than the original version of De occulta philosophia because the former was written after the

latter, then it is only logical to assume that Agrippa’s revision of De occulta philosophia reflects

33
Agrippa retracted De occulta philosophia in De incertitudine. He referred to his retraction by

mentioning it in the foreword of De occulta philosophia and by reprinting in De occulta

philosophia the chapters of De incertitudine in which he supposedly retracted De occulta

philosophia (chapter 41-48).

34
The chapters 41 (De magia in generali) and 43 (De magia mathematica) did not imply any

retraction at all. Chapter 42 (De magia naturali) only criticized the mixture of magic with

superstition.
35
The chapters 44 (De magia venefica), 45 (De goetia & necromantia), and 46 (De theurgia),

implied a moral rather than an intellectual rejection of certain types of magic. This only leaves

chapter 47 (De cabala) and 48 (De praestigiis) as (partial) intellectual retractions.

16
his mature thoughts better than the original manuscript. Any difference between the two then

reflects a development in his thinking. From that point of view, it is significant that Agrippa

inserted new references to witches in at least two places. Both times he used the word ‘malefici’

where he had not used it in 1510.36 Most probably, therefore, the views about the witches in the

printed version of De occulta philosophia reflect the views about them Agrippa held as a mature

scholar.

Taken together, De occulta philosophia shows that as a mature scholar Agrippa endorsed

several important elements of the cumulative witch concept.37 He believed that witches were in

league with demons and that they could harm and even kill fellow human beings. Importantly,

even though he did sometimes use the male Latin word for witches he chose the female word

while arguing that witches conjured demons and worked with them. This word choice reveals that

Agrippa did reject the witches whom the prevailing view assumes him to have defended.

De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum et artium atque excellentia verbi Dei

36
De occulta philosophia libri tres, Book 1, Chapter 41, 159-161 & Chapter 65, 225-7.
37
The cumulative witch concept was first described by Joseph Hansen, Zauberwahn, Inquisition

und Hexenprozeβ im Mittelalter und die Entstehung der groβen Hexenverfolgung (München:

Oldenburg, 1900, reprint, Aalten: Scientia, 1964, 35). It included that witches entered a demonic

pact, forsook their Christian faith, had sexual intercourse with devils, flew through the air,

attended nightly gatherings presided by a devil, performed malicious magic and, according to

some, sacrificed babies. See also Christopher Mackay, ed., Henricus Institoris, O.P. and Jacobus

Sprenger, O.P. Malleus maleficarum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 1: 46-47;

for a criticism on a monolithic cumulative witch concept see Richard Kieckhefer, “Mythologies

of witchcraft in the fifteenth century,” Magic, ritual, and witchcraft 1(2006): 79-108.

17
 Agrippa wrote the treatise in which he allegedly retracted De occulta philosophia in 1526

and got it printed in 1530.38 When researchers discuss Agrippa’s views of witchcraft and witch

trials, they generally refer to chapter 96. In this chapter Agrippa criticized the inquisition for

unduly focusing on canon law and papal decrees, for loving to prosecute and burn heretics, and

for neglecting the teachings of the holy scripture and the church fathers. Among their most pitiful

victims were so-called witches, whom they captured, tortured, forced to confessions, and burned

at the stake. In Agrippa’s view, the Metz case was a case in point. He stressed that the defendant

was innocent and that all accusations against her were based on slander and gossip. The argument

that her mother had been burned as a witch was both legally and theologically invalid. It was

legally invalid because no one could be held responsible for other people’s deeds. It was

theologically invalid because the baptism undid any dedication to a devil and because devils did

not have semen so that they could not impregnate women. If devils stole men’s semen and thus

impregnated women, as the Malleus Maleficarum said they could, then the children would be

children of the men and not of the devils. Hence they would inherit the men’s and not the devils’

nature.

38
About the relationship between De occulta philosophia and De incertitudine, see: Frank L.

Borchardt, “The magus as Renaissance man,” Sixteenth Century Journal, 21(1990): 57-76.

Perrone Compagni, “‘Dispersa intentio.’ Alchemy, magic and scepticism in Agrippa,” Early

science and medicine 5(2000): 160-177. Michael H. Keefer, “Agrippa’s dilemma: Hermetic

‘Rebirth’ and the ambivalence of De vanitate and De occulta philosophia,” Renaissance

Quarterly 41(1988): 614-653. Eugene Korkowski, “Agrippa as ironist,” Neophilologus 60(1976):

594-607. Charles G. Nauert, “Magic and skepticism in Agrippa’s thought,” Journal of the History

of Ideas 18(1957): 161-182.

18
 In the paragraph in which Agrippa described the Metz witch trial he also referred to a witch

case that took place in Milan while he was living in Italy. He complained that the local inquisitors

had blackmailed women, including noble ladies, to pay ransoms in order to escape being sued.

The latter example has been taken as evidence for his involvement in an additional witch hunt.

However, Agrippa simply mentioned the case without any suggestion that he had done more than

witness it, leaving us without any documented intervention in witch trials except for the Metz

case. Admittedly, the above passage of chapter 96 might be taken as criticism of the witch craze.

It is important to note, however, that the chapter was mainly devoted to the persecution of

heretics and not to the persecution of witches. Agrippa just mentioned the witch persecution as a

striking example of the inhumanity of the inquisitors. While doing so, he did not state that the

core of the witch belief was false or that all witch trials should come to a halt.

Even more importantly, other chapters of De incertitudine positively supported key

elements of witch beliefs.39 In chapter 44 (De magia venefica) Agrippa stated that magic using

poisons, drugs, and rituals was real. He referred to Saint Augustinus’ description of witches

(‘foeminae magae’) who used bewitched cheese to temporarily change men into working cattle.

In chapter 45 (De goetia & necromantia) Agrippa argued that witches – whom he now referred to

with the male forms malefici and magi – raised dead spirits, predicted the future, wrote ‘books of

darkness’, and led youngsters into trances. In Agrippa’s view, some witches even conjured

demons to make them do various kinds of chores. The most pernicious witches submitted

themselves to demons, made sacrifices to them, and worshipped them. These witches deserved to

be burned. In Agrippa’s view, moreover, the devils mostly targeted women because women were

credulous, curious, and careless.

39
This was also noted by Ziegeler, Möglichkeiten der Kritik, 176.

19
 It is clear, then, that Agrippa endorsed even more elements of the witch concept in De

incertitudine than in De occulta philosophia. He stated that people could hold the company of

demons. He accepted that women could have sex with a devil. He stressed that magic had real

effects and not just imagined ones. He even wrote that witches could change humans into

animals, an element that even ardent demonologists mostly rejected. Although Agrippa

mentioned neither the witches’ flight nor nightly gatherings, he did write that a subcategory of

witches worshipped the devil. Finally, he argued that the latter deserved the death penalty. Just

like in De occulta philosophia he referred to witches both as females and as male. In De

incertitudine he even added that devils preferred to target women – again showing that he did

have the predominantly female witches’ sect in mind that many authors have come to believe he

actually defended.

As with De occulta, we may wonder how seriously De incertitudine should be taken.

Agrippa himself characterized the book as belonging to the literary genre of the Declamatio. A

Declamatio was a rhetorical exercise in which an author honed his stylistic, communicative, and

creative skills by defending points of view that were not necessarily his own. As noted by the

philologist Marc van der Poel, however, Agrippa vigorously defended De incertitudine against

critical attacks. This suggests that he was not indifferent at all about its contents.40

Fortunately, there are only two alternatives. One is that Agrippa did present his personal

views in De incertitudine and that he named it a Declamatio for strategic reasons. In that case the

40
About the Declamatio as a literary genry: Marc van der Poel, De declamatio bij de humanisten.

Bijdrage tot de studie van de functies van de rhetorica in de renaissance (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf,

1987). Marc van der Poel, “The Latin declamatio in Renaissance humanism,” The sixteenth

century journal 20(1989): 471-8.

20
label Declamatio should be disregarded and the contents of De incertitudine should be taken

seriously. The treatise then reveals that Agrippa supported rather than contradicted witch beliefs.

The other possibility is that De incertitudine was a genuine Declamatio and that the views

Agrippa expressed in it truly did not reflect how he really thought about the witches. This would

nullify both his partial endorsement of the witch concept and his criticisms of the inquisition.

Stated differently, it would neutralize De incertitudine as a source on Agrippa’s views of witch

beliefs and witch trials, leaving us with what he wrote about witches in De occulta philosophia.

For all practical reasons the outcome of both possibilities would be the same because De occulta

philosophia supported witch beliefs just like De incertitudine did.

De nobilitate et praecellentia foemeneï sexus

One argument for viewing Agrippa was an opponent of the witch hunt is his allegedly favorable

view of women. This positive view has been derived from the treatise De nobilitate et

praecellentia foemeneï sexus that Agrippa wrote in 1509 or 1510 and in which he described

women as morally, esthetically, and intellectually superior to men. According to some authors, a

favorable attitude towards women is incompatible with witch beliefs and support for the witch

trials.41 In A history of great ideas in abnormal psychology, for instance, Thaddeus Weckowicz

and Helen Liebel-Weckowicz noted that ‘During the sixteenth century, certain enlightened men

opposed the indiscriminate burning of witches. These included the jurist Cornelius Agrippa von

Nettesheim (1486-1535) who wrote On the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex in which

he attacked misogyny’.42

41
Ziegeler, Möglichkeiten der Kritik, 186-7.
42
Thaddeus Weckowicz and Helen Liebel-Weckowicz , A history of great ideas in abnormal

psychology (Amsterdam: Elsevier North-Holland, 1990), 49.

21
 Just like De incertitudine, however, De nobilitate et praecellentia foemeneï sexus carried

the label of being a Declamatio. It is therefore uncertain if it represented Agrippa’s genuine

opinion about women. This issue becomes the more pertinent considering the denigrating

remarks Agrippa made about women in De incertitudine. Fortunately, there is no need to decide

which declamation reflects how Agrippa truly thought about women, the reason being that the

favorableness of sixteenth-century authors’ attitudes towards women simply did not predict their

view of witches. Witch beliefs and the witch prosecution have often been associated with

misogyny because important demonological treatises – such as the Malleus Maleficarum –

communicated extremely unfavorable views of women. Despite the undeniable misogyny of

some demonological treatises, however, positive attitudes towards women could and did occur

among witch-hunters while negative attitudes towards women could and did occur among the

opponents of the witch craze.

As argued by the historian Tamar Herzig, for instance, even Heinrich Kramer – one of the

authors of the Malleus Maleficarum – showed a great esteem for those women he considered

virtuous. In his later works, he expressed his admiration for contemporary female mystics and

argued that the lives and experiences of many holy women of his time proved the value of the

Roman Catholic faith.43 In contrast, a prominent critic of the witch craze did express a notable

degree of misogyny. On the basis of his books De praestigiis daemonum, et incantationibus ac

veneficiis (1563) and De lamiis (1577), Agrippa’s apprentice Jan Wier is now widely recognized

as one of the first scholarly critics and perhaps as the single most influential critic of the witch

43
Tamar Herzig, “Witches, saints, and heretics. Heinrich Kramer’s ties with Italian women

mystics”, Magic, ritual, and witchcraft 1(2006): 24-55.

22
hunts and witch beliefs in western history.44 Interestingly, both treatises abound with remarks

about the gullibility and the simplemindedness of – particularly elderly – women.

To summarize, it is unclear whether Agrippa truly held a positive attitude towards

women. Even if he did, however, this would not imply that he supported the witches. The fact

that he has written De nobilitate et praecellentia foemeneï sexus therefore does not prove that he

opposed the witch trials.

Adversus lamiarum inquisitores

The title of a final source to consider makes clear that its author must have opposed the witch

hunts. Unfortunately, we cannot thoroughly analyze its contents because Adversus lamiarum

inquisitores is only known from quotes in the works of two authors: Bibliotheca sancta of the

Italian inquisitor Sisto da Siena (1520-1569) and De praestigiis daemonum of Jan Wier.

Bibliotheca sancta, basically an introduction to exegesis, was first published in Venice in

1566. It was reprinted in Lyon and in Frankfurt in 1575 and again in Cologne in 1576. In the

decades to follow several new editions would appear. In the early seventies of the twentieth

century, Paola Zambelli noted that two chapters referred to a text that was named Adversus

lamiarum inquisitores and that was attributed by Sisto da Siena to Agrippa. In one chapter, Sisto

da Siena argued that Agrippa described demonic intercourse as merely existing in the imagination

and in the dreams of deluded old women. In another chapter he complained that Agrippa had

accused inquisitors of being heretics and of inventing malicious libel against innocent women.

From these quotes Zambelli inferred that Agrippa ridiculed the belief in demonic intercourse,

rejected the existence of witches and attributed seemingly demonical experiences to dreams and

44
Burns, Witch hunts, 6. Thurston, Witch hunts, 226.

23
hysteria.45

After Sisto da Siena, Agrippa’s apprentice Jan Wier was the second to quote Adversus

lamiarum inquisitores. As pointed out by the historian Michaela Valente, his quote was identical

to a quote in Bibliotheca sancta. Yet, even though Wier was familiar with Bibliotheca sancta she

considered it unlikely that he only knew about Adversus lamiarum inquisitores through that

book.46

Thus far, the quotes by Sisto da Siena and Jan Wier to Adversus lamiarum inquisitores

have been taken as evidence that Agrippa must have written a now lost treatise on witches.47

45
Paola Zambelli, “Cornelio Agrippa, Sisto da Siena e gli inquisitori. I. Congettura su’un opera

agrippiniana perduta,” Memorie domenicane n.s. 3(1972): 146-164. Paola Zambelli,

“Scholastiker und Humanisten. Agrippa und Tritemius zur Hexerei: Die natürliche Magie und die

Entstehung kritischen Denkens,” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 67(1985): 41-79. Paola Zambelli,

White magic, black magic in the European Renaissance (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 70. I have used the

following edition of Bibliotheca sancta: Sisto da Siena, Bibliotheca sancta (Frankfurt: Ex

officina typographica Nicolai Bassaei, 1575). The references to Agrippa are in Book 5, Annotatio

LXXIII, 383-4, and Book 6, Annotatio CCLXXVII, 594-5.

46
Michaele Valente, Johann Wier. Agli albori della critica razionale dell’occulto e del

demoniaco nell’Europa del Cinquecento (Firenze: Olschki, 2003), 39-41.

47
E.g. Zika, Exorcising our demons, 149-150 (note 147). Stuart Clark, ‘Demons and disease. The

disenchantment of the sich (1500-1700),” in Illness and Healing Alternatives in Western Europe,

ed. Marijke Gijswijt-Hofstra, Hans de Waardt, and Hilary Marland (London: Routledge, 1997),

38-58. Stuart Clark, Thinking with demons. The idea of witchcraft in early modern Europe

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 237.

24
However, it seems reasonable to doubt whether a treatise that gets quoted by just two authors –

with one of them probably depending on the other – has ever existed at all. To be sure, the non-

existence of a text is impossible to prove. Yet the circumstance that Sisto da Siena and Wier were

the only ones to refer to this particular text is particularly intriguing. First, Agrippa was a famous

author whose manuscripts circulated widely both during and after his lifetime. Second, the

witches and their prosecution were soon to become hot topics. Under all normal circumstances,

the combination of a renowned author and a timely subject would have raised much more

attention than Adversus lamiarum inquisitores has ever done.

Already in 1749, moreover, the Italian theologian Girolamo Tartarotti remarked in Del

congresso notturno della lammie libri tre that he had read about Adversus lamiarum inquisitores

in De praestigiis daemonum. Since then, he had gone great lengths to find the treatise. Yet he had

not been able to lay hands on even a single copy.48 Having access to more practical and more

comprehensive search tools than Tartarotti could have dreamed of, we too have failed to locate

copies of Adversus lamiarum inquisitores. We could not find the treatise in any of the libraries we

have visited (including, among others, those of the universities of Leuven, Groningen,

Amsterdam, Leiden, and Utrecht, and the J.R. Ritman Library – Bibliotheca Philosophica

Hermetica in Amsterdam) nor in catalogues such as WorldCat, Picarta, Short Title Catalogue

Netherlands (STCN), and the Karlsruher Virtuelle Katalog (KVK).

Even if a treatise named Adversus lamiarum inquisitores would ever come to light, it

would not necessarily be written by Agrippa. According to Zambelli, Agrippa must have authored

it while or shortly after he revised De occulta philosophia. She based this assumption on a letter

48
Girolamo Tartarotti, Del congresso notturno della lammie libri tre (Rovereto: Giambatista

Pasquali, 1749), xxii-xxiii.

25
that Agrippa wrote to the city council of Cologne. In his letter of 11 January 1533, Agrippa

announced a book about ‘de Fratrum Praedicatorum sceleribus et haeresibus’ (‘on the horrible

and heretic Dominican friars’) and about the evil they did in the world.49 Zambelli assumed that

the passage referred to Adversus lamiarum inquisitores.50 However, Agrippa specified neither a

working title nor a summary of the projected book. It therefore takes a leap of faith to assume,

first, that he actually wrote the announced text, and second, that he narrowed down its subject to

the witch persecution. Moreover, the early thirties coincided with the apprentice years of Wier. If

Agrippa wrote Adversus lamiarum inquisitores, Wier would almost certainly have known about

it. In that case, he would probably have referred to it when he wrote De praestigiis daemonum.

Yet Wier remained silent about Adversus lamiarum inquisitores in the first four editions of De

praestigiis daemonum of 1563, 1564, 1566, and 1568. He only started quoting from it in the fifth

edition of 1577. Intriguingly, this edition was the first to appear after Bibliotheca sancta was

reissued in 1575. This suggests that even Jan Wier only knew about Adversus lamiarum

inquisitores through Bibliotheca sancta.

Taken together, it seems that Sisto da Siena either referred to a non-existing book or

misattributed a book by another author to Agrippa. He may have done so either intentionally or

by honest mistake. But how likely is it that an early modern author would refer to a non-existent

book or misattribute an existing one? Obviously, both were possible in the sixteenth century.

First, authors did refer to ghost titles. One notorious instance of a famous yet non-existing

book was the antireligious treatise De tribus impostoribus (On the three impostors) that allegedly

described Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed as frauds. Rumors about its existence circulated since

49
Zambelli, “Cornelio Agrippa”, 146-147. For the letter see Agrippa, Opera, 2: 1033-1045.
50
Zambelli, “Scholastiker und Humanisten”, 76. Zambelli, White magic, black magic, 70.

26
the Middle Ages. In the sixteenth century, many scholars thought it was of a more recent date.

They attributed it, among other authors, to the classicist Guillaume Postel, to the religious

reformers Michel Servet and Bernardino Ochino, to the writer François Rabelais, to the physician

Pietro Pomponazzi, and to the poet and philosopher Giordano Bruno.51

Second, books that did exist were routinely misattributed. For instance, many sixteenth-

century scholars thought that the thirteenth-century universal scholar Albertus Magnus had

written De secretis mulierum (On the secrets of women), Experimenta Alberti (Experiments of

Albert), and De mirabilibus mundi (On the wonders of the world). Today, all three works are

considered spurious.52 In the seventeenth century, Processus iuridicus contra sagas et veneficas,

das ist: Ein rechtlicher Prozeβ gegen die Unholden und Zauberischen Personen even appeared

under the name of the theologian Paul Laymann. To date we know that it was written by the

German professor Hermann Goehausen.53 Even solely focusing on Agrippa, the false attribution

51
George Minois, Le traité des trois imposteurs. Histoire d’un livre blasphématoire qui n’existait

pas (Paris: Albin Michel, 2009).

52
Claire Fanger, “Albertus Magnus,” in Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esoterism, ed. Wouter

J. Hanegraaff, Antoine Faivre, Roelof van den Broek and Jean-Pierre Brach (Leiden: Brill, 2006),

9-12.
53
Bernhard Duhr, “Paul Laymann und die Hexenprocesse,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie

23(1899): 733-743. Bernhard Duhr, “Ist P. Laymann der Verfasser des Processus juridicus contra

sagas?,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 24(1900): 585-592. Bernhard Duhr, Die Stelling

der Jesuiten in den deutschen Hexenprozessen (Köln: Bachem,1900). Bernhard Duhr, “Noch

einmal P. Laymann und der Processus juridicus contra sagas,” Zeitschrift für katholische

Theologie 25(1901): 166-8. Bernhard Duhr, “Eine kommentierte Ausgabe des angeblich von

27
of Adversus lamiarum inquisitores had a precedent: As we now know, the so-called fourth book

of De occulta philosophia was falsely attributed to him.

To summarize, there is reason to doubt Agrippa’s authorship and even the existence of

Adversus lamiarum inquisitores. Over a century ago, Wier’s biographer Carl Binz laconically

remarked that Agrippa did not write such a treatise.54 The most reasonable conclusion to be

drawn from all available evidence seems to be that we should – at least temporarily – take his

view seriously.

Conclusion

An analysis of Agrippa’s involvement in the Metz witch trial and of his writings leads to two

strongly related conclusions. The first message is that Agrippa was much less an opponent of

witch beliefs and witch trials than once thought. His activities in Metz do not reflect a general

rejection of witch beliefs and witch trials and he probably never wrote a treatise named Adversus

lamiarum inquisitores. Even if De nobilitate et praecellentia foemeneï sexus reflected a genuine

favorable view of women, moreover, this would not be informative about his views of witchcraft.

The second, more affirmative message is that Agrippa did believe in witchcraft and

supported the capital punishment of witches. We propose that a major part of the ambiguity

Laymann verfassten Processus juridicus contra sagas,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie

29(1905): 190-192. H.J.J. Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse. Die Stellung und

Bedeutung der Cautio Criminalis in der Geschichte der Hexenverfolgungen (Trier: Paulinus,

1954), 75, 77, 79 &109.

54
Binz, Doctor Johann Weyer, 82. See also Robin Briggs, The witches of Lorraine (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 36-7, whose cautious reference to Adversus lamiarum

inquisitores already suggested some doubt about its existence.

28
 surrounding his precise views on witchcraft derives from the erroneous attribution to him of

Adversus lamiarum inquisitores. Once this treatise is eliminated a more consistent picture

emerges. Both De occulta philosophia and De incertitudine suggest that Agrippa endorsed core

elements of the cumulative witch concept and that he advocated the death penalty against

witches. While doing so, he made clear that the meant both male and female witches. There is no

doubt, therefore, that his rejection also included the predominantly female witch sect that later

authors have believed he wished to protect.

29

View publication stats