Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 16.djvu/380

360 punishment, to give information of all persons suspected of witchcraft.

Two or three witnesses are sufficient to prove guilt. In case so many do not present themselves, the judge may find and summon them and force them to tell the truth under oath. The qualifications necessary for witnesses to possess will appear from the statement that the excommunicate, accomplices, outlawed, runaway and dissolute women, are irreproachable witnesses in cases where the faith is involved, A witch is allowed to testify against a witch, wife against husband, husband against wife, children against parents, and so on; but, if the testimonies of accomplices or relatives are to the advantage of the accused, then they are of no validity, for blood is of course thicker than water, and one raven does not willingly pick out the eyes of another.

An accused may have an advocate, but "The Witch-hammer" adds: "If the counselor defends his suspected client too warmly, it is right and reasonable that he should be considered as far more criminal than the sorcerer or the witch herself; that is to say, as the protector of witches and heretics he is more dangerous than the sorcerer. He should be looked upon with suspicion in the same degree as he makes a zealous defense." "The Witch-hammer" then informs the judge of five "honest and apostolic tricks" by means of which the accused and their lawyer may be confused. The quality of the questions put to the accused may be appreciated from the following examples: "Do you know that people hold you to be a witch? Why have you been observed upon the precincts of N. N.? Why have you touched N. N.'s child (or cow)? How did it happen that the child (or the cow) soon after fell sick? What was your business outside of your house when the storm broke forth? How can you explain that your cow yields three times as much milk as the cows of others?"

Before the trial of a person accused of sorcery, he was put on the rack in order that his mind might be inclined to confession. The "worst witches" were those who allowed themselves to be torn asunder, limb by limb, and their endurance is explained by the supposition that "the devil hardens them against their tortures." If confession was not wrung from the witch the first day, the torture was to be continued the second and third day. The civil law forbade the repeating of the torture. Hence the following formula used by the judge: "We ordain that the torture shall be continued (not repeated) to-morrow." The second day the instruments of torture were exhibited, and the accused was adjured, by all holy names, if innocent, to pour forth immediately abundant tears; but, if guilty, no tears at all.

If tears should flow, the judge was directed to see that it be not saliva, or other fluid; and the witch was led into the court-room backward, that the judge might see her before she saw him. Otherwise he might be moved to criminal compassion by her enchantment.

It was still further provided that the limbs of the accused should