Book contents
Chapter 2
from Question 2
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2015
Summary
WHILE women are sorcerers in greater numbers than men, as was shown in Part One of the work, men are more often affected by sorcery. The reason for this is the following. God gives more permission about the sexual act, through which the first sin is spread, than about the other human acts, in the same way that He also does through snakes, which better serve the purposes of enchantments than do other animals, because the snake is the first tool of the Devil. Furthermore, the sexual act can be affected by sorcery to a greater degree and more easily|in the case of a man than that of a woman. Hence, the proposition is proven.
Indeed, what was discussed is obvious. Since the demon can act on the power of procreation by five methods and these methods are brought about more quickly in men, the remedies to be applied against each should be described according to their feasibility. A man who has been made faulty in this power should note under which method the sorcery affecting him is listed.
There are five methods according to Peter de Palude in his Commentary on Pronouncements, Bk. 4, Dist. 34 (“On the procedure for this sorcery”). As a result of his being a spirit, the demon has power over a bodily creature with God's permission, and especially over movement in location as a result of the condition of his nature, so that he blocks or promotes that motion. Hence, through this power he can impede the bodies of a man and woman from approaching each other, either directly or indirectly. He does so directly when he removes one from the other or does not allow the one to approach the other, and indirectly when he creates some impediment or when he places himself in between them in an assumed body. This happened to a pagan youth, who had betrothed himself to an idol and nonetheless|contracted a marriage with a young woman.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Hammer of WitchesA Complete Translation of the Malleus Maleficarum, pp. 421 - 426Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009