Prosecution of Witches
It is one thing knowing to be fearful of witches, but quite another to be able to find and prosecute them. Kramer dedicates the third part of Malleus to just this, despite his lack of success at Innsbruck. Prosecution begins with an accusation but, Kramer warns, this ‘is full of danger to the accuser, because of the penalty of talion… if he fails to prove his case’ (Malleus Part III Question 1). In practice, however, few false accusers were ever prosecuted for slander, as definitive signs of witchcraft were so nebulous and unsubstantiated that almost anyone could be convicted.
The advice is very specific. Although Kramer does not allow for ‘mortal enemies’ to be called as witnesses for the prosecution, he makes an exception for women (all being naturally vengeful), and effectively legitimises mob rule when he says that biased witnesses may be used if there is general consensus of the suspect’s guilt. The accused can then be interrogated, having sworn on the Four Gospels, about their life, before being asked about the rumours of witchcraft. Disbelief in the existence of witches is a particular sign of guilt, along with any denials that run contrary to popular consensus.
The alleged-witch’s house must then be thoroughly searched, sometimes with the accused, who must not be allowed into their own room, because they often ‘bring away with them, some object or power of witchcraft which procures them the faculty of keeping silent under examination’ (Malleus Part III Question 8). The suspected witch must be carried on wooden planks to stop them touching the ground and thus regaining any witch-powers. The Inquisitor must then be satisfied that there is a foundation to the accusation, having examined the witnesses and considered the suspect’s defence, and can then proceed to the torture stage.
The torture process defies logic. ‘Common justice demands that a witch should not be condemned to death unless she is convicted by her own confession’ (Malleus Part III Question 13), demurs Kramer. But if common consensus is against the accused, Inquisitors can resort to torture. If the terrible pain is too much for the suspect, and they confess, this shows that God is on the side of the justice: ‘unless God… compels the devil to withhold his help from the witch, she will be so insensible to the pains of torture’ (Ibid.). Anyone universally-loathed was thus guilty before torture.
Whilst torturing the accused, the Inquisitor must take precautions. Witches, for example, cannot shed tears, so must be keenly-observed. The Inquisitor must also avoid being touched, lest he be bewitched in this way. The accused must also be shaved, so that magical objects preventing confession cannot be concealed. The torture must also be peculiarly horrible to each case, giving dangerous licence to particularly cruel Inquisitors: ‘if the sons of darkness were to become accustomed to one general rule they would provide means of evading it as a well-known snare set for their destruction’ (Malleus Part III Question 15).