Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:26:47.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Black Magic to Heresy: A Doctrinal Leap in the Pontificate of John XXII

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Isabel Iribarren
Isabel Iribarren
Affiliation:
lecturer in Medieval Church History at the Université Marc Bloch-Strasbourg II.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1320, Pope John XXII launched a doctrinal enterprise of some import: the assimilation of practices of black magic into the crime of heresy. As was his custom, John sought the opinion of experts before taking a final decision that would entail, among other consequences, extending the jurisdiction of the inquisition to cover cases of black magic. In his recent study on medieval demonology, Alain Boureau has suggested that the question that truly concerned the pope was not witchcraft or ritual magic per se, but the role of the devil in these practices. Boureau based his thesis on a wide-ranging theory of late medieval representations of individual subjectivity and society, on the principle of “pact” or covenant between two free-willing parties. Away from old, static forms of social hierarchization, the fourteenth century favors a contractual structure that places the emphasis on the voluntary nature of the relation between individuals in society and between humans and God. Boureau develops his argument on the basis of the response offered by one of the members of the 1320 commission, the Franciscan Enrico del Carretto. Bishop of Lucca, Enrico had been among the experts in charge of judging the orthodoxy of the Franciscan Spirituals in 1318, and had also participated in the discussion towards the preparation of the bull Cum inter nonnullos. We are thus in the presence of one of John XXII's curial cohort. Boureau accords particular value to Enrico's response because he is the only member of the commission who seems to draw attention to the real efficacity of demonic causality in black magic, thus offering the first explicit evidence of the tournant demonologique taking place in the medieval Church between the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century.

Type
Articles
Information
Church History , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 32 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Boureau, Alain, Satan hérétique: Naissance de la démonologie dans l'ccident méval (1280–1330) (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2004)Google Scholar, chap. 1. Also Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers: Une consultation de Jean XXII sur la magie en 1320 (Manuscrit BAV Borghese 348), Sources et documents d'histoire du Moyen Age 6 (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2004), xi.Google Scholar

2. Enrico del Carretto came from an important Genoese family, related and allied to the Fieschi. Bachelor in theology at Paris, he then became lector at the Franciscan studium in Bologna. Pope Boniface VIII appointed him bishop of Lucca in 1300 against the canons' choice. On account of political troubles in Lucca, he left the city for Avignon at the beginning of John XXII's pontificate. In 1308, Enrico had been in charge of composing the synodal statutes of his city. Interesting for our purposes is the fact that one of its chapters concerns the prohibition of incantations and divination, which strongly suggests that Enrico was convinced of the effective power of such practices. He died in 1324. See Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, xii–xiii.Google Scholar

3. Boureau, , Satan hérétique, 12.Google Scholar

4. The doctrinal tradition that views the sacrament as a contractual relation with God can be traced back to Augustine, especially his theory of relation as a noninherent accident, combined with his idea that the signification of signs depends on a freely willed convention between men, independently of the natural properties of the sign. Notable proponents of this view were William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris between 1228 and 1249, the Oxford theologian Richard Fishacre, Robert Grosseteste, and later followers include the Dominican Robert Kilwardby, Bonaventure, and Peter John Olivi. For Augustine, see De Trinitate 5.16.17, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (hereafter CCL) 50A, ed. Mountain, W. J. and Glorie, F. (Turnhout: Brepols, 1968), 226.38–54Google Scholar; De doctrina Christiana 2.2.30, CCL 32, ed. Daur, K. D. and Martin, J. (Turnhout: Brepols, 1962), pars. 4,1, p. 54Google Scholar; 23.36, CCL 32, pars. 4,1, p. 58; 24.37, CCL 34, pars. 4,1, pp. 59–60; 25.38, CCL 34, pars. 4, 1, p. 60; 25.39, CCL 32, pars. 4, 1, p. 60. For William of Auvergne, see De legibus 27, in Guillelmi Alverni Episcopi parisiensis Opera Omnia (Venice, 1591: Paris, 1674; reprint Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1963), 88b–89bGoogle Scholar; De universo 3.26, in Guillelmi Alverni, 795a; De Trinitate 30, ed. Switalski, B. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediavel Studies, 1976)Google Scholar. For Fishacre, Richard, see In IV Senteniarum 4.1, ed. Goering, J. (forthcoming)Google Scholar. For Grosseteste, Robert, see De cessatione legalium, ed. Dales, R. C. and King, E. B., Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi (London: British Academy, 1986)Google Scholar. For Robert, Kilwardby, see Quaestiones in librum quartum Sententiarum 1.74, ed. Schenk, R. (Munich: Bayersichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1993), 232–36Google Scholar. For Bonaventure, see Commentarii in quatuor Libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi, Opera Omnia 1–4, 4.1.1.4 (Quarac-chi, 1: 1882; 2:1885; 3:1887; 4:1889)Google Scholar; For Olivi, see Quid ponat ius vel dominum, ed. Delorme, F. M. (n.p.: n.p., 1945), 316–17, 320–24, 328Google Scholar; Summa 4.4, Vat. Lat. 4986, f. 132r; also Boureau, , Satan hérétique, 113–23Google Scholar; Piron, S., “Marchands et confesseurs: Le Traité des contrats d'Olivi dans son contexte (Narbonne, fin XIIIe-début XIVe siècle),” in L'Argen au Moyen Age, Société des historiens médiévistes de l'enseignement supérieur publii (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1998), 289–308Google Scholar. For an exhaustive study of thi different theories of sacramental causality, see Rosier-Catach, I., La parole éfficace: Signe, rituel, sacré (Paris: Seuil, 2004), esp. 99–172.Google Scholar

5. Boureau, , Satan hérétique, 113–23.Google Scholar

6. See for example the contractual theory of sacramental causality developed by the Dominican Durandus of St. Pourçain: Durandi a Sancto Porciano: In Petri Lombardi Sententias Theologicas Comtnentarium libri IIII, 2 vols. (Venice, 1579; reprint Ridgewood, N.J.: Gregg, 1964)Google Scholar, 4.1.4. As we learn from Gelber, Hester, It Could Have Been Otherwise: Contingency and Necessity in Dominican Theology at Oxford, 1300–1350 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 191–222Google Scholar, covenantal theology was well known among Oxford Dominican circles in the 1320s and 1330s. Robert Holcot (inc. 1335–36) was a notable upholder of this theory.

7. See Aquinas ST 1a2ae.12.1 ad 4, 12. 4 ad 3, 14.4; 2a2ae.11.1.

8. Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, li–lii.Google Scholar

9. Guido Terreni was of Catalan origin and had been the pupil of Godfrey of Fontaines at Paris. He was regent master there around 1312–16, when he taught John Baconthorpe and Sigebert of Bekke. He was regent at the Carmelite studium in Avignon, lector at the sacred palace in 1317–18, provincial prior of Provence (before its division between the provinces of Provence, Narbonne, and Catalonia), and general prior of the order in 1318–21. Shortly after the 1320 commission on witchcraft he was appointed bishop and inquisitor of Majorca (1321–32), and then of Elne from 1322 until his death in 1342. On Guido's participation in the poverty controversy, see Nold, P., John XXII and his Franciscan Cardinal (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 30, 139, n. 74; 175, n. 101CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a full account of Guido's life and career, see Xiberta, B. M., Guiu Terrena: Carmelita de Perpinyà, Estudis Universitaris Catalans, Série monogràfia 2 (Barcelona: Institució Paxtot, 1932)Google Scholar; Fournier, P., “Gui Terré (Guido Terreni), Théologien,” in Histoire littéraire de la France 36 (Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 1927), 432–73Google Scholar. Also Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, xiv.Google Scholar

10. For the dating of John's consultation in the autumn of 1320, see Boureau, , Le pape el les sorciers, xvi–xxii.Google Scholar

11. For Maier's, Anneliese report on the manuscript text, see “Eine Verfügung Johanns XXII: über die Zuständigkeit der Inquisition für Zaubereiprozesse,” in Ausgehendes Mittelalter: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Geistesgeschichte des 14. Jahrhunderts (Rome: Edizioni de storia e letteratura, 1967), 2:59–80Google Scholar. Boureau's edition is contained in its entirety in Le pape et les sorciers.

12. As Alexander Murray has kindly made me aware, the practice of consulting canon lawyers grew considerably in the fourteenth century. Baldus de' Ubaldi (d. 1400) left over 2500 consilia, much studied by later lawyers. Clement V had consulted Oldradus de Ponte regarding the war of Robert of Naples and Henry VII. John's practice seems to echo this. See Riesenberg, P., “The Consilia Literature: A Prospectus,” Manuscripta 6 (1962): 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baumgartner, I., ed., Consilia itn späten Mittelalter: Zum historischer Aussagewert einer Quellengattung (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1995)Google Scholar. I am very grateful to Mr. Murray for his attentive reading and valuable comments on this paper. We later find the same Oldradus involved in the defense of one John of Partimach, accused of heresy by two Dominican inquisitors on account of his practicing sortilege. Oldradus's defense has come to us in the form of a small treatise on the question whether sortilege can be qualified as heresy. This treatise, which enjoyed great authority in later literature, explores the legal side of the relation between man and the devil, and the inquisition's judgment of practices associated with it. Oldradus bases his argument on the traditional definition of heresy as an intellectual error and concludes that simple sortilege, as the one involved in this case, is not tantamount to heresy but is only superstitious. Association with the devil is not considered heretical unless it involves reverence. For Oldradus's text, see Hansen, J., Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Hexenwahns und der Hexenverfolgung im Mittelalter (Bonn: C. Georgi, 1901), 55–59Google Scholar. For its significance, see Hansen, J., Zauberwahn, Inquisition und Hexenprozess im Mittelalter und die Entstehung der grössen Hexenverfolgung (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1900), 263–67.Google Scholar

13. In the order in which they appear in the text, the members of the papal commission were: the Dominican Augustin Kazotic, bishop of Zagreb since 1303; John Wülfing von Güttingen, bishop of Brixen since 1306; the Franciscan Enrico del Carretto, bishop of Lucca; the Dominican James of Concotz, papal confessor and bishop of Lodève since 1318; Guido Terreni, general of the Carmelites; Alexander Fassitelli of St. Elpidio, general of the Augustinians since 1312; the Franciscan Arnaud Royard, master of theology in Paris; the Augustinian John of Rome, master of theology in Paris since 1319; the Augustinian Gregory of Lucca, master of theology in Paris until 1322, then bishop of Sorra in Sardinia; and finally, the Cistercian Jacques Fournier, bishop of Pamiers since 1317 and future pope Benedict XII. For the biographical details of each member, see Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, xii–xivGoogle Scholar. See also Boureau, , Satan hérétiaue, 64–69.Google Scholar

14. The practice of consulting a body of experts was a feature of John XXII's pontificate and was to be repeatedly employed by him, notably on the question of apostolic poverty during the conflict with the Franciscans (1322–24), and later during the beatific vision controversy (1330s), although in this case the consultation was a result, rather than the occasion, of John's doctrinal blunder. Another case in which John consulted experts took place in early 1318, when he inquired whether a series of statements made by some Franciscan Spirituals about the relation between Church authority and the Franciscan vows were tantamount to heresy. The doctrine involved was derived from Peter John Olivi's teaching. Among the members of the commission were the Carmelite Guido Terreni and the Dominican Durandus of St. Pourçain. See Denifle, H.. and Chatelain, E., ed., Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, 4 vols. (Paris: Delalain, 1889–1897), 2:215–18, n. 760 ii.Google Scholar

15. See Maier, , “Annotazioni autografe di Giovanni XXII in codici Vaticani,” in Ausgehendes Mittelalter, 81–96.Google Scholar

16. On the issue of what was really behind John's consultations, I have greatly benefited from Alain Boureau's enlightening comments during seminars or conversation.

17. See Maier, , “Eine Verfügung,” 64Google Scholar: (1) Utrum baptizantes imagines aqua in forma eccelsiae vel quamcumque rem irrationalem ad maleficium perpetrandum, committant factum hereticale, et utrum velut haeretici sint puniendi an solum sicut sortilegi iudicandi et qualiter isto vel illo modo sint puniendi. Et iuxta hoc, quid faciendum sit de illis, qui imagines tales receperunt quibus fuit dictum quod essent rebaptizatae. Item de illis quibus non fuit dictum, quod huiusmodi imagines baptizatae essent, tamen eis dictum fuit, quod talem vel talem dictae imagines virtutem haberent, et ad ilium finem receperunt eas. (2) An sacerdos hominem rebaptizans modo superstitioso et sacrilego credens quod talis baptizatus virtutem habeat curandi a morbo caduco sit velut haereticus habendus vel solum ut sacrilegus puniendus et qualiter. (3) Quid faciendum sit de illis, qui faciebant aliquos rebaptizare et praesentes et consentientes erant. (4) An accipientes corpus Christi pro maleficiis vel sortilegiis faciendis sint velut haeretici puniendi. (5) An sacrificantes daemoniis intendentes sacrificare eisdem, ut per sacrificium illecti daemones cogant aliquam personam ad faciendum illud quod sacrificans cupiebat, et an daemones invocantes sint velut haeretici habendi vel solum ut sortilegi.

18. It is not surprising that Guillaume should have been assigned as spokesman of the pope in front of the inquisitors. Guillaume was born in Bayonne in 1260 and joined the Dominican house of Béziers fairly early, in 1279, before studying in several convents of the southwest and undertaking studies in theology at Montpellier. His university career began proper in 1306, after a period of teaching in Toulouse, when Clement V appointed Guillaume lector at the sacred palace. Clement then made him cardinal in 1312, at the same promotion that included Jacques Duèze, future John XXII. Guillaume enjoyed a good reputation and a rather broad experience, for he was at once a well-known theologian (his commentary on the Sentences, written towards 1300, was known as the “Lectura Thomasiana”), an active member of the Dominican order (general preacher of Narbonne in 1289, definitor of Cahors in 1298, provincial prior of Provence in 1301), and a curialist (appointed in 1309 by Clement V to look after the posthumous process against Boniface VIII). John XXII appreciated his merits, for he promoted Guillaume as cardinal-bishop of Sabina in 1317, and later appointed him as pontifical legate in Spain from 1320 to 1324. Guillaume's departure for Spain probably explains why he was absent at the consultation on witchcraft. Otherwise, it is unlikely that the pope would have overlooked his participation. See Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, xvii–xviii.Google Scholar

19. “Sanctissimus pater noster et dominus … optans ferventer maleficos infectores gregis dominici effugare de medio domus Dei, vult ordinat vobisque committit, quod auc-toritate sua contra eos, qui demonibus immolant vel ipsos adorant aut homagium ipsis faciunt, dando eis in signum cartam scriptam seu aliud quodcumque, vel qui expressa pacta obligatoria faciunt cum eisdem aut qui operantur vel operari procurant quam-cumque ymaginem vel quodcumque aliud ad daemonem alligandum seu cum daemonum invocatione ad quodcumque maleficium perpetrandum aut qui sacramento baptismatis abutendo ymaginem de cera seu de re alia factam baptizant sive faciunt baptizari seu alias cum invocatione daemonum ipsam fabricant quomodolibet aut faciunt fabricari, aut si scienter baptismus seu ordo vel confirmatio iterantur; item de sortilegis et maleficis, qui sacramento eucharistie seu ostia consecrata necnon et aliis sacramentis ecclesiae seu ipsorum aliquo quoad eorum formam vel materiam utendo eis in suis sortilegiis seu maleficiis abutuntur, possitis inquirere et alias procedere contra ipsos, modis tamen servatis, qui de procedendo cum prelatis in facto haeresis vobis a canonibus sunt praefixi. Ipse namque dominus noster praefatus potestatem inquisitoribus datam a iure quoad inquisitionis officium contra hereticos necnon privilegia ad pretactos casus omnes et singulos ex certa scientia ampliat et extendit, quoadusque duxerit revocandum.” For an edition of this letter, see Hansen, J., Quellen, 4–5Google Scholar. A previous case, known from a letter that the pope addressed in July 1319 to Jacques Fournier, bishop of Pamiers and future member of the 1320 commission, assimilates invocations of the devil to heresy. The pope commands the bishop to persecute the three persons involved—a cleric, a Carmelite, and a woman, whom he accused of fabricating wax images and consulting with the demons with harmful purposes (maleficium). See Vidal, J.-M., Bullaire de l'Inquisition française (Paris: Librarie Letouzey et Ané, 1913), 53–54, n. 24.Google Scholar

20. Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, xvi–xviii.Google Scholar

21. The canon Episcopi has been edited by Hansen, J.: Quellen, 38–39Google Scholar. The canon, dealing with “De mulieribus, quae cum daemonibus se dicunt nocturnis horis equitare,” probably originated in some Carolingian synodal statute. For an illustrative passage: “quaedam sceleratae mulieres retro post Satanam conversae daemonum illusionibus et phantasmatibus seductae, credunt se et profitentur nocturnis horis cum Diana paganorum dea…. Nam innumera multitudo hac falsa opinione decepta haec vera esse credit, et credendo a recta fide deviat et in errorem paganorum revolvitur, cum aliquid divinitatis aut numinis extra unum deum esse arbitratur. Quapropter sacerdotes per ecclesias sibi commissas populo omni instantia praedicare debent, ut noverint, haec omnimodis falsa esse, et non a divino sed a maligno spiritu talia phantasmata mentibus infidelium irrogari” (my emphasis).

22. This bull was republished in 1260 and integrated into the sixth book (the Sextus) of the Corpus of canon law issued by Boniface VIII. See Sextus, , 5.2.8, Corpus iuris canonici (hereafter CIC), ed. Friedberg, E. (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1879–1881), 2: col. 1071–72Google Scholar. For an edition of the bull, see Hansen, J., Quellen, 1.Google Scholar

23. For a more in-depth study of the historical development of witchcraft and its persecution in Europe, see Conn, N., Europe's Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch-Hunt (London: Sussex University Press, 1975).Google Scholar

24. Enrico's text was first edited by Manselli, R., “Enrico del Carretto e la consultazione sulla magia di Giovanni XXII,” in Miscellanea in onore di Monsignor Martino Giusti 2, Collectanea archivi Vaticani 5 (Vatican City: Archivo vaticano, 1978), 97–129Google Scholar. For this study, I will however follow Alain Boureau's more recent edition in Le pape et les sorciers, 12–34 (BAV Borghese 348, fos. 5r–14r). See also Boureau's own account of Enrico's view in ibid., xxviii–xlvi. Boureau, Cf., Satan hérétique, 75–91.Google Scholar

25. It was a standard principle of Aristotelian physics, widely accepted by the scholastics, that natural action can only take place by contact. See Aristotle, Physics 7Google Scholar.3.244a–b.

26. “Non potest dici talis virtus esse in ymagine a demone ministerialiter, quia angelus nihil potest immediate nisi movere res naturales que a sua forma habent virtutem, et ideo per motum lapidis posset hominem interficere…. Item mediantibus virrutibus naturalibus rerum, multa operatur secundum motum ad formam…. Talis autem est modus agendi non est dyaboli mediante ymagine, que multum distat a maleficiato. Oportet autem semper agens esse presens virtute pacienti: credere igitur aliquam virtutem respectu maleficii esse in ymagine ratione consecrationis figure ejus est hereticum, sicut habet sacramenta Dei”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 27Google Scholar (f. 11r–11v).

27. See Courtenay, W. J., “The Critique on Natural Causality in the Mutakallimun and Nominalism,” The Harvard Theological Review 66:1 (1973): 77–94Google Scholar, esp. 9092. For proponents of this type of causality, see Bonaventure, , Sent. 4.1.1.4Google Scholar; John Olivi, Peter, Summa 4.4, Vat. Lat. 4986, 135r–137vGoogle Scholar; Durandus of St. Pourçain C Sent., 4.1.4.290rb, n. 19Google Scholar; William of Ockham, Sent. 4.45.1Google Scholar. (See also the bibliography provided in n. 4.) The distinction between the absolute and ordained power of God rested on the fundamental perception that what God created or established did not exhaust divine capacity or the potentialities open to God. The twin formula de potentia absoluta and de potentia ordinata was introduced in the early thirteenth century and became commonplace scholastic terminology by midcentury. In its classic shape, the formula signified two ways of speaking about divine power. One way of speaking is to discuss power in the abstract, without regard for God's will and actions as revealed in the present order. The other way is to view divine power in terms of what God has in fact chosen to do. Thus, certain things that are theoretically possible to God de potentia absoluta are impossible to God in light of the chosen order, de potentia ordinata. For a thorough study of this distinction, see Courtenay, W. J., “The Dialectic of Divine Omnipotence,” in Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought: Studies in Philosophy, Theology and Economic Practice (London: Variorum Reprints, 1984), 1–37.Google Scholar

28. See, for example Durandus of St. Pourçain C Sent. 4.1.4.19.290rb.Google Scholar; John Olivi, PeterSumma 4Google Scholar.4, Vat. Lat. 4986, f. 133r; 6, Vat. Lat. 4986, f. 138r. For a study of this analogy, see Courtenay, W. J., “The King and the Leaden Coin: The Economic Background of sine qua non Causality,” Traditio 28 (1972): 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. Aquinas's theory of sacramental causality undergoes some changes between his early commentary on the Sentences and the later Summa. In his commentary he maintained that the sacrament is an “instrumental dispositive” cause of grace, in that it “disposes” the soul to receive grace by impressing the character in it. See Sent. 4.1.1.4. In the Summa he abandons the notion of dispositive cause in order to consider the sacrament simply as an instrumental cause of grace. God is the ultimate cause of both grace and the character, but by means of the action of the sacrament. See ST 3.62.1; also 3.62.4 and 6. See Rosier-Catach, , Parole éfficace, 135–39.Google Scholar

30. See Aquinas, , Sent 4Google Scholar.1.1.4; ST 3.62.1. On the same grounds, Aquinas will dismiss the example of the leaden coin as a valid illustration of sacramental causality: In Ethic. 5.9.978–91; in Polit. 1.7.111–21; ST 2a2ae.78.

31. “Credere igitur aliquam virtutem respectu maleficii esse in ymagine ratione consecrationis figure ejus est hereticum, sicut habent sacramenta Dei”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 27 (f. 11v).Google Scholar

32. “Demon non possit dare virtutem talem, eo quod res non possunt habere, nisi a Deo, virtutes naturales et supernaturales quas dyabolus supponit rebus inesse”: Ibid.

33. “[Demon] potest tamen esse in rebus, sicut motor in mobili et ut signatum in signo, licet posset per eam loqui sicut per ydolum; sed de narura predicte questionis non est necesse hoc dicere. Instituit tamen efficienter in ymaginem rationem signi ipsius maleficii: sicut enim pungitur ymago, ita pungitur ymaginatum. Videmus enim quod homo dat circulo rationem signi respectu vini”: Ibid.

34. In this respect, Alain Boureau has suggested that Enrico could have probably derived his explanation of the mode of presence of the devil from Olivi's commentary on the Apocalypse. Examining the possibility of making an image of the Antichrist talk (13, 15), Olivi reports on two interpretations, that of Joachim de Fiore and that of Richard of St. Victor. He rejects Joachim's and espouses Richard's opinion that the diabolic spirit “assists” the imitators of the Antichrist. Olivi adds to Richard's interpretation the verb assistere (to be present, to assist, to help), which for the advocates of contractual causality denotes precisely the mode of God's presence in the sacrament. Boureau speculates that Enrico could have become familiar with Olivi's terminology in the curia, where a number of theologians were working since 1318 on the censure against Olivi's commentary. Among the theologians commissioned with this work were Guido Terreni, also a member of the 1320 commission, and Pierre de la Palud. See Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, xxxv–xxxvii; Satan hérétiqueGoogle Scholar, 88–99.

35. “Est autem notandum quod dupliciter fit dyabolica ymago: uno modo ut adoretur secundum actum cultus, et hoc modo dicitur ydolum vel ymago dyabolici sacrificii. Alio modo fit ymago, non ut adoretur per actum cultus expressum, sed solum fit reverentia, ex modo que dicitur ymago maleficii; que non fit ut adoretur, sed magis pungitur et male tractatur, ut vere paciatur maleficiatus. Fit vero ei reverencia ex modo sue consecrationis, que est separatio et distinctio cum solempnitate a re non sacrata. Sacerdos enim ipsam consecrat cum invocatione trinitatis in aqua consacrata; que omnia divina sunt ordinata ad honorem instituentis rationem signi in ymagine…. Sicut enim Deus cum solempnitate consecrationis separat res divinas ab humanis, ita dyabolus res dyabolicas, quod est respectu hujusmodi consimilitudinis honorabile modo divino. Dicendum igitur quod fides sepius est in istis actibus demonum et milibus, propter astuciam demonis, que hoc summe intendit, et propter ruditatem humani intellectus, et propter ipsam facti naturam que valde disponit ad errorem. Reverencia semper est ex modo consecrationis. Unde si esset aliqua ymago facta per artem humanam solum, non consacrata, sed solum esset ymago pura ex narura materie seu et modo sue factionis, et pungeretur sicut ymago sacrata ab aliquo, qui non crederet aliquam virtutem in ymaginis esse respectu maleficii quod intendit, sed credit dyabolum hoc posse vere et ad hoc pungit ymaginem, ut dyabolus pungat maleficiatum, sine omni pacto et fide et reverencia, tune esset supersticiosum solum et non hereticum. Ad primum impositum dicendum quod talis consecratio non potest fieri sine reverencia” (my emphasis): Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 28–29Google Scholar (f. 11v–12r).

36. “Omnis enim res consecrata videtur importare specialem separationem aliis rebus non sacratis”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 27–28Google Scholar (f. 11v).

37. “Et quia ratio talis signi diabolici datur per consecrationem ymaginis modo divino, ideo est hereticum non quia necessario credatur aliqua virtus esse in ymagine vel in demone nisi naruralis, sed quia est reverencia facta signo dyaboli in sua consecratione, quia ibi Deus vel sua presentia est sicut in signo”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 27Google Scholar (f. 11v).

38. “Dato etiam quod ipse credat demonem nihil facere propter pacta, eo quod cognitio vel intentio eius non immutat naturam actus ex genere, sicut dare elemosynam ex vana gloria est semper bonum ex genere actus; quicumque igitur paciscitur cum quocumque fidit ex pacto. Sed nulla fidencia potest de eo haberi, nisi congrueret perfecte malicie eius, quia perfectissimus inimicus hominis est…. Fides autem non stat cum credulitate perfecte inimicicie et universalis et immutabilis, quam qui non credit aut facto aut verbo contrarium potestatur hereticus est”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 18Google Scholar (f. 7v).

39. “Quia igitur in Deo est intellectus et voluntas, que habent duo propria scilicet veritatem et scientiam, cui debetur fides, et bonitatem et divinum, cui debetur honor et reverencia propria, duo etiam sint modi quibus intellectus errare potest, scilicet absolute, ex natura intellectus, et talis error contra Deum dicitur heresis non credendo in fide expresse, vel negando que tenetur expresse scire, vel quoad ea que non tenetur expresse scire, non credere que credit Romana Ecclesia. Hec enim est heresis absolute dicta. Alio modo errare potest intellectus respectu eorum que in voluntate sunt: sunt enim necessario ex natura sui connexa cum errore et ipsum supponunt modo intraneo. Ideo sunt duo modi heresis proprie dicte, scilicet fides et reverencia dyabolo exhibita”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 17–18Google Scholar (f. 7v).

40. “Est autem notando quod fides dupliciter accipitur: uno modo ut opponitur infidelitati promissionis… Quocumque igitur modo accipiatur fides, nullo modo demoni est exhibenda, quia non debet credi in eo esse veritas divina, quia mendax est et pater eius. Iterum quia nee fidelitatem habet, in quibuscumque pactis vel promissis vel iuramentis, que fiunt propter firmatem paciscenrium: credere autem dyabolum propter talia aliquam firmitatem facere est hereticale, quia tune habere crederetur ex natura talis obligationis bonum recte electionis; quamquam enim servet aliquando pacta, hoc non est propter pactum. Requirere igitur pacta a demone ex natura actus est credere demonem aliquid facere propter pacta… Sed nulla fidencia potest de eo haberi, nisi congrueret perfecte malicie eius, quia perfectissimus inimicus hominis est… Fides autem non stat cum credulitate perfecte inimicicie et universalis et immutabilis, quam qui non credit aut facto aut verbo contrarium potestatur hereticus est” (my emphasis): Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 18Google Scholar (f. 7v–8r).

41. See Anselm, , Cur Deus Homo, chap. 7.Google Scholar

42. Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, xlii.Google Scholar

43. Bernard Gui's Manuel de l'Inquisiteur offers numerous examples of the techniques used in order to extract confessions. See for example the case of the suspect Cathar reproduced in Lea, H. C., A History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages (New York: Harper, 1887), 1:411–14Google Scholar. For similar cases, see also Duvernoy, J., ed., Le registre de l'Inquisition de Jacques Fournier, 3 vols. (Paris: Mouton, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Jacques Fournier was another member of the 1320 commission, and it is interesting to see the number of cases dealing with witchcraft and black magic that are recorded in his register around the same year. See 280–84, 309, 322, 350, 597, 675 (magic and superstition); 283 (witchcraft); 448, 987,1251 (sortilege).

44. I borrow Alain Boureau's term: Satan hérétique, 45–46.

45. “[Heresis] sit falsa et erronea opinio in intellectu, ut videlicet falso opinetur et contra veritatem senciat de aliquo. Et ratio huius est quia heresis est quedam species infidelitatis et ideo opponitur fidei. Fides autem est verus assensus in intellectu. Ergo, heresis erit assensus falsus contra veritatem fidei”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 43Google Scholar (f. 18v). The entirety of Guido's opinion covers 43–85 (BAV Borghese 348, ff. 18v–37r).

46. The term “presumption of law” (praesumptio juris) generally signifies a reasonable conjecture concerning something doubtful, drawn from arguments and appearances, which by the force of circumstances can be accepted as a proof. Presumption has its place in canon law only when positive proofs are wanting, and yet the formulation of some judgment is necessary. It is never in itself an absolute proof, as it only presumes that something is true. See Taunton, E. L., The Law of the Church (New York: n.p., 1906)Google Scholar, s. v. “Presumption”; Ferraris, L., Bibliotheca canonica, juridica, moralis, theologica, ed. Migne, J.-P (Paris: Petit-Montrouge, 1861–1865)Google Scholar, s. v. “Praesumptio.”

47. “Cum judicium de re accipitur quoad ilia et respectu illorum que per se et ex natura sui conveniunt et non respectu eorum que per accidens, ex actu exteriori sumetur judicium de interiori quem significat ut causam per se et ex natura sui ipsum respicit, non interiori intentione operands. Quod probo: nam si ex actu exteriori deberet sumi judicum de interiori secundum intentionem operantis, nunquam de actu interiori posset haberi judicium humanum…. Dico igitur quod judicium humanum accipitur ex actu exteriori de interiori quem rescipit actus exterior ex sui natura tamquam causam et non de illo quem respicit ut causam non per se nec ex natura sui, sed per accidens ex relatione et intentione operantis”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 62–63Google Scholar (f. 26v–27r).

48. “Quod aliquis ex actu hereticali judicetur hereticus, non intelligitur quod actus exterior dicatur hereticale sic quod heresis formaliter sit in actu exteriori. Hoc enim est impossibile cum formaliter heresis sit in intellectu, sed pro tanto dicitur actus exterior hereticalis quia significat in operante heresim, sicut effectus significat causam et signum suum significatum; et similiter verbum exterius dicitur hereticale non quod heresis sit formaliter in voce, sed quia significat in loquente heresim et quod habeat sic dicens errorem contra fidem in intellectu”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 64Google Scholar (f. 27r–v).

49. In an interesting allusion to Lateran IV's decree Excommunicamus against rulers who aided heretics, Guido admits the possibility that the ruler could be prompted in his action not by a desire to encourage the heretic in his error, but by a compassionate intention. But whatever the case, Guido says that what is evident (constat) to the Church is the heretical act of perpetrating heresy. As such, the ruler should be judged heretical and excommunicated according to the Lateran decree: see Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 70Google Scholar (f. 30r).

50. “Constat quod intentio qua operans operatur, puta qua intentione dat elemosinam non potest ab nomine sciri quia nemo novit que sunt hominis nisi spiritus hominis qui est in eo, ut Apostolus dicit [I Cor. 2, 11]…. Unde dans elemosinam inopi judicabitur compatiens et nisi ex actu intentionis qua dat nee etiam intentio illa per actum exteriorem pateret”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 63Google Scholar (f. 26v–27r). Also 73–74 (f. 31v–32r): “Unde dicendum quod factum hereticale ex natura sui arguit per se causam heresim, quamvis per accidens ex intentione agentis possit ab alia causa fieri sicut ex natura sua dare indigenti arguit in dante compassionem tanquam per se causam, potest tamen ex intentione facientis in relatione ad aliam causam, puta inanem gloria fieri et quia judicium debet sumi ex hiis que per se, nisi aliud appareat, et non ex hiis que per accidens ut, nisi aliud appareat ex actu exteriori dandi elemosinam indigenti debet tanquam ex per se effecru judicari dans elemosinam habere compasionem et non id quod secundum intentionem dantis potest intendi.”

51. For an exhaustive study of the role of “intention” in creating obligation in sacraments and vows, see Rosier-Catach, , La parole éfficace, 295–345.Google Scholar

52. See Bonavenrure, , Sent. 3.39.3, p. 875Google Scholar. Also Olivi, Quodl. 4.7, p. 228.Google Scholar

53. “Et confirmatur quia certum est quod de verbo exteriori confitens et negans trinitatem personarum in divinis judicatur hereticus quia judicium sumitur quod male sentiat de fide trinitatis ex verbo quod ex narura sui est expressivum talis erroris et proprium signum ejus…. Et similiter adorans hereticum judicatur hereticus quia talis adoratio signum est quod placeat sibi heretica doctrina quam in heretico veneratur et tamen certum est quod sic adorans potest alia intendere ut quod hoc faciat timore aut favore alicuius tyranni heretici magni. Ergo, judicium ecclesie erit ex actu exteriori de acti interiori quem de se respicit et ex sui natura tanquam per se causam, et non judicabitur per actum istum exteriorem de actu intentionis operantis…. Judicum autem ex signo fallibili non est omnino infallibile. Igitur judicium de actu interiori per actum exteriorem, puta ex facto hereticali accipitur iudicium quod aliquis est hereticus, tale judicium non est omnino infallibile”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorders, 63–64 (f. 27r–v).Google Scholar

54. “Igitur, cum non dicatur factum hereticale nisi quia est effectus heresis et signum quo in faciente probatur heresis, dicere quod aliquis operetur factum hereticale et per hoc non judiceretur hereticus est se interimere… tunc cum actus exterior denominetur ab actu interiori sicut a sua causa, si non patet quod sit ab heresi, non debet dici actus hereticalis…. Item si sic, scilicet quia tale factum potest fieri absque heresi et absque hoc quod male sentiat baptizans de baprismo et potest in urramque causa reduci, non potest judicari ex hoc hereticus… et sic non poterit aliquis de heresi puniri, quod est inconveniens valde”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorders, 73Google Scholar (f. 31v).

55. See Bonavenrure, , Sent. 4Google Scholar.39.2, resp.

56. “Secundo requiritur ad hereticum ut falsam et erroneam habeat opinionem contra ea que fidei sunt et contra veritatem et determinationem ecclesie in hiis que pertinet ad fidem aut bonos mores ac ad ea que sint necessaria ad consecutionem vite eterne…. Ecclesia autem catholica credit et tenet veritatem sacramentorum ecclesie in quibus divina virtus secretius operator…. Determinatio etiam dubiorum emergentium circa fidem maxime pertinet ad Christi vicarium summum pontificem Petri successorem”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 45–46 (f. 19r–v).Google Scholar

57. I make reference to Turley, T., “Infallibilists in the Curia of Pope John XXII,” journal of Medieval History 1:1 (1975): 71–101, esp. 79–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a similar view, see Tierney, B., Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150–1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages, Studies in the History of Christian Thought 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1972).Google Scholar

58. “Secundum judicium ecclesie judicabitur aliquis hereticus ex verbo vel facto hereticali quod verbum vel factum arguit heresim in intellectu quantum est in se, nisi ibi sit mendacium verbi vel facti aut aliter excusetur per evidenciam. Unde oportet quod dicens vel faciens contra fidem probet facto evidenter quod mentiebatur aut quod ex ignorantia hoc fecit; aliter, nisi constet de opposito ecclesia judicabit eum hereticum. Et est simile: aliquis est manifestus peccator; moritur absque confessione et sacramento penitentie in puncto mortis, amissa loquela et omni expressione qua possit exterius confiteri aut ostendere se dolere de peccato; nichilominus interius conteritur; iste per ecclesiam judicabitur damnatus et secundum Deum erit salvus” (my emphasis): Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 65Google Scholar (f. 27v–28r).

59. This is not to deny that Guido might have later developed his view along hard infallibility lines, especially in the context of later 1320s disputes over irreformability initiated by the Franciscans. See particularly De perfectione vitae of 1323, MS 299, ff. 3r–77v, Bibliothèque municipale, Avignon; also the 1328 Quaestio de magisterio infallibili romani pontificis. See Turley, , Origins, 80–83.Google Scholar

60. “Unde ad hoc quod aliquis sit hereticus, requiritur falsa opinio et erronea credulitas…. Hanc sententiam nota glossa XIX D., c. Nulli fas [Decretum Gratiani, in Corpus iuris canonici 1, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1879), D. 19 q.5; CIC 1: col. 61], ubi dicitur: sed intelligas quod hie dicitur quod qui dicit romanam ecclesiam non esse caput nee posse condere canones, ille est hereticus” (my emphasis): Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 44 (f. 18v).Google Scholar

61. “Ille qui intendens Deo sacrificare, si in alia materia quam in pane et vino et sub verbis debitis, et alius quam sacerdos sacrificaret, talis esset superstitiosus et qui in exhibitione divini cultus ageret omnino contra universalem ecclesie consuetudinem…. Potest tamen exhiberi cultus divinus cui non debet, puta quia exhibetur creature…. Unde superstitiosus est qui hunc honorem et reverenciam exhibet creature, et vocatur hec species superstitionis ydolatria…. Unde qui honorem istum creature, puta demoni aut alteri exhibet ut ab eo ostendat noticiam futurorum et divinorum secretorum superstitiosus est”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 51–52 (f. 21v–22r).Google Scholar

62. “Quod enim punctio ymaginis artificialis queratur in me punctio non potest hoc queri ut causa talis effectus…. Talis punctio non habet causalitatem naturalem ad efficiendum punctionem vel dolorem in me, et ideo istud est superstitiosum et similiter in aliis que in talibus rebus observantur que non habent causalitatem ad illos effectus ad quos querentur nee ex vi sue nature nee institutione divina, quod dico propter sacramenta que, quamvis ex vi nature non habeant causalitatem in anima, tamen habent respectu caracteris vel ornatus et respectu gratie”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 52 (f. 22r).Google Scholar

63. “Sic baptizans, quantum ex facto proponitur, intendit et credit quod ymago ex tali baptismo haberet virtutem talem et ad hoc earn baptizat, quod per baptismum in ea efficiatur talis virtus malefica. Et hoc videtur ex natura baptismi talis, tanquam ex proprio signo signati. Sicut enim verum baptisma exterius signum est quod interius in baptizato aliquid per baptismum causatur, sic tale falsum et perniciosum baptisma videtur adhiberi ad talem imaginem ut in ea per baptismum talem aliquid efficiatur ut habeat efficaciam ad maleficium; sic rationabili judicio humano, tanquam ex proprio signo, judicabitur quod baptizans credat talem baptismum causare virtutem maleficam in ymagine baptizata…. Quicumque de sacramentis et verbis sacramentalibus sentiti contra Christi institutionem et contra quod ecclesia sentiti catholica, est hereticus. Sed baptizans ymaginem ad causandum maleficium sentit de verbis Christi et baptismo contra Christi institutionem et aliud quam ecclesia…. Ergo, est hereticus judicandus…. Hoc est manifeste herericum quia hoc est extimare quod Deus sit causa culpe et maleficii…. Aliter sentire de verbis sacramentalibus quam ex scriptura habetur et quam ecclesia sentit est hereticus”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 70–72 (f. 30r–31r).Google Scholar

64. “Honor dulie non debetur dyabolo, immo contemptus et irreverencia ratione obstinate malicie et culpe, et oppositum credens est hereticus, sicut credens dyabolum esse in gratia aut in via ad gratiam. Unde cum dyabolus sit omnino adversus a Deo absque spe conversionis et dulie honor non debeat exhiberi nisi habentibus communicationem ad Deum per gratiam aliquo modo sive quia formaliter habeant gratiam aut possunt habere vel agunt ad gratiam vel subministrant. Ideo, credens quod dyabolo vel eis qui subserviunt sue maleficie operationi debeatur honor dulie, est hereticus quia hoc est credere quod dyabolo et sue male operationi debeatur honor. Ergo, credens quod ex virrute dyaboli verba Christi habeant efficaciam ad maleficium est male sentire de verbis Christi quod eis debeatur honor et non debeatur, quod est hereticum”: Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, 72–73Google Scholar (f. 31r). Curiously, in his famous Summa de haeresibus, composed around 1340 after he had been inquisitor of Majorca, Guido does not mention idolaters of the devil or authors of black magic within his catalog of heretics. Could this be understood as an implicit, posthumous criticism of the pope's doctrinal program of extending the meaning of heresy to include these practices?

65. Thus Guido, : “Debitum autem non est respectu impossibilium cum ad impossibile nulla sit obligatio. Ergo non potuerunt verba Christi sacramentalia esse misteria dyaboli, et oppositum senriens irreverenter sentit et male de verbis sacramentalibus Christi”: Boureau, Le pape et les sorciers, 73 (f. 31v).Google Scholar

66. “Invocatio cum adoratione qua invocatur demon est protestatio false fidei; hoc enim patet de invocatione cum adoratione latrie quia sic invocans ut sacrificans vel alio exteriori cultu latrie exhibens honorem divinum demoni protstatur se credere demonem esse a quo credit regi et salvari; protestatur etiam se credere in demonem tanquam Deum et ideo ex hoc actu exterioris latrie judicabitur se credere alium Deum quam verum et a demone consequi regimen et salutem, quod est contra fidem”: Boureau, Le pape et les sorciers, 83 (f. 36r). Also ibid: “Nihil enim adoratione dulie adoratur nisi propter ordinem quern habet ad Deum a quo ordine recessit et omnino aversus dyabolus propter maliciam obstinatam…. Ergo sic adorans hereticum judicatur hereticus, multo magis invocando adorans demonem debet judicari hereticus”: 84 (f. 36v): “unde et sic invocantes demonem ad effectus proprios Dei judicandi sunt heretici, quasi credant demonem posse sicut Deus… Si invocans crederet quod demon ilia que subsunt sue virtuti naturali demonis posset facere non permissus a Deo, talis invocans esset hereticus, male sentiens de Dei potentia contra scripturam.”

67. “Baptizare ymagines ad maleficium, etsi patenter sit sortilegium, nihilominus habet judicari per ecclesiam committere heresim. Unde non reducitur ad sortilegia quecumque sed ad sortilegia que manifeste sapiunt heresim, ut expresse notatur Extra, de hereticis, Libro Sexto, cap. Accusatus et Sane [Sexto, 5.2.8, CIC 2: col. 1071–1072]”: Boureau, Le pape et les sorciers, 74 (f. 32r).

68. In November 1330, John XXII sent two letters, one addressed to the archbishop of Narbonne and the inquisitor of Carcassonne, the other to the archbishop of Toulouse and his inquisitor, containing a copy of a letter sent in 1320 by Guillaume de Peyre Godin to the inquisitors of Carcassonne and Toulouse, ordering its recipients to devote themselves with particular zeal to the persecution of cases of satanic invocations. The new letter included however an important corrective, whereby the inquisitors must seek to complete their task and assist the bishops, but abstain from opening new procedures without previous pontifical commission. For an edition of this letter, see Hansen, J., Quellen, 6–7Google Scholar. For John XXII's legal innovations and distrust of the inquisition, see Boureau, , Satan hérétique, 41–60.Google Scholar

69. A prime example of this is the trial of the Templars, in which the inquisition became subordinate to the royal power. See Cohn, , Europe's Inner Demons, 90–94Google Scholar. For other vivid examples, see also Murray, A., “The Inquisition and the Renaissance,” Raleigh Lecture on History, Proceedings of the British Academy 131 (2005): 91–126, esp. 109–10, 112–14, 124–25Google Scholar; and “Beware of the Universities: A Cautionary Tale from Paris, 1380–1381,” in Medieval Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Jeremy Duquesnay Adams, ed. Hayes-Healy, S. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 1:29–54, esp. 48–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also Maisonneuve, H., Études sur l'origine de l'Inquisition, 2nd ed. (Paris: J. Vrin, 1960)Google Scholar. Indeed, after ca. 1300, the inquisition underwent new developments. It had the most streamlined, up-to-date procedure of any court, and one supremely open to use by authority. Hence the tendency to enlarge the concept of “heresy.” That the notion of heresy extended under John XXII to black magic is just one instance of this general expansion, occasioned by the configuration of pressures created by the new court. I thank Alexander Murray for his enlightening comments on this issue.

70. Boureau, , Satan hérétique, 51Google Scholar. Boureau's demonological bias informs his argument throughout the whole of chap. 1, on the legal innovations of John XXII.

71. For a vivid account of these episodes, see Mollat, G., Les papes d'Avignon (1305–1378), 9th ed. (Paris: Letouzey et AnÉ, 1949), 42–44Google Scholar; also Cohn, , Europe's Inner Demons, 185–93Google Scholar; Albe, E., Autour de Jean XXII: Hugues Géraud, évéque de Cahors: l'affaire des poisons et envoûtements en 1317 (Cahors: J. Girma, 1904)Google Scholar; Rigault, Abel, Le procès de Guichard évêque de Troyes, 1308–1313 (Paris: A. Picard, 1896).Google Scholar

72. The Church's attitude towards these practices was ambivalent until well into the 1270s, since, as we know, popes in search of the elixir of life tended to protect the study of alchemy. See Bagliani, A. Paravicini, II corpo del papa (Turin: Einaudi, 1994)Google Scholar. After the condemnations, however, this science began to be regarded with more suspicion. Indeed, bishop Tempier's syllabus of 1277 was preceded by a prologue that condemned those “books which either dealt with black magic or registered cases of witchcraft, invocations of the devil, or other practices which could put the soul in danger.” In response, we see Cardinal Francesco Orsini ordering, in his will of 1304, the burning of all his books of alchemy. See Boureau, , Le pape et les sorciers, xx–xxiiGoogle Scholar. Cf. Satan hérétique, 31–38.

73. For the connection between Ghibellinism and practices of black magic and astrology, see Housley, N., The Italian Crusades: The Papal-Angevin Alliance and the Crusades against Christian Lay Powers, 1254–1343 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 25–30, 53–70, 117.Google Scholar

74. For an edition of John's bull, see Hansen, J., Quellen, 5–6Google Scholar. John's bull does not appear in the two canonical collections that completed the Corpus iuris canonici and that included John's Extravagantes. The first collection of John XXII's bulls was composed in 1325 by Jesselin de Cassagnes, who did not have the time to complete it before his death. A second collection had to wait until the beginning of the sixteenth century, at a time when John's doctrine on witchcraft had become banal. The only mentions of the bull are found in the manual of Nicholas Eymerich in 1376, in Rinaldi's Annales ecclésiastiques, and in a Roman eighteenth-century collection of bulls. It is in fact remarkable that there should be no traces of John's bull in the papal registers: see Boureau, , Satan hérétique, 20–25.Google Scholar

75. “Dolenter advertiumus … quamplures esse solo nomine christianos, qui … cum morte foedus ineunt et pactum faciunt cum inferno, daemonibus namque immolant, hos adorant, fabricant ac fabricari procurant imagines, annulum vel speculum vel phialam vel rem quamcunque aliam magice ad daemones inibi allagendos ab his petunt, responsa ab his recipiunt et pro implendis pravis suis desideriis auxilia postulant, pro re foetidissima foetidam exhibent servitutem…. Hoc edicto in perpetuum valituro de consilio fraturm nostrorum monemus omnes et singulos renatos fonte baptismatis in virtute sanctae obedientiae et sub interminatione anathematis praecipientes eisdem, quod nullus ipsorum aliquid de perversis dictis dogmatibus docere ac addiscere audeat vel, quod execrabilius est, quomodolibet alio in aliquo illis uti…. Nos in omnes et singulos, qui contra nostra saluberrima monita et mandata facere de predictis quicquam praesumpserint, excommunicationis sententiam pro-mulgamus, quam ipsos incurrere volumus ipso facto, statuentes firmiter, quod preter poenas predictas contra tales, qui admoniti de praedictis seu praedictorum aliquo infra octo dies a monitione computandos praefata a praefatis non se correxerint, ad infligendas poenas omnes et singulas, preter bonorum confiscationem dumtaxat, quas de iure merentur heretici, per suos competentes iudices procedatur”: Quellen, 5–6.Google Scholar

76. Thus, an anonymous commentary of about 1330 on John XXII's constitution draws precisely on the idea of “pact” in order to prove the “heretical fact” in black magic: “Adorare daemonem, baptizare imagines et talia sunt valde gravia peccata et modernis temporibus multum incipiunt pullulare. Valde rartionabiliter posset ecclesia statuere, quod talia facientes, etsi non haberent errorem fidei in intellectu, si facerent hoc praecise propter aliquid pactum demone habitum, velut heretici punirentur, et forsitan expediret, ut propter gravitatem pene homines a talibus arcerentur. Utrum autem hoc sit iam statutum per aliqua iura, plenius noverint iuriste”: Vat. Lat. MS 4869, f. 79. See Hansen, J., Zauberwahn, 267–68Google Scholar. Likewise, Zanchinus Ugolini's treatise De hereticis, composed around 1330, mentions the central importance of a “pact” with the devil in the definition of heresy. The author belonged to the circle of inquisitors of the Romagna of around 1302–40. The treatise, highly influential in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, was written as a manual for the inquisitor Donatus St. Agatha O.F.M. See Hansen, J., Zauberwahn, 268–70.Google Scholar