Compendium Maleficarum/Editor's Introduction

by Montague Summers

Editor’s Introduction

The ancient origins of the local Milanese Order Ambrosiani or Ambrosini, of which Francesco-Maria Guazzo was so eminent and honoured a member, are buried in obscurity, although the Brethren themselves, perhaps with more devotion than exactness, were ever wont to refer their foundation to no less a figure than the great S. Ambrose himself. It is very possible, and even probable, that some old traditions had actually been handed down from the illustrious Father who had taken so deep an interest in monasticism and so closely watched the beginnings of the cloister throughout his diocese. However that may be, in the earlier decades of the fourteenth century certain solitaries and hermit priests dwelling near Milan gradually adopted the cenobitic life, making it their pious custom to assemble at stated intervals during the day for solemn office and united prayer. About this very time three young nobles, Alessandro Crivelli, Alberto Besozzo, and Antonio della Pietra-Santa, disgusted with the licentiousness of the aristocratic society and court of Giovanni II, had sought refuge in retreat from the world, and taking as their anchorhold a wood not many leagues from the city, here they built a humble chapel which soon became the common oratory of a regular community, and this forest sanctuary may not untruly be said to have been the cradle of the Ambrosian Order. In 1375 Pope Gregory XI, who some twelve months before had approved the Congregation of the Spanish Hermits of S. Jerome, gave the Milanese frati the Rule of S. Augustine, adding thereto a number of particular constitutions, and assigning as their name “Fratres Sancti Ambrosii ad Nemus.” They were, moreover, empowered to elect their own superiors, subject to the confirmation of the Archbishop of Milan. A habit was prescribed with broad scapular, a stuff girdle pendent as is the Augustinian cincture, a voluminous cowl and capuce, a mighty mantle in which to walk abroad, in colour all of chestnut brown.^[1] The Ambrosian Liturgy, both for Mass and choir, must be followed. The Order henceforth was canonically established.

Of the history of the Ambrosiani comparatively few details are known, and it is hardly necessary here to rehearse them at any length. It will suffice to say that various houses were founded, and that for more than half a century each monastery remained entirely independent, their only connexion being the fact that each adopted the same rule. In 1441 Eugenius IV united all the existing foundations in one Congregation under a Master-general who was to reside at the original convent where in future a full Chapter met every three years. It was found that the old discipline had become somewhat relaxed in the time of S. Carlo Borromeo, but at the request of the brethren this great Saint presided in person over their Chapter of 1579, and with his encouragement the earlier strictness was soon restored. Subjects, none the less, were few, and on 15 August 1589 Sixtus V issued a bull joining the Ambrosiani with the Apostolini or Barnabites,^[2] who claimed the Apostle S. Barnabas as their founder, but whose constitution, as then followed at any rate, had been approved by Rome early in the fifteenth century. The Congregation thus formed was now generally known as the Brethren of S. Ambrose ad Nemus and S. Barnabas, and upon the engraved title-page of the second edition (1626) of Guazzo’s “Compendium Maleficarum,” the two Saints are duly depicted as patrons in full pontificalia.

Outside the archdiocese of Milan the Ambrosiani held for a while only two houses, both of which were at Rome: San Clemente,^[3] and San Pancrazio. In Milan itself their most important monastery was that attached to the Church of San Primo, a parish which in more recent years was divided among three other churches, S. Bartolomeo, S. Babila, and San Andrea. The Church of San Primo and the adjoining cloister stood hard by the Porta Orientale where was the Collegia Elvetico at the opening of the Strada Marina. The religious also served the church of S. Ambrogio della Vittoria, which was built (1348) at Parabiago^[4] in thanksgiving for the famous battle won there by the Milanese in 1339.

However popular at Milan, where they were held in high honour, even in the day of their greatest prosperity the Ambrosiani had never been more than a purely local Congregation, and when their numbers sensibly diminished and several of their houses fell vacant it is not surprising to find that the question of suppressing the Order was more than once debated. Eventually, on 1 April, 1645, by the bull “Quoniam,” Innocent X dissolved the surviving monasteries, including that of Parabiago, which remained, directing that they should be assigned to secular priests. The details of these arrangements were entrusted to two Cardinals, Odescalchi and Monti, who acted on behalf of the Holy See. It must not be supposed that the dissolution was in any way intended as a censure or refection upon the Ambrosiani. At that time certain reforms were being essayed in various directions, and of these one was the diminution of the very many provincial Congregations and obscurer local Orders, whose continuance involved a vast complexity of business and affairs, whose members were few and dwindling, whose purpose had been served, in most cases admirably and devotedly served throughout the years, but whose day was gone. Even as one of our own poets has said:

God fulfils Himself in many ways,
Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.

The Ambrosiani were not without their holy names. There were Beati in the calendar of the Order; Blessed Alberto Besozzo; Blessed Antonio Gonzaga of Mantua, Blessed Filippo of Fermo, Blessed Gerardo of Monza, Blessed Guardate, Blessed Giovanni, Blessed Placido, and many more, a noble roll of sanctity. They boasted too eminent scholars and writers of renown; the pious and strictly orthodox Paolo Fabulotti whose authoritative “De potestate Papae super Concilium,” first published at Venice in 1613, ran into several editions; Ascanio Tasca, who left the Society of Jesus to follow the more cloistered Ambrosian life, and who rose to be Master-general; Michele Mulazzani, a Piedmontese, who in his day had also governed the Order; Zaccaria Visconti; and Francesco-Maria Guazzo.

Even the recent and particular researches of Monsignor Professore Giovanni Galbiati, the distinguished Prefect of the Ambrosian Library, have failed to discover any details of the life of Guazzo. Perhaps this is because there is really little to know of the contemplative and monastic life, little to know of Guazzo save what we may gather from his own printed works. The archives and cartularies of the Ambrosiani whence we might at least have learned the dates of Guazzo’s birth, of his profession in the Order, and his death, have been lost for many a century. There remain then his writings, three in number, the first and most important being the “Compendium Maleficarum,” which was originally published at Milan, “Apud Haeredes Augustini Tradati,” in 1608. This golden treatise is dedicated to the Protector of the Ambrosiani, Cardinal Orazio Maffei, and the preface is signed in the month of May. Guazzo was indeed no mere prodigy of the lecture-room and the schools, for he brought his genius to bear upon the pressing problems of a much-distracted time, and perhaps there was no business which more immediately required examination and remedy than the evil of witchcraft. The north of Italy and the remoter Alpine villages had for some reason long been infected to an almost unexampled degree. It was at Asti in Piedmont that well-nigh six hundred years before a society of devil-worshippers had been almost accidentally discovered, largely owing to their zeal for proselytism, and in spite of all efforts, both ecclesiastical and civil, it would seem that these had never wholly been stamped out, but that the dark tradition lingered and was perpetuated in obscure and evil ambuscades. It may be that throughout the thirty years’ incumbency of the Cardinal Archbishop Ippolito d’Este (1520–1550), always absent from his see, this cult waxed strong in common with many another dereliction and abuse. Certain it is that during the tenure of S. Carlo Borromeo, that great prelate was well-nigh overwhelmed by the corruptions of Milan, and indeed of his whole diocese. On one occasion he received the submission and confessions of no less than one hundred and thirty sorcerers. Another time as he was passing through a certain village it was noticed he refused to give his blessing to any house or to any individual save the parish priest alone, whom he informed that the folk were, one and all, secret Satanists.

In Milan itself the votaries of this hidden worship were to be met on every side. They vended charms and love-brews, poisons and philtres; almost openly they boasted of their skill in necromantic lore, their traffic with demons, their sabbats and sorceries, enormously corrupting the whole city.

It was at the instant request of a prelate of rare learning and keenest intelligence, Cardinal Federico Borromeo, the cousin and successor of San Carlo, and Archbishop of Milan from 1595 to 1631 that Fra Francesco-Maria Guazzo composed his encyclopaedic “Compendium Maleficarum,” “in the which is fully set forth the vile craft and enmity of witches against the whole race of mankind. Whereunto is further added a most salutary and potent Exorcism to dissolve and dispel all iniquities and delusions of the devil.” Guazzo tells us that he has been engaged upon these chapters for some three years, and in addition to his earnest desire to satisfy the Cardinal-Archbishop he was yet further induced to employ his pen on the theme of witchcraft owing to what he had personally witnessed and heard at the court of the Serene Duke John William of Jülich-Cleves. Owing to the great reputation Guazzo had acquired throughout the Milanese Archdiocese as being one of the most learned, most patient and most acute Judges and Assessors in the prosecutions for witchcraft, he was summoned in the year 1605 to Cleves to advise and direct in the case of the Duke himself, who as it was feared and proved had been overlooked and ensorcelled by an aged Satanist, a warlock ninety years old, named John, who dwelt at Lauch, in the archdiocese of Cologne. This wretch confessed that by his charms and certain evil runes he had indeed afflicted the Duke with a wasting sickness and a frenzy, whereupon, being guilty in the highest degree, he was, as the law directed, condemned to the stake. However, in the madness of desperation, as he lay in prison on Sunday morning, 25 September, with a sharp knife he inflicted a fearful wound in his throat, and it was said the very fiend stood by him in his death throes.

It is not to be wondered at that the whole cohort of witches aimed their utmost malice at the Duke, for he was very active in the suppression of that sect throughout his dominions.^[5] Thus on 24 July, 1581, he sent to the upper bailiff at Vlotho, Bertram von Landsberg, a woman accused of sorcery and deeply implicated, bidding the officers examine her straitly “both by gentle means and under torture,” and adding an express injunction that “in case of her still refusing to confess, she was to be subjected to trial by water.” It was to Duke John William, his territorial prince, that in 1596 Franz Agricola, pastor of Sittard, a strong opponent of Weyer, Hermann Neuwaldt, Wilckin, Anton Praetorius, and the rationalising school, dedicated his “Von Zauberern, Zauberinnen und Hexen,” in the preface to which pamphlet he very plainly says: “I know not whether any Catholic writers have hitherto treated this subject in German, but at any rate the rulers are not yet sufficiently informed as to the horror and monstrosity of this sin; … so that most scandalous, dangerous and abominable sin of sorcery and witchcraft has spread in all directions; no country, town, village, or district, no class of society is free from it.”

Lambert Daneau writing in 1574 tells us that in some districts “the witches are so defiant and audacious that they say openly, if only they had an eminent and renowned man for their captain they should become so strong and numerous that they could march against a powerful king in open battle and easily vanquish him with the help of their arts.” Well might James I whilst yet he only held his Scottish throne fear the dark Earl of Bothwell. In later years too the boast of the witches has been fearfully fulfilled.

Timely indeed was the writing of the “Compendium Maleficarum,” and necessary. A second edition “Ex Collegii Ambrosini Typographia,” appeared in 1626. The text here is very considerably amplified by further examples and the extended discussion of nice theological points. An exorcism is added together with various Benedictions, especially for the sick, such as the “Modus Curandi Febricitantes.”

The second work of Guazzo was a Life of Blessed Alberto Besozzo, one of the earliest of the Ambrosiani, and especially venerated as the Propagator of the Order, “Vita del Beato Alberto Besozzo,” Milan, Nava, 4to, 1625. This notable piece was widely esteemed for the elegance of its style, and brought Guazzo no small increase of reputation as a skilled hagiographer. The monograph was reprinted by the Milanese house of Corrada, 4to, 1684. In 1643 was issued at Venice Guazzo’s last book, “Il principe perfetto,” 12mo.

It has been conjectured that “Il principe perfetto” may be a posthumous volume, in which case we should date Guazzo’s death “circa” 1640, and it has further been suggested that the dissolution of the monasteries of the Ambrosiani—a suppression determined some years before—was purposely delayed until after the demise of so honoured and famous a member of that community.

Francesco Maria-Guazzo comes before us as a writer and scholar of no mean order. In the course of the “Compendium Maleficarum” I have counted quotations from and references to more than two hundred and fifty authors, and these illustrations are never those of some mere commonplace book or random excerpts, but pertinent, illuminative, well chosen and aptly employed. His reading and erudition were prodigious. Steeped in the lore of Councils and in the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, the writings of S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Athanasius, S. John Chrysostom, S. Cyril, Tertullian, Lactantius, S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, S. Bernard, S. Peter Damian, Dionysius the Carthusian, and many other a mighty name are easily familiar to him. With equal facility will he cite Cedrenus and Pontano; Pliny and the Dominican Silvester; Lucian and Luitprand; Hippocrates and Francesco Mattioli; the Catholic champion, Bishop Dubravsky of Olmütz and the Protestant Philip Camerarius, the son of Melancthon’s partner in the Augsburg Confession.

Although the “Compendium Malficarum” was at once accepted as supremely authoritative by all contemporaries, and later demonologists have not been slow to commend, apprize, and make final appeal to this most salutary and excellent treatise—the learned and judicious Sinistrari manifestly and formally not merely follows but actually paraphrases entire more than one chapter when discussing dark problems of witchcraft—it is surprising indeed that Francesco-Maria Guazzo has never generally achieved the wide renown and high reputation of a Bodin, a Remy, a Boguet, or a De Lancre. The reason for this no doubt lies in the fact that these writers were also men of action, each of whom perforce from his very office and estate stood largely in the public eye, and wrought zealously for the public weal. Jean Bodin won fame as a politician, a deputy of the Third Estate to the States-General of Blois, Attorney-General at Laon; Nicolas Remy for fifteen years held the helm as Privy-Councillor and chief Judge in the Duchy of Lorraine; Boguet was “Grand Juge de St. Claude au Comte de Bourgogne”; Pierre De Lancre, the wealthy magistrate of Bordeaux, served as Commissioner Extraordinary in the witch trials of Labourd. Francesco-Maria Guazzo remained but a humble friar, the subject of an obscure and solitary Congregation.

And yet the “Compendium Maleficarum”^[6] is a treatise of no less value and importance than the famous “Démonomanie des sorciers” and the “Tableau de l’inconstance des mauvais anges et demons.” Guazzo analyses and describes as perhaps no other demonologist has set out with equal conciseness and clarity the whole practice and profession of witchcraft. Although never sparing of illustration and detail he does not indeed draw examples from the trials of those whom he had examined and judged as do Boguet and De Lancre, a feature which lends their work an especial and personal value, but the “Compendium Maleficarum” may be taken to be in some sort a complementary volume, an essential text-book of the subject, as it were, a tractate which probes and proves every circumstance of Satanism and sorcery.

To the historian, to the occult student, Guazzo’s work is of incalculable worth, and it is not too much to say that he can pretend to little knowledge of that evil Society and their horrid devices who is not intimately conversant with these pages. It will be found moreover that not the least valuable of these chapters are those which treat “De Remediis Diuinis,” and in particular the sections “De Eucharistia,” “De Signo Sanctae Crucis,” and “Auxilium singulare Beatae Mariae Virginis,” per Quam, ut ait Bernardus, Deus nos uoluit totum habere.

Montague Summers.

In Festo B.M.V. Diuini Pastoris Matris, 1929.

1. It does not seem certain whether the Ambrosians (ad Nemus) were by rule discalced or shod. Hélyot, “Histoire des Ordres Monastiques,” 1715, vol. IV, p. 52, gives an engraving, “Religieux de l’Ordre de S. Ambroise ad Nemus,” who is wearing sandals. But there appear to have been modifications, and this detail differed from time to time. Originally no doubt the brethren were discalced, but a mitigation tolerated some form of foot-gear.
2. The Brothers of S. Barnabas, not to be confused with the Barnabites, Clerks Regular, “Clerici Regulares Sancti Pauli,” founded by S. Antonio Maria Zaccaria in 1530.
3. Now served by the Irish Dominicans. S. Pancrazio fuori le Mura was seriously damaged in 1849, but has been restored.
4. For an account of the connexion of the Ambrosini with this church and the jealousy of the civic authorities who wished to appoint their own chaplains, see the article “Ambrosiani” by Monsignor Giovanni Galbiati in the “Grande Enciclopedia Italiana.”
5. For the witch prosecutions in the Lower Rhine district see Kuhl’s “Geschichte der Stadt Jülich,” 3 Teile, Jülich, 1891–94.
6. Curiously enough there is no mention of the book either in Graese or Brunet.