Re: I need help explaining basic linguistic concepts to a lay person


Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:09:47 +0000, António Marques
> <m.ap@xxxxxxx> wrote in
> <news:43c82535$0$16423$a729d347@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
> soc.men,sci.lang:
>
> > Anyway,
>
> > Could someone certify or discredit the wikipedian text?
>
> > 'The Malleus Maleficarum ("The Hammer of Witches" or the "Hexenhammer")
> > is considered by many to be the classic Roman Catholic text on
> > witchcraft, although it was in fact condemned by the Inquisition in
> > 1490, and never officially used by the Catholic Church.
> > (...)
> > The writers attached a letter of approbation from the University of
> > Cologne ostensibly signed by four teachers there. However, this letter
> > was a forgery. The University had not approved the book, and had in fact
> > condemned it for the use of unethical legal procedures, and because its
> > demonology was not consistent with Catholic doctrine. Kramer was
> > condemned by the Inquisition in 1490, but the book continued in
> > publication, buoyed by the growing popular hunger for remedies against
> > witchcraft.'
>
> I'm pretty sure that this is an overstatement. The
> Wikipedia article on Heinrich Kramer offers this:
>
> Some claim[1] that Kramer failed in his attempt to
> obtain endorsement for this work from the top
> theologians of the Inquisition at the Faculty of
> Cologne, and that they condemned the book as
> recommending unethical and illegal procedures,
> as well as being inconsistent with Catholic
> doctrines of demonology. Kramer's claimed
> endorsement from four of the professors may
> have been forged. He was denounced by the
> Inquisition in 1490.
>
> Others are unconvinced that the work was
> inconsistent with Catholic doctrine of the
> time, noting that co-author Sprenger held
> very prestigious and influential positions in
> the Church, including Dean of the Faculty
> of Theology at the University of Cologne.

While I do not have enough evidence to make a judgment on the larger
question of Wikipedia's accuracy, this argument is a weak one. The
contribution of Sprenger is a matter of controversy.

I found this quote from Hans Peter Bloedel's book on Malleus
Malleficarum in a scholarly discussion list:
http://www.listserv.dfn.de/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0507&L=hexenforschung&O=D&F=&S=&P=1645

`Indeed, so estimable were Sprenger's intellectual and spiritual
attainments, that some have questioned the actual extent of Sprenger's
contribution to the Malleus. Although Sprenger certainly wrote the
"Apologia
auctoris" which prefaces the Malleus, and did so in terms that strongly
suggest his active participation in its writing, nonetheless because
the
work if of one piece stylistically (and Institoris definitely wrote the
third part of the text single-handedly), and because the Malleus
throughout
reflects Institoris' known preoccupations, it is likely that beyond
lending
the work the prestige of his name, Sprenger's contribution was
minimal.'

Jayne

.

Quantcast