Talk:Canon Episcopi

Author(s) of the Canon Episcopi
It was my understanding that Russell indicated that the writer was probably 'a secretary to the Archbishop of Trier about 900 A.D.' Has anyone found any evidence to corroborate this hypothesis? L Hamm 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes: The earliest known publication of the Canon Episcopi was in 906 CE by Regino of Prüm (See the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia article on Regino here http://www.newadvent.org/caten/12719c.htm ). It appeared as Chapter 364 of the second book of Regino's collection of rules and regulations and lists of sins to be avoided, a work titled "De Ecclesiasticis Disciplinis et Religione Christiana" (see Jacques-Paul Migne, ed. "Patrologia Latina", from the "Patrologiae Cursus Completus", 1844-1865, vol 132).

The connection to Burchard is that he published two slightly edited version of the Canon about a century later: Burchard’s "Ecclesiae Episcopi Decretorum", bk 10 ch 1 (Migne, P.L., vol 140 p831-833); and Burchard’s bk 19 ch 5 (Migne, P.L., vol 140 p963-964).

The reason Russell refers to 'a secretary to the Archbishop of Trier' is that Regino was employed for a while by Archbishop Radbod of Trier (see the New Advent article cited above).

Regino appeared to credit the Canon to the Council of Ancyra, which was held in 314 CE (contrary to the Wikipedia article on the Canon, it is not doubted that this council was actually held - see the New Advent article on the Ancyra councils, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01465a.htm ). This particular council dealt mostly with the problem of newly-converted Christians relapsing to old Pagan ways. The Council called these people relapsi. Now, in parallel, the Canon Episcopi also expresses concern about people relapsing to Pagan ways - it says the people involved are "turning back" to the "errors or the pagans". Regino therefore said that the Pagan activities described by the Canon should be condemned because of the thrust of the provisions set out at Ancyra. Subsequent writers mistakenly took this as implying that Regino had credited the Canon itself to that Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCPetterson (talk • contribs)

This makes good sense. So Regino is the presumed author of the text, it would appear? Regino bases his statements on the authority of the Council of Ancyra, but this doesn't mean he thought, or was trying to create the impression, that his own text dated to the 4th century. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Identification of text variants
The term "canon episcopi" seems only ever to come up in witch-cult literature. The existence and relevance of this text is unquestioned, but in actual literature on canon law, it is not apparently regarded as a separate text in its own right but simply as a section of a longer work.

Regino's text is section 364 in Migne, and instead of being identified as "Canon Episcopi", it would simply be known as "Regino, de ecclesiasticis disciplinis, 365". It is apparently simply called "canon episcopi" because this particular section begins with the words "ut episcopi". Here is Migne's text of Regino and Burchardus:

--dab (𒁳) 08:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw the doubt expressed above; it turns out that the title "canon episcopi" was given to this section at least from the 17th century, namely in the context of the discussion of its relevance to the then-contemporary witch trials. This appears to be an example from 17th-century Barcelona. --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It turns out that the mention of Herodias (besides the final phrase) is the only non-trivial change in Burchardus relative to Regino (based on the Migne text, which is of course not critical). --dab (𒁳) 11:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

finally, here is the text as presented by Gratian (PL 187, causa 26, quasetio 5, cap. 12),

Episcopi, eorumque ministri omnibus modis elaborare studeant, ut perniciosam et a diabolo inventam sortilegam et magicam artem ex parochiis suis penitus eradicent, et si aliquem virum aut mulierem hujuscemodi sceleris sectatorem invenerint, turpiter dehonestatum de parochiis suis ejiciant. Ait enim Apostolus: Haereticum hominem post primam et secundam correptionem   devita, sciens, quia subversus est qui hujusmodi est. Subversi sunt et a diabolo captivi tenentur qui relicto creatore  suo diaboli suffragia quaerunt, et ideo a tali peste debet mundari sancta ecclesia. § 1. Illud etiam non est omittendum, quod quaedam sceleratae mulieres retro post satanam conversae, daemonum illusionibus et phantasmatibus seductae, credunt et profitentur, se nocturnis horis cum Diana dea paganorum, vel cum Herodiade, et innumera multitudine mulierum equitare super quasdam bestias, et multarum terrarum spatia intempestae noctis silentio pertransire, ejusque jussionibus velut dominae obedire, et certis noctibus ad ejus servitium evocari. Sed utinam hae solae in perfidia sua periissent, et non multos secum ad infidelitatis interitum pertraxissent. Nam innumera multitudo hac falsa opinione decepta haec vera esse credunt, et credendo a recta fide deviant, et errore paganorum involvuntur, quum aliquid divinitatis aut numinis extra unum Deum arbitrantur. Quapropter sacerdotes per ecclesias sibi commissas populo Dei omni instantia praedicare debent, ut noverint haec omnino falsa esse, et non a divino, sed a maligno spiritu talia phantasmata mentibus fidelium irrogari. § 2. Siquidem ipse satanas, qui transfigurat se in angelum lucis, quum mentem cujuscunque mulierculae ceperit, et hanc sibi per infidelitatem subjugaverit, illico transformat se in diversarum species personarum atque similitudines, et mentem, quam captivam tenet, in somnis deludens, modo laeta, modo tristia, modo cognitas, modo incognitas personas ostendens, per devia quaeque deducit, et, quum solus spiritus hoc patitur, infidelis *mens* hoc non in animo, sed in corpore invenire opinatur. Quis enim non in somniis et nocturnis visionibus extra se  educitur, et multa videt dormiendo, quae nunquam viderat vigilando? Quis vero tam stultus et hebes sit, qui haec omnia, quae in solo spiritu fiunt, etiam in corpore accidere arbitretur, quum Ezechiel propheta visiones Domini in spiritu, non in corpore vidit *et Joannes apostolus Apocalypsis sacramentum in spiritu, non in corpore vidit* et audivit, sicut ipse dicit: Statim, inquit, fui in spiritu? Et Paulus non audet dicere se raptum in corpore. Omnibus itaque publice annunciandum est, quod qui talia et his similia credit fidem perdidit, et qui fidem rectam in Domino non habet, hic non est ejus, sed illius, in quem credit, id est diaboli. Nam de Domino nostro scriptum est : Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, etc. Quisquis ergo *aliquid* credit posse fieri, *aut* aliquam creaturam in melius aut in deterius immutari, aut transformari in aliam speciem vel similitudinem, nisi ab ipso creatore, qui omnia fecit, et per quem omnia facta sunt, proculdubio infidelis est, et   pagano deterior.

This is the text that would have been considered authoritative in the high and late Middle Ages, and the text that would have been given the conventional title of "canon episcopi", equivalent with "Decretum Gratiani causa 26, quaestio 5, cap. 12". But Iofreu (1628) seems to be using "canon Episcopi" as a title for the entire quaestio 5, including other provisions regarding magic and witchcraft. It turns out that much higher quality results are produced by googling "causa 26, quaestio 5" than by googling "canon episcopi". The reason is that every Wiccan pamphlet will contain the string "canon episcopi", while works containing the reference to Gratian are much more likely to be of useful quality.

Comparing the text of Gratian with that of Burchard above, there are a few interesting minor changes, but these are impossible to judge without a critical edition. But on the whole, the two passages are identical, if not word-for-word, at least phrase-for-phrase, including the two additions by Burchardus to Regino's text, viz the mention of Herodias, and the addition that those who believe it is possible to physically change into an animal are "worse than a pagan". --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

ah yes, another notable change is that Regino and Burchard have sortilegam et maleficam artem, changed by Gratian to sortilegam et magicam artem, i.e. replacing "witchcraft" by "magic". --dab (𒁳) 13:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Cut from article
The critical passage is as follows:
 * "Have you believed or have you shared a superstition to which some wicked women claim to have given themselves, instruments of Satan, fooled by diabolical phantasms? During the night, with Diana, the pagan goddess, in the company of a crowd of other women, they ride the backs of animals, traversing great distances during the silence of the deep night, obeying Diana's orders as their mistress and putting themselves at her service during certain specified nights. If only these sorceresses could die in their impiety without dragging many others into their loss.  Fooled into error, many people believe that these rides of Diana really exist.  Thus they leave the true faith and fall into pagan error in believing that a god or goddess can exist besides the only God."  [Translation by Geoffrey G. Koziol.  Full translated text at ]

Apart from being cited to a dead link, this is not "the critical passage". It is not part of the "canon episcopi" proper at all. It is a passage from Burchardus which makes reference to the canon Episcopi. The canon Episcopi itself is in book 10, cap. 1. and mentions that credunt se et profitentur nocturnis horis, cum Diana paganorum dea, vel cum Herodiade et innumera multitudine mulierum equitare super quasdam bestias. The passage translated here is from book 19, cap. 5, and takes the form of a confessional. It is a fair translation of the following,
 * Credidisti aut particeps fuisti illius incredulitatis, quod quaedam sceleratae mulieres retro post Satanam conversae, daemonum illusionibus et phantasmatibus seductae, credunt et profitentur se nocturnis horis cum Diana paganorum dea, et cum innumera multitudine mulierum equitare super quasdam bestias, et multa terrarum spatia intempestae noctis silentio pertransire, ejusque jussionibus velut dominae obedire, et certis noctibus ad ejus servitium evocari? Sed utinam hae solae in perfidia sua perissent, et non multos secum in infirmitatis interitum pertraxissent! Nam innumera multitudo, hac falsa opinione decepta, haec vera esse credit, et credendo a recta fide deviat, et in errore paganorum volvitur, cum aliquid divinitatis aut numinis extra unum Deum esse arbitratur.

But unlike 10.1, this passage has no parallel in Regino. The "canon Episcopi" is clearly Burchardus 10.5 = Regino 364. The text cited here is just an additional reference made by Burchardus to the passage in question, phrased as a penitential.

This passage seems to be part of the so-called "corrector Burchardi", apparently a 10th-century penitential(?) There clearly is a topical relation to the canon episcopi, but this relation needs to be figured out and presented properly. --dab (𒁳) 09:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)