On Witches and Female Soothsayers

☛ Conrad In the Legend of the Saints referring to the 'Golden Legend' by Jacobus de Voragine regarding Simon and Jude, it is read that the sorcerers Zaroes and Arphaxat were established before the King of Babylon. These men rendered the king's envoys and orators mute, lame, and blind, and then later restored their sight and ability to walk. Behold, this is clear testimony that sorcerers can harm men, even the elderly, making them lame and blind, and can heal them again. ☛ Sigismund Indeed, those orators to whom such sorceries occurred were pagans; they did not believe in Christ, nor were they protected by the sign of the cross. ☛ Ulrich You speak wisely, O illustrious prince, for in that same legend it is proclaimed that after the said orators and rhetoricians believed in Christ and were protected by the apostles with the sign of the cross, the aforementioned mages could no longer harm them, even though the mages, being irritated, attempted to harm them repeatedly. ☛ Conrad The text uses 'Lunradus' here, likely a scribal variant or error for Conradus Ah, but how then could the devil harm Job? For he struck him with a most grievous ulcer and injured him so much that, lying in the dung, he could scarcely breathe, as is read in the Book of Job. And yet Job himself was a holy man walking in the will of God, as Scripture testifies. Likewise, in the Legend of Saint Anthony, it is read how demons struck him very severely, though he was a holy man and pleasing to God. Behold, therefore, it is established from these examples that demons have had the power of harming even holy men. If, therefore, they were able to disturb holy men, why then could they not harm others whose holiness is not evident to us? ☛ Sigismund Because of these things, I begin to hesitate more and more; I desire to hear what should be thought on this matter. ☛ Ulrich Wait a while. Near the end, let us speak more broadly of this and other things regarding what should be thought. ☛ ¶ ¶ Sigismund From the previous doubt arises another: whether they can infect a man existing in the state of marriage and render him impotent for sexual union. ☛ Conrad We have seen many handsome fellows who, in the act of coitus, were capable of little or nothing; indeed, who [could not] their own wives carnally... The sentence breaks off at the end of the page.