no time to deal with the odd case of witchcraft. And this in turn meant that when the trials did appear they were unprepared for both theoretically and practically. The craze took the authorities responsible completely by surprise, which partly explains their clumsy handling. More recent detailed studies, however, chiefly those by Sundborg and Sandblad of the trials in Hälsingland, have shown that the members of the court, magistrates and priests alike, were well acquainted with the special theological and juridical literature in the field. Authors such as Wier, Bodin, Binsfield, Thummius and Carpzov are quoted repeatedly during the proceedings. These observations, together with a general knowledge of modern continental literature, were probably in Sandblad’s mind when he formulated a research programme which also has a bearing on the present work: ”Thus it remains to clarify the events as far as possible in their European context while taking into account national idiosyncrasies and variations. Such variations are obvious both in the legal, religious and social spheres.” 2.1 As virtually no court records have been preserved from the Swedish Middle Ages our conclusions must be based primarily on the profuse but one-sided legal material. The oldest county laws both in Götaland and Svealand were first recorded in the 13th century but are generally considered to reflect an ancient, partly pre-Christian legal system. Swedish Law, in line with comparable Germanic legal codes on the continent (Salic, East Gothic, Allemanic etc.), originally appears to have penalised only witchcraft that was physically injurious to human beings (maleficium; Sw. ”förgörning”). The punishment was outlawing: the victim’s kinsmen were free to take revenge and kill the witch. However, this very old form of punishment was soon replaced throughout the system by a formal death penalty, a development which may also be observed in the statutes on witchcraft. At the same time the crime is extended so that the slaughter of cattle by magic is also deemed to be a capital offence. This trend, most evident in the laws of Götaland, was obviously spurred on by the Church, as also was the adoption of statutes against superstitious practices of a less harmful nature. Cases of this type were to be brought before a bishop’s jury. The theory that the laws of Svealand in respect of ”förgörning” referred only to poisoning (veneficium) is rejected. It is based on unconvincing linguistic observations. It is doubtful whether wichcraft could be distinguished from poisoning in practice. In continental terminology, moreover, maleficium and veneficium became interchangeable at an early stage. In Svea Law only fatal melaficium against human beings is included among capital offerences. In recompense, however, the earlier stipulation that a criminal be caught red-handed (in flagranti) is missing. Other harmful but not fatal forms are punished by fines. The influence of the Church seems to be less in these laws than in Göta Law. 325
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=