Talk:Summis desiderantes affectibus

wikisource

This should go to Wikisource. Gentgeen 22:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Moving

Is its proper name just Summis desiderantes? --Brand спойт 12:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Kors and Peters use Summis desiderantes affectibus twice and Summis desiderantes once (not counting the TOC).[1] Burr uses Summis desiderantes once and witch-bull once.[2] Regardless, there is a redirect from Summis desiderantes. --Jtir 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Being as its not a proper title, but just an incipit, it makes sense to me to use a complete grammatical unit. Savidan 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the names at Wikisource are reversed from what they are here. --Jtir 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The text of the bull will establish its incipit. Whether the conventional incipit, usually two words, is a complete grammatical unit or or whether it appeals to Wikipedians' logic is immaterial. Though there's no firmly consistent usage in the professional articles that are called up at JSTOR by searching "Summis desiderantes" (which brings up "Summis desiderantes affectibus"), we might do well to move this article to Summis desiderantes. At least Wikipedia doesn't incorrectly capitalize it — Summis Desiderantes Affectibus — as I see in some articles. --Wetman 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions is the policy for article naming.

Montague Summers consistently uses Summis desiderantes affectibus, which he translates as "DESIRING with the most hearfelt anxiety".(sic)[3][4][5]

Another possible source (copied from Malleus Maleficarum):

• Mackay, Christopher S. (2006). Malleus Maleficarum (2 volumes). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521859778. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) (in Latin) (in English) (bibrec) (editor's home page)

Volume 1 is the Latin text of the first edition of 1486-7 with annotations and an introduction. Volume 2 is an English translation with explanatory notes.

"Incipits were often written in a different script or color from the rest of the work of which they were a part." This suggests looking at a manuscript.

--Jtir 12:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Who did the English translation in Burr?

Kors and Peters reprint the English translation from Burr, but Burr doesn't seem to say who did the translation. --Jtir 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Victims

How many people prosecuted?? I have read as many as 25,000 women were burned. Quis separabit? 16:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Distinguishing white and black magic

In as much as the source information for this section of the article is attributed, I still find it hard to believe that the RC Church would distinguish between white and black magic. Seems to me the Church would be more disposed to wanting to discredit all forms of magic altogether and to dismiss all of them simply as false.

"The early Church distinguished between "white" and "black" magic. The former was generally dealt with through confession, repentance, and charitable work assigned as penance.[4]" 174.89.81.76 (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Responce

Any idea how the witches responded? I'm asking because I assume their reaction is lost to history; good or bad proper or not, the church wouldn't care to document it. Liberty5651 (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Date of publication

Montague Summers's translation of the Bull (the second link under the external links section) gives the date of 9 December on the final paragraph. However, the lead section of this article says that the Bull was issued on the 5th of December. This can't be simply because the original text used the Julian calendar whereas this article uses the Gregorian calendar because the Julian calendar is behind the Gregorian calendar, not ahead of it. Can someone explain this discrepancy?

81.132.174.1 (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)