Page - 73 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 07/01

Material Traces of a Religious Trial | 73www.jrfm.eu 2021, 7/1, 67–93 has claimed to be skilled in magical practices. This man has told him that a charm worn around his neck which consists of certain ingredients and over which five Catholic masses have been celebrated will protect him from shots, stabbing and sword cuts. The accounting Widman submits to the Consistory suggests that further versions of the protocol existed (#21). The final version is discussed in the Consistory on 10 October. Teschler and Barbara Schlemmerin, a midwife who provided Teschler with a dried piece of an amnion, are sent to the Court Coun- cil for punishment, with Teschler to be used to set an example. On 22 October the Consistory and on 30 October the Court Council vote for the examination and punishment of the midwife; the Court Council orders her to be interro- gated under threat of torture. On 20 November, a report by Widman is discussed in the Consistory. Wid- man writes that the accused midwife remains obstinate but has confessed to having said blessings and prayers over sick humans and animals. According to the theology of the 17th century, no layperson and, a fortiori, no woman was allowed to bless or say prayers over anybody beyond their own household, and the misconception around healing prayer taken as proof of magical prac- tice was aggravating. Widman asks the Consistory to prohibit Schlemmerin from performing such rituals and to ban her from practising as a midwife. The Consistory decides to punish Teschler with a prison sentence of eight days and to require him to undertake a pilgrimage to the Capuchine monks of Radstadt (a journey of some 25 kilometres). On 24 November the Court Council discusses the case of Barbara Schlem- merin. The council decides that she is to be released, but on 2 January 1643 the council again discusses the case and agrees to forbid her from secret- ly performing such blessings. Somewhere around January or February 1643, the Consistory demands to know from Widman whether Teschler has already served his sentence. He answers in the negative and adds that he has heard rumours that the local administrator at first refused to arrest Barbara Schlem- merin and only took her into custody after receiving strict orders from the judge. Widman also reports that Schlemmerin – again? – has practised magic (#110 und 111). Meanwhile, on 7 January 1643 the Consistory discusses the re- port of the Court Council and joins it in the interdiction against Schlemmerin; it increases Teschler’s sentence from eight to ten days. By the beginning of March 1643, a petition for mercy from Teschler arrives at the Consistory, in which Teschler notes that the parish priest (Widman) is harassing him and demanding he pay the expenses of the trial, which were