[559] Bernard. Comens. de Strigiis c. 14.
[560] Mall. Maleficar. P. II. Q. i.; P. II. Q. viii.; P. III. Q. xv.—Prieriat. Lib. II. c. 9; Lib. III. c. 3.—Nider Formicar. Lib. v. c. 7.
[561] Mall. Malef. P. II. Q i.; Q. i. c. 4, 11; P. III. Q. xv.—Prieriat. Lib. III. c. 2.—Jahn, Hexenwesen und Zauberei in Pommern, Breslau, 1886, p. 8.
[562] Raynald. ann. 1374, No. 13; ann. 1437, No. 27.—Ripoll II. 566-7; III. 193, 301.—Prieriat. Lib. III. c. 1.—Mall. Maleficar. P. II. Q. i. c. 16; P. III. Q. i.—Anon. Carthus. de Relig. Orig. c. xxvi. (Martene Ampl. Coll. VI. 59).
[563] Mémoires de Jacques du Clercq, Liv. IV. ch. xxiii.
The constant recurrence of the toad in all the operations of witchcraft opens a suggestive question in zoological mythology. Space will not admit its discussion here, but I may mention, as a proof of the antiquity of the superstitions connected with the animal, that in Mazdeism the toad was one of the special creations of Ahriman, and was devoted to his service. It was a toad which he set to destroying the Gokard, or Tree of all plants, and which will always be endeavoring to do so until the resurrection (Bundehesh, ch. xviii.).
[564] Ulric. Molitoris de Python. Mulierib. c. iv.
[565] Prieriat. Lib. III. c. 3.—Mall. Maleficar. P. II. Q. vii., xvi.; P. III. Q. xiii., xiv.
[566] Concil. Rotomagens. ann. 1445 c. 6 (Bessin Concil. Rotomagens. I. 184).—C. Lexoviens. ann. 1448 c. 9 (Ibid. II. 482).—Nic. Jaquerii Flagellum Hæret. Fascinar. c. 27.—Mall. Malef. P. I. Q. xiv.; P. II. Q. i. c. 3, 16.—Prieriat. de Strigimag. Lib. III. c. 3.
[567] Mall. Maleficar. P. II. Q. xiv.—P. Vayra, Le Streghe nel Canavese, op. cit. pp. 218-21, 232.