Miraculous Cures for Demonic Illness

If demons were part of the web of health and sickness that made up the human existence, did saints also have a role? How did a spiritual encounter with Saint Thomas Becket differ from the possessions of the demons he exor­cised? Matilda of Cologne's vision of Thomas Becket was described in detail by Benedict of Peterborough.

Becket's role as a spiritual as well as an earthly healer is significant to his miraculous cures of demonically-induced madness. First of all, whilst canon lawyers like Gratian and Pope Alexander iii (1159-81) would not have held Matilda responsible for the crime of infanticide because she was not in her right mind when she committed it, others, like the Italian canon lawyer Huguccio of Pisa (d. 1220) were doubtful that the mad were entirely blame­less, and demanded that, at the very least, an examination be carried out as to the cause of the madness to see if the mad person was responsible for the onset of their own condition through sin or neglect.5⁹ As a result of her study of legal case records of madness between 1200 and 1500, Wendy Turner argues that secular allowances for the criminally insane were very much based on biblical principles: the mad were not responsible for their actions whilst mad, but were morally responsible for any sins that had caused their madness.^{[1049] [1050] It is likely that Benedict of Peterborough would have been aware of ecclesiastical debates concerning the liability of the mad for their actions considering the wide circulation of Gratian's Decretum, and this is reflected in the idea that further healing was necessary after the restoration of Matilda's mind.}

The concept of madness as a punishment for sin, or as part of a cleansing process for the soul, draws heavily on the Bible.

The Bible also, of course, sets a template for the portrayal of demonic exorcisms. When Jesus healed a demoniac in Capernaum, the demon made the body of the man he had possessed convulse (‘Et discerpens eum spiritus immundus') (Mark i:26) ^{[1052] [1053] The demoniacs we have seen in the Becket collec­tions performed similar unnatural actions, such as lashing out, whilst under the control of the demons. However, the Bible does make frequent distinctions between demoniacs and sick people. Jesus was said to have been visited by sick people and demoniacs (‘omnes male habentes, et daemonia habentes), seek­ing cures (Mark 1:32)64 At Judea, Jesus was beseeched by those wanting cures for their illnesses, and by those who were troubled by demons (et sanaren­tur a languoribus suis. Et qui vexabantur a spiritus immundis, curabantur') (Luke 6:i8-g).[1054] In the Becket collections, by contrast, various terms were often combined to describe one invalid. Matilda of Cologne was both filled with a demon (‘Plenam daemonio’), and suffering from insanity (‘insanientem’).[1055] [1056] [1057] [1058] A possessed woman from Gloucestershire was deranged by madness (‘spiri­tus furoris duos dementaverat’).67 The term ‘furoris’ was associated with vio­lent madness but was not necessarily linked to demonic possession. It is in this eclectic use of language that we see the multiple influences for Benedict and William’s interpretations of madness reflected. Both demonic and non- demonic aetiologies for madness functioned alongside each other in a world­view that incorporated demonic interference and bodily imbalance as forces that could bring about sickness or health.}