h1

Christianity And The Witch Hunt Era (5/12)

* 1611: Local courts were again disciplined by the Inquisition. The magistrates were actually arrested and prosecuted by the Inquisition for abuses of authority:

‘When the local magistrates were proceeding as usual to arrest suspects, the alcaldes of the Royal Court of Navarre, early in 1611, interposed by arresting them in turn for exceeding their powers and prosecuted them to punishment.’

Charles Lea, ‘A History of the Inquisition In Spain’, volume 4, book 8, chapter 9, page 228, 1906-1907

The secular tribunal complained that since the interference of the Inquisition accusations and confessions of witchcraft had stopped, and even those who had previously confessed were now withdrawing their confessions:

‘.. .this had now all ceased, and those who had confessed were beginning to retract; the tribunal had relied upon the court [the Inquisition] for aid in exterminating this accursed race and now it was protecting them.’

Charles Lea, ‘A History of the Inquisition In Spain’, volume 4, book 8, chapter 9, page 228, 1906-1907

This was of course the best result possible. The Suprema published an ‘Edict of Grace’ (granting forgiveness without penalty to those who confessed), and ordered Inquisitor Salazar to have it made known in all the affected areas he visited:

‘On March 26th it had ordered the publication of an Edict of Grace, which Salazar was deputed to carry with him on a visitation to the infected districts and, after some delay, he started with it, May 22d, on a mission destined to open his eyes and put a permanent end to the danger of witchcraft epidemics in Spain.’

Charles Lea, ‘A History of the Inquisition In Spain’, volume 4, book 8, chapter 9, page 228, 1906-1907

The decision to issue an Edict of Grace was an startling innovation in the treatment of witches during this era. Although initial responses to the Edict were unpromising (the local people hesitant to denounce themselves, despite the promise of forgiveness), the strategy was used again the following year with great effect.

* 1612: Inquisitor Salazar, having faced and successfully quenched one of the largest witch hunt panics in Spanish history (the craze in Basque, which lasted from 1609-1611 and implicated several thousand people), reported to the Suprema his remarkable findings. Personal experience had not only convinced him of the effectiveness of the Edict of Grace, but also with the Edict of Silence (forbidding the discussion of witches and accusations of witchcraft).

In his report to the Suprema, Salazar also made it clear that he was convinced there was no evidence whatever of witchcraft in the entire area under investigation, and that the entire panic had been created by false accusations. He also argued powerfully that confessions of witchcraft should be ‘received kindly without punishment’:

‘In summing up the results of his experience Salazar declares that “Considering the above with all the Christian attention in my power, I have not found even indications from which to infer that a single act of witchcraft has really occurred, whether as to going to aquelarres, being present at them, inflicting injuries, or other of the asserted facts. This enlightenment has greatly strengthened my former suspicions that the evidence of accomplices, without external proof from other parties, is insufficient to justify even arrest. Moreover, my experience leads to the conviction that, of those availing themselves of the Edict of Grace, three-quarters and more have accused themselves and their accomplices falsely.

I further believe that they would freely come to the Inquisition to revoke their confessions, if they thought that they would be received kindly without punishment, for I fear that my efforts to induce this have not been properly made known, and I further fear that, in my absence, the commissioners whom, by your command, I have ordered to do the same, do not act with due fidelity, but, with increasing zeal are discovering every hour more witches and aquelarres, in the same way as before.’

Charles Lea, ‘A History of the Inquisition In Spain’, volume 4, book 8, chapter 9, pages 223-234, 1906-1907

Through these experiences, Salazar came to the important realisation that such mass panics were indicative of irrational crowd psychology rather than supernatural evil. His carefully reasoned report to the Suprema demonstrates an excellent understanding of collective hysteria and mass panic behaviours. He reported on the effectiveness of an Edict of Silence in ending the panics:

‘”I also feel certain that, under present conditions, there is no need of fresh edicts or the prolongation of those existing, but rather that, in the diseased state of the public mind, every agitation of the matter is harmful and increases the evil. I deduce the importance of silence and reserve from the experience that there were neither witches nor bewitched until they were talked and written about. This impressed me recently at Olague, near Pampeluna, where those who confessed stated that the matter started there after Fray Domingo de Sardo came there to preach about these things.

So, when I went to Valderro, near Roncesvalles, to reconcile some who had confessed, when about to return the alcaldes begged me to go to the Valle de Ahescoa, two leagues distant, not that any witchcraft had been discovered there, but only that it might be honored equally with the other. I only sent there the Edict of Grace and, eight days after its publication, I learned that already there were boys confessing.

After receiving the report of a commissioner whom I deputed, I sent from Azpeitia to the Prior of San Sebastian of Urdax to absolve them with Secretary Peralta. This quieted them but, since my return to Logroño the tribunal has been asked to remedy the affliction of new evils and witchcrafts, all originating from the above.”‘

Charles Lea, ‘A History of the Inquisition In Spain’, volume 4, book 8, chapter 9, pages 223-234, 1906-1907

Salazar’s report reads like a modern sociological analysis of the witch hunt panics. His perceptive observation that ‘there were neither witches nor bewitched until they were talked and written about’ proves that the panic was caused by

Although there was some resistance to Salazar’s conclusions, the Suprema found his arguments persuasive, and followed his advice. An Edict of Silence was published, and local officials were prosecuted for abuses of authority and procedure which had caused so many innocent people to be wrongly charged:

‘Salazar’s colleagues did not agree with him and attempted to answer his reasoning, but the Suprema was convinced. It followed his advice in imposing silence on the past, while the Court of Navarre continued to prosecute and punish the local officials whose superserviceable zeal had occasioned so much misery.’

Charles Lea, ‘A History of the Inquisition In Spain’, volume 4, book 8, chapter 9, page 234, 1906-1907

* 1613: A book published in Spain to reinforce the fear of witches, and supporting their prosecution and horrific punishment, was criticized with such rigor that the license to print the book was withdrawn:

‘His book was duly licensed by the Council of Castile in 1613, but some censor presented a learned criticism of it, calling especial attention to this point, citing the can. Episcopi and the experience of the Inquisition, and arguing that the feats attributed to witches transcended the powers of the demon. This was so effective that the licence was withdrawn.’

Charles Lea, ‘A History of the Inquisition In Spain’, volume 4, book 8, chapter 9, page 239, 1906-1907

Unfortunately the license to print was later reinstated, but it is noteworthy that the book evoked such a powerful negative response. It is significant that the critique drew from both the earlier Canon Episcopi and from the Inquisition’s own experience, to argue that witchcraft was illusory. Investigation after investigation was only proving that there was nothing more in the witch hunt panics than superstitious fear and hysteria. It is clear that dealing closely with the witch hunt panics was gradually convincing the Suprema that witchcraft was only a delusion, and a return to the skeptical views expressed in earlier centuries was well under way.

* 1613: Tobias Tandler (a medical professor at Wittenberg), wrote ‘Dissertationes physicae-medicae’, in which he attributed to natural causes a range of phenomena thought to be the product of supernatural evil, including a number of physical and mental illnesses.

* 1613-1614: Inquisitor Salazar returned to observe the affected area. Noting that his policies had resulted in ending the panic in the areas he had visited previously, Salazar created a list of guidelines which he recommended to the Suprema as a formal procedure for dealing with future cases of witchcraft. These intelligent guidelines were used as the source for an Inquisitorial official policy towards witches and witch hunt panics, which eventually resulted in the end of the witch hunts in Spain:

‘A second visitation was made in 1613 and we find Salazar urging a third one to cover the remaining portion of the infected region, and pointing out the peace which reigned in the district that he had visited. His next step was to draw up a series of suggestions covering the policy of the Inquisition with regard to witchcraft, covering both amends for the past and future action.’

‘Be this as it may, the suggestions were the basis of an elaborate instruction, issued by the Suprema August 31, 1614, which remained the permanent policy of the Inquisition. It adopted nearly every suggestion of Salazar’s, often in his very words, and is an enduring monument to his calm good sense, which saved his country from the devastation of the witch-madness then ravaging the rest of Europe.’

Charles Lea, ‘A History of the Inquisition In Spain’, volume 4, book 8, chapter 9, pages 233-236, 1906-1907

The Suprema’s new list of procedures included the following (summarised from Charles Lea, ‘A History of the Inquisition In Spain’, volume 4, book 8, chapter 9, pages 235-238, 1906-1907):

* ‘a series of regulations pointing out in detail the external evidence which must be sought in every case, both as to attendance on the aquelarres and the murder of children, the killing of cattle, and the damage of harvests, and no one was to be arrested without strict observance of these precautions’

* ‘preachers were ordered to make the people understand that the destruction of harvests is sent for our sins, or is caused by the weather, and that it is a grievous error to imagine that such things and sickness, which are customary throughout the world, are caused by witches

* ‘When witnesses or accused came to make revocations, whether before or after sentence, they were to be kindly received and permitted to discharge their consciences, free from the fear so commonly entertained, that they would be punished for revoking

* ‘Those who spontaneously denounced themselves were to be asked whether, in the day-time, they had persevered in the renunciation of God and adoration of the demon; if they admitted having done so, they were to be reconciled but, in view of the doubt and deceit surrounding the matter, this reconciliation was not to entail confiscation or liability to the penalties of relapse

* ‘In view of the doubts and difficulties concerning witchcraft, no action was to be taken save by unanimous vote of all the inquisitors, followed by consultation with the Suprema’

* ‘All pending cases were to be suspended, without disqualification for office’

* ‘On all evidence, the violence or torture used in procuring it was to be noted, so that its credibility could be estimated’

* ‘As regarded the auto de fe of 1610, the sanbenitos of those relaxed or reconciled were never to be hung in the churches, their property was not to be confiscated; an itemized statement of it and of the fines levied, with an account of the expenses, was to be submitted to the Suprema, and this was to be noted in the records of their cases, so that they should not be liable in case of relapse, nor should their descendants be disabled for office, nor should those be disqualified who had since then been penanced with abjuration’

* ‘ the Suprema sought to protect reputed witches from the inordinate zeal of the local authorities and to vindicate its exclusive jurisdiction’

* ‘The commissioners were to be summoned, one by one, and made to understand the grief and just resentment of the Holy Office at the violence of the alcaldes and others towards those reported to be witches’

* ‘in future the Inquisition would adopt rigorous measures to chastise all who intruded on its jurisdiction

* ‘Confessors were instructed to require all who were guilty of defaming others to denounce themselves to the tribunal, for the discharge of their conscience and the restoration to honor of the injured

* ‘priests were notified not to refuse the sacraments to those reputed as witches

* ‘commissioners were warned to confine themselves to their instructions and to act with all moderation

It is clear that by this stage the Suprema was utterly skeptical of the witch hunts, and of witchcraft itself. Those accused of witchcraft soon became more frequently dismissed without penalty, than punished:

The whole witch epidemic of Navarre and the Provinces of Biscay was evidently regarded as a delusion but, in view of the attitude of the Church for the last two centuries, this could not be openly proclaimed and the wisest course was adopted to repress, as far as possible, popular fanaticism, and to protect its victims for the future. The superstition was too inveterate to be easily eradicated, but the effort to protect its victims was not abandoned.’

‘The virtual supervision assumed by the Suprema over all cases of witchcraft was exercised with a moderation which must have been greatly discouraging to believers. Under this impulsion, the tribunals became exceedingly lenient, frequently exercising the power left to them of suspending cases.’

Charles Lea, ‘A History of the Inquisition In Spain’, volume 4, book 8, chapter 9, pages 237-238, 1906-1907

* 1622: A 19 year old girl accused herself of having been involved in witchcraft when she was 12. Examination by the Inquisition led to the conclusion that her symptoms were medical rather than supernatural, and the case was dismissed:

‘The inquisitors examined and cross-examined her closely, without her varying in her story; they sought, without success, for evidence of illusion or fantasy, but, on investigation it was found that she was really sick of a fever at Christmas, 1615, and that subsequently she seemed to tremble and be as one possessed.’

‘In any other land this victim of hysteric auto-suggestion would have been, if not burnt, at least made an exhibition that would have spread the craze, but the tribunal, after carrying the case through the preliminary stages, voted to suspend it without rendering sentence and to reconcile and absolve her in the audience chamber without confiscation. (48) The same policy was followed in the few other cases brought before the tribunal.’

Charles Lea, ‘A History of the Inquisition In Spain’, volume 4, book 8, chapter 9, pages 238-239, 1906-1907

* 1624: English physician John Cotta published a book advising how to determine between true and false cases of witchcraft. Though he believed in satan, demons, witches and witchcraft, Cottta was concerned that innocent people could be falsely accused and convicted of witchcraft due to confusion over how to interpret the evidence.

Cotta insisted that expert testimony was necessary in cases of witchcraft, that non-professionals were not capable of assessing such evidence as ‘witches’ marks’ and other alleged physical symptoms of witchcraft, and that accusations and testimony by those assumed to be possessed, or afflicted by witchcraft, should not be taken into account when assessing a case:

‘John Cotta’s Trial of Witchcraft (1616) makes it clear that the grand jurors must evaluate the credit of the witnesses to the “manifest magical and supernaturall act,” and should consider whether they were “substantiall, sufficient, able to judge, free from exception of malice, partialitie, distraction [and] folly.” They were to have “conference and counsell” with those learned and experienced in “those affairs,” in order to insure that there was “no deception of sense” or “mistaking of reason or imagination.”’

Barbara J. Shapiro, ‘”Beyond Reasonable Doubt” and “Probable Cause”: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence’, page 52, 1991

A review of chapter headings from Cotta’s work shows the great care he took to ensure a fair trial:

‘CHAP. X.

1. Whether the diseased are bewitched, when and how it is certainely to be knowne, when not, and when men ought to rest satisfied in desiring satisfaction therein.

2. The markes of Witches vulgarly reported, and by oath deposed to be found in their bodies, how to be tried and knowne from all naturall diseases, among which many are very like unto them.’

‘CHAP. XIII.

That men ought not to seeke the discovery of Witches by unwarranted meanes voide of reason, or superstitious.’

‘CHAP. XV.

1. That revelations by the bewitched in their fits or traunces are no sufficient proofe against a witch.

2. That the declaration by the bewitched of secret markes in the bodies of suspected Witches are not instifiable to be admitted as any true or allowable convictions.

3. That the healing of the bewitched by the compelled touch or action of the supposed witch is no reasonable accusation again any man, as therefore a Witch.’

John Cotta, ‘The Infallible True and Assured Witch’, pages 6-7, 1624

In his fourteenth chapter, Cotta assessed all tests for witchcraft which relied on the traditional ‘ordeal’:

‘CHAP. XIV.

Casting Witches into the water, scratching, beating, whether any allowed triall of a Witch.’

‘’Concerning the other imagined trials of Witches, as by beating, scratching, drawing bloud from supposed or suspected Witches, where by it is said that the fits or diseases of the bewitched do cease miraculously; as also concerning the burning of bewitched cattell, whereby it is said, that the Witch is miraculously compelled to present her selfe.’

John Cotta, ‘The Infallible True and Assured Witch’, pages 6, 149, 1624

After lengthy and careful deliberation on both scientific and Biblical grounds, Cotta concludes that no such test is valid. In justifying his conclusion, he appeals to legislation previously enacted which specifically abolished the ordeal as a part of the legal process of enquiry:

‘Nor doth our law now in force, differ here from rejecting such like miraculous trialls. See the triall by Orde il abolished by Parliament the third yeare of Henry the third, Coke 9. Rep. Case Abbot de Strata Mercella Fol. 33.’

John Cotta, ‘The Infallible True and Assured Witch’, page 150, 1624

Cotta intelligently argued that a test long since recognised by Parliament as useless for determining the guilt of a defendant could hardly be considered effective in the case of witch trials.

If the sensible precautions laid down by Cotta had been followed throughout Europe, almost all witch trials held between 1300 and 1800 would have been invalidated. The Suprema in Italy had already used similar regulations to constrain witch trials, end witch hunt panics, and render the conviction of those accused of witchcraft almost impossible. As it was, Cotta’s work was continued by other commentators on the legal process, particularly his contemporary Richard Bernard.

* 1627: Richard Bernard, a Puritan pastor, wrote a warning to juries investigating witch trials. Although maintaining a belief in witches and witchcraft, Bernard was concerned by the manner in which such cases were judged, and wished to ensure that each case was treated with great care and thoroughness.

He directed his comments largely to the matter of evidence, always difficult to address in accusations of witchcraft. Rejecting rumour and hearsay, he exhorted jurors not only to investigate the evidence for the case thoroughly, but to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and the quality of their testimony:

‘”So as not to be deceived,” grand jurors were not to be credulous “in receiving reports as true and over confidently averring them to be.” They were not to passively accept the testimony offered them, but were to diligently inquire into “the wisdom and discretion of the witnesses, whether they can discern well between reall and counterfeit acts, . . . what sufficient triall has been made of the supposed bewitched, as also by whome and how long.”’

‘Parties were to be examined separately and attempts made to distinguish the partial testimony of friends and relations from that of “indifferent relators.”’

Barbara J. Shapiro, ‘”Beyond Reasonable Doubt” and “Probable Cause”: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence’, pages 52,-53, 1991

Requiring jurors to assess and confirm the credibility of witnesses and their testimony in this way placed a greater burden of evidence on the prosecution, and assisted the defence of the accused.

Bernard argued that when there was any doubt as to the evidence for the charges, the case should be dismissed:

‘Richard Bernard’s Guide to Grand Jurors in Cases of Witchcraft (1627), a more widely known work, insisted that unless the “Witchcraft be very cleere,” it was better “to write an Ignoramus than upon oath to set down Billa Vera and so thrust an intricate case upon a Jury of simple men,” who too often proceeded “upon relations of meere presumptions, and these sometimes very weake ones too, to take away men’s lives.”’

‘Strong presumptions were required for indictment. Even “if the suspicion upon great probabilities, and very strong presumptions, yet unless they doe leade to prove” the diabolic compact required by the statute, the suspects should be released.[25] Bernard clearly assumes and requires a grand jury that is actively engaged in investigation and evaluation, which he urges to be especially careful in analyzing testimony and evidence in witchcraft cases.’

Barbara J. Shapiro, ‘”Beyond Reasonable Doubt” and “Probable Cause”: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence’, page 52, 53, 1991

Bernard’s use of the term ‘to write an Ignoramus’ refers to the Latin legal term meaning ‘we do not know’, used by English juries when they did not consider that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant.

Importantly, Bernard insisted that jurors should take into account the possibility that the evidence brought before the jury could be explained by fraud, deceit, or natural causes:

‘In addition to determining whether the testifiers were “indifferent neighbors” or “fearful, superstitious, . . . children or old silly persons . . . not easily credited,” grand juries were to consider whether “trickery or fraud” were possible and whether illnesses might be explained by natural causes.’

He pointed out that “there may concurre many seeming probabilities which commonly mislead . . . for want of judgment and for want of thoroughly weighing the weight of them . . . taking such presumptions for sufficient proofe.”’

Barbara J. Shapiro, ‘”Beyond Reasonable Doubt” and “Probable Cause”: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence’, page 53, 1991

Not only did Bernard insist on the careful examination of witnesses and their testimony, he also insisted that expert testimony be sought in order to determine the truth of the case:

‘Bernard, like Cotta, advised grand jurors to consult expert witnesses. If a physician were unavailable, they were to consult other learned persons and medical books.’

Barbara J. Shapiro, ‘”Beyond Reasonable Doubt” and “Probable Cause”: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence’, page 53, 1991

Chapter titles from Bernard’s work identify some of his key arguments:

‘’II, That strange diseases may happen from onely naturall causes and neither be wrought by Diuels nor Witches, and how to bee discerned.

III. That one supposed to bee possessed, or bewitched, may be a very counterfeit, and how he
may be discouered.’

‘V. That Christian minds, may not (as commonly many doe) forthwith ascribe their cresses [‘crosses’, that is to say their trials in life] to Witchcraft, with the reasons of the manifold euils, which come thereby.’

Richard Bernard, ‘A Guide To Grand Jury Men’, pages 11-12, 1627

Worth noting in Bernard’s appeal is his use of Scriptural arguments which had been used previously by Reginald Scot, Cornelius Loos, and the Inquisition. Bernard stands within a long tradition of Christian arguments from Scripture against the common treatment of witchcraft cases.

In his first chapter he warns his readers not to assume that disasters and trials in life are necessarily the result of supernatural evil, reminding them that they may frequently be sent by God. He encouraged his readers to consider their own ways before God first when evil struck, rather than to turn and blame the evil on their neighbours:

Seeing Gods hand vpon vs (who doth not willingly grieue vs, if wee prouoke him not, Lam. 3. 33. Ier. 25. 6.) this must draw vs to a searching of our waies, Lam. 3. 40. to the acknowledgement of our sinnes, and to confesse God to bee iust: and so humble our selues in fasting and prayer, leauing our ill courses, and labouring to be reformed, and so remoue Gods hand.’

Richard Bernard, ‘A Guide To Grand Jury Men’, page 25, 1627

Bernard exhorted that even when a case for witchcraft could be proved, the convicted person should be treated charitably, and that the purpose of their punishment should be to cause their ‘amendment’, a repentance and change of life (Bernard was clearly against torture and the death penalty).

In particular he deplored the bloodthirsty attitude of delighted revenge which many held against those accused or convicted of witchcraft, rightly denouncing it as unchristian:

Being afflicted, not to curse or blaspheme, as Satan labours to make men doe, and as the wicked will doe; nor to be furiously enraged against suspected instruments, [that is, those suspected of witchcraft as instruments of ‘satan’] as vaine, dissolute, and irreligious people commonly doe, which desire forthwith to be reuenged on them, as if it were those onely that afflicted them: But first, men ought with all reuerence and feare, to acknowledge, that all that befalleth them, to bee Gods hand: yea, though they know, the Deuill and his diuelish instruments, to haue their hands therein.’

Therefore to bee patient towards the instruments, as was Dauid towards Shimei, who threw stones at him, railed on him, and cursed him: 2. Sam. 16. 10. He yet held his peace, because hee knew the Lords will was therein, and that he had done it, Psa. 39. 9.’

Richard Bernard, ‘A Guide To Grand Jury Men’, pages 23, 24, 1627

‘And afterwards, if there bee euident proofe and iust cause, then to proceede; Yet with charity, against wicked instruments, seeking to haue them punished, for their amendment. This is Religion: this is Christianlike: thus ought the afflicted to behaue themselues, and not sweare and stare, curse and rage, against such as they suspect to harme them, seeking to bee reuenged of them, plotting their deaths, and reioycing that they haue their wills, and so thinke all to bee well: though their owne wayes be wicked, going on still without reformation, euen to the pit.’

Richard Bernard, ‘A Guide To Grand Jury Men’, pages 25-26, 1627

In his second chapter, Bernard cites evidence provided by John Cotta that there are many physical disorders occurring from natural causes which are mistaken for the effects of witchcraft, and describes them so that his readers may learn how to identify them:

‘Strange diseases may happen either to man or beast, and the same originally from some natur all cause, and neither effected by Diuels, nor yet proceede from Witches.

It is the generall madnesse of people to ascribe vnto Witchcraft, whatsoeuer falleth out vnknowne, or strange to vulgar sence. I will heere therefore write downe the particular instances of strange and wonderfull diseases set downe by a learned a Physicion; [a] in all which is a deceiuing apparance, comming neere to the similitude of bewitching, in ordinary and common apprehensions which cannot discerne of diseases, nor the true causes thereof.

[a] D. Cotta in his discourse of Emperuks. and chap. 3.of witchcraft. Instances of Strange discases; and no worke of witchcraft.’

Richard Bernard, ‘A Guide To Grand Jury Men’, page 27, 1627

Like John Cotta before him, Bernard laid down the same kind of regulations which the Spanish Inquisition had already used successfully to reduce significantly the number of convictions for witchcraft.

Bernard’s wise counsel proved influential, and his book was frequently reprinted:

‘Bernard’s book, which was reprinted in 1629, 1630, and again in 1680 and 1686, proved even more influential than its publication history suggests. Portions were included in Dalton’s handbook for justices of the peace, perhaps the most influential seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century legal compendium in both England and the American colonies.’

Barbara J. Shapiro, ‘”Beyond Reasonable Doubt” and “Probable Cause”: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence’, page 53, 1991

Regulations such as these no doubt contributed to England’s surprisingly low death toll during the witch hunt era (228 recorded executions, and an upper estimate of 1,000, between the years 1300 and 1800).

Part six.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: