Correction: Romano (2024). Unveiling Superstition in Vieste: Popular Culture and Ecclesiastical Tribunals in the 18th-Century Kingdom of Naples. Religions 15: 1202

There was an error in the original publication (Romano 2024). The following sentence should have been removed: “In the archive, there is no evidence of a previous trial against Rita except for the deposition of Lonarda Sciarro, a woman accused of having used evil magic against the Royal Spanish governor, who declared that Rita de Ruggiero was in the episcopal prison with her in 1675.⁹”. The footnote 9 and reference (Romano 2024) should have been removed as well. With this correction, the order of some footnotes has been adjusted accordingly.

The following correction has been made to Section 12. The Trial of Rita de Ruggiero: Prosecuting Superstition and Guarding the Honour of the Clergy, Section 12.4:

Nevertheless, during the period afforded for her defence, Rita’s legal representative against the ecclesiastical tribunal, Don Francesco Ciarpagliano, presented incontrovertible evidence. Primarily, numerous witnesses attested to Rita’s identity as a woman who was engaged in communicative, confessional, and pious activities devoid of any indication of an association with witchcraft. An additional dimension was introduced to the proceedings: Rita’s assertion that Niccolò Pastorella had assaulted her. The woman testified that she had been incarcerated in the past and her belongings confiscated. Once liberated, Rita had implored Niccolò to convey to his uncle—who served the vicar similarly—the need to return her confiscated possessions. Niccolò declined and they quarrelled, during which Niccolò Pastorella kicked Rita. Given Niccolò and his uncle’s affiliation with the vicarius, this aspect likely influenced the proceedings. Rita, having failed to regain possession of her belongings, appealed to the Delegation of Royal Jurisdiction in Naples for justice. She declared she had decried to the State an abuse of power on a subject of the Viceroy by ecclesiastical authorities. As the previous trial had ended and she had served the sentence, she had the right to regain her belongings.

The author states that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. These corrections were approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.