A History of Magic and Experimental Science, Volume 2 (of 2) / During the First Thirteen Centuries of Our Era

by Lynn Thorndike

CHAPTER LII

WILLIAM OF AUVERGNE

The man and his writings—His respect for science—And for experimentation—Influenced by Christian doctrine—Importance of his account of magic—Its main points summarized—Demons and magic—Magic and idolatry—Magic illusions—Natural magic—Is not concerned with demons—Some instances of natural magic—“The sense of nature”—Magic’s too extreme pretensions—Wax images—Factitious gods—Characters and figures—Power of words denied—Use of divine names—Christian magic—Magic of sex and generation—William’s contribution to the bibliography of magic—Plan of the rest of this chapter—Theory of spiritual substances—Spirits in the heavens—Will hell be big enough?—Astrological necromancy—False accounts of fallen angels—Different kinds of spirits—Limited demon control of nature—Can demons be imprisoned or enter bodies?—Susceptibility of demons to the four elements and to natural objects—Stock examples of natural marvels—The hazel rod story—Occult virtues of herbs and animals—Virtues of gems—A medley of marvelous virtues—Divination not an art but revelation—Divination by inspection of lucid surfaces—Other instances of divination, ancient and modern—His treatment of astrology—The philosophers on the nature of the heavens and stars—William’s own opinion and attitude—Objection to stars as cause of evil—Virtues of the stars—Extent of their influence upon nature and man—Against nativities, interrogations, and images—Astrology and religion and history—Comets and the star of Bethlehem.

The man and his writings.

We now come upon a Christian theologian whose works present an unexpectedly detailed picture of the magic and superstition of the time.[1102] He is well acquainted with both the occult literature and the natural philosophy of the day, and has much to say of magic, demons, occult virtue, divination and astrology. Finally, he also gives considerable information concerning what we may call the school of natural magic and of experiment. This theologian is William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris from 1228 to his death in 1249, and previously a canon of that city and a master of theology in its university. Judging from his age when he received this degree Valois estimates that he was born about 1180. He was made a bishop at Rome by the pope, where he had come as a simple deacon to pursue his appeal in the recent disputed election.[1103] He granted the Dominicans their first chair of theology at Paris during a quarrel of the university in 1228 with Queen Blanche of Castile and the dispersion of the faculties to Angers and Rheims.[1104] He took a prominent part in the Parisian attack upon the Talmud and was perhaps the first Christian doctor of the Latin west to display an intimate acquaintance with the works attributed to Hermes Trismegistus.[1105] These facts suggest the extent of his reading in occult lore. We shall consider his views as expressed in his various writings, “On Sins and Vices,” “Of Laws” (or Religions), in the frequent medieval use of the word, lex, “Of Morals,” “Of Faith,” but especially in his voluminous work on “The Universe” which deals more with the world of nature than do his other theological treatises. Indeed, in the sixteenth century edition of his works he is called “a most perfect mathematician” and “a distinguished philosopher” as well as “a most eminent theologian.”

His respect for science.

William at any rate has respect for natural philosophy and favors scientific investigation of nature. Like his namesake of Conches in the preceding century he has no sympathy with those who, when they are ignorant of the causes of natural phenomena and have no idea how to investigate them, have recourse to the Creator’s omnipotent virtue and call everything of this sort a miracle, or evade the necessity of any natural explanation by affirming that God’s will is the sole cause of it. This seems to William an intolerable error, in the first place because they have thus only one answer for all questions, and secondly because they are satisfied with the most remote cause instead of the most immediate one. There is no excuse for thus neglecting so many varied and noble sciences.[1106]

In another passage William apologizes to the person to whom the De universo is addressed for the summary and inadequate discussion of the stars in which he has just been indulging.[1107] He knows that certitude in this subject calls for a most thorough investigation and requires a separate treatise. Moreover, his remarks have been in the nature of a digression and have little direct bearing on the question under discussion. But he has introduced them in order that his reader might see something of the depth and truth of philosophical discussion and not think that it can be despised as some fools do, who will accept nothing unless it is armed with proofs and adorned with flowers of rhetoric and who still more insanely regard as erroneous whatever they do not understand.

And for experimentation.

Thus we see the scientific standards of William of Conches in the twelfth century still influential and probably more universally prevalent in the thirteenth. Like his namesake of Conches again, William of Auvergne states that our common fire is not the pure element, since it is largely made up of burning coal or wood or other consumed objects.[1108] He also states that “innumerable experiences” have proven that moles do not live on earth but hunt worms in it.[1109] William is aware that many sailors and navigators have found by experience that certain seas open into others, and as another indication that all seas are really only one connected sea, he adduces hidden subterranean channels, and mentions the report that Sicily is supported on four or five mountains as if by so many columns. Such are some illustrations of the bits of scientific information and the trust in natural experiment to be found in William’s work. It is indeed surprising the number of times he alludes to “experimenters” and to “books of experiments.”

Influenced by Christian doctrine.

On the other hand William, of course, maintains such doctrines as that of creation against the Peripatetic theory of the eternity of the universe. He also does not confuse the world soul with the Holy Spirit as William of Conches and Theodoric of Chartres had done.[1110] More important than these particular points is the general hypothesis running through and underlying much of William’s thought that the Creator can interfere again in the course of nature at any time and in any way He wills.[1111] The atmosphere of the miraculous and the spiritual is almost constantly felt in William’s account of the universe. To a certain extent, however, he evades the difficulties between science and religion by holding that one thing is true in philosophy and quite another in theology. Thus he affirms that one who says that the stars and lights of the sky do not receive addition or improvement, speaks the truth if the matter is regarded from the standpoint of natural science, for nature cannot add anything to their natural perfection. “Yet you ought to know that learned Christian doctors teach ... and the prophets seem to say expressly that they will undergo improvement.”[1112] It is, then, as we said to begin with, the account of magic, demons, occult virtue, divination, astrology and experimental science, of a theologian not ignorant of nor unsympathetic with science that we have now to consider.

Importance of his account of magic.

William’s account of magic is a remarkable and illuminating one. Most of it occurs in the closing chapters of the De universo. William himself there states that nothing has come down from previous writers on the things of which he has just been speaking.[1113] He admits that his remarks are incomplete but he has at least made a beginning which will prove welcome to the reader. Probably, however, he is indebted to previous Christian writers; at any rate we recognize some of his statements as familiar. But he also has a wide acquaintance with the literature of magic itself—in his youth he examined the books of judicial astronomy and the books of the magicians and sorcerers[1114]—and he combines the results of his reading in a sane manner. We feel that his view is both comprehensive, including all the essential factors, and marked by insight into the heart of the situation. For his time at least he sees remarkably clearly what magic is, what it cannot do, and how it is related to the science of that age.

Its main points summarized.

The chief characteristics of magic as it is depicted by William may first be briefly summarized, and then illustrated in more detail. He constantly assumes that its great aim is to work marvels. He holds that often the ends are sought by the help of demons and methods which are idolatrous. Evil ends are often sought by magicians. On the other hand the apparent marvels are often worked by mere human sleight-of-hand or other tricks and deceptions of the magicians themselves. But the marvel may be neither human deceit nor the work of an evil spirit. It may be produced by the wonderful occult virtues resident in certain objects of nature. To marvels wrought in this manner William applies the name “natural magic,” and has no doubt of its truth. But he denies the validity of many methods and devices in which magicians trust, and contends that marvels cannot be so worked unless demons are responsible. William furthermore constantly cites books of experiments and narrates the feats of “experimenters” in discussing magic, and he often implies a close connection of it with astronomy or astrology. Here again as in the case of natural magic we see an intimate connection between the development of magic and of natural science. Finally, these various characteristics and varieties of magic are not always kept distinct by William, but often overlap or join. The demons avail themselves of the forces of nature in working their marvels and their marvels too are often only passing illusions and empty shams. The experimenters and operators of natural magic also deal in momentary effects and deceptive appearances as well as in more solid results.

Demons and magic.

William holds then that much of magic is performed by the aid of demons and involves the worship of them or other forms of idolatry.[1115] One reason why magic feats are so seldom performed in Christian lands and William’s own time is that the power of the evil spirits has been so repressed by Christianity. But the books of the magicians and of the sorcerers assume the existence of armies of spirits in the sky.[1116] In the necromantic operation called “The Major Circle” four kings of demons from the four quarters of the earth appear with numerous attendants according to the statements of those who are skilled in works of this sort.[1117] William has also read in the books of experiments that water can be made to appear where there really is none by use of a bow of a particular kind of wood, an arrow of another kind of wood, and a bow-string made of a particular sort of cord.[1118] As far as an arrow is shot from this bow so far one is supposed to behold an expanse of water. But William does not believe that the bow and arrow possess any such virtues, and hence concludes that the mirage is an illusion produced by the demons and that the ceremony performed by the magician is a service to the evil spirits. Another writer in his book of necromancy bids one to take as an oblation such and such a wood or stone or liquor on such a day at such an hour. Here too, perhaps because of what he regards as superstitious observance of times and seasons, William holds that the word “oblation” covers some diabolical servitude or cult, which has been concealed by the writers of such experiments. He also states that sorcerers and idolaters often go off into deserts to have dealings with the demons who dwell there.[1119] He cites “a certain magician in his book on magic arts” who says that in order to philosophize he went to places destitute of any inhabitant and there lived for thirty years with those who dwelt in light and learned from them what he has written in his book.

Magic and idolatry.

In his treatise De legibus William, like Maimonides, endeavors to explain some of the questionable provisions and prohibitions in the Mosaic law as measures to guard against idolatry and magic.[1120] Under the head of idolatry he groups not only the worship of idols proper and of demons, but also superstitious observance of the stars, the elements, images, figures, words and names, times and seasons, beginnings of actions and finding objects.[1121] In another passage he adds the observance of dreams, auguries, constellations, sneezes, meetings, days and hours, figures, marks, characters and images.[1122] Also incantation is not without idolatry. Thus many features of the magic arts are condemned by him.

Magic illusions.

We come next to those magic works which are “mockeries of men or of demons.”[1123] First there are those transpositions which are accomplished by agility and hability of the hands and are popularly called tractationes or traiectationes. They are a source of great wonderment until men learn how they are done. A second variety are mere apparitions which have no truth. Under this head fall certain magic candles. One made of wax and sulphurated snakeskin, burned in a dark place filled with sticks or rushes makes the house seem full of writhing serpents. William’s explanation of this is that the powdered snakeskin as it burns makes the rushes appear similar in color to serpents, while the flickering of the flame gives the illusion that they are moving. Possibly, however, this may be a defective recipe for some firework like the modern “snake’s nest.” William is more sceptical whether in the light of a candle made of wax and the tears or semen of an ass men would look like donkeys. He doubts whether wet tears would mix with wax or burn if they did, and whether these internal fluids possess any of the substance, figure, and color of an ass’s external appearance. He concedes nevertheless that the semen has great virtue and that the sight is of all senses the most easily deceived. At any rate “experimenters” (experimentatores) have said things of this sort, and you may read in the books of experiments a trick by which anyone’s hand is made to appear an ass’s foot, so that he blushes to draw it from his bosom.[1124]

The work of necromancy called “The Major Circle” is also in the nature of a delusive appearance. The four demon kings from the four quarters of the earth seem to be accompanied by vast hosts of phantom horsemen, jugglers, and musicians, but no prints of horses’ hoofs are visible afterwards. Moreover, if real horsemen appeared, they would be seen by everyone, not merely by those within the magic circle. Another common apparition, produced by “these sorcerers and deceivers” by means of sacrifices and other evil observances which William will not reveal, is a wonderful castle with gates, towers, walls, and citadel all complete. But it is seen only during the magic operation and when it vanishes leaves no trace behind. William compares such illusions to some fantastic dream which leaves behind nothing but horror on the faces of the participants. He argues that if corporeal things outside us make the strong impression on our senses that they do, it is no wonder if spiritual substances like demons who are full of forms can impress our minds potently. It will, of course, occur to the modern reader that such illusions, like certain marvels of India, were perhaps produced by hypnotic or other suggestion. William notes that illusions of this sort are shown only to the gullible and “those ignorant of natural science,” and that necromancers dare not produce or suggest such phantasms in the presence of learned and rational men.

Natural magic.

There are, nevertheless, occult forces and powers in nature and those men who are acquainted with them work many marvels and would work much more wonderful ones, if they had an abundant supply of the necessary materials.[1125] This is “that part of natural science which is called natural magic.”[1126] “Philosophers call it necromancy or philosophica, perhaps quite improperly, and it is the eleventh part of all natural science.” This rather strange association of necromancy with natural science for which William seems to apologize, we shall meet again in Albertus Magnus and we have already met with it in Gundissalinus, Daniel of Morley, and Al-Farabi. With them, however, necromancy was one of only eight parts of natural science or astrology. In a third passage William omits mention of necromancy, but again asserts that certain marvels are natural operations and that knowledge of them is one of the eleven parts of natural science.[1127] It is with it that the books of experiments are especially concerned.[1128] From them and from “the books of natural narrations” you can learn “the causes and reasons of certain magic works, especially those which are by the art of natural magic.” The materials possessed of the marvelous virtues essential for this art are very rare in Europe, but in India and lands near it they abound, and hence natural magic flourishes vigorously there, and there are many experimenters there who work marvels by their skill.[1129]

Natural magic is not concerned with demons.

Between this natural magic and that due to demons William makes a decided distinction.[1130] In natural magic nothing is done by the aid of demons. The workers of the one are called magi because they do great things (magna agentes) although some may have evilly interpreted the word as meaning evil-doers (male agentes).[1131] And these others who perform such works by the aid of demons are to be regarded as evil-doers. William indeed perhaps uses the word malefici (sorcerers) more often than magi for workers of evil magic, but he cannot be said to observe any such distinction uniformly. He does, however, express his intention of setting forth “the causes and ways and methods” by which even the phantasies and illusions of magic are produced naturally, but of “perditious methods such as nefarious sacrifices and oblations and sacrilegious observances” he intends to reveal nothing.[1132] In natural magic William seems to see no harm whatever, unless it is employed for evil ends. He grants, however, that some of its works are so marvelous that they seem to the ignorant to be the works of gods or demons, and that this has been one cause of idolatry in times past.[1133] So in order that Christianity might prevail, it was ordered that anyone performing such works should be considered evil and a sorcerer (malus et maleficus), and that works of this sort should be regarded as performed not by the virtue of any natural object but rather by the aid and power of demons. But specialists in such matters are not “surprised at these feats but glorify the Creator alone in them, knowing that nature alone in accordance with His omnipotent will operates both in the customary manner known to men and contrary to custom not only in new ways but new things.” In another context William again affirms that natural magic involves no offense or injury to the Creator unless one works evil or too curiously by that art.[1134]

Some instances of natural magic.

One example of the marvels worked by means of natural magic is the sudden generation of such animals as frogs and worms. Here the natural processes of generation are hastened by applying certain aids, and William does not doubt the assertion of Emuth that by mixing seeds new animals can be bred.[1135] Other phenomena belonging under natural magic are the marvels worked outside its own body by the soul of the basilisk and certain other animals and certain human souls—a hint that the power of fascination is natural magic.[1136] In short, all use of occult virtue in nature may be classed as natural magic.

“The sense of nature.”

Of William’s statements concerning occult virtue we shall hear more under that head. But we may note here what he says of “the sense of nature,”[1137] which he calls “one of the roots of natural magic,” which he often mentions, and which in his opinion accounts for a number of wonderful things.[1138] It is “a sublimer sense than any human apprehension and nobler and more akin to prophecy.” By it one senses the presence in the house of a burglar or harlot who is otherwise unperceived by any of the ordinary senses. By it some dogs can detect a thief in a crowd.[1139] It is the mysterious power by which vultures foresee the coming battle, sheep detect the approach of the wolf, and the spider that of the fly. William tells of a woman who could feel the presence of the man she loved when he was two miles distant[1140] and of another woman who so abhorred her husband that she fell into an epileptic fit whenever he entered the house.[1141] In the main, this sense of nature seems about the same as what other writers call the power of natural divination. William, however, in several cases accounts for it by the strong sympathy or antipathy existing between the two persons or animals concerned.

Magic’s too extreme pretensions.

While William accepts such marvels and strange forces, there are many claims of magic which he refuses to grant.[1142] As we shall see later he sets limits even to the powers of demons. Much less will he allow the extreme powers asserted of human magicians. In the books of the magicians appear subversions of nature of every sort. They would bind fire so that it cannot burn, robbers that they may not steal in a certain region, a well or spring so that no water may be drawn from it, and so with merchants and ships. They would even stop water from flowing down hill. William contends that such works are possible only by divine miracle, and that if the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Arabs could really accomplish the lies in their books, they would have conquered the world long ago. Nay, the world would be at the mercy of any single magician or sorcerer (magi seu malefici). William then raises the objection that if two magicians tried to gain the same object at once, the magic of one or the other would prove a failure or they would both share an imperfect and half-way success, and in either case the promises of their art would prove a failure. The same logic might be applied to the advice how to succeed given to young men by some of our “self-made” millionaires (are they magi or malefici?) who have exploited natural resources. William, however, goes on to explain that the books of magic say that not all artificers are equally skilful or born under a lucky star. He points out the limitations of Pharaoh’s magicians in much the usual manner.[1143]

Wax images.

William not only denies that magic can attain some extreme results, but also denies that some of the methods employed in magic are suited or adequate to the ends aimed at. He especially attacks the employment of images and characters, words, names, and incantations. The use of wax images in magic to harm the person or thing of whom the image is made seems to him a futile proceeding. He will not believe that Nectanebo—the magician of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, it will be remembered—could sink the ships of the enemy by submerging wax images of them.[1144] Such magic images possess neither intelligence nor will, nor can they act by bodily virtue, since that requires contact either direct or indirect to be effective.[1145] If someone suggests that they act by sense of nature, he should know that inanimate objects are incapable of this.[1146] The only way in which the occasional seemingly successful employment of such images can be accounted for is that when the magician does anything to the image, demons inflict the same sufferings upon the person against whom the image is used, and thus deceive men into thinking that the virtue of the image accomplishes this result.[1147]

Factitious gods.

Hermes Trismegistus speaks to Asclepius in the Liber de hellera or De deo deorum of terrestrial gods, associated each with some material substance, such as stones and aromatics which have the natural force of divinity in them.[1148] Hermes, however, distinguished from natural gods “factitious gods,” or statues, idols, and images made by man, into which “the splendor of deity and virtue of divinity” is poured or impressed by celestial spirits or the heavens and stars, “and this with observation of the hours and constellations when the image is cast or engraved or fabricated.” William regrets to say that traces of this error still prevail “among many old women, and Christians at that.” And they say that sixty years after their manufacture these images lose their virtue. William does not believe that there is divinity in stones or herbs or aromatics, or that men can make gods of any sort.[1149] Minds and souls cannot be put into statues,[1150] and William concludes that Trismegistus “erred shamefully” and “was marvelously deceived by the evil spirits themselves.”[1151] He also calls impossible “what is so celebrated among the astrologers (astronomos), and written in so many of the books, namely, that a statue will speak like a man if one casts it of bronze in the rising of Saturn.”[1152]

Characters and figures.

William likewise holds that characters or figures or impressions or astrological images have no force unless they are tokens by which the evil spirits may recognize their worshipers.[1153] There is no divinity in the angles of Solomon’s pentagon. William states that some are led into this error from their theories concerning the stars, and that the idolatrous cult of the stars distinguishes four kinds of figures: seals, rings, characters, and images.[1154] Such are the rings and seal of Solomon with their “execrable consecrations and detestable invocations.” Even more unspeakable is that image called idea Salomonis et entocta, and the figure known as mandel or amandel. So excessive are the virtues attributed to such images that they belong only to God, so that it is evident that God has been shorn of His glory which has been transferred to such figures. Artesius in his book on the virtue of words and characters asserts that by a certain magic figure he bound a mill so that the wheels could not turn.[1155] But William is incredulous as to such powers in characters. He thinks that one might as well say that virtue of the figure would run the mill without water or mill-wheels. If the mill did stop, it must have been the work of demons. Nor can William see any sense in writing the day and hour when thunder was heard in that locality on the walls of houses in order to protect them from lightning.[1156] It seems to him an attribution of the strongest force to the weakest sort of an incidental occurrence.

Power of words denied.

William indeed denies that there is magic power in mere words or incantations. Mere words cannot kill men or animals as sorcerers claim.[1157] William argues scholastically that if spoken words possessed any such virtue they must derive it either from the material of which they are composed, air, or from their form, sound; or from what they signify. Air cannot kill unless it is poisoned by a plague, dragon, or toad. Sound to kill must be deafening. If what is signified by the word is the cause, then images, which are more exact likenesses, would be more powerful than words. William’s opinion is that when sorcerers employ magic words and incantations they are simply calling upon the demons for aid, just as the worshipers of God sometimes induce Him to work wonders by calling upon His name.

Use of divine names.

This brings William to the delicate question of divine names. He censures the use of the name of God by “magicians and astronomers” in “working their diabolical marvels.”[1158] He also notes that they employ a barbaric name and not one of the four Hebrew names of God. They forbid anyone who is not pure and clad in pure vestments to presume to touch the book in which this name is written, but they try to gain evil ends by it and so blaspheme against their Creator. William, however, seems to feel that the names of God have a virtue not found in ordinary words and he states that not only servants of God but even wicked men sometimes cast out demons by making use of holy exorcisms.

Christian magic.

In short, incantations possess no efficacy, but exorcisms do. This is an indication, not merely of William’s logical inconsistency, but also of the existence of a Christian or ecclesiastical variety of magic in his day. He will not believe in Nectanebo’s wax images, but he believes that the forms of wax which have the likeness of lambs receive through the benediction of the pope the virtue of warding off thunderbolts.[1159] He denied that magic words had efficacy through their sound but he affirms that consecrated bells prevent storms within the sound of their ringing, and that salt and water which have been blessed obtain the power of expelling demons. William, however, takes refuge in God’s omnipotent virtue to explain the efficacy of these Christian charms.

Magic of sex and generation.

Magic appears to have always devoted considerable attention to matters of sex and generation, and William’s works give one or two instances of this. He states that sorcerers investigate the cohabiting of certain animals, thinking that if they kill them at that hour they will obtain from their carcasses potent love-charms and aids to fecundity.[1160] We are also told that men have tried to produce, and thought that they succeeded in producing human life in other ways than by the usual generative process.[1161] “And in the books of experiments may be found mockeries of women similar to those which the demons called incubi work and which certain sorcerers have attempted and left in writing for posterity.” They have recorded a delusive experiment by which women who have been known only once or twice think that this has occurred fifty or sixty times.

William’s contribution to the bibliography of magic.

As has been already incidentally suggested, William offers considerable information as to the bibliography of magic in his day. Besides his many general allusions to works of magic, writings of sorcerers and prestidigitateurs and astrologers and books of experiments, he mentions several particular works ascribed to Aristotle and Avicenbros, to Hermes Trismegistus and Solomon, the “cursed book” of Cocogrecus on “Stations to the cult of Venus” and, what is perhaps the same, of Thot grecus on “The cult of Venus.”[1162] An Artesius or Arthesius, whom in one passage he calls a magician and cites concerning divination by water and whom in another passage he calls both a magician and a philosopher who had written a book on the virtue of words and characters,[1163] is probably the same Artesius who is cited concerning divination by the rays of the sun or moon in liquids or mirrors in a work of alchemy in a twelfth century manuscript,[1164] and further identical with the Artephius who Roger Bacon says lived for one thousand and twenty-five years,[1165] to whom a treatise is ascribed in the Theatrum Chymicum[1166] and a Sloane manuscript,[1167] and who seems to have been the same as Altughra’i, a poet and alchemist who died in 1128.[1168] There also are a number of magic books of which William does not give the author’s name or the title, but of which he gives descriptions or from which he makes citations which would be sufficiently definite to identify the works should one meet with them elsewhere. In our chapters on pseudo-literature and experimental literature we treat of many of these works.

Plan of the rest of this chapter.

From our survey of magic proper as delineated in William’s works we now turn to what he represents as the two chief forces in magic, namely, the demons and the occult virtues in nature, and to two subjects which he closely connects with magic, namely, divination and astrology. These four topics will be taken up separately in the order stated.

The theory of spiritual substances.

Since William attributes so much of magic to demons, it is important to note what he has to say concerning these “spiritual substances.” He proposes to follow as his sources on the subject “authentic accounts” (sermones authentici): first of all the statements of the divinely inspired prophets, and after that the opinions of the philosophers and also of the magicians. He observes elsewhere, however, that there is a lack of literature on the subject; the sages have only dipped into it and not yet plumbed it to its depths: in fact, only the treatise of Avicenbros has come to his hands, and while that authority has said and written many sublime things, far removed from popular comprehension, still he has made only a beginning in this field.[1169] William also utilizes, however, the works of Hermes Trismegistus[1170] and other books of necromancy and magic—among them Thot Graecus[1171]—the testimony of medical men[1172] and “innumerable experiences” of men at large.[1173]

William professes himself open to conviction and new light on the question of the assumption of bodies by good and bad spirits.[1174] And it must be said that his whole treatment of spirits is full of inconsistencies and difficulties. Part of the time he draws a hard and fast line between spiritual substances and physical creation, but only part of the time. He also essays the difficult task of explaining how and to what extent these spiritual substances are able to disturb physical creation, and how far they in turn are affected by it.

Spirits in the heavens.

To begin with, William takes up the difficult position—or rather he makes it difficult for himself—but the usual one with medieval theologians, that angels occupy physical space and are located in their own heaven as the stars are in theirs.[1175] Some modern believers in spiritualism hold a very similar position.[1176] He also declares that the tenth and last or empyrean heaven will be the eternal abode of men whose souls are saved, although the resurrected bodies of the saved would presumably still be corporal substances.[1177] This raises the further difficulty that apparently the empyrean heaven cannot be the abode of the angels, as some theologians and saintly doctors have held (for a corporal place cannot be filled except with corporal substances), for those superficial persons who mock the authentic divine revelation of scripture will say that “if that heaven is a corporal place it cannot be filled except by corporal substances.”

Will hell be big enough?

Another point which puzzles William is whether there will be room in hell for all the evil spirits and resurrected bodies of the damned destined to make it their ultimate abode. The infernal regions, located in the interior of our terrestrial globe, seem very small to him compared with the vast expanse of the empyrean heaven which is even greater than that of the fixed stars. And our earth is a mere dot compared to the sphere of the fixed stars. If then that entire empyrean heaven is to be filled with glorified men, how shall the infernal regions hold all the damned?[1178] It will be seen that Dante’s later cosmology is very similar to William’s.

Astrological necromancy.

William will not agree, however,[1179] with the books of magic and the masters of images and illusions that the starry heavens and even single planets are inhabited by spirits so that the circle of the moon has fifty ministering spirits and that there are also angels in the twelve signs of the zodiac. On the other hand, in an earlier chapter he makes the statement that he has never heard anywhere even in magic books of demons with power over celestial bodies.[1180] William is of the opinion that Aristotle was deceived by an evil spirit into boasting that a spirit had descended to him from the circle of Venus.[1181] William argues that the starry heavens are rational and able to regulate themselves and do not require any ministering angels; and on the other hand that the nobler spirits would not debase themselves by ministering to mere celestial bodies.[1182] William’s own theory is that demons dwell in the air about the earth and not in the planetary heavens. He also speaks in one passage of their especially frequenting deserts.[1183]

False accounts of fallen angels.

William also rejects[1184] some non-Christian assertions concerning fallen angels. One is the statement of the author of a book of sorcery, who claimed to have communed with spirits thirty years, to the effect that new spirits are created daily, and that there are twelve orders of them, and that every day a multitude of them fall and that they fall into different regions of the earth and there rule—some in deserts, some in woods, some in fountains and rivers, some in herbs and trees, some in gems and stones, which thus derive their marvel-working qualities from them. The other account rejected by William is a pretty story from Hermes to this effect.[1185] When two angels were criticizing mankind harshly for its sinfulness God incarnated them to see how much better they would do. Both promptly fell in love with a beautiful woman who would return their love only on condition that they renounce God. When they had done even this, God called them to heaven, reproved them for not having justified their criticism of sinful mankind, and told them to choose now their place of punishment. They selected the air, but later through the prayers of a prophet in Babylon were shut up in a cave to await their final punishment at the last judgment.

Different kinds of spirits.

William of course makes the usual sharp Christian distinction between good spirits or angels and bad spirits or demons. It is the latter alone, rather than spiritual substances in general, whom he connects with magic, although naturally the magicians themselves often claim to employ good spirits. William is in doubt whether fauns and pygmies and some other monsters are demons or animals or men.[1186] He also lists satyrs, joculatores, incubi, succubi, nymphs, Lares, Penates and other old Latin names such as cloacina, Lucina, limitanus, priapus, genius, hymenus.[1187] He regards as a delusion the belief fostered by old-wives in demons who injure infants.[1188] Despite his mention of incubi and succubi and despite the verses of Scripture about the sons of God and the daughters of men and that woman ought to veil her head on account of the angels, he regards demons as incapable of sexual intercourse with human beings, but he thinks it possible that they may juggle with nature so as to produce the effects of sexual intercourse.[1189] He mentions the belief in a demon who comes to cellars at night in women’s clothing and bestows abundance and prosperity where food and drink is left uncovered for it to partake of, which it does without diminishing the quantity. “And they call her satia from satiety.”

Limited demon control of nature.

What is the extent of the control over matter exercised by the demons in performing marvels? In discussing what demons can and cannot perform in the ways of marvels, William’s decisions seem rather arbitrary and capricious.[1190] He grants them superhuman powers of divination and says that it has been repeatedly proved that they know when invocations and sacrifices are made to them.[1191] But the apparitions which they produce are neither real objects nor images in the air but thoughts and pictures in the mind of the beholder.[1192] The armies of horsemen produced by necromancers leave no prints of hoofs behind them and their elaborate castles with gates, towers, walls, and citadel completely vanish without leaving a trace.[1193] This explains how enchanters and magicians can apparently cut horses in two, although William grants it not unlikely that there may be other ways of doing this for those “who know the marvellous occult virtues of many things.” William also discusses how demons can toss sticks and stones about, throw persons out of bed, and transport men or huge rocks for great distances when they have neither necks nor shoulders to carry them on.[1194] This is no more strange, he says, than the magnet’s ability to draw iron.[1195] He believes that the virtue of spiritual substances can overcome weight which holds bodies at rest and produce lightness which makes motion easy. It was thus that an angel transported one of the Hebrew prophets to Babylon by a lock of his hair. It is doubtful, however, if this last could have been accomplished save by divine aid. He doubts furthermore if horses could be generated as the frogs were by the Egyptian magicians of Pharaoh. The generation of frogs is a much easier and more rapid process. Also the wax lights which mysteriously appear in stables on the horses’ manes and tails would be easy for demons to make.[1196] But William disbelieves in such magic transformations as werwolves. His explanation is that the devil first made the man imagine himself a wolf and then caused a real wolf to appear and frighten people.[1197] Demons cannot make idols or images speak, but when the bodies of human beings are possessed by demons, they form voices after a fashion, although, as exorcists have assured him, in a raucous tone unlike the usual human voice, probably because the vocal chords respond but indifferently to demoniacal abuse of them.[1198]

Can demons be imprisoned or enter bodies?

William is sure that demons cannot be imprisoned against their will in material bodies, whether rings, gems, mirrors, or glass phials such as Solomon is said to have shut them up in.[1199] William argues that if a man died in a huge corked bottle his soul would be able to get out. William, however, believes his Bible when it tells him of demons shut up in men whom “they vex with innumerable tortures,” or in swine or in lakes,[1200] although he declares that he does not adduce the case of demons in swine because it is recorded in the Bible but because it is attested by the experience of many. And he declares that even to his day demons give most certain indication of their presence in lakes when stones are thrown in or they are provoked by some other movement or sound.[1201] He states, however, that many medical men deny that human beings are possessed by demons and attribute the seizures and agitations to fumes and vapors.[1202] Many skilled doctors also dispute the existence of the nocturnal demon called ephialtes and attribute the oppressive feeling to action of the heart and not to the weight of a demon. In this instance William is inclined to agree with the physicians.[1203] William holds that it is useless to strike at demons when they appear before you, for you merely beat the air, as many experiments have shown.[1204] But he believes that demons can be punished not only by material hell fire but by contact with the other three elements, air, earth and water.

Susceptibility of demons to the four elements and to natural objects.

Demons feel any affront offered or indignity done them very keenly so that saints have often routed them by a volley of spit. William is also inclined to accept the “ancient opinion among the Romans” that human urine dissolves works of magic.[1205] Furthermore there are several natural objects which have the occult virtue of driving away demons, a peony suspended from the neck—Galen’s old remedy for the epileptic boy—or the top of the heart of a certain fish placed on the coals. If it is asked how it is that these proud spiritual substances are thus subject to the virtues of physical bodies, William can only answer that it is probably in consequence of their fall, which also subjected them to hell fire. William’s logic simply reduces to this, that God can do anything He pleases with demons while men can do nothing with them against the demons’ wills and without imperiling their own souls.

Stock examples of natural marvels.

William is as credulous concerning the marvelous powers attributed to herbs, gems and animals, and as anxious to find some plausible explanation of their validity, as he was sceptical in regard to images, characters and words. We encounter once more in his pages many of the stock examples of natural marvels which we have met again and again in previous writers and shall find in many writers after him. He rhapsodizes concerning the power of the magnet and mentions its three species according to Hermes (Mercurius).[1206] He tells of the phoenix, of the masculine and feminine palms, and of theriac.[1207] Indeed, the magnet, the palms, and the story of the hazel rod told below are all introduced while William is supposedly discussing divine providence. In more than one passage he tells—perhaps directly from Pliny—of the stupefaction produced by the torpedo in persons who touch it only with a long stick, of the little echinus or remora which stops great ships, or of the powers of lion and basilisk, and of the gem heliotrope which aided by the virtue of the herb of the same name renders one invisible.[1208] For this assertion concerning heliotrope, however, which Pliny stigmatized as an example of the magicians’ impudence,[1209] William cites the writings of experimenters.

The hazel rod story.

On the other hand, a passage in William’s work concerning the property of a hazel rod was repeated within a few years by at least three writers: Albertus Magnus, John of St. Amand, and Roger Bacon. William relates that men say that if the rod is split in two lengthwise the halves will approach one another again of their own accord and reunite.[1210] Deceivers attribute this to the virtue of certain words which they utter, but it is by virtue and sense of nature.

Occult virtues of herbs and animals.

William regards the occult virtue of things on this earth as so certain that he uses it to argue that the stars too must possess great powers.[1211] This is attested “from the operations of the virtues of other things, both animals and parts of them, also herbs, medicines, and stones.”[1212] Of medicines he especially recommends the empirica to the reader’s consideration.[1213] The virtues of herbs have been proved to be very numerous and very marvelous.[1214] As for animals, after describing the virtues of the basilisk, William adds, “and when you have heard similar and maybe greater things concerning the occult virtues of other animals, you will not marvel at these.” Among many medicines which prolong life he believes that the flesh of snakes has great renovating virtue,[1215] and among medicines supposed to produce visions and revelations he names the eye of an Indian tortoise and the heart of the hoopoe,[1216] which are thought to clear the soul of noxious vapors in sleep and pave the way for illuminations. William suggests that these substances may horrify one so as to shock the soul free from the body. He even mentions a medicine the smoke from which in the room in which one is sleeping will free the soul from the body so that it emerges into the region of light and the luminosity of the Creator.[1217] And in the case of the little fish which binds ships so that they cannot move, he holds it indubitable that this cannot possibly be done by any bodily virtue which it possesses and must be by some spiritual virtue which exists in its soul.[1218] This reminds him of the power of the human imagination as shown in the case of the man who cast down a camel by merely imagining its fall.[1219]

Virtues of gems.

To the virtues of gems William alludes a number of times. He recounts how the sapphire of its own motion springs into a diseased human eye and cleanses it of its noxious humors.[1220] He also finds it asserted that the emerald attracts riches to its owner and that the topaz checks the passions of avarice, cupidity, luxury, and evil desire. He endeavors to explain how it may be possible for the stone heliotrope to render one invisible; as the power of the stone turns the brightness of the sunlight to a ruby shade, so it may be that the potency of its color prevents the spectators from discerning at all the color of the man who wears it, just as it is said that a musical instrument strung with snake-skin drowns the sound of all other instruments.[1221]

A medley of marvelous virtues.

Some of the virtues ascribed to natural objects William finds almost too marvelous for belief, but then strengthens his faith by recollecting some others which are more marvelous still, as the following passage will illustrate.[1222] The experimenters have put in their books the marvelous statement that the presence of a serpent or of a reed containing some quicksilver affects sorcerers and magicians so that their juggleries and incantations are of no avail. William, who it will be recalled had elsewhere denied the ability of a magic figure to stop a mill-wheel, is also inclined to question whether serpents or quicksilver have any power over evil spirits and incantations. But then he remembers that the experimenters also assert that a crab hung in mid-air keeps moles who move underground out of the field and that the herb peony drives devils out of demoniacs. Since the peony has many virtues necessary for men and demons hate men, William thinks it likely that they hate the herb too, and flee from it, when it is suspended about one’s neck. And in one of the books of the Hebrews it is expressly stated that one of the holy angels said that the top of the heart of a certain fish placed on live coals would drive any kind of demon out of men or women. This book is received as authentic by both Hebrews and Christians, and William also regards an archangel as a good authority. This being established, he sees no reason why a snake may not have power over demons too. He recalls too the ancient belief among the Romans that human urine dissolves all works of magic; the manifest fact that jasper drives away snakes and that eagles place it in their nests for this reason; and that the gem achates or agate taken powdered in drink causes the unchaste to vomit. In Great Britain they test the morals of boys and girls by this experiment. This property of the agate causes William to marvel much, for he sees no connection between stones and virginity. However, if the agate is incompatible with unchastity, what wonder if quicksilver will not tolerate the working of magic in its presence?

It has been made evident that William accepts very extreme powers in natural objects and that with such resources the possibilities of his natural magic should be well-nigh unlimited. If he does not quite believe in all these marvels, he does not definitely deny them, and evidently enjoys repeating them.

Divination not an art but revelation.

William states that the proper meaning of divination is imitation of the deity, but that the term is usually not applied to the revelations made by good spirits and prophets but to the revelation of hidden things, especially the future, by evil spirits.[1223] For he also affirms that divination is not a human art but a matter of revelation. The medical prognostications of physicians, although they may seem occult to other men, are based on experience of their art and astronomers are not called diviners but men of learning. While William may deny that the diviner is an artifex, he has to admit that some diviners use tools or materials and so give their predictions the appearance of being based upon some art.

Divination by inspection of lucid surfaces.

Of this type is the practice of predicting the future by gazing upon polished and reflecting surfaces which are rubbed with oil to increase their lucidity.[1224] Among the substances employed are mirrors, two-edged swords, children’s finger-nails, egg shells, and ivory handles. Usually a boy or a virgin is employed to gaze thereupon, and sometimes exorcisms, adjurations, and observance of times are added. William affirms that many experiences have demonstrated that only one boy out of seven or ten sees anything therein, and he is of the opinion that the whole apparatus simply conceals “the impiety of diabolical sacrifices.” Some ancient sages, nevertheless, notably Plato, have thought that the soul of the gazer is thrown back upon itself by the luminosity of the object seen and then exercises its latent powers of natural divination. We sometimes see such revelations by the irradiation of spiritual light in the insane, the very ill, dreamers, and those in whom because of great fright or care the mind is abstracted from the body.[1225] William therefore finally concludes that the theory of the philosophers as to divination by inspection of lucid bodies “is undoubtedly possible,” but he still maintains that demons are often involved.

Other instances of divination, ancient and modern.

William also tells us of an ancient Latin magician who believed that the soul of an immaculate boy who had been slain by violence would have knowledge of past, present and future.[1226] He therefore murdered a boy, and then went insane himself and imagined that he heard responses from the boy’s soul. This was surely the work of demons. Other ancient philosophers blinded boys or themselves in order to increase the power of the soul in divination.[1227] William further mentions the old-wives of his own time who still persisted in divination and interpreting dreams and could not be made to desist even by beatings.[1228] He states that these old women still cherished the superstition of the augurs that if you find a bird’s nest with the mother bird and little ones or the eggs, and preserve it intact, all will go well with you, while if you harm it or separate any bird or egg from it you will encounter ill fortune.[1229]

His treatment of astrology.

William has much to say in his various works of the heavens and the stars, and he rarely overlooks an opportunity to have a tilt with the astrologers. Most of his statements and arguments had been often employed before, however, and he also repeats himself a great deal, and his long-drawn scholastic listing and rebutting of supposed reasons pro and con at times becomes insufferably tedious. We shall therefore compress his treatment to a very small space compared to that which it occupies in his own works and words.

The philosophers on the nature of the heavens and stars.

William states that Plato and Aristotle, Boethius, Hermes Trismegistus, and Avicenna, all believed the stars to be divine animals whose souls were as superior to ours, as their celestial bodies are.[1230] Since these philosophers regarded the stars as nobler, wiser, and more powerful than mortals, they made them guardians and guides of humanity, and distributed all earthly objects under their rule. Such doctrines William recalls examining when he was young in the books of judicial astrology and the volumes of magicians and sorcerers, from whom he would appear to distinguish the above-named philosophers none too carefully. He indeed explicitly classes “Plato and Aristotle and their followers” with “those who believe in judgments of the stars.”[1231] He also tells us that Plato regarded the entire universe as one divine animal, and that his followers regarded the tides as the breathing of this world animal; but that Aristotle and his school included only what is above the moon or even only the heaven of the fixed stars.[1232] Avicenna, too, called the heaven an animal obedient to God.

William’s own opinion and attitude.

William himself is inclined to think that the divisions and diversities of the nine spheres militate against their being animated by a single soul; and he rejects the theory that the world soul is composed of number and musical consonance.[1233] But he leaves Christians free, if they will, to believe with the Aristotelians and many Italian philosophers that the superior world is either one or many animals, that the heavens are either animated or rational.[1234] In this he sees no peril to the Faith; but hitherto Hebrew and Christian doctrine has not explored such matters, and Christians have been too absorbed in saving men’s souls to note whether the heavens had souls or no. It would indeed be strange if William denied the starry heavens some sort of soul or souls when he has attributed one to a sea-fish like the echinus.[1235] But he declares that “it is manifest that human souls are nobler than those which they put in heavenly bodies.” And he warns against the wicked error of identifying the Holy Spirit with the world soul. We have noted elsewhere his hostility to the theory of astrological necromancy that the heavens and stars are full of ministering spirits. He also contraverts the Aristotelian doctrines that there are as many intelligences moving the heavenly bodies as there are celestial motions and that the heavens love superior intelligences and strive to become assimilated to these.[1236]

Objection to stars as cause of evil.

Like most Christian apologists William adopts the argument that the stars, if rational, would not cause evils and misfortunes such as astrologers predict, and seems to think that all the evil in the world can be charged to the account of human perversity or the imperfections inherent in the matter of our inferior world, and that for these two sources of ill neither God nor the stars should be held responsible.[1237] He recognizes, it is true, that someone may argue that these evils exist by the will of the Creator, whose will is nevertheless always good, but he does not seem to see that the same reasoning may be applied to the rule of the stars. He seems to regard as a new discovery of his own and a point hitherto unrecognized by astrologers, the argument that ineptitude on the part of inferior matter receiving the force of the stars may account for many effects apparently due to the heavens. But in thinking this argument novel he is much mistaken. Really his only point here against astrologers is that some of them are careless in their phraseology and speak of the stars as causing evil, which he regards as blasphemy of Him who created the stars. “And all blasphemy against the Creator,” continues William in a truculent and intolerant tone which reveals the spirit of the medieval inquisition, “is an impiety to be exterminated with fire and sword.”

Virtues of the stars.

William raises certain difficulties in regard to astrological technique only to answer them himself. And he grants that fixed stars which seem close together may really be separated by vast distances and so have very different virtue. And he cannot deny “many marvelous and occult virtues” in celestial bodies, when he admits “so many and so great occult virtues” in terrestrial bodies. Indeed all philosophers agree that the virtues of the stars far surpass even those of precious stones. The variations in the heat of the sun, while its course continues constant, seem to William a sure indication that the other planets and fixed stars participate in influencing our world.

Extent of their influence upon nature and man.

While William was not unwilling to concede souls or reason to the stars, he believes that it is perilous for Christians to regard the souls of the heavens as “governors of inferior things and especially of human affairs.”[1238] Those who hold that man’s actions are caused of necessity by the motion of the sky and the positions of the stars, ruin, in his opinion, the foundations of law and morality.[1239] “Against that error, one ought not so much to dispute with arguments as fight with fire and sword.” Some have argued that because stars and lights were created before vegetation, animal life, and human beings, they are causes of these others, both generating and regulating them.[1240] In favor of this contention so much has been written that it can scarcely be read, says William, and the stars do give much aid in generation and in conservation of generated things, but not so much as the astrologers think.[1241] They should not be consulted even as signs—rather than causes—in human concerns.[1242] In our sublunar world their power extends only to the four elements and four humors and only to such animals composed of these as lack free will and obey natural necessity. Thus William really excludes only human free will and intellect from sidereal control,[1243] and he admits that “the multitude and populace from want of intelligence and other evil dispositions lives almost after the manner of brutes,” following natural impulse to a great extent, so that astrologers may predict popular agitations and mob uprisings with a fair degree of accuracy, but should not predict concerning individuals. Even in the case of individuals, however, he does not deny that natural virtues and vices are attributable to the stars, such vices, for instance, as irascibility, levity, and lubricity, which medical authorities ascribe not to moral fault but physical constitution.[1244] William would limit the influence of the stars not only by individual freedom of the will but by the power of prayer.[1245] He does not believe the decrees of fate so fixed and the laws of nature so unchangeable that God’s wrath may not be placated by prayer, and freedom from any threatening evil obtained from His goodness. Belief in the power of the stars and belief in the power of prayers: which is the more superstitious, which the more nearly scientific? Or which belief has led to progress in science?

Against nativities, interrogations, and images.

William complains that “Ptolemy and Haly and other astronomers” have attributed original sin and all its consequences to the constellations and hours of nativity, in that they have presumed to write books of horoscopes and nativities.[1246] He feels it “necessary to say something against that insanity” because of the great reputation such famous writers have among the “simple and stupid multitude” which regards them as profound sages and sublime prophets. Into William’s particular arguments against the art of casting nativities, which much resemble the arguments of Augustine and John of Salisbury, we will not go. Elsewhere he also attacks the practice of interrogations.[1247] He also strongly objects to the books which he says astrologers have written on discovering men’s secret thoughts through the significations of the stars.[1248]

William has much to say against astrological images, but his attitude has already been partially indicated in stating his attitude towards images, figures, and characters in general. He declares that belief in astrological images “derogates more from the honor and glory of the Creator than the error which attributes such virtue to the stars and luminaries themselves.” It seems to him “a strange and quite intolerable error to think that stars which cannot help themselves can bestow such gifts as invincibility, social graces, temperance or chastity.”[1249] Yet elsewhere we have heard him mention with seeming complaisance the bestowal of riches and checking of evil passions by emeralds and topazes. His best argument as against figures and characters in general is that such lifeless bodies cannot produce intellectual and moral effects in living human beings, especially when the engraved gems are, as is usual, hidden away somewhere, or buried underground.

Astrology and religion and history.

William condemns as error the association of the world’s leading religions with the planets, as Judaism with Saturn, Islam with Venus, and Christianity with the sun.[1250] The stars, he declares, are subject to religion, not religion to the stars, and Joshua made even the sun and moon stand still. William is candid enough to recognize that the seven-branched candlestick in the Jewish tabernacle designated the seven planets, but elsewhere states that the Mosaic Law forbade observation of the stars.[1251] William also considers the doctrine of the magnus annus or Platonic year, that after 36,000 solar years history will repeat itself down to the minutest detail owing to the recurrence of the former series of positions of the constellations.[1252] Since this has the support of men of great reputation, he lists various arguments advanced in its favor and rebuts them in detail.

Comets and the star of Bethlehem.

William believes that comets appear in the sky and in the air “as signs of slaughters and other great events in the world.” He mentions “the universal belief” that they foretell the deaths of kings and political changes.[1253] But he asserts that the star announcing Christ’s birth was not of this sort and that the darkness at the time of the Crucifixion was not due to an ordinary eclipse.

[1102] Gulielmi Alverni episcopi Parisiensis mathematici perfectissimi eximii philosophi ac theologi praestantissimi Opera omnia per Joannem Dominicum Traianum Neapolitanum Venetiis ex officina Damiani Zenari, 1591. The De universo occupies nearly half of the volume, pp. 561-1012. My references will be to this edition and to the De universo unless some other title is specified. In it—and in such other editions of William’s works as I have seen—the chapter headings are often very poor guides to the contents, especially if the chapter is of any length. There are at Paris thirteenth century MSS of the De fide and De legibus (BN 15755) and De universo (BN 15756).

The chief secondary work on William of Auvergne is Noel Valois, Guillaume d’Auvergne, Paris, 1880. One chapter is devoted to his attitude to the superstitions of his age, and goes to the other extreme from Daunou, HL XVIII, 375, whom Valois criticizes for calling William extremely credulous. The inadequacy of Valois’ chapter, at least from our standpoint, may be inferred from his total omission of William’s conception of “natural magic.” Valois has no treatment of William’s attitude to natural science but contents himself with a discussion of his philosophy and psychology. (See also M. Baumgartner, Die Erkenntnislehre des Wilhelm von Auvergne, Münster, 1893.) The chapter on William’s attitude to superstition is largely given over to examples of popular superstitions in the thirteenth century, supplementing legends of Brittany and other stories told by William with similar anecdotes from the pages of Stephen of Bourbon, Caesar of Heisterbach, and Gervaise of Tilbury. Valois’ citations of William’s works are from an edition in which the pages were numbered differently from those in the one I used.

[1103] Valois (1880), pp. 9-11.

[1104] Valois (1880), p. 53.

[1105] HL 18, 357.

[1106] II-iii-20, (pp. 994-95). Yet in another connection (I-i-46, pp. 625-26) William inconsistently makes the assertion that everything depends absolutely upon God’s will alone as an argument against employing magic images to gain one’s ends. He tells a story of a man who, when a magician offered to secure him some great dignity in his city, asked him if he could get it against God’s will. When the magician admitted that he could not, the man asked if he could prevent securing it if God willed it and the magician again answered “No.” The man then said that he would commit it all to God. William does not seem to see that this attitude is the same as that of ignorant persons who leave scientific investigation to God or of hungry people who expect God to feed them.

[1107] I-i-44, (p. 613).

[1108] I-i-42, (p. 608).

[1109] Ibid., (p. 606).

[1110] See I-iii-31, (p. 759). See also Valois, 304 and M. K. Werner, Wilhelms von Auvergne Verhältniss z. d. Platonikern des XII. Jhts, in Vienna Sitzb., vol. 74 (1873), p. 119 et seq.

[1111] See I-ii-30, (p. 694) for an expression of this view.

[1112] I-ii-31, (p. 695).

[1113] II-iii-23, (pp. 1003-4).

[1114] De legibus, Cap. 25, (p. 75).

[1115] I-ii-21, (p. 680): II-iii-7, (p. 973).

[1116] II-iii-23, p. (1003): De legibus, Cap. 24, (p. 73): II-ii-29, (p. 820).

[1117] II-iii-7, (p. 971).

[1118] II-iii-22, (p. 998).

[1119] De legibus, Cap. 9, (pp. 38-39).

[1120] See Cap. 13 (p. 43) and before

[1121] Cap. 23, (p. 65).

[1122] Cap. 14, (pp. 44-45).

[1123] II-iii-22, (p. 998) ... opera huiusmodi quae opera magica et ludificationes vel hominum vel daemonum nuncupantur.

[1124] II-iii-7, (p. 971): II-iii-12, (pp. 977-79).

[1125] II-iii-21, (pp. 997-998) naturarum vires et potentias occultas, etc.

[1126] I-i-43, (p. 612): De legibus, Cap. 24, (p. 67).

[1127] De legibus, Cap. 14 (p. 44).

[1128] II-iii-22, (p. 999).

[1129] II-iii-23, (p. 1003).

[1130] De legibus, Cap. 14, (p. 46).

[1131] II-iii-21, (p. 998).

[1132] II-iii-12, (p. 979).

[1133] De legibus, Cap. 24, (pp. 67-68).

[1134] I-i-46, (p. 627).

[1135] De legibus, Cap. 24, (pp. 67-68).

[1136] I-i-43, (p. 612).

[1137] “Sensus naturae,” De legibus, Cap. 27, (p. 88).

[1138] See pp. 875, 876 and 983 as well as the following reference. I-i-46, (p. 624).

[1139] II-ii-70, (p. 870).

[1140] II-ii-69, (p. 869).

[1141] II-ii-70, (p. 870).

[1142] I-i-46, (p. 625).

[1143] II-iii-22, (p. 1000).

[1144] I-i-46, (p. 625).

[1145] I-i-46, (p. 626).

[1146] I-i-46, (p. 624).

[1147] I-i-46, (p. 627).

[1148] De legibus, Cap. 23, (p. 64): II-iii-22, (p. 999).

[1149] De legibus, Cap. 26, (p. 82).

[1150] Ibid., Cap. 27, (pp. 84 ff.).

[1151] II-iii-22, (p. 999).

[1152] De legibus, Cap. 26, (p. 84).

[1153] Ibid., Cap. 27, (pp. 86-87).

[1154] Ibid., Cap. 23, (p. 65).

[1155] II-iii-23, (p. 1003).

[1156] De legibus, Cap. 27, (p. 89).

[1157] Ibid., (pp. 87-88).

[1158] Ibid., (p. 89).

[1159] De legibus, Cap. 27, (p. 84).

[1160] Ibid., Cap. 4, (p. 34).

[1161] II-iii-25, (p. 1010).

[1162] II-ii-96, (p. 895).

[1163] De universo, pp. 996-7, also 1003; De legibus, cap. 27 (p. 89).

[1164] Berlin 956, 12th century, fol. 21, Hic incipit alchamia....

[1165] Bridges, II, 212.

[1166] Theatrum Chymicum, Strasburg, 1613, IV, 221.

[1167] Sloane 1118, 15th century, #28. Arthephii capitulum ex opere solis extractum.

[1168] Gildemeister in Zeitsch. d. Deutsch. Morgenl. Ges. XXXIII, 534: cited by Lippmann (1919), 408.

[1169] De legibus, Cap. 26, (pp. 81-82): I-i-44, (p. 613).

[1170] De universo II-ii-37, (p. 831): II-ii-100 (p. 898).

[1171] Ibid., II-ii-96, (p. 895).

[1172] Ibid., II-iii-13, (p. 982): II-iii-24, (p. 1007).

[1173] Ibid., II-ii-63, (p. 860): II-ii-70, (p. 871): II-iii-6, (p. 968): II-iii-17, (p. 988).

[1174] Ibid., II-iii-24, (p. 1007).

[1175] Ibid., II-ii-84 and 85, (pp. 885-6).

[1176] Among errors condemned at Paris in 1240 by William as bishop the seventh was “that neither glorified souls nor glorious or glorified bodies will be in the empyrean heaven with the angels but in the watery or crystalline (heaven) which is above the firmament. Which they even presume to say of the blessed virgin. On the contrary it should be believed that there is the same place for holy angels and souls of the blest, namely, the empyrean heaven,” etc.

The eighth error was “that an angel can in the same instant be in different places and is everywhere if he wishes to be everywhere.”

These errors and various other sets of errors condemned at Paris and Oxford are printed in an incunabulum numbered IA.4778 in the British Museum.

[1177] De universo I-i-34, (p. 595 ff). Also Cap. 43 (pp. 609 to 611).

[1178] Who William believes will exceed the saved in numbers: “De multitudine vero damnandorum omnis lex determinatum habet apud se quod multo maior futura sit multitudine glorificandorum.” The passage has already been quoted in HL XVIII, 371-2.

[1179] De legibus, Cap. 24, (p. 73.) De universo II-ii-96, (p. 895).

[1180] Ibid., II-ii-70, (p. 871).

[1181] Ibid., II-ii-39 and 98, (pp. 833 and 897) and II-iii-6, (p. 967): also II-ii-96, (p. 895).

[1182] De universo, II-ii-97, (p. 896).

[1183] De legibus, Cap. 9, (pp. 38-39).

[1184] De universo, II-ii-29, (p. 820) and II-iii-6 to 8, (pp. 966 to 973).

[1185] Ibid., II-ii-37, (p. 831): II-ii-100, (p. 898).

[1186] De universo, II-iii-7, (p. 970).

[1187] Ibid., II-iii-12, (pp. 976-7).

[1188] Ibid., II-iii-24, (p. 1004).

[1189] Ibid., II-iii-25, (pp. 1009-10).

[1190] Ibid., II-iii-23, (p. 1000).

[1191] De legibus, Cap. 24, (p. 67).

[1192] De universo, I-ii-21, (p. 680), and II-ii-63, (p. 860).

[1193] Ibid., II-iii-12, (p. 979).

[1194] De universo, II-ii-70, (p. 871).

[1195] Ibid. (p. 1001).

[1196] Ibid. (pp. 1003-1004).

[1197] Ibid., II-iii-13, (p. 983).

[1198] De legibus, Cap. 26, (p. 83-4).

[1199] De legibus, Cap. 26, (p. 81).

[1200] De universo, II-iii-6, (p. 968).

[1201] Ibid., II-iii-17, (p. 987).

[1202] Ibid., II-iii-13, (p. 982).

[1203] Ibid., II-iii-24, (p. 1007).

[1204] Ibid., II-iii-17, (p. 988).

[1205] Ibid., II-iii-22, (p. 999).

[1206] I-iii-11, (p. 731: also pp. 756-57).

[1207] I-ii-16, (p. 668): II-iii-22 (p. 999).

[1208] II-ii-73, (p. 873): II-iii-22, (p. 998): II-iii-16, (p. 986): I-i-46, (p. 621).

[1209] NH 37, 60.

[1210] I-iii-11, (p. 731).

[1211] I-i-46, (p. 621).

[1212] The influence of this passage is seen in a MS at Paris which was once the property of the humanist Budé: BN nouv. acq. 433, anno 1486, fol. 1: Excerpta from William of Auvergne, “et primo ex capitulo de virtutibus occultis quorundam animalium herbarum et lapidum relatorum ad consideracionem astronomicam et astronomorum, ut plurimum, errancium.”

[1213] II-ii-76 (p. 876), necnon et exemplis occultarum operationum et mirabilium quaeque nonnulli medicorum et etiam quidam philosophorum naturalium empirica vocant.

[1214] II-iii-22, (p. 999).

[1215] I-i-59, (p. 639).

[1216] II-iii-21, (p. 997).

[1217] II-iii-20, (p. 995).

[1218] II-iii-16, (p. 986).

[1219] This illustration is also used by Peter of Abano, Conciliator, Diff. 135; and is found in the 219 opinions of Siger de Brabant and others condemned at Paris in 1277 (see below, Chapter 62).

[1220] I-i-46, (p. 621).

[1221] II-iii-22, (p. 998).

[1222] II-iii-22, (p. 999).

[1223] II-iii-18, (p. 989).

[1224] Ibid. and De legibus, Cap. 24, (p. 68).

[1225] II-iii-20, (p. 993).

[1226] II-iii-19, (p. 990).

[1227] II-iii-20, (p. 994).

[1228] I-iii-27, (pp. 750-51).

[1229] De legibus, Cap. 2, (p. 31).

[1230] De legibus, cap. 25 (p. 75). De universo, I-iii-27, (p. 751).

[1231] I-iii-28, (p. 753).

[1232] I-iii-27, (pp. 751-2).

[1233] I-iii-30, (p. 757).

[1234] I-iii-31, (p. 759).

[1235] I-ii-29, (p. 693).

[1236] I-ii-5, (p. 650): II-i-45, (p. 794): II-i-4, (p. 763).

[1237] I-i-46, (pp. 618-23).

[1238] I-iii-28, (pp. 753-4).

[1239] I-iii-20, (p. 740).

[1240] I-i-42, (pp. 606-7).

[1241] I-i-46, (pp. 627-8).

[1242] I-iii-31, (p. 759).

[1243] I-i-46, (pp. 628-9).

[1244] Ibid., (p. 620).

[1245] Ibid., (p. 626).

[1246] De vitiis et peccatis, cap. 6, (p. 264).

[1247] De legibus, cap. 20, (p. 55).

[1248] I-i-46, (p. 628).

[1249] De universo, I-i-46, (pp. 622 ff). De legibus, cap. 23, (p. 65).

[1250] Ibid., cap. 20, (p. 53).

[1251] Ibid., cap. 2, (p. 31): I-i-46, (p. 628).

[1252] I-ii-16 and 17, (pp. 667-9).

[1253] I-i-46, (p. 629).