VI. The evidence of these reasons seems to suffice to prove that all which is said of magic in our days is merely chimerical; but because, in reply to the substantial difficulties which were proposed to him by the Count Rinaldi Carli, the author of the book pretends that to deny is a heretical opinion condemned by the laws, it is proper to examine this article again. For the first proof of its reality, is advanced the general consent of all mankind; the tradition of all nations; stories and witnesses ad infinitum of theologians, philosophers, and jurisconsults; whence he concludes "that its existence cannot be denied, or even a doubt cast upon it, without sapping the foundations of what is called human belief." But the little I have said in No. IV. alone suffices to prove how false is this assertion concerning this pretended general consent. Horace, who passes for one of the wisest and most enlightened men amongst the ancients, reckons, on the contrary, among the virtues necessary to an honest man, the not putting faith in what is said concerning magic, and to laugh at it. His friend, believing himself very virtuous because he was not avaricious—"That is not sufficient," said he: "are you exempt from every other vice and every other fault; not ambitious, not passionate, fearless of death? Do you laugh at all that is told of dreams, magical operations, miracles, sorcerers, ghosts, and Thessalian wonders?"[[675]]—that is to say, in one word, of all kinds of magic. What is the aim of Lucian, in his Dialogue entitled "Philopseudis," but to turn into ridicule the magic art? and also is it not what he proposed to himself in the other, entitled "The Ass," whence Apuleius derived his "Golden Ass?" It is easy to perceive that in all this work, wherein he speaks so often, the power ascribed to magic of making rivers return to their source, staying the course of the sun, darkening the stars, and constraining the gods themselves to obey it, he had no other intention than to laugh at it, which he certainly would not have done if he had believed it able to produce, as they pretend, effects beyond those of nature. It is, then, jokingly and ironically that he says they see wonders worked "by the invincible power of magic,"[[676]] and by the blind necessity which imposes upon the gods themselves to be obedient to it. The poor man thinking he was to be changed into a bird, had had the grief to see himself metamorphosed into an ass, through the mistake of a woman who in a hurry had mistaken the box, and giving him one ointment for another. The most usual terms made use of by the ancients, in speaking of magic, were "play" and "badinage," which plainly shows that they saw nothing real in it. St. Cyprian, speaking of the mysteries of the magicians, calls them "hurtful and juggling operations." "If by their delusions and their jugglery," says Tertullian, "the charlatans seem to perform many wonders." And in his treatise on the soul, he exclaims, "What shall we say of magic? what almost all the world says of it—that it is mere knavery." Arnobius calls it, "the sports of the magic art;" and on these words of Minutius Felix, "all the marvels which they seem to work by their jugglery," his commentator remarks that the word badinage is in this place the proper term. This manner of expressing himself shows what was then the common opinion of all wise persons. "Let the farmer," says Columella, "frequent with neither soothsayers nor witches, because by their foolish superstitions they all cause the ignorant to spend much money, and thence they lead them to be criminal." We learn from Suidas, "that those were called magicians who filled their heads with vain imaginations." Thus, when speaking of one of these imposters, Dante was right when he said[[677]] "he knew all the trickery and knavery of the magic art." Thus, then, it is not true that a general belief in the art of magic has ever prevailed; and if, in our days, any one would gather the voice and opinion of men of letters, and the most celebrated academies, I am persuaded that hardly would one or two in ten be found who were convinced of its existence. It would not be, at least, one of the learned friends of the author of the book in question, who having been consulted by the latter on this matter, answers him in these terms—"Magic is a ridiculous art, which has no reality but in the head of a madman, who fancies that he is able to lead the devil to satisfy all his wishes." I have read in some catalogues which come from Germany, that they are preparing to give the public a "Magic Library:" oder grundliche nagrichen, &c. It is a vast collection of different writings, all tending to prove the uselessness and insufficiency of magic. I must remark that the poets have greatly contributed to set all these imaginations in vogue. Without this fruitful source, what becomes of the most ingenious fictions of Homer? We may say as much of Ariosto and of our modern poets. For the rest, what I have before remarked concerning Pliny must not be forgotten—that in the ancient authors, the word magic is often equivocal. For in certain countries, they gave the name of magi, or magicians, to those who applied as a particular profession to the study of astronomy, philosophy, or medicine; in others, philosophers of a certain sect were thus called: for this, the preface of Diogenes Laërtius can be consulted. Plato writes that in Persia, by the name of magic was understood "the worship of the gods." "According to a great number of authors," says Apuleius, in his Apology, "the Persians called those magi to whom we give the name of priests." St. Jerome, writing against Jovinian, thus expresses himself—"Eubulus, who wrote the history of Mithras, in several volumes, relates that among the Persians they distinguish three kinds of magi, of whom the first are most learned and the most eloquent," &c. Notwithstanding that, there are still people to be found, who confound the chimera of pretended diabolical magic with philosophical magic, as Corneillus Agrippa has done in his books on "Secret Philosophy."
VII. Another reason which is brought forward to prove the reality and the power of the magic art, is that the laws decree the penalty of death against enchanters. "What idea," says he, "could we have of the ancient legislators, if we believe them capable of having recourse to such rigorous penalties to repress a chimera, an art which produced no effect?" Upon which it is proper to observe that, supposing this error to be universally spread, it would not be impossible that even those who made the laws might suffer themselves to be prejudiced by them; in which case, we might make the same commentary on Seneca, applied, as we have seen, to the Twelve Tables. But I go further still. This is not the place to speak of the punishments decreed in the Scripture against the impiety of the Canaanites, who joined to idolatry the most extravagant magic. In regard to the Greek laws, of which authors have preserved for us so great a number, I do not remember that they anywhere make mention of this crime, or that they subject it to any penalty. I can say the same of the Roman laws, contained in the Digest. It is true that in the Code of Theodosius, and in that of Justinian, there is an entire title concerning malefactors, in which we find many laws which condemn to the most cruel death magicians of all kinds; but are we not forced to confess that this condemnation was very just? Those wretches boasted that they were able to occasion when they pleased public calamities and mortalities; with this aim, they kept their charms and dark plots as secret as it was possible, which led the Emperor Constans to say, "Let all the magicians, in whatever part of the empire they may be found, be looked upon as the public enemies of mankind." What does it matter, in fact, that they made false boastings, and that their attempts were useless? "In evil doings," says the law, "it is the will, and not the event, which makes the crime." Also, Constantine wills that those amongst them should be pardoned who professed to cure people by such means, and to preserve the products of the earth. But in general these kind of persons aimed only at doing harm; for which reason the laws ordain that they should be regarded as "public enemies." The least harm they could be accused of was deluding the people, misleading the simple, and causing by that means an infinity of trouble and disorder. Besides that, of how many crimes were they not guilty in the use of their spells? It was that which led the Emperor Valentinian to decree the pain of death "against whomsoever should work at night, by impious prayers and detestable sacrifices, at magic operations." Sometimes even they adroitly made use of some other way to procure the evil which they desired to cause; after which, they gave out that it must be attributed to the power of their art. But what is the use of so many arguments? Is it not certain that the first step taken by those who had recourse to magic was to renounce God and Jesus Christ, and to invoke the demon? Was not magic looked upon as a species of idolatry; and was not that sufficient to render this crime capital, should the punishment have depended on the result? Honorius commanded that these kind of people should be treated with all the rigor of the laws, "unless they would promise to conform for the future to what was required by the Catholic religion, after having themselves, in presence of the bishops, burned the pernicious writings which served to maintain their error."
VIII. What is remarkable is, that if ever any one laughed at magic, it must certainly be the author in question—since all his book only tends to prove that there are no witches, and that all that is said of them is merely foolish and chimerical. But what appears surprising is, that at the same time he maintains that while in truth there are no witches, but that there are enchantresses or female magicians; that witchcraft is only a chimera, but that diabolical magic is very real. Is not that, as it appears to some, denying and affirming at the same time the same thing under different names? Tibullus took care not to make nothing of these distinctions, when he said: "As I was promised by a witch, whose magical operations never fail." While treating in this book of witchcraft and magic, it is affirmed that the demon intervenes on both, and that both work wonders." But if that is true, it is impossible to find any difference between them. If both perform wonders, and that by the intervention of the demon, they are then essentially the same. After that, is it not a contradiction to say that the magician acts and the witch has no power—that the former commands the devil and the latter obeys him—that magic is founded on compacts, expressed or tacit, while in witchcraft there is nothing but what is imaginary and chimerical? What reason is given for this? If the demon is always ready to appear to any one who invokes him, and is ready to enter into compact with him, why does he not show himself as directly to her whom the author terms a witch as to her to whom he is pleased to give the more respectable title of enchantress? If he is disposed to appear and take to himself the worship and adoration which are due to God alone, what matters it to him whether they proceed from a vile or a distinguished person, from an ignoramus or a learned man? The principal difference which the author admits between witchcraft and magic, is, that the latter "belongs properly to priests, doctors, and other persons who cultivate learning;" whilst witchcraft is purely fanaticism, "which only suits the vulgar and poor wretched women;" "also, it does not," says he, "derive its origin from philosophy or any other science, and has no foundation but in popular stories." For my part, I think it is very wrong that so much honor should here be paid to magic. I have proved above in a few words, by the authority of several ancient authors, that the most sensible men have always made a jest of it; that they have regarded it only as a play and a game; and that after having spared neither application nor expense, a Roman emperor could never succeed in beholding any effect. I have even remarked the equivocation of the name, which has often caused these popular opinions with philosophy and the sublimest sciences. But I think I can find in the book itself of the author, enough to prove that one cannot in fact make this distinction, since he says therein "that superstitious practices, such as figures, characters, conjurations, and enchantments, passing from one to the other, and coming to the knowledge of these unhappy women, operate in virtue of the tacit consent which they give to the operation of the demon." There then all distinction is taken away. He says again that, according to some, "nails, pins, bones, coals, packets of hair, or rags, found by the head, of children's beds, are indications of a compact express or tacit, because of the resemblance to the symbols made use of by true magicians." Thus, then, witches and those who are here styled true magicians employ equally the same follies; they equally place confidence in imaginary compacts—and consequently they should both be classed in the same category.
IX. It is proper to notice here that it is not so great a novelty as is generally believed, to make a distinction between witches and magicians. Nearly two hundred years ago James Wier, a doctor by profession, had already said the same thing. Never did an author write more at length upon this matter; you may consult the sixth edition of his book, De Præstigiis Dæmonum et Incantationibus, published at Basle. He there proves that witches ought not to be condemned to death, because they are women whose brain is disturbed; because all the crimes that are imputed to them are imaginary, having no reality but in their ill will, and none at all in the execution; lastly, because, according to the rules of the soundest jurisprudence, the confession of having done impossible things is of no weight, and cannot serve as the foundation of condemnation. He shows how these foolish old women come to believe that they have held intercourse with some evil spirit, or been carried through the air; so far nothing can be better; but otherwise, being persuaded that there are really magic wonders,[[678]] and thinking that he has himself experienced something of the kind, he will have magicians severely punished. He says,[[679]] "that very often they are learned men, who, to acquire this diabolical art, have traveled a great deal; and who, learned[[680]] in Goësy and Theurgy,[[681]] whether through the demon or through study,[[682]] make use of strange terms, characters, exorcisms, and imprecations;" employ "sacred words and divine names, and neglect nothing which can render them skillful in the black art;"[[683]] which makes them deserving of the punishment of death.[[684]] "But," according to him, "there is a great difference between magicians and witches, inasmuch as these latter[[685]] make use neither of books, nor exorcisms, nor characters, but have only their mind and imagination corrupted by the demon." He calls witches "those women who pass for doing a great deal of harm, either by virtue[[686]] of some imaginary compact, or by their own will, or some diabolical instinct;" and who, having their brain deranged, confess they have done many things, which they never have nor could have performed. "Magicians,"[[687]] he says, "are led of themselves, and by their own inclination, to learn this forbidden art, and seek masters who can instruct them in it; wizards, on the contrary, seek neither masters nor instructions; but the devil takes possession of those women," whom he thinks the most likely to be deceived, "on account of their old age, of their melancholy temperament, or their poverty and misery." Everybody must see, and I have sufficiently shown it already, to how many difficulties and contradictions all this doctrine is subject; what we must conclude from it is, that wizards as well as magicians have equally recourse to the demon, and place their hope in him, without either of them ever obtaining what they wish. The author sometimes believes he renders what he says of the power of magic, and in short reduces it to nothing, by saying, that all the wonderful effects attributed to it have no reality, and are but illusions and vain phantoms; but he does not remark that it is even miraculous to cause to appear that which is not. Whether the wands of Pharaoh's magicians were really metamorphosed into serpents, or that they appeared to be thus changed to the eyes of the beholders, would either of them equally surpass all the power and industry of men. I shall not amuse myself with discussing largely many inutilities which may be found in this work; for instance, he does not fail to relate the impertinent story of the pretended magic of Sylvester II., which, as Panvinius has shown, had no other foundation than this pope's being much given to the study of mathematics and philosophy.
X. It is owned in the new book, that it is very likely some woman may be found "who, with the help of the demon, may be capable of performing a great many things even hurtful to mankind," and that by virtue "of a compact, express or tacit;" and it is added, that it cannot be denied that it may be, without absolutely denying the reality of magic. But when, so far from denying it, every effort on the contrary is made to establish it; when it is loudly maintained that persons may be found who, with the assistance of the demon, are able to produce real effects, even of doing harm to people; how, after that, can it be denied that there are witches, since, according to the common opinion, witchcraft is nothing else? Let them, if they will, regard as a fable what is said of their journeys through the air to repair to their nocturnal meetings; what will he gain by that, if, notwithstanding that, he believes that they possess the power to kill children by their spells, to send the devil into the body of the first person who presents himself, and a hundred other things of the same kind? He says, that "to render the presents which he makes more precious and estimable, and the more to be desired, the demon sells them very dear, as if he could not be excited to act otherwise than by employing powerful means, and making use of a most mysterious and very hidden art," which, doubtless, he would have witches ignorant of, and known only to magicians. But then they pretend that this art can be learned only from the devil, and to obtain it from him they say that he must be invoked and worshiped. Now, as there is hardly an impious character, who, having taken it into his head to operate something important by his charms or spells, would not be disposed to go to that shocking extreme, we cannot see why one should succeed in what he wishes, whilst the other does not succeed; nor what distinction can be made between rascals and madmen, who are precisely of a kind. I hold even, that if the reality and power of magic are granted, we could not without great difficulty refuse to those who profess it the power of entering places shut up, and of going through the air to their nocturnal assemblies. It will, doubtless, be said that that is impossible, and surpasses the power of man; but who can affirm it, since we know not how far the power of the rebel angels extends?
I remember to have formerly heard some persons at Rome reason very sensibly on the difficulty there is sometimes of deciding upon the truth of a miracle, which difficulty is founded on our ignorance of the extent of the powers of nature.
[[688]] [It is true that it would be dangerous to carry this principle too far; doubtless, we are not to deduce from it that nothing ever happens but what is natural, as if the Sovereign Author of all had in some measure bound his hands, and had not reserved unto himself the liberty to comply with the wishes and prayers of his servants—of sometimes according favors which manifestly surpass the powers he has granted to nature. It may often happen that we doubt whether an effect is natural or supernatural; but also how many effects do we see on which no sensible and rational person can form a doubt, good sense concurring with the soundest philosophy to teach us that certain wonders can only happen by a secret and divine virtue? One of the most certain proofs which can be had of this is the sudden and durable cure of certain long and cruel maladies. I know that simple and pious persons have sometimes attributed to a miracle cures which might very well be looked upon as purely natural; but what can be opposed to certain extraordinary facts which have sometimes happened to very wise and wide-awake persons, in the presence of sensible and judicious witnesses who have attested them, and confirmed by the report of the cleverest physicians, who have shown their astonishment at them? In this city of Verona, where I live, an event of this kind happened very recently, and it has excited the wonder of every one; but as the truth of it is not yet juridically attested I abstain from relating it. But such is not the case with a similar fact, verified, ten years ago, after the strictest examination. I speak of the miraculous cure of Dame Victoire Buri, of the monastery of St. Daniel, who after a chronic ague of nearly five years' duration, after having been tortured for several days with a stitch in her side, or acute pain, and with violent colics—having, in short, lost her voice, and fallen into a languid state, received the holy viaticum on the day of the fête of St. Louis de Gonzaga. In this condition, having fervently recommended herself to the intercession of the saint, she in one moment felt her strength return, her pains ceased, and she began to cry out that she was cured. At these cries the abbess and the nuns ran to her; she dressed herself, went up the stairs alone and without assistance, and repaired to the choir with the others to render thanks to God for her recovery. I had the curiosity to wish to inform myself personally of the fact and of these circumstances, and after having interrogated the lady herself, those who had witnessed her cure, and the physicians who had attended her, I remained fully convinced of the truth of the fact. I, I repeat, whose defect is not that of being too credulous, as it sufficiently appears by what I write here.
Again, I may say, that finding myself fourteen years ago at Florence, I was in that city acquainted with a young girl, named Sister Catherine Biondi, of the third order of St. Francis; through her prayers a lady was cured in a moment and for ever of a very painful dislocation. This circumstance was known by everybody, and I have no doubt that it will one day be juridically attested. For myself, I believe I obtained several singular favors of God through the intercession of this holy maiden, to whose intercession I have recommended myself several times since her death. The wise and learned father Pellicioni, abbot of the order of St. Benedict, her confessor, said that if we knew the life and family arrangements of this inferior sister, we should soon be delivered from all sorts of temptations against faith.
In effect, what things we are taught by these facts, which remain as if buried in oblivion! What subtile questions are cleared up by them in a very short time! Why do not the learned, who shine in other communions, give themselves the trouble to assure themselves of only one of these facts, as it would be very easy for them to do? One alone suffices to render evident the truth of the catholic dogmas. There is not one article of controversy for the defence of which it would not be necessary to compose a folio; whereas, only one of these facts decides them all instantly. We advance but little by disputation, because each one seeks only to show forth his own wit and erudition, and no one will give up a point; while by this method all becomes so evident that no reply remains in answer to it. And who could imagine that among so many miracles verified on the spot, in different places, and reported in the strictest examinations made for the canonization of saints, there would not be one which was true? To do so, we must refuse to believe anything at all, and to make use of one's reason. But when one of these facts becomes so notorious that there is no longer room to doubt it, if after that some difficulty presents itself to our feeble mind, which, so far from grasping the infinite, has only most confused knowledge of material bodies, will not any one who wishes to reason upon them be obliged to decide them suddenly by saying, "I do not understand it at all, but I believe the whole?" Those also, who, through the high opinion they have of their own knowledge, laugh at all which is above them; what can these men oppose to facts, in which Divine Providence shines forth in a manner so evident not only to the mind but to the eyes? In regard to those who, from the bad education which they have received, or from the idle and voluptuous life which they lead, stagnate in gross ignorance; with what facility would not one of these well-proved facts instruct them in what they most require to know, and enlighten them in a moment on every subject?]
To return to my subject. If it is sometimes difficult to decide on the truth of a miracle, how much more difficulty would there be in observing all the qualities which suit the superior and spiritual nature, and prescribing limits to it. In regard to the penalties which the author would have them inflict on magicians and witches, pretending that the former are to be treated with rigor, while, on the contrary, we must be indulgent to the latter, I do not see any foundation for it. Charity would certainly have us begin by instructing an old fool, who, having her fancy distorted, or her heart perverted, from having read, or heard related, certain things, will condemn herself, by avowing crimes which she has not committed. But if we are told, for instance, that, after having made a little image, an ignoramus has pierced it several times, muttering some ridiculous words, how can we distinguish whether this charm is to be attributed to sorcery or magic? and consequently, how can we know whether it ought to be punished leniently or rigorously? However it may be done, no effect will follow it, as has often been proved; and whether the spell is the work of a magician or a wizard, the person aimed at by it will not be in worse health. We must only remark, that although ineffectual, the attempt of such wizards is not less a crime, since to arrive at that point, "they must have renounced all their duty to God, and have made themselves the slaves of the demon:" also do they avow that to cast their spells they must "give up Jesus Christ, and renounce the baptismal rite." It is commonly held that "the demons appear to them, and cause themselves to be worshiped by them." This is certainly not the case; but if it were so, why should witches have less power than magicians? and on what foundation can it be asserted that they are less criminal?