[155] It was supposed to increase the species by preventing sterility, and it was dignified by other ascribed virtues; it was the ethereal tree and the growth of the high summit. It was included among the ingredients of the mystical cauldron of Keridwen, in which genius, inspiration and serenity were said to dwell.
[156] The same occult importance attaches to this statement as to another in the Dogme et Rituel, where Éliphas Lévi, explaining the superstitions of the past, affirms for those who can suffer it that the toad is not poisonous but is a sponge for poisons. I suppose, however, it is obvious that if “popular confidence” can render mistletoe magnetic, popular distrust may instil poison into toads.
[157] The floating traditions and chansons concerning Melusine were collected by Jean d’Arras into a beautiful romance of chivalry, at the close of the fourteenth century.
[158] Whether this hypothesis of antiquity is warranted or not, the fact that it is adopted should have prevented Éliphas Lévi from characterising the romance of Melusine as an imitation pf the fable of Psyche: it is obviously the reverse side. The allegory in the latter case is that of the assumption of the soul by the Divine Spirit, so that all which is capable of redemption in our human nature, its emotion, its desire and its love, may enter into the glorious estate of the mystic marriage. The allegory in the former case is that of the union instituted between the psychic part and all that is of earth in our nature; but this earth is not capable of true marriage, and whereas the other experiment ends in the world of unity, this terminates, as it can only, in that of separation.
[159] See Jules Garinet: Histoire de la Magie en France, 1818, pp. 11, 12.
[160] The story of Fredegonde and her connection with sorcery is told by Gregory of Tours, but Éliphas Lévi derived it from Jules Garinet, already cited. The particulars concerning Klodswinthe appear to be his own invention, of which her imputed discourse bears all the marks.
[161] See Garinet, Histoire de la Magie en France, pp. 14-16, and Th. de Cauzons, La Magie et la Sorcellerie en France, vol. ii. p. 100. The original authority is again Gregory of Tours: Histoire des Francs, Book VI, c. 35. The account of Lévi is rather incorrect, for after unheard-of tortures, the life of Mummol was spared, but he died on the way to Bordeaux. It does not appear that he defied his executioners and the renewed torture was ordained by Chilperic.
[162] The work in question is called Acta Disputationis cum quodam Nicolai.
[163] A story of the days of St. Louis is obviously not Talmudic and the antiquity of the idea of immortality among the Jews fortunately rests on a better foundation than this. The criticism exposes the carelessness of Lévi if he is regarded as a man of learning. Some will think that he traded on the ignorance of his readers.
[164] What was actually intended by the expression amatores diaboli should have been perfectly well understood by Éliphas Lévi. It corresponds to the legends concerning incubi and succubi. For a specific example see Brierre de Boismont, Des Hallucinations, p. 151 et seq.