Peter alludes several times[2840] to the subject of fascination in connection with images and incantations. It seems evident that he is here trying to account among other things for hypnotic power. In the Lucidator he defines maleficium, the usual word for sorcery, as a sort of fascination, “taking possession of one’s powers so that one loses self-control,” and “impeding sexual intercourse.”[2841] In opposing the theory that vision is by extramission of rays Peter explains the deadly glance of the basilisk as due to corrupting vapor and not to visual rays, and fascination as caused by some more occult force than the evil eye in a literal sense.[2842] And when arguing that the confidence of the patient in the doctor is a factor in the cure Peter emphasizes the power of a strong will impressed in an occult fashion.[2843] Some men, it is true, like the followers of Asclepius, deny any virtue of the mind and regard their fellow-men as swayed like beasts by the passions of the senses, deeming wisdom, sobriety and continence a jest, calling human affection and altruism into question, and further despising dreams, divinations, prudent counsels and the whole subject of astrology. But Peter believes in the power of one mind over another or over matter. Such a mind can cure the sick or even cast a man into a well or cause a camel to enter a Turkish bath (caldarium). It is also one of the causes of prophetic power. The believers in fascination and incantations say that such marvelous virtues of the mind are derived from the stars. But Christians regard prophetic power as directly inspired by God, an opinion which seems ridiculous to the Peripatetics.
Incantations.
In much the same way Peter discusses incantations.[2844] He lists several definitions of an incantation, such as that ascribed to Socrates, “words deceiving human minds,” or “an utterance put forth with astounding influence in aid of an enchanted person who is especially confiding,” or “an utterance at discretion of meaningless words, which since it has to do with the strange and occult is esteemed the more by the person enchanted and so helps him the more.” An incantation may be either spoken, or written and bound on the body. The enchanter should be astute, credulous, and strong-willed; the person enchanted should be eager, hopeful, and disposed in every way to forward the success of the operation. Incantations are especially effective in sleep or in the case of women and simple folk who have the more faith in them. Peter tells an amusing anecdote of a noble who taught a poor old woman to repeat as an incantation the sentence, “Two and three make five and so do three and two.” He thought her a witch, however, and when a fish bone stuck fast in his throat, sent for her to remove it. When he found that she really knew no magic except the absurd incantation which he had himself taught her, he laughed so heartily that the bone was dislodged and he was thus cured by his own incantation after all.
All this sounds rather sceptical on Peter’s part, and he also recalls Galen’s detestation of certain medical authors who wrote down superstitious words and fables such as old-wives and witches are wont to repeat and stupid gypsies who utter fascinations. “For they conjured and sprinkled and suffumigated medicines as if divine, when they plucked the herbs from the soil or when they suspended them about the neck or elsewhere like a phylactery, all which is false and stupid and offensive to the art of medicine.” But while Peter joins in condemnation of such superstitious medicine, he yet believes in the efficacy of incantations and represents their opponents as incredulous and materialistic persons who will accept only action by gross material contact. He admits that there is no property in the incantation itself nor in its sound when uttered to explain its marvelous effects. We must look rather to the virtue of the mind of the person repeating the charm, to faith on the part of the person to be benefited, and to divine, angelic, demonic, or sidereal assistance. At any rate experience demonstrates the validity of incantations and spoken words, as in the case of the Eucharist, or of the divine names employed in the notory art, or the restoration to life of a dead man which was performed in Peter’s presence by magic words which the enchanter uttered in the ear of the corpse. Peter goes on to speak of the movement of the holy wafer or Psalter or sieve towards a thief who enters a church. Other wonders wrought by incantations which he lists are the ability to endure torture without giving signs of pain or to walk over sharp swords and hot coals without injury, to lift another man or raise a great weight with a single finger, to stupefy snakes and tame wild horses, cause insomnia, reveal the future, painlessly extract arrows that are so deeply embedded in the bone that they could not be pulled out. Paroxysms of epilepsy may be quieted by pronouncing the names of the three Magi in the patient’s ear. Peter also repeats the cure for epilepsy found in so many medieval authors and involving religious ceremonial and repetition of a verse from the Bible. Anent Peter’s allusion to the employment of divine names in the notory art, we may note that a work on that subject is listed among evil books in his Lucidator.[2845]
Number mysticism.
The superstitious esteem for certain numbers which prevailed both in ancient and medieval times does not pass unnoticed in the Conciliator. Arguing the question whether the child born in the eighth month will live,[2846] Peter discusses the subject of perfect and imperfect numbers for three columns, stating that this is the doctrine of Pythagoras and of arithmeticians in general. In a later chapter,[2847] however, he declares that natural phenomena cannot be proved by arithmetical numbers since they are not caused by them, and alludes to Aristotle’s strictures upon Pythagoras.
Poisoning and magic.
Poisoning and magic were often scarcely distinguished in antiquity. The Greek word φάρμακον and the Latin veneficium or veneficus might have reference either to poisoning or sorcery, either to a poisoner or enchanter. Plato states in his Laws[2848] that there are two kinds of poison employed by men which cannot be clearly distinguished, although one variety injures the body “according to natural law,” while the other “persuades overbold men that they can work injury by sorceries and incantations.” The Latin poet Lucan centuries later drew a sharper distinction when he declared, “The mind which is enchanted perishes without foul trace of poisoned draught,” and this dictum we have found embodied in more than one medieval definition and description of magic. However, all magic is not enchantment; the poisoner and magician worked in the same secret and sinister style, sought similar injurious ends, and availed themselves of the same powerful occult virtues in natural objects. Poisoning and bewitching seemed very similar processes, especially at a time when men believed in the existence of poisons which could act at a distance or after a long interval of time. In one passage of the Conciliator[2849] Peter uses the word veneficus rather in the sense of an enchanter or magician than a poisoner, when he says that, if you wish to injure another person or to make him love you, the venefici direct you to gaze fixedly at him at the same time uttering a certain incantation. But let us now turn to the treatise De venenis, in which Peter has much more to say on the subject of poisons.
The treatise De venenis.
It will be recalled that Peter’s treatise on poisons was written for the pope. The topics considered in its six main chapters are: the classification of poisons, how they act upon the body, how to guard against them, the effects and cures of a long list of particular poisons, and finally the problem of a panacea or bezoar against all poisons. Peter classifies poisons according as they come from animals, vegetables, or minerals, and as they take effect internally or externally. Those which take effect internally are usually administered in food or drink, or swallowed without admixture. But one may be poisoned externally not only by contact, as in the case of snake-bite, but through the sense of sight, as when the glance of the basilisk kills, and through the sense of hearing, as when the regulus[2850] kills bird or beast by its hiss. In fact, poisoning may be through any one of the five senses. Some snake-bites Peter classifies under the sense of taste rather than touch. Other serpents emit a poisonous odor, or kill a person who touches them only with the tip of a long lance. The hands and arms of fishermen become paralyzed when they take hold of nets in which a certain fish has become entangled. These last are perhaps exaggerated accounts based upon electrical shock.