DEMONIALITY
OR
INCUBI AND SUCCUBI

A Treatise

wherein is shown that there are in existence on earth rational creatures besides man, endowed like him with a body and a soul, that are born and die

By the Rev. Father
SINISTRARI of Ameno
(17th century)
Published from the original Latin manuscript
discovered in London in the year 1872,
and translated into French by Isidore Liseux
Now first translated into English
With the Latin Text.

PARIS
Isidore LISEUX, 2, Rue Bonaparte.
1879

PREFACE
TO THE FIRST EDITION (Paris, 1875, in-8o)

I was in London in the year 1872, and I hunted after old books:

Car que faire là bas, à moins qu’on ne bouquine?[1]

They caused me to live in past ages, happy to escape from the present, and to exchange the petty passions of the day for the peaceable intimacy of Aldus, Dolet or Estienne.

One of my favourite booksellers was Mr Allen, a venerable old gentleman, whose place of business was in the Euston road, close to the gate of Regent’s park. Not that his shop was particularly rich in dusty old books; quite the reverse: it was small, and yet never filled. Scarcely four or five hundred volumes at a time, carefully dusted, bright, arrayed with symmetry on shelves within reach of one’s hand; the upper shelves remained unoccupied. On the right, Theology; on the left, the Greek and Latin Classics in a majority, with some French and Italian books; for such were Mr Allen’s specialties; it seemed as if he absolutely ignored Shakespeare and Byron, and as if, in his mind, the literature of his country did not go beyond the sermons of Blair or Macculloch.

What, at first sight, struck one most in those books, was the moderateness of their price, compared with their excellent state of preservation. They had evidently not been bought in a lot, at so much a cubic yard, like the rubbish of an auction, and yet the handsomest, the most ancient, the most venerable from their size, folios or quartos, were not marked higher than 2 or 3 shillings; an octavo was sold 1 shilling, the duodecimo six pence: each according to its size. Thus ruled Mr Allen, a methodical man, if ever there was one; and he was all the better for it, since, faithfully patronized by clergymen, scholars and collectors, he renewed his stock at a rate which more assuming speculators might have envied.

But how did he get those well bound and well preserved volumes, for which, everywhere else, five or six times more would have been charged? Here also Mr Allen had his method, sure and regular. No one attended more assiduously the auctions which take place every day in London: his stand was marked at the foot of the auctioneer’s desk. The rarest, choicest books passed before his eyes, contended for at often fabulous prices by Quaritch, Sotheran, Pickering, Toovey, and other bibliopolists of the British metropolis; Mr Allen smiled at such extravagance; when once a bid had been made by another, he would not add a penny, had an unknown Gutenberg or Valdarfer’s Boccaccio been at stake. But if occasionally, through inattention or weariness, competition slackened (habent sua fata libelli), Mr Allen came forward: six pence!, he whispered, and sometimes the article was left him; sometimes even, two consecutive numbers, joined together for want of having separately met with a buyer, were knocked down to him, still for the minimum of six pence which was his maximum.

Many of those slighted ones doubtless deserved their fate; but among them might slip some that were not unworthy of the honours of the catalogue, and which, at any other time, buyers more attentive, or less whimsical might perhaps have covered with gold. This, however, did not at all enter into Mr Allen’s calculation: the size was the only rule of his estimate.

Now, one day when, after a considerable auction, he had exhibited in his shop purchases more numerous than usual, I especially noticed some manuscripts in the Latin language, the paper, the writing and the binding of which denoted an Italian origin, and which might well be two hundred years old. The title of one was, I believe: De Venenis; of another: De Viperis; of a third (the present work): De Dæmonialitate, et Incubis, et Succubis. All three, moreover, by different authors, and independent of each other. Poisons, adders, demons, what a collection of horrors! yet, were it but for civility’s sake, I was bound to buy something; after some hesitation, I chose the last one: Demons, true, but Incubi, Succubi: the subject is not vulgar, and still less so the way in which it seemed to me to have been handled. In short, I had the volume for six-pence, a boon price for a quarto: Mr Allen doubtless deemed such a scrawl beneath the rate of type.

That manuscript, on strong paper of the 17th century, bound in Italian parchment, and beautifully preserved, has 86 pages of text. The title and first page are in the author’s hand, that of an old man; the remainder is very distinctly written by another, but under his direction, as is testified by autographic side notes and rectifications distributed all through the work. It is therefore the genuine original manuscript, to all appearances unique and inedited.

Our dealer in old books had purchased it a few days before at Sotheby’s House, where had taken place (from the 6th to the 16th of December 1871) the sale of the books of baron Seymour Kirkup, an English collector, deceased in Florence. The manuscript was inscribed as follows on the sale catalogue:

No 145. Ameno (R. P. Ludovicus Maria [Cotta] de). De Dæmonialitate, et Incubis, et Succubis, Manuscript.

Sæc. XVII-XVIII.

Who is that writer? Has he left printed works? That is a question I leave to bibliographers; for, notwithstanding numerous investigations in special dictionaries, I have been unable to ascertain any thing on that score. Brunet (Manuel du libraire, art. Cotta d’Ameno) vaguely surmises his existence, but confuses him with his namesake, most likely also his fellow-townsman, Lazaro Agostino Cotta of Ameno, a barrister and literary man of Novara. “The author,” says he, “whose real Christian names would seem to be Ludovico-Maria, has written many serious works....” The mistake is obvious. One thing is sure: our author was living in the last years of the 17th century, as appears from his own testimony, and had been a professor of Theology in Pavia.

Be that as it may, his book has seemed to me most interesting in divers respects, and I confidently submit it to that select public for whom the invisible world is not a chimera. I should be much surprised if, after opening it at random, the reader was not tempted to retrace his steps and go on to the end. The philosopher, the confessor, the medical man will find therein, in conjunction with the robust faith of the middle ages, novel and ingenious views; the literary man, the curioso, will appreciate the solidity of reasoning, the clearness of style, the liveliness of recitals (for there are stories, and delicately told). All theologians have devoted more or less pages to the question of material intercourse between man and the demon; thick volumes have been written about witchcraft, and the merits of this work were but slender if it merely developed the ordinary thesis; but such is not its characteristic. The ground-matter, from which it derives a truly original and philosophical stamp, is an entirely novel demonstration of the existence of Incubi and Succubi, as rational animals, both corporeal and spiritual like ourselves, living in our midst, being born and dying like us, and lastly redeemed, as we are, through the merits of Jesus-Christ, and capable of receiving salvation or damnation. In the Father of Ameno’s opinion, those beings endowed with senses and reason, thoroughly distinct from Angels and Demons, pure spirits, are none other but the Fauns, Sylvans and Satyrs of paganism, continued by our Sylphs, Elfs and Goblins; and thus is connected anew the link of belief. On this score alone, not to mention the interest of details, this book has a claim to the attention of earnest readers: I feel convinced that attention will not be found wanting.

I. L.

May 1875.

The foregoing advertisement was composed at the printer’s, and ready for the press, when, strolling on the quays[2], I met by chance with a copy of the Index librorum prohibitorum. I mechanically opened it, and the first thing that struck my eyes was the following article:

De Ameno Ludovicus Maria. Vide Sinistrari.

My heart throbbed fast, I must confess. Was I at last on the trace of my author? Was it Demoniality that I was about to see nailed to the pillory of the Index? I flew to the last pages of the formidable volume, and read:

Sinistrari (Ludovicus Maria) de Ameno, De Delictis et Pœnis Tractatus absolutissimus. Donec corrigatur. Decret. 4 Martii 1709.

Correctus autem juxta editionem Romanam anni 1753 permittitur.

It was indeed he. The real name of the Father of Ameno was Sinistrari, and I was in possession of the title of one at least of those “serious works” which Brunet the bibliographer alluded to. The very title, De Delictis et Pœnis, was not unconnected with that of my manuscript, and I had reason to presume that Demoniality was one of the offenses inquired into, and decided upon, by Father Sinistrari; in other words, that manuscript, to all appearances inedited, was perhaps published in the extensive work revealed to me; perhaps even was it to that monography of Demoniality that the Tractatus de Delictis et Pœnis owed its condemnation by the Congregation of the Index. All those points required looking into.

But it is necessary to have attempted investigations of that kind in order to appreciate the difficulties thereof. I consulted the catalogues of ancient books that came in my way; I searched the back-shops of the dealers in old books, the antiquaries, as they say in Germany, addressing especially to the two or three firms who in Paris apply themselves to old Theology; I wrote to the principal booksellers in London, Milan, Florence, Rome, Naples: all to no purpose; the very name of Father Sinistrari of Ameno seemed to be unknown. I should perhaps have begun by enquiring at our National Library; I was obliged to resort to it, and there at least I obtained an incipient gratification. I was shown two works by my author: a quarto of 1704, De incorrigibilium expulsione ab Ordinibus Regularibus, and the first tome of a set of his complete works: R. P. Ludovici Mariæ Sinistrari de Ameno Opera omnia (Romæ, in domo Caroli Giannini, 1753-1754, 3 vol. in-folio). Unfortunately that first tome contained but the Practica Criminalis Minorum illustrata; De Delictis et Pœnis was the subject matter of the third tome, which, as well as the second, was missing at the Library.

Yet, I had a positive indication, and I pursued my investigations. I might be more fortunate at the Library of St Sulpice Seminary. True, it is not open to the public; but then, the Sulpician Fathers are hospitable: did they not of yore afford a refuge to repentant Des Grieux, and did not Manon Lescaut herself tread the flags of their parlour? I therefore ventured into the holy House; it was half past twelve, dinner was nearly over; I asked for the librarian, and after a few minutes, I saw coming to me a short old man, unexceptionably civil, who, leading me through the common parlour, introduced me into another much narrower, a mere cell, looking into a gallery and glazed full breadth, being thus exposed to every eye. An ingenious provision of which Des Grieux’s escape had fully shown the urgency. I had no small trouble in explaining the object of my visit to the good Father, who was deaf and near sighted. He left me to go to the library, and soon returned, but empty handed: there also, in that sanctuary of Catholic Theology, Father Sinistrari of Ameno was entirely unknown. But one more expedient could I try: namely, to go to his brothers in St Francis, the Capuchin Fathers, in their convent of rue de la Santé! A cruel extremity, it will be granted, for I had but little chance of meeting there, as here, the lovely shadow of Manon.

At last a letter from Milan put an end to my perplexity. The unfindable book was found; I received at the same time the first edition of De Delictis et Pœnis (Venetiis, apud Hieronymum Albricium, 1700), and the edition of Rome, 1754.

It was a complete treatise, tractatus absolutissimus, upon all imaginable crimes, offenses and sins; but, let us hasten to say, in both those voluminous folios, Demoniality occupies scarcely five pages, without any difference in the text between the two editions. And those five pages are not even a summary of the manuscript work which I now give forth; they only contain the proposition and conclusion (Nrs 1 to 27 and 112 to 115). As for that wherein lies the originality of the book, to wit the theory of rational animals, Incubi and Succubi, endowed like ourselves with a body and soul, and capable of receiving salvation and damnation, it were vain to look for it.

Thus, after so many endeavours, I had settled all the points which I had intended to elucidate: I had discovered the identity of the Father of Ameno[3]; from the comparison of the two editions of De Delictis et Pœnis, the first condemned, the second allowed by the Congregation of the Index, I had gathered that the printed fragments of Demoniality had nothing to do with the condemnation of the book, since they had not been submitted to any correction; lastly, I had become convinced that, save a few pages, my manuscript was absolutely inedited. A happy event of a bibliographical Odyssey which I shall be excused for relating at length, for the “jollification” of bibliophiles “and none other”.

Isidore Liseux.

August 1875.

DEMONIALITY
OR
INCUBI AND SUCCUBI

DÆMONIALITAS

DEMONIALITY

Vocabulum Dæmonialitatis primoinventum reperio a Jo. Caramuelein sua Theologia fundamentali,nec ante illum inveniAuctorem, qui de hoc crimine tanquamdistincto a Bestialitate locutus sit. Omnesenim Theologi Morales, secuti D. Thomam,2.2., q. 154. in corp., sub specie Bestialitatisrecensent omnem concubitum cum renon ejusdem speciei, ut ibi loquitur D. Thomas;et proinde Cajetanus, in Commentarioillius quæstionis et articuli, 2.2., q. 154.,ad 3. dub., coitum cum Dæmone ponit inspecie Bestialitatis; et Cajetanum sequiturSilvester, vo Luxuria, Bonacina, de Matrim.,q. 4., et alii.

The first author who, to myknowledge, invented the wordDemoniality is John Caramuel,in his Fundamental Theology,and before him I find no one who distinguishedthat crime from Bestiality. Indeed,all Theological Moralists, following in thetrain of S. Thomas (2, 2, question 154),include, under the specific title of Bestiality,“every kind of carnal intercoursewith any thing whatever of a differentspecies”: such are the very words used byS. Thomas. Cajetanus, for instance, in hiscommentary on that question, classes intercoursewith the Demon under the descriptionof Bestiality; so does Sylvester, deLuxuria, Bonacina, de Matrimonio, question4, and others.

2. Sed revera D. Thomas in illo loco considerationemnon habuit ad coitum cum Dæmone:ut enim infra probabimus, hic coitusnon potest in specie specialissima Bestialitatiscomprehendi; et ut veritati cohæreatsententia S. Doctoris, dicendum est, quodin citato loco, quando ait, quod peccatumcontra naturam, alio modo si fiat per concubitumad rem non ejusdem speciei, vocaturBestialitas: sub nomine rei non ejusdemspeciei intellexerit animal vivens, nonejusdem speciei cum homine: non enim usurparepotuit ibi nomen rei pro re, puta, entecommuni ad animatum et inanimatum: sienim quis coiret cum cadavere humano,concubitum haberet ad rem non ejusdemspeciei cum homine (maxime apud Thomistas,qui formam corporeitatis humanæ negantin cadavere), quod etiam esset si cadaveribestiali copularetur; et tamen taliscoitus non esset bestialitas, sed mollities.Voluit igitur ibi D. Thomas præcise intelligereconcubitum cum re vivente non ejusdemspeciei cum homine, hoc est cum bruto,nullo autem modo comprehendere voluit coitumcum Dæmone.2. However it is clear that in the abovepassage S. Thomas did not at all allude tointercourse with the Demon. As shall bedemonstrated further on, that intercoursecannot be included in the very particularspecies of Bestiality; and, in order tomake that sentence of the holy Doctortally with truth, it must be admitted thatwhen saying of the unnatural sin, “thatcommitted through intercourse with a thingof different species, it takes the name ofBestiality”, S. Thomas, by a thing of differentspecies, means a living animal, ofanother species than man: for he couldnot here use the word thing in its mostgeneral sense, to mean indiscriminatelyan animate or inanimate being. In fact, ifa man should fornicate cum cadavere humano,he would have to do with a thingof a species quite different from his own(especially according to the Thomists, whodeny the form of human corporeity in acorpse); similarly si cadaveri bestiali copularetur:and yet, talis coitus would not bebestiality, but pollution. What thereforeS. Thomas intended here to specify withpreciseness, is carnal intercourse with aliving thing of a species different fromman, that is to say, with a beast, and henever in the least thought of intercoursewith the Demon.
3. Coitus igitur cum Dæmone, sive Incubo,sive Succubo (qui proprie est Dæmonialitas,specie differt a Bestialitate, neccum ea facit unam speciem specialissimam,ut opinatus est Cajetanus: peccata enimcontra naturam specie inter se distinguicontra opinionem nonnullorum Antiquorum,et Caramuelis, Summ., Armill., v. Luxur.,n. 5., Jabien., eo. v. n. 6., Asten. lib. 2. tit.46. art. 7., Caram. Theol. fundam. post Filliucium,et Crespinum a Borgia, est opiniocommunis; et contraria est damnata inproposit. 24. ex damnatis ab Alexandro VII.;tum quia singula continent peculiarem, etdistinctam turpitudinem repugnantem castitati,et humanæ generationi; tum quiaquodlibet ex iis privat bono aliquo secundumnaturam, et institutionem actus venerei,ordinati ad finem generationis humanæ;tum quia quodlibet ipsorum habet diversummotivum, per se sufficiens ad privandumeodem bono diversimode, ut optime philosophaturFilliuc., tom. 2. c. 8. tract. 30. q. 3.no 142; Cresp., q. mor. sel. contro.; Caramuel.,q. 5. per tot.3. Therefore, intercourse with the Demon,whether Incubus or Succubus (whichis, properly speaking, Demoniality), differsin kind from Bestiality, and does not inconnexion with it form one very particularspecies, as Cajetanus wrongly gives it; for,whatever may have said to the contrarysome Ancients, and later Caramuel in hisFundamental Theology, unnatural sinsdiffer from each other most distinctly. Suchat least is the general doctrine, and thecontrary opinion has been condemned byAlexander VII: first, because each of thosesins carries with itself its peculiar anddistinct disgrace, repugnant to chastityand to human generation; secondly, becausethe commission thereof entails eachtime the sacrifice of some good by its natureattached to the institution of the venerealact, the normal end of which is humangeneration; lastly, because they each havea different motive which in itself is sufficientto bring about, in divers ways, thedeprivation of the same good, as has beenclearly shown by Fillucius, Crespinus andCaramuel.
4. Ex his autem infertur, quod etiamDæmonialitas specie differt a Bestialitate:singula enim ipsarum peculiarem et distinctamturpitudinem, castitati ac humanægenerationi repugnantem, involvit; siquidemBestialitas est copula cum bruto vivente,ac sensibus et motu proprio prædito: Dæmonialitasautem est commixtio cum cadavere(stando in sententia communi, quaminfra examinabimus), nec sensum, necmotum vitalem habente; et per accidens est,quod a Dæmone moveatur. Quod si immunditiacommissa cum brutali cadavere, velhumano, differt specie a Sodomia et Bestialitate,ab ista differt pariter specie etiamDæmonialitas, in qua, juxta communemsententiam, homo cum cadavere concumbitaccidentaliter moto.4. It follows that Demoniality differs inkind from Bestiality, for each has its peculiarand distinct disgrace, repugnant tochastity and human generation. Bestialityis connexion with a living beast, endowedwith its own peculiar senses and impulses;Demoniality, on the contrary, is copulationwith a corpse (according at least to the generaldoctrine which shall be consideredhereafter), a senseless and motionless corpsewhich is but accidentally moved throughthe power of the Demon. Now, if fornicationwith the corpse of a man, a woman,or a beast differs in kind from Sodomy andBestiality, there is the same difference withregard to Demoniality, which, according togeneral opinion, is the intercourse of manwith a corpse accidentally set in motion.
5. Et confirmatur: quia in peccatis contranaturam, seminatio innaturalis (hoc est,ea ad quam regulariter non potest sequi generatio)habet rationem generis; subjectumvero talis seminationis est differentiaconstituens species sub tali genere: unde siseminatio fiat in terram, aut corpus inanime,est mollities; si fiat cum homine invase præpostero, est Sodomia; si fiat cumbruto, est bestialitas: quæ absque controversiainter se specie differunt, eo quodterra, seu cadaver, homo, et brutum, quæsunt subjecta talis seminationis, specie differuntinter se. Sed Dæmon a bruto nonsolum differt specie, sed plusquam specie:differunt enim per corporeum, et incorporeum,quæ sunt differentiæ genericæ. Sequiturergo quod seminationes factæ cumaliis differunt inter se specie, quod est intentum.5. Another proof: in sins against nature,the unnatural semination (whichcannot be regularly followed by generation)is a genus; but the object of such seminationis the difference which marks thespecies under the genus. Thus, whethersemination takes place on the ground, oron an inanimate body, it is pollution; ifcum homine in vase præpostero, it is Sodomy;with a beast, bestiality: crimeswhich unquestionably all differ from eachother in species, just as the ground, thecorpse, the man and the beast, passiveobjects talis seminationis, differ in speciesfrom each other. But the difference betweenthe Demon and the beast is not only specific,it is more than specific: the natureof the one is corporeal, of the other incorporeal,which makes a generic difference.Whence it follows that seminationes practisedon different objects differ in speciesfrom each other: and that is substantiated.
6. Pariter, trita est doctrina Moralistarumfundata in Tridentino, sess. 14, c. 5. D.Th. in 4. dist. 16. q. 3. art. 2., Vasquez,q. 91. art. 1. dub. 2. n. 6., Reginald. Valenz.Medin. Zerola. Pesant. Sajir. Sott.Pitig. Henriquez apud Bonac. de Sac. disp.5. q. 5. sect, 2. punct. 2. § 3. diffic. 3. n. 5.,et tradita per Theologos, quod in confessionemanifestandæ sint tantum circumstantiæquæ mutant speciem peccatorum. Siigitur Dæmonialitas et Bestialitas sunt ejusdemspeciei specialissimæ, sufficit in confessionedicere: Bestialitatis peccatum commisiquantumvis confitens cum Dæmoneconcubuerit. Hoc autem falsum est: igiturnon sunt ejusdem speciei specialissimæ.6. It is also a trite doctrine with Moralists,established by the Council of Trent,session 14, and admitted by Theologians,that in confession it suffices to state thecircumstances which alter the species ofsins. If therefore Demoniality and Bestialitybelonged to the same very particularspecies, it would be enough that, each timehe has fornicated with the Demon, thepenitent should say to his confessor: Ihave been guilty of the sin of Bestiality.But that is not so: therefore those two sinsdo not both belong to the same very particularspecies.
7. Quod si dicatur, aperiendum esse inconfessione circumstantiam concubitus cumDæmone ratione peccati contra Religionem:peccatum contra Religionem committitur,aut ex cultu, aut ex reverentia,aut ex deprecatione, aut ex pacto, aut exsocietate cum Dæmone (D. Thomas, 2. 2.q. 90. art. 2. et q. 95. art. 4. in corp.); sed,ut infra dicemus, dantur Succubi, et Incubi,quibus nullum prædictorum exhibetur,et tamen copula sequitur: igitur respectuistorum nulla intervenit irreligiositas,et commixtio cum istis nullam habebitrationem ulteriorem, quam puri et simpliciscoitus, qui, si est ejusdem speciei cumBestialitate, sufficienter exprimetur dicendo:Bestialitatem commisi; quod tamen falsumest.7. It may be urged that if the circumstancesof a sensual intercourse with theDemon should be revealed to the Confessor,it is on account of its offense againstReligion, an offense which comes eitherfrom the worship rendered to the Demon,or from the homage or prayers offered upto him, or from the compact of fellowshipentered into with him (S. Thomas, quest.90). But, as will be seen hereafter, thereare Incubi and Succubi to whom none of theforegoing applies, and yet copula sequitur.There is consequently, in that special case,no element of irreligion, no other characterquam puri et simplicis coitus; and, if ofthe same species as Bestiality, it would beadequately stated by saying: I have beenguilty of the sin of Bestiality; which isnot so.
8. Ulterius in confesso est apud omnesTheologos Morales, quod longe graviorest copula cum Dæmone, quam cum quolibetbruto; in eadem autem specie specialissimapeccati, non datur unum peccatumgravius altero, sed omnia æque gravia sunt;perinde enim est coire cum cane, aut asina,aut equa; sequitur ergo, quod si Dæmonialitasest gravior Bestialitate, non sint amboejusdem speciei. Nec dicendum gravitatemmajorem in Dæmonialitate petendam esseab irreligiositate, seu superstitione ex societatecum Dæmone, ut scribit Cajetanusad 2. 2. q. 154., ar. 11. § ad 3. in fine, quiahoc fallit in aliquibus Succubis et Incubis,ut supra dictum est; tum quia gravitasmajor statuitur in Dæmonialitate præ Bestialitate,in genere vitii contra naturam:major autem gravitas in illa supra istamratione irreligiositatis exorbitat ex illo genere,proinde non facit in illo genere, et exse graviorem.8. Besides, it is acknowledged by allTheological Moralists that copula cum Dæmoneis much more grievous than the sameact committed with any beast soever.Now, in the same very particular speciesof sins, one sin is not more grievous thananother; all are equally so: it comes tothe same whether connection is had witha bitch, an ass, or a mare; whence it followsthat if Demoniality is more grievousthan Bestiality, those two acts are not ofthe same species. And let it not be argued,with Cajetanus, that Demoniality is moregrievous on account of the offense to religionfrom the worship rendered to theDemon or the compact of fellowship enteredinto with him: as has been shownabove, that is not always met with in theconnection of man with Incubi and Succubi;moreover, if in the genus of unnaturalsin Demoniality is more grievousthan Bestiality, the offense to Religion isquite foreign to that aggravation, since itis foreign to that genus itself.
9. Statuta igitur differentia specifica Dæmonialitatisa Bestialitate, ut gravitas illiuspercipiatur in ordine ad pœnam de quaprincipaliter nobis tractandum est, est necessariuminquirere quotupliciter Dæmonialitasaccidat. Non desunt qui sibi nimisscioli negant quod gravissimi Auctoresscripsere, et quod quotidiana constat experientia,Dæmonem scilicet tum Incubum,tum Succubum, non solum hominibus, sedetiam brutis carnaliter conjungi. Aiuntproinde esse hominum imaginationem, phantasmatibusa Dæmone perturbatis læsam,seu dæmoniaca esse præstigia: sicuti etiamSagæ, seu Striges, sola imaginatione perturbataa Dæmone, sibi videntur assistereludis, choreis, conviviis, et conventibus nocturnis,et carnaliter Dæmoni commisceri;nullo vero reali modo deferuntur corporead ejusmodi loca et actiones, prout textualiterdicitur in quodam Capitulo, ac duobusConciliis. Cap. Episcop. 26. q. 5., Conch.Ancyr. c. 24., Conc. Rom. 4. sub Damaso,c. 5. apud Laur. Epitom. vo Saga.9. Now, having laid down the specificdifference between Demoniality and Bestiality,so that the gravity thereof may beduly appreciated in view of the penaltyto be inflicted (and that is our most essentialobject), we must inquire in howmany different ways the sin of Demonialitymay be committed. There is no lackof people who, infatuated with their smallbaggage of knowledge, venture to denywhat has been written by the gravest authorsand is testified by every day experience:namely, that the Demon, whether Incubusor Succubus, unites carnally not only withmen and women, but also with beasts.They allege that it all comes from thehuman imagination troubled by the craftof the Demon, and that there is nothing init but phantasmagoria and diabolical spells.The like happens, they say, to Witches orSagas, who, under the influence of anillusion brought on by the Demon, fancythat they attend the nightly sports, dances,revels and vigils, and have carnal intercoursewith the Demon, though in realitythey are not bodily transferred to thoseplaces nor taking part in those deeds, ashas been defined verbatim by a Capituleand two Councils.
10. Sed non negatur, quin aliquandomulierculæ, illusæ a Dæmonibus, videanturnocturnis Sagarum ludis corporaliter interesse,dum tamen sola imaginaria visioneipsis hoc accidit: sicut etiam in somnisvidetur nonnullis cum fœmina aliqua concumbere,et semen vere excernitur, non tamenconcubitus ille realis est, sed tantumphantasticus, paratus non raro per illusionemdiabolicam; et in hoc verissimum estquod habent citatum Capitulum et Concilia.Sed hoc non semper est; sed ut in pluribus,corpore deferuntur Sagæ ad ludos nocturnos,et vere carnaliter corpore conjungunturDæmoni, et Malefici non minus Dæmonisuccubo miscentur, et hæc est sententiaTheologorum, et jure consultorum Catholicorum,quos abunde citat Frater FranciscusMaria Guaccius in suo libro intitulatoCompendium Maleficarum; Grilland.Remig. Petr. Damian. Sylvest. Alphon. aCast. Abul. Cajet. Senon. Crespet. Spine.Anan. apud Guaccium, Comp. Malef., c. 15.§ Altera, quam verissimam ... n. 69. lib. p.;quæ sententia confirmatur decem et octoexemplis, ibidem allatis et relatis per virosdoctos et veridicos de quorum fide ambigendumnon est, quibus probatur Maleficoset Sagas corporaliter ad ludos convenire,et cum Dæmonibus succubis et incubiscorporaliter turpissime commisceri. Et proomnibus sufficere debet auctoritas Divi Augustini,qui loquens de concubitu hominumcum Dæmonibus, sic ait lib. 15. deCivitate Dei, c. 23.: “Et quoniam creberrimafama est, multique se expertos,vel ab eis qui experti essent, de quorumfide dubitandum non est, audivisse confirmant,Sylvanos et Faunos, quos vulgoIncubos vocant, improbos sæpe extitissemulieribus, et earum appetiisse et peregisseconcubitum. Et quosdam Dæmones,quos Dusios Galli nuncupant, hanc assidueimmunditiam et tentare et efficere, plurestalesque asseverant, ut hoc negare impudentiavideatur.” Hæc Augustinus.10. Of course, it is not contested that sometimesyoung women, deceived by theDemon, fancy taking part, in their fleshand blood, in the nightly vigils of Witches,without its being any thing but an imaginaryvision. Thus, in a dream, one sometimesfancies cum fœmina aliqua concumbere, etsemen vere excernitur, non tamen concubitusille realis est, but merely fantastic, and oftenbrought about by a diabolical illusion: andhere the above mentioned Capitule andCouncils are perfectly right. But this isnot always the case; on the contrary, itmore often happens that Witches are bodilypresent at nightly vigils and havewith the Demon a genuine carnal and corporealconnection, and that likewise Wizardscopulate with the Succuba or femaleDemon. Such is the opinion of Theologiansas well as of jurists, whose names will befound at length in the Compendium Maleficarum,or Chronicle of Witches, by BrotherFrancis Marie Guaccius. This doctrineis therein confirmed by eighteeninstances adduced from the recitals of learnedand truthful men whose testimony isbeyond suspicion, and which prove thatWizards and Witches are indeed bodilypresent at vigils and most shamefullycopulate with Demons, Incubi or Succubi.And, after all, to settle the question, wehave the authority of S. Augustine, who,speaking of carnal intercourse betweenmen and the Demon, expresses himself asfollows, book 15th, chapt. 23d of theCity of God: “It is widely credited, andsuch belief is confirmed by the direct or indirecttestimony of thoroughly trustworthypeople, that Sylvans and Fauns, commonlycalled Incubi, have frequently molestedwomen, sought and obtained fromthem coition. There are even Demons,whom the Gauls call Duses or Elfs, whovery regularly indulge in those uncleanpractices: the fact is testified by so manyand such weighty authorities, that it wereimpudent to doubt it.” Such are the verywords of S. Augustine.
11. Prout autem apud diversos Auctoreslegitur, et pluribus experimentis comprobatur,duplici modo Dæmon hominibus carnalitercopulatur: uno modo quo Maleficiset Sagis jungitur, alio modo quo aliis hominibusminime maleficis miscetur.11. Now, several authors profess, and itis confirmed by numerous experiments,that the Demon has two ways of copulatingcarnally with men or women: the onewhich it uses with Witches or Wizards,the other with men or women entirely foreignto witchcraft.
12. Quantum ad primum modum, non copulaturDæmon Sagis, seu Maleficis, nisipræmissa solemni professione, qua iniquissimihomines Dæmoni addicuntur; quæ professio,ut ex variis Auctoribus referentibusconfessiones Sagarum judiciales in tormentisfactas, quas collegit Franciscus MariaGuaccius, Comp. Malef., c. 7., lib. 1., consistitin undecim ceremoniis.12. In the first case, the Demon does notcopulate with Witches or Wizards untilafter a solemn profession, in virtue ofwhich such wretched human beings yieldthemselves up to him. According to severalauthors who have related the judicial admissionsof Witches when on the rack, andwhose recitals have been collected byFrancis-Marie Guaccius, Compend. Malef.,book 1, chapt. 7, that profession consistsof eleven ceremonials:
13. Primo, ineunt pactum expressum cumDæmone, aut alio Mago seu Malefico vicemDæmonis gerente, et testibus præsentibus,de servitio diabolico suscipiendo: Dæmonvero vice versa honores, divitias, et carnalesdelectationes illis pollicetur. Guacc. loc. cit.fol. 34.13. Firstly, the Novices have to concludewith the Demon, or some other Wizard orMagician acting in the Demon’s place, anexpress compact by which, in the presenceof witnesses, they enlist in the Demon’sservice, he giving them in exchange hispledge for honours, riches and carnalpleasures.
14. Secundo, abnegant catholicam fidem,subducunt se obedientiæ Dei, renuntiantChristo, et protectioni Beatissimæ VirginisMariæ, ac Ecclesiæ omnibus sacramentis.Guacc., loc. cit.14. Secondly, they abjure the catholicfaith, withdraw from the obedience to God,renounce Christ and the protection of themost blessed Virgin Mary, and all the Sacramentsof the Church.
15. Tertio, projiciunt a se Coronam, seuRosarium B. V. M., Chordam S. P. Francisci,aut Corrigiam S. Augustini, autScapulare Carmelitarum, si quod habent,Crucem, Medaleas, Agnos Dei, et quidquidsacri aut benedicti gestabant, et pedibus eaproculcant. Guacc. loc. cit. fol. 35. Grilland.15. Thirdly, they cast away the Crown,or Rosary of the most blessed VirginMary, the girdle of S. Francis, or the strapof S. Austin, or the scapular of the Carmelites,should they belong to one of thoseOrders, the Cross, the Medals, the AgnusDei, whatever other holy or consecratedobject may have been about their person,and trample them all under foot.
16. Quarto, vovent in manibus Diaboliobedientiam, et subjectionem, eique præstanthomagium et vassallagium, tangendoquoddam volumen nigerrimum. Spondent,quod nunquam redibunt ad fidem Christi,nec Dei præcepta servabunt, nec ulla bonaopera facient, sed ad sola mandata Dæmonisattendent, et ad conventus nocturnosdiligenter accedent. Guacc. loc. cit. fol. 36.16. Fourthly, in the hands of the Devilthey vow obedience and subjection; theypay him homage and vassalage, layingtheir fingers on some very black book.They bind themselves never to return tothe faith of Christ, to observe none of thedivine precepts, to do no good work, butto obey the Demon alone and, to attenddiligently the nightly conventicles.
17. Quinto, spondent se enixe curaturos,et omni studio ac sedulitate procuraturosadducere alios mares et fœminas ad suamsectam, et cultum Dæmonis. Guacc. loc. cit.17. Fifthly, they promise to strive withall their power, and to give their utmostzeal and care for the enlistment of othermales and females in the service of theDemon.
18. Sexto, baptizantur a Diabolo sacrilegoquodam baptismo, et abnegatis Patriniset Matrinis baptismi Christi, etConfirmationis, et nomine, quod sibi fuitprimo impositum, a Diabolo sibi assignanturPatrinus et Matrina novi, qui ipsosinstruant in arte maleficiorum, et imponiturnomen novum, quod plerumque scurrileest. Guacc. loc. cit.18. Sixthly, the Devil administers to thema kind of sacrilegious baptism, and afterabjuring their Godfathers and Godmothersof the Baptism of Christ and Confirmation,they have assigned to them a new Godfatherand a new Godmother, who are to instructthem in the arts of witchcraft; they droptheir former name and exchange it foranother, more frequently a scurrilousnickname.
19. Septimo, abscindunt partem propriorumindumentorum, et illam offeruntDiabolo in signum homagii, et Diabolus illamasportat, et servat. Guacc. loc. cit. fol. 38.19. Seventhly, they cut off a part of theirown garments, and tender it as a token ofhomage to the Devil, who takes it away andkeeps it.
20. Octavo, format Diabolus circulumsuper terram, et in eo stantes Novitii Maleficiet Sagæ firmant juramento omnia,quæ ut dictum est promiserunt. Guacc. loc.cit.20. Eighthly, the Devil draws on theground a circle wherein stand the Novices,Witches and Wizards, and there theyconfirm by oath all their aforesaid promises.
21. Nono, petunt a Diabolo deleri a libroChristi, et describi in libro suo, et proferturliber nigerrimus, quem tetigeruntpræstando homagium, ut dictum est supra,et ungue Diaboli in eo exarantur. Guacc.loc. cit.21. Ninthly, they request the Devil tostrike them out of the book of Christ, andto inscribe them in his own. Then comesforth that very black book on which, ashas been said before, they laid hands whendoing homage, and they are inscribedtherein with the Devil’s claw.
22. Decimo, promittunt Diabolo statistemporibus sacrificia, et oblationes; singulisquindecim diebus, vel singulo mensesaltem, necem alicujus infantis, aut mortaleveneficium, et singulis hebdomadis aliamala in damnum humani generis, ut grandines,tempestates, incendia, mortem animalium,etc. Guacc. loc. cit. fol. 40.22. Tenthly, they promise the Devil sacrificesand offerings at stated times: once afortnight or at least each month, the murderof some child, or an homicidal act ofsorcery, and other weekly misdeeds to theprejudice of mankind, such as hailstorms,tempests, fires, cattle plagues, etc.
23. Undecimo, sigillantur a Dæmonealiquo charactere, maxime ii, de quorumconstantia dubitat. Character vero non estsemper ejusdem formæ, aut figuræ: aliquandoenim est simile lepori, aliquandopedi bufonis, aliquando araneæ, vel catello,vel gliri; imprimitur autem in locis corporeismagis occultis: viris quidem aliquandosub palpebris, aliquando sub axillis,aut labiis, aut humeris, aut sede ima, autalibi; mulieribus autem plerumque inmammis, aut locis muliebribus. Porro sigillum,quo talia signa imprimuntur, estunguis Diaboli. Quibus peractis ad instructionemMagistrorum qui Novitios initiarunt,hi promittunt denuo, se nunquamEucharistiam adoraturos; injuriosos Sanctisomnibus, et maxime B. V. M. futuros;conculcaturos ac conspurcaturos SacrasImagines, Crucem, ac Sanctorum Reliquias;nunquam usuros Sacramentis, autsacramentalibus, nisi ad maleficia; integramconfessionem sacramentalem sacerdotinunquam facturos, et suum cumDæmone commercium semper celaturos.Et Diabolus vicissim pollicetur, se illissemper præsto futurum; se in hoc mundovotis eorum satisfacturum, et post mortemillos esse beaturum. Sic peracta professionesolemni, assignatur singulis eorumDiabolus, qui appellatur Magistellus, cumquo in partes secedunt, et carnaliter commiscentur:ille quidem in specie fœminæ,si initiatus est vir; in forma autem viri, etaliquando satyri, aliquando hirci, si fœminaest saga professa. Guacc. loc. cit. fol. 42et 43.23. Eleventhly, the Demon imprints onthem some mark, especially on those whoseconstancy he suspects. That mark, moreover,is not always of the same shape or figure:sometimes it is the image of a hare, sometimesa toad’s leg, sometimes a spider, apuppy, a dormouse. It is imprinted on themost hidden parts of the body: with men,under the eye-lids, or the armpits, or thelips, on the shoulder, the fundament, orsomewhere else; with women, it is usuallyon the breasts or the privy parts. Now,the stamp which imprints those marks isnone other but the Devil’s claw. This havingbeen all performed in accordancewith the instructions of the Teachers whohave initiated the Novices, these promiselastly never to worship the Eucharist; toinsult all Saints and especially the mostblessed Virgin Mary; to trample underfoot and vilify the holy images, the Crossand the relics of Saints; never to use thesacraments or sacramental ceremonials;never to make a full confession to the priest,but to keep always hidden from him theirintercourse with the Demon. The Demon,in exchange, engages to give them alwaysprompt assistance; to fulfil their desires inthis world and to make them happy aftertheir death. The solemn profession beingthus performed, each has assigned to himselfa Devil, called Magistellus or AssistantMaster, with whom he retires in privatefor carnal satisfaction; the said Devilbeing, of course, in the shape of a womanif the initiated person is a man, in theshape of a man, sometimes of a satyr, sometimesof a buck-goat, if it is a womanwho has been received a witch.
24. Quod si quæratur ab Auctoribus,quomodo possit Dæmon, qui corpus nonhabet, corporalem commixtionem haberecum homine: respondent communiter,quod Dæmon aut assumit alterius marisaut fœminæ, juxta exigentiam, cadaver,aut ex mixtione aliarum materiarum effingitsibi corpus, quod movet, et mediantequo homini unitur. Et subdunt, quodquando fœminæ gaudent imprægnari aDæmone (quod non fit, nisi in gratiamfœminarum hoc optantium), Dæmon setransformat in succubam, et juncta hominisemen ab eo recipit; aut per illusionemnocturnam in somnis procurat ab hominepollutionem, et semen prolectum in suo nativocalore et cum vitali spiritu conservat,et incubando fœminæ infert in ipsius matricem,ex quo sequitur conceptio. Itamultis citatis docet Guaccius, l. i. c. 12.,per totum, qui prædicta multis exemplisdesumptis a variis Doctoribus confirmat.24. If the authors be asked how it comesto pass that the Demon, who has no body,yet has carnal intercourse with man orwoman, they unanimously answer thatthe Demon assumes the corpse of anotherhuman being, male or female as the casemay be, or that, from the mixture of othermaterials, he shapes for himself a bodyendowed with motion, and by means ofwhich he is united with the human being;and they add that when women are desirousof becoming pregnant by the Demon(which only occurs by the consent andexpress wish of the said women), the Demonis transformed into a Succuba, etjuncta homini semen ab eo recipit; or elsehe procures pollution from a man duringhis sleep, et semen prolectum in suo nativocalore, et cum vitali spiritu conservat, etincubando fœminæ infert in ipsius matricem,whence follows impregnation. Suchis the teaching of Guaccius, book 1,chapt. 12, who supports it on a numberof quotations and instances taken from variousDoctors.
25. Alio modo jungitur Dæmon tumIncubus, tum Succubus, hominibus, fœminisaut maribus, a quibus nec honorem, necsacrificia, oblationes, maleficia, quæ a Sagiset Maleficis, ut supra dictum est,prætendit, recipit; sed ostendens deperditeamorem, nil aliud appetit, quam carnalitercommisceri cum iis quos amat. Multasunt de hoc exempla, quæ ab Auctoribusreferuntur, ut Menippi Lycii, qui fuit sollicitatusa quadam fœmina ad sibi nubendum,postquam cum ea multoties coivit; etdetecta fœmina quænam esset a quodamPhilosopho, qui convivio nuptiali intererat,et Menippo dixit illam esse Compusam,puta Dæmonem succubam, statim ejulansevanuit, ut narrat Cœlius Rhodiginus,Antiq., lib. 29. c. 5. Pariter adolescensquidam Scotus a Dæmone succuba omniumgratissima, quas vidisset, forma, quæ occlusiscubiculi foribus ad se ventitabat,blanditiis, osculis, amplexibus per multosmenses fuit sollicitatus, ut secum coiret,ut scribit Hector Boethius, Hist. Scotor.lib. 8., quod tamen a casto juvene obtinerenon potuit.25. At other times also the Demon,whether Incubus or Succubus, copulateswith men or women from whom he receivesnone of the sacrifices, homage or offeringswhich he is wont to exact fromWizards or Witches, as aforesaid. He isthen but a passionate lover, having onlyone desire: the carnal possession of theloved ones. Of this there are numerousinstances to be found in the authors,amongst which the case of MenippusLycius, who, after frequent coition with awoman, was by her entreated to marryher; but a certain philosopher, who partookof the wedding entertainment, havingguessed what that woman was, told Menippusthat he had to deal with a Compusa,that is a Succuba Demon; whereupon thebride vanished bewailing: such is thenarrative given by Cœlius Rhodiginus,Antiq., book 29, chapt. 5. Hector Boethius(Hist. Scot.) also relates the case ofa young Scot, who, during many months,with closed doors and windows, was visitedin his bed-room by a Succuba Demonof the most bewitching beauty; caresses,kisses, embraces, entreaties, she resortedto every blandishment ut secum coiret: butshe could not prevail on the chaste youngman.
26. Similiter, multas fœminas legimusab Incubo Dæmone expetitas ad coitum,ipsisque repugnantibus facinus admittere,precibus, fletibus, blanditiis, non secus acperditissimus amasius, procurasse animumipsarum demulcere, et ad congressum inclinare;et quamvis aliquoties hoc eveniatob maleficium, ut nempe Dæmon missus amaleficis hoc procuret: tamen non raroDæmon ex se hoc agit, ut scribit Guaccius,Comp. Mal. lib. 3. c. 8., et non solum hocevenit cum mulieribus, sed etiam cumequabus, cum quibus commiscetur; quæ silibenter coitum admittunt, ab eo curanturoptime, ac ipsarum jubæ varie artificiosiset inextricabilibus nodis texuntur; si autemillum adversentur, eas male tractat,percutit, macras reddit, et tandem necat,ut quotidiana constat experientia.26. We read likewise of numerous womenincited to coition by the Incubus Demon,and who, though reluctant at first of yieldingto him, are soon moved by his entreaties,tears and endearments; he is a desperatelover and must not be denied. And althoughthis comes sometimes of the craft of someWizard who avails himself of the agencyof the Demon, yet the Demon not infrequentlyacts on his own account; and ithappens not merely with women, but alsowith mares; if they readily comply withhis desire, he pets them, and plaits theirmane in elaborate and inextricable tresses;but if they resist, he ill-treats and strikesthem, smites them with the glanders, andfinally puts them to death, as is shown bydaily experience.
27. Et quod mirum est, et pene incapabile,tales Incubi, qui Italice vocanturFolletti, Hispanice Duendes, Gallice Follets,nec Exorcistis obediunt, nec exorcismospavent, nec res sacras reverenturad earum approximationem timorem ostendendo,sicuti faciunt Dæmones, quiobsessos vexant; quantumvis enim maligniSpiritus sint obstinati, nec parere velintExorcistæ præcipienti, ut exeant a corporibusquæ obsident, tamen ad prolationemSanctissimi Nominis Jesu, aut Mariæ, autaliquorum versuum Sacræ Scripturæ, impositionemReliquiarum, maxime LigṅiSanctæ Crucis, approximationem SacrarumImaginum, ad os obsessi rugiunt,strident, frendent, concutiuntur, et timoremac horrorem ostendunt. Folletti veronihil horum, ut dictum est, ostendunt, neca divexatione, nisi post longum tempus,cessant. Hujus rei testis sum oculatus, ethistoriam recito quæ reipsa humanamfidem superat: sed testis mihi sit Deusquod puram veritatem multorum testimoniocomprobatam describo.27. A most marvellous and well nigh incomprehensiblefact: the Incubi whomthe Italians call Folletti, the SpaniardsDuendes, the French Follets, do not obeythe Exorcists, have no dread of exorcisms,no reverence for holy things, at the approachof which they are not in the leastoverawed; very different in that respectfrom the Demons who vex those whomthey possess; for, however obstinate thoseevil Spirits may be, however restive to theinjunctions of the Exorcist who bids themleave the body they possess, yet, at the mereutterance of the most holy name of Jesus orMary, or of some verses of Holy Writ, atthe mere imposition of relics, especiallyof a piece of the wood of the Holy Cross, orthe sight of the holy images, they roarat the mouth of the possessed person,they gnash, shake, quiver, and displayfright and awe. But the Folletti show noneof those signs, and leave off their vexationsbut after a long space of time. Of thisI was an eye-witness, and shall relate a storywhich verily passes human belief: but Itake God to witness that I tell the precisetruth, corroborated by the testimony ofnumerous persons.
28. Viginti quinque abhinc annis, plusminusve, dum essem Lector Sacræ Theologiæin Conventu Sanctæ Crucis Papiæ,reperiebatur in illa civitate honesta quædamfœmina maritata optimæ conscientiæ,et bonum habens ab omnibus eam agnoscentibus,maxime Religiosis, testimonium,quæ vocabatur Hieronyma; et habitabatin parochia Sancti Michaelis. Hæc quadamdie domi suæ panem pinserat, et perfurnarium miserat ad illum decoquendum.Reportat panes coctos furnarius, et cumillis grandem quamdam placentam curioseelaboratam, conditam butyro, et pastulisVenetis, ut in ea civitate solent fieri placentæhujusmodi. Renuit illa placentamrecipere, dicens se talem nullam fecisse.Replicat furnarius, se illa die alium panemcoquendum non habuisse, nisi illumquem ab ea habuerat; oportere proinde,etiam placentam a se fuisse factam, licetminime de illa recordaretur. Acquievitfœmina, et placentam cum viro suo, filiaquam habebat triennem, et famula comedit.Sequenti nocte dum cubaret mulier cumviro suo, et ambo dormirent, expergefactaest a quadam tenuissima voce, velut acutissimisibili ad ipsius aures susurrante,verbis tamen distinctis: interrogavit autemfœminam, num placenta illi placuisset?Pavens fœmina cœpit se munire signoCrucis, et invocare sæpius nomina Jesu etMariæ. Replicabat vox, ne paveret, senolle illi nocere, immo quæcumque illiplacerent paratum exsequi, esse filo captumpulchritudinis suæ, et nil amplius desiderare,quam ejus amplexu frui. Tum fœminasensit aliquem suaviantem ipsius genas,sed tactus ita levis, ac mollis, ac si essetgossipium subtilissime carminatum id aquo tacta fuit. Respuit illa invitantem, necullum responsum illi dedit: sed jugiternomen Jesu et Mariæ repetebat, et seCrucis signo muniebat; et sic per spatiumquasi horæ dimidiæ tentata fuit, et posteaabscessit tentator.28. About twenty five years ago, when Iwas a lecturer on Sacred Theology in theconvent of the Holy Cross, in Pavia, therewas living in that city a married woman ofunimpeachable morality, and who was mosthighly spoken of by all such as knew her,especially by the Friars; her name wasHieronyma, and she lived in the parishof S. Michael. One day, this woman hadkneaded bread at home and given it out tobake. The oven-man brought her back herloaves when baked, and with them a largecake of a peculiar shape, and made of butterand Venetian paste, as is usual in that city.She declined to take it in, saying she hadnot made any thing of the kind.—“But”,said the oven-man, “I had no other breadbut yours to bake to-day, therefore thiscake also must have come from yourhouse; your memory is at fault”. The goodlady allowed herself to be persuaded, andpartook of the cake with her husband, herlittle girl three years old, and the houseservant. The next night, whilst in bed withher husband, and both asleep, she suddenlywoke up at the sound of a veryslender voice, something like a shrill hissing,whispering in her ears, yet with greatdistinctness, and inquiring whether “thecake had been to her taste?” The goodlady, frightened, set about guarding herselfwith a sign of the cross and repeatedlycalling the names of Jesus and Mary. “Benot afraid,” said the voice, “I mean you noharm; quite, the reverse: I am preparedto do any thing to please you; I am captivatedby your beauty, and desire nothingmore than to enjoy your embraces”. Andshe felt somebody kissing her cheeks, solightly, so softly, that she might have fanciedbeing grazed by the finest down. Sheresisted without giving any answer, merelyrepeating over and over again the namesof Jesus and Mary, and crossing herself;the tempter kept on thus for nearly half anhour, when he withdrew.
Sequenti mane fuit mulier ad confessariumvirum prudentem ac doctum, a quofuit in fide confirmata et exhortata, utviriliter, sicut fecerat, resisteret, et sacrisReliquiis se muniret. Sequentibus noctibuspar priori fuit tentatio, et verbis, et osculis,et par etiam in muliere constantia.Hæc pertæsa talem ac tantam molestiam,ad Confessarii consultationem, et aliorumgravium virorum, per Exorcistas peritosfecit se exorcizare ad sciendum num essetobsessa; et cum invenissent a nullo malospiritu possideri, benedixerunt domui, cubiculo,lecto, et præceptum Incubo fecerunt,ne auderet molestiam amplius mulieriinferre. Sed omnia incassum: siquidemtentationem inceptam prosequebatur, ac sipræ amore langueret, ploratus et ejulatusemittebat ad mulierem demulcendam, quætamen gratia Die adjuta semper viriliterrestitit. Renovavit Incubus tentationem,ipsi apparens interdiu in forma pusionis,seu parvi homunculi pulcherrimi, cæsariemhabens rutilam et crispam, barbamquefulvam ac splendentem velut aurum, glaucosqueoculos, ut flos lini, incedebatqueindutus habitu Hispanico. Apparebat autemilli quamvis cum ea alii morarentur;et questus, prout faciunt amantes, exercens,et jactando basia, solitasque precesrepetendo tentabat mulierem, ut ad illiusamplexus admitteretur. Videbatque, et audiebatilla sola præsentem ac loquentem,minime autem cæteri adstantes.The next morning the dame called onher Confessor, a discreet and learned man,who confirmed her in her faith, exhortedher to maintain her energetic resistanceand to provide herself with some holyrelics. On the ensuing nights, like temptationwith the same language and kisses,like constancy also on the part of the woman.Weary however of such painful andpersistent molestation, taking the adviceof her Confessor and other grave men, shehad herself exorcised by experienced Exorcists,in order to ascertain whether perchanceshe was not possessed. Havingfound in her no trace of the evil Spirit,they blessed the house, the bed-room, thebed, and enjoined on the Incubus to discontinuehis molestations. All to no purpose:he kept on worse than ever, pretendingto be love-sick, weeping and moaning inorder to melt the heart of the lady, whohowever, by the grace of God, remainedunconquered. The Incubus then wentanother way to work: he appeared in theshape of a lad or little man of great beauty,with golden locks, a flaxen beard thatshone like gold, sea-green eyes callingto mind the flax-flower, and arrayed in afancy Spanish dress. Besides he appearedto her even when in company, whimpering,after the fashion of lovers, kissinghis hand to her, and endeavouring byevery means to obtain her embraces. Shealone saw and heard him: for every bodyelse, he was not to be seen.
Perseverabat in illa constantia mulier,donec contra eam iratus Incubus, post aliquosmenses blanditiarum novum persecutionisgenus adortus est. Primo abstulitab ea crucem argenteam plenam ReliquiisSanctorum, et ceram benedictam, siveAgnum papalem B. Pontificis Pii V, quæsecum semper portabat; mox etiam annuloset alia jocalia aurea et argentea ipsius,intactis seris sub quibus custodiebantur,in arca suffuratus est. Exinde cœpit illamacriter percutere, et apparebant post verberacontusiones, et livores in facie, brachiis,aliisque corporis partibus, quæ perdiem unum vel alterum perdurabant, moxin momento disparebant contra ordinemcontusionis naturalis, quæ sensim paulatimquedecrescit. Aliquoties ipsius infantulamlactentem cunis eripiebat, et illam,nunc super tecta in limine præcipitii locabat,nunc occultabat, nihil tamen mali inilla apparuit. Aliquoties totam domussupellectilem evertebat; aliquoties ollas,paropsides, et alia vasa testea minutatimfrangebat, subinde fracta restituebat integra.Semel dum ipsa cum viro cubaret,apparens Incubus in forma solita enixedeprecabatur ab ea concubitum, et dumipsa de more constans resisteret, in furoremactus Incubus abscessit, et infra breve temporisspatium reversus est, secum ferensmagnam copiam laminarum saxearum,quibus Genuenses in civitate sua et universaLiguria domos tegunt, et ex ipsis fabricavitmurum circa lectum tantæ altitudinis,ut ejus conopeum adæquaret, unde necessefuit scalis uti, si debuerunt de cubili surgere.Murus autem fuit absque calce, etipso destructo, saxa in angulo seposita,quæ ibi per duos dies remanserunt visa amultis, qui ad spectaculum convenerant; etpost biduum disparuerunt.The good lady kept persevering in heradmirable constancy till, at last, aftersome months of courting, the Incubus,incensed at her disdain, had recourse to anew kind of persecution. First, he tookaway from her a silver cross filled withholy relics, and a holy wax or papal lambof the blessed Pontiff Pius V, which shealways carried on her person; then, leavingthe locks untouched, he purloined herrings and other gold and silver jewelryfrom the casket wherein they were putaway. Next, he began to strike her cruelly,and after each beating bruises and markswere to be seen on her face, her arms orother parts of her body, which lasted aday or two, then suddenly disappeared, thereverse of natural bruises which decreaseslowly and by degrees. Sometimes, whileshe was nursing her little girl, he wouldsnatch the child away from on her breastand lay it upon the roof, on the edgeof the gutter, or hide it, but without everharming it. Sometimes he would upsetall the furniture, or smash to piecessaucepans, plates and other earthenwarewhich, in the twinkling of an eye, he restoredto their former state. One night thatshe was lying with her husband, the Incubus,appearing in his customary shape,vehemently urged his demand which sheresisted as usual. The Incubus withdrewin a rage, and shortly came back with alarge load of those flag stones which theGenoese, and the inhabitants of Liguria ingeneral, use for roofing their houses. Withthose stones he built around the bed a wallso high that it reached the tester, and thatthe couple could not leave their bed withoutusing a ladder. This wall however wasbuilt up without lime; when pulled down,the flags were laid by in a corner where,during two days, they were seen by manywho came to look at them; they then disappeared.
Invitaverat maritus ejus in die S. Stephaniquosdam amicos viros militares adprandium, et pro hospitum dignitate dapesparaverat; dum de more lavantur manusante accubitum, disparet in momento mensaparata in triclinio; disparent obsonia cuncta,olla, caldaria, patinæ, ac omnia vasa incoquina; disparent amphoræ, canthari, calicesparati ad potum. Attoniti ad hoc stupentcommensales, qui erant octo, interquos Dux peditum Hispanus ad alios conversusait: “Ne paveatis, ista est illusio,sed pro certo mensa in loco in quo erat,adhuc est, et modo modo eam tactu percipiam.”Hisque dictis circuibat cœnaculummanibus extentis, tentans mensam deprehendere,sed cum post multos circuitusincassum laborasset, et nil præter aeremtangeret, irrisus fuit a cæteris; cumquejam grandis esset prandii hora, palliumproprium eorum unusquisque sumpsit propriamdomum petiturus. Jam erant omnesprope januam domus in procinctu eundi,associati a marito vexatæ mulieris, urbanitatiscausa, cum grandem quendam strepitumin cœnaculo audiunt. Subsistunt parumperad cognoscendum causam strepitus,et accurrens famula nuntiat in coquina vasanova obsoniis plena apparuisse, mensamquein cœnaculo jam paratam esse restitutam.Revertuntur in cœnaculum, et stupent mensammappis et manutergiis insolitis, salino,et lancibus insolitis argenteis, salsamentis,ac obsoniis, quæ domi parata non fuerant,instructam. A latere magna erecta erat credentia,supra quam optimo ordine stabantcalices crystallinis, argentini et aurei, cumvariis amphoris, lagenis, cantharis plenisvinis exteris, puta Cretensi, Campano,Canariensi, Rhenano, etc. In coquina pariterin ollis, et vasis itidem in ea domonunquam visis, varia obsonia. Dubitaruntprius nonnulli ex iis eas dapes gustare,sed confirmati ab aliis accubuerunt, et exquisitissimeomnia condita repererunt; acimmediate a prandio, dum omnes pro usuillius tempores ad ignem sedent, omnia ustensiliacum reliquiis ciborum disparuere,et repertæ sunt antiquæ domus supellectilessimul cum dapibus, quæ prius paratæfuerant; et quod mirum est, convivæ omnessaturati sunt, ita ut nullus eorum cœnamsumpserit præ prandii lautitia. Quo convinciturcibos appositos reales fuisse, et nonex præstigio repræsentatos.On S. Stephen’s day, the husband hadasked some military friends to dinner, and,to do honour to his guests, had provided asubstantial repast. Whilst they were, ascustomary, washing their hands beforetaking their seats, suddenly vanished thetable dressed in the dining-room; all thedishes, saucepans, kettles, plates and crockeryin the kitchen vanished likewise, aswell as the jugs, bottles and glasses. You mayimagine the surprise, the stupor of the guests,eight in number; amongst them was aSpanish Captain of infantry, who, addressingthe company, said to them: “Do not befrightened, it is but a trick: the table iscertainly still where it stood, and I shallsoon find it by feeling for it”. Havingthus spoken, he paced round the roomwith outstretched arms, endeavouring tolay hold of the table; but when, after manycircuitous perambulations, it was apparentthat he laboured in vain and grasped atnought but thin air, he was laughed at byhis friends; and it being already high timefor having dinner, each guest took up hiscloak and set about to return home. Theyhad already reached the street-door with thehusband, who, out of politeness, was attendingthem, when they heard a great noisein the dining-room: they stood to ascertainthe cause thereof, and presently the servantcame up to announce that the kitchenwas stocked with new vessels filled withfood, and that the table was standingagain in its former place. Having goneback to the dining-room, they were stupefiedto see the table was laid, with cloths,napkins, salt-cellars, and trays that did notbelong to the house, and with food whichhad not been cooked there. On a largesideboard all were arrayed in perfect ordercrystal, silver and gold chalices, with allkind of amphoras, decanters and cups filledwith foreign wines, from the Isle of Crete,Campania, the Canaries, the Rhine, etc.In the kitchen there was also an abundantvariety of meats in saucepans and dishesthat had never been seen there before. Atfirst, some of the guests hesitated whetherthey should taste of that food; however,encouraged by others, they sat down, andsoon partook of the meal, which was foundexquisite. Immediately afterwards, as theywere sitting before a seasonable fire, everything vanished at once, the dishes and theleavings, and in their stead reappeared thecloth of the house and the victual which hadbeen previously cooked; but, for a wonder,all the guests were satisfied, so that noone thought of supper after such a magnificentdinner. A clear proof that the substitutedviands were real and nowise fictitious.
Interea effluxerant multi menses, ex quoscœperat hujusmodi persecutio: et muliervotum fecit B. Bernardino Feltrensi, cujussacrum corpus veneratur in EcclesiaS. Jacobi prope murum illius urbis, incedendiper annum integrum indutam pannogriseo, et chordulato, quo utuntur FratresMinores, de quorum ordine fuit B. Bernardinus,ut per ipsius patrocinium a tantaIncubi vexatione liberaretur. Et de factodie 28 Septembris, qui est pervigiliumDedicationis S. Michaelis Archangeli, etfestum B. Bernardini, ipsa veste votiva indutaest. Mane sequenti, quod est festumS. Michaelis, ibat vexata ad ecclesiam S.Michaelis, quæ ut diximus erat parochialisipsius, circa medium mane, dum frequenspopulus ad illam confluebat; et cum pervenissetad medium plateæ ecclesiæ, omniaipsius indumenta et ornamenta cecideruntin terram et rapta vento statim disparuerunt,ipsa relicta nuda. Adfuerunt sorte interalios duo equites viri longævi, qui factumvidentes, dejectis ab humero propriis palliismulieris nuditatem, ut potuerunt, velarunt,et rhedæ impositam ad propriam domumduxerunt. Vestes et jocalia quæ rapueratIncubus, non restituit nisi post sex menses.This kind of persecution had been goingon some months, when the lady betookherself to the blessed Bernardine of Feltri,whose body is worshipped in the churchof St James, a short distance from thewalls of the city. She made a vow to himthat she would wear, during a wholetwelve-month, a grey frock, tied roundher waist with a piece of cord, and such asis worn by the Minor Brethren, the orderto which had belonged the blessed Bernardine;this she vowed, in the hope ofbeing, through his intercession, at last ridof the persecution of the Incubus. And accordingly,on the 28th of September, thevigil of the Dedication of the Archangel S.Michael, and the festival of the blessedBernardine, she assumed the votive robe.The next morning, which was S. Michael’sfestival, the afflicted woman proceeded tothe church of St Michael, her own parish,already mentioned; it was aboutten o’clock, a time when a crowd of peoplewere going to mass. She had no sooner setfoot on the threshold of the church, than herclothes and ornaments fell off to the ground,and disappeared in a gust of wind, leavingher stark naked. There happened fortunatelyto be among the crowd two cavaliersof mature age, who, seeing what had takenplace, hastened to divest themselves oftheir cloaks with which they concealed, aswell as they could, the woman’s nudity,and having put her into a vehicle, accompaniedher home. The clothes and trinketstaken by the Incubus were not restored byhim before six months had elapsed.
Multa alia, et quidem stupenda operatusest contra eam Incubus, quæ tædet exscribere,et per multos annos in ea tentationepermansit; tandemque Incubus videns operamin ea perdere, destitit a tam importunaet insolita vexatione.I might relate many other most surprisingtricks which that Incubus played on her,were it not wearisome. Suffice it to say that,for a number of years he persevered in histemptation of her, but that finding at lastthat he was losing his pains, he desistedfrom his vexatious importunities.
29. In hoc casu, et similibus qui passimaudiuntur et leguntur, Incubus ad nullumactum contra Religionem tentat, sed solumcontra castitatem. Hinc fit quod ipsi consentiensnon peccat irreligiositate, sed incontinentia.29. In the above case, as well as in othersthat may be heard or read of occasionally,the Incubus attempts no act against Religion;he merely assails chastity. In consequence,consent is not a sin through ungodliness,but through incontinence.
30. In confesso autem est apud Theologoset Philosophos, quod ex commixtionehominis cum Dæmone aliquoties nascunturhomines, et tali modo nasciturum esse Antichristumopinantur nonnulli Doctores:Bellarm. lib. 1, de Rom. Pont., cap. 12;Suarez, tom. 2, disp. 54, sec. 1.; Maluend.,de Antichr., l. 2., c. 8. Immo observant,quod, qui gignuntur ab hujusmodi Incubis,naturali causa etiam evenit, ut nascanturgrandes, robustissimi, ferocissimi, superbissimi,ac nequissimi, ut scripsit Maluenda,loc. cit., § Ad illud; e rationem recitatex Vallesio Archia. Reggio. Sac.Philosoph., c. 8., dicente quod Incubi summittantin uteros non qualecumque, nequequantumcumque semen, sed plurimum,crassissimum, calidissimum, spiritibusaffluens et seri expers. Id vero est eis facileconquirere, deligendo homines calidos, robustos,et abondantes multo semine, quibussuccumbant, deinde et mulieres tales, quibusincumbant, atque utrisque voluptatemsolito majorem afferendo, tanto enim abundantiusemittitur semen, quanto cum majorivoluptate excernitur. Hæc Vallesius.Confirmat vero Maluenda supradicta, probando,ex variis et classicis Auctoribus, exhujusmodi concubitu natos: Romulum acRemum, Liv. decad. 1; Plutarch., in Vit.Romul. et Parallel.; Servium Tullium,sextum regem Romanorum, Dionys. Halicar.,lib. 4, Plin., lib. 36., c. 27; PlatonemPhilosophum, Laer. l., 9. de Vit. Philos.;D. Hyeron., l. 1. Controvers. Jovinian.;Alexandrum Magnum, Plutarch., in Vit.Alex. M.; Quint. Curt., l. 4, de Gest. Alex.M.; Seleucum, regem Syriæ, Just., Hist.,l. 15; Appian., in Syriac.; Scipionem AfricanumMajorem, Liv., decad. 3, lib. 6; CæsaremAugustum Imperatorem, Sueton., inOcta., c. 94; Aristomenem Messenium,strenuissimum ducem Græcorum, Strabo,de Sit Orb., lib. 8; Pausan., de Rebus Græcor.,lib. 3; et Merlinum, seu MelchinumAnglicum ex Incubo et Filia Caroli MagniMoniali, Hauller, volum. 2, Generat. 7,quod etiam de Martino Luthero, perditissimoHeresiarcha scribit Cochlæus apud Maluendam,de Antich., lib. 2, c. 6, § Cæterum.30. Now, it is undoubted by Theologiansand philosophers that carnal intercoursebetween mankind and the Demon sometimesgives birth to human beings; that ishow is to be born the Antichrist, accordingto some Doctors, such as Bellarmin, Suarez,Maluenda, etc. They further observethat, from a natural cause, the childrenthus begotten by Incubi are tall, veryhardy and bold, very proud and wicked.Thus writes Maluenda; as for the cause,he gives it from Vallesius, Archphysicianin Reggio: “What Incubi introduce in uteros,is not qualecumque neque quantumcumquesemen, but abundant, very thick,very warm, rich in spirits and free fromserosity. This moreover is an easy thingfor them, since they have but to chooseardent, robust men, et abundantes multosemine, quibus succumbant, and then womenof a like constitution, quibus incumbant,taking care that both shall enjoyvoluptatem solito majorem, tanto enimabundantius emittitur semen, quanto cummajori voluptate excernitur.” Those arethe words of Vallesius, confirmed by Maluendawho shows, from the testimony ofvarious Authors, mostly classical, thatsuch associations gave birth to: Romulusand Remus, according to Livy andPlutarch; Servius-Tullius, the sixth kingof Rome, according to Dyonisius of Halicarnassusand Pliny the Elder; Plato thePhilosopher, according to Diogenes Laertiusand Saint Hieronymus; Alexanderthe Great, according to Plutarch andQuintus-Curtius; Seleucus, king of Syria,according to Justinus and Appianus;Scipio Africanus the Elder, according toLivy; the emperor Cæsar Augustus,according to Suetonius; Aristomenes theMessenian, an illustrious Greek commander,according to Strabo and Pausanias;as also Merlin or Melchin the Englishman,born from an Incubus and a nun, thedaughter of Charlemagne; and, lastly, asshown by the writings of Cochlæus quotedby Maluenda, that damned Heresiarchycleped Martin Luther.
31. Salva tamen tot, et tantorum Doctorum,qui in ea opinione conveniunt, reverentia,non video, quomodo ipsorum sententiapossit subsistere; tum quia, utoptime opinatur Pererius, tom. 2, in Genes.,cap. 6, disp. 5, tota vis et efficaciahumani seminis consistit in spiritibus, quidifflantur, et evanescunt statim ac suntextra genitalia vasa, a quibus foventur etconservantur, ut scribunt Medici. Nequitproinde Dæmon semen acceptum conservare,ita ut aptum sit generationi, quiavas, quodcumque sit illud, in quo semenconservare tentaret, oporteret quod caleretcalore assimetro a nativo organorumhumanæ generationis; similarem enim anullo alio præterquam ab organis ipsishabere potest generatio. Tum quia generatioactus vitalis est, per quem homogenerans de propria substantia semen defertper organa naturalia ad locum generationicongruentem. In casu autem delatio seminisnon potest esse actus vitalis hominis generantis,quia ab eo non infertur in matricem;proinde nec dici potest, quod homoeujus est semen, generet fœtum, qui ex eonascitur. Neque Incubus ipsius pater dicipotest; quia de ipsius substantia semen nonest. Hinc fiet, quod nascetur homo, cujusnemo pater sit, quod est incongruum. Tumquia in patre naturaliter generante duplexcausalitas concurrit, nempe materialis, quiasemen, quod materia generationis, ministrat,et efficiens, quia agens principale estin generatione, ut communiter statuuntPhilosophi. In casu autem nostro homoministrando solum semen, puram materiamexhiberet absque ulla actione in ordine adgenerationem; proinde non posset dicipater filii qui nasceretur: et hoc est contraid, quod homo genitus ab Incubo nonest illius filius, sed est filius ejus viri, aquo Incubus semen sumpsit.31. However, with due deference to somany and such learned Doctors, I hardlysee how their opinion can bear examination.For, as Pererius truly observes in hisCommentary on the Genesis, chapt. 6, thewhole strength and efficiency of the humansperm reside in the spirits which evaporateand vanish as soon as issued from thegenital vessels wherein they were warmlystored: all medical men agree on that point.It is consequently not possible that theDemon should preserve in a fit state forgeneration the sperm he has received;for it were necessary that whatever vesselhe endeavoured to keep it in should beequally warm with the human genital organs,the warmth of which is nowhere tobe met with but in those organs themselves.Now, in a vessel where that warmth is notintrinsical but extraneous, the spirits getaltered, and no generation can take place.There is this other objection, that generationis a vital act by which man, begettingfrom his own substance, carries the spermthrough natural organs to the spot whichis appropriate to generation. On the contrary,in this particular case, the introductionof sperm cannot be a vital act of theman who begets, since it is not carriedinto the womb by his agency; and, forthe same cause, it cannot be said that theman, whose sperm it was, has begottenthe fetus which proceeds from it. Nor canthe Incubus be deemed its father, sincethe sperm does not issue from his ownsubstance. Consequentially, a child wouldbe born without a father, which is absurd.Third objection: when the father begetsin the course of nature, there is a concurrenceof two causalities: the one, material,for he provides the sperm which is thematter of generation; the other, efficient,for he is the principal agent of generation,as Philosophers agree in declaring. But,in this case, the man who only providedthe sperm would contribute but a merematerial, without any action tending togeneration; he could therefore not beregarded as the father of the child begottenunder those circumstances; and thisis opposed to the notion that the childbegotten by an Incubus is not his son, butthe son of the man whose sperm theIncubus has taken.
32. Præterea omni probabilitate caretquod scribit Vallesius, et ex eo recitavimussupra no 30; mirorque a doctissimi viricalamo talia excidisse. Notissimum enimest apud Physicos, quod magnitudo fœtusnon est a quantitate molis, sed est a quantitatevirtutis, hoc est spirituum in semine:ab ea enim tota generationis ratio dependet,ut optime testatur Michael Ettmullerus,Instit. Medic. Physiolog., car. 22, thes. 1,fol. m., 39, scribens: Tota generationisratio dependet a spiritu genitali sub crassiorismateriæ involucro excreto; ista materiaseminis crassa nullo modo, vel inutero subsistente, vel seu materia fœtumconstituente: sed solus spiritus genitalismaris unitus cum spiritu genitali mulierisin poros uteri, seu, quod rarius fit, in tubosuteri se insinuat, indeque uterum fecundumreddit. Quid ergo facere potest magnaquantitas seminis ad fœtus magnitudinem?Præterea nec semper verum est, quod talesgeniti ab Incubis magnitudine molis corporeæinsignes sint: Alexander enim Magnus,qui, ut diximus, natus taliter scribitur,statura pusillus erat; unde carmen,32. Besides, there is not a shadow ofprobability in what written by Vallesiusand quoted from him by us (Videsupra no 30); and I wonder that any thingso extravagant should have fallen fromthe pen of such a learned man. Medicalmen are well aware that the size of thefetus depends, not indeed on the quantityof matter, but on the quantity of virtue,that is to say of spirits held by the sperm;there lies the whole secret of generation,as is well observed by Michael Ettmuller,Institut. Medic. Physiolog.: “Generation”,says he, “entirely depends upon the genitalspirit contained within an envelope ofthicker matter; that spermatic matterdoes not remain in the uterus, and has noshare in the formation of the fetus; it isbut the genital spirit of the male, combinedwith the genital spirit of the female,that permeates the pores, or, less frequently,the tubes of the uterus, which it fecundatesby that means.” Of what momentcan therefore the quantity of sperm be forthe size of the fetus? Besides, it is notalways a fact that men thus begotten byIncubi are remarkable for the huge proportionsof their body: Alexander theGreat, for instance, who is said to havebeen thus born, as we have mentioned,was very short; as the poet said of him:
Magnus Alexander corpore parvus erat.
Magnus Alexander corpore parvus erat.
Item quamvis taliter concepti supra cæteroshomines excellant, non tamen hoc semperest in vitiis, sed aliquando in virtutibusetiam in moralibus, ut patet in ScipioneAfricano, Cæsare Augusto, et PlatonePhilosopho, de quibus Livius, Suetonius etLaertius respective scribunt, quod optimiin moribus fuere; ut proinde arguere possimus,quod si alii eodem modo genitipessimi fuere, hoc non fuerit ex hoc, quodfuerint ab Incubo geniti, sed quia tales exproprio arbitrio exstitere.Besides, although it is generally a factthat those who are thus begotten excelother men, yet such superiority is notalways shown by their vices, but sometimesby their virtues and even theirmorals; Scipio Africanus, for instance,Cæsar Augustus and Plato the Philosopher,as is recorded of each of them respectivelyby Livy, Suetonius and Diogenes Laertius,had excellent morals. Whence maybe inferred that, if other individualsbegotten in the same way have beendownright villains, it was not owing totheir being born of an Incubus, but totheir having, of their own free will, chosento be such.
Pariter ex textu Sacræ Scripturæ, Gen.,c. 6, v. 4, habemus quod gigantes nati suntex concubitu filiorum Dei cum filiabushominum, et hoc ad litteram sacri textus.Gigantes autem homines erant staturamagna, ut eos vocat Baruch, c. 3, v. 26, etexcedente communem hominum proceritatem.Monstruosa statura, robore, latrociniis,et tyrannide insignes: unde Gigantesper sua scelera fuerunt maxima, et potissimacausa Diluvii, ait Cornelius a Lapid.in Gen., c. 6, v. 4, § Burgensis. Non quadratautem quorumdam expositio, quodnomine filiorum Dei veniant filii Seth, etvocabulo filiarum hominum filiæ Cain, eoquod illi erant pietati, Religioni, et cæterisvirtutibus addicti, descendentes autem aCain vice versa: nam salva opinantium,Chrysost., Cyrill., Theodor. Rupert. Ab. etHilar. in Psalm. 132, apud Cornel., a Lap.,c. 6; G., v. 2, § Verum dies, reverentia,talis expositio non cohæret sensui patentilitteræ; ait enim Scriptura, quod ex conjunctionetalium nati sunt homines monstruosæproceritatis corporeæ: ante illamergo tales gigantes non extiterunt: quodsi ex ea orti sunt, hoc non potuit esse exeo, quod filii Seth coivissent cum filiabusCain, quia illi erant staturæ ordinariæ,prout etiam filiæ Cain, unde oriri ex hisnaturaliter non potuerunt nisi filii staturæordinariæ: si ergo monstruosa statura filiinati sunt ex tali conjunctione, hoc fuit,quia non fuerunt prognati ex ordinariaconjunctione viri cum muliere, sed exIncubis dæmonibus qui ratione naturæipsorum optime possunt vocari filii Dei, etin hac sententia sunt Philosophi Platonici,et Franciscus Georgius Venetus, tom. 1,problem. 74: nec dissentiunt ab eademJoseph. Hebræus, Philo Judæus, S. JustinusMartyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, etTertullianus, Joseph. Hebræus, Antiq., l.1.; Philo, l. de Gigant.; S. Justinus M.,Apolog. 1.; Clemens Alex., lib. 3; Tertull.,lib. de Habit. Mul., apud Cornel., loc. cit.;Hugo de S. Victor., Annot. in Gen., c. 6,qui opinantur illos fuisse Angelos quosnamcorporeos qui in luxuriam cum mulieribusdelapsi sunt: ut enim infra ostendemus,istæ duæ sententiæ in unam et eamdemconveniunt.We also read in the Testament, Genesis,chap. 6, verse 4, that giants were bornwhen the sons of God came in unto thedaughters of men: that is the very letterof the sacred text. Now, those giants weremen of great stature, says Baruch, chap. 3,verse 26, and far superior to other men.Not only were they distinguished by theirhuge size, but also by their physicalpower, their plundering habits and theirtyranny. Through their criminal excessesthe Giants were the primary and principalcause of the Flood, according to Corneliusa Lapide, in his Commentary on Genesis.Some contend that by Sons of God aremeant the sons of Seth, and by Daughtersof men the daughters of Cain, because theformer practiced piety, religion and everyother virtue, whilst the descendants ofCain were quite the reverse; but, with alldue deference to Chrysostom, Cyrillus,Hilarius and others who are of that opinion,it must be conceded that it clasheswith the obvious meaning of the text. Scripturesays, in fact, that of the conjunction ofthe above mentioned were born men ofhuge bodily size: consequently, those giantswere not previously in existence, and if theirbirth was the result of that conjunction,it cannot be ascribed to the intercourse ofthe sons of Seth with the daughters ofCain, who being themselves of ordinarystature, could but procreate children ofordinary stature. Therefore, if the intercoursein question gave birth to beings ofhuge stature, the reason is that it was notthe common connection between man andwoman, but the performance of IncubiDemons who, from their nature, may verywell be styled sons of God. Such is the opinionof the Platonist Philosophers and ofFrancis Georges the Venetian; nor is itdiscrepant from that of Josephus the Historian,Philo the Jew, S. Justinus theMartyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian,who look upon Incubi as corporealAngels who have allowed themselves tofall into the sin of lewdness with women.Indeed, as shall be shown hereafter, thoughseemingly distinct, those two opinions arebut one and the same.
33. Si ergo Incubi tales, ut fert communissententia, Gigantes genuerunt, accepto semineab homine, juxta id, quod supradictum est, non potuerunt ex illo seminenasci nisi homines ejusdem staturæ plusminusve, cum eo a quo semen acceptum est:nec enim facit ad altiorem corporis staturammajor seminis quantitas, ita ut attractainsolite a Dæmone, dum Succubus fit homini,augeat ultra illius staturam enormiter corpusab eo geniti; quia, ut supra diximus,hoc residet in spiritu, et non in mole seminis:ut proinde necesse sit concludere,quod ab alio semine, quam humano, hujusmodigigantes nati sint, et proinde DæmonIncubus non humano, sed alio semine utaturad generationem. Quid igitur dicendum?33. If therefore these Incubi, in conformitywith general belief, have begottenGiants by means of sperm taken fromman, it is impossible, as aforesaid, that ofthat sperm should have been born any butmen of approximately the same size as hefrom whom it came; for it would be in vainfor the Demon, when acting the part of aSuccubus, to draw from man an unwontedquantity of prolific liquor in order to procreatetherefrom children of higher stature;quantity has nothing to do here, since alldepends, as we have said, upon the vitalityof that liquor, not its quantity. We aretherefore bound to infer that Giants areborn of another sperm than man’s, andthat, consequently, the Incubus Demon,for the purpose of generation, uses a spermwhich is not man’s. But then, what is tobe said?
34. Quantum ad hoc, sub correctioneSanctæ Matris Ecclesiæ, et mere opinativedico, Incubum Dæmonem, dum mulieribuscommiscetur, ex proprio ipsius seminehominem generare.34. Subject to correction by our HolyMother Church, and as a mere expressionof opinion, I say that the Incubus Demon,when having intercourse with women,begets the human fetus from his ownsperm.
35. Paradoxa in fide, et parum sananonnullis videbitur hæc opinio; sed lectoremmeum deprecor, ut judicium nonpræcipitet de ea: ut enim incivile est nondumtota lege perspecta judicare, utCelsus, lib. 24. ff. de legib. et S. C., ait,ita neque damnanda est opinio, nisi priusexaminatis, ac solutis argumentis, quibusinnititur. Ad probandam igitur supradatamconclusionem, nonnulla sunt necessariopræmittenda.35. To many that proposition will seemheterodox and hardly sensible; but I begof my reader not to condemn it precipitately;for if, as Celsus says, it is improperto deliver judgment without having thoroughlyinquired into the law, no lessunfair is the rejection of an opinion, beforethe arguments upon which it rests havebeen weighed and confuted. I have thereforeto prove the above conclusion, andmust necessarily premise with some statements.
36. Præmittendum primo de fide est,quod dentur Creaturæ pure spiritualesnullo modo de materia corporea participantes,prout habetur ex Concilio Lateranensi,sub Innocentio Tertio, c. Firm.de Sum. Trin. et Fid. Cath. Conc. Eph.in Epist. Cyrill. ad Reggia, et alibi.Hujusmodi autem sunt Angeli beati, etDæmones damnati ad ignem perpetuum.Quamvis vero nonnulli Doctores, Bann.par. 1. q. 5. ar. 1. Can. de Loc. Theol. l.5. c. 5. Sixt. seu Bibliot. San. l. 5. annot.8., Mirand. Sum. Concil. vo. Angelus,Molina, p. 1. q. 50., a. 1., Carranz.,Annot. ad Synod. 7., etiam post Conciliumillud docuerint spiritualitatem Angelorumet Dæmonum non esse de fide, itaut nonnulli alii, Bonav. in lib. 2. sent. dist.3. q. 1., Scot. de Anim. q. 15., Cajet. inGen. c. 4., Franc. Georg. Problem. l. 2.c. 57., August. Hyph., de Dæmon., l. 3.c. 3., scripserint illos esse corporeos, etproinde Angelos Dæmonesque corpore etspiritu constare non esse propositionemhæreticam, neque erroneam, probet BonaventuraBaro, Scot. Defens. tom. 9. apolog.2., act. 1., p. § 7.: tamen quia Conciliumipsum statuit de fide tenendum,Deum esse Creatorem omnium visibiliumet invisibilium, spiritualium et corporalium,qui utramque de nihilo condiditcreaturam spiritualem et corporalem Angelicam,videlicet ut mundanam: ideodico de fide esse quasdam creaturas darimere spirituales, et tales esse Angelos, nonquidem omnes, sed quosdam.36. Firstly, I premise, as an article ofbelief, that there are purely spiritual creatures,not in any way partaking of corporealmatter, as was ruled by the Councilof Lateran, under the pontificate of InnocentIII. Such are the blessed Angels,and the Demons condemned to ever-lastingfire. Some Doctors, it is true, have professed,subsequently even to this Council,that the spirituality of Angels and Demonsis not an article of belief; others evenhave asserted that they are corporeal,whence Bonaventure Baron has drawn theconclusion that it is neither heretical norerroneous to ascribe to Angels and Demonsa twofold substance, corporeal and spiritual.Yet, the Council having formally declaredit to be an article of belief that God is themaker of all things visible and invisible,spiritual and corporeal, who has raisedfrom nothing every creature spiritual orcorporeal, Angelic or terrestrial, I contendit is an article of belief that there are certainmerely spiritual creatures, and thatsuch are Angels; not all of them, but a certainnumber.
37. Inaudita forsan erit sententia hæc, sednon destituta erit probabilitate. Si enim aTheologis tanta inter Angelos diversitasspecifica, et proinde essentialis statuitur, utin via D. Thomæ, p. p. 50, ar. 4,plures Angeli nequeant esse in eadem specie,sed quilibet Angelus propriam speciemconstituat, profecto nulla invenitur repugnantia,quod Angelorum nonnulli sintpurissimi spiritus, et proinde excellentissimænaturæ, alii autem corporei, et minusexcellentes, et eorum differentia petaturper corporeum et incorporeum. Acceditquod hac sententia facile solvitur alias insolubiliscontradictio inter duo ConciliaŒcumenica, nempe Septimam Synodumgeneralem, et dictum Concilium Lateranense:siquidem in illa Synodo, quæ estsecunda Nicæna, actione quinta, productusest liber Joannis Thessalonicensis scriptuscontra quemdam Philosophum gentilem, inquo ita habetur: De Angelis et Archangelis,atque eorum Potestatibus, quibusnostras Animas adjungo, ipsa CatholicaEcclesia sic sentit, esse quidem intelligibiles,sed non omnino corporis expertes,et insensibiles, ut vos Gentiles dicitis,verum tenui corpore præditos, et aereo,sive igneo, sicut scriptum est: qui facitAngelos suos spiritus, et ministros suosignem urentem. Et infra: Quamquamautem non sint ut nos, corporei, utpoteex quatuor elementis, nemo tamen velAngelos, vel Dæmones, vel Animas dixeritincorporeas: multoties enim in propriocorpore visi sunt ab illis, quibus Dominusoculos aperuit. Et cum omnia lecta fuissentcoram Patribus synodaliter congregatis,Tharasius, Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus,poposcit adprobationem SanctæSynodi his verbis: Ostendit Pater, quodAngelos pingi oporteat, quoniam circumscribipossunt, et ut homines apparuerunt.Synodus autem uno ore respondit: Etiam,Domine.37. It may seem strange, yet it mustbe admitted not to be unlikely. If, infact, Theologians concur in establishingamongst Angels a specific, and therefore essential,diversity so considerable that, accordingto St. Thomas, there are not twoAngels of the same species, but that each ofthem is a species by himself, why should notcertain Angels be most pure spirits, of a consequentlyvery superior nature, and otherscorporeal, therefore of a less perfect nature,differing thus from each other in theircorporeal or incorporeal substance? Thisdoctrine has the advantage of solving theotherwise insoluble contradiction betweentwo Œcumenical Councils, namely theSeventh General Synod and the above-mentionedCouncil of Lateran. For, duringthe fifth sitting of that Synod, the secondof Nicea, a book was introduced writtenby John of Thessalonica against a paganPhilosopher, wherein occur the followingpropositions: “Respecting Angels, Archangelsand their Powers, to which Iadjoin our own Souls, the Catholic Churchis really of opinion that they are intelligences,but not entirely bodyless and senseless,as you Gentiles aver; she on thecontrary ascribes to them a subtile body,aerial or igneous, according to what iswritten: He makes the spirits His Angels,and the burning fire His Minister”. Andfurther on: “Although not corporeal in thesame way as ourselves, made of the fourelements, yet it is impossible to say thatAngels, Demons and Souls are incorporeal;for they have been seen many a time, investedwith their own body, by those whoseeyes the Lord had opened”. And after thatbook had been read through before all theFathers in Council assembled, Tharasius,the Patriarch of Constantinople, submittedit to the approval of the Council, withthese words: “The Father showeth thatAngels should be pictured, since their formcan be defined, and they have been seen inthe shape of men”. Without a dissentient,the Synod answered: “Yes, my Lord”.
38. Hanc autem Conciliarem adprobationemde materia ad longum pertractataa D. Joanne in libro coram Patribus lecto,statuere articulum fidei circa corporeitatemAngelorum, perspicuum est: undead tollendam contradictionem hujus, cumallata definitione Concilii Lateranensis,multum desudant Theologi. Unus enim,Suarez, de Angelis, ait, quod Patres noncontradixerunt tali asserto de corporeitateAngelorum, quia non de illa re agebatur.Alius, Bann., in p. p. q. 10, ait, quodSynodus adprobavit conclusionem, nempeAngelos pingi posse, non tamen adprobavitrationem, quia corporei sunt. Alius,Molin., in p. p., q. 50. a. 1, ait, quoddefinitiones Conciliares in illa Synodofactæ sunt solum actione septima, proindeea quæ habentur in actionibus præcedentibusnon esse definitiones de fide. Alii,Joverc. et Mirand., Sum. Conc., scribuntnec Nicænum, nec Lateranense Conciliumintendisse definere de fide quæstionem; etNicænum quidem locutum fuisse juxtaopinionem Platonicorum, quæ ponit Angeloscorporeos, et tunc prævalebat; Lateranenseautem locutum esse juxta mentemAristotelis, qui, l. 12. Metaphys., tex.49, ponit intelligentias incorporeas, quæsententia contra Platonicos apud plerosqueDoctores invaluit expost.38. That this approbation by a Councilof the doctrine set forth at length in thebook of John establishes an article of beliefwith regard to the corporeity of Angels,there is not a shadow of doubt: so Theologianstoil and moil in order to removethe contradiction apparent between thatdecision and the definition, above quoted,by the Council of Lateran. One of them,Suarez, says that if the Fathers did notdisprove such an assertion of the corporeityof Angels, it is because that was notthe question. Another contends that theSynod did approve the conclusion, namelythat Angels might be pictured, but not themotive given, their corporeity. A third,Molina, observes that the definitions issuedin Council by the Synod were thusissued only at the seventh sitting, whencehe argues that those of the previous sittingsare not definitions of belief. Others, lastly,write that neither the Council of Niceanor that of Lateran intended defining aquestion of belief, the Council of Niceahaving spoken according to the opinion ofthe Platonists, which describes Angels ascorporeal beings and was then prevailing,whilst that of Lateran went with Aristoteles,who, in his 12th. book of Metaphysics,lays down the existence of incorporealintelligences, a doctrine which hassince carried the day with most Doctorsover the Platonists.
39. Sed quam frigidæ sint istæ responsionesnemo non videt, ac eas minime satisfacereoppositioni palmariter demonstratBonaventura Baro, Scot. Defens., tom. 9,apolog. 2, actio 1, § 2 per totum.Proinde ad tollendam contradictionemConciliorum dicendum est, Nicænum locutumesse de una, Lateranense autem dealia specie Angelorum, et illam quidemcorpoream, hanc vero penitus incorpoream;et sic conciliantur aliter irreconciliabiliaConcilia.39. But any one can discern the invalidityof those answers, and BonaventureBaro (Scot. Defens., tome 9) proves to evidencethat they do not bear. In consequence,in order to agree the twoCouncils, we must say that the Council ofNicea meant one species of Angels, andthat of Lateran another: the former, corporeal,the latter on the contrary absolutelyincorporeal; and thus are reconciledtwo otherwise irreconcilable Councils.
40. Præmittendum 2º, nomen Angeliesse nomen officii, non naturæ, ut concorditerscribunt S. S. Patres: Ambros. in c.1 epist. ad Hebr., Hilaris, l. 5 de Trin.,Augustinus, lib. 15 de Civit. Dei c. 23,Gregorius, Hom. 34 in Evang., Isidorus,l. de Sum. Bonit., c. 12; unde præclareait D. Ambrosius: Angelus non ex eoquod est spiritus, ex eo quod agit, Angelus,quia Angelus Græce, Latine Nuntiusdicitur, sequitur igitur ex hoc, quodilli, qui ad aliquod ministerium a Deomittuntur, sive spiritus sint, sive homines,Angeli vocari possunt; et de facto itavocantur in Scripturis Sacris: nam deSacerdotibus, Concionatoribus ac Doctoribus,qui tanquam Nuntii Dei explicanthominibus divinam voluntatem, dicitur,Malach. c. 2. v. 7: Labia Sacerdotiscustodient scientiam, et legem requirentex ore ejus, quia Angelus Domini exercituumest. D. Joannes Baptista ab eodemPropheta, c. 3 v. 1, vocatur Angelus,dum ait: Ecce ego mitto Angelum meum,et præparabit viam ante faciem meam. Ethanc prophetiam esse ad litteram deS. Joanne Baptista testatur Christus Dominusin Evangelio Matthæi, 11, v. 10.Immo et ipse Deus, quia fuit missus aPatre in mundum ad evangelizandumlegem gratiæ, vocatur Angelus. Ita inprophetia Isaiæ, c. 9 v. 6, juxta versionemSeptuaginta: Vocabitur nomenejus magni consilii Angelus, et clarius inMalachiæ c. 3 v. 1: Veniet ad templumsanctum suum Dominator quem vos quæritis,et Angelus testamenti quem vosvultis. Quæ prophetia ad litteram est deChristo Domino. Sequitur igitur nullumabsurdum sequi ex hoc, quod dicimus Angelosquosdam esse corporeos, nam ethomines, qui corpore constant, Angeli vocabuloefferuntur.40. Secondly, I premise that the wordAngel applies, not indeed to the kind, butto the office: the Holy Fathers are agreedthereupon (St. Ambrose, on the Epistle tothe Hebrews; St. Austin, City of God; St.Gregory, Homily 34 on Scripture; St. Isidorus,Supreme Goodness). An Angel,very truly says St. Ambrose, is thusstyled, not because he is a spirit, but onaccount of his office; Ἁγγελος in Greek,Nuntius in Latin, that is to say Messenger;it follows that whoever is entrusted by Godwith a mission, be he spirit or man, maybe called an Angel, and is thus called inthe Holy Scriptures, where the followingwords are applied to Priests, Preachers andDoctors, who, as Messengers of God, explainto men the divine will (Malachi,chapt. 2, v. 7). “The priest’s lips shouldkeep knowledge, and they should seek thelaw at his mouth, for he is the Angel of theLord of Hosts.” The same prophet, chapt.3, v. 1, bestows the name of Angel on St.John the Baptist, when saying: “Behold, Iwill send my Angel and he shall prepare theway before me.” That this prophecy literallyapplies to St. John the Baptist istestified by our Lord Jesus-Christ, in theGospel, according to St. Matthew, chapt. 11,v. 10. Still more: God himself is called anAngel, because he has been sent by HisFather to herald the law of mercy. Towitness, the prophecy of Isaiah, chapt. 9,v. 6, according to Septuagint: “He shallbe called an Angel of Wonderful Counsel.”And more plainly still in Malachi, chapt. 3,v. 1; “The Lord whom ye seek shallsuddenly come to his temple, even the Angelof the covenant whom ye delight in”,a prophecy which literally applies to ourLord Jesus-Christ. There is consequentlynothing absurd in the contention thatsome Angels are corporeal, since men,who assuredly have a body, are calledAngels.
41. Præmittendum 3º, nondum rerumnaturalium, quæ sunt in mundo, satis perspectamesse existentiam, aut naturam, utproinde aliquid negandum sit ex eo, quodde illo nunquam alias dictum, aut scriptumfuerit. Patet enim tractu temporis detectasesse novas terras, quas Antiquinostri ignorarunt, novaque animalia, herbas,plantas, fructus, semina nunquamalias visa; et si pervia esset Terra Australisincognita, cujus indagatio, et lustratioa multis hucusque incassum tentata est,adhuc nova nobis alia panderentur. Patetadhuc, quod per inventionem microscopii,et alias machinas, et organa Philosophiæexperimentalis modernæ, sicut etiam perexactiorem indaginem Anatomistarum,multarum rerum naturalium existentiam,vires, naturamque tum innotuisse, tumdietim innotescere, quæ præcedentes Philosophiignorarunt, ut patet in auro fulminante,phosphoro, et centum aliis chymicisexperimentis, circulatione sanguinis,venis lacteis, vasis lymphaticis, et aliishujusmodi quæ nuper Anatomistæ adinvenerunt.Proinde ineptum erit aliquod exsibillareex hoc quod de eo nullus Antiquorumscripserit, attento maxime Logicorumaxiomate, quod locus ab auctoritate negativanon tenet.41. Thirdly, I premise that neither theexistence nor the nature of the naturalthings in this world has been sufficientlyinvestigated to allow of denying a fact, merelybecause it has never been previouslyspoken of or written about. In the course oftime have not new lands been discoveredwhich the Ancients knew not of? New animals,herbs, plants, fruits and seeds, neverseen elsewhere? And if that mysteriousAustral land came at last to be explored,as has been to this day vainly tried by somany travellers, what unforeseen disclosureswould be the result! Through theinvention of the microscope and otherinstruments used by modern experimentalPhilosophy, combined with the more exactmethods of investigation of Anatomists,have there not been, and are there not,every day, brought to light the existence,qualities and characteristics of a numberof natural things unknown to ancientPhilosophers, such as fulminating gold,phosphorus, and a hundred other chemicalcompounds, the circulation of theblood, the lacteal vessels, the lymph-ductsand other recent anatomical discoveries?To deride a doctrine because itdoes not happen to be mentioned in anyancient author would therefore be absurd,especially bearing in mind this axiom ofLogic: locus ab auctoritate negativa nontenet.
42. Præmittendum 4º, quod in SacraScriptura, et Ecclesiasticis traditionibusnon traditur nisi id, quod ad animæ salutemnecessarium est, quoad credendum,sperandum et amandum; unde inferre nonlicet ex eo, quod nec ex Scriptura, nec extraditione aliquod habetur, proinde negandumsit, quod illud tale existat: aut nosquidem Fides docet, Deum per Verbumsuum omnia creasse visibilia, et invisibilia;pariterque ex Jesu Christi Domininostri meritis tum gratiam, tum gloriamomni, et cuivis rationali creaturæ conferri.Num autem alius Mundus a nostro, quemincolimus, sit, et in eo alii homines non abAdam prognati, sed alio modo a Deo creatiexistant (sicut ponunt illi qui lunaremglobum habitatum opinantur); pariterquenum in hoc Mundo, quem incolimus, aliæexistant creaturæ rationales ultra homines,et Spiritus Angelicos, quæ regulariterhominibus sint invisibiles, et per accidens,et earum executiva potentia fiant visibiles:hoc nullo modo spectat ad fidem, et hocscire, aut ignorare non est ad salutem hominisnecessarium, sicut nec scire rerumomnium physicarum numerum aut naturam.42. Fourthly, I premise that Holy Scriptureand ecclesiastical tradition do notteach us any thing beyond what is requisitefor the salvation of the soul, namelyFaith, Hope and Charity. Consequently,from a thing not being stated either byScripture or tradition it must not be inferredthat that thing is not in existence.For instance, Faith teaches us that God,by His Word, made things visible, andinvisible, and also that, through the meritsof our Lord Jesus-Christ, grace andglory are conferred on every rational creature.Now, that there be another Worldthan the one we live in, and that it bepeopled by men not born of Adam butmade by God, in some other way, as isimplied by those who believe the lunarglobe to be inhabited; or further, that inthe very World we dwell in, there be otherrational creatures besides man and theAngelic Spirits, creatures generally invisibleto us and whose being is disclosed butaccidentally, through the instrumentalityof their own power; all that has nothingto do with Faith, and the knowledge orignorance thereof is no more necessary tothe salvation of man than knowing thenumber or nature of all physical things.
43. Præmittendum 5º, nullam invenirirepugnantiam, nec in Philosophia, nec inTheologia; quod dari possint creaturæ rationalesconstantes spiritu et corpore, aliæab homine, quia si esset repugnantia, hocesset vel ex parte Dei (et hoc non quia ipseomnipotens est), vel ex parte rei creabilis;et neque hoc, quia sicut creatura mere spiritualis,ut Angeli, creata est, et merematerialis, ut Mundus, et partim spiritualis,partim corporea, corporeitate terrestri,et crassa, ut homo, ita creabilis est creaturaconstans spiritu rationali, et corporeitateminus crassa, sed subtiliore, quam sit homo.Et profecto post Resurrectionem animaBeatorum erit unita corpori glorioso dotesubtilitatis donato: ut proinde concludiposset, potuisse Deum creare creaturamrationalem corpoream, cui naturaliter inditasit corporis subtilitas, sicut per gratiamcorpori glorioso confertur.43. Fifthly, I premise that neither Philosophynor Theology is repugnant to thepossible existence of rational creatureshaving spirit and body and distinct fromman. Such repugnance could be supportedonly on God, and that is inadmissible,since he is all-mighty, or on the thing tobe made, and that likewise cannot be supported;for, as there are purely spiritualcreatures, such as Angels, or merely material,such as the World, or lastly semi-spiritualand semi-corporeal, of an earthlyand gross corporeity, such as man, sothere may well be in existence a creatureendowed with a rational spirit and a corporeityless gross, more subtile than man’s.No doubt, moreover, but that after Resurrection,the souls of the blessed will beunited with a glorious and subtile body;from which may be inferred that God maywell have made a rational and corporealcreature whose body naturally enjoys thesubtilty which will be conferred by thegrace on the glorious body.
44. Astruitur autem magis talium creaturarumpossibilitas ex solutione argumentorum,quæ contra positam conclusionemfieri possunt, pariterque ex responsione adinterrogationes, quæ possunt circa eamformari.44. But, the possible existence of suchcreatures will be still better set forth bysolving the arguments which can be adducedagainst our conclusion, and replyingto the questions it may raise.
45. Prima interrogatio est, an talescreaturæ dicendæ essent animalia rationalia?Quod si sic, quomodo different abhomine, cum quo communem haberent definitionem?45. First question: should such creaturesbe styled rational animals? And if so,in what do they differ from man, withwhom they would have that definition incommon?
46. Respondeo quod essent animalia rationaliasensibus et organis corporis prædita,sicut homo: differrent autem ab hominenon solum ratione corporis tenuioris,sed etiam materiæ. Homo siquidem excrassiore elementorum omnium parte, putaex luto, nempe aqua et terra crassa formatusest, ut constat ex Scriptura, Gen. 2.v. 7.; ista vero formata essent ex subtilioreparte omnium, aut unius, seu alteriuselementorum; ut proinde alia essent terrea,alia aquea, alia aerea, et alia ignea; et uteorum definitio cum hominis definitionenon conveniret, addendum esset definitionihominis crassa materialitas sui corporis,per quam a dictis animalibus differret.46. I reply: Yes, they would be rationalanimals, provided with senses and organseven as man; they would, however, differfrom man not only in the more subtile nature,but also in the matter of their body.In fact, as is shown by Scripture, man hasbeen made from the grossest of all elements,namely clay, a gross mixture ofwater and earth: but those creatures wouldbe made from the most subtile part of allelements, or of one or other of them; thus,some would proceed from earth, othersfrom water, or air, or fire; and, in orderthat they should not be defined in thesame terms as man, to the definition ofthe latter should be added the mention ofthe gross materiality of his body, whereinhe would differ from said animals.
47. Secunda interrogatio est, quandonamhujus modi animalia fuissent condita,et num cum brutis producta a terra,aut ab aqua, ut quadrupedia, et aves respective;an vero a Domino Deo formata,ut fuit homo?47. Second question: At what periodwould those animals have been originated,and wherefrom? From earth, like thebeasts, or from water, like quadrupeds,birds, etc.? Or, on the contrary, would theyhave been made, like man, by our LordGod?
48. Respondeo quod de fide est, quodposito, quod existant de facto, creata sinta principio Mundi: sic enim definitur aConcilio Lateranensi (Firm. de sum. Trinit.et fide cathol.); nempe quod Deus suaomnipotenti virtute simul ab initio temporisutramque de nihilo condidit creaturam,spiritualem et corporalem. Sub illa etenimCreaturarum generalitate etiam illa animaliaessent comprehensa. Quo vero ad eorumformationem, decuisse ipsorum corpusa Deo ministerio Angelorum formatumfuisse, sicut a Deo formatum legimus corpushominis, quia ipsi copulandus erat spiritusimmortalis, quandoquidem spiritusincorporeus et proinde nobilissimus corporipariter originaliter nobiliori cæterisbrutis jungendus erat.48. I reply: It is an article of belief, expresslylaid down by the Council of Lateran,that whatever is in fact and atpresent, was made in the origin of theworld. By His all-mighty virtue, God,from the beginning of time, raised togetherfrom nothing both orders of creatures,spiritual and corporeal. Now, those animalsalso would be included in the generalityof creatures. As to their formation,it might be said that God Himself, throughthe medium of Angels, made their bodyas he did man’s, to which an immortalspirit was to be united. That body beingof a nobler nature than that of other animals,it was meet that it should be unitedto an incorporeal and highly noble spirit.
49. Tertia interrogatio, an talia animaliahabuissent originem ab uno solo, velutomnes homines ab Adam, an vero plura simulformata essent sicut fuit de cæterisanimantibus a terra et aqua productis, inquibus fuerunt mares et fœminæ quæ speciemper generationem conservant? Et sihoc oporteret inter talia animalia esse distinctionemsexus; ipsa nasci, et interire;passionibus sensus affici, nutriri, crescere;et tunc quo alimento vescerentur, esset quærendum;præterea an vitam socialem ducerent,ut homines; qua politica regerentur;num urbes ad habitandum struxissent;num artes, studia, possessiones, et bellainter ea essent, sicut est in hominibus.49. Third question: Would those animalsdescend from one individual, as allmen descend from Adam, or, on the contrary,would many have been made at thesame time, as was the case for the otherliving things issued from earth and water,wherein were males and females for thepreservation of the kind by generation?Would there be amongst them a distinctionbetween the sexes? Would they besubject to birth and death, to senses, passions,want of food, power of growth? Ifso, what their nutrition? Would theylead a social life, as men do? By what lawsruled? Would they build up cities for theirdwellings, cultivate the arts and sciences,hold property, and wage war betweenthemselves, as men are wont to?
50. Respondeo: potuit esse quod omniaab uno, velut homines ab Adam, sint progenita;potuit pariter esse, quod ex iismulti mares, et plures fœminæ fuissentformatæ, a quibus per generationem eorumspecies essent propagatæ. Ultro admitteremustalia animalia oriri et mori; maresalios, alias fœminas inter ea esse; passionibus,sensibus agitari velut homines; nutririet crescere secundum molem sui corporis;cibum autem ipsorum non crassumqualem requirit crassities corporis humani,sed substantiam tenuem et vaporosamemanantem per effluvia spirituosa a rebusphysicis pollentibus corpusculis maximevolatilibus, ut nidor carnium maxime assatarum,vapor vini, fructuum, florum,aromatum, a quibus copiosa hujusmodi effluviausque ad totalem partium subtiliorumac volatilium evaporationem scaturiunt.Talia autem animalia civilem vitam ducereposse, et inter ea distinctos esse gradusdominantium ac servientium pro conditionenaturæ ipsorum, artesque, scientias,ministeria, exercitia, loca, mansiones, acalia necessaria ad eorum conservationem,nullam penitus importat repugnantiam.50. I reply: It may be that all descendfrom one individual, as men descend fromAdam; it may be also that a number ofmales and females were made initially,who preserved their kind by generation.We will further admit that they are bornand die; that they are divided into malesand females, and are moved by senses andpassions, as men are; that they feed andgrow according to the size of their body;their food, however, instead of being grosslike that required by the human body,must be delicate and vapoury, emanatingthrough spirituous effluvia from whateverin the physical world abounds with highlyvolatile corpuscles, such as the flavour ofmeats, especially of roasts, the fume ofwine, the fragrancy of fruit, flowers, aromatics,which evolve an abundance ofthose effluvia until all their subtile andvolatile parts have completely evaporated.To their being able to lead a social life,with distinctions of rank and precedence;to their cultivating the arts and sciences,exercising functions, maintaining armies,building up cities, doing in short whateveris requisite for their preservation, I havein the main no objection.
51. Quarta interrogatio est, qualis esseteorum corporis figuratio, an humanam, analiam formam, et qualem haberent, et anpartes corporis ipsorum haberent ordinemessentialem inter se, ut corpora cæterorumanimalium, an vero accidentalem tantum,ut corpora fluidarum substantiarum, utolei, aquæ, nubis, fumi, etc.; et num substantiæsuarum partium organicarum diversimodeconstarent, ut organa hominum,in quibus sunt aliæ partes crassissimæ, utossa, aliæ minus crassæ, ut cartilagines,aliæ tenues, ut membranæ.51. Fourth question: What would theirfigure be, human or otherwise? Would theordering of the divers parts of their bodybe essential, as with other animals, ormerely accidental, as with fluid substances,such as oil, water, clouds, smoke, etc.?Would those organic parts consist of varioussubstances, as is the case with theorgans of the human body, wherein are tobe found very gross parts, such as the bones,others less gross, such as the cartilages,and others slender, such as the membranes?
52. Respondeo, quod quantum ad figuramcorpoream nihil certi affirmare debemus,aut possumus, cum talis figura nonsit exacte nobis sensibilis, nec quoad visum,nec quoad tactum, præ sui corporistenuitate, ac perspicacitate; qualisproinde vere sit, noverent ipsi, aliique, quisubstantias immateriales intuitive cognoscerepossunt. Quoad congruentiam et probabilitatemdico, illa referre speciem corporishumani, cum aliquo distinctivo a corporehumano, nisi forte ad hoc sufficiat suaipsorum tenuitas. Ducor, quia corpus humanumplasmatum a Deo perfectissimumest, inter animalia quæque, et cum cæterabruta in terram sint prona, eo quia animaeorum mortalis est, Deus, ut ait poeta Ovid.,Metamorphos.:52. I reply: As regards their figure, weneither can nor should be affirmative, sinceit escapes our senses, being too delicatefor our sight or our touch. That we mustleave to themselves, and to such as havethe privilege of intuitive acquaintance withimmaterial substances. But, so far as probabilitygoes, I say that their figure tallieswith the human body, save some distinctivepeculiarity, should the very tenuity oftheir body not be deemed sufficient. I amled to that by the consideration that of allthe works of God the human frame is themost perfect, and that whilst all other animalsstoop to the ground, because theirsoul is mortal, God, as Ovid, the poet,says, in his Metamorphoses,

Os homini sublime dedit, cœlumque tueri

Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus;

Gave man an erect figure, bidding him behold the heavens

And raise his face towards the stars,

quia anima hominis immortalis ordinata estad cœlestem mansionem. Cum igitur animalia,de quibus loquimur, spiritum haberentimmaterialem, rationalem, ac immortalem,et proinde capacem beatitudinis acdamnationis, congruum est, quod corpus,cui talis spiritus copulatur, simile sit omniumanimalium nobilissimo, corpori humano.Ex hac positione sequitur, quod ejuscorporis partes ordinem inter se essentialemhabere deberent; nec enim pes capiti,aut ventri manus conjungi deberet: sedcongrua membrorum essentiali dispositioneordinata, ut essent idonea ministeriis propriisperficiendis. Quo autem ad partes componentesipsarum organa, dico quod necessariumesset, ut nonnullæ ipsarum essentsolidiores, aliæ minus solidæ, aliæ tenues,aliæ tenuissimæ pro necessitate operationisorganicæ. Nec contra hanc positionem facilepotest asseri tenuitas ipsorum corporum:quippe soliditas aut crassities organicarumpartium, de qua dicimus, non essettalis simpliciter, sed comparative ad aliaspartes tenuiores. Et hoc patere potest inomnibus corporibus fluidis naturalibus, utvino, oleo, lacte, etc.; quantumvis enim omnespartes in ipsis videantur homogeneæac similares, non tamen ita est: nam inipsis est pars terrea, pars aquea, sal fixum,sal volatile, et pars sulfurea, quæ omniamanipulatione spargirica oculis subjici possunt.Ita esset in casu nostro: posito enimquod talium animalium corpora subtiliaet tenuia, ut corpora naturalia fluida, velutaqua et aer, essent, non tamen tolleretur,quin in ipsorum partibus diversæ interse essent qualitates, et aliquæ ipsarumcomparative ad alias essent solidæ, et aliætenuiores, quamvis totum corpus ex ipsiscompositum tenue dici posset.man’s soul having been made immortal forthe heavenly abode. Considering that theanimals we are speaking of would be giftedwith a spirit immaterial, rational and immortal,capable therefore of beatitude anddamnation, it is proper to admit that thebody to which that spirit is united may belike unto the most noble animal frame,that is to say to the human frame. Whenceit follows that in the divers parts of thatbody there must be an essential order;that the foot, for instance, cannot be anappendage to the head, nor the hand tothe belly, but that each organ is in itsright place, according to the functions ithas to perform. As to the constitutive partsof those organs, it is, in my opinion, necessarythat there should be some more orless strong, others more or less slender,in order to meet the requirements of theorganic working. Nor can this be fairlyobjected to on the ground of the slendernessof the bodies themselves; for the strengthor thickness of the organic parts alludedto would not be absolute, but merely incomparison with the more slender ones.That, moreover, may be observed in allnatural fluids, such as wine, oil, milk, etc.;however homogeneous and similar to eachother their component parts may look, yetthey are not so: for some are clayish, othersaqueous; there are fixed salts, volatilesalts, brimstone, all of which are madeobvious by a chemical analysis. So itwould be in our case: for, supposing thebodies of those animals to be as subtileand slender as the natural fluids, air, water,etc., there would nevertheless be discrepanciesin the quality of their constitutiveparts, some of which would be strong whencompared with others more slender, althoughthe whole body which they composemight be called slender.
53. Quod si dicatur, quod hæc repugnantpositioni supra firmatæ, circa partium essentialemordinationem inter se: quandoquidemvidemus, quod in corporibus fluidisac tenuibus una pars non servat ordinemessentialem ad aliam, sed accidentalemtantum, ita ut hæc pars vini, quæmodo alteri parti contigua est, mox inversovase, aut moto vino, alteri partiunitur, et sic omnes partes diversam positionemhabent quantumvis semper idem vinumsit, et ex hoc sequeretur, quod taliumanimalium corpora figurata stabiliter nonessent, et consequenter, nec organica.53. It may be objected that this is repugnantto what was said above concerningthe essential ordering of the parts amongthemselves; that it is seen that, in fluidand subtile bodies, one part is not essentiallybut only accidentally connected withanother; that a part of wine, for instance,just now contiguous with some other, sooncomes in contact with a third, if the vesselbe turned upside down or the wine shaken,and that all the parts together exchangepositions at the same time, though it bestill the same wine. Whence it should beinferred that, the bodies of those animalswould have no permanent figure, andwould consequently not be organic.
54. Respondeo negando assumptum; etenimin corporibus fluidis, quamvis non appareat,manet tamen essentialis partiumordinatio, qua stante stat in suo esse compositum,et hoc patet manifeste in vino:expressum enim ab uvis videtur liquor totaliterhomogeneus, non tamen ita est; ineo enim sunt partes crassæ, quæ tractutemporis subsident in doliis: sunt etiampartes tenues, quæ evaporant: sunt partesfixæ, ut tartarus, sunt partes volatiles, utsulphur, sive spiritus ardens; sunt partesmediæ inter volatile ac fixum, ut phlegma.Partes istæ ordinem essentialem inter semutant; nam statim ac expressum est abuvis, et mustum dicitur sulphur, sive spiritusvolatilis, ita implicatum manet particulistartari, qui fixus est, ut nullo modoavolare valeat.54. I reply that I deny the assumption. Infact, if in fluid bodies the essential orderingof the parts is not apparent, it subsistsnone the less, and causes a compound topreserve its own state. Wine, for instance,when expressed from the grapes, seems athoroughly homogeneous liquor, and yetis not so; for there are gross parts which,in the long run, subside in the casks; thereare also slender parts which evaporate;fixed parts, such as tartar; volatile parts,such as brimstone and alcohol; othersagain, half volatile and half fixed, such asphlegm. Those divers parts do not respectivelymaintain an essential order; for nosooner has the must been expressed fromthe grapes, and been styled brimstone or volatilespirits, than it continues so closely involvedwith the particles of tartar, which isfixed, as not to be in any way able to escape.
55. Hinc est, quod a musto recenter abuvis expresso nullo modo potest distillarispiritus sulphureus, qui communiter vocaturaqua vitæ: sed post quadraginta diesfermentationis particulæ vini ordinem mutant,ita ut spiritus, qui alligati erant particulistartareis, et propria volatilitate eassuspensas tenebant, et vicissim ab eis nepossent avolare detinebantur, ac tartareisparticulis separantur, et divulsi ac confusiremanent cum partibus phlegmaticis, aquibus per actionem ignis faciliter separantur,et avolant; sicque per distillationemfit aqua vitæ, quæ aliud non est quamsulphur vini volatile cum tenuiore partephlegmatis simul cum dicto sulphure viignis elevata. Post quadraginta dies, aliaincipit vini fermentatio, quæ longiori, autminus longo tempore perficitur, pro viniperfectiori aut imperfectiori maturitate,et alio atque alio modo terminatur, prominore aut majore spiritus sulphurei abundantia.Si enim abundat in vino sulphur,acescit fermentatione, et evadit acetum; siautem parum sulphuris continet, lentescitvinum, et Italice dicitur vino molle, autvino guasto. Quod si viurum sit,ut cæteris paribus est, vinum dulce brevioritempore, aut acescit, aut lentescit, ut quotidianaconstat experientia. In dicta autemfermentatione ordo essentialis partium vinimutatur; non enim ipsius quantitas, autmateria imminuitur, aut mutatur: videmusenim lagenam vino plenam tractu temporisevadere plenam aceto, nullatenus mutatamcirca quantitatem materiæ, quæprius ibi extabat, sed tantum mutato partiumessentiali ordine: nam sulphur,quod, ut diximus, erat phlegmati unitum,ac a tartaro separatum, iterum tartaro implicatur,et cum eo fixatur, et proinde sidistilletur acetum, primo prodit phlegmainsipidum, et post spiritus aceti, qui estsulphur vini illaqueatum particulis tartariminus fixi. Mutatio autem essentialis partiumsupradictarum variat substantiam liquorisexpressi ab uva, quod manifeste patetex variis et contrariis effectibus, quoscausant mustum, vinum, et acetum, et vinumlentum, quod vocatur corruptum, utproinde duo prima apta materia sint adconsecrationem, secus alia duo. Hanc porrovini economiam hausimus ab erudito opereNicolai Lemerii, Regis Galliarum aromatarii,Curs. de Chimi., p. 2. c. 9.55. That is the reason why must recentlyexpressed from the grapes is ofno use for the distillation of the sulfurousspirits, commonly called brandy;but, after forty days fermentation, the particlesof the wine change places: the spirits,no longer bound with the tartaric particleswhich they kept in suspension throughtheir own volatility, whilst they were, inreturn, kept down by them and preventedfrom escaping, sever from those particles,and continue confused with the phlegmaticparts from which they become easily releasedby the operation of fire, and evaporate:thus, by means of distillation, brandyis made, which is nothing but the brimstoneof wine volatilized by heat with the mostslender part of phlegm. At the end of fortydays another fermentation begins, whichextends more or less, according as the maturityof the wine is more or less perfect,and the termination of which is dependenton the greater or lesser abundance of sulphurousspirits. If abounding with brimstone,the wine sours and turns to vinegar;if, on the contrary, it holds but littlebrimstone, it ropes, and becomes what theItalians call vino molle or vino guasto. Ifthe wine is at once ripe, as happens inother cases, it sours or ropes in less time,as is shown by every day experience. Now,in said fermentation the essential order ofthe parts of wine is altered, but not so itsquantity nor its matter, which neitherchanges nor decreases: a bottle that hadbeen filled with wine is, after a certaintime, found to be filled with vinegar, withoutany alteration in its quantity ofmatter; the essential order of its parts hasalone been modified: the brimstone, which,as we have said, was united to the phlegmand separated from the tartar, becomesagain involved and fixed with the tartar; sothat, on distilling the vinegar, there issuesfrom it first an insipid phlegm, and then spiritsof vinegar, which are the brimstone ofwine intermixed with particles of tartar thatis less fixed. Now, the essential shifting ofthe aforesaid parts alters the substance ofthe juice of the grapes, as is clearly shownby the varied and contrary effects of must,wine, vinegar, and ropy or spoiled wine;for which cause the two first are fit, butthe two last unfit materials for consecration.We have borrowed the above expositionof the economy of wine from theable work of Nicholas Lemery, perfumerto the King of France, Course of Chemistry,p. 2. c. q.
56. Datam ergo naturalem doctrinamapplicando consequenter dico, quod datadictorum animalium corporeitate subtiliet tenui, sicut corpora liquidorum, et datapariter eorumdem organizatione et figuratione,quæ partium essentialem ordinationemexigunt, non sequerentur inconvenientiaex adverso illata: nam sicut (quemadmodumdicebamus) ex confusione partiumvini, et diversa ipsarum accidentali positionenon variatur ordinatio earumdem essentialis,ita esset in corpore tenui dictorumanimalium.56. If now we apply that natural doctrineto our subject, I say that, being given thecorporeity of the animals in question, subtileand slender like the substance ofliquids; being given also their organisationand figure, which demand an essential orderof the various parts, an adverse suppositioncould raise no argument contrary to theirexistence; for, just as the jumbling togetherof the parts of wine and the diversity oftheir accidental dispositions do not altertheir essential order, even so it would bewith the slender frame of our animals.
57. Quinta interrogatio est, an talia obnoxiaessent ægritudinibus, ac aliis imperfectionibus,quibus homines laborant, utignorantia, metu, segnitie, sensuum impedimentis,etc.? An laborando lassarentur,et ad virium reparationem egerent somno,cibo, ac potu, et quo? et consequenter aninterirent, et subinde, an a cæteris animalibuscasu, aut ruina possent occidi?57. Fifth question: Would those animalsbe subject to diseases and other infirmitiesunder which mankind lies, such as ignorance,fear, idleness, sensual paralysis, etc?Would they be wearied through labour, andrequire, for recruiting their strength, sleep,food, drink? And what food, what drink?Would they be fated to die, and mightthey be killed casually, or by the instrumentalityof other animals?
58. Respondeo, quod ex quo corpora ipsorum,quamvis tenuia, essent materiata,essent quidem corruptioni obnoxia; et exconsequenti possent pati ab agentibus contrariis,et ita ægrotare, puta, aut simpliciter,aut nisi ægre, perverse, aut vitiosepræstare non posse munera, ad quæ eorumorgana essent ordinata; in hoc siquidemconsistit animalium quorumdam ægritudoquævis: ut resolutive docet præstantissimusMichael Ettmullerus, Physiol. c. 5.,thes. 1. Verum est, quod ex eo quod tantammateriæ crassitatem non haberent, et forteex tot elementorum mixtione eorum corpusnon constaret, et minus compositum essetquam humanum, non tam facile paterentura contrariis, et consequenter nontot ægritudinibus velut homines essent obnoxia,et longiorem, etiam homine, vitamducerent: quo enim perfectius est animal,a tota specie, etiam cæteris diutius vivit,ut patet de specie humana, cujus vita longiorcæteris animalibus est. Nec enim admittosæcularem vitam cornicum, cervorum,corvorum et similium, de quibus moresuo fabulatur Plinius, et ejus somnia sineprævia discussione secuti sunt cæteri: quandoquidemnullus est, qui talium animaliumnatale et interitum fideliter adnotaverit, utpari modo de eo scripserit; sed insolitamdiu fabulam quisque secutus est; sicut etiamillud, quod de phœnice dicitur, quod utquid fabulosum, circa ejus vitæ spatiumrecenset Tacitus, l. 6. Annal. Inferendumsubinde esset quod illorum animalium vitaetiam humana deberet esse diuturnior: utenim infra dicemus, illa essent homine nobiliora;consequenter dicendum esset, quodessent obnoxia cæteris corporeis pathematis,et quiete, et cibo indigerent, quale diximussupra, no 50. Quia vero rationalia, etproinde disciplinabilia essent, ex consequentietiam capacia ignorantiæ, si eorumingenia non essent exculta studiis, et disciplina,et inter ea pro intellectus eorummajori, et minori acumine essent aliquamagis, aliqua minus in scientiis excellentia:universaliter vero, et a tota specie essenthomine doctiora, non ob eorum corporeamsubtilitatem, tum forte, ob majoremspirituum activitatem, tum ob diuturnioremvitæ durationem, in qua plura,quam homines discere possent, quas causasassignat D. Augustinus, lib. de Divin. Dæm.c. 3. init. tom. 3., et lib. de Spir. et Anima,c. 37., pro futurorum prænotione in Dæmonibus.Ab agentibus autem naturalibuspati quidem possent, ac difficulter occidi rationevelocitatis, qua possunt se subtraherea nocentibus; quapropter, nec a brutis,nec ab homine armis naturalibus,seu artificialibus nisi maxima difficultatepossent occidi, aut mutilari, et maximaeorumdem velocitate in declinando contrariumimpetum. Possent vero in somnoaut in non advertentia occidi, et mutilari acorpore solido, ut ense vibrato ab homine,aut lapide delapso per ruinam, quia eorumcorpus licet tenue, tamen et quantum, etdivisibile esset, velut aer qui ferro, fuste,aut alio corpore solido dividitur quamvistenuis sit. Eorum autem spiritus impartibilisesset, et ceu anima hominis totus intoto, et totus in quavis corporis parte. Hincfieret quod diviso corpore ipsorum, ut præfertur,per aliud corpus, sequi posset mutilatio,et proinde etiam mors: non enimfieri posset ut diviso corpore idem spiritusutramque partem informaret, cum ipse indivisibilisesset. Verum est quod sicut partesaeris divisæ, per intermedium corpus,hoc sublato iterum uniuntur, et evadit idemaer, possent pariter partes corporis divisæ,ut supra ponitur, reuniri, et ab eodem spiriturevivificari. Sed hoc modo nequirenttalia animalia ab agentibus naturalibusaut artificialibus occidi: sed rationabilioresset prima positio; ex hoc enim, quodcommunicarent cum cæteris in materia,æquum est, ut a cæteris etiam usque adeorum interitum pati possent, ut fit cumcæteris.58. I reply: Their bodies, though subtile,being material, they would of course beliable to decay: they might therefore sufferfrom adverse agencies, and consequentlybe diseased; that is, their organs mightnot perform, or painfully and imperfectlyperform the office assigned to them, fortherein consist all diseases whatever withcertain animals, as has been distinctly explainedby the most illustrious MichaelEttmuller, Physiology, c. v. thesis 1. Insooth, their body being less gross than thehuman frame, comprising less elementsmixed together, and being therefore lesscomposite, they would not so easily sufferfrom adverse influences, and would thereforebe less liable to disease than man;their life would also exceed his; for, themore perfect an animal, as a species, thelonger its days; thus mankind, whoseexistence extends beyond that of other animals.For I do not believe in the centenaryexistence of crows, stags, ravens and thelike, of which Pliny tells his customarystories; and although his dreams have beenreechoed by others without previous inquiry,it is no less clear that before writingthus, not one has faithfully noted the birthnor the death of those animals: they havebeen content with taking up the strangefable, as has been the case with the Phenix,whose longevity is discarded as a story byTacitus, Annals, b. 6. It were therefore tobe inferred that the animals we are speakingof would live longer still than man; for, asshall be said below, they would be morenoble than he; consequently also, theywould be subject to the other bodily affections,and require rest and food, as mentioned,number 50. Now, as rational beingsamenable to discipline, they might alsocontinue ignorant, if their minds did notreceive the culture of study and instruction,and some amongst them would be moreor less versed in science, more or less clever,according as their intelligence had beenmore or less trained. However, generallyspeaking, and considering the whole of thespecies, they would be more learned thanmen, not from the subtilty of their body,but perhaps because of the greater activityof their mind or the longer space of theirlife, which would enable them to learnmore things than men: such are indeedthe motives assigned by S. Augustine (Divin.Demon. ch. 3. and Spirit and Soul, ch. 37),to the prescience of the future in Demons.They might indeed suffer from naturalagencies; but they could hardly be killed,on account of the speed with which theycould escape from danger; it is thereforemost unlikely that they could, without thegreatest difficulty, be put to death or mutilatedby beast or by man, with natural orartificial weapons, so quick would they beat avoiding the impending blow. Yet, theymight be killed or mutilated in their sleep,or in a moment of inadvertence, by meansof a solid body, such as a sword brandishedby a man, or the fall of a heavy stone;for, although subtile, their body would bedivisible, just like air which, though vaporous,is yet divided by a sword, a club, orany other solid body. Their spirit, however,would be indivisible, and like the humansoul, entire in the whole and in each andevery part of the body. Consequently, thedivision of their body by another body, asaforesaid, might occasion mutilation andeven death, for the spirit, itself indivisible,could not animate both parts of a dividedbody. True, just as the parts of air, separatedby the agency of a body, unite againas soon as that body is withdrawn, andconstitute the same air as before, even sothe parts of the body divided, as above-mentioned,might unite and be revived by thesame spirit. But then, it must be inferredthat those animals could not be slain bynatural or artificial agencies: and it weremore rational to keep to our first position;for, if sharing matter with other creatures,it is natural that they should be liable tosuffer through those creatures, according tothe common rule, and even unto death.
59. Sexta interrogatio est, an ipsorumcorpora possent alia corpora penetrare, utparietes, ligna, metalla, vitrum, etc., et anmulta ipsorum possent in eodem loco materialiconsistere, et ad quantum spatiumextenderetur, seu restringeretur eorumcorpus?59. Sixth question: Could their bodiespenetrate other bodies, such as walls, wood,metals, glass, etc? Could many of themabide together on the same material spot,and to what space would their body extendor be restrained?
60. Respondeo, quod cum in omnibuscorporibus quantumvis compactis denturpori, ut ad sensum patet in metallis, de quibusmajor esset ratio, quod in ipsis nondarentur pori: microscopio perfecte elaboratodiscernuntur pori metallorum, cumsuis diversis figuris, utique possent per porosinsinuari quibusvis corporibus, et hocmodo ista penetrare, quantumvis tales poripenetrari non possent ab alio liquore, autspiritu materiali, aut vini, salis ammoniaci,aut similium, quia longe tenuioraessent istis liquoribus illorum corpora.Quamvis autem plures Angeli possint essein eodem loco materiali, et etiam restringiad locum minorem minore non tamen ininfinitum, ut probat Scotus in 2. dist. 2. q.6. § Ad proposi. et quæst. 8., per totum,hoc tamen concedendum non esset de corporibustalium animalium; tum quia corporaipsa essent quanta, et eorum dimensionon esset reciproce penetrabilis; tumquia si duo corpora gloriosa non possunt essein eodem loco, quamvis possent simul essegloriosum, et non gloriosum, ut voluit Gotofredusde Fontibus, quodlibet 6. q. 5., a quonon discordat Scotus in 2. distinct. 2. q. 8.in fine; multo minus possent simul esse istorumcorpora, quæ, licet subtilia, non tamenæquarent subtilitatem, corporis gloriosi.Quo autem ad extensionem et restrictionem,dicendum esset, quod sicut ex rarefactione,et condensatione, majus aut minusspatium occupatur ab aere, qui etiam artepotest constringi, ut in minori loco contineatur,quam sit suæ quantitati naturaliterdebitus, ut patet in magnis pilis lusoriis,quæ per fistulam seu tubum inflatoriuminflantur: in his siquidem aer violenterimmittitur, et constringitur, et ejus majoribi continetur quantitas, quam naturalispilæ capacitas exigat; ita pariformiter taliacorpora ex ipsorum naturali virtutepossent ad majus spatium, non tamen excedenseorum quantitatem, extendi: ut pariteretiam restringi, non tamen circa determinatumlocum suæ quantitati debitum.Et quia ipsorum nonnulla, prout etiam inhominibus est, essent magna, et nonnullaparva, congruum esset, ut magna possentplus extendi, quam parva, et hæc ad minoremlocum restringi, quam magna.60. I reply: In all bodies, however compact,there are pores, as is apparent inmetals where, more than in other bodies,it would seem there should be none;through a perfect microscope the pores ofmetals are discerned, with their differentshapes. Now, those animals might, throughthe pores, creep into, and thus penetrateany other bodies, although such poreswere impervious to other liquors or materialspirits, of wine, ammoniacal salt,or the like, because their bodies wouldbe much more subtle than those liquors.However, notwithstanding many Angelsmay abide together on the same materialspot, and even confine themselves in alesser and lesser space, though not infinitely,as is shown by Scott, yet it were rashto ascribe the same power to those animals;for, their bodies are determined insubstance and impervious to each other;and if two glorious bodies cannot abidetogether on the same spot, though a gloriousand a non glorious one may do so,according to some Doctors, much lesswould it be possible for the bodies of thoseanimals, which are indeed subtile, yet donot attain to the subtility of the gloriousbody. As regards their power of extensionor compression, we may instance the caseof air, which, rarefied and condensed, occupiesmore or less room, and may even,by artificial means, be compressed into anarrower space than would be naturallydue to its volume; as is seen with thoselarge balls which, for amusement, oneinflates by means of a blow-pipe or tube:air, being forced into them and compressed,is held in larger quantity than is warrantedby the capacity of the ball. Similarly thebodies of the animals we are speaking ofmight, by their natural virtue, extend to alarger space, not exceeding however theirown substance; they might also contract,but not beyond the determined space dueto that same substance. And, consideringthat of their number, as with men, somewould be tall and some short, it were properthat the tall should be able to extendmore than the short, and the short to contractmore than the tall.
61. Septima interrogatio est, an hujusmodianimalia in peccato originali nascerentur,et a Christo Domino fuissent redempta;an ipsis conferretur gratia, et perquæ sacramenta; sub qua lege viverent, etan beatitudinis et damnationis essent capacia?61. Seventh question: Would those animalsbe born in original sin, and havebeen redeemed by the Lord Christ? Wouldthe grace have been conferred upon themand through what sacraments? Under whatlaw would they live, and would they becapable of beatitude and damnation?
62. Respondeo, quod articulus Fidei est,quod Christus Dominus pro universa creaturarationali gratiam et gloriam meruit.Pariter articulus Fidei est, quod Creaturærationali gloria non confertur nisi præcedatin ea gratia, quæ est dispositio adgloriam. Similis articulus est quod glorianon confertur nisi per merita. Hæc verofundantur in observantia perfecta mandatorumDei adimpleta per gratiam. Ex hissatis fit positis interrogationibus. Incertumest an tales Creaturæ originaliter peccavissent,necne. Certum tamen est, quod siipsarum Prothoparens peccasset, sicut peccavitAdam, ipsius descendentes in peccatooriginali nascerentur, quemadmodum nascunturhomines. Et quia Deus nunquam reliquitCreaturam rationalem sine remedio,dum ipsa est in via; si hujusmodi creaturæin peccato originali, aut actuali inficerentur,Deus providisset illis de remedio, sedquale sit, an fecisset, noverit Deus, noverintipsæ. Hoc certum est, si inter ipsasessent eadem, aut alia sacramenta, ac suntin Ecclesia humana militanti, ipsa habuissent,et institutionem, et efficaciam a meritisJesu Christi, qui omnium creaturarumrationalium Redemptor et Satisfactor universalisest. Convenientissimum pariter,immo necessarium esset quod sub aliqualege a Deo sibi data viverent, ut per ipsiusobservantiam possent sibi beatitudinemmereri; quænam autem lex fuisset, annaturalis tantum, aut scripta, Mosaica,aut Evangelica, aut alia ab his omnibusdifferens, prout Deo placuisset, hoc nobisincognitum. Quoquomodo autem fuisset,nulla resultaret repugnantia possibilitatemtalium creaturarum excludens.62. I reply: It is an article of belief thatChrist has merited grace and glory for allrational creatures without exception. It isalso an article of belief that glory is notconferred on a rational creature until suchcreature has been previously endowedwith grace, which is the disposition to glory.According to a like article, glory is conferredbut by merits. Now, those meritsare grounded on the perfect observance ofthe commands of God, which is accomplishedthrough grace. The above questionsare thus solved. Whether those creaturesdid or did not sin originally is uncertain.It is clear, however, that if their first Parenthad sinned as Adam sinned, his descentwould be born in original sin, as menare born. And, as God never leaves a rationalcreature without a remedy, so long asit treads the way, if those creatures wereinfected with original or with actual sin,God would have provided them with aremedy; but whether it is the case, and ofwhat kind is the remedy, is a secret betweenGod and them. Surely, if they had sacramentsidentical with or different from thosein use in the human Church militant, forthe institution and efficacy thereof theywould be indebted to the merits of Jesus-Christ,the Redeemer and universal Atonerof all rational creatures. It would likewisebe highly proper, nay necessary, that theyshould live under some law given them byGod, and through the observance of whichthey might merit beatitude; but whatwould be that law, whether merely naturalor written, Mosaic or Evangelical, or differentfrom all these and specially institutedby God, that we are ignorant of. Whateverit might be though, there would follow noobjection exclusive of the possible existenceof such creatures.
63. Unicum porro argumentum, et quidemsatis debile post longam meditationem mihisubit contra talium creaturarum possibilitatem:et est quod si tales creaturæ in Mundoexisterent, de ipsis notitia aliqua traditafuisset a Philosophis, Sacra Scriptura, TraditioneEcclesiastica, aut Sanctis Patribus;quod cum non fuerit, tales creaturas minimepossibiles esse concludendum est.63. The only argument, and that a ratherlame one, which long meditations has suggestedto me against the possibility of suchcreatures, is that, if they really existed inthe World, we should find them mentionedsomewhere by Philosophers, Holy Scripture,Ecclesiastical Tradition, or the HolyFathers; such not being the case, theirutter impossibility should be inferred.
64. Sed hoc argumentum, quod reveramagis pulsat existentiam, quam possibilitatemillarum, facili negotio solvitur exiis quæ præmissimus supra no 41. et 42.Argumentum enim ab auctoritate negativanon tenet. Præterquam quod falsum est,quod de illis notitiam non tradiderint tumPhilosophi, tum Scriptura, tum Patres.Plato siquidem, ut refert Apuleius de DeoSocratis et Plutarchus de Isid. apud Baronem,Scot. Defens., tom. 9. Apparat. p. 1.fol. 2., voluit Dæmones esse animalia genere,animo passiva, mente rationalia,corpore aerea, tempore æterna: creaturasqueistas nomine Dæmonum intitulavit;quod tamen nomen non male sonat ex se:importat enim plenum sapientia; undecum Diabolum (Angelum nempe malum)volunt auctores exprimere, non simpliciterDæmonem sed Cacodæmonem vocant: sicutEudæmonem, quando bonum Angelumvolunt intelligi. Similiter in ScripturaSacra et Patribus, de dictis creaturis habeturmentio, et de hoc infra dicemus.64. But that argument which, in fact,calls in question their existence rather thantheir possibility, is easily disposed of byour premises, Nrs 41 and 42; for noargument can stand in virtue of a negativeauthority. Besides, it is not correct to assertthat neither the Philosophers, nor the Scriptures,nor the Fathers have handed downany notion of them. Plato, as is reportedby Apuleius (The Demon of Socrates) andPlutarch (Isis and Osiris), declared thatDemons were beings of the animal kind,passive souls, rational intelligences, aerialbodies, everlasting; and he gave them thename of Demons, which of itself is nowiseoffensive, since it means replete with wisdom;so that, when authors allude to the Devil(or Evil Angel), they do not merely callhim Demon, but Cacodemon, and say likewiseEudemon, when speaking of a goodAngel. Those creatures are also mentionedin Scripture and by the Fathers, as shallbe said hereafter.
65. Stabilita huc usque talium creaturarumpossibilitate, ad earumdem existentiamprobandam descendamus. Suppositatot historiarum veritate de coitu hujusmodiIncuborum et Succuborum cum hominibuset brutis, ita ut hoc negare impudentia videatur,ut ait D. Augustinus quem dedimussupra no 10., ita arguo: Ubi reperiturpropria passio sensus, ibidem necessarioreperitur sensus ipse, cum juxta principiaphilosophica propria passio fluat a natura,sive ubi reperiuntur actiones, seu operationessensus, ibidem reperitur sensus ipse,cum operationes et actiones sint a forma.Atqui in hujusmodi Incubis aut Succubis,sunt actiones, operationes, ac propriæ passiones,quæ sunt a sensibus; ergo in iisdem reperitursensus: sed sensus reperiri nequitnisi adsint organa composita, nempe expotentia animæ et determinata parte corporis:ergo in iisdem reperiuntur corpuset anima; erunt igitur animalia: sedetiam in ipsis et ab ipsis sunt actiones,et operationes animæ rationalis: ergoeorum anima erit rationalis: et ita deprimo ad ultimum tales Incubi sunt animaliarationalia.65. Now that we have proved that thosecreatures are possible, let us go a stepfurther, and show that they exist. Takingfor granted the truth of the recitals concerningthe intercourse of Incubi and Succubiwith men and beasts, recitals so numerousthat it would look like impudence to denythe fact, as is said by St Austin, whosetestimony is given above (Nr 10), I argue:Where the peculiar passion of the sense isfound, there also, of necessity, is the senseitself; for, according to the principles ofphilosophy, the peculiar passion flows fromnature, that is to say; that, where the actsand operations of the sense are found, therealso is the sense, the operations and actsbeing but its external form. Now, thoseIncubi and Succubi present acts, operations,peculiar passions, which spring fromthe senses; they are therefore endowed withsenses. But senses cannot exist withoutconcomitant composite organs, without acombination of soul and body. Incubi andSuccubi have therefore body and soul, and,consequentially, are animals; but their actsand operations are also those of a rationalsoul; their soul is therefore rational; andthus, from first to last, they are rationalanimals.
66. Minor probatur quoad singulas ejuspartes. Passio siquidem appetitiva coitusest passio sensus; mœror, ac tristitia, aciracundia et furor ex coitu denegato passionessensus sunt, ut patet in quibusvisanimalibus; generatio per coitum est operatiosensus, ut notum est. Hæc porro omniain Incubis sunt: ut enim probavimussupra a no 25. et seq., ipsi coitum muliebrem,et quandoque virilem appetunt, tristantur,et furunt, ut amantes, amentes, siipsis denegetur; coeunt perfecte et quandoquegenerant. Concludendum ergo quodpolleant sensu, et proinde corpore; undeinferendum etiam perfecta animalia esse.Pariter clausis ostiis ac fenestris intrantubivis locorum: igitur ipsorum corpus tenueest; item futura prænoscunt, annuntiant,componunt, ac dividunt; quæ operationessunt propriæ animæ rationalis: ergoanima rationali pollent; et ita sunt veraanimalia rationalia.66. Our minor is easy of demonstrationin each of its parts. And indeed, the appetitivepassion of coition is a sensual passion;the grief, sadness, wrath, rage, occasionedby the denial of coition, are sensual passions,as is seen with all animals; generationthrough coition is evidently a sensualoperation. Now, all that happens with Incubi,as has been shown above: they incitewomen, sometimes even men; if denied,they sadden and storm, like lovers: amantes,amentes; they perfectly practice coition,and sometimes beget. It must thereforebe inferred that they have senses, and consequentlya body; consequently also, thatthey are perfect animals. More than that:with closed doors and windows they enterwherever they please: their body is thereforeslender; they foreknow and foretellthe future, compose and divide, all whichoperations are proper to a rational soul;they therefore possess a rational soul andare, in sooth, rational animals.
Respondent communiter Doctores, quodmalus Dæmon est ille qui tales impudicitiasoperatur, quod passiones, nempeamorem, tristitiamque simulat ex coitudenegato, ut animas ad peccandum alliciat,et eas perdat; et si coit, et generat,hoc est ex semine, et in corpore alieno, utdictum fuit supra no 24.Doctors generally retort that it is theEvil Spirit that perpetrates those impureacts, simulates passions, love, grief at thedenial of coition, in order to entice soulsto sin and to undo them; and that, if hecopulates and begets, it is with assumedsperm and body, as aforesaid (Nr 24).
67. Sed contra Incubi nonnulli rem habentcum equis, equabus, aliisque etiambrutis, quæ si coitum adversentur, male abipsis tractantur, ut quotidiana constat experientia;sed in istis cessat ratio adducta,nempe quod fingat appetitum coitus, utanimas perdat, cum anima brutorum damnationisæternæ sit incapax. Prætereaamoris et iræ passiones in ipso contrarioseffectus reales producunt. Si enim aut mulieraut brutum amatum illis morem gerant,optime ab Incubis tractantur; viceversapessime habentur, si ex denegato coituirascantur et furant; et hoc firmatur quotidianaexperientia; ergo in ipsis suntveræ passiones sensus. Insuper mali Dæmones,ac incorporei, qui rem habent cumSagis et Maleficis, ipsas cogunt ad eorumadorationem, ad denegandam Fidem Orthodoxam,ad maleficia et scelera enormiaperpetranda tanquam pensum infamis coitus,ut supra no 11. dictum fuit: nihil horumprætendunt Incubi, ergo mali Dæmonesnon sunt. Ulterius malus Dæmon,ut ex Peltano et Thyreo scribit Guaccius,Compend. Malef. lib. 1. c. 19. fol. 128.,ad prolationem nominis Jesu aut Mariæ,ad formationem signi Crucis, ad approximationemsacrarum Reliquiarum, sivererum benedictarum, et ad exorcismos,adjurationes, aut præcepta sacerdotum,aut fugit aut pavet, concutiturque, et stridet,ut conspicitur quotidie in energumenis,et constat ex tot historiis, quas recitatGuaccius, ex quibus habetur, quod in nocturnisludis Sagarum facto ab aliquoassistentium signo Crucis, aut pronuntiatonomine Jesu, Diaboli et secum Sagæomnes disparuerunt. Sed Incubi ad supradictanec fugiunt, nec pavent, quandoquecachinnis exorcismos excipiunt, et quandoqueipsos Exorcistas cædunt, et sacras vestesdiscerpunt. Quod si mali Dæmones,utpote a D. N. J. C. domiti, ad ipsiusnomen, Crucem, et res sacras pavent:boni autem Angeli eisdem rebus gaudent,non tamen homines ad peccata et Dei offensamsollicitant: Incubi vero sacra non timent,et ad peccata provocant, convincituripsos nec malos Dæmones, nec bonos Angelosesse; sed patet, quod nec hominessunt, cum tamen ratione utantur. Quidergo erunt? Si in termino sunt, et simplicesspiritus sunt, erunt aut damnati autbeati: non enim in bona Theologia danturpuri spiritus viatores. Si damnati, nomenet Crucem Christi revererentur; si beati,homines ad peccandum non provocarent;ergo aliud erunt a puris spiritus; et sicerunt corporati, et viatores.67. But then, there are Incubi that haveto do with horses, mares and other beasts,and, as shown by every day experience, ill-treatthem if rebel to coition; yet, in thosecases, it can no longer be adduced that theDemon simulates the appetite for coitionin order to bring about the ruin of souls,since those of beasts are not capable ofeverlasting damnation. Besides, love andwrath with them are productive of quiteopposite effects. For, if the loved womanor beast humours them, those Incubi behavevery well; on the contrary, they usethem most savagely when irritated andenraged by a denial of coition: this is amplyproved by daily experience: those Incubitherefore have truly sexual passions.Besides, the Evil Spirits, the incorporealDemons which have to do with Sorceressesand Witches, constrain them to Demon-Worship,to the abjuration of the OrthodoxFaith, to the commission of enchantmentsand foul crimes, as preliminaryconditions to the infamous intercourse, ashas been above-stated (Nr 11); now, Incubipretend to nothing of the kind: they aretherefore no Evil Spirits. Lastly, as writtenby Guaccius, at the mere utterance of thename of Jesus or Mary, at the sign of theCross, the approach of Holy Relics or consecratedobjects, at exorcisms, adjurationsor priestly injunctions, the Evil Demoneither shudders and takes to flight, or isagitated and howls, as is daily seen withenergumens and is shown by numerous narrativesof Guaccius concerning the nightlyrevels of Witches, where, at a sign of theCross or the name of Jesus said by oneof the assistants, Devils and Witches allvanish together. Incubi, on the contrary,stand all those ordeals without taking toflight or showing the least fear; sometimeseven they laugh at exorcisms, strike theExorcists themselves, and rend the sacredvestments. Now, if the evil Demons, subduedby our Lord Jesus-Christ, are strickenwith fear by his name, the Cross and theholy things; if, on the other hand, thegood Angels rejoice at those same things,without however inciting men to sin norto give offense to God, whilst the Incubi,without having any dread of the holy things,provoke to sin, it is clear that they areneither evil Demons nor good Angels; butit is clear also that they are not men,though endowed with reason. What thenshould they be? Supposing them to havereached the goal, and to be pure spirits,they would be damned or blessed, for correctTheology does not admit of pure spiritson the way to salvation. If damned,they would revere the name and the Crossof Christ; if blessed, they would not incitemen to sin; they would therefore be differentfrom pure spirits, and thus, have abody and be on the way to salvation.
68. Præterea agens materiale non potestagere nisi in passum similiter materiale;tritum siquidem est axioma philosophorum,quod agens et patiens debent communicarein subjecto; nec id quod materiatumest, potest agere in rem pure spiritualem.Dantur autem agentia naturalia, quæagunt contra hujusmodi Dæmones Incubos,sequitur igitur quod isti materiati, seucorporei sunt. Minor probatur ex iis quæscribunt Dioscorides, l. 2. c. 168. et l. 1.c. 100., Plinius, lib. 15. c. 4., Aristoteles,Probl. 34., et Apuleius, 1. De VirtuteHerbarum, apud Guaccium, Comp. Malef.,l. 3. c. 13. fol. 316., et confirmaturexperientia, nempe de pluribus herbis, lapidibusac animalibus, quæ Dæmones depellunt,ut ruta, hypericon, verbena, scordium,palma Christi, centaureum, adamas,corallium, gagates, jaspis, pellis capitislupi aut asini, menstruum muliebre, et centumalia; unde habetur 26, q. 7. cap. final.:Dæmonium sustinenti liceat petras, velherbas habere sine incantatione. Ex quohabetur, petras aut herbas posse sua vi naturaliDæmonis vires compescere, aliterCanon hoc non permitteret, sed ut superstitiosumvetaret. Et de hoc luculentumexemplum habemus in Sacra Scriptura,ubi Angelus Raphael dixit Tobiæ, c. 6,v. 8.: Cordis ejus (nempe piscis, quem aTigri attraxerat) particulam, si supercarbones ponas, fumus ejus extricat omnegenus Dæmoniorum. Et ejus virtutem experientiacomprobavit: nam incenso jecorepiscis, fugatus est Incubus, qui Saramdeperiebat.68. Besides, a material agent cannot actbut on an equally material passive. It isindeed a trite philosophical axiom, thatagent and patient must have a commonsubject: pure matter cannot act on anypurely spiritual thing. Now, there are naturalagents which act on those Incubi Demons:these are therefore material orcorporeal. Our minor is proved by the testimonyof Dioscorides, Pliny, Aristotelesand Apuleius, quoted by Guaccius, Comp.Malef. b. 3, ch. 13, fol. 316; it is confirmedby our knowledge of numerous herbs,stones and animal substances which havethe virtue of driving away Demons, such asrue, St-John’s wort, verbena, germander,palma Christi, centaury, diamonds, coral,jet, jasper, the skin of the head of a wolfor an ass, women’s catamenia, and a hundredothers: wherefore it is written: Forsuch as are assaulted by the Demon it islawful to have stones or herbs, but withoutrecourse to incantations. It follows that, bytheir own native virtue, stones or herbscan bridle the Demon: else the abovementioned Canon would not permit theiruse, but would on the contrary forbid it assuperstitious. We have a striking instancethereof in Holy Scripture, where the AngelRaphael says to Tobit, ch. 6, v. 8, speakingof the fish which he had drawnfrom the Tigris: “If thou puttest oncoals a particle of its liver, the smokethereof will drive away all kinds of Demons.”Experience demonstrated thetruth of those words; for, no sooner wasthe liver of the fish set on fire, than theIncubus who was in love with Sarah wasput to flight.
69. Respondent ad hæc communiterTheologi, quod talia agentia naturalia inchoativetantum fugant Dæmonem, completiveautem vis supernaturalis Dei autAngeli, ita ut virtus supernaturalis sitcausa primaria, directa, et principalis, naturalisautem secondaria, indirecta, et minusprincipalis. Unde ad probationem, quæsupra adducta est de Dæmone fugato afumo jecoris piscis incensi a Tobia, respondetVallesius, De Sac. Philosoph.,c. 28., quod tali fumo indita fuit a Deovis supernaturalis fugandi Incubum, sicutigni materiali Inferni data est virtus torquendiDæmones et animas Damnatorum.Ad eamdem autem probationem respondetLyranus, et Cornelius ad c. 6. Tob. v. 8.,Abulentis in 1. Reg. c. 16. q. 46., Pereriusin Daniel., pag. 272., apud Cornel.loc. cit., fumum cordis piscis expulisseDæmonem inchoate vi naturali, sed completevi angelica et cœlesti: naturali autemimpediendo actionem Dæmonis per dispositionemcontrariam, quia hic agit per naturalescausas et humores, quorum qualitatesexpugnantur a qualitatibus contrariis rerumnaturalium, quæ dicuntur Dæmonesfugare; et in eadem sententia sunt omnesloquentes de arte exorcista.69. To this Theologians usually retortthat such natural agents merely initiate theejection of the Demon, and that the completiveeffect is due to the supernaturalforce of God or of the Angel; so that thesupernatural force is the primary, directand principal cause, the natural force beingbut secondary, indirect and subordinate.Thus, in order to explain how the liver ofthe fish burnt by Tobit drove away theDemon, Vallesius asserts that the smokethereof had been endowed by God with thesupernatural power of expelling the Incubus,in the same manner as the materialfire of Hell has the virtue of tormentingDemons and the souls of the Damned.Others, such as Lyranus and Cornelius,profess that the smoke of the heart of thefish initiated the ejection of the Demon bynative virtue, but completed it by angelicaland heavenly virtue: by native virtue, insomuchthat it opposed a contrary actionto that of the Demon; for the Evil Spiritapplies native causes and humours, thenative qualities of which are combated bythe contrary qualities of natural thingsknown to be capable of driving away Demons;that opinion is shared by all thosewho treat of the art of exorcisms.
70. Sed hæc responsio, que tamen validashabet instantias, ad plus quadrare potestcontra malos Dæmones obsidentes corpora,aut per maleficia inferentes ipsis ægritudines,aut alia incommoda, sed nullo modofacit ad propositum de Incubis: siquidemisti nec corpora obsident, nec ipsis officiuntper ægritudines habituales, sed ad plus ictibuset percussionibus torquent. Quod siequas coitum adversantes macras reddunt,hoc faciunt subducendo illis cibum, et hocmodo macrescere, et tandem interire easfaciunt. Ad hæc autem patranda non egetIncubus alicujus rei naturalis applicatione(qua tamen eget malus Dæmon inferensagritudinem habitualem), ea enim potest exsua vi organica naturali. Pariter Dæmonmalus plerumque obsidet corpora, et infertægritudines ad signa cum ipso conventaet posita a Saga aut Malefico, quæ signamultoties res naturales sunt præditæ vinativa nocendi, quibus naturaliter resistuntalia pariter naturalia contrariæ virtutis.Incubus vero non sic; quia ex se, et nullaconcurrente aut Saga, aut Malefico, suasvexationes infert. Præterea res naturalesfugantes Incubos suam virtutem exercent,ac effectum sortiuntur absque interventualicujus exorcismi aut sacræ benedictionis;ut proinde dici non possit, quod fuga Incubiinchoative sit a virtute naturali, completiveautem a vi divina, quia ibi nullaparticularis intervenit divini nominis invocatio,sed est purus effectus rei naturalis,ad quem non concurrit Deus, nisi concursuuniversali, tanquam auctor naturæ, etcausa universalis, et prima in ordine efficientium.70. But that explanation, however plausiblethe facts upon which it rests, can atmost be received as regards the Evil Spiritswhich possess bodies or, through malefice,infect them with diseases or other infirmities;it does not at all meet the case ofIncubi. For, these neither possess bodiesnor infect them with diseases; they, at most,molest them by blows and ill-treatment. Ifthey cause the mares to grow lean becauseof their not yielding to coition, it is merelyby taking away their provender, in consequenceof which they fall off and finallydie. To that purpose the Incubus need notuse a natural agent, as the Evil Spirit doeswhen imparting a disease: it is enoughthat it should exert its own native organicforce. Likewise, when the Evil Spirit possessesbodies and infects them with diseases,it is most frequently through signs agreedupon with himself, and arranged by a witchor a wizard, which signs are usually naturalobjects, indued with their own noxiousvirtue, and of course opposed by otherequally natural objects endowed with acontrary virtue. But not so the Incubus:it is of his own accord, and without thecooperation of either witch or wizard, thathe inflicts his molestations. Besides, thenatural things which put the Incubi toflight exert their virtue and bring about aresult without the intervention of any exorcismor blessing; it cannot therefore besaid that the ejection of the Incubus is initiatedby natural, and completed by divinevirtue, since there is in this case no particularinvocation of the divine name, butthe mere effect of a natural object, in whichGod cooperates only as the universal agent,the author of nature, the first of efficientcauses.
71. Duas circa hoc historias do, quarumprimam habui a Confessario Molinalium,viro gravi, ac fide dignissimo. Alteriusvero sum testis oculatus.71. To illustrate this subject, I give twostories, the first of which I have from aConfessor of Nuns, a man of weight, andmost worthy of credit; the second I waseye-witness to.
In quodam Sanctimonalium monasteriodegebat ad educationem Virgo quædamnobilis tentata ab Incubo, qui diu noctuqueipsi apparebat, ipsam ad coitum sollicitandoeniximis precibus, tamquam amasiuspræ amore dementatus; ipsa tamen semperrestitit tentanti gratia Dei, ac sacramentorumfrequentia roborata. Incassum abiereplures devotiones, jejunia et vota facta apuella vexata, exorcismi, benedictiones, etpræecepta ab exorcistis facta Incubo, utdesisteret a molestia illa; nec quidquamproficiebatur multitudo reliquiarum, aliarumquererum benedictarum disposita incamera virginis tentatæ, nec benedictæcandelæ noctu ibidem ardentes impediebant,quominus juxta consuetum appareretad tentandum in forma speciosissimi juvenis.Consultus inter alios viros doctos fuitquidam Theologus magnæ eruditionis:iste advertens virginem tentatam esse temperamentiphlegmatici a toto, conjectavitIncubum esse dæmonem aqueum (danturenim ut scribit Guaccius, Comp. Malefic.l. 1. c. 19. fol. 129., Dæmones ignei, aerei,phlegmatici, terrei, subterranei, et lucifugi),et consului, quod in camera virginistentatæ continue fieret suffimentum vaporosumsequens. Requirunt ollam novamfigulinam vitreatam; in hac ponitur calamiaromatici, cubebarum seminis, aristolochiæutriusque radicum, cardamomi majoris etminoris, gingiberis, piperis longi, caryophyllorum,cinnamomi, canellæ caryophyllatæ,macis, nucum myristicarum,styracis calamitæ, benzoini, ligni ac radicisrodiæ, ligni aloes, triasantalorum unauncia, semiaquæ vitæ libræ tres; poniturolla supra cineres calidas ut vapor suffimentiascendat, et cella clausa tenetur.Facto suffimento advenit denuo Incubus,sed ingredi cellam nunquam ausus est: sedsi tentata extra eam ibat, et per viridariumac claustra spatiabatur, aliis invisibilis sibivisus apparebat Incubus, et puellæ colloinjectis brachiis violenter, ac quasi furtiveoscula rapiebat: quod molestissimum honestævirgini erat. Consultus denuo Theologusille ordinavit puellæ, ut deferret pixidulasunguentarias exquisitorum odorum, ut moschi,ambræ, zibetti, balsami Peruviani, acaliorum compositorum; quod cum fecisset,deambulanti per viridarium puellæ apparuitIncubus faci minaci, ac furenti; non tamenad illam approximavit, sed digitum sibi momordittanquam meditans vindictam; tandemdisparuit, nec amplius ab ea visus fuit.In a certain monastery of holy Nunsthere lived, as a boarder, a young maidenof noble birth, who was tempted by anIncubus that appeared to her by day andby night, and with the most earnest entreaties,the manners of a most passionatelover, incessantly incited her to sin; butshe, supported by the grace of God and thefrequent use of the sacraments, stoutlyresisted the temptation. But, all her devotions,fasts and vows notwithstanding,despite the exorcisms, the blessings, theinjunctions showered by exorcists on theIncubus that he should desist from molestingher; in spite of the crowd of relics andother holy objects collected in the maiden’sroom, of the lighted candles keptburning there all night, the Incubus nonethe less persisted in appearing to her asusual, in the shape of a very handsomeyoung man. At last, among other learnedmen, whose advice had been taken on thesubject, was a very erudite Theologian who,observing that the maiden was of a thoroughlyphlegmatic temperament, surmisedthat that Incubus was an aqueous Demon(there are in fact, as is testified by Guaccius,igneous, aerial, phlegmatic, earthly,subterranean demons who avoid the lightof day), and prescribed an uninterruptedfumigation in the room. A new vessel, madeof glass-like earth, was accordingly broughtin, and filled with sweet cane, cubeb seed,roots of both aristolochies, great and smallcardamon, ginger, long-pepper, caryophylleæ,cinnamon, cloves, mace, nutmegs,calamite storax, benzoin, aloes-wood androots, one ounce of triasandalis, and threepounds of half brandy and water; the vesselwas then set on hot ashes in order to forceup the fumigating vapour, and the cell waskept closed. As soon as the fumigation wasdone, the Incubus came, but never daredenter the cell; only, if the maiden left itfor a walk in the garden or the cloister, heappeared to her, though invisible to othersand throwing his arms round her neck,stole or rather snatched kisses from her,to her intense disgust. At last, after a newconsultation, the Theologian prescribedthat she should carry about her personpills made of the most exquisite perfumes,such as musk, amber, chive, Peruvianbalsam, and others. Thus provided, shewent for a walk in the garden, where theIncubus suddenly appeared to her with athreatening face, and in a rage. He did notapproach her, however, but, after bitinghis finger as if meditating revenge, disappearedand was never more seen by her.
72. Alia historia est, quod in ConventuMagnæ Cartusiæ Ticinensis, fuit quidamDiaconus, nomine dictus Augustinus,maximas, ac inauditas, et pene incredibilessustinens a quodam Dæmone vexationes;quæ tolli nullo remedio spirituali(quamvis plura juxta plures exorcistas,qui liberationem, sed incassum tentarunt,fuissent adhibita) potuerunt. Me consuluitillius Conventus vicarius, qui curam divexati,utpote Clerici, ex officio habebat.Ego videns frustranea fuisse consuetaexorcismorum remedia, exemplo historiæsuprarecensitæ consului suffimentum similesuperiori, utque divexatus pixidulasodoramentorum supradictas deferret; etquia tabacchi usum habebat, et aqua vitædelectabatur, suasi ut et tabaccho et aquavitæ moschata uteretur. Dæmon illi apparebatdiu noctuque ultra alias species,puta scheleti, suis, asini, Angeli, avis,modo in forma unius, modo alterius exsuis Religiosis, et semel in forma suiPrælati, nempe Prioris, qui hortatus estvexatum ad puritatem conscientiæ, ad confidentiamin Deum, et ad frequentiamconfessionis; suasit ut sibi sacramentalemconfessionem faceret, quod etiam fecit; etexpost Psalmos Exsurgat Deus et Qui habitat,et mox Evangelium S. Joannis simulcum vexato recitavit, et ad ea verbaVerbum caro factum est genuflexit, etaccepta stola, quæ in cella erat, et aspergilloaquæ benedictæ benedixit cellæ, aclecto vexati, et ac si revera fuisset ipsiusPrior præceptum fecit Dæmoni, ne auderetillum suum subditum amplius divexare,et post hæc disparuit, sicque prodidit quisnamesset: aliter vexatus illum suumPrælatum esse reputaverat. Postquam igitursuffimentum, ac odores, ut supra dictumest, consulueram, non destitit Dæmonjuxta solitum apparere; imo assumpta figuravexati fuit ad cameram Vicarii, etab eo petiit aquam vitæ, ac tabaccummoschatum, dicens sibi talia valde placere.Vicarius utrumque illi dedit: quibus acceptisdisparuit in momento, quo facto cognovitVicarius se fuisse illusum a Dæmonetali pacto: quod magis confirmavit assertumvexati, qui cum juramento affirmavit,se illa die nullo modo fuisse in cella Vicarii.Iste mihi totum retulit, et ex tali factoconjeci Dæmonem illum non fuisse aqueum,ut erat Incubus, qui virginem ad coitumsollicitabat, ut dictum supra est, sedigneum, vel ad minus aereum, ex quo gaudebatvaporibus, ac odoribus, tabacco, etaqua vitæ, quæ calida sunt. Et conjecturævim addidit temperamentum divexati, quoderat colericum quo ad prædominium cumsubdominio, tamen sanguineo. Dæmonesenim tales non accedunt nisi ad eos, quisecum in temperamento symbolizant; exquo validatur opinio mea de illorum corporeitate.Unde suasi Vicario, ut acciperetherbas natura frigidas, ut nymphæam,hepaticam, portulacam, mandragoram,sempervivam, plantaginem, hyoscyamum,et alias similes, et ex iis compositum fasciculumfenestræ, alium ostio cellæ suspenderet;similibusque herbis, tum cameram,tum lectum divexati sterneret. Mirumdictu! comparuit denuo Dæmon, manenstamen extra cameram, nec ingredivoluit, et cum divexatus illum interrogasset,quare de more intrare non auderet,multis verbis injuriosis jactatis contra me,qui talia consulueram, disparuit, nec ampliusreversus est.72. Here is the other story. In the greatCarthusian Friary of Pavia there lived aDeacon, Austin by name, who was subjectedby a certain Demon to excessive, unheardof and scarcely credible vexations;although many exorcists had made repeatedendeavours to secure his riddance, allspiritual remedies had proved unavailing.I was consulted by the Vicar of the convent,who had the cure of the poor clerk. Seeingthe inefficacy of all customary exorcisms,and remembering the above-related instance,I advised a fumigation like unto theone that has been detailed, and prescribedthat the Deacon should carry about hisperson fragrant pills of the same kind;moreover, as he was in the habit of usingtobacco, and was very fond of brandy, Iadvised tobacco and brandy perfumed withmusk. The Demon appeared to him by dayand by night, under various shapes, as askeleton, a pig, an ass, an Angel, a bird;with the figure of one or other of theFriars, once even with that of his ownAbbot or Prior, exhorting him to keep hisconscience clean, to trust in God, to confessfrequently; he persuaded him to lethim hear his sacramental confession, recitedwith him the psalms Exsurgat Deusand Qui habitat, and the Gospel accordingto St John: and when they came to thewords Verbum caro factum est, he bent hisknee, and taking hold of a stole whichwas in the cell, and of the Holy-watersprinkle, he blessed the cell and the bed,and, as if he had really been the Prior, enjoinedon the Demon not to venture infuture to molest his subordinate; he thendisappeared, thus betraying what he was,for otherwise the young deacon had takenhim for his Prior. Now, notwithstandingthe fumigations and perfumes I had prescribed,the Demon did not desist from hiswonted apparitions; more than that, assumingthe features of his victim, he wentto the Vicar’s room, and asked for some tobaccoand brandy perfumed with musk, ofwhich, said he, he was extremely fond.Having received both, he disappeared inthe twinkling of an eye, thus showing theVicar that he had been played with by theDemon; and this was amply confirmed bythe Deacon, who affirmed upon his oaththat he had not gone that day to the Vicar’scell. All that having been related to me, Iinferred that, far from being aqueous likethe Incubus who was in love with the maidenabove spoken of, this Demon wasigneous, or, at the very least, aerial, sincehe delighted in hot substances such asvapours, perfumes, tobacco and brandy.Force was added to my surmises by thetemperament of the young deacon, whichwas choleric and sanguine, choler predominatinghowever; for, those Demonsnever approach but those whose temperamenttallies with their own: another confirmationof my sentiment regarding theircorporeity. I therefore advised the Vicarto let his penitent take herbs that are coldby nature, such as water-lily, liver-wort,spurge, mandrake, house-leek, plantain,henbane, and others similar, make twolittle bundles of them and hang them up,one at his window, the other at the doorof his cell, taking care to strow some alsoon the floor and on the bed. Marvellousto say! The Demon appeared again, butremained outside the room, which hewould not enter; and, on the Deacon inquiringof him his motives for such unwontedreserve, he burst out into invectivesagainst me for giving such advice, disappeared,and never came again.
73. Ex his duabus historiis apparet talesodores, et herbas respective sua naturalivirtute, nullaque interveniente vi supernaturaliDæmones propulisse; undeconvincitur quod Incubi patiuntur a qualitatibusmaterialibus, ut proinde concludidebeat, quod communicant in materia cumiis rebus naturalibus, a quibus fugantur,et ex consequenti corpore sint præditi,quod est intentum.73. The two stories I have related makeit clear that, by their native virtue alone,perfumes and herbs drove away Demonswithout the intervention of any supernaturalforce; Incubi are therefore subject tomaterial conditions, and it must be inferredthat they participate of the matter of thenatural objects which have the power ofputting them to flight, and consequentlythey have a body; that is what was to beshown.
74. Et magis conclusio firmatur, siimpugnetur sententia Doctorum supracitatorum,dicentium, Incubum abactum aSara fuisse vi Angeli Raphaelis, non verojecoris piscis callionymi, qualis fuit piscis aTobia apprehensus ad ripam Tigris, ut cumVallesio, Sacr. Philos., c. 42., scribit Corneliusa Lap. in Tob. c. 6. v. 2., § Quartoergo: salva enim tantorum Doctorumreverentia, talis expositio manifeste adversatursensui patenti Textus, a quo nullomodo recedendum est dummodo non sequanturabsurda. En verba Angeli adTobiam: “Cordis ejus particulam, sisuper carbones ponas, fumus ejus extricatomne genus Dæmoniorum, sive aviro, sive a muliere, ita ut ultra non accedantad eos, et fel valet ad unguendosoculos, in quibus fuerit albugo, et sanabuntur.”(Tob., c. 6. v. 8. et 9.) Notetur,quæso, assertio Angeli absoluta, etuniversalis de virtute cordis, seu jecoris, etfellis illius piscis: non enim dicit: Si ponesparticulas cordis ejus super carbones, fugabisomne genus Dæmoniorum, et si felleunges oculos, in quibus fuerit albugo,sanabuntur: si enim ita dixisset, congruaesset expositio, quod nempe Raphael supernaturalisua virtute illos effectus patrasset,ad quos perficiendos inepta essetapplicatio fumi, et fellis: sed non italoquitur, sed ait talem esse virtutem fumi,et fellis absolute.74. But, the better to establish our conclusion,it behoves to impugn the mistakeinto which have fallen the Doctors above-quoted,such as Vallesius and Cornelius aLapide, when they say that Sarah was ridfrom the Incubus by the virtue of the AngelRaphael, and not by that of the callionymousfish caught by Tobit on the banks ofthe Tigris. Indeed, saving the reverencedue to such great doctors, such a constructionmanifestly clashes with the clear meaningof the Text, from which it is neverjustifiable to deviate, so long as it doesnot lead to absurd consequences. Here arethe words spoken by the Angel to Tobias:“If thou puttest on coals a particle ofits heart, the smoke thereof will expelall kinds of Demons, whether from man orwoman, so that they shall never return,and its gall is good for anointing eyesthat have whiteness, and healing them.”(Tobit, c. 6, v. 8 and 9). Pray notice thatthe Angel’s assertion respecting the virtueof the heart or liver and gall of that fishis absolute, universal; for, he does not say:“If thou puttest on coals particles of itsheart, thou wilt put to flight all kinds ofDemons, and if thou anointest with its galleyes that have a whiteness, they shall be healed.”If he had thus spoken, I could agreewith the construction that Raphael hadbrought about, by his own supernaturalvirtue, the effects which the mere applicationof the smoke and the gall might nothave sufficed to produce: but he does notspeak thus, and, on the contrary, saysabsolutely, that such is the virtue of thesmoke and the gall.
75. Quæro modo, an Angelus veritatempuram dixerit de virtute rerum, an mentiripotuerit; pariter an albugo ab oculisTobiæ senioris ablata sit vi naturali fellispiscis, aut virtute supernaturali AngeliRaphaelis? Angelum mentiri potuisse blasphemiahæreticalis est; sequitur igiturpuram veritatem fuisse ab eo assertam;talis autem non esset, si omne genus Dæmoniorumnon extricaretur a fumo jecorispiscis nisi addita vi supernaturali Angeli,maxime, si hæc esset causa principalis taliseffectus, quemadmodum scribunt de hoccasu Doctores. Mentiretur absque dubiomedicus qui diceret: talis herba curat taliterpleuritidem, sive epilepsiam, ut ampliusnon revertatur: si herba illa noncuraret illas ægritudines nisi inchoate, etperfecta illarum sanatio esset ab alia herbaconjuncta priori; sic pari modo mentitusfuisset Raphael, asserens fumum jecorisextricare omne genus Dæmoniorum ita utultra non accedant, si talis effectus esseta fumo solum inchoate, principaliter vero,et perfecte a virtute Angeli. Præterea talisfuga Dæmonis, vel secutura erat universaliter,et semper posito jecore piscis supercarbones a quoquam, vel debebat sequi inillo solummodo casu particulari, jecoreincusso a juniore Tobia. Si primum, ergooportet, quod cuicumque talem fumum peraccensionem jecoris paranti, assistat Angelusqui supernaturali virtute Dæmonemmiraculose abigat regulariter; et hocest absurdum; ad positionem enim rei naturalisdeberet regulariter sequi miraculum,quod est incongruum, et si absqueAngeli operatione fuga Dæmonis non sequeretur,mentitus fuisset Raphael asserenseam esse virtutem jecoris. Si autemeffectus ille sequi non debeat, nisi in illocasu particulari, mentitus fuisset Angelusenuncians universaliter virtutem piscis, infugando omni Dæmoniorum genere, quodnon est dicendum.75. It may be asked whether the Angelspoke the precise truth regarding the virtueof those things, or whether he might havelied; and likewise, whether the whitenesswas withdrawn from the eyes of the elderTobit by the native force of the gall of thefish, or by the supernatural virtue of theAngel Raphael? To say that the Angelcould have lied would be an heretical blasphemy;he therefore spoke the precisetruth; but it would no longer be so if allkinds of Demons were not expelled by thesmoke of the liver of the fish, unless aidedby the supernatural force of the Angel,and especially, if such aid was the principalcause of the effect produced, as the Doctorsassert in the present case. It woulddoubtless be a lie if a physician shouldsay: such an herb radically cures pleurisyor epilepsy, and if it should only begin thecure, the completion of which required theaddition of another herb to the one firstused; in the same manner, Raphael wouldhave lied when averring that the smoke ofthe liver expelled all kinds of demons, sothat they should not return, if that resulthad been only begun by the smoke, and itscompletion had been principally due to thevirtue of the Angel. Besides, that flight ofthe demon was either to take place universallyand by any one whomsoever puttingthe liver of the fish on the coals, or else itwas only to occur in that particular case,the younger Tobit putting the liver on. Inthe first hypothesis, any person makingthat smoke by burning the liver should beassisted by an Angel, who, through hissupernatural virtue should expel the Demonsmiraculously and regularly at thesame time; which is absurd; for, eitherwords have no meaning, or a natural factcannot be regularly followed by a miracle;and, if the Demon was not put to flightwithout the assistance of the Angel, Raphaelwould have lied when ascribing thatvirtue to the liver. If, on the contrary, thateffect was only to be brought about in thatparticular case, Raphael would again havelied when assigning to that fish, universallyand absolutely, the virtue of expelling theDemon: now, to say that the Angel lied isnot possible.
76. Ulterius albugo oculorum detracta estab oculis Tobiæ senioris, et ipsius cæcitassanata est a virtute naturali fellis piscisillius, ut Doctores affirmant (Liran. Dyonisius;et Seraci. apud Cornel. in Tobi., c. 6.v. 9). Piscis enim Callionymus, qui vocaturItalice bocca in capo, et quo usus est Tobias,fel habet pro celeberrimo remedio addetegendas albugines oculorum, ut scribuntconcorditer Dioscorides, l. 1. c. 96., Galenus,De Simpl. Medicam., Plinius, l. 32. c.7., Aclanius, De Ver. Histor., l. 13. c. 14.,et Vallesius, De Sacr. Philos., c. 47. TextusGræcus Tobiæ, c. 11. v. 13., habet:“Inspersit fel super oculos patris sui, dicens:Confide, Pater; ut autem erosisunt, detrivit oculos suos, et disquamatæsunt ab angulis oculorum albugines.”Cum igitur eodem contextu Angelus aperueritTobiæ virtutem jecoris, et fellis piscis,et hoc sua naturali virtute cæcitatemTobiæ senioris curaverit, concludendum est,quod etiam fumus jecoris sua naturali viIncubum fugaverit: quod concludenter confirmatura Textu Græco, qui ad Tobiæ c.8. v. 2., ubi Vulgata habet: “Partem jecorisposuit super carbones vivos”, sichabet: “Accepit cinerem, sive prunamthimiamatum, et imposuit cor piscis, ethepar, fumumque fecit, et quando odoratusest Dæmon odores, fugit.” EtTextus Hebraicus ita cantat: “PercepitAsmodeus odorem, et fugit.” Ex quibustextibus apparet, quod Dæmon fugit ad perceptionemfumi, sibi contrarii, ac nocentis,non autem a virtute Angeli supernaturali.Quod si in tali liberatione Saræ ab impetitioneIncubi Asmodei, ultra fumum jecorisintervenit operatio Raphaelis, hoc fuit inalligatione Dæmonis in deserto superiorisÆgypti, ut dicitur c. 8. v. 3. Tobiæ; fumusquippe jecoris nequibat in tanta distantiaagere in Dæmonem, aut illum alligare.Quod inservire potest pro concordiasupracitatorum Doctorum (qui volueruntSaram perfecte liberatam a Dæmone virtuteRaphaelis) cum sententia, quam tuemur:dico enim, quod ipsi senserint quodperfecta curatio Saræ a Dæmone fuerit inalligatione ejus in deserto, quæ fuit ab Angelo,quod et nos concedimus; sed extricatio,sive fugatio ejusdem a cubiculo Saræfuerit a vi innativa jecoris piscis, quod nostuemur.76. The whiteness was withdrawn fromthe eyes of the elder Tobit, and his blindnesshealed, through the native virtue ofthe gall of that same fish, as Doctors aver.In fact, that the gall of the callionymousfish, which the Italians call bocca in capo,and of which Tobias made use, is a highlyrenowned remedy for removing the whitenessfrom the eyes, all are agreed, Dioscorides,Galen, Pliny, Aclanius, Vallesius,etc. The Greek Text of Tobit, c. 11, v. 13,says: “He poured the gall on his father’seyes, saying: Have confidence, father;but, there being erosion, the old man rubbedhis eyes, and the scales of the whiteness cameout at the corners.” Now, since, accordingto the same text, the Angel had disclosedto Tobias the virtue of the liver and gallof the fish, and since, through its native virtue,the gall cured the elder Tobit’s blindness,it must be inferred that it was likewisethrough its native force that the smoke ofthe liver put the Incubus to flight; whichinference is conclusively confirmed by theGreek text, which, Tobit, c. 8, v. 2, insteadof the reading in the Vulgate: “He laid apart of the liver on burning coals”, saysexplicitly: “He took the ashes of the perfumes,and put the heart and the liver of thefish thereupon, and made a smoke therewith;the which smell when the evil spirit hadsmelled, he fled.” The Hebrew text says:“Asmodeus smelled the smell, and fled.”From all those texts it appears that theDemon took to flight on smelling a smokewhich was prejudicial and hurtful to himself,and nowise from the supernaturalvirtue of the Angel. If, in ridding Sarahfrom the assaults of the Incubus Asmodeus,the operation of the smoke of the liver wasfollowed by the intervention of Raphael, itwas in order to bind the Demon in thewilderness of High-Egypt, as related, Tobit,c. 8, v. 3; for, at such a distance, thesmoke of the liver could neither operate onthe Demon, nor bind him. And here wehave the means of reconciling our opinionwith that of the above-mentioned Doctors,who ascribe to Raphael’s power Sarah’scomplete riddance from the Demon: for,I say with them, that the cure of Sarah wascompleted by the binding of the Demon inthe wilderness, the deed of the Angel;which I concede; but I maintain that thedeliverance properly called, that is to say,the ejection from Sarah’s bed-room, wasthe direct effect of the virtue of the liverof the fish.
77. Probatur tertio principaliter nostraconclusio de existentia talium animalium,seu de Incuborum corporeitate, ex auctoritateD. Hieronymi, in vita S. Pauli primiEremitæ. Refert is D. Antonium iter perdesertum arripuisse, ut ad visendum D.Paulum perveniret, et post nonnullas diætasitineris Centaurum reperiisse, a quocum fuisset percontatus mensionem D. Pauli,et ille barbarum quid infrendens potius,quam proloquens, dextræ protensione manusiter D. Antonio demonstrasset, in sylvamse abdidit cursu concitatissimo. Prosecutusiter S. Abbas in quadam valle invenit haudgrandem quemdam homunculum, aduncismanibus, fronte cornibus asperata, cujusextrema pars corporis in caprarum pedesdesinebat. Ad ejus aspectum substitit Antonius,et timens Diaboli artes signo SanctæCrucis se munivit. Ad tale signum nec fugit,nec metuit homuncio ille, immo ad sanctumsenem actu humili appropinquans, palmarumfructus ad viaticum quasi pacis obsidesilli offerebat. Tum B. Antonius quisnamesset interrogans, hoc ab eo responsum accepit:Mortalis ego sum, et unus ex accolisEremi, quos vario errore delusaGentilitas Faunos, Satyros, et Incubosvocans colit; legatione fungor gregismei; precamur, ut pro nobis communemDeum depreceris, quem pro salute mundivenisse cognovimus, et universam terramexiit sonus ejus.” Ad quæ gaudens D.Antonius de gloria Christi, conversus adAlexandriam, et baculo terram percutiens,ait: “Veh tibi, Civitas meretrix, quæ prodiis animalia veneraris!” Hæc D. Hieronymus,qui late prosequitur hoc factum,ipsius virtutem longo comprobans sermone.77. A third principal proof of our conclusionregarding the existence of thoseanimals, in other words, respecting thecorporeity of Incubi, is adduced by thetestimony of St Hieronymus, in his Lifeof St Paul, the first Hermit. St Anthony,says he, set on a journey to visit St Paul.After travelling several days, he met aCentaur, of whom he inquired the hermit’sabode; whereupon the Centaur, growlingsome uncouth and scarcely intelligibleanswer, shew the way with his out-stretchedhand, and fled with the utmost speed intoa wood. The Holy Abbot kept on his way,and, in a dale, met a little man, almost adwarf, with crooked hands, horned brow,and his lower extremities ending withgoat’s feet. At the sight of him, St Anthonystood still, and fearing the arts of the Devil,comforted himself with a sign of theCross. But, far from running away, or evenseeming frightened at it, the little fellowrespectfully approached the old man, andtendered him, as a peace offering, datesfor his journey. The blessed St Anthonyhaving then inquired who he was: “I ama mortal,” replied he, “and one of the inhabitantsof the Wilderness, whom Gentility,under its varied delusions, worships underthe names of Fauns, Satyrs and Incubi; Iam on a mission from my flock: we requestthee to pray for us unto the common God,whom we know to have come for the salvationof the world, and whose praises aresounded all over the earth.” Rejoicing atthe glory of Christ, St Anthony, turning hisface towards Alexandria, and striking theground with his staff, cried out: “Woe beunto thee, thou harlot City, who worshipestanimals as Gods!” Such is the narrativeof St Hieronymus, who expatiates at lengthon the fact, explaining its import in a longdiscourse.
78. De hujus historiæ veritate dubitaretemerarium est, cum eam constanter referatSS. Ecclesiæ Doctorum maximus D. Hieronymus,de cujus auctoritate nullus Catholicusdubitabit. Addit fol. 21. 25. Notandæproinde veniunt illius circumstantiæ, quæsententiam nostram evidentissime confirmant.78. It were indeed rash to doubt thetruth of the above recital, constantly referredto by the greatest of the Doctors ofthe Holy Church, St Hieronymus, whoseauthority no Catholic will ever deny. Letus therefore investigate the circumstancesthereof which most clearly confirm ouropinion.
79. Primo notandum est, quod si ullusSanctorum artibus Dæmonis impetitus fuit;si ullus diversas ejus artes nocendi calluit;si ullus victorias, ac illustria de eodem tropheareportavit, is fuit D. Antonius, utconstat ex ejus vita a D. Athanasio descripta.Dum igitur D. Antonius homunculumillum non tanquam Diabolum agnovit,sed animal intitulavit, dicens: Veh tibi,Civitas meretrix, quæ pro Diis animaliaveneraris! convincitur, quod ille nullo modofuit Diabolus, seu purus spiritus de cœlodejectus, ac damnatus, sed aliquod aliud animal.Et confirmatur, quia D. Antonius erudienssuos monachos, eosque animans admetuendas Dæmonis violentias, aiebat, prouthabetur in lectionibus Breviarii Romani infesto S. Antonii Abb. l. 1., quæ recitanturin festo ipsius: “>Mihi credite, Fratres,pertimescit Satanas piorum vigilias, orationes,jejunia, voluntariam paupertatem,misericordiam, et humilitatem; maximevero ardentem amorem in ChristumDominum, cujus unico Sanctissimæ Crucissigno debilitatus fugit.” Dum igiturhomunculus ille, contra quem D. AntoniusCrucis signo se munivit, ad ejus aspectumnec pavit, nec fugit, immo confidenter, humiliterque accessit ad eum dactalos illiofferens, signum est, illum nullo modo Diabolumfuisse.79. Firstly, we must observe that if evera Saint was assailed by the arts of the Demon,saw through his infernal devices, andcarried off victories and trophies from thecontest, that Saint was St Anthony, as isshown by his life written by St Athanasius.Now, since in that little man St Anthonydid not recognize a devil but ananimal, saying: “Woe be unto thee, thouharlot City, who worshipest animals asGods!”, it is clear that it was no devil orpure spirit ejected from heaven and damned,but some kind of animal. Still more: StAnthony, when instructing his friars andcautioning them against the assaults of theDemon, said to them, as related in theRoman Breviary (Festival of St Anthony,Abbot, b. I): “Believe me, my brethren,Satan dreads the vigils of pious men, theirprayers, fasts, voluntary poverty, compassionand humility; but, above all, he dreadstheir burning love of our Lord Christ, atthe mere sign of whose most Holy Cross heflies disabled.” As the little man, againstwhom St Anthony guarded himself with asign of the Cross, neither took fright norfled, but approached the Saint confidentlyand humbly, offering him some dates, it isa sure sign that he was no Devil.
80. Secundo notandum, quod homunculusille dixit: Mortalis et ego sum; ex quibusverbis docemur, quod ille erat animal mortiobnoxium, et proinde, quod per generationemesse accepit: spiritus enim immaterialisimmortalis est, quia simplex, et ideonon accipit esse per generationem ex præjacentemateria, sed per creationem; undenec amittit esse per corruptionem, quæ diciturmors, sed per annihilationem tantumpotest desinere esse. Quod si ille se mortalemesse dixit, professus est se esse animal.80. Secondly, we must observe that thelittle man said: “I also am a mortal”,whence it follows that he was an animalsubject to death, and consequently calledinto being through generation; for, animmaterial spirit is immortal, because simple,and consequently is not called intobeing through generation from preexistentmatter, but through creation, and, consequentlyalso, cannot lose it through thecorruption called death; its existence canonly come to an end through annihilation.Therefore, when saying he was mortal, heprofessed himself an animal.
81. Tertio notandum, quod ait se cognovissecommunem Deum in carne humanafuisse passum. Ex his verbis convinciturillud fuisse animal rationale: siquidembruta nihil agnoscunt, nisi sensibile et præsens,unde ab ipsis Deus nullo modo cognoscipotest. Quod si homunculus ille ait,se cum aliis suis cognovisse Deum in carnehumana passum, hoc probat, quod aliquorevelante habuit notitiam de Deo, sicut etiamnos habemus de illo fidem revelatam; pariterque Deum carnem humanam assumpsisse,et in ea passum: quæ duo sunt articulinostræ Fidei principales, nempe Deiunius, et trini existentia, et ipsius Incarnatio,Passio, et Resurrectio; ex quibusomnibus habetur, ut dicebam, illud fuisseanimal rationale capax divinæ cognitionis,per revelationem, ut nos, et proinde pollensanima rationali, et ex consequenti immortali.81. Thirdly, we must observe that hesaid he knew that the common God hadsuffered in human flesh. Those words showhim to have been a rational animal, forbrutes know nothing but what is sensibleand present, and can therefore have noknowledge of God. If that little man saidthat he and his fellows were aware of Godhaving suffered in human flesh, it showsthat, by means of some revelation, he hadacquired the notion of God, as we haveourselves the revealed faith. That God assumedhuman flesh and suffered in it, is theessence of the two principal articles of ourFaith: the existence of God one and threefold,His Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection.All that shows, as I said, that itwas a rational animal, capable of the knowledgeof God through revelation, like ourselves,and endowed with a rational, andconsequently, immortal soul.
82. Quarto notandum, quod oraverit nomineomnium gregis sui, cujus legationefungi se profitebatur, D. Antonium, ut communemDeum pro illis deprecaretur. Exhis deducitur, quod homunculus ille capaxerat beatitudinis, et damnationis, et quod nonerat in termino, sed in via: ex hoc enim,quod, ut supra probatum est, se prodiditrationalem, et anima immortali consequenterdonatum, consequens est, quod et beatitudinis,et damnationis capax sit: hæcenim propria passio est Creaturæ rationalis,ut constat ex natura angelica, et humana.Item deducitur, quod ipse erat invia, et proinde capax meriti, et demeriti:si enim fuisset in termino, fuisset vel beatus,vel damnatus; neutrum autem potuitesse, quia orationes D. Antonii, quibus secommendabat, ipsi nullo modo prodessepotuissent, si fuisset finaliter damnatus; etsi beatus fuisset, illis non eguisset. Quodipsi se commendavit, signum est eas sibiprodesse potuisse, et proinde ipsum fuissein statu viæ, et meriti.82. Fourthly, we must observe that, inthe name of his whole flock whose delegatehe professed to be, he besought St Anthonyto pray for them to the commonGod. Wherefrom I infer that that little manwas capable of beatitude and damnation,and that he was not in termino but in via;for, from his being, as has been shownabove, rational and consequently endowedwith an immortal soul, it flows that he wascapable of beatitude and damnation, theproper share of every rational Creature,Angel or man. I likewise infer that he wason the way, in via, that is, capable ofmerit and demerit; for, if he had been atthe goal, in termino, he would have beeneither blessed or damned. Now, he could beneither the one nor the other; for, St Anthony’sprayers, to which he commendedhimself, could have been of no assistanceto him, if finally damned, and, if blessed,he stood in no need of them. Since hecommended himself to those prayers, itshows they could be of avail to him, and,consequently, that he was on the way tosalvation, in statu viæ et meriti.
83. Quinto notandum, quod homunculusille professus est, se esse legatum aliorumsuæ speciei, dum dixit legatione fungorgregis mei, ex quibus verbis plura deducuntur.Unum est, quod homunculus illenon solus erat, unde potuisset credi monstrumraro contingens, sed quod plureserant ejusdem speciei; tum quia simul congregatigregem faciebant; tum quia nomineomnium veniebat: quod esse non possetsi multorum voluntates in illum nonconvenissent. Aliud est, quod isti profitenturvitam socialem: ex quo nomine multorumunus ex ipsis missus est. Aliud est,quod quamvis dicantur habitare in Eremo,non tamen in eo fixa est eorum permanentia:siquidem cum D. Antonius in illaeremo alias non fuisset (distabat enim illaper multas dietas ab eremo D. Antonii),scire non potuerunt quisnam ille esset cujusvesanctitatis; necessarium igitur fuit,quod alibi eum cognoverint, et ex consequentiextra desertum illum vagaverint.83. Fifthly, we must observe that thelittle man professed to be delegated byothers of his kind, when saying: “I amon a mission from my flock”, words fromwhich many inferences may be deduced.One is, that the little man was not aloneof his kind, an exceptional and solitarymonster, but that there were many of thesame species, since congregating they madeup a flock, and that he came in the name ofall; which could not have been, had not thewill of many centred in him. Another is,that those animals lead a social life, sinceone of them was sent in the name of many.Another again is, that, although livingin the Wilderness, it is not assigned tothem as a permanent abode; for St Anthonyhaving never previously been in thatdesert, which was far distant from his hermitage,they could not have known who hewas nor what his degree of sanctity; it wastherefore necessary that they should havebecome acquainted with him elsewhere,and, consequently, that they should havetravelled beyond that wilderness.
84. Ultimo notandum, quod homunculusille ait esse ex iis, quos cæco errore delusaGentilitas Faunos, Satyros et Incubosappellant; et ex his verbis convincitur nostrumintentum principale, Incubos nempeesse animalia rationalia beatitatis, et damnationiscapacia.84. Lastly, we must observe that thelittle man said he was one of those whomthe Gentiles, blinded by error, call Fauns,Satyrs and Incubi: and by these words isshown the truth of our principal proposition:that Incubi are rational animals,capable of beatitude and damnation.
85. Talium homuncionum frequens estapparitio in metallorum fodinis, ut scribitGregorius Agricola, lib. De Animal. subterran.,prope finem. Isti nempe coramfossoribus minerarum comparent indutihabitu, qualem habent fossores ipsi, et jocanturinter se, tripudiantque, ac rident etcachinnantur, parvosque lapides joco mittuntin metallarios, et tunc signum est, aitAuctor prædictus, optimi proventus, ac inventionisalicujus rami, aut trunci principalisarboris mineralis.85. The apparition of such little men isof frequent occurrence in metallic mines,as is written by Gregorius Agricola in hisbook De Animal. subterran. They appearto the miners, clothed like themselves, playand caper together, laugh and titter, andthrow little stones at them for the sakeof amusement: a sign, says the above-namedAuthor, of excellent success, and ofthe finding of some branch or body of amineral tree.
86. Tales homunculos subterraneos negatPetrus Thyræus Novesianus, lib. DeTerrificatio. Noctur., c. 2., per totum,nixus argumentis sane puerilibus, quæsunt hæc: si darentur hujusmodi homunciones,ubinam degunt, et quænam, et ubihabent sua domicilia, qua ratione genussuum conservant, si per generationem, autquomodo? si oriantur, et intereant, quocibo vitam suam sustentent; si beatitudinis,et damnationis capaces sint, et quibusmediis propriam salutem consequantur?Hæc sunt argumenta Thyræi, quibus permotusnegat talem existentiam.86. Peter Thyræus, of Neuss, in his bookDe Terrification. nocturn., denies the existenceof such little men, and supports hisdenial upon the following truly puerile arguments:given such little men, says he,where do they live, how and where do theydwell? How do they keep up their kind,through generation or otherwise? Are theyborn, do they die, with what food do theysustain themselves? Are they capable ofbeatitude and damnation, and by whatmeans do they procure their salvation?Such are the arguments upon which Thyræusrelies for denying that existence.
87. Sed viri parum cordati est negareid, quod graves Auctores, fideque digniscribunt, quodque quotidiana constat experientia.Argumenta Thyræi nec minimumcogunt, ac ea solvimus supra a no 45. etseq. Remanet solum satisfacere quæstioniubinam locorum habitent hujusmodi homunculi,seu Incubi? Ad quod dico, quodut supra dedimus no 71. ex Guaccio, istorumalii sunt terrei, alii aquei, alii aerei,alii ignei, quorum nempe corpora, autconstant ex talium elementorum subtilioriparte, sive licet ex pluribus constent elementis,prævalet tamen in iis, aut aqua,aut aer pro ipsorum natura. Mansionesigitur, et domicilia eorum erunt in elementoillo cujus natura in eorum corporibusprævalet: ignei enim nisi violenter, etforte nullomodo in aquis aut locis palustribusmorabuntur, cum hæc sint sibi contraria,nec aquei ad superiorem ætheris partemascendere poterunt ob sibi repugnantemregionis illius subtilitatem, quod etiamvidemus accidere hominibus, qui ad quorumdamAlpium summa juga pervenirenequeunt præ summa aeris subtilitate, quæhomines crassiori aeri assuetos nutrirenequit.87. But it really shows little judgmentin a man, to deny that which has beenwritten by grave and credible Authors, andconfirmed by every day experience. Thyræus’sarguments are worthless and havebeen already refuted, Nrs 45 and following.The only question which remains to beanswered is this: where do those littlemen, or Incubi, dwell? To that I reply: ashas been shown above (Nr 71), accordingto Guaccius, some are earthly, some aqueous,some aerial, some igneous, that is tosay, that their bodies are made of the mostsubtle part of one of the elements, or, if ofthe combination of many elements, thatyet there is one which predominates, eitherwater or air, according to their nature.Their dwellings will consequently be foundin that element which is prevalent in theirbodies: igneous Incubi, for instance, willonly stay forcibly, may be will not stay atall, in water or marshes, which are adverseto them; and aqueous Incubi will not beable to rise into the upper part of ether,the subtlety of which region is repugnantto them. We see the like happen to menwho, accustomed to thicker air, cannotreach certain lofty ridges of the Alps wherethe air is too subtle for their lungs.
88. Pluribus sanctorum Patrum auctoritatibus,quas congerit Molina in p. p. D.Thom., q. 50., ar. 1. circa med., probarepossemus Dæmonum corporeitatem; quætamen stante determinatione Concilii Lateranensisde incorporeitate Angelorum, utdictum fuit supra no 37., exponi debentde Dæmonibus istis Incubis, ac viatoribusadhuc, non autem de Damnatis. Tamen nenimis longus sim, solius D. Augustini,summi Ecclesiæ Doctoris, auctoritatesdamus, quibus evidenter convincitur illumfuisse in sententia, quam nos docemus.88. Many testimonies of Holy Fathers,gathered by Molina, in his Commentary ofSt Thomas, would go to prove the corporeityof Demons; but, taking into accountthe above-quoted decision of the Councilof Lateran (Nr 37), concerning the incorporeityof Angels, we must understand thatthe Holy Fathers had in view those IncubiDemons which are still on the way to salvation,and not those that are damned.However, to make matters short, we merelygive the authority of St Austin, that eminentDoctor of the Church, and it will beclearly seen how thoroughly his doctrineharmonizes with ours.
89. D. Augustinus igitur, lib. 2. superGenesim ad litteram c. 17. de Dæmonibus,sic habet: “Quædam vera nosse, partimquia subtiliore sensus acumine, partimquia subtilioribus corporibus vigent,” etlib. 3. c. 1., “etsi Dæmones aerea suntanimalia, quoniam corporum aereorumnatura vigent.” Et Epistola 115. ad Hebridiumaffirmat, eos esse “animantiaaerea, seu ætherea acerrimi sensus.” Etde Civit. Dei lib. 11. c. 23., affirmat“Dæmonem pessimum habere corpusaereum.” Et lib. 21. c. 10. scripsit: “Suntsua quædam etiam Dæmonibus corpora,sicut doctis hominibus visum est, ex istoaere crasso et humido.” Et lib. 17. c. 23.ait “se non audere definire, an Angeli corporeaereo, ita corporati possint etiamhanc pati libidinem, ut quomodo possint,sentientibus fœminis misceantur.” Et inEnarrat. in Psal. 85. ait “corpora beatorumfutura post resurrectionem, qualiasunt corpora Angelorum;” et in Enarrat.in Psal. 45. ait “corpus Angelicum inferiusesse anima.” Et lib. De Divinit. Dæmonum,passim per totum, maxime c. 23.,docet “Dæmones subtilia habere corpora.”89. St Austin, then, in his Commentaryon Genesis, book 2, ch. 17, writes as followsconcerning Demons: “They have theknowledge of some truths, partly throughthe more subtle acumen of their senses,partly through the greater subtilty of theirbodies”, and, book 3, ch. 1: “Demonsare aerial animals, because they partake ofthe nature of aerial bodies.” In his Epistle115 to Hebridius, he affirms that they are“aerial or ethereal animals, endowed withvery sharp senses.” In the City of God,book 11, ch. 13, he says that “the worstDemon has an aerial body”. Book 21, ch.10, he writes: “The bodies of certain Demons,as has been believed by some learnedmen, are even made of the thick and dampair which we breathe.” Book 15, ch. 23:“He dares not define whether Angels, withan aerial body, could feel the lust whichwould incite them to communicate withwomen.” In his commentary on Psalm 85,he says that “the bodies of the blessed will,after resurrection, be like unto the bodiesof Angels;” Psalm 14, he observes that“the body of Angels is inferior to thesoul.” And, in his book De Divinit. Dæmonum,he every-where, and especiallych. 23, teaches that “Demons have subtlebodies”.
90. Potest etiam sententia nostra auctoritatibusSacræ Scripturæ comprobari,quæ licet ab Expositoribus aliter declarentur,non incongrue tamen ad nostrum intentumpossunt aptari. Prima est Psalmi77., v. 24. et 25., ubi habetur: panemAngelorum manducavit homo, panem cœlidedit eis. Hic loquitur David de Manna,qua cibatus fuit Populus Israel toto temporequo peregrinus fuit in deserto. Quærendumergo venit, quo sensu Manna dicipossit panis Angelorum. Scio quidem plerosqueDoctor es exponere hunc passum insensu mystico, aientes in Manna figuratamesse Sacram Eucharistiam, quæ vocaturpanis Angelorum, quia Angeli fruunturvisione Dei, qui per concomitantiamin Eucharistia reperitur.90. Our doctrine can also be confirmedby the testimony of the Holy Scriptures,which, however diversely construed bycommentators, are yet capable of adaptationto our proposition. First, Psalm 77, v.24 and 25, it is said: “The Lord had giventhem of the bread of heaven; man did eatangels’ food.” David here alludes to Manna,which fed the People of Israel duringthe whole time that they wandered in thewilderness. It will be asked in what senseit can be said of Manna that it is the Breadof Angels. I am aware that most Doctorsconstrue this passage in a mystical sense,saying that Manna figures the Holy Eucharist,which is styled the bread of Angels,because Angels enjoy the sight of God who,by concomitance, is found in the Eucharist.
91. Sed hæc expositio aptissima est quidem,et quam amplectitur Ecclesia in officioSanctissimi Corporis Christi, sed insensu spirituali est. Ego autem quæro sensumlitteralem: neque enim in illo PsalmoDavid loquitur prophetice de futuris,sicut facit in aliis locis, ut proinde facilenon sit sensum litteralem habere; sed loquiturhistorice de præteritis. Ille enimPsalmus, ut patet legenti, est pura anacephalestis,seu compendium omnium beneficiorum,quæ contulit Deus Populo Hebræoab egressu ipsius de Ægypto, usque adtempus Davidis, et in eo versu loquitur deManna Deserti, ut proinde quæratur quomodo,et quo sensu Manna vocetur PanisAngelorum.91. A most proper construction assuredly,and which is adopted by the Churchin the office of the Most Holy Body ofJesus-Christ; but it is in a spiritual sense.Now, what I want, is the literal sense; for,in that Psalm, David does not speak, as aprophet, of things to be, as he does inother places where a literal sense is noteasily to be gathered; he speaks here as ahistorian, of things gone by. That Psalm,as is evident to whoever reads it, is a pureanacephalæosis, or summing up of all thebenefits conferred by God on the HebrewPeople from the exodus from Egypt to thedays of David, and the Manna of the Wildernessis spoken of in it; how, and inwhat sense is it styled the Bread of Angels?that is the question.
92. Scio alios, Lyran., Euthim., Bellarm.,Titelman., Genebrard., in Psal. 77.v. 24. et 25., interpretari Panem AngelorumPanem ab Angelis paratum, seu Angelorumministerio a Cœlo demissum;Hugonem autem Cardinalem Panem Angelorumexponere: quia ille cibus hoc efficiebatin Judæis, quod in Angelis efficitcibus illorum, pro parte: Angeli enim nonincurrunt infirmitatem. Voluerunt enimexpositores Hebræi, ut etiam asseveratJosephus, quod Judæi in Deserto vescentesmanna, nec senescerent, nec ægrotarent,nec lassarentur; proinde illa esset tanquampanis, quo vescuntur Angeli, qui necsenio, nec ægritudine, nec lassitudine unquamlaborant.92. I am aware that others look uponthe Bread of Angels as bread prepared byAngels, or sent down from Heaven by theministry of Angels. But Cardinal Hugoexplains that qualification by saying thatthat food partly produced the same effectupon the Jews, which the food of Angelsproduces upon the latter. Angels, in fact,are not liable to any infirmity; on theother hand Hebrew commentators, and Josephushimself, assert that whilst in theWilderness, living upon Manna, the Jewsneither grew old, nor sickened, nor tired;so that Manna was like unto the bread thatAngels feed upon, who know neither oldage, nor sickness, nor fatigue.
93. Istas quidem expositiones recipereæquum est, utpote tantorum Doctorumaucthoritate suffultas. Facessit tamen difficultatem,quod ministerio AngelorumHebræis non minus parata fuere columnanubis, et ignis, coturnices, et aqua de petra,quam manna; nec tamen ista dicta fuerecolumna, aqua, aut potus Angelorum. Curergo potius vocari deberet manna, quiaparata ministerio Angelorum, Panis Angelorum,quam Potus Angelorum aquaeorumdem ministerio saxo educta? Insuperin sacra Scriptura panis dum diciturpanis alicujus, dicitur panis ejus qui illovescitur, non ejus qui illum parat, aut fabricat,et de hoc infinita habemus exemplain sacra Scriptura: ut Exod. c. 23. v. 25.Benedicam panibus tuis, et aquis; lib. 2.Reg. c. 12. v. 3. De pane illius comedens;Tob. c. 4, v. 17. Panem tuum cum egeniscomede; et v. 18. Panem tuum supersepulturam Justi constitue; Ecclesiast.c. 11. v. 1. Mitte panem tuum super transeuntesaquas; Isai. c. 58. v. 7. Frangeesurienti panem tuum; Jerem. c. 11. v. 19.Mittamus lignum in panem ejus; Matth.c. 15. v. 26. Non est bonum sumere panemfiliorum; Luc. c. 11. v. 3. Panemnostrum quotidianum. Ex quibus locispatenter habetur, quod panis dicitur ejusqui eo vescitur, non vero, qui ipsum conficit,affert, aut parat. Commode igitur inloco citato Psalmi accipi potest Panis Angelorum,cibus quo vescuntur Angeli nonquidem incorporei (isti enim materiali cibonon egent), sed corporei, ista nempe rationaliaanimalia, de quibus hucusque disseruimus,degentia in aere, et quæ rationetenuitatis suorum corporum, ac rationalisnaturæ, quam maxime ad Angelos immaterialesaccedunt, ut proinde nuncupentur.93. These interpretations should indeedbe received with the respect due to the authorityof such eminent Doctors. There ishowever one difficulty in this: that, by theministry of Angels, the pillars of the cloudand fire, the quails, and the water from therock were provided for the Hebrews, noless than the Manna; and yet they werenot styled the pillar, the water or the beverageof Angels. Why therefore shouldManna be called Bread of Angels, becauseprovided by their ministry, when the qualificationBeverage of Angels is not givento the water drawn from the rock likewiseby their ministry? Besides, in Holy Scripture,when it is said of bread that it is thebread of somebody, it is always the breadof him who feeds on it, not of him who providesor makes it. Of this there are numberlessinstances: thus, Exodus, ch. 23,v. 25: “That I may bless thy bread andthy water;” Kings, book 2, ch. 12, v. 3:“Eating of his bread;” Tobit, ch. 4, v.17: “Give of thy bread to the hungry,”and v. 18: “Pour out thy bread on theburial of the Just;” Ecclesiasticus, ch. 11,v. 1: “Scatter thy bread over the flowingwaters;” Isaiah, ch. 58, v. 7: “Dealthy bread to the hungry;” Jeremiah, ch. 11,v. 19: “Let us put wood into his bread;”Matthew, ch. 15, v. 26: “It is not meet totake the children’s bread;” Luke, ch. 11,v. 3: “Our daily bread.” All those passagesclearly show that, in Scripture, thebread of somebody is the bread of him whofeeds upon it, not of him who makes,brings or provides it. In the passage of thePsalm we have quoted, Bread of Angelsmay therefore easily be taken to mean thefood of Angels, not incorporeal indeed,since these require no material food, butcorporeal, that is to say of those rationalanimals we have discoursed of, who livein the air, and, from the subtlety of theirbodies and their rationality, approximateso closely to immaterial Angels as to fallunder the same denomination.
94. Ducor, quia cum animalia sint, etideo generabilia et corruptibilia, egentcibo, ut restauretur substantia corporea,quæ per effluvia deperditur; vita enim sentientisnon consistit nisi in motu partiumcorporearum quæ fluunt, ac refluunt, acquiruntur,ac deperduntur, ac iterum reparantur;quæ reparatio fit per substantiasspirituosas, materiales tamen, attractasa vivente, tum per aeris inspirationem,tum par fermentationem cibi, per quamsubstantia illius spiritualizatur, ut rationaturdoctissimus Ettmullerus, Instit. Medic.Physiolog., c. 2.94. I deduce that, being animals, consequentlyreproducible through generationand liable to corruption, they require foodfor the restoration of their corporeal substancewasted by effluvia: for the life ofevery sensible being consists in nothingelse but the motion of the corporeal elementswhich flow and ebb, are acquired,lost and recruited by means of substancesspirituous, yet material, assimilated by theliving thing, either through the inhalationof air, or by the fermentation of foodwhich spiritualizes its substance, as shownby the most learned Ettmuller (Instit.Medic. Physiolog., ch. 2).
95. Quia autem eorum corpus tenue est,tenui pariter, et subtili eget alimento. Hincest quod sicut odoribus aliisque substantiisvaporosis, ac volatilibus suæ naturæ contrariislæduntur ac fugantur, ut constatex historiis recitatis supra, no 71. et 72.,ita paribus rebus sibi convenientibus delectantur,et aluntur. Porro “manna nonest aliud, quam halitus aquæ, terræque,solis calore exacte attenuatus et coctus, afrigore secutæ noctis in unum coactus,densatusque,” ut scribit Cornelius; mannadico, quam demissam de cœlo comederuntHebræi, quæ toto cœlo differt a mannanostrate, quæ in medicinis adhibetur; namhæc, ut scribit Ettmullerus Schroder. Dilucid.Physiolog., c. 1. de Manna, fol. m.154., “nihil aliud est, quam succus quarumdamarborum tenuis, vel earum transsudatio,quæ nocturno tempore permixtacum rore, matutino tempore superventucaloris solis coagulatur, et inspissatur.”Manna autem Hebræorum diversis ortaprincipii calore solis non coagulabatur,sed vice versa liquefiebat, ut patet ex Scriptura,Exod. c. 16. v. 22. Manna ergoHebræorum utpote constans ex halitibustenuibus terræ et aquæ, profecto tenuissimæerat substantiæ, utpote, quæ a solesolvebatur, et disparebat; optime ergopotuit esse talium animalium cibus, ita utdiceretur a David Panis Angelorum.95. But, their body being subtile, equallysubtile and delicate must be its food. And,just as perfumes and other vaporous andvolatile substances, when adverse to theirnature, offend and put them to flight, astestified by what we related above (Nrs 71and 72), in the like manner, when agreeable,they delight in and feed upon them.Now, as is written by Cornelius, “Mannais nothing but an emanation of water andearth, refined and baked by the heat of thesun, and then coagulated and condensed bythe cold of the following night;” of course,I am speaking of the Manna sent downfrom Heaven for the nourishment of theHebrews, and which differs all in all fromnostrate or medicinal manna; the latter,in fact, according to Ettmuller (Dilucid.Physiol., ch. 1), “is merely the juice ortransudation of certain trees which, duringthe night, gets mixed up with dew, and,the next morning, coagulates and thickensin the heat of the sun.” The manna of theHebrews, on the contrary, derived fromother principles, far from coagulating,liquefied in the heat of the sun, as isshown by Scripture, Exodus, ch. 16, v. 22.The manna of the Hebrews was thereforeundoubtedly of a most subtile substance,consisting as it did of emanations of earthand water, and being dissolved by the sunand made to disappear: consequently, itmay very well have been the food of theanimals we are speaking of, and thus havebeen truly called by David Bread of Angels.
96. Alia auctoritas habetur in EvangelioJoannis, in quo, Johannes, c. 10. v. 16.,ita dicitur: Alias oves habeo, quæ nonsunt ex hoc ovili, et illas oportet me adducere,et vocem meam audient, et fietunum ovile, et unus Pastor. Si quæramusquænam sint oves, quæ non sunt ex hocovili, et qualenam sit ovile de quo loquiturChristus Dominus, respondent communiterExpositores unum ovile Christi esse Ecclesiam,ad quam perducendi erant per prædicationemEvangelii Gentiles, qui erantoves alterius ovilis, ab ovili Hebræorum:opinantur enim Synagogam esse Christiovile, quia dicebat David, Psal. 94. v. 9:Nos populus ejus et oves pascuæ ejus; etquia Messias promissus fuerat Abrahamet David oriturus ex eorum semine, et apopulo Hebræo expectatus, et a Prophetisqui Hebræi erant vaticinatus, et ejus adventus,conversatio, passio, mors et resurrectioin sacrificiis, cultu, et ceremoniisHebræorum legis erant præfigurata.96. We have another authority in theGospel according to St John, ch. 10, v. 16,where it is said; “And other sheep I have,which are not of this fold: them also I mustbring, and they shall hear my voice, andthere shall be one fold and one shepherd.”If we inquire what are those sheep whichare not of that fold, and what the fold ofwhich the Lord Christ speaketh, we areanswered by all Commentators that theonly fold of Christ is the Church to whichthe preaching of the Gospel was to bringthe Gentiles, sheep of another fold thanthat of the Hebrews. They are, in fact, ofopinion that the fold of Christ was theSynagogue, because David had said, Psalm95, v. 7: “We are the people of his pasture,and the sheep of his hand”, and alsobecause Abraham and David had beenpromised that the Messiah should be bornof their race, because he was expected bythe Hebrew people, foretold by the Prophetswho were Hebrews, and that hisadvent, his acts, his passion, death andresurrection were prefigured in the sacrifices,worship and ceremonials of theHebrew law.
97. Sed salva semper Sanctorum Patrum,ac aliorum Doctorum reverentia,non videtur talis expositio ad plenum satisfacere.Habemus enim quod de fide esta principio mundi Ecclesiam Fidelium extitisseunam, usque ad finem sæculi duraturam.Cujus Ecclesiæ caput est mediatorDei et hominum Christus Jesus, cujus contemplationecreata sunt universa, et omniaper ipsum facta. Fides enim unius DeiTrini (quamvis non ita explicite), et VerbiIncarnatio revelata fuit primo homini, etab ipso edocti ejus filii, et ab iis descendentes.Hinc est quod quamvis plerique hominesad idolatriam deflexerint, ac veram fidemdeseruerint, multi tamen veram fidem apatribus sibi traditam retinuerunt, et legemnaturæ servantes in vera EcclesiaFidelium permanserunt, ut observat CardinalisToletus in Job, c. 10. v. 16., et apparetin Job, qui inter Gentiles Idolatrassanctus fuit. Quamvis autem Deus populoHebræo speciales favores contulerit, peculiaremquelegem, ac ceremonias illi præscripserit,ac a Gentilibus segregaverit, nontamen ad eam legem Gentes tenebantur,nec fideles Hebræi aliam Ecclesiam constituebantab Ecclesia Gentilium, qui fidemunius Dei et Messiæ venturi profitebantur.97. But, saving always the reverence dueto the Holy Fathers and other Doctors,that explanation does not seem quite satisfactory.For it is an article of belief thatthe Church of the Faithful has been theonly one in existence from the beginningof the world, and will thus endure to theend of time. The head of that Church isJesus-Christ, the mediator between God andmen, by whose contemplation all thingswere made and created. Indeed, the faith inthe divine Trinity, though less explicitly,and the Incarnation of the Word were revealedto the first man, and by him taughthis children, who, in their turn, taughtthem their descendants. And thus, althoughmost men had strayed into idolatry anddeserted the true faith, many kept the faiththey had received from their fathers, andobserving the law of nature, stayed in thetrue Church of the Faithful, as is noticedby Cardinal Tolet in reference to Job, whowas a saint among idolatrous Gentiles. And,although God had conferred especial favoursupon the Hebrew people, prescribedfor them peculiar laws and ceremonials,and separated them from the Gentiles, yetthose laws were not obligatory on theGentiles, and the faithful Hebrews did notconstitute a Church different from that ofthe Gentiles who professed their faith inone God and the coming of the Messiah.
98. Hinc est, quod etiam ex Gentilibusfuere, qui Christi adventum, et alia Christianæfidei dogmata prophetarunt, ut patetde Balaam, Mercurio Trismegisto, Hydaspe,ac Sibyllis, de quibus loquitur Lactantius,lib. 1. c. 6., ut scribit CardinalisBaronius in Apparatu Annal. no 18. Etquod Messias erat a Gentilibus expectatushabet Isaias in pluribus locis, et luculentumtestimonium de hoc est prophetia PatriarchæJacob de Messia, quæ sic ait,Gen. c. 49. v. 10: Non auferetur sceptrumde Juda, et dux de femore ejus, donec veniatqui mittendus est, et ipse erit expectatioGentium. Item Prophetia Aggæi,c. 2. v. 8: Movebo omnes Gentes, et venietdesideratus cunctis gentibus, quem locumexplicans Cornelius a Lap. in Aggæ. c. 2.v. 8. § Denique gentes, ait: “Gentes anteChristum credentes in Deum lege naturæ,æque ac Judæi expectabant ac desiderabantChristum.” Pariter Christus ita seprodidit, et manifestavit Gentibus, sicutJudæis: si enim in ipsius nativitate perAngelum ejus notitia data fuit Pastoribus,per stellam miraculosam ad sui adorationemvocavit Magos, qui cum essent Gentilesfuerunt primitiæ Gentium in Christoagnoscendo, et adorando, ut ait S. Fulgentius,Sermon. 6. de Epiph., sicut Pastoresfuerunt primitiæ Judæorum. Itidemmanifestatio adventus Christi per prædicationem(non quidem Apostolorum) priusfacta est Gentilibus, quam Judæis; siquidemut scribit Ven. Mater Soror Maria deAgreda, in Vita J. C. et B. M. V., p. 1. l. 4. c.26. n. 664: “Quando B. M. Virgo cum S. Josephportavit Puerum Jesum in Ægyptum,fugiendo Herodis persecutionem, mansitibi per septennium: quo tempore ipsaBeatissima Virgo prædicavit Ægyptiis veriDei fidem, et Filii Dei in carne humanaadventum.” Ulterius in Christi nativitatemulta fuere prodigia non solum in Judæa,sed in Ægypto, ubi corruerunt idola, acoracula conticuere; Romæ, ubi fons oleiscaturiit; visus globus aurei coloris decœlo in terram descendere; apparuere tressoles; ac contra naturam circulus variegatusad modum iridis solis discum circumscripsit;in Græcia, ubi oraculum Delphicumobmutuit, et interrogatus Apollo abAugusto ipsi sacrificante in proprio palatio,ubi eidem aram extruxerat, de causasilentii sui, respondit, ut referunt Nicephorus,l. 1 c. 17., Suidas, verbo Augustus,et Cedrenus, Compend. Histor.:98. And thus it came to pass that evenamong the Gentiles there were some whoprophesied the advent of Christ and theother dogmas of the Christian faith, to witBalaam, Mercurius Trismegistus, Hydaspes,and the Sibyls mentioned by Lactantius,book 1, ch. 6, as written byBaronius, Apparat. Annal., no 18. Thatthe Messiah was expected by the Gentilesis shown by many passages of Isaiah, andplainly testified by the prophecy of Jacob,the Patriarch, thus worded, Genesis, ch.49, v. 10: “The sceptre shall not departfrom Judah, nor a law-giver from betweenhis feet, until Shiloh (he who is to be sent)come, and unto him shall the gathering ofthe people be.”—Likewise in the prophecyof Haggai, ch. 2, v. 8: “I willshake all Nations, and the desire of allNations shall come”; which passage isthus commented by Cornelius a Lapide:“The Gentiles before the advent of Christ,who believed in God and observed the lawof nature, expected and desired Christequally with the Jews.” Christ himselfdisclosed and manifested himself to theGentiles as well as to the Jews; for, at thesame time as the Angel apprized the shepherdsof his nativity, by means of themiraculous star he called the Magi toworship him, who, being Gentiles, werethe first among the Nations, as the shepherdsamong the Jews, to acknowledgeand worship Christ (Vide St Fulgentius,Sermon 6, upon Epiphany). In like manner,the advent of Christ was made known bypreaching (I am not speaking of theApostles) to the Gentiles before it was tothe Jews. As is written by the VenerableMother, Sister Maria of Agreda, in herLife of Jesus-Christ and the Blessed VirginMary: “When the Blessed Virgin Mary,fleeing with St Joseph, from the persecutionof Herod, carried the Infant Jesus intoEgypt, she tarried there seven years;and, during that time, the Blessed Virginherself preached to the Egyptians the faithof the true God and the advent of the Sonof God in human flesh.” Besides, the nativityof Christ was attended by numerousprodigies, not only in Judæa, but also inEgypt, where the idols tumbled and theoracles were hushed; in Rome, where aspring of oil gushed out, a gold-colouredglobe was seen to descend from the skieson earth, three suns appeared, and anextraordinary ring, variegated like a rainbow,encircled the disc of the sun; in Greece,where the oracle of Delphi was struckdumb, and Apollo, asked the reason ofhis silence by Augustus, who was offeringup a sacrifice in his own palace where hehad raised an altar to him, answered:

Me puer Hebræus, Divos Deus ipse gubernans,

Cedere sede jubet, tristemque redire sub orcum;

Aris ergo dehinc tacitis abscedito nostris.

“A Hebrew child, who sways the Gods, and himself a God,

Bids me quit my seat and return to the infernal regions;

Depart therefore from our altars, henceforward mute.”

Et multa alia acciderunt prodigia, quibusprænunciabatur Gentilibus Filii Dei adventus,quæ ex variis Aucthoribus recitatBaronius, Apparat. Annal. Eccles. no 24.et seq., et Cornelius in Aggæ. c. 2. v. 8.There were many more prodigies warningthe Gentiles of the advent of the Son ofGod: they have been collected from variousAuthors, by Baronius, and are to be foundin his Apparat. Annal. Eccles., and Cornelius,Commentary upon Haggai.
99. Ex istis patet, quod etiam Gentilespertinebant ad ovile Christi idem, ad quodspectabant Judæi, puta ad Ecclesiam eamdemfidelem; igitur non potest recte dici,quod illa verba Christi: Alias oves habeo,quæ non sunt ex hoc ovili, accipienda sintde Gentilibus, qui communem cum Hebræishabuerunt de Deo fidem, de Messiaspem, prophetiam, expectationem, et signa,et prædicationem.99. From all this it is clear that the Gentilesalso belonged, like the Jews, to thefold of Christ, that is, to the same Churchof the Faithful; it cannot therefore becorrectly said that the words of Christ:“Other sheep I have, which are not of thisfold”, are applicable to the Gentiles, whohad, in common with the Hebrews, the faithin God, the hope, prophecy, expectation,prodigies and preaching of the Messiah.
100. Dico igitur quod nomine aliarumovium commode possunt intelligi Creaturæistæ rationales, sive animalia, de quibushucusque disseruimus. Cum enim, utdiximus, capaces sint beatitudinis, et damnationis,et Christus Jesus sit mediatorDei, et hominum, immo totius rationaliscreaturæ (creaturæ enim rationales, quæbeatitudinem consequuntur, hanc obtinentintuitu meritorum Christi per ab eo sibicollatam gratiam, sine qua nequit beatitudoobtineri), debuit omnis rationalis creaturade eo venturo spem habere, sicut deuno Deo fidem, et de ipsius in carne nativitate,et de præceptis legis gratiæ manifestationem.Istæ igitur erant oves, quænon erant ex hoc ovili humano, et quasadducere Christum oportebat, et quæ ejusvocem nempe notitiam de ipsius adventu,et de evangelica doctrina, quantum per se,tum per Apostolos Christus erat manifestaturus,audire debebant, et ex iis ac hominibusin cœlo beatificatis fieri unumovile, et unus Pastor.100. I therefore say that by the wordsother sheep may very well be understoodthose rational Creatures or animals ofwhom we have been treating hitherto. Theybeing, as we have said, capable of beatitudeand damnation, and Jesus-Christ being themediator between God and man, as alsoevery rational Creature (for rational creaturesattain to beatitude in considerationof the merits of Christ, through the gracehe confers upon them, without which beatitudeis impossible of attainment), everyrational creature must have cherished, atthe same time as the faith in one God, thehope of the advent of Christ, and have hadthe revelation of his nativity in the fleshand of the principles of the law of grace.Those were therefore the sheep whichwere not of that human fold, and whichChrist had to bring; the sheep which wereto hear His voice, that is, the announcementof His advent and of the evangelical doctrine,either directly through Himself, orthrough the Apostles; the sheep which,partaking with men of heavenly beatitude,were to realize one fold and one shepherd.
101. Huic expositioni quam incongruamnon puto, vim addit id quod supra no 77.ex D. Hieronymo retulimus de homunculoillo qui rogavit D. Antonium, ut communemDeum, quem in carne humana essepassum cognoverat, pro se et suis deprecaretur.Innuitur enim ex his, quod illinotitiam habuerunt de adventu et morteChristi, quem tamquam Deum optabantsibi propitium, ut proinde ad hoc intercessionemD. Antonii expostularent.101. To this interpretation, which I holdto be in no way improper, force is addedby what we related, according to St Hieronymus,of that little man who requestedSt Anthony to pray, for him and his fellows,unto the common God, whom heknew to have suffered in human flesh. For,it implies that they were aware of theadvent and of the death of Christ, whom,as God, they were anxious to propitiate,since they sought, to that effect, the intercessionof St Anthony.
102. Facit ad idem id, quod ex Eusebiode Præparat. Evang. l. 5. c. 9., et Plutarchol. de Defectu Oracul., refert CardinalisBaronius, Appar. Annal. no 129., etrecenset inter prodigia, quæ tempore mortisChristi evenere. Recitat igitur ex citatisAucthoribus quod Tiberii Imperatoris,sub quo passus est Christus, tempore, navigantibusnonnullis a Græcia in Italiam,circa Insulas Echinades, cessatis ventis,noctu navigium appulit prope terram. Auditafuit ab omnibus vox magna quæ vocavitTramnum. Erat is Nauclerus navigii,quo resondente Adsum, replicavitvox: “Quando perveneris prope quandampaludem, annunciabis Magnum Pana mortuumesse”: quod cum Tramnus fecisset,auditi sunt repente multorum, imo multitudinisprope infinitæ gemitus, et ululatus.Profecto isti fuerunt Dæmones, seu Angelicorporei, seu animalia rationalia propepaludem degentia, utpote aquea, quæ auditamorte Christi, qui nomine magni Panefferebatur, in lacrymas et lamenta effusasunt; prout etiam Hebræi nonnulli visaChristi morte percutientes pectora sua revertebantur(Luc. c. 23. v. 48.). Ex hucusqueigitur deductis patet, quod danturhujusmodi Dæmones, succubi et incubi,constantes sensu, et ipsius passionibus obnoxii,ut probatum est; qui generantur,corrumpuntur, et capaces sunt beatitudinis,et damnationis, et ratione corporissubtilioris, nobiliores homine sunt, et qui sicum hominibus, maribus aut fœminis, carnalitercommiscentur, peccant, et eo peccato,quo peccat homo jungendo se cum bruto,quod est homine ignobilius; proinde nonraro hi Dæmones consuetudinem habentescum homine, aut equabus, post longamhabitam communicationem eos interficiunt.Causa porro hujus est, quod siinter tales datur peccatum, cum sint invia, dari etiam debet pœnitentia; sicut ergohomini peccanti consuetudinaliter cumbruto, ad tollendam occasionem recidivandi,Confessarius injungit, ut brutumtollat de medio, ita tali Dæmoni consuetudinarioin peccato, et tandem pœœnitentiaccidit, ut animal cum quo peccavit, sivehomo, sive brutum fuerit, occidat; necenim tali Dæmoni mors data homini peccatumerit, sicut mors data bruto non imputaturtamquam peccatum homini: rationeenim essentialis differentiæ interDæmonem hujusmodi, et hominem, idemerit homo Dæmoni, quod est homini brutum.102. Thereto tends also the fact mentionedby Cardinal Baronius (Appar. Annal.no 129), after Eusebius and Plutarch,as being one of the prodigies which tookplace at the time of the death of Christ.He relates that in the reign of the EmperorTiberius, when Christ suffered, whilstmariners bound from Greece to Italy, wereby night, and during a calm, in the vicinityof the Echinade Isles, their ship wasbrought close to land. All the crew hearda loud voice calling Tramnus, the masterof the ship. He having answered to hisname, the voice replied: “When nearsuch a marsh, announce that the great Panis dead.” Which Tramnus having done,there arose suddenly, as from a numberlessmultitude, groans and shrieks. Doubtless,they were Demons, or corporeal Angels,or rational animals living near the marshon account of their aqueous nature, andwho, hearing of the death of Christ, describedby the name of Great Pan, burstinto tears and bewailing, like some of theJews who, after witnessing the death ofChrist, went home smiting their breasts(Luke, ch. 23, v. 48). From all that hasbeen deduced above, it is therefore clearthat there are such Demons, succubi andincubi, endowed with senses and subjectto the passions thereof, as has been shown;who are born through generation and diethrough corruption, are capable of beatitudeand damnation, more noble than man,by reason of the greater subtilty of theirbodies, and who, when having intercoursewith man, male or female, fall into thesame sin as man when copulating with abeast, which is inferior to him. Also, itnot unfrequently occurs that those Demonsslay the men, women or mares with whomthey have had protracted intercourse; andthe reason is that, being liable to sin whilston the way to salvation, in via, they mustlikewise be open to repentance; and, inthe same manner as a man, who habituallysins with a beast, is enjoined by his confessorto destroy that beast, with a view tosuppressing the occasion of relapsing, itmay likewise happen that the penitent demonshould slay the animal with which itsinned, whether man or beast; nor willdeath thus occasioned to a man be reckoneda sin to the Demon, any more thandeath inflicted on a beast is imputed as asin to man; for, considering the essentialdifference between a Demon of that kindand man, the man will be the same thingto the Demon as the beast is to man.
103. Scio multos, et forte plerosque,qui hæc legerent, dicturos de me, quodEpicurei et Stoici Philosophi nonnullidixerunt de Divo Paulo, Actor. c. 17.v. 18.: Novorum Dæmoniorum videturannunciator, et datam doctrinam exsibillabunt.Sed isti tenebuntur solvere argumentasupra posita, et dicere quinam sintDæmones isti Incubi, vulgo Foletti, quiexorcismos, res sacras, et Christi Crucemnon pavent, ac alios effectus istorum, acphænomena salvare, quæ nos ex data doctrinaostendimus.103. I am aware that many, perhapsmost of my readers, will say of me whatthe Epicureans and some Stoic Philosopherssaid of St Paul (Acts of the Apostles,ch. 17, v. 18). “He seemeth to be a setterforth of strange gods”, and will deridemy doctrine. But they will none the lesshave to answer the foregoing arguments,to show what are those Incubi Demons,commonly called Goblins, who dread neitherexorcisms, nor the holy things, nor theCross of Christ, and to explain the variouseffects and phenomena related when propoundingthat doctrine.
104. Solvitur ergo ex his, quæ hucusquededucta sunt, quæstio, quam proposuimussupra no 30 et no 34: resolutiveinnuimus, quomodo mulier potest ingravidaria dæmone Incubo. Non enim hocpræstare potest ex semine sumpto ab homine,ut fert communis opinio, quam confutavimusno 31 et 32: sequitur ergo, quodipsa imprægnatur a semine Incubi, cumenim animal sit, et generet, proprio polletsemine: et hoc modo optime salvatur generatioGigantum secuta ex commixtioneFiliorum Dei cum Filiabus hominum; natisiquidem sunt ex tali concubitu Gigantes,qui licet homini essent similes, corpore tamenerant majores: et quamvis a Dæmonibusgeniti, viribus proinde pollerent, nontamen Dæmonum vires et potentiam æquabant,ut sequitur in mulis, hinnis et burdonibus,qui medii quodammodo sunt intereas species animalium, a quibus promiscuegenerantur, et superant quidem imperfectiorem,non attingunt autem perfectioremspeciem generantium: mulus enim superatasinum, sed non æquat perfectionemequæ, a quibus generatur.104. What we have hitherto deduced accordinglysolves the question laid downNrs 30 and 34, to wit: how a woman canbe got with child by an Incubus Demon?In fact, it cannot be brought about bysperm assumed from a man, agreeably tothe common opinion which we confuted,Nrs 31 and 32; it follows, therefore, thatshe is directly impregnated by the spermof the Incubus, which, being an animaland capable of breeding, has sperm ofits own. And thus is fully explained thebegetting of Giants from the intercourseof the Sons of God with the Daughters ofmen: for that intercourse gave birth toGiants who, although like unto men, wereof higher stature, and, though begottenby Demons, and consequently of greatstrength, yet equalled them neither inmight nor in power. It is the same withmules, which are intermediate, as it were,between the kinds of animals from whosepromiscuousness they are sprung, andwhich excel indeed the most imperfect, butnever equal the most perfect: thus, themule excels the ass, but does not attainthe perfection of the mare, which havebegotten it.
105. Confirmat autem hanc sententiamconsideratio, quod animalia genita ex commixtionediversarum specierum non generant;sed sunt sterilia, ut patet in mulis.Gigantes autem non leguntur Gigantesgenerasse, sed natos a Filiis Dei, puta Incubis,et Filiabus hominum: cum enim conceptifuerint ex semine Dæmoniaco mixtocum humano, non potuerunt, tamquammediæ speciei inter Dæmonem et hominem,generare.105. In confirmation of the above inference,we observe that animals sprungfrom the mixing of different kinds do notbreed, but are barren, as is seen withmules. Now we do not read of Giantshaving been begotten by other Giants, butof their having been born of the Sons ofGod, that is Incubi, and the Daughters ofmen: being thus begotten of the Demoniacsperm mixed with the human sperm, andbeing, as it were, an intermediate speciesbetween the Demon and man, they had nogenerative power.
106. Dicetur fortasse contra hoc, nonposse, ex semine Dæmonum, quod pro suinatura opportet esse tenuissimum, fierimixturam cum semine humano, quod crassumest; unde nec generatio sequi possit.106. It may be objected that the spermof Demons, which must, by nature, bemost fluid, could not mix with the humansperm, which is thick, and that, consequently,no generation would ensue.
107. Respondeo quod, ut dictum fuit suprano 32: virtus generandi consistit inspiritu, qui simul cum materia spumosa etviscida deciditur a generante; sequitur exhoc, quod semen Dæmonis quantumvis tenuissimum,quia tamen materiale, optimepotest commisceri cum spiritu materialiseminis humani, ac fieri generatio.107. I reply that, as has been said above,Nr 32, the generative power lies in thespirit that comes from the generator atthe same time as the spumy and viscousmatter; it follows that, although mostliquid, the sperm of the Demon, beingnevertheless material, can very well mixwith the material spirit of the humansperm, and bring about generation.
108. Replicabitur adhuc contra conclusionem,quod si vere fuisset Gigantum generatioex semine Incuborum et Mulierum,nunc quoque Gigantes nascerentur: non desuntenim mulieres coeuntes cum Incubis,ut patet ex gestis SS. Bernardi et Petride Alcantara, et aliarum historiarum, quæpassim ab auctoribus recitantur.108. It will be retorted that, if the generationof Giants had really come from thecombined sperms of Incubi and Women,Giants would still be born in our time,since there is no lack of women who haveintercourse with Incubi, as is shown bythe Acts of St Bernard and Peter of Alcantara,and other stories related byvarious authors.
109. Respondeo, quod prout ex Guacciodictum fuit supra no 81: alii sunt hujusmodiDæmones terrei, alii aquei, aereialii, et alii ignei, qui respective in propriiseorum elementis habitant. Videmus autemanimalia eo majora esse quo majus estelementum in quo degunt, ut patet in piscibus,inter quos licet multi sint minuti, utetiam sunt plura animalia terrestria minutissima,et tamen quia elementum aquæmajus est elemento terræ (utpote continensmajus semper est contento), ideo pisces atota specie superant in magnitudine molisanimalia terrestria, ut patet in balenis, orcynis,pistis seu pistricibus, thynnis, acaliis piscibus cetaceis, seu viviparis, quiquodvis animal terrestre longe superant.Porro cum Dæmones hujusmodi animaliasint, ut hucusque probatum est, eo eruntmajores in magnitudine quo elementummajus pro sui natura inhabitabunt. Et cumaer excedat aquam, et ignis aere majorsit, sequitur, quod Dæmones ætherei acignei longe superabunt terrestres et aqueos,tum in mole corporis, tum in virtute. Neccontra hoc facit instantia de avibus, quilicet incolant aerem, qui major est aqua,tamen corpore minores sunt a tota speciepiscibus et quadrupedibus, quia aves, licetper aerem volatu spatientur, revera tamenpertinent ad elementum terræ, in quaquiescunt; aliter enim pisces nonnulli quivolant, ut hirundo marina, et alii, dicideberent animalia aerea, quod falsum est.109. I reply that, as has been said above,Nr 81, from Guaccius, some of those Demonsare earthly, some aqueous, someaerial, some igneous, and they all dwellin their respective element. Now, it iswell known that animals are of larger size,according to the element they live in; thuswith fishes, many of which are diminutive,it is true, as happens with animals thatlive on land; but, the element water beinglarger than the element earth, since thecontainer is always larger than the contents,fishes as a species, surpass in sizethe animals that dwell on land, as shownby whales, tunnies, cachalots, and othercetaceous and viviparous fish which surpassby far all animals that live on land. Consequently,these Demons being animals, ashas been shown, their size will be proportionateto the extent of the element theydwell in, according to their nature. And,air being more extensive than water, andfire than air, it follows that ethereal andigneous Demons will by far surpass theirearthly and aqueous fellows, both in statureand might. It would be to no purposeto instance, as an objection, birds which,although inhabitants of the air, a moreextensive element than water, are smaller,as a species, than fishes and quadrupeds;for, if birds do indeed travel through theair by means of their wings, they no lessbelong to the element earth, where theyrest; otherwise, some fishes that fly, suchas the sea swallow, would have to beclassed among aerial animals, which isnot.
110. Advertendum autem, quod post diluviumaer iste terraqueo globo citissimusmagis incrassatus est ex humiditate aquarum,quam fuerit ante diluvium, et hincforte est, quod ex tali humido, quod estprincipium corruptionis, fiat, quod hominesnon ætatem ita producant, ut faciebantante diluvium. Ex ista autem aeris crassitiefit, quod Dæmones ætherei, ac ignei,cæteris corpulentiores, nequeunt diutiusmanere in hoc aere crasso, et si descenduntaliquando hoc fit violenter, et eo modo quourinatores ad ima maris descendunt.110. Now, it must be observed that,after the flood, the air which surroundsour earthy and aqueous globe, became,from the damp of the waters, thicker thanit had been before; and, damp being theprinciple of corruption, that may be thereason why men do not live as long asthey did before the flood. It is also onaccount of that thickness of the air thatethereal and igneous Demons, more corpulentthan the others, can no longerdwell in that thick atmosphere, and ifthey do descend into it occasionally, do soonly by force, much as divers descend intothe depths of the sea.
111. Ante diluvium autem, cum adhucaer non ita crassus erat, veniebant Dæmones,et cum mulieribus miscebantur, et gigantesprocreabant, qui magnitudinemcorpoream Dæmonum generantium æmulabantur.Nunc vero ita non est: Dæmonesenim Incubi, qui fœminas incessunt,sunt aquei quorum corporis moles magnanon est: et proinde in forma homuncionumapparent, et quia aquei etiam salacissimisunt; luxuria enim in humido est: utproinde Venerem e mari natam Poetæ finxerint,quod Mythologi explicant de libidine,quæ oritur ab humiditate. Cumergo Dæmones, qui corpore parvi sunt histemporibus mulieres imprægnent, non gigantes,sed staturæ ordinariæ filii nascuntur.Sciendum porro quod si miscenturcorporaliter cum mulieribus Dæmones insua ipsorum corpulentia naturali, nullafacta immutatione aut artificio, mulieresillos non vident, nisi tanquam umbrampæne incertam, ac quasi insensibilem, utpatet in muliere illa, de qua diximus suprano 28., quæ osculabatur ab incubo, cujustactus vix ab ea sentiebatur. Quando verovolunt se visibiles amasiis reddere, atqueipsis delectationem in congressu carnaliafferre, sibi indumentum visibile assumunt,et corpus crassum reddunt. Qua vero hocarte fiat, ipsi norunt. Nobis curta nostraPhilosophia hoc non pandit. Unum scirepossumus, et est, quod tale indumentumseu corpus ex solo aere concreto constarenequiret, hoc enim esse deberet per condensationem,et proinde per frigus; undeoporteret, quod corpus illud ad tactumesset veluti glacies, et ita in coitu mulieresnon delectaret, sed torqueret, cum tamencontrarium eveniat.111. Before the flood, when the air wasnot yet so thick, Demons came upon earthand had intercourse with women, thusprocreating Giants whose stature was nearlyequal to that of the Demons, their fathers.But now it is not so; the Incubi Demonswho approach women are aqueous and ofsmall stature; that is why they appear inthe shape of little men, and, beingaqueous, they are most lecherous. Lustand damp go together: Poets have depictedVenus as born of the sea, in order toshow, as explained by Mythologists, thatlust takes its source in damp. When,therefore, Demons of short stature impregnatewomen nowadays, the children thatare born are not giants, but men of ordinarysize. It should, moreover, be knownthat when Demons have carnal intercoursewith women in their own natural body,without having recourse to any disguise orartifice, the women do not see them, orif they do, see but an almost doubtful,barely sensible shadow, as was the casewith the female we spoke of, Nr 28, who,when embraced by an Incubus, scarcelyfelt his touch. But, when they want to beseen by their mistresses, atque ipsis delectationemin congressu carnali afferre, theyassume a visible disguise and a palpablebody. By what means this is effected, istheir secret, which our short-sightedPhilosophy is unable to discover. Theonly thing we know is that such disguiseor body could not consist merely in concreteair, since this must take placethrough condensation, and therefore bythe influence of cold; a body thus formedwould feel like ice, et ita in coitu mulieresnon delectaret, but would give them pain;and it is the reverse that takes place.
112. Visa igitur differentia Dæmonumspiritualium, qui cum sagis coeunt, et Incuborum,qui cum fœminis minime sagisrem habent, perpendenda est gravitashujus criminis in utroque casu.112. Being admitted the distinctionbetween spiritual Demons, which haveintercourse with witches, and Incubi, whohave to do with women that are nowisewitches, we have to weigh the grievousnessof the crime in both cases.
113. In coitu sagarum cum Dæmonibus,eo quia non fit nisi cum apostasia aFide, et Diaboli cultu, et tot aliis impietatibusquas recensuimus supra a no 12.ad 24., est maximum quorumque peccatorum,quæ ab hominibus fieri possunt: etratione tantæ enormitatis contra Religionem,quæ præsupponitur coitu cum Diabolo,profecto Dæmonialitas maximum estcriminum carnalium. Sed spectato delictocarnis ut sic, et ut abstracto a peccatiscontra Religionem, Dæmonialitas redigendaest ad simplicem pollutionem. Ratio,et quidem convincentissima, est quia Diabolus,qui rem habet cum sagis, purusspiritus est, et est in termino ac damnatusut dictum supra fuit; proinde si cum sagiscoit, hoc facit in corpore assumpto, auta se formato, ut sentiunt communiterTheologi. Porro corpus illud quamvis moveatur,non tamen vivens est; sequiturergo quod coiens cum tali corpore, sivemas sive fœmina fuerit, idem delictumcommittit, ac si cum corpore inanimatoaut cadavere coiret, quod esset simplexmollities, ut alias demonstravimus. Verumest, quod, ut observavit etiam Cajetanus,talis coitus effective potest habere deformitatesaliorum criminum juxta corpus aDiabolo assumptum, et vas: si enim assumeretcorpus virginis consanguineæ, autsacræ, effective esset tale crimen incestusaut sacrilegium, et si in figura bruti coiret,aut in vase præpostero, evaderet Bestialitasaut Sodomia.113. The intercourse of witches withDemons, from its accompanying circumstances,apostasy from the Faith, worshippingof the Devil, and so many otherungodly things related above, Nrs 12 to24, is the greatest of all sins which can becommitted by man; and, considering theenormity against Religion which is presupposedby coition with the Devil, Demonialityis assuredly the most heinous ofall carnal crimes. But, taking the sin ofthe flesh as such, exclusive of the sinsagainst Religion, Demoniality should bereduced to simple pollution. The reason is,and a most convincing one, that the Devilwho has to do with witches is a purespirit, has reached the goal and is damned,as has been said above; if, therefore, hecopulates with witches, it is in a bodyassumed or made by himself, according tothe common opinion of Theologians.Though set in motion, that body is not aliving one; and it follows that the humanbeing, male or female, coiens cum talicorpore, is guilty of the same offenceas if copulating with an inanimate bodyor a corpse, which would be simplepollution, as we have shown elsewhere. Ithas, moreover, been truly observed byCajetanus, that such intercourse can verywell carry with it the disgraceful characteristicsof other crimes, according to thebody assumed by the Devil, and the partused: thus, if he should assume the bodyof a kinswoman or of a nun, such a crimewould be incest or sacrilege; if coitiontook place in the shape of a beast, or invase præpostero, it would be Bestiality orSodomy.
114. In coitu autem cum Incubo, in quonulla habetur qualitas, vel minima, criminiscontra Religionem, difficile est rationeminvenire, per quam tale delictum Bestialitateet Sodomia gravior esset. Siquidemgravitas Bestialitatis præ Sodomia, proutsupra diximus, consistit in hoc, quodhomo vilificat dignitatem suæ speciei jungendo secum bruto quod est speciei longeinferioris sua. In coitu autem cum Incubodiversa est ratio: nam Incubus rationespiritus rationalis, ac immortalis, æqualisest homini; ratione vero corporis nobilioris,nempe subtilioris, est perfectior, etdignior homine; et hoc modo homo jungensse Incubo non vilificat, immo dignificatsuam naturam, et ita, juxta hancconsiderationem, Dæmonialitas nequit essegravior Bestialitate.114. As for intercourse with an Incubus,wherein is to be found no element, noteven the least, of an offence against Religion,it is hard to discover a reason why itshould be more grievous than Bestialityand Sodomy. For, as we have said above, ifBestiality is more grievous than Sodomy,it is because man degrades the dignity ofhis kind by mixing with a beast, of a kindmuch inferior to his own. But, when copulatingwith an Incubus, it is quite thereverse: for the Incubus, by reason of hisrational and immortal spirit, is equal toman; and, by reason of his body, morenoble because more subtile, he is moreperfect and more dignified than man. Consequently,when having intercourse withan Incubus, man does not degrade, butrather dignifies his nature; and, takingthat into consideration, Demoniality cannotbe more grievous than Bestiality.
115. Tamen gravior communiter censetur,et ratio, meo videri, potest esse:quia peccatum contra Religionem est, quæviscommunicatio cum Diabolo, sive expacto, sive non; puta habendo cum eoconsuetudinem aut familiaritatem, seu abeo petendo auxilium, consilium, favorem,aut ab ipso quærendo revelationem futurorum,relationem præteritorum, absentiumaut alias occultorum. Hujusmodiautem homines, seu mulieres, concumbendocum Incubis, quos nesciunt animalia esse,sed putant esse diabolos, contra conscientiamerroneam delinquunt; et hoc modo exconscientia erronea ita peccant cum Incubisse jungendo, ac si cum diabolis coirent:unde et gravitatem ejusdem criminisincurrunt.115. It is, however, commonly held tobe more grievous, and the reason I take tobe this: that it is a sin against Religion tohold any communication with the Devil,either with or without compact, for instanceby being habitually or familiarly connectedwith him, by asking his assistance, counselor favor, or by seeking from him the revelationof things to be, the knowledge ofthings gone by, absent, or otherwisehidden. Thus, men and women, by mixingwith Incubi, whom they do not know tobe animals but believe to be devils, sinthrough intention, ex conscientia erronea,and their sin is intentionally the same,when having intercourse with Incubi, as ifsuch intercourse took place with devils;in consequence, the grievousness of theircrime is exactly the same.

FINIS

APPENDIX

The manuscript of Demoniality breaks off with the conclusion just given. In a purely philosophical and theoretical acception, the work is complete: for it was enough that the author should define, in general terms, the grievousness of the crime, without concerning himself with the proceedings which were to make out the proof, nor with the penalty to be inflicted. Both those questions, on the contrary, had, as a matter of course, a place assigned to them in the great work De Delictis et Pœnis, which is a veritable Code for the Inquisitor; and Father Sinistrari of Ameno could not fail to treat them there with all the care and conscientiousness he has so amply shown in the foregoing pages.

The reader will be happy to find here that practical conclusion to Demoniality.

(Note by the Editor.)

PROBATIO DÆMONIALITATIS

PROOF OF DEMONIALITY

SUMMARIUMSUMMARY
1. De probatione criminis Dæmonialitatis,distinguendum est.1. Distinctions to be made in the proof ofthe crime of Demoniality.
2. Indicia probantia coitum Sagæ cum Diabolo.2. Signs proving the intercourse of a Witchwith the Devil.
3. Requiritur confessio ipsius malefici adplenam probationem.3. The confession of the Sorcerer himself isrequisite for a full eviction.
4. Historia de Moniali habente consuetudinemcum Incubo.4. Tale of a Nun who had an intimacywith an Incubus.
5. Si adsint indicia visa in recitata historia,potest ad torturam deveniri.5. If the indictment is supported by therecitals of eye-witnesses, torture may beresorted to.
1. Quantum ad probationem hujus criminisattinet, distinguendum est de Dæmonialitate,puta, vel ejus, quæ a Sagis seuMaleficis fit cum Diabolis; sive de ea, quæab aliis fit cum Incubis.1. As regards the proof of that crime, adistinction must be made of the kind ofDemoniality, to wit: whether it is thatwhich is practiced by Witches or Wizardswith the Devil, or that which other personsperpetrate with Incubi.
2. Quoad primam, probato crimine pactifacti cum Diabolo, probata remanet Dæmonialitasex consequentia necessaria;nam scopus tum Sagarum, tum Maleficorumin ludis nocturnis, ultra convivia, etchoreas, est hujusmodi infamis congressus:aliter, illius criminis nullus potest essetestis, quia Diabolus, qui Sagæ visibilisest, aliorum oculos effugit. Verum est,quod aliquoties visæ sunt mulieres in sylvis,agris, et nemoribus, supinæ jacentes,ad umbilicum tenus denudatæ, et juxtadispositionem actus venerei, divaricatis etadductis cruribus, clunes agitare, proutscribit Guacc., lib. 1, cap. 12, v. Sciendumest sæpius, fol. 65. Tali casu emergeretsuspicio vehemens talis criminis,dummodo esset aliunde adminiculata, etcrederem talem actum per testes sufficienterprobatum, sufficere Judici ad indagandamtormentis veritatem; et hoc maxime,si post aliqualem moram in illo actu, visusfuisset a muliere elevari quasi fumus niger,et tunc mulierem surgere, prout ibidemscribit Guaccius; talis enim fumus,aut umbra, Dæmonem fuisse concumbentemcum fœmina inferre potest. Sicut etiam, simulier visa fuisset concumbere cum homine,qui post actum de repente evanuit, ut nonsemel accidisse idem auctor ibidem narrat.2. In the first case, the compact enteredinto with the Devil being proved, the evidenceof Demoniality follows as a necessaryconsequence; for, the purpose, bothof Witches and Wizards, in the nightly revelsthat take place after feasting anddancing, is none other but that infamousintercourse; otherwise there can be nowitness of that crime, since the Devil, visibleto the Witch, escapes the sight ofothers. Sometimes, it is true, women havebeen seen in the woods, in the fields, inthe groves, lying on their backs, ad umbilicumtenus nudatæ, et juxta dispositionemactus venerei, their legs divaricatis et adductis,clunes agitare, as is written byGuaccius, book I, chap. 12, v. Sciendumest sæpius, fol. 65. In such a case therewould be a very strong suspicion of sucha crime, if supported by other signs; andI am inclined to believe that such action,sufficiently proved by witnesses, wouldjustify the Judge in resorting to torture inorder to ascertain the truth; especially if,shortly after that action, a sort of blacksmoke had been seen to issue from thewoman, and she had been noticed to rise,as is also written by Guaccius; for it mightbe inferred that that smoke or shadow hadbeen the Devil himself, concumbens cumfœmina. Likewise if, as has more thanonce happened, according to the same author,a woman had been seen concumberecum homine, who, the action over, suddenlydisappeared.
3. Cæterum ad probandum concludenteraliquem esse Maleficum, seu Maleficam,requiritur propria confessio; nullusenim haberi potest de hoc testis, nisi fortesint alii Malefici, qui in judicio deponuntde complicibus; sed quia socii criminissunt, eorum dictum non concludit, necetiam ad torturam sufficit, nisi alia existentindicia, puta, sigillum Diaboli impressumin eorum corpore, prout diximussupra num. 23.; et in eorum domibus,facta perquisitione, inveniant signa, acinstrumenta artis diabolicæ, ut ossa mortuorum,præsertim calvariam; crinesartificiose contextos; nodos plumarumintricatos; alas, aut pedes, aut ossiculavespertilionum, aut bufonum, aut serpentium;ignotas seminum species; figurascereas; vasculos plenos incognito pulvere,aut oleo, aut unguentis minime notis, etc.,ut ordinarie contingit reperiri a Judicibus,qui, accepta accusatione de hujusmodiSagis, ad capturam, et domusvisitationem deveniunt, ut scribit Delbene,de Off. S. Inquis., par. 2. dub. 206,num. 7.3. Moreover, in order to prove conclusivelythat a person is a Wizard or a Witch,the own confession of such person is requisite:for there can be no witnesses tothe fact, unless perhaps other Sorcerersgiving evidence at the trial against theiraccomplices; from their being confederatesin the crime, their statement is not conclusiveand does not justify the recourseto torture, should not other indications beforthcoming, such as the seal of the Devilstamped on their body, as aforesaid, Nr 23,or the finding in their dwelling, after asearch, of signs and instruments of thediabolic art: for instance, bones and, especially,a skull, hair artfully plaited, intricateknots of feathers, wings, feet orbones of bats, toads or serpents, unfamiliarseeds, wax figures, vessels filled withunknown powder, oil or ointments, etc., asare usually detected by Judges who, upona charge being brought against Sorcerers,proceed to their apprehension and thesearch of their houses.
4. Quantum vero ad probationem congressuscum Incubo, par est difficultas;non minus enim Incubus, ac alii Diabolieffugiunt, quando volunt, visum aliorum,ut videri se faciunt a sola amasia. Tamennon raro accidit, quod etiam visi sint Incubimodo sub una, modo sub alia speciein actu carnali cum mulieribus.4. The proof of intimacy with an Incubusoffers the same difficulty; for, no lessthan other Demons, the Incubus is, atwill, invisible to all but his mistress. Yet,it has not seldom happened that Incubihave allowed themselves to be surprisedin the act of carnal intercourse with women,now in one shape, now in another.
In quodam Monasterio (nomen ejus eturbis taceo, ne veterem ignominiam memoriærefricem) quædam fuit Monialis,quæ cum alia Moniali, quæ cellam habebatsuæ contiguam, simultatem ex levibus causis,ut assolet inter mulieres, maxime Religiosas,habebat. Hæc sagax in observandoquascumque actiones Monialis sibi adversæ,per plures dies vidit, quod ista indiebus æstivis, statim a prandio non spatiabaturper viridarium cum aliis, sed abiis sequestra, se retrahebat in cellam, quamsera obserabat. Observatrix igitur æmulacuriositate investigans, quid tali temporeilla facere posset, etiam ipsa in propriamcellam se recipiebat; cæpit autem audiresubmissam quasi duorum insimul colloquentiumvocem (quod facile erat, namcella parvo simplicis, scilicet lateris unius,disterminio dividebatur), mox sonitum poppysmatum[4],concussionis lecti, gannitus,ac anhelitus, quasi duorum concubentium;unde aucta in æmula curiositate stetit inobservatione, ut sciret, quinam in illa cellaessent. Postquam autem per tres vices vidit,nullam aliam Monialem egressam ecella illa, præter æmulam, dominam cellæ,suspicata est Monialem in camera absconditumaliquem virum, clanculum introductum,retinere; unde et rem detulit ad Abbatissam,quæ consilio habito cum discretis,voluit audire sonitus, et observare indiciarelata ab accusatrice, ne præcipitanter etinconsiderate ageret. Abbatissa igitur cumdiscretis se receperunt in cellam observatricis,et audierunt strepitus, et voces,quas accusatrix detulerat. Facta igiturinquisitione, an ulla Monialium potuissetsecum in illa cella clausa esse, et repertoquod non, Abbatissa cum discretis fuit adostium cellæ clausæ; et pulsato frustrapluries ostio, cum Monialis nec respondere,nec aperire vellet, Abbatissa minataest, se velle ostium prosterni facere, etvecte aggredi opus fecit a quadam conversa.Tunc aperuit ostium Monialis, etfacta perquisitione, nullus inventus est incamera. Interrogata Monialis cum quonamloqueretur, et de causa concussionislecti, anhelituum, etc., omnia negavit.In a Monastery (I mention neither itsname nor that of the town where it lies,so as not to recall to memory a past scandal),there was a Nun, who, about trifles,as is usual with women and especiallywith nuns, had quarrelled with one of hermates who occupied a cell adjoining tohers. Quick at observing all the doings ofher enemy, this neighbour noticed, severaldays in succession, that instead ofwalking with her companions in the gardenafter dinner she retired to her cell,where she locked herself in. Anxious toknow what she could be doing there allthat time, the inquisitive Nun betook herselfalso to her cell. Soon she heard asound, as of two voices conversing in subduedtones, which she could easily do,since the two cells were divided but by aslight partition), then a peculiar friction[4],the cracking of a bed, groans and sighs,quasi duorum concumbentium; her curiositywas raised to the highest pitch, and she redoubledher attention in order to ascertainwho was in the cell. But having, three timesrunning, seen no other nun come outbut her rival, she suspected that a manhad been secretly introduced and waskept hidden there. She went and reportedthe thing to the Abbess, who, after holdingcounsel with discreet persons, resolvedupon hearing the sounds and observingthe indications that had been denouncedher, so as to avoid any precipitate or inconsiderateact. In consequence, the Abbess andher confidents repaired to the cell of thespy, and heard the voices and other noisesthat had been described. An inquiry wasset on foot to make sure whether any ofthe Nuns could be shut in with the otherone; and the result being in the negative,the Abbess and her attendants went to thedoor of the closed cell, and knocked repeatedly,but to no purpose: the Nunneither answered, nor opened. The Abbessthreatened to have the door broken in,and even ordered a convert to force itwith a crow-bar. The Nun then openedher door: a search was made and no onefound. Being asked with whom she hadbeen talking, and the why and whereforeof the bed cracking, of the sighs, etc.,she denied every thing.
Cum vero res perseveraret, accuratior,ac curiosior reddita Monialis æmula perforavittabulas lacunaris, ut posset cellamintrospicere; et vidit elegantem quemdamjuvenem cum Moniali concumbentem, quemetiam eodem modo ab aliis Monialibus videndumcuravit. Delata mox accusationead Episcopum, ipsaque Moniali omnianegante, tandem metu tormentorum comminatorumadacta, confessa est se cumIncubo consuetudinem habuisse.But, matters going on just the same asbefore, the rival Nun, become more attentiveand more inquisitive than ever, contrivedto bore a hole through the partition,so as to be able to see what wasgoing on inside the cell; and what shouldshe see but an elegant youth lying withthe Nun, and the sight of whom she tookcare to let the others enjoy by the samemeans. The charge was soon broughtbefore the bishop: the guilty Nun endeavouredstill to deny all; but, threatenedwith the torture, she confessed havinghad an intimacy with an Incubus.
5. Quando igitur adessent talia indicia,sicut in recitata historia intervenerunt,posset utique in rigoroso examine reaconstitui; sine tamen ejus confessione, noncensendum est delictum plene probatum,quantumvis a testibus visus fuisset congressus;siquidem aliquando accidit, quodDiabolus, ut infamiam alicui innocentipararet, præstigiose talem concubitum repræsentaverit.Unde in his casibus debetJudex Ecclesiasticus esse perfecte oculatus.5. When, therefore, indications are forthcoming,such as those recited above, acharge might be brought after a searchinginquiry; yet, without the confession of theaccused, the offence should not be regardedas fully proved, even if the intercoursewere testified by eye-witnesses; for it sometimeshappens that, in order to undo aninnocent female, the Devil feigns such intercourseby means of some delusion. Inthose cases, the Ecclesiastical Judge mustconsequently trust but his own eyes.

PŒNÆ

PENALTIES

Quantum ad pœnas Dæmonialitatis, nullalex civilis, aut canonica, quam legerim,reperitur, quæ pœnam sanciat contra crimenhujusmodi. Tamen, quia crimen hocsupponit pactum, ac societatem cum Dæmone,ac apostasiam a fide, ultra veneficia,atque alia infinita propemodum damna,quæ a Maleficis inferuntur, regulariter, extraItaliam, suspendio et incendio punitur.In Italia autem, rarissime traduntur hujusmodiMalefici ab Inquisitoribus Curiæsæculari.As regards the penalties applicable toDemoniality, there is no law that I knowof, either civil or canonical, which inflictsa punishment for a crime of that kind.Since, however, such a crime implies a compactand fellowship with the Demon, andapostasy of the faith, not to speak of themalefices and other almost numberlessoutrages perpetrated by Sorcerers, as arule it is punished, out of Italy, by the gallowsand the stake. But, in Italy, it isbut very seldom that offenders of thatkind are delivered up by the Inquisitorsto the secular power.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE[5]

Father Ludovico Maria Sinistrari, of the Order of Reformed Minors of the strict Observance of St. Francis, was born in Ameno, a small town of the district of St. Julius, in the diocese of Novara, on the 26th of February 1622. He received a liberal education and went through a course of humanities in Pavia, where, in the year 1647, he entered the Order of Franciscans. Devoting himself henceforward to tuition, he was first a professor of Philosophy; he then, during fifteen successive years, taught Theology in the same town, amidst a numerous concourse of students attracted from all parts of Europe by his high repute. His sermons preached in the principal cities of Italy, at the same time as they caused his eloquence to be admired, were productive of the most happy results for piety. Equally endeared to the World and to Religion, he had been favoured by nature with the most brilliant gifts: square frame, high stature, open countenance, broad forehead, sparkling eyes, high-coloured complexion, pleasant conversation replete with sallies of wit[6]; more valuable still, he was in possession of the gifts of grace, through which he was enabled to sustain, with unconquerable resignation, the assaults of an arthritical disease he was subject to; he was, moreover, remarkable for his meekness, candour and absolute submission to the rules of his Order. A man of all sciences[7], he had learnt foreign languages without any master, and often, in the general Meetings of his Order, held in Rome, he supported, in public, theses de omni scibili. He, however, addicted himself more particularly to the study of Civil and Canon laws. In Rome he filled the appointment of Consulter to the supreme Tribunal of the Holy-Inquisition; was some time Vicar general of the Archbishop of Avignon, and then Theologian attached to the Archbishop of Milan. In the year 1688, charged by the general Meeting of Franciscans with the compilation of the statutes of the Order, he performed this task in his treatise entitled Practica criminalis Minorum illustrata. He died in the year of our Lord 1701, on the 6th of March, at the age of seventy-nine[8].

INDEX

Pages
Preface.[v]
Demoniality: origin of the word.—Wherein that crime differs from those of Bestiality and Sodomy.—Opinion of St Thomas. Nrs 1 to 8. [1]
Material intercourse with Incubi and Succubi is not a thing of imagination; testimony of St Austin. Nrs 9 and 10.[15]
Wizards and Witches; their relations with the Devil; ceremonials of their profession. Nrs 11 to 23.[21]
Artifices resorted to by the Devil for the assumption of a body. Nr 24.[31]
Incubi do not assail but women. Nr 26.[35]
Goblins have no dread of exorcisms. Nr 27.[37]
Humorous story of signora Hieronyma: the enchanted repast. Nr 28.[37]
Men begotten by Incubi: Romulus and Remus, Plato, Alexander the Great, Cæsar-Augustus; Merlin the Enchanter, Martin Luther.—The Antechrist to be born of an Incubus. Nr 30.[53]
Incubi are not pure spirits: they beget, and therefore have a body of their own.—Remark concerning Giants. Nrs 31 to 33.[57]
Angels are not all pure spirits: decision to that effect of the second Council of Nicea Nr 37.[71]
Existence of rational creatures or animals other than man, and endowed, like him, with a body and a soul. Nrs 38 to 43.[85]
Wherein do those animals differ from man? What their origin? Do they all descend from one individual, as men descend from Adam? Is there between them a distinction of the sexes? What are their manners, laws, social customs? Nrs 44 to 50.[87]
What are the shape and organisation of their body? A comparison drawn from the composition of wine. Nrs 51 to 56.[95]
Are those animals subject to diseases, to physical and moral infirmities, to death? Nrs 57 and 58.[107]
Are they born in the original sin? Have they been redeemed by Jesus-Christ, and are they capable of beatitude and damnation? Nrs 61 and 62.[119]
Proofs of their existence. Nrs 65 to 70.[123]
Story of an Incubus and of a young Nun. Nr 71.[139]
Story of a young deacon. Nr 72.[145]
Incubi are affected by material substances: they therefore participate of the matter of those substances. Nr 73.[149]
Instance drawn from the history of Tobit; ejection of the Incubus which vexed Sarah; cure of old Tobias. Nrs 74 to 76.[151]
St Anthony falls in with a Faun in the wilderness: their conversation. Nr 77 to 84.[161]
Other proofs of the corporeity of Incubi, especially the Manna of the Hebrews or Bread of Angels. Nrs 90 to 95.[179]
In what sense are to be understood the words of Christ: “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold?” Apollo’s address to the Emperor Augustus: the end of the Gods. Nrs 96 to 101.[191]
“The Great Pan is dead”, or the death of Christ announced to Fauns, Sylvans and Satyrs: their bewailing. Nr 102.[203]
Solving of the problem: How can a woman be impregnated by an Incubus?—Comparison of Giants with mules. Nrs 104 and 105.[207]
Wherein lies the generating virtue; why no more Giants are born. Luxuria in humido. Nrs 106 to 111.[211]
Appreciation of the crime of Demoniality: 1o committed with the Devil; 2o committed with an Incubus. Nrs 112 to 114.[219]
Is Demoniality more grievous than Bestiality?—Conclusion. Nr 115.[223]
Appendix[227]
Biographical Notice[245]

LETTER

OF THE
REV. FATHER PROVINCIAL OF CAPUCHINS
FOR THE PROVINCE OF P....

P...., Friday (8 October 1875).

†
Pax

Mons. Isidore Liseux,
Paris.

I have gone through the work you sent me yesterday, and have, indeed, been satisfied with the edition; the time has not yet arrived for me to give my opinion on the value of the work itself. Here you would have met with no other works of the Rev. Father Sinistrari of Ameno than his book: Practica criminalis Minorum; De Delictis et Pœnis is to be found, I believe, in another of our convents; but you would have been given a most welcome reception.

I believe that Des Grieux can hardly have resided in the present St-Sulpice, which dates but from the year 1816.... So far as a superficial glance has enabled me to ascertain, there are some other mistakes; but, altogether, the work is a good one, and you may accept of the congratulations of

Your very little servant,
Fr. A....
o. m. c.
m. p.

Convent of Capuchins, rue ...

Paris, imprimerie D. Jouaust, rue Saint-Honoré, 338.

Isidore LISEUX, Libraire-Éditeur
Rue Bonaparte, no 2, Paris

CATALOGUE COMPLET

AU 1er AVRIL 1879

PETITE
COLLECTION ELZEVIRIENNE

Ouvrages curieux, rares ou inédits,
tirés à petit nombre sur papier de Hollande.

Théologie

HISTOIRE ECCLÉSIASTIQUE, PROTESTANTISME

SINISTRARI (Le R. P.). De la Démonialité et des animaux Incubes et Succubes, publié pour la première fois, d’après le manuscrit original découvert à Londres en 1872, et traduit du Latin par Isidore Liseux; avec le texte en regard.

5 fr.

VALLA (Laurent). La Donation de Constantin, premier titre du pouvoir temporel des Papes, où il est prouvé que cette Donation n’a jamais existé, et que l’Acte attribué à Constantin est l’œuvre d’un faussaire. Traduit en Français pour la première fois et précédé d’une étude historique par Alcide Bonneau, avec le texte Latin.

10 fr.

LES ECCLÉSIASTIQUES de France, leur nombre, celuy des religieux et des religieuses, ce dont ils subsistent et à quoy ils servent (XVIIe siècle).

2 fr.

HUTTEN (Ulrich de). Julius, dialogue entre Saint Pierre et le Pape Jules II à la porte du Paradis; traduction nouvelle par Edmond Thion, texte Latin en regard.

3 fr. 50

LUTHER. La Conférence entre Luther et le Diable au sujet de la Messe.

4 fr.

THÉODORE DE BÈZE. Epître de maître Benoît Passavant; traduit pour la première fois du Latin macaronique de Théodore de Bèze, par Isidore Liseux, avec le texte en regard.

3 fr. 50

PASSEVENT PARISIEN respondant à Pasquin Romain: De la vie de ceux qui sont allez demourer à Genève; fait en forme de Dialogue (1556).

3 fr. 50

Philosophie
MŒURS ET USAGES, HISTOIRE

LA MOTHE LE VAYER. Soliloques sceptiques.

2 fr. 50

POGGE. Un vieillard doit-il se marier? traduit par Alcide Bonneau.

3 fr.

POGGE. Les Bains de Bade au XVe siècle, scène de mœurs de l’âge d’or; traduit en Français pour la première fois par Antony Méray.

2 fr.

ÉRASME. La Civilité puérile, traduction nouvelle, texte Latin en regard, par Alcide Bonneau.

4 fr.

HENRI ESTIENNE. La Foire de Francfort (Exposition universelle et permanente au XVIe siècle); traduit pour la première fois par Isidore Liseux, texte Latin en regard.

4 fr.

GESNER (J.-M.). Socrate et l’Amour Grec (Socrates sanctus Παιδεραστής); traduit en Français pour la première fois, texte Latin en regard, par Alcide Bonneau.

3 fr. 50

TACITE. La Germanie, traduction entièrement nouvelle, texte Latin en regard, par E.-P. Dubois-Guchan.

3 fr. 50

ULRICH DE HUTTEN. Arminius, dialogue, traduit pour la première fois par Edmond Thion, texte Latin en regard.

2 fr.

REMONSTRANCE AUX FRANÇOIS, pour les induire à vivre en paix à l’advenir (1576).

1 fr.

Poésie

DU BELLAY (Joachim). Divers jeux rustiques.

3 fr. 50

DU BELLAY (Joachim). Les Regrets.

3 fr. 50

BONNEFONS (Jean). Pancharis.

4fr.

BOULMIER (Joseph). Villanelles, avec eau-forte de Lalauze.

5 fr.

Contes et Nouvelles

ARISTENET. Les Épistres amoureuses d’Aristenet, tournées de Grec en François par Cyre Foucault, sieur de la Coudrière (1597); avec notice par A.-P. Malassis.

5 fr.

BOCCACE. Décaméron, traduit par Antoine Le Maçon, 6 vol.

30 fr.

POGGE. Facéties, 2 vol. (publié à 20 fr.)

Épuisé.

L’ABBÉ FAVRE. Histoire de Jean-l’ont-pris, conte Languedocien du XVIIIe siècle, traduit et précédé d’une notice par Jules Troubat.

3 fr.

VIVANT DENON. Point de Lendemain, conte dédié à la Reine, avec fleurons dessinés par Marillier; notice par A. P.-Malassis (publié à 4 fr.).

Épuisé.

CASTI. La Papesse.

10 fr.

Philologie, Histoire littéraire

GABRIEL NAUDÉ, Parisien. Advis pour dresser une Bibliothèque.

4 fr.

LA MOTHE LE VAYER. Hexaméron rustique (publié à 3 fr. 50).

Épuisé.

GRIMAREST. La Vie de Mr Molière; notice par A. P.-Malassis (publié à 5 fr.).

Épuisé.

LES INTRIGUES DE MOLIÈRE et celles de sa femme, avec notes par Ch.-L. Livet (publié à 6 fr.).

Épuisé.

MOLIÈRE JUGÉ par ses contemporains; notice par A. P.-Malassis.

4 fr.

ELOMIRE HYPOCONDRE, comédie (contre Molière), avec une note sur les Ennemis de Molière, par Ch.-L. Livet.

10 fr.

COLLECTION IN-8º

ESTIENNE (Henri). Apologie pour Hérodote, avec Introduction et Notes par P. Ristelhuber, 2 vol.

25 fr.

SINISTRARI (Le R. P.). De la Démonialité et des animaux Incubes et Succubes, première édition (publiée à 10 fr.).

Épuisé.

LOISELEUR. Les Points obscurs de la vie de Molière (publié à 12 fr.).

Épuisé.

LES INTRIGUES DE MOLIÈRE et de sa femme, avec Préface et Notes par Ch.-L. Livet.

12 fr.

FORMAT GRAND IN-18

SAINT-PIERRE (Bernardin de). Paul et Virginie, avec huit eaux-fortes de Lalauze.

25 fr.

— Les huit eaux-fortes tirées à part, sur papier de Chine ou de Hollande.

10 fr.

POGGE. Facéties, deuxième édition complète, avec le texte Latin, 2 vol.

15 fr.

PIEDAGNEL. Avril, poésies, avec un frontispice de Giacomelli, gravé à l’eau-forte par Lalauze.

5 fr.

BOULMIER (Joseph). Villanelles, première édition (avec eau-forte de Lalauze).

5 fr.

BOUTMY (Eugène). Dictionnaire de la Langue verte typographique.

3 fr.

SINISTRARI. Demoniality, or Incubi and Succubi, now first translated into English, with the Latin text.

POGGIO. The “Facetiæ”, or Jocose Tales, now first translated into English, with the Latin text.

TROUBAT (Jules). Plume et Pinceau, études de littérature et d’art.

3 fr.

DESMARETS. L’ancienne Jonction de l’Angleterre à la France, ou le Détroit de Calais, avec deux cartes topographiques.

3 fr.

ENVOI FRANCO RECOMMANDÉ
Contre le prix en Mandat de Poste.

Paris.—Imp. Motteroz, rue du Dragon, 31.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] What can one do over there, unless he hunts up old books?

[2] Paris Embankment.

[3] Vide biographical notice at the end of this volume.

[4] Poppysmatum.—That word being but little used, it may be useful to record here the definition given of it by the Glossarium eroticum linguæ latinæ (auctore P. P., Paris, 1826):

Poppysma.—Oris pressi sonus, similis illi quo permulcentur equi et canes. Obscene vero de susurro cunni labiorum, quum frictu madescunt.

Father Sinistrari, well versed in classical literature, had turned to account the following epigram of Martial (book VII, 18):

IN GALLAM

Quum tibi sit facies, de qua nec fœmina possit

Dicere, quum corpus nulla litura notet;

Cur te tam rarus cupiat, repetatque fututor,

Miraris? Vitium est non leve, Galla, tibi.

Accessi quoties ad opus, mixtisque movemur

Inguinibus, cunnus non tacet, ipsa taces.

Di facerent, ut tu loquereris, et ipse taceret!

Offendor cunni garrulitate tui.

Pedere te mallem: namque hoc nec inutile dicit

Symmachus, et risum res movet ista simul.

Quis ridere potest fatui poppysmata cunni?

Quum sonat hic, cui non mentula mensque cadit

Dic aliquid saltem, clamosoque obstrepe cunno:

Et si adeo muta es, disce vel inde loqui.

(Editorial Note.)

[5] This Notice is an extract from tome 1 of the complete works of Father Sinistrari, Romæ, 1753.

[6] Quadrato corpore, statura procera, facie liberali, fronte spatiosa, oculis rutilantibus, colore vivido, jucundæ conversationis, ac lepidorum salium.

[7] Omnium scientiarum vir.

[8] The complete works of P. Sinistrari (Rome, Giannini, 1753-1754, 3 vol. in-folio) include the following books: Practica criminalis Minorum illustrata,—Formularium criminale,—De incorrigibilium expulsione ab Ordinibus Regularibus,—De Delictis et Pœnis, to which should be added the present work: De Dæmonialitate, published for the first time in the year 1875.

Transcriber's Notes

Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. All other spelling, punctuation and hyphenation remains unchanged.

S. Austin is mentioned several times in the English text. As this corresponds with S. Augustinus in the Latin, this may well be S. Augustine.