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 17^th 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 6^th to the 16^th 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:

N^o 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 17^th 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 quays2, 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 (N^rs 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 Ameno3; 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 primo inventum reperio a Jo. Caramuele in sua Theologia fundamentali, nec ante illum inveni Auctorem, qui de hoc crimine tanquam distincto a Bestialitate locutus sit. Omnes enim Theologi Morales, secuti D. Thomam, 2.2., q. 154. in corp., sub specie Bestialitatis recensent omnem concubitum cum re non ejusdem speciei, ut ibi loquitur D. Thomas; et proinde Cajetanus, in Commentario illius quæstionis et articuli, 2.2., q. 154., ad 3. dub., coitum cum Dæmone ponit in specie Bestialitatis; et Cajetanum sequitur Silvester, v^o Luxuria, Bonacina, de Matrim., q. 4., et alii. The first author who, to my knowledge, invented the word Demoniality is John Caramuel, in his Fundamental Theology, and before him I find no one who distinguished that crime from Bestiality. Indeed, all Theological Moralists, following in the train of S. Thomas (2, 2, question 154), include, under the specific title of Bestiality, “every kind of carnal intercourse with any thing whatever of a different species”: such are the very words used by S. Thomas. Cajetanus, for instance, in his commentary on that question, classes intercourse with the Demon under the description of Bestiality; so does Sylvester, de Luxuria, Bonacina, de Matrimonio, question 4, and others.

2. Sed revera D. Thomas in illo loco considerationem non habuit ad coitum cum Dæmone: ut enim infra probabimus, hic coitus non potest in specie specialissima Bestialitatis comprehendi; et ut veritati cohæreat sententia S. Doctoris, dicendum est, quod in citato loco, quando ait, quod peccatum contra naturam, alio modo si fiat per concubitum ad rem non ejusdem speciei, vocatur Bestialitas: sub nomine rei non ejusdem speciei intellexerit animal vivens, non ejusdem speciei cum homine: non enim usurpare potuit ibi nomen rei pro re, puta, ente communi ad animatum et inanimatum: si enim quis coiret cum cadavere humano, concubitum haberet ad rem non ejusdem speciei cum homine (maxime apud Thomistas, qui formam corporeitatis humanæ negant in cadavere), quod etiam esset si cadaveri bestiali copularetur; et tamen talis coitus non esset bestialitas, sed mollities. Voluit igitur ibi D. Thomas præcise intelligere concubitum cum re vivente non ejusdem speciei cum homine, hoc est cum bruto, nullo autem modo comprehendere voluit coitum cum Dæmone. 2. However it is clear that in the above passage S. Thomas did not at all allude to intercourse with the Demon. As shall be demonstrated further on, that intercourse cannot be included in the very particular species of Bestiality; and, in order to make that sentence of the holy Doctor tally with truth, it must be admitted that when saying of the unnatural sin, “that committed through intercourse with a thing of different species, it takes the name of Bestiality”, S. Thomas, by a thing of different species, means a living animal, of another species than man: for he could not here use the word thing in its most general sense, to mean indiscriminately an animate or inanimate being. In fact, if a man should fornicate cum cadavere humano, he would have to do with a thing of a species quite different from his own (especially according to the Thomists, who deny the form of human corporeity in a corpse); similarly si cadaveri bestiali copularetur: and yet, talis coitus would not be bestiality, but pollution. What therefore S. Thomas intended here to specify with preciseness, is carnal intercourse with a living thing of a species different from man, that is to say, with a beast, and he never in the least thought of intercourse with the Demon.

3. Coitus igitur cum Dæmone, sive Incubo, sive Succubo (qui proprie est Dæmonialitas, specie differt a Bestialitate, nec cum ea facit unam speciem specialissimam, ut opinatus est Cajetanus: peccata enim contra naturam specie inter se distingui contra 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 opinio communis; et contraria est damnata in proposit. 24. ex damnatis ab Alexandro VII.; tum quia singula continent peculiarem, et distinctam turpitudinem repugnantem castitati, et humanæ generationi; tum quia quodlibet ex iis privat bono aliquo secundum naturam, et institutionem actus venerei, ordinati ad finem generationis humanæ; tum quia quodlibet ipsorum habet diversum motivum, per se sufficiens ad privandum eodem bono diversimode, ut optime philosophatur Filliuc., tom. 2. c. 8. tract. 30. q. 3. n^o 142; Cresp., q. mor. sel. contro.; Caramuel., q. 5. per tot. 3. Therefore, intercourse with the Demon, whether Incubus or Succubus (which is, properly speaking, Demoniality), differs in kind from Bestiality, and does not in connexion with it form one very particular species, as Cajetanus wrongly gives it; for, whatever may have said to the contrary some Ancients, and later Caramuel in his Fundamental Theology, unnatural sins differ from each other most distinctly. Such at least is the general doctrine, and the contrary opinion has been condemned by Alexander VII: first, because each of those sins carries with itself its peculiar and distinct disgrace, repugnant to chastity and to human generation; secondly, because the commission thereof entails each time the sacrifice of some good by its nature attached to the institution of the venereal act, the normal end of which is human generation; lastly, because they each have a different motive which in itself is sufficient to bring about, in divers ways, the deprivation of the same good, as has been clearly shown by Fillucius, Crespinus and Caramuel.

4. Ex his autem infertur, quod etiam Dæmonialitas specie differt a Bestialitate: singula enim ipsarum peculiarem et distinctam turpitudinem, castitati ac humanæ generationi repugnantem, involvit; siquidem Bestialitas est copula cum bruto vivente, ac sensibus et motu proprio prædito: Dæmonialitas autem est commixtio cum cadavere (stando in sententia communi, quam infra examinabimus), nec sensum, nec motum vitalem habente; et per accidens est, quod a Dæmone moveatur. Quod si immunditia commissa cum brutali cadavere, vel humano, differt specie a Sodomia et Bestialitate, ab ista differt pariter specie etiam Dæmonialitas, in qua, juxta communem sententiam, homo cum cadavere concumbit accidentaliter moto. 4. It follows that Demoniality differs in kind from Bestiality, for each has its peculiar and distinct disgrace, repugnant to chastity and human generation. Bestiality is connexion with a living beast, endowed with its own peculiar senses and impulses; Demoniality, on the contrary, is copulation with a corpse (according at least to the general doctrine which shall be considered hereafter), a senseless and motionless corpse which is but accidentally moved through the power of the Demon. Now, if fornication with the corpse of a man, a woman, or a beast differs in kind from Sodomy and Bestiality, there is the same difference with regard to Demoniality, which, according to general opinion, is the intercourse of man with a corpse accidentally set in motion.

5. Et confirmatur: quia in peccatis contra naturam, seminatio innaturalis (hoc est, ea ad quam regulariter non potest sequi generatio) habet rationem generis; subjectum vero talis seminationis est differentia constituens species sub tali genere: unde si seminatio fiat in terram, aut corpus inanime, est mollities; si fiat cum homine in vase præpostero, est Sodomia; si fiat cum bruto, est bestialitas: quæ absque controversia inter se specie differunt, eo quod terra, seu cadaver, homo, et brutum, quæ sunt subjecta talis seminationis, specie differunt inter se. Sed Dæmon a bruto non solum differt specie, sed plusquam specie: differunt enim per corporeum, et incorporeum, quæ sunt differentiæ genericæ. Sequitur ergo quod seminationes factæ cum aliis differunt inter se specie, quod est intentum. 5. Another proof: in sins against nature, the unnatural semination (which cannot be regularly followed by generation) is a genus; but the object of such semination is the difference which marks the species under the genus. Thus, whether semination takes place on the ground, or on an inanimate body, it is pollution; if cum homine in vase præpostero, it is Sodomy; with a beast, bestiality: crimes which unquestionably all differ from each other in species, just as the ground, the corpse, the man and the beast, passive objects talis seminationis, differ in species from each other. But the difference between the Demon and the beast is not only specific, it is more than specific: the nature of the one is corporeal, of the other incorporeal, which makes a generic difference. Whence it follows that seminationes practised on different objects differ in species from each other: and that is substantiated.

6. Pariter, trita est doctrina Moralistarum fundata 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 confessione manifestandæ sint tantum circumstantiæ quæ mutant speciem peccatorum. Si igitur Dæmonialitas et Bestialitas sunt ejusdem speciei specialissimæ, sufficit in confessione dicere: Bestialitatis peccatum commisi quantumvis confitens cum Dæmone concubuerit. Hoc autem falsum est: igitur non 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 the circumstances which alter the species of sins. If therefore Demoniality and Bestiality belonged to the same very particular species, it would be enough that, each time he has fornicated with the Demon, the penitent should say to his confessor: I have been guilty of the sin of Bestiality. But that is not so: therefore those two sins do not both belong to the same very particular species.

7. Quod si dicatur, aperiendum esse in confessione circumstantiam concubitus cum Dæmone ratione peccati contra Religionem: peccatum contra Religionem committitur, aut ex cultu, aut ex reverentia, aut ex deprecatione, aut ex pacto, aut ex societate 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 respectu istorum nulla intervenit irreligiositas, et commixtio cum istis nullam habebit rationem ulteriorem, quam puri et simplicis coitus, qui, si est ejusdem speciei cum Bestialitate, sufficienter exprimetur dicendo: Bestialitatem commisi; quod tamen falsum est. 7. It may be urged that if the circumstances of a sensual intercourse with the Demon should be revealed to the Confessor, it is on account of its offense against Religion, an offense which comes either from the worship rendered to the Demon, or from the homage or prayers offered up to him, or from the compact of fellowship entered into with him (S. Thomas, quest. 90). But, as will be seen hereafter, there are Incubi and Succubi to whom none of the foregoing applies, and yet copula sequitur. There is consequently, in that special case, no element of irreligion, no other character quam puri et simplicis coitus; and, if of the same species as Bestiality, it would be adequately stated by saying: I have been guilty of the sin of Bestiality; which is not so.

8. Ulterius in confesso est apud omnes Theologos Morales, quod longe gravior est copula cum Dæmone, quam cum quolibet bruto; in eadem autem specie specialissima peccati, non datur unum peccatum gravius altero, sed omnia æque gravia sunt; perinde enim est coire cum cane, aut asina, aut equa; sequitur ergo, quod si Dæmonialitas est gravior Bestialitate, non sint ambo ejusdem speciei. Nec dicendum gravitatem majorem in Dæmonialitate petendam esse ab irreligiositate, seu superstitione ex societate cum Dæmone, ut scribit Cajetanus ad 2. 2. q. 154., ar. 11. § ad 3. in fine, quia hoc fallit in aliquibus Succubis et Incubis, ut supra dictum est; tum quia gravitas major statuitur in Dæmonialitate præ Bestialitate, in genere vitii contra naturam: major autem gravitas in illa supra istam ratione irreligiositatis exorbitat ex illo genere, proinde non facit in illo genere, et ex se graviorem. 8. Besides, it is acknowledged by all Theological Moralists that copula cum Dæmone is much more grievous than the same act committed with any beast soever. Now, in the same very particular species of sins, one sin is not more grievous than another; all are equally so: it comes to the same whether connection is had with a bitch, an ass, or a mare; whence it follows that if Demoniality is more grievous than Bestiality, those two acts are not of the same species. And let it not be argued, with Cajetanus, that Demoniality is more grievous on account of the offense to religion from the worship rendered to the Demon or the compact of fellowship entered into with him: as has been shown above, that is not always met with in the connection of man with Incubi and Succubi; moreover, if in the genus of unnatural sin Demoniality is more grievous than Bestiality, the offense to Religion is quite foreign to that aggravation, since it is foreign to that genus itself.

9. Statuta igitur differentia specifica Dæmonialitatis a Bestialitate, ut gravitas illius percipiatur in ordine ad pœnam de qua principaliter nobis tractandum est, est necessarium inquirere quotupliciter Dæmonialitas accidat. Non desunt qui sibi nimis scioli negant quod gravissimi Auctores scripsere, et quod quotidiana constat experientia, Dæmonem scilicet tum Incubum, tum Succubum, non solum hominibus, sed etiam brutis carnaliter conjungi. Aiunt proinde esse hominum imaginationem, phantasmatibus a Dæmone perturbatis læsam, seu dæmoniaca esse præstigia: sicuti etiam Sagæ, seu Striges, sola imaginatione perturbata a Dæmone, sibi videntur assistere ludis, choreis, conviviis, et conventibus nocturnis, et carnaliter Dæmoni commisceri; nullo vero reali modo deferuntur corpore ad ejusmodi loca et actiones, prout textualiter dicitur in quodam Capitulo, ac duobus Conciliis. Cap. Episcop. 26. q. 5., Conch. Ancyr. c. 24., Conc. Rom. 4. sub Damaso, c. 5. apud Laur. Epitom. v^o Saga. 9. Now, having laid down the specific difference between Demoniality and Bestiality, so that the gravity thereof may be duly appreciated in view of the penalty to be inflicted (and that is our most essential object), we must inquire in how many different ways the sin of Demoniality may be committed. There is no lack of people who, infatuated with their small baggage of knowledge, venture to deny what has been written by the gravest authors and is testified by every day experience: namely, that the Demon, whether Incubus or Succubus, unites carnally not only with men and women, but also with beasts. They allege that it all comes from the human imagination troubled by the craft of the Demon, and that there is nothing in it but phantasmagoria and diabolical spells. The like happens, they say, to Witches or Sagas, who, under the influence of an illusion brought on by the Demon, fancy that they attend the nightly sports, dances, revels and vigils, and have carnal intercourse with the Demon, though in reality they are not bodily transferred to those places nor taking part in those deeds, as has been defined verbatim by a Capitule and two Councils.

10. Sed non negatur, quin aliquando mulierculæ, illusæ a Dæmonibus, videantur nocturnis Sagarum ludis corporaliter interesse, dum tamen sola imaginaria visione ipsis hoc accidit: sicut etiam in somnis videtur nonnullis cum fœmina aliqua concumbere, et semen vere excernitur, non tamen concubitus ille realis est, sed tantum phantasticus, paratus non raro per illusionem diabolicam; et in hoc verissimum est quod habent citatum Capitulum et Concilia. Sed hoc non semper est; sed ut in pluribus, corpore deferuntur Sagæ ad ludos nocturnos, et vere carnaliter corpore conjunguntur Dæmoni, et Malefici non minus Dæmoni succubo miscentur, et hæc est sententia Theologorum, et jure consultorum Catholicorum, quos abunde citat Frater Franciscus Maria Guaccius in suo libro intitulato Compendium Maleficarum; Grilland. Remig. Petr. Damian. Sylvest. Alphon. a Cast. Abul. Cajet. Senon. Crespet. Spine. Anan. apud Guaccium, Comp. Malef., c. 15. § Altera, quam verissimam ... n. 69. lib. p.; quæ sententia confirmatur decem et octo exemplis, ibidem allatis et relatis per viros doctos et veridicos de quorum fide ambigendum non est, quibus probatur Maleficos et Sagas corporaliter ad ludos convenire, et cum Dæmonibus succubis et incubis corporaliter turpissime commisceri. Et pro omnibus sufficere debet auctoritas Divi Augustini, qui loquens de concubitu hominum cum Dæmonibus, sic ait lib. 15. de Civitate Dei, c. 23.: “Et quoniam creberrima fama est, multique se expertos, vel ab eis qui experti essent, de quorum fide dubitandum non est, audivisse confirmant, Sylvanos et Faunos, quos vulgo Incubos vocant, improbos sæpe extitisse mulieribus, et earum appetiisse et peregisse concubitum. Et quosdam Dæmones, quos Dusios Galli nuncupant, hanc assidue immunditiam et tentare et efficere, plures talesque asseverant, ut hoc negare impudentia videatur.” Hæc Augustinus. 10. Of course, it is not contested that sometimes young women, deceived by the Demon, fancy taking part, in their flesh and blood, in the nightly vigils of Witches, without its being any thing but an imaginary vision. Thus, in a dream, one sometimes fancies cum fœmina aliqua concumbere, et semen vere excernitur, non tamen concubitus ille realis est, but merely fantastic, and often brought about by a diabolical illusion: and here the above mentioned Capitule and Councils are perfectly right. But this is not always the case; on the contrary, it more often happens that Witches are bodily present at nightly vigils and have with the Demon a genuine carnal and corporeal connection, and that likewise Wizards copulate with the Succuba or female Demon. Such is the opinion of Theologians as well as of jurists, whose names will be found at length in the Compendium Maleficarum, or Chronicle of Witches, by Brother Francis Marie Guaccius. This doctrine is therein confirmed by eighteen instances adduced from the recitals of learned and truthful men whose testimony is beyond suspicion, and which prove that Wizards and Witches are indeed bodily present at vigils and most shamefully copulate with Demons, Incubi or Succubi. And, after all, to settle the question, we have the authority of S. Augustine, who, speaking of carnal intercourse between men and the Demon, expresses himself as follows, book 15^th, chapt. 23^d of the City of God: “It is widely credited, and such belief is confirmed by the direct or indirect testimony of thoroughly trustworthy people, that Sylvans and Fauns, commonly called Incubi, have frequently molested women, sought and obtained from them coition. There are even Demons, whom the Gauls call Duses or Elfs, who very regularly indulge in those unclean practices: the fact is testified by so many and such weighty authorities, that it were impudent to doubt it.” Such are the very words of S. Augustine.

11. Prout autem apud diversos Auctores legitur, et pluribus experimentis comprobatur, duplici modo Dæmon hominibus carnaliter copulatur: uno modo quo Maleficis et Sagis jungitur, alio modo quo aliis hominibus minime maleficis miscetur. 11. Now, several authors profess, and it is confirmed by numerous experiments, that the Demon has two ways of copulating carnally with men or women: the one which it uses with Witches or Wizards, the other with men or women entirely foreign to witchcraft.

12. Quantum ad primum modum, non copulatur Dæmon Sagis, seu Maleficis, nisi præmissa solemni professione, qua iniquissimi homines Dæmoni addicuntur; quæ professio, ut ex variis Auctoribus referentibus confessiones Sagarum judiciales in tormentis factas, quas collegit Franciscus Maria Guaccius, Comp. Malef., c. 7., lib. 1., consistit in undecim ceremoniis. 12. In the first case, the Demon does not copulate with Witches or Wizards until after a solemn profession, in virtue of which such wretched human beings yield themselves up to him. According to several authors who have related the judicial admissions of Witches when on the rack, and whose recitals have been collected by Francis-Marie Guaccius, Compend. Malef., book 1, chapt. 7, that profession consists of eleven ceremonials:

13. Primo, ineunt pactum expressum cum Dæmone, aut alio Mago seu Malefico vicem Dæmonis gerente, et testibus præsentibus, de servitio diabolico suscipiendo: Dæmon vero vice versa honores, divitias, et carnales delectationes illis pollicetur. Guacc. loc. cit. fol. 34. 13. Firstly, the Novices have to conclude with the Demon, or some other Wizard or Magician acting in the Demon’s place, an express compact by which, in the presence of witnesses, they enlist in the Demon’s service, he giving them in exchange his pledge for honours, riches and carnal pleasures.

14. Secundo, abnegant catholicam fidem, subducunt se obedientiæ Dei, renuntiant Christo, et protectioni Beatissimæ Virginis Mariæ, ac Ecclesiæ omnibus sacramentis. Guacc., loc. cit. 14. Secondly, they abjure the catholic faith, withdraw from the obedience to God, renounce Christ and the protection of the most blessed Virgin Mary, and all the Sacraments of the Church.

15. Tertio, projiciunt a se Coronam, seu Rosarium B. V. M., Chordam S. P. Francisci, aut Corrigiam S. Augustini, aut Scapulare Carmelitarum, si quod habent, Crucem, Medaleas, Agnos Dei, et quidquid sacri aut benedicti gestabant, et pedibus ea proculcant. Guacc. loc. cit. fol. 35. Grilland. 15. Thirdly, they cast away the Crown, or Rosary of the most blessed Virgin Mary, the girdle of S. Francis, or the strap of S. Austin, or the scapular of the Carmelites, should they belong to one of those Orders, the Cross, the Medals, the Agnus Dei, whatever other holy or consecrated object may have been about their person, and trample them all under foot.

16. Quarto, vovent in manibus Diaboli obedientiam, et subjectionem, eique præstant homagium et vassallagium, tangendo quoddam volumen nigerrimum. Spondent, quod nunquam redibunt ad fidem Christi, nec Dei præcepta servabunt, nec ulla bona opera facient, sed ad sola mandata Dæmonis attendent, et ad conventus nocturnos diligenter accedent. Guacc. loc. cit. fol. 36. 16. Fourthly, in the hands of the Devil they vow obedience and subjection; they pay him homage and vassalage, laying their fingers on some very black book. They bind themselves never to return to the faith of Christ, to observe none of the divine precepts, to do no good work, but to obey the Demon alone and, to attend diligently the nightly conventicles.

17. Quinto, spondent se enixe curaturos, et omni studio ac sedulitate procuraturos adducere alios mares et fœminas ad suam sectam, et cultum Dæmonis. Guacc. loc. cit. 17. Fifthly, they promise to strive with all their power, and to give their utmost zeal and care for the enlistment of other males and females in the service of the Demon.

18. Sexto, baptizantur a Diabolo sacrilego quodam baptismo, et abnegatis Patrinis et Matrinis baptismi Christi, et Confirmationis, et nomine, quod sibi fuit primo impositum, a Diabolo sibi assignantur Patrinus et Matrina novi, qui ipsos instruant in arte maleficiorum, et imponitur nomen novum, quod plerumque scurrile est. Guacc. loc. cit. 18. Sixthly, the Devil administers to them a kind of sacrilegious baptism, and after abjuring their Godfathers and Godmothers of the Baptism of Christ and Confirmation, they have assigned to them a new Godfather and a new Godmother, who are to instruct them in the arts of witchcraft; they drop their former name and exchange it for another, more frequently a scurrilous nickname.

19. Septimo, abscindunt partem propriorum indumentorum, et illam offerunt Diabolo in signum homagii, et Diabolus illam asportat, et servat. Guacc. loc. cit. fol. 38. 19. Seventhly, they cut off a part of their own garments, and tender it as a token of homage to the Devil, who takes it away and keeps it.

20. Octavo, format Diabolus circulum super terram, et in eo stantes Novitii Malefici et Sagæ firmant juramento omnia, quæ ut dictum est promiserunt. Guacc. loc. cit. 20. Eighthly, the Devil draws on the ground a circle wherein stand the Novices, Witches and Wizards, and there they confirm by oath all their aforesaid promises.

21. Nono, petunt a Diabolo deleri a libro Christi, et describi in libro suo, et profertur liber nigerrimus, quem tetigerunt præstando homagium, ut dictum est supra, et ungue Diaboli in eo exarantur. Guacc. loc. cit. 21. Ninthly, they request the Devil to strike them out of the book of Christ, and to inscribe them in his own. Then comes forth that very black book on which, as has been said before, they laid hands when doing homage, and they are inscribed therein with the Devil’s claw.

22. Decimo, promittunt Diabolo statis temporibus sacrificia, et oblationes; singulis quindecim diebus, vel singulo mense saltem, necem alicujus infantis, aut mortale veneficium, et singulis hebdomadis alia mala in damnum humani generis, ut grandines, tempestates, incendia, mortem animalium, etc. Guacc. loc. cit. fol. 40. 22. Tenthly, they promise the Devil sacrifices and offerings at stated times: once a fortnight or at least each month, the murder of some child, or an homicidal act of sorcery, and other weekly misdeeds to the prejudice of mankind, such as hailstorms, tempests, fires, cattle plagues, etc.

23. Undecimo, sigillantur a Dæmone aliquo charactere, maxime ii, de quorum constantia dubitat. Character vero non est semper ejusdem formæ, aut figuræ: aliquando enim est simile lepori, aliquando pedi bufonis, aliquando araneæ, vel catello, vel gliri; imprimitur autem in locis corporeis magis occultis: viris quidem aliquando sub palpebris, aliquando sub axillis, aut labiis, aut humeris, aut sede ima, aut alibi; mulieribus autem plerumque in mammis, aut locis muliebribus. Porro sigillum, quo talia signa imprimuntur, est unguis Diaboli. Quibus peractis ad instructionem Magistrorum qui Novitios initiarunt, hi promittunt denuo, se nunquam Eucharistiam adoraturos; injuriosos Sanctis omnibus, et maxime B. V. M. futuros; conculcaturos ac conspurcaturos Sacras Imagines, Crucem, ac Sanctorum Reliquias; nunquam usuros Sacramentis, aut sacramentalibus, nisi ad maleficia; integram confessionem sacramentalem sacerdoti nunquam facturos, et suum cum Dæmone commercium semper celaturos. Et Diabolus vicissim pollicetur, se illis semper præsto futurum; se in hoc mundo votis eorum satisfacturum, et post mortem illos esse beaturum. Sic peracta professione solemni, assignatur singulis eorum Diabolus, qui appellatur Magistellus, cum quo in partes secedunt, et carnaliter commiscentur: ille quidem in specie fœminæ, si initiatus est vir; in forma autem viri, et aliquando satyri, aliquando hirci, si fœmina est saga professa. Guacc. loc. cit. fol. 42 et 43. 23. Eleventhly, the Demon imprints on them some mark, especially on those whose constancy he suspects. That mark, moreover, is not always of the same shape or figure: sometimes it is the image of a hare, sometimes a toad’s leg, sometimes a spider, a puppy, a dormouse. It is imprinted on the most hidden parts of the body: with men, under the eye-lids, or the armpits, or the lips, on the shoulder, the fundament, or somewhere else; with women, it is usually on the breasts or the privy parts. Now, the stamp which imprints those marks is none other but the Devil’s claw. This having been all performed in accordance with the instructions of the Teachers who have initiated the Novices, these promise lastly never to worship the Eucharist; to insult all Saints and especially the most blessed Virgin Mary; to trample under foot and vilify the holy images, the Cross and the relics of Saints; never to use the sacraments or sacramental ceremonials; never to make a full confession to the priest, but to keep always hidden from him their intercourse with the Demon. The Demon, in exchange, engages to give them always prompt assistance; to fulfil their desires in this world and to make them happy after their death. The solemn profession being thus performed, each has assigned to himself a Devil, called Magistellus or Assistant Master, with whom he retires in private for carnal satisfaction; the said Devil being, of course, in the shape of a woman if the initiated person is a man, in the shape of a man, sometimes of a satyr, sometimes of a buck-goat, if it is a woman who has been received a witch.

24. Quod si quæratur ab Auctoribus, quomodo possit Dæmon, qui corpus non habet, corporalem commixtionem habere cum homine: respondent communiter, quod Dæmon aut assumit alterius maris aut fœminæ, juxta exigentiam, cadaver, aut ex mixtione aliarum materiarum effingit sibi corpus, quod movet, et mediante quo homini unitur. Et subdunt, quod quando fœminæ gaudent imprægnari a Dæmone (quod non fit, nisi in gratiam fœminarum hoc optantium), Dæmon se transformat in succubam, et juncta homini semen ab eo recipit; aut per illusionem nocturnam in somnis procurat ab homine pollutionem, et semen prolectum in suo nativo calore et cum vitali spiritu conservat, et incubando fœminæ infert in ipsius matricem, ex quo sequitur conceptio. Ita multis citatis docet Guaccius, l. i. c. 12., per totum, qui prædicta multis exemplis desumptis a variis Doctoribus confirmat. 24. If the authors be asked how it comes to pass that the Demon, who has no body, yet has carnal intercourse with man or woman, they unanimously answer that the Demon assumes the corpse of another human being, male or female as the case may be, or that, from the mixture of other materials, he shapes for himself a body endowed with motion, and by means of which he is united with the human being; and they add that when women are desirous of becoming pregnant by the Demon (which only occurs by the consent and express wish of the said women), the Demon is transformed into a Succuba, et juncta homini semen ab eo recipit; or else he procures pollution from a man during his sleep, et semen prolectum in suo nativo calore, et cum vitali spiritu conservat, et incubando fœminæ infert in ipsius matricem, whence follows impregnation. Such is the teaching of Guaccius, book 1, chapt. 12, who supports it on a number of quotations and instances taken from various Doctors.

25. Alio modo jungitur Dæmon tum Incubus, tum Succubus, hominibus, fœminis aut maribus, a quibus nec honorem, nec sacrificia, oblationes, maleficia, quæ a Sagis et Maleficis, ut supra dictum est, prætendit, recipit; sed ostendens deperdite amorem, nil aliud appetit, quam carnaliter commisceri cum iis quos amat. Multa sunt de hoc exempla, quæ ab Auctoribus referuntur, ut Menippi Lycii, qui fuit sollicitatus a quadam fœmina ad sibi nubendum, postquam cum ea multoties coivit; et detecta fœmina quænam esset a quodam Philosopho, qui convivio nuptiali intererat, et Menippo dixit illam esse Compusam, puta Dæmonem succubam, statim ejulans evanuit, ut narrat Cœlius Rhodiginus, Antiq., lib. 29. c. 5. Pariter adolescens quidam Scotus a Dæmone succuba omnium gratissima, quas vidisset, forma, quæ occlusis cubiculi foribus ad se ventitabat, blanditiis, osculis, amplexibus per multos menses fuit sollicitatus, ut secum coiret, ut scribit Hector Boethius, Hist. Scotor. lib. 8., quod tamen a casto juvene obtinere non potuit. 25. At other times also the Demon, whether Incubus or Succubus, copulates with men or women from whom he receives none of the sacrifices, homage or offerings which he is wont to exact from Wizards or Witches, as aforesaid. He is then but a passionate lover, having only one desire: the carnal possession of the loved ones. Of this there are numerous instances to be found in the authors, amongst which the case of Menippus Lycius, who, after frequent coition with a woman, was by her entreated to marry her; but a certain philosopher, who partook of the wedding entertainment, having guessed what that woman was, told Menippus that he had to deal with a Compusa, that is a Succuba Demon; whereupon the bride vanished bewailing: such is the narrative given by Cœlius Rhodiginus, Antiq., book 29, chapt. 5. Hector Boethius (Hist. Scot.) also relates the case of a young Scot, who, during many months, with closed doors and windows, was visited in his bed-room by a Succuba Demon of the most bewitching beauty; caresses, kisses, embraces, entreaties, she resorted to every blandishment ut secum coiret: but she could not prevail on the chaste young man.

26. Similiter, multas fœminas legimus ab Incubo Dæmone expetitas ad coitum, ipsisque repugnantibus facinus admittere, precibus, fletibus, blanditiis, non secus ac perditissimus amasius, procurasse animum ipsarum demulcere, et ad congressum inclinare; et quamvis aliquoties hoc eveniat ob maleficium, ut nempe Dæmon missus a maleficis hoc procuret: tamen non raro Dæmon ex se hoc agit, ut scribit Guaccius, Comp. Mal. lib. 3. c. 8., et non solum hoc evenit cum mulieribus, sed etiam cum equabus, cum quibus commiscetur; quæ si libenter coitum admittunt, ab eo curantur optime, ac ipsarum jubæ varie artificiosis et inextricabilibus nodis texuntur; si autem illum adversentur, eas male tractat, percutit, macras reddit, et tandem necat, ut quotidiana constat experientia. 26. We read likewise of numerous women incited to coition by the Incubus Demon, and who, though reluctant at first of yielding to him, are soon moved by his entreaties, tears and endearments; he is a desperate lover and must not be denied. And although this comes sometimes of the craft of some Wizard who avails himself of the agency of the Demon, yet the Demon not infrequently acts on his own account; and it happens not merely with women, but also with mares; if they readily comply with his desire, he pets them, and plaits their mane in elaborate and inextricable tresses; but if they resist, he ill-treats and strikes them, smites them with the glanders, and finally puts them to death, as is shown by daily experience.

27. Et quod mirum est, et pene incapabile, tales Incubi, qui Italice vocantur Folletti, Hispanice Duendes, Gallice Follets, nec Exorcistis obediunt, nec exorcismos pavent, nec res sacras reverentur ad earum approximationem timorem ostendendo, sicuti faciunt Dæmones, qui obsessos vexant; quantumvis enim maligni Spiritus sint obstinati, nec parere velint Exorcistæ præcipienti, ut exeant a corporibus quæ obsident, tamen ad prolationem Sanctissimi Nominis Jesu, aut Mariæ, aut aliquorum versuum Sacræ Scripturæ, impositionem Reliquiarum, maxime Ligṅi Sanctæ Crucis, approximationem Sacrarum Imaginum, ad os obsessi rugiunt, strident, frendent, concutiuntur, et timorem ac horrorem ostendunt. Folletti vero nihil horum, ut dictum est, ostendunt, nec a divexatione, nisi post longum tempus, cessant. Hujus rei testis sum oculatus, et historiam recito quæ reipsa humanam fidem superat: sed testis mihi sit Deus quod puram veritatem multorum testimonio comprobatam describo. 27. A most marvellous and well nigh incomprehensible fact: the Incubi whom the Italians call Folletti, the Spaniards Duendes, the French Follets, do not obey the Exorcists, have no dread of exorcisms, no reverence for holy things, at the approach of which they are not in the least overawed; very different in that respect from the Demons who vex those whom they possess; for, however obstinate those evil Spirits may be, however restive to the injunctions of the Exorcist who bids them leave the body they possess, yet, at the mere utterance of the most holy name of Jesus or Mary, or of some verses of Holy Writ, at the mere imposition of relics, especially of a piece of the wood of the Holy Cross, or the sight of the holy images, they roar at the mouth of the possessed person, they gnash, shake, quiver, and display fright and awe. But the Folletti show none of those signs, and leave off their vexations but after a long space of time. Of this I was an eye-witness, and shall relate a story which verily passes human belief: but I take God to witness that I tell the precise truth, corroborated by the testimony of numerous persons.

28. Viginti quinque abhinc annis, plus minusve, dum essem Lector Sacræ Theologiæ in Conventu Sanctæ Crucis Papiæ, reperiebatur in illa civitate honesta quædam fœmina maritata optimæ conscientiæ, et bonum habens ab omnibus eam agnoscentibus, maxime Religiosis, testimonium, quæ vocabatur Hieronyma; et habitabat in parochia Sancti Michaelis. Hæc quadam die domi suæ panem pinserat, et per furnarium miserat ad illum decoquendum. Reportat panes coctos furnarius, et cum illis grandem quamdam placentam curiose elaboratam, conditam butyro, et pastulis Venetis, ut in ea civitate solent fieri placentæ hujusmodi. Renuit illa placentam recipere, dicens se talem nullam fecisse. Replicat furnarius, se illa die alium panem coquendum non habuisse, nisi illum quem ab ea habuerat; oportere proinde, etiam placentam a se fuisse factam, licet minime de illa recordaretur. Acquievit fœmina, et placentam cum viro suo, filia quam habebat triennem, et famula comedit. Sequenti nocte dum cubaret mulier cum viro suo, et ambo dormirent, expergefacta est a quadam tenuissima voce, velut acutissimi sibili ad ipsius aures susurrante, verbis tamen distinctis: interrogavit autem fœminam, num placenta illi placuisset? Pavens fœmina cœpit se munire signo Crucis, et invocare sæpius nomina Jesu et Mariæ. Replicabat vox, ne paveret, se nolle illi nocere, immo quæcumque illi placerent paratum exsequi, esse filo captum pulchritudinis suæ, et nil amplius desiderare, quam ejus amplexu frui. Tum fœmina sensit aliquem suaviantem ipsius genas, sed tactus ita levis, ac mollis, ac si esset gossipium subtilissime carminatum id a quo tacta fuit. Respuit illa invitantem, nec ullum responsum illi dedit: sed jugiter nomen Jesu et Mariæ repetebat, et se Crucis signo muniebat; et sic per spatium quasi horæ dimidiæ tentata fuit, et postea abscessit tentator. 28. About twenty five years ago, when I was a lecturer on Sacred Theology in the convent of the Holy Cross, in Pavia, there was living in that city a married woman of unimpeachable morality, and who was most highly spoken of by all such as knew her, especially by the Friars; her name was Hieronyma, and she lived in the parish of S. Michael. One day, this woman had kneaded bread at home and given it out to bake. The oven-man brought her back her loaves when baked, and with them a large cake of a peculiar shape, and made of butter and Venetian paste, as is usual in that city. She declined to take it in, saying she had not made any thing of the kind.—“But”, said the oven-man, “I had no other bread but yours to bake to-day, therefore this cake also must have come from your house; your memory is at fault”. The good lady allowed herself to be persuaded, and partook of the cake with her husband, her little girl three years old, and the house servant. The next night, whilst in bed with her husband, and both asleep, she suddenly woke up at the sound of a very slender voice, something like a shrill hissing, whispering in her ears, yet with great distinctness, and inquiring whether “the cake had been to her taste?” The good lady, frightened, set about guarding herself with a sign of the cross and repeatedly calling the names of Jesus and Mary. “Be not afraid,” said the voice, “I mean you no harm; quite, the reverse: I am prepared to do any thing to please you; I am captivated by your beauty, and desire nothing more than to enjoy your embraces”. And she felt somebody kissing her cheeks, so lightly, so softly, that she might have fancied being grazed by the finest down. She resisted without giving any answer, merely repeating over and over again the names of Jesus and Mary, and crossing herself; the tempter kept on thus for nearly half an hour, when he withdrew.

Sequenti mane fuit mulier ad confessarium virum prudentem ac doctum, a quo fuit in fide confirmata et exhortata, ut viriliter, sicut fecerat, resisteret, et sacris Reliquiis se muniret. Sequentibus noctibus par priori fuit tentatio, et verbis, et osculis, et par etiam in muliere constantia. Hæc pertæsa talem ac tantam molestiam, ad Confessarii consultationem, et aliorum gravium virorum, per Exorcistas peritos fecit se exorcizare ad sciendum num esset obsessa; et cum invenissent a nullo malo spiritu possideri, benedixerunt domui, cubiculo, lecto, et præceptum Incubo fecerunt, ne auderet molestiam amplius mulieri inferre. Sed omnia incassum: siquidem tentationem inceptam prosequebatur, ac si præ amore langueret, ploratus et ejulatus emittebat ad mulierem demulcendam, quæ tamen gratia Die adjuta semper viriliter restitit. Renovavit Incubus tentationem, ipsi apparens interdiu in forma pusionis, seu parvi homunculi pulcherrimi, cæsariem habens rutilam et crispam, barbamque fulvam ac splendentem velut aurum, glaucosque oculos, ut flos lini, incedebatque indutus habitu Hispanico. Apparebat autem illi quamvis cum ea alii morarentur; et questus, prout faciunt amantes, exercens, et jactando basia, solitasque preces repetendo tentabat mulierem, ut ad illius amplexus admitteretur. Videbatque, et audiebat illa sola præsentem ac loquentem, minime autem cæteri adstantes. The next morning the dame called on her Confessor, a discreet and learned man, who confirmed her in her faith, exhorted her to maintain her energetic resistance and to provide herself with some holy relics. On the ensuing nights, like temptation with the same language and kisses, like constancy also on the part of the woman. Weary however of such painful and persistent molestation, taking the advice of her Confessor and other grave men, she had herself exorcised by experienced Exorcists, in order to ascertain whether perchance she was not possessed. Having found in her no trace of the evil Spirit, they blessed the house, the bed-room, the bed, and enjoined on the Incubus to discontinue his molestations. All to no purpose: he kept on worse than ever, pretending to be love-sick, weeping and moaning in order to melt the heart of the lady, who however, by the grace of God, remained unconquered. The Incubus then went another way to work: he appeared in the shape of a lad or little man of great beauty, with golden locks, a flaxen beard that shone like gold, sea-green eyes calling to mind the flax-flower, and arrayed in a fancy Spanish dress. Besides he appeared to her even when in company, whimpering, after the fashion of lovers, kissing his hand to her, and endeavouring by every means to obtain her embraces. She alone saw and heard him: for every body else, he was not to be seen.

Perseverabat in illa constantia mulier, donec contra eam iratus Incubus, post aliquos menses blanditiarum novum persecutionis genus adortus est. Primo abstulit ab ea crucem argenteam plenam Reliquiis Sanctorum, et ceram benedictam, sive Agnum papalem B. Pontificis Pii V, quæ secum semper portabat; mox etiam annulos et alia jocalia aurea et argentea ipsius, intactis seris sub quibus custodiebantur, in arca suffuratus est. Exinde cœpit illam acriter percutere, et apparebant post verbera contusiones, et livores in facie, brachiis, aliisque corporis partibus, quæ per diem unum vel alterum perdurabant, mox in momento disparebant contra ordinem contusionis naturalis, quæ sensim paulatimque decrescit. Aliquoties ipsius infantulam lactentem cunis eripiebat, et illam, nunc super tecta in limine præcipitii locabat, nunc occultabat, nihil tamen mali in illa apparuit. Aliquoties totam domus supellectilem evertebat; aliquoties ollas, paropsides, et alia vasa testea minutatim frangebat, subinde fracta restituebat integra. Semel dum ipsa cum viro cubaret, apparens Incubus in forma solita enixe deprecabatur ab ea concubitum, et dum ipsa de more constans resisteret, in furorem actus Incubus abscessit, et infra breve temporis spatium reversus est, secum ferens magnam copiam laminarum saxearum, quibus Genuenses in civitate sua et universa Liguria domos tegunt, et ex ipsis fabricavit murum circa lectum tantæ altitudinis, ut ejus conopeum adæquaret, unde necesse fuit scalis uti, si debuerunt de cubili surgere. Murus autem fuit absque calce, et ipso destructo, saxa in angulo seposita, quæ ibi per duos dies remanserunt visa a multis, qui ad spectaculum convenerant; et post biduum disparuerunt. The good lady kept persevering in her admirable constancy till, at last, after some months of courting, the Incubus, incensed at her disdain, had recourse to a new kind of persecution. First, he took away from her a silver cross filled with holy relics, and a holy wax or papal lamb of the blessed Pontiff Pius V, which she always carried on her person; then, leaving the locks untouched, he purloined her rings and other gold and silver jewelry from the casket wherein they were put away. Next, he began to strike her cruelly, and after each beating bruises and marks were to be seen on her face, her arms or other parts of her body, which lasted a day or two, then suddenly disappeared, the reverse of natural bruises which decrease slowly and by degrees. Sometimes, while she was nursing her little girl, he would snatch the child away from on her breast and lay it upon the roof, on the edge of the gutter, or hide it, but without ever harming it. Sometimes he would upset all the furniture, or smash to pieces saucepans, plates and other earthenware which, in the twinkling of an eye, he restored to their former state. One night that she was lying with her husband, the Incubus, appearing in his customary shape, vehemently urged his demand which she resisted as usual. The Incubus withdrew in a rage, and shortly came back with a large load of those flag stones which the Genoese, and the inhabitants of Liguria in general, use for roofing their houses. With those stones he built around the bed a wall so high that it reached the tester, and that the couple could not leave their bed without using a ladder. This wall however was built up without lime; when pulled down, the flags were laid by in a corner where, during two days, they were seen by many who came to look at them; they then disappeared.

Invitaverat maritus ejus in die S. Stephani quosdam amicos viros militares ad prandium, et pro hospitum dignitate dapes paraverat; dum de more lavantur manus ante accubitum, disparet in momento mensa parata in triclinio; disparent obsonia cuncta, olla, caldaria, patinæ, ac omnia vasa in coquina; disparent amphoræ, canthari, calices parati ad potum. Attoniti ad hoc stupent commensales, qui erant octo, inter quos Dux peditum Hispanus ad alios conversus ait: “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 cœnaculum manibus extentis, tentans mensam deprehendere, sed cum post multos circuitus incassum laborasset, et nil præter aerem tangeret, irrisus fuit a cæteris; cumque jam grandis esset prandii hora, pallium proprium eorum unusquisque sumpsit propriam domum petiturus. Jam erant omnes prope januam domus in procinctu eundi, associati a marito vexatæ mulieris, urbanitatis causa, cum grandem quendam strepitum in cœnaculo audiunt. Subsistunt parumper ad cognoscendum causam strepitus, et accurrens famula nuntiat in coquina vasa nova obsoniis plena apparuisse, mensamque in cœnaculo jam paratam esse restitutam. Revertuntur in cœnaculum, et stupent mensam mappis 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 stabant calices crystallinis, argentini et aurei, cum variis amphoris, lagenis, cantharis plenis vinis exteris, puta Cretensi, Campano, Canariensi, Rhenano, etc. In coquina pariter in ollis, et vasis itidem in ea domo nunquam visis, varia obsonia. Dubitarunt prius nonnulli ex iis eas dapes gustare, sed confirmati ab aliis accubuerunt, et exquisitissime omnia condita repererunt; ac immediate a prandio, dum omnes pro usu illius tempores ad ignem sedent, omnia ustensilia cum reliquiis ciborum disparuere, et repertæ sunt antiquæ domus supellectiles simul cum dapibus, quæ prius paratæ fuerant; et quod mirum est, convivæ omnes saturati sunt, ita ut nullus eorum cœnam sumpserit præ prandii lautitia. Quo convincitur cibos appositos reales fuisse, et non ex præstigio repræsentatos. On S. Stephen’s day, the husband had asked some military friends to dinner, and, to do honour to his guests, had provided a substantial repast. Whilst they were, as customary, washing their hands before taking their seats, suddenly vanished the table dressed in the dining-room; all the dishes, saucepans, kettles, plates and crockery in the kitchen vanished likewise, as well as the jugs, bottles and glasses. You may imagine the surprise, the stupor of the guests, eight in number; amongst them was a Spanish Captain of infantry, who, addressing the company, said to them: “Do not be frightened, it is but a trick: the table is certainly still where it stood, and I shall soon find it by feeling for it”. Having thus spoken, he paced round the room with outstretched arms, endeavouring to lay hold of the table; but when, after many circuitous perambulations, it was apparent that he laboured in vain and grasped at nought but thin air, he was laughed at by his friends; and it being already high time for having dinner, each guest took up his cloak and set about to return home. They had already reached the street-door with the husband, who, out of politeness, was attending them, when they heard a great noise in the dining-room: they stood to ascertain the cause thereof, and presently the servant came up to announce that the kitchen was stocked with new vessels filled with food, and that the table was standing again in its former place. Having gone back to the dining-room, they were stupefied to see the table was laid, with cloths, napkins, salt-cellars, and trays that did not belong to the house, and with food which had not been cooked there. On a large sideboard all were arrayed in perfect order crystal, silver and gold chalices, with all kind of amphoras, decanters and cups filled with foreign wines, from the Isle of Crete, Campania, the Canaries, the Rhine, etc. In the kitchen there was also an abundant variety of meats in saucepans and dishes that had never been seen there before. At first, some of the guests hesitated whether they should taste of that food; however, encouraged by others, they sat down, and soon partook of the meal, which was found exquisite. Immediately afterwards, as they were sitting before a seasonable fire, every thing vanished at once, the dishes and the leavings, and in their stead reappeared the cloth of the house and the victual which had been previously cooked; but, for a wonder, all the guests were satisfied, so that no one thought of supper after such a magnificent dinner. A clear proof that the substituted viands were real and nowise fictitious.

Interea effluxerant multi menses, ex quos cœperat hujusmodi persecutio: et mulier votum fecit B. Bernardino Feltrensi, cujus sacrum corpus veneratur in Ecclesia S. Jacobi prope murum illius urbis, incedendi per annum integrum indutam panno griseo, et chordulato, quo utuntur Fratres Minores, de quorum ordine fuit B. Bernardinus, ut per ipsius patrocinium a tanta Incubi vexatione liberaretur. Et de facto die 28 Septembris, qui est pervigilium Dedicationis S. Michaelis Archangeli, et festum B. Bernardini, ipsa veste votiva induta est. Mane sequenti, quod est festum S. Michaelis, ibat vexata ad ecclesiam S. Michaelis, quæ ut diximus erat parochialis ipsius, circa medium mane, dum frequens populus ad illam confluebat; et cum pervenisset ad medium plateæ ecclesiæ, omnia ipsius indumenta et ornamenta ceciderunt in terram et rapta vento statim disparuerunt, ipsa relicta nuda. Adfuerunt sorte inter alios duo equites viri longævi, qui factum videntes, dejectis ab humero propriis palliis mulieris nuditatem, ut potuerunt, velarunt, et rhedæ impositam ad propriam domum duxerunt. Vestes et jocalia quæ rapuerat Incubus, non restituit nisi post sex menses. This kind of persecution had been going on some months, when the lady betook herself to the blessed Bernardine of Feltri, whose body is worshipped in the church of St James, a short distance from the walls of the city. She made a vow to him that she would wear, during a whole twelve-month, a grey frock, tied round her waist with a piece of cord, and such as is worn by the Minor Brethren, the order to which had belonged the blessed Bernardine; this she vowed, in the hope of being, through his intercession, at last rid of the persecution of the Incubus. And accordingly, on the 28^th of September, the vigil of the Dedication of the Archangel S. Michael, and the festival of the blessed Bernardine, she assumed the votive robe. The next morning, which was S. Michael’s festival, the afflicted woman proceeded to the church of St Michael, her own parish, already mentioned; it was about ten o’clock, a time when a crowd of people were going to mass. She had no sooner set foot on the threshold of the church, than her clothes and ornaments fell off to the ground, and disappeared in a gust of wind, leaving her stark naked. There happened fortunately to be among the crowd two cavaliers of mature age, who, seeing what had taken place, hastened to divest themselves of their cloaks with which they concealed, as well as they could, the woman’s nudity, and having put her into a vehicle, accompanied her home. The clothes and trinkets taken by the Incubus were not restored by him before six months had elapsed.

Multa alia, et quidem stupenda operatus est contra eam Incubus, quæ tædet exscribere, et per multos annos in ea tentatione permansit; tandemque Incubus videns operam in ea perdere, destitit a tam importuna et insolita vexatione. I might relate many other most surprising tricks which that Incubus played on her, were it not wearisome. Suffice it to say that, for a number of years he persevered in his temptation of her, but that finding at last that he was losing his pains, he desisted from his vexatious importunities.

29. In hoc casu, et similibus qui passim audiuntur et leguntur, Incubus ad nullum actum contra Religionem tentat, sed solum contra castitatem. Hinc fit quod ipsi consentiens non peccat irreligiositate, sed incontinentia. 29. In the above case, as well as in others that 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 Theologos et Philosophos, quod ex commixtione hominis cum Dæmone aliquoties nascuntur homines, et tali modo nasciturum esse Antichristum opinantur 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 nascantur grandes, robustissimi, ferocissimi, superbissimi, ac nequissimi, ut scripsit Maluenda, loc. cit., § Ad illud; e rationem recitat ex Vallesio Archia. Reggio. Sac. Philosoph., c. 8., dicente quod Incubi summittant in uteros non qualecumque, neque quantumcumque semen, sed plurimum, crassissimum, calidissimum, spiritibus affluens et seri expers. Id vero est eis facile conquirere, deligendo homines calidos, robustos, et abondantes multo semine, quibus succumbant, deinde et mulieres tales, quibus incumbant, atque utrisque voluptatem solito majorem afferendo, tanto enim abundantius emittitur semen, quanto cum majori voluptate excernitur. Hæc Vallesius. Confirmat vero Maluenda supradicta, probando, ex variis et classicis Auctoribus, ex hujusmodi concubitu natos: Romulum ac Remum, Liv. decad. 1; Plutarch., in Vit. Romul. et Parallel.; Servium Tullium, sextum regem Romanorum, Dionys. Halicar., lib. 4, Plin., lib. 36., c. 27; Platonem Philosophum, 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 Africanum Majorem, Liv., decad. 3, lib. 6; Cæsarem Augustum Imperatorem, Sueton., in Octa., c. 94; Aristomenem Messenium, strenuissimum ducem Græcorum, Strabo, de Sit Orb., lib. 8; Pausan., de Rebus Græcor., lib. 3; et Merlinum, seu Melchinum Anglicum ex Incubo et Filia Caroli Magni Moniali, Hauller, volum. 2, Generat. 7, quod etiam de Martino Luthero, perditissimo Heresiarcha scribit Cochlæus apud Maluendam, de Antich., lib. 2, c. 6, § Cæterum. 30. Now, it is undoubted by Theologians and philosophers that carnal intercourse between mankind and the Demon sometimes gives birth to human beings; that is how is to be born the Antichrist, according to some Doctors, such as Bellarmin, Suarez, Maluenda, etc. They further observe that, from a natural cause, the children thus begotten by Incubi are tall, very hardy and bold, very proud and wicked. Thus writes Maluenda; as for the cause, he gives it from Vallesius, Archphysician in Reggio: “What Incubi introduce in uteros, is not qualecumque neque quantumcumque semen, but abundant, very thick, very warm, rich in spirits and free from serosity. This moreover is an easy thing for them, since they have but to choose ardent, robust men, et abundantes multo semine, quibus succumbant, and then women of a like constitution, quibus incumbant, taking care that both shall enjoy voluptatem solito majorem, tanto enim abundantius emittitur semen, quanto cum majori voluptate excernitur.” Those are the words of Vallesius, confirmed by Maluenda who shows, from the testimony of various Authors, mostly classical, that such associations gave birth to: Romulus and Remus, according to Livy and Plutarch; Servius-Tullius, the sixth king of Rome, according to Dyonisius of Halicarnassus and Pliny the Elder; Plato the Philosopher, according to Diogenes Laertius and Saint Hieronymus; Alexander the Great, according to Plutarch and Quintus-Curtius; Seleucus, king of Syria, according to Justinus and Appianus; Scipio Africanus the Elder, according to Livy; the emperor Cæsar Augustus, according to Suetonius; Aristomenes the Messenian, an illustrious Greek commander, according to Strabo and Pausanias; as also Merlin or Melchin the Englishman, born from an Incubus and a nun, the daughter of Charlemagne; and, lastly, as shown by the writings of Cochlæus quoted by Maluenda, that damned Heresiarch ycleped Martin Luther.

31. Salva tamen tot, et tantorum Doctorum, qui in ea opinione conveniunt, reverentia, non video, quomodo ipsorum sententia possit subsistere; tum quia, ut optime opinatur Pererius, tom. 2, in Genes., cap. 6, disp. 5, tota vis et efficacia humani seminis consistit in spiritibus, qui difflantur, et evanescunt statim ac sunt extra genitalia vasa, a quibus foventur et conservantur, ut scribunt Medici. Nequit proinde Dæmon semen acceptum conservare, ita ut aptum sit generationi, quia vas, quodcumque sit illud, in quo semen conservare tentaret, oporteret quod caleret calore assimetro a nativo organorum humanæ generationis; similarem enim a nullo alio præterquam ab organis ipsis habere potest generatio. Tum quia generatio actus vitalis est, per quem homo generans de propria substantia semen defert per organa naturalia ad locum generationi congruentem. In casu autem delatio seminis non potest esse actus vitalis hominis generantis, quia ab eo non infertur in matricem; proinde nec dici potest, quod homo eujus est semen, generet fœtum, qui ex eo nascitur. Neque Incubus ipsius pater dici potest; quia de ipsius substantia semen non est. Hinc fiet, quod nascetur homo, cujus nemo pater sit, quod est incongruum. Tum quia in patre naturaliter generante duplex causalitas concurrit, nempe materialis, quia semen, quod materia generationis, ministrat, et efficiens, quia agens principale est in generatione, ut communiter statuunt Philosophi. In casu autem nostro homo ministrando solum semen, puram materiam exhiberet absque ulla actione in ordine ad generationem; proinde non posset dici pater filii qui nasceretur: et hoc est contra id, quod homo genitus ab Incubo non est illius filius, sed est filius ejus viri, a quo Incubus semen sumpsit. 31. However, with due deference to so many and such learned Doctors, I hardly see how their opinion can bear examination. For, as Pererius truly observes in his Commentary on the Genesis, chapt. 6, the whole strength and efficiency of the human sperm reside in the spirits which evaporate and vanish as soon as issued from the genital vessels wherein they were warmly stored: all medical men agree on that point. It is consequently not possible that the Demon should preserve in a fit state for generation the sperm he has received; for it were necessary that whatever vessel he endeavoured to keep it in should be equally warm with the human genital organs, the warmth of which is nowhere to be met with but in those organs themselves. Now, in a vessel where that warmth is not intrinsical but extraneous, the spirits get altered, and no generation can take place. There is this other objection, that generation is a vital act by which man, begetting from his own substance, carries the sperm through natural organs to the spot which is appropriate to generation. On the contrary, in this particular case, the introduction of sperm cannot be a vital act of the man who begets, since it is not carried into the womb by his agency; and, for the same cause, it cannot be said that the man, whose sperm it was, has begotten the fetus which proceeds from it. Nor can the Incubus be deemed its father, since the sperm does not issue from his own substance. Consequentially, a child would be born without a father, which is absurd. Third objection: when the father begets in the course of nature, there is a concurrence of two causalities: the one, material, for he provides the sperm which is the matter 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 provided the sperm would contribute but a mere material, without any action tending to generation; he could therefore not be regarded as the father of the child begotten under those circumstances; and this is opposed to the notion that the child begotten by an Incubus is not his son, but the son of the man whose sperm the Incubus has taken.

32. Præterea omni probabilitate caret quod scribit Vallesius, et ex eo recitavimus supra n^o 30; mirorque a doctissimi viri calamo talia excidisse. Notissimum enim est apud Physicos, quod magnitudo fœtus non est a quantitate molis, sed est a quantitate virtutis, 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 generationis ratio dependet a spiritu genitali sub crassioris materiæ involucro excreto; ista materia seminis crassa nullo modo, vel in utero subsistente, vel seu materia fœtum constituente: sed solus spiritus genitalis maris unitus cum spiritu genitali mulieris in poros uteri, seu, quod rarius fit, in tubos uteri se insinuat, indeque uterum fecundum reddit. Quid ergo facere potest magna quantitas seminis ad fœtus magnitudinem? Præterea nec semper verum est, quod tales geniti ab Incubis magnitudine molis corporeæ insignes sint: Alexander enim Magnus, qui, ut diximus, natus taliter scribitur, statura pusillus erat; unde carmen, 32. Besides, there is not a shadow of probability in what written by Vallesius and quoted from him by us (Vide supra n^o 30); and I wonder that any thing so extravagant should have fallen from the pen of such a learned man. Medical men are well aware that the size of the fetus depends, not indeed on the quantity of 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 genital spirit contained within an envelope of thicker matter; that spermatic matter does not remain in the uterus, and has no share in the formation of the fetus; it is but the genital spirit of the male, combined with the genital spirit of the female, that permeates the pores, or, less frequently, the tubes of the uterus, which it fecundates by that means.” Of what moment can therefore the quantity of sperm be for the size of the fetus? Besides, it is not always a fact that men thus begotten by Incubi are remarkable for the huge proportions of their body: Alexander the Great, for instance, who is said to have been 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 cæteros homines excellant, non tamen hoc semper est in vitiis, sed aliquando in virtutibus etiam in moralibus, ut patet in Scipione Africano, Cæsare Augusto, et Platone Philosopho, de quibus Livius, Suetonius et Laertius respective scribunt, quod optimi in moribus fuere; ut proinde arguere possimus, quod si alii eodem modo geniti pessimi fuere, hoc non fuerit ex hoc, quod fuerint ab Incubo geniti, sed quia tales ex proprio arbitrio exstitere. Besides, although it is generally a fact that those who are thus begotten excel other men, yet such superiority is not always shown by their vices, but sometimes by their virtues and even their morals; Scipio Africanus, for instance, Cæsar Augustus and Plato the Philosopher, as is recorded of each of them respectively by Livy, Suetonius and Diogenes Laertius, had excellent morals. Whence may be inferred that, if other individuals begotten in the same way have been downright villains, it was not owing to their being born of an Incubus, but to their having, of their own free will, chosen to be such.

Pariter ex textu Sacræ Scripturæ, Gen., c. 6, v. 4, habemus quod gigantes nati sunt ex concubitu filiorum Dei cum filiabus hominum, et hoc ad litteram sacri textus. Gigantes autem homines erant statura magna, ut eos vocat Baruch, c. 3, v. 26, et excedente communem hominum proceritatem. Monstruosa statura, robore, latrociniis, et tyrannide insignes: unde Gigantes per sua scelera fuerunt maxima, et potissima causa Diluvii, ait Cornelius a Lapid. in Gen., c. 6, v. 4, § Burgensis. Non quadrat autem quorumdam expositio, quod nomine filiorum Dei veniant filii Seth, et vocabulo filiarum hominum filiæ Cain, eo quod illi erant pietati, Religioni, et cæteris virtutibus addicti, descendentes autem a Cain vice versa: nam salva opinantium, Chrysost., Cyrill., Theodor. Rupert. Ab. et Hilar. in Psalm. 132, apud Cornel., a Lap., c. 6; G., v. 2, § Verum dies, reverentia, talis expositio non cohæret sensui patenti litteræ; ait enim Scriptura, quod ex conjunctione talium nati sunt homines monstruosæ proceritatis corporeæ: ante illam ergo tales gigantes non extiterunt: quod si ex ea orti sunt, hoc non potuit esse ex eo, quod filii Seth coivissent cum filiabus Cain, quia illi erant staturæ ordinariæ, prout etiam filiæ Cain, unde oriri ex his naturaliter non potuerunt nisi filii staturæ ordinariæ: si ergo monstruosa statura filii nati sunt ex tali conjunctione, hoc fuit, quia non fuerunt prognati ex ordinaria conjunctione viri cum muliere, sed ex Incubis dæmonibus qui ratione naturæ ipsorum optime possunt vocari filii Dei, et in hac sententia sunt Philosophi Platonici, et Franciscus Georgius Venetus, tom. 1, problem. 74: nec dissentiunt ab eadem Joseph. Hebræus, Philo Judæus, S. Justinus Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, et Tertullianus, 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 quosnam corporeos qui in luxuriam cum mulieribus delapsi sunt: ut enim infra ostendemus, istæ duæ sententiæ in unam et eamdem conveniunt. We also read in the Testament, Genesis, chap. 6, verse 4, that giants were born when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men: that is the very letter of the sacred text. Now, those giants were men of great stature, says Baruch, chap. 3, verse 26, and far superior to other men. Not only were they distinguished by their huge size, but also by their physical power, their plundering habits and their tyranny. Through their criminal excesses the Giants were the primary and principal cause of the Flood, according to Cornelius a Lapide, in his Commentary on Genesis. Some contend that by Sons of God are meant the sons of Seth, and by Daughters of men the daughters of Cain, because the former practiced piety, religion and every other virtue, whilst the descendants of Cain were quite the reverse; but, with all due deference to Chrysostom, Cyrillus, Hilarius and others who are of that opinion, it must be conceded that it clashes with the obvious meaning of the text. Scripture says, in fact, that of the conjunction of the above mentioned were born men of huge bodily size: consequently, those giants were not previously in existence, and if their birth was the result of that conjunction, it cannot be ascribed to the intercourse of the sons of Seth with the daughters of Cain, who being themselves of ordinary stature, could but procreate children of ordinary stature. Therefore, if the intercourse in question gave birth to beings of huge stature, the reason is that it was not the common connection between man and woman, but the performance of Incubi Demons who, from their nature, may very well be styled sons of God. Such is the opinion of the Platonist Philosophers and of Francis Georges the Venetian; nor is it discrepant from that of Josephus the Historian, Philo the Jew, S. Justinus the Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, who look upon Incubi as corporeal Angels who have allowed themselves to fall into the sin of lewdness with women. Indeed, as shall be shown hereafter, though seemingly distinct, those two opinions are but one and the same.

33. Si ergo Incubi tales, ut fert communis sententia, Gigantes genuerunt, accepto semine ab homine, juxta id, quod supra dictum est, non potuerunt ex illo semine nasci nisi homines ejusdem staturæ plus minusve, cum eo a quo semen acceptum est: nec enim facit ad altiorem corporis staturam major seminis quantitas, ita ut attracta insolite a Dæmone, dum Succubus fit homini, augeat ultra illius staturam enormiter corpus ab 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, hujusmodi gigantes nati sint, et proinde Dæmon Incubus non humano, sed alio semine utatur ad generationem. Quid igitur dicendum? 33. If therefore these Incubi, in conformity with general belief, have begotten Giants by means of sperm taken from man, it is impossible, as aforesaid, that of that sperm should have been born any but men of approximately the same size as he from whom it came; for it would be in vain for the Demon, when acting the part of a Succubus, to draw from man an unwonted quantity of prolific liquor in order to procreate therefrom children of higher stature; quantity has nothing to do here, since all depends, as we have said, upon the vitality of that liquor, not its quantity. We are therefore bound to infer that Giants are born of another sperm than man’s, and that, consequently, the Incubus Demon, for the purpose of generation, uses a sperm which is not man’s. But then, what is to be said?

34. Quantum ad hoc, sub correctione Sanctæ Matris Ecclesiæ, et mere opinative dico, Incubum Dæmonem, dum mulieribus commiscetur, ex proprio ipsius semine hominem generare. 34. Subject to correction by our Holy Mother Church, and as a mere expression of opinion, I say that the Incubus Demon, when having intercourse with women, begets the human fetus from his own sperm.

35. Paradoxa in fide, et parum sana nonnullis videbitur hæc opinio; sed lectorem meum deprecor, ut judicium non præcipitet de ea: ut enim incivile est nondum tota lege perspecta judicare, ut Celsus, lib. 24. ff. de legib. et S. C., ait, ita neque damnanda est opinio, nisi prius examinatis, ac solutis argumentis, quibus innititur. Ad probandam igitur supradatam conclusionem, nonnulla sunt necessario præmittenda. 35. To many that proposition will seem heterodox and hardly sensible; but I beg of my reader not to condemn it precipitately; for if, as Celsus says, it is improper to deliver judgment without having thoroughly inquired into the law, no less unfair is the rejection of an opinion, before the arguments upon which it rests have been weighed and confuted. I have therefore to prove the above conclusion, and must necessarily premise with some statements.

36. Præmittendum primo de fide est, quod dentur Creaturæ pure spirituales nullo 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, et Dæmones 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. v^o. Angelus, Molina, p. 1. q. 50., a. 1., Carranz., Annot. ad Synod. 7., etiam post Concilium illud docuerint spiritualitatem Angelorum et Dæmonum non esse de fide, ita ut nonnulli alii, Bonav. in lib. 2. sent. dist. 3. q. 1., Scot. de Anim. q. 15., Cajet. in Gen. c. 4., Franc. Georg. Problem. l. 2. c. 57., August. Hyph., de Dæmon., l. 3. c. 3., scripserint illos esse corporeos, et proinde Angelos Dæmonesque corpore et spiritu constare non esse propositionem hæreticam, neque erroneam, probet Bonaventura Baro, Scot. Defens. tom. 9. apolog. 2., act. 1., p. § 7.: tamen quia Concilium ipsum statuit de fide tenendum, Deum esse Creatorem omnium visibilium et invisibilium, spiritualium et corporalium, qui utramque de nihilo condidit creaturam spiritualem et corporalem Angelicam, videlicet ut mundanam: ideo dico de fide esse quasdam creaturas dari mere spirituales, et tales esse Angelos, non quidem omnes, sed quosdam. 36. Firstly, I premise, as an article of belief, that there are purely spiritual creatures, not in any way partaking of corporeal matter, as was ruled by the Council of Lateran, under the pontificate of Innocent III. Such are the blessed Angels, and the Demons condemned to ever-lasting fire. Some Doctors, it is true, have professed, subsequently even to this Council, that the spirituality of Angels and Demons is not an article of belief; others even have asserted that they are corporeal, whence Bonaventure Baron has drawn the conclusion that it is neither heretical nor erroneous to ascribe to Angels and Demons a twofold substance, corporeal and spiritual. Yet, the Council having formally declared it to be an article of belief that God is the maker of all things visible and invisible, spiritual and corporeal, who has raised from nothing every creature spiritual or corporeal, Angelic or terrestrial, I contend it is an article of belief that there are certain merely spiritual creatures, and that such are Angels; not all of them, but a certain number.

37. Inaudita forsan erit sententia hæc, sed non destituta erit probabilitate. Si enim a Theologis tanta inter Angelos diversitas specifica, et proinde essentialis statuitur, ut in via D. Thomæ, p. p. 50, ar. 4, plures Angeli nequeant esse in eadem specie, sed quilibet Angelus propriam speciem constituat, profecto nulla invenitur repugnantia, quod Angelorum nonnulli sint purissimi spiritus, et proinde excellentissimæ naturæ, alii autem corporei, et minus excellentes, et eorum differentia petatur per corporeum et incorporeum. Accedit quod hac sententia facile solvitur alias insolubilis contradictio inter duo Concilia Œcumenica, nempe Septimam Synodum generalem, et dictum Concilium Lateranense: siquidem in illa Synodo, quæ est secunda Nicæna, actione quinta, productus est liber Joannis Thessalonicensis scriptus contra quemdam Philosophum gentilem, in quo ita habetur: De Angelis et Archangelis, atque eorum Potestatibus, quibus nostras Animas adjungo, ipsa Catholica Ecclesia 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 facit Angelos suos spiritus, et ministros suos ignem urentem. Et infra: Quamquam autem non sint ut nos, corporei, utpote ex quatuor elementis, nemo tamen vel Angelos, vel Dæmones, vel Animas dixerit incorporeas: multoties enim in proprio corpore visi sunt ab illis, quibus Dominus oculos aperuit. Et cum omnia lecta fuissent coram Patribus synodaliter congregatis, Tharasius, Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus, poposcit adprobationem Sanctæ Synodi his verbis: Ostendit Pater, quod Angelos pingi oporteat, quoniam circumscribi possunt, et ut homines apparuerunt. Synodus autem uno ore respondit: Etiam, Domine. 37. It may seem strange, yet it must be admitted not to be unlikely. If, in fact, Theologians concur in establishing amongst Angels a specific, and therefore essential, diversity so considerable that, according to St. Thomas, there are not two Angels of the same species, but that each of them is a species by himself, why should not certain Angels be most pure spirits, of a consequently very superior nature, and others corporeal, therefore of a less perfect nature, differing thus from each other in their corporeal or incorporeal substance? This doctrine has the advantage of solving the otherwise insoluble contradiction between two Œcumenical Councils, namely the Seventh General Synod and the above-mentioned Council of Lateran. For, during the fifth sitting of that Synod, the second of Nicea, a book was introduced written by John of Thessalonica against a pagan Philosopher, wherein occur the following propositions: “Respecting Angels, Archangels and their Powers, to which I adjoin our own Souls, the Catholic Church is really of opinion that they are intelligences, but not entirely bodyless and senseless, as you Gentiles aver; she on the contrary ascribes to them a subtile body, aerial or igneous, according to what is written: He makes the spirits His Angels, and the burning fire His Minister”. And further on: “Although not corporeal in the same way as ourselves, made of the four elements, yet it is impossible to say that Angels, Demons and Souls are incorporeal; for they have been seen many a time, invested with their own body, by those whose eyes the Lord had opened”. And after that book had been read through before all the Fathers in Council assembled, Tharasius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, submitted it to the approval of the Council, with these words: “The Father showeth that Angels should be pictured, since their form can be defined, and they have been seen in the shape of men”. Without a dissentient, the Synod answered: “Yes, my Lord”.

38. Hanc autem Conciliarem adprobationem de materia ad longum pertractata a D. Joanne in libro coram Patribus lecto, statuere articulum fidei circa corporeitatem Angelorum, perspicuum est: unde ad tollendam contradictionem hujus, cum allata definitione Concilii Lateranensis, multum desudant Theologi. Unus enim, Suarez, de Angelis, ait, quod Patres non contradixerunt tali asserto de corporeitate Angelorum, quia non de illa re agebatur. Alius, Bann., in p. p. q. 10, ait, quod Synodus adprobavit conclusionem, nempe Angelos pingi posse, non tamen adprobavit rationem, quia corporei sunt. Alius, Molin., in p. p., q. 50. a. 1, ait, quod definitiones Conciliares in illa Synodo factæ sunt solum actione septima, proinde ea quæ habentur in actionibus præcedentibus non esse definitiones de fide. Alii, Joverc. et Mirand., Sum. Conc., scribunt nec Nicænum, nec Lateranense Concilium intendisse definere de fide quæstionem; et Nicænum quidem locutum fuisse juxta opinionem Platonicorum, quæ ponit Angelos corporeos, et tunc prævalebat; Lateranense autem locutum esse juxta mentem Aristotelis, qui, l. 12. Metaphys., tex. 49, ponit intelligentias incorporeas, quæ sententia contra Platonicos apud plerosque Doctores invaluit expost. 38. That this approbation by a Council of the doctrine set forth at length in the book of John establishes an article of belief with regard to the corporeity of Angels, there is not a shadow of doubt: so Theologians toil and moil in order to remove the contradiction apparent between that decision and the definition, above quoted, by the Council of Lateran. One of them, Suarez, says that if the Fathers did not disprove such an assertion of the corporeity of Angels, it is because that was not the question. Another contends that the Synod did approve the conclusion, namely that Angels might be pictured, but not the motive given, their corporeity. A third, Molina, observes that the definitions issued in Council by the Synod were thus issued only at the seventh sitting, whence he argues that those of the previous sittings are not definitions of belief. Others, lastly, write that neither the Council of Nicea nor that of Lateran intended defining a question of belief, the Council of Nicea having spoken according to the opinion of the Platonists, which describes Angels as corporeal beings and was then prevailing, whilst that of Lateran went with Aristoteles, who, in his 12th. book of Metaphysics, lays down the existence of incorporeal intelligences, a doctrine which has since carried the day with most Doctors over the Platonists.

39. Sed quam frigidæ sint istæ responsiones nemo non videt, ac eas minime satisfacere oppositioni palmariter demonstrat Bonaventura Baro, Scot. Defens., tom. 9, apolog. 2, actio 1, § 2 per totum. Proinde ad tollendam contradictionem Conciliorum dicendum est, Nicænum locutum esse de una, Lateranense autem de alia specie Angelorum, et illam quidem corpoream, hanc vero penitus incorpoream; et sic conciliantur aliter irreconciliabilia Concilia. 39. But any one can discern the invalidity of those answers, and Bonaventure Baro (Scot. Defens., tome 9) proves to evidence that they do not bear. In consequence, in order to agree the two Councils, we must say that the Council of Nicea meant one species of Angels, and that of Lateran another: the former, corporeal, the latter on the contrary absolutely incorporeal; and thus are reconciled two otherwise irreconcilable Councils.

40. Præmittendum 2º, nomen Angeli esse nomen officii, non naturæ, ut concorditer scribunt 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 præclare ait D. Ambrosius: Angelus non ex eo quod est spiritus, ex eo quod agit, Angelus, quia Angelus Græce, Latine Nuntius dicitur, sequitur igitur ex hoc, quod illi, qui ad aliquod ministerium a Deo mittuntur, sive spiritus sint, sive homines, Angeli vocari possunt; et de facto ita vocantur in Scripturis Sacris: nam de Sacerdotibus, Concionatoribus ac Doctoribus, qui tanquam Nuntii Dei explicant hominibus divinam voluntatem, dicitur, Malach. c. 2. v. 7: Labia Sacerdotis custodient scientiam, et legem requirent ex ore ejus, quia Angelus Domini exercituum est. D. Joannes Baptista ab eodem Propheta, c. 3 v. 1, vocatur Angelus, dum ait: Ecce ego mitto Angelum meum, et præparabit viam ante faciem meam. Et hanc prophetiam esse ad litteram de S. Joanne Baptista testatur Christus Dominus in Evangelio Matthæi, 11, v. 10. Immo et ipse Deus, quia fuit missus a Patre in mundum ad evangelizandum legem gratiæ, vocatur Angelus. Ita in prophetia Isaiæ, c. 9 v. 6, juxta versionem Septuaginta: Vocabitur nomen ejus magni consilii Angelus, et clarius in Malachiæ c. 3 v. 1: Veniet ad templum sanctum suum Dominator quem vos quæritis, et Angelus testamenti quem vos vultis. Quæ prophetia ad litteram est de Christo Domino. Sequitur igitur nullum absurdum sequi ex hoc, quod dicimus Angelos quosdam esse corporeos, nam et homines, qui corpore constant, Angeli vocabulo efferuntur. 40. Secondly, I premise that the word Angel applies, not indeed to the kind, but to the office: the Holy Fathers are agreed thereupon (St. Ambrose, on the Epistle to the Hebrews; St. Austin, City of God; St. Gregory, Homily 34 on Scripture; St. Isidorus, Supreme Goodness). An Angel, very truly says St. Ambrose, is thus styled, not because he is a spirit, but on account of his office; Ἁγγελος in Greek, Nuntius in Latin, that is to say Messenger; it follows that whoever is entrusted by God with a mission, be he spirit or man, may be called an Angel, and is thus called in the Holy Scriptures, where the following words are applied to Priests, Preachers and Doctors, who, as Messengers of God, explain to men the divine will (Malachi, chapt. 2, v. 7). “The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth, for he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts.” The same prophet, chapt. 3, v. 1, bestows the name of Angel on St. John the Baptist, when saying: “Behold, I will send my Angel and he shall prepare the way before me.” That this prophecy literally applies to St. John the Baptist is testified by our Lord Jesus-Christ, in the Gospel, according to St. Matthew, chapt. 11, v. 10. Still more: God himself is called an Angel, because he has been sent by His Father to herald the law of mercy. To witness, the prophecy of Isaiah, chapt. 9, v. 6, according to Septuagint: “He shall be called an Angel of Wonderful Counsel.” And more plainly still in Malachi, chapt. 3, v. 1; “The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the Angel of the covenant whom ye delight in”, a prophecy which literally applies to our Lord Jesus-Christ. There is consequently nothing absurd in the contention that some Angels are corporeal, since men, who assuredly have a body, are called Angels.