Transcriber's Notes
The original was printed with the Latin on verso and English on recto
pages with sections aligned. To preserve as much as possible of this
effect, Latin sections are followed immediately by the corresponding
translation.
Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations
in hyphenation spelling and punctuation remain unchanged.
Italics are represented thus _italic_, except in the main Latin text
which is almost entirely printed in italic script. Here the italics are
unmarked and plain text is indicted thus =plain=.
S. Augustinus (or Augustini) in the Latin text is translated as S.
Austin in the English.
* * * * *
DEMONIALITY
OR
INCUBI AND SUCCUBI
A TREATISE
_wherein is shown that there are in existence on earth rational
creatures besides man, endowed like him with a body and a soul, that
are born and die like him, redeemed by our Lord Jesus-Christ, and
capable of receiving salvation or damnation_,
BY THE REV. FATHER
SINISTRARI OF AMENO
(17^{th} century)
_Published from the original Latin manuscript
discovered in London in the year 1872,
and translated into French by_ ISIDORE LISEUX
Now first translated into English
With the Latin Text.
[Illustration: Colophon]
PARIS
_Isidore LISEUX, 2, Rue Bonaparte._
1879
[Illustration: Decoration]
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.
[1] What can one do over there, unless he hunts up old books?
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:
Nº 145. AMENO (_R. P. Ludovicus Maria_ [Cotta] de). De Dæmonialitate,
et Incubis, et Succubis, _Manuscript._
_Sæc. XVII-XVIII._
Who is that writer? Has he left printed works? That is a question I
leave to bibliographers; for, notwithstanding numerous investigations
in special dictionaries, I have been unable to ascertain any thing on
that score. Brunet (_Manuel du libraire_, art. COTTA d’Ameno) vaguely
surmises his existence, but confuses him with his namesake, most
likely also his fellow-townsman, Lazaro Agostino Cotta of Ameno, a
barrister and literary man of Novara. “The author,” says he, “whose
real Christian names would seem to be _Ludovico-Maria_, has written
many serious works....” The mistake is obvious. One thing is sure: our
author was living in the last years of the 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 quays[2], I met by chance with a
copy of the _Index librorum prohibitorum_. I mechanically opened it,
and the first thing that struck my eyes was the following article:
De Ameno Ludovicus Maria. _Vide_ Sinistrari.
[2] Paris Embankment.
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 Ameno[3]; from the comparison of the two editions of _De Delictis et
Pœnis_, the first condemned, the second allowed by the Congregation of
the _Index_, I had gathered that the printed fragments of _Demoniality_
had nothing to do with the condemnation of the book, since they had
not been submitted to any correction; lastly, I had become convinced
that, save a few pages, my manuscript was absolutely inedited. A
happy event of a bibliographical Odyssey which I shall be excused for
relating at length, for the “jollification” of bibliophiles “and none
other”.
[3] _Vide_ biographical notice at the end of this volume.
ISIDORE LISEUX.
_August 1875._
DEMONIALITY
OR
INCUBI AND SUCCUBI
[Illustration: Decoration]
DÆMONIALITAS
=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, vº
=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. nº 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.= vº =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.=