SECOND DISPUTATION. Whether it is probable that demons, in their own bodies, were mingled with women, and from them begot sons — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

SECOND DISPUTATION. Whether it is probable that demons, in their own bodies, were mingled with women, and from them begot sons.¹

SECUNDA DISPUTATIO. Utrum probabile sit, Daemones in suis corporibus mixtos esse cum mulieribus, et ex his filios procreasse.

Si apud omnes Philosophos et Theologos in aperto et confesso fuisset, Daemones (uti vere sunt) esse incorporeos, nullus plane huius quaestionis disceptationi locus esset relictus. Neque enim natura incorporea corporeis affici voluptatibus, aut per corporalem cum feminis congressum prolem corpoream generare potest. Verum quia plurimi ac nobilissimi Philosophorum et scriptorum ecclesiasticorum censuerunt eos esse corporeos, non est visum quibusdam impossibile aut incredibile eos esse potuisse amatores corruptoresque mulierum et filiorum generatores.

If it had been openly and confessedly held among all philosophers and theologians that demons (as they truly are) are incorporeal, plainly no room would have been left for the discussion of this question. For an incorporeal nature cannot be affected by bodily pleasures, nor through bodily intercourse with women generate a bodily offspring. But because very many and most noble of the philosophers and ecclesiastical writers judged them to be corporeal, it did not seem to some impossible or incredible that they could have been lovers and corrupters of women and begetters of children.²

Platonicorum certe celeberrimum fuit dogma, esse Daemones corpore aereo naturaliter praeditos, et horum quosdam esse obscenissimorum flagitiorum et maleficiorum suasores et auctores, quique corporeis affectionibus similiter atque homines commoveantur. Ac ne longus sim sententiam in hac de re Platonicorum, Iamblichi, Plotini, Porphyrii, Maximi Tyrii aliorumque multis verbis explanando, brevem Apuleii Platonici ex libro eius De Socratis Daemone orationem, ut eam refert Augustinus libro 8 De Civitate Dei cap. 17, hic apponam. De moribus, inquit Augustinus, Daemonum cum idem (Platonicum Apuleium intelligit, quem paulo ante nominaverat) loqueretur, dixit eos eisdem quibus homines animi perturbationibus agitari, irritari iniuriis, obsequiis donisque placari, gaudere honoribus, diversis sacrorum ritibus oblectari, et in eis si quid neglectum fuerit commoveri. Inter cetera autem dicit ad eos pertinere divinationes augurum, aruspicum, vatum atque somniorum; ab his quoque esse miracula magorum. Breviter autem eos diffiniens ait: Daemones esse genere animalia, animo passiva, mente rationalia, corpore aerea, tempore aeterna. Horum vero quinque, tria priora illis esse nobiscum communia, quartum proprium, quintum eos cum diis habere commune. Sic ex Apuleio Augustinus.

It was certainly a most celebrated doctrine of the Platonists that demons are naturally endowed with an aerial body, and that some of these are persuaders and authors of the most obscene crimes and sorceries, and are moved by bodily affections in like manner as men. And, not to be long in setting forth at great length the opinion on this matter of the Platonists — Iamblichus, Plotinus, Porphyry, Maximus of Tyre, and others — I shall here append a brief passage of the Platonist Apuleius from his book On the Daemon of Socrates, as Augustine reports it in book 8 of The City of God, ch. 17. “When the same man,” says Augustine — he means the Platonist Apuleius, whom he had named a little before — “spoke of the character of the demons, he said that they are agitated by the same disturbances of mind as men, provoked by injuries, appeased by compliances and gifts; that they rejoice in honors, take delight in the various rites of sacrifices, and are disturbed if anything in them is neglected. Among other things he says that to them belong the divinations of augurs, soothsayers, seers, and dreams; and that from them also are the miracles of the magicians. And, defining them briefly, he says: Demons are, in genus, living beings; in soul, subject to passion; in mind, rational; in body, aerial; in time, eternal. And of these five attributes, the first three they have in common with us, the fourth is proper to themselves, the fifth they have in common with the gods.” Thus Augustine, from Apuleius.³

Maximus autem Tyrius, Platonicus philosophus, Sermone 26, non modo corporatos facit daemones, sed eorum quoque nonnullos medicinam profiteri, alios in rebus ambiguis praebere consilium, quosdam abscondita enuntiare, multos exercendis artibus operam cum hominibus navare, quosdam esse itineris comites, urbanos alios, alios rusticos, hos maritimos, terrestres illos. Plutarchus in libro qui inscribitur QUOD ORACULA DEFECERUNT: Est, inquit, ut in hominibus virtutis et appetitivae atque irrationalis partis diversitas, sic in ipsis quoque daemonibus. Sed in aliis haec irrationalis pars debilis est atque imbecilla, in aliis vehemens atque impetuosa, ingentes calamitates et exitia hominibus privatim et publice machinando. Idem Plutarchus in libro quem De Iside scripsit: Plato, inquit, Pythagoras, Xenocrates et Chrysippus, priscos secuti Theologos, excellentiores hominibus Daemones esse affirmant; sed naturam eorum animo et corpore coniunctam dixerunt, quare voluptate quoque atque dolore alios magis, alios minus affici; ut enim in hominibus, ita etiam in daemonibus virtutis et vitii diversitas invenitur. Empedocles autem poenas etiam dare Daemones peccatorum suorum confirmat: aether enim eos et pontus expellit, terra nullo modo suscipit; sic ab alio in aliud elementum depulsi atrociter vexantur, quousque purgati ad primum locum redeant. Verum si Daemones secundum istos Platonicos iisdem quibus homines perturbationibus agitarentur atque vexarentur, eos profecto terrenis corporibus moribundisque membris concretos esse haud vana esset coniectura; tales enim perturbationes ex mortalium terrenorumque corporum societate et contagione animis contingere elegantissimis illis versibus cinit Poeta...

Maximus of Tyre, the Platonist philosopher, in Oration 26, not only makes demons corporeal, but says also that some of them profess medicine, others give counsel in doubtful matters, some declare hidden things, many devote labor with men to the practice of the arts, some are companions on a journey, some urban, others rustic, these maritime, those of the land. Plutarch, in the book entitled That the Oracles Have Ceased, says: “There is, as in men a diversity of the virtuous and the appetitive and irrational part, so also in the demons themselves. But in some this irrational part is weak and feeble, in others vehement and impetuous, contriving immense calamities and ruin for men, privately and publicly.” The same Plutarch, in the book he wrote On Isis: “Plato,” he says, “Pythagoras, Xenocrates, and Chrysippus, following the ancient theologians, affirm that the demons are more excellent than men; but they said that their nature is conjoined of soul and body, wherefore they too are affected by pleasure and pain, some more, some less; for, as among men, so also among demons a diversity of virtue and vice is found.” And Empedocles affirms that the demons even pay penalties for their sins: for the ether and the sea expel them, the earth in no way receives them; thus, driven from one element to another, they are horribly tormented, until, purged, they return to their first place. But if the demons, according to these Platonists, were agitated and vexed by the same disturbances as men, it would not be a vain conjecture that they are compacted of earthly bodies and dying members; for that such disturbances befall souls from the association and contagion of mortal and earthly bodies, the Poet sings in those most elegant verses…⁴

Igneus est ollis vigor, et caelestis origo / Seminibus, quantum non noxia corpora tardant, / Terrenique hebetant artus moribundaque membra. / Hinc metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque, nec auras / Despiciunt clausae tenebris et carcere caeco.

“Fiery is the vigor of those seeds, and heavenly their origin, / so far as harmful bodies do not clog them, / and earthly limbs and dying members do not dull them. / Hence they fear and desire, grieve and rejoice; nor, / shut in darkness and a blind prison, do they look up to the open air.” (Virgil, Aeneid 6)⁵

Ceterum, quae ex Platonicis adhuc dicta sunt de Daemonibus, quasi ludum iocumque putet lector, prout sunt ea quae subiiciam. Psellus quidam, et philosophus et Christianus, sed Christianae doctrinae (quantum ex scriptis eius licet existimare) rudis, librum scripsit De Daemonibus, pleraque de his doctus a quodam Marco, qui propter diutinam Daemonum familiaritatem cultumque omnium sui temporis consultissimus rerum daemoniacarum habebatur. Quod si quae tradidit ille, quam sunt nova et mira, tam essent vera, aut certe verisimilia, nec a placitis Theologorum omnino discreparent, multa profecto Psellus iste de varia Daemonum natura, de variis item eorum studiis moribusque ac viribus nobis aperuisset, quae sunt abstrusissima, nec humana ratione indagari, nedum comprehendi possunt. Quae autem de Daemonibus ab illo sunt prodita (quatenus ad id quod nunc agimus pertinet) quatuor ad capita revocari possunt. Primo ait non esse idem corpus bonis angelis atque Daemonibus. Angelicum enim tradit corpus radios effundere, nec humanis oculis sustineri posse, per omnia penetrare ac transire, minusque etiam quam solis radium esse passionibus obnoxium; corpora vero Daemonum, quamvis ob tenuitatem invisibilia sint, attamen materialia quodammodo sunt, passionique subiecta, adeo ut quaedam tactui subiiciantur, pulsataque doleant, et igni propinquantia comburantur, et quaedam horum cinerem quoque relinquant.

But as for the things which have so far been said from the Platonists about the demons, let the reader account them but sport and a joke — even as are the things I shall now subjoin. A certain Psellus, both a philosopher and a Christian, but (so far as may be judged from his writings) unschooled in Christian doctrine, wrote a book On Demons, having been taught most of these matters by a certain Marcus, who, on account of his long familiarity with and devotion to demons, was reckoned the most expert of all men of his time in demonic matters. But if the things he handed down were as true, or at least as probable, as they are novel and marvelous, and did not altogether disagree with the tenets of the theologians, this Psellus would surely have disclosed to us many things about the varied nature of the demons, and likewise about their various pursuits, habits, and powers — things which are most abstruse and can neither be investigated by human reason, much less comprehended. Now the things set forth by him about the demons (so far as pertains to our present concern) can be reduced to four heads. First, he says that the body of good angels and that of demons is not the same. For he hands down that the angelic body sends forth rays and cannot be endured by human eyes, penetrates and passes through all things, and is even less subject to passions than a ray of the sun; whereas the bodies of demons, though invisible because of their subtlety, are nevertheless in a manner material and subject to passion — so much so that some of them are subject to touch, and when struck feel pain, and when they approach fire are burned, and some of them even leave behind ashes.⁶

Deinde tradit Psellus, auctore illo Marco, nonnullos Daemonum semen emittere, ex quo pusilla quaedam animalia oriantur; nutriri etiam illos, alios quidem inspiratione, velut in arteriis et nervis viget spiritus, alios vero humore, sed non eum ore haurientes sicut nos, sed sicut spongiae atque ostreae, exsugentes quidem humorem extrinsecus adiacentem, quod autem in humore crassius atque concretius est excernentes. Id vero non patiuntur omnes Daemones, sed tantummodo genus Daemonum materiae proximum, quodque odit lucem et aquatile atque subterraneum est.

Next Psellus hands down, on the authority of that Marcus, that some of the demons emit seed, from which certain tiny living things arise; and that they are also nourished — some, indeed, by inhalation, as the spirit thrives in the arteries and nerves; others by moisture, yet not drawing it in by the mouth as we do, but like sponges and oysters, sucking up the moisture lying adjacent on the outside, while excreting whatever is thicker and more solid in the moisture. But not all demons undergo this, only that kind of demon which is nearest to matter, and which hates the light and is aquatic and subterranean.⁷

Ad hoc, enumerat sex genera Daemonum, secundum varietatem locorum in quibus fere habitant distincta. Unum vocatur igneum, quod circa sublimiorem aerem pervagatur; omne namque Daemonum genus ex caelesti regione, tanquam ex templo profanum quiddam, exterminatum est. Alterum genus Daemonum nominatur aereum, in hoc aere propinquo nobis oberrans. Tertium appellatur terrenum, quia plurimum circa terram versatur, terrenisque rebus et machinis adversatur homini. Quartum dicitur aquatile et marinum, quod humoribus immergitur, libenter circa lacus et fluvios habitans, in mari fluctus et tempestates suscitans, navigiaque hominibus...

Besides this, he enumerates six kinds of demons, distinguished according to the variety of places in which they mostly dwell. One is called fiery, which roams about the higher air; for every kind of demon has been banished from the celestial region as some profane thing from a temple. A second kind of demon is named aerial, wandering in this air near us. The third is called earthly, because it dwells mostly about the earth and opposes man by earthly things and devices. The fourth is called aquatic and marine, which plunges into the waters, gladly dwelling about lakes and rivers, stirring up waves and storms in the sea, and to men’s ships…⁸

...onusta submergens. Quintum est subterraneum, subter terram habitans, infestansque fossores puteorum et metallorum, efficiens terrae hiatus, concutiens fundamenta et flammivomos ventos excitans. Sextum et ultimum genus Daemonum est lucifugum et inscrutabile et penitus tenebrosum, passionibusque frigidis violenter multas res perdens. Sex autem haec Daemonum genera sic esse affecta ut et Deum oderint et adversentur hominibus, sed aliud alio peius; subterraneum enim et aquatile atque lucifugum vehementer esse malefica et perniciosa.

…sinking the ships laden by men. The fifth is subterranean, dwelling beneath the earth and infesting the diggers of wells and mines, causing chasms in the earth, shaking foundations, and stirring up fire-belching winds. The sixth and last kind of demon is light-shunning and inscrutable and utterly dark, violently destroying many things by its cold passions. And these six kinds of demons are so disposed that they both hate God and are hostile to men, but one worse than another; for the subterranean, the aquatic, and the light-shunning are exceedingly malevolent and pernicious.⁹

Postremo loco illud etiam tradit, nullum Daemonem suapte natura aut marem esse aut feminam, sed prout libet utriusque sexus figuram ad tempus accipere; corpora enim Daemonum simplicia esse, ductu flexuque facilia et ad omnem configurationem naturaliter apta. Atque haec sunt quae de Daemonibus Psellus prodidit, partim ex suo sensu, partim ex doctrina illius Marci deprompta.

Lastly, he hands down this too: that no demon is by its own nature either male or female, but, as it pleases, takes on for a time the figure of either sex; for the bodies of demons are simple, easily led and bent, and naturally apt for every configuration. And these are the things which Psellus set forth about the demons, drawn partly from his own judgment, partly from the teaching of that Marcus.¹⁰

Nec defuere hoc nostro seculo qui de Daemonibus non minus nova et mira, evulgatis libris in publicum, ediderunt. Franciscus Georgius, philosophus et Theologus, sed (ut apparet ex scriptis eius) quarumlibet opinionum quae novitatem haberent et mirabilitatem facerent studiosus magis quam verae philosophiae ac Theologiae divinaeque scripturae peritus, sex tomos edidit problematum fere ad sacram scripturam pertinentium. Ex primi autem tomi problemate 54, 74 et 75, et ex tomi sexti problemate 330 et 331, patet eum sensisse non solum Daemones esse corporeos, sed habere etiam vim generandi et semen emittere; accedentes autem ad mulieres, condensare corpora sua eaque idonee figurare ad id quod facere volunt; eorumque prolem propriam esse gigantes. Itaque hosce daemones esse illos filios Dei, ex quorum congressu et mixtione cum filiabus hominum generatos esse gigantes in hoc sexto capite narrat Moses. Et semen serpentis, quod praedixit Dominus semper inimicum fore semini mulieris, censet esse hanc daemonum prolem, id est gigantes, hominibus atrociter infestam. At enim vero quae de daemonibus breviter memoravimus ex Platonicorum, Pselli et Georgii sententia, ea lector, quantum libuerit, rideat licet atque contemnat quasi meras nugas — nugas dico futiliores vel nugacissimorum poetarum nugis.

Nor have there been lacking in this our age men who have published abroad, in books put before the public, things no less novel and marvelous about the demons. Francesco Giorgio, a philosopher and theologian, but (as appears from his writings) more zealous for any opinions whatever that had novelty and made for marvel than skilled in true philosophy and theology and divine Scripture, published six volumes of “Problems” pertaining for the most part to sacred Scripture. From problems 54, 74, and 75 of the first volume, and from problems 330 and 331 of the sixth volume, it is plain that he held not only that demons are corporeal, but that they also have the power of generating and emit seed; and that, approaching women, they condense their bodies and fittingly shape them to what they wish to do; and that their own offspring are giants. And so these demons, he holds, are those “sons of God” from whose intercourse and mingling with the daughters of men the giants were begotten, as Moses relates in this sixth chapter. And the “seed of the serpent,” which the Lord foretold would always be hostile to the seed of the woman, he judges to be this offspring of demons — that is, the giants, fiercely hostile to men. But indeed, the things we have briefly recounted about the demons from the opinion of the Platonists, of Psellus, and of Giorgio, the reader may, as much as he pleases, laugh at and despise as mere trifles — trifles, I say, more futile than the trifles of the most trifling poets.¹¹

Age, quo liquidius cognoscat lector quam longe remotum a vero sit daemones in propriis suis corporibus libidinose mixtos cum feminis generasse filios, quatuor rationibus falsum id esse demonstremus. Prima Ratio. Daemones incorporei sunt; ergo secundum naturam suam non potuerunt per corporalem concubitum misceri cum feminis, et ex his filios procreare. Daemones vero esse incorporeos satis magno indicio et argumento est quod legimus apud Lucam capite octavo, intra unum hominem, quem a Daemonibus Christus Dominus liberavit, fuisse legionem daemonum, hoc est sex millia daemonum. Est autem prorsus incredibile, si daemo-...

Come now: that the reader may more clearly recognize how far removed from the truth it is that demons, in their own proper bodies, lustfully mingled with women and begot sons, let us demonstrate by four reasons that this is false. First Reason. Demons are incorporeal; therefore, according to their nature, they could neither mingle in bodily intercourse with women nor beget sons from them. That demons are incorporeal is sufficiently shown by a great indication and argument: namely, what we read in Luke, chapter eight — that within one man, whom Christ the Lord freed from demons, there was a “legion” of demons, that is, six thousand demons. But it is utterly incredible, if the demons…¹²

...nes corporei essent, intra unius corpusculi humani angustias tantum numerum daemonum coarctari et contineri potuisse. Quod si daemones corpus habent, quale erit eiusmodi corpus, utrum caelestis substantiae, an potius elementaris ac sublunaris materiae? Sed cum daemones quoquoversus moveantur, sursum, deorsum, dextrorsum, sinistrorsum, antrorsum, retrorsum et in gyrum — interrogatus enim Satan a Deo unde veniret, respondit: Circuivi terram et perambulavi eam — cumque daemones corpus habeant quod facillime in quantamlibet magnitudinem extendere aut in parvitatem contrahere possint, omnesque colorum et figurarum species in suo corpore subinde varient; denique cum daemones, ut isti dicunt, in suis corporibus torqueantur ab igne et acerbissimis dolorum sensibus crucientur — his profecto rebus caeleste corpus nequaquam habile, quin maxime alienum est. Siquidem solius circularis motus est capax, et cum sit solidissimum tanquam aes, ut Iob ait, nec secundum quantitatem nec secundum figuram variari potest; denique cum sit incorruptibile, nulli alterationi corruptivae obnoxium est, quamobrem nec sedes esse potest sensus doloris.

…were corporeal, that so great a number of demons could be compressed and contained within the narrow space of a single small human body. But if demons have a body, of what sort will such a body be — whether of celestial substance, or rather of elemental and sublunary matter? Yet since demons move in every direction — up, down, to the right, to the left, forward, backward, and in a circle (for when Satan was asked by God whence he came, he answered: “I have gone round about the earth and walked through it”) — and since demons have a body which they can most easily extend to any magnitude or contract to smallness, and constantly vary in their body all the appearances of colors and figures; and finally, since demons, as these men say, are tormented in their bodies by fire and racked with the most bitter sensations of pain — for these things a celestial body is by no means suited, but rather utterly unfit. For it is capable only of circular motion, and, since it is most solid, “like bronze,” as Job says, it can be varied neither in quantity nor in figure; and finally, since it is incorruptible, it is subject to no corruptive alteration, and therefore cannot be the seat of the sensation of pain.¹³

Sin autem corpus daemonum faciant elementare, uti sane faciunt, hoc est aereum, necesse est ipsum esse dissolubile, et daemones esse mortales. Nam quod scripsit B. Augustinus libro 3 De Genesi ad litteram cap. 10, propterea corpus aereum daemonis non esse corruptibile, quod in aere et in igne est vis agendi, sicut in terra et aqua vis patiendi, ideoque corpus daemonis esse magis activum quam passivum — hoc, inquam, neque cum vera philosophia neque cum experientia consentit. Etenim aer magis est passivus quam activus, siquidem propria eius qualitas est humiditas, qua scilicet ipse insignitur et ab aliis elementis distinguitur. Aristoteles autem in 2 libro De Generatione, text. 8, et in exordio libri quarti Meteororum, calorem et frigus qualitates activas facit, humiditatem vero et siccitatem passivas. Manifestis praeterea et quotidianis experimentis compertum est aerem non modo esse patibilem et corruptibilem, sed etiam facillime mutari et corrumpi; promptissima enim et velocissima est eius vel in ignem vel in aquam commutatio.

But if they make the body of demons elemental — as indeed they do — that is, aerial, it must be dissoluble, and the demons must be mortal. For what the blessed Augustine wrote in book 3 of On Genesis according to the Letter, ch. 10 — that the aerial body of a demon is not corruptible, because in air and fire there is the power of acting, as in earth and water the power of being acted upon, and therefore the demon’s body is more active than passive — this, I say, agrees neither with true philosophy nor with experience. For air is more passive than active, since its proper quality is moisture, by which, namely, it is marked and distinguished from the other elements. And Aristotle, in book 2 of On Generation, text 8, and at the beginning of book 4 of the Meteorology, makes heat and cold active qualities, but moisture and dryness passive. Moreover, it has been ascertained by manifest and daily experiments that air is not only passible and corruptible, but is also most easily changed and corrupted; for its change into either fire or water is most ready and most swift.¹⁴

Quod si Daemones faciunt corruptibiles, ut etiam generabiles faciant necesse est, nisi velint in singulos dies magis magisque numerum Daemonum diminui, et ex quo creati sunt ad hanc usque diem ad maximam paucitatem redactos esse. Quod si generantur Daemones, quis, obsecro, erit generationis eorum modus? Namne fingendo quidem qualis sit Daemonum generatio designari potest. Non sum nescius a Plutarcho scriptum esse in libro De oraculorum defectu, Daemones esse mortales et post longissima temporum spatia mori; imperante autem Tiberio Caesare, celeberrimum Daemonum, qui ab Ethnicis Magnus Pan appellabatur, esse mortuum gravissimorum hominum testimonio idem confirmat. Ex sententia item Hesio-...

But if they make the demons corruptible, they must necessarily make them generable as well — unless they are willing that the number of demons should be diminished more and more day by day, and that from the time they were created up to this present day they should have been reduced to the very fewest. But if demons are generated, what, I ask, will be the mode of their generation? For not even by feigning can it be determined what the generation of demons is. I am not unaware that it was written by Plutarch, in his book On the Failure of Oracles, that demons are mortal and die after very long spaces of time; and he confirms the same — that under the reign of Tiberius Caesar the most famous of the demons, who was called by the heathen “Great Pan,” had died — on the testimony of most weighty men. Likewise, according to the opinion of Hesiod…¹⁵

...di vitam Daemonum, quos Ethnici nominabant Genios, annis novies mille septingentis viginti determinat.

…he fixes the life of the demons, whom the heathen named “genii,” at nine thousand seven hundred and twenty years.¹⁶

Cardanus vero libro 16 De Varietate rerum cap. 92 affirmat patrem suum, qui annis plus triginta Daemonibus familiarissime usus fuerat, narrare sibi solitum accepisse se ex ipsis Daemonibus eos oriri et interire; et quantum ipse coniectare potuerat ex facie et aetate Daemonis qui secum conversabatur, visum sibi esse eorum vitam vel ad ducentos vel ad trecentos etiam annos produci. Verum haec aliaque horum similia hominum commenta equidem non flocci facio, sequorque libenter prudentissimum illud Aristotelis consilium, stultum esse quid dicat quilibet attendere, praesertim si diu multumque probatis opinionibus contraria dicat. Multi enim (ut idem scribit) ad pauca respicientes, facile quodlibet inconsulte pronuntiant.

Cardano, however, in book 16 of On the Variety of Things, ch. 92, affirms that his father — who for more than thirty years had been most familiar with demons — was wont to tell him that he had learned from the demons themselves that they come into being and perish; and that, so far as he himself could conjecture from the face and age of the demon who conversed with him, it seemed to him that their life is prolonged to two hundred or even three hundred years. But these and other like fabrications of men I, for my part, count of no value, and I gladly follow that most prudent counsel of Aristotle: that it is foolish to attend to whatever anyone says, especially if he says things contrary to opinions long and greatly approved. For many (as the same writer says), looking to few things, easily and rashly pronounce on anything.¹⁷

His addo: si corpus Daemonis esset aereum, vel ex qualibet alia sublunari materia, ex eo efficeretur Daemonem secundum suam naturam esse imperfectiorem atque ignobiliorem homine — quod tamen pernegant istius opinionis defensores. Censent enim Daemones esse medios inter deos caelestes et homines, illis quidem inferiores, his autem superiores, et illis quidem deservire suis ministeriis et functionibus, his vero praesidere. Fore autem secundum istos hominem Daemone praestantiorem, eo patet quod in his quae infra lunam sunt corporibus, quo est corpus aliquod magis compositum et multiforme, eo nobilius ac perfectius esse constat. Elementis enim perfectiora sunt metalla, stirpes metallis, animalia stirpibus, omniumque praestantissimus est homo, cuius corpus sapientissima ratione descriptum et admirabili artificio elaboratum atque perfectum quis non videat simplici corpore aereo multo nobilius esse? At vero inter formam et materiam talis est secundum naturam proportio, ut semper nobiliori formae nobiliorem natura materiam comparaverit et assignaverit; ergo si corpus hominis nobilius secundum naturam est corpore aereo Daemonis, animum quoque hominis animo ac mente Daemonis nobiliorem ac praestantiorem esse necesse est. Sed concludamus hanc primam rationem: Daemones atque omnes Angelos esse incorporeos sententia est iam pridem in Ecclesia Dei recepta, et tum omnium Theologorum consensu, tum auctoritate Concilii Lateranensis Magni sub Innocentio 3 comprobata.

To these I add: if the body of a demon were aerial, or of any other sublunary matter, it would follow that the demon, according to its nature, is more imperfect and less noble than man — which, however, the defenders of that opinion utterly deny. For they hold that demons are midway between the celestial gods and men, inferior indeed to the former but superior to the latter, and that they serve the former with their ministries and functions, but preside over the latter. But that, according to these men, man would be more excellent than the demon, is plain from this: that among the bodies which are below the moon, the more composite and multiform any body is, the nobler and more perfect it is agreed to be. For metals are more perfect than the elements, plants than metals, animals than plants, and of all the most excellent is man, whose body — designed by the wisest reason and elaborated and perfected with admirable artifice — who does not see to be far nobler than a simple aerial body? But indeed, between form and matter there is by nature such a proportion that nature has always provided and assigned a nobler matter to a nobler form; therefore, if the body of man is by nature nobler than the aerial body of the demon, the soul of man too must necessarily be nobler and more excellent than the soul and mind of the demon. But let us conclude this first reason: that demons and all angels are incorporeal is an opinion long since received in the Church of God, and confirmed both by the consensus of all theologians and by the authority of the Great Lateran Council under Innocent III.¹⁸

Quocirca non possum non vehementer mirari Caietanum, in suis super 2 Epistolae ad Ephesios Commentariis explanantem illa verba Pauli, Secundum principem potestatis aeris huius, spiritus etc., non esse veritum dicere videri maxime consonum verae philosophiae rationi Daemones esse spiritus aereo corpore naturaliter constitutos. Quia, inquit, sicut vegetativum invenitur sine sensitivo, et sensitivum sine motivo secundum locum, et intellectivum sine sensitivo et motivo secundum locum, ita credibile est reperiri intellectivum sine sensitivo, cum motivo tantum secundum locum; et tales sunt Daemones. Sic ille argumentatur. Egregiam vero...

Wherefore I cannot but greatly wonder at Cajetan, who, in his Commentaries on chapter 2 of the Epistle to the Ephesians, explaining those words of Paul, “according to the prince of the power of this air, the spirit,” etc., was not afraid to say that it seems most consonant with the reasoning of true philosophy that demons are spirits naturally constituted with an aerial body. “For,” he says, “just as the vegetative is found without the sensitive, and the sensitive without the locomotive, and the intellective without the sensitive and locomotive as to place, so it is credible that the intellective is found without the sensitive, with only locomotion as to place; and such are the demons.” So he argues. But a fine [opinion indeed]…¹⁹

...veram rationem, propter quam scilicet deserenda fuerit tot iam seculis apud omnes Theologos et optimos philosophos tantopere laudata et probata doctrina. Enimvero istiusmodi genus argumentationis exiguam habet vim ad probandum, umbram tantum gerit quandam probabilitatis; et in scholis tales rationes appellari solent convenientiae seu congruentiae. Nimirum si ratio Caietani admitteretur, similiter confici posset reperiri sensitivum sine vegetativo, et intellectivum cum sensitivo sine motivo tamen secundum locum: ne videlicet ulla istiusmodi combinationum rerum universitati et perfectioni desit.

…a true reason why a doctrine so greatly praised and approved for so many ages now among all theologians and the best philosophers should have to be abandoned. For indeed this kind of argumentation has little force for proving; it bears only a certain shadow of probability, and in the schools such reasonings are usually called “convenances” or “congruences.” For if Cajetan’s reasoning were admitted, it could likewise be concluded that the sensitive is found without the vegetative, and the intellective with the sensitive but without locomotion as to place — namely, so that no combination of this kind should be lacking to the totality and perfection of things.²⁰

Aristoteles libro 2 De Anima istos quatuor gradus viventium — Vegetativum, Sensitivum, Motivum secundum locum, et Intellectivum — sic inter se naturaliter affectos et ordinatos esse dicit, ut prior potestate contineatur a posteriore: ut, licet prior quidem sine posteriore esse possit, sine priori tamen posterior esse nequeat. Ac simile quidem huius cernimus in speciebus numerorum et rectilinearum figurarum. Non igitur motivum secundum locum esse potest sine sensitivo; ut Caietano, existimanti Daemones esse mobiles secundum locum sicut sunt animalia, concedendum sit etiam ipsos esse sensitivos.

Aristotle, in book 2 of On the Soul, says that these four grades of living things — the vegetative, the sensitive, the locomotive (as to place), and the intellective — are so naturally disposed and ordered among themselves that the prior is contained potentially in the posterior: so that, although the prior can indeed exist without the posterior, the posterior cannot exist without the prior. And we discern something similar to this in the species of numbers and of rectilinear figures. Therefore the locomotive (as to place) cannot exist without the sensitive; so that Cajetan, who holds that demons are capable of motion as to place, just as animals are, must grant that they too are sensitive.²¹

Aristoteles praeterea libro tertio De Anima negat fieri posse ut sit corpus aliquod (sive illud sit generabile, sive ingenerabile) quod animam habeat intellectivam et sensu tamen careat: sapienter profecto. Quo enim intellectui corpus sine sensu? Et quem ob finem, vel usum, natura Daemoni corpus assignasset? Materia enim est propter formam, et corpus propter animam. Videlicet materia est necessaria formae materiali propter eius existentiam, operationem et perfectionem; non enim talis forma sine materiae adiumento aut existere, aut operari, aut perfectionem suam adipisci potest.

Aristotle, moreover, in the third book of On the Soul, denies that there can be any body (whether it be generable or ungenerable) which has an intellective soul and yet lacks sense — and wisely so. For of what use is a body to the intellect without sense? And for what end or use would nature have assigned a body to a demon? For matter is for the sake of form, and the body for the sake of the soul. That is, matter is necessary to a material form for its existence, operation, and perfection; for such a form can neither exist, nor operate, nor attain its perfection without the aid of matter.²²

At vero mens Daemonis, cum praestantior secundum naturam sit mente humana, intelligens et immortalis sua vi exsistit, nec ad existendum eget corpore. Propria item Daemonis actio, in qua naturalis perfectio eius posita est, intellectio est, ad quam perficiendam non est corpus Daemoni necessarium: non enim, ut mens humana, per sensus corporeos materiam intelligendi quaerit et acquirit. Neque indiget corpore ad motum localem efficiendum: Daemon enim sua vi seipsum ex quolibet loco in quemlibet locum transferre potest; et in corporibus ad aliquod tempus assumptis quoslibet motus animalium — ut deambulationem, cursum, saltum, reptationem, circumlationem, volatum aliosque similes — repraesentare potest. Verum transeamus ad secundam rationem.

But the mind of the demon, since by nature it is more excellent than the human mind, exists by its own power as intelligent and immortal, and needs no body in order to exist. Likewise the demon’s proper action, in which its natural perfection consists, is intellection, for the perfecting of which a body is not necessary to the demon; for it does not, like the human mind, seek and acquire the matter of its understanding through bodily senses. Nor does it need a body to effect local motion: for the demon can by its own power transfer itself from any place to any other place; and, in bodies assumed for a time, it can represent any motions of animals — walking, running, leaping, crawling, turning about, flight, and the like. But let us pass on to the second reason.²³

Altera Ratio. Etiam si Daemones corporei essent, non propterea tamen vim haberent generandi, nec haberent semen prolificum. Est autem semen genitale ultimi alimenti residuum, utile generationi. Etenim facultas generandi et creandi semen pertinet ad animam vegetativam, cuius propria sunt opera generare et alimento uti, sicut Aristoteles docet libro 2 De Anima, text. 34. In quibus-...

Second Reason. Even if demons were corporeal, they would not for that reason have the power of generating, nor would they have prolific seed. For generative seed is the residue of the last nourishment, useful for generation. Indeed the faculty of generating and of producing seed pertains to the vegetative soul, whose proper works are to generate and to use nourishment, as Aristotle teaches in book 2 of On the Soul, text 34. For in whatever…²⁴

...cunque autem corporibus est anima vegetativa, necesse est ea corpora aliquando fuisse generata et aliquando esse interitura. Nec anima tantum vegetativa esset in Daemonibus, si in his esset facultas generandi, sed esset quoque anima sensitiva. Siquidem naturale est in viventibus perfectis ex ipso actu generationis voluptatem capere; quam sane voluptatem nec istius opinionis sectatores Daemonibus denegant, quin aiunt eas voluptates expetere ipsos, et libidinosis atque obscenis congressibus gaudere et oblectari. Atqui sensus talis delectationis pertinet ad sensum tactus, qui ex primarum qualitatum temperie existit, nec in simplici corpore, sed in mixto et temperato ex elementis sedem habet.

…bodies the vegetative soul is present, those bodies must necessarily have been at some time generated, and must at some time perish. Nor would there be in the demons only a vegetative soul, if the faculty of generating were in them, but there would also be a sensitive soul. For it is natural in perfect living beings to take pleasure from the very act of generation — a pleasure which indeed the followers of this opinion do not deny to the demons, but rather assert that they seek out those pleasures and rejoice and delight in lustful and obscene couplings. But the sensation of such delight pertains to the sense of touch, which arises from the tempering of the primary qualities, and has its seat not in a simple body, but in one mixed and tempered from the elements.²⁵

Ex his igitur concluderetur corpus Daemonis non esse simplex, sed mixtum ex omnibus elementis; nec uniforme, quod Graece dicitur homogeneum, sed multiformes habens partes, scilicet organa variis animae actionibus perficiendis destinata et accommodata. Quapropter corpus Daemonis solidum et crassum et aspectabile atque omnibus conspicuum esset. Adiice quod facultas generandi fert secum distinctionem sexus in marem et feminam: ad perfectam enim generationem uterque sexus convenire debet, cum in altero sit vis activa generationis, in altero autem passiva, nec sine utriusque concursu generatio effici queat. Erunt igitur Daemonum alii mares et aliae feminae, essetque inter eos ad generandum coniunctio. Non igitur mendacia erunt Poetarum mendacia, nec fabulosa erit, sed vera Hesiodi Theogonia, et pro veris credenda erunt quae fabulati sunt Ethnici de diis et deabus, et de eorum inter se coniugiis, adulteriis et incestibus. Denique cum Daemones tot annorum millia ab eo tempore quo sunt creati iam transegerint, si vim generandi haberent, plane innumerabilis esset atque intoleranda daemonum progenies. Haec si falsa, si absurda, si impossibilia atque incredibilia sunt, illud quoque falsum, impossibile et absurdum esse necesse est, Daemonem habere vim generandi.

From these things, then, it would be concluded that the body of a demon is not simple, but mixed from all the elements; nor uniform (what is in Greek called homogeneous), but having multiform parts — namely, organs destined and adapted for performing the various actions of the soul. Wherefore the body of a demon would be solid and gross, visible and conspicuous to all. Add to this that the faculty of generating carries with it the distinction of sex into male and female; for perfect generation requires that both sexes come together, since in the one is the active power of generation, and in the other the passive, nor can generation be effected without the concurrence of both. There would therefore be among demons some males and some females, and there would be among them a coupling for the sake of generating. The lies of the poets, then, would not be lies, nor would Hesiod’s Theogony be fabulous, but true; and the things the heathen fabled about gods and goddesses, and about their marriages, adulteries, and incests among themselves, would have to be believed as true. Finally, since the demons have already passed so many thousands of years from the time they were created, if they had the power of generating, the progeny of demons would plainly be innumerable and intolerable. If these things are false, absurd, impossible, and incredible, then it must likewise be false, impossible, and absurd that a demon has the power of generating.²⁶

Tertia Ratio. Licet Daemones corporei essent et vim haberent generandi, non idcirco tamen ex mulieribus generare aliquid possent. Duo enim principia ad perficiendam generationem necessario convenire debent: alterum est principium activum generationis, quod est in mare; alterum est principium passivum, quod est in femina. Quamobrem si Daemon generaret ex muliere, vis activa generationis esset in Daemone, vis autem passiva esset in femina. Sed hoc fieri nequit. Nam inter potentiam activam generationis et passivam naturalis debet esse convenientia et cognatio, ut sit utraque in his quae sunt eiusdem speciei, ut in viro et femina, equo et equa, leone et leaena; vel certe eiusdem generis proximi, ut in equo et asina, unde gignitur mulus. Non enim quodlibet animal ex quolibet animali generari potest, multo minus animal ex non animali, cum ista differant genere. Daemon autem et mulier differunt non modo specie, sed etiam genere, et quantum ad animum sive mentem, et quantum ad corpus;...

Third Reason. Although demons were corporeal and had the power of generating, they could not for that reason generate anything from women. For two principles must necessarily come together to perfect generation: the one is the active principle of generation, which is in the male; the other is the passive principle, which is in the female. Wherefore, if a demon were to generate from a woman, the active power of generation would be in the demon, but the passive power in the woman. But this cannot happen. For between the active and passive power of generation there must be a natural agreement and kinship, such that both are in things of the same species — as in man and woman, horse and mare, lion and lioness — or at least of the same nearest genus, as in a horse and a she-ass, whence a mule is begotten. For not any animal whatever can be generated from any animal whatever, much less an animal from a non-animal, since these differ in genus. But a demon and a woman differ not only in species, but also in genus, both as to soul or mind and as to body;…²⁷

...nulla igitur esset convenientia inter potentiam generativam Daemonis et mulieris, quapropter nulla ex his generatio existeret. Confirmatur hoc auctoritate Aristotelis, qui libro 10 Metaphysicorum, text. 25, ad hunc modum scribit: Masculus et femina propriae quidem animalis passiones sunt, sed non secundum substantiam, verum in materia et corpore. Quare idem semen, aliquam passionem passum, aut femina aut mas fit. Et sequenti textu, sub finem eius libri, affirmat corruptibile et incorruptibile diversa esse genere. Daemon autem est incorruptibilis secundum naturam, mulier vero corruptibilis; quocirca genere diversa sunt inter se. Ergo non potest Daemon habere vim activam generationis respectu mulieris, nec mulier passivam respectu Daemonis.

…there would therefore be no agreement between the generative power of the demon and that of the woman, and consequently no generation would arise from them. This is confirmed by the authority of Aristotle, who, in book 10 of the Metaphysics, text 25, writes thus: “Male and female are indeed proper affections of the animal, but not according to substance — rather in the matter and the body. Hence the same seed, having undergone some affection, becomes either female or male.” And in the following text, toward the end of that book, he affirms that the corruptible and the incorruptible differ in genus. But a demon is by nature incorruptible, whereas a woman is corruptible; therefore they are diverse in genus from each other. The demon, then, cannot have the active power of generation with respect to a woman, nor the woman the passive power with respect to the demon.²⁸

Quarta Ratio. Sed concedamus Daemones esse corporeos et habere vim generandi, quin etiam generare posse aliquid ex muliere: non posset tamen, his rebus positis et concessis, concludi Daemonem ex muliere posse hominem generare, sed contra potius prolem ex muliere, si crearet Daemon, eam non fore humanam. Cum enim duo diversae speciei inter se coëunt ad generationem, ex utriusque commixtione quod generatur, id specie ab utroque diversum est. Ex equo enim et asina generatur mulus, idemque cernitur in aliis quae sic generantur. Nam quae generantur ex parentibus, ut ita loquar, diversae speciei, aut essent eiusdem speciei cum utroque parente — quod fieri non potest, cum illi differant specie — vel essent cum altero parente eiusdem speciei; sed cur potius cum uno quam cum altero? Cogit igitur ratio philosophica sentire illud diversum esse debere ab utroque, sed ita tamen ut etiam cum utroque aliquam habeat convenientiam, sicut in mulo manifestum est. Cum autem Daemon genere diversus sit a muliere, quomodo quod ex Daemonis et mulieris congressu generatur potest esse homo, id est similis omnino mulieri, diversus autem omnino a Daemone? cum deberet contra evenire, ut similior esset secundum substantiam Daemoni quam mulieri, siquidem Daemon haberet vim activam generationis, femina vero passivam; et, ut materia prolis ex femina est, sic forma praecipue ab activo principio accepta fertur.

Fourth Reason. But let us grant that demons are corporeal and have the power of generating, indeed that they can generate something from a woman: even so, with these things posited and conceded, it could not be concluded that a demon can generate a man from a woman, but rather, on the contrary, that the offspring from the woman, if the demon should produce it, would not be human. For when two things of diverse species come together for generation, what is generated from the mingling of the two is diverse in species from both. For from a horse and a she-ass a mule is generated, and the same is seen in other things that are so generated. For things generated from parents (so to speak) of diverse species would either be of the same species as both parents — which cannot happen, since they differ in species — or would be of the same species as one parent; but why with the one rather than the other? Philosophical reasoning therefore compels us to hold that the offspring must be diverse from both, yet in such a way that it also has some agreement with both, as is manifest in the mule. But since the demon is diverse in genus from the woman, how can that which is generated from the union of a demon and a woman be a man — that is, wholly like the woman, but wholly diverse from the demon? — when the contrary ought rather to happen, that it should be more like the demon in substance than the woman, seeing that the demon would have the active power of generation, the woman the passive; and, as the matter of the offspring is from the female, so its form is taken chiefly from the active principle.²⁹

Facit ad confirmationem huius nostrae sententiae quod scribit Plinius libro 6 cap. 2, auctorem laudans Durim, a quo proditum sit quosdam Indorum cum feris coire, mixtosque et semiferos esse partus; quam fortasse ob causam Gentilium poetae generatos ex parentibus quorum alter Deus esset, alter homo — ut Herculem, Dionysium, Aesculapium, Aeneam, Romulum — non deos simpliciter nec homines, sed semi-deos et semi-homines nuncuparunt. Quamquam isti revera homines fuerunt, tota enim eorum substantia erat hominis; sed quantum ad fabulosam originem generationis et fictam parentum conditionem, semi-dei nominabantur.

There makes for the confirmation of this our opinion what Pliny writes in book 6, ch. 2, citing as his authority Duris, by whom it was recorded that certain of the Indians couple with wild beasts, and that the offspring are mixed and half-beast; for which reason, perhaps, the poets of the Gentiles called those begotten of parents one of whom was a god, the other a man — such as Hercules, Dionysus, Aesculapius, Aeneas, Romulus — not gods simply, nor men, but demigods and half-men. Although these were in truth men, for their whole substance was that of a man; but as regards the fabulous origin of their generation and the feigned condition of their parents, they were called demigods.³⁰

Sed vereor ne cuiuspiam haec legentium subeat animum suspi-...

But I fear lest there steal into the mind of some of those reading these things a suspi-…³¹

...cari, ne forte ex concubitu Daemonis cum muliere generata sint monstra illa, quae stulta gentilitas Silvanos, Faunos et Satyros nominavit et coluit, in quibus ferinum aliquid et aliquid humanum, nonnihil etiam divinum esse dicebatur. Sunt, inquit Plinius libro 7 cap. 2, Satyri Subsolanis Indorum montibus (Cartulodorem dicitur regio) pernicissimum animal, tum quadrupedes tum recti currentes, humana effigie, propter velocitatem nisi senes aut aegri non capiuntur.

…cion, lest perhaps from the intercourse of a demon with a woman were generated those monsters which foolish paganism named and worshiped as Silvani, Fauns, and Satyrs, in which something bestial and something human, and even something divine, was said to be. “There are,” says Pliny in book 7, ch. 2, “in the eastern mountains of the Indians (the region is called Cartulodorus) Satyrs, a most swift animal, running now on four feet, now upright, with a human likeness; on account of their speed they are not caught except when old or sick.”³²

Huius generis putet fortasse quispiam fuisse monstra illa quae visa esse B. Antonio in solitudine narrat S. Hieronymus in Vita Pauli Eremitae ad hunc fere modum: Conspicit Antonius hominem equo mixtum, cui opinio Poetarum Hippocentauro vocabulum indidit. Quo viso, salutaris impressione signi armat frontem, et: Heus tu, inquit, quanam in parte hic servus Dei habitat? At ille barbarum nescio quid infrendens, et frangens potius verba quam proloquens, inter horrentia ora senis blandum quaesivit alloquium, et dextra protensione manus cupitum indicat iter; et sic patentes campos volucri transmittens fuga, ex oculis mirantis evanuit. Verum haec utrum diabolus ad terrendum eum simulaverit, an, ut solet eremus monstrosorum animalium ferax, istam quoque gignat bestiam, incertum habemus. Stupens itaque Antonius, et de eo quod viderat secum volvens, ulterius progreditur. Nec mora, inter saxosam convallem haud grandem homunculum videt, aduncis naribus, fronte cornibus asperata, cuius extrema pars corporis in caprarum pedes desinebat, qui palmarum fructus eidem ad viaticum quasi pacis obsides offerebat. Quo cognito, gradum pressit Antonius, et quisnam esset interrogans, hoc ab eo responsum accepit: Mortalis ego sum, et unus ex accolis eremi, quos vario delusa errore gentilitas Faunos Satyrosque et Incubos vocans colit. Legatione fungor gregis mei: precamur ut pro nobis communem Deum depreceris, quem pro salute mundi venisse cognovimus, et in universam terram exiit sonus eius. Nec dum verba compleverat, et quasi penniger volatu petulcum animal aufugit. Hoc, ne cuiquam ob incredulitatem scrupulum moveat, sub rege Constantino, universo mundo teste, defenditur. Nam postea cadaver exanime, ne calore aestatis dissiparetur, sale infuso, Antiochiam, ut ab Imperatore videretur, allatum est. Hactenus ex B. Hieronymo.

Someone might perhaps suppose those monsters to have been of this kind which St. Jerome relates, in the Life of Paul the Hermit, to have appeared to the blessed Antony in the wilderness, in roughly this manner: “Antony espies a man mixed with a horse, to which the poets’ fancy gave the name Hippocentaur. At the sight, he arms his forehead with the impression of the saving sign, and says: ‘Ho there! In what part does a servant of God dwell here?’ But that creature, gnashing out some barbarous thing, and breaking his words rather than speaking them, sought through his bristling jaws a friendly address to the old man, and, with the outstretched extension of his right hand, points out the desired way; and so, traversing the open fields in winged flight, he vanished from the eyes of the astonished man. But whether the devil feigned this to terrify him, or whether the desert, fertile as it is in monstrous animals, also begets this beast, we hold uncertain. And so Antony, amazed and turning over within himself what he had seen, goes farther on. Without delay, in a rocky valley he sees a not-large little man, with hooked nostrils, his forehead roughened with horns, the lower part of whose body ended in goat’s feet, who offered him the fruits of palms as provision for the journey, as if pledges of peace. At this, Antony checked his step, and, asking who he was, received this answer from him: ‘I am a mortal, and one of the inhabitants of the desert, whom paganism, deluded by various error, worships under the names of Fauns, Satyrs, and Incubi. I perform an embassy on behalf of my flock: we beg you to entreat for us the common God, whom we have learned came for the salvation of the world, and whose sound has gone out into all the earth.’ He had not yet finished his words when, as if on feathered flight, the frisking animal fled away. Lest this move a scruple in anyone through incredulity, it is vouched for, under King Constantine, with the whole world as witness. For afterward the lifeless carcass, lest it be dissipated by the heat of summer, was, with salt poured in, brought to Antioch, that it might be seen by the Emperor.” Thus far the blessed Jerome.³³

Sed credo equidem haec et alia quaedam horum similia daemonum fuisse figmenta et ludibria: aut enim nuda tantum fuerunt rerum quae cernebantur simulacra et inania spectra, aut monstrosa fuere animalia visuque insolita, per quae daemon humanum sermonem sensumque mentiebatur, et humanam aut etiam plusquam humanam vim atque sapientiam ostentabat. Sed finis esto huius secundae quaestionis. Satis enim quatuor hisce rationibus probatum reor non posse daemonem in proprio corpore mixtum cum muliere prolem humanam procreare; ex quo illud quoque apparet filios Dei, quos narrat hoc loco Moses mixtos cum filiabus hominum generasse gigantes, non fuisse daemones.

But for my part I believe that these things, and certain others like them, were the fabrications and mockeries of demons: for either they were merely the bare simulacra of the things that were seen and empty specters, or they were monstrous animals, strange to behold, through which the demon counterfeited human speech and sense, and made a show of human, or even more-than-human, power and wisdom. But let this be the end of the second question. For I think it has been sufficiently proved by these four reasons that a demon, mingled in its own body with a woman, cannot procreate a human offspring; from which it also appears that the “sons of God,” whom Moses here relates to have mingled with the daughters of men and begotten the giants, were not demons.³⁴

Translator’s notes

Heading of the Second Disputation. ↩
Opening of the Second Disputation. ↩
§38: the Platonist doctrine of demonic corporeality; Apuleius. Margins: ‘The teaching of the Platonists on the nature of demons’; Apuleius (in Augustine, City of God 8.17). ↩
§39 (continues on p. 90): Maximus of Tyre, Plutarch (twice), Empedocles, leading to Virgil. Margins: Maximus of Tyre, Oration 26; Plutarch, On the Cessation of Oracles; Plutarch, On Isis; Empedocles; Virgil, Aeneid 6. ↩
§39 (continued from p. 89): the verses of Virgil. (The original’s marginal numbering appears to skip from §39 to §41 here.) Margin: Virgil, Aeneid 6.730–734. ↩
§41: Michael Psellus On Demons (learned from one Marcus); the first of his four ‘heads.’ Margins: ‘What Psellus hands down about demons’; ‘the four heads of Psellus.’ ↩
§42: Psellus’s second head — that some demons emit seed and are nourished. ↩
§43 (continues on p. 91): Psellus’s third head — the six kinds of demons. Margin: ‘Six kinds of demons.’ ↩
§43 (continued from p. 90): the fifth and sixth kinds. ↩
§44: Psellus’s fourth head — demons are by nature of neither sex. ↩
§45: Francesco Giorgio (Zorzi) and his ‘Problems’; Pererius dismisses all this as nonsense. Margins: Franciscus Georgius; Gen. 3 (the seed of the serpent). ↩
§46 (continues on p. 92): the first of four refutations begins — demons are incorporeal. Margins: ‘It is proved by four reasons that demons were not lustfully mingled with women in their own bodies. First reason: demons are incorporeal’; Luke 8 (the ‘Legion’). ↩
§46 (continued from p. 91): the demon’s body cannot be of celestial substance. Margins: ‘The body of a demon is not of celestial substance’; Job 1–2; Job 37. ↩
§47: nor can the demon’s body be aerial (against Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter 3.10). Margins: ‘The body of demons is not aerial’; Augustine; Aristotle (On Generation 2; Meteorology 4). ↩
§48 (continues on p. 93): if corruptible, then generable — but no mode of demonic generation can be conceived. Margins: Plutarch, On the Cessation of Oracles; ‘the demon Pan is dead’; Hesiod. ↩
§48 (continued from p. 92): Hesiod’s reckoning of demonic lifespan. ↩
§49: Cardano’s report dismissed; Pererius invokes Aristotle. Margins: Cardano (On the Variety of Things, bk. 16, ch. 92); Aristotle, Topics 1; On Generation and Corruption 1. ↩
§50: a demon with an aerial body would be less noble than man — which the defenders themselves deny; conclusion of the first reason, citing the Fourth Lateran Council. Margins: ‘If a demon had naturally an aerial body, it would by nature be more imperfect than man’; Council of the Great Lateran under Innocent III. ↩
§51 (continues on p. 94): the criticism of Cajetan begins (sentence breaks off at ‘Egregiam vero…’). Margin: ‘A criticism of Cajetan, who asserts that demons have naturally an aerial body’; Eph. 2:2. ↩
§51 (continued from p. 93): conclusion of the critique of Cajetan — his reasoning is merely a ‘congruence,’ not a proof. ↩
§52: Aristotle, On the Soul 2, on the ordered grades of living things. Margin: Aristotle. ↩
§53: Aristotle, On the Soul 3 — no body has an intellective soul without a sensitive one. Margin: ‘For Aristotle there is no body having an intellective soul which does not have a sensitive one.’ ↩
§54: but the demon’s mind needs no body to exist or to act. Margin: Second reason (heading of the next argument). ↩
§55 (continues on p. 95). Second Reason: even if demons were corporeal, they would have no generative power or prolific seed. Margins: ‘Second reason: even if demons were corporeal, they could not have the power of generating or seed’; Aristotle, On the Soul 2. ↩
§55 (continued from p. 94): a generative faculty would entail a sensitive soul and the sense of touch. ↩
§56: hence the demon’s body would have to be composite, sexed, and the pagan theogonies would be true — all absurd. ↩
§57 (continues on p. 96). Third Reason: even granting a generative power, demons could not generate from women. Margins: ‘Third reason: demons cannot generate anything from women’; ‘two principles necessary for perfecting generation.’ ↩
§57 (continued from p. 95): confirmed by Aristotle, Metaphysics 10. Margin: Aristotle. ↩
§58: Fourth Reason — even granting generation from a woman, the offspring would not be human. Margin: ‘Fourth reason: even if a demon generated something from a woman, it would still not generate a man.’ ↩
§59: a confirmation from Pliny (Duris) and the pagan ‘demigods.’ Margin: Pliny. ↩
§60 (continues on p. 97). ↩
§60 (continued from p. 96): the Silvani, Fauns, and Satyrs. Margins: ‘On the Silvani, Fauns, and Satyrs’; Pliny (Natural History 7.2). ↩
§61: the centaur and satyr seen by St. Antony, from Jerome’s Life of Paul the Hermit. Margin: Jerome. ↩
§62: Pererius’s own judgment — these were demonic illusions or strange beasts — and the conclusion of the Second Disputation. ↩