Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

Book Eight — the cause for which the flood was sent

THIRD DISPUTATION. Whether a demon, having coupled with a woman in a body assumed externally and for a time, can generate a man by seed not its own but male seed infused into the woman

LatineEnglish

THIRD DISPUTATION. Whether a demon, having coupled with a woman in a body assumed externally and for a time, can generate a man by seed not its own but male seed infused into the woman.1

TERTIA DISPUTATIO. Utrum Daemon, in corpore extrinsecus et ad tempus assumpto congressus cum muliere, per semen non suum sed virile infusum mulieri, possit hominem generare.

Daemones nec esse corporeos nec vim habere naturalem gignendi humanam prolem, iam pridem firmatum est a sapientibus et a plerisque omnibus creditum. At enim Daemones non solum posse, verum etiam non raro solere, corpore extrinsecus assumpto et ad speciem hominis figurato, muliebrem inire concubitum et filios procreare, crebro iactatur sermone, tanquam gravissimorum hominum testimonio probatum et multis ac manifestis experimentis exemplisque compertum. Sanctus Augustinus in libro 15 De Civitate Dei capite 23, licet hac de re suspendat iudicium et sententiam, ea tamen dicit quae eam rem verisimilem admodum et probabilem faciunt. Sic enim scribit: Creberrima fama est, multique se expertos, vel ab eis qui experti essent (de quorum fide dubitandum non est) audisse confirmant, Silvanos et Faunos, quos vulgo incubos vocant, improbos saepe extitisse mulieribus, et earum appetisse ac peregisse concubitum; et quosdam Daemones, quos Dusios Galli nuncupant, hanc assidue immunditiam et tentare et efficere, plures talesque asseverant, ut hoc negare impudentia videatur. Equidem non audeo sic aliquid temere diffinire, utrum aliqui spiritus elemento aereo corporati (nam hoc elementum etiam cum agitatur flabello, sensu corporis tactuque sentitur) possint etiam hanc pati libidinem, ut quo modo possunt sentientibus feminis misceantur. Haec Augustinus.
That demons are neither corporeal nor have a natural power of begetting human offspring has long since been established by the wise and believed by almost all. But that demons not only can, but also not rarely are wont, in a body assumed externally and shaped into the likeness of a man, to enter into intercourse with women and procreate children, is frequently bandied about in talk, as though it were proved by the testimony of most weighty men and ascertained by many and manifest experiences and examples. St. Augustine, in book 15 of The City of God, chapter 23, although he suspends his judgment and sentence on this matter, nevertheless says things which make it quite likely and probable. For he writes thus: “It is a most frequent report, and many assert that they have experienced, or have heard from those who experienced it (of whose trustworthiness there is no room to doubt), that Silvani and Fauns, whom the common people call ‘incubi,’ have often been wicked toward women, and have desired and accomplished intercourse with them; and that certain demons, whom the Gauls call ‘Dusii,’ assiduously attempt and accomplish this uncleanness — so many and such persons affirm it, that to deny it would seem effrontery. For my part I do not dare to determine anything rashly: whether certain spirits, embodied in the aerial element (for this element, even when it is stirred by a fan, is perceived by the body’s sense of touch), can also suffer this lust, so as to mingle, in whatever way they can, with women who feel it.” Thus Augustine.2
Daemon incubus appellatur qui sub specie virili superveniens incubat feminae; succubus autem dicitur qui sub muliebri figura succubans viro muliebria patitur. Extat Papae Innocentii huius nominis octavi epistola decretalis adversus maleficas mulieres cum Daemonibus incubis flagitiose atque impie consuetudinem habentes, in qua haec inter alia sunt verba: Non sine ingenti molestia ad nostrum pervenit auditum, complures utriusque sexus personas, propriae salutis immemores et a fide Catholica deviantes, Daemonibus incubis et succubis abuti. Quapropter, ne labes huius hereticae pravitatis in perniciem animarum sua venena diffundat, opportunis remediis, prout nostro incumbit officio, providere volentes, statuimus ut Inquisitores per nos deputati debitum inquisitionis officium in huiusmodi exequantur. Sic Innocentius. Duplex exemplum, alterum Daemonis incubi, alterum succubi, utrumque foedum simulque horrendum auditu, narrat Cardanus lib. 16 De Varietate rerum cap. 93, et Philostratus De vita Apollonii lib. 4 cap. 8; quibus exemplis hic commemorandis, partim brevitati, partim pudori serviens, abstineo.
A demon is called an “incubus” who, coming on under a male appearance, lies upon a woman; but a “succubus” he is called who, under a female figure lying beneath a man, undergoes the woman’s part. There exists a decretal letter of Pope Innocent VIII, of that name, against malefic women who hold intercourse, shamefully and impiously, with incubus demons, in which, among other things, are these words: “Not without great distress has it come to our hearing that very many persons of both sexes, forgetful of their own salvation and deviating from the Catholic faith, abuse themselves with incubus and succubus demons. Wherefore, lest the stain of this heretical depravity should diffuse its poisons to the ruin of souls, desiring to provide fitting remedies as our office requires, we have decreed that the Inquisitors deputed by us carry out the due office of inquisition in such matters.” So Innocent. A twofold example — one of an incubus demon, the other of a succubus, both foul and at the same time horrible to hear — Cardano relates in book 16 of On the Variety of Things, ch. 93, and Philostratus in the Life of Apollonius, bk. 4, ch. 8; from recounting which examples here, serving partly brevity and partly modesty, I abstain.3
Tostatus autem, super sextum caput libri Geneseos quaestione sexta, de huiusmodi Daemonibus incubis et succubis hunc fere in modum scribit: Hi Daemones semen fundere nequeunt, cum corporei non sint, nec habeant unde semen decidant; sed ex viris acceptum ipsi mulieribus infundunt. Duo autem sunt eorum genera. Aliquando enim daemon succubus est, aliquando incubus; prius tamen succubus est quam incubus. Nam cum viri nocturno semine polluuntur, ibi Daemon succubus, corpore ex aere in speciem muliebrem figurato, semen accipit, servatque ne spiritus eius exhaletur, quo fit aptum generationi; deinde, sexu transformato, induens speciem viri, virile semen quod acceperat in muliebrem uterum inserit. Et hoc modo dicunt nonnulli Merlinum, vatem in Anglia celebrem, cuiusdam viri semine per daemonem succubum accepto et postea in alvum matris per eundem daemonem incubum infuso, procreatum. Apparent autem istiusmodi daemones incubi in vigiliis feminas improbe vexantes; viris autem succubi daemones raro nisi in somnis apparent. Ex talibus autem conceptibus robustissimi homines et procerissimi nasci possunt, quia Daemones vires seminum cognoscunt, quid cuique consonet; noverunt etiam opportuna tempora quibus semina infundi mulieri debeant, quo mirabiles eveniunt generationes; denique noverunt et adhibere possunt ea quibus positis admirandos et inusitatos natura producat effectus. Hactenus ex Tostato.
Tostatus, however, on the sixth chapter of the book of Genesis, in the sixth question, writes about incubus and succubus demons of this kind in roughly this manner: “These demons cannot pour forth seed, since they are not corporeal, nor have they whence seed might fall; but, taking it from men, they themselves infuse it into women. And there are two kinds of them. For sometimes the demon is a succubus, sometimes an incubus; yet it is a succubus before it is an incubus. For when men are polluted by nocturnal seed, there the succubus demon, with a body shaped from air into a female appearance, receives the seed and preserves it lest its spirit exhale, whereby it becomes apt for generation; then, with the sex transformed, putting on the appearance of a man, it inserts the male seed which it had received into a woman’s womb. And in this way some say that Merlin, the seer famous in England, was begotten — the seed of a certain man having been received by a succubus demon and afterward infused into the mother’s belly by the same demon as an incubus. Now incubus demons of this kind appear while women are awake, wickedly troubling them; but succubus demons rarely appear to men except in dreams. And from such conceptions most robust and most tall men can be born, because demons know the powers of seeds, what is suited to each; they know also the opportune times at which seeds ought to be infused into the woman, whereby marvelous generations come about; and finally they know, and can apply, those things by which, once applied, nature produces wondrous and unusual effects.” Thus far Tostatus.4
Ceterum opinionem eorum qui filios Dei mixtos cum filiabus hominum, ut dicitur hoc loco, interpretantur malos Angelos sive Daemones incubos, Hugo sancti Victoris in suis Annotationibus in Genesim, et Magister Historiae scholasticae in historia libri Geneseos cap. 31, commemorant, nec tamen improbant. Quam opinionem, a Lyrano rectissime confutatam, Paulus Burgensis in prima sua Additione ad Postillam Lyrani super hoc sextum caput libri Geneseos pugnacissime defendens, verissimam esse contendit, quippe tum narrationi Mosis maxime congruentem, tum a Beato Augustino probatam. Etenim quos hoc loco Latina translatio nominat gigantes, eos Moses vocabulo Hebraeo appellavit Nephilim, quod Latine sonat cadentes, haud dubie denotans eo vocabulo daemones propter peccatum de caelo lapsos; de quorum principe Lucifero dixit Isaias capite 14: Quomodo cecidisti de caelo, Lucifer? et Dominus apud Lucam capite 10: Videbam, inquit, Satanam sicut fulgur de caelo cadentem. Moses igitur non obscure significavit daemones incubos mixtos cum feminis prolem illam gigantum progenerasse. Deinde Beatus Augustinus 22 capite libri 15 De Civitate Dei (quem locum paulo supra citavimus) opinionem de incubis daemonibus usque eo famosam esse dicit, totque probatam experimentis et exemplis, ut ei fidem abrogare hominis esse videatur nimis increduli aut etiam impudentis; hoc autem dicit Augustinus pertractans hunc locum Mosis de commixtione filiorum Dei cum filiabus hominum. Sic Burgensis.
Moreover, the opinion of those who interpret the “sons of God” mingled with the daughters of men, as is said in this passage, to be evil angels or incubus demons, Hugh of St. Victor mentions in his Annotations on Genesis, and the Master of the Scholastic History in his History of the book of Genesis, ch. 31 — yet they do not disapprove it. This opinion, most rightly refuted by Lyra, Paul of Burgos, defending it most pugnaciously in his first Addition to Lyra’s Postill on this sixth chapter of Genesis, contends to be most true, as being both most congruent with Moses’ narrative and approved by the blessed Augustine. For those whom the Latin translation here names “giants,” Moses called by the Hebrew word Nephilim, which in Latin means “the falling ones,” undoubtedly denoting by that word the demons fallen from heaven on account of sin — of whose prince Lucifer Isaiah said in chapter 14: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer?” and the Lord in Luke, chapter 10: “I saw,” he says, “Satan falling like lightning from heaven.” Moses, therefore, signified not obscurely that incubus demons, mingled with women, begot that offspring of giants. Furthermore, the blessed Augustine, in the 22nd chapter of book 15 of The City of God (a passage we cited a little above), says that the opinion about incubus demons is so famous, and so proved by experiences and examples, that to refuse it credence would seem the mark of a man too incredulous or even shameless; and Augustine says this while treating this passage of Moses about the mingling of the sons of God with the daughters of men. So Burgos.5
Veruntamen, nisi ego valde fallor, tripliciter Burgensis falsus et lapsus est. Primum enim etymologiam illius vocabuli Nephilim parum...
Nevertheless, unless I am much mistaken, Burgos is mistaken and has erred in three ways. First, the etymology of that word Nephilim he too little…6
...parum scite ad Daemones tantum refert, cum doctissimi Hebraeorum eius verbi notionem multo secus interpretentur. Aiunt enim id nominis aptissime positum esse in gigantibus, eosque propterea cadentes esse dictos, quod vastitate corporis et robore virium in alios homines violenter irruentes, coram se cadere facerent suaeque potestati subiicerent; vel quod alii, eorum proceritatem corporis et ferociam animi videntes, metu oppressi et consternati in terram caderent. Deinde non animadvertit Burgensis filios Dei qui mixti sunt cum filiabus hominum (quos ipse putat fuisse Daemones incubos) non appellari a Mose Nephilim, sed Benelohim, id est filios Dei vel deorum; nominari autem a Mose Nephilim eos qui ex commixtione filiorum Dei cum filiabus hominum generati fuerant.
…unskillfully refers to demons only, whereas the most learned of the Hebrews interpret the meaning of that word far otherwise. For they say that this name is most aptly applied to the giants, and that they were therefore called “the falling ones,” because, by the vastness of their bodies and the strength of their powers violently rushing upon other men, they made them fall down before them and subjected them to their power; or because others, seeing their tallness of body and ferocity of spirit, oppressed and dismayed by fear, fell to the ground. Next, Burgos does not notice that the “sons of God” who mingled with the daughters of men (whom he himself supposes to have been incubus demons) are not called by Moses Nephilim, but Benelohim, that is, sons of God or of gods; and that those are named by Moses Nephilim who had been generated from the mingling of the sons of God with the daughters of men.7
Argumentatio igitur Burgensis adversus Lyranum, ducta ex vocabuli Nephilim etymologia, plane nulla est. Nec auctoritas B. Augustini opinionem eius adiuvat, sed potius destruit. Augustinus enim Daemones esse incubos et turpiter misceri cum feminis nec negare nec affirmare audet; quod autem per filios Dei qui mixti sunt cum filiabus hominum intelligere oporteat Daemones incubos, ut vult Burgensis, nec eo loco nec uspiam alibi dixit Augustinus. Quin immo sententiam eorum qui filios Dei interpretati sunt posteros Seth, ut longe probabilissimam, eo loco secutus est Augustinus.
Burgos’s argument against Lyra, then, drawn from the etymology of the word Nephilim, is plainly null. Nor does the authority of the blessed Augustine support his opinion, but rather destroys it. For Augustine dares neither to deny nor to affirm that there are incubus demons who mingle basely with women; but that by the “sons of God” who mingled with the daughters of men one ought to understand incubus demons, as Burgos would have it, Augustine said neither in that place nor anywhere else. Indeed, the opinion of those who interpreted the “sons of God” as the descendants of Seth, Augustine followed in that place as by far the most probable.8
Ceterum tres hoc loco dubitationes exsolvendae sunt. Prima dubitatio est Augustini, qui eo loco quem proxime memoravimus, utrum Daemones (quos ipse putat elemento aereo corporatos) libidinem voluptatis carnalis pati et libidinoso cum feminis concubitu affici delectarique queant, in dubio reliquit. Verum sine dubitatione ulla respondere oportet Daemones per se non capi eiusmodi voluptatibus: sunt enim incorporei, ut supra tractando secundam quaestionem ostendimus. Ac licet corporei essent, attamen quia naturalem generandi vim non habent, nec sensum tactus ad quem pertinent delectationes Venereae, non possent istiusmodi voluptatum sensu titillari atque commoveri. Denique ut haec Daemonibus adessent, quia tamen diversam illi ab homine non solum specie sed etiam genere naturam habent, eas voluptates ipsi nec expeterent nec perciperent ex homine; cernimus enim et hominem et animalia tales delectationes non nisi in his quae secum specie aut proximo genere conveniunt consectari.
Moreover, three doubts are here to be resolved. The first doubt is Augustine’s, who, in the place we just mentioned, left it in doubt whether demons (whom he supposes embodied in the aerial element) can suffer the lust of carnal pleasure and be affected and delighted by lustful intercourse with women. But one ought to answer without any doubt that demons are not of themselves susceptible to pleasures of this kind: for they are incorporeal, as we showed above in treating the second question. And even if they were corporeal, nevertheless, because they have no natural power of generating, nor the sense of touch (to which venereal delights pertain), they could not be titillated and stirred by the sensation of such pleasures. Finally, even if these were present in the demons, yet, since they have a nature diverse from man not only in species but also in genus, they would neither seek out nor perceive those pleasures from a human being; for we observe that both man and animals pursue such delights only in those that agree with them in species or in the nearest genus.9
Cur igitur, dicet aliquis, Daemones voluptatibus corporis gaudere ac delectari plurimum existimantur? Gaudent sane plurimum, verum non propter suam delectationem, sed propter hominis perniciem, qua vehementer gaudent. Norunt enim naturam hominis pronissimam esse ad voluptatem, eam vero illecebram esse cuiuslibet turpitudinis et improbitatis atque omnium malorum escam. Experti praeterea sunt viros, quantavis prudentia, probitate et gravitate praeditos, blanditiis voluptatum delinitos saepenumero esse corruptos et ad magna tractos flagitia.
Why, then, someone will say, are demons thought to rejoice and delight so greatly in the pleasures of the body? They do indeed rejoice greatly, but not on account of their own delight, but on account of man’s ruin, in which they vehemently rejoice. For they know that man’s nature is most prone to pleasure, and that this is the enticement of every baseness and wickedness, and the bait of all evils. They have, moreover, found by experience that men endowed with however great prudence, probity, and gravity, when soothed by the allurements of pleasures, have very often been corrupted and dragged into great crimes.10
Meminerunt etiam fortissimum omnium mortalium Samsonem, sapientissimumque Salomonem, etiam sanctissimum Davidem, voluptatis dulcedine inescatos, impurissimis flagitiis et gravissimis calamitatibus contaminatos et attritos esse.
They remember, too, that Samson, the strongest of all mortals, and Solomon, the wisest, and even David, the most holy, having been lured by the sweetness of pleasure, were defiled and worn down by the most impure crimes and the gravest calamities.11
Nec illud ignorant, vitium luxuriae quatuor rebus cetera vitia superare: amplitudine, diuturnitate, fecunditate et curationis difficultate. Haec enim labes voluptatis latissime diffusa est atque omne propemodum genus hominum complexa. Et quem semel ipsa corripuit, sic ei tenaciter adhaerescit ut vix unquam avelli queat. Videas multos voluptatibus, quas a pueritia sectati sunt, insenescere atque immori; et cum eos saepe deficiat facultas potiundae voluptatis, ardens tamen et usque ad rabiem vesana cupido nunquam deficit. Denique vitium hoc, inolitum atque inveteratum in animis hominum, difficillimam habet curationem: praeter naturalem hominis proclivitatem, etiam diuturna consuetudine corroboratum. Quid plura? Voluptas corporis innumerabilium malorum tum privatim tum publice seminarium est: propter hanc non unius tantum aut paucorum hominum, sed familiarum, civitatum, gentium, imperiorum, totius denique orbis terrarum clades et exitia contigerunt.
Nor are they ignorant that the vice of lust surpasses the other vices in four respects: in extent, in duration, in fruitfulness, and in difficulty of cure. For this taint of pleasure is most widely diffused and has embraced almost every kind of men. And whomever it once seizes, it clings to him so tenaciously that he can scarcely ever be torn away. You may see many grow old and die in the pleasures they have pursued from boyhood; and although the capacity for obtaining pleasure often fails them, yet their burning desire, mad even to the point of frenzy, never fails. Finally, this vice, ingrained and grown inveterate in the minds of men, is most difficult to cure: besides man’s natural proclivity, it is also strengthened by long habit. What more? Bodily pleasure is the seedbed of innumerable evils, both private and public: on its account have befallen the disasters and ruin not of one or a few men only, but of families, cities, nations, empires, and finally of the whole world.12
Daemones igitur libenter, non sua causa, muliebres voluptates expetunt et persequuntur, sed quo vehementius noceant homini, quem per eas voluptates multis et magnis sceleribus et calamitatibus inquinant, affligunt ac perdunt. Concubitum autem corporalem cum feminis sub virili specie, aut cum viris sub muliebri, propterea cupide expetunt et agunt Daemones, quod ea ratione novis et exquisitis blanditiis atque lenociniis incredibiliter homines inflammant ad libidinem, et voluptatibus obcaecatos ad quaecunque volunt flagitia pertrahunt. Altera dubitatio est: Utrum Daemon, per semen quod succubum agens ex viro accepit et postea tanquam incubus muliebri utero infudit, hominem generare queat?
Demons, therefore, willingly — not for their own sake — seek out and pursue women’s pleasures, but in order the more vehemently to harm man, whom through those pleasures they defile, afflict, and destroy with many and great crimes and calamities. And bodily intercourse with women under a male appearance, or with men under a female one, demons eagerly seek out and perform for this reason: that by this means, with novel and exquisite allurements and enticements, they incredibly inflame men to lust, and, having blinded them with pleasures, drag them to whatever crimes they wish. The second doubt is: whether a demon, by the seed which, acting as a succubus, it received from a man and afterward, as an incubus, infused into a woman’s womb, can generate a man?13
Posse id facere Daemonem, nonnunquam etiam facere, multorum sermonibus iactatum scriptisque proditum est. Nam si Daemonem seminales causas effectuum naturalium apte et opportune adhibendo effectus illos producere posse non dubitatur, et per Magos Pharaonis serpentes, sanguinem et ranas fecisse creditur, cur is non similiter hominem per semen humanum generare queat? Nec vero qui ex concubitu Daemonis generatur, is filius Daemonis haberi aut nominari debet, sed eius potius hominis cuius fuit semen per quod generatus est. Quemadmodum agricolae, pharmacopolae et chimistae, si physice ac proprie loquamur, non sunt effectores et auctores admirandorum effectuum qui eorum solertia, arte et industria ex abditissima naturae potentia quasi excuduntur. Hac de re multis in locis in libris De Trinitate et De Genesi ad litteram acute docteque disputat Augustinus.
That a demon can do this, and sometimes even does it, is bandied about in the talk of many and recorded in writings. For if it is not doubted that a demon, by aptly and opportunely applying the seminal causes of natural effects, can produce those effects — and it is believed that through the magicians of Pharaoh he made serpents, blood, and frogs — why should he not likewise be able to generate a man by human seed? Nor indeed ought he who is generated from the demon’s intercourse to be held or named the son of the demon, but rather of that man whose seed it was through which he was generated. Just as farmers, druggists, and alchemists, if we speak physically and properly, are not the makers and authors of the wondrous effects which, by their skill, art, and industry, are as it were forged out of the most hidden power of nature. On this matter Augustine disputes acutely and learnedly in many places in the books On the Trinity and On Genesis according to the Letter.14
Hanc opinionem tam vulgatam probatamque non est animus in praesentia oppugnare. Ingenue tamen fateor me olim eadem re multum dubitasse,...
It is not my intention at present to attack this opinion, so widespread and approved. Yet I frankly confess that I once doubted much about this same matter,…15
...dubitasse, et nunc vehementer ambigere. Ambigendi causa mihi non inutilis, ut puto, nec inanis haec fuit. Seminis virilis pars ea quae continet vim illam generatricem et prolificam plane velut aerea est, id est tenuissima, subtilissima, spumosa, vigensque tenuissimo calore dissimili caloris ignei, et calori syderum affini et cognato; quamobrem pars illa facillime dissipabilis et expirabilis est. Vereor igitur ut semen virile, extra vasa genitalia aut viri ubi generatur aut mulieris ubi receptum operatur generationem, aliquandiu manens vim illam prolificam conservet, ac non statim exhalet et perdat. Idem enim cogitare ac sentire licet de semine virili quod de spiritibus naturalibus, vitalibus et animalibus, qui extra humanum corpus nec generari a Daemone possunt nec integri et illibati conservari, ita ut refusi humano corpori efficaces sint naturalium suarum functionum. Audiat lector quae Aristoteles scribit libro secundo De generatione animalium capite tertio, ad huius enim sententiae probationem faciunt: Inest in semine omnium, inquit, quod facit ut fecunda sint semina, videlicet quod calor vocatur. Itaque non ignis, non talis facultas aliqua est, sed spiritus qui in semine spumosoque corpore continetur, et natura quae in eo spiritu est, proportione respondens elemento stellarum. Corpus autem geniturae, in quo semen animalis principii contentum una provenit, partim separabile a corpore (in quibus divina pars comprehenditur, qualis est quae mens appellatur), partim inseparabile; hoc, inquam, geniturae semen dissolvitur, versumque in spiritum evanescit, cum naturam humidam aquosamque habeat. Sic Aristoteles. Possem alia ad huius opinationis, vel (ut dicam verius) dubitationis confirmationem afferre; sed quia longiorem pudendae rei tractatum castae aures atque animi respuunt, meo et Lectoris pudori cedens, plura disserere supersedeo.
…and that now I greatly waver. The cause of my wavering has been, I think, neither useless nor empty. That part of the male seed which contains that generative and prolific power is plainly, as it were, aerial — that is, most thin, most subtle, foamy, and thriving with a most subtle heat unlike the heat of fire, and akin and cognate to the heat of the stars; wherefore that part is most easily dissipated and exhaled. I doubt, therefore, whether the male seed, outside the genital vessels — either of the man where it is generated, or of the woman where, once received, it works generation — could, remaining for any while, preserve that prolific power and not at once exhale and lose it. For one may think and judge the same about the male seed as about the natural, vital, and animal spirits, which outside the human body can neither be generated by a demon nor preserved whole and inviolate, such that, poured back into the human body, they would be effective in their natural functions. Let the reader hear what Aristotle writes in the second book of On the Generation of Animals, chapter three, for these things make for the proof of this opinion: “There is present in the seed of all things,” he says, “that which makes seeds fertile, namely what is called heat. And this is not fire, nor any such faculty, but the spirit (pneuma) which is contained in the seed and in the foamy body, and the nature which is in that spirit, corresponding by proportion to the element of the stars. But the body of the genitive matter, in which the seed of the animal principle is contained, comes forth together with it, partly separable from the body (in which is comprehended the divine part, such as is that which is called mind), partly inseparable; this seed of the genitive matter, I say, is dissolved and, turned into spirit, vanishes, since it has a moist and watery nature.” Thus Aristotle. I could bring forward other things for the confirmation of this opinion — or, to speak more truly, of this doubt; but because chaste ears and minds reject a longer treatment of a shameful matter, yielding to my own and the reader’s modesty, I forbear to discourse further.16
Tertia dubitatio. Cum corpus quod Daemon vel habet vel assumit sit ex aere, vel alia quapiam tenui et aeris non absimili materia confectum — quod scilicet, cum opus est, statim formari, et ubi opus esse desierit subito dissolvi queat — cum, inquam, tale sit corpus a Daemone assumptum, qui fieri potest ut non solum id aspectabile sit oculis, sed tactu etiam manibus tractabile ac palpabile ad modum corporis humani efficiatur? B. Augustinus in Enchiridio ad Laurentium cap. 59, difficile putans explicatu quomodo Angeli (idem autem in Daemonibus dici debet), cum corpore aereo constent, nonnunquam sic se hominibus manifestent ut non solum cernantur oculis sed etiam manibus tractentur; et rursus quomodo, si sunt corporei, intus in animo hominis loqui et operari possint — eam difficultatem a se propositam Augustinus eo loco in medio reliquit, nec uspiam alibi (quod equidem meminerim) eam discussit. Sic autem eo loco scribit Augustinus: Quis explicet cum qualibus corporibus Angeli apparuerint hominibus, ut non solum cernerentur verum etiam tangerentur? Et rursus, non solida corpulentia sed spiritali potentia quasdam dicant visiones, non oculis corporeis sed spiritualibus vel mentibus ingerant, vel...
The third doubt. Since the body which the demon either has or assumes is fashioned of air, or of some other thin matter not unlike air — which, namely, can, when there is need, be immediately formed, and, when the need has ceased, suddenly dissolved — since, I say, the body assumed by the demon is such, how can it come about that it is made not only visible to the eyes, but also, by touch, handleable and palpable with the hands after the manner of a human body? The blessed Augustine, in the Enchiridion to Laurentius, ch. 59, thinking it difficult to explain how the angels (and the same must be said of demons), although they consist of an aerial body, sometimes so manifest themselves to men that they are not only seen with the eyes but also handled with the hands; and again how, if they are corporeal, they can speak and operate within the soul of man — this difficulty, which he had proposed to himself, Augustine left in the middle in that place, nor anywhere else (so far as I recall) did he discuss it. Augustine writes thus in that place: “Who can explain with what sort of bodies the angels appeared to men, so as not only to be seen but even to be touched? And again, how, not by solid corpulence but by spiritual power, they present certain visions, not to the bodily eyes but to the spiritual eyes or to the minds, or…17
...aliquid non forinsecus sed intus in animo hominis, etiam ibidem ipsi constituti — sicut scriptum est in Prophetarum libro: Et dixit mihi Angelus qui loquebatur in me (non enim ait, qui loquebatur ad me, sed in me); vel appareant in somnis et colloquantur more somniorum. Habemus quippe in Evangelio: Ecce Angelus Domini apparuit illi in somnis dicens. His enim modis velut indicant se Angeli contrectabilia corpora non habere, faciuntque difficillimam quaestionem quomodo patres eis pedes laverint, quomodo Iacob cum Angelo tam solida contrectatione luctatus sit. Cum ista quaeruntur et ea sicut potest quisque coniectat, non inutiliter exercentur ingenia, si adhibeatur disceptatio moderata et absit error opinantium se scire quod nesciunt. Quid enim opus est ut haec atque huiusmodi affirmentur vel negentur vel definiantur cum discrimine, quando sine crimine nesciuntur? Haec Augustinus.
…[present] something not from without but within the soul of man, themselves also established there — as it is written in the book of the Prophets: ‘And the Angel that spoke in me said to me’ (for he does not say, ‘that spoke to me,’ but ‘in me’); or how they appear in dreams and converse after the manner of dreams. For we have in the Gospel: ‘Behold, the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying.’ For by these ways the angels in a manner indicate that they do not have palpable bodies, and they raise a most difficult question: how the patriarchs washed their feet, how Jacob wrestled with the Angel in so solid a grappling. When these things are inquired into, and each conjectures them as best he can, men’s wits are not unprofitably exercised, if a moderate debate be employed and there be absent the error of those who think they know what they do not know. For what need is there that these things and the like be affirmed or denied or defined at one’s peril, when without peril they are unknown?” Thus Augustine.18
Cui ea dubitatio propterea contigit, quod is Angelos et Daemones ex aeris elemento corporatos esse crederet; ex quo difficile erat intelligere quo pacto corpus aereum tangenti ipsum soliditatem et duritiem humani corporis repraesentare posset. Et illud difficilius erat ad intelligendum: si corporei erant Angeli, qua ratione intra hominem, vel in eius mente, vel in phantasia manere et operari possent. Nos autem haec difficultas minime premit: facimus enim Angelos et Daemones natura sua incorporeos, eosque arbitramur corpus assumere posse vel ex materia aerea vel ex crassa et solida, prout illi ab hominibus se vel cerni tantum vel etiam tangi posse volunt.
This doubt befell him because he believed that angels and demons are embodied from the element of air; from which it was difficult to understand how an aerial body could present to one touching it the solidity and hardness of a human body. And this was harder still to understand: if the angels were corporeal, by what means they could remain and operate within a man, either in his mind or in his imagination. But this difficulty does not press us at all: for we make angels and demons incorporeal by their own nature, and we judge that they can assume a body either of aerial matter or of gross and solid matter, according as they wish either to be merely seen by men or even to be touched.19
Sed age, positam supra dubitationem paucis expediamus. Potest Daemon ex aere vel alia simili materia densata fingere corpus simillimum humano, quantum ad molem, figuram, colorem, motum et vocem; atque hoc profecto nec difficilem habet intellectum et pronam fidem atque assensum habet. At vero ex aere vel alia materia tenui aeris consimili non potest a Daemone formari corpus referens soliditatem et alias qualitates tangibiles humani corporis. Quomodo enim corpus aereum referre potest ipsum tangenti soliditatem corporis humani, repraesentando sensui tactus molliciem carnis humanae, duritiem ossis, rigorem nervi et arteriae asperitatem? Necesse igitur erit corpus quod ista referat fingi ex crassiori et solidiori materia, quae secundum diversas partes dissimili modo temperata, in aliqua sui parte mollis, in alia dura, in aliis aspera et rigida sentiatur.
But come, let us in a few words resolve the doubt proposed above. A demon can, from air or other similar condensed matter, feign a body most like a human one as to bulk, figure, color, motion, and voice; and this indeed is not difficult to understand and readily wins belief and assent. But from air, or from other thin matter resembling air, a demon cannot form a body that reproduces the solidity and the other tangible qualities of a human body. For how can an aerial body present, to one touching it, the solidity of a human body, representing to the sense of touch the softness of human flesh, the hardness of bone, the rigidity of sinew, and the roughness of an artery? It will therefore be necessary that the body which represents these things be fashioned from grosser and more solid matter, which, tempered in different ways according to its different parts, is felt in one part of itself soft, in another hard, in others rough and rigid.20
Illud praeterea sine dubitatione dicere non verebor: non posse ab ullo Daemonum formari corpus adeo simile humano, ut, si quis cum cura et attentione animi id tangeret, non facile dignosceret ipsum non esse corpus humanum. Itaque Daemon, similitudine corporis oculos fallere [potest], tactus autem sensu omnino fallere non potest [?]. Hoc ego, quo apertius et certius lectori faciam, quatuor argumentis confirmabo. Atque id quidem primum eodem argumento probari potest quo argumento Dominus Iesus veritatem corporis sui post resurrectionem discipulis persuadere voluit. Nam cum repente stetisset in medio eorum, conterritis illis nec qui esset...
This, moreover, I shall not fear to say without hesitation: that no demon can form a body so like a human one that, if someone were to touch it with care and attention of mind, he would not easily discern that it is not a human body. And so a demon can deceive the eyes by the likeness of a body, but cannot wholly deceive the sense of touch [?]. This, that I may make it plainer and more certain to the reader, I shall confirm by four arguments. And the first of these can be proved by the same argument by which the Lord Jesus wished to persuade his disciples of the truth of his body after the resurrection. For when he had suddenly stood in the midst of them, while they were terrified and [did not know] who he was…21
...erat, sed spiritum cum corpore phantastico esse existimantibus, ad eam opinionem propulsandam Dominus dixit: Palpate et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere. Quibus verbis clare ostendit potuisse eos per sensum tactus sine errore explorare et certo deprehendere corpus ipsius non esse simulatum, sed verum corpus humanum. Et in illo Palpate et videte, illud videte non significat cognitionem oculorum, sed simpliciter evidentiam et certitudinem cognitionis, secundum consuetudinem divinae scripturae, in qua frequenter usurpatur verbum videndi prout significat certam et indubitatam cognitionem cuiuslibet sensus, atque adeo etiam ipsius intellectus. Unde illud quod est in psalmo trigesimo tertio, Gustate et videte quoniam suavis est Dominus, sic interpretari et intelligere convenit: Nulla re evidentius et certius cognoscetis suavitatem Dei quam eam gustando, id est experiendo.
…[supposing him] to be a spirit with a phantom body — to repel that opinion the Lord said: “Handle and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have.” By these words he clearly shows that they could, through the sense of touch, explore without error and ascertain with certainty that his body was not feigned, but a true human body. And in that phrase “Handle and see,” the word “see” does not signify knowledge by the eyes, but simply the evidence and certainty of knowledge, according to the usage of divine Scripture, in which the verb “to see” is frequently used to signify the sure and undoubted knowledge of any sense, and even of the intellect itself. Hence that saying in the thirty-third psalm, “Taste and see that the Lord is sweet,” it is fitting to interpret and understand thus: By nothing will you know the sweetness of God more evidently and certainly than by tasting it, that is, by experiencing it.22
Ex his apparet non posse Daemonem corpus fingere adeo simile corpori humano ut non possit per sensum tactus internosci a vero corpore hominis; alioqui verba illa Domini, Palpate et videte quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, veram certamque sententiam non haberent. Deinde mollicies carnis humanae, durities ossis et huiusmodi aliae qualitates tangibiles, ille praeterea tepor et vitalis ac suavis calor qui tactu sentitur in carne viva, denique temperies ipsa corporis et singularum partium eius — haec, inquam, propria sunt hominis vivi, nec ab alio principio proficisci possunt quam vel a facultate generatrice, quae ab initio humanum corpus finxit atque temperavit, vel ab ipsa anima quae ea conservat, et si quando labantur ac deficiant reparare ac reficere potest. Quo licet intelligere extra corpus humanum, hoc est praeter facultatem formatricem corporis humani aut praeter ipsam animam, a nulla alia causa naturali, qualiscumque sit, ea posse effici talia qualia sentiuntur esse in corpore hominis vivi; non igitur Daemon in corpore assumpto ea poterit sensui tactus repraesentare.
From these things it appears that a demon cannot feign a body so like a human body that it could not be distinguished, through the sense of touch, from a true human body; otherwise those words of the Lord, “Handle and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones,” would not be a true and certain statement. Next, the softness of human flesh, the hardness of bone, and other tangible qualities of this kind; and besides, that warmth and the vital and pleasant heat which is felt by touch in living flesh; and finally the very tempering of the body and of its several parts — these, I say, are proper to a living man, and can proceed from no other principle than either the generative faculty, which from the beginning fashioned and tempered the human body, or the soul itself, which preserves these and, if at any time they slip and fail, can repair and restore them. Whence one may understand that outside the human body — that is, apart from the formative faculty of the human body, or apart from the soul itself — no other natural cause whatever can produce such things as are felt to be in the body of a living man; therefore the demon, in an assumed body, will not be able to present them to the sense of touch.23
Adhaec, si quis attente et curiose tangeret cadaver hominis recens mortui, etiamsi calidum, statim cognosceret tamen ex tactu corpus illud non esse hominis viventis; non enim sentiret illam molliciem carnis, illum suavem ac vitalem teporem, et alia quae in corpore vivo sentiuntur; cum tamen illud corpus mortuum secundum substantiam idem esset quod erat antea vivum, omniaque eius membra quantum ad molem, figuram, numerum, substantiam multasque qualitates eadem prorsus essent atque fuerant in corpore vivo. Quanto igitur facilius et certius corpus a Daemone assumptum deprehendi potest, si quis cum attentione et cura ipsum tangat, non esse verum corpus hominis viventis, cum illud diversam ab hoc substantiam, diversas item quae propriae sunt corporis viventis qualitates habeat?
Besides, if someone were to touch attentively and carefully the corpse of a recently dead man, even while still warm, he would nevertheless at once recognize from the touch that that body is not a living man’s; for he would not feel that softness of flesh, that sweet and vital warmth, and the other things felt in a living body — even though that dead body were, in substance, the same as it had been when alive, and all its members, as to bulk, figure, number, substance, and many qualities, were exactly the same as they had been in the living body. How much more easily and certainly, then, can a body assumed by a demon be detected — if someone touch it with attention and care — not to be a true body of a living man, since it has a substance diverse from this, and qualities likewise diverse from those that are proper to a living body?24
Dices: Quomodo igitur Abraam, lavando pedes Angelorum, non agnovit corpus quod tangebat non esse humanum? Nimirum quia, iam ea persuasione occupato eius animo quod viri essent quos viderat, non...
You will say: How, then, did Abraham, in washing the feet of the angels, not recognize that the body he was touching was not human? Doubtless because, his mind being already preoccupied with the persuasion that those whom he had seen were men, he did not…25
...attendit animum ad id explorandum; et quia, lavando, sensit mollitiem quandam et duritiem qualis in pedibus humanis sentiri solet, in priori existimatione permansit.
…direct his mind to investigating it; and because, in washing, he felt a certain softness and hardness such as is wont to be felt in human feet, he remained in his former opinion.26
Postremo, experimentis multorum qui Daemones in corporibus humanis viderunt et contrectaverunt, compertum est corpora in quibus apparent Daemones esse tactu frigida et aspera, ac longe diversa ratione quam verum corpus hominis viventis sensum tactus afficere. Narrat Alexander ab Alexandro libro 2 Genialium dierum cap. 9 cuidam in hospitio quiescenti, sed vigilanti tamen, repente visum esse spectrum (ut ipse putabat) cuiusdam amici sui nuper defuncti, summo pallore et macie ac eo fere habitu oris quali eum cum aegrotaret dimiserat. Ille, quamvis timore perterritus, quisnam esset tamen interrogavit. At spectrum nihil respondens, exutis ut videbatur vestibus, in eodem lecto decubuit ac prope accessit quasi eum amplexaturum. Ille vero, prope iam metu exanimis, ad lectuli spondam secedens, accedentem ad se abegit. Spectrum, cum se videret expelli, fertur eum torvo vultu aspexisse, resumptisque vestibus e lectulo surrexisse, cinctumque et calceatum abiisse. Sed ille subita vi morbi correptus ac prope ad internecionem gravissima valetudine oppressus est. Ferebat ille, dum in lectulo cum illo spectro luctaretur, nudum eius pedem adeo gelidum ac rigentem attrectasse ut nulla glacies frigori eius pedis comparari possit.
Lastly, by the experiences of many who have seen and handled demons in human bodies, it has been ascertained that the bodies in which demons appear are cold and rough to the touch, and affect the sense of touch in a manner far different from a true body of a living man. Alexander ab Alexandro relates, in book 2 of the Genial Days, ch. 9, that to a certain man resting at an inn — yet awake — there suddenly appeared the specter (as he thought) of a certain friend of his lately deceased, of the utmost pallor and leanness, and with nearly the same cast of countenance as when he had left him sick. He, though terrified with fear, nevertheless asked who he was. But the specter, answering nothing, having (as it seemed) taken off its clothes, lay down on the same bed and drew near as if to embrace him. He, however, now nearly lifeless with fear, withdrawing to the edge of the bed, drove off the one approaching him. The specter, when it saw itself being expelled, is said to have looked at him with a grim countenance, and, having put its clothes back on, to have risen from the bed and, girded and shod, departed. But that man was seized by a sudden onset of disease and oppressed almost to death by a most grievous sickness. He used to report that, while he wrestled in the bed with that specter, he had handled its bare foot so icy and stiff that no ice could be compared to the cold of that foot.27
Cardanus libro 16 De Varietate rerum sub finem capitis nonagesimi tertii commemorat quod ab ipso contigit: cubanti sibi in lecto (erat autem in eodem cubiculo quidam adolescens eius amicus) astitisse Daemonem prima nocte, et crebro ictu parietem percussisse. Admiranti quid illud esset, respondisse adolescentem ne timeret, Daemonem enim esse familiarem, de numero eorum quos vulgo Folletos appellant. Ubi siluit spatio mediae horae, sensisse se vertici suo imponi ab eo digitum pollicem, idque ex frigore, non enim manum comprimebat; deinde superposuisse indicem, tum medium, post reliquos, ita ut minimum ad frontem usque porrigeret. Fuisse autem manum eius adeo frigidam ut non exiguam sibi molestiam afferret. Interim gaudebat Cardanus oblatam sibi occasionem rei tam mirae cognoscendae. Sensim proripit se manus illa in faciem, et super nasum descendens (erat autem sinistra manus, ut ex positu eius coniicere potuit) tandem in os ingreditur, intrusis extremis duorum digitorum. Sed ille, suspicatus ne forsan corpus suum ingredi vellet, dextra sua illum abegit. Siluit dimidio horae; rursus affuit, sed levius omnia peregit quam prius — verum non adeo leniter ut non immensum frigus suum detegeret. Illud porro mirum erat, quod cum facies et dentes frigiditatem digitorum sentirent, labia tamen exquisite compressa connivebant; ut ex hoc intelligeretur corpus illud fuisse aereum. Hactenus quae ad rem praesentem pertinebant ex Cardano retuli.
Cardano, in book 16 of On the Variety of Things, toward the end of chapter ninety-three, recounts what happened to himself: that as he lay in bed (there was, moreover, in the same chamber a certain young man, his friend), a demon stood by him on the first night and struck the wall with frequent blows. When he wondered what it was, the young man answered that he should not be afraid, for it was a familiar demon, of the number of those whom the common people call “Folletti.” When it had fallen silent for the space of half an hour, he felt a thumb laid on the crown of his head by it — and that from the cold, for it did not press the hand; then it laid on the index finger, then the middle, then the rest, so that the little finger reached all the way to his forehead. And its hand was so cold that it caused him no small discomfort. Meanwhile Cardano rejoiced at the occasion offered him of learning a thing so marvelous. Gradually that hand glides onto his face, and, descending over the nose (it was the left hand, as he could conjecture from its position), at last enters the mouth, the tips of two fingers being thrust in. But he, suspecting lest perhaps it wished to enter his body, drove it off with his right hand. It fell silent for half an hour; again it was present, but did everything more lightly than before — yet not so gently as to keep from disclosing its immense cold. This, moreover, was remarkable: that although the face and teeth felt the coldness of the fingers, the lips, exquisitely pressed, nevertheless closed [against them]; so that from this it might be understood that that body was aerial. Thus far I have reported from Cardano what pertained to the present matter.28
Verum ad id confirmandum quod hic docere institui, non esse...
But to confirm that which I have here undertaken to teach — that it is not…29
...difficile cognitu per sensum tactus discrimen corporis a Daemone assumpti et veri corporis humani, facit plurimum quod a Caietano in Commentariis suis super Secundam secundae Beati Thomae quaestione 95 articulo tertio proditum est. Id profecto dignum mihi visum est quod nec a me silentio praeteriretur, nec a lectore oscitanter, sed cum cura et animadversione legeretur. Disputans ille de apparitionibus Daemonum in assumptis corporibus, iisque ad similitudinem corporis humani formatis, ad hunc ferme modum scribit: Frequenter accidit ut Daemones in assumptis corporibus humanis appareant vigilantibus, conversantes cum eis familiariter, non quidem habentes veras carnes nec vera ossa, sed eorum tantum similitudinem, non modo visibilem sed etiam palpabilem et solidam, ut a multis fide dignis ex propria experientia narrantibus audivi. In duobus tamen accepi deficere eos ab humanis corporibus: primo, in temperamento carnis; nam confessus est ipse mendacii pater, cum eius caro quasi glacialis molesta esset tactui humanae carnis, se non posse melius facere. Non enim potest sic miscere naturalia absque vera generatione hominis ut carnem humanam efficiat; et simili ratione non potest semen humanum efficere, propter perfectionem horum et similium effectuum requirentium propria naturalia activa perfecta. Et hinc patet verissimum esse quod Christus post resurrectionem dixit discipulis: Palpate et videte, quia spiritus (seu daemonium) carnem et ossa non habet. Secundo deficit corpus Daemonis a corpore humano in delectatione tactus et concubitus; est enim naturalis commixtio personarum humanarum tanto delectabilior quam Daemonis in corpore assumpto, quanto verum excedit verisimile. Haec Caietanus. Sed hic terminanda est tripartita haec disputatio de Angelis et Daemonibus, ob eam causam paulo subtilius et fusius a nobis tractata, ut veritas illius nobilissimae sententiae Mosis de filiorum Dei commixtione cum filiabus hominum, discussa omni falsarum et foedarum opinionum caligine quae inscitia multorum ei fuerat offusa, liquido cerneretur.
…difficult to discern through the sense of touch the difference between a body assumed by a demon and a true human body, there contributes greatly what was set forth by Cajetan in his Commentaries on the Second Part of the Second Part of the blessed Thomas, question 95, article three. This indeed seemed to me worthy neither to be passed over by me in silence, nor to be read drowsily by the reader, but with care and attention. Disputing about the apparitions of demons in assumed bodies, formed to the likeness of the human body, he writes roughly thus: “It frequently happens that demons appear in assumed human bodies to those who are awake, conversing with them familiarly — not indeed having true flesh nor true bones, but only the likeness of them, not only visible but also palpable and solid, as I have heard from many trustworthy persons relating it from their own experience. In two things, however, I have learned that they fall short of human bodies: first, in the tempering of the flesh; for the father of lies himself confessed, when his flesh, being as it were icy, was troublesome to the touch of human flesh, that he could not do better. For he cannot so mix natural things, without a true generation of a man, as to produce human flesh; and for a like reason he cannot produce human seed, because of the perfection which these and similar effects require — namely, proper, perfect natural active [powers]. And from this it is plain that most true is what Christ said to his disciples after the resurrection: ‘Handle and see, for a spirit (or demon) hath not flesh and bones.’ Secondly, the body of a demon falls short of a human body in the delight of touch and intercourse; for the natural union of human persons is more delightful than that of a demon in an assumed body by as much as the true exceeds the merely lifelike.” Thus Cajetan. But here this threefold disputation about angels and demons must be ended — treated by us a little more subtly and at length for this cause: that the truth of that most noble statement of Moses concerning the mingling of the sons of God with the daughters of men might be clearly discerned, once all the fog of false and foul opinions, which the ignorance of many had spread over it, was dispelled.30

Translator’s notes

  1. Heading of the Third Disputation. ↩
  2. §63: the question stated; Augustine’s much-cited testimony. Margin: Augustine (City of God 15.23). ↩
  3. §64: definitions of incubus and succubus; the decretal of Innocent VIII; further examples (passed over for modesty). Margins: Innocent VIII; Cardano (bk. 16, ch. 93); Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, bk. 4, ch. 8. ↩
  4. §65: Tostatus on incubi/succubi and the begetting of Merlin. (In the original the long quotation is scrambled across the column/margin layout; restored here to reading order.) Margins: Tostatus (on Genesis 6, q. 6); ‘The begetting of Merlin, the English seer, by an incubus demon.’ ↩
  5. §66: the demon-incubi reading (Hugh of St. Victor, the Master of the Scholastic History), refuted by Lyra but defended by Paul of Burgos via the etymology of ‘Nephilim.’ Margins: Hugh of St. Victor; Master of the Scholastic History; Nicholas of Lyra; Paul of Burgos. ↩
  6. §67 (continues on p. 100): Pererius answers — Burgos errs in three ways; first, on the etymology of ‘Nephilim.’ ↩
  7. §67 (continued from p. 99): the Hebrews refer ‘Nephilim’ to the giants, not to demons; and the ‘sons of God’ are called Benelohim, not Nephilim. ↩
  8. §68: Burgos’s argument from the etymology collapses, and Augustine’s authority destroys rather than supports his view. Margins: ‘Augustine did not understand incubus demons by the sons of God, as Burgos foisted on him’; Augustine, City of God 15.23. ↩
  9. §69: the three sub-doubts announced; the first (Augustine’s) — can demons feel carnal pleasure? Answer: no. Margins: ‘Demons by their own nature are not affected by venereal pleasure.’ ↩
  10. §70 (continues on p. 101): why, then, are demons thought to delight in bodily pleasures? Because they rejoice in man’s ruin. Margin: ‘Why demons rejoice in venereal pleasures.’ ↩
  11. §70 (continued from p. 100): Samson, Solomon, and David as warnings. Margins: Judg. 14; 3 Kings (1 Kings) 11; 2 Kings (2 Samuel) 11. ↩
  12. §71: lust surpasses other vices in four respects. Margin: ‘The vice of lust is more detestable than other vices in four respects.’ ↩
  13. §72: demons therefore seek these unions to harm man, not for their own pleasure; and the second sub-doubt is stated. Margins: ‘Why demons willingly act as incubi and succubi’; ‘Whether a demon can generate a man by male seed.’ ↩
  14. §73: the affirmative is widely reported (the demon applies natural seminal causes, as the magicians of Pharaoh did). Margins: Exod. 7; Exod. 8; Augustine (On the Trinity; On Genesis according to the Letter). ↩
  15. §74 (continues on p. 102): Pererius declines to attack this common opinion outright, but confesses his own long-standing doubt. ↩
  16. §74 (continued from p. 101): the ground of his doubt — male seed loses its prolific power outside the body; with the Aristotle passage. Margins: ‘A doubt whether a man can be generated from the intercourse of a demon with a woman’; ‘A notable opinion of Aristotle.’ ↩
  17. §75 (continues on p. 103): the third sub-doubt — how an assumed aerial body can be made tangible like a human one; Augustine’s acknowledged difficulty. Margins: ‘How a demon can assume a body not only visible but tangible like a human body’; Augustine (Enchiridion, ch. 59). ↩
  18. §75 (continued from p. 102): the rest of Augustine’s quotation. Margins: Zach. 1; Mal. (Malachi); Gen. 32. ↩
  19. §76: Augustine’s difficulty arose from his belief that angels and demons are aerially embodied; Pererius, holding them incorporeal, is not troubled by it. ↩
  20. §77: Pererius’s own resolution — a demon can feign a body like a human one in size, figure, color, motion, and voice, but cannot from air represent true solidity and tangible qualities. Margins: ‘The author’s opinion’; ‘A demon cannot form an aerial body like a human one to the touch.’ ↩
  21. §78 (continues on p. 104): no demon can form a body so like a human one as to deceive careful touch; the first proof (from Christ’s risen body, Luke 24) begins and breaks off. Margins: ‘A demon cannot form a body that cannot be detected by the sense of touch to be a human body’; ‘The passage of Luke, last chapter.’ ↩
  22. §78 (continued from p. 103): the first proof completed — Christ’s ‘Handle and see’ (Luke 24). Margin: Ps. 33. ↩
  23. §79: the living body’s tangible qualities come only from the formative faculty or the soul, which a demon lacks. ↩
  24. §80: even a fresh corpse is detectable by touch as not living — so much more an assumed body. ↩
  25. §81 (continues on p. 105): the objection from Abraham washing the angels’ feet (Gen. 18). Margins: ‘An objection’; Gen. 18. ↩
  26. §81 (continued from p. 104): the answer to the Abraham objection. ↩
  27. §82: the bodies in which demons appear are felt as cold and rough — the anecdote of Alexander ab Alexandro. Margins: ‘The bodies of demons are felt by one touching them as cold’; Alexander ab Alexandro (Genial Days, bk. 2, ch. 9). ↩
  28. §83: Cardano’s own experience with a ‘Folletto.’ Margin: Cardano (bk. 16, end of ch. 93). ↩
  29. §84 (continues on p. 106): the corroboration from Cajetan begins. ↩
  30. §84 (continued from p. 105): Cajetan’s testimony (on ST 2-2, q. 95, a. 3) and the close of the three disputations. Margins: Luke 24; Cajetan. ↩