I. L.

May 1875.
The foregoing advertisement was composed at the printer’s, and ready for the press, when, strolling on the quays (i), I met by chance with a copy of the Index librorum prohibito- rum: I mechanically opened it, and the first
(i) Paris Embankment.
XII
thing that struck my eyes was the following article :
De Ameno Ludovicus Maria. Vide Sinistrari.
My heart throbbed fast, I must confess. Was I at last on the trace of my author ! Was it Demo- niality that I was about to see nailed to the pillory of the Index? I flew to the last pages of the formidable volume, and read :
Sinistrari (Ludovicus Maria) de Ameno, De Delictis et Pcenis Tractatus absolutissimus. Donee corrigatur. Decret. 4 Martii 1709.
Correctus autem juxta editionem Romanam anni 1753 permitlitur.
It was indeed he. The real name of the Father of Ameno was Sinistrari, and I was in possession of the title of one at least of those « serious works » which Brunet the biblio- grapher alluded to. The very title, De Delictis et Poenis, was not unconnected with that of my manuscript, and I had reason to presume that Demoniality was one of the offenses in- quired into, and decided upon, by Father Sini- strari; in other words, that manuscript, to all appearances inedited, was perhaps published in the extensive work revealed to me; perhaps even was it to that monographyof Demoniality that the Tractatus de Delictis et Poenis owed its condemnation by the Congregation of the Index. All those points required looking into.
XIll —
But.it is necessary to have attempted inves- tigations of that kind in order to appreciate the difficulties thereof. I consulted the cata- logues of ancient books that came in my way; I searched the back-shops of the dealers in old books, the antiquaries, as they say in Ger- many, addressing especially to the two or three firms who in Paris apply themselves to old Theology ; I wrote to the principal booksellers in London, Milan, Florence, Rome, Naples : all to no purpose; the very name of Father Sinistrari of Ameno seemed to be unknown. I should perhaps have begun by enquiring at our National Library ; I was obliged to resort to it, and there at least I obtained an incipient gratification. I was shown two works by my author : a quarto of 1704, De incorrigibilium expulsione ab Ordinibiis Regularibus, and the first tome of a set of his complete works : R. P. Ludovici Marice Sinistrari de Ameno Opera omnia [Romce, in domo Caroli Giannini, i753-[754, ,3 vol. in-folio). Unfortunately that first tome contained but the Practica Crimi- nalis Minorum illustrata; De Delictis et Poenis was the subject matter of the third to me, which, as well as the second, was missing at the Library.
Yet, I had a positive indication, and I pursued my investigations. I might be more fortunate at the Library of St Sulpice Seminary. True,
XIV
it is not open to the public ; but then, the Sulpician Fathers are hospitable : did they not of yore atford a refuge to repentant Des Grieux, and did not Manon Lescaut herself tread the flags of their parlour ? I therefore ventured into the holy House ; it was half past twelve, dinner was nearly over; I asked for the librarian, and after a few minutes, I saw coming to me a short old man, unexceptionably civil, who, leading me through the common parlour, in- troduced me into another much narrower, a mere cell, looking into a gallery and glazed full breadth, being thus exposed to every eye. An ingenious provision of which Des Grieux’s escape had fully shown the urgency. I had no small trouble in explaining the object of my visit to the good Father, who was deaf and near sighted. He left me to go to the library, and soon returned, but empty handed: there also, in that sanctuary of Catholic Theology, Father Sinistrari of Ameno was entirely unknown. But one more expedient could I try : namely, to go to his brothers in St Francis, the Capuchin Fathers, in their convent of rue de la Santd! A cruel extremity, it will be grant- ed, for I had but little chance of meeting there, as here, the lovely shadow of Manon.
At last a letter from Milan put an end to my perplexity. The unfindable book was found ; I received at the same time the first
edition of De Deliciis et Pcenis {Venetiis, apud Hieronymum Albricium, 1700), and the edition q{ Rome, 1754.
It was a complete treatise, tractatus absolu- tissimus, upon all imaginable crimes, offenses and sins ; but, let us hasten to say, in both those voluminous folios, Demoniality occupies scarcely five pages, without any difference in the text between the two editions. And those five pages are not even a summary of the ma- nuscript work which I now give forth ; they only contain the proposition and conclusion I to 27 and 112 to 1 1 5). As for that whe- rein lies the originality of the book, to wit the theory of rational animals, Incubi and Succubi, endowed like ourselves with a body and soul, and capable of receiving salvation and damna- tion, it were vain to look for it.
Thus, after so many endeavours, I had set- tled all the points which I had intended to elucidate : I had discovered the identity of the Father of Ameno(i); from the comparison of the two editions of De Deliciis et Poenis, the first condemned, the second allowed by the Congregation of the Index, I had gathered that the printed fragments of Demoniality had nothing to do v/ith the condemnation of the
(i) Vide biographical notice at the end of this vo- lume.
XVI
book, since they had not been submitted to any correction; lastly, I had become convinced that, save a few pages, my manuscript was absolutely inedited. A happy event of a biblio- graphical Odyssey which I shall be excused for relating at length, for the « jollification » of bibliophiles « and none other ».
Isidore Liseux.
August 1875.
DEMONIALITY
O R
INCUBI AND SUCCUBI
D^MONIALITAS
ocABULUM DEemonialitatis inventum reperio a Jo. Cara-‘ muele in sua Theologia funda- mentali, nec ante ilium inveni Auctorem, qui de hoc crimine tanquam distincto a Bestialitate locutus sit. Omnes enim Theologi Morales, secuti D. Thomam, 2.2., q. 154. in corp., sneeze Bestiali- tatis recensent omnem concubitum cum re non ejusdem speciei, ut ibi loquitur D. Tho- mas ; et proinde Cajetanus, in Commenta- rio illius queestionis et articuli,i.2., q. 154., ad 3. dub., coitum cum Deemone ponit in specie Bestialitatis ; et Cajetanum sequitur Silvester, v“ Luxuria, Bonacina, de Matrim., q. 4., et alii.
DEMONIALITY
HE first author who, to my knowledge, invented the word Demoniality is John Caramuel, in his Fundamental Theology, and before him I find no one who distin- guished that crime from Bestiality. Indeed, all Theological Moralists, following in the train of S. Thomas (2, 2, question 1S4], include, under the specific title of Bestia- lity, « every kind of carnal intercourse with any thing whatever of a different species » : such are the very words used by S. Thomas. Cajetanus, for instance, in his commentary on that question, classes in- tercourse with the Demon under the des- cription of Bestiality, so does Sylvester, de
4
Daemonialitas
2. Sed revera D. Thomas in illo loco con- siderationem non habuitad coitum cum Dce- mone : ut enim infra probabimus, hie coitus non potest in specie specialissima Bestiali- tatis comprehendi ; et ut veritati coheereat sententia S. Doctoris, dicendum est, quod in citato loco, quando ait, quod peccatum contra naturam, alio modo si fiat per con- cubitum ad rem non ejusdem speciei, vo- catur Bestialitas: sub nomine rei non ejus- detn speciei intellexerit animal vivens, non ejusdem speciei cum homine: non enim usur- pare potuit ibi nomen rei pro re, puta, ente communi ad animatum et inanimatum : si enim quis coiret cum cadavere humano, concubitum haberet ad rem non ejusdem speciei cum homine (maxime apud Thomis- tas, qui formam corporeitatis humance ne- gant in cadavere), quod etiam esset si cada~ veri bestiali copularetur ; et tamen talis coitus non esset bestialitas, sed mollities. Voluit igitur ibi D. Thomas prcecise intel- ligere concubitum cum re vivente non ejus- dem speciei cum homine, hoc est cum bruto, nullo autem modo comprehendere voluit coi- tum cum Deemone.
Demoniality 5
Luxuria, Bonacina, de Matrimonio, ques- tion 4, and others.
2. However it is clear that in the above passage S. Thomas did not at all allude to intercourse with the Demon. As shall be demonstrated further on, that intercourse cannot be included in the very particular species of Bestiality; and, in order to make that sentence of the holy Doctor tally with truth, it must be admitted that when saying of the unnatural sin, « that committed through intercourse with a thing of different species, it takes the name of Bestiality », S. Thomas, by a thing of dif- ferent species, means a living animal, of another species than man : for he could not here use the word thing in its most general sense, to mean indiscriminately an animate or inanimate being. In fact, if a man should fornicate cum cadavere hu- mane, he would have to do with a thing of a species quite different from his own (especially according to the Thomists, who deny the form of human corporeity in a corpse); similarly si cadaveri bestiali copu- laretur : and yet, talis coitus would not be bestiality, but pollution. What therefore S. Thomas intended here to specify with preciseness, is carnal intercourse with a
6
Dsemonialitas
3. Coitus igitur cum Dcemone, sive In- cubo, sive Succubo {qui proprie est Doemo- nialitas), specie differt a Bestialitate , nec cum ea facit unam speciem specialissimam, ut opinatus est Cajetanus : peccata enim contra naturam specie inter se distingui contra opinionem nonnullorum Antiquorum. • et Caramuelis, Summ., Armill., v. Luxur., n. 5., Jabien., eo. v. n.6., Asten. lib. 2. tit. 46. art.y.^ Caram. Theol.fundam. liucium, et Crespinum a Borgia, est opinio communis ; et contraria est damnata in proposit. 24. ex damnatis ab Alexandro VII.; turn quia singula continent peculiarem, et distinctam turpitudinem repugnantem cas- titati, et humance generationi ; turn quia quodlibet ex Us privat bono aliquo secundum naturam, et institutionem actus venerei , ordinati ad jinem generationis humance; turn quia quodlibet ipsorum habet diversum motivum, per se sufficiens ad privandum eodem bono diversimode, ut optime philoso- phatur Filliuc., tom. 2. c. 8. tract. 3o. q. 3. n° 142; Cresp., q. mor. sel. contro.; Cara- muel., q. 5. per tot.
7
Demoniality
living thing of a species different from man, that is to say, with a beast, and he never in the least thought of intercourse with the Demon.
3. Therefore, intercourse with the De- mon, whether Incubus or Succubus (which is, properly speaking, Demoniality), differs in kind from Bestiality, and does not in connexion with it form one very particular species, as Cajetanus wrongly gives it; for, whatever may have said to the contrary some Ancients, and later Caramuel in his Fundamental Theology, unnatural sins differ from each other most distinctly. Such at least is the general doctrine, and the contrary opinion has been condemned by Alexander VII: first, because each of those sins carries with itself its peculiar and distinct disgrace, repugnant to chastity and to human generation ; secondly, be- cause the commission thereof entails each time the sacrifice of some good by its nature attached to the institution of the venereal act, the normal end of which is human generation; lastly, because they each have a different motive which in itself is suffi- cient to bring about, in divers ways, the deprivation of the same good, as has been
8
Dasmonialitas
4. Ex his autem in/ertur, quod etiam Dxmonialitas specie differt a Bestialitate : singula enim ipsarum peculiarem et dis- tinctam turpitudinem, castitati ac humancs generationi repugnantem, involvit ; siquidem Bestialitas est copula cum bruto vivente , ac sensibus et motu proprio prcedito : Dce- monialitas autem est commixtio cum cada- vere [stando in sententia communi, quam infra examinabimus ), nec sensum , nec motum vitalem habente; et per accidens est^ quod a Dcemone moveatur. Quod si immun- ditia commissa cum brutali cadavere, vel humano, differt specie a Sodomia et Bestiali- tate, ab ista differt pariter specie etiam Daemonialitas , in qua, juxta communem sententiam, homo cum cadavere concumbit accidentaliter moto.
5. Et confirmatur : quia in peccatis con- tra naturam, seminatio innaturalis (hoc est, ea ad quam regulariter non potest sequi ge- neratio) habet rationem generis ; subjec- tum vero talis seminationis est differentia constituens species [sub tali genere : unde si seminatio fat in terram , aut corpus ina- nime, est mollities; si fat cum homine in
Demoniality g
clearly shown by Fillucius, Crespinus and Caramuel.
r
4. It follows that Demoniality differs in kind from Bestiality, for each has its pe- culiar and distinct disgrace, repugnant to chastity and human generation. Bestiality is connexion with a living beast, endowed with its own peculiar senses and impulses; Demoniality, on the contrary, is copulation with a corpse (according at least to the ge- neral doctrine which shall be considered hereafter), a senseless and motionless corpse which is but accidentally moved through the power of the Demon. Now, if fornica- tion with the corpse of a man, a woman, or a beast differs in kind from Sodomy and Bestiality, there is the same difference with regard to Demoniality, which, according to general opinion, is the intercourse of man with a corpse accidentally set in motion.
5. Another proof : in sins against na- ture, the unnatural semination (which cannot be regularly followed by generation) is a genus; but the object of such semina- tion is the difference which marks the species under the genus. Thus, whether semination takes place on the ground, or on an inanimate body, it is pollution; if
10
Daemonialitas
vase prcepostero, est Sodotnia ; si fiat cum bruto, est bestialitas : quce absque contro- versia inter se specie differunt , eo quod terra, seu cadaver, homo , et brutum, quce sunt subjecta talis seminationis , specie dif- ferunt inter se. Sed Dcemon a bruto non solum differt 'specie, sed plusquam specie ; differunt enim per corporeum , et incorpo- reum, qua; 'sunt differentice genericce. Se- quitur ergo quod seminationes factce cum aliis differunt inter se specie, quod est in- tentum. '
6. Pariter, trita est doctrina Moralista- rum fundata in Trident ino,sess. 14, c. 5.[Z). Th. in 4. dist. 16. q. 3. art. 2., Vasque:^, gi. art. i. dub. 2. n. 6., Reginald. Va- len^. Medin. Zerola. Pesant. Sajir. Sott. Pitig. Henrique\ apud Bonac. de Sac. disp. 5. q. 5. sect. 2.punct. 2. 3. dijfic. 3. n. 5.,
et tradita per Theologos , quod in confes- sione manifestandce sint tantum circum- stantice quce mutant speciem peccatorum. Si igitur Dcemonialitas et Bestialitas sunt ejus- dem speciei specialissimce , sufficit in con- fessione dicere : Bestialitatis peccatum com- misi, quantumvis confitens cum Dcemone
Demoniality 1 1
cum homine in vase prcepostero^ it is So- domy; with a beast, bestiality : crimes which unquestionably all differ from each other in species, just as the ground, the corpse, the man and the beast, passive objects talis seminationis, differ in species from each other. But the difference between the Demon and the beast is not only spe- cific, it is more than specific : the nature of the one is corporeal, of the other incor- poreal, which makes a generic difference. Whence it follows that seminationes prac- tised on different objets differ in species from each other : and that is substan- tiated.
6, It is also a trite doctrine with Mora- lists, established by the Council of Trent, session 14, and admitted by Theologians* that in confession it suffices to state the circumstances which alter the species of sins. If therefore Demoniality and Bestia- lity belonged to the same very particular species, it would be enough that* each time he has fornicated with the Demon, the penitent should say to his confessor : I have been guilty of the sin of Bestiality. But that is not so : therefore those two sins do not both belong to the same very par- ticular species.
12
Dasmonialitas
concubuerit. Hoc autem falsum est : igitur non sunt ejusdem speciei specialissimcs.
7. Qiiod si dicatur, aperiendum esse in confessione ciraimstantiam concubitus cum Dcemone ratione peccati contra Religio- nem : peccatum contra Religionem com- mittitur, aut ex cultu, aut ex reverentia, aiit ex deprecatione , aut ex pacto, aut ex societate cum Dcemone (D. Thomas, 2. 2. q. 90. art. 2. et q. g5. art. 4. in corp.); sed, ut infra dicemus, dantur Succubi, et In- cubi, quibus nullum prcedictorum exhibe- tur, et tamen copula sequitur : igitur re- spectu istorum nulla intervenit irreligio- sitas, et commixtio cum istis nullam habe- bit rationem ulteriorem, quam puri et sim~ plicis coitus, qui, si est ejusdem speciei cum Bestialitate, sujficienter exprimetur dicendo: Bestialitatem commisi; quod tamen falsum est.
Si VltcriuS in tonfesso est apud omnes TheologoS Morales, quod longe gravior est copula cum Dcemone, quam cum quoli- bet bruto; ineadem autem specie specialis- sima peccati, non datur unum peccatum gravius altero, sed omnia cequegravia sunt;^
Demoniality
i3
7. It may be urged that if the circum- stances of a sensual intercourse with the Demon should be revealed to the Confes- sor, it is on account of its offense against Religion, an offense which comes either from the worship rendered to the Demon, or from the homage or prayers offered up to him, or from the compact of fellowship entered into with him (5. Thomas, quest. 90). But, as will be seen hereafter, there are IncubiandSuccubi to whom none of the foregoing applies, and yet copula sequitur. There is consequently, in that special case, no element of irreligion, no other charac- ter quam puri et simplicis coitus ; and, if of the same species as Bestiality, it would be adequately stated by saying : / have been guilty of the sin of Bestiality ; which is not so.
8. Besides, it is acknowledged by all Theological Moralists that copula cumDce- mone is much more grievous than the same act committed with any beast soever. Now, in the same very particular species of sins, one sin is not more grievous than
H
Dasmonialitas
perinde enim est coire cum cane, aut asina, aut equa ; sequitur ergo, quod si Dasmonia- litas est gravior Bestialitate, non sint ambo ejusdem speciei. Nec [dicendum gravitatem majorem in Daemonialitate petendam esse ab irreligiositate, seu superstitione ex so- cietate cum Dcemone , ut scribit Cajetanus ad 2. 2. q. 154., ar. ii. g ai 3. in fine, quia hoc fallit in aliquibus Succubis et Incubis, ut supra dictum est; turn quia gravitas major statuitur in Daemonialitate pr(s Bes- tialitate, in genere vitii contra naturam : major autem gravitas in ilia supra istam ratione irreligiositatis exorbitat ex illo ge- nere, proinde non fiacit in illo genere, et ex se graviorem.
9. Statuta igitur differentia specifica Dse- monialitatis a Bestialitate , ut gravitas il- lius percipiatur in ordine ad poenam de qua principaliter nobis tractandum est, est ne- cessarium inquirere quotupliciter Dtemo- nialitas accidat. Non desunt qui sibi nimis scioli negant quod gravissimi Auctores scripsere, et quod quotidiana constat expe- tientia, Dcemonem scilicet turn Incubum, turn Succubum, non solum hominibus, sed etiam brutis carnaliter conjungi. Aiunt
/
Demoniality 1 5
another; all are equally so : it comes to the same whether connection is had with "a bitch, an ass, or a mare; whence it fol- lows that if Demoniality is more grievous than Bestiality, those two acts are not of the same species. And let it not be argued, with Cajetanus, that Demoniality is more grievous on account of the offense to reli- gion from the worship rendered to the Demon or the compact of fellowship ente- red into with him : as has been shown above, that is not always met with in the connection of man with Incubi and Suc- cubi ; moreover, if in the genus of unna- tural sin Demoniality is more grievous than Bestiality, the offense to Religion is quite foreign to that aggravation, since it is foreign to that genus itself.
9. Now, having laid down the specific difference between Demoniality and Bes- tiality, so that the gravity thereof may be duly appreciated in view of the penalty to be inflicted (and that is our most essen- tial object), we must inquire in how many different ways the sin of Demonia- lity may be committed. There is no lack of people who, infatuated with their small of knowledge , venture to deny what has been written by the gravest authors
i6
Dasmonialitas
proinde essehominum imaginationem, phan- tasmatibus a Dcemone perturbatis Icesam, sen dcemoniaca esse prcestigia: sicuti etiam ' Sagce, seu Striges, sola imaginatione per- turbata a Dtvmone , sibi videntur assistere ludis, choreis, conviviis, et conventibus noc- turnis, et carnaliter Dt^moni commisceri ; nullo vero reali modo deferiintur dbrpore ad ejusmodi loca et actiones, prout textua- liter dicitur in quodam Capitulo, ac duobus Conciliis. Cap. Episcop. 26. q. 5., Cone. Ancyr. c. 24., Cone. Rom. 4. sub Damaso, c. 5. apud Laur. Epitom. v° Saga.
10. Sed non negatur, quin aliquando mulierculce, illusce a Deemonibus, videantur nocturnis Sagarum ludis corporaliter inter- esse, dum tamen sola imaginaria visione ipsis hoc accidit : sicut etiam in somnis videtur nonnullis cum feemina aliqua con- cumbere, et semen vere excernitur, non ta- men concubitus ille realis est , sed tantum phantasticus , paratus non raro per illusio- nem diabolicam; et in hoc verissimum est quod habent citatum Capitulum et Concilia.
Demoniality 1 7
and is testified by every day experience : namely, that the Demon, whether Incubus or Succubus, unites carnally not only with men and women, but also with beasts. They allege that it all comes from the human imagination troubled by the craft of the Demon, and that there is nothing in it but phantasmagoria and diabolical spells. The like happens, they say, to Witches or Sagas, who, under the influence of an illusion brought on by the Demon, fancy that they attend the nightly sports, dances, revels and vigils, and have carnal inter- course with the Demon, though in reality they are not bodily transferred to those places nor ^taking part in those deeds, as has been defined verbatim by a Capitule and two Councils.
10. Of course, it is not contested that so- metimes young women, deceived by the Demon, fancy taking part, in their flesh and blood, in the nightly vigils of Witches, without its being any thing but an imagi- nary vision. Thus, inadream, one sometimes fancies cum foemina aliqua concumbere, et semen vere excernitur, non tamen concubitus ille realis est, bht merely fantastic, and often . brought about by a diabolical illusion : and here the above mentioned Capitule and
i8
Dasmonialitas
Sed hoc non semper est ; sed ut in plnribiis, corpore deferuntiir Sagce ad ludos noctur- nos, et vere carnaliter corpore conjungun- tur Dcemoni, et Malefici non minus D^smo- ni succubo miscentur, et hcec est sententia Theologorum, et jure consultorum Catho- licorum, quos abunde citat Frater Fran- ciscus'*Maria Guaccius in suo libro intitu- lato Compendium Maleficarum; Grilland. Remig. Petr. Damian. Sylvest. Alphon. a Cast. Abul. Cajet. Senon. Crespet. Spine. Anan. apud Guaccium, Comp. Malef., c. 1 5. § Altera, quam verissimam... n. 69. lib. p.\ qua; sententia conjirmatur decern et octo excmplis, ibidem allatis et relatis per vi- ros doctos et veridicos de quorum fide am- bigendum non est, quibus probatur Malefi- cos et Sagas corporaliter ad ludos conve- nire, et cum Dcemonibus succubis et incubis corporaliter turpissime commisceri. Et pro omnibus sufficere debet auctoritas Divi Au- gustini, qui loquens de concubitu homi- num cum Dcemonibus, sic ait lib. i5. de Civitate Dei, c. 23.: « Et quoniam cre- berrima fama est, multique se expertos, vel ab eis qui experti cssent, de quorum fide dubitandum non est, audivisse confir- mant, Sylvanos et Faunos, quos vulgo Incubos vocant, improbos saepe extitisse mulieribus , et earum appetiisse et pere-
Demoniality i g
Councils are perfectly right. But this is not always the case ; on the contrary, it more often happens that Witches are bo- dily present at nightly vigils and have with the Demon a genuine carnal and cor- poreal connection, and that likewise Wi- zards copulate with the Succuba or female Demon. Such is the opinion of Theologians as well as of jurists, whose names will be found at length in the Compendium Male- Jicarum, or Chronicle of Witches, by Bro- ther Francis Marie Guaccius. This doc- trine is therein confirmed by eighteen instances adduced from the recitals of lear- ned and truthful men whose testimony is beyond suspicion, and which prove that Wizards and Witches are indeed bodily present at vigils and most shamefully copulate with Demons, Incubi or Succubi. And, after all, to settle the question, we have the authority of S. Austin, who, speaking of carnal intercourse between men and the Demon, expresses himself as follows, book i5*, chapt. 2 3 City of God : w.'It is widely credited, and such belief is confirmed by the direct or in- direct testimony of thoroughly trustwor- thy people, that Sylvans and Fauns, com- monly called Incubi, have frequently mo- lested women, sought and obtained from
20
Daemonialitas
gisse concubitum. Et quosdam Daemones, quos Dusios Galli nuncupant, hanc assidue immunditiam et tentare et efficere, plures talesque asseverant, ut hoc negate impu- dentia videatur. « Hcec Augustinus,