Kitabı oku: «The Phantom World; or, The philosophy of spirits, apparitions, &c, &c.», sayfa 40

LETTER OF M. THE MARQUIS MAFFEI ON MAGIC

ADDRESSED TO THE REVEREND FATHER INNOCENT ANSALDI, OF THE ORDER OF ST. DOMINIC; TRANSLATED FROM THE ITALIAN OF THE AUTHOR

My Reverend Father

It is to the goodness of your reverence, in regard to myself, that I must attribute the curiosity you appear to feel to know what I think concerning the book which the Sieur Jerome Tartarotti has just published on the Nocturnal Assemblies of the Sorcerers. I reply to you with the greatest pleasure; and I am going to tell my opinion fully and unreservedly, on condition that you will examine what I write to you with your usual acuteness, and that you will tell me frankly whatever you remark in it, whether good or bad, and that may appear to deserve either your approbation or your censure. I had already read this book, and passed an eulogium on it, both for the great erudition displayed therein by the author, as because he refutes, in a very sensible manner, some ridiculous opinions with which people are infatuated concerning sorcerers, and some other equally dangerous abuses. But, to tell the truth, with that exception, I am little disposed to approve it; if M. Muratori has done so in his letter, which has been seen by several persons, either he has not read the work through, or he and I on that point entertain very different sentiments. In regard to my opinion, your reverence will see, by what I shall say, that it is the same as your own on this subject, as you have done me the favor to show by your letter.

I. In this work there is laid down, in the first place, as a certain and indubitable principle, the existence and reality of magic, and the truth of the effects produced by it – superior, they say, to all natural powers; he gives it the name of "diabolical magic," and defines it, "The knowledge of certain superstitious practices, such as words, verses, characters, images, signs (qy. moles), &c., by means of which magicians succeed in their designs." For my part, I am much inclined to believe that all the science of the pretended magicians had no other design than to deceive others, and ended sometimes in deceiving themselves; and that this magic, now so much vaunted, is only a chimera. Perhaps even it would be giving one's self superfluous trouble to undertake to show that everything related of those nocturnal hypogryphes,⁶⁷² of those pretended journeys through the air, of those assemblies and feasts of sorcerers, is only idle and imaginary; because those fables being done away with would not prevent that an infinite number of others would still remain, which have been repeated and spread on the same subject, and which, although more foolish and ridiculous than all the extravagances we read in romances, are so much the more dangerous, because they are more easily believed. It would, in the opinion of many, be doing these tales too much honor to attempt to refute them seriously, as there is no one at this day, in Italy, at least, even amongst the people, who has common sense, that does not laugh at all that is said of the witches' sabbath, and of those troops or bands of sorcerers who go through the air during the night to assemble in retired spots and dance. It is true, that notwithstanding, that if a man of any credit, whether amongst the learned or persons of high dignity, maintains an opinion, he will immediately find partisans; it will be useless to write or speak to the contrary, it will not be the less followed; and it is hardly possible that it can be otherwise, so many minds as there are, and so many different ways of thinking. But here the only question is, what is the common opinion, and what is most universally believed. It is not my intention to compose a work expressly on magic, nor to enter very lengthily on this matter; I shall only exhibit, in a few words, the reasons which oblige me to laugh at it, and which induce me to incline to the opinion of those who look upon it as a pure illusion, and a real chimera. I must, first of all, give notice that you must not be dazzled by the truth of the magical operations in the Old Testament, as if from thence we could derive a conclusive argument to prove the reality of the pretended magic of our own times. I shall demonstrate this clearly at the end of this discourse, in which I hope to show that my opinion on this subject is conformable to the Scripture, and founded on the tradition of the fathers. Now, then, let us speak of modern magicians.

II. If there is any reality in this art, to which so many wonders are ascribed, it must be the effect of a knowledge acquired by study, or of the impiety of some one who renounces what he owes to God to give himself up to the demon, and invokes him. It seems, in fact, that they would sometimes attribute it to acquired knowledge, since in the book I am combating the author often speaks "of the true mysteries of the magic art;" and he asserts that few "are perfectly instructed in the secret and difficult principles of this science;" which is not surprising, he says, since "the life of man would hardly suffice" to read all the works which have treated of it. He calls it sometimes the "magical science," or "magical philosophy;" he carries back the origin of it to the philosopher Pythagoras; he regards "ignorance of the magic art as one of the reasons why we see so few magicians in our days." He speaks only of the mysterious scale enclosed by Orpheus in unity, in the numbers of two and twelve; of the harmony of nature, composed of proportionable parts, which are the octave, or the double, and the fifth, or one and a half; of strange and barbarous names which mean nothing, and to which he attributes supernatural virtues; of the concert or the agreement of the inferior and superior parts of this universe, when understood; makes us, by means of certain words or certain stones, hold intercourse with invisible substances; of numbers and signs, which answer to the spirits which preside over different days, or different parts of the body; of circles, triangles, and pentagons, which have power to bind spirits; and of several other secrets of the same kind, very ridiculous, to tell the truth, but very fit to impose on those who admire everything which they do not understand.

III. But however thick may be the darkness with which nature is hidden from us, and although we may know but very imperfectly the essential principles and properties of things, who does not see, nevertheless, that there can be no proportion, no connection, between circles and triangles which we trace, or the long words which signify nothing, and immaterial spirits? Can people not conceive that it is a folly to believe that by means of a few herbs, certain stones, and certain signs or characters, we can make ourselves obeyed by invisible substances which are unknown to us? Let a man study as much as he will the pretended soul of the world, the harmony of nature, the agreement of the influence of all the parts it is composed of – is it not evident that all he will gain by his labor will be terms and words, and never any effects which are above the natural power of man? To be convinced of this truth, it suffices to observe that the pretended magicians are, and ever have been, anything but learned; on the contrary, they are very ignorant and illiterate men. Is it credible that so many celebrated persons, so many famous men, versed in all kinds of literature, should never have been able or willing to sound and penetrate the mysterious secrets of this art; and that of so many philosophers spoken of by Diogenes Laërtius, neither Plato, nor Aristotle, nor any other, should have left us some treatise? It would be useless to attack the opinions of the world at that time on this subject. Do we not know with how many errors it has been infatuated in all ages, and which, though shared in common, were not the less mistakes? Was it not generally believed in former times, that there were no antipodes? that according to whether the sacred fowls had eaten or not, it was permitted or forbidden to fight? that the statues of the gods had spoken or changed their place? Add to those things all the knavery and artifice which the charlatans put in practice to deceive and delude the people, and then can we be surprised that they succeeded in imposing on them and gaining their belief? But let it not be imagined, nevertheless, that everyone was their dupe, and that amongst so many blind and credulous people there were not always to be found some men sensible and clear-sighted enough to perceive the truth.

IV. To be convinced of this, let us only consider what was thought of it by one of the most learned amongst the ancients, and we may say, one of the most curious and attentive observers of the wonders of nature – I speak of Pliny, who thus expresses himself at the beginning of his Thirtieth Book;⁶⁷³ "Hitherto I have shown in this work, every time that it was necessary and the occasion presented itself, how very little reality there is in all that is said of magic; and I shall continue to do so as it goes on. But because during several centuries this art, the most deceptive of all, has enjoyed great credit among several nations, I think it is proper to speak of it more fully." "No men are more clever in hiding their knaveries than magicians;" and in seven or eight other places he endeavors to expose "their falsehoods, their deceptions, the uselessness of their art," and laughs at it. But one thing to which we should pay attention above all, is an invincible argument which he brings forward against this pretended art. For after having enumerated the diverse sorts of magic, which were employed with different kinds of instruments, and in several different ways, and from which they promised themselves effects that were "quite divine;" that is to say, superior to all the force of nature, even of "the power to converse with the shades and souls of the dead;" he adds, "But in our days the Emperor Nero has discovered that in all these things there is nothing but deceit and vanity." "Never prince," says he, a little lower down, "sought with more eagerness to render himself clever in any other art; and as he was the master of the world, it is certain that he wanted neither riches, nor power, nor wit, nor any other aid necessary to succeed therein. What stronger proof of the falsity of this art can we have than to see that Nero renounced it?" Suetonius informs us also, "That this prince uselessly employed magic sacrifices to evoke the shade of his mother, and speak to her." Again, Pliny says "that Tirdates the Mage (for it is thus it should be read, and not Tiridates the Great, as it is in the edition of P. Hardouin), having repaired to the court of Nero, and having brought several magi with him, initiated this prince in all the mysteries of magic. Nevertheless," he adds, "it was in vain for Nero to make him a present of a kingdom – he could not obtain from him the knowledge of this art; which ought to convince us that this detestable science is only vanity, or, if some shadow of truth is to be met within it, its real effects have less to do with the art of magic than the art of poisoning." Seneca, who also was very clever, after having repeated a law of the Twelve Tables, "which forbade the use of enchantments to destroy the fruits of the earth," makes this commentary upon it: "When our fathers were yet rude and ignorant, they imagined that by means of enchantments rain could be brought down upon the ground, or could be prevented from falling; but at this day it is so clear that both one and the other is impossible, that to be convinced of it it does not require to be a philosopher." It would be useless to collect in this place an infinity of passages from the ancients, which all prove the same thing; we can only the book written by Hippocrates on Caducity, which usually passed for the effect of the vengeance of the gods, and which for that reason was called the "sacred malady." We shall there see how he laughs "at magicians and charlatans," who boasted of being able to cure it by their enchantments and expiations. He shows there that by the profession which they made of being able to darken the sun, bring down the moon to the earth, give fine or bad weather, procure abundance or sterility, they seemed to wish to attribute to man more power than to the Divinity itself, showing therein much less religion than "impiety, and proving that they did not believe in the gods." I do not speak of the fables and tales invented by Philostrates on the subject of Apollonius of Thyana, they have been sufficiently refuted by the best pens: but I must not omit to warn you that the name of magic has been used in a good sense for any uncommon science, and a sublimer sort of philosophy. It is in this sense that it must be understood where Pliny says,⁶⁷⁴ although rather obscurely, "that Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, and Plato, traveled a great deal to acquire instruction in it." For the rest, people are naturally led to attribute to sorcery everything that appears new and marvelous. Have not we ourselves, with M. Leguier, passed for magicians in the minds of some persons, because in our experiments on electricity they have seen us easily extinguish lights by putting them near cold water, which then appeared an unheard-of thing, and which many still firmly maintain even now cannot be done without a tacit compact? It is true that in the effects of electricity there is something so extraordinary and so wonderful, that we should be more disposed to excuse those persons who could not easily believe them to be natural than those who have fancied tacit compacts for things which it would be much more easy to explain naturally.

V. From what has just been said, it evidently results that it is folly to believe that by means of study and knowledge one can ever attain any of those marvelous effects attributed to magic; and it is profaning the name of science to give it an imposture so grossly imagined; it remains then that these effects might be produced by a diabolical power. In fact, we read in the work in question that all the effects of magic "must be attributed to the operation of the demon; that it is in virtue of the compact, express or tacit, that he has made with him that the magician works all these pretended prodigies; and that it is in regard to the different effects of this art, and the different ways in which they are produced, that authors have since divided it into several classes." But I beg, at first, that the reader will reflect seriously, if it is credible, that as soon as some miserable woman or unlucky knave have a fancy for it, God, whose wisdom and goodness are infinite, will ever permit the demon to appear to them, instruct them, obey them, and that they should make a compact with him. Is it credible that to please a scoundrel he would grant the demon power to raise storms, ravage all the country by hail, inflict the greatest pain on little innocent children, and even sometimes "to cause the death of a man by magic?" Does any one imagine that such things can be believed without offending God, and without showing a very injurious mistrust of his almighty power? It has several times happened to me, especially when I was in the army, to hear that some wretched creatures had given themselves to the devil, and had called upon him to appear to them with the most horrible blasphemies, without his appearing to them for all that, or their attempts being followed by any success. And, certainly, if to obtain what is promised by the art of magic it sufficed to renounce God and invoke the devil, how many people would soon perform the dreadful act? How many impious men do we see every day who for money, or to revenge themselves on some one, or to satisfy a criminal desire, rush without remorse into the greatest excesses! How many wretches who are suffering in prison, at the galleys, or otherwise, would have recourse to the demon to extricate them from their troubles! It would be very easy for me to relate here a great number of curious stories of persons generally believed to be bewitched, of haunted houses, or horses rubbed down by will-o'-the-wisp, which I have myself seen at different times and places, at last reduced to nothing. This I can affirm, that two monks, very sensible men, who had exercised the office of inquisitors, one for twenty-four years, and the other during twenty-eight, have assured me that of different accusations of sorcery which had been laid before them, and which appeared to be well proved, after having examined them carefully and maturely, they had not found one which was not mere knavery. How can any one imagine that the devil, who is the father of lies, should teach the magician the true secret of this art; and that this spirit, full of pride, of which he is the source, should teach an enchanter the means of forcing him to obey him? As soon as we rise above some old prejudices, which make us excuse those who in past ages gave credence to such follies, can we put faith in certain extravagant opinions, as what is related of demons, incubes, and seccubes, from a commerce with whom it is pretended children are born. Who will believe in our days that Ezzelin was the son of a will-o'-the-wisp? But can anything more strange be thought of than what is said of tacit compacts? They will have it, that when any one, of whatever country he may be, and however far he may be from wishing to make any compact with the devil, every time he shall say certain words, or make certain signs, a certain effect will follow; if I, who am perfectly ignorant of this convention, should happen to pronounce these same words, or make the same signs, the same effect ought to follow. They say that whoever makes a compact with the devil has a right to oblige him to produce a certain effect, not only when he shall make himself, for instance, certain figures, but also every time that they shall be made by any other person you please, at any time, or in any place whatever, and although the intention may be quite different. Certainly nothing is more proper to humble us than such ideas, and to show how very little man can count on the feeble light of his mind. Of all the extraordinary things said to have been performed by tacit compacts, many are absolutely false, and others have occurred quite differently than as they are related; some are true, and such as require no need of the demon's intervention to explain them.

VI. The evidence of these reasons seems to suffice to prove that all which is said of magic in our days is merely chimerical; but because, in reply to the substantial difficulties which were proposed to him by the Count Rinaldi Carli, the author of the book pretends that to deny is a heretical opinion condemned by the laws, it is proper to examine this article again. For the first proof of its reality, is advanced the general consent of all mankind; the tradition of all nations; stories and witnesses ad infinitum of theologians, philosophers, and jurisconsults; whence he concludes "that its existence cannot be denied, or even a doubt cast upon it, without sapping the foundations of what is called human belief." But the little I have said in No. IV. alone suffices to prove how false is this assertion concerning this pretended general consent. Horace, who passes for one of the wisest and most enlightened men amongst the ancients, reckons, on the contrary, among the virtues necessary to an honest man, the not putting faith in what is said concerning magic, and to laugh at it. His friend, believing himself very virtuous because he was not avaricious – "That is not sufficient," said he: "are you exempt from every other vice and every other fault; not ambitious, not passionate, fearless of death? Do you laugh at all that is told of dreams, magical operations, miracles, sorcerers, ghosts, and Thessalian wonders?"⁶⁷⁵ – that is to say, in one word, of all kinds of magic. What is the aim of Lucian, in his Dialogue entitled "Philopseudis," but to turn into ridicule the magic art? and also is it not what he proposed to himself in the other, entitled "The Ass," whence Apuleius derived his "Golden Ass?" It is easy to perceive that in all this work, wherein he speaks so often, the power ascribed to magic of making rivers return to their source, staying the course of the sun, darkening the stars, and constraining the gods themselves to obey it, he had no other intention than to laugh at it, which he certainly would not have done if he had believed it able to produce, as they pretend, effects beyond those of nature. It is, then, jokingly and ironically that he says they see wonders worked "by the invincible power of magic,"⁶⁷⁶ and by the blind necessity which imposes upon the gods themselves to be obedient to it. The poor man thinking he was to be changed into a bird, had had the grief to see himself metamorphosed into an ass, through the mistake of a woman who in a hurry had mistaken the box, and giving him one ointment for another. The most usual terms made use of by the ancients, in speaking of magic, were "play" and "badinage," which plainly shows that they saw nothing real in it. St. Cyprian, speaking of the mysteries of the magicians, calls them "hurtful and juggling operations." "If by their delusions and their jugglery," says Tertullian, "the charlatans seem to perform many wonders." And in his treatise on the soul, he exclaims, "What shall we say of magic? what almost all the world says of it – that it is mere knavery." Arnobius calls it, "the sports of the magic art;" and on these words of Minutius Felix, "all the marvels which they seem to work by their jugglery," his commentator remarks that the word badinage is in this place the proper term. This manner of expressing himself shows what was then the common opinion of all wise persons. "Let the farmer," says Columella, "frequent with neither soothsayers nor witches, because by their foolish superstitions they all cause the ignorant to spend much money, and thence they lead them to be criminal." We learn from Suidas, "that those were called magicians who filled their heads with vain imaginations." Thus, when speaking of one of these imposters, Dante was right when he said⁶⁷⁷ "he knew all the trickery and knavery of the magic art." Thus, then, it is not true that a general belief in the art of magic has ever prevailed; and if, in our days, any one would gather the voice and opinion of men of letters, and the most celebrated academies, I am persuaded that hardly would one or two in ten be found who were convinced of its existence. It would not be, at least, one of the learned friends of the author of the book in question, who having been consulted by the latter on this matter, answers him in these terms – "Magic is a ridiculous art, which has no reality but in the head of a madman, who fancies that he is able to lead the devil to satisfy all his wishes." I have read in some catalogues which come from Germany, that they are preparing to give the public a "Magic Library: " oder grundliche nagrichen, &c. It is a vast collection of different writings, all tending to prove the uselessness and insufficiency of magic. I must remark that the poets have greatly contributed to set all these imaginations in vogue. Without this fruitful source, what becomes of the most ingenious fictions of Homer? We may say as much of Ariosto and of our modern poets. For the rest, what I have before remarked concerning Pliny must not be forgotten – that in the ancient authors, the word magic is often equivocal. For in certain countries, they gave the name of magi, or magicians, to those who applied as a particular profession to the study of astronomy, philosophy, or medicine; in others, philosophers of a certain sect were thus called: for this, the preface of Diogenes Laërtius can be consulted. Plato writes that in Persia, by the name of magic was understood "the worship of the gods." "According to a great number of authors," says Apuleius, in his Apology, "the Persians called those magi to whom we give the name of priests." St. Jerome, writing against Jovinian, thus expresses himself – "Eubulus, who wrote the history of Mithras, in several volumes, relates that among the Persians they distinguish three kinds of magi, of whom the first are most learned and the most eloquent," &c. Notwithstanding that, there are still people to be found, who confound the chimera of pretended diabolical magic with philosophical magic, as Corneillus Agrippa has done in his books on "Secret Philosophy."

VII. Another reason which is brought forward to prove the reality and the power of the magic art, is that the laws decree the penalty of death against enchanters. "What idea," says he, "could we have of the ancient legislators, if we believe them capable of having recourse to such rigorous penalties to repress a chimera, an art which produced no effect?" Upon which it is proper to observe that, supposing this error to be universally spread, it would not be impossible that even those who made the laws might suffer themselves to be prejudiced by them; in which case, we might make the same commentary on Seneca, applied, as we have seen, to the Twelve Tables. But I go further still. This is not the place to speak of the punishments decreed in the Scripture against the impiety of the Canaanites, who joined to idolatry the most extravagant magic. In regard to the Greek laws, of which authors have preserved for us so great a number, I do not remember that they anywhere make mention of this crime, or that they subject it to any penalty. I can say the same of the Roman laws, contained in the Digest. It is true that in the Code of Theodosius, and in that of Justinian, there is an entire title concerning malefactors, in which we find many laws which condemn to the most cruel death magicians of all kinds; but are we not forced to confess that this condemnation was very just? Those wretches boasted that they were able to occasion when they pleased public calamities and mortalities; with this aim, they kept their charms and dark plots as secret as it was possible, which led the Emperor Constans to say, "Let all the magicians, in whatever part of the empire they may be found, be looked upon as the public enemies of mankind." What does it matter, in fact, that they made false boastings, and that their attempts were useless? "In evil doings," says the law, "it is the will, and not the event, which makes the crime." Also, Constantine wills that those amongst them should be pardoned who professed to cure people by such means, and to preserve the products of the earth. But in general these kind of persons aimed only at doing harm; for which reason the laws ordain that they should be regarded as "public enemies." The least harm they could be accused of was deluding the people, misleading the simple, and causing by that means an infinity of trouble and disorder. Besides that, of how many crimes were they not guilty in the use of their spells? It was that which led the Emperor Valentinian to decree the pain of death "against whomsoever should work at night, by impious prayers and detestable sacrifices, at magic operations." Sometimes even they adroitly made use of some other way to procure the evil which they desired to cause; after which, they gave out that it must be attributed to the power of their art. But what is the use of so many arguments? Is it not certain that the first step taken by those who had recourse to magic was to renounce God and Jesus Christ, and to invoke the demon? Was not magic looked upon as a species of idolatry; and was not that sufficient to render this crime capital, should the punishment have depended on the result? Honorius commanded that these kind of people should be treated with all the rigor of the laws, "unless they would promise to conform for the future to what was required by the Catholic religion, after having themselves, in presence of the bishops, burned the pernicious writings which served to maintain their error."

VIII. What is remarkable is, that if ever any one laughed at magic, it must certainly be the author in question – since all his book only tends to prove that there are no witches, and that all that is said of them is merely foolish and chimerical. But what appears surprising is, that at the same time he maintains that while in truth there are no witches, but that there are enchantresses or female magicians; that witchcraft is only a chimera, but that diabolical magic is very real. Is not that, as it appears to some, denying and affirming at the same time the same thing under different names? Tibullus took care not to make nothing of these distinctions, when he said: "As I was promised by a witch, whose magical operations never fail." While treating in this book of witchcraft and magic, it is affirmed that the demon intervenes on both, and that both work wonders." But if that is true, it is impossible to find any difference between them. If both perform wonders, and that by the intervention of the demon, they are then essentially the same. After that, is it not a contradiction to say that the magician acts and the witch has no power – that the former commands the devil and the latter obeys him – that magic is founded on compacts, expressed or tacit, while in witchcraft there is nothing but what is imaginary and chimerical? What reason is given for this? If the demon is always ready to appear to any one who invokes him, and is ready to enter into compact with him, why does he not show himself as directly to her whom the author terms a witch as to her to whom he is pleased to give the more respectable title of enchantress? If he is disposed to appear and take to himself the worship and adoration which are due to God alone, what matters it to him whether they proceed from a vile or a distinguished person, from an ignoramus or a learned man? The principal difference which the author admits between witchcraft and magic, is, that the latter "belongs properly to priests, doctors, and other persons who cultivate learning;" whilst witchcraft is purely fanaticism, "which only suits the vulgar and poor wretched women;" "also, it does not," says he, "derive its origin from philosophy or any other science, and has no foundation but in popular stories." For my part, I think it is very wrong that so much honor should here be paid to magic. I have proved above in a few words, by the authority of several ancient authors, that the most sensible men have always made a jest of it; that they have regarded it only as a play and a game; and that after having spared neither application nor expense, a Roman emperor could never succeed in beholding any effect. I have even remarked the equivocation of the name, which has often caused these popular opinions with philosophy and the sublimest sciences. But I think I can find in the book itself of the author, enough to prove that one cannot in fact make this distinction, since he says therein "that superstitious practices, such as figures, characters, conjurations, and enchantments, passing from one to the other, and coming to the knowledge of these unhappy women, operate in virtue of the tacit consent which they give to the operation of the demon." There then all distinction is taken away. He says again that, according to some, "nails, pins, bones, coals, packets of hair, or rags, found by the head, of children's beds, are indications of a compact express or tacit, because of the resemblance to the symbols made use of by true magicians." Thus, then, witches and those who are here styled true magicians employ equally the same follies; they equally place confidence in imaginary compacts – and consequently they should both be classed in the same category.