Of the Manner
whereby they Change Men into the Shapes of Beasts.
But
that witches, by the power of devils, change men into
the shapes of beasts (for this is their chief manner of
transmutation), although it has been sufficiently proved
in the First Part of the work, Question 10, Whether
witches can do such things: nevertheless, since that
question with its arguments and solutions may be rather
obscure to some; especially since no actual examples are
adduced to prove them, and even the method by which they
so transform themselves is not explained; therefore we
add the present exposition by the resolution of several
doubts.
And first,
that Canon (26, Q. 5, Episcopi) is not to be understood
in this matter in the way in which even many learned men
(but would that their learning were good!) are deceived;
who do not fear to affirm publicly in their sermons that
such prestidigitatory transmutations are in no way
possible even by the power of devils. And we have often
said that this doctrine is greatly to the detriment of
the Faith, and strengthens the witches, who rejoice very
much in such sermons.
But such
preachers, as has been noted, touch only the outer
surface, and fail to reach the inner meaning of the
words of the Canon. For when it says: Whoever believes
that any creature can be made, or can be changed for the
better or the worse, or be transformed into any other
shape or likeness except by the Creator Himself Who made
all, is without doubt an infidel. . . .
The reader
must here remark two chief things. First, concerning the
words “be made”; and secondly, concerning the words
“be transformed into another likeness.” And as to
the first, it is answered that “be made” can be
understood in two ways: namely, as meaning “be
created,” or as in the sense of the natural production
of anything. Now in the first sense it belongs only to
God, as is well known, Who in His infinite might can
make something out of nothing.
But in the
second sense there is a distinction to be drawn between
creatures; for some are perfect creatures, like a man,
and an ass, etc. And other are imperfect, such as
serpents, frogs, mice, etc., for they can also be
generated from putrefaction. Now the Canon obviously
speaks only of the former sort, not of the second; for
in the case of the second it can be proved from what
Blessed Albert says in his book On Animals, where
he asks: whether devils can make true animals; and still
with this difference, that they cannot do so in an
instant, as God does, but by some motion, however
sudden, as is shown in the case of the Magicians in Exodus
vii. The reader may, if he likes, refer to some of the
remarks in the question we have quoted in the First Part
of the work, and in the solution of the first argument.
Secondly, it
is said that they cannot transmute any creature. You may
say that transmutation is of two sorts, substantial and
accidental; and this accidental is again of two kinds,
consisting either in the natural form belonging to the
thing which is seen, or in a form which does not belong
to the thing which is seen, but exists only in the
organs and perceptions of him who sees. The Canon speaks
of the former, and especially of formal and actual
transmutation, in which one substance is transmuted into
another; and this sort only God can effect, Who is the
Creator of such actual substances. And it speaks also of
the second, although the devil can effect that, in so
far as, with God's permission, he causes certain
diseases and induces some appearance on the accidental
body. As when a face appears to be leprous, or some such
thing.
But properly
speaking it is not such matters that are in question,
but apparitions and glamours, by which things seem to be
transmuted into other likenesses; and we say that the
words of the Canon cannot exclude such transmutations;
for their existence is proved by authority, by reason,
and by experience; namely, by certain experiences
related by S. Augustine in Book XVIII, chapter 17, of
the De Ciuitate Die, and by the arguments in
explanation of them. For among other prestidigitatory
transformations, he mentions that the very famous
Sorceress, Circe, changed the companions of Ulysses into
beasts; and that certain innkeepers' wives had turned
their guests into beasts of burden. He mentions also
that the companions of Diomedes were changed into birds,
and for a long time flew about the temple of Diomedes;
and that Praestantius tells it for a fact that his
father said that he had been a packhorse, and had
carried corn with other animals.
Now when the
companions of Ulysses were changed into beasts, it was
only in appearance, or deception of the eyes; for the
animal shapes were drawn out of the repository or memory
of images, and impressed on the imaginative faculty. And
so imaginary vision was caused, and through the strong
impression on the other senses and organs, the beholder
thought that he saw animals, in the manner of which we
have already treated. But how these things can be done
by the devil's power without injury will be shown later.
But when the
guests were changed into beasts of burden by the
innkeepers' wives; and when the father of Praestantius
thought he was a packhorse and carried corn; it is to be
noted that in these cases there were three deceptions.
First, that
those men were caused by a glamour to seem to be changed
into beasts of burden, and this change was caused in the
way we have said. Second, that devils invisibly bore
those burdens up when they were too heavy to be carried.
Third, that those who seemed to others to be changed in
shape seemed also to themselves to be changed into
beasts; as it happened to Nabuchodonosor, who lived for
seven years eating straw like an ox.
And as to the
comrades of Diomedes being changed into birds and flying
round his temple, it is to be said that this Diomedes
was one of the Greeks who went to the siege of Troy; and
when he wished to return home, he was drowned with his
comrades in the sea; and then, at the suggestion of some
idol, a temple was built to him that he might be
numbered among the gods; and for a long time, to keep
that error alive, devils in the shape of birds flew
about in place of his companions. Therefore that
superstition was one of the glamours we have spoken of;
for it was not caused by the impression of mental images
on the imaginative faculty, but by their flying in the
sight of men in the assumed bodies of birds.
But if it is
asked whether the devils could have deluded the
onlookers by the above-mentioned method of working upon
the mental images, and not by assuming aerial bodies
like flying birds, the answer is that they could have
done so.
For it was
the opinion of some (as S. Thomas tells in the Second
Book of Sentences, dist. 8, art. 2) that no Angel,
good or bad, ever assumed a body; but that all that we
read in the Scriptures about their appearances was
caused by a glamour, or by the imaginary vision.
And here the
learned Saint notes a difference between a glamour and
imaginary vision. For in a glamour there may be an
exterior object which is seen, but it seems other than
it is. But imaginary vision does not necessarily require
an exterior object, but can be caused without that and
only by those inner mental images impressed on the
imagination.
So, following
their opinion, the comrades of Diomedes were not
represented by devils in the assumed bodies and likeness
of birds, but only by a fantastic and imaginary vision
caused by working upon those mental images, etc.
But the
learned Saint condemns this as an erroneous and not a
simple opinion (though, it is piously believed, it is
not actually heretical), although such appearances of
good and bad Angels may at times have been imaginary,
with no assumed body. But, as he says, the saints are
agreed that the Angels also appeared to the actual
sight, and such appearance was in an assumed body. And
the scriptural text reads more as if it speaks of bodily
appearance than imaginary or prestidigitatory ones.
Therefore we can say for the present concerning any
visions like that of the comrades of Diomedes: that
although those comrades could by the devil's work have
appeared in the imaginary vision of the beholders in the
manner we have said, yet it is rather presumed that they
were caused to be seen by devils in assumed aerial
bodies like flying birds; or else that other natural
birds were caused by devils to represent them.
|