=Demonologia;=

                                  OR,

                      NATURAL KNOWLEDGE REVEALED.




            W. WILSON, PRINTER, 57, SKINNER-STREET, LONDON.

[Illustration: Spooky illustration]




                              DEMONOLOGIA;
                                  OR,
                      NATURAL KNOWLEDGE REVEALED;

                                 BEING

                               AN EXPOSÉ

                                   OF

                  =Ancient and Modern Superstitions,=

            CREDULITY, FANATICISM, ENTHUSIASM, & IMPOSTURE,

                         AS CONNECTED WITH THE

                     DOCTRINE, CABALLA, AND JARGON,

                                   OF

                          AMULETS,
                          APPARITIONS,
                          ASTROLOGY,
                          CHARMS,
                          DEMONOLOGY,
                          DEVILS,
                          DIVINATION,
                          DREAMS,
                          DEUTEROSCOPIA,
                          EFFLUVIA,
                          FATALISM,
                          FATE,
                          FRIARS,
                          GHOSTS,
                          GIPSIES,
                          HELL,
                          HYPOCRITES,
                          INCANTATIONS,
                          INQUISITION,
                          JUGGLERS,
                          LEGENDS,
                          MAGIC,
                          MAGICIANS,
                          MIRACLES,
                          MONKS,
                          NYMPHS,
                          ORACLES,
                          PHYSIOGNOMY,
                          PURGATORY,
                          PREDESTINATION,
                          PREDICTIONS,
                          QUACKERY,
                          RELICS,
                          SAINTS,
                          SECOND SIGHT,
                          SIGNS BEFORE DEATH,
                          SORCERY,
                          SPIRITS,
                          SALAMANDERS,
                          SPELLS,
                          TALISMANS,
                          TRADITIONS,
                          TRIALS, &c.
                          WITCHES,
                          WITCHCRAFT, &c. &c.

                          THE WHOLE UNFOLDING

             MANY SINGULAR PHENOMENA IN THE PAGE OF NATURE.


                             =By J. S. F.=

            “The earth hath bubbles, as the water has,
            “And these are of them.”

            “All which, by long discourse, I’ll prove anon.”

                               =London:=
                    JOHN BUMPUS, 23, SKINNER-STREET.

                                 1827.




                               CONTENTS.


                                                                  Page

 _Observations on Ancient and Modern Superstitions, &c._             1

 _Proofs and Trials of Guilt in Superstitious Ages_                  9

 _Astrology, &c._                                                   18

 _Practical Astrology, &c._                                         25

 _Natural Astrology_                                                26

 _Judicial or Judiciary Astrology_                                  27

        Origin of Astrology                                         28

        Astrological Schemes, &c.                                   29

        Table of the Twelve Houses                                  30

        Signs to the Houses of the Planets                          32

        Angles or Aspects of the Planets                            33

        The Application of Planets                                  34

        Prohibition                                                 35

        Separation                                                  35

        Translation of Light and Virtue                             35

        Refrenation                                                 35

        Combustion                                                  35

        Reception                                                   36

        Retrogradation                                              36

        Frustration                                                 36

        The Dragon’s Head and Tail                                  36

        Climacteric                                                 37

        Lucky and Unlucky Days                                      39

        Genethliaci                                                 41

        Genethliacum                                                42

        Barclay’s Refutation of Astrology                           43

 _On the Origin and Imaginary Efficacy of Amulets and Charms, in
   the Cure of Diseases, Protection from Evil Spirits, &c._         51

        Definition of Amulets, &c.                                  56

        Effect of the Imagination on the Mind, &c.                  59

 _History of Popular Medicines, &c.—How influenced by
   Superstition_                                                    67

 _Alchemy_                                                          73

        Origin, Objects, and Practice of Alchemy, &c.               81

 _Alkahest, or Alcahest_                                            85

 _Magician_                                                         91

 _Magi, or Mageans_                                                 96

 _Magic, Magia, Mateia_                                             99

        Magic of the Eastern nations,—a brief View of the Origin and
          Progress of Magic, &c.—

               Chaldeans and Persians                              101

               Indians                                             109

               Egyptians                                           110

               Jews                                                115

 _Prediction_                                                      123

 _Fatalism, or Predestination_                                     136

 _Divination_                                                      142

        Artificial Divination                                      142

        Natural Divination                                         142

               Axinomancy                                          143

               Alectoromantia                                      143

               Arithmomancy                                        144

               Belomancy                                           144

               Cleromancy                                          145

               Cledonism                                           145

               Coscinomancy                                        146

               Capnomancy                                          146

               Catoptromancy                                       147

               Chiromancy                                          147

               Dactyliomancy                                       148

               Extispicium                                         148

               Gastromancy                                         149

               Geomancy                                            149

               Hydromancy                                          150

               Necromancy                                          150

               Oneirocritica                                       150

               Onomancy, or Onomamancy                             152

               Onycomancy, or Onymancy                             154

               Ornithomancy                                        155

               Pyromancy                                           155

               Pyscomancy, or Sciomancy                            155

               Rhabdomancy                                         156

 _Oracle_                                                          157

 _Ouran, or Uran, Soangus_                                         163

 _Dreams, &c._                                                     164

        Brizomancy                                                 164

        Origin of interpreting Dreams                              164

        Opinions on the cause of Dreams                            166

 _Fate_                                                            168

 _Physiognomy_                                                     171

 _Apparitions_                                                     178

 _Deuteroscopia, or Second-sight_                                  194

 _Witches, Witchcraft, Wizards, &c._                               204

        Witchcraft proved by Texts of Scripture                    225

        Dr. More’s Postscript                                      226

        The Confessions of certain Scotch Witches, taken out of
          an authentic copy of their Trial at the Assizes held at
          Paisley, in Scotland, Feb. 15, 1678, touching the
          bewitching of Sir George Maxwell                         259

        Depositions of certain persons, agreeing with confessions
          of the above-said witches                                264

        The Confession of Agnes Sympson to King James              267

        The White Pater-noster                                     270

        The Black Pater-noster                                     270

 _Sorcery_                                                         272

 _Sortes—Sortilegium_                                              273

 _Sibyls_                                                          282

 _Talismans_                                                       283

 _Philters, Charms, &c._                                           285

 _Hell_                                                            286

 _Inquisition_                                                     297

        Inquisition, or the Holy Office                            297

 _Demon_                                                           307

 _Demonology_                                                      308

        Derivation of the strange and hideous forms of Devils,
          &c.                                                      315

        The Narrative of the Demon of Tedworth, or the
          disturbances at Mr. Monpesson’s house, caused by
          Witchcraft and Villainy of a Drummer                     338

 _The Demon of Jedburgh_                                           355

 _The Ghost of Julius Cæsar_                                       360

        The Ghosts of the slain at the Battle of Marathon          360

        Familiar Spirit, or ancient Brownie                        361

 _Gipsies—Egyptians_                                               362

 _Jugglers, their Origin, Exploits, &c._                           378

 _Legends, &c.—Miracles, &c._                                      393

 _Monks and Friars.—Saints and Hermits_                            405

        Of the Hermit of the Pillar—(St. Simeon Stylites, St.
          Telesephorus, St. Syncletia)                             427

 _Holy Relique-Mania_, &c. &c. &c.                                 431




                                PREFACE.


Among the multifarious absurdities and chicaneries, which at different
_epocha_ of society have clung to, and engaged the attention of man,
absorbing, as it were, his more active intelligence, the marvellous and
the ridiculous have alternately and conjointly had to contend for
pre-eminence; that, whether it were a mountain in the moon or a bottle
conjuror; a live lion stuffed with straw or a mermaid; a Cocklane ghost
or a living skeleton; a giant or a pigmy; the delusive bait has
invariably been swallowed with avidity, and credited with all the
solemnity of absolute devotion.

If we look back towards what are called the dark ages of the worlds that
is, at times when men were mere _yokels_, and when the reins of tyranny,
superstition and idolatry, were controlled by a few knowing ones, we
shall see the human mind at its lowest ebb of debasement, grovelling
either under the lash of despotism, or sunk beneath the scale of human
nature by the influence of priestcraft,—a time, when the feelings of men
were galloped over, rough shod, and the dignity of the creation trampled
under foot with impunity and exultation, by a state of the most passive
and degenerate servility: how much must it now excite our wonder and
admiration of that supreme Providence, who, in his merciful
consideration for the frailest of mortals, by a variety of ways and
means best suited to his omnipotent ends, has dragged us gradually, and,
as it were, reluctantly to ourselves, from darkness to daylight, by
extinguishing the stench and vapour of the train oil of ignorance and
superstition, lighting us up with the brilliant gas of reason and
comparative understanding, while, under less despotic and more tolerant
times, we are permitted the rational exercise of those faculties which
formerly were rivetted to the floor of tyranny by the most humiliating
oppression!

The pranks of popes and priests, conjurors and fire-eaters, have
comparatively fled before the piercings of the intellectual ray. Witches
no longer untie the winds to capsise church-steeples, and “topple” down
castles,—they no longer dance round the enchanted cauldron, invoking the
“ould one” to propitiate their cantrip vows:—Beelzebub himself with his
cloven foot is seldom if ever seen above the “bottom of the bottomless
pit;” ghosts and apparitions are “jammed hard and fast” in the Red sea;
demons of every cast and colour are eternally spellbound; legends are
consigned to the chimney-corner of long winter-nights; miracles to the
“_presto_, quick, change and begone!” of the nimble-fingered conjuror;
and holy relics to the rosary of the bigot. Amulets and charms have lost
their influence; saints are uncanonized, and St. Patrick, St. Dennis, &
Co. are flesh and blood like ourselves; monks and holy friars no longer
revel in the debauches of the cloister; the hermit returns unsolicited
from the solitude of the desert, to encounter with his fellow-men; the
pilgrim lays by his staff, leaves the Holy Land to its legitimate
possessors, and the tomb of St. Thomas-à-Becket, to enjoy, unmolested,
the sombre tranquillity of the grave. Quacks and mountebanks begin also
to caper within a narrower sphere; to be brief, the word of command, to
use a nautical phrase, has long been given, “every man to his station,
and the cook to the fore-sheet,”—worldly occupations have superseded
ultramundane speculations. Astrologers themselves, who once ruled the
physical world, have long ago been virtually consigned to the grave of
the Partridges; and floods and storms are found to be phenomena
perfectly consistent with the natural world. We also know that the sun
is stationary, that the moon is not made of green cheese, and that there
are stars yet in the firmament which the centifold powers of the
telescope of a Herschell will never be able to explore.

The Reformation, which originated in the trammels of vice itself, gave
the Devil in hell and his agents on earth, such a “_belly-go-fister_,”
that they have never since been able to come to the scratch, but in such
a petty larceny-like manner, as to set all their demonological efforts
at defiance. This is the first time “old Nick” was ever completely
floored; though, it would appear, from the recent number of new
churches, built no doubt with the pious intention of keeping him in
abeyance, that he has latterly been making a little head-way;—these,
however, with the “Holy alliance,” like stern-chasers on a new
construction, should the “ould one” attempt to board us again in the
smoke of superstition, will, without much injury to the hull of the
church, pitch him back to Pandemonium, there to exhaust his
demonological rage in the sulphuretted hydrogen of his own hell; while
the lights of revealed religion, emanating from these soul-saving
foundations, like Sir Humphrey Davy’s safety-lamp, will give us timely
warning of the choke-damp of damnation before it have time to explode
about our ears.

It behoves us, nevertheless, to pray that we may merit this protection,
and to watch, for we know not at what hour the _cracksman_ may pay us an
unwelcome visit; for, whatever pampered hypocrites and mercenary
prayer-mongers may pretend to the contrary, our worldly goods, although
but of a temporary and perishable nature, are as essential to our
existence and respectability here below, as our spiritual faith is
necessary to our heavenly and eternal happiness above, however unequal
the comparison.

Among the creatures of the Devil, no one has a more decent claim to his
clemency, than the caterwauling canting hypocrite. The hypocrite is a
genus to which a variety of species belong, the subdivisions of which
are too numerous for our present purpose; we shall only therefore offer
a few remarks on one kind of these vampyres, drawn from daily
observation. If not absolutely gluttons, although many of them are
_gourmands_ in excess, hypocrites are invariably fond of their ungodly
guts, for which they are at all times ready to sacrifice their God,
their King, their country and their friends. They have a stomach like a
horse, and a reservoir like a brewer’s vat. The hypocrite of
circumstances prays, or pretends to pray, in adversity, and swears in
good earnest, like a trooper, in prosperity,—he is either a roaring
bedlamite or a whining calf, a peevish idiot, a buffoon, or a disgusting
bacchanal;—in short, he is capable of such derogatory pranks and
extremes, that, as the occasion serves, he with equal facility rises
from the bended knee of supplication to extend the hand of venality,
aye, and of sensuality too, to the object of his latent and ungovernable
concupiscence. His bloated chops, at one time, resemble a passive pair
of bagpipes, while, at another, they are inflated with all the arrogance
of beggarly pride and momentary superfluity. He is never ashamed to beg,
and only afraid to steal—although equally adapted for the one as the
other. A consummate, a brawling, and a suspicious egotist—he will hear
no one but himself, no opinion but his own. In his own house he is a
bear; in the house of another, a nuisance; and every where a _nil
desideratum_. Self-eulogy is his most constant theme; and his loathsome
flattery, either applied to himself or others, is invariably bespattered
with the most _impious_ invocations of the Deity, to witness his
rebellious professions of patience, submission, abstinence, and every
other exotic virtue, which he knows only by name. His cant is of the
basest and most servile description; and for the attainment of some
object, however pitiful or paltry, important or consequential, he is the
same venal wretch all over. Where his expectations are defeated, and the
yearnings of his bowels unappeased, his sycophancy is succeeded by
slander, impertinence, insult, and the most unfounded suspicion. The
cringing, wriggling wretch, at length, having wormed himself through a
world of unpitied degradation, filth, and obscenity, attempts, at the
end of his career, to offer up to his God, what has been indignantly
rejected by the Devil—he dies as he lived, a pauper, equally to fortune
and fame—without one redeeming qualification to keep alive even his
name, which is never mentioned unless mingled with that kindred contempt
and insignificance to which it was by nature and existence so closely
allied.

Popular traditions are always worth recording; they illustrate
traditions and exemplify manners: they tend to throw off the thraldom of
the intellect of man, and stimulate him to exertions compatible with the
intentions of his existence. It is with this view that the materials of
which the following pages are composed, have been collected.
Priestcraft, the foster-mother of superstition, is now sunk too far
below the horizon ever to set again in our illumined hemisphere. The
history of their former influence may, nevertheless, enlighten and
amuse, as well as guard the tender ideas from receiving impressions
calculated to stupify the reason and riper judgment; thus withdrawing
the flimsy veil of error and credulity, by an exposure of those
fallacies too often credited, because frequently passed over without the
aid of investigation through the more refined medium of moral and
physical research.




                             =Demonologia.=




                      OBSERVATIONS ON ANCIENT AND

MODERN SUPERSTITIONS, &c.


The mind of man is naturally so addicted to the marvellous, that,
notwithstanding the brilliant eructations of knowledge that have been
elicited and diffused out of chaotic darkness since the establishment of
the Christian religion, and the revival of learning and the arts, the
influence still of ancient superstition is by no means entirely
annihilated. At the present period, however, it is principally confined
to the uneducated portion of the community; although, at a more remote
period, its limits were by no means so circumscribed. A belief in the
existence of apparitions, witches, sorcerers, and magicians, is still
credulously supported in many parts of the world, though less so in
civilized Europe than in other countries, Lapland and some parts of
Sweden and Norway excepted. But how much must it astonish us when we
look back to the distant ages of Greece and Rome, the nurseries of the
sciences and the arts, to find the greatest heroes and statesmen
imbibing and fostering the same ridiculous prejudices, and strenuously
cultivating the same belief, paying obedience to augurs, oracles, and
soothsayers, on whose contradictory and equivocal inferences their
prosperity or adversity was made to depend. In fact, little more than a
century ago, do we not behold things still more extravagantly credulous
and ferocious; namely, the burning of women for the imaginary crime of
witchcraft, incidents of which we have given in the body of this work, a
crime much more innocent than that of priestcraft, which triumphantly
prevailed at the very same period, and which still holds the minds of
thousands in subjection?

A belief in judicial astrology was supported and cultivated by men
remarkable for their extraordinary genius and talents.

Legends, miracles, prophecies, &c. are relics of superstitious ages.
What also is extraordinary, is, that few species of superstition, if
any, originated with the _populace_. They were the inventions of
barbarous ages before the dawn of reason—afterwards the fabrications of
men actuated by ambition, and a desire to servilize the human mind.

As regards the Romans only, a people whom we are taught from our infancy
to respect, and who, indeed, in their better days, were truly venerable
for their virtue and valour, what is there in their history more
astonishing than their implicit belief in augury[1]? Their belief in
omens or preternatural appearances of the heavenly bodies, in eclipses,
comets, and dreadful thunder-storms, may be forgiven. They had made
small progress in astronomy; they had not learnt that an eclipse is a
matter of common calculation; and that storms are, in most cases, highly
beneficial to the earth, and nowise connected with past or future
events. But when we find them giving implicit credit to their priests,
who thought proper to predict good or evil, merely from the appearance
of the entrails of sacrificed animals, from the flight of birds, from
chickens, foxes, &c. we are at a loss to conceive how a deception of
this kind could have prevailed, without being detected and exposed by
the good sense of the people. The mob alone, or the common soldiers and
sailors, were not merely influenced by the reports of the augurs[2];
their kings or commanders undertook no expedition without consulting
these oracles, and were always unsuccessful, if they confided so much in
themselves as to disregard their opinions. In some cases, it is easy to
suppose that they might have been in concert with the augurs, to promote
some favourite point, to raise an enthusiasm in the people in their
favour, or to inspire the soldiers with fortitude in some dangerous
enterprise. But it is not so easy to suppose that this was always the
case, because, upon the evidence of their historians, it appears that
there was generally but little connexion between them; and that,
although the people looked to the commander for _orders_, they regarded
the augurs as superior beings who were to grant _success_.

The art of augury the Romans had from the Tuscans, and the Tuscans from
the Greeks, who probably derived it from the Chaldeans; but the progress
of the art is as absurd as the origin of it is obscure. The only wonder
is, that it had so much influence upon a people, in the whole of whose
history we find so many brilliant examples of solid sense, of learning,
and of eloquence. Their historians, who rank among the most learned of
their writers, and of whose abilities we can even now be judges, gravely
relate the process of consulting augury, and the success of it. Yet the
augurs were men following one another in regular succession. Was there
none to betray the secret? Was the art of juggling an hereditary secret
without one interruption? Tyranny first broke the chain. When Rome was
governed by tyrants, these despised augury, and prosecuted their wicked
purposes, whatever might be the appearance of the entrails of an ox; and
as they, no doubt, often succeeded in their enterprises, augury would
naturally fall into disrepute. These circumstances, in the great chain
of causes and events, would naturally pave the way for a more rational
religion. We are indebted to Henry VIII. for the commencement of the
reformation; but, if the pope would have sanctioned his lust and his
extortion, that advantage would have probably been derived from a better
sovereign.

It is a circumstance no less remarkable, that, notwithstanding we read
of the superstitions of the Greeks and Romans with wonder and some
degree of contempt, we cannot acquit ourselves of having yet retained a
very considerable portion Of the same superstitious spirit. We are even
indebted to them for almost all our popular whims. A hare crossing the
way—a person sneezing—stumbling—hearing strange voices—and the falling
of salt upon the table, were all with them omens of good or evil,
according to circumstances, and remain so with thousands at the present
time, and in this enlightened country. Persons of otherwise no mean
understanding have been greatly perplexed, and have even turned pale at
such occurrences. To the above may be added, a coal starting from the
fire[3]—the death-watch—the sediment of the sugar rising to the top of
the tea-cup, and many others. We may also mention the success of those
impostors, who pretend to calculate nativities (_see_ ASTROLOGY) and
predict events; and the many foolish instances for belief in the success
of lottery-tickets.

Ignorant as the Romans were of a superintending Providence, and of the
revealed will of the Divine Majesty, their trust in such omens was
pardonable, and deceived as they were by the artifices of their
soothsayers, who could contrive to _time_ their prophecies, and express
them in such a manner that they should appear to be punctually
fulfilled, we cannot wonder if the wisest among them were induced to
place confidence in imposture. But that we should be as much attached to
this species of divination is a weakness, than which there is none we
ought more to blush at. Although we boast of our superior understanding,
improved as it is by the knowledge of eighteen centuries, we are guilty
of a weakness which is excusable only in an unenlightened heathen. This
subject might, perhaps, be treated with the ridicule of satire, or the
silence of contempt, but the more we consider it, the more we should be
inclined to doubt the fact, that there can exist a human and reasonable
being so weak, as to believe that futurity can be revealed by trifling
events, or by the lowest of mankind, under the name of conjurors. But
the fact cannot be doubted: cases of the kind occur every day; and the
happiness of individuals and families often lies at the mercy of such
impostors.

Those who are addicted to this species of superstitious credulity are no
doubt of that class of people who are called _well-meaning_, and would
be greatly incensed were we to ask them whether they believed in the
superintendence of a Divine Providence. They would answer, “Surely—God
forbid we did not!” And yet, is it consistent with our received ideas,
or with the revealed wisdom and perfections of the Deity, to suppose
that he should declare that futurity is locked up from the penetration
of mankind, and yet should reveal the events of it by the sediments of a
cup of coffee, the flame of a candle, or the starting of a sulphureous
coal? Is not this offering the greatest insult to him? A step farther,
we have, indeed, gone, and but a step towards the very highest insult;
we have supposed that he makes known the secrets of futurity to the
meanest vagrants and impostors, to the men and women whom the magistrate
very properly punishes as much against their foreknowledge as against
their inclination. The impossibility of our acquiring by any means a
knowledge of future events, and the miserable condition of human life if
we had that knowledge, might be here insisted on; but they must be
obvious to every thinking man. A better dissuasive from the credulity
which is the subject of this discourse, would be to insist upon the
gross and insulting impiety of endeavouring to pry into what the Deity
has pronounced hidden and concealed, and that by agents the most mean
and contemptible. Let those who are still credulous in the appearance of
their coffee grounds, their spilling of salt, their passing under a
ladder or scaffolding[4], and all the paraphernalia of the impostures of
pretended divines, consider with what propriety, decency and respect,
they can hereafter appeal to the Deity by the epithets of _all-seeing_
and _omniscient_; and when they have done that, let them reflect upon
the dignity and importance of those agents, in whose revelations they
confide, in preference to his decrees.

Under the head of superstition may be ranked fatalism; for it follows
from this dogma of faith, that all means of averting predestined events,
that is, all future events whatever, are not only unavailing, but
impious. It is manifest, that if this were consistently adhered to,
every effort conducive to self-preservation, or even the common comforts
and accommodations of life, would be paralysed; there would be no end to
all the duties of social life; nay, to the very existence of the human
species. Though this speculative principle, however, has never been able
entirely to overpower and extinguish the feelings and dictates of nature
to this extent, except among a few fantastical maniacs, there are proofs
enough in the history of mankind of its pernicious practical effects.
One of the most conspicuous examples of this, is found among the
professors of the Mahomedan faith, in their abstaining from the means of
stopping the progress of the plague. Among Christian sects, professing
this doctrine, the like evils have arisen in an inferior degree, as
exemplified in the opposition which the inoculation of the small-pox met
with from this religious prejudice. _See Sir Gilbert Blane’s Elements of
Medical Logic, page 208._




           PROOFS AND TRIALS OF GUILT IN SUPERSTITIOUS AGES.


It were well, perhaps, did the cruelties practised in former ages lay
generally at the door of superstition. The extraordinary trials to which
those suspected of any guilty action were conducted with many devout
ceremonies, by the ministers of religion, were declared to be the
judgments of God. The kinds of ordeal were various, _e. g._ holding in
the hand a red hot bar; plunging the arm into boiling water; walking
blindfold amidst burning ploughshares; passing through fires;
challenging the accuser to single combat, when frequently the ablest
champion was permitted to supply his place; swallowing a morsel of
consecrated bread; swimming or sinking in a river for witchcraft, or, as
it was called, weighing a witch; stretching out the arms before the
cross, till the soonest wearied dropped his arms, and lost his estate,
which was decided by this very short process, called _juidcium crucis_,
&c.

A dispute occurred between the Bishop of Paris and the Abbot of St.
Denis, about the patronage of a monastery, and Pepin, surnamed the
Short, not being able to pronounce upon their confused claims, decreed
that it should be settled by one of these judgments of God: viz. _The
judgment of the cross._ Each of the disputants chose a man, and both of
the men appeared in the chapel, where they extended their arms in the
form of a cross. The spectators, more orderly than those of the present
day; still, although they watched every motion of the combatants with
the most pious attention, the old English spirit, which rules so
prevalently at the present period, was proof against every other
consideration—they betted on the feat, first on one side, then on the
other, according as the odds seemed to run in favour or against. The
Bishop’s man was first tried; he let his arms drop and ruined his patron
for ever. Though these trials might sometimes be evaded by the artifice
of the priest, numerous, nevertheless, were the innocent victims who
suffered from these superstitious practices.

They were very frequent between the tenth and twelfth century. William
Rufus, having accused Hildebert, the Bishop of Mans, of high treason,
was on the verge of submitting to one of these trials, when he was
convinced by Ives, Bishop of Chartres, that they were against the canons
of the constitution of the church, and adds, that in this manner
“_Innocentiam defendere, est innocentiam perdere_.” In 1066 an abbot of
St. Aubin of Angers, having refused to present a horse to the viscount
of Tours, which the viscount claimed in right of his lordship, whenever
an abbot first took possession of that abbey; the ecclesiastic offered
to justify himself by the trial of the ordeal, or by duel, for which
purpose he proposed to find a substitute. The duel was first agreed to
by the viscount; but, reflecting that these combatants, though
sanctioned by the church, depended solely on the address or vigour of
the adversary, and consequently could afford no substantial proof of the
equity of his claim, he proposed to compromise the matter in a manner
which strongly characterised these times: he surrendered his claim, on
condition that the abbot should not forget to mention him, his wife, and
his brothers, in his prayers! As the orisons appeared to the abbot of
comparatively little value with the horse, the proposal was accepted.

In the tenth century the right of representation was not settled: it was
a question whether a son’s sons ought to be accounted among the children
of the family, and succeed equally with their uncles, if their fathers
happened to die while their grandfathers survived. This point was
decided by one of these combats. The champion in behalf of the right of
children to represent their deceased father, proved victorious. It was
then established by a perpetual decree, that they should from that time
forward share in the inheritance along with their uncles.

In the eleventh century, the same mode was adopted, to decide between
two rival liturgies! A couple of knights, clad in complete armour, were
the tests to decide which was the true and authentic liturgy.

The capitularies of Dagobert say, that if two neighbours dispute
respecting the boundaries of their possessions, let a piece of turf of
the contested land be dug up by the judge, and brought by him into the
court, and the two parties shall touch it with the points of their
swords, calling on God to witness their claims: after this, let them
combat, and let victory prove who is right or who is wrong. In these
combats in Germany, a solemn circumstance was practised in these
judicial combats. In the midst of the lists they placed a _bier_; by the
side of which stood the accuser and the accused, one at the head and the
other at the foot, where they leaned in profound silence for some time
before the combat commenced. In his preface to Way’s Fableaux, Mr. Ellis
shews how faithfully the manners of the age are painted in these ancient
tales, by observing the judicial combat introduced by a writer of the
14th century, who, in his poem, represents Pilate as challenging Jesus
Christ to _single combat_; and another, who describes the person who
pierced the side of Christ as a knight who jousted with Jesus.

It appears that judicial combat was practised by the Jews. Whenever the
Rabbins had to decide on a dispute about property between two parties,
neither of which could produce evidence to substantiate the claim, it
was terminated by single combat. The Rabbins were impressed with a
notion that consciousness of right would give additional confidence and
strength to the rightful possessor. It may, however, be more
philosophical to observe, that such judicial combats were more
frequently favourable to the criminal than to the innocent, because the
bold wicked man is usually more ferocious and hardy than he whom he
singles out as his victim, and who only wishes to preserve his own quiet
enjoyments: in this case the assailant is the most terrific opponent.

Those who were accused of robbery in these times were put to trial by a
piece of barley bread, on which the mass had been performed; and if the
accused could not swallow it, they were declared guilty. This mode of
trial was improved by adding to the _bread_ a slice of _cheese_; and
such was their credulity and dependance on heaven in these ridiculous
trials, that they were very particular in this holy _bread_ and
_cheese_, called the _corsned_. The bread was to be of unleavened
barley, and the cheese made of ewes milk in the month of May[5].

The _bleeding of a corpse_ was another proof of guilt in superstitious
ages; nor is the custom yet entirely abolished. If a person were
murdered, it was believed, that at the touch or approach of the
murderer, the blood gushed out from various parts of the body. By the
side of the bier, if the smallest change was perceptible in the eyes,
mouth, feet or hands of the corpse, the murderer was conjectured to be
present, and many innocent persons doubtless must have suffered death
from this idle chimera; for when a body is full of blood, warmed by a
sudden external heat and symptoms of ensuing putrefaction, some of the
blood vessels will burst, as they will all in time. This practice was
once allowed in England, and is still looked on in some of the
uncivilized parts of these kingdoms as a means of detecting the
criminal. It forms a rich picture in the imagination of our old writers;
and their histories and ballads are laboured into pathos by dwelling on
the suppositious phenomenon.

All these absurd institutions, Robertson observes, cherished and
inculcated, form the superstitions of the age believing the legendary
histories of those saints who crowd and disgrace the Roman calendar.
These fabulous miracles had been declared authentic by the bulls of the
Popes, and the decrees of Councils—they were greedily swallowed by the
populace; and whoever believed that the Supreme Being had interposed
miraculously on those trivial occasions mentioned in legends, could not
but expect his intervention in matters of greater importance when
solemnly referred to his decision. Besides this ingenious remark, the
fact is, that these customs were a substitute for written laws, which
that barbarous period had not; and as it is impossible for any society
to exist without _laws_, the ignorance of the people had recourse to
these customs, which bad and absurd as they were, served to terminate
controversies which might have given birth to more destructive
practices. Ordeals are, in fact, the rude laws of a barbarous people,
who have not obtained a written code, and not advanced enough in
civilization, to embrace the refined investigations, the subtle
distinctions, and elaborate inquiries, which are exacted by a Court of
Law.

It may be presumed, that these ordeals owe their origin to that one of
Moses, called the “Waters of Jealousy.” The Greeks also had ordeals, for
we read in the Antigonus of Sophocles, that the soldiers offer to prove
their innocence by handling red hot iron, and walking between fires.

One cannot but smile at the whimsical ordeals of the Siamese. Among
other practices to discover the justice of a cause, civil or criminal,
they are particularly attached to the use of certain consecrated
purgative pills, which the contending parties are made to swallow. He
who retains them longest, gains his cause! The practice of giving
Indians a consecrated grain of rice to swallow, is known to discover the
thief in any company, by the contortions and dismay evident on the
countenance of the real thief.

In the middle ages they were acquainted with secrets to pass unhurt
these secret trials: one is mentioned by Voltaire for undergoing the
ordeal of boiling water; and this statement is confirmed by some of our
late travellers in the East. The Mevleheh dervises can hold red hot iron
between their teeth. Such artifices have been often publicly exhibited
at Paris and London. On the ordeal of the Anglo-Saxons, Mr. Sharon
Turner observes, that the hand was not to be immediately inspected, and
was left to the chance of a good constitution to be so far healed during
three days (the time they required to be bound up and sealed, before it
was examined) as to discover those appearances when inspected, which
were allowed to be satisfactory. There was also much preparatory
training, suggested by the more experienced: besides, the accused had an
opportunity of _going alone into the church_, and making _terms_ with
the priest. The few spectators were always at a distance; and cold iron
or any other inoffensive substance might be substituted, and the fire
diminished at the moment. There can be no doubt they possessed these
secrets and medicaments, which they always took care to have ready at
hand, that they might pass through these trials in perfect security.

There is an anecdote of these times given by Camerarius, in his “Horæ
Subscecivæ,” which may serve to show the readiness of this apparatus. A
rivalship existed between the Austin Friars and the Jesuits. The
Father-general of the Austin Friars was dining with the Jesuits; and on
the table being removed, he entered into a formal discourse of the
superiority of the monastic order, and charged the Jesuits, in
unqualified terms, with assuming the title of “Fratres,” while they held
not the three vows, which other monks were obliged to consider as sacred
and binding. The general of the Austin Friars was very eloquent and very
authoritative: and the superior of the Jesuits was very unlearned, but
not quite half a fool. He was rather careless about entering the list of
controversy with the Austin Friar, but arrested his triumph by asking
him if he would see one of his Friars who pretended to be nothing more
than a Jesuit, and one of the Austin Friar’s who religiously performed
the above-mentioned three vows, show instantly which of them would be
the readiest to obey his superiors? The Austin Friar consented. The
Jesuit then turning to one of his brothers, the Holy Friar Mark, who was
waiting on them, said, “Brother Mark, our companions are cold; I command
you, in virtue of the holy obedience you have sworn to me, to bring here
instantly out of the kitchen fire, and in your hands, some burning
coals, that they may warm themselves over your hands.” Father Mark
instantly obeys, and to the astonishment of the Austin Friars, brought
in his hands a supply of red burning coals, and held them to whoever
thought proper to warm himself; and at the command of his superior,
returned them to the kitchen hearth. The general of the Austin Friars,
with the rest of his brethren, stood amazed; he looked wistfully on one
of his monks, as if he wished to command him to do the like; but the
Austin Monk, who perfectly understood him, and saw this was not a time
to hesitate, observed,—“Reverend Father, forbear, and do not command me
to tempt God! I am ready to fetch you fire in a chafing dish, but not in
my bare hands.” The triumph of the Jesuits was complete; and it is not
necessary to add, that the miracle was noised about, and that the Austin
Friars could never account for it, notwithstanding their strict
performance of the three vows.




                             ASTROLOGY, &c.

  “This is the excellent foppery of the world, that when we are sick in
    fortune (often the surfeit of our own behaviour) we make guilt of
    our disasters, the sun, the moon, and the stars; as if we were
    villains by necessity; fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves,
    thieves, and treachers (traitors), by spherical predominance;
    drunkards, liars, and adulterers, by an inforced obedience of
    planetary influence; and all that we are evil in by a Divine
    thrusting on; an admirable evasion of whoremaster to lay his goatish
    disposition to the charge of a star! My father compounded with my
    mother under the Dragon’s tail; and my nativity was under _Ursa
    Major_; so that it follows, I am rough and lecherous.—Tut, I should
    have been that I am, had the maidenliest star in the firmament
    twinkled at my bastardizing.”—SHAKSPEARE.


It is a singular fact, that men the most eminent for their learning were
those who indulged most in the favourite superstition of judicial
Astrology; and as the ingenious Tenhove observes, whenever an idea
germinates in a learned head, it shoots with additional luxuriance. At
the present time, however, a belief in judicial Astrology can only exist
in the people, who may be said to have no belief at all; for mere
traditional sentiments can hardly be said to amount to a belief.

It is said that Dr. Fludd[6] was in possession of the MSS. of Simon
Forman, the Astrologer. We have seen that the studies of Mathematics,
Astronomy, and Medicine, were early united in several persons connected
with the faculty of medicine. Real Astronomy gave birth to judicial
Astrology; which offering an ample field to enthusiasm and imposture,
was eagerly pursued by many who had no scientific purpose in view. It
was connected with various juggling tricks and deceptions, affected an
obscure jargon of language, and insinuated itself into every thing in
which the hopes and fears of mankind were concerned. The professors of
this pretended science were at first generally persons of mean
education, in whom low cunning supplied the place of knowledge. Most of
them engaged in the empirical practice of physic, and some, through the
credulity of the times, even arrived at a degree of eminence in it; yet
since the whole foundation of their art was folly and deceit, they
nevertheless gained many proselytes and dupes, both among the
well-informed and the ignorant.

When Charles the First was confined, Lilly, the famous Astrologer, was
consulted for the hour that should favour his escape.

A story, which strongly proves how much Charles II. was bigoted to
judicial astrology, and whose mind was certainly not unenlightened, is
recorded in Burnet’s History of his own times. The most respectable
characters of the age, Sir William Dugdale, Elias Ashmole, Dr. Grew, and
others, were members of an astrological club[7]. Congreve’s character of
Foresight, in Love for Love, was then no uncommon person, though the
humour now is scarcely intelligible. Dryden cast the nativities of his
sons; and, what is remarkable, his prediction relating to his son
Charles, was accomplished. This incident is of so late a date, one might
hope it would have been cleared up; but, if it be a fact, it must be
allowed that it forms a rational exultation for its irrational adepts.

In 1670, the passion for horoscopes and expounding the stars, prevailed
in France among the first rank. The new-born child was usually presented
naked to the astrologer, who read the first lineaments in its forehead,
and the transverse lines in its hands, and thence wrote down its future
destiny. Catherine de Medicis brought Henry IV. then a child, to old
Nostradamus, whom antiquaries esteem more for his Chronicle of Provence
than for his vaticinating powers. The sight of the reverend seer, with a
beard which “streamed like a meteor in the air,” terrified the future
hero, who dreaded a whipping from so grave a personage. Will it be
credited, that one of these magicians, having assured Charles IX. that
he would live as many days as he should turn about on his heels in an
hour, standing on one leg, that his Majesty every morning performed that
solemn exercise for an hour; the principal officers of the court, the
judges, the chancellors, and generals, likewise, in compliment, standing
on one leg, and turning round!

It has been reported of several famous for their astrological skill,
that they have suffered a voluntary death merely to verify their own
predictions: this has been said of Cardan, and Burton the author of the
Anatomy of Melancholy.

It is curious to observe the shifts to which astrologers are put when
their predictions are not verified. Great winds were predicted, by a
famous adept, about the year 1586. No unusual storms, however, happened.
Bodin, to save the reputation of the art, applied it as a figure to some
_revolutions_ in the state, and of which there were instances enough at
that moment. Among their lucky and unlucky days, they pretend to give
those of various illustrious persons and of families. One is very
striking:—Thursday was the unlucky day of our Henry VIII. He, his son
Edward VI. Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth, all died on a _Thursday_!
This fact had, no doubt, great weight in this controversy of the
astrologers with their adversaries.

The life of Lilly, the astrologer, written by himself, is a curious
work. He is the _Sidrophel_ of Butler. It contains so much artless
narrative, and at the same time so much palpable imposture, that it is
difficult to know when he is speaking what he really believes to be the
truth. In a sketch of the state of astrology in his day, those adepts,
whose characters he has drawn, were the lowest miscreants of the town.
They all speak of each other as rogues and impostors. Such were Booker,
George Wharton, Gadbury, who gained a livelihood by practising on the
credulity of even men of learning so late as in 1650, to the 18th
century. In Ashmole’s life an account of these artful impostors may be
found. Most of them had taken the air in the pillory, and others had
conjured themselves up to the gallows. This seems a true statement of
facts. But Lilly informs us, that in his various conferences with
_angels_, their voice resembled that of the Irish! The work is certainly
curious for the anecdotes of the times it contains. The amours of Lilly
with his mistress are characteristic. By his own accounts, he was a very
artful man; and managed matters admirably which required deception and
invention.

In the time of the civil wars, astrology was in high repute. The
royalists and the rebels had their _astrologers_ as well as their
_soldiers_! and the predictions of the former had a great influence over
the latter. On this subject, it may gratify curiosity to notice three or
four works which bear an excessive price; a circumstance which cannot
entirely be occasioned by their rarity; and we are induced to suppose,
that we still have adepts in this science, whose faith must be strong,
or whose scepticism weak.

The Chaldean sages were nearly put to the route by a quarto park of
artillery, fired on them by Mr. John Chamber, in 1691. Apollo did not
use Marsyas more inhumanly than his scourging pen this mystical race,
and his personalities made them feel more sore. However, a Norwich
knight, the very Quixote of astrology, arrayed in the enchanted armour
of his occult authors, encountered this pagan in a most stately
carousal. He came forth with “A defence of Judiciall Astrologye, in
answer to a treatise lately published by Mr. John Chamber. By
Christopher Knight. Printed at Cambridge, 1603.” This is a handsome
quarto of about 500 pages. Sir Christopher is a learned and lively
writer, and a knight worthy to defend a better cause. But his Dulcinea
had wrought most wonderfully on his imagination. This defence of this
fanciful science, if science it may be called, demonstrates nothing,
while it defends every thing. It confutes, according to the Knight’s own
ideas: it alleges a few scattered facts in favour of astrological
predictions, which may be picked up in that immensity of fabling which
disgraces history. He strenuously denies, or ridicules, what the
greatest writers have said against this fanciful art, while he lays
great stress on some passages from obscure authors, or what is worse,
from authors of no authority. The most pleasant part is at the close,
where he defends the art from the objections of Mr. Chamber, by
recrimination. Chamber had enriched himself by medical practice, and
when he charges the astrologers by merely aiming to gain a few beggarly
pence, Sir Christopher catches fire, and shews by his quotations, that
if we are to despise an art by its professors attempting to subsist on
it, or for the objections which may be raised against its vital
principles, we ought by this argument most heartily to despise the
medical science and medical men! He gives here all he can collect
against physic and physicians, and from the confessions of Hippocrates
and Galen, Avicenna and Agrippa, medicine appears to be a vainer science
than even astrology! Sir Christopher is a shrewd and ingenious
adversary; but when he says he only means to give Mr. Chamber oil for
his vinegar, he has totally mistaken its quality.

The defence was answered by Thomas Vicars, in his “Madnesse of
Astrologers.”

But the great work is by Lilly; and entirely devoted to the adepts. He
defends nothing; for this oracle delivers his _dictum_, and details
every event as matters not questionable. He sits on the tripod; and
every page is embellished by a horoscope, which he explains with the
utmost facility. This voluminous monument of the folly of the age, is a
quarto, valued at some guineas! It is entitled, “Christian Astrology,
modestly treated of in three Books, by William Lilly, student in
Astrology, 2nd edition, 1659.” There is also a portrait of this arch
rogue, and astrologer! an admirable illustration for Lavater!

Lilly’s opinions, and his pretended science, were such favourites of the
age, that the learned Gataker wrote professedly against this popular
delusion. Lilly, at the head of his star-expounding friends, not only
formally replied to, but persecuted Gataker annually in his predictions,
and even struck at his ghost, when beyond the grave. Gataker died in
July 1654, and Lilly having written in his Almanack of that year, for
the month of August, this barbarous Latin verse:—

              Hoc in tumbo, jacet presbyter et nebulo!

            Here in this tomb lies a presbyter and a knave!

He had the impudence to assert, that he had predicted Gataker’s death!
But the truth is, it was an epitaph to the “lodgings to let:” it stood
empty, ready for the first passenger to inhabit. Had any other of that
party of any eminence died in that month, it would have been as
appositely applied to him. But Lilly was an exquisite rogue, and never
at a fault. Having prophesied, in his Almanack for 1650, that the
parliament stood upon a tottering foundation, when taken up by a
messenger during the night, he contrived to cancel the page, printed off
another, and shewed his copies before the committee, assuring them that
the others were none of his own, but forged by his enemies.




                        PRACTICAL ASTROLOGY, &c.


By the word Astrology (derived from the Greek αστηρ, _a star_, and
λογος, _a discourse_,) is meant the art of prognosticating or
foretelling events[8] by the ASPECTS, POSITIONS, and INFLUENCE of the
HEAVENLY BODIES.

By ASPECT is to be understood an angle formed by the rays of two planets
meeting on earth, able to execute some natural power or influence; which
may be better explained by the following table.

                            CHARACTERS OF THE
                  │                 │                 │

 ═════════════════╤═════════════════╤═════════════════╤═════════════════
 _Six Northern    │_Six Southern    │_Planets._       │_Aspects._
   Signs._        │  Signs._        │                 │
 ─────────────────┴┬────────────────┴─┬───────────────┴─┬───────────────
 ♈︎ Aries.         │♎︎ Libra.         │♄ Saturn.        │☌ Conjunction.
 ♉︎ Taurus.        │♏︎ Scorpio.       │♃ Jupiter.       │⚹ Sextile.
 ♊︎ Gemini.        │♐︎ Sagittarius.   │♂ Mars.          │Δ Trine.
 ♋︎ Cancer.        │♑︎ Capricorn.     │☉ Sun.           │☐ Quartile.
 ♌︎ Leo.           │♒︎ Aquarius.      │⦵ Earth.         │☍ Opposition.
 ♍︎ Virgo.         │♓︎ Pisces.        │♀ Venus.         │
                  │                 │☿ Mercury.       │
                  │                 │☽ Luna.          │
 ═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════

This art, or rather this conjectural science, is principally divided
into NATURAL and JUDICIARY.




                           NATURAL ASTROLOGY


Is confined to the study of exploring natural effects, as CHANGE OF
WEATHER, WINDS, STORMS, HURRICANES, THUNDER, FLOODS, EARTHQUAKES, and
the like. In this sense it is admitted to be a part of natural
philosophy. It was under this view that Mr. Goad, Mr. Boyle, and Dr.
Mead, pleaded for its use. The first endeavours to account for the
diversity of seasons from the situations, habitudes, and motions of the
planets; and to explain an infinity of phenomena by the contemplation of
the stars. The Honourable Mr. Boyle admitted, that all physical bodies
are influenced by the heavenly bodies; and the Doctor’s opinion, in his
treatise concerning the POWER OF THE SUN AND MOON, &c. is in favour of
the doctrine. But these predictions and influences are ridiculed and
entirely exploded by the most esteemed modern philosophers, of which the
reader may have a learned specimen in ROHAULT’S _Tract. Physic._ pt. ii.
c. 27.




                    JUDICIAL OR JUDICIARY ASTROLOGY


Is a further pretence to discover or foretel MORAL EVENTS, or such as
have a dependence on the FREEDOM OF THE WILL. In this department of
astrology we meet with all the idle conceits about the HORARY REIGN of
planets, the DOCTRINE OF HOROSCOPES, the DISTRIBUTION OF THE HOUSES, the
CALCULATION OF NATIVITIES, FORTUNES, LUCKY and UNLUCKY HOURS, and other
ominous fatalities.

The professors of this conjectural science maintain “that the Heavens
are one great book, wherein God has written the history of the world;
and in which every man may read his own fortune and the transactions of
his time. This art, say they, had its rise from the same hands as
Astronomy itself: while the ancient Assyrians, whose serene unclouded
sky favoured their celestial observations, were intent on tracing the
paths and periods of the heavenly bodies; they discovered a constant
settled relation or analogy between them and things below; and hence
were led to conclude these to be the _parcæ_, or fates or destinies, so
much talked of, which preside at our birth, and dispose of our future
fate.”

The study of Astrology, so flattering to human curiosity, got early
admission into the favour of mankind, especially of the weak, ignorant,
and effeminate, whose follies induced the avaricious, crafty, and
designing knaves, to recommend and promote it for their own private
interest and advantage.


                         _Origin of Astrology._

We meet with the first accounts of Astrology in Chaldea; and at Rome it
was known by the name of the BABYLONISH CALCULATION; against which
Horace very wisely cautioned his readers—

                 —— nec Babylonios
                 Tentaris numeros.—_Lib._ l. _od._ xi.

that is, consult not the tables or planetary calculations used by
Astrologers of Babylonish origin. This therefore was the opinion of the
Romans on the subject of Astrology. Others have ascribed the invention
of this deception to the Arabs: be this as it may, judicial Astrology
has been too much used by the priests of all nations to increase their
own power and emoluments.

The Egyptians, the Chaldeans, the Greeks and Romans, furnish us with
innumerable instances of the extent to which Astrology was carried for
interested purposes. Brahmins in India, who take upon themselves to be
the arbiters of good and evil hours, and who set an extravagant price
upon their pretended knowledge of planetary influence and predictions,
maintain their authority at the present day by similar means. Nor among
the Christians, notwithstanding the enlightened era in which we live,
are we without our Astrologers, as well as its admirers and advocates;
for though they may not have all pursued and adopted the same technical
method, still it is certain, that whoever pretends to discover future
events by other means than through the light of Divine revelation, may
be properly classed under the species of judicial Astrologers.


                      _Astrological Schemes, &c._

Those who pretend to reduce the practice of Astrology to a system,
present the world with certain schemes formed upon the ASPECTS of the
planets, and attribute certain qualities or powers to each sign. Thus,
to discover the influence of the heavens over the life of a person, they
erect a THEME, at the given time of the moment the person was born, by
which the Astrologers pretend to discover the star that presided, or in
what part of the hemisphere it was placed, when the individual came into
the world. The erection of this THEME they perform, or at least pretend
to reform, with the assistance of the celestial globe, or planisphere,
with regard to the fixed stars; but with respect to the planets, they do
it with Astronomical tables. To accomplish these, they have recourse to
a semi-circle, which they call POSITION, by which they represent the six
great circles passing through the intersection of the Meridian and
Horizon, and dividing the Equator into twelve equal parts. The spaces
included between these circles, are what they call the twelve HOUSES;
which they refer to the twelve triangles marked in their theme; placing
six of those HOUSES above and six underneath the horizon.

The first of the HOUSES under the horizon toward the East, they call the
HOROSCOPE, or HOUSE OF LIFE; the second, the HOUSE OF WEALTH; the third,
the HOUSE OF BROTHERS; the fourth, the HOUSE OF PARENTS, &c.; as is
clearly expressed in the following lines:

            Vita, lucrum, fratres, genitor, natique Valetud,
            Uxor, Mors, pietas, et munia, amici inimici.

Which, translated by some English students in Astrology, runs thus:

        The first house shews life, the second wealth doth give;
        The third how brethren, fourth how parents live;
        Issue the fifth; the sixth diseases bring;
        The seventh wedlock, and the eighth death’s sting;
        The ninth religion; the tenth honour shews;
        Friendship the eleventh, and twelfth our woes.


                     _Table of the Twelve Houses._

Astrologers draw their table of the TWELVE HOUSES into a triple
quadrangle prepared for the purpose, of which there are four principal
angles, two of them falling equally upon the horizon, and the other two
upon the meridian, which angles are sudivided into 12 triangles for the
12 houses, in which they place the 12 signs of the Zodiac, to each of
which is attributed a particular quality,—viz.

  1.— ARIES, denoted by the sign ♈︎, is, in their extravagant opinion, a
        masculine, diurnal, cardinal, equinoctial, easterly sign, hot
        and dry,—the day house of Mars.

  2.— TAURUS, ♉︎, is a feminine, nocturnal, melancholy, bestial, furious
        sign—cold and dry.

  3.— GEMINI, ♊︎, is a masculine sign, hot and moist, diurnal, aërial,
        human, double-bodied, &c.

  4.— CANCER, ♋︎, is a feminine, nocturnal, phlegmatic sign, by nature
        cold and moist, the only house of Luna.

  5.— LEO, ♌︎, is a sign, masculine, diurnal, bestial, choleric and
        barren; a commanding, kingly sign—hot and dry, the only house of
        the sun.

  6.— VIRGO, ♍︎, is a feminine, nocturnal, melancholy, and barren sign.

  7.— LIBRA, ♎︎, is a sign masculine, cardinal, equinoctial, diurnal,
        sanguine and human, hot and moist.

  8.— SCORPIO, ♏︎, is a feminine, nocturnal, cold and phlegmatic
        northern sign.

  9.— SAGITTARIUS, ♐︎, is a sign masculine, choleric, and diurnal, by
        nature hot and dry.

 10.— CAPRICORN, ♑︎, is a feminine, nocturnal, melancholy, solstitial,
        moveable, cardinal, and southern sign.

 11.— AQUARIUS, ♒︎, is a masculine, diurnal, fixed, sanguine, and human
        sign.

 12.— PISCES, ♓︎, is a feminine, nocturnal, phlegmatic, northerly
        double-bodied sign, the last of the twelve.

Having thus housed their signs and directed them in their operations,
they afterwards come to enquire of their tenants, what planet and fixed
stars they have for LODGERS, at the moment of the nativity of such
person; from whence they draw conclusions with regard to the future
incident of that person’s life. For if at the time of that person’s
nativity they find Mercury in 27° 52 min. of Aquarius, and in the
_sextile aspect_ of the horoscope, they pretend to foretel that that
infant will be a person of great sagacity, genius, and understanding;
and therefore capable of learning the most sublime sciences.

Astrologers have also imagined, for the same ridiculous purpose, to be
in the same houses different positions of the signs and planets, and
from their different aspects, opposition and conjunction, and according
to the rules and axioms they have prescribed to themselves and invented,
have the sacrilegious presumption to judge, in _dernier resort_, of the
fate of mankind, though their pretended art or science is quite barren
either of proofs or demonstrations.


                 _Signs to the Houses of the Planets._

The planets have allowed themselves each, except SOL and LUNA, two signs
for their houses; to SATURN, Capricorn and Aquarius; to JUPITER,
Sagittarius and Pisces; to MARS, Aries and Scorpio; to SOL, Leo; to
VENUS, Taurus and Libra; to MERCURY, Gemini and Virgo; and to LUNA,
Cancer.


                  _Angles or Aspects of the Planets._

By their continual mutations among the twelve signs, the planets make
several angles or aspects; the most remarkable of which are the five
following, viz.—

☌ CONJUNCTION.—Δ TRINE.—☐ QUADRATE.—⚹ SEXTILE.—☍ OPPOSITION.

A CONJUNCTION is when two planets are in one and the same degree and
minute of a sign; and this, according to Astrological cant, either good
or bad, as the planets are either friends or enemies.

A TRINE is when two planets are four signs, or 120 degrees distant, as
MARS in twelve degrees of ARIES, and SOL in twelve degrees of LEO. Here
SOL and MARS are said to be in _Trine Aspect_. And this is an aspect of
perfect love and friendship.

A QUADRATE ASPECT is when two planets are three signs, or 90 degrees
distant, as MARS in 10 degrees, and VENUS in 10 degrees of LEO. This
particular aspect is of imperfect enmity, and Astrologers say, that
persons thereby signified, may have jars at sometime, but of such a
nature as may be perfectly reconciled.

A SEXTILE ASPECT, is when two planets are two signs, or 60 degrees
distant, as JUPITER in 15 degrees of Aries; and SATURN in 15 degrees of
Gemini; here JUPITER is in a sextile aspect to SATURN. This is an aspect
of friendship.

An OPPOSITION is, when two planets are diametrically opposite, which
happens when they are 6 signs, or 180 degrees (which is one half of the
circle) asunder; and this is an aspect of perfect hatred.

A PARTILE ASPECT, is when two planets are in a perfect aspect to the
very same degree and minute.

DEXTER ASPECTS, are those which are contrary to the succession of signs;
as a planet, for instance, in Aries, casts its sextile _dexter_ to
Aquarius.

SINISTER ASPECT, is with the succession of signs, as a planet in Aries,
for example, casts its sextile sinister in Gemini.

In addition to these, Astrologers play a number of other diverting
tricks; hence we read of the APPLICATION—PROHIBITION—TRANSLATION—
REFRENATION—COMBUSTION—EXCEPTION—RETROGRADATION, &c. of planets.


                     _The Application of Planets._

Application of the planets is performed by Astrologers in three
different ways.

1. When a light planet, direct and swift in its motion, applies to a
planet more ponderous and slow in motion; as Mercury in 8° of Aries, and
Jupiter in 12° of Gemini, and both direct; here Mercury applies to a
sextile of Jupiter, by direct application.

2. When they are both retrograde, as Mercury in 20° of Aries, and
Jupiter in 15° of Gemini; here Mercury, the lighter planet, applies to
the sextile aspect of Jupiter; and this is by retrogradation.

3. When one of the planets is direct, and the other retrograde; for
example, if Mercury were retrograde in 18° of Aries, and Jupiter direct
in 14° of Gemini; in this case Mercury applies to a sextile of Jupiter,
by a retrograde motion.


                             _Prohibition_,

is when two planets are applying either by body or aspect; and before
they come to their _partile_ aspect, another planet meets with the
aspect of the former and prohibits it.


                             _Separation_,

is when two planets have been lately in conjunction, or aspect, and are
separated from it.


                   _Translation of Light and Virtue_,

is when a lighter planet separates from the body or aspect of a heavier
one, and immediately applies to another superior planet, and so
translates the light and virtue of the first planet to that which it
applies to.


                             _Refrenation_,

is when a planet is applied to the body or aspect of another; and,
before it comes to it, falls retrograde, and so refrains by its
retrograde motion.


                             _Combustion._

A planet is said to be combust of Sol, when it is within 8° 30″ of his
body, either before or after his conjunction: but Astrologers complain,
that a planet is more afflicted when it is applying to the body of Sol,
than when it is separating from combustion.


                              _Reception_,

is when two planets are in each other’s dignities, and it may either be
by house, exultation, triplicity, or term.


                           _Retrogradation_,

is when a planet moves backward from 20° to 9°, 8°, 7°, and so out of
Taurus into Aries.


                             _Frustration_,

is when a swift planet applies to the body or aspect of a superior
planet; and before it comes to it, the superior planet meets with the
body or aspect of some other planet.


                     _The Dragon’s Head and Tail._

To the seven planets, viz. SATURN, JUPITER, MARS, SOL, VENUS, MERCURY,
and LUNA; Astrologers add, two certain nodes or points, called the
Dragon’s head, distinguished by this sign ☋, and the Dragon’s tail by ☊.
In those two extremities of the beast, our students in Astrology place
such virtues, that they can draw from thence wealth, honour,
preferments, &c. enough to flatter the avarice, ambition, vanity, &c. of
the fools who follow them. Sensible, however, that the admirers of this
art support their principles and defend their doctrines by examples
founded on their own experience and on the authority of history; there
is no necessity for us here to expose the weakness and futility of their
arguments. Tully’s proof will suffice; who, amidst the darkest clouds of
superstition and ignorance, and in the very heyday of paganism and
idolatry, and whilst religion itself seemed to countenance Astrology,
inveighs severely against it in _Lib. 2, de devinat._ “_Quam multa ego
Pompeis, quam multa Crasso, quam multa huic ipsi Cæsari a Chaldæis dicta
memini, neminem eorum nisi senectute, nisi domi, nisi cum clantate esse
moriturum? ut mihi per Mirum videatur quem quam extare, qui etiam nunc
credastis, quorum predicta quotidie videat re et eventis refelli[9]._”


                             _Climacteric._

Astrologers have used their best artifices, and employed all the rules
of their art, to render those years of our age, which they call
climacterics, dangerous and formidable.

Climacterick from the Greek, κλιμακτης, which means by a scale or
ladder, is a critical year, or a period in a man’s age, wherein,
according to Astrological juggling, there is some notable alteration to
arise in the body; and a person stands in great danger of death. The
first climacterick, say they, is the seventh year of a man’s life; the
rest are multiples of the first, as 21, 49, 56, 63, and 84; which two
last are called the grand climactericks, and the danger more certain.

Marc Ficinus accounts for the foundation of this opinion: he tells us
there is a year assigned for each planet to rule over the body of a man,
each in his turn; now Saturn being the most _maleficent_ (malignant)
planet of all, every seventh year, which falls to its lot, becomes very
dangerous; especially those of 63 and 84, when the person is already
advanced in years. According to this doctrine, some hold every seventh
year an established climacteric; but others only allow the title to
those produced by the multiplication of the climacterical space by an
odd number, 3, 5, 7, 9, &c. Others observe every ninth year as a
climacterick.

There is a work extant, though rather scarce, by Hevelius, under the
title of _Annus Climactericus_, wherein he describes the loss he
sustained by his observatory, &c. being burnt; which, it would appear,
happened in his grand climacterick. Suetonius says, that Augustus
congratulated his nephew upon his having passed his first grand
climacterick, of which he was very apprehensive.

Some pretend that the climacterick years are fatal to political bodies,
which perhaps may be granted, when they are proved to be so to natural
ones; for it must be obvious that the reason of such danger can by no
means be discovered, nor what relation it can have with any of the
numbers above-mentioned. Though this opinion has a great deal of
antiquity on its side; Aulus Gellius says, it was borrowed from the
Chaldeans, who, possibly, might receive it from Pythagoras, whose
philosophy turned much on numbers, and who imagined an extraordinary
virtue in the number 7.

The principal authors on the subject of climactericks, are PLATO,
CICERO, MACROBIUS, AULUS GELLIUS, among the ancients; ARGOL, MAGIRUS,
and SALMATIUS, among the moderns. ST. AUGUSTINE, ST. AMBROSE, BEDA, and
BŒTIUS, all countenance the opinion.


                       _Lucky and Unlucky Days._

Astrologers have also brought under their inspection and controul the
days of the year, which they have presumed to divide into lucky and
unlucky days; calling even the sacred scriptures, and the common belief
of Christians, in former ages, to their assistance for this purpose.
They pretend that the 14th day of the first month was a blessed day
among the Israelites, authorised therein, as they pretend, by the
several following passages out of _Exodus_, c. xii. v. 18, 40, 41, 42,
51. _Leviticus_, c. xxiii. v. 5. _Numbers_, c. xxviii. v. 16. “_Four
hundred and thirty years being expired of their dwelling in Egypt, even
in the self same day departed they thence._”

With regard to evil days and times, Astrologers refer to _Amos_, c. 5,
v. 13, and c. vi. v. 3. _Ecclesiasticus_, c. ix. v. 12. _Psalm_, xxxvii.
v. 19. _Obadiah_, c. xii. _Jeremiah_, c. xlvi. v. 21, and to Job cursing
his birth day, chap. iii. v. 1 to 11. In confirmation of which they also
quote a calendar, extracted out of several ancient Roman catholic prayer
books, written on vellum, before printing was invented, in which were
inserted the unfortunate days of each month, as in the following
verses;—

     JANUARY.—_Prima dies mensis, et septima truncat ensis._
     FEBRUARY.—_Quarta subit mortem, prosternit tertia fortem._
     MARCH.—_Primus mandentem, disrumpit quarta bibentem._
     APRIL.—_Denus et undenus est mortis vulnere plenus._
     MAY.—_Tertius occidit, et Septimus ora relidit._
     JUNE.—_Denus Pallescit, quindenus fædera nescit._
     JULY.—_Ter denus mactat, Julii denus labefactat._
     AUGUST.—_Prima necat fortem, perditque secunda cohortem._
     SEPTEMBER.—_Tertia Septembris, et denus fert mala membris._
     OCTOBER.—_Tertius et denus, est sicut mors alienus._
     NOVEMBER.—_Scorpius est quintus, et tertius est vita tinctus._
     DECEMBER.—_Septimus exanguis, virosus denus ut Anguis._

This poetry is a specimen of the rusticity and ignorance at least of the
times; and is a convincing proof that Christianity had yet a very strong
tincture of the Pagan superstitions attached to it, and which all the
purity of the gospel itself, to this very day, has not been able
entirely to obliterate.

That the notion of lucky and unlucky days owes its origin to paganism,
may be proved from Roman history, where it is mentioned that that very
day four years, the civil wars were begun by Pompey the father; Cæsar
made an end of them with his son, Cneius Pompeius being then slain; and
that the Romans accounted the 13th of February an unlucky day, because
on that day they were overthrown by the Gauls at Allia; and the Fabii
attacking the city of the Recii, were all slain with the exception of
one man: from the calendar of Ovid’s “Fastorum,” _Aprilis erat mensis
Græcis auspicatissimus_; and from Horace, lib. 2, ode 13, cursing the
tree that had nearly fallen upon it; _ille nefasto posuit die_.

The number of remarkable events that happened on some particular days
have been the principal means of confirming both Pagans and Christians
in their opinion on this subject. For example, Alexander the Great, who
was born on the 6th of April, conquered Darius and died on the same day.
The Emperor Bassianus Caracalla was born and died on a sixth day of
April. Augustus was adopted on the 19th of August, began his Consulate,
conquered the Triumviri, and died the same day.

The Christians have observed that the 24th of February was four times
fortunate to Charles the Fifth. That Wednesday was a fortunate day to
Pope Sixtus V. for on a Wednesday he was born, on that day made a Monk,
on the same day made a General of his order, on that day created a
Cardinal, on that day elected Pope, and also on that day inaugurated.
That Thursday was a fatal day to Henry VIII. King of England, and his
posterity, for he died on a Thursday; King Edward VI. on a Thursday;
Queen Mary on a Thursday; and Queen Elizabeth on a Thursday. The French
have observed that the feast of Pentecost had been lucky to Henry III.
King of France, for on that day he was born, on that day elected king of
Poland, and on that day he succeeded his brother Charles IX. on the
throne of France.


                             _Genethliaci._

          (From γενεθλη, _origin_, _generation_, _nativity_.)

These, so called in Astrology, are persons who erect Horoscopes; or
pretend what shall befal a man, by means of the stars which presided at
his nativity[10]. The ancients called them _Chaldæi_, and by the general
name mathematici: accordingly the several civil and canon laws, which we
find made against the mathematicians, only respect the Genethliaci, or
Astrologers; who were expelled Rome by a formal decree of the senate,
and yet found so much protection from the credulity of the people, that
they remained unmolested. Hence an ancient author speaks of them as
_hominum genus, quod in civitate nostra sempe et vetabitur, et
retinebitur_.

                   GENETHLIACUM, (_Genethliac poem_,)

Is a composition in verse, on the birth of some prince, or other
illustrious person; in which the poet promises him great honours,
advantages, successes, victories, &c. by a kind of prophecy or
prediction. Such, for instance, is the eclogue of Virgil to Pollio,
beginning

                _Sicelides Musæ, paulo majora Canamus._

There are also _Genethliac_ speeches or orations, made to celebrate a
person’s birth day.


                  _Barclay’s Refutation of Astrology._

Astrological superstition, it is said, transcended from the Chaldeans,
who transmitted it to the Egyptians, from whom the Greeks derived it,
whence it passed to the Romans, who, doubtless, were the first to
disseminate it over Europe, though some will have it to be of Egyptian
origin, and ascribe the invention to CHAM; but it is to the Arabs that
we owe it. At Rome, the people were so infatuated with it, the
Astrologers, or, as they are called, the mathematicians, maintained
their ground in spite of all the edicts to expel them out of the
city[11].

The Brahmins introduced and practised this art among the Indians, and
thereby constituted themselves the arbiters of good and evil hours,
which gives them vast authority, and in consequence of this
supererogation, they are consulted as Oracles, and take good care they
never sell their answers but at a good price.

The same superstition, as we have already shewn, has prevailed in more
modern ages and nations. The French historians remark, that, in the time
of Queen Catherine of Medicis, Astrology was in so great repute, that
the most inconsiderable thing was not undertaken or done without
consulting the stars. And in the reigns of king Henry III. and IV. of
France, the predictions of Astrologers were the common theme of the
court conversation.

This predominant humour in the French court was well rallied by Barclay
in his Argenis, lib. ii, on account of an Astrologer who had undertaken
to instruct king Henry in the event of a war then threatened by the
faction of the Guises.

“You maintain,” says Barclay, “that the circumstances of life and death
depend on the place and influence of the celestial bodies, at the time
when the child first comes to light; and yet you own, that the heavens
revolve with such vast rapidity that the situation of the stars is
considerably changed in the least moment of time. What certainty then
can be in your art, unless you suppose the midwives constantly careful
to observe the clock, that the minute of time may be conveyed to the
infant, as we do his patrimony? How often does the mother’s danger
prevent this care? And how many are there who are not touched with this
superstition? But suppose them watchful to your wish; if the child be
long in delivery; if, as is often the case, a hand or the head come
first, and be not immediately followed by the rest of the body; which
state of the stars is to determine for him; that, when the head made its
appearance, or when the whole body was disengaged? I say nothing of the
common errors of clocks, and other time-keepers, sufficient to elude all
your cares.

“Again, why are we to regard only the stars at his nativity, and not
those rather which shone when the fœtus was animated in the womb? and
why must those others be excluded, which presided while the body
remained tender, and susceptible of the weakest impression, during
gestation?

“But setting this aside, and supposing, withal, the face of the heavens
accurately known, whence arises this dominion of the stars over our
bodies and minds, that they must be the arbiters of our happiness, our
manner of life, and death? Were all those who went to battle, and died
together, born under the same position of the heavens? and when a ship
is to be cast away, shall it admit no passengers but those doomed by the
stars to suffer shipwreck? or rather, do not persons born under every
planet go into the combat, or aboard the vessel; and thus,
notwithstanding the disparity of their birth, perish alike? Again, all
who were born under the same configuration of the stars do not live or
die in the same manner. All, who were born at the same time with the
king, monarchs? Or are all even alive at this day? I saw M. Villeroy
here; nay, I saw yourself: were all that came into the world with him as
wise and virtuous as he; or all born under your own stars, astrologers
like you? If a man meet a robber, you will say he was doomed to perish
by a robber’s hand; but did the same stars, which, when the traveller
was born, subjected him to the robber’s sword, did they likewise give
the robber, who perhaps was born long before, a power and inclination to
kill him? For you will allow that it is as much owing to the stars that
the one kills, as that the other is killed. And when a man is
overwhelmed by the fall of a house, did the walls become faulty, because
the stars had doomed him to perish thereby; or rather, was his death not
owing to this, that the walls were faulty? The same may be said with
regard to honours or employ: because the stars which shone at a man’s
nativity, promised him preferment; could those have an influence over
other persons not born under them, by whose suffrages he was to rise? or
how do the stars at one man’s birth annul, or set aside, the contrary
influences of other stars, which shone at the birth of another?

“The truth is, supposing the reality of all the planetary powers; as the
sun which visits an infinity of bodies with the same rays, has not the
same effect on all, as some things are hardened thereby, as clay; others
softened, as wax; some seeds cherished, others destroyed; the tender
herbs scorched up, others secured by their coarser juice: so, where so
many children are born together, like a field tilled so many different
ways, according to the various health, habitude, and temperament of the
parents, the same celestial influx must operate differently. If the
genius be suitable and towardly, it must predominate therein: if
contrary, it will only correct it. So that to foretel the life and
manners of a child, you are not only to look into the heavens, but into
the parents, into the fortune which attended the pregnant mother, and a
thousand other circumstances utterly inaccessible.

“Further, does the power that portends the new-born infant a life, for
instance of forty years; or perhaps a violent death at thirty; does that
power I say, endure and reside still in the heavens, waiting the
destined time, when, descending upon earth, it may produce such an
effect? Or is it infused into the infant himself; so that being
cherished, and gradually growing up together with him, it bursts forth
at the appointed time, and fulfils what the stars had given it in
charge? Exist in the heavens it cannot; in that depending immediately on
a certain configuration of the stars; when that is changed the effect
connected with it must cease, and a new, perhaps a contrary one, takes
place. What repository have you for the former power to remain in, till
the time comes for its delivery? If you say it inherits or resides in
the infant, not to operate on him till he be grown to manhood; the
answer is more preposterous than the former; for this, in the instance
of a shipwreck, you must suppose the cause why the winds arise, and the
ship is leaky, or the pilot, through ignorance of the place, runs on a
shoal or a rock. So the farmer is the cause of the war that impoverishes
him; or of the favourable season, which brings him a plenteous harvest.

“You boast much of the event of a few predictions, which, considering
the multitude of those your art has produced, plainly confess its
impertinency. A million of deceptions are industriously hidden and
forgot, in favour of some eight or ten things which have succeeded[12].
Out of so many conjectures, it must be preternatural if some do not hit;
and it is certain, that, by considering you only as guessers, there is
no room to boast you have been successful therein. Do you know what fate
awaits France in this war; and yet are not apprehensive what shall befal
yourself? Did you not foresee the opposition I was this day to make you?
If you can say whether the king will vanquish his enemies, find out
first whether he will believe you.

DES CARTES and AGRIPPA, as they inveigh much against some other
sciences, especially Agrippa, so the latter of them does not favour or
spare astronomy, but particularly astrology, which he says, is an art
altogether fallacious, and that all vanities and superstitions flow out
of the bosom of astrology, their whole foundation being upon
conjectures, and comparing future occurrences by past events, which they
have no pretence for, since they allow that the heavens never have been,
nor ever will be, in one exact position since the world commenced, and
yet they borrow the effects and influence of the stars from the most
remote ages in the world, beyond the memory of things, pretending
themselves able to display the hidden natures, qualities, &c. of all
sorts of animals, stones, metals, and plants, and to shew how the same
does depend on the skies, and flow from the stars. Still Eudoxus,
Archelaus, Cassandrus, Halicarnassus, and others, confess it is
impossible, that any thing of certainty should be discovered by the art
of judicial astrology, in consequence of the innumerable co-operating
causes that attend the heavenly influences; and Ptolemy is also of this
opinion. In like manner those who have prescribed the rules of
judgments, set down their maxims so various and contradictory, that it
is impossible for a prognosticator out of so many various and
disagreeable opinions, to be able to pronounce any thing certain, unless
he is inwardly inspired with some hidden instinct and sense of future
things, or unless by some occult and latent communication with the
devil. And antiquity witnesseth that Zoroaster, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar,
Cæsar, Crassus, Pompey, Diatharus, Nero, Julian the Apostate, and
several others most addicted to astrologers’ predictions, perished
unfortunately, though they were promised all things favourable and
auspicious. And who can believe that any person happily placed under
Mars, being in the ninth, shall be able to cast out devils by his
presence only; or he who hath Saturn happily constituted with Leo at his
nativity, shall, when he departs this life, immediately return to
heaven, yet are the heresies maintained by Petrus Aponensis, Roger
Bacon, Guido, Bonatus, Arnoldus de Villanova, philosophers; Aliacensis,
cardinal and divine, and many other famous Christian doctors, against
which astrologers the most learned Picus Mirandola wrote twelve books,
so fully as scarcely one argument is omitted against it, and gave the
death blow to astrology! Amongst the ancient Romans it was prohibited,
and most of the holy fathers condemned, and utterly banished it out of
the territories of Christianity, and in the synod of Martinus it was
anathematized. As to the predictions of Thales, who is said to have
foretold a scarcity of olives and a dearth of oil, so commonly avouched
by astrologers to maintain the glory of their science, Des Cartes
answers with an easy reason and probable truth, that Thales being a
great natural philosopher, and thereby well acquainted with the virtue
of water, (which he maintained was the principle of all things,) he
could not be ignorant of the fruits that stood the most in need of
moisture, and how much they were beholden to rain for their growth,
which then being wanting, he might easily know there would be a scarcity
without the help of astrology; yet if they will have it that Thales
foreknew it only by the science of this art, why are not others who
pretend to be so well skilled in its precepts, as able to have the same
opportunities of enriching themselves? As for the foretelling the deaths
of emperors and others, it was but conjectures, knowing most of them to
be tyrants, and hated, and thereupon would they pretend to promise to
others the empires and dignities, which sometimes spurring up ambitious
minds, they neglected no attempts to gain the crown, the astrologers
thereby occasioning murders, add advancements by secret instructions,
rather than by any rules of art, which they publicly pretended to, to
gloss their actions and advance the honour of their conjecturing
science: by the same manner might Ascletarion have foretold the death of
Domitian, and as for himself being torn to pieces by dogs, it was but a
mere guess, for astrologers do not extend their predictions beyond
death, and therefore he did not suppose his body would be torn to pieces
after his death, as it proved, but alive as a punishment for his
boldness in foretelling the death of the emperor, which being a common
punishment, had it proved so, it had been by probability from custom,
but not of the rules of astrology.—_See_ BLOME’s _Body of Philosophy_,
pt. iii. chap. 14, _in the history of Nature_.




                ON THE ORIGIN AND IMAGINARY EFFICACY OF
                           AMULETS & CHARMS,

      _In the Cure of Diseases, Protection from Evil Spirits, &c._


Amulets are certain substances to which the peculiar virtue of curing,
removing, or preventing diseases, was attached by the superstitious and
credulous; for which purpose they were usually worn about the neck or
other parts of the body. The council of Laodicea prohibited
ecclesiastics from wearing amulets and phylacteries, under pain of
degradation. St. Chrysostome and Jerome were likewise zealous against
the same practice. “Hoc apud nos,” says the latter, “superstitiosæ
mulierculæ in parvulis evangeliis, et in crucis ligno, et istiusmodi
rebus, quæ habent quidam zelum Dei, sed non juxta scientiam usque hodie
factitant.”—_Vide Kirch. Oedip. Egypt._

At the present day, although by no means entirely extinct, amulets have
fallen into disrepute; the learned Boyle nevertheless considered them as
an instance of the ingress of external effluvia into the habit, in order
to shew the great porosity of the human body. He moreover adds, that he
is persuaded “some of these external medicaments do answer;” for that he
was himself subject to a bleeding from the nose; and being obliged to
use several remedies to check this discharge, he found the moss of a
dead man’s skull, though only applied so as to touch the skin until the
moss became warm from being in contact with it, to be the most
efficacious remedy. A remarkable instance of this nature was
communicated to Zwelfer, by the chief physician to the states of
Moravia, who, having prepared some troches, or lozenges of toads, after
the manner of Van Helmont, not only found that being worn, as amulets,
they preserved him, his domestics, and friends, from the plague, but
when applied to the carbuncles or buboes, a consequence of this disease,
in others, they found themselves greatly relieved, and many even saved
by them. Mr. Boyle also shews how the effluvia, even of cold amulets,
may, in the course of time, pervade the pores of the living animal, by
supposing an agreement between the pores of the skin and the figure of
the corpuscules. Bellini has demonstrated the possibility of this
occurrence, in his last proposition _de febribus_; the same has also
been shewn by Dr. Wainwright, Dr. Keil, and others. There were also
verbal or lettered charms, which were frequently sung or chaunted, and
to which a greater degree of efficacy was ascribed; and a belief in the
curative powers of music has even extended to later times. In the last
century, Orazio Benevoli composed a mass for the cessation of the plague
at Rome. It was performed in St. Peter’s church, of which he was
_maestro di capella_, and the singers, amounting to more than two
hundred, were arranged in different circles of the dome; the sixth choir
occupying the summit of the cupola.

The origin of amulets may be traced to the most remote ages of mankind.
In our researches to discover and fix the period when remedies were
first employed for the alleviation of bodily suffering, we are soon lost
in conjecture, or involved in fable; we are unable to reach the period
in any country, when the inhabitants were destitute of medical
resources, and we find among the most uncultivated tribes, that medicine
is cherished as a blessing, and practised as an art, as by the
inhabitants of New Holland and New Zealand, by those of Lapland and
Greenland, of North America and the interior of Africa. The personal
feelings of the sufferer, and the anxiety of those about him, must, in
the rudest state of society, have incited a spirit of industry and
research to procure alleviation, the modification of heat and cold, of
moisture and dryness; and the regulation and change of diet and habit,
must intuitively have suggested themselves for the relief of pain, and
when these resources failed, charms, amulets, and incantations, were the
natural expedients of the barbarians, ever more inclined to indulge the
delusive hope of superstition than to listen to the voice of sober
reason. Traces of amulets may be discovered in very early history. The
learned Dr. Warburton is evidently wrong, when he assigns the origin of
these magical instruments to the age of the Ptolemies, which was not
more than 300 years before Christ; this is at once refuted by the
testimony of Galen, who tells us that the Egyptian king, Nechepsus, who
lived 630 years before the Christian era, had written, that a green
jasper cut into the form of a dragon surrounded with rays, if applied
externally, would strengthen the stomach and organs of digestion. We
have moreover the authority of the Scriptures in support of this
opinion: for what were the ear-rings which Jacob buried under the oak of
Sechem, as related in Genesis, but amulets? and we are informed by
Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, (_lib._ viii. _c._ 2, 5,) that
Solomon discovered a plant efficacious in the cure of epilepsy, and that
he employed the aid of a charm or spell for the purpose of assisting its
virtues; the root of the herb was concealed in a ring[13], which was
applied to the nostrils of the demoniac; and Josephus himself remarks,
that he himself saw a Jewish priest practise the art of Solomon with
complete success in the presence of Vespasian, his sons, and the
tribunes of the Roman army. Nor were such means confined to dark and
barbarous ages; Theophrastus pronounced Pericles to be insane, because
he discovered that he wore an amulet about his neck; and in the
declining era of the Roman empire, we find that this superstitious
custom was so general, that the Emperor Caracalla was induced to make a
public edict, ordaining, that no man should wear any superstitious
amulets about his person.

In the progress of civilization, various fortuitous incidents[14], and
even errors in the choice and preparation of aliments, must gradually
have unfolded the remedial powers of many natural substances: these were
recorded, and the authentic history of medicine may date its
commencement from the period when such records began.

We are told by Herodotus, that the Chaldeans and Babylonians carried
their sick to the public roads and markets, that travellers might
converse with them, and communicate any remedies which had been
successfully used in similar cases; this custom continued during many
ages in Assyria: Strabo states that it also prevailed among the ancient
Lusitanians, or Portuguese: in this manner, however, the results of
experience descended only by oral tradition. It was in the temple of
Æsculapius in Greece, that medical information was first recorded;
diseases and cures were then registered on durable tablets of marble;
the priests and priestesses, who were the guardians of the temple,
prepared the remedies and directed their application; and as these
persons were ambitious to pass for the descendants of Æsculapius, they
assumed the name of the Asclepiades. The writings of Pausanias,
Philostratus, and Plutarch, abound with the artifices of those early
physicians. Aristophanes describes in a truly comic manner, the craft
and pious avarice of these godly men, and mentions the dexterity and
promptitude with which they collected and put into bags the offerings on
the altar. The patients, during this period, reposed on the skins of
sacrificed rams, in order that they might procure celestial visions. As
soon as they were believed to be asleep, a priest, clothed in the dress
of Æsculapius, imitating his manners, and accompanied by the daughters
of the God, that is, by young actresses, thoroughly instructed in their
parts, entered and delivered a medical opinion.


                      _Definition of Amulets, &c._

All remedies working as it were sympathetically, and plainly unequal to
the effect, may be termed Amulets; whether used at a distance by another
person, or immediately about the patient: of these various are related.
By the Jews, they were called _Kamea_; by the Greeks, _Phylacteries_, as
already mentioned; and by the Latins, _Amuleta_ or _Ligatura_; by the
Catholics, _Agnus Dei_, or consecrated relicts, and by the natives of
Guinea, where they are still held in great veneration, _Fetishes_.
Different kinds of materials by these different people, have been
venerated and supposed capable of preserving from danger and infection,
as well as to remove diseases when actually present.

Plutarch relates of Pericles, an Athenian general, that when a friend
came to see him, and inquiring after his health, he reached out his hand
and shewed him his Amulet; by which he meant to intimate the truth of
his illness, and, at the same time, the confidence he placed in these
ordinary remedies.

Amulets still continue among us to the present day, indeed there are few
instances of ancient superstition some parcel of which has not been
preserved, and not unfrequently they have been adapted by men of
otherwise good understanding, who plead in excuse, that they are not
nauseous, cost little, and if they can do no good they can do no harm.
Lord Bacon, whom no one can suspect of being an ignorant man, says, that
if a man wear a bone ring or a planet seal, strongly believing, by that
means, that he might obtain his mistress, or that it would preserve him
unhurt at sea, or in battle, it would probably make him more active and
less timid; as the audacity they might inspire would conquer and bind
weaker minds in the execution of a perilous duty.

There are a variety of Amulets used by the common people for the cure of
ague; and however this may be accounted for, whether by the imagination
or the disease subsiding of its own accord, many have been apparently
cured by them, when the Peruvian bark had previously failed. Agues, says
Dr. Willis, resisting Amulets have often been applied to the wrist with
success. ABRACADABRA written in a conical form, _i. e._ in the shape of
an Isoceles triangle, beginning with A, then A B, A B R, and so on, and
placed under each other, will have a good effect. The herb Lunaria,
gathered by moonlight, we are assured by very respectable authorities,
has performed some surprising cures. Naaman, we are told (numero deus
impare gaudet) was cured by dipping seven times in the river Jordan. An
old gentleman, of eighty years of age, who had nearly exhausted his
substance upon physicians, was cured of a strangury, by a new glass
bottle that had never been wet inside, only by making water in it, and
burying it in the earth. There were also certain formalities performed
at the pool of Bethseda for the cure of diseases. Dr. Chamberlayne’s
Anodyne necklace for a long time was the _sina qua non_ of mothers and
nurses, until its virtue was lost by its reverence being destroyed; and
those which have succeeded it have nearly run their race. The Grey
Liverwort was at one time thought not only to have cured hydrophobia,
but, by having it about the person, to have prevented mad dogs from
biting them. Calvert paid devotions to St. Hubert for the recovery of
his son, who was cured by this means. The son also performed the
necessary rites at the shrine, and was cured not only of the
hydrophobia, “but of the worser phrensy with which his father had
instilled him.” Cramp rings were also used, and eel skins tied round the
limbs, to prevent this spasmodic affection; and also by laying the
sticks across on the floor in going to bed, have also performed cures
this way. Numerous are the charms, amulets, and incantations, used even
in the present day for the removal of warts. We are told by Lord Verulam
(vol. iii. p. 234,) that when he was at Paris he had above an hundred
warts on his hands; and that the English Ambassador’s lady, then at
court, and a woman far above all superstition, removed them all only by
rubbing them with the fat side of the rind of a piece of bacon, which
they afterwards nailed to a post, with the fat side towards the south.
In five weeks, says my Lord, they were all removed.

As Lord Verulam is allowed to have been as great a genius as this
country ever produced, it may not be irrelevant to the present subject,
to give, in his own words, what he has observed relative to the power of
Amulets. After deep metaphysical observations in nature, and arguing in
mitigation of sorcery, witchcraft, and divination, effects that far
outstrip the belief in Amulets, he observes “we should not reject all of
this kind, because it is not known how far those contributing to
superstition depend on natural causes. Charms have not their power from
contracts with evil spirits, but proceed wholly from strengthening the
imagination; in the same manner that images and their influence, have
prevailed in religion; being called from a different way of use and
application, sigils, incantations, and spells.


              _Effect of the Imagination on the Mind, &c._

Imagination, indubitably, has a powerful effect on the mind, and in all
these miraculous cures is by far the strongest ingredient. Dr. Strother
says, the influence of the mind and passions works upon the body in
sensible operations like a medicine, and is of far the greater force
upon the juices than exercise. The countenance, he observes, betrays a
good or wicked intention; and that good or wicked intention will produce
in different persons a strength to encounter, or a weakness to yield to
the preponderating side. “Our looks discover our passions; there being
mystically in our faces, says Dr. Brown, certain characters, which carry
in them the motto of our souls, and therefore probably work secret
effects in other parts,” or, as Garth, in his “Dispensatory,” so
beautifully illustrates the idea:

            “Thus paler looks impetuous rage proclaim,
            And chilly virgins redden into flame:
            See envy oft transformed in wan disguise,
            And mirth sits gay and smiling in the eyes:
            Oft our complexions do the soul declare,
            And tell what passions in the features are.
            Hence ’tis we look, the wond’rous cause to find,
            How body acts upon impassive mind.”

Addison, on the power and pleasure of the imagination (Spect. vol. vi.)
concludes, from the pleasure and pain it administers here below, that
God, who knows all the ways of afflicting us, may so transport us
hereafter with such beautiful and glorious visions, or torment us with
such hideous and ghastly spectres, as might even of themselves suffice
to make up the entire of Heaven or Hell of any future being.

St. Vitus’ dance was cured by visiting the tomb of the saint, near Ulm,
every May. Indeed, there is some reason in this assertion; for exercise
and change of scene and air will cure many obstinate diseases. The bite
of the Tarantula is cured by music; and what is more wonderful still,
persons bitten by this noxious animal are only to be cured by certain
tunes; thus, for instance, one might be cured with “Nancy Dawson,” while
another could only reap a similar benefit from “Moll in the wood,” or
“Off she goes.”

The learned Dr. Willis, whom we have already mentioned, in his treatise
on Nervous diseases, does not hesitate to recommend Amulets in epileptic
disorders. “Take,” says he, “some fresh Pæony roots, cut them into
square bits, and hang them round the neck, changing them as often as
they dry. In all probability the hint from this circumstance was taken
for the Anodyne necklaces, which was in such strong requisition some
time ago, and which produced so much benefit to the proprietors; as the
doctor, a little further on, prescribes the same root for the looseness,
fevers, and convulsions of children during the time of dentition, mixed,
to make it appear more miraculous, with some elk’s hoof.

Turner, whose ideas on hydrophobia are so absurd, where he asserts, that
the symptoms may not appear for forty years after the bite; and who
asserts, “that the slaver or breath of such a dog is infectious; and
that men bit, will bite like dogs again, and die mad; although he laughs
at the Anodyne necklace, argues much in the same manner. It is not so
very strange that the effluvia from external medicines entering our
bodies, should effect such considerable changes, when we see the
efficient cause of apoplexy, epilepsy, hysterics, plague, and a number
of other disorders, consists, as it were in imperceptible vapours.

Lapis Ætites (blood stone) hung about the arm, by some similar secret
means is said to prevent abortion, and to facilitate delivery, when worn
round the thigh. Dr. Sydenham, in the iliac passion, orders a live
kitten to be laid constantly on the abdomen; others have used pigeons
split alive, and applied to the soles of the feet with success, in
pestilential fevers and convulsions. The court of king David thought
that relief might be obtained by external agents; otherwise they would
not have advised him to seek a young virgin; doubtless thereby imagining
that the virgin of youth would impart a portion of its warmth and
strength to the decay of age. “Take the heart and liver of the fish and
make a smoke, and the devil shall smell it and flee away.” (Tobit, c.
vi.)

During the plague of London, arsenic was worn as an amulet against
infection. During this melancholy period, Bradley says, that
Bucklersbury was not visited with this scourge, which was attributed to
the number of druggists and apothecaries living there.

During the plague at Marseilles, which Belort attributed to the _larvæ_
of worms _infecting the saliva, food, and chyle_; and which, he says,
_were hatched by the stomach, took their passage into the blood, at a
certain size, hindering the circulation, affecting the juices_ and solid
parts, advised amulets of mercury to be worn in bags suspended at the
chest and nostrils, either as a safeguard or as a means of cure; by
which method, through the _admissiveness_ of the pores, effluvia
specially destructive of all venemous insects, were received into the
blood. “An illustrious prince,” continues Belort, “by wearing such an
amulet, escaped the small-pox.”

An Italian physician (Clognini) ordered two or three drachms of crude
mercury to be worn as a defensive against the jaundice; and also as a
preservative against the noxious vapours of inclement seasons: “it
breaks,” he observes, “and conquers the different figured seeds of
pestilential distempers floating in the air; or else, mixing with the
air, kills them where hatched.”

Other philosophers have ascribed the power of mercury in these cases, to
an elective faculty given out by the warmth of the body; which attracts
the infectious particles outwards. For, say they, all bodies are
continually emitting effluvia more or less around them, and some whether
they be external or internal. The Bath waters change the colour of
silver in the pockets of those who use them; mercury the same;
cantharides applied externally (or taken inwardly) affects the urinary
organ; and camphor, in the same manner, is said to be an antiphrodesiac.
Quincey informs us, that by only walking in a newly-painted room, a
whole company had the smell of turpentine in their urine. Yawning and
laughing are infectious; so is fear and shame. The sight of sour things,
or even the idea of them, will set the teeth on edge. Small-pox, itch,
and other diseases, are infectious; if so, mercurial amulets bid fair to
destroy the germ of some complaints when used only as an external
application, either by manual attrition or worn as an amulet, or inhaled
by the nose. One word for all; amulets, medicated or not, are precarious
and uncertain; and, now a-day, are seldom resorted to, much less
confided in.

Baglivi refines on the doctrine of effluvia, by ascribing his cures of
the bite of the tarantula to the peculiar undulation any instrument or
tune makes by its strokes in the air; which, vibrating upon the external
parts of the patient, is communicated to the whole nervous system, and
produces that happy alteration in the solids and fluids which so
effectually contributes to the cure. The contraction of the solids, he
says, impresses new mathematical motions and directions to the fluids;
in one or both of which, is seated all distempers, and without any other
help than a continuance of faith, will alter their quality, a philosophy
as wonderful and intricate as the nature of the poison it is intended to
expel; but which, however, supplies this observation, that, if the
particles of sound can do so much, the effluvia of amulets may do more.

The Moors of Barbary, and generally throughout the Mahomedan dominions,
the people are remarkably attached to charms, to which and nature they
leave the cure of almost every distemper; and this is the more strongly
impressed on them from the belief in predestination; which, according to
this sect, stipulates the evils a man is to suffer, as well as the
length of time it is ordained he should live upon the land of his
forefathers: consequently, they conceive that the interference of
secondary means would avail them nothing, an opinion said to have been
entertained by King William, but by no means calculated for nations,
liberty, and commerce; upon the principle, that when the one was
entrenched upon, men would probably be more sudden in their revenge and
dislike physic and its occupation, and when actuated with religious
enthusiasm, nothing could stand them in any service.

“A long and intense passion on one object,” observes an old navy
surgeon[15], “whether of pride, love, anger, fear, or envy, we see have
brought on some universal tremors; on others, convulsions, madness,
melancholy, consumption, hecticks, or such a chronical disorder, as has
wasted their flesh or their strength, as certainly as the taking in of
any poisonous drugs would have done. Any thing frightful, sudden, and
surprising, upon soft, timorous natures, not only shews itself in the
countenance, but produces sometimes very troublesome consequences; for
instance, a parliamentary fright will make even grown men sh-t
themselves, scare them out of their wits, turn the hair grey. Surprise
removes the hooping-cough; looking from precipices, or seeing wheels
turn swiftly, gives giddiness, &c. Shall then these little accidents or
the passions, (from caprice or humour perhaps,) produce those effects,
and not be able to do any thing by amulets? No, as the spirits in many
cases resort in plenty, we find where the fancy determines, giving joy
and gladness to the heart, strength and fleetness to the limbs, lust a
flagrancy to the eyes, palpitation, and priapism; so amulets, under
strong imagination, is carried with more force to a distempered part;
and, under these circumstances, its natural powers exert better to a
discussion.

“The cures compassed in this manner are not more admirable than many of
the distempers themselves. Who can apprehend by what impenetrable method
the bite of a mad dog[16] or tarantula should produce their symptoms?
The touch of a torpedo, numbness? or a woman impress the marks of her
longings and her frights on her fœtus? If they are allowed to do these,
doubtless they may the other; and not by miracles, which Spinoza denies
the possibility of, but by natural and regular causes, though
inscrutable to us.

“The best way, therefore, in using amulets, must be in squaring them to
the imagination of patients: let the newness and the surprise exceed the
invention, and keep up the humour by a long roll of cures and vouchers:
by these and such means many distempers, especially of _women, that are
ill all over, or know not what they ail_, have been cured, I am apt to
think, more by a fancy to the physician than his prescription; which
hangs on the file like an amulet. Quacks again, according to their
boldness and way of addressing (velvet and infallibility particularly)
command success by striking the fancies of an audience. If a few, more
sensible than the rest, see the doctor’s miscarriages, and are not
easily gulled at first sight, yet when they see a man is never ashamed,
in time jump in to his assistance.”

Our inability upon all occasions to appreciate the efforts of nature in
the cure of disease, must always render our notions, with respect to the
powers of art, liable to numerous errors and multiplied deceptions.
Nothing is more natural, and at the same time more erroneous, than to
attribute the cure of a disease to the last medicine that had been
employed; the advocates of amulets and charms[17] have ever been thus
enabled to appeal to the testimony of what they are pleased to call
experience, in justification of their superstitions; and cases which in
truth ought to have been considered lucky escapes, have been
triumphantly puffed off as skilful cures; and thus have medicines and
practitioners alike acquired unmerited praise or unjust censure.




   HISTORY OF POPULAR MEDICINES, ETC.—HOW INFLUENCED BY SUPERSTITION.


              “Did Marcus say ’twas fact? then fact it is.
              No proof so valid as a word of his.”

Devotion to authority and established routine has always been the means
of opposing the progress of reason, the advancement of natural truths,
and the prosecution of new discoveries; whilst, with effects no less
baneful, has it perpetuated many of the stupendous errors which have
been already enumerated, as well as others no less weighty, and which
are reserved for future discussion.

To give currency to some inactive substance as possessing extraordinary,
nay wonderful medicinal properties, requires only the sanction of a few
great names; and when established upon such a basis, ingenuity,
argument, and even experiment, may open their impotent batteries. In
this manner have all the _nostra_ and patent medicines got into repute
that ever were held in any estimation. And the same devotion to
authority which induces us to retain an accustomed remedy upon the bare
assertion and presumption either of ignorance or partiality, will, in
like manner, oppose the introduction of a novel practice with asperity,
unless indeed it be supported by authorities of still greater weight and
consideration.

The history of various articles of diet and medicine, will amply prove
how much their reputation and fate have depended upon authority. For
instance, it was not until many years after ipecacuanha had been
imported into England, that Helvetius, under the patronage of Louis XIV.
succeeded in introducing it into practice: and to the praise of
Katherine, queen of Charles II. we are indebted for the general
introduction of tea into England. Tobacco, notwithstanding its
fascinating powers, has suffered romantic vicissitudes in its fame and
character; it has been successively opposed and commended by physicians,
condemned and eulogized by priests and kings[18], and proscribed and
protected by governments, whilst, at length, this once insignificant
production of a little island, or an obscure district, has succeeded in
diffusing itself through every climate, and in subjecting the
inhabitants of every country to its dominion. The Arab cultivates it in
the burning desert;—the Laplander and Esquimaux risk their lives to
procure a refreshment so delicious in their wintry solitude;—the seaman,
grant him but this luxury, and he will endure with cheerfulness every
other privation, and defy the fury of the raging elements;—and, in the
higher walk of civilized society, at the shrine of fashion, in the
palace and in the cottage, the fascinating influence of this singular
plant, commands an equal tribute of devotion and attachment. Nor is the
history of the potatoe less extraordinary or less strikingly
illustrative of the imperious influence of authority. In fact, the
introduction of this valuable plant received, for more than two
centuries, an unprecedented opposition from vulgar prejudice, which all
the philosophy of the age was unable to dissipate, until Louis XV. wore
a bunch of the flowers of the potatoe in the midst of his court, on a
day of mirth and festivity. The people then, for the first time,
obsequiously acknowledged its utility, and began to express their
astonishment at the apathy which had so long prevailed with regard to
its general cultivation.

The history of the warm bath furnishes us with another curious instance
of the vicissitudes to which the reputation of our valuable resources
are so uniformly exposed. That, in short, which for so many ages was
esteemed the greatest luxury in health, and the most efficacious remedy
in disease, fell into total disrepute in the reign of Augustus, for no
other reason than because Antonius Musa had cured the emperor of a
dangerous malady by the use of the cold bath. The coldest water,
therefore, was recommended on every occasion. This practice, however,
was but of short duration. The popularity of the warm bath soon lost all
its premature and precocious popularity; for, though it had restored the
emperor to health, it shortly afterwards killed his nephew and
son-in-law Marcellus; an event which at once deprived the remedy of its
credit, and the physician of his popularity.[19]

An illustration of the overbearing influence of authority, in giving
celebrity to a medicine, or in depriving it of that reputation to which
its virtues entitle it, might be furnished in the history of the
Peruvian bark. This heroic remedy was first brought to Spain in the year
1632, where it remained seven years before any trial was made of its
powers. An ecclesiastic of Alcala was the first to whom it was
administered, in the year 1639; but even at this period, its use was
limited, and it would have sunk into oblivion, but for the supreme power
of the Roman church, by whose protecting auspices it was enabled to gain
a temporary triumph over the passions and prejudices which opposed its
introduction. Innocent the Tenth, at the intercession of Cardinal de
Lugo, who was formerly a Spanish jesuit, ordered that its nature and
effects should be duly examined, and on its being reported both innocent
and salutary, it immediately rose into public notice. Its career,
however, was suddenly arrested by its having unfortunately failed in the
autumn 1652 to cure Leopold, Archduke of Austria, of a quartan
intermittent: from this circumstance it had nearly fallen into
disrepute.

As years and fashion revolve, so have these neglected remedies, each in
its turn, risen again into favour and notice; whilst old receipts, like
old almanacks, are abandoned, until the period may arrive that will once
more adapt them to the spirit and fashion of the times. Thus it happens,
that most of the new discoveries in medicine have turned out to be no
more than the revival and readoption of ancient practices.

During the last century, the root of the male fern was retailed as a
secret nostrum, by Madame Nouffleur, a French empiric, for the cure of
the tapeworm: the secret was purchased for a considerable sum of money
by Lewis XV. The physicians then discovered, that the same remedy had
been administered in that complaint by Galen.

The history of popular remedies for the cure of gout, also furnishes
ample matter for the elucidation of this subject.

The celebrated powder of the Duke of Portland, was no other than the
_diacentaureon_ of Cœlius Aurelianus, or the _antidotos ex duobus
centaureæ generibus_ of Ætius, the receipt for which a friend of his
Grace brought with him from Switzerland; into which country, in all
probability, it had been introduced by the early medical writers, who
had transcribed it from the Greek volumes, soon after their arrival into
the western parts of Europe.

The active ingredient of a no less celebrated remedy for the same
disease, the _eau médicinale_, a medicine brought into fashion by M.
Husson, whose name it bears, a military officer in the service of the
King of France, about fifty years ago, has been discovered to be the
_colchicum autumnale_, or _meadow saffron_. Upon investigating the
virtues of this medicine, it was observed that similar effects in the
cure of the gout were ascribed to a certain plant, called
Hermodactyllus, by Oribasius[20] and Ætius[21], but more particularly by
Alexander of Tralles, a physician of Asia Minor, whose prescription
consisted of hermodactyllus, ginger, pepper, cummin-seed, aniseed, and
scammony, which, he says, will enable those who take it, to walk
immediately. An inquiry was immediately instituted after this unknown
plant, and upon procuring a specimen of it from Constantinople, it was
actually found to be a species of colchicum.

The use of Prussic acid in the cure of consumptions, lately proposed by
Dr. Majendie, a French physiologist, is little else than the revival of
the Dutch practice in this complaint; for we are informed by Lumæus, in
the fourth volume of his “_Amenitates Acadamicæ_,” that distilled laurel
water was frequently used in Holland in the cure of pulmonary
consumption. The celebrated Dr. James’s fever powder was evidently not
his original composition, but an Italian nostrum, invented by a person
of the name of Lisle, a receipt for the preparation of which is to be
found at length in _Colborne’s complete English Dispensary for the year
1756_. The various secret preparations of opium which have been lauded
as the discovery of modern times, may be recognised in the works of
ancient authors.




                              ALCHYMY[22].


The science, if it deserves to be distinguished by the name of Alchymy,
or the transmutation of metals into gold, has doubtless been an
imposition, which, striking on the feeblest part of the human mind, has
so frequently been successful in carrying on its delusions.

The Corrina of Dryden (Mrs. Thomas) during her life, has recorded one of
these delusions of Alchymy. From the circumstances, it is very probable
the sage was not less deceived than his patroness. An infatuated lover
of this delusive art met one who pretended to have the power of
transmuting lead to gold; that is, in their language, the _imperfect_
metals to the _perfect_ one. This Hermetic philosopher required only the
materials and time, to perform his golden operations. He was taken to
the country residence of his patroness, a long laboratory was built, and
that his labours might not be impeded by any disturbance, no one was
permitted to enter into it. His door was contrived to turn on a pivot;
so that, unseen and unseeing, his meals were conveyed to him without
distracting the sublime contemplations of the sage.

During a residence of two years he never condescended to speak but two
or three times in the year to his infatuated patroness. When she was
admitted into the laboratory, she saw with pleasing astonishment,
stills, immense cauldrons, long flues, and three or four Vulcanian
fires, blazing at different corners of this magical mine: nor did she
behold with less reverence the venerable figure of the dusty
philosopher. Pale and emaciated with daily operations and nightly
vigils, he revealed to her, in unintelligible jargon, his progress; and
having sometimes condescended to explain the mysteries of the Arcana,
she beheld or seemed to behold, streams of fluid, and heaps of solid
ore, scattered around the laboratory. Sometimes he required a new still,
and sometimes vast quantities of lead. She began now to lower her
imagination to the standard of reason. Two years had now elapsed, vast
quantities of lead had gone in, and nothing but lead had come out. She
disclosed her sentiments to the philosopher; he candidly confessed he
was himself surprised at his tardy processes; but that now he would
exert himself to the utmost, and that he would venture to perform a
laborious operation, which hitherto he had hoped not to have been
necessitated to employ. His patroness retired, and the golden visions of
expectation resumed all their lustre.

One day as they sat at dinner, a terrible shriek, and one crack followed
by another loud as the report of cannon, assailed their ears. They
hastened to the laboratory; two of the greatest stills had burst, and
one part of the laboratory and the house were in flames. We are told
that after another adventure of this kind, this victim to Alchymy, after
ruining another patron, in despair swallowed poison.

Even more recently we have a history of an Alchymist in the life of
Romney, the painter. This Alchymist, after bestowing much time and money
on preparations for the grand projection, and being near the decisive
hour, was induced, by the too earnest request of his wife, to quit his
furnace one evening, to attend some of her company at the tea-table.
While the projector was attending the ladies, his furnace blew up! In
consequence of this event, he conceived such an antipathy against his
wife, that he could not endure the idea of living with her again.

Henry IV. was so reduced by his extravagancies, that Evelyn observes in
his Numismata, he endeavoured to recruit his empty coffers by an
Alchymical speculation. The _record_ of this singular proposition,
contains “the most solemn and serious account of the feasibility and
virtues of the _philosopher’s stone_, encouraging the search after it,
and dispensing with all statutes and prohibitions to the contrary.” This
_record_ was very probably communicated (says an ingenious antiquary) by
Mr. Selden to his beloved friend Ben Jonson, when he was writing his
comedy of the Alchymist.

After this patent was published, many promised to answer the King’s
expectations so effectually (adds the same writer) that the next year he
published another patent; wherein he tells his subjects, that the _happy
hour_ was drawing nigh, and by means of the STONE, which he should be
master of, he would pay all the debts of the nation in _real gold_ and
silver. The persons picked out for his new operations were as remarkable
as the patent itself, being a most “miscellaneous rabble” of friars,
grocers, mercers, and fishmongers!

This patent was likewise granted _authoritate parliamenti_.

Prynne, who has given this patent in his _Aurum Reginæ_, p. 135,
concludes with this sarcastic observation:—“A project never so
seasonable and necessary as now!” And this we repeat, and our successors
will no doubt imitate us!

Alchymists were formerly called _multipliers_; as appears from a statute
of Henry IV. repealed in the preceding record. The statute being
extremely short, we shall give it for the reader’s satisfaction.

“None from henceforth shall use to multiply gold or silver, or use the
_craft of multiplication_; and if any the same do, he shall incur the
pain of felony.”

Every philosophical mind must be convinced that Alchymy is not an art,
which some have fancifully traced to the _remotest times_; it may rather
be regarded, when opposed to such a distance of time, as a modern
imposture. Cæsar commanded the treatises of Alchymy to be burnt
throughout the Roman dominions—Cæsar, who is not less to be admired as a
philosopher than as a monarch.

Mr. Gibbon has the following succinct passage relative to Alchymy: “The
ancient books of Alchymy, so liberally ascribed to Pythagoras, to
Solomon, or to Hermes, were the pious frauds of more recent adepts. The
Greeks were inattentive either to the use or abuse of chemistry. In that
immense register, where Pliny has deposited the discoveries, the arts
and the errors of mankind, there is not the least mention of the
transmutation of metals; and the persecution of Dioclesian is the first
authentic event in the history of Alchymy. The conquest of Egypt by the
Arabs diffused that vain science over the globe. Congenial to the
avarice of the human heart, it was studied in China as in Europe, with
equal eagerness and equal success. The darkness of the middle ages
ensured a favourable reception to every tale of wonder; and the revival
of learning gave new vigour to hope, and suggested more specious arts to
deception. Philosophy, with the aid of experience, has at length
banished the study of Alchymy; and the present age, however desirous of
riches, is content to seek them by the humbler means of commerce and
industry.”

Elias Ashmole writes in his diary—“May 13, 1653. My father Backhouse (an
Astrologer who had adopted him for his son—a common practice with these
men) lying sick in Fleet Ditch, over against St. Dunstan’s church, and
not knowing whether he should live or die, about eleven of the clock
told me in _Syllables_ the true matter of the _Philosopher’s Stone_,
which he bequeathed to me as a legacy.” By this we learn that a
miserable wretch knew the art of _making gold_, yet always lived a
beggar; and that Ashmole really imagined he was in possession of the
_Syllables of a secret_! he has however built a curious monument of the
learned follies of the last century, in his “Theatrum Chemicum
Britannicum.” Though Ashmole is rather the historian of this vain
science than an adept, it may amuse literary leisure to turn over his
quarto volume, in which he has collected the works of several English
Alchymists, to which he has subjoined his Commentary. It affords a
curious specimen of Rosicrucian Mysteries; and Ashmole relates stories,
which vie for the miraculous, with the wildest fancies of Arabian
invention. Of the Philosopher’s Stone, he says, he knows enough to hold
his tongue, but not enough to speak. This Stone has not only the power
of transmuting any imperfect earthy matter into its utmost degree of
perfection, and can convert the basest metals into gold, flints into
stones, &c. but it has still more occult virtues, when the arcana have
been entered into, by the choice fathers of hermetic mysteries. The
vegetable stone has power over the natures of man, beast, fowls, fishes,
and all kinds of trees and plants, to make them flourish and bear fruit
at any time. The magical stone discovers any person wherever he is
concealed; while the angelical stone gives the apparitions of angels,
and a power of conversing with them. These great mysteries are supported
by occasional facts, and illustrated by prints of the most divine and
incomprehensible designs, which we would hope were intelligible to the
initiated. It may be worth shewing, however, how liable even the latter
were to blunder on these Mysterious Hieroglyphics. Ashmole, in one of
his chemical works, prefixed a frontispiece, which, in several
compartments, exhibited Phœbus on a lion, and opposite to him a lady,
who represented Diana, with the moon in one hand and an arrow in the
other, sitting on a crab; Mercury on a tripod, with the scheme of the
heavens in one hand, and his caduceus in the other. They were intended
to express the materials of the Stone, and the season for the process.
Upon the altar is the bust of a man, his head covered by an astrological
scheme dropped from the clouds; and on the altar are these words,
MERCURIOPHILUS ANGLICUS, _i. e._ the English lover of hermetic
philosophy. There is a tree and a little creature gnawing the root, a
pillar adorned with musical and mathematical instruments, and another
with military ensigns. This strange composition created great inquiry
among the chemical sages. Deep mysteries were conjectured to be veiled
by it. Verses were written in the highest strain of the Rosicrucian
language. _Ashmole_ confessed he meant nothing more than a kind of pun
on his own name, for the tree was the _ash_, and the creature was a
_mole_. One pillar tells his love of music and freemasonry, and the
other his military preferment and astrological studies! He afterwards
regretted that no one added a second volume to his work, from which he
himself had been hindered, for the honour of the family of Hermes, and
“to shew the world what excellent men we had once of our nation, famous
for this kind of philosophy, and masters of so transcendant a secret.”

Modern chemistry is not without a _hope_, not to say a _certainty_, of
verifying the golden visions of the Alchymists. Dr. Gertänner, of
Gottingen, has lately adventured the following prophecy: “In the
_nineteenth century_ the transmutation of metals will be generally known
and practised. Every chemist and every artist will _make gold_; kitchen
materials will be of silver, and even gold, which will contribute more
than any thing else to _prolong life_, poisoned at present by the oxyds
of copper, lead, and iron, which we daily swallow with our food[23].”
This sublime chemist, though he does not venture to predict that
universal _Elixir_[24], which is to prolong life at pleasure, yet
approximates to it. A chemical friend observed, that “the metals seem to
be _composite_ bodies, which nature is perpetually preparing; and it may
be reserved for the future researches of Science to trace, and perhaps
to imitate, some of these curious operations.”


            _Origin, Objects, and Practice of Alchymy, &c._

We find the word Alchymy occurring, for the first time, in JULIUS
FIRMICUS MATERNUS, an author who lived under Constantine the Great, who
in his _Mathesis_, iii. 35, speaking of the influence of the heavenly
bodies, affirms, “that if the Moon be in the house of Saturn, at the
time a child is born, he shall be skilled in Alchymy.”

The great objects or ends pursued by Alchymy, are, 1st, To make gold;
which is attempted by separation, maturation; and by transmutation,
which is to be effected by means of the Philosopher’s stone. With a view
to this end, Alchymy, in some writers, is also called ποιητκη,
_poetice_, and χρυσοποιητικη, _chryso poetice_, _i. e._ the art of
making gold; and hence also, by a similar derivation, the artists
themselves are called gold-makers.

2d. An universal medicine, adequate to all diseases.

3d. An universal dissolvent or alkahest. (See ALKAHEST.)

4. An universal ferment, or a matter, which being applied to any seed,
shall increase its fecundity to infinity. If, for example, it be applied
to gold, it shall change the gold into the philosopher’s stone of gold,—
if to silver, into the philosopher’s stone of silver,—and if to a tree,
the result is, the philosopher’s stone of the tree; which transmutes
every thing it is applied to, into trees.

The origin and antiquity of Alchymy have been much controverted. If we
may credit legend and tradition, it must be as old as the flood; nay,
Adam himself, is represented by the Alchymist, as an adept. A great
part, not only of the heathen mythology, but of the Jewish and Christian
Revelations, are supposed to refer to it. Thus SUIDAS will have the
fable of the Philosopher’s Stone, to be alluded to in the fable of the
Argonauts; and others find it in the book of MOSES, &c. But if the æra
of the art be examined by the monument of history, it will lose much of
this fancied antiquity. The learned Dane, Borrichius, has taken immense
pains to prove that it was not unknown to the ancient Greeks and
Egyptians. Crounguis, on the contrary, with equal address, undertakes to
show its novelty. Still not one of the ancient poets, philosophers, or
physicians, from the time of Homer till four hundred years after the
birth of Christ, mention any thing about it.

The first author who speaks of making gold, is Zosimus the Pomopolite,
who lived about the beginning of the fifth century, and who has a
treatise express upon it, called, “the divine art of making gold and
silver,” in manuscript, and is, as formerly, in the King of France’s
library. The next is Æneas Gazeus, another Greek writer, towards the
close of the same century, in whom we find the following passage:—“Such
as are skilled in the ways of nature, can take silver and tin, and
changing their nature, can turn them into gold.” The same writer tells
us, that he was “wont to call himself χρυσοχοος, gold melter, and
χημευτης, chemist.” Hence we may conclude, that a notion of some such
art as Alchymy was in being at that age; but as neither of these artists
inform us how long it had been previously known, their testimony will
not carry us back beyond the age in which they lived.

In fact, we find no earlier or plainer traces of the universal medicine
mentioned any where else; nor among the physicians and naturalists, from
Moses to Geber the Arab, who is supposed to have lived in the seventh
century. In that author’s work, entitled the “_Philosopher’s Stone_,”
mention is made of a medicine that cures all leprous diseases. This
passage, some authors suppose, to have given the first hint of the
matter; though Geber himself, perhaps, meant no such thing; for by
attending to the Arabic style and diction of this author, which abounds
in allegory, it is highly probable, that by man he means gold; and by
leprous, or other diseases, the other metals; which, with relation to
gold, are all impure.

The manner in which Suidas accounts for this total silence of old
authors with regard to Alchymy, is, that Dioclesian procured all the
books of the ancient Egyptians to be burnt; and that it was in these
that the great mysteries of chymistry were contained. Corringius calls
this statement in question, and asks how Suidas, who lived but five
hundred years before us, should know what happened eight hundred years
before him? To which Borrichius answers, that he had learnt it of
Eudemus, Helladius, Zosimus, Pamphilius, &c. as Suidas himself relates.

Kercher asserts, that the theory of the Philosopher’s Stone, is
delivered at large in the table of Hermes, and that the ancient
Egyptians were not ignorant of the art, but declined to prosecute it.
They did not appear to transmute gold; they had ways of separating it
from all kinds of bodies, from the very mud of the Nile, and stones of
all kinds: but, he adds, these secrets were never written down, or made
public, but confined to the royal family, and handed down traditionally
from father to son.

The chief point advanced by Borrichius, and in which he seems to lay the
principal stress, is, the attempt of Caligula, mentioned by Pliny, for
procuring gold from Orpiment, (Hist. Nat. 1. xxxiii. c. 4.) But this, it
may be observed, makes very little for that author’s pretensions; there
being no transmutations, no hint of any Philosopher’s Stone, but only a
little gold was extracted or separated from the mineral.

The principal authors on Alchymy are, Geber, Friar Bacon, Sully, John
and Isaac Hallandus, Basil Valentine, Paracelsus, Van Zuchter, and
Sendirogius.




                         ALKAHEST, OR ALCAHEST,


In Chemistry, means a most pure and universal menstruum or dissolvent,
with which some chemists have pretended to resolve all bodies into their
first matter, and perform other extraordinary and unaccountable
operations.

Paracelsus and Van Helmont, expressly declare, that there is a certain
fluid in nature, capable of reducing all sublunary bodies, as well
hemogeneous as mixed, into their _ens primum_, or original matter of
which they are composed; or into an uniform equable and potable liquor,
that will unite with water, and the juices of our bodies, yet will
retain its radical virtues; and if mixed with itself again, will thereby
be converted into pure elementary water. This declaration, seconded by
the asseveration of Van Helmont, who solemnly declared himself possessed
of the secret, excited succeeding Chemists and Alchymists to the pursuit
of so noble a menstruum. Mr. Boyle was so much attracted with it, that
he frankly acknowledged he had rather been master of it, than of the
Philosopher’s Stone. In short, it is not difficult to conceive, that
bodies might originally arise from some first matter, which was once in
a fluid form. Thus, the primitive matter of gold is, perhaps, nothing
more than a ponderous fluid, which, from its own nature, or a strong
cohesion or attraction between its particles, acquires afterwards a
solid form. And hence there does not appear any absurdity in the notion
of an universal ens, that resolves all bodies into their Ens Genitate.

The Alcahest is a subject that has been embraced by many anthers; _e.
g._ Pantatem, Philalettes, Tachenius, Ludovicus, &c. Boerhaave says, a
library of them might be collected; and Werdenfelt, in his treatise de
Secretis Adeptorum, has given all the opinions that have been
entertained concerning it.

The term Alcahest is not peculiarly found in any language: Helmont
declares, he first observed it in Paracelsus, as a word that was unknown
before the time of that author, who in his second book, _De Viribus
Membrorum_, treating of the liver, has these rather remarkable words:
_Est etiam_ alkahest _liquor_, magnam sepates conservandi et
confortandi, &c. “There is also the liquor _Alkerhest_, of great
efficacy in preserving the liver; as also in curing hydropsical and all
other diseases arising from disorders of that part. If it have once
conquered its like, it becomes superior to all other hepatic medicines;
and though the liver itself was broken and dissolved, this medicine
should supply its place.”

It was this passage alone, quoted from Paracelsus, that stimulated
succeeding chemists to an enquiry after the Alkahest; there being only
another indirect expression, in all his work, relating to it.

As it was a frequent practice with Paracelsus to transpose the letters
of his words, and to abbreviate or otherwise conceal them; _e. g._ for
tartar, he would write _Sutratur_; for _Nitrum_, _Mutrin_, &c. it is
supposed that Alcahest must be a word disguised in the same manner.
Hence some imagine it, and with much probability, to be formed of
_alkali est_; consequently that it was the Alkaline salt of tartar
salatilized. This appears to have been Glauber’s opinion; who, in fact,
performed surprising things with such a menstruum, upon subjects of all
the three kingdoms. Others will have it derived from the German word
_algeist_, that is, wholly spirituous or volatile; others are of
opinion, that the word Alcahest is taken from saltz-geist, which
signifies spirit of salt; for the universal menstruum, it is said, is to
be wrought from water: and Paracelsus himself calls salt the centre of
water, wherein metals ought to die, &c. In fact, spirit of salt was the
great menstruum he used on most occasions.

The Commentator on Paracelsus, who gave a Latin edition of his works at
Delft, assures us that the alcahest was mercury, converted into a
spirit. Zwelfer judged it to be a spirit of vinegar rectified from
verdigris, and Starkey thought he discovered it in his soap.

There have nevertheless been some synonimous and more significant words
used for the Alkahest. Van Helmont, the elder, mentions it by the
compound name of _ignis-aqua_, fire-water: but he here seems to allude
to the circulated liquor of Paracelsus, which he terms fire, from its
property of consuming all things; and water, on account of its liquid
form. The same author calls it _liqoer Gehennæ_, infernal fire; a word
also used by Paracelsus. He also entitles it, “Summun et felicismum
omnium salium,” “the highest and most successful of all salts; which
having obtained the supreme degree of simplicity, purity, and subtilty,
enjoys alone the faculty of remaining unchanged and unimpaired by the
subjects it works upon, and of dissolving the most stubborn and
untractable bodies; as stones, gems, glass, earth, sulphur, metals, &c.
into real salt, equal in weight to the matter dissolved; and this with
as much ease as hot water melts down snow.”—“This salt,” continues he,
“by being several times cohabited with Paracelsus’, Sal circulatum,
loses all its fixedness, and at length becomes an insipid water, equal
in quantity to the salt it was made from.”

Van Helmont positively expresses that this salt is the product of art
and not of nature. “Though, says he, a homogeneal part of elementary
earth may be artfully converted into water, yet I deny that the same can
be done by nature alone; for no natural agent is able to transmute one
element into another.” And this he offers as a reason why the Elements
always remain the same.

It may throw some light into this affair, to observe, that Van Helmont,
as well as Paracelsus, took water for the universal instrument of
chymistry and natural philosophy; and earth for the unchangeable basis
of all things—that fire was assigned as the sufficient cause of all
things—that seminal impressions were lodged in the mechanism of the
earth—that water, by dissolving and fermenting with this earth, as it
does by means of fire, brings forth every thing; whence originally
proceeded the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms: even man himself,
according to Moses, was thus at first created.

The great characteristic or property of the Alkahest, as has already
been observed, is to dissolve and change all sublunary bodies—water
alone excepted.——The changes it induces proceed in the following manner,
viz.

1. The subject exposed to its operation, is converted into its three
principles, salt, sulphur, and mercury; and afterwards into salt alone,
which then becomes volatile; and, at length, is wholly turned into
insipid water.—The manner in which it is applied, is by touching the
body proposed to be dissolved; _e. g._ gold, mercury, sand, glass, or
the like, once or twice with the pretended alkahest; and if the liquor
be genuine, the body will on this application be converted into its own
quality of salt.

2. It does not destroy the seminal virtues of the bodies thereby
dissolved.—For instance,—gold, by its action, is reduced to a salt of
gold; antimony, to a salt of antimony; saffron, to a salt of saffron,
&c. of the same seminal virtues, or characters with the original
concrete. By seminal virtues, Van Helmont means those virtues which
depend upon the structure or mechanism of a body, and which constitutes
it what it actually is. Hence an actual and general _aurum_ potabile
might readily be gained by the alkahest, as converting the whole body of
gold into salt, retaining its seminal virtues, and being withal soluble
in water.

3. Whatever it dissolves may be rendered volatile by a sand-heat; and
if, after volatilizing the solvent, it be distilled therefrom, the body
is left pure insipid water, equal in quantity to its original self, but
deprived of its seminal virtues. Then, if gold be dissolved by the
Alkahest, the metal first becomes salt, which is potable gold; but when
the menstruum, by a further application of fire, is distilled therefrom,
it is left mere elementary water. Whence it appears, that pure water is
the last production or effect of the alkahest.

4. It suffers no change or diminution of force by dissolving the bodies
it works in; consequently sustains no reaction from them; being the only
immutable menstruum in nature.

5. It is incapable of mixture, and therefore remains free from
fermentation and putrefaction; coming off as pure from the body it has
dissolved, as when first applied to it; without leaving the least
foulness behind.




                               MAGICIAN.


_One who practises the art of Magic._ (_Vide Divination, Sorcery, and
Magic._)

The ancient magicians pretended to extraordinary powers of interpreting
dreams, foretelling future events, and accomplishing many wonderful
things, by their superior knowledge of the secret powers of nature, of
the virtues of plants and minerals, and of the motions and influences of
the stars. And as the art of magic among Pagan nations was founded on
their system of theology, and the magi who first exercised it were the
priests of the gods, they pretended to derive these extraordinary powers
from the assistance of the gods, which assistance they sought by a
variety of rites and sacrifices, adapted to their respective natures, by
the use of charms and superstitious words, and also by ceremonies and
supplications: they pretended, likewise, in the proper use of their art,
to a power of compelling the gods to execute their desires and commands.
An excellent writer has shewn, that the Scripture brands all these
powers as a shameless imposture, and reproaches those who assumed them
with an utter inability of discovering, or accomplishing, any thing
supernatural. (See Isaiah, xlvii. 11, 12, 13. chap. xli. 23, 24. chap.
xliv. 25. Jeremiah, x. 2, 3, 8, 14. chap xiv. 14. chap, xxvii. 9, 10.
chap. i. 36. Ps. xxi. 6. Jonah, ii. 8.) Nevertheless, many of the
Christian fathers, as well as some of the heathen philosophers, ascribed
the efficacy of magic to evil dæmons; and it was a very prevailing
opinion in the primitive, that magicians and necromancers, both among
the Gentiles and heretical Christians, had each their particular dæmons
perpetually attending on their persons, and obsequious to their
commands, by whose help they could call up the souls of the dead,
foretel future events, and perform miracles. In support of this opinion,
it has been alleged that the names by which the several sorts of
diviners are described in scripture, imply a communication with
spiritual beings; that the laws of Moses (Exod. xxii. 18. Lev. xix. 26,
31. chap. xx. 27. Deut. xviii. 10, 11.) against divination and
witchcraft, prove the efficacy of these arts, though in reality they
prove nothing more than their execrable wickedness and impiety; and that
pretensions to divination could not have supported their credit in all
the heathen nations, and through all ages, if some instances of true
divination had not occurred. But the strongest argument is derived from
the scripture history of the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses. With
regard to the works performed by these magicians, some have supposed
that God himself empowered them to perform true miracles, and gave them
an unexpected success; but the history expressly ascribes the effects
they produced, not to God, but to their own enchantments. Others
imagine, that the devil assisted the magicians, not in performing true
miracles, but in deceiving the senses of the spectators, or in
presenting before them delusive appearances of true miracles: against
which opinion it has been urged, that it tends to disparage the credit
of the works of Moses. The most common opinion, since the time of St.
Austin, has been, that they were not only performed by the power of the
devil, but were genuine miracles, and real imitations of those of Moses.
In a late elaborate enquiry into the true sense and design of this part
of scripture history, it has been shewn that the names given to
magicians seem to express their profession, their affectation of
superior knowledge, and their pretensions both to explain and effect
signs and wonders, by observing the rules of their art; and therefore,
that they are the persons, whose ability of discovering or effecting any
thing supernatural, the scripture expressly denies. The learned author
farther investigates the design for which Pharaoh employed them on this
occasion: which, he apprehends, was to learn from them, whether the sign
given by Moses was truly supernatural, or only such as their art was
able to accomplish. Accordingly it is observed, that they did not
undertake to outdo Moses, or to controul him, by superior or opposite
arts of power, but merely to imitate him, or to do the same works with
his, with a view of invalidating the argument which he drew from his
miracles, in support of the sole divinity of Jehovah, and of his own
mission. The question on this was not, are the gods of Egypt superior to
the gods of Israel, or can any evil spirits perform greater miracles
than those which Moses performed by the assistance of Jehovah? but the
question is, are the works of Moses proper proofs, that the god of
Israel is Jehovah, the only sovereign of nature, and consequently that
Moses acts by his commission; or, are they merely the wonders of nature,
and the effects of magic? In this light Philo, (de Vita Mosis, lib. i.
p. 616.) and Josephus, (Antiq. Jud. lib. ii. cap. 13.) place the
subject. Moreover, it appears from the principles and conduct of Moses,
that he could not have allowed the magicians to have performed real
miracles; because the scripture represents the whole body of magicians
as impostors; the sacred writers, Moses in particular, describe all the
heathen deities, in the belief of whose existence and influence the
magic art was founded, as unsupported by any invisible spirit, and
utterly impotent and senseless: the religion of Moses was built on the
unity and sole dominion of God, and the sole divinity of Jehovah was the
point which Moses was now about to establish, in direct opposition to
the principles of idolatry; so that if he had allowed that the heathen
idols, or any evil spirit supporting their cause, enabled the magicians
to turn rods into serpents, and water into blood, and to create frogs,
he would have contradicted the great design of his mission, and
overthrown the whole fabric of his religion; besides, Moses appropriates
all Miracles to God, and urges his own, both in general and separately,
as an absolute and authentic proof, both of the sole divinity of
Jehovah, and of his own mission; which he could not justly have done, if
his opposers performed miracles, and even the same with his. On the
other hand, it has been urged, that Moses describes the works of the
magicians in the very same language as he does his own, (Exod. vii. 11,
12. chap. v. 22. chap. viii. 7.) and hence it is concluded, that they
were equally miraculous. To this objection it is replied, that it is
common to speak of professed Jugglers, as doing what they pretend and
appear to do; but that Moses does not affirm that there was a perfect
conformity between his works and those of the magicians, but they did
_so_, or in like manner, using a word which expresses merely a general
similitude; and he expressly refers all they did, or attempted in
imitation of himself, not to the invocation of the power of dæmons, or
of any superior beings, but to human artifice and imposture. The
original words, translated _enchantments_, (Exod. vii. 11, 22. and chap.
viii. 7, 18.) import deception and concealment, and ought to have been
rendered, _secret slights_ or jugglings. Our learned writer farther
shews, that the works performed by the magicians did not exceed the
cause, or human artifice, to which they are ascribed. Farmer’s _Diss._
on Miracles, 1771, chap. 3. § 3. chap. 4. § 1. (See MAGII.)




                           MAGI, OR MAGEANS,


A title which the ancient Persians gave to their wise men or
philosophers.

The learned are in great perplexity about the word _magus_, μαγ ος.
Plato, Xenophon, Herodotus, Strabo, &c. derive it from the Persian
language, in which it signifies a priest, or person appointed to
officiate in holy things; as _druid_ among the Gauls; _gymnosophist_
among the Indians; and _Levite_, among the Hebrews. Others derive it
from the Greek μεγας, great; which they say, being borrowed of the
Greeks, by the Persians, was returned in the form μαγος; but Vossius,
with more probability, brings it from the Hebrew ‏הגה‎ _haga_, to
meditate; whence ‏מהגים‎, maaghim, in Latin, meditabundi, q. d. people
addicted to meditation.

Magi, among the Persians, answers to σοφοι, or φιλοσοφοι, among the
Greeks; _sapientes_, among the Latins; _druids_, among the Gauls;
_gymnosophists_, among the Indians; and _prophets_ or _priests_ among
the Egyptians.

The ancient _magi_, according to Aristotle and Laertius, were the sole
authors and conservators of the Persian philosophy; and the philosophy
principally cultivated by them, was theology and politics; they being
always esteemed as the interpreters of all law, both divine and human;
on which account they were wonderfully revered by the people. Hence,
Cicero observes, that none were admitted to the crown of Persia, but
such as were well instructed in the discipline of the _magi_; who taught
τα βασιλικα, and showed princes how to govern.

Plato, Apuleius, Laertius, and others, agree, that the philosophy of the
_magi_ related principally to the worship of the gods: they were the
persons who were to offer prayers, supplications, and sacrifices, as if
the gods would be heard by them alone. But according to Lucian, Suidas,
&c. this theology, or worship of the gods, as it was called, about which
the magi were employed, was little more than the diabolical art of
divination; for that μαγεια, strictly taken, was the art of divination.

Porphyry defines the _magi_ well; Cicero calls them _divina sapientes_,
&c. in iisdem ministrantes; adding, that the word _magus_ implied as
much in the Persian tongue. These people, he says, are held in such
veneration among the Persians, that Darius, the son of Hystaspes, among
other things, had it engraved on his monument, that he was master of the
_magi_.

Philo Judas describe the _magi_ to be diligent enquirers into nature,
out of the love they bear to truth; and who, setting themselves apart
from other things, contemplate the divine virtues the more clearly, and
initiate others in the same mysteries.

Their descendants, the modern _magi_, or fire worshippers, are divided
into three classes; whereof the first and most learned, neither ate nor
kill animals; but adhere to the old institution of abstaining from
living creatures. The _magi_ of the second class, refrain only from tame
animals; nor do the last kill all indifferently, it being the firm
distinguishing dogma of them all, τκν μετεμχυωσιυ ειναι, _that there is
a transmigration of souls_.

To intimate the similitude between animals and men, they used to call
the latter by the name of the former; thus, their fellow priests they
called lions; the priestesses, lionesses; the servants, cows, &c.




                         MAGIC, MAGIA, MATEIA,


In its ancient sense, implies the science, or discipline, or doctrine,
of the _magi_, or wise men of Persia. The origin of _magic_, and the
_magi_, is ascribed to Zoroaster; Salmasius derives the very name from
Zoroaster, who, he says, was surnamed _Mog_, whence _magus_. Others,
instead of making him the author of the Persian philosophy, make him
only the restorer and improver thereof; alleging, that many of the
Persian rites in use among the _magi_, were borrowed from the Zabii,
among the Chaldeans, who agreed in many things with the magi of the
Persians; whence some make the name _magus_ common to both the Chaldeans
and Persians. Thus Plutarch mentions, that Zoroaster instituted _magi_
among the Chaldeans; in imitation whereof the Persians had theirs too.

MAGIC, in a more modern sense, is a science which teaches to perform
wonderful and surprising effects.

The word _magic_ originally carried along with it a very innocent, nay,
a very laudable meaning; being used purely to signify the study of
wisdom, and the more sublime parts of knowledge; but in regard to the
ancient _magi_, engaged themselves in astrology, divination, sorcery,
&c. the term magic in time became odious, and was only used to signify
an unlawful and diabolical kind of science, depending on the devil and
departed souls.

If any wonder how vain and deceitful a science should gain so much
credit and authority over men’s minds, Pliny gives the reason of it.
’Tis, says he, because it has possessed itself of three sciences of the
most esteem among men, taking from each all that is great and marvellous
in it. Nobody doubts but that it had its first origin in medicine, and
that it insinuated itself into the minds of the people, under pretence
of affording extraordinary remedies. To these fine promises it added
every thing in religion that is pompous and splendid, and that appears
calculated to blind and captivate mankind. And, lastly, it mingled
judiciary astrology with the rest, persuading people curious of
futurity, that it saw every thing to come in the heavens. Agrippa
divided _magic_ into three kinds, _natural_, _celestial_, and
_ceremonial_ or _superstitious_.

NATURAL MAGIC, is no more than the application of natural active causes
to passive things, or subjects; by means whereof many surprising, but
yet natural effects are produced.

Baptista Porta has a treatise of _natural magic_, or of secrets for
performing very extraordinary things by natural causes. The _natural
magic_ of the Chaldæans was nothing but the knowledge of the powers of
simples and minerals. The _magic_ which they call _theurgia_, consisted
wholly in the knowledge of the ceremonies to be observed in the worship
of the gods, in order to be acceptable to them. By the virtue of these
ceremonies, they believed they could converse with spiritual beings and
cure diseases.

CELESTIAL MAGIC borders nearly on judiciary astrology; it attributes to
spirits a kind of rule or dominion over the planets; and to the planets,
a dominion over men; and, on these principles, builds a ridiculous kind
of system.

SUPERSTITIOUS, or GEOTIC MAGIC, consists in the invocation of devils:
its effects are usually evil and wicked, though very strange, and
seemingly surpassing the powers of nature: they are supposed to be
produced by virtue of some compact, either tacit or express, with evil
spirits; but the truth is, these supposed compacts have not the power
that is usually imagined; nor do they produce half those effects
ordinarily ascribed to them.

Naude has published an apology for all the great men suspected of
_magic_. Agrippa says, that the words used by those in compact with the
devil, to invoke him, and to succeed in what they undertake, are,
_dies_, _mies_, _jesquet_, _benedoefet_, _douvima_, _enitemaus_. There
are a hundred other superstitious formulæ of words prescribed for the
same occasion, composed of pleasure, or gathered from several different
languages; or patched from the Hebrew, or framed in imitation of it.


 _Magic of the Eastern nations,—a brief view of the origin and progress
                             of Magic, &c._

CHALDEANS AND PERSIANS.—The origin of almost all our knowledge may be
traced to the earlier periods of antiquity. This is peculiarly the case
with respect to the acts denominated magical. There were few ancient
nations, however barbarous, which could not furnish many individuals to
whose spells and enchantments the powers of nature and the immaterial
world were supposed to be subjected. The Chaldeans, the Egyptians, and,
indeed, all the oriental nations, were accustomed to refer all natural
effects for which they could not account, to the agency of Demons.
Demons were believed (See DEMONOLOGY,) to preside over herbs, trees,
rivers, mountains, and animals; every member of the human body was under
their power, and all corporeal diseases were produced by their
malignity. For instance, if any happened to be afflicted with a fever,
little anxiety was manifested to discover its cause, or to adopt
rational measures for its cure; it must no doubt have been occasioned by
some evil spirit residing in the body, or influencing in some mysterious
way the fortunes of the sufferer. That influence could be counteracted
only by certain magical rites,—hence the observance of those rites soon
obtained a permanent establishment in the East.

Even at the present day many uncivilized people hold that all nature is
filled with genii, of which some exercise a beneficent, and others a
destructive power. All the evils with which man is afflicted, are
considered the work of these imaginary beings, whose favour must be
propitiated by sacrifices, incantations, songs. If the Greenlander be
unsuccessful in fishing, the Huron in hunting, or in war; if even the
scarcely half-reasoning Hottentot finds every thing is not right in his
mind, body, or fortune, no time must be lost before the spirit be
invoked. After the removal of some present evil, the next strongest
desire in the human mind is the attainment of some future good. This
good is often beyond the power, and still oftener beyond the inclination
of man, to bestow; it must therefore be sought from beings which are
supposed to possess considerable influence over human affairs, and which
being elevated above the baser passions of our nature, were thought to
regard with peculiar favour all who acknowledged their power, or invoked
their aid; hence the numerous rites which have in all ages and countries
been observed in consulting superior intelligences, and the equally
numerous modes in which their pleasure has been communicated to mortals.

The Chaldeans were more celebrated for their skill in Astrology than
Magic; of the former, they were beyond doubt the inventors: so famous
did they become in divining from aspects, positions, and influences of
the stars, that all Astrologers were termed Chaldeans, particularly by
the Jews and Romans.

Of all species of idolatry, the worship of the heavenly bodies appears
to have been among the most ancient. The Babylonians soon perceived that
these bodies continually changed their places, and that some of them
moved in regular orbits; they concluded, therefore, that this regularity
of motion must necessarily imply some designing cause—something superior
to mere inert matter: but the primeval notion of one supreme being
presiding over the universe, was almost extinct, from a period little
subsequent to the deluge, to the vocation of Abraham. Hence arose the
belief that the stars were genii, of which some were the friends, and
others the enemies of men; that they possessed an incontrollable power
over human affairs; and that to their dominion were subjected, not only
the vicissitudes of the seasons, of the atmosphere, and the productions
of the earth, but also the dispositions and thoughts of mortals. They
were supposed to delight in sacrifices and prayers. Hence a species of
worship, subordinate to that of the gods, was established in their
honour. It was believed that no event could be foreknown, no magical
operation performed, without their aid; and they conferred extraordinary
and supernatural powers on all who sought their favour. Men eminent for
authority or wisdom, were thought, after their decease, to be
incorporated with the race of genii, and sometimes even of gods.

There is little doubt that the Baal of the Scriptures, is the same with
the Belus of profane historians. Like Atlas, king of Mauritania, he
excelled in the knowledge of Astronomy; but superstition has assigned to
the celebrated founder of the Babylonian monarchy a greater dignity than
to his western rival; the former was long worshipped by the Assyrians as
one of their chief gods, while to the latter was committed the laborious
and no very enviable task of supporting the earth on his shoulders.
Indeed all the successors of Belus enjoyed the rare felicity of being
honoured both living and dead. On leaving the globe, their souls being
transformed into genii, were distributed through the immensity of space,
to superintend the nations, and to direct the influence of the heavenly
orbs. The Chaldean magii was chiefly founded on Astrology, and was much
conversant with certain animals, metals and plants, which were employed
in all their incantations, and the virtue of which was derived from
Stellar influence. Great attention was always paid to the positions and
configurations presented by the celestial sphere; and it was only at
favourable seasons that the solemn rites were celebrated. Those rites
were accompanied with many peculiar and fantastic gestures, by leaping,
clapping of hands, prostrations, loud cries, and not unfrequently
unintelligible exclamations[25]. Sacrifices and burnt-offerings were
used to propitiate superior powers; but our knowledge of the magical
rites exercised by certain Oriental nations, the Jews only excepted, is
extremely limited. All the books professedly written on the subject,
have been swept away by the torrent of time. We learn, however, that the
professors among the Chaldeans were generally divided into three
classes; the _Ascaphim_, or charmers, whose office it was to remove
present, and to avert future contingent evils; to construct talismans,
&c.; the _Mecaschephim_, or magicians properly so called, who were
conversant with the occult powers of nature, and the supernatural world;
and the _Chasdim_, or astrologers, who constituted by far the most
numerous and respectable class. And from the assembling of the wise men
on the occasion of the extraordinary dream of Nebuchadnezzar, it would
appear that Babylon had also her _Oneicrotici_, or interpreters of
dreams—a species of diviners indeed to which almost every nation of
antiquity gave birth.

The talisman is probably a Chaldean invention. It was generally a small
image of stone, or of any metallic substance, and was of various forms.
On it were several mysterious characters, which were cut under a certain
configuration of the planets, and some believed to be powerfully
efficacious, not only in averting evils, but in unfolding the dark and
distant picture. Some learned men have lately expressed their doubts as
to the antiquity of the talisman, and have even contended that it is not
older than the Egyptian Amulet, which was probably invented but a short
time before the Christian era; but we have the authority of the sacred
writings for asserting that the Seraphim, which, according to the Jewish
Doctors, gave oracular answers, and which, both in form and use, bore a
great resemblance to the talisman, was known at an early period. There
is no slight reason for concluding that the latter is either an
imitation of the former, or that both are one and the same device.—Like
the Chaldean Astrologers, the Persian Magi, from whom our word Magic is
derived, belongs to the priesthood. But the worship of the gods, was not
their chief occupation; they were great proficients in the arts of which
we are now treating. At first they were distinguished for their ardour
in the pursuit of knowledge; they endeavoured to penetrate the secrets
of nature by the only way in which those secrets can be discovered—
experiment and reason. The former furnished them with facts; the latter
taught them how these facts might be made the foundation of higher
researches, and rendered subservient to the public utility. While they
continued in this innocent and laudable career, devoting, like the
druids, no inconsiderable portion of their time to the cure of diseases,
by means of herbs and other natural productions, they deserved and
obtained the gratitude of their countrymen; but in process of time they
became desirous of increasing the reverence with which they were
regarded by all ranks: they grew ambitious of higher honours, to direct
the counsels of the state, and to render even their sovereigns subject
to their sway. They joined therefore to the worship of the gods, and to
the profession of medicine and natural magic, a pretended familiarity
with superior powers, from which they boasted of deriving all their
knowledge. Like Plato, who probably imbibed many of their notions, they
taught that Demons hold a middle rank between gods and men; that they
(the Demons) presided not only over divinations, auguries, conjurations,
oracles, and every species of magic, but also over sacrifices and
prayer, which in behalf of men they presented, and rendered acceptable
to the gods. Hence they were mediators, whose ministry was thought
indispensable in all magical and religious rites. The magi constantly
persuaded their credulous countrymen, that to them alone was conceded
the high privilege of communicating with gods and demons, and of being
thereby enabled to foretel future events; they even went so far as to
assert that by means of their incantations, they obliged the latter to
execute all their commands, and to serve them with the same deference as
servants do their masters. The austerity of their lives was well
calculated to strengthen the impression which their cunning had already
made on the multitude, and to prepare the way for whatever impositions
they might afterwards wish to practise.

All the three order of Magi enumerated by Porphyry, abstained from wine
and women, and the first of these orders from animal food. These were
indulgences which they considered too vulgar for men who were the
favourites of Orosmades, Aremanius, and of the inferior Deities, and who
were so intimately connected with the offspring of those Deities, the
numerous hosts of Genii and Demon.

Three kinds of divination were chiefly cultivated by the Magi;
_necromancy_, which appears to have been twofold; the predicting of
future events by the inspection of dead bodies, and the invoking of
departed spirits, which were forced to unfold the dark decrees of fate—a
science which has in all ages been almost universally diffused over the
earth; _lecanomancy_, by which demons, in obedience to certain powerful
songs, were obliged to enter a vessel filled with water, and to answer
whatever questions were put to them; and _hydromancy_, which differs
from _lecanomancy_ in this, that the voice of the demon was not heard,
but his form was perceptible in the water, in which he represented,
either by means of his satellites, or by written verses, the cause and
issue of any particular event. Whether the celebrated Zoroaster was
acquainted with these three species, cannot be well determined. He has
been called the inventor of magic; with what justice, is quite as
doubtful. It has been inferred, and perhaps with greater plausibility,
that he did not as much invent as methodize the art. He may likewise
have so extended its bounds as to eclipse the fame of his predecessors;
and from that, as well as from the other consideration, the honour of
the invention may have been assigned him.

INDIANS.—Of Indian magic we know even less than we do of that exercised
by any other ancient nation. We have however reason to conclude that
much of it was similar to that for which the magi, from whom it was
probably derived, were held in so high estimation. But the divination of
the Indians differed in one respect from that of all other people; they
admitted in it affairs of public moment, but rigorously excluded it from
all private concerns. The reason of this prohibition probably was, that
the science was esteemed too sacred to be employed on the ordinary
occurrences of life. Their Gymnosophists, or Brachmans, (it is not clear
that there was any distinction between them) were regarded with as much
reverence as the magi, and were probably more worthy of it. Some of them
dwelt in woods, and others in the immediate vicinity of cities. They
performed the ceremonies of religion; by them indeed kings worshipped
the deities of the country; not a few pretended to superior powers, to
cure diseases by enchantments, and to foretel future events by the
stars; but generally speaking, they were a useful and honourable body of
men. Their skill in medicine was great: the care which they took in
educating youth, in familiarizing it with generous and virtuous
sentiments, did them peculiar honour; and their maxims and discourses,
as recorded by historians, (if indeed those historians be deserving of
full credit) prove that they were much accustomed to profound reflection
on the principles of civil polity, morality, religion, and philosophy.
They preserved their dignity under the sway of the most powerful
princes, whom they would not condescend to visit, or to trouble for the
slightest favour. If the latter desired the advice or the prayers of the
former, they were obliged either to go themselves, or to send
messengers.

EGYPTIANS.—The Egyptians also had their magicians from the remotest
antiquity. Though these magicians were unable to contend with Moses,
they were greatly superior to the Chaldean Astrologers, the Persian
Magi, and the Indian Gymnosophists; they appear to have possessed a
deeper insight into the arcana of nature than any other professors of
the art. By what extraordinary powers their rods were changed into
serpents, the waters of the Nile into blood, and the land of Egypt
covered with frogs, has much perplexed wise and good men. Of all the
methods of solution which the learning and piety of either Jewish or
Christian commentators have applied to this difficult problem, none
appears so consonant with the meaning of the sacred text, and at the
same time liable to so few objections, as this; that the magicians were
not, in the present case, impostors, and that they really accomplished,
by means of supernatural agents, the wonders recorded by the inspired
penman[26]. Earth, air, and ocean, may contain many things of which our
philosophy has never dreamt. If this consideration should humble the
pride of learning, it may remind the Christian that secret things belong
not to him, but to a higher power.

It was maintained by the Egyptians that besides the Gods, there were
many demons which communicated with mortals, and which were often
rendered visible by certain ceremonies and songs; that genii exercised
an habitual and powerful influence over every particle of matter; that
thirty-six of these beings presided over the various members of the
human body; and that by magical incantations it might be strengthened,
or debilitated[27], afflicted with, or delivered from diseases. Thus, in
every case of sickness, the spirit of presiding over the afflicted part,
was first duly invoked. But the magicians did not trust solely to their
vain invocations; they were well acquainted with the virtues of certain
herbs, which they wisely employed in their attempts at healing. These
herbs were greatly esteemed: thus the _cynocephalia_, or as the
Egyptians themselves termed the _asyrites_, which was used as a
preventive against witchcraft; and the _nepenthes_, which Helen
presented in a potion to Menelaus, and which was believed to be powerful
in banishing sadness, and in restoring the mind to its accustomed, or
even to greater cheerfulness, were of Egyptian growth[28]. But whatever
might be the virtues of such herbs, they were used rather for their
magical than for their medicinal qualities; every cure was cunningly
ascribed to the presiding demons, with which not a few boasted that they
were, by means of their art, intimately connected.

The Egyptian amulets are certainly not so ancient as the Babylonian
Talisman, but in their uses they were exactly similar. Some little
figures, supposed to have been intended as charms, have been formed on
several mummies, which have at various times been brought into Europe.
Plutarch informs us, that the soldiers wore rings, on which the
representation of an insect, resembling our beetle, was inscribed; and
we learn from Ælian, that the judges had always suspended round their
necks a small image of truth formed of emeralds[29]. The superstitious
belief in the virtues of Amulets is far from extinct in the present age;
the Cophts, the Arabians, and Syrians, and, indeed, almost all the
inhabitants of Asia, west of the Ganges, whether Christians or
Mahometans, still use them against possible evils.

The descendants of the Pharaohs, like the Chaldean kings, were always
great encouragers of Astronomy; and though the subjects of the latter
were not so eminent as those of the former in the sister science, we
have good reason to conclude that they made no inconsiderable progress
in it. Herodotus, and other ancient historians, assert that Astrology
was, from the remotest times, cultivated by that people. They usually,
indeed, prognosticated the general course of life, the disposition, and
even the manner of death, of any one, by reference to the deity
presiding over the day on which he was born; and not unfrequently by
their eastern neighbours, by determining the position of the stars at
the moment of delivery.

As Moses passed the greatest part of his life in Egypt, and as he could
know little by personal experience of other nations, it may perhaps be
inferred that generally when he warns the Israelites against prevailing
superstitions, he has a particular eye to those observed in the country
in which the posterity of Adam had so long resided. He makes frequent
allusion, indeed, to the magical rites and idolatrous practices of the
Canaanites; but in this case he appears to speak rather from the
information he had acquired from others than from his own experience.
Should this inference be admitted, we shall have reason for believing
that both Witchcraft and Necromancy were known to the Egyptians; and
that some days were considered lucky, and others unfavorable, for the
prosecution of any important affair. A careful perusal of the
Pentateuch, and a reference to the Greek Historians who have written on
the affairs of Egypt, and whose works are necessary to elucidate many
obscure allusions in the sacred text, will furnish the more curious
reader with information on some minor points, which our limits, as a
miscellaneous work, necessarily oblige us to omit.

JEWS[30].—We have hitherto had too much reason to complain of the
paucity of information afforded by ancient writers on the magic of the
Eastern nations; but when we come to consider that of the Jews, we no
longer labour under so heavy a disadvantage. The Holy Scriptures, the
works of native writers, and above all, the laborious researches of
learned Christian commentators, furnish us with abundant materials, from
which we shall select such as appear best adapted to give an
intelligible, but necessarily brief, view of the subject.—Many Jewish
Doctors assign to their magic a preposterous antiquity. They assert that
it is of divine origin; that it was known to Adam and Abraham, both of
whom were animated by the same soul; that the latter taught it by means
of his concubines to his children; and that he wore round his neck a
precious stone, the bare sight of which cured every disease, and which,
after his death, God hung on the sun! But leaving these wild fables, we
have sufficient authority for saying, that the Jews were at a very early
period addicted to the magical arts. This propensity, which first
originated in Egypt, was much increased by their subsequent intercourse
with the inhabitants of Syria, and above all, with their Chaldean
conquerors. Thus we read in the Book of Kings, that they used
divination, and observed the cry of birds. Hence the frequent and awful
denunciations employed by the inspired writers against the practisers of
their forbidden arts.

Lightfoot has proved, that the Jews, after their return from Babylon,
having entirely forsaken idolatry, and being no longer favoured with the
gift of prophecy, gradually abandoned themselves, before the coming of
our Saviour, to sorcery and divination. The Talmud, which they still
regard with a reverence bordering on idolatry, abounds with instructions
for the due observance of superstitious rites. After the destruction of
their city and temple, many Israelitish impostors were highly esteemed
for their pretended skill in magic. Under pretence of interpreting
dreams, they met with daily opportunities of practising the most
shameful frauds. Many Rabbins were quite as well versed in the school of
Zoroaster as in that of Moses. They prescribed all kinds of conjuration,
some for the cure of wounds, some against the dreaded bite of serpents,
and others against thefts and enchantments. Like the Magi, they boasted
that by means of their art they held an intercourse with superior
beings. Thus Bath-kool, _daughter of the voice_, is the name given by
them to the echo: they regarded it as an oracle, which in the second
temple, was destined to supply the defect of the Urim and Thummim, the
mysterious oracles of the first. Of Bath-kool many absurd stories are
related. Thus when two Rabbins went to consult her concerning the fate
of another Rabbin, Samuel, the Babylonian, they passed before a school,
in which they heard a boy reading aloud, and _Samuel died_. (Sam. ch.
xxv. v. 1.) On enquiry they subsequently found that the object of their
anxiety was no longer an inhabitant of the earth; and thus a casual
coincidence, of which no reasonable man would have been surprised, was
confidently ascribed to the oracular powers of Bath-kool. Two other
Rabbins, Jona and Josa, went to visit Acha in his sickness; as they
proceeded on their way they said, “let us hear what sentence Bath-kool
will pronounce on the fate of our brother.” Immediately they heard a
voice, as if addressed by a woman to her neighbour—“the candle is going
out; let not the light be extinguished in Israel.” (Lightfoot, vol. II.
p. 267.) No more doubt was entertained that these words proceeded from
Bath-kool, than that Elias now assists at the circumcision of every
Jewish child.

The divinations of the Israelites were founded on the influence of the
stars, and on the operations of spirits: that singular people did not,
indeed, like the Chaldeans and Magi, regard the heavenly bodies as gods
and genii; but they ascribed to them a great power over the actions and
opinions of men. Hence the common proverb, ‘such a one may be thankful
to his stars,’ when spoken of any person distinguished for his wealth,
power, or wisdom. The mazzal-tool was the happy, and the mazzal-ra the
malignant influence; and the fate of every one was supposed to be
regulated by either one or the other. Like the notions from which their
superstitious opinions were derived, the Jews constructed horoscopes,
and predicted the fate of every one from his birth. Thus if any one were
born under the dominion of the sun, it was prognosticated that he would
be fair, generous, open-hearted, and capricious; under Venus, rich and
wanton; under Mercury, witty, and of a retentive memory; under the Moon,
sickly, and inconstant; under Saturn, unfortunate; under Jupiter, just,
and under Mars, successful.

As to the spirits whose agency was so often employed in divination, we
have full information from Manasseh, Ben Israel, and others. “Of wicked
spirits,” says the author, “there are several varieties, of which some
are intelligent and cunning, others ignorant and stupid. The former
flying from one extent of the earth to the other, become acquainted with
the general cause of human events, both past and present, and sometimes
with those of the future. Hence many mortals conjure these spirits, by
whose assistance they effect wonderful things. The books of the
cabalists, and of some other writers, contain the names of the spirits
usually invoked, and a particular account of the ceremonies are
accompanied. If (continues the same author,) these spirits appear to one
man alone, they portend no good; if to two persons together, they
presage no evil: they were never known to appear to three mortals
assembled together.”

The magical rites of the Jews were, and indeed are still, chiefly
performed on various important occasions, as on the birth of a child, a
marriage, &c. On such occasions the evil spirits are believed to be
peculiarly active in their malignity, which can only be counteracted by
certain enchantments[31]. Thus Tobit, according to the directions of the
angel Raphael, exorcised the demon Asmodeus, whom he compelled, by means
of the perfume of the heart and liver of a fish, to fly into upper
Egypt. (Tobit, ch. viii. v. 2 and 3.)

Josephus does not think magic so ancient as many writers of this nation
do; he makes Solomon the first who practised an art which is so powerful
against demons; and the knowledge of which, he asserts, was communicated
to that prince by immediate inspiration. The latter, continues the
weakly credulous historian, invented and transmitted to posterity in his
writings, certain incantations, for the cure of diseases, and for the
expulsion and perpetual banishment of wicked spirits from the bodies of
the possessed. This mode of cure, he further observes, is very prevalent
in our nation. It consisted, according to his description, in the use of
a certain root, which was sealed up, and held under the nose of the
person possessed; the name of Solomon, with the words prescribed by him,
was then pronounced, and the demon forced immediately to retire. He does
not even hesitate to assert, that he himself has been an eye-witness of
such an effect produced on a person named Eleazar, in presence of the
emperor Vespasian and his sons. Nor will this relation surprise us, when
we consider the deep malignity entertained by a Jew to the Christian
religion, and his ceaseless attempts to depreciate the miracles of our
Saviour, by ascribing them to magical influence, and by representing
them as easy of accomplishment to all acquainted with the occult
sciences.

We should scarcely credit the account, were it not founded on
unquestionable authority, that on the great day of propitiations, the
Jews of the sixteenth century, in order to avert the angel of Samuel,
endeavoured to appease him by presents. On that day, and on no other
throughout the year, they believed that power was given him to accuse
them before the judgment-seat of God. They aimed, therefore, to prevent
their grand enemy from carrying accusations against them, by rendering
it impossible for him to know the appointed day. For this purpose they
used a somewhat singular stratagem; in reading the usual portion of the
law, they were careful to leave out the beginning and the end,—an
omission which the devil was by no means prepared to expect on so
important an occasion. They entertained no doubt that their cunning, in
this instance, had been more than a match for him.

The cabal is chiefly conversant with enchantments, which are effected by
a certain number of characters. It gives directions how to select and
combine some passages and proper names of Scripture, which are believed
both to render supernatural beings visible, and to produce many
wonderful and surprising effects. In this manner the _Malcha-sheva_,
(the queen of Sheba who visited Solomon,) who has often been invoked,
and as often made to appear. But the most famous wonders have been
effected by the name of God. The sacred word Jehovah, is, when read with
points, multiplied by the Jewish doctors into twelve, forty-two, and
seventy-two letters, of which words are composed that are thought to
possess miraculous energy. By these Moses slew the Egyptians; by these
Israel was preserved from the destroying angel of the Wilderness; by
these Elijah separated the waters of the river, to open a passage for
himself and Elisha; and by these it has been daring and impiously
asserted, that the Eternal Son of God cast out evil spirits. The name of
the devil is likewise used in magical devices. The five Hebrew letters
of which that name is composed, exactly constitute the number 364, one
less than the days in the whole year. Now the Jews pretended, that owing
to the wonderful virtue of the number comprised in the name of satan, he
is prevented from accusing them for an equal number of days: hence the
stratagem of which we have before spoken, for depriving him of the power
to injure them on the only day in which that power is granted him.

Innumerable are the devices contained in the Cabal for averting possible
evils, as the plague, disease, and sudden death. But we see no
necessity, nor even utility, in prosecuting the subject further. We have
said enough to convince the reader of the gross superstition and
abominable practice of those who, even in their present state of
degradation and infamy, have the arrogance to style themselves _God’s
peculiar people_,—as so many _lights to enlighten the Gentiles_.




                              PREDICTION.


  Prophecy, Divination, or foretelling future events, either by divine
    Revelation, by art and human invention, or by conjecture.—See
    _Divination_, page 142.

Few great moral or political revolutions have occurred which have not
had their accompanying _prognostic_; and men of a philosophic cast of
mind, in the midst of their retirement, freed from the delusions of
parties and of sects, while they are withdrawn from their conflicting
interests, have rarely been confounded by the astonishment which
overwhelms those who, absorbed in active life, are the mere creatures of
sensation, agitated by the shadows of truth, the unsubstantial
appearances of things. Intellectual nations are advancing in an eternal
circle of events and passions which succeed each other, and the last is
necessarily connected with its antecedent: the solitary force of some
fortuitous incident only can interrupt this concatinated progress of
human affairs. That every great event has been accompanied by a presage
or prognostic, has been observed by Lord Bacon. “The shepherds of the
people should understand the prognostics of _state tempests_; hollow
blasts of wind, seemingly at a distance, and secret swellings of the
sea, often precede a storm.” Such were the prognostics discerned by the
politic Bishop Williams, in Charles the First’s time, who clearly
foresaw and predicted the final success of the puritanic party in our
country: attentive to his own security, he abandoned the government and
sided with the rising opposition, at a moment when such a change in the
public administration was by no means apparent. (See Rushworth, vol. i.
p. 420.)

Dugdale, our contemplative antiquary, in the spirit of foresight, must
have anticipated the scene which was approaching in 1641, in the
destruction of our ancient monuments in cathedral churches. He hurried
on his itinerant labours of taking draughts and transcribing
inscriptions, as he says, “to preserve them for future and better
times.” It is to the prescient spirit of Dugdale that posterity is
indebted for the ancient monuments of England, which bear the marks of
the haste, as well as the zeal, which have perpetuated them. Sir Thomas
More was no less prescient in his views; for when his son Roper was
observing to him that the Catholic religion, under the “Defender of the
Faith,” was in a most flourishing state, the answer of More was an
evidence of political foresight:—“True it is, son Roper! and yet I pray
God that we may not live to see the day that we would gladly be at
league and competition with heretics, to let them have their churches
quietly to themselves, so that they would be contented to let us have
ours quietly to ourselves.” The minds of men of great political sagacity
were at that moment, unquestionably, full of obscure indications of the
approaching change. Erasmus, when before the tomb of Becket, at
Canterbury, observing it loaded with a vast profusion of jewels, wished
that those had been distributed among the poor, and that the shrine had
only been adorned with boughs and flowers:—“For,” said he, “those who
have heaped up all this mass of treasure, will one day be plundered, and
fall a prey to those who are in power.” A prediction literally fulfilled
about twenty years after it was made. _The fall of the religious houses_
was predicted by an unknown author, (see Visions of Pier’s Ploughman,)
who wrote in the reign of Edward the Third. The event, in fact, with
which we are all well acquainted, was realized two hundred years
afterwards, by our Henry VIII. Sir Walter Raleigh foresaw the
consequences of the separatists and the sectaries in the National
Church, which occurred about the year 1530. His memorable words are,
“Time will even bring it to pass, if it were not resisted, that God
would be _turned out of churches into barns_, and from thence again into
the _fields_ and _mountains_, and under _hedges_. All order of
discipline and church government, left to _newness of opinion_, and
men’s fancies, and as _many kinds of religion_ spring up as there are
parish churches within England.” Tacitus also foresaw the calamities
which so long desolated Europe on the fall of the Roman empire, in a
work written five hundred years before the event! In that sublime
anticipation of the future, he observed, “When the Romans shall be
hunted out from those countries which they have conquered, what will
then happen? The revolted people, freed from their master-oppressor,
will not be able to subsist without destroying their neighbours, and the
most cruel wars will exist among all these nations.” Solon, at Athens,
contemplating on the port and citadel of Munychia, suddenly exclaimed,
“how blind is man to futurity! could the Athenians foresee what mischief
this will do, they would even eat it with their own teeth, to get rid of
it.” A prediction verified more than two hundred years afterwards!
Thales desired to be buried in an obscure quarter of Milesia, observing
that that very spot would in time be the forum. Charlemagne, in his old
age, observing from the window of a castle a Norman descent on his
coast, tears started in the eyes of the aged monarch. He predicted, that
since they dared to threaten his dominions while he was yet living, what
would they do when he should be no more! A melancholy prediction of
their subsequent incursions, and of the protracted calamities of the
French nation during a whole century.

In a curious treatise on “Divination,” or the knowledge of future
events, Cicero has preserved a complete account of the state
contrivances practised by the Roman government, to instil among the
people those hopes and fears by which they regulated public opinion. The
Pagan creed, now become obsolete and ridiculous, has occasioned this
treatise to be rarely consulted; it remains, however, as a chapter in
the history of man!

There appears to be something in minds which take in extensive views of
human nature, which serves them as a kind of Divination, and the
consciousness of this faculty has been asserted by some. Cicero appeals
to Atticus how he had always judged of the affairs of the republic as a
good diviner; and that its overthrow had happened, as he had foreseen,
fourteen years before. (_Ep. ad Att._ lib. 10, ep. 4.)

Cicero had not only predicted what had happened in his own times, but
also what occurred long after, according to Cornelius Nepos. The
philosopher, indeed, affects no secret revelation, nor visionary
second-sight;—he honestly tells us, that that art had been acquired
merely by study, and the administration of public affairs, while he
reminds his friend of several remarkable instances of his successful
predictions. “I do not,” says Cicero, “divine human events by the arts
practised by the augurs; but I use other signs.” Cicero then expresses
himself with the guarded obscurity of a philosopher who could not openly
ridicule the prevailing superstitions, although the nature of his
“signs” are perfectly comprehensible, when in the great pending events
of the rival conflicts of Pompey and Cæsar, he shewed the means he used
for his purpose: “On one side I consider the humour and genius of Cæsar,
and on the other, the condition and manner of civil wars.” (_Ep. ad.
Att._ lib. 6, ep. 6.) In a word, the political diviner, by his
experience of the personal character, anticipated the actions of the
individual. Others, too, have asserted the possession of this faculty.
Du Vard, an eminent chancellor of France, imagined the faculty to be
intuitive with him; from observations made by his own experience.
“Born,” says he, “with constitutional infirmity, a mind and body but ill
adapted to be laborious, with a most treacherous memory, enjoying no
gift of nature, yet able at all times to exercise a sagacity so great
that I do not know, since I have reached manhood, that any thing of
importance has happened to the state, to the public, or to myself in
particular, which I had not foreseen[32].” The same faculty appears to
be described by a remarkable expression employed by Thucidides, in his
character of Themistocles, of which the following is a close
translation. “By a species of sagacity peculiarly his own, for which he
was in no degree indebted either to early education or after study, he
was supereminently happy in forming a prompt judgment in matters that
admitted but little time for deliberation; at the same time that he far
surpassed all his _deductions of the future from the_ PAST; or was the
best guesser of the future from the past.”

Should this faculty of moral and political prediction be ever considered
as a science, it may be furnished with a denomination, for the writer of
the life of Thomas Brown, prefixed to his works, in claiming the honour
for that philosopher, calls it the “Stochastic,” a term derived from the
Greek and from Archery, meaning to “shoot at the mark.”

Aristotle, who collected all the curious knowledge of his times, has
preserved some remarkable opinions on the art of _divination_. In
detailing the various subterfuges practised by the pretended diviners of
the present day, he reveals the _secret principle_ by which one of them
regulated his predictions. He frankly declared that the FUTURE being
always very obscure, while the PAST was easy to know, _his predictions
had never the future view_; for he decided from the PAST, as it appeared
in human affairs, which, however, he concealed from the multitude.
(Arist. Rhetoric, lib. vii. c. 5.)

With regard to moral predictions on individuals, many have discovered
the future character. The revolutionary predisposition of Cardinal Retz,
even in his youth, was detected by the sagacity of Cardinal Mazarine. He
then wrote a history of the conspiracy of Fresco, with such vehement
admiration of his hero, that the Italian politician, after its perusal,
predicted that the young author would be one of the most turbulent
spirits of the age! The father of Marshal Biron, even amid the glory of
his son, discovered the cloud which, invisible to others, was to obscure
it. The father, indeed, well knew the fiery passions of his son.
“Biron,” said the domestic Seer, “I advise thee, when peace takes place,
to go and plant cabbages in thy garden, otherwise I warn thee thou wilt
lose thy head upon the scaffold!”

Lorenzo de Medici had studied the temper of his son Piero; for we are
informed by Guicciardini that he had often complained to his most
intimate friends that “he foresaw the imprudence and arrogance of his
son would occasion the ruin of his family.”

There is a singular prediction of James the first, of the evils likely
to ensue from Laud’s violence, in a conversation given by Hacket, which
the King held with Archbishop Williams. When the King was hard pressed
to promote Laud, he gave his reasons why he intended to “keep Laud back
from all place of rule and authority, because I find he hath a restless
spirit, and cannot see when matters are well, but loves to toss and
change, and to bring things to a pitch of reformation floating in his
own brain, which endangers the stedfastness of that which is in a good
pass. I speak not at random; he hath made himself known to me to be such
a one.” James then relates the circumstances to which he alludes; and at
length, when still pursued by the Archbishop, then the organ of
Buckingham, as usual, this King’s good nature too easily yielded; he did
not, however, without closing with this prediction: “Then take him to
you! but on my soul you will repent it!”

The future character of Cromwell was apparent to two of our great
politicians. “This coarse, unpromising man,” observed Lord Falkland,
pointing to Cromwell, “will be the first person in the kingdom if the
nation comes to blows!” And Archbishop Williams told Charles the First
confidentially, that “There was _that_ in Cromwell which foreboded
something dangerous, and wished his Majesty would either win him over to
him, or get him taken off!”

The incomparable character of Buonaparte, given by the Marquis of
Wellesley, predicted his fall when highest in his power. “His eagerness
of power,” says this great Statesman, “is so inordinate; his jealousy of
independence so fierce; his keenness of appetite so feverish, in all
that touches his ambition, even in the most trifling things, that he
must plunge into dreadful difficulties. He is one of an order of minds
that by nature make for themselves great reverses.”

After the commencement of the French Revolution, Lord Mansfield was once
asked when it would end? His Lordship replied, “It is an event _without
precedent_, and therefore _without prognostic_.” The fact is, however,
that it had both; as our own history, in the reign of Charles the First,
had furnished us with a precedent; and the prognostics were so
plentiful, that a volume of passages might be collected from various
writers who had foretold it.

There is a production, which does honour to the political sagacity, as
well as to his knowledge of human nature, thrown out by Bishop Butler in
a Sermon before the House of Lords, in 1741; he calculated that the
unreligious spirit would produce, some time or other, political
disorders, similar to those which, in the 17th century, had arisen from
religious fanaticism. “Is there no danger,” he observed, “that all this
may raise somewhat like _that levelling spirit_, upon Atheistical
principles, which in the last age prevailed upon enthusiastic ones? Not
to speak of the possibility that _different sorts of people_ may _unite_
in it upon these _contrary principles_!” All this has literally been
accomplished!

If a prediction be raised on facts which our own prejudice induce us to
infer will exist, it must be chimerical. The Monk Carron announces in
his Chronicle, printed in 1532, that the world was about ending, as well
as his Chronicle of it; that the Turkish Empire would not last many
years; that after the death of Charles V. the Empire of Germany would be
torn to pieces by the Germans themselves. This Monk will no longer pass
for a prophet; he belongs to that class of Chroniclers who write to
humour their own prejudices, like a certain Lady-prophetess who, in
1811, predicted that grass was to grow in Cheapside about this time!

Even when the event does not always justify the prediction, the
predictor may not have been the less correct in his principles of
divination. The catastrophe of human life, and the turn of great events,
often turn out accidental. Marshal Biron, whom we have noticed, might
have ascended the throne instead of the scaffold; Cromwell and De Retz
might have become only the favourite generals, or the ministers of their
Sovereigns. Fortuitous events are not included within the reach of human
prescience; such must be consigned to those vulgar superstitions which
presume to discover the issue of human events, without pretending to any
human knowledge. In the science of the Philosopher there is nothing
supernatural.

Predictions have sometimes been condemned as false ones, which, when
scrutinize may scarcely be deemed to have failed: they may have been
accomplished, and they may again revolve on us. In 1749, Dr. Hartley
published his “Observations on Man;” and predicted the fall of the
existing governments and hierarchies, in two simple propositions; among
others—

Prop. 81. _It is probable that all the civil governments will be
overturned._

Prop. 82. _It is probable that the present forms of Church government
will be dissolved._

Many indeed were terribly alarmed at these predicted falls of Church and
State. Lady Charlotte Wentworth asked Hartley when these terrible things
would happen? The answer of the predictor was not less awful: “I am an
old man, and shall not live to see them.” In the subsequent revolutions
of America and France, and perhaps latterly that of Spain, it can hardly
be denied that these predictions have failed.

The philosophical predictor, in foretelling some important crisis, from
the appearances of things, will not rashly assign the period of time;
for the crisis he anticipates is calculated on by that inevitable march
of events which generate each other in human affairs; but the period is
always dubious, being either retarded or accelerated by circumstances of
a nature incapable of entering into his moral arithmetic. There is,
however, a spirit of political vaccination which presumes to pass beyond
the boundaries of human prescience, which, by enthusiasts, has often
been ascribed to the highest source of inspiration; but since “the
language of prophecy” has ceased, such pretensions are not less impious
than they are unphilosophical. No one possessed a more extraordinary
portion of this awful prophetic confidence than Knox the reformer: he
appears to have predicted several remarkable events, and the fates of
some persons. We are informed that when condemned to a galley in
Rochelle, he predicted that “within two or three years, he should preach
the Gospel at St. Giles’s, in Edinburgh,” an improbable event, which
nevertheless happened as he had foretold. Of Mary and Darnley, he
pronounced that, “as the King, for the Queen’s pleasure, had gone to
mass, the Lord, in his justice, would make her the instrument of his
overthrow.” Other striking predictions of the deaths of Thomas Maitland,
and of Kirkaldly of Grange, and the warning he solemnly gave to the
Regent Murray, not to go to Linlithgow, where he was assassinated,
occasioned a barbarous people to imagine that the prophet Knox had
received an immediate communication from heaven.

An Almanack-maker, a Spanish friar, predicted, in clear and precise
words, the death of Henry the Fourth of France; and Pierese, though he
had no faith in the vain science of Astrology, yet, alarmed at whatever
menaced the life of a beloved Sovereign, consulted with some of the
King’s friends, and had the Spanish almanack before his Majesty, who
courteously thanked them for their solicitude, but utterly slighted the
prediction: the event occurred, and in the following year the Spanish
friar spread his own fame in a new almanack. This prediction of the
Spanish friar was the result either of his being acquainted with the
plot, or from his being made an instrument for the purposes of those who
were. It appears that Henry’s assassination was rife in Spain and Italy
before the event occurred.

Separating human prediction from inspired prophecy, we can only ascribe
to the faculties of man that acquired prescience which we have
demonstrated, that some great minds have unquestionably exercised. Its
principles have been discovered in the necessary dependance of effects
on general causes, and we have shewn that, impelled by the same motives,
and circumscribed by the same passions, all human affairs revolve in a
circle; and we have opened the true source of this yet imperfect science
of moral and political prediction, in an intimate, but a discriminative,
knowledge of the past. Authority is sacred when experience affords
parallels and analogies. If much which may overwhelm, when it shall
happen, can be foreseen, the prescient Statesman and Moralist may
provide defensive measures to break the waters, whose streams they
cannot always direct; and the venerable Hooker has profoundly observed,
that “the best things have been overthrown, not so much by puissance and
might of adversaries, as through defect of council in those that should
have upheld and defended the same[33].”

“The philosophy of history,” observes a late writer and excellent
observer, “blends the past with the present, and combines the present
with the future; each is but a portion of the other. The actual state of
a thing is necessarily determined by its antecedent, and thus
progressively through the chain of human existence, while, as Leibnitz
has happily expressed the idea, the present is always full of the
future. A new and beautiful light is thus thrown over the annals of
mankind, by the analogies and the parallels of different ages in
succession. How the seventeenth century has influenced the eighteenth,
and the results of the nineteenth, as they shall appear in the
twentieth, might open a source of PREDICTIONS, to which, however
difficult it might be to affix their dates, there would be none in
exploring into causes, and tracing their inevitable effects. The
multitude live only among the shadows of things in the appearance of the
PRESENT; the learned, busied with the PAST, can only trace whence, and
how, all comes; but he who is one of the people and one of the learned,
the true philosopher, views the natural tendency and terminations which
are preparing for the FUTURE.”




                      FATALISM, OR PREDESTINATION.


Under the name of materialism things very different from those generally
understood are designated: it is the same with respect to fatalism. If
it be maintained that every thing in the world, and the world itself,
are necessary; that all that takes place is the effect of chance or of
blind necessity, and that no supreme intelligence is mixed with, nor in
fact mixes with existing objects; this doctrine is a kind of fatalism,
differing very little from atheism. But this fatalism has nothing in
common with the doctrine which establishes the innateness of the
faculties of the soul and mind, and their independence upon
organization. We cannot, then, under the first consideration, be accused
of fatalism.

Another species of fatalism is that which teaches that in truth there
exists a Supreme Being, creator of the universe, as well as of all the
laws and properties connected with it; but that he has fixed those laws
in so immutable a manner, that every thing that happens could not happen
otherwise. In this system, man is necessarily carried away by the causes
that compel him to act, without any participation whatever of the will.
His actions are always a necessary result, without voluntary choice or
moral liberty; they are neither punishable or meritorious, and the hope
of future rewards vanishes, as well as the fear of future punishment.

This is the fatalism with which superstitious ignorance accuse the
physiology of the brain[34], that is the doctrine relative to the
functions of the most noble organization in the world. “I have
effectually proved,” says Dr. Gall, “that all our moral and intellectual
dispositions are innate; that none of our propensities or talents, not
even the understanding and will, can manifest themselves independent of
this organization. To which also may be added, that it does not depend
upon man to be gifted with organs peculiar to his species, consequently
with such or such propensities or faculties. Must it now be inferred
that man is not the master of his _actions_, that there exists no free
will, consequently neither a meritorious nor an unworthy act?”

Before this conclusion is refuted, let us examine with the frankness
worthy of true philosophy, how far man is submitted to the immutable
laws of his Creator, how far we ought to acknowledge an inevitable
necessity, a destiny, or fatalism. To unravel confused ideas, is the
best method of placing truth in its clearest point of view.

Man is obliged to acknowledge the most powerful and determined influence
of a multitude of things relative to his happiness or misery, and even
over his whole conduct, without of himself being able either to add to,
or subtract from that influence. No one can call himself to life; no one
can choose the time, the climate, or the nation in which he shall be
born; no one can fix the manners, laws, customs, form of government,
religious prejudices, or the superstitions with which he shall be
surrounded from the moment of his birth; no one can say, I will be
master or servant, the eldest son or the youngest son; I will have a
robust or a debilitated state of health; I will be a man or a woman; I
will have such or such a constitution: I will be a fool, an idiot, a
simpleton, a man of understanding, or a man of genius, passionate or
calm, of a mild or cross nature, modest or proud, stupid or circumspect,
cowardly or prone to voluptuousness, humble or independent: no one can
determine the degree of prudence or the foolishness of his superiors,
the noxious or useful example he shall meet with, the result of his
connexions, the fortuitous events, the influence of external things over
him, the condition of his father and mother, or his own, or the source
of irritation that his desires or passions will experience. The
relations of the five senses with external things, and the number and
functions of the viscera and members, have been fixed in the same
invariable manner; so nature is the source of our propensities,
sentiments, and faculties. Their reciprocal influence, and their
relations with external objects, have been irrevocably determined by the
laws of our organization.

As it does not depend upon ourselves to have or see when objects strikes
our ears or our eyes, in the same manner our judgments are necessarily
the results of the laws of thought. “Judgment, very rightly,” says Mr.
Tracy, “in this sense is independent of the will; it is not under our
controul, when we perceive a real relation betwixt two of our
perceptions, not to feel it as it actually is, that is, such as should
appear to every being organized as ourselves, if they were precisely in
the same situation. It is this necessity which constitutes the certainty
and reality of every thing we are acquainted with. For if it only
depended upon our fancy to be affected with a great thing as if it were
a small one, with a good as if it were a bad one, with one that is true
as if it were false, there would no longer exist any thing real in the
world, at least for us. There would neither be greatness nor smallness,
good nor evil, falsehood nor truth; our fancy alone would be every
thing. Such an order of things cannot even be conceived; it implies
contradiction.

Since primitive organization, sex, age, constitution, education,
climate, form of government, religion, prejudices, superstitions, &c.
exercise the most decided influence over our sensations and ideas, our
judgments and the determination of our will, the nature and force of our
propensities and talents, consequently over the first motives of our
actions, it must be confessed that man, in several of the most important
moments of his life, is under the empire of a destiny, which sometimes
fixes him like the inert shell against a rock; at others, it carries him
away in a whirlwind, like the dust.

It is not then surprising that the sages of Greece, of the Indies, China
and Japan, the Christians of the east and west, and the Mahomedans, have
worked up this species of fatalism with their different doctrines. In
all times our moral and intellectual faculties have been made to take
their origin from God; and in all times it has been taught that all the
gifts of men came from heaven; that God has, from all eternity, chosen
the elect; that man of himself is incapable of any good thought; that
every difference between men, relative to their faculties, comes from
God; that there are only those to whom it has been given by a superior
power who are capable of certain actions; that every one acts after his
own innate character, the same as the fig tree does not bear grapes, nor
the vine figs, and the same that a salt spring does not run in fresh
water; lastly, that all cannot dive into the mysteries of nature, nor
the decrees of Providence.

It is this same kind of fatalism, this same inevitable influence of
superior powers, that has been taught by the fathers of the church. St.
Augustine wished this very same doctrine to be preached, to profess
loudly in the belief of the infallibility of Providence, and our entire
dependence upon God. “In the same manner, he says, no one can give
himself life, no one can give himself understanding.” If some are
unacquainted with the truth, it is, according to his doctrine, because
they have not received the necessary capacity to know it. He refutes the
objections that might be urged against the justice of God: he remarks
that neither has the grace of God distributed equally to every one the
temporal goods, such as address, strength, health, beauty, wit, and the
disposition for the arts and sciences, riches, honors, &c. St. Cyprian
at that time had already said, that we ought not to be proud of our
qualities, for we possess nothing from ourselves.

If people had not always been convinced of the influence of external and
internal conditions relative to the determination of our will, upon our
actions, why, in all times and among every people, have civil and
religious laws been made to subdue and direct the desires of men? There
is no religion that has not ordained abstinence from certain meats and
drinks, fasting and mortification of the body. From the time of Solomon
the wise down to our own time, we know of no observer of human nature
that has not acknowledged that the physical and moral man is entirely
dependant on the laws of the creation.




                              DIVINATION,


Is the art or act of foretelling future events, and is divided by the
ancients into artificial and natural.


                         ARTIFICIAL DIVINATION,

Is that which proceeds by reasoning upon certain external signs,
considered as indications of futurity.


                         _Natural Divination_,

Is that which presages things from a mere internal sense, and persuasion
of the mind, without any assistance of signs; and is of two kinds, the
one from nature, and the other by influx. The first is the supposition
that the soul, collected within itself, and not diffused, or divided
among the organs of the body, has, from its own nature and essence, some
foreknowledge of future things: witness what is seen in dreams,
ecstasies, the confines of death, &c. The second supposes that the soul,
after the manner of a minor, receives some secondary illumination from
the presence of God and other spirits.

Artificial divination is also of two kinds; the one argues from natural
causes; _e. g._ the predictions of physicians about the event of
diseases, from the pulse, tongue, urine, &c. Such also are those of the
politician, _O venalem urbem, et mox peuturam, si emptorem inveneris!_
The second proceeds from experiments and observations arbitrarily
instituted, and is mostly superstitious.

The systems of divination reducible under this head, are almost
incalculable, _e. g._ by birds, the entrails of birds, lines of the
hand, points marked at random, numbers, names, the motion of a sieve,
the air, fire, the Sortes Prænestinæ, Virgilianæ, and Homericæ; with
numerous others, the principal species and names of which are as
follows:—


                              AXINOMANCY,

Was an ancient species of divination or method of foretelling future
events by means of an axe or hatchet. The word is derived from the
Greek, αξινη, _securis_; μαντεια, _divinatio_. This art was in
considerable repute among the ancients; and was performed, according to
some, by laying an agate stone upon a red hot hatchet.


                            ALECTOROMANTIA,

Is an ancient kind of divination, performed by means of a cock, which
was used among the Greeks, in the following manner.—A circle was made on
the ground, and divided into 24 equal portions or spaces: in each space
was written one of the letters of the alphabet, and upon each of these
letters was laid a grain of wheat. This being done, a cock was placed
within the circle, and careful observation was made of the grains he
picked. The letters corresponding to these grains were afterwards formed
into a word, which word was the answer decreed. It was thus that
Libanius and Jamblicus sought who should succeed the Emperor Valens; and
the cock answering to the spaces ΘΕΟΔ, they concluded upon Theodore, but
by a mistake, instead of Theodosius.


                             ARITHMOMANCY,

Is a kind of divination or method of foretelling future events, by means
of numbers. The Gematria, which makes the first species of the Jewish
Cabala, is a kind of Arithmomancy.


                               BELOMANCY,

Is a method of divination by means of arrows, practised in the East, but
chiefly among the Arabians.

Belomancy has been performed in different manners: one was to mark a
parcel of arrows, and to put eleven or more of them into a bag; these
were afterwards drawn out, and according as they were marked, or
otherwise, they judged of future events. Another way was, to have three
arrows, upon one of which was written, _God forbids it me_; upon
another, _God orders it me_; and upon the third nothing at all. These
were put into a quiver, out of which one of the three was drawn at
random; if it happened to be that with the second inscription, the thing
they consulted about was to be done; if it chanced to be that with the
first inscription, the thing was let alone; and if it proved to be that
without any inscription, they drew over again. Belomancy is an ancient
practice, and is probably that which Ezekiel mentions, chap. xxi. v. 21.
At least St. Jerome understands it so, and observes that the practice
was frequent among the Assyrians and Babylonians. Something like it is
also mentioned in Hosea, chap. vi. only that staves are mentioned there
instead of arrows, which is rather Rhabdomancy than Belomancy. Grotius,
as well as Jerome, confounds the two together, and shews that they
prevailed much among the Magi, Chaldeans, and Scythians, from whom they
passed to the Sclavonians, and thence to the Germans, whom Tacitus
observes to make use of Belomancy.


                              CLEROMANCY,

Is a kind of divination performed by the throwing of dice or little
bones; and observing the points or marks turned up.

At Bura, a city of Achaia, was a temple, and a celebrated Temple of
Hercules; where such as consulted the oracle, after praying to the idol,
threw four dice, the points of which being well scanned by the priests,
he was supposed to draw an answer from them.


                               CLEDONISM.

This word is derived from the Greek κληδων, which signifies two things;
viz. _rumour_, a report, and _avis_, a bird; in the first sense,
_Cledonism_ should denote a kind of divination drawn from words
occasionally uttered. Cicero observes, that the Pythagoreans made
observations not only of the words of the gods, but of those of men; and
accordingly believed the pronouncing of certain words, _e. g._
_incendium_, at a meal, very unlucky. Thus, instead of prison, they used
the words _domicilium_; and to avoid erinnyes, said _Eumenides_. In the
second sense, Cledonism should seem a divination drawn from birds; the
same with ornithomantia.


                             COSCINOMANCY.

As the word implies, is the art of divination by means of a sieve.

The sieve being suspended, after repeating a certain form of words, it
is taken between two fingers only; and the names of the parties
suspected, repeated: he at whose name the sieve turns, trembles or
shakes, is reputed guilty of the evil in question. This doubtless must
be a very ancient practice. Theocritus, in his third Idyllion, mentions
a woman who was very skilful in it. It was sometimes also practised by
suspending the sieve by a thread, or fixing it to the points of a pair
of scissars, giving it room to turn, and naming as before the parties
suspected: in this manner Coscinomancy is still practised in some parts
of England. From Theocritus it appears, that it was not only used to
find out persons unknown, but also to discover the secrets of those who
were.


                              CAPNOMANCY,

Is a kind of divination by means of smoke, used by the ancients in their
sacrifices. The general rule was—when the smoke was thin and light, and
ascended straight up, it was a good omen; if on the contrary, it was an
ill one.

There was another species of Capnomancy which consisted in observing the
smoke arising from poppy and jessamin seed, cast upon burning coals.


                             CATOPTROMANCY,

Is another species of divination used by the ancients, performed by
means of a mirror.

Pausanias says, that this method of divination was in use among the
Achaians; where those who were sick, and in danger of death, let down a
mirror, or looking-glass, fastened by a thread, into a fountain before
the temple of Ceres; then looking in the glass, if they saw a ghastly
disfigured face, they took it as a sure sign of death; but, on the
contrary, if the face appeared fresh and healthy, it was a token of
recovery. Sometimes glasses were used without water, and the images of
future things, it is said, were represented in them.


                              CHIROMANCY,

Is the art of divining the fate, temperament, and disposition of a
person by the lines and lineaments of the hands.

There are a great many authors on this vain and trifling art, viz.
Artemidorus, Fludd, Johannes De Indagine, Taconerus, and M. De le
Chambre, who are among the best.

M. De le Chambre insists upon it that the inclinations of people may be
known from consulting the lines on the hands; there being a very near
correspondence between the parts of the hand and the internal parts of
the body, the heart, liver, &c. “whereon the passions and inclinations
much depend.” He adds, however, that the rules and precepts of
Chiromancy are not sufficiently warranted; the experiments on which they
stand not being well verified. He concludes by observing, that there
should be a new set of observations, made with justness and exactitude,
in order to give to Chiromancy that form and solidity which an art of
science demands.


                             DACTYLIOMANCY.

This is a sort of divination performed by means of a ring. It was done
as follows, viz. by holding a ring, suspended by a fine thread, over a
round table, on the edge of which were made a number of marks with the
24 letters of the alphabet. The ring in shaking or vibrating over the
table, stopped over certain of the letters, which, being joined
together, composed the required answer. But this operation was preceded
and accompanied by several superstitious ceremonies; for, in the first
place, the ring was to be consecrated with a great deal of mystery; the
person holding it was to be clad in linen garments, to the very shoes;
his head was to be shaven all round, and he was to hold vervein in his
hand. And before he proceeded on any thing the gods were first to be
appeased by a formulary of prayers, &c.

The whole process of this mysterious rite is given in the 29th book of
Ammianus Marcellinus.


                              EXTISPICIUM,

(From _exta_ and _spicere_, to view, consider.)

The name of the officer who shewed and examined the entrails of the
victims was Extispex.

This method of divination, or of drawing presages relative to futurity,
was much practised throughout Greece, where there were two families, the
_Jamidæ_ and _Clytidæ_, consecrated or set apart particularly for the
exercise of it.

The Hetrurians, in Italy, were the first _Extispices_, among whom
likewise the art was in great repute. Lucan gives us a fine description
of one of these operations in his first book.


                              GASTROMANCY.

This species of divination, practised among the ancients, was performed
by means of words coming or appearing to come out of the belly.

There is another kind of divination called by the same name, which is
performed by means of glasses, or other round transparent vessels,
within which certain figures appear by magic art. Hence its name, in
consequence of the figures appearing as if in the belly of the vessels.


                               GEOMANCY,

Was performed by means of a number of little points or dots, made at
random on paper; and afterwards considering the various lines and
figures, which those points present; thereby forming a pretended
judgment of futurity, and deciding a proposed question.

Polydore Virgil defines Geomancy a kind of divination performed by means
of clefts or chinks made in the ground; and he takes the Persian magi to
have been the inventors of it. _De invent. rer._ lib. 1, c. 23.

⁂ Geomancy is formed of the Greek γη _terra_, earth; and μαντεια,
divination; it being the ancien custom to cast little pebbles on the
ground, and thence to form their conjecture, instead of the points
above-mentioned.


                        HYDROMANCY, ὙΔΡΟΜΑΤΕΙΑ,

The art of divining or foretelling future events by means of water; and
is one of the four general kinds of divination: the other three, as
regarding the other elements, _viz._ fire and earth, are denominated
Pyromancy, Aeromancy, and Geomancy already mentioned.

The Persians are said by Varro to have been the first inventors of
Hydromancy; observing also that Numa Pompilius, and Pythagoras, made use
of it.

There are various Hydromantic machines and vessels, which are of a
singularly curious nature.


                              NECROMANCY,

Is the art of communicating with devils, and doing surprising things by
means of their aid; particularly that of calling up the dead and
extorting answers from them. (See MAGIC.)


                             ONEIROCRITICA,

Is the art of interpreting dreams; or a method of foretelling future
events by means of dreams.

From several passages of Scripture, it appears that, under the Jewish
dispensation, there was such a thing as foretelling future events by
dreams; but there was a particular gift or revelation required for that
purpose. Hence it would appear that dreams are actually significative of
something to come; and all that is wanting among us is, the
_Oneirocritica_, or the art of knowing what: still it is the general
opinion of the present day that dreams are mere chimera, induced by
various causes, have no affinity with the realization of future events;
but having, at the same time, indeed, some relation to what has already
transpired.

With respect to Joseph’s dream, “it was possible,” says an old author,
“for God, who knew all things, to discover to him what was in the womb
of fate; and to introduce that, he might avail himself of a dream; not
but that he might as well have foretold it from any other accident or
circumstance whatever; unless God, to give the business more importance,
should purposely communicate such a dream to Pharoah, in order to fall
in with the popular notion of dreams and divination, which at that time
was so prevalent among the Egyptians.”

The name given to the interpreters of dreams, or those who judge of
events from the circumstances of dreams, was _Oneirocritics_. There is
not much confidence to be placed in those Greek books called
Oneirocritics; they are replete with superstition of the times. Rigault
has given us a collection of the Greek and Latin works of this kind; one
of which is attributed to _Astrampsichus_; another to Nicephorus, the
patriarch of Constantinople; to which are added the treatises of
Artimedorus and Achmet. But the books themselves are little else than
reveries or waking dreams, to explain and account for sleeping ones.

The secret of _Oneirocritism_, according to all these authors, consists
in the relations supposed to exist between the dream and the thing
signified; but they are far from keeping to the relations of agreement
and similitudes; and frequently they have recourse to others of
dissimilitude and contrariety.


                      ONOMANCY, or ONOMAMANCY[35],

Is the art of divining the good or bad fortune which will befall a man
from the letters of his name. This mode of divination was a very popular
and reputable practice among the ancients.

The Pythagoreans taught that the minds, actions, and successes of
mankind, were according to their fate, genius, and name; and Plato
himself inclines somewhat to the same opinion.—Ausonius to Probus
expresses it in the following manner:—

                        Qualem creavit moribus,
                        Jussit vocari NOMINE
                        Mundi supremus arbiter.

In this manner he sports with tippling Meroe, as if her name told she
would drink pure wine without water; or as he calls it, _merum mereim_.
Thus Hippolytus was observed to be torn to pieces by his own coach
horses, as his name imported; and thus Agamemnon signified that he
should linger long before Troy; Priam, that he should be redeemed out of
bondage in his childhood. To this also may be referred that of Claudius
Rutilius:—

                Nominibus certis credam decurrere mores?
                Moribus aut Potius nomina certa dari?

It is a frequent and no less just observation in history, that the
greatest Empires and States have been founded and destroyed by men of
the same name. Thus, for instance, Cyrus, the son of Cambyses, began the
Persian monarchy; and Cyrus, the son of Darius, ruined it; Darius, son
of Hystaspes, restored it; and, again, Darius, son of Asamis, utterly
overthrew it. Phillip, son of Amyntas, exceedingly enlarged the kingdom
of Macedonia; and Phillip, son of Antigonus, wholly lost it. Augustus
was the first Emperor of Rome; Augustulus the last. Constantine first
settled the empire of Constantinople, and Constantine lost it wholly to
the Turks.

There is a similar observation that some names are constantly
unfortunate to princes: _e. g._ Caius, among the Romans; John, in
France, England and Scotland; and Henry, in France.

One of the principal rules of Onomancy, among the Pythagoreans, was,
that an even number of vowels in a name signified an imperfection in the
left side of a man; and an odd number in the right.—Another rule, about
as good as this, was, that those persons were the most happy, in whose
names the numeral letters, added together, made the greatest sum; for
which reason, say they, it was, that Achilles vanquished Hector; the
numeral letters, in the former name, amounting to a greater number than
the latter. And doubtless it was from a like principle that the young
Romans toasted their mistresses at their meetings as often as their
names contained letters.

              “Nævia sex cyathis, septem Justina bibatur!”

Rhodingius describes a singular kind of Onomantia.—Theodotus, King of
the Goths, being curious to learn the success of his wars against the
Romans, an Onomantical Jew ordered him to shut up a number of swine in
little stys, and to give some of them Roman, and others Gothic names,
with different marks to distinguish them, and there to keep them till a
certain day; which day having come, upon inspecting the stys they found
those dead to whom the Gothic names had been given, and those alive to
whom the Roman names were assigned.—Upon which the Jew foretold the
defeat of the Goths.


                        ONYCOMANCY, or ONYMANCY.

This kind of divination is performed by means of the finger nails. The
ancient practice was, to rub the nails of a youth with oil and soot, or
wax, and to hold up the nails, thus prepared, against the sun; upon
which there were supposed to appear figures or characters, which shewed
the thing required. Hence also modern Chiromancers call that branch of
their art which relates to the inspection of nails, ONYCOMANCY.


                             ORNITHOMANCY,

Is a kind of divination, or method of arriving at the knowledge of
futurity, by means of birds; it was among the Greeks what Augury was
among the Romans.


                               PYROMANCY,

A species of divination performed by means of fire.

The ancients imagined they could foretel futurity by inspecting fire and
flame; for this purpose they considered its direction, or which way it
turned. Sometimes they added other matters to the fire, _e. g._ a vessel
full of urine, with its neck bound round with wool; and narrowly watched
the side in which it would burst, and thence took their prognostic.
Sometimes they threw pitch in it, and if it took fire instantly, they
considered it a favourable omen.


                       PYSCOMANCY, or SCIOMANCY,

An art among the ancients of raising or calling up the manes or souls of
deceased persons, to give intelligence of things to come. The witch who
conjured up the soul of Samuel, to foretel Saul the event of the battle
he was about to give, did so by Sciomancy.


                              RHABDOMANCY,

Was an ancient method of divination, performed by means of rods or
staves. St. Jerome mentions this kind of divination in his Commentary on
Hosea, chap. vi. 12.; where the prophet says, in the name of God: _My
people ask counsel at their stocks; and their staff declareth unto
them_: which passage that father understands of the Grecian
_Rhabdomancy_.

The same is met with again in Ezekiel, xxi. 21, 22. where the prophet
says: _For the king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way_, at the
head of the two ways, to use divination; he made his arrows bright; or,
as St. Jerome renders it, _he mixed his arrows; he consulted with
images; he looked in the liver_.

If it be the same kind of divination that is alluded to in these two
passages, _Rhabdomancy_ must be the same kind of superstition with
Belomancy. These two, in fact, are generally confounded. The Septuagint
themselves translate ‏חצים‎ of Ezekiel, by ῥαβδος, a rod; though in
strictness it signifies an arrow. So much however is certain, that the
instruments of divination mentioned by Hosea are different from those of
Ezekiel. In the former it is ‏עצו‎ _etso_, ‏מקלו‎ _maklo_, his wood, his
staff: in the latter ‏חצים‎ _hhitism_, arrows. Though it is possible
they might use rods or arrows indifferently; or the military men might
use arrows and the rest rods.

By the laws of the Frisones, it appears that the ancient inhabitants of
Germany practised Rhabdomancy. The Scythians were likewise acquainted
with the use of it: and Herodotus observes, _lib._ vi. that the women
among the Alani sought and gathered together fine straight wands or
rods, and used them for the same superstitious purposes.

Among the various other kinds of divination, not here mentioned, may be
enumerated: _Chiromancy_, performed with keys; _Alphitomancy_ or
_Aleuromancy_, by flour; _Keraunoscopia_, by the consideration of
thunder; _Alectromancy_, by cocks; _Lithomancy_, by stones;
_Eychnomancy_, by lamps; _Ooscopy_, by eggs; _Lecanomancy_, by a basin
of water; _Palpitatim_, _Salisatio_, παλμος, by the pulsation or motion
of some member, &c. &c. &c.

All these kinds of divination have been condemned by the fathers of the
Church, and Councils, as supposing some compact with the devil. Fludd
has written several treatises on divination, and its different species;
and Cicero has two books of the divination of the ancients, in which he
confutes the whole system. Cardan also, in his 4th Book de Sapientia,
describes every species of them.




                                ORACLE.


The word oracle admits, under this head, of two significations: first,
it is intended to express an answer, usually couched in very dark and
ambiguous terms, supposed to be given by demons of old, either by the
mouths of their idols, or by those of their priests, to those who
consulted them on things to come. The PYTHIAN[36] was always in a rage
when she gave oracles.

Ablancourt observes that the study or research of the meaning of
_Oracles_ was but a fruitless thing; and they were never understood
until they were accomplished. It is related by Historians, that Crœsus
was tricked by the ambiguity and equivocation of the oracle.

Κροισος Άλυν διαβας μεγαλην αρχην καταλνσει. rendered thus in Latin:—

_Crœsus Halym superans magnam pervertet opum vim._

Oracle is also used for the Demon who gave the answer, and the place
where it was given. (Vide DEMON.)

The principal oracles of antiquity are that of Abæ, mentioned by
Herodotus; that of Amphiarus; that of the Branchidæ, at Didymus; that of
the Camps, at Lacedemon; that of Dodona; that of Jupiter Ammon; that of
Nabarca, in the Country of the Anariaci, near the Caspian sea; that of
Trophonius, mentioned by Herodotus; that of Chrysopolis; that of Claros,
in Ionia; that of Mallos; that of Patarea; that of Pella, in Macedonia;
that of Phaselides, in Cilicia; that of Sinope, in Paphlagonia; that of
Orpheus’s head, mentioned by Philostratus in his life of Appolonius, &c.
But, of all others, the oracle of _Apollo Pythius_, at Delphi, was the
most celebrated; it was, in short, consulted always as a _dernier
ressort_, in cases of emergency, by most of the princes of those ages.—
Mr. Bayle observes, that at first, it gave its answers in verse; and
that at length it fell to prose, in consequence of the people beginning
to laugh at the poorness of its versification.

Among the more learned, it is a pretty general opinion that all the
oracles were mere cheats and impostures; calculated either to serve the
avaricious ends of the heathen priests, or the political views of the
princes. Bayle positively asserts, they were mere human artifices, in
which the devil had no hand. In this opinion he is strongly supported by
Van Dale, a Dutch physician, and M. Fontenelle, who have expressly
written on the subject.

There are two points at issue on the subject of _oracles_; viz. whether
they were human or diabolical machines; and whether or not they ceased
upon the publication and preaching of the Gospel?

Plutarch wrote a treatise on the ceasing of some _oracles_: and Van Dale
has a volume to prove that they did not cease at the coming of Christ;
but that many of them had ceased long before the coming of that time,
and that others held out till the fall of Paganism, under the Empire of
Theodosius the Great, and when it was dissipated, these institutions
could no longer resist.

Van Dale was answered by a German, one Mœbius, professor of Theology, at
Leipsic, in 1685. Fontenelle espoused Van Dale’s system, and improved
upon it in his history of oracles; wherein he exposed the weakness of
the argument used by many writers in behalf of Christianity, drawn from
the ceasing of _oracles_.

Balthus, a learned Jesuit, answered both Van Dale and Fontenelle. He
labours to prove, that there were real _oracles_, and such as can never
be attributed to any artifices of the Priests or Priestesses; and that
several of these became silent in the first ages of the Church, either
by the coming of Jesus Christ, or by the prayers of the Saints. This
doctrine is confirmed by a letter from Father Bouchet, missionary to
Father Balthus; wherein it is declared, that what Father Balthus
declares of the ancient oracles, is experimented every day in the
Indies.

It appears, according to Bouchet, that the devil still delivers oracles
in the Indies; and that, not by idols, which would be liable to
imposture, but by the mouths of the priests, and sometimes of the
bye-standers; it is added that these oracles, too, cease, and the devil
becomes mute in proportion as the Gospel is preached among them.

It was Eusebius who first endeavoured to persuade the christians that
the coming of Jesus Christ had struck the oracles dumb; though it
appears from the laws of Theodosius, Gratian, and Valentinian, that the
oracles were still consulted as far back as the year 358. Cicero says
the oracles became dumb, in proportion as people, growing less
credulous, began to suspect them for cheats.

Two reasons are alleged by Plutarch for the ceasing of oracles: the one
was Apollo’s chagrin, who, it seems, “took it in dudgeon,” to be
interrogated about so many trifles. The other was, that in proportion as
the genii, or demons, who had the management of the oracles, died and
became extinct, the oracles must necessarily cease. He adds a third and
more natural cause for the ceasing of _oracles_, viz. the forlorn state
of Greece, ruined and desolated by wars. For, in consequence of this
calamity, the smallness of the gains suffered the priests to sink into a
poverty and contempt too bare to cover the fraud.

Most of the fathers of the church imagined it to be the devil that gave
_oracles_, and considered it as a pleasure he took to give dubious and
equivocal answers, in order to have a handle to laugh at them. Vossius
allows that it was the devil who spoke in oracles; but thinks that the
obscurity of his answers was owing to his ignorance as to the precise
circumstances of events. That artful and studied obscurity, wherein,
says he, answers were couched, shew the embarrassment the devil was
under; as those double meanings they usually bore provided for the
accomplishment. When the thing foretold did not happen accordingly, the
_oracle_, forsooth, was always misunderstood.

Eusebius has preserved some fragments of a Philosopher, called Oenomaus,
who, out of resentment for having been so often fooled by the oracles,
wrote an ample confutation of all their impertinences, in the following
strain: “When we come to consult thee,” says he to Apollo, “if thou
seest what is in the womb of futurity, why dost thou use expressions
that will not be understood? if thou dost, thou takest pleasure in
abusing us: if thou dost not, be informed of us, and learn to speak more
clearly. I tell thee, that if thou intendest an equivoque, the Greek
word whereby thou affirmedst that Crœsus should overthrow a great
Empire, was ill-chosen; and that it could signify nothing but Crœsus’
conquering Cyrus. If things must necessarily come to pass, why dost thou
amuse us with thy ambiguities? What dost thou, wretch as thou art, at
Delphi; employed in muttering idle prophesies!”

But Oenamaus is still more out of humour with the oracle for the answer
which Apollo gave the Athenians, when Xerxes was about to attack Greece
with all the strength of Asia. The Pythian declared, that Minerva, the
protectress of Athens, had endeavoured in vain to appease the wrath of
Jupiter; yet that Jupiter, in complaisance to his daughter, was willing
the Athenians should save themselves within wooden walls; and that
Salamis should behold the loss of a great many children, dead to their
mothers, either when Ceres was spread abroad, or gathered together. At
this Oenamaus loses all patience with the Delphian god: “This contest,”
says he, “between father and daughter, is very becoming the deities! It
is excellent, that there should be contrary inclinations and interests
in heaven! Poor wizard, thou art ignorant who the children are that
shall see Salamis perish; whether Greeks or Persians. It is certain they
must be either one or the other; but thou needest not have told so
openly that thou knewest not which. Thou concealest the time of the
battle under these fine poetical expressions, _either when Ceres is
spread abroad, or gathered together_: and thou wouldst cajole us with
such pompous language! who knows not, that if there be a seafight, it
must either be in seed-time or harvest? It is certain it cannot be in
winter. Let things go how they will, thou wilt secure thyself by this
Jupiter, whom Minerva is endeavouring to appease. If the Greeks lose the
battle, Jupiter proved inexorable to the last; if they gain it, why then
Minerva at length prevailed.”




                        OURAN, OR URAN, SOANGUS,


The name of an imaginary set of magicians in the island Gromboccanore,
in the East Indies.

The word implies _men-devils_; these people, it seems, having the art of
rendering themselves invisible, and passing where they please, and, by
these means, doing infinite mischief; for which reason the people hate
and fear them mortally, and always kill them on the spot when they can
take them.

In the Portuguese history, printed 1581, folio, there is mention of a
present made by the king of the island to a Portuguese officer, named
Brittio, _ourans_, with whom, it is pretended, he made incursions on the
people of Tidore, killed great numbers, &c.

To try whether in effect they had the faculty ascribed to them, one of
them was tied by the neck with a rope, without any possibility of
disengaging himself by natural means; yet in the morning it was found he
had slipped his collar. But that the king of Tidore might not complain
that Brittio made war on him with devils, it is said he dismissed them
at length, in their own island.




                              DREAMS, &c.


The art of foretelling future events by dreams, is called


                             _Brizomancy._

Macrobius mentions five sorts of dreams, viz. 1st, vision; 2d, a
discovery of something between sleep and waking; 3d, a suggestion cast
into our fancy, called by Cicero, _Vesum_; 4th, an ordinary dream; and
5th, a divine apparition or revelation in our sleep; such as were the
dreams of the prophets, and of Joseph, as also of the magi of the East.


                    _Origin of Interpreting Dreams._

The fictitious art of interpreting dreams, had its origin among the
Egyptians and Chaldeans; countries fertile in superstitions of all
kinds. It was propagated from them to the Romans, who judging some
dreams worthy of observation, appointed persons on purpose to interpret
them.

The believers in dreams as prognostics of future events, bring forward
in confirmation of this opinion, a great variety of dreams, which have
been the forerunners of very singular events:—among these are that of
Calphurnia, the wife of Julius Cæsar, dreaming the night before his
death, that she saw him stabbed in the capitol: that of Artorius,
Augustus’s physician, dreaming before the battle of Philippi, that his
master’s camp was pillaged; that of the Emperor Vespasian dreaming an
old woman told him, that his good fortune would begin when Nero should
have a tooth drawn, which happened accordingly.

Cæsar dreaming that he was committing incest with his mother, was
crowned Emperor of Rome; and Hippias the Athenian Tyrant, dreaming the
same, died shortly after, and was interred in his mother earth.
Mauritius the Emperor, who was slain by Phocas, dreamed a short time
previous to this event, that an image of Christ that was fixed over the
brazen gate of his palace, called him and reproached him with his sins,
and at length demanded of him whether he would receive the punishment
due to them in this world or the next; and Mauritius answering in this,
the image commanded that he should be given, with his wife and children,
into the hands of Phocas. Whereupon Mauritius, awakening in great fear,
asked Phillipus, his son-in-law, whether he knew any soldier in the army
called Phocas, he answered that there was a commissary so called; and
Phocas became his successor, having killed his wife and five children.
Arlet, during her pregnancy by William the Conqueror, dreamed that a
light shone from her womb, that illumined all England. Maca, Virgil’s
mother, dreamed that she was delivered of a laurel branch.

The ridiculous infatuation of dreams is still so prominent, even among
persons whose education should inform them better, and particularly
among the fair sex, that a conversation seldom passes among them, that
the subject of some foolish inconsistent dream or other, does not form a
leading feature of their gossip. “I dreamed last night,” says one, “that
one of my teeth dropped out.”—“That’s a sign,” replies another, “that
you will lose a friend or some of your relations.”—“I’m afraid I shall,”
returns the dreamer, “for my cousin (brother, or some other person
connected with the family or its interests,) is very ill,” &c.


                   _Opinions on the cause of dreams._

Avicen makes the cause of dreams to be an ultimate intelligence moving
the moon in the midst of that light with which the fancies of men are
illuminated while they sleep. Aristotle refers the cause of them to
common sense, but placed in the fancy. Averroes places it in the
imagination. Democritus ascribes it to little images, or
representations, separated from the things themselves. Plato, among the
specific and concrete notions of the soul. Albertus to the superior
influences which continually flow from the sky, through many specific
mediums. And some physicians attribute the cause of them to vapours and
humours, and the affections and cares of persons predominant when awake;
for, say they, by reason of the abundance of vapours, which are exhaled
in consequence of immoderate feeding, the brain is so stuffed by it,
that monsters and strange chimera are formed, of which the most
inordinate eaters and drinkers furnish us with sufficient instances.
Some dreams, they assert, are governed partly by the temperature of the
body, and partly by the humour which mostly abounds in it; to which may
be added, the apprehensions which have preceded the day before; which
are often remarked in dogs, and other animals, which bark and make a
noise in their sleep. Dreams, they observe, proceeding from the humours
and temperature of the body, we see the choleric dreams of fire,
combats, yellow colours, &c.; the phlegmatic, of water, baths, of
sailing on the sea, &c.; the melancholics, of thick fumes, deserts,
fantasies, hideous faces, &c.; the sanguines, of merry feasts, dances,
&c. They that have the hinder part of their brain clogged with viscous
humours, called by physicians ephialtes incubus, or, as it is termed,
night-mare, imagine, in dreaming, that they are suffocated. And those
who have the orifice of their stomach loaded with malignant humours, are
affrighted with strange visions, by reason of those venemous vapours
that mount to the brain and distemper it.

Cicero tells a story of two Arcadians, who, travelling together, came to
Megara, a city of Greece, between Athens and Corinth, where one of them
lodged in a friend’s house, and the other at an inn. After supper the
person who lodged at the private house went to bed, and falling asleep,
dreamed that his friend at the inn appeared to him, and begged his
assistance, because the innkeeper was going to kill him. The man
immediately got out of bed much frightened at the dream but recovering
himself and falling asleep again, his friend appeared to him a second
time, and desired, that as he would not assist him in time, he would
take care at least not to let his death go unpunished; that the
innkeeper having murdered him, had thrown his body into a cart and
covered it with dung; he therefore begged that he would be at the city
gate in the morning, before the cart was out. Struck with this new
dream, he went early to the gate, saw the cart, and asked the driver
what was in it; the driver immediately fled, the dead body was taken out
of the cart, and the innkeeper apprehended and executed.




                                 FATE.


Fate, in a general sense, denotes an inevitable necessity, depending on
some superior cause. It is a term much used among the ancient
philosophers. It is formed _a fando_, from speaking; and primarily
implies the same with _effatum_, _i. e._ a word or decree pronounced by
God; or a fixed sentence, whereby the deity has prescribed the order of
things, and allotted every person what shall befal him. The Greeks
called θμαρμενη, _quasi_, θρμος, _nexus_, a change, or necessary series
of things, indissolubly linked together; and the moderns call it
PROVIDENCE. But independent of this sense of the word, in which it is
used sometimes to denote the causes in nature, and sometimes the divine
appointment, the word Fate has a farther meaning, being used to express
some kind of necessity or other, or eternal designation of things,
whereby all agents, necessary as well as voluntary, are swayed and
directed to their ends.

Some authors have divided Fate into Astrological and Stoical.

ASTROLOGICAL FATE, denotes a necessity of things and events, arising, as
is supposed, from the influence and positions of the heavenly bodies,
which give law to the elements and mixed bodies, as well as to the wills
of men.

STOICAL FATE, or FATALITY, or FATALISM, is defined by Cicero, an order
or series of causes, in which cause is linked to cause, each producing
others; and in this manner all things flow from the one prime cause.
Chrysippus defines it a natural invariable succession of all things, _ab
eterno_, each involving the other. To this fate they subject the very
gods themselves. Thus the poet observes, that the “parent of all things
made laws at the beginning, by which he not only binds other things, but
himself.” Seneca also remarks, _Eadem necessitas et deos alligat.
Irrevocabilis divina pariter et humana cursit vehit. Ipse ille omnium
conditor et rector scripsit quidam fata, sed sequitur; semel scripsit,
semper paret._ This eternal series of causes, the poets call μοιραι, and
_parcæ_, or destinies.

By some later authors Fate is divided into _Physical_ and _divine_.

The first, or Physical fate, is an order and series of physical causes,
appropriated to their effects. This series is necessary, and the
necessity is natural. The principal or foundation of this Fate is
nature, or the power and manner of acting which God originally gave to
the several bodies, elements, &c. By this Fate it is that fire warms;
bodies communicate motion to each other; the rising and falling of the
tides, &c. And the effects of this Fate are all the events and phenomena
in the universe, except such as arise from the human.

The second, or divine Fate, is what is more commonly called Providence.
Plato, in his Phædo, includes both these in one definition; as
intimating, that they were one and the same thing, actively and
passively considered. Thus, Fatum _Est ratio quædam divina, lexque
naturæ comes, quæ transiri nequeat, quippe a causa pendens, quæ superior
sit quibusvis impedimentis_. Though that of Bœtius seems the clearer of
the two:—_Fatum_, says he, _est inhærens rebus molilibus despositio per
quam providentia suis quæque nectet ordinibus_.




                     PHYSIOGNOMY[37], ΦΥΣΙΟΓΝΩΜΙΑ.


There seems to be something in Physiognomy, and it may perhaps bear a
much purer philosophy than these authors (see Note,) were acquainted
with. This, at least, we dare say, that of all the fanciful arts of the
ancients, fallen into disuse by the moderns, there is none has so much
foundation in nature as this. There is an apparent correspondence, or
analogy between the countenance and the mind; the features and
lineaments of the one are directed by the motions and affections of the
other: there is even a peculiar arrangement in the members of the face,
and a peculiar disposition of the countenance, to each particular
affection; and perhaps to each particular idea of the mind. In fact, the
language of the face (_physiognomy_,) is as copious, nay, perhaps, as
distinct and intelligible, as that of the tongue, (_speech_.) Thanks to
bounteous nature, she has not confined us to one only method of
conversing with each other, and of learning each other’s thoughts; we
have several:—We do not wholly depend on the tongue, which may happen to
be bound; and the ear, which may be deaf:—but in those cases we have
another resource, _viz._ the Countenance and the Eye, which afford us
this further advantage, that by comparing the reports of the tongue, (a
member exceedingly liable to deceive,) with those of the face, the
prevarications of the former may be detected.

The foundation of Physiognomy is the different objects that present
themselves to the senses, nay, the different ideas that arise on the
mind, do make some impression on the spirits; and each an impression
correspondent or adequate to its cause,—each, therefore, makes a
different impression. If it be asked how such an impression could be
effected, it is easy to answer; in short, it is a consequence of the
economy of the Creator, who has fixed such a relation between the
several parts of the creation, to the end that we may be apprized of the
approach or recess of things hurtful or useful to us. Should this not be
philosophical enough for our purpose, take the manner of the Cartesian
language, thus: _the animal spirits moved in the organ by an object,
continue their motion to the brain; from whence that motion is
propagated to this or that particular part of the body, as is most
suitable to the design of nature; having first made a proper alteration
in the face by means of its nerves, especially the_ PATHETICI _and_
MOTORES OCCULORUM. See Dr. Gurther’s work, anno 1604.

The face here does the office of a dial-plate, and the wheels and
springs, inside the machine, putting its muscles in motion, shew what is
next to be expected from the striking part. Not that the motion of the
spirits is continued all the way by the impression of the object, as the
impression may terminate in the substance of the brain, the common fund
of the spirits; the rest Dr. Gurther imagines, may be effected much
after the same manner as air is conveyed into the pipes of an organ,
which being uncovered, the air rushes in; and when the keys are let go,
is stopped again.

Now, if by repeated acts, or the frequent entertaining of a private
passion or vice, which natural temperament has hurried, or custom
dragged on to, the face is often put in that posture which attends such
acts; the animal spirits will make such passages through the nerves, (in
which the essence of a habit consists,) that the face is sometimes
unalterably set in that posture, (as the Indian religious are by a long
continued sitting in strange postures in their pagods,) or, at least, it
falls, insensibly and mechanically, into that posture, unless some
present object distort it therefrom, or some dissimulation hide it. This
reason is confirmed by observation: thus we see great drinkers with eyes
generally set towards the nose; the abducent muscles (by some called
bibatorii, or bibatory muscles,) being often employed to put them in
that posture, in order to view their beloved liquor in the glass, at the
time of drinking. Thus, also, lascivious persons are remarkable for the
_oculorum mobilis petulantia_, as Petronius calls it. Hence also we may
account for the Quaker’s expecting face, waiting the spirit to move him;
the melancholy face of most sectaries; the studious face of men of great
application of mind; revengeful and bloody men, like executioners in the
act; and though silence in a sort may awhile pass for wisdom, yet sooner
or later, St. Martin peeps through the disguise to undo all. “A
_changeable face_,” continues Dr. Gurther, “I have observed to show a
_changeable mind_, but I would by no means have what has been said be
understood as without exception; for I doubt not but sometimes there are
found men with great and virtuous souls under very unpromising
outsides.”

“Were our observations a little more strict and delicate, we might,
doubtless, not only distinguish habits and tempers, but also
professions. In effect, does there need much penetration to distinguish
the fierce looks of the veteran soldier, the contentious look of the
practised pleader, the solemn look of the minister of state, or many
others of the like kind?”

A very remarkable physiological anecdote has been given by De La Place,
in his “_Pièces Interrestantes et peu connues_.” Vol. iv. p. 8.

He was assured by a friend that he had seen a voluminous and secret
correspondence which had been carried on between Louis XIV. and his
favourite physician De la Chambre on this science: the faith of the
monarch seems to have been great, and the purpose to which this
correspondence tended was extraordinary indeed, and perhaps scarcely
credible. Who will believe that Louis XIV. was so convinced of that
talent, which De la Chambre attributed to himself, of deciding merely by
the physiognomy of persons, not only on the real bent of their
character, but to what employment they were adapted, that the king
entered into a _secret correspondence_ to obtain the critical notices of
his _physiognomist_. That Louis XIV. should have pursued this system,
undetected by his own courtiers, is also singular; but it appears by
this correspondence, that this art positively swayed him in his choice
of officers and favourites. On one of the backs of these letters De la
Chambre had written, “If I die before his majesty, he will incur great
risk of making many an unfortunate choice.”

This collection of Physiological correspondence, if it does really
exist, would form a curious publication. We, however, have heard nothing
of it.

De la Chambre was an enthusiastic physiognomist, as appears by his
works: “The Characters of the Passions,” four volumes in quarto; “The
art of Knowing Mankind;” and “the Knowledge of Animals.”

Lavater quotes his “vote and interest” in behalf of his favourite
science. It is no less curious, however, to add, that Phillip Earl of
Pembroke, under James I., had formed a particular collection of
portraits, with a view to physiognomonical studies.

The great Prince of Condé was very expert in a sort of Physiognomy which
shewed the peculiar habits, motions, and positions of familiar life, and
mechanical employments. He would sometimes lay wagers with his friends,
that he would guess, upon the Pont Neuf, what trade persons were of that
passed by, from their walk and air.

The celebrated Marshal Laudohn would have entered when young, into the
service of the great Frederick, King of Prussia; but that monarch, with
all his penetration, formed a very erroneous judgment of the young
officer, (as he himself found in the sequel,) and pronounced that he
would never do; in consequence of which Laudohn entered into the service
of the Empress-Queen, Maria Theresa, and became one of the most
formidable opponents of his Prussian Majesty. Marshal Turrene was much
more accurate in his opinion of our illustrious John Duke of
Marlborough, whose future greatness he predicted, when he was serving in
the French army as Ensign Churchill, and known by the unmilitary name of
the “handsome Englishman.”

In the fine arts, moreover, we have seen no less accurate predictions of
future eminence. As the scholars of Rubens were playing and jesting with
each other, in the absence of their master, one of them was accidentally
thrown against a piece on which Rubens had just been working, and a
considerable part of it was entirely disfigured. Another of the pupils
set himself immediately to repair it, and completed the design before
his master returned. Rubens, on reviewing his work, observed a change,
and a difference that surprised and embarrassed him. At last, suspecting
that some one had been busy, he demanded an explanation; adding, that
the execution was in so masterly a manner, that he would pardon the
impertinence on account of its merit. Encouraged by this declaration,
the young artist confessed, and explained the whole, pleading, that his
officiousness was merely to screen a comrade from his master’s anger.
Rubens answered, “if any one of my scholars shall excel me, it will be
yourself.” This pupil was the great Vandyck.

Lavater, who revived physiognomy, has, unquestionably, brought it to
great perfection. But it may justly be doubted whether he is not
deceived in thinking that it may be taught like other sciences, and
whether there is not much in his system that is whimsical and unfounded.
Every man, however, has by nature, something of the science, and nothing
is more common than to suspect the man who never looks his neighbour in
the face. There is a degree of cunning in such characters, which is
always dangerous, but by no means new. “There is a wicked man that
hangeth down his head sadly; but inwardly he is full of deceit. Casting
down his countenance, and making as if he heard not. A man may be known
by his look, and one that hath understanding, by his countenance, when
thou meetest him.”—In several of Lavater’s aphorisms, something like the
following occurs: “A man’s attire, and excessive laughter, and gait,
shew what he is.”




                              APPARITIONS.


Partial darkness, or obscurity, are the most powerful means by which the
sight is deceived: night is therefore the proper season for apparitions.
Indeed the state of the mind, at that time, prepares it for the
admission of these delusions of the imagination. The fear and caution
which must be observed in the night; the opportunity it affords for
ambuscades and assassinations; depriving us of society, and cutting off
many pleasing trains of ideas, which objects in the light never fail to
introduce, are all circumstances of terror: and perhaps, on the whole,
so much of our happiness depends upon our senses, that the deprivation
of any one may be attended with a proportionate degree of horror and
uneasiness. The notions entertained by the ancients respecting the
_soul_, may receive some illustrations from these principles. In dark,
or twilight, the imagination frequently transforms an inanimate body
into a human figure; on approaching the same appearance is not to be
found: hence they sometimes fancied they saw their ancestors; but not
finding the reality, distinguished these illusions by the name of
_shades_.

Many of these fabulous narrations might originate from _dreams_. There
are times of slumber, when we are sensible of being asleep[38]. On this
principle, Hobbes has so ingeniously accounted for the spectre which is
said to have appeared to Brutus, that we cannot resist the temptation of
inserting it in his own words. “We read,” says he, “of M. Brutus, (one
that had his life given him by Julius Cæsar, and was also his favourite,
and notwithstanding murdered him) that at Philippi, the night before he
gave battle to Augustus Cæsar, he saw a fearful apparition, which is
commonly related by historians as a vision; but considering the
circumstances, one may easily judge it to have been but a short dream.
For, sitting in his tent, pensive and troubled with the horror of his
rash act, it was not hard for him, slumbering in the cold, to dream of
that which most affrighted him; which fear, as by degrees it made him
wake, so it must needs make the apparition by degrees to vanish: and
having no assurance that he slept, he could have no cause to think it a
dream, or any thing but a vision.”—The well-known story told by
Clarendon, of the apparition of the Duke of Buckingham’s father, will
admit of a similar solution. There was no man in the kingdom so much the
subject of conversation as the Duke; and, from the corruptness of his
character, he was very likely to fall a sacrifice to the enthusiasm of
the times. Sir George Viliers is said to have appeared to the man at
midnight—there is therefore the greatest probability that the man was
asleep; and the dream affrighting him, made a strong impression, and was
likely to be repeated.

It must be confessed, that the popular belief of departed spirits
occasionally holding a communication with the human race, is replete
with matter of curious speculation. Some Christian divines, with every
just reason, acknowledge no authentic source whence the impression of a
future state could ever have been communicated to man, but from the
Jewish prophets or from our Saviour himself. Yet it is certain, that a
belief in our existence after death has, from time immemorial, prevailed
in countries, to which the knowledge of the gospel could never have
extended, as among certain tribes of America. Can then this notion have
been intuitively suggested? Or is it an extravagant supposition, that
the belief might often have arisen from those spectral illusions, to
which men in every age, from the occasional influence of morbific
causes, must have been subject? And what would have been the natural
self-persuasion, if a savage saw before him the apparition of a departed
friend or acquaintance, endowed with the semblance of life, with motion,
and with signs of mental intelligence, perhaps even holding a converse
with him? Assuredly, the conviction would scarcely fail to arise of an
existence after death. The pages of history attest the fact that:—

              “If ancestry can be in aught believ’d,
              Descending spirits have convers’d with man,
              And told him secrets of the world unknown.”

But if this opinion of a life hereafter, had ever among heathen nations
their origin, it must necessarily be imbued with the grossest
absurdities, incidental to so fallacious a source of intelligence. Yet
still the mind has clung to such extravagancies with avidity; “for,” as
Sir Thomas Brown has remarked, “it is the heaviest stone that melancholy
can throw at a man, to tell him that he is at the end of his nature; or
that there is no future state to come, unto which this seems
progressively and otherwise made in vain.” It has remained therefore for
the light of revelation alone, to impart to this belief the consistency
and conformation of divine truth, and to connect it with a rational
system of rewards and punishments.

From the foregoing remarks, we need not be surprised that a conviction
of the occasional appearance of ghosts or departed spirits, should, from
the remotest antiquity, have been a popular creed, not confined to any
distinct tribe or race of people. In Europe, it was the opinion of the
Greeks and Romans, that, after the dissolution of the body, every man
was possessed of three different kinds of ghosts, which were
distinguished by the names of Manes, Anima, and Umbra. These were
disposed of after the following manner: the Manes descended into the
infernal regions, the Anima ascended to the skies, and the Umbra hovered
about the tomb, as being unwilling to quit its connexion with the body.
Dido, for instance, when about to die, threatens to haunt Æneas with her
_umbra_; at the same time, she expects that the tidings of his
punishment will rejoin her _manes_ below[39].

The opinions regarding ghosts which were entertained during the
Christian era, but more particularly during the middle ages, are very
multifarious; yet these, with the authorities annexed to them, have been
most industriously collected by Reginald Scot. His researches are
replete with amusement and instruction. “And, first,” says he, “you
shall understand, that they hold, that all the soules in heaven may come
downe and appeare to us when they list, and assume anie bodie saving
their owne: otherwise (saie they) such soules should not be perfectlie
happie. They saie that you may know the good soules from the bad very
easilie. For a damned soule hath a very heavie and soure looke; but a
saint’s soule hath a cheerful and merrie countenance: these also are
white and shining, the other cole black. And these damned soules also
may come up out of hell at their pleasure, although Abraham made Dives
believe the contrarie. They affirme, that damned soules walke oftenest:
next unto them, the soules of purgatorie; and most seldom the soules of
saints. Also they saie, that in the old lawe soules did appeare seldom;
and after doomsdaie they shall never be seene more: in the time of grace
they shall be most frequent. The walking of these soules (saith Michael
Andræas) is a moste excellent argument for the proofe of purgatorie; for
(saith he) those soules have testified that which the popes have
affirmed in that behalfe; to wit, that there is not onelie such a place
of punishment, but that they are released from thence by masses, and
such other satisfactorie works, whereby the goodness of the masse is
also ratified and confirmed.

“These heavenlie or purgatorie soules (saie they) appeare most commonlie
to them that are borne upon Ember daies; because we are in best date at
that time to praie for the one, and to keepe companie with the other.
Also, they saie, that soules appeare oftenest by night; because men may
then be at best leisure, and most quiet. Also they never appeare to the
whole multitude, seldome to a few, and commonlie to one alone; for so
one may tell a lie without controlment. Also, they are oftenest seene by
them that are readie to die: as Thrasella saw Pope Fœlix; Ursine, Peter
and Paule; Galla Romana, S. Peter; and as Musa the maide sawe our Ladie:
which are the most certaine appearances, credited and allowed in the
church of Rome; also, they may be seene of some, and of some other in
that presence not seene at all; as Ursine saw Peter and Paule, and yet
manie at that instant being present could not see anie such sight, but
thought it a lie, as I do. Michael Andræas confesseth that papists see
more visions than Protestants: he saith also, that a good soule can take
none other shape than a man; manie a damned soule may and doth take the
shape of a blackmore, or of a beaste, or of a serpent, or speciallie of
an heretike.”

Such is the accounts which Scot has given regarding the Popish opinion
of departed spirits. In another part of his work, he triumphantly asks,
“Where are the soules that swarmed in time past? Where are the spirits?
Who heareth their noises? Who seeth their visions? Where are the soules
that made such mone for trentals, whereby to be eased of their pains in
purgatorie? Are they all gone to Italie, because masse are growne deere
here in England?—The whole course may be perceived to be a false
practice, and a counterfeit vision, or rather a lewd invention. For in
heaven men’s soules remaine not in sorrow and care, neither studie they
there how to compasse and get a worshipfull burial here in earth. If
they did they would not have foreslowed so long. Now, therefore, let us
not suffer ourselves to be abused anie longer, either with conjuring
priests, or meloncholicall witches; but be thankfull to God that hath
delivered us from such blindness and error[40].” This is the
congratulation of a true Protestant at an early period of the
reformation; and it is certain, that with the disbelief of that future
state of purgatory, taught by the Romish church, the communication of
the living with the dead became less frequent. Still, however, some
belief of the kind prevailed, though less tinctured with superstition.
An author, styling himself Theophilus Insulanus, who, half a century
ago, wrote on the second-sight of Scotland, affixes the term
_irreligious_ to those who should entertain a doubt on the reality of
apparitions of departed souls. “Such ghostly visitants,” he gravely
affirms, “are not employed on an errand of a frivolous concern to lead
us into error, but are employed as so many heralds by the great Creator,
for the more ample demonstration of his power, to proclaim tidings for
our instruction; and, as we are prone to despond in religious matter, to
confirm our faith of the existence of spirits, (the foundation of all
religions,) and the dignity of human nature.” With due deference,
however, to this anonymous writer, whom we should scarcely have noticed,
if he had not echoed in this assertion an opinion which was long
popular, we shall advert to the opposite sentiments expressed on the
subject by a far more acute, though less serious author. The notion, for
instance, of the solemn character of ghosts, and that they are never
employed on frivolous errands, is but too successfully ridiculed by
Grose[41]. “In most of the relations of ghosts,” says this pleasant
writer, “they are supposed to be mere aërial beings without substance,
and that they can pass through walls and other solid bodies at pleasure.
The usual time at which ghosts make their appearance is midnight, and
seldom before it is dark; though some audacious spirits have been said
to appear even by daylight. Ghosts commonly appear in the same dress
they usually wore when living: though they are sometimes clothed all in
white; but that is chiefly the church-yard ghosts, who have no
particular business, but seem to appear _pro bono publico_, or to scare
drunken rustics from tumbling over their graves. I cannot learn that
ghosts carry tapers in their hands, as they are sometimes depicted,
though the room in which they appear, if without fire or candle, is
frequently said to be as light as day. Dragging chains is not the
fashion of English ghosts; chains and black vestments being chiefly the
accoutrements of foreign spectres, seen in arbitrary governments: dead
or alive, English spirits are free. If, during the time of an
apparition, there is a lighted candle in the room, it will burn
extremely blue: this is so universally acknowledged, that many eminent
philosophers have busied themselves in accounting for it, without ever
doubting the truth of the fact. Dogs too have the faculty of seeing
spirits[42].”

There are several other minute particulars respecting ghosts given by
this author, for the insertion of which we have not room; yet it would
be inexcusable to omit noticing the account which he has subjoined, of
the awfully momentous errands upon which spirits are sent. “It is
somewhat remarkable,” he adds, “that ghosts do not go about their
business like the persons of this world. In cases of murder, a ghost,
instead of going to the next justice of peace, and laying its
information, or to the nearest relation of the person murdered, appears
to some poor labourer who knows none of the parties; draws the curtain
of some decrepit nurse, or alms-woman; or hovers about the place where
the body is deposited. The same circuitous road is pursued with respect
to redressing injured orphans or widows; when it seems as if the most
certain way would be to go to the person guilty of the injustice, and
haunt him continually till he be terrified into a restitution. Nor are
the pointing out lost writings generally managed in a more summary way;
the ghost commonly applying to a third person, ignorant of the whole
affair, and a stranger to all concerned. But it is presumptuous to
scrutinize far into these matters: ghosts have undoubtedly forms and
customs peculiar to themselves.”

The view which Grose has taken of the character of departed spirits is
pretty correct, although I have certainly read of some spirits whose
errands to the earth have been much more direct. One ghost, for
instance, has terrified a man into the restitution of lands, which had
been bequeathed to the poor of a village. A second spirit has adopted
the same plan for recovering property of which a nephew had been
wronged; but a third has haunted a house for no other purpose than to
kick up a row in it—to knock about chairs, tables, and other furniture.
Glanville relates a story, of the date of 1632, in which a man, upon the
alleged information of a female spirit, who came by her death foully,
led the officers of justice to a pit, where a mangled corpse was
concealed, charged two individuals with her murder; and upon this
fictitious story, the poor fellows were condemned and executed, although
they solemnly persevered to the last in maintaining their innocence. It
is but too evident, in this case, by whom the atrocious deed had been
committed.

Other apparitions of this kind may be considered as the illusions of
well-known diseases. Thus there can be no difficulty in considering the
following apparition, given on the authority of Aubery and Turner, as
having had its origin in the Delirium Tremens of drunkenness. “Mr.
Cassio Burroughs,” says the narrator of this very choice, yet, we
believe, authentic story, “was one of the most beautiful men in England,
and very valiant, but very proud and blood thirsty. There was in London
a very beautiful Italian lady,” (whom he seduced.) “The gentlewoman
died; and afterwards, in a tavern in London, he spake of it, (contrary
to his sacred promise,) “and then going” (out of doors) the ghost of the
gentlewoman did appear to him. He was afterwards troubled with the
apparition of her, even sometimes in company when he was drinking.
Before she did appear, he did find a kind of chilness upon his spirits.
She did appear to him in the morning before he was killed in a duel.”

Of the causes of many apparitions which have been recorded, it is not so
easy as the foregoing narrative, to obtain a satisfactory explanation.
Such is the case of the story related of Viscount Dundee, whose ghost
about the time he fell at the battle of Killicranky, appeared to Lord
Balcarras, then under confinement, upon the suspicion of Jacobitism, at
the Castle of Edinburgh. The spectre drew aside the curtain of his
friend’s bed, looked stedfastly at him, leaned for some time on the
mantlepiece, and then walked out of the room. The Earl, not aware at the
time that he was gazing on a phantom, called upon Dundee to stop. News
soon arrived of the unfortunate hero’s fate. Now, regarding this, and
other stories of the kind, however authentic they may be, the most
interesting particulars are suppressed. Of the state of Lord Balcarras’s
health at the time, it has not been deemed necessary that a syllable
should transpire. No argument, therefore, either in support of, or in
opposition to, the popular belief in apparitions, can be gathered from
an anecdote so deficient in any notice of the most important
circumstances upon which the developement of truth depends. With regard
to the spectre of Dundee appearing just at the time he fell in battle,
it must be considered, that agreeable to the well-known doctrine of
chances, which mathematicians have so well investigated, the event might
as well occur then as at any other time, while a far greater proportion
of other apparitions, less fortunate in such a supposed confirmation of
their supernatural origin, are quietly allowed to sink into oblivion.
Thus, it is the office of superstition to carefully select all
successful coincidences of this kind, and register them in her
marvellous volumes, where for ages they have served to delude and
mislead the world.

To this story we shall add another, from Beaumont’s World of Spirits,
for no other reason, than because it is told better than most ghost
stories with which I am acquainted. It is dated in the year 1662, and it
relates to an apparition seen by the daughter of Sir Charles Lee,
immediately preceding her death. No reasonable doubt can be placed on
the authenticity of the narrative, as it was drawn up by the Bishop of
Gloucester, from the recital of the young lady’s father.

“Sir Charles Lee, by his first lady, had only one daughter, of which she
died in child-birth; and when she was dead, her sister, the Lady
Everard, desired to have the education of the child, and she was by her
very well educated, till she was marriageable, and a match was concluded
for her with Sir William Perkins, but was then prevented in an
extraordinary manner. Upon a Thursday night, she, thinking she saw a
light in her chamber, after she was in bed, knocked for her maid, who
presently came to her; and she asked, ‘Why she left a candle burning in
her chamber?’ The maid said, ‘She left none, and there was none but what
she brought with her at that time.’ Then she said it was the fire, but
that, her maid told her, was quite out; and said she believed it was
only a dream. Whereupon she said, it might be so, and composed herself
again to sleep. But about two of the clock she was awakened again, and
saw the apparition of a little woman between her curtain and her pillow,
who told her she was her mother, that she was happy, and that by twelve
of the clock that day she should be with her. Whereupon she knocked
again for her maid, called for her clothes, and when she was dressed,
went into her closet, and came not out again till nine, and then brought
out with her a letter sealed by her father; brought it to her aunt, the
Lady Everard, told her what had happened, and declared, that as soon as
she was dead, it might be sent to him. The lady thought she was suddenly
fallen mad, and thereupon sent presently away to Chelmsford for a
physician and surgeon, who both came immediately; but the physician
could discern no indication of what the lady imagined, or of any
indisposition of her body: notwithstanding the lady would needs have her
let blood, which was done accordingly. And when the young woman had
patiently let them do what they would with her, she desired that the
chaplain might be sent to read prayers; and when prayers were ended, she
took her guitar and psalm-book, and sat down upon a chair without arms,
and played and sung so melodiously and admirably, that her music-master,
who was then there, admired at it. And near the stroke of twelve, she
rose and sat herself down in a great chair with arms, and presently
fetching a strong breathing or two, immediately expired, and was so
suddenly cold, as was much wondered at by the physician and surgeon. She
died at Waltham, in Essex, three miles from Chelmsford, and the letter
was sent to Sir Charles, at his house in Warwickshire; but he was so
afflicted with the death of his daughter, that he came not till she was
buried, but when he came he caused her to be taken up, and to be buried
with her mother, at Edmonton, as she desired in her letter.”

This is one of the most interesting ghost-stories on record. Yet, when
strictly examined, the manner in which a leading circumstance in the
case is reported, affects but too much the supernatural air imparted to
other of its incidents. For whatever might have been averred by a
physician of the _olden time_, with regard to the young lady’s sound
state of health during the period she saw her mother’s ghost, it may be
asked—if any practitioner of the present day would have been proud of
such an opinion, especially when death followed so promptly after the
spectral impression.

              ——“There’s bloom upon her cheek;
              But now I see it is no living hue,
              But a strange hectic—like the unnatural red
              Which autumn plants upon the perish’d leaf.”

Probably the languishing female herself might have unintentionally
contributed to the more strict verification of the ghost’s prediction.
It was an extraordinary exertion which her tender frame underwent, near
the expected hour of dissolution, in order that she might retire from
all her scenes of earthly enjoyment, with the dignity of a resigned
christian. And what subject can be conceived more worthy the masterly
skill of a painter, than to depict a young and lovely saint cheered with
the bright prospect of futurity before her, and ere the quivering flame
of life which for a moment was kindled up into a glow of holy ardour,
had expired for ever, sweeping the strings of her guitar with her
trembling fingers, and melodiously accompanying the notes with her
voice, in a hymn of praise to her heavenly Maker? Entranced with such a
sight, the philosopher himself would dismiss for the time his usual cold
and cavelling scepticism, and giving way to the superstitious
impressions of less deliberating bye-standers, partake with them in the
most grateful of religious solaces, which the spectacle must have
irresistibly inspired.

Regarding the confirmation, which the ghost’s mission is, in the same
narrative, supposed to have received from the completion of a foreboded
death, all that can be said of it is, that the coincidence was a
_fortunate_ one; for, without it, the story would, probably, never have
met with a recorder, and we should have lost one of the sweetest
anecdotes that private life has ever afforded. But, on the other hand, a
majority of popular ghost-stories might be adduced, wherein apparitions
have either visited our world, without any ostensible purpose and errand
whatever, or, in the circumstances of their mission, have exhibited all
the inconsistency of conduct so well exposed in the quotation which I
have given from Grose, respecting departed spirits. “Seldom as it may
happen,” says Nicolai, in the memoir which he read to the Society of
Berlin, on the appearance of spectres occasioned by disease, “that
persons believe they see human forms, yet examples of the case are not
wanting. A respectable member of this academy, distinguished by his
merit in the science of Botany, whose truth and credulity are
unexceptionable, once saw in this very room in which we are now
assembled, the phantom of the late president Maupertius.” But it appears
that this ghost was seen by a philosopher, and, consequently, no attempt
was made to connect it with superstitious speculations. The uncertainty,
however, of ghostly predictions, is not unaptly illustrated in the
table-talk of Johnson. “An acquaintance,” remarks Boswell, “on whose
veracity I can depend, told me, that walking home one evening at
Kilmarnock, he heard himself called from a wood, by the voice of a
brother, who had gone to America; and the next packet brought an account
of that brother’s death. Mackbean asserted that this inexplicable
_calling_ was a thing very well known. Dr. Johnson said that one day at
Oxford, as he was turning the key of his chamber, he heard his mother
distinctly calling _Sam_. She was then at Litchfield; but _nothing
ensued_.” This casual admission, which, in the course of conversation,
transpired from a man, _himself_ strongly tainted with superstition,
precludes any farther remarks on the alleged nature and errand of
ghosts, which would now, indeed, be highly superfluous. “A lady once
asked me,” says Mr. Coleridge, “if I believed in ghosts and apparitions?
I answered with truth and simplicity, No, Madam! I have seen far too
many myself[43].”




                    DEUTEROSCOPIA, OR SECOND-SIGHT.


The nearer we approach to times when superstition shall be universally
exploded, the more we consign to oblivion the antiquated notions of
former days, respecting every degree of supernatural agency or
communication. It is not long ago, however, since the _second sight_, as
it is called, peculiar to the Scotch Highlanders, was a subject of
dispute, and although it be true, as some assert, ‘that all argument is
against it,’ yet it is equally certain that we have many well attested
facts for it. We think upon the whole that the question is placed in its
true light, in the following communication from a gentleman in Scotland,
who had opportunities to know the facts he relates, and who has
evidently sense enough not to carry them farther than they will bear.
What is called in this part of the island by the French word
_presentiment_, appears to me to be a species of second sight, and it is
by no means uncommon: why it is less attended to in the ‘busy haunts of
men,’ than in the sequestered habitations of the Highlanders, is
accounted for by the following detail, and we apprehend upon very just
grounds.

“Of all the subjects which philosophers have chosen for exercising their
faculty of reasoning, there is not one more worthy of their attention,
than the contemplation of the human mind. There they will find an ample
field wherein they may range at large, and display their powers; but at
the same time it must be observed, that here, unless the philosopher
calls in religion to his aid, he will be lost in a labyrinth of
fruitless conjectures, and here, in particular, he will be obliged to
have a reference to a _great first cause_; as the mind of man (whatever
may be asserted of material substances,) could never be formed by
chance; and he will find its affections so infinitely various, that
instead of endeavouring to investigate, he will be lost in admiration.

“The faculty or affections of the mind, attributed to our neighbours of
the Highlands of Scotland, of having a foreknowledge of future events,
or, as it is commonly expressed, having the _second sight_, is perhaps
one of the most singular. Many have been the arguments both for and
against the real existence of this wonderful gift. I shall not be an
advocate on either side, but shall presume to give you a fact or two,
which I know to be well authenticated, and from which every one is at
liberty to infer what they please.

“The late Rev. D. M’Sween was minister of a parish in the high parts of
Aberdeenshire, and was a native of Sky Island, where his mother
continued to reside. On the 4th of May, 1738, Mr. M’Sween, with his
brother, who often came to visit him from Sky, were walking in the
fields. After some interval in their discourse, during which the
minister seemed to be lost in thought, his brother asked him what was
the matter with him; he made answer, he hardly could tell, but he was
certain their mother was dead. His brother endeavoured to reason him out
of this opinion, but in vain. And upon the brother’s return home, he
found that his mother had really died on that very day on which he was
walking with the minister.

“In April, 1744, a man of the name of Forbes, walking over Culloden
Muir, with two or three others, was suddenly, as it were, lost in
thought, and when in some short time after he was interrupted by his
companions, he very accurately described the battle, which was fought on
that very spot two years afterwards, at which description his companions
laughed heartily, as there was no expectation of the pretender’s coming
to Britain at that time.”

Many such instances might be produced, but I am afraid these are
sufficient to stagger the credulity of most people. But to the
incredulous, I shall only say, that I am very far from attributing’ the
second sight to the Scotch Highlanders more than to ourselves. I am
pretty certain there is no man whatever, who is not sometimes seized
with a foreboding in his mind, or, as it may be termed, a kind of
reflection which it is not in his power to prevent; and although his
thoughts may not perhaps be employed on any particular exigency, yet he
is apt to dread from that quarter, where he is more immediately
concerned. This opinion is agreeable to all the heathen mythologists,
particularly Homer and Virgil, where numerous instances might be
produced, and these justified in the event; but there is an authority
which I hold in more veneration than all the others put together, I mean
that now much disused book called the Bible, where we meet with many
examples, which may corroborate the existence of such an affection in
the mind; and that too in persons who were not ranked among prophets. I
shall instance one or two. The first is the 14th chapter of 1 Samuel,
where it is next to impossible to imagine, that had not Jonathan been
convinced of some foreboding in his mind, that he would certainly be
successful, he and his armour-bearer, being only two in number, would
never have encountered a whole garrison of the enemy. Another instance
is in the 6th chapter of Esther, where the king of Persia, (who was no
prophet,) was so much troubled in his mind, that he could not sleep,
neither could he assign any reason for his being so, till the very
reason was discovered from the means that were used to divert his
melancholy, _viz._ the reading of the records, where he found he had
forgot to do a thing which he was under an obligation to perform. Many
of the most judicious modern authors also favour this opinion. Addison
makes his Cato, sometime before his fatal exit, express himself thus,
“What means this _heaviness_ that hangs upon me?” Shakspeare also makes
Banquo exclaim, when he is about to set out on his journey, “A heavy
summons hangs like lead upon me.” De Foe makes an instance of this kind
the means of saving the life of Crusoe, at the same time admonishing his
readers not to make light of these emotions of the mind, but to be upon
their guard, and pray to God to assist them and bear them through, and
direct them in what may happen to their prejudice in consequence
thereof.

“To what, then, are we to attribute these singular emotions? Shall we
impute them to the agency of spiritual beings called guardian Angels, or
more properly to the “Divinity that stirs within us, and points out an
_hereafter_?” However it may be, it is our business to make the best of
such hints, which I am confident every man has experienced, perhaps more
frequently than he is aware of.

“In great towns the hurry and dissipation that attend the opulent, and
the little leisure that the poor have, from following the avocations
which necessity drives them to, prevent them from taking any notice of
similar instances to the foregoing, which may happen to themselves. But
the case is quite different in the Highlands of Scotland, where they
live solitary, and have little to do, or see done, and consequently,
comparatively have but few ideas. When any thing of the above nature
occurs, they have leisure to brood over it, and cannot get it banished
from their minds, by which means it gains a deep and lasting impression,
and often various circumstances may happen by which it may be
interpreted, just like the ancient oracles by the priests of the heathen
deities. This solitary situation of our neighbours is also productive of
an opinion of a worse tendency—I mean the belief in spirits and
apparitions, to which no people on earth are more addicted than the
Scotch Highlanders: this opinion they suck in with their mother’s milk,
and it increases with their years and stature. Not a glen or strath, but
is haunted by its particular _goblins_ and _fairies_. And, indeed, the
face of the country is in some places such, that it wears a very solemn
appearance, even to a philosophic eye. The fall of cataracts of water
down steep declivities, the whistling of the wind among heath, rocks and
caverns, a loose fragment of a rock falling from its top, and in its
course downward bringing a hundred more with it, so that it appears like
the wreck of nature; the hooting of the night-owl, the chattering of the
heath-cock, the pale light of the moon on the dreary prospect, with here
and there a solitary tree on an eminence, which fear magnifies to an
unusual size; all these considered, it is not to be wondered at, that
even an enlightened mind should be struck with awe: what then must be
the emotion of a person prejudiced from his infancy, when left alone in
such a situation?”

Until the last century the spirit Brownie, in the Highlands of Scotland,
was another subject of second sight, as the following story will shew.—
“Sir Normand Macleod, and some others, playing at tables, at a game
called by the Irish Falmer-more, wherein there are three of a side and
each of them threw dice by turns; there happened to be one difficult
point in the disposing of the table-men; this obliged the gamester,
before he changed his man, since upon the disposing of it the winning or
losing of the game depended. At last the butler, who stood behind,
advised the player where to place his man; with which he complied, and
won the game. This being thought extraordinary, and Sir Normand hearing
one whisper him in the ear, asked who advised him so skilfully? He
answered, it was the butler; but this seemed more strange, for he could
not play at tables. Upon this, Sir Normand asked him how long it was
since he had learned to play? and the fellow owned that he never played
in his life; but that he saw the spirit Brownie reaching his arm over
the player’s head, and touching the part with his finger on the point
where the table-man was to be placed[44].”

The circumstance, however, deserving most notice, is the reference which
the objects of second-sight are supposed to bear to the seer’s assumed
gift of prophecy. It is said, in one of the numerous illustrations which
have been given of this faculty, that “Sir Normand Mac Leod, who has his
residence in the isle of _Bernera_, which lies between the Isle of
North-Uist and Harries, went to the Isle of Skye about business, without
appointing any time for his return: his servants, in his absence, being
altogether in the large hall at night, one of them, who had been
accustomed to see the second-sight, told the rest they must remove, for
they would have abundance of company that night. One of his
fellow-servants answered that there was very little appearance of that,
and if he had any vision of company, it was not like to be accomplished
this night; but the seer insisted upon it that it was. They continued to
argue the improbability of it, because of the darkness of the night, and
the danger of coming through the rocks that lie round the isle; but
within an hour after, one, of Sir Normand’s men came to the house,
bidding them to provide lights, &c. for his master had newly landed.

The following illustrations of the second-sight are given by Dr.
Ferriar, in his “Theory of Apparitions.”

“A gentleman connected with my family, an officer in the army, and
certainly addicted to no superstition, was quartered early in life, in
the middle of the last century, near the castle of a gentleman in the
north of Scotland, who was supposed to possess the second-sight. Strange
rumours were afloat respecting the old chieftain. He had spoken to an
apparition, which ran along the battlements of the house, and had never
been cheerful afterwards. His prophetic visions surprise even in the
region of credulity; and his retired habits favoured the popular
opinions. My friend assured me, that one day, while he was reading a
play to the ladies of the family, the chief, who had been walking across
the room, stopped suddenly, and assumed the look of a seer. He rang the
bell, and ordered a groom to saddle a horse; to proceed immediately to a
seat in the neighbourhood, and enquire after the health of Lady ——. If
the account was favourable, he then directed him to call at another
castle, to ask after another lady whom he named.

“The reader immediately closed his book, and declared he would not
proceed till those abrupt orders were explained, as he was confident
they were produced by the second-sight. The chief was very unwilling to
explain himself; but at length the door had appeared to open, and that a
little woman without a head, had entered the room; that the apparition
indicated the death of some person of his acquaintance; and the only two
persons who resembled the figure, were those ladies after whose health
he had sent to enquire.

“A few hours afterwards, the servant returned with an account that one
of the ladies had died of an apoplectic fit, about the time when the
vision appeared.

“At another time the chief was confined to his bed by indisposition, and
my friend was reading to him, in a stormy winter-night, while the
fishing-boat belonging to the castle was at sea.” The old gentleman
repeatedly expressed much anxiety respecting his people; and at last
exclaimed, “my boat is lost!” The Colonel replied, “how do you know it,
sir?” He was answered, “I see two of the boatmen bringing in the third
drowned, all dripping wet, and laying him down close beside your chair.
The chair was shifted with great precipitation; in the course of the
night the fishermen returned with the corpse of one of the boatmen!”

It is perhaps to be lamented, that such narratives as these should be
quoted in Dr. Ferriar’s philosophic work on Apparitions. We have lately
seen them advanced, on the doctor’s authority, as favouring the vulgar
belief in Apparitions, and introduced in the same volume with the story
of Mrs. Veal.




                   WITCHES, WITCHCRAFT, WIZARDS, &c.


            “What are these,
            So withered and so wild in their attire,
            That look not like the inhabitants o’ the Earth,
            And yet are on’t? Live you? or are you aught
            That men may question? * * * *
            * * * * * * *
            * * * * You should be women,
            And yet your beards forbid me to interpret
            That you are so.”—_Macbeth._

Witchcraft implies a kind of sorcery, more especially prevalent, and, as
supposed, among old women, who, by entering into a social compact with
the devil, if such an august personage there be as commonly represented,
were enabled, in many instances, to alter the course of nature’s
immutable laws;—to raise winds and storms,—to perform actions that
require more than human strength,—to ride through the air upon
broomsticks,—to transform themselves into various shapes,—to afflict and
torment those who might have rendered themselves obnoxious to them, with
acute pains and lingering diseases,—in fact, to do whatsoever they
wished, through the agency of the devil, who was always supposed to be
at their beck and call.

All countries can boast of their witches, sorcerers, &c. they have been
genial with every soil, and peculiar with every age. We have the
earliest account of them in holy writ, which contains irrefutable
proofs, that whether they existed or not, the same superstitious ideas
prevailed, and continued to prevail until within the last century. The
age of reason has now, however, penetrated the recesses of ignorance,
and diffused the lights of the Gospel with good effect among the
credulous and uninformed, to the great discomfit of witches and evil
spirits.

During the height of this kind of ignorance and superstition, many cruel
laws were framed against witchcraft; in consequence of which, numbers of
innocent persons, male and female[45], many of them no doubt friendless,
and oppressed with age and penury, and disease, were condemned and burnt
for powers they never possessed, for crimes they neither premeditated
nor committed. Happily for humanity these terrific laws have long since
been repealed. An enlightened age viewed with horror the fanaticism of
Pagans, and gave proof of its emancipation from the dark and murderous
trammels of ignorance and barbarity, by a recantation of creeds that had
no other object in view than to stain the dignity of the creation by
binding down the human mind to the most abject state of degeneracy and
servility.

The deceptions of jugglers, founded on optical illusions, electrical
force, and magnetical attraction, have fortunately, in a great measure,
gone a great way to remove the veil of pretended supernatural agency.
The oracles of old have been detected as mere machinery; the popish
miracles, slights of hand; every other supernatural farce has shared the
same fate. We hear no more of witches, ghosts, &c. little children go to
bed without alarm, and people traverse unfrequented paths at all hours
and seasons, without dread of spells or incantations.

In support, however, of the existence of witches, magicians, &c. many
advocates have been found; and it is but justice to say, that all who
have argued for, have used stronger and more forcible and appropriate
reasoning than those who have argued against them. If the bible be the
standard of our holy religion, and few there are who doubt it; it must
also be the basis of our belief; for whatever is therein written is the
WORD OF GOD, and not a parcel of _jeux d’esprits_, _conundrums_, or
_quidproquos_, to puzzle and defeat those who consult that sacred volume
for information or instruction. Nor do we believe all the jargon and
orthodox canting of priests, who lay constructions on certain passages
beyond the comprehension of men more enlightened than themselves,
especially when they presume to tell us that such and such a word or
sentence must be construed such and such a way, and not another. This
party purpose will never effect any good for the cause of religion and
truth.

In the course of this article we shall quote the texts of Scripture
where witches are mentioned in the same manner as we have done those
that allude to apparitions, &c. without offering any very decided
comment one way or the other, farther than we shall also in this case
give precedence to the standard of the Christian religion, which forms a
part of the law of the land; still maintaining our former opinion, that,
doubtless, there have at one time been negotiations carried on between
human beings and spirits; and for this assertion we refer to the Bible
itself, for proof that there have been witches, sorcerers, magicians,
who had the power of doing many wonderful things by means of demoniac
agency, but what has become of, or at what precise time, this power or
communication became extinct, we may not able to inform our readers,
although we can venture to assure them that no such diabolical
ascendancy prevails at the present period among the inhabitants of the
earth.

That this superstitious dread led to the persecution of many innocent
beings, who were supposed to be guilty of witchcraft, there can be no
question; our own statute books are loaded with penalties against
sorcery; and, as already cited, at no very distant period, our courts of
law have been disgraced by criminal trials of that nature, and judges,
who are still quoted as models of legal knowledge and discernment, not
only permitted such cases to go to a jury, but allowed sentences to be
recorded which consigned reputed wizards to capital punishment. In
Poland, even so late as the year 1739, a juggler was exposed to the
torture, until a confession was extracted from him that he was a
sorcerer; upon which, without further proof, he was hanged; and
instances in other countries might be multiplied without end. But this,
although it exceeds in atrocity, does not equal in absurdity the
sanguinary and bigoted infatuation of the Inquisition in Portugal, which
actually condemned to the flames, as being possessed of the devil, a
horse belonging to an Englishman who had taught it perform some uncommon
tricks; and the poor animal is confidently said to have been publicly
burned at Lisbon, in conformity with his sentence, in the year 1601.

The only part of Europe in which the acts of sorcery obtain any great
credit, where, in fact, supposed wizards will practice incantations, by
which they pretend to obtain the knowledge of future events, and in
which the credulity of the people induced them to place the most
implicit confidence. On such occasions a magical drum is usually
employed. This instrument is formed of a piece of wood of a semi-oval
form, hollow on the flat side, and there covered with a skin, on which
various uncouth figures are depicted; among which, since the
introduction of Christianity into that country, an attempt is usually
made to represent the acts of our Saviour and the apostles. On this
covering several brass rings of different sizes are laid, while the
attendants dispose themselves in many antic postures, in order to
facilitate the charm; the drum is then beat with the horn of a
rein-deer, which occasioning the skin to vibrate, puts the rings in
motion round the figures, and, according to the position which they
occupy, the officiating seer pronounces his prediction[46].

“The remedy,” says a late writer[47], “specifically appropriated for
these maladies of the mind, is the cultivation of natural knowledge; and
it is equally curious and gratifying to observe, that though the lights
of science are attained by only a small proportion of the community, the
benefits of it diffuse themselves universally; for the belief of ghosts
and witches, and judicial astrology, hardly exists, in these days, even
amongst the lowest vulgar. This effect of knowledge, in banishing the
vain fears of superstition, is finely alluded to in the last words of
the following admirable lines quoted from Virgil, _e. g._—

           Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas,
           Atque metus omnes et inexorable fatum,
           Subjicit pedibus, _Strepitumque Acherontes avari_.

But in order to shew with what fervour the belief in witches and
apparitions was maintained about a century and a half ago, we lay before
our readers, as it is scarce, “Doctor Henry More, his letter, with the
postscript to Mr. J. Glanvil[48], minding him of the great expedience
and usefulness of his new intended edition of the Dæmon of Tedworth, and
briefly representing to him the marvellous weakness and gullerie of Mr.
Webster’s[49] display of Witchcraft.”

      “Sir,

“When I was at London, I called on your bookseller, to know in what
forwardness this new intended impression of the story of the Dæmon of
Tedworth (see p. 223) was, which will undeceive the world touching that
fame spread abroad, as if Mr. _Mompesson_ and yourself had acknowledged
the business to have been a meer trick or imposture. But the story, with
your ingenious considerations about witchcraft, being so often printed
already, he said it behoved him to take care how he ventured on a new
impression, unless he had some new matter of that kind to add, which
might make this edition the more certainly saleable; and therefore he
expected the issue of that noised story of the spectre at _Exeter_, seen
so oft for the discovery of a murther committed some thirty years ago.
But the event of this business, as to juridical process, not answering
expectation, he was discouraged from making use of it, many things being
reported to him from thence in favour of the party most concerned. But I
am told of one Mrs. _Britton_, her appearing to her maid after her
death, very well attested, though not of such a tragical event as that
of _Exeter_, which he thought considerable. But of discoveries of
murther I never met with any story more plain and unexceptionable than
that in Mr. John Webster his display of supposed Witchcraft: the book
indeed itself, I confess, is but a weak and impertinent piece; but that
story weighty and convincing, and such as himself, (though otherwise an
affected caviller against almost all stories of witchcraft and
apparitions,) is constrained to assent to, as you shall see from his own
confession. I shall, for your better ease, or because you may not haply
have the book, transcribe it out of the writer himself, though it be
something, chap. 16, page 298, about the year of our Lord 1632, (as near
as I can remember, having lost my notes and the copy of the letters to
Serjeant _Hutton_, but I am sure that I do most perfectly remember the
substance of the story.)

“Near unto Chester-le-Street, there lived one _Walker_, a yeoman of good
estate, and a widower, who had a young woman to his kinswoman, that kept
his house, who was by the neighbours suspected to be with child, and was
towards the dark of the evening one night sent away with one Mark Sharp,
who was a collier, or one that digged coals underground, and one that
had been born in _Blakeburn_ hundred, in _Lancashire_; and so she was
not heard of a long time, and no noise or tittle was made about it. In
the winter time after, one _James Graham_, or _Grime_, (for so in that
country they call them) being a miller, and living about 2 miles from
the place where _Walker_ lived, was one night alone in the mill very
late grinding corn, and about 12 or 1 a clock at night, he came down
stairs from having been putting corn in the hopper: the mill doors being
shut, there stood a woman upon the midst of the floor with her hair
about her head hanging down and all bloody, with five large wounds on
her head. He being much affrighted and amazed, began to bless himself,
and at last asked her who she was and what she wanted? To which she
said, _I am the spirit of such a woman who lived with Walker, and being
got with child by him, he promised to send me to a private place, where
I should be well lookt too till I was brought in bed and well again, and
then I should come again and keep his house. And accordingly_, said the
apparition, _I was one night late sent away with one Mark Sharp, who
upon a moor_, naming a place that the miller knew, _slew me with a pick,
such as men dig coals withal, and gave me these five wounds, and after
threw my body into a coal pit hard by, and hid the pick under a bank;
and his shoes and stockings being bloody, he endeavoured to wash ’em;
but seeing the blood would not forth, he hid them there_. And the
apparition further told the miller, that he must be the man to reveal
it, or else that she must still appear and haunt him. The miller
returned home very sad and heavy, but spoke not one word of what he had
seen, but eschewed as much as he could to stay in the mill within night
without company, thinking thereby to escape the seeing again of that
frightful apparition. But notwithstanding, one night when it began to be
dark, the apparition met him again, and seemed very fierce and cruel,
and threatened him, that if he did not reveal the murder she would
continually pursue and haunt him; yet for all this, he still concealed
it until _St. Thomas’s Eve_, before _Christmas_, when being soon after
sun-set in his garden, she appeared again, and then so threatened him,
and affrighted him, that he faithfully promised to reveal it next
morning. In the morning he went to a magistrate and made the whole
matter known with all the circumstances; and diligent search being made,
the body was found in a coal pit, with five wounds in the head, and the
pick, and shoes and stockings yet bloody, in every circumstance as the
apparition had related to the miller; whereupon Walker and Mark Sharp
were both apprehended, but would confess nothing. At the assizes
following, I think it was at Durham, they were arraigned, found guilty,
condemned, and executed; but I could never hear they confest the fact.
There were some that reported the apparition did appear to the judge or
the foreman of the jury, who was alive in Chester-le-Street about ten
years ago, as I have been credibly informed, but of that I know no
certainty: there are many persons yet alive that can remember this
strange murder and the discovery of it; for it was, and sometimes yet
is, as much discoursed of in the North Country as any that almost has
ever been heard of, and the relation printed, though now not to be
gotten. I relate this with great confidence, (though I may fail in some
of the circumstances) because I saw and read the letter that was sent to
sergeant _Hutton_, who then lived at _Goldsbrugh_, in _Yorkshire_, from
the judge before whom _Walker_ and _Mark Sharp_ were tried, and by whom
they were condemned, and had a copy of it until about the year 1658,
when I had it, and many other books and papers taken from me; and this I
confess to be one of the most convincing stories, being of undoubted
verity, that ever I read, heard, or knew of, and carrieth with it the
most evident force to make the most incredulous to be satisfied that
there are really sometimes such things as apparitions.” Thus far he.

“This story is so considerable that I make mention of it in my Scholea,
on the Immortality of the Soul, in my _Volumen Philosophicum_, tom. 2,
which I acquainting a friend of mine with, a prudent, intelligent
person, Dr. J. D. he of his own accord offered me, it being a thing of
much consequence, to send to a friend of his in the north for greater
assurance of the truth of the narrative, which motion I willingly
embracing, he did accordingly. The answer to this letter from his friend
_Mr. Sheperdson_, is this: _I have done_ what I can to inform myself of
the passage of _Sharpe and Walker; there are very few men that I could
meet that were then men, or at the tryal, saving these two in the
inclosed paper, both men at that time, and both at the trial; and for
Mr. Lumley, he lived next door to Walker, and what he hath given under
his hand, can depose if there were occasion. The other gentleman writ
his attestation with his own hand; but I being not there got not his
name to it. I could have sent you twenty hands that could have said thus
much and more by hearsay, but I thought those most proper that could
speak from their own eyes and ears._ Thus far (continues Dr. More,) Mr.
Sheperdson, the Doctor’s discreet and faithful intelligencer. Now for
_Mr. Lumly_, or _Mr. Lumley_. Being an ancient gentleman, and at the
trial of _Walker_ and _Sharp_ upon the murder of _Anne Walker_, saith,
That he doth very well remember that the said Anne was servant to
_Walker_, and that she was supposed to be with child, but would not
disclose by whom; but being removed to her aunt’s in the same town
called _Dame Caire_, told her aunt (Dame Caire) that he that got her
with child, would take care both of her and it, and bid her not trouble
herself. After some time she had been at her aunt’s, it was observed
that Sharp came to Lumley one night, being a sworn brother of the said
Walker’s; and they two that night called her forth from her aunt’s
house, which night she was murdered; about fourteen days after the
murder, there appeared to one Graime, a fuller, at his mill, six miles
from _Lumley_, the likeness of a woman with her hair about her head, and
the appearance of five wounds in her head, as the said Graime gave it in
evidence; that that appearance bid him go to a justice of peace, and
relate to him, how that Walker and Sharp had murthered her in such a
place as she was murthered; but he, fearing to disclose a thing of that
nature against a person of credit as Walker was, would not have done it;
upon which the said Graime did go to a justice of peace and related the
whole matter[50]. Whereupon the justice of peace granted warrants
against _Walker_ and _Sharp_, and committed them to a prison; but they
found bail to appear at the next assizes, at which they came to their
trial, and upon evidence of the circumstances, with that of Graime of
the appearance, they were both found guilty and executed.

“The other testimony is that of _Mr. James Smart and William Lumley, of
the city of Durham_, who saith, that the trial of _Sharp_ and _Walker_
was in the month of _August_ 1631, before judge _Davenport_. One Mr.
Fanhair gave it in evidence upon oath, that he saw the likeness of a
child stand upon Walker’s shoulders during the time of the trial, at
which time the judge was very much troubled, and gave sentence that
night the trial was, which was a thing never used in Durham before nor
after; out of which two testimonies several things may be counted or
supplied in Mr. Webster’s story, though it be evident enough that in the
main they agree; for that is but a small disagreement as to the years,
when Mr. Webster says about the year of our Lord 1632, and Mr. Fanhair,
1631. But unless at Durham they have assizes but once in the year, I
understand not so well how Sharp and Walker should be apprehended some
little time after St. Thomas’s day, as Mr. Webster has, and be tried the
next assizes at Durham, and yet that be in August, according to Mr.
Smart’s testimony. Out of Mr. Lumley’s testimony the christian name of
the young woman is supplied, as also the name of the town near
Chester-le-Street, namely, Lumley: the circumstance also of Walker’s
sending away his kinswoman with Mark Sharp are supplied out of Mr.
Lumley’s narrative, and the time rectified, by telling it was about
fourteen days till the spectre after the murder, when as Mr. Webster
makes it a long time.”

We shall not follow the learned Doctor through the whole of his letter,
which principally now consists in rectifying some little discrepancies
in the account of the murder of Anne Walker, and the execution of the
murderers, upon circumstantial evidence, supported by the miller’s story
of the apparition, between the account given by Mr. Webster, and that
here related by Lumley and Sharp. Mr. Webster’s account, it would
appear, was taken from a letter written by Judge Davenport to Sergeant
Hutton, giving a detailed narrative of the whole proceeding as far as
came within his judicial observation, and the exercise of his functions;
which it also appears Dr. More likewise saw; a copy of which, he states,
he had in fact by him for some considerable time, but which he
unfortunately lost: his account, therefore, is from sheer recollection
of the contents of this letter, but as there is very little difference
in the material points, unless with respect to the date of the year,
between the account given by Webster, and that related from the Doctor’s
memory, we shall offer no further observation than that the whole
savours so much of other similar stories, the result of superstition and
ignorance, that it claims an equal proportion of credit: for if, at the
time we allude to, they would hang, burn, or drown a woman for a witch,
either upon her own evidence, or that of some of her malignant and less
peaceably disposed neighbours, it cannot be matter of surprise, that two
individuals, for a crime really committed, should be hanged as murderers
upon the testimony of the apparition of a murdered person, given through
the organ of a miller, who resided only six miles from the spot.

That Dr. Henry More was not only an enthusiast and a visionary, (both of
which united in the same person, constitute a canting madman) but also a
humorous kind of fellow when he chose to be jocular, and it would appear
he was by no means incapable of relaxing the gravity of his countenance
as occasion served him, may be still further inferred from the following
extracts of the sequel of his letter to the Reverend Joseph Glanvil:—

“This story of Anne Walker, (says Dr. M.) I think you will do well to
put amongst your additions in the new impression of your new edition of
your Dæmon of Tedworth, it being so excellently well attested, AND SO
UNEXCEPTIONABLE IN EVERY RESPECT; and hasten as fast as you can that
impression, to undeceive the half-witted world, who so much exult and
triumph in the extinguishing the belief of that narration, as if the
crying down the truth of that of the Dæmon of Tedworth, were indeed the
very slaying of the devil, and that they may now, with more gaiety and
security than ever, sing in a loud note, that mad drunken catch—

                     Hay ho! the Devil is dead, &c.

Which wild song, though it may seem a piece of levity to mention, yet,
believe me, the application thereof bears a sober and weighty intimation
along with it, _viz._ that these sort of people are very horribly afraid
that there should be any spirit, lest there should be a devil, and an
account after this life; and therefore they are impatient of any thing
that implies it, that they may with a more full swing, and with all
security from an after reckoning, indulge their own lusts and humours;
and I know by long experience that nothing rouses them so much out of
that dull lethargy of atheism and sadducism, as narrations of this kind,
for they being of a thick and gross spirit, the most subtle and solid
deductions of reason does little execution upon them; but this sort of
sensible experiments cuts them and stings them very sore, and so
startles them, that a less considerable story by far than this of the
drummer of Tedworth, or of Ann Walker, a Doctor of Physic cryed out
presently, _if this be true I have been in a wrong box all this time,
and must begin my account anew_.

“And I remember an old gentleman, in the country, of my acquaintance, an
excellent justice of peace, and a piece of a mathematician, but what
kind of a philosopher he was you may understand from a rhyme of his own
making, which he commended to me at my taking horse in his yard; which
rhyme is this:—

             Ens _is nothing till sense finds out;
             Sense ends in nothing, so naught goes about_.

Which rhyme of his was so rapturous to himself, that at the reciting of
the second verse the old man turned himself about upon his toe as nimbly
as one may observe a dry leaf whisked round in the corner of an orchard
walk, by some little whirlwind. With this philosopher I have had many
discourses concerning the immortality of the soul and its destruction:
when I have run him quite down by reason, he would but laugh at me, and
say, this is logic, H., calling me by my christian name; to which I
replied, this is reason, Father L., (for I used and some others to call
him) but it seems you are for the new lights and the immediate
inspirations, which I confess he was as little for as for the other; but
I said so only in the way of drollery to him in those times, but truth
is, nothing but palpable experience would move him, and being a bold
man, and fearing nothing, he told me he had used all the magical
ceremonies of conjuration he could to raise the devil or a spirit, and
had a most earnest desire to meet with one, but never could do it. But
this he told me, when he did not so much as think of it, while his
servant was pulling off his boots in the hall, some invisible hand gave
him such a clap upon the back that it made all ring again; so, thought
he, I am invited to converse with a spirit; and therefore so soon as his
boots were off and his shoes on, out he goes into the yard and next
field to find out the spirit that had given him this familiar slap on
the back, but found him neither in the yard nor the next field to it.

“But though he did not feel this stroke, albeit he thought it afterwards
(finding nothing came of it) a mere delusion; yet not long before his
death it had more force with him than all the philosophical arguments I
could use to him, though I could wind him and non-plus him as I pleased;
but yet all my arguments, how solid soever, made no impression upon him,
wherefore after several reflections of this nature, whereby I would
prove to him the soul’s distinction from the body, and its immortality,
when nothing of such subtile considerations did any more execution in
his mind, than some lightening is said to do, though it melts the sword
on the fuzzy consistency of the scabbard: _Well, said I, Father L.,
though none of these things move you, I have something still behind, and
what yourself has acknowledged to me to be true, that may do the
business: do you remember the clap on your back, when your servant was
pulling off your boots in the hall? Assure yourself_, said I, _Father
L., that goblin will be the first that will bid you welcome in the other
world_. Upon that his countenance changed most sensibly, and he was more
confounded with rubbing up of his memory than with all the rational and
philosophical argumentations that I could produce.”

How the various commentators on holy writ have reconciled to their minds
the existence of spirits, witches, hobgoblins, devils, &c. we are unable
to decide, for the want of a folio before us; but, if there are none of
this evil-boding fraternity “wandering in air” at the present day, they
must be all swamped in the Red sea, ready to be conjured up from the
“vasty deep,” by the king of spirits alone; for as sure as the Bible is
the word of truth, we find therein such descriptions of spirits,
apparitions, witches, and devils, as would make an ordinary man’s hair
stand on end. And it is from this source alone that Dr. More argues for
their existence, and which he has fully corroborated by his old hobby,
“The Dæmon of Tedworth,” and the unfortunate Anne Walker.

“Indeed (says the learned divine) if there were any modesty left in
mankind, the histories of the Bible might abundantly assure men of the
existence of angels and spirits.”

In another place he observes, “I look upon it as a special piece of
providence that there are ever and anon such fresh examples of
apparitions and witchcraft, as may rub up and awaken their benumbed and
lethargic minds into a suspicion at least, if not assurance, that there
are other intelligent beings besides those that are clothed in heavy
earth or clay; in this I say, methinks the divine providence does
plainly interest the powers of the dark kingdom, permitting wicked men
and women, and vagrant spirits of that kingdom, to make leagues or
covenant one with another, the confession of witches against their own
lives being so palpable an evidence, besides the miraculous feats they
play, that there are bad spirits, which will necessarily open a door to
the belief that there are good ones, and lastly that there is a God.”
There is beyond a doubt much plausibility, supported by strong and
appropriate argument, in this declaration of the Doctor’s. But as it is
not our province to confute or explain texts or passages of Scripture,
much less to warp them round to particular purposes, we shall reply by
observing that, although we do not entirely concur in the belief of the
non-existence of witches, apparitions, &c. at an earlier period of the
world; we do, from our very souls, sincerely believe that there are no
guests of this description, at the present day, either in the water or
roaming about at large and invisible, on _terra firma_; or floating
abroad in ether, holding, or capable of holding, converse or communion,
either by word, deed, or sign, with the beings of this earth, civilized
or uncivilized, beyond those destined by the God of heaven to constitute
the different orders, classes, and genera of its accustomed and intended
inhabitants. However, as we live in a tolerant mixed age, we have no
fault to find with those who may attach faith to the opposite side of
our creed.

We shall now, previous to laying before our readers some of those dismal
stories of witches, wizards, apparitions, &c. of the days of yore, give
the postscript to Dr. More’s letter to the author of “Saducismus
Triumphatus;” a postscript, in fact, that might with more propriety be
styled a treatise on the subject it relates to; but the rarity of the
document, as well as its curiosity and the great learning and ingenuity
it betrays, will, we feel assured, be received as an apology for
bringing it under their view in this part of our paper, on the subject
matter it bears so strongly upon. We give it the more cheerfully as it
exemplifies certain passages of Scripture that have never been handled,
at least so well, by after-writers who have attempted the illustration.


        _Witchcraft proved by the following texts of Scripture._

Exodus, c. xxii, v. 18. _Thou shalt not suffer a_ WITCH _to live_.

2 Chronicles, c. xxxiii, v. 6. _And he caused his children to pass
through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; also he observed
times, and used_ ENCHANTMENTS, _and used_ WITCHCRAFT, _and dealt with a_
FAMILIAR SPIRIT, _and with_ WIZARDS: _he wrought much evil in the sight
of the Lord, to provoke him to anger_.

Galatians, c. v, v. 20. _Idolatry_, WITCHCRAFT, _hatred, variance,
emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies_.

Micah, c. v, v. 12. I will cut off WITCHCRAFTS out of thine hand; and
thou shalt have no more soothsayers.

Acts, c. xiii, v. 6, 8. ¶ And when they had gone through the isle unto
Paphos, they found a certain Sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose
name _was_ Bar-jesus.

But Elymas the Sorcerer, (for so is his name by interpretation,)
withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.

Acts, c. viii, v. 9. ¶ But there was a certain man called Simon, which
before time in the same city used Sorcery, and bewitched the people of
Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one.

DEUTERONOMY, c. xviii, v. 10, 11. There shall not be found among you
_any one_, that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire,
or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a
witch.

Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a necromancer.

12. For all that do these things are an abomination: and because of
these abominations, the Lord thy God doth drive them from before thee.


                        _Dr. More’s Postscript._

The following scarce, curious, and learned document, long since out of
print, forms a postscript written by Dr. More, who, it appears,
strenuously advocated the existence of preternatural agencies, against
the opinion of many eminent men, who wrote, at that time, on the same
subject; and however much the belief in witches, &c. may have been
depreciated of later years, we will venture to say that few of the
present day, layman or divine, could take up his pen, and offer so
learned a refutation against, as Dr. More has here done in support of
his opinions founded on Scripture.

“This letter lying by me some time before I thought it opportune to
convey it, and in the meanwhile meeting more than once with those that
seemed to have some opinion of Mr. Webster’s criticisms and
interpretations of Scripture, as if he had quitted himself so well
there, that no proof thence can hereafter be expected of the being of a
witch, which is the scope that he earnestly aims at; and I reflecting
upon that passage in my letter, which does not stick to condemn
Webster’s whole book for a weak and impertinent piece, presently thought
fit, (that you might not think that censure over-rash or unjust) it
being an endless task to shew all the weakness and impertinencies of his
discourse, briefly by way of _Postscript_, to hint the weakness and
impertinency of this part which is counted the master-piece of the work,
that thereby you may perceive that my judgment has not been at all rash
touching the whole.

“And in order to this, we are first to take notice what is the real
scope of his book; which if you peruse, you shall certainly find to be
this: That the parties ordinarily deemed witches and wizzards, are only
knaves and queans, to use his phrase, and arrant cheats, or deep
melancholists; but have no more to do with any evil spirit or devil, or
the devil with them, than he has with other sinners or wicked men, or
they with the devil. And secondly, we are impartially to define what is
the true notion of a witch or wizzard, which is necessary for the
detecting of Webster’s impertinencies.

“As for the words witch and wizzard, from the notation of them, they
signify no more than a wise man or a wise woman. In the word wizzard, it
is plain at the very first sight. And I think the most plain and least
operose deduction of the name witch, is from wit, whose derived
adjective might be _wittigh_ or _wittich_, and by contraction afterwards
witch; as the noun wit is from the verb _to weet_, which is, to know. So
that a witch, thus far, is no more than a knowing woman; which answers
exactly to the Latin word _saga_, according to that of Festus, _Sagæ
dictæ anus quæ multa sciunt_. Thus in general: but use questionless had
appropriated the word to such a kind of skill and knowledge, as was out
of the common road, or extraordinary. Nor did this peculiarity imply in
it any unlawfulness. But there was after a further restriction and most
proper of all, and in which alone now-a-days the words _witch_ and
_wizzard_ are used. And that is, for one that has the knowledge or skill
of doing or telling things in an extraordinary way, and that in virtue
of either an express or implicit sociation or confederacy with some evil
spirit. This is a true and adequate definition of a _witch_ or
_wizzard_, which to whomsoever it belongs, is such, _et vice versâ_. But
to prove or defend that there neither are, nor ever were any such, is,
as I said, the main scope of Webster’s book: in order to which, he
endeavours in his sixth and eighth chapters to evacuate all the
testimonies of Scripture; which how weakly and impertinently he has
done, I shall now shew with all possible brevity and perspicuity.

“The words that he descants upon are Deut. c. xviii. v. 10, 11: ‘There
shall not be found among you any one that useth divination, or an
observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a
consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizzard, or a necromancer.’ The
first word in the Hebrew is ‏קוסם קסמים‎, _kosem kesamim_, a diviner.
Here because ‏קסם‎ _kasam_, sometimes has an indifferent sense, and
signifies to divine by natural knowledge or human prudence or sagacity;
therefore nothing of such a witch as is imagined to make a visible
league with the devil, or to have her body sucked by him, or have carnal
copulation with him, or is really turned into a cat, hare, wolf or dog,
can be deduced from this word. A goodly inference indeed, and hugely to
the purpose, as is apparent from the foregoing definition. But though
that cannot be deduced, yet in that, this divination that is here
forbidden, is plainly declared abominable and execrable, as it is _v._
12, it is manifest that such a divination is understood that really is
so; which cannot well be conceived to be, unless it imply either an
express or implicite inveaglement with some evil invisible powers who
assist any kind of those divinations that may be comprehended under this
general term. So that this is plainly one name of witchcraft, according
to the genuine definition thereof. And the very words of Saul to the
witch of Endor, are, ‏קסומי נא לי באוב‎; that is to say, ‘Divine to me,
I pray thee, by thy familiar spirit.’ Which is more than by natural
knowledge or human sagacity.

“The next word is ‏מעונן‎ _megnonen_, which, though our English
translation renders [gnon] (_tempus_,) ‘an observer of times;’ which
should rather be a declarer of the seasonableness of the time, or
unseasonableness of the time, or unseasonableness as to success; a thing
which is inquired of also from witches, yet the usual sense, rendered by
the learned in the language, is _præstigiatur_, an imposer on the sight,
_Sapientes prisci_, says Buxtorf, a ‏עין‎ [gnajin, oculus] _deduxerunt
et_ ‏מעונן‎ [megnonen] _esse eum dixerunt, qui tenet et præstringit
oculos, ut falsum pro vero videant_. Lo, another word that signifies a
witch or a wizzard, which has its name properly from imposing on the
sight, and making the by-stander believe he sees forms or
transformations of things he sees not! As when Anne Bodenham transformed
herself before Anne Styles in the shape of a great cat; Anne Styles’s
sight was so imposed upon, that the thing to her seemed to be done,
though her eyes were only deluded. But such a delusion certainly cannot
be performed without confederacy with evil spirits. For to think the
word signifies _præstigiator_, in that sense we translate in English,
_juggler_, or a _hocus-pocus_, is so fond a conceit, that no man of any
depth of wit can endure it. As if a merry juggler that plays tricks of
legerdemain at a fair or market, were such an abomination to either the
God of Israel, or to his law-giver Moses; or as if a hocus-pocus were so
wise a wight as to be consulted as an oracle: for it is said, v. 14,
‘For the nations which thou shalt possess, they consult,’ ‏מעוננים‎
_megnonenim_. What, do they consult jugglers and hocus-pocusses? No,
certainly, they consult witches or wizzards, and diviners, as Anne
Styles did Anne Bodenham.’ Wherefore here is evidently a second name of
a witch.

“The third word in the text is ‏מנחש‎ _menachesh_, which our English
translation renders, an enchanter. And, with Mr. Webster’s leave, (who
insulteth so over their supposed ignorance) I think they have translated
it very learnedly and judiciously; for charming and enchanting, as
Webster himself acknowledges, and the words intimate, being all one, the
word, ‏מנחש‎ _menachesh_, here, may very well signify enchanters, or
charmers; but such properly as kill serpents by their charming, from
‏נחש‎ _nachash_, which signifies a serpent, from whence comes ‏נחש‎
_nichesh_, to kill serpents, or make away with them. For a verb in
_pihel_, sometimes (especially when it is formed from a noun) has a
contrary signification. Thus from ‏שרש‎ _radix_ is ‏שרש‎ _radices
evulsit_, from ‏דשן‎ _cinis_ ‏דשן‎ _removit cineres_, from ‏חטא‎
_peccavit_ ‏חטא‎ _expiavit à peccato_; and so lastly from ‏נחש‎
_serpens_, is made ‏נחש‎ _liberavit â serpentibus, nempe occidendo vel
fugando per incantationem_. And therefore there seems to have been a
great deal of skill and depth of judgment in our English translators
that rendered ‏מנחש‎ _menachesh_, an enchanter, especially when that of
augur or soothsayer, which the Septuagint call Ὀιωνιζόμενον (there being
so many harmless kinds of it) might seem less suitable with this black
list: for there is no such abomination in adventuring to tell, when the
wild geese fly high in great companies, and cackle much, that hard
weather is at hand, but to rid serpents by a charm is above the power of
nature; and therefore an indication of one that has the assistance of
some invisible spirit to help him in this exploit, as it happens in
several others; and therefore this is another name of one that is really
a witch.

“The fourth word is ‏מכשף‎ _mecasseph_, which our English translators
render, a witch; for which I have no quarrel with them, unless they
should so understand it that it must exclude others from being so in
that sense I have defined, which is impossible they should. But this, as
the foregoing, is but another term of the same thing; that is, of a
witch in general, but so called here from the prestigious imposing on
the sight of beholders. Buxtorf tells us, that Aben Ezra defines those
to be ‏מכשפים‎ [mecassephim] _qui mutant et transformant res naturales
ad aspectum oculi_. Not as jugglers and hocus-pocusses, as Webster would
ridiculously insinuate, but so as I understood the thing in the second
name; for these are but several names of a witch, who may have several
more properties than one name intimates. Whence it is no wonder that
translators render not them always alike. But so many names are reckoned
up here in this clause of the law of Moses, that, as in our common law,
the sense may be more sure, and leave no room to evasion. And that here
this name is not from any tricks of legerdemain as in common jugglers
that delude the sight of the people at a market or fair, but that it is
the name of such as raise magical spectres to deceive men’s sight, and
so are most certainly witches, is plain from Exod. chap. xxii, v. 18,
‘Thou shalt not suffer,’ ‏מכשפה‎ _mecassephah_, that is, ‘a witch, to
live.’ Which would be a law of extreme severity, or rather cruelty,
against a poor hocus-pocus for his tricks of legerdemain.

“The fifth name is ‏חובר חבר‎ _chobher chebher_, which our English
translators render charmer, which is the same with enchanter. Webster
upon this name is very tedious and flat, a many words and small weight
in them. I shall dispatch the meaning briefly thus: this ‏חובר חבר‎,
_chobher chebher_, that is to say, _socians societatem_, is another name
of a witch, so called specially either from the consociating together
serpents by a charm, which has made men usually turn it (from the
example of the Septuagint, ἐπάδων ἐπαοιδὴν,) a charmer, or an enchanter,
or else from the society or compact of the witch with some evil spirits;
which Webster acknowledges to have been the opinion of two very learned
men, Martin Luther and Perkins, and I will add a third, Aben Ezra, (as
Martinius hath noted,) who gives this reason of the word ‏חובר‎
_chobher_, an enchanter, which signifies _socians_ or _jungens_, viz.
_Quòd malignos spiritus sibi associat_. And certainly one may charm long
enough, even till his heart aches, ere he make one serpent assemble near
him, unless helped by this confederacy of spirits that drive them to the
charmer. He keeps a pudder with the sixth verse of the fifty-eighth
Psalm to no purpose; whereas from the Hebrew, ‏אשר לא־ישמע לקול מלחשים
חובר חברים מחכם‎, if you repeat ἀπὸ κοινoῦ ‏לקול‎ before ‏חובר‎, you may
with ease and exactness render it thus: ‘That hears not the voice of
muttering charmers, no not the voice of a confederate wizzard, or
charmer that is skilful.’ But seeing charms, unless with them that are
very shallow and sillily credulous, can have no such effects of
themselves, there is all the reason in the world (according as the very
word intimates, and as Aben Ezra has declared,) to ascribe the effect to
the assistance, confederacy, and co-operation of evil spirits, and so
‏חובר חברים‎, _chobher chabharim_, or ‏חובר חבר‎ _chobher chebher_, will
plainly signify a witch or wizzard according to the true definition of
them. But for J. Webster’s rendering this verse, p. 119, thus, _Quæ non
audiet vocem mussitantium incantationes docti incantantis_, (which he
saith is doubtless the most genuine rendering of the place) let any
skilful man apply it to the Hebrew text, and he will presently find it
grammatical nonsense. If that had been the sense, it should have been
‏חברי חובר מחכם‎.

“The sixth word is ‏שואל אוב‎, _shoel obh_, which our English
translation renders, ‘a consulter with familiar spirits;’ but the
Septuagint Ἐγγαστρίμυθος. Which therefore must needs signifie him that
has this familiar spirit: and therefore ‏שואל אוב‎ _shoel obh_, I
conceive, (considering the rest of the words are so to be understood) is
to be understood of the witch or wizzard himself that asks counsel of
his familiar, and does by virtue of him give answers unto others. The
reason of the name of ‏אוב‎ _obh_, it is likely was taken first from
that spirit that was in the body of the party, and swelled it to a
protuberancy like the side of a bottle. But after, without any relation
to that circumstance, _OBH_ signifies as much as _pytho_; as _pytho_
also, though at first it took its name from the _pythii vates_,
signifies no more than _spiritum divinationis_, in general, a spirit
that tells hidden things, or things to come. And _OBH_ and _pytho_ also
agree in this, that they both signify either the divinatory spirit
itself, or the party that has that spirit. But here in ‏שואל אוב‎,
_shoel obh_, it being rendered by the Septuagint Ἐγγαςείμυθος, _OBH_ is
necessarily understood of the spirit itself, as _pytho_ is, Acts xvi.
16, if you read πνεῦμα πύδωνα, with Isaac Casaubon; but if πύθωνος, it
may be understood either way. Of this πνεύμα πύθων, it is recorded in
that place, that ‘Paul being grieved, turned and said to that spirit, I
command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her, and he
came out at the same hour;’ which signifies as plainly as any thing can
be signified, that this _pytho_ or spirit of divination, that this _OBH_
was in her: for nothing can come out of the sack that was not in the
sack, as the Spanish proverb has it; nor could this _pytho_ come out of
her unless it was a spirit distinct from her; wherefore I am amazed at
the profane impudence of J. Webster, that makes this _pytho_ in the maid
there mentioned, nothing but a wicked humour of cheating and cozening
divination: and adds, that this spirit was no more cast out of that maid
than the seven devils out of Mary Magdalene, which he would have
understood only of her several vices; which foolish familistical conceit
he puts upon Beza as well as Adie. Wherein as he is most unjust to Beza,
so he is most grossly impious and blasphemous against the spirit of
Christ in St. Paul and St. Luke, who makes them both such fools as to
believe that there was a spirit or divining devil in the maid, when
according to him there is no such thing. Can any thing be more frantic
or ridiculous than this passage of St. Paul, if there was no spirit or
devil in the damsel? But what will this profane shuffler stick to do in
a dear regard to his beloved hags, of whom he is sworn advocate, and
resolved patron right or wrong?

“But to proceed, that ‏אוב‎, _obh_, signifies the spirit itself that
divines, not only he that has it, is manifest from Levit. xx. 27, _Vir
autem sive mulier cùm fuerit_ [‏בהם אוב‎] _in eis pytho_. And 1 Sam.
xxviii. 8, _Divina quæso mihi_ [‏באוב‎] _per pythonem_. In the
Septuagint it is ἐν τῶν Ἐγγαστρίμυθῳ, that is, by that spirit that
sometimes goes into the body of the party, and thence gives answers; but
here it only signifies a familiar spirit. And lastly, ‏בעלת אוב‎,
_bagnalath obh_, 1 Sam. xxviii. 7, _Quæ habit pythonem_; there _OBH_
must needs signify the spirit itself, of which she of Endor was the
owner or possessor; that is to say, it was her familiar spirit. But see
what brazen and stupid impudence will do here, ‏בעלת אוב‎, _bagnalath
obh_, with Webster must not signify one that has a familiar spirit, but
the mistress of the bottle. Who but the master of the bottle, or rather
of whom the bottle had become master, and by guzzling had made his wits
excessively muddy and frothy, could ever stumble upon such a foolish
interpretation? But because ‏אוב‎ _obh_, in one place of the Scripture
signifies a bottle, it must signify so here, and it must be the
instrument forsooth, out of which this cheating quean of Endor does
‘whisper, peep, or chirp like a chicken coming out of the shell,’ p.
129, 165. And does she not, I beseech you, put her nib also into it
sometimes, as into a reed, as it is said of that bird, and cries like a
butter-bump? certainly he might as well have interpreted ‏בעלת אוב‎
_bagnalath obh_, of the great tun of Heidelberg, that Tom. Coriat takes
such special notice of, as of the bottle.

“And truly so far as I see, it must be some such huge tun at length
rather than the bottle, that is, such a spacious tub as he in his
deviceful imagination fancies Manasses to have built; a μανείον
forsooth, or oracular edifice for ‘cheating rogues and queans to play
their cozening tricks in;’ from that place 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6, ‏ועשה
אוב‎, _Et fecit pythonem_. Now, says he, how could Manasses make a
familiar spirit? or make one that had a familiar spirit? Therefore he
made a bottle a tun, or a large tub, a μαντεῖον, or oracular edifice
‘for cheating rogues or queans to play their cozening tricks in.’ Very
wisely argued, and out of the very depth of his ignorance of the Hebrew
tongue, whereas if he had looked into Buxtorf’s Dictionary he might have
understood that ‏עשה‎ signifies not only _fecit_ but also _paravit_,
_comparavit_, _acquisivit_, _magni fecit_, none of which words imply the
making of _OBH_ in his sense, but the only appointing them to be got,
and countenancing them. For in Webster’s sense he did not make ‏ידעני‎
_jidegnoni_ neither, that is wizzards, and yet Manasses is said to make
them both alike. ‏יעשה אוב וידעני‎, _Et fecit pythonem et magos_. So
plain is it that ‏אוב‎, _obh_, signifies _pytho_, and that adequately in
the same sense that _pytho_ does, either a familiar spirit, or him that
has that spirit of divination. But in ‏בעלת אוב‎, _bagnalath obh_, it
necessarily signifies the familiar spirit itself, which assisted the
witch of Endor; whereby it is manifest she is rightly called a witch. As
for his stories of counterfeit ventriloquists, (and who knows but some
of his counterfeit ventriloquists may prove true ones,) that is but the
threadbare sophistry of Sadducees and Atheists to elude the faith of all
true stories by those that are of counterfeits or feigned.

“The seventh word is ‏ידעוני‎, _jidegnoni_, which our English
translators render a wizzard. And Webster is so kind as to allow them to
have translated this word aright. Wizzards, then, Webster will allow,
that is to say, he-witches, but not she-witches. How tender the man is
of that sex! But the word invites him to it ‏ידעוני‎, _jidegnoni_,
coming from _scire_, and answering exactly to wizzard or wise man. And
does not witch from _wit_ and _weet_ signify as well a wise woman, as I
noted above? And as to the sense of those words from whence they are
derived, there is no hurt herein; and therefore if that were all,
‏ידעוני‎, _jidegnoni_, had not been in this black list. Wherefore it is
here understood in that more restrict and worse sense: so as we
understand usually now-a-days witch and wizzard, such wise men and women
whose skill is from the confederacy of evil spirits, and therefore are
real wizzards and witches. In what a bad sense ‏ידעוני‎, _jidegnoni_, is
understood, we may learn, from Levit. xx. 27, ‘A man also or woman that
hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizzard, _jidegnoni_, shall be put
to death, they shall stone them with stones,’ &c.

“The last word is ‏דורש המתים‎, _doresh hammethim_, which our
translators rightly render _necromancers_; that is, those that either
upon their own account, or desired by others, do raise the ghosts of the
deceased to consult with; which is a more particular term than ‏בעל
אוב‎, _bagnal obh_: but he that is _bagnal obh_, may be also _doresh
hammethim_, a necromancer, as appears in the witch of Endor. Here
Webster by ‏המתים‎, _hammethim_, the dead, would understand dead
statues; but let him, if he can, any where shew in all the Scripture
where the word ‏המתים‎, _hammethim_, is used of what was not once alive.
He thinks he hits the nail on the head in that place of Isaiah, viii.
19, ‘And when they say unto you, seek unto [‏האבות‎, that is, to ‏בעליה
אוב‎, such as the witch of Endor was,] them that have familiar spirits,
and to wizzards that peep and that mutter; [the Hebrew has it ‏המהגים‎
and ‏המצפצפים‎; that is, speak with a querulous murmurant or mussitant
voice, when they either conjure up the spirit, or give responses. If
this be to ‘peep like a chicken,’ Isaiah himself peeped like a chicken,
xxxviii. 14,] should not a people seek unto their God? for the living,
(‏אל המתים‎,) to the dead?’ Where _hammethim_ is so far from signifying
dead statues, that it must needs be understood of the ghosts of dead
men, as here in Deuteronomy. None but one that had either stupidly or
wilfully forgot the story of Samuel’s being raised by that ‏בעלת אוב‎,
_bagnalath obh_, the witch of Endor, could ever have the face to affirm
that ‏המתים‎, _hammethim_, here in Isaiah, is to be understood of dead
statues, when wizzards or necromancers were so immediately mentioned
before, especially not Webster, who acknowledges that ‏שואל אוב‎, _shoel
obh_, signifies a necromancer in this Deuteronomical list of names. And
therefore, forsooth, would have it a tautology that _doresh hammethim_
should signify so too. But I say it is no tautology, this last being
more express and restrict. And besides, this enumeration is not intended
as an accurate logical division of witches or witchcraft, into so many
distinct kinds, but a reciting of several names of that ill trade,
though they will interfere one with another, and have no significations
so precisely distinct. But as I said before, this fuller recounting of
them is made that the prohibition in this form might be the surer fence
against the sin. And now therefore what will J. Webster get by this, if
_doresh hammethim_ will not signify a witch of Endor, when it must
necessarily signify a necromancer, which is as much against his tooth as
the other? Nay indeed this necromancer is also a witch or wizzard,
according to the definition produced above.

“The rest of the chapter being so inconsiderable, and I having been so
long already upon it, I shall pass to the next, after I have desired you
to take notice how weak and childish, or wild and impudent, Mr. Webster
has been in the interpretation of Scripture hitherto, in the belief of
his sage dames, to fence off the reproach of being termed witches;
whereas there is scarce one word in this place of Deuteronomy that does
not imply a witch or wizzard, according to the real definition thereof.
And truly he seems himself to be conscious of the weakness of his own
performance, when after all this ado, the sum at last amounts but to
this, that there are no names in all the Old Testament that signifies
such a witch that destroy men or beasts, that make a visible compact
with the devil, or on whose body he sucketh, or with whom he hath carnal
copulation, or that is really changed into a cat, hare, dog, or such
like. And to shew it amounts to no more than so, was the task we
undertook in this chapter.

“But assure yourself, if you peruse his book carefully, you shall
plainly find that the main drift thereof is to prove, as I above noted,
that there is no such witch as with whom the devil has any thing more to
do than with any other sinner, which, notwithstanding this conclusion of
his a little before recited, comes infinitely short of: and therefore
this sixth chapter, consisting of about thirty pages in folio, is a meer
piece of impertinency. And there will be witches for all this, whether
these particulars be noted in them or no; for it was sufficient for
Moses to name those ill sounding terms in general, which imply a witch
according to that general notion I have above delivered; which if it be
prohibited, namely, the having any thing to do with evil spirits, their
being suckt by them, or their having any lustful or venerous
transactions with them, is much more prohibited.

“But for some of these particularities also they may seem to be in some
manner hinted at in some of the words, especially as they are rendered
sometimes by skilful interpreters: for ‏מכשף‎ (_Mecasseph_,) is
translated by _Vatablus_, and the vulgar Latin _Maleficus_, by the
_Septuagint_ φαρμακός, that is _Veneficus_: which word signifies
mischievously enough both to man and beast. Besides that _Mecasseph_
carries along with it the signification of transformation also; and
haply this may be the difference betwixt ‏מכשף‎ _Mecasseph_, and ‏מעונן‎
_Megnonen_, that the former uses prestigious transformations to some
great mischief, as where Olaus Magnus tells of those that have
transformed themselves into wolves, to men’s thinking, and have
presently fallen upon worrying of sheep. Others transformed in their
astral spirit, into various shapes, get into houses and do mischief to
men and children, as I remember Remegius reports. And therefore it is
less wonder that that sharp law of Moses is against the ‏מכשפה‎
_Mecassephah_; such a witch as this is, ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch
to live;’ this may be a more peculiar signification of that word. And
now for making a compact with the devil, how naturally does that name
‏חובר חבר‎ _Chobber Chebber_, signifie that feat also? But for sucking
and copulation, though rightly stated it may be true, yet I confess
there is nothing hinted towards that so far as I see, as indeed it was
neither necessary that the other should be. But these are the very
dregs, the _fex magorum et sagarum_, that sink in those abominations,
against which a sufficient bar is put already by this prohibition in
general by so many names. And the other is filthy, base, and nasty, that
the mention thereof was neither fit for the sacred style of Moses’s law,
nor for the years of the people.

In my passing to the eight chapter I will only take notice by the way of
the shameless impudence of J. Webster, who in favour to his beloved
hags, that they may be never thought to do any thing by the assistance
of the devil, makes the victory of Moses, with whom the mighty hand of
God was, or of Christ, (who was the angel that appeared first to Moses
in the bush, and conducted the children of Israel out of Egypt to the
promised land) to be the victory only over so many hocus-pocusses, so
many jugglers that were, as it seems, old and excellent at the tricks of
Legerdemain; which is the basest derogation to the glory of that
victory, and the vilest reproach against the God of Israel, and the
person of Moses, that either the malicious wit of any devil can invent,
or the dulness of any sunk soul can stumble upon. Assuredly there was a
real conflict here betwixt the kingdom of light and the kingdom of
darkness and the evil spirits thereof, which assisted the ‏חרטמים‎
_Hartummim_, the Magicians of Egypt; who before that name is named, that
no man may mistake, are called ‏מכשפים‎, _Mecassaphim_, such kind of
magicians as can exhibit to the sight manifold prestigious
transformations through diabolical assistance, and are rendered
_Malificia_ by good interpreters, as I noted above; that is, they were
wizzards, or he-witches. The self same word being used in that severe
law of Moses, ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’ Are not these
magicians then examples plain enough that there are witches; that is to
say, such wretched wights as do strange miraculous things by the
assistance or consociation of the evil spirits?

“O no, says Mr. Webster, these are only ‏חכמים‎ _Chacamim_, wise men and
great naturalists, who all what they did, they did ‏בלהטיהם‎, by their
bright glittering _laminæ_, for so ‏להטם‎ forsooth must signifie. But
what necessity thereof that ‏להט‎ should signifie _lamina_? there is
only the presence of that one place, Gen. iii, 24. ‏להט חרב‎, where it
is ‏חרב‎ only that signifies the _lamina_, and that of a long form,
scarce usual in those magical _laminæ_ with signatures celestial upon
them, which J. Webster would be at; but ‏הטם‎ signifies merely _flamma_;
so that ‏בלהטיהם‎ by this account must signifie by their flames, if it
be from ‏להט‎ _ardere, flammare_: and therefore Buxtorfius judiciously
places the word under ‏בלהטיהם‎ _abscondit_, _obvolvit_, reading not
‏בלאטיהם‎ but ‏בלאטיהם‎, which is as much as to say, _occultis suis
rationibus Magicis_, which is briefly rendered in English, ‘by their
enchantments;’ which agrees marvellously well with ‏מכשפים‎
_Mecassephim_, which is as much as _Præstigiatores Magici_, or such as
do strange wonderous things in an hidden way, by the help of evil
spirits. But that the Egyptian magicians should do those things that are
there recorded of them in Exodus, by virtue of any lamels, or plates of
metals, with certain sculptures or figures, under such or such a
constellation, is a thing so sottish and foolish that no man that is not
himself bewitched by some old hag or hobgobling, can ever take sanctuary
here to save himself or his old dames from being in a capacity, from
this history in Exodus, of being accounted witches. For if there may be
he-witches, that is magicians, such as these of Egypt were, I leave J.
Webster to scratch his head to find out any reason why there may not be
she-witches also.

“And indeed that of the witch of Endor, to pass at length to the eighth
chapter, is as plain a proof thereof as can be desired by any man whose
mind is not blinded with prejudices. But here J. Webster, not
impertinently, I confess, for the general, (abating him the many tedious
particular impertinences that he has clogg’d his discourse with) betakes
himself to these two ways, to shew there was nothing of a witch in all
that whole narration. First, by pretending that all the transaction on
the woman of Endor’s part was nothing but collusion and a cheat, Saul
not being in the same room with her, or at least seeing nothing if he
was. And then in the next place, that Samuel that is said to appear,
could neither be Samuel appearing in his body out of the grave, nor in
his soul; nor that it was a devil that appeared; and therefore it must
be some colluding knave, suborned by the witch. For the discovering the
weakness of his former allegation, we need but appeal to the text, which
is this, 1 Sam. xxviii, v. 8.

‘And Saul said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and
bring me up whom I shall name unto thee,’ ‏קסומי־נא לי‎ that is, do the
office of a divineress, or a wise woman, ‘I pray thee unto me, ‏באוב‎
_Beobh_, by virtue of the familiar spirit, whose assistance thou hast,
not by virtue of the bottle, as Mr. Webster would have it. Does he think
that damsel in the Acts, which is said to have had πνεῦμα πύθωνος, that
is to have had ‏אוב‎ _Obh_, carried an _aqua-vitæ_ bottle about with
her, hung at her girdle, whereby she might divine and mutter, chirp, or
peep out of it, as a chicken out of an egg-shell, or put her neb into it
to cry like a bittern, or take a dram of the bottle, to make her wits
more quick and divinatory. Who but one who had taken too many drams of
the bottle could ever fall into such a fond conceit? Wherefore ‏אוב‎
_Obh_, in this place does not, as indeed no where else, signifie an
oracular bottle, or μαντεῖον, into which Saul might desire the woman of
Endor to retire into, and himself expect answers in the next room; but
signifies that familiar spirits by virtue of whose assistance she was
conceived to perform all those wond’rous offices of a wise woman. But we
proceed to verse 11.

“‘Then said the woman, whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said,
bring me up Samuel.’ Surely as yet Saul and the woman are in the same
room, seeing the woman askt, ‘Whom shall I bring up unto thee?’ and he
answering, ‘Bring up unto me Samuel,’ it implies, that Samuel was so
brought up that Saul might see him, and not the witch only. But we go
on, verse 12.

“‘And when the woman saw Samuel, she cryed with a loud voice; and the
woman spake to Saul, saying, why hast thou deceived, for thou art Saul?
Tho’ the woman might have some suspicions before that it was Saul, yet
she now seeing Samuel did appear, and in another kind of way than her
spirits used to do, and in another hue, as it is most likely so holy a
soul did, she presently cryed out with a loud voice, ‘not muttered,
chirpt, and peept as a chicken coming out of the shell,’ that now she
was sure it was Saul, for she was not such a fool, as to think her art
could call up real Samuel, but that the presence of Saul was the cause
thereof: and Josephus writes expressly, Ὅτι θεασάμενον τὸ γύναιον ἄνδρα
σεμνὸν καὶ θεοπρεπῆ ταράττεται, καὶ πρὸς την ὄψίν οὐπλαγέν, οὐ σύ,
φησὶν, ὁ Βασιλεὺς Σαοῦλος; _i. e._ ‘The woman seeing a grave god-like
man is startled at it, and thus astonished at the vision, turned herself
to the king, and said, art not thou king Saul?’ Verse 13.

“‘And the king said unto her, be not afraid; for what sawest thou? And
the woman said unto Saul, I saw Gods ascending out of the earth.’ The
king here assures the woman, that tho’ he was Saul, yet no hurt should
come to her, and therefore bids her not be afraid. But she turning her
face to Saul as she spake to him, and he to her, and so her sight being
off from the object, Saul asked her, ‘What sawest thou?’ and she in like
manner answered, ‘I saw Gods,’ &c. For Gods, I suppose any free
translator in Greek, Latin, and English, would say, δαίμονας, _genios_,
spirits. And ‏אלהים‎ signifies Angels as well as Gods; and it is likely
these wise women take the spirits they converse with to be good angels,
as Ann Bodenham the witch told a worthy and learned friend of mine, that
these spirits, such as she had, were good spirits, and would do a man
all good offices all the days of his life; and ’tis likely this woman of
Endor had the same opinion of hers, and therefore we need not wonder
that she calls them ‏אלהים‎ _Elohim_, especially Samuel appearing among
them, to say nothing of the presence of Saul. And that more than one
spirit appears at a time, there are repeated examples in Ann Bodenham’s
magical evocations of them, whose history, I must confess, I take to be
very true.

“The case stands therefore thus: The woman and Saul being in the same
room, she turning her face from Saul, mutters to herself some magical
form of evocation of spirits; where upon they beginning to appear and
rise up, seemingly out of the earth, upon the sight of Samuel’s
countenance, she cryed out to Saul, and turning her face towards him,
spoke to him. Now that Saul hitherto saw nothing, though in the same
room, might be either because the body of the woman was interposed
betwixt his eyes and them, or the vehicles of those spirits were not yet
attempered to that conspissation that they would strike the eyes of
Saul, tho’ they did of the witch. And that some may see an object,
others not seeing it, you have an instance in the child upon Walker’s
shoulders, appearing to Mr. Fairhair, and it may be to the judge, but
invisible to the rest of the Court; and many such examples there are.
But I proceed to verse 14.

“‘And he said unto her, what form is he of? and she said, an old man
cometh up, and is covered with a mantle.’ He asks here in the singular
number, because, his mind was only fixt on Samuel. And the woman’s
answer is exactly according to what the spirit appeared to her, when her
eye was upon it, _viz._ ‏איש זקן עלה‎ ‘an old man coming up;’ for he was
but coming up when she looked upon him, and accordingly describes him:
For ‏עלה‎ there, is a particle of the present tense, and the woman
describes Saul from his age, habit, and motion he was in, while her eye
was upon him. So that the genuine and grammatical sense in this answer
to ‘what form is he of?’ is this, an old man coming up, and the same
covered with a mantle, this is his form and condition I saw him in.
Wherefore Saul being so much concerned herein, either the woman or he
changing their postures or standings, or Samuel by this having
sufficiently conspissated his vehicle, and fitted it to Saul’s sight
also, it follows in the text: ‘And Saul perceived it was Samuel, and he
stooped with his face to the ground and bowed himself.’

“O the impudent profaneness and sottishness of perverse shufflers and
whifflers! that upon the hearing of this passage can have the face to
deny that Saul saw any thing, and meerly because the word ‘perceived’ is
used, and not ‘saw,’ when the word ‘perceived,’ plainly implies that he
saw Samuel, and something more, namely, that by his former familiar
converse with him, he was assured it was he. So exquisitely did he
appear, and over-comingly to his senses, that he could not but
acknowledge (for so the Hebrew word ‏ידע‎ signifies) that it was he, or
else why did he stoop with his face to the very ground to do him honour?

“No, no, says J. Webster, he saw nothing himself, but stood waiting like
a drowned puppet (see of what a base rude spirit this squire of hags is,
to use such language of a prince in his distress,) in another room to
hear what would be the issue; for all that he understood, was from her
cunning and lying relations. That this gallant of witches should dare to
abuse a prince thus, and feign him as much foolisher and sottisher in
his intellectuals, as he was taller in stature than the rest of the
people, even by head and shoulders, and merely forsooth, to secure his
old wives from being so much as in a capacity of ever being suspected
for witches, is a thing extremely coarse and intolerably sordid. And
indeed, upon the consideration of Saul’s being said to bow himself to
Samuel, (which plainly implies, that there was there a Samuel that was
the object of his sight, and of the reverence he made) his own heart
misgives him in this mad adventure, and he shifts off from thence to a
conceit that it was a confederate knave, that the woman of Endor turned
out into the room where Saul was, to act the part of Samuel, having
first put on him her own short cloak, which she used with her maund
under her arm to ride to fairs or markets in. To this countryslouch in
the woman’s mantle, must king Saul, stooping with his face to the very
ground, make his profound obeysance. What was a market-woman’s cloak and
Samuel’s mantle, which Josephus calls διπλοΐδα ἱερατικήν, a ‘sacerdotal
habit,’ so like one another? Or if not, how came this woman, being so
surpriz’d of a sudden, to provide herself of such a sacerdotal habit to
cloak her confederate knave in? Was Saul as well a blind as a drowned
puppet, that he could not discern so gross and bold an impostor as this?
Was it possible that he should not perceive that it was not Samuel, when
they came to confer together, as they did? How could that confederate
knave change his own face into the same figure, look, and mien that
Samuel had, which was exactly known to Saul? How could he imitate his
voice thus of a sudden, and they discoursed a very considerable time
together?

“Besides, knaves do not use to speak what things are true, but what
things are pleasing. And moreover, this woman of Endor, though a
Pythoness, yet she was of a very good nature and benign, which Josephus
takes notice of, and extols her mightily for it, and therefore she could
take no delight to lay further weight on the oppressed spirit of
distressed king Saul; which is another sign that this scene was acted
_bonâ fide_, and that there was no cozening in it. As also that it is
another, that she spoke so magnificently of what appeared to her, that
she saw Gods ascending. Could she then possibly adventure to turn out a
countryslouch with a maund-woman’s cloak to act the part of so God-like
and divine a personage of Samuel, who was Θεῷ τὴν μορφὴν ὅμοιος, as the
woman describes him in Josephus Antiq. Judaic. lib. vii. c. 15, unto all
which you may add, that the Scripture itself, which was written by
inspiration, says expressly, verse 20, that it was Samuel. And the son
of Sirach, chap xlvi. that Samuel himself prophesied after his death,
referring to this story of the woman of Endor. But for our new inspired
seers, or saints, S. Scot, S. Adie, and if you will, S. Webster, sworn
advocate of the witches, who thus madly and boldly, against all sense
and reason, against all antiquity, all interpreters, and against the
inspired scripture itself, will have no Samuel in this scene, but a
cunning confederate knave, whether the inspired scripture, or these
inblown buffoons, puffed up with nothing but ignorance, vanity and
stupid infidelity, are to be believed, let any one judge.

“We come now to his other allegation, wherein we shall be brief, we
having exceeded the measure of a postscript already. ‘It was neither
Samuel’s soul,’ says he, ‘joined with his body, nor his soul out of his
body, nor the devil; and therefore it must be some confederate knave
suborned by that cunning, cheating quean of Endor.’ But I briefly
answer, it was the soul of Samuel himself; and that it is the
fruitfulness of the great ignorance of J. Webster in the sound
principles of theosophy and true divinity, that has enabled him to heap
together no less than ten arguments to disprove this assertion, and all
little to the purpose: so little indeed, that I think it little to the
purpose particularly to answer them, but shall hint only some few truths
which will rout the whole band of them.

“I say therefore that departed souls, as other spirits, have an
ἀυτεξούσιον in them, such as souls have in this life; and have both a
faculty and a right to move of themselves, provided there be no express
law against such or such a design to which their motion tends.

“Again, that they have a power of appearing in their own personal shapes
to whom there is occasion, as Anne Walker’s soul did to the miller; and
that this being a faculty of theirs either natural or acquirable, the
doing so is no miracle. And,

“Thirdly, That it was the strong piercing desire, and deep distress and
agony of mind in Saul, in his perplexed circumstances, and the great
compassion and goodness of spirit in the holy soul of Samuel, that was
the effectual magick that drew him to condescend to converse with Saul
in the woman’s house at Endor, as a keen sense of justice and revenge
made Anne Walker’s soul appear to the miller with her five wounds in her
head.

“The ridged and harsh severity that Webster fancies Samuel’s ghost would
have used against the woman, or sharp reproofs to Saul; as for the
latter, it is somewhat expressed in the text, and Saul had his excuse in
readiness, and the good soul of Samuel was sensible of his perplexed
condition. And as for the former, sith the soul of Samuel might indeed
have terrified the poor woman, and so unhinging her, that she had been
fit for nothing after it, but not converted her, it is no wonder if he
passed her by; goodness and forbearance more befitting an holy angelical
soul than bluster and fury, such as is fancied by that rude goblin that
actuates the body and pen of Webster.

“As for departed souls, that they never have any care or regard to any
of their fellow souls here upon earth, is expressly against the known
example of that great soul, and universal pastor of all good souls, who
appeared to Stephen at his stoning, and to St. Paul before his
conversion, though then in his glorified body; which is a greater
condescension than this of the soul of Samuel, which was also to a
prince, upon whose shoulders lay the great affairs of the people of
Israel: To omit that other notable example of the angel Raphael so
called (from his office at that time, or from the angelical order he was
adopted into after his death) but was indeed the soul of Azarias, the
son of Ananias the Great, and of Tobit’s brethren, _Tobit_, v. 12. Nor
does that which occurs, _Tob._ xii. 15, at all clash with what we have
said, if rightly understood: for his saying, ‘I am Raphael one of the
seven holy angels which present the prayers of the saints, and which go
in and out before the glory of the holy one,’ in the Cabbalistical sense
signifies no more than thus, that he was one of the universal society of
the holy angels, (and a Raphael in the order of the Raphaels) which
minister to the saints, and reinforce the prayers of good and holy men
by joining thereto their own; and as they are moved by God, minister to
their necessities, unprayed to themselves, which would be an abomination
to them, but extreme prone to second the petitions of holy sincere
souls, and forward to engage in the accomplishing of them, as a truly
good man would sooner relieve an indigent creature, over-hearing him
making his moan to God in prayer, than if he begged alms of himself,
though he might do that without sin. This Cabbalistical account, I
think, is infinitely more probable, than that Raphael told a downright
lye to Tobit, in saying he was the son of Ananias when he was not. And
be it so, will J. Webster say, what is all this to the purpose, when the
book of Tobit is apocryphal, and consequently of no authority? What of
no authority? Certainly of infinitely more authority than Mr. Wagstaff,
Mr. Scot, and Mr. Adie, that Mr. Webster so frequently and reverently
quoteth.

“I but, will he farther add, these apparitions were made to good and
holy men, or to elect vessels; but King Saul was a wretched reprobate.
This is the third liberal badge of honour that this ill-bred advocate of
the witches has bestowed on a distressed prince. First, a ‘drowned
puppet,’ p. 170, then a ‘distracted bedlam,’ in the same page, which I
passed by before; and now a ‘wretched reprobate.’ But assuredly Saul was
a brave prince and commander, as Josephus justly describes him, and
reprobate only in type, as Ismael and Esau; which is a mystery it seems,
that J. Webster was not aware of. And therefore no such wonder that the
soul of Samuel had such a kindness for him, as to appear to him in the
depth of his distress, to settle his mind, by telling him plainly the
upshot of the whole business, that he should lose the battel, and he and
his sons be slain, that so he might give a specimen of the bravest
valour that ever was atchieved by any commander, in that he would not
suffer his country to be overrun by the enemy while he was alive without
resistance; but though he knew certainly he should fail of success, and
he and his sons dye in the fight, yet in so just and honourable a cause
as the defence of his crown and his country, would give the enemy battel
in the field, and sacrifice his own life for the safety of his people.
Out of the knowledge of which noble spirit in Saul, and his resolved
valour in this point, those words haply may come from Samuel, ‘To morrow
shalt thou and thy sons be with me,’ (as an auspicious insinuation of
their favourable reception into the other world,) in ‏סחיצחצדקימ‎, _in
thalamo justorum_, as Munster has noted out of the Rabbins.

“Lastly, as for that weak imputation, that this opinion of its being
Samuel’s soul that appeared is Popish, that is very plebeianly and
idiotically spoken, as if every thing that the Popish party are for,
were Popish. We divide our zeal against so many things that we fancy
Popish, that we scarce reserve a just share of detestation against what
is truly so: Such as are that gross, rank and scandalous impossibility
of ‘transubstantiation,’ the various modes of fulsome idolatry and lying
impostures, the uncertainty of their loyalty to their lawful sovereigns
by their superstitious adhesion to the spiritual tyranny of the Pope,
and that barbarous and ferine cruelty against those that are not either
such fools as to be persuaded to believe such things as they would
obtrude upon men, or are not so false to God and their own consciences,
as knowing better, yet to profess them.

“As for that other opinion, that the greater part of the reformed
divines hold, that it was the devil that appeared in Samuel’s shape; and
though Grotius also seems to be inclined thereto, alleging that passage
of _Porphyrius de abstinentia Animalium_, where he describes one kind of
spirit to be Γένος ἀπατηλῆς φύσεως, παντόμορφόν τε καὶ πολύτροπον,
ὑποκρινόμενον καὶ θεοὺς καὶ δαίμονας καὶ ψυχὰς τεθνηκότων. (which is, I
confess, very apposite to this story; nor do I doubt but that in many of
these necromantick apparitions, they are ludicrous spirits, not the
souls of the deceased that appear,) yet I am clear for the appearing of
the soul of Samuel in this story, from the reasons above alleged, and as
clear that in other necromancies, it may be the devil or such kind of
spirits, as Porphyrius above describes, ‘that change themselves into
omnifarious forms and shapes, and one while act the parts of dæmons,
another while of angels or gods, and another while of the souls of the
deceased.’ And I confess such a spirit as this might personate Samuel
here, for any thing Webster has alleged to the contrary, for his
arguments indeed are wonderfully weak and wooden, as may be understood
out of what I have hinted concerning the former opinion, but I cannot
further particularize now.

“For I have made my postscript much longer than my letter, before I was
aware; and I need not enlarge to you, who are so well versed in these
things already, and can by the quickness of your parts presently collect
the whole measures of Hercules by his foot, and sufficiently understand
by this time it is no rash censure of mine in my letter, that Webster’s
book is but a weak impertinent piece of work, the very master-piece
thereof being so weak and impertinent, and falling so short of the scope
he aims at, which was really to prove that there was no such thing as a
witch or wizard, that is not any mention thereof in Scripture, by any
name ‘of one that had more to do with the devil, or the devil with him,
than with other wicked men;’ that is to say, of one who in virtue of
covenant, either implicit or explicit, did strange things by the help of
evil spirits, but that ‘there are many sorts of deceivers and
impostures, and divers persons under a passive delusion of melancholy
and fancy,’ which is part of his very title-page.

“Whereby he does plainly insinuate, that there is nothing but couzenage
or melancholy in the whole business of the fears of witches. But a
little to mitigate or smother the greatness of this false assertion, he
adds, ‘And that there is no corporeal league betwixt the devil and the
witch; and that he does not suck on the witches body, nor has carnal
copulation with her, nor the witches turned into dogs or cats,’ &c. All
which things as you may see in his book, he understands in the grossest
imaginable, as if the imps of witches had mouths of flesh to suck them,
and bodies of flesh to lie with them, and at this rate he may understand
a corporeal league, as if it were no league or covenant, unless some
lawyer drew the instrument, and engrossed it in vellum or thick
parchment, and there were so many witnesses with the hand and seal of
the party. Nor any transformation into dogs or cats, unless it were real
and corporeal, or grossly carnal; which none of his witch-mongers, as he
rudely and slovenly calls that learned and serious person, Dr. Casaubon
and the rest, do believe. Only it is a disputable case of their bodily
transformation, betwixt _bodinus_ and _remigius_; of which more in my
_Scholia_. But that without this carnal transmutation, a woman might not
be accounted a witch, is so foolish a supposition, that Webster himself
certainly must be ashamed of it.

“Wherefore if his book be writ only to prove there is no such thing as a
witch that covenants in parchment with the Devil by the advice of a
lawyer, and is really and carnally turned into a dog, cat, or hare, &c.
and with carnal lips sucked by the devil, and is one with whom the devil
lies carnally; the scope thereof is manifestly impertinent, when neither
Dr. Casaubon, nor any one else holds any such thing. But as for the true
and adequate notion of a witch or wizard, such as at first I described,
his arguments all of them are too weak and impertinent, as to the
disproving the existence of such a witch as this, who betwixt his
deceivers, impostors, and melancholists on one hand, and those gross
witches he describes on the other hand, goes away sheer as a hair in a
green balk betwixt two lands of corn, none of his arguments reaching
her, or getting the sight of her, himself in the mean time standing on
one side amongst the deceivers and impostors, his book, as to the main
design he drives at, being a meer cheat and impostor.

“C. C. C. _May, 25, 1678_.”


_The Confessions of certain Scotch Witches_, _taken out of an authentic
 copy of their trial at the Assizes held at Paisley, in Scotland, Feb.
        15, 1678, touching the bewitching of Sir George Maxwel_.

The tenour of the confessions as taken before justices. As first of
Annabil Stuart, of the age of 14 years, or thereby; who declared that
she was brought in the presence of the justices for the crime of
witchcraft; and declared, that one harvest last, the devil, in the shape
of a black man, came to her mother’s house, and required the declarant
to give herself up to him; and that the devil promised her she should
not want any thing that was good.—Declares that she, being enticed by
her mother, _Jennet Mathie_, and _Bessie Wen_, who was officer to their
several meetings, she put her hand to the crown of her head, and the
other to the sole of her foot, and did give herself up to the devil.
Declares that her mother promised her a new coat for doing it. Declares
that her spirit’s name was _Ennipa_, and that the devil took her by the
hand and nipt her arm, which continued to be sore for half an hour.
Declares that the devil, in the shape of a black man, lay with her in
the bed, under the clothes, and that she found him cold. Declares, that
thereafter, he placed her nearest himself, and declares she was present
in her mother’s house when the effigy of wax was made, and that it was
made to represent Sir George Maxwel. Declares, that the black man,
Jannet Mathie, the declarant’s mother, (whose spirit’s name was
_Lemdlady_; Bessie Weir, whose spirit’s name was Sopha; Margaret Craige,
whose spirit’s name is Regerum, and Margaret Jackson, whose spirit’s
name is Locas) were all present at the making of the said effigy; and
that they bound it on a spit, and turned it before the fire; and that it
was turned by Bessie Weir, saying, as they turned it, Sir George Maxwel,
Sir George Maxwel, and that this was expressed by all of them, and by
the declarant. Declares that this picture was made in October last. And
further declares that upon the third day of January instant, Bessie Weir
came to her mother’s house, and advertised her to come to her brother
John Stuart’s upon the night following; and that accordingly she came to
the place, where she found Bessie Weir, Margery Craige, Margaret
Jackson, and her brother John Stuart, and a man with black cloaths, and
a blue band, and white handcuffs, with hogers, and that his feet were
cloven: that declarant sat down by the fire with them when they made a
picture of clay, in which they placed pins in the breasts and sides;
that they placed one in every side, and one in the breast; that the
black man did put the pins in the picture of wax; but is not sure who
put the pins in the picture of clay; that the effigies produced are
those she saw made; that the black man’s name is Ejsal.

This declaration was emitted before _James Dunlop_, of _Husil_, and
_William Gremlage_, &c. Jan. 27, 1677, _ita est Robertus Park, Notarius
Publicus_.

“THE SECOND CONFESSION is of John Stuart, who being interrogate anent
the crime of witchcraft, declared that upon Wednesday, the third day of
January instant, _Bessie Weir_, in Pollocton, came to the declarant late
at night, who being without doors near to his own house, the said Bessie
Weir did intimate to him that there was a meeting to be at his house,
the next day; and that the devil under the shape of a black man,
Margaret Jackson, Margery Craige, and the said Bessie Weir were to be
present; and that Bessie Weir required declarant to be there, which he
promised; and that the next night, after declarant had gone to bed, the
black man came in, and called the declarant quietly by his name, upon
which he arose from his bed, put on his clothes and lighted a candle.
Declare, that Margaret Jackson, Bessie Weir, and Margery Craige, did
enter in at a window in the cavil of declarant’s house; and that the
first thing the black man required, was, that the declarant should
renounce his baptism, and deliver himself wholly to him; which the
declarant did, by putting one hand on the crown of his head, and the
other on the sole of his foot; and that he was tempted to it by the
devil promising him that he should not want any pleasure, and that he
should get his heart filled on all that should do him wrong. Declares,
that he gave him the name of Jonat for his spirit’s name; that
thereafter the devil required every one of their consents for the making
of the effigies of clay, for the taking away the life of Sir George
Maxwel, of Pollock, to revenge the taking of declarant’s mother, Jannet
Mathie, that every one of the persons above named, gave their consent to
the making of the said effigy, and that they wrought the clay; that the
black man did make the figure of the head and face, and two arms, to the
said effigy; that the devil set three pins in the same, on one each side
and one in the breast; and that the declarant did hold the candle to
them, all the time the picture was making. And that he observed one of
the black man’s feet to be cloven—that his apparel was black—that he had
a blueish band and handcuffs—that he had hogers on his legs, without
shoes; and that the black man’s voice was _hough_ and _goustie_: and
farther declares that after they had begun the framing of the effigies,
his sister, Annabil Stuart, a child of 13 or 14 years of age, came
knocking at the door, and being let in by the declarant, she staid with
them a considerable time, but that she went away before the rest, he
having opened the door for her—that the rest went out at the window at
which they entered—that the effigies was placed by Bessie Weir in his
bed-straw. He farther declares he himself did envy against Sir George
Maxwel, for apprehending Jannet Mathie, his mother; and that Bessie Weir
had great malice against this Sir George Maxwel, and that her quarrel
was, as the declarant conceived, because the said Sir George had not
entered her husband to his harvest service; also that the said
_effigies_ was made upon the fourth day of January instant, and that the
devil’s name was _Ejoal_; that declarant’s spirit’s name was Jonas, and
Bessie Weir’s spirit’s name, who was officer, was _Sopha_; and that
Margaret Jackson’s spirit’s name was _Locas_; and that Annabil Stuart’s
spirit’s name, the declarant’s sister, was Enippa; but does not remember
what _Margery Craige’s_ spirit’s name was. Declares that he cannot
write.

This confession was emitted in the presence of the witnesses to the
other confession, and on the same day.—_Ita est._ Robertus Park,
_Notarius Publicus_.

The next confession is that of Margaret, relict of Thomas Shaws, who
being examined by the justices, anent her being guilty of witchcraft,
declares that she was present at the making of the first effigies and
picture that were made in Jannet Mathie’s house, in October; and that
the devil, in the shape of a black man, Jannet Mathie, Bessie Weir,
Margery Craige, and Annabil Stuart, were present at the making of them,
and that they were made to represent Sir George Maxwel, of Pollock, for
the taking away his life. Declares, that 40 years ago, or thereabout,
she was at Pollockshaw Croft, with some few sticks on her back, that the
black man came to her, and that she did give up herself unto him, from
the top of her head to the sole of her foot; and that this was after
declarant had renounced her baptism, and that the spirit’s name which he
designed her was Locas: and that about the third or fourth of January
instant, or thereby, in the night-time, when she awaked, she found a man
to be in bed with her, whom she supposed to be her husband, though her
husband had been dead twenty years or thereby, and that the said man
immediately disappeared; that this man who disappeared was the devil.
Declares, that upon Thursday the fourth of January instant, she was
present in the house of John Stuart, at night, when the _effigies_ of
clay was made, and that she saw the black man there, sometimes sitting,
sometimes standing with John Stuart; and that the black man’s cloaths
were black, and that he had white handcuffs; and that Bessie Weir, in
Pollocton, and Annabil Stuart, in Shaws, and Margery Craigie, were at
the aforesaid time and place at making the said effigies of clay; and
declares that she gave her consent to the making of the same, and that
the devil’s name who _compeered_ in the black man’s shape was Ejoll.

_Sic Subscribitur, ita est_, Robertus Park, _Notatius Publicus_, &c.


    _Then follows the depositions of certain persons, agreeing with
                confessions of the above-said witches._

“Andr. Martin, Servitour to the Lord of Pollock, of the age of thirty
years, or thereby, deposes, that he was present in the house of Jannet
Mathie, Pannel, when the picture of wax produced was found in a little
hole in the wall at the back of the fire—that Sir George, his sickness
did fall upon him about the eighteenth of October, or thereby—that the
picture of wax was found on the —— of December, and that Sir George his
sickness did abate and relent about the time the picture of wax was
found and discovered in Jannet Mathie’s house—that the pins were placed
in the right and left sides; and that Sir George Maxwel, of Pollock, his
pains, lay most in his right and left sides. Depones, that Sir George’s
pains did abate and relent after the finding of the said picture of wax,
and taking out the pins as is said—that the pannel, Jannet Mathie, has
been by fame and bruite a reputed witch these several years past. And
this is the truth, as he shall answer to God.—_Sic Subscribitur, Andr.
Martin._”

“Lawrence Pollock, Secretary to the Lord of Pollock, sworn and purged of
partial counsel, depones that on the —— day of December he was in the
Pannel Jannet Mathie’s house when the picture was found; and that he did
not see it before it was brought to the Pannel’s door—that Sir George
Maxwel of Pollock’s sickness did seize upon him about the 14th of
October, or thereabouts, and he did continue in his sickness or
distemper for six weeks, or thereby—that Sir George’s sickness did abate
and relent after the finding of the said picture of wax, and taking out
of the pins that were in the effigies—that by open bruit and common
fame, Jannet Mathie, and Bessie Weir, and Margery Craige, are _brandit_
to be witches. Depones, that the truth is this, as he shall answer to
God.—_Sic Subscrib._ Lawrence Pollock.”

“LODAWIC’ STUART, of Auckenhead, being sworn and purged of partial
counsel, depones, that Sir George’s sickness fell upon him the 14th or
13th day of October—that he was not present at the finding of the
picture of wax; but that he had seen Sir George Maxwel, of Pollock,
after it was found; and having seen him in his sickness oftentimes
before, he did perceive that Sir George had sensibly recovered after the
time that the said picture was said to have been found, which was upon
the 11th or 12th of December—that Jannet Mathie and Margery Craigie, two
of the Pannel, are by report of the country said to be witches—that he
having come to Pollock, he did see Sir George Maxwel, whose pains did
recur, and that his pains and torments were greatly increased in respect
of what they were before the finding of the picture of wax—that upon the
eighth of January, when they left the said Sir George Maxwel, of
Pollock, the deponent James Dunlop, of Housil, Allan Douglass, and
several others, did go to the house of John Stuart, Warlock, on
Pollockshaw, and there he found a picture of clay in the said John
Stuart’s bed-straw—that there were three pins in the said picture of
clay, and that there was one on each side, and one in the breast—and
further depones, that being returned to Sir George’s house, Sir George
told the deponent that he found great ease of his pains, and that it was
before the deponent Hounsil, and the rest, did reveal to him that they
had found the said picture of clay, and further, that this is the truth,
as he shall answer to God.—_Sic. Subscrib._ Lodowick Stuart.”

                  *       *       *       *       *

There are more depositions of a similar nature whence these were
extracted, but these are enough to discover that the confession of those
witches are neither fables nor dreams. It belongs us, therefore, in this
enlightened age, when superstition has fled before the rays of science
and the influence of religion, to account for the then prevalent notion,
which appears so far to be authenticated, of the existence of witches.
It is not enough to say that people are barbarous, ignorant, or
unenlightened, to exculpate them from charges involving such strong
points as supernatural with human agency. In this stage of
investigation, nothing is more natural than to ask, did witches ever
exist? Yes.—Upon what authority? Sacred Writ.—Are there such beings as
witches now? We hear of none.—Then the last grand question, to which a
secret of some importance is attached—What has become of them? have they
vanished into viewless air, without leaving a wreck behind; or are they
consigned to the “bottom of the bottomless pit?” Of this we may say
something hereafter; while in the meantime we lay before our readers


            _The Confession of Agnes Sympson to King James._

“_Item._—Fyled and convict for samecle, as she confest before his
Majesty that the devil in man’s likeness met her going out in the
fields, from her own house a Keith, betwixt five and six at even, being
alone, and commendit her to be at Northborrick Kirk the next night. And
she passed then on horseback, conveyed by her good-son called John
Cooper, and lighted at the Kirk-yard, or a little before she came to it,
about eleven hours at even. They danced along the Kirk-yard, _Geilie
Duncan_ plaid to them on a trump, _John Fien_, mussiled, led all the
rest; the said Agnes and her daughter followed next. Besides there were
_Kate Grey_, _George Moile’s wife_, _Robert Guerson_, _Catherine Duncan
Buchanan_, _Thomas Barnhill_ and his _wife_, _Gilbert Macgil_, _John
Macgil_, _Catherine Macgil_, with the rest of their complices, above an
hundred persons, whereof there were six men, and all the rest women. The
women made first their homage and then the men. The men were turned nine
times Widdershins about, and the women six times. John Fien blew up the
doors and in the lights, which were like mickle black candles sticking
round about the pulpit. The devil started up himself in the pulpit, like
a mickle black man, and every one answered here. Mr. Robert Guerson
being named, they all ran hirdie girdie, and were angry; for it was
promised he should be called _Robert_ the _Comptroller_, alias _Rob_ the
_Rowar_, for expriming of his name. The first thing he demandit was, as
they kept all promise, and been good servants, and what they had done
since the last time they convened. At his command they opened up three
graves, two within, and one without the Kirk, and took off the joints of
their fingers, toes, and neise, and parted them amongst them: and the
said _Agnes Sympson_ got for her part a winding-sheet and two joints.
The devil commandit them to keep the joints upon them while they were
dry, and then to make a powder of them to do evil withal. Then he
commandit them to keep his commandments, which were to do all the evil
they could. Before they departed they kissed his breech [the record
speaks more broad.] He [meaning the devil] had on him ane gown and ane
hat, which were both black: and they that were assembled, part stood and
part sate: John Fien was ever nearest the devil, at his left elbock;
Graymarcal keeped the door.”

The Scotch accent has been here retained for the better authenticity of
the matter; the confession here given being, in all probability, a
principal reason why King James changed his opinion relative to the
existence of witches; which, it was reported, he was inclined to think
were mere conceits; as he was then but young (not above five or six and
twenty years of age) when this examination took place before him; and
part of the third chapter of his _Demonologie_ appears to be a
transcript of this very confession.

Agnes Sympson was remarkable for her skill in diseases, and frequently,
it is said, took the pains and sickness of the afflicted upon herself to
relieve them, and afterwards translated them to a third person: she made
use of long Scriptural rhymes and prayers, containing the principal
points of Christianity, so that she seemed not so much a white witch as
a holy woman. She also used nonsensical rhymes in the instruction of
ignorant people, and taught them to say the white and black Pater-noster
in metre, in set forms, to be used morning and evening; and at other
times, as occasion might require.


                  _The White Pater-noster_ runs thus:—

               God was my foster,
               He fostered me
               Under the book of Palm tree.
               St. Michael was my dame,
               He was born at Bethlehem.
               He was made of flesh and blood,
               God send me my right food;
               My right food, and dyne too,
               That I may too yon kirk go,
               To read upon yon sweet book,
               Which the mighty God of heaven shook.
               Open, open, heaven’s yaits,
               Steik, steik, hell’s yaits,
               All saints be the better,
               That hear the white prayer, Pater-noster.


                       _The Black Pater-noster._

            Four neuks in this house for holy angels,
            A post in the midst, that Christ Jesus,
            Lucas, Marcus, Mathew, Joannes,
            God be unto this house, and all that belong us.

Whenever she required an answer from the devil, on any occasion, he
always appeared to her in the shape of a dog. And when she wished him to
depart, she conjured him in the following manner, namely: “I charge thee
to depart on the law thou livest on:” this it is said was the language
with which she dismissed him, after consulting with him on old Lady
Edmiston’s sickness. The manner in which she raised the devil was with
these words: “Elia come and speak to me;” when he never failed to appear
to her in the shape of a dog, as usual. Her sailing with her _Kemmers_
and fellow witches in a boat is related as a very remarkable story,
where the devil caused them all to drink good wine and beer without
money; and of her neither seeing the sailors nor they her; and of the
storm which the devil raised, whereby the ship perished; also her
baptizing, and using other ceremonies upon a cat, in the company of
other witches, to prevent Queen Anne from coming to Scotland.

That which is most remarkable in John Fein, is the devil appearing to
him, not in black, but white raiment, although he proposed as hellish a
covenant to him as any in the black costume. His skimming along the
surface of the sea with his companions—his foretelling the leak in the
Queen’s ship—his raising a storm by throwing a cat into the sea, during
the King’s voyage to Denmark—his raising a mist on the King’s return, by
getting Satan to cast a thing like a foot-ball into the sea, which
caused such a smoke, as to endanger his Majesty being driven on the
coast of England—his opening locks by means of sorcery, by merely
blowing into a woman’s hand while she sat by the fire—his embarking in a
boat with other witches, sailing over the sea, getting on board of a
ship, drinking wine and ale there, and afterwards sinking the vessel
with all on board—his kissing Satan’s —e again, at another conventicle—
his being carried into the air, in chasing a cat, for the purpose of
raising a storm, according to Satan’s prescription. He pretended also to
tell any man how long he would live, provided he told him the day of his
birth.




                                SORCERY.


The crime of witchcraft, or divination, by the assistance of evil
spirits.

Sorcery is held by some to be properly what the ancients called
_Sortilegium_, or divination by means of _Sortes_ or lots.

Lord Coke (_3 Instit. fol. 44_,) describes a Sorcerer, _qui utitur
sortibus, et incantationibus dæmonium_. Sorcery, by _Stat. 1o.Jac._ is
felony. In another book it is said to be a branch of heresy; and by
_Stat. 12, Carolus II._ it is excepted out of the general pardons.

Sorcery is pretended to have been a very common thing formerly; the
credulity, at least, of those ages made it pass for such; people
frequently suffered for it. In a more enlightened and less believing
age, sorcery has fled before the penetrating rays of science, like every
other species of human superstition and complicated _diablerie_. For,
indeed, it is a very probable opinion, that the several glaring
instances of sorcery we meet, in our old law books and historians, if
well inquired into, would be found at bottom, to have more human art and
desperate malignity and vindictive cunning about them, than of
demoniacal and preternatural agency. Were it not for a wellregulated
police acting under wise regulations for the safety and harmony of
society, sorcerers and evil spirits would be equally as prevalent and
destructive at the present day, as they were some two or three hundred
years ago.




                          SORTES.—SORTILEGIUM.


The ancients had a method of deciding dubious cases, where there
appeared no ground for a preference, by _Sortes_ or lots, as in casting
of dice, drawing tickets, and various other ways, many of which are
still adopted.

The ancient _sortes_ or _lots_, were instituted by God himself; and in
the Old Testament we meet with many standing and perpetual laws, and a
number of particular commands, prescribing and regulating the use of
them. Thus Scripture informs us that the lot fell on St. Matthias, when
a successor to Judas in the apostolate was to be chosen. Our Saviour’s
garment itself was cast lots for. _Sortiti sunt Christo vestem._

The SORTES _Prænestinæ_ were famous among the Greeks. The method of
these was to put a great number of letters, or even whole words, into an
urn; to shake them together, and throw them out; and whatever should
chance to be made out in the arrangement of the letters, &c. composed
the answer of this oracle.

In what repute soever this mode of divination formerly might have been,
M. Dacier observes, that, in Cicero’s time, its credit was but low; so
much so, that none but the most credulous part of the populace had
recourse to it. Instead of this another kind of _sortes_ was introduced
into Greece and Italy; which was, to take some celebrated poet, as for
instance Homer, Euripides, Virgil, &c., to open the book, and whatever
first presented itself to the eye on opening, it thus was taken for the
ordinance of heaven. This made what was called the _Sortes Homericæ_ and
_Sortes Virgilianæ_, which succeeded the use of the _Sortes Prænestinæ_.

This superstition passed hence into Christianity; and the Christians
took their sortes out of the Old and New Testament. The first passage
that presented itself on opening a book of Scripture, was esteemed the
answer of God himself. If the first passage that was opened did not
happen to be any thing to the purpose for which the _sortes_ were
consulted, another book was opened, and so on until something was met
with that might, one way or the other, be taken for an answer. This was
called _Sortes Sanctorum_.

St. Augustine does not disapprove of this method of learning futurity,
provided it be not used for worldly purposes; and, in fact, he owns
having practised it himself.

Gregory of Tours adds, that the custom was to lay the Bible on the
altar, and to pray the Lord that he would discover by it what was to
come to pass. Indeed, instances of the use of the _Sanctum Sanctorum_
are very frequent in history. Mr. Fleury tells us that Heraclius, in his
war against Cossoes, to learn where he should take up his winter
quarters, purified his army for three days, and then opened the Gospels,
and discovered thereby that the place appointed for them was in Albania.

Gilbert of Nogent informs us, that, in his time, viz. about the
beginning of the twelfth century, the custom was, at the consecration of
bishops, to consult the _Sortes Sanctorum_, to learn the success, fate,
and other particulars of their episcopate. This practice is founded on a
supposition that God presides over the _Sortes_, and this is
strengthened by Prov. chap. xvi. verse 33, where it is said, “_The lot
is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord_.”

In fact, many divines have held, and even now many of them still hold,
that the lot is conducted in a particular manner by Providence; that it
is an extraordinary manner, in which God declares his will by a kind of
immediate revelation. The _Sortes Sanctorum_, however, were condemned by
the council of Agda, in 506, at the time they were beginning to take
footing in France.

This practice crept in among the Christians, of casually opening the
sacred books for directions in important circumstances; to know the
consequences of events; and what they had to fear from their rulers.

This consultation of the divine will from the Scriptures, was of two
kinds:—The first consisted, as I have said, in casually opening those
writings, but not before the guidance of heaven had been implored with
prayer, fasting, and other acts of religion. The second was much more
simple: the first words of the Scripture, which were singing or reading,
at the very instant when the person, who came to know the disposition of
heaven, entered the church, being considered either an advice, or a
prognostic.

St. Austin, in his epistle to Januarius, justly condemns the practice;
but St. Gregory of Tours, by the following instance, which he relates as
having happened to himself, shows that he entertained a better opinion
of it:—“Leudastus, Earl of Tours,” says he, “who was for ruining me with
Queen Fredegonde, coming to Tours, big with evil designs against me, I
withdrew to my oratory under a deep concern, where I took the Psalms, to
try if, at opening them, I should light upon some consoling verse. My
heart revived within me, when I cast my eyes on this of the 77th Psalm,
‘He caused them to go on with confidence, whilst the sea swallowed up
their enemies.’ Accordingly, the Count spoke not a word to my prejudice;
and leaving Tours that very day, the boat in which he was, sunk in a
storm, but his skill in swimming saved him.”

The following is also from the same author. “Chranmes having revolted
against Clotaire, his brother, and being at Dijon, the ecclesiastics of
the place, in order to foreknow the success of this procedure, consulted
the sacred books; but instead of the Psalms, they made use of St. Paul’s
Epistles, and the Prophet Isaiah. Opening the latter they read these
words: ‘I will pluck up the fence of my vineyard, and it shall be
destroyed, because instead of good, it has brought forth bad grapes.’
The Epistles agreeing with the prophecy, it was concluded to be a sure
presage of the tragical end of Cranmes.”

St. Consortia, in her youth, was passionately courted by a young man of
a very powerful family, though she had formed a design of taking the
veil. Knowing that a refusal would expose her parents to many
inconveniences, and perhaps to danger, she desired a week’s time to
determine her choice. At the expiration of this time, which she had
employed in devout exercises, her lover, accompanied by the most
distinguished matrons of the city, came to know her answer. “I can
neither accept of you nor refuse you,” said she, “every thing is in the
hand of God: but if you will agree to it, let us go to the church, and
have a mass said; afterwards, let us lay the holy gospel on the altar,
and say a joint prayer; then we will open the book, to be certainly
informed of the divine will in this affair.” This proposal could not
with propriety be refused; and the first verse which met the eyes of
both, was the following: “Whosoever loveth father or mother better than
me, is not worthy of me.” Upon this, Consortia said, “You see God claims
me as his own;” and the lover acquiesced.

But about the eighth century, this practice began to lose ground, as
soon or late, reason and authority will get the better of that which is
founded on neither. It was proscribed by several popes and councils, and
in terms which rank it among Pagan superstitions. However, some traces
of this custom are found for several ages after, both in the Greek and
the Latin church. Upon the consecration of a bishop, after laying the
bible upon his head, a ceremony still subsisted, that the first verse
which offered itself, was accounted an omen of his future behaviour, and
of the good or evil which was reserved for him in the course of his
episcopacy. Thus, a Bishop of Rochester, at his consecration by
Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, had a very happy presage in these
words: “Bring hither the best robe, and put it on him.” But the answer
of the Scripture, at the consecration of St. Lietbert, Bishop of
Cambray, was still more grateful: “This is my beloved son, in whom I am
well pleased.” The death of Albert, Bishop of Liege, is said to have
been intimated to him by these words, which the Archbishop, who
consecrated him, found at the opening of the New Testament, “And the
king sent an executioner, and commanded his head to be brought; and he
went and beheaded him in the prison.” Upon this the primate tenderly
embracing the new bishop, said to him with tears, “My son, having given
yourself up to the service of God, carry yourself righteously and
devoutly, and prepare yourself for the trial of martyrdom.” The Bishop
was afterwards murdered by the treacherous connivance of the Emperor
Henry VI.

These prognostics were alleged upon the most important occasions. De
Garlande, Bishop of Orleans, became so odious to his clergy, that they
sent a complaint against him to Pope Alexander III. concluding in this
manner: “Let your apostolical hands put on strength to _strip naked_ the
iniquity of this man; that the curse prognosticated on the day of his
consecration, may overtake him; for the gospels being opened, _according
to custom_, the first words were, _And the young man, leaving his linen
cloth, fled from them naked_.”

William of Malmsbury relates, that Hugh de Montaigne, Bishop of Auxerre,
was obliged to go to Rome, to answer different charges brought against
the purity of his morals, by some of his chapter; but they who held with
the bishop, as an irrefragable proof of his spotless chastity, insisted
that the prognostic on the day of his consecration was, “Hail, Mary,
full of grace.”

I proceed to the second manner of this consultation, which was to go
into a church with the intention of receiving, as a declaration of the
will of Heaven, any words of the Scripture which might chance to be sung
or read, at the moment of the person’s entrance. Thus, it is said, St.
Anthony, to put an end to his irresolution about retirement, went to a
church, where immediately hearing the deacon pronounce these words, “Go
sell all thou hast, and give it to the poor, then come and follow me;”
he applied them to himself, as a direct injunction from God, and
withdrew to that solitude for which he is so celebrated among the
Catholics.

The following passage from Gregory of Tours, is too remarkable to be
omitted. He relates that Clovis, the first Christian king of France,
marching against Alaric, King of the Visgoths, and being near the city
of Tours, where the body of St. Martin was deposited, he sent some of
his nobles, with presents to be offered at the saint’s tomb, to see if
they could not bring him a promising augury, while he himself uttered
this prayer “Lord, if thou wouldest have me punish this impious people,
the savage enemy of thy holy name, give me some signal token, by which I
may be assured that such is thy will.” Accordingly, his messengers had
no sooner set foot within the cathedral, than they heard the priest
chaunt forth this verse of the eighteenth Psalm, “Thou hast girded me
with strength for war, thou hast subdued under me those that rose up
against me.” Transported at these words, after laying the presents at
the tomb of the saint, they hastened to the King with this favourable
prognostic; Clovis joyfully accepted it, and engaging Alaric, gained a
complete victory.

Here also may be subjoined a passage in the history of St. Louis IX. In
the first emotions of his clemency, he had granted a pardon to a
criminal under sentence of death; but some minutes after, happening to
alight upon this verse of the Psalms, “Blessed is he that doth
righteousness at all times;” he recalled his pardon, saying, “The King
who has power to punish a crime, and does not do it, is, in the sight of
God, no less guilty than if he had committed it himself.”

The _Sortes Sanctorum_ were fulminated against by various councils. The
council of Varres “forbade all ecclesiastics, under pain of
excommunication, to perform that kind of divination, or to pry into
futurity, by looking into any book, or writing, whatsoever.” The council
of Ayde, in 506, expressed itself to the same effect; as did those of
Orleans, in 511; and Auxerre, in 595. It appears, however, to have
continued very common, at least in England, so late as the twelfth
century: the council of Aenham, which met there in 1110, condemned
jointly, sorcerers, witches, diviners, such as occasioned death by
magical operations, and who practised fortune-telling by the holy
book-lots.

Peter de Blois, who wrote at the close of the twelfth century, places
among the sorcerers, those who, under the veil of religion, promised, by
certain superstitious practices, such as the lots of the Apostles and
Prophets, to discover hidden and future events: yet this same Peter de
Blois, one of the most learned and pious men of his age, in a letter to
Reginald, whose election to the see of Bath had a long time been
violently opposed, tells him, that he hopes he has overcome all
difficulties; and further, that he believes he is, or soon will be,
established in his diocese. “This belief,” says he, “I ground on a dream
I lately had two nights successively, of being at your consecration; and
also, that being desirous of knowing its certain meaning, by lots of
human curiosity, and the Psalter, the first which occurred to me were,
‘Moses and Aaron among his priests.’”

Thus, though the ancient fathers, and, since them, others have in
general agreed, that the _Sortes Sanctorum_ cannot be cleared of
superstition, though they assert that it was tempting God, to expect
that he would inform us of futurity, and reveal to us the secrets of his
will, whenever the sacred book is opened for such a purpose, though it
contain nothing which looks like a promise of that kind from God; though
so far from being warranted by any ecclesiastical law, it has been
condemned by several, and, at last, in more enlightened times, has been
altogether abolished, yet they do not deny, that there have been
occasions, when discreet and pious persons have opened the sacred book,
not to discover futurity, but to meet with some passage to support them
in times of distress and persecution.




                                SIBYLS.


This word is supposed to be formed of the two Greek words σιου for Θεου
_Dei_, and βουλη counsel.

The Sibyllæ of antiquity were virgin-prophetesses, or maids supposed to
be divinely inspired; who, in the height of their enthusiasm, gave
oracles, and foretold things to come.

Authors are at variance with respect to the number of sibyls. Capella
reckons but two; _viz._ Erophyte of Troy, called Sibylla Phrygia; and
Sinuachia of Erythræa. Solinus mentions three, _viz._ Cumæa, Delphica,
and Erythræa. Ælian makes their number four, and Varro increases it to
ten, denominating them from the places of their birth; the Persian,
Delphic, Cumæan, Erythræan, Samian, Cuman, Hellespontic or Troiad,
Phrygian, and Tiburtine. Of these the most celebrated are, the
Erythræan, Delphic, and Cumæan Sibyls.

The sibylline oracles were held in great veneration by the more
credulous among the ancients; but they were much suspected by the better
informed. The books wherein they were written, were kept by the Romans
with infinite care; and nothing of moment was undertaken without
consulting them. Tarquin first committed them to the custody of two
patrician priests for that purpose.




                               TALISMANS.


Magical figures, engraven or cut under superstitious observances of the
characterisms and configurations of the heavens, are called talismans;
to which some astrologers, hermetical philosophers, and other adepts,
attribute wonderful virtues, particularly that of calling down celestial
influences.

The author of a book, intituled _Talismans Justifies_, pronounces a
talisman is the seal, figure, character, or image of a heavenly sign,
constellation, or planet, engraven on a sympathetic stone, or on a metal
corresponding to the star, &c. in order to receive its influences.

The talismans of the Samothracians, so famous of old, were pieces of
iron formed into certain images, and set in rings, &c. They were held as
preservatives against all kinds of evils. There were other talismans
taken from vegetables, and others from minerals.

Three kinds of _Talismans_ were usually distinguished, _viz._
_Astronomical_, which are known by the signs or constellations of the
heavens engraven upon them, with other figures, and some unintelligible
characters. _Magical_, which bear very extraordinary figures, with
superstitious words and names of angels unheard of. And _mixt_, which
consist of signs and barbarous words; but have no superstitious ones, or
names of angels.

It is maintained by some rabbins, that the brazen serpent raised by
Moses in the Wilderness, for the destruction of the serpents that
annoyed the Israelites, was properly a _Talisman_.

All the miraculous things wrought by Apollonius Tyanæus are attributed
to the virtue and influence of _Talismans_; and that wizard, as he is
called, is even said to have been the inventor of them.

Some authors take several Runic medals,—medals, at least, whose
inscriptions are in the Runic characters,—for talismans, it being
notorious, that the northern nations, in their heathen state, were much
devoted to them. M. Keder, however, has shewn, that the medals here
spoken of are quite other things than talismans.




                         PHILTERS, CHARMS, &c.


A drug, or other preparation, used as a pretended charm to excite love.
These are distinguished into true and spurious: the spurious are spells
or charms supposed to have an effect beyond the ordinary law of nature,
by some inherent magic virtue; such are those said to be possessed
formerly by old women, witches, &c.—The true Philters were supposed to
operate by some natural and magnetical power. There are many
enthusiastic and equally credulous authors, who have encouraged the
belief in the reality of these Philters; and adduce matter in fact in
confirmation of their opinions, as in all doubtful cases. Among these
may be quoted Van Helmont, who says, that by holding a certain herb in
his hand, and afterwards taking a little dog by the foot with the same
hand, the animal followed him wherever he went, and quite deserted his
former master. He also adds, that Philters only require a confirmation
of Mumia[51]; and on this principle he accounts for the phenomena of
love transplanted by the touch of an herb; for, says he, the heat
communicated to the herb, not coming alone, but animated by the
emanations of the natural spirits, determines the herb towards the man,
and identifies it to him. Having then received this ferment, it attracts
the spirit of the other object magnetically, and gives it an amorous
motion. But all this is mere absurdity, and has fallen to the ground
with the other irrational hypothesis from the same source.




                                 HELL,


A place of punishment, where, we are told in Scripture, the wicked are
to receive the reward of their evil deeds, after this life. In this
sense, hell is the antithesis of HEAVEN.

Among the ancients hell was called by various names, Ταρταρος, Ταρταρᾶ,
_Tartarus_, _Tartara_; Ἁδης, _Hades_, _Infernus_, _Inferna_, _Inferi_,
&c.—The Jews, wanting a proper name for it, called it _Gehenna_, or
Gehinnon, from a valley near Jerusalem, wherein was Tophet, or place
where a fire was perpetually kept.

Divines reduce the torments of hell to two kinds, _pœna damni_, the loss
and privation of the beatific vision; and _pœna sensus_, the horrors of
darkness, with the continual pains of fire inextinguishable.

Most nations and religions have a notion of a hell. The hell of the
poets is terrible enough: witness the punishment of Tityus, Prometheus,
the Danæids, Lapithæ, Phlegyas, &c. described by Ovid, in his
_Metamorphosis_. Virgil, after a survey of Hell, _Æneid_, lib. vi.
declares, that if he had a hundred mouths and tongues, they would not
suffice to recount all the plagues of the tortured. The New Testament
represents hell as _a lake of fire and brimstone_; and _a worm which
dies not_, &c. Rev. xx. 10, 14, &c. Mark ix. 43, &c. Luke xvi. 23, &c.

The Caffres are said to admit thirteen hells, and twenty-seven
paradises; where every person finds a place suited to the degree of good
or evil he has done.

There are two great points of controversy among writers, touching hell:
the first, whether there be any local hell, any proper and specific
place of torment by fire? the second, whether the torments of hell are
to be eternal?

I. The locality of hell, and the reality of the fire thereof, have been
controverted from the time of Origen. That father, in his treatise Περι
Αρχαν, interpreting the scripture account metaphorically, makes hell to
consist not in eternal punishments, but in the conscience of sinners,
the sense of their guilt, and the remembrance of their past pleasures.
St. Augustine mentions several of the same opinion in his time; and
Calvin, and many of his followers, have embraced it in ours.

The retainers to the contrary opinion, who are much the greatest part of
mankind, are divided as to situation, and other circumstances of this
horrible scene. The Greeks, after Homer, Hesiod, &c. conceived hell,
τοπον τινα ὐπο την γην μεγσν, &c. a large and dark place under the
earth.—Lucian, _de Luctu_; and Eustathius, _on Homer_.

Some of the Romans lodged in the subterranean regions directly under the
lake Avernus, in Campania, which they were led to from the consideration
of the poisonous vapours emitted by that lake. Through a dark cave, near
this lake, Virgil makes Æneas descend to hell.

Others placed hell under Tenarus, a promontory of Laconia; as being a
dark frightful place, beset with thick woods, out of which there was no
finding a passage. This way, Ovid says, Orpheus descended to hell.
Others fancied the river or fountain of Styx, in Arcadia, the
spring-head of hell, by reason the waters thereof were mortal.

But these are all to be considered as only fables of poets; who,
according to the genius of their art, allegorizing and personifying
every thing, from the certain death met withal in those places, took
occasion to represent them as so many gates, or entering-places into the
other world.

The primitive Christians conceiving the earth a large extended plain,
and the heavens an arch drawn over the same, took hell to be a place in
the earth, the farthest distant from the heavens; so that their hell was
our antipodes.

Tertullian, _De Anima_, represents the Christians of his time, as
believing hell to be an abyss in the centre of the earth: which opinion
was chiefly founded on the belief of Christ’s descent into _hades_,
hell, Matt. xii. 40.

Mr. Wiston has lately advanced a new opinion. According to him, the
comets are to be conceived as so many hells, appointed in the course of
their trajectories, or orbits, alternately to carry the damned into the
confines of the sun, there to be scorched by his flames, and then to
return them to starve in the cold, dreary, dark regions, beyond the orb
of Saturn.

The reverend and orthodox Mr. T. Surnden, in an express _Inquiry into
the nature and place of Hell_, not contented with any of the places
hitherto assigned, contends for a new one. According to him, the sun
itself is the _local hell_.

This does not seem to be his own discovery: it is probable he was led
into it by that passage in Rev. xvi. 8, 9. Though it must be added, that
Pythagoras seems to have the like view, in that he places hell in the
sphere of fire; and that sphere in the middle of the universe. Add, that
Aristotle mentions some of the Italic or Pythagoric school, who placed
the sphere of fire in the sun, and even called it Jupiter’s Prison.—_De
Cælo_, lib. ii.

To make way for his own system, Mr. Swinden undertakes to remove hell
out of the centre of the earth, from these two considerations:—1. That a
fund of fuel or sulphur, sufficient to maintain so furious and constant
a fire, cannot be there supposed; and, 2. That it must want the nitrous
particles in the air, to sustain and keep it alive. And how, says he,
can such fire be eternal, when by degrees the whole substance of the
earth must be consumed thereby?

It must not be forgot, however, that Tertullian had long ago obviated
the former of these difficulties, by making a difference between
_arcanus_ and _publicus ignis_, secret and open fire: the nature of the
first, according to him, is such, as that it not only consumes, but
repairs what it preys upon. The latter difficulty is solved by St.
Augustine, who alleges, that God supplies the central fire with air, by
a miracle.

Mr. Swinden, however, proceeds to shew, that the central parts of the
earth are possessed by water rather than fire; which he confirms by what
Moses says of _water under the earth_, Exod. xx. from Psalm xxiv. 2, &c.

As a further proof, he alleges, that there would want room in the centre
of the earth, for such an infinite host of inhabitants as the fallen
angels and wicked men.

Drexelius, we know, has fixed the dimensions of hell to a German cubic
mile, and the number of the damned to an hundred thousand millions: _De
Damnator_, _Carcer_, &c. Rogo. But Mr. Swinden thinks he need not to
have been so sparing in his number, for that there might be found an
hundred times as many; and that they must be insufferably crowded in any
space he could allow them on our earth. It is impossible, he concludes,
to stow such a multitude of spirits in such a scanty apartment, without
a penetration of dimensions, which, he doubts, in good philosophy, even
in respect of spirits: “If it be (he adds,) why God should prepare, _i.
e._ make, a prison for them, when they might all have been crowded
together into a baker’s oven.” p. 206.

His arguments for the sun’s being the local hell are: 1. Its capacity.
Nobody will deny the sun spacious enough to receive all the damned
conveniently; so that there will be no want of room. Nor will fire be
wanting, if we admit of Mr. Swinden’s argument against Aristotle,
whereby he demonstrates, that the sun is hot, p. 208, _et seq._ The good
man is “filled with amazement to think what Pyrenian mountains of
sulphur, how many Atlantic oceans of scalding bitumen, must go to
maintain such mighty flames as those of the sun; to which our Ætna and
Vesuvius are mere glow-worms.” p. 137.

2. Its distance and opposition to the empyreum, which has usually been
looked upon as the local heaven: such opposition is perfectly answerable
to that opposition in the nature and office of a place of angels and
devils, of elect and reprobate, of glory and horror, of hallelujahs and
cursings; and the distance quadrates well with Dives seeing Abraham
_afar off, and the great gulph between them_; which this author takes to
be the solar vortex.

3. That the empyreum is the highest, and the sun the lowest place of the
creation; considering it as the centre of our system; and that the sun
was the first part of the visible world created; which agrees with the
notion of its being primarily intended or prepared to receive the
angels, whose fall he supposes to have immediately preceded the
creation.

4. The early and almost universal idolatry paid to the sun; which suits
well with the great subtilty of that spirit, to entice mankind to
worship his throne.

II. As to the eternity of _hell torments_, we have Origen again at the
head of those who deny it; it being the doctrine of that writer, that
not only men, but devils themselves, after a suitable course of
punishment, answerable to their respective crimes, shall be pardoned and
restored to heaven.—_De civit. Dei._ l. xxi. c. 17. The chief principle
Origen went upon was this, that all punishments was emendatory; applied
only to painful medicines, for the recovery of the patient’s health. And
other objections, insisted on by modern authors, are the disproportion
between temporary crimes and eternal punishments, &c.

The scripture phrases for eternity, as is observed by Archbishop
Tillotson, do not always import an infinite duration: thus, in the Old
Testament, _for ever_ often signifies only for a long time; particularly
till the end of the Jewish dispensation: thus in the epistle of _Jude_,
ver. 7, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are said to be set forth for an
example, suffering the vengeance of _eternal fire_; that is, of a fire
that was not extinguished till those cities were utterly consumed. So
one generation is said to come, &c. but the earth endureth _for ever_.

In effect, Mr. Le Clerc notes, that there is no Hebrew word which
properly expresses eternity: ‏עולם‎ _gnolam_, only imports a time whose
beginning or end is not known; and is accordingly used in a more or less
extensive sense, according to the thing treated of.

Thus when God says, concerning the Jewish laws, that they must be
observed ‏לעולם‎ _legnolam_, for ever, we are to understand as long a
space as we should think fit; or a space whose end was unknown to the
Jews before the coming of the Messiah. All general laws, and such as do
not regard particular occasions, are made _for ever_, whether it be
expressed in those laws, or not; which yet is to be understood in such a
manner, as if the sovereign power could no way change them.

Archbishop Tillotson, however, argues very strenuously, that where _hell
torments_ are spoken of, the words are to be understood in the strict
sense of infinite duration; and what he esteems a peremptory decision of
the point is, that the duration of the punishment of the wicked is in
the very same sentence expressed by the very same word which is used for
the duration of the happiness of the righteous, which all agree to be
eternal. “These, speaking of the wicked, shall go away εις ηολασιν
ονεωνιον, into eternal punishment; but the righteous, εις ζωην αιωνι,
into life eternal.”

Oldham, in his “Satires upon the Jesuits,” alludes to their “lying
legends,” and the numerous impositions they practised on the credulous.
The following lines are quoted from these legendary miracles, noticed
under the article LEGEND, and the amours of the Virgin Mary are narrated
in vol. ii. under the article _Religious Nouvellete_:—

       Tell, how _blessed Virgin_ to come down was seen,
       Like playhouse punk descending in machine,
       How she writ _billet-doux_ and _love discourse_,
       Made _assignations_, _visits_, and _amours_;
       How hosts distrest, her smock for _banner_ wore,
       Which vanquished foes!
       ——How fish in conventicles met,
       And _mackerel_ were the _bait_ of _doctrine_ caught;
       How cattle have judicious hearers been!
       How consecrated hives with bells were hung,
       And _bees_ kept mass, and holy _anthems sung_!
       How _pigs_ to the _rosary_ kneel’d, and sheep were taught
       To bleat _Te Deum_ and _Magnificat_;
       How _fly-flap_, of church-censure houses rid
       Of insects, which at _curse_ of _fryar_ died.
       How _ferrying cowls_ religious pilgrims bore
       O’er waves, without the help of sail or oar;
       How _zealous crab_ the _sacred image_ bore,
       And swam a catholic to the distant shore.
       With shams like these the giddy rout mislead,
       Their folly and their superstition feed.

These are all extravagant fictions in the “Golden legend.” Among other
gross and equally absurd impositions to deceive the mob, Oldham also
attacks them for certain publications on topics not less singular. The
tales he has recounted, says Oldham, are only baits for children like
toys at a fair; but they have their profounder and higher matters for
the learned and the inquisitive.

              One undertakes by scales of miles to tell
              The bounds, dimensions, and extent of hell;
              How many German leagues that realm contains!
              How many hell each year expends
              In coals, for roasting Hugonots and friends!
              Another frights the rout with useful stories
              Of wild chimeras, limbos, PURGATORIES!
              Where bloated souls in smoky durance hung
              Like a Westphalia gammon or neat’s tongue,
              To be redeemed with masses and a song.

Topographical descriptions of HELL, PURGATORY, and even HEAVEN, were
once favourite researches among certain orthodox and zealous defenders
of the papish church, who exhausted their materials in fabricating a
hell to their own ideas, or for their particular purpose. There is a
treatise of Cardinal Bellarmin, a jesuit, on _Purgatory_, wherein he
appears to possess all the knowledge of a land-measurer among the secret
tracts and formidable divisions of “the bottomless pit.” This jesuit
informs us that there are beneath the earth four different places, or a
place divided into four parts; the deepest of which is hell: it contains
all the souls of the damned, where will be also their bodies after the
resurrection, and likewise all the demons. The place nearest hell is
_purgatory_, where souls are purged, or rather where they appease the
anger of God by their sufferings. The same fires and the same torments,
he says, are alike in both places, the only difference between _hell_
and _purgatory_ consisting in their duration. Next to _purgatory_ is the
_limbo_ of those _infants_ who die without having received the
sacrament; and the fourth place is the limbo of the _Fathers_; that is
to say, of those _just men_ who died before the death of Christ. But
since the days of the Redeemer this last division is empty, like an
apartment to let. A later Catholic theologist, the famous Tillemont,
condemns all the _illustrious pagans to the eternal torments of hell_!
because they lived before the time of Jesus, and, therefore, could not
be benefited by the redemption! Speaking of young Tiberius, who was
compelled to fall on his own sword, Tillemont adds, “Thus by his own
hand he ended his miserable life, _to begin another, the misery of which
will never end_!” Yet history records nothing bad of this prince. Jortin
observes, that he added this _reflection_ in his later edition, so that
the good man as he grew older grew more uncharitable in his religious
notions. It is in this matter too that the Benedictine editor of Justin
Martyr speaks of the illustrious pagans. This father, after highly
applauding Socrates, and a few more who resembled him, inclines to think
that they are not fixed in _hell_. But the Benedictine editor takes
infinite pains to clear the good father from the shameful imputation of
supposing that a _virtuous pagan might be saved_ as well as a
Benedictine monk[52]!

The adverse party, who were either philosophers or reformers, received
all such information with great suspicion. Anthony Cornelius, a lawyer
in the 16th century, wrote a small tract, which was so effectually
suppressed, as a monster of atheism, that a copy is now only to be found
in the hands of the curious. This author ridiculed the absurd and horrid
doctrine of _infant damnation_, and was instantly decried as an atheist,
and the printer prosecuted to his ruin! Cœlius Secundus Curio, a noble
Italian, published a treatise _De Amplitudine beati regno Dei_, to prove
that heaven has more inhabitants than hell, or in his own phrase, that
the _elect_ are more numerous than the _reprobate_. However we may
incline to smile at these works, their design was benevolent. They were
the first streaks of the morning-light of the Reformation. Even such
works assisted mankind to examine more closely, and hold in greater
contempt, the extravagant and pernicious doctrines of the domineering
papistical church.




                              INQUISITION.


In the civil and canon law, inquisition implies a manner of proceeding
for the discovery of some crime by the sole office of the judge, in the
way of search, examination, or even torture. It is also used in common
law for a like process in the king’s behalf, for the discovery of lands,
profits, and the like; in which sense it is often confounded with the
office of the


                   _Inquisition, or the Holy Office_,

Which denotes an ecclesiastical jurisdiction established in Spain,
Portugal, and Italy, for the trial and examination of such persons as
are suspected to entertain any religious opinions contrary to those
professed in the church of Rome. It is called _inquisition_ because the
judges of their office take cognizances of crime or common report,
without any legal evidence, except what they themselves fish out.

Some people fancy they see the original inquisition, in a constitution
made by Pope Lucius, at the council of Verona, in 1184, where he orders
the bishops to get information, either by themselves or by their
commissaries, of all such persons as were suspected of heresy; and
distinguishes the several degrees of suspected, convicted, penitent,
relapsed, &c. However this may be, it is generally allowed, that Pope
Innocent III., laid the first foundation of the _holy office_; and that
the Vaudois and Albigenses were what gave the occasion to it. The
pontiff sent several priests, with St. Dominic at their head, to
Tholouse, in order to blow up a spirit of zeal and persecution amongst
the prelates and princes. These missionaries were to give an account of
the number of heretics in those parts, and the behaviour of the princes
and persons in authority to them; and thence they acquired the names of
inquisitors: but these original inquisitors had not any court, or any
authority; they were only a kind of spiritual spies, who were to make
report of their discoveries to the Pope.

The Emperor Frederick II. at the beginning of the 13th century, extended
their power very considerably: he committed the taking cognizances of
the crime of heresy, to a set of ecclesiastical judges; and as fire was
the punishment decreed to the obstinate, the inquisitors determined
indirectly, with regard both to the persons and the crimes; by which
means the laity was cut off from its own jurisdiction, and abandoned to
the devout madness and zeal of the ecclesiastics.

After the death of Frederick, who had long before repented the power he
had given the churchmen, as having seen some of the fruits of it; Pope
Innocent IV. erected a perpetual tribunal of inquisitors, and deprived
the bishops and secular judges of the little power the Emperor Frederick
had left them. And this jurisdiction, which depended immediately on
himself, he took care to introduce into most of the states of Europe.
But the inquisitors were so fiery hot, and made such horrid butchery
among the reputed heretics, that they raised an universal detestation,
even in some Catholic countries themselves. Hence it was that their
reign proved very short both in France and Germany; nor was even Spain
entirely subject to them till the time of Ferdinand and Isabella, in
1448, when their power was increased, under the pretence of clearing the
country of Judaism and Mahometanism. The power of the inquisition is
very much limited in some countries, particularly at Venice, where it is
received under such modifications as prove a great check on its
authority. Indeed at Venice it seems rather a political than a religious
contrivance, and serves rather for the security of the state, than that
of the church. There are appeals from the subaltern inquisitions in
Italy, to the congregation of the holy office at Rome.

It is the constant practice of the inquisition to affect, in all their
procedures, to inspire as much terror as possible; every thing is done
with the most profound silence and secrecy, and with the greatest rigour
and pretended impartiality. When a person is seized all the world
abandons him; not the nearest friend dares to speak a word in his
defence; that alone would be enough to render them suspected of heresy,
and would bring them within the claws of the inquisition. The criminals
are seized, examined, tried, tortured, and unless they recant, are even
condemned and executed, without ever seeing or knowing their accusers;
whence the revengeful have a fair opportunity of wreaking their malice
on their enemies. When the inquisition has done with them, and condemned
them to death, they are turned over to the secular arm, with a world of
prayer, and pious entreaty, that their lives may not be touched.

Time is no manner of security in point of heresy, nor does the grave
itself shelter the accused from the pursuits of the inquisition; even
the deceased have their trials, and they proceed in all their form and
solemnity against the dead carcases. The execution is always deferred
till the number of condemned is very great, that the multitude of
sufferers may strike the deeper horror, and make the scene more terrible
and shocking.

The inquisition of Rome is a congregation of twelve cardinals and some
other officers, where the Pope presides in person. This is accounted the
highest tribunal in Rome; it began in the time of Pope Paul IV. on
occasion of the Lutheranism.

The inquisition is very severe in the Indies. It is true, there must
there be the oaths of seven witnesses to condemn a man; but the
deposition of slaves or children are taken. The person is tortured till
he condemns himself; for his accusers are never brought to confront him.
Persons are accused for the most slender expression against the church;
or even for a disrespectful word against the inquisitors.

The standard of the inquisition is a piece of red damask, on which is
painted a cross, with an olive branch on one side and a sword on the
other; with these words of the Psalm, _Exurge, Domine, et judica causam
meam_.

This infernal engine of tyranny, bigotry, and superstition, did not
become known in Spain before the year 1484. The court of Rome owed this
obligation to another Dominican, John de Torquemada. As he was the
confessor of Queen Isabella, he had extorted from her a promise that if
ever she ascended the throne, she would use every means to extirpate
heresy and heretics. Ferdinand had conquered Grenada, and had expelled
from the Spanish realms multitudes of unfortunate Moors. A few remained,
who, with the Jews, he compelled to become Christians: they at least
assumed the name, but it was well known that both these nations
naturally respected their own faith, rather than that of the Christians.
This race was afterwards distinguished as _Christianos novos_; and in
marriages, the blood of the Hidalgo was considered to lose its purity by
mingling with such a suspicious source.

It was pretended by Torquemada, that this dissimulation would greatly
hurt the holy religion. The Queen listened with respectful diffidence to
her confessor; and at length gained over the king to consent to the
establishment of the unrelenting tribunal. Torquemada, indefatigable in
his zeal for the holy see, in the space of fourteen years that he
exercised the office of chief inquisitor, is said to have prosecuted
near eighty thousand persons, of whom six thousand were condemned to the
flames.

Voltaire attributes the taciturnity of the Spaniards to the universal
horror such proceedings spread. “A jealousy and suspicion took
possession of all ranks of people: friendship and sociability were at an
end! Brothers were afraid of brothers, fathers of their children.”

The situation and feelings of one imprisoned in the cells of the
inquisition are forcibly painted by Orobio, a mild, and meek, and
learned man, whose controversy with Limborch is well known. When he
escaped from Spain he took refuge in Holland, was circumcised, and died
a philosophical Jew. He has left this admirable description of himself
in the cell of the inquisition:—“Inclosed in this dungeon I could not
even find space enough to turn myself about; I suffered so much that I
found my brain disordered. I frequently asked myself, am I really Don
Bathazaar Orobio, who used to walk about Seville at my pleasure, who so
much enjoyed myself with my wife and children? I often imagined that all
my life had only been a dream, and that I really had been born in this
dungeon! The only amusement I could invent was metaphysical
disputations. I was at once opponent, respondent, and phæses!” In the
cathedral at Saragossa is the tomb of a famous inquisitor; six pillars
surround the tomb; to each is chained a Moor, as preparatory to his
being burnt. On this St. Foix ingeniously observes, “If ever the
jack-ketch of any country should be rich enough to have a splendid tomb,
this might serve as an excellent model.”

Bayle informs us, that the inquisition punished heretics by fire, to
elude the maxim, _Ecclesia non novit sanguinem_; for burning a man, say
they, does not shed _his blood_! Otho, the bishop at the Norman
invasion, in the tapestry worked by Matilda, the queen of William the
Conqueror, is represented with a _mace_ in his hand, for the purpose,
that when he _dispatched_ his antagonist, he might not _spill blood_,
but only break bones! Religion has had her quibbles as well as law.

The establishment of this despotic order was resisted in France; but it
may perhaps surprise the reader that a recorder of London, in a speech,
urged the necessity of setting up an inquisition in England! It was on
the trial of Penn the Quaker, in 1670, who was acquitted by the jury,
which seems highly to have provoked the said recorder. “_Magna Charta_,”
says the preface to the trial, “with the recorder of London, is nothing
more than _Magna F——_!” It appears that the jury after being kept two
days and two nights to change their verdict, were in the end both fined
and imprisoned. Sir John Howell, the recorder, said, “Till now I never
understood the reason of the policy and prudence of the Spaniards, in
suffering the inquisition among them; and certainly it will not be well
with us, till something _like unto the Spanish inquisition_ be in
England.” Thus it will ever be, while both parties, struggling for
pre-eminence, rush to the sharp extremity of things, and annihilate the
trembling balance of the constitution. But the adopted motto of Lord
Erskine must ever be that of every Briton, “_Trial by Jury_.”

Gabriel Malagrida, an old man of seventy, so late as the year 1761, was
burnt by these evangelical executioners. His trial was printed at
Amsterdam, 1762, from the Lisbon copy. And for what was this unhappy
Jesuit condemned? Not, as some imagined, for his having been concerned
in a conspiracy against the King of Portugal. No other charge is laid to
him in his trial, but that of having indulged certain heretical notions,
which any other tribunal but that of the inquisition, would have looked
upon as the deleterious fancies of a fanatical old man. Will posterity
believe, that in the eighteenth century an aged visionary was led to the
stake for having said, amongst other extravagances, “that the Virgin
having commanded him to write the life of Antichrist, told him, that he,
Malagrida, was a second John, but more clear than John the Evangelist;
that there were to be three Antichrists, and that the last should be
born at Milan, of a monk and a nun, in the year 1920; that he would
marry Proserpine, one of the infernal furies.”

For such ravings as these the unhappy old man was burnt in recent times.
Granger assures us, that a horse, in his remembrance, who had been
taught to tell the spots upon cards, the hour of the day, &c. by
significant tokens, was, together with his _owner_, put into the
inquisition, for both of them dealing with the devil! A man of letters
declared that, having fallen into their hands, nothing perplexed him so
much as the ignorance of the inquisitor and his council; and it seemed
very doubtful whether they had read even the Scriptures.

The following most interesting anecdote relating to the terrible
inquisition, exemplifying how the use of the diabolical engines of
torture forces men to confess crimes they have not been guilty of, was
related to Mr. D’Israeli by a Portuguese gentleman.

A nobleman in Lisbon having heard that his physician and friend was
imprisoned by the inquisition, under the stale pretext of Judaism,
addressed a letter to one of them, to request his freedom, assuring the
inquisitor, that his friend was as orthodox a Christian as himself. The
physician, notwithstanding this high recommendation, was put to the
torture; and, as was usually the case, at the height of his sufferings,
confessed every thing they wished. This enraged the nobleman, and
feigning a dangerous illness, he begged the inquisitor would come to
give him his last spiritual aid.

As soon as the Dominican arrived, the lord, who had prepared his
confidential servants, commanded the inquisitor, in their presence, to
acknowledge himself a Jew; to write his confession and to sign it. On
the refusal of the inquisitor, the nobleman ordered his people to put on
the inquisitor’s head a red hot helmet, which to his astonishment, in
drawing aside a screen, he beheld glowing in a small furnace. At the
sight of this new instrument of torture, “Luke’s iron crown,” the monk
wrote and subscribed this abhorred confession. The nobleman then
observed, “See now the enormity of your manner of proceeding with
unhappy men! My poor physician, like you, has confessed Judaism; but
with this difference, only torments have forced that from him, which
fear alone has drawn from you!”

The inquisition has not failed of receiving its due praises. Macedo, a
Portuguese Jesuit, has discovered the “Origin of the _Inquisition_,” in
the terrestrial Paradise, and presumes to allege, that God was the first
who began the functions of an inquisitor over Cain and the workmen of
Babel! Macedo, however, is not so dreaming a personage as he appears;
for he obtained a professor’s chair at Padua, for the arguments he
delivered at Venice, against the Pope, which were published by the title
of “The Literary Roarings of the Lion of St. Mark;” besides, he is the
author of 109 different works; but it is curious how far our interest is
apt to prevail over conscience,—Macedo praised the inquisition up to
heaven, while he sank the Pope to nothing.

Among the great revolutions of this age, the inquisition of Spain and
Portugal is abolished, but its history enters into that of the human
mind; and the history of the inquisition by Limborch, translated by
Chandler, with a very curious “Introduction,” loses none of its value
with the philosophical mind. This monstrous tribunal of human opinions,
aimed at the sovereignty of the intellectual world, without intellect.
It may again be restored, to keep Spain stationary at the middle ages!




                                 DEMON,


A name the ancients gave to certain spirits, or _genii_, which, they
say, appeared to men, either to do them service, or to hurt them.

The first notion of demons was brought from Chaldea; whence it spread
itself among the Persians, Egyptians, and Greeks. Pythagoras and Thales
were the first who introduced demons into Greece. Plato fell in with the
notion, and explained it more distinctly and fully, than any of the
former philosophers had done. By demons, he understood spirits, inferior
to gods, and yet superior to men; which inhabited the middle region of
the air, kept up the communication between gods and men, carrying the
offerings and prayers of men to the gods, and bringing down the will of
the gods to men. But he allowed of none but good and beneficent ones:
though his disciples afterwards, finding themselves at a loss how to
account for the origin of evil, adopted another sort of demons, who were
enemies to men.

There is nothing more common in the heathen theology, than these good
and evil genii. And the same superstitious notion we find got footing
among the Israelites, by their commerce with the Chaldeans. But by
demons, they did not mean the devil, or a wicked spirit: they never took
the word demon in that sense, nor was it ever used in such
signification, till by the evangelists and some modern Jews. The word is
Greek, θαιμων.

Gale endeavours to shew, that the origin and intitution of demons was an
imitation of the Messiah. The Phœnicians called them ‏בעלים‎ _Baalim_.
For they had one supreme being, whom they called _Baal_, (and Moloch,
and various inferior deities called Baalim,) whereof we find frequent
mention in the Old Testament. The first demon of the Egyptians was
Mercury, or Thuet. The same author finds some resemblance between the
several offices ascribed to the demons and those of the Messiah.

_Demoniac_, is applied to a person possessed with a spirit, or demon. In
the Roman church, there is a particular office for the exorcism of
demoniacs.

Demoniacs are also a party or branch of the Anabaptists, whose
distinguishing tenet it is, that the devil shall be saved at the end of
the world.—See DEMONOLOGY.




                              DEMONOLOGY.


          ——“Spirits, when they please,
          Can either sex assume, or both; so soft
          And uncompounded is their essence pure,
          Not ty’d or manacled with joint or limb,
          Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones,
          Like cumbrous flesh; but in what shape they chuse,
          Dilated οr condens’d, bright or obscure,
          Can execute their airy purposes.”
                                                      MILTON.

Diabolus, a devil, or evil angel, is one of those celestial spirits cast
down from heaven for pretending to equal himself with God.

The Ethiopians paint the devil white, to be even with the Europeans, who
paint him black.

We find no mention made of the word _devil_ in the Old Testament, but
only of Satan: nor in any heathen authors do we meet with the word
devil, in the signification attached to it among the Christians; that
is, as a creature revolted from God: their theology went no farther than
to evil genii, or demons, who harassed and persecuted mankind, though we
are well aware many names are given to the devil both in holy writ and
elsewhere.

           “O thou! whatever title suit thee,
           Auld Hornie, Satan, Nick, or Clootie,
           Wha in yon cavern grim an’ sootie
                             Closed under hatches,
           Spairges about the brimstane clootie,
                             To scaud poor wretches.”—BURNS.

Demon was the name given by the Greeks and Romans to certain _genii_ or
spirits, who made themselves visible to men with the intention of doing
them either good or harm.

The Platonists made a distinction between their gods, or _dei majorum
gentium_; their demons, or those beings which were not dissimilar in
their general character to the good and evil angels of Christian belief;
and their heroes. The Jews and the early Christians restricted the
appellation of demons to beings of a malignant nature, or to devils; and
it is to the early opinions entertained by this people, that the
outlines of later systems of Demonology are to be traced.

“The tradition of the Jews concerning evil spirits are various; some of
them are founded on Scripture; some borrowed from the notions of the
pagans; some are fables of their own invention; and some are
allegories.” The demons of the Jews were considered either as the
distant progeny of Adam or of Eve, which had resulted from an improper
intercourse with supernatural beings, or of Cain. As this doctrine,
however, was extremely revolting to some few of the early Christians,
they maintained that demons were the souls of departed human beings, who
were still permitted to interfere in the affairs of the earth, either to
assist their friends or to persecute their enemies. This doctrine,
however, did not prevail.

An attempt was made about two centuries and a half ago to give, in a
condensed form, the various opinions entertained at an early period of
the Christian era, and during the middle ages, of the nature of the
demons of popular belief. We shall therefore lay this chapter before our
readers, which, being so comprehensive, and at the same time so concise,
requires no abridgment;—“I, for my own part, do also thinke this
argument about the nature and substance of devels and spirits to be
difficult, as I am persuaded that no one author hath in anie certaine or
perfect sort hitherto written thereof. In which respect I can neither
allow the ungodly and profane sects and doctrines of the Sadduces and
Perepateticks, who denie that there are any spirits and devils at all;
nor the fond and superstitious treatises of Plato, Proctics, Plotenus,
Porphyrie; nor yet the vaine and absurd opinions of Psellus, Nider,
Sprenger, Cumanus, Bodin, Michæl, Andæas, James Mathæus, Laurentius,
Ananias, Jamblicus, &c.; who, with manie others, write so ridiculous
lies in these matters, as if they were babes fraied with bugges; some
affirming that the souls of the dead become spirits, the good to be
angels, the bad to be divels; some, that spirits or divels are onelie in
this life; some, that they are men; some that they are women; some that
divels are of such gender that they list themselves; some that they had
no beginning, nor shall have ending, as the Manechies maintain; some
that they are mortal and die, as Plutarch affirmeth of Pan; some that
they have no bodies at all, but receive bodies according to their
fantasies and imaginations; some that their bodies are given unto them;
some, that they make themselves. Some saie they are wind; some that one
of them begat another; some, that they were created of the least part of
the masse, whereof the earth was made; and some, that they are
substances between God and man, and that some of them are terrestrial,
some celestial, some waterie, some airie, some fierie, some starrie, and
some of each and every part of the elements; and that they know our
thoughts, and carrie our good works to God, and praiers to God, and
return his benefits back unto us, and that they are to be worshipped;
wherein they meete and agree jumpe with the papists.”—“Againe, some
saie, that they are meane between terrestrial and celestial bodies,
communicating part of each nature; and that, although they be eternal,
yet they are moved with affections; and as there are birds in the aire,
fishes in the water, and worms in the earth, so in the fourth element,
which is the fire, is the habitation of spirits and devils.”—“Some saie
they are onelie imaginations in the mind of man. Tertullian saith they
are birds, and flie faster than anie fowle in the aire. Some saie that
divels are not, but when they are sent; and therefore are called evil
angels. Some think that the devil sendeth his angels abrode, and he
himself maketh his continual abode in hell, his mansion-place.”

In allusion to this subject a late writer remarks that “It was not,
however, until a much later period of Christianity, that more decided
doctrines relative to the origin and nature of demons was established.
These tenets involved certain very knotty points relative to the fall of
those angels, who, for disobedience, had forfeited their high abode in
heaven. The Gnostics, of early Christian times, in imitation of a
classification of the different orders of spirits by Plato had attempted
a similar arrangement with respect to an hierarchy of angels, the
gradation of which stood as follows:—The first, and highest order, was
named seraphim; the second, cherubim; the third was the order of
thrones; the fourth, of dominions; the fifth, of virtues; the sixth, of
powers; the seventh, of principalities; the eighth, of archangels; the
ninth, and lowest, of angels. This fable was, in a pointed manner,
censured by the apostles; yet still, strange to say, it almost outlived
the Pneumatologists of the middle ages. These schoolmen, in reference to
the account that Lucifer rebelled against heaven, and that Michael the
Archangel warred against him, long agitated the momentous question, what
orders of angels fell on this occasion? At length it became the
prevailing opinion that Lucifer was of the order of seraphim. It was
also proved, after infinite research, that Agares, Belial, and Barbatos,
each of them deposed angels of great rank, had been of the order of
virtues; that Bileth, Focalor, and Phœnix, had been of the order of
thrones; that Gaap had been of the order of powers; and that Pinson had
been both of the order of virtues and powers; and Murmur of thrones and
angels. The pretensions of many other noble devils were, likewise,
canvassed, and in an equally satisfactory manner, determined.
Afterwards, it became an object of enquiry to learn, how many fallen
angels had been engaged in the contest. This was a question of vital
importance, which gave rise to the most laborious research, and to a
variety of discordant opinions.—It was next agitated—where the battle
was fought? in the inferior heaven,—in the highest region of the air, in
the firmament, or in paradise? how long it lasted? whether, during one
second, or moment of time, (_punctum temporis_) two, three, or four
seconds? These were queries of very difficult solution; but the notion
which ultimately prevailed was, that the engagement was concluded in
exactly three seconds from the date of its commencement; and that while
Lucifer, with a number of his followers, fell into hell, the rest were
left in the air to tempt man. A still newer question arose out of all
these investigations, whether more angels fell with Lucifer, or remained
in heaven with Michael? Learned clerks, however, were inclined to think,
that the rebel chief had been beaten by a superior force, and that,
consequently, devils of darkness were fewer in number than angels of
light.

“These discussions, which, during a number of successive centuries,
interested the whole of Christendom, too frequently exercised the
talents of the most erudite characters in Europe. The last object of
demonologists was to collect, in some degree of order, Lucifer’s routed
forces, and to re-organise them under a decided form of subordination or
government. Hence, extensive districts were given to certain chiefs that
fought under this general. There was Zemimar, “the lordly monarch of the
North,” as Shakspeare styles him[53], who had this distinct province of
devils; there was Gorson, the king of the South; Amaymon, the king of
the East; and Goap, the prince of the West. These sovereigns had many
noble spirits subordinate to them, whose various ranks were settled with
all the preciseness of heraldic distinction; there were devil dukes,
devil marquises, devil earls, devil knights, devil presidents, and devil
prelates. The armed force under Lucifer seems to have comprised nearly
2,400 legions, of which each demon of rank commanded a certain number.
Thus, Beleth, whom Scott has described as a “great king and terrible,
riding on a pale horse, before whom go trumpets and all melodious
music,” commanded 85 legions; Agarer, the first duke under the power of
the East, commanded 31 legions; Leraie, a great marquis, 30 legions;
Morax, a great earl and president, 36 legions; Furcas, a knight, 20
legions; and after the same manner, the forces of the other devil
chieftains were enumerated.”


      _Derivation of the strange and hideous forms of Devils, &c._

In the middle ages, when conjuration was regularly practised in Europe,
devils of rank were supposed to appear under decided forms, by which
they were as well recognised, as the head of any ancient family would be
by his crest and armorial bearings. The shapes they were accustomed to
adopt were registered along with their names and characters. A devil
would appear, either like an angel seated in a fiery chariot, or riding
on an infernal dragon; and carrying in his right hand a viper, or
assuming a lion’s head, a goose’s feet, and a hare’s tail, or putting on
a raven’s head, and mounted on a strong wolf. Other forms made use of by
demons, were those of a fierce warrior, or an old man riding upon a
crocodile with a hawk in his hand. A human figure would arise having the
wings of a griffin; or sporting three heads, two of them like those of a
toad and of a cat; or defended with huge teeth and horns, and armed with
a sword; or displaying a dog’s teeth, and a large raven’s head; or
mounted upon a pale horse, and exhibiting a serpent’s tail; or
gloriously crowned, and riding upon a dromedary; or presenting the face
of a lion; or bestriding a bear, and grasping a viper. There were also
such shapes as those of an archer, or of a Zenophilus. A demoniacal king
would ride upon a pale horse; or would assume a leopard’s face and
griffin’s wings; or put on the three heads of a bull, of a man, and a
ram with a serpent’s tail, and the feet of a goose; and, in this attire,
sit on a dragon, and bear in his hand a lance and a flag; or, instead of
being thus employed, goad the flanks of a furious bear, and carry in his
fist a hawk. Other forms were those of a goodly knight; or of one who
bore lance, ensigns, and even sceptre; or, of a soldier, either riding
on a black horse, and surrounded with a flame of fire; or wearing on his
head a Duke’s crown, and mounted on a crocodile; or assuming a lion’s
face, and with fiery eyes, spurring on a gigantic charger, or, with the
same frightful aspect, appearing in all the pomp of family distinction,
on a pale horse; or clad from head to foot in crimson raiment, wearing
on his bold front a crown, and sallying forth on a red steed.

Some infernal Duke would appear in his proper character, quietly seated
on a griffin; another spirit of a similar rank would display the three
heads of a serpent, a man, and a cat; he would also bestride a viper,
and carry in his hand a firebrand; another of the same stamp, would
appear like a duchess, encircled with a fiery zone, and mounted on a
camel; a fourth would wear the aspect of a boy, and amuse himself on the
back of a two-headed dragon. A few spirits, however, would be content
with the simple garbs of a horse, a leopard, a lion, an unicorn, a
night-raven, a stork, a peacock, or a dromedary; the latter animal
speaking fluently the Egyptian language. Others would assume the more
complex forms of a lion or of a dog, with a griffin’s wings attached to
each of their shoulders; or of a bull equally well gifted; or of the
same animal, distinguished by the singular appendage of a man’s face; or
of a crow clothed with human flesh; or of a hart with a fiery tail. To
certain other noble devils were assigned such shapes as those of a
dragon with three heads, one of these being human; of a wolf with a
serpent’s tail, breathing forth flames of fire; of a she wolf exhibiting
the same caudal appendage, together with a griffin’s wings, and ejecting
hideous matter from the mouth. A lion would appear either with the head
of a branded thief, or astride upon a black horse, and playing with a
viper, or adorned with the tail of a snake, and grasping in his paws two
hissing serpents. These were the varied shapes assumed by devils of
rank. To those of an inferior order were consigned upon earth, the duty
of carrying away condemned souls. These were described as blacker than
pitch: as having teeth like lions, nails on their fingers like those of
the wild boar, on their forehead horns, through the extremities of
which, poison was emitted, having wide ears flowing with corruption, and
discharging serpents from their nostrils, and having cloven feet[54].
But this last appendage, as Sir Thomas Brown has learnedly proved, is a
mistake, which has arisen from the devil frequently appearing to the
Jews in the shape of a rough and hairy goat, this animal being the
emblem of sin-offerings[55].

It is worthy of farther remark, says Dr. Hibbert, that the forms of the
demons described by St. Bernard, differs little from that which is no
less carefully pourtrayed by Reginald Scott, 350 years later, and,
perhaps, by the Demonologists of the present day. “In our childhood,”
says he, “our mothers’ maids have so terrified us with an ouglie devell
having hornes on his head, fier in his mouth, and a taile in his breech,
eies like a bason, fangs like a dog, clawes like a bear, a skin like a
tiger, and a voice roaring like a lion,—whereby we start and are afraid
when we heare one cry _bough_.”

It is still an interesting matter of speculation worth noticing—why,
after the decay of the regular systems of demonology taught in the
middle ages, the same hideous form should still be attached to the
devil? The learned Mede has remarked, “that the devil could not appear
in human shape while man was in his integrity; because he was a spirit
fallen from his first glorious perfection; and, therefore, must appear
in such a shape which might argue his imperfection and abasement, which
was the shape of a beast; otherwise, no reason can be given, why he
should not rather have appeared to Eve in the shape of a woman than of a
serpent. But since the fall of man, the case is altered: now we know he
can take upon him the shape of man. He appears, it seems, in the shape
of man’s imperfection, either for age or deformity, as like an old man
(for so the witches say); and perhaps it is not altogether false, which
is vulgarly affirmed, that the devil appearing in human shape, has
always a deformity of some uncouth member or other, as though he could
not yet take upon him human shape entirely, for that man himself is not
entirely and utterly fallen as he is.” Grose, with considerable less
seriousness, observes, that “although the devil can partly transform
himself into a variety of shapes, he cannot change his cloven feet,
which will always mark him under every appearance.

The late Dr. Ferriar took some trouble to trace to their real source
spectral figures, which have been attributed to demoniacal visits. In
his observations on the works of Remy, the commissioner in Lorraine, for
the trial of witches, he makes the following remark:—“My edition of this
book was printed by Vincente, at Lyons, in 1595; it is entitled
Dæmonolatria. The trials appear to have begun in 1583. Mr. Remy seems to
have felt great anxiety to ascertain the exact features and dress of the
demons, with whom many people supposed themselves to be familiar. Yet
nothing transpired in his examinations, which varied from the usual
figures exhibited by the gross sculptures and paintings of the middle
age. They are said to be black faced, with sunk but fiery eyes, their
mouths wide and swelling of sulphur, their hands hairy, with claws,
their feet horny and cloven.” In another part of Dr. Ferriar’s, the
following account is also given of a case which passed under his own
observation:—“I had occasion,” he observes, “to see a young married
woman, whose first indication of illness was a spectral delusion. She
told me that her apartment appeared to be suddenly filled with devils,
and that her terror impelled her to quit the house with great
precipitation. When she was brought back, she saw the whole staircase
filled with diabolical forms, and was in agonies of fear for several
days. After the first impression wore off, she heard a voice tempting
her to self destruction, and prohibiting her from all exercises of
piety. Such was the account given by her when she was sensible of the
delusion, yet unable to resist the horror of the impression. When she
was newly recovered, I had the curiosity to question her, as I have
interrogated others, respecting the forms of the demons with which she
had been claimed; but I never could obtain any other account, than that
they were very small, very much deformed, and had horns and claws like
the imps of our terrific modern romances.” To this illustration of the
general origin of the figures of demoniacal illusions, I might observe,
that, in the case of a patient suffering under _delirium tremens_, which
came under my notice, the devils who flitted around his bed were
described to me as exactly like the forms that he had recently seen
exhibited on the stage in the popular drama of Don Giovanni.

With the view of illustrating other accounts of apparitions, I shall now
return to the doctrine of demonology which was once taught. Although the
leading tenets of this occult science may be traced to the Jews and
early Christians, yet they were matured by our early communication with
the Moors of Spain, who were the chief philosophers of the dark ages,
and between whom and the natives of France and Italy, a great
communication subsisted. Toledo, Seville, and Salamanca, became the
greatest schools of magic. At the latter city, prelections on the black
art were, from a consistent regard to the solemnity of the subject,
delivered within the walls of a vast and gloomy cavern. The schoolmen
taught, that all knowledge might be obtained from the assistance of the
fallen angels. They were skilled in the abstract sciences, in the
knowledge of precious stones, in alchymy, in the various languages of
mankind and of the lower animals, in the belles lettres, in moral
philosophy, pneumatology, divinity, magic, history, and prophecy. They
could controul the winds, the waters, and the influence of the stars;
they could raise earthquakes, induce diseases, or cure them, accomplish
all vast mechanical undertakings, and release souls out of purgatory.
They could influence the passions of the mind—procure the reconciliation
of friends or foes—engender mutual discord—induce mania and melancholy—
or direct the force and objects of the sexual affections.

Such was the object of demonology, as taught by its most orthodox
professors. Yet other systems of it were devised, which had their origin
in causes attending the propagation of Christianity. For it must have
been a work of much time to eradicate the universal belief, that the
Pagan deities, who had become so numerous as to fill every part of the
universe, were fabulous beings. Even many learned men were induced to
side with the popular opinion on the subject, and did nothing more than
endeavour to reconcile it with their acknowledged systems of demonology.
They taught that such heathen objects of reverence were fallen angels in
league with the prince of darkness, who, until the appearance of our
Saviour, had been allowed to range on the earth uncontrolled, and to
involve the world in spiritual darkness and delusion. According to the
various ranks which these spirits held in the vast kingdom of Lucifer,
they were suffered, in their degraded state, to take up their abode in
the air, in mountains, in springs, or in seas. But, although the various
attributes ascribed to the Greek and Roman deities, were, by the early
teachers of Christianity, considered in the humble light of demoniacal
delusions, yet for many centuries they possessed great influence over
the minds of the vulgar. In the reign of Adrian, Evreux, in Normandy,
was not converted to the Christian faith, until the devil, who had
caused the obstinacy of the inhabitants, was finally expelled from the
temple of Diana. To this goddess, during the persecution of Dioclesian,
oblations were rendered by the inhabitants of London. In the 5th
century, the worship of her existed at Turin, and incurred the rebuke of
St. Maximus. From the ninth to the fifteenth century, several
denunciations took place of the women who, in France and Germany,
travelled over immense spaces of the earth, acknowledging Diana as their
mistress and conductor. In rebuilding St. Paul’s cathedral, in London,
remains of several of the animals used in her sacrifices were found; for
slight traces of this description of reverence, subsisted so late as the
reign of Edward the First, and of Mary. Apollo, also, in an early period
of Christianity, had some influence at Thorney, now Westminster. About
the 11th century, Venus formed the subject of a monstrous apparition,
which could only have been credited from the influence which she was
still supposed to possess. A young man had thoughtlessly put his ring
around the marble finger of her image. This was construed by the Cyprian
goddess as a plighted token of marriage; she accordingly paid a visit to
her bridegroom’s bed at night, nor could he get rid of his bed-fellow
until the spells of an exorcist had been invoked for his relief. In the
year 1536, just before the volcanic eruption of Mount Etna, a Spanish
merchant, while travelling in Sicily, saw the apparition of Vulcan
attended by twenty of his Cyclops, as they were escaping from the
effects which the over heating of his furnace foreboded[56].

To the superstitions of Greece and Rome, we are also indebted for those
subordinate evil spirits called _genii_, who for many centuries were the
subject of numerous spectral illusions. A phantasm of this kind appeared
to Brutus in his tent, prophesying that he should be again seen at
Philippi. Cornelius Sylla had the first intimation of the sudden febrile
attack with which he was seized, from an apparition who addressed him by
his name; concluding, therefore, that his death was at hand, he prepared
himself for the event, which took place the following evening. The poet
Cassius Severus, a short time before he was slain by order of Augustus,
saw, during the night, a human form of gigantic size,—his skin black,
his beard squalid, and his hair dishevelled. The phantasm was, perhaps,
not unlike the evil genius of Lord Byron’s Manfred:—

             “I see a dusk and awful figure rise
             Like an infernal god from out the earth;
             His face wrapt in a mantle, and his form
             Robed as with angry clouds; he stands between
             Thyself and me—but I do fear him not.”

The emperor Julian was struck with a spectre clad in rags, yet bearing
in his hands a horn of plenty, which was covered with a linen cloth.
Thus emblematically attired, the spirit walked mournfully past the
hangings of the apostate’s tent[57].

We may now advert to the superstitious narratives of the middle ages,
which are replete with the notices of similar marvellous apparitions.
When Bruno, the Archbishop of Wirtzburg, a short period before his
sudden death, was sailing with Henry the Third, he descried a terrific
spectre standing upon a rock which overhung the foaming waters, by whom
he was hailed in the following words:—“Ho! Bishop, I am thy evil genius.
Go whether thou choosest, thou art and shalt be mine. I am not now sent
for thee, but soon thou shalt see me again.” To a spirit commissioned on
a similar errand, the prophetic voice may be probably referred, which
was said to have been heard by John Cameron, the Bishop of Glasgow,
immediately before his decease. He was summoned by it, says Spottiswood,
“to appear before the tribunal of Christ, there to atone for his
violence and oppressions.”

“I shall not pursue the subject of Genii much farther. The notion of
every man being attended by an evil genius, was abandoned much earlier
than the far more agreeable part of the same doctrine, which taught
that, as an antidote to this influence, each individual was also
accompanied by a benignant spirit. “The ministration of angels,” says a
writer in the Athenian oracle, “is certain, but the manner _how_, is the
knot to be untied.” ’Twas generally thought by the ancient philosophers,
that not only kingdoms had their tutelary guardians, but that every
person had his particular genius, or good angel, to protect and admonish
him by dreams, visions, &c. We read that Origin, Hierome, Plato, and
Empedocles, in Plutarch, were also of this opinion; and the Jews
themselves, as appears by that instance of Peter’s deliverance out of
prison. They believed it could not be Peter, but his angel. But for the
particular attendance of bad angels, we believe it not; and we must deny
it, till it finds better proof than conjecture.”

Such were the objects of superstitious reverence, derived from the
Pantheon of Greece and Rome, the whole synod of which was supposed to
consist of demons, who were still actively bestirring themselves to
delude mankind. But in the West of Europe, a host of other demons, far
more formidable, were brought into play, who had their origin in Celtic,
Teutonic, and even Eastern fables; and as their existence, as well as
influence, was not only by the early Christians, but even by the
reformers, boldly asserted, it was long before the rites to which they
had been accustomed were totally eradicated. Thus in Orkney, for
instance, it was customary, even during the last century, for lovers to
meet within the pale of a large circle of stones, which had been
dedicated to the chief of the ancient Scandinavian deities. Through a
hole in one of the pillars, the hands of contracting parties were
joined, and the faith they plighted, was named the promise of Odin, to
violate which was infamous. But the influence of the _Dii_ Majores of
the Edda was slight and transient, in comparison with that of the
duergar or dwarfs, who figure away in the same mythology, and whose
origin is thus recited. Odin and his brothers killed the giant Ymor,
from whose wound ran so much blood that all the families of the earth
were drowned, except one that saved himself on board a bark. These gods
then made, of the giant’s bones of his flesh and his blood, the earth,
the waters, and the heavens. But in the body of the monster, several
worms had in the course of putrefaction been engendered, which, by order
of the gods, partook of both human shape and reason. These little beings
possessed the most delicate figures, and always dwelt in subterraneous
caverns or clefts in the rocks. They were remarkable for their riches,
their activity, and their malevolence[58]. This is the origin of our
modern faries, who, at the present day, are described as a people of
small stature, gaily drest in habiliments of green[59]. They possess
material shapes, with the means, however, of making themselves
invisible. They multiply their species; they have a relish for the same
kind of food that affords sustenance to the human race, and when, for
some festal occasion, they would regale themselves with good beef or
mutton, they employ elf arrows to bring down their victims. At the same
time, they delude the shepherds with the substitution of some vile
substance, or illusory image, possessing the same form as that of the
animal they had taken away. These spirits are much addicted to music,
and when they make their excursions, a most exquisite band of music
never fails to accompany them in their course. They are addicted to the
abstraction of the human species, in whose place they leave substitutes
for living beings, named Changelings, the unearthly origin of whom is
known by their mortal imbecility, or some wasting disease. When a limb
is touched with paralysis, a suspicion often arises that it has been
touched by these spirits, or that, instead of the sound member, an
insensible mass of matter has been substituted in its place.

In England, the opinions originally entertained relative to the duergar
or dwarfs, have sustained considerable modifications, from the same
attributes being assigned to them as to the Persian _peris_, an
imaginary race of intelligences, whose offices of benevolence were
opposed to the spightful interference of evil spirits. Whence this
confusion in proper Teutonic mythology has originated, is doubtful;
conjectures have been advanced, that it may be traced to the intercourse
the Crusaders had with the Saracens; and that from Palestine was
imported the corrupted name, derived from the peris, of _faries_; for
under such a title the duegar of the Edda are now generally recognized;
the malevolent character of the dwarfs being thus sunk in the opposite
qualities of the peris, the fairies. Blessing became in England,
proverbial: “Grant that the sweet fairies may nightly put money in your
shoes, and sweep your house clean.” In more general terms, the wish
denoted, “Peace be to the house[60].

Fairies, for many centuries, have been the objects of spectral
impressions. In the case of a poor woman of Scotland, Alison Pearson,
who suffered for witchcraft in the year 1586, they probably resulted
from some plethoric state of the system, which was followed by
paralysis. Yet, for these illusive images, to which the popular
superstition of the times had given rise, the poor creature was indicted
for holding communication with demons, under which light fairies were
then considered, and burnt at a stake. During her illness, she was not
unfrequently impressed with sleeping and waking visions, in which she
held an intercourse with the queen of the Elfland and the _good
neighbours_. Occasionally, these capricious spirits would condescend to
afford her bodily relief; at other times, they would add to the severity
of her pains. In such trances or dreams, she would observe her cousin,
Mr. William Sympsoune, of Stirling, who had been conveyed away to the
hills by the fairies, from whom she received a salve that would cure
every disease, and of which the Archbishop of St. Andrews deigned
himself to reap the benefit. It is said in the indictment against her,
that “being in Grange Muir with some other folke, she, being sick, lay
downe; and, when alone, there came a man to her clad in green, who said
to her, if she would be faithful, he would do her good; but she being
feared, cried out; but nae bodie came to her, so she said, if he came in
God’s name, and for the gude of her soul, it was all well; but he gaed
away; he appeared another tyme like a lustie man, and many men and women
with him—at seeing him she signed herself, and pray and past with them,
and saw them making merrie with pypes, and gude cheir and wine;—she was
carried with them, and when she telled any of these things, she was
sairlie tormented by them, and the first time she gaid with them, she
gat a sair straike frae one of them, which took all the poustie (power)
of her side frae her, and left an ill-far’d mark on her side.

“She saw the gude neighbours make their saws (salves) with panns and
fyres, and they gathered the herbs before the sun was up, and they cam
verie fearful sometimes to her, and flaire (scared) her very sair, which
made her cry, and threatened they would use her worse than before; and
at last, they tuck away the power of her haile syde frae her, and made
her lye many weeks. Sometimes they would come and sit by her, and
promise that she should never want if she would be faithful, but if she
would speak and telle of them, they would murther her. Mr. William
Sympsoune is with them who healed her, and telt her all things;—he is a
young man, not six yeares older than herself, and he will appear to her
before the court comes;—he told her he was taken away by them; and he
bid her sign herself that she be not taken away, for the teind of them
are tane to hell every yeare[61].”

Another apparition of a similar kind may be found on the pamphlet which
was published A. D. 1696, under the patronage of Dr. Fowler, Bishop of
Glocester, relative to Ann Jefferies, “who was fed for six months by a
small sort of airy people, called fairies.” There is every reason to
suppose, that this female was either affected with hysteria, or with
that highly excited state of nervous irritability, which, as I have
shewn, gives rise to ecstatic illusions. The account of her first fit is
the only one which relates to the present subject. In the year 1695,
says her historian, “she then being nineteen years of age, and one day
knitting in an arbour in the garden, there came over the hedges to her
(as she affirmed) six persons of small stature, all clothed in green,
and which she called _fairies_: upon which she was so frightened, that
she fell into a kind of convulsive fit: but when we found her in this
condition, we brought her into the house, and put her to bed, and took
great care of her. As soon as she was recovered out of the fit, she
cries out, ‘they are just gone out of the window; they are just gone out
of the window. Do you not see them?’ And thus, in the height of her
sickness, she would often cry out, and that with eagerness; which
expressions we attributed to her distemper, supposing her light-headed.”
This narrative of the girl seemed highly interesting to her
superstitious neighbours, and she was induced to relate far more
wonderful stories, upon which not the least dependance can be placed, as
the sympathy she excited eventually induced her to become a rank
impostor[62].

But besides fairies, or elves, which formed the subject of many spectral
illusions, a domestic spirit deserves to be mentioned, who was once held
in no small degree of reverence. In most northern countries of Europe
there were few families that were without a shrewd and knavish sprite,
who, in return for the attention or neglect which he experienced, was
known to

           ——“sometimes labour in the quern,
           And bootless make the breathless housewife churn;
           And sometimes make the drink to bear no barm!”

Mr. Douce, in his Illustrations of Shakspeare, has shewn, that the
Samogitæ, a people formerly inhabiting the shores of the Baltic, who
remained idolatrous so late as the 15th century, had a deity named
Putseet, whom they invoked to live with them, by placing in the barn,
every night, a table covered with bread, butter, cheese, and ale. If
these were taken away, good fortune was to be expected; but if they were
left, nothing but bad luck. This spirit is the same as the goblin-groom,
Puck, or Robin Good-fellow of the English, whose face and hands were
either of a russet or green colour, who was attired in a suit of
leather, and armed with a flail. For a much lesser fee than was
originally given him, he would assist in threshing, churning, grinding
malt or mustard, and sweeping the house at midnight[63]. A similar tall
“lubbar fiend,” habited in a brown garb, was known in Scotland. Upon the
condition of a little wort being laid by for him, or the occasional
sprinkling, upon a sacrificial stone, of a small quantity of milk, he
would ensure the success of many domestic operations. According to Olaus
Magnus, the northern nations regarded domestic spirits of this
description, as the souls of men who had given themselves up during life
to illicit pleasures, and were doomed, as a punishment, to wander about
the earth, for a certain time, in the peculiar shape which they assumed,
and to be bound to mortals in a sort of servitude. It is natural,
therefore, to expect, that these familiar spirits would be the subjects
of many apparitions, of which a few relations are given in Martin’s
Account of the Second Sight in Scotland. “A spirit,” says this writer,
“called Browny, was frequently seen in all the most considerable
families in the isles and the north of Scotland, in the shape of a tall
man; but within these twenty or thirty years, he is seen but rarely.”

It is useless to pursue this subject much farther: in the course of a
few centuries, the realms of superstition were increased to almost an
immeasurable extent; the consequence was, that the air, the rocks, the
seas, the rivers, nay, every lake, pool, brook, or spring, were so
filled with spirits, both good and evil, that of each province it might
be said, in the words of the Roman satirist, “Nosiba regio tam plena est
numinibus, ut facilius possis deum quam hominem invenire.” Hence the
modification which took place of systems of demonology, so as to admit
of the classification of all descriptions of devils, whether Teutonic,
Celtic, or Eastern systems of mythology. “Our schoolmen and other
divines,” says Burton in his Anatomy of Melancholy, “make nine kinds of
bad devils, as Dionysius hath of angels. In the _first rank_, are those
false gods of the Gentiles, which were adored heretofore in several
idols, and gave oracles at Delphos and elsewhere, whose prince is
Beelzebub. The _second rank_ is of liars and equivocators, as Apollo,
Pythias, and the like. The _third_ are those vessels of anger, inventors
of all mischief, as that of Theutus in Plato. Esay calls them vessels of
fury: their prince is Belial. The _fourth_ are malicious, revengeful
devils, and their prince is Asmodeus. The _fifth_ kind are coseners,
such as belong to magicians and witches; their prince is Satan. The
sixth are those aërial devils that corrupt the air, and cause plagues,
thunders, fires, &c. spoken of in Apocalypse and Paule; the Ephesians
name them the prince of the air: Meresin is their prince. The _seventh_
is a destroyer, captaine of the furies, causing wars, tumults,
combustions, uproares, mentioned in the Apocalypse, and called Abaddon.
The _eighth_ is that accusing or calumniating devil, whom the Greeks
call Διάβολος, that drives us to despair. The _ninth_ are those tempters
in several kindes, and their prince is Mammon.”

But this arrangement was not comprehensive enough; for, as Burton adds,
“no place was void, but all full of spirits, devils, or other
inhabitants; not so much as an haire-breadth was empty in heaven, earth,
or waters, above or under the earth; the earth was not so full of flies
in summer as it was at all times of invisible devils.” Pneumatologists,
therefore, made two grand distinctions of demons; there were celestial
demons, who inhabited the regions higher than the moon; while those of
an inferior rank, as the Manes or Lemures, were either nearer the earth,
or grovelled on the ground. Psellus, however, “a great observer of the
nature of devils,” seems to have thought, that such a classification
destroyed all distinction between good and evil spirits: he, therefore,
denied that the latter ever ascended the regions above the moon, and
contending for this principle, founded a system of demonology, which had
for its basis the natural history and habitations of all demons. He
named his first class _fiery devils_. They wandered in the region near
the moon, but were restrained from entering into that luminary; they
displayed their power in blazing stars, in fire-drakes, in counterfeit
suns and moons, and in the _euerpo santo_, or meteoric lights, which, in
vessels at sea, flit from mast to mast, and forebode foul weather. It
was supposed that these demons occasionally resided in the furnaces of
Hecla, Etna, or Vesuvius. The second class consisted of aërial devils.
They inhabited the atmosphere, causing tempests, thunder and lightning;
rending asunder oaks, firing steeples and houses, smiting men and
beasts, showering down from the skies, stones[64], wool, and even frogs;
counterfeiting in the clouds the battles of armies, raising whirlwinds,
fires, and corrupting the air, so as to induce plagues. The third class
was _terrestrial devils_, such as lares, genii, fawns, satyrs,
wood-nymphs, foliots, Robin good-fellows, or trulli. The fourth class
were _aqueous devils_; as the various description of water-nymph, or
mermen, or of merwomen. The fifth were _subterranean devils_, better
known by the name dæmones itallici, metal-men, _Getuli_ or Cobals. They
preserved treasure in the earth, and prevented it from being suddenly
revealed; they were also the cause of horrible earthquakes. Psellus’s
sixth class of devils were named lucifugi; they delighted in darkness;
they entered into the bowels of men, and tormented those whom they
possessed with phrenzy and the falling sickness. By this power they were
distinguished from earthly and aërial devils; they could only enter into
the human mind, which they either deceived or provoked with unlawful
affections.

Nor were speculations wanting with regard to the common nature of these
demons. Psellus conceived that their bodies did not consist merely of
one element, although he was far from denying that this might have been
the case before the fall of Lucifer. It was his opinion, that devils
possessed corporeal frames capable of sensation; that they could both
feel and be felt; they could injure and be hurt; that they lamented when
they were beaten, and that if struck into the fire, they even left
behind them ashes,—a fact which was demonstrated in a very satisfactory
experiment made by some philosophers upon the borders of Italy; that
they were nourished with food peculiar to themselves, not receiving the
aliment through the gullet, but absorbing it from the exterior surface
of their bodies, after the manner of a sponge; that they did not hurt
cattle from malevolence, but from mere love of the natural and temperate
heat and moisture of these animals; that they disliked the heat of the
sun, because it dried too fast; and, lastly, that they attained a great
age. Thus, Cardan had a fiend bound to him twenty-eight years, who was
forty-two years old, and yet considered very young. He was informed,
from this very authentic source of intelligence, that devils lived from
two to three hundred years, and that their souls died with their bodies.
The very philosophical statement was, nevertheless, combated by other
observers. “Manie,” says Scot, “affirmed that spirits were of aier,
because they had been cut in sunder and closed presentlie againe, and
also because they vanished away so suddenlie.”


 “_The_ NARRATIVE _of the_ DEMON OF TEDWORTH, _or the disturbances at_
  MR. MONPESSON’S _house, caused by_ WITCHCRAFT _and_ VILLAINY OF THE
                               DRUMMER.”

            “In winter’s tedious nights, sit by the fire
            With good old folks; and let them tell the tales
            Of woeful ages long ago betid.”

“Mr. John Monpesson of Tedworth, in the County of Wilts, being about the
middle of March, in the year 1661, at a neighbouring town called Ludlow,
and hearing a drummer beat there, he enquired of the bailiff of the town
at whose house he then was, what it meant. The bailiff told him, that
they had for some days past been annoyed by an idle drummer, who
demanded money of the constable by virtue of a pretended pass, which he
thought was counterfeited. On hearing this, Mr. Monpesson sent for the
fellow, and asked him by what authority he went up and down the country
in that manner with his drum. The drummer answered, that he had good
authority, and produced his pass, with a warrant under the hands of Sir
William Cawley, and Colonel Ayliff, of Gretenham. Mr. Monpesson,
however, being acquainted with the hand-writing of these gentlemen,
discovered that the pass and warrant were counterfeit, upon which he
commanded the vagrant to lay down his drum, and at the same time gave
him in charge to a constable, to carry him before the next justice of
the peace, to be farther examined and punished. The fellow then
confessed that the pass and warrant were forged, and begged earnestly to
be forgiven and to have his drum restored: upon this Mr. Monpesson told
him, that if, upon enquiry from Colonel Ayliff, whose drummer he
represented himself to be, he should turn out to be an honest man, he
should listen to his entreaty and have the drum back again; but that, in
the mean time, he would take care of it. The drum, therefore, was left
in the bailiff’s hand; and the drummer went off in charge of the
constable, who, it appears, was prevailed upon, by the fellow’s
entreaties, to allow him to escape.

About the middle of April following, at a time when Mr. Monpesson was
preparing for a journey to London, the bailiff sent the drum to his
house. On his return from his journey, his wife informed him that they
had been very much alarmed in the night by thieves, and that the house
had like to have been torn down. In confirmation of this alarm, Mr.
Monpesson had not been above three nights at home, when the same noise
was again heard which had disturbed the family in his absence. It
consisted of a tremendous knocking at the doors, and thumping on the
walls of the house; upon which Mr. M. got out of bed, armed himself with
a brace of pistols, opened the street door to ascertain the cause, which
he had no sooner done, than the noise removed to another door, which he
also opened, went out, and walked round the house; but could discover
nothing, although he heard a strange noise and hollow sound. He had no
sooner returned and got into bed, than he was again disturbed by a noise
and drumming on the top of the house, which continued for a length of
time, and then gradually subsided, as if it went off into the air.

The noise of thumping and drumming, after this, was very frequent;
usually for five nights together, when there would be an intermission of
three. The noise was on the outside of the house, which principally
consisted of board; and usually came on just as the family was going to
bed, whether that happened early or late. After continuing these
annoyances for a month on the outside of the house, it at length made
bold to come into the room where the drum lay, four or five nights in
every seven; coming always on after they had got into bed, and
continuing for two hours after. The signal for the appearance of the
noise was the hearing of a hurling of the air over the house; and when
it was about to retire, the drum would beat the same as if a guard were
being relieved. It continued in this room for the space of two months,
during which time Mr. Monpesson lay there to observe it. In the early
part of the night, it used to be very troublesome, but after it had
continued two hours, all would be quiet again.

During the prevalence of this disturbance, Mrs. Monpesson was brought to
bed, and the night on which this occurrence took place, there was but
very little noise made, nor any at all for the three subsequent weeks of
her confinement. After this polite and well-timed cessation, it returned
in a sudden and more violent manner than before; it followed and teased
their youngest children, and beat against their bedstead so violently
that every moment they were expected to be broken to pieces. On placing
their hands upon them at this time, no blows were felt, although they
were perceived to shake exceedingly. For an hour together the drum would
beat roundheads and cuckold, the tat-too, and several other martial
pieces, as well as any drummer could possibly execute them. After this,
a scratching would be heard under the children’s beds, as if something
that had iron claws were at work. It would lift the children up in their
beds, follow them from one room to another, and for a while only haunted
them, without playing any other pranks.

There was a cockloft in the house, which had not been observed to be
troubled; and to this place the children were removed; and were always
put to bed before daylight disappeared, but here they were no sooner
laid, than their disturber was at his work again with them.

On the fifth of November, 1661, a terrible noise was kept up; and one of
Mr. Monpesson’s servants observing two boards moving in the children’s
room, asked that one might be given to him; upon which a board came
(nothing moving it that he saw) within a yard of him; the man said
again, _let me have it in my hand_; when it was brought quite close to
him, and in this manner it was continued moving up and down, to and fro,
for at least twenty minutes together. Mr. Monpesson, however, forbade
his servant to take liberties with the invisible and troublesome guest
in future. This circumstance took place in the day-time, and was
witnessed by a whole room full of people. The morning this occurred, it
left a very offensive sulphureous smell behind it. At night, the
minister of the parish, one Mr. Cragg, and several of the neighbours,
paid Mr. M. a visit. The minister prayed at the children’s bedside, when
the demon was then extremely troublesome and boisterous. During time of
prayer it retired into the cockloft, but as soon as prayers were over it
returned; when in the presence and sight of the company, the chairs
began to walk and strut about the room of their own accord, the
children’s shoes were thrown over their heads, and every thing loose
moved about the room. At the same time, a bedpost was thrown at the
minister, which struck him on the leg, but so gently that a lock of wool
could not have fallen more gently; and it was observed, that it stopped
just where it fell, without rolling or otherwise moving from the place.

In consequence of the demon tormenting the children so incessantly, he
had them removed to a neighbour’s house, taking his eldest daughter, who
was about ten years of age, into his own chamber, where it had not been
for a month before; but, as soon as she was in bed, the noise began
there again, and the drumming continued for three weeks with other
noises; and if any particular thing was called for to be beaten on the
drum, it would perform it. The children were brought home again, in
consequence of the house where they were placed being crowded with
strangers. They were now placed in the parlour, which, it was remarked,
had hitherto not been disturbed; but no sooner were they here, than
their tormentor, while they were in bed, amused himself with pulling
their hair and bedgowns, without offering any other violence.

It was remarked, that when the noise was loudest, and when it came with
the most sudden and surprising violence, no dog about the house would
move or bark, though the knocking and thumping were often so boisterous
and rude, that they were heard at a considerable distance in the fields,
and awakened the neighbours in the village, some of whom lived very near
this house. Not unfrequently the servants would be lifted up, with their
bed, to a considerable height, and then let gently down again without
harm; at other times it would lie like a great weight upon their feet.

About the end of December, 1661, the drumming was less frequent, but
then a noise like the chinking of money was substituted for it,
occasioned, as it was thought, in consequence of something Mr.
Monpesson’s mother had said the day before to a neighbour, who spoke
about fairies leaving money behind them; _viz._ that she should like it
well, if it would leave them some to make them amends for the trouble it
had caused them. The following night, a great chinking and jingling of
money was heard all over the house. After this it left off its ruder
pranks, and amused itself in little apish and less troublesome tricks.
On Christmas morning, a little before daylight, one of the little boys
was hit, as he was getting out of bed, upon a sore place on his heel,
with the latch of the door, the pin of which, that fastened it to the
door, was so small, that it was a matter of no little difficulty for any
one else to pick it. The night after Christmas, it threw the old
gentlewoman’s clothes about the room, and hid her bible in the ashes;
with a number of other mischievous tricks of the same kind.

After this, it became very troublesome to one of Mr. Monpesson’s servant
men, a stout fellow, and of sober conversation. This man slept in the
house during the greater part of the disturbance; and for several nights
something would attempt to pull the bedclothes off him, which he often,
though not always, prevented by main force; his shoes were frequently
thrown at his head, and sometimes he would find himself forcibly held,
as it were, hand and feet; but he found that when he could use a sword
which he had by him, and struck with it, the spirit let go his hold.

Some short time after these contests, a son of Mr. Thomas Bennet, for
whom the drummer had sometimes worked, came to the house, and mentioned
some words to Mr. Monpesson that the drummer had spoken, which it seems
were not well taken; for they were no sooner in bed, than the drum began
to beat in a most violent manner: the gentleman got up and called his
man, who was lying with Mr. Monpesson’s servant just mentioned, whose
name was John. As soon as Mr. Bennet’s man was gone, John heard a
rustling noise in his chamber, as if a person in silks were moving up
and down; he immediately put out his hand for his sword, which he felt
was withheld by some one, and it was with difficulty and much tugging,
that he got it again into his possession, which he had no sooner done,
than the spectre left him; and it was always remarked it avoided a
sword. About the beginning of January, 1662, they used to hear a singing
in the chimney before it descended; and one night, about this time,
lights were seen in the house. One of them came into Mr. Monpesson’s
chamber, which appeared blue and glimmering, and caused a great
stiffness in the eyes of those who beheld it. After the light
disappeared, something was heard walking or creeping up stairs, as if
without shoes. The light was seen four or five times in the children’s
chamber; and the maids confidently affirm, that the doors were at least
ten times opened or shut in their presence; and that, when they were
opened, they heard a noise as if half a dozen had entered together; some
of which were afterwards heard to walk about the room, and one rustled
about as if it had been dressed in silk, similar to that Mr. Monpesson
himself heard.

While the demon was in one of his knocking moods, and at a time when
many were present, a gentleman of the company said, “Satan, if the
drummer set thee to work, give three knocks and no more;” which it did
very distinctly, and stopped. The same gentleman then knocked to hear if
it would answer him as it was accustomed to do. For further proof, he
required it, if it actually were the drummer that employed him as the
agent of his malice, to give five knocks and no more that night; which
it did, and quietly left the house for the remainder of the night. This
was done in the presence of Sir Thomas Chamberlaine of Oxfordshire, and
many other creditable persons.

On Saturday morning, an hour before daylight, January 10, a drum was
heard beating upon the outside of Mr. Monpesson’s chamber, from whence
it went to the other end of the house, where some gentlemen strangers
lay, and commenced playing at their door four or five different tunes;
and at length flew off in the air. The next night, a blacksmith in the
village, and Mr. Monpesson’s man John, who was lying with him, heard a
noise in the room, as if somebody were shoeing a horse; and something
came with something like a pair of pincers, and nipped at the
blacksmith’s nose the whole of the night.

Getting up one morning to go a journey, Mr. Monpesson heard a great
noise below, where the children lay; and on running down instantly with
a pistol in his hand, he heard a voice cry out, a witch! a witch!
similar to one they had heard on a former occasion. On his entering the
apartment, all became quiet again.

The demon having one night played some little pranks at the foot of Mr.
Monpesson’s bed, it went into another bed, where one of his daughters
lay, and passed from one side to the other, lifting her up as it passed
under her. At that time there were three kinds of noises in the bed.
They attempted to thrust at it with a sword, but it continually evaded
them. The following night it came panting like a dog out of breath, when
some one present took a bedpost to strike at it, when it was immediately
snatched out of her hand; and company coming up stairs at the same time,
the room was filled with a nauseous stench, and very hot, although there
was no fire on, and during a very sharp winter’s night. It continued
panting an hour and a half, panting and scratching; and afterwards went
into the adjoining chamber, where it began to knock a little, and seemed
to rattle a chair; thus it continued for two or three nights in
succession. The old lady’s bible after this was found again among the
ashes, with the leaves downwards. It was taken up by Mr. Monpesson, who
observed that it lay open at the third chapter of St. Mark, where
mention is made of the unclean spirits falling down before our Saviour,
and of his giving power to the twelve Apostles to cast out devils, and
of the Scribes’ opinion, and that he cast them out through Beelzebub.

The following morning ashes were scattered over the chamber floor, to
see what impressions would be left upon it; in the morning, in one place
they found the resemblance of a great claw in another that of a smaller
one, some letters in another, which could not be decyphered, besides a
number of circles and scratches in the ashes, which no one understood
except the demon itself.

About this time, the author of the narration went to the house to
enquire after the truth of the circumstances which made so much noise in
that part of the country. The demon had left off drumming, and the
terrible noises it was in the habit of making before he arrived; but
most of the remarkable facts already related, were confirmed to him
there by several of the neighbours, on whose veracity he could depend,
who had witnessed them. It now used to haunt the children after they
were gone to bed. On the night he was there, the children went to bed
about 8 o’clock; a maid servant immediately came down and informed us
that the spirit was come. The neighbours then present went away, as well
as two ministers who had previously been some time in the house, but Mr.
Monpesson the author, and another gentleman who came with him, went up
to the room where the children were in bed. A scratching was heard as
they went up stairs, and just as they got into the room, it was
perceived just behind the bolster of the bed in which the children lay,
and appeared to be lying against the tick. The noise it made was like
that made with long nails upon the bolster. There were two little girls,
about seven or eight years of age, in the bed. Their hands were outside
the bedclothes, so that it was perfectly visible the noise was not made
by them which was behind their heads: they had been so used to it of
late, and always with some present in the chamber, that they seemed to
take very little notice of it. The narrator, who was standing at the
head of the bed, thrust his hand behind the bolster from whence the
noise proceeded, when it was immediately heard in another part of the
bed; but as soon as his hand was taken away, it returned to the same
place as before. On being told that it would imitate noises, he made
trial by scratching several times upon the sheet, as five, seven, and
ten times: it exactly replied to them by equal numbers. He looked under
and behind the bed, grasped the bolster, sounded the wall, and made
every possible search to find out any trick, contrivance, or other
cause, as well as his friend, but could discover nothing. So that in
truth he concluded, that the noise was made by some spirit or demon.
After it had scratched about for half an hour or more, it got into the
middle of the bed under the children, where it lay panting loudly, like
a dog out of breath. The author then put his hand upon the place, and
plainly felt the bed bearing up against it, as if it contained something
within thrusting it up. He grasped the feather to feel if he could
distinguish any thing alive; then looked every where about to see if
there were any dog or cat, or other creature, in the room; every one
present followed his example, but still they discovered nothing. The
motion it caused by its panting was so violent, that it had a visible
effect on the room and windows. In this manner it continued for half an
hour, the time the author was present. During this panting, something
was seen in a linen bag that was hung up against another bed, that was
taken for a mouse or rat, but upon the closest examination of it,
nothing was found in it of any description.

The author and his friend afterwards slept in the very identical chamber
where the principal disturbance had been first made. He was awakened by
a terrible noise made on the outside of the chamber door. He awoke his
friend, and asked three distinct times who was there, but received no
answer. At last he exclaimed, “_in the name of God who is it, and what
would you have?_ To which a voice answered, _nothing with you_. Thinking
it was some of the servants of the house, they went to sleep again.
Mentioning, however, the circumstance the next morning to Mr. Monpesson,
he declared that no one of the house lay that way, or had any business
thereabouts, and that none of his servants had got up until they were
called by him some time after daylight. This the servants confirmed, and
protested that the noise was not made by them. Previous to this, Mr.
Monpesson had told us, that it would go away in the middle of the night,
and return at different times about four o’clock, which was supposed to
be about the hour it was heard by the author and his friend.

Another circumstance connected with this seemingly mysterious business
was, that the author’s servant coming up to him in the morning, told
him, that one of his horses, the one which he had rode, was all in a
sweat, and appeared in every other respect as if it had been out all
night. His friend and him went down to the stable, and actually found
him in the state he was represented to be. On inquiry how the horse had
been treated, he was assured that the animal had been well fed, and
taken care of as he used to be; his servant besides was extremely
careful of his horses. “The horse,” says the author, “I had had a good
time, and never knew but he was very sound. But after I had rid him a
mile or two very gently over a plain down from Mr. Monpesson’s house, he
fell lame, and having made a hard shift to bring me home, died in two or
three days, no one being able to imagine what he ailed. This, I confess,
might be the consequence of an accident, or some unusual distemper, but
all things put together, it seems very probable that it was somewhat
else.”

Mr. Monpesson then stated, that one morning a light appeared in the
children’s chamber, and a voice was heard crying—a witch! a witch! for
at least an hundred times together. At another time, seeing some wood
move on the chimney of a room where he was, he fired a pistol among it;
and on examining the place afterwards, several drops of blood were
discovered on the hearth, and on several parts of the stairs. For two or
three nights after the discharge of the pistol nothing was heard, but it
returned, and so persecuted a little child newly taken from the nurse,
that the poor infant was not suffered to rest either day or night; nor
would the mischievous demon suffer a candle to burn in the room, but
either ran up the chimney with them alight, or threw them under the bed.
It so frightened this child by leaping upon it, that it continued in
fits for several hours; and ultimately they were obliged to remove the
children out of the house. Something was heard the next night, about the
hour of midnight, coming up stairs; it knocked at Mr. Monpesson’s door,
but he not answering, it went up another pair of stairs to his man’s
chamber, and appeared to him at his bed foot. The exact shape and
proportion of the demon he could not discover; all he saw was a great
body, with two red and glaring eyes, which for some time were steadily
fixed upon him; and at length they disappeared.

On another occasion, in the presence of strangers, it purred in the
children’s bed like a cat, and lifted the children up so forcibly, that
six men could not keep them down; upon which they removed the children
to another bed, but no sooner were they laid here than this became more
troubled than the first. In this manner it continued for four hours, and
so unmercifully beat the poor children’s legs against the posts, that
they were obliged to sit up all night. It then emptied chamber-pots, and
threw ashes into the beds, and placed a long iron pike in Mr.
Monpesson’s, and a knife into his mother’s. It would fill porringers
with ashes, throw every thing about, and kick up the devil’s diversion
from morning till night, and from night till morning.

About the beginning of April, 1663, a gentleman that lay in the house,
had all his money turned black in his pockets; and one morning Mr.
Monpesson going into his stable, found the horse he was accustomed to
ride upon, lying on the ground with one of its hind legs in its mouth,
and fastened there in such a manner, that several men with a leaver, had
the greatest difficulty in getting it out. After this there were a
number of other remarkable things occurred, but the author’s account
extends no farther; with the exception that Mr. Monpesson wrote him
word, that the house was afterwards, for several nights, beset with
seven or eight beings in the shape of men, who, as soon as a gun was
discharged, would scud away into an adjoining arbour.

The drummer, however, it appears, was apprehended in consequence of
these strange and mysterious occurrences. He was first, it seems,
committed to Gloucester jail for stealing, where a Wiltshire man going
to see him, the drummer enquired the news in Wiltshire: the reply was,
none: No, returned he, do you not hear of the drumming at a gentleman’s
house at Tedworth? That I do, said the other, enough: “I, quoth the
drummer, I have plagued him (or something to that purpose) and he never
shall be quiet until he has made me satisfaction for taking away my
drum. Upon information made to this effect, the drummer was tried for a
wizzard at Sarum, and all the main circumstances here related being
sworn to at the assizes, by the minister of the parish, and several
others of the most intelligent and substantial inhabitants, who had been
eye and earwitnesses of them, from time to time, for many years past;
the drummer was sentenced to transportation, and accordingly sent away;
and as the story runs, ’tis said, that by raising storms, and terrifying
the seamen, he contrived, some how or other, to get back again. And what
is still as remarkable, is, that during his restraint and absence, Mr.
Monpesson’s house remained undisturbed; but as soon as the demon of his
quiet returned, he fell to his old tricks again as bad as ever.”

The drummer had been a soldier under Cromwell, and used to talk much of
“gallant books” which he had of an old fellow, who was counted a
wizzard.

On the authority of Mr. Glanvil, who had it from Mr. Monpesson, we have
the following story.

“The gentleman, Mr. Hill, who was with me, being in company with one
Compton of Somersetshire, who practised physic, and pretends to strange
matters, related to him this story of Mr. Monpesson’s disturbance. The
physician told him, he was sure it was nothing but a rendezvous of
witches, and that for an hundred pounds he would undertake to rid the
house of all disturbance. In pursuit of this discourse, he talkt of many
high things, and having drawn my friend into another room, apart from
the rest of the company, said, he would make him sensible that he could
do something more than ordinary, and asked him who he desired to see;
Mr. Hill had no great confidence in his talk, but yet being earnestly
pressed to name some one, he said he desired to see no one so much as
his wife, who was then many miles distant from them at her home. Upon
this, Compton took up a looking-glass that was in the room, and setting
it down again, bid my friend look into it, which he did, and then, as he
most solemnly and seriously professeth, he saw the exact image of his
wife, in that habit which she then wore, and working at her needle in
such a part of the room, there also represented, in which and about
which time she really was, as he found upon enquiring upon his return
home. The gentleman himself averred this to me, and he is a sober,
intelligent, and credible person. Compton had no knowledge of him
before, and was an utter stranger to the person of his wife. The same
man is again alluded to, in the story of the witchcrafts of Elizabeth
Styles, whom he discovered to be a witch, by foretelling her coming into
a house, and going out again without speaking. He was by all accounted a
very odd person.”




                         THE DEMON OF JEDBURGH.


In 1752, when Captain Archibald Douglass, who was then on a recruiting
party in the South of Scotland, his native country, lay in the town of
Jedburgh, his serjeant complained to him that the house in which he was
quartered was haunted by a spirit, which had several times appeared to
him by candle light in a very frightful form. The captain, who was a man
of sense and far from being superstitious, treated the serjeant as a
person who had lost his reason, threatened to cane him as a coward, and
told him that goblins and spirits were beneath the notice of a soldier.
The captain the night following had a strange dream, in which he saw the
landlady of the inn, where the serjeant lay, in company with a great
number of other females, ascending in the air, some riding on brooms,
some on asses, and others on cats, &c. The landlady invited him to
accompany them in their aërial excursion, to which consenting, he got
upon a goat behind one of the women, and was carried with great velocity
to a large heath near London, which he well knew on their arrival.

When all the females had alighted, his ears were suddenly alarmed with a
thousand yells the most hideous that could be conceived, to the sound of
which they all danced in a circle. The captain was placed in the centre;
beholding all the wild vagaries with wonder and horror. When the music
had ceased and the dancing closed, suddenly he found himself by a
phalanx of infernal furies, whose forks were all aimed at his breast.
The horror of this scene suddenly awaked the captain, who was glad to
find himself safe and in a sound skin at his mother’s house, where he
lay that night.

The next morning the serjeant, like the knight of the sorrowful
countenance, waited on the captain for fresh orders, again declaring
that he had seen the apparition which had threatened his life. The
captain heard him with less impatience and inattention than he had the
preceding day, saying, I myself have had a restless night and a terrible
dream, but these things, I tell you again, are beneath the notice of a
soldier. However, continued the captain, I am resolved to sift this
matter till I discover the ground of your complaint. I have a notion
that you, like myself, have been making too free with the bottle. The
serjeant replied, most solemnly declaring that he was most perfectly in
his senses when he saw a frightful spectre standing at the side of his
bed, and which changing its appearance, retired in the shape of a great
black cat, jumping from the window over the church steeple. Now to let
your honour into a secret, continued the soldier, I was informed this
morning, that the landlady is neither more nor less than a witch, and
her goodman is second-sighted, and can tell, awake him from his sleep
when you please, the precise hour of the night, and the exact minute.

To cut short our story, the captain at night accompanied the serjeant,
well provided with fire arms, and a sword, to the chamber alluded to.
Having placed the arms upon the table, he lay down by the soldier’s side
in a bed without curtains, but enclosed with a frame of wainscoting with
sliding doors. At midnight, they heard three knocks on one of the
pannels, when the captain arose, ran to the door, which he found fast
locked, and having a candle, searched every corner of the room without
making any discovery. He lay down a second time, and about an hour after
again heard the knocking three distinct times as before. Attempting to
get up, the whole wainscoting tumbled down upon the bed, the violent
noise of which alarmed the serjeant, who cried out, the witch! the witch
is within! It was a considerable time before they could extricate
themselves from the boarding, but so sooner was the captain disentangled
than he saw a prodigious large sable cat flying to the window, at which
he fired a pistol, and shot off one of its ears.

Next morning the captain called the landlord, and enquired how long his
house had been haunted. The landlord replied, you must ask my wife, when
she returns home, for she is seldom in bed after midnight. Just as the
husband was so saying, the wife came into the kitchen, and falling into
a swoon upon seeing the captain, fell down prostrate on the floor,
discomposed her head-dress, and discovered a terrible wound on the left
side of her head and the want of an ear. The captain swore that he would
take her before the provost, in order that she might be committed for
trial, but the husband interfering, and the captain well knowing that he
could not continue in the country till the next circuit, contented
himself with telling the story among the circle of his friends, none of
whom had the least reason to doubt his veracity, as he was a gentleman
of strict honour, undaunted courage, and tried integrity.—It may be
inferred from this that witches have a capacity of changing their
outward form, and appearing in the shape of a cat, or the like, at the
will; but this might only be in the imagination of the captain and the
serjeant, for it would be hard to account for the loss of this witch’s
real ear, had she changed her body to that of the animal upon which the
captain supposed he had fired.

How to reconcile these and various similar stories to the standard of
common credence, is a task no less difficult than problematical; and to
ascertain the real cause of the scarcity, now-a-days, of such mysterious
and unaccountable occurrences, is at least a proof that the devil has
been losing latterly, from some cause or other, much of his ascendancy
over the human mind. To attempt to explain, or do away with the
supposition, that spirits, apparitions, demons, or other preternatural
agents, “hobgoblins damned,” or undamned, would be to attack the
fundamental parts of the christian religion, which we are told and
taught to believe constitutes a part of the law of the land. The wisest
philosophers, heroes, and vagrants, have all, from the remotest
antiquity downwards, testified to their appearance; and divines
themselves have been equally orthodox, and active in promulgating the
force of their testimony in support of the doctrine of preternatural
agency; which neither the supposition of a morbid imagination,
“contained in tabular views[65] of the various comparative degrees of
faintness, vividness, or intensity, supposed to exist between sensations
and ideas, when conjointly excited or depressed,” can account for on
rational principles, when the mind is curious to be divested of all
these presumed causes. That there are states and conditions of the mind,
when, from intensity of excitement, the imagination may be played upon
no one will deny; but that such causes should always have existed, is
equally as preposterous and absurd—still between these and imposture,
perhaps truth may lie; and then it is a point of scepticism that does
little honour to the social compact, to cast even a shade of doubt on
the moral character of a man, whose veracity was never before impeached
on any other subject.




                       THE GHOST OF JULIUS CÆSAR.


Marcus Brutus, one of the murderers of Julius Cæsar, being one night in
his tent, saw a monstrous figure come in about the third hour of the
night. Brutus immediately cried out, what art thou, a man or a god? and
why art thou come hither? The spectre answered, I am thy evil genius;
thou shalt see me at Philippi. Brutus calmly answered, I will meet thee
there. However, he did not go, but relating the affair to Cassius, who
being of the sect of Epicurus, and believing nothing of these matters,
told him it was a mere fancy; that there was no such thing as genii or
other spirits, which could appear to men; that even if they should
appear, they could not assume a human shape or voice, and had no power
over men. Though Brutus was somewhat encouraged by those reasons, he
could not entirely get the better of his uneasiness: but this very
Cassius, in the midst of the battle of Philippi, saw Julius Cæsar, whom
he had assassinated, riding up to him full speed, which terrified him so
much, that he fell upon his own sword.


          _The ghosts of the slain at the battle of Marathon._

Pausanias writes, that four hundred years after the battle of Marathon,
there were still heard in the place where it was fought, the neighing of
horses, and the shouts of soldiers, animating one another to the fight.
Plutarch also speaks of spectres seen, and dreadful howlings heard in
the public baths, where several citizens of Chœronea, his native town,
had been murdered. He says, that the inhabitants had been obliged to
shut up these baths, but that, notwithstanding the precaution, great
noises were still heard, and dreadful spectres frequently seen by the
neighbours. Plutarch, who is an author of acknowledged gravity and good
sense, frequently makes mention of spectres and apparitions;
particularly he says, that in the famous battle above alluded to,
several soldiers saw the apparition of Theseus fighting for the Greeks
and against the Persians.


                 _Familiar spirit or ancient Brownie._

It is recorded in Socrates, that after the defeat of the Athenian army
under the prætor Laches, as he was flying in company with the Athenian
general, and came to a place where several roads met, he refused to go
the same road that the others took, and the reason being asked him, he
answered that his genus, or familiar spirit, who frequently attended
him, dissuaded him from it; and the event justified the precaution, for
all those who went a different way, were killed, or made prisoners by
the enemy’s cavalry.




                           GIPSIES—EGYPTIANS.


In most parts of the continent the gipsies are called _Cingari_, or
_Zingari_; the Spaniards call them _Gitanos_, the French _Bohemiens_ or
_Bohemiennes_.

It is not certain when the Gipsies, as they are now termed, first
appeared in Europe; but mention is made of them in Hungary and Germany,
so early as the year 1417. Within 10 years afterwards we hear of them in
France, Switzerland and Italy. The date of their arrival in England is
more uncertain; it is most probable that it was not until near a century
afterward. In the year 1530, they are spoken of in the following manner,
in the penal statutes.


  “Forasmuch as before this time, divers and many outlandish people
  calling themselves Egyptians, using no craft nor feat of merchandize,
  have come into this realm, and gone from shire to shire, and place to
  place, in great company, and used great subtil and crafty means to
  deceive the people; bearing them in mind that they, by palmistry,
  could tell men’s and women’s fortunes; and so many times, by craft and
  subtilty, have deceived the people of their money; and also have
  committed many heinous felonies and robberies, to the great hurt and
  deceit of the people they have come among,” &c.


This is the preamble to an act, by which the Gipsies were ordered to
quit the realm under heavy penalties. Two subsequent acts, passed in
1555 and 1565, made it death for them to remain in the kingdom; and it
is still on record, that thirteen were executed under these acts, in the
county of Suffolk, a few years before the restoration. It was not till
about the year 1783, that they were repealed.

The Gipsies were expelled France in 1560, and Spain in 1591: but it does
not appear they have been extirpated in any country. Their collective
numbers, in every quarter of the globe, have been calculated at 7 or
800,000[66]. They are most numerous in Asia, and in the northern parts
of Europe. Various have been the opinion relative to their origin. That
they came from Egypt, has been the most prevalent. This opinion (which
has procured them here the name of Gipsies, and in Spain that of
_Gittanos_) arose from some of the first who arrived in Europe,
pretending that they came from that country; which they did, perhaps, to
heighten their reputation for skill in palmistry and the occult
sciences. It is now we believe pretty generally agreed, that they came
originally from Hindostan; since their language so far coincides with
the Hindostanic, that even now, after a lapse of nearly four centuries,
during which they have been dispersed in various foreign countries,
nearly one half of their words are precisely those of Hindostan[67]; and
scarcely any variation is to be found in vocabularies procured from the
Gipsies in Turkey, Hungary, Germany, and those in England[68]. Their
manners, for the most part, coincide, as well as the language, in every
quarter of the globe where they are found; being the same idle wandering
set of beings, and seldom professing any mode of acquiring a livelihood,
except that of fortune-telling[69]. Their religion is always that of the
country in which they reside; and though they are no great frequenters
either of mosques or churches, they generally conform to rites and
ceremonies as they find them established.

Grellman says that, in Germany, they seldom think of any marriage
ceremony; but their children are baptized and the mothers churched. In
England their children are baptized, and their dead buried, according to
the rites of the church; perhaps the marriage ceremony is not more
regarded than in Germany; but it is certain they are sometimes married
in churches. Upon the whole, as Grellman observes, we may certainly
regard the Gipsies as a singular phenomenon in Europe. For the space of
between three and four hundred years they have gone wandering about like
pilgrims and strangers, yet neither time nor example has made in them
any alteration: they remain ever and every where what their fathers
were: Africa makes them no blacker, nor does Europe make them whiter.

Few of the descendants of the aboriginal Gipsies are to be found any
where in Europe, and in England less than any where else. The severity
of the police against this description of the degenerate vagabonds
existing at the present day, have considerably thinned their phalanxes,
and brought them to something like a due sense of the laws and
expectations of civilized society. What remains of them, nevertheless,
contrive one way or other to elude the vigilance of the laws by
different masked callings, under which they ostensibly appear to carry
on their usual traffic.

The modern Gipsies pretend that they derive their origin from the
ancient Egyptians, who were famous for their knowledge in astronomy and
other sciences; and, under the pretence of fortune-telling, find means
to rob or defraud the ignorant and superstitious. To colour their
impostures, they artificially discolour their faces, and speak a kind of
gibberish or cant peculiar to themselves. They rove up and down the
country in large companies, to the great terror of the farmers, from
whose geese, turkeys, and fowls, they take considerable contributions.

When a fresh recruit is admitted into the fraternity, he is to take the
following oath, administered by the principal marauder, after going
through the annexed forms:—

First, a new name is given to him, by which he is ever after to be
called; then standing up in the middle of the assembly, and directing
his face to the _dimber damber_, or principal man of the gang, he
repeats the following oath, which is dictated to him by some experienced
member of the fraternity; namely, “I, Crank Cuffin, do swear to be a
true brother, and that I will, in all things, obey the commands of the
great tawny prince, and keep his counsel, and not divulge the secrets of
my brethren.

“I will never leave nor forsake the company, but observe and keep all
the times of appointment, either by day or by night, in every place
whatever.

“I will not teach any one to cant, nor will I disclose any of our
mysteries to them.

“I will take my prince’s part against all that shall oppose him, or any
of us, according to the utmost of my ability; nor will I suffer him, or
any one belonging to us, to be abused by any strange _Abrams_,
_Rufflers_, _Hookers_, _Paillards_, _Swaddlers_, _Irish Toyles_,
_Swigmen_, _Whip Jacks_, _Jackmen_, _Bawdy Baskets_, _Dommerars_,
_Clapper Dogeons_, _Patricoes_, or _Curtals_; but will defend him, or
them, as much as I can, against all other outliers whatever. I will not
conceal aught I win out of _Libkins_[70], or pun the _Ruffmans_[71], but
will preserve it for the use of the company. Lastly, I will cleave to my
_Doxy-wap_[72], stifly, and will bring her _Duds_[73], _Margery
Prators_[74], _Goblers_[75], _Grunting Cheats_[76], or _Tibs of the
Buttery_[77], or any thing else I can come at, as _winning_[78] for her
wappings.”

The canters, it would appear, have a tradition, that from the three
first articles of this oath, the first founders of a certain boastful,
worshipful fraternity, (who pretend to derive their origin from the
earliest times) borrowed both the hint and the form of their
establishment; and that their pretended derivation of the first word
_Adam_ is a forgery, it being only from the first _Adam Tyler_[70]. At
the admission of a new brother, a general stock is raised for _booze_ or
drink, to make themselves merry on the occasion. As for peckage or
eatables, this they can procure without money, for while some are sent
to break the ruffmans, or woods and bushes, for firing, others are
detached to filch geese, chickens, hens, ducks, or mallards, and pigs.
Their morts, or women, are their butchers, who presently make bloody
work with what living things are brought to them; and having made holes
in the ground under some remote hedge, in an obscure place, they make a
fire, and boil or broil their food; and when it is done enough, fall to
work tooth and nail; and having eaten more like beasts than human
beings, they drink more like swine than men, entertaining each other
during the time with songs in the canting dialect. As they live, so they
lie together, promiscuously, and know not how to claim a property either
in their goods or children; and this general interest ties them more
firmly together, than if all their rags were twisted into ropes, to bind
them indissolubly from a separation, which detestable union is farther
consolidated by the preceding oath.

They stroll up and down all summer-time in droves, and dexterously pick
pockets while they are telling fortunes; and the money, rings, silver
thimbles, &c. which they get, are instantly conveyed from one hand to
another, till the remotest person of the gang (who is not suspected,
because they come not near the person robbed) gets possession of it; so
that in the strictest search, it is impossible to recover it, while the
wretches, with imprecations, oaths, and protestations, disclaim the
thievery.

That by which they were said to get the most money, was, when young
gentlewomen of good families and reputation, have happened to be with
child before marriage, a round sum is often bestowed among Gipsies, for
some mort to take the child; and, as in these cases it was never heard
of more by the true mother and family, so the disgrace was kept
concealed from the world; and, in the event of the child surviving, its
parents are never known.

The following account of these wandering beings, is taken from Evelyn’s
Journal, which throws some light on their degeneracy from the primitive
tribes.

“In our statutes they are called Egyptians, which implies a counterfeit
kind of rogues, who ‘being English or Welsh people,’ disguise themselves
in uncouth habits, smearing their faces and bodies, and framing to
themselves an unknown, canting language, wander up and down; and under
pretence of telling fortunes, curing diseases, &c. abuse the common
people, trick them of their money, and steal all that is not too hot or
too heavy for them. See several statutes made against them, 28 Henry
VIII. c. 10. 1 & 2. Philip and Mary, c. 4 & 5. Eliz. c. 20.

“The origin of this tribe of vagabonds called _Egyptians_, and popularly
Gipsies, is somewhat obscure; at least the reason of the denomination is
so. It is certain, the ancient Egyptians had the name of great cheats,
and were famous for the subtilty of their impostures, whence the name
might afterwards pass proverbially into other languages, as is pretty
certain it did into the Greek and Latin, or else the ancient Egyptians,
being much versed in astronomy, which in those days was little better
than Astrology, the name was on that score assumed by these _diseurs de
bonne avanture_, as the French call them, or tellers of good fortune. Be
this as it may, there is scarce any country in Europe, even at the
present day, but has its Egyptians, though not all of them under this
denomination: the Latins called them _Egyptii_; the Italians, _Cingani_,
and _Cingari_; the Germans, _Zigeuna_; the French, _Bohemiens_; others
_Saracens_, and others _Tartars_, &c.

Munster, Geogr. L. III. c. 5. relates, that they made their first
appearance in Germany, in 1417, exceedingly tawny and sun-burnt, and in
pitiful array, though they affected quality, and travelled with a train
of hunting dogs after them, like nobles. He adds, that they had
passports from King Sigismund of Bohemia, and other princes. Ten years
afterwards they came into France, and thence passed into England.

Pasquier, in his Recherches, L. IV. c. 19, relates the origin of the
Gipsies thus: On the 17th of April, 1427, there came to Paris twelve
penitents, or persons, as they said, adjudged to penance; viz. one duke,
one count, and ten cavaliers, or persons on horseback; they took on
themselves the characters of Christians of the Lower Egypt, expelled by
the Saracens; who having made application to the Pope, and confessed
their sins, received for penance, that they should travel through the
world for seven years, without ever lying in a bed. Their train
consisted of 120 persons, men, women, and children, which were all that
were left of 1200, who came together out of Egypt. They had lodgings
assigned them in the chapel, and people went in crowds to see them.
Their ears were perforated, and silver buckles hung to them. Their hair
was exceedingly black and frizzled; their women were ugly, thieves, and
pretenders to telling of fortunes. The bishop soon after obliged them to
retire, and excommunicated such as had shewn them their hands.

By an ordinance of the estates of Orleans, in the year 1560, it was
enjoined, that all these impostors under the name of _Bohemians_ and
_Egyptians_, do quit the kingdom on the penalty of the gallies. Upon
this they dispersed into lesser companies, and spread themselves over
Europe. The first time we hear of them in England was three years
afterwards, viz. anno 1563.

Ralph Volaterranus, making mention of them, affirms, that they first
proceeded or strolled from among the Uxii, a people of Persis or Persia.
(See GIPSIES.)

The following characteristic sketch of one of the primitive gipsies, is
ably delineated in the popular novel of Quentin Durward; with which we
shall close this article:

Orleans, who could not love the match provided for him by the King,
could love Isabelle, and follows her escort. Quentin, however, unhorses
him, and sustains a noble combat with his companion the renowned Dunais;
till a body of the archers ride up to his relief. The assailants are
carried off prisoners, and our victorious Scot pursues his dangerous
way, under uncertain guidance, as the following extract will shew:

“While he hesitated whether it would be better to send back one of his
followers, he heard the blast of a horn, and looking in the direction
from which the sound came, beheld a horseman riding very fast towards
them. The low size, and wild, shaggy, untrained state of the animal,
reminded Quentin of the mountain breed of horses in his own country; but
this was much more finely limbed, and, with the same appearance of
hardness, was more rapid in its movements. The head particularly, which,
in the Scottish poney, is often lumpish and heavy, was small and well
placed in the neck of this animal, with thin jaws, full sparkling eyes,
and expanded nostrils.

“The rider was even more singular in his appearance than the horse which
he rode, though that was extremely unlike the horses of France. Although
he managed his palfrey with great dexterity, he sat with his feet in
broad stirrups, something resembling a shovel, so short, that his knees
were well nigh as high as the pommel of his saddle. His dress was a red
turban of small size, in which he wore a sullied plume, secured by a
clasp of silver; his tunic, which was shaped like those of the
Estradiots, a sort of troops whom the Venetians at that time levied in
the provinces, on the eastern side of their gulf, was green in colour,
and tawdrily laced with gold; he wore very wide drawers or trowsers of
white, though none of the cleanest, which gathered beneath the knee, and
his swarthy legs were quite bare, unless for the complicated laces which
bound a pair of sandals on his feet; he had no spurs, the edge of his
large stirrups being so sharp as to serve to goad the horse in a very
severe manner. In a crimson sash this singular horseman wore a dagger on
the right side, and on the left a short crooked Moorish sword, and by a
tarnished baldrick over the shoulder hung the horn which announced his
approach. He had a swarthy and sun-burnt visage, with a thin beard, and
piercing dark eyes, a well-formed mouth and nose, and other features
which might have been pronounced handsome, but for the black elf-locks
which hung around his face, and the air of wildness and emaciation,
which rather seemed to indicate a savage than a civilized man.

“Quentin rode up to the Bohemian, and said to him, as he suddenly
assumed his proper position on the horse, ‘Methinks, friend, you will
prove but a blind guide, if you look at the tail of your horse rather
than his ears.’

“‘And if I were actually blind,’ answered the Bohemian, ‘I could guide
you through any county in this realm of France, or in those adjoining to
it.’

“‘Yet you are no Frenchman born,’ said the Scot.

“‘I am not,’ answered the guide.

“‘What countryman, then, are you?’ demanded Quentin.

“‘I am of no country,’ answered the guide.

“‘How! of no country?’ repeated the Scot.

“‘No!’ answered the Bohemian, ‘of none. I am a Zingaro, a Bohemian, an
Egyptian, or whatever the Europeans, in their different languages, may
chuse to call our people; but I have no country.’

“‘Are you a Christian?’ asked the Scotchman.

“The Bohemian shook his head.

“‘Dog,’ said Quentin, (for there was little toleration in the spirit of
Catholicism in those days,) ‘dost thou worship Mahoun?’

“‘No,’ was the indifferent and concise answer of the guide, who neither
seemed offended nor surprised at the young man’s violence of manner.

“‘Are you a Pagan then, or what are you?’

“‘I have no religion,’ answered the Bohemian.

“Durward started back; for, though he had heard of Saracens and
idolaters, it had never entered into his ideas or belief, that any body
of men could exist who practised no mode of worship whatsoever. He
recovered from his astonishment, to ask where his guide usually dwelt.

“‘Wherever I chance to be for the time,’ replied the Bohemian. ‘I have
no home.’

“‘How do you guard your property?’

“‘Excepting the clothes which I wear, and the horse I ride on, I have no
property.’

“‘Yet you dress gaily, and ride gallantly,’ said Durward. ‘What are your
means of subsistence?’

“‘I eat when I am hungry, drink when I am thirsty, and have no other
means of subsistence than chance throws in my way,’ replied the
vagabond.

“‘Under whose laws do you live?’

“‘I acknowledge obedience to none, but as it suits my pleasure,’ said
the Bohemian.

“‘Who is your leader, and commands you?’

“‘The father of our tribe—if I chuse to obey him,’ said the guide—
‘otherwise I have no commander.’

“‘You are then,’ said the wondering querist, ‘destitute of all that
other men are combined by—you have no law, no leader, no settled means
of subsistence, no house, or home. You have, may Heaven compassionate
you, no country—and, may Heaven enlighten and forgive you, you have no
God! What is it that remains to you, deprived of government, domestic
happiness, and religion?’

“‘I have liberty,’ said the Bohemian—‘I crouch to no one—obey no one—
respect no one.—I go where I will—live as I can—and die when my day
comes.’

“‘But you are subject to instant execution, at the pleasure of the
Judge.’

“‘Be it so,’ returned the Bohemian; ‘I can but die so much the sooner.’

“‘And to imprisonment also,’ said the Scot; ‘and where, then, is your
boasted freedom?’

“‘In my thoughts,’ said the Bohemian, ‘which no chains can bind; while
yours, even when your limbs are free, remain fettered by your laws and
your superstitions, your dreams of local attachment, and your fantastic
visions of civil policy. Such as I are free in spirit when our limbs are
chained—You are imprisoned in mind, even when your limbs are most at
freedom.’

“‘Yet the freedom of your thoughts,’ said the Scot, ‘relieves not the
pressure of the gyves on your limbs.’

“‘For a brief time that may be endured; and if within that period I
cannot extricate myself, and fail of relief from my comrades, I can
always die, and death is the most perfect freedom of all.’

There was a deep pause of some duration, which Quentin at length broke,
by resuming his queries.

“‘Yours is a wandering race, unknown to the nations of Europe—Whence do
they derive their origin?’

“‘I may not tell you,’ answered the Bohemian.

“‘When will they relieve this kingdom from their presence, and return to
the land from whence they came?’ said the Scot.

“‘When the day of their pilgrimage shall be accomplished,’ replied his
vagrant guide.

“‘Are you not sprung from those tribes of Israel which were carried into
captivity beyond the great river Euphrates?’ said Quentin, who had not
forgotten the lore which had been taught him at Aberbrothock.

“‘Had we been so,’ answered the Bohemian, ‘we had followed their faith,
and practised their rites.’

“‘What is thine own name?’ said Durward.

“‘My proper name is only known to my brethren—The men beyond our tents
call me Hayraddin Maugrabin, that is, Hayraddin the African Moor.’

“‘Thou speakest too well for one who hath lived always in thy filthy
horde,’ said the Scot.

“‘I have learned some of the knowledge of this land,’ said Heyraddin.—
‘When I was a little boy, our tribe was chased by the hunters after
human flesh. An arrow went through my mother’s head, and she died. I was
entangled in the blanket on her shoulders, and was taken by the
pursuers. A priest begged me from the Provost’s archers, and trained me
up in Frankish learning for two or three years.’

“‘How came you to part with him?’ demanded Durward.

“‘I stole money from him—even the God which he worshipped,’ answered
Hayraddin, with perfect composure; ‘he detected me, and beat me—I
stabbed him with my knife, fled to the woods, and was again united to my
people.’

“‘Wretch!’ said Durward, ‘did you murder your benefactor?’

“‘What had he to do to burden me with his benefits?—The Zingaro boy was
no house-bred cur to dog the heels of his master and crouch beneath his
blows, for scraps of food—He was the imprisoned wolf-whelp, which at the
first opportunity broke his chain, rended his master, and returned to
his wilderness.’

“There was another pause, when the young Scot, with a view of still
farther investigating the character and purpose of this suspicious
guide, asked Hayraddin, ‘Whether it was not true that his people, amid
their ignorance, pretended to a knowledge of futurity, which was not
given to the sages, philosophers, and divines, of more polished
society?’

“‘We pretend to it,’ said Hayraddin, ‘and it is with justice.’

“‘How can it be that so high a gift is bestowed on so abject a race?’
said Quentin.

“‘Can I tell you?’ answered Hayraddin—‘Yes, I may indeed; but it is when
you shall explain to me why the dog can trace the footsteps of a man,
while man, the noble animal, hath no power to trace those of the dog.
These powers, which seem to you so wonderful, are instinctive in our
race. From the lines on the face and on the hand, we can tell the future
fate of those who consult us, even as surely as you know from the
blossom of the tree in spring, what fruit it will bear in the harvest.’”




                 JUGGLERS, THEIR ORIGIN, EXPLOITS, &c.


Those occupations which were of the most absolute necessity to the
support of existence, were, doubtless, the earliest, and, in the infancy
of society, the sole employments that engaged attention. But when the
art and industry of a few were found sufficient for the maintenance of
many, property began to accumulate in the hands of individuals, and as
all could no longer be engaged in the productions of the necessaries of
life, those who were excluded applied their ingenuity to those arts
which, by contributing to the convenience of the former, might enable
them to participate in the fruits of their labour; and several of these
have acquired a pre-eminence over the more useful avocations. A taste
for the wonderful seems to be natural to man in every stage of society,
and at almost every period of life; we, therefore, cannot wonder that,
from the earliest ages, persons have been found, who, more idle or more
ingenious than others, have availed themselves of this propensity, to
obtain an easy livelihood by levying contributions on the curiosity of
the public. Whether this taste is to be considered as a proof of the
weakness of our judgment, or of innate inquisitiveness, which stimulates
us to enlarge the sphere of our knowledge, must be left to the decision
of metaphysicians; it is sufficient for our present purpose to know that
it gave rise to a numerous class of persons, whom, whether performers of
sleight of hand, rope-dancers, mountebanks, teachers of animals to
perform extraordinary tricks, or, in short, who delude the senses, and
practice harmless deception on spectators, we include under the common
title of Jugglers.

If these arts served no other purpose than that of mere amusement, they
yet merit a certain degree of encouragement, as affording at once a
cheap and innocent diversion: but Jugglers frequently exhibit
instructive experiments in natural philosophy, chemistry, and mechanics;
thus, the solar microscope was invented from an instrument to reflect
shadows, with which a Savoyard amused a German populace; and the
celebrated Sir Richard Arkwright is said to have conceived the idea of
the spinning machines, which have so largely contributed to the
prosperity of the cotton manufacture in this country, from a toy which
he purchased for his child of an itinerant showman. These deceptions
have, besides, acted as an agreeable and most powerful antidote to
superstition, and to that popular belief in miracles, conjuration,
sorcery, and witchcraft, which preyed upon the minds of our ancestors;
and the effects of shadows, electricity, mirrors, and the magnet, once
formidable instruments in the hands of interested persons for keeping
the vulgar in awe, have been stripped of their terrors, and are no
longer frightful in their most terrific forms.

That this superstitious dread led to the persecution of many innocent
beings, who were supposed to be guilty of witchcraft, is too well known
to require illustration: our own statute books are loaded with penalties
against sorcery; at no very distant period our courts of law have been
disgraced by criminal trials of that nature; and judges who are still
cited as models of legal knowledge and discernment, not only permitted
such cases to go to a jury, but allowed sentences to be recorded which
consigned reputed wizards to capital punishment. In Poland, even so late
as the year 1739, a Juggler was exposed to the torture, until a
confession was extracted from him that he was a sorcerer, upon which,
without further proof, he was immediately hanged; and instances in other
countries might be multiplied without end. But this, although it exceeds
in atrocity, does not equal in absurdity, the infatuation of the
tribunal of the inquisition in Portugal, which actually condemned to the
flames, as being possessed with the devil, a horse belonging to an
Englishman, who had taught it to perform some uncommon tricks; and the
poor animal is confidently said to have been publicly burned at Lisbon,
in conformity with his sentence, in the year 1601.

The only parts of Europe in which the arts of sorcery now obtain any
credit, is Lapland; where, indeed, supposed wizards still practise
incantations, by which they pretend to obtain the knowledge of future
events, and in which the credulity of the people induces them to place
the most implicit confidence. On such occasions a magic drum is usually
employed. This instrument is formed of a piece of wood of a semi-oval
form, hollow on the flat side, and there covered with a skin, in which
various uncouth figures are depicted; among which, since the
introduction of Christianity into that country, an attempt is usually
made to represent the acts of our Saviour and the Apostles. On this
covering several brass rings of different sizes are laid, while the
attendants dispose themselves in many antic postures, in order to
facilitate the charm; the drum is then beat with the horn of a
rein-deer, which occasioning the skin to vibrate, puts the rings in
motion round the figures, and, according to the positions which they
occupy, the officiating seer pronounces his prediction.

It is unfortunate that of all the books (and there were several) which
treated of the arts of conjuration, as they were practised among the
ancients, not one is now extant, and all that we know upon the subject
is collected from isolated facts which have been incidentally mentioned
in other writings. From these it would, however, appear, that many of
the deceptions which still continue to excite astonishment, were then
common.

A century and a half before our æra, during the revolt of the slaves in
Sicily, a Syrian of their number, named Eunus, a man of considerable
talent, who after having witnessed many vicissitudes, was reduced to
that state, became the leader of his companions by pretending to an
inspiration from the gods; and in order to confirm the divinity of his
mission by miracles, he used to breath flames from his mouth when
addressing his followers. By this art the Rabbi Barchschebas also made
the credulous Jews believe that he was the Messiah, during the sedition
which he excited among them in the reign of Adrian; and, two centuries
afterwards, the Emperor Constantius was impressed with great dread, when
informed that one of the body-guards had been seen to breathe out fire.
Historians tell us that these deceptions were performed by putting
inflammable substances into a nut-shell pierced at both ends, which was
then secretly conveyed into the mouth and breathed through. Our own
fire-eaters content themselves with rolling a little flax, so as to form
a small ball, which is suffered to burn until nearly consumed; more flax
is then tightly rolled round it, and the fire will thus remain within
for a long time, and sparks may be blown from it without injury,
provided the air be inspired, not by the mouth but through the nostrils.
The ancients also performed some curious experiments with that
inflammable mineral oil called Naphtha, which kindles on merely exposing
near a fire. Allusion is supposed to have been made to this in the story
of the dress of Herculus, when it is said to have been dipped in the
blood of Nessus. Many assert that it was with this substance Medea
destroyed Creusa, by sending to her a dress impregnated with it, which
burst into flames when she drew near the fire of the altar; and there
can be no doubt that it was used by the priests on those occasions when
the sacrificial offerings took fire imperceptibly.

The trial by Ordeal, in the middle ages, in which persons accused of
certain crimes were forced to prove their innocence by walking blindfold
among burning ploughshares, or by holding heated iron in their hands,
was probably little else than a juggling trick, which the priests
conducted as best suited their views. The accused was committed to their
care during three entire days previous to the trial, and remained in
their custody for the same space after it was over; the Ordeal took
place in the church under their own immediate inspection; they not only
consecrated, but heated, the iron themselves; mass was then said, and
various ceremonies were performed, all calculated to divert the
attention of the spectators; and when the operation was over, the part
which had been exposed to the fire was carefully bound up and sealed,
not to be opened until the end of the third day; doubtless, therefore,
the time before the trial was occupied in preparing the skin to resist
the effects of the heat, and that afterwards in obliterating the marks
of any injury it might have sustained. That such was the fact has,
indeed, been acknowledged in the works of Albertus Magnus, a Dominican
friar, who, after the trial by Ordeal had been abolished, published the
secret of the art, which, if his account be correct, consisted in
nothing more than covering the hands and feet at repeated intervals with
a paste made of the sap of certain herbs mixed together with the white
of an egg.

This deception was, however, practised in times more remote than the
period to which we have alluded. There was anciently an annual festival
held on Mount Soracte, in Etruria, at which certain people called
_Hirpi_, used to walk over live embers, for which performance they were
allowed some peculiar privileges by the Roman senate; the same feat was
achieved by women at the temple of Diana, at Castabala, in Cappadocia;
and allusion is even made, in the Antigone of the Grecian poet
Sophocles, who wrote nearly five centuries anterior to our æra, to the
very species of Ordeal which has been just noticed.

In modern times, much notice has been excited by jugglers, who practised
deceptions by fire. Towards the end of the seventeenth century, one
Richardson, an Englishman, excited great astonishment at Paris, by
pretending to chew burning coals and to swallow melted lead, with many
other equally extraordinary feats; some of which are thus recorded in
Evelyn’s diary:—“October the 8th, 1672, took leave of my Lady
Sunderland, who was going to the Hague to my Lord, now ambassador there.
She made me stay dinner at Leicester House, and afterwards sent for
Richardson, the famous fire-eater. He, before us, devoured brimstone on
glowing coals, chewing and swallowing them. He melted a beere glasse and
eate it quite up; then taking a live coal on his tongue, he put on it a
raw oyster; the coal was blowne on with bellows till it flamed and
sparkled in his mouth, and so remained until the oyster was quite
boiled; then he melted pitch and wax with sulphur, which he dranke down
as it flamed.” Many of our readers must recollect Signora Girardelli;
and Miss Rogers, the American fire-eater, who was announced as having
entered a heated oven with a leg of mutton in her hand, and having
remained there until it was baked! This young lady exhibited all the
tricks usually performed by such persons; she washed her hands in
boiling oil, and then suffered aquafortis to be poured over them; but
below the oil, there, no doubt, was a quantity of water, the air from
which, when heated, forcing itself through the supernatant oil, gave it
the appearance of boiling, when in reality its temperature probably did
not exceed a hundred degrees of Fahrenheit; and when the hands were once
well coated with oil, there was no danger from the aquafortis. She had
also a ladle of melted lead, out of which she appeared to take a little
with a spoon and pour into her mouth, and then to return in the shape of
a solid lump; but in pretending to take the lead into the spoon, it was,
in fact, quicksilver that was received, through a dexterous contrivance
in the ladle, and this she swallowed, the solid lead having been
previously placed in her mouth. She, besides, repeatedly placed her foot
on a bar of hot iron; but the rapidity with which she removed it
scarcely allowed time to injure the most delicate skin, even had it not
been previously prepared: the cuticle of the hands and of the soles of
the feet may, however, be easily rendered sufficiently callous to
support a longer experiment. This effect will be produced if it be
frequently punctured, or injured by being in continual contact with hard
substances; repeatedly moistening it with spirit of vitriol will also at
length render it horny and insensible; and thus it is not uncommon to
see the labourers at copper-works take the melted ore into their hands.

The exhibition of cups and balls is of great antiquity, and depends
entirely on manual dexterity. It is mentioned in the works of various
ancient authors, one of whom relates the astonishment of a countryman,
who, on first witnessing the performance, exclaimed, “that it was well
he had no such animal on his farm, for under such hands no doubt all his
property would soon disappear.”

Feats of strength have been common to all countries in every age. More
than fifteen hundred years ago, there were persons who excited
astonishment by the since ordinary exhibition of supporting vast weights
upon the breast, and of even suffering iron to be forged on an anvil
placed upon it. But these were mere tricks: to support the former, it is
only necessary to place the body in such a position, with the shoulders
and feet resting against some support, as that it shall form an arch;
and as for the latter, if the anvil be large and the hammer small, the
stroke will scarcely be felt; for the action and reaction being equal
and reciprocal, an anvil of two hundred pounds weight will resist the
stroke of a hammer of two pounds, wielded with the force of one hundred
pounds, or of four pounds with the impetus of fifty, without injury to
the body.

In the beginning of the seventeenth century, there was a German, who
travelled over Europe under the appropriate name of Sampson, and who
rendered himself celebrated by the uncommon strength which he displayed:
among many other extraordinary feats, it is said, that he could so fix
himself between two posts, as that two or even more horses, could not
draw him from his position. The same exploit was attempted not many
years back, in this country, by a person who placed himself with his
feet resting in a horizontal posture against a strong bar; only one
horse was employed, and the man was enabled to resist the entire force
of the animal, until both his thigh bones suddenly snapped asunder.
Another had the temerity to try the same experiment, and, in like
manner, broke both his legs. These instances clearly show, that apparent
strength is often nothing more than a judicious application of the
mechanical powers to the human frame; and from the catastrophe attending
the two latter may be deduced the anatomical fact, that the sinews of
the arms possess a greater power of resistance than the largest bones of
the body.

Feats of tumbling, rope dancing, and horsemanship, were practised at
very early periods. Xenophon mentions a female dancer at Athens, who
wrote and read while standing on a wheel which revolved with the
greatest velocity; but the manner in which this was performed is not
explained. Juvenal seems also to have alluded to a similar performance
at Rome, in that passage where he says:

         “_An magis oblectant animum jactata petauro,
         Corpora quique solent rectum descendere funem,
         Quam tu._”                         _Sat._ xiv. v. 265.

which, however, also wants explanation, although one of his most
judicious translators has rendered it

       ——“The man who springs
       Light through the hoop, and on the tight-rope swings.”
                                                       _Gifford._

Addison tells us, that, in his travels through Italy, he witnessed an
annual exhibition that is peculiar to the Venetians. “A set of artisans,
by the help of poles, which they laid across each others’ shoulders,
built themselves up in a kind of pyramid; so that you saw a pile of men
in the air, of four or five rows, rising one above another. The weight
was so equally distributed that every man was well able to bear his part
of it; the stories, if they might be so called, growing less and less as
they advanced higher and higher. A little boy presented the top of the
pyramid, who, after a short space, leaped off, with a great deal of
dexterity, into the arms of one who caught him at the bottom.” But this
was only the revival of an ancient feat, which, as we learn from the
following verses of the poet Claudian, was formerly practised among the
Romans:—

      “_Vel qui mare arrum sese jaculantur in auras,
      Corporaque adificant celeri cressentia nexu,
      Queram compositam puer augmentatus in arcem
      Emicat, et vinctas plantæ, vel eruribus hærens,
      Pendulo librato figit vestigia sulta._”
                                          _De Pr. et Obyb. Cono._

         “Men pil’d on men, with active leaps arise,
         And build the breathing fabric to the skies;
         A sprightly youth above the topmast row
         Paints the tall pyramid, and crowns the show.”
                                                     _Addison._

In the thirteenth century, these performances were introduced at
Constantinople, by a strolling company from Egypt, who afterwards
travelled to Rome, and thence through great part of Europe. They could
stand in various postures on horses while at full speed, and both mount
and dismount without stopping them; and their rope-dancers sometimes
extended the rope on which they poised themselves between the masts of
ships.

It appears also that the ancients taught animals to perform many tricks
that are still exhibited, and some even yet more extraordinary. In the
year 543, a learned dog was shown at the Byzantine court, which not only
selected, and returned to the several owners, the rings and ornaments of
the spectators, which were thrown together before him, but on being
asked his opinion respecting the character of some of the females who
were present, he expressed it by signs at once so significant and
correct, that the people were persuaded he possessed the spirit of
divination. In the reign of Galba, an elephant was exhibited at Rome
which walked upon a rope stretched across the theatre; and such was the
confidence reposed in his dexterity, that a person was mounted on him
while he performed the feat.

It must require the exercise not alone of vast patience, but also of
extraordinary cruelty, mingled perhaps with much kindness, to train
animals to exhibit a degree of intelligence approaching to that of human
beings. It is said that bears are taught to dance by being placed in a
den with a floor of heated iron: the animal, endeavouring to avoid the
smart to which his paws are thus exposed, rears himself on his hind
legs, and alternately raises them with the utmost rapidity, during all
which time a flageolet is played to him; and after this lesson has been
frequently repeated, he becomes so impressed with the associated
recollection of the music and the pain, that, whenever he hears the same
tune, he instinctively recurs to the same efforts, in order to escape
the fancied danger.

In the middle of the last century, there was an Englishman, named
Wildman, who excited great attention by the possession of a secret
through the means of which he enticed bees to follow him, and to settle
on his person without stinging him. A similar circumstance is related in
Francis Bruce’s voyage to Africa in 1698, in which mention is made of a
man who was constantly surrounded by a swarm of these insects, and who
had thence obtained the title of “King of the bees.”

Only one instance is recorded in ancient history of the art of supplying
the deficiency of hands by the use of toes; and that is of an Indian
slave belonging to the emperor Augustus, who, being without arms, could,
notwithstanding, wield a bow and arrows and put a trumpet to his mouth
with his feet.

Of late years some persons have exhibited themselves in the character of
stone-eaters; but although these are to be considered as mere jugglers,
yet it would appear that there have been others who actually possessed
the faculty of digesting similar substances. Of the instances on record
we shall merely select one, from the “_Dictionnaire Physique_,” of
father Paulian:—“The beginning of May 1760, there was brought to Avignon
a true lithophagus, or stone-eater, who had been found, about three
years before that time, in a northern island, by the crew of a Dutch
ship. He not only swallowed flints of an inch and a half long, a full
inch broad, and half an inch thick, but such stones as he could reduce
to powder, such as marble, pebbles, &c., he made up into paste, which
was to him a most agreeable and wholesome food. I examined this man with
all the attention I possibly could; I found his gullet very large, his
teeth exceedingly strong, his saliva very corrosive, and his stomach
lower than ordinary, which I imputed to the vast quantity of flints he
had swallowed, being about five and twenty, one day with another. His
keeper made him eat raw flesh with the stones, but could never induce
him to swallow bread; he would, however, drink water, wine, and brandy,
which last liquor appeared to afford him infinite pleasure. He usually
slept twelve hours a day, sitting on the ground, with one knee over the
other, and his chin resting on it; and when not asleep he passed the
greater part of his time in smoking.” In the year 1802, there was a
Frenchman, who, indeed, did not profess to eat stones, but who publicly
devoured at the amphitheatre, in the city of Lisbon, a side of raw
mutton, with a rabbit and a fowl, _both alive_: he advertised a
repetition of the experiment, with the addition of a live cat; but the
magistrates, deeming the exhibition too brutal for the public eye, would
not again allow its performance. Notwithstanding the public display of
this man, and the extraordinary fact of his having appeared to swallow
living animals, may rank him in the class of jugglers, it is still
probable that he was no impostor; for instances of such uncommon powers
of the stomach are by no means rare, and among others we read of another
Frenchman who was in the constant habit, as an amateur, of eating cats
alive, and was even strongly suspected of having devoured a child.




                       LEGENDS, &c. MIRACLES, &c.


A Legend[79] was originally a book used in the old Romish churches,
containing the lessons that were to be read in divine service. Hence
also the lives of saints and martyrs came to be called legends, because
chapters were read out of them at matins, and in the refectories of the
religious houses. The GOLDEN LEGEND is a collection of the lives of the
Saints, compiled by James De Varasse, better known by the Latin name of
J. De Veragine, Vicar-General of the Dominicans, and afterwards Bishop
of Genoa, who died in 1298. It was received into the church with the
most enthusiastic applause, which it maintained for 200 years; but, in
fact, it is so full of ridiculous and absurd romantic monstrosities,
that the Romanists themselves are now generally ashamed of it. On this
very account alone the word Legend got into general disrepute.

The following is stated to be the origin of those ecclesiastical
histories entitled Legends:—The professors in rhetoric, before colleges
were established in the monasteries where the schools were held,
frequently gave their pupils the life of some saint for a trial of their
talent at _amplification_. The students, being constantly at a loss to
furnish out their pages, invented most of these wonderful adventures.
Jortin observes, that the Christians used to collect out of Ovid, Livy,
and other pagan poets and historians, the miracles and portents, so
found there, and accommodated them to their own monks and saints. The
good fathers of that age, whose simplicity was not inferior to their
devotion, were so delighted with these flowers of rhetoric, that they
were induced to make a collection of these miraculous compositions; not
imagining that, at some distant period, they would become matters of
faith. Yet when James De Veragine, Peter Nadal, and Peter Ribadeneira,
wrote the Lives of the Saints, they sought for the materials in the
libraries of these monasteries; and, awakening from the dust the
manuscripts of amplification, imagined they made an invaluable present
to the world, by laying before them these voluminous absurdities. The
people received these pious fictions with all imaginable simplicity; and
as the book is adorned with a number of cuts, these miracles were
perfectly intelligible to their eyes. Fleury, Tillemont, Baillet,
Launoi, and Ballendus, cleared away much of the rubbish. The enviable
title of _Golden Legend_, by which James De Veragine called his work,
has been disputed; iron or lead might more aptly express the character
of this folio.

The monks, when the world became more critical in their reading, gave a
graver turn to their narratives, and became more penurious of their
absurdities. The faithful Catholic contends that the line of tradition
has been preserved unbroken; notwithstanding that the originals were
lost in the general wreck of literature from the barbarians, or came
down in a most imperfect state. Baronius has given the lives of many
apocryphal saints; for instance, of a Saint _Xenoris_, whom he calls a
Martyr of Antioch; but it appears that Baronius having read this work in
Chrysostom, which signifies a couple or pair, he mistook it for the name
of a saint, and continued to give the most authentic biography of a
saint who never existed! The Catholics confess this sort of blunder is
not uncommon, but then it is only fools who laugh!

As a specimen of the happier inventions, one is given, embellished by
the diction of Gibbon the historian.

“Among the insipid legends of ecclesiastical history, I am tempted to
distinguish the memorable fable of the _Seven Sleepers_, whose imaginary
date corresponds with the reign of the younger Theodosius, and the
conquest of Africa by the Vandals. When the emperor Decius persecuted
the Christians, seven noble youths of Ephesus concealed themselves in a
spacious cavern on the side of an adjacent mountain, where they were
doomed to perish by the tyrant, who gave orders that the entrance should
be firmly secured by a pile of stones. They immediately fell into a deep
slumber, which was miraculously prolonged without injuring the powers of
life, during a period of one hundred and eighty-seven years. At the end
of that time the slaves of Adolius, to whom the inheritance of the
mountain had descended, removed the stones, to supply materials for some
rustic edifice. The light of the sun darted into the cavern, and the
Seven Sleepers were permitted to awake: after a slumber, as they
thought, of a few hours, they were pressed by the calls of hunger; and
resolved that Jamblichus, one of their number, should secretly return to
the city to purchase bread for the use of his companions. The youth, if
we may still employ that appellation, could no longer recognise the once
familiar aspect of his native country; and his surprise was increased by
the appearance of a large cross, triumphantly erected over the principal
gate of Ephesus. His singular dress, and obsolete language, confounded
the baker, to whom he offered an ancient medal of Decius as the current
coin of the empire; and Jamblichus, on suspicion of a secret treasure,
was dragged before the judge. Their mutual inquiries produced the
amazing discovery that two centuries were almost elapsed since
Jamblichus and his friends had escaped from the rage of a pagan tyrant.
The bishop of Ephesus, the clergy, the magistrates, the people, and, it
is said, the emperor Theodosius himself, hastened to visit the cavern of
the Seven Sleepers; who bestowed their benediction, related their story,
and at the same instant peaceably expired.

“This popular tale Mahomet learned when he drove his camels to the fairs
of Syria; and he has introduced it, as a divine revelation, into the
Koran.” The same story has been adopted and adorned, by the natives from
Bengal to Africa, who profess the Mahometan religion.

These monks imagined that holiness was often proportioned to a saint’s
filthiness. St. Ignatius delighted, say they, to appear abroad with old
dirty shoes; he never used a comb, but suffered his hair to run into
clots, and religiously abstained from paring his nails. One saint
attained to such a pitch of piety as to have near three hundred patches
on his breeches; which, after his death, were exhibited in public as a
stimulus to imitate such a _holy life_. St. Francis discovered, by
certain experience, that the devil was frightened away by similar kinds
of _unmentionables_; but was animated by clean clothing to tempt and
seduce the wearers; and one of their heroes declares that the purest
souls are in the dirtiest bodies. On this subject a story is told by
them which may not be very agreeable to fastidious delicacy. Brother
Juniper was a gentleman perfectly pious in this principle; indeed so
great was his merit in this species of mortification, that a brother
declared he could always nose Brother Juniper when within a mile of the
monastery, provided he was at the due point. Once, when the blessed
Juniper, for he was no saint, was a guest, his host, proud of the honour
of entertaining so pious a personage, the intimate friend of St.
Francis, provided an excellent bed and the finest sheets. Brother
abhorred such luxury; and this too evidently appeared after his sudden
departure in the morning, unknown to his kind host. The great Juniper
did this, says his biographer, (having told us what he did) not so much
from his habitual inclinations for which he was so justly celebrated, as
from his excessive piety, and as much as he could to mortify worldly
pride, and to shew how a true saint despised clean sheets.

Among other grotesque miracles we find, in the life of St. Francis, that
he preached a sermon in a desert, but he soon collected an immense
audience. The birds shrilly warbled to every sentence, and stretched out
their necks, opened their beaks, and when he finished, dispersed with a
holy rapture into four companies, to report his sermon to all the birds
of the universe. A grasshopper remained a week with St. Francis during
the absence of the Virgin Mary, and fastened on his head. He grew so
companionable with a nightingale, that when a nest of swallows began to
twitter, he hushed them, by desiring them not to tittle tattle of his
sister the nightingale. Attacked by a wolf, with only the sign manual of
the cross, he held a long dialogue with his rabid assailant, till the
wolf, meek as a lap-dog, stretched his paws in the hands of the saint,
followed him through towns, and became half a Christian. This same St.
Francis had such a detestation of the good things of this world, that he
would never suffer his followers to touch money. A friar having placed
some money in a window collected at the altar, he observed him to take
it in his mouth and throw it on the dung of an ass! St. Phillip Nerius
was such an admirer _of poverty_ that he frequently prayed God would
bring him to that state as to stand in need of a penny, and find none
that would give him one! But St. Macaire was so shocked at having
_killed a louse_ that he endured seven years of penitence among the
thorns and briars of a forest.

The following miraculous incident is given respecting two pious maidens.
The night of the Nativity of Christ, after the first mass, they both
retired into a solitary spot of their nunnery till the second mass was
rung. One asked the other, “why do you want two cushions, when I have
only one?” The other replied, “I would place it between us, for the
child Jesus; as the Evangelist says, “Where there are two or three
persons assembled I am in the midst of them.”—This being done, they sat
down, feeling a most lively pleasure at their fancy; and there they
remained from the nativity of Christ to that of John the Baptist; but
this great interval of time passed with these saintly maidens, as two
hours would appear to others. The abbess and her nuns were alarmed at
their absence, for no one could give any account of them. On the eve of
St. John, a cowherd passing by them, beheld a beautiful child seated on
a cushion between this pair of run-away nuns. He hastened to the abbess
with news of this stray sheep, who saw this lovely child playfully
seated between these nymphs, who, with blushing countenances, enquired
if the second bell had already rung? Both parties were equally
astonished to find our young devotees had been there since the birth of
Christ to that of John the Baptist. The abbess inquired after the child
who sat between them: they solemnly declared they saw no child between
them, and persisted in their story.”

“Such,” observes a late writer on this subject, “is one of the miracles
of the ‘Golden Legend,’ which a wicked wit might comment on, and see
nothing extraordinary in the whole story. The two nuns might be missing
between the nativities, and be found at last with a child seated between
them. They might not choose to account either for their absence or their
child: the only touch of miracle is, that they asseverated they saw _no
child_, that I confess is a _little (child)_ too much.

Ribadeneira’s Lives of the Saints exhibit more of the legendary spirit
than Alban Butler’s work on the same subject, (which, by the bye, is the
most sensible history of these legends;) for wanting judgment and not
faith, the former is more voluminous in his details, and more ridiculous
in his narratives.

Alban Butler affirms that St. Genevieve, the patron of Paris, was born
in 422, at Nanterre, four miles from Paris, near the present Calvary
there, and that she died a virgin on this day in 512, and was buried in
545, near the steps of the high altar, in a magnificent church,
dedicated to St. Peter and St. Paul, began by Clovis, where he also was
interred. Her relics were afterwards taken up and put into a costly
shrine about 630. Of course they worked miracles. Her shrine of gold and
silver, covered with precious stones, the presents of kings and queens,
and with a cluster of diamonds on the top, presented by the intriguing
Mary de Medicis, is, on calamitous occasions, carried about Paris in
procession, accompanied by shrines equally miraculous, and by the canons
of St. Genevieve walking barefoot.

The _miracles_ of St. Genevieve, as related in the Golden Legend, were
equally numerous and equally credible. It relates that when she was a
child, St. Germaine said to her mother, “Know ye for certain that on the
day of Genevieve’s nativity the angels sung with joy and gladness,” and
looking on the ground he saw a penny signed with the cross, which came
there by the will of God; he took it up, and gave it to Genevieve,
requiring her to bear in mind that she was the spouse of Christ. She
promised him accordingly, and often went to the minister, that she might
be worthy of her espousals. “Then,” says the Legend, “the mother was
angry, and smote her on the cheek—God avenged the child, so that the
mother became blind,” and so remained for one and twenty months, when
Genevieve fetched her some holy water, signed her with the sign of the
cross, washed her eyes, and she recovered her sight. It further relates,
that by the Holy Ghost she showed many people their secret thoughts, and
that from fifteen years to fifty, she fasted every day except Sunday and
Thursday, when she ate beans, and barley bread of three weeks old.
Desiring to build a church, and dedicate it to St. Denis and other
martyrs, she required materials of the priests for that purpose. “Dame,”
answered the priests, “we would; but we can get no chalk nor lime.” She
desired them to go to the bridge of Paris, and bring what they found
there. They did so till two swineherds came by, one of whom said to the
other, ‘I went yesterday after one of my sows and found a bed of lime;’
the other replied that he had also found one under the root of a tree
that the wind had blown down. St. Genevieve’s priests of course inquired
where these discoveries were made, and bearing the tidings to Genevieve,
the church of St. Denis was began. During its progress the workmen
wanted drink, whereupon Genevieve called for a vessel, prayed over it,
signed it with the cross, and the vessel was immediately filled; “so,”
says the Legend, “the workmen drank their belly full,” and the vessel
continued to be supplied in the same way with “drink” for the workmen
till the church was finished. At another time a woman stole St.
Genevieve’s shoes, but as soon as she got home lost her sight for the
theft, and remained blind, till, having restored the shoes, St.
Genevieve restored the woman’s sight. Desiring the liberation of certain
prisoners condemned to death at Paris, she went thither and found the
city gates were shut against her, but they opened without any other key
than her own presence. She prayed over twelve men in that city possessed
with devils, till the men were suspended in the air, and the devils were
expelled. A child of four years old fell into a pit, and was killed; St.
Genevieve only covered her with her mantle and prayed over her, and the
child came to life, and was baptised at Easter. On a voyage to Spain she
arrived at a port “where, as of custom, ships were wont to perish.” Her
own vessel was likely to strike on a tree in the water, which seems to
have caused the wrecks; she commanded the tree to be cut down, and began
to pray; when lo, just as the tree began to fall, “two wild heads, grey
and horrible, issued thereout, which stank so sore, that the people
there were envenomed by the space of two hours, and never after perished
ship there; thanks be to God and this holy saint.”

At Meaux, a master not forgiving his servant his faults, though St.
Genevieve prayed him, she prayed against him. He was immediately seized
with a hot ague: “on the morrow he came to the holy virgin, running with
open mouth like a German bear, his tongue hanging out like a boar, and
requiring pardon.” She then blessed him, the fever left him, and the
servant was pardoned. A girl going out with a bottle, St. Genevieve
called to her, and asked what she carried: she answered oil, which she
had bought; but St. Genevieve seeing the devil sitting on the bottle,
blew upon it, and the bottle broke, but the saint blessed the oil, and
caused her to bear it home safely notwithstanding. The Golden Legend
says, that the people who saw this, marvelled that the saint could see
the devil, and were greatly edified.

It was to be expected that a saint of such miraculous powers in her
lifetime should possess them after her death, and accordingly the
reputation of her relics is very high.

Several stories of St. Genevieve’s miraculous faculties, represent them
as very convenient in vexatious cases of ordinary occurrence; one of
these will serve as a specimen. On a dark wet night she was going to
church with her maidens, with a candle borne before her, which the wind
and rain put out; the saint merely called for the candle, and as soon as
she took it in her hand it was lighted again, “without any fire of this
world.”

Other stories of her lighting candles in this way, call to mind a
candle, greatly venerated by E. Worsley, in a “Discourse of Miracles
wrought in the Roman Catholic Church, or, a full refutation of Dr.
Stillingfleet’s unjust Exceptions against Miracles,” octavo, 1676. At p.
64, he says, “that the _miraculous wax candle_, yet seen at Arras, the
chief city of Artois, may give the reader entertainment, being most
certain, _and never doubted of by any_. In 1105, that is, much above 720
years ago, (of so great antiquity the candle is,) a merciless plague
reigned in Arras. The whole city, ever devout to the Mother of God,
experienced her, in this their necessity, to be a true mother of mercy;
the manner was thus: The Virgin Mary appeared to two men, and enjoined
them to tell the bishop of Arras, that on the next Saturday towards
morning she would appear in the great church, and put into his hands a
wax candle burning; from whence drops of wax should fall into a vessel
of water prepared by the bishop. She said, moreover, that all the
diseased that drank of this water, should forthwith be cured. _This
truly promised, truly happened._ Our blessed Lady appeared all
beautiful, having in her hands a wax candle burning, which diffused
light over the whole church; this she presented to the bishop; he
blessing it with the sign of the cross, set it in the urn of water; when
drops of wax plentifully fell down into the vessel. The diseased drank
of it; all were cured; the contagion ceased; and the candle to this day,
preserved with great veneration, spends itself, yet loses nothing; and
therefore remains still of the same length and greatness it did 720
years ago. A vast quantity of wax, made up of the many drops which fall
into the water upon those festival days, when the candle burns, may be
justly called a standing indeficient miracle.”

This candle story, though gravely related by a catholic writer, as “not
doubted of by any,” and as therefore not to be doubted, miraculously
failed in convincing the protestant Stillingfleet, that “miracles
wrought in the Roman catholic church,” ought to be believed.




                 MONKS AND FRIARS.—SAINTS AND HERMITS.


The early monks attracted the notice of the people by the rigid exercise
of their devotions. The greater part of them passed their time in
deserted places, in divine contemplation, and in the acquisition of
useful knowledge; in consequence of which, they began to be venerated
and considered as heavenly-minded men, approaching to the perfection of
angels; but in the course of time, and on this very account, their
reclusion, and the regard in which they were held, soon induced
multitudes to betake themselves to the same courses of life, though not
with the same views; as being more profitable than the remuneration
resulting from their own homely and industrious avocations. The numbers
that embraced this profession became at length so overwhelming and
intolerant, that factions burst out amongst them, to which the spirit of
the people soon became subject, and to cause grievous disturbances
thereby, both to church and state. Many of the wandering hordes, under
the denomination of monks, are represented by Gregory Nazianzen, as
crews of ruffians and banditti, rather than as sober-minded men,
professing a scrupulous morality, with a view to the amelioration of
society and the welfare of mankind in general. They were cruel,
rapacious, insinuating, cunning, and not unfrequently malignant in the
extreme, indulging in the vilest propensities that shock and disgust
human nature; and if we may believe their contemporaries, no species of
vice was unknown to, or left unpractised by them.

The first dawn of monkish influence and power in the western world, was
ushered in by St. Jerome, who, though represented as a very pious and
good man, but having some passions the world had not yet gratified, grew
wroth with and retired into the east, where he turned monk; and, as if
to be revenged of the ungrateful world, he openly professed, that it
were hardly possible to receive salvation in it without adopting the
same course as he had done, that was, to become a monk. And although
thus far monkery had its way paved in the west by the resolutions of
Jerome, it was many years after his death, before any order of monkhood
was instituted in that quarter.

Benedict, who lived about an hundred years after St. Jerome, being
reckoned the father of the order in the western parts, and although it
does not appear that he formed any order of monks, with the three vows,
yet since the oldest monkish order in the Roman church is called by his
name, we shall give first a short sketch of him and his order; leaving
the reader to take, as well in this instance as in those that follow, as
much for granted as he can well swallow, without danger of being choked.

Of the birth, parentage, and education of the _Blessed_ Benedict, all we
can state is, that his holiness drew his first pious and miraculous
breath in Rome, about the year 480; and that having, whilst a boy,
become weary of a wicked world, he retired to the Desert of Sabulea in
Italy, where he was kindly received and hospitably entertained by a
monk, whose name was Roman, who lived retired from man, in the cleft of
an immense high rock, of difficult and hazardous access. The generous
and christianlike Roman supplied his young guest with a portion of all
he begged, borrowed, or stole, or could possibly spare out of his own
all devouring paunch. But it would appear, that getting tired of his
protegé, whose appetite, perhaps, might be too great a drawback upon his
fortuitous resources, or whether in the midst of an accidental and
unexpected _blow out_ that he met with, somewhere or other, on an
Easter-eve, he forgot to supply his guest in the cranny with his usual
fare; be this as it may, all protecting Providence, that “feeds the
young ravens,” and who “tempers the wind to the shorn lamb,” was not on
this occasion unmindful of young Benedict; for it turned out that a
certain priest, whose name we are not favoured with, and who it appears
had been on a similar foraging expedition as Roman, against Eastertide,
was hailed by a voice from heaven, and bid “_not to take so much care of
his own gut, but to carry that he had provided to the place where
Benedict was_.” The priest obeyed; gave Benedict the contents of his
market basket, and also told him that it was Easter-day, an event that
was unknown to him previous to this unexpected visit. Having, however,
been subsequently forced out of his den to procure food, for it does not
appear that either Roman or the priest ever returned, some shepherds
discovered him crawling among the bushes covered with “beasts’ hair;” at
which they became so terrified, that taking him for some savage monster,
they were about to depart, when they had a glimpse of his _physog_,
which certainly formed an encouraging contrast when compared with the
preter human developement of his body; the result was, the shepherds
took courage and approached him; and having, as the story goes, been
much edified with his discourse, they informed the neighbourhood of the
affair, which was the means of young Benedict being well supplied with
every thing he stood in need of; in return for which, they were as well
repaid with godly exhortations. But the devil, who, no doubt, is always
on the _que vive_ when any of his opponents are getting a-head of him,
was resolved to put young ’Dict’s chastity to the test, appeared to him
in the shape of a blackbird, and approached so near to his mouth that
_’dict_ might, had he thought proper, have grabbed him; but, instead of
availing himself of this opportunity to crush old Beelzebub, he
heroically suffered him to escape, although he, the devil, left behind
him “so terrible a dishonest carnal temptation,” that Benedict never
before nor after this time, felt such queer and indescribable
sensations; in short, he was in such a quandary, that he hesitated and
doubted whether it would not be better for him to return once more to
the world, the flesh, sin and the devil; yet, having recovered himself a
little from the paroxysm with which the devil had contrived to possess
him, he threw off his clothes and rolled among thorns. But whereas
Benedict, for sundry causes and reasons moving him thereunto, did keep a
raven, which said raven the aforesaid Benedict did constantly every day
feed with his own hand, which raven, Benedict, whether from similarity
of appetite or other latent and peculiar passion, always addressed by
the familiar and consanguineous appellation of brother; on this
occasion, having offered him a part of the poisoned loaf, the sagacious
raven rejected it with indignation, and commenced flying and croaking
about his master, pointing out to him, in the most _ravenous_ manner,
the evil intended him. Alarmed at such conduct, Benedict said, Brother,
I did not offer you this loaf that you should eat it, but that you might
carry it and hide it somewhere, that it may never do any hurt. This was
done, the raven disposed of the poisoned loaf, returned, and had his
dinner as usual[80].

Notwithstanding this disappointment, Florentino did not cease to
persecute Benedict. He got together, for this purpose, a number of
common strumpets, whom he sent to dance naked before the holy Friar;
this ordinance, to the great joy of Florentino, they correctly performed
to the letter, which compelled Benedict to leave the place, lest
peradventure he might be tempted _di novo_ to sin against the flesh, as
he was in the wilderness, by the Devil in the shape of a blackbird. But
that joy was not of long duration, for soon after Florentino’s house
fell down upon him and killed him. When Benedict heard of his death, he
was exceedingly troubled, not because he died during his wicked courses,
but _because he had, he said, lost an enemy, who, if he had lived, would
have increased his merits much_. After this great loss, Benedict was
informed, that Apollo still had a temple on the mountain of Callino, and
was worshipped in it with sacrifices; he accordingly mustered together
some of his brethren, and went and pulled it down to the ground, set
fire to all the groves that surrounded it, and having built a monastery
on the same spot, he converted the whole country round to christianity.

The Devil, as may easily be supposed, got very angry with Benedict for
having deprived him of that mountain, called out Benedict, Benedict, for
the purpose of speaking to him, but Benedict, it appears, did not
vouchsafe to answer him; in consequence of which, the Devil left him,
ejaculating, as he fled away, Maledict, Maledict, what hast thou to do
with me? Why do you persecute me so much? And, in the height of his
diabolical passion and despair, threw down a wall that was building,
which unfortunately fell upon a boy and killed him; but Benedict, to be
revenged of the Devil, soon brought him to life again. Brother Plaudo
had been drowned, if brother Mauro had not been sent by Benedict to draw
him out of the water. There was a great fuss made to know who was the
author of that miracle; Benedict conferring the merit on Mauro, and
Mauro, equally courteous and condescending, attributing it to Benedict.

The order styled the Benedictine, was not only the oldest but the
richest in the Roman church. The costume was black, in compliment, no
doubt, to the Raven, who had the honour of being Benedict’s first
brother; and the leather belt which they wore, was believed to possess
so much virtue, that it was kissed kneeling by all who visited them, if
they wished to be well received.

The second order of monks, and which, similar to the others, arose out
of the relaxations of the Benedictines, was that of _Cluny_ in France,
instituted about the year 900, by Abbot Odo.

This order differed very little from the Benedictine. When Odo was a boy
he was much delighted with Virgil: “he was cured of that dangerous
appetite by a vessel, which was very curious, being shewn to him, but
which was within full of deadly serpents; and lest Odo should, by his
great fondness for Virgil, have been hindered from applying that vision
right, the application was made by a voice from Heaven; and which Odo
having heard, he flung away his Virgil and all his serpents with it. And
having been after that much devoted to St. Martin, though he met with no
serpents in his way, as he went by night to St. Martin’s church to pray
to him, he met with herds of foxes, which so pestered him, that he
scarcely knew what to do; this plague continued until a kind wolf came,
and did offer Odo his assistance, and of which Odo having accepted, that
wolf, when he travelled, was such a guard to him, and when he was within
doors such a porter, that the foxes never molested him any more.”

The third order of monks in the Roman church was the Camalduman in
Italy, instituted by Romualdus about the year 970. He was born at
Ravenna, and had been sentenced to live 40 days in a monastery, for
having been concerned in a duel, in which his father, who was a duke,
had killed his adversary; and it was from this circumstance that he was
miraculously converted into a monk, an honour which he had previously
frequently refused, at the solicitation of a brother of the order with
whom he had contracted an acquaintance. The monk at length asked whether
he would consent to be one of them, if _St. Apolonar appeared to him_,
to which he replied he would. It was therefore contrived that St.
Apolonar, or his representative, should actually appear; and in order to
receive this visit, his friend, the monk and himself, spent the night in
prayer before an altar. Just as the cock crowed, St. Apolonar emerged
from under the identical altar, where, no doubt, his proxy had
previously been concealed, “clothed with light and having a golden
censor in his hand: he went about in his pontificalibus, and incensed
all the altars in the church, and after he had done that, went back by
the same way that he came. And though it is not said that Apolonar did
speak a word to Romualdus of turning monk, he did nevertheless, upon
that vision, take the habit upon him; and not having learnt to read and
sing his psalter, he was taught it by a monk whose name was Marinus, and
who switched him so severely on the left-side of his head, that his left
ear lost its hearing; and which was borne with that cheerfulness, that
he spoke to Marinus to switch him on the other side of the head, when he
deserved to be corrected.”

Never was monk so kicked and cuffed about, persecuted and tormented by
the Devil, as poor Romualdus. At first the Devil knocked such a dust at
the door of his cell whenever he went to bed, that he could not get a
wink of sleep for the noise. Being at length so much exhausted for want
of a nap, he began, notwithstanding the horrid noise, to snooze a
little, when the Devil turned himself into some heavy body and laid so
heavy upon his thighs and legs, that he severely bruised them, and broke
some of the bones. And though monk Romualdus often made his tormentor
slink out of his cell, ashamed of his evil doings, he would,
nevertheless, not cease to molest him. So frequently, in fact, was he
visited by Armadeus, and so numerous were their conflicts, that a
brother monk could not approach the cell of Romualdus without being
mistaken for the Devil by him: and believing this to be the case, he
would cry out as loud as his lungs would permit—“_Accursed, what
would’st thou have? Bold dog, I forbid thee to come here; thou poisonous
serpent, that was thrown down from Heaven, I do forbid thee!_” These
were the weapons with which this miraculously converted monk had always
ready to meet the Devil whenever he made his appearance. One evening,
however, as he was muttering over his _Completus_, a whole squadron of
Devils rushed in upon him, knocked him down, kicked him for falling, and
inflicted several very severe wounds upon his precious body; and
although he was weary and faint with loss of blood, he continued saying
all the while his _Completus_ till he completed, when by a short prayer
he dispersed the whole battalion.

After this great and glorious victory, the Devil would never grapple
with him again; but would, sometimes, in the shape of a Raven, a
Bustard, an Ethiopian, or some savage beast, stand at a distance, loll
out his tongue, and make wry faces at him. And although Romualdus was a
bit of a duellist, as we have already shewn, would challenge and dare
the Devil to come up to the mark, his devilship was too good a judge to
venture near him; and finding at length that he was no match for
Romualdus, he stirred up divers monks to persecute him, which, in fact,
they did with great fury, but with as ill success as he who prompted
them.

The fourth order of monks is that of the _Valle Umbrosa_, instituted by
one Gilbert, from whom his fraternity assumed the name of Gilbertines.
The reader will at once know enough of this Mr. Gilbert when we inform
him, at once, that he was the pupil of Romualdus, and that he was called
to be a monk by a crucifix, which, when he was in the act of worshipping
it, nodded its head and smiled at him.

The fifth order is the Carthusian, instituted towards the end of the
eleventh century; it is governed by institutions of its own making, and
is the strictest order in the Roman church. This monastery was generally
the last refuge of the discontented, rather than the retreat of
unfeigned piety and devotion, who threw themselves into this solitary
state of life, to which they fettered themselves, by indissoluble vows,
for the remainder of their days. They were allowed enough of good bread
and wine, and although they abstained from flesh, and every thing that
had touched it, they had a plentiful supply of good fish and fruit.

This inhuman order was instituted by one Bruno, a German, but who was a
canon of the church of Rheims; of whom the reader will learn enough,
when we inform him that he was driven to this determination by a
Parisian doctor, with whom he had been intimately acquainted, and of
whose piety as well as learning, he entertained a very high opinion, and
who for three days following after his death, when he was on the point
of being committed to the grave, sate up, and loudly declared, _that by
the just judgment of God_ he was damned; which, as soon as he had
pronounced, he lay down again.[81]

There is another story that the bishop of Grenoble, the night before
_Bruno_ and his six companions came to him, in quest of a solitary place
to live in, had a vision, in which he saw Christ come down from Heaven,
and in a desert place of his diocese, called the Chartreuse, built a
palace. He likewise beheld seven stars of the colour of gold, which
having joined themselves together, they made a crown, which by degrees
raised itself from the earth, and ascended up into heaven. The bishop at
first sight knew Bruno and his companions to be the seven stars he had
seen; and in consequence of this recognition, he bestowed upon them all
the lands called the Chartreuse. In order, also, that Bruno should be as
little remiss in his duty and gratitude, he erected the monastery as
conformable to the vision of the bishop as means and materials would
allow.

The sixth order of monks in the Roman church is the Cistertian, said to
have been instituted by Abbot Robert; but whether it was so or
otherwise, Bernard has always been named as the founder.

Bernard was born in France in the 12th century; and to do him justice,
he seems to have had the best natural parts, and the most learning of
any of the monastic founders; and had it not been for the tragical fraud
he adopted to promote a very unfortunate _cruzado_, and the other frauds
he used in favour of the Pope, to whom he adhered during the time of a
schism, his sincerity and piety might have been judged equal to his
other talents.

His mother, during the time she was pregnant with him, dreamed she had a
white dog in her womb, which in all probability was the reason the
Cistertian monks dressed in white, in the same manner as Benedict’s
raven might have suggested the colour to the vestments of the
Benedictines.

During his infancy Bernard was much troubled with head-ach; and an old
woman having been sent for to cure him, he would not suffer her to come
near him, from the belief that she made use of charms. One
Christmas-day, when he was at church, during his boyhood, he prayed that
the very hour in which Christ was born might be revealed to him; and
when that hour came, he saw a new-born infant. What a pity it is that
Bernard, who has written so much, did not record that hour, the day, the
month, and the year, about which chronologers are still so much divided.

During a hard frosty night, Bernard was seized with a violent paroxysm
of satyriasis, or strong carnal inclination: he precipitated himself
into a pond of water, and remained there until he was almost frozen to
death.

On another occasion, during the time he was preaching to a very numerous
congregation, who were listening to him, a temptation of vain glory
invaded him, and he heard a voice within him saying, _see, how all the
people do attend unto your words_. He was just going to leave off
preaching to mortify this temptation, but perceiving it was the Devil
who had addressed him, for the purpose of interrupting his sermon, he
turned about his head to the tempter, and thus coolly spoke to him—_As I
did not begin this sermon for thee, so neither will I end it for thee_,
and so went on preaching as before. He was always very sickly, and not
only rejoiced that he was so himself, but he judged it fit that all
monks ought to be so: for which reason he built _Claraval_, and all his
other monasteries, in low damp places.

Bernard laboured hard to bring all his monks to an uninterrupted
attention to their devotions; and having one day, as he was riding, been
told by a peasant, “_that he found that to be an easy thing_;” he
promised him the mule he rode upon, if he would but say the Lord’s
prayer without any distraction of thought. The peasant began the prayer,
but before he got half through it, he confessed that “it came into his
mind, whether with the mule he was to have the saddle and bridle also.”

Being at Pavia, a woman possessed of a devil was brought before him; but
before Bernard had time to utter a word to the woman, the devil cried
out, “do you think that such an onion and leek carrier as this, is able
to throw me out of possession?” Upon which Bernard ordered the woman to
be carried to St. Sirus’ church, in which, though Sirus had previously
dispossessed all that had ever come before him, he would not do it at
this time, that Bernard might have the honour of it himself. The devil,
however, set them both at defiance, and in a scoffing manner told them,
that neither little _Siry_ nor little _Barny_ should turn him out. But
the devil was mistaken for once in his life; little _Barny_, as he
styled him, soon served an ejectment upon him. To another woman in the
same city, on whom the devil had lain in a very dishonest manner, he
gave a stick, with which she so belaboured him, that he never troubled
her any more.

After Bernard had persuaded the kings of England and France to submit to
the Pope; but not being able to prevail upon the Duke of Aquitaine, he
went one day to him with the sacrament in his hand, when the Duke threw
himself down at his feet; on which Bernard gave him a lusty kick, and
bade him rise and acknowledge the true Pope. The Duke rose immediately,
and being thus kicked into it, made his submission, and acknowledged the
_Vicegerent_ of Heaven.

The seventh order of monks is the Cælestine, instituted by Petrus
Moronus, who having afterwards become Pope, took the name of Cælestine.
This poor monk was persuaded by Cardinal Cagestan, who took the name of
Boniface the 8th, to abdicate the Roman chair, that he might spend his
whole time in devotion. But his successor, Boniface, fearing that were
he at liberty in his monastery, it might come into his head to return to
the pontifical chair, kept him a close prisoner as long as he lived.

The eighth order of monks is the Williamite, called also the order of
_Montes Virginis_, and of _Montis Oliveti_, instituted by one William, a
noble Italian, which at one time possessed 47 monasteries. There were
_Hermits_ who were likewise called Williamites, from William, Duke of
Aquitaine, but they were amalgamated with the mendicant order of the
monks of St. Austin.

The ninth order was the Sylvestern. There was also another instituted by
the nobles of Milan, called the _Humiliate_, who having quarrelled with
Cardinal Borromeus, Archbishop of Milan, dissolved the order and seized
all their revenues, which were immense.

All the preceding orders, besides the Carthusians, were all under the
Benedictine rule, whose monks were both the oldest and richest
pertaining to the Roman church, in which the monastic rules are four in
number—namely, the rule of St. Bazil, St. Austin, and St. Benedict.

The order of monks under St. Austin’s rule, as it was called, were the
canons regular, the _Premonstratenses_; the _Dominicans_; the
_Hieronomites_, in various shapes; the _Servites_; the _Jesuits_; the
_Crucigeri_; the _Boni Jesu_; the _Trinitarians_; the _Eremites of St.
Augustin_; the _Theatines_; the _Pautestæ_; the _military orders of St.
John of Jerusalem_, of _St. James of Compostella_, of the _Teutonick
order_, of _St. Lazarus_, and of _St. Mauritius_.

The Dominican order, of which only we shall here allude, is the third
under the rule of St. Austin, was instituted about the beginning of the
13th century, and is both the first mendicant order and the first order
that had a solemn confirmation from the Pope. They are very numerous,
and have still many convents in Spain and Portugal.

Dominick, the founder of this order, was born in Spain, in 1170. His
mother, when she was with child with him, dreamed that she was delivered
of a hog, with a flaming torch in his mouth, an emblem appropriate
enough for an inquisitor; and when he was baptized, his god mother,
although it was visible to no one else, saw a star that illuminated all
the world; and as he lay in his cradle, a swarm of bees pitched upon his
lips. And, although from the day of his baptism to the day of his death,
he is said never to have committed one mortal sin, he would,
nevertheless, before he was seven years old, rise out of his costly bed,
for his parents were said to have been very rich, and lie upon the
ground. When he was a boy he would never play or use any pastimes; and
when he arrived at man’s estate, he gave all that had been left him by
his father, with the exception of his books, among the poor; and having
nothing else left to give, he gave them his books also.

Seeing a woman one day weeping bitterly for the loss of her brother, who
had been taken captive by the Moors, he begged her to take him, and to
sell him to those infidels, and with the money he should fetch, redeem
her brother; but, to his extreme mortification, the woman refused to
comply with his desire.

One day, when Dominick was in his study, the devil so pestered him in
the shape of a flea, leaping and frisking about on the leaves of his
book, that he found it impossible to continue his reading: irritated at
length by such unhandsome treatment, he fixed him on the very spot where
he finished reading, and in this shape made use of him to find the place
again. Having at last, however, released old _nick_ from this
demonological dilemma, he appeared to him again in his study in the
guise of a monkey, and grinned so “horribly a ghastly grin,” and skipped
about so, that he was more annoyed now than before. To put a stop to
these monkey tricks, Dominick forthwith commanded him, the said monkey,
to take the candlestick and hold it for him; this the monkey did, and
Dominick made him continue holding it, until it was burnt down to the
bottom of the wick, and although the monkey made a horrid noise at
burning his fingers, he was forced to hold it until it was burnt out,
which it did until it had burnt the devil’s monkey fingers to the bone.

Having gone into France with the bishop of Osma, of whose church
Dominick was a canon, though by preaching and working miracles he
converted the _Albigenses_ about Toulouse by thousands in a day, he,
nevertheless, so roused Simon de Montford, who was general of the Pope’s
_cruzado_ against those christians, by which Montfort, and his
_cruzado_, to which Dominick was the chief chaplain, that many thousands
of those poor christians were butchered.

That part of France must necessarily, at that time, have been very
populous, otherwise there could not have been so many of those
christians left for Montfort to murder, after Dominick had made such
extensive conversions among them, for assuredly Montfort would not lay
violent hands on any of his proselytes. The greatest conversion ever
made by Dominick was after he had the rosary given him by the blessed
virgin, whose virtues Dominick successfully eulogized with all the
eloquence he was master of. There was one, however, desperate enough to
ridicule both the rosary and the mountebank oratory upon its virtues;
but he was soon punished for his audacity, by a great number of devils
getting into him; but Dominick relenting at the sufferings of the
demoniac, although he did not deserve such commiseration at his hands,
called the devils to an account for the uproarious noise they made; when
the following colloquy passed between them.

DOMINICK.—How came you to enter this man, and how many are you in
number?

DEVILS.—(_After tremendous howlings._) We came into him for having
spoken disrespectfully of the rosary; and for his having laughed and
made “_merry game_” of your sermons. We are 15,000 in number, and have
been forced much against our inclination to enter one who might have
done us infinite services.

DOM.—Why did so many as 15,000 of you enter him?

DEV.—Because there are 15 decads in the rosary which he derided.

DOM.—Why did you suffer this man to be brought to me?

DEV.—(_All together roaring out._) It was done to our great confusion:
we could not prevent it.

DOM.—Is not all true I have said of the virtues of the rosary?

DEV.—(_After the most hideous bellowing_.) Cursed be the hour in which
we entered into this _statue_? Woe be unto us for ever! Why did we not
suffocate him before he was brought hither? But it is now too late and
we cannot do it, for thou holdest us in burning flames and chains of
fire, so that we are forced to declare the truth to thee, to our great
prejudice. O yes! O yes! Know all christian men and women, that this
cruel Dominick, this implacable enemy of ours, has never said one word
concerning the virtues of the rosary that is not most true; and know ye
further, that if you do not believe him, great calamities will befall
you.

DOM.—Who was the man in the world the devil hated the most?

DEV. (_All of them._) Thou art the very man, who, by thy prayers, and by
thy severe ways of penance, and by thy sermons, hast shown the way to
Paradise to every one, and hast snatched our prey. But know thou, that
our dark congregation and infernal troop are so enraged against thee,
that a brigade of the strongest and most mischievous spirits have a
commission to fall upon thee and them.

DOM. (_turning to the people_.) God forbid, O Christians! that you
should believe all that is said by the devils, who are liars, and
inventors of lies. Not but that the Almighty is able to communicate so
much strength to the vilest and most miserable sinner, as will overcome
all infernal hosts, as you see I do at this time, who am the greatest of
sinners.

DEV.—Cursed be so great humility as this, which tears and torments us so
much.

DOM. (_Throwing his stole, for he had not his scapulary yet, which has
much more virtue, about the neck of the Demoniac._) Of which state of
men among Christians are there the most damned?

Here an extraordinary circumstance took place, for no sooner had
Dominick’s stole touched the neck of the demoniac than a great quantity
of thick gory blood burst out at his nose, and a poisonous clay from his
ears. At this sight, Dominick commanded the rebellious devils to desist
from tormenting the poor sinner.

DEV. We will with all our heart, if ye will suffer us to depart.

DOM. Ye shall not stir until ye have answered the question put you.

DEV. In hell there are a great many bishops and princes, but not many
country people, who, though not perfect, are not very great sinners.
There are also a great many merchants, and townspeople, such as
pawnbrokers, fraudulent bakers, grocers, Jews, apothecaries, gamblers,
rakes, &c. who were sent there for covetousness, cheating,
voluptuousness, &c.

DOM. Are there any priests or monks in Hell?

DEV. There are a great number of priests, but no monks, with the
exception of such as had transgressed the rule of their order.

DOM. How are you off for Franciscans?

DEV. Alas! alas! we have not one yet, but we expect a great number of
them after their devotion is a little cooled.

DOM. What saint in heaven does the devil fear most?

Instead of returning any answer to this question, the devils begged
Dominick by all that was sacred to be satisfied with the torments he had
already inflicted upon them, and with those to which they were condemned
in hell, begging he would not insist upon a true answer to that question
before so great a congregation, to the ruin of their kingdom; telling
him, that if he would ask the angels they would tell him who it was.
This, however, would not satisfy Dominick, who, whatever virtues he
might have, had little mercy in his composition, especially, it would
appear, towards devils. He persisted upon their telling; and, perceiving
how reluctant the demons were to comply with his wishes, he threw
himself upon the ground, and went to work, hammer and tongs, with his
rosary; upon which sulphureous flames of fire burst forth from his nose,
mouth, eyes and ears; after this above an hundred angels, clad in golden
armour, appeared with the blessed virgin in the midst of them, holding a
golden rod in her hand, with which she gave the demoniac a switch on the
back, commanding, at the same time, the devils to return true answers to
Dominick’s questions; at this they all roared out lustily, _O our enemy!
O our damner! O our confusion! Why didst thou come down from heaven to
torment us here? Why art thou so powerful an intercessor for sinners? O
thou most certain and secure way to heaven; but since thou commandest
it, we must tell the truth, though it will confound us, and bring woe
and misery on our princes of darkness for ever. Hear, O Christians_,
continued the devils, this mother of Christ is too powerful in
preserving all her servants from hell; it is she that, as a sun,
dissipates all our darkness, _and enervates and brings to nought all our
machinations. We are forced to confess that nobody is damned who
perseveres in her holy worship, and is devoted to her. One sigh from her
has more power than the prayers of all the saints; and we fear her more
than all the citizens of Paradise; and you must all know, that vast
numbers of Christians are, contrary to right, saved by calling upon her
at the time of their death; and that we should long ago have destroyed
the church, if it had not been for this little Mary; and being now
forced to it, we must own, that none who persevere in the exercise of
the rosary, can undergo the eternal torments of hell, for she obtains
contrition for all her devout servants._

Here the _confab_ ended between 15,000 cowardly devils, and Dominick,
who exhorted the congregation to join with him in reciting the rosary:
and behold a great miracle: at every angelical salutation, a multitude
of devils rushed out of the demoniac in the shape of burning coals, and
the blessed virgin having given the congregation her benediction,
disappeared, leaving Dominick in quest of fresh enterprises against the
devil and his horde.

Dominick was a proud designing man, and of a very ferocious disposition.
The stories related of the St. Franciscan order, are equally absurd and
ridiculous.

Similar stories are too numerous: we shall therefore close this subject
with


                      _The Hermit of the Pillar._
       (_St. Simeon Stylites, St. Telesephorus, St. Syncletia._)

We are informed by Alban Butler, that St. Simeon Stylites, the ycleped
hermit of the pillar, astonished the whole Roman Empire by his
mortifications. In the monastery of Heliodorus, a man 65 years of age,
who had spent 62 years so abstracted from the world that he was ignorant
of the most obvious things in it; the monks ate but once a day; Simeon
joined the communities, and ate but once a week. Heliodorus required
Simeon to be more private in his mortifications: “with this view,” says
Butler, “judging the rough rope of the well, made of twisted palm tree
leaves, a proper instrument of penance; Simeon tied it close about his
naked body, where it remained unknown both to the community and his
superior, till such time as it having ate into his flesh, what he had
privately done was discovered by the effluvia proceeding from the
wound.” Butler says, that it took three days to disengage the saint’s
clothes, and that “the incisions of the physician, to cut the cord out
of his body, were attended with such anguish and pain, that he lay for
some time as dead.” After this he determined to pass the whole forty
days of Lent in total abstinence, and retired to a hermitage for that
purpose. Bassus, an abbot, left with him ten loaves and water, and
coming to visit him at the end of the forty days, found both loaves and
water untouched, and the saint stretched on the ground without signs of
life. Bassus dipped a sponge in water, moistened his lips, gave him the
eucharist, and Simeon by degrees swallowed a few lettuce leaves and
other herbs. He passed twenty-six Lents in the same manner. In the first
part of a Lent he prayed standing: growing weaker, he prayed sitting;
and towards the end, being almost exhausted, he prayed lying on the
ground. At the end of three years he left his hermitage for the top of a
mountain, made an inclosure of loose stones, without a roof, and having
resolved to live exposed to the inclemencies of the weather, he fixed
his resolution by fastening his right leg to a rock with a great iron
chain. Multitudes thronged to the mountain to receive his benediction,
and many of the sick recovered their health. But as some were not
satisfied unless they touched him in his enclosure, and Simeon desired
retirement from the daily concourse, he projected a new and
unprecedented manner of life. He erected a pillar six cubits high, (each
cubit being eighteen inches,) and dwelt on it four years; on a second of
twelve cubits high, he lived three years; on a third of twenty-two
cubits high, ten years; and on a fourth, of forty cubits, or sixty feet
high, which the people built for him, he spent the last twenty years of
his life. This occasioned him to be called _Stylites_, from the Greek
word _stylos_, a pillar. This pillar did not exceed three feet in
diameter at the top, so that he could not lie extended on it; he had no
seat with him; he only stooped or leaned to take a little rest, and
bowed his body in prayer so often, that a certain person who counted
these positions, found that he made one thousand two hundred and
forty-four reverences in one day, which if he began at four o’clock in
the morning, and finished at eight o’clock at night, gives a bow to
every three quarters of a minute; besides which, he exhorted the people
twice a day. His garments were the skins of beasts; he wore an iron
collar round his neck, and had a horrible ulcer in his foot. During his
forty days’ abstinence throughout Lent, he tied himself to a pole. He
treated himself as the outcast of the world and the worst of sinners,
worked miracles, delivered prophecies, had the sacrament delivered to
him on the pillar, and died bowing upon it, in the sixty-ninth of his
age, after having lived upon pillars for six and thirty years. His
corpse was carried to Antioch attended by the bishops and the whole
country, and worked miracles on its way. So far this account is from
Alban Butler.

Without mentioning circumstances and miracles in the Golden Legend,
which are too numerous, and some not fit to be related; it may be
observed, that it is there affirmed of him, that after his residence on
the pillars, one of his thighs rotted a whole year, during which time he
stood on one leg only. Near Simeon’s pillar was the dwelling of a
dragon, so very venemous that nothing grew near his cave. This dragon
met with an accident; he had a stake in his eye, and coming all blind to
the saint’s pillar, and placing his eye upon it for three days, without
doing harm to any one, Simeon ordered earth and water to be placed on
the dragon’s eye, which being done, out came the stake, a cubit in
length; when the people saw this miracle, they glorified God, and ran
away for fear of the dragon, who arose and adored for two hours, and
returned to his cave. A woman swallowed a little serpent, which
tormented her for many years, till she came to Simeon, who causing earth
and water to be laid on her mouth, the little serpent came out four feet
and a half long. It is affirmed by the Golden Legend, that when Simeon
died, Anthony smelt a precious odour proceeding from his body; that the
birds cried so much, that both men and beasts cried; that an angel came
down in a cloud; that the Patriarch of Antioch, taking Simeon’s beard to
put among his relics, his hand withered, and remained so, till
multitudes of prayers were said for him, and it was healed; and that
more miracles were worked at and after Simeon’s sepulture, than he had
wrought all his life.




                          HOLY RELIQUE-MANIA.


On the first introduction of the relics of saints, the mania became
universal; they were bought and sold, and, like other collectors, made
no scruple to steal them. It is not a little amusing to remark the
singular ardour and grasping avidity of some to enrich themselves with
religious morsels; their little discernment, the curious impositions and
resources of the vender to impose on the good faith and sincerity of the
purchaser. It was not uncommon for the prelate of the place to ordain a
fast, in order to implore God that they might not be cheated with the
relics of saints, which he sometimes purchased for the holy benefit of
the village or town. Guibert de Nogen wrote a treatise on the relics of
saints: acknowledging that there were many false ones, as well as false
legends, he reprobates the inventors of those lying miracles. It was on
the occasion of one of our Saviour’s teeth, that De Nogen took up his
pen on this subject, by which the monks of St. Medard de Soissons
pretended to work miracles; a pretension which he asserted to be as
chimerical as that of several persons who believed they possessed the
navel, and other parts less comely, of the body of Christ.

There is a history of the translation of Saint Lewin, a virgin and a
martyr, by a monk of Bergavinck; her relics were brought from England to
Bergs. The facts were collected from her brethren with religious care,
especially from the conductor of these relics from England. After the
history of the translation, and a panegyric on the saint, he relates the
miracles performed in Flanders since the arrival of her relics. The
prevailing passion of the times to possess fragments of saints is well
marked, when the author particularises, with a certain complacency, all
the knavish modes they resorted to, to carry off those in question. None
then objected to this sort of robbery, because the gratification of the
ruling passion had made it worth while to supply the market.

There is a history, by a monk of Cluny, of the translation of the body
of St. Indalece, one of the earliest Spanish bishops; written by order
of the Abbot of St. Juan de la Penna; wherein the author protests to
advance nothing but facts; having himself seen, or learnt from other
witnesses, all he relates. It was not difficult for him to gain his
information, since it was to the monastery of St. Juan de la Penna that
the holy relics were transported, and those who brought them were two
monks of that house. His minute detail of circumstances, he has
authenticated by giving the names of persons and places; and the account
was written for the great festival immediately instituted in honour of
this translation. He informs us of the miraculous manner by which they
were so fortunate as to discover the body of this bishop, and the
different plans that were concerted to carry it off; with the itinerary
of the two monks who accompanied the holy remains; during which they
were not a little cheered in their long and hazardous journey by visions
and miracles.

Another has written a history of what he terms the translation of the
relics of St. Majean to the monastery of Villemagne. _Translation_ is,
in fact, only a softened expression for the robbery committed on the
relics of the saints, by two monks who carried them off secretly, to
enrich their monastery; and they did not stick at any artifice, or lie,
to achieve their undertaking. They imagined every thing was permitted to
get possession of these fragments of mortality, which now had become
such an important branch of commerce. They even regarded their
possessors with a hostile eye. Such was the religious opinion from the
ninth to the twelfth century. Our Canute commissioned his agent at Rome
to purchase St. Augustine’s arm for one hundred talents of silver and
one of gold! a much greater sum, observes Granger, than the finest
statue of antiquity would then have sold for. Another monk describes a
strange act of devotion, attested by several contemporary writers. When
the saints did not readily comply with the prayers of their votaries,
they flogged their relics with rods, in a spirit of impatience, which
they conceived necessary to enforce obedience. To raise our admiration,
Theofroy, abbot of Epternac, relates the daily miracles performed by the
relics of saints—their ashes, their clothes, or other mortal spoils, and
even by the instruments of their martyrdom. He inveighs against that
luxury of ornaments which was indulged in under a religious pretext. “It
is not to be supposed that the saints are desirous of such a profusion
of gold and silver. They wish not that we should raise to them
magnificent churches, to exhibit that ingenious order of pillars, which
shine with gold; nor those rich ceilings, nor those altars sparkling
with jewels. They desire not the purple parchment for their writings,
the liquid gold to decorate the letters, nor the precious stones to
embellish their covers, while you have such little care for the
ministers.” The pious writer has not forgotten _himself_, in his
partnership-account with the _saints_.

Bayle observes, the Roman church not being able to deny that there have
been false relics which have wrought miracles, they reply that the good
intentions of those believers who have recourse to them, obtained from
God the reward for their good faith! In the same spirit, when it was
shown that three bodies of the same saint are said to exist in several
places, and that therefore they could not all be authentic, it was
answered, that they were all genuine! for God had multiplied and
miraculously reproduced them, for the comfort of the faithful! A curious
specimen of the intolerance of good sense.

Prince Radzivil was so much affected by the Reformation being spread in
Lithuania, that he went in person to pay the Pope all personal honours.
On this occasion his holiness presented him with a precious box of
relics. On his return home, some monks entreated the prince’s permission
to try the effects of them on a demoniac, who hitherto had resisted
every exorcism. They were brought into the church with solemn pomp,
accompanied by an innumerable crowd, and deposited on the altar. After
the usual conjurations, which were unsuccessful, the relics were
applied. The demoniac instantly recovered. The people called out _a
miracle!_ and the Prince raising his hands and eyes to heaven, felt his
faith confirmed. During this transport of pious joy, he observed that a
young gentleman, who was keeper of his treasure of relics, smiled, and
by his motions ridiculed the miracle. The Prince, indignantly, took the
young keeper of the relics to task; who, on promise of pardon, gave the
following _secret intelligence_ concerning them. In travelling from Rome
he had lost the box of relics; and not daring to mention it, he had
procured a similar one, which he had filled with the small bones of dogs
and cats, and other trifles similar to those that were lost. He hoped he
might be forgiven for smiling, when he found that such a collection of
rubbish was eulogized with such pomp, and had even the virtue of
expelling demons. It was by the assistance of this box that the Prince
discovered the gross impositions of the monks and demoniacs, and
Radzivil afterwards became a zealous Lutheran.

Frederick the Elector, surnamed _the Wise_, was an indefatigable
collector of relics. After his death, one of the monks employed by him,
solicited payment for several parcels he had purchased for our _wise_
Elector; but the times had changed! He was advised to resign this
business; the relics for which he desired payment they were willing _to
return_; that since the Reformation of Luther, the price of such ware
had considerably fallen; and that they would be more esteemed, and find
a _better market_ in Italy than in Germany!

In his “Traité preparatif à l’Apologie pour Herodote,” c. 39, Stephens
says, “A monk of St. Anthony, having been at Jerusalem, saw there
several relics, among which was a bit of the finger of the Holy Ghost,
as sound and entire as it had ever been; the snout of the seraphim that
appeared to St. Francis; one of the nails of a cherubim; one of the ribs
of the _Verbum caro factum_, (the Word was made flesh,) some rays of the
star that appeared to the three kings of the east; a phial of St.
Michael’s sweat, when he was fighting against the devil; a hem of
Joseph’s garment, which he wore when he cleaved wood, &c. All which
things,” observes our treasurer of relics, “I have brought with me home
very devoutly.” Henry III. who was deeply tainted with the superstition
of the age, summoned all the great in the kingdom to meet in London.
This summons excited the most general curiosity, and multitudes
appeared. The king then acquainted them that the great master of the
knights templars had sent him a phial containing _a small portion of the
sacred blood of Christ_, which he had shed upon the _cross_! and
_attested to be genuine_ by the seals of the patriarch of Jerusalem, and
others. He commanded a procession on the following day, and, adds the
historian, that though the road between St. Paul’s and Westminster Abbey
was very deep and miry, the king kept his eyes constantly fixed on the
phial. Two monks received it, and deposited the phial in the abbey,
“which made all England shine with glory, dedicating it to God and St.
Edward.”

In his life of Henry VIII. Lord Herbert notices the _great fall of the
price of relics_ at the dissolution of the monasteries. “The respect
given to relics, and some pretended miracles, fell, insomuch as I find
by our records, that a _piece of St. Andrew’s finger_, (covered only
with an ounce of silver,) being laid to pledge by a monastery for forty
pounds, was left unredeemed at the dissolution of the house; the king’s
commissioners, who, upon surrender of any foundation, undertook to pay
the debts, refusing to pay the price again;” that is, they did not
choose to repay the _forty pounds, to receive a piece of the finger of
St. Andrew_. About this time the property of relics suddenly sunk to a
South-Sea bubble; for shortly after the artifice of the Road of Grace,
at Boxley, in Kent, was fully opened to the eye of the populace, and a
far-famed relic at Hales in Gloucestershire, of the blood of Christ, was
at the same time exhibited. It was showed in a phial, and it was
believed that none could see it who were in mortal sin: and after many
trials usually repeated to the same person, the deluded pilgrim at
length went away fully satisfied. This relic was the _blood of a duck_,
renewed every week, and put into a phial; one side of which was
_opaque_, and the other _transparent_; either side of which was turned
to the pilgrim which the monk thought proper. The success of the pilgrim
depended on the oblations he had made. Those who were scanty in their
offerings, were the longest in getting a sight of the blood. When a man
was in despair he usually became generous.


                                THE END.


            W. WILSON, PRINTER, 57, SKINNER-STREET, LONDON.

-----

Footnote 1:

  The discipline of the augurs is of very ancient date, having been
  prohibited by Moses, in Leviticus. The cup put in Joseph’s sack, was
  that used by Joseph to take auguries by. In its more general
  signification, augury comprises all the different kinds of divination,
  which Varrow distinguishes into four species of augury, according to
  the four elements; namely, _pyromancy_, or augury by fire;
  _aeromancy_, or augury by the air; _hydromancy_, or augury by the
  water; and _geomancy_, or augury by the earth.—See DIVINATION. The
  Roman augurs took their presages concerning futurity from birds,
  beasts, and the appearances of the heavens, &c.

Footnote 2:

  See AUGURS.

Footnote 3:

  A coal starting out of the fire _prognosticates_ either a purse or a
  coffin, as the imagination may figure either one or the other
  represented upon it: the death-watch, a species of ticking spider, the
  inseparable companion of old houses and old furniture, is, when heard,
  a _sure_ prognostic of a death in the family: the sediment of the
  sugar, in the form of froth, rising to the top of a cup of tea, is an
  _infallible_ presage of the person going to receive money: the itching
  of the palm of the hand, which is to be immediately rubbed on wood,
  “that it may come to good,” or on brass, “that it may come to pass,”
  &c. is the _certain_ foreboding of being about to have money paid or
  otherwise transferred.

Footnote 4:

  These are but a very small proportion of the minor species of
  superstitions which influence weak and uninstructed minds in all
  countries. The vulgar, even in the most enlightened periods, are not
  entirely exempt from belief in the powers of sorcery and magic, and
  other fantastical and imaginary agencies, such as Exorcisms, Charms,
  and Amulets. It is pleasing, however, to contrast the present times,
  in which there is almost an extinction of these delusions, with ages
  not very remote. It is only 182 years, (counting from 1819) since
  great numbers of persons were condemned to death, in the ordinary
  course of law, and executed for witchcraft, in England; and only 119
  years (from the same date) since the like disgraceful proceedings took
  place in Scotland. The like trials, convictions, and executions, took
  place in New England, in the end of the 17th century. See _Evelyn’s
  Memoirs_, vol. xi. p. 35.

Footnote 5:

  Du Cange has remarked, that the common expression, “_May this piece of
  bread choke me!_” originates with this custom. The anecdote of Earl
  Godwin’s death by swallowing a piece of bread, in making this
  asseveration, is recorded in our history. If it be true, it was a
  singular misfortune.

Footnote 6:

  Dr. Fludd, or, as he stated himself in Latin, _De Fluctibus_, was the
  second son of Sir Thomas Fludd, Treasurer of War to Queen Elizabeth,
  was born at Milgate in Kent; and died at his own house in
  Coleman-Street, September 8, 1637. He was a strenuous supporter of the
  Rosicrucian philosophy; was considered a man of some eminence in his
  profession, and by no means an insignificant writer.

Footnote 7:

  Melancthon was also a believer in judicial astrology, and an
  interpreter of dreams. Richelieu and Mazarine were so superstitious as
  to employ and pension Morin, another pretender to astrology, who cast
  the nativities of these two able politicians. Nor was Tacitus himself,
  who generally appears superior to superstition, untainted with this
  folly, as may appear from the twenty-second chapter of the sixth book
  of his Annals.

Footnote 8:

  The noted THUMERSEN, in the seventeenth century, was invested at
  Berlin with the respective offices of printer to the court,
  bookseller, almanack-maker, astrologer, chemist, and first physician.
  Messengers daily arrived from the most respectable houses in Germany,
  Poland, Hungary, Denmark, and even from England, for the purpose of
  consulting him respecting the future fortunes of new-born infants,
  acquainting him with the hour of their nativity, and soliciting his
  advice and directions as to their management. Many volumes of this
  singular correspondence are still preserved in the Royal library at
  Berlin. He died in high reputation and favour with his superstitious
  contemporaries; and his astrological Almanack is still published in
  some of the less enlightened provinces of Germany.

Footnote 9:

  I so well remember the Chaldean predictions to Pompey, to Crassus, and
  to this same Cæsar, that none of them should die, but full of years
  and glory, and in his house, that I am surprised that there are yet
  some persons capable to believe those, whose predictions are every day
  contradicted and refuted by the court.

Footnote 10:

  Antipater and Achinapolus have shewn, that Genethliology should rather
  be founded on the time of the conception than on that of the birth.

Footnote 11:

  Astrologers and wise men of the present day, thanks to a statute or
  two in the civil code, limit their star-gazing faculties to the making
  of calendars or almanacks.

Footnote 12:

  In 1523, the astrologers having prophesied incessant rains and fearful
  floods, the abbot of St. Bartholomew, in Smithfield, built a house on
  Harrow-the-Hill, and stored it with provisions. Many persons followed
  his example and repaired to high places. However, no extraordinary
  floods appearing, the disappointed soothsayers pacified the people by
  owning themselves mistaken just one hundred years in their
  calculation.—HALL.

Footnote 13:

  From this art of Solomon, exhibited through the medium of a ring or
  seal, we have the eastern stories which celebrate the seal of Solomon,
  and record the potency of its sway over the various orders of
  _demons_, or of genii, who are supposed to be the invincible
  tormentors or benefactors of the human race.

Footnote 14:

  The discovery of the virtues of the Peruvian bark may here serve as an
  instance. The story goes, that an Indian (some say a monkey) being ill
  of a fever, quenched his thirst at a pool of water, strongly
  impregnated with the bark from some trees having accidentally fallen
  into it, and that he was in consequence cured.

Footnote 15:

  John Atkins, author of the Navy Surgeon: 1742.

Footnote 16:

  Turner, in his collection of Cases, p. 406, gives one of a woman who
  died hydrophobical, from a mad dog biting her gown; and of a young man
  who died raving mad, from the scratch of a cat, four years after the
  accident.

Footnote 17:

  This species of delusion reminds us of the Florentine quack, who gave
  the countryman his pills, which were to enable him to find his lost
  ass. The pills beginning to operate on his road home, obliged him to
  retire into a wood, where he actually did find his ass. The clown, as
  a matter of course, soon spread the report of the wonderful success of
  the empiric, who, no doubt, in consequence of this circumstance,
  reaped an ample reward from the proprietors of strayed cattle.

Footnote 18:

  James the First wrote a philippic against it, entitled a
  “COUNTERBLASTE TO TOBACCO,” in which the royal author, with more
  prejudice than dignity, informs his loving subjects, that “_it is a
  custome loathsome to the eye, hatefull to the nose, painfull to the
  braine, dangerous to the lungs; and in the black stinking fume
  thereof, nearest resembling the horrible stygian smoke of the pit that
  is bottomlesse_.”

Footnote 19:

  The prohibition of the bath was numbered among the restrictions to
  which certain priestesses were bound by the rigid rules of their
  order.

Footnote 20:

  An eminent physician of the fourth century, born at Pergamus, or,
  according to others, at Sardis, where he resided for some time.

Footnote 21:

  Called Amidenus, from the place of his birth, flourished at
  Alexandria, about the end of the fifth century.

Footnote 22:

  The word Alchymy seems to be compounded of the Arabic augmentative
  particle _al_, and the Latin Kemia or Greek χημια, chemistry. This
  etymology, however, is objected to by some, who deny the Arabians any
  share in the composition of the word; urging that _alchemia_ occurs in
  an author who wrote before the Europeans had any commerce with the
  Arabians, or the Arabians any learning, _i. e._ before the time of
  Mahomet.

Footnote 23:

  Philosoph. Magazine, Vol. vi. p. 383.

Footnote 24:

  Descartes imagined that he had found out a diet that would prolong his
  life five hundred years.

Footnote 25:

  Quædam opera magica mulieribus perfecta fuère, sicut de productione
  aquarum reperimus apud Chaldæos; si decem Virgines se ornent,
  vestimenta rubra inducant, saltent ita ut una altera impellat, idque
  progrediendo et retrogrediendo, digitos denique versus solem certis
  signis extendant, ad finem perducta illâ actione, aquas illici et
  prodire dicunt. Sic scribunt, si quatuor mulieres in terga jaceant, et
  pedes suas cum composione versus cœlum extendant, certa verba, certos
  item gestus, adhibeat illas turpi hac actione grandinem decidentem
  avertere.—_Tiedman’s “Disputatio de quæstione, quæ fuerit artium
  magicarum origo.”_

Footnote 26:

  This method of solving the above problem is supported by the authority
  of many fathers of the church.

Footnote 27:

  Amasis cum frui Amplexibus Ladices nequiret impotentem sese ab ea
  redditum contendebat pertinacissime. Vide Herodotum, lib. 2.

Footnote 28:

  It is clearly shewn by the earliest records, that the ancients were in
  the possession of many powerful remedies; thus Melampus of Argos, the
  most ancient Greek physician with whom we are acquainted, is said to
  have cured one of the Argonauts of sterility, by administering the
  rust of iron in wine for ten days; and the same physician used
  Hellebore as a purge, on the daughters of King Prœtus, who were
  afflicted with melancholy. Venesection was also a remedy of very early
  origin, for Podalerius, on his return from the Trojan war, cured the
  daughter of Damethus, who had fallen from a height, by bleeding her in
  both arms. Opium, or a preparation of the poppy, was certainly known
  in the earliest ages; and it was probably opium that Helen mixed with
  wine, and gave to the guests of Menelaus, under the expressive name of
  _nepenthe_, (Odyss. Δ,) to drive away their cares, and increase their
  hilarity; and this conjecture receives much support from the fact,
  that the _nepenthe_ of Homer was obtained from the Egyptian Thebes,
  (whence the Tincture of Opium has been called _Thebaic_ Tincture;) and
  if the opinion of Dr. Darwin may be credited, the Cumæan Sibyll never
  sat on the portending tripod without first swallowing a few drops of
  the juice of the cherry-laurel.

         “At Phœbi nondum Patiens, immanis in antro,
         Bacchatur vates, magnum si pectore possit
         Excussisse deum: tanto magis ille fategat
         Os rabidum, fera corda domans, fingitque premendo.”
                                             ÆNEID, l. vi. v. 78.

  There is reason to believe that the Pagan priesthood were under the
  influence of some narcotic during the display of their oracular
  powers, but the effects produced would seem rather to resemble those
  of opium, or perhaps of stramonium, than of Prussic acid. Monardus
  tells us, that the priests of the American Indians, whenever they were
  consulted by the chief gentlemen, or _caciques_, as they are called,
  took certain leaves of the tobacco, and cast them into the fire, and
  then received the smoke which they thus produced in their mouths, in
  consequence of which they fell down upon the ground; and that after
  having remained for some time in a stupor, they recovered, and
  delivered the answers, which they pretended to have received during
  their supposed intercourse with the world of spirits. The sedative
  powers of the garden lettuce were known in the earliest times. Among
  the fables of antiquity we read, that after the death of Adonis, Venus
  threw herself upon a bed of lettuces, to lull her grief and repress
  her desires. The sea onion, or _squill_, was administered by the
  Egyptians in cases of dropsy, under the mystic title of the Eye of
  Typhon. The practices of incision and scarification, were employed in
  the camp of the Greeks before Troy, and the application of spirit to
  wounds, was also understood, for we find the experienced Nestor
  applying a cataplasm, composed of cheese, onion, and meal, mixed up
  with the wine of Pramnos, to the wounds of Machaon.

Footnote 29:

  Æis addatur quod scripsit Necepsos, draconem radios habentem
  insculptum, collo suspensum, ita ut contingeret ventriculum, mire ei
  prodesse.—TIEDMAN.

Footnote 30:

  On the subject of the Jewish magii, the works of Buxtorf, Lightfoot,
  Bekker, and others, have been consulted.

Footnote 31:

  Les Juifs croient que Lilis veut faire mourir les garçons dans le
  huitième jour après leur naissance, et les filles dans le
  vingt-unième. Voici le remède des Juifs Allemans pour se préserver de
  ce danger. Ils tirent des traits en ronde avec de la craϊe, ou avec
  des charbons de bois, sur les quatre murs de la chambre oû est
  l’accouchée, et ils écrivent sur chaque trait: _Adam! Eve! qui Lilis
  se retire_. Ils écrivent aussi sur le parti de chambre les noms des
  trois anges qui président à la médicine, _Senai_, _Sansenai_, et
  _Sanmangelof_, ainsi que Lilis elle-même leur apprit qu’il falloit
  faire lorsqu’elle espéroit de les faire tout tous noyer dans la mer.
  _Elias, as quoted by Becker._

Footnote 32:

  This remarkable confession may be found in Menange’s. Observations sur
  la langue Françoise, Part II. p. 110.

Footnote 33:

  This was written in 1560, and before the era of revolutions had
  commenced even among ourselves. He penetrated into the important
  principle merely by the force of his own meditation.

Footnote 34:

  Vide Lectures on Phrenology, by Drs. Gall and Spurtzheim.

Footnote 35:

  This word is supposed to be formed from the Greek ονομα, name; and
  μαντεια, divination. There is in fact something rather singular in the
  etymology; for, in strictness, Onomancy should rather signify
  divination by asses, being formed from oνos, _asinus_ and μαντεια. To
  signify divination by names it should be Onomatomancy.

Footnote 36:

  PYTHIAN or PYTHIA, in antiquity, the priestess of Apollo, by whom he
  delivered oracles. She was thus called from the god himself, who was
  styled _Apollo Pythius_, from his slaying the serpent Python; or as
  others will have it, αποτου ποδεσδαι, because Apollo, the sun, is the
  cause of rottenness; or, according to others, from πυνδανομαι, _I
  hear_, because people went to hear and consult his oracles.—The
  priestess was to be a pure virgin. She sat on the covercle, or lid, of
  a brazen vessel, mounted on a tripod; and thence, after a violent
  enthusiasm, she delivered her oracles; _i. e._ she rehearsed a few
  ambiguous and obscure verses, which were taken for oracles.

  All the Pythiæ did not seem to have had the same talent at poetry, or
  to have memory enough to retain their lesson.—Plutarch and Strabo make
  mention of poets, who were kept in by Jupiter, as interpreters.

  The solemn games instituted in honor of Apollo, and in memory of his
  killing the serpent Python with his arrows, were called Pythia or
  Pythian games.

Footnote 37:

  The art of knowing the humour, temperament, or disposition of a
  person, from observation of the lines of the face, and the character
  of its members or features, is called Physiognomy. Baptist Porta and
  Robert Fludd, are among the top modern authors, and it has since been
  revived by Lavater, on this subject. The ancient authors are the
  Sophist Adamantius, and Aristotle, whose treatise on Physiognomy is
  translated into Latin by de Lacuna.

Footnote 38:

  When the thoughts are much troubled, and when a person sleeps without
  the circumstance of going to bed, or putting off his clothes, as when
  he nods in his chair; it is very difficult, as Hobbes remarks, to
  distinguish a dream from a reality. On the contrary, he that composes
  himself to sleep, in case of any uncouth or absurd fancy, easily
  suspects it to have been a dream.—LEVIATHAN, par. i. c. 1.

Footnote 39:

  For the notion of this threefold soul, read the following verses
  attributed to Ovid:—

            Bis duo sunt nomini: MANES, CARO, SPIRITUS, UMBRA:
               Quatuor ista loci bis duo suscipiunt,
            Terra legit CARNEM, tumulum circumvolat UMBRA
               Orcus habet MANES, SPIRITUS astra petit.

Footnote 40:

  Scot’s Discoverie of Witchcraft, book xv. chap. 39; also Discourse on
  Devils and Spirits, chap. 28.

Footnote 41:

  Philosophy of Apparitions, by Dr. Hibbert.

Footnote 42:

  “As I sat in the pantry last night counting my spoons,” says the
  butler, in the Comedy of the Drummer, “the candle, methought, burnt
  blue, and the spay’d bitch look’d as if she saw something.”

Footnote 43:

  The Friend, a series of Essays, by S. T. Coleridge, Esq. vol. I, page
  248.

Footnote 44:

  “There is a species to whom, in the Highlands, is ascribed the
  guardianship or superintendence of a particular clan, or family of
  distinction. Thus the family of Gurlinbeg was haunted by a spirit
  called Garlen Bodachar; that of the Baron of Kilcharden by Sandear or
  Red Hand, a spectre, one of whose hands is as red as blood; that of
  Tullochgorum by May Moulach, a female figure, whose left hand and arm
  were covered with hair, who is also mentioned as a familiar attendant
  upon the clan Grant.” _Sir_ WALTER SCOTT’S BORDER MINSTRELSY.

Footnote 45:

  In the year 1646 two hundred persons were tried, condemned, and
  executed for witchcraft, at the Suffolk and Essex assizes; and in 1699
  five persons were tried by special commission, at Paisley, in
  Scotland, condemned and burnt alive, for the same imaginary crime.—
  (See HOWELL’S _Letters_.)

Footnote 46:

  It is rather an unfortunate circumstance that all the books, (and
  there were several,) which treated of the arts of conjuration, as they
  were practised among the ancients, not one is now extant, and all that
  we know upon that subject has been collected from isolated facts which
  have been incidentally mentioned in other writings. From these,
  however, it would appear, that many of the deceptions which still
  continue to excite astonishment, were then generally known.

Footnote 47:

  Sir Gilbert Blane, Bart.

Footnote 48:

  Glanvil was chaplain to his Majesty, and a fellow of the Royal
  Society, and author of the work in question, entitled “SADUCESMUS
  TRIUMPHATUS, or a full and plain evidence concerning witches and
  apparitions,” in two parts, “proving partly by holy Scripture, and
  partly by a choice collection of modern relations, the real existence
  of apparitions, spirits, and witches.” Printed 1700.

Footnote 49:

  Webster, another divine, wrote “Criticisms and interpretations of
  Scripture,” against the existence of witches, &c.

Footnote 50:

  This story must be accounted for some way or other; or belief in the
  appearance of the apparitions must be credited. Either the miller
  himself was the murderer, or he was privy to it, unperceived by the
  actual perpetrators; or he might be an accomplice before the fact, or
  at the time it was committed, but without having inflicted any of the
  wounds. The compunctious visitings of his troubled conscience, the
  dread of the law in the event of the disclosure, coming from any one
  but himself, doubtless made him resolve to disburthen his guilty mind;
  and pretended supernatural agency was the fittest channel that
  presented itself for the occasion. That Walker and Sharp never
  confessed any thing, ought not to be matter of wonder. There was no
  evidence against them but the miller’s apparition, which, they were
  well assured, would not be likely to appear against them; they were
  determined therefore not to implicate themselves; well knowing, that
  however the case stood, Graime the miller could not be convicted,
  because, in the event of his story of the apparition being rejected,
  they must be acquitted, although suspicion and the circumstances of
  the pregnancy, &c. were against them; and again, if the miller had
  declared himself, after this, as evidence for the crown, his
  testimony, if taken at all, would be received with the greatest
  caution and distrust; the result might, in fact, have been, that the
  strongest suspicions would have fallen upon him as the real murderer
  of Anne Clarke; for which, under every consideration of the case, he
  might not unjustly have been tried, condemned, and executed. The
  statement of Lumley proves nothing that was not generally known. That
  Anne Clarke was murdered was well known, but by whom nobody ever knew.
  She afterwards appeared to the miller; and why to the miller in
  preference to any one else, unless he had had the least hand in it?
  and with the exception of Sharp and Walker, the only living being who
  was thoroughly acquainted with the catastrophe, but who himself was,
  in fact, as guilty as either of the other two.

  The Mr. Fanhair, who swore he saw “the likeness of a child standing
  upon Walker’s shoulders” during the trial, ought to have been freely
  blooded, cupped, purged, and dieted, for a month or two, until the
  vapours of his infantile imagination had learned to condense
  themselves within their proper focus: then, and then only, might his
  oath have been listened to. Besides, the _child_ could only be a
  fœtus, at what period of gestation we are not told, and to have
  appeared in proper form, it ought to have had its principal appendage
  with it—the mother. The two, however, might have been two heavy for
  Walker’s shoulders: nevertheless, the gallantry of the times,
  certainly, would not have refused her a seat in the dock alongside her
  guilty paramour; or a chair in the witness’-box, if she came to appear
  as evidence against him.

Footnote 51:

  By Mumia is here understood, that which was used by some ancient
  physicians for some kind of implanted spirit, found chiefly in
  carcases, when the infused spirit is fled; or kind of sympathetic
  influence, communicated from one body to another, by which magnetic
  cures, &c. were said to be performed. Now, however, deservedly
  exploded.

Footnote 52:

  For a curious specimen of this _odium theologicum_, see the “Censure”
  of the Sorbonne on Marmontel’s Belisarius.

Footnote 53:

  This king is invoked in the first part of Shakspeare’s play of Henry
  the Sixth, after the following manner:—

                 “You speedy helpers that are substitutes
                 Under the lordly monarch of the North—
                 Appear!”

Footnote 54:

  This description is taken from an ancient Latin poem, describing the
  lamentable vision of a devoted hermit, and supposed to have been
  written by St. Bernard, in the year 1238; a translation of which was
  printed for private distribution by William Yates, Esq. of Manchester.

Footnote 55:

  Sir Thomas Brown, who thinks that this view may be confirmed by
  expositions of Holy Scripture, remarks, that, “whereas it is said,
  thou shalt not offer unto devils; (the original word is seghuirim),
  that is, rough and hairy goats, because in that shape the devil must
  have often appeared, as is expounded by the Rabin; as Tremellius hath
  also explained; and as the word Ascemah, the god of Emath, is by some
  conceived.”

Footnote 56:

  See an interesting dissertation on this subject, in Douce’s
  Illustrations of Shakspeare, Vol. i. p. 382. It is also noticed in the
  Border Minstrelsy, Vol. ii. p. 197.

Footnote 57:

  Dio of Syracuse was visited by one of the furies in person, whose
  appearance the soothsayers regarded as indicative of the death which
  occurred of his son, as well as his own dissolution.

Footnote 58:

  Sir Walter Scott has supposed that this mythological account of the
  duergar bears a remote allusion to real history, having an ultimate
  reference to the oppressed Fins, who, before the arrival of the
  invaders, under the conduct of Odin, were the prior possessors of
  Scandinavia. The followers of this hero saw a people, who knew how to
  work the mines of the country better than they did; and, therefore,
  from a superstitious regard, transformed them into spirits of an
  unfavourable character, dwelling in the interior of rocks, and
  surrounded with immense riches.—_Border Minstrelsy_, v. ii. p. 179.

Footnote 59:

  It is said that, in Orkney, they were often seen clad in complete
  armour.—_Brand’s description of Orkney._ 8vo. Edinburgh, 1701. p. 63.

Footnote 60:

  In Germany, probably for similar reasons, the dwarfs have acquired the
  name of _elves_—a word, observes Mr. Douce, derived from the Teutonic
  of _helfin_, which etymologists have translated _juvare_.

Footnote 61:

  Minstrelsy of the Scottish border, vol. ii. page 215.

Footnote 62:

  Before dismissing this subject of fairies, I shall slightly advert to
  the strange blending which took place of Grecian and Teutonic fables.
  “We find,” says Sir Walter Scott, “the elves accordingly arrayed in
  the costume of Greece and Rome, and the fairy queen and her attendants
  transformed into Diana and her nymphs, and invested with their
  attributes and appropriate insignia.” Mercury was also named by
  Harsenet, in the year 1602, the prince of the fairies.

Footnote 63:

  “He would chafe exceedingly,” says Scot, “if the maid or good wife of
  the house, having compassion of his nakedness, laid ani cloths for him
  besides his messe of white bread and milke, which was his standing
  fee. For in that case he saith, what have we here? Hempton hamten,
  here will I never more tread nor stampen.”

Footnote 64:

  Bellus speaks with contempt of this petty instance of malevolence to
  the human race: “stones are thrown down from the air,” he remarks,
  “which do no harm, the devils having little strength, and being mere
  scarecrows.” So much for the origin of meteoric stones.

Footnote 65:

  See Hibbert’s Philosophy of Apparitions.

Footnote 66:

  Grellman’s History of the Gipsies.

Footnote 67:

  Grellman’s opinion seems extremely plausible, that they are of the
  lowest class of Indians, called _suders_, and that they left India
  when Timur Bag ravaged that country in 1408 and 1409, putting to death
  immense numbers of all ranks of people.

Footnote 68:

  Mr. Marsden first made inquiries among the English Gipsies concerning
  their language.—_Vide_ Archæologia, vol. ii. p. 382–386. Mr. Coxe
  communicated a vocabulary of words used by those of Hungary.—See the
  same vol. of the Archæologia, p. 387. Vocabularies of the German
  Gipsies may be seen in Grellman’s Book. Any person wishing to be
  convinced of this similarity of language, and being possessed of a
  vocabulary of words used in Hindostan, may be satisfied of its truth
  by conversing with the first Gipsey he meets.

Footnote 69:

  Margaret Finch, a celebrated modern adventuress, was buried October
  24, 1740, at Beckenham, in Kent. This remarkable person lived to the
  age of 109 years. She was one of the people called Gipsies, and had
  the title of their queen. After travelling over various parts of the
  kingdom, during the greater part of a century, she settled at Norwood,
  a place notorious for vagrants of this description, whither her great
  age and the fame of her fortune-telling, attracted numerous visitors.
  From a habit of sitting on the ground, with her chin resting on her
  knees, the sinews at length became so contracted, that she could not
  rise from that posture. After her death they were obliged to inclose
  her body in a deep square box. Her funeral was attended by two
  mourning coaches, a sermon was preached on the occasion; and a great
  concourse of people attended the ceremony.

  There is an engraved portrait of Margaret Finch, from a drawing made
  in 1739. Her picture adorned the sign of a house of public
  entertainment in Norwood, called the Gipsey house, which was situated
  in a small green, in a valley, surrounded by woods. On this green, a
  few families of Gipsies used to pitch their tents, during the summer
  season. In winter they either procure lodgings in London, or take up
  their abode in barns, in some of the more distant counties. In a
  cottage that adjoined the Gipsey house, lived an old woman,
  granddaughter of Queen Margaret, who inherited her title. She was
  niece of Queen Budget, who was buried (_see Lysons_, vol i. p. 107.)
  at Dulwich, in 1768. Her rank seemed, however, to be merely titular;
  nor do we find that the gipsies paid her any particular respect, or
  that she differed in any other manner than that of being a
  householder, from the rest of her tribe.—

Footnote 70:

  A private dwelling house.

Footnote 71:

  The woods, hedges or bushes.

Footnote 72:

  His wench, &c.

Footnote 73:

  Clothes.

Footnote 74:

  Hens.

Footnote 75:

  Turkies.

Footnote 76:

  Young Pigs.

Footnote 77:

  Geese.

Footnote 78:

  Plunder, goods, or money acquired by theft.

Footnote 79:

  Legend is also used by authors to signify the words or letters
  engraven about the margins, &c. of coins. It is also applied to the
  inscription of medals, of which it serves to explain the figures or
  devices. In point of strictness the legend differs from the
  inscription, the latter properly signifying words instead of figures
  placed on the reverse of a medal.

Footnote 80:

  See Geddes’s Tracts.

Footnote 81:

  See Geddes’s Tracts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                          TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES


 Page           Changed from                      Changed to

   96 ‏תגת‎                              ‏הגה‎.

  143 μαν εια                          μαντεια

  144 χλησων                           κληδων

  149 γε                               γη

  152 υαvτεiα                          μαντεια

  171 ΦΥΣΙΟΤΝΩΜΙΑ                      ΦΥΣΙΟΓΝΩΜΙΑ

  229 ‏קסומי נאלי באוכ‎                  ‏קסומי נא לי באוב‎

      ‏מעינן‎                            ‏מעונן‎

  230 ‏הש‎                               ‏נחש‎

  232 ‏חיבר חבר‎                         ‏נחשחובר חבר‎

      ‏חיבר חבר‎                         ‏חובר חבר‎

      ἐπὰδων                           ἐπάδων

  233 ‏חיבר‎                             ‏חובר‎

      ‏מחכם אשר לא־ישמע לקול מלחשים     ‏אשר לא־ישמע לקול מלחשים חובר
      חובר חברים‎                       חברים מחכם‎

      ‏חיבר חבר‎                         ‏חובר חבר‎

  234 ‏שיאל אוב‎                         ‏שואל אוב‎

      Ἐγγαϛείμυθος                     Ἐγγαστρίμυθος

      ‏שיאל אוב‎                         ‏שואל אוב‎

      Ἐγγαϛείμυθος                     Ἐγγαστρίμυθος

  235 ‏כהם אוב‎                          ‏בהם אוב‎

      ‏באיב‎                             ‏באוב‎

      Ἐγγαϛείμυθῳ                      Ἐγγαστρίμυθῳ

  236 ‏בעלת איב‎                         ‏בעלת אוב‎

      ‏בעלת איב‎                         ‏בעלת אוב‎

      ‏איב‎                              ‏אוב‎

      ‏חיבר חבר‎                         ‏חובר חבר‎

  237 ‏ירעני‎                            ‏ידעני‎

      ‏יעשח איב וידעני‎                  ‏יעשה אוב וידעני‎

      ‏איב‎                              ‏אוב‎

      ‏בעלת בוא‎                         ‏בעלת אוב‎

  239 ‏איב כעלוה‎                        ‏בעליה אוב‎

      ‏הטהגים‎                           ‏המהגים‎

  243 ‏הרטמים‎                           ‏חרטמים‎

      ‏מבשפים‎                           ‏מכשפים‎

      ‏חבטים‎                            ‏חכמים‎

      ‏להש‎                              ‏להט‎

      ‏דהט חדב‎                          ‏להט חרב‎

  245 ‏בלהטוהם‎                          ‏קסומי־נא לי‎

      ‏איב‎                              ‏אוב‎

      Ohh                              Obh

      μαντεϊον                         μαντεῖον

      Ὅπ θεασάμπνυον τὸ γύναιον ἅνδρa  Ὅτι θεασάμενον τὸ γύναιον ἄνδρa
  246 σεμνὸν καὶ θεοπρεπῆ ταράττεται,  σεμνὸν καὶ θεοπρεπῆ ταράττεται,
      καὶ πρὸς την ὅψίν οὐπλαγέν, οὐ   καὶ πρὸς την ὄψίν οὐπλαγέν, οὐ
      σὺ, φησὶν, ὁ Βασιλεὺς Σάουλος    σύ, φησὶν, ὁ Βασιλεὺς Σαοῦλος

  247 ‏אלהום‎                            ‏אלהים‎

      Elochim                          Elohim

  249 ‏ידץ‎                              ‏ידע‎

  250 διπλοίδα ἱεραπκηὶ                διπλοΐδα ἱερατικήν

  251 Θεῷτηὶ μερηὶ ὅμοιος              Θεῷ τὴν μορφὴν ὅμοιος

  292 ‏חולם‎                             ‏עולם‎

      holam                            gnolam

      ‏לחולם‎                            ‏לעולם‎

      leholam                          legnolam

  256 θoοὺς                            θεοὺς

 1. Note that in the author's Hebrew transliterations 'hh' indicates a
      hard 'aitch'.
 2. Note that in the author's Hebrew transliterations 'gn' indicates a
      (silent) hard glottal-stop.
 3. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in
      spelling.
 4. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.
 5. Re-indexed footnotes using numbers and collected together at the end
      of the last chapter.
 6. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
 7. Enclosed blackletter font in =equals=.