Chapter X — On natural magic and its effects

I. Magic, taken in a general sense, is a certain wondrous art of operating, divided into two species: natural, and superstitious. Natural magic is that which, by the use and application of natural causes, produces hidden and marvelous effects; superstitious magic is that which, with the help of a demon, produces unusual effects.

II. Question I. Is natural magic lawful and genuine? Response: The affirmative opinion is common, and can be established both by reason and by examples drawn from Sacred Scripture and from profane history. Natural magic is, in fact, a philosophy which, penetrating the power and efficacy of natural causes, produces by their use effects that seem unusual and marvelous to the unlearned and inexperienced, who are ignorant of the hidden powers of causes. Hence philosophers and wise men were formerly called Magi. It is related, in Genesis 30, that Jacob made use of this art, fixing peeled rods in the watering-troughs, so that the sheep, gazing upon them while in the heat of mating, would bear spotted young. For the most weighty authors teach that an animal seized by the ardor of lust attracts and imprints images upon its offspring by the power of vivid imagination in mating; and it is more truly to this impression, conceived during vehement coition, that those spotted markings sometimes observed in certain men and women too may be attributed. That Jacob learned this natural magic while he attended the schools of Melchizedek is taught by Tostatus, commenting on Genesis 30. Tobias likewise made use of this art, restoring his father's sight with a fish's gall. Whoever wishes to know more on this subject may consult, among others, Albertus Magnus (Bk. VIII and Bk. XXIV), if indeed that work is genuinely his.

III. Question II. By what means may natural magic be distinguished and separated from the superstitious kind — namely, that one may know whether an effect proceeds from a natural or from a superstitious cause? Response: All admit that it is exceedingly difficult to discern this, or to distinguish superstitious effects from natural ones. For to distinguish their effects would require a comprehension of the power of natural causes. Three signs, however, are commonly assigned. The first is knowledge of the cause — namely, whether the cause is, by its own nature, judged wholly unsuited to producing such an effect. Now a cause is judged especially unsuited to producing an effect when the one bringing it about, in applying the cause, employs ligatures, characters, apocryphal words, unknown names, and other such things — as if so many knots, and no more, so many crosses, so many words, and other such things, must be employed a set number of times, and no more. For it is then certain that such characters, ligatures, so many knots, and the rest, when so, and only so, many times repeated, have no power at all to produce such effects. The second sign is drawn from the manner of operation: namely, if this occurs in a matter far removed, or if the effect is caused within an extremely brief interval of time — as if an animal, or a man, suddenly cured of a grave illness, or a long journey of several leagues completed within a quarter of an hour. The third is gathered from the very nature of the effect, when it is known for certain that such an effect exceeds human power and skill.

IV. Question III. When it is doubtful whether an effect proceeds from a natural or from a superstitious cause, what is to be presumed? Response: The theologians of Salamanca (tract. 21, ch. 11, punct. 9, n. 111) contend that it must be presumed to proceed from a natural cause, on the grounds that doubtful matters are to be interpreted in the better part; and they cite in support the authority of St. Thomas (II-II, q. 60, art. 4), where he raises the question whether doubtful matters ought to be interpreted favorably, and they transcribe these words from him: "Where the signs concerning a man's character are not manifestly evil, we ought to regard him as good, interpreting in the better sense whatever is doubtful." This teaching is true, but its application to the present little question is not correct, and runs contrary to the express intention of the Angelic Doctor himself. For one rule is to be observed in interpreting a man's evil or good will, and another in the interpretation of doubts that arise regarding things themselves. No one ought to be presumed evil unless it is proven. Therefore, when it is doubted whether a man's will is good or evil, judgment ought always to be given in the better part. But when it is doubted whether certain predictions are true or false, whether the nature of certain things is honorable or base — then we ought to embrace what is true, and safer. Let us hear the Angelic Doctor himself: "It is one thing to judge of things, and another to judge of men. For in judging of things, what is attended to is not what is good or bad on the part of the thing itself of which we speak — since it makes no difference to the thing itself how we judge of it — but rather what is attended to there is only the good of the one judging, if he judges truly, or his evil, if he judges falsely; for the good of the intellect is the true, and the false is its evil, as is said in Book VI of the Ethics. And therefore everyone ought to strive to judge of things according to what they are. But in the judgment by which we judge of men, what is chiefly attended to is the good or evil on the part of the one who is judged — who is held honorable by this very fact, that he is judged good, and contemptible if he is judged evil. And therefore in such a judgment we ought rather to tend toward this: that we judge a man to be good, unless manifest reason appears to the contrary" (II-II, q. 60, art. 4, ad 1). In the question proposed, then, a distinction is called for. If it is doubtful whether a man acts with a superstitious and wicked will, or with an upright intention, the doubt is to be interpreted in the better part. But if it is doubted whether an effect produced is superstitious or natural, then the truth must be sought, and what is more correct, according to the more probable and true doctrine, must be embraced. And in a similar case, one must be advised that, so long as the doubt persists, a man should abstain from such actions. For in doubtful matters we ought to choose the safer course.

V. We too affirm that the powers of nature are hidden, and that it is not rare for men, through ignorance of natural efficacy, to attribute to the magic art certain effects that in truth proceed from a natural cause, in the case of many unusual effects produced. But in that case, the ignorance of men must be corrected, and the powers of nature, and the views of the learned, consulted; and, all things weighed, it must be determined what is to be credited to art, and what to nature. If, however, doubt remains, it will be safer to choose the position free of controversy. To resolve doubts, the reading of learned authors — St. Thomas above all, who discusses this subject learnedly and wisely, as is his custom — is of great help. St. Augustine too recounts marvelous portents of nature. It is worth quoting some of his words at length; for he writes thus (Bk. XIV, City of God, ch. 24): "We know of the natures of certain men, greatly unlike others, and remarkable for their very rarity, some doing things with their own bodies which others are utterly unable to do, and can scarcely believe when they hear of them. For there are those who can move their ears, either one at a time, or both together. There are those who, without moving the head, can pull down the whole scalp, as far as the hair covers it, to the forehead, and bring it back again at will. There are those who, of the many and various things they have swallowed, can, by lightly working their chest, bring up whatever they please, whole and unmixed, as if from a bag. Some so imitate the voices of birds, cattle, and other men, that unless they are seen, they cannot be distinguished at all. Some, without any shame, produce so many varied sounds from their lower parts at will, that they seem to sing even from that region. I myself have known a man who was accustomed to sweat whenever he wished. It is known that certain men can weep, and shed tears abundantly, whenever they wish. But that which very many of our brethren experienced quite recently is far more credible. There was a certain priest named Restitutus, in the parish of the Church of Calama, who, whenever it pleased him — and he was asked to do this by those who wished to witness so marvelous a thing — upon hearing imitated wailing sounds of some lamenting person, would so withdraw himself from his senses, and lie as if dead, that he not only felt nothing when pinched or pricked, but sometimes even when burned with applied fire, without any sense of pain except afterward from the wound; and it was proven that he did not fail to move his body out of resistance, but from not feeling it at all — since, as in one dead, no breathing at all could be detected in him; yet he later reported that he had heard, as if from a great distance, the voices of men, if they spoke loudly enough." Augustine recounts very much else here and elsewhere, which he judges to be attributed to hidden natural powers, not to superstitious art. We do not, then, say that the wonders of nature are to be reckoned superstitious without mature and serious examination beforehand; we affirm only that the safer course is to be chosen, if, after serious study and prudent examination, doubt still remains.

VI. Question IV. What is to be said of those called "healers"? Response: Theologians call "healers" those who display a power of curing many diseases — rabies, or hydrophobia, and mortal wounds — by the sign of the cross impressed, or by breathing upon them, or by the utterance of certain words, or other signs. They dispute this matter at length: whether such a power is natural, and whether such healers, who cure diseases, are really found to exist. That they are indeed found, hardly anyone calls into doubt. Pliny (Bk. XXVIII, ch. 2), as Azor relates, discusses this question, and concludes that it is uncertain whether incantations and charms have any power to heal; and in ch. 1 he writes that gum-diseases and cataracts of the eyes are cured by human gall. He adds (ch. 3) that in Africa there were Psylli, whose families, from which they derived their origin, cured, by mere touch or saliva, those wounded by snakes; and that a certain man, thrown by way of experiment into a barrel full of snakes, emerged entirely unharmed by their darting tongues. He also relates that there were found in Italy the Marsi, whose sweat was effective in driving away many diseases. Azor, then, along with others, maintains that such healers are indeed found, and that their power is natural.

VII. Others hold the contrary view — that all these things are accomplished by demonic power; since natural power is not capable of curing diseases in an instant, and of producing such marvels; nor does the same power operate identically upon the disposition of all the sick alike. Nor, moreover, is such a power from God, as is gathered from many signs: for these healers are for the most part exceedingly wicked men, who gape after other people's purses — though they often feign, with practiced cunning, to offer their remedies for free, so that, under this mask of generosity, they may the more easily and abundantly empty people's purses.

VIII. A third opinion holds that such a power is indeed a grace freely given by God, not a natural power. The first part of this they establish from the fact that Inquisitors and Bishops permit such healers to practice their art freely. That they do not confer health by any natural power, they gather from the fact that this would otherwise arise either from the quality of their temperament, or from the fact that such men were conceived under this or that aspect of the stars and planets — but this cannot stand, since all men born under such a constellation would be endowed with a similar power; nor is it the case that only one or another family in the whole world is propagated under this aspect of the stars, in the way that all herbs, all magnets of the same species, possess the same, more or less, power. There is, then, no reason to say that these healers cure the aforesaid diseases by a natural power. That this power is freely conferred by God upon certain persons, they prove by the authority of Scripture, which says: "To another is given the grace of healing in one spirit... the working of miracles" (1 Cor. 12). No reason at all can be assigned, moreover, that would suggest God does not confer upon certain families a power, universal or at least particular, of curing certain diseases.

IX. That God can confer this power on whomever he wishes — universal, or at least particular, for the curing of certain diseases only — no one doubts. But that he actually confers it, and has conferred it, upon certain families over the span of several centuries — this is what raises the difficulty. For no reason, no origin of such a divine privilege, and no authentic document, is adduced by those who defend this perennial power. One of these families is reported to be found in Umbria, whose members are said to cure, by mere blessing, those suffering from a contraction of the sinews and other similar diseases. All this seems suspect to me. For from no properly established history is it read that such privileges were granted to entire families. What, moreover, of the fact that we do not know of any similar privilege granted, over the span of many centuries, to entire families of the Prophets, or of the Apostles, or of other Saints — as these more recent theologians claim was granted to the families of those healers? For this reason the opinion of the theologians of Salamanca does not convince us, in which (tract. 21, ch. 11, punct. 9, §2) they defend that such healers are indeed found who cure diseases, not by natural power, but by a grace freely given by God. Their chief and principal reason is that Bishops and Inquisitors permit these men to practice their art freely, and that several theologians approve them. How much weight this reasoning deserves, let others judge.

What seems more probable to us is that no families possess this power of curing the aforesaid diseases at all — with the exception, perhaps, of the privilege granted by God to the Kings of France to cure scrofula, commonly called "the king's evil," as approved historians relate, and which is therefore believed admissible. St. Thomas (Bk. II, On the Governance of Princes, ch. 16) writes that the Kings of the Franks worked such wonders by the power of the sacred anointing with which they were anointed. "Of whose sanctity," he says, "we also take an argument from the deeds of the Franks, and from the Blessed Remigius, over Clovis, the first Christian king of the Franks and his descendants — and by the descent of oil from above, by a dove, the aforesaid king was anointed, and his successors are anointed, with signs and wonders, and various cures, appearing in them from the aforesaid anointing."

X. The aforesaid theologians of Salamanca adduce several further signs by which the superstition of such healers ought to be more carefully examined by superiors: if they touch burning coals, or handle iron plates, without harm; if they extinguish, or merely warm, a furnace; if they show a mark or brand impressed upon them; if they claim to recognize such healers as themselves, though they have never seen them before; if they assert that they cannot heal diseases in the presence of another healer; if they claim to have learned this art from breath alone; if they predict future events; if they claim, or add, that they possess this same power because they are seventh sons, born of males, with no female birth intervening; finally, if they assert that they can heal diseases only by using certain fixed words, and not others. These and other signs are commonly used to discern the superstition of such healers. Let the faithful, then, seek health from God, and implore the intercession of holy men, setting aside such charlatans — who, in my own opinion, if they produce anything unusual, do so either with the help of a demon, or by chance and by a natural power that sometimes so operates.

XI. Question V. Is a charm ("ensalmus") to be reputed lawful? Response: An "ensalmus" is a prayer composed of sacred words to drive away diseases; and since it is for the most part composed of the words of the Psalms, this prayer is called an "ensalmus." Theologians distinguish a twofold kind of "ensalmus." One is invocative, when prayers are poured out to God to implore his divine mercy, that God may deign to remove from us, or from our neighbor, diseases or other temporal harms — yet in such a way that we do not place infallible trust in these prayers over others, but place our whole confidence in the divine goodness. The other is a prayer composed of certain, fixed words for curing diseases, and this "ensalmus" is called constitutive. The "ensalmus" of the first kind is lawful and honorable, whether composed on public or private authority: there is nothing in it that could rightly be reprobated. For it is not only lawful, but holy, to ask of God health from illnesses and pains, and other temporal goods, insofar as they lead to eternal ones. That prayers should be composed under a certain fixed formula of words presents no evil at all — provided that no efficacy for obtaining the effect is attributed to that particular arrangement and formula. The "ensalmus" of the other kind is unlawful, and superstitious; since God has conferred no infallible power of producing any effect upon any words (the sacramental ones excepted), nor does such a power reside naturally in these words. It remains, therefore, that those who utter such sacred words have an explicit or tacit pact with a demon. For those who practice charms are guilty of superstition precisely in this: that they firmly believe such words contain some certain healing power, or that such a power has been communicated to them by God. God indeed promised to the ministers of the Church that they would cast out demons, speak with new tongues, take up serpents, and lay hands upon the sick, and they would recover — but not in the sense that a certain healing power is attached to the utterance of some fixed formula of words by cunning and most wicked charm-practitioners; but rather, insofar as God himself, according to the counsel of his own will, will sometimes grant their petitions, and sometimes not. All this is common doctrine among theologians. Read St. Thomas, II-II, q. 96, art. 1 and 4.

XII. Question VI. Is there a natural power by which someone can be bewitched by a look? Response: "Fascination" is, as it were, a certain wicked quality inherent in the eyes, arising from some malignant disposition of the soul of the one who looks. Theologians divide it into the popular kind, which arises from popular opinion — namely, when the common people believe that men can, by a look conceived with an envious mind, bewitch frail infants; and into the physical or natural kind, which arises from a vehement imagination, followed by corrupted humors, and an alteration of the body — so that the eyes, being thus tainted, emit noxious emanations, infecting the persons looked upon, especially those of tender age and weak constitution: and this occurs by an explicit or tacit pact with a demon alone, whose mere gaze inflicts harm.

XIII. On the question proposed, theologians dispute on both sides. Those who affirm that this can naturally occur produce several examples — both of the basilisk, which kills men by its gaze alone, and of several men who, as Pliny testifies, were endowed with the same power — namely, of bewitching by sight alone; and of menstruating women, who, gazing into a mirror, stain it with bloody spots. Those who deny that such effects can be produced by natural power prove this from the fact that sight, being an immanent act, is incapable of producing an external effect.

XIV. The more common and more probable opinion is that this natural power does indeed exist — not because the sight itself of the one who looks infects others, but because from the eyes, and from other parts of the body, poisonous emanations can issue, which, permeating the nearby air, can inflict harm upon bodies close by. Let us hear what the Angelic Doctor writes on this matter (I Part, q. 117, art. 3, ad 3): "It must be said that Avicenna assigns the cause of fascination to this: that bodily matter is naturally apt to obey a spiritual substance..." to obey a spiritual substance more than contrary agents in nature. And so, when the soul is powerfully affected in its imagination, bodily matter is altered accordingly. And this is the cause he assigns for the bewitching eye. But it has been shown above that bodily matter does not obey a spiritual substance so as to be transformed into it, except by the Creator alone. And therefore it is better to say that, by a strong imagination, the spirits of the body united to the soul are altered — and this alteration of the spirits occurs chiefly in the eyes, to which the subtler spirits arrive. Now the eyes infect the surrounding air up to a certain distance — in the same way that mirrors, if new and clean, contract a certain impurity from the gaze of a menstruating woman, as Aristotle says in his book On Sleep. Thus, when some soul has been vehemently moved to malice — as happens most in old women — the gaze of the eye becomes harmful in the manner already described, especially to children, who have a tender body, readily receptive of such impression. It is also possible that, by God's permission, or even by some hidden pact, the malice of demons — with whom a sorcerous old woman has some compact — cooperates to this effect.

XV. It follows from this that the popular kind of fascination is superstitious. Sight alone cannot produce an external effect. Indeed, though natural fascination can occur, as has been said following St. Thomas, we hold that it is very rare. In animals, venom is found, and so the spirits, or emanations, that issue from them can easily be tainted and infect nearby bodies. In men, and even in women, no venom exists, nor is it easy for the bodily humors to be so corrupted and depraved, through emotional agitation and a wicked disposition, that they issue forth through the eyes, mouth, and nostrils, and infect those looked upon. We do not deny the possibility; but that this actually happens, at least frequently, we consider false. We therefore commonly judge that such instances of fascination as do occur happen through the art of a demon. Guilty of superstition, too, are those women who hang little sacks around children's necks, or other signs, against fascination. It is likewise superstitious to bring bewitched children to old women, so that they may be freed by their blessing. This wicked custom traces its origin to pagan superstition, against which the Patriarch Chrysostom declaims (Homily 8 on the Epistle to the Colossians): "The Cross of Christ is dishonored, superstitious characters of the elements are preferred; Christ is cast out, and a drunken old woman brought in; our mystery is trampled upon, and the devil's seduction dances in triumph."