The history of magic : $b including a clear and precise exposition of its procedure, its rites and its mysteriesLévi, Éliphas
Religion
The history of magic : $b including a clear and precise exposition of its procedure, its rites and its mysteries
Lévi, Éliphas
Magic -- History
The sophistry of the exorcists of Loudun was that absurd unreason which
M. de Mirville has the courage to sustain at the present day: the devil
is the author of all phenomena which cannot be explained by known laws
of Nature. To this illogical maxim they joined another which was, so to
speak, an article of faith: the devil who has been duly exorcised is
compelled to speak the truth and can therefore be admitted as a witness
in the cause of justice.
The unfortunate Grandier was not therefore delivered into the hands
of malefactors but rather of raving maniacs, who, strong in their
rectitude of conscience, gave the fullest publicity to this incredible
prosecution. Such a scandal had never afflicted the church—howling,
writhing nuns, making the most obscene gestures, blaspheming, striving
to cast themselves on Grandier like the Bacchantes on Orpheus; the most
sacred things of religion mixed up with this hideous spectacle and
drawn in the filth thereof; amidst all Grandier alone calm, shrugging
his shoulders and defending himself with dignity and mildness; in fine,
pallid, distraught judges, sweating profusely, and Laubardemont in his
red robe, hovering over the conflict, like a vulture awaiting a corpse:
such was the prosecution of Urbain Grandier.
Let us say for the honour of humanity that one is compelled to assume
good faith in exorcists and judges alike, for such a conspiracy as
would be involved in the legal murder of the accused is happily
impossible. Monsters are as uncommon as heroes; the mass is composed of
mediocrities, equally incapable of great virtues and great crimes. The
holiest persons of the day believed in the possession at Loudun; even
St. Vincent de Paul was not unacquainted with its history and was asked
to give his opinion about it. Richelieu himself, though he might in any
case have found some way of getting rid of Grandier, ended by believing
him guilty. His death was the crime arising from the ignorance and
prejudice of the period; it was a catastrophe rather than a murder.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account