On the twelfth day of Halloween,
My boo-friend gave to me
A book on Demonality.
I hope you can imagine me singing that verse, because I am. I am totally singing and humming it with creepy instrumental background music in honor of this witching season.
Ludovico Maria Sinistrari of Ameno authored and dictated the original manuscript Demonality: Incubi and Succubi, a Book of Demonology in the late 1600s. Even though it’s less than 100 pages long, it’s packed with a lot of information, from historical religious propaganda to Renaissance-era theological theory. Demoniality: Incubi and Succubi is a Catholic record of demonological theory in response to King James’ Daemonologie, which is a Protestant book on demonology, witches, and the supernatural published in 1597.
I really enjoyed the book. Granted, I’m a fan of history, religion, and sacred texts. But it’s especially true of Demonality because Sinistrari centers the piece around an uncommon and unexpected argument. He defends the existence of beings not of Christian origin—like elves, satyrs, centaurs, etc.—without forcing the demon label to define them. He calls them daimons and spirits to create a distinction between them and true demonic beings. He discusses the existence of incubi and succubi as an example of the type of spirit or daimon of a refined or subtle elemental composition (earth, air, fire, and water) these beings are. He also refutes the Protestant insistence that incubi and succubi cannot parent a biological child with a human partner, listing a number of historical and mythical figures thought to have a daimon/spirit as at least one of their parents.
These theories stood out when they were published because they weren’t common subject matter in published works in the 1600s. During the 17th century, Europe was still suffering through the Inquisition and the Burning Times, in the midst of the Age of Exploration and the spread of the Protestant Reformation, as well as at the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution.
Sinistrari actually starts the manuscript with the argument that bestiality and demonality (intercourse with daimons and spirits) are two separate acts that have been conflated into one. By separating these two acts and arguing that demonality would be a lesser or lower sin, Sinistrari leads the reader down a path of thought that includes classical mythological beings in the Christian world without demonizing all of them.
To paraphrase Sinistrari: If demonality is a sin, it is not a sin against the Church, the Holy Trinity, or Religion in general, but a sin of inconstance and potentially adultery as the incubi or succubi spirit focuses their attention on humans with energy that attracts them, having a similar elemental base as the spirit. The spirit does not necessarily care that the human is married or is taking up a celibate lifestyle thus giving in to the incubi or succubi’s seduction would be a sin of adultery or inconstance. As incubi and succubi do not demand or expect the human partner to offer sacrifice, prayers, or oaths to them, they are not inherently acting against the prayers and oaths given to the Christain God.
This leaves room for all different types of daimons, spirits, and legendary beings to exist without pinning them all down to the label of negative entity and energy. Sinastri is stating that these spirits have as much choice as humans do to be a positive influence or a negative influence. He also provides examples for methods to repel any unwanted attention from these daimons by using the opposite qualities of their elemental natures.
I even chuckled out loud when Sinastri lists historical figures thought to be born of at least one incubi/succubi parent. Alexander the Great, Plato, Merlin, Romulus, and Remus are a few examples. The “Damned Heresiarch Martin Luther'' of the Protestant Reformation also made the list. Such an obvious instance of Counter-Reformation propaganda.
Sinistrari’s dry-yet-irreverent writing challenges many of the time period's perception and fears of the supernatural. For a 17th-century Latin religious theory manuscript, I think the dryness can be forgiven. Neither the original nor the 1870s English translation’s writing styles, in my opinion, detract from the thought-provoking contents or its entertainment value. Liseux's 1870s introduction even told an entertaining tale of how he came across Sinistrari's manuscript. Apparently, he had the choice of manuscripts to translate: vipers, poisons, or demons. He considered demons the less vulgar option.
Not gonna lie here, I’m also happy with the book’s short length since its brevity eliminates a good deal of repetition characteristic of manuscripts and theses from different periods of history.
One criticism I have is the untranslated Latin phrases scattered throughout the book. Though I understand it may have been necessary or less vulgar for the audience of the first translation, I would have enjoyed the book more if Warwick, who published the latest edition, had provided those translations in foot- or endnotes instead of having to Google them myself, which took me out of the book and the experience.
If anyone is interested in reading and reviewing Demonality: Incubi and Succubi, a Book of Demonology by Sinistrari themselves, the Gutenberg Project website offers a number of free versions to add to your own collection of tomes
Comments