reating in
this book of witchcraft and magic, it is affirmed that the demon
intervenes on both, and that both work wonders." But if that is true,
it is impossible to find any difference between them. If both perform
wonders, and that by the intervention of the demon, they are then
essentially the same. After that, is it not a contradiction to say
that the magician acts and the witch has no power--that the former
commands the devil and the latter obeys him--that magic is founded on
compacts, expressed or tacit, while in witchcraft there is nothing but
what is imaginary and chimerical? What reason is given for this? If
the demon is always ready to appear to any one who invokes him, and is
ready to enter into compact with him, why does he not show himself as
directly to her whom the author terms a witch as to her to whom he is
pleased to give the more respectable title of enchantress? If he is
disposed to appear and take to himself the worship and adoration which
are due to God alone, what matters it to him whether they proceed from
a vile or a distinguished person, from an ignoramus or a learned man?
The principal difference which the author admits between witchcraft
and magic, is, that the latter "belongs properly to priests, doctors,
and other persons who cultivate learning;" whilst witchcraft is purely
fanaticism, "which only suits the vulgar and poor wretched women;"
"also, it does not," says he, "derive its origin from philosophy or
any other science, and has no foundation but in popular stories." For
my part, I think it is very wrong that so much honor should here be
paid to magic. I have proved above in a few words, by the authority of
several ancient authors, that the most sensible men have always made a
jest of it; that they have regarded it only as a play and a game; and
that after having spared neither application nor expense, a Roman
emperor could never succeed in beholding any effect. I have even
remarked the equivocation of the name, which has often caused these
popular opinions with philosophy and the sublimest sciences. But I
think I can find in the book itself of the author, enough to prove
that one cannot in fact make this distinction, since he says therein
"that superstitious practices, such as figures, characters,
conjurations, and enchantments, passing from one to the other, and
coming to the knowledge of these unhappy women, operate in virtue of
the tacit consent which they give to the operation of th