So just how do you summon a demon in latin?
From Petrus Alphonsus' Dialogus Contra Judæos, who is more famous for the Disclipina Clericalis, but here he, a jewish convert to christianity, debates his old self - having already disproved judaism, it's time to disprove Islam (specifically their belief that throwing stones can drive of demons). But we get a little sidetracked...
PETRUS. Quod dixisti lapidibus iaciendis daemones effugare, non consequens ratio videtur esse, quia quod non aliquo percipitur sensu corporeo, effugare leviter nequaquam potest. Nomine vero divino effugantur daemones.
MOYSES. Quoniam quosdam audivi dicentes daemonia vidisse et ea audisse, ac collocutos fuisse, miror te dicere sensu non corporali percipere.
PETRUS. Licet angelus corporeo sensu non percipi possit, illis tamen qui secundum mandata Dei incedunt, visibiles fiunt. Similiter diabolus amicis suis visibilis apparet.
MOYSES. Istud quidem vellem scire, quo magisterio, quave arte illos videre, vel colloqui possem.
PETRUS. Quare quod ad te minime pertinet scire desideras?
MOYSES. Non ut opera exercerem, sed scientiam tantum vellem.
PETRUS. Quomodo quod errorem tuum augeat vis addiscere?
MOYSES. Bene me Deo gratias correxisti, in verbis tuis sensum didici.
PETRUS. Iam satis dictum est, ad inceptum redeamus.
(PL 157,0603C) I quite like little moments like this - I don't know if anybody else does - and it is I think a good example of how the format of a text being a dialogue, even in weighty topics, implies at least a little levity.
[My review of this work - found it something of a page turner, some definite big brain moments, I might have to try and draw out some of the astronomical arguments from the beginning which flew over my head, think you probably need a good grounding in medieval metaphysics to truly understand it, Alphonsus' latinity far better here than in the Disciplina Clericalis.]
Posted May 22, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC · edited
I also like it! I think in general it's a pity that weighty subjects aren't often treated in dialogue form they way they were in earlier centuries. There is something so very useful about the simple form of questions and answers to clearly explain difficult subjects.
I suppose you can use questions and answers in a more conventional treatise, but I think that loses the clarity of a dialogue. When you do that, you're basically still alternating between voices, but it's much harder to clearly distinguish them.
On a different note, is Petrus saying that demons can only be perceived by unholy people? Cause I thought there were quite a few saints who saw and heard demons trying to tempt them. Sure, they also drove them away, but Petrus seems to me to say that saints shouldn't have been able to see them in the first place.
He also says (3rd line) "illis tamen qui secundum mandata Dei incedunt, visibiles fiunt" - "to those however who deport themselves according to the mandates of god, they become visible". Though I have definitely read exempla where demons are appearing to relatively average people. Perhaps Alphonsus would agree that demons could don corporeal form in some instances, or could be made visible to anyone simply by the ordination of God.I thought that that bit referred to the angels he just mentioned, not demons. So then the idea is that, just like holy people can see angels, wicked people can see demons.
This is why we should always read in full sentences! :)