JEFFREY BURTON RUSSELL

i ee ae o
MEPHISTOPHELES
lhe Devil in the Modern Wortd

JEFFREY BURTON RUSSELL

Mernhustanhetbes is the Sourth and Graal wolurse of 2

critically sacclarmed h Mory cf ite cCorcep ot the
Devel Thee series cocmtiutes the most complete
hatorcel stugy ever made of the Geure that has
heen Cabed the secors rm” tarrecais personage &

U_hirwetes iy

In hee feet theee volurres Aetrey Burton Rus

se!) brouelt the hatory of Christine dinbchow: i
the end of the Middic As showing ihe cevenp
men of 2 decree of consensus, even m GetalL on
he comcest of Ow Dew Mephestanhe ws con

trees the story fromm the Reformation to the

preser’, 7
tracers (he lrapmentatioe of the tractor
Ling) OED ngees trv Theos, pwosoory, art

bteracure, am popu celture. be Gescrifes the

great changes efiectec mm cor dea of the Devel by
De mieiectus and cullural deveoprnennts al mod
ern Orres
crete Ting Key houres and movements, Rus
wel covers (he apogee of Se wich craze wi ihe
Renadsance 204 Heformation, the effects of the
ps Ser “nis rationabst ofubosontw. the Bo
mantic image of Satan, and the cyrucal of esti
Merary treatments of the Dev in the lente oie
eernih Gewury He Cores ines thoyt athe a) trbey

the Lew Trev) SPOTH

AT OUT MON™ ITrwriaene
we the very

Te OSorrars of the twentieth century ard tiv

soocter of rrachear war daeppest the COnmrrarsg New
2 SOT VOOR SUTT Oe “ THC OX

A work o Creel iraagre acod lear rv Mew

ix hreles Gawress Ove udder sfarcdong of the woys
Ae Pope | Westen societies lier Geak ut

it rote eS ary

Jeffrey Bartoe Reasesell roceved is DA. and

MA Gecrees from the University of Catone
at
Rerhoctey and hua Ph D. Gegree froe: Emory Urewernty
H sept al the Ureveredy o New Mesa. ti
: é(C abiwiries. Hare orwi the L reas J,

N oe | re Delores a thw : ry rw

erety of Calformis at Sects Bearden He is the

 add,

Mephistopheles
Orher benks by Jeffrey Burton Hurl
die Aga (ages
Dic aed Rifere is rly Earfy Mad
Medscust Cicalraal ne (1gt®)
Praphecy aad Onder (195%)
A Uisrery of Mobecal COrenantty.
(ng7t!
Pelrevonr Divas or tbe Maddie Ages
Wirctorag tn cle fit Ages (097 9)
igeity to Prieutize Cor
The Dewty Perceprwar of Bowl froes Act
feisty (ogc?!
A Hiwory of Witelvraf: Serveren, Herens, Pages (ogsol
h C. 1. Berhiour) (eget!
Medicuel (frrecer A RiNiegrapty wit
(1g)
Sasa: The Barty CArmtace Tradvres
(1.9%4)
Lewifer: The Deval an the Afeddle Ages
Mephistopheles
The Devil in the Modern World

JEFFREY BURTON RUSSELL

Cornell University Press

ITHACA AND LONDON
 Cagyeight © 19% ty Corneil UU eeverety

w, the Book.
AD rights reserved. Except © beict quetitines ta a revie
torre wehees
of parts there’, cant net be regeadaced in wry
mates, whines
oxrrance oy wring froes the pubdaber bie ehae
Creare Uvewerdty Proo, 114 Robern Plime, Ithaca, New York tatoo

Fine published 1946 by Comell Unirerery Pree

Naenker tng iteto

Lescrrestemmal Started Pwd
Ldway of Congress Caraieg Card Newer #5-g75e*

Priesed in the Uniden’ Seas of America

Livaneo. Labvary of Congres setabaging unhrmaton

appeens on the Lee page of tly boot.

for
The paper ie bis Irvede os acids free amd smete che guendeiones
ieo
pereceres and darabs'ty of itv Commeve ot Pradectee Ceak
for Pied Lamgrotty of the Comme! ow Liteary Romerces
 Teo
fact Veccard and Sally Fitogeratd
And ax Hewor of

W. A. Afocevr awl Planwry O Coaser

tee poy
of diy awadate Gr evel
 Contents

Ilustratiorrs y
Preface ti
Abbrev tation 7
bya 17
The Reseerned Devil as
Lhe Devil between Duo Work
ew
Saun Expenng 2
Che Romantic Devil ros
Aa

Uhre Devil's Shebow 214

The Devil ina Warnag Work! 248
“4

God and Devil 297

~*~

Bibliography 305
Index 525
 Illustrations

Felix Labinsc, Anewekes, Balaew, aed! Actus’, of] on canvas,

8075 »
Hans Baldeng (rien, The Waited, ink on paper, 1414 >»
‘Tithe page of Mave ssalfarme (1436) oft cdinoe re
Goya, Tk Groet Goat, mveral tratoferred to camwvas, 182in 1422 4!
Bosch, Cérav Corryang tie Cron, detail, col on wood, carly
waxtoemth cemury $s
Dr, Faustys, sistecnth-ceontury engraving i
Joseph Glarrvill, Sedcueas primeepdares, froanspiece, 1681 7
“Devil's pact” with Urtuin Geandier, 1654 ~
Gova, Saint Francis of Hora ceeecicing a dymg man, oi] on
canvas, 1758 0%
Deord, hell choses ower the fallen angels, engraving foe Peradee
beat 10)
Deeé, Satan chained on the burrong like, Pareto Los 11
Deed, Satan covicx Adem and Eve, Parador Let 119
Der, Satan's Sllowers tursed to serpents, Peradte Law it4
Morelli, Bast of Mephintopheles, alabavter, nmeteenth century if
Sculpture of Mephesteelcles m becare and ivory. eineteenth
century ity
Death of 2 sinner, eegraving frecn a ninctcenth<emury
carechian hn
Blake, Satan watching Aciam and Exc. mk and watercolor, 1808 178
(Mawretiw

Blake, Christ tompted by Satan, ink ard watercedor, 1816-1818

Wierte. the Remuntic “Angel of Evil cdl on canvas, 1¥ 99
The Devil as tow box deoonstion, 15% ‘
“Une fete aex enfers,” ptafce, e 1 88o |
Cover of Blak Mev, ty Johan Syivees, tgo9
Marionetne, a defeated Devil, eB3o~ igo
Rattecr, Phar of Davhoes, cal on caress, tqy%
Kaner Wilkelm Il domeorexed. poster, tots
Adolf Hither with admirers, photograph, ¢ 1939
 Preface _

In writieg chs book and the carlier volumes of this sories, | have
perwecd the adea of the Devil m@ the Judeo(hraman-Meslim coment
because these aro the religices tradinons rhar originaced and developed
the adea, Thee have faced the pectic most ayuarcly because it ererges
mest sharply in thes monothent religions, a ubich the existence of
euil contrasts with che idea of a single good and omnipotent God, | have
pecseed the adea in Chrenanity particularly, parthy: because of my oun
culkoral and lingesstic arcas of knowledge, and parth: became Chris-
tankty and che philssoptacal cradinioms aridng our of Christian colnure
have been sost explora formulating and confronting the protikers of
evil, | have followed no denomimanonal course noe adbered oo any
cethadoxy ccher cham the desire to puryoe the treth as openly and as
broadly ax ponsitde
In ches serie, Te Decal took the sulgect freen che carlxet times
throwgh the persxd of the New Testament; Yetar covered early Chie
tianky through the Seth century; Lanter dealt vith the Middle Apex
This volume create the period from the Reformation to the prosent,
Whereas the few three volumes showed the devclopmers of a degree of
cumsensus, oven in detad, about the concept of the Devil, the fourth
volurne shows a fragmercation of the tradicion, [es tithe reflects thax
fragmemation, for the mame Mephistopheles was mveenod in the scx.
teenth century for the figure of the Deval in the Fame legend, whech
eventually Ied Westers literature mto sech urtradinomal views ax
Creethe’s in his decdedly enchretian Peay.
The split between Protestant and Catholic im the Reformation bean
the process of Gageeentateon, bet became Peotextantern ociginally fol-
Preface
bowed the Catholic tradition of dabology, scrious spliting in the ccen-
cepa is visitde only from the end of the seventeenth comtury, Ar that
tire, the discrediting of the witch craze helped co diseredit the ica of
the Devil as well, and in the cightceath century the cationalet philoso
phics of the Enlightenment undertningd the epestemelagical searrvchatioes
of Chritues tradxion and ferther weakened diahology. By the end of
the cightoenth century test educated poople (inclodieg Clirttears)
were ready to diuniss the idea alrogether. Just at that came, however,
Romantica revived the Devil as a perwerfel and ambivalent symbot:
the Romantic Devil personified mothe retellices against gumecracy oF
served am least as an amevalees repeesersative of both Merry and self-
ianess. ‘Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the Devil was quite
a popular figere in lnerarerc, art, and mesic, useally as an ifOtK meta:
phoe fee the corruption and foolishness of humarety. ‘The horrors of
tuenticth-century genocide and war have revived soriceas phslesoptical
concern with radkeal evil, and the Devil is cace again a seroes nour foe
modern theology.
Except in a few sections, 1 have discussed oly works thar I can read
in the original Limgrages, becwese in vech a delicate field as the tmtory
of convepes transi nsal peéasnts
lose essonti
cantio well as rmamces. Al
crandations, except ubere otherwise sated, are ntine. Theoughoet |
have used the term “diabelogy” to refer to the theery of the Devil.
Strictly speaking, the term would be “diabolology” (Geecek sistuloe +
hess), bor chix ix enfamiliar, pedarric, aad extremely defficalkk 1 pro-
sommce. 20 F have exadernired i.
In the two decades that I have been exploring and reflecting upon this
subject. my views have continaed oo deeclap. Ome leant 00 knoe thar
exe Cited new and that in the ond all thar is left is Oho desire to know,
fur wisdom ts greater than ecw ledge, and greater than windom is lowe
Lam deeply grateful to those whe have teen particularhy helpful with
this volume: Stuart Atkins, Carl Berkhows, Richard Commmock, Kara
Freveh, Robert Erickson, Alberto Berreino, Sally Fitaperdd, Atraham
Friesen, David (iriffin, Rebert Griffin, Elone Hay, Rachard Helper
sees, Walter Kaufisann, Henry Arogar Kelly, Gerald Larsom, Lownerd
Mungk, Pascla Morgan, J. Sears McGee. Michael O'Connell, Nonsean
Ravitch, Chery! Riggs, Diana Russell Jack Vireard, and Machact
Whitacre. 1 ak thank the Rescarch Committee and the Interkbrary
Loan Dopartinenn of the Unirergty of California, Seta Barbara.
J Jorracy Burros Ressate
News Rarhune, Califor
 Abbreviations

Davu: fetirey Ub Russel. 72 Deal Perrepeeer ofbow’ free Aatgauy os

Preven Livery, haca, 1977

Laver Jetlres hv Hussell. Law liv Ivew ve A tadéy Agve ithaca.

CoM,

SATAN Jeffree B. Resell, Nerew: Je Menly CAverace J regimen Ithaca,

oe
Mephistopheles
 open any heart, if met ms rarelboct Ofer that of bewoed me)
I would
to the whale orcke of Oruth
Joos Plewes Newoias

chan in the Devil, f ae imeerestad in the mdmences 4

\bore
(Trax
Freanneey C) Connoe
 The Devil is the best-known syrbol of radical evil. The crivterce of
radical evil is clear to anyone sot binded by current relative. On the
world bevel it copeewecs iteclf in the willmgncss to put the entire planet
at nuchear rick. At peescet, with arsenals of nuckar weapcens evtimatod
at seventy times the <peantity mended to bill every living vertclrate on
carth, we are tebbcenty making preparations for a war that wall profit
ne individeal. nation, or adecdogy but vill condemn thousands of mel-
liens te 2 hoentile death, What force urpes us down a path that m daily
more dangerces? To uhese adeantage im the nuckar devinecteon of the
plaret? Only that force which from the begeenirg teas woth imfenate
crocity and malice willed the chetructicn of the cosmecn. HM we are to
avoid wecloar war, we munt confront radical evil squarely.
Oe the individual level radical evil expresses itvelf in action of o-
fathomable cruckty. The chescet we ect to the reality of evil ® oor own
direct expencnce of cvil in carscives and in other. Perhaps only so-
cioparhe lack thes direct intuition. On Nowember 14. egy. UPI reported:

Cyrehis Paleser, 29, and her bye-im bos frac, Jin Lae, 16. pleaded Inexcret
to barning te deuth Mr. Palrar’s g-year-ol See in an cece. The teu,
whe teld meightors sheethy before ther arrest that they were “oweding Locifer.”
were arraigned Turedsy a Anchesceggin Coenty [Maine] Seperse overt.
They were arrevted Okt. 27 at their Veluarn concent apectrecet. Angela
Palaver was foond ututtied in the chectric even. The doce «ax premed vret with
a cher

I hurve consetently defined ev in two canepoedes. The first is passive

evil, the suffering that a seanent being feels. Suffering ts the conscices
 ”~

wt Mephictupheles
sense of foar, dread, cerror, agony, depeesica, o¢ despair that may
accompany pain or the threat or memory of pain. The sccond os active
evil, the willifaness of a responsibhe sentient being to inflict suffering
upcer a fellow scenes being. Traditionally, evil has been divided into
three cateperics: (1) mnctaliy soca cM. the lack of perfection inherest im
any created weed; (2) natural evil, the suffering thar comes from “acts
of panwre™ such as cancers and tontadocs: (¢) moral evil, phe debberare
willy to indlict watfering. We are peimenily concerned wah moral
esil, theagh in a senso the categories overlap, fee if God exists, he ts
ultimately responsithe for manwral evil,
‘The radical nature of esil appears in the examples above. ‘Dhe suffer-
ing of the child in the even a a suffering of aleolote intenety, the
vuffcrirg of billions of creatures in a macloar war peegects that one
absolute velSermg epos an entire planet. The more imoense is one’s love
for thix planet and its creatures, the greater is one's y ewer the evil
that twints it, Sensitivity to evil is seroitivey born of bwe.
The Devil is the symbol of radical evil. But does he exist, and in wher
ance?
‘The hey to the question ix iv what some. The first thing is to know
what line of apgeoach m the existence of the Devil we are taking. TDis
question of how we know seems enfamiliar became we have been
Leroeghit egy to emagine thar sormethirg ix cither “real” ce “not real,” as af
there were oly one walkd word wiew, oly ome way to bok at things,
caly one approach to truth, Given the ewerwhelming peestige of materal
science during the gust century, we usually po on to assure that the
cealy appeouch to truth ts Cheough natural sommce. In cer society thes
axwarnprtion is se broadly fived char it seems to be “oomenoe sense” Burt
phibssophers ard scientists Anew chat there are medeiple cruth evercens,
multiple appecactes to reality. Science is one such approach Brot sei-
ence a, like all other approaches, a commruct of the human mand,
shifting & time and bused upon undemcsstatée assumpoons of Gith,
‘There is no posible scientific proaf of the buses of sckence, no prooé of
che “oxtermal, objective woeld oat there, unifvenced by human con:
xtasness,.. . The quantitativesess of physcs docs 008 guarantee an
objective plysical world and . . . there & ne tocemingfal boundary
imiced no real difference—tetween the subjective aad olecctive ap
proaches no thangs,”!
‘Thee is in no way to detract freen science, which hers constructed the

1. KS. Somes, Ptpens ae Ulnapter (VReemageiie, 1982), pp a OTF.

 Eva

most unpressive and dramanc systcmiun haman expencnce. Bet scence

hues its hemtits, and beyond these liners there are, like orber galasies,
ether treth synoms. These sysers are not witheat reagreblinces to
scence, but their medes of thoughe are quite different: among them are
hetory. myth, pectry. theohey, act. and analyecal psychobygy. Other
truth systems have existed in Oye breman past; still intee may exist in
future; we can only guess whut thought seructures exist among ether
intelbgsert beings.
It m therefore pensitde to demormnrate a truth in cae symem that
cannet be demonstrated in ancéber. Art canmot demonstimte the compe.
nents of sulfuric acid; science cannet judge the beauty of a Grecian urn.
What is “truc” in one syaters may fet drake conse in another. What is
“real” in cee xyatern may sot even be “real” in another.
This does sot mca that there is o> treth at all. ft docs net mean thot
any statement abeet sulfuric ackd in as pocel an ary other of that any
judgment of the beauty of an urn is ae good as any’ ether. ‘The eruth is
never simple, ad any effort to muke it so Gail. “This applics net baat to
the ample sew that “everything is reltive.” The treeh is diffboelt to
get at; it is dynamic rather than static, aad it crivts in the tension
between the knower and that which is known. We cannot cver grep
ultimate truth, hut we can peent toward that treth by engaging cur-
selves, by thinking clearly, and bry oot muddling categerics.
Does the Devil echt? The anewer m not simple, aad it must not be
muddled, Nothing can be keeen “absolutely,” “in steclf” This ts the
first stop in wmcerstamding anything at all. We knew only ene thing
directly and absolutely, and that m that “wormetheng is thinking” Excty-
thing elo, including your cam cxitence ax ae malividual entity, ss
understoed only & teres of that thiekieg. You perceive as elm tree, yet
yes che rent know the elm tree i itvelf but caly your thought of the tree,
a theaghe formed by wour somee iepreesporrefifiltered through your braan
end then ascmilated into the mental structures that you have kearned.
Nothing guarantees that these processes produce a percept that cor-
respomds to the reality of the tree muckt, Ie ix likely (though net cortam)
that some degree of correspondence exivts, bat the reality o€ the tree &
so comples and seultifaccted that your idea can at best encrenpass only a
tiny fraction of ots reality,
Of cours, we make eur way around the woeld as af our ideas do have
ome correspondence with realty, and thic ix quite peeper, for ue
weahd eon have survived o¢ evolved if they did mot. Relatives doce’
work [t remmams more peobable chat the tree is 2 grevanng pleet than
 Lemme’ A Pd i lisarwes :

\ipeedous, Helases, ancl .\sbtaret>

Swed bre fe «f the Vere ions Chl ons Cann

livractee Wires
 Eval Zé

that tt it 2 specehip. Hewever, bath of theve categurics are already

scientific. [tm perfectly plausiite that a: addition to being an cl tree of
a certain vanety, shape, and mas the tree 6 alwoa “totem” of a “yyenbed
of beawety” ce “the tree ce which Jobe Smith was banged” —all of whack
are Maternents about the tree that may be valad in truth structures coher
thers the scientific, Cormder hereealifferert the tree woetld soem to yor if
yor had scen trocy only at night, ce if you had been bling fren teeth, oe
£ you had soon trees onity from a jetliner at forty theasand feet. Comsid:
or herw chtferenthy a cree must be perceived hy a dog, a wondpecker, a
noodle-berer, and am inbabitant of a planct of Vega Vastly differem
sernocy, vastly differen bram structures, wastly different mental struc:
teres: these guarantee vauhy difScrent percepticess of what the tree is,
Knicnwing chix beads to am understanding that every though sysnem is
limited and peecanioes, The treth is noe encaposlated im any syenems ber
is Chat toward which the eariety of cruth systems converge, ankd the only
truth we can over achiewe lies we the dymacics
of the search. the imem
momality of the mind toward trech A tree is a planar, a oreo isa signof che
beauty of the comes; a sree is a treem. a tree is rau maternal for a
telephone poke; a orce is a historical monument. Diese are not mutually
cxcbusive statcmmenns, they are different kinds of valid snavenmones about
the reality of the cree,
Thas there can be no one answer to the question of whether the Devil
costs, The fect thar mest pecple tocey digmiss the adea as cfd
fashioned. cron “deprowed,” is the rosa of a caddie in wihech scromce
is called on co pass padgment in matters unrelated to schemwe, Dhe
castence of the Devi canner be meaningfully approached bw scence.
because science is tre definitionrestricted to svesngating the pevy sical
and can say mothing about the spiritual, Purther, the quesmen of evil is a
question of moral value, aad socnce again by definition canmet discover
moral valees, Finally, moral ovd is a matter of free cheace rather than of
causo and effect, and science camnee inwestigare cruly Eroowdl decisions,
which ty defieinom have no causes.
Many people today soem to belewe that a question chat cance be
ineestigancd by schonoe camnct Se investigated ar all, Comfident that ue
caly reality is marerial and thar there is nothing real that so cunt
ineestigare, they dismiss the idea of the Devil as newningless "Now ir is
cereriny tree thar the Dew canmot exit in a scecmentec sense. [ar he one
Oost in a theobegical sere. im a meythedogical somse, in a poychohegucal
woree, amd ina himorcal ans, aad these approaches are, like scence,
capatie of fixing @ ceurs: on treth
a? Mephasypboles
This book ix a histeeical crcatment of the Devil, History at its best
opens our mings to unfamiliar modes of thoaght rather than suing the
past for data to fit car own precommepesone. It asobdiache cxhd aswernp-
ton that the peodceninant world view of our own Dee is somehow
Socever true. Uber modem hitorans findethemselecs in a dilemma, On
the ene hand, they are drawn toward marcrialisn. On the other heed,
and esore powerfully, they are draun toward relativiwn, acd thar rela
tivismn, oddlly, alse beads them to accept munenalism, since that is the
(host comenan viewpodat of the late twenticth century and w the tases
for moos of the new methodobogical vogucs: it is “where the acteon is.”
Murtertalist history has prodeced nvach that ix of walue, bru it aloo suffers
from henitations, the first of which is that chore is ao compelling phete-
syphical reason oo asuime the peboeity of materialom over idea in?
Ultiesate reality is, in other weeds. at beast as likely to be “alea” ax
“matter.” In considering the Devil, marerulist béstorians beges with the
kncrwbocge that the Devil docs not exist scicantically and then slide ino
the asonmpeices that the Devil therefore dees mt exist historically. that
the idea ix cmtdated by schence and therefore silly, thar there is no porett
of studying it ix itself; and that its only wre lcs in helping them under
stand the “eecntalities” thar peoduced n—mentalities formed by the
esutenal, social ccenditicas that marenalist hintoruas tke oe be the only
realines.
‘This sort of @lemimea can be avolded br caking a mere idealist tack,
Idealist historians ecalice that thelr oan world view and tha t
of their
coatemspoearies ix ax procanoes as those of the pant; they are theretcee
willing to learn from the world views of echer celtures; and they beliree
that ideas are importa in thermelves. affecting maternal condnvns we
well as being affecod byy them, aad havinga life and messingof their
oun, The idea of the Devil ix sn important concept in endcrstanding
the mature of esil, and as such it points coward the truth. The Devil
exists hintarscally as a beng-ved and imemensly influential comcepe
aimmed at the treth abeat evil.’

3. S Voronin, (ease Uetriawediqg, 5 vols Preaxtos, egpa-) vel 1.p Pe ee

of the svlariviry of “al... types of comoeper—tncheding corn caw eens
ae
ectcetdic Meas.” Jems cers (D. 4y) thee “eedveradl setborey may te claened fer
detract, tencice: sevens of Yerional eamdunds’ only if at has fort Been orem on what
foerdipses that exdvoreal and enqeadieed authority rome; bet no borrnad shewe can, be
itwlf, prone ite cowry wet bewiny.” The bdca'that the maateralint, ponent iviet, scenmmtsc worl
view hes lowe precod fe an Ohne, :
). A commncing defease of the hircey of whew is P Qhklicy, Cenesorrncr, Cotenen,
and Cndks (hhvacs, 14a PP. Item
 Era “Ff

be aineing at the cruth, we obtain kee beckge—eot of mocemcra (things

in themselves) but of pheaotnema. hurraes comeepticns of noumena. ‘The
clon tree in itself ts 4 sourmcnce and unknowable; yor dca of the troe ix
& phenomenon, and mt is knowaldc. Phosorecna are not eecrely wabjcc-
tive of relative. fee they are farmed in the tenon betucen your mind
ind senses and the tree in itucll Phenomena are ceflective ax well ax
intvadual. The collective phoncencnon of cl tree is a coacept of che
tree that racy poopie sharc, it & verifiabke, anderrandalile, and cde
seribable. ‘The phenomenon of tree ix mot identical arson individuals,
net ix the collective phomomence of tree identical among groups and
wexictio. The phenomenon of troe x quite different to an Inequeds, an
ancient Canaanite, and an Orogen lumbermas, Phenomena ouch as
“tree” are changeable, but because they are roceed in an external reality,
their changeahility x bees pronounced than that of phenomena receed in
herman coestrections alone Whar humaas have created, they can
change suterannally, “The Constitution,” for example. & a phe
netnenon that bas changed substantially wth ome, The brake on
change on “the Constitution” is nce so much otservation of extemal
realty as oteereaniom o€ cradition, Whar “the Comstirution” is is gov
crmead bv the oraditioe of wher a es, “Troe” can be defined scientifically
as well ax betencally, bar the only offective way oo define “the Com.
stitution” ws hisnerwally, ty desenbing its cradition.
“The Devil” is best investiganed tre hissery, which dees mot eeake the
faith asoumprions of theology ver cam. wnlike schence, actives the phe-
namenen directly. Since the husnary of the Decil embraces orher modes
of keowing the Devil, cach as theology, mythology, and lnerature, it is
seperar
to all other approactes in tharit inchades them all. The Deval is
theretore best defined me cenms of hes history.
The “history ef the Devil" does nec mean the history of the Devilin-
himself, which weauld be impossitdke. It means the history of the gd
nocremen, the history of the concept of the Devil ‘Dikts concept hus
changed theough nme. The Devil has had four fundsenentally different
roxio: (i) a prmcple independent of God: (2) an aspect of Giodk: (y) a
created beng. a fallen angel. (¢) a symibed of Nurraes evil. These varia-
thors, different though they are, have partiepatod in shageng 4 tradi-
then), 2 Trainon thar over the millennia gradually extredes and excludes
some Mews & hile retaining others. As the nradition mires along, docs
net mocessanly pet better-—we the sense that a 1637 view of the Devil
woeld te betrer than a epty veew—bet at dees get fuller: and as the
tracimion becomes ncher, « ap@ecuches cruth. The chee we can pet to
the truth aberer the Deeeil es the coamination of the tradition as a « hede.
 -~

“4 Meshesogtetcr

As the Protestant Refoemation was begianing, the concept of the

Devil had been refined over fifteen hundeed years, and though ir still
ceatned a rember of incensisnoscies, it had achieved a consensus that
was beth wide and deep. That comsenvas comnnued throughiet the
Reformation, spanning the gap becugen Cacholic and Provestant. By the
ead of the scvermeenth century, however, it bad Begum So come apart,
opening up toa wate and diverse set of mew ideas and values. ‘That is the
the
smery of this book, which begins sou with the Reformation of
sixteenth century.
2 The Reformed Devil

The sixteeeth century spuns the difference between the come of

Leather aed the (ime of Suukespeare, Wh was a pened that witnessed a
profoand sheft in the center of geavity of perceptions of evil, frome the
world of spirits to the weeld of humanity. The Reformanion of the
sistcenth century peeduced a diverperce in theddogy Between Protes-
tent and Cathoe. a diverpence that was narrow at frst bet widened
capedly, eventually encouraging the growth of the mce-Ohentees and
secular views that have come 00 deeninate Western seciety.
The Retermanon, a comples set of events. can be divided beoadly
mito three main scoters: the “mageterial Reformation” of the learned,
relatively conservative Protestant Seeders Marte Luther (1485-1246),
Join Calves(1 091464), and Heddrsch Zu trai (1484g~1 054% the Rade
cal Reformanon of the Ansbapests, Unitanans, and Theenas Muntrer
(1gkg-egesk and the Cathohe Reformation typified by the carcer of
Igmantus Loyola (1491-1996) and by the Ecemenical Council ef Trem
(iggceegey) These meoeemenm were abo Ged (ubether i sccced of
discord) with the growth of humanist scholarship typeied try Desidenus
Erasenurs(0 4682~ 1636). The beginning
of the Kefommanion is by comven-
ten dated Ocveber gr. 1e07. when Luther issued his ninety-five theses.
Luther was escommeuncated on January 5, 1421; the Prony of the
German Lutheran nobles at the Diet of Speier i cgeg prodecad the
term “Provestane.” ‘The religioes wars that proceeded from the sehiom
continead until the Peace of Augstrerg in 1648 Sech werea few of the
landmark events of the most epectant perixd in the hisees of Cherise
taney and Western thought ance the age of Constantine!

1. Che the Hetormation a goeeral we 5 (hammeet, Te Aw of Buen, sipe-rire

(New Flower, eptieg L. Spete, The Peserneet Betemetee, corm otie (New Tork, ick
26 Mepdevegtetor
‘The Gebological assumptions of the stereenth comtery continecd to
be for the scat part essentially traditional, even medieval, Witchcraft.
Luther, Calvin, the Catholic ReSoerration, the mystics, and prre-
Faustian literature all copeimucd the cfd ways of perceiving the Deval.
ef dialtlogy carne aot with
The sharpest turn ie the history the Refor-
matics ter with the Enlightenment of the cyghecenth century. Reteemea-
Gon thourht, beech Catholic and Protestant, was continarts with thar of
the Middle Ages: Lether, Calvin, and even Zuingli were all in the
Anntotelian, scholsstic, Aegentinian made that had charactericod West:
erm theaght for a milleanium, Whereas two radically different workd
views —thoae of hermetic magic and maternal scienoe=-were begrmaung
to emerge and challenge the whole traditional Chmistian systan, the
Reformarion debate focused narrowly on ceespeting sews within the
oh Augustinias-Anototclian inden,
Many snreams of Late mediewal thought flowed frecky meno Reforma
tien channels. Noeninaliun, especially the Ockhammn of Gatenel Biel
(24242=1404), Continued its great influence. Neminakem, the “modem
way” of the fourteenth and Gttcenth centunes, murturcd beeh the tree
will sade and the peedestimarian side of the debare shower human respon:
site@lity. Ockbumtisne emphasized the emer freedom of both God and
man, On the ene hand it affirmed the utter freedom and hence the
ef God, bot om the ceber hand it stressed the freedom of
the buman individual. The extreme defenders of free will, sock ax Beet,
had angoed that sincere moral effort and good works cupid eam grace
and thar free mceal cooperation with grace cveld cans reourds. Against
this Lather reacted angrily, and in general bees Cathodic and Prosestant
refoemers agreed that grace was a free gift of God that cowkd not be
carned in any way. ‘Mhe debates of the siaxncenth and sevenscemth cen-
ceries wore focesed on the sornew hat wiore narrow questions o€ whethar
urace was extended to all and whether, once ® was extended. one wars
{roe to resist it, The tendency of most theology a those centunes was
pecdestinarian, but both Catholics and Prooestames rermamed “practecel
Pelagians,” preachers of free will in the palpi, for few dared to cell
congregations that their calvatea of damnation bad been ctermally
decroat.
Neeninalot skepticiers about the abilxy of bogac to reach the truth
abcat God cagesdered a sumer of other sdeas prossinent in Refcerm:
tion thinking. One was fideism, ae emphasis upon Seth over reas:
chucty related co fiieismm was the enphasis upon revealed, beblical re-
ligice: over rational discowrse, Those two tendencus became the pase
faith alone and senp-
wonds of the Refoemuthon: pods fader; sede xcrgvare-

.
 The Refsered Devil 2

cure alone. Sach ideas reinforced the anticlericaliom that arse in part
from ccerepeions of the church (thoegh those have been ocazgeratod), in
port from mediveal anticherical mowenmeers such as fiftocath-century
Hhexerian, ard in part from the inference frome ave {Mer and acts eorivare
chat an authority senucture of bishops and prests euigh be dispenstte.
Skepticion stows the wide claims of the papacy haitcen lively since
she conciliar mavement of the fifteenth century. Nominalism also om
counped myscem, “hich was at ms height from the fourteenth
the severmecnth century and predeced come of as mest out.
standing cramples in the Latheran Jeket Hochene and the Catholics
‘Teresa of Avila and Jotun of the Cross.
Underneath this generally conservative oraditioealicn a radical shift
wm work! view was showly being prepared by deep social changes. ‘De
grouth of owanis amd the mice class encoursped the growth itaeracy
tar beyond the perestiowd. and this meant that the mddle chases oouk!
aoe read and mererpret the Hilde on their oan: more importaes, it
meant that increasing members of literate poeple focused Uherr attentioe
on the consens of the secular world: muhing money, buebding besi-
messes, rating famibes. Added ro these developenents was the rise of the
SCOUT att state Wath ts Consents for state power and mrernaticnal
mfucnce. A gradual tureing of aticntioe frome the ctiker warkd to thin
woelt followed naturally.
Hurnanesin sproad from Tnaly inte the north ie the sowcenth comury.
teinging wah « the beginnmgs of skeptical. critical, and sccuber
thought. “The nominaist divison between feeth and mtciicct cocuer-
aged the growth od crnpuncal, eeaterial science. Another crergeng work!
view was hermetic aught, whack for a century sestained & viageeous anal
sophisticated compenmion with scence. Until a tea ceocedes ago her-
Mic Magic was Misunderstood, muddled with witchcraft, and thought
to be an ignceam product of the lower fonms of Aristetchaniem. Magic
6 30 Ged in Cor minds to childish stones, stage conyerces, and sloppy,
anything-may happen fantasies that it is difficult to grasp how soptiisti-
onted a strectere of thought Renatsance magic vas. The underlying
nice Chet the conmtes is a unity whose every part influctmes every other
2 Vast system of “symputiecs” meats that no part of the Cometic
ts sselatod fecen any other pact. Stars, mincrals, pleers, aed the hunan
texte ane mind all interact a ways thar are often Redden (occult) bot are
nonetheless regular, ronal, and decoveratle,?

+ Once, re F Vets, The Chel Ptehenpy

cw the Detethew Aor (lL cotem, eyrgt
 ”~

af Meptusopécicr

scion
theher
Neit ic of the world had much
ner the herinetview
room for the Devil. Yer Sanam. far froen being ready to retire, reached
bes height of power just at the moment when the intelicetual stractures
veppeeting en were begigramg to shake, The theology of Luther and
m the Deval. And no
the pe of the winch craze bothrencauniged bebot
cee scomed aware that theee cadically divergent workd vicws—Aroto-
telan Christianity, benmetic magic, and matenind science were in con-
on so vast 4
flict. Bt war like a collision of gallacies, an interpenetranog
scale that an indivadual scarcely noticed it. The revelt was an inevitable
confusion of terms, enc of the worst o€ which was the confusion of
eeagic and witchcraft. Some sixteerth-century intellectuals did make am
attempt to distinguish “sateeal magic” (hermetic, intellectual mage)
from “profane magic” (tulgar witchoraft and sorcery), but examy intel:
lectuals of the conservative, Aristetclian camp ether arnorantly ce de-
literately confused the two im order to discredit the magicians. Joan
Poxdin, the Arisetcian author of Dr br demonic der sorcerr (1 58),
themgh well aware of the distinction, did sot scrapie be honk the reagi-
cans with the winches, When the magical weeld view was defeated,
partly owirg ¢o this unfair connection, scence emerged unscathed
above the nibble of beth Arsroteliantan and magic.
The winch crane bad routs a the Middle Ages, bet its ughy marurity
occurred im the sixteenth and severseenth centuncs. According tw the
Ctwistian theology of that cea, witches were people who had formally
gives themselves to the Devil by making a pact with Bim: in reouen for
their service, Satan rewanded cham vith magical pewen, which they
used fer evil punposs, ‘They rendered people impotent or sterile, they
blighted cropes. they caused diseases. they drie wp cattle. In short, any
could
natural disa be bball os them. Demonmc obomsion ard pes
sser
sonic, sacntal illness, and radical shifts of mond or behaveor were abso
laid at their door, They Secradly renounced Christ and woevtaped the
Deval. ‘They met ac night, often flying to thee “sabbar” on beoorrs,
fences, of aneenals of simply Ievitating through the air, They bold m-
costooun cegies. They kidnapped and sacrificed Chrenan batnex, cateng
their flesh in puody of hely comenunion of femdering shew far for use in
céntments and poisons, Witches were to be found all over Eerope. in
every neghtorhood, all linked in ome great comepiracy under the gener-
alstep of Satan aguenst the Christian cecrnmanity.
Such a conspiracy nreer exitod, yet papad pronouncements, Catholic
councils, Protestant synods, incpeistorial cribunals, scoular courts, and
loading scholars all repeatedly ppoctaimed its reabey. Milbons were sias-
 I lorw Hak ew Coreets, Fivecwearee CT Dee Wietelees). rity Nehal bw thor
tereher Gorse im the foe of anerah, the witches prepare te ct dl few he
sebtet beh drawing © puper. Loertey of Crapteche Surender ADxy
ten Vevwes
Mepbareptele
pected, tortured, of threatened with torture: probaliy more than a
hundred thogsand were executed, "The ceaze reached fall spate with
Innocent VIP's publication of the ball Same dguderawer effecnises,
which was igchaded by theinqeisitors Sprenger aed Insxineeis asa preface
to their Astle: ennlic ara
(1484) bank that had caormess infloence.
, &ce
The craze continued ureil the cad of the seventeenth comnury.
The witch ceaze stowed against many of the moelectual currents of
the tine: nominaket skepeicism, hermetic magic. and baganives. Bot it
was encouraged by Aristotelian scholars as a defense against the com
peting afeas of magic and science. For the meet part ® was an invention
of the cite, gradually xpreadieg down through pralpit and courtroom: 6
the poopke, who acceptal it gfeedile as an cxplasation for thar owe
trvables. It vacied in ineernity in time and place and was cxacerbared try
local daasters and social tensions Ges Incensity may even be correlaccd
with outbreaks of ergot poisoning i crops). It was certainly aggravaccd
try che religious and political ceredons of the Reformatices And it was
both cause and revalt of the revival of the idea of the Devil, who had
Keen agppog: eee ae a ea
nt
Aide from witchcraft. the Protestant Refoemanon itself was the most
importam eherment i the revival of the Devil. The Pronestane emphasis
upon sau wripvara—the Bitte as the caly source of authority —encant &
duc regard for New Testament teacheng on Satan. Hecuuse of their Sear
of witcheraft, the rogeemexs went farther; deqite them eachustaen for
pruning oat of tradition amy geowths thar they coaskbered net to be
roxeed in seripture, they uncritically accepted virtually the cnnire tracd-
tiem of medieval diatology. In the long run, the Protestant emphases
upon the absolute sovereignty of God and the refusal bo toleve that any
being could inperpose betwee ian and God may have promoted step-
tick about Satin's power, bat ifs, it took almost two compares oo do
™),
Pronestant concern about the Devil was, on the whole, stronger than
Catholic, Lether’s theology, Latheran “Devil boolks,” aad Protestant
plays and poenrs all made she Devil's powers groaner amd wider Cham at
any time since the Grst few coneurics of Chinstianny, Part of the reason

aoe TL Bankes, Wont Mawrege,

p. On wicberaft, ond the Now Phalepdy Mragh-
oom, Seve, opted.J. B Reel, A Macey of Gantea, 1)
 The Beforseed Decal i?

may bave boom the removal by the Brotevtants of vech vtractercy as

cxorcran and peirate confewsorm, throagh whech belicfs m the Deval
could be contamed oc controfied. More important was the tempeéstion to
enlist the Devil m the pecpagamda tosth againet relagious opponcnts.
For Protestant pastors the pepe was the Antichrist; John Bale, Pretos-
tant Bishop of Ossore (gos #53), told hew Saraniw the form of a
hermit boasted that “we religious’ and coaremplatives never srady the
ithe and claimed the pope as a pond friend whe was helping him
against true Chinstunity.
In Catholic esorcismes, om the other han, the diomans were reported
to praise Procestant docerines as they fled screareng from the bealics of
ther vietios. The religious tenoors, celminating in wars, between
Catholics and Pretesnants and among varieties of Prosestants preanceed
the sense Ohat the Desil was lurking everywhere,
Asmther inpamant reason ter the growth of Saran’s power m the
sixteenth century may have Been che cursing inward of the (hrician
comaicnce, found not onty a Prosemantem ber in the mew wacrospee:
tive character of Catholicism typetied by bmnatius Lopola. Larker apes
tad seen the Devils opponent as Gad, Christ, or the uhote Oaristian
community. Mf attached by Saran. you could at least feel part of a grear
anny epam whose hosts soo coukd call foe akt. Hur now & was poe
versus the Devil; pou alone, the indeveadual, who Rad the respensitubey
fee Semding em off. Ne one detecd that the grace of Ohwist protected
the fatbfel. let the sew introspernon epoe the indevedual the
brendken of csamminemg his soul for signs of a weak faith thar woukd invine
the Devil e. Beshep Hale oteerved thar the crue Clinsnan’s challenge
was to comteine he own soul for any signs of weakness, maincenty.
lubewareneess, of lack of faith and chanty. these weukt be the marks of
the Devil's power Mediceal Onricnuenity cffered a Sind of analog in the
strugule of the individeal same agenst Sun, but a stint was & person of
ureasual streteth, a here, an “atMete of Gad.” uhose caonmous farh
shickded hirn and allowed hin to rout his enemy Unaenphuarty. Bur now
there was to shining saint armed with the beckler and sword of glory.
cdly the selitary Chrisman. alone in his chaser with his Bitte, poadenng
his sits, ursure of bes fawh, fearful of the power of cempramon.
Aganst liolegy. against the social euture of mackind. azairot Maels
mystical bey of Chirst, ageinst the prectioe of the carly Otwistian
Comeruetity. agaitst centunes of Chinstian trediniom, shes indivudualione
emphasis on self-reliance and competinon fet the Chistian eaked on a
 MALLEVS’.
MALEFICARVM;,
| MALEFICAS ETEARVM .
becr conceress ,
framefen
EX VAniis AVCTORIBYS COMPILATVS,
& im qaacece Termes jaf diftrberer,
grerrm ore rear FAN AL DAMONA
ew befor

The tebe puce of the: Ala eaete een, The Elawewees of the Witelees
' ses “Oelethnet 20 Ievet cueia hes ocates pgm arval in 6%
tee to 6 heme ~pelarny: omgrnals peters oi 14. @ wae Ox
 The Refwrmwed Levit i

black breath ar night, exspesed to the wenter winds of evil. No wonder

the hrorary heroes of the age were Faust, sanding alone at the mideighe
crossroads with Mephistopheles. and Macbeth alone om the blivtied
heath wih che thece winches. Losketion provoked terree, terrer an cxag-
gerated view of the Devil's power*
The perbed that saw a wast incréinc in the Devil's poweg also witnessed
the begeenings of overt shepeacsim. The wereld views of norinalicn.
hemmantsin, hermetc magic, and science had little room for Satan, More
over, the heightened terror brought on by introspective individualicre
mest have prowuked in many hearts an intense psychological reaction
aguinet belief ae the evil powers; the fearworne cocesses of winchoratt and
strife Caused ethers to doule. Aconcio, an Iralan Prosestane,
wrote that the Devil dad bes diealliot work im incieng Christians apanst
one asother. be called for toleration of all Christians (encepe, of comese,
Conbolics and Uniterians! In 1¢63 Johane Wicr expressed shepaicim
aboet witcheratt and disbology in hic book Oe dda, Michel de Mon-
taigne (1 $3 }<1 492) argued that the eontence of winchorafe was surely act
firmly epough established to justify billing people: but such views would
he rafe among mtcliecteals for ancther century, Intellectual shepecsm
was owtdone by the seut incredulity of the practical layman: Keath
‘Thoneas reports thet Kran Walker of Durham asncenced, “Ll do nee
believe there is ther Ged or Deval, neither will | boleve in anything bat
what | sce.”
‘The response
of believers to such skepticion was "worl lively ales
(to Devil, no redoemer), Believers suspected that if the De-
vil, the sooond best-kncwn figure im Christianicy, coeld be excised from
the Chiistian tradition, then any other figure mighe be eliminated as
wel. If Chst did not ccene to save ux fron the power of the Devil as
the New ‘Testament said, then perhaps he did noe cave us at all. Ihe
ef a world wiew in whack God and the Devil ft coherently
a! ome at whach they dad aot meant thet the eximence of God woold
Timarely be quesiboned as well ax that of the Devil; the process hus
only taken a tet eager with God.

& On the pewur of tee Devilbe the art of the ape. sce B. Beevberper, fatier eget
(Piwlebeipis. coerk HH Bebber. “The Lecter Meet in the Grrrean Dares of the
Seno Century.” Measrsbety fir duces Spratly
wad Layeater, c+ (epegl. sere agr HE
Vener, The Devel se Dagled Laeretere (Bors, 197%). Oe Jobin Bale, acc Vane, pp. eat
ris amd DP Walker, Lint Spon (Pidacklptea eytal
t te Acomcm, Avenaenstiew Seteeee Ghee VII, 1984 iPheenec, 1ogSh
© Ad, Btrecber, “Die Bodeurung dee Toutcls fir dic Thwohogie Lathes: Nel
 = »~

i” Mepbosapdetes

The old world siew of Augustine and the scholastics was still vig-
ecousty alive in the thoaghr of Luther (13% )-1446. whe devoted more
of his hooky and porscaal concern t the Deva than anyone bad dene
since the desert fathers.” Luther planned te attend law school bor was
e a pledge to God he exsered
into maging
terrified bw a lightning’sfors
the house cf the Augustinian canéns ar Erfurs in tsos, At Eefurt and
then at Witterberg he steadied Arnitotic, Biel, amd the nomimadist tw
moderna; be carne Liner 00 reject Aristotle but never abandoned many of
the asvempticas of neminaler schoketicsm. In ss} Pope Leo X peo-
claimed the sale of indulgences. and Luther, a professor of scripeure at
Wittenberg since 1401, began to qeestion the drcetion the ctrarch had
taken; he was also suffering deep and painful scrugikes abort Bas worth:
iness to be a priest. About eyes he had an experience of personal
converaon, in which he was comvemcod thar good works and cffurts are
of ne value without grace and that elu fider, futh alone, could open us 09
salvation. He issacd his ninety-five theses in 1517 and tye the neat pear
was already referring to the papacy as a measter. At the time of tir
Loipoig: divpatation with John Bek in 1¢19, Luther adopecd ks mrip-
rara, Gaiming to base his beliefs om the Bible alone and rejecting the
additicaal autheeity of cradition. popes, and councib. In ss20 the pape
condemned the peoéessor, uho rovorted, “I regard the sce of Rome as
possessod tyr Satan and as the throne o€ Antichrot” (WA 6.505°682)
‘The next year be was formally escommmanicatod, efforts by moderates
to effect a reconciliation failed; and the schesm began.
‘The theology o€ Luther, the mast peotific Christian writer of all tite,
is topical and allesive like Awgestine’s rather than systematic live Aqui
nas’ of Calvin's. ik owes muck to medkeval theology [expecially nem:
naliait), 10 mysticism, aud abuve all to Leckee's own poyeholegy. cx
pressed in his deep deection to the Bade. It aas also shaped by debates
with other theologuuns, Feu Christian writers have been as pederical x
Luther; Ghke Augustine's, his views must be understood in terms of his
rexponse te these vith whoen be (often viokearty) disagreed. For Lather

ba datebes males Heckenpece,” Powagnche Zeobve?, bo figtil yei-ros h.

Theseus, Atapwen and the Dinner of Agee (New Tork, egral. m™. a
= Ow Lieber, eo BL. Otermns, Lothr, Ment om Catt wed Tete’, od of
(Whores, vgphcJ. M4. Wowk, Lact: A Lair New York, ets) Uera the tabrewg eanderd
shiecv iste Ge Lanher's works: WAee Wiener Aaagabe (Reerche Conentengele),
Wordr, 61 sobs. (Weweat, Stk WAT — Were Acngahe (hirtinte Comameragabe),
Tewtredes, 6 vols. (Wowner, 4 WAT—Wetrur Mugabe (etiche Corsenteangabe),
Braqwocked, +t cabs (Wiemaar, 98831,
 The Kioferwed Dewi a

the cmly wali bass foe thought were fach and the Hibke WA pole 20%
2oy), Next oe the Hibke his checf source was Augustine, but Be com
treated hes “true” Augustine te the Augustine schelasmos. who, be
taleved. had cwrenestonded the range of feasen, Hossam gets et toa here
without grace, and grace teaches us bea whee we mead the Hebe in the
Sigte of car Gith, Reason must beased only in its propa sphere, which
pasan aid co enderstanding the truth thar we have alecady beanead from
tanh and the Ube.
‘The aleodute emnpetence of Gexl and its coollary, predestinatice.
were also fundamental to Lether. fn 1426 he wrote De erve arivirn, Thy
Ligfroe Wal, in cefutanien of Enasivens’ 2x itero arbi (6424). le this
werk. in his cateciasm of isiy, amd chewhere it bes wihitag, Luther
embraced almobete prodotinatice, tumntaning that anything che was
wn bogcal. alenont blasptrcrmoes lietitateon cet the severcign will of Grad.
“Therefore,” Re saad, “we est pe to extremes. dowy froe will al-
together. and ascribe every thing to God” (WA e949). A barn being
bus om powcr at all to achieve his own salvation be is always in the
power of God e¢ else under the power of Satan, to whee God gves
wethonty over the wicked. Grad checoes theme whee be saves and terre
the ethers ever 0 the Devil. Chiont did net dic Ser all bret only fee the
chect.* In beddly grasping the nettle of pecdestieatieen, Luther was aware
of its picks: if the coomes & se closely detenninad. what m the need of
Cranes, sorters, of the incarnatice mteclf> He was unalde to revolve
these dilfecultices, bat he was newer walling to allow any litnestion w hut-
ever om the power of Crodl. be this he wars again & faithful aoeeinaline, bat
escept Calvin, pethage ne Christian theobsgean betere of since has bon
© usthnchingly comestent in affirming the total omnipotence of Ged.
Onenipxtesce, Luther believal, is tauteld. Fin, God has natural
otimpedenc:, that ts, he is the onginater c€ the cxmnes and as suck nm
alectuicly free 6» make the cuntnco exactly as he choses. E very thang: a
the conn & because
be walls it to be; if be did not choose it, it would
fot cust. Sccend, God bos theological cenmpetence; be is not only the
fopete bet alse the immentiate came of everthing that n. This is no
alecnt Ged bet one whe bos every fevtc in the universe in hin ineeedi-

8 WA UR 4Apt, an 4-4 of et: “Dices elt ae obdiguey ot comes,ct en fo

het preteens, peer cee vebt, eee welt Cemedens, cod chetessere a lin ede reared ” Oy
Lather» peodevemetion. sce Lo Urban. “Wee Lather « Dhoecoghmene Lhtermenne?™
Jeeves of Thediguad Sender, 42 (ogtek tipenyn ©. Uewntel, Lathe ew Prderiestin
vee Rede ourt. pote: end EL Uewser, Freese detier dimer of Free Wil (New
Yor, ol
 =
dilen ma
a

ane gaze. God never bets the reins Sill froen tees hand; be directs heaven
seed earth, bell, the Devil, and all creatures. Ged would be ridiculous
be were noe in charge of everything ce if anythong were dome withoes
s pant,
of the
his power WA 12,¢375.08.7 18) Whore the great thoologian
Augustine and Aquinas, hed feanipaltpattirmad free wall while dowcrib-
ing a conttes that was in fact prodestined, Luther specifically demted
that froe will was compatible with God's ommaporence.- Whatever i.
from God; nething is done without the auveral and theological will ot
God
In such a costeas, Giod is both rometely and eaumedinely resporsitde
foe exit. Evem Lather blinked at thés point, dixiaguohing between two
aspects of Gad and contrasting the jrot, stern, ated appurcnthy crac face
<€ God with the kind, mecreiful, and keving face of Ged, whech we can
kere only the revelatice of Christ, There is only ene Giod, tret
we limited mcetals seem 60 sce him as a doutie figere, willing both good
and cxil. Since evil is, it mest be the wall of Gad, Vet Gad also walls the
good agaimt the evil, Thus it can be said that God wills eval, Gad wills
good; God does aot will evil; God does ont will goad.” Te our limited
understanding, sceie things appear good! and ethers evil, teat ultimately
all evils are good, since all thar God dices is good (WA £75; 18.708
reftaaTh We often cance grasp God's motrreations, Kvils, for exam
ple. may be punishment for oer sin (WA 3.22be224) God a also
responsilile foe hardening of hearts and for Anfeetvany. '® Actrcktung ts a
combination of trials, testing, doubt, deypair, cerroe. und desolatices It
s seen to us by bee God and the Devil, Anmtctrargy tikes advantage of
eur every doubt, eur every fear. our every scrupke. It can destroy
anyone not fully Seetified by faerh."!
Gad is thus compened of apparent antimomecs, an idea that Luther
took from, the mystics. God ix weath, aad God ix kere. Gad is repodia-
tion, amd God is grace. Gad is hw. and God i merey. Ged wills
wickedness and hares the wacked. The natural, unaided reason cannot

o WA ghrmy, OF WAT pre WA PB pom “Hit Sikes Doers, cam in matin ct per
fakes cqervour, cals quedern fer Theee UekDn neo power recke fete, Geet aly pxr
crates faces. cpae ipew bossy calc facone tee poten, emails tarece muetrenecees utter”
ee WAT 2.200 “Chet feebet die Andochrengen uel et deere gram. Loeb hae cr we.
worn sie ors fe cho Cacket cclven aed traders, gram let or Ben sher. wore wit debanh
pad Ghes wad hance Letocheong.
cormasticha” Hie Shes @ whew & bmpch as oo prayer
bet hates when it cones on te cheer)
oa. THA re gate eae gee atanalhs an tre Sew 11. ChbewsLky Tite! Ao Mer
lack,
tee Lathes (Gorke, 1onrk pp torre) Bronte, pp. Or. fepe tem
 The Kifwrmed Det a

pemetrate thes neestery. withoer grace we coe Ged as smeped, enipradent,

terrifying, ce cruel (WA 6. eg2). Since our meteors o¢ poet anxt evil are
dhtterent from: and indieencty informer to Gal's, we cannot aluwys grasp
the good in his purperses. We perweive Goat as having a doetde will,
wilkng beech good and evil. We see Ged as willing evil and om, yer with
the will that be reveals to us in Gheist, he wills the phe. lin fact chess
appurest doable will s ene euited will that we cannot urdcrsmend (WA
1&<40) Beneath the apparent annmemtics, God is pure goxiness and
hove. Though God hides under the mask of the Devil. the goons,
power, and merey of God caneot be undersead by metaphysics but
only by capericace.!2 The wal of Gal is present inn all evil. cven in bell,
turning all csil to ubticname pood (WA 6.127. 13.900). Luther clearly and
courageously saw that this hard doctrine was a corollary of the absolute
omeipaence of God
‘The badden, stem will of God can appear to be the Devils wil!!
‘Though Lather venged on saying thar the Devil was the manifesatios
of one sie of Giod, he refrained fron doing so. foe the Devil's vill
only aspurcanty the sane as Cox's will: while the Devil and God may
will the same thing. thear purpose ts never the sane. Yet the Devil is
Gal's tool, af pet he arn. Dhe Devil woeld act cost if God Dad ot
created hem; the Devil woukd not be ev if Grod had ner willed him to be
evil: the Devil conk’ net work evil it God dad net alow him to de so. In
aay evil event—an Agfadew, for cxample—beth the Devil and Gad
age active. Aaftetrmer comes from the Devileand from Ged. The cat
ference in fhotive. Whereas Geet has an ubiowrely Benevolent pare
pone mm every ect, the Devils aim & abwars nm desror. Osec's unaided
witellect 6 unable co cell the ditterence berween Grod aad Dewl un any
situation. tet grace and faith prowide che discernment thromgh which
one oan distinguish the hand of Gerad fron the hand of Saran (WA ¢. 48);
PELEgl ES.4SEl gove rel.
The Devil is God's seal, Nive a pruning hook of a bee thar he uses to
culoware fis garden. The hoe takes pleasure in destroswg the aceds for
*s we purpose, bet im can never move oot of Croxts hands of weed
where he does set wah, or thwart his purpes of huikdeg a beautiful
warden (WA 16,203 U8. pe0 45.63% 630), Thos the Devt always does
Crod’s work Whee a pastor was mrondened we rsep, Lather felt m and

ro WA oh gi go oo al giregnm ge gna Heeb, port.

ty WA eelaeg atone: Re welt eh ot Trott: at crortie: BR eeetee, Mere
Mee? New Vorb. 19008) prog Bochrocker. ppp
 a

a Mepbaunpivles

# deeply. It was the week ef an evil porvon; the evil person

was the Deval’s tock: bret the Devil was God's tool, Lather suggested
that God's providence eeght uso the saurder 00 qncourage others 0
become devcmed pastoes like Pastor George. “The murder was committed
thevegh als paces ani! parervial onder ax well ax through che Devil's
raging hatred. How else could it be in a cosmos where God guides the
every seem amd the comese of every Sar?!+ All evis come From
reatofice
both the Devil ant God, bet the Desil wills the evil im ahem and God
wills the good that comes out of them. “Ged incites the Devil to ou.
but be does noe do evil Rmself,"** Since Ged turns Satan's every effort
to the good, God does good net in spite of the Dev bor im and through
the Devil, and Gol a Inaiself present im the Desil (WA 15.444; 8B-70%
go! y-¢1oh. Dhe good that God wills i an event ts hits own work (apr
progrine); the evil that God wills throagh Satan ts Grodl's gps alvean.
When (iod’s AnGalvagy afflicted Job, tor example, God's opw wornaee
was the temptation of Job, but his opus angriaw was the strengthening
of Job's Gath. If there were no evil amd no Devil, then vartuc wouk!
withor Sor lack of challenge (WA gofz.gt7)
The knowledge that God weeky through the Devil may tempt us to
-s and horror, unaided by grace, we would dowbe Gead's own
, Bet the merey of God in the incarratiog of Christ shows us
the Dear revelaear, the revealed Grok, whe is the God of mercy and Jove.
Through Christ's bye we can endertand that im all she apparent
harshness of the weeld, God's beving presence and prenpioe are never
alwcen.
Anyene who defends the ateclute ommipetesce of Gad is oblipad fe
take 2 position simlar to Luther's. If all is from Ged, then evil aad the
Deva are from God. Bur this unilinching mono docs net bead to
acquicscerce in evil, Thoayh the Devil does evil ender God's com-
rraeu!, Gad also hates the evil and wishes us to fight against it, God
strugucs mightily againt Sate, with every human heart as the bar
tlheproend and every hurracs svel as ally of opponent.
Ima commen ruled by abselutc ommepceence, the indivadual urman has
no froodons. He oe she ix subgect to the will ether of Ged of of Satan.
The seal, said Luther, ix like a horse: when God rides it, it goes where
ngWA te gerrett, op azecars: “Danh Corts grcchge ured votcrhatee endlinang,
wal dacchs towtich wortagne Raw”
se WA sh age “Dou mote Gabedon ad mater. sod oon fat ler
oS. WA ppt aepenie, a26-42T: attce Sow ae DUM. Bacchy, far Tontel wad Aver
Chrwins io Se Theakgie Mores dathvg (Ceiatingce, 1987. pps bets bee
 The Agweel Deal Dh

God choose: when the Dewil nudes mit gees uhere the Dove chopses
‘The two niders dispere the mount beta cen themiseives, but the horse
has no choice; it obess whoceer is in the saddic.!
Lether felt this strugetc intermely within his own soul. His diubelogy
Gene not caly fram seneterce and tradion but ale from perscnal cxpe~
nence. Ay Heiko Oberman peet
it, “Sein Leben warcthampl gegen des
Teufel (hin whole life was a war against Satan)” This 6 o> compera-
tien. Luther’s workd view was that cach individeal. and humanity m
. Was caught im a tendons between Chri amd the Devil. 1 uther
experienced both direcely and comld net diopeme with the Devil with-
en calling inte questice both Christ and the very fond that he cxperi-
enced xo deeply. Like the dexert fathers and the inedieval saine, Luther
felt thar the Devil attacks moce intensely as one advances m@ Girth. He
ropeeted that the Devil atrempted to deter hies from Gel’) work im
every posite way) through remptations, distractions, and even pliys-
ical manifestations, He rattled around bebind Luther's stove; at the
Wartburg castle be pelted muts at the roof and rofled casks down the
saiewell, at the Coburg be appeseed to Lather in the feem of 2 serpent
and the goer of a stam he grunmed andibly Hee a pig, he disputed with
Lather like a schedastic: he erected stenches, be seenetinnes bxdged
Luther's bowels and wes chosele assockeed in the Reformers mind with
feces and flares, Satan's eageress for Luther's soul bepe hime oo chou
that be “shept with Lesher more than Katie (Lecheer’s vite)” OGerman
s that Locher’s consem about the Devil was frood in cheldhoad
by his mether, neghbars, and oeackers, Hix asaqanen of the Devil
with feces was inenss, but it soems fess the product of am obsessive
persceulity when one endermaeds that cach acuacarions were part of 2
long mechoval craditics. It had scenething to do with the Refcerer’s
chrronec consnparion, ne doabe. tar also to do with cradition, with his
desire communicate forcefully with the common people on a concrete
level. and with bes cemdency co mec, It aloo, Obermean sugpees, has
a theologinal justification, ‘The haman tedy is the romple of Cod, yet it
6 frail ead ridivelows, oxcretion being perbaps its mecer abound functice,
Larher conerasts the divmity of the Burman texty, which Jesus bed
dignified, wh its nidioelows aspects, whech Satan apes and mocks to
ep. WA ER Arg, co Thee facrerne free, whack Cateon she ened, in chorieod frees
Ptr Angst, [iypemeeriows fc. 6.9. 415) Preis Latte, 44.0613, aed ekimaxly
from Pa seer See \ Ade “The Hertel che Lethervcetes on emenilichen
Withee oft Merrier Coates.” Laster fetedend, 29 (1gfak o¢—5 5; Otermman. pp ag2—284.
“Tike evil pees bias ee Chee bet 0 de eed, Gee anil np what be in WA 1B pep
“

our shore." Lather felt that the Devil was orying to block bis efforts to
serve God and that if be gave up those cffcets. Satan would leave him
alone (WA qa.ase: godt.iga: WAB 4 24). .
Luther's account of the Devil's robe in the hivtcey of the cosmos
virtually kbencical with that ofcnediecal cradition. Lecter was created
goed, the highest of the angels, but he chose to betray his creator. Ihe
e imitate (vod, and envy
incérvres were pride, which lod been to presumto
of burmankind, because Gad's choice to booone a man rather than an
angel ct burn nature ower angelic nature.” He was thrust «at of
heaven; cager foe revenge, he corrupted Adam and Eve; asa reuilt of
their sh tpt sin, Ged wave humemity over to bir and made him bond of
this world CWA 13, cog: 1 g-Bey 1g gg). PLaving us ine bets power, be daily
afflbees us; he is negpemnilile for all natural evils wach as storms, diseases,
ard mental depressions (WA 96.464: £7. 152~153) 43-09) Woeese, he is
Constantiy at our side tempting e he
of eval,
ect to stn. The first caus os the
cause of crery individual sim as well, encouraging imdivaduals to despuce
seul nations to warfare. He axsigres act ind ideal demean to encourage
cach malividual vice, and be and his demons can appear anywhere and
in whatever Soem they choose, eves that of Christ himself?! All hureas
seners are scrvaets of the Devil -*

1K WAT pray. bhbedys, 244-aar. 28a “Be whet ol ener bey mer denn mere
pa
Ketha™) a. pote S.trg-sece seek WA ot aye. Ober, pp rote ttg, 167-18,
2-254. Pear,
op WA bate 1 g-a 7g rt att 9 ey gale ny hace ot at 42 (BAe aby. There
arc cvo tradicmensl variations om Lacitcr’s crvy of emanky) Gru, thar it arese at oar
<restinn bocaaee (iced emake us in Deis ers damage, secored,, hat it arene whee it war known
ins heavens that Gael woekd tube on hummus matere as Chri, The hence sconerhs coral
wer GMbcultce © Seten bad beeen that the becewsbele revels of bis G23 would be the
vcurrustion: ated bes chofeat at chee hurnds of Clete, wood be herve retailed! Aved, # Oe had
ret citelhod, the iscereation ceight net have born nevesary. Mikon azongend
urethas
igh Paradoe Lew, Bet Milton diticrod with Lartver is anther eupe
cat in ees
reepact: Luther cht mot belies an a wear tn hewver at Oh od tre workt eather,
tee waterpected Rievclitim or as referrieng te che streggie « the cathy CQheetinns agaene
thor porceeties, Fer Lather, the Drcvil wes hashed trees Searcm—ae on the omdiewal
wamery plagw— bry the sienpbe feat of Grad. Sor 5. P Revesd, Th War oe Mover (hoes,
re
oe WA phy, oh gic Oh tem pooh gn ate WAT bget-cir.
ve. Varkous beings, anchadeng bruh, apes, glares, goats, seakcs, seal wadves WAT
e.tg5. conse ost atti ¢.tge: WA reage “iledes scraper ero Dhar"; pelt gets
Go hge-tg7. The Devil eign bs be Oarive WA gora.re SeeA. Aden, “Thee Tourttel abe
Grttes Affe Viergouckicher ince Leiecrwurtes,” Lanter fabrtect, 29 Cnghil. rege mime
ete
(i gee),
be Schustins Bewesb’s Nan
32. Lather was tefceood hormans
2 whch l
we pertrayod an fuck sadlemg ie a tvig manned by 2 crow of Billbes, vines, cat hermes,
(yeas Fi (000 Cabeww the Deas! ots Chee foam of 2 eee s<ice at a wich shtut. Merl tras cTTe tela 73 7a:
 aN

4 Mopeewptete
Satan's power over us ix shattered by the incamation <f Jesus
Christ.2? Before Christ's aivert, Satan had Lees sure of bes power over
ws, and when Cheist came he was eneagod, because be knwo that the
Lord wold destroy hing? The Devil tried to step Christ from the very
beginning of his minmtzy, tenipting hits as spent as he went oor mano the
desert after his bapries.*% Bet Ged made Christ am olntructor against
the great olnaructor, and Christ tineck Satan ine after telling blow: in
his mcarrutive, in bis miracles, i his preaching, ard in his possen.
The Devil plotted the passion in unthinking rage against Chrnt, and
God wed it overtheow the Deril, the proof bemg Christ's
resurrection,°* The warld, the flesh, and the Devil stil remaon to compe
us. but they have no meee power ower wy, One little word—the mame of
the Savior-—can fell them. CQwist’s defeat of the Deval is renewed again
and again and culreinates at the best judgment, Ured then, the hangxtom
of Christ & in comerant oppenition 00 the ki of the Devil, whack is
the kinadeen of this workd. The kingdoms of God consints of these wito
Sollew Chinst, it is characterized by grace, revelation, drectien fo the
Bible, and faith. ‘The kingdom of this weekd is characterized by sin,
reliance upon Lew, and crust im reavon. The mavcible church, the Chrs-
tian comenunity with Christ as its head, i im the kingdom of Beaven; but
the visttde clurch, with its conruptices, m& in the ingdoms of thes world,
There is no neutral ground, everyone Eves in cae Kingdom or the
cnher.*
The Devil still bas power in the work becaune so cmany choose fo
follow him Seme make delierate pact with him: Lather was no shepae
of witchcraft, through prayer, be Dunst! saved a student at Wittenberg
whe had made the formal renuncucion of Chrnt. All sinners serve in
the Devil's army, as do payare. heretics, Catholics, monks, Turks, and

3}. Lother’s conpherts agen the chu ing

Setar» porwr
ofmer bry Chews helped cewive
the tan a te eT ee er eee Redo
tery. Soe FT, mone 28 Gnd “Roderep-
Lacinee, pqe tege tt, O-1Bes UA > pote 2m bet)
Kowa foe fomcen Leeder, nie Sotanaens et hestes Can rocrnmrcre|: 1% fry
re WA ip gt) 6 ges gre ETya. 2206 26 G2) O46 70S 44.008 DO a7e
ot. WA orle Ags thas 2 tet) eee at.
oh WA gc erie sent per, ofee beh bef 22s, PSH, BT22. om
pete Eat aren qed eetenes Chet, cot Gabobn disbetoruns, itlertes eterna,
ottun
coeh hd cede: bogoan, hatsobem. mentors, ef Ge commwlcat™; gofe.27g¢¢ Chim chulbotes
coatrs recurr duleher™ ¢7Ciat *
as WA epla. not. cers eftggs get eR Ba Sats 42-2266 44-744. Foe the mtwety of
dee works with the Devil, oo WAKE se0
 The Roferwd Deoit t

radical Protestants. "The pape is the Agnchirot himself. 7 Luther's eew

chat the whole workd was i terion between Giod and the Devil dad not
of honest ceagree
permet him co sce cockeudastical disputes as mutters
ment ce even police they were aleays aspects of the great Connie war,
The Devil's power rennaines “as beg ax the world, as wide as the word.
and be ecrendts frem teaven down into bell,” yet “theeyl spint bus tot
a haiebreadth more power ower us than God's goodness permits“?
Christ puts a great arsenal of weaponry againnt the Devil at the dispersal
of Chistians, cluding tapesm, the Bible, preaching. the sacraments,
and amg.” Luther's bebest-known contribution > papular disbobogy ts
hes fareus hyn. “A Mighty Fortress Is Qur Ged,” whone mune peent
is Cheist’s defeat of Saran:
A eighty foetross ie car Croxt,
A pent weapon and deferme,
He helps as mi every need
‘That tetas os.
The off, ceil eee
Is determined 00 get ue
Hie thubes bis creel plans
With great coeght aed cruel conreng.
Nuthing of) car is like Ram... .
Bus & whede weed cere fall af devth
Eager to swalbrw us.
‘oc woeld wed fear,
For we shoud sti8 be srved,
‘The prince of thes wuebl,
Neo easter bore force be cheer to be,
Can 20 us oo bare
Hite perwer is undkr j
Ohee bth weed can fell hen.’

28. WAR 2 269 “Pape

ct Ober: miverseries ft aprtedes diadedi ~ Por Lattur on
“pores.” wee WA B.gte-oSn. £8.28 —388 Obs radicals, WA ae ter meter Pe 4;
2h 2.00 “pepetec nebes eee, sal Sowneees weet coll Toutel” On Dorks TRA
pela fe com) argo. On womks,
WA cop, Che horetees
a poeeral, TEA © ohy “hee come
cret nem thevdegresete, sol didbedegpecen”. §.200; f7Va.208; IR ese The. Toa:
}2D De 20S: aS age “biee rules becwears ctor, dhe Tetel fat abrok ain
spel.” Sewer Deerutics ne prosanwned
bry dive Dhow: UN 1 ogg: Racbtedt eon pine bry
« oeiberatesogetl WA oe ton: 64,
we WA oct t¢ates arites-—an spe WAT 2 ge
pe (hy beepers, cee TEA op cup tet) pefeana-a22. On the Babi, WA ote
PE4og pele tap-cng, tat Onn promehengcn the peepee, WA 18 bee.
it The origheal words can be foend un (aur Hekor, Goetebty
de Tontd dLopeng,
righ ood, bp 40
 a

#4 Mfepharmplvles
Our overy deferse againat Satan rests upon the power of Jevus Obeist.
With thar power, the Proteutane Reformanion ioelf is a mighty desermc.™
Luther also used meee direct means. He exorcived his student Joterres
Schlagehauten himself"! He alo marshal echcelfeliness, laughter,
beastcroasness, buwdiness. soo, aul, chscenty, and farts—cvery-
thing active, awertive. carthy, and good-hurmorcd—to fend off the Aw
fockraggen ami dcpresions on which the evil one thrives; pre of his best
defenses against the Devil was 00 go to bod with Katie.4 In the end of
tine, the Devil will be finally and complevely destroyed, along with
these mortals foolish enough to follow bem. God will hare so mare need
of him, foe the eect will all have ermerod imo the Kingdom of God,
s
freen which the Exil One and his servants ate forever exchaded (WA
26. togh
Luther's afeas were both effect and cause of the deeply shitting re:
of refoern and Ley prety
ligioes mmcmeabiey of his day. Popular meverments

bie fowe Berg rt eweer Coat

be Urie oot the,
be wn frei wae ake Noch
Dike eee ster fat berretion
Thor ak bee Peet
Mee Brees or’s ut pore,
Coes Maelo ooel vert Low
—" Raestaug
bet.
Aad Pind nt exter ecoreee Uhece
Rid «ome dhe Wek vel Teufel wer
Lied wodlt cen ger vorsctleagers,
Seo Pacchtoewer ets Cece we cle
ba wlll con bal
The Ver deuce Wek
Ss wr of ecb ede
‘That or ome chal) rete,
Lhe nachtor et pore
Fie Wiethee
Lous Oe Of.
Sec alse E. Hieset. “Bdes Teetiews, clas hom Toetel fithow hares.” te Hirech. Jaterweties,
+ wel, Mideorbkd. ogra). vel 2. pp one
go. Che the chew’, coe WA gore. toes 44.791; 8.00. Che the Rcfsematiom see TEA
We 8a 04. PIF. 447.
ss WAT 4 gipnghe, 2.0G-20, 1F 28, Ete tss.
14. WAT tage “Dre bette bevepll, de eh ee yom hab, bab kh me meyer
tet! pebalbe a eorieer Ketbon scrtem.” Sec Kh. Res, Ty Dred ow tah Conmnry Gorenan
Larceatere (Freeitert. eatah,p48, Gee a Get od Lather’s weotts of the Devil, mctodiong
foake Trait, chow Tanocetsertr, hedad, Mandir, Barcaie, Kevee, and Rarveggeet
Luror drew cvbentewwsls epee tlitlees with mm merad of wetting names fer
Sdermens. .
 The Reformed Decal as

had begun to swoop Gersanyi the fiftocath century; in the sistccnths,

the poodigues cloquence and energy Of Lather transformed how cur-
rents ine a mow eclignoes onentanom. Luther's follower, Phalipp Met-
sachthoe and a host of others. spread the Rotermner’s tiewss hex tranda-
eon of the Bible into Gorman was recereed with wach wide emhusasmn
chat ft becanse fron chat tie on the standard of edegapd German, his
adeas were debuted in sermons, popalar beaks, and catechisns,
‘The catechoitie=seme vwrnten to help the clergy instrect the lary,
others direetly for the litye= proside a view of what the fathiel were
eapocted Oe beheve. Catexbetical books did mot exist Before the fifteenth
comery, when they wore first used as enor guides foe penitonts prepar-
mg for confession; the invention of pomnng escoaraped shure wade-
spread use. “The idea was expanded to seclude mstroctions ter children
atl these preparing foe continmatiog, and they wore quickly adopecd
by Protestants 2s well as Catholics. Dictraxth Koble’s CArutenupegel of
1¢)0 was the fest peimed German catechion; Luther wrote a catechism
foe chikiren in equ%-1¢e9, and bes influcacal grosper and sooaller cate
Chests a 142g his follower Melanchithen composed a cteldrem’s cate
cheom m 14g0-0443." The catechesers wore backed up ty fonnal con
fessicens of fath: Cathotee at the Councl of Treat; Protesta om the
Augsturg Confessom, the Thirtyatene Articks. and the Weinmuinwer
Contessicer.
‘The piece of the Devil in these documents & secure but seldom
wahent. His crivtence, Bis anflucnce, and he thre oe Chinstians and
Christiarety are never dixcoented. In the catechism of Canisus, for
example, Saran appears 67 times, Jews only 6. The clearest sanements
are found in Lanthor’s Greater Catechivn of 1 629, in which the Refonm-
cr diccuses the Eval One m relation to the Lord’s Prayer, the Creal.
bapeian, and the Bucharist.' Still, attention to the Devil was sever
recommended, and the calm with which he was approached mm the
carechians, ewen at the heaght of the witch cearc, indicates that—-secure
thoagh his oxntence wax in scripture and tradifiom—be was mever com-
sidered a safe ce proper focus of Clhinstian attcntice. “The Chistian was
asked ce turn bes gare away frome the shadow and toward the light of the
lord

gt. Seo Loter’s Abeer Rawrhewen, WA pelt ropegre, end Grew Anveheeres, TEA
wet tte eee.
gt WA pele 8A. opr, meereneg. cae Sew alee) Dbebewwen, Cothaley Actuvve Jae
oad Volterr (Lowden egetl.p ote
Mephicrophe
Jotin Calvin, the scound leader of the Protestant Reformation, studhed
hurnaities, law, and theology and came mato contact with Lagheras
iadcas im the Isios, Im the carly 15y0s ho underwent a conversion to
Protestantises and from ¢36 to 2441 became a kadar of the Refonmar
tien at Geneva and Strasbourg, tahere be was influenced ty Martin
Racer, His dentitates of the Obriuiae Religiea peecise, rational staterncat
o€ the evangelical position, was both a statement of his own beliefs aed a
political effort to stop Feanets | from pecomcuting the ee More
methodical, logical, and ordered than Luther's wurks, Calvin's fmecttwcer
became the basis foe what caste 10 be known ax Refoerned or Evangelical
Christionity.
Calvin enthusastically wilrcribed so the principles of faith alone and
acripture akeae. Since aman nature was completely deformed at the
time € otiginal sin, eareral reason is unalde to obtain any cruth at xl
uithout the ilenination of faith, and eacucal moraliny can caly sm
uithowt the aad of grace. “Troe knoatedge cornes from the Bible, whack
the Hbely Spirit aeterprets for those whom Gath has saved, Calein agreed
Ged. Giod it in complete
with Loechor’s view of the seaal omnipoteofnce
control of every clement of the cosmes, Neo fate, Sectune, chance, of
frccdcms limits thix complete sovercigniy, This means that God i re-
speasitée for vil, Why Ged ondains evil is a mystery that we ane nee
permitted to unracel, Yet, Calvin insted, God has only one unned
will; though be seems to cur limited imelligence oo do beth good and
evil, he always works Sor the ultimate good. Cold and compelling logre
led Calvin 0» deny thar God coukl be sat merely to permit evil; Ged
nee only permits but actively wills evil, as when “he turned Pharset
over to Satan to be confirmed im the oltinacy of his teeast.” In every
evil human set, three forces are working together: the human will to san,
the Devil's will to evil, and God's will so the ulnmate goed. In every evil
pervon both Satan and che Loni are at werk. cach foe his own
purpenc.*
Calvin's deetrine of double peedestination Gowed diecetty and bog-
ically frees this doctrine of ateclute oranipetence. Occasionally, Calvin
affirmed free wil, bot what he meant by free will was freedoen from
bondage to sin, a freedom oteained by yrace, what leaves us fro ne be
43. The fetes (Cee relgene satiated wore Gru paddideed te 14 y6, wh a
sexed odio te cope. a thied tm tga, ad a foerth on ccgp: the fit cobtiey oe Peer
cite, Bene the 1509 ache. The Comnenretanes
in ed
appoa be found
cred bekow may
oe fasmes Calves opens quer referent ewels, 09 vod. (Beri. 1hig~ teed, vols, aint.
oh few, tig beige beng: btn tg Cee om More G15.
*
 Tee Reformed Dewi v

car true selves. We have n> power te eefuse grace. Those when Gad
chececs caneet refuse bem, and these whem God docs not chocee have
no way to be saved. The gift of grace inevitably engenders finch. Pre-
destination & “Cical’s cternal order by virtue of which be decrees mm
hireself what, according to his wil, & to happen to every indies!
human being... . To some, eftrral if is awigned?te others, eternal
dameanon, According, then, ax the individeal ix created fur the one or
the other goal, be is. . . predestined oo hfe or to death.” Calvin ad-
miitterd thet this was a“heerible doctrine” Udeeretan borritvir) brat avcrtad
thar it is necessary becauu “ne ene cam deny that Gad foeckeew the
ferere final fare of man before he created bern, anal that he forcknew it
because be cedained it try bes own decree” Vert. 4-32.47)
Calvin cuttined the doctrime as follows: God choccy the eloct befare
the foundation of the woerkd; he chon those to be rejected and damned
before the foundation of the weeld, and thee are dcliverad
unreservedly co the Dew (Comm. on Jolin 13:27). Thay Actam’s fall
was ordained before
the orcaniom of the woeld, That all burrnane fell m
Adem and Eve ts clear from 1 Coe, gia2 and Roem. ¢:18. But though
Calves conbusiazmally cadcesod Paul in affierreng the unity of all bu-
eunity in Adan, be rejected the unity of all bhemanity in Chrnt, the
seco Adam. For Chinst did not come oo save everyone, but only those
whoc God hes chosen in all evermry, It & 2 mystery why Chinet docs
oot save us all, ber that he does mor is otvrious freen two things: that
seners abound, aad thar Ged has the absolune froodcen amd perwer to
ror withhold grace regardless of merit, Since nockeng can place any
liners on Grad. it is incencerwable shat anything coubt cost oc occur that
God bus oot ordained. Dowtte prodestination was a couragcous and
coaserent Geduction from abeaobere cenmpartence, but it soem to have
coaibed « limination of Goss meercy, if not his pestice, and ahi to have
climenated the paint of the incarmanen, since Gexl cam save ancl darres bry
eternal dooree Uey. 3.23.9)
The Devil's note in Calein’s echeme wax similar 00 bax role in Lether’s.
Caltin began by finmly reyctieg the skeptical view that angels and
demons are onrery ideas in beman minds (fm. 1.14.19) Bet though
Calvin granted the Devil as much thecectical power ax Luther did, be
did net geve hin nearly as mach attention. fe this he was more coe

we dee. paeee OF ae: patos paz: 625g: Comnee, ot jelee Oye. tort, Foe
Calvin's
aw of the lage of the hemaan will as 2 beast oxides
bry Grad o¢ the Dewd. aoe
few tat
 , AN

3¥ — Mepturspleive

sistent than his German colleague. Luther's intense pervonal espenonce

of Satan cauned him, against his ows strict moaism, to attribute to the
Devil huge force is the workd. Calvin's aleas of Satap were drawn from
theology sare than free gspenemce: in comequence, be ascritend to the
Devil a narrouce scope: Satan is completely regulated by God and
cannot even concerce of any cvill thut God does nce expressly assign
of God's judg
him. Ele is semply the executor “To carry out is
judgments dhrvegh Satan as the mintiter of Ns wrath,.God devtees
man's purpenes as be pleases, arceses their walls, and stroagtherns thew
endeavors.“+
wing that the Bitte offers Seu particulars on the fall amd ac-
tivities of Satan, Calvin misisted that it uas inappropninne to explerce
these questions in dctail.*! When he did discuss Satan. however, he
yave hem almost all bis medheval aroribores; Satan has plyeshoal ama
spirited powers, he is reypomuble for tompeing burtarety to o¢izinal on
arad to indiv ideal sins be is the cause of heresy, popery, and witchorstt.
His power ower bemans is at God's pleasure, theagh omer the clot that
power is only aoninal, but it is abo God's pleasure to destroy that
power through the saving act of Cheat, whose chief purpose m the
destrection of Satan's Kingdom, Christ i im no way & ransom pard to the
Devil; rather. he crushes the Dovil as Gad destroys any tool with which
he has finished. Eval persists after the incareation also by Ged's will;
Chris's victory ever Saean is full, bat itx conpkte “maniesatice ts
peoperly said te be dckeyed wend the last day,” at whéch time Satan will
be anaihilared (omen. en Luke equra) The persstence of sim after
Christ's passion ix no meee astounding than its existence beforchand, tee
the effects of Christ's caving mission extend eqqally in all dheections in
time and space. It is an etersal action on the part of Gixd, which saves
these before as welll as after Chirot*

few. 3.4.5 CF rg gee tt) ge Come, one Cee, tat) Comm

Lee
on Moet erg Come on Ter recote Come on Jets pa; Gomen on Ace egts:
Ceeem on Deer. 110. On Calie and the Devil ove PF Jereae, “Caton aed Witch-
crs.” Refer’ Thvelgpical Broww, ga (rgtdlh Srey OF Wiecr, Catcwn Eangergi de
oocn
Ihcece- wad Nerreprescer von Diawy icae mach snr Andeeteny fir Goobeiar amd Gomme
Dera. veer
os. fet tng epee’ Cmee. on 2 Mee ae
fer erg ere rm
we l,
qa. Come on Loke 168 On the Dowd in gewera ae ‘| (or.
on Gen peep, Come 06 ha pécrec Comes. os Mase. a¢.48-45, 27081; Come. on joie
1 4y, Gig, Rigg: Comme ons Jodes pt Comen ons Pet, 9% Coram ons Pit. tg. Os
the Diced’s perawrs, soc Coenen on bee, tyre, a4 tq) Comme. om Mame. ear: Cones, os
Lebe oug. tute Onn Ge Devil as reeomnetde toe erichoralt aed papery, aoe Comes. oo
Bebe fat. Poe Satan's beeeed power ever the elect, soc Comm on Acts the bow

*.
 The Referred Dect
The diahelogy of Zwingli and of the raSeal refemers, ach ac
Mentzer and the Amabaptivs, was not much cefferent from that of
Lanher and Calvin except for 2 tendency to unmweralie:—telicf in the
salvation of all, including the Galles angels—and scence skepriciun about
the existence of a porsonal Dew. Ar a syned of ico im Venice, the
uncethodors Itaiun Anabapeisty ceesed the existence tebe Devil and of
hell, as well as the existence of angels, the virgee birth, and the divenity
of Chriss, Dies aanerinitarenisn, 3 aie of Enlightenment De-
om, was an carly trump against belief in Saran, bat beech Protestants
at Catholics took cach Darsh mecasurts against its skepticioe that & wax
scarcely heand.*!
‘The Catholic Reformanion and the Procerant Refcernation are now
enderstoad as Tuo parts of & general moesoment of rotor. However,
deep htfereaces pitted their adherents against ome another, the rewilt
being that erany iicas ca beth sides tended oo be foerelared and bard-
chal in opposition
to the ether, Soll. this oppeanion
Bad a sumber of
constructive aspects: the critica swedy of the histery af thoobagy and the
chereh, increasing concer for the inenruction of the laity, and a re-
evaluation of the structure of the chreech.
The systematic theology of the Cathelic Refonmatios tended tm revert
to teatievad ecalien. Norrenalion and Augustinanise were | mt
asale in faver of a revived sy memati realism asoxtated prmanty with
Jesuits such as Eenutius Leyela, Robert Mellarmine (1sq2~16a8), and
Francsco Suse (14¢48=1619). The teachings of Thomas Aquinas
(az2q—t2%4) were revived and clevared, as) nm, almost oe che
feales of dogmatic cruth. As the paparcy—-tn response to the Precestanr
threat—comoladated its control over that part of the church thar ro
tained Cathelic, Rome became a cenver of Carholo theelogy Ser che
fievt tite, wad theology and pupal authoncy came to be closely mebted.
‘The new ‘Dhomtisen offered leek: ecw thoolegy. devoting itself to rofim
ing detaels of the scholastic system in the coneicnom thar reason, based
on revelation and added by God's grace, could consruct an otuecervely
truc view of the conetes. ‘Mhe vietue of the approget is chat mt preserved

Sates's power crented ba Chater, Der, 2 ac. 2.060) 2011 e, Come on hea. oxig
Coeem om Late pect, Comme ce Eg. got Comm cm Tbe rng, Che Sates onl
omega) oe, fer. 44.18, 24-5, Comm ont Coe, 03; Comem. on Grom. peg. Bz:
Come on Apes 9:19, Comes om Joe ee ey Lobe Lather, Caden bend ne place toe the
war in beaver: foe Catron the only bebdical tcuts ecleting 00 the fell of Lanter were ¢ Pee
a4, Deke6 aed Lake 0.8. See Reward, p. icy.
4h Che Zerg ee RK Powter, Zeng eda thee, yytt Onn the radwals, we Gi,
bt. Wether, 7 Antes! rere (Pideckiptes. oval om pp dor. of.
 aN

to Mepbatspdetes
the valuable insights of madicval theology; its drawback was that its
rigidity precluded openness to new ideas and approaches, thus repocting
what was ceastrocties, along with what was destructive, in mexders
thought. Proteytantism oyme to have the opposme st of sirtucs and
defects: it kat many insighrs tr cepecting tradinion too vigorously, # was
open te new currents of thought bat scmsctianes emteaced movies toe
swiftly and wncritically, “The rclatve openness of Protestantioes mcant
that new ideas on diabology appeared moce freqocntly in Protestant
cinch, while Catholiciom held to scholusticism antil the lane tucntcth
century. The influcmtial Carmelite axthobogy caged Sates, published
in 194%, was the bot mperrant book oa the Deva ansing froem the ofd
‘Thocsm.**
In the contest of nsing papal autheeity and Theenst revival, the
Ceancil o€ Trent met in a number of sewsices betwoon e545 and exe
ind seta tack seal epoe the Thoma view of the Decil and deamon.
Mexdene Catholic thoelogians. respectful of councils yet eager to ex-
purge disbobegy frome theology. have tended eo evade the isaae, On the
one hand, <aly cwo ccurmenscal cowncils—Foarth Laneran (9283) amd
Troat—made explicit statements about the Devil. On the other, vir
tually all Christian sheokogiaes,, popes. and comncils Grune the beginning
<é the chuteh into the present cestury have assumed his custence and
Renn: Trent aeade eo starcreent alfiernmg the Devil's cximence only
usc no one was challeeging it; further. three of its doorces defime
s of the Devil's activieame seaston 4. Deoreas dr rpmnbode fides (Petrie
ary 4. 1546), Gtiag Eph. éc12, takes the Devil's exntence foe granted,
sessan 5, Decretam de peccass angiwal’ (fone +7. 154), chapmer one,
affirms the Devil's power over ws as a result of original sin and blames
hire for the cxiten ce
of abd and new heresies, Including Pretestaansm,;
session 14. De extrenwe sncriser (Nowernber §, 1551), chapter nine, de
of nes
senbes the clever s in bas effo
the Devil rt
10 head s freen the
us away
irk *'

oe Mewes ihe Joer Marie, of, Kees (Darn. 190%

at spas Chartn
Sew 6. chk © Ava revak of ceigieal din we arc “wah cyan potenti,
cheimde Rubewt ingperiurn, hex eet dabed” (fc rr4t this condom athe ncfcrs te “serpero
Hie setcpan, horaard pot: mo wbew eee, sod ctlam waters berntaa parpatsce Suwt-
nn” Scene 14. gp “Nat ote acdyOrarres moter enCarkaace PST cone Vitere Cpeertad et
cape, st Gavorare ares resins Gane mode pred: fadhas Cane OcrHps CM. Goo
rchornowes, the exwecs waar veeriec wcrves bicedat ad percbomdvs mre pevetes, at 4
Fahacis <tiamn, 0d pronet, dhewnae eaeerkaondion dctertambin, quam cure uaperdcre reader
Coram vider porpaie.” Woe the deceres of Tere, soc HHL Schreevter, Camm ond
Tevet (Se. Locap. rage!
Crexnee af abe Cnmmofes!
 Tie Referrwed Dewi 7

The Devil also beld hin accuvtcencdd plece mm the veew of com
tomplatives or mystics, Contemplative Christianity & imersely entitive,
characterized tre a strong sere of the presence of Grad everywhere and
by its emphonds upon leadinga hfe of prayer dircctad toward unica with
Ged, For the mystics, whatever blocks the progress of the wel and the
cones coward nice with Ged ic the Devils work The cloacr you
come to chat goal, the moce the’ Devil strives to divert yor: for this
reason, myystics oftem have intense and immediate expencnces with the
Devil, Their deep introspection makos them acutely aware of the power
of evil cendenches within the soul, The most mtlucntial satcenth<ertu-
ry comenplanves were the Cormebres Teresa of Avila and John of the
Cress. the Larheran Jaket> Boohine, and the Sounder of the Society of
Jeoss (Jesurs), Ignatius Lovol.
Loyola, who proposal sysnemaneo rules foe speritual trainmg, was
sharply comocious that the deadly cncmy of huramity woekste divert all
Chrotians from ther peoper goal of serving Christ im onder co make
them his cae servants instead. Prom tes flery throne be sends cur bis
deren 00 every part of the woekd, No ene at ayy tine is ever Eroe frees
the temptations suggested by these caper demons, The Devil socks to
comince: us that worklly glcasures aad sonseal delights will make ux
happy. Often we are deluded inte yicktag, ber the results arc always
the samec: ancciety, sadiecss, and desoatiom. Satan sccms sometimes te
commobe as, bot whatever good Re purpoets to affer is really caly foe has
on evil designs, never foe our welfare, Ipnatnes refined the peychologi-
cal insights of the desert fathers on the discernment of spines. If we are
pointed toward God, the actos ef a good sperit mm cur hearts will always
prcecte peace, joy. hope, fai. charity, sears of repemtance aad love,
and chevatien of mind, whale the action of an evil spent alll Bewe eps,
depeewice, concen for worldly things, and arsdity
of soul, However, if
we are Mocped in halstusl sie and pointed away fren God. the action of
a goca! spine calling es to repentance well soem Dardh. while the action of
an evil spérmt, lulleeg ux into a false peace with our evil lives, will soem
pleasant and casy. To disceen good frome cv, therefore, we need te
understand cur owe bask orcitation as well as the effect of the spinrs
thermmelves. All che Desil’s powers and wiles. great though they are,
vie! immediately when confronted with the sepenor strength of Jesus
Clirist. Ignatius offers a way to defeat the Dev that is, be says, sven
ably effective: steadioat faith in Chins.*

a “The General booereation of Comer.” work 2. dev g: Mediate on tee

<?

For the Latheran mystit Jakob Borhene (1¢7¢=1624) both aval

evil emanate fren God. ‘Die cosimes is oriented toward God when it
muintains the two a tolance. But to nece the ght and focus on the
darkness is to upset the cosmic harmony. Laciter, Yhe yreatest angel.
combeted Uke feo qpalitics ins tie tratuge, but he freely chose to unbal-
ance the world by sceking the darkness caly. Ile seeks no twat the
world that God bus made and so onters inte our “conter.” the growad of
being of cur sels, where he uses all his craft to bend ys away from
integration and harmneny. But so long as the soul remus in “resigned
humelity jest as 2 Scuntain depends on its scarce, coxclesly drawing
and drinking the waters that Gow forth from God,” it wall be safe and at
oc

‘The great conpemplatives Teresa of Avila (rg tse1 sha) amd Jolin of
the Cross (e¢g2=1so0b wore deeply involved in the reforms of the Car-
meclite ceder. Teresa is best keown for her discussion of the grades of
prayer throagh whack the soul chat i focesed upon the love ef Gad
pases before ecaching the “ceseral manson” of the soul, where Chet
lives, Teresa dintinguished sharply teracen the oscnce of mystician,
which is loving comerplanon of God infused by God's ewe lowe and
accompany Che cote
that mayena
grace, and the tangential phenom
cemplative life: visiors, audilde sensations, ecstasy (Teresa preferred the
renns “aispension” of “rapture™), hevination. and stigmata. Such pie.
sortena can easily be manépulated ty Satan to his own cris; Sates may
ercate ilasioms of wach things in coder to conr the guilitde;
upe even when
they come from Gad, the Devil mary twist chem by making us proved of
them or by causing us co care for them more than for the real eqperrcnce
<€ God that they accompany. Jobe warned of avarice for spuritual gets.
The purpose of the comemplative bife, be said, is not no cbtaan sporitual
favees ber 10 give up one’s wall and one's desire 09 Godt
———__

wowed: and “Redes Ge Gee Dieoeemce: of Sperm” tet ip Speies! Aerie See
Igvtes Laqeds, Chew compicte, of boracne Iparregeirny (Madrid. 0osa) On iguten se
1h. Bchener, Upn t
Lopals Gouzpart.
quesve roger HH Rleert, dearer ote Tiveiquar
iNew York, 1g@4t H. Rabeer, ie Spectealey of 32 Spmanne Leyte OC becape roi st
47. Jeleds Peete, Dar Wig ce Cire, oe WE. Peweltert, Jaond Batten stvericiy
Sebeaiew, 11 vole, (Settgert. gig eytal cod, 4 Lge the Peart) Treetee, pec oe Oe
Feserth Towstien, ©- oc the Fitth, & the Ragheb, ¢ 92) Ore Nish, 41-67. Bochese wrote
"Whe Way to Chena” i often ct bie “Aurora” (1602) “The Diver Prispies of the
DXviee Bawace™ (iteg), and Ubinas emageam (16341 (Os Hechres, ace A. Loces, Jet
Baxter: Leggy dete he Challe of Bow tW alivagiond, Pa. ryyy © Mens, Aen ote
os Jad Baten (Now York, rege
4h. Swe Sewte Terwas de jowis, (eye combi rd od acd FL Ge ls Maddowde Dion
 The Refereed Devil vw

Although Teresa wareed again tabing the Devil too seraoudy and
ulvised thon hin powers shoul! be despised (fewrr on pore). Bath she and
Jolin perceived Satan & always and everyu here acteve agaimet all Cheis-
trarts,epeule the curtereplatives, whoes be sccke at all conts to block
freen their geal of usiom wrth God. Though be i aluays powerless
against the defemec that Chrnt riiges up im a faithfulsaul, at the bac
sagn of weakness be cushes in with sagpestices that seem reasonable and
peal at the mecnent but yield only confuson, aridity, oc dignnt, His
temptations arc ingenicesly diverve: be encourages ulf-nygheocusmess
and falec Burndity and dixcoerages us Grom pravor, be causes us t0 fel
guilty Sc having received God's grace and oe labor under the imparssibhe
burden of trying to carn it; he males es ill-tempered toward ochers; be
creates ihesions and cietracticess in the intellect, he mspures the dowk
and fear that the endentandieg ue are gramed in comtemplarion is
illemicn, Sometionns wo fool thar we have lest comerol
of cae opuls. as if
demons were towing theme hack and forth like balls. Semerimes we fool
that we are making so progres, But even uben the boar is becalrad.
Goal is socretly stirring m che ails and searing us a
Against thes who are net discoeraged try auch sereprations. Saran
makes direct and viahk awaulke He repeatedty vaited Teresa, esualle
in inwwsitde form: she wealkd food his prosence as the manifestation o¢ the
lixing lic, decent, and bypecrisy, Sometimes be appeared viebly: be
perched in repulsive chape om her bet hand) his boty exuded a flame
that cast mo shadew, woth a bidoous mouth he warned her char
she bad excaped him hetherto, be weald have ber yer, When she made
the ape of the crus, he disppeanad, caly oo reappear agen dort,
She finally tasished kim by sprinkling holy warce on Hien) thereafter,
she always recommended boly water 2s the mont cfSective physical op
of grace im reprlsing the Dowd. The Devil freepecntly beat hor, shaking
her beaty with inembbe blvas She had viens of tarthes berucen angels
and demeons and «€ the torments of bell,
The «ritings of Teresa and Jotm, lite thos of Luther, indicate the
perwerful held that tradmienal dabcdogy had upen sccteenth-conture
ee

(Staind, tgp), Camume

dh pregunta, Moraes
Av carele sanveer, ann exe Laken
de dy wads,
oye ae te. pegs On Teves. see8 Ole 0 Jere of dees th cee, tongM
‘Sac | ee ee
an wel he Devil” ie Teees & ane Mame, pp go-to. Swe
ey ean de lb Cron eel DL Sieve che Santa Trees (Dhangen, git) emp, Sete
aw Se eis Neoke cme. On Jolene. soe Oreviguee
de Jovte Secrmmentahs TA
Lage
of St. Jobe
of the Crem (Lows, 158) L. Coetinns, Sr. ete
of the Cree (Now Vert,
1a A Compre, Sewee bibwad the Cree Ritletes
on Upered Fapeewee (New Vor’, rr)
A Aepbasptees
thought. They also pose a problem te medern historians, Sor they
cannot be dimissed as emcritical medieval Bagiegraphy or legendary
yecreticas. They are autoddegraphical accounts wagen by these who
had the experiences thermpelves. What were the experiences realty?
Madens viewpoints such as depth psychology peovade us with mew
anghs and mew questions, bet no one mode «¢ thought, new of bd.
shoald be supposed to extant the truth, and any iaterpretation thar
of the phencmnena is unvephinticated
Gaminscs ‘Teresa's own porceptions
and rodectsonnt.
The graphic arts continued the lite medicwal sconegraphy of Satan,
tor Hicrcewrree Hoses id. 1516) and Bas followers, mach as Peter
Brucgtel the Elder (J. 1469) transformed and catendod i. Bosch’s
icomogeaphy corresponded closely co the traditional Christian view. bur
it introduced a complex and varied symbedism oper to interpretation on
a number of ewels, and he sbifted dhe Socus of evil frees the demon to
the hureas. ‘The gloating faces that rejcéce im Christ's suffering in Hore
Hane, Christ before Piece, and Chrat Cerrying the Creer are examples in at
€ what Shakespeare would accomplish in poctny: the tramference of
demonic «qualities to human beings. The ghoaters are teman, but they
have crossed into the cealm of the cotally evil. The grotesqueness that
characterires Bowel's art serves the specific function of portraying the
deformity of eva. ‘The confused, twisted faces of denon: aad demonic
humans are contravted with the serene face of Chrar Kearny sty Cros.”
Sexteenth-contury lterary diubology may be divaded coaghiy moo
pee Fawstian literature, the Faust legend. and post-Faustian literature,
One widely popalar genre was the Tesfolavieter ("Devil books”), written
prirunty by Larkeran pastors in sineple language Sor the edification of
the Protestant laity, Floesisting from about i¢4¢ to the early seven
toch century. ther appeared in a sumber of Sermats: treatives, ccet-
pendia, betters. pawns, and dearra Bach book was characterend by its
disceasion of a particular vice and its spooul demons Bebend the de-
moms of dressing, cating, drinking, cursing. hunting, dancing, the-
arergeing, ant other weekdly comcerns stoed the Devil, am intensely
powerful figure acting everyuhere and always, deloding the individual
Bruegel sre L. Maldon, Hicrseyener Baek, ad od. (Vienea, royetW
snedch
ae Orn Bos
J
S (ibwes, Magee (Now Tork. eprthS Crivesi, Hereryen Boot (New York, entre
Wath “Le derecsdege che Beach” 2 Diels of dates Crores, eorth. pp. trees
Cher ethecetul partie vere Loene's Neuw Mites! Divweng Out ote Dorel
Cn cggen cet, deel the Cammcen Bins, Tod, wad Trai of Alteocte Dorer (eatt 14
 ~

Meahon physio

conscience and sewing discord in families, parivhes, nahors. amd inter

raticeal affekes.
Under the influence of Luther and the winch crarevand because of the
harwh rekyious tenshons of ehe cra, sexteenth-century literature tended to
take the Devil more soricestY than that of the previows conterics.*!
Though seene works carry on the light, satincal lane medieval tradition
and some even cxpeess shepeicam about witches, cehers are carnest
treatises on the weevbep that witches render their evil master,
A favecine pence wax the opie pom or play portraying the fall of the
angels and the glorious victory of Christ (or Michael) ower the eval angels
at the beginning of the world, This war in heaven, for wheck there is ne
dear Bittical warrant, had bece sovatied by a number of medieval
writers on the bass of their reading of Revelation 42, Hlewever, the idea
seldeen appeared in the eeystery deamon of the lite Middbe Ages, and it
was specifically rejected by Luther and Calvin. Yet its inherers drama
co. On the Towfelsbteleer see KL. Hoon, [he Deve 10d Coatery Corman Loraierr
The Tesfebbeler (Virankturen, 1g7r) Mawy of che Toatetbacher helena ry
Segrramd Feyetatemd im che Ticetrem Aedborans @rankfurt. 9h rho,
1976 pred ok, ESP TL
Ct. Dhe cent seepertaed prc Daavtion works and peed: Feeding works net showing the
vePamece of Facet arc the poddicetines ie +47) od the Crcroman tranclitines of Jaowtes oe
Yixrare’s Adal the ALi malcom of Sprenger wed Drecisata. nat: Peviorne
Frvasi, A Dhaadrvegee (east, Repteza Maerean, Gonggum (1 cork: Beveend od Cem, Trac-
(1904n Marten of Noles,
tater de reps (eG) Joann Tethernias, (iter ais gemereme
Trassem& agentinwer (14 r0k Masco Cairodamso Veds, Chewende Later VY te cart. Bla
Sachs, Tragedies ron Sobapyony, fv, md anetvvichwny Ade aun dime Manatinve bcs pet. Themvens
Kinchracycr (Neegoenpunh, Pammaacten (16 yh Valnen Vents, Fee wien Goad Spee! com dew
bervttiee O' 414 78 Elicreey res Zangher, Promplowar (eg Nieepowepus, Seta
(1g90% Jaceds Ret, Adam aad Sivce (i¢g0% Johann Weer, Weyer, of Wicras, Or Mage
(19a Accomm, Sreargeneten Seton Lava WU (rptst Cherecre Siephued, Gaciate
Actiow, eae owes dy Tent Linen wad Enngotes formienled Sevrten-eal Soun d
Jows
well11 g65 Aor Nifewn, La Rertaphe onteey tre Mudede¢ Lacgire (195%
Credhewme de Martas, La Sopemaine (157%) Jean Bealin, De Le dimememony do mrciers (1 sek
Tonepasso ‘Taneo. Gervnelowinn likens (1581) Dic Bartin. de Sependh wont and Menammernad
s Jaoqece Avgestede Theos, Panahuws
(1 9p)
(eegh Exwwne oF Valvasone. 1 Anqgeked
SUT, woe Aveemider Cleve n's
(6 095), Berard Spenser, Aw Aye re JeaLoew (1 995%
, The Fane Grocer (iy heen cgth Nichetas Bernt. Uomenetenrnar titer deer (tient
Crp )h, lege che Conca Corwen), Adame
Litre serrmc
Martin chet Rian, CAeyenisitie emagruca
Feed (oto. Piriedeuch ‘Twubenees, Avtne aqgebome (réoyt Caspers Myeride, Dilie ovr
atwee del mame (i608 Peere de Lancre, Totlrse dp Teecany (9401) Gursbettnte
Started, La Senger digth comme (610d, Caameborriete Andirows, f Adame (61 ih ‘Thecruas
Adie, Tv Alacks Drvvall o¢ abe Apentate (nt 1) Giceansoenonice Mori. Le paerre aggre by,
o51at Wilhern Nicuesder, Decemudsy (014k Alomse dhe Aceves, Dy & cracnie def smn
(1ée uh ‘Thewmas Beynon, Thy Glew of Tier (i fo0k OMSorice Valeranura, (\emememantew
t
(1 fey)
(16a pe Phoneas Plendber, Thy Lacwer co Appehenn
 The Reformed Deval
and its suitability to ekegant ehessical martial imagery made it innesistitde
to the crieny pocts amt playeretts of the sestcenth amd sevumccenehs
centurocs who sought to adapt the conventions of such clessinal epics as
the Jitaa aed the Aceaf to Cliistian myth. fn their enagnificene barrhe
scenes, Christ or his surrogate Michael are epic heroes locked wn deadly
combat with Satan, whose chaesiteriaics ate sometintw dren in part
from the chiswcal Rero's adversary, such as Neneas eneeny Lunn.
These opics alve contained scenes, reminiscent of the medieval neystee
rics, of re councd that the Devil holds in bell after be and his commades
have been theust deren cat of heaven. Sceetienes these opecs lend thom
selves to polernic: in Naogoorgus’ Pasi, the pope loads the powers
of hell ee battle array agpamst the armecs of Chint captained by Lether.
Greaus’ influential pley Adee cead depicts a Lucifer «ho hates Grad,
whor he calls the “savage “Dhanderce,” Se having expelled bem from
the jors of heaven. Lucifer, aware that he cance dishxhee the Alephey
from his throne, plans in rewenge to een the creature that God has made
im bes oan imeage, If he can corrupt Mctarm and Eve, they will poms hee in
the miseries of bell. After failing with Acker, he sofscits Eve suceessfel-
be with eloquent flattery; Acker thon joire bis wife cut of bivaky and
lowe. Saran rejetces, savuring the suffering that leemanity mest bence-
feeth endure. Grotiux peovides an carly hint of what would beccene a
motif of the Rorsantics, seeing bis Satan from within and cnoverging
the audience to grasp the Devil's foclings and motives. Grotius Satan
for freedom, regretting his chains, and crying out that it is better
nec to be at all cham co be unfree.
‘The veice of satier, like that of shopescim, was Great in the carly part
of the contury, with the great cecepticas of Nacobo Macksavels (146>-
1627) amd Prancets Rabelais (454? —1¢¢ 9). Rabeleis’s (ante of Paw.
fagrw! wes the first major work to provert detnonic figreres whe are beth
sympathetic and even justified me thor rebellice. “The giant Gargantua
and his son Partagruel (ubose name is derived from Arsoul Girthan’s
medieval mostery play) are comic, secularsoal demens.“) The toot
interesting character m Parrerge, whose name, “doer of all things,”

ch. No Machiavelli, "Hollagee.” on A. Gltert, od, Mater The Chad Wirt ond
Cabos ere, NC. gc), pp Mp Ry Malate, Lee cong Acre, 2 onde. (Parte,
isch we bh M peer “Partegrod!’s Goneelggy ant the Redkegtive Design of
~Rabeleey hoe: ( Pablcarmme of she Sader Language Azocatnm oe egg tdae ee
K Grete. Daa wel Peevey” Shad frame, avat (90), e-em LC, le
Chart, “Devikdors and Kabel Preeagruct.” from? Broew, a9 (roti areim Oe
Ctben, we Lecues, ch
 a

Mephitepbel
s the multifaceted personality of the Devil, Like the cradinienal
Devil, Panurge shits bis appearance, costume, swice, and eeanner oo fit
the stuatice. ble had bee n at Todado, a ony kec
a student 2 center
as wn
of bermetic magic, and there be bad worked with the “rector of the
fcuky of duboloey. the Reverend Feather Picatris.“*! Parerge is the
pecectype of the worldly Mephistepheles in the Faast Reerature of the
eighteenth and ninctcenth centuries: tall, baedveenc, elegant, and of
nobhe lineage, though the observant could discorn bis desncense cengints int
hits pallor, his bleminhes, and his great age of ewer three trendred years.
The figure of Faust is—after Christ, Mary. and the Diuvil—she single
mest popular character im the history of Western Chinstian culture.
Plays, puaatings pooms, novels, operas, cantatas, and films from the
sixteenth to the present century bave featured Faust and Bs demomic
companion Mephisopheles. If the legendof Deer Juan, chsely bownd se
chat of Faust, i included — with all its manifestatoorrs from Monarts Daw
Giswewat to Shaw's Dow faae te Helle-the sory © a kenmeotnt of Westerns
art for half a méllenniven.*+
‘The kege Faust ix based om the fife of a historical person, a
of nd
phdlosophy and theology student who, after obtaining a degree in pe
lesephiy. tumed so herssctic magic and then degenerated into casting
heecocopes and predicting the future for money. A number of inflocn-
tal poopie soem to hare impressed lie bes wit: others recognized
him as a chathian. The hisorkal density of this perce co got firmly
oxtablivhad‘* The carlest source & Trathereius, who wrote mm 1507)
Luther and his Sllowers seem to have been chictly responstte fee
suming the historical persoe seco a kgendary Gyure. Lether. who de
spiced hermctic magic as a vain and prideful attempe to grasp divine
knowledge through the intellect, hastened oo link all magic with witch:
craft, Ifa perwn practices magi, Lanher reascacd, be can do » only
with the help of the Devil The first arrested fiek of Faust with the Devil
dates from about 1¢40, and the first mention of bis pact with the Devil
ch. Thee fygurre i» derived fren Prowiis, te nace of a bimorncal scther of a treating or
reegee, See L s!
Sommer,
Thewvehte, A Storey of Mage and Expre 8 vols. (Now York.
1go b-1G588 wed. 2. pe Begedee,
6g Oh the Beast bepered. occ A. Dithevies, fe Myths & ome (Marie, egtat J. W
Smced. Faso on fevretew tLownbn egps).
66. Phe aay bare been boone. 1 goer gtn @ tot Crem ware chat his faerdly carec 4m
Fane be Feats. Cutie “Fortemare”) may have boon an ssn! cleveaiel names wach ay
wa: commen among the Kcramseece @eruents, ant oo thoory xiereaficy bee sre) +
srodcre nermed! Crrong I ebwaumnor. be ts as Paestes thet be fet appears an the marcos,
aed the carlicet grve bis career os Gregg, at Jotann
 The Ritenmed Deval
as late as about ico. The more exurcedinary the fears thar
aicfited to Faustus, the more assuredly Lutherans poochimeod that he
was in leagee with Sate. Once Us bast assumption wus made,
Faestus could be leked with
the ancient tratimon of pact gome Back so
Simcoe Magus, Theophilus, Cypein and Joanna, and winchoraft.
In the 1408. Luther's disagle Meleachithoa wrote an accoenr of
Famtuy life allegedly tosed epom personal acquaintance but already
heavily colored bry teas, and many carly accounts were by Latherans,
iscluding Jolurecs Gast, Jobaanes Manlius and Wolfgang Binser.
The first book devoted ceanirely to Fatest was a misture of legend and
farrtasy publiched by Jelunn Spiess in 148) under the tithe of [iss
tow Dr. fokaxe Fate The Sptess version became keoun as the
“Fauwtbook” and went mito reecrous trasslations and alitions all over
Europe?
‘The Fauwtbook tells how Faustes. aluedoning philesopliy, owens to
reagic. Giver the antischolasic bias o¢ the Provesann Refonmanon, it
was roteral that the Faasthook should make the figure
of the ean who
sells his seal to Satan a scholar: Faust desires to obeam knowledge by his
cram efforts rather thas to receive it by grace. ‘Dhes individewkstic re
belhom ties Faust’s sin to the cenginal ain of hurnarery (Adam and Eve's
theft of the forbidden fruit of the tree of Knoatedge) and be prafec (the
crngirtal sim of Satan hiseself). Ic is the prototype of the Rocnannx and
teciern reve aysitot authority. In order to mtaster tteagecel fore.
Fauvtus detcresincs to call up the Deval. Cicertg 00 a crossroads ar night,
he mescribes magacal circles aad characters upon the ground and ineokes
a sperit (Gate) tre the same of Beckecbul. Here the author delibenmely
mises magi and wieeboraft, the tredeonal sags and symbols of her-
it, See Locerie, pp Bent,
co. A monster of meer ot bow ondiperndint vonteen of he Feethenk apqeerol is
reanencrige
and pees wn the 1g fon and rogee, bat it woe the 1487 verse
fut becerec
vealed Oe ees peteably Gr (renelened ite Bragg in ei 8s et 1088, as Machowe’s
play
wae wrrten ip 1688 or 1485. bet the Gree cvteet crambtee @ God 1oor. ht we
creedieeel bees Deach is i pge aeel Preck be sgt. Pow he Carrean Pacettewd,
we 118
Hake, cf.
, (her Fanenteot meet dor Wallwheier (leedotrel heriien. optht HL Wieden
od., Dieser Pamni Wiletlag: fe Volbector con 0). Jobane Pome ant Chrome) Wagar
(Beereen, cote Tike origreel clbtion of the Engheh crasshteein by Hl, Logeman
Mrcwed de crevenr de [Liemernet
& Gant, 24 (1900), aed & rondily scommelte om the cbtion
by UW Hew, The Mat of thy Dhamaahd Lit aed Ieored Deart of dre Jobe fame
(Newre Dine. rytch) Siondee stories of weagee end pect sheeesbed
os the sivirewdy orn
cary. foe camps, te tak of Marken ran Nicemeghce, who softened te Sete scup-
aby in cotere be jectrectings
ie meng (1 Dx Bryn, Wiemee aad aby Dice! an Sarmeest-
Caen Lawnterr [Tobery. Wiks.. corelpp sh
 tha avnecerh-cormars wer wvvire sbw ras s iy («ethan eh epee <

iy. Paatm
 The Reloomed Decal or

metic meagre with the wotchlike ineccatoon of an cvil sperit. The spint
appeam, takieg the form of a dragom, a fiery glec, a Gory man, and
Smually a geeyfriar. This shapeshifting idcatafics the spirit with the tradi-
tonal Devil, and the figure of the greyfriar identifies hizs with monkery
amd popery, the Devil's chief tocdy om carth The spirit explains to
Faustus that be is a member of ajpreat hierarchy wifote prince ix Lu-
oer. Though hirself a porentate in hell, he m only the servant of this
great prince, whose cxpresx permimion he needs befcee he can agree 90
serve the scholar. '*
The spint’s name, bere spelled Mophostophiles. fir appears in rhe
cake of chapeer four and in the seat in chapter five, The 1¢8> Famthook
w the first atrested appearance of thas romne of the Devil, Is is neta
traditional Judeo-Chretian or folkloric name but a brand new coin
by a Renaissance humanist drawing epee Greek, Latin, and Se
Hebeew clormencs, Bock the originator and bes ineencions are unknown,
so the dervatios of she name m uncertain. The chief ekenents are the
Greek av, “nee”, pile, phovor, “light”; and paler, “boece”—vielding “he
whe is nee a lower of light,” am mromic paredy of Langer, “lghtbearcr,”
The cnding pile was changed oo péulr ce conform to nocmal Greek
ar inloras in Anistoceles. Hades. of Anstophanes. though Shakespeare
used the Latinized foem af phvtor in his “Mephistophibes” in 7b
Merry Wises of Windoor, Mvphare- scoms to have Been changed to Hypbur,
by attraction so the Latin avgtun, “pungent, selfurcas, stinking.” The
Hletecw word “liar.” is ancebor posable element, aa the
forte: NMeghossoplte i « actually Goethean, sot stetcenth-century.
That the name
is a purely modem inverrion of uncertain origins makes
rane Bun ym on coe modern. Deri mph Bie mapy: Dovel ane
dwerse foem

g& The spore cuplere thet Loofer

& comperor of Okxfl viet & Grated
eo Gee
Siapsemep the Fast, eultadbw Lawifey harwself thee North, rebad bry Bue tisteay,
char Senate
w c the Tht, by Astereic the comter, bry Pitopethes. The evthecnce of bemnnen
and the of hommene acd winck tradzinen oppear in che intredaction af te
«bernm oe: Gog are howe the Che cembet of the credivteweal estos Clatetian chown
” Bechactd Seiak i. Monboernvtect &: decker Akoophentow, ch tole. iBerbn-
Lapeug, 198 To teat), Wek O cobs. epg iF, gives a carry of pvelde temgh smniaghy
featifel Hebrew rent penceble omenethee ery Aaee cooererd free Mftnsegttely oo
Alvphespiiy, ber the feemerik crammed. The Pamear /ieleermoey. apg rorenaeriy
combernpeary oth the Pewethewd, cay Uigdeengen! as well as Stepletptede, onlaedeny &
poneubbe scrmetrviy te the fact chat Picheow angeh’ noeney cvually ond i af Chord) A
(hike, “Zam Naceen Meophamogdetin,” Cateatetet. 14 (opt ih, opt igp, es
ye combersten of the Eebbeel meen Mephdencts and AberghelGr Sem ag. torn
 AN

ay Meseewoptete
Mephistopheles goex to Lucifer and ebuins permission tm serve
Fasstus if the schedar will promise eo give hitrmclf ep body and seul to
the peice of hell. Paustes makes a written pact in ped, denies Cline,
amd promises to be an engeny of the Obristian peuple. Though this pace
was medelod om that of the abedeyal F hespiules. its more immodute
and spociiic smock) wae the pact ator be contempocary witches.
Theophilus gave ep his soul in exchange for being retemned to his bost
bonce s but it was the witches who wore belov
and offices, ed
to promise
to do wharewer hanm they coukd te the Christen coomunity, In 1587,
during the height of the witch crane, the story of pact would have made
it plain to all har the magician Faust was involved wath witehoraft. The
written pact supposedly found im Paustus’ heuse when be died granted
him tweeey-four years of freedom, at the end of whack time the Devil
woukl ccene to claire her.
Comrereed with the arrangements (for a while), Faust bids Mepli-
stopheles tako en the form of a Frascscan frar whenever Be appears,
another unsebtle bit of anti-Catholic propaganda. In respomse to Fasst's
eager queres about she nature of hell, Metal explains thar Lecter
had originally been a scrap and proceeds to treat him oo a perfectly
tradveenul account of the fall o€ the ange. Mephisto describes hell as
filthy, sulfurous, flery, stinking, and mixy—in short, scphitiomand
be on at Faastus request to bad the scholar on a tow of hell.*!
Fherifed by bell, Paustus conromplates repentance, but Mephistopheles
aswares him that Chat is eupessitde, What can I dn te escape? the scholar
asks. The spant eee hemble amd glonte God But, he adds, this
is something yor have never done. Well. then, Faust pleads. what cas f
do avec to excape? Mephesto qaashes him: it i toe Lane. To his oragircal
sin of prate and hes ceiginal folly, Paustus adds the Gal and eeforgiva-
te Sin ef despair. Hic cam muike bes escape onthe by throwing barrrsctf
the mercy of Ged; this ts whar saced Theophilus, Bet Faustus
epda
refuses: when mt comes fo the cremch, be prefers eternal cormeent and
separation from God to any hind of subeussem A great irony lies in
wait foe him, for be dees net realixe that his refasal oo suberet to God
sabjects him to a crocker bond.
After his tome of bell, Faustus’ orignnal deswe ter knowbeskge and
fe “Dee author war as coheed sheet Laoter's ceed a6 the ecdewal theobgiine ch
co calls hows a soregee ch. 6a, a cher.
6a. Dbere be reects Bockeebets wed the other (radainul Dagher chomeons ae well ao wack
ceccecel aed fare fareghed dormoms as Chacugartas. Dythy cen, Rraches. orn Anodes The
peur od hall dortncs frees the qundevel narratives of paarecys fo the ocr work
 The Reformed Devil oF

power is Gransreuted ino adolescent farcases of Dust amd dormimateon.

Here the authee drew perhaps too erthesiaically upon the popretar
legends that had sprue up around che figure of Paunt, vet the storacs do
serve the serious purpasc of show ing the degradatoon of cac who dechy-
ors hirrmelf ¢o evill—rather like Mibon’s Saran, who begins ax pinmce of
bell ard cracls ax 2 himang viper. Pagest journeys to Roenggte Scant at the
pope's palace, jam-packed (of cowee) with whores and drunkards, and
he shera bix comtempe for the pontiff try whistling in his face (powably a
berwdlericatices, given Lether’s mitcrest un other kerds of wind) the bluff
English traeslaticn simply has Pausnes striking the pope's face. Then
Paastus premcys on to Coastantinopie, where, pretending to be the
het Mubarrenad, he obtains access oe the sullan’s seraglio. He wan-
ders Furope selling his boruscupes and other mages ce cmperors,
bishops. profesor, and dradtemen. Some of bes exp are Nabelai-
sani be devours a bale of bay; he summons up Helen of Troy ana
satisfies his best with ber, bet she turns cut oe be a seccubvas,
As his rwerty-fear wears acar thee conclusion, Paestus several nines
again conromplates repentance, cach time rejecting it and cace even
ee ee ake al Ax best, as the hour draws
near, be summons his colleagues and srudents and recone: the entire
steey, warning them againet sin, Comptinon, etl companions, and the
wiles of the Devil. He scons seomcntarily to hope shat this act of piety
may earn him the mercy that Lucifer would carry eff only bis body and
spare his evel Hut reabuing that such hopes are egin, Fausras viekts to
despair, Ar madnight the students fect a great wind aria and shale the
hone; they hear a hissing meme and Fausnes soreaming for help, Then
all is olent. Next mmenimy they fred bis strangely merilewd beady
theown upen the dumghcap (one version has his head tarned frome o>
tack),
Faust transfeermes the ancient Thouphiles bogend inee a fable for the
nearly modern world, Firyt, the story sx heesocenanc, In the medieeal
tales, the consion is betucen the Devil and Chost. or the Virgin, ce
anther saint; im Theephiles, the Viepin appears aad docs the Dewil
aon try ripping up the ceetract befoee Saran can claim Bes victim, Bur
in Pause, the comsien ix betu cen Devil and man Paustus creanes bax rare
vat off at if he cane he does mor thank it
|predicarrane and munt pet himecl
an cptiom to throw himeclf epoe the mercy of Gad
Second, thix homecentrom is closely Ged 10 inv itualions. Gieen the
Preeesrant omphanis epee2 the hoes srugke of cach persce isolated in
combat with spititual powers, Farstus hus ne recourse to a community
Wepbarsepbcto
cr a commeanion of saints. He dock not even chink of confession of the
Bockarist, ind te Linheran author certainly wasted no Blessed Virgin
interveng 8 seve him.
Third, the: story is pessimetic. In the medieval Regeads, the sinner
of sin: the
repented and wie “aavok Rere-be fads cely the stark wages
individual tures away from Ged and, once having sinned, hardems his
In this there is mare than a couch of pre-
beget against repentance,
destinanon and over fatalism. ‘The story thus bocemes a source aad a
vetiick fie modem pessimism; like the heeror fins of Gar own century,
it shows the real power of evil while ignoring the power of good.
Fourth, the story hea a Proeesart and meoxdern sebbaleaoe 1
ward knowledge. Faestus’ original sin is the peideful desire to obstain
knure ledge for its <n sake and for the sake of the poweri geves.
Preeexrancran, drawing epee etedicval sornenalism and sey sticies, in-
sined thar the soul usaadedby grace cansot obtain any true Knowledge;
the aauech for knowledge for the use coc stay make of it is am lusion
and a de. This rather ironically ended bn produciag a sension between
Chitituaity on the onc hand and science and scholarstep on the other:
the moderns view, of course, m that kKnoatadge is pomarily inporam
fee its use in promoting beman comfort, secomdarily for its om sake,
aml certainly nog foe the glory of God. The diveion betwcen these two
points a Gew has deformed Western thoughe for conterics.
Fath, the character of Mephisepheles begins a transformation of the
Devil's character: he is at beast a little sympathetic with has wicters, and
of regret foe
he showy snetc stall signs of anrospectiom, inclading a Bint
his orm rebellion. The internaliation aed humareaten of Satan's
character became 2 mone thetne in the post: -Farestian Brerarere of the late
sixteenth amd seventoesth centuries.
The first great literary expression of the Frest leper? was che Doveer
Ponews of Christtgher Marlowe (1 665-1993). probably wineen mn ss
or 1689.47 Markrwe'y plot follows the Faustbook closely. The jarring
disemances between the scenes im which Markewe's subtime poetry is
heard ard those Gneranated by chowreng have bed SNS CNS OO aguC
that \Varbewe eeust hawe had a collabceator. This may be truce, but the
dissonamces of the caly reflect these of the orginalFauttook and
have, moreover, the dramatic function of cmphasiceng ironically the
degeaceation of Fawstus from a scholar theevty for kewuledge to a

St Thee beet edition ad Murbrwe’s Gace Fasone, goving beth the itiey and the 9614
nour, ce W. Giro. Ceeter Pewter rteyer tet (Defers, egpet. E cite the 0516 tex.
*
 Dhe Reemmad Deval ss

Chorwresh trickster. Fausses’ first sin & pode: in the tayzine ine he itt
ines that he can maripulare Mephisnophebes co fulfill his own kmmnode-
rate amnbetinn:

By him, Me be Empcooer of the workd,

Aad mule 2 .t the mening Aire -@
To pawe the Occunwith a tund of men
Phe jornne che Hike thar bind the Agvet dere,
Aad make that Coontry, comtimest to Spaine,
Aad beth cootntenary oo arp Creane, [69 926!

Soon Mephesto, asing flattery. false pecenives, and threats. gain the
upper halkt’ Faust begins to grasp the chormaty of the wteatoon when
Meptiiste stows hien hell, bat now be succumbs to his Last and Fatal sin,
despair. He refuses to bebeve that Christ can save him, because be
knows that repentance entails renouncing the power he has gaimed and
is eto sing too mach: “I do repent; and yet I do despair” (6.1.08). In
the cad, the Devil drags tem off shirickeng; bes limbs are toen avandder,
and bes students fied bes mutilated bexdy the following1 7
Fasotid is 2 (radieaonal Chistian play mrahang the moral statcrnont that
lust for workdly farse and gawer leuls 00 deutructicn.©) Mephestopheles
is, as Deeothy Sayers remarks, a “speritual bunatic, but like macy Iuma-
tics, he is extretnelly plausible and conning." Hut Marlowe addn psy
chetegical depth to thas traditional view of the Devil's character, Mepie-
so is mot ecatarely
evil, for he regrets his hoax of felicity, moody and
introspective, be & far from the stuped, clowning Devil of the medieval
Stage am! in wotne ways prefigures the RomanticSatan. Aware of his
fane. he deeply ecercts it:

Heil hath no limes, oe is cecum,

In ome wile place ber ubhere
we ave & hell
And a tere Dell te theme we net coor be.
Ard to be shewt, wher all che work divsedocs,
And every creatine shall be pari,
All faaces shall be bell that are eet beoweee. [r. rserl

64. Tere etme ets bree ee of Matoee's sheptmones, Ble was refecficen aod unee-
Prmbon, bet netheng tnd icance that be Gad nee toler (red and the Devil screoady, at hae ot
th tame he wrote J ecw
4 OD Sewers, “The Fewst-l qpond and dec bbe of the Diced.” Petcare
of tiv
Fagin Creshe Secmry, a & 14 depath 7.
 o”

Meptorspiole:
Where Gad is, is reality. AllLelst, Mephisto knows, is illusion, eoth:
of it” (6.3.00). The individeal
ingress: “Why this is bell nor am four
Christian isrespomible for his own fare the Deu! does aot need to
tempt Faustian eweroome by bis own peice and deare, Faustus takes the
inktiative. Mephiso ix net cren 4 cogenbuting cluse tobe rum bat
tio sn, and Mepiisto’s larer
merely a ool rhar Faestus ues to cffcet
deetiination of his seal is a deeninatice that he freely gragts, This is nec
the inedicwal scrugele beracen Christ and Sates but amodem snan's
deliberate euin of his own bite.
weeks of the pericdt.
of otherer
‘The Devil i a serious figure in a numb
teat by the end of the coanaty two contrary tomdencies bead asserted
themurlvec a revivalof the comic Deval, and» shift of the focus of evil
from the Dovilto the hua pervenality. Ben Jonson's fy Dw dren
As (1816) depicts a completely come Sates. and the horrifying plays of
Jolin Wetoter, The Whur Dysal (c. 1608) sad The Dukeo of | ic
161g), present the demonic as anving from the Raman. pessenality.
Ie the work of William Shakespeare (1665-2606) the Devil never
in his own form, though sperits often make a direct appearance.
appears
The spirsts are sometimes evil. as the witches in Mactw® (1606), some.
times poetentons and amberuous, as Ifapelet’s father (of;); scmacterecs
surninocne ax ite A Misbweves’s Nigy's Drew (1 ooc)) ard scmncterics
comic, as the false facrics of The Merry Wives of Wieder (1600), Bet the
turden of evil and terre in Shakespeare thes far bess in demonic spurits
than in demenic hurrass, humans whe have an appetite for evil foe its
oan sake Aaron in Titer Avdroniees (1403), Richard II (6594). lage in
Ondet® (1604), Macbeth and Lady Mach<th. and Goneril, Edeured, and
Regan in Aieg Lar (rtot).e
Even Shulkecpoarc’s Reroes betray traces of the demomec HManibet re

rf. Robert Groene’s cecummerst of Setar te Prner Baten and Pinar Beaguy (1 ¢a4) 6 tho
cores, Otver inf hecesial eeammenes of cvil are Harnathe Barnes’ The Cros’) Cherie (ifort)
Thrones Adame” The Alecde Del oe The Apoaey (0814), Jotin Webeace’s Jd Decals Lew
Caw (ote), aad Theme Middle) 7 Opener (feo)
44. Line The Cory Weeds of Witla Shetopeay, of. fotn Deer Wihon (Cam.
tendigs, igfek Ba the hope Stulkcepeare beldigraptry the Sdbreing efter purewularly
of evil villainy, and dhe derma
belted rowrecnts CN. Coe, fewsdlrunts The Cher
acay of Shobopvarry Villans (New Vouk. egiph LW. Coakeuse, Tie Dive! and ake Pier on
ote aes Deemece Lavrateee before Shabopeere (Nhat, pgand: G TE. Rineghe. “Mlecteth
one’ Noatere of Evil” Stebtere Jenene, 1% Cop ped, 128-962) D Prower, Mamit anf
Rrovagy, a4 od. (Stanford, gti B. Spevack. Shebepeerr oad Abe Alger of fel (New
York, regt,©. Sotemit, The Comedy af Aeul on Shatopear’? Sragr (etkerfeed. NJ.
north
 The Refereed Devil &

pots dove and comme Lear, comsuteed with self-pety, reels apaeest
the cones; Ot mdubges his jealousy we cheldits
tests of affectice:
that Dock him free pereeiving trac bowe. Locates as Fie Wierery Take
(etog), deluded by poabousy. innpuisons his wife and attcrpés to ball the
than be falsely suspects of being her bower. The great dramatist instine-
tively felt chat 06 hes age evil wikqrnore comviecing tft furan than in
spire Sore. Yet the evil we Shakespeare's characters often transcends the
bousdarics of noermal human sin and vice. Shukespeare semecd im the
haman heart a desire foe evil See evils sake, an cril tranwerding car
conscnout error and Relingy. in this respect, at least, he believed
in the
Devil
In 7itey Andromias, Aaren, the “chicf architect and pheter of these
wees” (¢.5.222), ts called “the incarnate devil” (5.1.40), and his cen
week betray 4 malice tratacending breman motivation:

©) bevw this villeiay

Drah fit we with the very theogin of it!
Let foots chy poedl. and fait meen call foe grace.
Aeron Will have bin seal Mack like hin face. [p01 207-206)

He nverders with 2 cruel jest on his lips: slaying the Nurse, be encore,
“Wheak, wheak! Se crice 2 pig prepartd to the spit” (y.3.244—147) He
boavts of hin crirees—“Hell, ke my doock be witnesx to my worth”
(¢.1.205)—and he refines to repent:

1 ame tee bale, 1, that with Base pewvers

1 Dreaded wepent the evils T hace dave,
‘Ten Qheceed woese than ever wet TE did
Wold I perfores if T rigghe have any il.
If cave eel dood on all ery like 1 ed.
1 hs wepent it [rows ery very sal. [pp
18 e<tgee cf. g.n.tzp—s40)

These are mot the words of a Faustus who oeks catifaction of his
burnan desires and ches cringes
at the peice he must pay. They are noe
even the weeds of a Mophisepbebes doing ovl im the service of Saran
bat mourreng bes lest beatitude. They are the words of Satan and bear
the marks of the same boasting hardness that Milton wookd place in the
Devil's moarh in bell The onhy hurran motivation ef Aaron's behaveor
is hie racial thackross, which be Seeks as a dotormity: be is bitter at Being
ferned Qtferenthy from be companions. Bet his rosentroeer of his
thecknoss, like Lacifce’s nesontment of being created ingenar to God, is
ay
Mepharnpdeles
the wain, inrational baucred o€ che world as #t me His resentment ts 4 mere
excuse, for there can be no sufficient cause of the motion of a free wal.
Aaron freely cheeses evil forthe sakeofenl |.
Richard [IE is aeamber ywhain beyced villainy, a character who unre
mitting malico Shakespeare mhdintsinse throwgh three plays (2 ffewry V7,
¢ Hoary VI, and Richerd Jit). Rickord's bunchback. Wee Aaron's black-
ness, is a sign and an ostensible motivation o¢ his evils
‘Then, since the heavens hive shaped ony beady se,
Let bell rake croched ney eed to anewer it,
I have no beother, | ane lite oe beother,
And this word “howe,” which greytounls call eine,
He rechdiene in meen like one aretber
Ned ect in aoe Dan cayee® alone. [5 Heery V7, §.6. 845)

Richard's disfigeremert, like Aaren’s, & excuse more than motivation;

the desire for evi for its crams sake is ingrained in bes narare. His words,
fell of despair, self-pity, inedation, and resobate malbce, are Satan. “T
yo
am determined to peeme a villsie.” he asserts coldly (Ratand 1//, 1.4,
¢.¢.190+105) Like Saran, he ix a lier and a mreederer from the begin:
sing. He sacers at virtuo and displays his evil nature with cold, sardonic
turn. Le the end be is damned by his explicit refusal to hope of to
trust:

I shall despair, There is no cowature bowers ime;

Aral if | dic. no soul will pity me:
Nay, wherefore shoukl they, dince thar f rey pelt
wo pity to nysel,
Find i myself [Avehed JI/, 5.3.200-2057"

Angelo i Mesure for Merorr (1604) ts too breenan in hrs motivabores

to be emtincky demeonnc, ver he bas sensed, ax Claudio remarks. that “our
natures do pursue, / Like rats shat ravin down their proper bame. / A
thirsty evil. and when we drink, we dic,” | am what I am; | shall be
dammcd E wish peaber mercy nor pity; | shall rerrasn myself, locked in
myactt for all eternity: this message of Shakespeare's wllains ts an old
ome, and its lines were fest written in hell,
In his bite tragedies —MMaewter, Onbelly, Leer, and Morkerb—Shake-
speare shows am increasing coacern with radical evil and with the de-
.

So. Swe alee ¢ Howry VI 4g Agro gt: Beker’ LIT t taegt, tied ae 62. cage tog,
Fa CerPe eet, Tbe Fe Ger aes.
 Ti Referwed Devil s

mone. blamlce i no demon, and tes anguish is endersnamdabbe: bes

uncle has mreederod bes father, his mother has married the mreederer: bes
old trends from Wicrenterg have been pak no Rill him. Yer omce he
opens hinnself co newenge. che Dew! cnters ead gradeally stapes hen to
hes oun purpose. Hamlet plots murder; he sends away the loving
Ophelia no madness and suicide! be dispanches the kfedly if eargslings
Polonius with a quick swoed thrust and a croct jest: he plans the ruin
and hurelanon of hes mether, who in spite of her ans ail beves him.
Ihe rejects the eppoctumry of excouning Claudius when he finds the hing
wt prayer repenting his sms, kot deith in a memert of repentance
should lead the King te salvation: Heemiect prefers te bese Gad a soul than
te bese the full caer of Bis reverse. Whee in the cad be dies, he dies
combat with Lecrtes, a decent man who o attempting to avenge hie
sister Ophelia.
‘Dike key to the pley. «hich critics and proclucers have uveally treed to
fit into the wrong door, is the alleged phot of Haeelet’s father, who
tecxing pecsence darkens the whole fina act and indeed the entire
play. For the ghost is not so much a ghost as a demon e¢ the Deval
Rartclt.* The aot mestingful way to address the question of what
the ghest really is is to ask whut Shakespeare imended bem to be and
what function Be fulfills im the play. Clearly, Shakespeare's primary
mirent is Chat thephos sheald appear ani bigueus 00 the audience, to the
charecters. and especially to Hamiet. From the moment they soc the
at the very curtset of the ploy. the characters are uroure utiat oo
make of him. Is he # ghost, ce & he a demon? Shikespeare fully
mended the ambeguary to remain.
Whether the sepposed ghost is really a demon depends firt epce
whether the play is pages of Chinstian es Mayor, Marcellus pats the
appanmen mato a clearly Chrntun context (1.1.14><264), dncusing the
season of Advent, whech is so full of grace thar eo evil spérit clire walk
abooad: but bhoratio prets i mto a pagan comfent (t.1.012<024), teferring
be the ghostsof classcal Roman tradition. As the play can be cud exher
in tennes of Gareck tragedy and faral Maw oe in terns of Clinstian sin and
guntr, this mena! ambegumy coast renmen. To the extent that we follow
Marcellus’ Clinstun centest-and the edecanon aad asumpeions of
OA 1 Sad tedepemrealy nheneifed che pheet with the Dhsdl beter temheg Presses
Ahewket end Rewer weal wan chchgbend ty fied cofereten of oy ove views wath
addrmeul Gods Ver appears here a confirsen of coy eee ane Mrowr's evederee.
Feea Weartend chewcrgaine of epatts showed comtevepemary sith Shukiewpeese. sce Reber
Rertom (17 1 6qod, Antero Mrlentole, pe. o.s. mcm ©, sabecct. 3.
 a

“ Aepbanaptekes

Shakespeare's audicace and o¢ Shakespeare hisesclf remained bascally

Christian—we need to weigh ghost agains, demon in Chirstmas termes.
Much labor has been loot in discussieg the distincgom: between Catho-
lic and Protestant demgeology. some critics claiming thar Hamict’s
ghost is Catholic became Catholts belicwcd in pecganery while Protos-
teers rejected in. It is troe that the ghoot ansounces that be has come
from yrecmatery—thowgh in scarcely orthethe term—but Che maim
problem with the argument is that there was no symijcant differeace
berween Catholic and Protestant seaching on ghosts. The church fathers
bad carly decided that ghosts did aot cost and that any appantion of a
dead porsen euust be a demon cr the Devil himself pasting en human
fem. Seperstition about ghosts continacd. and ghost storers persimeci
im Chinsnan Europe into Shakespeare's timec, but ghosts were newer a
coherent part o¢ Chistian theology, Naturally, Shakespeare's aadiences
were not on the « hele theelogically sophisticated, bet ment wouk! have
known the geesumiptics that am apparition was a dermon rather thas a
nt.
The characters therisclyves react with the same peesemption,; they are
much more inckmead to believe the specter to be a deme. Heeatio
wddresses it first:
Wht eet thoes that usurpet this tore of rogtrt,
Together with that fair ard warkke form
be wheck the mujeaty of burned Denerars
Did seenctirecs march? by heaven T charge thee, speak! [1.1 94-29

Abe your father” (6.2, 199, and

I becatio reports it to Harrietas “a figure
tedore he sees it hirneclf, Haelct is unsure and sespicious “If it aswarne
my noble father's person, / IE speak to it though bell itself should gape”
(e.2.24g0a45) When he aces it, be is bedd to address i, but his mind is
by ne meeuns settied,
He thes a spat of beakh or a petein der,
eng with thee ars fromm beaven or blevte from bell,
Be thy ietents withedon chansatie,
Thera comet in sech « cpeesneraliec shape
00 ee.
That I wal speek [14 4-44!

Aad immediately Harmilet mulkes his decision, a fecal ane: “EM call thee
Hamer, king, father, royal Dane” (1.4.49943). Lhoeatio is torntind and
wams the prince: what if it.should take you 09 the curmmir of the
 The Refornead Decil mu

battlements ard Chore “asurne scene other hoentdc foem” that will drive
you mead? (1.4.72), Bat Hambket bas meade bes fatal act of faith in the
thing, a tragically mistaken act of discernment that uill ked him to
rum. He cortinses to harbor doulee

° -
‘The spore chat I hare secon .
May be a Geeil, and the devil hath perawr
‘Tavares a phrasing shape, pra, on perhaps
(het of aie wealkeessand rey ealanctedy,
As be is Very potent with oach spents,
bees me to cheetet te, [ep Aereteol

Ile proceeds to plan the play te “cach the conscience of the king” amd
learns thar the giver has spoken onve and thar his unche really e his
trther's murderer. What Be tail co recall is that the Dew Knows very
well how to speak the truth in ceder to gan the destracnion of souls, amd
here the Deval ts hungry for Qaudies’ and Gertnede’s sols as well as
Hamlet's.
‘The function of the phost’s ambivalence is char. ble must te am
bivalent choegh co fool che audience because he must be ambivalent
eaoegh to fool Liamlet. Were the ghost clearly xfennfiebte as Saran oo
the wadience and the other characters. Hamlet's uncertaiery aad his
failere in discomment would be unconvingwng and easyepatheric. ‘Dre
Devil Dus get to be comvuncing cough as ghost to decewe fener amd,
ty the way. to meake the potot that he may decerre ceery human being,
excluding the wadicnce, as well,
: res Gest sarent, then, was to mantaw the pherc’s am:
tevalesce. His scoomd intent was to ave us understand that the ghest
really is the Devid o that we may be moved bw Damiet’s tonritte
testake and so that wc may eaderstend its consequences Shakespeare
knew that the audience's presumpoon woeld be thar the ghost is really a
Geman: he alse offers clear indioations thar the presumption is correct.
The cheng appears ac modnight i a desermed, proopitows, and dangerous
place. Whee Iforatee uses the name of Reaves So charge « to speak, it
ifenedunely sulks away. When it appears the scoond ome, it disap
pears at cockcnew (1.6.19) and Haruno desoribes its reaction to rhe
herald of dawn: “Ie started hhe a guilty sheng / Upon a Geartel so
oes” (1.1 0 gS ngo. ef. b.2.210 6288) Its coumenance & troebled and
“very pale” (12.235) Marcellus’ speech (1.1. eg peatg) bakes foto ove
sperits who canon walk by day oe in the bole auson of Adverse. The
 a

7 Wpbecepécin
IPPANeien anounces that wt wxfreen preegatery, Lat on mo account would
one expect the Dovil ro cell the truth when doing so aso his disadvan
tage. Like Ivan Karansaane’s Satan centunes later, fhe Devil derecs his
cxiwence fee his own prcpeses. That the ghost is fying is clear frorn its
statement that the ceetures of punpatccy are more hornble than it can
deycrite, a view that fits ao Chistian tradinon of the sate of purges
wrels (6.5.9-28) The ghont is cevieus, jealous, conceived, and arrogant,
and its description of the crimes of Clradius and Gerprude full of
coarseness and fury (e.¢,.42-91). It speaks no word of lowe eo Hambet;
that the dead king's only advice te his son i to press for revenge ts the
clearest evidence of decent, for a seul in pungatary is 2 youl that is saved
and focused on the love of God, on ao accoure could wach a seal demand
revenge. “Ty erake the point almost cradcly clear to the awdience, Shrake-
speare has the ghost speak co Hambet and Horatie fron beneath the
stage, the place where demons dwell, He bicls them swearte= borane
secrecy and Hamiet revenge. No saved soe! would ever demand such
oaths, or iedood any cathe at all. The ghost keeps shotting ws postion
under the stage (the Devil is the mont notorious
o€ shifters), aad Mamie
yests oddly in calling it a mole and a “pooner” digging tunnels in the
earth (1.5. tote 80), Shakespeare does everything bat tell us directly
chat the ghost is che Devil: be dows not sell us dieectly because he wants
@ to share the doula and so understand Haredct’s own difficulty in
making an accurate act of discemmerrs.
Discermment a the key. The center of any act of discernment ix boned
upon the knowledge that a pond cree bears pocad fruit and an oval tree
evil Gruit. If the fro be eva, the cree cannot be goed. Bamber showld
have been alde oo tell that a spant who speaks grossly aad demands
revenge is ret fecets Ged bet the Devil. Yet he conchades, with damna-
ble weakness, that “St is an heeest ghost” (94.138). We are prepared for
Harmket to make just wack 2s crror, for Ms soliloquy m Act i, Scene 2
has revealed that be was already obsessedby nage at bes mother and
unche and that hix aed was open bo ready deception by an cul spin.
Naterally, the Devil dingreises hireself under a fee fom and offers as
rags and tatters of gociness so that we will fot sce the (rue shape
beneath, The ghost cautions Hamlet. with apguremt compassion,
“Taint son thy mind, noe ket thy soul contrive / Against thy mother
wage” (4.5. 86-87), But thes comes after the ghost has already tainted
I tamlet's mind with graphic pictures of best and murder, aad the sotice
that I harslee cold bill be: eacle without contriviag anything agaist his
wacle's wife #& parers abwardity. Hamict’s own hatrod lon opened the
 Tide Refereed Doi ae

dace of bis sul to evil, and the Deal freely enters. It i under the
Devil's guidance, then, that Hantlet proceedts with Is vengeful acherne.
Iecrcavegly cold and crucl, be destroys Ophelia, Lacetes, and Pobonies
as well a the guilty Clredius and Gertrude. [ts true that Haslet ahs
pandom of Leertes and in that may lic some hope for his teerpented seal,
bet the hope of Donenark Gand tht geotoos Dennrath repweserits) lies tt
in Hamlet's plots bot in the advent of a new Ring who can dispel the
dark shadow of the cfd king breeding on the batthements. Again, dis-
cerrencnt & the key. For if we can umicrstend Hamlet's cvil cleece to
accept the apparition as bax Gather’s gheot. we are also mm a position bo
kenore better char Harriet, foe we know wliat the alienate results of that
chetce are, Hamlet and Horatee are to some degree entithed to doubts.
but the audience is mot. The coarse
of action that the specter urged ied
to death, destruction, and the ruin of inmocents. The specter war not
the ghest of Kieg Harlct ce of any breman being.
In Otel. Shakespeare's engagement with exil deepens Lago is om the
borderiine bemween the heman and the diatolical. Ho has the semblance
of human coonve in his envy of Cassie, ahem Othelle bas appcented
beutenam sastead of him (1.9.8), and he leer claire, theagh without
conviction, thar Othello has cuckelded him and chet in retahanon he
busts for Desdemona hireelf (1.3. 28f¢ 2.1, 28o°3656)0" Thea motives
are ranoradzanons for a deep and deimerested becred, Even the fierst
tietive is caly, like Aaron's blackness and Richard's deformity, an ex-
case tasking Lage's free choece of absolere ev. In Oshels, of course,
Shakespeare inverts the colors and males bis villain where amd his here
tiack. Ironically. lage resers co Ovbello as a devil (1.002), Sut beer it
becomes char which of the two ts from bell Othello, having ar last
discovered bezo's treachery, tries 09 boll hire. “f book dowrn at hic feer,”
says Orbello, expecting cloven hoowes, “Bar char’s a fatto, If char thee
be'st a devil, Pcanmot boll thee.” Aad bago replies. “I bleed ar, bot roe
balled” (4.2. 288-2901.
lago’s destrection of Othello, Desdemona, Canto, Roxderigo, and
Emilia, with the hare he doosto the Venetian state, draws
not one sigh
of treman remorse from barn, He i anplecatte:
I have'’s. It is engendercd bell ancl maghe
Mest Bring chix meeuatroas beth to the woekl’s igte.

( Dwoheroea'’ name soerne te derive, appeopeiunty, froes te Crock aulenener:

“Urred of spent”
 ~

“ Afeperypbetes
* Divinity
of bell!
Wloevs eles ths Gill the BMackowt crn pat oc,
They che saggest at first with beawenty chow,
Asl done... . ‘
Se vill I tere her pintue inte pétch
And on of her own grecitew take the ret
‘That shall enmech there all. [1-1 gog-dog; t.5.s4s— sah cee ces]

In Act 3, Othello and Lago kneel cogether im an odd nie in wheck

Othello vous vengeance against Dexberona, while Lago in revurn offers
his services of “wit, bards, and heart.” The scene represents a kind of
puct, with Ochellio as Faust ard Lago ax Mephisto. Et is alvo an exchange
of vows in hikeds parody of the marrage vows that fhe tuo have
determined to destroy (}.3.¢62e981). Lago is mare hardened mm eva
than Mephistopheles, and bes fuedamental crimes are those of Lecter
himself: pridic, treason to his lord. sempeation of the innocent, beck of
repentance, ard wberce all the he. “My Sond.” be assures Othello, “you
know E howe you™ (5.3. 880).
The evil of Bdeeund, Goeeril, and Regan in Lear ot oot bess o less
gratuitous, Edmund's cocene is his illegitimacy. Because he is a bastard.
he deceives his farber, (Hloucester, into belicving hie brother Ecigur a
traitor. Edgar is driven int banishment; Gloucester, his eyes dug out
by Comwall. is sont oo wander the carth Blind.’! Eebruund plots agpainat
his own allies, socks oo axduce Regan, and tries ce lure Ceenend
freer ber
husband, Albany. Dastardy cannot account for such Bberality of eval, a
transcendent evil thrusts its way throagh the chee merebeane of excess,
Edeeund excheens:

A crodubres Gither! ard a brother bie

Wiese nature tx so far froes deeng bartre
‘That he auypects mone, oc: whose foolinh hearty
My practices ride can’ | ace the Leaencss.
Let com, if not try berth, hawe lands
by wat:
All with eee’s pect that I cam fashion fit. (1.2. 08%7-ng2]

so Bary gretcted te Predeweee Michael (7 Ccewel fer coggeting the egeeicance ef the
sim
be ve
pt, Wher Exipar wanders alee deegerad as mead “Tome,” be recies the nannes of
Gemear—Phbberngibict, Hoebivtedonce. Mahe. Mexico, Obadbcut, and Serafin —de-
rived freee euoncemsby the Josest Wyliaes Wertee tm 1g 8e~ 6088 UL 9 4 40k Shake
speare kerned thes froes Samwactl Haeresctt > UvGretee of Aerepee Piped Impeeterer (Low
cee, itealh I chased Preécwwe Ci Uomacll for chen incorraation, too
 The Kifer Dew oy

Edmund's betrayal of his father and brother meerors the tao queens’
betrayal of their father aed siver. and they lack even Edovend’s mei:
vanen, Goreril’s bastand Albany is aot deceived as to whar he has ina
wife:

ca Swe thrywclf, dewily

deforrnity shards met in the Gerad
So 0) were. .
Bhrwe'cr thes att a fread,
A worurss supe doth shack! thee

‘To which Goneril replies with the sneer that evil reserves for the goed:
“Murry, your manhecd! mew!” (¢.2,60-65).
Macher’ os set ina dark, misy world of evil and illesion, and some of
ay Laird Willieeven's in 198 5—
the mest successful procections—aach
surroend ce inpenpenetrate the actices with lurking demscenc spurts urg-
ing fun. The sepeneaceral shrouds the play from the begining: the
thece witches are the first characters om the stage, and the demic
dominates
the whole play, Macbeth hemsclf is mo dermon, aad bre
mntives arc human, A weak man, be ix artetooes and doeinated try an
anflinchingly ambicious wile, whose own villainy, despair, amd rene
(<. p=) are dramatically oabcedimare to ber husband’. Lady Mactxth,
the witches, and the demonic all blend into a pétilows Mod uf trarseen-
deat eval thar owereheless Duncan, Lady Mocduff and ber chiktren,
and the whole wretched realm, Is is am evil focal that swoops Macheth
along to his doc. Like Paustos, Macheth ix caught up ty bes munal
pride and amtktion. once ¢ by sm be cannce cheengage; he tries
incffectively to check ham and to repent, but he t unpod back to his
erme by Lady Macheth, as Paustos ts tre Mephestoptiebes (¢. 5. 22-25)
Macheth’s final in, lke thar of Paestus, despair ax
a bik first was pride
(§.9.22-28) The grey “Tomerrow and comerrow” spook’ (¢.9.19-25)
is the perfext expression of char dull, uncaring devposr and acne of
cxwness Which ts the state of mind to which Satan macat likes to
bring us. The world that God the poor has comstreceed ts, for Macheth
and Satan alite, “A tale told by an adice, full of scand and fury, /
Segpeifying sotheng” (6.4. 19-28)
fe the end, a certain heroke prandoer rests on Macbeth ax be stands
dloee, abandoned. in his reined castle, deverted tre his comrticrs and
wartiors, betrayed by the witches. and Bented try hix mortal ceemy. “I
will net yield,” be tells Macded, and cur hearts rive to his courage. But
 os

Meptosepéeto
thas is toot becrumim; it is the desperane defiance of a ruined woul. “Lay ces,
Macdeff, ¢ Amd damnod be hem thar first cries, “Hold, caoegh'”
(5,8. 32—-34) “The irony of these, Macbeth’s bast lines, is chat they are the
perfect inversion of the truth: Macketh i damnod Precisely because be
sever does ory, “Told -cheagh.”™ Like Faustes and Bye Milton's Satan.
Macbeth has made evil so mach a part of hic nature that he cannet pat
an end to without ending hinself. Blo has becemne simpy an exterean
of that transcendent evil. The Williamson production of Meclvsb ended
with the muirper's severed head facing for all cvernity the head of Satan
displayed by the witches. The miasma of darkness, evil, and unresity
thar shrouds Scotland. like that which shevwds Hamlet's Dewenark. ts
burned away by the advent of a new hing.

The stetcenth century, begining with Lether and ending with

. . witnessed a great change in the comeope of the Devil and
eval. Shakespeare's villains allow transcendent evil to work im them,
scenctimes to overwhelm Chom. but they are sot demons themuchves,
The theater in whic’ goed struggles against esi is no longer
the halls of
heaven oe the pit of hell: it is the hur heart. Aad mot so mrect the
heart o€ the Christian community a the heart of the individeal standing
alone with bis God—and his Satan. The nec of bourgents, compennve
sockty cncoeraged the individealiem of Protestant theology and of her:
metic magic, Relief in wiechorafe and belief in the Devil remenned sorong
im Shakespeareday. 's bur the work! view that underlay wack beliefs had
tees shaken. Over subsequent centuries, that world view would sot
fall, but « would gradvally subside. That Satan's evil would be inter-
ralced and becated in the treman heart may be appropriate, for we can
know nothing of Satan in hemeself, and all that we say about the Devil
we say out of the experience of our oun hearts, Shakespeare meade bes
villaitrs in the itnage of Satan. but Satan bad orginally been mace wn the
imeage of human villeas. For more than a milleeeium evil had been
propcted upon an angele power, dow sil was refracted back upen
hemanity. Yet the teanscoadent power of evil, which Shakespeare unr
dentocd so directly and intuitively. remains.
3 The Devil between
Two Worlds o

‘The conflict betwees the traditional Christian world yew and a ea

cetal phileseptiy bused on murtcrulom continent in the sevemtocark
century and cxded wath the victory of muarcnalism. This vaccory wis
eather sedden nor complete. Althoegh the erosion of the traditional,
seholastke world view was apparent oo the inmellcotual leaders of the
England of Cartes IL (1660-0635) and the France of Loais ALV (64)=
p64), another two comterics clapsod before it was péain go all. Sull, the
latent shepGcom aboet the Deva that only a few hardy soals dared
express mt i400 had by too become part of that treasary of enspoken
Cofhmbatceine asuinphors which any society Bokls rightly of weongty)
ata green time. The decline of the Devil and hell was brought about by
a mamber of deeclopments. excluding the noe of science alter 1660,
with the eclignes wars of 26181643 on the Costment aad
16g0- 1660 in Eeglend. and a longing for a calm, ranonal view of the
costion, be Protestuntises. bebet in predesninance dheninshed in favee of
a tecad, tolerant. surey Armenianom im which the eeajeste God of
Luther and Calvin was replaced by a vaguely benevolent and remote
dony.
One of the eeest ieepoetant reasons for the deckne of Satan was the
dcchne of the wach craze. Winchcralt took a steep dow ture im the mad-
scvermicemh cemtuty, a: people weaned of being terrified —ternted of
the threatening personce of hestile sperms, and certified of presceution.
Suspicion of and prosocenon fee witchcraft had become so wilespread
if Some afeas as fo toech eves the powering cles. When the cite
theriselves began to be threatened. they wilkagty lent thar mflucnce to
the peocess of educating the popelace in the new orthxboxy of shop
 AN

ticismn. Onee this occurred, the Meurctical angumecars against belief mm

witchorafe began to prosper, Protestants, who had been show to exnend
their enmosm of medieral religion to witchcraft, belatedly realized that
there was no sonptural basis for belief in diabolical Secery. Theologians
also begaes to fear that thé figaee of the Devil had beoerne so prominent
as to create the danger of making him soem practically independent of
God! Regieald Som, whose Donoeie of Wircdora? (6584) was many
times reprinted in the seventeenth century, argued vehemently against
the excesses of demonclogy represented by witchcraft Scot was no
positivist or soxmndic marenalist; be wrote in the contest of the old
wold view and himself believed in Saran. Bet, he olnierved, many of
the tellical references to demons are figures of speech, and Obristianty
nevther requires nor shoukd roberace che superstitios that we are coe
varrtly under attack by esil spinks. Another veew, increasingly commen
ameng both Protestants and Cathotics by the end of the contury, was
that although the realty of demonic pessessices at the tiene of Christ was
comfiermed by the New Testament, sothing a the Bible obfiges us to
beliwwe that any poseowsiors have taken place simce the sposnolic poncd
This moderate skepticiers was at fint overwhelmed by impasssoned
defenses of witch beliefs such as thaw of King James VI of Scotland,
Dacewmdanie (io97) and Matthew Hopkins, Daworerie of Witokes (1647),
the Lanter a selfserving docurmmer cocking to pestify the author's calleeg
at a professsonal winchfinder, Later in che comtury, learned and reasom-
ate defenses of wiech belles cominaad to appear, such ax Joseph Glan-
vill's Same Phiteupdrcn! Comddererions Toactag Wircter ond Witchcraft
(1466) sud his revised and expanded Satteciomer sriampharar (161).
Glanvll, an open-minded ltitudinwun whe beloved m the com-
putitéity of science and religion. questioned all binds of degmansan—
inchaling that of the rationalis—and cop<eed the materialet reduc
tictier of Theenas Hotties. Glarvill thevefore refused to dmiss bebet
in the Devil and pleaded for open-minded investigation of reports of
demons The Trratne Prowing Spirits, Witelvs, avd Sapernatanal Operanienr
(i672) «€ Meric Caaubon appeoved the rise of empinosm bar cauticeed
lest science crud by sighting spéritual matters, aad « called upon em-
pirical, historical evidence to defend belief in nonmaterad entitics.
Ewermually, however, skhopescain prevailed. Jobe: Webster's Doeypaay
of Swppeerd Witeberafi (i677) took a thoroughly skepescal penition, and in
(691 Balthasar Bekker, a Dutch pastor, pullishod Le fetecerte were,

1 KM. Betyg, Pt Mee’) Tree (Lenton, ryta), pigs

 | ‘ sé ' evvills Setdecpere resets iff i) Waa Onbe tthe lew a bedarfs

Oe termees of Levee? es weeche rable [he freepememce dbaetreses a oarsber of wrardurd

 sn

te Mephicropbeles
“The Enchanted World,” which affirmed that all beliefs about the Devil
and evil angels are dened from paganiun, fron false interpectations of
the Bate influenced by Manichears, from perverted Catholic tradition,
and feces Protestant failure to discard these parent falychoods Bekher
did much to weakes the enchanted ypeld, and the final bkvas to the
intellectual defense of witchcraft were dealt by Francis Ibucchinson's
Fiecorice! Exay comceraiey Witcheref? in 1918, by whoch time be was
preaching to an aadicnce already Largely converted. e
In the 1650s and 16706 the motion that demces might be nothing more
than sytbots of heman evil began to spread. By t p00 the belief that
Ciod aad the Devil are always besy mm the affairs of this weeld bed
yielded 0 the cowection that their intervention is rare. Increasing re-
ligicas shopticism was capped by philosophical. rationalist shepeician of
the kind represented by Hobbes, René Descartes, and John Locke, who
chserved that the exstence of incorpeecal spanits cannot be demon
strained, Cannce be, that &, in a workd view usmg thear axuumprions: the
new matcrivlers were as dogrmertic ax the oid idealiots in thei inisntesce
thar their oun wademonstratle aeamnpeiorns were the only correct ames.
Perhapes the cheef fault of the new shopticismn was that it was mot shop
Heal chough: it did net face the procaricauness of ite crown peemivcs
The growing shepeicom encountered two kinds of resistance, Onc
wack simply the Geece of momentume people de net quickly change their
beliefs. “This was trec in bw as well as in theology, and Rotert Man-
drew has deserited the comidenie commge it 008% for judges to adeur
that the vant and complex badly of precedent gathered by thew forebears
in the maticr of witcheraft was all woethless? The sooond was a cone
scicess and comeerted ceaction on the part of craditiceal Chricnans 00 a
view that they (correctly) saw as undermining the buses of their faith.
An Engish Pontan, Richard Greenhasn, anticipated Baadelaires fa
mores epigram tre declaring that “st m a policy of the Devil to persuade
ws that there ix no Devil.” * The ponsien of those writers
demosology and witchera® was nota tioaere sige of excutal instability:
mwas a reawmable lif misplaced) defense of the traditional weeld view,
for they saw that a doctrine cqoesnioming the existence of parcly spiritual
could. and weald, mowe from shopeicem about the existence of
the Devil to skepticism ateut the exisence of God tense,
Seventecath-century skeptics as a whole did nce urge a move from
Clwistankty to athenm oe eves oo mechanisti: Deron, Rather, they

2. R Mewlews, Magervew ot mevagy ce Pee oe TH etl (Park, ogtet

5. Cheewod om K. Tisoenan, Petyeee cond she dlvter
of Mage (New Yor®. cytelh pam
 Ti Deod keroore Toro Werldéd ft

an m@nermediace stage characterized by a deferne of Chris-

Hanity ca raticeal metaptyysical times, The Jesuits, carefully separating
the supemartural free the sanural order, defended the use of both sci-
cre and metaphysics. cach in its proper sphere, The principlics of
Ceatfircd Wilkelm Leites (ifgte 1716) were still exoomrally meta-
physical and scholastx. Knowtedpe. Leiteds argued, wag based on ra-
ural reason; revelation provides keow ledge bewond the reaches of natu-
ral reason, ber that revelation must then be subpccted no reasce, The
difference betwoer the mew rationalists and the medieval schedastics was
that the Soemer vhefted the weight of ther faith far reare toward reason
thar revelation, to the extent thar the Chistian scheme of salvation
gradually receded ite the heckgrownd. Some of the ratienalins went
much further, denying the epistermdogial independence of Chirenan
thookegy ama atterspting Go interpret Chetonaeity in terms of a narural
reason taxed upon etatcrialist assemnprions. ‘Three logical srages (which
escrlapped chronologically) occurred i this process. First, Clhiesnan
theology is aurea! to explain all phenommene second, theology and
merce corset bet cach & assagned ms oun feale third, seme&
auureed to explain all phenemers, and metaphysics is canwely rejected,
The gradual grerath of muterialion m lace severecemh century and
egineenth-century thoeght continecd into the ainetcenth and teen:
tieth centuries, eventually createeg a climate that has repedited pile
wpbical idealien.
Philencphical adcalives is the belief that the forms of ae entity= :
a cart, or a king—is an indepeadent, abstract realy. whoch individeal
dogs, carts, of binge reflect. ‘Traditicaally, an eseny could be analyzed
in two different ways: according to its Sore: ce accceding to its maternal
composition. Onc could analyre the qualities of a Gog that make it
esentially a dog rather thors another Kind of canes this is metapeyy secs.
Or one could analyre the material components of the canty: this is
piesics, or “natural phelowophy” i general. As Western society booarne
increasingly concerned with coonemc development, it began se do
mand 2 coberent, unifying, universal sciesce thar could peadoce Ung
ble, technedagical results. And found metaphyecs wanting. If “deg”
is completely Gifterent fron and cucntially unrelated to “car” of
“king” or even “cat,” no unified science could be constructed to eres
them all, This docs aot mean that eeetaphyses cannot be a valad disco
pling peenting toward truth, but it docs mean that it cannot be a predko:
tree, qqannfable science preducmg the techincal results that madern
Western wociety derromads.
On the other hand, since from the seventcenth to the carly cwenneth
 Mopeesotén’s

century matter was believed to bt the enderlying base of reality and the
comenan basis of all creatures, then matter oveld be the subject of a
common schonce based apen general, ccenmen pomcples. The increae-
ing preenge of natural scence thar resulted frome Bs technical achieve-
ments gradually drew che attcanon of ratiomal philsephers away from
mectapliy sacs amd Goward pliysies..
‘The first important philksopher of the sew raticaalism was Francis
Bacom (1661-2626), whowe book Cr Asbetiet (1612; second edition, 1624)
was a dry, tolerance view of religion; it muaimtamed that on the coe hand
so trot atheian can east because of the manifest existence of God, bret
on the chor hand solerance is necessary because the claims of mo one
rehgaon can be demonstrated. [Bacon's nection of the “dos of the mar-
hetplace™ followed monunalist oraditiom in assceting thar many general
words, such as “Dev” wore adodson chet they did not correspond to
anythng external to the heetan mind*
The ceomt meffuential phiawpher of the contery was the auxderate
ratonalia Rent Descartes (2496-16 (0). Descartes set forth bes basic
prncipbes in his Dicsaneoe Method (2657) and Meditetsos aw Fant Piviec-
fey (ige), We make no initial awurption: abot the world at all, be
said, wo begin by booking for fest principles, which by intuitics we find
inmare within us, That Gioxd exists is otreieas theoagh the catokegical
angurmenn: the kee of a perfect emgis watie us oach an Khea coukd nee
crane from our minds, «hich are otsvcesly inpertect, but enly trom
a perfect being itself. whet is God, We€ proceed be cgptiore the cosines
fatkeally, questioning at every step. We cookie 5 accept our sense
percepemons because they give us ve and distinet xieas and because
Ged wouk! sot mitiead us by giving us senses that do mot Comvey tree
perceptieds. Sull, Descartes adincnished. grave poosiality of error om
ters whenever we acecpt any adca Chat is fot cheer and distinct.
Bacon trad advanced the cree of the empinca micthxd, but cm-
pincom necied a plolcsophical framework 66 seccond. and Descartes
provaded that framework. He Sound its basis in Rechicun gocenctry: the
universe ix gooretncally cumstructed as an infinite Euclidean space
wrbout beuncdaricy, Axwurting that the Lows governing the bchaveor of
bedics within this space arc strictly reathematical, material, eniform,
and unchangeg, the mathematical structure of the urmverse peowades2

& P. Bascoes, Mecwer cnpewey Cl cee, et ret. epteriene ap. tgede. Thewnss Hotties
(1 (88-eS7¢) aqgucd corn more feecetally chase Bocuse for mancrishars aad reigucex chep-
tecree we Dees Lerowethen Ul sewhen, oye!
.
 Thy Drow berewre Tove Works 4a}

bass for corte schntific knowledge As it eerned cot, Descartes was

ngte in his ascurmpelons though wrong im bis mathematics, and when
Neuron produced his ean Prieaew, the base for a coherent scientific
view of the workd was estatéisted.
Descartes held vo Chinenanity, but he aectutely separated the mare
nal universe from the spineual weekl. boxing the act of greation as the
ealy juncture between them. In the beginning of time, according to thes
view. Gad created the unteverse with uns natural liws and Choe withdrew
1 albew # fo function eeechanically. In ao coker way does God influ
cove the material world. We keow theexisemce of the spéritual world
by revelation, whach Gad escs to supplement our saterul undarstand-
ing. On the basis of revelatios we may accept the mcarnaticn of Christ
é¢ the eontence of angels c¢ the Devil, bret we terest fot accond them any
inflecnce =: the world of nature, Descartes’s ccomelegy, breaking any
fea! comeettion between thes weld aad Cioxds, act the precedent foe
future Detan and atherun, which woedd gain strength once the view
that space i infeitc wax wepplementad by the view that time & infirete
as well,
As rolgaous tenets came mercaseigh: under the eye of skeptical rea-
son, Christian food therroclvcs obliged, in rexparne to critics, to con-
freat openly the mow diffscult question for believers: the peoblem of
cov. Descartes hirmet!f attempted to comtruct a raticeal thoxdicy to deal
with the questics. In his “Fourth Moditateon.” be began be asking
whether the cxitteace of God is comorcent with certain olmervalte phe-
necnena wach ax sin, natural disavters, aed hurros crree. Ax a phelon-
pher, be chose to dwell upon the protdem of erree. Why weald Ged
create bem capable of intellccteaad error? He divided the question mito
four section how ie the pensildity of crror coesmtent with the exis-
tence of Grd; how is the actuality of cvil comestent wath bes caistence;
what in burro mature alkeas fee the peosbelity of creor: whut a beenan
nature allires See the actuality of error? His atsucr im a variant of whet
has come to be called the Free Will Defense: crree i oor fault, aot
Gal's, becauwe we extend cur will beyond the range where we hore
clear and distinct adeas. Yet Descartes sensed that God cveld borve given
us char aud divtmct afcas to the estent that we ceatd not take errces,
even though we hed the free wall to do wo. Se why did Gal creaic os
wah litretations co our knowledpe? Descartes’s amour is 2 varunt of
what tox been called the Exthetic Defernc, osentiually a demonstration
of the metaphysical mecewety of “evil” in the setec of imperfection Gel
could not create a perfcet cones without creating something alentical
Mepdreveptete
with hieeself; wach a creation woh! only be ae affiernation
of Gals own
kdemtity ami net 2 real, Géfcreetited cowmes, any real costes is rot
kkermikal co dead and thus is of necessity imperfect, containing meta
physical ieeperfections Further, in creating something different fice
hireself. it seers thar Good wishes
oo create a phenetiode: that is, a comenes
full of things didfering from Gedde Wifforent degrees. It follows that
wane Cleatures—hemans, for cxampde—vill have limited intellect aud
wall Leck a perfect oocaternice of will and haow leckge. Hence, error amd,
by anakgy, other cuils are necemary,*
Raticesalists and lateudinariaes wach ax Thomas Browne (1605~1682),
John Leche (1632-8704) Baruch de Spéncxa (1632-1677). Nichotes
Mabebeanche (06281785), and John Toland (e6p068722) proposed that
reliziom and morality are property chtamed not by revelamoen Gar by
reason based on experience; the proper stance of rebyion, therefore, »
opomeaundodecss aad sespemice of bekef. Christianity © to be sub-
jetted to rateonal analysn, and aeything not comunant with rcasen ix to
be rejectod, certainly mcluding the eximence <¢é the Deval.
Effurts 6) reconcile these rationalist views with Christianity ucre
made bry wach deeply relgious scientnts as Blane Pascal (1693-1662)
amd baac Newton (14427-8727), but Newsen’s svsrem ended try under:
mining metaphyyics even more thoroughly than Locke's had done, for
he replaced logic as the basis of know with emmperboal ofservanon.
As the ompincal science thar Newson dit so much co csrablish grew in
influence, lithe use was foemd for any sarement thar could not be
empincally venfioad. te such a system the Devil was doomed. It is ao
wonder thar Phere Bayle (16490706) concluded after doce persorcal
and wteilertwal struggle that the problem of evil wax an inwbeble,
moomprehensitde mystery, an abew, an unplumbatle dopeh+
The mast vigerous effort 0 construct a rational theodicy im this
peried appears an the closely related work of Leibnix and Willan Ring
(16{o~1920) Both King’s De orgine smal (2702) and Lotbniz’s Thyodicy
(16g7<1 504), written partly in response 6 Hayk, eajoyed wide influ-
ence, the very weed “theedicy” was commad ly Leileex.” Leibrax re-

«. RB. Descartes, Abdeaeen & pre tar, oc Gs. Lowte (Paris,

rgpel See alee
Hh Cabvewt, “Dhecuimes ated chee Preteens of Bivil” Comadian freer! of Pies. © (igor
titer
& J. V jowwen. Pree Bayt oo [obese fe mel Paris, eyyt) OMe Gee seorrteerth
Cendery
of pemeral. see F Balbecsach, (a Pevtlew dev dhol on der Pike dy Apomtiemae,
26 od. 5 vods. (Veena, 0os2-ergt.
chp. vol. 2 oe the copioabere.
Se eR es
 the Deel Nowe Tew Wark w

veryed the uesal direction of reascaing ateut thoadioy, Most thinkers

begae with the observed existence of evil in the woekd and argued on
that basis that there must be limitamonson the divine merey of Cemmetipe-
tenee. Leiter bozan at the oppasine cmd. aith the extbtence «f Gad,
whach be belt to be selfevatont. Lemeie ashod why anytheng shouki
cent, There are two logical posetlities: that nothing qosts aed that
scenething exists, Why should anything at all exist? It is aceeazinng that it
does, The apparcit tautology “wher is, is” in fact makes the mest
essence! of all meuphesical poinms the aboolune, NACUAne pee tuture
of what es. Deing ts alecobene, Lobiie sew that once Us point is reallly
grasped. the catohegecal aqgummeet is Compelling. Aloclutc bang is aly
solute being. God « Ged.
An abeolere being from which everyeheng comes and epom which
everything depends ts connipotent, Lobnie’s argument continua. Ne
premciple exists cutsicke of Crod that maght litt bem. Sach ae absolute
being is also by defesition perfect. Aed the alnoduteness of hm materc
inpéees that Be is unchanging. Dhis ascans that the “rales” he layx down
for his wm berg do net charee; God im effect lines himself ty bes oun
fuss. God orci 2 comes in which the peinciple af contradiction
cxots: in this commen 2 cecle cannot at the samc Gene be 2 morcirche; a
citel: careet be a square, and by the rales God box sct for heemeclf, he
canoe tube a circle be 2 wquare. The notion that God “might have”
been different and creatad differently imeroduces a false (irsdoed an im-
poasic) contingency mito the divine nature. Cod is alecdutely what be
is, 80 if is mcaninglos to say that be could be diffcreee ce could have
created a different world. He atecutely and secowanly creates the
worfd that he creates. Hy “world,” Loabnic means the entire cosmos; in
the unlikely event that a plurality of universes exiute, he suleaurmnes them
all under the term “world.”
The cosmos & created by the flowing forth of the abundance of God's
pecainess, love, and created energy (Tivodicy, p 42) ft ix alive with
Grads life. Lebnie rgected pure murtenalinm. [f forms dad mot cont at
all, them matter would be undiffcreneeted, and there woeld be ao
difference between the deg and the philowopihcr. He alvo discanted the

Wobews Lave te rege GUN. Lebar, Benen a hentiote cee be ly Bowl de Dine, de Merit de
(heer ot Core de mel, appearedmm Areeterdamim ite. | cise 7 Dowiey, crams. DL SI.
Dloggand CNew Blane, ayer) See alee DD Copgy, “Latbeis's Thexey Ther Net A
Prrcetde Works Are Corngmesdidc,” Srehe Lovbewwens. «(ner ph 24-41: 1. Hee, “Leit-
ner om byt” Syptes, ro tigyel B17) J. Arcmser, [a Petefv Theale, oe dv teeter
wd faterater
dey 0 Jabertmmdonty Bartnn, typmy)
 ~
Mopdotopdecter

Cartesian netion of 2 eecchanicd) universe woend up and left by a

distant creator. Rather, be saw the enewe cosmes as poermeated by God
and made wp of a virtecdl infinity of miomads that are not inert but really
alve aad possessing rudimentary mind and sperit. ‘ke monads form the
costons according to a préexisent harrpony Gahioned by God. In such a
uteverse, “whence does evil come. . . We, who derive all Being from
Grad, where shall we find the somece of evil (p. 135).
If Gos ix both comnipecont and good, it would soem: that ext comet
exist. But Leibniz refesed to tke the cacy (aed inedotorsible) road of
declaring that evil is only apparent. He accepmed the scholastic varw that
cil is cowaristly privation, that it has ne csscace of its own, bar he and
King bach squarely faced the fact that the workd foe at beast the part of
that we esperience) ix full o€ real examples of real suffering. How can
the cxistence of sach setfcring be recenciled with the cximence of Ged?
Leilvrx aml King stated the traditional view seore clearly than ever
before. Three kinds of eal eosn metaphysical evil, the enperfcction of
the commen as a whole; natural evil, suffering wack as that caused bey
cancer; and moral evil, of sie fp. 136). They followed Descartes im
arguing that these evils wore nce only comparitte with God's pocdness
tar were an alwolutely socemary corollary of any created comes, any
cestnes net identical with God. A cesimes alennecal with God woald fy
God) & weald have no exstence of its oun and Cas Oe purpomy it
aeeld net be a real creation. Since only Ged can be petoet. the creanom
o@ any real costnes entails the cxintonce of mmeperfeetion
lee the snflmite aneplitude of Bix love, Geral wants to creme the largest
number of the best clemencs that can exit together i one cosmos. In an
inventancius calculation made in etermty, God computes the test pec
silde woeld aed creates it, Diis “docidon” by Ged ix uncentingent and
ctermal rather than temporally of catologically sequential. [t ts impoud-
ble for every perfect good no be compatible with every other perfect
goodk the imense beauty of the mountain ment be sot off by the fertiley
of the plain; the goodof free will rast eetad real choices for sm No
weeld that rocuncdes all perfecnons i logically posable,
Nateral cvils are the result of metaphysical evil, since ne natural evil
exists that is not necessary for the maxemization of the compesalle
« If any evil that costs wore removed, the commas as a whole
weald only be wore. It is hard for es to grasp bow the remowal of
reascular dystrophy or toumadecs weald make the coames worse, tree
eur view of things is Teetited tofun infineresioal area of space and time.
God wills natural evil, net Soe the sake of evil bor foe the grower good,
 Tix Decal betoren Too Work

Letais follows Christian eradition in yuggoting that wom, evi may

cont ce punikh us, imtruct ws, or ware ws, but be adliete that the
quanery and sharpeess of evil te oat of proportion to such purpence, we
must amply rooognive that we cannet at prevent udervtand whet the
function of seemingly deproportionate or gratuitous evil may be,
Moral evils Ged dees not voll at all, Bat he pernity them as a mcce:-
sary comsequence of the greater goad of froc will. Here Lobnic ard
King parted company, for King argued that there was no cause at all of
ancect of free will, bet Leitesiz held that a freewill act was determined or
a heat prompted by cho “proveous representations af goad or evil, bry
inclinations. of by reasons” Op. got), King’s angement, whach followed
Saint Anselm's, seems seperior, For the argument aris that a world
with free will need not contain ao much sin as this one dooy. Hf ene ms
Letbaiz’s rooxtel, one ts obliged ce ask why Gel dad nee Benit the scope
of an. but if ome uses Kong's, the question does net arr. If there is mo
cause of a freewill act, and if the choine of good or ove is felly—noe just
nechinicallpestree, chon a world in which beings with free will sin lows is
peositte, bot i does net follow that God coukd have creased it, What be
created was seal freedom: free creatures make their oun choses,
Quesners of mandem sampling and statenes anse at this pont, ax
Kart pointed oot, Though Ged may nec cause Aor Ito sin, be Knows
that a proportion of bes free beings arc stanstically lively co sin, yer he
creates the cosmos anyouy. Bor ie would repey agawe cher this es
the best possible world, gwen the esisvence of that great goed, free will,
For this is the best of all possittc worlds in the sense that et the best
possilde mis of conpuntte goods Leiteiz was aware thar we oan imag
mc « beter world than thes ome. bat be angwod
thar what we thiek we
Ooh imagine is inpesubbe becuase of uns inherent comradicnmom. The
evils of the world are aecessary Seer of a cosmnes that could net
exit without Chem and whose harmony we woakt soe, wf we had the
alelity. to be the chosest porssitie aeaten 4€ pertection. “This is
the best world that is porsitde. . green the omaipecence and
bencvolemce of God, it 6 the only works that is posable,
A doctrine mere congenial 0 oh confident, progressive Bererger
oeiety that was emerging after the ienease, confhcred pessimian of the
carly sevettootth century can scarcely be Creagh ne. Voltaire unfairly
cancatered and pilloeied the siew kn Cawdide, bro it must be confessed
that its pereal light scams net oo pemenrate the heart of che darkness.
Fer all the emia of the meraphyaciins, the focus of beak elite
and pepalar atrenioe in the seventeenth century was still on tesues
 ~

a Mopesopbeta
within the old workd view, The venerable debate on free will was still
continnang. On the Protestant ade, Lutheran and Calvinist prodexne-
aran ideas were chulkeged by Aronian (ac Arminius, 1960-
1609) argumsents for free will; cer the Cathabic side, the predesninarian
Jansertats (Comelius Jansen,1 $85—1613) were challenged by the free.
uill views of the Moleists (Litre dhe Moines, 1454-1600) and the
Jesuits. Both Peecestane and Cathelic prodettinariaes won a nember of
rounds in the detare, but by the eightoenth century frgewill views tad
come to prewail practically everywhere in practice,
Other wriners argued the fall of Adar and Eve, Sore, following the
“mmtimalia” pesitios gore back ro Iresacus, contended thar the firs:
parents hau! Loom in 2 state of chefdlike inmocence before their sin, so thar
their Gall was errceas mach as am and became the occasion for the
seul-buiding of the human race. The opposeng “maximalot™
position, going tack to Gregory of Nywa and Atharonius, beld that the
fir parcets bad been “pode” before their sin, so that their fall was
comparable im celpahiliy and gravity to that of Satan, Awguetime hed
adopted a middle position. which Milton tried to follow a portraying
beth che mayty and the inmocence of Adam and Eve,"
‘The nature of angels was also a power of debate, [by eroo. belief im
angels bad begun to be unfashionable among the intellecnaal elite,
though carly in the seventeenth century «Dad bees affirmed as a matter
of course and then liter defended vigorously by theoloanans whe saw =
aitecks on angelodogy the first muster of the war agaitot Gad.’ The
decline of the angels by the cad of the century is a sign of the decline of
beels the traditional view aad of hertnctic magic. which placed the
angels in a natural, Nooplatonic scheme of the coomes. The question of
Satan's crentusl salvation revived among 2 few Aresiniam as well a
Anabaptists, though Protestants as a whol followed the alacot univer-
sal judgrneet of Christian tradition that the apostasy of the angely wae
“recoverable, and their sim unparadonatde; God suure unto them mm
his wrath, they shoald newer moe return eto his reat."

BJ. M. Eva, Meroe deer end ote Genow Trades (Unford, opt). po. sgserrs.
@ See RIL Weer, Atle aad ake Aegvil (does, Gra. tg ck Jot Salts Tear
of Aeggol (e501) afirreed the tredhtonal pectere, Gounpe Seschee’+ Setee') deren: Weel
Theme! (1660) cnod cyewince acccees: of Gomems, Gi. Schotr's Migew serenely
mater of arty CoSerh, pt. 1. grves the aceaal comes of the nersber of the dormers at shout
poop © eo Thownas | heywonel’s (eure of aly Alon! Aegll (1644) 4 2 comnperntiem
of petrote and meodeevel dct. +
10 Kechard Meotags, Thy An and Mevewent of the Chernt (Lenden, ptar). p. 7.
qeeerd in CA Paredes, “De Salyatmm
of Satan” Joareel of ate Mery
of Idan 18
(ig@ok ays.
 Thy Deod txtowra Toro World

The tension between shopticiwm and ceadubty so ccenmen in the

seeemtcenth century prodeced 2 new phosomcnas, the “hikeck rary,” 2
= combenarion of disbelief in Chrivueity and belie in the Chie
wn Devil. The atmosphere for the black mans Bad boom budding
fas the cenmuries, both in winchoraft and im the numcrces reported
cases of demonic possession where the foece of the derkamic was very
tightly teond oo diserbances of the hurnan emcomecicas, expecially
sexual aberrations. Cachorineg de Same Augustin (6622-1668), a num
Quebex, was said to have been attacked tre the Dereil at the ape
of five,
and for che rest of her life he assaulted her aith every lind of tempma-
non, incloding despair, bust. and glurmony.'! In the possession of the
nuns of Lowtun aad Lowysers wn France. the powers of Satan and of
hurr sxuabey were combined in ae aomcsphere of collective trestera
and haBucination cleverly exploited for polmcal purposes. Phe posses:
sion of the trans of the Deseline convent of Loudun is well known, The
hysnerta cemefod oe a priest named Urbain Grandier, a senual libertine
Whose iromc vit had cared Mim many eneenes, sume of uhom con
costeda plot co rum him by accusing hem of deteuchingthe nuns and
them to be possessed by Sacan. Ar beast some of the moms
belicwed that they had been sexually motested
by demons. At the com
ven of Louvers, a gan who had been seduced by her comfesser before
catering the coavear was the focusof the posession. These phenomena
differed from those of witcheratt in Cher attention to sex and in the
volvemnent of peicite<clements that became conor! in the new black
mass, for nothing could be moee Masphemcus in a Cathetic conmest than
the sexual perversson of the sacraments presided over by a precit.!?
In e630 4 fumber of priests were indkcred for saywg mass on the
lexis of naked worsen at the cenmer of a ring of black candles, of
ing the coagerepation a inmercourse with the women, of newal cope
bition on the alkar. of secrificing anmmals, of memdenng children and
using their blood un the preparunom of aptirodksiacs, of desecrating the
Bucharst. of mixing chikiren’s Mood and beafily Mads in che chalice, of
itreokeeg the Devil, and of mulag wneen pace with hime These black

is. G. Uwocher, (ew ot Somes dow fe ow & Catone & Nowr-Ageorm, 1tp2-189
(Teena, reo
6a. WDD Phewarth, Lt eed Leven
ot Fem, The Socetrett
Cretery i) condo, 1d
A. Markey, Tay (ved of Loades
(New York, 1g at G. Mangrédice, Madoww
de Mhascpen
1 (hae do poowen Pars, woth HTB Rbwahes, The anew Mew tl ewe, sete D
P Walker, Leche Spree: Peeves and rere ov freee ced Eegetoed of ote Lave Somer?
aad Lastly Semen’ Conteres (Ptdlahlipha, otal G. Zackerun, Seasevtel’ wed Stowrss
Meow, vd od (Wieesheoden. egret
ca a Lda 4 we ip (aiine A)
Y tyrvd XsRanh ub}t " haste pls
@ tal, lal a 4. ba ur “peaseAon] a
je 3 eS wll won lush i Imai eae me lu mre
ines e iden Y) ATAD >a Say fl ean dnwore (
| ‘aby’ v4 ae bH "a ikesite 44
xy AS fini ' b tne uy v AI? dor

» 4 pst Oot smd a» roll ont ree

nus 0) ba is mi in
 Tk Deed! Ntovee Too Worlds s

masses were supposed co have been saad at the bebewt of courtecry or

other infloescal people te procere political or sexual advamcement. One
of Lowis NIV"s mistreeses, Madame de Moreepan, was alleged to have
used black magic to render the queen sterile and fix the King’s sexual
amermions on herself, As with the witch crane, however, once the mad-
ness began so touch people of suck power and influence, @ was doomed
After the cxcownion foe sorcery and murder of devens of pecple—sone
of them from che aotde and weakhy cles on uhich the scandal com
cerad—the king conninaed the inwestiganiom in 1682 and issued an edie
chininwting prosecution for witchcraft Gnd sorcery, The black mass—
the product of the eymical. skeptical, yer credulcas seventeenth com
rury—-Vareshed until it was reewed in the bere ninceerth conture by
hoetary peocurs.
‘The Pretorant ainmede toward sech masters as quite ditferers from
the Catholic. Despite Luther's oun ese of thom, the Precesranr church.
os se deckial that ceceeians wore ouperstinoes, like consooramons.
teasing. and bole water (a Sonerset farmer reportedly sad char “his
ceare will make as gow! holy water as any pret can”), The Punnan Jotn
Efall called csurcieees “foul superstition and gress meg”, Anglicans
abolished the office of exorost in 1¢g0. The angwment was that the age
of miracks had cmded with the carly churcke what now prevsiled wus a
fatienal neaus between divine providence, natural law, and sedividaal
faith. In such a world the Deval could not be repulsed by hely waver.
the sgn of the cess, the Lond’s Prayer, of exorcism: clergy could only
pray over the victim, teseeching Gead's mercy. As Kemah Thomas ob-
served, the left the Pretestants m a painéel smustion: thee churches
affierned all the traditional dectrines of demon obsession aad posses.
soon Bat retmeved the traditional aeeadoves. Still the Protestants were at
leat spared macot of the lund features of Cathodic eecectoms and their
polemical uses. '?
In the arts the process of shifting exephass from transcendent evil to
the deeceric iteerancet et the human ceind was show ead iegular, and
the traditional Devil continued to play an important part in lmeracere,
eapecially in comservarive Spaces and ors cofomies."* Miguel de Cervarces

tp. Dems, pp ge-4¢. T4748. 284. gop gt.

te Sew A. 1. Cwori, A) demece of conve & Calera (Valowcia, ogpctt J. L. Dee-
rook, “Les ridesbe Sete dene bes etn che Lape de Vega.” Asdivis Aignereper, 04
(egal gona: U. Miller,
Dew Ganel Lecgen ot dr (Acheene coer Barcel bo cor Aeeeent
(Bbewhes, epee SS Seka, Al daaltey Ae diahelive
cn le Ace serene (2p
fe ere! eden,
1g7 Dp. Bedewe CSroekee Boeke Diceprives, rtepte treat) etqectedd ee fee tre pevieger
 An

s Mepbicrypbels
(isqpetGi6), Lope de Vega (1 sta" 1638), and Caldenin de la Barca
(eGoo~ 1681) created both vice and the Dev sonousty bot the
Devil and hamanny closer together by protang the psychology of evil.'*
In Petestant Beghind, Ti Pilgrewy Preerco of Jolin Bunyan (162-
1688) alto empluninad
the intertal dggon of tomptation and sin meee
thana tranwendent berd
<€ evil. 1°
Fiays and poems dealing with the traditiceral sory of Satan—inclod-
ing the war ie heaven, the Gll of che angels, and the sempeation of Adam
and Eve-=comineed to be popular all ower Europe both before and after
Miltow’s Manatve Lew"? The teeamment of the subjoot by Joost van den

(e874)
00 the growing cuneces of Inchading
(acd, Dod, aagch. dono,
and salen
Weer here On One greemeds thet @ creme (hows eaenels nes thecal fguates, as anceent Mererere
had coe oo the pagan pode.
Thee eenal arts prod enact) bows aetemticny te tle Dhewed oy thas getind case earhew, Seat
Jean Pragewand (1742-980) prochaced a hursorouy shucnch of Sanam ecrrificd ee
od a eked wonee Craragpge TDartee (ite ep ped wrote a Theis Sonata,
* wae exeperod by a dream on whech Ok Dee! cane and plryod te ben o@ the veel.
16. Lape de Vega, Cieu palvicader por ly Apel Acadeuis fopedels | Mairead, wig ige ah
Cakberier Comedie, Deemer, Ante ecnemcwtets (Madrid rote egtth The Devil sppean
mover oweery plays of Lape freee 1¢8) Oo 16) ¢, aacl ax Codgune dv Aeetiowe dy Cram, 27
treme cerypade, Fi deewpdme
dy memmde, aml 1p wlewe degenade Dhe tubes verwen fererne—
cabe, mexhoet, procurcr, viephend, bert, gypee—and pace uke curses ech oy
Astawe, Decree, Deshi Asner, Larbel, Leciien, Seton, Nerehend, Reng, ene!
“Prexipe def mrexdo © de bow emicblan~” Coeriers FY predypen
and other
preset the Devil center tre eannes of Dewees, Laubel, Lassen, Maal, ancl
(Cabdenin alee scoured bors wath vices pereeefiod 2 demon capa (sia. dake (dveke).
CT nee tn enemas mealechd, ated cule Pratreals
16. J. Benra. The » Pregree (Leesdor, 9678). Soe BML. Fire,
Gl, thew, cond
hatan, Parwee of Orme Theaghe and Lift os Pacaden Loa, Piigrony wad she Corvat
Thelignee (Price, 1ofeL op. pp. tagerty. Borers . Grae Abed
ag (05642, shores that be bebewed ia de excl cuatence of te Deed.
07, Pieces Plencter, Tae Leseey or Apedverey Cetin th Serafin cbetle Saleesive, Adee
cadens (1657 Abcaturs Cowtey. Dvowder (ot ctt: Jobe Drydos, Tie Siver of fencer ond
the Fail of Alan (06etg 2 Gramtoations
od Mao's Pacaden Let) Slaw Nowl, Laer (esas
After the fine qeartcr of dhe caghtoceth cenmury. the goere rapedly diociead. Tbe debure
at be the coment of the thence of wach works on Milles it tangnemal no the hienory of the
Diced. See A. B. Chuenhers, “Shore Seances foe Mibu” Ltorw Ptvietery, 6) (rota 61-
64 W. Kirkoowestl, Tie Crfutl Oyo. Tie Thee of erate Loe os Weel Liaweres ound
Tngeehatvores off the Map Anadis (Teewen rggek BS Let omgaie, ~“Mebun's beternal
Coenei! and Marcus,” Picereer of tiv Madore Laem Aonnerms, 69 (9964), a7 9-4 9,
5 OW, Lever, Parador Lew aed tee Angle Sacon Tradition” Brome af figglt Sretien, ry
(rog7h ot-nete 1. Samwact, Dheesr ond Melee: Ty Comeentiy aed Poradoe Ler iithace.
vyte. Ine poral commmenecation
te the satbor, rodeo CT tevkheet angers thet
Milboo muy hee Looe anfhecnced by the pectures
i fe OM Engtiod) fortes mumescnge
bea was walliely te have felt the wefhocwee of the cowt, ce be wae reel of ON
English peacter cheaters oad in cvesagh was Cndeege of tee terme whew bee eomrkl
bee bet
ares te the tumeecr¢ge. Sco Locum, p 198.
(ava. Saree 2 roge om Tee cyorore> 8 Cero ee~esrecwol Owe t + wheb
 —

Vendel (1587-1679), ome of the most eloquent and coherent. is com

raned in his twe plays Levafer (e604) amd Adie av Evale (1665).)*
‘The actices o¢ Layer begens among the angeh in heavensoon after the
creatice of the weeld. Gabel informs them that God Bad docadead to
beccenc imcarnate im brednanity, thes granting to hurrass an boner de-
nied the angels. Lecier cavies both this howor and the innecent sexval
hive between Adam and Eve, . ;
Vondel’s scenaree reees logical proticms. The incarnation is oradi-
Honality though of as God's response to the fall of Adam and Eve, itself
enccurared by the fallen Lecter. IRere ts no rational chromelegy in
which the plan fer the incarnation cuubd procede the Gil of Lacsfer, foe
Ged's cternity and simeltaecom how ledge of all events dock not mean
that he docs sot work with ncemal cause and effect within the time! space
continuum, Eades, Voexdtel is telling a story that is ect within time, Still,
the fadure of his somario is mot all bes fault: it springs freen the in
coherence of the oraditional Chrismas explaracion of Sarin's motives. Did
Saransin through peade in desinag to be bike Godk pride in trying om
acheeve his oun saleamon om bes own terms and Defore the time was mah;
envy of God's position: envy of Chriar’s position im heavess envy of
humaney for being made iGod's enage, ce cavy of humanity for beiag
with the incamabon? ‘The peasitelities have never Been sorted
eut satisfactorily, aud the view that there is mo came of 2 tree freewill
actionis the only logically coberent one.
Vendel pees on to shew Locifer—avested by Apallyon, Bekal.
Bocleebrab, and other untrustworthy angels—plarning to raise rebellion
int heaven. Like Fauetes, Vordel's Locifer ropearedly re
pentance amd repeatedly rejects& on the doutde groend of pride and
despair: he has made hix cheice and he will be whar he is. Vorfel’s
chronology is still peculiar, for Lucifer desoomds fron heaven to cause
the fall of Adam and Exe before he himselfis cast down. This solves one
probhersae chat it allows Saree to te bond im hell after his expulsion
frcen heaven uithowe needing to account for his Sa his tents Oo
visit Exhen. bret & introdeces an awkuurd sequence of crents and tends
to equate che original sin of Lecter with his termpeatice of bramsanity.
‘This weald mean that Lucifer bad lived long m heaven befoee changing
his mind aad curneng agains God, a thew Chae degrades the power anal
scope af inherent angele know kuipe.

18. joces wan dow Vewnkl, Ade oe Artugeatap, a Die Worker com Veet, end, oe
CNwetonders, sesth pp) Gert Vegetel, dager, oe De Workers, wel « UXreronders,
posal pp Gara.
 The Dew! Aetucee Tie Wart *

Sell in heaven, Vooddels Lucifer begim to coroner that it mary be

better to rule in colic than te rereain sulweddimate to the Loed. The guexl
angel coensel submixsoon, bret Lucifer exclainne that God is unter and
unjust in setting the mearnateGod! Man alewe the cetologncally super-
or angels. The angel Uriel appears onstage to decribe the great war in
heaven to the audience and to recbant how Lucifer, foggy dewm free
heaven, has been tramfornned into a hidoot toad.
In his Adee ie Erie, Vode! reterns to a moee traditional chranelogy
im which Lucifer tempers the firet parents after his Gl! from heaven.
Since he hes ket his open war with the bond, be determines to attack in
a mere desiogs war tre axriling at him through his bebowad creatures.
Lucifer is under semence of bondage in hell, where he is both captive
and ruler, bot God gives Bim booms to rompt hemnanity. With the help
of Asmodeus, Luociter comds Belial im the form of 2 serpent to corrupe
Eve, whom tum reins Adam, Asmeadous reports the success o¢ Belial to
a delighted Lucier, while Acse: aad Exe are expelled from Paradise.

It was Jobes Miltom ute made the traditiceal story of the fall of angels
and humanity intea sccnane so coberent and ccenpelling that it became
the standard acoourt fee all wuccocding pencratices. Milton wae born in
1408 amd secre to have been beweght ep a strench Protestant; after
1417 the policies of Archteshop Laud drove him into increasing symype-
thy with the Puri. Bet bis rclignous views are not fully understoxd.
Him theology contained both Anglican and Calsiniat clerments, and in
the 16508 he seems to have shifted toward Independency and Anni-
siantan, By the ite 160s he bed fornmubsted a cobcrent, sorctinecs
idicnyncratic thookegy of Bis own. ‘The meant relevant of hin weebs are
Civition Doctrive (De doctrive cvitiaes, written in 1644-1640 though
tert puliished until 18241, Panedter
Leer (ets, revived 16741 and Peradve
Rogpatwed (1670). °? He died in 1674.
Chvutice Doctrmee, which Mion wrote at abaet the same tine as he
was composing Pernadwe Lov, wax an effort to comstrect 2 logically oo-
herent theoleery baved catieely epcer senpture. Like other Protestant
writers attempting sim@ar tasks, be was utaware of bow mack bo
mterpretations and ecen be categories derived feos tradition as well a
the Bible. Hix veews on the evil angels are cosentially traditional Too

op Phere bertCD A, onl PR The bet eveedl chia a PA. Parr at

al. cche . Tie Wiety of Jobe Mile, 1B rode, UNow Dork. eect roptt the beet cditiees of
CD is Ofenaies Decrees, 6 The Compdew Prow Werks (Now Ilaree, re7p), wall 6 Sue aho
DUE Eberle 1 Teele, A Mite Mleetined. gt ok New York, egypt
 AN

“ Alipeecupteter
much has boon made of Milsons supposed heresies by critics who seem
not t0 enderstand the wide diversity of Obrivtian tredioen. it has been
said that Miltce was not a trevitarian, which a an ignorant reading beech
of the poctry and of Civiiise Doctrine, Moee plautitte ix che view thar
Maiten wax am “Arian,” but.ewen this is anackromistic and noo precise.
‘The most thar can be said is that he tended cowaed subordinanoniom,
the view shat the Son amd che bhely Spirit, though cruly Ged, are sot
coctenmal with the Parher. Milton's bebef that the cowmen was created
frome the sabstance of God has a long traditional background, particu-
larly ammeng the mystics, and is comistent with the onginal ex nihibe
doctrine of the carly charch. Hix belied that angels may im comme sense be
corpareal reflected the opénices of many schodastics, as did his view that
do net keow everything from the moment of their creation.2°
In Mikon's scheme. God declared freedom foe angels aad busses
and, as a corollary of freedom, penmirs evil (CD 1.4) De Devil led the
angels in Ohe revolt om heaven (1.9). After his cxpredsion from heaven, be
tempted Adam and Eve. whe scat net have yielded but frecky chose to
sin (1.08) God became incarnate in Christ in onder to destrey the
Dewl's wer (1.14) Here an outline i the wholly traditional diabology
of the Dectrane. Miltoes made his mark on the sabject not by a
departure freen cethodoxy bat by the poctic grandeur and detail chat | be
added to it.
The epec poems Peradie Lec amd Paradier Rogaine! cover almost the
cntire spun of Christian salvation history from the fall of the angels to
the redemptios ce the cross, Rather than Selvwing Milrom’s classacal
device of begineing in the mids of the actiow. EP take the two works
together
and trace the angumemt chwomcbogicully. This docs viuleace
to
the porns, ter my purpose is bestorcal rather than literary.
Milton's cwn purpose was oo offer a poctic theadiey:

Thtto the highth of this great Angernere

Fey awert Eternal Provadence,
Ned pustify the ways of God to men. [PL 124-26)

Melnon’s theodkey combines the freewill argumert with srelmaking,

Grd creed the work! good: moral goodness is Eipoumble without free

2 Locos, Loe Sb edE See has West's Mew and the Aagots, and HH.
We, “Nelnce's mpeheeses! Heroes.” Jevonal
of the Mowery of Mea, 14 (igi ih tet
125
.
 1 Dew hemes Tao Werke

will; hureans and angels are free so chasse «sil: some co so Gal's
providence, tuming all ce good, malkes owe fall che ocossom for teaching
us wisdor chrowge trals and suffering. God ultimately redeems us
threagh the incarmanion aed passion of Jesus Chiist. In eeder 00 under-
stand che ongine of the Grama we must return to the bepenning and sce
her the fall of Saun prefigured aad prepared thar of Adam and Eve.
‘The dramaof Satan is aot vself the pow of the poems but the acvessary
backgroemd for the drama of hemanity. Adam and Christ, oot Satan,
are at the thootogmal (thoagh noe necessarily the dramatic) center of the
poem, For Milton. as for the Chrisnan tradinon, evil is empey, mad,
unreal, focused on wnreabey, and self <efcating.
Milton haces the pases. as the did his CArunae Uectrase, on the Bible,
bor in beech he added a socomd level by using Cheisnues tradition, and in
the poems he added a third beech Dis oun poetic ard mhxctorical cmbel-
lishenent. It is dftioaie eo say how check of the poces Milton micant to
be taken theologically. A poces mney be very like a thookogacaltract only
if it isa very bad poem, and Milton was well aware that reality bas
many dinenstens. Semetionss be expressed realty with 2 theological
statement; sometimes with allegory, as a the figures of Sin amd Death;
senetitnes with cry thopece uvention, as in the delute in Hell; some-
names with pects Ooneention, as in his deseriptice: of the universe. He
seldom muarte sccantie ce histeeical statements, bis cosmeen, like Dante's,
is moore deeply real than any one<iemensonal statement could powally
be.
The question of whether Milon beheved in his Deval mevest be ender-
Sto] a thes mvelnditnensional sense. He foend the csistence of the
Devil clear in senprure, he also bebeved in Satan poetically. Shake-
Spoare ted Lecuphr the diabolical inte the human goyehe, and Malton
returned the mow bramaniced diabolical traits to the Devil. Milton's
Saree shares with Shakespeare's villens a0 obscwice with acif amd a
willful tneeance of the reality of other creatures and of the common as a
whole. Satan's cipeiets are harman and powerful bocwuse the poet <irew
that dark power fecen the depels af his own payee. Le is curious thot
this sivedly powerful portras of Satan shoeld have appeared when be-
heft in the Devil was rapedly declining among educatal poeple, partice-
larty in the worldly England of the Restoeatice. Bat the fact te that the
ihage of the Devil retaiead its power in the Burra mind long after
thoobogrcal belief Rad Gadoad.
The deep power of Milton's Satan raised 2 long-standing debate ax to
whether Sacan was the seal hero of Meade Lev. The answer depends
 :—
Mepesapdvier
upea wher one means by “here” In a purely litceary sense, the hero is
the protagonist, the character who mot moves the acthon along. Dry
den and others in Milton's cern neme ere Satan as the hero me this sense.
The action of the poom is the struggle between Saian on cere side and
the qther. ‘That throe characters—two
Adam, Christ, and the Pitheroa
of thom divine —are needed on one side ce balance one on the ether
imdicanes the dramatic power of the one. Perther, since one whe
charges cam carry the action, the ctermad and enchangng Father can
scarcely be the here, and oven the Som is too remete aad inpervions. As
protagonist, Adame bas severe limitations: half the tattle between God
and Devil is already over before areentien can focus on Ackess, amd be x
Ino parte, foe acted upetie=by Coed, Eve, and Devil—te be the hero.
or even
(Some critics have angued chat the dramanc bere a really Milton
the Reader.)
Bes the literary sense of “hero” eeust be distinguished from the maral
sense that is the real concern of this study. Was the character of Satan ce
te admired? Every reader is struck Lv his mageificence, a maguificence
that had already appeared in the war in heaves as deserted by Mibon's
predecessors. For the warm Heaves to be credible and dramatic, mt hed
to te a clash of uacertain carcome betacen mighty heroes, like the
¢lasical sorugghes of the Mad and the Anwad, But theve pecs dial not
have ckearly defined villains as counterpeints to their heroce. Beek
Achilles arn! Hector are beroes: Aeneas’ opponees Turrens is aleea here,
am! Milton dcbberatcly transferred some of Turmas’ atenbates to his
own Satan. Like Turtas. Savin could be beech opponent and bern,
indeed, be needed to be it cevder to eke Chriat’s treemph in the war m
Heaven notte and ssagneGoest. Satan also shared scene Stor virtues
with Acneis, who in teen semeti¢nes appeared in pest: Vergiian liner
arere ax lows than 2 hero o¢ eves as a traitce.?*
Milron’s prodecewors had foesd no way out of the dilemma. ber
Milton was alike co depict Satan as heroic and af the same time cast
doebes epom hic horuman by talking 28 irotec doresce and showing in
action, dialogue, and asides that Satan's apparent heretse is sham. Bt is

at. Oe thy war, wee S Reward, Thy Wer of Moerree (here, ret, op ch 6 Foe
Mibsoes seed Mwees, wee Ch, I C)wicteger, Uldtes wad thy Sonony of uly Neer i nection,
1a), pp 6a-64. “One may view Satan ane wemenery of Whe btcrary decoy of Nemes
ocpetireers Frey | bwwer cwveurel ao thar he tarde ay te Coteheocesof what Latren aw
as the cone
of dorerewad pmapreges.” Foe Miles ant Ub wars, cee|. Soeadnas,
Alden’) Ape CAsscwvs (Chapel BEAL NOC. 1g) pp tga 210 Boe the view thet Milter
racredod bis Sotan ae a crises of epee hewn, ae Stradense, pp deat.
 Thy Dod berowra Tero Worlds ”

hand to retaim a herote picture of Satan when one is becught up agawist

his incest with his daughter Sen, his eglimoys (PL. 2.015-116, ofp
PORI-GRc; 4.tacea78, By¢—Syol, his stromch tg ggce gash his filth
(80. 470-624), and his promesque parcdy of God (1.73, tle, i629 nr,
247. OF ITS BRAD F221 90) 10. gag asel Vor those are corrections
to our first imprelse to admire his rich. scnspous, lofty“riteoorh: and Bas
cherermination to be tree to Rimsolf, esdurning every detest aed agony in
bis force adherence to bes cam adentity aii face of a supEnor power
choermuned to destrow tom.
Mikon commaly knew whar he was deing when be made the char
acter of Saran powerfully arcracnve. Tle inmendied the reader so be
caught ep in admiration, to feel rhe tug of attraction
ce the nerritde, self-
mdulgent prince of darkness, to Geel che pull of that deckeess of scff
tumed forever marrowly dean into asclf uistead of opened up com
rageousty to the broad world of Hight aad tewary. He ianennded us to
scanty with the Devt and then. as the poom devdlogs, to Mionnty the
gradual recelariom of hes vichowsness and his wpecence with the under
sanding of eur owe an and weakness. Miltoe applied the charsc-
tensnics of the epec hero to Saran so that the reader could sce the
emptiness of heveless herotom in a weeld governed in reality by lowe.
‘Theugh the peene personalicy of Melron’s Saran is so serong that these
uafamiliar wth Covistiany cam mistake him for a notte Gyure (as the
reneteenth-century Romantics ded: see Chapter 2) Meradte Law is best
read in che sprit in which Matron srended #77 De poet seer alrrost
to tave warned against che dstormen of his Sarin when be addressed
the Devil thes “And thou, sly hypocrite, who now would soem pe.
tron o€ literty” (PL, g.957).
‘The chronobegeca! beginneng of Paneer Lay is midway me Book ¢,
where the archangel Raphecd relates to Ades whar “hath pas on
Hearn” (¢.¢¢4. $62) There are m effect two creations in Méloon: the
crepe of the cosmes, the entire world scem and utscen, incbading
angels aad eves. paradoucelly, cluos. and the creation of the material
wniverse. In the peers. Chace is semply there from the beginedag, with-
out explaination, bot in Ctra Decree Milton explesed that Ged
created the cosnoes by generaceng it frome Dimneself
2). Madorn vormor Laveting the view dit Saue nn Gye real aera bern tacdedy Th,
ee Me ee
orem view mecha. stewe off. (oS. Lowe, 4 Peter
+ Preiw Ler, od oct (Lowwtow,
1ofe. Seo alee DD HL Duseaebown Hien’ Goal Ged A Sedy oe Lavvary Tiveley (Ce
Benligr. eptrh R. Commeack, The Gal of Paretow Leet iBerbeley. opt
 a

oo
Mephe cept
Scene critics have viewed this as a heresy against the oradiniomal aiea
thar the cones was created ex séhilo, from nothing. bee that criticism
misundendamds the onginal ex eshilo postion. The carly tathers who
argued for ex mitilo wore expressing their opposition to the ales that
chacs. coarter, or any other priaciple is coctemal with God. There
cok! be only one eternal principke. Laver, many Christian theologians
invinted that cx eehilo meant that God oredtes Incrally fromm neching,
that is, not frome himeself ember but from some meystemous something
called “nothing.” This is a stivendersanding-«~indeed a comcradice
tien —of the cnginal ex nihil view. A third position, favored by many
of the nvestics, was thar the universe is an outpounsyg of God himeeif. It
i nee as if God sits there in the beginning with seenething called “noth-
mg” oweside of him from which he creates the cosmos Notheng ts ne
thitey at all; there is nothing bor God Sor the commen to ccene freen.
Pantheiee, the notion that Ged is coestersive with the comnes, i
certainly a heresy in Chirisnues rerens. bot panentheiam, the kee thar the
coomes is coetained wathies God, is ner?! In the beginming ts God:
Heerdicss the Dorp, becvese Iam whe fill
Infertude, nor Vacwcers the space
Dencircusmcnldé ovyself retire,
And pet met foeth iy geecioes. whah is free
To act or not. (PL. +. 148-122)

‘This seems
to mcan chat God coeld have chosen
to make all of Chans
inte coherent works But chocces insead to leave parts of ft in am
unformed state. Out of the rest he produces a real cosmos, real in rhe
seriec of its freedom to act apart frome him, by volunanty withdrawing
the sphere of his cetinipetcnce aad thas allowing for a real distinction
between the coumes am! Ged. The cosmos is God, ber disnect from
God-eehimedé: it is the external capremion of Godt
In the time after the mitted creation and before the ereation
of the
material universe, Ged calls the angels into bemg by the power of his
Sen, the Word (¢.83¢—828). And then one “chry” he calls all the heots of
heaven before his throne to announce:
Thes day I hawe beget «heen | decline
My oaly Son, aed on thes Bele Hil

ce CD 6: PL, & Seen fenerire, OM ce mbt theory, ae Locwan, pp err.

18-810
te See Locnen, pp diets ®
 Th Drod! Weorrn Too Work for

Him: buve anctated, where ve new tebold

At try ngtt band; your Head 1 hire appownt,
And by ay Self have worn oo Biss shall berw
All keees re Ebcaw'n, amd chall confess Rime Lond, (FL, 5 403 text]

Miltos dad sot mean that the Sous literally bepemenatter the cre-
ation of the angeh, He was bed = term “Repet.” as Many seven.
teemth-century writers did, to moan “exalt,” as is clear by his ether
piirase for the “begetting™) “that day / Plomowe'd ty his great Father”
CPL. 5442-043) ane bry coher references 10 the Son's having created the
angels (5. 390-198; 6 330-828), The tog of the Som by the Father
® contrasted with the falee tnae of Saran to have bees “self-beypee”
Cg. Res),
To the angelic Bours ubo gather around the throne of the Father,
Miles attritretes a sort of corporeal nature. Ile indicates thevugh
Raphacl that be may be deing so only metaphorically (PL 4.46-492)
because it surpasses beman imagination mo peetray the Ble of pure
apints, tet even the literal moasing & withee the bounds of Cheivics
tradition. Precederts exit mot only in the Cd Testament—as when
Meaham ertertamed the theee angels at talde—tat abo armory the
scholastics. In any overs, it is the speritual eanere of the angels that
Miken emphasizes throughout,+?
Among theve ours the groanest or one of the greatest was Lucifer.
Mion preferred the name Soran, using Lecter only three times in
Poredie Let and offering the poetic reason that the mame was changed
when the linghe argel fell:

Satan, ot call bean mee, Ris foemere meee

Is beard oe meete in Heaven [PL 4.48449)

‘The underlying reasce is that Milton, atrompting to baikd is theelogy

om the Bible alene, found no justification in sonpture foe the name
Lecter.2© The poct is deliberately usctoar as to Satan's rank in heaven:
he calls bir an archangel, yet sets him in command of seraphim and
cherebirn, amd names his lieemenane Boelretab a cherub. Knowing thot

26 ONe aepels as spent. see PL gr pe gic: mupels can: ¢ g05-as2, 6po-677, angek
Seek pein bet cammot che cocepe by anedbdarion: 4. j2>~94). See Lowerem, pp gt, etre
FT}.
6 The theee recntions of the name Lactlcr eoour in PL. grey pant) to gee Sew
SATAN. DD 29-28. I pees.
the Bible avcribes no angelic mink to Saran, Milton felk that the only
point he needed to make was chat Sates was of cech dignity in Heaven
that he naturally became the king of Hell. The Was & palms to
describe his godlike, peincely nature and bres cerrilying starure:
(Oe th'ceber side Satan alarm’d
Cothocting all bs croght dilawd wood,
Like Teneriff ce Avhes enmewnee’d: i
His stature reached the Sky. and on Bis Cree :
Sat horror Phare'd. [PL 4.684 9%)
[He] caterded berg, anxd large
Lary fearing rearry a roced, om bralh as brage
As when cc Fabhe saree
of meeentrees sive, [PL ©. tone torF*

This great power is moved to avy, anger, and Borror at the eleranon
of the Son above the angeb:
F
Wath cosy apainet the Son of Croct, that day
Heervar'd by bis great Pacher, and peoctsend
Mooiah King ancentad, cvehd met boar
Through pride that seght
[Thereficee) te neste’
With all bis Legions to dichuhge, and leave
Unrwvestipt, unebey'd the Throne supreme, (FL, € Aten}

The rebellion of Saran therefore occers before the creation of the mate-
rial universe, incloding bemanity.**
The sokction of this cherewilogy determined which of the possilde
reasons for Saram's Sl could be adopted. Om ome level the Aloghity is
the cause of Satan's ruin; God chocnes the commun as at &, inclodiesg the
fall of a great angel. The angel Abxticl tells Satan: “E sce thy fall /
Determind® (PL, ¢ 878-89), and the abendate froodoes and peuvidence
of God pervade the poem (1.218—220¢ 7.171—8 73). On the neat level,
however, Gad does not directly will things to be as they are, for be has

a> Sew oboe PL. c.taq, 460. eempndad. BtG—te%, B24. E48, GBa-O9R; 2. pee 4.82
(Gy rot, Coenpuce Dhenec's Soten anel the classed Titern
et CB) 6.» “Oe ween even peetabtc, that the aposeay whack comsod the cxpatson of
so marry Ghounands frees Dewves, Gah plone Sefery the Sewelstows of the wort wore
lel” Théc was trachtioeally the pecforred sccoert. theagh carly benscrners! srrters
phoced the neta: chenveg Gee cre days of covaien.
 Thy Decl beroore Tipe Werldr ony

given his createres freedom, Whar God cays of humanity's orginal an

ale applies co Satan:

So will Gall
Hee aed his farther Progerry: where faolt?
Whence Ger hire crn! ingrace he had of mee ‘«
All he could have; I reade bine jose and right,
Svatfiene oo have stcext, thea froe oo fa. (Pl. 3.9¢-o9)""

The thud bevel ts the cause of Satan's Gall, bat there & Nene, sxe there
can be we canoe of a froew ill act. Sull, on a foeeth bevel one can speakof
feoives, of net caunics.
Dureeg the comese of the paces Satan's neotives detericeate from peice
to ety Oo feverpe.!! Pride and envy ate of course the traditional
feotives. amd Satees's “olwberatc prac” (PL. «.43) appeats frem the very
begineemg od the poco:

Ihe qrasted to have equall’d che eect High,

If he open’, aed with arcterioans aan
Against he Throne ant Mowurctryof Got
Rand wnpives War ot Eheae’n, (FT. 1 gre gel

The seholastics had rejected as alourd the aica that Satan coeld try to
expel Ged and ecliod invtesd upon the esual Latin trestation <€ leitsh,
cre noel affcoume, to viralicate their view that he was attempting only to
be Sake God. Steacirnars bras shown that Malton say have boon using the
Tremeclius-Jenius transbetion, or ergxste cons, “1 shall equal the mot
high,” a much more arrogaet boat. “Sates,” Stadio oleervey, “de-
Sites texyual Creal am roval power, in snrength, in froodoms, in rcases, in
glory. The most coeumen meanmg, however, is parity in might.”
Satan berneclf confesses that “Pride and worse Amistion threw me
down” (PL. 4.9% cf. 2.10, ¢.Bte) To pride be added envy of the San.
Eevy of the Soe & a traditional mative, bret tradition wae never com-
sistent 5 to whiat it eecant. it eight mean envy of the Son's intrimically

ey Mibboes arses eegpebe ant Peewee free etl te PE page cyt Ele tem the Awe
nian Sroew ll povetioe: agaenet the Calvan postion wt Goeth bry the Wiwenenmer (covice-
et od Net, ln eee heded tad chopeaiity, eoncentbtemed clacton lensed sheeweed,
irroettte proce, and the perevermce of the seeety
ye Locana, pp ohe- 164,
ct Sew Lewis, Puget Paraden Lew, anal Evans, pp tr peeeee
gt Seedews. pp oeie—i6y. Of PL ¢ gia.
i” Mepcryphels
superior nucure, ec envy of his devation wm higher satus in Heaven, of
emmy of be tele of crestor of the unmverse. of covy of bes power to
rodeo: fallen hureaetity. Miltces made oo clear qgstement. His chro-
nology did not perma Satan te envy Chint’s creation of or keddhip over
the universe, since the“universe did mgt yet exter; still beaux could he envy
the redempaion, since humanity 2d not yer exist (the mension of the
Messiah in PL. 5.644 is an anachronism), Mikon chose to focus on the
dramanc moment of Chinst’s cheeanon by the Father and Sanan’s dis-
duinfal refusal to bead the hace. a cement dramatically similar to
Satee’s uvarpution of God's throne in the mystery plays. 5
Satan bef a scroc of “eiyjurd merit” (PL. 1 8) at the Son's power,
which seemed te him a “wtrange prent amd new” (¢.8¢s) To Milton, it
was aleurd thot Satan choeld cheese any mere, injured or otherwise,
since Ne one bas amy mort shet dams mot come as che gift of God Ar
Geal's request that the angels glonfy the Son, Satan addresses his fellow
angels with scorn: "Will ve setenit sour necks, and chocse to bend /
The suppdc Knee?” 15.7 8p 288; cf. 8. 859th 6.50670; §. 6616665, P72
Bor, HspeSg8). Once rened, Satan adds revenge to envy (1. po<g0;
2.3 eS 277) and when humanity is created, be adds cavy of Bamanity
to envy of the Son (¢.404-455) Dike degree <f Satan's mated under-
standing of the scteation is Ieft umchear. Docs Satan krow that Ciod is
beth good and ometipetess yet rebel anyway, oc docs he knew that God
is peed and refuse to admit x to himrectf, or dees he really thank that
Creal ix amb unjust tyrant?
In Milton's chrumplegr, the fire sin mm the cosmos occurred at the
meenent that Satan willed to rebel. At that moment of decision, his
daughter, Sin, sprang from his forchead, an image drawn from che birth
of Menerva from the becw of Jove and mm paredy of Iloly Wiedcen, the
persortication of the Babe Sper (PL, 2.752-p60), Satan's first act as a
Sitmmar es Se porsuuade his fellow angels to retel. Ble sees Gad as “Our
Enmore” (1.088) Tle withdraws his followers from the hosts sunroumd-
ing the throne of God and crects bis can chrome in the noeth of Heaven.
Echoing seventcenth-century hatred of political mncvation. Satan ae
gees chat the esaltamen <¢ the Son is an legitimate mowelty acid a
prammnous msuk to their dignere as angels. Ile deckems in favor of
equality and democracy, an ireny in the light of his cagcrnes later to
week! the cyeant’s scepeer in Mell. In one of his specious raticealications.
he reminds cheat that they cannot remember the suarsent of ereation,

pi. Locaen, pp. s4e, o48.

 Th Drow kerowra Tore Work ‘or

foes on to speculate that they maght not have been created ar all, and
then keapn to the uewarrarted conclesion that they acrually were “olf
beget, sclferais'd” 1c Ree)

Our pelmance is oar own, or ee nett bard

Stall erach us . ly peont
te try ¢
Whe is car oqpaal (PL. 5, Sy 806]

Osec-thed of the angels, inchading angels of every rank, join bem in

revedt.
The immediate ¢ffect i» war in Heaven,” a mad action on Satan's
part, foe it conid have only cme conclusion. To make a war againe
ccnrepenert dicinity dramatically effective, it was mocesary to portray
some degree of valor and courage om the part of the rebeliiows angels.
and Mibon did this so exthustauncally as to mutraduce a scenario poce
liar to hire he made the fint stage of the war a stalemate between
Satan's armies and these of Michael, op that Crod is obliged on the third
cley to sendin the Soe to cast the rebels derwn, Where Mechact had boon
tard prownd, the Son casily criumplis and berks the defeaned rebels cur
of Heaven. © God could have chown se destroy thems utterly, but be
refrains:

Vet Ball Dis coreegth Be por eee foeth, ber cheekd

Hlis Thaeedier in enkd Viedbey, for be enmcune
Net to destiny, bat pone then oat of Beas’, (PL, 6 8c Rce]

Why chees Giodl net im fact annihilate

chem? Been Satan
« surpetsed
when God actually kawes them with the power to de more damage:

Let hem carer tae

His Irons Giwtes, ff he eetonehs er sae
Try that heh Gurerce. (PT. 9 Spr eyy)

ya Laser.ote, Seton cleeme thet “well pegs hall” fell with fees, bee be nb lege
ermal. CY PT. ¢ O6t-epy, F. tas, Beat.
16.Pewee,pp. 000, podets cmt that @he carte Deceernera
tere! fet be coggeet Lechef ono
er ey hereon, end beth Lather eed Calvin cockadod it fren their own mrcrpertatee of
Viewtlation cig Bot tie war is hecaecn war well curatditeed in beets the pewtic ancl Oe
Creedeal etrrpeetetens of the Mabie Ages
ye PL 4 ec-tet. OF. 4 aSt—pgy) Stem and Michael = coewber; 6.ap8-tc> Oe
dermeens teeees artibery, 6 Alter Boi) thee Father combs cet Oye Seem, 6 Bre gy: thee Soy’
tutes
 ~

tod) Mepdouepdeter

‘Dhe answer is that God wishes 00 teach Sanes that every effort to do evil
® terned to pocd. to show Bern

Hhew all Dis malice corv'd Dar oo bewag forth 7

Infierine ypooddivesss phace.aeel energy shows
On mun by bern soduc't, but oo henself
Tretée confusion, wrath and vengeance pour'd. (PL 1.217-220)

Wharever Satan docs “shall rebound { Upos bas own rebellious brad”
(3.85686), and no matter bow mach be may learn from the action of
Goxd’s prosidence, be cam aever be saved. Elummanity can have a savior
became the first parents were seduced by another Being, bur Satan will
burve none becaute he was the first 00 an. Thoregh ches ts logical, simoe
nether Eve nor Adam was compelial to sin, it & Obrimian tradition:

The first sort by thelr cn segpemion fee,

Seif-terepecd, self wed Man falb Gevew'd
By the other few: Man therefiere shall fied grace.
ether nome. [PL p.129—1 52]

Anether rewailt of the fall of Soran ix the intraduction of evil inte the
cosmnes, Satan is the “author o€ evil” (6.262)ax God ix the Authoe of the
universe. As a rosulk of his ain, misery encors the weekd)

Here test thee dierent

Hear'n’s blewed peace, and ive Nature Lewogtrt
. uncrested Ull be crn
OF thy "Retecllicer? ens ham chou analfd
Thy malice into thereat? (PL. 6.254—250]

Having fallen from grace by choice, Satan and his ovdl angels are
flung down from Heaven:

His thy Mereghety Power

Herfd headlong farreng feeen th Ethereal Sky
With bidoeen rum aed comndrevecn doran
To bottersien perditiae, there 09 duc
be Adurarene Chaim and poral Fire. (PL. 244-45]

With him fell all che angels that had talon brs side;
 Vawrere bell chose over the falice anech mm a Creeesre Doe’ dlhetraton fire
P’graioe Lat, 4.5°¢. Erereewer. 12s
 ~

ea Mephacreptetn

* Linifer fom Hear'n

(So call hie, beggter cece annedist the Pheer
» OF Angets, than that Sear the Stars snreeng)
Fell warts tes farrery Logins chroagh the Deep
Inco ben peacy. (PL. T-tge-tssl
‘N,Q om
‘They fell “thick as Autusemal Leaves . . . Chere
and Seraph rothegin
the Flex” (1,02, 324) Nine days they fel through che air and sine
days lay provtrate in the fiery ke (1 40-9 6391L7 .
Neve days they fll; confounded Chace roure.
And felt tenfcdd confersce: in thie fall
: bes wild Anucchy. so brage a rvert
lecerm@er'd barn with reine Ficil at ow
Varaning recen’é them whede, and on therm che'd,
Hell thie fir bateration Geaagte with fire
Unquowbulde, the heese of woe and pain [PL 6 8p 1-8p>]

In abort, the angel phenge oot of Heaven through Chaos into Hell. But
where ix thix Hell?
Dante and tradition pat Hell at the center of the Barth, because m the
Prolomaic cosmos the center of the Barth is that point farthest freen
God's heaven, And this farthest point is what Milton seer to intord:
bere the Proon orduned
In utter darkness,
aed chir portion set
As far remand from God and light of Heav'n
As tron the Conere theice to th error Pode. (PL. 171-74]

at em Milton's cheonclogy the pliyscal universe Bas nee vet been cree
ated (CD ©.33). Later in the ection Molron descrites Satan's worage
fecen Hell across Chace toward Heaven. fron «hich the universe hangs
on a golien chain (PL t.goo-ge0, tag6-1025). If the eniverse
hangs from Heaven, and both are separated by Clues Grom Bell. where
ts Edel? “Die plrysical imagery that Miltom anes to desenbe m is trken
fevers the inmagined eatence of the Earth the deep caverns, fiery Lakes,
ami walfureas anells po back to the Hebeew Cichente—bret hin Hell is
net in the Earth.

et. Nome ts thee teedivtenal preter of @he ewvonby sptioree Hebets

Tens tf cre
Gays, Gee terctageneee chat fell om greet and Nooplaromk t ¢ if through ame
sptrcres. thee aamppets Fell Soe ewe clays ie Danaghiret’s
Pers Piven, the (tained rameter
ot Ox ongpelk ranks
& rene
 The Dew! deroere Tow Worlds iw”

Where is it then? It re nowhere. “Dhis is the beauty of Milon’s concep:

then. The place where Satan sets up his theoee and with his fallen
10 faise a new crnpere is peccively nowhere at all
socksades
comm a
perfect sectaphice for the aboclutc noabeing of evil, Milton detiberarely
a self-comradictory, imponsitde picture of Hell, To bogin with.
the matersel world has noe yet been created at the tiregé the angelic
ruin, so how can Hell, despéte its fieysical imagery, possitty be mate
fal? Everything is ambagoous Hell is deep inside a marerial universe
that docs not yet exist; it is inside the creed comnos vet outskde it: it is
a place where the Gillen angels dwell, ver it is within their hearts and ts
with thom wherever they go: “whack way I fly is Pell; myself am 1 felt”
4.76) it tea petom uhere they are chained yer from which they ome
neue forth, it enceiGene and metionsyer is crornal:it is the other
passe
sade of Chace as the eniverse is the other ade of Heaven. & is a plaice
“where all life dies, death lives” (2.244) In sheet, it is nowhere and has
om) cheracteristics, the fir duciling for chose whe have chesen eoth-
Ss iver ’,
Now that the angels have fallen, God proceeds to the second creation,
the creation of the material universe, De calls a new werkd inte csis-
tence 66 redress the balance of the off, to make wp for Satan's depecdda-
Gorm me Heaven:

Boat kevt bic boeart exals hire in che barre

Already done, 10 have cdapeopl'd Heav's,
My dawupe fondle deem'd, f can epee
Thar detrerent, ¢ each ot he to bene
Sete, and in a cert will create
Arecher World, oer of ome mean a Hace
CX oxn rusweably, there te Geek. [PL 9.50154]

‘The face of bremnarn will rrakee ep for the fallen angels, and when at lax
husanity is rodecmed, hurrars will come and fill che erepey places in
Heaves (9. 146-157)
Im creating the material cownes, the pect explens, God fint peo
duced Chics from hireclf. Withis Chass was motion, and since time is
the meavere of moteon, it m appropnate to xpeak of motion before che
formation of the utiverw.

As pet the world vax me, and Chan odd

Regge’ where thee beans mew roll
 Soe '% chuentl ne tete cia 7 te®*s tes"aseg ee lke. tvavtremee t<«

Pusadew Let, (.900-330. begraveg. 1P*:

 Thy Dyed! vemera Two Workt

(Bee Tiree, theeagh in Becrsity. eppdrd

‘To epetion.) (PL -<.¢77-¢8:)

From this Chaos Goad forms the universe

l sew who at bes Word the Sorrebces Mass,

‘Thee woell’s euncrial rppadd, care te a beagt¢
Coefusiee beard bes voor, anc er
Steed rul'd, wood vaer infinmode OE [PL 4, 90s ee]

In Miltoes as at Coleristian eraditices. it is Gad the Son uho does this

work:

And there my Weed, bogetten Son, by chee

‘Ths T perform. speak thea, and be at dose;
My ewersiadewing Sperit and might wh thee
| seted abeng. riche forth. ard bed the Deep
Wahu appecrmed beards be Eleae'n and Barth, (14, 9 i6g<165]

Malton describes the process of creation in Book 7 (218610) aad the

beauty of the created woeld in Book 8, The crowning glory of the
Unmverse is the Burman race, and that ghey Satan will soon seek oo mar.
Hat mow, from the fiery bake, Satan cerwoys the darkness of Hell. a
meahere “filled” with fallen angels. Phe ones his hourcnant. Boelretrab.
and then the whale shadowed host, whose chieftains Milson nuemes (PL
1.38te<20) Thor natures remain asgebc because their eatures were
created by God (re. g2¢—316, 368-360; 2.420), Our their wilh have be-
come evil, and their appearance gradually changes to meat’ the divtoe-
thon of their wills. One of the sense striking devices in Pevadie Lar is the
reflection of the contineing detericestion of Senun’s character in the
mereasng yrotcxpacness of bis appearance, Most carlice writers <bk-
scribed his defcemation at the meenent of his fill, and paintings show
the bright angels turning mito Mack, cwised shapes ax they fall from
heaves. Bat the warpingof Milton's Saran continues on and on, forever.

Awd in the lowest deep a hrwer deep

SHEE theeat"eieg to devon ene Coons wide,
Te whee’ the Hell I seffer secre a Hearn...
Wiebe thes achere ene on the Theo of Hell,
With Drader and Scepere high advanc'd
The brwer si 1 fell, (PL. g 4-91)
ee Mepdcisgpboie

Though at fest “his form had yet at kot / AB her Original teightaess,
oo appear’d | Leas then Arch Asgel ruin'd” (1.591-s03h already
beee the tormarks
rit decline, Upon seeing his commede Bockoctrab
of tc
dl”
for the first time am Hell, Satan exclaims, “O bow fan! how chong
(1 Rg; cf. 0.303), sensing thd che mark of rein is alvo epom himself. And
larer, when the angels Zephon and Ithuriel cernind been:
Think ned. ceveed Spérit, thy shape the sane.
OF endiritiin beghines:, to be kreven .
As when thee 1 in Heav'n apesgit and pore;
‘That Glory chon. when tha no meere wat ped,
Departed froee thee, and thoes reccmblat now
Thy si and place of docen obscure anc foal. (PL. o 435 -4ee

Appareatly wnaware of Bow his concimucd treachery and lies caly de-
tere Birn further, be takes on a number of animal Seerns—the lien, the
tiger, the cormorant, the vulture, the srpest—in cader 10 doceree an-
ed so:
by doing
gel and men, aad then complains that he ts bemy Jograd
© foul desceat! that | whe erst contended
ith Goats 90 sit the highest. ane norw commtrain’d
bate » Bees, and esict with besial seme,
Thes cuerme to incamane and imbewte,
That 00 the highs of Deity anpar'd:
far what will eet Amatetion and Revenge
Dewcend to? «hes aspéres crane derrm as bra
As high be sone"d, obernc ioe
first oe s
lat
To tasest theres. (PL @ 63-878)

As. S. Lewis remarked, Saran is gradually redeced from beight angel

to peeping, prying, Iyang thing chat erick a a wreheng snake.'*
Rising from the fiery lake inno which he has teen pitched (and from
which he is ket boo a Hime in coder to learn the ways of Providence),
fee ne
Sacee muses to his comme Keekebub on there present prodicamers
and furare plans. Coademming God as a tyrant and waunting bes own
barred and revenge, be calls for protracted warfare against the deity, All
the is vain beast or biked madecss, for Satan bas always known—
though he bas pretended echeruist=-that God is net evil and thar bes
cenrapenence parecludes the success of any continued rebellion. fun the
Devil always prefers illusion to reality and diveetice to truth, and
became be bors to defeat God," he coavinces himeelf that he cas (PL

wo PL papi: ‘ S95, Feb 1G, gOd— ges. Gat. Beem 1 OE OTe,

wk. Bor the eneeals,
 Phe Deval herweew Tie Wield 2

t.Rg-t27) Beeloctral> jams Satan in the delusion, pretemding oo his

master that they had nearly succeeded in toppling the heavenly eveant.
But ae undercurrent of weenie reality crops ep in Boekxebub’s reply:
he adrrets that they have been as coenphtely ruled as angels intel-
hipemees can be, and he seppeses that God must be almighty. since no
levee pxrwer coukd have emoronmee their moghe (4. tah
1 46). belocd, all
the demons participating in che infernal discussions huve insight inte
reality that Sata lacks, and it is a micasure of Satan's greater blimdness
as well as his greanor evil char his plan loses the bonet¢ of their imsight.'*
Satan's response ix the perfect expeessiom€ a completely corrupted will
chooang eil for evil's sake

To do sogit goed eevee will be cur tok

Het ever 00 de iD cur sede delight,
As being contrary ¢o bes high wil
Wheen we rowet. If then bes Providence
Oet of car evil sock oo beng forth good,
Orr llevar evant be to pervert chat ood,
And oat of goed will to Gnd means
of evil, (PE.1 ope 60)

This e 2 Blane plan Sor a counterpwovidesce: whatever God docs good

we wel attempe to mist oe evil; we hate good fee the pure and simple
reasoe Shar it xs peod.
Seean embeaces hn own ev:

Farewell baggy Fick

Where Jerr for ewer davethe: Hail Deorroes. had
lefermal world, and thee peofeumdes Hell
Kocerre ty new Pesseswe; One whe Leings
A tered ee te be cheeg'd by Place of Tene
‘Thee creel is its cran plece, aad an ioxif
Cas teabe @ Leev'e of Eecll, a Hell
of Heay's. . . .
Better 00 fog ie Hell, thas serve in Heav'n. (PI. 299-54]

I affirm, he says, that my sake function and purpese is to cmbeace

ethiagnes and to obsiterane wharover is god so far as Lam able. Again
the is sothing trot boast, for his anci-Providertial schenes are ilhesion:
= reality, divine Provikkece will tum every evil inte good. Belial and
the other demons ruae about, planning ce ted an empire in Mell with
Pardereriices as ity capetal, bat the idea of malong this stinking. stmek-

taAreegter. pS.
 a
4 Afepdirypvies

og. fikhy place=-litorally nowhere—inme a comfortable kingdcen a a

paeadiam of abourdity (1.270620).
‘The Devil les his owe schemes. God i planneng a eew world and a
mew face to tube the place of the fallen angels. Very well: thes provudes
us with cur opportamity fostrike the opprexver 2 lhe, semce we soem bo
have difficulty in defeating hies in ogen'War, we wil ffect our purpcocs
try fraaad and guile (PL. 1.691462) Satan's plot x, with the belp of
Heckretuls, to call a comncil of the chief dorsons ahere be will appear to
coasiker their pecgesals, and then to have Beelzetrod retrrrodece bis
master's plan and sway the infernal host te accept it.
Satan oper the council:

High on a Throne of Reval State, which far

Qutchewe the woakh of Oveves and of Ind,
On where the peegeves Dat oe rahe Barc
Stevw'ts oo ber Kiwes Heetar Peart and God,
Satan cxabted sat, [PL 2.164)

The therne upon which Satan apes the royal state of God in Heaven is,
hice all of Hell, a mad farezan tcf. 6. 755—771). Satan's pening address
10 his Sellkrwers is oqually mad, foe he waggests that they have a chance
to defeat the Aloighey. thar they may somehow turn their ruin to
advarnage and end up by accpeiring greater ghory than shes tad before
their fall (2.0142). Dus sceting the aneeal pone, the Counterfeit prince
opetss 2 meaningless delute w hese cutcome he has already denermined.
Bach demon makes his spooch, mot on the basis of a rational choice of
ples but on the buses of his owe culing vce, which cach disguises as a
virtue.*?
‘The stvage Mobech rises first and counsels open wer ageenst “the
Torturer,” since they have sothing 02 bose. The only further punish
tncet Guxd coukd decree would be annéhilation. aad even that would be
better thus croucherng here in chains. Gut ef pure spite and hatred of the
enemy. Moloch—like scene madern melitary» aegis a destruc
act war that he kncws carot be wee (2. gi-eog).
Belial, the srmocth-tonagucd orator, speaks neat, useng all the arts of
rhetoric and chariwnatic charm to advance his own lazy, seroucas
wcheme. Moloch. he says. cers in deeming arsihilation better than thix,
and in any evert annihilation ix net Ged ‘scaly alterative, for he could
torment us with pores Gr more relerticn ata intense. Let uy instead
ee Seoobrus. p 145
 Thy Drow terwere Tino World re

just settle down here in Hell and waie till God's wrath cook: perhape
this wall pet better. Belials dlustons are subtler and lew clwixndy
fad than Modoct's but seal illesions, Sor Helial Sezets w hese Gul ther
fall is. It & met up to Ged to cool his ereth, bot up to the domes no
repent. which Belial keaws they will never do. Only they cam better
their oan fot, and they will moc do it (t.105<229)_ <
Maresom’s argument resombiies Behal’s. though repecsoating avarice
feore than serrasality, Look hero, be reasons. we canst depose God and
caneot rope Heaven; we wil not repent. and if we did, we woeld only
revelt again, Sor we coukd nee bear to be up there with these nambry-
pur bies vinging “foec'd Mallelupits.” Se let ex build a ctv and an
empire here, raming the rch earth to construct mighty tower and so
peeést from our fall (2.220°283), Mamimnon negkets to mention that the
pecad palaces they Guild in Hell will ao more serve to save chore chase
the prod cowers they had erstwhile buik in Heaves (1.670-76¢1)
The awermibied demons incline to the sade of Belial and Mammon, bar
nore Beckcbut rises te promote Satan's plan as if it were his oon,
Coertly, grave, recognited as second in ccenmand, be pots immediate
respect, Cally and pedirely, be copes the illusions of the peeviows
speakers, only to advance an cqually mad curve of action, We cannon
rule or be hapoy here, he points oat, bocause Gad is the cecal ruler even
in Hell, whatever we nay Wee 0o ietagine, we are really prscecrs in
chains. Cod is in abraohere contre here, at everywhere in the cosmos.
The conclasions that an enclouded mind woeld draw from thar promise
are cbwsous, tet none of the demons has 2 clear intellect o¢ crete
will, “Thee sin tees cwisted these Sor eternity: thoorctically, they coukd
repent: im fact, they will mever do so. And wo Beelectreb coumals nee
repentance but an indewect and stealthy attack upon the ruler they had
nat been able to dishadge by force Heclzelouls sties the demons mo com
tempe and hecred for humanity. Hureans arc happy while we are mis
erable, freowed ty God above the angels even though they are ieferioe,
conrempaitte kerk creatures useepitg oar dwn place in the comes, If
we cannot confront God darcetly, we wall pet at heen tne corrupeieg and
ruining these little pets of his (2. ¢ 20-978).
The demons enthusastically erebrace this pies co

cottuarad the rece

OC} eee’ in ose ret, and Earth with Hell
‘Te neingte aed tervolre, doee all to spine
‘The great Creatce
 a
16 = Wuphaieptetas

Beet the plan a in vain from the eutyet: “thir spite sill serves / His ghory
to augment’ (2, 382-384),
Now the demons must deckie which of ther will go te Eden
aad do
the dood. Sawin aobly eohentcers, eaunting bes courage and his inetiative
to his Sellowers-—<a wainglary (comerasting with the Sam's calles assump
Gon of respemsibiligy in Heaves) that ts lever debunked ty the angel
Gabriel, whe points oat that the real reasces Satan went on the mission
was to escape, if only for a while, the tonnents of Hell [PL 2417-244;
32357236) 4920-924) Sallying Seeth, Satan reaches tho gate of Hell
anal there cnoountcrs his daughter, Sim, As first he faels to recognine Ber,
tee like her father, she has best her comeliness: “Ef hace thee nee, mor
ever saw tll now / Soght more devestathe,” he exclaims She reminds
beers that she had cace ploxsal Rem so much thar he Rad meade incesmous
be to her, begetting on her “the execratde shape” of his son Gand
grandwe) Death—ubo in turn had rapod bo eather, preadoceg a
broad of monstrous offspring. The Devil, Sin, and Death are thus a
menstrows parody of the Ifely Trinity, the circawimassio (retual in-
dwelling) o¢ the thece Porscns o¢ the Trinity digrusingly mirrored tre
this meaneal incest (2.68168 70). The parody is reflected in chow di-
aloguc, as Whee Sen addresses Satan in cenms appropri caly to God
Thea art ery Father, thea my Author. thea
Shy being gav'st mc, wheen should | obey
Het thoc, whee: follow! thoe wik ben eee coer
To that new world of bgt: and Bln (Pl. 2.84,—86>)

The irony is thar the sew work! u here the poeverted tree will seam make
their here is the Earth, Ibero w already a bent of the Eroeway that Se
and Death will build ro coanect Hell and Barth (2. 1024) 1 293-324)
The Devil new issecs forth oor of che gate of Hell ito Chass, a
noaplace separacng the manplace Pfeil from the ealiny thar is bheaven
and the universe depending from m Ce. Spee toss) Leaveng Chaos, he
journeys toward the eniverse, while God warches tes comese across the
void am! already plans Dis response: the Som's willieg skorifice of Dien.
self fee a harmeeity that Father and Son kaow wal fall and will need
fedemeption (2.1-145). Satan finally reaches the tenth of cutermest
sphere of the universe, the pramum mobile; perching there, be looks
down inte the puticet universe like a veltere sprig cut bes prey. De-
scending to the sphere of the wun, he disguises himaclfax a chere and
 T& Deo! heron Too Work a

there meets the angel Uriel: thence he cemnes down to Earth, alighting at
last epoe Mont Nipdanes near the Garden of Fiden, the same moentain
(Milton foxes} as that on which Satan would later sempe Chri (PL
PagtOmrea ee phe PR peg s<26e).
Seating on Mount Niphates, Satan speaks his great soliloquy. whieh
we might think honest soel-searching had we not been warned by cur
neu igs of Saran as well as bP Milton's oan ee (PL. 4.110) that
the: ma being wholly coeumitted to evil; the oolibxyoy ts another im-
peoture, And yer not cntiecly so. Satan's ienolfect, though coursed
anc] weakened, is soil an angelic intelligence, and here it sooess to ylance
sidewapy at realty before rejecting it ver again. Looking at the sun,
Satan hates it Gor reminding hen of what true Sight really is and of his
pode and ambinon in nsing up against a ruler whe bad estaldished him
in beaght eminesce in Heaven and to whom he owed boyalty and love,
He recegmizes thar the chetce was hic and that he is the author of hic
cram mesery (¢.31694) But quickly he passes from scif-realization co
sclf-tarred, from self-hatred to deypair, and chen tuck oo kuetred of Ged,
The thought of repentance and submission eeners his mind, only to be
rejected wmimediately; be knows that he would only sie again. He knows
whech way Bis will is bent:
Fee ever can trac cocomolemnt gra
Where wounds of deadly hate have piere'd op deep:
Which would bert bead me to a worse refapre,
And bearer Gall: so chveld 1 pawchase dear
Sheet eterreicmce tecaghe with doalde anurt.
‘Thes loveers rey parisher, theretime as far
Freen granting hee, as 1 frome begging
peace:
AS hope excloded the [P1. 464-105]

Und, olmerving Satan's woliloqey from afer. motives the conteetions of

his Gece at be porders, amd he eealines thar this & fe untroubted cherul
bul 4 grave threat to the sinocent inhateranes of carth 44.94-1 502 The
thadecss o¢ Sates, implicit im bis vain beasts frome the beginning, ap-
pears capdcit here to the olsorver and the reader.*!
Satan travels on to Paradise, at whoa beauties he books down im the
shupe of & cetmmarant from a tree. Gang at the loveliness of Eve and
scomg Adan and Eee embracing in innocent anion, be is again filled

48. Cheteepter, p. 4).

 a

ae LU phesoptrtey

with envy aad barrod (4.1 51—¢61). "Meanwhile, Gabovel has set an an-
gel: wurch over Paradise to protect the fiewt pareats. and two of these
guardian angels, tthuriel and Zephom, come across Satan squatning Woe
a toad at Eve's skeping car, whispering fantzens of Se and corrupmon
ito her Greats. Dtherel tdectes big iv with has spear, and at the
touch he springs up im his own shape, They immediately recogniine Bint
as a demon but do aot immodketely reale thar the fiend before them
was once the bigh peince Lucifer. ‘Dke Deval is angry at their failare >
recegeize him, ter when Zephon rebukes hem. telling Nim the truth
abeat the change be has suffered, Satan is taken aback
Abonkt che Dewi! stonsd,
And felt bow aatul goodness i. aed sow
Virtue in the ciape bara lovely, saw, and pond
His bs. [PL ¢ Apt Ry!l

Still, bis regret is sot vo mach for the hanes thar he is doing and will de
as foe the bess of hex own beauty and prestige.
‘The angels being Satan Before Gabriel, and the two great arch
angels--one fallen, cee cloct—beyin a dialogue, Satan ts ¢
of Gabniel’s hovalty and beasts again of bis own courage and faithfulness
to his comrades. Gatericl's reply is crushing m its char and direct
remutenigy:

O sected name of Gathtuleces protean dd!

Facthfol to «teen? oo thy retetlnas crow?
Anmry of Fiend. fit bexde 00 Oe Dead...
And thou, sly bypecrite, ho new woubller poem
Punron of liberty. whe mace than the
Orwe favn'é. and cring'd. and xevdely ated
hewn’: awoal 3 wherefode beet in hope
‘Te dispemeos bine, and thyselfte reign? [PL 4.95 e961!

‘The focus of the poom has cerned more and more upee Adin and
Eve; Eve's dream, recoursed in the fiéth book, is the probegec to the
certrad scene in the ninth beck, in which the firt coupile cecnmet their
first sin. Though Sacan has sat whispering as a toad in Eve's car, i her
dream she perceives him in the form of a beactiful angel who suggests
of the fren:
the new jovs that will be hers if she cars
Taste this, aed be befnetneth amen the Crock
Thysclt « Giahdess, one co Darth ovefin'd,
 ‘elon rresireg, Cowetrarts hm oy “Ty wuth ow Sap ress of heer ore bre

Tbhsctrateem bey Det ber Pore Let. o.g7~o8. Ereranter, 1)

‘m~ Mesaevuptetr
Bat wenctnes i the Alf, as wee, cmt
Aseond to Hew'n. by mere ine, (PL. 6.77 Bel

God hed prepared the joys of Heaven for both Lucier and Eve, ‘The
root of sin is that Luciferteddi on oleaming them aot from God's
grace bee ty bis own foece of will afd seppesed merit. Now he is
suggesting 10 Eve the same faloghoed, that she can achoeve happiness by
her cwn cffeets. Adam wares Eve that this dream may proceed free an
exil spirit eather than 4 good ome. nevertheless, the dream® prepares her
for the actual tereptation and fall in Book 9,4°
That the Sail of Adam and Eve ts the central focus of the poom is clear
freen the wery first words of the epic: “Of Man's Piet Dicobedamce. ©
Saran, driven out of Paradive by Coateiel’s command (PL 4. 1015), now
rowms the Earth in search of an appropriate dingeise in which to effect
thar ruin. Be decides upon “the serpent subekest beat of all the Fiekd™
(9.86), taking volumcanly the form ines which he will later be turned
ayaimot his will (1.34). For a momers he hearates, contemplating the
beauties of this Earth that be is abour to defile, But it ts mot bowe and pity
that make him pause. it i envy of Adam aad Eve's enjoyment of the
Farth and of Geal's creation of it. Unwilling so grasp the Mea that Ged
could have poured Socth such bewety in prerePa selfless keve, bes
darkened mind can caly conceive that God noust have made this place as
a second thought, to improve upee his oan seat in Heaven. The only
point Satan soex clearly is bm own mature:

‘The more E sce

Pheasires abpver ine, se reach mere Eo Seel
Teer ore
Net bupe to be nieself bess meseratyte
By what I scck, bot others 00 male sock
As 1, though hereby worse
to ioe fechreneds
Fee only in destroying
| fied case, (PL 9. beget
eel

He docs evil Ge its own sake even thoegh i will make bes can bor
wer. Mien peojected upon Satan the hoaman tendency to launch self,
monn aitacks uperi scene ever at the nok of torritde consequences te
the self. The Devil's ultimate poy will be “we one clay co Dave marr’d /

qt SewJ. Secedionan, “Brc’s Docu and the Comrertin of the

e Jearmet
of Winchoratt.”
Heros
of Flows, 26 Cey)), Ofer ge Wt is fowniite ur Miloon had winchorst an mied, ber
all the churacteranice of the dream see pars cf gcrerel Chrvstion devheleygs
 The Dec! eroere Vivo Werld ‘ee

What he Almaghey styl'd. six Nights and Days / Continu’d makieg”

(9. 196-198) ble pities henself, musing bow unfair it is that he should
werk vo hand to accomplish these ends yet receive no chamks for his
cifcets.
Finding the sorpertewss yet an minccent beast—adeep, Sanam ceceps
into hix ssceth and possesses Ninn (y.137—1g0) Unaware of the hoeror
awating them yet appinised by the angel of powside danger, Adee
suggests to Eve thar they stay together, bet she dctenmines co walk in
the garden alone, a situation that Sates had boped for and was quick to
explet. Oe Bebolding her again, he hesitates for a mormenn, his seeses
and micilect, which soil retain 2 rerum of thor original abiliey, per-
ceive the powe
of r
her insocent bowery:

Dhee gracesal Itedence. ber every Air

OF posture of kot action escraw 4d
Dis Malice, and woth rapine wacet bercar'd
Bis ferceness of the Gerce intees it brought:
‘That space the Evil one aleeracted socal
Froen his en evil, and foe the time remand
Sopally goed, of comity dicarm’d,
C4 puie, of hate, of crrey, of revenge. (PL.
a 4so-g8tl

Thee hes twisted will dieaws him back away from reality:

an the bee Hell that always in him owes,

bin ed Hearn, secon ended bes delet... .
Fieree hate he ewoodbects, ard all fois theeaghes
OW treschoef, gratulsting, thes excites, [PL 9.9$>-<2:]

Ihe addresses Eve, and Eve wonders aloud how a serpest can speak.
‘This t the perfect opesing for Satan to explain that he had gained
wisdom by cating the fruit o€ the marvelous tree. Eve plays into his
harais ty asking where the tree im to be found, and Saran is delighted to
show ber. O& well, says Eve, if this is the tree you mean. we maght as
well net have bothered to ceene, for God has peohilimed & to us. Satan
qqeckty cxckeens at a tyrant that would forbid his creatures wach accexx
to growth and fulfillesent. “The tree, he explains, will give them iremce-
tality, a happice life, and higher knowbedpe, including the knowledge of
good and esl. Te will make them like pods, and God's only motive im
promibiting it must be to keep them under his control (9 44¢~9e2).
Every word he spoaks is nce only a lic but che diamerrical op@enite
of the
truth, for the tree will tring them death, a wretched life, and extra
knowtedee anky of sim, and they will revernite dernmers sare thas pods.
Eve is persuaded, both hy her intellect, which respends to Satan's false
reascaing. and try her senses, which unge her to desire the fruit, Her sin
is mo hasty, mitigated ace!she.thinks & through carcfally before she
plucks (9.75 p78).
‘The act entails several climecnsions in Milton's poem. Piper, # ts a sin.
Satan did net compel, and had not the power to compel, ber to ceenmt
in. bher chosce was her own, Ereely meade after dee consiboration. Knew.
ing: fell well thar God had forbédden the fruit, she deliberately placed
her will abowe God's, Thus the firer sin of Barna reflects the first sin
<@ the sages, Humans, however, are bees culpatike firet, because they
were tempted by an cxnenmal agent socond, because cheer immellectual
Capacities are so ewach less. Satan before his fall possesond all the vast
intellect of the angeb; the Gest pareers. on the ccher hand, wore in
Geadl's image net throagh any comparability of inelleet ber we thar their
relaticeship with him was hansomeoes and undistorted. Sarn's fall was
a maximal plunge freen the heights of Heaven to the depilis of nowhere:
Adam and Exe hed much lexs distance to descend. Tee fall of treenanity
was a change from harmony to disharmony, from gentle inmocence to
hurd alenanon, tear i was noe a plunge from geadlike heights to mfernal
ruin. Purther, as Milton goes on to show, God beoegh= good out of the
disaser by making i a positive occasem for us to kare wraloes by
suffering. “
With the fall of Eve the monnent of drama is oven Adam's will soen
follow. With borror he kearns what Eve has done:
©) Gres of Cecateens, let ond beet
CM all Gaads Works, Crestute on whens cseetl
Whatever can to spit o¢ Cheat be Gere,
Hely, divine, areable, of sweet!
there art thee bot, bow on a sodden ket,
Detect. dediva'r'd, aed mow to Death ceveer? (PL. 9 Bo4—qoe!

Beat he knows that they are united foeever man and wate, bese of bone
and flows of flesh, vo his mnmediate and revolute choice is to remain by
her. Yor his cheéce, like hers, & freely read against wheat he knows to be
Gal's will, The consequences are wure and mevitalile: Adam and Eve
a}. On peinseubere anal peaninalbom,
“we Bivens, PP Pebrate
 Tix Devil betroore Tero Work ‘ig

are driven cat of Paradise go live a ble of suffering and alicsarion freen
(rod, and the serpese is cursed. Satan understands wher the curse
scans Sor bin: etermal ennrety between hireself and the Deity; eventual
Tuin when Jeoss Christ. the second Adam and won of the socoad Eee.
will crush him undertoce (PL t0.192-181, ao6—sor, toqi—1096, PR
ssh Sin and Death, Satan? gishegetten offepeinge now build their
freeway between Hell and Earth, pollating the world and, umed the
time of redemption, placing it ender Satan's rele. The new world thar
God bas called moo being has become “that sew world ( Where Sunes
row prevails” (PL eo.2g6—249),
Satan has acoumplishal what be had planed, and he reruns tri-
urmphantly frome Earth ro beast of his acccesplishimenes to his followers.
He appears on his richly bedecked throne shining in what litle of és
starbke glory reramns, and all the fallen angels prostrate themselves in
wonder and prise as he vaunts his docds and proclaims his conquest of
the earth. Ged is defeated,be tells them; Earth tax been opened so sin
and death, and Iam its new ruler. Arne and take possession of the mew
world | have cursed for you All ofa wedden bis boasts are reduced to
gress reakty. for the ange’ ranked arvend the glitnoring throne rooms are
taling on shapes mecre becureing to their true ratere, Satan hears not
the shours of peaise that be expects but the aethentic voice of his atren-
dant chroeg:

So taveng cad, a while be shed, copecting

The cnmwversal shear aod high appdeuse
‘To Ul Bis car, when conmrary be bears
Che abl sates, fron) weeuencretele toengecs
A dineeal uedwercal bess, the oversd
OM puble soemn, be wonder'd. but not beng
Had beoure, worl fing at hienelf were reore,
His Vieage dravn he Slt to and spare,
His Arres clang te bes Rite, hiv
Back caher, 8 vapplanted devan he él
A tetentroas Serpent on hin Belly prone,
Reluctant. bet un veer, a preatcr power
Now cold hire, punteit im the be urnd,
Scoteding to hie doom; be would have qobe,
Hat bins Sor bone return’d with forked congue
Te forked toegue. foe all were mow transtorm’d
Abie to Serpent: all as sccemorex
Te bin bold Koce: dreactfal was the din
 Sseas roourre 6 Pecil ty bewest of bes chefeat of Adam areal Dove, cole to trad bee
fibewwors Wanforren! evo kuthecete serpert: brew
Ibhevtretees Ceaetave Lhoee be
Puraios Lat, ia tiger Gel brewing. 35)
 Tike Dew kerceew Tie Warltés 426

OF hinwtng: chroagh che Pall, thick swarming nw

With coenpticuted mcenters, bead anc cal, [FL vo oag~ery)

Satan is redoced to the state of the beast he bad used 10 sedece Eve. He
had assumed chat the curse Ged laid on him in Eden extended only to
his eternal cnimixy with tremantind: he bad daiked rillivew bo sce that he,
like the serpent, wars doomed to crawl wpom his belly.
In Paradise Mquine!, Melton corepletes bis diabology and Ohriuology
Parades Lest recovers the aliceation between huma andns
God revelong
from Satan's successful terpeation of the first Adam. In the new pom.
Milton describes the healing of that divisiom by the resistance of the
second Adam, Chris the Son of God, to a new temptation. Satan, uho
m the earlier pocen bosex all his majesty by his total hurraliation, appears
mm the new ome as merely cenning and devious. He hus bea of rd
a Sen of
God bemg been and does not keow what this means. Is Jevex the Son of
Ged only a the seme of being an inspired prophet? Or ix be the
incarmanion of the divine Som bimaclf?
Satan cal an infernal councd to remind the fallen angels of God's
curse upon the serpent and toll chem chat the chil of d
Eve who was to
crush them: beneath bes foot has now been been. Gad bax peockimed
this child his “son,” and we mest find out what this means, save Saran.
“for man Be scerm / In aif his lineaments, though in bix face / The
cs of bis Father's glory shine” (PR 1.9193) Satam awuires his
ctlthat owe ax he rs
tempeood Adam, he will set out again now in “hope
of bike success” (1.206). God in Heaven, observing the new plot, con:
fides to Gateiel that he is permitting Seca oo compt Christ so that the
Sen may demonstrate his divine birth, proving to the Devil that the new
Adam bas the strength to restore the damage dome bry the fies Adam
and 9 break the power that the Evil One bousts over the earth (1, 1¢0°
etry.
When Christ geex out into the desert to peay, the Devil approaches
him disguised as am oh! man in country clothieg (PR 1.314), Soll eved-
ing responsitelity, Satan complains that he is an enfortunate vietine
whom misery, net sim, hax beoughe bw. The Sos ix nce mken in
“Deservedly thea priev'st, compes'd of lies ( From the beyireing. and
in hes wil end” (1..407-408), No joy can make Satan tappy, for be has
chosen unhappiness, and he is most miserble uben in the peesmce of
jovi be is “never more in Hell than when in Heaven” (1420),
Saran returns to Fell amd warns bis fellows that Clinst is plotting oo
advance thee rum, God had graneed thom temporary powers on Earth
 a
ne Mepdeaapdyles

because of the sin of Adam aad Eve, tot thea are now about to be
eevohal (PR t.e2e<1g6) Thee response is a plan to compe the “ven” in
the hope of dscertaineg whether be is Ged and, if pet. to rain him as
they trad ruined Adar and thas avert the lossof thelr power,
The idea that the ecmpestion of Clyrist was
a test of his diviniryis
* char scither in scripeerc nor inwhtee. bret it was fairly common in
ae literature +* Milton's socmario posed bieh theubogacsl and beer-
ry peottems. Sacan mest doute the divirety of Christ, for of he were
ated of i, one of Teo consequences woeld follow, Either he woeld nce
clareGo Ccrmpe het at all, oF che
he would pross his attackcut of sheer
hatred, hewn ireg it advance of his certain defeat. The larver is tenable
theedogically but net dramatically, foe # cubs the action of the venciom of
uncertainty. A further dramatic ucakeess threatened: uf Oheist fully
his cun devine nature, even if Satan did nee, the tension weuld
still be best, for Father and Son would know the oatecenc from ctermaty,
and che whole sconarte woeld be an entrapment of the unwithng Deva
Maton rejected this approach, for him, the Som as a child dees mat Knew
his divine ongin aad must be cobd & tre his eeother (PH t.zo1—258), At
the time that he goes cur into the desert, Christ is aware that be is che
Son of Ged in some sense, but like the Devt Be is not cure whar this
means, aml he debates within Mansel! what be « supposed to Go to
felfal his ramssen. The Father plans to ase the tomptanon to n
both Satan aad the Soa. As God ovens all evil sano good, as he will later
tern the crucifiscon into salvation, Giod sow tums Satan's test of Christ
mito the canfinmateon of Oheit’s divinity.
Meanwhile, in the demonic cuencil the semaucus Belial suggests thar
they tempt Christ with worsen, bet Satan chooses bo ese “oeanlier
ebijects”: hemor, glory, and popubser pedive (2.24 5-058). He returns to
the doucrt dressed in suphisticated chething. wad urtarcly offers Chena
food, riches, ghey, and all the kendo: of this world.** The tompte-
tions fail because Christ dieceres that Satan cam never offer anything
tear Hlusdoms, The Devil ix not yet convinced and sell wonders “in what
degree or meaning
thea art call'd / The Sen of God, which bears no
single sense” Lg.¢ 6-517) Deon ae a won of Goel, be muro, or at least
was, and all mon are scons of God 1g. 618-5 20h

44. Locum, pp. cacetas. tfp-asa. 280-004,

ty Mibu) Slbiw's the ender of the compeations im Locke, rather than thar on Marthew.
becenne Luka pets the termpent
ine ons thee tamvee im Ue cbesreat nally setety ing lid ple
 the Deed etmren Tow Words 127

‘Therefcee
oo brea what niere thew art Chae ran,
Woeth nansing See of Gaal fry weice froes Heae'n,
Arcetver coethen! | ereat new bogie. (PR 4.5 58-s40l

Setting Jesus epers the pennack of the Teeiple, Sane unges hime to
prove bes devane power by burliag himealf doun aad aye ing the angels
to catch Bim as his Gall. Joss replies: “Tempe not the Lord your Gol,”
beth an affireatos of Chris's own Sith ie the Father aad a warsing to
Salat not Go tempt the Som. The crusheng cruth of that reply sends the
Devil plunging tack mo the darkness(4. 062) As Adam, by yvieMing to
Satan's temptation, lot parading for hureanity, oo Cheist, by bis re-
solance, reamed it.
Satan cannet undemtand chat Chinst’s reotive im coming to Earth is
hove, Sor all that Satan understands & power, The heavealy choir warns
beets that be cannot hope much honger oe “Rule in the chante like an
Autureeal Star / Or lightning choo shalt fall from Hher'a, trod down /
Under his feet.” And “thie repula™ is not vet “thy bot and deadbeat
weand” (PR 4418-432), In Christian tradioon, Sane fille three
times —or, more acoeratcly, his fall is repeesemted three tines: fit, im
bis Gall frome Ficaven at the Begeaning of the woekd: sooond, im bia defeat
ty Clinst at the mcarration and ospectlly at the pussdom: and third, in
bis final defeat and destrection at the ead of the weekt. Miltoe: showed
the first in detail, hired at che third, aad desorbed a creck crent in
the socom. Chret’s passion was traditionally soo as beginsieg with the
temptation im the desert and culerenaning in the crecifixion Gakough it
cou! alse be seen ax beginning with the ciroumenian or even with the
werretion icf. Malton dwelt upen the comptanen for the evthetic
ccaten that it mirrors the remptarion of Adar and that Christ's succes
itt withstanding the cempearion rectifics Ackame’s failure to withotaed the
Gevt one; Sor the scripeural reason char ir is the only dhecet confrontation
betwoes Oheist and Sates reported im the Bitte: and for the dramatic
ceavors that at alleay a dealogue betwen the two
Miltoes’s is the Lit comvincng fulllength porcrait of the traditional
heed of evil. In the eighteenth and nincscenth conturic. the concepe
would be worn dean by rationalign and dissorted by Remarticom.
4 Satan ‘Expiring —

‘The traditional world view supporting belief in the Devil had been
undermined by Descartes, Spenoxa, and Locke, while reaction agaanet
che witch crane made the Devil of all Chinstian doctrines the least
antractive to the educated. The est velneratée part of theology, the
Devil thus helped weaken the obf strecture further. and the mew phibes-
opties and of the eighteenth century provaded the tools with
which to pall« n, Befcee 1700 the traditaonal Ohwistian view was
will accepted by many of the educated, bet by sBoo mest had abun:
doned it of toodified it one 0€ recognition.
The degree to which che eaghteenth century actually “dechins-
tianired” Western society is detaratie, since the degree to which society
had previously been Chistian es also disputed. Among the minority of
Berupesns in yoo “ho were linorare, Obristian educanen was often
shallow: many, if net eeost, of the ansrocratic amd bowrgonts leaders of
society wore Christianity like a oummer scarf over an ounfit of hedcerismn
or selfichnese Peasant relighon wis thed to the niewal life of raral comma
sitios; when in the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth conteries
peasants and manual Laborers left those commeninies tke the growing
cmies, their religion, cut off from its pansh roces aad from narure,
withered
The secubsrization of Obrivtersity had begun as carly as the Reforma
thea and Counter-Reformation. and the maxdemistic views of some
Ctwistian thinkers, sotably the Jesuits, preceded and influenced the
philosophies of the Enlightenment. The Jesuits drvited the cosmes into
a” of revelation and a warkd of mature. Nacewe, they sand, ts
undistorted by ongomal sin, an open book that God has wnmtten and in
 Metaw Mager uy
which any rational creme can discern Creal’ plan. Though temanity’s
moral seme has been conrupted by the sin of Adam, ies reason and even
to a degree ts will are enimpuired. Nature can therefore be understoc!
amd decnbed by maser! reason, which can discover and prepound
physical laws, Divine grace is necessary to salvation, tet the individual
m wholly free to accept of reject the offer of prac Flume nature is
ewemialty goad and. with GolS grace, perfoctitde,
Por the Jesuits. the world of grace and revelation was an cates dimen-
ven that God bud seperinpcocd apes the natural world. Once religice
was acon in this way as am ackbison to macure, a supersnructure buil
upen nature eather than the wery core and being of the world, it could
easily pass from scetrang necewury oo sccming merely desirible, and
from desirae to merely nice or perhaps even absurd. Descartes,
Locke, Loboiz, aed Newtoa—tke the Joauits—all affinned Chra-
nanky but created phikecphical ar cos a systems that had no
need o¢ Chistian explesatiom. Scientific explanations reteoved the say
of che work’ aad replaced it with the dece, ultimate texun foe the
regelaritics observed by science in phydcal manure was held to be un-
inoan, and scocmbitic “laws” were seen simply as descripene statereents
of observed patterns. Thus the philosophes of the Enlightenment (the
serm indicares that they were sot so mech philosophers ax propagan-
dists for the mew faith im reavon, materialism, and empericinm) sizeply
accepted the sateral works of the Joseirs and repected their supernatural
world. As icing on the cake rather than she cake itself, religion could
evesoually be dene away with,
Apenst this background the hostility of the Ealighronment to Chris-
nanity may be reassessed. “The phélosophes may be seen as following
the Jeswns, only taking their arguseents logically further. Ii thes light
the clams of the philsophes to be Greceing “tree Christianity” —de-
fined as the ethical teachings of Joos im a coment of cptimiun, the
perfecemality of humanity, the esential podness of the weeld, socal
pestice, and isdividual comeicnce— make vena, Such views indead be-
came the esseofnce liberal Proteu and leer
tan of someecnm
Bhcral Ca-
thelictn. The philasopihes may be xcen ax condemning mot Chirntionity
tar the church, the cepaized religion thar had, in ther view, departed
from the trac message of Chriat and become authoriurian, traditional,
magecal. comforstist, ritushotic, pious, marrow, fearful of sience and
philsopiy. and stuck in the dark ilbasionsof sin, redempeion, bell, and
the Devil, This portrait wie never mare than a caricarure; for example,
the Carkole church dad not oppése bet rachor fosered and putrenized
ayo Mepbisaptels

the advance of manweal science, cxceyt where schence challenged the

fundsmental cpistermoogy of the cherch. Nometheless, the cancature
acquired rapa ecctgedacs among imtelicctual leaders and sce Chris-
nanity on the defensive. “The French Revelution of OS and the other
resolutions it ingpired ale posed a direct challenge to a Ohristianny thar
had! come to rely on institutional and financial seppeet deriving from a
chc relitionshep berween throne aad altar. .
"The widespread workiliness of the cightcenth-conrury cherch—teth
its meoral laxky and its imellectual flabtimcss—redeced ins resstance to
of Eelighenment and Revolution. Some Oonistians clung
the challenges
desperately to the eld wayse-in vain, for the od symibots were qukky
losing their power aud eves their meaning. Other Chrnteunts
vainly retreated, apologized, and adapred tm marcnalivm until Chins
tierdty Was all bret paralyred by their conessions, Inatcad of epholding
the independent epéstemelogical basis of Cheistianzy in expenence,
revelatica. and cradition, they tried te ingratiate Christianity within the
empirical feameworke=a tack that proved futile and ultimately self-
destructive.
In the carly part of the cigheeerth century, Oheistianiry was still
aaaae entrenched in society, bat the process of compromise was
already visible. In Enghind, the adaptation know as laticodinananem
had already teyun im the lite severneenth contery. Archbishop John
‘T Mhotson (146 90-1694) had aegued ther the beliefs of Clirritemity “are 9
other ber whar sateral light prompts men to, excepting the (wo sacrar
eecnts, and praying to God in the name and by the modianon of
Chiat. Such adeas were advanced by Jobin Locke's Ranonaioan of
Covtnawy (1695) and Jobe: ‘Teland's Covinswry Not Myrterieay (1695).
To the lacitodimariany, Gath was simple: the harmony of the costes
proves the Reneflicence and orneipecence of the dery, theological clab-
ceatinns sach as original sin, redemptice. resurrection, and of course
the Deval are encumbrances to a Christianity that best travels light.
Denn, the kgucal ectendon of Letitudinariantsm, domimaned intellec-
teal circles both in Eegland and om the continent by the misdle of the
ceatery. Deists held that Ged conts, that he shows hinself mm narare,
and that we weesdip hime best br licing comstructive moral lwes. Scrap-
ie BR Willey, Tie Lantern
+ Qeoted Contery Rackgr mad roget,p 1. See
(London.
sheeJ. Dechamesn, Cortelown btiees Laster oad Veda GLenden, ryttt P. Gay, 7
As Mecvrpentation, 2 vols. UNew Work, ryite rqtais BL. Crtreber, Cae Prot
howe dev Bnew on der Anthlireny GFinekiert, sptak: 1 OL Wade, The Siemeteey and Pare of abe
Freeh Fatghoremer, 2 vot. (Primcotan, 99ft!
 Sears Earl
a

ture, tradinon, suiracks, revelation—all were to be discarded. Scene

Deists preferred oo retain the rome of Chrismas: other abandoned
Chricuery openly. The effect was the sane: a aatere religion with
enty a few ethical and cmetiorad mets in Chiosnan traditics, Voltaire
boke Invicgd & Visitor to view the aunnse at Kericy with him. When che
sun appeared, the phibsopbe Sytonished his companion by prosnraning
himself and cuckeening, “I believe in you. Powerfal Ged! 1 believe,”
Then, rising and dusting himself, he added: “As fee mondcur the Soe
and madame his Mother, thar is another thing.”?
Conservatives tried to held the line, One made of defense was
fideian, which, like medioval nominalisen, acoopecd that Chinsnanity
could nec demoewtrate its truths rationally and deckueed thar God's
treths fay Reyeed the limits of human feasce; our internal experience
amd faith tcaches us that the cosmos ix inscrutable, mysterious, and
divine. ‘Ths democratic mystics, which Pascal had already espoused
aed which found suppers from George Berkeley and Joaph Benker,
aveeded the untenatde claim thac Chinstianity could reer om the saree
busts as science. This was a powerfel pesitice, and Voleaire recognual
tas the mest dangerous Christian nipeste to Deies.' Fides hed a
number of divergent effects. In its wejpectioe of thoolegical coruintics. it
led to 4 bread and undeceninaire view that eventually merged with
libewalises: en the other hand. it led oo4 ecturn to reliance Upen the cock
“ senpture. |
‘Thes latter approach typetied the Pretises and Methadion dornmabey
matty Protestant churches during the century. Pictivre was by mo means
mate Cotserwatives, ke fideiom, Mm fepceted intricate choerrinal state-
ments, was skeptical of tradinon, and aveided the woeklhy cymicisnn thar
coloted many of the established churches.4 The forcrunner of moderns
evangelical churches, the movement cmplusieed the simpliccy of Chris-

t, Quoted
wn FP. Ciny, 7d Cetiptoumwen As feerprrvetes. 3 tobe, (New Verk, nts
ryt, vol 1. Ph 142 Skepta wees of Chrnmamre won alee advanced bry Thomas
Wroedwncen Feifere ss ceh. Anebeeny Coctli
(1 Gove~evs
spay wel jeeept Preaky Cerny shag
1G. Berbetey. Adiptees (erayh J Badher, The Anatury of Aivigne (0) s
)4) Vebuerc
sttactod the view bs bas Leivvey nhehenptepecy
(rt pg) Hor the revieel of pesstionen, sce the
wert of Willie: Law (1t85-ertal and OC. Maras, (ewrwmatew oe faced Muhew iNew
Vort. sg¢1) which coals wit) Dhevysen Asdecs Prober’s eteeptites of Exctene.
4. fin Gootwnaney the chect Spare
of Patiam
s weey Piskpp Jeleds Spewer (161¢-0N01),
Neledes vee Zaucradhet (1 tons tet apt Plorwees Prascke (i4t)- 000th ie Bn.
phewed. Joti Woenkey (i peeps tyr) aed Jodees Uh biscdicld Cn 719-1 ed ly Ameorton, deuten
Dawards (eteyeeret Che Weaky’s views of the Died, ace RK. W. Barexr aad ROE
Oebes. och. A Compo of Waly)
nd Theigy (Netrihe, rosah PP ee, teres
iW Mepbirzap
bole
tlaniy as eppesed to the intricacies of theology, and the personal rela.
thoaship beeween the individeal aed Chrnt ax oppenad to the historical
Christian emphasis upon community. The Pietists feared that rational
pitelerarphy weald Fee to atheism and inetead relied on feelings, emo-
tices, and sentitneacs. Whit ieoeeded Jor salvation, they said. is mot
asant to a creed bet intersal conversion, 4 eadical personal cha
characterined by comprenction for sin aed alumdonment of the anful
heart im a total viekding to God's grace and love. Dhe moveneent was
extremely democratic, for its adherents saw no need for cockewastical
authority 00 inpenpeet the truth. Bach Obeistian, reading the Bible with
farh in bs of her heart. will have al the trach anvone moods; all be-
levers afe geiests. Now is there need for a hierarchy of learned the-
obogiess, fee Chrat’s truth is simple and open oo al
Seong less need for soculer beaming than for theclogy. the evangelical
marvcemert firely repudiated the secular poine of view. The revolotion:
ary irmellectual changes <€ the cightecat’h and nineteenth centuries
wouched i beth; welike the “mainline” churches. it fek betle need t
accommmedate. As a reault, arneng all the movernents of the cightcenth
cemury. only Pretism strongly upheld the belicf in Satanax attested bry
the Hite. And though they claimed to rely upen the Bible alone, the
Pictists adopted traditional diabobegr almost completely, theagh with a
new efephasis upon the personal, Since all Chiristians are priests, all are
same: the Dev makes war on cach individual Chreman, and cach x
rexpemsibike for fighting against hem in feck. conversion, and atten-
tivermss to the werd. Preaching, mot the sacramenrs, is the Chrsnan's
main weapee againat the evil one. Alone in hes closet, armed with rhe
Weed, the Oheistian docs solitary batthk with he enemy of man and be
carries the war te the emcmy by guing oof into the streets and across the
seas to uphabd the bance of the guspel against sinners and heathen.
Amoog the extallivhod charches, at leat among their edocated cle
ments, the work of accomemadation proceeded. Intelicetual aad nominal
Chrisiees im the carly part of the comtury tended 0 the cxmmtic opti-
mism of Kieg and Leib. Optimism resembled Sectciem more than
Christianity; still, & was compatible with the liberal Christian view that
denied ceiginal sin, salvation, and the Deval, and it adapted the olf
Christian arguments to its own approach to the protdem of evil.
Oprimicn fowed its mest cloquent spekeaunan in Alexander Pope
(e638 1744). a Cathelic English poct uhose Daecaad (1725) and Eoey oe
Maw (a73prt7a4) Bad great in@fecnce throughout northem Europe.
Labnir’s optinesm had been a poor, begsnning with God's omnipe-
 Seton Exporvey ee?

temce and pocdness and arguing frum those premeses that the coames
tunt be the best pessible. Pope anpeed rather frome design: the beauty,
order, and Barmony of the comme constitute a demonstration <¢ ies
poadnes, “One cruth is cheer,” Pope proctaimed. “Whatever ix, ix
manier.”* Theagh car poce intellects canact grasp how the apparent
flav» of the cosmos fit inne its perfection, its oweraltaresomy gives faith
that the cosmec order puts everything right, Qur view i Limited,

Bat Hear ns power view 6 Orne, and that the Wiebe

That coormer- works cach fully and capnice,
That chrappedess theffiect of ew'ry view... .
Leek roars! ca werlel behold the chain of Love
Cocnbeaiag all bebrw and all aberre.
LAI sends go] the gee'eal Good. UFrery, op ete tg pK 14)

Natural evils seem evil only became we cannet understand the mind of
God, and metaphysical cvil ix a mecessity in any cestas, since any
creation implies a Ricrarchy <f being oxtending down from the gromest
Perfection oe the least perfect being:

AUS reent full of wet coberere be,

And all chat ries, aa ee
Then, ie the sr
of ee
toas'ning lide, “tix plain
‘There avast be, soomev bere, vecha rank as Man.
‘Then ay eet Mae's imperfect, Hearn a ask
Say rather, Miet’s as perfoct ax he caaghs. .
Vast chain of leing. which Goce Gad tages.
Nacures actheral, burran, mn...
Cease them, foe comer nl hatte
Chur peeger Btne depends
on what we Maen.
[Emwy, © 45-48, Gapee, 257-253, 282-383]
From Ged down to the beast thing extends the great chain of being,
esermally extaldinhed ty the Creator in the best of possitde atrange-
ments, frcen ange! to man to beast oo plant to stone, all static and fixed
i the ctermal mand. Metaphyaeal and teseal evils are necessary purts of
a divine scheme that transcends the linmestions of cur oan pence trritads.
Moral evil comes frome human agnonmice and folly, which preduce a
reculoas egotun that revelts agaitet the perfect harmary:

5. Miecamter Poge, Frery on Mar od Maynard Mack Grebo, egret, 204) 48

me
 -

tt) Mepborpteles

All thin deca! came breat-—for wheen! for thee?

Vike woers!—ob: Maskoess, Price, leapeety’ . . .
Kecrw them thyself, ve het Grad te scare,
‘The proper study of Mashind ib Mas. [y.2g7° 288 12.13)
aan os
Biv ecdecation ad moral correcmon the Tadividual may bearn to under-
stand and accope hix peeper role at the world,,
Opeimism was a revelt against the tradimonal pessimnm ther peotu-
lated 4 bemanity corrupted bry eeiginal sin. Poe the opeitnests, an one
Eyheened etind could discern the rational patters of the cosmes and
willingly axsene to. Dur cpemnism was attacked from opposite sides by
philonrphes and tradicional Christians, Searne Jenyns’ Free Exguiry eats
thy Navarre ond Oragan of Baal (1927), coming only two pears after the great
Lishon carthquske of 1745. was the last gasp of complacency. The
traditional Christian Saeiuel Johnson flayed opeimism i bis review af
Jenyns im 1757 and in bis novel Reoeter in 1759: the philsophe Voltaire
cxcomuned it in his Porn aw the Later Drsever (1955) and his newel Comte
Lisqol, in which be oluerved that optiminn was the fad of maintaining
that everything is good when in fact everything is wrong, The pailow-
pher Denis Diderot took the pewimestic view that evils singly come
from the aupersonal forces of marere, Behind yack ineclioctual amacks
upon opeieism lay the grim reality of growing urbanization and the
tegireing of imlustnalizanon,
The century thus moved ooseed greater skepticives and racicalion.©
Fee the phikeouphes, Cheistiany had failed, they found it intellcceeally
wrong and sockally destructive. However diverse ther virws etherursec,
they were virtually united in their oppesinon to Chretianity; mxdced,
their anei-Christian program is the singe clearest identifying feature of
their mowernent, They invented the conmgdinmentary term “Enlighten-
mem” (rorman; Ag tier, French, sick des Amres) toe thermecives
and floeed it on the century as a whole. Peter Gay distinguished shroe
generations of philosphes, cach mote alicnated from Onristianny shan
the previous enc—the fine bed try Meetcsquice and Volkaire, the sec
ond by Diderot and Rouscau, and the teed by Kant, Holbach, and
Jefferson. The phikesophes fint used the classics against tradinonal

“ Hihop Cacenge Borkcke (ests 1741) prveaed an ongenal pidbnophy combeneng

stcakere, hcgexioe, ad Cheietinnty. Sarmect Jobe (109-1 Th 4! defornbed Ohne
cathantiony Oy crgagieng the beewthe aaelly tual trends of Bie day dicerty. Cn Beriocicy,
woe) P. Merhbell, “Merbeley andl the Probdces of Evil” Jeerwal of thy [Tenens of dur, 46
degted, sat—044: om Jobesee, RB Shears, Soma fobewe ond ake Potter of Lew
Moealrem, igret
 Satew Expering +at

Chinstunnty, especally Lecretius’ De renee aura, with tes Gareoue

“Tatum rcligan poeuit siadere malorum” (how much evil rehigion beads
tol Then they discanded the classics in favor of scieatifGe cmperician,
feligeon coeld be of valee only @ restrained within the boundaries of
tateral reaes
‘The lealer of the philesopties chrowgh mest of hotcentury was Vol.
taire (1éag—9>788" An optinest until the 1p jos, Vodeaire gradually be
came a roturalistic Deist, The fact thar we oloerve motice, design, and
intelligence in sature, be said, malbes the contence of Gad obvious, bar
abort the nature of this God we cn know abyolutely noehing, Trac
ecligicer tos no place for fanaticbm, foece, of thecat: it ix based upc
natural morabey and ineres dogma. “Adere a Ciod, be just, and lowe
your country’ this for Volwire was as far as teligion dhoeld go, Chris:
Hanity was faloo because it ored so make dectrircl statements about the
unknewaltc; more, its fanaticisn and sapersition made it the cause of
test o€ sockty’s evils. Hy the inten. hatred of Chritianity had moved
to the forefront of Viedrawe’s mend, and he began to ond bay berters with
the plirau doneers Simla: “erush the infamy” of the church God is firs
cause and prime mover, but Be has nothing to do with the dally u
of the univers, Foaring miilion, Veltaire saw that Gad was the neces.
sary gearantor of the gomtecss of mature: if Cxd did not exit, we would
tave te invent him, God bas estlishked Nature and Natere’s lias, and
fone frees one’s mind from superstitious igmurance, one cam discern the
thecal Lows of she cosmes and beam 66 live bry thom.
At one peent Voltaire was tempted to say that since we know noching
abort the existence of God, we Anew sothing aboet abuobine good aad
evil, amd the protibees of evil docs mot cist. But he saw thar this wold
lead to complacent eprimismn, mystical olmcurantoan, or moeal rele.
tviun, Moeecrer, he wes mo cool ce indifferent observer, he was owt
raged by the evils of the work When the Lisbon carthaeake of 1796
ketfed manne than ten theasand gecupie, his Podver rar de adcerrre demanded
leva’ @ Ged ane a Nacere that prodece such heerors could te good.
Portage the world might eventually be improved. bet if a, deyprove-
ment woeld be achiewed by hurnan efforts. God aed Narure are indife
ferent to hurean seffering. but the proper resporue is met to despair tre

>. Vodtaser, Levey phvbeapdigey (irsak Trent de te ettgpdonges (4724) Petee cor &
Aiweire de Lakeew (isch Coady (7g [Nekeesin Pieper Femtal Soe abo I
Huchncr and 1 Bacande, Vue (Ibm, egtetJ. S Siege. "Voltaire. Lady and abe
Vrotdows of PWG” Asewew Brower. oo (rosel 20-55
 “

rs Mephatepbele

to cultivate one’s garcden; scooping thar the world is evil, one chowhd nee
worry abort abstrase propositions But do ome's best 0 improve m,
Evil was certainty net the product of the Devil, in Veltaire’s view. He
despised the Devil as a grotesque Ohristian supentita®s and coroadered
Parade Leet a “disgesting fhatasy. Tbe scagke to undermine the doc-
trine by deseriteng its hisorkal derWatics from anciere Near Eastern
poganiun and Irenan duakom, and by arguieg that it was promoted by
the charch fathers to botiter the doctrine of ceigunal sin. | concluded
ironically that “our religice: tors comseerated this teaching
. |. and wher
the ancients considered an opinien has become, by revelinion, a divine
trath.
‘The plolosopthes in general had relatively littl to say abcest the lark
ked, comsidenng hie 000 easy a tanger foe their mockery, The victcey
crver belief in Satan had aeeady been dooded tye the victory over witch-
craft, and sce few educated Cheistins could be found co deterd the
Desil's objective exittence, the philssophes appear to have conskiored
beneath their dignity to attack wach « figure of straw.
The phatosiphes comsidcred evil, ces the ceber hand. an intensely real
_ problem. In dismissing revelation, they removal the sanctice of divine
awefrom treman behavior, For Veltaire, beman mature was a product of
~fived, static, and discowerable by reason. Bet a problem imine.
diarsty arises: if homans are a product of nature, then it follows that all
of thar behuvice must be manweal, and thus accepeatilc by natural stan-
dards. But that corinne should be as acceptable as justice, of Christianity
as valid as the Enlightenment, was inotcrathe to Volaire: such a proni-
tion peovided no basis for his innpussoned condemmanion of tyranny and
bes adeocacy of change. He realood thar a universally accepted rational
tunis of Lew was necessary if the twe extremes of anarchy and tyrarey
ucre to be avoaded. Ele found bis answer in the active, fcemative
of roture, wetare wetarens. ‘Dhes active Nature became a form of deny,
for ies rules were not merely descrperve but presonptive. Nanure per
Iniks sorne actions and ccademms others. We cae discern the eternal laws
of Nawere tre reason, Voltaire awerted, and by reason teach cerselves 0
conform co them.
The later phalowrphes discarded this active Nature in fivor of mane
ewarate, things simply as they are. Reasoe then ao longer sought bo
discern she ctermmal commandments written a nature. there ate none,
cliineed these thinkers, All we can do is obecrve things. and when we

© Bee ner by ewes (ey tl, Ietredectiom, ae, gf

,
 Sotan Expuriey 17

olmerve them, we see net the static, enivorsal Neture that Vedraiee had
aeverned bar rather content variety and change through time; there are
no universal standards and ao proseriprive lus. Befoec the end of the
century, the lack of oleective standards became the mont treabibeconne
problem: for the Eniighterenent and fed. in the Marepois de Sado, 90 the
realvarion of Voltaire’s wort fears. “«
The foundations of belief in the Dovil were particularly undermined
bre the paiibecogalrical shepeacem of David Hume (1711-276. Hume's
skepeionm wis cadical thoagh mot quite complete. Human reason had
mo power to obtain certainty abcar anything at all, he aad—eot even
matrer, and certainly not Ged, We posnelate the eustence of a workd of
nature cttside Ourselves in onder to get along in life practically, but we
have no way of keowing whether it is really there or what it is. We
keow it only through our impressions of it, which may be tallie. We
have no knoafouge or science of absolute realiey. of the world in itself.
Soll. the impressions we receive follow certain pattems of regularity,
and from thoc we may coastrect “lis” of mature. These laws are aot
mecessunily ceacriptions of marure; eather they are descriptions of cur
impressions of mature, They are descriptive, mot preaviptive: they
organive what we have ebserved but cansot be binding upen nature
nei. Sull, Hume believed it practical and necessary to assume the
regelarity of these laws and therefore their predictability. If y bas fol-
wed x 4 million nimes, we can acume that it will follow 4 the eext
time. Hume's followers wen ferther and made his sy sem practically
prescripaive by inewting thar otserved reyularities are imenutabhe: ¥ mot
only wil let must follow 9 the sext time. They failed 0 ecalize thot
there can be no empirical evidence foe that stanomenr, faded to sce thar
the astuingtion thar ebarved regularitics are imemumatile is an act of
faath.
Ifurne tured skepeicean against religice with devastating effect. His
wack, whech form the philosophical basis of modern atheian, fellowed
five main limes. The frst was episnemodogical: we can know alraoborely
eothing about God or the transcendent, sence the caly valid know ledge

@ Ihewe, A i reatoe of Maman Note (iy ogk Pivtoepteel! haa © teense

Lindrnonding (6748) lat avend as Ae Enquiry Comcomee Memes Undrnadngt, Tk
Nacaral Newry of Req (ers 7k Luatepans comcrming Nerwea! Stlupna (eppgh See abe ¥.
PM. Soles and 5S. K. Werte, “theme's Anpurnere froes ENO,” Phreeeeter, co Cogtea,
pe peo. ). Welt, “Hew on bed.” Sowret feareal of Thewdyry, 14 (rofl Gi-ee, ROM
theres, Tie Cont Cachew oe Mirachy (rv fap Chewrel? vo Dhuctd Meme (Lewivberg, Me.
opr
 ~

C8 Mepdecuptetes
is empirical knowkedge (Hume xpetifically rejected all a prion ange
ments, including the onselogical argument that God's esastence is self
ovidert!; commquently, any celizioas ce metaphyscal statement ts
meaningless. Senctly speaking. this is an ageostic pouhon, foe sf we can
know nothing about the orahscendeart, we cannot knew that it docx not
exist. Bur Hume's empiricives anid Ms Enlightenment distaste foe re-
lagicn bed tim to practical arbewm. His sccced anguinent os psychology
eal: the ceigin of all religion is the peojection of human hopes and foars
upon external olgects. Dike third is hissoeical: religion is 2 human tn
vention that has developed in purely natural hntorcal fasteon from
anime to polytherumn to monearry to eiomothetem. (Medern pelos
phers of religion agree that religion ts a human mwversion but reect the
cvelutiomary view as a sirrplistic disteetices of Dastoncal Sects.)
Hurne’s fourth and fifth line of attack, dealing with the concept of
mirack and the existence of evil, have been the mest effeceree, Im his
“Essay on Miraches” (later included ax the tenth chapter im the t74*
edition of the Exerps cowersteg Hamar Uedenteadig) Hume correctly
reamed that if ke could Goprove the posabiliny of miracke, be would
_ therelry dispeove the viability of a eelignce based epces such miracles as
the incarmation aad resurrection.
and as
Hume urged that “a mira is a sioltion of the lows of nature;
fiem and wealtcrable experience has established thee lus, the proof
against 2 miracle, from the very manure of the fact, is as entire ax any
apgumem from cxperience can powibly be imagined,” However strong
the evidence for a miracte, it cannet be as strong as the evidence agains
ix, stace the exidence against is derived from comnthess observations by
countless witness. Hf y has been olocrved te follow x a million times,
thea one report thar y did nce follow x must be discounted. Even af all
the hiorians of England reported that Elcabeth I had misen from her
grave fo govere tne and fer three years after her deesise, Hume would
if disbelieve it, for that woedd be 2 vielation of the theasends of
tedlicns of observations that people do mot rive from the dead: “The
knavery and folly of ncn are such commen phenomena, that | shold
rather believe the mest extraordinary everts to artec Grom thee ccencur-
rence, than admit of so sigeal a siclamion of the laws of suture “!”
Diderut later capunded oa Hume's example. If onc honest man repeeted
that the king had won a burtle at Passy, Diderot would be inched to
beliewe him, bat if all Paris declared that a man bed risen from the dead

to (hoetations
ace from ch. 10 of the Lewy (Angery
.
 Nanas Magerieg uy

at Passy, Diderot woul! oot bebieve a word of &—nee even, as Peter

Cray added, if it were certified ty a’ committee headed tne Volraiee and
DY Abernbert.""
The difficulty with Hemne's argument lies in the uademonsraned
aveemipthon that the “laws of marure” are withort exception wnchange-
able, as well ss in the more fundamental acumpeiop shor all hermes becky
empirical. TRis eaves Hume te the odd position of being a dedicated
crmperkcet denying the possibiley of empirical obacrvanion of unsyuc
events of the aes of an unemperical act of faith in the regulaniy of
“laws of mature.”
In considering Heme's angement, as imitial distinceon should be
made between a “miracte” and 2 “unique event.” A unique evert tay
te defined as an extremely unexpected and improtatte conjenction of
cwrcuttotances. \ “ricacte” assumes the intervention of God, the Devil,
of amy ether “vopernatural™ figure i such a unique event. | set “super-
marural” im quotation marks beowese the annenent can te made that
anything that ccoers ex by definition natural, so thar if spines act in the
world they are part of che natural order. “Supermaterial” would be a
better and meee exact word. Hume anpond agains: the possilaity of
miracles on two grounds, First, temas have no access to the minds of
sepernatural or supermarerial bergs. if any wech exist, and thus no way
fo ascribe any event to them. Secead, and more fuadamentally, be
afgued that a mirach is by definition a unique event, ae event it vic
bation of the lauy of nature, whic by he definition of natural Lews
cannot occur. One bisitanon of Heme's angureent is thar such a unique
erent may be only am apparent viokstion of the laus of nature. Ie ix
peosiléc, on Hume's oan assumpeions, that we do noe fally emderstand
natural ews and eeust contifner 09 modify them ac new evidence arises,
‘Thus the “unique” event might aot really be unique: it fimght be a
inenber <€ a class of rare events that moods to be incorpeeuted into the
natural Laws that we have devised. [e ix also possitke that the Lewes of
nature chumpe in space and tetec. Dt ix ponsitde too chat the Lew
of nature
a
are open to excopnem, that truly ureque eveers do cocur,
Hare is unquestionably ceerect in arguing that no pecof of a truly
tats event a possitte. if proc’ requires the kind of repelar cbserva-

rt Gaap, welt pp sepergt. The lemeunens of wack « view appear in Thewus

Jif irein's erectinmon
the dincovory of martrerines by two profemors frm Coseertaowt: be
wel be wookd nether believe thet two prodmoce were hare Cue thet vores cvakd dal
froes the aby
 a
1e% Mepéestapéetes
Gorn upc whech we base our “laws of marere”; truly emaque event
canmet Seem part of ae organic beady of data from which we can
draw comcluwans. But when be goes beyond saning thar such events
cannot be prowed to-<xying that they positively canned occur. his ange:
ment is circular and unpersuseive,It goes lke the: ao anique crents
have ever been observed; chorcftne the taux of nature are firmly and
fully tablished. therefore they are unbecachatie; therefore no seicque
crents can possibly be oteerved. Te the ofjecnon that enique events,
such as the resurrection of Laxerus, have been . Thur replied
that weck reports occur only among barbacces and superstitions nations
unaware of the laws of returc.!?
Ibeeme's acumptien that natural laws caneot have cxocptions is not
valid, Conceive of nwo different motels of our eniverse, A and BL We
may live in ether ene or the ccher, In Universe A. mctaphiysical entitics
are active; of Universe I. they are sot, Most people since Hume's day
would assume Chat chore is a pecsemprtion in fawce of Universe B. In
fact, neither model is more likely than che ether,
Im Universe 1. science aud Mstory rule out the metaphyscel as irrebes
vane to their Gekks of inqeery. Aad this is proper: the quantitanve and
* empirical methods of science cannot be adapeod to deal with meta
plivsical entitics or thor actions, and histcey linmted by the valid rule
thar the meee enuveal an allcped cvert, the mare evidence & roquifed fo
make it believable, Foe am alenbately unique event, then, such as the
reserrection of Jesus, the ameurmt of evadence munt be mmfmete, amd
therefore any alleged uniqee event is ruled oemade the boendarics of
history. be Universe 1, shes is the way scence and history proceed, amd
the io the way Chey peocod a the world we inhaber.
But if we look at Universe A. we fied chet himery and soence peo:
cood im exactly the same way as in Universe BL The boundanes of
hestory atk science are drawn m exactly the same place, and the find:
mg of beotory aad science are exactly the same mm Universe A, where
the metaphysical dees act, and ae Universe I. where the mesaphysical
does not act. This & bocaese hnnory and science are constructed fee the
of sdentifving natural phonomcna aad aot toe ayy other pur-
pose, It follows that no evidence freen science of hitery can have any
wemghe at all a determing whether we live im A or B; there is no

te Mee, teeteth centery Praece med be inciatiod ameag sapertineds and berta-
nat Gather. a purnercen weol-atiotod mereckes have beow roperted there: soe Presque
Loewret, 1a culiee aercnlwey maken (Pare opted
.
 Yeteo Experang “4

hiserkal or scientific exidence for or agaitot the metaphysical, Some

people choose to awumchare A is more likely than B, cebors thar Hm
tate likely than A. Bet their assumpticas are made on grounds ether
than historical oe sciertific evadence. It is bogically meaningless to say
that historical or scientific evidemce points to one universe of the other.
The statement ts oéen meade that the cally tre
wp sommedic
ch trath. If
this were truc, then we woeld surety live in Universe &. ‘The problem ix
that there is =o bases upen which to eeake the starcment other thoes am
act of faith, and an act of faith assuming Universe A is equally valid,
Hf we are permitted to step beyond the boundaries of science aad
history amd consader ether Kinds of evidence, is there any indication
which uneverme is more bikely? For example, what of the continued
reports af alleged “winacks”? What of eyewitness accounts of events
that seer to transcend the reakn of keowledwe defined tyy histeey and
soxnce? The deficulky of dealing with wach alleged phenonmens is cnur-
tous procealy bocwase there it no accepted methodology for doing vo.
A gven repcet may be Gale. A gives report mar be ove but reser to a
Phencenenon thar schemce thay eventually be capathe o€ explaining. A
given repeet may be tree and refer to something forever beyond s<i-
cace—Bat then bow con we know what it ic!
What then can we do in the face of reports of such phenemnena? We
can deny their possbilixy as ana priori act of faith: most poeple nowa-
tava choc to chne
this, bot they seust erderstand thar they do se senply
ca Gith and owt of personal preference, mot on the basisod any evadence,
We cas accept the possitibey of such phenomena but deny that there ix
any means of investagating thee seasildy: this ix reasonable if we choo
to feviract carsclves oo the borders that we have draun areund havtory
aml scence; & ix sate See eee
encharted space without understanding what kind of vehicle we need.
But is it wufficieas to deal with the world as it is actually experienced?
Apparcerly mem, since we actually experience things tht do not fix
within the boundanes of socnce. [t may be possible in the fetere to
discover methodologies for dealing with yuck posable phenemenc; after
all, tramy modes of sorennific thowyht are nora in use that * contury age
woald hace been usemaginaléc. It ix posite to conceive of a cobercnt
world view embracing not onby science and history ber also phonorena
beyumd thee towndaries: we need only asent so the mere peositélity
that we live in Universe A--and in fact, Universe A is at beast ax likely
as Universe B. One connect follow Heme in declaring chat unique events
mm violation of “eareral laws” alwolutely cannce have occurred.
 ~
‘ge
Mepdespteter
Hume Sound it the existence of evil the fifth promising line of actack
on Christianity, |! Christians cannot recencile the eximence of God with
the existence of evil, be apgued, withoet modifying their assumpernns
aboot one of the other. Either God is sot eennipoteot. or else God's
gooddecss a totally differeny tron human goodness, m whack event i is
meaninglcss 6» call him good. The existence of an omeipetert God can
be affirmed only so bong as we adeeit thar bis moral nature i alroolutely
incompechemible to es. But sock 2 God would no longer be che Ohris-
tian God, Since it is a fect that we observe that the universe contamns
vast and inremse evils, we cannet make any inference froa this universe
to the exismence of God. Most radically and perouasively, Heme argued
that it is logically illegicimane so argue from am imperfect effect (the
cose) to a perfect cause (God) and chen mu the perfect cause 00
explain the cxistence of a comes chserved te be imperfect, Thus nature
doce nee, as both Christians and Deists angue, shew feeth the wonders
of God, on the contrary, it beads to the conclusion thar he does not exit.
‘This powerful angement devastated Deismn more than Chinsnanity,
nce Christians had always admitted that their beliefs rested upon faith
4s well as reason, but & removed from all theists the comforttte and
* ancient axvamption that one could argue to the exivience of God from
observation of the cosmeas. Henceforth, religion had to be argued on
experiential groends. If ome expenences the existence of God, ome can
find ways of reconcilieg it with the exissence of oil, But if one begins
without that experience, the geesemie of evil pede away froem the
exisnence of Gad. Heme concluded that no theoxdicy, Christian of <th-
cruise, was verifulide. The irony is that Hume's devastation of relagrces
theodicw cleared the way fee a myriad of secular theadicies such as these
of Hegel and Marx,
In all this the Devil seemed to Huste quite beneath ies neonice. If the
of
existence of God and of miractes is removed, the sebsithary seachings
Cheistianky evaporare. In diseeivang the hkehhood of Onristianny.
Husee dismissed the likelihood of the Devil. His views provided a clear,
rational basis for the Enlightenment attack om Christianity aed for text:
cra shkepacsm, in the rwenneth century becoming so staesdard as 00 be
accepted almost as common sense, They aho—again irenically—clear-
ed the way for Willian Janses, the will to beleve, and the new theology
o€ the late Owenticth conmry.

4). Foe Mhawe’s decunecen

of theokey, soe thee Dielagen, pax se and 61. and the
Capery, pe. $. oe. 5.
.
 Sater Exairs
‘a?

The analysis by Immanoel Kant (124-1804) of the eature of com

cepts is the historical origin of the phenomenstogical appruach to che
Devil shat | hawe taben in these books.'+ Like Hume, Kant realiood thar
human knowkipe was incapatte of reaching abwcdures, but ealike
Hue, he believed that shopticism could be transcended, Kant eain-
tained thar we receive verse pressions from a werkd catide oor
rearuds, bom that the cata we fecewve are not necessanly inkerent in
eljects “owe there” but are rather im the semations thar potle into car
minds, Our mein onganine these semutions into coberent conmepes
‘These concepts, which we ourselves muufacture, are all that we can
surcly know. The thingoutthere, the thingrinitself, cannce be
grasped. All that we can grasp is the Akowemewce. the Comeepe thar ue
create of the thing. We can be certain of our know ledge of phencenena,
Though we do mot create manure, we construct & by etganizing it inno
Toamingfel putters, and simce we are the onganiners, we can fully know
what we have onganined
Kant belicwod that aarements are meaningful oaly when they refer to
objects of powilke sense perception. Mctaphydeal statements aboer the
Trasscendent—about God and the Devil, for exanple—are treamngless
becwuse they arc parely analytical and coemohogial. “Dbe proof is thar
they always lead to connradictions: from initial trasseendene premises,
contrary and equally protuble propositions cam be deduced. This con:
cluson accoanted for the wide divergence arene thedugians, and it
created a devastating detonation in the foordatices of Christian dabo.
logy. which ever the centurics had peaduced thay contradictory doo.
tries fevers ats munal premises.
Karts Pictimc Lutheran background drew him 6 the problem of
evil. A philsophical opemist as a young cean, he had atundered a
meisime Gy the exées but also rejected cariomalist skepticisee and En.
Mphccament progressivism. Ohecrvation, be maintained, indicaces that
hurtin tature is not basically goed and that evil cunnee be eradicated by
education or ceber liberal schomes af improvement. Evil ix universal and
te Kart, Art 2 pen Vermont, “Crerqes of Pare Rowen” (9781; ad ad.
1x4),
Corwedigung iar Avapbyet br Gove, “Vonesbeteus
of 9 Mapeaptyyest of Mares” Canty)
Ariel abe protimches Verematt, “Criteee of Practical Bowens” (4 <0) Cher dar
Ae mere
ater pivtonptucivw Verumhe ae der Thvaticw, “Te Fedeseof AS Htdeeplael
beets ot
Thowdey” (1591 Dw Rotyuew scala dy Gremdor seeAeewe Verment) ~Kichgae «chee
the Sersct Bocrsdarics
of Heasen” (rog ph See alee S Awhormen Led, “Ruaeds Repeees
of Dicwlintwns,” [aloe Sender, 04 (i Aad, 1Se@® OF), Micteoed, Asst
ov de probddin
ome mail
(Vhwwred, egret PF. Wanw, Seventeres phaheeptagecs dn phd acigneel S Auprcrn
5 Tina
#, Kaw Kicobhwac, opty
‘4

roc¢od im hurr aatere. Kane's tlief in radical eval scandalired bo

fellerw plies phos
Kant argued thot the traditional Christan protlers of evil wx imobeble
because it deals with nourcea—alnolete eeality--dnkeowable to the
human mind Further, evils ty definition unexplainatée and ungustife-
abic, for as nce as you justify of expitais seanething, it can eo longer be
a real ev. He chessified three nypes of evil: sin, pum. aad inpestice. Sin
ix the ewence of evil: humans inrodecedit into the weeld, and it is an
inherent part of baman eave. Kant’s view is a demythalogized werson
<é original sia. "The cxvence uf sin ss the be, whack consists of the refusal
ro pecognine the mocal lew and set it above our cwn cpetstic Goures.
This is not a chronological event involting Adam and Eve and the
distant past bor a principle of baman nature. The Devil is a transcen-
dent 2 pron concept whose indepesdent cxntoace cannot be mean:
ingfelly argued. However, the Devil ic am important symobel of radical
evil in the weeld, whack transcends individual hurras evils, going be
yord aeything that iedivedual bemans want or plan. Radical evil
truly demonic, bat making « personal Devil rather than hurmearety the
orginatce of xin docs sothing oo explam the orgies of evil; ® only
romaves the question one wep further from experience,
Moeal good and evil, said Kast, depend primanty on the motion of
the individeal conscience cxther toward of away from the univenal
goed.'* There is no vere position. Kant rejected the trahnonal Neo
platonic: Aegustieian view that evil ix the alrsemce of good: be saw evil as
a radical force within ws, Good ix a positive. and its oppomte is not a
veto but a negative.'* It was the peodcrn of evil that made Rant re
lignoes, though bis religion was far from the Obsivtian orthedoxy im
whic be was h faned, Wiehou evil, the comma could be seen as &
of evel was 2 radical
perfcetly functioning mochanism, but the existence
flew, am absurdity, a scandal that coeld nce be explaincd mm purely
nateralivtic forties.
Kart’s complex and abseracet philooyphy bad a bese wide effect than
Hume's, which was esed polemibcally try the atheist phikecphes. The
grevat h was 2 logical exnersion of the Enigheenment mose-
of athenim
ment from rifioradkom ¢o maturalom 1 matcrialian, Hf all knew beckge is
ermpérical know ledge lased epee the olsccrwaren of matter, them there ts
re rocen foe God or Devil. Atheists sech as Denis Daderee (1715-8784),
1¢. Kane dotiegetebed ixrecen mndinpbeel acts of ell (Weiler, of Napurtee's ar
Petree) noel Wie wall as a wtedy (My cf. Angestine’s owed. Sc SATAN. pp Det< tert
bob
1G Actually, Kiet comtrated eartue (+) wath aleacece of vinestet, aed ethgation
with cubpetebay (-1 -
 Nara Maperieg a

Cleade Adrien Helvetius (17150970). aad Paul-Henri Theerry, Baron

THolbach (1723-1789) despicad Driver as one viep auay fron
supermitaon.!’ The atheiss eld that the universe is material, infinine,
and eternal, and that it was foetood by chance and at random. It ex
peewucs beeh order amd disorder, vet it Sellewx mechanistic lows of
satere, Hurran imelbpence rises from purely mechaningic spurces indif-
ferent te heeman walues. Pee sucha commen, said Holtach, “a God such
a the one theology paints, is totally impossible.“ Yer the arkeism of
thee philscophes may tt have boen oonplete, for they came chose to
making Natwee meek a divinity, ascribing to the cosrmos the infinite.
ctornal, absolume existence that medicval thookgians had asskzned co
Coad, Nature, they believed, “is its oun end —it has no ceher ain bet 6o
Got, 0 201, 10 Preserve ils own caserite.”'* Matter ic noe a free agent,
bot must act accordance with Lies € resture,
The reason the athoots could net bring themoc tohves
grasp the mcetle
0¢ ateobane athetimn was that they feared moral anarchy as ciach as
Volraire bad. Diterot argued that we can dedoce moral principles from
chservations of hustan behavior, Having eaatlished empincilly what
hreman behavior th we can derive rules of condect by applying reason to
what we have otserved. We otnerve, for cxample, thar our physical
natures fender ec greedy and selfish; reasee cells ws chat unrestesined
atlfchiness cads up harming everyone, including oerselves; therefore,
we Use Cet foxiom (> construct practical restraints upon ourselves im
order to obtain a viable society. Sech practical ideas underlay the Con-
snewrion of the Usted Sextes of Amenca, ratified in 178). Diderot had
some
Of the tlussors of the optimists: ifa comet were aboet to destroy
the planct, Be remarked, people weald doutthess behave according to
chew lowest ininets. Civaization is built upon reszraint.
For the atheisss. good and evil wore human consnructs, practical ay-
pects of hemun fclaticaships, mot atecdures, Marner produces mind, anal
Mind creates the categunes of pod and evil, We have bexdily, cmo-
tone, aed intellectual moods and call ov wherever frestrates them.
“Esl.” then, is merely car oun designation ofa part of the workings of
an indifferent mature. No “peeblem of evil” costs, siace neither the

ty. UXderet, Peewee phvbeop(ita

dageer
Le ls oe eil
sete eCro yt—
ttox pebtehed rppet Lerpiplde, with jeoe ff, foritea7eyh Dhehiees fy
Popes (eit) IN Fiemme (ers g) Hitech, Chronankne aowal (9 57), Shanta A Ly mater
ther
18. Bheach. qpeted
oe 1 OO Wade, The Sertere ond Fecw of ote Froecd Euligtorement
2 vods. (Pyietetn,. egrth wal op arg.
1 Wiky.p ots
ayt Meptisoptete

deity moe objective evil exists, These alcas, radically shocking in the
tome of Dadorut and Holbeck, hed become ortbaxboany by the late rwen-
ticth century, The atheists passed ower the Devil with a few words of
contempt, Hollach merely observed that “religeon bas foend ut neces:
sary to cnlit a croud of hideous pRantoces in ts Cran. “)° Dadcrot’s
Fivcycdopide, which had tm be Graimegect in onder to pass the censor
and make money, showed ins disdain by miting the artack om the Devil
10 less than one colurnme by moting ironically thar “the Ethiopians, who
are deck, puint the Devil uhite, a order to concradict the Eurepeans,
ubo represent him as Mack: the ene view @ as well founded as the
ether”; and by desxerRing the concept of demons as “un abyss of the
heeman intellagence.”* Diderot scoffed at the motice that an
deny cond be ccestantly harrawed and obstructed by 2 spirt that he
had created ** The plavful, esocking atneede of the philosophies toward
the Devil appears im the Hellfire Cheb, a group establiched toward the
end of the cenmery that met in the caves of Buckingborsshire with genial
orgies and coagucamchce’ diabolical riruals
‘The athears’ denual of objecnve meaning to good and eeil left them
with three aleemacves. They could find a sccally different Basis for
ethics, such as Dicderot’s consotsus ef some junsts’ legul aed constitu:
tonal traditions. They could adeot that moeal standards are purely
arbitrary while isiting on the sxial secessity of ephodding some set of
stamulards, (Oh they could dechare that we are free of all values, all
marality.*4 From the lavt alternative Diderot and Holbach drew back in
horrce, but ethers did mot shrink from follewing the argument to its
era,
Deeanen Alphoese Frangots, Marea de Sade (1740-0814), bent bes
name 70 sadism?! Whanever one thinks of Sade’s peactices, one musst
give tem credit fee taking the principles of arhesnc relinven to ther
boghcal conchestons, Where Diderst and Holteck stopped on the brink
of the chasm. Sade cnthusiasneally hurled hime in, To the incelicc-
tual atheism of the philecophes, he added a personal, vindictive hanred
of God. If God exists, Sade exchimed, be must be more vickus than

2 Hedivech, Settee 14 6 Ok tn ip pg te Pars, 082), ecbtced,

a0. Kehpidy, a. “Dub” sed “Doreen”
pe Thehewes, Je Premed de epenger (Paris, 1747)
25. Swe J.B Bewecll, 4 Ary of Wavehernl (Loewen, toFek pp rpeenge
a4. 1. Go Crowtow, Netw oad Cottey (Maloeeec, toa) p. 07.
26. Shadkc, Cinelgpee
cotre em podive of waewervieed (1 1000 fewer (i tq Aatette (reek be
patenphly
daw & header Cicath La crome & Camear (toed
 Satew Expirieg “Wr
the weest of creninab. We cas be prancful thar be is a merely a phantcen
of the hustan imagination. The wapersarural in any event only diverts
Us from oot true calling: plumiténg che depths of humus voce. Sade
iotecally profemad a belief in the Devil, usmg hin for esthetic cffect:
“The Devil, sore powerful than thés villainces God, a being sa in
possesion of his power, forever able oo teave his aythee, incemantly
succeeds, ty his seduction, in detewching the bend that the Eternal
reserved! eento trerivelf,"2* Madame de Saint-Arge. a character im Sade's
toed La pivbeop dase trtiy
doer, prays fervently to the dark bord:
“Lucifer, sole and only God of my spall?" Har while Sade ironically
stade the Devil's program bis own, be disnnasod the afcas of God, the
Devi. and beneficent Nature with equal comempt Nature, far fron
being purposive, cederty, of bindly. is ateclutely inciffcreat to the
struggles of hurramety, It srrefes upon the success o€ the wicked at least
as frecyeently as wpom che struggles of che good—miore, because the
wacked are sermible encagh to oem what they want. The suppased refer
of this world a a “Supreme Being of Wickalnes. .. . The author of
the universe is the most wicked, forecious, frightening of all Beingy.2*
In an irrinscally valuckess weekl, Sede argued, the only ansitte
thing to do is follow one’s own pleasures. Jelien Offray de las Meteric
(709-1751). anether materuhist though net an athens, had already
waggesned this peinople. One might ext be happy parvsing anepality
alow, be conceded. tur one coukt aot be happy without it.-¥ Sade
aevanced the theary wahout resmraint. Whatever yore Sel like doing is
good for you, If you enjoy teeture, well and good. [f others do nec enjoy
torture, they need not cagare in it, But they have no business apes
ther ean tastes on wou. Vicderorns of socalled mocal laws are bot
permevable and actually Muadathe, beesue they dermorutrate the ar-
tificality of sack restramuts and because the restraints inpede the only
demonmarable goad: personal pleasure. Virtec and law are featasies;
mercy, lowe, and Kindness are perversices that impede the natural pur-
sun of pleasere: “Dhe greave
the pleasure,
r the great
the valeer
of che
ar

Since sesual pleawsres are esually the mest intense, they can be
punved without any restraint, Crime is even better than scx ender
1, da pleteepher, quoted om Crocker. p. of
17. ba pheempte, vel 4,@ 15,
Jelete wel op sep
19 La Mowe, f dese mace (rpg yt Lev
& poe eggh
re (Cheened
an Crocker, pp gee ate
198 Mfepbesnpbvles
some Clfcumstances, because it Capbe more exciting, amd a 928 crinne is
test of all. Dhe greatest pleasure comecs from tceture, especially of
cheldren, and if ce Bumilivtes and degrades the vactim, the dcbyht is
further cehanced. Murder is an cxcellers Mimmeluy, cpecially when
peeceded tre rorture and sexual abuse. Some will enjoy cannitalivm,
since feastirg om the flevh «f the victig.may add to the meoesity. The
perest poy, excooding even sensual pleasere, is to commit a come prorcly
foe ts owe sake in a gratumous act of what the ignorant call ev.
Sade ote) have beletorod the pore im the aaterests od argument, but
he was rayht to de wo. If there are no moral boundaries, there are o>
ae boundaries. Sade’s fellow philowpihes vicwod bem with particular
diggest and horror because they recogrencd in him the logical impiica-
tions of their own beliefs. If thereis no Gad, no active prmcple of
Nature, then Daderee’s consensus amd the junsts’ cradinon are of mo
parciooler value. Why sheukd a child mofester not be tree to rape and
tortere his vations? Why sheakd sce mad fanatic oot launch a muctear
war? Who = to call hem mad ce fama, simce one person's madacss is
amether’s sanity? The objection that nockar war would make more
peeple abst) than it stakes hapoy has no force, for the idea of the
cit pocdd for the greatest number hax no meee leas than any other
mecal peincglc. Sade himeself dwelt wistfully ces the pleasure one might
food in destroving the entire cores, “to halt the courve of the stars, to
threw down the globes that float in space”?!
To distress Sade ax an anomalous intrusion of Satanic values into che
Endighoenmcnt is to ignore the logical force of an angeencnt based epom
the premise of athesm, Most athests and eclarivers shrink from his
PCOPMOSITHORS Um pane distaste, but they cam offer no comsistent ebpec:
bon co them. For example, to Prewd's angumenc shat creilization de
perms epam the restraint of our dark impulses. Sade coukd retoet thar
Civaizanen has Oo Necessary value.
Ie care be angued chat Sade’s assumpeion that personal soasual pleasure
is Che fundaincetal valec is both a precafious, enproven assumption and
at incormistent affirmation of at beat cac valuc = 4 valuckes wereld. But
if all valecs are equally precarious, then Sade’s are o> more enfounded
than any others, aad his aegurment that no ome has any bueness ipo
ng his own act of precarious awuetptioss upon others m valed. It maghrt
be olygected that Sade’s pleavercs would dorept other pleavures: if we
did nething bat fornicate and tecture, there would be no specialty
restaurants ce theaters, fet alone physicians to tune our bodes to their

tt, Cneeed
be Coben, pant .
 Setew Experaay “a

highest scriwzal perch. But 09 thes Sadic could reply that of course
one can
find tire for coher pleasures and that if wou prefer coget dining oo
fayeng be would by no means deny sou the choke. ‘The core of Sade's
doctrine is that he pays absolutely so atnoanion at all to other poople’s
choices, incheding chose of bis victinas.
Sade forces us to face the dilesnma. Firher there ae eril, oF no.
Kither there are grownds of ultthate concerns. grands of beng by
whach to judge actions, ce net. Either the cosmos has meaning, of mot.
If net, Sade's angummerts are right, Sade i the legitimate oancome of
true athenn, by which | mean the dental of any ground <€ ultimate
being, The aneihibition that bangs ower the carth in the late ewentieth
century a, pevhage. the logical cutcorse of welilicen.
However destrective relativistic values Were to the traditional re-
lignous view, am equally serious theeat was mounted by schence and
hatory, Boch modem science and meders history were extablished i
the course of the cightoenth comtury, and their acceptance constituted
the mos dramatic eevulstion in beman thought vet recorded.
haac Newton's Prima: authewsrice (1686-1685) replaced the old
Spescmobegy basal upon logic with a new cpéstcrmolegy based upen
obananos. Chistian diabdlogy and theobey im gencral had been
based Upon fev elation, eraditios, and logic. A deveat Christian himself,
Newton cominued 6 affires the old ways of establishing religiows trek.
Bar the implications of hic empirical wews expanded in ever uidereng
cirches for the three following cenrunes. Newton's cerpincism, as
adopred by the thinkers of the Exlighseament, laid the basis for scien.
tise the belief that all knowledge is sontific, ceepirical, quantitative.
In such a wew, felgion and theology were either divmiwond
er, at hes, tucked away ina aoe leemal off fuss the sciences, which
were Gcomed Co constitute cal kecwbedge.
Almest equally importare in undermming diabology was the emer-
fence of history, a second phenomenal reecdutice invedving no bess than
the cscovery of time." Before the ciphoocath century, the prevailing
varw wees that the conmos was rolarively static: minor changes ooowr, bet
in chow broad features the counes and the earth were crated in the
ame shape and form they appear in today, complete with the spooks of
life that east in the weeld oday, including hurramity. Even thee

12 Che the mew veces of tiene, se ergewially MT Groce. Cowag

os y
ale Nieevwreas
Cretery, Chanpeag Virwe
of ¢ Changaeg Wield iithece, gtk A. Setvewitere, The (leew of he
eswncal Jaw (New Verb, rogtt S Fooheds wedJ GanlGehd, Tée Dacecery «Ti
Leweben eye)
 on
100 Mupbecopbetes
Copernicus had placed the sun, mither than the earth, at the concer of
the universe, that had done litth to dinkeadpe hurrcrnity feces its peiv-
ileged place as the apele of God's eve, But now 2 series of dimcoveries
were rmuade a eee ace in am Inmignific antof
Conmer
space amd Gree.
‘The chief otatact to the sbcntk vit of a woekd developed +i
dom processes had been that set nearly ceough time had chipsed for the
randoen motion of partiches to produce such 2 highly ordered and &
verse Cosmos. Atheists had no adea of the age of the earth, and the
tradional Chistian view=-based upon chronmelagy drawn free the
Bible—echat the carth was caly sis or seven thomand years od seemed
pireibke. But now, enoemous: reaches of astronomical, cosmobogacal,
and geedogical time beyan to pes “These new vistas wouk? change,
forever, oer view of the world.
Im epss, Emanuel Kant peblivhed bis Gowral Horery of Merare ont
Theary af the Hercese,") which claimed that the costmas, including the
carth, had gradually evolved over a poriad of enillices of years, is still
cvelving, aad vill coannue to do so indefninely. Kant wught to expand
spec as well as time, eming that seme webulac are really iand
universes of stars cempete from our oun, althoagh thax klea was not
generally accepted antl the eenpirical demonstranon of galaccies m the
carly twerticth century.
of geology, history, and
Betwoon #70 and 1240, 2 mutual interaction
adtromomy gradually evtablshed as cvolomonary siew of the cosmos,
the veil edcarth, and hurraes society. Everything, m was observed.
had a hestory, and everything im beth the plyseead and the homan world
rast be soon dynamically rather then statically. The Cone de Mufton
(87071788) angend that the scker system aad its plancts had evolved
gradeally, and James Hutton (1726-1797) and Charles Lyell (1797
1875) viguroudy advanced the view that vast senceurtts of time were
needad to explain geological phencenera.**
A rearguard action was mounted ms the foetn of catastrephian, which
accepted that the carth had changed yet managed to peeserve a short
nme-scal e
bye arguing thar changes tad occerred theowgh suddem, giant
of the flood was called in seca
. The biblical accownt to
religion and shemce. [ut carastrephian could nee ondune, the mounting

wy Se
haw) ede Nasangoctoter
came Casa aed [beer da Hfeemad 1h . Tse
mater (atest TER Themen, Tieery of thy Larch (Wdbebergh,
17m Lect, Proscgin
of Comtary (Loedon, 1h preter
 =

eudence of astronomy. geology, and finally (in the mideninetoontl cen-

tury) bicdogy pointed fo wast amounts of time. and the peinciple of
uneformity=-the idea that the pivysical laws operating taday bore al-
ways been operstmg at the same rate—gained increasing acceptance,
The late twentieth century has modified many of these views. Evolu-
ten is ne bonger thought to havebern so gradual and eogtinucas ax was
once believed: modern pitysicx sock no “oonter” at alll to the universe, xo
thar the kes that we are somehow tucked away im some irdiyniticane
ommskirt of the commen is invalid, and the aatheopic peinciple derived
Frome quancect pie/sicx vepgests thar humanity dthough ier quite a differ.
ent way freen the mecdicwal ciew) may yer in a seme be the center of the
commes; new reflections cn randemness and mene super that com me
bilbons of years the infcernation «¢ imeelligent hfe by random procesars
is Swetually innperssibibe.
Whatever the upshot of wack comemporary discussions, caghtcenth:
comury stemce and history shartered the oraditional view. Fdlucated
Christians had sswamed thar the Bitdo was béstorically and scientifically
refrable. War if the workd were much older than the Hilde indicaned, char
relability wars gone for part of the Old Testament; and if part, why noe
all, and ifthe Old Testament, why nee the New as well? Such questions
wadersined snipture and tradinom. the two mest impcetant haus of
Carenemity. They alvo undermined conthfence in the hetoricity, and
therefore the authceity, of Jovus Chrict himself, whe saw became the
subyoct of interme hestocical investi ated oriticises.
be the seuteenth and scy centuries the frantic debates be-
tween Catholics and Protestants had already shredded confidence in
tradition. for it was difficult to establish whose tradition wae the au:
thentic one. Pretestant imistence that she cruth of Christianity lay me its
orgs bed te the use of the mew bestonecal tons Go pet hack nor caly os
the senptures but cvestwally aloo rhveagé them oo the “historical” feaus
betend the New Tevtament texts. This qeest is gradually being aber
dhoed a the bre tweaneth comoery, bot, strangely, Protestant faith in
the primitive past combined with heronecal criticten to undermine the
uuntbonty of scripture, ax faith was transferred frus the words of scrip-
ture otself to these o€ efucntial bitdical critics. Chritamity wax no
henger defined a terms of whar it had always been bret in terete of what
Cette rexdern scholars (u hose peomoencemencs céten diverged widely)

tf See, fee cxsenpdc, Pret Levies, Spey oad Time os the Abele Livterw (Lammbendge,
wer?
ive Mephatepdelis
cad that # should have been, Meat ef these scholars atnerspted to
reinterpect scripeure in accordance with the acvamnpticas of eightecnth-
and ninctcenth-certury scennfic and bistorical materudiom. This
ancunted to 2 curices commproniise: educated peopl}, refusing to rely on
serigeure and traditice teit unready co. discard them akthogether, retake
chen to fit the proconceptions 0€ thelr own day
Bitdical crinosm foceswd meat sharply onthe persom of Christ him-
wolf. le was angued thar Jesex must be seen as a man of his wn Sime, a
am an obscure comer of an anciest empire. Ihe views were
unadvanced, hin idexs peiminve, When he spoke of the Devil of de
mons, be merely reflected the ignorant saupemtiteorns of his day. That
Jeses could bave been divine of nisen from the dead were eutmedad
notions. Ignecant himectf, Jesus was surrounded by ignorant Sollowers
who mudkiled his moxsage, vo that the New Testament was riddiod with
crree. Such was the confidence of the Mistorical scholarstap xpeinging
from the Enlightenment that it judpod seripearal views valid ony inv
far as they conformed oo the views of current hotorans,*
Some of this could have been avcaded By sore careful actention to the
dixcoverses of Giambattista Vico (6648-1744). Vico demanded a shop
tical, rateorcal analysis of the changes in hurras behavert over the cot
a mew and sophisticated
turies, vet his skopeicom peovidied the tends foe
idealien, Since we cannot know the nature of thingy “cat there” bret
onby car peroepeons of then, it follows thar our perceptions of human
affairs are tech more scourc that cur percepeions of external revture,
because we make human affairs ourselves and thas Knew ther from the
inside. Verwww of foctaw curcertawar: we know what we have made. This
cmtishes the study of beman comcepes on a firm historical Basis.
Although we are incapalile of Secuvering what the Devil is as a thing in
tof, we are capatide of exablishing with complete certainty whar the
Devil is as a human comcope, Because we herve crow ed The
the concepe,
caly way to analyze such 2 concese is historically. We cannot investi:
gate how closely « corresponds co the Devil-ee-stsclf because we have re
hora hockge of chings in themselves, We mast define the Devil in histor
ical terees. The Devil & the tradit uhat be bas boos thoegoohe
ofion be.
Our historical know badge of the Devil i anfinitely ssore certain than any
statement about anything “eat shere.”' From Vico perspective. the
cfScets of bitdical crimes and liberal Christians to reshape Chinstianity

” Arming Ore mand leaportant bivorical critics of the Bie wene Prades (1 964—184 0)
ged Brore Bauer (rte tts) “Thee sies aned ceher are deowecd bey Scherrer
oe Vern fa wwece mawos (9724-17 pO, of N. Milage (Tere, ots
 Sete Eapernay sf

terms of “what we fw know” was wrongheaded and pointhes, We do

net know what Gal's view of Christianity is, of what Chistianity «
“ort there,” We Anew only what Chricmiamity his defined itself to be on
the basis of senpoure and tradition,
Ignoring this solution, liberal Chrisianity reercated hastily before the
advance of science and beblical <TEkhm, fegrouping very so ofven to
fight anceber koing battle before gieing up mew ground. By the end o€
she cightcesth century, advanced literals had aludoned the core of
Chreman beliefs. Satan was a painful enbarracment to thom, one of
those canttodiod idee thar Jowws had actuened because be was soaked ie
the HMOrANee e¢ sapersnition of his times, o¢ that the earelistde pespeks
had amnbured to him Mary literals aloo atuedceed the idea of ongnal
sim (and therefore of redempeion), and this beft them peculiarhy defense-
hess against the protien of evil Rehaquihing the traditional arp:
MOMS. thot tered to eeade the question.
One liberal theologian uho dat confront the iewe was Prediich
Daniel Ernst Schhacermacher (in6%<18e4), 2 pastor of the Refoemed
Church. Revolting against a Petit upteinging, Schiciermacher at
first adopted Enlightenment religion, denying original yin, redemption,
and the incarnation, Gradwally he came 0 believe that the Enlighten.
ment, in its distanced ratiomalism. had mased the main poker of re-
lignan: the expericace thar we are always alwoletehy dependent upon
something eutvade carsives for owe lives and our very bong. Chris-
nanity could sexed crmically against the world and sockry only so long
aS 1 Maintained ite cpinemodogioal independence and did not become
an appendage of current mrellectual treads. Christianity mast
deeper than the bloodless rational region of the Enkighcenment. bart it
must aso go beyend the narrow boundarics of traditional orthodosy.
Sehlictermacher scaghe to overcome the littitations of the opposite views
he head Beld
i Bis you
amd th
instead to beild a mew Christian system
tused upon the experionce of atsodute dependence.
Schicrenmacher took evil co be an existential reality bat replaced oigi-
nal an with a progrewane view similar im mut ways to that adopeed by
Jotin Hick in the late twentieth century. Schiciermacher an thot
humans are created weak and infinm. both ax a race and as indiwaduals.
loherent amperfocticas disceder our trac naturc, which is to seek union

p* Sehbevcremacticr,
Oe Beig (i yyy The Chrwrnen Fart (i 8a ti Bay, Brief Onslow oe
abe Seedy of Tivelag
(et y
pet Sebvicnceracter’s dacunie
of the Devil =e te Th
Carers Fath eter.
ry. Jobe Mick, Bowl aad the Gad
of Looe, 18 od (Now York, ar
 nm

ite Mephirypbedes
with God. Original sin ix sieply 4 exceaphor for our inherest mupertec-
tion, Since Gud creates us imperfect, the “fault” is his, but he dines it so
that we may, by overcoming hardships and obstacles, ly attarm
full maturity in cee progtess soward fulfillment in Dim. Our guide along
the wav is Jesus Chiiet, the-pertect ypodel and the medsanor throeyh
which divine powcr enters the woeld to shape and direct i. The essence
eé the evil that we mest ovcreeette is egoient and the preference for
worldly, finite goods over the tree good, which is loving growth in
God,
Schicienmacher addressed the idea of the Devil with a progresuve eye
toward elistinating it. However, many of ho objecnons had already
been comadered by traditional diabelogy. (1) How coold perfect crea-
tures such as angels fll? (Cheistian theology had sever prockamed the
afgels perfect.) (2) Hf they fell because of envy, that vou! escan they
were already envio: aed must already have fallen, a connmadiction
(Theelogy had declared cavy of pride the mocives But not the causes “«
the fall. ance a froewill act has no cause.) (2) The Devil's aature, inclod
ing hie intelligence, meust have boon so diminished by his GiB that he
coeld not be an effective encay of God of esan. (Dhoolegy bad argued
that Satees's will, nor his nature, had Beem coerupred, and that he ro-
tained hivreetural imellizence, thoagh darkened.) (4) Demons should be
unable to cooperate aginst us, since evil beings hate ane another, (Bar
evil pervers arc often olserved to cooperate with one another.) (5) Dis-
ing the origin of evil frome humanity to Satan does nothing 0 help
explain &. (To thes, theology had never had an adequate answer.)
Scblciermacker’s mest eect bine of attack epon the Devil lay
through she Bite: Chriwt referred to the Devil only offhand, be said, o¢
in quoting peoverbs, or in symbelic reference to eval burnans, and the
story o€ the temptation i 2 didactic tale withour Ristorical foundanon.
Chist and the apostles could aot really have beliewad mm wack an un-
calizhtened doctrine ax the Devil, and if they did. we stil need sot
believe it, since they were caly deaving upon the seperstitions comme
to their times. Schiciormacher, too, assumed that the views of his own
age were standards by which tho ofseother ages could be padpod.
Schiciermacher also offerad practical anzumerts againt beef in the
Devil. ‘The concept of the Devil is a fesica of a number of Gvere
histceical chemenes. (Volkaire had already offered this view, with mare
awareness than Schiesormnacher that it applied oo every clement of
Chrivtum theology.) The idea”ef the Devil encourages poopie to shift
responsability away from themsclres onto another eng, (But tradi-
 Nanas Eaperiey ny

tional theology hud always mained thee the Devil con never compel
amyone’s conscience and that rexpondbily for sin lies with the indi
vedwal,) Belief in the Devil prowodes despair if we ccene to belewe thar
the Dovil can foi God's plan for the weeld. {Ibat tradition had alu ays
affemed God's providence in transforming all evil efforts into pred)
Schheormacher concludes that ghe Devil docs not €aist, though we
may Cheese to usc hen 2s a comvenscnt mtctaphce for evil, Underneath
his conchasion lies a bidder syllogism: the idea <€ the Devil is un-
fasheonatte and cmbarrasing, yer Cheistianity is senehow trove and the
Bible somehow inspired; therefore, a complex syotem must be erected
so expert away the fact thar che New Testament teaches the exisence
aed power of the Devil ax a concral pomt of exchatology,
The teest visible intellectual change toward the end of the contury
was the transition from Enlightenment to Remarc thooghe. Jean-
Jacqyocs Reessews (17962-1778) prefqgared this transicion,* An intease
ly eftoticeal and inconsstent personality, be alienated the philosopbes
by professing Chrananity, but his enooticeal, sentimencal, esthetic re-
lignsity-denying trinity, incarnation, redemption, and resurrection,
yet chiming to fool the sping of Christ within—alicnased both Proses-
rants and Catholics. In bes distaste fee what Litcr came so be called
“organized ecligios.” he reyected the church and one of the fendameceeal
aspects of Chratianity, its communal satere, in favor of individual
SeNTINeN.
Rousscws confronted the prothene o€ evid far lex directty than Kaat or
Vottaire and lexx comimerety than Sade. Hix view of evil was social
rather than metaphysical, « was a huss cresticn: “Man, look mo far-
ther Get the author of evil) yo are he.) Our nature ix basically procad: it
is we ourselves who have coereprad it.4? Rouwcan did mot object to
culture in stvclf, which be regarded as beth nocewary and desirable, but
he did otserve that historically the cultures we have established have
tended to endave and comrupe us, We can be saved tiv our comsebences,
which are 2 divine matinet o¢ goodness within us, a principle by which
we Ome romore these evil, smethering influcnocs and rovtare ourselves to

a Rewemsces, de eeevel (Mihew Cental Daely (asta). eechading B& 4. “PYebpwwem

ube
fea che veceere saveryard”| Die penta! wend (yk Comtoneer (era
41. Heeseeras, ~Prodewson dic toa.” See aber «hegre of Aumont 1, rot. chad la LG.
Crmiher, Aw Age of Crm, Mas aud Wield oe KipherCoovery net Vrvwd Theaghe (Tiber,
150) pga “DR che et ere hee wee corn book for the weaned weed cv cheewbere than in
man, wher ms free, whe hus progrewed, ated therebe beccene commapsod.~
4) ~Te
of been
et errant chs wisi chs Croce”: Leck
 ~~

15¢ Afephapaer

our natural goodness and to a Satural socal order characterized by

bherty and equality, By edecation and yocial reform we can renmiove Oar
effars, supeistinions, vices, and reproxsive institutions and enter into a
new cra of light. These benevolent, progressive Meas influenced the
American aad French retolemont: which were on the whole hostile to
traditional Christianity. Hut Roesseau's combemanon of rewoberen with
vague religiosity alve encouraged the Komuene revwal of a God and the
Romantic creation of Satan the solide revoluticaary. By the end o¢ the
century, lierature had begun te reflect these views.
Oace the age of witchcraft was past, the Devid made rchtively te
appearances a linereture uneil the later cighteenth century, aad when he
resived, it was asa new form, Theology and mctaphysice were seper-
seded ty cuhericsim and symbolion, When Satan's exctaphysacal exis-
tence was dimmisad, he becare a synbad thar could float free of its
traditional mecanings. He ccavad te bea person and so could become a
personality, a inerary character playing a vanety of parts*! (4) fm scene
weeks, he continued te play his traditional rele.** (2) Some used him as
a symbol of beman evil and correpeaon. (5) Some esed em ironically or
satrically to mock Christianity or to parody hureaes folly. (4) Some used
ham as a positive symbed of rebellion agaimot coerape authority. Overall.
the Desh continued to be a valastle mctaphee for pure evil. Sence
heen eamere ts mitced and Seu people are ether uholly good of wholly
evil, the Devil could be presented, 2s mo breman character
could, as the
hypererés of the evil of the hummer spirit distilled to its essence.** Phere
alo began to appear bants of the syeepathetic, Roreante: Deva. Fel-

at. EC. Moreen, “DXe Geeta ches Teale in dee Gowen Liscratar srt i748om
W. Ketbscheeds and H. Moyer. oth. Fradiiew aad Upeiegiten
Ue, gait pp
Trott
4+ Vee cumple, Artene-Lean Deape’s Trey ae Le mage (ep ia), Dem Anggun
Calvect’s (xeerstee er by ae aga, dr dimeww, of do open (itght Abe
Nicolas LonglctDefrowsry's Freed Aeternpe r de
of dqgmernpee car Ay Cement,
det Pedder partcebioon (1761 Abbst Cleade-SMare Corpors lant epee
Ceppth, These cxgpeeet waryieg chogwwes of crodebty mnging frocs complere
defrrec of
the eid tradition
fo radd ubepescal coticrem See M. Melee, Ue dade dee Ls Aevretew
respons, 1 weds, (Pris, eet, wok, pp. ga-te.
(1 668-
46. Among the meet enperteyt new enderpertations: were Alen Rene La Sage
eneth, Le Dial Relea (ipo) trecky adapend Sor uremec perpeecs trom Ay daehte conente
Cesar dod Veber de be Crsewnre
Lr cre eheg) Le Sage’s ieeeanoes inchaded the Abt Erone
enp':
Le dake
che Shewapluncha bow, The Homcibectiod Devil” (rret) See Mebeer, ved,
tp ToeTe. Deewel Deter weete a8 Peiewal Mxsory of ake Decal (1725). On Dictoc’s
ese of the Dowd im hax moved Atel & “Mall's Fase “Mother
Crserh soe R. Bwikews,
Mideagha’ wind Abel Pleadon.” Suatio “ Pilg, 76 ligne S4-87.
 Navas Pagarigg yy
bowers of Louie-Claude de Saint Martin (174 1803), 2 panchestic my-
six, believed that the angels’ fine GB had been esthetic, a howe of beauty
so intense thar they deared to gragp and possess it for chomselves.4
A-week that spans Enlightenment and Remarticnm is themasterfecce
Of Faust hiterarure, Fasor: Rive Tragedy, by Johann Wolfpasg von Goethe
fisgo-e8s2h4? The pla
of ce
Faaar in the history of the [Seut is aenbigu-
cas. On the one hued, Goethe's Devil. Mephistopheles, became one of
the meat inflacnthal lnerary creations of all titec. * On the ocher, Mephi-
to an immensely complex Grune only on
of whose
e components i the
Carita Devil Goethe hieself nok an iotically distant Unhgltcnmene
view of Christianty, drawing upon Christian symboticn ter doping
the church, His views shifted beoadly throughout bis ide—his interests
at cone time of ancther embracing Pietion, suystician, the kibbals,
alchemy, folliore. Neuplatonism, literalion, and many other og —
anud he made no effoet to impose night consisnency wpoe het etasterwurk,
Fic bepan 10 worker Finar while snfl a very young man, about e 50. and
he was snll working on it rear bis dearh ie o8e3. Ie FePCSEMts SiNly Years
of the creative thought of an active and lively mtelfect, aad i rexiees
summarization and redection to fornvedas.4?
At the age of sixty-three, Goethe booked tack and deseribed the
cusiclogy he had adepted as a young poct. Gad the Father
the Som, and Father and Sen peaduced the Holy Spine, Together theve
three were complete and perfect, op that when they produced 2 fourth,
Lecifer, he was necewarily iespertect. Lucifer created the atgels bes
prowed by his ows creative powers, he concentrated more aad reorc

45 Marveast works ore discuued te Mileew, vel 1, pg rit—ian Oder infoene

al
Horry works wchacdk Pool Webdewen's fAcws Passer (4574) onl Feckirich Mixkedise
vow Klinger’s sariewal Foun Lobe, Thenew, snd Stile d1591)
47. (acute, Fast: Fone Trapady, a webs (Masel, speck C Dhawdi
of, n,
ed
tans... Fame. A Tragedy (New Yor. egrta f cane the Gevenas odiion thronghWW.eatArds,
wee S. Atkinn, Contes Fanev. A Linmary Asabee (Cantoridgr, Mau, get AP. See
Coe.
til Conte's View of Beal and che Saari fre Nic enagy of Maw te Our Tome Edetrangh,
msl
48. The reste sdopemen: of Vaest, be cosmetic, inchode Tewless's Diwewernee
&
Fam) (eer (has, opere wth Linet’s fmt Svmpheme (big. iter Goanal’s Feew
Catigh,Carng’s Deer Gye (1 Rook,
4) The Uther, composed chuting the peried itty te HDTe, was ot peotdntiod exe
1ES >. the Licvil docs aoe apgeeer iv thin yoeebial verses at oll bet cody the trades, the
pe od ri
Che carth, Fame Lee Prgemver, written tecteren ©nke amd whos, was putdndy
Lavpeng im ito: Mephiane peas in his Sine oppearance ie Goethe heer, Fant odfeat
Vrain comveans
of Tew parts, the fine wrimes tateres 147 and piios and peinked mn
thet, the eeeed betecen o8s¢ seed etey ened potteteod wi aes,
 ~

iy? Mepebicrapbeles
deeply upon hemself, gradually Wing toach wath realey. Some of the
angels remained aware o¢ their crac ongin, bet ethers followed Lucifer
and retreated imo selfisheess, Prom Locifer’s scif-aleorption peoccodead
the maternal universe. It weuld have spiraled deeper and deeper inte
itself until it ceased to exfst had got God in his merey chosen fe give it
the postive power to open up to the Might. Prom the sensiom betwoor
selfishness and openness, charkeces and light, comes the tensen In the
world aad in hemanity between the downward<keing diabolical force
and the upward-<pening dicing force. Goethe meant thit as a syeibobe
structure mare than as a linewal theedogy, bat at beft Lasting crarks on the
pom. 1

Feat ben ne single meaning of eves oct of meanings. Goethe intended

i express the complesitecs and incongroencieofs his own med, of his
colbere, and of Wostern crvilication as a whole. Thus a wide number of
readings are posite. Boe the prarpose of this book, | cmphasoe che
place of Goethe's Mephistopheles im the tradition of the Devil,
Mephistopiheles, lise Fasar ieclf, is as varied as the world. On even
the most superficial lovel his mature m& Ieft unckar, for be seenenienes
appears to be Satan or Satan's equivalent and at other times only a
minor demon OB 938319, ©23%-t7¢0) De fact, Mephintophcks ts
tach Ino .ccmples. diverse, and ambegwous to be kbeotified wath the
Christian Devil. Goothe gladly esed and developed the myth, but he
always velemecetly detood the Imeral oostence of the Christian Devil
and even of Rant’s principe of radeel evil, Geetho kepe the amtagurty
pronounced, as part of Mephiste’s functioe is oo deny any dichetorne in
nature, mocal or otherwise. Mephisto appears both as the opponert of
God and as the insviresnent of the dive wilh as the creator of the
weatcrial work! ad as Geal’s subject; as the peinceple of matter againat
the principle of sping; as evil agaitot good. as chaos agains coder, ax a
stimules to creativity; and in many cher aspects. He ts fundamentally a
narure spirit ropeesenting the undiffcremtiated weeld as it presents molt
to human experience, He ix an invitation to the coader to face the
tvaltiplicny of reakey.*!
Sech was the eneemous inflecnce of Fev that meat of the heerary
Devils of the past cwo centunes Bave taken the vearre, invite, anbiguces
shapeof Mephistopheles, Nhe shaft from the Devil ax theological person

te. ne cred Woabrtece.” be Amthegratiewte Kirdive, cred be A. P Cocnre®

Crete’ View of Peal (Peabengh, 1a pp. 27- po.
ga. Swe June K. Bevewrn, Caete's Feet) Tie Gormee Tingedy (htkare, ngs
,
 san Lipo ing ye

te the Devil as Rtcrary personage wat permancesdy fined by Goethe.

There have been exceptions, bat writces withing their thoobogscal Dev-
ils to be taken soricesty as personifications of exil howe had, since Puor,
fe overcome powerful resotance.
Mephistopheles is partly a Christian devil, partly an ironic commen-
tater on sacaty, partly a spokesrttes for socelar, progresyce humeanises:
mostly, says BC Maso. be ix “Simply a one-sided insisnence on the
samy side of tveman fife." He hus the ironic, aloed, erin, cold,
judgrenral qualities of the academics whom Goethe despiced, charac-
teristics thar Faust shared but of whict he was purged by tis suffering.
Mephisto’s dick inmelhgence and seperficial charm PAT) OD reat pres
late people, bot on a deeper level he is a fool, Sor he Gaiks so grasp that the
emential reality of the cosmos is the power of kav. He is fecdish encmyh
to male ber agaist the all-knowing deity; he begins by playing the
fool wm heaven and cnds ty lusting after the angels, I lis combination of
wradoes and stupedity ts seamed up wher he admins thar for thoesancds
of years he has boos resisting the inreinitec power of God."
Exerialiy blied to reakty, Mephistopheles tries to mepane and de-
sire it, He denies the value of exitutence and declares that the purpcse
of creation es to be destroyed. He hates beauty, freedom, and life itself:
he causes the deaths of individuals aad advocates reincus social policies
that destroy moltnades.*4 ‘Dhis nihil is the essence of eva, and ix
comses indirectly from Ged (Il. 3g2-j49) Like the trader! Deva,
Mephisto isa tr and chester, a master of dlusion who repeatedly shefes
his shape, a ing as a deg, a schober, a knight, a fod. a magician, and
a geeeral, With sophitry, Aattery, and gossip be avws doule and dy-
trunt; be uses his magic te inonll Musiors, hallucinations, aud dream: ax
cournclce of state fe orcates Gale wealth, and as a general he deseroys
armies by commenting illusory troces to bark." The spirit of chess and
cherder im the natural work, be aloo promotes disorder in society by
Garupting jusmice."* He delights in crachy and suffering. He tempts
er. EC Magan, “Die Pats and Piers of Mephheophalis,” io Gruss Shetic
Prema’de Wal Merwe Kreted Leadon. 194i), po
6 UL appt-rpty. Poe Mophinn’s weBigerce. see HL rpto-egr®, Gaps, toenee
root, fendetwwes, B. ppg, ere: the riddle
am BL atgy-appe, 10, Mrs Mee
fe LL, wegen eg, OBCn-IBS7, F7tt, Gare OQh badge tote. FE. DfT
8, ey,
TE GOO,
TE. TESW tt Ay
EL Ope
Fi. BL. bfitiettek, IEA pope, rpoo-2 pte, agee— apie, GPa, ty dedous, Boos,
emigre mans

th LL Re, et, Seti dane

taper Sn07-tomt,
OY. 21 Phebe STF. EE poet tp t8 04, bait
EN cate te fer,
 Nanas Aaperiey sty

and threatens im his efforts to coerept and is mnt pleased with the
despair of the inmocent.** Incapable of grasping what bow means, he
Preencers coarseness ard brutality im sexual relaticns.©” He oppeses
scoul reforms aad crushes a reecdurion against tyranny. He regrets his
unfallen past but refuses to repeee, falling inte the sin o€ despair! Yet
he speaks for Gocthe in hix irenic comments on pheyeophers, pro-
fexwors, fanatics, general, clergymen. bureaucrats, politicians. and cx-
phottarive rubers.*2
After a dedication and a prebade. the poem opens with the "
in Heaven.” where the Loed is sorroundad by his heavenly courtiers,
kd by Raphacl, Gabeiel, Michael, and Mephistopheles, ‘The setting
snmechately recalls the Book of Job, with Mephiseptetes playing the
part of Satan. The angels praise God for the beauty of the cosines. But
Mephistopheles shift the focus from the cows ax a whole w the
comfition of humanity. In spite or because) of the alleged harmonies of
the cosmos. humanity is wretched, teutish, ushappy. and unecliable.
Ged reproaches him for this neganviem, Lut Mephasto persists, pitying
the human race: “I feel sach compassion for ther wretched lives thie I
hesmare 10 afflict therm any more muyscll™ (Il. 297—29%) The Devil's
presence in the berventy court aad Bis influence upon the Lord iedi-
cates that evil & part of God's design, thereat in humanity, the costes,
amd God hinnelf. The Devil's role in the heavenly court is irenic,
aincot that of a heavenly jester or fool who cleverly indicanes the fadings
of bes Master. His disagreement with God over humanity hints at an
Enightesenent rebellion against the tyriett, « Promethean sympathy Sor
hunuwns againat the gods, and a proto-Ror rebelli
ranon against
tic ab-
SITE pastice ms the name of feeling asd mercy. Yer the Devil also serves
the Lord well. The Lord sor only tolerates but ordains the evil that
Mephis
plans,
to and pi
he even
tcconfex
ic cs as
beth foodness
for the
Devil: “I have never hated you; of all the spirite who deny me. 1 bikewe
the rogue the least. ‘The acnvicy of bvemnarr all ton quickly duchess into
lanmess. #9 J give them a companion to push them and work on them
amd act as Devil” (Il, 337-342).
Asthe Load had cace called Sacan’s attention to Jeb as an example of
@ just and unceeruptible man, he now draws Mephistopheles’ attention
ph. U1. get, gees, Gree
1% AL peg 20975. 251), iteym eter, at pS—4145. 5775-704, Gree, Syto odes
tee U1. 477i tele, Gittpe Goss, PR.142
OO bee
-
Gi. LL aye sty. exere- toons Ot Pepe Pee
Oa, U1 gare —qont, SPR hat, Ag- s
294, 10.5110, 80, HB Ee gE.
 ~~

ity Mopeasapdvier
to Faust ax ropeesentative beech of individual posius and of tremanity as 4
whele. The Loed olraceves that Faust is a faithfal socker after truth whe
will newer turn away freen his goal: he is proof that the creation of
heemanity was a good thing. Goethe distanced himdelf from the carker
Faust tradition in making the magician symbole the plight of the
hurram race as a whole. Faust ic fob, Adan, Chirst, Man. Where eradi-
tonal Faust dramas had cenered on the pact. Gocthe’s focuses om tao
wagers: one betwoea Mephistopheles and Ged, and the other between
Mephistopheles aed man. Mephesto challenges the Lord? Yeu say thar
Pause is steadfast? Then give eee permission to tempt ben. What com
you lose? Whar do yeu ber that he will resist me? (Il, 312-3142 Whether
God actually takes the bet is unciear, bat he docs prommna nee to mtcr-
vene on: Fanat’s behalf (1. 323). Mephisto hemself beheves thar the wager
is on and that his license co sempe is unlimsted, fer be ignores God's
stipolasion that bis power over Foust will end at the scholar’s death Ut
369). The Lord kncws chat Mephisnophebes will inevitably koe his ber,
but Mephistopheles’ playful need co soe what be can do overwhelms his
knostedge of his own corte detest.
‘The “Pirst Part” of the tragedy begins in Paust's study, where the
great scholar is aunk in despurr, because in spite of incewant intellectwal
effort be has been unable to penetrate the scorees of the universe UL
132— 0840.6! He tries to gain entry imto the weekd of spirms im order to
obtain the occult know hedge that he reqaires; he will nog eadersand for
mary lines that what he needs ix mot keow ledge but hove and concern
for others. He hears the angels’ choeus but backs the faith oe belies and
fai to understand the importance of beve (1. 765). En a book of magic be
finds the symbol (Zexdew) of the Barth Spirit, the Eragray, which ox
peesucs the restieasess, striving, and desire that Fasst feels enhin
himself, Neither good sor evil. che Exdgvit is an clomental nature spirit
tevond breman valucs** Faust pronounces the Eraigray’s symbol,
uhcreepon the spirit appears and asks who called # (1. 482) By blurring
the questionof whether Faust acowally summons the spine, Goethe pears
further distance betwoen bemnself aad craditiom mt meals to be unclear
how much Faust ix respensitde and bow mock he is a victim of the
Leed's arrangement with Satan.
‘The nest scene takes Faust cut of the study into streets poprelated

6}. Wagner bance ectvace thin chester te Lene everything “Svar were sch veel, heh
mle why alles wicaen™ @ Goud 7
64. “Zawel Sockon wobwes, ach, be aier Bru”od. ries)
 Matas Ausivime ed
with cvernces, amadents, wenckes, ard sokd
here ie
the achoda
es r amd
:bis
esitant Wagner drek and delute. Fawr argues the beauty of nature
wad Wagner the glory of schukership. both failieg to exter into the real
Ife going ce around chem. Faux complains that be fools two spirits
wither him. one drawing hite to weeldhy pleasure and the cebor toward
infinite windeen Of. a1e2—1089)" Beth these idea
are flawe
lsd, for ochre
ts footed am lowe. As they talk, Faust points cat 2 block og steffing
feathy. Wagner takes it See an ordinary pootle, but Faust sees that #
trai a vircak of fire (IL e1¢g—rege), Mephistopiictes bas appeared. and
we one o€ the traditional Devil's faverke forms, a black dog, Me comes
wnbidden by Pawst’s conscices will yer attracted by Fayst's desjuir,
Whech opems his mind to the Evil One,
Later, tack inthe snady, the pondle appears again, tales a varety of
divturhing shapes, amd finally settles on the form of a Wandering
sbolar. Faust demands that the “scholar” declare his stenniry amd
gucws the cruth: that be mm a ler and a destroyer. Mephestugtictes
rdcates hirmalf as “a part of char power that cver socks evil and ever
Goes gond dees goad became compelled by ditineg providemce (il
tpot—13537), Heis alve the sprit of neganion and socks 0 destrey all that
has been created. He opesly proclaines tht destrection and esil arc
his retree clement (IL sty32—15340), Soll, as the “Probegac™ has vey-
potod, evil is part of the coumes because it is part of the stuff freen
which God has methe
ad cosmo
e s Mephisto dectares thar be is a puet of
that dark chaos that gave birth to the light, and Faust enderstands him:
“There art Chaos” wondrues son,
Ina continging departure from tradition, Gucthe has Faust SUE HOME a
pact to Mephisto, by which he hopes to pai access to Mephise's cocult
powers (ll, 14rz6rgtg) ‘The Devil's own pdan is to lull che schedar into
mindiow senaality and thereby win hes bet with God, and Ibe sends
sparity Oo Faust 90 iaduce sereual dreams and visions, When Faust
awakens, he is mot certain whether he has really seen the Devil or not (iL.
64. Heth Deetoevely aed Mone cemerrod thin cone, werlong the power te Cheer
shape chatecn inte of thc own Lowi
A “beh ben der Cotet, dw wiety vermcio’ { Ulad des nt Riche; done ales
was
erestcha, | Let wert, dees ce eoprumde
geba™ G1 yet 1 pga
6 “bh bas cin Tod des Teds, ber enfengs alics war, | bie Tel cher Pemmcrnds,
che
sah chee Late gctar. . . . Des Chow wunderiacher Seder”dil thee
ente, the
part cf the Garkisaews that gave birth bo the Ing. teeceune Coad beromgivt the gurecr Hen
of lege
why Oe cherkrsces cf caster, Bat Mephesnpbetcs in dying by wappremeng he troth, fer the
therkesces of CRantiy was secumdlury 00 the bight wal wes predocod cmby chuiceaghs the Chew's
own tals
 Setew Expiring eS
1¢29-15 90), Mur Paest’s curse on drenun existence dl ich fo)
opens hiee further to the infleence of the Devil, who has Peapyecaredt asa
young sobloman. Mephistopheles offers 10 be Faust's corvant io this
weeks if Faust wall be his in the next, Soqgetting the benirarions that God
has placed upon his power (@ afyh=i64y). The pact ITanspMses inte a
scoond wager, which recapitulite the one sade im téaven: Mephisto
bets thar he cae make Faust abandon his quest, sink ino luxurious
vemoualiny, and ted the moment of pleasure linger, Faus bets that he
will newer Cease fo strive.” Mephisno urges him, and later hes studene,
to atunden study amd aburractions for “life's golden once” (Il sor¥—
2039) Ife treacherousty omins the middle ground beeween padantry
wl sensuality: the ground of generosity asd Ince.
br ts the failure to love thar makes Manet 2 tragedy. Goethe's Tragedy is
in defiberate contrat co Daree’s Comafy. Dante's poom is a coowedic
because # focuses ce the human stestion, which, taken in itself apart
freen the cosmic context, is painéelly flawed. Faue and Mepisto sige a
pact, whose terres are deliterarety left undefined (Il. ipyg=etgo) The
pacts sabsadtaryto the Ber, and both bet and pact are aubsidiary
to the
human tragedy. Mephiso observes that if Faust had noc made the pact,
be woukd still be doomed, for Gad and Deval between them baad set his
fare OF. 1866~ 2867) Mephisto will neat attermee to conrupa Facst's intel.
lect, emotion, aad will, Bis ultimate purpose being so destroy him‘
The neat scene, st in Auertuch’s wine celle in Leipoy, beg
Paust’s initiation into the anseal work Believing that be bas Faust in
his power. Mephisto shows hinwself increasingly course aed brutal as
times goes ce. In the scene in the Witch's Kitchen, this coursoness
becomes pecaoenced, though he still maintains his ironke distance to the
poms of observing his oun historical decline, neome that texber colter-
af fashion civilizes the Devil and removes bis horns, tail, and daws, The
clowen hood remain, because i is casily divguioed by shoes. (The bene
Devil would Become an impectunt symbol in modem lreratere through
Destoevsky. Mann, and Flannery O'Ceance.) Goethe suguevted thar
the shepocal weeld is uncomforuble with symbols of evil ana! pectors
the Devil comfortably disguised asa suave gentleman with only the hine
of a hidden deformity (II, 24g9-2900) Foe the same reason, Mephisto
on bonger eses he name Satan, boowese every madern peroon comuders

The Gecmtaaty feepgeers om tech Dheeteveky ond Stern

Op Terry & whale “Verwode cect(1 rte
he Cotte. pp rode
 a

ws Mephevepese
the Devil a superstitions —net that modern disbelief m Satan has made
people any bess vikibas, he iecmically comcbades (Il, aso4—2 509%,
Mephistopheles bures Faust into deeper seasualay by playing upon
bis hist Ser the yours girl Margarete (Ciretchen). Mephisto cares beth
atout Grovchen, for hesdes te though he can ruin her lite, he has ne
power over ber woul (I. 2626) Bis purpose is to destroy Faust by helping
hiane sink imo bet and fcenication and of the seme time make hem
respursibhe for Grovehen’s nein, thas scoting a double thew against hes
woul. Whee Greochos gives birth to ber dlogitimare child “she goes mad,
drowns the infant, and is executed for ber rene. Mephistopheles savors
her destruction, for he has demonstrated the folly and correponn of all
humanity and deyraded lowe to servauality and espleination (. 35.43), Bur
bis success is hollow, for Faust's bast has become transformed int real
love for Geetchen, Mephistopheles could pot avoid doing the good thar
be despises; the serweality be instilled in Faust has broken down the
scholars cold pedantry and opened his heart mo sendorneys and compas:
gon. When Mephisto later takes Faust 00 & Winlsergiomecte where they
see Gretchen wandering as a kot soel, Faust fcels--against Meplasto’s
plan—the fest pang of the remorse thar will eventually save Bern.”
Mephistopheles is less evident in the frapedy’s mere abstract “Second
Part”; when he dees appear, it is axa shadowy muagacan and sorcorer—
the emperce’s “Heol” urging disastrous wcial polices. Bur he is at
week in a tember of Geers. undermining secicty and sceking to lead
poopie to various false, eeechanistic, of fantantic solutions 09 social probe
hens, Only in the final scene dees the focus retur the struggle for
60 ns
Faust’s coed, "The dying schodee hes a vision of a better workd created try
heman progress, while Mephisto sacers that Faust’s life aed thar of
Humanity as a whale i all in eain (I. 11 Goo-18 Gor) Mephises clans
Faust's soul, teat the scholar has won his bers, for he bas mever coased to
strive and never settiad down to a life of sersual eae. The Deva claims
that he is cnnitto kad the contract, brat the contract ts
the sacred becauofse
veid because Paust has learned to kee. Dike Mesond Virgin wekeenes
Gretchen inne heaven, ax choirs of angels boar Paust’s soul alot, prare-
ing bis ctereud striving (Il. e1,g26—11.957). Mephistopticles, bis peroep-
tions x0 absurdly dulled by evil that his respoase to the sight of the
bovinh angels is to fantasize about sadumeizing them. has host the bet, the
onl, amd the powst of qastence,
I have eanphasined those aspects of Mephisto’s character thar best fr
vs. A. Sktiec, Geermnctes, Licks, Secwetel, 24 ob (Memack, 182)
.
 Satew Exparnage 167

the Christian cradition. But in Goethe's Fam, things are never only
what they seem. ‘Nhe Christian syenbodisin in the last acene, as throrayh-
On, is only evthetic, Faust is saved not from sin, im the Chwistian sere,
bat trea the satiphonal errces of senvuakty and arid intelectualien
His ascension inte beaven is not the beatification of an individual ter
rather a program for the h race: we, like Pate. arc called to
abandon folly and seek a sxicty haved epce regard for ethers.
Mephistopheles is the most important literary Devil since Milton's,
bet 2 Devil reaurr in a som
ectBrivtian
ed form in which be has bos bis
horas amd tail, and covers his defurrned foor with bis shoe. The new
Devil will take yer stranger forms in the Romantic perexi.
5 ~The Romantic Devil

The Rewobatiorns of 178p-1448 shattered the ancient syeebicns of

Christianity aed the state that had Beyers a atillenndum and a balt cartier
with Constantine the Geeat. As the old political and legal systems were
swept away im the wake of Napokon’s reorganization of Burope, the
polinical powers of the monarchy aad the ariviecracy, om which the
churches had cen relied, were drawically raduced. Commercal and
industrial elites gradually repla ced as politi
the anstocracy aed cal
cultural
leaders. Ihe capetabot values of the sew elite, with their emphases on
competition and profit, had lithe groend in comence with Chrivtiarety.
Although the keaders of capitalist society stil found it politically
wseful to crbrace Chrsnanity of at kest ce appear to do so, two ender
bring cffccts were mcrcasmgly felt: che religion of the leaders of wociety
tended to booemne more soninal and superficwl, and the imellectual
leaders tended to become more openly shepebal of rebgwus values,
Further, with the indesvtrialication that pecceeded mpidly in moch of
western Europe during the nimectocach comtury, a lange population shett
cocurred frem the countryside, wath its tradkoonal religious cestoms. 0
the ugly cities with their anceymety and often cruel working conditions,
The dural proletariat, cut off from acces: to tradinonal values,
tended tm develop a senec of despair and meatenglesness that wes
evennally alleviated only by wack new Moobegues as Marxcun. Im sock a
society. belief im the cranwcendent waeed, xed Christian theology
seemed to bose inrach of itx eclevanee.
Ariudes coward these changes varied radically, and as the Revelu-
non of 174o came to symbolize the transfeerration of suctety, attitudes
coward the Revedution often paralleled attitudes toward the Devil. Mo-
 Th Rewaarnc Dewi ot

marchnts and traditional Cathetics temdod to view the Revelutices as the

work of the Devil and the restoration of the monarchy as the triumph of
Chret the King ower Satan. As political reactionaries made common
cause with Carholics against the Revodurion, repubiicans aad revedy.
Dorares attacked Chrnnunity aed rallied no the snemdard of itx
hente—the prearest of whem Satan. Chwist is Rig bet e.
kings are
cul, and the greavest Ring te the greatest evil, Resoletionaries tended no
perceive Saran as a syinbel of rebellion agaiest the unjust ceder and
tyranny of the ence régime and its institutions: church, goweenment,
amd family. Not caly radical: bur also the bourgeois, who sau inde
videolism and aggresive competition as virtucs. were prepared for a
shift in symntads. “Dike traditional Smdal Devil had been condemacd as a
rebel againet his liege Jord: the imdividualst Devil, struggling apaitot
hypocrisy, couk! be pesived ax a cult and martyr.
Such positive views of Satan were symbedic eather than lieral, The
depersenalizanioa of Satan, hix reduction to a symbol, and the unmoor-
ing of the syuibel from Bible and cradition meant that the Ades
of the
Devil coud Noat free of itx tradicional meaniigs ‘The ninctoenth-
cermtury Devil was goed as well as evil, urbane as well as brural. a
proponmnc of howe as well as a bord of strife. Since the hisary of the
Devil in thes period frem the end of the ciphtceath century to about
Fite is more symbolic thes thoobopical. the cerphunis of thic chapter is
mare Boerary than scal,!
The Devil and radical evl wore net subgects that preoccupied the
leading philosophers and theolegians of the period. Materialism, preg
mations. and shepeicom of relon deninaced. Auguste Comere (4 798
157) forrmelated the theeey of positivism. in which hurran cockery was
asuitied to have advanced through three smages: thecdogical (the effort ro
understand by revelstion), metaphyseal (the effort to undersand by
lopek, aad positive (the effort oo understand by empirical science) ‘The
postive stage. the modern poricd, was characterind by rejection of
behet in anything thet could not be demorsteated erepirically and scien
tifically. Even though positivism reed upon empirically unvendable
acts o¢ faith what overall humors progress exists, that reality is ultumately
t+ Dhe Devil noel on a variety of Geves be art an well, cdrom ay satires corvheung
serpeacians ef the traitemal Chevil wieh wnegive ino Ramee evil The recee mocsbde ix the
bara series of printings by Ciena (Viremcinoe Ciey ey Lecerecs, orate 18a). Sow alae the
Welerqemactc of Dercinaes! Delecmey (y-gk~ 1851), Wilhave Make's emmys Hhoers-
ten of the cobgert, ened the Ceesceuy Crgraviegs ettet
ee Dawe aed Milton by CGeaave
Dhwe (of er see
 if
he Mepbecsripbotes

eeaterial. and that che human mend can prayp this material reality, it was
peessoad with vigor; ts inflecace bocame enormions
Ladwig Andecas Feuerbach (180461872) wad poativean to attack
Christianity, Notheng exists cxcept enamter, sad Pruoertact, anything
ele is mere speculatiog having eo foandation. All the armnbutes we
assign 00 God are actually humam come? PGors projected wpon the deity,
The same, narurally, is tree of the Devil. Ethical plelowophers sock as
Jeromey Bentham (e7g8= 1832) and John Stuart Mill (r%05—1%72) con-
structed their systems without reference to a tramcendent power of
evil. Thookgiar avoided the question, and the most orginal thoolegam
of the century, Seren Kierkegaard (18136185 sheethowgh he had mock
oo say abeat alienation, ansicty, and despasteetehd thar the comcope of
the Devil had become so trivial chat it actually weakened cur sens of
the prothom of eril,
‘The Canhelic revival after 181¢ did Gethe to ccewvance society at large
of the Devil's existence. Soll, she chrarch comtiaucd to affine its trade
of
ticeral teachings. Gregory XVI (98311846), Scaring the identification
the church with fading eovalisn, trad brieily co free Cathoke thookgy
freen acholisticismn but axon restrained his liberalean; Pius IX (1544-
1878) flirted brietty with liberalisnn tur, shocked by the rewoloticns of
IR4R, reterned fou ngillly tradeionalt yew, Jooeph de Maistre (1 753-
S21) bad already Moatified the Devil wath revoletien, disorder, dic-
unity, mxeal depeneracy, aad disropect foe proper authority, sotably
pope and king, Pius IX comdermmed liberalisen in bees Syiets ormerae
(1564) and detended the return to scholasticten aguenst those whe, like
John Henry Newman (1 for-1390), favorod 2 hissomcal aad develop.
mental approach “Dhe triumph of the scholatics was asured by the
encyclical Aeron parrie of Loo NUL (28>) which declared Themis
thoolegy ctemually valid, In seach an atmosphere, the ebjcetive reality of
the Devil was widely aesemed.- Used the eotes, when Catholoom
began to retreat from its Cwm epetemclogical foundatens in sonpture
at! tradition. the eostence of the Devil ax a persmal entity was in-
chaded in the offical bee of the Catholic Church,
In Protestamtion. gramme disegard for church enity are for apos-

a The Pine Vaan Council (6ttq nfred, on ronevong the deere Fiemevr of the
Perth Latoren Coeeseil (aoe Lace, pp. etg-1get did wot unchade the specific afiree-
tae of de Don!) cxptoece, theagh ne comtreieteen: of fete on Gs poet wae
wepbal. See Fit Vatwan, Comewane dagematce 90. 0) Oy fide, cqper prrmenn, Ue Dow never
eon coerer. Foe the Fane Vetoes Sew § Mansi, Sarees eet evou or ape
wae colle, Vode. get y Rerar, total
.
i772 Mepbasnpsele
colic successicay bad lomg undermjned the aethonty of tradkeron, the
mecrcasing acceptance of higher beblical cnitscom endermrned the au:
theenty of scripeure as well, With the nba cyan. of theac twin péllars of
Christian epistemology. first theologians, then preachers, and finally
the Laity qqacstionad nearly, every aspect of Christian tebict: beaven, the
woul, meumcetality, sin, redemnpthon, andecruinty hell and the Devil, By
iRoS the Englinh stateunan and churches William Ewart Ghdsene
could speak of hell as a shadowy thing relegated 0» the desty comers of
the Chistian eind,! Unmoared from its epistemological anchor, liberal
Procestannisn dinfted with secular eg and fachices, tending to repcet
the Devil (aad eventually God) as olé-fastooned and oundstad. One
growing erend of nineteenth century theology was ureveralism, the
belief that in the cxd everyone, mcluding Satan, will be saved, Two
groupe may be distinguished: “set” usiversalists hobding 0 a weak,
ive (etnies derived from the peugressivism of liberal secur
larists, and “bard” univernalixts affirming the reality of eva bur alse the
merciful plan of Ged to transfcem it mtn good+ In any Seem, univers
silisen ram the risk of pevencming relstivism, undermameng free will aad
more choice, and denying radical evil,
Against thera! Protestantism a courcerforce gradually awcrted itvelf,
escrtad by those who continued loyal no the Reformation faith in sonp-
ture and whe affirmed the incarnation, the reserrection, and ceher
Christian doctrines on the authoeity of the lible, Rejecting compromease
with secularism and denying the valihey of the higher cnmoem, thee
“comervatives,” along with traditional Reman Catholics aad Easnem
Orthodas, tended alve to affirrn the realty of the Deva. However, the
€ is of conservative Protestants upon the Bible to the exclusion of
tradition peaduced itx vam inconastencics, for, like Luther, ts expo-
nenes tended to ignore the fact chat the Christian doctrine of Satan is
mere traditional than bitvhcal Tike kernel of the alea of Sata: tm cer-
tainly present we the New Testament, bat the fell doctrine developed
oaly gradually. This poses no problem for one who perceives the cxven-
tal histerkal and developmencal narare of all Chrintian doctrine; how-
ever, foe one who believes that the truth Rex only in che carhioyt state-
ments of Christian deconne, the theology of the Devil is procanices-—

t. Qanded tee (2 Berend, JY aad tly Venera A Sly of oe Niweentt retary

Thvebagcad Comrecermce comerning Evereat Pemebecet and tte Freee Lair (Onterd, rota).p
arr ,
4 Morwell, pp. aeteaet.
 Thy Roesastw Deod re

anes with cther hivtecically developed afess sock ax the identification

of Chiest with the second perum of the Trinity. Bach im is oun way,
beh “liberal” and “oomservarive™ sides tendad to cut themsdives off
frome the histoeical development of Clrstianity which alone gives it
form and dcfeeition. Cur off from a sound epistemological basis, Chris-
TMAiTY a a whode continued to retreat in the face od the inpetbcctually
Tete Coessivtent forces of positivism and esaterialian. ¢
Eves aeore than by posinwinn, the carly sineteenth comtlury was
Gotnimated bry Remancicim, a fuzey-bordiceed comcepe that developed
i the second half of the exghtcenth century, Loxs am intellectual move-
mart than a literary and artistic reaction against the mcockosiciun that
had deettinasted the arts since the seventeenth century, Romaeiticism in
var forms flavored Western thought throogh the 186e5 amd ever
down to tga,
The clemeses af this vaguely defecd movment inckuded an c=pha-
sts pom the esthetic and the cesctional as against the rational and the
intellectual, Whether a thing was powerfully affecong Wie feore immpor
lant than ubether it was (fee; the cmetions were a surer peale to bite
than the intellect, This belicl cacvsraged a psychological penetration
that prepared for the terth of depth pavckobogy later in the nixctooneh
cemtury, Romascionm exalted the virtues of love, pity, and mercy
agaime rational and scientific calculation, bur the coadency to diamiss
reason bod to wehful thenhing, individealise and selfishness, and a self:
satisfied, clitist conmemps for thone considered bess fine, otic, oc sen:
sitive. The focus wpor the vabjective and the incerice life pitted the
Romantics against both traditional Christianity and cinerging science,
The search for the ernotionally and paychokogically stenulating encour:
apod a taste for the miraculeas, the supernatural. the weird, amd che
Ertéoujue—witeess the penchart for oriental tales sock as the Thcaccad
aed One Napher carly i the eenetcenth century and foe sealicvalivm afeer
brs.
‘The late cighteenth-centary concege of the “seblinne” Ley close so the
beart c€ Romanticism As capresed by its mest articubite exponent,
Ealtrand Burke (6729-1 997), the subdime was oo be comtrstal with the
merely beautiful.* The subiiene in nature consisted of peandecer, obec:
fly, Vaniness, pve, and trayrificonce and was often accompanied

{. b Berke. N Phenenpiecal Maaminy af the Onion of the Swblome snd tty Reaetitel (9 50>),
ob} TV. Beales (New York, ropti The cores “wobdicee” ceased te be fietvemette try
he
 ff.
1x4 Mepbehepertes
by the experience of terror in the bebokder, In humanity it comasted of
the indtiviceeal (pest for heewor and ghoew ageenst all odds, Terror, waffer-
ing. danger, and herien were thought e up the most peodeund and
powerful humem ermotices amd call forth the highestesanifestations of
the beeman spirit. God andthe Devil were the ultimate symbols of the
sublime, trot Harke and the Romantics traced the verne of subdimnity 1
inepirations in nature and Wemanity rather than to Grad.
Intensely conceraad with the conflict of good aad oval within the
heman beeast, the Roreantics used Chinstun symbols foresthetic and
mithopocic pecpeses, usually withows much regard for thew theological
compost, thus encouraging the unmoceing of sock symbeds from cher
basic meanings. Ina work view that ochewed bogie in favor of emotion
there were bowed oo be many contradictions. The Romantics comm
with good and evil kod them to an inners: ambivalence about the world.
On the one hand they affirmed the opeimistic faith that beenan progress
weakl destrey tyranny and lead eo a mew world of freedeen; on the cher
they sau hemanity at the acrey of selfishness and vicioumess, Thix
ambivalence led wore of the meee thoegheful Romantics toward the
coincidence of opposites: the eventual reuston of Ged and Satan, and
the tnregration and transcendence of the opposing choments of the
heman psyche, The views of Carl G. Jung at the beginning of the mest
cemury were prepared for aed asmcipated by Roseasticism.
The Rornmmaics also expressed devestivfaction with the bourgeots
decnination of Hheas after the Revolution. Their esthetic best cnconr
aged them to adept behavice, dross, manners, and views designed to
pater let beerecod’ and confound the philiscimes. Later in the century.
when Romanticism tratsposed mano decadence and dandyam, Oscar
Wilde wouk! flout comvention with his green carmanon, hey veleetoes
suits, his poppy, bes opigeams, and his scandalous ors life.
The Roruetic distaste fee the church was recipeocened, and clerical
attacks on the Reenantics only sitensified their view that Obeistianity
was evil and its opponents good. It followed that if the greatest enemy
of tradicional Chrntianity was Sane. then Satan must be pond, This
was 2 phélownphically incebcrest statement Contradating the core mean:
ing of the Devil, and imdced the Romantics imended such a staremens
not asa thonbopcal perexnition let rather as an imaginative challoege
amd a political program. In his rebellice against unjest and represove
jinhorry, the Devil was a hero. The Rossantic tea of the here. derreed
from the concept o€ the sublime. stands in cceteadiction to the classical
epic notion of the hero ax one devoted to the welfare of his fanely and
 Tiy Remo Deal us

people. The Romantic here is dividual, alone against the world, self-
aseftive, ambitious, powerful, and Wberwtce in rebellion against the
soctery that blocks the way of peogress toward liberty, beauty, and howe:
the Rumeantics read these qualities ime Miltce's Satan, Their admira-
Het Sor Satan was nee Saranion. however—aot the worshipof evil—
for they made the Devil the symibed of whae they regarded as gue.
Four different aspects of the"themonic mm art exist, The fies is a
popelar misreadingof the artot’s intention, ax when as audience masun-
dervtands the composer's use of musical dioenance ax demon. The
secomd at a deliberace portrayal of the demonic—as in Meussorgsky's
Nigty ow Ball Mewwaiw or Shestabywitch's Wer ont Pye quartet —tret
with the intere of condemning the evil. The chied is che actual exaltation
Of evil, as in che performance of certain rock music groups of the Late
twentieth century. The Geurth, characteristic of the Romantics, is the
deliberate shift of demonic symbols away from evil toward good. Sénce
the Remantics thew of good was not racically digferone frase the Chris-
han view of good. and since the Reenantics themselves were incomdis-
tent on che Gegree to which they shifted the symbols, their symbotian
vas moohorent. Ther tendency was to transpose the Chistian God
inte a symbol of eva. the Christian idea of humanity into God Gn the
sense char humanity became the ultimate concem), and the Christian
Satan into a bere,
Because of the difficulty inkerent in shifting symbols so radically,
some of the Kommantics chose mythelogical figures ether than Satan to
represent the rebeiioas hero. ‘Dhe cghecench conrury had transformed
runes from tramor t© revolutionary ero in is political syenbelivem: the
Romantics im their teoral and paychobogical symbetises would prais
Poometheus amd Cain (theagh nce Judas). The mengieg <€ Prometheus
and Saran was one of the crucial syeebolic cransteemutions. The tradi-
normal Promthess and Satan bad much in common their rebellion
apenst divine wethonty, thar incvitabhe defeat and doom, and ther
semnomce 10 be bund ae ctermal chains Ber there was also a powerful
difference: Promethees did not challenge the gods from selfishness oF
barred bot from a desire to help Bumaniy. ‘The mekding of the rwo
heroes enabded the positive clements of Prometheus 0» be cransferrad to
‘aun, so thet the Devil might alo appear as a noble bRerator of
humarety
The Konueune Satan wax aot aluays positive: he ovukd ako be evil,
symiolong noletien, anhappiness, hardness of heart, beck of hove,
meerniniviey, upbnes, and sarcaun, The growth of medicealien helped
ve Moin

ce restore some of the medieval*scese of the evil Devil, whom the

Romantics saw ax impeding the pregress of the human spirit and as the
thon of decructive forces within the woul. There was, then,
tm one Romantic Sean or even two, tet vietually Sex many Satans a
there were Romumics. Their use of Saran was seldom desagned ax
series intellectual comenent off the pfiiciple of evil, aad even when it
was, it lacked amy cpivtcrmetogical Lusis mm logic. science, revelarion,
tradition, the Bible, or any ether specie source. Whether one is a
Christian, an idealist, 2 materialiet, or 2 scientist, one finite such views
inceherent and wconmastent,
The Romantic ideas o€ the Devil had Bethe ultimate impact upen the
comeegé of the Devil. Today one takes either the craditiomal view ce the
Enkybtenment view, but earely the Romanne view, Nometheloss, Ro-
manticivee did leave scene traces: by dranatiemg the real conflict of
goad and evil wthe: the baman spirit and try duking Christian thought
vielently ot of it< ceenplacency about the problem o¢ esw. it laxd the
toundation fer a twenticth-<century revieal of serices thoolegical comem
with the peoblem of oval
One retlecnion of the Romeantic treatment of exil was the Gothic sovel
of reeww weir, popular first ie Rinkain and then on the cortinest in the
late cigheceath and early eincrcenth centuries, By e834, when the rawae
aotr was already pust its peak, Thdoptile Gautier wreee im f¢ Fapare that
ene coukl new scarcely read a novel, hear a play, or listen ca story
withoat being beset by mystical, angelk, diabobogical, or kabbalistic
concepts.© Like a twenticth-century horree file. the Gothic move!
uund—or degradal—the “subleme™ to prodece thrills. Its faveeite
theme was the decay underlying the veneer of the apparently good,
rational, and familiar. [e was refs in the wild aspects of manere and the
workd—crags, caves, and crthee—ae well a the grotesyec and dex.
adem in hurman nature. Physical aud moral deformity. sadism, sexual
frenzy, distant Lands, amd medicval times were typical chements. “The
macatire aspects of the supernatural, inclading witches, ghosts, pian-
tomes, Varnpires, and demons, were expecially favored. The Devil oftes
made am appearance bot hes as a serious syle’ of evil than av co
amceg many evil monsners designed to ertertaim and thnill the reader.
One of the mest demonic Gothic movels was Matthew Leeuw’ The
Mow? (i098). which bad enonmoes mflucnce on English, French, ard

6 NO. Nilvwee, 7 Dia dee Ge Ani

dery fremgate, 2 wole. (Farin. igtat vol tp. goa.
oning f7 fqpew of Mey 5. Sta.
 1h Rowaatk Dew 7

Corte litcrature.> Weitten whea Lewis wax only eineteen, it coatains

ghosts, mcest. poisons. vinioas, rape, drugs, and whatever che a sex-
crazed adolescent mand of the tene could conjure up. Ambrosin, a meek
who outwardly appears ascetic, m actually beeing with sexual passorre
Deeninated try sparitual pride, this cloric of thar notoriously degenerate
and sensual body, the Catholic Charch, ix casily Corpeee by Satan,
Atered ty the Devil, he plu
into
npeever deeper
t and more grotesac
veces, finally ravishing the virgin Antonia ie a dark vault upon the
bnethe bones of hong-deccased monks, Foe Antonia, "be linger out a life
of misery in a narrow loathwome cell, known oo exist by no hemnan Being
save her Ravisher, vurreunded by mouldering Corses, breathing the
pesmeental sar of corruption, never more to bebokd the light, oe drink
the pare pale of Beaven, the ica was more ternbl than
e She coald
suppert.” She need not have fretted, for Ambeosio proceeds 6o murder
her. English: readers could enjoy the moeal sense of being instraceed
about the evils of Catholicom while being entertained by Lewis's burid
prose. But Ambecoio's evil was limited yo the nantow purvicws of his
werhor’s adolescent hast; it fails to plumb che depths, as Sade had dome
aed Lautréaroont woeld do later, Perther, sech excesses were pret to
the mills of satirists, whe prodeced a nomber of of the Gothic
take that served tu trivialice the Devil further. Along with the specters
and ghouls with whi
be wasch
agcciand, Sanen became more thoes ever
a com figure. |
Perhaps the teont onginad arti and urizer of the pericd was Wiliam
Blake (07671329), whose mythology and symbedise showed worn Ro-
marke characteristics but were so asdividual as to defy cateporics. Re-
jecting Chinstian orthodoxy and avoiding Christian weehip, Blake
nonetheless affinesed that “Man esust and will have Some Refigaon: if be
has net the Kelgaon of Jesu, he wall have the Religion of Saran.” Blake
comstrected hes Own reclignon; whether or net he believed ie a spiritual
reality beyond tic human mind, he found the resources and syrebels
of
tes weligho ae hes Gwin itrumyiration,

7. Unter inffocomal Grahes coorls ihebed Heesce Walpole. The Cant af Ovvaens
Cig) Awe Rabebtly, The Afrweren of Lideinte Ceroyk Walser Soent, The Pad Prous
69810 Oharkes Rotert Mlareris, Mchenc® ake Wamdews
(1 Bek Shethew (C. Lowts, Tike fel
@ Dee Uitit). See dhe © OO, Preweo. UWivtore? anf fameceigy is Seer) Fite
Pabetewghy votgt amd for edecr Homanme works chealiveg wit the Drei, ser the bebde
egraptecs tm Milner and in 16 Varner, The Dhol a Baind Litcrerere iter. ng
6 OW. Hike, Avewelow, Py ga. A rocont odition of Hlibe’s works ie G Keynes, of,
The Compdene Wivsnnge of Withee Mair (lL amden, 1 yt
 i

Wiihaw Miske’s Aas Wer Peey Lice ced Py jee iol votetiebe, ee
eres the crviens bvil Cine arcade ceewred week a ccrpere. Comarteee of
Mersoun of Free Arts. Reet
 Td Reewate Dec! ry

Since his symbols lacked explicr consistency, it is difficult to define

whur be meant by the Devil. Fer Mako, as for the Ronaeutics, both the
Devil and Gal were morally aesbicalent. Goasoquently, when Blake
spehe of the Devil, he was only somecnmes esing the symbol im ies
comventional negative sere, and when he spoke of Cod, he wax oftes
eng that symbal in an enconyentonal Hegative soase fo mean scene-
thing Hee whar Christians meannby tbe term Devil. for Bhke, what
was good wax the pootic imaginathod, aftiwtac inmpiration, creativity; and
this comid be called either Gad or Deval. The moment of poetic inspira:
thom, Be held, was alvwys free from evil. Divinity fee Blake was every:
uhere, a pulsing realky ever realy to expres itvclf im mesic, art, of
Ineratere. Emccsons. scasitivity. bwc. and commitment were all man:
ifestations of the divine spirit, while “every obstruction no Art and w
mownwe Genius is Satan (eva) Bat this cvil was maniest, Make
teheved, in the tadional view ef God, whcen Blake called, among
other enflamenng epethets, Noboxieddly (no one’s daddy) in this sense.
God was an esil tyrant, Ble Shelley's Jepitcr or Suintarne’s “sepreme
evil, God "1" A God whe io the supreme evil is clearly the traditional
Devil: by “Gost,” therefore, Blake and the Reenartics often moan "the
Dewi,”
In other werd, coe etust often book for the Reenantics’ ilea of the
Dell One onder the name of “God.” ‘Their point in reversing the sym.
bots was chat che craditiceal Christian view bad creased a God uho wis
really am evil qyrant. Blake beliewed! that Jowex had eadenmond the crue
religion of love, semsitiviey. and spintwality bur thar Chwistians had
forgemem thar religion aad ercated in itx pilace a tyrannical system of
reason and external meeality. Blake viewed abstract reasoming as the
heart of evil and despised Eelightoement rationalism ar least as mock as
he did tradinional Cliistianity. Ree him, the philesophes had been nighe
in criticizing Christianity but ceteecly wrong m the direction they took.
Reason was 00 be rejected! ie favor of focking and love, jest as focling and
baw were 00 tke the place of all exterrad autheeity, whether of
Kings, teachers. of pureats. Like Rouweau, Blake beliewed that human
rarore Wes cssowtelly goad and needed cely to be freed from file
external restraints to allow loving creativity to «pring forth. Ver Blake

@ QeeentinT & herve’, ~The Pigare of Soran tt Mibow set Blaby.” in Mewes de
eee Mare, od. . Sener (New York, eppal.p ppt. See ale DD Sere, ie tty ond ote
Liecmeme free Si Thewnas Reon te Willen Alade (Primcetee, 1642)
we AL C. Sewteerer, “Oheeuses fren Arges in Colds.”
 MbpaeBotete
alse attacked the cay optimivn of the Enlightenment. “Man.” he said,
“ts been a Spectre or Satan, and is aogether Evil. and requires a New
Sclfhoexd comtinually,"*"
Blake's “Dtuil” therefore carried tuo oppenite mncarings. In hie poe
Afifres (1804). Satan's selfanghtoouseess makes him evil, yet his re-
bellion against the diviné trygnf makes ham good, And for Blake,
Metron’s Grou is at beast as evil ax Milton's Saran,
Wake was naturally attracted by the idea of the coingktence of op-
posites, whack appears mont chart in his Marriner of Morven ond Hell
(ipgo), writtes im pert to clucsdane Emanucl Swodenborg’s Harve end
Hell, whick had inflocmced Blake carbee in bes life, In the .Marriepy,
Satam is che syentol of creativity. He is activity, energy struggling po be
free, Metron, Blake belseved, cercurscicessly ecaliced that active “evil” is
better thar gussie “grxd.” “Ehe reason Milton urece in fervers when
he wrote of Angels and Ged, and at bberty when of Devils aad Hell, is
because he was a true Post and of the Devil's party without knowing
it."12 Jesus himenelf was really Soran in thar he acted from impralse, not
freen rules, amd cheerfully “teoke all the comeandesents.”'! The loving
Jeuus & cormranted with Johowah, God the Father. Milton's judgmental
Cox, who is really ovd.
No goods oe evils were absolute for Hluke. “All Deities rede in the
Human breast.” and no clement of the psyche is uholly good of evil '¢
Troe evil arises fect the lack of integration of psychic cloments; crue
good from the balance. union, and inteyrat of the opposives.
ion Por the
errinal cake page of the Marriage, Blake drew an angel and a demon
emmexing. Reason ami energy, bay and herred, the passive and the
active, apparent good and apparent evil, must all mene in a nanscen-
dest, integrated whole of whack creativity will be the leading spirit.
The true God is poctic crratimey, that sping, poet, maker, who makes
feo cely act but ina real sense the entire works, for the whole comeece is
a creation of the poctic sparit, Wheeher Make ubtioutely believed that
the eaternal costecs ts a poem of a Great Greanor of that bremnarns create
their own commas is emclor, Disda reasce asening
a guide Oo eltenate
treth, Blake made no effort at philssophacadl of costmokgical comisten-

tt. fomeakin,ot. ga
es, WW. Blske, Tae Mornay
of Meroe wad (hd, “The Vese
of the Del”
tp. Alerveage of Meetew and Jbl,
com benmen
ta Alerrngge
of Meare ond Mall “Prowkrta
of Dil”
 Ve hears [lake's CArey Tompred by Sevan te Tove tie Stones ere Bread Sopa ts
ve Dhevil ae a were hd am, te @ debberste ccanemwas of rrewal arsbepary
(2erest one) Seten appear alread as deeldets kechod in a danse UW stonude
wath texte ek aeed wry wok, 0816-08’ Crestor Frere tlam \leseers,
Larvboota
 ff
i) Mapdelaantis

cy. The crue God expressed itself te barman creativity: that was all he
aeoled So knew.
The Fant Boot of Urine (0595) again shows the interchangeabilizy of
the torre “Creal” aed “Devil.” Uricen is the old creetce Gad. the An-
ower of Days, the blind tyrant: he represents Jehovah, the Old Testa-
meant God of laws, the peincipte of reason. His act of creation ix evil
teomese it cots rules and limits (Grook dericeis, to bmit) in the cosmns,
uhich otherwise weald be free co express its creativity, Against Urizen
wands Ore, repeeserting revedunon and the feece of Liberanen from
Liked tyramery, vet the vaolence and Renvedbey of Ore mabe him Sacarec in
the evil ax well ax in the gow! serve. All of Blake's mythical supernatural
beings, the Zeas, have Satanic quabtics of one kind of another—nature
itself ix an arnbévalonce of good aad evd—tet in all thon confused strug-
glo there is a groping coward tecehorhood and lowe. Blake was Obristian
crmagh oe see this ideal best es in Jesus, and be comsicheradit a
crocd ineay that the followers of Jeoes had remade bem innoa version of
his eyeant Father: “Dhuekeeg as | do that the Creator of this World is a
very Cruel! Being, and being a worshipersof Chinst. L cannot help saying:
“The Son, © Bow unlike the Father!”!*
No one familiar with Blake can fail 0 sere his deop empathetic
undervtamding of oval, most pooyroethy stated in ~The Sick Rane”:

© Rese, thea act sch!

The invinabble woees
That flics im the might.
be the bers lang worm,
Hah found oer thy bed
OX cremen yr:
Asi bee dark secret kve
Dares thy bite heetroy

Blake and the Reenantics opened the doors ef peroopteon into the depth

tg. (deod an Kh. Bac, Wile Bled (Loondow, egret.

p. 84. Soo alo K. Marre,
Bite
aad Trakiem 2 veds. (Prwwetom, 14) cod. 2. pg signa yt, Gow the fegare of Stee
Rake. Hild wan ay create tm tho paccorial arte as im poctry. bis artatic works
chealeng with Setew are The Aerregoe of Meare and JOY Cr sed, The Cornel ond Faw! Anert
Corosh Netew Watcteee Ades and Pex (sto Noten Tompeuge Cire co Tare abe Sever sere
Bread (eA ite 08 Ph, Chronos and (Trem Heesan 1eqt Achar’ Bradeny Cates by
rReck Satew Ailing he Ctablrow of fob (S24 Seven Seetrone ft cole Sore Badd te. o826--
eR 7k Same, Sea, ced Deart ic. ste +
1 Compote iting, @ bay,
 The Rewown Deal ts

c€ the psych to a degree

e usprecedeated cecept liv the enysties, and ie
this sense they advanced the understanding of the tree nature of es It
is im och understanding. rather than in their KGoswynerati¢ and in-
coherent use of symbols, that their contribution to the concept of the
Devil is to be sought.
Blake was tellewed in England by the poets of high Ronseancsm,
each as George Gordon, Lond Betces (1758-2824) Byron revolted as a
youth agaitot his Calvinist upteinging and remained chroughsrut bes bite
an eppencet of traditional Chritam views of end, OF cnginal sin and
redempenn he asked: “What have we / Dene thar we must be sitions
tor a deed / Before oar birth, oe need have victimes se / Azone for this
my Mersres. tamecless sent” Sull, like Blake, Biron was sharply aware of
she pruitern of exil; indood, mt was the degree of ovd im the world that
convinced him that the Creator could not be good, Bis Cawe demands,
“And yet my sare [Adan] says Bes [Geal's) conniperent. / Then why ix
evil, he bee goad?” Later, Lefer asks Cain, "Whar docs thy Gad
love?” And Cam can caly reply, “All things, my father says bat I
comfess | E see t mot a their alleement bore.” Whee Lecter clits to be
ctornal Menself, Cain quickly coumers by ashing whether be can do
humeanity amy goed and, if vo, why he has nec dene m already. Lucifer’s
fapente is pest ax quick: Why bown't bebowah?!*
In wach a workd, Byron was soen between the Remantic optinesm
that hurese liberty would evercually triumph and a pessimisen derived
from bes elwervation of reality, Lucifer speaks fren erect know lodge of
the Gate awaiting ux, the descendancs of Caine “Dhe siety-thowsandth
generation sfall be ¢ Ines dull damp degeneracy. 00 Thee and thy son”
(Cane, 2.20—278 ef, 2.424-432) Heeman dignity bes in ctornal Mriving
coward freedom, even thoegh we mut met expect to seccend Micts-
phocically speaking, we once lived im an age of innocence feos which
we have fallen owing to our self-consciousness. “This self-consciounerss
has bound us te a act o€ tyrannical laus, rubs. and eaticeal pontelatex
that unpurivert amd starve the life of the sol, Mhrough Anowfedge of lree
aad Gbherty we can rebel against the tyranny of government, cheech,
Plibwopty. science, ard moeality, all of whech repress cur divine
creatimty. The act of artistic creation is the best rebellion against this
stifling ccaformity, a thrust coward freedom and intensity of caperi-
ence. Fee Kyron, the natural harmeny of seals and spurtrewa was nor

#7, Byron, Caw, om The Pecan! Weeks of Lend Ayree (Dewwhin, cytel ¢ heges 8 14a-
14). 2-4 CIF ED
 ~

ray MesSarepbetes

enough foe humans, who requires tolance of harmony and intessity,

The poet, rebelling against the forces of convention aad tyranny, is
linked weeh the great farures of rebellion in the Ctwistian and classical
traditicns: Satan, Cain, and Prometheus. ‘
By reas Devil appears it a neenber of forms. ** The poetic darn Can.
A Myitery (0821) best exprewes Byron’? Views of evil and rebellion. The
peet rocoretructs the character of Cam. adding to the origmal Gyurem
Geneas the Promethean clements of benevolence toward humanity and
the Saranec (Milonic) cloments of the sutdime, The chantver Lucifer e
himself anntevalent, good in his cappert of Case's rebellion against pyran:
ny, Yetevil in bees inenic distance from hreman setfering. His flaw
ts that he lacks the hove needed for redemperen.
Early = the poem Loucster inmructs Cam that Ged rules the world
with rigid, exgust laws Cain's wife/sister Adah expresses the traditiceal
lirve that Coed ts Both peed ana cennipotent (1. 48>— 788) bat for Byron,
Jehovah i» amtevalers, beth evil and good (1.637-163), Jehovah m a
pathetic symbol of hurrar striving, creating workd after weeld im an
effcet co alleviate his loneliness and isclanion, and ome after ancther
Fieding them defective and destroying them Cain is enraged at ouch
apparent wantoeness, bur it is fohowsh's nature. Like humanity m gen
eval and the poet im partcelar, Jehowsh is both maker and destroyer
(t.tgy<i6p. 263, g2Q~S)0). Lucifer is ready to announce the double
truth that Jebowal is both good and evil and that the ccormes be has
created is Both beautiful and croel. In this he speaks for Byrore any
understanding of the world that sees only the bewety or enly the cruelty
© false. In the ght of Joboeal’s ambivalence, it & unckar whether be
puts the tree of the knowledge of goed and evil in the garden te help or
hinder ws, and whether Adam and Eve were jontifecd in taking its front
Sor themselves. The conflict betucen the demands of Jehovah and thos
of Lucifer repress a conflict uithin the human soul, nor berween good
and ovil bat betwcen variogs ambivalences that should be transcended
aad integrated bret may perhaps never be,
Lecter snecringly asks Cam whe the real Devt is) Looder, who
warred Acer and Eve ce have knowlege and prompeed the serpent to
cell them the cruth abcur the tree, or fehowsh, whe dreve them cur of

r& In Tv (Agemed Tramgored (1834), an untinetied Gracu mexkekd os Four, the

Does i ie ieetre” Metee reamed “Cmenee™ | ty Te Veter of Adres (1 tnd, Sten appears
as 3 boegtyry digretary. om the dramute poem Mewes (1 fap), the bono Satarécally fin the
proved series) betes thee evel bend Aewmanmet Abriwemat wiley
os Satewe os thee evel Cyrermeral
ome
s
 The Reewanrn Dood ay

the garden mito exile and death (120g9r07, 220-230). Bur chough
Jehovah is Lawbound, msendtive, and semetioncs crucl, the rebellious
Lucifer is at icist as evil as his counterpart—really more so, because
Jehovah, foe all hix Gaudes, feels che pull of creative lowe, whick Lucifer
Camnee grasp (2.515-538) Though he promotes intellocenal freedom
and progress, Lucier is deliberately blind, sclf-abwstgd, and selfish.
He argues for creativiry bur ultioiively cecates nothing, Whibe inveigh-
ing agairot God's cold rationality, he himnelf aves reasom aad dialectic
cymcally in order to make bis anguinent. He lies to Cain, seppressing
the treth that he shares in the world’s eructty. Cain, alieeady disurisfied
and bitter, Eetens to him readdy whea be appears, whereas co Adah,
Lucifer m scarcely visible! Worst of all, Lucier rejects the only road tn
a goed common, the ineegration of hiteelf with Jebowah, preferring i-
stead to blame everything os Ged and demandin thar hurmare
g
ther servieede to God with servitude to herself, His vindictiveness and
batral of Gedl's cxames is linteticss:

ADL all will I spate, And world by werld

Aed aar by ste aed urevernc by usivere
Seal trenntbe tin the balance, till che great
Conflat shall cease. if ever it shall cea,
Whee® it ne'er shull, ell be o¢ I be
Nhe as 4 Comsyocter will call che
Dew, bet what will be the good he gwes?
Were I the vieter, hin works woukd be devrecd
‘The only ceil omex. [2 Aqge-dcel

Lucifer hax the Melnonio! Satanic virtues of grandeur and subdimity and
the Roesantic herec virtue of rebellion and perastence against exide He
speaks for Byron when he peaives

Sou whe dare ux ther ieencetaity,

Seal whe dure look the conmipetens tyrant in
coll binegthat
face andven
Ho cverla
His ced ty wet gored! [6.097191

Lucifer’s lack of love, Bawever, escans thar the strife in the coames
will contimwe wan the costes is destroyed, Uleimarety, Lucifce’s evil
lies in bes desire no hve Sorceer independently of God (1.016). Blix claim

vy Cond is dewys werrebhe: Came 1 p00-p05,

 a“

ra) Abopdvarypdvdey
to be everfasting (1.026) is crue caly im the sense that be i everlastingh
ahemated
ly Bis failure to ceebrace
the lowe that would be deathve
scifshines *
Both |chovah and Leoctfer arc withen Cain and know his thoughts
(1100-804), Gain, represtating bamaniy in general, resolves the con-
flict herween the rwe forces in the wrong way. Insead of integrating
them, he follows Lucifer’s suggestions and atzacks the Joboah side of
himself. Prompeed by Lacser, he Kills his teceher Abel under the
Gelusice: that be is sonkesg a blew against the cvranny of Jehovah. His
desc far vengeance Mots out hove; his scarch foe almtract justice blinds
him to the flevh-ard-Mood realty of bes brother. His act rcinfeeces
hurranity’s failure te open iteelf to the lowe that would ket us together.
Byrom believed that however uniikely the chances of success, we must
boop stroaglingng to reverse thar failure and to integrate good and evil
nd Devil partake of the Saramc. bur member is truly evel
‘The trely Saanic s the unresobved teasica between them. True evil lies
in the opposition of the two paychic pomciples, ruc good in their
recceciliation.
Perey Bysshe Shelley (ang2<t822) was incerestad from his youth in
the demons: and the occedt for thar othetic effects of terrcr aad sul
iinity. Shellcy was capelled free Oxford in 18:1 for prblivhing
pamphike called ~The Necessity of Athciers.” and throughout bis life he
continued te reject traditeonal Chriwtiesity and al “organiced relignon.”
He gradually adapeed a pervenal religion of the spirit of love in mature
and in hurraméty ber refused to call his sparit God because of the cruelty
asomanad with the Christian deity, Joous benself, be argued, had
taught the gospel of kee in rebelbon apamst onganined rebgion, Sheh
bev’s religion was evelutiomary, alreoet vitalictic, nflucnced by Erasers
Darwin and seilar oo the adealistic peogressivicm of Hlopel: che sprit of
haw is moving humanity and the cosmos toward a better, freer, more
heawng furure, Shelley was deeply aware thar esl is connnually bhckeng
this bere pir bur he rejected the Christian Devil on the tusis
thatal we cam know is the product
of the human mind. Shelley per.
ceived Saran as the symbol of the otemructive and regressive tomdencies
within hunmenry.
Oe the Dewl avd Decals (a820<1820) reveal Shelley's mitetse prev.
cupation with the peottem of ev. Marecheism. he believed, was no
Mote trac than Cheiiesity. Ber it fit the psychic facts better. The
Maetichean view that there are two spirits of buinced power and op-
peoite dispositions represented an insaglt ato the divided state of the
 The Peete Dow! ay

beman seul. The Christian view of a Dest sutyect to the diviee will,
expecially the diluted Satan of Christian liberalism, scomed to Shelley
to evade paychic ecality, Yer Shelley was as artevaboet about the figure
of Satan ax Blake or Byron, © the cme hand he itoivted that a eraly
Satanic figere wax seeded 0 cxpecss the feahty of Buran evil; om the
ether be took Satan as the symbel of the progressing spirit rebelhs
agaimt the oxtatidished foeces eérepressien, Like:
Like Bla
Hlske. he acess
Milteer's Satan as the groapest literary example of the spint of sablime
rebellion, the archerypal Remantx here— his very Gxvence to che
strugple agains tyrarey,

Nething can excead the erargy ated muangeificeofnce the character of Sates as
expon be “Paredine
tand Last.” it is a erntalec to suppose thar he coubd ever have
been wren’ Ger the popular pervmification of evil... . Milos Devil ase
trowel being is as far veper Oo bie God
ice ay One whe persever in seme
es
prarpere 4 hoch be hus concerned to be cocelhent in xpere o€ adoerory aed torture.
is 00 ONne hho at the cold scourity of hin endectbend treenepds intiees thre tnet
hewritde revere upon hav enemy eee Milion . . alleped fe sepereity of
fed vieterc toh God ever tix Deval. And this buikd neghoen of a direct sneral
putpene © the mnt deceive procé of the aupremacy of Milver's genies

Chagrmed as Miltos woedd have been at this unter pretation of his epec,
it epetoriond the Romantics’ reading of it, aad a this sere Milton's
Satan became the greatest of the Romance Devils, the archetpe of y
the
Remuntic hero.
For Shellcy, evil was beter represented by the demcnie in humarsty
than by Satan, whose esoral charact
he er
saw as good or at least am-
levalont. In Tae Cewc? (12g), a play in the Gothic vein, Francesco Conci
tsa totally evil character ube calluisy seduces bis daughter ail ronices
at the death of his som, Francesco represents the extensan of the
fecoess, rieble m Shakespeare's Lago. of sransferring <vil from an exter-
sal power to the hurr soel Whar need have we ofa Devil, Shellicy
acer to ask, when we have bemanity? The Desil is a figure that ue
mivent = onder to peegect our own vices apon scemething extensal. It ix
we ubo are the wurce and conner of eve. not he.
be Proewethesr Cphowwed (1820) Shelhey used Prometheu(as
s By rces ccd
Cain) as the syinbed of rebellion, Im the preface Shelley cleened sim-
ilaritics betworn his work and Parediw Lar) be nocant Premnetheus to
fevemthle Milon's Satan in courage, majesty, aad opposition to ornmpe-

re Shetey, Difemer af Phetry (hedimapede. rotct pe Go.

 an
ree NtepQargebey

cent tyranny: however, bike Byrom, be saw the draubacks in making

Satin the here ef a poem. Even the Romantic Satan was too arbivalens,
fee Shelicy neocded his boro to be the incarnation of love, whereas Saun
was arelttioes, eavieus, agurossiee, and vengeful Ys well as a rebel.
Promethows was a bemert symbol hes rebellion, defeat, and bondage
were the reselt noe of his faults tar Gf bis bose for hurranity. Prom.
cthoes symbolizes Chinst, who sacrifices hiruself for the good of his
peuple. humaniey . Which struggles toward froodom under the guidance
as the spirit of love: and the poet, whose lowe and creative word are
capo agpainet the darkness, Thus the symbolic chester around Prom
said ceanrtodd Christ, bemanity, the poet, Shelley. and Satan Ge his
good aspects) Preenetheus anmagemist is Jupiter, a wholly esil evrane:
the symbolic clusner around Jupener includes Jehovah ard Satan (in his
evil aspects),
Preenetheus is a Titan, 2 tember of the race that chesical eeythology
represents as impoous rebels against the COhymeean gxds. But Shelley's
Prometheus loves hemanity and is distrewad fo see it kept im bondage
and ignorance by the Olympians. ‘The poem bovine with a reproach no
Olvespian Jupeter, whose haughty arrogance sets him forever apart
frome the reality that is lore, Prometheus’ gift of knowtedpe oo hemanity
is rewarded by Jupiter with a ternble punishment) the noble Tian is
chained to a ruck for eternity, whele a bird of peey, “hoawen’s winged
hound,” plucks at bis liver—wach is eternally regenerated in order to
prolong bes torescnt. Procmetheus’ self-sacrifice parallels that of Chit,
bat his predicamers isi aloo thar of hurnamery. for we too are bound by
the tvrant's chains, Seill, we place these chains epos ourselves, fee we
ha the truch and refuse oo act by ir. Jupirer isi Only 2 projection of the
ranmy thar hes within: eur oun willful gneeance, selfishness, “i
na aeae Prometheus will aot be frood ennl bs undentanding
hireself and reality allows hin te cease cursing his fate, the cosmos, ab
the gris. He nwast cease hating Jepiter amd bears to pity ben for his
cheice of coldness and iselarice.
Shelley's opuimmen ceceedod Byron's: te Shelley, the workd of free
den and bose seemed really obeamable. Exil proceeds from the human
med, from our own choice of acifahines and barred. To climinane the
evil ae the woeld, we have only to decide to do oo, Since we have created
Jepiter @ cur own sind, we can alo dismantle him and creare a better
god This new god woeld emerge not from hatred and rebellion. even
rebellice: against tyranny, but fren lowe foe eeersone, imchuding our-
sclves and the Jupéter we have created, Jepiter’s chief evil is his eefusal
to abandon his oun arrogant idlation, whech makes him inferice to
 Th Reewary Deal ry

Prometheus, wha can learn to hove. If we can integrate and cranscend

the opposition of Prometheus aed Jepiter within ourselees, we shall be
ready m proc en the
eedroad that winds epward in peace through the
grees counmry of understanding, freedcen, and love,
Shelhey's wife Mary (1997~1851) had a darker view, Mary Shelley's
Frewkexstas, of the Muderw (ekr 8) has enpyed an enduring
popalancy as eetertaimment, though the author's philesophioal
has generally been agnered. Mary Shelley drew upon the Gothic bwe of
monsters and hoerers to entertean, and Freaheesvis was a bridge be-
tween the Gothic and the eeadhorror erncalle. [Ir is also one of the
cmginal syurces for science fiction, for she made some i
changes in the Gothic plot: the creater of the monser. Dr. Prankes-
Sein, is 00 longer 4 sorcerer or 2 rragician bet a schereist, the feorter is
ne medicwal demon or specter but a ssatcrial being of flesh and bod
masufactured in a laboratory. Fractrauny replaces the ohd supernatural
horror with toodern pxoitivist horrer,
‘The author hardly meant thie break to be a clean ene; tedeed, Frank-
erotcin and other treman characters im the novel repestodly call the
monster “daction,” “fend,” “devil.” Bee here Mary Shelley's inter
was ironic, foe the evil lies not so mech in the mons as in rer
the hurtaess
whe create hen. The monster booomes evil only becuuse he has been
tormpyhe evil by breenarity. Im this lick anceber shitt od symbols, foe here
humanity symbolizes the creator whose oun pride and selfishecss spill
One Oe spodl Creatice, yet the meester (who has mo mame) also represents
the MNOCeM, open aspect of heenanity ccerepeed by ks expersonce of
eve. The indivadual human, Mary Shelley implied, is been ianccent
and debasod: he is destroved hy the vicicesness of the work! around
him. The monster cries oat, “1 wax benreoient and good. misery made
mea fiend Make me happy, and I hall again be virtuous"?! ‘The
mon toeches
ste himeclf r
to read fren Pora Loretand other books: he
Sg himeself with Adkes, whe was create goed
d but becarne xxis-
. ated to Satan. who was wretched im his isolanion. Vet even Satan,
be ewclainns, tad his “fellow-deeils” Op. 36), As the people whee the
monster ehioutters shun, fear, and cdexpioe him, his character is stcad-
ily more defoermed useid he beccenes the merdering flend that poeple
assume Mam to be.??
The monster's List hope of refcem lies in Frankensrein's peveise to

ot. Mary Shcticy. /pmetewwver (lees, 1het), oper

+3. A facteal awidene te this powernnes i the betc of the Nanerical Bhophere Min vile
wer tre wh opel boro and comnrrept yet @aetmend « poecrees heart.
 ”~
Mepharcopbedin
constract a female companion for him, bet in the midst of the new
experiment the scent is shaken by revuleom and destroys both the
half-foreead wean and the oyuipement. Now the meester pursues he
crestor with unreeestting vengeance, while the bette in tern seeks out
his creature to destroy bem Like Byron's God, Frankenstein bax made a
world thar he regects and wishes ta deitroy. As cack socks the other, it
becemnes char that Frankenstein and his momater are one and the same:
they represent owo waning aspects of human character. If only we
could tenscoad the con@ice eithin as Mary agreed well ber husband,
we could enter a world of peace—bat Mary scoms closer to Byron in
her posimmtac concluson. After a weird, catemded chaise through the
lirmetheas Arctic might, the two finally moet. Bat Frankenstein dics of the
exhaustion of bax long parwuit, amd the monster, focling both frustrated
revenge and frustrated hove for his creatce, vanishes forever ino the icy
darkness, No recenciliation or integration ocoers: boch aspoces of Prank:
cnvein, both aspects of hurnanry, pensh.
The Gothic, mediceal, and marvelous had broad appeal in Germany
and France, as well as in Englead. Nevertheless, FreacomHené de
Chatcaubrand (28<1838), vaetually the founder of French Kormran-
Is, Wis an opponct of revelutictary change and therefore saw
Matnon's Satan differently Grom Byrom of Shelley. Hii long ceay on
Poraduc Lat m Le ptaw dy chrotieaiees (1802) expressed admiration for
the grandour «€ Mikon's Satam as the fine product of the Chrisian
imagination bat concluded that Satan's rebellion agammat legitimate ae
thority made him besx hero than villain.
By reimrodocing the Devil ax a serious symbol ar the very curser of
French Romeancem, Charaubeiand st a cone thar was folkewed
threaghcear the century tre other backng aechors In the peone epic Ley
Naerches (1816), Sata appears as a hare, ill-defined spin of evil whe
exhorts the pages Amcrican Indians agenst Chinstianity. The Satan of
las Nevches wareers on the border betwoos personality and symbal for
the most chilling, ev figure
es net Sanee but Head.
the model for
a bong
line of swihains ot Prench hrorsture. be Le etase av chvonientew, Chateau-
brand peaised the pectic syaibolism. eitual, corenceny, apmibedist, ard
moraley of CQetsienry while showing lithe inmerest in tts traditional
thecfogy. His immcnsely tefbuential prose epic Ler martyrs (1809) is set
during the persecutioe of the carly Christians ty the emperor Diocke-
tn, 0 whock the rovalim © hatcaulersand paralich the persecutions
under the Revolution and the Teerur. Lmststing Miltor in a scone u here
Satan addresses a council of hix demonic followers in bell, Chateau:
 Tix Reenzare Decl ays

brand parted the Dewl ax pevenisieg fair orcanment of Burnan-

ity while scoretly phering ns rum As Satan encouraged the Reman
peraccution of the Christians aad did his evil work theuwph Diockrin,
so be prompeed the Terree and worked his will through Rote pierre,
To drive his poire hone, Charcaubrand eves bad Satan <paote che
“Marscillaice.“?! « tn
Uslike Charceebriasd. escort Breach writers whe followed him ie
reviving mcercst an the Devil treated Sates with ironical xhepeician or
cloe used hemi along with demons, ghosts, and specter —to produce
Sreeeeee of Grothic horror, Many serious writers felt that the Devil bad
become too thvikved to ase effectively in treating evil and preferred no
ray evel om sects hurean characters as Chatcsuliriand’s Rend. Stond-
HCe7 get ge), fameus fee hin gibe that “God's only coca is that he
dees aot exist.” puinted the deeiosic human figure of Julion Saret in Le
Fromme of fe meer (1B oo), and Honoré de Balkeac (1599-28addresoad
00) peal
evil got in his Gothic novels bat in his Gooey Aawater, in whech be laid
open the erucity, stepidity, and vice natural oo humaniey withour the
inmpervention of the Devil.
A tew whiners flowed Chotcauteiand in raking Chrimen symbols
tote serpousty. As a child, Alfred de Vigey (tipg7—1843) had been
fascimated by Rapbuct’s painting of Michael slayieg the dragon, and
Sain remained 2 powerful symbol checughoer his Me. [yron’s Caw
ranforced the yoeng poct’s interest in the Devil, but his ase of Chit
tan my theley wie canrely evthetic, for he roganded rhe Christian

2) UReresebrued, dar wry ol Vo Gieeed (Pars. ep ran: “Le poorde ghoare

ot atid”
te Clee wrmor wie mance mrach of Gevmermdeny eae Coden dhe Plame (955 g0 1281) on
Dames ca as Le ake geet par bee etone (08100, [Memeemenamer (130k, and Dltemaiey
eateries (18 ee Dacrienmeiy cgormcie: Aves pdenge Magwal (Verviers, rytal Oharkes
Neadict (eee
hag) eed the Devil «thy ghads and chet: ty cnhumec bir tales of Cicebbe
beeen, Nowhere onel other Frosch wrecrs of the oem eer weew folbrwies the bad of
(amoene Fepigeeppal, where Le dal ameeeenes (4 e570), 0 heveewe < wety.
efwecmied beth French end Gorman wrrces. Irony and the cucicmwe ad horror oat
coum’ the figureof Satan im the works of FLT) A Pledivwer Jeon Pont
(repte ets rles
Bacher Cope ctagh, aed Onretien Fricdrich Hebded (115-084) see Metrum De
Peers do Tengel, 2 weds. (Berke, 1a c-1es and Richer, Awol set Ae Trt
Papen (np, Vy hgh J how Michelee (epyte ety g) tremsfcrved these Seerary sttiudics oo
prtebteetery os hes heed on the wrich crane. Le merce (1842). BagtneSux (i Bey- itr <!
wed Balleac proferred oo aririne the cvil that coats withers hewnsnaty, [ey hb te bes
“hemas comwads~ Maliae aha predoced » Combhe
de Aete (1890), iwhch be oc
teempert of dommes oo xatience huenan fally. Soo abo J. PL Iboeanom, Ty [\eeen! Senate
free Aryl and Tivew te Pevecd Romentiy Metry (Memes Roepe, La, rye
 Muphoreopheles
a“
ip?
moon of a good, amnipoceat deity as absurd. Since hunnae life is
wretched amd mitcrable, the Christian Deny ment be cither perverted
ec powerless, and Vagny pecferred to thenk that he did not exist at all,
Vagny’s works are a cry against the complacency of Chrintian operant,
a demand thar we face thy problem of cul vith eyes open and without
ilesiom. Le japemew dorsver ahd Naseotwo unfinished poems wneten
between sig amd 182}. preceded Bis masenpiece, Ava, ow As sew ses
amy.®! Eloa is a female angel barn fecen the tear that Jesus shed at the
death of Larares (Jobin 11:35). Her heart i fell of compunsion for her
fellorw creatures, and because she finds everyone happy m heaven, she
sets owe to wander the costes in seurch of someone who moods ber belp.
She bears of an outcast angel whe is alone and sad, in rood of love and
companionship. Cnaware chat this is Satan and chat Satan hes commut:
ted real evils. she sheds a tear of pity Gor Bim as Jeous bad wept for
Laratus. Satan, of course, chooses to conceal the treth about hassel; be
comvimess her inviced that be 6 moundervioexd:

Hhe «heen they call wrecked 6 really a Coeneder

Whe weepo for the slave and frees hie: froen hin measecr,
Whoo saves been with bis beve and with bis oan setfcrrgy.
Sumce he is enuheeaded in the came commen mesery,
He can give the wretched a lick syrepathy ard cenctines hess’
forget [fdes, date 216]

Vigny’s Satan, a pale, veluptucas youth, is the archetype of the

languisteng beauty that the Romantics idealired. He ix torn by Ehca’s
presence. he kaces that he has smaned fren pride and arrogance. and
he is racked by remorse and grief shat he is com off from the bowery of
heaves. Yer he cannot overcome his hatred of God. He uses his beaury.
his feigned imnocence. and bes assured compassion to imgeess Ebou.
ung sears as faloe as those of feous and Bhow had bees sincere Hix
response 10 Eoa’s hove is as idiotic as Mephestopheles’ response to the
young angels in Saas: be determines 00 seduce her. Ehoa resists, weersead
abort his howwhey to God “bhew can you love me, if vou do sot lowe
Grond?”" (7.106). At last she peelds, bur pest at the moment when
he shows
tor an instant a smcere wish to repent, she & dismractod and fails to
understand hin The monest missed. be eetures to hie hatred. Under
such condeions, Eloa’s lowe cannot rebeve hin minery, and be drags her

at. Whgay, Ades, pobished ie bis Pode seriguny ot sadeian (Paris, +mpas
ong Mephinopéctes
with him doun to bell. Only in the last ive of the poem does she begin
te grasp the eruth: “Who are you then?” she ones: the response is,
“Saran” (7. 268).
‘The poom oxpecsax a deep pewwenivm about the ability of lore to
esercemie the bitter bartiers of barred and despair. In this, Vi mgny’s
vision wis hike Byron's. Alrbobgtthe Planned a secqect, Setar meaty, in
which the dark bord woeld at last be redoored © the optimintic peer
was mover Gished, amd we are beft with a vision charm fileak, Nowethe-
less, in spéte of hin relagious shepescem, Veer s achiowsd @ more em-
ical Satan than bad any.
pathetic and paychokogically cocwancing portrait
cae ele since Milton timnself, It remained for Vacoor Hugo 0 deepen
the chwracter of the sad, moleed Devil and to render it even mote
pecticully syupatheric.
The Satan of Vierce Hugo (i Sea2 hXs) is, vith that of Byron, among
the mest effective of the & Devils, Beginning as 2 rationalivt,
Hege a4 4 yourg man expencoced an esthetic conversion to Catholicnan
bat soc abandoned it. Hugo's hicks were never fioed. throughout bax
life he pursued a wide variety af views—myaom, gRostictan, o¢-
celtian, pamberan, matcrisiom, dusk. Ie true Remantic fashion,
Ifugo made bis judgments lew on intelicctual than on esthetic and
emotional grounds, He insited epces a God of péty aed mercy. hating
the cradiniomal dectrines of ongimal am, salvation through crucifrxen.
and bell. Hemanity was intnesically good, be belicwod, and Ged sntrin-
recally berevetent. Ile saw the Christan idea of God as false beat Jevers
himself as a oobke, boeing ceacher of a beautiful ethic, a medel for the
parva of real truth, whech is love,
The alleged rension between Jeoes and Ohristimmery that charactersond
so many Enlightenment and Komanee thinkers. and found intellectual
pouts ms the Reblical crticom attempting oe discover the “historncal”
Jeves bebed the “Chine” of craditios. miises fondammental questions, tt
has recently bees argeed that che philosophies and Romanncs were
revoking cot against Chrimanity bet against a falee Chremanity that
perverted the truce teaching of Jesus, acd that therefore they were “true”
Christians as agains traditiorad Christians. Tho view, whack hus found
many adherents among those whe reject “organinod religion” im favor of
am ethical, curhetic, or sertireental attackenert to Jews, contains 4
sumer of inceherencies and inceewsmitcncics. The “hrtorical Jeves” bon
not been found and almost certainly cansot be food; we have mo way

2h Portion were peed benmandy peewrord be Vignes Jeermal Sew pate (arn, ot)
 The Rewsmy Dheal aye

of knowing, historically. what Jevas “really” said ce did. Whar hisory

can de, and with great security and acceracy, ix show the development
of Chrismanity and of the view of Clinst within Christianity; thet is,
whar we can Know hisericallly of Clint ix the traditional view of Chinst
as ic developed threagh the ages. The only way of defining Christianity
cdyectively ts to defete it as what it im historically, Othe detiminones all
fet upen emproven awumptio’s. The statement, therefore, that
“Chinstianity is really seencthing cher than what i has bestorically
boon” it not a thcuningful statement, because it rests upom unverifubk
and anvalidatable faith aswampeions. Mago and the Romantics tr that
they had got to the real Joven behind Chrimenity, Mhar is possibile, bree
mis net capalde of verification.
‘That Hoge had no rational defense of his view was bess important to
tem than the evadence of hix feckingy; nonetheless,
he could use rexun
when be hhed. He was intermely auare of the prottem of evil, and hin
own hindnms and pencrosity led him to eepodiare a God who was alle
be peevent cril yet chase not to do om, He aloo rected the oraditiceal
Devil, adapting to his parpose the tradinonal MasenisChinstian angu-
ment of privation: cv is a meyation, and ne megation can truly caist;
only the positive canes If evil were God, necking woud exist; but we
otserve that something i. ‘The principle of being mest therefcee be
proc?
Though he denaad the exienonce of an absolute evil, Huge was acutely
comcernod with the effects of evil m the ucetd. Hemanity, tusieally
goed, wae mesving gradually toward perfect love and hberty, be be-
liewed, Dat its progress was Mocked tre crocky aad by a selfishmess
atteactod to the whee of evil. Yor we dad not creave the week, aur did
we create the shadow within ey, so we are to be pened for eur eresfur-
tune father thes Mamed for our sin,
With Hugo's ever-changing imerous, his wp o€ the Devil was diverse
afd incussittest. Since be shared the Gothic love foe the medhicval and
the tracabre, hie Devil was a fartastic figure, fond. of monster used to
exeme terror or theille he was a prop a drameas ateut the Middle Ages
such as Netre-Doowade Pera (1831), asedd along with protesyucs, witches,
ad hunchhacks to conucy a senec of weird modicval darkness. Medieval
sctings alkywod Huge to indulge beneolf in fantastic scenes om the
cxcesc of offenng as cece comment om che cuppoced mediceul mind.

rp Pretorgtee & me cr Pare, tegen, Acgqaet 24. 0g. On Pega, ae ©, Villiews,

nanrvere micaphyope a Vive Mage (Paris, tye
 ~

ope Mephirtepbels
They also permitted hie to satirtfe the Catholic church bry satirizing the
alleged medieval expression of itx tiows, That Hugo's Mikile Apes beee
little resernt@ance 10 histerical reality Munted neither thee popelarity
nee their effectiveness.
Satan was also the syifibol of the Revelution. Im Hfego's carly days.
under Chotcaubriand’s te@uence. this meant that Saties was a symbol of
evil, later, when Huge came to sce the Revolution as advancing hursan
progress, the Satan of the Revoletion came to symbolize goxd, Satan
copld repecsens oppeosive socketies and powernmenss, or he could mean
the oppose:rebellion against oppression in the name of freedom MMe
could te used as one side of am amtiveleet doality SareaCrod,
goalies. ulieh represented the alesanon of humastty from its oun
inherest gooddecss. Hugo fel: deegéy thar alienation. defeat, sadecss,
aul regret are as inherent in evil as crucky and selfishness, and he
painted a dimermice of evil that hitherto had Been neglected: the preg
nant sadness and tuotstice of the sinmer. Satan was a metaphor of the
longing of creation and huramity to be rcinteprated into that kerang
spine of life from which they had exiled themalves by their own
foolishness and selfichnesc
Huge had an optimise faith thar reintegration would ocowr, A pas-
siomare universalist, he believed that che spirk of light is infimine in its
mercy and woold evenewally restore all its best creatures fo the union of
towe. Until that happy moment. evil weak! remain a stark realty. “Sat
sen is phurmany; be os a pte that dewours thought. he is drunkenness. the
dark depebs of the dramed cup; he is peiie locking Ances ce which to
kinoel; qgoters. repoicing ae the blood in whoeks his huendls are soaked: the is
the belly. the hadeves cave wherems gage all the mornters that dwell in
us.28
In his pecface to Cresevll (2827), a historical drama in verse, Hugo
declared the grotexyoo—in which he incladad the Devil—a necewary
clement in madern Rterature; his Qdo of Anileda (1826) poetrayed the
demenic in felldonc amd medieval style. In his Pind expriver (1 8>q), be
demanded the abetition of bell and the merciful pardon of all creatures.
In “Les ceages” (in Comtonpdatiner, 186), he cru ovil an the opposite of
good: “Humans call it bartarive and crime, the sky calls & night, and
Crend calls & Satan” ( ¢78—sRol, He coukl also see the Devil as Mephi-
stophclos—mocking, ironic, supercilious, and weeld-acary in the made
Geared by the French;
.

rk Petergeew, tore rtee

 Tix Rewmweatc Dewi 's>

‘The felhrw bad troubled ever,

And on his furrowed dorehead
The dimertien of two hoees
Were quite enable.
Eis forked Set wan bearing bis stechienss
Exeerriny bes leave drone bell, be Leathe the frowb air;
Tihcaag’ his seeth were fy fibe oa
Ties glances were fot Ore.
ble commy oo earth petand Gor peer.
In Bis hands with Oheie icon talorn
ble chanced & banting permet,
Spel Oy Goal and countersigeed by Lucifer,
Ihe was that weethy Devil Becheebels.
I recegniced here raght away:
His undisguinaite grimace
Gave ham the ar of a wicked deity 2*

The deepest portrait of Satan since Miltces is in Hugo's unfinished

trileof gy
long narrative poems: Le Age der nile
l (in which God aad
Etts, the Devil, make ao Om their respective creative powers),
Drew, and Lar fio de Seren, The plan of the whole wax to portray the
destruction of evil by Liberty, opening kumarety to light, freedom, and
kere. In Diew, poblished posthumousty (¢fge) im extended fragrmenes.
Hugo speaks of the Devil as the shadow of God, hearing ne real or even
possible extutence. “Goxd,” be said, “has no Devil hidden im the folds of
bes robe.” In La fiw de Senay, begun in 18cy bet abso poblisted pest-
Burhousty (06), the Dovil is a vivad and convincing personality; he hus
truly sinned, truly diserted hinself aed the weeld through his thhind:
mess and selfisheess, yer the pain and suffering of his own alienation
remder him sympacheric, ble represents the hack of equilitriura, peace,
aod balance in the commes and the alicration of hemanity from its
proper repose mm lrve and liberty. Like Swtan, we are so wrapped up in
Oar interior world thar we canine see the reality around ws; we isolae
crarschves frome it, thowgh it speaks oo us in every tree, bird, and heman
voite. Miserable as we are, the spirit af love nonetheless draws us
toward it, amd in the end all will be saved. How could it be otherwise?

1 “Les bomece imscntions dhe Ross” in “1 drereel pert remus,” froes E lege's Chae
Oo reer ot Be het (Parte, 14h
pe Hips, Pte, y vede od M. Leuiline Paris, york de fis de Seren appears
in
fed 1. PP 20S por. Since Phage eevee fewide the poco
d ts boul aed yenoees ane
wmecttbod, thas the telew ing rofcronces
are to goeeral wctinees rater then specific line
mavteat
 ~

The spirit of the world is infinereby inky and merciful, desiring all to
reture to bre; against that keve whe could peevail forever? Perther, eval
is nothing initeelf; it can exivt fompecanty as prevation, bec the end of
rane vill refine car such imperfections, the opposites will be recomclied.
aul the coomes vill Senna wm Bherty and lore.
‘The poem begins with the fall of Safi. Ax be falls, hin angelic nature
is transformed: “Seddenly be sees hieeself growing bat wigs, be soos
bimsclf becuming a monster; as the angel in him died, the rebel felt a
peng of regret.” His pradefel envy of Good cams into the more better
envy of regret, “Ged stall have the thee heavens. but Ia dark and
empry sky." A fearful voice retorts, “Accursed one. around you the
stars shall all fade away,” He falls, wear after year, Soe millenia, and as
he falls, the stars gradually disappear, leaving the shy darker, empeier,
mcee silent, eettil only three fint points of light remain—then only
one, On this last, dimesing star be concemerares all the efforts of his
depleted being.
Toward the star trembting pale om the hertnen
He presund, lapeng froen ome dark foothold to soother...
Fe fan, be thew, Be crwd eee: Grodebers star!
Brother’ Wait for eve! | ame comsing’ Do wet Ge yet!
Do mt kave
me abe.
The ser wan rerw only a peek, |

Was mere ondy a cod poset ie the depthe of the dack guilt...
I hopeng 00 waalee che star plore thats Drighely.
Ihe wat hireactf to bhraing on it a ene would of coals,
Ard anguish Mared bis fierce meeteths.
He flew tereand & Sor ten themand years. Ton theemsired sears,
Sereoching eo bis pale neck and hr mod
He flew witheest fleching a single place of rest.
Froen time te tinee the sar scomed to darken and dic.
And Ube boerer of the tonnty maade the dark angel tremble.
As be approached the sar,
Satan.
lhe a swierence neaking
a supreme effoes,
Streeched
his bald anc talon! wires forward, & wan specter,
CGaxpeng, Leokes, coluuntod,
seeekieg with owear,
Ho cellopmcd at the exige of the steep: bank of darkness cu
The war was alrrcot gore. The dirk wage! was o> weary
That no voke, no beeath was left to him.
And the war way dveng beneath his segue’ stare
Ami the war wer oet.'! «

pe Sete: “New Geeta oot” es

 Tie Reman Deol "7

The struggle between Satan and Gol ocoepies three soothons: “Mhke
Sword” (Le glaicet, dealing with the Old Testament period: “Uhe Git»
bet” (Le give), ropecsonting the New Tesrament: and “The Prison” (Le
proce), reprosenting the modern world, In the Old Testament. Sateen
Mireggles fo meyate or at least meminine God's intbuence wpoe hueteanity.
Ged yorcends in punfying
hu only semporsniy aad onty by
destroving the entire world i the a Sthaage manifesntion (Hope
chserved) of divine love, A feather falls from the wing of the rumed
angel, and thar geather cakes the form of a Beautiful angel (like Vigny’s
Bina), whose nan is Liberty, Thus Saren's evil rebellion comtaies with-
in it che angelic sgn of furure recern to liberty aed love.
In modern tines, God allows Liberty oo descend ty the pit and visit
Satan. Grd aloo gives her permission te go 00 the carth amd free burnan-
ity, beet she must have the pernmcssion of Satan as well, At first, still
tired ing selfishly om his own wrongs, Ne refuses Go grant it, Lot mecrred
be her péoas at last, he prudginaly peceonances the necewary weed: Gu!
Liberty cecourages tremanmy to rebel azainot evil and to devtrey the
prisca—symnboboed by the Hastitle--that keeps ect frome our frocdorn.
The Revobation, thom. falls the etissioe of the aegel of Liberty wader
the perewssen of both God and Devil. The work of reconciiation
ns
i. fools the pain of knowing thar the entire comes rejects bien:

Thre the ereverse I hear the woeds: Go avay!

Eventhe pag smcers oo che dusngheape “E heepene Saean”
I feedthe maghe thanking that I dichowce ber.
Cece, chat pure white Rgte, che dawe,
War Lt) 1 wae the sphndes- broand archangel,.
Frat b was orreiras ‘I here was
Mby crmrse. The weed was qpedkins the divine lips
Fromcamond cee evi! Arad Coad spat mee cet inte Che pat
Ah, | howe beret ‘That is the Berner,
that is the Meene”
What wall toceese af me, sess? I hove Geel!
Dhol is his eternal ahecree,
Theil ie to Bene, to cry, “Alas. where ts erry ligt,
Where 6 ney Be aed ciy (Puen?
Ce
‘Thee Geel, woekl’s Deeet, thes bright Father
Wirene eopel, oar. man nd beast bese woth,
‘Ths center oud which bis feck of crestere neviics.
‘Thee being, saree of lite, abeee truc. show sent
Tears hy witheost beee. IE the peantebecd gist..
Vet | beee bare!.
 “

w Mepdsitepdeles
I krarw the truth! Gol is oe spait, bat a heart
Gad, keving center of the world, connects wah hes divine fiters
‘The Alawweers and roots of all living thre.
[Goad bree every oreamure)
Bat Seve, fceever rejected, ad condemned. *
Gad leaves nee eum, ihe'stope with ong, Earn his beandary.
if Edi om
God woul! be infinite eB,
A hundred bundrod Genes | repeet ony sore,
I howe! Creed tortures ac, pet my only Bbeipdecetry, ,
My colly frerery, mey only cry, tmthat I lew! .
I howe eneengh oo waste the chy trevebie! Bat mm ware!

New Ged responds in what Flugo planned as the denouemest of the

poem. Satan cnes out: “Love hates me!” But God replics:

No, | do nee hare pou! ...

0 Seu, soe need only ery, PE sball bre!
Coens, your prison «18 be pelled down and bell abedinbed!
Cone. the angel Liberty 6 seer daugheeraed mene
This vebsirne tage etetes us
The ach! etc ara the to des
I cfface the ol durkeces,
a0d mone of it is left,
Satan ix dead; be hoes again, beaecely Loewe!
Coen, rive up from the shadows with dawn on your Leow.

‘This pognan portrait of she Dewil expresses a poetic moral view: our
selfishness and spwpidity alienate us from she reality of the cosms,
whack is bowe, but lowe is unliouned, parent, merciful, le waits ane we
enderstand that selfishness, anger, and pride are menting m thermaives,
sathirg beat a blind refusal ro see. neching bot eagation of reality, Once
we open our eyes a chink, love's iemination floods in, and with beerer
ard shueme we see that we have been standing. alone, staring down wine
eur oun darkness. But the first glimmer of lowe in cur dim eves brings
an immediate respamoc. When we ate feady, ove will fill cur darkness
to barsting, until there & noebeng keft bur beta.
The Rorremtic reversal of symbol: soenetines went 00 extremes!

12. These pueeapes are frees actions “There che le terre” IDE aed EV, conchedong
“Lianhange rowanct ke Gémen feat, / Bt pcfece le wert seeeere, cf Hen won reste. /
Seton cod creet; reeees ob Lance ovbewe! ¢ View, meee here che Toemtee avec Tacrece ze
fost”
13, Gérard de Norcal the poo came of Gtrand Laboures, 1 he4- 185 5) ceed 2 phicae im
be cowneee of Le Ate commerrer thet Heewkelewe wohl liter eake bes rem “Shee chew
Telesteahh, je Cadre.” On Norval, we Mb. jooen. Cover’ & Neruel iNew Dork. rocah
 de Reeavta Des! Pid

The alte Alphonse Lois Cormzane (18 1060875). who bepan by believ-
img in the Romantic geal of ineegrating
God and Satan, was bed by
George Sand to believe thar Saran lay enjushy condeetned under the
cure of an arbitrary God Plenging ino the ooowlt, Constant changed
hn rome to Eliphas Loci and uroce a neamber of books peetraving Satan
asa postive sparitual force. The French Satan was often political, and
Livi. wax no exception, the is developement was the opposite of
Hugo's in the iyos, Levi's Satan was the symbol of revedution and
berty, bot after Lael care so admire Napoleon ILL, Satan bocame the
hucratic suppeet of Law and order. ! The cocull. genitive interpretation
of Sates laid the foundarion for the Satanoim of the end of the century,
en cexanvionally senoes if tiny movement attractiag the naive and foolish
a well as literary pescurs.
Apart from the solemeity of Mage and the pompoes Satanivm of
Lévi, irony, parody, and whemsy were the doctinant treatmenes of the
Dewil throaghcoer che einetcenth century. ‘Dbe greatest master of ievey
was Théeptiic Gaur (18) r-18)2) who «fete a comic vermion of Foaw
called Afiveres (1832) and @ satire on Hugo aed Vigewy, Une Corner Ae
sist, “A Tear of the Devil” (1830) In Gauticr’s work the prince of
darkness appears as a wety dandy, cleopaet and setgnd, masking his
makevetence behind his refined appearance."
Crauner’s short sory “Onuperies”(68 ¢2) sews his ironic Devil ence
ckarty, Orephinas, a young dandy poct aad pudeter cbveand by meodi-
evalisrs amd she marvelous, begins 02 sce the hand of the Devil in
everything, finally the Devil peally dees appear, smearing his painex and
poems, runing bes srrategy ar checkers. and spevilieng his hove affair. Ara
Inerary sarnte where Ouupheius i 0% read hin verse, the Devil sits
betind him, catches all his words in a lintle net, and transform therm
ine pores ard reficubeas phinses. Gauticr’s description of the Devil
it @ perfect a picture of the monic Mephisogiecies that it has become a
stock figure we art. opera, litereture, and cattoone a young, handume

be Miles, ved 2, py pete ret

5h Alerter ee dee ot & picid (Part, et pal ie J dee complies de Tite Genter
(Park, 1950), Cah 8, pp tape RR. Sorepie 64g) “Ce a ited pas on hae | Eepetemnane
be seaatine et Tangent corey sive, / Un dhabte cmon.—< "tet on dhigans | Porta Tieape
rete ot le fee coenetacts, / PD abaee wemeer co beat ot ber ae cnwvethe ” Lee Gove Ae
Sake aggeers ie Coation’s Covers cep. vol & 7 Alter, spi. come or delle
(Lenevs. 1908) pp. cr. Also meer bie "Dhces acteurs frvet cee wks”
en Cheteer, Contes
famcmrigens Paris, ota). Pp Ohi 1 T8, t whech an acter phoying the Devil © erpleced on
wage be Ore Dicved heewectf
 ~
202 Mepharphele

roam with regular, sardonic features, a rod imperial and mustache, green
eves. thin, pale, inenic lips; and a knowing look. The perfect chamdy. he
weats a black cour, red waistcoat, white gloves, and gokden spectack
co: ce long, dehowe finger be sports a lange rutey, "ble inandls not fear
ce hatred but ironic Laughter. Ble ts, effect. cyncal, valuckess moxderm
man kooking at hitocf ima mitted.
Im poctraveng Satan axa dandy, Gautice ial hn imitates, thenselves
dandies, ieunically linked thermelves to the Devil, and iris a deliberate
commcadence that the favorive victims of Gautier’: Exil One were pects
and puentors, arcers Wee the author temself, The dandy was esthetic ara
clegam, disiening convention. dresang and speaking so as co draw
attentice to hinself and to shock the philistines. using exotic and bizarre
werd aad image, spurring mocality in faver of the pursuit of the
delicate, arrogantly scasitive, xlf-abscebod, affecting the aw of living on
a bigher plane of being, witty and charming rather than cruthful or
sncere. Many bevels of irony exist in a story such ax “Onupliries.” The
poet mocks the tradicional Devil. whose exisnonce he asaimes is absurd,
He abo ironically angues tha belief wa the Devil is as reasonalile as belief
in Goxk: “The existence of the Devil is peoved by the most
authors, exactly as is that of God: it is even an article of faith,
On another level, Gautier satinaccs Mienselt and his fellow artisrs in the
guilitde, erroticeal, aaive Onupirius. so cadly friattened and made
wach a fool of bw the insolent dandy demon. And the dandy demos
ale an irestic peetrait of the other sade of the contemporary arcet. All
these clever ironics be bencath an overt satere of the comemmporary taste
for the magical
and the maraculeas. The story is a ghoterieg siockery of
everything & touches God, Devil, coomes, bremanity, art, ata the artist
hirewelf,
ity madcontury, a number
of attitudes were fixed in the artivtic irmang-
ination: the moral ambiguity of beth Devil and Ged; their poumbic
imegranom, psychological empathy Sor Satan as representing the hursan
mind best in igeorance and selfichiness vet yearning fer the pood: the ex
of Satan as an iecaically distant voice with which to satirive the human
comdition. With the sewer pects, Remarnticnan began to shade off in
twe directions: naturalism, uhich «pureed the wipermareral and the
inmereal mm favor of realistic descripticess of everyebsy life; and Dee-

yh “Ceptrres,”
in Coma feetongec. pp. 25-41: the doxripten
appears on pp. 45-
*
i. Orupteten.p. ts.
The cower of ons pet tee bese Goeperetretes the trreukrcaties
of the Devil
 ah
sey Mepddiepiecla

aderce, which combined sence clqnents of danmiyism with cxploration

of the depths of human corruption, expecally sexual deprarity.
As carby ax 1825, long before the emergence of the Decaderns,a
greap devetad to the eccult and maceatec began go meet ar Victor
Hago's house oo read works fearuring skeletons, daggers, fends, grave:
yards, corpocs, ghosts, incannizions, pects. and demons. Beginning in
February of 1846 ancdber ciecle of§young pocts, dedicated Oo shocking
the philixtines, collabceated in a sca,
sexsion eck Airing the seven cardinal
site and dedicated them work to Satan in words that might better have
been left umpeoken, even foe dramatic effect;

To thee, Satan, fir Gillen argxl.

To wher fel the penihees bono
‘To straggle agaiet an erp rele,
latter crryeell whedly anal Soreewr,
Ahly ented. ery senses, cre bpeart, wie howe,
Ard cy dar’ verses in their conrepeed bevoty.”

Sate, a theatrical prop for the dandies, was a sence symeld for the
anarchot Prerre Joocph Proedbce: (2fog-156¢). “Come, Setan,” he
prayed, “you who Rave been defamed by priests and kings, that 1 may
kires you and hob’ yoe agaimat my beeast.”'* Such ideas, which became
fxhiceable with Baadelaire and his asyociares, have bed some modern
critics to speak ef the Sotanian of che nimctoeneh century, A few real
Stanners certainly existed, bot the corm needs co be more carefully
delineated,
The pescurs who feigned Saranises for esthetic effect cannot be cce-
siderad real Saranists, mor cam those such as Prowdhon. who usd a
Satan in whom they did act personally bebeve asa symnibed of poditics!
or social rebellion. The tendency of some niictocmth<cemury Christians
no Tonm Sataests those who denied the cxstence of beth God and Satan

P% Cheotod ty Melner, wed rp nes. “A Ort, Sater. bet schon diche, / A qui ke
periicon heemmar dchet ( DX gacrnover comer’ Om preven wiqaete, f eredine beet erteer
et sere roteer, / View copert. mcs sons, hee coeur, meee amcer. | Et mcs evbers vers
dam ker teaser froe~
we (hetad
be Mobeey, ved, ap ite, Creme Procalea’s Dir sever dew Le ctowlatvew of
don Tighe (1900). le baby. Guacoess Lowpardh (1794-0547) wrote a Satanic cowelotiomary
bevewan, “Ad Arieasie~ be yy, sew bee Core OMEdan, egarh, wed bpm pete out Gorvet
Cantecei (18401907) compenod « liturgy to Seten, “lene a Setana.~ on fee cowl (URGgt.
CA eactemly dlls oper A Cient Candee, 16 vols. (Toboagea, oper rger) wed e. pp
pete 98), Soe elee Cordhanes, Setene ¢ poerely etewntete (Be Ln
 Th Roewanree Dive! oe

ts even less logical. The Seu eccentrics who tock the view that caly
Satan exists aed not God, or chat bore exist but that Satan ix good and
God evil, are sot real Satanists, either. for they were merely reve
venmts ertgedy. If cee calls Saran the good, boxing, merciful creator of
the Coots, one is imply applying an unconventional name to Gad.
‘The term Satan is property applicd only to the tiny member ube
believe that Satan is a personal peincige 6 truc evil, Lfshness, and
sulletiag, and who worship hin as such. It is aot helpful to apely the
teri #0 Baudelaire and his ool fer trec Satara was extremely
liteted amd bad little cofooral influence
Charles Baudelaire (1821-1869), a8 inportant fazuro in the oransition
fren Remanticium to nanuralnm and decadence, renoenced the cheech
as 4 young man, Skepeical by nature, be extended his doebes to scien.
ties 2s well as religion: be reparded the facile matcrial progressivicn of
hes day ax pathetically ateurd, and athetun socmed to him incapable o€
deakng weh alicnation and evil, the decpest realities of human ex
tence. Like Hugo and the Romantics, Haudebsee was an estheve: he had
= systemanc theology of phelcoophy, though he enjoyed speculation
seore than most of the Komnmerics and was imenaly concerted with
ssoral inuacs, be barer life he coetsidcred himself a Catholic, and theugh
he was mover close to orthexioay, his work wax permeated with Catholi-
cam and his preoccuparion with sim as intense as thar of a Jarsenis.
Basidelaire’s concer with evil in eo way made him its advecate. He
detested hypocrisy. stinginess. and cruelty; he felt it as a grievance that
Ged had noe filled up the workl with beauty, kee, and juice. He
honestly acknoatodgod that evil i attractive as well as destructive: “In
cach person fwe tendencies exist af every moment, one toward God and
the other muand San. Spintwality, the call wo Ged, is a desire tu
mount higher) animalay, the call to Satan, takes joy in fallieg bower.“
Evil destreys ty drawing es down into blind selfishness. iscdanion, and
alicearon, bar this darkness hue its attractions, which everyone feels
and only hypocnmes deny. Barodelaire was pétdoxs im bis deteretination
to remowe the thnifodd o¢ hy pocnny from bis oun eves and frome those
of others Otserving that Giourge Sand deread che existence of the
Devi, be caustically observed that it was to hor personal inmerest that
the Devil and bell should not cxnt+! Baudelaire well undersoud the

@ Bewdchere. fares creer, of. J. Cropet enol G. Me (Pars. opucd, ree. ts. Swe
the (sored, Liavwser oad Fe! (senders, 197 0h
4). wre whee, oo
 ~~
oo Muphavepécso
pxrwer of serrazal pleaveres, partigelacly over the young, but Satan's
mist powerful ucapos was exmar (the esthetic cquivalent of thookogrcal
wedis and of matcrialint beredce), 2 sense of lassitude in the face of the
utter futility of bite, \
Ravdcbeee felt the poll of the positive Satan, whe appears on his worse
ax the Remuantic champion of libarreasewell as the incamation of bypot
risy, and the pect perceived im the rebel anigel che most perfect type of
masculine beauty. But eeore often. Bandelaire took Sates as the symbol
of treman cvil ad perhaps even as a perso omnty. In a better
mel
Flaubert, he wrone, “I bave aluays been obsessed by the inpowebility
of accounting for certain sudden baman actions of thoughts without the
hypothests of an evil external force.“4? Like all Christan wnrers with
intense merospecove powers, Baudebare was well aware of the sedden
xd unanteusced inuptien into the esind of intensely desrucnve im
ages, desires, and feelings, which can be explained only by reference oo
a power bepond the conscious mind—wherher it comes fro outside, as
in traditional Christumity, or freen the unconscious, ax in depth gay-
choker. Baudelaire was skeptical of the skeptics, “My dear beuthers,”
he wrote, “newer forget, when you bear the progress of the Enlighten-
ment praised, that the Devil's cheverest ploy ts 0 persuade you that he
deesn't cust“*
Haudelaire’s masterpiece was bin collection Ler Mwy dv Afet (“The
Flowers of Evil’), to whack should be added his prose poems eanmbed Ly
Syicewde Parts? In both collections, the atrugyle between good and evil,
sermuality and spintualicy, qMore and mfal, was central, Though the
censors and some of Haudelaire’s can followers seem to have monabenly
read his mete as desnructive, his moxsage soomes char free the very
outect of the Flears, which comumences with 2 famom addres “To the
Reader”:

Stupadite, crror, xm and stimginess

Garrixen oar munds and croleve cur beslies, . .

43. Lomer ef June 25, otto, in Beuwkclere, Govepemdony, 6 vole. of § Cotper Parts,
roatores ey Wel 4, pm H4G.
4). “Le poacer poetroas.” in de pees& Jew, od. Y. Phoronne iParm, rgcsk “Mee
chets fires, cloublice jamais, quasd vees crtonbeee ewnter be progeds des hemeines, pac
est che veer percmakr gall n’ownec pan”
Ls phar Sete curve dhe dialde
oe The Gra echenn of the fhe appeared pene
be efit: & mend is ite, a Dend
harmenrebyte tA Chwing Oo chibotenne bar the consor and fo acdtionn. the three ebther
sageticanedy. Soe the crimeal ccbtion by 9, Calpe ancl Ge. Bin Paris, 0942), and Lo Sees
du wal Tooke de ks atin ihona, oh. |. Cotper ad G. hn (Paris, 1g), Ue Spe Gre
appearedim 1 Mem .
 Mle Renan Dew oc

Om evil’s pillow. Herrece Tn s

Swhraly peck carcitaciled wits
Aad Oc fick incta of cor
l wills
Is vaportond bry thes learned alcbereia, |.
It ts the Deval whe polis the sorings that move on:
We fed chann in the most dapiting thine.
Each day we tale amaber sp devan into bch |
Deadened so hoeroe, thetegh sinking shockras. . .
Reaker, vou rocegedae this delicate meeuter,
Hypocrite reacke, ey likowess. ory beother!*

Such words eeay be taken as 2 rejection of evil, as a pessimninic atatermens

c€ mx inhereace in humanity, ce as dromic acceptance of evil on the peart
of the pect and artist, whe alone in society has the vision and homoxry to
recognine it within hineself,
Baudelaire seems 10 have secant all three, I lis work contains examples
of the reversal in which the Chrities Gad becomes cil and Satan the
center ef a symbe! cluster that includes art, the poct, Rurmanity, beauty,
sentipeee, revulsion again ingustice, and even Jesus, who defends
such values agains the tyraenical Father, Toward the cruel Jobowah
one cam feel only revubioe. combined with sym@uthy for his great foe.
“There is oo fiber in my trembling body,” the poct exclaimed, “thar
does nee cry, ‘Dear Heelretrab, I adore youl’? ‘Dke nes come from
“The Pessessod” a poem whose persona 6 cither mad or inspired.
possessed by a demon wtkoe moral value is ambivalent. “Hymn to
Beaery” Udy d hs Seewtt) is alo amtivabere: bowery may come from
Ged or from Satan; to the poct it dows noe matter wheeh, for berery
itvelf is the supeeme esthetic ideal, Thar this beauty serves both kind-
news and One G OO surpeiee i 2 universe that ts itself whaslly
ambivalent.
The poet's “Latunics bo Satan” (/ar ditewies de Senew) bore often been
shed asa stan of his Satanives,
a view thar negthe
lec fact char
ts they
ame fro
a literary
m tradit
and ion
har they ape to be read, like all of
Bandelaire’s pocuts, with an awareness of wony and om several bevels,
The Saran whee Baadelaire praises is on one level the traditional Obris-

45. “Tea be cemwnnis, boctowr, co cnemanre dilicas, / + Bl epenrite hoctcor—enen scmdila.

i
4%. Pleo, “Le romaewmet de Setet Perre™ "Whar ches Cond weaker of he Had of
coras that dehy rises tewa fn cd
angoh? Like « tyvew pened with theeh and wire, he
detts off oo whoop on the sumed of beeribde binohcmece ... Ah bron, de yoo o-
mcmber Crethvamane, where in your wmepthciny you Leek and peeved!”
42) Piewrs, “Lec prwabl” °C) pees cleer Phcdechethy xe Chor
cx e”
dhe liee frome Neeval
 “

rok MypSicepbede
tan Satani on another, Jowus; cer another, the ambivalence of the humen
heart; aad an yer anceher, the artnet and the terre double-ceiged sword
of cremtivity:
.
Priege of the exile, you Save teem wronged.
Defeated, sce fae Up Cote somonger, . . -
You wha. even te kpers and accursed ecmcasts
Teach chroagh bore « longing fer Parechor. ‘
‘oa who keer in what comers of crs rres Gathens
Gaal hoards hic proce s ...
petra.
Yore whe teach es 00 comanlle the fad and waffcring
By Seaet ake TE we
Glory and peaise 0) pou, bad Satan, in che bagheve,
Where once you raged, aed in the depths
OM bell, where you be defewted and dreaming.
Lat rip aoal one choy, im the shaders of the tree of kncratodgn,
Rest mest to you

Bawdelaire, whe wold dic roconcied to the church, dedicated the

Flare to that great mocker Thdophile Gautier, He did net knew pate
how to cake the demon that troubled him, but be realiacd thar ir weald
never eave him alone:

The Devil
& acte at rey sole,
bbe were arcend mec bho the megelpabte aan,
1 eualbers bern and foed hier burnerg wry horns.
Pilieg thems web an cternal guilty dewre.
Soeretiones, knoeing rey great bere of art,
He whos the chape of a wochactive wornan.
And uader
the fale pretermex
of cafard
Accesoers ony lips to the tare of forbedden
petioes.
He beach ne far frome the faceof (roel,
Paring
and broken with weariness, ato the mock
Of the deep and deserted plasms of enecn
And thrusts inte tty confosed sgh
Diety chethong,open weeareds.
And the bhoecty comtume of Destruction.@

ah. Pivwrr, “La ddvmraction

” Soene of Rawbeleaee’s cormemqetarens
chased bet sererae
comers with the Dhwd) fee camped, Jokes Armecite Barber df Nurcvilly (ntotettgd, «
Carhedic dandy wih beled het Sete was an eouetial ehereens in Ouran theology. Soc
Hartery's Lay Dnabolpeer (Paw o8tyh Onbers were Leconte de Lede (981-1 Rpg) whe
de date,” and (aacave Duchert, shoe of La Toate
a poo cited “Tretiew
wrote
tee dy Somer Amoer (Paris, 1965) cop pp bate nas
 The Remo Deal oy

Paul Verlaine (1845-2896) read Raudelaive’s Picwy at the age of four.

teen and became his meat devoted disciple and a leader of the Decadent
movement, Verliine comed the name “wccursed pocts” (palrre esas)
foe the group whe imetatcd Raudelawe's Satanic symbolien without hes
merous Concern foe the perélem of ev.*
Arthur Rirebaud (18¢4~18oe) died a Catholic after paving spent his
carly carcer attacking authonty, éncluding clverch, cdecarion, and pur-
ents. For Rimband, ubo burmed oat young and abandoned the artivtic
life, the Devit wax the symbel of the dull sethority thar suppresses and
cftinhes artistic freedom, the only tne good. His collecnoa of
pects One anoeew caer ("A Season it Hell”) was dedicated te the Devil
with the words, “Dear Sanam... yeu ube kee the absence af descrip-
ve amd didactic faculties i the poct, I dach off for yoo these few
hidewes leaves frome the notebook of 2 damned avel."*© Full of
soon, self-aleorpnom, and despair, the pact sees Kemnself as the bat-
Uegreand between the forces of Gad and Satan, sin and ianocence,
goed and evil, past and present. “Nhe poet is at one and the seete time
intensely invelved im the stregzic and, lite the Dovil. coolly detached
from ot. Unlike Hugo, Rimturad calls lew foe imegratice and (rarscen-
dence of the conflicting sides of the perwonaliry than for sinply accere-
ing them and regressing with thers to a procorscions state of the scal
where pod and evi are cndifferentiated,
‘The sect truly Satanic of the Decadents was lodore Decasse (1 &g4—
1570), who wre ender the name Lautréareone, Ihe argued that we
fhrest reneence all evasions and face cvil in itx most intense and shocking
fortis: he then made the transitios frum facing evil to reveling in #. A
follower of Sade, LaurrGamont aepecd that creative orvelty was a mark
ef geties and of honey, he mek Buudcbsire's comemposous antack
epos hypecrixy as an excuse to exphore the mos bathsome recesses of
Ms own soel. Maloror, the persona of hix dark massenplece Lei chante dr
Malderer, is a combimanion of Sade, Satan, and Ducasse himself be
tes or commits an endless series of perverted eutrages.*!
it is unclear whether Laweréumont wae mad; he clearly did sot prac-
bee, Of senoesly advocate practicing. everything that came to his mind.

ay. Swe PL VewPeewee

kew were e,
we rie, OM), Jal of maper
(Pare
r 188g), which
ohetmes “Liens arent.”a pore on the sabvwiens
of Sete: ered Lor poalew mandy (Pare.
rey
0 Reedeel, Line enem on cngir, im Onwcn & fase
e Arther Brmkand (arn, ogay), iv
rigeseg
st. Laceriamwes, Des chewy & Mebheres (Parc, 1m
200 Mopbearapdeter
Yet the sonic candy posng as a Satanist and mocking his can secret
vices foemd himself cooted by his fantasies, and the distance beracen
monic evil and truc evil feeeshortencd amd attenuated. Maldoror sees a
cheld sitting on a park bench and iminecdetely emagyes a hog geawing
quay her Sore ami aire & mang through her bedy. He dreats of
torturing young boys a nig sheer blood and tears, When he
hisses athe
a aie tarmaswes bout Leroy ins cheeks with a ranor,
Vampirsmn, oecrophela. blasphemy, bestiality, ince, bondage, ped-
cravty, mukiletion, seurcer, and canmbulises obsess him.
Im Maldwor the poct intended fo paint a truc peceere of the heman
woul free from all hypocriey: ~Maddoror was been evil. Me adimted the
truth and said that he was creed” (e.9). But Lautréamont, reacting
agamet the bling Enhghtenment-Kemanmtik awumpeon that heen
mature was csxmmally good, Munged co the other untenable extreme.
Just as the belief chat humans are good raises the question where ceil
cotees from, Lautnéanont’s derk unreerse harees the preance of pore
unexplained. To a degree be meant Maeddoror as an evil joke, a pose
pointeg the way to surrealism and dadaicm. It is trwe that Maldorer’s
excesses arc vo bearre as to be cidculoes as wcll as heentte. yer the
aethor scomm to have opened bmesclf up to dark forces beyond be
consis control, Makdoror begin By boasting that he causes his “pe
reas” to “paint the delights of crucky” (14) and ends by kilkng an angel
ubo has been sent to save him, thes symbeolicing bes rection of re-
chemeption 45.5),
In Amenca the comdency was even atroager than in Earope to detach
sermons spadics of ovil free weeks dealing with the Devil and to relegate
the lamer to tales o€ whirey or borece, Nether Natharecl Hauthormne
(18eg9 1844) oor Herman Melville (e8ro-18oe), both of u hoe made the
study of hurnam evil their central concem, bad much ee toc the Devil
cven as symbol. Ifawthorne's re serous ua of Satan os in bes story
“Yours Geadman Brown.” ‘The devil appears whom Eecan viekdsoo
despade. “My Gith ts gone,” Keown ceclaines, “There is ne good om
carth; and sin & but a name, Come, deel for to thee is thes world
green.” Satan appears, takes bem toa witches sabbur in Mis fantasy, and
persuades him of the Calvinistic (and, as Hawthorne sces it, Satanic)
view that human eatere is essentially comupt. For Hawthorne, Brown
is doomed becuase he despues of humanity and fails co crust in God's
yeadiness2 Melville's Moby Dick is one of the most pelysymbetic
ci. “Young Goanieus Brown” appeaty, wah cher tikes dabrg wah ove, m
 TN Roesuste Deo at?

figures im hirerature, but ome of the symbols i demonic, Motyw Dick is

determined to destroy humeanity becty aed woul when at the end he
bears devam upce the Mywd te annihilate it, be does ao with “venribe-
thee, waite wengeance. cternad malice.”4) fe Melville's Phe Conyers
Maw (i8s7). the Devi appears as a comic trickster on a Mississippi
socamer, the Satie, which begins its wage om All Bools’ Day. It ma
thip of fools blinded by dreamad saive grood. readt ce betray one
another for . al all ukimatecly tricked by the Contideace Man,
the crornal Cheater, the shapeshifter whe appears in a variety of person-
abies and terns. It is the story of simple Ohriaitke be ov cru helmed
and effaced by Satanic confusion and cynicism, syeibdived by the
meete that one of the characters tacke up in Bis shop: “Ne “Trust.”
Melvillo’s pessietions would be taken further by Mark ‘l'wain, as Haw-
thome's dcop probing of scerct evil would be then Seether by Dos-
toeesky, but Ewain ad Dietoewky representa dark tiew more attuned
to the cadens thas to the Reenantic cra,
The honror story, at American adaptation from the Gothic novel ot
roesaw ane, had its fint great expression in Edgar Allin Poe (180p-
iyo) Like the Gothic writers, Poc weeee to entertain and to thrall
Pot to Wivespate cil scricusty, thoegh he was well aware of a power.
Ir is wadicative of the Devil's decline thar uhen Poe wrote o¢ real evil, as
im “The Pit and the Pendelum,” ~The Cask of Amontillado,” aad “De
Facts in the Case of Monsieur Valdemar,” the Devil plays little part; be
is a presence caly in Poe's comic tales, In “The Devi in the Belfry,” for
esampte. the Devi causes the bell o€ 2 Durch chench no coll eherteen. In
“Newer Bet the Devil Your Head,” a reprebare named ‘Toby ineau-
shady enpers ite 4 wager with Saran, aed “s line lame old
of venenabbe aspect” sepernaturally causce an accktent im which Toby
hoses Is Bead: the doctors fail oo replace it properly, and evereually
Toby eotices its bese and dics. This sort of whimsical tale, beonely
dened fecen folklore, m typical of American Devil meric. ‘he favorite

B havw there + Atos freee ow (Ad Aloe (ehatt Oh E laweterve, Pre, aed Mobile, soe H.
Lown Thy Meer of Macho (New Yoot, wy
11, EE Mabey, Mtety fed: or Tite Ub Bele iiberbchey. 1g, originally pebtiched s#<1),
op cho at. st. npg. 10 WL Triempa. “Melville's Use of Devedegy and Winchcrak in
Moby Dhct” Poacrmad of shy Mintury of bdew, 9 (ryt), 45-482. poovddcs Gall devmencteadioes
od the deadedael OQore.
$4. Soe The Compl Werky of Edger Aller Pre (Beotee, 18o%) “The Devil in the
thettny”
in we eed. 9. py eine ee: “Newer Ber dhe Devil Your Iced.” vel. ¢. op cere sot
The met orfacetalof PMoo's talbywcrs wan I brcardl Helge Liner (ety egerh Sow
ahee Woartungoon Devieg’s “The Dheed snl Trew Wither” Cosy).
2 Mephatephels
theme among American (aad other Anghphene) wrrens has boen the
bargain with the Devil, which affords opportunity foe everything from
broad humor through satire to wat. [e abo periiets vietucsity in devieing
new ways for che peotagonest to catwit the Devil ce to be outwarted by
him."
The developmen of tusic.in’ she giinctoereh cemury peeduceda
change that yore winters have assechaned with the demonic, The idealint
view is that soene eiusic is tore inherently harmonicas with the cosmos
than other muse—that is, it reflects devine or cosmic eoder more close»
by. In thax view, Bach or Mevart, for coamplc, wrote “trecr” of “betver”
muusic than Chopen oc Stravewky. Harrnenicus composers maght intro
duce discords in ceder te make a muucal petnt, scmetianes explicitly to
portray evil itself, but disharmericas mresic is bos good, leas truc, less
rcal—pethaps even demonk, The disceedam reflects the chaotic, the
of the cosmos and of God's orderly plan,
Hegmeining with Bocthoves. howeverfor even Mocart in bes bate qpaar-
lets), compances deliterately intreduced dishanmomy. mainly to give
beth the munic and their creations froor ran. Many compesers of che
Remantic perixl wanted their musk to integrate al lemun expen:
cnce—cmceional as well as rational, evil as well as goxd--and used
disharmony for thax paxpone. A few, such as Paganini and Frangots
Boickdiow im his “Valeo Infernal,” irecically claimed te have been =-
spured ty the Devil, Mextem composer such ax Stravinsky bave cxe-
ployed disharrnany to disxrede and supplant the idealist view. Bat
whether one can call some kinds of mesic better
ce mare real than others
epoe uhether ome believes thar reusic can reflect the costes
and whether one ubkinaely beheves that the emiverse is coemos oF
chaca. *

ci. Dicawgpdes arctecke 1. Azuey, “The Hearce Locked Meee” Manecoee

of Penney
and Somer Petre (Newonter rgyttM Hoertedew, “beh Sooners.” be M1 Meerteten,
Setem Mee (Now York, epic SV. Bower, “Tbe Devil
and Dene 1 cheter.” is Sired
Worky
of Siphew Viewsat Rowdt (New Yor®, eg ith T. Gogeell, “lepact with the Dewi,”
Mg of aay id Sous Fi Nive rorak M.A. Deol, “These Trans.
Faster
ond Seve Duran (Neromixr 1906) BL Eilon “The too
The Genel (oe at es Bice of te Wed web Apmwew, ob. The Hegre Weems
iNew York, egret UD. KR. Letrem, “The Cheese Whe That Away fem (heel im Le
Crean, Tie Weeds Twotte Geert (New Yort, oprah|. Mastek, “The Dewel aot the
Cd Min” is Siete A Mesmew fier (London. ejgt) A pod colkctes o B
Davenport. cll. Dek qth oe Deal (New York, igi tt
o& Vow the Devil in create.
vce S. “The Devils Mase A Literary Shadyof
Bad wel Meese” PADD die, Univenay of Caltiorma, Mivormak, ig7%, RK Mlawener-
 The Roewasrw Dow sty

‘The Iherary imagination dominate! the comcept of the Devil im the

renctecnth comtury, but by midcettur'y literary and artistic interest in
the Devil had began to diminish. He bad been milked <iry of much of
his horrer and cven of his comedy. ‘The growth of realises and nau
ralism, with thor shift auay from the metaphysical, and the gradual bar
commmual rise of positivism returned the beerary fyon evil oe the
Homan personality. Sell. the incostivencies and vagaries
of the Reman.
The uses of the symbol had tended to diwapate and blur its meaning, ancl
with sccularom and materaksim shewly replacing Clinstianity as the
dominant workd view of Wester society, belief in a porsceal Sarees
dwindked rapidly even among prefewed Chrimans. At the sare tine,
the devine of Rorsanticicm aed of the iecrary Devil cventwally led no
the return o€ the symbxd 90 the theologians, When the farure of Satan
eventually regained seme of its power in the rwonticth cemury, it was in
the traditional rather than in the Romantic mode. Meanwhile, powerful
saicineets abot evil would be sade by Nietzsche. Twain, and above
all Deatoresky, who understocd evil bemor thun anyone in bis century
amd when dark vishon becamea model for the esadern ape

Mw, (Aetelo we wes Stmdeem one Cbemegrapin doy Macs wm Mvelader (Hore, tynah
The
Diced appwared ferepscwes un mranenvchrcnetery and corty Cwcetethcrveury
rrack,
waty om opera Damkcl Aakers, Fag Diecete (itp Mitkert Matfer, Seremals
(ikea
Ariher Bengends, The Denil Tete Mor (ioqai Mbocnor Review. La damaar
de Fant
ien(i taht
Arrege Baten, Mtsfovytinied 168), Vermecvien Marsewni, Cnbsor Faner (i gai Anton Dyetsk, Tv
Deel end Aste (eigt, Chuthes Greeped, Fame (et iqt Chmagles Moore, JBe five
wad De!
Wokevr (ig pt) Viewers: Voemranind, dy dish: rere Palle. ove
6 The Devil's Shadow

‘Dhke tounsdenmarion of society by indestrialication aad urbanizanon

continued at an iecreased rate im the beter nineteenth century: age
nostic sfeead beyond philosophical amd literary clites to the odue
cated peblic at Linge. ‘To this growing secelarization of society. four
great thinkers— Darwen, Mars, Nietzsche, and Freed—lent the weighe
cé their autheeity. Recent historical opinion views the “warfare” be-
tween science and roligaon as both wanecessary and largely dhusory, beat
whanever the underlying realities, the perception of an opposition be-
rween the nme tock on a ceality of its own.’
Charles Darwin (1309-138) was the mest inflocesial of che bicdogiets
who, following the lead of goologits and hstonans, were adopeing a
gradual, evolutionary view of the coames, a view shortly to be reir
forced by astronomy and physics Evedutionary biology dismissed the
adca that the species had been fived from the beyineing and the kee thes
burnanky was enrelated to other species bret created by a special act of
Gok, The hypothesis that the hurr race bad evelvad from bess con
plex aniveal forms was set forth im Darwin's Onigiv of Species (849) and
Descent of Maw (1391). Humanity had already boon apparently removed
from the center of space. and the evedutionary view abo scomed to
rome it from the cemer of time. The ikea grew that humus are

. Oe the new view of the eeltberdep erence knee and re «DC.

Lindley aed of te Damen Moone
RL. Number, och. Gat and Neterr A Mowry
Chreneery end Soowr (Rorbeks, 188) acd ILL. Nemikre, “Soonce of Sete OFF
gee Adecesic: Arorodcs coward Evebebenary Bedagy” Speriven, o (egret, #p-28 Oe
aed |. CrondieM, The Deeweryof
of cvwbatwnasy theaght, aoe5S. Touleen
the origins
Thaw (New York, 1951).
 T& Deval) Shab as

significant <reatarcs crawling on the surface of 4 minor planct on the

coneskirts of one of bilbors o€ galaxies #) a uneverse lellions o€ years obd
The concept of a coanic struggle in which husanity bod any impor
tance faded. There sccmed beth room in the new work! view doe either
Coad of Devil.
The intellectual confroaranondictucen cvolution apd creation coukd
have been conducted om an eitclifipest and dispumsionate plane, aad
sothe thinkers did perceiee that there was on accomary conflict berwcen
there Geal's creatine plan for the costeus coed be based upon an evelu-
beaury process, and Genesis could be read ax a pectic satcment that
God ercated the cosmos aad humanity for his special purpeses, a view
comastent with diving inspiration aad beyond the power of sckence to
refute. For the most part. bewever, cxtrome creationists formed a
bevarre unity with recectsonit scicntivts im asucrting thar the author of
Genes, millennia before the invention of cither sckomce of Mstury,
intended to make staremencs of historical or scieeeific cruth. The cre-
aborests inasted that since the Balle iy scientifically truce, evelutice
tit be false, the cvoletonists imésted that since erotutio is truc, the
Baeble must be faloe, ‘The educated puldic thus confrosted an anneces-
sary dichuomy between science and ecligice Those choosing the side
of screce were increasingly mclined to reject traditional region ax a
ubele, while these choosing the side of the Bitte retreated tate Bankers
to bel up barncades against’ Darwinism. The whole controversy,
founded on a faure 10 understand that diffcreee Kinds of ruth may be
aated in deference forms. codtinucs to the pecsers,
A meee espliog aad fundamental challenge to craditional religion wax
moantod by Karl Marx (1318-283 y) and Friedrich Engels (¢820~180¢),
Sollowed tiv a variety of Marsist thinkers and activists, Marsisne, whach
arcec cat of the Garman sitellectead milicn of the reidninctcenth cen-
tury, a based pon positivises and materialism and expéicitly rejects the
coatence o¢ the transcemient. Marceun, like any other sysrem, is based
UPA UNECONen & PON siveptices, scene af ubich inveve severe
imersal contradanions. Marxian ix beat understood as a kind of religion
hawed en faith: Marxists claire that keowledse must derive free exm-
pancal observation, vet the mutenadist aywamprions of Marxise cannee
be empincally demonstrated. Marsivts claim that all analyses of society
are sulyective because distorted by clas views, save only thor own
arabyves, which are olycctive and undistceted, Thar any ote historical
view sboeld be free fron the Eenitations that hestory pleces upon all
Restonical views ts uinhitely enough fron the beginning: and it is contra-
 ~
rit Mephareptetia

dicted by the historical cvidemecetiteelf, foe Marsises nises out of mene

reoath-cencury intellectual and secial rents whose limitations are casily
idemtifiable,»
Marxism did noe simply imply atheism, as Darwinism cad: it af-
farted # categorscally Matter. argued, is absolute. It es its own
cause. 11 is infinite, und therefire i ifS infinine diabetic it inevitably at
some pent in space and Gene prodeces intelligent beings. No transcen>
dent mind o¢ purpose & in any way indicated. Good aad evil are merely
human comstrocts. Still, they are not relative: since Marxiwn takes an
atactureby objective view of barman socsety amd its moods, it provides an
objective view of Bauman morality and therefore af pocd and evil. The
early Marx arnbared evt to the inherent alicnatics of hurnan com
scenoness from che eeateral unrwverse thar produced it, lator, he de-
clrred that aliceation and ats attendant esils resulted fron the exphoita-
tice: of burnan beings by ene another, an exploration ansing from class
differences, ‘The chief sources of akenation are private property and the
dividion of sbor Bourgeois capitaliun, fer caamnple, creates evil by
expletng peasants amd workers, bourgoots imperialorn creates evil by
exploiting the poprefations ofcreelcountries, When cocuivenism tr
urns, Mars declared, class differences and the exploitation they em-
f will disappear, and evil will couse,
A the formidattc assauks of Daruinion and Marxian (as well
etzschoan aihilicn and Preudianem, discussed below), Christians
teaded to ush eto thed obscerantisnm on the one heed or capitulation
on the other. Retecating in disarray. they sacnticed beled in one dec
trine after anether, like Seberians tossing their baubles off the shed to the
wolves, ina frantic effort to placate marcralion. The Devi was one of
the first beliefs to go. ‘Dhe obacurantia safe of COnricnanery, inclading
beth Cathal Thomism and Peecsmeet Bilical merrany. wes oddly
rcinfoeced by decadent Reenanticien and ocoeltom in prodocetg 4 fe
vival o€ demonology toward the end of the nineteenth commery. Iemerest
often focesed on pewewsion, and ever as fos Martin Charcet (132¢-
ohg7) and Frond were preducing peychedogical coplanitions of alleged
powesdom, ccaservative Chrivtiam were defending cxurcem. Chin
tian: theretyy paintod themuctres into a coener and Murread necemury
distinctices.
Catholic thought, expecully after the 1348 revedutiom, when if
swerved co the night, was determemedly traditsonal in its
relying upon the cowncils of Braga, Fourth Lateran, and Tress and
.
 1h Devil) Shater 7i-

wpoe the writings of Thomas Aquimas.? The Riewne Rowen con-

sieved to inclade the rie of exorcism and xpecified snamdard cous of the
Validity of alleged cases of possession. Creat care must be taken to avid
being duped by frawd. it peented cat, Bur if the allegedly posucxued
persos cas understand a real Lesage conpkeely enknown to kim, or
deteormnirates certain bnorwk
of distantedi
or fururepe
even, or ranifous
physical strength far beyond his mdtural capacities (nests that were aot
unecasonabile whee orginally formulated bur that seem naive in the
light of modern peychalogyi. then demons might be thoagke to be
mvelved, On August 4. 1399, Leo NII ixsoed the tall Actors Perris
affirreing the timeless vakdity of Thossistic thecfogy, whech firmly
mcluded the exismence of the Devil in ts weekd view. The Carholic
Church thes remained. until the t9éos, in accord with the Eawerns
Orthedex Church aad with corervative Poceesneats is defending the
reality of the Desil’s personal crivtence,
Mainstream, literal Protestant thoology, oe the other hand. tended no
deny or at beast ignore the Devil Friedrich Schelling took thepsrien
that the doctrine of Satan wax traditional rarber than biblical asd could
thus be cscarded, Like many Eberals, Schelling saggewed vaguely thar
the Devil coeld neverthebeis be retained nee as a 1 bet mereby as a
symbol of ova! Others were more specific in defining Satan ax a meta
phor for human sig, 4 view that pradually becaste stexdard in liberal
Protestantion,* Albert Révill: argeed—as did many twenticth-<century
idcrab—cher divtology and demesomology were purt of the cukkeral mi:
beu of New Testament times that Jooss and the apostles aborted and
acorpted; the Devil and demons were mere relics of primitive poly.
them thar Jens aad Paul doanplayed, COMmMeniaing matcad upon
hutean cesponsatibry.'
It is exident no the chspacionate obccrver, however, that if ane dis
tries the Devil (who appeses in tho New Testament sore frequently
than the Bloly Sperit) as a superstitice
of the ime. then one is entithad to

+ Leoaies, op. ot-090 nt ned

p b. Schetlheg, Pivlepde
Ar (ofemhowey, 2 rede. (Neeahgart, eye
# Swe Hh Mortenson, Ctranae Dagmar Edina. 84) J. 5. Baws, Meena of
CProteee Decree, 4th ol (Loewe, «ty)). ond W Beywlag, New Totem Thee
ibide » OSU), Gok Setem ae a mctapher, WN, Clarke's wikcly cncd Carver of
Chreteee Thevkary (Carsbendec, ibys) ageeeed haw sltogodacr.
5. A. Wiwihe, Meter Ae duabte ser orgs at grander, of « drawer Serunboorg,
a8reg
 a“

21k Mephiwopérber
dismiss the resarreetion, the incalmation, and imdoal the whele ides of
revelationin which case the dispassionate cbserver may be forgiven
for sepydsine that the canee New Testament ts 9 riddled with waper-
Stites Misconceptions as to be altogether damissed, Oks the whole &
morc creche to vappese that the winters of the Gospels and the Epesties
actually meant what they said abbr the existesce and power of the
Devil,
Writers such ax William James (igi 16a ube were tee cmelur-
rassed by their religions telicty, did noe feel obliged 69 pevtect Chris-
tunity by excesing ts ineegral parts, James, who aadernond that “the
world call the richer for having a devil in ®, so long
ax me hoop cur Soot
upon tes neck,” described same examples of direct inewarree experience
€ the Devil and courageously Gced the radical nature of evil) “It may
be that there are forma
of evil so extreme
as to emer into No good system
wharsnever,. . . "The evil facts are a* gesuine parts of eature as the
ones,*
While Chretiens ucre deagrecing om the Devil the decadent Ro-
mamics made Satan seenething of an othetic fad at the end of the
century.” Some acoesanions
of Satanean verged on the hysterical. Cath-
che and other conservative Christians artackod the Freemasons as Setan-
ists, While Rossorucians aad other eccultists attacked one another with
oyual ferver.* The surge of interest in the occult seems to hare
sented the stunted cxpeessioe of an inhercot religioes feeliag whose
normal channch had been ctetracted be posrivien aad skipcicier:
‘The more Faustian varieties of occultisn ergoved a core inmelbee:
cual following fee which the grovesdaork Rad been fed try Elipius Lee
(rSie-18sc). Ie the year of Levi's death, Madame Melena Mavatsky
(r8se—1891) founded the Theosophical Society; the Menmetic Oreler of
the Golder Dawa, which counted W. BL Yeats, Algemoe Swinterne,
Oscar Wille, and ether litteratours among its members, a well as the
kable Aleiter Crowley (1875-1947), was founded m 188; in the
order, Years took the occukt name “Dereon et Deus beversus” (the
Devil is Good ineache ome)”

6. W. joews, Ty Varwres of Rtgenes farmer (New Tork, 1902) pp. po. ef.
+. Boe fie evel Setereees, soe Cl Zacheerins, The Sateen
Cal iL eeehers, rgd,
$. The Rosicrocias: were founded in i616 and cxpoyod increasing vrongth in Ex
ge cepolong compris ve the +8 ren are ettten, Che arcwnatens
cf hated han) aguemes the
es wx, for cusrapic, Deel. Leotr Qeoee (Poem. hoc)
of DL Marpeete,
Ne pabewme Came de Sato Lacie deat be cramgten maaamigene CV emrees, whol
@ 205. Lewes, Yoav’ Cwrew Areree! (Xen Whee, rota pa wee ober Ske
 Ti Deod’: Sake sip

Blavatsky's Sev Dectrive peescnted the most coberent af thea acoult

sytem, In Blavasky’s views—oombéning the ancient panntics, moderns
osculnsm, Easter religions, and her own original ideas—the Devil ix
the shadow sade of Jebowah, the darkness without which the Lighe cold
not shine oo clearly. Lecifer ix a necessary part of creation, a part of the
civine pherona, the Logos, ancdeo is assimilated be Spit. Fhe a the
Lighthearer, Hermes, the divine tressenger. Jebovah is a cold, disane
deity whe created the wereld caly through the intervention of the angels
There are three groupe of angele the Sel-cremed, the Sdf-exieem, and
the Fireaungels. Whee Jchowah cedered the world created, the first nwo
groups follwad his commands strictly and achicved pale copées of
themselves. but the Fire-angels rebelled and made hamankind with
knowbodge amd therefore eruc freedom. It is the Devil whom wo have 0
thank for eur intellects, our wills, and our knowlbedye, for it wax he who
opened the blind cys of the aeremata that Jchorah intended. "Saran,
the serpent of Genevix, [is] the real creator aad benefactor, the Father of
Spiritual Marking “10
The most infamous diabolian of the period was exposed by the marcel.
i= JK. Huysenare (1348-2007), a friend of Verksine and the podlter
matin. When Rorranticivmn split into eacuralin and Decadence,
I bey smeans tried 00 beige the pape he wroee naturabstically but was aloo
a leader of the Decadent. Decadence was characterized by eathericism,
sensuality, aed fascination with such psychesesual aberrations
ax incesr,
wdommsochism. Bestiality, and prostitution; the Decadents ironed the
Marquis de Sade and Laetrtament as their berocs, Writers such as
Jluysmane conbited naturalism with Decadeace, deseribing the life of
the cites realistically but characterizing it as false, dewokete, and mean-
inghess. Under the itfecnce of Nictasche, the esthetes and semusalicrs
shimed %© create thar oun meaning through their ceeotions, sen:
env nies. desites. and perversions Decadence had ever lex a scene of
communey than Hotrantacsm and arrogantly cubed the evthetic elise
above the great enwished mays of the vulgar und ancnliginened. Dec-
aience was a revelt againat boeh che established ceder seul the growing

Coneme, be serpent de ke Chain (Paris, vie, wel Enews & cower mandion, yg vols (Paris,
Pots~ogsed Stawedan de Cimsete (1 Mar~
1 Bye) ancl the comtinetal Reskcruceens whe fol-
heared Mee ted to rocomolke scence aed rvlighes te 4 mew ccoult stem in which the
Devil wan 2 sobercrszame of mater, the “plete ond mmugiarive wal of the work!” Oe
MEET, PP. beep eng)
ee DL Blevendiy. 7 he Sven dawrvie, 2 webs. Gedo, 1, wel 1, PR att aete wl
2. PP. PAE IS). Sh betty ptt frompp seek
 Aes Ag REAR ot TEL

enfers
en son De tootue
Lees par “FLORY
ms

; prarty m Tl
 The Drow's “ede afi

comcepe of denmiocricy. Onc of the quirressential novels of Docadence

was Huysmare’ A rebewrs (284), bur itis Ld Aw (1391) thas cams heen a
place in the history of Satan!"
Huystouns began weebing on Lo Aw in 188>; hix initial plan was 1
wnee a novel based on the harorical figure of Gilles de Rais, a fiftecesb-
comtery child molester and mass Taurdercr whore the Dtcadenes found
fascmating. Interest in Gilles bed [beysmuns to ceedieval wichoraft and
demeonclogy, then te the tilack massofes the reign of Louis XIV, and
Fmally te curicaity aboee conpemporiry Sitanives Ho went to Uruzes to
viat the notetiogs canon Louis wan Haccke, who was said 0 practice
secret obscene rites. Heysmans then began an affair with Herthe Cour-
ritre. a fnend of the even more netoriogs defrocked puiest Jeoepb-
Antoine Houllan.
Berallan (1324-2893), an ordained pricat with a doctorate from Rome,
became the lover efa mun, Adtle Chevalier, who claimed to be able to
effect stiraceioes cures: the pair traveled about ispeasing medications
compou of fooes nde
and consceri
dted heats. When Ade gavele
birth oo
their bustard cheld, they sucrificed it asa mass on December &, 1340,
The crime retrained undiscovered ured much lance, ter free 1861 to
P64 Boullan was sent to prison for selling fake medicines. In sR49,
imprison again by
ed the Body Office in Romse, be composed his journal,
the Cader rer, which came oo light Liter and confirme all that d
was
rumored abcat hix Satanic crimes. Retuming so Paris lacer that year,
Goultan revamned hix former practices, but his trac matere wae net yer
known, and he was widely exeployed as an cxoecist, in which capacity
he taught nuns and echer victims how to receive “incule” s1 secret
soxwal practices. Enowgh of the truth finally came out that be was
defrochked
by the archteshep
of Paris in r&>5, He then set hiteself up as
# mugen and made bes living by fake healings, clairvoyance, and
creeec rituals.
At this pomt Huyamans entered the sme. Berthe Cournere put him
in toech with Boellan, and Boullen sent his peices and housekeeper
Jolie Thitaut to vinit Hovsmans 0 find cut ubether the wreer could be
trusted. Reasvered, Boulln sent Huysirues copicas marerials on trem
i. incubi, and the Black mass, actnibuting the gress practices of the
Hack furs not to himeclf tet so Sunisias de Guaita and the Hoseru-
owns. Guaita and ether occelnists indageuntly tried wm convince Huys-

tt. JKR Heyvenne, C4 der (Park, c8gt) See sho G1. Bafore
dg Bale,
Mepenee
New York. »4#)
 ~~

ar Mephacuphetes
rreafes that Holes was lying. but shey wore ensvccesfal, When writing
Ld-ber, Huysreuens refused to roodel Is villanious peiest, Canoe Doore,
after Boullsn; he esed Cason vies Hacche of Beuges as the model
instead,
The newel is a fictional accowet of Huyanans’ owe expencnces im
writing in the protagonist is an agthit named Dartal who begins by
investigating Galles de Rais, Secormes ineereyed in medern Satanien,
and eacets Dr. Johaenes (Boullan) aed the repuleve Cason Doore
(Haceke). In the cormese of his eesearch, Durtal amends Hack masses mm
Paris amd describes one presided over ty Cason Docre. Decre and his
congregatean mect secretly in a darkened room decorsted in black and
byheed only by flickering candies. Docre, who wears the cress tattoond
on the aphex of his feet op as 00 tread
on the Lord with every step, feocks
conscoraned hests te méco and mixes foes and urime with the sacrament.
While heavy incense smealders, drags are handed aroumd, the Devil i
mvehod, and a hymn co Saran ts interned. A beng litaay of blxphermers
and mtsults 10 Cheist is read out. with chorboys saying the responses,
The dregged congregation Bowls and rol on the floor, The priest
sexually abuses the het in freat of the congregation, and women come
foewaed to cat of it while the men violate the choirboys, La fer Boome
both populer and satoricas i the Europeof the 13908, but Huysnnans,
ropuleed tiv what he haul bocome ineddved in, soon comrerted to Catheli-
cian and left the Decadent movement.
Unlike Decadence and occelittan, mainstream philooophical and eth-
ical chought in the periad touched radical evi yeldom and the Devil
almost mover. "Dho leading cttecal uriters shifted froen metaphysical and
teleological concerns to oeltural relativean, comtextual ethics, and mare-
realest urMitarianian, '?
The work of Priedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was the most radical
ind ultimarely the excst inflooeeial. |! Nietzache’s unremitting and in-

eh, See, tow exmgde, cee works

of J. 5. MAD (ifort
gh F Brentane
fe8 p—sger),
We. Saemmer (igo tga W. Widkcthered Fetgt-rergh J. Reywe Ceteyerget, HL
Tengen: (etjq- eget), DL Trocdeach (ott;—igop, HL. A Prickhoed (ifr e-rog7h G. Eb.
Vhewe (eds pe epee, end MM Selbeber (hr gr epenl
sh Nemuche’s casper works ach Dw Cotert Ar dicaic, xeih tor Gangthe
fothede Week t (Lopeng, 081) Aeewts gee (et wad Bow (l agony, +
der Moral (Lowuig. 1887); Abe Sprach Zerashwere, 4 vets, en tty ibys De Wok
ar Markt (Laspoug, 1yath Tee bee, pabdided goachmmady (Logeg, igut). The chat
Ce
ofr, Anak iterlin), & umderway, with yo veburres plseeed See ales F.
Lee Meck, “Tse Dewy of Chad,” on Erne
de Jevee Mere, of See (New York,
1952), PP. ara a
 SANZ
{ESS
i

Tlie
Pare la tat)
Pov nace
hun Salvien bdrsbol os Parte 3 pop. The
te. ei ; ol] Tbewd, acel the Serene
 “~~
224) AfepAarepieles

tensely commageous determination W face reality as ® was wrheat wah-

ful chenking led him to repudiate che ideals of Ltegel , co
bis refesal
coen promise led to a mental illeess that incapacitated him from 1889 90
the end of his life. He insisted that God, idealiee. metaphysics, Pla
(on, (rarscendence, ptecture standards of morality, and being and
incaning therroclves are dying dr. dead #Musions, All ypeculstive philoso
pliy is mscrely the bellow coke of the philesepher’s oun Ropes and fears.
ix neewense, Reenanticion selfindulgence, Abowe all, Nietz-
sche hatred facile optima, wihhful theakieg, and selfdelusion of any
kind. The only betavice weethy of hunaeity, be maincained. is com-
pletely hones confroeration with reality. Nictesche was a athilist, de~
standing that we recognize that we can obtain no absolute knowledge of
any hind. Denying poskivism. be maicamed that we canst know
almobete ceality tut caly human formulationofs realty. He deliberately
demaolinhed all traditional opisemologies. showing that even Deycartes
and Kart hed awuread too mock The only thong we can Know wm what
we directly experience, he asserted, and the only thing we directly
experience is thought. We cannot even know whether here is a thinker;
all we know is ¢¢ dewks: “thought m being thoughr~
ecwase the moaning of the world, a there is any. ts foeever hidden
frome Us, We Must Create meaning curscives. We do thes with the “wall to
power,” by which Nicersche did not mean aggrandizemem but semply
the asertion of cur aemonomy, Since ne external or transcendent value
exists to validate cur will, the will creates walucs and mecaning for itself.
‘The “wepermun” (UNermensoh) assorts charge of himself and valixtates
bimsclf. Alihoagh Nietzsche's thought was later peevertad ly the Nazis
and others, he did not hinnself inmend the “sepermar” to impose his own
views upon aeycenc se: the truc superman is aware that he bas created
hw own valece for himself and docs aot confuse therm with external
reality or alwolute principles.
A valid comatruction of reality. saki Nietnsche, must not ret upen
fantasy: it exust be empirically rocted in tree hummer exqperence, which
is primarily suffering and despair. Most world tiews are constructed to
avohd this tragic view, bat the result is cultures Quilt upon illesiom and
casity destroyed, (Nictrache woeld tuave siewal the nockear death
march of today as the natural estession of such Musians.) Only coral
honesty, ierogney, and coarage im facing reality will save as from dee
stration; we overcome evil and despair only by reoogniang them,
factig Chom. and bringing them geuder the control of the will. Since the
cosmes has no transcendent meaning, the meaning of life lies in the
,
 The Deals Shabeo 3x

pyful creation <¢ meaning for the cosmos. Nietzsche angrily cheust
aude “weak pexsimisee” as well as optimiun and would have despésed
the temdency of the late twentieth century to wallow sel indulgently in
meaninghessness and despair; eather, one must use nihilism 90 overcome
sihilen, wil co overcome mextinglowess, and joy to overcome
despair; *; a

Now we oclebrate, certain of oniversal victory,

The festival of fevtivale
Ove fiend Zarathustra comes, the puc of pucsts!
t
Now the werld bs the crwel Cullen parts,
Ad the woekding feast of Light ane! Darkness ix uct.

Nieteache viewed Chrisnanity as the dceninane illudom, the dominant

eraseot, of Western society, bart he was hustle to all religices and to the
very xia of 2 Gol of any transcendent principle, even a principle of
matere. Im Toe Jopfal Winter (482) be recounted the tale of the madenun
who ruihes into the markerplace dechring that God is dead: whea oo
ome belicwes him, he realines that he “case too carly.” Hogel and Heine
had already spcie
of n
the death of Gad. but Nictzsche’s parabhe pope.
lartoed the idea arsong the educated clases. God was nor yet gue,
Nietzsche saw, ber he was om his deathbed aad weald soon disappear—
an idea revived in different forms is the later tweatkth commary by
Martin Buber's “eclipse of God" and by the “death-ofGad” the
clogians. Foe Nectowhe, the idea of God arose freen two soeeves: the
fasitferpretatioe of natural evears, aad the poychological projection of
eur oan hopes and Sears,
Nietische had personal respect foe Jestss, who, he said, caught us bow
te live in courageous authermioky, but be considered Christianity an evil
pervcraon of Jous intentions. An enieircal examination of morality,
Nictoche argued, shows that there is a tructer morality and a slave of
herd meceality; Christianity is the woest of slave meealities, tased upon
weakness, fear, pity, dety, and subetissioe. The historical sacoess of
Clinstianity fies im its pollution of the masters with the daves’ adea thar
lack of power is a virtec. The tollowers of the “pale Galiloan™ thus rob
us of the will to perwer that is cur only bapeof salvation. The craditional
Chistian Deval a vulgar concept for which we have ao seed." Suill,

44, ee, Neckpesang 259

tf omer: trae. W. Rect, Rrpeed Geel ond Fo! (Now York, oft p. of
 i.
28 Mopéttogdcter

4 peneteve
to specelate aboet
he was inflecnced cnough by Romanrionm
role foe the Devil. If God represents authority, represice, snpcocd
order, and cold legac, then the Devil reprthe esen force of
creative ts
howe, feeling. and joy, and ax such be is the “most ancien friend of
wisdom” who “keeps us ay far away from God as he can.” '* Nierzsche
ideetified the Devd with Diotrysins, “Who was foe hits the rich, am:
bivalent, but generally positive symbol of creativity, chaos, fertility,
destruction, sexual license, and _ Under the inflbence of Nacte-
oche and Romanticom, Dionysius and Pan became poguflar symibets in
the art and literature <€ the end of the century.’
The blows to Christin belief dealt by Darwin, Marx, and Nietouhe
were marched by that dealt by Freud. The four gellars of Chrenan
belief are scripowre. wadition, reawm, and experience. The first thece
bad already been called into qpestion by philsephy, Bastory. and tebli-
cal criticises, Now the fourth-—personal expenence—was questiosad
try payehoanalysis, which compared religiogs experience with neurobe
experience. Until the lite nitctocach century, psychology had been 2
branch of phikseply. With the growth of scientific medicine, payehol-
ogy achieved its independence and moved in the directian of becom a
scence, though its tac methods and epissemology are soll unsettled,
Modern psychology for the seost part rejects religion as an illaaom
and seeks the roots of good and evil not so stuch im the “conscius”
asm
the “unconscious.” Indeed, moxtem peychology tends to avoid the term
“evil”; “evil’ is perceived ax a metaphysical term, and “vielence” a
sociological one. Psychologinns usnally prefer to speak of “aggression.”
for which several large carcgories of explration are offerod. Depeh
paycholgy canluins aggression im termes of neerotic repression; soceal
payehobegy explains it um teres of group bebarice; cthnographers refer it
te the survival of aeimal competition for food and sex, and behorricetets
think of it in terme of kaming and condinoning. For most poychedl-
ogists, Godl and Devil are caly projectiofons the psyche, expeesuonof s
elements of the unconscsons.
Sigrremd Freed (1346-0030). the Sounder o€ paychoanalysis, at-
tempecd a sckemtitic expleeation of the unconscious '* The influence of
6 jew, epee
4. tig
+>. Soe, for canmele, Artheet Machea’s ary The Great Ged Pan” is Machen, [fe
New of Seal) Landen, 1922), pp vtte2gs The meet epgeared even an cfebioon’s
TA 1) had oe ote 1 Sec (Lorde, pga). For
soc’ as Kereeeth Girebaamee's
sorice, hevtery
od Pan ia lincrscure, oc P. Merivabe, Pew the GuwtGral (Camturatiy, Macx, igi
works are Joncee wed Jabe (Letpeig. 191 5t Fone Tentehewreree
18. Frewdls test relevans
 The Devils Shade arr

Freadianism has waned in the Lee twencketh century, a thar potion.

phers no longer feel obliged to adjust Oheie views 60 fit ity still, Freadian
views have dominated Weare thought fee so leag that many have
become part of accepted “common sense.” One of those Meas is that
religion is a mere psychological phemonmence whew onigies and nature
can be oot only explained ber fed away—theas gho hostility: be-
tween techy and religim ix sy verted by hostility between pay-
< ) and mn (psyche $ who differ such as
ed,William
James, have bale chau eka as cld-fanhioned|
Insisting that religious systems were Qluson: Sounded upon Girh
asumpnots, Freud lacked Neccesche’s undentanding thar the same
could be saad for his own or any other syste. He denied that rohgpous
expencnhce might correspond to any reabty whatever, and his hontaty
increased with age. Toacw and Tisheo (191 gh criticined religion 4s neurotic:
in Tie Fatare of aw Manon (192)) Froud chimed scientific proc’ thar
religion is a mere neurotic response bo “the cruding power of nature,”
an ilbesier with which we seek 00 tomper the terror of death. “Re-
ligion.”” be wrote, “consists of cemain dogmas, asacrtions about facts and
conditions of external for innernall reakey, which toll ome cometheng that
One Ras GH ener discovered and which claire thar one shold give
shen credence.” Freud did nee scam to notice that this statement
applies equally to science, that the great mas of believers in science
accept assertions they have not discovered for themselves aad do aot
enderstind, siteply on the authority of prefexsional scientists.
Freed argued that religion is a vanofety
ncurnsis on the procs thor
beth provoke “pangs of conscience following an omission of neututic or
rebgrus tes”; that both iscdare such rites from ordinary bige ard act
them apuet a6 secrod with the feckithat
ng “ec mux sot be diturbad”
while practicing thers: thar both are character’ by the comcien-
theuseess with whach details are carricd ont, bre foohings of petlt, bry
repression of imtmets, and by compuléve acts «of penance. Frowd
granted that religice was chitferent frum other neuroses dm that religions
FINGS are stefony ped and mowretic cenes warded: relator ts uswally greblic

wt heetever fobetumdor (Lepage, ryngt Div Zeta? new [ese if auperg. igo7k
Mowe Misr amd du amawhentivie Brive (Areca, rane. Sco Pocus fonemerty
Worl, 94 webs (Frenitert, 1gp2- A) wel Tie Compdoy Pictelapteal Wierds of Ngee
Freed. 24 vol. (Lowwbos, epi eeegrgl Soe she L. de Lives, Premed at & daa (Derk
rit it L. Padp, Frvmd cmd Rota Muted (Wesywet, Coen. roth
te Peewd, (he fen
of oeer
Ween tere W. 1 Hot
Soot
reeKiahenr
Cae, NY,
ast p. 4).
 a

2 Mepbarcepbeses
and neurosis private; religious syrftbols are widely understood and idi-
vidual ones uholly Mlinsynecratic. But he failed to see thar he was de
senbing the obsessional aspects of religices practice and that ssont poe
ple are far from obsessive in practicing their relighom, he missed the
distinction betucen ratketil constientiousess and compubivencss; and
he failed 0 dlistinguinh adequately bet tee neurotic guilt, rational guilt
(conschoes recegrétion that one bas dose wong in an individual in-
stance). and existential peilt (the intuition that the cosmos aad cur can
serels are innriesically oer of joint, that something needs 0d be pur right).
He was also incomsismern in recegrizing the valuc of represien in pro
ducing att, task, law, and other aspects of civilization whele repoeting
its value im producing rebgion. In other words, Freed dad sot simply
condenm nowretic rebgion; he condemned religion itself ax moerceic.>
Although Fread did nce believe in metaphyacel evil, he carly became
fascinated with the Devil as a symbol of the dark, repressed depths of
the uncemscious, When a librarian called his attention ne a manuscrape
containing the story of a seventeenth-century Asstrian Who had made a
pact with the Devil and had been rescued by the Mether of God. Freud
wrote a book (Buse Vratedoerarcer) on the case. In this and bes other
works, he developed a diabelogy whose central peent was that “the
Devil is clearly gothing other than the persorification of
unceascias drvves.“?! Since the Devil craditionally toed on many forms
aul shapes, Freud was atte to kdencify him with an expeally diverse
sutnber of mourtees— mest generally, with the courterwill created by
encumscious repecssion. Foe cxample, a woman wishes tm nure her
taby bat develops sn illness thar prevents her from doing sec the weenan
hax uncorucioealy repressed her disgust with the peocess; the repression
creates 2 Witerecill, a coumterwill thar expeesses moclt in her incapacety.
Thus the uncorscoes works against our Conscious will just as the Deeil
was traditionally wepprecd to de. Because Fread beliewed thar sexuality
is the mont frequently and powerfully repeesscad Soewe, he though the
Devil particelarly repeesentod the power of repeessed sexual drives,
which oftem cause poopie to act agarist their comes will, Noting the
frequere craditiomal coanection of the Devil with anal imagery (in
Lather, for example), Froud comidered him expecilly the symbol of
repressed anal eroticism

so help. pe reese
at. Frowd, “Oharecter wed Aaskereclh,~” Sommleny Alun Strgive cor Neerweektre, rd
mr. (igeg) p Fp.
 The Dewils Shed 229

Mest mpcetant, the Devil wat a Vawreravs, » oabstitute for the

sductive father, a concept that Freud exphadzed in the cartier part of
hes carcer. Reproxsion of the father’s sexual atvese of a child, wcective
tehaveor on his part, of the chiki's oun fareasies of paternal secection
create 2 powerful force in the child's unconscious that is readily persom:
ified as the Devil, Fread took avevitence the series of winches copalat-
ing with the Devil ar satbuts, bolftrad tre winch accounts of the Devil's
large, serpentlike penis. A sedective mehr ce eursemaid could also
powertal repression in the chikd, who might expeess rhem
In terms of soecefesses, witches, phallic aeuthers, or Saylor den.
fate. As Frevd later eeoved away from his erpdasis upon the onductive
Lather, be came to regard the Devil more as a syetbed for amy hatred of a
parent; in thes view the Devil ropecuomes the chikt’s reprewund desire for
the parcet’s dearh. Still later, he saw the Devil as a symbol of repressod
fear of <eath of death itucif. Im short, the Desil always represented
whatever clemerc of the uncornciees Froud saw as most in OP POSITM Go
the conscious will,
Freud's followers inerduced variations Emest Juncs developed a full
peyeheanalitic theory of the Devil, beginning with the idea that re-
byieus Beliefs are famasics arming from the repeession of inepas lacs Coeb-
demined by rebigien.?? The force of the repressed libido exprosses itself
me images of mcubi, witches, demons, and the Devil. In a sense, Jones
sugpeted, Christians ate right in seeing the Deval ax their chief Opp
nent, fur he represents the kbidiaves enerpics tht the Christian religion
has triad te cradscure. Like Froad, Jones made the Devil the svmibed uf
fepeceal instincts, especially thou relating to relaticsteps between
father and chiki, The Devil can symbolize cither the father whore the
chad haicy and wishes co deunroy or the child who defies on results
against the father, The Devil, winches, fearsome goddess, and other
evil figares are always linked to prothers of authority and TEpressiee.
‘They are fierce and ierational deities with whose coc does noe debate or
exchange views, they must be cither obeyed of defied.
Ose of the most important dixcuveries af depth paychology, for the
study of debalogy, i the powcr of negative projection. When we are
uruware <€ the process of reproxion within ourselres, we project the
Negative chements that we refine to recognize within oeruves ato
athers, epecaily onto individuals and growps that we identify as en.
Cftecs of petennal enemics. Since I yurcly cannot be cruel or greedy, the

a5. b Jowms, Nigkteern Wiaote: wal Jedd (New Vor’. rorek

 ff
270 Mopbanpdole

soer ce
of the crucl and gecedy feelings thas [ conse withe must be
me rs
X. whom | didihe, This aow justifies my hostiliy to X. The meee
powerful mpvown repressed crucity, the more orucl § imaging X to be,
If the feelings are powerful caeagh, | may self-ngincously judge that
Xi is a mamace to society and oaght 0 be re
vach a crect person as
movcd—try here, if necessary>| may*tnd by venting my own tedden
cractty upon X, justifying it om the basis of big alleged crecity, whack I
have meyself peegectad apon him. :
Freud's dixciple Mclanic Kise perceived the relanemhip betwoee
nepative projection and a peocess she called “splinting.” Spleting arives
from the desire to peeserve the abselute goedness of a beloved otyect by
denying that there is any imperfection in m; aay evil of imperfection
eoust be traasferred from the bekwed olgect to soenething elec, This
behavior, Kicia observed, is noemal among young chikirea. who spéic
objects into good and bad carogones, kdcalo
aml ie
poop good and
theang
propeting evil upon the other, The child is expecially comoemed wath
Loopinga perfect image of the belowed parern, The child wall often make
radical shetts in his o¢ ber percas epti splitting: if once any
a result o€ons
evil is adenine to exint in the atealized otgect, che child may quickly
mre it Grom the goed categeey and perceive tas entirely evil, Ax the
nermal person develops, be or she gradeally accepes ambivalence anid
cly restricts the «pheres of absolute goadness and abeolere
evil. Every individual and group, however, seis 00 retain seme Sagres
of need to split and to make aleabete positive and ecgalive peaxctions,
though the tendency i in iewerne proportion to cmoticeal marunry.
Klein perceived the readency to divide the ccomes between a good and
evil metaphysical Geece as a fivarion of the immeaterc temdency to split
rather than to recognize ambivalence?!
Among Froud’s associates, the most independent and origesal es bes
24 Jung took relgien
appecach to religice: was Carl G, Jung (8 7 ¢-1gte)

th M, Rete, Cascrabateer re Prt Amahew Gconhen, optih pqe ertnaae, 2K pa

OR. ptt: PL Elmer. “4 Cennedation of the Qabgen Congicr =
90 the Kc<valestion
Tike Barly Stages,” an M. Kices, od. Newer Dwiveew a Pieihe Analy (Now York. ros 7h
PR thts.
of the Cds Jang Ineeenane
see fd, od, the Oersnciam
ia OM Jeng and Jongiarten.
(Everton. cote HE L. Phd, dey aad abe Proton of Few! (Lowshon sgeteJ A Senco,
of Ba.”
Bical Tite Shusice Yude of Reality (New Vor. ogi) R.A. Segal, “A Jorgum View
Ay, be Leg Gh Bp hy cond Pow ts Fairy Tale iNew
M.-L. Vows Prane, The Sanden York,
neta Amsco juege's weet belted works anc bie Mfadive Mar of Sconh of « Sew! (New
Vorb, egg ph Aemer af iNiow York tosak Pypitelary anf Bilge (New Blavon, egted
“Sopeces xrreeees of crete,” ao Mower, Linen, Aglitwe (Nee York exit) pp
 The (heely Shatew 24?

far more senously and more positively than the Freediane soctng # axa
MOSSY pert of the poyehe and Furman civilization, be jadhgect ity
expressions 00 be paychobegacally valid rather than neurotic, As m
whether God aed the Devil have ectaphyscal reality, be did not at-
Ways speak Consistently. Favertially, he considered chem mnythstrat
for Jung. myths are not ile itwertions they are pergerful wed ocne:-
present psychodegical realities. ~
‘The center of Jung's system, which he called analytical payebology,
ts the proces: of mulividustion of mtcgration, which cestrectures the
indivalial so a fo mmfograte pemitively the power of the encomecious
with that of the crescious Prychological wholeness and health depend
upos beconting aware of the chanents of the unconscious, facing them
wjuarely, and iefegrating them inte one’s comscioumers in the light of
resend. Jung divingunhed sharply between suppression, 2 healthy pro
cos by which we conscsounly reject sencthing, and repression, an
enbealthy peccess in which we unceascioudy deny fookings: and refuse
to deal with thee. Repressor create 2 foece im the unconscious that
eay burst cat im inappeeprinte and devtractive behavior. Jung differed
radically from the Freadhans in ineivting that the powerful conarenrs of
the uncerscsous are sot excludvely the product of ropressions; some
cements of the uncomcious, he aad, are part af a collective unconscioms
transcending the idividual and embeacing all of humanity, The phys:
acal vtrectare
of the brain, the peealuct of pometic evolerion, ix semilar in
all deew aagece and thas produces smnilannes in base constructs of
unceenscious thought that Jung called archetypes; thea i cam rend to
peeduce structurally sireilar myths ce images. Im onder to acheove a
pavchological whole, therefore, cach cf as mast come to cerns with
both the personal and the collective aspects of our indivadual ascon:
scious.
Is wock a view, the Devil ix much more powerfal than im Freud.
anise. for be is net only the expresice of individual reprossions trot

17 3- poe, ord cones Sd os bee Collen Werks, a0 rode (New York, tptth rge
wet hada “The Shadeew” cal ye. pp ped “The Fight wth the Sthubire.” vel 1. pp.
10% n ah, Chel ened Boel Analy teal Wychotegy wa bm, PR. 495-40 “Teycinaegy
aad Heligion The Ditton of Dieneniae,” wed. ot pp 6gt Onber heweereter pevyeher:
bagel works ont evel techedeE Becker. Fmape four Bed! Ove York. rove b. Hocker,
Tie Sorte of Evel (Now York. ott L. Dood, Peswweu of Peal) feuphe:
fr tly Beter
neal Seen (Weepart, Cone, 1yytBE. Frewew, The Amatenry
of Meenee Mewrmctinvenen
(New Verb, rgrgt Ro Mey. Pewee
end hemor (Now York. 1972) On mere maken
canafc prychadeghcal spgwroaches So agent, we AG, Con aed FD tewretens,
oh Agere, pwede ONew York, rotal
 n~
si? Mepbiieuphedes
also a reflection of the aamonemneces, timekess, and universal collective
uncomcout Like Freed. Jung cook possession senoudy as a paycholog-
ical rather thet a spiritual eeanifestanon, a Neerotic or paychors state
that occurs when shadew cements replace the gown controlling the
eeeeaey Jung asocgped particular archetypes
nets. the Devil the
Vice OF Man who has eet wigiets throagh yuffering; the Trick-
ster, cf Elermes. che divine messenger telling us aboet the srational
unconscious, Uhe anima of animus, representing the repirexead female
sik of a cram ce the repressed male sife of a woman, the serpent or
ouroboros, repeesenting the one and the all, the beginning and the ond,
the ceajunction of oppeites aud what he called the Shudow.
Jung rejected moderns religion's tendency toward activism and extra
version, pointing oot that the extrovert oteerves and caperocmees inter
eal,poychic events as sharply and directly as the catravert capericnoes
external events; thus the introvert ix meee likely to bave a pewerfel
eaperscece of God o¢ Devil, Modern society's readiness to dismrin the
Devil i 2 sign of its shallowness, its unwillingness to face the reality of
evil. Ht is particularly absurd tec the church oo sherk reality im thes way,
Jung anguod, for in dang so, it becomes a positivethinking society
incapable of a full understanding of cither the humae personaliry or the
comes, unaifc 60 deal with human crucky oc with the terrifying hand
€ God in natural dixavters, Good and evil are oot subjective
ce relative
ber rented in a collective reality greater than the mdividual.
Foe Jung, evilis as real ax good, & isa nocemary part of the cosmos
am i ‘of God.2 Jung's model for che coames and for the psyche
wis the “ontinckdence
of opposites,” a concept denied from the medical
mysnes and from Nicholas of Ousa in particular.*¢ God is totally be-
yoad any ae eesra Only the totality of God ix
absolute, not any of that we project upon him When we
say that God is goed
of GodIs powerful. wecare uang human categories
that cance cestrct
God aad are as far from God's reality as the earth ix
i. Jeng chewed Oe crateeenal bbea of crel ax peveation. det he dé not encervtand ©
Freee theory does net horny the real gerwer of evil be the cones of in the hernan
zy bet rather denies ht chomues mxctuuphy ical being: ic. denice that & proceeds
frees Grad» Basing itself’, Dk Blows
«sd 00 cell whack ix an abanecw of haat but which con
kil by draieng hour avay. Jeng heertf
used chee emagpory on calling evil Whe eternally
aching porge if toe vem.” Lbenabing Hie, pny, coker, and have wut of the workl. Soe
TIES CONS morte” pp pte oss. OMA, op
oh Foe Nivheles, eee Locerra, pp 276-285. Seeme crises hase reacshen Jorg for a
duslet bocemse of bee conphores on cvih cpete the comdrery,be wae & strKt femme,
pending goes! and cel as two aqpocts of a whede.
 Th Deval) Shader 7a?

below che heavens. Good and evd are human categories, they reflect
certain realities in the commas: But be human categery, and therefore
neither good mor evil, cam bmit God. God mast be perceived ax a
comenence of all cppesites: be is yreat and seal, old amd young, just
and merciful, and so on. just as Nicholas
of Cus had wad, Bat Jusy
rock a step that Nichotes did wot dare take: God malo beth goxd and
evil. That is to shy that Ged etedeaces and unites im bieself all rhor
furnaces caleporine as pead or cvil. Jeng argued that the Chriaians had
been right to symnboline the muleiplicity of the godhead by calling it a
‘Trinity
rather than a Unity, bet that they had noe gose far cough, for
the Christian T rinity seers to exclude beth the peincaple of ove and the
feutinime price. Jans wlutien wax always fuzzy and inconsistent
he veggotal 4 ity bret tes foerth perce was sommetinnes the
feminine principe and senctimes
the Devil. He was comtious enough vo
balk at a Quiney, knowing from his reading of the gnosties that one
cold pe on pervens to the podhoad forever
The goed Lord aed the Devil, Jung argued. are bar nwo sides no the
Gallonet of reir. iach he tale ae placraen “The shadow bebongsse
the Tight ax the evil belongs to the good, and ever ovr.” Without
darkness to define it, light could not appear pood.2? Evil and the Desil
are real, they are part of creation, poet of Gexd’s sraff, By rebelling
against the good Lond, Lucifer carried our the felliness
ef God's plan, fee
his challenge to God peeduces a deeper and higher wieder. The Devil
is an caanmousty powerfel energy in the compas whech, if ipeored and
deracd, vill burst foeth with a destreceiveness proportional te the de-
greeof its repression; if adeurned
and absorbed, is energy can be tumed
toward the greater good, Repression loads to mental finess om the indi.
vidual level and to rum on the collective bevel aocepeance and |
tiem brad m individeation, Bealth. and creativity. Jeng cautic chan
the demonic energy is never neutral, if it is nor channeled toward the
comstractive, wal bars wich eopeal power into the destructrve. The
mextern refusal so accepe the reabry of the Devil is cause
a as well as a
"yon ace destirxtion,
Ju the Devil as a mythical syebed rather than as a mete.
reo enrity Fi he Chorio sa His teem “the Shadow” is noe
t wah the Chinstian Devil. The Shadew i a feece of
oeunconscHUS. 3 preminve psychological choment Lacking meeal com.

37. Jang. Abedive Mow te Seed of @ Seal pp. ge, 200 “Sepeere serveenes eredre
tert” Pp Pe
iM Mepdtrapbeles
trol. It is prietarily part of the personal uncemscious, consisting of re-
pressed material, Since whet m repecssed waties wath the mndividual, the
imdivedual Shadow docs net nocesanily correspond with the social,
collective,or metaphysical view of evil; ‘for examplla, the Shadow of 4
criminal personality might comsist.of a number of choments that society
coashters good.Jung also suggested cHfexistence of a collective Shad-
ow, the Shadyw of a group, society. of mation, which manifests inst in
irhass pcncenena such as facom of vookent revolenion, of in. cruct keaders
such as Hither or Stabn. Beyord both individual and coflcctive Shad.
ores, an archetypal Shadow may abe cxivt, though Jusy was aot clear
om this poing, At tires he augyested that the demonic Shadow, coensivt-
ng of repressed marenial thar might become dotructive i net mte-
sel coukl be distingushed from the Seganac Shesdow, whach was
intrinsically evil and sought oo suck everything down nto the ctemal
vacuem: and veo. Phe archetypal Shadow, ass cvil as per
cowed celeetively try all of hurumity, would be close op absolute evil,
clase to the1 ‘radiesireal Deval. ‘De mere the Shadow —whether indi:
videal or colkective—ix repressed and iselatod, the eeore vieent and
detroctive t hooomes, offen exprowimy itself in negative peogections. In
modem war the most destractive fceces of the collective and perbaps
archetypal Shadows are released, The enemy is debvemanired, turned
inno a group of demons, monsters, or subhurman.
We can tr evil, Jung argecd, only by recognizing it, naming it,
and raising it te the kewel of the comecious, When browght owt into the
light, the dark power loses its poeson: it can te placed ander the com:
trad of reason and cerned in the direction of constractmeness, indi
vidustion, asd wholeness,
Most professional gayehokogats have dicnissed the concept of evil as
a meuphysical abstraction, peefernmg to work with other abstractions
wach as the social concept of violence of the aaore strctly povehelogical
concept of ayerosson. Recently. however, scene gryelodogises Inahave be-
gun to think that 2 concept akin to the Obf comcept of evil is a -
ceder to desenbe the phenemcta they cacoetter. their
In ka
airepractice with criminals, 5. Yoohkchcr seulS.Samencw« es
that certain persorubitecs are so completely fousded upan lies ard scif-
deception that traditional suciokegucal and paystubgal ramen have
no effect. A sulntantal member of crirmmals are people who freely
choose a Gife of crime, and the criminals behavaori ijane by the
way he thinks—nece try his Garrely, peers, of neaghborhoxd, The crim-
nal is a “Victimicer, a reokder of hin environment, rather than a mere
 Tk Deowl) Sates “as

preduct of that rookd. “** Rex Beaher, professor of medicine at the Uni-
versityof California, Los Angeles, Gas lod ty his kong practice with
violent crimimals to ask whether there 5 “an cates force,a dark force,
that works through humans and perpetrates terror.” !¥ Suck views avoid
SS eee

the diner of relying puluteve measures, whether liberal o¢ be-

havionst, “The sense of wadital evil ae permits Sec of
(uesteors of value that scocmnt pryehology ts by definition uncquip
ped to undertake.
As psychology streggled to define evil, the literary Devil continwcd
to appear in the Kornguise
aete of Sates the here or Saran the notte
periment. but as Kemunticcmn decked imo Decadence toward the ead
of the nineteenth century, the Devil reflected the then fashionable traits
of irony and cynieom. In many uriters, the Dowd is a neesomely res
bn of the poct himuclt® artintic, rebelhoes, cruel, somsual,
and devouring. ©
‘The strongest sywabed of iterary disbolian in this period was Mepis.
thre ecveads the folly and futility of human life, One of the
Hatives of tho genre iy Mark Twain's Mycermwe Srriey-
or This work, which Twain (1835-1910) began in a%y7, hues appeared
mo theee differen versions.*! Twasn's orginal idea was to write the story
of an wafaiien angel whe bore the name of the chief of the GK) aagels.
a “young Sates” who woold be nurincas and powerfel and who wouk!

D&S. Vechohon and 5. Sanen

Ti Crimaealre,
Prremelvy, 9 vob (New Yeek, rot7h
vel §, D tee, see ates S. Serecr fem shy Communal
mey, Mead (New York, igty)
™m Bester. “Tbe Pathobegy of Bed,” Ler Angie Times, Jeranery 6 18s. Soe sho
MS. Pweck, Prep of the La (New Vorb, cots aed Doesthry Keowee m Th
Comtr motion af Like and Death
Sow York, 1g) thar poopy ane respoeeibie hor basking
thor ewn word mew.
(981 p-etgr), Nenoe: A Liters (Tonnes, 0814), prrcces.
ye Orimogher Pesrse Crasch
of Swen so 8 ey rebel of che wild anpects
of Hele sent nae, Foe Willd More (1 ky
qos), Sate Ableton A Viewraes Abrwery (London. 1 Boo), (ica forgiven
Saran and
feekes ee bes now emcarmetion: Satan sad and weary, tabes up the iefwete task of seven
ther wresched wockd Foe Mare Cowell (18 tm tqngd, The Server
of Senee (Loedoe, sitosh,
hears deel deems are folie soffcren in s crocl umeere commucod by 4 feamer
thoty. Gorge Sanexyana (1855-1963), Lact,or The Mewornly Tomer, ad od #Cambexdge.
Miva. 1907), chetinggendied Letworn Lecter, @he netic Komunek ochel whe acu hex
aehteery eget om wutecratic Cond and Mepbe thee te fell of cretice
amet
humrod.
Soe also Cr. Mewndhah, “Laden is Seatlnghe.” ant of Vere hetond,
Perth fe wan, arel The Peters of Dervew Corey and Sater Oy Oscar Wibbe (185g sgeet
pe. The carfy vormen, 7A Myevevees Svwegyy, wes ected
fe eget ater Twness death
by A OR Patee ae FA Drerelia: te wetenes called “the Dachbet vor” A
soomed oo ceteled Ti Chrome of Yoour Saw. The Geel aeetines cdhed “the
Hreetebop verson.” be Ne gy, Tie Myaeries Sivemeer (erbicy. 194:).
2i¢

sardomecally repoet comventional relajien and ethics, he woukd eepresear

4 [xnitive rebellion of clanty, rerum, and lemanity againet the evil of
comertne and otecurantran. The “young Sates” woukd first to
readers as evil, tet Twain's irony cual seal ede nonteerieieaeeee
The catogonies were confgeed and shifting. and Twaie struggled wich
the Ek Tat years aithowt este quae banging it off, yet the story
ferrites ee dsturteng. ;
in the carbest version, a wiraager suddesly appears in a medieval
Austrian village. He offers his name as Philip Traum (“Dream”), but
the reader soon bears that he is really “Yormy Satan.” the nephew of
the Diack Lawd, Young Saran’s magical tricks make fools
of che vill
he ndicules comventions, unmasks frauds and hypocrites, and teaches
the young beys a carcchism that mocks Obristianity. Fle appears ce be
an erresponsible chough churning oncksrer, bot on occasion an appalling
cruchty Phshes oer 00 the surface to armese the boys, foecoample. he
creates a village of tiny peoglo—and then crusies them under bes
demb. Here ‘Teain alowed Satan's real character
te rive ty the surface
inorder to make a ternfying statement on the nature of God, See Satan's
cruelty to the tiny village represents God's cruclty to the village of real
peuple. Is Satan God? Is the workd evil, ce merely xhotically amwceal?
Twain could nce decide, could nce fred an effective halince berucen
onginality and tradition, Im the last venaom, the stranger is ne
“Satan” bat a feysterieus “Number 44," whose eeoral ambivalence was
easier [0 portray, —
Sell, N loaves hes yeang Austrian friend
at the ord of the
story with a black and powertel sarement of empamess. Critics have
caken the passage wn a numberof ways, but ms fundarscnrgd nidvlisen and
sobpsian are clear, and its words of pure pessetiistic negation may
commmune the core of the Drsil’s message to the duwnig twonticth
comnery.

Netheng ests: fl op drown Cirghecw

apt the wich) the ver), the rocen, the
wikletivcss
Of wars; a alecacn,
all « deca, they have oe cxmtonce. Natige erty
oie pitta
yoo! .. And youwate ot you—you have ne beady, no
Roe bara, saat ore loot a Meaty. E enryself| oe an SUMEES. I kana
dreari—yeer dream _ . ae that yrs shoekd met hawe suxpectedd, years
age. Cetrtarscs.
ager, acer age! for yee have existed, comspunsioeess
chroagh all
the cecrmutics. Strange, indeed, thar you shoukl noe hace auspectod that svar
univerve and its coments were only drears, vise, fetes! Serange, bocaece
they are wo frankly hewerscally wrane—hc all tesa. alread wire combt
make goad chikirenas caelyax bad, vet preferred 10 make tad ones, who comb
 the Dewls Shadeo ir

have made every ome of there bapps, yet never made 4 single hapgry anc; whe
thon prince their filtrer lite, ver singly Gait Sheet >. whe mouths
potoe. aed inverted bell—apsaths aneeey. and sreentod Bell—recanths Golden
Rules and foegreonee: aveltipland by seecaty thee sever St ever bell:
whe mouths moral: to other peopte aed hus none hirmeelf: who frrans upen
CIA, yetcree there all oa jan vine ot»
Cuncnew, inrrimesthes fume ater slave tocd
worship ban) | Br bs tre, that
wtich E have be year therc# ne God, 20 universe, ho human race, a0
cathy lo, eo Reever, re bell Tein all »Dreazs, a grotespoe and fonltsh dreare.

These words, which the tradinonal Satan eight cnily have utrored
hitroglf- are Twain's last Seorary stirement. ‘They fem a bridge be.
tweee Rorramtac Satanion and Nietschean séhilien, a lndgo from
whic
the roadh to the despairieg meaingleanicss of the Liretwercieth
ceftury rune straight and —) ‘The surrater’s repose, and che lar
weds
of the book, are: “He vanished, asd leftappal
me led,
for I knew,
and reales thar all he had said wars enue. “2
Other writers uo | itephches to aruese cr cynical ods, thee
with lew than Twam's piano dectines.™ Mephints was aloo
subjcctif light saree, as in the story “Enoch Scaeses,” by Maw Heer.
bob (1872-1906) An unpopular and Gsappointed uriner, Soames
sells the Deval his sod in exchange for feecknowladge of whether be will
be farnous a bunared wears later, The Devil spirits hire off no che Bineeh
Muscum Reading Room incither Mephisto nor Beerboben foresaw thar
it would beceene the “Beitish Liteary Reading Rocen” and be moved m
anew building) en June 3. 199), where poce Soares, comeubing the
catalogues, leares ce bes horrer that his work bers remained mmally
cbycere.
Once the Devil had becomea figure of axtire or amnucment rather
than terror, tes cruly frightening aspects were tranderred to monsners
derived frome folkbore or created by sciesce fiction Dracads, tre Ream
Stoker (1847-1913), followed Mary Shelley aml Poe in this direcrion,
aed ceentually Satan became simely one of a brepe cat of evil creanares
wn 2 chaotic chamber of horrors. Late twenticth-century files suck as
Steven Speciberg's Mwrengvav (1g82) @lustrate they chan, moohecrenly
muddling Borroes from theology. folklore, science fiction, and the
occult,

pa. Me. a4, pO. OG iby

bh, Seeder cyvece! veces were pet forward bry Maree Hagpeseedi
(stg re rge rh Anusole
Frame(1 Bga-tgagl (rep che Mawpacseet(i Boos hpek HL. Mencken (ettte—sg cd, anal
1s. 1B. Shaw (tite eyind
 ~
ay Mephitzophetes
Af orginal cffeet at a human dibbey Us mmeitot Finished
Mian”) bry Giewarens t (138161956) a pce up an Reabut
commerted to Cath after the Fiest World ¥ when he prebl
Uw wame fieite te 1932, be was alreaty keg the pooblem gaye “-
ricusty. The book is both arictionad autobeograpiy <¢ Papini’s earty life
aed a fictional account of the Dereil'sof career: the author mage his
wan cateer the symbel of Saran, and Satan the syenbol of the dememec
in the Buran mint The unnamed pectagorest mx a Papreti and
Lucifer.
‘The book begins with the protagonist's childhood He % isedated
from ether chikieen and adelts by his sense
of alienation. bes focking
of
being almost of ancther eace. Hix abemanon and pride feed on one
another, and be grows up introspective, alooé, solitary, and com
tempewous of other poople, oypectally thane of his owe aye. Hated and
reyected by chews. be voarns for heroic stature and heroic action that will
prove hime their caperior, Isedaned and enhapery, be buikis a fantasy life
and soon discovers that Kneastodpe is bis best weapon against 2 bemtile
world. He desires ce lear everything and begins rathloxsly to master
hnowledec, mot cut of love and opesheurtedness bur cur of pride and
velf-defense. He contemplates with pleasure the selfdestroction of the
humear race thet will leave the carth “vesoling poimlessdy in che
heavens. 9+
As a young man, Papites protagonist revolts quaint God and be
marity with “all the foece of his Satartic sperit™ (p. 73). He recruits as
disciples brilliant intellectual comrades dorsinated by hatred, competi-
non, and rebellion, To these be pecaches his religion, which is at fifirsta
azue panthosm and then a dogged solpsran: sothing exists But his
own
rife the comes ix a mere pecgection of bes mind (p 10g) He
founds a journal, Leoenands, aimed at the destruction of Christianity and
the spread of his relacreistic ideas, Like Faust, be curtis his knowledge to
the lowe of power, a sigm of the irrationality of his suppesnd rationalism
aad of the growing hatred shar is filling the gap in his aval left by the
lack of hove ip. 166)
He plans a great literary work=="a cestnec poor, a universal drama,
ae infinite scene”—that weuld Bét hies further abowe his contempo-

sa Ch Papert, Ue meee fete (Piroere, torr pty “Settee i eeamen, ceetee

corwente, doewiecheneney defermo, cak ds lascur wofa ¢ deserta bb corra a reewtare
mmetiesceec rect cock.” The pire comaqeealetes the equates Leevens Dewan cheetrec-
tivesess and the Dhovil’s hope of deroying Cred’s plan fer the werk
 The Decals Shades iy

rares than Dante and Goethe wore above theits (p 224). When his
yowrnal, his pocu, and hic carcer aff fail, he at last recognines thar be
anne becotee God and plunges ime an orgy of sclfpety aad self:
justification: fate hax given him the wrong family. the wrong education.
the wrong friends. He writes a work oo justify himself, which, with
masterful ircey, turns cat tobe Uw mow finite itee]f, Hee boasts of the
heros scale of hie failure,
‘The center of the protagonist's sinfelness as Papini was coming 0
understard even as be wrote, ts his failure to recognize that he is evil.
Lacking love and Sorgivoncss of bernyclf ax well as of others, be wallows
ne the feeling that he is only nwad and muck fp. 329), and this radical
sense of worthloeness and meanieghasness impels him co sacrifice his
own Rappand inesthar of others
s to his <peest fee a heroic life. He chants
a hye to his alienation: “Ef was been a revedutionary. . . . Wheever
fulex the world, | shall oppose hen. The esuntial expression of mny
sunt is pectesr the spontaneous posture of ry beady is assault with
bayenet; say natural mode ef spocch is invective and insult. On my bps
every song of love becomes an anther of rewk™ (p. g8e). With bucid
irony, Papini sau in hes oun act of writing &'n ecevs fiero the final beast,
the firal act of self-deception. be point of fact, the final joke ix ce ue, for
Papite’s procagomést is mot only Satan and Papini tet als the intellectual
remder..
An roc}, after his conversion, Papéni reoerned no the subject and
(rote a diene fr what he called a future awwwer dubwericr, He din-
musual the medenn tendency to take the Devil
as a mere symbol of
urnan sin rather than a personal, trarrecondens power af evil. Nonethe-
less, Be a . the trancerdeet Devil ix increasingly imenancrt aad
realired in human nacwe, 3) Wak any succesful modern Gutaibiey stave
be built upon observation of beman evil. For Papine the Devil has three
separate Sar integrated fenctions: he ix a rebel againot Ged and the
onder of the cosmoshe : ts a tempter and encmy o€ humarety. but he is
alve a collabeeator with God. who would not noberane him if be dad nce
hill scene eltimare function in the commen The Devil is noc an athest: be
tors cen God and knows that Be i under the divine power. Grd uses
the Devil and eil to de what ix mecewary to accomplish salvatices.
Without the Devil—withoaut the tension between good! send cvil—poxe-
ry, act, philsopiy, and statcemanship woeld be impose. If there

16 “DAabebcal pyopbe chon) Decheve iy the Diovil* Mageed abserved ns “Cinetec seve”
ef Lek emtomperenes inate, vol. ¢ (Vero, sur poner
 The Devils Shades = 241

/ wet] oo spertual comer, there woukd be no sparitual greath, so rc

/ foe maral froodom. Josiah Royer ofce semimad ep this point of view)
| “The best world for a meal agent is ome that needs him to make &
l letter.»

The life amd works of Foodt] Mikhailovich Dooeasky (1821-1881)

represent the fect intense st with evil of the entire pore '? As a
youth, Dostoevsky was attracted co nihilism, anarchism, atheiees, and
revolenion. A fricnd of the radical Vissaricn Belinaky. be became ch-
quently satecligioss. He was imprisoned for his pobtical views and
semenced to death. In a ropeiewe that was itself an act of cruelty, be wae
stood ep agent a wall to be shor, only to have the seetence commuted
ty exile at the last mornene, This event and the four years ina Siberian
Comvact proce that followed doepened the darkness of his outlook He
iundoocd redcalivm in favor of Chrisnanity, firs adopeng a vague
populist religion, then flirting with Catholicism, and eventually reemer-
ity the Ortheadox Church,
Reecting Western politics and religion, Be found in Reasian spir-
ituality the compasion, the mocnse sense of sim wad suffering, thar
feral hope of salvation, lis ideal was sede, the ancient Rawian
ical of a communion of believers centered om the keve of Christ and on
tuutual repecmbdlity and charity, Destoevsky worked Gereely to
bes life and hie adeas of the shghresr couch <f facile optima,
community of bee cam be realiced., he bebeved, caly ty exhewing all
Huson and squarely facing the humes condition. No view of the world
was weethy char did nee give full amestion to sim and waffering. Des-
tocvaky's thought became increasingly mote speritual and more Chris-
tues as be grew older, and im his hate sowel, Te Brovhers Karewmecco, bis
fell vision
of xpintual and communal love opeaat! up in the characters
of
Father Zowirra and Alyocha Karantazor.
Foe Dusteessky, the Devil was a tretsxcendent power bat ane best

y® ) Reece, Tie Weell ond the Dedrated!

(Now York pied. wed. re gym
p>. Lam erable te egad Rwees,
bet Decteesshy
+ empertunce forces mac 90 make a
eC pea Os oe eke thet | che nee dicune writcre
| carnmoe pead be the ovigieed. fase the
{eertence Cramett traweleneme cf Crime aad Pewter (00441. The dew (1868) TA
Ponemel (18) 1, altowaatively beeren ay Thy Dleww)), and The Brveters Kane (etd On
Deeteewshy, soe Vo Cerny, Deeworty wat fir Dee (Anes Artew, rgsek E Dodene,
Deerercaty wad Chet (Teme, eget) P. Bacbdinee, Deewerrnhy of & Probem fe ome!
(Pars, oy} J Pletcher, “Litersture
and the Protdcrs of vil” Theedagy, sp (owed, one
em seve nag: J. Prawk, (aesooweby, 1 rode., de pregeess (Priseeton rant |
 a
242 Moptotoptvicr

otecred in barman betarice, The Devil's Borne is not bell Bat the
human seal, Ble isa shadow uhose fem and sebstance are Aled our by
the crecity of smners and the suffering of the weak and the poor.
rediciear grasped the reality of evil and of the Revi imensely and
mituitively. Ee itoisted thy i in order to overoemne and master cvil, we
sent maar Ht foe ve trat it ts and Pespanddo #5 with love, for eva is not the
lant weed in the costes; the last weed is the Gad whe is love,
Fach neemal human being experiences an ifternal atrugyle between
geod and evil, Dostoevsky frequonct: portrayed ches struggle in “dow
Mets") cwo characters cach displaying one side of a whole persceality.
the evil side of which meust be integrated and cransformed by dove if itis
aot to be destroyed. The human demeceic incarmates the Devil, who is
an intelecteal secking Inowlodge withoer love, a Rar presenting a falec
view of the world and baman rebetionships; a doulbter and a cveic, an
malivalualit reveling in his own edation, despesing the people and
hocking any serve of ccenmemity. “The hell be intaters is alienation from
bose, from comnmemity, and fron God In Crivy ant Parankeve, Ras
kofnibow, having murdered the old wsurce and her sster, is haunced by a
Goutket composed of the angelic Sorta and the demonic Svitingarter,
In Toe Seles, Myshiin is act against Ropechin== through Regechin is not
evil enough no be folly chomomc. and Myshhon. while be is a kind of food
foe Chinsst, ts too mefifective and molwted to be a saint.
tie Poocwal (or Tiy Dewi6) & Destocrshy’s fie thorough caploratice
of the demonic. When he began the novel. he planed to center it upoe
the fate world view of Verkhoversky and the ether pubtical revoletion-
aries, bot he geaduslly shafted his focun to Sarvrogin, the spéritual rebel.
Stustow speaks foe Russia, Chinst, amd mformor; the engineer Kindo
represents pure intellectualives cot off from focling and coenmenity, a
peude of inpclicct and illesion of wl-wetficiency characteristic of the
intellectual devil. Pyotr Stepanewich Verkhowensky, the pelincal rebel,
ix aloa sormualie ube plan is to destroy society and to builda new
woeld devoted to vice, His athenan repces the reality of the conmmes as
well as thar of God; wrapped up im bis fantasies of sensuality and
power, bis can mond is his commas, and be is tilind no reality.
The corral figure of Tay Dewi is Nikole Vsevoloowich Stasrogin,
ubose mame conveys both pride and suffering: Nikolai, conqueror of
narens, Veowoladorich, master of all, Staseogun. fever the Cireek sasred,
the Cross, Stavrogn is seen Setween evil and gwelr, bar ac every crucial
monet whee a choece is 10 be made, be chooses evil He bus con-
foerned his will to Satan aad geen himself over to the Deval Staveogin
 The Lewis Shadow “ve

is capwhte of great charm; be talks well, & comvivial, and appears bluff
and inendly, yet be excels mm self-deteption ax well as the deceptice of
ethers. Underneath his facade lurks an unquenchatte hunger for power,
st-afticeacy, and indepeadcnce from his fellow humans, Composed,
ood, and careful, Stavrogin lacks all tenderness, compassion. emputhy,
and cothusasm Hix ultiroteauicide exprosocs the Prarengicss seif-
shines of his entire life. ‘
Servfoget's speritual state ix expressed meost sharply ae the episod
svolving Matryusha, whack the consers delered for decades, depriving
the book of seuch of its meaning. Matryesta & the twelve-year-old
daughter of Stavrogin’s Leadlady. Stavregue works parently at sodecing
the child and finally succeeds Destorrsky, ulo seetio to have cce-
triad his cram podopbilic cendencies with paindel deteresination, re-
garded the seduction ef a child as the mnost shantetel posmeble crime,
Weeve, Stavrogin accomplishes the seduction comlly without live or
joy, fockng caly a mornstroes combenanion o¢ lust and despair. Aware of
his con corruption, he chosees nec to reset it and succumb
to as&-
talistic indifferesce as to whether he is discovered and pranivhad. The
child, oleewed with shame and guilt. hangs herself Stavrogin’s
eventual fate ws te Sollew ber example. Mis inenediate fesparne to the
prl's suicide, however, is So enmer into a promenyuc eae riggs with Maris
Timefeyeyna Letythin, an idiot cripple. His motives bere are even
tore lifcheasly diabodical than in the secection of the chald: he murrics
Maria to prenich hineself for Marryesha, ce mock Maria, to make light
traeriage, to fost every valoe=-eeen the value of perscetal success—and
to purse a Grectionless cerksity to sce “whut weuld come af it.”
Unidertying all his bebevier is the comviction that life it an cxepty,
secaningless alwurdiey,
Later, Stavrogin determines to confess oo the heady pect Tibon, He
peesonts hireself with thar combination of diffidence and frankinexs that
commhitetes charm ber can be a cheer facade for a dark, complex, and
chactic personality, Thon asks Stasrogin whether be has really sen the
Devil, ard Starregin replies i am ince tone: “OF course I ace bir, |
sce hime just ax plaindy as I see you, . . . Aed sometimes I do not keow
whe ts real, he or 1° The presence of a saint such as Tihon always
compels the Devil to etver the trech. and Choegh Stavrogin trick to
protect hirmecl® with mockery, be fiads Mirnself revealing his troc self to
the peiest, Tihon, serong the chacs ae this ean. retars his distance.

pf. 9. Detererky, The Pemeed, tree. © Cornet (Now Tork, rpg,p Gyo.
 Mypeewciptisy
“~
ow

Serregin joors that o¢ all people a priest ought not to dowbe the Doval’s
in Strvrogea’s soul, bur Twhom caunons, “It’s more likely a
disease.” Certainly the Devil exists, the peicst adiesits, anid certainly he
cam possess poopie, bret it is prudent to be cautious aleut affirming his
presence, Again the Deval jx Seeced to bear witeess to the truth: Stav-
rogin treests eat in replb, “ft do belicec in the Devil, I believe can-
onkally. in a personal Devil. nee in an y, aad | dont need
confinmanon from anybedy” (p. Go7) Stay inmends to mock whar
be tubes as Tiloe's simplicity. but of corse the senple truth is that be
needs no confirmation because be experiences the Devil in his soul
Greetly.
Seavrogin continues to suppose that be m playing with Tibon. “Is it
posible to beheve in the Devil without beleving in God?” he ingeires
with a sme, and Tihen’s reply is itself ironic: “That quite poxwtte.
Ir’s dome right amd left” (p. 698), The confessean proceeds on the keste
exe betwcen salvanion and damnation. Searrogee is treo, owen thas late,
to oper his heart and accept reality, and at ene poine chat possibibey
bocernes peegeueutty acute. “E love you,” he suddenty anes out to Thee.
and to the Christ who speaks in Tihom Ibe saving grace rises in his
beart, lrert ben life tere been a bore boot in tees that he hoes the eeormenr;
he is so exec to self-deception that he doce sot ecalize whee at last be
sees the truth,
But God is patient; Searrrogin Beats that he feck mo repentance for
his crime, yet a eeinute later—caught unsuare by pity—he declares
thar he wouk! gladly die
co make it not have happened
tp 721). He bes
ever had a full condessice of bis guik printed wp and plans co distribute
it, Somme mextem critics, in@leenced perhaps by the qosmples set tre
trwemketh-century crimimals and writers, have intepreted this ax a
shameless boas <f an. a boast that in the context of hes comtestiom
would be the unmost blasphenn. Hort that ts net his stare of eaind at shis
moment. Nether lust aor pode domeumane him, only despaw, The
publicanon is a debbenwe act o¢ selfdegradanon, a recognition
of cetal and inredeemable conruptien. Stavrogin knows that ewen though
Gaal has ccenpelled hime so ceverl the truth in spore of himself, bes
comfeskea hus nt boos aade wah honesty of bwe. “I heow for a
certainty that lam doomed.” he says, aad bes alecotminded becaking of
a small crucifix betwoos hin fingers as he speaks sy mbelices his rejootion
of salvation ¢p. 719). He reterns 0 bes mocking tone, telling Tibon that
his whole prarpose in coneg was “to foegive myself. That's my chicf
obgect™ Op. 27h
 Thy Deow's Shades 2g

Perbaps even the comfesion was no Seavrogun's last chance. ‘Ihe

Incareng of his sucudc mote m eternally ambiguous: “No ane is ty Marne.
T did ot myself” Are the words a final act of thocking pride, a boast thot
he was aunencencas to the end, independent, innkeed, refusing to be
obliged to the conmenity even for his ean death? Or are they a baw
bart of crue self-eccoynmionaf 29, they are imemaliiely negated by
the suscade itself, which in the Ofthodox Church is an omforgivable ain,
Searrogin is ome of the mont perfect esprexdons in Sreranureof a pornos
who has given Remsclf fully and truly 6o the Devil, a person whe
quxkly stratis out every flash of redeeming grace chat springs in bis
snl, a persom whe condermms himself to the lighthessness of juylexs sin
and despair. He is an incarnation of the excntial sadmess of sin,
The Devil i very close ia Tae Decal: in The Arockers Kernwersey be
confronts us fac to face.
e The family Karamaan may be regarcked ax a
set of character trains that topether coratitute a whole poreaulity, The
father. Feodor Paviowich, is ae inresporsitike semsualist whee pron:
ality is reflected im the oldest of the three logitimare sors, Dmitri. The
second son, Ivan, is am intellectual motivared by a prideful and cynical
dese for knowledge. The youngest son, Alyosha, is of all Destocvksy's
characters choses to the wethor's oun idoal—a spiritual, thoughried.
fricadly, and cheerful young man who, emlike his brothers, inhenies his
other's sweetmess gather than his father's conruption. Abyonha is
deaun to Grd checagh bwe of comenunityy; he Anoas that if one bees
fully, one’s love spreads cur inte the coemenity, Uedike the ineffective
Myshlan (in Ti Adewi. Alyesha is practical cnoagh to tramdate bes
sparituality ito effective action. In the end it is Alposha’s life that ix the
cnly effective answer to his family’s corruption. Phe illegitimate «on,
Sterdyaboe, is motivated by hatred and envy. owing to hix inferior
ongin and pesition, The test impeetant character oatide the farrely is
Father Zonsimea, Alyesha’s comfcasor: Zovsima is Alyusha at a mature
age, aman of deep spirituality and hove whose life is lived according so
the pninciple of mkerwe that poopie can be truly free caly when rhey
kearn to act freely im bwing cooperation with the costnunity, The
selfless howe of eshorwes confeenrsa person to Chint: individuakem, with
18 attendant selfishacss and cevy, conforms a person to Satan,
Sinerdyvaker falls under the infbecnce of ean's atheistic, individual.
istic adcas, which provide hem an intellectual rationalization for his own
hatred and envy, Ivan angues that the principle of God ix that of a
necewary being 9 who all is permitted, and ance God dock not exist,
itis the barman individeal to whore all is pormicted, Ciod docs not exist,
 ~

yt Mepdsunpbeles

and “there's no devil cither,” Ivan cels his farhor—teat Ivan forgets that
if ae individual may take God's place, be may alo take the Devil's”
lvan is seo selfishly clever to follow his oun meeal relaticism co ite
hegpical cris, beet the stupid Smentyabow treaslatcs Isan's theories into
action and murders theirtinher, Ciroeenstantial evadence indicates thar
the ekdet brother Dinitn is resporaitile 85% the crime, and he ts arrested.
cred, amd corntictad. :
The plot of the sowel ix lexs important than its philosopincal sections,
tal Destowesky hirmelf deckseed that the heart of the box is the “Pro
and Conta” section, Book ¢, m which Ivan and Alposhe discuss the
crsimience of God. Tean's a t in faver of atheism has never been
surpurssed! if its Manomsity, The heart of hix argument is the existence of
evil, Huron beings are anflminely worse thas beasts because Mey are
artificially crucl, and the idea that God would tolerate, muuch bess
create, such creatures is evidence thar be cannot qont. Ivan's cuaneples
of evil, all taken from the daily newspapers of 1876, are unfcegettable:
the nobleman who onders his beans to tear the peasant toy te pioces in
frome of his mecher; the ean who whips his straggling hoeve “ces its
gentle eyes", the parents who lock their texy daughrer all night = the
frecxing privy while she kaocks on the walls pleading for mercy; the
‘Turk who entertains a batyr with a shiny péstad befoee blow ing es brews
out (pp. 28 pe28>). Ivan knows that wech horrors ccour daily and cam be
seultipliod without end. “I took the case of cheldren,” Ivan explains, “to
mraike my case clearer, Of the ether sears with which the carth is soaked
from its crust Go &s center, | will ay nothing” (p. 28>). “Ef the Dew!
doesn't cxint,” bvan declares, “bar man has created him, be bos created
hire me bas crown inmenge and likeness” Op. 283)
To the theory that all these horrors seenchera’ fit intea divime harte-
ny bevoad our poor powers ce concelee, fran replies with comtesspe: “If
all mut waffer fer the cternal harmony,” he inqeires, “what have chil-
dren to do with it, tell me, phexte.” And he concludes, “lf can’t
that harmeey, .. . EP retounce the higher harmony altogether, It's net
worth the cears of that ame tortated cteld. .. . Imagine that you are
creating a fabric of human dotiny with the object of making them
buppy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last. bem chat = was
essential amd inevitable to torture to death only one omy creature
_. Wook veu coment to be the architect on these comdinions?” Opp
ase to
of ws t
rgoe200) bwan allies bieesel f mame of the ewasions that mos

nF. DeewtTeecesb y,
Mrethor Aanecen, t opr th,
New Yor.
crane C. Coarect pete
 Tk Deed) Stade ayo

avedd the problem. He is trugyling with the deepness of evil and sees
mo way throwgh a. He awaits Alyouha's retarsal, half hoping to be
comvinced.
Alyesta has teh toxay, Fle has angoed “what suffering will be healed
and made up See . . . chat im the world’s finale, at the moment of eternal
hanmomy, something so procias wall come to fuosythat at will suf:
fice... for the atonement of all the cremes of humomaty” (p, 270) Bur
be isn't confident: “My beechers are destroying thermelvex . . . my f
ther too. Bt's the “primitive force of the Karsmazers.”. . . Does the
spun of Ged mee abowe that force? Even that I don't keow, . ,
Perhaps 1 doen't even beliewe in God” (p. 262). When Ivan poses the
crucial questien, “Weald yeu consent to be the architect ca those condi
trots: Alposha quactly replies. "No, I wouldn't coment” (p, aga) Yee
Alyosha’s final word is thar God's forgiveness for ex far aurpasses our
feegiveness for Ged, The only possitde answer to Ivan is Abposha's life,
Father Zonsena’s life, Christ's bite. Aloysha stands ax silent before Ivan
w& Chinst stod before Plane. There is no angemnent thar can overcome
Ivart's olyjections: here is only hove.
Ivan pees Alyesha feether with the shocking paratibe of the Grand
Inquisitor (pp. 292—344) Ivan sets Bis tale es sixteenth-comury Seville,
where Clinet comes a secomd tine fo carth. Chrixt raises a litthe girt fron
the dead amd performs ceher mitacks. The people recognine and love
hiss, but the Grand Inquisitor, « cardiaal who is the chac€ cockesiastical
authorsty im Seville, coders his arrest. Whos Jews appears before him,
be says that fours has ne nght to cone back and add to his neeclation he
hed left the cheech im chanpe. and the church now has everything ender
contrel. it ix best 90 leave things as they are, the incpisizce explains, for
people do net really want bowe and freedom. They profer authority, and
by ceening again, Christ is meerfering with the authority be has graened
to the church, The Grand Inquisitce & an athcist—or more: he refers
the Devil as “the wise and eighty sperit in the wilderness” aad indeenn
Chent thar “we are act weeking with ‘Thoc—lee with Aw... . It's
long —cight conmuritsessiace we have bees on bir side” Op. agp).
Destooveky singhed out the Catholic Charch because of bis dalike of
Westere afeas and because of the schinm (eight cnturies off) between
the Catholic ane Orthextox churches. Sell, Dostoersky's lenent x
coedern the whole Christa chrarch and indood all hurnan insnrotons.
The Grand Iequistor is the symbol of everymam, for we each prefer cur
coenforts amd our peejudices 0> the shattering truth thrust upon us by
Christ, The inquisiner’s reacthon is ours. He ccexdermens Joss, sentences
 ”~

2g Mopéusapdvier
him to death, and in the end comenutes the sentence to bankhmernt with
the auful worde “Go and ccene no more... . Come noc at all, sever,
mover!” (p. ye1) To the imquisitor, as to ‘Pilea as Alyoshatm
vate feos bas no respons, None woukl be effective: those who
cheese to blind themscies are blind, and those ubho refuse Oo accept
healing romain blind. In his etqgemerY wich Alyosba, Ivan had con-
derened Graf; in his parable, he condemns humanity ax well. Even if a
meratul Gad of love cxivts, lean suggests, he bas ni effet upon <rea-
tures seach ax we.
As Alyesha’s life answers Ivan’ angumenr, Father Zossima’s bite an
swers Ivan's parable, for soon after the Grand Inquisitor passage, Dos:
tocysky introduces the teograpihy <€ the pricst who lives for the consenu-
tity. “Hrothers,” Zossma says, “have no fear a stan
of men’s aim. Love
cren Se hin sin, foe that is the somblance of Divine kre and is the
highest love ce carth. Leve all God's oreanon, the whole and every
grams of sand in #. Leve every leaf, every rey of God's laghe, Lane the
animals, love the plants, lowe everything. If you hyve everything, yor
will percerve the divine mystery a things. Once you percewe it, you
will begin to comprehend it better every day. Aad you will come at last
10 howe the eae workd in am all-embescing love... . My brother asked
the birds to fi him; that sounds series, tut it ts raght: for all ts
like an ocean, all is flowing and blending, a touch in ome place sets up
movement at the other a of the carth” (pp. 32-584). Caveaa
evil, Zossima entreats, tet understand too that joy and kere Grumph
over cvil. Hell is “the suffenmg of being unable to lowe” (p, 987) Ax for
atheismn such as fean's. it is the product of the Paustian attitudes of
Western satiety. the cold pursuit of Knewtadge webeut kre, To be
fully hurean, we must recegeee that we are the chikdrwn of Croad.
Ivan's dential of the existence of the Devil is a denial of the demenic in
himecf, but beth bunt tack upon Rim in the form of a visien or
nightmare. Ivan first secs the Devil as a handsome and charmeng gene
theman who ix a tee down om his lock, but, crac oo his nature as a
cricketer amd shapeshifter, Satan keeps changing his appearance before
Ivan's ves, Hix expression i “acocenmodating and ready (0 assume any
amiable expression as cocasice might arise” (p 971). Poople say Earn a
fallow angel, he admere dicarrmimgly, But really I ass jus an old gem
then. and “I live ax I can, trying to make myself agrecable” (p. 76)
Shapeshifter that be we, the of pentheran x the Devil, and more. He is
mankind w general, “Satan eam et eihil hureand a ese alice puto,” be
 Th Deows Shade oa"

says) “Lam Satan and coesider that sothing haman is alion to mee” ip
777) The ongesal cag from Herace, ‘of comerse, is “Honey sum: Iam a
demas and consaler nothing hurean alien to me.” Satan's version stares
his khenmity as both Devil aad man as well as onderbning the demonic im
human nature. More particularly, the Devil is lean hineedf Ivan ix
aware
of this, though he alo scenes thar the demosig has box power
over hinn than it claims: “You ato the incamuation of myascif,” be ex-
claims to the apparition, “bat of only one shie of mee” (p. >75).
Satan's reply to this comencrt has mished many crities. He obligingly
agrees with Bean: “I am osly your nightmare, eothing more” (p. 777
Acceeding to hit own admission, Sarae 6 only a part of Ivan's encom
srs Noite to the surface ma deluded vision. Ber this came Devil has
already slrvat: hamself a master of tricks and hes, and his cager awent to
the afca that he ms an dlusen showld imenediately warn the reader thar
Dostocesky ittemds ex to suspect that he is moee. Laser, when Ivan
catches the Devil telling him an ancodore that lean bad made up himself
aad offers this a proof of the vision’s wnrealay, the Devil urtancty
replies, “I told you that anecdote you'd fongotien, cet punpemr, xn as to
destroy your faith in me complecely™ (p. 744). Br is the Devil's clevorest
ploy--for Destocvaky as for Raedelaire--to comviesce us that be dees
met cant. Satan's efforts to make Ivan beliewe that be doce noe exist
secceed a catching not only Tean bor readers aad critics who aware
thar Destocrsky intended the Devil to be no mere thana projection of
fran’s unconscious. When Ivan angrily flings his wie girs at the Do-
vil, Satan irotecally approves—"He remembers Luther's inkvand”—
and obtipmgty disappears (p. 790), Hix diappearunce is Sellowed irmenc-
durely by the eatrance of Alvosha bearing yet another prod of the
Devil's real acthori it the workt—the mews that Smerdyakov has hanged
beenisellf,
The straggte of unbelief against betief in Ivan’s dialogue with Al-
yosha and in Tean’s dislogue with Saran is a streggle in the mind of the
supercharscter whom all the Karamazovs represem and who, ultimerte-
by, © Dostocesky hinmelf. Dostoeveky'’s faith, and his belicf in the
Devil, were buikt upon a mature and deep experience of evil and of the
grace that overcotmes evil, of inellectual dowbe and the hove that over-
comes Goute. The ket word of the Karamanoe brothers ix Alyeoha's
affirmation of the fesarrection to a boeing community of friends, dong
with his attention (like that of Jews) to che simple pheasares of this
world)
 “

240 Mepharypteles
“Certain’y we shall all rice again, cerrately we shall sce cach other and shall eB
each other with jery ard gladness all that has happened!” Alysha anewered,
bull veghing, bull cnckanaaetic. “Well. now we will fresh talking aad go to the
fervceal dhiwner, EXun't be par cart at oer cating pancakcs—its a very cbd Coston
and there's sececthing fece by that!” Laughed Alyotha “Well, fet us go! And
rena we go banal es bored, ow

Dostocysky's was the most dooply Christian risen of the week! of hr

fine, a vision steeped in in intense understanding of eva yet nurtured
by the comiction that the greatness of evil is carweighed by one greater
thas evil, that the reality of emptiness is filled tyr the greater realty of
grace. ‘This ix the exsence af the Chistian view: pessietism aboar hurman
aatere combined with hope in saving grace.
‘Tis vision became Sint im the work! after the wars, Marcnalicm
increasingly took she place of Chnotianity as the underlying world view
of Western sonety, and the clovation of matter to the tatus of ultimate
reality imped the ukimace reality of its charactenatics—lifelasness,
beck of imecEigence, and intrinsic eeaninglesmess. “The persoral, the
semnibiic, and the conscious Came 00 be seen as a socomd-clans reality that
treat face ep to the inpersoaal “real work!’ and sutemeit to the ‘realiry
principle: the Mind forces of cconomtic change, the dialectics of class
straggtc, the survieal of the fittest." The monstrous events acca
panying the workd wary sccmed confineaton that the werkd was mean-
ingless as well as wretched. Suffering had always costed. tat new
suffering had no mcaning. In such a world, the idea of the Devil com
nawed to wae, while the activity of radical evil comeimued be grow.

oF Toews, “Bacape toon Madkrnten” Harper? Magne, Newereber ogy, p16

7 The Devil in
a Warring World*

Since eorg the suffering of hunaity has reached 2 new intensity

weh she weeld wars, the Hobxuus, the Carbeatian genockde, famine,
and che threat of neckoar extinction. As of 1934, neckar weapons equiv
alent oo mere than fourteen theusarsd! millon tes of TNT are in exis:
romce. As few as two hundeed million torme—a tiny propoction of the
aramal--dropped on cites, sucker power plants, and oil refineries
coald brag about a “nechear winter” that weald caterminare every
liking wervetrane on carth. Appallingly, many poopie are wank im aach
dul stupec that they do oathing to resist such madness The Dovil has
been defined as the spirit that socks to negate and destroy God's cosmmes
to the exent of his power May net the force urging us m deploy
Necker weapons be the same foece that hee aluays striven co
bewg itself? be this utternnest crism of car planet, we cannot dismiss the
posubiley.!
Under the shadew of such monitroes collective evils as Auschuin
and Pirostema, the Romantic olocseon with individual emotions fades
0 insgmificance. The huge collective foros of moxtem societies with
ther tercucrmeation of roponebility have proxdecad uhat Manned
Arendt called the banakey of cvil. Poems arc filled oot so thar Jews may
be herded effiocntly iano gas overs; taps with anonymous coordinanes
are wsued oo thar bomber crews may bum schoo and boepitals without

1. Dee chee pew pide of evel be prenhern seceety sce FE Arcedt, ohenene oe formato,
e€ ok (New York, cartt Avon, Oe Viele (New York, ngs f. BDked, Viedewy (New
Dork. rotak L. Rodshewnka Batya, Af Thew Ay Ne Gad (New Vorb, 1ofrk OC Nupees,
Mate of Sates (Liew, opti
 “~

24? Meabonuphete
a twinge of comcience. In such a Surkd the Devil sorely finds it more
effective te sit behind a desk than to ream the weeld like a lice.
In the middle and late twentieth century, Cheivtian traditeyn con-
tinued to decline, for the first time since the comvertean of the Romnam
Empire, the majority o€ petptein the heenclands of Western crvilicatices
were erowing up im almeot complete iphoramce of the mest basic seach-
ings of rcliggon. “Dhite vacuurn has 0> some expert been filled by Marxice
(itvelf a varicty of relagion) and Meeral progressivem, bech of whech
profess a Gath that humanity will advance—thoogh pecgrtssives gener
ally beawe the goal of that supposed progres: endefined. The Famnan
trust in humanity's atelity co salve its own probleers, along with 2
baseless faith in the poadnessof hurnam nature, has reduced intuitices of
goed and <sil to psy chotogical phenomena eareceed in any tramcendent
realty and explencd in physwal, escchanistic serees, The rewelt i a
vague but pervasive meoeal relativises ? Popoller relatives asoumes thar
we know nothing atedurtely excepe the proposition thar we Know moth:
ing almoletely. No valocs are tramcendent; af are wholly relative ac
cording to individual oc secictal preference. Truth also depends upon
preference: crdlesx intellectual fads grip Western intellectual circles one
afrer anceber, because the criterice fee the validity of an adea hers be-
come its novelty rather than its approsimatice to truth
As the twenneth contury approaches its end, socsety i Gorruamated by
two views whose moompanbility ® sckken recognined: ce the onc hand,
relativian, nibélism, aed culbural dexpair; om the other band, farth in
human peogress. The mcohorence of these tun ideas i alvobete, be-
case & is imnpossibhe to make progress without a goal, If year goal is
Keeton, then every step you take in the direction ef Boston ceestitutes
sone sitall pregress; but if yeu have ne decrimarion, then even a jet
flight of ten thousand mikes is mo peogress at all. If mo transcendent
walucs cxist, then all goals are relanve, artenrary, and changing. aad the
ica of overall peegress is nonsense. It is a he thar we can have both
realtiviees and progress. Porhapes we cling oo the be because of the server
of having 20 hope at all.

2. Coefesiee
in se great that Fenstene's
theees of releiedy are wikely annedeed
te be
yptatly oo eral cclutinien iw abo awurned that the mmdoennoe found i sobusoenec
bechureser chegerves tnerscombend cacher, fact, hewwvee, toch rethemsnwaly anal phew
cally, muncemnow at che mikrokcrel prefece cepelirie & the mondevel and mee-
redewel, wy Phat the befacke of onebocukes ancl gulicey ream gowerally and
. "The dearest coptetion of feakern plevits te the ley persen eH Paget,
The Come Cad (New York, opts)
 The Devil ina Warrieg World ae?

In a Searfel work’ where hope rests upon such Musson, neither God
aor the Devil bas a place, Astacks wpor the existence of tramscendene
evil have ked inevitably to assaults upon the existence of transcendent
goad. and belict in boeh the Devil and Gad has declined drastically
since the eighteenth century, ‘Though the decine of belief in evil has not
been acceenpanand by any decline of the action of evilgm the workd, by
the ayes belief in the Devil had disappeared except among Conservative
Catholics, charianatics, cotservative Protestants, Easem Onbodax,
Muslizs—and a few ocoulnsts.
The revival of the oooult that began in the igées, part of the anti-
Stablnhiment and coumrerculural moversent somcumes known as
“New Age” thinking. inched an clement of dabelogy. The popularity
of such filtres ax Pacemm Katyery’s
(1463) aud The Exorvirr (0973)
ant interest that had its originsin the repe of esic
the ence of radical
e
cv, in fear of the bomb and societal violence, in cultural despair, and in
the mood to fill the voad left by the alnence of traditreligion ionalby
somthing eee religuon. The sociology and history of the occuk
revreal need a definitive study, bet the sociokgret Hans Sebald has
veyyested that in a sockety where traditiorald religious, sokmmnistic mate-
ralies, amd New Age radic arealise
at a standeffsin the mbt of
pervasive relanvism, seach formes of radical rejection of all values are not
surpeiang. Relief mm the Devil increased vebstarnially from sgs4 to
6975, and although the fad is sulmiding, many ehements of Saranise
survive in popular culrare. !
In retrospect, the Satanian of the egtes m 19%os will be coos as an
odd teem of chic. A distinction should be made among “Satanic”
groups Some are merely frivudoe, like the so-called Temple of Set
with its breathless sexual hedonmm in occede trappings. Others, whee
prceety pe was the Marcos family, practice real cructty, A third variety
that pretends Bolmess is exemplified By the Jim Jones cult that in the
came of Chnsnanity bed hundreds to greteyoe suicide in the Guyana
*

Amen Seandor LaVey founded his Cheech of Saran in 1966; i 1974

a schism produced the Tepte of Set. Their Seren MN is a melangeof
hedonestic eaxams and misinformed occultism. Like eiost occult
pH Setebd, "New-Age Rawasetanae: The Ouest foe an Uscrnasin Lifewyte as a
Force of Secial OQhaage,” pro
of Social
ved Pelee, 609 (1GRGh peters Soe
ae 7. Nowe. “TheHeng Crodteity of the Devil ev Arsene. ‘ Lasoweng, 9 Conrad,
Ra- fom
4 See Jeeees Rowton, Cher Father Ube Ave on Ahi (New Vork, opti)
 Th Dew! mwa Warring World ors

groupe. LaVcy's claims ancient ones; it preterds to arive from the cult
e€ the Gad Set (Seth) in ancient Egypt.’ For mote Sethians, the Devil
& po fallen angel bur a hidden m nature beyond the power of
sccrice of relipor op explain. The otice that Satan is evil (they claim)
has come from his detractors over the ages, whereas he really is idennical
with the hedonistic manure spirit Set. s@
Made from che face that Set Was not a hedonistic nacure spirit and
that there & ne ctymobogical connection betwoen Set and Satan, the
clits is meaningless: ir asserts that everything humans knva sot the
concept of Satan is in opposition oo the abselute. objective reality of
Satan, Iti the fact that we have ne way of knowing the absolute
reakty of Saran. wharever it maght be, The only ching that we are know
about Saran is the hurede comeept of Satan Whe idea that the Devil is
good, nce evil. has further dimensions of irrareonabty. because the
harman comcepe of Satan was developed in Manduism Judsien, Chris-
tiarery, and Islan procsely for the purpose of personitying radical evil,
Satan is by definition evil. The cleen thar the evidence in favor of the
goad Devil has been destroved, leaving caly the esidcnce uf his “detrac-
ters,” Is equally silly. Fee one theng, it comstirures an aderéscon that the
theory is tused upon m0 existing evadence at all. Por another, even the
possibility of cach “evidence” dock not exist, becuse it would contra-
dict the very definition of the wabject. It is as if | were to argue that the
teem “Parhument™ really refers to the KGB é
In shore, the clainns afe net so much wrong as inherently meaningless,
A peopesition etay be night or wrong caly if it is internally coberent and
cas be subjected to resting. A propesition thar cootradices ataclf ix not
uinply wrong, it is absolutely without meaning. | have taken troeble
wah thew: aheurdines net because the Tomple of Set is aself important
but because similar unawarencs of the sireple rules governing proposi-
bomalod knowledge has been increasing im leeranwre since the Remantic

Similar okyectaits can be made to the teachings of the “Procexs

Cheech of the Final Judgment,” whech, bike all sects, was rent by
nenerous heresies and schivms treat whose underlying idea wax thar
three or four demies-Jehovah, Christ, Loc#er, Saun—were im the
process «€ unetying.* Although the cult of Charles Masscer Laced ary

& Oh the Pesptios pred Seth. soe Diver. pgp. ppt.

& Sew WS, Reivhexdpe, Senae’s Pecer (Tawtebs, eye The “Procom Cvarch™ had
Hesherdy oo Conmection With the acadiernec cher! of poco thevdiney cherrred Grew thee
thoaght af AN, Whvcbesd and C. Manchester
 “

266 Mepétrsepevier

pretense of theclogy or diabology, Manson seems 0 have teen influ-

cecal by the "Process Chrerch,” Massce clairned to be both Chist and
Satan, amd aqgeod that Jeses had really been a senvealiot whose crue
ideas had been supeecesiod by “peiestly creeps,” Margpcer’s follower Tes
Watson announced, whoabe came to merder Sharon Tate, “lam the
devil; I'm here to de the devil's werk “1 he Manson cul revemtdad the
Jones ovlt ie chat it was devoted to radical evil without being explicitly
Satsnst. , :
Overt Saunises faded rapadly after the regres, bee clenenrsof culnury
al Satesism continued into the 1g8ex in “heavy metal” rock seusic with
ity occasional invocation od the Devil's same and considerable respect
for the Satanic vabses of crecity. drugs, egliness, depeesion, sclf-imdul-
gence, Violence, ncése amd! confusion, and poylessness. Groepe and art-
ists such as AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Dio, Motley Crue, Judas Priest,
Iron Maiden, and Orzy Oubcrne made catensive use of demonic imag-
ery. Orzy Orboene featured wach tiths as “Speak of the Devil.” ~Sab-
tuth, Bloody Sebbarh,” “War Pigs,” and “roa Mae’Chibiren of the
Geave.” ‘The jacker of Die’s fint abe album portrayed a bestial Dew
wielding a chain. Some pumbers are “heackmasked” to express diabedcal
incwages, but tuckruskeg is am unnecemary gainc, since the overt
lvrics are often chabetacal enough, Mocky Cruc weed the Satanic pen-
taprass as its symbol; the group's song “Red Hine” inchudes the following
liners:
Pigtt foe the black shark—sce what eve brings
Can't yore woo we're out foe boos
Lane from a shot gen
License to kell
Can't yore oe we're out for Boot—
The kads screure te fright theoegh the mgt
Lorvang every bene wee chelaghe.*

The Crec’s “Shoat at the Devil” coarains these wonds;

He's the wolf screener beecty i the maggie

Hes the thoechtarr on the sage
He's the tear m your cye

>. V. Baaghwet, Mole Sholew (New York, eyty), pp epe-trr.

&. “Hed Bloc CNiR Socy, Mick Mary, Vie Nel) © opty Warner: T aceerlane
Pubditving Ger & Muthey Cows Manic Company. AD nights coscrved. Used by
proioon
 The Devil an a Warney World a7

Been ee bry bas be

Tes the Reife a yout hack
he's rage —
Ow, He's the razor on the Reale. .
Sheest abevat weoce sheest at che Dewd*

Such groups esually dischimedcoancetion with real Sataninn, Root.

ed in adolescent resentment of authority, they used the terms and sym:
beds of the ooculs mo express cultural rebellion rather than personal
belief, They aloo foend thar deroonimn afforded commercial chock val.
ue. “We're poe scone of the houdest, gronsest, sickest songs you've ever
heard in your life,” Nikki Secs of Motley Crue ix oo have sant
“We're out co make any song we've dome before scand like a nursery
rhyme,"™
Many people could and did listen to such mesic withowr being coo
verted co eri lives, beat Comstant sextivericas propaganda for evil hus bund
ing effeces cm silly amd weak minds, One recult has been a
rash of appallingly degenerate crimes, incheding the vielation of chil-
dren aed the muntiation of stimab. Only a society devermined 00 desy
the existence of medical evil at any cost comld continue no tokerate sach
phenamena.
The Devil eo doebt has sence interest in cultural despair, Saran chic,
and demonic rock groups, but be munt be much more cnthusastic about
nuchkar armament. gules, and exploitative imperalion. aad it is to
such probleme as these that the serious philosophy and theelogy of the
latror twenneth century hus property been directed. Ver, paradecically.
cynxel despair amd sharpened determination co comfroar evil have
groan af the samme fine."

@. “Sheet at the Dwil” (NAb) Seas) © pgs Werner. Teecrionx a

Shehey Cree Mave Comnguaery. All nyghes adieminercrod
be Warten’ Deemer terse '
Corp. All ngivm coserved. Lwod by prorewiccers
» fit Parady, Jawaary wip te
tt) Seepe
of he more aperture phdessph ical
works of the lier Cocrticth coorary
cheater with cvil bechade BL Dharven, The Proddees of Peel (Milweaatoe, 177k A. Hletead
tet, Aeftvire
os FiveGarerence. Kan. cotgt NOH. Mewtile, Thy Dieewea
of Seel nond
Tremonton: A Sectehgica! 4 (Wrtergee DC, rorsk C Mente, denny and
Coavel
os Haman Sytem (De est N. Sanford and C Ceenetenh, Gomvee Ae
fied an Frencscn. 1g70t PL Sewok, 7thJets of Foal (New York. ecu Ammon the
root x ipéal wl wows ate A. Barrer, Love Aletry and 1h Clete New Vek,
1M. Rebuy, Deemer: A Soety ot Bowen
and few iNew Vout, egetJ, Merteees.
Crd end the Feremcnven of Peal (SM ieeaatew, vy, M, Nickson aed M. Eager. ode . Bil Sey
and Cabers New Vous, wpigh A. Olsen, Dtyeener of cle [Ameen (New York egoih F
 a”

247 Mepbeisapbeler

The sendonm terawen the acute tense of evil and the cynical duliness
of celneral despair doménated postwar oostentialism. Albert Casus
(29t2~ 1960) Courageously faced the question of evi im 2 work! without
tramecmdem values in sach works as Ltrraeges (Tbe Stronger, 142), bs
porte, (Tie Plager, 1947) L’bomane revel (Hassanity in Revedr, voce), and
La chave (The Fall, cop)? La pase describes the effecrs of a ternble
episode of bubonic plague on the life of a Freach Alera city and the
efforts of ins inbabirants to make seme of it. “The honest aad faithful
procst Panehax cries and fails to explain the plagur as part of God's
mysterious plan for the weebd: che seculanet Dr, Ricus kacws that one
mune sieeply comtetuc
to do one's best mm a workd ubere sock horrors
have no messing cxcepé in the resistance that we offer ta them. Carnus’s
work was both deep and compussorute, and it accurately desenbed the
stare of mind prevailing in post-Chriutias Wesem society, tar the hope
of comstracting meareng witheut transceadent values is elomately
forile. In a cruly meaninghess weeld, the cvurape and Borecty ofa Ricux
6 intrinsically no betrer chan selfishness ce even crucity.
‘The eonpaness of existentialism became clear in the work of Jean-Paul
Sartre (1goi<1q%0) Sartre's play de sistte ce & Bow Dire (gee) pits God
aed the Devil against one anether with the conclaaom that nemher is real
dot! thurt Ot is up co Mamunity 00 supply its ora meering t0 a mcaingloss
weld. The bankruprey o¢ such a view wis olreious in Sartre's embeace of
lereaucratic Soviet cocmumismn. His play (fol cles Ue Baar, 0947), best
exhibies the underly ing despair of cxistoatalism. The characters sit lent
and isolated in the darkness, endlessly musticaning their grievances, ooff-
blinded and <clt-iremurcd = a demgoon of their own neaking.**
Western theology —Jewieh, Catholic, and Pretorat—has been sub.
eted to radical trassformation by Auschwite and Hiroshima. The
horrors of the rwenticth certury have shattcrod the optimustic peo.
gressivism thar characterized theclogy before eg14 amd have forced its
atrentiom wpem radical evil Lewck Kolahowshs bas inentod that we

Seong. Tie Gad of Bod (New Yori. tgoed Serung trestemets of the peti
of cod ae 5.
Davin, axl, Ceemmvvvey Cow (Arlencs, roteJ. 5. Hoeberg. Tato end Pow (tnt
ween. D.C. t90ak D. Cnt, Gal, Peow, aad Poa) A ecw Theatey (Pitadkipha,
(gk J. Eick, Aref end ake Gad of Lece. od of. (New York. eget N. Pike. ol. Gal ond
Fed Engkwoal O80, NJ. vyigh A. Piawsega, Gal few, cal Peel (New York,
rotgt te Wall, Dy Gad Reet) Gad? (Watbegtes, DO. te)
te Seow UL Aipdicwee, “Cowes ane Probdons
of Bird.” Sates, i git Crgoe, tie ee.
15. Oe Sartre,
soe J. Aone, Bilbo, Leceny oe Dad (Meet, Mires. 1080) op. beer
wr.
.
 Ti Deed vee Werrieg Weel ‘9

experience exil directly and intucively: when we observe an act of

Croeky, We Go not engage ina compeicuted process mm which we subjpcet
factaal, neccral dara to value analysis tre the cntene of an abetract
ethical system; we feact with certain bene | beckye that the act & esil. Ihe
work of Jerome Kagan and other psychobsrists indicates that chikiren
possess cach ceect intuition te the age of three ang retem it unles
society drives & oe. ‘The tantipersonal evil of an Auschwite or a
Hlirostemma, whack surpusses madividusl evils <pealitatively ay well as
quantitatively, cin alse be intuitively prioped. Yet the complex, twisted
sfguipeets of reodern rclativown can reb> a porsven of that intuitive grep
of moral reality, and marry thoolegnes still follow the skeptical sperit of
the titties amd evade the intenteon by ignceing of denying radical evil.
Robikowski bas cOserved that the question of Satan is mot trivial, for #
inwulves the quotion of Guads respomebility for evil. t+
1 liberal Protestantiem the tendency to wed theology and téblical
eraticiun in an effort to “dereythedogire -~ Christianity
ter ometieued tr
deninate in spete of the noocethadas revival of Karl Barth amd his
folbsuets, and the imaighes of Carl feng and Mircea Eliade on the value
of myth. Conservative Protostantivm tomds to reject the “higher crit-
ici” and continucs to have ts views epom scripeurc, Coenervative
Pretistints cliim, like their Reformation forebears,
to
to rely selely upon
the Bable, which they comider to be inerrant. In reality, they oéten
unwittingly follow traditional arguments, Nowhere ts this clearer than
in their teaching on the Devil, which is, like char of the Reformers
therrmelves, Toned upen patrivtic and scholastic curgesix ama traditices,
Relatively wnified lieSive the tote, Catholicten has since then tend-
cd, Ge Protextaatiun, to split ito traditional and Reeral camps the one
cophasiteg the guidance of the Holy Sperit in the developmere of
traction and recognizing the dangers of urmderméning the aethonty of
apostolic succomion: the other reacting against the long demnimance of
Theenter ty a radical move away freen traditios and an opeeness to the
process of demythobogizing. The tradiionaslnts, aware of the virtually
unaeumeus opinion of the church thecughoet the ages on the exixnonce
of Satan, continue te affirm it; the tiberals discard the doctrine as ofd-
fashioned amd contrary to the discoveries of Biblical criticism.
‘The heated divcumien of the question since the 194 reflects a divi-
on of opinion ax to the exweenal nature of the church ‘The traditional,

14. Kedeherwoky.
pp. trpettg. opp the, J. Ragan, Pe Newer
of cle Chel (New York.
ivtal
 ~~

289 Mophaayptve
‘Thommist view coedd still be found Ym midcereury, and the Socomd Vat-
xae Councd (ig626i96c) itself referred oo the Devi im a variety of
contexts. The Reetan Messal of typo retained reference to Satani the
of the mans, and the baptismalhk fy both adults and
chad refi cceitinued to jndiade mqction <f - Fail Onc. Sull, even
tefore the sgt, charge had begui, a» Gabrsl Marcel, Karl Rahner,
and others prepared the way for a tireak with acholasticises. When the
Secoad Vancan released the pressures foe change, transhormuation was
raped. In their seal for reform, chose scholasmcdin céten coe
fused scholastictmn—especully the Jesus expression of it-—with Catho-
lic doctrine as a whole and flung the baby cur wah she bathwarer.
forgetting that the exivience of the Catholic Church depends upon the
validity of a tradeonpaarantoed by the Holy Spink
: The Catholic Becyectipedia of 1957 shows a trarkod shift freen the odi-
thon of ego? in the direction of treating the Devalas a2 tyabol of gayeho-
ial fetes rather cham as am canemal reality,2 of theologians
. in 1974 indicated thar Carholic ee were ly gaming
cen Peeneszares in their skepeosm: mare than one-chirdof the Catholics
agrood with some three-quarters of the Prowestants that the New Testa-
ment speaks of the Deval caly as a reflection
of the dormant world sew
of the fies century, ard that the Devil was a symbol rather than a real
personality. The leadersin this shift it Cathal opiaion were Herbert
Hasy in Germany, Chrninain Dauquee in Feance, and HA. Kelly in the
E hing weeld, ubo Sound many cothesiastic followers in de-
| nying the Devil's cxnence and many more whe took an agnostic pusi-
tion on the subject. Im ag76, the death OS ene of
Kitngesbery during an cxorcom approved by the bishop reinforced
support for the ckeptice’ viewpoint.?*
The attack on the existence
eae the Devil has toon baud on a wade
varaty of groends, ranging from doctring co sccal practice, In the-
Obogy. the stromgest a, is that the Devil dows nom
co explain the epitnwwe mautsnr, the problem of el Shitring the
inal blame fron humans so angels does noe explain the intreduction
of evil into she week. In this view the Devil is an unnecessary hypoth
exis, andit would be better to return the question af pod against evil ce
the content of the human auind from whech it arose, The commie strug:
ghe becween transcendent good amd co is a propeetion of the hunnan
experience of partioelar goosts and evils, and all the estl em the woeld cam
ac. Mo Adder. od. Tod wd Tonge! on Alqpentery (Aschalinbarg. 977).
.
 The Devi ux a Waerrteg World Mr

be explained in cents of hurnan sim. Further, it ic mncaningioss to call the

Dovil a pens ar perneality, since the only kind of “person” that we
know is a hummer being, aed the Devil chvioedly canmet be a pence in
the buman sere, Thue the Devil is 20 moe than 2 projection of heenan
mn upen an unknewatle transcendence,
The 1s have boloerad their thoobopical pegmyen wath teical
and histoncabangumenrs, They aibenit that the comcepe of the Devil has
roots in pagan eeythology and se religious tradnions, sock as Mandasm,
that are extranccas to tetdical eevelanion, The pestoolic Hebrews in-
1 into Cho tradition in am cftert to shift ththe respormibilicy ter
evil frcen che Lord cane anceher being, and there is no char picrere of
the Devalin the Old Testament. Noe fo she Now Lestament references
to bam Dhow a comsiment purerm | seem o> have been meaac sym
bolically. and each one can effecovely be replaced by the sens “sin” o«
“cil.” Against indications em the New ‘Testament that Jesus rook the
Devil sermusty. the skeptics have resposded varoudy: Jesus did mot
himself refer sermusly to the Devil, for the evangelists merely prox such
words iano his mouth: fesus and the apestles referred te the Devil caly
because they had oo communicate to. people in renees of the first-commery
warld view: Jesus and the apesties dad actually believe in the Devil, true
their Belief Was part of the first-century world view, along with the
belief that the oun revolves around the carth: the ideas
of Jesus can be
divided enween these having uniwersal sizniffoance and those. ouch as
the reality of the Devil. chat are ephemeral and relevant only as histor:
real Cumbsities.
Despite the unanemcus Ctwistian craditios affirming the exstence of
the Devil from: earkest times. the angument that belief in Satan is nor
part of the core of daith fimds a firm tusis on the endispated fact that mo
creod of councd ever ceyuieed®t. Less fine and more nimble
is the
afguineat that conciliar stancencts on the Devil's existence can be re
jected as purt of an oundated world view, | Of the ecumenical comncils,
oaly the Fourth Lateran and Trent pve the Devi significantaitesnon,
and The Fourth Lareran did net explicitly define the extsseace of the
Devil as & tnatter o¢ Gath. It did eeceniom his nature aad activity prom
nently am the fest and mean theclogical canon, bet because the two
semences dealing with the Devil are subordinate 0® the mam point of
the canenthe uteversal soverogety of Gadeothe skeptics angue that m
Witt Got afb Sn POrtant matter o> the councd. '*

16 Seo Loss, pp 1p-ego

 ~
itz Mepbarwpbels
It me penoalde to read the couscbs attitudes quite differently. Bowev-
er, Firs, the axction in uhich the Devil appears & the gut important
section 0€ the mast important marcmene norued by the cowncil, Second,
the Sentences constivuse a sgnidkcare part of thar stanemenc, both quan:
titatively aml boguoally. Nex, the langeage of the council chearty imetics
that the existence
Serial
of Devilisnot for deture ber an already
settled rruvtter that & net in seal of definitics “Finally, nce the council
was arung the statement againet the Cathar dealists with thor exag-
goranen of the Devil's power, it presmted a perfect uppartenity to
question Satan's oostence had here been any inclination to do vs,
ie the ond, the skeptics are forced te fall back to the position thar the
cowncil had a . primaire, mistaken workd view, They angoe the need mo
correct “had tradition,” and it is of comes true that ao tradition based
upxer a fabschond can be valid. Hut the question of what coastinutes “had
tradition” is extremely delicatc. vock an argument could undermine the
entire lawn of apemtelic wacomsjon epon whech the Catholic Church
— to rest.
The sheptics bave also arngeed that belief in the Devil is socially
dostractive, encouraging negative pergectson and demoenication of eat-
siders, and weakening human respoasitelity foe exil by attempting to
shift i one another being,
Conservatives mounted a vigorous comnterattac’ against the skepthes
in the types. A hornlyof Pool Vi
om June 29, 1972 (reported in
the Cocruare romans ca June 30. 1972). was followed by a goemal
dlocetion by the pope on November is, to72. The pepe cederad a
ferwad study af the issue by the Sacred Congregation of the Faith,
whack preduced 4 long. anonyenoas article: in the Overculore mamawe om
June 26, 197¢, presenting the pope's pemetion.
Rae ay by a surmber
of theedogiams, pecially Canes oxen Decne por, the pope defended
dialxdogy an beblical aul tradional grounds." Bildical critics re-

o>. Crmmg Matt. Gop. escge. Mark i:ra-15, 8, Bot py; Lobe e835, 33:58,
2316); alm 0 1h Pe te) Acts toe pt om pane ng, of am Gal git) Bot. been,
erp teeter Cet tees Phew. gene: Rew. erees Onn tee arpersces thor the Lords
Prayer refers gexifically
to the Dkvil, we fC Rocterchesmar Netw Pine”
are ere PP pote ate On the ennhern Catboibe Acbube on the Dex? x Openly
~ “Sarabobe
cu coal?” Laseter
ot cir, 78 (ogtl, op aon, A. Goveley, Te
Dew, Vee Say New Vow, ewpgh EL Dhnag. Abate! oye Tre! (Eeesintci, cotet H.
Haag, “bom teageiirchgce rlereachce Stedicedeiuencnt
corm I berea Loutcl” Tivtggecie
Deartalodegt, 16h (igh xteag HI IRang, Tratthgtoaky (Téheagre, tytghUW Kasper
and K. Leben Tog diene Boenteter (Mane, og 1A. Kelly, The Devel,
as Heard Cry, NY., eeu ATLA Belly, Le daahle
08 aes
deme (Paris, carr: from the very Engi oldtion with sddiniomnt Peet VI. “Confront.
 the Degal on a Warraae World 343

Jed thar the senptural anruments offered try the pope wore naive
and thar they ecaded che fendamenral isove «é whether the New Testa
mit een intended to offer a coherent datobsgy,
The angieidits against the skeptics range. like those of the skeptics
theenselees, from bitdical enmcism to questions of immediate peace
thality. Bittical criticism inselihandly presents a unptjed woace: critics
and exepetes differ, sometiones shinply. co the meaning and inoportance
of paussiges. Further, teblical onncisne. Bke aff scholarship. often in-
trades CoMemporry assumptions tno our waderstanding of the past.
thes blurring efforts to get at a literal understanding of seripture. The
best sense of “literal” is the eetginal moene of the author, and to gee at
that cciginal iment incate stinpping avay net only the cacruitatens of
tradition but the cacrusmetions of modern historical aed somnntic as.
sumpenns. “Dhe best literal reading of the New Testament seems co
show Jesus strepzling not caly against individual seis THE also against a
power of cvil chat (ECE the merely Hittin. “Every ficet of Jesus”
be Wis dominared tw his belief in the Yeality of demonic forces.
Whether of not it aubkes sense cf is cmburraseng for contemporary
theaght is caneely beade the pore. “'*
‘The suggestion
Wit Jeous” belief in the Deol
was only part of a
petitive world ew poses serous datgers. Each coltere and cach age
scons determmed! to believe its oon world view the aleodute truth, but
if history shows anything. i Blows that workd yeews shift and chat all
are equally procanoss. There ts no reason 00 assem that cither the first
of the twenticth-contury view & the truce one, atid @o mote feason 0
suppose Ghat crther is as a whole superar to the other thes that French
weety is supenor to Chinese. The fallacy of chrenecentriam is dan-
gerents foe all scfhobers, Gat foe schedurs
of a Christen persuasion is
- particularly add to meentain that Jeves and the apostles were peimenve
peuple who were not as enlightened a5 we, Since belief in the Devil
the New Testament, it fellows chut if tetief ae the Devil is
rejected, any other belief expressed by the New Temament—iechading
belie! in the incarnation and the resurrectionis sulgect oo the same
treatment, afd sume thoologeants have oct sterked this ineplicatices
‘The historartti(Oheitues c¢ not-<otsorves that Obeistianety is bused
epee the Hilde and teaditen sad that it can be meaningfully defined
only in reference 0 sornipture and tredinom. A doctrine that departs

og the Dhewd’s Poses” Tie Pape Speedy, 0) Lean al big gig (eee, of the peope’s abiroes
“Daberwres chet emeke” om Oerneterr comers, 1 Nevorter rote!
of, J. Kallas, fou and ake Jcor of Sores () tink inten. 094), p. 302.
 “

Sy Meptivvuptetes
sharply free soriprure aed traditiwn cannot in any meaningful sense be
called Christian. Again, mt os bhe arguing that what people have been
calling Parliament for six hundred years ts really seenething elec. Since
beech scripture and the earliest and most unanimounCheistian tradition
affirm the existence of the Devil, the skeptics’ denial reduces Cheis-
taney 0 a vague choad of retdual eroticeal attachments to a Jevus
uhese real rarere we cannot
knew, Suck demythollogizing beads to a
es -hristiany” that no Christian before the eighteenth century, inchad-
fe the¢ apasties, weald even Rave rec
wna the Devil costs depends upon cee’s Sefaition ef the Devil
and the comoepteal framework within whech ome is operating. That the
Devil docs not and cannot exit “ycientifically” o¢ “Restorically”—that
wm, his eostence cannot be demonstrated by scientific oc hestorical meth-
oxls—<hees noe mean thet he canince be aki mo have mostence in some
other framework, The term “existence” has mo mocessary meaning prior
10 human categories. The confesion 6 codent in the skepnes’ argument
that the Devil camnot be a person. Certainly the Devil & not a persom in
the samee way that a hun being is a person, bur in face we do havea
conception of “person” beyord a heman being: we would, for example,
call an cxtraterrestrenl being a “perso” if it peasessed such attribetes as
comepoumess, intelligence, and will, no matter how different from
oars. Althdugh the use of the term “person” foe burman “person,” “per-
sea” of the Trinity, extraterrestrial “persom.” or angelic “person” 6
Cearty analogical, an underlying, univocal ground & cocemen fo all in
Cmwciumers, intelligence, and will.
Another shepeical arpement, that demonic posseesen as descnbed in
the New Testament is better explained in terms of modern medicine
and psychiatry, & erelevant to the Dew! ik nproperly conflates de-
mons amd Devl—paysical distress and moral ¢vil—irn ome anEgNy
Medicine may enderstand physical sympromns better than
hoes, akhough there is no logical reason why a gen ptivscal complame
may oot have bach paysical and spinmeal cress, aiiiies the Devil repre
sents moral ova, and science and medicine by defimimon cannet creat
«qecstiorsof mowality. The concepe of radical evil ersbadied mm the Devdl
cane be curmeded e¢ superseded ty any developmenrs in scence.
Agesist the skeptics wiew that belie! in Satan em sectally undesirable,
mt is clear that demosiatoon of coctiecs goo on oyually effectively in
Soviet comenunom and ether idoolegees that domy the cxivtence of the
Devil. Nor does belief in the Devil seem historically to have impaired
moeal rexpeensstelity a: much as the seodern belicf that behavior is
 Th Deed woe Werner World aT

detertniaad by enrironment, Skepticion aboar the Devil often leads to

shopocsm abcer radical evil, producing a false optinesin aad a rehance
upon
On the whole, the skeptics’ vaew ts busad less upoe bildical critkian
or bestory than upon she corrent workd view. Hot the Uispusssonate
hisserian Knewas thar all world ehews are Peccannnp:, progress in ene
place ts marcthod by decline in aaitther: cur science is Better than Pauls,
bot oer cheobogy muy be a paca deal worse.
eT efforts to face radical evil in the twentieth contery
have strock off in new directions Que of the most original was that of
Karl Barth (6886-1958. foender of Protestant nccarthodoxy. Barth
differemtiated thece chemmets of realay. Gal, Gods creation, aad dn
Nitra of “nothengecss” Nothingness o that which God dees nee
create. Being nether God ner Gal's ercation, “sothingeess” lacks all
tree Denne. Yet ot is not totally without eximtence, Se * springs into life
oo is own if ae ares from which Ged withdraws bin creative perwer,
Ged commructs the cosmic in such a way that he lieeits hx creative
of mean ates in which “nethingnes” can arc on &s own. There are
two kinds of evil: eval resulting frore the fritenexsof human mature, ard
an Nwivtee, which actively restive and deaiey Ged and ix totally decruc-
tive and unredeemubte. Barth's exthirgnes, enlike Jung's, wax in no
way 4 part of God. so that there & mo evil side of God amd no coénci-
deace of uppenites urrting good and evil (g¢.2; 40.2!” The Devil is part
of nothingness, the be usderbying all lies (31-2; 62.3). The Devil and
evil cxot within creation bet are not part of Gedl's work: they are
eothitgnes, chats. opposition to real bem (3.2; 23.15 60.9) ©9,3),
Although the Deval hurt ne real being, be has cncemmous powcr to dismort
ated destroy, Ghe a vaceum. His aim is the destruction of the cones,
atl the evidence: of bes power is bes influcnce over barmarety (33.1).
God allows the Devil wide scope to purwe thix plan of annéhilation, bor
God alve semitnons up agaimt him God's opar alivawe, the power of
creahes deecttal azairot nothingness (go. 4).
Althoogh given a few perspective, Barth's views are very similar to
traditioeal prvation theeey, and they face similar difficulties, Noeh-
migness must cither derive from God (which Barth denies) of elu be a
peineple other hue God. a power limiting God (uhich woald bead to
dualin). Harth enbances the danger of dualeimn by denying the tradi-

ty Referomnes ae te Berth, Avobtinte (agent, 1p webs (Zoditbon. seo9-1967k

the crameletee oo Cher? Digger, 05 vole Ch danbrangh, ci — 1 ged.
 ws

28S Mophacuphela

thom chat the Devil was orginally an angel created by Giod—since Hare
th's Devil is pare nechingness, by bas ne created naturc—bet Barth
avoided dualism by insisting that nothingness is contingent upce God's
creation. foe its opposition to realty entails the princ existence of real-
ity. It alvo entirely dopeedent, upon Geal's permission to operate,
Barth alwav« emphasized the halla serge terwecen good and evil
mee than the onatic struggic between God ad Devil. Seill, the abso
lonemess
o€ oil with ies inmate benger to harm fee the athe of harmeng
can be best grasped wm che fi an 2 superhuman powrt.
‘The JesunSralaertiiie “orre Tolhard de Chanda (1881-1944)
inverted an Cpomistic, progressve theology drawing berth upon tradi-
ticesal mysticism ancl sesearihe evolution. For Teilhard, creation is a
process stretching fren the alpha petnt at the beginning of time to the
omega port at the onl <f time. This peocess is God's
plan for the
world, The counes devdups under God's direction and as a manifesta
non of the divine principle, beyinsing with the creanon of the inanir
mate, proceeding throagh imecrcasingly complex molecular structures to
the creation of life, then to intelligent indivaduals, and—im the future
to a new hood of mind as individeal intelligences knit therrncives into a
mcctet whole. Thee divine process canne by stoppcd. tat # can be
wihiterod and thwarted where
the living, organic process ix “deadened”
of “crystallized.” The Devil is the symbol of resistance to the divine
peo
The contemporary thoolegean Jim Garnson (192t~ } ases Plirosteema
as a syed of the qualbeative difference in pwentieth century esl, Ne
workd view is walid that fails te integrate Hireshumas imo its experence.
he contends. To confrom Hirushima & to confront the teamceadent
mystery of Cied's darkness. “I hurre learned.” says Garrison. “that oe
seek Gad ix like holding a light in the carkecss. As the light increases,
the circeenference of the darkness alo> expands!) God ultimately uses
ovll for the good, but thir does net make evil an dluson. Evil—cold,
cruel, and incrimically detructivc—m net merely a hurnan
but a transcendoat reality. God creates real evil.2 2 How this can be ruc
we cannce know’, since God transcenals every human category. Hewev-
cr, we can know car experience of Gad, and that experience, both
personally and bitdically, is ambivalent. “od as experienced lis} ax
savage and cerribbe as God is merce! and forgrring” (p 16), We need to

wa F. Vehard de Chancho, Le pitebrter Aemere (Pree. ope!

et. J. Gervines, Tie Ducheew of Gat Tivehgy ater Monebons London. igfa) pF.
3. Citing Job pcrz-or: Jor. aban%
 The Decdl ow a Werrigg World aé>

overcotne car “monopelar” proeyudice thar Grad is only won! and mare te
4 “bipolar” view chat soes God ss inegruting genuine good and permaine
oul im as efnmatcly beneeodkear synthess (pp. ope. apg—argh
How Ged's ukimare tenevolence sttegrates ov we cannce ender
wand, Garrsom conminucs, but we Anew that he ix benewoleer through
personal experience, bittical rewelatices, and kee, Aad who did nce
create an ultimate jastice would be imperfect and therefore nee God. Por
a Christian, the mrestery centers in the crecificion, in which God both
inflicts and suffers agony hernself. “Nhe pansion of Christ is God's demow-
sranon 0 the weekd chat he himself stares ity waifforing. I lireshina is a
now crecifcchen, &@ few fevelation <f cur owe darkecss and God's.
Nectear war ts the threat that the carth may die ax Chinst died. "Stace
Hiroshinws. we test speak of God and humanity co-creaning the apoc-
aly psc” ep. 207). The Devil in tthe shadow ade of God, “It is inipessitle
te
oxpencnce Gad as ance doer before eoperiencing him as antinemy.
_. All oppenetes are of Go: light and dark, good and evil, crontinion
and resurrection”
(pg. 1tg—174) There ix the of concluding that
the shade sade ofwGod ix alo worthy of worthip, ber the shadew hus so
Pesitive value crocpe when lifeyrated, and part of the process af integra.
rom as the stremgle agpamest evil. The Dovl
ax the symbed
of the unsnte-
grated evil that We test oppesc with all car mighe,
The theclogically reflective nowel Te av Unteowe Gat by the Rusa-
nian exile Petre Dumetriu (eg24~ ) argues chor it is imposable to know
whether the Devil exists ax an independent porsonaliny bur that he ix a
needed syetbed of radical evil.2? Beil infinitely ourpasses Rumen evil: it
is as Vast as the cosmos, a8 enmemc as God, God is an antinemny, one
face bog beauty, joy, and love; the coher a “terrible visage of Ged.
toleration of eval, fear, anguinh, disquiet, henger and thirst, physical
pam. extfuctating agony.” Yet although natural evi is ternble enough,
“in all creation thore is nothing as crucl ax Burman malice.” Of all beings
that we know, caly huneans take knowing ploasere i cruelty. “Wanting
to do hanes imnphes a secret ccentenion, an idenrificarion of the husan
beng with his vietin, an empathy berwoen che cwee he procs hinnself in
hes sicnen’s place and relies a suffering be eaderstands” fp. cf
The medens denial of the Devil's existence, Dursioriu suggests. is an
escape frcen respemsilality. [t “iy not just a simple refusal to personify

tp PB Drewetrin, Ae Ae owns (arin, op gt Twas enable ty eeaie

the origina! and
wed fe trendotion ty J Kirbup (New Veo, rtrd
24 Propel coefirr scoreetien
te cunt i the phoncesc of meannes
Oran bey conte os
thest nepewted iy ~The Humdoes Rillory,” Nrawawl, Nevewdew ot. pis. pp ram ned
16t Mephisrepheles
Evil. . . it is a refusal of the very notien of guilty intent, o€ culpability,
of sin” " co Madern socsety’s search Sor genetic ce envireamental
causes of exh behavior is an evasion. We have crue moeal freedemn, and
every exil act is calpable. The digeity of humanky depends on the
exstonce of penaine evil“for without & we are mere programmed fa
chines (p. 64). The Devil's favorine avifets is the deterministic excuse tee
evil. His second is that we project our own gull upon scapoguets and
deny our own respeasibiiey. Another is that cae can be so yrealty a to
bhek car the hoge of grace and change. Another is that eul ix far too
ceenplex to solve, @ that we approach nuckar war with ceenplicated
echernes of diarmarsent rather than with the simple deosioe to rarn
away from destractiveness to hove.
Modern literature, Hee phaliowphy and theology, had tw choose
whether no face or to evade the Borrcry of the twentieth comery. The
intensely cynical period after the Fina Week! War prealuced works such
as Sera, the Waser by Vernon Loe ithe pocudenym of Viokt Paget,
1846-1939) on which Satan is the syeelxd of the natoraksm, po-
triotiven, seid fande heroism that waste human lives in war. Films such
as Apocalppoe Now (ig 7g). Afephese (1982), and ieee eee mache
the same point for Liter wars, che mest convincing demonic fgure in
Gnema trey be the concentration camp officer whe forces Sophic to
make her ens peakable chiece
‘Twerticth-century writers tended to move repedly from moral ca
rage at evil through disgust and despair to unter cynics. In 1996
Andet Gide cockeemad, “Have you nemo that in thes work Ged
always keeps alent? It's only the Deval who speaks... . Elis noise
drowns owt the voice of God. . . . The Devil and God are one and the
came; they woek nogether. . . . Ciod plays with us like a cat Soemmenting
a mouse... , And then he wots us to be grateful to him as wel . . .
Cruelty! That's the peimordial attritvete of Gad.* Cynical indifference
10 real valees had becemne a deeninart attitude by 1982, with Jeremy
Leven’s novel about Satan going to a paychcanalyst.2! It’s unfair that he
was expelled from heaven, be explains, because “Pim Jowssh, bike Gost.”
He learns that Ged resents hirn because of hix Rterary ambetsons. The
Diceil is slick, obscene. and waluchess:, like the mowed sclf. The Devil,

24. “The file derees freee Wiliams Sevens evel Sapte) Cheer (New York, igoat
at. A. Gide, Lo faee-eeerenes (Pere, 1904) pp eae
at. J Lewen, Katee Me Pipeteaherapd aad Carr by ote Usgeermeete i J 505.
Aeoter,
(New York, sqts)
\ Al wu peeter freer Waoelkd War | shew » harcr VW iohctn 11 cdkcreceunrd
 “~~

7 Mepdarepaele:
like the cosmos. can te reduced 13 a mearmaghes formula: “Dewl © y*
+ my — t+ ar 0”
The most ambitious cynical treatment of Mephisopheles was the
unfirished Mow Faw (tage) of Pal Valéry (1851-1945). Valiry’s
Mephisto is irenic, cyneckl, and aboed from real human suffering. He
first appears as a tall, lean clergy ian Urewed ini clegaett but mot quite
commemporary style. His speech is ale little off: he speaks Itadiars with 2
Russian accent, His goat cars betray the eruth, but ee the whole his
person
is plasing. for, as he explains, he ts more succes fl with people
when be docs net appear as 4 monster. ‘To his chagrin, he soon keares
that the maxtor work! is enimpeessad with him im any form, Paest
dismnivers him: “I'rn afraid that | can't conceal from yor thar you soem a
birourod style, .. . You den't hakd the wrest place in the weeld thar yoru
wsed oa... . The whole system of whech you were am cxsenieal
part buss
fallen ine ruin and dissobemon,
By the etiddke of the twertkth
cortery it had become difficelt to
portray the traditional Devil effectively without either digguining hie
my thobogcully ce cise presenting him in the lurid format of the horror
tale. In the egies and 1970sa number of soccessful horror novels and
filters comerilisted! Go a brief reveval of imerest in Saran. Of these Ira
Levin's Rerrwerys Baby (1967) and Wallam P. Ware's Ty Enoecor
(:g7)) were the mest succesful, and. comedentally, the most the
clogically plowsitile. Although Tée Eesrae landly cxaguerated tradi:
tiomal concepts, it retained a degree
of faithfulness to them. ‘The tikes of
the lare egpes and early 19%es, Bowever, perfectly illustrate the umdcr-
lying collapse of the tradiion, with their boudBabsime of ureclated
heeror clichés,
Sermus trowemenrs of the personi
of evil have often Leen n
ficatio pee-
semed i the form of fantasy of science ficnon in order to owercrme the
prevailing shepeicemn of the time. In Jeyerme (rg76) Larry Niven and
Jerry Pournelle constructed a compelling and theologically accurate sci-
cence fiction version of Daate’s vioon Tuenticthcommury mytholgr
ters to transfer demon cr angel qualines from “supernatural” en-
tities to supposedly “sciennfic” exnrarcrresonals, The files zo0r (ee)
aud seve (igS<) present angels in the form o¢ deembodied estrance:

oh P Valdry, Aloe Fane: Eheecter (Parr, soe. pp creng. See whos Abbe Plorshes
Cetapge eget ph, Te Dwell oof mien (Lowen 1g¢s), Dowetvy Sapers
Ci Bye tos7h Th Liew
te Pay (Loexdom. ropa Hotkend Dhascun, Thoth
of Meter (New York, rece ABert Lepage,
Few ot Dee Jose (Pars, vptad
 The Dew ise Ween Welt ar

restrials, and the 1978 remake «f Th /ewaee of the Doty Sawutery fea
cored cxtramerrestrals whose hissing, darting torgucs. crvcky, and atél-
iy to Bilt iene hreman form repeeduced the traditional Characteriuncs of
demons. J. R. Ro Todhoce (1892-19))) cot the struggle between oran-
scerdent ~ aml cvil in the feetiny wereld of Middle Earth. Tie Lordof
the Rings is, like Boneatl, ireplieitly Chrotian though gxphathy sct in
another world. Tolkien's Sauron, We dark toed of Mecdr, is associated
wah the Devil throegh the scrpent or dragon (Grock semen), and the evil
wierd Sarum’ name roenaics both with ware and with the evil
deity of Mexndsises, Ahrenan.*?
The mythical statement in madern literature trecst to the trackition
appears a the work of C5. Lewis (1898-1969). Lewin most original
coatriletion was the suggestion Chat derpors are motrvated try both fear
and hunger. Cut off from the source of real nourtnhunert, they ream the
world secking huwen seule to dewoer in a terrified effort to fl the
famished wad: when thuarted, they will tur and devour ome ancther.
Bet a) amount of cating can maitgaic ther mGnite cnptines, for they
will not cat of the becad of life, whech alome cam satisfy. Tie Screctepe
Letters (1942), in which this idca 4 act foeth, purports to be a scrics of
comittrentiqe@s from a senior demon, Serewtape, to bis nephew Worn-
woexd; they offer peactical advice on the coereption of humanity, specifi-
cally of the one beman acigned to Wonnwoxd. Here the Devil shew
hint interest in the oppeetunitics afforded cil by eversday bern weak-
nesses. Irritation with another persces's ex presdon or tone of voice, cave
Of someone ches succes, social powing, contempt for other’ opieiors,
pride of keowledyo—all such burman fraikice offer the Devil poines of
beverage in his cfBorts to detach us fren God. Lewis saw that most of ux
confront the Devel in these petty guives far more often than we eypy hice
high cer a throme of royal state.
In Lewis’ Perefowdes (1959) and ifs companion “deep space” novels,
Mars, Earth, and Ver are populated try mtcllipent beings, and cach
re PRR, Tetkees, he deed
of the Beegy ULewebon egigt Sow le Ui Codd.
The Lord of the Phen (Lowdow, 094). Nios Rarseersin, Te Law Teepurme of Chet (New
York, syed
pe. The Bint sewed of Lown’ spruce trilogy. Cet of Abe Slot Planer, appeared in 1978:
the sowed, Mrveivedra, im iggy. and Ge third, Ther (idea Sereagtd, in ogys. The Se
wee woes pebdecben! ev tage, ened the Nerves series of clebbeen's lends horeros epon
weed tops. Lown alee treated evel en 7 he Gower Deere (194c) aad dak woth nparal ovil
Th Probie f Pas (age) ened the choepls perewal 4 Grey Oheroed (eytn) Mew Chern
teewty Copetl oe beckd theodegees! oxay comtmneng enenes of beth meters and mere
ove,
 a

272) Mepbwwegdxtos

planct ix ruled by an “ovarsa” (artel). Mars is inhatéood try older civi-

lizations that have succesfully withseod temptation and live in harme-
ay with Mabeldil, the creator. Im consequence of orginal sim, Earth is
under the power of a “bent ovarsa,” am evil arched and Malek has
quarantined it from theother plancts,’! Perclandra— Vesus—ss a puta
dise imo which sergeation has mot Set introded. lex intalstants arc
tewutifal plants and animals and one imceligert comple, the Lond and
Lady, the Actam and Eve of this fresh mew world, The black archon
oomds a scientist mamed Westen from Earth oo introduced sin caro Per-
clandea bry coerepting the Lord and Lady. Mateldil responds tre sending
Ransom, aa Oxford don, to counter him. Weston sed Ranoome must
comm pete to peraiade the Lord and Lady of Perelandes to their sews. for
the first Perelandeans, like Adam and Exc, have complete froodom of
will; the Devil cannot. and God ill net, compel thers.
Weston’s name indicates that be repeesnets noe caly the setting ster,
the Devil, bet abo Fausns Western humanty with its efforts to bend
the werkd to its own desires. Le the previous novel, Weston bad at-
terepted to expleét the inhabitants of Mars for the “goad” of bamanity;
his ethic is huemaniees of the aggresive, impenaliotc hind thar|
the rights of other speeics and defines progress a tereas of the increasing
burman domination of whatever part of the universe we can lay our
tunds on. Im the time between the action of the first novel and Per
claws, Westom's Mind deveeson to Faustian kiceledge and power has
opened his sol ro the dark angel, and by the time be arrives on Vers,
be bas penmimed his own persmality to be sulmerpod. He feels
“guided” and “chesen” but lacks she discernment te reac who it
who is guideng Bim. Karsome suspects the Devil's peeamce in the acien-
tot's willingness to lic, cheat,
and falkify scieeritic evidence to advance
the cause that he iseagines to be that of triumphant bumearey but re
really that of the bert archon, who acts in tem aad through ten (pp,
95-9).
Malckiil has made Perclandra a sca planet where beautiful floating
ishemdls are filled with fewces and peacetel anémals. The Lord and
Lady. first porents of the intelligent population oo come, are gwen the
freedken of the planet, the only resneictiomberg thar they ecver pass the
night on the dry, fived land. Thee crust orest be in Maleidil. who
guides the Moaring islands for their good, rather than in the @fusion that

at, © 3. Lewis, Sonkeedes (Lowder egayh pry: the heck archon.” Arches
in «
New Toterscet aanee fer Sates, the “peiece”
of thes world.
.
 The Dood iv ae Werrteg World “re

they can hold and hound God's

gifts on the uschanging Lead. The evil
archon's purpose is 0o persuade the Lady te trust her cwn will snd
coavence Ber husband to de the same. Thecugh Weston be mes every
cunmsing rhctorcal trick. incleding estenably rextonabde arguments thet
conceal the empty gulf Beneath (pp. 216-113). When not whimpering
lies
00 the Lady, be ergpages Rarer, whom be sera fo be comnected
with thar other “ramen” who @nadid Bis work on Earth, in endlew
clever debates. God amd the Devil, he says, are reproventatives of the
saree Force whee patent wall is the decniration of the universe by
technological hurnmestty. It ix according to this will, Westen shame, thot
he has Oomne to prepare Perclandra for development bry the habitants
of Exerth.
Weston’s ingenuity in the debates & axtonnhing, and though Ransom
uses every defeasc to the limit of his abélitics, be gradually realines thar
reawn cannot defeat a being whe cares nothing for the trath and whose
ceence & pure unecaven, Whenever Weston suxpends bis busy mronc
fora totment, be laps into the alice emptiness of onl. Among the
creatures of the fleateg idlands ts a spocecs of small, froglike animals
To his berror, Rarmoms discovers that Weston has been «
mindlowly about dittng the frogs open with hex fingerrods and leaving
them to dic in apany. Dhes cruelty for cruciey’s sake compels Ransom to
confront evil not in its fancy dress of philesophical argument bat m its
caked simplicity as an “intolerable ebucenity which afflicted him with
vharee. It world have been better, oc xo he theaght at that momere, foe
the whole universe newer 60 have existed tho for this one thong to have
tappesed” (pp. in&—10g) The setfenng of the little anirraly & irtolera-
Ne, and the crecity that debbcrately causes their waffering is even moee
miokrabk,
The vacant dicey behind Wewen's intellectual facade reevals inal
more and meee. Hin smile “yoermad to sermon Rassom, with horrible
naiveté of welccenc, into the woeld of its own pheauires, as if all men
were
at one in thew pleasures, ax if they were the most sateral thing im
the world and no divpate coeld ever have occurred about them” ip.
110), Westen's ov is far beyeed vice; vice is the search for anseal
pleawres, whech have at least wore root im reality, teat Weston's search
is for pure abstraction—an abtractson which he has alleged to be the
welfare of hureanity but whch is, in fact, senple anrehilation,
The culmenatice of Weston’s rhetorical termpeation of the lady ix a
perfect perversion of mtcilect. He devenbes the divine pemcrosity of
Christ's secnfice om Earth, olmerves that that redemption woeld not
My AMepbersapdes
have ocurred without original sih, amd concludes that # i Maleklils
hidden purpose that sin be dome on Perclandra so that aneeher incarte-
tien fry Goober. Ransom summons his last intellectual scrength co retrer
him: Gel beings good out of evil aad che greatch good eur of the
greatest exil, Lest i i newt Cogs wall thar evalShdidine Weston, soem
bes most subele arpement u , vaddenly and withowt warning
throws tack bis bead and Bowls like 2 dog. The scene is tnedeled
on the
trarsfonmanion <€ Devil ino bising axrpert in Penadse Lav, and its
effect is the same revelation of the
Sane fury beneath exil’s cheer
facade.
At last Rereocets eealizes that verbal struggle with the Devil can only
be endleas. The Osford dun Lewis urcte Peretenden dunng the war
on Hitler, amd the Oncfoed chon Rarmom sees thar Good calls him to
gh« cradcly and physically against the physical body that the Devil is
Sick with foar and repelsion, he hesitates. But Maleldil, with the
vg "My naree aloo tc Ransom,” rerrénds him that Jewus did aot argue
the Devil down: he died on the cross.
‘The badewus battle begins, hand 0 bead and nail no eae. Ina lull, the
Devil mutkes a last, insidious artack on Kanscen's reason, Concedieg that
evil truly cunts, he nustes 0 a hideous conclusion: what Ranseen fails to
grap, be mesiets, ix that eval is the cevy ecality; happiness and kindness
are a this veneer over a realty of torture, terror, aad despase: “That o
the real ureverse, always will be. That is whost it all meres” (p. 167). Por
a meomernt Ransom & overwhelmed, bot then he sces that & canst be
trog, for we experience a coames that ix full net cnly of suffering but
aloo of compassion, tenderness, and generosity. Revived, be reurnes hin
heerible physical streggle, esoat of which occurs in hell darkness im
the interior of the only mountain on the planet, There Rarwaen tecake
the Desil's physical and moral power and ascends the mounts ax
Dare did the meant of porgatory,
Lewis reeded to show thar the war betucen good and ovl is an
atermacion but a sores of indivadual chices, cach of whack is cosmic in
ms ienlicution: each choice for good, hewever mall, wins strat
ground azainst the eneony, Lewis knew thar this peal world of ubimare
walucs is cut of the mange ‘of vision of materialist society, But for him, ix
was the ataterial weoekd that os “ashere, * our e€ focus (pp. Fgteta2. 198)
(Giexd aad the Devil are reality: the Wluson is our conviction that they do
to CxO.
The work! of Gooeges Hernteos (1848 1q98) was also rooted in
uw at biel r
 ”
26) Mopbatepteler

Christian orthodoxy, but of a mote somber aad pexsmnistic cot." An

idealistic royaliat who left bas fricnds and the reactionary Acticw fraypaix
when they tooperaced with the fascurs and Vichy, Bernanos had
Sorted part od the inrerwar Catholic Renaissance in Fraece, along with
Peal Cliudel, Francois Maarac. and Aneine Péguy. The growth of
materialism, economic greed, war, and weapons technology seemed to
them to indicate that power was becoming imorcasingly Concentrated in
the hands ef an evd enemy. Bernanes was always more sparitual than
rational in hix theology, and he believed that the remedy was bee in
mrctictual debate than im radical spiriteal change. A true view of the
weeld, he perceived, muust rake full measere both of its evil and of rhe
power of grace to save it, Withowr che lowe engendered by grace, all
human Kdeclogies and efforts can only work us further down ineo Sat-
ans power.
For Bernanos a for Lewis, the strugyle between goed and cvil ms the
indivadual soul is the mecrocosn: of the comtic opp<aition between Gad
and Devil, and hurras sm is part of the greater shadow that we call evil.
Evil i mot a mere breman category tat a real thng uhose ultimate
characteristics are nethingness and immobdiey. It is @xentially in-
comprehensite becaus it has mo essence; its beart ws the woud. Thee
nothingness ts 2 cosmic coldness uhose rondnils reach cut, penetrating
our minds and beckoning us to join it in hell. The secret scarce of the
evilof homanity, it syuats in the deepest part of the conscience, exuding
hatred of God and lowe of death. Deadly sm lies in associanng ourselves
with this nechingness, with a “conscous complicity in Satam’s ruses, a
laced accepeance af his power oo conrupt aad a willingness 0come to
tert with bam."'* The desire fee acthingness is planted deep in us,
and under its influence we can Carn eur gate so far away from the igln
that we cee see caly the charecss aad chee it for ats Own sake. '* The
syinptcens of this choice are prade, whech scparatcs us feces love; lying,
10 Tie Leewt elites cf Bicreares’ reverle is C2 Herren,
Gownren reeenpery (Paris,
tfal whee page persicring | foliew . The rekvars orks in Chreeciegwal
cathe ate Semby selenl de Satan (Pores, sgh Lvapeetere (Paris, opt th de peer (Pens, roogt
Ow crime (Pare. vorst Jornal fe cord de compares (Pern. 09ptt Neeceily Aenew &
Abemcteny (Pars igyyh Abeewer Ceter Paris, 0951) Che Terres ancl vd, 1H. Bart.
bored, Lae pte he Jelly de eral dene Soewiee commence de Gogo Boreseer (Darich, opt M.
hornp, Memiasernen of Setce an Jaw Neca of Coma Bevmanei) bores! Ulenegetrad, sys
JP Sewer, meee de eel dee Deemrr de Beveee Lowden. sere)
15. 2 EB Combe, Cog Sermon (Arxrbar, optil. p is
ja. Wevvnaters,
Seow 4 mull & Saree fp abt. et
 The Dew! an a Warrieg World z>>

whh seperares ws from truth: and despuir, whick separates ex free

marey.
The power of evil Boks sway over mest of Bemanes’ characters,
especially liber and worklly OCleiserss, leecaucrats, antictericals,
singy bourgeots, cynical pease. and bevclow intclloctuah. Mode-
ocnnes who sense that things Gre wrong bat soquiesge becuase it is
caster than resisting evil, idecdogues who put their conviction in place
of compassion, and intellectuals who sock kncwladpe with soulless curi-
onty afe the mest guilty. At times in the late igyom, Bernance came
chose to fallieg into despair henselfn “To bell with this world,” be
cocheened, “croeched over ite nuckar arsenal, yellow with hatred, and
ts heart abedlutely empty of kve
The berocs of Bernanos novels are thome who roe the power of
Satan in themselves and in others. Thee bowing, honest simphory
fakes ther unipeapredar, ahenatod, and cxploited, because society is oo
peesened that it cannot stemach the bead of life. "The bittcenexs of this
venice: lod scum critics 0) accine Bernanes of grostic dust, bet soth-
itty ae ho week vicdates traditional thoology. Satan ix “the rebel angel
who said no caly once, but once and for all, in an irrevocalile act in
which he engaged Bis entire substance.” If the evil characters are
peened Co Satan, the suffering of the good characters joins them m
Chinst. “Dhe power of evil i the world is always and everywhere over-
come by the power of prace.
Satan is the potsenality at the heart of evil just as Chrat ix the
ity at the heart of geod. Bernanes did mot doable the eximence af
cither, and as a child he chemed direct intuitive experience of Satan.
Without bebef in Satan, he argecd. osc canset fully believe in God,
The world is eddied with evil, and deliberate Mindmexs to that fact
obscures the truth about the world and therefore the truth abour God.
The scale of ev in the world far transcends what humanity could cause
itself, and all efforts Oo impeove the work! without underntaniing this
tarmcendeme are doomed to failure The tendency of twenricth-
century writers suck as Arunele France to treat the Devil ironically and
comically, Hernatios ebserved, i a clear sign of evasion of reakizy’, and
their popredarity indecates that Sater has us im hes perwer.
Hernutes Satan has a double character: on the one hard be ix hard,

16, Queen iy Cmte, @ or

p®. Ge. Bormenee, Le ortpeenly
do ower (Varn, oppti. p to
 ”~
a

powerful. and threatenieg: om the other, crnpty and banal. The Devil
rakes hint appear threatening bat can sever overpower us or compel
is to sin, as hie waunted power is under God's contred. His pa
which & more ile destrection and annitelarion, is'totally meaningless.
His Laugh & joyless andimecheg, the supercilions laugh of the cynic
who aces all the angles and u Uikdts nceheng. “The Devil warts us
to Believe chat life is mecaningless, to sin withoat cven taking jov in
snning, 10 live a bite of povletsness and gray depression while indifferent
10 the setfcreg of ethers. “I am,” Satan boasts, “the dood that ix forever
Chesed, the road that keadk souhere.”*!
Satan, Herrusas observes, has littl trouble emering oer minds, for
we caperly open our mtctlocts and wills ro bem. Sanam works with evear
facility on the meeliecs, for he is the greatest of bogicians.™ He uses
philouphy and rhesoric to persuade as that we are mere candem collec
thors
of particles, thar we have
ao dignity, that we have no froodorm
of
choice, thar we cam five effectively freen day to cay without facing
ultimate cheeces. He perverts ideals: the desire See froodom imo anarchy
and anned rebeclikon, duty into mendlex obedience, harmeey into im:
posed order and tyranny, hove imo bast, equality into conéermiy. hu
auility inte mediocnty, charity into curiosity, '* Ibis mode of persuasion
© always imnposture, always the lic, always che cffert to make things
sccm what they are nce, Bernanos was intensely aware of the smrugulke
within himnelf ay well ax within hurmemey ase whole On earth, cack of
ws ia hattkground, he said: “Berueen Satan and himself Ged breilds us
ae bas last rampart, For & is through us that coatery after century the
saree Hatred seks to reach him: it is in this poor beman flesh that the
uropeakable murder is consemmated.
Bermancs began his fiest mowed. Sew de selena Satew (Linder Sevan’
Sew), in che dark days of Weeld War E and puldished it mm 2926. The
metaphor is the dark light and intolerable coliness of Satan's sun, the
false oun or ancien, the empaty bole in the sky that is che sign of the
Devil's power over us in the world. ‘The mun section of the sowed
comoems Abbé Denisan, the vicar
of the village of Campagne and larer
curé of Lambres. Donnsan is modclod en Se. Jean Vianney. the holy
curé of Ars. Like Bernanos’ other herees, be is completely and innensely

ct. Bereernne,
jreren’ few cov & compare, p bag
. Bersarcn (impeta pp je a
om Cel
ee Combe, pos
4 Bornanes,
Sei, p 204
 The Det sae Weereg Worl? ~y

devoted to God. As a revelt, he has no chose friends; isolated and

sulnerable, he is sulgect Go fies of despair, Ife soul & open to deep
intuitions of good and evil. At ene port, boot on a cowntry romd, he
creourters a joveel little man whe offers to help been (pp ofp ~ #4).
Frierally, sympathetic, and full of moight. the man gains Denissan’s
confidence; he guides teen, gives him bes cloak, andqpem forks hem te
seep. ‘The good fellow drops Hines ax to bis real idertity: be lives
morwhore; he is “married to mésery”, he has a sharp, whinnying Legh
Bur tecause Donisan is lonely and needy a friend, the priest allows
himealf to be duped “I will be wour true friend,” the ran asuires him
“LT will bee woo tenderly,”
Gradually, Dunessan sence who bin new friend really is, and at last
the litthe man ideredfiex hirmeclf: “Il am Locifer, the lightbearer, but the
essence of my light is an intolerable coldmew (p. 174). The Devil senses
in bis intended victive a eurpetding coldness and rigor of hin am, 2 heard,
unberdable resieramce to evil. Fruntrated, he intensifies hie cfforte
“Stop mrembling yoer prayers,” he ancers, “your cxorceinmn aren't
weeth a pen” (p. apy) When Deeisan books into bes compumion’s eves,
he is aloo exwrceene with fear, and sweat res down between his
shoulderblades. The Devil pécks up a stone from the road, bolcdts it ap,
and jcoringly offers the words of Eecharistic cormcceation (p. 178)
When Donisses observes thar the Devil ix Sorever cruvhed ender the
weight of his gun misery o the point of nothingmess, Satan, mo
mecatarily overcome tre the troth, Burks hireself down inte the rad,
racked tre cerritie spastes-—a revelation of Bis character comparalil to
the scenes in Mion and CS. Lows where his bestiality i revealed in
sadden asimal behavior, Satan recovers hie poise for 2 hideous fompte-
thee: he shifts bis shape into a pertect Goutle «€ the priest, 2 coulile
uhose eves are a merror in which Donissan reads writtes Lore all his
own fears and doukes (ip. 180), Doeissan has the anguished wnsc that
there is oo difference berwoos hire and his dowble and that revintamce is
therefcee amposatte,
Nevertheless, the priest pulls herself together and Bads the Devil go;
then, on the verge of victory, be is undermined by hidden flaws: cur-
osity and eanity. lmpressd tre tis own ability te resiet and cursos as to
how far be can push Satan, be takes the offensive, deramding that the
Desil surrender all bis influcnce ower the people of hix parish. Satan
innteediately senses the rerum of oppocturery and Gers the pricat an
itresistitde bait. Today, he tells him, God has graeted you a special
race (p. 6&2). Dontesan demands to kacw what it i. “You'll we,”
 Mpdivepbeta
Satan roplics, The priest, overcorme tw both curksity and pride, crics
“TR pet your secret, 1'N wrest it frome you if I Rave to follow you where
you live no dbo at. | dow't fear you (p. e8t).
The Deval replies with a mocking laugh, and Dowiecin realives thar
he tras hoot sight of the (act thet Crcal’s prace rather
than his can morit
has cralded him to reset. He thembletin shame, recognizing that any
victory ower such an adversary ms fragile and pepcarious and that he must
prepare to resist ancther assauk, Satan bowves him witlt the confident
threat thar be will return and chat whom he does, Dueissae will cmbeace
him and chensh hinn under che Mason that he is Grad.
Keck ee Campagne, Diwessan encounters 2 yours girl om the road and
astoaashes then Both by relaney to ber the story of her secret guik, The
gut chat Giod has given hirn is the gift of seeing into souls, It isa preaine
grace that will Last all bn life, and whenever he is asked how be dows ix,
he respernds that a ereat pity wells up within him for those who seek his
help, and semeuhow froen chat pity comes the power,
Years larer, uhen Denissan has become cunt of Lumtees, the Devil
makes good bes threat so rerum. The precst is summoned 00 the bedside
o€ a chikd dying of menmgitis. The call comes when be is it cme of his
meats of deep depressen, and when he reaches the child only to find
him dowd. a cold despacr grips hee so Gericesly that his heart seems to
fail. AM his sins and weaknesses surge over bem: Bis despair that the
heerors<¢ the world
are too great for Geal to overcome, his anger at God
for the child's death and for bes own Gailere to belp, his dowke im Gal's
redcomeing love, bin sic curity to sec what God can really do, and his
hidden pete at his speritual giftx Sucpt away, he asks thar God mise
the child fram the dead. “The request is made not out of lowe but oer of
pre aml anger, and it Gath. for Gad yields only to lowe: "Dieu me se
deane qa lamer” (p, 265), Se uhen the cheld's eves slowly epen for
an instant, it a mot
the child who books wp at hem. bar the ome he bad
met years before on the dark road to Campagne. The pricst starts back
with Borror, the eves close, and che chdd mercifully remeens to death.
The effects of Denisan’s sin, however, do not wanish 9 quichiy, for the
child's mother, whose hopes that her child mneght live had been raised
for a meenent, now suffers redewtted anguish Berracos’ testimony,
through the preest of Lambees, is that the greatest saints are subject to
the greamest cempearions, but that grace, inccenprokensitdy and some-
times vicderrty, tereaks through.*!

46, Sate, pe pet “Tense bathe ver, Seaperer, thesgone poer vounc mate le ofrecngnage
de seeet par k fous
ow comere arracht
 The Del a Warrieg Werld tr

fernamos shows the interior nature of Saran in his fewree’ dae cart de
compage (Diary of « Caavtry Prot Satan his persuaded the foolich
twenmeth century to believe that his coenples sopeistication is more real
than the sireplicity of God. The ene thing thar coukd save es frome
destruction, kwing God and neighber, is consdered nave and am-
plist, mo march foe cemnphcated cocesmmeics, os. and arma.
ments. “Somenmes | think,” Bereancs ccenments, “thar Saran, who
of God, not only hates it wehout under,
secks 0) lay hold of the mind
standing but understands & all m reverse. Without realizing ®, be strug:
ghes against the current of life instead of Sowing with it, and he eshauss
himself in ateurd, horrifying efforts to redesign all of creatioe in the
Exact opposite of reality” Gp rots). His favorite reversal of reality is to
trassformn kee into hatred. “Hell” the boly young curé cells one of his
selfish, cenpey parishioners, “is to cease 60 hove” (gp tagph The carth ts
coated i the dark coldness of Sotan’s loveless light. aad wahout the
hove that tecaks shrowgh the pall, Bersance’ vision woukd be as posse
trestic as scene of his critics have mainesieed. But love's light pevcks ac
the warm comer of this dark wereld. The bet words of the country prrest
are: “Towt est price”: all ts grace tp. e209).4*
“‘Theenas Manin’s eowel Dedror Feuwar (1947), the greatest reweehing of
the Faust moat since Goethe, is at the aenec time rected in tradition and
deliberately unorthodox *! Mann (18t5—rocs) grew up a Precestame,
married a Jew, lived in Catholic Momich, and was caught ep in scoular
pedities and thought. Larer, he was forced by his repugnance for
Nazism to search for a deeper wereld view and found a guite in that
dircetion in the writings o€ Dosoewsky. Never an orthodox Chistian,
he became something of a Christian hureanist.
Masi began work on Dedror Poster in igg5 aul completed it Iwo
years after the war. in 1947. The coneral character, Adrian Leverbin,
im Faust; be alse represents Lonher, Nictrche, Wagner, and Germany,
opecially Germany since p91, Depeesed by the decay of Europea
crrilivation and its complete collapse im Germany, Mann reversal
Goethe's optimism, returning to the pewseniven of the orginal Past
book, on which Pau was damned; in damming Faust, Mare coo
dened the Paustian drive of rwenticth-century Western sxiety. The
rein of Adriae Leverkihin, lilo that of Gerneany im 1954, i Complete,
42. Dike Sqreres in ether Bernunes neewcts echo be Chemer et Ahearn Cea aed the
price Corbee on f sepetore aval La pew,
4h Lcine T. Mua, Dhedver Fametac, on tee Fix haw edition (Dranifert. 1géch Soo abe
1) Asareen, Tiemmax Mame Aomae “Vasksor Panee and sie Ariahenee
r” car Fant Trad.
woe (Riches, tot bh
 a
at, Alepdianpdls

Sull, Mann's pessenism. like Bermines’, left eoom for hope, for Adrian's
fowe for has little nephew Nepomuk is a sige that the curse of boave-
loans im pot complete amd that be—and Geresany—may vet be
redectned,
Moarm places 2 Shp mec ree iat arene canal dito cond
Serenus Zeitbhon, whos nadte—?Tanebhoom marks him as a man
of his age. Zeiblom's views, an odd blend od Canbolicom and mate-
nalism. religen and skepticton, are sometimes but net aluays coe
great with Manns «we. Maan used Zeithbom to hoop bis own views
dchberately remote, usoltresive, aud even amlegwous, fee the novel
can be inerpectad in both Christian and secular cerms,
Zattloe's friend Adnan, a bnilliam young mesician, begins his oa
recebry studying shoology
and philosophy. Repulsed by the aridity and
mhumeniry ittsubyects, he dabties in Chagit and makes a
with the Deval. greing up joy and lowe in reruns for betliant seccess as a
composer. Ele gains iil ththat be wishes in terns of creativity and acclaim,
bat at the ood of the traditional twenty-foer pears he mast reader ep bn
sol. The teeriide cement come at a concert to which Leverkuhn bas
mevted bes mvesical freeads to hear a preview of hx last and greatest
composition, appropriately named Dr Feavi Weivklag, “Dr. Faustus’
Lament.” Seated at the prose, Leverktihe breaks doun and tells bis
guests thet he hon made a pact with Satan, chat he bas rejecteda life of
modcranion, affection, amd love bocaese be coukd nec stand 0 be cut off
from ccenmranson with deeper pwwers, Ihe declares shat he o damned
anal falls censeless to the floce, The audience thinks hie mad, and he is
taken off to che asyhue, bfis mumd bes, in face, eon ravaged by syphilis,
bur the audience does nce pealine that his Comfession x ima sense truc. In
the machouse, be attempts suicate io the vain bepe of saving his soul
with the sacrifice of his badly. He newer fegpes his mind ee his Groodom.
aad he dics mm 1040 00 the dite of Germany's great triumph over
brance,
Dennore forces <¢ darkecss, madecss, and seyatios permesic the
novel. Feo youth onward, Adeian repeatedly encounters the Dovil m
human tern as Capercadze of Awcthales (drawn from the Fausthock),
Whe teaches Admin the secrets of the sca and the inhuman immensity of
Sprace icles 29, 43h as the art hisertan Heleeut Institceis, whow name
fecalls the sinister tnedicval witch-lrentce Heinrich Inimecis(p, 981) ax
the stamencrang muse teacher Herr Kretechemar, whe peaion creative
chace (chs. 5 gk as Martin Schalgknapp, the charming translator, ladies’
man, ata fraud (ch. 20}; ax Dr. Zimbelist, the rod-basred phyacian ch.
 The Deol ie Werrigg Weel? aay

igh; as Swal Pinelberg, who wants to take Adrien through the air on his
cloak and dyer: him the glories of arthuic Game (ch. 37) as Dr. Erasers
with his red foe and petnted Beard fch. egt as Clarissa Rodde, abo
keeps a culfur-yellow tomcat named Ixaac and whe has a penchant for
the eeacubre (pe. 262, y79K as Hectacra Esmeralda, the name of the
batterfty that Adrian's father hoops i hix collection of dead things, ana
of the whore uho iefects Adrianowith the syphetis thal first intensifies
bis creativicy and thee drives him mad (chs. 19, 22% as the pimp who
heads het to Eaneralda and who resoebles the Satanic Dr. Schlepptess
(ch. 16).
Most demande are the theology peofoxwers who represent the perverse
futility of the noobem enceliecreal. Profewer Kumpf. a Lather figure
who comeenes hanedhy with the Dovid and beets Rescate at Bien in the
ceener, & “on chose though naturally straimed teres with the Eval One”
(p. exo). Dr. Eberhard SoMeppfirs lecteres on the Devil, thoodhey and
cv. His carne. “Dragfoor.” indicanes his crippled intellectuality, the
deformity of bis spirit, and of course the Devil hirmectf, who is often
lame or deformed std whe in Goethe beeps his clowen fooe hidden from
view, Schkeppfus is chsessed with the problem of evi, for which he
offers a variety of theedogical esplanacions Ged albras evil fee the sake
of free will God's geodiness consists im his ali@ity to bring good cut of
evil; the highevt good fests in the oranscemdence aad integration of good
ard evil, Schleppéess uses moderns kacwledge such ax peychedogy te
make demonolegy meore understandattc and intelligille to the madera
weld, 7cittom—ead appurertte Mann birnmelf—consalers wack ob-
oxsion with evd a ceacessicn to ove aed suggests that the alotract
ideology of Christianity, ke the abstract ideology of Nacnum, is a de
mottic retreat fevers hornet reality and affection (pp. 153-1498
Mann found this demenie tendency no alerraction deeply embedded
in the German spirit, with ms inwardness, mysticises, urrwvorkiiness,
and inchnation to the metptiysical, True Christianity, Mann belt, is
centered ce the Great Commandment to kee at all costs, whereas
German theology had made Obritivaity an abstract «ience and
rerned it intoa monster. He saw the Satanic charac ter in cur
of Moology
readiness (0 set it alewe the welfare of indwveduals.
Satan henself appears co Adrian at Palestrina in Italy. The place is
where the great polyphoeaic composer Gaowann da Palevenina was bom:
the time is 1ge2. past before the great war; together they symbolize the
dreened beauty of European celrare, The Devil appears past at that bene
and place to shatter the harmony in Furope and in Adrian's heart (pp.
 ~
mM Mophiciaphols

peer
a tah De interview betucen Leverkihn and the Devil is maxdeled
expictly <n that between Satan and Ivan Karamenow, Mephisto
changes his shape and hex comvenation to fir Adnan's moods. He first
takes the form
of a sheet, frail man with reddish hair and evelohes, a
pale face, a crooked nese, and bhoxxdshor eves. His clothes ave not quite
right; he wears a cap, a striped shireander a checkeral jacket with
shoewes that are too short, yellow shines aml soygestively tight trousery,
In the course <¢ the conversation, however, he shifts Gum confidence
man #0 intellectual, carrice of plyysical diveasc, ¢ lan, mehcal spe-
culist, prooerer, cnminal, succesful man of the becter
ct whut:
cver fits the mand of Adnae's mind, because he speaks entirely out of
Adrian's can memones aad knows only what Adrian keows.
After long, pedantic disowssions of theolery and mesic, Mepheute
explamns shat he is goeng co special trouble for Adrian bocwese of his
great talone and offers him the weaty-four years of success in return for
Miinan’s accopeamce of the curse that he ix not to ke (pp. 331-332),
Thas dark pact rises from Adrian's own Being. He ix already enslaved by
ambition, indifferent to freeads and Gamely, and infected with syphilis,
and hes acocgeasce of the Devil's larpaim only confirms the direction
that his will burs allready taken.
Mann deliberately makes it difficult for ux oo discern his view of the
Devil chrveyh all the refractive planes thar exit between the author and
the rcader. Mare speaks only through Zeithlom, who relates whut
Adrian has told him, and Adnan ropeets what the Devil xeys. When the
Devil boasts that be os the only one whe understands religion and that
lieral thenlogians emderstand nothing. he sects to be telling the truth
as Mann sees it, bot most of the nme he & Oruc only 60 his oun nature,
which ts the lic, The reader must alay bewure of accepting Zorhlom’s
skeprical view that che Devil bus no reality beyord Adries's enind, for
Zemtiom saakes other stasements about the Devil that are duteous He
thunders, fer example. in assunmg Adrian that there is neching diabed.
wal about Kretschimar, the siusces. Many modern critics, thom
selves Moors of their own titte, have too readily accepted Zeitttom’s
postman, They observe that Adtian’s syphilix & rexponside foe the
ballucination, whech is truc, but they neglect the moltiple levels of
reality in the novel. Adrine’s esoral weakness has opened the dour 00 «

oe BL gee Nem, co chews Tirerel Dee cha eetbts hs sehafifien, “OF hn coher
add cree
om pte “Wer an den Teofel glee. Ger peotbiet fm achon™ (wikaover belicoes be the
Dhow strony behengy oo hem).
 the Deel wa Warrnag Wall ove

darkness that cranscomds bis personal consciousness, When the sner:

view is ower, the skepeics poont oof, Adrian fieds that the com and
Manker be bad used oe protect Rernselt fron che diabetics! oofd are still
m che cheer, pest as Ivan Karamazov found the wine glass be tod
thrown ar the Deve unbrekes [er in craditional diabologs the Deva
alwaps works threagh illestions aad often leaves no physical trace of his
peesence. Like che tradinional Devil, Adrian's visiot tees cheowgh cach
of Adrian's ps: vehobopeal evesions and warns him thar they will noe
help him. Besides. Zectlows himself ts uncertain he says he would be
mad to beliewe thar Adrian has Pad a real visitor, yet be shodders at the
thought cher the entire, cynioel, better dislogue came foo his friend's
oun mind alone.
Maen’s own position was ambiguous. “Frean the very boginmng.~ be
observed, “the Devil makes his peesence felt in the novel, but appears
personally ro arrange the pact in the mille. Zeithlon tries hard net oe
believe in bes realty. So do L-*' The Devil Mensef says, “You sce me,
© lam here foe you. Is weeth asheng whether | am ecal? lint what o
real what really works; isn't realty capersoace and fecling= "4p. sc). At
Leverbihin’s funeral, Zembhom secs a veilod. eeysterous Gaure whe
vanishes as the last clods of carth fall on the cuffin ip. Gp6). Is Zeitbteen
finally seeing the Deva. or ts this 2 hallucination of hes own? Mann does
ect intend a define answer, for he felt the power of the demecaic
ireasely and was aware that we have n0 way of hnoweag whether ito
an canermal o¢ mineral reality. Whanever the source of Mann's Devil, he
ne figure of whimsy ber a power Geecely tnrent upon the destruction
of the individual and of the world.
‘That the Devil's curse, powerful though it 6, can be reasted &
demonstramed by Adnan's intense seffenmg when Dis litte nephew is
dying o¢ oneningitis; the cheld’s agony draws from Adrian a terrible
curse aguinst the Devil, the cosmos, God, and hinuef—against the
whole order of cestence that allows an toocent. loving cheld to dic
writhing on parm (pe. Grye696). [bur the curse is hremaniceg, fee his love
tor thissingle hurnas being conmradicts the corms of his demonic puct.
Nepo's ne gives Adnan the anguist of hove that he needs for bes
silvanon, aed for the first teme he begeas 90 have “secpcthing Cheisthive
aberet his face” (p. Gyo) His pain allows been Ger & toomment to pierce
Hluson to the imeer warmth of the work Laver, the last nome of the
doomed ormetie De Panu WebedGer--the last murcal mote thar the

at. (ewend wo G. Bergeron, J hee Mew) Dect fre (beeps, o6h p20).
 i
Ms Meptevopdviey

compdner beares to the world—is asustained high G on the celle, 2 tome

of mourning that ts tram@fermead ax # is uttered into a light in the
darkness
s

The work of Flannery O'Conner (1924-1964) was devoted to pen-

corning ceality by pocrcing illusites + She described her sulsject xx “the
actoon of grace in territcey held Langely by the devil “*? That territcey &
the barman seul, particularly mm our modem, sccular secicty, With the
Devil's help we have extraded a thick nind around oer sols thar cam be
pieroed only By the action of grace. The thicker the rind, the meee
viedent must be the thrust necessary to teeak through. Deeply Ameri
can and scathern, O'Conner drew epom Haw thome. Melville, Poe. and
other Amencan expforees of darkness; deeply Catholic, she drew upon
Kernasos ard the Exeupean Catholic revival.
OCosnor believed that we are entangled m a complex world that we
ourselves have constrected, a dim and dark workd meade comically ab-
sur by Ger oan fooliviness and sin. God dlumenares the darksoxs with
shafts <f light amd peace, but we often refuse to rooognize them, profer-
ring oar own opaqec tlusors to the clarny ef reality, Every word and
actaon of daily life has moeal euplications affecting the enkire Cosmos. 00
make this comvinaing, O'Connor set hor smorkes oquuarely in the everyday
comedy of human behavier asd the srark immediacy of the southern
landscape, She knew thar readers muust sce the actuality of the everyday
workd sharply and clearly before they could be convinced of the action
of evil and grace. her stores are eich in symibeds, Bat they are public
symebts denved from Christianity and accessitde to everyone Sin and
grace operate in real people; O'Conme knew that usless naterialiced is
pa. nich earth. they Becete pallid abstrections. Although she often
wields her bive of hunastity Hike a sharp weapon, the purpose of ber
satire is Charitable. Like a prophet, she capreases in weedk that barn her

a Lone the works at Planers CiCeneet it the Gdhewing chteen Tr Coho

Trey (New York. rgg% Tbe Maltof Bane (Now York, oprot Ahonen aaf Mareen (New
York, oyigt, (fe Vanive Bear fy Ace (Now York, ita, Wie Bhat (New Yor®. roy) |
deeply apperiete the cutreuhnary biwkeces. poscresity. and winken sboren me by
Planers C) Cones chee freed and ode Sady bicaperalel
Che (1 Crewe aed evil see RO Fevhey. Pleewery OCeweer: Veerof the Peaeed, od od.
vow York. eptih St ah. "Kone worth a View.” flameery 1 Conee Relie, oe
City Gran BL Niely, Moyswery of Ex Planeery 1 Coeeme's Cathe Powers”
Fleenory (Comeer KnXorin. 16 (oge:). 1Se3¢
4). Mtpeery ced Maneen, p set
.
 Te Decal na Warrang Word fr

ig that we should reowen to God. Rather than standing judgmer-

ually over ber characters, O'Connor ineites herself and her readers to
recognine i them the absurdity of cur oun marenalist. complacency,
banality, and self-satisfection. De rind of complacency is particularly
thick = the twentieth century. when people are ot only untehovers
bet praise unbelief as a vittec “Ef you lve today, you breathe in
nidilinen.4* Yet with cevegh vindeace. grace can tink through,
The awauk of grace on the ateurd defenses we mise against it is
comic and <dten grotesque as well as siokeat. The grotesque shakes us
cut of the banal dusion of what we call normality, Toxstay, when mont
poopie
do not cves belicwe
in sin, active sin is less
@ threat to the weeld
than dull torpee. An active sinner eeay ot least Pave a conse of uncasmess
about bis of her fife, but the medecre can wip themselves an a conplar
cency out of which they aeust be esphaded. The comic, the grotesque.
aml the violet are the arsenal of grace aguitet smugness and self,
satinfection: the heads af O'Connor's cheescters and of twenneth-
century humestity are “se hard ther alecst notheng elo well do che
work.” Some of the characters aced caenneus and repeated shacks
before thee slecll a Leuven, others hide under thor apparent simegness a
deep inscoerity rooted in fear and amocety. It is a paredex thar the same
fear and ansicty that prod es co bud our defenses
against reakey also
proddece ceules about the defenses aad so provide the opening for prace.
which can take many forms: sudden awareness of the presence of God,
wadden sernitizing © sey stery: fecogmmon of a moment of real choke
between good amd sil; a Good of peroepeion of one's oan character and
cme’s dependence upon God. Grace « God offering Dineself to us ma
variety of ways; ouf fespense to grace 6 fanh—-oe the refusal oo Dave
fet Sormectioes on Uhe stories peace is inresinle and heocks down the
character's defenses agpentst his will; sometiones grace is freely accepted:
sernetitnes. thoegh rarcly, grace is refused and the character's oou! is
het, In a work! as dulled to reabkty as ours, O'Connor sand, “I dent
keow if anyboxly cas be converted without seeing themselves in a bind
of blastieg antebilating ight, a Dhast thar will last a lifenene,
CY Coanee draws some of her most powerful charsceers from the
comest <€ southers Pretosstant fundarmemalom, booeuse fosdamen:
tala, like her own Cathotecisen, tikes the Ibke, God. and the Devil

ge Mahe of Beg pe
- Mery eo Mewes. @ ter
oo Nabe of Boag. p. 437.
 ~
288 Mepdeuagdeter

sermusty. Purdamentalist charecters such as Old Tarwater in Td Vio

lent Bear ft Acey are imtended to scom comically grotesque in eeder to
mcreave our shock when we beceene aware that the wethor intends es to
realize that every weed they utter ix truc, ‘
C'Connor
believed that the conflict between good and evil wax a
hrerary as well as theological necessity" The Devil's moral anse coin
cafes at all pounes with his dramatky conse.” she observed, and “the
winters menrad sense must coencide with his dramane sertse.“*! In other
weeds, lnersture must center on the war between good and cvil aad do
~ m@ 2 morally coberent way. Unike the Rorruttas, OConmsor was
determined to contrat good and evil sharply and without ambiguity.
“Liverature, Be virtue, docs net thrive in an atmosphere where the
devil is nce recognived as existing beech in beenself and as a dramatic
necessity far the winner,“'
(Conn recogaized thac the moderm marerialist finds « hard co
believe that she is taking the Devil soncusly, because the marenalist
pots “Titthe stock ember in grace ce the devi.” Bet she cakes repeared
furites Co make it cheer that she belicwes in the Devil as an extemal,
persceal catity: “Our salvation & 2 drama played oat with the devil, a
devil who is sot simply peneraliced evil, but ae evil intcthygence deter-
mined on its own wepremacy.”*! “I want to be certain that the Devil
gets kbennified ax the Devil and not simpily taken for this or that psyche
logical tendency.” she said. and ber Satan ix rooted in traditicnal the-
clogy) he is the angel Locier who fell because of pride, whe inspired
ceiginal sin, and whe roams the world soeking to thuart God's plan of
redemption'* Bur for O'Connor, it is always the thuarter who is
thaveted, the Gecewer who is deceived, evil ot cltemarcly and always
cvercome ty good. “Mare than in the Dew” she wreee, “lam in
terested in the indication of Girece“'
The Devil is a come figure in spite
of Dis atelity 0couse real oaffer-
ing. because God curns his every effect ine an occasion of good so that
he xs “always accomplishing ends ether than his own. When Manley
Porter, the derpome Bitte saksman in “Good Country People.” de-

is, sae PR tee. t47

$2. Merry ond +p over
$1. Myerry
ond Mareen, pp cn, 068
44. Ahab
of! Bewge pg pte, got OCameee
cabled herself o “hellbedly Thewert” Fe
$3. Mater
of Roueg. p. p67.
+6, Maa
of Ae, pute Cone?
wes Gaether wit) the words of the endiewal
yam Page Eyes. in which Gol eppuses to the serpost “yohorecs ret deeper thus bo
~_,
 T& Deed tee Waerige Work aly

peives the haughty enppled girl of the wooden leg that represents the
dead worxtenmess of her nibelist phileocehy, God werks throegh the
salesman's twisted purposes to provide the victies with a salutary blest
of grace thar shocks ber into reality. When the Devil assaults and shat
ters a character for tix oun ends, Ged eses the breach opened in the
character's defenses to pour in tex own grace and lowe: “The Devil
reaches most of the kecsons that lead to xclf-knowlolge.“*? In “The
Parenidge Festival,” the violent and otecene beharice of the peychoes
hiller Singleton noward the fledgling writers who come to interview him
treaks Goun tech cheir illudems abowe him and their deleskens abcrat
thenselves. O'Conmor lane said shat dhe war “all for Seaghetor: in this,
devil though [he is}. He's one of thane devils wh go about picroag
ons." Demonic asault is aleays am occadom of grace, brat
whether destruction ce salvarion comes of it is always up to the ind
vidual. Mr. Head ie “The Artificial Nigger” accepts prace, Mr. Fortune
in “A View of the Woods” rejects it.
In “Dike Lawee Shall Enver Piest,” the motherof the chiki Neetom has
died, and her death has plunged che child into a dull, stuped mesery.
‘The father, Sheppard. is a dry. imelhectual social weeker wha is pleased
with himself and tes goad works, and whe thinks char effort and deter-
ination can sot the world right. Angry and ashareed at bev seer's dull
despair, be deekics 00 teach the boy to care aberet others by brenging
heene a juvenike deiinqecar, Ketes Johns, co live with then. Rufus’s
Club foee is a synbel of his demoroe nature, which he cakes no trealile to
hick. His clear understanding thar he & on the Devil's Business con-
trasts with Shepoued’s liberal hashes about beman goodness and abet
his own atélity to refeern the criminal Sheppard offers banal esplana-
Gos of the delingquent’s behavior "Maybe | can explain sour Devil te
yur,” he says patronsongly. But Rufus Keows bester, “1 already keow
why Ido what Ido... . Satan has eee in his power, . . . When
I die
I'se geting to bell... . Noboxty can save me ter fours.” Rufus me ches
aboot Sheppard's spiritual state as well as bes own) “Setan has you a bee
power... . Not caly me. You too.” The delequert speaks with
OF Connor's veice in dennunong Sheppard's alf-cansfacnion'Y The tad
shepherd neglects his oun son in bas efforts ce justify and glorify bern-
self by soctaloing Hetes Jotinson.
Meanwhile, be « ateundly oblivious to the fact that Jobeson's porscn-

5). Mant of Bom, p. 479

pt Mabel
of Peven, & 444
oq. of Bower,
Mater aha vote ix ayy eon”
“hy thes cone, PD diet that te Devils
‘ot haeobieie
alny and fundansentabet adeas hayes begun to dominate Norton. When
the chad craves his father’s reassurance that hix mether cuts some-
where sad stil loves him, Sheppard offces his soem nee bread bur the
Meony ceenfort that his mother lives on caly in hex ~permory-——ben fotin:
son say's the mother i aleg in hewn with the stars. and Norson readily
belicves teen, Not until finaldy realizes that he has sacrificed
his son for his own pode
de horror at hix disloyalty
and the lowe for
Noeton that wells up in him belatedly strip the scale of axlfdebusion
fron his eyes. He usderstands that be hax “xreffed hic oun emptiness
with good works like2 gluttom. . . . ignored
bis own child to feed this
visron of hineelf. Ele saw the clear-cyed Devil, the comeder of hearts,
leeringat hues frome the eyes of Jotmsce.” Burt it is toe late. In the attic
rocen where Sheppard has installed a telescope to teach Rufus astrono-
my, Norton hangs dead from the beam from whack he had launched
hamself to find his mother in the stars.
OF'Conner’s bar completed now, Te View Boar Jr Auay, is a
powerful story we which the struggle tetween the Devil and grace ex-
pochy transcends the merely human. Four characters are epiphanies of
Satan hineself: the “stranger” whose wuice Young Tarwater hears in his
head and whose shadows figure acceenparacs him; Mocks, the copper:
flue salesman whe gives hies ride;
the gray ran in the cry pork: and
the hotmeccaual rapist who mokets Taruater, O'Consor was impatient
with critics wh» failed to understand whe it was thar appeared im these
characters. “If the modern reader is o> far deChrimiantzed chat he
doexn't recogemze the Devil when he sees him, | fear foe the reception of
the beak,” she commented ruefully 6!
Young Tarwater
ix an adedescem who has been brought
ep on a
i Other dermome figures in ('Coener’s somes iochade tw yelhow Buliberre and the
Morcherper Tifraan te “A View of Gee Weert.” Sty, Permdise in “Phe River.” Mary
Catace
et “Revelation” the »pene of Thoeray fichier and Sarah Hace in “The GCaantorts
of
Heene.” Mr. Shetder ia The Lite Vou Save May the Yous Chew,” and the Misfit an “A
(acead Many is Bland oe Fred”
to. The Habe of Boone, pp uti, yr) Macksbe “of tee Deed bedenne ether an he
posdete the Dhsil There's eet cemely cee te chetipueh bereece thom.” Tareuxr ehe-
thoes the feoe of the verangerax “hurp aed Goemdly and wie, checkewed eevee « will
Denadici hat that obracernd the oeder od bes ees” (Tbe Vetoes Boer fe Aen.
paramsmmeesd
endl te cept alse wear pumaens hurts and are called "the araeger” ep. <r,
P50. Mocks
327-220) Whom the cober of the etree’ eves appears, @ te eandet, Whe the leversder
wih the
Peatelercbne’, shart, wel car of the rapes (pge rege sig) Viewict ty alee aemcianedd
pommcetil scarce of Lore, with sormadiows. with cheyeeens aed arin (es im TS. Elects
Weawvieed), aml, wertalls, wits cmderwe ptelf Fee CP ennee’s views on dicormeces, soo
Hatt of Roy, p. are.
 Th Deed te @ Warr Worl! ay!

remete fan by he preamuncle, a propheric of evangelical whe cuts a

sretewyec figure to toot readers bet uhese every word & cruth as
CY Censor understead it, The okt man has taught the boy to beliewe that
he toe i called to bea prophet. Ofd ‘Tarwarer aloo bas an older nephew,
Rayter, 2 tdocdbess mutellectual schocteather whose bearing asd sym:
boliccs hit deafinas to reakty. Young Tarwsrce and Rayher are doo
bhete—teth sepheus of the prophet, beth having Matt bese mothers
and foclivh Gathers, beth with the seed of prophecy planted in them by
the ald man, both teen betucen prace and the Deval
Rayber resists the call of grace heroically. convinced chur if be fers
deran hix guard he will go eead like his uncke He speaks with the vetce
of comemernecnse materialion: he is almost always reasonable and alrmest
always wrong, In an earlier draft (Connor portrayed Kayber as mare
demonic, and sere traces of the earlier sheetch remain: “It was as if the
schoolteacher, Gee the devil, could tke on any book chat sumed him” (p.
ssh Rayter is “fall of sothieg™ ip. oS) he resembles both Meeks, the
diabolical salourean, and the siniwter internal “soranger™ (pp. 33. 173).
Bor Rayber has ene vulnerable chink in hin armeor: his love for his ident
som Bishop. He hax convinced himoclf rationally that the chil would be
better off dead and has tried to drews him. caly 0 be sopped by a
ange o€ emconerolfable pity, Occaworndly 2 floc of lowe for the chil
pours over bim, but be Mocks it frantically, Knowing that if be opens
birmelf to lore for one, be will be vulnerable to a howe that crnbeaces all.
ites fight againet howe seera wen whee Yeung Tarwater docs drows
Ridhop Ar the child's lat, terrified below, Rayber cerns off his beanng
aid. Hearing nothing, feeling nothing, he gives hitroelf to crmpnness and
death. O'Comnce planned a sequel in which Rayber might have hed
anther oppertunity, but in the context o€ the finshed aowel he resists
grace to the omd,*
The heart of the novel is the peychcenactiy between grace and the
Devil within Young Tarwater. Soon after his great-unck’s death. the
hoe hears in his mind a stranger's woece that uses every wile to persuade
him to abandon hic prophetic calling. The veice is Tarwaers uncon:
u«icas thadew, everytheng withers hire that resins the paintal life oo
which the old een tras acured hie he has been called. It is also the
voice of Satan bam. The descet fathers ported cut bow the Devil
rushes in throegh every opening that weakness eaves im cer souls. and

to. Cha the utreggic wither Kas ter, sce The Vitor Aner Tt dtieey, pyr Oar, 98, thee
td, 8h, Oph tt Oe ereptince of Raster, we pp. tr. st- 0 3S. teaentd. oi oom
22 Mot aptele:
to the extent thar Saree liees and works in us we bocce part of the
mystical bady of the Devil. The soite becomes geadually moee familiar
nm Young Tarwater unnl “oly every now and then it svremded Bike a
's voice to him he begs to feel that be was only jar now
ticcting hinsself (p. 35) Eventually, the st r becomes so familiar
that he is new “his fricetl—nodonger astranger’ (p. 160). At this pour,
when the Dewil bas become a friend. Christ becomecs the outsider.
As every word OM Tarwarer speaks is tree every word the stranger's
voice speaks ea lie, When it says thar the ok prophet wos crazy, we
keow char he must have been samity itself (pe. g7—po) When it denicx
prace, resurrection. and bell; when it ridecules Adam, the Old Texa-
ment prophets. and Jewes, we know that they must be the very stuff of
reality (pp. ty-46). Young Tarwatce’s Satan, like Ivan's and Adrian's,
denice his own existence: “There ain't no such ching as a devil.” the
viranger scoffs, “1 cam coll yom ther from my own sclf-expericnce. I
bea that for a fact, It ain't Jess oe the chevil, ft's Jesus or pow” (p. gol
The sveies in thes starement are mulnple., Simce everything the Devil
imends & 2 Glahond, his sarement that he docs not cost & 2 bie
Harwever, the Dewl is always forced oo reveal the truth whether be
of the toagec Retrays heen wher he says
Chooses nocr noe, and hes slip
that he knows the Desil doesn't exist from esperionce, but from
aesapera When be says, “there ain't no sech thing,” he eminten-
vomally reweals the truth that cvil is ultimately only a negation of real:
ity. He lets sip hes oun altimate usimpertance in admitting thar the
fundamental chetce is not between Jews and the Devil but between
Jesus and our own self-will, Finally, the paweage underscores the moral
icetety between Satan and Taruarer’s o«n sinful will.“
‘The stranger and the flesh-and-blood manifestations of Senan attack
the boy oe similar ways. OM Tarwarer carly warned his great-nephew,
“You are the kind of bey that the devil i always going 00 be offering to
20M, 10 pre you 2 anoke or a drink of a kde. and 00 ask you your
tadnis” (p. 5%), The prophecy is fulfilled. Both the soranger and the
rapist offer the boy a smoke, beth Meeks and the rapest offer him a ride,
and the quoe-laced drug thar the rapist gives Rem recalls the liqaor thar
the stranger urges him to take trom his great uncle's still ipp. 96—s7, 44—-
4, 2278-230), Tarwater accepes three rides. The first ix from Meeks,
who iso hes way to Mobile, sigmifying roctloss mobility. Moeks's lide is

St Vow ocfer Q&tutes leteers Teese ater aml he rergrr. Kor PE. LI-1}. Bb, af
Hf, erenogh gto oS. os, be-eSr, ae.
 Phe Dew! a Warriey World apy

based upos cyinrcal explott

of poople
ation
for money, and he boasts that
“Tve newer been turned around mm fey be,” an inadversent admission
that he has never been converted, The ber ride is with the rapist.
Between the two, he rides in a treck which inelf symbotives Sarin, even
though its driver is not demonic. The truck swallows Tarwater up as
the whale ywalowed Jonah, in its imenior be confesses, to hin own
hortue, that he has baptiocd Risdkop oven as he dreawatd hie, and, as
fturascated by grace, the monster vebiclo vomits hen out onto the side of
the road (pe. 216-217),
When the imersal stranger, mow bis “friend” persuades Tarwater to
dream Bichop, the Devil consalers Bis victory ower the youms prophet
secured, Hut a new “srranger” dwells ie Tarwaner’s unconetioss now.
Sates had once boos the srranger, Sar the bow had se conformed his will
te the Devils that he is mre a “friend ~ Ehe mew “stranger,” temnprting
‘Tarwater to gocsd, is Christ, and at the were menneet of hilling the child
for hes new frond, che mew stranger peompes hen oo say the words of
baptian. The new stranger converts the act of veokeece sto an coca.
won of grace, ard the tow hears the “hoonbbe silalene cathe of his Giend
fading away om the darkness” (p 246). A final siclent action allows
grace m comphee its work.*! Satan, soomg Tanwater beginning to slip
cat of bes grasp, perpetrates a last assault on hin in the fonm of the man
wih the liwender car, When the mun offers hen drugged ligquer. he
accopes it wath the ory, “It is betnee thar the Bread of Life” ¢p. sya) The
driver takes the d boy imea clearesg in the woods and rapes bien.
When Tarwarer awakens and realines «hat has happenod, he sets fire to
the polloned sme, Ihe is shatter ed his eves burnt clean.
and transfoemed,
“Hes scorched eyes no longer booked bolbow of as if they were meant
only ce guide hen forward. They becdeed as if, couctbed with cual like the
eves of the peopher, they would sever be used for ordinary sights again”
fp, 233) The Deeil intended to ase the rape to snatch Tarwater back
fron the binnk of salwenon, but Goxl uses it 10 seice hin fecer the lips of
hell,
‘The otle of the novel is drawn from che anebiguces pucsage in Mate.
sista: “Free che clays of Jotin the Baprit ured now, the Kingdoet of
Heaven suffers wokmce, and the violent bear ut away.” Among other
difficelnes, the ongimal Greek is unckar, The word Avie io im the
muddle or passive erece and can be vericaste canshenod as “does vio-

Se (arnt & bn ew adrorary: p. ob.

Ot. Mabe of Reg, po ot
 a

ay Mepkcuavle

lence,” “undergoes vicdence,” of “ates force.” Perhaps the best transle-

thon is something five the following: “The Ringdeen of heaven forces its
way along, and the forceful seize it.” O'Conmor, weng the translation
“suffer,” seers to have asoumed that it signified “peresitting™ violence.
a txcaning diallowed by the Greek bor ane by the ambiguity of
the Enyksh weed “suffer,” whicd used 89 mean “permin,” That she aw
at leant two dimensions of the problem seems clear from ber statment:
eRe RS ree rere awce regs antl among otter
of heaven.“
taken by it a the hingdors
~ OCoanos uses Vielence armbevalerely herself. ‘The very name of Old
‘Tarwaner’s firm. Pouderbead—with its awociations of gunpowder and
thunderhead==sers the tone of violence from the beguaning. The rape
bures Young ‘Tarwarer'’s eves clean so that be woes the cruth The
drew ning of Hishop aloo bapetoes him. The Devil erges the rape and the
drowning for Bis oan reasons, but God corns cach act o€ wielence inte a
powerful occawon of grace.4? With this anbevalence O'Conmor pene-
of evil. On cere evel, evil is genuine evil, and God wills
trates to the ccer
os co struggle again it with all eur might. On another level, all that
happens ix by Gods will. Oe yet anceber, God' all to
will curnss
Cernral co Christianity ix that God tures the greatest possible evil, the
cracificcion of tres Son, into the greatest peasitde good. the eedempaion of
the world,
Ouomged and dazed tyr the rape, Tarwater i altnost realy to fall into
the hankts of grace. but he is al determinad o> mount 4 rearguard
action. He sets €f doun the mead to Powderhead, and when he arrives.
the Desil is saa clinging to his, “a wares, sweet bexdy of air encircling
him, a veokt shadow hanging around his shoukices” (p. 237) Bot be
“shock hemaself free” (p. 238). Bartier be had onied co barn the fares with
the ohf man's beady im it so as to destroy the sparit of prophecy; now be
to the flames, He males “a
co consign Satan
trics agars, lve this time
rivety wall of fire between him amd the gnaning presence, .. . Hix
spins rune as he saw that his adversary woeld socom be consumed i ina
rearing blanc” (p. 208). The Devil, who Bas moved in Tarearer’s mind
from stranger to friend to adversary, & now eanquished, His eves bare
clean, the boy receives the prophetic calling: “GO WARN THe ComnmEN
oe (om co ae Theis seco of MERCY.” ‘Dike ofd peepher had been
to the cy many years Before; noe the young prophet turns his
called

64. Myrtory
end Merwe, pe tt.
6. On he owod Sor vindonce.
soe pp nome nen, rece he the eeterebene
of Gre, cw
PO. tO0 PN Ebeag. at, Grr El, AMG, Epem tbs, 163, apa, OE, Daa~248
 Tix Dev we a Werrtey World “vi

one “singed eves, Mack im their deep sockets” in that directson and
“tmevex steadkly on, bis face set towafd the dark cy, where the chikiren
of Ged lay sloping” (pp. 242-243).

The work
of Berranos, Maen, and O'Connor
may be soon
ax a hifcline
connecting us toa meanmgtal workd, socmethinng oo cling oo w hike toma
co the chopper seas of lave twentieth-contury Ses , Sence the
world wars we have teem fearing that the lifeline said sit
trot hotkd, that
we would find neching at the other end, that we woeld either perish in
nockar war or fade forever into meaniegheoness, But a new hope x
reing asa mew workd view Begs to crmenge at the emd o¢ the co@entieth
century.
The traditional world view shat dominaned Western civilization
through the severnoeeth comeery was a unified, coherent comes in
which meaning. value, and cruth were inbercnt and integrand. Dbes
vecw was replaced doring the cighocenth
and nmctceath conturmes by a
materakst. mechanistic Hew created ty philosophers relying upon mat.
ural schence’s proper restriction of its scope to the material world tm
create a phelosaptiy of schentian or postivisae-che sicw that the oaly
realty is matertal. Hout ches marenalin veew could aot be a commen, a
cobcrent Whok, for it imercd muind, spurit, consomumess, affect, and
esthetic, of else enade thom mere cpiphencenens of marter, The living
cosmms became a dead wniverse uhese separare parts could be isolated
and imensively analyzed, but without reference co che whee,
Phikcopiy. not sclence, created materalem, and ite mot up to
stiefike to create a mew world Hew Boe, Hut by removing ins support
from chatenahsin, scence will permit the formation of a mew, coherent
work! view in whack scmmce. theology, phvlsoety, hestory, depth psy
chodogy, and Ue arts may all come together ma coherent whole deeper
and tote sophismceced and mare checiabke than any we have had
before, Quantum physes has now remeved the prop of an ultimare
material reality frome the mechanisne veew, meakung it poosble gracdeally
be Create a mew cosmology mm uhich the commons ms acon as saoqgraned,
coberent. aad alive, and in ahich meaning. valoe, and truth are again
purt of a unified whole.“ Whar this new cosmology will ultimacely be es

8 See, fee comm pbe. ©. Berfickl. Menon Ake Apteerenns (Nice Verk, votatBR, Retleb,
“The Teseept of Secelariers The Keren of Helge” Aolgew ood fete Lav, 2
thal pete: DL Boden, ied aad fe Ppa Crue (Loewen, ago VP. Ferre,
thy Pacer: Mowernc
Ae (he Pewee Werld (Ncw York, rot F Faree, “Re
legriers Works Shabehog aned Peed Swiwwae,” Joana! of Rriyehew, 42 (eyti), s60-
re: DR Garin, ch. Peer
ed the Deny Sree
of Tree (New York, eptibJ,
 a
a Mephorepele
as yet ditficuk to discerns, ur it welll certainly inchade a some of radacal
goed sed evil, Rechoal evileunder whanever name cr eetaphor—is a
realty, and for thes reason the compe of the Devil will always be
relevant. .
Ba
W. Dhayward. Mworring Alege: Seweor
iaed Aaneliite Wiadhar (Boulder, opt yk K. Hhiteer.
Cover of Sometdiy Bremen (Checage, nti Ro peeves, Pde a0 Anan (Mbeemepeds.
wi) C. Meats, Deereey and Comvel ov Maman Spore (lL edrochs. opt) K. Shchtrabe, 4
New Sacer of Late The Hypettere of Ferenaner Camatinn Camden, 194i)5 Teulnin, Thy
Povere
20 Comeclegy Datmadore Sommer oad he Thookgy of Notes (Berbcicy. opSih: F.
Terreer. “Escngee freee Meabervtean.” /lorper) Magataa UNecwmmber eytgh, 4o-96) K.
Water, of., Jie Mobgrapte Maradige end (aber Moradkow. Expteruny
the London Gaby of
Sowwer (Becedber, pa) Ase wmbecetinns off the kenel ef ew thainng abenat Levit that the
new Word view cam cmgeredice ts the eaggcetion of Jack V errand (ns work pe prepersten.
theling wih the commection betworr Oheebkags ant maken coeoene! that we, the Comes,
and the fafion ange! ace ultienanchy ore andi chat the corre conmnes bb working ite way
toma’ Febibwced, coon salveten
8 God and Devil
a a

Whether it is toeamingtul to bebewe thar the Devil cours depends

upen one’s weekd view. It is chacly meanmgful in a Chireman world
vecw, and just as clearly meanengiess a marenalist one, Iber the ques:
Gon mrast be pret in the conpest of the larger question of whether any
speritual enrity exists. God is as unsoennific a comcept as the Devil,
Quin 10 The prewuiling “commonsense” marenalion of the rwentieth
century, the assumption of most educated people is thar on the whole
the weight of the evedence is agamast che existence of any spuritual
cannes,
In fact, howewer, marerualist schence can by definition offer mo evi
dence either for or againet Chem, s0 the evidence must be conmsadered in
the light of ether world vews, which are far from ruling owt ouch
cannes. Further, as shown in the disowssion of Hume wm Chapter 4. a
commios in Whech spinmaal entities act is at boast as likely as one im whach
they do mot.
What indhoatons are there thar the Devileea sparitual persomality
devoted 0 evdeoney really exist? The question has so be Broken ine
reo modes: frst, what the indicanens are without reference to religion:
second, what the medications are within a religioes content, Phe first
y te called “natural diabelogy”. the accent oe diabatogy.”
The flest indication of materal diabollogy is thar we do wot in fect
expencnce a morally meutral week’. Poycholegy comfierms thar we bopn
to expenence things as poad aad evil at a very early age, thoegh vith
macerity we learn the refincmmecs of amtevalence, The experncnce of
good and evil applies to beth whar is dome to us and what we do oo
 ~

ethers, and in ncemal poopie it ix Inherent unless eradicated by wxicty.

We expenence good and evil in cearselves and in other beman bei
Ber we aleo-experience pod and evil beyend the human race, We
regard cancer. meningitis, and other manwral evils ¥s a ble upom the
cooms, We also camrapokine esilto parative coher intelligent beings.
Whenever we imagine extratctrestrals as real “persons” bavitg o-
heremt intellect and will, we imagine them a capable of goed and evil,
capable of weffermg and of inflicting wafScring. There is no reavon to
axvame that the active evil in the eniverve is limeted to Hemanity.
Noe is there ream to aqurme that the cause of human evel lics in
hurr nature alone, We are making preparations for a reacloar war thar
at the kant woeld being atecdure oaftenng to thowsands of mnellions of
people. cach o¢ ubom would suffer as dad the cheld whose parcncs
locked her in the oven co oust to death. The aegument chat the artes
race is actually reducing the chusce of muchear war ts oftes heard froen
propugeidists, a im demeolithed by the simple fect thar the wereld grows
yearly sore dangerous. ‘Dhe agement that probally an one is delber-
ately plannieg to beunch a trecicar war negicets the fact that the danger
of an accidental nuckar war & increming with incrodibile rapadity, and
that the stockpiling and dephoymert of the weapons capable of destroy-
ing the planet » a deliberate choce thar humans have made and humans
Cas rovers
‘The demenic quality of the arms race becomes chearer when we ask,
co Whose gomd are these preparations for Robecsust? No indivedual. se
mann, oo Kkohogreenothing human will pecém from a muckear war.
Whar is the force. then, that is leading us to prepare for a destruction
exactly of the magnitude that we ave capable of: Che culm of hurnan bite
on this planet? If weslitary beses are estatdished mm space, on the moan.
oo Murs. of anywhere in the solar system. car plans for destruction will
be extended to meclude them. No one can doute that we woeld extend
the theeat threagh the galaxy o¢ te the entire universe if we had the
power. But what = the nature of the force that can contemplate the
destruction of the entire wtiverse?
Many aeurne that this unlimited destructiveness is am catersiom of
madividual human dqtructivencss. [¢ m truc that there is evil in cach of
ws, but adding together even Lege numbers of individeal ovilk docs noe
explain an Ausctreitz, bet alone the deutructice of the planet. Evil on
thix scale seers to be qualitatively ax well ax quantitanively different. Ir
& no longer a personal bet perbaps a tranepersonal ova, arising from
some kind of collective unconscious. It & aloo powable thar it is bevond
 (rad aad [heal ”

the transpersonal and is trely transcendent, an onery outsade as well as

inside the beenan eeind, an entity thit would exist even if there were no
Duttcen face Ho atthagete ot.
Such a teanscesdent Devil is difficelt mo defemd phulowptically. Ir
weuld have to be a person who was got only absolumely ove trot abso had
such cocemous kncwhdige and power that De coulg ganeed Res opore
thors cer the entire utdverse, oft least wherever inmelligenn aad moral
by free life foere cast. He would have to oppose God's work always and
everywhere. Hut could any created cad, however angelcally power
ful, have anvthiag like the Kneafedge required? The eniverse is incred
tly meee coenples than we hed any kia of even a century ape,
complex ax to ceiver the csistence of any being cosmically oppose
God extremely enproteite. If Cod can olmceve. in the ctornal moment,
the action of every webstorsic partick in a eniverse of a Rurktred thow
cond rrallice galaxies cach containing a hundred theaseed ollie stars.
and see cach partick m@ every moment of Time in a universe already
twenty thomand eeillion years old, and morcover sce all Che infinity of
potential universes that arise cach time a partick makes a random mo
tices, the kdca of any creature having cneugh imeligence to offer oppast:
tiem co Cad soon fantastic."
Natural dishology i veggestive but macoeclusve. Revealed diabotogy
is much firmer. From within Cheistiarety and Ishes, aqguments for the
Devil are very strong. (Is koeping with the scope
of thes series
of books
and foe the sake of simpboty. | vill pot the anrument in Chistian
tert, bet amniker arguments will apely to Islam.) Chistian epore
mology is towed epce senpture, tradition, reason. and experience. Any
statement about the work! in a Christian coment is made with referenve
tp one or mace of Che lates of Understanding. and the two central
pillars are scripture amd tradition. Hoth chearly affirm the exisence of
the Devil. Ut ts truc that belicf im the Devil's cristence os not part of the
core of Chretanity; 9 eeajoe Obrien tradition misnrs upon it as a
matter of dogma. At the same timc, it makes botk sense to call oneself a
Chratian uhik affirming a sew comorry te sonpture and trxinon,
Theedogians using historical criticises oe affirm that the New Tes
ment and chreech cvemcils did not mean what they said soem to base
their views less ce the ope search for hiserosl truth than upoe the
awureptices of cerrest materialise Few are ready 10 face the logical

©. Aeweher sqputnene io het evil, heme peleally dread aed meoeteroet by chifiretem,
could hare oo koe’ encligenet merce.
 “~

geo Mepbisopheler

comeeuennes of thew denial of the Devil. If Satan does net exist, God
mist be response for evil, at beast natural evil. If we aden thar God
Cfeales Ceacee and moet, of at beat creates a world in which cancer
ar! mocningitis cat, them Grad euust got be entirely pocel in cor scasc of
the world. But if God hava shaderw, what i is thie shadow but the Devil
by another name?
Shopeacs aloo segyrest thar the idea of the Desil is socally decructive,
thar te beliowes in the Devil is co grant evil noo much power, Certainly it
is sirmually wnhealthy to dwell epom che adea of the Det in any way
that lessens cete's altemmon to grace. Bet in the late twentieth century
the Devil seers to be rocerv ing ton hick acterntice father
than Goo much.
Skeptics ales object that the ides of the Devil pecenotes demonication of
enetiecs, bet systerra such as Sovect comemunom that deny the Devil
are cqually prone to domearexe their enemies The skeptics claim thot
belief im the Devil erodes hurram respomsibitey, bat Chriteerecy has
always msnced that the Dev has no power oo coerce ce coenpel the
las will, It may actually be thar by recognizing radical evil and
meng& we may gain the tools wh which co fight against it, An
einen of radical cil weald help us co get past pallacive mee
sures Caach as arms control or prison reform) no the heartof the matter.
further. fm were beter rtocd thar a percereed sparitual wooce
may cone free a power of evil, dasgerous cult figures who angue thar
they speak with the weece of God meght won fewer followers.
The aca of the Devil ubtionarely does litte to solve the profdem of
wy there & ev in the cosmos. Ar the center o¢ the peotlem om the
questionof why God should {reely choose 10 create
a cosines am which
the Devil and other evil beings prodece sach sumcavarable suffering.
How can God. freely choomng this costes. not be respornible for it?
Aad if God is respensitde. utiy de we need the nies of the Devil?
The rebeticn of cxil to Good bers im the century of Auichwitx and
Hireshena omce again become a center of philowophecal and theological
dixcexwon. The peoblem of evil cam be stated semply: Gied is connipe-
tent; God is perfectly
good; such a Ged woeld not permit
evil to cunt,
but we observe that evil esivts; therefore Grd does not exit. Variations
om the: theme are nearly mnGeute. The peoblem is not only alenract and
philosoptocal, of coerve; at & alee personal and iumedure, Boliovers
tend to forget that ther God takes avay cverything that ome cares
about posuceberns, ComMerts, succes, profession ce craft, knowhdge,
friends, Garcily, and life. What kind of Crcal is this? Any decent re
must face this questice squarely, and no ansucr is creditde that cannot
be gives in the peesomce of dying children. Yer believers knew from the
 Cond oad Ical “ee

deprhs of their experience that the ceosteas & alive with the peevence of
God,
bhow cam these things be recomciled? E cas ondy offer suggestions. In
ome dimension, the Devil esust be sooe as an aspect <¢ the conmmes that
Grad has created and therehore a peuduct of God's will Gad could have
created a different costes, of N8ne at all. Bot in anotheg dimension, the
dimension of space aad tine in which we all live, the Devil and evil are
the aneehests of God, and Gioxd wishes ot to strive against chem with
every strength we hore.
The concept of the Deval arises in part from the anguish of believers
confreating this dilemma.
If the Devil dees cast, whet is be? Df the conceptbas anv ing,
the Devil is the traditiomal Devil. He & a maghty perwon with ar
lence and will whose energies arc bent on the dowtruction of the
costies aad on the mesery of its creatures. The Deva pats the child in
the eves and the mectear weapors in their silos. We mut arrive againar
thisevil with every syllebe<€ Gar sanity, Evi can severr be Soaghe with
fore evil, negation ‘weh orc negation, nuckar misikes with more
traclear stisséles. The process of seystion mast be reveryed, Only affie:
TON Cah overtone Negation, only goad can overcome evil; only lowe
can Overcome hatred. My books have been somber; | have tried to face
the probless of evil without flinching. Iam, I think, permitred to end on
a note of optitnmam. In spiteof cur miserable recoed in the past, we have
the ability 0) use oer freedoms to embeace sew mates
af thinking, co
find a way to transcend and integrate evil and to turn its immense fo ce
cowaed the good. Acad I think that the cogmecs is alive with a power chat
cmcoretages un and aids us to do sa. Oe ae Se eee tetore
muchkar war bhyhes every hope, the weekd will be<
I book sonight freen my winter window aad name the stare, Procyon,
Secius and Mirzam, Aldetaean, and here in the warm south Canopas in
Carina, bow on the ren of the sca. I mare them, brat
I keow them not try
rating bat caly by hovinng. for lowe ts the stuff of their being and reine,
© bloc Marites Rigel, O long twins with burreng heads, © stare grape-
chestered in the veacyards of the night. Foe knowlalge pamies whee the
area bewtiag to the brain, bet bowe newer comes, bocwese mt im the
true stuff of reality that moves the sun and the other stars. Che mace af
ste ¢ Calves sell. And that is why the Devil, the subject of these fowr
books, = whatever way he exists, i ecpation negated. deréal denied,
meaningissness capleded imo galasics of mecaning blooming beight in
the darkness wath the light of love.
 Bibliography
ong

‘This bebtbegrephy of meanerial relwting directly te the Dovil mchadece the meccx
aTeportare ccortslery works before phge aed all works
of book hength tax well ax
STP TANE artithes) after (hyn Adihioenul seerces relevarnt to thenbers dicconand
wi the test are ted ot the foctrertes.

Adam, Alfeed. “The Herkonér dex Lethorworws vom eeematlichen Willen abs
Reiter Crettes ” Letter fobrieoh, 29 (igta), 24-35.
ee “Der Teetel oh Gettes Alle Verpeschechec cine Luticrwortes.” Lanter.
patrback, 28 (igh), 1ag-205.
Adher, Mandeod. of. Tod sud Jeaglon Abeprmtery, Auchateotearg, yyy,
Alena, Jowt J, “A. suscties con od diets.” Ifmtew y Ache (rata) 46-44.
“be om ef diubte? Tecdegis acteal y saaeieee ” Bentey ©, 191 (pore, 2p2-
rye
Abeseeter, Hroeds, ~The Dieppcarasc of dre
e Devil” Spontaa! Ceeennpewy Nemalr,
OY, bing TIGR), Gnd
Aleumader, Marc. Je tlqger
aly Deon’, As Acoma
of the Weed of iby Force Exrreondl-
mary fhe Revered Div, Deweld Omand. Sedtary, Sutiolt, 097%
ASoa, BL. “Thee Deeei’s Peeperty in tee United Stasca.” Crted, 137 (egaal ags-
343.
Acmuades,J. “El dishde.” Zopbryer,
4 (age ak a75~ 186
NedreweSabene, Lon Der Toft end woe Grower. jora, 0933.
Nedroey, Lacunal. Seva? fAary, New Veoe8, sqne.
Aawher, Roth Nands Fhe Mualey of abe Ovou bilee Mas, New York, ges.
N\estioe, Robert H 7TAe “Noten”
of Uflnw. Fodcreds, Pa. inte
Apersn Lager, Teifde “Satin y of pocede on la nevelitics coreceporiars.~
Bolg » carers, Ge. 26 C1906). Gop
e ker,
Newetrong, Herbert W. Lind Gad Create a Lec? ap., igr®.
Adbeee, Jobe The Diet ne Rrtees end Ameren, Loader, vty.
Acti, Hlemry. “Coan Chee Sell One's Seed (De Feast Lepoed).” In Robert ML
 »~

m Bebbagrapdy
Livrerere, Pat and rower, Now York,
Mactver. cd. Great Maca! Dnlwieemar
19th Pp Spe?
r Dew Reading, Mac. 1970.
of abe
Aylewworth Teens (3. Serneer
1 ge.
Bacheruen Frese. Lacifor: frame un tier Anfeagve. Dresckern
Buirorhige, Willams Sues Safew) Power A Ueciane Prchoiterapy Cal, Berkeley,
. >on tae
~ *

oy
Bak, Velox “La chins & Steen veg’ Suni Uniti” Reged & retge, 16 (egreh
i424 th .
Haber, che Dro: Exercene Fat and Peeves, Leeson, torts
Binding
Faldeocs, Coerads. Gl sadowematy. Rowse. toto .
Filtheser, Dans Ure von. “Veroreabedinds dee Darsoninchen.” Seerrmstnnair t2-
shalinte Zemchrgt, SCigTo 2ysea4q.
Haenterger, BernardJ Fates Agi: Phalacchphan ryie,
Hartews, Aaee T. “Satan's Exvvy of the Sen wend the Third Duy of the War.” Pagers
om Langna ge , t 5Cig7th. pore 3)F
ond Cicasare
Barth, less Martin. Cor Tendo! wed few Chranae an dor Thong Marne Laster,
Cyidteagen, 196.
_. “Hur inncren Entwichh Lethers Toafebgh
von eng esie
” Kenge Doge,
wad s.
te fegeck rorentt
Harehy, Efisns- Martin, blew Pha Richard Kaew. (vr cmeerparie Toslet) (iter
and ge.
erauke, Prchulygucter, Throlagevhe sar Ueardev ameBawe Marech. vate
y
of Setanten
Haskin, Wade. Dacromar New York, ogre.
Baw, Clarcree. “Satan oe! eae ee Perapective.” Ie fotn W.
Meerqgomnety . Dyess /uomaen. | finncegedis, C97
of, Pp yeasts.
Bateillc, Georges Lacraueranf Bol Locher, 0978
tic
G Mubvnen
Prews, Akwandro. “Setene reffagera fieotcopx n
ad Ietal
(e8 > River Ag tad ermeanall, po legsek sso tod,
9 —19)81."
Raster, Janes K, Te Ovo! cod Ale. Afetceby. Nocklewd, opr!
Barr, in, “The Deed in Art.” In Bewee de féan-Maric, od. Sete New
York, o9se. Pp. agt—sS.
Heard, Jote IL Asretegretdy of Swes. Londoe, 9872
Iigun, Albert. “Hales aed che “En d
of Sates.’” In Beene de JéreeMarx, od..
Sater, New Yor’, tots. Bp. pea-aey,
Bewker, Hage. “The Laciicr Motif i the German and Dasch Desofine the Soc
trench and Scvertoceth Coerertes .” P&.D. din. Usiverst y of Micbagan , roth
Phe Locifer Mast ia the Gerraan Desens of the Sianeerth Cenmary.” fee
atehctic fer downey Spracte and Literater, 6+ Ceggak 447-247.
Fite, Mlarie. “Saraniers, Ancient amt Madore: M. fulics Both Seese of His
Views.” A’ieenoenteraes, 11 (bgp), Bo-*y.
Bewcmenrei
derbto
Herder, Elars. “Teefe Ie M. Adler, oct, Tou amd Tragel on
heie” s
KAngcetery Awhaftenbrarg. 1977. Pp thon ea
Herescer, Joan S. “Grad, Satan, and Kieg Charkes: Melson’s Royal Portraits” Petre
rhome of the Madore Langwagy Amecastion, 9: Leg7yh 448 ate.
Borrases, Cex Kew & odet! de Seton. Parts. 1906,
Berrhurt.red. Cho w
med Dime: Vow de ginslchoe Schortoe der Schepfony,
Mueah. “ee. .
Lacger. pd od. Narnberg, 19%,
on ey
Terra, Alecander ven Gaw
 Hi Minger gay res

Harrell TA. De Piguee

of Saran im Milnor aed Hleke~ Le Bewne
chy Jeee Marie,
od. Sane. New York, rors. 179-194-
Benouard, ocpth. Der eqipern de ariet ke dimen: Einat botersger of phrkenptagec.
6 vids, Pari, (RO
pe rig
Hey, Wilken Perer, Tie Moorrer, New York, igys.
_ New York, 2945.
Efisct, ian. “Comer en "Sati frarna of the Hiiney of boo. iF digerh rate
ear
tech, Dene. “Aufklirung
ued Teutehgtiote.~ te Onkar Schots, od, Mar diy Re
typew Zatwet? Grar. 197s. Pp. r20-8 54.
Fieesster, W) V. “The Detneene a Hietoey: Tikeeues Mares are! Ganther Gene.”
Caeratere, 10 (epg, 16°,
feos, Harold The Pigghe oe Lacitor. A Gousic Foerary, New York, agro.
Flore, Wilricl, Sater Afetoed: A Victorian Mintery Loweker. 18g.
Heiter, Anton pete dey Tone: Ase Verveoh Sevtngart. rod.
ties, Jules. Lar meee
& Seta Deven oncing, Paris, 18g.
—— be aterer ol . Part, r§or.
Eedtworel, Rotert Mo “Turren ered Sete os Ege ‘Villain Chewwel formal. o>
Leese 18pm
Hoeacheer, (atuiviaiew.
Daw ot Xasow dame Ls ow dr Casherier dr Sater Ampaeten 1557-2568
Teer, 2979
Feereds. Edward M. Sever: fife Peeemality. Power, ond OQuiriiees New York. ogres.
Thervet, Apter “Riewboed, Satan et ‘Vorelion ” Saad (remem, 2) Crotal, gaye
De
Brendes, Semmacd GF. “The Dewi in Fath and Homey.” Aeveey Tadey (oo%5h
Pi4 ra
Horig, Jawxs “Whe in che Bell Is Saran?” 25. Catholr, gh 2 (igty) pee,
Biricwed. Joarery. /-A. Marea cf & raveroer: Diaprirdo deemecat reddin. Paria
tore
Hirik, Bhaen Thevnter, Cote oc oud Dagel ead Tragl?Serie an Rie, og?
Hrmccert, Andie. Satow at le pote. *, ou.
Rieeectte, Ernie. “The Sixteenth Conary and Satetnen ” bo Brurss de Jes Maric.
ot. Ree, New Vor’, tone, Pp. ctor gon
Poema M. “Dlaneery (7 Ceene and the Dereonk.” Matva Jive
Serer, og (roth, 20-44.
ae “leeeery O'Ccereet's Devil Reveetod.” Soothers Ifeewetrs Rewew, 10
Cope, BbF~ 35h
tirefice, KenecthA. “Satan
and the Subbres. The Meareng of the Remureic
I hero.”
PhD. dee. Noetirwesters Usiversty. rot.
Hiren: he Jive Mere, of Laue, New York. vege
Hirers, |. Bdgar. “Toward a New Uederwaanding of the Deernedc.” Lramewer, 4
LiQMAL rO-48.
Boechrecter. Arniey Erret. “The Bevdeotiong
dics Towfels fir die Thondigne Lathers:
‘Nutles dibedas—eelbix Reckenpeer” Theekguely Zanctest, io (ig7i), iF¢~
"™~.

Cate
il. Jernes Breech. The Devel) Oren Deer See A Comat) of the Fated Ca¥, New
Vert, tage
 as

ive Bibtigrapy
Cohen, Vewdlives "De dacesonibes qeibexden ocueclienicec ct sethecee oy
geretzioes comenunibes.” be Aw dd V compress serra fb ead Beamer
Kore, ogpy. Wp. 416-426,
(aittwoll, Vavter. Diakepens ga tte Diep, New York, 1gic.%
Carxriyrck. Phere “Féergiad « wccelberic cher kes théucickts de by Girecer
odogic + le fer ha Moyen Age: Fradct dreltaling mebficanns Prasenany and
Reforms, 19 legtah tp-2e
Candocci, Ground. Sawwes ¢ polomebe stewie, 30 ed) Modogea, 189
vars.
Carlow, Pathe, RevalViel, aed Taree? Pheetarncter Kratomar ab Coctateetres
caters dare Keoelerg. sgt.
c How, “The Rode of che Deed of the
is Grimern’ Tales An Exploration
Concert and Function of Pogalir Tales.” Sal Booed, 46 (eg 4-w99
Carus, Pad. TEE es aaa eee Timmerso she
Preest Dizy. €
Cavendish, Richa’. Tie Prasers of Gil be Waervra Balgver, Alege and Flt Rolef
Londee. tart
Corr). Vectav. Dewwevaty ood Ite Decih. Aan Arbor. 1974.
“Ces meronti démeen dacencertres.” Arete. t4 (igpel 478-170
Chafer, Lewn S Setew and the Ketek Sy, de Axfemtre Enomvenver of the
Sonpoare Toshing fren Goaoe ts BrowGrns. Cilagponr, aud.
aad Mrttad:
__.. Seve: Stes Metter ad od Phdadciptra. i919
Churniars, Whertater, “The Devil” Lt, Febereary 2. cog9. OP DDR
daw: Sarr, Vari, 0887.
Churent, Jean-Martin, and PL Bicker. Ler dineeniapees
Cece, Peer Arehoay. “The Rede of the Devil in Golden Age Drama.” Pb.D.
chin.. Pearnylvarses Ste Usiversiry, ign
“Chentinn Fart ond I A Decernest Coenninweend by che Sacrod
Congrepei ee 7
of the Dark” Pape Spooks. teee CHGTG), Opn eee.
Cte, Aagel L.A) domeene ov of trates & Colhria Valencia, 0977.
Clawel, Maurice. Dear vite chew Lefer, Paris, 1978.
Cocchiara, Gireseyqee, (i deavede avila tredcsone popodare wtaleene. Pabotes. 1094.
Coe, ChathesNo Dye Dvcals The Cherecter of Shetageere) Velen New York, 167.
Cotlewe, Mabert. Masser
de dite. Bronochs, royt
Colber,|. Dig the Foe! Freel Loess, ony
Coltrn. Gary. “Pry chedagied OSsercati ees In John W. Meetgert
ia Domenie.”
ot. ol, Diveew Pore, m. 19h Pp agpende,
Crnenarerwarry, Ananda. “Wher bs Seton end Wisere Ix Pell” Brows af Ritygrew, 12
(1987, 47.
of Xanwe, or, Tbe Serouge Experwev
Creel. Maric, The Seewwus e Tonge,
of One Goaiory
Mitmare Lindos, 1Fe5.
6 Ae Dal? New Vor®, igik
Coese, Nicolas T1. Crbeusi| Whe
Carts, B., and EM. Gant Tv Gav apevew Pennereer and Decor: A HMastor-
nal, of Doman, Deve.
. nd Prechedgiel Amatyar and Demo. New York.
1974.
rsk in Stukespeare’s Goesndicn ~ Mary-
and Domcendege
Orig. Terry Ana. "Wacbe
ner’s thexin, Daqucwsc University. tory.
Cristiane, Leon. Price dy Xeno doer'ly emady mdrer. Pari. 1949.
—. Seater fe aly Madre World, Londen, og.
we Stra, Tabor: Pam. 1946.*
 Bibingrapty 397
she Dev om Sewer and
andks,
Colkn, Park. fete’ Tnad: The Pint, ite Wer
Aftos Priwceton. tory.
Curoa, Givwlares. De Figer ae an Goctle’whew Feet “Torin i hg.
Curbera, Laseosion, WW. Jv Deval and she Vier te the Daglich Drramana Literature defer
Ihalk, ge.
Dadiyat, Bad AL “Haregte aned Waal oetets' Anbearcth an Meljn's Saenaon Age
reste.” fever (Aameeterty, 06 ), Goto. “
Danecls, Exhgar Po The Severs Germary Concepaion of Saran with Relation 8»
the Saree of Maradie Lot” PRD. dins., Stanford Unrverety. rots,
Duscercou, Michel. “Le chubbe of piinne Relator, 44 Ciqgl, 16-72.
Dace, Afsert Seev wel dv Text, Hocker. rojo
Davcnpeet, Masd, od. Lheed cont aly Dt de Aatoiagy, New Tork. 194%:
Dhavidaaws, Country. A DNetiemof
erythe Amonly, Jaoledieg che Falloe degel New York,
uy.
Deven. RM “Tie feulh “The Rode of Stastogia.~ In Malcolrs V_ force aad G,
Mo Terry, ade, New Ana ys , Canstenige, og3p Pp. geet te
or Detertsly
Dy Bourn Lecy. Wiener end tly veil ie Sisson Contry Litwatew. “Visteary,
Waite. 1990
De Hass, Richard W. Sane, Sonandow, and Wievteragt, Girard Raped. Mack.. ryts
Debved, Hikhurd. Lacghr: Fes Tow n:
ond Glesupel. Borin. 1 hyp.
Dlipeetec, Albert. Le diakde, crme gee feral? 2d od. Paris, 984).
er rnu
Deipech, Heeri, Sees) Apepy, 2 vob. Paris, 109
—.. Sew, Poe Bordcaer, oso6
r des tewaps
ay detvet
Delaewae, fous. “Ancetes echtebagiques ct poor de Sate
mrmxkrncs.” Brcervte oh twas cackaly ¢ roiyren, 02 C1g77h, tate t6r.
Dernes. Jobe Aawaatenge Xetor, Witching? ond aly Colaew of Karty New Enplend
New Voek, iat.
Devine, MadipE. ~The Perfect Idand, the Devil, and Exintont Ceienas.” Aawrees
Pocbeophica! Qmaraerty, 42 (ig7sh, 244-280.
be duals dams by Sibbherrde Walker. Brurnchs. 1%e,
Didier, Rayanced. “Satan Quebyers oifhexiens théobogsyzaes.” Lemeirr of tw, 78
(igttd, 77-4.
DicckedT, Jotve 3. “Rive, the Diced, anal Arrepagitae,” Madore Language Cnsarterty. §
tepees 420-414.
UXttey, Willschey. “Seton inv cher cbriatfiches Poceic.” In Dibleey, fw gra Jee
tocndlvtteny, Coemegre, cate. Pp rep ite
Dewkerer, Eleawéeo vor. 7ée Dee, New York, egte.
Deen, pales. Lacyir dteeeqet Pets, igs.
Deagee. Antonie. Mepdwapeliy or x proton die mel dew A dram dy Facet. Paris,
ier
Deeteer, UNane BL “Diatbetbea! Order ie Hell) Ae Binbiomutic Lerverseets ne Peratiw
Laat” Soma anetee, © Lept, 0g 1 F.
Dratal, Renetic da peychomahe de dholr Phen. ros,
Dele, Ueowhard. “Toutchu eswik is Deere Bland in Ger Zeit noch dows dreragy
jheigee Keicge.” Gorreypeetiea®? Meveenoirytt, 5 fogeSh gato
Drencas, Roeuhl The (rath of Sarow. In Sonam, Sociaed ales , Davee New
Selly Gold:
Phe foo Megland. Now York, 1944. Pp tintin
Dreypew. Chiretan. “Syyentedic cos ehabad?” Lameeive of cr, 75 LegtOh gp tod,
 ”~

Dustoer, FB. “Lagends of Lecter in Barly Pingtich ard ts Minow.” Amelie, ¢4

(aged, at y-364.
bee, Martin. Vie Dera’r Bade Fowcoe Mer
end Prover. New York, rare
Hiade. Mircen Tae Toe wd Abe (er. London rots. *
Dihee, Gal. Laeger, Lewsher, 1ore
Pile, Beteeve send Mt Seweth “Dhesartes, Ciel, aed the Bud Sper” Sete iy
(1g), 49-16
Hivead, Koger. Ivieer
of Dartecs. Norwalk, Coan. fy74.
—— Serenge (hane Arr Heppoeuny: Saccorm, Wivcterst, and Gnd. Hgis, IR. e973.
Eorerureocl, Picree. Aemdlewes: The Porader
of Rrdoeprrce Satara. University. Abs.
igte
Vpetew, Jean de ciotens
Ae daly, Pars. et,
Daren, Cooke. Toxlasrrnienges: Div Drace dv toctedeten Avely ow if wad i>
. Bera, 2973.
Evers. Jobo M. Peradie
Leet ond the Gooow Tradition Oxford. 19%.
Fol. od CG. Jong Teeerete, Bverctes, ror.
Pabrentnag. ee Lectin Diteang in Bd wed Wort, Srergert, 1917
allen, SeptemMo "Saras’s Herter to Dill Mikoe« Coeceskd Dulague with
Heese amd Virgil Milor Linereerty, 1g (igs), 78-8.
Farrell, Walter, & Lecreeng, and F Cotherinct. ods The Deval. New Vor’, rocs.
Febe. Ther woe “Chtneseener! ed Fodter: Fine Stuhe cur Dirneredegie des Me.
colattens anal chr eeuewen Zeit” ln Penpals
fir Badly Sule Ierbn, egos, Pp
2at—3¢4.
Feuckrwanger. Lown. Wiebe Ctr dy Jeet!
ow Bete Loe A . o9a8.
velrach, Minvhall WA Brief Jfovery of the Devel, Reasoke, Va. ite.
wn Fame Peateited Some Thumghts
on Satan New Vou’, rosy,
Hiammagan, Hoy. "telial
ancl ‘Doteremare Slackews’
os Plevadew Loe ancl Marnadew
Rrpocwed.” Milton Qaarterty, 19 (ogc o-et.
Pieter. Racha’. “Meptretougbcies ond dic Handiorgnfrobcit ” Clrent do Winer
Caethe. Vere, Go (ighal rpege
Hecreabovka, feas-lowi. “les olden de Satan dans bes “Aus Ge Lope de Vege~
Baten hopweiger,
44 (igh, 44.
Hikk, Mert ~“Kitbewbeti os Serena. Rawpne
dh trebgie, 10 (1970), 08-64.
bheves Aeresuchs, France 07 daily Liven 5 Mauewia, 197%
eae Rate “The Desil in Ronweien Litcrmure ond Fedbioee.” le \. Ober,
eee tty Demme. New York, 1g7c, Pp. Gg.
Feessth. Od Emcor: Satewa Adversary. Rabel, Tyran. and Heretic. Prince
om, og
brarke, Arateke. La sively
do cage. Porm, 1913.
Frere, Exh. Moect
anf Dame. Tubexgen. 1953.
Feoceun. Jeencs A. “Setes, Bereicy, eed “Thee Din of War” Alsen Quarterly, >
LiGTAL bee
Vremet, Rotwrr VW. "Satan's Seemet.” Abitow Gernrly, ti (opr tigen tte
Frew, Sigerrasd. Bier Texgoboweren iw sictocbacn fobrtandert, . 1934
Frey. Dapobert, “Coe dower, ¢ Dn” le E Candi. al. Fi afarse
Miles, sess. Pp tigeens
Hreytag, Caustay. “Dvr deuteche Teutel is sectowhanen Jahebersdere ~ In Prevtag.
Cowmmely Werte. Kerlin, ig:0. Set 2. ved. po. set-a8y.
 Miograply
Tesfel wed die Memd-sad Linkogrrie-
Saten!ate
Frick, Kart RH. Dhe Riek Seeaar Loc
ww ty tery tutors wad deation Apetice, Grar. ita,
Frond, Adiné. Ler pt prose & fcrrtree de duly, Pare 197%.
Frye, Holand M. Gad, Alor, eed Sates) Perto rer Theagly ond Lift ie Paradew
of Coranew
Leas, eae Prag aad the Greet Totnes. Princeton. ie,
eew,
Fuchs, A . “Mephdophdhte ” Firms gorewnapeet, pe (6ott), 25 5-242-
Gabel Rattent, Lewis. Ur dabte Scuw, see awory. Pann 4094.
Gapen, ean. “Adan, the Serpan#, ated Sataa: Kecogretee ared Reworetiny~ Alaiew
. OP Cog ah, tier eae.
Gasteer, Piles. "Milvon's “Satan! eed the These of Durerateon a Eleotathon
Tragedy.” Fagglnd Sendo, 8 1 (1h), go 66
Garparro, Goole Saree “I pedti conericdegci Gogh Verssi” Newm, a6 Crgr4l
po7—227. wed 2a Legpey 24-4!
Garigliv, Anas, and Maarine Rens, “Seer Hhermand de Merehon ct be diubte dite
bes <royarcce popullsines.” Mime at arcbvtaga: dor demon. Ty (egtbe ghgh Gor
“.
Cactiner. Exes The Deval ot Madere Piviety Loesbn, tore
Gelber, Alaa 1. "Dbe Thoudegicw! Mads of Satan's Rebelben and the Puction ot
Abchel im Parade Leet” Madre , eo Cegark tenat
Cnldes. Peter, “Deremiacal Paxscooon” Jrnd There! Qearwrdy, 41 [ogra 2%
ger.
Gieatearg, Cack. “Prévcmnptecen ser be sabtar.~ Aemete, 99 (10%4). Sat ase,
Gloger. and W, Zetenr, Ti ond Heaewwake, Laipeug, evs.
Goebel, Julies, “Mephnsophelcs und das Preddewy des Uheon in Goethes Faest.”
fer Kant wad Total, ¢ (igrel ote toot.
fevmatonsls Woctomctre’
Gebdaon Robcrt. Sater’) Dela New York, ngs.
Ged, bea. Lever eevee, Porn, 1931.
of the Devil Prontence is the Pres
Goeelecs, Weblgang. “St. Arocier's Dioproed
legis A Coenter Angpunent speared Haight aed Kichrean” Rete, 46 Cegpah
514-557.
St, Anneben's Two Devil: bet One Geel ” Bate, 10 Lepr, aqo-198.
Gheree Vabberearra, Podro. Meewre 4d Babe, ogres, rock.
Creerike, Goi, “Den» of Gabix Superacsio crotine del dauivees ” Chm
sored, og (igtil, Por pet.
Gercehi, dee. “Milton's Semelinudes for Sates arnt the Traditional lerphcetiees of
Their frnagery.” Milter Qreerterip, to (ign), rot—eot.
Grant. C.K. “A Murbectan Procodens for Sanan’s Avtreecntial bearney in Parackec
Leet’ EX 6) 067.” Aliee Qearerty, © Oral ata,
cece“ Vhee Unaedogical Disgpeund of the Dewi.” Asatyar, 17 (1gsth. pret,
Gree, A. “Byron's Lawifer.” (agtnciy Tombow, 95 (rgoth Gate
Dea and Angele. Gardon
Greckey, Andres. Tiv Devel, You Say? Alam end His Pervenal
Gay, SLY. 19Te :
Gaet¥ie, Robert. “The Devil aned Pancrge.~ Avadh frowwee, g3/e% (ewe 8 i6
Fag
Carilhet. Claradinas, Le Meabie dows be Atstratere av Ue ivi, Liven, ogi.
Greene, Melarich "Dee doarchon “Toefellenter’ des 16, Jabebenckrts.” Arcive fer
Cachute
do Aechrore. 1 (eyed, 464797"
Griowobd, Worwde, “The Devils Vochasyae: Caltersl Legtimurion and Sccul
Change.” Aewrican Sncsokgnon! Brow, ¢8 (gal 68-680.
 ~”

zie BaNingraphy
(oon, Sepreeer. “The Deed on sunteran Joes aad Kacando in Victory.” Noer-
fret -Contary Picton, 16 (igéal, 81-85.
Gowwenann. Riedell. “Veer Toufel in der becimencritanichen Literstar.” in Sotiw
Dheraeeo bonne of There Plextor, Merech. egpe Py. tyterny
Condes be, Chatyt “Adasnsanign: ata) Serpereion: Mibvar's
Use af Two Corseentions
od Sanwa tin Paxadin Low” map, te act pia bag eae.
(rlether, P. Hoetatran Mane fhe Cogeepeiors Sater . (972
Setan: der Wikernacher Gatto.
Gathrie. ka G. “Satan Real or Fictiscen’™ Reesivre life cad Tings 1g legtal.
iter obs.
Haack, FeantiichWahebn Ketan Tratt Larger, Moma, sys,
hang, Dherteort. Adotvel oem Tragil Dinrendelin, itm
—.- “Bis fragwa rieniches Stechendetkerscnt cam Thera Toate” rhe-
: , 196 (tore), 24-14.
eee, “Deer Teofel on der Babel” [in Mh Ader, cdl. Ted wed Tol
oe Angreders
Aschaffeoburg, torr, Py eae
wes Teafrighvate. Tihengre, eyr4.
fagen, Martia. Der Texfel ow Lackey Av Glasivegurilee. Protearg, 0&9.
Hat, Davy ad Margene Hagte “As Crecbogncal Argersent for the Devil”
{4 legpok 21P 220.
Dhaeeeg, Peet. ol The Seamey, New Yoe8, tgp
Mb "Predenic T. Tie Pedrosof che Decal, Lomdom, a3.
btalic, Phdip P. “Saran, food, and Grood in Hivtery.” in 5. M. Seanuge, od. , Meow
and Vika. Tetews. N.J.. 2075. Pp. cote.
Harettcn. Gourge R flees oe Foul? A Sey of Miten) Sten Lowehes, ree
Dharereets, A.J. aed
U. Ron. “Fragen Ghee den Teetel ~ be B. teu, of, Po wet
“ese Sretigant, 1974. Pp. fa-72.
Arex. “Leafer Pome of che Exot’ and the Fall of Marbrec’s Dr.
Ree Neng Mivtelegeew, Ag CGA ro@enee
Hawkes, fetey, “Placweery OF Gonewe’s Devil ~ Seay Regwew, So Leotel, tote gr?
Dither, Charkes. 2 dusty doer [ypewsoer, Paris, 2%.
—. Nomen of poocooee dubebgeer. od od. Part, 18g.
Heteerg. Hits. “Meplestos Votdennhan ” feet Slvier. fo. @ legigl spzerce
Herey, Calet SS. Setes oe Maca! Pheer, New York, shys,
DBroch, Ponanent. "Dos Weerkin, das den Toute! tlken ann Ind bech, Lathe
dive, 2 vol. Ganrbh, tore Vol 2. pp. op-o4.
Htc), Abkevesder, Ro “Pect ered Wager in Goethe's Faust.” badkre Phvlles, 1
lipierr eget Sharda
Dhol, Adolf. Dead and rie Lieve’, New York, egos.
Holqut, James Mo ~The Devil in Mefti: The Mirchcrwelt
mn Giogel’s Sherr
Steerics” Prvhicatinee
of the Miadere damemane Atwenver, Be Crotch, ger pfe.
Iberkalay, Cale “Dive Satan Coetroowrues of the Nuseteenah Coetery~ le
Waldo P. MeNetr, od, Avadier on Banglad Bomemencr Levrererr. Hanon Reeage, La,
1642. Pe. egrerie
Thenter, Wikre BR. Jr, “Betuls Presence it Paesadee Lat” Aver Cimertently, 19
(igh, me,
—- “Bve's Dermener Drcare.* AL. A fara of El Lara bv. ay leggth
15S~204.
 Pitegreapy pee

Dhauicy, Aldean. The Dve Loner. New Veet, 1952.

of al
Pbayserwss, Jere Karl. Lite. Paris, efit
bersch, Haemiaan, ol Exectonon Uatort. Blibverwan, 1%
Jackwon Baral. “Refhectbeesom the Dersosic: A Prechurnc Perspective,” be J, W.
‘ ok, Deer Prncries Mineeapetix, 1976. Pp 2g a6,
Jocete, “Drea Darees.” In PL J. Strood, of. Sewadi agyr. New
Oe Seuamau
Verb, eg72. Mp. pon4s. a “«
Jarseon, Mary T. “The Teenenerh Gernury Crites of Milton and he Preddem of
Saree in Poradine Leet.” PhD. dios. Cothedic Darverety. rose.
hewett. Event EL ae The Puaad re e r of Sates, New York, vito
Aiage
Joss, Ernest, Nighvacrr, Water, 20d Ovcub. New Vorb. agar
Josep, teva. Dew! Westie The Sacral Books wal Tradishome of abe Vecsey, Beoton,
191g
Joernct, Okaiies, Jacques Maritain, and Madippe de be Trini, ta pecté de Fane:
Pavel’, satery, cf reredert Para, 1a.
Jung, Cart G. Aereer te jd New York 44
___. “Vibe Fight with the Shades.” In Jeng, Caltered Work. Prinnenon, 0970. Vol.
1 fp FRR bat
ewe hes
of Dkeeoa
“Weychotegy ad Relgnens The Dkfini ran.” In Jung. Coleen
Wor’. Princeton, igre Voll Bp. O48,
__. “Seydiees semaines ad reactioes.” be Jorg. Momorns, Drrees, Ayame New
Vouk, epic pTe oe
auus- “the me” In Jurng, Codlored Words Peiecwoan, 1968. Vel. ce. pp. bn?
Jurt, Josephs nae ras te ae yg Pars, 197%.
y
der Grnter.
Kalter, Erich. "Die Sthadiscrurg des Teutiels.” in Kabler, Verssrnernun
Prewkfart, oece. Pp tape ite
Kauvcr, Cocrhord, “Dvdver Pacer, sind Sie des Teutehs?™ Enptorion. 7 (rgtg), #88
gr.
Kalles, Jawa fom and the Prerer of Xatwe, Midadeiptes, 1y6®.
ee The Beal Seton. Frese (idilcal Tunes te tte Prower, Mi m, 1974
Vie Setewward Vive: A Sonly te Panter Thewhagy. wa, tt
_ Walser, aad K. Lehenes, ots. Tra iteree Beeet ew Marr, os
Keane, Frank S. “hs His (an Shape: The Statute of Satan bn Poredine Lew.” Eagte®
Language Neder, 9 (108), iig-2% -
___eeifer, Satan. and the Devil A Geneds of Apparest beoundecncics im
Peredee Lat.” Pl). dies, Usiverdry of Cabfornia. Rerbeley, 19%.
a Milne wad the Larry Sees. Aretordan, 1494:
Kebl. D. G. “Tie Ceersocrate Ditedive: in Modere Litcratere,” In J. W.
Mesapeewry, od. Orme Pesctien Minacapote. 197% ee
5¢
Kelly, Ileney Amar, “Desseniegy aad Dulediowt Tevepeaton” Theegi¥.
ight), mot—oe4.
—. The Dee s! . Ithaca, 1984
at Bapewun
~~ The Dvett’, Domenery, ond Winters? 22 of, Gann Cy, N.Y. ogre
ise Devil inv the Desert” Cashes Bites! Qssrterty, 16 City). epee tae
hee dua ss dime
of hle bar Deee la
cieitiw e’,
ct expan
er bargi Paris, 1997
(Engtods ost of ogre, veoh achberee
Hereet
Kewsp, Marke Aum Mantoesthow of Seran oe Tue Newt of Grego Sereane
Ibergeccad, Herts . 1976
 *”
Ribs ,
giz

Kerdews Keel Dheesas Mane ancl dee Deetel in Paterna.” New Xemiches 75
(igta), jah a4
Kenoomukers A. “De Dacron.”
One Gobey, ye (rast, a56—453.
Key. D. M. ~The Life and Drath of the Desi” Avigeter fy U9, nace (eggeh py-8e
Keceding, Nichole. Toe Jecthes io, Engloh Lirarere: Prmreane aad Prigesy
Pulirews, Weed,, ego)
Kong, Albee H. "The Cariaiin Deed” Reiygion Ae Cate, ina (1gted, 4e—71.
Kechochiliger, Waker. “Pagel, Toutcl, Dursemes: Base tebtinche Saree.” Bote! and
Citargy, 14 Lighal, oS-2e2. .
Riestos, Haws. One Tenfabeer. Berle. eeg
Kloits, piney, Serrewe of Seten: The Age of the Wink Jiven Uheeringvon, Jeet.
‘ '
Nebdl, Prine. “Speaking of the Devil A Moda Methodebogpcal Properal” In A
Cron, Mogumer of tte Liewemec. New York, 1975. Bp. 3-96.
Nolshewsks, Lowek “Can the Devil be Saead? A Marsot Arower,” Pevewewrr, at
lepral Pett
wow The Deut
aad Sonpowry, Losin, io7h
wwe Croprtcte
mu dow Vref: Ack Daherw ther da Ber wad con Soikte Munch.
it.
—— Pabe r, ff Therebs Ne Gad: Oe Gal. the Devel, Sow, ond Other Worries of ty Se
Caled Pts of Pole New York, ote.
Kobin, Padip¢), “Maten's Uae cd Choads Sar Satande Parcady in Seradie Lan.” Bese
on Lavravere, ¢ Cigatl, it b-es2.
Kretrentacher, Loopold. Tescibwedincr
and Fasctgevelice on Abondlendr. Kage fart.
ees
Kiker, Hoes, “Dus Teutelawetiv im materees Rowan” Wale aad Weer, 8 fogcal
Rid TS.
Rute, Patrica. “The Archetype
of the Deed in Tweetkth Century Litersture.”
PhD. dw. Unwerete of Colfer, Riverede, com
La Hegyee che Vilbereetrve, Sharcel che Natee daw 4s oth Canpritatiee
cave oe acelener
om war & Aahodo poles ce oud. Marie, o9¢t.
Lae Charm’, Ke . “Devito: and Rabelets’s Paertagruct.” Froect Aros, 49
Crg7alh. are4e.
Lavegue, Phares Sacks Ute Diaewvilnng
de Tragvts oe dew cratlctvn Spin Dyetatends
(ow
Adve Astangen
be cam Ped dev rt. jebrbweiere. Merech, tgp
Lamcebn Charkes. Asean aryebager de Shatow, Die de Bapceuk
an dogger; Orgguner
de Padi
MO Aer mnt ad dnwners Mes dees Pen, io
Lrnge, Urvsla, Lietrrrmchemges
cw Mater Jvneeumcey. Praskfarrt, rg ye
Langgiwer, Bleatxth Pryncychew dv Jrageh. Dreadicn, e952.
Langnon, Edward. Matew, @ Portrent: A Sey of the Cherecter of Sater throng Ail abe
Age. Lowke, eae
ww Rapereatacal The Davevoee
of Spacer, Nagel, amd Ovens. fram the Mdtly Ape
want
aly Prot Jew. Locabo, tote
Larrimeore, Richenced. “Why the Devil by the Devil.” Procediege of the Aeercew
Péheoptred! Serety. 106 (eg n, qe are
Lacstnte, Teche, Scan, Scery, onl Ga, Wer Nyack, N.Y,, gpg
LaVew, Anson Soaeder. Th Sse ftv. New York, 19¢4o
——. Viv Sateen Avaeb. Socaacus, N.J.. e972.
 Mebagrephy gy
s, &
became, Argue F Meweire de Satan: Se (hele, pam culy, 01 smamfenal me, wieworn
gre fait d Diew at ance dommes, Paris, 1861.
galsrre
m Mod
of the
BS. *Milkcer's Infernal Goencil and Massteaw” Meddicatio
cra Laagaage Society of America, 69 (nota owt
Lee, Vernee: [Viedet Paget) Stan, the Weer, Lewin, igo.
__. “Sater's Bpibague to the War,” Pigglind Bevin. 20 (igi sh toy-s2t-
“Sean's oo the Wile” Hagint Aree. ty (tag (20-84
ighe GEA Paeattoactes.” Zatucbryt fir Kwuherfremade, 1.
—
Leeesterta, P. “Zur
eg (tga ph oa tee
40
Leger. F. “Devil Woedhip and Fecersaaary.” Contemporary Revere, po (ig,
*) and bh.
Lebraes, Karl. “Der Trutl—cin petenuics Ween?” In W. Keser
—Diameeee
Lebrures, obs., Tent’ = Beeman. ad od. Maree, 19): Bp. 72-98
New
Lehrer, Erad, ard jotunro Lekeer, txctl, Demon. Dew, 20d Heorasten
Vout, ie.
der dirsesinten Hevcwerheit ere! dis Heuake
Lere, Joocph. “Die Keacekhen
Keown ~ Trisser cheolagoobe Zevtwhey®. 63 (nore emp tgs,
988~
Levedund, Kurt. “Der Gost aed der Toefl” Mow Radohan, Go (rggat
ae}.
of Joes send the Devil” In Brensy
Lépde. Marcel. “St. ‘Verwa dee Woue Mane, od.,
_ New York, 1932. Pp gfe rot
~ Ph 2),
Legge, Savane. “The Deeils Music: A Literary Seedy of Boll ard Messe
dea. University of Calfernia, Riverside, 107%.
Lown, Jereney, Sacee: Ife Prycbeterapy cad Care by the Cigforsamser ir, Kacter,
JS PS. New York, 1
Lewk, Cltve S. Perelestre. Londo, epge
The Sterwtape Laren; oot, Srewsape Sepa 2 Toav. Lewwbn, 1041.
——. Thest Midewar Sieve, Leendes, ope.
Lewis, Vadein The Creete ead he Adoermary New Vor, 194%.
Lhermeinc, Jean, “Pred de Jouu-Mare, ol, Soran New
Hoonoian.” fe rene
York. 1otr, Pp. ate-29¢0.
ie
Lich, Mikhael "Further Thesis oo Satan's Joereey thovagh Chose.”
iy. 12 AGT Pm8 gg.
Lille, Arther, Tie Weenkp of Sate ts Mada Pram. Laesben, 1
Lindberg, Carter. "Mask of Gal aed Prince of Lace Lasher's Thookogy of tre
of the Domenie, New York 1y7s. Pp. 87-
Denneedc.” In A. Olsen, od, Diggacer
14.
Grand
Lindsey, Hal, and CC. Carhews, Snes fr Afey ond Will o@ Pewe Earth
oic, Macb., og72.
1970
Liww, Kinding. Eimde se Cart de Vitor Hoge dows “Ta fin de Seven ” Paris, Cont
cd, Elewteth "Heron and Seton ~ Waerreted Lowder Srv, 164, oo.
1
(Chteder 17th, 40-70.
Lacon Marke de Saantnept, Po The Devil i the Weinngs of St. lee of the
od. Sawe, New York. ease Py Ban
Crema” In Bouse de Jivae-Maric,
fester, Ernest, “Satan.” Chsoggs Simos, 65 (0gTa). 59m
Miaduringa, Salvador de. Saeed’, Hannon Aires, tye
Mactaobe, Jacques. ~The Eheviles Crngedl ard Deneotereki ” fr Bren ike JiveeMane,
od., Sates, New York, vgce. Pp etaratt.
 ”~

Sty Bibi egpragpley

Mather, Ladwig, “Zurn Pale in Goede Fret” Zoinebru) (ir leet feed, 9>
(epesh 1c ege,
Miagper, Ale. “Sanaa be Oxat Duy” Ip Tewnes
he Jive Mare, ad, Sane New York,
1952. Pp 407-905. .
Maguay, Clrede-Pdreosd. “The Devil a1 Coetersporary Literature.” In Bruno de
jourMane, od. Ste, New York. 1952. Pp. 52-44.
Mabel. Cerehacr. Alyptete Ufetamgdure: Femt! Mortar ob Agrmesten lverermeler
Teetehpetetene, Crogqenges. tot, :
Mame, Mire Swane, Torrie do dasapbe 0 dake me codturs popular de menderey, Rin de
Jarwiro, tore ‘
Stalker, Reverend. Lo ofetdy. Para, igat.
Maller, Vernon R. The Ocmenic: A Scheted Theolggoe! Sted. Lanham Md. eos.
Maen. Aled “The Rabie of Mepdrstugtictes.” Gereseee Brower, ng Lroget. 1646
ane
SMlaen, Theenas, Datew
J ewrer. Pranktuet, iggy.
Mage, Binc. Jv Pawune of Deval Lobe, 074.
Moquurt. Feance NX. “E.worcnen and) Diabedical Marefcetaten.” Ia Bromo
de Jéves-
Maric. od. Meter, New Voek. rags. Pp et~204.
Marres, Jowe Led. “Das Tie in Peru” fetrrmatene dethedwdy Zawiey?, §
C1, BAF aH
Marraraiai, Atredo “Se pod crodere ancoca nel diarroled” Crema cattoliew, 125
(Apail-Jare 0977) 14-90.
Martie, Mallechi. fee
te Abe Drial Tbe Penetien and Eeerreer of Free Lave Aevri
ioe, New York, eye
Martins ‘Terra,J. B. Exit
o debe? Bepeaden w Slo Paulo, 1975.
Marty, Martiz. ~The Devil You Say; Demme Say 1° In Richard Woods, od.
Heteradery, Mytwel Expcricecr,
Briggees Doocet and thy Oneal’, Chicago. ep7e. Pp
fot ney.
Macon, Baxto C “Faun and Mrphivpibaies.” ha Gyros thant o4., ions Was
cen Connie —Famet: A Tragedy. New York, 1906 Bp. a8he-o0y.
we oe Gstaldes Teudch
in dor dcenschen Livcee * hn W. Keclichanict aod
Hi, Meser, cls, Traliteesand Crgrwepleitew Bern. rote. Pye ripened.
ee “The Pathe ard Powers of Mopheanegtnbes” le Gorwane Sradey Jyowetel te
Water Iter Araferd. Londes, rgé2. Mp. Bi-ane.
Loais. ~The Yerkio of Meerst Sesdper.” bs Beene
de Jewu-Mane, od...
Setee New York. toys, Pp cetente,
Macwn, jess, Daewdilawe “verve dew ot Scan ~ Paris, gg.
Mawr, Dawel. 2 Dive Devaic Laster’, Milter), wad Gornie’s. Lomdee, fry.
Masters. Arefwery. Tbe Dec’) Deeeeren: Tite Complete: Story of Hell ond Setenoor on che
Abwdew Weel New Yor’, ryp®
Murewowsds, bgaacy. [Asai
& pers, aterya | pryciedignas ptay meme oly
aay Oe a ee a od
‘anew, ibe.
Mvernie, Revel, “Die Lanter & Halthasee: Be catvaet Radert Hrewson.
” Loewe of eve,
TS LAGGSL, bingy.
Muy, Jobin IL. “Amencan Linrary Varutiens
om the Dereeeic.” le A. Om, oh.
ngewe of the Demme. New York 1975. Pp. g1-4p.
Matcativey, Phabip, “Paratee Aged The Seyte of Satan's Athens.” Alsber (ime.
wedy, § (GTI, Pete
 Bidivgvaply 715
h, 16~
MeDermect, Vienethy. “Te Died and Hin Napels” New BMackirnery, 4 Leg
ae.
Sicbinkell, Ruth, “Dermowike Wi radgear.” Viator, 96 (1g84), ut 98r.
Meser,©, “Dectrina del ' sabre dngckcs » dewsienen ~ Concatunn: fevers
tamale Lotryt far Theelagy, 10 (a7). pat ge
Mower, Charkes BR. “Sgaeut of the Devil” Ohteage Srmtis, ra begs sh yes,
Milner, Mace Lr duet dives he Atitratere mmpene: De Casettr ¢ Randers 720 BBs, 8
vol Paria, ites o
de
Mine, A. "La doctrine catediqee war bes aengesof hes dermema.” Arrwe cnihanaper
Lites, 9S (igi th, hope ate
Mische. Jobueans “Daanerinche Besewenbeir.” In We. Kespee aed B. Leterees,
— — Kereredien?
och, Tragit dence id od. Mere, eprt. Mp op-eat.
Niwtres, Boeald. ~The Dkdl, Dhemncen. ard Degwnatices.” Commrerunel, Fetruary 4,
“TT. jens:
Moeller. on munpe du Satan’ des Epnde: Coreiccune.” Cotertowe
C. “Retlexiors
MatWevwew, 14 (roe) #96901.
Mabr, Walligaag. “Mephiegtctcs urd Lok” Lvenche Vieracbetre deel, 08 Ceggat
iTr-21e
a Jober WL cd Drewes Penmaes A Mrdivel, Merwkal, Anthrgederel,
Tivhieeal Sree Marcapote. 197%
14 9~
Meee, Ofin H. ~Tiee lefernat Council.” Matra Miabiagy, 16 (egetqigagt,
roy. aed op (igiietgzsh apety,
Paris,
Meed, Aeguate. Arner piwtrale de dusk pendant & meame fe Jae Ofrer,
Me.
Morris, Max. “Mephdstephetice” Gaethe fatetand, 22 Cegork tire rat, aed 24 (ogork
tpg rte
Steewetiond, W. M. ~The Deed in Pingheh Liscrerere fooen the Makile Agre 00
rman” PRD, diss, Uneewmury of Loeebes, eon.
Muldrorw, George M. “Saran’s Last Words ‘Pull Blas "" Atbes dimerronty, 14
(1d, Ge tom,
Melber, Uru. One Gove Lacifon un dor Diobrwag (eae Marcck be car Bremewrit Hertes,
+y?.
Merpiy. bee V. de Dark Agee) Geol Goomeats oe Shelley Warts Levirbery. Pe.
ots
Menche. Walter, “Geetives Glaus an dian Diaewenche.” Dorncky Viaevieleieerteryy,
gt (ogesh tate tel
eS. “he the Dew ot Avs?” Brows of Eupled Staten, 26 Ciggsh, pore are
Mire, Andireé. “Sates clans ta Fethe” bw] Podeneew, 54 fegmal oath?
Niyerast, St. Elen Dawctow shreagé Ay dee New York. 19%%
Ned Saath, Chriaeptcr. ie Keewer oad the Meneeet 3 lows, Coatreasll. ryt4.
Nicw geet, Jotea P. (Acuna, Diemonr, Domenr: A Chretien (wade cbrpagedshe Uieeby Alaa
of the Cert, Nicthedle, 1972.
eS geeey aed Deanne: A Tiscedengecal Prevpective.” In J. W. Moeagoescey, off .
Diewew Pocuwee. Mirrcaeeis, eg Pp r2s<t4s.
in Freacis~ Conver
Niccdetri, Ginner. “Selfargine giacobeu det Seune menaatice
wat, po fegtel giant.
Niven. Larry, ancl erry Poureetbe. fafores, New York, 14.
Neth, Sterling, and CB Trent ods. Seat of the Decl. Garden Cay, SV. , #045.
Naagere, OChirtehapher, Alaits of Sater, London, ey5.
 ~

fot BibGogragpby
Nunsters, Riunakd C “Soireces of Selenic Ocigie’: Advertist Altitades srward
Pvebsteeury wel Croodegy,” Speivet, og Cigigd, feat,
Nuan Che Z “I Kiang Crovhtebry of the ee eS
(tata Kyo.
Nyyemt, Mary. “The Father’) Word( Satan's Wrath” Pabtcerions of the Madre
Lasgo Annee, ton ah rey~ bor...
(herche®, Marmaneras Davy a be Died Das bent rmninte Zomewe oe dor
Mache Setaw. Neviarches, +y70
Mam eerme pars tananlay te Kerkn, ae
. Der Tontel bee Mortew Latter. Rerlin, vost.
Oterneas, Helen, Laster: Meet cetetes
Gav wal Toxfl. od od. Berlis, opts.
CP Eraet, Walter 11, “le Descartes’ Bed Sone Fintte ce befienine?” Stu, ote
(tgTQ 2F—s2.
O'Conner. Plunncry. The Vieler four Lt Away. New York, rote
Obie, A “ton | Naren Mephitepteks ~ Gohyabriect. 14 (iain, igt-agp.
Oesterrenh, TreepettKo Peeomen: Dcewnuce!
and Other eweng PremwerKar, oF
Aatepety, he Midd Ape, and Madre Time Locher. epoo
Citre, Horeard. Ce Traftvooratar oomelee Aca wad Lather Pherlinn, copie
Cteebes, Kong. “Micphineopiclice
a Groote’: Bawa.” (ew Meepadla, bi (ign, tee
6} (ie Jepasee wrth Geran varerury)
Othses, Ale M,, od Degwen
of the Doman, Contemporary Ponpectma on the Pener of
Cd. New York, opps
—. ~The Mythec Language of che Deen” In Ale M. Oho,
ol. Degenof
ek Dene: New York tors. Pp. g- it
One, Jetva, “The Dersenic Teordency: Pebtic and Sockty in Donomweky'sDv
Daw.” Seatombagyof Literetwre. 16 (var ayeeaky.
1 De Dx“Teedeus” be Ov, Trap Reale ond Madero
Sociary New York, cg77. Pp 77-86
Ontos, Mas, Dre Tonfthscrater
do weil peet Herkn, shy.
Canerkenp, Ent, “Dentciengeerxn
do Bie: Das thee! Leoter.”
Spracthoes, ¢ Cigigh, tif eee.
Stations cvem Alector. Hertia, oyry
aauaeia Die Derrteteng dor 7 un der chrvrivtes Xow. Bertie, 044+.
Paine, Lactan The Mremoby
of Hel York, rgr:.
alow, Koger (-. “Deneemebagy Tetay.” by JW Moetguenery.
of, Dower Phen
moe. Minscapedix, gm Pp tit-aio
ee Gooege A. “Deetverski
and Sutanben.” frormal
of Rrligen, 46 (eg eee

Parskkee, Rareversha,
o¢ al, Lakers dal male: Male ¢ ove dh dkerenmene
mnie redguee.
Heologra, roy.
Papen. Goovcmrei. 4) domene mt dior and fi deme meta fa Pape,
ff ager
gett, heen. 198 Pp poner
ewe The Deal, Lewin, 1945,
——. Lie soem fiers Pheence, 1912.
Parker, Alexander. The Thewtacy of the Decal an the Drom of Caldera, Lomdion. og,
Parvy, Machel el, The Devels Chaiere Talo of Deer
and Exorroe, New York,
197t.
Parca, Coberran
©. “Ihe Dewil and Sursee! Cheeses.” le BD, Teckey, al.
 Ladvingrapiy i

and abe Critay, Belewent, Calit., 108. Mp. te¢-

Mart Twin’ Afyreriess Svemper
ia.
— Rei ee eS See's Fares. Pdetrargh. 19%,
Pastiserc, Jean “Satan. singe de Dieu Nones uur un aspect be le pennte palicayas te
Csoorpes Berman” Arte dor Arner sonderwns, 47 (teplenl, TE 105.
Patrides. C. A, “Reruiouace and Medern Views on Efelt” Marron! Thowegwet
Broww, 6p gah fits w
of abe fosery of Lhe 1® (uginh, 457 -47®.
cee: “The Salvation of Sotan.” foarmat
Poot VE (Giewaren) Hittite Moeeini) “Conviowntiong the Devils Power.” 1 We
Spray, 93 Cigyah 946-300. Translate of the pope's addres ~Laecrerci det
reac.” Cxmrcaterr romance, Novereler 16, e972.
in the Late
ard Thor Paewees
Pearl, Jonathan L. “Frosch Cathodic Demanologints
Sarcerch andl Eacly Sevesteceth Conteris.” Chenvé Merry, £3 (1981). 437 97.
___ *Pewwsedce: aed Sutanrerc Joes Beastin's Corzntemen to the Wachorst
of Sota
Cyn” Canabes Broww oot A 19 Lope Sqtr sae.
Pebron, Rotcre. Vike Drew! aad Karen Aegon. Tuscaban, 1995.
he My Newer Shall They Gar One Dect, Sees Tirennaick, 995.
Peraccent, J. Daighe. Der Advenery, the Dew, Grand Rapeds. Mich. ste,
Peres y Gaoeurdiice. £7 Aushe copects, Newer y cemmenarne ges Martrel,
Pererukett, Egon von Odermmaigw. 2 vot. Murr, oad #957.
—_.. “De docreaitan in leargu recenecstio.” Aaqgelcum, 09 (iggak ja4qesiy
Petit, Jaques, od. “Hurbey d Aurevily) LBimare dex Drateligne” Brows dev Meever
eels, 4o5-go8 Crotgh tee
de be diene,
Pract, Charis, Contriberne4 Siteds Meat pellicr. 1009.
Piaff, Leese, Tie Drew ow Thome Mane’) “Dede Faane” and Past Vettry) “lhe
Fowt,” Veashtert, ict.
Fieeernel, Abie. 0 desks ¢ estes ansiady ition db soniye poplar, Meraite Hravden.
Pre
Pear, Maree. Tie Romane Apery. of ol, Landes, eg7o-
Peévent, fean-Laurene. Seter of remanner. Mare. esse
of Darkness in His Kingdons.” bo Bree de
Pech. Heres-Churkes, “The Prince
Joun-Maric, of, Stan New York, eogt. Pp. 427-157.
Onielin, feta. “b on deine” Titetvat cor Thode, > lepirh 45-f.
Rack, Pack Marty. Cow Teeigdasdes Lather, Greta. 1g),
Rabexr. Kerk *Hesesedeet ued Eoerisenes.” Ie ML Adiler, od. Toa! and Tollow
Alvagrsherg, Anchationberg. 1977. Pp. aera.
ee and Avoty. Frolerg. 1939, Vol 1. PP
Ditnemectogie.” Leribew fer Thedgie
1at~ Ear.
ern “Dr Starkerer and dee Starke,” le M. Adker. od. [ed and Tog
. . Avctaffonberp. eeth Py By-tor.
un Metey, New Verk, shy.
Hewd, Dbalhin. Phe Fecsprien: of Sanae, ar, the Deval
Hcavke. Cheretugtver. ~The Devil and Jonathan Edbeande~ frarmal of the Mots of
bdo, 43 Cogyal, baa
Recker, Mobert. “Sate In Pewer or Detheored!” Cobiwe Tdenigael pores’, 6
(eg7vik, teen t4as.
Riciener, Exwern Ue Dees and wor BO Herb, 1Q47-
Resch. Andean. "Winocreechaft ued Teefel” In M. Adker. od, Ted aad Teutel of
Aihageetery. Axchualfosterg, 1977. Bp. vor-ee>.
 a

3H BibDegerapésy
Reset, Silla PL “Mibtee’s Genpracke' Keen ard Saran’y Coenperacy.” Ife
Stade, 4 (ig7ak, G)-7?-
——. “Satan's Lewy of the Kungehip- of the See of Gal” Madore Pivleley, ro (e974).
mei ‘
—— The War ts Moree Sa eee Tradiume
of Setans RiteOne, Uhaca,
196
ae Warring Sane. ancl the Drage” Peatedogescet Cruarrerty, $1 Cagz4), 1Bi-

fehoder, Heary T. F. Thy Sesore Ales: A Saco end Crimean Som Lo.
tha, 944.
Richards. Jobe. Bow Dole 0) fro Bal se Fanvedvisten ie nie Deane (Nereusof
Pav Cae New Vou®, tore
Richenas, KebertJ. “The Dxod and De. Waldrun ~ Pieteoptene! Mader, or (egal.
7h—Se.
—— ~The Ontekepcal Proof of the Dood.” Pisheuthoe! Stedier, o (191%), Orethg
Richeer, Jolie. “Dor Oherscter dies Mepebretphetes
we Unters ~ eae Jaton (or
dae theme Adtertem Gowkeie, wal dewtwdy Limrratar, 26 (igi Fh, dag 224.
Rikks, Clhewngiwe. “Dhaene Pauwes and Iiell oe barth~ Loew o Crtsnew, p¢
Cigegh, bat—120
Riccowr, Paul The Syertodee
of Feel, New York sof.
Redensces, Wilioen The Dlr
and Goal Lawebes, roe.
Reddes, Laureere: “Dates haniewes pare une nevickie che Ly teodegia del dabte.~
«Rada, 4 Chg), aabate. . :
Rocca, Anexte &. Uver dow Tint! wed woe Winton: Renene sine Exotenr ont Ankeny
“Teagincie Gootectiies ” Markt. 1944.
Redari. Fhoetam “Oh be chabbe
cot Kopeen.” Maris dy Gtetre, 18 (har gana
Hiskewyk, Adelf, “Ihe Heurbung der Beuscuwehcr: ban gechatelicher Uber
thick.” Javawyt hetholooly Thoolegw, 7: (1gs0l. 460-98.
ae Bocorefew s der Sut do Riwal Pemenen Aschafiertrerp.
ups.
Rewts, A. Dy daivel on che kriaenen ~ Colleen Bragveen or pamdocrmen, 3 (0q051
yr gae.
—— “De daivel on de vacbting van bet Godegh ” Onleteen leauge of pee
Aevewer, 2 (ee tage nhs,
Heeei [ar] Mitameptewy
de Aa Park, 14
Hoon, Keth. “Die Deviltooks
of the Scmcenth Coneurs: Ther Sources
and Their
Sognificasce deming the Second Half of the Century.” PhD. die. Rice Univer:
nity. 1m.
cw The Deel 1a 2500 Coetery Goreace Levrerenr: The Trathteckr, Vranktun, ign.
Winker, Gear. Covtaterdr Teageh. 2 vets. Letpeag, 1845.
Reagpcrsent. Dicnes che. La part de debe Pare. toys.
Rerwell, Gondfrey. [ll aad Abe Vienerneer A Tielyof the Neen) Coatery Threkgves!
Comtenprvcas cancrrmieg Drove! Poaxteara: ond ole Pacers Lah, Unetoed, sgn.
Madar, W . “Gretheed and Miaton's Sate Chrotcal Moth and Acguetiran
ne n Lent” Miles Qieerterty. ta lege trent
a. “Milton's Seton ead Viggls Jews The Perveraness of Dinwteadionie ie
Povele laa” Reewwane oat Bifrwmeres, 1¢ (igngl, 17-82.
 Mitlegrapey ve

Dive Heewery’s Hhear'nly Rae”) Miloon’s Satae and the Corceae Pre.” Alder
(imerterty, 19 Cegtcl it@t9
Hatwin, Marston. “Bivanger’s Bon Diew! srt Tay Diadte.’” Open Cort, @
{igsa teers,
——. The Deel te Legend and Literwtere, Ovecage, 1git.
es Deal Serer Aw Anthedage New Yort, 1921,
de Pewee. Porm. 1959)
wwe bax derrveuw haboliges 9
PR
isebert ed the Devil.” (iste Ormry, ga (igh), 64 ‘
“The Fraecian Dien” Opew Conrt, 17 (igi), 26-295
_ Aeewetoercr etanceer. Paris, e927.
we, “Saran and Sparse te (aserece.” Cees, ep (roan, y8e-198.
___.. Satan of be setentenr daw: Cocwcre de Vat Mage. Pare, 1926.
___. “Setanta te Vocnch Roenesttees~ Cpee Coare, py (rary. fina.
“The Satanives of Barlow SAcrevily.” Chew Caner, ye Cigael, Bp-p.
ee The Satanives of Phavcreane.” Cpew Cont, oq tepoak 242-248.
—— “Seperneterabian and Satasnen my Chateasheund Open Comrt, oh Cigaa),
L4Te Edt, PRED, 4b ae
“hr Toedel bei Hettel” Aladirn Piatlaey, 046 Cig te tgihh, at- st.
Sl Texel oe doe dvencive grontiches Gack des Murnaletves aed der Ryfrws
teewooy. Gather, 1915.
__. “kes Teatals Schriptcrrotic bei Goethe end Bicttact” Nrgptetebgr, 4 (091,
jer kaa.
ae G. “Lutent epee The Turk, the Pope aed the Dewi’ In P. N., Teenie,
J headed Lasher. Cnferd. 143.
. Setew 34$-371-
Resell. Hertrand. Satew ie (fe Setertx, ond Crter Sone, New York, 1947.
Resell, Jeficey B. The (reel Porcepeem te Printer Corer
of Btw free Aargaary
capeity. Itheee, +g.
A I heeery of Wincherati: Serverers, Mavens, Pagar. Landon, 1g.
cn Ager. Ithaca, 0e%—
dancer: Tie Deol iar tke Maddie
ee Sanam The Early Obrarnow Trade Dhace 198.
Rou, Ray. Tae Car aque Seton New Vork, ita.
Secret, Irene. “Sacan ancl the ‘Dheeberdhs Stary.” Sfeakere PPeteingy, ¢9 (1gea), 2 99-
+.
Santayana, (ooorpe, Laeger. ad od. Carehendge, Slaca. #904.
Sartre, JeamPacd. Le duabirot ke bow Dive Paris, 1958.
Syst, Lawrence. “Soten and the Pipic Blerec Clasteel aed Christian Traditeme on
Parada Loot” Pe DD. aes. Marvard Univerety, tott-
Sawer, Kart Adel. od Waster sxdeive Gav oad Sera: Pricteggeteies oer dr In-
chien aaunee Jou. Keencelemy, 190),
Severs, Deccetry. The Drew! m Pay. London. eppp.
Tike FaestLagenad of Ahr Bagted Carnie
and the biica of thre Deed” Pakication
Savery, Hs, 66 LiQask tne.
an Danecthaagen des
dice toafiiaches, unmeruashe
Schwitde. Markee. ” Derveclheegen
' vone Auegang dos Mindisbers bés cu Raters” Ph DD, dis,
Tete Univerety, igre
Scheticerk, Leo “Chenslicher Glade usd Darnoncnbctee.~ I feechrecr Chootegrne be
Zascteyt, v6 (1aTdh, FPS.
 a“

ize Balingraply
Scbireateck, Ibenech “Ube Waterteth? des Teetels.” le I herune Prienaen onl
©. Munn, of. Chvarivte Dacheer dv Crogeecers Debdetberg. cace. Pp 440-46).
Schrnticber, Mkew “Creetak
end Weeken dee T oatels on der eaweachenLineracar vos
theen Aefieggen
bes ere tp. Jabrbrandicrt.” Ph.D. daw. Urnexeraty af Boon, sg4y.
Schoener, Marcel. La Atiteatare fewtetiper ov Frew. Part. icy.
Schade, Albert, Gateredytes, hateiagoke. Setonbel, Neer Eretctr is alte
Gaehres Munkh 1985,
Schwab, Gierher. Ur Jews wor dow Trae, Fis sheaverrtich Laure, Harvmweer,
tore
Schrvactde. Rood. Clee Sete: Roman de seorerr de satarode con’
eae a Pars, 0923.
a be satencume Raggi Satoruter contemporase, secnbey. sadzwer, <1 wetan-
wer, Pars. igit
Schwager, Haprecrmd. “Dee Seg Chviai aher dew Teefel ” Zatetee® fer Aertednete
Z top (eghal. itt-er>.
Scott, Walser Letter on Lememeingy
ced Wookcratt Loradon, 1S po.
Sowetes. Kemeth “The Schestteachera Devil im Die Viedee Bear fr Ace”
Filemery PComme Badoter, 92 (igh ih ge-at
Seibeaeye, Dans. “Art dhe hérnmepee ot ireenie de Part,” Ie Enrico Contell, ol
Fikeofa dor. Bore, ogee Vp gorite
Scrkrth, WetungS. “The Concepe ef the Dewil and the Myth
of che Pact in
Lotcrsvare
Pre to Goode.” Menenbae
(iar deatvter Uasernciy, demnoby Spracte aad
daemon, 94 leadeh iting
Swegredle, Clisabe. de duly daw & iradvvee pepedere Pers. roto
— ta trans & dete wha le popalany. Pars, 19t4.
Serarsciroth 40a. “Voechied wees Toukl? Macher ond Gewslkes on (sleben
der
Kirche.” Tivekgevite
Adadcone, 4 (rovih, 28 -tq.
Seth, Homahl, fe the Nowe
of the Dew, Lowes, opty.
Swed, Peancie J, od, Seandiags
is Sotankos, New York, 1972,
—— ~Variatiess on a There.” Ie Shood, od., Sowndiege
ov Arrest New York,
rors. Py sprezg.
Nelresee, Co “The Deed Withee: A Stuhy of the Rode of the Devil inn Crcthe’s
Pane, Dewsowwsle's Tie Avante Neramapey, ant Mann's Dedier Fanner” Master's
them. Corre® Unravereity, 9ct-
Seda. Saber Fi Auahte y de dintelve cw der bere cevricane (1¢fe—s rye). Batbon, 191.
Sewmag, Preven The Gal
of Few’, As Arpenent fren the Exosence of the Uecul, New
York, ig7e.
Seantren, Jost Maru. 1) prinnpe
& ev mighe La lovverere sealras
y ol divelam ad ol
Madrid, rots.
Sparen, Necteoles, PondJ Getthe, “Dereetic Powsoion, Meersernen, arc
ivererie A Sowkal Prewieebggwal Prrepective ae Thee Histerseal betcercletices.”
prarealof Abeormal Prychedagy, BS (gral, 437-146
Spat. Irreaageed. “Dic frarotinche Toefcidurectiong vom der Rorursit bi er
Crepereert” PD. diss. Mereeh Usiverety. rote.
Spiewak, Churheene Ko “The freermey te Dell Sonam, the Sthedew, and the Seif.”
Coomeenl Brows, ¢ (ices), 420-457
Starteugh. Ku. Teatcivtectvr
of dermal. « vode Borin. ign]
1 oteo.
Markey, MarinesL. ~The Devil
eed Cotte Mather.” be FL J. Sheed. od, Seeding
is Setanun, New York, soa. Be gente.
 Ribiograpey 42¢

___.. The Pred! te Alanactooriy, New York, ope.

ele Mew
Seerone, Wolfgang “Maphisns Verwaddbenges~ Cormansch Pemes
amcteyt, na. rt Ooh), 1Rg- tg7-
Strveos, Contention: N. "Melon, Byres, aad the Devil.” Upruen Kamer City
of ty
Rrowe, vi Cegsek 153-190
Sirwhean Jobe “Archangel to Devil”: The Hackgrousd of Seun's Muta-
mnephonin” Minders Language Dinarterty, + Cowiak $2 5~ B45.
s Winchcraft.” fodbaat of the Hiatery of
——. “Eve's Dreare and the Conventionof
idem, oS (ighs), ir-5Te
INe-
ae, aran's Meearserptvnes and the Here Convention of the Ignetde
guise.” Modern Langaage Kress, £2 (eget) Fe- Bs.
Sten. Wilber Hl. Mecrrdorec’s Fancy, A Shady of the Deval Antengy, Gulserndlc. Fle.
1944.
Kreck. Hebert 1. The Hidy and the Dacmony Soom Sir Thomar Mrewcne te Witiem Alay.
Vrirceton, or.
Secdl. Elvece E "Whetial ax ocr Bcenegde.” Madore Laurea Brea, 48 Orga ih. aty~
“
Give the Devil His Dae: A Reply 00 Me, Lewis.” Airoice of Bagtet Studien, 20
(igggh, set—rsg
Sermrecrs, Meetaguc Wik Efavory of Witnborft ant Dessay Lowden, 1926
Seater, Baad. Laciter: Or, the Tiree Story of the Bamet Meorcmen oe Abaie Limdow,
igaa.
‘Tee Brocke, Patricia. "The Shadow of Satan: A Study of the Devil Archetype in
Scluned American Newels frome Hawthorne 60 tee Preseert Day.” PhD, diss.
Ueneruryof Tex, top!
Teywetder. Bernard f7 distic at Senger on remape dr forse. Pare. 1084)
__. Niwa dw alate: Dhe Babylenie aur promo dr he Aer Mere. Pare, 19%.
Theweas, Keath Aolgner and the Oveiuw of Mark, New York, e971.
Theespeon, Bicherd 1, The Hixsery of the Deel, the Ioewed Gad of the Wes, Loedon,
ime 195)
Tillich. Peal. "Dax Diencedsche.” te Tillich, Goementy Wits Sourgart.
Ved, 6, pp 42-41.
Tih, J. 1. “Nes Satan bis Mephistogheter Miten und dic deetuite Kinet”
Procendungs of Whe Anasatow Corthe Society (166-1987, epee etl
Toeryeddec, Joncph de. Ler maladies morcnac ow mcweley ef lev manger diakwoyee
a4 od. Pare, 194%.
Towrebend, Luther Tracy. Seten and Doma New York, rye,
‘Tracheeterg, Jostras. The Deri aad aly poor. New Elawem, 14s.
Dick ~
‘Trinepé, Dteken P. “Melvthe’s Use of Dersonehgy ant Wacheratt in Mody
of the Hevery of Saar, go (epee. $4390.
Turret, Josep Mascwe dy dabie. Paris, tnt.
Tussin, Mack (Samsacl Chewens Me ga: Die Abpea Svemper. Berkebey. 0087
Ulwen, Aae B. “The Peve al Realicy of Ge Dereon.”In 4 Osan, ot.
of the Deen.
Dagawo New York, ote. Pp thantae
Presest
Unecr, Merril F, AbMical Dcwsmmubagy: A Atady af dhe Spieweal Meron Bobond the
wld Uierne, Whew, 1B, og.
wwe Demons ie the Wert Todiy: A Srady of Orceinau on the Light of Gatr Weed.
Whestes, I, igze.
 a

pee
we -

Cogan, Misa, “Sten and His Critic.” feooka! Clery: Magee Filles Geen, 2
Ciggal, Ge-Mi,
Veruma, Udilricn AT diate: pe eatenalene, on poder, ye entorneonmchia
ef wed, ad
ol Mexico City, 190 .
Veveles, Laisa de. Freedet dy diay, Pars, gy,
Van den Heuvel, Albert, Soe Antetiioar Pyeovre. Lowsbin, vids
Van cher Dla, Rot), Tae Theolegy of en! Deca. Nowe Danse. igri,
Vian Noufiel, Plerreas, “Le gacte ave be dintde darry bs lietrature.” Awe fr of
cored aire pb (og aye ae .
Vetter, Hiewscs. Jie Devel ae Kaglnt Livnaere Bern. igt® .
Veter, Prrre, L beer qav vomit sow dev ow dally, Paris, aged.
Verdun, Baad, Ce dle dom he ove der scenery. 2 valk. Paris, vay
—— bs draiily dam hep wrecmas ved. Paria, shy yi Rot.
Villcwoure, Roland (a Avewelde duty Pari. ices.
Virchen, Join, and Brune de hires Marie, “The Confenion of Boullas.* in Bourne
the Jésus Maric. od. Sasoe, Now York, pcr Pp oben née,
Viad, Korean, “Denencia cdeckeationss Ie Brewe Calli, el, Fiteyie
bi errr.
Maas, core Pp tiger
Vogel Karl. Borer Satan! A Seal Sairrieg Aromat of Diahotion! Paovenion un Seaw, News
Haven, ease.
Wapertchd. Karl. Lercgtr. Warcrdort, eges
Wate, Artur E. Dita! Wwestys ov Preme: or, The ren of Laver, Lowden. sfe4.
Wakbran, Thechare “A Cenecnt on the Oreedagical Brood of the Devil” Pak
wpb! Stade, 10 Lagoa gore
Wriker, Dac! P. The Decleor of Mal) Seorwe
sth Cowtery
n Docmote
of Etormal’
er Tor
met, Lowubes, ootg.
— oe ae Ate: Free Fres
co Companiis.
e Lorsion, 191%
——. bmcleen Sperry Jearanee aad Brwrvoum iw France and Bayplowd vs che Lacy Samet
and Barly Scvemtecert Comarar, Vidabeliphda, 1y%s.
Walherstenn, Jerecs, S. The Liemee’y Afr. ad of New Yoe®, rer.
Walsh, Thawus Fo “The Denis of Harethomne and Paenery (9 Genene.” Teor
Clevrernry Stain, ¢ CegSSh, ti tonre
Wober. EV. "Dernens ara! Dicerthaeareent.” Ie A. Obes, od. Chigwewr of ate
Dement. Now York, tots. Pp. ep~ io
Warnky, Mae, Thy Xetow Seley, Plaiatichd, N.J.. s972.
Wedeek, Marry B. Jv Triwape of Sater. New Hyde Park, NUY., rgre
Welteam. F. B. "Exorcum ” Jovy. ry (igtsh ops- 904.
Wergel, G. ~Miltes and Byron Sanam ~ Acie
(er das Steiner dor eceerne Spracten
wad Lawcateres, 3e (ERG Orono.
Wertikaraky, Haphort J. Zwi, Levier and Prometiiow: A Srady of Mildew) Seton
anh, 1953.
Wes, Muaticl, Tie Oro and Jobe Water, Sabsteary, syty
Wiveatiew, Dheeais, Je Dead and AY die Werks Now York, rye)
Rid Ons. Leash, 19
——. The Decil
aes To the Diva! —a Desagheer. Lead, ogee
Whete, Jules, “Pretéons and Procodures ia Bxorcives.” InJ. W. Montgomery, od.,
Drees Doorn Minncepolis, cgmt. Pp. ate -2o
 Batlgrapy 323
Wheaten. UL,
White, Judes Weskey. Tie Direw Whiter tite Sorynaree Toad cee Mow,
1y)?. ,
Vavee
Whar, LanesJr , “Death and the Devil tn Robbers Kieeenan. ol . Tae Jharber
of the . Borkchey. tone Bp. soa
abreast Bosd
ee eee “The Pat and Satan before the Laight: A Suggestion12 (1g) *h, $4~
g IV of Pocadie Lear.” Milves Quarce
of Hook rhy,
IP aad the Openin
im -
<1 diablo copie (Guevara ” Be.
Willers, Hervauns. “Lc diabie teincendt]canged
enewerte Fonchangew, 49 (0981) seco pes
Loot” Staden os
hewn, Armed, “The Motivatine of Satan's Rebathen a Paradec
Sheedy. 42 (Gat), 255-2.
tga), 22262846
Will, Garry. “Ueetacbels in the Seventies Fagor, Ko CDewcewbes Comal ond
Wibes, Wile P. “Hyster aad Dermens, Depression and Oppeevann,
cd, (Armes Deorcriee, Minerrapaks ca76. Pp. rt t~
Ext” TeJ. WW. Micerggoenery,
ae.
Worklbefer, Alen. Trade der dew Tost. Vrankfert. 16s. 9975
Walle, artes EL. The Levi end Dv, Nena. Sane Franctce, ” Seder
Woadraes, Burn. “Milton's Setun ia Wordewueti's ‘Vale of Seolemuking.
tn Reemoercoar, 25 (1G FF
Wirests, Richard. Tay (cel Choc, 4973.
ow Kawato New York,
ae “Sater Todey.” bo FJ, Sheed, el, Seamdingy
tg72. Pp ge- ey.
Dac.” Nenerweed, Aue
enlward. Kerexth, emt 0). Catcs. “Gesieg che Devil His
Fer WO. 8952. PP 72-74-
Leet” Miler Oran
Wooten, Jotve, “Satan, Satire, sect Harbexqoe Fides is Prater
fords, +b LegrSh 486%
and Ayfrmaten. 14
Wourtele, Doragles, “Mateo, Satan, anal te Sogtins.~ Rresmeur
Ligngl, tage me
Pxturen, Gerard De Bex, Muah epee
Marach, roth. Pp.
__. “Saean in Kult ured Kuewes.” bee Zacharias, od. Dar Bw
ine
The Ketewwe Galr. London, tte.
wad Sebyertr Meow: bow Revvag car Phamencenigy der Sitges. 24 od.
___.-_ Ketaetadr
Wiestadken, 19>.
29 Legp al 125
Zeager, Erich. “Kem Bodaet for dee Toakel)” Hendee Rerrapondows,
ia.
de Setew, Parts, 2545.
Zonet, Vaal. Viesor Alage, poder Letpeag.
Lav, Secphan The Kampf mer dew [iene Hiedkertin, Xicwr, Netelv,
gas.
 Index
“«

66-
Asem. charsncr om Ter 4eteeee, bet, 1
s4. 35 om 395
Acowwde, Aloose de, % Ce
Moores, 8b. 06 my
Adam and Bre MTPORE, 40, OF. 14E. tere et
oe ooh comtery. OO. peed, oi, iF
mi ich certery, #4, Go Apextret. 34. 61
wm Blake, ect Apqearmwe of Devi, cp. a
wr Byres, 1%) mo Bereeres, alo
in Ceethe, ie im Drenoceaky. 24% ray
we eee, bas om (ewbet, 200
eS Leen. ate wm Coote, rope rts
ie Sldeon, 96. oF. 104, FDO ERD. bat am Saws, 28 5-2%y
wavessbars snd mavrabers, eae wy Milbes, teereta, 036
wm Scblcsormechet. tt4 av ale Anemub senieted with Dovil
wm Vewkl, ai-o Thana, aed Therreen. gr
OTe eifeaet
Aderes, Thee, 98,
Alecandcr, Wilms. 4% Aremah, e728.
Aiews Avtemen, 96 er sg sh, BA. Gs, 105
Arerka, Dowd AMT, §}, S& Gt. YD
lam Acxwrka. @-e fubcien, he, 8a, ty2
Nocth Aneeta, 400-213. 2546257 and eth comhery Mee, feast
Ansbepeim, 15. 4. seed eth comrery poetivee, 19
my lete eph cumnery, 214-206
Aatenttene, ye ¥4 im aeth cortery. rite igh 26t-
ae Mey for Arr,
eeel Dermreveky, caf 147
angels U8. me in Houree, sete ta?
os eotrexrreetmah. srerrte
i @akrn . beeen
mec S tlews, ay od Nectembe, p22-236
wv abe Pall of Devil aad of phdewogtees. teen tey
od Sele, 446-149
Ards erecisned with Dhevd, a 41,
of Shelkey, 0
7"
 “

$25 Mephacopbeta
Athberers (oer. Hessen, btm. go
of Teme, riyensy Barbe, Edrorsd, rtye0s
wy abe Shopekbom aheut Devil Herts, Rote, 46>
Ampartre. ta0is. a tas Bother, Jeph. +f)
§ Heomy, Wi .%
Becom, Frances, S2 Byres, Coorge G Lewd. 6450,
tuk, Jot. ve SRR by iol, Oo4
Babee, Heomerr de, tot
Haperee, 4), 4) Cae, ity, (Rp a one
Bartey df Nercvilly, Jukes Areteitc. so® Catenin de by Boocs. of
Harees, Taree, 44 Calewt, Aegan 194
Barts, Crndlveme de, 0% Cater, Jobe. 2e-16 op 94. 37
Marth, Kart, big, ep ats ee ae
Reodchere, Charks, 40, pao-20e, 204+ Calranen, ae. oop. O85
ame 4) Caen, Albert, a0
Hoste, Prrre. Careers, cotocheem of, of
theater, Hex, ant Candeni, Ceenet, roy
Heerteher, Max. ogy Ceaoten, Merc. 7*
thier, Hubba, 7§-6o Cahier, «1
Fictlerrine, Robert. a9 Catherme
de St. Anpertien. Be
tieshors, Jereavy, ipo Carthele Chearch
erbeley. Chownpe. est. ese om oh cordery, rroentz, peter
tirkbeat, Carl, 23. go m ath cortery, 2(%-165, 275-381.
Thevikemns, Crrpes, te mn ™
errand
of Com, 0% and Heewkcbere, 205
Hadde, qe. ge. iar ood Therreen. ee
tebtecal crescters. 160-80}. OO4. DOI- and Carhedc Uctoerevem, 14-27. 11.
oese
and LDeetecomky, 247
as ei, an Page, papacy
Beck, Casbeved, 26. 0g and ghee. te
Black mus By-gi, 222-22) and Hag eas
Bleke, Wiehe, tte, errr ete and bheral Cortedicwen, rig. rageits
Blsery, Wiliam. 3 and (Crewe. 164-591
Blavatshy . Hikes, rik Cattely Fahpodea, tte
Bhaer. Wikre’, 215 Casortc, Joogues. ice
Balin Jess, oh 9 Corevawies, Miguel de, ging
Roches, Jakob, or. s0-¢2 Chee, bog, 264
Boah Ileeeviwen, sans ® Comte, «ity
Berrllan, Joxpee \emeeee, crrerer om Mdtern., op nen, coterre, 016
Braga, councd of, 204 Charcestrund, Vrangote Hore de, og
Breed. Selertion ge ~
Avthon Asremecon, Tv, (DostecwrksL Chron. of Satan. 43, 44, 48, £1
hair bie oe ake Tevegttins of Chern War oy
ecferoed ba, 72. 065. 241. 294. O58 heen
Brwnwe, hewn fy CArenee Dever, (Vide), gtoyt
Brocghel, Pretor. the Ehder. 44 Cleedel, Paol, 274
Becer, Slatie, Cancdence
of oppor, pS-7), M4,
Rather Conde ch, the en, OR OG Pid, Dp pee
 fades 727

Cotethberte
of oppenince (oom. | s, Friedrich. sete net
ie Jew Garner, 25> 4, ot, 01194. ofr om
m Jorg. the2 brawn. 24. 64
wm Nectrche. 1% Pahari, 44, Se. 279
wt abe Sigatikbern Nichols of Orme byt
Colin de Fancy. 19 chofedion of, rr-r4g. 2%
Conde Dewi, 4 311. 220, Pet Bpe | pend Chad, tre WBah ,GS. 2a. Here pm
Coos, Agperte, opr te a Cred a cv, 1 By, ont, BOT
Cxewlli, Mane. 256 re OB, Me ee. a
Comrel of deveems in Milos, trg- es. . 1B a ee
11¢-0%6 eter’, 1%, go. Mi. apt om
ney: eesban, a: wr ate Comsehere of eppartc
Crack, Cheetepier, 234 “Peotone, epo-agr. segecnet
Coie sind Panrcbooces (Deornevshs }, mae Exitos of Dawid, tg-25. 26%. 288
Bereeres, rr?
Cress, seen of. $5. 08 ve Bebe, aty-oty
Crostey, Akbecr, 21%
Cyracion i wath cootary, 244-256 om Kore. tes
romckorn kha of, oy pee
Daewbes, i134, 206-310 mt abe Sheyptahoee em
ikiDave
Drew. oF. ter. OE OR 2D Dx pide cocetes, ty tem
Durein, Chactes, rag-216, 216 Euceuewe. See Porcand eeae
wecoecn
Drage, Antawn Lani et Lercet, The, flew rit, ete
Deowadorts, rtg. regent bRe dae
Daebe, Thewel, 98 Pall of Devil xed angels, 06
Dicher, Sa, tpt gt, SRP HED, Hae. aE we Plecarehy, 209
Delaredc, Fortinund. ety is Cocthe, tpt
Decscartes, Revel, Sn, Bie By, 12-02 i Mao. g¢-t27
a”
on (1 Crewew, 28
The Deve (Tie Peowmed) (Dewtacesby ® Vorxicl ouees
342-344 = ote War in eaves
Diary of 4 Comncry Pirvet Bermamensh 98 Paxat. 5h. Se044. 2*
Dicderet, Deven, cbq, (UPR t pe. Lae tas i oth coreery, 14
[Xeccremmot. cie4e Pwetewd, trey
Deter Faoutes (Machowe), 45-44 in Crete. serene, th
Cate Face (New), beeeawal Daae, %-99
Dies Jase (Don Ciena 9% to Mane, rtrea™
Dheed, Chasteve, eet, Fi FIG 124. 1 ae
Threveveky, Forekow, 2rt, patrage, att and Shukexpoam, t4-76
Dewede (Pram Seeder), 247 m Vakiry, 76
Unyden,
oti ge Fewertah, Ladwig Andeom, 156
Deewtra, Petre, ai7-264 Didomes, 2h 2p. thle tha
Draguee, Chivers, ater- ato Fergal, Sadly. t2. 4
Plewbert, Cientave, ae4, 204
Earth wpwit, sgn. ete Dikocher, hence, of of
Passern Cribbs, ofa, 20), det 2G. bragrmenl, Jean. o:
ri Prasce. Anwhde, eet
Echormurel, cherainer ay Alege Leer, 64. ta Franke, bhorrarre, tie
Ts brenbew ins © Nheley), 1p ee
Edewbs, netban, opt Poxreamen, 21%
 ~

yt Mephicrepheles

Forel, Sepwerel eel Froedimnen ah Hobbes, Thornes, &e, %

15-243 Defies, ETAL. 1g
Feeesi, Fekete, 6 Hetuch Pasltfoari Theery, Maree J’,
‘te. tegete
Coabewed, angel, 198, toe, rte, Baty water, 45
Garpartne «1 Mancagraa! (Raketsn\ crt® Merrer token, 44. eenrs, 1p rge. ser,
Crarvieam, Jie, ptt ate 257. 2-370. ov ade Conte enel
Crt. Jobarwce, o9 Bheese reiters bry Chad anced Satan 9 #-99
Comatiet, Tivegtde, 9M. pete nor Haga. Vicsor, 194-20!
« TO-34, 176 Hiewwetem ross *
eh, Ane’ ote Heme, Dard, eyp-t44
Cites Ge Kan, 230-203 Dhak bow, Frecin. Mo
Cihedeteee, Wikies Eeert, tre Heme, James, ipo
Claret 8-5 Hhayewsems, Jerre Berl, rigesz5
Cronthe, Jobures Wiellipere vows. O9. tyt~
167, 296, 288 lage, Charecticr ay Cnet, 44. ty-7g. 18>
ee ee lnmocene VIII, po
ton, 1og— Oo. att lesttetin, Howeich. po. pr. 06
Cropas Lintweetes, Framer gh. oy. tty Amawene
of he Ciratias Figen, 4h-48
Grewber, Urban &-qo Dewew sire
of Devil, igh, porerec. 297
Csraned beqeriow, paral of the. tat Irving. Wanhengoon. 266
eh Nhe, 20), ow
Cortbas, Arnel, oF
Cireene, Robart, (4 James, Willem, bar, nh. ere
G XVI, ine dew VL 8
Gries Dovid, 12, 24% Dos Jamecrects,
Creme (Mago ée Cire), 04 Jeaw Peal Richecr. age
Chemis, Stmweles dhe, rreenrr JePorven, Theenes, 4). 19
Geyen, Manc-Clodke, 146 Jeoyes, Sere, aH
=> st. Se, BS, 118-Iy
Hang. Herbert. 240-262
MMambt, 64-54 Pee eben he, oh, put,
Haretwene., Netherect. ree—a01. 24 acenaat
Hebticl Chrietian Friedrich, ey: opposed te Cretmrety. 216-124
‘a om ee wv abe Bibir (bial crttrend, New
t Tevteenert
chevliew of 5 sy oe Je. Book of, ot1-ita, bye
mm Nebos, 1o%—1045 Jaden of he Cre rt. cry
moans Of, te mt, Oy Jeterom, Saewacl. 142
Beier Chab. tat Joes, Dive, ty
Pictvetan Clacde Adrmm, 146 Jooms, Jew. 255
Dhevetas, a4, o% go joeece, tke,
Pheremetic maagec, 27-28, 0, BF, COM cent Cat GC. erg. spo-s54, 199, ate
s, &
Here, Swtem a oe Jetewer, reg
7 Mile, goe-w Reet, breurocd, $7, 024. 165, 204
fee Feemertics. eng ttt, 1B 094, 207 lide and iat, 143°09g. 000
Hick Jobe, igy Kelly, Hoary Ansgar. 12, s6e-2%)
Dhetewe ol oy Dew’, ters SOS, Fe
Hhekr. Sv Nera and Make e Kimg, Willers, Xg-#>. 192
 Jedex 29

Bing Caar, (4-49. T4034 Metett, ge. t*, (hte, 4-7

Kbews, Malema, apo Slachire®i. Nicote, 47

Kingenbor cute, sf Maestre. jowpey ce, ipo
Kingery, Fewdech Masemdsam vor) #67 Malcheanche, Nechedes, By
Kodshoreviy, Lowe, ape are Mave WO Br.
Marsden. he
»
Maaleas, 4%
Lance, Perre de, 46 é Mares. . 165, shea
Langleed, Wilkow, 10# Masson famaby. 26 p=ry%
Loecran Coemecdl, Peerth (ait), 40. 176. Merteun Mapenes, 16
sith, ote
Lareréermed (haben Ucane dop-2. Miarvei, (aarnbertnes. 16
i” Slorbree, Chrieopter, on tani
Le Ves, Ansa Scarce. sgp-res Shartia of Aries. st

Leoorre de Lisk, 104 Share, Kael, send Marwars, 142. 164,

Lee, Vernon (Wieder ed s1g—20, ao. aee
Lobes. Geetreed Wikeim $1. f4-%7. Miaewte, Charice Metert. 17
aaa: 12 . Cray de, ann
Lenght: Datieeeey, Nikbetar, 19% Musruxc, Frances, ™”
Loo X. Memare for Mbnamarv, 54
Lowe NUM, toe, 287 Meclunche hes, Phbqg. a6. 99
Loonnes, charectee i The Waeter’s Tak, Melville, Dherraan, sto-ser. 2M
Mencheon, HL. eet
din,
Megdismiptoebes, 0). OR Ot. ean. tts
33s. 257
compared with fag. 74
on Feeetew’, Git
Leos CS, oH ta, 279 me Crattx, retort
bic and works. spent wm Maree, 6-64
Lew, Marteow (Vbonk& Lown, (rt? eee oe
Locke, Jobe, So, Be, CeI pe “akry, 276
Logeche Vows. o2 Merci), Choonpr, anf
Load of Welt, Dee’ «. * 42° Mhorry Wireof ‘ner, ony
as Metric, Julow Ontiray dhe le. 14?
Lends Praper, 4 Michack, angel, itng), #96, eal
Lesadun. passes at, BB —Go Mictelet, Joke, oor
eS and black meemes, ge, 328 Mackiictee, Thewnas,4
Learners, peewee Bo Miduommer) Nit’) Denew, 66
Lavocrsh. H.R ae Ferana fe Oar Gat, A. at
lees, Ignatian of. Pf. St. ae. Shree . oben Sart, en aa
Lather, Merten et~ a w pesp Mice, Jobin. go. 45. 24. BH, Ge, 1,
ah, Sp, veers. ore, bee, aap, 28h. ee ee
a | utackod by Veber, 198
lee at werk, tera be aed works, ge-t27
Latur Sten of, hoetdied an pool bry Rewsem
om oth compare, 14. 00 Se LL Le
wm oh confery, Mirsehes, typ-tat
wy sth) consery. vat
Lyx. Charks, te Moeetaigre, Mechel de. 14
 as
-

70 MepAlephede
Mewtes pom, Char bes Lanes che Sex nano Noeewalberi, 94-27. 09. ti-H aa.Se
ck. itu Nucker wer, er rpg. 146. 906, tg pet
vecteengs, Rrrenbe dhe, +46
Meerre of Dewi’: fl Oterman. Holes, 9-40
CNY, ah. FeSO te adel Chul. soe. eerie
protec, go. bo5, 208 ‘* VUREFSS. Wilkiars
of, 25
Viarat, Widipeny Awenbews, 9h rte CPUewtell, Michael, ta,
Moewtrce, Thorman, 15, 49 ()Uonser, Hlinwery, 16. o5¢
Vhesis, Cheetles, cr, rat, works of pM nyt
Sauce, and evil go. 167. 870. 2e>—305 ee oft Cad. Set Seocrogrey of
we Viewers Dhediee Fewwen, phe vel
rock reak, 206-297 Chpernien in 1fth comeury, rp2—134
Sle sneey mire rt, Cte dg. Ba. 19. tm Ovighed om Se Adve anal Eve
we abe Bochere, Jaboty. fobn of the tant, 44-45 39-74
Crenn, Netedes of Cone, Terese
of Awks Pact with Deval, a3. oF 74.oo
Pervteed, Ay
Nerceof Dow! tacarhe, oot
Ape, ta ‘Theres Mews, Pee ate
Aware’, 61, 4: Pan 325
Beebuteds 9p, Gin te, o O01, Hitt Pastboiees, tomy
116, 200, DOT Purerpe. churscter ie Cogeeterof Pew
Belial, 96, Oo, Gergs, Ft pete, tas bagel, Cp~ ie
Leofer. 6. qa, 107, 1p 9M. te or Chewnnes, ry fero9
Mirwnes, ig Poradw
Lae (Silden, an. go, 826.
Mobech. regents ™
Notedacdkdy, ing Paradox Repowed \Sithonk G. 116-837
Sete, power Pesce, Bere, Ap. vat
mt alo Mophanophcke Prel VI. 25:
Naegrerges (Teena: Kewheerserl o> Piges, Awteee. am
i Prrolesdve RS. Lowe, s71-374
Natowal lows, 1p o> ea8 Piri, Cinwehkwnrnan, oF
Neture a xtie pomopéc
of doty. res. Peyton. Thoenm. 95
Ont. Sat. S47 48 Pakgeteni, te
ee oe Peters, tureres. 45. 047
Nath, and Mitker, 254-252. 344. 274- Pan LX. 10
£76, PRer eth, OP pee Pow, BAger Mle rieerer. 98
Nerval. Utrand de. s00 Pope, Akuarelcr, rp2-154
New Testament, pe, ahoah 172 FED Pope, papas, and Cathodwnue commented
ss with Dew
and toxwkre Mi- wy 1 oth COREERY, 44, 42-48, 48, Gey
wer odes Hidde Qebdwel crrmesent, Revele wth contery. io
mes, Book of Pumcuien sad coercion, Tf. oe,
1
Newt, [sem Rye tg. tre. cep |
Niheta of Cons, 25: im Bermunes, 279
Nivtoabe, Freedkeet, 443, 209, 220227, a Abbe tThedles, ve

357. 285 @ Kingowxrp. oto

Nives, Lawy, aed Jerry Poureetle, ope reported be Preeewtaets, gt
Neder, Ovarles. oar Previn enel frie wel
Nett, Mare,2 ® im atch coreery. 1¢-9a 4-47
 ladex jt!

iog
ancl
Prodewinat froc wal (met) ibn, Dhan, 9%
m oth comtery, © Sacrameoets. 4)
of Crod
wt abe Senveteqgn ar av aie bam bores
Proce Church of the Fissl padgrocre. Sede, Deusen Aiptcesc Freeqen, Mar
recent cpus he. tt, tale tad, HEE 289
Promatices, 161, 199, IPD big Sater Martin, Lorre Cheol, 19°
Presse, Earner, 4 64 ° Salers. ar 9:
Hreectanyt thendagy, 7>-78 > of Sates.
Salkatioe pet. tte
im oth compary, 248+ 088 Sowererw, Meee, 25e-2 14
wel ebdwal crises, tge-nee Sued, Croorpe. oor
Were, big, C4 rede. b TG, EP.
t)err Semtaguens, Ce ae
pePraiB, otg-2%a, 28% Sartre. JeswPod 143
wer abe Colvin, jetve, Lather, Martec Natace er
Schickrreecher. beaks ', rah cowmary, 14
Taegh, lhuakinch togh compary, reer ae 2b 325
Preadion, Maree feoephy. ree math cowtary, 261-257
Poyeledegy, 268, 226-256. 297 Serwr. ret rye
oe CP Ueener, 2M yi
Raleties, Vrangoes, co~ 4" em Releles, 6p
Radciie, Awe, 107
Seetieng, Vrieiach. 26>
Revews Geers, 43. 27E Schhoicrmecher, Frevirch. scp-t4s
Raphi. . the Sweteae, 18-20. 55. 129
Keprwndi, Mare. 357 rah cowhey, (yP- hal. bagi
Katregger, brape Cardinal, 2%2 oth compary, riqere
Peterman, 29-04% op. sR Opa path coetary, 295-297
Recletnrews, oy-aey 208 aed preereees, thy eTO. O95
we abe Sake, Menquie de Smee froteoe anal feewhess, 1h gn,
Rerei, Nikbetss, of rte, eherrdte
Heveletins, Hd ot. ga. 9% Scot, Koginald, >
Revolution, Amcrcen ond Focnch., 150. Sonat, Walber, apr
10, of1bg, bg, 1h. NOD Serewhate Lowers, The X25. Lowa. ote
Pichacd III, chester i Saakopcere, Swhebd, thane. 245
Serre. 46
tA, 4, 3)
Korveed, Artvar, i09 Ser, Teruple of, ei yeas
Ro, Martin del. 9% Shadow (jengion archetype), ritn aie
Fem reesis, 2pt—acp Shokrgeewe, Wiham, of. sa. 64. 07.
Meerareics. op. ert, Eft 19%, O88. O97, i=
de
webs of O4-™
defied, ety ens Stu. Goorpe Bernard, 0%, 257
oos-315 Nowtles, Hysebe. 159, # Mr Be
Rewwacsic Devil, charactontits of, Ste ond Diewh, Sacae’s chokdoen i Pw
iTseem dy Laat, teerts
Rewwnaryt Baby, fhm 208 Sacpecees ale Devi:
Verwcruceeme, FIR, 220-222 wm vi contery, §)
Heermc Jocgees. 444 861-194.
fear aa. is iy contery. To *e.
‘yv mn Pe) certery, 128-146
Harwe, Deowetiy, 146 in ge) cortery, reg bth, 222-25.
Hoven, Joetah. 241 aei-ay
Mefl, Jornds. 9% om roth cowbary, alo 267, nye pee
 tere, 142
Kaw. sae
Slim, eq
pradonagtoce, Pys-1a6
ee
«vor! come, ss
Theogte das, legend of. $9, Orety
Thersems, Jacoten che, 96

0 100) century, Bye

in Hexse, nai
0 Lobes, 46547
m Mito see- to} Telesd, Jobe. sa. 1 po
Totkice, J&R. ays
Tere. Conascil of, 34, Sf. OR IDK, a8
‘Traherdas, bhuen, 04. ‘8
Torres, or.
Twats, Mark, 315, 214
Stay of eet an ten anh Whe eel works. 25¢~257
wm eth contery, gh feote
_ i Milwo, 107-205. 10¢ Cedareens, ry. oe
Secon, Jets, GF ton, tig. tne Ql ge. tat
Lien, of)

Vakiry, Pas aso

Velwwrurs Oberon, ot
es Valwewx, brace B, 04
Swotenborg. Emawal, ite Vetwer Cornett
ewdarte, Algemeen. toa. 208 Fir. tro
Syretetnen. eancty of Saran, 606, ota Sewell, ote
iho Voerbere, Poel, 305, 195
. T7T—1hy Views, gm oa, ete
Bomuetks, hye eee View, Cotmewbartnes. rgi—1¢y
Seton at goed. itg—195. 207-0 Vids, Sarco Giruhewen, 06
Vigrw. Alheod de. og1-194. 16 dou
Viewlver Arar
fr Avep, Ty (Flannery
Ci ewer, 288 290-204
Vera, Jock, sa, ag
Terepestion
of Carne. erp. sa6-13), im Voith, Vien, 96
‘Teempoer, Devil as, ge. #8 gn. o5. te Vedtetor, Sp. cnt. eha-tay, garage
Teresa of Avis, 27. se-55 Vowxdel, fone vee hen, gros

Walpole, Hharace, oP
mi 200) CONELEY, 19- yal War sas heaven, gn. oer. go-ap
Dawei ie, oie nie m Milton. of, 1op-0e4
Exthete deform, §5 ie Veewll, og eee
Drew wil chefenee, *) ‘ we abe Fall cf Devel and angyie
Jee Garren, 264-247 Michael, aapel
Tage, eas . Wetrwer, Joba, 44, 35
 dadex 432

Weeknerns, Pasl. ict 118, 155..uke

vith comary
West
Weaky, a oph commary, 16t. 1a

Wier, Jotun, ch. Yeux, Wiliams Botkr, 2:*

White, Concur, bog. 218 ape Yeutechows, Saewoel, 244-256
Winch rate
with conrary, 36-1 atoays sinaJ Sager.
SE ae Ene om. PL
t

Zavepi, Bebkincd. 15-05. 49

ines century. spon By. to
Library of Congren Carahging-ae Pliers Diase
Fone jiflacy Barton.
Dicphintephetes «the Dwi bn the mestere went.

Dnctad inden n
I bets
1. Dhevib of doctrine 1 Tek.
Bis Ree itt in'aowe BMgregt
TEEN eter gioco Gtk paper)
 YA te
i, a “Pk
a os
ie ees

( mie “aes
. ees
> Meh tha
‘oo 7 we UN
pat
iy
al f
SaPusta
(i
Ss
Li
=
ies Se male ees
2 we we

Pe irae eole
nhs 4) oe he

A , . 7)
> a eT i 5
* ap Cais

ee
a
it the Middle Ages, The Deel Perceptions of E:s
from Antiquity to Primitive Chestonsy, Safar
The Fors Chrintiae Trodtion, and Luciver: The
Deu in the Middle Ages (all published by Come
Lheersty Preas-——see pecrect Dach)

mice sabar on oe dec of colale a rleres!. of for

bor

a calaks), please wie

Promotion Department, Comme’ Universsty P ress

1 Roberts Place, P.O. Box 20), hhaca, New York

1455)

dxet otro
Mctoentl ceetuy sculpture mo Onur ord Hor)
‘~~ Mercer, Porn
Also by Jeffrey Burton Russell—

LUCIFER .
The Devil in the Middle
Ages -
“as Chesterton claimed, the devil's greatest thumph wea consncing the modern
workd that he does mot esdet, detiey Burton Russell means to rob hin of bis victory.
Lucier: The Deel in the Middle Ages is both a scholarly assesament of te
development at disbolog, in the Middle Ages and an impassioned plea to the 20th
century to recognize and acknowledge the existence of real, objective evil. The thd
ina senes of works tracne the bestory of the devi from bis Jucheo-Chiristian roots, %
represents a formicstle undertaking: the devil's history i integrally related to the
protien of evi, winch ism turn at the heart of Western rebgious thought. Each af the
wolumes on Salat comprises, is essence, 2 judicious and able tour of Chratian
theology feoen the \ilain's potrs of view,” Jobin Boswell, Meus Aepatsic
ISN 0.40146-1500-9 Cheh BANO-B0L4-90-X Paper 356 popes,
2 bleckond
whe chotraters

SATAN
The Early Christian Tradition
“Ressell's Greatment is superb, his writing style hacid, and his assumptions and
conchsions
ere worthy of mention.” Rleekew af Books and Rekgion
PSAN 0.8014. 1267.6 255 popes, 16 Mock ered atete Mustranoss

THE DEVIL
Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity
“Coping with the unwieldy dimensions of such a vast sutyect, (Russell's)
tormidabte scholarship Gurrenstes a topic het ls perernindhy compeling”
—Pubtshers Weekly
“This boak shows . . . an awedneptring grasp of The minutiae of this histocical
walsect matte: and secondary Herature, and ree! ekll in hestoncal semantics.”
Canaan Jounal of Mistory
ISDN O.40-0835-1 278 popes, SO Mock cred Ate Buotraters

Cornel University Prose

Ithacn
and Lone