THE DEVIL IN THE 19th CENTURY

“What a queer age. It is just at the moment when positivism is at it’s zenith that mysticism rises again and the follies of the occult begin… To think that a century of positivism and atheism have been able to overthrow everything but Satanism; and it cannot make Satanism yield an inch.”
           -“Down There.” Huysmans. 1891



           History is a series of reactions against itself. Whenever sentiment sways too far to one side, it always swings back violently and replaces what came before. Such is this case with all history, the Nineteenth century, of course, is no exception. The Nineteenth Century was a big one for the Devil. He blossomed into his most compelling form and then quickly decomposed into a shell of all his former selves in less than one hundred years. Under the pens and paintbrushes of Romantic artists and writers the Devil achieved a depth that he had been lacking in the centuries of existence He had been through previously; and then he was destroyed.

           Where did the Devil come from? Did he evolve slowly over time, pieced together from various pre-existing mythologies, or was he created? Has his power remained constant or has it waxed and waned over the course of His development? What role did He play in the development of human consciousness? It is difficult to adequately answer any of these questions because the Devil is one of the most complex and intangible concepts in Western thought. He is an assortment of contradictions, and contradictions generally cause more questions to arise, rather than solving any.

            The Devil possesses immense power, but he is under God’s control. Or does He have free reign to prey on and torment all of humanity. He is a hideous intimidating monster, or he is a glorious fallen angel, or an impotent nuisance. He is a singular tangible, physical entity, or He exists only as a dark, primal part of every human being. He is to be feared as the tempter of souls or to be hailed as the original rebel. He is either the most positive active force in existence, or the most destructive and terrible. So which is it? Is it possible to answer? Yes, it is. The answer is all of the above. The Devil is all of these disparate ideas simultaneously. This is possible because he is not a thing, he is a concept, He is a philosophy, He is a theology.

           And what does He look like? What are some of His defining characteristics? How is He defined? The Devil, unlike God, whose gender has always been an issue of dispute, is resiliently masculine. Although, it remains curious how women have always been more closely associated with the Devil and sin throughout history. The aforementioned point comes from the patriarchal fear of the opposite sex; and he Devil is all about fear of the opposite of yourself. That’s all the Devil ever was until the nineteenth century, a tool used solely for fear and control. A tool to maintain the power structures as they were.

           How do we identify the Devil? How do we represent him? The most common contemporary image of the Devil is a red skinned, goateed man with horns, hooves, and, sometimes, hair covering his lower body. This contemporary image is a long cry from the Devil that used to appear in images. He generally wields a pitchfork, which, rather than serving as a symbol of the punishment you will receive in hell, as is often misinterpreted, serves as a scepter, which symbolizes His command of Hell. “Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.” -“Paradise Lost.” Milton. 1667. The Devil is a slave no longer.

           A pitchfork is not a torture device; it is a symbol of power. The pitchfork is the equivalent of Neptune’s trident, and most likely taken directly from that motif, as almost all characteristics of demons and/or devils are derived from Pagan theological lore as a means of diminishing their power, and to make it clear to the Christian mind that following these “heathen” religions was the path to Hell. In fact, the early Christian theologians demonized the word demon. It comes from the Greek term daimon, which was used to refer to an intermediary between gods and men. In the writings of Plato the word is applied simply to those with a wealth of knowledge. There were no moral connotations attached to the word until the Christians changed it to “demon,” to strengthen the campaign against, not just Pagan belief, but anything associated with the culture or society of anything non-Christian. This practice was taken to a ridiculous extent. The Greeks had observed that the world was a globe rather than a disc. They had touched upon the ideas of evolution and survival of the fittest. They had long ago rejected that the earth was the center of the universe. All these things didn’t sit right with the early Christians, and they were discarded as heretical and evil. Imagine how far the sciences might be today if we hadn’t thrown out all the knowledge acquired by the ancient civilizations. At least this teaches that truth cannot be kept away, only obscured. But alas, the world resumed being flat, assumed it’s place at the center of the universe, and so many more ideas were lost due to their lack of Christian origin. The loss of the Museum in Alexandria should mourned every year. The world has never suffered such a loss. All the knowledge of ancient culture was contained within, and is was burnt to the ground because the knowledge was written by Pagans.

           The word Pagan itself has been so bastardized. A plethora of definitions exist for it, all of which are confusing when compared to any other. Paganism is almost synonymous with evil these days. It’s defined as, among other things; the belief in polytheistic gods of the Greeks; lack of belief in a Christian God; a hedonist; a country dweller; someone with no religious belief and delights in sensual and materialistic pleasures. And because of the corruption of the term, it is also now synonymous with the Devil.

           Back to the pitchfork, it is significant because it provides valuable insight into the shift in the Devil’s function in Christian theological doctrine. Originally the Devil, in very early works from the sixth century till about the tenth, was represented with a grapnel, not a pitchfork. A grapnel was a real medieval torture device with two hooked prongs on the end that were raked across the bodies of the accused. The Devil was simply a servant in the early stages of Christianity. His purpose was to do the job he was given by God, which was to torture and punish the souls of the damned. He had no power of his own, and therefore, wasn’t represented as anything much more than a pest or an unassuming imp till quite a bit later. The pitchfork, however, signifies the Devil becoming a powerful ruler in direct opposition to the light of God. This lack of clarity has been a thorn in the side for many Christian thinkers throughout the centuries.

           This is a most potent example of the trouble with the concept of the Devil. If he is merely a servant of God, he cannot possibly inspire fear. He is part of God’s plan, and therefore not any sort of threat to the soul of a good Christian. So, in order to command fear, He must be the opposite of God. He must be evil incarnate. He must be a mighty ruler, in direct competition with God for the souls of humanity. You have to be careful, because the slightest straying from the path could lead you into the Devil’s clutches. But if this is the case, is he as powerful as God? That can’t be. God is almighty; He created everything so he must have created the Devil too. Then the Devil must be weaker than God, but that being so, why would God allow his opposition, evil, to exist? Maybe it was the Devil’s freewill that led him to sin, but still, God would be responsible if he is all-powerful. The difficulty for Christians is not the questions that arise as to the nature of the Devil, but as to the nature of God. The idea of God is an uncomfortable concept to question for most people. The informal resolution was that there could be no single representation of the Devil. This subject would be bypassed altogether. Each time the Devil is represented, it is a unique depiction that exists in that context, and whatever connotations are present in that scenario extend no further than that. That was the only way to rectify this problem. He must be presented differently to illustrate whatever aspect of Him that is currently being focused on. Because of this, the Devil has no form. He has no distinct symbology.

           This aspect of the devil is unique among all other religious icons. Jesus is always Jesus, Mary is always Mary, Michael is always Michael, but the Devil is Satan, and Lucifer, and Mephistopheles, and a Demon, and the Plague, and psychological madness. The Devil is not a character He is an amalgamation of ideas. Though the aforementioned figures may look different in each representation, they always utilize the same figurative language; the Devil does not, He was a confusing concept that was given a profusion of confusing forms. Even eastern deities who have many different forms, such as Vishnu in Hinduism, who has something like seven different main forms, is consistent within those representations. They are all different aspects of the same being. The same is not true of the Devil.

           All throughout the middle ages, and on into the Renaissance, artists struggled to capture the Devil appropriately. They could not capture the depth they wished to convey. The Devil was too hazy an idea to affect the natural world. The greatest successes were achieved when the aspects of the Devil, cruelty, hate, sexuality, and the like were represented through humans, a far more tangible form.

           These ages were dominated by fear and control. The Devil was the key to success. Fear is an excellent tool for keeping people in line. Terrorism, Communism, Evil Doers, the Devil, it’s all about control, and it works, for a while. Mankind needs its enemies, and for Medieval Europe the enemy was the Devil.

           This structure took a big blow with the Age of Enlightenment. Once people started to embrace rationality, the Devil’s power, and the Churches, began to wane. With the Enlightenment people started to question everything around them. The sciences came into their own and reason and logic dominated society. Everything had to be reevaluated, especially the strict theological doctrines that had been so unwavering in the past. To a large extent, within the academic circles, Religion was done away with, or at least put aside.

           During this time groups calling themselves “Hellfire Clubs,” began to form all around Europe, as well as in America. Almost none of these clubs were explicitly Satanic, they simply dismissed the traditional framework of Religion. Would come together, usually at bars, to have a few drinks and discuss theological and philosophical problems. It should not be surprising to learn that a number of the founding fathers of our country were active members in various Hellfire Clubs. For it’s time America was absolutely cutting edge. It was a subversive endeavor. It was the rebel, challenging the Empire. That figures such as John Adams and Benjamin Franklin belonged to these subversive clubs fit perfectly into the nature of the formation of this country. Evil is always in the eyes of those in power.

           The Devil went through a massive transformation because of the open questioning of belief during the Enlightenment. The impact of a book by a blind, pilgrim, poet played in this shift cannot be overstated. John Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” was to be the Christian equivalent of “the Odyssey”. It is a sweeping religious epic poem that would convey the beauty and the drama of Christian belief. Unwittingly, Milton produced the definitive source for the emerging romantic idea of the Devil that was to come. Milton’s Devil is virtually the protagonist of “Paradise Lost” He is certainly the most human, the most real, which should seem strikingly odd since in the past the Devil was always the most vague and difficult concept to give form to. When Milton turned his pen to him, however, He became a beautiful vibrant rebel; a glorious fallen angel. The difference is that Milton humanized the Devil. When put into emotional contexts of struggle and passion, the Devil becomes the most real and identifiable. All the intrigue in “Paradise Lost,” is in the Devil. The second half, “Paradise Regained,” where the Devil is, for the most part, absent, is, while still beautifully written, painfully slow, and devoid of the life, which “Lost,” had. The Devil easily assumes the role as the most compelling character. He finally has the form, power, and substance, which he never possessed as the enemy of mankind, as an anti-hero. Blake offers an explanation for the power of Milton’s Satan. “The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels and God, and at liberty when of Devils and Hell, is because he was a true poet, and of the Devil’s party without knowing it”. After Milton all art, poetry especially, formed a close bond with the Devil. Perhaps they were always that closely allied, they simply were unaware.

           This is what is significant about the nineteenth century. The Devil transforms from an intangible tool of fear and control into a commanding icon of rebellion and strength. This is huge. The adversary of everything good and holy is suddenly embraced as a hero. This was not the sentiment all across the board mind you, but many artists, writers and philosophers in the intellectual circles of the nineteenth century identified with and further developed this particular view of the Devil. Writers like Shelly, Keats, Victor Hugo, Robert Lewis Stephenson, Husymans, Baudelaire, and Voltaire; artists like William Blake, James Barry, Henri Fuseli, and Goya. People like this embraced the Romanticism of the Devil. The Devil was the victim of an unjust system, and he stood up against it. He made a stand. Many could easily relate to this attitude during this time. Whether standing up against the academy as in James Barry’s Satan and His Legion Hurling Defiance Towards the Vault of Heaven. 1792-4. Or against the unjust policies of those in power as is the case of many of Goya’s Los Caprichos, people suddenly had a concept they could get behind.

           One of the forerunners approaching this new vision of the Devil was William Blake. Blake’s Devils, generally appearing as Lucifer (the Light Bringer) always possess a certain majestic quality. Even when his Devil appears as a beast, as in The Great Red Dragon and the Woman Clothed in the Sun. He is dominant. He is powerful. His Devil tormenting Job and Fighting with Sin and Death is beautiful. He is elegant, and awe inspiring, if still the bringer of suffering. Blake’s theology was very idiosyncratic. He was interested in creating a unique world of new passionate mythology.

            Henri Fuseli and James Barry were two other artists who captured the power and brilliance of the Devil. They used the Devil to make a stand, and show their indignation. He is a commanding leader. In Barry’s Satan and his Rebel Angels Hurling Defiance towards the Vault of Heaven, he was making an attack against the Academy. Barry is Satan, and his defiance is being hurled at the Royal Academy. Satan is a classically beautiful angel. He has a commanding presence. You can feel his indignation against the unjust powers of oppression. No longer is he a hideously deformed beast, and no longer will he be a slave.

           Francisco Goya, the quintessential Spanish Romantic artist, used the Devil and he occult as tools to criticize what he saw to be the ills in society. In his Los Caprichos series, half of his plates are of occult subjects in various scenarios. Goya himself was an atheist, but he understood the power of applying human issues to occult images, or vise versa.

           As was previously stated, history is a series of reactions against itself. As this shift to the Devil’s side became apparent, the Church fought back with a renewed fervor. The damage, for the most part, had already been done, but the pendulum began to swing back to the Church’s side. Religious fanatics got even more fanatical and suspected the Devil’s power was on the rise, and therefore, threatening society. This does not need to be analyzed much in the context of this paper; it is just good to keep in mind that almost always as there is a shift in belief to one side, the other side, although diminished, makes up for the loss with increased intensity.

           But we’re discussing the Devil here, and after the way was paved by the Romantic artists and the Decadent writers the doors were blown open for the occult to be fully explored. Blasphemy became a form of artistic expression. I have found no other artist from this time period who did a better job of blaspheming than Felecien Rops. Rops was a Belgian who lived in France in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. His work is shockingly, openly, Satanic. Time and again Rops combines occult inspired horror with near ecstatic pleasure. There is no sense of fear in his paintings even though his imagery is more horrific than almost any other artist of his time. It’s seductive and intriguing. That seems to be where the Devil’s power lies, in seduction and intrigue.

           The main reason Rops was able to be so openly blasphemous in his art is because the Devil as an instrument of fear was dying. The Devil was, for the most part, abandoned by the Church. They had tried for centuries to give him life and form. It has always failed to take hold until the Devil was made sympathetic and embraced as a hero. The Romantics killed the Devil for the Church, and the public killed the Devil for the Romantics.

           At the same time Rops was working, the Devil was going through even more changes. The first, which was nothing new, was to use the Devil as propaganda. This had been going on since the very first stages of the Devil’s development, but this new format was different. The Devil is no longer the incarnation of evil; He is a cartoon. He is humorous, or inept, or a blundering fool. He is used to humiliate or criticize the opposition. It’s not to suggest that they are evil and their followers will burn in Hell, it is to suggest that they are humorous, or inept, or a blundering fool.

           This watering down of the Devil led to His untimely demise. Shortly after his appearance in political propaganda the Devil turned up in advertising, the downfall of any concept. You know there is nothing left to fear when the Devil is selling you thread, or soap, or some other sort of product. All the evil, all the intensity, all the fear is gone. The Devil is relegated to a marketing strategy. Perhaps He’s still a little edgy, maybe even dangerous, but that’s fun right? Certainly the sworn enemy of everything good and holy wouldn’t be used to sell soap? Or would he? It has been suggested that certain folks in the field of marketing are evil, but that’s another paper. The point is that the Devil blossomed as a romantic concept and died in the same century. The Devil at his most powerful and compelling, as the original rebel, as the commander of the rebel angels, of the champion of the underdogs, lived a very short life.

           For centuries the Devil was without form. He was a concept that never effectively translated into art or literature; until he was given new life not as ultimate evil, but as a symbol of defiance. This was an unexpected twist in the history of the Devil but it is one that belongs to the nineteenth century.