What do you think?
Rate this book
Jeffrey Burton Russell's History of the Devil #4
Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World Paperback February 22, 1990
Excellent Book
Unknown Binding
First published December 1, 1986
20 people are currently reading
2318 people want to read
About the author
Jeffrey Burton Russell
34 books168 followersJeffrey Burton Russell was an American historian of medieval Europe and religious studies scholar.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
August 8, 2025
“The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist.” -The Usual Suspects
Very informative and thought-provoking book.
The book explores concept of Devil, God, and evil vs. good through Western literarure, philosophy, science, psychology, history, and theology. It explores evolutions and devolutions of the concept. At some points, I became seriously disappointed in "intellectuals," yet people like Jung, O'Cannor, Mann, Bernanos, and above all, Dostoevsky, were among few who really understood Devil.
Wonderful and amazing book.
Very informative and thought-provoking book.
The book explores concept of Devil, God, and evil vs. good through Western literarure, philosophy, science, psychology, history, and theology. It explores evolutions and devolutions of the concept. At some points, I became seriously disappointed in "intellectuals," yet people like Jung, O'Cannor, Mann, Bernanos, and above all, Dostoevsky, were among few who really understood Devil.
Wonderful and amazing book.
April 16, 2019
Jeffrey Burton Russell has, one might say, specialized in the devil. In a series of volumes he has traced the evolution of Satan and evil as perceived in religion, literature and philosophy since the beginning of recorded time. Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World traces modern man's view of the devil beginning with the 16th century to the present.
We are surrounded by different "truth systems." What may be true for science may have different validity in another truth system, e.g. art or history. Science says little about beauty, for example. A tree is a plant, but it may also be a symbol in art, a totem in religion, or the tree on which John Smith was hanged. All are equally true. So it is with the devil and evil, explains Russell. Moral evil cannot be measured by science which can only investigate the physical world.
The devil as a concept was created to help explain evil. During the 16th century as Protestants and Catholics warred with one another, Satan grew in stature. The Pope symbolized the Antichrist for Protestants while Catholics exorcised demons from Protestants. The Devil became an important symbol for religion which philosophically requires evil in order to define good. The Faust legend metaphorically represented the changing attitudes toward evil that occurred during the 15th and 16th centuries. The struggle in medieval times had been homo centric: God vs. Satan, but God intervenes to save and protect man. In Shakespeare and Faust the struggle became more individualistic (society had become more bourgeois and competitive); the struggle a more protestant and personal one. The fight is now between man and the devil. The struggle has also become more pessimistic. In medieval times the devil was depicted as a clown, funny-looking and stupid. The sinner was invariably saved. Now, Faust turns away from God, hardens his heart and is invariably doomed. The increasing ambivalence toward knowledge is apparent. The Faustian sin is to seek ultimate knowledge and the power which comes from this knowledge. (I'm going to have to quit talking about knowledge being power). The tension between religion and scholarship still apparent today was unique to Protestantism according to Russell. The Devil has also become much more introspective and sympathetic toward his victim (The Screwtape Letters ?). The humanization and internalization of the devil became a major theme in 16th and 17th century literature.
Russell traces the changes in perception of evil from the clowning medieval simpleton to the Reformation's introspective and cunning, spiritual lunatic. The more plausible Satan reflected qualities admired by the romantics: individualism, rebellion, ambition and power; a liberator in rebellion against a society who blocks the way toward beauty and love. The Gothic novel portrayed good as a veneer covering up evil and danger. Ironically during the 17th century, belief in the devil declined as those in power became threatened by the witchcraft craze. It was one thing to let the commoners burn each other at the stake, but when the elite felt threatened suddenly it was discovered there was no scriptural basis for sorcery or witchcraft. Theologians also worried that evil had become so prominent as to make the devil virtually independent of God. Russell traces the rise of skepticism and by the late 1700s the much more common view was that God and Satan exist but rarely intervene in the world.
Russell's final chapter is devoted to a discussion of God and the Devil's role in a modern materialistic world. He points out that while science cannot confirm the existence of God neither can it find any evidence against it. He argues that the concept of evil and the devil may be useful because it allows us to conceptualize the reality of non-good (my term.) If it were better understood that a "perceived spiritual voice may come from a power of evil, dangerous cult figures who argue that they speak with the voice of God might win fewer followers." Russell is at his best when dealing with the historical evidence of belief in Satan. His literary allusions become tendentious. Still, a book worth reading. Rather than start at the end of the series you might wish to begin at the beginning with The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, followed by Satan: The Early Christian Tradition, then Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages.
We are surrounded by different "truth systems." What may be true for science may have different validity in another truth system, e.g. art or history. Science says little about beauty, for example. A tree is a plant, but it may also be a symbol in art, a totem in religion, or the tree on which John Smith was hanged. All are equally true. So it is with the devil and evil, explains Russell. Moral evil cannot be measured by science which can only investigate the physical world.
The devil as a concept was created to help explain evil. During the 16th century as Protestants and Catholics warred with one another, Satan grew in stature. The Pope symbolized the Antichrist for Protestants while Catholics exorcised demons from Protestants. The Devil became an important symbol for religion which philosophically requires evil in order to define good. The Faust legend metaphorically represented the changing attitudes toward evil that occurred during the 15th and 16th centuries. The struggle in medieval times had been homo centric: God vs. Satan, but God intervenes to save and protect man. In Shakespeare and Faust the struggle became more individualistic (society had become more bourgeois and competitive); the struggle a more protestant and personal one. The fight is now between man and the devil. The struggle has also become more pessimistic. In medieval times the devil was depicted as a clown, funny-looking and stupid. The sinner was invariably saved. Now, Faust turns away from God, hardens his heart and is invariably doomed. The increasing ambivalence toward knowledge is apparent. The Faustian sin is to seek ultimate knowledge and the power which comes from this knowledge. (I'm going to have to quit talking about knowledge being power). The tension between religion and scholarship still apparent today was unique to Protestantism according to Russell. The Devil has also become much more introspective and sympathetic toward his victim (The Screwtape Letters ?). The humanization and internalization of the devil became a major theme in 16th and 17th century literature.
Russell traces the changes in perception of evil from the clowning medieval simpleton to the Reformation's introspective and cunning, spiritual lunatic. The more plausible Satan reflected qualities admired by the romantics: individualism, rebellion, ambition and power; a liberator in rebellion against a society who blocks the way toward beauty and love. The Gothic novel portrayed good as a veneer covering up evil and danger. Ironically during the 17th century, belief in the devil declined as those in power became threatened by the witchcraft craze. It was one thing to let the commoners burn each other at the stake, but when the elite felt threatened suddenly it was discovered there was no scriptural basis for sorcery or witchcraft. Theologians also worried that evil had become so prominent as to make the devil virtually independent of God. Russell traces the rise of skepticism and by the late 1700s the much more common view was that God and Satan exist but rarely intervene in the world.
Russell's final chapter is devoted to a discussion of God and the Devil's role in a modern materialistic world. He points out that while science cannot confirm the existence of God neither can it find any evidence against it. He argues that the concept of evil and the devil may be useful because it allows us to conceptualize the reality of non-good (my term.) If it were better understood that a "perceived spiritual voice may come from a power of evil, dangerous cult figures who argue that they speak with the voice of God might win fewer followers." Russell is at his best when dealing with the historical evidence of belief in Satan. His literary allusions become tendentious. Still, a book worth reading. Rather than start at the end of the series you might wish to begin at the beginning with The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, followed by Satan: The Early Christian Tradition, then Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages.
January 12, 2019
I have to admit being in awe over Jeffrey Burton Russell’s accomplishments. Mephistopheles is his fourth book about the characterization of evil throughout history. In the first of these books, The Devil, he describes himself as an historian of ideas. That description takes him through some fascinating places. Russell also admits that he believes in some kind of personified evil, and with his extremely lucid thinking he backs the idea up over these four volumes. (The second and third, Satan and Lucifer, respectively deal with time frames up to the Middle Ages; all four are discussed on my blog, the most recent here: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World.) Mephistopheles deals with the Devil from the Reformation until the late 20th century.
Burton understands and describes theology well. Theology isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, of course. This particular volume has plenty that’s not theology since the character of evil was also addressed in literature and film in the modern period. Russell gives not only a history of the character of Mephistopheles, but also strong justification for keeping materialism in its place. A logical and well-informed thinker, he draws the reader into areas they might not want to go with extended discussions of the main works—including those of some unexpected writers—of authors who deal with the question of good and evil. Throughout it all, he keeps open the possibility that evil is real.
Written during the 1980s, this book contains the palpable terror of nuclear war. Over the decades we’ve perhaps become too comfortable with the idea of mutually assured destruction. Nevertheless, Russell’s final chapter is chilling. Given how things have progressed since the 1980s—I remember well the terror of the Reagan years when war with Russia seemed inevitable—I can’t help but wonder if Russell is correct. When unstable, hate-driven men are given access to nuclear codes we have to wonder if there will be anyone left to write a post-script to this book. Many would benefit from reading this book, even if they have no interest in who the Devil might be. It is a powerful statement that includes genuine insights, whether the reader agrees or not.
Burton understands and describes theology well. Theology isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, of course. This particular volume has plenty that’s not theology since the character of evil was also addressed in literature and film in the modern period. Russell gives not only a history of the character of Mephistopheles, but also strong justification for keeping materialism in its place. A logical and well-informed thinker, he draws the reader into areas they might not want to go with extended discussions of the main works—including those of some unexpected writers—of authors who deal with the question of good and evil. Throughout it all, he keeps open the possibility that evil is real.
Written during the 1980s, this book contains the palpable terror of nuclear war. Over the decades we’ve perhaps become too comfortable with the idea of mutually assured destruction. Nevertheless, Russell’s final chapter is chilling. Given how things have progressed since the 1980s—I remember well the terror of the Reagan years when war with Russia seemed inevitable—I can’t help but wonder if Russell is correct. When unstable, hate-driven men are given access to nuclear codes we have to wonder if there will be anyone left to write a post-script to this book. Many would benefit from reading this book, even if they have no interest in who the Devil might be. It is a powerful statement that includes genuine insights, whether the reader agrees or not.
March 28, 2014
To be frank, I haven’t read any of the previous three of Jeffery Burton Russell’s books which together comprise a “history of the Devil” from antiquity through the twentieth century. I started at the end, because the only other volume I own, the third in the series, is packed away in a box somewhere and it didn’t have the chance to catch my eye. The reason why series like these attract me so much is beyond me – maybe I’m just drawn to big, unwieldy reading projects. However, judging from the last volume alone, this seems to be at a superficial treatment, with little to offer someone already interested in the history of religious ideas.
This volume picks up with the beginning of the Reformation, whose emphasis on sola fide revitalized older medieval ideas of diabology. Some interesting, and scary, fragments of Martin Luther’s life are retold, including the tidbit that one of his most important biographers, Heiko Oberman, described Luther’s whole existence as a “war with Satan.” He also uses this section of the book to look at the diabology of John Calvin and sixteenth-century mystic-contemplatives St. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila.
With the appearance of the Enlightenment, increasing popularity of empiricism, rationalism, and use of the scientific method, people started to take diabology – or at least the possible existence of the Devil – much less seriously (which is hardly a surprise). In this section of the book, Chapter III, the reader gets a plodding, thirty page-long piece of exegesis on Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” which while it is a poem largely about the Devil, seems to consist of too much summary and too much ham-handed literary analysis. Its appearance is abrupt and completely out of place in an otherwise smooth (at least until that this point) history of ideas.
When Russell begins to talk about the Enlightenment and some of its most prominent thinkers, he weirdly and biliously starts tossing around pejoratives, like “propagandist.” He doesn’t seem to except the modern biological consensus position on evolution, stating “new reflections on randomness and time suggest that even in billions of years the information of intelligent life by random processes is virtually impossible,” though he intelligently stops short of trying to argue that a supernaturally intelligent being is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth (p. 151).
He has a particular dislike for Hume, especially his argument against miracles, which Russell again endlessly belabors, attempts to rebut, and fails. He hilariously claims that de Sade is the “logical conclusion of atheism” – an interesting admission concerning an author whose work perhaps more than any other in the eighteenth century confirms the existence of evil in the world. He reads de Sade as an inveterate misanthrope and sexual deviant (which is much too easy) instead of as an ironist who is actually trying to make cogent points about the very real existence of good and evil in society. None of this bodes well for his reading of Goethe’s “Faust” – which is much shorter than his reading of Milton, though just as uninteresting.
The overall tone of this book comes across as a later-day apology for religious ideas which don’t really jibe with modernity, which probably explains his hostility to several facets of it. Russell’s obvious trouble reconciling himself to commonly accepted scientific positions (like evolution), the long, meandering renditions of literary works (of which I only mentioned two, but there are several more of less important writers), and his obvious disdain for the Enlightenment make for a perfect storm which make this book both sad and funny to read. Russell’s specialization is the medieval time period, so maybe I just caught him trying to tie up loose ends in a historical period with which he has little familiarity. This can be forgiven. As soon as third volume finds its way out of a box and onto a bookshelf, I might pick it up.
This volume picks up with the beginning of the Reformation, whose emphasis on sola fide revitalized older medieval ideas of diabology. Some interesting, and scary, fragments of Martin Luther’s life are retold, including the tidbit that one of his most important biographers, Heiko Oberman, described Luther’s whole existence as a “war with Satan.” He also uses this section of the book to look at the diabology of John Calvin and sixteenth-century mystic-contemplatives St. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila.
With the appearance of the Enlightenment, increasing popularity of empiricism, rationalism, and use of the scientific method, people started to take diabology – or at least the possible existence of the Devil – much less seriously (which is hardly a surprise). In this section of the book, Chapter III, the reader gets a plodding, thirty page-long piece of exegesis on Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” which while it is a poem largely about the Devil, seems to consist of too much summary and too much ham-handed literary analysis. Its appearance is abrupt and completely out of place in an otherwise smooth (at least until that this point) history of ideas.
When Russell begins to talk about the Enlightenment and some of its most prominent thinkers, he weirdly and biliously starts tossing around pejoratives, like “propagandist.” He doesn’t seem to except the modern biological consensus position on evolution, stating “new reflections on randomness and time suggest that even in billions of years the information of intelligent life by random processes is virtually impossible,” though he intelligently stops short of trying to argue that a supernaturally intelligent being is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth (p. 151).
He has a particular dislike for Hume, especially his argument against miracles, which Russell again endlessly belabors, attempts to rebut, and fails. He hilariously claims that de Sade is the “logical conclusion of atheism” – an interesting admission concerning an author whose work perhaps more than any other in the eighteenth century confirms the existence of evil in the world. He reads de Sade as an inveterate misanthrope and sexual deviant (which is much too easy) instead of as an ironist who is actually trying to make cogent points about the very real existence of good and evil in society. None of this bodes well for his reading of Goethe’s “Faust” – which is much shorter than his reading of Milton, though just as uninteresting.
The overall tone of this book comes across as a later-day apology for religious ideas which don’t really jibe with modernity, which probably explains his hostility to several facets of it. Russell’s obvious trouble reconciling himself to commonly accepted scientific positions (like evolution), the long, meandering renditions of literary works (of which I only mentioned two, but there are several more of less important writers), and his obvious disdain for the Enlightenment make for a perfect storm which make this book both sad and funny to read. Russell’s specialization is the medieval time period, so maybe I just caught him trying to tie up loose ends in a historical period with which he has little familiarity. This can be forgiven. As soon as third volume finds its way out of a box and onto a bookshelf, I might pick it up.
July 2, 2025
Far shakier than any of its three predecessors. Professor Burton Russell exhausts most of the interesting material by the time he's done with the Reformation and its upending of Christian diabology, and some material on philosophers like Kant, Hume, etc. The chapter on the Romantic Devil is good (not great), but Russell's refusal to engage honestly with the materialists' arguments against God and the Devil is a major red flag for me (no quotes from Marx or Engels, to say nothing of any subsequent Marxist thinker, nor for that matter did he even discuss Hegel at all prior to arriving at his absurd summation of Marxist/dialectical materialist thought as "a religion that holds that social standing determines one's understanding of the world"... uh, no wonder he didn't want to quote from Marx or Engels?), and in his dreadful chapter on the 20th Century, the complete omission of the Satanic Panic of the 80s (give or take a couple years on each side) is also noteworthy, especially given his saying with a straight face that bands like Black Sabbath (they of the song "Iron Man/Children of the Grave"... clearly he knows his stuff in this department, huh?) "backmask devilish messages" in their recordings. This leaves us with half a good book and half filled with lazy, shoddy research and some short summaries/analyses of novels, poems, and plays that are much better treated in many other studies both book-length and otherwise. A disappointing conclusion to a great study of the concept of the Devil down through the ages.
March 7, 2023
Probably one of the more delightfully surprising reads I've ever had. I thought it would be more dark than it was, but it was full of insight and inspiration. I added several titles to my "want to read" list and am looking forward to reading them. The insights into how views on diabology have progressed over the years was fascinating and the summaries of how these were reflected in the literature and therefor culture of the time is also fascinating. This definitely makes the list of books that I will be re-reading. Highly recommend it to anyone wanting something interesting and insightful.
April 10, 2018
not trying to flag myself for God's no-fly registry but have been curious about the great pretender recently for schoolwork and some creative writing and i did some comparison shopping. this dude's trilogy (of which this is the final third) on the cultural footprint of the Devil gets the job done
September 4, 2013
The fourth and final book on the conceptual history of the Devil by Russell. Here we start with the reformation, and move through enlightenment philosophy. This is the only volume that deals with a psychological analysis of the Devil. Not a big surprise since there really was little science of the mind in the middle ages. He mainly covers Freud and Jung. It is then that the book really takes off into the realms of literature. There is so much fiction in this volume that it reads a bit like a Who's Who of European and American modern literature. Let's face it, so much ink had been spilled concerning Satan in the eyes of theologians and philosophers that they start sounding a bit redundant. It took Milton, the romantics, the Shelleys, the decadents, and others to begin seeing Satan in an original light. The Devil became less plainly evil, but now had some interesting features.
I also found this to be the most eerie and haunting volume of the four. Maybe because it most resonated with the modern world and the present evils we now face. However, I'm still not convinced of the existence of an actual Devil, nor God for that matter. The author hints that he does. He tentatively explains that radical evil, such as an Auschwitz, has a transcendent quality. (pgs. 298-299).
Huh?
We find new ways to kill many more people than before and somehow this means that the evil comes from without? I'm not convinced.
Although Russell is objective with all views presented I feel that he is not a big fan of scientism and materialism. And the only time I felt a real disdain is when he mentioned briefly the existence of modern Satanists such as LaVey's group, or the Church of Set. I guess he's not a fan.
The book ends with the author waxing a bit too poetic when he tries to be optimistic about the future as he gazes up at the stars and states that love is what makes the sun and stars move.
Sorry, but gravity does that. I know I'm being pedantic, but maybe I'm a bit like those bloodless, rational intellectuals that Flannery O'Connor criticizes in her books. (This is one of the authors Russell talks about, one I'm sure I will not be taking up!)
But apart from my own views, this is a fascinating book worthy of another 5 star rating; just like the previous 3. It is chock full of history, philosophy, theology, psychology and literature. And all four books gave me much to contemplate.
I also found this to be the most eerie and haunting volume of the four. Maybe because it most resonated with the modern world and the present evils we now face. However, I'm still not convinced of the existence of an actual Devil, nor God for that matter. The author hints that he does. He tentatively explains that radical evil, such as an Auschwitz, has a transcendent quality. (pgs. 298-299).
Huh?
We find new ways to kill many more people than before and somehow this means that the evil comes from without? I'm not convinced.
Although Russell is objective with all views presented I feel that he is not a big fan of scientism and materialism. And the only time I felt a real disdain is when he mentioned briefly the existence of modern Satanists such as LaVey's group, or the Church of Set. I guess he's not a fan.
The book ends with the author waxing a bit too poetic when he tries to be optimistic about the future as he gazes up at the stars and states that love is what makes the sun and stars move.
Sorry, but gravity does that. I know I'm being pedantic, but maybe I'm a bit like those bloodless, rational intellectuals that Flannery O'Connor criticizes in her books. (This is one of the authors Russell talks about, one I'm sure I will not be taking up!)
But apart from my own views, this is a fascinating book worthy of another 5 star rating; just like the previous 3. It is chock full of history, philosophy, theology, psychology and literature. And all four books gave me much to contemplate.
November 18, 2017
Russell concludes his study into the conceptual history of the Devil in fine form. The exegesis of Milton's 'Paradise Lost' and Goethe's 'Faust' are invaluable. Russell has never concealed his bias throughout the series, yet it does here cause him to falter in his analysis of contemporary Satanism. His dismissal of the Temple of Set is ineffective due to Russell's bias leading him to rely upon subjective opinion, as opposed to the depth of research and analysis he devotes elsewhere. The initial 80% of this final entry in the series is thus excellent. The final chapters are less worthy of your time.
August 23, 2021
I am of two minds about this entry because it has two different thrusts. One, identifying the transition from the devil as a primarily religious one to one which can also be used as a symbol disconnected from its original meaning, two, the lamentation about the fact and the conditions which brought it about.
The first I really enjoy because it deeply informs with the culture that I identify with: metal and to a lesser extent horror movies. It’s fascinating to see how skepticism and an emphasis on material production incredibly enabled the devil to be unmoored and become a symbol. And though it isn’t quite covered, how it becomes a playful myth to be expressed through secular culture.
Unfortunately the other side, which grows in apparence as the book goes, is deeply resentful of this transformation and feels the need to express it whenever figures he doesn’t like are brought up. He begins to sharply contrast their views with his own where previously I feel he would provide critiques of religion thinkers works. It all becomes rather personal and the book suffers for it.
I think we begin to lose sight of where we are, particularly in his rather loose approach to modern religious tendencies to deny or downplay the adversary. It seems impossible to disentangle from his disgust about the states of affairs.
A section I take somewhat personally is his very brisk and dismissive coverage of heavy metal. It’s understandable coming from an academic of history and religion, but if you are going to write the book about the devil in the modern world you should probably bother to respectfully engage with that topic.
By contrast to some of the people he brings up, heavy metal has produced some of the most popular and vibrant renderings of the devil. But because it doesn’t accord with his particular idea about how to represent Lucifer (that he is a malign force preventing people from forming a relationship with Christ), he dismisses it entirely without an attempt to cover the scope of its voluminous output.
Sure it’s juvenile. But is the history of concepts the history of only the serious and dour representations?
Of course he can do no other, he is a conservative Christian who believes that even in jest these depictions act in some form as propaganda for evil. But that’s the problem, he should try harder to write history, not complain.
A problem generally I think with some of the figure he covers is what is their relevance? He fails to demonstrate that they have come up with anything particularly novel or represent an influence which is seen in future generations of thinkers and cultural.
Another thing which he partly covers is modern Satanism, which perhaps doesn’t necessitate it but I would have liked a bit more exploration.
Two other points strike me.
One of Russel’s touch stone about the more vivid articulation of evil is nuclear weapons and their potential use for a Holocaust event. Not an unreasonable fear, particularly in the 80s (and especially I guess with his particular hostility to the Soviets). But to call that evil without delineation is childish, to essentially propose that the potential extinction of the human race is what anyone involved in the entire infrastructure wants.
All these people which compose these institutions have incentives and values. It started with creating a weapon during a time of war, something to turn the tides (an understandable goal). Enemies then respond by creating weapons of their own (based on a reasonable fear). And the arms industry is more than happy to supply weapons (they want money). And thinkers of the time align themselves with particular agendas (they want relevance). And some people genuinely act out of patriotic desire to preserve their country, others desire power and see it as a way to gain power.
Perhaps there is something in there which you could identify as truly evil. But it gets more complicated when you boil it down to something more granular than an abstraction. You actually have to take into account context rather than labelling something as evil.
His inability to articulate what the devil actually means in all this. Yes of course it’s a history of the concept, not an articulation about the nature of fiend, but he will often speak about how it is necessary to understand the power of the devil. But if he can’t delineate between the errors human choose, and to what measure the devil might attempt to sway us, what stock can we put in it. Human are free to choose, but how free are if we are assaulted by temptation? Or are we truly free to choose and we can treat these assaults with little emphasis? Sure, you can state the necessity of understanding radical evil, but if that can’t actually be translated to how it influence society or the individual, of what actual use is it?
The first I really enjoy because it deeply informs with the culture that I identify with: metal and to a lesser extent horror movies. It’s fascinating to see how skepticism and an emphasis on material production incredibly enabled the devil to be unmoored and become a symbol. And though it isn’t quite covered, how it becomes a playful myth to be expressed through secular culture.
Unfortunately the other side, which grows in apparence as the book goes, is deeply resentful of this transformation and feels the need to express it whenever figures he doesn’t like are brought up. He begins to sharply contrast their views with his own where previously I feel he would provide critiques of religion thinkers works. It all becomes rather personal and the book suffers for it.
I think we begin to lose sight of where we are, particularly in his rather loose approach to modern religious tendencies to deny or downplay the adversary. It seems impossible to disentangle from his disgust about the states of affairs.
A section I take somewhat personally is his very brisk and dismissive coverage of heavy metal. It’s understandable coming from an academic of history and religion, but if you are going to write the book about the devil in the modern world you should probably bother to respectfully engage with that topic.
By contrast to some of the people he brings up, heavy metal has produced some of the most popular and vibrant renderings of the devil. But because it doesn’t accord with his particular idea about how to represent Lucifer (that he is a malign force preventing people from forming a relationship with Christ), he dismisses it entirely without an attempt to cover the scope of its voluminous output.
Sure it’s juvenile. But is the history of concepts the history of only the serious and dour representations?
Of course he can do no other, he is a conservative Christian who believes that even in jest these depictions act in some form as propaganda for evil. But that’s the problem, he should try harder to write history, not complain.
A problem generally I think with some of the figure he covers is what is their relevance? He fails to demonstrate that they have come up with anything particularly novel or represent an influence which is seen in future generations of thinkers and cultural.
Another thing which he partly covers is modern Satanism, which perhaps doesn’t necessitate it but I would have liked a bit more exploration.
Two other points strike me.
One of Russel’s touch stone about the more vivid articulation of evil is nuclear weapons and their potential use for a Holocaust event. Not an unreasonable fear, particularly in the 80s (and especially I guess with his particular hostility to the Soviets). But to call that evil without delineation is childish, to essentially propose that the potential extinction of the human race is what anyone involved in the entire infrastructure wants.
All these people which compose these institutions have incentives and values. It started with creating a weapon during a time of war, something to turn the tides (an understandable goal). Enemies then respond by creating weapons of their own (based on a reasonable fear). And the arms industry is more than happy to supply weapons (they want money). And thinkers of the time align themselves with particular agendas (they want relevance). And some people genuinely act out of patriotic desire to preserve their country, others desire power and see it as a way to gain power.
Perhaps there is something in there which you could identify as truly evil. But it gets more complicated when you boil it down to something more granular than an abstraction. You actually have to take into account context rather than labelling something as evil.
His inability to articulate what the devil actually means in all this. Yes of course it’s a history of the concept, not an articulation about the nature of fiend, but he will often speak about how it is necessary to understand the power of the devil. But if he can’t delineate between the errors human choose, and to what measure the devil might attempt to sway us, what stock can we put in it. Human are free to choose, but how free are if we are assaulted by temptation? Or are we truly free to choose and we can treat these assaults with little emphasis? Sure, you can state the necessity of understanding radical evil, but if that can’t actually be translated to how it influence society or the individual, of what actual use is it?
April 4, 2022
I just finished "Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World," by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
This is book 4 of 4 by Russell on Gentleman Jack. The first is "The Devil," ~800bc-100ad, (p. 1977), the second is "Satan," 100ad-500ad, (p. 1981), the third is "Lucifer," 500ad-1500ad, (p. 1984), and the present work, 1500ad-modern day, (p. 1986). (Yes, there is a bit of me looking for Ozzy herein considering the publish date.)
I am glad that opening each work Russell dips into a bit of epistemology. He asks "Does the Devil exist?" One would think that by book four he of all people has some thoughts on the matter. What he answers with (after putting relativism on notice earlier for being incomprehensible) is that the most we know for sure is "something is thinking" in a bit of a nod at Descartes. What can one say about anything definitively?--something is thinking. Everything else including one's individual existence is understood only in terms of something thinking.
From about 1545 to the early 17th century Lutheran clergy made popular the publishing of Teufelsbücher or Devil books. This would focus on a certain vice and its special demons. These were like the anti harlequin novels of the time. These were written for the semi literate with a hero-doesnt-sin (drink, swear, dance, read left behind novels) focus. Kinda like chick tracks with a thicker plot. It would appear that with the enlightenment entering stage left more metaphysically direected--dare I use the phrase "mythically perceived"--thought was exiting stage right.
"The figure of Faust is--after Christ, Mary, and the Devil--the single most popular character in the history of western Christian culture," p 58.
This is one of those moment, like when you find out that the "immortal soul" is found in Plato not scripture, when your perspective is forever changed. The earliest record of Faust is in 1507 but the legend got legs with Luther and his followers. The story of Robert Johnson standing at Hyws 49 and 61 in Clarksdale is grounded in the Faust legend (my addition; Russell hasn't gotten to the blues guitarist yet).
The decline of Satan as personal (or even existant) being came about around 1660 with the end of the religious wars on the Continent and in England. Assisting this was Luther and Calvin's model of God as omnicausal getting some Arminius rubbed on it where God was seen as the opposite of all involved. With one supernatural being lessened goes the other. But also the decline of the witch craze brought a disinterest in Satan. The way this happened was that people were said to be witches and they were killed. No biggie but when people said that the governing officials were witches then the governing officials had a vested interest in teaching the people about this new thing called skepticism.
Enter the enlightenment philosophers: This is thick and some very good analysis on Hume, Kant, et al. I won't recount it all here but the premise is that if the philosophers are intellectually removing God from being necessary then Satan doesn't stand a chance. This is a great chapter.
Per Romanticism:
"Whether a thing was powerfully affecting was more important than whether it was true; the emotions were a surer guide to life than the intellect," p 173. And that sums up much debate in political philosophy.
Russell goes on to lay out how culture has represented Satan in modern literature (and, for only 2 pp, heavy metal music) into the present (1986) day. This was a good book and also a wonderful series.
#Mephistopheles #Lucifer #Satan #TheDevil #Devil #Demonology #JefferyBurtonRussell
This is book 4 of 4 by Russell on Gentleman Jack. The first is "The Devil," ~800bc-100ad, (p. 1977), the second is "Satan," 100ad-500ad, (p. 1981), the third is "Lucifer," 500ad-1500ad, (p. 1984), and the present work, 1500ad-modern day, (p. 1986). (Yes, there is a bit of me looking for Ozzy herein considering the publish date.)
I am glad that opening each work Russell dips into a bit of epistemology. He asks "Does the Devil exist?" One would think that by book four he of all people has some thoughts on the matter. What he answers with (after putting relativism on notice earlier for being incomprehensible) is that the most we know for sure is "something is thinking" in a bit of a nod at Descartes. What can one say about anything definitively?--something is thinking. Everything else including one's individual existence is understood only in terms of something thinking.
From about 1545 to the early 17th century Lutheran clergy made popular the publishing of Teufelsbücher or Devil books. This would focus on a certain vice and its special demons. These were like the anti harlequin novels of the time. These were written for the semi literate with a hero-doesnt-sin (drink, swear, dance, read left behind novels) focus. Kinda like chick tracks with a thicker plot. It would appear that with the enlightenment entering stage left more metaphysically direected--dare I use the phrase "mythically perceived"--thought was exiting stage right.
"The figure of Faust is--after Christ, Mary, and the Devil--the single most popular character in the history of western Christian culture," p 58.
This is one of those moment, like when you find out that the "immortal soul" is found in Plato not scripture, when your perspective is forever changed. The earliest record of Faust is in 1507 but the legend got legs with Luther and his followers. The story of Robert Johnson standing at Hyws 49 and 61 in Clarksdale is grounded in the Faust legend (my addition; Russell hasn't gotten to the blues guitarist yet).
The decline of Satan as personal (or even existant) being came about around 1660 with the end of the religious wars on the Continent and in England. Assisting this was Luther and Calvin's model of God as omnicausal getting some Arminius rubbed on it where God was seen as the opposite of all involved. With one supernatural being lessened goes the other. But also the decline of the witch craze brought a disinterest in Satan. The way this happened was that people were said to be witches and they were killed. No biggie but when people said that the governing officials were witches then the governing officials had a vested interest in teaching the people about this new thing called skepticism.
Enter the enlightenment philosophers: This is thick and some very good analysis on Hume, Kant, et al. I won't recount it all here but the premise is that if the philosophers are intellectually removing God from being necessary then Satan doesn't stand a chance. This is a great chapter.
Per Romanticism:
"Whether a thing was powerfully affecting was more important than whether it was true; the emotions were a surer guide to life than the intellect," p 173. And that sums up much debate in political philosophy.
Russell goes on to lay out how culture has represented Satan in modern literature (and, for only 2 pp, heavy metal music) into the present (1986) day. This was a good book and also a wonderful series.
#Mephistopheles #Lucifer #Satan #TheDevil #Devil #Demonology #JefferyBurtonRussell
September 9, 2025
The last book of the series on a history of the Devil. This volume deals with the Devil post reformation. Initially there was little difference between Protestant and Catholic after the reformation. But by the end of the 17th century a large gap had formed and this would open the door the secular views to eventually dominate.
It seems Satan is not really mentioned in the Old Testament. In the New Testament he is referred too but most of our view of the Devil is shaped by the tradition of the church. This has caused Protestants trouble ever since the reformation since they often adhere to a Devil that is largely defined by Church tradition while also ignoring this same tradition. Another problem for Protestants is that when they do believe in the Devil and the demonic and it's activity in life, they have are largely defenseless. The Anglican church banned exorcisms in 1550. Leaving them alone to struggle against the demonic realm with only being able to ask their pastor to ask for God's grace. While conservative Protestants still believe in the Devil today you can see why a large percentage don't. The only other groups today who do believe in the Devil are conservative Catholics and I can't help but pointing out ALL of the Orthodox Church.
The author goes through various accounts of the Devil and investigates them. There were many I hadn't heard of before but I particularly enjoyed his examination of Shakespeare's, Milton's, the Faust sagas, and Dostoevsky's Devils.
The author agues that while the modern worldview of scientific materialism finds it hard and pointless to believe in a Devil. There view, like religion is based on unprovable faith claims and CANNOT either prove or disprove the actual existence of the Devil. This book is a historical account of what has been believed about the Devil. He also points out that not believing in the Devil may make it harder to fight against evil and has not reduced the amount of evil in the world. In fact disbelief in the devil has led to some very strange and radical groups that do anything from sexual orgies to sacrificing babies surrounded by Satanic imagery.
In reading this I found an image of the Devil growing in my mind that has been left out of modern views of the Devil but is implied. So often these Devils, when they are done right, are evil but they often have many human flaws. But really the Devil is the one who delights in the miseries and ugliness of himself and Hell and laughs as causing unimaginable suffering.
It seems Satan is not really mentioned in the Old Testament. In the New Testament he is referred too but most of our view of the Devil is shaped by the tradition of the church. This has caused Protestants trouble ever since the reformation since they often adhere to a Devil that is largely defined by Church tradition while also ignoring this same tradition. Another problem for Protestants is that when they do believe in the Devil and the demonic and it's activity in life, they have are largely defenseless. The Anglican church banned exorcisms in 1550. Leaving them alone to struggle against the demonic realm with only being able to ask their pastor to ask for God's grace. While conservative Protestants still believe in the Devil today you can see why a large percentage don't. The only other groups today who do believe in the Devil are conservative Catholics and I can't help but pointing out ALL of the Orthodox Church.
The author goes through various accounts of the Devil and investigates them. There were many I hadn't heard of before but I particularly enjoyed his examination of Shakespeare's, Milton's, the Faust sagas, and Dostoevsky's Devils.
The author agues that while the modern worldview of scientific materialism finds it hard and pointless to believe in a Devil. There view, like religion is based on unprovable faith claims and CANNOT either prove or disprove the actual existence of the Devil. This book is a historical account of what has been believed about the Devil. He also points out that not believing in the Devil may make it harder to fight against evil and has not reduced the amount of evil in the world. In fact disbelief in the devil has led to some very strange and radical groups that do anything from sexual orgies to sacrificing babies surrounded by Satanic imagery.
In reading this I found an image of the Devil growing in my mind that has been left out of modern views of the Devil but is implied. So often these Devils, when they are done right, are evil but they often have many human flaws. But really the Devil is the one who delights in the miseries and ugliness of himself and Hell and laughs as causing unimaginable suffering.
January 18, 2020
First, what I liked about this book:
1a. I liked how the author didn't really try to focus on trying to prove or disprove the concept of the Devil, which can lead to no win ideological battles, but instead focuses on the idea of the Devil and the historical evolution of that Idea.
1b. The fact that he author references both theological and literary sources made for a better analysis than it would have been if he'd opted to rely purely on religious sources.
1c. The footnotes are very helpful.
Second, what I took issue with:
2a. Russell states that in his previous books he's examined the concept of the Devil as present in Judeism, Christianity, and Islam. However, Jewish and Islamic perspectives seem to be sorely lacking in this third book. And, because he chooses to examine primarily Christian sects and literature, that made this book seem like It wasn't really a book on "the Devil in Modern World," but really a book on the devil in modern western thought, or Christian thought.
2b. Also, Russell expresses a long analysis of Paradise Lost and his working assumption is, essentially, that as material is philosophies were starting to gain dominance, Milton made the symbol of the Devil come alive again, and he did this in a way that defined Christian narrative for many generations to come. I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation because he takes a step back.
2b.1. Up to this point Russell had been presenting a narrative which presented a narrative of the Devil as a cosmic being who tempted Adam and Eve, and their descendants, to a where characteristics assosicated with the Devil (such as envy and pride) are presented in human form in stories written by Shakespeare. Milton's narrative as presented by Russell is essentially a nostalgia for a lost mythology. But, it would have done more to focus on the move towards the representations of the Devil in individual form by looking at how Milton identified with the Devil, and how the rebellion of Satan in Heaven served as metaphor for his own political descention against the king of England. This would have done more to provide a coherent context for the individualism and rebellion of the Romantics which is discussed the following chapter... And Satan as representing the mind of lost humanity.
End.
1a. I liked how the author didn't really try to focus on trying to prove or disprove the concept of the Devil, which can lead to no win ideological battles, but instead focuses on the idea of the Devil and the historical evolution of that Idea.
1b. The fact that he author references both theological and literary sources made for a better analysis than it would have been if he'd opted to rely purely on religious sources.
1c. The footnotes are very helpful.
Second, what I took issue with:
2a. Russell states that in his previous books he's examined the concept of the Devil as present in Judeism, Christianity, and Islam. However, Jewish and Islamic perspectives seem to be sorely lacking in this third book. And, because he chooses to examine primarily Christian sects and literature, that made this book seem like It wasn't really a book on "the Devil in Modern World," but really a book on the devil in modern western thought, or Christian thought.
2b. Also, Russell expresses a long analysis of Paradise Lost and his working assumption is, essentially, that as material is philosophies were starting to gain dominance, Milton made the symbol of the Devil come alive again, and he did this in a way that defined Christian narrative for many generations to come. I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation because he takes a step back.
2b.1. Up to this point Russell had been presenting a narrative which presented a narrative of the Devil as a cosmic being who tempted Adam and Eve, and their descendants, to a where characteristics assosicated with the Devil (such as envy and pride) are presented in human form in stories written by Shakespeare. Milton's narrative as presented by Russell is essentially a nostalgia for a lost mythology. But, it would have done more to focus on the move towards the representations of the Devil in individual form by looking at how Milton identified with the Devil, and how the rebellion of Satan in Heaven served as metaphor for his own political descention against the king of England. This would have done more to provide a coherent context for the individualism and rebellion of the Romantics which is discussed the following chapter... And Satan as representing the mind of lost humanity.
End.
March 21, 2025
This last entry also has its flaws, most glaringly the omission of Bulgakov's and Solzhenitsyn's work (which would have provided a great lens for evaluating the Soviet manifestations of evil as well, though the latter was quoted briefly in the 1st volume), as well as the seemingly unnecessarily generous treatment of some contemporary American writers at the expense of modernist/postmodernist ones, whi arguably both represented and at times embodied evil in more telling and interesting ways.
The 5-star rating is mostly representative of my opinion on the 4-volume work as a whole. Individual omissions and occasional flaws can be excused in the face of the existential achievement of this series, which is its unprecedented courage and rigor in handling perhaps the most philosophically troubling issue there is.
This series will forever be a wellspring of inspiration for me, both for individual ideas and for tempering my worldview with.
The 5-star rating is mostly representative of my opinion on the 4-volume work as a whole. Individual omissions and occasional flaws can be excused in the face of the existential achievement of this series, which is its unprecedented courage and rigor in handling perhaps the most philosophically troubling issue there is.
This series will forever be a wellspring of inspiration for me, both for individual ideas and for tempering my worldview with.
July 25, 2025
A wonderful literary review of many different works in the last 600 years, chronicling the idea of the devil and how it has changed over the centuries. Special emphasis on Paradise Lost and Faustus of course, but also hits other high notes like Dostoevsky and Flannery O’Connor as well. Mainly takes a Christian viewpoint of course but also makes connections with other leading religions and how they have influenced the changing literature. A book so good I am driven to go back and read the previous three in the series to grasp exactly what the devil began as and how he has became so removed from religion and almost placed in on a heroic pedestal in today’s world.
February 18, 2025
Pretty clear this guy literally believes in the existence of Satan, and so his history starts from there. Besides his medieval outlook, the book itself is surprisingly dull. It consists of large sections of routine summaries of famous works involving the devil (like Paradise Lost) and in fact can more accurately be considered cultural criticism than history.
A cool cover and title, disappointing contents.
A cool cover and title, disappointing contents.
October 12, 2025
Best theological book ever written. the chapters were long and without break, but the the material covers belief better than any church sermon I've attended and probably any that I ever will. Time spent reading this may be better spent than reading any other book trying to understand the nature of God, the devil, reality, and the universe. I can see why this one is recommendeded most above the other volumes in the series.
May 9, 2021
While the cover may be intimidating, this book is a deep and profound history of thought on the powers of good and evil. As someone interested in the humanities, the combination and thorough presentation of history, theology, philosophy, and art in this book reinforced my quest for the pursuit of knowledge while advising me to do so with love.
June 15, 2024
I’ve learned 10x from this book what I learned in four college English classes covering most of these works. I hate that college has become culturally required to have “skills” that make you employable. Fantastic read. 5 stars.
December 3, 2023
Radical evil—under whatever name or metaphor—is reality, and for this reason the concept of the Devil will always be relevant.
July 28, 2024
Her kitaplıkta, her kütüphanede bulunmasının, ve tabi herkes tarafından okunup zaman zaman üzerinde tartışılmasının ne kadar faydalı olabileceğini düşündürttü -son kitapla birlikte serinin tamamı.
December 15, 2025
I hope I ever find again a book that gave this much insight into history, cultures, religion and literature all at once.
April 14, 2013
A fast read!
Though embellished with some really fine old engravings, I’m unable to commend the author on a serious effort in regard to its primary subject.
Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World; the title does suggest the contents to be fiction oriented and alas, to this end it fulfills its goal. The book is well written, the research conducted was comprehensive and thorough – a bit too abstract in places; and yet with all due respect, how could it not be?
In the end and my opinion – this not a historical reference volume, though a fascinating ramble nonetheless.
By the way, if you’re uncertain on this one, study the exhaustive bibliography, which is a fine indication as to the basic ideology of the work.
Though embellished with some really fine old engravings, I’m unable to commend the author on a serious effort in regard to its primary subject.
Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World; the title does suggest the contents to be fiction oriented and alas, to this end it fulfills its goal. The book is well written, the research conducted was comprehensive and thorough – a bit too abstract in places; and yet with all due respect, how could it not be?
In the end and my opinion – this not a historical reference volume, though a fascinating ramble nonetheless.
By the way, if you’re uncertain on this one, study the exhaustive bibliography, which is a fine indication as to the basic ideology of the work.
April 11, 2016
The devil is one of the most intriguing characters in literature. Even readers of Paradise Lost will attest to being pulled into the magnetism and charisma of this representation of radical evil. To the romantics, the devil was a rebellious hero. The devil in this is not so much just a part of Christian diabology, Russell shows the reader that he is a subject of art, a poet and an inspiration to the gothic writers.
May 28, 2021
The fascination of the devil drove me into this subject- there is a common thread of evil that Russel was able to pull out - despair, self-pity, pride, deceitfulness, installation of hallucinations, false wealth, corruption of the innocents to despair... Russel is an absolute genius to preach the symbolism of Satan to the world, such a precious work. Absolutely loved it.
December 6, 2012
End of a mighty tetralogy. Well worth it.
Read
July 7, 2018Kitabin degerlendirmesi icin, bkz.
https://wanderlustpress.net/2015/06/0...
https://wanderlustpress.net/2015/06/0...
June 13, 2009
Have had this book for almost 15 years(?) Never get tired of reading it.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews