I liked "A History of the Devil". In the book Muchembled does an in-depth sociocultural analysis of the concept of the devil, including in religion and philosophy. This analysis is so in-depth that often, instead of concerning itself only with the devil himself, it focuses also on the problem of perceiving and conceptualizing evil in society in general. So from time to time I had the impression that the problem of (describing) the devil - a specific character, was being kept in the background. On the other hand, after thinking about this problem, I came to the conclusion that this devil is still present in Muchembled's analysis - as someone steering the thinking of the West, someone against whom the West tries to counteract, against whom it tries to arouse fear. The devil also returns in a more specific form later in the book. It's also not that this specific character is absent earlier, it's just that his descriptions are sometimes shorter, more sketchy in order to focus more on society. (maybe there just wasn't that much material available) Besides, the devil in Muchembled's book "changes form" - sometimes he is a witch, a character from a horror, mythology, a murderer or a hooligan. After reflection, it is interesting - thanks to this, the continuity of thinking is maintained, we can see how evil and its personification change. “A History of the Devil” is also still the best book about the Christian devil I have found.
Okay, so what do we see in this analysis? We see how the struggles for the socio-political and religious influence of the theologians and scholars of the Middle Ages (its elite) introduce into society the concept of the mighty devil, who during a certain (later) period even seems to surpass God's power, introducing Manichaeism - a religious current (also called heresy) based on the concept of the presence and struggle of two equally powerful gods - good and bad (God and Satan). Earlier, there was an image of the devil being not so dangerous in society, someone who could be deceived, a bit like the mythological god Pan. The devil also has always been weaker than God, according to the Bible. He was also specific, an individual. With time, as Muchembled points out, the devil penetrated the interior of man as a figure that constantly influenced him. All of this intensified in and after the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, with battles for religious influence between Catholics and Protestants. This, too, eventually resulted in the Inquisition and witch hunts, and witch trials. This is where Muchembled really shines, citing the source material of demonology processes and books, bringing a thrill of excitement and tangibility. We also see how Luther focused on the devil, which influenced Protestantism in general.
The description of the Renaissance and Baroque, dark, intense tragedies of the clergyman Jean-Pierre Camus, which bring to mind the tragedies of Shakespeare, was also fascinating. A crime follows a crime in them, there are betrayals and murders and various types of tragedies. The researcher said that they show a desire of Camus and his readers to taste vice, transgression, their fascination with it, and, at the same time, a desire to, in the end, be on the side of righteousness and religion, where the wicked are (if I remember correctly, bloodily, violently) punished. Then we move on to the Enlightenment, where thinkers oppose the oppressiveness of religious fundamentalism. As always with Muchembled, the philosophical side is well outlined. Then we have a big change with Byron's rebel-devil inspired by the devil in Milton's "Paradise Lost" or Blake's devil. Romanticism begins. Then, the devil of the decadents, the devil of Huysmans, is also interestingly presented, we see how artists start to be interested in demonology or the occult. The author suggestively draws here, as he does in the book in general, also from literature, like when discusses Baudelaire's work and motivations. There is also introduced a division into a dramatic artists who treats the devil seriously, because he believes in him, such as Baudelaire or Protestant Americans, and the secularized Western Europe, for which the devil is only an object of entertainment and laughter.
Somehow the chapter on the beginning of the 20th century did not convince me, but in contrast to the review I came across, I was convinced by the chapter on the 20th century in general. As I mentioned earlier, the researcher outlines a vision of the devil appearing in (what he describes as) pop culture, focusing on movies, horror or detective stories, films by Hitchcock or Kubrick, or describing the films of the Hammer studio. You can say that, whenever there is fear and evil, the devil is present. The author sees all this as a manifestation of a cultural mentality. All this interested me very much. At first, Muchembled was rather listing out films with a sentence or two of commentary and a brief analysis (which, however, was interesting and, as a whole, quite in-depth), but eventually he reached under the lining, examining the mentality of Americans who gave the world so many horrors and depictions of the devil. As he claims - they do it because the Puritan culture is still present in them and they are afraid of the devil. He also supported this with real-life examples, examples from the "Satanic Panic" era, fears of murders committed by Satanists or the accession of young people to Satanic sects. Interestingly, he claims that becoming a devil's follower is typically American, because Europeans simply do not believe in him. He referred to the premiere of the film "The Exorcist" in a similar way - only Americans (or Anglo-Saxons) create these films, are afraid of them and go to them – as for Europeans these are only entertainment. As you can see, some of the historian's theses are debatable, they are a matter of optics - but they are also usually interesting. It is also worth mentioning here that the book focuses almost exclusively on Western Europe and America, although the countries of Eastern Europe appear in several places in it (e.g. it mentions the witchhunts in Poland started later than in Western Europe).
And, it is also worth mentioning that the book seems to be the most intense in the era of the Counter-Reformation, where the presence of the devil is especially palpable, where the author's philosophical analyzes are the deepest. Then its intensity decreases, but it is still interesting. Although, of course, the issue of intensity is subjective.
"The History of the Devil" reads really well, draws the reader in. Overall, apart from a few of them mentioned in this text, I haven’t seen many flaws in Muchembled's book. It's a good book, worth reading, and an enjoyable one. In conclusion I will mention two other books about the devil that I want to read, maybe you will also be interested. One is about the Byronic devil of Romanticism, the other is about the devil's followers - the Satanists - in history in general - but it also tells the story of the devil and also covers the Huysmans’ devil. So: Schock, "Romantic Satanism" and Van Luijk, "Children of Lucifer".
Oh, and maybe I will also mention that, regarding the analysis of literature and philosophy, after reflection - there are chapters, moments where the focus is more on them, sometimes they are treated more briefly, but I can say that Muchembled usually tries to goes in depth even if he does so without commenting on literature and philosophy, he tries to analyze culture, and mentality as a whole.