Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages

Jeffrey Burton Russell's History of the Devil #3

by Jeffrey Burton Russell

Evil is an intrinsically fascinating topic. In Lucifer, Jeffrey Burton Russell continues his compelling study of the personification of evil in the figure of the Devil. The previous two volumes in this remarkable tertalogy―The Devil and Satan―trace the history of the concept of the devil comparatively as it emerged in diverse cultures and followed its development in Western thought from the ancient Hebrew religion through the first five centuries of the Christian era. The present volume charts the evolution of the concept of the devil from the fifth century through the fifteenth. Drawing on an impressive array of sources from popular religion, art, literature, and drama, as well as from scholastic philosophy, mystical theology, homiletics, and hagiography, Russell provides a detailed treatment of Christian diabology in the Middle Ages. Although he focuses primarily on Western Christian thought, Russell also includes, for the sake of comparison, material on the concept of the devil in Greek Orthodoxy during the Byzantine period as well as in Muslim thought. Russell recounts how the Middle Ages saw a refinement in detail rather than a radical alteration of diabological theory. He shows that the medieval concept of the devil, fundamentally unchanged over the course of the centuries, eventually gave rise to the unyielding beliefs that resulted in the horrifying cruelties of the witch-hunting craze in the 1500s and 1600s. This major contribution to the history of the Middle Ages and to the history of religion will enlighten scholars and students alike and will appeal to anyone concerned with the problem of evil in our world.

Genres: Religion, History, Nonfiction, Theology, Philosophy, Mythology, Psychology

Paperback

First published December 1, 1984

About the author

Jeffrey Burton Russell was an American historian of medieval Europe and religious studies scholar.

Reviews

[Erth · Rating 5 out of 5]

First time reader of this author and now i am hooked. This was such a great, easy and creative series. i was hooked after the first page.

The characters were easy to fall in love with and follow, along with the story. the author made the mental visions so easy and vivid of the surroundings and the characters actions felt so real.

i would highly recommend this author and this series.

[Caterina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alan kitabi gibi gorunse de konuya dair meraki olanlarin da rahatlikla okuyabilecegi bir kitap. Terminoloji sikintisi googledan alinacak desekle cozulebilir. Fakat donem kronolojisini ve insanlarin yasami hakkinda bilgi sahibi olunarak okunursa mitler ve tarihi ilerlemeye daha vakif olunur.

Sahsi dusunceme gelince ozellikle Bogomiller cok ilgimi cekti. Okuma planima bir kac heretik topluluk tarihne dair arastirmayi da eklemek ihtiyaci hissettim. Kitap sayesinde dunden bu gune diaboloji hakkinda detayli bilgiye sahip oldum. Araya serpilen minyatur ve freskleri de ayrica arastirarak seytan karaminin kulture etkisini gozleme imkanim oldu. Dipnotlar titizlikle eklenmis ve cok tatmin edici.

Verimli bir okumaydi.

[Joseph F. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Russell's third book concerning the continual development of the Devil concept. Here the author leaves behind antiquity and moves into the middle ages. Starting around 500AD, and ending with the eve of the Reformation, he examines Lucifer in light of Islam, folklore, legend, theatre, literature and of course, the twisting, turning, brain-frying pathways of theology, philosophy and theodicy. Another fascinating volume.

[Dmitry · Rating 5 out of 5]

(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)

Одна из первых моих нехудожественных книг, которую я купил, будучи ещё школьником 11 класса. И главной причиной являлось то, что в то время я был большим фанатом компьютерной игры Diablo II. Именно поэтому я купил почти все книги этой серии. Как можно догадаться, тогда я книгу так и не прочитал. Я несколько раз пытался прочитать книгу полностью, но всё время останавливался где-то на середине. Примечательно, что даже тогда книга меня увлекала, причём увлекала очень сильно. Увы, но компьютерные игры увлекали меня в разы сильнее, так что не удивительно, что такую серьёзную книгу я не смог тогда прочитать. Однако даже спустя 20 лет я помню, что эта книга даже тогда была крайне, КРАЙНЕ увлекательна. Так что, вернувшись через 20 лет к этой серии, не будучи теперь фанатом игры Diablo и не будучи религиозным человеком, я решил прочитать такую малоизвестную серию книг по теологии связанной с Дьяволом/Князем Тьмы/Сатаной/Иблисом как феноменом.

Так как в книге не указывается правильная последовательность книг серии, я начал не с первой, однако, судя по содержанию этой книги, это не так и важно.
Прежде всего, нужно подчеркнуть два важных факта касаемо этой книги. Во-первых, автор рассказывает о Дьяволе в средневековой европейской культуре, т.е. каким он представлялся в то время в теологии, театре, среди простого люда, в литературе (чаще всего, в религиозных текстах, суть которых заключается в нравоучениях), искусстве и пр. Очень коротко автор упомянет и исламского дьявола, т.е. Иблиса («…По непостижимой причине Бог задал Иблису невыполнимую задачу: «Бог бросил его в море со связанными руками и сказал ему: смотри, не промокни». Бог строго приказал Иблису сделать то, чего он строго приказал ему не делать: он, перед кем единственным должны склонять колени, приказал ему склониться перед Адамом»). Хотя рассматривать этот вопрос, т.е. тему исламского Дьявола автор всё же не будет. Так что по большей части книга рассматривает период именно средневековья и как в этот период Дьявол (а также бесы, демоны, ведьмы и пр.) изображался в Европе.

Второй момент заключается в том, что помимо анализа Дьявола в Средние века, автор также даёт краткое описание основных теологических воззрений того времени, т.е. включает в повествование основных отцов церкви и их основные теологические воззрения. И вот это получилось у автора очень хорошо, в том смысле, что информация представлена так, что будет интересна не только верующим людям, но и агностика и атеистам. Автор, что случается редко среди клириков, не пытается вербовать читателя. Как классический лектор, автор описывает основные теологические концепции средневековья довольно отстранёно или нейтрально, в точности как это делают историки. И делает это он очень интересно, интересно для не религиозного читателя. Это в свою очередь означает, что перед нами отличная книга по истории, истории теологии и истории Дьявола в средневековье.

Возможно, многим может показаться странным, что я пишу, ведь на тему христианства мало что нового можно сказать. Вот и я так думал, пока не прочёл следующие два отрывка. Вот, к примеру, меня крайне заинтересовало такое видение христианского Бога, которое даёт Николай Кузанский (1440-1464), мистик и номиналист. Он писал следующее о Боге:

«…в Боге объединяются все противоречия. Бог есть и Его нет. Он – бытие и Он – небытие. Он велик и Он мал. Он здесь и Он там. Он – начало и Он – конец. Он творит мир из ничего и Он изливает его из себя. Он – единство и Он – различие. Он прост, но Он содержит в себе многообразие. Это «совпадение противоположностей» или единство противоречий лежит за пределами любого разума. Кузанский признаётся, что он не может этого понять, но уверен – это единственное, что с уверенностью можно сказать о Боге».

До него похожего взгляда придерживался теолог раннего Средневековья, Иоанн Скотт Эриугена, о теологических воззрениях автор этой книги пишет следующее:

«Бог абсолютно непознаваем как для нас, так и для себя. Знать что-либо значит определить это, но Бог не может быть определён. Более того, Бог вообще не есть что-либо. Абсурдно говорить, что Бог есть что-либо, так как это низводит его в ту же категорию, как нечто тварное. Далее, о Боге ничего нельзя утверждать, так как всё, что утверждается о Боге, исключает противоположное утверждение. Если мы скажем, что Бог велик, это исключает, что он мал; если мы скажем, что он есть свет, это исключает, что он есть тьма; и так далее. Но на самом деле Бог находится вне всяких категорий и примиряет все противоположности. Любое утверждение о Боге может быть лишь метафорой, но отрицание может быть буквальным. Например, можно истинно отрицать, что Бог ограничен пространством, или что он есть свет, но любое утверждение о Боге исключающее любое другое утверждение о нём, недействительно. О Боге даже нельзя сказать, что он есть сущность, поскольку сущность есть противоположность ничто, а Бог есть ничто настолько же, насколько он есть что-либо. Верно, что можно сказать, что Бог есть сверхсущность, но на самом деле это негация, так как это высказывание не говорит нам, что есть Бог, а чем он не является: он не является сущностью, субстанцией или бытием. Таким образом, Бог не существует. Абсурдно утверждать, что Бог существует, как если бы он занимал пространственно-временной континуум наряду с другими существующими вещами. Собака, стол, звезда или женщина могут существовать, а Бог – нет».

И далее: «Природа есть Бог в том смысле, что она целиком и полностью находится в Боге, но Бог не ограничен природой. Вселенная представляет собой пространственно-временной континуум, существующий внутри Бога, который находится вне пространства и времени и любых иных категорий. Согласно более поздней метафоре, космос пропитан Богом, как губка в океане; Эриугена согласился бы с этим, но настаивал бы на том, что губка также является Божественной веществом».

Удивительно, не правда ли? Как сказал главный герой книги Лема «Солярис»:«Это единственный бог, в которого я был бы склонен поверить, чья мука не есть искупление, никого не спасает, ничему не служит, она просто есть». Действительно, такое описание Бога больше похоже на описание, которое мог бы дать агностик, нежели мы могли бы ожидать от представителя христианской церкви. Я лишь процитировал два отрывка наиболее сильно поразившие меня. Да, я знаю, что они не сильно связаны с темой Дьявола в средневековье, но на самом деле автор всё объясняет, в том числе, какое это отношение имеет к теме Дьявола.

Так же стоит отметить, что автор на протяжении всей книги задаётся вопросом: если Бог всемогущ и ничто не происходит без его ведома и желания, то откуда тогда взялось зло? Ведь если зло не зависит от Бога, тогда Бог не является всемогущим, а если оно часть его, тогда Бог не является всеблагим. Парадокс? И кстати, на протяжении всей книги автор также объясняет, как этот парадокс решается с участием Дьявола, ибо если Бог всеведущ, то зачем он допустил падение Сатаны и всю эту тему с бегством из рая Адама и Евы (ведь тогда именно Бог ответственен и за зло, что творится в мире и за соблазнение Сатаной Евы)?

Я хочу ещё раз подчеркнуть, что, будучи человеком нерелигиозным, я нахожу эту книгу крайне интересной в плане, как истории, так и в плане теологии. Это крайне редкий случай, когда автор, будучи представителем религиозного института, не пытается вербовать читателя, а действует как историк.

One of my first non-fiction books, which I bought when I was still in 11th grade. And the main reason was that, at the time, I was a big fan of the computer game Diablo II. That's why I bought almost all the books in this series. As you can guess, I never read the book then. I tried several times to read the book in its entirety, but I kept stopping somewhere in the middle. It is noteworthy that even then, I was fascinated by the book. Alas, I was much more fascinated by computer games, so it is not surprising that I could not read such a serious book. Even 20 years later, however, I remember that this book, even then, was extremely entertaining. So when I came back to this series 20 years later, not being a Diablo fan now and not being a religious person, I decided to read such a little-known series of books on theology related to the Devil/Prince of Darkness/Lucifer/Satan/Mephistopheles as a phenomenon.

Since the book does not indicate the correct order of the books in the series, I did not start with the first one, but judging from the content of this book, it is not that important.

First of all, two important facts about this book need to be emphasized. First, the author tells us about the Devil in medieval European culture, that is, how he was presented at that time in theology, in the theater, among the common people, in literature (most often, in religious texts, the essence of which is moral teachings), art, etc. Very briefly the author will also mention the Islamic devil, i.e., Iblis ("...For an incomprehensible reason God gave Iblis an impossible task: "God threw him into the sea with his hands tied and told him: 'Look, do not get wet'. God strictly ordered Iblis to do what he strictly ordered him not to do: he, before whom the only one should bow his knees, ordered him to bow before Adam"). Although the author is not going to address this issue, i.e., the theme of the Islamic Devil. So, for the most part, the book deals with the period of the Middle Ages and how the Devil (as well as demons, witches, etc.) was portrayed in Europe during that period.

The second point is that in addition to analyzing the Devil in the Middle Ages, the author also gives a brief description of the basic theological views of the time, that is, he includes in the narrative the main church fathers and their basic theological views. And this works out very well in the sense that the information is presented in a way that will be of interest not only to believers but also to agnostics and atheists. The author, which is rare among clerics, does not try to recruit the reader. As a classical lecturer, the author describes the basic theological concepts of the Middle Ages in a rather detached or neutral way, exactly as historians do. And he does so in a very interesting way for the non-religious reader. This means that we have before us an excellent book on the history of theology and the history of the Devil in the Middle Ages.

It may seem strange to many people what I am writing because there is not much new to say on the subject of Christianity. I thought so until I read the following two passages. For example, I was very interested in the vision of the Christian God given by Nicholas of Cusa (1440-1464), a mystic and nominalist. He wrote the following about God:

"...in God, all contradictions are united. God exists, and He does not exist. He is being, and He is nothingness. He is great, and He is small. He is here, and He is there. He is the beginning, and He is the end. He creates the world out of nothing, and He pours it out of Himself. He is unity, and He is a difference. He is simple, but He contains diversity. This "coincidence of opposites" or unity of contradictions lies beyond all reason. Kuzansky admits that he cannot understand it, but he is sure that it is the only thing that can be said of God with certainty."

Before him, a similar view was held by the early medieval theologian John Scotus Eriugena, and the author of this book writes the following about his theological views:

"God is completely unknowable to us as well as to himself. To know something is to define it, but God cannot be defined. Moreover, God is not anything at all. It is absurd to say that God is something, for this relegates him to the same category as something creaturely. Further, nothing can be asserted about God, since everything that is asserted about God excludes the opposite assertion. If we say that God is great, this excludes that he is small; if we say that he is light, this excludes that he is darkness; and so on. But in fact, God is beyond all categories and reconciles all opposites. Any statement about God can only be a metaphor, but denial can be literal. For example, one can truly deny that God is limited by space, or that he is light, but any statement about God that excludes any other statement about him is invalid. It cannot even be said of God that he is an essence because the essence is the opposite of nothing, and God is nothing as much as he is anything. It is true that we can say that God is super-essence, but this is actually a negation because this statement does not tell us what God is, but what he is not: he is not essence, substance, or being. Thus, God does not exist. It is absurd to claim that God exists as if he occupies the space-time continuum along with other existing things. A dog, a table, a star, or a woman may exist, but God does not."

And further: "Nature is God in the sense that it is wholly in God, but God is not limited to nature. The universe is a space-time continuum, existing within God, which is beyond space and time and any other categories. According to a later metaphor, the cosmos is as saturated with God as a sponge in the ocean; Eriugena would agree with this, but would insist that the sponge is also a Divine substance."

Amazing, isn't it? As the protagonist of Lem's Solaris said, "That is the only god I could imagine believing in, a god whose passion is not a redemption, who saves nothing, fulfills no purpose--a god who simply is." Indeed, such a description of God sounds more like something an agnostic would give than we would expect from a representative of the Christian church. I have only quoted the two passages that struck me the most. Yes, I know they don't have much to do with the subject of the Devil in the Middle Ages, but the author explains everything, including what it has to do with the subject of the Devil.

It is also worth noting that the author, throughout the book, asks the question: If God is all-powerful and nothing happens without his knowledge and will, then where does evil come from? Because if evil does not depend on God, then God is not omnipotent, but if evil is part of it, then God is not omnibenevolent. The paradox? And by the way, throughout the book, the author also explains how this paradox is resolved with the Devil's participation, because if God is omniscient, then why did he allow Satan to fall and Adam and Eve to escape from paradise (because then God is responsible both for the evil that is going on in the world and for Satan's seduction of Eve)?

I want to emphasize again that as a non-religious person, I found this book extremely interesting in terms of both history and theology. It is an extremely rare case where the author, as a representative of a religious institution, does not try to recruit the reader but acts as a historian.

[Steve Wiggins · Rating 4 out of 5]

The third of five books, chronologically arranged, that Russell has written about evil, this volume gets to the heart of the matter. The Devil really came into his own in the Middle Ages. I found Russell's earliest volume in the series, The Devil, quite good. The second, Satan, was a touch heavy on the theology of the dark lord. This is partially the fault of the material rather than the author. The early centuries of the church were all about correct theology and the Devil was part of that discussion. In this volume Russell examines the Medieval and Early Modern Periods.

There's a lot to cover in this volume. Not only is the time period long, there were extensive developments—a full mythology of the Devil—in this era. The seriousness of the threat remained real, but there was also a sense of humor that emerged during this time with Lucifer becoming the butt of jokes and somewhat of a comic figure.

Russell does an admirable job navigating this tumultuous and creative time. Obviously choices needed to be made about what to cover and what to leave out. After having written a couple of books on the topic already, Russell is a trustworthy guide. For anyone not weary of the subject, I did write a bit more about this book on my blog: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World. In due course I will be reading the remaining two volumes—you have been warned!

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another exhaustive history of the Devil, both as concept and considered as an entity, from Professor Jeffrey Burton Russell. This one focuses mostly on the Devil of the Christian tradition during the Medieval era, but there are short sections on Jewish and Islamic concepts during the same period. The sections on the nominalists and mystics, as well as the in-depth treatments of the Devil in Medieval literature and poetry and on the stage. Consistently engaging and frequently fascinating. I'd imagine this reads fine as a standalone study of its subject matter and epoch but it's even better read on the heels of its two predecessor volumes.

[Matt Aukamp · Rating 4 out of 5]

Incredibly thoughtful and well-researched.

Some faith-based logical inconsistencies, but that's kind of to be expected. And the scholastic stuff, as opposed to the cultural stuff can be kind of dry, but that's ALSO to be expected.

Excited to read Russell's other 4 books in the Devil throughout history.

[Stella · Rating 3 out of 5]

Heavy on the theology attempting to explain evil. I was primarily interested in the parts about folklore, art, literature and the theatre.

[Äsruþr Cyneaþsson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whilst touching upon the archetype of the Devil as it appears within Islam and Orthodox Christianity, the main focus of Russell here is in the study of the Middle Ages and the form taken by the Devil therein. Russell provides a good analysis of how folklore and pagan notions were incorporated into the development of the Devil, before the depth of the work is dedicated to the diabology of Christianity and the influence of Gregory, Eirugena, Anslem, and Aquinas upon such.

Russell then delves into the role played by art in shaping the popular conception of the Devil. Here, the influence of Dante and the portrayal of the Devil in medieval plays is assessed.

Whilst lacking some of the scholarly might of the previous entries in the series, Lucifer remains an essential resource for both the theologian and historian.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Easy to breeze through some parts here and there, and some topics/texts seem to get a fuller treatment than others. Definately has an Anglo-bend to it, but he accepts and accounts for that fairly early on. An important book in the history of the devil, and as a scholar Russell was highly attuned to problems of historical periodization that scholarship has 'somewhat' resolved in the following decades.

[Burcu]

Kitabin degerlendirmesi icin, bkz.
https://wanderlustpress.net/2015/06/0...

[Steve Irby · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just finished "Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages," by Jeffrey Burton Russell.

This is book 3 of 4 (I thought "The Prince of Darkness" was #5 but it seems to be a summary of the preceeding four) by Russell on Ole Scratch. The first is "The Devil," 1977, and the second is "Satan," 1981; the present work was written in 1984 and weighs in at almost 100 pp thicker than its two predecessors. Me thinks the scholastics had a lot to say about him.

"Real, absolute, tangential evil demands our consideration. It threatens everyone of us and all of us together. We avoid examining it at our own grave peril. And on no account may we ever trivialize it. Unless the Devil is perceived as the personification of real evil, he becomes meaningless," p 20.

Russell speaks to knowing in this work. He is using Nietzsche's concept of es denkt which says that absolute knowledge (Knowledge1) is unobtainable. Knowledge2 is personal, experiential knowledge. When we come together and put our Knowledge2s together we get something to work with which is Knowledge3. Theology is done in community.

He opens with interesting period theology beginning with an east/west take around the year 500. It was more interesting when in the next chapter he covered Islam's take on Satan. This is very monist and determinist so nothing happens external of the decree of Allah (my apologies is "decree" is incorrect for Islamic theology). Russell next moves into folklore. There is so much here. Some of it is more on how the Christian traditions take on Satan impacted pagan religions. One thing that can be seen from this folklore vantage point is how people constructed their view of Satan by painting him as overly ignorant, often being fooled by humans; this can be seen in texts and on stage. A reason for this can be the extreme fear people of this time period had of Satan. Paint him as a idiot and life is a bit easier to deal with. There was much Devil talk in this period that had to do with a Medieval "name it and claim it" where a slip of the tongue could manifest one's enemy being swept away by Old Scratch. I wonder how much of this was created as a morality check. During this time the concept of a pact or contract with Satan became a thing. An Eastern Saint had to appeal to the Virgin Mother and she then descended to hell to Jack the contract right under Gentleman Jack's (yes, I found out that is a folkloreish name for Satan, not just bad Tn. whiskey) nose. TN. Chapter was the best of all Russell's books so far.

Interesting that the Roman Church kept exorcisms included with baptismal rites until 1972. Historically exorcism and baptism went together as a Changing of Allegiance and a cleansing of the body for the Lord. Modern baptismal rites can not be said to be in keeping with the vast majority of the tradition.

As scholastic thought gained more theological ground (pressed forward by the rediscovery of Aristotelian thought from the Muslims) Satan was minimized. This can be seen a bit like a pre-enlightenment where logical thought gains such a foothold that any supernatural thought--except for God, of course--gets pressed out as illogical. This section on the scholastics is quite good.

It seems one of the first places that kicked the relevance of Satan to the side was actually the creation of the satisfaction theory of the atonement by Anselm. His whole formulation avoided Satan unlike the preceeding 1200 years that stressed the ransom theory. In fact, it wasn't until Anselm that one spoke of the atonement without mentioning Satan.

Aquinas is the one who really warped atonement by saying Satan had no rights over the dead. By extention it was he who said that Christ paid a ransom but it wasn't to Satan, it was to God. So much bad theology ignores "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" and Thomas' is no exception. With this turn the Devil took an unnecessary role in scholastic theology where biblically he is present but logically need not be. Finally the Harrowing of hell became a nonevent in the Latin west.

Good third book. Now on to "Mephistopheles," book four.

#Lucifer #Satan #TheDevil #Devil #Demonology #JefferyBurtonRussell

[Jessica Strider · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pros: quite thorough in some areas, decent number of images, very interesting subject matter

Cons: fair amount of repetition, some sections could have been fleshed out more

This is the third book in Russell’s history of the devil, following The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity and Satan: The Early Christian Tradition. It examines the development of the history and figure of the devil during the middle ages, considering issues like when and why he fell, what he looks like, what his powers are, his role in the fall of mankind and its subsequent salvation by Christ, and whether God is ultimately responsible for the devil's actions.

The book has 11 chapters: The Life of Lucifer; The Devil in Byzantium; The Muslim Devil; Folklore; Early Medieval Diabology; Lucifer in Early Medieval Art & Literature; The Devil and the Scholars; Lucifer in High Medieval Art & Literature; Lucifer on the Stage; Nominialists, Mystics, & Witches; and The Existence of the Devil. The book also has an essay on the sources used, a bibliography and an index.

Due to the nature of the topic and how people and institutions wrote either building on the past or opposing the writings of others (writings that were deemed heretical), there’s a fair amount of repetition. It’s really interesting seeing the slow development of ideas. The book focuses mainly on the timeline of the fall of the devil & the evil angels (at the time of creation, sometime later) and the image and powers of the devil.

I’d have liked longer chapters on the Muslim devil and Byzantium as I don’t know as much about those areas of belief and his examination of them was very superficial.

The book includes a decent number of black and white photographs to help visualize the subject matter.

The section on witches was interesting as it focused on how preachers kept the fire and brimstone ideas of the devil alive even as theological discourse around evil was slowly letting ideas of the devil fade in importance.

The book pointed out a lot of interesting information about how Christian thinkers in the middle ages approached ideas of evil, the devil and God’s omnipotence. Despite the level of repetition, it’s a fascinating book.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this third installment of his series on how an originary source of evil in human experience has historically been conceptualized and personified, Russell's field of inquiry stretches from the Eastern Roman empire of the 6th century to the very cusp of early modernity in 16th-century Western Europe; the single-chapter excursus on the Iblis and/or Shaytan of the Islamic world is frustratingly tantalizing in both its richness and its brevity, but unifying the (admittedly limited) material's presentation this way may in fact have been preferable to scattering it throughout the text chronologically. Within this historical scope, characterizations and explanations of the Devil-figure are traced through theological thought, popular folklore, and artistic media.

While changing representations of the diabolic in art, literature, and theater are thoroughly accounted for, it is clear that Russell's interest lies mainly with the concept itself: he readily confesses in the Preface to a philosophy that is “...unabashedly idealist; it assumes that ideas are important in themselves...”, and this is put to good use in his comprehensive engagement with the arguments propounded by theologians struggling to arrive at some coherent understanding of the Devil's metaphysical nature, his role in the drama of human salvation, and the problems of theodicy and free will which contextualize the whole question.

Russell clearly takes the reality of evil, if not the Devil per se, seriously, and his antipathy toward both relativist and Plotinian 'privationist' accounts of evil does occasionally appear to seep into his analysis of the theological material. Nonetheless, his rigorously-cited discussions of the source-texts present a lucid exposition of the justifications, conflicts, and reversals in the history of prevailing thought about the source of sin.

[Alper Yılmaz · Rating 4 out of 5]

The various analyses of theodicical theories and the general line of argumentation are impeccable, as in the first two volumes. However, the third volume of the series seems to have compromized somewhat on the general exhaustiveness of the previous volume (though outperforming it in relevance/interest factor). This is likely due to constraints of conciseness, but nevertheless has led to the loss of some key conceptions of evil in the European Middle Ages, most prominently the seemingly Gnostic-informed conceptions of Natura and Fortuna that managed to gain near-universal acceptance among the Neoplatonists of the 11th-13th centuries, until Dante supplanted these views with a much more satisfying etho-cosmological structure (the book's treatment of Dante sadly excludes this entire tradition).

The overly-quick consideration given to Islam and the lack of any Jewish/Kabbalistic mentions are also rather unfortunate, just like how the lack of insights related to Far Eastern traditions, whether ontological or demonological, was unfortunate for volume 1, though more excusable due to the series' Western focus.

Still, for tracing back the manifestations of evil in the globalistic landscape of the Cold War world, this is a highly useful book, though the insistent focus on exclusively Christian traditions, while often unexpectedly profound and enlightening, somewhat diminish the lasting relevance of this particular volume.

[Andy]

A study of the devil necessarily involves a study of the concept of evil. This book does a deep dive into medieval philosophy to explore how various thinkers resolved the problem of evil with the christian view of god as inherently good. These heady metaphysical chapters are alternated with how the devil was concieved and depicted in wider popular culture and art.

Throughout it the author makes an appeal to a revival of the idealistic concept of absolute evil that permeates the world. He does this largely through shocking contemporary anecdotes about child rape and heinous murders. But by his own account the medieval idea of an ideal, platonic evil largely led to two things: The scholastic abstracting it into insipidity; and the more immediate and real popular conceptions being used as an excuse to persecute religious and ethnic minorities. Even in contemporary society the idea of evil is used often to distance ourselves from the worst of human offences. We then make cartoon villains out of them to the point where we can only belatedly recognize when nazis are back in our midst. I think a society can agree on a pragmatic set of disallowed behaviors without appeal to a metaphysical source of harmful desicions.

The historical aspect of this book was fascinating. The more knotty philosophical arguments were made clear and engaging. However the attempt to tie in a wider argument for modern evil falls flat.

[Sarah Huntington · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was recommended to me and I was more interested in the middle ages than the focus on attempting to explain the evil of humanity throughout history. Obviously, Lucifer was a huge part of the era and the book did so well to explain that time period to a lay person like me. I couldn't help but become enthralled. I'll read the rest of the series of books too, because now I'm hooked.

[Bülent Bilgili · Rating 5 out of 5]

Harika bir seri. Ufuk açıcı.

Güzel çeviri.

Bilgilendirici. Yerinde, sorularla veya soru kıvamında ifadelerle objektif değerlendirmeler.

Herkesin kitaplığında olması gerektiğini söyleyebilirim.

[Melissa Lenore Hamann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative and thorough, however would have liked more about witches.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

[Rinstinkt · Rating 4 out of 5]

[Highlights and notes on physical book.]

[Kaelen Kinnaman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible book, fascinating from the beginning to the end, Russell's theological and historical expertise leaps off the page. Eager to read Volume 4.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting survey of it's topic, but a bit too dry. Also, it it gets really tedious when Russell begins listing examples of artwork that do not appear in the book. It's difficult to digest any his points when I literally have no idea what he's describing.

[Ess Kay · Rating 3 out of 5]

A tad bit redundant as the same theological frames are employed to examine differing types of evidence, and the title is a bit misleading, but over all a solid read. This is not really a book about Lucifer, so much as slog through the evolution of the concept evil in christian monotheism.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great history of the idea of "the devil" in various medieval theologies and folklore. Briefly covers Islam and Eastern Orthodoxy.

[Richard Anderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Somewhat repetitious, but complete (with its three other volumes).

[Oytun · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book of satan.