Benjamin John’s Reviews > Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages > Status Update

I totally agree that subtracting the devil from Christianity makes no sense in light of its intellectual history and textual basis.

It is funny to hear him talking about indignantly about moral relativism, since folding evil into a supposedly “good” God is about as relative as you can get. And it is childish to rely on terms like “evil” rather than refer to historical events for something like th third reich

A brief section of nominalists and mystics to fine to summarise their perspectives on the devil, but the paltry section on witchcraft does seem very underdone, especially considering the authors expertise in the topic, having written at least another book on it.

An interesting look at how the Bible and demonology was mild and shaped for a popular audience, but Russel is right to lament the violence he does to the plays by working then into a single narrative. I’m afraid this leaves the read wondering whether this new creation represents anything like the works being referred to, or is simply a novel work by the author.

A cursory glance at art and literature. This chapters really should be a full page book with hundreds of colour pictures but unfortunately that’s the nature of the project. Interested in the hastily mentioned changing nature of the devil, apparently regressing to former trends.

Very struck by the boldness of Anselm. But it also has me wondering by if you can truly have a system where you inscribe free will despite its consequences, but then use all your might to undo decisions which are considered evil? I don’t think this is a question which a great mind can have a solution. It seems like a problem too deeply woven to even be cut like the Gordian knot.

This chapter is a bit of a shame, being about the art and literature regarding the devil, but featuring very little art (I assume this is a publishing thing). I can’t imagine Russell would have imagined it at the time but a curious person can look then up on the internet from his footnotes. Speaking of footnotes, this one has a lot.

Particularly interesting in this chapter is John Scottus Eriugena and Gottschalk you are perhaps a little peripheral, but represent a different ways to skin this cat. Both undermine the significant role the devil has played among the many thinkers we have toured so far, and for their trouble were themselves or had their works condemned. Their try at getting at a deeper level of God and his role is laudable.

Interesting perspective about the less formal approach to the devil. The idea of him as terrible yet able to be tricked makes a lot of sense in inspiring the populace’s confidence in being able to fend him off. This reminds me a lot of what people say about fascism, that it’s enemies are both overwhelming yet misshapen. I’m not suite sure what that similarity means.

What caught my eye was a footnote considering similar developments in Christianity and Islam in vastly different geographical and cultural locations. It is like Sisyphus, where we are constantly tasking ourselves with solving this problem based on a set of theological outlines. It doesn’t appear there is a solution, yet we have tired many different times in many different circumstances.

The familiar treatment of the devil, evil and the history of concepts that introduce each entry in the series. His approach to morality is very conservative. Man puts himself in the place of God where he is believer or not. The atheist must attempt to create a morality from tradition, the believer assumes that he is finding a morality provided for them. Both attempt to assume they knows what a good Lord would do.