Fictions du Diable: Démonologie et littérature de saint Augustin à Léo Taxil (review)

This collection is mostly the papers of a conference held in 2003. To that has been added some further essays by participants in a project devoted to studying scientific works from a literary viewpoint, with a particular interest in examining the shifting boundaries between the genres. Some of the studies, therefore, pay close attention to the ‘rhetoric of persuasion’ (because the authors studied had an axe to grind) and the literary devices used. Nicole Jaques-Lefèvre, for instance, points out how de Lancre, ostensibly writing serious scientific work, seems to get carried away by the pleasure of describing the horrors he decries. By the time one reaches Léo Taxil (Closson) demonology has become part of the popular press, written as anti-masonic (and wholly invented) fiction. The collection includes consideration of the topos whether a sword can be drawn against phantoms, including studies of Ronsard and Shakespeare (Chesters), tracing the origin of some of this in the work of Psellos, which became available from 1497 in Latin. Similarly, François Lecercle has a detailed study of the episode of the witch of Endor, showing how literary treatments and theology had to consider what the figure of Samuel represented, often with an eye on the censor. There are many examples from the theatre. Several of the pieces point out how discussion of witchcraft could be used as a part of religious polemic. From the point of view of the English reader one of the most interesting is the essay by Ladan Niayesh about William Baldwin’s Beware the Cat of 1555. In this ferociously anti-Catholic comic piece, the mass is considered part of the witchcraft. Among the attempts to write ‘science’ the work of Johannes Weyer, doctor to the Duke of Cleves, stands out. The study by de Rolley shows on what conservative ‘scientific’ principles Weyer based his apparently sceptical views about visions and possession. The limits of what was thought possible (transformation into a beast, for instance) are discussed in several pieces. Naturally, the literary and scientific viewpoint takes the first place in almost all these studies, which explains some of their limitations from a historian’s perspective. Only one (Lavocat, p. 61, note) shows awareness that Kramer alone seems to be the author of the Malleus, and almost all treat it only as if it were merely a hand-book of demonology, whereas in truth it was more importantly a deeply polemical defence of Kramer’s much-criticized behaviour as an inquisitor. None are much interested in the more down-to-earth aspects of demonology, such as its possible interaction with confessions or the influence of literature, if any, on actual law. The book will therefore be of most use to serious students of literature, not only in French, but this book will not waste the time of historians.