My English Devil Hypothesis

When I first started thinking about my research topic, way back in 2010, three years before I started my PhD program, I started with a very simple question- Where did Milton's portrayal of Satan come from?

It struck me that Satan's "likability" was unique and since popular culture embraces Milton's portrayal as the "accepted" version of the devil- a human like man who is clever, likable, seductive, tricky, I was interested in where Milton got this from.

At first glance, Milton appears to pull together a lot of different aspects and traits.
But my research has revealed that his portrayal is not as unique as first blush would suggest.

My first round of research revealed that in English literature, portrayals of the devil can be grouped according to several different traits, both physical traits and character traits. He is almost always dark in color, shown with animal traits (claws, bat wings, a tail, dark fur, horns). This darkness serves several purposes. Like Cain's mark, it serves to mark the devil as different to others, as a threat. The darkness is also earned, a mark of his pride which led to his fall. Markov's  scholarship reveals how this appearance functions as visual rhetoric- serving to warn others of the threat the devil presents, and his unnatural state.
The Junius Manuscript (c. 1000) is one of the first images to show this. The devil, as he tempts Adam and Eve is not the completely dark figure he becomes, but the foundation is there. His wings and head covering are dark.

The Guthlac roll (c. 1000) shows an easily recognized set of devils. They are dark in color, animalistic, and have the caricatured noses that later are used in both portrayals of devils and Jews (as seen in the Exchequer Roll (1233).

The elves in the Eadwine Psalter (12th century) also share similarities with portrayals of devils.

There is both a clear evolution of the visual portrayal of the devil in English texts and a consistency, from roughly 1000 C.E up through the early modern period.





















The chapter I'm adding to the book that wasn't in the dissertation analyzes how the visual rhetoric of the devil is used for political purposes in pamphlets during the English Civil War (1642-1649), and how these same images are recycled, with the same rhetorical function, in pamphlets during The Glorious Revolution (1688). One of the reasons I argue that the image of the devil is used is BECAUSE it is familiar, consistent, and the meaning easily understood by the audience/reader. The image of the devil functions as a narrative shorthand.

But as with Milton's presentation of Satan, the visual appearance of the English devil is different from the visual appearance of other European devils. For example, look at this image from The Livre de la vigne nostre seigneur (1450-1470).

These devils are colorful, their body parts (as Markov's visual rhetoric shows) mark them as unnatural, with different pieces seemingly tacked on.

After years of researching this, I can tell you just by looking what is an English based devil and whether or not the devil comes from other European sources.

But back to my origin interest.
My final dissertation ended up not really addressing any of the rhetoric that images presented. In fact, the physical appearance of the devil is not really focused on. But I can't seem to let go of it. I've written before that I hope to turn the initial dissertation research, the survey work, into an encyclopedia-type resource webpage on the devil.

But this image origin is slightly tangential work.
And I haven't done the research yet. But I'm going to tell you my hypothesis that I hope to research.

My first thought, in 2010, was that the qualities of Milton's Satan that seemed unique from other devil portrayals, was his cleverness, his trickster spirit. These are not traits in the Biblical sources. So where did this come from? The first thing that is reminded me of was Loki, who in Norse mythology is clever, a trickster, and (perhaps most importantly for me) served a specific function, not good or evil but providing balance, as the Adversary does in the Book of Job.

Here's where the hypothesis comes in, because this becomes based on folklore, which is notoriously hard to pin down origins for. But I will tell you what I believe.
In the last few years, popular culture has taken the once obscure figure of Krampus, and made him into a Christmas bogeyman, a mainstay of funny holiday cards and horror films.  The portrayal most people know now, is that as an anti-Santa Claus. While St. Nicholas delivers gifts and sweets to reward good children, Krampus steals bad children away and eats them.

Krampus is paired with St. Nicholas during the seventeenth-century but the images most people would recognize with his revival in popularity, like the one above, dates from the 1800s. The roots of St. Nicholas are during the time of Constantine (280-337) so Krampus as counter has an earlier foundation.

But Krampus is also a figure in Norse mythology where he is often understood as the son of Hel. And appears much like you see above- a dark, animalistic figure.
My hypothesis is that the English devil's foundation is in Norse mythology. The trickster character traits of Loki and the appearance of Krampus.

I believe that the Norse brought this mythology over with them, first introduced in the ninth and tenth centuries.

The Danelaw was established by the eleventh-century.

Now, and here's the research still to do, so bear with me about the hypothesis.
I want to look at the monasteries that produced images and descriptions of the English devil, and overlay them over the monasteries situated in the Danelaw. I want to then compare this to other portrayals in monasteries not associated with the Danelaw.

Does my hypothesis hold up?
Do manuscripts produced in the Danelaw produce and confirm this dark, animalistic, trickster, portrayal of the devil?
Do monasteries that produce these manuscripts have a larger circulation or production that accounts for the popularity and dissemination of this understanding?

What monasteries or manuscripts counter this portrayal of the devil? Why? For what reasons? Are visual portrayals that DON'T follow the common understandings evidence of outside influence?

Is it possible to trace the dissemination of a manuscript, to trace the path of this English devil?

I know this is a huge project. And it may not be possible to prove any of it. The closest I may get is to mimic Karen Jolly's methodology, and make an argument for a single manuscript from a single monastery, and try and make larger arguments based on that information.

With the foundation of oral folklore, the transmission of Norse mythology, it's hard to find a starting point. There are few if any medieval images of Krampus (the manuscript doodle above a rarity). So textual foundations are hard.
But all of my research the last seven years points to a consistent, recognizable, understanding of the devil from the medieval period, up through the early modern period and beyond.

(Harley_ms_1526_f021r)

 (Royal 19 C I, fol. 203v, © The British Library)

(The Taymouth Hours, British Library, Yates Thompson fol.)

I know literary scholars don't generally think in hypothesis. We rarely present ideas, questions, possible beginnings. The danger is that you then only find the data that supports your initial hypothesis.
I understand that. If my research proves me wrong, I think the work, the methodology, the research is still valuable. It possible, although I think not probable, that the common understanding of the devil, is a coincidence.
We'll see.
But I think the adventure will be fun!