SATANISMO. — The state of what is satanic, that is, subject to the action of Satan, or consecrated to the adversary of God, or pervaded by his spirit. The term assumes one of three meanings: Satan’s dominion over the world, worship rendered to Satan, or the following and imitation of his rebellion against God; each of these must be explained, since it has often been, and still is, denied, ignored, or misunderstood.
I. SATAN’S EMPIRE OVER THE WORLD
Through sin (opposed to the will of God), the flesh (opposed to the spirit of God), and the purely external law (opposed to interior faith, to which the Grace of God is attached), it is frequently affirmed by Jesus and St. Paul. Satan, ruler (ὁ ἄρχων) of this world (Io. 12, 31; 14, 30; 16, 11), reveals himself as such already when he tempts Jesus (Mt. 4, 8-10; Lc. 4, 6-13) in the vain attempt to subject even him, the only one in whom “he has nothing” (Io. 14, 30; 17, 16). He is indeed “the god of this world” (II Cor. 4, 4), a world withdrawn from the true God, its creator, and become the prey of corruption and death. He envelops it as he hovers in the air, from which he directs all commands (Eph. 2, 11; 6, 12). This will last until the final restoration, when the victorious Christ will return the kingdom to God the Father “after having annihilated every principality and every authority and power... all enemies” (I Cor. 15, 24). While respecting the Roman order (Io. 19, 11), Jesus and his followers are at war with the world of power and wealth, which hates and persecutes them (Io. 15, 18-25); despite the infinite love of God, who sent it his Only-Begotten Son, the world remains a son of Satan (Io. 3, 16-18; 8, 44, 48), who is darkness and death, whereas God is light and life (Is. 9, 2; Lc. 1, 79; Io. 1, 4-10; Eph. 5, 8, 14).Satan extends his dominion not only over “his angels” (Mt. 25, 41; Apoc. 12, 7), but over all men infected by evil, “sons of rebellion” (Eph. 2, 2; 5, 6), “all enclosed in unbelief, under sin” (Rom. 11, 32; Gal. 3, 22); “all are under sin,” “the whole world is liable to punishment before God” (Rom. 3, 9, 19). In this “kingdom” of his (Lc. 11, 15), from the first sin, the original one, Satan causes sin, and the death that follows from it, to spread over all (Rom. 5, 12-14; I Tim. 2, 14), and humanity is subjected to his baleful influence; he has “strongholds and heights rising up against the knowledge of God” (II Cor. 10, 4-5); the entire world lies in the evil one (ἐν τῷ τὸνγῷ χεῖται; I Io. 5, 19); because his sin is the irreconcilable enemy of light, it is unforgivable (Io. 1, 5, 9-11; 15, 22-24; 17, 9; Mt. 12, 32). It is more than an empire; it is almost a mystical body, as St. Gregory M., echoing St. Augustine, affirms (Hom. 16 in Ev.; cf. Moral., IV, 14): “Certe iniquorum omnium caput diabolus est; et huius capitis membra sunt omnes iniqui”.
Christ establishes the Kingdom of God in opposition to the kingdom of Satan. The two kingdoms oppose one another as yes and no, as life and death, good and evil, light and darkness; their end and function are to annihilate one another. God has delivered his elect “from the power of darkness, transferring them into the Kingdom of his Only-Begotten Son” (Col. 1, 13). The two kingdoms are not static, but are realized at every moment in their mutual struggle. The two opposing “cities” (“Una est Dei, altera diaboli”) are founded upon two opposed loves: self and God (St. Augustine, De civ. Dei, XIV, 18 and XXI, 1). This Christian “Weltanschauung” was brilliantly reaffirmed in the nineteenth century by Cardinals Pie and Newman (L. Bouyer, Newman, Paris 1952, p. 236). Only hatred has led people to identify Satan with this or that personage; no human being is Satan, who is essentially invisible, universal, and enduring; but Satan must be discerned in occult powers, because he operates in “mystery” (II Thess. 2, 7), without allowing his aims, plans, or successes to become apparent; he is the stable master of all the world’s resources; he is humanly invincible; with superhuman cunning he makes everyone applaud his directives, seducing and lulling the masses with promises of peace and enjoyment (Mt. 24, 38 ff.; I Thess. 5, 3). More than in spectacular events, the satanic presence and activity are inherent, with silent dynamism, in ordinary life (Mt. 6, 13; 13, 25-28), so that the Christian’s spiritual combat must be unceasing (Eph. 6, 11-18). The deepest and most pervasive Satanism is the apotheosis of man, with religion and morality reduced to a matter of freedom. Society is “reduced to pure automatism” under the irresistible imposture and oppression disseminated by massive propaganda that destroys the much-vaunted freedom (Christmas Radio Message of Pius XII, 24 Dec. 1951, nos. 40-46), and, after having overthrown Catholicity, inexorably applies the “two false paths” of collectivism and individualism, which lead humanity to annihilation, first moral and then physical (Christmas Radio Message of Pius XII, 24 Dec. 1952, nos. 12-30).
Thus this world, Satan’s dwelling place, is in some manner hell. The expulsion of the sinner from the protecting paradise (Gen. 3, 22) corresponds to the intrinsic demand of sin, which places him under the sovereignty of Satan; the return to paradise (Lc. 24, 43) will be the culmination of Redemption, often described as resurrection to spiritual-heavenly life (I Cor. 15, 20-54). Since in reality there is no naturally good order of the world, apart from Christ man is Satan’s prey. Reuniting oneself to God in his Grace and glory (Rom. 8, 28-30) entails liberation from the “ius tyrannicum” which belongs “not unjustly” to the ancient enemy (St. Leo M., Sermo 22 in Natio., 3), and exodus from the cosmos dominated by him. Since, “according to the holy Doctors and the Platonists, all corporeal things are dominated by spiritual substances” (St. Thomas, Sum. Theol., 1°, 110, 1 ad 3), the devil exercises an influence over men and also over the material creatures at their disposal, so that these may become occasions of sin. Redemption is therefore a cosmic drama (Rom. 8, 19-23; Apoc. 12-13), which will be resolved with the triumph of God’s absolute sovereignty over the shattered satanic empire (I Cor. 15, 22-57; Apoc. 20, 1-21, 4). The descent into hell (the realm of death), the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven were stages by which the Incarnate Word had to redeem man from sin and from Satan’s world.
Three truths belong to the faith (E. Hugon, Tractatus Dogm., 5th ed., I, Paris 1926, p. 759): demons fight against men, tempt them, and at times invade them. Satan’s great activity temptation (v.); hence St. Paul defines him as « he who tempts » (ὁ πειρᾶζων; I Thesis, 3, 5): that is, he puts to the test (through seduction or violence, pleasure or pain, exhilaration or dejection, enhancement or denial of the self), in order to compromise, impede, or halt the ascent of souls (cf. the vision of St. Anthony in the Vita, 65-66, of St. Athanasius: PG 26, 935 and 938). Therefore the world, in which the Evil One rages, is a cursed tangle of scandals (Mt. 18, 7; Lc. 17, 1), that is, of stumbling-blocks, obstacles, and snares, causes of downfall and ruin. Satan’s proper function is to tempt « ut noceat, in peccatum praecipitando... si homo aliquando sic tentet, hoc agit in quantum est minister diaboli »; at least indirectly, he is the cause of all our sins (St. Thomas, Sum. Theol., 1°, 114, 2-3). St. Thomas (ibid., 1°, 114, 4) asserts that demons can seduce men by performing miracles (in the broad sense: « which exceed man’s abilities and understanding »), as Pharaoh’s magicians « per virtù satanica » produced serpents and frogs (Ex. 7, 11-8, 7). Such prodigies will multiply through the activity of the Antichrist (II Thesis, 2, 9). These satanic portents consist chiefly in infestation (of persons or things), obsession, or possession. Diabolical possession (v.) is like the dwelling of a demon within the human body, which it moves « quasi ab intrinseco »; as the Rituale Romanum observes, its signs are the use and understanding of unknown languages, knowledge of hidden or distant things, and unusual muscular strength. The Gospel describes many deliverances of the possessed performed by Jesus by command alone (Mc. 1, 34; 9, 24; Lc. 8, 30; 11, 14-26). Jesus gives as a characteristic of the Kingdom of God founded by him the expulsion of Satan and his demons (Mt. 12, 28; Lc. 10, 17; 11, 20), and transmits this exorcistic charism to his Apostles and to his Church (Mt. 10, 1; Mc. 16, 17). The Apostles in turn expelled « unclean spirits » (Act. 5, 16; 19, 12-16), and the Church gloried in this victorious power over Satan: « Quid isto opere manifestius? Quid hac probatione fidelius? » (Tertullian, Apol., 23). Frequently practiced was the « pact with the devil », signed in one’s own blood, in which one gives one’s soul in exchange for longevity, wealth, and power, as in the legend of Theophilus, administrator (5th century) of the Church of Adana in Cilicia (F. Nau, Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, 1910, pp. 125-32), popularized by the Leggenda aurea of Giacomo da Varazze, by Rosvita and Rutebeuf; related to it is the legend of Cipriano (Calderón, El mago de los prodigios); the myth of Faust is the best-known version of the satanic pact. Given Satan’s sovereignty over unredeemed humanity (1st article of faith « A. Stolz), the ancient apologists tended to regard all non-Christian religions and mysticism, even the most elevated, as diabolical artifices and machinations (Tertullian, De Corona, 15: « Agnoscamus ingenia diaboli, idcirco quaedam de divina affectantis, ut nos de suorum fide confundat et iudicet »). Today, « through purely natural goodness, the prince of this world seeks to chain men in order to keep them more securely under his dominion, that is, far from the true Church of Christ » (Stolz, op. cit. in bibl., p. 66).
II. THE CULT OF SATAN
Whoever does not believe in Satan naturally does not admit s. Satan’s most dangerous victory is having shaken or abolished in men their faith in his power. “Very rare among the Christians of our time are those who really believe in the devil” (H.-I. Marrou, in Satan [Etudes Carmél., Paris 1948], p. 28; cf. p. 96). And Satan has never reigned as so undisputed a master as since he ceased to appear corporeally, with horns. “Satan’s finest ruse is to persuade us that he does not exist,” said Baudelaire, an expert in s. But no less dangerous is superstition superimposed upon faith. Undisciplined credulity, unleashing the imagination in the doubly mysterious realm of supernatural forces and evil, adulterates the concept of Satan as the enemy of God and the just, turning him into an evil divinity to be served or propitiated for personal advantage. Hence, in the pagan world, offerings to appease him, and the thousand apotropaic practices that still persist. The worship of the serpent (Mac Culloch, Croote, Welsford, Serpent-worship, in Enc. of Rel. and Ethics, XI [1920], pp. 399-423), widely practiced in the ancient world—Egypt, the Semitic East (cf. Don. 14, 22-27)—and Delphi, interpreted by the Fathers as s. (Chrysostom, Hom. 29 in Ep. I ad Cor., 1), spread from east to west, from south to north; in 1387 the king of Poland had the many serpents worshipped in his kingdom killed. At times Christian optimism mocked the “stupid” devil (A.M. Weiss, op. cit. in bibl., pp. 413-15). But generally superstition intensifies fear of Satan; at times it strives to deceive, tame, or compel him to serve; in various cases it urges the sinner to substitute him for God by carrying out without restraint the works of blasphemous parody of divine worship, lust, and subversion. This complete s. is characterized by the will of evil for evil’s sake, by the total inversion of good into evil and vice versa, by active hatred, in the name of absolute freedom, against every religious and moral law—a hatred inexplicable through human psychology.Among the ancient Ophite or Naassene Gnostics (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I, 24 and 30, 7-8; Tertullian, Praeser., 47), Satan, identified with the serpent of paradise, is exalted for having vindicated human rights by revealing to Adam the “gnosis” of good and evil and teaching rebellion against the Creator’s tyrannical command. Marcion came close to this doctrine (Irenaeus, I, 27, 2). The Cainites (Irenaeus, I, 31) exalted as liberators the great rebels against God: Cain, Esau, Sodom, Korah, and above all Judas, who deserved divine worship for having emancipated humanity from Jesus. These and other Gnostics were organized in strictly secret groups (Tertullian, Adv. Valentin., 1); such “synagogues of Satan” (Apoc. 2, 9; 3, 9), perpetuated over time, explain the rapid spread in the Middle Ages of the disciplined and extremely secret Cathar-Albigensian movement (v.). Manichaeism exalted Satan to the highest degree permitted by dualism; as appears from the Kephalaia (chaps. 27 and 6) of Mani, discovered in 1931 at Medinet Maadi (Egypt) in subachmimic Coptic translation, the “King” or “Prince of Darkness” is the pre-cosmic, uncreated, omnipotent principle from which the universe resulted; he is equal to God, but is not deified; there is no true s., since offering him sacrifices or divine homage is a grave sin according to the Khuastuanift (Manichaean form of confession).
The cult of Satan (sometimes under the name Sataniel, Sammael) was practiced by a part of the Messalians; later, among the medieval Gnostic-dualistic sects (Cathars-Albigensians, Bogomils, Paulicians), the “Luciferians” emerged, sectarians spread in small groups throughout the West. On the worship of Sataniel, the fallen god and father of Cain, whose wrath is terrible, among the Bogomils of Bulgaria (11th cent.), cf. Euthymius Zigabenus, Panoplia dogm., 27, 6-20: PG 130, 1293-1316. In 1022 the canons of Sainte-Croix (Orléans) were condemned to the stake because they “adorabant diabolum,” and similar horrors were thereafter frequently reported (PL. 141, 71-72; 142, 659-60; 155, 2011). Joachim of Flora (Exposit. in Apoc., Venice 1527, p. 130 b) attributes obscene nocturnal gatherings to the Patarines, and Alan of Lille to the Cathars (PL. 210, 366). Mathieu Paris (Chron., ad. a. 1236) says that Milan was the refuge of all heresies, including the Luciferians (MGH, Scripti, XXVIII, p. 134). In the first half of the 13th century Germany was invaded by s., and Conrad of Marburg proceeded rigorously against the Luciferians from 1214 to 1233 (at Hildesheim, in 1224, the Premonstratensian provost Henry Minneke was condemned); Gregory IX’s bull Vox in Rama (13 June 1233), addressed to Siegfried, archbishop of Mainz, to Conrad, bishop of Hildesheim, and to magister Conrad of Marburg, describes the horrendous initiation rites in the assemblies where Satan appears; but the Rhenish bishops accused Conrad of Marburg of having extorted from the accused confessions of nonexistent crimes (MGH, Scripti, XXIII, pp. 931-32, where Alberic of Trois-Fontaines says that “infidelitas illa de cultu Lucifer” was brought to the Rhineland by a master from Toulouse); Gregory IX subsequently softened the procedure. In the 14th century such s. was reported as frequent in Austria, Bohemia, and the surrounding regions, with orgies and blasphemous rites. For the most part, the participants in this cult intended to protect themselves from Satan, the powerful demiurge who, defeated by Jesus, harmed human beings. Templars (v.) too were accused of s. in the trial that condemned them.
Even today the Kurdish Yazidis (about 60,000) of Mount Singār (Upper Mesopotamia), Sunni Muslims of the Shāfiʿite school, worship Iblis (“devil”), who, according to Islām, was damned through jealous, exclusive love of the pure idea of God. Their sacred books, kitāb al-galwah (“book of revelation”) and malafē-rāf (“black book”), teach that Iblis (like the martyr Hallāf, supplicated in 922 at Baghdad by the Shīʿites) was damned out of pure love, refusing every reward; a fallen archangel, he was forgiven, and God left him governance of the world and the transmigration of souls; he is called Melek Tāʾūs, “the peacock angel,” because he recovered the spiritual colors.
In the Middle Ages demonological literature abounded; magic or witchcraft, regarded as commerce with Satan, was considered not merely a superstition but a heresy, the gravest of all. While s. Albert M., s. Thomas, and Scotus generally rejected the sorcerous prodigies, Jo. Nider, in his Formicarus (1437), disseminated fantasies about the witches’ sabbath. Against Gerson, G. Biel denied Satanic action on earth. In addition to the spiritual struggle against Satan described in the multifaceted Ars Moriendi (v.), besides Bernard Gui’s Manuale dell'inquisitore (v.) and those of others (ed. G. Mollat, Paris 1926), and besides the various terrifying tales that circulated (Gilles de Raiz, or Bluebeard, in the 15th century), the printing press soon disseminated theological works as well: translations of Michele Psellos, Sull'energia o operazione dei demoni (PG 122, 819–82); Ulrich Molitor of Constance, De Lamis et pythonicis mulieribus (Leipzig 1495; trans. Des sorcières et des devineresses, Paris 1926, Nourry), already extremely widespread in manuscripts; Giacomo di Teramo (v. BELIAL); Jacob Sprenger, Malleus maleficarum (Strasbourg 1486), expanded by Henr. Institutia (Cologne 1489), developed into the 4 vols. of Lyon 1669 (in German: 3 vols., Berlin 1906; in English: Clay in Bungay 1928); G. F. Pico della Mirandola, Strix sive de ludificatione daemonum dialogi III, nunc primum in Germania eruti (Strasbourg 1612; trans. by Furino Furini, La strega ovvero degli inganni dei demoni, Milan 1864). The Malleus maleficarum of the Dominicans J. Sprenger (inquisitor in the Rhineland) and H. Institutia (inquisitor of Upper Germany) was the manual of European anti-Satanism; it had 28 editions between 1486 and 1600. After the decretals of Giovanni XXII, the popes intervened with many bulls to encourage the inquisitors to repress s., from Innocent VIII (Summis desiderantes, 6 December 1484) and Alexander VI (Cum acceperimus, 1494) to Paul V (Omnipotentis Dei, 1623); but Urban VIII (1623–44) recommended moderation to the judges of those accused of s., and his example would be followed by prelates and local councils.
In the 16th century the obsession with s. was widespread, among Catholics and Protestants alike, among the common people as well as the educated classes; an inverted religion or anti-religion spreading within Christendom, s. invaded art and literature as a theme. Satan appeared with multitudes of followers; his worship had its initiates, ministers, and pontiffs; many women (the witches!) became its victims at the stake. The series of demonological treatises grew: Samuele Casini (1505); Vincenzo Dodo (1506); Bernardo di Como (1508); Jo. Trithemius (1508); Jac. van Hoogstraeten (1510). Between 1511 and 1520 Pedro de Ciruelo, Silvestro Mazzolini, and above all Bartolomeo Spina wrote (Quaestio de strigibus et lamiis, Apologiae tres de lamiis); around 1550, Arnaldo Albertini, Alfonso de Castro (De impietate sortilegum), and others. In 1579 BODIN, JEAN (v.) published De la dimanomanie des sorciers, disseminated throughout Europe (Italian, Venice 1591; Latin, Frankfurt 1603); the De confessionibus
maleficarum et sagarum (1589) by Peter Binsfeld, coadjutor of Trier, also achieved rapid success. The final decade of the 16th century saw analogous works by Jean Boguet (1591), Franz Agricola (1596), Nicolas Remi (1595), and the Jesuits Greg. de Valencia (1595) and Martin Del Rio (1599). The immense literature on this anguished subject, comprising several thousand works (listed by J. Graesse, Bibliotheca magica et pneumatica, Leipzig 1843; R. Yve-Plessis, Paris 1900, lists approximately 2,000 works in French alone), nourished the psychosis of s., also attested by painting (Jer. Bosch, the Breughels, Bouts, Cranach, A. Dürer, Grien, Cambiaso, Hier. Cock, Fries, Huys, Luca da Leida, Civetta, etc., and the ever-renewed motif of the Ars moriendi, the Danza macabra, and the Giudizio). Some protested against the fanaticism that accused so many unfortunate people of s.: the Benedictine Guglielmo Edeline (1454), the Carmelite Jo. de Beetz (1486), Jo. Wier (1564), and others, who helped to moderate the legislation. Decisive was the influence of the Jesuits Adam Tanner (1626) and F. von Spee, his disciple, in alleviating the anti-Satanic criminology of the period, based on prejudices also upheld by physicians, alchemists, and astrologers (C. Agrippa, G. Cardano, Paracelsus, A. Paré, etc.). Usually magicians or diviners were not prosecuted, but only witches and sorcerers who cast spells, and those who confessed to a pact or relationship with Satan. Of 400 persons tried (mostly women) in the county of Namur (Belgium) between 1500 and 1650, 149 were burned, 49 acquitted, 96 sentenced to exile or lesser penalties, while the sentence of 106 is unknown (E. Brouette). In 1682 Louis XIV brought witchcraft trials to an end in France; in the other Catholic nations as well, the era of s. had ended. The final blow to popular prejudices on the subject was dealt by Scipione Maffei in lengthy polemics conducted during the second half of the 18th century.
The worship of s. is concentrated in the “black masses,” abominable orgies combined with ecstatic profanations, presided over when possible by wayward priests, a derivation of the ancient “sabbath,” with grotesque practices recalling Masonic forms and rites; D. A. F. de Sade (1740–1814), an atheist builder of nature, describes Satanic orgies with consecrated hosts; in France missals of this Satanic worship were printed (F. Boutet, op. cit. in bibl., pp. 159–207). J. K. Huysmans (Lā-Bas, Paris 1891, chap. 19) describes them, as later does J. Bois (Le satanisme et la magie, ibid. 1896, pp. 200–43) and Ramón del Valle «Inclán (1870–1935). Huysmans had associated with adherents of s. and possessed the writings of Jean-Antoine Boullan (d. 1893), an apostate priest, the “sword of God” for liberating the Roman Church; these papers were given by Huysmans’s friend, Léon Leclaire, to the noted Islamic scholar Louis Massignon, who, on 14 July 1930, deposited them in the Vatican Library. Freemasonry is certainly a secret lair of s.; it inherits the faith and customs of Cainite Gnosticism (A. M. Weiss, op. cit. in bibl., pp. 452–54), especially in its “Egyptian rite” (Misrājm), as is shown by many documents dating from 1797 onward (v. BARRUEL) and by the numerous ecclesiastical condemnations, especially the encyclical Humanum genus (1885). From 1885 to 1895 TAXIL, LÉO (v.) made sensational revelations about s. practiced in the lodges, but in 1897 he cynically declared that he had invented everything. Masonic propaganda celebrated a great triumph over this: all the s. attributed to it rested on a hoax! E. S. Hartland and H. Grüber maintain that modern s. is a pure deception perpetrated by L. Taxil and Huysmans. Yet, without excluding the possibility that the comedy staged by L. Taxil had been prepared by the Masonic lodges, the hoaxer invented only the sensational and picturesque details, the novel of Miss Diana Vaughan, etc.; the substance of Masonic s., however, remained what had already been well known before L. Taxil, and is acknowledged as real by experienced Freemasons, such as the physicist Pasquale Barreca (I rituali massonici scozzesi di L. Taxil. Loro veridicita, Reggio Cal. 1932). Freemasonry, one in spirit and in its fundamental laws, is the international anti-Church (E. Jouin); the destinies of peoples depend upon the “Masonic papacy” (P. Barreca, op. cit., p. 138), invisible and unknown even to ordinary initiates; no one among the “masses” knows what is happening or will happen in a day, and no one is aware of influencing anything; yet for 160 years there has been evidence of a constant course of action tending toward uncontrollable “progress,” toward the religion of nature,
with every positive religion or morality excluded. The struggle is waged solely against Catholicism; once it has fallen, Christianity will be no more than a symbol or a memory. Spiritism-occultism and theosophy (De Libero, op. cit. in BIBL., pp. 254–290) are the maturist religion and philosophy promoted by Freemasonry. Masonic s. manifests itself principally in the ritual profanation of consecrated hosts. At Fribourg in Switzerland (Rue Grand' Fontaine, 41), anyone may visit, in a large grotto now serving as a chapel of reparation and adoration, the implements used for the satanic rites. In our own day, notorious Satanists are not lacking, all more or less openly promoting Freemasonry. On 2 December 1947, Aleister Crowley, an obscene master of black magic who had founded the journals Gnosis and Lucifer, died in Brighton (England) at the age of over 70; in his satanic temple in London a special ritual is observed, and “the hymn to Pan” and the “Collects for the Gnostic Mass,” composed by Crowley, are sung; on his tomb the disciples sing them together with diabolical formulas and Carducci’s “hymn to Satan.” On 29 March 1948, Harry Price, a psychical researcher and demonologist, permanent secretary of the Council for psychical investigation of the University of London, died; in a report he declared: “In every area of London, hundreds of men and women of high culture and distinguished families worship Satan and render him perpetual cult; black magic, witchcraft, and diabolical evocation—these three forms of ‘medieval superstition’—are practised today in London on a scale and with a licence unknown to the Middle Ages.”
III. SATANIC REBELLION
A sacrilegious challenge to God, “the heroic affirmation of the self, which defends itself in its absolute integrity” (U. Dettore), it is an attitude of religious-moral rebellion and of mortal “risk,” a taste for perverse feelings in the struggle against limitation and constraint, fashionable among many “libertines” and decadent writers; it has many points of contact with modern “titanism.” J. K. Huysmans defined s. as “the forbidden joy of transferring to Satan the homage and prayers due to God...; committing, in order to outrage Christ more gravely, the sins he has most expressly cursed: the contamination of worship and carnal orgy.” Even Catholic theologians, in flattering the human will or freedom that no longer reflects the sole divine will, dare to caress “the risk of sin,” asserting that “the only total safeguard against evil would be inaction” (G. Didier, in Nouv. Rev. Théol., 85 [1953], p. 11). Dante described with theological precision the agitation of the “emperor of the dolorous realm,” the defeat of the immense “worm” imprisoned in the earth: an abject traitor, a monster whose suffering arouses no compassion, Dante’s Lucifer is unique. After T. Tasso and G. B. Marino, Milton, followed by many others down to V. Hugo and P. Valéry, would make him a Promethean rebel, in whom ancient beauty tragically survives, grandiose in his collapse (Chateaubriand, Le génie du christ., IV, 9 and 12, ed. 1854, I, pp. 298–301 and 308–10, praises him); but such a “hero,” for Dante, is Capaneus.While Gnosticism was assuming the name of “Enlightenment,” French and European libertinism, supported by English antireligion (H. Cherbury, J. Toland, M. Tindal, etc.) and later by the “philosophes” such as Voltaire, was s. that as early as 1700 was preparing the Revolution (P. Hazard, La crise de la conscience européenne: 1680–1715, 3 vols., Paris 1935); the last noisy libertines were the Freemasons Cagliostro (d. 1795) and Casanova (d. 1798).
The representative of the irreducible “no” is humanitarian positivism, which crumbles every faith and every morality. After the Enlightenment of the “philosophes” and protean Freemasonry (Saint-Martin), its promoter was the socialism of Saint-Simon, Enfantin, Marx, Blanqui, and Proudhon (“God is evil”), whose periodicals in various languages bore such titles as Satana, Lucifero, L’Anticristo, L’Ateo, Il Ladro, Il Asino, etc.; related in purpose are anarchism (M. Stirner) nihilism (v.), the militant atheism of secularism (Guyau, Fouillée, Berthelot, Binet-Sangle, Buisson, Couchoud).
The conflict between God and Satan, resolved through biblical faith by Milton and Klopsstock, already appears as a victory of the satanic will to power in C. Marlowe’s Faustus (1604), and becomes a symbolic “mystique” in Goethe’s inspired Faust: s. is “the spirit that always denies, the force that always does evil but is compelled to serve the good” (prologue). Humanitarian rationalism characterizes the satanic evocations of Lessing, Elon (1824) by A. de Vigny, The Loves of the Angels (1823) by T. Moore, and La chute d’un ange (1838) by Lamartine. Like Guevara, followed by Lesage and Cazotte, various writers use the theme for satire of manners (Béranger, Scribe), or for the fantasies of skeptics (G. Sand, Balzac, Flaubert, Longfellow). With William Blake (Marriage of Heaven and Hell, 1790) there appears a metaphysical s., which celebrates man’s “sacred” insurrection against God. But the initiator of Satan’s complete exaltation is G. Byron in Manfredi (1817), and even more in Canno (1821), where the dark superman is exalted, defeated because he had compassion for man. Shelley sings of liberated Prometheus, the revenge of the one chained by Jupiter’s fury; more openly blasphemous is Lenau’s Faust (1836); subversive and lustful is Il démoine (1939) by M. Lermontov. Baudelaire (1857) invokes Satan as “the most beautiful and greatest of the angels,” the victim of divine jealousy. A symbol of anti-divine defiance and of man’s resurgence, yesterday’s vanquished one is acclaimed as today’s victor by J. Michelet (La sorcière, 1862), who, together with Quinet, predicts “the return of the kingdom of Satan” (Histoire universelle, introd.). In 1843 Sainte-Beuve defined de Sade and Byron as “the two greatest inspirers of the moderns.” In La fin de Satan (1886), V. Hugo expresses his democratic faith: God and Satan will become equal through the angel Liberty, descended from both. G. Carducci, Inno a Satana (Oct. 1863), glorifies vital force and modern progress in Satan (“Satan has won!”). M. Rapisardi’s Lucifero (1887) says to Prometheus: “Rise, the great Tyrant is dead.” Similar is the idea of A. France, La révolte des anges (1914). In Isidore Ducasse (Chants de Maldoror, 1868, reissued 1927), s. is raging. Today, after and more than A. Gide (d. 1951), its representatives are J.-P. Sartre and A. Camus (Les justes, Paris 1950; L’homme révolté, ibid. 1951).
Isolated voices of protest rise against s., which asserts itself in the world through the apotheosis of man and his unlimited possibilities, while revolutions distract from traditions, philosophies undermine every positive faith, and economic materialism produces unrestrained individualism. Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881), in Sartor resurtus: The Life and Opinions of Herr Teufelsdröckh (1833–34), accurately identifies s. with self-worship (Selfworship), with “the everlasting no” (Everlasting no); he reacts against modern s. by recounting the conversion of the imaginary German professor Diogenes Teufelsdröckh, “philosopher of clothing,” that is, of impeccable outward form, who nevertheless regards institutions and customs as mere garments of the human spirit, of contingent value; but, disappointed by his many experiences, studies, and travels, he finds happiness by returning to the naïve faith of childhood. The German Romantics (Körner, F. Schlegel, Hauff, T. A. Hoffmann, A. Chamisso) likewise turned back to the divine principle and to active love toward all. Wilhelm Meister, Goethe’s young hero (1795–96), had already, after many wanderings, found joy in daily work for others; and Jean Paul Richter (Quintus Fivlein, 1796; Titan, 1803) reacted against the apotheosis of man by condemning pro-Hellenic classicism and the aesthetics of pure form proper to the Enlightenment. As in R. Wagner’s Tannhäuser (1845), Venus is identified with Satan in the romantic legend of G. Prati, Satana e le Grazie (1855), which describes the degeneration of three men (a priest, a magistrate, and a warrior), redeemed through repentance and snatched from Satan by God. Nineteenth-century Russian writers denounced the advance of modern s., first of all N. Gogol (Anime morte) and, more extensively, F. Dostojewski in various works, especially Demoni (1872), where in Stavroghin, who fights against God, there appears the mystery of evil loved and fostered for its own sake, with absolute disinterestedness, and Shigalev prophesies: “The ancient conception of the world will disappear, and above all the ancient morality. Men will unite in order to draw from life every possible pleasure, but in this world alone. The human spirit will rise to satanic pride, and humanity will be dedicated. Constantly triumphing over nature through science and the will, man will experience such joy that it will replace in him the hopes of future goods. Everyone will resign himself to death with tranquil firmness, like a god; he will refrain from complaining about the brevity of life and will love his brothers with disinterested love.” This “golden age” was described in advance by A. Huxley, The brave new world (Italian trans., Il migliore dei mondi, Milan 1934). Denis de Rougemont studies its beginnings in La part du diable (1942), where he rightly observes that “le premier tour du Diable est son incognito.” The Catholics H. Hello, Barbey d’Aurevilly, L. Bloy, G. Bernanos (Sous le soleil de Satan, Monsieur Onine), G. Papini (Gog, 1930; Il libro nero, 1951), G. Rendl (Satan auf der Erde, 1934), and W. Umbricht fight to halt the advance of s. by documenting II.
BBL.: A. M. Weiss, Umanità e umanismo: Filosofia e storia del male (in Apologia del cristianesimo, II), trad. it., Venezia 1902, pp. 411-65; J. Ribet, La mystique divine: III. Les contrefaçons diaboliques, Parigi 1902, pp. 105-459; J. Hansen, Zauberwahn, Inquisition und Hexenprozess im Mittelalter, Monaco 1911; J. Bricaud, J.-K. Huysmans et le satanisme, Parigi 1913; E. S. Hartland, Satanism, in Encyclop. of Religion and Ethics, Edimburgo 1920, pp. 203-207; M. A. Murray, The witch-cols in Western Europe, Oxford 1921; E. Jouin, Les fidèles de la Contre-Église: II. Les Mayons, Parigi 1921; id., Les actes de la Contre-Église: II. France-Mayons, ivi 1920; Cl. Grillet, Le satanisme littéraire, in Le Correspondant, 25 febbr. 1922; id., Le diable dans la littérature française au XIXe siècle, Lione 1933; M. Summers, The history of witchcraft and demonology, Londra 1926; E. Amann, Lucifériens, in DThC, IX (1926), coll. 1044-36; M. Rudwin, Satan et le Satanisme dans l'oeuvre de V. Hugo, Parigi 1926; id., The Devil in Legend and Literature, Chicago 1931; E. Hoffmann-Kruger, Handvörterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens, 10 voll., Berlino 1927-42; F. Boutet, Les aventuriers du mystère, Parigi 1927; H. Obendick, Satanismus und Démonie in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 1928; R. von Warben, S., trad. it., Milano 1932; C. Lancelin, Histoire myth. de Shaton, Parigi 1930; W. Lewis, The Diabolical Principles, Londra 1931; G. De Libero, Satana, Torino 1935, pp. 159-422 («L'azione») e 425-575 («Il dominio»); M. Praz, S., in Enc. Ital., XXX (1936), p. 901; H. Zieren, Studien zum Teufelsbild in der deutschen Dichtung, Bonn 1937; A. Arrighini, Gli Angeli buoni e cattivi, Torino-Roma 1937, pp. 445-667; H. Gerber (H. Grüber), Les Toxik's Palladium's Roman, oder die «Erchbällungen» über Freimaurerei und Satanismus, 3 voll., Berlino 1937-38; A. Stolz, Theologia della mistica, trad. it., Brescia 1940, pp. 36-71 («L'importo di Satana»); J. M. Gage, Theologia antibagonalistica Cosmas Presbyteri Bulgari (sec. X), Roma 1942, pp. 183-85; H.-Ch. Puech, A. Vaillant, Le traité contre les Bagnoles de Cosmas le Prêtre, Parigi 1945, pp. 181-98; U. Dettore, S., in Diz. lett. Bonpiani d. Opere e di Personaggi, I, Milano 1947, pp. 260-64; G. Gabetti, Titanismo, ibid., pp. 327-32; E. Brouette, La civilisation chrétienne du XVIe siècle devant le problème satanique, in Satan (Etudes Carmel), Parigi 1948, pp. 352-85; R. Villeneuve, Bibliographie démoniaque, ibid., pp. 647-64 (ricca per i secc. XV-XIX, inesistente per il sec. XV); P. Zuntor, V. Hugo poète de Satan, ivi 1948; S. V. McClelland, By the Finger of God Demon and exorcism in early Christianity in the light of modern views of mental illness, Nuova York 1951; M. de la Bigne de Villeneuve, Satan dans la cité, Parigi 1951; P. Scortesco, Gog et Magog, ivi 1952.
«SATIRE MÉNIPPÉE», - Libello politico francese in forma di satira, il cui titolo fu ripreso dall'omonima opera varroniana. Fu pubblicato per la prima volta a Tours nel 1594.
La S. M. non fu opera di un solo, bensì di un gruppo di borghesi parigini, capeggiato da un consigliere ecclesiastico al Parlamento, J. Gillot. Gli appartenenti al gruppo erano tutti aderenti al partito dei moderati, e pertanto oppositori della Lega, ritenuta strumento d'intrusione straniera nelle cose di Francia. Fine politico del libello era la riconciliazione nazionale sotto l'autorità di Enrico IV. Lo spunto satirico era stato tratto dagli Stati Generali del 1593, ove erano emersi l'intrigo spagnolo e lorenese, nonché gli interni dissensi che minavano il partito della Lega. La parte essenziale dell'opera, che è una vivace mescolanza di versi e prosa, è costituita dalle arringhe degli oratori ai detti Stati Generali. Di tali oratori, quelli del 1° e del 2° Stato vi sono tratteggiati quasi comicamente, in una cornice aspramente satirica del costume politico e sociale dell'epoca. Nell'arringa del rappresentante del 3° Stato, M. d'Aubray, si risolve la tesi del libello, attraverso la parola di un uomo intelligente e di buon cuore, che profila un quadro sen-
sentitamente vissuto delle miserie di Parigi e lancia un caldo appello alla concordia nazionale.
Tale satira ha superato in successo ogni altra produzione politico-letteraria francese del sec. XVI, pur non senza suscitare aspre critiche di carattere politico e morale.
BBL.: ed. princeps, di J. Mettayer, Tours 1594; ed. di Ch. Labitte, con notizie sugli autori, Parigi 1811; ed. critica a cura di J. Franck, Oppeln 1884; F. Giroux, La composition de la t. m., Laon 1904.