What do you think?
Rate this book
The Devils of Loudun
In 1634 Urbain Grandier, a handsome and dissolute priest of the parish of Loudun was tried, tortured and burnt at the stake. He had been found guilty of conspiring with the devil to seduce an entire convent of nuns in what was the most sensational case of mass possession and sexual hysteria in history. Grandier maintained his innocence to the end and four years after his death the nuns were still being subjected to exorcisms to free them from their demonic bondage. Huxley's vivid account of this bizarre tale of religious and sexual obsession transforms our understanding of the medieval world.
400 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1952
About the author
Aldous Huxley
978 books12.3k followers
Brave New World
(1932), best-known work of British writer Aldous Leonard Huxley, paints a grim picture of a scientifically organized utopia.
This most prominent member of the famous Huxley family of England spent the part of his life from 1937 in Los Angeles in the United States until his death. Best known for his novels and wide-ranging output of essays, he also published short stories, poetry, travel writing, and film stories and scripts. Through novels and essays, Huxley functioned as an examiner and sometimes critic of social mores, norms and ideals. Spiritual subjects, such as parapsychology and philosophical mysticism, interested Huxley, a humanist, towards the end of his life. People widely acknowledged him as one of the pre-eminent intellectuals of his time before the end of his life.
This most prominent member of the famous Huxley family of England spent the part of his life from 1937 in Los Angeles in the United States until his death. Best known for his novels and wide-ranging output of essays, he also published short stories, poetry, travel writing, and film stories and scripts. Through novels and essays, Huxley functioned as an examiner and sometimes critic of social mores, norms and ideals. Spiritual subjects, such as parapsychology and philosophical mysticism, interested Huxley, a humanist, towards the end of his life. People widely acknowledged him as one of the pre-eminent intellectuals of his time before the end of his life.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 333 reviews
February 1, 2011
This is probably one of the most interesting and important books I've ever read.
Let me say first that (in spite of the tag-line) it actually has almost nothing to do with devils, or "demon possession" as such. I suspect it was billed as "A True Story of Demon Possession" in order to boost sales. It's lamentable for several reasons. One is simply that it misrepresents the book. I mean, if you're looking for something that deals with actual demon possession, or a piece of lurid fiction dealing with similar subject matter, this book probably isn't what you're looking for. And, if you're NOT interested in demon possession, the tag-line will keep you from reading the book. But I think the worst thing about it is that sales need to be boosted to begin with. This is a book that should be read. I mean, it's too bad more people haven't read or even heard of it.
It deals with actual events, that's true. It also deals with an alleged case of demon possession: that is also true. But it's not what it sounds like. A certain corrupt priest (Urbain Grandier) offended some people in high places, and ultimately he was accused of witchcraft and blamed for the "possession" of a convent full of Ursuline nuns. The possession was more likely hysteria. The sorcery charge was bunk, and most of the people involved understood this to be the case. So, on the face of it, the book is about the disastrous mix of Church and State in early 17th Century France. But that's not really what it's about, either. I mean, to bill it as a history book or a book about politics would be equally misguided.
Huxley uses this particular episode from history as an entry into a larger discussion about spiritual life. What is spirituality? What motivates it? He calls it self-transendence, and offers an in-depth discussion of some of the principles that are common to most religions. Not the simple stuff: I mean, it's not like he's just saying "most religions say that murder is wrong." He's talking about the need for an awareness of God, for the "Divine Ground" that unites everything, and the way that faith and works play into our attempts to connect to that awareness.
He discounts nothing. It's interesting, because at times he makes ironic or even sarcastic comments, and that's normally the refuge of a weaker writer, a writer who sneers at the world, dismisses the very idea of demon possession (or even plain old spirituality) as quaint fantasy. Huxley isn't dismissive. He cites well documented psychic phenomena (ESP, for example) as evidence of a world beyond the strictly physical world as we understand it. If it's possible that the human mind can tap into another mind, then those minds must share something on some non-physical level. One can not, therefore, rule out the possibility that a will (or an intellect) can exist on a non-physical level. There is no reason to believe that all such wills (that all "entities" existing outside the physical world as we know it) are well meaning and nice. Whether or not they're "demons" proper is sort of beside the point.
In case you're thinking this is all sort of dark, I should mention that he spends a lot of time emphasizing the positive (what he calls Original Virtue, rather than Original Sin). Original Sin he defines in terms of the human capacity for evil, Original Virtue, our capacity for good.
In case you're thinking this is all sort of flaky, I should mention that he also devotes considerable attention to psychology and psychiatry, as well. It's not as though he buys the idea of a spritual world without first exploring the possibility that some spiritual experiences are actually manifestations of mental disorders.
He also devotes considerable attention to matters of law, doctrine, et cetera.
At any rate, I'm not doing the book justice. There was no point at which I felt as though I was in the midst of a load of spooky b.s. It's never less than well researched and well reasoned. And it's sort of about everything. Politics, religion, spirituality, psychology, philosophy, history, society, art, justice, responsibility, sexuality, nature: everything. And it's all framed by this fascinating story about this priest and this convent and the political and personal intrigues that came together surrounding them.
The Devils of Loudun was first published in 1952, I think, and when I finished reading it, I thought about all the stuff I read in school, the critical theory that's come out of the academic community and the religious and political discourse that's come out since 1952, and I just felt like something had gone terribly wrong. That all that discourse is so pinheaded and narrow-minded. That there was this flash of intelligent thinking about the world in this book, and that somehow it's been neglected, that the conversation went in some other direction, and we've been in darkness ever since.
Maybe I just haven't read enough.
Probably I haven't read enough. But I've read a lot, and I've never run into anything quite like this before. It's brilliant. I cannot recommend it more highly.
Let me say first that (in spite of the tag-line) it actually has almost nothing to do with devils, or "demon possession" as such. I suspect it was billed as "A True Story of Demon Possession" in order to boost sales. It's lamentable for several reasons. One is simply that it misrepresents the book. I mean, if you're looking for something that deals with actual demon possession, or a piece of lurid fiction dealing with similar subject matter, this book probably isn't what you're looking for. And, if you're NOT interested in demon possession, the tag-line will keep you from reading the book. But I think the worst thing about it is that sales need to be boosted to begin with. This is a book that should be read. I mean, it's too bad more people haven't read or even heard of it.
It deals with actual events, that's true. It also deals with an alleged case of demon possession: that is also true. But it's not what it sounds like. A certain corrupt priest (Urbain Grandier) offended some people in high places, and ultimately he was accused of witchcraft and blamed for the "possession" of a convent full of Ursuline nuns. The possession was more likely hysteria. The sorcery charge was bunk, and most of the people involved understood this to be the case. So, on the face of it, the book is about the disastrous mix of Church and State in early 17th Century France. But that's not really what it's about, either. I mean, to bill it as a history book or a book about politics would be equally misguided.
Huxley uses this particular episode from history as an entry into a larger discussion about spiritual life. What is spirituality? What motivates it? He calls it self-transendence, and offers an in-depth discussion of some of the principles that are common to most religions. Not the simple stuff: I mean, it's not like he's just saying "most religions say that murder is wrong." He's talking about the need for an awareness of God, for the "Divine Ground" that unites everything, and the way that faith and works play into our attempts to connect to that awareness.
He discounts nothing. It's interesting, because at times he makes ironic or even sarcastic comments, and that's normally the refuge of a weaker writer, a writer who sneers at the world, dismisses the very idea of demon possession (or even plain old spirituality) as quaint fantasy. Huxley isn't dismissive. He cites well documented psychic phenomena (ESP, for example) as evidence of a world beyond the strictly physical world as we understand it. If it's possible that the human mind can tap into another mind, then those minds must share something on some non-physical level. One can not, therefore, rule out the possibility that a will (or an intellect) can exist on a non-physical level. There is no reason to believe that all such wills (that all "entities" existing outside the physical world as we know it) are well meaning and nice. Whether or not they're "demons" proper is sort of beside the point.
In case you're thinking this is all sort of dark, I should mention that he spends a lot of time emphasizing the positive (what he calls Original Virtue, rather than Original Sin). Original Sin he defines in terms of the human capacity for evil, Original Virtue, our capacity for good.
In case you're thinking this is all sort of flaky, I should mention that he also devotes considerable attention to psychology and psychiatry, as well. It's not as though he buys the idea of a spritual world without first exploring the possibility that some spiritual experiences are actually manifestations of mental disorders.
He also devotes considerable attention to matters of law, doctrine, et cetera.
At any rate, I'm not doing the book justice. There was no point at which I felt as though I was in the midst of a load of spooky b.s. It's never less than well researched and well reasoned. And it's sort of about everything. Politics, religion, spirituality, psychology, philosophy, history, society, art, justice, responsibility, sexuality, nature: everything. And it's all framed by this fascinating story about this priest and this convent and the political and personal intrigues that came together surrounding them.
The Devils of Loudun was first published in 1952, I think, and when I finished reading it, I thought about all the stuff I read in school, the critical theory that's come out of the academic community and the religious and political discourse that's come out since 1952, and I just felt like something had gone terribly wrong. That all that discourse is so pinheaded and narrow-minded. That there was this flash of intelligent thinking about the world in this book, and that somehow it's been neglected, that the conversation went in some other direction, and we've been in darkness ever since.
Maybe I just haven't read enough.
Probably I haven't read enough. But I've read a lot, and I've never run into anything quite like this before. It's brilliant. I cannot recommend it more highly.
May 11, 2022
شیاطین شهر لودون نوشته آلدوس هاکسلی را به سختی می توان یک رمان دانست ، بیشتر مانند مقاله ای طولانی ، خشک و خسته کننده ای ایست که برای پژوهشگران قرون وسطی نوشته شده و چندان مناسب مخاطب عام نیست . آنچه در قسمت مقاله کتاب می خوانیم تاریخ سخت خوانی از زندگی در فرانسه در قرن هفده بوده که جامعه به شدت تحت کنترل و تسلط کلیسا را نشان داده و دستگاه تفتیش عقاید است که قدرت را به معنای واقعی در اختیار دارد ، هاکسلی با استفاده مکرر از اشعار فرانسوی و لاتین و شرح تحلیل هایی از افراد مختلف که اکثریت آنان برای خواننده ناشناخته هستند افزون بر آنکه مطالعه کتاب سخت خوان خود را سخت تر کرده ، درک مفهوم کتاب را هم برای خواننده نگون بخت بسیار دشوار و شاید هم محال کرده است .
داستان کتاب هم در مورد کشیشی به نام گراندیه است که به جهت اغفال دختر یکی از دوستان خود و داشتن رابطه نامشروع با او ، به جادوگری و هم پیمانی با شیطان متهم می شود ، اتهامی که پذیرفتن آن بسیار آسان و عقوبت آن بسیار سنگین است . احتمالا هدف نویسنده از داستان کشیش گراندیه ، نشان دادن اندیشه های مذهبی و شاید هم سیاسی اروپا و رواج اندیشه های خرافی و اشتیاق توده های مردم به خشونت ، تماشای اعدام و شکنجه بوده . هاکسلی داستان یا مقاله خود یا ترکیب هر دو را به آهستگی و کندی و شرح انبوه جزئیات پیش برده ، جزئیاتی که اگر چه برای خواننده خسته کننده است اما شاید خواندن آنها برای یک محقق و یا پژوهشگر تاریخ اروپا بسیار جذاب و آموزنده باشد .
شیاطین شهر لودون کتابی ایست بسیار سخت خوان ، بدون کشش که احتمالا برای مخاطب عام نوشته نشده است ، اما شاید علاقه مندان تاریخ مذهب در اروپا و قرون وسطی مطالعه آن را جذاب و خوشایند بدانند .
داستان کتاب هم در مورد کشیشی به نام گراندیه است که به جهت اغفال دختر یکی از دوستان خود و داشتن رابطه نامشروع با او ، به جادوگری و هم پیمانی با شیطان متهم می شود ، اتهامی که پذیرفتن آن بسیار آسان و عقوبت آن بسیار سنگین است . احتمالا هدف نویسنده از داستان کشیش گراندیه ، نشان دادن اندیشه های مذهبی و شاید هم سیاسی اروپا و رواج اندیشه های خرافی و اشتیاق توده های مردم به خشونت ، تماشای اعدام و شکنجه بوده . هاکسلی داستان یا مقاله خود یا ترکیب هر دو را به آهستگی و کندی و شرح انبوه جزئیات پیش برده ، جزئیاتی که اگر چه برای خواننده خسته کننده است اما شاید خواندن آنها برای یک محقق و یا پژوهشگر تاریخ اروپا بسیار جذاب و آموزنده باشد .
شیاطین شهر لودون کتابی ایست بسیار سخت خوان ، بدون کشش که احتمالا برای مخاطب عام نوشته نشده است ، اما شاید علاقه مندان تاریخ مذهب در اروپا و قرون وسطی مطالعه آن را جذاب و خوشایند بدانند .
October 29, 2020
This book was so well known in its day that it was adapted into both a play and a film, though I hadn’t previously heard of the events described. It’s one of those books that falls on the boundary of fiction and non-fiction. It relates actual events, but also contains a great deal of speculation, particularly around motive. I found it very uneven. Some parts were very good, other parts were awful.
The book examines the psychology behind a six-year period of supposed demonic possession that affected a group of 17 French nuns in the years 1632-38. The nuns put the blame for summoning the demons on a local priest, Urbain Grandier, a dandy and a ladies’ man, and by all accounts an insufferably arrogant individual. He had made an enemy of the all-powerful Cardinal Richelieu. Huxley notes that there many witch trials in France at the time, but this was the only one in which Richelieu was known to have taken a personal interest. Grandier was horrifically tortured before being burnt alive. Whatever his personal faults, he showed remarkable courage and dignity during his last days.
Huxley suggests that the behaviour of the nuns arose from a mix of erotic fantasy and mass hysteria, with Grandier as the subject for the fantasy. It may have started like that, but I think Richelieu took advantage of the situation to get rid of the annoying priest, and probably arranged for them to identify Grandier as the person calling forth the devils. Huxley himself acknowledges there is plenty of evidence to suggest the nuns could turn the possession act on and off whenever they wanted.
“The nuns were far gone in hysteria, but never so far gone as to forget which side their bread was buttered. Throughout the possession, as Dr. Legué has pointed out, God, Christ and the Virgin were constantly blasphemed, but never Louis XIII and never, above all, His Eminence. The good sisters knew well enough that, against Heaven, they could let off steam with impunity. But if they were rude to the Cardinal . . . Well, see what was happening to M. Grandier.”
There’s a lot of good stuff in the book about belief in sorcery, the behaviour of mobs, and the dangers of idealism. Writing in 1952, Huxley was well aware of the parallels between the hatreds of the 17th century and his own time.
“Today it is everywhere self-evident that we are on the side of Light, they on the side of Darkness. And being on the side of Darkness, they deserve to be punished and must be liquidated ...”
Unfortunately, other parts of the book were much less impressive. Huxley wanders off on long and rambling discourses regarding his interest in mysticism, clairvoyance, and general spirituality. We end up with paragraphs like the one below:
“In doctrine, the extravagances of Jansenist Augustinianism were tempered by a dose of semi-Pelagian common sense. (At other periods the extravagances of Pelagianism—those of Helvétius, for example, those of J. B. Watson and Lysenko in our own day—have had to be tempered by appropriate doses of semi-Augustinian common sense.)”
I appreciate that others will have more an interest in these themes than I do, but I found these chapters both unconvincing and boring.
To end on a positive note, I was impressed by one of Huxley’s arguments, that it is dangerous to be motivated more by being against something, than to be for something. As he puts it, “Every crusader is apt to go mad. He is haunted by the wickedness which he attributes to his enemies; it becomes in some sort a part of him.”
I think’s that’s a message that I will bear in mind.
The book examines the psychology behind a six-year period of supposed demonic possession that affected a group of 17 French nuns in the years 1632-38. The nuns put the blame for summoning the demons on a local priest, Urbain Grandier, a dandy and a ladies’ man, and by all accounts an insufferably arrogant individual. He had made an enemy of the all-powerful Cardinal Richelieu. Huxley notes that there many witch trials in France at the time, but this was the only one in which Richelieu was known to have taken a personal interest. Grandier was horrifically tortured before being burnt alive. Whatever his personal faults, he showed remarkable courage and dignity during his last days.
Huxley suggests that the behaviour of the nuns arose from a mix of erotic fantasy and mass hysteria, with Grandier as the subject for the fantasy. It may have started like that, but I think Richelieu took advantage of the situation to get rid of the annoying priest, and probably arranged for them to identify Grandier as the person calling forth the devils. Huxley himself acknowledges there is plenty of evidence to suggest the nuns could turn the possession act on and off whenever they wanted.
“The nuns were far gone in hysteria, but never so far gone as to forget which side their bread was buttered. Throughout the possession, as Dr. Legué has pointed out, God, Christ and the Virgin were constantly blasphemed, but never Louis XIII and never, above all, His Eminence. The good sisters knew well enough that, against Heaven, they could let off steam with impunity. But if they were rude to the Cardinal . . . Well, see what was happening to M. Grandier.”
There’s a lot of good stuff in the book about belief in sorcery, the behaviour of mobs, and the dangers of idealism. Writing in 1952, Huxley was well aware of the parallels between the hatreds of the 17th century and his own time.
“Today it is everywhere self-evident that we are on the side of Light, they on the side of Darkness. And being on the side of Darkness, they deserve to be punished and must be liquidated ...”
Unfortunately, other parts of the book were much less impressive. Huxley wanders off on long and rambling discourses regarding his interest in mysticism, clairvoyance, and general spirituality. We end up with paragraphs like the one below:
“In doctrine, the extravagances of Jansenist Augustinianism were tempered by a dose of semi-Pelagian common sense. (At other periods the extravagances of Pelagianism—those of Helvétius, for example, those of J. B. Watson and Lysenko in our own day—have had to be tempered by appropriate doses of semi-Augustinian common sense.)”
I appreciate that others will have more an interest in these themes than I do, but I found these chapters both unconvincing and boring.
To end on a positive note, I was impressed by one of Huxley’s arguments, that it is dangerous to be motivated more by being against something, than to be for something. As he puts it, “Every crusader is apt to go mad. He is haunted by the wickedness which he attributes to his enemies; it becomes in some sort a part of him.”
I think’s that’s a message that I will bear in mind.
Want to read
June 28, 2019Oliver Sacks mentions this work in his book Hallucinations for its depiction of groups experiencing mass delusions. I do not know if Arthur Miller read this when working on his play The Crucible, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
April 23, 2019
Not about devils, really, but about mass hysteria and the psychological roots of religious ecstasy, mania, and spirituality itself. This is the story of the philandering priest Urbane Grandier of Loudun, in 17th Century France, who was burnt at the stake for causing the demonic possession of a whole nunnery. The problem was, even his death did not send the devils away.
If you read this as horror aficionado looking for devils (like I did in my early twenties), you are going to be disappointed. (No devils were harmed in the making of this book.) Stirring stuff, otherwise.
If you read this as horror aficionado looking for devils (like I did in my early twenties), you are going to be disappointed. (No devils were harmed in the making of this book.) Stirring stuff, otherwise.
May 15, 2013
I first read this book in high school and it made a great impression on me. Huxley’s account of the Church’s investigation into demonic possession in a seventeenth century French town is a disturbing example of institutional abuse, sexual repression, and political ambition. I’ve never found such a riveting account surrounding the torture and execution of the priest Urbain Grandier. (Admittedly, I haven’t looked very hard.) At the time I first read this work I was also researching a paper on church doctrine, and had just read an English translation of the Malleus Maleficarum. That school term was a bit depressing, what with all the reminders of how incredibly shitty people can be in the interest of doing the right and proper thing. I recently came across the Devils of Loudun again and decided to reread it. This was a good move. Huxley is adept in describing the complex web of events that led up to Grandier’s arrest and trial, and his detailed description of the poor man’s execution would make anyone beg off extra crispy fried anything for a few months. As one would expect from a talent as chubby as Huxley’s, the author resists applying modern sensibilities to historical characters. He carefully, almost relentlessly exposes the self-serving motives of the people involved without resorting to the complacency of hindsight. Although not a work of fiction, his narrative style helps the reader feel that they are witnessing the events and, my god this is not a happy experience. As a mature reader I more fully appreciate the behavior of the Ursuline nuns who Grandier was supposed to have corrupted. The damaging and hysterical testimony of the Mother Superior in particular, was born of the severe sexual, political, and societal constraints placed on women at the time. Grandier, an arrogant bon vivant, was at most guilty of being incredibly foolish by alienating the great and powerful Richelieu. Laubardemont, who was of the same family as the Mother Superior, abdicated personal responsibility in the course of his actions with the same ruthless efficiency as a Nazi prison guard. The community in which the trail and execution took place provides an example of group think and mass hysteria, reminding me how little we have changed in the last three hundred years. It would be a mistake to consider this story as only an example of popery at its worst, because then you’d miss the larger message. It’s about us, and how we fool ourselves into thinking that an atrocity is okay as long as we have a bright and shiny scaffold of excuses to justify our behavior. Yet rereading the text somehow did not depress me this time. Perhaps my coping mechanisms have matured along with the rest of me, or it could be that I knew what to expect. This story was made into a Ken Russell film in the seventies called, The Devils. I find the film kinda meh, except for the intelligent performance of Vanessa Redgrave as the Mother Superior. I have mentioned the Devils of Loudun throughout the years and find that most people know nothing of it. For the life of me I cannot fathom why more people have not read this book. It is one of Huxley’s finest.
August 14, 2021
Un saggio romanzato o un romanzo saggistico. Sta di fatto che l'incedere lento e pastoso di questo scritto mette spesso a dura prova la pazienza del lettore. Sicuramente molto erudito, sicuramente molto ducumentato, sicuramente molto ben scritto altrettanto sicuramente senza anima. Non comunica nulla. Non ha ne' l'afflato del romanzo ne' il passo del saggio. Seppur percorso da una tenue e ingenua vena di humor (troppo British), questo libro non riesce mai a coinvolgere veramente e a convogliare una vera passione. I personaggi rimangono cosi' descritti semplicemente sulla carta, non comunicano nulla di piu' di cio' che compiono, quasi fossimo alle prese con la lettura di un'antologia di storia per le scuole. Una delusione, per quello che viene definito il capolavoro del pur grande Huxley.
January 2, 2011
This book requires much of the reader and makes no concession to popularity. It speaks to a reader devoted to truth and careful analysis who holds the author and the reader to superlative standards. I can't begin to claim to fully measure up to that standard but the reader for whom this book was written would scoff a criticism of the language or presentation as too demanding. The abundance of data, however obscure, would be expected not criticised.
Huxley made a deep survey into the theology of the day of the trial. He defined what that theology understood as the nature of soul. He examines the evidence offered in the trial in light of that standard. It is a very focused study. Huxley avoided the historicist fallacy of criticizing the condemnation of Grandier based upon the values and knowledge of his day. He could have drawn generalized conclusions but, instead, he takes the more specific approach of condemning only the finding of this trial. Huxley does make references to his ideas and values but they are not essential to his conclusion.
It's difficult to show sympathy for Grandier when he seduced and abandoned Philippe after getting her pregnant. Its difficult to excuse Grandier's dereliction of trust after his friend Louis Trincant had placed his daugher under Grandier's care. However, Aldous examines the case for which Grandier was tried, not his general character. It's a master work of self control and restraint.
The Devils of Loudun is still an important book for out time. The crushing of Grandier's legs and his burning alive show the unforgiving malevolence of which fundamentalists are capable when placed in power and have the freedom to use that power, not for the public good but for their own personal privilege.
> >
Huxley made a deep survey into the theology of the day of the trial. He defined what that theology understood as the nature of soul. He examines the evidence offered in the trial in light of that standard. It is a very focused study. Huxley avoided the historicist fallacy of criticizing the condemnation of Grandier based upon the values and knowledge of his day. He could have drawn generalized conclusions but, instead, he takes the more specific approach of condemning only the finding of this trial. Huxley does make references to his ideas and values but they are not essential to his conclusion.
It's difficult to show sympathy for Grandier when he seduced and abandoned Philippe after getting her pregnant. Its difficult to excuse Grandier's dereliction of trust after his friend Louis Trincant had placed his daugher under Grandier's care. However, Aldous examines the case for which Grandier was tried, not his general character. It's a master work of self control and restraint.
The Devils of Loudun is still an important book for out time. The crushing of Grandier's legs and his burning alive show the unforgiving malevolence of which fundamentalists are capable when placed in power and have the freedom to use that power, not for the public good but for their own personal privilege.
> >
July 29, 2019
A challenging read, not least because it deals with some of the worst of human behaviour in a way that is depressingly recognisable. It's challenging too in the sense of straddling multiple genres, which can be a great thing in literature but is problematic when it comes to history.
Huxley takes, to put it mildly, quite a few liberties with the source material. His skill as a writer compounds the difficulty of knowing when one is reading genuine source-based historical narrative versus literary embellishment, philosophising and pure fiction. This is disorientating, occasionally irritating and also intellectually problematic given that one of the purposes of the book seems to be as a sort of manifesto for Huxley’s views about perception and mysticism.
All of that said, this is a fascinating and thought-provoking book if read with one’s critical faculties fully switched on. I wouldn’t call it history - “based on true events” would probably be nearer the mark - but would have absolutely no idea where else to shelve it in a book shop or library.
Huxley takes, to put it mildly, quite a few liberties with the source material. His skill as a writer compounds the difficulty of knowing when one is reading genuine source-based historical narrative versus literary embellishment, philosophising and pure fiction. This is disorientating, occasionally irritating and also intellectually problematic given that one of the purposes of the book seems to be as a sort of manifesto for Huxley’s views about perception and mysticism.
All of that said, this is a fascinating and thought-provoking book if read with one’s critical faculties fully switched on. I wouldn’t call it history - “based on true events” would probably be nearer the mark - but would have absolutely no idea where else to shelve it in a book shop or library.
June 27, 2022
There's a Brazilian saying that goes "de poeta e de louco todo mundo tem um pouco". (Everyone has a touch of the poet and madman inside". When I repeated this to a Brazilian girlfriend she told me I was only one---mad.) Huxley's THE DEVILS OF LOUDON is based on a true historical even in 1634 France, and if you want to read it at face value the novel treats mass hysteria, in this case a priest is accused, and needless to say executed, for inducing dozens of nuns at Loudon into sexual debaucharie with him and themselves. Yet anyone who has read Huxley knows this is just the tip of the iceberg. THE DEVILS can also be interpreted as a parable of fascism, much as Wilhelm Reich joined sexuality to totalitarian politics in THE MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM. Or, we can examine two films inspired by the same spectacle. The 1960s Polish film ST. JOAN OF THE ANGELS treats this incident to indict the Catholic Church for its misogyny---one scene shows a group of priests waving their phallic crucifixes over supine nuns---while Ken Russell's THE DEVILS, from the 1970s, demonstrates how rebellion and hysteria can be useful to the state if channeled in the right direction---Richelieu exploits the outbreak of sexual freedom at Loudon by the nuns (read hippies) to build a more dictatorial regime around Louis XIII (read the state in the West). What hath Huxley wrought?
November 12, 2021
People want to burn books. People want to shoot other people. People want to beat you with their Bibles. It happened then and it's happening now. Happiness is a locked door, or as Cold Cave sang, "People Are Poison".
Aldous mentions a mental syndrome called Bovarism which references Gustave Flaubert's classic novel Madame Bovary, where someone is so self-delusional they imagine themselves to be the very opposite of what they really are, eg. a bloated numbskull who imagines himself to be a financial wizard and a great political leader. Anyone come to mind, folks? Everyone's hands are up in the air. Gee!
So now Aldous has labeled super-religious phonies conducting witch hunts that persecute innocent people as “Inarticulate Public Opinion”. So glad we don’t have that going on anymore.
Don't know if this counts as a spoiler, but when I reached the part about the Mother Superior receiving an enema as part of her exorcism and having it held in public view as a spectator event, well Aldous may have topped his LSD reporting in terms of literary outrage.
The Devils of Loudun ends with a striking Appendix that goes deep into the psychology of mob hysteria, points made to explain why witch hunting was such a widespread panic back in the day. “No such scruples restrain the revolutionary leader, who hates the status quo and has only one wish – to create a chaos on which, when he comes to power, he may impose a new kind of order”.
Aldous mentions a mental syndrome called Bovarism which references Gustave Flaubert's classic novel Madame Bovary, where someone is so self-delusional they imagine themselves to be the very opposite of what they really are, eg. a bloated numbskull who imagines himself to be a financial wizard and a great political leader. Anyone come to mind, folks? Everyone's hands are up in the air. Gee!
So now Aldous has labeled super-religious phonies conducting witch hunts that persecute innocent people as “Inarticulate Public Opinion”. So glad we don’t have that going on anymore.
Don't know if this counts as a spoiler, but when I reached the part about the Mother Superior receiving an enema as part of her exorcism and having it held in public view as a spectator event, well Aldous may have topped his LSD reporting in terms of literary outrage.
The Devils of Loudun ends with a striking Appendix that goes deep into the psychology of mob hysteria, points made to explain why witch hunting was such a widespread panic back in the day. “No such scruples restrain the revolutionary leader, who hates the status quo and has only one wish – to create a chaos on which, when he comes to power, he may impose a new kind of order”.
June 25, 2014
Huxley's, The Devils of Loudun, reading as easily as a well-written novel, purports to be the true story of a seventeenth century case of witchcraft in France. At one level it is the biography of Urbain Grandier, the Catholic priest so condemned. On another, it is an examination of mass psycho-sexual psychosis as represented in such cases--and of the religious bases for the underlying repression. On yet another, it is a mystery, exploring the possible motives of the main players in the drama in the context of the hegemonizing Catholic nation-state and its executive head at the time, Cardinal Richelieu. On all three levels it worked for me.
Ken Russell's film adaptation of the book, entitled The Devils (1971), also deserves note as a fine piece of work which manages to survey all three levels of the narrative outlined above. In my opinion, it is Russell's best film and one of Oliver Reed's best roles. See it.
Ken Russell's film adaptation of the book, entitled The Devils (1971), also deserves note as a fine piece of work which manages to survey all three levels of the narrative outlined above. In my opinion, it is Russell's best film and one of Oliver Reed's best roles. See it.
November 25, 2016
I read the story of Loudun demonic possessions in so many renderings. It's just the kind of a story that shocks and fascinates with every its turn, that compresses so much of the darkness and nastiness a human is capable of. It's the case when a true story is more complex and amazing than any fiction can be.
I never thought one could tell this story in such a dry, dull, monotone way as Aldous Huxley did. I mean how - how can one suck all life out of a story that is overfilled with passions.
Okay, I certainly expected something different from this book. Had I wanted to read about Aldous Huxley and his endless musings, ideas and opinions on theology, spirituality, politics, etc. ... Sorry, but I didn't. And I didn't like this book at all.
I never thought one could tell this story in such a dry, dull, monotone way as Aldous Huxley did. I mean how - how can one suck all life out of a story that is overfilled with passions.
Okay, I certainly expected something different from this book. Had I wanted to read about Aldous Huxley and his endless musings, ideas and opinions on theology, spirituality, politics, etc. ... Sorry, but I didn't. And I didn't like this book at all.
April 5, 2022
Açıkçası daha tarihi bir roman beklerken, roman yapısından uzak başarılı bir dönem/olay incelemesi ile karşılaşınca şaşırdım. Biraz anlatı dağınık da olsa, tüm olayı ve olayın kahramanlarını detaylı olarak aktarmayı başarmış. Kitap, Hristiyanlığın pek çok kolunu başarılı olarak açıklayabilmiş ve diğer dinlerle benzer ve farklılıklarına değinebilmiş. Ayrıca insanın her anlamda aşırılıklarının, kendisini ve toplumu nasıl etkilyebileceğini de net bir şekilde açıklamış.
January 5, 2021
Incredible. And don't miss the Appendix, on man's urge to self-transcendence, crowd-delirium, and 'horizontal self-transcendence'.
June 14, 2021
This book was described in another I read as being semi-fictional - having read it, I can see what they mean. In places, the author imagines how things must have been between people where no record exists of their interactions or in some cases their private thoughts and emotions.
The book starts off as being about the campaign against Urbain Grandier, a parish priest in the town of Loudun who was unpopular with many influential men due to his arrogance - he once insisted on precedence in a church parade over a visiting prelate who was technically his superior (something that cost him dearly years later when the man he snubbed had great power and a long memory for a grudge) - and his tendency to seduce female parishioners. The clergy had always had a poor reputation up until the middle ages, with many monks etc having common law wives, but by the 17th century, the Catholic church was trying to clean up its house as part of the Counter Reformation. Grandier's tendency to be his own worst enemy told against him when he made an implacable enemy out of a former friend due to this behaviour. He was also advised on a couple of occasions to obtain a posting elsewhere and leave town, but would not believe that his enemies could prevail against him. The author believes he loved disputation too much - he was embroiled in various court cases - but this can only be guesswork.
Originally thwarted in their attempts to ruin him, his enemies finally came up with the more drastic idea of staging a demonic possession of the local nuns who had become obsessed with his reputation although they had never actually seen him. The nuns blamed Grandier who became condemned as a sorceror, and the author spells out the involvement of various enemies of Grandier's and their cynicism in accusing him. His fate is truly horrific. The book then rather loses focus as it meanders on, describing the subsequent career of the various actors involved in the possessions, and includes a lot of material on a priest called Surin who was called in subsequently and had his own neuroses which became much worse due to his involvement. An appendix gives the author's ideas on the psychology of crowds and mass hysteria although rather belabouring the point I felt.
A weakness of the book is that there are no footnotes as would be usual in a historical account. There is only a bibliography of works consulted. So it isn't possible to tell exactly what certain assertions by the author are based upon. There is also quite a lot of untranslated French, references to very obscure people in history, and a lot of material at one point about spirituality but written in a style rather like Pseud's Corner from Private Eye. So although the material about Grandier is fascinating, the book balances out overall for me at a 3 star rating.
The book starts off as being about the campaign against Urbain Grandier, a parish priest in the town of Loudun who was unpopular with many influential men due to his arrogance - he once insisted on precedence in a church parade over a visiting prelate who was technically his superior (something that cost him dearly years later when the man he snubbed had great power and a long memory for a grudge) - and his tendency to seduce female parishioners. The clergy had always had a poor reputation up until the middle ages, with many monks etc having common law wives, but by the 17th century, the Catholic church was trying to clean up its house as part of the Counter Reformation. Grandier's tendency to be his own worst enemy told against him when he made an implacable enemy out of a former friend due to this behaviour. He was also advised on a couple of occasions to obtain a posting elsewhere and leave town, but would not believe that his enemies could prevail against him. The author believes he loved disputation too much - he was embroiled in various court cases - but this can only be guesswork.
Originally thwarted in their attempts to ruin him, his enemies finally came up with the more drastic idea of staging a demonic possession of the local nuns who had become obsessed with his reputation although they had never actually seen him. The nuns blamed Grandier who became condemned as a sorceror, and the author spells out the involvement of various enemies of Grandier's and their cynicism in accusing him. His fate is truly horrific. The book then rather loses focus as it meanders on, describing the subsequent career of the various actors involved in the possessions, and includes a lot of material on a priest called Surin who was called in subsequently and had his own neuroses which became much worse due to his involvement. An appendix gives the author's ideas on the psychology of crowds and mass hysteria although rather belabouring the point I felt.
A weakness of the book is that there are no footnotes as would be usual in a historical account. There is only a bibliography of works consulted. So it isn't possible to tell exactly what certain assertions by the author are based upon. There is also quite a lot of untranslated French, references to very obscure people in history, and a lot of material at one point about spirituality but written in a style rather like Pseud's Corner from Private Eye. So although the material about Grandier is fascinating, the book balances out overall for me at a 3 star rating.
December 31, 2022
I expected this book to more readable and more interesting, especially because of “Brave New World”. Here Huxley goes off on wild tangents and often quotes in French - assuming the reader understands it. Anyway I’m giving up. I will try Dumas’s book about Urbain Grandier and the Loudun “possessions”.
March 21, 2017
The Devils of Loudun. This book left me speechless; contemplating days after I had finished it. Huxley's insight into the theology of Christianity is whole in its entirety. There is no stone left unturned in this gruesome account of alleged demonic possession which led to numerous botched exorcisms. The incident Initially onset by townhood pranksters, turned into political ammunition for taking down a Catholic priest who once considered himself the hierarchy of Loudun. Through Urbain Grandier's lustful shortcomings he garners enemies for taking advantage not only the fine prioresses of the region; some of whom are daughters of important men in the clergy, but also manipulating those apart and following the church in a didactic fashion. Becoming a man of hypocrisy his enemies multiply until a cabal is formed in his honor; with the sole mission of destroying Urbain.
Through never-ending trials and appeals, enough 'subjective' evidence is garnered to sell the court on the 'fact' that Urbain is guilty of sorcery and was the reason why the Loudun nuns and the prioress were possessed. Once found guilty he was forced to admit his guilt within the final minutes of his life. He would not succumb to confess that he was a sorcerer yet he had confessed to his earlier crimes against the church. Through painstaking torture, Urbain continues to refuse to admit. With this Labramont gets frustrated and manipulates the confession by saying that one who is possessed can not tell the truth and continues with the execution. With Urbain burnt to a crisp on the stake, the cabal seems relatively happy. That is until a good majority involved became possessed themselves seemingly out the vengeful righteousness of god/the devil.
Throughout the book Huxley pivots from one person/topic to another depending on the point he is trying to bring to lite. What I enjoyed most about his way of writing is that he will explain both sides of every story and continue to be loyal to the objective view at the same time. Biases are heard throughout the book, but not without its adjoining counterpoint. I also enjoyed how in the end he was able to bring us back to the original thesis in regard to how our decisions play a larger role in our endless search for transcendence other than what we choose to project from our cherry picked beliefs.
I overall loved this book. If you like Huxley, 17th Century France, or interested in the history of Catholicism or Theology I would highly recommend this book.
Through never-ending trials and appeals, enough 'subjective' evidence is garnered to sell the court on the 'fact' that Urbain is guilty of sorcery and was the reason why the Loudun nuns and the prioress were possessed. Once found guilty he was forced to admit his guilt within the final minutes of his life. He would not succumb to confess that he was a sorcerer yet he had confessed to his earlier crimes against the church. Through painstaking torture, Urbain continues to refuse to admit. With this Labramont gets frustrated and manipulates the confession by saying that one who is possessed can not tell the truth and continues with the execution. With Urbain burnt to a crisp on the stake, the cabal seems relatively happy. That is until a good majority involved became possessed themselves seemingly out the vengeful righteousness of god/the devil.
Throughout the book Huxley pivots from one person/topic to another depending on the point he is trying to bring to lite. What I enjoyed most about his way of writing is that he will explain both sides of every story and continue to be loyal to the objective view at the same time. Biases are heard throughout the book, but not without its adjoining counterpoint. I also enjoyed how in the end he was able to bring us back to the original thesis in regard to how our decisions play a larger role in our endless search for transcendence other than what we choose to project from our cherry picked beliefs.
I overall loved this book. If you like Huxley, 17th Century France, or interested in the history of Catholicism or Theology I would highly recommend this book.
August 19, 2019
A very readable account of this famous case of mass hysteria at times amusing and horrifying. Huxley uses original documents to create his narrative, which falls somewhere between fact and fiction.
He takes the three main characters, Souer Jeanne, Urbain Grandier and Jean-Joseph Surin and humanizes them, demonstrating the foibles in each (manipulation, arrogance and zeal respectively) that led to the appalling/ludicrous 'trial' and its aftermath. This could be incredibly dry stuff but there are some fascinating asides and little facts that keep the reader interested and the quotes from eyewitnesses to the events are wonderful. The whole book is very evocative of its period
In the appendix Huxley consolidates themes that he touches on the main body of the book, commenting on ecstasy, crowd control by regimes of all persuasions and the human need for some sort of transcendence, written just prior to his famous accounts of experiments with mescaline. His thoughts seem just as valid today, though what he says had been said by many prior to him.
My (original) edition has quite a lot of untranslated French in it- I believe later editions don't.
The reason it is not five stars is because some of the digressions are a little overlong and slow the book down a little. I think they would have been better integrated into the appendix, this is my minor quibble.
Highly recommended to anyone interested in crowd theory, or demonic possession.
He takes the three main characters, Souer Jeanne, Urbain Grandier and Jean-Joseph Surin and humanizes them, demonstrating the foibles in each (manipulation, arrogance and zeal respectively) that led to the appalling/ludicrous 'trial' and its aftermath. This could be incredibly dry stuff but there are some fascinating asides and little facts that keep the reader interested and the quotes from eyewitnesses to the events are wonderful. The whole book is very evocative of its period
In the appendix Huxley consolidates themes that he touches on the main body of the book, commenting on ecstasy, crowd control by regimes of all persuasions and the human need for some sort of transcendence, written just prior to his famous accounts of experiments with mescaline. His thoughts seem just as valid today, though what he says had been said by many prior to him.
My (original) edition has quite a lot of untranslated French in it- I believe later editions don't.
The reason it is not five stars is because some of the digressions are a little overlong and slow the book down a little. I think they would have been better integrated into the appendix, this is my minor quibble.
Highly recommended to anyone interested in crowd theory, or demonic possession.
May 17, 2011
A tasty combination of history, theology, and psychology, rolled up in a greasy tortilla of religious hysteria and garnished with Huxley's twin trademarks of (1) haughty contempt for the stupidity and gullibility of the unwashed masses and (2) sexsexsex. Conceivably a reader could be pretty scandalized/mortified by the content of this book... but really, who these days thinks that people didn't treat each other like total shite in the 17th century, that organized religion hasn't historically been an astonishingly fertile source of depravity and woe, or that priests don't have sex?
Reading this produces the interesting sensation of having digested a number of closely related yet separate books, in the time it takes to read one book... it's like an entire intro-level college course on early modern European history, distilled down to one particular case study in one book. I'd say it verges on five-star territory, except that toward the end, Huxley drops the narrative more or less entirely, switches into full-strength Huxley Bloviation mode, and continues on with the bloviating for longer than necessary, which makes the book as a whole a little more exhausting to read than it needed to be.
Reading this produces the interesting sensation of having digested a number of closely related yet separate books, in the time it takes to read one book... it's like an entire intro-level college course on early modern European history, distilled down to one particular case study in one book. I'd say it verges on five-star territory, except that toward the end, Huxley drops the narrative more or less entirely, switches into full-strength Huxley Bloviation mode, and continues on with the bloviating for longer than necessary, which makes the book as a whole a little more exhausting to read than it needed to be.
July 2, 2023
شیاطین شهر لودون یه کتاب تاریخی با نثر به نسبت سنگین که روایتگر زندگی تو عصر قدرت و جلال کلیساست. جایی که مردم اعتقاد دارن مسیح تو وجود تک تک کشیشا رخنه کرده و صد البته باید گوش به حرفشون بود. کتاب با کشیشی به اسم گراندیه شروع میشه، کسی که استاد سو استفاده از جایگاهش برای رسیدن به میل جنسی و خواسته های خودشه. چند فصل اول روایتگر اتفاقات عجیب و غریبی که نقش اول اونا کشیش جوون ما گراندیهست. قضیه تا اونجایی بیخ پیدا میکنه که گراندیه بهترین دوستش رو میکنه بدترین دشمنش.
تو ادامه روایت تلخ و عجیبی از توطئه چینی، تهمت، دادگاه های مسخره و توهمی به اسم جادو و جادوگری میبینیم. قدرت عنصری به اسم توهم و خیال که سرتاسر ادامه کتاب رو تا اخر تحت شعاع خودش قرار میده. نثر نویسنده کتاب به شدت خشک و کسل کنندهست، گاهی جذاب و خوندنیم هست اما کلیت کتاب رو شامل نمیشه.
تو ادامه روایت تلخ و عجیبی از توطئه چینی، تهمت، دادگاه های مسخره و توهمی به اسم جادو و جادوگری میبینیم. قدرت عنصری به اسم توهم و خیال که سرتاسر ادامه کتاب رو تا اخر تحت شعاع خودش قرار میده. نثر نویسنده کتاب به شدت خشک و کسل کنندهست، گاهی جذاب و خوندنیم هست اما کلیت کتاب رو شامل نمیشه.
February 12, 2018
The Devils of Loudun is a fascinating historical account, written like a fiction, detailing a scandalous affair in 1630s France. A priest is falsely accused of cursing a convent of nuns, causing them to be possessed by demons. Addressing the catastrophic dangers posed by religious hysteria, this book is by no means an attack on the Christian faith. Rather, it is an incredibly insightful meditation on the pious life, the ordeals of the devout, and the mysterious workings of God. Equally disturbing as it is moving, I found it rivetting. One of the best I have read this year.
August 27, 2023
This non-fiction story revolves around the priest Grandier and his efforts to fight for the continued freedom and self determination of his town and it's people Loudun during medieval France.
In an effort to rip this control from Grandier the powers that be used witchcraft and fear as a weapon against him.
A bit hard to follow along at times, the story doesn't fall short or pull punches in using all the fears, superstitions and rumor mongering of the times to tell the story. The story can be brutal at points and a bit over the top in violence I do think they reflect the times accurately.
Not for me as the story has no originality and is a bit long winded in it's telling.
In an effort to rip this control from Grandier the powers that be used witchcraft and fear as a weapon against him.
A bit hard to follow along at times, the story doesn't fall short or pull punches in using all the fears, superstitions and rumor mongering of the times to tell the story. The story can be brutal at points and a bit over the top in violence I do think they reflect the times accurately.
Not for me as the story has no originality and is a bit long winded in it's telling.
August 21, 2023
Oricât de interesant mi s-a părut subiectul, nu am putut deloc să mă acomodez cu stilul autorului. Unele pagini au fost pură agonie pentru mine. Nu am sărit pur și simplu peste ele pentru că mă gândeam să nu omit informații despre ce se presupunea că este subiectul cărții, dar apoi am ajuns la scena execuției lui Grandier, peste care Huxley a trecut în maximum zece pagini. Numeroase citate plictisitoare și inutile, o mulțime de divagații, comentarii despre textele unor oameni insignifianți pentru poveste și chiar și pentru istorie. Dacă ar fi fost redusă la jumătate, ar fi fost o lectură total diferită. Nu o pot recomanda decât celor care vor să citească muuulte detalii despre Biserica Catolică, religie și întâmplări irelevante (cel puțin pentru mine) din secolul al XVII-lea. Totuși, voi căuta distopiile autorului. Recenzia aici: https://shorturl.at/iCER2.
,,Faptul de a fi parte dintr-o mulțime îl eliberează pe om de conștiința de a fi un sine izolat și îl coboară pe un tărâm subpersonal, unde nu există răspundere, unde nu există bine și rău, unde nu e nevoie să gândești, să judeci, să ai discernământ - ci doar un sentiment vag, dar puternic de comuniune, doar o agitație comună, o alienare colectivă.''
,,Faptul de a fi parte dintr-o mulțime îl eliberează pe om de conștiința de a fi un sine izolat și îl coboară pe un tărâm subpersonal, unde nu există răspundere, unde nu există bine și rău, unde nu e nevoie să gândești, să judeci, să ai discernământ - ci doar un sentiment vag, dar puternic de comuniune, doar o agitație comună, o alienare colectivă.''
March 10, 2023
Lol this was so whack, all because this one priest couldn’t keep it in his pants
July 27, 2013
Excellent book - occasionally gets "into the weeds." A fascinating story. Don't skip the epilogue - it has some excellent insights on important issues.
Here is the best quote from the book.
"In the briefly liberal nineteenth century [learned men] found it difficult not merely to forgive, but even to understand the savagery with which sorcerers had once been treated. Too hard on the past, they were at the same time too complacent about their present and far too optimistic in regard to the future - to us! They were rationalists who fondly imagined that the decay of traditional religion would put an end to such deviltries as the persecution of heretics, the torture and burning of witches.
But looking back and up, from our vantage point on the descending road of modern history, we now see that all the evils of religion can flourish without any belief in the supernatural, that convinced materialists are ready to worship their own jerry-built creations as though they were the Absolute, and that self-styled humanists will persecute their adversaries with all the zeal of Inquisitors exterminating the devotees of a personal and transcendent Satan. Such behavior-patterns antedate and outlive the beliefs which, at any given moment, seem to motivate them. Few people now believe in the Devil; but very many enjoy behaving as their ancestors behaved when the Fiend was a reality as unquestionable as his Opposite Number. In order to justify their behavior, they turn their theories into dogmas, their bylaws into First Principles, their political bosses into Gods, and all those who disagree with them into incarnate devils. This idolatrous transformation of the relative into the Absolute and the all to human into the Divine, makes it possible for them to indulge their ugliest passions with a clear conscience and in the certainty that they are working for the Highest Good. And when the current beliefs come, in their turn, to look silly, a new set will be invented, so that the immemorial madness may continue to wear its customary mask of legality, idealism and true religion."
Here is the best quote from the book.
"In the briefly liberal nineteenth century [learned men] found it difficult not merely to forgive, but even to understand the savagery with which sorcerers had once been treated. Too hard on the past, they were at the same time too complacent about their present and far too optimistic in regard to the future - to us! They were rationalists who fondly imagined that the decay of traditional religion would put an end to such deviltries as the persecution of heretics, the torture and burning of witches.
But looking back and up, from our vantage point on the descending road of modern history, we now see that all the evils of religion can flourish without any belief in the supernatural, that convinced materialists are ready to worship their own jerry-built creations as though they were the Absolute, and that self-styled humanists will persecute their adversaries with all the zeal of Inquisitors exterminating the devotees of a personal and transcendent Satan. Such behavior-patterns antedate and outlive the beliefs which, at any given moment, seem to motivate them. Few people now believe in the Devil; but very many enjoy behaving as their ancestors behaved when the Fiend was a reality as unquestionable as his Opposite Number. In order to justify their behavior, they turn their theories into dogmas, their bylaws into First Principles, their political bosses into Gods, and all those who disagree with them into incarnate devils. This idolatrous transformation of the relative into the Absolute and the all to human into the Divine, makes it possible for them to indulge their ugliest passions with a clear conscience and in the certainty that they are working for the Highest Good. And when the current beliefs come, in their turn, to look silly, a new set will be invented, so that the immemorial madness may continue to wear its customary mask of legality, idealism and true religion."
February 28, 2014
Batshit crazy. Fascinating portrayal of politics and "possession" in 17th Century France. Felt it lost its way in discussions of spirituality, but characterisation and psychology were sound. Some wonderfully dark, comedic touches throughout e.g. description of nun doing the splits.
November 18, 2021
The story itself is pretty interesting. Basically a contingent of nuns at a convent decide and/or are coerced into feigning demonic possession which results in a local parson being accused of witchcraft and getting executed. Early political theatre and religious shenanigans. Sadly someone dies as the result, but that’s not the first nor the last time that has or will happen. Experts at the time essentially out these nuns as frauds yet the man is still found guilty. I also found out why I stopped reading during my first foray through the book. Huxley has three or four chapters scattered throughout which just delve into philosophical discourse and compared to the story were unfortunately mindnumbingly boring (in my view). I suppose I found them marginally more interesting this time round. A pretty good read.
July 24, 2021
This book rules
July 6, 2022
“Every idol, however exalted, turns out, in the long run, to be a Moloch, hungry for human sacrifice.”
The biggest surprise in Huxley’s catalogue, and possibly his best. This is not a book about the Devils of Loudun, but about devils everywhere always.
The biggest surprise in Huxley’s catalogue, and possibly his best. This is not a book about the Devils of Loudun, but about devils everywhere always.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 333 reviews