The devil and the sovereign in the political demonology of King James
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2026-3-178-195
King James I’s Dæmonologie is a dialogue-based treatise that reveals the nature and specific characteristics of sorcerers, witches, and necromancers who act through the devil and other demons. It is noted that this treatise is of great interest for the study of modern political demonology. The reasons for this interest are as follows. Firstly, in the current context of discussions about the return of the state, there is a metaphorical shift in which the state is described in demonic terms. Secondly, Hobbes’s critique of demonology and redivinization (according to E. Voegelin) in Leviathan shows that the absolute power of the sovereign does not guarantee that the ruler will renounce demonological views. Thirdly, the 16th and 17th centuries were a time of widespread fear of devilish forces and the formation of ideas of absolute monarchical power in England and Europe. Thus, the close connection between the political justification of monarchical power and the social panic surrounding demonology and witchcraft compels us to turn to the treatise of King James I. The absolutization of God and the problem of justifying evil reinforce the ideological component of the devil. Therefore, in the context of political demonology, the question arises not so much about the relationship between the sovereign (monarch) and God, but about the relationship between the sovereign and the devil. For this reason, the essay provides a comparative analysis of the figures of the sovereign and the devil in the writings of James I. According to James I, the figure of the devil is designed to cause harm to representatives of humanity. At the same time, the devil is incapable of creation. He acts as a Master, bringing false teachings and illusions to his followers. The main objects of his interference are people’s souls and bodies. In this case, the main goal of the devil and his servants from the perspective of James I’s Dæmonologie is the destruction of the monarch, because the devil considers him the main enemy (hostis). The activation of demonic forces is a major sign of the approaching end of the world. The authority of the sovereign, on the other hand, is based on three grounds. Firstly, on the divine authority of the king. Secondly, on the fact that the ruler is the Father of the people. Thirdly, the king is the head of the political body. At the same time, the main goal of the sovereign is the realization of good for his people. The sovereign is protected by God from diabolical influence. From the perspective of political demonology, the devil acts as God’s ape (Diabolus est simia Dei), who is compelled to constantly imitate God’s omnipotence. While the sovereign is a child of God who thwarts the devil’s tyranny, the devil becomes the prototypical tyrant who cannot sincerely act in the interests of others. Thus, the devil acts as the Other for the sovereign, allowing the sovereign to form his own political subjectivity. The devil and the sovereign act as instruments of the divine will, and the devil as a universal/ancient enemy (hostis antiquus) serves as an important point of reference for the construction of the political order of James I. This historical excursion aims to provoke reflection on the significance of the current metaphorical shift in which the state takes on the guise of demonic and monstrous forces.
Keywords: James I, political demonology, devil, sovereign, state
References:
Bourdieu, P. (2016). O gosudarstve: kurs lektsiy v Kollezh de Frans (1989–1992) [On the state: lectures at the Collège de France (1989–1992)] (D. Kralechkin & I. Kushnaryova, Trans.). Izdatel’skiy dom “Delo” RANKhiGS.
Chernyavskaya, A., & Mashtakov, D. (2015). Bytie “mezhdu”: Prolegomeny k politicheskoy teorii Erika Fёgelina [Being “between”: Prolegomena to Eric Voegelin’s political theory]. Logos, 25(6), 180–195.
Delumeau, J. (1994). Uzhasy na Zapade [Horrors in the West]. Golos.
Dmitriev, T. (2020). Politicheskoe obrazovanie i prosveshchenie po Tomasu Gobbsu [Political education and enlightenment according to Thomas Hobbes]. Logos, 30(6), 139–144.
Filippov, A. F. (2025). Vosstanie Leviafana. Ocherki o Tomasse Gobbs, politicheskoy filosofii i sotsial’noy teorii [The revolt of Leviathan. Essays on Thomas Hobbes, political philosophy and social theory]. Vladimir Dal’.
Golubeva, A. P. (2024). Obshchestvennyy dogovor – zhertvoprinoshenie? Zhorzh Batay i kritika “Leviafana” [Social contract – sacrifice? Georges Bataille and the critique of “Leviathan”]. Sotsiologiya vlasti, 36(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2024-2-97-112 [1]
Gray, J. (2023). The New Leviathans. Thoughts After Liberalism. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Hobbes, T. (2022). Leviafan, ili Materiya, forma i vlast’ gosudarstva tserkovnogo i grazhdanskogo [Leviathan, or The matter, form and power of a commonwealth ecclesiastical and civil]. In Osnovy filosofii (o tele, o cheloveke, o grazhdanine); Chelovecheskaya priroda; O svobode i neobkhodimosti; Leviafan [Elements of philosophy (on body, on man, on citizen); Human nature; Of liberty and necessity; Leviathan] (pp. 437–872). AST.
Iames. (1597). Daemonologie, in forme of a Dialogue, Diuided into three Bookes. Robert Waldegraue.
Igina, Yu. F. (2009). Vedovstvo i ved’my v Anglii: Antropologiya zla [Witchcraft and witches in England: Anthropology of evil]. Aleteyya.
Jackson, C. (2022). Devil-Land: England Under Siege, 1588–1688. Penguin.
James VI and I. (2021). The True Law of Free Monarchies. In Slavery Law & Power in the British Empire and Early America. https://slaverylawpower.org/chapters/debating-power-empire/james-i-true-law-free-monarchies-1598/
Josephson-Storm, J. (2017). The Myth of Disenchantment: Magic, Modernity and the Birth of Human Sciences. Chicago University Press.
Khrustalev, D. G. (2025a). Sluchay korolevskogo mrakobesiya. Posleslovie perevodchika [A case of royal obscurantism. Translator’s afterword]. In “Demonologiya” korolya Yakova s prilozheniem “Vestey iz Shotlandii” [King James’s “Daemonology” with the appendix “News from Scotland”] (pp. 315–412). Limbus Press; Izdatel’stvo K. Tublina.
Khrustalev, D. G. (2025b). Kommentarii [Commentaries]. In “Demonologiya” korolya Yakova s prilozheniem “Vestey iz Shotlandii” [King James’s “Daemonology” with the appendix “News from Scotland”] (pp. 119–314). Limbus Press; Izdatel’stvo K. Tublina. 119–314
Khrustalev, D. G. (2025c). “Vesti iz Shotlandii” (1591 g.) [“News from Scotland” (1591)]. In “Demonologiya” korolya Yakova s prilozheniem “Vestey iz Shotlandii” [King James’s “Daemonology” with the appendix “News from Scotland”] (pp. 95–118). Limbus Press; Izdatel’stvo K. Tublina.
King James I. (1996). 21 March 1609 “Kings are justly called Gods”. In B. MacArthur (Ed.), The Penguin book of historic speeches (pp. 44–45). Penguin.
Kojev, A. (2007). Ponyatie vlasti [The concept of power]. Praksis.
Kotsko, A. (2017). The Prince of This World. Stanford University Press.
Krylova, D. D. (2021). Vlast’ nad demonami kak politicheskaya vlast’: pamflet ob ekzortsizme v ideologicheskoy bor’be v epokhu Yakova I Styurta [Power over demons as political power: a pamphlet on exorcism in ideological struggle in the era of James I Stuart]. Istoricheskiy kur’er, (6), 74–87.
Levack, P. B. (2003). The Witchcraft Sourcebook (1st ed.). Routledge.
Lomagina, A. V. (2012). Primer goticheskogo prevrashcheniya i problemy traditsii. “Obez’yana” K. Bliksen [An example of Gothic transformation and problems of tradition. “The Monkey” by K. Blixen]. Skandinavskaya filologiya, (12), 114–121.
Makhov, A. E. (2013). Hostis antiquus: kategorii i obrazy srednevekovoy khristianskoy demonologii: Opyt slovarya [Hostis antiquus: categories and images of medieval Christian demonology: Experience of a dictionary]. Intrada.
Minou, J. (2004). D’yavol [The devil] (N. Lebedeva, Trans.). AST.
Monateri, P. G. (2022). Political theology from Satan to legitimacy. Polemos, 16(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/pol-2022-2002
Muchenble, R. (2005). Ocherki po istorii d’yavola: XII—XX vv. [Essays on the history of the devil: 12th–20th centuries] (E. V. Morozova, Trans.). Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie.
Schmitt, C. (2016). Ponyatie politicheskogo [The concept of the political] (A. F. Filippov, Trans. & Comp.). Nauka.
Seregina, A. Yu. (2018). Chem pakhnet d’yavol? Oderzhimost’, ekzortsizm i religioznaya polemika v Anglii kontsa XVI — nachala XVII vv. [What does the devil smell like? Possession, exorcism and religious polemics in England of the late 16th – early 17th centuries]. Adam i Eva, (26), 41–66.
Trunov, A. A., & Pashetnykh, M. O. (2023). Politiko-pravovye konflikty v period Angliyskoy revolyutsii 1640–1660 gg. [Political-legal conflicts during the English Revolution of 1640–1660]. Sotsiologiya i pravo, 15(3), 335–344.
Uzlaner, D. (2011). Vvedenie v postsekulyarnuyu filosofiyu [Introduction to post-secular philosophy]. Logos, (3), 3–32.
Vilejkis, A., & Medetov, D. (2023). Ot mifa k Prosveshcheniyu i obratno: kak razvivalas’ prosveshchenskaya kartina mira na primere goneny na koldunov v srednevekovoy Anglii [From myth to Enlightenment and back: how the Enlightenment worldview developed on the example of witch persecutions in medieval England]. Logos, 33(5), 123–138.
Voegelin, E. (2021). Novaya nauka politiki [The new science of politics] (N. Selivyorstov, Trans.). Vladimir Dal’.
[1] Golubeva A. P. was recognized as a foreign agent by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on February 07, 2025.
( 357.63 kB ) 
( 344.84 kB )
Issue: 3, 2026
Series of issue: Issue 3
Rubric: ESSAYS
Pages: 178 — 195
Downloads: 81