IV. The Nature of Evil Spirits

We have already begun to answer questions (1), (2), (4), and (8). If demons represent, as we have said, the denial of evil impulses by projection, then it follows that among their characteristics should be uncleanli­ness, offensive screaming, thrashing about, and fascination with fire. We can also include in this category the nakedness of the Gadarene (question 5). He should, of course, be clothed.

Let us consider uncleanliness on a more general level. "Unclean and evil" has often been contrasted with "clean and good." The ancient Hebrews couched their dietary restrictions in terms of clean and unclean foods. Freudian analysis is especially interested in the conjunction of dirt and feces versus cleanliness and bowel control (compare "Beelzebul" which means "Lord of filth" in the sense of excrement). At a later stage there is a contrast between dirt and sex on the one hand and cleanliness and sublimation of sex on the other (for example in the idiomatic "dirty stories"). If anything we are burdened with a surplus of explanations for "unclean spirits." But the gospel writers may have had all these things in mind.

Dream analysis has shown how one often condenses a whole series of meaning into a single symbol. This would also help answer the question asked above as to why Jesus chose only a few selected impulses to project onto demons. "Unclean" stands not only for itself, but also for the evils of eating improper things, failing to control the bowels, having erections at improper times, etc.

Questions (2) and (3) on our list are exact opposites. Why are evil spirits so often described as screaming offensively and also as remaining absolutely dumb? One can come up with a common sense explanation: Demon possession implies loss of control over one's self; therefore one loses the ability to control his speech and either screams or remains dumb. But let us see if there is not a better explanation.

First consider the list of demons in the verse of Isaiah which was quoted in Part A. The King James Version has rather badly misquoted the Hebrew in this case. The Hebrew word translated as satyrs is "Seirim" which in various Old Testament references appears to be either a goat or a calf. The word's etymology implies simply "hairy." The Hebrew word "Ziyyim”which is translated as "wild beasts" does not denote any particular animal but may be translated as either "desert-dweller" or "crier." Both meanings compare especially well with New Testament demon characteristics. The Hebrew word "Ochim" which is translated as "doleful creatures" comes from a root meaning "to cry" or "to howl" and does not name any particular animal. The Hebrew word "Iyyim" which is mistranslated as "wild beasts of the islands" again comes from the root of "to howl" or "to screech." And the last word, "Tannin" in Hebrew, which is mistranslated as "dragons," again comes from a root meaning "to howl." The one word that we have not mentioned, "owls," which seems to fit nicely into the above pattern, is also a mistranslation. The Hebrew "Benoth ya'anah" does not mean "screaming" but is evil nevertheless; it means "daughters of greed."(27) The idea of demons as screaming creatures is thus an old one and is not confined to the New Testament. Nor is it confined to the Old Testament; all of us have felt an eerie shudder upon hearing an owl's screech from the woods late at night or a wolf's howling at the moon. What do we fear? The creatures of the nightmare? They, too, are projections of evil impulses.

Dumbness and blindness are caused by evil spirits sometimes and by the spirit of God at others. For example, notice that Simeon is struck dumb by the angel Gabriel and that Paul is struck blind by the vision of Jesus. Uncontrolled speaking and screaming are attributed to those possessed by the spirit of God as well as by demons (divination, tongues, etc.). Thus we find a fundamental ambivalence, not only between screaming and dumbness as two opposite effects of the same agent, the evil spirit, but also between two opposite agents, good and evil spirits. Why be so complicated? One could try to set the problem aside by referring to Freud's statement that opposites are equal in unconscious. But let us not be so quick to drop the problem. Demons scream, we have said, because human beings defend themselves against the desire to scream by projecting such an impulse onto them. But projection is not the only defense mechanism. Negation or denial is another. If screaming is a projection of an evil impulse, then dumbness is the projection of the denial of this impulse. This answer sounds ridiculous until we consider the nature by definition of a "defense mechanism." The farther we remove an impulse from being recognizable, the better is the defense. Thus, the projection of a denial is an excellent defense.

We cannot consider the question, "Why do both good and evil spirits cause the same effects?" Attempting to answer this question would lead us too far afield from evil spirits as such and get us involved in the functions of good spirits. We must leave it as the starting point for some other investigation.

Question (4) refers to the frequency of demons falling down on the one hand and being bound on the other. Here again is a pair of apparently opposite effects from the same source. The first quotation under the question (Mark 3: 10-11) has caused no little perturbation among students of the Bible.

It has been proposed to place a period after "touch him" in vs. 10 (see KJV), and to read the rest of the verse with what follows: "As many as had plagues and unclean spirits." This would somewhat relieve the strain upon the modern reader, who finds it impossible really to conceive of unclean spirits as beholding, falling down, etc.; but the suggested punctuation destroys the distinction that Mark made between the sick persons in vs. 10 and the demons in vs. II.(28)
Other verses in the gospels refer to the convulsing effect of demons (Mark I :26 and Luke 4:35). One should note that the woman with the bent back had been "bound" by Satan. Is it coincidental that Satan requires Jesus to "fall down and worship me"? We have read in apocalyptic literature how the powers of evil "fell" from heaven. When the demon who had afflicted Sarah fled to Egypt, "the angel bound him there." Enoch promises that "those who have led the world astray. With chains shall they be bound." The man whom Eleazor healed of a demon "fell down immediately." One is reminded here of the common custom of swaddling infants to keep them for injuring themselves with their uncontrolled movements. Thrashing about or convulsive behavior would be more or less “bad” behavior at this stage and a child would be bound to keep him from it. The binding of evil spirits is thus the projection of the denial of an impulse.

We have referred to falling down as the opposite of being bound, but is this true? In order to fall down one must be able to walk or at least to stand up. When the infant fears punishment, he will deny his evil by falling down, regressing to the stage when he could not walk. It seems most likely that falling down, like being bound, is the denial of evil impulses. Demons that fall down have regressed to a stage where they are harmless.

Let us digress for a moment, just for fun, and turn the tables on psycho­analysis by examining its own terminology. Freud and his followers speak of the necessity of delaying responses to stimuli before the infant can gain muscular control. The terminology is to "bind a cathexis"-cathexis meaning roughly "mental energy."
The mastery of the motor apparatus, too, is a task that the human infant only gradually learns. ..through the interposing of a time period between stimulus and reaction, by the acquisition of a certain tension tolerance, that is, of an ability to bind primitive reaction impulses by countercathexes.(29)
Like primitive thought which considers the soul as a "little man," inside the big man, psychoanalysis seems to envisage cathexis as "little babies inside the big baby" which must be bound just as the infant himself is bound.

Question (5) considers the dwelling places of demons. Tombs are to be expected. As Freud notes in Totem and Taboo, the first evil spirits were probably the spirits of the departed, and one would especially be reminded of them around the tombs. Such a belief is not at all limited to the primitive mind; many of our modern ghost stories take place in graveyards. _Swine, too, are an especially appropriate dwelling for the demons of the Gadarene. Not only are these animals universally considered greedy and filthy, but for the Jews they were restricted from the diet as well and called "unclean." But what about "waterless places"? The belief that demons haunt deserts as well as other out of the way places such as wells, tombs, deep woods, and caves is an old, old one in primitive demonologies and many vestiges remain in modern thought. Primitive people, children, and sometimes even you and I are afraid of dark corners, the woods at night, etc. Who is there? The creatures of the nightmare? The places where no man dwells are where the demons dwell. Then, too, deserts are places where one is thirsty. ...

Why do many spirits replace one in the parable by Jesus? He seems to imply that "nature abhors a vacuum." If one does not fill himself with the Holy Spirit, he will find himself filled instead with evil spirits. It is hard to resist recalling Cassius' "lean and hungry look" at this point. The hungry man is the dangerous man. This is paralleled by the activity of children who will scream, kick or exhibit some other aggressive behavior when they are hungry. We have already discussed two other stories which can be partly elucidated by this relationship between hunger and aggression. Satan's first temptation is made after Jesus has fasted for forty days. And demons are especially to be encountered in waterless places, where one is thirsty.

***************

27. Langton, of. cit., p. 42. All the preceding Hebrew translation is taken from this source.
28. The Interpreters Bible, Vol. VII (New York, 1951), p. 684.
29. Otto Fenichel, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis (New York, 1945), pp.41-42.

previous section ..|.. back to contents page ..|.. next section