Law & Literature

ISSN: 1535-685X (Print) 1541-2601 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlal20

About the Devil, Literature and Arbitration

Carlos A. Matheus López

To cite this article: Carlos A. Matheus López (2015) About the Devil, Literature and Arbitration,
Law & Literature, 27:3, 383-394, DOI: 10.1080/1535685X.2015.1024922

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1535685X.2015.1024922

Published online: 18 May 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 78

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rlal20

Download by: [ECU Libraries] Date: 17 March 2016, At: 03:08

 LAW & LITERATURE  VOLUME 27  NUMBER 3

About the Devil, Literature and Arbitration

pez
Carlos A. Matheus Lo

Abstract, This article analyses the figure of the Devil and the different char- Keywords, Devil, demon, Satan,
acters that are covered under this term, such as Satan, Lucifer, Belial, Samael Lucifer, Belial, Samael, Mephis-
and Mephistopheles. Also, it explores his appearance in literature, mainly in topheles, Faust myth, pact with
those works that deal with the Faustian myth, as is the case in the books of the Devil, law, contract, free will,
Christopher Marlowe, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Thomas Mann. arbitration, arbitral agreement,
Then, it analyses the legal aspects of the Faustian pact both in its form and party autonomy, arbitrator’s
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 03:08 17 March 2016

content. Finally, we approach the literary presence of the Devil in the arbitra- independence, impartiality
tion field, through the analysis of Giacomo Paladino’s Liber Belial of 1382.

I. THE DEVIL AS CHARACTER

Even though the Devil today has undeniable presence in society and popular cul-
ture, his presence was more discrete in the first Christian millennium,1 because at
the time there was no obsession with him in society in general.2 This situation
began to change in the Middle Ages, when he turned into a very real entity, as real
in the moral and global scale as was Jesus.3 It is in between the twelfth and thir-
teenth centuries that the Devil occupies a preeminent place in cultural representa-
tions and practices. Towards the end of the Middle Ages he grew into a terrible and
obsessive entity4 whose always mutable form projects into the present day as a sym-
bol of human evil,5 as he is a personification of evil itself.6
There are many characters in Christian belief that are representations of evil.
The term “Devil” comes from the Greek dia
bolos (slanderer7). The term “demon”
comes from the Greek daim
onion (evil spirit8).
We have “Satan”, from the Hebrew satan (adversary9), the King of Demons and
Hell, who used to be leader of the northern heavens. When the angels rebelled
against God he became their leader.10 Satan was created by God as a good angel,
but he distanced himself from God. People used to believe in earlier times that he
was an archangel, the first angel created by God, and the mightiest amongst them,

Law & Literature, vol. 27, issue 3, pp. 383 394. issn 1535-685X, electronic issn 1541-2601.
© 2015 by The Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1535685X.2015.1024922.

383
 LAW & LITERATURE  VOLUME 27  NUMBER 3

belonging to the cherubim class.11 He was incomparably majestic and powerful, the
most similar to God.12
We also have “Lucifer”, from the Latin lux (light) and ferre (bear, carry),13 who is
usually mistaken for the King of Hell, and commands the Europeans and Asians.
He is, according to some demonologists, the Great Judge of Hell.14
We have “Belial”, from the Hebrew beliya’al (without value15), who is a King of
Hell, created immediately after Lucifer. He was the one that incited most of the
angels that rebelled against God, and he was one of the first to be cast out of
Heaven.16
We have “Samael”, who is, according to rabbinical tradition, the prince of
demons known as “the venom of God” or the “hardest poison”,17 and the executioner
of death sentences decreed by God. Samael was the serpent who tempted Eve in the
Garden of Paradise.18 He is represented with a sword or a bow and arrows.19
And we also have “Mephistopheles”, the origin of whose name is uncertain.20
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 03:08 17 March 2016

There are several proposed etymologies: some argue that it comes from the Greek
mephosphilos (he who does not love the light21); others propose mefaustofiles
(Faust’s enemy) or mefiz-tofel (destroyer-liar22). His name is quoted for the first
time in an anonymous grimoire from 1527, Praxis Magica Faustiana, attributed to
Dr Johann Faust.23
Having made our introductions, let us continue with our story. Perhaps at the
end we may find a useful lesson.

II. THE DEVIL IN LITERATURE

Given the ubiquitous character of the Devil in literature, we will focus our attention
on those works that have dealt with the legendary German character of Faust.24
Faust’s legend was born in the sixteenth century. This was an age characterized by
paradigm changes: the Scientific Revolution, the polarization of good and evil, the
fragmentation of Christian unity, the death throes of the Middle Ages, and a gen-
eral growing uncertainty.25 His legend has had such good fortune that it has main-
tained its popularity for almost 500 years,26 in its various aspects and thematic
transformations. Perhaps this is because of the richness it offers from a moral, ideo-
logical and literary point of view.27
The origin of literary tradition based on the character of Faust28 is the Volks-
buchvom D. Johan Fausten, anonymously published in Frankfurt in 1587 by the
printer Johann Spiess. It was translated into English in 1588 as The Historie of the
Damnable Life and Deserved Death of Doctor John Faustus.29
This book establishes the basic structure of the Faustian theme, basing it on five
elements: (1) the characterization of Faust based on lack of satisfaction; (2) the pact
with the Devil; (3) the results of the pact, such as questions to the Devil, voyages
and adventures, feats of magic and sexual satisfactions; and (5) Faust’s death, pre-
ceded by lamentations before the final moment.30

384


MATHEUS LOPEZ  ABOUT THE DEVIL

Later, the Faustian theme is taken up in literature by various authors. We have

Christopher Marlowe with The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor
Faustus, published in 1604; Johann Wolfgang von Goethe with Faust, the first part
published in 1806 and the second part published posthumously in 1832; and
Thomas Mann with his Doctor Faustus, published in 1947. We can see that all three
books have in common the presence of the diabolic pact through Mephistopheles
with the objective of obtaining some extraordinary benefit.

A. MARLOWE’S FAUST

In the book by Christopher Marlowe we find three known demons: Mephistopheles,

Lucifer and Beelzebub. We observe that Mephistopheles incarnates evil and he
must be punished according to the morality ruling over England in those days.31
The book also borrows for its basic structure episodes from the Volksbuch,32 adding
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 03:08 17 March 2016

some elements such as the famous introduction in which Faust reviews his own aca-
demic curriculum and his philosophical soliloquies.33 Some information about
Faust’s life before succumbing to Mephistopheles’ flattery and promises is also
given.34 Mephistopheles is able to get Faust to abhor all sciences in order to
embrace magic.35
Marlowe does not want to have Faust condemned but understood, so he enters
into the character and makes Faust talk with himself continuously, making the
book a monologue that represents the conflict between conscience and ambition. He
proposes in this way the Faustian paradox that humans aspire intellectually to
superhuman objectives but recognize the futility of such aspirations because of their
imperfect nature,36 because Faust is proud and impulsive, believing he knows a lot
when in reality he knows nothing.37
Mephistopheles also follows the traditional structure dragging, bargaining,
and serving Faust, as well as being inconsistent as he moralizes and tempts at the
same time, warning him but also encouraging him to continue along the path of
evil.38 Faust is going to have many chances to save his soul, with the good angels
chasing him, his neighbour counselling him, and his blood congealing before signing
the diabolical pact.39 Also, the pact is made through Mephistopheles, who informs
Faust of this requirement.40
Finally, Marlowe presents Faust’s death with all the dramatic paraphernalia
and macabre effects typical of the end of the sixteenth-century imaginary.41

B. GOETHE’S FAUST

In the book by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Mephistopheles is the real hero.42 He is
also the only demon mentioned in the book, and the pact is carried out through him.43
From the first moment, when he bets with God to see who can take Faust’s soul,
Mephistopheles reveals himself to be a cheater and a rascal. We should not be

385
 LAW & LITERATURE  VOLUME 27  NUMBER 3

surprised that it is precisely he, in theory the incarnation of ultimate evil in this
world, who is the vehicle for humour in this tragedy.44 Because of this, the most lim-
ited Mephistopheles is Goethe’s, precisely because he is the one that is most similar
to mortal man.45 Not only can he not answer transcendental questions that he him-
self does not understand, he also cannot enter the territories of virtue or the depths
of hell. In order to help Faust, he has to resort to his limited knowledge of magic,
his ingenuity, and his contacts amongst the spirits. In fact, this Mephistopheles is
only a local demon46 who wants to reduce Faust’s aspirations to the low level of sen-
sual delight and material possession. He wants to see his aspirations reduced from
the great and beautiful to the low and ugly, from the ideal and transcendental to
the real and trivial.47
In the Volksbuch, Faust has no redemption. In Goethe’s version, in the prologue
in heaven God himself prophesied Faust’s salvation.48 In the book we hear through
Mephistopheles that Faust is anxious because of the limitations of his knowledge
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 03:08 17 March 2016

that nevertheless is already universal. Faust resorts to magic after becoming weary
of science, because even though he feels he is more prepared than other doctors and
masters, he does not feel he knows the fundamental.49 He thus becomes a prototype
for humanity, a cosmic hero, and demiurge of Goethe’s theories.50
If the Volksbuch and Marlowe Fausts exchanged their eternal happiness for a
few sensational and capricious throws of the dice by Mephistopheles, who is his
only link with the supernatural, Goethe’s Faust sold his soul for a change in his life
and the guide to helping take the transcendental step.51 The way in which Faust
gives in to Mephistopheles’ influence is the same in the Volksbuch and in the works
of Marlowe and Goethe: the abjuration of Christian doctrine that Faust knew and
followed. It is in Goethe’s book where his renunciation is more elaborate and dra-
matic, and therefore less morally wilful because it is more rhetorical than real. The
pact with which Faust succumbs to ambition and the temptations of the Devil
appears in the three books in the same way: through a legal document written by
Faust and signed with his own blood. This detail is proper of popular mythology
and taken up by the sanguinis christi Christian symbolism, in this case debased by
the perverse analogy.52
Finally, Goethe’s Faust is the first, within this tradition, that is able to save him-
self through individual will and by the force of passions, maybe because he is
immersed in the middle of the nineteenth century.53 Also, this happy ending repre-
sents a rejection of the protestant emphasis on the original sin and a paternal anger
in favour of the Catholic emphasis on original blessedness and maternal love.54

C. MANN’S FAUST

In the book by Thomas Mann, we find a dense and complex plot in which the charac-
terization of the actors is very complicated and which to the traditional Faustian
myth we add other themes as diverse as music, art, theology and the history of the

386


MATHEUS LOPEZ  ABOUT THE DEVIL

German people in their decline.55 The author examines the failure of Christian
ethics and of Goethean humanism to prevent the evils of National Socialism and
the devastation of war.56 Linking Leverk€ uhn’s fate explicitly to Germany’s Nazi
period, Mann seems to suggest that the country he counted among the most civi-
lized in Europe had literally gone to the devil.57
The main character is the composer Adrian Leverk€ uhn, who plays Faust in this
story, who sells his soul to the Devil in exchange for musical genius.58 Also, many
direct quotes and passages from the Volksbuch are incorporated in crucial passages
of Adrian’s biography.59 We also have Zeitblom, who is the narrator and whose
figure is antithetical to the protagonist. Both figures constitute opposite ends of rea-
son and life, which complement each other in the text.60 The demon with whom the
pact is carried out is Satan himself, and there is no reference to Mephistopheles in
the book.61
Adrian is no more than a “hero of our time” who must carry the suffering of the
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 03:08 17 March 2016

age. This time is the final period of the Second World War and the subsequent
decline of the German nation. The life of a man who sells his soul to the Devil
because of art coincide with a culture that in the name of supposed superior ideals
has ended up in barbarism.62
The false and sterile culture in which he lives produce in Adrian two main atti-
tudes: scepticism and weariness. The first is reflected in the ironic nature of his per-
sonality and works that evidence the manifestation of his interest in the demonic.
Satan’s irony, and with it Adrian’s, is tainted with hate, contempt and destruction.
Also, Adrian’s superior intelligence suffers from a frequent malady in geniuses:
boredom.63 His scholarly life is a continuous anticipation to the teachings he
receives from his masters and they produce the weariness characteristic of that
already conquered. His entry into the world of music does not bring him any relief,
but the opposite, for the art that he finds is one that is worn out and sterile, a prod-
uct of a depleted culture. That is the constant obsession that guides the develop-
ment of his artistic life: fear that his works are a parody of themselves, a continuous
and laughable repetition of forms that are already dead. That is also the idea in
which Satan centres his arguments when carrying out the diabolical pact with
Adrian.64
The pact is carried out, as in the Volksbuch and the works by Marlowe and
Goethe, through a contract signed with Adrian’s blood. in exchange for his soul and
the renunciation of love, he is promised 24 years of fertile brilliance65 in order to
revolutionize the sterile aesthetic conventions.66 Also, as in all three books, the pact
brings no change to his external life, but it is carried out for the benefit of his work
and in detriment of his life.67
However, the pact is also presented as a sacrifice that transforms Adrian’s life
into one of a redeemer. In this sense, the temptation is not a promise but a petition:
he is asked to give up his soul, not for selfish reasons, but in the name of a presumed
salvation of humanity.68

387
 LAW & LITERATURE  VOLUME 27  NUMBER 3

Finally, in his last work, “The Lamentation of Doctor Faustus”, what we see is
the lamentation of a condemned man, this constituting a faithful portrait of
Adrian’s final situation and the novel’s denouement, with his final shocking confes-
sion. From its interpretation and result depends a great deal of his soul’s final fate.
In a conversation with Satan, Adrian had already speculated about a possible way
to save his soul: that of proud repentance, which considers the sin committed too
great to be forgivable. And that is precisely the attitude that he adopts in his last
moments of clarity.69

III. THE DEVIL AND THE LAW

The diabolical pact in the Faustian myth has a contractual motif that is the trading
of the soul through which the union between men and the forces of evil was sealed.
This pact was consummated with the blood of the seeker of the pact,70 as seen in
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 03:08 17 March 2016

the works of Marlowe, Goethe and Mann. The blood joins the man’s destiny with
the Devil’s, together in damnation. This can also be seen as an evil parody of
Christ’s blood pact with humanity,71 also representing an ad solemnitatem
formality.
On the other hand, diabolical pacts in Faustian works tend to follow certain
principles: these pacts cannot be carried out with any of the three biggest demons
(Lucifer, Beelzebub and Astaroth). The pacts can only be carried out with one of
their lieutenants,72 as is the case with Mephistopheles.
At a theological level, the diabolical pact is a mortal sin that destroys charity in
the heart of humans because of a serious infraction of God’s Law. This sin separates
humans (by preferring a lesser benefit) from God, who is humankind’s final end and
blessing (mortal sin is an extreme choice allowed by human freedom). This sinful
act is essentially a rupture of a human’s personal link to God. Sin destroys the chan-
ces of participating in a life with God, a condition that theological language denomi-
nates “grace”, as it affects what is eternal in humankind. The sin committed by
Satan, by rebelling against God, has a similar structure to human sin: it is, in effect,
an act of free will.73 It is through this free will that humans decide which path to
take, whether to sell our soul to the Devil, or to give in to all those liberalities which
do not guarantee that humans can reach the presence of God.74
Free will is in essence the party autonomy, which permits the celebration of the
diabolical pact, which is in the end a legal act.

IV. THE DEVIL AND ARBITRATION

Given the Devil’s predilection for pacts and free will, it is natural that he would
resort to arbitration for the settlement of his controversies, because arbitration is
born in the arbitral agreement, which is based on elements that are substantially
identical to the first (legal act and party autonomy).

388


MATHEUS LOPEZ  ABOUT THE DEVIL

Giacomo Paladino, in his Liber Belial of 1382, imagined that the demons decided
to take legal actions against Jesus Christ for the loss he caused them when, after his
resurrection, he descended into hell to liberate the souls of the patriarchs.75 To this
end, Satan named Belial as his representative and appeal to the Divine Justice in
order to take legal actions.
The process was divided into three phases. First, the sentence of first instance,
judged by Solomon, with Moses acting as Jesus’ lawyer, and Belial as Satan’s;76
then, the sentence of second instance in the presence of the patriarch Joseph; and
third, the final revision of the entire controversy carried out by and arbitral tribunal
formed by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Octavius and Aristotle.77 Even though Satan loses in
all of the instances, in the last one, resolved through arbitration, he is conceded the
right to take the body and soul of the condemned on Judgement Day.78
In this story, it is interesting to note that, as a last resort, Satan uses the arbi-
tral process,79 maybe betting for that which he knows and trusts (pacts and free
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 03:08 17 March 2016

will), with an even-numbered arbitral tribunal (four arbitrators), perhaps not fully
independent and impartial,80 and with highly qualified members. It is here that
maybe we can find the reason for his decision, for it is well known that the quality
of the arbitration depends on the quality of the arbitrators.81 However, the even-
numbered composition of the arbitral tribunal generates doubts, for there could be
no majority regarding the emission of the arbitral award. We must not forget, as
the popular saying goes, the Devil knows more because he is old than because he is
the Devil, and regarding the essence of arbitration (pacts and free will), the amount
of time practicing is certainly on his side.

1. Joshua Trachtenberg, The Devil and the Jews: The
Medieval Conception of the Jew and its Relation to
Modern Anti-Semitism (Illinois: Varda Books, 2001),
19: “The devil has never played a very prominent
role in Jewish thought as a distinct personality; dur-
ing the Middle Ages in particular the figure of Satan
“was little more than an allegory . . .”.
2. See Robert Muchembled, Historia del Diablo, Siglos
XII XX (Buenos Aires/M
exico D.F.: Fondo de Cul-
tura Econ
omica de Argentina/Fondo de Cultura
Econ
omica de M
exico, 2002), 20 1.
3. Trachtenberg, supra note 1, at 19.
4. Muchembled, supra note 2, at 19 20.
5. Jeffrey Burton Rusell, Mephistopheles: The Devil in
the Modern World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1986), 23: “This concept has changed through
time. The Devil has had fundamentally different
modes: (1) a principle independent of God; (2) an
aspect of God; (3) a created being, a fallen angel;
(4) a symbol of human evil”.
6. See Jeffrey Burton Rusell, Satan: The Early Christian
Tradition (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981),
23.
7. See Alfonso Fern
andez Tresguerres, Sat
an la Otra
Historia de Dios (Oviedo: Pentalfa Ediciones, 2013),
50: “diabolos (slanderer, badmouther)”; contrast
with Andrew Delbanco, La Muerte de Sat
an (Barce-
lona: Editorial Andr
es Bello Espa~
nola, 1997), 42,
who states that this word comes from: “dia-bollein,
tear, rip”.
8. However, Corrado Balducci, El Diablo . . . Existe y Se
Puede Reconocerlo (Bogot
a: Ediciones Paulinas,
1990), 32, affirms that “it is of uncertain etymology,
and it would indicate the evil that those spirits
spread around the world in opposition against the
angels”; compare with Rosemarie Ellen Guiley, The
Enciclopedya of Witches, Witchcraft & Wicca (New
York: Factson File, 2008), 94 (stating that “it
comes from the Greek term daimon or “divine
power”, “destiny”, or “god”).

389
 LAW & LITERATURE  VOLUME 27  NUMBER 3
9. See Jacques Collin de Plancy, Dictionnaire Infernal
(Plancy/Paris: Soci
et
e de Saint-Victor/Sagnier et
Bray, Libraires, 1853), 438: “the name of Satan in
Hebrew means enemy or adversary”; see also Bal-
ducci, supra note 7, at 32, stating that: “it means
adversary, persecutor, accuser, defamer”; see also
Jos
e Antonio Fortea, Summa Daemoniaca. Tratado
de demonología y manual de exorcistas (Zaragoza:
Editorial Dos Latidos, 2012), 24: “Satan means
adversary, enemy, opponent”.
10. Collin de Plancy, supra note 9, at 437 8; see also
Rusell, supra note 6, at 132: “at the beginning the
angels felt with Satan, and for this reason Satan
was their prince”.


11. J. Michl “Angel” in Conceptos Fundamentales de la
Teología (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1966),
89 90, states that: they guard the entrance to
Paradise (. . .) they were seen also as litter bearers
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 03:08 17 March 2016
to God (. . .) and tradition spoke of two cherubim
standing on the Ark of the Alliance, between which
God would manifest Himself (...) they were consid-
ered mixed beings, part man, part animal”. This last
description is related to graphic representations of
Satan, with a human body but with a tail, horns and
goat’s hooves. Similarly, Trachtenberg, supra note 1,
at 46.
12. See J. Michl “Sat
an” in Conceptos Fundamentales de
la Teología (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1966),
647.
13. See also Rosemarie Ellen Guiley, The Encyclopedia of
Demons and Demonology (New York: Factson File,
2009), 153: “Lucifer means ‘light bringer,’ and he
originally was associated with Venus, the morning
star”; similarly Fortea, supra note 8, at 25 (“it’s a
non-biblical name that means Morning Star, and it
also means Light Bearer”).
14. See Collin de Plancy, supra note 9, at 309 10.
15. See Guiley, supra note 13, at 98: “Belial’s name may
be derived from the Hebrew term beli ya’al, which
means ‘without worth’”; contrast Collin de Plancy,
supra note 9, at 78: “his name means rebel or dis-
obedient”; see Fortea, supra note 9, at 25: “from the
root Baal, which means lord”.
16. See Collin de Plancy, supra note 9, at 78; similarly
Guiley, supra note 13, at 98: “Belial was the next
angel created after Lucifer (. . .) one of the first to
revolt against God”; these criteria are confirmed by
a XVII century grimoire named Goetia or the Lesser
Key of Solomon, which states that “he is a great
and powerful king and was created after Lucifer”,
see Samuel Liddell Mac Gregor Mathers, The Lesser
Key of Solomon (London: Alesteir Crowley editor,
1904), 44.
390
17. See M. Moõse € Schwab, Vocabulaire de l’Ang
elologie
d’apres Les Manuscrits H
ebreux de la Bibliotheque
Nationale (Paris: Imprimiere Nationale, 1897), 311.
18. See Guiley, supra note 13, at 221; similarly Collin de
Plancy, supra note 9, at 436: “Prince of Demons,
according to rabbis, is he who riding upon the ser-
pent seduced Eve, and for several Jewish experts is
the angel of death”; see also Mathers, supra note
16, at 436, who states that Samael is the name that
rabbis give to Amaymon, usually called Oriens or
Uriens, who is one of the four Great Kings that gov-
ern over the cardinal points. Samael or Amaymon
rules over the east.
19. See Collin de Plancy, supra note 9, at 436.
20. See Guiley, supra note 13, at 171; see also E. M. But-
tler, El Mito del Mago (Madrid: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1997), 181: “it is a notable name because
of it is euphony as well as it is power to suggest a
meaning, although nobody has yet discovered what
it is”.
21. See Dr. Johann Faust, Praxis Magica Faustiana (Lei-
cestershire: Caduceus Book/Society of Esoteric
Endeavour, 2011), 28: in the comments to page 12
of the manuscript it is stated that “the name
derives from the Greek (. . .) means he who hates
the light”; see also Buttler, supra note 20, at 181,
who points out that, even though he qualifies it as
conjecture, it comes from “enemy of the light”
(Mefotofiles).
22. See Buttler, supra note 20, at 181, even though he
qualifies them as conjectures.
23. See Faust, supra note 21, at 8; similarly Guiley, supra
note 13, at 171.
24. Philip Mason Palmer and Robert Pattison, The
Sources of the Faust Tradition. From Simon Magus
to Lessing (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1936), 3: “the beginnings of the legend so far as
it concerns the notorious German magician,
Doctor Faust, do not antedate the Protestant
Reformation. It is in the reaction of the followers
of Martin Luther to the unrestrained enthusiasm
of the German Humanists, to the Humanist’s
attitude towards educational, religious and
philosophical questions that the beginnings
must be sought”.
25. See also Ingrid H. Shafer, “The Phenomenon of
Faust. The Faust Challenge: Science as Diabolic or
Divine,” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 4
(2005): 895.
26. See Christa Knellwolf King, Faustus and the Promises
of the New Science, c. 1580 1730. From the Chap-
books to Harlequin Faustus (Farnham/Burlington:
Ashgate Publishing, 2008), 1.

27. See María Socorro Su
arez La Fuente, “Historia y
Tradici
on en Doctor Faustus de Christopher Mar-
lowe,” Archivum. Revista de la Facultad de Filología
XXXI XXXII (1981 1982): 695.
28. Because of its importance it is the most distin-
guished predecessor of all Faustian tradition, even
though there is an anonymous book titled De Maitre
Faust, published in Metz in 1530; in this sense
Su
arez, supra note 27, at 696.
29. See María Socorro Su
arez La Fuente, “Dos Siglos de
Leyenda F
austica: del Volksbuch al Faust de
Goethe vía Christopher Marlowe,” 46 7. Archivum.
Revista de la Facultad de Filología, 455 (1996 1997);
similarly Milena Kosti
c, “The Faustian Motif in
Christopher Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus,” Facta Universi-
tatis (serie ling€uistica y literatura), 2 (2009): 210,
even though she qualifies the text as a biography.
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 03:08 17 March 2016
30. See Su
arez, supra note 27, at 697.
31. See Su
arez, supra note 27, at 701.
32. Kosti
c, supra note 29, at 211: “The action of Mar-
lowe’s play closely follows the incidents of this first
Faust book”.
33. See Su
arez, supra note 27, at 701.
34. See Su
arez, supra note 29, at 455; see also Miguel
Martínez L
opez, “The Philosophy of Death in Ch.
Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus,” SEDERI yearbook of the
Spanish and Portuguese Society for English Renais-
sance Studies 1 (1990): 104: “However, nothing radi-
cally changes after the signing of the pact as far as
Faustus’ knowledge, pleasure and power are
concerned”.
35. Pablo Montoya, “Los Espejos del Fausto,” Colecci
on
Bit
acora 21 (2012): 19.
36. Su
arez, supra note 27, at 701.
37. Sigmund M
endez, El mito F
austico en el drama de
Calder
on (Kassel: Edition Reichenberger, 2000), 29.
38. Su
arez, supra note 27, at 704.
39. See also Su
arez, supra note 29, at 457.
40. In the third scene, Mephistopheles tells Faust “I am
a servant to great Lucifer, And may not follow thee
without his leave: No more than he commands
must we perform”.
41. See also Martínez L
opez, supra note 34, at 103.
42. See Su
arez, supra note 27, at 701.
43. Only towards the end of the book, at the Burial,
does Mephistopheles mention Lucifer, by asking:
“You sweet children, tell me then: Aren’t you part
of Lucifer’s race?”
44. Su
arez, supra note 29, at 458.
45. Similarly Montoya, supra note 35, at 13 4:
“Goethe’s Mephistopheles is driven by a suspicious
nature. Because of this he is at the opposite end of
that bad and clumsy demon that religious


MATHEUS LOPEZ  ABOUT THE DEVIL
imagination has imposed. Very different from the
foolishness that that demon, that always loses
before the kind powers of God, Goethe’s Mephis-
topheles is a figure popular amongst the people.
And let’s not forget that the figure of the Devil has
always been closer to the people than to God’s
majestic sovereignty. Mephistopheles likes parties,
is flirty, and even though he doesn’t consider him-
self wise he knows the indispensable and a little
more about the human condition”.
46. Su
arez, supra note 29, at 459.
47. Christoph Strosetzki, “Lo F
austico en Calder
on,” in
Arno Gimber and Isabel Hern
andez (eds.), Fausto
en Europa. Visiones de los demonios y el humor
f
austico (Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 2008),
165.
48. Su
arez, supra note 29, at 456.
49. Strosetzki, supra note 47, at 176.
50. Su
arez, supra note 29, at 454; similarly M
endez,
supra note 37, at 11: “In this way, Goethe’s Faust
represents a wider view of western man from his
origins”.
51. Su
arez, supra note 29, at 460; see also Francisco
Javier de Le
on, “Los Pactos F
austicos,” En-claves del
Pensamiento 10 (2011): 15.
52. Su
arez, supra note 29, at 460 1.
53. Su
arez, supra note 29, at 454.
54. Shafer, supra note 25, at 898.
55. Pilar L
opez de Santa María, “Raz
on y Vida en el
Doktor Faustus de Thomas Mann,” Themata.
Revista de Filosofía 9 (1992): 239.
56. Maria Dobozy, “Thomas Mann’s The Holy Sinner: A
Translation for Modern Times?” Literature and Belief
24 (2004): 253.
57. Evelyn Cobley, “Decentred Totalities in Doctor Fau-
stus: Thomas Mann and Theodor W. Adorno,”
Modernist Cultures 2 (2005): 181.
58. Similarly Hildegarde Drexl Hannum, “Self-Sacrifice
in Doktor Faustus. Thomas Mann’s Contribution to
the Faust Legend,” Modern Language Quarterly 3
(1974): 290, states that: “Leverk€uhn sells his soul
for the promise of attainment of a breakthrough to
pure expressiveness that will transcend the paro-
distic shortcomings of his works”; see also L
opez de
Santa María, supra note 50, at 240.
59. Hannum, supra note 58, at 289.
60. L
opez de Santa María, supra note 55, at 241.
61. Notwithstanding, I consider that the Devil in the
story is in reality Samael, because there are refer-
ences to him that help me see this. For example,
when the Devil appears before Adrian, he himself
states that: “But Samiel-the term is foolish (. . .)
and was corrected by Johann Balhorn of Liibeck.
391
 LAW & LITERATURE  VOLUME 27  NUMBER 3
The name is Sammael. And what does Sammael
mean? (. . .) It means ‘Angel of Poison’”. Clearly
confirming his identity by stating that: “Thus saith
the untransmogrified Sammael. He guarantees to
you not only that toward the end of your hour-glass
years the sense of power and mastery will more
and more outweigh the pains of the little mermaid
and finally mount to a most triumphant well-being,
to an enthusiastic surge of health, to the life and
manner of a god”.
62. L
opez de Santa María, supra note 55, at 243 4.
63. Jos
e Luis Villaca~ nas Berlanga, “Doctor Fausto. El
An
alisis de Thomas Mann sobre el Nazismo,” in El
País del Arte. 3er Encuentro Internacional. La Novela
del Artista. Colecci
on Literaria Actas (Madrid: Editor
Facundo Tom
as, 2002), 378, states that: “We find
an allusion to Adrian’s boredom, his first demonic
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 03:08 17 March 2016
trait, with his aspiration to perfection”.
64. L
opez de Santa María, supra note 55, at 242 3.
65. In chapter XXV Satan tells Adrian “We are in
league and in business with your blood you have
certified it and promised yourself to us and are bap-
tized ours (. . .) From us you have taken time,
genius time, high-flying time, a full twenty-four
years (. . .) You, fine creature well-created, are
promised and betrothed to us. You may not love”.
66. Cobley, supra note 57, at 181; similarly Villaca~ nas,
supra note 63, at 389: “the Devil does not deal with
the length of time, but with how to live it. He offers
a time of madness and greatness, melancholy and
loss, in which all pain is compensated by its aes-
thetic expression”.
67. Hannum, supra note 58, at 290.
68. L
opez de Santa María, supra note 55, at 250.
69. L
opez de Santa María, supra note 55, at 251 3.
70. In this sense, the Ciprianillo Grimoire points out
that in the pact “you will place your signature
drawn with your own blood”; see Jon
as Sufurino, El
Libro de San Cipriano (M
exico D.F.: Biblioteca Cien-
cias Ocultas, 1970), 80; see also Rub
en Darío
Pimentel, “Pactos con el Diablo,” Revista M
edica
Dominicana, 3 (1998): 255, who states that: “Pacts
were made for a certain number of years, some-
times for life. In the case of pacts for a specific
period of time, the signer was forced to turn himself
in to the Devil on the established date, although in
some cases a renewal was possible. Traditionally
pacts were signed and sometimes were entirely
written with the witch’s blood, or were simply
signed with blood in the Devil’s book”.
71. See Sigmund M
endez, El Mito F
austico en el Drama
de Calder
on (Kassel: Edition Reichenberger, 2000),
55 6; see also Alain Boureau, Satan H
er
etique:
392
Histoire de la D
emonologie 1280 1330 (Paris: Odile
Jacob, 2004), 90 1, who states that this act repre-
sents “a heresy (. . .) which consists in the act itself
of demanding a contract or pact, whatever its ritual
forms may be”.
72. See Guiley, supra note 13, at 155; against Sufurino,
supra note 70, at 82 4 affirms the possibility of
making a pact directly with Lucifer.
73. Similarly Nicanor G
omez-Villegas, “Implicancias
Teol
ogicas de El Pacto con el Demonio en la
Tradici
on Literaria Aurea,” Hipertexto 4 (2006):
76 7; in this sense, Michl, supra note 11, at 94,
states that: “angels were created by God (...) as
beings given understanding and freedom to make
personal and moral decisions (. . .) and for this rea-
son angels could also sin”; similarly, L.F. Mateo-
Seco “La Teología de la Muerte en la ‘Oratio Cate-
chetica Magna’ de San Gregorio de Nisa,” Scripta
Theologica: Revista de la Facultad de Teología de la
Universidad de Navarra 2 (1969): 462, quoting Saint
Gregory of Nyssa, states that: “evil was born from
free will. Free will is a copy of divine freedom, but is
seated within a very limited nature (. . .) for this
reason the Devil’s sin was possible. This is a princi-
ple that is applicable to any intelligent creature. It’s
the distraction, that seems to be an unavoidable
dialectic of created intelligent beings, which leads
to sin, to the wrong choice; in this sense, the Cate-
chism of the Catholic Church establishes in num-
bers 391 393 that: “The devil and the other
demons were indeed created naturally good by
God, but they became evil by their own doing (. . .)
Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels. This ‘fall’
consists in the free choice of these created spirits,
who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his
reign. (. . .) It is the irrevocable character of their
choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy,
that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. There is no
repentance for the angels after their fall, just as
there is no repentance for men after death”.
74. Similarly Alejandro Anaya Huertas & Gonzalo
Uribarri Carpintero, “La Damnation de Faust:


Los Pactos Jurídicos con el Diablo,” Pro Opera,
2 (2012): 36.
75. See Stefano Vinci “La diffusione del processo
romano-canonico in Europa. Il Liber Belial tra fonti
giuridiche canonistiche e romanistiche,” in Max
Planck Institute for European Legal History Research
Paper Series (Munich: Max-Planck-Institut,
2012 13), 3.
76. See Natasa Golob, “Belial, procurator infernalis ali
kdo je v resnici kriv,” Ars Humanitas Journal of Arts
and Humanities 2 (2011): 54.

77. See Francesco Mastroberti, “The Liber Belial: an
European work between law and theology. Intro-
ductory notes for an ongoing research project,” His-
toria et Ius. Rivista di Storia Giuridica dell’eta
Medievale e Moderna 1 (2012): 1.
78. Golob, supra note 76, at 54.
79. In which Satan and Jesus are the parties plaintiff
and defendant, respectively who because of their
party autonomy, contained in the arbitral agree-
ment, are subject to a process with the guarantees
of equality, contradiction and audience; and that
their arbitrable dispute may be decided by an arbi-
tral tribunal, formed by neutral third parties,
accepting in anticipation the mandatory nature of
the arbitral award that this tribunal renders. See
Carlos A. Matheus L
opez, Introducci
on al Derecho de
Arbitraje (Lima: Semper Veritas Ediciones, 2006),
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 03:08 17 March 2016
67 75.
It is interesting to note that the arbitrability of
the dispute at hand between Jesus and Satan
stems from the fact that both, authorized by God,
have power over the souls of humans, to steer
them towards their salvation or their damnation.
Because of this “bad angels try to take over the
souls of humans as soon as they leave the body
upon death”. See Michl, supra note 12, at 653. Like-
wise, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church
states in number 395: “Although Satan may act in
the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in
Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause
grave injuries of a spiritual nature and, indirectly,
even of a physical nature to each man and to
society, the action is permitted by divine provi-
dence which with strength and gentleness guides
human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery
that providence should permit diabolical activity,
but (. . .) we know that in everything God works for
good with those who love him”. So in this case, we
observe both objective arbitrability (that the con-
troversy is susceptible to resolution via arbitration)
as well as subjective arbitrability (that the subjects
may be parties to an arbitral agreement). See Yves
Fortier “Arbitrability of Disputes,” in Gerald Atkins,
et al. (eds.), Global Reflections on International Law,
Commerce and Dispute Resolution: Liber Amicorum in
Honor of Robert Briner (Paris: ICC Publishing S.A.,
2005), 270.
Also, the controversy rises between them, par-
ticularly, for the liberation of the souls of the patri-
archs and, in general, because “Christ has liberated
humanity with his death and resurrection from the
power of Satan’s knights”. See Gonzalo Soto
Posada, “El Demonio: su Naturaleza y Esencia,” in


MATHEUS LOPEZ  ABOUT THE DEVIL
Carlos Arboleda Mora, director, Diablo y Posesi
on
Diab
olica (Medellín: Universidad Pontificia Bolivari-
ana, 2005), 18.
Finally, it is worth mentioning in relation to the
objective and subjective arbitrability of the contro-
versy the existence of due process, and that it will
be decided by an independent and impartial tribu-
nal, that we can conclude that the pact of arbitra-
tion cannot be qualified as sinful by the sole fact
that Satan is a party and even less because this
usurps the role of God as the Righteous Judge,
according to Psalm 7:11, because in the present
case, if He was the judge or arbitrator, there would
be a grave problem of conflict of interest, which
would prevent Him from accomplishing his men-
tioned role; also, as stated in Numbers 23:19, “God
is not a man that He should lie, nor the son of man,
that He should repent; has He said, and will He not
do it? Or has He spoken, and will he not make it
good?” In addition, according to Revelation 20:3,
“Satan must be released so that God can demon-
strate to Israel and to the world the veracity of His
covenant promises, completely and precisely fulfill-
ing them in minute and specific details all the
way to the arrival of the eternal state”. See Gregory
H. Harris, “Must Satan Be Released? Indeed
He Must Be: Toward a Biblical Understanding of
Revelation 20:3,” Master’s Seminary Journal 1
(2014): 26.
80. Let’s remember that Isaiah was a prophet who
wrote the first part of the book of the Bible that has
his name, for which we could state his partiality
regarding the controversy, as well as his relation of
dependence regarding the Son of God, who is party
in the arbitration. The same thing happens with Jer-
emiah, author of the book of the Bible that has his
name, which for the same reasons also seems to be
partial and dependent. See Carlos A. Matheus
L


opez, La Independencia e Imparcialidad del Arbitro
(San Sebasti
an: Instituto Vasco de Derecho Proc-
esal, 2009), 175 8. It is important to remember
that “the independence of arbitrator is one of the
corner stones of arbitration. An independent arbi-
trator is one who has no close relationship with a
party in in the arbitration or its counsel, be it of a
financial, professional or personal nature (. . .) the
requirement of impartiality implies the absence of
bias or predisposition towards one of the parties.
Together with the requirement of independence, it
serves the purpose of protecting parties against
arbitrators being influenced by factors other than
those related to the merits of the case”. See Karel
Daele, Challenge and Disqualification of Arbitrators in
393
 LAW & LITERATURE  VOLUME 27  NUMBER 3
International Arbitration (Dordrecht: Kluwer Law
International, 2012), 270 367.
81. See Carlos A. Matheus L
opez, La Selecci
on del


Arbitro en el Arbitraje Dom
estico e Internacional
(San Sebasti
an: Instituto Vasco de Derecho Proc-
esal, 2014), 1 2.; similarly Charles J. Moxley, Jr.,
“Selecting the Ideal Arbitrator,” Dispute Resolution
Journal, August/October (2005): 1, states that:
“the quality of an arbitration obviously depends
on the fair-mindedness, experience and ability
of the arbitrator or panel selected to hear the
dispute”.

Carlos A. Matheus L
opez is Associate Professor of the Academic Department of

Law at the Pontificia Universidad Cat
olica del Per

u PUCP. Arbitrator and Consul-
tant. www.cmlarbitration.com.
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 03:08 17 March 2016

394