You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In a footnote to a paper published in 1923, Sigmund Freud1 wrote: “The fact that we so seldom in analysis find the devil probably indicates that in those we analyze the role of this medieval, mythological figure has long since been outplayed. … For various reasons the increase in skepticism has affected first and foremost the person of the devil.” This would seem to be confirmed by the relatively sparse references to the devil in current psychoanalytic literature.*
Yet, with no fewer than four analysands within the past eight years, the writer has been confronted with the unmistakable vivid image of the devil himself or his derivative. All these patients were relatively well educated and sophisticated, and in each instance the devil came upon the scene suddenly and unexpectedly, leaving the analysand incredulous at the fact that it was indeed his own devil.
This paper will describe the personalities of the individuals and the circumstances under which the “devil” emerged, and will attempt to explore some of the implications. The patients ranged in age from 25 through 40 at the time of the experience. Each had been in analysis at least one year. Three were women and the fourth a man. All had a minimum of two years of college. At the onset of the analysis one of the women would be diagnosed as borderline, the other three analysands as fairly severe neurotics with both oedipal and pre-oedipal problems in the areas of general identity and sexual identity. In the one male and two of the three female patients, the