How did historical writers classify demons? There is no single, universally accepted list. Across centuries, different authors grouped supposed spirits by location, temptation, behavior, rank, or the sins they were believed to encourage. Those competing systems tell us much more about the cultures and religious controversies that produced them than about any scientifically established supernatural hierarchy.
This historical guide compares seven influential approaches—from the Testament of Solomon and Byzantine discussions of spirits to Renaissance occult philosophy and the demonologies associated with King James VI and I. Each system answers a different question: where are spirits said to dwell, what do they do, or how were they ranked?
Looking specifically for the nine orders associated with Beelzebub, Pytho, Belial and the other named figures? Read our companion article: 9 Types of Devils and Demons: The Nine Historical Classes Explained. This page instead explores the broader history of classification.
What is a demon in historical demonology?
The word “demon” does not mean exactly the same thing in every period or tradition. In ancient Greek writing, a daimōn could be a spirit or intermediary being without necessarily implying a purely evil nature. Later Christian writers more often understood demons as fallen or deceptive spirits. Modern popular culture draws from both strands, often combining ideas that never formed one coherent theology. For examples of how modern films reinterpret these traditions, compare the fictional Bagul demon in Sinister and the Other Mommy horror-film entity.
A “type of demon” can therefore mean several things: a being’s supposed habitat, its claimed role in tempting humans, an individual name in a catalogue, or a position within a theological hierarchy. This distinction matters when two sources offer entirely different numbers or names.
Seven historical ways demons were classified
- The Testament of Solomon: demons identified through names, claimed powers, afflictions, and the story of Solomon’s temple.
- Michael Psellos: spirits associated with six environments or regions.
- Sin-based systems and Peter Binsfeld: supposed demonic rulers linked with the seven deadly sins.
- Alfonso de Spina: a catalogue of demon-like beings drawn from medieval folklore and theology.
- King James VI and I: four ways alleged spirits were said to disturb human beings.
- Sébastien Michaelis: hierarchical ranks and particular temptations in an early modern possession narrative.
- Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa and Francis Barrett: nine orders of evil spirits arranged in opposition to angelic orders.
1. The Testament of Solomon: demons described by powers and activities
The Testament of Solomon is a later work attributed to the biblical King Solomon, not a text historians can verify Solomon himself wrote. It belongs to a body of writings often described as pseudepigrapha: texts circulated under the name of a revered figure. Its origin and composition are debated, and surviving versions reflect a layered literary history.
In its narrative, Solomon questions and commands demons while overseeing construction of the Temple. Spirits describe their names, the disturbances they supposedly cause, and the means by which they can be resisted. The emphasis is not a neat list of seven or nine classes. Instead, the narrative functions as a catalogue of individual supernatural figures and their alleged domains.
This distinction is useful: when modern articles call the Testament a “classification,” they may be using the word loosely. It is better understood as an influential demon catalogue framed as a story of Solomon’s authority. These claims form part of the text’s religious and folkloric world, not documentary evidence of those beings.
2. Michael Psellos: six types based on where spirits dwell
The Byzantine scholar Michael Psellos (also spelled Psellus, 11th century) is associated with a six-part classification organized primarily around the regions where spirits were thought to operate. This approach differs sharply from a list organized around named princes of Hell.
- Fiery or empyreal: associated with the upper air or fiery regions.
- Aerial: associated with the air around the earth.
- Terrestrial: associated with land and the earth’s surface.
- Aquatic: associated with seas, lakes, and other waters.
- Subterranean: associated with places beneath the earth.
- Light-shunning or lucifugous: associated with darkness and avoidance of light.
In Psellos’s scheme, the defining feature is location, not which particular sin a spirit inspires. That makes his six categories fundamentally different from later lists of demonic rulers. A scholarly discussion of the six groups appears in Revista Digital Universitaria (UNAM).
3. The seven deadly sins: a moral framework for demons
Another enduring approach links supposed demonic influences to moral failings. The seven deadly sins—pride, envy, wrath, sloth, greed, gluttony, and lust—were developed as a moral teaching framework in Christian history. Writers and later popular summaries sometimes matched these sins with the names of demonic rulers.
One frequently repeated arrangement, attributed to Peter Binsfeld in the late 16th century, pairs Lucifer with pride, Mammon with greed, Asmodeus with lust, Leviathan with envy, Beelzebub with gluttony, Satan with wrath, and Belphegor with sloth. The exact pairings and attributions vary across subsequent tellings, so they should not be presented as an uncontested Christian doctrine.
Unlike Psellos’s geographic scheme, this classification asks what human vice a demon was said to encourage. It was part of a culture in which religious instruction, occult speculation, and moral warnings often overlapped. Historical assertions that a specific demon “causes” a sin should be read as statements about the beliefs of the author or tradition, not factual diagnoses of behavior.
4. Alfonso de Spina: categories influenced by folklore
The 15th-century Franciscan writer Alfonso de Spina (also called Alphonso de Spina) is often associated with a list of supposed demonic types gathered from different strands of European legend and religious writing. Rather than following a single principle, the categories mingle alleged supernatural encounters, folklore, and anxieties about witchcraft.
- Incubi and succubi: spirits appearing in stories of sexual encounters during sleep or dreams.
- Wandering companies or armies: groups of spirits described as traveling together.
- Familiars: supposed helper spirits associated in folklore and persecution narratives with magical practitioners.
- Drudes: nightmare-causing beings in German-language folklore.
- Cambions: figures described in certain legends as offspring of a human and a demon.
- Mischievous, deceptive, or persecuting spirits: labels built around the behavior ascribed to them.
This list is especially revealing because it combines several kinds of tradition under the same heading. A figure from German folklore is not automatically the same thing as a demon from a biblical or theological text. Readers should avoid treating the names as elements of one ancient, consistent system.
5. King James VI and I: four kinds of alleged spiritual disturbance
In Daemonologie (published in 1597), James VI of Scotland—later James I of England—discussed witchcraft and reported spirit activity in the form of a dialogue. In its third book he divides the supposed troubles caused by spirits into four broad kinds. The text also reflects the persecution and religious conflicts of its time.
- Spirits associated with haunted places: apparitions or disturbances said to trouble houses and solitary locations.
- Spirits said to follow people: outward harassment of particular individuals, an idea often summarized as obsession.
- Spirits said to enter people: accounts described by the author as possession.
- Fairy-like appearances or illusions: the category James called “Phairie.”
These are modes of reported activity, not four genetically or biologically different species. James explicitly describes the distinctions as outward forms attributed to a single kind of malicious spirit. His book can be read in a public-domain edition at Project Gutenberg: Daemonologie.
A modern reader should also remember the social consequences of these beliefs. Demonological explanations were used in periods when people accused of witchcraft could face violence or execution. Folklore, illness, dreams, and unexplained experiences should not be assumed to prove supernatural activity.
6. Sébastien Michaelis: ranks and specific temptations
The Dominican writer Sébastien Michaelis published a narrative about alleged possession in the early 17th century. Its influential English translation, The Admirable History of the Possession and Conversion of a Penitent Woman, appeared in 1613. The account presents a hierarchical arrangement of devils within its own religious and historical framework.
The hierarchy draws on ideas of angelic orders and associates different names with particular temptations. Among the figures mentioned are Beelzebub, Leviathan, Asmodeus, and Astaroth; other names and saintly opponents appear in the larger catalogue. It does not map neatly onto Binsfeld’s seven deadly sins or Psellos’s six regions.
The historical context is essential. The text arose from reported exorcisms and accusations in early modern France. Its claims about statements made during possession cannot be independently established as supernatural testimony. It is nonetheless a useful source for understanding how religious authorities organized their beliefs about temptation, authority, and spiritual struggle.
7. Agrippa and Barrett: the nine orders of evil spirits
One of the best-known ninefold classifications appears in Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa’s Three Books of Occult Philosophy, which was printed in 1533. In Book III, Chapter 18, Agrippa describes nine orders of evil spirits opposite the nine angelic orders. Francis Barrett’s The Magus (1801) later helped circulate related Renaissance occult material.
The nine orders concern forms of idolatry, deception, iniquity, vengeance, false miracles, disturbances of the air, conflict, accusation, and temptation. Agrippa associates names such as Beelzebub, Pytho, Belial, Asmodeus, Satan, Meririm, Abaddon or Apollyon, Astaroth, and Mammon with these orders.
Rather than repeating all nine profiles here, see our detailed companion piece: 9 Types of Devils and Demons: The Nine Classes in Historical Demonology. For the underlying text, consult Agrippa, Book III, Chapter 18. This is a hierarchical theological and occult model, not a list validated by observation.
How these demon classifications differ
The most common mistake is to combine every name from every system into one “complete” master list. These authors did not all use the same criteria, and they did not share a single historical context. A practical comparison is:
- Where spirits supposedly exist: Psellos’s six environmental classes.
- What spirits supposedly do: the Testament of Solomon, de Spina’s folkloric categories, and the four disturbances discussed by James.
- Which human failings they supposedly exploit: the seven deadly sins and Michaelis’s accounts of temptation.
- How they rank: the hierarchies in Michaelis and the nine orders in Agrippa and Barrett.
These differences explain why internet charts often disagree about the “number of demon types.” They are usually drawing from different books—or combining sources without explaining where the underlying claims came from.
Are there scientifically established types of demons?
No scientific system has verified demons as a class of supernatural entities, much less established an objective taxonomy of them. Demonological texts are valuable as historical and cultural evidence: they show how writers understood the unknown, described troubling experiences, and interpreted religious belief in their own eras.
Reports of apparitions, sleep-related experiences, changes in behavior, or feelings of fear can have many explanations. They should not be used as grounds for diagnosing another person as possessed, accusing anyone of witchcraft, or delaying appropriate medical care.
Frequently asked questions
How many types of demons are there?
There is no universal number. Psellos is associated with six kinds by region; some later lists pair seven rulers with the deadly sins; Agrippa describes nine orders; King James discusses four forms of alleged spiritual disturbance. Each is a separate historical framework.
Are the nine types of demons the same as the seven deadly sins?
No. The nine-order scheme in Agrippa and the sin-based sevenfold lists arise from different ways of organizing alleged spirits. Some names overlap, but their categories and organizing principles are not identical.
Did King Solomon write the Testament of Solomon?
The text is traditionally attributed to him, but it is not considered a firsthand work by the biblical Solomon. Scholars treat its authorship and composition as later and complex.
Which source should I read first?
For the historical nine-order framework, start with Agrippa’s Book III, Chapter 18. For the four forms of alleged haunting or possession, read King James’s Daemonologie. Our separate article on the nine orders of demons is an accessible guide to the first system.
Historical sources and further reading
- Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, Three Books of Occult Philosophy, Book III, Chapter 18 — nine orders of evil spirits.
- James VI and I, Daemonologie (1597) — especially Book III on four forms of alleged spiritual disturbance.
- Revista Digital Universitaria (UNAM), historical discussion of Psellos — the six geographical categories.
- Archived 2018 LiveSciFi article — source record for this restored and expanded guide.
Keep exploring LiveSciFi: If you want the individual names and descriptions behind the nine-order tradition, continue with our in-depth guide to the nine types of devils and demons.