The devil is in the details
idiom
"The devil is in the details" is an idiom alluding to a catch or mysterious element hidden in the details; it indicates that "something may seem simple, but in fact the details are complicated and likely to cause problems". It comes from the earlier phrase "God is in the details", expressing the idea that whatever one does should be done thoroughly; that is, details are important.
Origin
The idiom "God is in the details" has been attributed to a number of people, most notably to the German-born architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (1886–1969) by The New York Times in Mies's 1969 obituary; however, it is generally accepted not to have originated with him. A German version, Der liebe Gott steckt im Detail, is widely attributed to the German art historian Aby Warburg (1866–1929). According to Christopher Johnson, Der liebe Gott steckt im Detail was the subtitle of a seminar Warburg taught at the University of Hamburg in the winter of 1925-26. A French version of the saying, "Le bon Dieu est dans le détail" (literally "the good God is in the detail") is generally attributed to Gustave Flaubert (1821–1880).
The expression "the devil is in the details" is found in a 1963 history of post-war European integration. It is later attested in 1965. In 1969, it is referred to as an existing proverb. Bartlett's Familiar Quotations lists the saying's author as anonymous.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “The devil is in the details” is idiom. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through devil, details and idiom, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “idiom” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 18, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7730020. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1886, 1969, 1866 and 1929.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “The devil is in the details”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow The devil is in the details primary sources, The devil is in the details archive and devil research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “The devil is in the details”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “The devil is in the details” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.