But he was the only one represented as a principal god, as opposed to a purely-animalistic monster of the
Tuat.
Known as the Hebrew Satan, I chose to bring forth a Magus, according to the fashion of my
Word. He was charged to form a Church of Satan, that I might easily touch the minds of men
in this image they had cast for me.
Before proceeding further, I should perhaps at this point address a point of confusion concerning the
Set/Satan relationship of particular note to some students of Aleister Crowley:
Kenneth Grant, coeditor of many of Crowley’s works with John Symonds, has repeatedly and
exhaustively tried to connect Set with Crowley’s philosophy in general, and with Aiwass in particular. 61
Crowley’s own writings, however, do not substantiate this. Crowley practically ignored Set, except for an
occasional mention of the god in an Osirian-mythos context. In his principal discussion of the Devil on page
#296 of Magick, for instance, he does not even include the name of Set.
It is obvious that Crowley’s orientation with regard to Egyptian theology was exclusively towards the
Osiris-cult mythos. On page #399 of his Confessions, while discussing the sequence of magical æons in
terms of the Osirian triad (Isis, Osiris, and Horus the Younger), he emphasizes the position of Horus as the
avenger of his father Osiris - a role accorded only the Osirian corruption. Additional confirmations are to be
found in Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law, wherein “Hoor-paar-Kraat” is
identified on page #94 as the “God of Silence” and “Harpocrates”, both designations of Horus the Younger.
On the following pages his position as the son of Osiris is restated. There are plenty of other examples, but
the point should be made.
Grant also endeavors somewhat desperately to identify Set with “Shaitan”, whom he states was the god
worshipped by the Yezidi in Mesopotamia. The Yezidi religious texts - the Black Scripture and Book of the
Revelation - do not use the term “Shaitan” at all, calling the Yezidi deity by the name of Melek Taus, Taus
Melek, or Taus-e Malak. [Only in LaVey’s Satanic Rituals - which contains several errors in its Yezidi
section - is the term “Shaitain” alleged to be a Yezidi term.] It is probably merely a Hebrew spelling of
“Satan”, and the Yezidi Book of the Revelation clearly establishes that the Yezidis considered Jews to be
“profane”. 62
Summarily Kenneth Grant appears to arbitrarily rewrite ancient Egyptian mythology, Yezidi mythology,
and the philosophy of Aleister Crowley according to his personal tastes.
As noted previously, the Hebrew term “Satan” is a possible corruption of the hieroglyphic Set-hen. just
as the Hebrew “YahWeh” and its derivative Christian trinity are corruptions of the earlier Osirian cult. 63
By the end of the XXV Dynasty the Priesthood of Set in Egypt was probably destroyed, 64 and the
subsequent loss of the hieroglyphic language virtually eliminated the original Set from human knowledge.
59 Te Velde, op. cit. , pages #13-15.
60 Budge, From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt. London: Oxford University Press, 1934, pages #87-89.
61 Cf. page #226 in Grant’s Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God and page #x of Grant’s introduction to The Magical Record of
the Beast 666.
62 See Chapter #22 and Appendices #69-70 in The Church of Satan.
63 Brandon, S.G.F., Religion in Ancient History. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969, pages #102-132.
64 Budge, The Mummy, page #276.
- 48 -
Only the Osirian corruption survived in legend - principally through Plutarch, who described it in some
detail in his Moralia. 65
The archetypical dæmon most closely akin to Set was the Christian Satan, particularly in his Miltonian
representation. See in particular Book I of John Milton’s Paradise Lost. [Some interesting comments are
contained in Asimov’s Annotated Paradise Lost by John Milton/Isaac Asimov (Garden City: Doubleday &
Co., 1974). Asimov discusses both the role of Satan and the nature of evil itself at some length, and not
always to the credit of God.] Set accordingly chose this image as the one most meaningful for post-Egyptian
manifestations.
The term “Magus” is used in the specialized sense of Western initiatory tradition. A Magus is
characterized by his identification, comprehension, and introduction of a new magical/philosophical
principle - a process described as the Utterance of a Word and/or Formula.
For Aleister Crowley’s interpretation of the role of a Magus, see his Magick, page #330. [This is the
“One Star in Sight” essay, which may also be found in other Crowley works and is abridged in Black Magic
in the Crystal Tablet of Set.] Like a prophet he accomplishes this through a mental “link” with a higher
intellectual essence (what Plato termed Nœsis). Such a “link” may be either external (with a separate
intelligence) or internal (with the higher sensitivity of one’s own intelligence). In either case it is the results
of the experience that are significant.
Unlike a prophet, a Magus establishes such a “link” through deliberate mental focus, and with full
comprehension of the result. Hence an essential distinction between magic and [conventional] religion is
that philosophical discipline is required for the former, while mental relaxation and abandonment of critical
faculties (=faith) are required for the latter. 66
In 1966 (the year I Anno Satani) Anton Szandor LaVey assumed the title of Magus V° and founded the
Church of Satan in San Francisco. For its first three years, the Church remained primarily a local institution.
In 1969 it began to accept memberships from other areas. By 1971 it developed a nationwide Priesthood and
administrative structure.
In the fifth year of the Church of Satan, I gave to this Magus my Diabolicon, that he might
know the truth of my ancient Gift to mankind, clothed though it might be in the myths of the
Hebrews. Even you, who delivered the Diabolicon from Asia, did not know it for what it was.
But he that I had fashioned a Magus knew, and he thought often of the Diabolicon as he
guided the Church of Satan.
In January-March of the year 1970, I was a Satanist I° of the Church of Satan. I was also a First
Lieutenant in the Army, stationed in Lai Khe/Ben Cat, South Vietnam. Wishing to make a contribution to
the lore of the Church, I decided to write a restatement of certain themes from John Milton’s Paradise Lost.
But what flowed from my pen began to assume a dignity beyond what I had anticipated. Unlike the later
Book of Coming Forth by Night, it was not written in final draft in one sitting; rather the entire project
occupied the better part of three months. I revised the Diabolicon extensively until I thought it “sounded
right”, and then I recopied the final text in calligraphic letters because ordinary handwriting or typed copy
seemed inappropriate. The final document was sent to Anton LaVey in April of 1970. His response came
soon thereafter:
I received the Diabolicon safely. It is indeed a work which will have a lasting impact. It is done
in an ageless manner and with complete awareness. So impressed am I that I have selected passages
from it for my own personal reading in this evening’s ceremony, which pays homage to the writings
of the Satanic Masters of the past, such as Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Twai
n, Hobbes, etc. … You have
my sincere gratitude for the fine gift you have so graciously bestowed upon us, and you may be
assured that it will assume a meaningful place in the Order. 67
The Diabolicon was retained unreleased in San Francisco. Although I subsequently circulated a few
typed copies among the Priesthood, the Diabolicon was not made generally available until the publication of
the first edition of this Analysis & Commentary in 1976. It is included in The Church of Satan as Appendix
#15.
65 Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, Volume V in Moralia (14 volumes), F.C. Babbitt (Ed. & Trans.). London: Loeb Classical Library, 1936.
66 Cf. William James, Varieties of Religious Experience.
67 Letter, Anton LaVey to M.A. Aquino, March 27, V/1970.
- 49 -
Upon the ninth Solstice, therefore, I destroyed my pact with Anton Szandor LaVey, and I
raised him to the Will of a Daimon, unbounded by the material dimensions. And so I thought
to honor him beyond other men. But it may have been this act of mine that ordained his fall.
For the next four years after the creation of the Diabolicon, I wrote nothing similar to it. Even a
deliberate attempt to recapture its style - a manuscript entitled Flame of Infernus - proved abortive. In the
summer of 1974, however, I once more experienced the restlessness that had characterized the Working of
the Diabolicon; and over a two-month period I penned a similar document containing the message referred
to in this passage. In August I again sent the calligraphic original to Anton LaVey. In an accompanying note
I disclaimed the prerogative to comment on it. The text of this document, since known as the “Ninth Solstice
Message”, is included in The Church of Satan as Appendix #111. Anton replied with a note in -
uncharacteristically - his own handwriting:
It pleases me that you perceive that which you do. You have entered a new realm of
comprehension and truly deserve the name of Satanist. 68
What I did not know for many years was that coincidental with the forming of the Church in 1966,
Anton LaVey had privately handwritten and signed a personal Pact with Satan (titled simply “My Pact”). He
never mentioned nor displayed it to others, but on one evening in 1974, during a visit of mine to his home,
we happened to be discussing Robert W. Chambers’ The King in Yellow. He left the Purple Room, then
returned with a locked metal strongbox, which he opened, revealing his personal copy of the then-quite-rare
book. The only other item in the strongbox was his Pact - which I was unable to read beyond seeing its title
and noting that it was completely handwritten on a single sheet of paper. I have often wondered what
mirrors of his innermost self it contained.
Were I my Self to displace the Cosmic Inertia, I should be forced to become a new measure of
consistency. I would cease to be One, for I should become All.
Here Set observes that he, as a finite intelligence possessing the prerogative to act in disregard of the
mechanical norm of the objective universe, cannot completely replace or redesign that universe without
himself becoming identical with it, i.e. infinite, omnipresent, hence mechanical [from the point of view of
any component intelligence]. This is a more precise restatement of the famous Miltonian paradox: that a
conquered God would become Satan, and a conquering Satan God. [This theme is explored by Anatole
France in his classic The Revolt of the Angels (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1914).]
To make of man a Daimon, then, may be to break his Self-reference to the bounds in which
his semblance must exist.
A human passing beyond the initiation of Magus encounters the same paradox that Set describes above.
He ceases to view himself as a finite intelligence working upon an inertial environment. Rather he attains
such a strong sense of harmonious interrelationships that there is a tendency to see the entire Objective
Universe as conforming to his Word as a Magus.
Initially this would seem to be immensely satisfying, but in fact the phenomenon is so instantaneous,
automatic, and comprehensive that there is no particular sense of achievement. An individual in such a
situation is in danger of losing a sense of unique identity, as the barriers between his consciousness and the
phenomena of the universe become fluid. [It is not inappropriate to compare this experience to that of
quantum physicists, who suddenly encounter an objective universe in which all “constants” are revealed to
be “variables”.]
A second consequence of this situation is that a human magician is still restricted to his physical body.
This requires him to move about and to participate in the ordinary society of non-magicians. Skilled
magicians learn to do this without inciting fear in or ostracism by non-magicians, but a Daimon may tend to
carelessness in such mundane matters. Accordingly he runs great danger of becoming a target of the mob.
Socrates and Pythagoras were two who displayed Daimonic detachment. Both were slain for their “impiety”.
In the Church of Satan there was no initiatory degree beyond that of Magus V° (alternately called
“Satanic Master”). The designation of “Daimon” here may be considered comparable to what the Temple of
Set would later Recognize as the VI° of Ipsissimus. The word “Daimon” comes from the Greek daimon,
meaning “divine spirit” or “tutelary divinity”. It is, of course, the term which was later corrupted into the
Christian term “demon”. The irony is not inappropriate.
- 50 -
I cannot undo the hurt that has come of this, but I shall restore to Anton Szandor LaVey his
human aspect and his degree of Magus in my Order. Thus all may understand that he is
dearly held by me, and that the end of the Church of Satan is not a thing of shame to him. But
a new Aeon is now to begin, and the work of Anton Szandor LaVey is done. Let him be at
ease, for no other man has ever seen with his eyes.
In May 1975, Anton LaVey announced his intention to sell the initiatory degrees of the Church of Satan
for “professional services, funds, real estate, objects of value, etc.”. It was a decision completely inconsistent
with the previous standards of individual awareness and ability he had maintained, nor would it have
achieved its intended result of augmenting his income. It was precisely the non-corruptible nature of the
Satanic degrees which had made them so highly prized. Such a startling shortfall of logic by an individual
known for his analytical mind was inexplicable. The entire Church of Satan was plunged into crisis;
organizational resignations poured in; and by the end of June the once-strong national network had
virtually ceased to exist.
For a decade the Church of Satan had surmounted every obstacle and solved every problem with an ease
unequaled and unprecedented in occultism. Now it was dying, not with a bang but with a whimper, This too
we could not understand. Hence my decision to appeal directly to Satan on the eve of the North Solstice.
In the Book of Coming Forth by Night Set assumes responsibility for the disastrous course of events by
citing the unanticipated dangers of the Daimonic state of mind. At the same time he implies that the Age of
Satan (Set/HarWer) would have evolved into the Æon of Set in any case [though this would not necessarily
have meant an organizatio
nal crisis or change in leadership; it was the means, not the end, which proved to
be unnecessarily traumatic].
In middle Egyptian hieroglyphic this inscription reads: Xu thenru ast a ari-f em suten. Translation: “He
did many glorious things and mighty deeds as High Priest.”.
In April of the common year 1904, I came forth in Africa as my Opposite Self and brought
into being an Aeon to end the horrors of the stasis of the death-gods of men. This new Aeon
was a Purification, to prepare men for that which would follow it.
On April 8-10, 1904 in Cairo, Aleister Crowley wrote down the Book of the Law, a magical text which
announced the end of the Æon of Osiris and the beginning of the Æon of Horus. Crowley was identified as
the Magus of that Æon [though he did not immediately acknowledge the title], and its Word was proclaimed
to be Thelema (Greek thelhma = Will).
Crowley’s most thorough account of this incident is to be found in his book The Equinox of the Gods,
published by the O.T.O. in 1936. See also “The Temple of Solomon the King” in his Equinox #I-7. For an
outside analysis, see pages #61-66 (“Aiwass, the Holy Guardian Angel”) in John Symonds’ The Great Beast
(London: Macdonald & Co. Ltd., 1971).
Crowley attributed the Book of the Law to Aiwass, an entity identified in the text as “the minister of
Hoor-paar-kraat”.69 In translation this becomes “the infant Horus” and refers to [the Greek] Harpokrates, a
representation of Horus the Younger as an infant.
Crowley was not familiar with the distinctions between the original Horus and the later Osirian
corruption. His Egyptological orientation appears to have been exclusively Osirian, since his comments
concerning various Egyptian gods place them squarely in the Osiris-cult characterizations. He named the
magical æons according to the Osirian triad - first that of Isis, then that of Osiris, and finally that of “the
crowned and conquering child”, Horus the Younger. 70
Closely associated with - and mentioned in - the Book of the Law was an Egyptian funerary stele, which
Crowley called the “Stele of Revealing”. The three figures on this stele, whom Crowley called Nuit, Hadit,