Lucifer Princeps By Peter Grey - Scarlet Imprint (July 1, 2015)
Lucifer: Princeps is a seminal study on the origins of the Lucifer
mythos by Peter Grey. It is the first in a two volume work; the
companion volume, Praxis, being an exposition of ritual actions, is due
to be published in 2016.
The fall of Lucifer, and that of the rebel
angels who descended upon the daughters of men, comprise the foundation
myth of the Western occult tradition. Lucifer: Princeps is a study of
origins, a portrait of the first ancestor of witchcraft and magic. In
tracing the genealogy of our patron and prince, the principles that
underlie the ritual forms that have come down to us, through the
grimoires and folk practices, are elucidated.
The study draws on the
extensive literature of history, religion and archaeology, engaging with
the vital discoveries and advances of recent scholarship, which render
previous works on Lucifer, however well intentioned, out of date. A
concomitant exegesis of the core texts conjures the terrain and koine of
the Ancient Near East, the cradle cultures and language of his
nascence. Of critical importance are the effaced cultures and cults that
lie behind the Old Testament polemics, viz. those of Assyria, Ugarit
and Canaan, as well as Sumeria, Egypt and Greece; they provide the
context that give meaning to what would otherwise be an isolated
brooding figure, one who makes no sense without being encountered in the
landscape.
Intended to be the definitive text on Lucifer for the
witch, magician and student of the grimoires, Princeps spans wingtip to
wingtip from the original flood myth and legends of divine teachers to
the Church Fathers, notably Augustine, Origen and Tertullian. The tales
of the Garden of Eden, the Nephilim, of the fall of Helel ben Šahar and
the Prince of Tyre, the nature of Azazel, and the creation of the Satan
are drawn beneath the shadow of these wings into a narrative that binds
Genesis and Revelation via the Enochian tradition. The story of the
Serpent in the Garden and that of Lucifer are revealed to be a singular
myth whose true significance had been lost and can now be restored. It
illuminates the path to apotheosis, and the role of the goddess as the
transforming initiatrix who bestows the crown.
Fragments :
Another cause of confusion occurs in Hebrews, the New Testament text
that, as previously shown, relies so heavily on Psalm 110. Here Jesus is
described no less than five times as ‘exalted to the right hand of
God,’ an image perilously close to Isaiah 14:13, where Lucifer is seated
upon the mount of the congregation. As both are kings they are
identically clothed. Christ appeals for legitimacy to the archaic
symbols of the Royal House of David, whereas Lucifer is an improper ruler but still bears the same insignia. Both draw on the same cultural conventions of divine kingship.
The feared error of mistaking Lucifer for Christ is exactly what we
find in some modern esoteric interpretations. At times, the similitude
is presented as an esoteric Christianity; at others, as a core
component within certain streams of modern traditional witchcraft. Such
theories draw heavily on modern angelic speculation – more proto-New
Age than historically derived.3 Deeming Christ as Lucifer and Lucifer
as Christ is a logical nonsense, rooted in the 19th century conception
of a universal religion, as mooted by the Theosophists. Other notable
attempts to solve the Christ- Lucifer antipathy are to be found in
Thelema and The Process Church of the Final Judgment – again, in origin,
theosophically inspired. My position on the matter is clear: Lucifer is
not Christ, as a careful reading of scripture demonstrates. The
confusion is due to a shared metaphor, or more accurately, epithet, that
references an undergirding unity: kingship.
The error has occured
because of the misuse of concordance as a tool of exegesis. In comparing
the use of phrases and words to draw equivalences, none of the theories
cited above distinguish between the capitalised name Lucifer, as
introduced by St Jerome, and the New Testament use of the uncapitalised
morning star as a metaphor for Christ. Neither do they take account of
the context of the passages. By combining and identifying the figures of
Lucifer and Christ, such readings inevitably go on to render Satan
anathema. The impossibility of such a reading will be addressed in due
course, as both scripture and the historical record unequivocally show
that Lucifer and Satan are bound to one another. Language is a slippery
thing, and we must be careful, in our eagerness to de- cipher meaning,
that we do not repeat such avoidable errors.
...........................
The fall of Lucifer is not a unique mythic event. His fate is mirrored
in a plethora of figures in the Ugaritic, Greek and Mesopotamian
traditions, whose legends are marked by certain common elements: doomed
flight, the bringing of the fire of knowledge, and transgressing the
limits of divine power. Notable amongst these figures are Icarus, Etana,
Athtar, Gilgameš, Prometheus, Phaëthon and Bellerophon. All are worthy
of study. The biblical sources are supplemented by the great storehouse
of myth. The sparsity of the references, in Isaiah in particular and
scripture in general, is fleshed and feathered out with borrowings from
the common cultural inheritance.
Having acknowledged the breadth and
depth of possible influences, my task is to narrow my focus to regard
the most striking examples. Those I have selected are the Greek
Phaëthon and Bellerophon and the Sumerian Etana. These three serve to
illuminate key traits of the character of Lucifer as it is developed in
the sub- sequent grimoire tradition, to be covered in Praxis. The
notable absence from this company is Prometheus, who has become the
tragic image of Lucifer, via Shelley as much as Aeschylus. For reasons
that will become apparent, he is discussed in relation to the Enochian
material in the later chapters, ‘The Key’ and ‘A Mass of Blood and
Feathers.’
The myth of Phaëthon’s tragic course places the action on
a cosmic scale. This evokes not only Isaiah, but its reflex in the
apocalypse of Revelation, where it is not the fate of a single king, but
a conflict that engulfs both heavens and earth. The resemblance of the
story of Hêlēl Ben Šaḥar to that of Phaëthon has long been remarked.
Gunkel1 first made the identification; and Gruppe,2 backed by the
more recent work of Grelot,3 advanced the thesis that Isaiah 14:12–15
preserved fragments of a lost West Semitic myth which corresponds to
that of Phaëthon, recorded in Hesiod’s Theogony,4 Ovid’s Metamorphoses,
Nonnos’ Dionysiaca and numerous other sources.
Phaëthon means ‘the
shining, glittering,’ and, in a comparative analysis of Hesiod’s text,
can be identified as both the morning star and the son of Dawn (Êôs).
We remember how Phaëthon forces his father Helios to let him ride
across the sky at the reins of his solar chariot, but loses control of
the mighty team of horses, dropping the reins when confronted with the
horrifying sight of Scorpio. The rising and plunging of the uncontrolled
fiery chariot threatens to destroy the world. The ensuing disasters are
very reminiscent of Revelation. The luck- less youth is finally struck
through with a thunderbolt hurled by Zeus, who thus restores the cosmic
order. The boy pitches head first and aflame into the river Eridanus.
The name of this river – variously identified with the earthly Po
(called Eridanus by the Greeks), with the Rhine,5 and the Rhône, (where
the stench of his corpse is related in the Argonautica) – is
significant. Eridanus was also located in the infernal Hades, which
accords with the earlier version of the myth in which Hêlēl falls into
Sheol, the nether- world; and the river is also identified as the
celestial constellation of Eridanus itself. Of note is that the name
Eridanus is derived from the Sumerian Eridu, the city sacred to Enki,
god of water and cunning wisdom.6
...................
Mark Shipp, in his exhaustive study of Isaiah 14, Of Dead Kings and Dirges,4 insightfully concludes:
While the passage does not relate specifically to a myth of the
primordial fall of one of the members of the divine court, there are
points of contact between the historical /mythological setting and its
later theological appropriation by Church and Synagogue.
If the ‘King of
Babylon’ personified arrogance, presumption, and usurpation of the
gods’ prerogatives, how much more are these attributes characteristic of Satan, the great accuser of the Lord’s elect and tyrannizer of creation?
The figure of Satan is aptly invoked. Witness Luke 10:18, (a direct
linear descendant of Isaiah): And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as
lightning fall from heaven. A direct equivalence between Lucifer and
Satan is made. Here Satan is struck down by the disciple’s use of the
name of Christ.
The compulsion of malevolent spirits by the divine
name(s) is no innovation, and can be traced back textually to the work
of the Sumerian exorcists. Earlier in the same chapter (Luke 10:15) the
ritual formula of being exalted to heaven and struck down to hell is
given: And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust
down to hell. Evidently, Isaiah has been instrumental in the New
Testament, and thence the burgeoning demonology of Christianity that has
informed the structure of European magic.
By returning through the door
that Satan slipped through, demonology is reclaimed as chthonic: the
roots of religion, rather than an inverse hierarchy with ritual actions
as mere reactive blasphemy.
