Talk:Hierarchy of devils

I came across this article while doing some research, and thought I'd give some background on the "source" of information. The Hierarchy given in the article reflects hierarchy attributed to demonology. Specifically, the work of Arthur Edward Waite, an english occultist. He based his research on a midevil grimoire called the The Lesser Key of Solomon. You'll find mention of some of the demons in Chapter 3 (concerning the descending hierarchy) of Waite's book, The Book of Ceremonial Magic (Citadel Press). There are discrepencies between the article and what was published in Waite's work, as well as The Lesser Key of Solomon. Before I forget, you can download a PDF copy of The Lesser Key of Solomon in 2 parts HERE : PART1 and PART2

I'd like to add that there are a lot of people that consider the hierarchy published in The Lesser Key of Solomon as nonsense. The person who wrote the book alluded to basing his knowledge of the hierarchy of hell due to demonic posession.

Some inconistencies
In the first part of this page, Azazel is referred to as the leader of the Nephilim, which is inaccurate. The Nephilim did not have a leader, being part angel, part human. Instead, Samyaza is the leader of the Grigori (watchers), according to 1 Enoch, as other wiki pages indicate.

I did not fix this inconsistency because I did not wish to remove azazel from the original seraphim fallen, nor did I wish to add Samyaza (as I'm not certain he was considered one of the Seraphim).

Either way, this page conflicts with others in this way, and should be corrected. I may add a tag saying as such to the header of the page. -Draxxon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.84.47.99 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Hierarchy of Demons
Any reason there are two different articles labeled 'Hierarchy of Demons' and 'Hierarchy of Devils'? I just thought that Demons and Devils were the same thing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.243.126.208 (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Satan/Lucifer
I'm pretty sure that your reference to these as being the same person is false. Satan is refered to throughout history. however Lucifer is only mentioned recently(in the last few hundred years) during an exorsism. I'm also sure that lucifer and satan are diffrent entities entierly, i'm al;so sure there is a refrance to this on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.200 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrapping things up here
Sebastian Michaelis (whose writings were the main basis for the article) did not write the Lesser Key of Solomon (the hierarchy of which is detailed in THAT article), Michaelis's hierarchy is already mentioned in the Classification of demons article and this shouldn't have been separate from that. Demons and devils are the same thing until Dungeons & Dragons came about (and even in the beginning they didn't regard them as different). Michaelis (and the Lesser Key of Solomon) would have considered Satan and Lucifer to be the same being, Lucifer was regarded as the same as Satan since the middle ages, likely antiquity as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to point out to you that in the occult, as well as in the pantheons of many other cultures that predate the Abrahamic traditions, and yes, that even predate "Dungeons and Dragons," a demon (Koine δαιμόνιον, basically referring to spirit or genius) is not the same thing as a "devil" (late Latin, diabolus: evil spirit, false god, diabolical person). In Vulgate, as in Greek, diabolus and dæmon were distinct, but they have merged in English and other Germanic languages. Take, for instance, the Greek Muse that inspired the genius of Homer to generate then compile The Odyssey. Would that be more Satan, more Lucifer, or something entirely other? It is cute how you condescendingly assert that meaning begins with the mythical death of Christ and so that neatly "wraps things up here," but I assure you that it doesn't. To argue that ancient esoteric ideas are nullified by your failure to comprehend a distinction between two fictional characters is rather slippery. Aside from that, one who knows that there was intellectual life and robust spiritual discourse BCE would find that assertion rather insulting. It would be like an American telling a European that there is no difference between a king and a tyrant because the Declaration of Independence says so. In short, an appeal to canonical beliefs does not establish some sort of authoritative knowledge.   DoYourHomework (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)