kaos

“that old serpent”. Indeed, Crowley in the 3 rd Æthyr says that Choronzon’s head is
“raised unto Daäth”, thereby explicitly identifying Choronzon with his previous
characterisation of the Stooping Dragon in the 7 th Æthyr, which raises its head unto
Daäth where it is blasted (the ashes being spread in the 10 th , Choronzon’s domain),
which links to Spare’s eight-headed dragon with one head in Daäth and then to a
seven-headed dragon and then full circle to the Great Red Dragon of Revelation and
again Satan and the serpent and the even earlier Lotan and Leviathan. In the 10 th
Æthyr Crowley (as Choronzon) also says: “Is not the head of the great Serpent arisen
into Knowledge?” Knowledge (gnosis) being Daäth, this shows Crowley made little
distinction between the Stooping Dragon, the Serpent, and Choronzon—or even that
“Choronzon” identifies himself as the Serpent if the whole is taken together as a truly
channelled work without any contamination by Crowley’s own concerns. (The dullminded
like to believe that human beings have no creative part to play in genuine spirit
communication beyond reception. Anyone who has skryed will know, however, if they
have not come away from the experience deluded by whatever entities they have been
trafficking with, that what results is a blend of information already known—ordered
more lucidly and coherently—with the inclusion of genuinely new material that emerges
with the tacit acceptance that the whole be regarded as a communication from spirits.)
Some, such as Geoffrey James, have even identified Telocvovim (“Him that is fallen”,
literally “Death Dragon”) of the 19 th Key as Coronzon rather than Lucifer (there is no
text referring to Coronzon’s fall), going so far as to refer to Telocvovim as “the great
dragon Coronzon”. I believe all these identifications of C[h]oronzon are in error
inasmuch as they are made too easily without taking into account the complexity of the
matrix of mythic material out of which the demon emerged. Instead it is instructive to
look more closely at the serpent of Genesis, given that the serpent alone, set apart from
later interpretations of who or what the serpent was actually supposed to be apart from
a persuasive snake, is as much as we are entitled to draw into our correlation on the
basis of the skrying of Dee and Kelly, where Coronzon as such was born into this
world. The Greek word used for “serpent” in Revelation is ophis (ofij), which simply
means a snake or serpent, and, ostensibly because of the reference in Revelation, the
word also means Satan. In Genesis, however, the Hebrew word nâchâsh ($xn) is used,
which, according to Strong’s Dictionary (entry 5175) means “a snake (from its hiss):—
serpent”, but Strong’s points out that the word is derived from nâchash 5172: “a primitive
root; properly, to hiss, ie whisper a (magic) spell; generally, to prognosticate”. Similarly,
nachash 5173, also derived from 5172, means: “an incantation or augury:—enchantment”.
So, the “serpent” is already starting to look much more interesting, as a sibilant magical
incantation, or serpent magic. Job 3:8 also appears to contain a cryptic allusion to a
117