I wondered recently where the name "satanist" was used for the first time? Skipping the bible and satan, etc. It is about the origin of the ideology/philosophy of life itself so popular in Black Metal. Maybe someone associates a book, a chronicle etc. where the term "satanism / satanist" was used for the first time.
I assume that it must have been quite a long time ago, but I am curious exactly at what age it began to be described. Gillels de Rais era?
Anyway I'm trying to determine the source of the term.

Satanism as an "ism", a coherent ideological system, is a modern concept. However the idea of satanism stems from the middle ages. Some heretical religious movements have been labelled satanic (or something similar like devil worshippers) but none, as far as I know, did define themselves as satanic. They were regarded as such by the majority religion because they were different.

Some movements and people have used the figure of Satan or something that might be called satanic in their views but usually only as one part and never as an actual satanism. Quite famously the great swedish writer August Strindberg claimed to be a satanist (however he explained that it was really a version of christianity and again not a satanism as we would have it).

The first person to claim the label satanist and actually try to formulate a coherent set of beliefs around this was Stanislaw Przybyszewski (1868-1929) in his Die Synangouge Satans. He never tried to start a movement. However another early example, and probably the second person ever try to formulate a coherent set of beliefs around satanism/luciferianism, was Ben Kadosh (Carl William Hansen - 1872-1936). His first try was the pamphlet Den Ny Morgen Gry: Lucifer Hiram: Verdensbygmesternens Genkomst.

The order Fraternas Saturni has also been called satanic as least in the period regarding the time span from 1926-1970. It was very eclectic but Satan/Lucifer/Ahriman had a prominent place in its worldview. One document that describes their view of this is called Satanische Magie. Since they were so eclectic some doesn't want to call them satanistst or luciferian through.

Our Lady of Endevour Coven of the Ophice Cultus Sathanas is claimed to have been founded in 1948. Definately a satanic group but it seems like few reports exist on them before the 70's. But they are used as an example of organized Satanism in the US before Anton LaVey. Raymond Bogart in the UK were the head of a group that went by many names, among them The New Order of Satanic Templars. They were founded in 1955. But then came Anton LaVey who is the most famous and influential satanist by far. And while his Church of Satan (founded in 1966) wasn't the first satanic church (or the first to codify satanism as a coherent worldview) as they often claim it is the largest and most influential by far.

All information credit to Per Faxneld.

Just to add a tiny morsel to the above poster's very thorough post:

If you're interested you could check out Stephen Flowers' book "Lords of the Left Hand Path", it's more or less what the book is about.

Yes, I know about medieval ages provenence of Devilish Cult when it was still a result of longing for pagan roots (let's not forget that the Devil is the most european pagan symbol!), but in this case I'm trying to track only the use of the word "satanist". You can definitely assign this to someone. Przybyszewski used a Satan term as a metaphor and it had nothing to do with religion (unfortunately), because he preached theories of pure art, but thanks for the other clues, even if I would not overestimate the merits of la Vey and rather skip it.
Anyway maybe I can finally make a chronology, though knowing the life, this solution will be the least expected.

Satan, as in a fallen angel from the bible, as the most pagan symbol? Never heard that before. Only connection with paganism I've seen mention is that the followers of Abrahamic desert religion might have tried to transform aspects of Odin and such into their devil figure to further demonise the indigenous, European traditions that they tried to replace with their Jesus worship.

Read carefully. This statement concerned the devil and not Satan, and this is a difference.

There's also no devil in (Northern) European paganism as far as I'm aware of, hence I'm wondering what he meant here.

I know one of the first mentions of satanism (or devil worship not sure what word was actually used) was in a document from the year 719 describing the paulicians who were regarded as heretical. That's the only reference I can find to an actual document and a year in which it was written.



Really? Now I haven't actually read anything written by him but from what I gather by reading about him he saw Satan as a liberator and a personification of all things worldly (in a dual relationship to "the good god" who loathes all things worldly). He also seem to equate Satan with the evolutionary principle in nature. "Satan loves the evil, because he loves life, he hates the good, because he hates the stagnation, acedia". Przybyszewski inverts the meaning of evil and good in his system to evil here is equated with continual strife and evolution and good is equated with stagnation.

He also seems to critique the church for stopping or hindering some sort of natural selection (evolutionary). He would have preferred for some things to go extinct but seemed to mean that the church had stopped it from doing so by their altruistic actions. His system seems be fatalistic and pessimistic but also Promethean (creation despite the hopelessness of all things).

Could you please point me to the sources you use when you say "Przybyszewski used a Satan term as a metaphor and it had nothing to do with religion. . . because he preached theories of pure art. . ." I'm quite interested to read about it.



Why? Anton LaVey is by far the most influential satanist in the world. He also overshadows his own organization (which hasn't been all that productive in creating a strong satanic milieu - at least not to any outsiders). But LaVey's work, especially The Satanic Bible, can still be found in regular book shops around the world. Quite the feat, and no one else has come close to being as influential as he is.

Can you list any satanist who has been more influential that he has been? I can't even think of anyone who is coming close.



Just be aware it is written through the lens of the Temple of Set. It's a good book but the definition of the Left Hand Path, what it is and what it means, is faulty since it is rooted in the ToS's version.

Im not sure what you are asking.....unless you have never heard of Satanism before?

Short answer = religious terms

Long answer = has nothing to do with metal

Seconding the having nothing to do with metal response. Methinks this should get moved to the tavern. As for Stephen Flowers? He's a fucking hack. He once called himself Edred Thorsson. He started off in the Church of Satan and from there decided he was in the ToS as well as starting The Rune Guild. He was part of the highly controversial Asatru Free Assembly. Since there is no "rosetta stone" when it comes to runes, he's made his name based on guesswork he calls facts. I would take anything he says with a grain of salt.

Moving this to the Tavern.

Dang I didn't realize there was so much hate for ToS folks. I thought the book was interesting, that's all. Grain of salt indeed; we are literally talking about constructed occult traditions.

The book is fine and he covers a lot of the traditional left hand path. From my perspective I don't understand why he uses Michael Aquinos definition of the left hand path though. It is faulty at best. I'm fine if they use it to describe the ToS but when researching actual left hand path traditions it just creates that glitch. It is quite obvious that vama marga/vamachara tantra and other older traditions does not fit into the definition the ToS uses. But apart from that I also appreciated the book.

Well from my reading of it the whole problem was that there was no historically-continuous LHP tradition, so it was necessary to pick a definition (on philosophical and spiritual criteria) and go with that. I mean, since it isn't an actual organic historical entity, you can't just go with some institution or set of practices or lineages. If one is talking about the history of Christianity, you don't really have to take a stance on what it "really" is since it exists as a matter of history. For the LHP, on the other hand, I'm not sure how you could do the same.

I mean, you question the ill-fitting nature of vamachara to this definition. Is that because you have a different definition in mind? Or because it has a similar meaning/translation to what we in the West call "Left Hand Path"? If so, the above reasoning follows. Constructed histories of this sort/degree tend to be more normative than most. Maybe that makes them of questionable worth.

So yeah, it's just one take on it. Doesn't "fit" certain things sometimes lumped in with our (constructed) LHP category, includes others you may not agree with. Can't really avoid that kind of "bias", though, in this endeavor.

But there is a, or a couple of, continuous left hand path traditions. One in, what we call Hinduism, and one in Buddhism. They are thousands of years old and they are unbroken. I'd say if we are to use the terminology we should probably go back to the traditions originating in India. There is really only one point that bugs me about the ToS definition and that is that they claim the goal of the left hand path and the right hand path are different while in traditional thought the goal is the same but the paths to the goal differ. That is quite a big discrepancy. However many of the practices and concepts on the path are described in similar ways in traditional left hand path and in modern constructed left hand path traditions.

And I don't claim that anyone should strive to be totally unbiased - that is impossible. However when Flowers (and the ToS) definition actually cancels out what we might call the original the original left hand path tradition something is wrong. Because if the left hand path, by definition is, to create a strong isolate intelligence set apart from the objective universe then traditional vamachara suddenly wouldn't be left hand path. And that is a problem.

According to many ethnographic and historic sources, he had several names for the Slavs (of course, the past of this nation is still in the deepest shadows). BIES, CZART (Tchort?), DIABEŁ (Devil), later also SMĘTEK - ancient, most pagan among the Slavic creatures of darkness. Initially, he had one horn, six fingers and toes, he was crippled, hesitant, and lame. He can be placed in a human body by a witch, he whispers to him and advises bad deeds, "screams from a man". Playing as a man causes his rage (hence to be stuck), insanity and madness, he strives to become himself. He was mortally wounded, he was almost invisible. He was supposed to play instruments in the forests on moonlit nights and be recognizable after whistling, clapping and laughing.
It is also interesting that in the chronicles of the early Middle Ages when christianity fought against paganism in the areas of slavonic Polabie (XII / XIII century) even the superior Slavic gods were called devils or compared to biblical demons. It's hard to see how much the original demonological nomenclature has also disappeared.

Wow, what a great trail! I will try to find something in medieval archives.



Of course, but considering that I am looking for traces of the first use of the name, somehow the vision of commercial Satanism in La Vey version is too modern and does not convince me.

Of course, but considering that I am looking for traces of the first use of the name, somehow the vision of commercial Satanism in La Vey version is too modern and does not convince me.[/quote]

My bad then. I interpreted "I would not overestimate the merits of la Vey and rather skip it" as a general statement not as a particular statement in regards to tracing the term Satanism. For that LaVey is obviously worthless since he never did any research into that subject and very obviously lived in the 1900's far removed from when the term was coined.