Astaroth
Astaroth is the twenty-ninth of the 72 spirits catalogued in the Ars Goetia, the first section of the Lemegeton. He is described with the title of Duke, ruling according to the text.
Last reviewed: 2026-07-20
Historical fact
The name Astaroth closely echoes Astarte (also referred to as Ashtoreth in Old Testament texts), an important ancient Near Eastern deity associated with various Semitic cultures — another documented case, similar to that of Bael, of how Christian demonology repurposed the name of an earlier deity, reclassifying her as a subordinate spirit in the goetic catalog. In Mathers' edition (1904), Astaroth is described with the appearance of a hurtful angel, riding upon an infernal dragon and holding a viper in his right hand, and the text warns that his breath is described as extremely foul, advising the practitioner to guard against it.
Interpretation — Solomonic Tradition (Mathers/Crowley, 1904)
In Mathers' edition, Astaroth holds the catalog's twenty-ninth position and is described with the title of Duke, commanding a number of legions of spirits according to the text. He is listed with attributes that include discoursing on the creation of the world and the fall of the spirits, telling things past, present, and future, and answering freely on matters concerning the liberal arts and sciences, per the attributes recorded in the text.
Interpretation — Dr. Rudd's Tradition (manuscript, c. 1650)
The manuscript attributed to Thomas Rudd, predating Mathers' edition by roughly two and a half centuries, documents a related but distinct version of the catalog — in it, each of the 72 spirits is paired with a corresponding angel drawn from the Kabbalistic Shem HaMephorash system (72 divine names), a restraining/governing structural element absent from Mathers' edition. The precise identification of the angel corresponding to Astaroth in Rudd's documentary practice is discussed in Joseph Peterson's research on the Rudd manuscripts, which systematized this angel-spirit pairing across the whole catalog.
Interpretation — Luciferian Tradition (modern interpretation)
The modern Luciferian reading, associated chiefly with Michael W. Ford in works such as The Luciferian Goetia, proposes that the catalog's 72 spirits be understood not as external powers subjugated under a higher angelic hierarchy but as archetypal currents within the practitioner's own consciousness, consciously integrated in service of self-deification. In Astaroth's case, this reading engages directly with the name's origin as a repurposing of Astarte/Ashtoreth: reclaiming the name of an ancient female deity, demoted to a subordinate spirit by Christian demonology, is read as emblematic of the Luciferian project itself of rehabilitating historically demonized figures. In this key, Astaroth's attributed mastery over the creation of the world and the fall of the spirits is reinterpreted as archetypal knowledge of the practitioner's own origins and internal ruptures, to be confronted and integrated rather than feared.
This section presents one tradition's interpretation, not a verifiable fact.
Frequently asked questions
- Is Astaroth related to the ancient Near Eastern deity Astarte?
- The name closely echoes Astarte, also referred to as Ashtoreth in Old Testament texts, an important deity venerated across various ancient Semitic cultures — a documented pattern, similar to the case of Bael, in which Christian demonology reclassified the names of earlier deities as subordinate spirits, without this implying a direct historical identity between the figures.
- How does Mathers' text describe Astaroth's appearance?
- The text describes Astaroth as a hurtful angel, riding upon an infernal dragon and holding a viper in his right hand, with a warning about his extremely foul breath.
- Is the Luciferian reading of Astaroth as old as the Mathers and Rudd traditions?
- No. It's a modern interpretation, developed mainly from the 2000s onward by Luciferian authors such as Michael W. Ford, who reframe the Ars Goetia's spirits as psychological archetypes for self-development — a contemporary symbolic reading, not a historical manuscript like Mathers' or Rudd's.
Sources
- S. L. MacGregor Mathers (trans.), Aleister Crowley (ed.). The Goetia: The Lesser Key of Solomon the King (1904).
- Joseph H. Peterson (ed.). The Lesser Key of Solomon (2001).
- Thomas Rudd (manuscript), ed. Adam McLean. Dr. Rudd's Treatise on Angel Magic (c. 1650 (2007 ed.)).
- Michael W. Ford. The Luciferian Goetia (2007).