New Book By Simon Options

I just wanted everyone to know there is a new book coming out by our old friend Simon. Yes the same author of the Necronomicon.

The title of the new book which is Dead Names : The Dark History of the Necronomicon has been out for awhile and it is still not released as of yet BUT they have finally released a picture of the book and a quick overview.

Here is the picture of the new book:

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Frater_Nero/newbook.jpg)

and here is the Book Description:


The most feared, fascinating, and dangerous book in the history of humankind . . . Necronomicon

An ancient Arabic text -- a powerful book of spells that could, in the wrong hands, create unimaginable and irreversible devastation -- the Necronomicon featured prominently in the stories of legendary horror writer H.P. Lovecraft. For many generations, few believed it to be anything other than pure fiction.

But in 1972, a young man who, for his own protection, must be known simply as "Simon," stumbled upon an old, handwritten manuscript that ultimately proved to be an authentic edition of the unholy work.

Dead Names is the startling true account of the dark and violent history of this most fearsome of books: from its Middle Eastern origins to its reemergence centuries later; its role in pivotal events of the twentieth century, from the JFK assassination to the Son of Sam murders; and the terrible fates that befell those who helped bring the Necronomicon out of the shadows and into the light of day.

The above might sound harsh, so let me give an example. BTW, if you want a response of mine to a particular piece in either book, please let me know.

Dead Names, pp. 287-88:

Page 134-36: In this section, Gonce attacks the entire idea that there is a “Sumerian Tradition” in modern magic, a patently untenable position that flies in the face of the (documented) facts... Although they claim to be familiar with the works of Kenneth Grant, Gonce and Harms fail to note in their tirade against the Necronomicon that Grant refers to the Sumerian Tradition himself many times over the course of his body of work... Jack Parsons, one of the members of the OTO’s Pasadena lodge in the 1940s, refers to the Sumerian Tradition several times in his own writings, thus demonstrating that it was not unknown to the “mages” of that time and that Order.

Simon's conclusion?

I cannot imagine what sort of occult experts Harms and Gonce had contacted, or of what books their considerable libraries consist, but these references to Sumer are in Parsons, Crowley, and Grant.

It's a pretty damning indictment, no?

Maybe looking back at the first few sentences to the section covering pages 134-36 of The Necronomicon Files will help:

In the introduction to his Necronomicon, SImon claims that H. P. Lovecraft and Aleister Crowley met (at least mentally) on the "common soil" of Sumer. Simon also quotes Aleister Crowley as saying: "Our work is therefore historically authentic; the rediscovery of the Sumerian tradition." So, how important was the Sumerian Tradition to Crowley?

The section goes on to discuss the references to "Sumer" and "Chaldaea" in Crowley - not Grant, not Parsons, and certainly not modern magic in general. I'm not certain why anyone would have expected otherwise.

The above might sound harsh, so let me give an example. BTW, if you want a response of mine to a particular piece in either book, please let me know.

Dead Names, pp. 287-88:

Page 134-36: In this section, Gonce attacks the entire idea that there is a “Sumerian Tradition” in modern magic, a patently untenable position that flies in the face of the (documented) facts... Although they claim to be familiar with the works of Kenneth Grant, Gonce and Harms fail to note in their tirade against the Necronomicon that Grant refers to the Sumerian Tradition himself many times over the course of his body of work... Jack Parsons, one of the members of the OTO’s Pasadena lodge in the 1940s, refers to the Sumerian Tradition several times in his own writings, thus demonstrating that it was not unknown to the “mages” of that time and that Order.

Simon's conclusion?

I cannot imagine what sort of occult experts Harms and Gonce had contacted, or of what books their considerable libraries consist, but these references to Sumer are in Parsons, Crowley, and Grant.

It's a pretty damning indictment, no?

Maybe looking back at the first few sentences to the section covering pages 134-36 of The Necronomicon Files will help:

In the introduction to his Necronomicon, SImon claims that H. P. Lovecraft and Aleister Crowley met (at least mentally) on the "common soil" of Sumer. Simon also quotes Aleister Crowley as saying: "Our work is therefore historically authentic; the rediscovery of the Sumerian tradition." So, how important was the Sumerian Tradition to Crowley?

The section goes on to discuss the references to "Sumer" and "Chaldaea" in Crowley - not Grant, not Parsons, and certainly not modern magic in general. I'm not certain why anyone would have expected otherwise.

Dan, the next line in your book after "So, how important was the Sumerian Tradition to Crowley?" is: "Daniel and I have both searched diligently for this quote and haven't found it yet, though we have sifted painstakingly through our considerable libraries and enlisted the help of mages on the alt.magick newsgroup on the Internet, many of whom are dedicated Thelemites with a knowledge of Crowley's writing that exceeds our own." (p. 134)

I then go on to show that this quote, which no one in your circle could find, is standing right there in the same book by Grant, the Magical Revival, that was cited in yours. It is a quote by Crowley. Not Grant, not Parsons. I think it is a pretty damning indictment, if you ask me, of your painstaking sifting.

As for the Hamblin reference, you are focused on that but I wasn't. It wasn't important. What was important was the relation of the Arabic -- and Quranic -- khadhulu to Cthulhu. It's still important, whether brought to my attention by Hamblin, Ryan, or Milton Berle. I gave Ryan his due, as was only proper, then went on to investigate it myself from the original, primary source: the Quran. I then went and referenced other works by Islamic scholars on the same point. I figure that was better than looking for Hamblin. I think that's scholarship, not relying on the Internet and some unidentified "mages" who couldn't find an important quote by Crowley on Sumer.

But ...I could be wrong.

I also don't want to sound harsh, but The Necronomicon Files were an extended attack on me and my contribution to the field so I feel entitled to a little harshness! Anyway, no hard feelings. Life's too short. I stand behind my statements regarding Crowley and the Sumerian tradition, and how it was picked up and amplified by Parsons and Grant. I also stand behind my research concerning khadhulu/Cthulhu and, yes, even KUTU-LU. I feel that the research presented in Dead Names more than adequately answered the objections in The Necronomicon Files; of course, I don't expect you to feel that way. C'est la vie. I am perfectly willing to respond to other criticisms as best I can, though.

Simon wrote:

Dan, the next line in your book after "So, how important was the Sumerian Tradition to Crowley?" is: "Daniel and I have both searched diligently for this quote and haven't found it yet, though we have sifted painstakingly through our considerable libraries and enlisted the help of mages on the alt.magick newsgroup on the Internet, many of whom are dedicated Thelemites with a knowledge of Crowley's writing that exceeds our own." (p. 134)

I then go on to show that this quote, which no one in your circle could find, is standing right there in the same book by Grant, the Magical Revival, that was cited in yours. It is a quote by Crowley. Not Grant, not Parsons. I think it is a pretty damning indictment, if you ask me, of your painstaking sifting.

We did not cite its appearance in THE MAGICAL REVIVAL, it's true. Nonetheless, there is no mention of the source there, which throws us back to John's question - where did Crowley write it, and what was its significance?

(We did ask Grant privately about the quote, but even he was uncertain as to its origins. I hasten to add that, given the time since REVIVAL's publication and the vast corpus of Aleister Crowley's writing, both published and unpublished, this can hardly be seen as a mark against him.)

Overall, the section still holds true - Aleister Crowley, despite what others have suggested, was not appreciably interested in Sumer or its religion. The "Sumerian Tradition" quote is an obscure, likely unpublished, one, the supposed importance of which is not reflected by the rest of his work.

I'll drop the point on khadhulu, as it seems we've both given our positions on the topic.

I also don't want to sound harsh, but The Necronomicon Files were an extended attack on me and my contribution to the field so I feel entitled to a little harshness! Anyway, no hard feelings. Life's too short. I stand behind my statements regarding Crowley and the Sumerian tradition, and how it was picked up and amplified by Parsons and Grant. I also stand behind my research concerning khadhulu/Cthulhu and, yes, even KUTU-LU. I feel that the research presented in Dead Names more than adequately answered the objections in The Necronomicon Files; of course, I don't expect you to feel that way. C'est la vie. I am perfectly willing to respond to other criticisms as best I can, though.

Thanks. I hope to continue in that spirit.

I'll post again tomorrow, most likely regarding the Mafteah Shelomoh (see DEAD NAMES, page 197).

Dan, you wrote:
[We did not cite its appearance in THE MAGICAL REVIVAL, it's true. Nonetheless, there is no mention of the source there, which throws us back to John's question - where did Crowley write it, and what was its significance?

(We did ask Grant privately about the quote, but even he was uncertain as to its origins. I hasten to add that, given the time since REVIVAL's publication and the vast corpus of Aleister Crowley's writing, both published and unpublished, this can hardly be seen as a mark against him.)

Overall, the section still holds true - Aleister Crowley, despite what others have suggested, was not appreciably interested in Sumer or its religion. The "Sumerian Tradition" quote is an obscure, likely unpublished, one, the supposed importance of which is not reflected by the rest of his work.]

Dan, it's not that you didn't cite it, you said it didn't exist and that no one could find it. That's different from simply not citing it. It's my scholarship that's being attacked in your book, and when something like this gets past you and John we have to pause and wonder if other objections are equally unsubstantiated. You see what I mean?

Anyway, I agree that Crowley's writings are not replete with references to Sumer. However, his emphasis on Babalon (his spelling) may indicate a deeper level of meaning that he did not care to explicate for the masses. While this reference is undoubtedly from the Book of Revelation -- and not from some cuneiform text -- Babylon is Babylon, whether "Whore of" or ancient city. The reason I say that is that the Sumer references were obviously picked up and expanded upon by Parsons, who worked within the Thelemite tradition while Crowley was still alive. Where, then, did Parsons get it if not from Crowley or some other members of the OTO or perhaps A..A..? (He sure didn't get it from Hubbard!)

That there is a Sumerian tradition buried within Thelema is a controversial position to take -- since the OTO especially thinks of itself as Egyptian-based -- but I believe it is defensible. More than that, I feel that the Qabalistic orientation of Thelema will eventually prove its Sumerian underpinnings, but that's for another time and space.

This post has been edited by Simon: Apr 17 2006, 07:56 AM

Dan, it's not that you didn't cite it, you said it didn't exist and that no one could find it. That's different from simply not citing it. It's my scholarship that's being attacked in your book, and when something like this gets past you and John we have to pause and wonder if other objections are equally unsubstantiated. You see what I mean?

I'm not entirely certain, as I can't locate any mention of John saying it didn't exist. In fact, he extended the benefit of the doubt, stating that the Sumerian tradition quote "could easily be from one of Crowley's unpublished letters or magickal diaries" (p. 135). John is a blunt man, bless his heart. If he thought it was made up, he'd have said so.

Perhaps readers might have to wonder, with one mistake, how correct the other material is. That's why we put in those endnotes that drove us batty. We really did want people to go back and check out what we said as much as possible. We didn't always do it, and sometimes we do turn to other sources of authority, but I really wanted to make the critique as transparent and as open to potential criticism as possible.

Anyway, I agree that Crowley's writings are not replete with references to Sumer. However, his emphasis on Babalon (his spelling) may indicate a deeper level of meaning that he did not care to explicate for the masses. While this reference is undoubtedly from the Book of Revelation -- and not from some cuneiform text -- Babylon is Babylon, whether "Whore of" or ancient city. The reason I say that is that the Sumer references were obviously picked up and expanded upon by Parsons, who worked within the Thelemite tradition while Crowley was still alive. Where, then, did Parsons get it if not from Crowley or some other members of the OTO or perhaps A..A..? (He sure didn't get it from Hubbard!)

It's possible, but given its roots in Christian eschatology, the connection might be there or not. As for Parsons, but he did take one concept from an M. R. James story ("Black Pilgrimage"), so he seems to have had some closet eclecticism. This will probably await more work done on his life and work. Maybe that new bio has something - I wasn't too impressed with SEX AND ROCKETS.

That there is a Sumerian tradition buried within Thelema is a controversial position to take -- since the OTO especially thinks of itself as Egyptian-based -- but I believe it is defensible. More than that, I feel that the Qabalistic orientation of Thelema will eventually prove its Sumerian underpinnings, but that's for another time and space.

Only time - and future research - will tell, I suppose.