New Book By Simon Options

Dan and Simon,

Lol dont post too fast because my copy of the book isnt coming in until Tuesday (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) . To be serious for a moment. While I understand that trying to find practicing Simoniconists on the internet (at least those who werent 14 and tripped out on acid) would have proved to be a difficult task (as even today you would be hard pressed to find any of us beyond occultforums and Sacred-Magick), I feel that there should have been more indepth research into the magick of the book. Lol, I am no sumerologist but I think you would be hard pressed to find any magickal system that did not stray, at least to some extent, away from the original tradition. This is by no means a way to say "Dan, because its magick it doesnt matter what it is."....but rather what I feel is a valid point. For example, the majority of western Magickians incoporate the Tree of Life into their Kaballa workings. If memory serves me correctly, the idea of the Tree of Life (at least the actual visual representation of it) is not found anywhere in the Kaballa.

While I understand that the basis of your argument is the scholarly work of the Necronomicon, I still feel that one can not completley interpret even that without the aid of those who work with it. One of the biggest examples that I can think of is your work's comment on the Gates of the Necronomicon. In the Necronomicon there are 7 gates not including the gate of Ganzir. In each gate one is supposed to travel to that God's sphere in a sort of Astral journey. That journey is cleary planetary, so it is safe to assume that we are reaching for what early civilizations would called the heavens. After the Marduk Gate, one is told that the Next gate is that of Ganzir. Ganzir is revealed to be the gate of the black earth, or in other words, hell. It is thought to be a downward journey. In Inanna's decent, she passes through several sub gates until reaching Ereshkigal. What we, essentially, have here is a long journey to the heavens and then back down to the depths of the underworld. It would appear to me to be much like the Kaballist's journey up the Tree of Life and then back down the Tree of Death. To say that the whole journey is the Tree of Death would be like saying that if I flew to Canada, then to Mexico, I flew south the whole way.

Please understand for a moment that I am not attacking you book, but rather stating that arguments toward the validity of the Necronomicon fall a bit incomplete until, at least some, of the Magick of the book is put into the right context. I also realize that Magickal experiences are different for everyone, but there are certain things (such as the Gate process...perhaps not the experiences but at the least the process) which are held for every system. A Kaballist would not skip around on the Tree of Life, but rather work each sphere in it's own order, for example.

Ashnook

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

Ashnook,

It's difficult for me to answer your question, because we probably have quite different responses . I haven't practiced the gatewalkings myself, so that certainly can't factor into the equation. I think, based on the terms of symbolism and myth, we have proved our point. In fact, we might be on even better footing than I'd thought three days ago, but I'll have to look into that some more.

No book can ever be complete as some readers would want. All I can say at this point is that, if you think our book leaves an important gap, you should write something to close it.

Dan

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.

On pages 197-98 of Dead Names, Simon presents his evidence of a pre-Lovecraft mention of Cthulhu that appears in the Mafteah Shelomoh, better known in English as the Key of Solomon. Hermann Gollancz published a facsimile of this work, said to originate in 1700 in Amsterdam, in 1914, and in turn Joseph Peterson has made this available on his CD obtainable here. According to Simon, one of the spirits mentioned in this document is rendered as KThULH, while the next one appears as Mazkim.

Before proceeding with the analysis, I wish to point to one URL of interest for our discussion - a list of the various voces magicae in magical documents. Based on my own research on such texts, this is only a small sample of the wide variety of magical names that appear in the Greek magical papyri, in Hebrew mystical texts, in the corpus of bowl incantations from the Middle East, and elsewhere. Given the amount of this material, it is unsurprising that somewhere a word similar to "Cthulhu" or "Kutulu" does not appear.

It should also be noted that the Mafteah Shelomoh is a late period grimoire, which Gershom Scholem noted was a mixture of Hebrew, Christian, and Arab contents. Its geographic and chronological date of copying, far from any potential Babylonian roots, and its nature as a mixture of all sorts of content, considerably raises the chance of these names being the result of coincidence and scribal error rather than a survival of millennia-old Necronomicon-based lore.

Still, I've got two Necronomicon names in close proximity, and many of you won't believe the above alone. I'd better get to work.

I'd throw up some JPEGs of the following, but I have neither the technical skills nor the permission. Simon, I can direct you to the proper sources for what you don't have.

I have the Peterson CD-ROM (I recommend it highly), and I was able to identify the pages in question (40b and 41b). My Hebrew vocabulary could fit on the head of a pin, and after sending it to a few Hebrew speakers, I can safely say this is an unusual and difficult cursive script. Still, for those who have the CD-ROM or the original book, I'd call your attention to the material to the bottom right of page 41b. We have a large number of interesting names of spirits - some can be found elsewhere, and those might be considered proprietary by certain magical orders, so I won't mention them here. Besides, I'd like ceremonial magicians here to take the opportunity to look at it themselves, to ensure I'm not just seeing what I want.

My observation is that the letter that has been read as a "kaf" in the first spirit's name is actually a "beth." There's at least two different versions of "kaf" here, it seems, and a "beth" with a concave line at the top and without the tail often associated with the letter. This makes the first letter of the spirit's name "B," which means that our spirit has a name more like "Bathoolah," who seems to be a spirit connected with the constellation Virgo.

Is there a way to verify this? On the next page, Simon mentions another manuscript of the Mafteah Shelomoh kept at the British Library. This reference is to Oriental MS 14759. I was able to view images of the pages (29b and 30a), which correspond to those in the printed version but provide the spirit's names in more conventional Hebrew script. While the lettering on 29b has flaked enough that the presence of a tail signifying a "beth" is not absolutely certain, that on 30a begins with an unmistakeable "beth."

Thus, the name of this spirit is likely "Bathoolah." Without that, the presence of "Mazkim" becomes more acceptable as belonging to the realm of coincidence.

Has the actual Mss. of the necronomicon ever been published and if not why? It would seem alot of questions could be answered. In particular this would seem to be helpful to non-practicing scholars and historians. Has this been done? Does anyone know the names of the mss. that it was to have come from?

Has the actual Mss. of the necronomicon ever been published and if not why? It would seem alot of questions could be answered. In particular this would seem to be helpful to non-practicing scholars and historians. Has this been done? Does anyone know the names of the mss. that it was to have come from?

The ms that "Dead Names : The Dark History of the Necronomicon" discusses has been available and published by avon for over 25 years.

No not the paperback english edition. An actual facsimilie of the original. This is what I don't get, if people want to end arguments and shut down naysayers then produce the original and allow actual Scholars to review it, This is why any discussion of authenticity is useless because no one will take the shortest route. It's very simple. If you want to answer peoples questions about the history then give real information! Whether it is "real" or not I don't really care, but if you want people to take you seriously then give actual information instead of "hints" and "conspiracy theories". Produce the original for dating otherwise just admit it's a fake. I don't have a problem if it is a fake I doubt many do. But solve questions of it's previous existence in a simple manner. An avon paperback doesn't mean anything in the scholarly world it's worthless. Give real info and answers.

Why hasn't the original manuscript that led to the translation been produced? I can't beleive that this doesn't bother people. If the story is true, then Simon and the editor's are holding back STOLEN PUBLIC PROPERTY that should be available to scholars. The claims that they cannot allow others to look at the original hold no weight, this isn't there choice to make. Return the original to it's previous owners or donate it to a public university. If it was received in the way described then they are simple thiefs prospering from a theft of a mss. that was the public's to review at their leisure. Doesn't it bother anyone that something was stolen that was yours to look at? If no one will return the original they are no better than a common petty thief profiting off their crimes.

This post has been edited by ChaosCrowley: Apr 17 2006, 11:35 PM

No not the paperback english edition. An actual facsimilie of the original. This is what I don't get, if people want to end arguments and shut down naysayers then produce the original and allow actual Scholars to review it, This is why any discussion of authenticity is useless because no one will take the shortest route. It's very simple. If you want to answer peoples questions about the history then give real information! Whether it is "real" or not I don't really care, but if you want people to take you seriously then give actual information instead of "hints" and "conspiracy theories". Produce the original for dating otherwise just admit it's a fake. I don't have a problem if it is a fake I doubt many do. But solve questions of it's previous existence in a simple manner. An avon paperback doesn't mean anything in the scholarly world it's worthless. Give real info and answers.

Why hasn't the original manuscript that led to the translation been produced? I can't beleive that this doesn't bother people. If the story is true, then Simon and the editor's are holding back STOLEN PUBLIC PROPERTY that should be available to scholars. The claims that they cannot allow others to look at the original hold no weight, this isn't there choice to make. Return the original to it's previous owners or donate it to a public university. If it was received in the way described then they are simple thiefs prospering from a theft of a mss. that was the public's to review at their leisure. Doesn't it bother anyone that something was stolen that was yours to look at? If no one will return the original they are no better than a common petty thief profiting off their crimes.

The story of the original manuscript and all the problems associated with it -- legal and otherwise -- are detailed in Dead Names.

On pages 197-98 of Dead Names, Simon presents his evidence of a pre-Lovecraft mention of Cthulhu that appears in the Mafteah Shelomoh, better known in English as the Key of Solomon. Hermann Gollancz published a facsimile of this work, said to originate in 1700 in Amsterdam, in 1914, and in turn Joseph Peterson has made this available on his CD obtainable here[/url]. According to Simon, one of the spirits mentioned in this document is rendered as KThULH, while the next one appears as Mazkim.

Before proceeding with the analysis, I wish to point to one URL of interest for our discussion - a list of the various voces magicae in magical documents. Based on my own research on such texts, this is only a small sample of the wide variety of magical names that appear in the Greek magical papyri, in Hebrew mystical texts, in the corpus of bowl incantations from the Middle East, and elsewhere. Given the amount of this material, it is unsurprising that somewhere a word similar to "Cthulhu" or "Kutulu" does not appear.

It should also be noted that the Mafteah Shelomoh is a late period grimoire, which Gershom Scholem noted was a mixture of Hebrew, Christian, and Arab contents. Its geographic and chronological date of copying, far from any potential Babylonian roots, and its nature as a mixture of all sorts of content, considerably raises the chance of these names being the result of coincidence and scribal error rather than a survival of millennia-old Necronomicon-based lore.

Still, I've got two Necronomicon names in close proximity, and many of you won't believe the above alone. I'd better get to work.

I'd throw up some JPEGs of the following, but I have neither the technical skills nor the permission. Simon, I can direct you to the proper sources for what you don't have.

I have the Peterson CD-ROM (I recommend it highly), and I was able to identify the pages in question (40b and 41b). My Hebrew vocabulary could fit on the head of a pin, and after sending it to a few Hebrew speakers, I can safely say this is an unusual and difficult cursive script. Still, for those who have the CD-ROM or the original book, I'd call your attention to the material to the bottom right of page 41b. We have a large number of interesting names of spirits - some can be found elsewhere, and those might be considered proprietary by certain magical orders, so I won't mention them here. Besides, I'd like ceremonial magicians here to take the opportunity to look at it themselves, to ensure I'm not just seeing what I want.

My observation is that the letter that has been read as a "kaf" in the first spirit's name is actually a "beth." There's at least two different versions of "kaf" here, it seems, and a "beth" with a concave line at the top and without the tail often associated with the letter. This makes the first letter of the spirit's name "B," which means that our spirit has a name more like "Bathoolah," who seems to be a spirit connected with the constellation Virgo.

Is there a way to verify this? On the next page, Simon mentions another manuscript of the Mafteah Shelomoh kept at the British Library. This reference is to Oriental MS 14759. I was able to view images of the pages (29b and 30a), which correspond to those in the printed version but provide the spirit's names in more conventional Hebrew script. While the lettering on 29b has flaked enough that the presence of a tail signifying a "beth" is not absolutely certain, that on 30a begins with an unmistakeable "beth."

Thus, the name of this spirit is likely "Bathoolah." Without that, the presence of "Mazkim" becomes more acceptable as belonging to the realm of coincidence.

This is a problem that has bedeviled better Hebrew scholars than I. I presented the copy I had to an expert in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic and he said it could go either way, in his opinion. It looked like "kaf" to me, and obviously to others, but ... I'm willing to be corrected on this if it can be shown definitively to be "beth" instead of "kaf" ... the presence of Mazkim is still unsettling in this context. I agree with Scholem most of the time concerning his dating, but as you know a lot of his theories on both dating and on the Gnostic influences on early pre-Zoharic Kabbalistic literature have been attacked by more modern critics with better analytical tools and resources at their disposal than he had. Jury's still out on the dating, I think.

No not the paperback english edition. An actual facsimilie of the original. This is what I don't get, if people want to end arguments and shut down naysayers then produce the original and allow actual Scholars to review it, This is why any discussion of authenticity is useless because no one will take the shortest route. It's very simple. If you want to answer peoples questions about the history then give real information! Whether it is "real" or not I don't really care, but if you want people to take you seriously then give actual information instead of "hints" and "conspiracy theories". Produce the original for dating otherwise just admit it's a fake. I don't have a problem if it is a fake I doubt many do. But solve questions of it's previous existence in a simple manner. An avon paperback doesn't mean anything in the scholarly world it's worthless. Give real info and answers.

Why hasn't the original manuscript that led to the translation been produced? I can't beleive that this doesn't bother people. If the story is true, then Simon and the editor's are holding back STOLEN PUBLIC PROPERTY that should be available to scholars. The claims that they cannot allow others to look at the original hold no weight, this isn't there choice to make. Return the original to it's previous owners or donate it to a public university. If it was received in the way described then they are simple thiefs prospering from a theft of a mss. that was the public's to review at their leisure. Doesn't it bother anyone that something was stolen that was yours to look at? If no one will return the original they are no better than a common petty thief profiting off their crimes.

If I had the original manuscript in my possesion in full knowledge that it was stolen and if handed over to be studied by others that it would not be returned to me. Then the last thing that I would do is hand it over. If it fell into my hands then I would consider it divine event planning by forces greater than myself and consider myself its safe keeper. Also by the way if I were to win the lottery I would not split it with the deli guy who sold me the ticket. Is this greed? I call it prudence.
Smasher666

This is a problem that has bedeviled better Hebrew scholars than I. I presented the copy I had to an expert in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic and he said it could go either way, in his opinion. It looked like "kaf" to me, and obviously to others, but ... I'm willing to be corrected on this if it can be shown definitively to be "beth" instead of "kaf" ... the presence of Mazkim is still unsettling in this context. I agree with Scholem most of the time concerning his dating, but as you know a lot of his theories on both dating and on the Gnostic influences on early pre-Zoharic Kabbalistic literature have been attacked by more modern critics with better analytical tools and resources at their disposal than he had. Jury's still out on the dating, I think.

Answer to first part sent by private message.

The dating is pretty certain, from the sources I'm reading. Rohrbacher-Sticker states in her British Library Journal that Schiffmann and Swartz's Hebrew and Aramaic Incantation Texts from the Cairo Genizah (Sheffield, 1992) agrees with Scholem's assessment of the Mafteah as a late period manuscript, most likely translated back into Hebrew from Latin or Italian. The British Library's own copy dates to the same period; the article includes appendices detailing words from Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Italian transliterated back into Hebrew.

From the Necronomicon, page xv:

The Golden Dawn, a famous British and American Occult lodge of the turn of the Century, was said to have possessed a manuscript called "the Veils of Negative Existence" by another Arab.

In Dead Names, page 209:

We raised the possibility that Lovecraft's information might have been related to a book on Arab mysticism in the possession of the Golden Dawn as early as 1915, an eighth century AD (or earlier) manuscript called The Veils of Negative Existence, mentioned by occult historian, Francis King.

And on pp. 305-6, we find the following:

For instance, on page 191 <John Gonce> claims that “no study of the history and literature of the Golden Dawn has ever yielded any hints of a ‘secret Arab manuscript.” I imagine that his considerable library does not have a copy of Francis King’s Modern Ritual Magic, where such a manuscript - the “Veils of Negative Existence”- is mentioned on page 136 of the 1989 edition and which “purports to be an English translation of an Arabic work of the sixth, seventh or eighth centuries” that was cited by Golden Dawn initiate and Mathers protégé R.W. Felkin in a lecture he gave before the occult society Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia in 1915. (An eighth century Arab occult work is certainly suggestive, though by no means a confirmation that the Golden Dawn knew of the existence of the Necronornicon in 1915, long before Lovecraft published any stories with that name and placed in that era.)

I can't speak for John's library, which is indeed considerable, but my own does contain a copy of King's book.

So, did a Necronomicon-like work exist in the library of the Golden Dawn? It depends upon how you define the order. There is, of course, the original lodge chartered by Mathers, Westcott, and Woodman in 1888 that broke apart just after the turn of the century in schism and scandal. Then we have the various orders that came thereafter, some founded by the various members of the parent order. They often have (and still do) deny the validity of the others, but for our purposes, even those appearing under a different name might meet these criteria if they stress the same principles.

Then, there is the Cromlech Temple, the group to which the "Veils of Negative Existence" supposedly belonged. This is what Simon refers to above as "the Golden Dawn." How well does it fit the usual conception of that organization?

This group, the founding of which King dates to between 1890-1910 (though I have seen 1913 on the disreputable Internet), was affiliated with at least one Golden Dawn offshoot, and the membership of both overlapped to some extent. Yet saying it was "the Golden Dawn", in the sense in which most understand it, is not entirely accurate. First, as King describes it, the Temple was primarily mystical in orientation. Those who sought to learn magic were recommended to another order to do so. Second, despite being open to ecumenical beliefs and what might have been shocking concepts regarding sexual taboos, even in post-Victorian times, the Temple required all past the first degree to be Christian in orientation. The Order attracted many liberal Anglican clergymen who sought mysticism but did not wish to violate Church doctrine. We can debate as to how close they truly adhered to orthodoxy, but its members seem to have been sincere in believing that it did. In the end, King describes it as "an interesting side-Order of the Golden Dawn," instead of a direct branch thereof.

My points here are threefold. First, the Cromlech Temple, insofar as King's data presents it, can be connected with the Golden Dawn only by association. Second, even if the Necronomicon Simon presents were the "Veils of Negative Existence," it hardly seems possible that it could have lasted long as part of the library of a group that sought to maintain a liberal, yet nonetheless orthodox, Christian position. Third, Lovecraft seems to have been an unlikely candidate for knowledge of such an order's secrets, being an atheist with no mentioned transatlantic contacts.

From the Necronomicon, page xv:

The Golden Dawn, a famous British and American Occult lodge of the turn of the Century, was said to have possessed a manuscript called "the Veils of Negative Existence" by another Arab.

In Dead Names, page 209:

We raised the possibility that Lovecraft's information might have been related to a book on Arab mysticism in the possession of the Golden Dawn as early as 1915, an eighth century AD (or earlier) manuscript called The Veils of Negative Existence, mentioned by occult historian, Francis King.

And on pp. 305-6, we find the following:

For instance, on page 191 <John Gonce> claims that “no study of the history and literature of the Golden Dawn has ever yielded any hints of a ‘secret Arab manuscript.” I imagine that his considerable library does not have a copy of Francis King’s Modern Ritual Magic, where such a manuscript - the “Veils of Negative Existence”- is mentioned on page 136 of the 1989 edition and which “purports to be an English translation of an Arabic work of the sixth, seventh or eighth centuries” that was cited by Golden Dawn initiate and Mathers protégé R.W. Felkin in a lecture he gave before the occult society Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia in 1915. (An eighth century Arab occult work is certainly suggestive, though by no means a confirmation that the Golden Dawn knew of the existence of the Necronornicon in 1915, long before Lovecraft published any stories with that name and placed in that era.)

I can't speak for John's library, which is indeed considerable, but my own does contain a copy of King's book.

So, did a Necronomicon-like work exist in the library of the Golden Dawn? It depends upon how you define the order. There is, of course, the original lodge chartered by Mathers, Westcott, and Woodman in 1888 that broke apart just after the turn of the century in schism and scandal. Then we have the various orders that came thereafter, some founded by the various members of the parent order. They often have (and still do) deny the validity of the others, but for our purposes, even those appearing under a different name might meet these criteria if they stress the same principles.

Then, there is the Cromlech Temple, the group to which the "Veils of Negative Existence" supposedly belonged. This is what Simon refers to above as "the Golden Dawn." How well does it fit the usual conception of that organization?

This group, the founding of which King dates to between 1890-1910 (though I have seen 1913 on the disreputable Internet), was affiliated with at least one Golden Dawn offshoot, and the membership of both overlapped to some extent. Yet saying it was "the Golden Dawn", in the sense in which most understand it, is not entirely accurate. First, as King describes it, the Temple was primarily mystical in orientation. Those who sought to learn magic were recommended to another order to do so. Second, despite being open to ecumenical beliefs and what might have been shocking concepts regarding sexual taboos, even in post-Victorian times, the Temple required all past the first degree to be Christian in orientation. The Order attracted many liberal Anglican clergymen who sought mysticism but did not wish to violate Church doctrine. We can debate as to how close they truly adhered to orthodoxy, but its members seem to have been sincere in believing that it did. In the end, King describes it as "an interesting side-Order of the Golden Dawn," instead of a direct branch thereof.

My points here are threefold. First, the Cromlech Temple, insofar as King's data presents it, can be connected with the Golden Dawn only by association. Second, even if the Necronomicon Simon presents were the "Veils of Negative Existence," it hardly seems possible that it could have lasted long as part of the library of a group that sought to maintain a liberal, yet nonetheless orthodox, Christian position. Third, Lovecraft seems to have been an unlikely candidate for knowledge of such an order's secrets, being an atheist with no mentioned transatlantic contacts.

Well, again this depends on how deeply you research the subject and how much weight you want to give to one side of an argument or another. I know, Dan, that you and John proceeded from the assumption that the Necronomicon was a hoax and made no bones about it. At least you were honest and upfront about that, which is good. The problem is that one proceeds from such an agenda with an eye to selecting information that will fit. That seems to be the case here.

In the chapter that we both cite -- from Francis King's "Modern Ritual Magic" -- the opening lines read:

quote
As far as I know, there is not a single printed reference to the Cromlech Temple, an esoteric group, having a close fraternal relationship and many members in common with the Golden Dawn, which produced some extremely interesting papers on the significance of the higher Rosicrucian grades in general and that of Exempt Adept in particular."

unquote

If we reference Ellic Howe's book -- "The Magicians of the Golden Dawn" -- as well as Ithell Colquhoun's "Sword of Wisdom" -- we begin to get a clearer picture of this group, and to R.W Felkin who was certainly a high-ranking member of the original Golden Dawn until the famous schisms. That Felkin -- a high G..D.. initiate -- is referencing the text in a lecture to the SRIA is further evidence of the pedigree of both the "Veils of Negative Existence" as well as of the Cromlech Temple which was one of several offshoots of the G..D.. (such as the Stella Matutina, to which Israel Regardie belonged). As for the library of the Cromlech Temple not having a copy of this book in their possession because of their "liberal, yet nonetheless orthodox, Christian position" ... you have to know that dog don't hunt. The Vatican Library is a good example of a library maintained by orthodox Catholics that has a large selection of occult works in its possession; heck, even you and John have copies of the Necronomicon! So ... sorry, no. That argument doesn't work; it's contradicted by King's statement that Felkin was giving lectures on it; so, obviously, it was in someone's library at Cromlech Temple and being lectured on by an Adept of the Golden Dawn. Whether or not it lasted long at the Cromlech Temple library is moot. It's not the point, anyway. The point is that "The Veils of Negative Existence" ... well, existed. And that the Golden Dawn -- and the Cromlech Temple and the SRIA -- were all aware of it. In 1915.

The source you should be attacking is Francis King, if you have documentation to prove that he is wrong. Otherwise, my statement in Dead Names must stand.

Apologies - life gets in the way sometimes.

Well, again this depends on how deeply you research the subject and how much weight you want to give to one side of an argument or another. I know, Dan, that you and John proceeded from the assumption that the Necronomicon was a hoax and made no bones about it. At least you were honest and upfront about that, which is good. The problem is that one proceeds from such an agenda with an eye to selecting information that will fit. That seems to be the case here.

In the chapter that we both cite -- from Francis King's "Modern Ritual Magic" -- the opening lines read:

quote
As far as I know, there is not a single printed reference to the Cromlech Temple, an esoteric group, having a close fraternal relationship and many members in common with the Golden Dawn, which produced some extremely interesting papers on the significance of the higher Rosicrucian grades in general and that of Exempt Adept in particular."

unquote

If we reference Ellic Howe's book -- "The Magicians of the Golden Dawn" -- as well as Ithell Colquhoun's "Sword of Wisdom" -- we begin to get a clearer picture of this group, and to R.W Felkin who was certainly a high-ranking member of the original Golden Dawn until the famous schisms. That Felkin -- a high G..D.. initiate -- is referencing the text in a lecture to the SRIA is further evidence of the pedigree of both the "Veils of Negative Existence" as well as of the Cromlech Temple which was one of several offshoots of the G..D.. (such as the Stella Matutina, to which Israel Regardie belonged).

I am afraid my personal library is lacking in that department. Still, Dead Names is very clear: it was the Golden Dawn itself that owned this manuscript. I have yet to see any proof, other than association, that the Cromlech Temple was chartered as, or considered a branch of, the Golden Dawn by its members. Association alone is worth little - by the same logic, the Golden Dawn library is the SRIA library is the Theosophical Society library is the library of a London Masonic lodge.

As for the library of the Cromlech Temple not having a copy of this book in their possession because of their "liberal, yet nonetheless orthodox, Christian position" ... you have to know that dog don't hunt. The Vatican Library is a good example of a library maintained by orthodox Catholics that has a large selection of occult works in its possession; heck, even you and John have copies of the Necronomicon! So ... sorry, no.

My argument does not rule it out completely, of course. I merely observed that a Necronomicon was unlikely to be there, based on its custodians, and their beliefs and interests. For a reader to make an informed decision, it is important that they know that this possible Necronomicon manuscript was in the hands of an order striving for Christian orthodoxy instead of the original founders of the Golden Dawn. It may not convince them, but it is a significant shift in the evidence.

Tonight, let's keep it short.

Dead Names, pp. 196-97:

Critics point out that “miskatonic” is simply an imaginary American Indian word, but they miss the point. It is certainly an imaginary Indian word, since Lovecraft lived in Rhode Island, which is a state full of towns and rivers with similar-sounding names; but it is also a play on the word “chthonic,” with the negative prefix mis (as in mistake, misperception) resulting in “Miskatonic,” which can only mean an evil, chthonic force, like—for instance – Cthulhu. Thus, Miskatonic was a clever and meaningful pun that has sadly gone unnoticed by Lovecraft’s own defenders.

Letter from H. P. Lovecraft to August Derleth, November 6, 1931, Selected Letters III:432:

...About "Arkham" and "Kingsport" - bless my soul! but I thought I'd told you all about them years ago! They are typical but imaginary places - like the river "Miskatonic," whose name is simply a jumble of Algonquin roots.

Thanks for your kind comments. I hope Gates lives up to its reputation!

As for my identity ... well, people will assume they know who I am, and they may be in for a surprise! In any event, I am not the first writer to use a pseudonym and I won't be the last. Some very famous authors use them, just to keep their identity secret when they try a new genre, for instance. No one complains to them! And guys like J.D. Salinger and Thomas Pynchon don't use pseudonyms ...but then they disappear completely anyway. In the past few decades we've learned that writers such as Anne Rice, Stephen King, and many others have written and published books under other names. Somehow, though, when it comes to the Necronomicon and Simon there seems to be this cottage industry in revealing my identity. Weird, huh?

Let the book stand for itself. Who I am is not important at all. Think of me as just a means to an end for getting the Necronomicon to the public.

I am willing to answer any questions you might have, though, insh'allah.

Hello Simon,

thank you for your reply.

Of course you are correct in your observation, and to me as a member of said public the most important thing is the book. I do have a second question of this idle curiosity/secondary importance, it regards the translators listed in the Necronomicon, i.e. Ms I Celms, Ms N pasapycou, Mr Peter Levenda, Mr X and Mr Y.

Just so you know that I have done my homework I am aware of what you wrote on page 104 and 105 of dead names about splitting up the mss, so different translators worked with different parts of it, and about Ms Papaspyrous invovlement and the other gentleman who was inolved in the process.

As I am writing this in an internet cafe I do not have the books in front of me, just some notes - so I hope that I haven't gotten the facts mixed up, but anyway, my first question is where there two or more translators? I am also very curious about the translators regarding what parts of the mss they translated and of course if they had any kind of background within the occult? - Is there anything more you can tell us about this?

---

Now, since your presense on this forum (and especially the chance that you may answer further questions :-)is quite inspiring I decided to pick up my old copy of the necronomicon again. First I have to say that it impressed me deeply - there were a lot in it which a dismissed when I encountered it many years ago, which I now consider to be valuable material. This was the same kind of transformation with which I have reevaluated parts of the work of Crowley and Grant, i.e. after first considering parts of the work as nonsensical it starts to provide great value.

I also decided that I am not willing to wait until September with the gatewalking - so I started working with this again a couple of days ago. This far I only have one question regarding classification - the previous time when I worked with the book and tried to go through the first gate ended a bit disastrously, it took me some time to recover, and then later under the pseudonym of "Anfänger" I asked some questions about this on the internet, and someone suggested that the forces I had encountered where rather of the Maskim variety than the kind of forces one was expected to find behind the first gate.

Now, of course this kind of question can be tricky to answer, since most magickal experiences are quite personal. Anyway, I shall not bother to describe my procedures, but a couple of days ago I approached the first gate. The energy I encountered was nothing like anything I have ever encountered while working with any other system, not like any qliffotic or similar energy I have encountered. I would be tempted to describe it as a sickly-sweet moon brightness fluid menstrually tainted energy. I was not able to repel it using any of my normal defences, in fact my 'vehicle' the shape I assumed while entering the gate was quickly indisposed by the energy - the trick I finally came upon for manipulating the energy and sending it away from my body which was not altogether comfortable with being invaded by it (I have to admit that for some time there I was questioning my own sanity for considering working with energies which are as sometimes uncomfortable as this one), was to identify with the energy and consider it me and sending this part of myself far away from my body. Sort of like there is no spoon.

(I also tested the classical repelling sigil on the energy, and it worked fine)

I have a rather busy schedule at the present so I have not been able to experiment extensively with this, but I have noted that when I watch the world through the filter of this energy the word "necro" seems very appropriate for describing parts of the experience. It is quite interesting and fascinating, though presently I have not been able to find any practical uses for it - and I have to admit that the primary uses of this force I am able to imagine would be martial (and fortunately I consider it quite unlikely that I would be in a situation where I would have to defend myself against these forces - or use them for attack).

So, anyway, my question of primary importance would be if it is possible from this brief description to say that I have indeed taken part of the stuff on the other side of the first gate - or if this sounds more like maskim?

Either way I will of course continue my exploration. This is far to fascinating, although a bit perilous :-)

All the best
Noxlux

This post has been edited by nox: Apr 22 2006, 12:11 PM

Nox quote
"I also decided that I am not willing to wait until September with the gatewalking - so I started working with this again a couple of days ago. This far I only have one question regarding classification - the previous time when I worked with the book and tried to go through the first gate ended a bit disastrously, it took me some time to recover, and then later under the pseudonym of "Anfänger" I asked some questions about this on the internet, and someone suggested that the forces I had encountered where rather of the Maskim variety than the kind of forces one was expected to find behind the first gate."

Greetings Nox,

The night of walking for this year are. May 23, June11, July 10, August 9, September 7, October 6, November 5, December 4th. You should start the lunar month of purification one full moon before the night of walking which always takes place on the full moon.
Please contact me if you would like help with the gates or anything else within the Necronomicon. I could prep you for the june 11 date if you like. There is much that I can tell you about the gates but I will not tell it here. So contact me for more info.
Smasher666

This post has been edited by smasher666: Apr 22 2006, 02:12 PM

Apologies - life gets in the way sometimes.

Well, again this depends on how deeply you research the subject and how much weight you want to give to one side of an argument or another. I know, Dan, that you and John proceeded from the assumption that the Necronomicon was a hoax and made no bones about it. At least you were honest and upfront about that, which is good. The problem is that one proceeds from such an agenda with an eye to selecting information that will fit. That seems to be the case here.

In the chapter that we both cite -- from Francis King's "Modern Ritual Magic" -- the opening lines read:

quote
As far as I know, there is not a single printed reference to the Cromlech Temple, an esoteric group, having a close fraternal relationship and many members in common with the Golden Dawn, which produced some extremely interesting papers on the significance of the higher Rosicrucian grades in general and that of Exempt Adept in particular."

unquote

If we reference Ellic Howe's book -- "The Magicians of the Golden Dawn" -- as well as Ithell Colquhoun's "Sword of Wisdom" -- we begin to get a clearer picture of this group, and to R.W Felkin who was certainly a high-ranking member of the original Golden Dawn until the famous schisms. That Felkin -- a high G..D.. initiate -- is referencing the text in a lecture to the SRIA is further evidence of the pedigree of both the "Veils of Negative Existence" as well as of the Cromlech Temple which was one of several offshoots of the G..D.. (such as the Stella Matutina, to which Israel Regardie belonged).

I am afraid my personal library is lacking in that department. Still, Dead Names is very clear: it was the Golden Dawn itself that owned this manuscript. I have yet to see any proof, other than association, that the Cromlech Temple was chartered as, or considered a branch of, the Golden Dawn by its members. Association alone is worth little - by the same logic, the Golden Dawn library is the SRIA library is the Theosophical Society library is the library of a London Masonic lodge.


You're grasping at straws, Dan, as you were with the qhadhulu scenario. It's a noble effort, even grand in its obstinacy, but ultimately futile. The history of the Cromlech Temple is found in histories of the Golden Dawn. It was as much Golden Dawn as Stella Matutina, Regardie's temple, which was also Golden Dawn as no one can deny. Regardie published the rituals of the Golden Dawn, which were the rituals of Stella Matutina, etc etc. Thus it is by no means a stretch to say that the document in question was in the library of the Golden Dawn. If my memory serves, at that time there was no other operative Golden Dawn save for the Cromlech Temple. But that's not the point, is it?

The implication made in your book was that I had invented the whole thing; when I pointed out the source of the information, a source that was as available to you and Gonce as it was to me, you found fault. Your ad hominem argument that "the Golden Dawn library is the SRIA library is the Theosophical Society library" is not at all what I said. What I said -- once again -- is that (a) the "Veils of Negative Existence" was a genuine document and (b) that Felkin gave a lecture on it at SRIA -- not that SRIA library had a copy -- and © that it was in the library of the Cromlech Temple, a Golden Dawn operation. Your attempt at ridiculing my thesis misses the target here completely, and especially the point.

As for the library of the Cromlech Temple not having a copy of this book in their possession because of their "liberal, yet nonetheless orthodox, Christian position" ... you have to know that dog don't hunt. The Vatican Library is a good example of a library maintained by orthodox Catholics that has a large selection of occult works in its possession; heck, even you and John have copies of the Necronomicon! So ... sorry, no.

My argument does not rule it out completely, of course. I merely observed that a Necronomicon was unlikely to be there, based on its custodians, and their beliefs and interests. For a reader to make an informed decision, it is important that they know that this possible Necronomicon manuscript was in the hands of an order striving for Christian orthodoxy instead of the original founders of the Golden Dawn. It may not convince them, but it is a significant shift in the evidence.

I still don't understand why a copy of the Necronomicon was unlikely to be there. I don't get it. How does a library reflect only the traditions and mores of the society to which it belongs? Would it not represent and reflect the interests of said society? If I have an occult or esoteric library, it's bound to contain all sorts of volumes with which I don't agree. We all know that Bob Larson -- the Christian Right ideologue who hates the Necronomicon -- has a copy of that book, plus the Satanic Bible and all sorts of other hideous tomes. I do not believe, and cannot understand how you can aver, that it is "a significant shift in the evidence". Once again, that dog don't hunt. In fact, you should probably take that dog out and shoot it.

Tonight, let's keep it short.

Dead Names, pp. 196-97:

Critics point out that “miskatonic” is simply an imaginary American Indian word, but they miss the point. It is certainly an imaginary Indian word, since Lovecraft lived in Rhode Island, which is a state full of towns and rivers with similar-sounding names; but it is also a play on the word “chthonic,” with the negative prefix mis (as in mistake, misperception) resulting in “Miskatonic,” which can only mean an evil, chthonic force, like—for instance – Cthulhu. Thus, Miskatonic was a clever and meaningful pun that has sadly gone unnoticed by Lovecraft’s own defenders.

Letter from H. P. Lovecraft to August Derleth, November 6, 1931, Selected Letters III:432:

...About "Arkham" and "Kingsport" - bless my soul! but I thought I'd told you all about them years ago! They are typical but imaginary places - like the river "Miskatonic," whose name is simply a jumble of Algonquin roots.

I think ole H.P. was having a funny at Derleth's expense, not too difficult if Derleth thought Arkham existed in reality ... why waste time trying to explain an ingenious pun like Miskatonic to a relative dolt? As before, stand by my reading. If nothing else, it's a lot more interesting!

1 member/s has found this topic to be useful and informative:

UnKnown1

Tonight, let's keep it short.

Dead Names, pp. 196-97:

Critics point out that “miskatonic” is simply an imaginary American Indian word, but they miss the point. It is certainly an imaginary Indian word, since Lovecraft lived in Rhode Island, which is a state full of towns and rivers with similar-sounding names; but it is also a play on the word “chthonic,” with the negative prefix mis (as in mistake, misperception) resulting in “Miskatonic,” which can only mean an evil, chthonic force, like—for instance – Cthulhu. Thus, Miskatonic was a clever and meaningful pun that has sadly gone unnoticed by Lovecraft’s own defenders.

Letter from H. P. Lovecraft to August Derleth, November 6, 1931, Selected Letters III:432:

...About "Arkham" and "Kingsport" - bless my soul! but I thought I'd told you all about them years ago! They are typical but imaginary places - like the river "Miskatonic," whose name is simply a jumble of Algonquin roots.

Greetings,

First an foremost I do not believe Simon to be a fraud or the Necronomicon a hoax. Some of the spells in the Maklu text are nearly identical to those stored in the library of Ninevah.

Lets say it is a hoax. I have met many many people in my lifetime who believe strongly in the Necronomicon because it works. So if it is a hoax then not only is Simon a genious but he is also a prophet and scribe of the gods or Aliester Crowley reincarnate to have written the most workable tome of ceremonial magick in recorded history.

I am of the opinion that Simon speaks the truth. You are in the buisness of calling him a liar. However opinions are like arseholes everyone has one. It is certainly a free country and everyman has a God given right to believe whatever he wants. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/book.gif)

Lets use this forum for the purpose it was intended to discuss the book in question. If you want start a new topic and call it "Simonicon truth or fiction?" I don't think this forum was intended to argue H.P. Lovecraft however that is just my opinion.


Simon,

The Yezdis are quite interesting. Any idea of what is in their black book? Shaitan is Sheytan in Turkish by the way.

Everyone have a great weekend!

I still don't understand why a copy of the Necronomicon was unlikely to be there. I don't get it. How does a library reflect only the traditions and mores of the society to which it belongs? Would it not represent and reflect the interests of said society? If I have an occult or esoteric library, it's bound to contain all sorts of volumes with which I don't agree. We all know that Bob Larson -- the Christian Right ideologue who hates the Necronomicon -- has a copy of that book, plus the Satanic Bible and all sorts of other hideous tomes. I do not believe, and cannot understand how you can aver, that it is "a significant shift in the evidence". Once again, that dog don't hunt. In fact, you should probably take that dog out and shoot it.

I'd agree that the book should reflect the interests of the society, as well as its morals. Yet I've yet to see any evidence that the Cromlech Temple was greatly interested in the topics of the Necronomicon. It seems more likely that the "Veils of Negative Existence" was a text of a character more in line with that of the rest of the collection.

Back at the cafe again, and having read the rest of dead names for the second time. I will make a new attempt at formulating myself more clearly.

Allow me to recapitulate my understanding of the translation process: First one third of the book was given to ms Ms N pasapycou, a second third was given to the anonymous gentleman, then Ms N pasapycou translated the third. However parts of this translation came out as barbarous names, which was however understood/discovered by Peter Levenda to be phonetic renderings of sumerian prayers.

I have some questions regarding this, and though they do lack ultimate importance my curiosity gets the better of me, and hence I ask them in no particular order:

1) Were the sumerian parts ever translated, or are they the barbarous names still remaining?
2) Since a Mr X is mentioned in both the acknowledgements of Necronomicon and in Dead Names (p211) - is this the same mr X?
3) The anonymous gentleman of p 105 of Dead Names - whom of the persons mentioned in the acknowledgements is he?
4) What role did the other people mentioned in the acknowledgements as translators play in the translation?
5) What were their background in the occult?

All the best
Noxlux

Btw - You probably get hundreds of reports of gatewalking, but neverhteless after having walked the gate I called nana. Now I do no longer know what was most valuable the test for surviving the gate or the blessing by nana. D.s.

I think ole H.P. was having a funny at Derleth's expense, not too difficult if Derleth thought Arkham existed in reality ... why waste time trying to explain an ingenious pun like Miskatonic to a relative dolt? As before, stand by my reading. If nothing else, it's a lot more interesting!

Those who have read Lovecraft's letters would find this highly unlikely. Lovecraft was always very conscientious about letting in those who wrote him on the fictional nature of his creations, even ones that he had answered about repeatedly before. It's even less likely that he'd pull over such a trick on August Derleth, with whom he had been corresponding for five years at that time.

Greetings,

First an foremost I do not believe Simon to be a fraud or the Necronomicon a hoax. Some of the spells in the Maklu text are nearly identical to those stored in the library of Ninevah.

Lets say it is a hoax. I have met many many people in my lifetime who believe strongly in the Necronomicon because it works. So if it is a hoax then not only is Simon a genious but he is also a prophet and scribe of the gods or Aliester Crowley reincarnate to have written the most workable tome of ceremonial magick in recorded history.

I am of the opinion that Simon speaks the truth. You are in the buisness of calling him a liar. However opinions are like arseholes everyone has one. It is certainly a free country and everyman has a God given right to believe whatever he wants. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/book.gif)

Lets use this forum for the purpose it was intended to discuss the book in question. If you want start a new topic and call it "Simonicon truth or fiction?" I don't think this forum was intended to argue H.P. Lovecraft however that is just my opinion.

As I understand it, this forum is for the purposes of discussing books of interest to practitioners of magic of all stripes. My discussions of Lovecraft and the other topics all relate to the claims made about them in Dead Names. Some of the other s posts, such as those regarding the Gatewalking procedure, are not based on Dead Names at all, yet I do not begrudge them taking this opportunity for some first-hand answers.

I am sorry to hear you were disappointed in the Necronomicon Files, and encourage you to send on any comments you might have about improving the book.

One of the most controversial topics in The Necronomicon Files is the Necronomicon's role in two murder cases. While we leave open the exact role that the book played in the crimes, we nonetheless suggest that it should be examined. Simon responds to us at a number of points, of which I have selected one:

Page 250:

Gonce focuses on the Necronomicon because it supports his thesis. He could have easily focused on The Witches Bible, The Satanic Bible, or even Queen of the Damned in the Ferrell case, and any one of a dozen satanic volumes available to Glen Mason, as books that contributed to the killers’ “murderous insanity.” The fact that both son and Ferrell were disturbed youths from broken homes with a history of antisocial acting out is ignored in favor the more sensationalistic claim that somehow the Necronomicon was responsible for their crimes. That the killers ignored the general themes of all of these books and instead ransacked them for anything that would fuel their own perverse delusions is mirrored in Gonce’s own approach when he singles out the Necronomicon when it comes time to point fingers and utter pious condemnations.

Based on Simon's reporting, our claim does seem ridiculous. That is because Simon doesn't tell you the whole story.

What Simon does not mention in his book is that, in both cases, the Necronomicon was singled out for attention. News reports and subsequent books indicate that both killers had a deep interest in the Necronomicon, and that both sought to open the Gates of Hell, or to call up subterranean demons, in exchange for personal power. All of this is a matter of public record, and is included in our book.

This concept - that power can be obtained by blood sacrifice that allows the Underworld access to the earth - is not something you'll find in The Lion King, or The Witches' Bible, or the other sources that these individuals owned and that Simon mentions as possible avenues. Further, unlike many of those sources, the Necronomicon is not presented as a work of fiction, but as an honest-to-goodness ancient text that provides the user with power, for good or for evil.

Sure, we could have dressed up a list of crimes where a copy of the Necronomicon was found in somebody's locker or room afterward, as Simon claims we did. We've got the data for that. In fact, we once had a reporter contact us about a case where the [/i]Necronomicon was owned by a perp. We looked at the facts and told him that we didn't think it was important. He never called us back. For the book we took two cases that we felt were relevant and discussed them, giving people room to consider the evidence for themselves.

Simon has had access to the same resources John and I have. If he claims that he doesn't believe the Necronomicon caused these crimes, he's free to express that opinion. If he wants to say that he's not responsible for the actions of deranged individuals, he can certainly say so. If he claims that most people who have the book don't commit such crimes, I'd agree with him. This board alone is proof of that. I find it odd that Simon can disclaim that the Necronomicon is linked to violence in Dead Names and hype its "role" in the Son of Sam killings and JFK's assassination on the back cover, but perhaps there's a good explanation for that.

Nonetheless, in Dead Names, Simon has not to include evidence given in The Necronomicon Files, evidence that might point to a possible motive for these crimes. Simon, I'd like to know why, given the amount of space devoted to the topic of the Necronomicon's danger, none of this is included.

Danharms,

You seem like a nice guy but I think your perception of Simon is a little twisted. It might be true that great number of people with a unibrow and iq smaller than their shoe size might be attracted to the Necronomicon. Such people might seek to use the Necronomicon for evil but that in itself is rather foolish. For the book is clearly intended to be used by the priest in service of the creator of this planet who is the great protector of our race. It is a guide book for the priest to stamp out evil. To gain power over demons and crush the evil ones under foot.

The fact that some Satanists try to use the book to commit evil only shows that those Satanists in question are not very literate or intelligent and that that can not comprehend what they are reading.

I think what Simon is trying to tell us without directly saying so is that the book can expose some people to forces that may cause insanity or quite abnormal thinking. This is not the Necromicons fault but rather the faulty mental state of the fools who use it against the manner in which it is intended. To use the Necronomicon in any manner other than it was intended is utter madness and to invoke doom upon ones self.

Quote from the 1st page of the Necronomicon. "The Necronomicon's magick is nothing to fool with and it may expose you to psychological forces with which you cannot cope. Remember, if you tinker with the incantations, you were warned." Fate Magazine

pg liv " Persons of unstable mental condition, or unstable emotional condition should not be allowed, under any circumstances, to observe one of these rituals in progress. That would be criminal, and perhaps even suicidal."

Albeit some murders have happened in connection to morons and criminals who happened to own a copy. I assure you by all that I hold dear in this world that the Necronomicon has saved lives as well. Read my post about the Fourth name of Marduk Barashakushu in The 50 names of Marduk Necronomicon spellbook thread for one such case.

The Necronomicon changed me for the better. I am a man with a dark past. It was the light in the Necronomicon that turned me away from the left hand path. I called god by many names and by all names did he deny me. Only when I began to call on Enki were my prayers answered. I know the dark. In knowing the dark I now cherish the light all the more than perhaps one who has never strayed. The Necronomicon is the foundation of my spirituality and the source of my inspiration.

In my mind if it is a forgery and a fake then how can it work? I swear by Enki's beard I have witnessed miracles which were directly connected to the Necronomicon and the dietys therein. If there ever was a doubting Thomas I am of his spirit. I believe nothing that I hear and only half of what I see. I am a man who believes in nothing. However I do believe in the power of the Necronomicon. I believe because it works. I believe because my prayers are answered. I am a slave to logic.

There is an old saying about ceremonial magick. "The ceremonial magician might become a God but most likely will just go insane."

This is a very valid statement. One of the problems with developing power is that man tends to become proud and glorify himself. Pride is a pathway to darkness. Once the mind has entered that darkness then the demons begin to lay hold of a mans mind and urge him to grotesque acts such as murder. The magician must be humble and remember that no matter what manner of miracle has been worked through him it is not his power but the power of God which has manifested through him. Pride and God are soon to part.

The Necronomicon may mention evil as a warning but the Necronomicon is not evil in itself.

MashAllah!

This post has been edited by smasher666: Apr 23 2006, 11:19 PM

Smasher,

I agree. Its the same with any religious text. Thousands of lives have been taken in the name of the Quoran and the Bible yet neither texts are evil. Osama said that he attacked the twin towers in the name of Allah, but does anyone (besides pee brained super rightists) claim that Allah is evil?

I think ole H.P. was having a funny at Derleth's expense, not too difficult if Derleth thought Arkham existed in reality ... why waste time trying to explain an ingenious pun like Miskatonic to a relative dolt? As before, stand by my reading. If nothing else, it's a lot more interesting!

Those who have read Lovecraft's letters would find this highly unlikely. Lovecraft was always very conscientious about letting in those who wrote him on the fictional nature of his creations, even ones that he had answered about repeatedly before. It's even less likely that he'd pull over such a trick on August Derleth, with whom he had been corresponding for five years at that time.

As I understand it, this forum is for the purposes of discussing books of interest to practitioners of magic of all stripes. My discussions of Lovecraft and the other topics all relate to the claims made about them in Dead Names. Some of the other s posts, such as those regarding the Gatewalking procedure, are not based on Dead Names at all, yet I do not begrudge them taking this opportunity for some first-hand answers.

Howdy Danharms.

Though I generally do not agree with your positions I am very pleased that you are here. I believe this thread is a lot better than it had been had you not written in it. (And of course I appreciate your generous attitude regarding my offtopic comments.:-)

As you may well be aware there are usually to worldviews present in the occultists mind. One is the worldview of mundane science which is often quite uninteresting and totally lacks relevance (for what the occultist is about). The other is the occult view wherein every act is a magickal act and there is nothing but magick in the universe. According to this view the value of a statement is not necessarily proportionate to how well it corresponds to mundane science' view about how "true" it is. (in fact the exact opposite is at times true). The value of a statement is more easily ascertained by noting its magickal effects.

Just as an example take our dreaming prophet HPL who according to your science was just an author who invented a mythos and so forth, and quotes his letters in support of this view whereas the truth is almost spelled out in his writings, his mind would not had been capable of withstanding the impact of the realization and the full cosmic scope of the implications of his writings, so he himself repressed the knowledge he intuited. And there is really not that much that can be implied from a mans repression of the facts.

All the best
Noxlux