We Get Necronomicon Posts

Commenter Warlock Asylum has posted an open letter to me in his blog that I’d like to address briefly. As I read it, Warlock’s position is that my views on the Simon Necronomicon‘s reality fail to take into account the possibility that the Necronomicon is written in code decipherable only by magicians. Thus, he says that I have missed four important clues in the document:

  • The mention of an original Greek Necronomicon manuscript, instead of one in script (I assume he means Arabic), is a departure from Lovecraft, thereby indicating that the book refers to Aleister Crowley’s philosophy of Thelema, another Greek word.
  • The statement in the book that Crowley’s Liber Al is his own Necronomicon; and
  • The dedication to PERDURABO, the magical name of Aleister Crowley, who is given great credit for this book.
  • The similarities in style to Aleister Crowley’s writing.

Based on these three clues, Warlock Asylum concludes that the Necronomicon is in fact based on a template created by Aleister Crowley, with additional material coming from a Greek manuscript.

In short, I don’t agree with him. Those who want a longer explanation can look past the cut.

First, Warlock’s entire argument is based on questionable assumptions. First, a set of coded assumptions permeate the Necronomicon and other magical documents. I think that’s true, though true in less cases than some magicians like to maintain. Second, these codes are only decipherable by magicians. From my own experience in the occult community, I don’t see that as a safe assumption – though magicians are often more committed to studying their symbolism, non-practitioners can come to understand the same language. Otherwise, I’d never have gotten very far with Kenneth Grant. Third – and this is the most problematic – that this code can never be used to provide false information, which would assume that magicians were virtually infallible and truthful at all times. None of this really stands up.

Also, the factual errors in the argument are fairly serious. For instance, Lovecraft’s own “History of the Necronomicon” does indeed mention a Greek document. In that case, someone like Simon with a background in the Eastern Orthodox Church would have found it easier to create evidence of a Greek Necronomicon than one in Arabic. It seems questionable that a mere reference to a Greek document must be to Crowley instead of, say, the vast majority of Greek literature that has nothing to do with him. Further, the statement that some work is “Crowley’s own NECRONOMICON” actually seems to refer to Liber Al, instead of the Necronomicon itself, when viewed in context. Though everyone makes mistakes, these do suggest that magical expertise does not necessarily equate to sounder textual judgment.

As to the language – I’ve read quite a bit of Crowley over the years, and I can’t imagine him coming up with a model so doom-laden and in which humanity plays such an unimportant role. Crowley did see the rise of a new, bloody aeon, but he was an optimist at heart. He saw magic as something accomplished through the Will, with pacts with gods and other beings only serving that force instead of being intrinsically necessary for a magician’s attainment.

What this argument really lacks, however, is any evidentiary ground. Warlock first tosses out the only first-hand account of the manuscript’s origins via Simon – which isn’t such a bad idea in itself – and then concludes, based on a few passages from the introduction, that the work is one by Crowley. Yet it doesn’t quite fit Crowley’s mode, so he decides that a Greek Pythagorean manuscript was used to fit into the gaps. Based on his synopsis, this doesn’t have enough Mesopotamian content to justify the Necronomicon. Does this mean we need to look for another source, on top of Crowley and the Pentemychos? Supposedly coded references are simply not sufficient, and the elaborations seem to be less about explaining how this came about and more about shoring up an argument that is not sustainable.

Nonetheless, I look forward to answering his next letter.

Published in: on April 14, 2008 at 6:20 pm  Comments (8)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://danharms.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/we-get-necronomicon-posts/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

8 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Interesting, Mister Harms. I guess we have our own work in progress, as a book. However, i will review these comments a little more closely, as you have pointed out some points that raise the level of our discussion. I will send you a response soon. Thank you for being a part of the language of debate, which has helped the world grow politically, scientifically, and magickally. I will respond soon. Until then,…,

    Blessed Be!

  2. Thank you for your response. I don’t want to get too involved with the debate, but I’m willing to answer your points.

    As a side point, can you point me to where I say that one of my associates is helping the federal government tell the real pagans from the fake ones?

  3. Yeah I have a lot of writing to do as well, rather than debate. However, I do see the excjange as drawing out more info that will beneficial to all, regardless of what side or opinion they may have. I am currently working on a response to your post hear, as well as, some other articles. The link you were looking for can be found here:


    If you read under the section called The Mission and the Subculture Project. Until we talk again

    Blessed Be!

  4. Ah, yes. Actually, the Subculture Project was run by my friend Tony Kail, who does lectures to law enforcement. You should really check out his book, The Cop’s Guide to Occult Investigations, which might alleviate some of your doubts.

  5. I will be sure to check it out -Thanks!

  6. You may find this link useful:


  7. […] Principles of Deception In light of a previous post, I wanted to follow up with some thoughts about how ordinary tactics of determining a […]

  8. Just a question and I could be entirely wrong, but wasn’t the Simon necronomicon published years later, after Crowley’s works had been published? Who really is “Simon”? and what does thelema have to do with HPL mythos?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s