Proof (??) that the Simon Necronomicon Is Real

Warlock has posted, once again, in response to my last post.

Overall, I have to say that Warlock’s insistence that he has found “proof” illustrates just how far out there some Necronomicon followers really are.  Let’s face it, “somebody in the Middle East once wrote a book on necromancy, so the Simon Necronomicon must be real!” is a stretch that would make Plastic Man jealous.

But let’s get to the meat of the argument – whether the Persian magus Ostanes existed and wrote a book on magic.  Warlock goes on to quote the following passage from Lenormant’s Chaldean Magic:

Herodotus and Diogenes Laertius speak of the supernatural power the Magi thought they possessed. The last of those writers had particuraly consulted the special treatise upon the Magi by Hermippus, where they were represented as jugglers and enchanters. About the same time of the Median wars a book attributed to the Magus Osthanes was circulated in Greece: this book was the origin of the magic substituted by the Greeks from that time forth for the coarse and ancient rites of Goetia.

Warlock goes in for the kill:

Amazingly Harms can’t find any other references to this material that I gave in my first articel. So he assumes that Osthanes is a fictional character. Big mistake Harms!!! I agree with Harms that modern sources are useful, but they should be balance with older sources, as much of the information from modern sources is only an interpretation of the older references anyway. I can’t understand how a noble librarian as harms cannot find this information in the writings of Herodotus?!!

The explanation is quite easy – I cannot find any information in Herodotus about Ostanes the Magus because no such figure exists therein.  As I already stated, it speaks of one Otanes and the Magi, but in opposition to each other.  I can’t understand why Warlock, a crusader for truth, didn’t click on the link to the Histories in my article to see for himself.  It also appears that he has misread the footnotes in his own source, which indicate a completely different set of sources for Ostanes that does not include Herodotus.

Once he does examine those sources in Lenormant – and he should be able to produce quotations, as most are available online – I think he will find what I did:  all of the sources named date to centuries after the supposed life of Ostanes, and therefore cannot be considered reliable for the period.

I’m sure that Warlock will be happy to get back to us when he has turned to his older sources and found proof of Ostanes the magician from the time in which he is supposed to have lived.  I eagerly await his proof thereof.

Published in: on July 28, 2009 at 12:59 am  Comments (7)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. As you point out, even if he finds sources indicating that Ostanes existed in his original time period, and even if he wrote a book of magic or necromancy, this doesn’t make the Simon Necronomicon that book.

    Great blog btw, I’ve been enjoying it a lot.

  2. I understand your point Harms. I am not trying to take any little bit of info and align it with the Tradition. My point in all of this, is that the workings of the Simon Necronomicon are indeed genuinely fits into the description of what certain ‘priesthoods” of Ancient Mesopotamia were really practicing. It you read my treatise between the Lovecraft and Simon Necronomicon Traditions, I clearly state that the Simon Nec isn’t an ancient book, yet I must also state that fragments of it are ancient. I am sure that Simon included these works in his writings as opposed to editing an ancient book. However, if one chooses to use the Simon Necronomicon as a path for spiritual progression, they are indeed practicing a system that was practiced hundreds of years ago. That is what I am saying. Read the Treatise!

    As far as Osthanes goes, I find it amazing your logic as to whether he existed or not, for the same debate can be held on the credibility of Jesus, since there were no mention of him among the people that noted history during the time that he lived. But the question I have for you is how could someone like Cornelius Agrippa mention a fictional character in his works?

    Yeah i use online sources after researching the written material because many of our readers may not have certain material in their libraries. Everyone doesn’t work at the library Harms!

    Enjoy the Summer day! 🙂

  3. I think this exactly where we part company. I don’t see how the Simon Necronomicon “genuinely fits into the description of what certain ‘priesthoods’ of Ancient Mesopotamia were really practicing.” It’s simply not the case, as I’ve demonstrated repeatedly.

    Further, I don’t see a great deal of curiosity on your part in investigating what those priesthoods actually did. It seems that you’re quite content to sit with your Simon books and your copies of Lenormant and Waddell and come to conclusions about them. When challenged, you respond in the following ways:

    1) Dismissal. You haven’t read the material, so you attempt to come up with some reason, such as “they’re in the Dan Harms camp” or “they’re in a secret society” or “their college’s student union has discriminatory policies,” to excuse the fact that, not only you don’t know what you’re talking about, but you’re not putting any effort into trying.

    2) Changing the subject: Why am I talking about Ostanes and not Jesus? You tell me – you’re the one who brought it up as “proof” that the Necronomicon was real.

    3) Finding a tiny bit of trivia out of context: Honestly, show your last comment to anyone who’s actually read Agrippa, and there’s an excellent chance they will burst into laughter. As you haven’t read Agrippa – I have – you wouldn’t be aware of this. He’s an excellent proponent of occult philosophy, but he often repeats uncritically what comes from earlier sources.

    Now, you may be part of a valid spiritual belief, but that does not excuse intellectual laziness. Inability to find the books or the time is one thing; making excuses is quite another. It is a disservice to yourself and the tradition you claim to represent.

    So, there will not be a “treatise” with the “Mesopotamian tradition.” Simply put, you’re not part of it. I’ve known people who are deeply involved in this tradition – reconstructing rituals, learning Sumerian and Akkadian, etc. – and your knowledge is nowhere near as comprehensive as theirs. If you don’t like being told that, that’s not my problem.

  4. What is there to be gained from trying to prove that the Necronomicon has any kind of lineage beyond the 1970s? It is, after all, a grimoire – and as such stands is a solid member of a tradition that has always traded on fantastic stories, spurious authorship attributions and fantastic spiritual and material aspirations. If it already inspires and works for you then I don’t see what is to be gained by going on a crusade to prove it is “authentic”.

    I’m no expert on Simon’s Necronomicon, but don’t think anyone would deny that there are fragments of Simon’s work that are ancient, although IIRC textual evidence points to his sources being 20th century translations of said ancient material. However I don’t really see the proof that the rituals themselves reflect anything practiced by Mesopotamian priesthoods: there is a lack of priesly staples such as astrology and haruspicy for a start.

  5. I’ve got to go somewhat with Phil here. I can understand the need during the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance with trying to tie their magical traditions (e.g. Hermeticism) with the past. There was a general rediscovering the ancients at that time and a great many of these documents were ahead of their expectations. Most of this, I’m sure, was the result of a general distain for the pagan past only to find out that there were some real gems in there. It made it seem that maybe the ancients were suddenly the keepers of vast knowledge. It was just this kind of impulse that also lay behind the Reformation’s quest for a pure Christianity hidden in the past. But I don’t see why there is a need for it today. Surely there has been enough change via science and historical investigation to throw doubt on much of what the ancients felt was the true picture of the world. We live in a realm of Einsteinian/Quantum Mechanical/Darwinian/etc paradigms that seems to be completely ignored by ceremonial magicians. Nowhere do I see an attempt (aside from some remarks from Chaos magicians) to conceive of an updated tradition that accepts that the Platonic/Aristotelian metaphysics much magical tradition is based upon, for example, is flawed. Instead there seems to be an almost irrational need to align oneself with older traditions in order to feel a stronger sense of belonging to a group or culture. If magic works regardless of what tradition one belongs to, then how can one deny that all ancient traditions people accept as their own in today’s world are a form of self-deception? A freely accepted blind to the real workings for the haphazard lotto-like chance of someone else’s system working.

  6. I understand your points gentlemen and i will examine our past discussions to see if I am in error as far as my approach is concerned.

    However, I must say Mister Harms you may have to do some open heart evaluation of your own opinion and not just trying to “swin” a debate. I say this not out of malice or what have you, but lets just look at certain FACTS. and I mean EVERYONE who has read or posted a comment on this article.

    First, I can’t understand how any of you guys can actually say that a worker of the Simon Necronomico is in no way shape or form practicing some of the rituals as they were performed in Ancient Mesopotamia. For examplE, DAN HARMS wrote this article back in April:

    aren’t these bowls, of which incantations are dead over, the same thing as the Aga mass ssaratu in the Simon Necronomicon? What i mean is that they serve the same purpose. So using the Aga mass ssaratu is following a custom that was done in Ancient Mesopotamia.

    Now after the Practitioner of the Simon Necronomicon has his/her incantation bowl, they are to then call upon the Fire God. Notice what is mentioned in a “modern” reference “A hanbook of ancient religions” by John R. Hinnells, it states:

    “..the fire-god Girra (Sumerian Gibil) often invoked in magic to destroy evil.”

    There are many other references that illustrate the Gibil, a Sumerian fire-god, was invoked in magic for protection of destruction. This is also one of the steps used in working with the Simon Necronomicon. So how is it that the Priest or Priestess of the Simon Necronomicon is not performing rituals that people in Ancient Mesopotamia have This article I wrote :

    It shows here how some of the passages that appear in the Simon Necronomicon are indeed incantations that were found on Assyrian Tablets. Now I am not implying this to prove the Sn as being some ancient book. What I am saying is that if a person is using a book that copied incantations from Ancient Assyrian Tablets aren’t they using the same incantations that people used during that time? So how is it that the Practitioner of the Simon Necronomicon is not following some rituals that are indeed from that time?!!! This is where we part ways Harms! Although some critics of the SN try to align its practices with Western Ceremonial practices we can see that these Ancient Mesopotamian rituals of using ‘incantation bowls, calling a fire god, and etc, are not found in Golden Dawn, Enochian, or the Key od Solomon, but they are found in the Simon Necronomicon, and to dismiiss the Simon Necronomicon as not being a vehicle to re-establish some of the rites an opinion that is purely ignorant! You can see thastsome of the words, spells and rituals are indeed what people in Ancient Mesopotamia were practicing at the time. You can’t see this! Gigs up Harms.

    Be Well my Friend

  7. Hey Phil and SMH, thansk for the feed back .. I undersatand what you are saying and in some ways agreee with you There really isn’t anything gained by proving the SN is real, but then again there isn’t a great gain in proving its false either. I do believe that people at many times give to much credit to the ancient faiths as though there is a sense of perfetion in the past. However, I must also say that some of the things science is discovering today came shprtly after being able to decode some of the ancient glyphs and languages. i am not too much into the conspiracy theory thing, but I do believe that some of the information we receive is not in full and that the governemnt puts some of it that is not published to use.

    Yet the interpretations that I see concerning ancient myths and what they really meant are a joke and can lead people to think that the ancients wereignorant to a lot of things. However, there is a cult that has alaways existed who invented these myths and legends Yet to the ancient layman they were misinterpreted and that interpretation is how anthropologist and scholars deifne this myths so much of what was meant, the deeper wisdonm is only understood by modern members of the cult. Let’s take for exmaple the science of acupunture. How did ancient man leanr these things. of meridians and etc? See there is an cult that is advanced. Now lets look at the Simon Necronomicon Practitioner. After his/her intiiations they begin to understand certain things that are scientific in even the Necronomicon Tradition. The mad Arab mentions the term 1001 Moons three times in the SN. The some can equall 77 years based on 13 moons in a year or 64 years based on 12 months. Since tha Mad Arab mentions it 3 times in his first testimony we multiply 84 times 3 and we get 252 years thats the approximate orbit of Pluto, which, coupled with other references in the SN would mean that Pluto and Neptune are the scorpoin man and woman, and the seven planets are Mt Mashu…So this cult is from a Race beyond the stars’ show that somebody came here from the outside in.

    Now the avergae person reading the SN would never really understand what the pratitioner sees in the text, however, the practitioner does. This is true of all paths. What I can’t understand is why the Simon Necronomicon is being singled out as the bad guy?!!!

    be well

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: