Talk:Necronomicon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Misc

As my first day as a logged user, I have made an addition to the meaning of Necronomicon; hope to be welcomed. The Warlock

---

Re. the first para. discussion of the meaning of the word: I have to take issue with the "more prosaic (but probably more correct) translation". If the book is an invention of Lovecraft, then surely his definition of the meaning must be the correct one! -- Pamplemousse 05:37, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Cleanup

It was mentioned in the article that it needed to be cleaned up-- so I stuck a cleanup template on there. If you guys don't think it belongs, I've got no emotional attachment to it-- feel free to remove it. --Southwest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.39.245 (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a Tip

The Necronomicon itself is an actual text, but it is not at all that ancient. It was written by H.P. Lovecraft himself under the pseudonym "The Mad Arab Abdul Alhazred." I suggest you edit your definition lest some poor soul be misled by the information and attempt to wreak havoc across the land with a bogus curse.

(Though I must say, I have tried a few spells in the Necronomicon and they have at least given me the illusion that they do work, considering that 90% of the time they are actually put into effect) User:NeverLasting

Actually, you are wrong, User:Neverlasting. That text you are thinking of is probably the Simon Necronomicon, a modern concoction which blends Lovecraft's ideas with authentic ancient Sumerian magic. It is not the Necronomicon, nor was it written by H.P. Lovecraft. As far as is known from his surviving writings, Lovecraft never wrote a Necronomicon, though in a number of his stories he wrote up some short 'excerpts' from the text (tantalizing and well-crafted excerpts). There is no evidence that a Necronomicon existed before Lovecraft first mentioned the book in one of his weird tales. Alexander 007 17:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

You may also have had in mind the various other modern fake Necronomicons, none of which are authentic and none of which were written by Lovecraft. Though since the Simon version is the most popular fake, I'm guessing that is the one you were referring to. Alexander 007 18:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

All of you are wrong look it up online the Necronomicon DID exist and there are many translations today any Darker Aspect Pagan can tell you this it was written in the year 730 CE by a Damascus Scholar by the name of Abdul Alhazred this scholar had a reputation in his neighborhood of being a Necromancer and Heretic of the teachings of Mohammoud the spells listed in this book do Work i have three copies sitting on my shelf at the moment (one that is a full translation of Alhazred's work and the otehr two are just the spells) i myself am a darker aspect pagan and it irks me to no end when people misconstrue the Necronomicon as a work of fiction it is not and if for some reason you dont believe me then Google Abdul Alhazred and it will pull up many different reliable non user edited sources that PROVE the Necronomicon did/does exist [User:Celticdragon65] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celticdragon65 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

None of them are reliable. Zero. Zilch. Nada.216.135.89.138 (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Known text excerpts

I've collected a number of excerpts from Lovecrafts stories, where he's directly quoting the Necronomicon. I thought it would be interesting to put these all together somewhere, if not in this article then perhaps in WikiQuotes or WikiBooks to make some form of fragmented official text, whichever would be most appropriate. Any thoughts? -- Quoth 02:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Probably WikiBooks...I think. Ask them, maybe? [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 17:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It would be great to have some of the most famous excerpts on the page. I added one (below). Someone removed it immediately. Perhaps that person would be kind enough to explain why they think it is inappropriate.

That is not dead which can eternal lie,

And with strange aeons even death may die.

H. P. Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu (1926)

I explained it in the edit summary. Excerpts aren't particularly relevant to an encyclopedia article about the Necronomicon, and secondly, if we start adding too many of them, we may run foul of copyright, so it's best not to start. --14:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - I'm just getting the hang of this, and I've found your summary. However, I disagree with your reasoning. I think that excerpts can add to our understanding of the nature of this fictional book. I see from your page that you are probably an expert in copyright law! Perhaps you are being over-cautious, because I am sure you know that fair use permits the use of short extracts of copyrighted text for purposes such as review. Also, I see that Wikipedia Policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights) permits the fair-use reproduction of text extracts, but it does ask for this fact to be noted. Although the attribution alone might be considered sufficient, perhaps we could be even clearer and write:

That is not dead which can eternal lie,

And with strange aeons even death may die.

H. P. Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu (1926); Fair use of this Copyright work.

As someone unfamiliar with the concept of the Necronomicon, I can attest to the fact that some of Lovecraft's (and the imitators') excerpts would be helpful. Nicolasdz 04:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be better to place such excerpts in a wikiquote article and link to it from this one TheDragonMaster 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Lovecraft's works are now in the public domain, so copyrights should not be a concern any longer. The "much-discussed couplet" is the most well-known and the shortest excerpt from the Necronomicon found in Lovecraft's fiction. It currently appears in the article, and I am of the opinion that it should stay. 0x539 (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct translation

Probably Necro-Nomicon, the first one listed in the article. Cf. Astronomicon. Though since the book may simply be fictional and Lovecraft may have had no exact idea of the meaning he intended, it may be irrelevant to speculate which is more correct. Alexander 007 08:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Necronomicon is latin and it translates to "The Ways of the Dead" [User:Celticdragon65] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celticdragon65 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? That's so wrong it isn't even comprehensible. Latin for "Ways of the Dead" would be something like Modi Mortui or Limitis Mortui, depending on which kind of Way you mean. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Simon's Necronomicon

I wrote an article on the Simon Necronomicon. Someone might want to take a look at it. SpectrumDT 20:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who writes all of the crap on your website, but I will never use it again. The Necronomicon is roughly "the exposition of the ways of the dead" it is an actual text writter by an islam known today as Abdul Alhazred (Alhazred means something close to "the servant of the evil") His real surname is lost. It was written in the early seventh century during his travels through the desert after being exiled from his homeland because of an affair he had with a woman of much higher social class. He was forced to live off of whatever he found in the desert until he made his way back to a civilization. And wrote the Necronomicon in his home afterward. The fact that this site has that it is a fake document or that it was written by Lovecraft is insulting and a joke. It is by far the most controversial book in history and it was almost lost because it has been outlawed and destroyed throughout history. If you wish to further rid yourselves of your complete ignorance, go to your local bookstore and have them search you up a copy because you can buy English translations of it for under $20. The next time you have a brain fart about what you think you know, please keep it to yourself instead of sharing it with millions of people who will call you a dumbass for posting false information on website that is supposed to help people.

Thank you for your input and the stunning faith in a piece of research that only cost you one book and under $20 and which you place above every other piece of literary and historical evidence to suggest otherwise. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Usage of "Deus Ex Machina"

How exactly is the Necronomicon a deus ex machina? I find this a frank mislabeling. A deus ex machina indicates the interaction of a device with a plot. The Necronomicon does not have any interaction or resolution in Lovecraft's plots. A term that would be more applicable to the argument, I think, is "name dropping". Moneyobie 3:43, 24 January 2006

Good point -- I think the author of that paragraph meant a "literary crutch" or more charitably a kind of leitmotif, but reading the section I realized it was was entirely unsourced original research, so I removed it -- it was well-written, but unsourced speculation by the contributor. MattShepherd 15:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems kind of in line with a MacGuffin, but.. OR. 69.64.10.249 15:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Colin Wilson" Necronomicon

A blatant hoax version of the Necronomicon was produced by paranormal researcher and writer Colin Wilson, describing how it was translated by computer from a discovered "cipher text." It is far truer to the Lovecraftian version and even incorporates quotations from Lovecraft's stories into its passages. -- I suspect this needs correction. Apparently it refers to the 1978 UK-published "Necronomicon" whose cover credits are: "Edited by George Hay. Introduced by Colin Wilson. Researched by Robert Turner and David Langford." That is, George Hay (not the ice hockey player who has a Wikipedia entry) was overall editor, Colin Wilson wrote only the introduction, the occultist Robert Turner was responsible for the supposed Necronomicon content, and I described the (imaginary) computer translation from (actual) cipher tables by Dr John Dee. Others contributed commentary, including L. Sprague de Camp and Angela Carter. David Langford--84.51.152.72 11:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK -- although uneasy about adding a link to myself, I've corrected the Colin Wilson reference as above. Before this edit, the book was attributed to Wilson in the text and to Hay in the bibliography. --DeafMan 09:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

House of Usher

Does anyone have a better explanation of this? It says that some believe the name was inspired by "The Fall of the House of Usher" but in what way? The possible inspiration from "Astronomicon" is fnord clear, but this bit about Poe is Not. bmearns.....(talk) 15:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Other apperances

"Other appearances" is quite large. Perhaps it should be moved to its own page, like References to the Cthulhu mythos. Bdoserror 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Good idea. So, I split off "Other appearances" to Necronomicon in popular culture.
  -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article

Necronomicon#Locations

I removed the following from the list of locations where the Neconomicon is supposedly kept:

[[National University of San Marcos]] in [[Peru]]

Since the paragraph explicitly references Lovecraft's works, I checked Anthony Pearsall's The Lovecraft Lexicon ("Necronomicon", pg. 294) to see if it is mentioned. It is not. Since it is not referenced in Lovecraft's works, why was this included here?
-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact it appears mentioned to be a Necronomicon at San Marcos in one of the cthulhu mythos tales, it was in August derleth's "The Lurker at the threshold", as he can be considered one of the "other autors" who created the book it can be considered correct to refer the university of San Marcos. --General Kane Nash 23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The University of Florida once (years ago) had a Dee printing in their Rare Books Collection, but I think they may have gotten rid of it. If the Locations section ever goes back in, it'd be worth contacting UF library.

I just removed the copy about Wilbur Whatley having a copy. Although Whatley did possess some obscene volumes, he was killed trying to steal the necronomicon from the Miskatonic.

Good catch.

Etymology

RlyehRising, I don't see any reason why "Ne-crono-mycon" is not a perfectly serviceable etymology of "Necronomicon." It's certainly not what Lovecraft intended, but it is a possible root to the word. Moreover, it's less far-fetched than, say, "Necro-Nemein-Ikon." Why not leave it in? Korossyl 18:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• What I would really like to see are some footnotes to some verifiable sources. Indeed, I have no idea where a good portion of this article is coming from. The Etymology section especially needs some cites; otherwise, it may qualify as original research.
  ,-~^R'lyehRising~-, 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's in any way research at all if it's just pointing out the various obvious ways that the word could be divided up. There's no research or even thinking to be done, as I see it. Korossyl 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

For the vast majority of readers and editors, how "Necronomicon" could be divided up is not obvious. Nareek 01:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but it's still inherant information. For instance; I know Hungarian. If I see a word in an article in Hungarian, I could very easily go in and add the definition; it would not be original research. 99% of Wikipedians don't know Hungarian, so they couldn't do what I just did, but for those who do speak it, it would be very easy and would not require any original ideas or thoughts to be postulated. Perhaps if someone were to post an elaborate etymology, splitting up the word, giving archaic definitions for each part of it, going through its history and how the meaning has changed, etc., that would constitute original thought. However, saying that the word can be cut along this line or that and these are the meanings of its root words... I just don't see it as original, in any way. Korossyl 13:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm gonna add "Ne-crono-mycon" back, because it's a very possible and believable etymology, and I don't believe it counts as original research. If anyone has any objections, please raise them, or if anyone thinks it should be changed back, please post here first. Korossyl 00:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A proposed etymology is a theory of how a word was derived and is therefore original research if it does not have a verifiable source. Nareek 13:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why are people insisting that The Necronomicon was H.P. Lovecraft's idea? It is fact that a copy of the book was carbon dated back to 730 or so A.D.

So far all I've seen from you people are vague assertations ("it is a proven fact," etc.) with nothing backing it up. The guy a few posts above just went on a completely unwarranted rant rather than provide proof. Give me absolutely definite proof that the Necronomicon exists and maybe I'll take you seriously. 209.158.200.108 23:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"a copy of the book was carbon dated back to 730 or so A.D."? There is no book to carbon-date. What are these guys smoking? Given Lovecraft's own rigid materialism, the willingness of some people to fall for his tale-spinning really stuns me sometimes. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Illuminatus!

If memory serves (I've lent my copy to someone) the novel Illuminatus! by Robert Anton Wilson has a character visiting Miskatonic University to read the Necronomicon, and finding some revelation in it ("I can see the fnords!"). I don't know if that's something you want to mention? --Qef 14:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a candidate for Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture, if you can find the reference. We're trying to consolidate these into one article, rather than cluttering all the HPL articles individually (and frequently, redundantly). -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Portrait

The text on Image:ImamAli.jpg clearly states that this is Imam Ali one of the most important figures for Shea. Why do we claim he is somebody else? Is it a simple vandalism or what? abakharev 04:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It should go without saying that a picture in Wikipedia has to depict the thing that it says it depicts--to put up a picture and say it's the thing because we think it looks like the thing is a deception. Nareek 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

this page is mistaken.

the necronomicon is real, lovecraft didn't make it up, it's a real book, he just used it in his fiction necronomicon

The article you've linked to is full of errors. It claims that Ole Worm translated the book a year before he was born, and that Aleister Crowley met and collaborated with Theodor Reuss in 1912, the year in which Reuss in fact accused Crowley of having leaked OTO secrets, among other plain mistakes. It's bunk.--Halloween jack 22:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The article linked to is not only full of errors, it is in fact simply an online copy of a 1985 (fiction) book that was meant as a (Fictional) version of H. P. Lovecrafts Necronomicon. Aside from Simons Necronomicon, it is considered the worst one to date. TheDragonMaster 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cthulhu in music

This article mentiones Metallica, but forgets the band's most relevant song to this theme, a song called The call of Ktulu. It can be found on album Ride the Lightning. - Xezs

On the Metallica album Master of Puppets, the song "the Thing That Should Not Be", references the necronomicon, as quoted-

"...Lurking beneath the sea Great old one Forbidden site..." and "Not dead which eternal lie Stranger ǣons death may die" - which is a slight variation of the quoted couplet in Lovecraft's novel "The Nameless City" (1921). Jmscheiber (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a real book

It is generally accepted that the Necronomicon is not a real book. H.P.Lovecraft invented it in his horror stories. It first appears in The Hound in 1928. He also never wrote an actual Necronomicon under any pseudonym; his works contain quotations from the Necronomicon only (although calling them quotations is dubious since the book never existed), of which an especially long example is to be found in The Dunwich Horror. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.225.182.128 (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Why don't you put a link to this "fictional book"? There are actual copies. And how do you know if there were errors if the thing was written in the 1300's? Saintjimmy777 13:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me.. you want him to provide you a link to something that isnt there?!?! Why dont you provide the proof that the book is real Saintjimmy, then we can start talkingSneaking Viper (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Movie Missing

I seem to recall on cable a few months back a feature film called Necronomicon: The Book of the Dead (http://imdb.com/title/tt0107664/) and I am surprised that it is not listed among the film enteries for the Necronomicon here. Might be a worthy addition. Dragonranger 10:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Convention

Necronomicon is also an annual scifi, fantasy & horror convention in Tampa, FL. (Their website). Should a mention be made on this page? Or at least some sort of disambiguation? Lurlock 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a mention on this page would be appropriate. Nareek 16:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Manga Appearance

If my memory serves me right the "Necronomicon" once appeared in one of the Slayers mangas. Can someone confirm that? Pi314 01:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There is more than one version of the Necronomicon

This is a subject that I have studied for many years. I am familar with both versions and can say with a strong assurence that the H.P. Lovecraft's version of the Necronomicon is not the correct one. There is a different older version that was written by Abdul Azaharad, also known as the mad arab. Lovecraft was a story writter, but this book is for real.

Can you supply any citations to back up that claim? TheDragonMaster 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the anon user can't, because the book he describes is almost exactly how Lovecraft describes the tome in his stories.

And Anon user used many years of study to find out what we all know. Lovecraft is a excellent writer, and THERE IS NO REAL NECRONOMICON.Sneaking Viper (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Book of the dead redirect

I looked up "book of the dead" with the intent of finding the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and got redirected here. Given that there appear to be a number of texts that could be called "the book of the dead" prehaps a redirect page would be more useful? Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there is also a tibetanian book of the dead, most acient cultures had books or writings that explained how to handle the dead during burialSneaking Viper (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

artists necronomicon

Someone forgot to mention the book of artwork called necronomicon by the artist who did the cover of Brain Salad Surgery (album) by ELP (band) and inspired alien (film) and aliens (film). His name is H.R. Giger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC).Thaddeus Slamp 22:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Done.

Necronomicon photo

This article looked quite dull, so I added a photo of a Necronomicon prop I made for fun for a role playing convention. Shubi 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I don't like it. It's not a picture of the actual item, it's a picture of what one person thinks it looks like. Unlike a dinosaur picture, for example, there's no consensus as to what it should look like. Which is why I removed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.64.10.249 (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, nobody knows exactly what Satan is supposed to look, but that does not stop us showing how artists (or popular culture) imagine him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.166.69.43 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Besides since there is no actual Necronomicon, all we can show is how people imagine it to look. If there can't be a picture of an artistic renderition of Necronomicon, then how can there be pictures of any fictional or mythical things that no one has actually seen? So I don't think what you said is a valid argument for removing the picture. If no other (good) arguments come up, I'm restoring the picture to the article.193.166.69.170 17:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The book is a fictional book and there should be no picture of something that does not exist. I removed the image because it's very misleading. In addition, it did not appear in any of the movies or series, that have different covers which of none look like it. It would be better to use one of them, if a picture is needed, than someone's fun prop, I believe.--DHCpepper (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with using the photo, so long as it's clearly captioned as being a prop from a stage production. As per the previous commenter, it's fine to have a "picture of something that does not exist", as Wikipedia has many articles about fictional and legendary creatures and objects.

So long as the picture is of good quality, a prop from an amateur production is as useful as a film still. It might be slightly more relevant to the article to show a prop that's actually mentioned in the text, but we may as well keep the existing image until a better one comes along. --McGeddon (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is real

Is anyone aware that there is, in fact, a real necromicon? Whether it's really the original or not (it explains in the book) doesn't matter. It's existant should be acknowledged. Hell, I found it at B. DALTON at my local mall! IN PAPERBACK! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saintjimmy777 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

This article is about the fictional book described by H.P. Lovecraft in the 1920s and 30s. Not a book written to emulate the fictional book. To put it another way, if they released a book entitled "Harry Potter's Spellbook", it doesn't mean Harry Potter's a real person with a real spellbook, it means someone wrote a book designed to emulate what they believe would be in Harry Potter's Spellbook. Same deal with the book you bought. It's not The Necronomicon, it's a book that contains what someone believes might be in the Necronomicon. Existance doesn't equal reality, in all cases. Look at the various Mermaid Hoaxes floating around. Of course, I guess part of the problem is the usage of the word "Real". No one is saying that one cannot purchase a book entitled Necronomicon. Giger sells one, and thought it's expensive it'd make a great coffee table book. And no one issaying that you cannot buy a book called The Necronomicon that contains various "spells" and ancient histories and such. When we say that it's not real, what we're actually meaning is that it's not the book that Lovecraft wrote about, since that book does not exist. It never has existed and it never will exist. It's akin to Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie from Calvin and Hobbes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.64.10.249 (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Did you read it? There are various credits to real people in it. 12.104.119.239 13:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And your point is... ? Credits to real people are meaningless in the context of this book. Unless one of the credits read "Thanks to H.P. Lovecraft, without whom we'd have not been able to fabricate this book out of nothing" then they're meaningless. The Necronomicons being published are books designed to blur fiction and reality, and by my judgement, they're doing a damned good job. Now, get me the ISBN of the Necronomicon you're talking about, 12.104.119.239, and I'll be able to tell you, more or less, who fabricated it. 69.64.10.249 15:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I, nor anyone else, is doubting that it's a real book in that you cannot buy a copy or that there are no books entitled "The Necronomicon". There's lots. There are, however, no good references to a Necronomicon that pre-date Lovecraft. None. Zero. There's a whole lot of fictional references. Those kinds of references sell books. Make up a story about having secret knowledge, suppressed and passed down in a very limited form, and only now rising up to the masses... it worked for a lot of things. It worked for various publishers who created books entitled The Necronomicon. But it doesn't mean there ever was a mad Arab. It's all fiction. It's as real as a copy of Aragorn's Diary. 69.64.10.249 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well there's one way to test it! Did you go mad after reading it? --Pvednes 16:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

By way of testing, I did read it. Didn't go insane, but I now keep losing things in odd angles and parallel dimensions of my apartment. And if I have to fish one more foetid cephalopod out of my toilet, I am going to make that Arab author look sane. Thanks alot. 68.91.163.2 23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the introduction part that is for the definition states that there are books called the Necronomicon, as a way of cashing in, and it is mentioned latter, I think that covers that section. However, if you wish to argue that there is a book that actually DOES the things described and can VERIFY it, I would LOVE a copy. Otherwse, I think the matter is abvout settled. Does anyone have objections to that? Corrupt one 00:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Trivial Trivia

There's too much "Oh, it's also mentioned in THIS!" going on. WP:AVTRIVIA. I'm going to remove most, if not all, of it.

I really need to remember to log in. As I said, I removed all but a page on my end. While I understand that everyone's resolution and font sizes are different, I counted 4 pages of information on the Necronomicon, 5 pages of other appearances. That's way too much, so I condensed it to 1, screwed up (I admit, I think I fried everything below Other Apperances), got it wisely reverted by User:Mindraker, fixed it properly.. then had it undone by User:Mindraker in the name of vandalism. I didn't realize condensing long, unnecessary lists was vandalism. Secondtalon 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I guess I wasn't paying too much attention, there, I guess I assumed you were an anonymous editor on a deleting rampage. I was the one at fault here. Mindraker 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Also, I need to remember the User: before names. D'oh. Secondtalon 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

H.P. Lovecraft

It was not originally H.P. Lovecraft's idea. Abdul Alhazred was a real man who was the author of the real Necromicon, written around 750 A.D. The book was recently on exhibit at the Museum of Cairo in Egypt. Alhazred "wrote" the book when he was imprisoned with 5 or 6 other men (I don't remember the exact number) for I think a year, and when they opened the pit Alhazred was the only thing remaining. He used the skin, bones, and blood of the other men to write the book. It's a true story, not just H.P. Lovecraft's creation. The article should not be, well, how it is.--WatchHawk 22:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The story you just related is the fictional backstory that H.P. Lovecraft INVENTED about the history of the Necronomicon. I think a lot of people get confused because Lovecraft wrote as if the Necronomicon was real, had been written by "The Mad Arab" and had existed for centuries. People then take Lovecraft's fiction as reality and argue "how can Lovecraft have made it all up if it was written by someone else centuries ago? Lovecraft made THE WHOLE THING up, including the books "History" that people keep quoting as real.

It's like saying "George Lucas couldn't have written Star Wars. Everyone knows that it happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. It says so right in the movie!" 63.241.190.32 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchhawk, did you bother to read any of this talk page or the page on Abdul Alhazred? 65.80.73.187 01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to actually read what I wrote? The book itself was on display at the Museum of Cairo. It's real, and since it is, Lovecraft could have just taken credit for "creating" the history when in fact it actually happened.--WatchHawk 18:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you paying attention to what you're saying? You're honestly suggesting.. correct me if I'm wrong here.. but you're suggesting some American went to Cairo, checked in on a known book there, went home or whatever and proceeded to write stories about it all while claiming it was his own invention when it's on display in the Museum of Cairo in the early 19th century when Egypt was CRAWLING with acheologists? What color is the sky in your world? 216.26.131.217 15:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what I said. Why are you people not reading what I'm saying? I don't know how or when Lovecraft got the idea, I'm just saying it was not origanally his. His story is based on true events. Do you know when Lovecraft died? Look at the article. He couldn't have gone and seen the book on display at the Museum of Cairo which was this year, and he wrote the story LONG before the actual book was on display. You might want to try and think before you say things.--WatchHawk (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WatchHawk, can you provide any actual sources for this bizarre claim? This is right up with the people who keep posting on the Talk:Dragon page that "Dragons are real, man!" --Orange Mike | Talk 14:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, he might have a point. I remember seeing this documentary about it late one night. I think it was called "Evil Dead 2" -Uselesswarrior (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No no WatchHawk is true, there is indeed a book of the dead on display in Cairo... THE EGYPTIAN BOOK OF THE DEAD, it deals with the rituals that is involved in burials in acient Egypt, and calling the Egyptian priests that wrote that for mad arabs is a bit harsh Sneaking Viper (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Egyptian Book of the Dead was well-known when Lovecraft made up the Necronomicon, and has nothing to do with it (except, one might speculate, as an inspiration for the name). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I know :) The old book of the dead (egyptian, tibetian etc) has nothing what so ever to do with the Lovecraftian invention, but it seemed like WatchHawk thought that the one in Cairo (the old egyptian book of the dead) was the one that Lovecraft talked about in his books :) Sneaking Viper (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The answer to this interesting question lies in two people: the poet and magician Aleister Crowley, and a Brooklyn milliner called Sonia Greene. There is no question that Crowley read Dee's translation of the Necronomicon in the Bodleian, probably while researching Dee's papers; too many passages in Crowley's "Book of the Law" read like a transcription of passages in that translation. Either that, or Crowley, who claimed to remember his life as Edward Kelly in a previous incarnation, remembered it from his previous life! Why doesn't Crowley mention the Necronomicon in his works? He was surprisingly reticent about his real sources. There is a strong suspicion that '777', which Crowley claimed to have written, was largely plagiarised from Allan Bennet's notes. His spiritual debt to Nietzsche, which in an unguarded moment Crowley refers to as "almost an avatar of Thoth, the god of wisdom" is studiously ignored; likewise the influence of Richard Burton's "Kasidah" on his doctrine of True Will. I suspect that the Necronomicon became an embarrassment to Crowley when he realised the extent to which he had unconsciously incorporated passages from the Necronomicon into "The Book of the Law". In 1918 Crowley was in New York. As always, he was trying to establish his literary reputation, and was contributing to The International and Vanity Fair. Sonia Greene was an energetic and ambitious Jewish emigre with literary ambitions, and she had joined a dinner and lecture club called "Walker's Sunrise Club" (?!); it was there that she first encountered Crowley, who had been invited to give a talk on modern poetry. It was a good match. In a letter to Norman Mudd, Crowley describes his ideal woman as "... rather tall, muscular and plump, vivacious, ambitious, energetic, passionate, age from thirty to thirty five, probably a Jewess, not unlikely a singer or actress addicted to such amusements. She is to be 'fashionable', perhaps a shade loud or vulgar. Very rich of course." Sonia was not an actress or singer, but qualified in other respects. She was earning what, for that time, was an enormous sum of money as a designer and seller of woman's hats. She was variously described as "Junoesque", "a woman of great charm and personal magnetism", "genuinely glamorous with powerful feminine allure", "one of the most beautiful women I have ever met", and "a learned but eccentric human phonograph". In 1918 she was thirty-five years old and a divorcee with an adolescent daughter. Crowley did not waste time as far as women were concerned; they met on an irregular basis for some months. In 1921 Sonia Greene met the novelist H.P. Lovecraft, and in that same year Lovecraft published the first novel where he mentions Abdul Alhazred ("The Nameless City"). In 1922 he first mention the Necronomicon ("The Hound"). On March 3rd. 1924, H.P. Lovecraft and Sonia Greene married. We do not know what Crowley told Sonia Greene, and we do not know what Sonia told Lovecraft. However, consider the following quotation from "The Call of Cthulhu" [1926]: "That cult would never die until the stars came right again [precession of the Equinoxes?], and the secret priests would take Cthulhu from His tomb to revive His subjects and resume His rule of earth. The time would be easy to know, for then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild, and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstacy and freedom." It may be brief, it may be mangled, but it has the undeniable ring of Crowley's "Book of the Law". It is easy to imagine a situation where Sonia and Lovecraft are laughing and talking in a firelit room about a new story, and Sonia introduces some ideas based on what Crowley had told her; she wouldn't even have to mention Crowley, just enough of the ideas to spark Lovecraft's imagination. There is no evidence that Lovecraft ever saw the Necronomicon, or even knew that the book existed; his Necronomicon is remarkably close to the spirit of the original, but the details are pure invention, as one would expect. There is no Yog-Sothoth or Azathoth or Nyarlathotep in the original, but there is an Aiwaz... —Preceding unsigned comment added by B12nd0n (talk • contribs) 08:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that there has been no evidence of any form of the Necronomicon existing before Lovecraft wrote about it. There is no other mention of it elsewhere, Dee's translation was part of a fictitious history created by Lovecraft. Unless you can provide a verse from Liber Al vel Legis that is right comparable to that portion of CoC (which I doubt, unless you happen to have some copy that was magically hidden from other scholars and occultists), it seems more likely that CoC and the Book of Law bear a similar feel because they were written about the same time, had a few similar inspirations (although Lovecraft's knowledge of the occult was cursory compared to Crowley's), and shared the intentions of intriguing and scaring people. If that part of CoC matches up to something from LL, then it is more likely that HLP paraphased Crowley . Occam's razor - use it. Also, I gather you have not read LL, because all throughout it are the words "Love is the Law." Mad killing doesn't match up with that. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A History of The Necronomicon

This is mentioned in the fictional history section. I own quite a few Lovecraft books and I've never seen this. Where could I find this? --Uselesswarrior (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Seven Parts

I have found references mentioning the Necronomicon being written in seven parts, or seven books. Anyone has references as to what those parts or books might be named? Monstrim (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing of the sort in Lovecraft's own work; somebody may have added that to the mythology at some point. (That's the nice thing about a fictitious book, nobody can challenge you on the details, as long as you don't contradict HPL himself.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they are publish under the name "DuckTales" ;) Sneaking Viper (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wooo oooo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.238.220 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessary to make fun of someone who asked a question. Monstrim, where did you come across this reference? 0x539 (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also seen refrence to this[1] it is claimed there are seven volumes with over 900 pages in the latin text of the book. although this is most likely a mythSmurf5lay3r (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That website admits that it's a parcel of lies. The amount of nonsense available on this topic never ceases to amaze me. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Greek Titles

Is anyone aware of a citation for the statement "Greek editions of Lovecraft's works have commented that the word can have several different meanings in Greek when broken at its roots"? This has been marked as "Citation Needed" for over a year at least. With so much misinformation floating around on this topic, it would be nice to check if this claim is true. If someone has access to some Greek translations of Lovecraft's works, it would seem easy to resolve this. If it is true, then it can be verified and cited. Otherwise, I suggest that the statement be removed. 0x539 (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

On April 31, it will have been one month since I posted this. I will then remove it if it has not been cited, and no one objects here. If you think this should not be removed, please say as much! 0x539 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Non-fictional" subheading by EgoSanus

Despite the consistent failure to provide sources for the information in this section, it has been continually re-submitted, between bouts of vandalism on the page itself. I'd rather not edit-war, so can we get some form of consensus, or perhaps some citations for this? For now, I'm just sticking up an original research template, but if anyone else would care to judge and either back this up or delete it, that'd be peachy. - Vianello (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the current version of the article is trying to say. That some version of the Necronomicon gives locational details about the Garden of Eden and Iram, and these happen to correspond to some of the theories or findings of modern archaeologists? Without a source, it's original research to draw these comparisons. --McGeddon (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a citation of a Wikipedia article now, but it doesn't do diddly to actually back up the claims. It discusses the place, but the connection to the Necronomicon/Al-Hazred is still up in the air. - Vianello (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this just boils down to "one version of the Necronomicon mentions Alhazred discovering The Garden of Eden and the Lost City of Iram", which can go in the "fictional history" section.

In fact, "Irem" is already in that section, with a wikilink to Iram of the Pillars. And looking at both the cited articles, EgoSanus has just copy-and-pasted paragraphs from them into this one. I see no reason for this section to remain. The Garden of Eden can be mentioned in the fictional history section, once we know where it turns up. --McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's less original-research-y now, but at best, I don't know that there's much reason for copypasted info regarding one real place that the character was, I'm pretty sure (if memory of Lovecraft's work serves), around, and.... Well, the "Garden of Eden" thing really seems connected pretty much to absolutely nothing at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vianello (talk • contribs) 09:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Pulling Report?

I propose that we remove the link to the Pulling Report from "Secondary Sources." It is not primarily concerned with the Necronomicon, and does not appear to be mentioned in the article. 0x539 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

{{editsemiprotected}} In Stephen King's short story "I Know What You Need" the main character finds it in her boyfriend's closet. Wikilanjuary (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected - minor cultural references should go in the Cultural references to the Cthulhu Mythos article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. All done. Wikilanjuary (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Horowitz

Is it notable that Anthony Horowitz believes the Necromicon to date from the sixth century? FYI, i'm not disputing that the necromicon originally stems from HP Lovecraft. Source: http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/collateral.jsp?id=39743_type=Contributor_typeId=2666 under the question "Did you make up the Old Ones?". 81.79.107.43 (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be notable (if true) in his article, as displaying a really appalling credulity, or blind ignorance; but not in this one. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Terry Pratchet Universe relation

i think that it should be mentioned that in Terry Pratchett's discworld universe, that the necrotelecomnicon, a book which absorbs its readers into its pages and which exists in the library of unseen university likely had its origins as a parody of the necronomicon. 75.57.12.7 (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This and other cultural references are already listed in Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture. --McGeddon (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Necronomicon Real? Not likely. Based on reality maybe.

OK. Sorry.

This is all original research, and thus has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

based on my experience with it all thoughtforms can cause change. if u use the name of a god long enough and have faith as well as will - desire - belief u can and will accomplish anything u wish. as far as saying if the book is real,my experience tells me yes but only on an astral level. the darkest void on earth is the human mind and no one knows what power good or evil can come from it. it doesnt take much to open the gate of the subconcious,but when opened be prepared for anything that may come out.

Please do not edit other editor's comments. Also, please sign your posts with four tidles (~~~~). Also, this is original research at best, philosophically unsound at worst (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything). Wikipedia doesn't cite anything astral, because the typical editor's access to the astral plane is doubtful... Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

popular culture references

In the audiobook "the eyes of the dragon" by Stephen King, the narrator says that the villain Flagg reads from a 'huge book of spells....which was bound in human skin' written by a "madman named Alhazred". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.3.206 (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So what? It's a fairly safe bet that the reference wasn't inserted by somebody at the audiobook company. King's a longtime fantasy/SF reader, and makes quite a few Lovecraft references (indeed, the original story on which Salem's Lot was based was a Cthulhu Mythos story). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

First line

The first line describes Lovecraft as being a 'novelist'; he was, however, a short story writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.9.229 (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Al-Azif

The word `azif (long I) appears on page 714 of the dictionary cited (Hans Wehr, "A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic," 4th Edn., J Milton Cowan ed). I'd fix the ref myself but I don't want to create an account... Wiki used to be friendly to anonymous contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.168.10 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is friendly to anonymous contributors, there are just certain articles that are locked down every once and a while because of anons vandalizing the place (for example, [2], [3], [4], [5]). Thank you for not being a vandal. New comments go at the bottom, and please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The chronology/origin of the first story where the book originates is incorrect

I have a copy of H.P. Lovecraft Tales published by Library of America which has published most of his works chronologically. The very first story in the collection is The Statement of Randolph Carter. In that story, though the book is not mentioned by name, it is obviously referring to the Necronomicon. In Notes section at the back of the book it lists this story as being first published May 1920 in The Vagrant issue 13, where it was most likely written in December of 1919. This is much earlier and quite a different story than the mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.201.216 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, we need a source that actually outright says the book mentioned is indeed the Necronomicon. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page (Link Removed)

Hello:

The link to The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page (http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/necpage.htm ) was recently removed from this page. There was no other explanation except to label it a "spamlink". While I added this link myself, this was not merely self-promotion. My page on the Necronomicon is indisputably among the top-ranking scholarly resources on the subject, and cited as such in the scholarly literature -- e.g., Daniel Harms and John Wisdom Gonce III, The Necronomicon Files: The Truth Behind Lovecraft's Legend.

Please provide an explanation for the deletion of this link.

Thank you.

Clore (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Writers such as H.P. Lovecraft and Edgar Rice Burroughs, progenitor of the Tarzan and Jane tales, were practicing occultists." Scholarly? It is to laugh. Fails WP:RS as well as WP:COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I put that there for its humor value. (Both HPL and ERB were atheist materialists with no belief in occultism.)

A major portion of the page is devoted to debunking false claims concerning the Necronomicon, H.P. Lovecraft, etc., including false claims like Raschke's. I can only assume that you are not familiar with the page and leapt to incorrect conclusions without really examining it.

Clore (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the RS and COI concerns, it also fails under the criterion of being a personal website. The link ought to be removed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If anybody can produce a credible citation about the Necronomicon that definitely occurred before Lovecraft was born then the argument that the book is real is greatly strengthened. Has anybody found such a thing? This would add a lot of weight to the argument, but only if the source is reliable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.156.71 (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that I removed this external link when I noticed that it no longer worked. It had been hosted on Geocities, which went offline forever on October 27, 2009. The link was restored by another user and modified to point to "Reocities," a partial mirror of Geocities which I had not been aware of. The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page is a good resource, but it appears to be defunct. (It doesn't look like "Reocities" pages can be edited or updated.) I'm not sure what wikipedia policies apply to mirrors or archives of vanished pages - Anyone have any thoughts? 0x539 (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Was there ever a consensus reached on whether this should be included? If not, I'm going to remove it again. 0x539 (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

NOT a fictional book!

John Dee translated Necronomicon into English in 1571... and he says "it was written by Alhazred". http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_JKQUd-lTVkg/TA6dj4VgwPI/AAAAAAAACNI/5i7yAUHZabA/s1600/necronomicon02.jpg also, from this article: "The Elizabethan magician John Dee (1527-c. 1609) allegedly translated the book — presumably into English — but Lovecraft wrote that this version was never printed and only fragments survive. (The connection between Dee and the Necronomicon was suggested by Lovecraft's friend Frank Belknap Long.)" Lovecraft knew that Necronomicon was translated into English by John Dee. That's all. Böri (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

When this Wikipedia article says that "Lovecraft wrote" about Dee's translation, it means "Lovecraft made this up and wrote it in a story", not "Lovecraft considered this to be true". --McGeddon (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I showed the original cover of the book. So it's real. Böri (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a picture of the 1978 George Hay hoax edition, which is already described as such in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that many of the arguements made negating the validity of this book could be added to many other "fictional" books, such as the bible, the quran, and the torah. Does nobody see the signifigance of the similarities between all these texts. The bible, epic of gilgamesh, egyptian book of the dead, and many other "socially exceptable" religious texts tell the same story, only minus the darker side to qabballistic and esoteric teachings. Same stories, only with different names and a plot twist or numerical change here and there. talked about in the books: Translations of the legends of Gilgamesh in the Sumerian language can be found in Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Fluckiger-Hawker, E, Robson, E., and Zólyomi, G., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, Oxford 1998-. Gilgamesh and Huwawa, version A Gilgamesh and Huwawa, version B Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven Gilgamesh and Aga Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the nether world The death of Gilgamesh The 1901 full text translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh by William Muss-Arnolt The Project Gutenberg eBook, An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic, by Anonymous, Edited by Morris Jastrow, Translated by Albert T. Clay Gilgamesh by Richard Hooker (wsu.edu)

Genisis Revisited Genesis Revisited: Is Modern Science Catching Up With Ancient Knowledge?, (Avon Books, 1990, ISBN 0-380-76159-9) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truther03 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• SIGH* You should spend sometime reading Puranas instead, which is quite different and way older. Necronomicon is just fictional book, if you don't believe Lovecraft, why bother with his works? L-Zwei (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

About the etymology

It is a surprise to me to see Lovecraft's etymology (νεκρός+νόμος+εικών). With this etymology it should be written in Greek "Νεκρονομεικών" but that would not sound very right! In contrast "Νεκρονομικόν" sounds perfectly natural!

"νόμος" means the law. "-ικόν" has nothing to do with "εικών" (image) but is a very common suffix in Greek that simply means "about the".

"νομικόν" means "about the law" and is a common word. (in modern Greek "νομικός - νομική - νομικό", in ancient Greek "νομικός - νομική - νομικόν", as in modern Greek the "ν" is lost)

For example "Νομική σχολή" = "law school"

"Νεκρονομικόν" is perfectly natural construction and very naturally simply means: "about the law of the dead"

A second way to construct the word and maybe even prettier would be first to construct "νεκρονόμος" (like "αστρονόμος" = "astronomer"), that would be "studier of the dead" or "classifier of the dead", or "νεκρονομία" (like "αστρονομία" = "astronomy"), that would be "science about the dead" or "classification of the dead" or "law of the dead", and then add the suffix (-ικόν) that would naturally imply that it is a book about the subject.

This way "Νεκρονομικόν" = "book studying the dead" or "book classifying the dead". The last translation is Joshi's translation.

--Lucinos (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Evil Dead (film series)

I believe it should be noted somewhere in the article, (or it's pop culture page) that the Necronomicon plays a vital role in Sam Raimi's Evil Dead film series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moocowtech (talk • contribs) 12:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ratboy223, 6 July 2011

This page is giving false information, the Necronomicon is not a "fictional grimoire" i have a copy of the book sitting next to me on my bed. H.P Lovecraft did not invent the book, it was written, and i quote from the book itself "H.P lovecraft himself denied the books existence, but the dreaded necornomicon has finally surfaced. Written in Damascus in the eighth century A.D by the "Mad Arad" Abdul Alhazred"

This is taken from the blurb of the book. Please change this false information as the book is very real

Ratboy223 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You are either trolling us, or appallingly credulous. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You may well have such a book; is it one of the books listed in the "Commercially available versions" sections of our article? That is, one of the fakes published after the fact? Because, here you me, no one would leave an actual copy of the Necronomicon just hanging around on their bed. Or, if they did, talk about it on Wikipedia. Marking this as answered. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect. The book states in the first few pages that the original was written by Alhazred as the copy i have was written by an unnamed author. The unnamed author stresses greatly how much work and effort by multiple people has gone in to translating the original text and that the original text is kept in a museum which the book does not name. The amount of effort that has gone into this book outwieghs the possibility that it is not a real book. Even if it is "commercially available version" it took me a long while to track down a place that sells the book and it was impossible to find a new copy as the copy i have is nearly 10 years old.

Apologies for any disrespect, that was not my intention. I was merely saying that the book cannot be fictacious if copies are available. And in response to your statement "no one would leave a copy on their bed" i do not treat the book this way. It is kept safely locked away no one else can access the book, except for me. I understand that it is a powerful and dangerous text and i have many similar books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratboy223 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ratboy, "Abdul Alhazred" is not the name of a "mad Arab"; it is a grammatically impossible name invented by HP Lovecraft for an imaginary Arab. Lovecraft's biographers tell us that as a child the author was "crazy about the Arabian Nights" and invented this name long before he conceived of the Necronomicon. Any book purporting to be the latter and attributed to Alhazred is therefore a work of fantasy based on Lovecraft's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdelIrada (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Abdul Alhazred, Arabic grammar

"Abdul Alhazred" is grammatically incorrect, but this is not because "Abdul" cannot stand alone as a first name (in fact, it's commonly encountered as such), nor because "Alhazred" denotes geographic provenance. The real problem is that it's redundant: "Abdul" is a contraction of "abd" (servant or slave) and "al" ([of] the). If followed by a noun without an article (e.g., Abdul Qadir) this is acceptable. But, since "Alhazred" begins with "al," the article is repeated; therefore, it would never be used as an actual Arabic name. AbdelIrada (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this is mentioned in the Abdul Alhazred article. --McGeddon (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

In the section "Hoaxes &c", please delete the repitition of the word "made" in this sentence: Despite its contents, the book's marketing focused heavily on the Lovecraft connection and made sensational claims made for the book's magical power. To give: Despite its contents, the book's marketing focused heavily on the Lovecraft connection and made sensational claims for the book's magical power.

Fwintle (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New necronomicon in Hebrew

Earlier this year a Necronomicon in Hebrew was published in a limited edition of ~400 copies, and sold in a single store in Tel-Aviv. It is attributed to Abd al Hazred, and the rest of the details (translator's name, publisher's name, etc) not given.

I suspect the shop owner has written & published the book, but he plays the game and gives no further information.

I suggest this info be added to the page. If some proof is needed, e.g. photo of cover and a few pages, I'm willing to supply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elle N Schmidtee (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless it got some press coverage, I'd say it's too trivial to mention. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It didn't get any press coverage I'm aware of. AFAIK, the whole edition was already sold, probably to fans by word of mouth. My impression that it's fan fiction, not a hoax. Elle N Schmidtee (talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

Zohar

I always thought the Necronomicon is an allusion to the Zohar, or Kabbalah in general. The Zohar contains stories about sorcerers, about magic in general. It is a book full of mysticism and the occult (in the literal sense of the word) 178.201.16.24 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's allusion to Grimoire in general.L-Zwei (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Necronomicon Ex-Mortis

I see that the Evil Dead references were deleted from this page about three years ago, under the statement that they were covered in Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture. However, the Evil Dead is not part of a Lovecraftian mythology (hence the fact it doesn't actually appear in that spin-off article), nor is it too far-fetched to think that many people searching for Necronomicon may have discovered it through watching one of the films. I agree it shouldn't get too much attention in the article, but a prominent mention under the "in popular culture" section with the appropriate hyperlinking is reasonable here. Grandpallama (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

declination to conjugation

For the record: the problems that require editting

A more prosaic (but probably more correct) translation, is via a declination of nemo (to consider): "Concerning the dead".

into

A more prosaic (but probably more correct) translation, is via conjugation of nemo (to consider): "Concerning the dead".

are:

1. altho "declination" also derives from "decline", in the grammatical context the noun is "declension";
2. nouns, pronouns, and adjectives get declined; verbs get conjugated;
3. a conjugation is the whole table in its normal order, not one entry in the table. (Something similar is true of "declension", even tho in Latin there are multiple declensions (identified by ordinal numbers); these may have to do with Latin having more cases, or more of what non-scholars would confuse with cases, than many other languages.)

(Hmm, is that the start of an article?) --Jerzy 19:50, 2003 Nov 13 (UTC)

`` and no reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Dead! that needs editing! 124.148.32.167 (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pratchett

This probably deserves a note: http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Necrotelicomnicon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.36.4.129 (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nethack reference incorrect

I've removed the Nethack references from "possible derivations". If you look up the 'book of the dead' from within the game, this is the description:

Faustus: Come on Mephistopheles.  What shall we do?
Mephistopheles: Nay, I know not.  We shall be cursed with bell,
book, and candle.
Faustus: How?  Bell, book, and candle, candle, book, and bell,
Forward and backward, to curse Faustus to hell.
Anon you shall hear a hog grunt, a calf bleat, and an ass bray,
Because it is Saint Peter's holy day.
(Enter all the Friars to sing the dirge)
  [ Doctor Faustus and Other Plays, by Christopher Marlowe ]

The "book" here is the "Book of the Dead" in nethack. The name "Book of the Dead" probably was chosen from the Egyption & is not based on the Necronomicon. Certainly, when you read it, you do not go crazy!

--LWM

Nope. Exorcism

---

---

Double nope. Not exorcism. Excommunication. In the old days, this is how the Catholic Church declared you anathema in a "major" excommunication. The bell rang a death toll, the book (often a Bible) was solemnly closed, closing you out of the Word of God, and the candle was blown out, extinguishing the light of your soul.

"We separate him, together with his accomplices and abettors, from the precious body and blood of the Lord and from the society of all Christians; we exclude him from our Holy Mother, the Church in Heaven, and on earth; we declare him excommunicate and anathema; we judge him damned, with the Devil and his angels and all the reprobate, to eternal fire until he shall recover himself from the toils of the devil and return to amendment and to penitence."

From Bell, book, and candle

Has nothing to do with the Necronomicon.WiseguyThreeOne (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 September 2012

Please add the fact that The Necronomicon is mentioned in the Apple iOS game "The Simpsons -Tapped Out" whereby the character Mr Burns is tasked to read it. The player gains $175 and 45XP's after he has completed the 4hr task. Source Ali Foote Company EA Swiss Sarl Website 81.155.203.144 (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. You want Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture, although one tiny mention in a Farmville game seems trivial even for that. --McGeddon (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Source 11

I'm not finding Azif anywhere within said dictionary. Is the source a dud? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.183.222 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Popular Culture reference

The entry here makes mention that the book itself is supposedly covered in multiple types of leather and has metal clasps. I believe the Oghma Infinium, found in the video game series The Elder Scrolls (at least in skyrim) may be meant to resemble the necronomicon since it is also a book of enormous power covered in leather swatches.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchaffin (talk • contribs) 05:40, 27 November 2012‎

That's totally speculative and has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 June 2013

There is a typo. The text "but who BATH seen the deep frozen city" should change to "but who HATH seen the deep frozen city" 143.115.159.54 (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I've fixed it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Human skin covering?

Isn't the Necronomicon supposed to be bound in human skin? I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the article. Here's a google search showing this https://www.google.com/search?q=necronomicon+human+skin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.255.148 (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That little feature is a recent spurious graft onto the Necronomicon concept, and has no actual source in the works of Lovecraft or any of his followers. I believe it is no older than the Evil Dead franchise. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, would it ok to add this to the article? (in the context of Evil Dead) 2404:130:0:1000:7254:D2FF:FE8F:DFB0 (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to me that "the Evil Dead franchise's version of the Necronomicon" is a noteworthy subtopic in and of itself; undue emphasis and all that. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Sigil of the Gateway" section is complete fiction

The section titled "Sigil of the Gateway" is unsourced and is composed entirely of spurious attribution to Lovecraft's fiction fabricated by the editor who dumped it here. The symbol presented and the image file are from the Simon Necronomicon; it was the cover illustration of both the hardback and paperback editions. As such, it is a non-free graphic created by a graphic artist credited as "Khem Set Rising" for the original publication, and is not the editor's "own work" as claimed. The symbol does NOT appear in stories from the Cthulhu Mythos, and the descriptions of the "subsymbols", their names and their meaning are derived entirely from the Simon Necronomicon and do not appear anywhere else except in works derived from it. The section should be deleted from the article. It is fancruft, it provides false and misleading information, it cites no sources (because there are none which support the claims made in the section), and it utterly fails to distinguish fact from fiction. Canonblack (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

24 hours have passed, and no protest; removing the section. Canonblack (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tromsø university library

The book has never truly been listed here. The Danish translated 1994 version that was never printed was put on order. The books ISBN listing is merely an ordering system malfunction on halt for something that never was.

Thobjo (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2015

A request to change

an historical figure who died in 1059

to

a historical figure who died in 1059

as the /h/ is pronounced in both RP and GA (see [6]) and preferred usage is to not treat /h/ differently from other consonants (see the distinction between "a" and "an"). 75.88.42.89 (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Commercially available imitations

It's another book written in 2015 Necronomicon: The Manuscript of the Dead by Antonis Antoniades ISBN 1614981396 and ISBN13: 9781614981398 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selefa (talk • contribs) 12:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Giger's Necronomicon and its sequels are not "imitations" of Lovecraft's fictional book. They are simply collections of Giger's work that borrowed the title. Can we please stop listing them as "imitations"? They make no attempt to imitate a grimoire. Canonblack (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No contest after a month and a half, removed. Canonblack (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018

• The Necronomicon inspired Swiss artist H. R. Giger to wite his compendium Necronomicon, which led film director Ridley Scott to hire him for the design of the Xenomorph in the Alien film. Juancpin (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

== Article is semi-protected, could someone add below to the "In popular culture" section?

• The Necronomicon plays a role in the Flemish comic book series De Rode Ridder, with issue #124 being named after it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.180.122 (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Redirceting error?

I've been redirected to this page when I clicked Sigil of the Gateway but can't find it. What is the Sigil and what does it have to do with the Necronomicon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythostracker2017 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No pages link to "Sigil of the Gateway". Someone tried to make an article about it but it did not cite any professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources to demonstrate that it is noteworthy. The symbol of the Sigil of the Gateway comes from the Simon Necronomicon, but it is never called that. I can't find the phrase "Sigil of the Gateway" in connection to that particular sign before the article was created. It appears to be some bollocks that an occultist just made up one day, which some folks on Etsy and even on this bloody site didn't bother properly damn investigating. I've deleted the redirect for that reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I did find this blog that absolutely fails our reliable sourcing guidelines. Still can't find anything further back than that and that is a source that's rather notorious for sloppy research and making up stuff. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

al hazard isn't necessary a reference to place of birth it could be a surname in the Arabic sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.246.51.106 (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2019

This is a very minute and stupid detail but it bothers me to no end when I read it. In the popular culture section, the article states that the Binding of Isaac: Rebirth is a sequel to the original Binding of Isaac. This is false, as it is a remake instead. This is not a very important issue, but I just thought it should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4C00:5AFA:C81D:76EA:DF20:A025 (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

"Naturon Demonto" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Naturon Demonto. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Pop Culture

The Necronomicon is also an item in the video game Dota 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.216.83.43 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The necronomicon was in the real ghostbusters season 4 the collect call of the cathulhu. Jtferris (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The Necronomicon is also present in the comic book series, Innsmouth, by Megan James and published by Sink/Swim Press of Richmond, VA, USA.

The Necronomicon inspired Swiss artist H. R. Giger to wite his compendium Necronomicon, which led film director Ridley Scott to hire him for the design of the Xenomorph in the Alien film. --Juancpin (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Juancpin

References

The necromonicon is also present in the "Call of Cthulhu" video game and project the player into the mind of someone else.

The Wandering Jew is in Arkham to help Miskatonic University prepare a modern English language translation of the Necronomicon in "An Arkham Halloween", reprinted in the October 30, 2017 issue of 'Bewildering Stories' and in the anthology ""Weird Thoughts"". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1600:4F49:7449:BAC2:41A2:20B8 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The necronomicon was present within "Moons of madness", a video game mixing Mars exploration with Lovecraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:68F8:6300:9D7F:241C:B991:821F (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The Necronomicon influenced the name of the Bombinomicon, an in-game item and character in the video game Team Fortress 2 in the sense that its name is a portmanteau of the words Bomb and Necronomicon according to the game's wiki page --DarkNet Neko (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Proposed merge of Abdul Alhazred into Necronomicon#Fictional history

Abdul Alhazred is only known for having been the fictional author of the Necronomicon. I could not find any reliable sources that discussed the character in any other context. Lovecraft's youthful role-playing can be mentioned in his own article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The two are inextricably connected and can be discussed in the same article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

misspelling

under section ‘origin’ last paragraph - “pseodonym” should be changed to recognized spelling of “pseudonym” and hyperlinked to wiki page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonym — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binaryx talk (talk • contribs) 08:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Binaryx: I've fixed the spelling and also confirmed your account so you can now edit the article yourself. SpinningSpark 09:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2020

i suggest adding Futaba Sakura into the references in pop culture section. Futaba Sakura is a fictional character from the game Persona 5 who's persona (kinda hard to explain, just think of it as a pokemon) is necronomicon Jjatr (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the article entry Futaba Sakura doesn't seem to meet criteria? It's just a name, nothing more? Moreover, the claim in the article isn't supported by the source, so I've tagged that as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

References

"Abdul Alhazred" grammar

There's a sourced statement at the end of Necronomicon#Origin that "the name of the book's supposed author, Abdul Alhazred, is not even a grammatically correct Arabic name". Wikipedia users have made similar claims at Talk:Abdul Alhazred#Al Hazred's true name and Talk:Necronomicon/Archive 1#Abdul Alhazred, Arabic grammar. But I found two articles on real people with such names: Abdul Al-Ghadi and Abdul Al Salam Al Hilal. Both are Yemeni. I don't know if that's a coincidence, or if this supposed error is accepted in Yemeni names. Even though the statement in the article is sourced, I question the utility of critiquing this fictional name. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, you can make a blog post about this somewhere, but your original research isn't really applicable to Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Huh? I’m not proposing adding a claim to the article that the name is grammatically correct. My concern is that the existing statement, though verifiable, could be wrong, and doesn’t add much to the article anyway. BDD (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)