Conference hydra::dejavu

    Re .0 (Marilyn):

    >This weekend my husband and I went to see the just-released movie
    >"The Warlock", and though it is not the best of its type, it did just
    >manage to pique my curiosity about the Grimoire(s).
    
    First rule: don't take anything presented in a film without a grain of
    salt.

    >I believe Grimoire(s) are/is the satanic bible. ...

    A "Grimoire" is, for want of a better term, a "spellbook."  These are
    generally used in various forms of ritual magic, and describe alleged
    ways to raise various supernatural entities to do one's bidding.  None
    is intrinsically a "Satanic bible," though the majority of them involve
    deals with devils (though usually a subordinate one, rather than
    Satan).  One of the most notorious of these is _The Grimoire of
    Honorius the Great_, though others, such as the _Clavicle_, supposedly
    written by King Solomon, is also well known.

    Does that help?

    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    
    It was a great movie though wasn't it,especially the bit where
    the baddie bites out the homosexual's tongue.

    
    Steve,
    
    Thanks, it does help. I didn't know that the term grimoire was just a
    spellbook (I don't really mean 'just') I had previously taken it as a 
    book related to Satanism. 
    
    BTW, I didn't believe much, if anything from the film. I did remember,
    that grimoires as such had been discussed here, so I knew that the
    term, at least had a factual book as reference. Now that you mention
    spellbook, perhaps that's the note in which some discussion had taken
    place. Wasn't there a note that discussed using such a book? I seem to
    remember that you cautioned against using such a book, if the
    practitioner didn't have extensive knowledge or prtection against what
    might be "called up" by the incantations or whatever. Do you happen to
    remember the note?
    
    In any case, thanks for clearing up my miconception.
    
    Regards,
    
    
    Marilyn
    

    
    Re. 2
    
    Yes, that part was gross/funny, but I didn't realize it was the tongue
    until later. I thought he had "sucked" out his heart. This sounds silly 
    but I was looking at it through my hands (which were clenched before my
    face).  I had not heard of the movie before we went so I didn't know if
    it was going to be one of the grosser type of horror movies, and since
    that was the first instance of violence, I kind of prepared myself.
    
    The movie could have been better, though. The flying sequences were
    very "hoky", IMO.
    
    
    Marilyn

    
    it wasn't really that much of horror more as an exciting thriller.
    
    talking of films with this sort of angle did you see Angel Heart
    if so what did you think of it,because all the people I have spoken
    to all seem to have something totally different from the film.
    
    B.T.W it starred Mickey Rouke if you were having trouble remembering
    
Peter.

    
    Re .5 Peter,
    
    Sorry, I didn't see Angel Heart. I can't *stand* Mickey Rourke, either
    in film or in person, as far as I can determine from all I've read
    about him, so I won't see the film. I have also heard different
    opinions on the movie. Some think it's sick, others think it's a good
    horror film. As I said, I will probably never be in a position to 
    comment on it.
    
    Marilyn

    Re .5 (Peter), .6 (Marilyn) anent _Angel Heart_:

    This is akin to a rathole, so I'll say this quickly and then get back
    to the subject, more or less.

    _Angel Heart_, was, in my opinion, neither a horror not thriller film. 
    In some respects, it's extremely entertaining; in others, a film rich
    in visual, oral, and symbolic puns.  I consider it the film with Robert
    De Niro's best ever role (fleeting as his appearances are), and Rourke
    does quite a good job, considering the story.

    Personally, I enjoyed it a lot (I have a copy in my library), but some
    of the esoteric stuff in it is laid on with a lot of ham-handedness.
    It has an interesting (if obscure) moral lesson in it.  However, a lot
    of folk find it a tad strong.

    One quasi-grimoire that pops up mostly in movies based on H. P.
    Lovecraft stories is _The Necronomicon_.  The "real" _Necronomicon_
    was/is a fictional book invented as a reference by Lovecraft and
    referred to in many horror stories by Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard,
    Robert Bloch, August Derleth, and Frank Belknap Long.  Some years ago,
    a book under that title, something more of an actual grimoire for
    calling up various of the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon, was published. 
    That book has few, if any, redeeming features, but should not be
    confused with the fictional work.

    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Just to avoid assigning the Grimoires any undue importance outside
    of theatrics, I wanted to resonate Steve's definition (of course :-)), 
    and add that these seem to be considered by some influential modern 
    Ritualists to be of more historical (or even comedic value) than magic(k)al 
    value, due to their use of symbolism that we are no longer highly 
    conscious of nor respond strongly to, for the most part (except maybe
    when dramatized in the movies).  Cookbook spellcraft seems to have gone 
    well out of style for the most part, in favor of more personal 
    transformative systems.  

    
    Re. .7 Steve  and  .8  Todd(?)
    
    Thanks for the info. I now have a much better idea of what a grimoire
    is.
    
    Another (possible) rathole,
    
    Steve, is August Derleth the author of a series of Sherlock Holmes-type
    stories? I can't rememer the name of his detective, but I seem to
    remember the author was A.D.

    The detective was Solar Pons.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    
    That's it!  Thanks, Ann.

    Re .12 (Paul):
    
    >Would you consider _The Long Lost Friend_ to be a sort of grimoire?
    
    Only in the loosest sense.  _Long Lost Friend_ is more of a "charm"
    book than a spellbook.  Most grimoires go into elaborate detail about
    how to prepare for the ceremony as well as for the ceremony itself;
    _Long Lost Friend_ is heavier on short, "handy" actions.
    
    By the qualification "sort of," though, it fits in the broad
    definition.
    
    The book is an interesting compendium, though, with a few of the charms
    lifted directly from the writings of Alburtus Magnus.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    
    re.12 & .13
    
               could either of you (Paul, Steve) give more info about
    _Long_Lost_Friend- author, publisher, ISBN? It sounds like a book
    I'd like to own/read.
    
                                  Later,
                                   Mark
    
    
    PS. Maybe I should check the BOOKS note too!
    
    

    Re .14 (Mark):

    _Long Lost Friend_ is a book of collected charms for such things as
    curing various bodily ailments, written my John George Hohmann.  It is
    also known as _Pow Wows_ (in some editions, both titles are given).
    The book was written in the 19th Century, and has been published to
    this day.  The book is used as the basic work by lay practitioners in
    rural Pennsylvania called "Pow Wows"; these people practice a brand of
    folk medicine and faith healing.  Some Pow Wows aere pretty good
    herbalists.

    An interesting (and underrated) film, _Apprentice to Murder_, available
    on videotape, gives a fictionalized account of an actual crime involving a
    Pow Wow; it occurred in Pennsylvania in the late 1920s.  Copies of the book
    are shown in the film.  (This must have exhausted the stock of whatever
    store the film production crew bought them from: LLF  isn't a hot
    seller

    As noted earlier, some of the entries are taken from Alburtus Magnus' 
    _Book of Secrets_, practically verbatim.
    
    >PS. Maybe I should check the BOOKS note too!
    
    Couldn't hurt; I did a fairly comprehensive review of the book there.  

    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    Addendum:
    
    See Note 1421.*
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    Re. the last few,
    
    Steve, I don't know where you're located, but since you stated the book 
    is from the Pennsylvania "Dutch" I assume it will be more readily
    available in the East that perhaps in California. It sounds very
    intriguing. Can you recommend a book dealer that might carry it, and 
    who does mail order?
    
    Thanks,
    
    
    Marilyn

    Re .17 (Marilyn):

    > ... Can you recommend a book dealer that might carry it, and 
    >who does mail order?

    I'll see what I can dig up.  I've had my copy for more than a decade,
    and I'm not sure just who carries it.

    However:

    It should still be in print from _some_ publisher.  If so, it'll
    appear in _Books In Print_, complete with ISBN and all that stuff.
    Most bookstores can special-order any book in print.  Also, there are 
    several mail-order book discount firms (a few of which advertise in
    _The New Yorkl Times_ Sunday book review magazine) that will process
    books at some discount (varies depending on whether it's hardbound,
    softcover, popular, text, etc.).

    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    Re. .18  
    
    Thanks, Steve.
    
    I didn't think it would still be in print. I've recently started
    reading the Books conference (in which I'm glad to see you're a 
    participant as well) and read somewhere that due to tax laws books that 
    are not big sellers go out of print relatively soon. I didn't 
    think Pow-Wow's would have a large circulation after all this time.
    
    I'll go to the bookstore and see if I can find it through conventional 
    methods, although I must admit trying to find in musty old ised
    bookstores sounds more appealing that Crown or B Dalton ;^)
    
    Regards,
    
    Marilyn

    
    oops, that last ised should read used.
    
    Marilyn (I didn't want anyone to think *I* was tipsy, just my noting)
    

	Another good source for hard-to-find books (including
	serious grimoires and various magickal texts) is a
	place in New York City called The Magickal Childe.  

	They're at 35 West 19th St, phone: (212)242-7182.

	(I, of course, have no commercial involvment with them
	 other than as a customer.)

	Art

    Years ago I picked up a little soft cover book called "The 6th and 7th
    Books of Moses - or Moses' Magical Arts", at a little used book store
    in NY.  I think I paid fifth cents for it.  One of the first things
    that cought my eye was the fact that it had no copyright page - only
    the words "published for the trade".  Years later, a friend who was an
    avid collector of books and antiques told me that it was published 
    sometime in the mid 19th century.  Has anyone else ever come across
    this title, or this type of book?
    
    						Joe

    
    
    No, but tell us what kind of "stuff" it has. Does it look like a spell
    book, or a magic tricks book. For the trade is rather ambiguous, I
    admit. Without knowing anything about it, I would think it's something
    put out by the Masons or Rosicrucians, or others of that type, alhtough 
    their stuff would probably have some reference to the organization.
    
    Sounds like an intriguing little book.
    
    
    Marilyn

    Re .last_two:

    This is one of a number of books that were published for some time. 
    Long beyond its copyright, I've seen it listed new for under $4.00 in
    softcover.  It's a book on "conjuring spirits," making amulets, and the
    like.  I don't own a copy, but it'd have to fit into the grimoire
    class.  It ostensibly shows "magical secrets" supposedly known by
    Moses.

    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re the movie that started it all:

    I saw _Warlock_ this weekend, and it's so full of technical errors that
    I started laughing.  It's "grimoire" was variously called _The Great 
    Grimoire_, _The Key of Solomon_ and _The Book of Shadows_.  I can't
    speak for the first (unless what was really meant was _The Grimoire of
    Honorius the Great_), but the second is a fairly well-known grimoire
    that's readily available today in some occult shops (usually as part of
    a collection of grimoires, as in the Idries Shah work).  _The Book of
    Shadows_ is the private book of any of several types of practitioners,
    including various witch traditions.  It can have grimoire aspects, but
    is more of a notebook than a spellbook.

    However, the film was rife with other errors, with two vying for
    top-boner honors.  One was the alleged "witch compass," which was
    nothing more than a small set of armillary spheres.  The other was when
    the villain made a "flying potion" that was made with the fat of an
    unbaptized male child (the only named ingredient; and at that, it was
    supposed to be the fat of an unbaptized infant), rather than smearing
    it on himself, the villain _drank_ it. 

    The film, for all its alleged horrific element, is low comedy.

    Steve Kallis, Jr.

re: Note 1419.25 

>    _The Key of Solomon_ 
.
.
.
>    			    ...the second is a fairly well-known grimoire
>    that's readily available today in some occult shops (usually as part of
>    a collection of grimoires, as in the Idries Shah work).  

	Actually, to be *real* picky about it, there are *two* Keys of
	Solomon: The Greater Key (usually just called "The Key of Solomon")
	and The Lesser Key (variously known as the "Goetia" or the "Lemegeton").
	The Lesser Key is the one with the names and sigils of all the demons.

	The standard translation of the Greater Key was done by Mathers,
	while the best rendition of the Goetia is Crowley's -- both 
	translations date from the beginning of this century.

	~art

    Re .25 (Steve)
    
    Since I am not as knowledgeable as you in the occult, I didn't know the 
    "technical errors" were error until reading your note, but then, I
    didn't think there were real witch compasses or "flying potions" that 
    could be made and either rubbed on one's body or drunk.
    
    Either way, as I said, it was not the best movie of it's type. Just to
    name a few things, I had trouble with the girl's hair, was it a wig or
    what? Also, the flying scenes were pretty 'hokey' IMO.
    
    All it left me was with an interest in what a grimoire was, 'cuz I knew
    I'd heard the term before, and now I know.
    
    Thanks,
    
    
    Marilyn

    re: .26 (~art):
    
        >Actually, to be *real* picky about it, there are *two* Keys of
	>Solomon: The Greater Key (usually just called "The Key of Solomon")
	>and The Lesser Key (variously known as the "Goetia" or the "Lemegeton").
	>The Lesser Key is the one with the names and sigils of all the demons.
        
    True enough.  But I didn't call the former the _Clavicle Solomonis_,
    either, which was its correct title.  Given the context of the film,
    calling it _The Sworn Book of Honorius_ would have made as much sense.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.