Owen Davies (1) (1969–)

Another incredibly dense nonfiction book for another one of my hyper-fixations. It admittedly took me eight hundred years to read this, because it wasn't exactly the book I was looking for, but there was so much fascinating information here that I kept going back.

This is a MASSIVE sprawling history of magic books, mostly those playing around the edges of Christian mythos, but with interesting comparisons to other systems of folk magic both associated with other major religions and not. How show more all of these interacted with changing technologies (like the printing press), changes in the power structure of The Church (The Inquisition, The Reformation, etc.), colonialism, influences of neighboring religions, etc.

SO MUCH INFORMATION. A reference I'll be happy to keep on my shelves. show less

“Grimoires: A History of Magic Books by Owen Davies was a fascinating read, so much do, that I couldn't put it down!

Following a timeline, it begins with the first grimoires, the Graeco-Egyptian papyri. Egypt was thought to be the birthplace of all magic, making its mark in every grimoire, secret society and occult work. Hermes Trismegistus, a mythical conflation of Thoth and Hermes, becomes an "original author" of grimoires. Moses, as another, was redefined as a magical Egyptian. Then King show more Solomon, whom the archangel Michael supposedly bestowed the power of trapping demons (a la Supernatural). The Clavicule or Key of Solomon is one of the more enduring grimoires, surviving into modern times. It was said that even Virgil had one. Saints became associated with them too, St. Cyprian being the most popular well into the 19thc. Science, in its infancy, was akin to magic so that Cornelius Agrippa and Paracelsus are featured in cover titles, not to mention rumored alchemists. Even 18thc. adventurers, like Cagliostro and Casanova, dabbled with these tomes.

But what was the purpose of a grimoire? Some focused on the magician's desires, others were medicinal or to safely hunt for treasure. While it was the power of the written word that made the grimoire, there were often stipulations for ink, parchment, or the material used to bind it. They found their way to Iceland, Toledo, Geneva, and even Canada! But in France (Affair of the Poisons?) the printing of grimoires exploded. The “Petit Albert” is the most notorious, then the “Dragon Rouge” emerged during the French Revolution. My favorite chapters were about the creolization of grimoires and their incorporation into African (through colonization) and PA Dutch folk practices. But thanks to an adaptable format and no single authorship, the grimoire survived book burnings, witch hunts and even Nazi Germany. As Davies rightly puts it: “There is no sign of these books being closed for good.” show less

Owen Davies obviously loves his subject, and he obviously has done his research. The result is a big book with tiny type that discusses grimoires (books of magic spells) from the birth of writing to the twenty-first century. That's a lot of ground to cover, so Davies covers it rather swiftly. He introduces the books, the characters that created them, and the impact of the books on magic, superstition, and folklore. No magical book or grimoire you can think of is left un-discussed. From the show more Agrippa's Three or Four <i>Occult Books of Philosophy</i> and <i>Key of Solomon</i>, to Barret and Levi, Mathers and Waite, to pulp classics like the <i>Sixth and Seventh Book of Moses</i> and LaVey's <i>Satanic Bible</i>/ Even made-up classics like Lovecraft's <i>Necronomicon</i> make an appearance. There could be, and should be, dozens more illustrations (say, like Seligman's <i>The Mirror of Magic</i>). There are several tiny errors I found, that make me wonder about the book overall (for instance, Davies calls the founder of the Nation of Islam "W. P. Fard" (p. 239), when he was W. D. Fard). Good further reading bibliography and a good set of endnotes. Index and illustrations, both in the text and a set of plates. A decent book, if you like the subject and have a scholarly, bookish bent, probably a dense bore for dilettantes and dullards. show less

I found this book interesting, but also incredibly dense. It took some time to get through each section, to be sure!

While there was promising reference to discussion of written magic all over the world early in the book (and the introduction regarded all manner of written magic), it failed to be realised; it is overwhelmingly Christianity and generally Euro-centric. Africa and parts of the Middle East and very occasionally Asia are mentioned, but only in terms of Western grimoires and show more religion.

As a history book, with heavy leaning on developments in Christianity as well as books and printing, it was quite interesting. In the light of what it promised I felt it fell a bit short.

There was more space given to discussion of Lovecraft's fictitious creation of the Necronomicon than the entirety of written magic in all of Asia, for example. And about the same amount of space given to Western TV and movies presenting magic with a relation to the written word.

The history portions jinked oddly at times between whether to relate stories in terms of provable reality (e.g. 'claiming he believed himself under the auspices of the Devil, he murdered [...]') vs. presenting the supernatural as fact (e.g. 'he signed a pact with the Devil in [year], before a cadre of angelic witnesses, gaining demonic servants'") and it was a bit jarring.

I also personally found myself unsatisfied or put off by Davies' conclusions such as brushing off the created-for-fiction (indeed, books that only exist in fictitious references and were never written) nature of several grimoires (such as the Necronomicon, most recognisable among them) as being fake creations and therefore real grimoires. Um? Regardless of belief or lack thereof (and many historical grimoires were faked to be sure), being created as part of a fictional narrative (indeed, only as a reference within such stories!) certainly seems to be to be rather different!

The discussion of Gardner and his creation of Wicca (and various falsities that led to it) was interesting (though much of it was already familiar to me), but I was also irritated at Davies' dismissive summation that all modern paganism is necessarily and obviously Wiccan. Likewise with his attitude towards . . . religion in general, perhaps? (Though that was not entirely how he stated it, the framing certainly led to that conclusion.) As something less prevalent in the modern Western world because of advancements in technology, medicine, and similar. It likewise felt irritating and dismissive, but also rather tone deaf and removed from reality. show less