Nameless Cutlery: The Sword of the Necronomicon

John Wisdom Gonce III

Verily , this is the (“Sword of Moses”) with which he accomplished his miracles and mighty deeds, and destroyed all kind of vile sorcery… - The Sword of Moses [1]

And the fiends of the night walked free,

The upas-tree;

Recently released to the occult readership is a pamphlet entitled A History of the Necronomicon and the Sword by a certain “Rev. Yaj Nomolos, S.P.” (Jay Solomon). Though the booklet itself contains no publisher or copyright information, my collaborator Daniel Harms and I were told that it was published by Magickal Childe in New York. This unique publication is different from the other “supplements” to the Simon Necronomicon - whether from Magickal Childe or elsewhere. Therefore I couldn’t fit a discussion of this little treatise into my article “Magick and the Necronomicon”. A History of the Necronomicon and the Sword begins with a copy of Lovecraft’s spoof essay “History of the Necronomicon” followed by S. T. Joshi’s commentary on it. This section was apparently reproduced directly from the pamphlet published by Necronomicon Press. The last part of “Nomolos”/Solomon’s A History is composed of about seven pages worth of material on the superstitions and magickal practices of swordsmiths reprinted from Eduard Wagner’s 1967 book Cut and Thrust Weapons. Sandwiched between these two reprints is the heart of the book - and the only original material written by Solomon himself - a four-page-long essay entitled “The Sword of the Necronomicon”.

In this essay Jay Solomon states that history and folklore alike are full of accounts of “Magickal weaponry” (mainly swords), and claims that he has discovered such a weapon associated with the Necronomicon. Solomon’s article further states that the Necronomicon is of ancient origin, claiming L. Sprague deCamp’s Duriac version, and certain (unnamed) documents in the British Museum (probably the Hay /Wilson/Turner Necronomicon) as evidence of its antiquity. But Solomon’s main topic is the sigils from the Simon Necronomicon, which he claims first appeared during the Middle Ages. Though this would seem to contradict the supposed Sumerian origin of the book, Solomon insists that it proves the authenticity of the Simon version. The author’s main piece of evidence is the sword of the title, whose blade bears four characters or “sigils” which he claims are versions of four sigils or glyphs found on the Mandal of Calling on page 120 of the Simon Necronomicon. The author provides a drawing of the sword itself, and separate drawings of the four sigils. Since the sword apparently dates from the eighteenth century, Solomon claims it as proof of the historic origins of the Necronomicon - predating both the birth of Lovecraft and the 1977 publication of the Simon book.

Before giving you my analysis of this sword and its supposed History, I should probably give the reader some information about my own history as a weapons expert: As a boy I became active in American Civil War, Revolutionary War and French and Indian War re-enactments under the leadership of weapons collector Richard L. Cornwell. It was from studying Richard’s collection of both original and reproduction British bayonets and Scottish swords and dirks that I began to learn how to tell original antique weapons from clever fakes. An avid study of medieval and Renaissance history led me into a long career in the Society for Creative Anachronism. Later I trained under historian/actor/stunt man Roy Cox of the Freelancers jousting company - one of the only three jousting companies in the U.S. to practice an historically authentic full-contact joust. It was with the Freelancers that I jousted in the first authentic jousting tournament ever held on North American soil, at Scarborough Fair, Texas in 1993. Under Roy Cox, who professionally handcrafts authentic reproduction swords, I also studied authentic weapons and armor of the Renaissance, and Renaissance period swordsmanship. I have viewed and studied collections of arms and armor at the Higgins Armory, the Otto von Kienbusch Collection at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, The New York Metropolitan Museum, and the Wallace Collection at the Tower of London. I was trained by the staff of the Arms and Armor Department of the New York Metropolitan Museum in their techniques for the cleaning and preservation of antique steel weapons and armor. Later I was privileged to work with the renowned weapons collector Dan Phillips, who taught me a great deal about both Renaissance period fencing, and antique swords. I was honored to assist in the cataloguing and preservation of the historic swords (one of which dates from the Second Crusade) in his “Rose-Dan Collection”. I have appeared as a historical consultant on the ESPN television series American Shooter, lecturing on and demonstrating the Brown Bess musket and its socket bayonet. I have worked as a historical weapons consultant to Michael Freeman, founder of the Tennessee Renaissance Festival at Castle Gwynn. So it is not merely as an occultist, but also as a weapons historian, that I offer my opinion about Jay Solomon’s so-called Sword of the Necronomicon.

Solomon describes his sword as a “rather hefty one-handed, D-guard saber, German in origin and manufacture, of the mid-to-early 18th century” [3]. He goes on to describe its twenty-two-inch long, inch-and-three-quarters wide, single-edged carbon steel blade. He speculates that the blade was once shortened “by about six inches” [4] caused by breaking off the point. He states that the five-and three-eighths inches long hilt of the sword is “made up of a brass D-guard, an octagonal walnut grip capped and throated in brass with intricate designs carved and engraved with scenes of dogs hunting a stag and a wild boar” [5]. The author claims that the various engravings on the sword are “extensive, magickal symbols abounding, of a kind readily interpreted and recognizable as belonging to ancient magickal traditions which will be in use today.” [6] Nevertheless, the central issue is the four engraved figures which he has reproduced from the blade of the sword, and which he claims are reverse images of the four glyphs seen in the four outside squares of the Mandal of Calling from page 120 of the Simon book.

Nomolos/Solomon then concludes that there must be something to the Simon book after all, since the sigils on the sword and the glyphs in the book (and its supposed medieval cousins) are similar. Solomon then invites readers to examine the sword for themselves at a place called The Occult Emporium in Allentown, Pennsylvania (that Mecca of American steel) where it is currently on display.

Let me deal with each one of the author’s claims in the order in which he presents them:

• I have not yet taken the opportunity to physically examine the sword. But based on the photocopy of the sword in the book, and Mr. Solomon’s description of it, I believe that his sword is an unremarkable German hunting sword typical of many that were turned out by armorers in the eighteenth century. The sword is not a saber, but is of the “hanger” design which was popular from the early seventeenth century to the mid-eighteenth century. The engraved illustrations of hounds chasing deer and boar mark it rather obviously as a gentleman’s hunting hanger.

• Without examining the blade physically, I see no reason to conclude that it was shortened by breakage at the tip. Hangars were always comparatively short [7]. The brass D-shaped sword guard and walnut grip indicate that it was a relatively cheap hunting sword of the period. A wealthier nobleman’s weapon would probably have been decorated with gold or silver etchings and plating, perhaps with an ivory grip.

• The author claims that the various engravings on the sword are “symbols” from “ancient magickal traditions” which he believes are still in use today. I know of no magickal tradition or system whose primary symbol is a dog chasing a deer. Since the design of the sword doesn’t conform to any instructions from historical grimoires for the making of magickal weapons [8], I must conclude that it was never intended by its maker for use in ritual magick. I suppose the weapon could have been used as a last-minute prop by someone experimenting with magick, much as a modern dabbler might use his dad’s letter opener as an athame.

• The author claims that the four figures engraved on the blade of the sword (reproduced on page 8 of his pamphlet) are the reversed images of the four glyphs inscribed in the squares in the Mandal of Calling from the Simon book. The author encourages readers to make a transparency of the four characters, flip it over so that the characters are reversed, and compare them to the sigils or glyphs on the Mandal. “Note that the extreme left hand sword-symbol can be laid directly over the extreme right-hand book/Mandel [sic] symbol, for a nearly perfect match.” [9] The characters on the sword all contain extra lines compared to the glyphs in the Simon book, and author Solomon cannot explain why the characters are reversed from the way they appear in the Necronomicon. It is an interesting but very imperfect match, coincidental and unconvincing.

• The author refers to Eduard Wagner’s book Cut and Thrust Weapons in defense of his theories, but doesn’t seem to understand the book himself. If he did, he would realize that the first of the four figures engraved on the blade, the figure-4 shaped character, is a common armorer’s mark and a stylized form of the traditional symbol for the planet Jupiter intended to bring good luck, and is seen on many different blades [10]. The second character engraved on the sword is an unidentified armorer’s mark which bears a remarkable resemblance to the provisional proof mark of the Belgian town of Liege [11]. The third character is an E-shaped figure seen on various swords which Wagner describes as “possibly an ornamentation intended as a magic sign” [12], and other authorities list simply as “Not Identified” [13]. Nobody is exactly certain of the origin of this figure, but I believe it could be a later stylized form of an earlier half moon mark used by blade-maker Peter Munich of Solingen (1595-1660) [14]. The fourth character is an unidentified armorer’s mark coincidentally similar to a marking found on a Bavarian infantry saber of 1794 [15]. The reader should realize that the magickal meaning of these characters (if any) is debatable even among authorities.

Note that none of these sigils are seen on swords of the Middle Ages. Yet the author insists that the glyphs and sigils in the Simon Necronomicon originated in medieval times. Odd that these supposedly medieval Simonian glyphs were never used on swords from the Middle Ages, or even the Renaissance, but suddenly popped up on a blade forged in the mid-eighteenth century. Although the engraved characters on the author’s sword were probably intended to bring good luck to the huntsman who carried it, they are not of the same quality as those seen on ceremonial swords and swords of war. Though there were “talisman blades” with magickal markings, it was the military weapon and its wielder which the swordsmith sought to make invincible. And this custom of engraving magickal and “lucky” symbols into the blades of swords did not take this astrological form (sometimes called “Passau art” [16]) until the late sixteenth century, and didn’t hit its high water mark until the time of the Thirty Years’ War. Since this sword was made in the eighteenth century (the Age of Enlightenment), which was not a time known as a vogue for magick, the figures engraved into its blade may be purely decorative. Perhaps they derived from traditional symbols from the seventeenth century which its maker didn’t even understand.

My verdict is that the existence of armorer’s marks which bear a vague similarity to glyphs from the Simon book, do not prove a pre-1977 origin for the Simon Necronomicon. If there is any connection between these armorer’s marks and the design of the Simonian glyphs, it could only be that Khem Caigan (Khem Set Rising) saw them in a book somewhere and was influenced by them. Having never physically examined the author’s sword, I cannot vouch for its authenticity nor swear that he didn’t engrave the sigils into the blade himself.

I am not sure why author Jay Solomon decided to publish this essay under the pseudonym Rev. Yaj Nomolos, S.P. Nor am I sure of what the “S.P.” stands for. (Perhaps it means “Simon Promoter”.) Poor as his knowledge of weaponry and history may be, it isn’t much worse than that of Simon himself. So ignorant was Simon of the history of metallurgy that he wrote that the seals of the gods Nergal and Marduk should be made of iron and brass, two metals unknown to the ancient Sumerians. Undoubtedly the author intended to wield this “Sword of the Necronomicon” in defense of the Simon book. Instead, his efforts have only helped cut it down to size.

1998 © John Wisdom Gonce III and Daniel Harms. All rights reserved. The glyphs were drawn freehand (badly) by Daniel Harms, who takes consolation that the author of the pamphlet did the same.

Return to Necronomicon Files