On Enoch, metal, and lonely girls: a response to Dan Harms’ review of Arguing with Angels

Arguing with Angels book cover

A first review of Arguing with Angels

Dan Harms, a well-known scholar of Western magical traditions, has recently published a brief review of my book, Arguing with Angels. Harms will perhaps be best known as a connoisseur of Lovecraftiana, having co-written  The Necronomicon Files with John Wisdom Gonce III, and published the Cthulhu Mythos Encyclopedia a few years ago.

You can read the review for yourself on Harms’ blog. It is generally positive:

 “the book is well-written and comprehensively [and] covers the area in question in ways that are helpful for both scholars and more casual readers. … It does an admirable job of covering the complexities of Enochian magic, both in regard to the system itself and the textual transmission thereof.”

Despite being generally positive, Harms also finds that the book had a larger potential which it did not fulfill, and he points to a few  omissions that he would have liked to see addressed. I will allow myself a brief response, as I find that Harms’ questions are important and likely to be addressed by other attentive readers with some background knowledge of the topic.

Arguing with Angels is, to begin with, a book that covers a pretty long time span, and deals with a number of different historical contexts, so it shouldn’t be surprising that some readers will be left wanting for more in certain cases. Harms mentions two cases in particular, one, so to speak, in each end of the historical narrative.

To begin with the earliest example, Harms would have liked to see a proper discussion on the Enoch figure, which could “have helped the reader with regard to the Biblical roots of Dee’s project”. The Biblical figure of Enoch, the patriarch in the seventh generation after Adam, who according to Genesis was taken to heaven and “walked with God”, and according to the apochryphal Book of Enoch acted as a mediator between God and the fallen angels, and, who according to certain Jewish mystical traditions was apotheosised by transforming into the archangel Metatron, does indeed constitute a context for Enochian magic. Besides that, he is a fascinating mythological figure in his own right. However, the most fascinating material about Enoch was simply not available to Dee: the Book of Enoch did not survive in the West, and only became available to European scholars in 1773, when Scottish adventurer James Bruce returned with three copies translated into Ethiopian that he had presumably plundered  from a monastery in Abyssinia.

Not adding a longer discussion of Enoch was, however, a conscious choice. Why? Because the relation between Enoch and Dee & Kelley’s angel conversations has typically been made into something that it was not – a trap which I wanted to avoid. In fact, the argument could be made that the term “Enochian” is a bit of a misnomer for the magical systems, language, and metaphysical speculations they “received”. While discussions of Enoch appear in the angel diaries, he is only one exotic reference among many others. Enoch was rumoured to have been the previous person to have known the secrets that were revealed to Dee and Kelly, for example, but their ultimate source was divine. The language, furthermore, had also been known to Enoch’s great-great-great-great grandfather: Adam. At any rate, in the first chapter on Dee and Kelley’s conversasions, it is more pertinent to focus on the actual immediate historical contexts, and what is known about Dee’s intensions, agendas, and use of sources. In that context, a preoccupation with Enoch is not all that important, except as a mythological example of someone who had achieved an unusual communication with God and the angels. Enoch was, however, far from alone in that achievement: other Biblical examples include Jacob, Esdras, Daniel, and Tobit. Ultimately, the contexts of natural philosophy and “low-culture” catoptromantic practices are much more important for understanding where Dee’s angel conversations come from.

The second omission Harms points to concerns contemporary references to Enochian in popular occulture. There are, for example, a number of bands in genres spanning metal, goth, and electronica that have used the Enochian language or other references to the system in their music and lyrics. Some might also remember the mystery youtube phenomenon “Lonelygir15”, who was seen cramming the Enochian alphabet in preparation for a mysterious and sinister ceremony.  The popcultural significance is indeed important and interesting, and again, it was seriously considered for inclusion (the extremely careful reader will even find me excusing myself on this very point in footnote 11 to the introduction). In the end I decided not to write about this as it diverged too much from the general argument and drift of the book as a whole. It should be remembered that Arguing with Angels is, above all, a contribution to the slowly emerging academic literature on the reinterpretation and legitimacy of ritual magic in the modern world, with the history of Enochian as a convenient case. Of course, interplay with popular culture is immensely important also for this type of research, and much remains to be done. In the present work, however, emphasis was put on internal debates and conflicts among those who truly practice magic, and less with the broader pop-occultural landscape which has been forming approximately since the 1970s.

 

For other readers who may have missed the same things as Harms did, I hope this response helps to fill the picture slightly.

 
Creative Commons LicenseThis work by Egil Asprem was first published on Heterodoxology. It is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.


Advertisements

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://heterodoxology.com/2012/07/14/on-enoch-metal-and-lonely-girls-a-response-to-dan-harms-review-of-arguing-with-angels/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

11 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Thanks for the response! I want to make another point on Part 1, and I’ll let you know when I post it.

    • Looking forward to it! A bit of dialogue would be excellent.

  2. Just as a sidenote regarding popular culture, the book of Enoch is regularly referenced by Erich von Däniken as proof of his ancient astronaut hypothesis. I’m not sure if other authors in the paleo-SETI variety of alternative archaeology also point to Enoch, but due to Dänikens success he might be considered a standard reference point (similar to Pacal’s sarcophagus lid of Palenque or the Ezechiel spacecraft).

    • Indeed. Following up my own point, I would separate the reception history of Enoch the patriarch from the history of “Enochian magic”. The latter may be seen as a very particular part of the former – e.g. something like “Enoch reception in modern ritual magic” – alongside other forms of reception, such as “Enoch in pseudarchaology/UFO-logy/ancient astronaut discourse”.

      I have heard that Gyorgy Szonyi is working on a book on Enoch reception generally, including in all sorts of literature and popular culture. That should be an interesting read.

  3. […] Asprem has responded to the charge thusly: [Dan] Harms would have liked to see a proper discussion on the Enoch figure, which could “have helped the reader with regard to the Biblical roots of Dee’s project”…However, the most fascinating material about Enoch was simply not available to Dee: the Book of Enoch did not survive in the West, and only became available to European scholars in 1773, when Scottish adventurer James Bruce returned with three copies translated into Ethiopian that he had presumably plundered  from a monastery in Abyssinia. (Asprem, On Enoch, Metal and Lonely Girls) […]

  4. […] Asprem has responded to my review of his book Arguing with Angels, and he makes some excellent points therein.  Sara […]

  5. […] debate about aspects of my book the last couple of days, following Dan Harms’ review, and my own response. Sarah Veale joined in with a post over at Invocatio, and today Dan responded once more on his […]

  6. […] ‘On Enoch, metal, and lonely girls: a response to Dan Harms’ review of Arguing with Angels‘. Heterodoxology (My first […]

  7. You write:
    “The slowly emerging academic literature on the reinterpretation and legitimacy of ritual magic in the modern world.”

    Who are the main proponents here? Are you talking Hanegraaff et al?

    Thank you.
    Kristian Leth

    • Hi Kristian, yes I would be thinking Hanegraaff, Luhrmann, Owen, Pasi, Evans, Granholm, and myself among others. And those working with similar questions but related to more specific fields, e.g. modern Satanism (Petersen, Dyrendal, Lewis, Granholm etc.), or neopaganism (too many names to mention, but think The Pomegranate journal).

  8. Thank you for your reply!
    A lot is happening, huh. Great stuff. As a non-academic reading out of (immense) interest I have found Scholem, Yates, Faivre and Hanegraaff to stand out. Maybe Moshe Idel as well. Other than that I enjoy the practitioners’ books, (where of course one also has to sort through loads of crap to find the good writers/relevant magicians). So I am very happy to get those names, since this new approach (the 3.0 thing?) seems to be the way forward.
    You linked to the (Danish like me) Davidsen article on Paganism, which was really great. Are you into his positive theory approach? And is that descriptive of this “slowly emerging” field in ritual magic studies also? (Or are you fairly more “skeptical” as you write somewhere. Deconstructive Davidsen calls it?)
    I just ordered your book, by the way. Looking forward to it.
    Thanks
    Kristian


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: