The Constant Image
Peter Farey
from my involvement in presenting lunchtime poetry
(with some prose) readings in our local theatre about
once a month. There are usually three readers, of whom
I am nearly always one. Entrance is free, but there is
a retiring collection, the proceeds of which go to
charity. On each occasion, we have a 'theme' upon which
the selection of items is (sometimes quite loosely!)
based.
As you will see from the theatre's website,
http://www.wycombeswan.co.uk/whatson/oakroom/events.html#verse
our next three themes are "Man's Best Friend?" (10 Oct),
for which we already have plenty of material, "The
Constant Image" (7 Nov) and "By Some Illusion" (5 Dec).
We quite like using phrases from Shakespeare - recognize
those two?
Naturally, it takes a bit of doing to come up with
20-25 fairly relevant and varied items each month
without repeating ourselves too much, particularly as
we have to avoid infringing copyright. So if the author
is still alive, or died in 1932 or later, we must get
permission, which is not as easy as you may think!
Fortunately, there are several modern poets who have
given us permission to use their works without a fee.
We do usually include several items from the period of
HLAS's main interest, and often have a speech two from
Shakespeare. As you know, our programme on Thursday
("September Song") had "In sweet music is such art".
There were also poems by Sir Thomas Wyatt (d.1542),
Sir George Etherege (d.1692), and one by William
Corkine (not the one Marlowe had the punch-up with,
but probably his son, who set Marlowe's "Passionate
Shepherd to his Love" to music in 1612). The audience
liked that one!
SONG by William Corkine
Sweet Cupid, ripen her desire,
Thy joyful harvest may begin;
If age approach a little nigher,
'Twill be too late to get it in.
Cold winter storms lay standing corn,
Which once too ripe will never rise,
And lovers wish themselves unborn
When all their joys lie in their eyes.
Then, sweet, let us embrace and kiss.
Shall beauty shale upon the ground?
If age bereave us of this bliss,
Then will no more such sport be found!
Which brings me to my reason for posting this.
It occurred to me that it might be both helpful to me
and enjoyable for all of us if, each month, we posted
any poems/speeches/prose we particularly liked (mainly
within our period of interest, of course, but let's
not be too rigid about that) around the next theme to
be coming up. At the moment, for example, this is "The
Constant Image".
I see this (but you may see it differently) as items
concerning - for example - painting, sculpture,
photography (although I haven't found many 16th/17th
century examples of that!). *The Winter's Tale* (Act 5)
offers some nice possibilities, perhaps, but it could
also be images in the mind, naturally, as it is in the
way Shakespeare himself uses the phrase. Any ideas?
All contributions (including the poem itself, of
course, if possible) will be gratefully received!
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Peter Groves
are:
Cowper, 'On the Receipt of my Mother's Picture out of Norfolk'
Keats, 'Ode on a Grecian Urn'
Browning, 'My Last Duchess'
Auden, 'Musee des Beaux Arts'
Larkin, 'Lines on a Young Lady's Photograph Album' (could be copyright
problems here)
Peter G.
Roger Nyle Parisious
I would suggest "two" unjustly neglected English poets of the late
Victorian to early modern period,Michael Field(Actually a maiden aunt
and niece) and T.Sturge Moore.Both of them specialized in poetic
studies of pictorial(particularly Renaissance)art.Yeats took off from
his friends' preoccupations and gave us such works as "Leda and the
Swan" and "Upon a Picture of a Black Centaur".His primary attraction
was,however,Tarot cards.His own projected pack was largely stolen by
the Satanist Arthur Edward Waite(Fratres Lucis,Apex Lodge,London)as I
have demonstrated in numerous lectures and workshops since the late
l960's.But these are false and inconstant images and need not concern
us here.
Elizabeth Daryush ,a favorite of both Yeats and Yvor Winters,
authored a gentle,understated,"Still Life" which was reprinted by
Winters(himself one of the greatest twentieth century academic
artists) in "Primitivism and Decadence" and,of course, in "Collected
Poems" in the l970's. I do not know if they are any easier to obtain
than Winters at this point in history.
Peter Farey
Peter Groves wrote:
>
> off the top of my head, a few suggestions for "The
> Constant Image" (Orsino?)
Yes, that's the feller. Many thanks for your
suggestions.
> are:
>
> Cowper, 'On the Receipt of my Mother's Picture out
> of Norfolk'
That's very nice, if slightly beyond our usual maximum
length per item. I hadn't come across this one before,
but those who know Cowper will not be surprised to hear
that he and his spaniel 'Beau' will be making more than
one appearance in our "Man's Best Friend" programme.
> Keats, 'Ode on a Grecian Urn'
Oh absolutely! (It also ends with probably my favourite
two lines of verse). And I am amazed to see that we
haven't used it before, in six years of doing this stuff!
> Browning, 'My Last Duchess'
Definitely. We have used it before, but not for four
years. (If I am honest, it was with this one in mind,
for me to do, that I suggested the theme in the first
place!)
> Auden, 'Musee des Beaux Arts'
That's good. I had forgotten this one. Still in
copyright, but I don't think it's a problem.
> Larkin, 'Lines on a Young Lady's Photograph Album'
> (could be copyright problems here)
Yes, another good one, that I don't remember seeing
before. I found it on the web-site of someone obviously
less concerned with copyright issues than we are!
The copyright on much of both Auden's and Larkin's
work is managed by Faber and Faber, who have been
quite helpful in the past. The only problem is that
in some cases the rights for performance are not
managed by the same agents as those for publication
(W.B.Yeats being a case in point).
Good stuff. Thanks again. Although in your case the
suggestions were probably either too long, too well-
known, or 'too copyrighted' to be reproduced here,
my hope is nevertheless that people will also as far as
possible print out their poems (or links to them), so
that I am not the only one to get anything from it!
Peter Farey
Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
>
> I would suggest "two" unjustly neglected English
> poets of the late Victorian to early modern period,
> Michael Field(Actually a maiden aunt and niece) and
> T.Sturge Moore.Both of them specialized in poetic
> studies of pictorial(particularly Renaissance)art.
<snip>
I managed to find examples of the work of both "Michel
Field" (out of copyright) and T. Sturge Moore (still
in), but none relevant to this theme yet. Thanks for
the suggestions, though. I'll keep on looking.
> Elizabeth Daryush ,a favorite of both Yeats and
> Yvor Winters, authored a gentle,understated,"Still
> Life" which was reprinted by Winters(himself one of
> the greatest twentieth century academic artists) in
> "Primitivism and Decadence" and,of course, in
> "Collected Poems" in the l970's. I do not know if
> they are any easier to obtain than Winters at this
> point in history.
Managed to find the poem itself this time. It's very
nice, and suitable, but as she lived until 1977, I'll
have a bit more work to do before we can use it!
Peter Farey
period of interest), which I thought quite fun. Sorry if the shape
of the pillar it is supposed to resemble doesn't work! The meter
is mind-blowing.
*The Pillar of Fame*
Fame's pillar here at last we set,
Out-during marble, brass or jet;
Charm'd and enchanted so
As to withstand the blow
Of overthrow;
Nor shall the seas,
Or outrages
Of storms, o'erbear
What we uprear;
Tho' kingdoms fall,
This pillar never shall
Decline or waste at all;
But stand for ever by his own
Firm and well-fixed foundation.
Bob Grumman
the poems you present are by living poets. As what I call a burstnorm poet,
I suggest you get in touch with Bob Cobbing (in London) for a specimen or
two of visual or other unconventional poetry to present, too.
I don't know about the copyright baloney, but I think it outrageous that
anyone's permission should be required for a reading to a nonpaying
audience. Call your event a class, and then claim fair use for educational
purposes.
--Bob G.
Robert Stonehouse
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Peter Groves wrote:
...
>> Browning, 'My Last Duchess'
>
>Definitely. We have used it before, but not for four
>years. (If I am honest, it was with this one in mind,
>for me to do, that I suggested the theme in the first
>place!)
I remember having to read this, sight unseen, in class at about the
age of thirteen. If I had known what was coming, I might have been
able to prevent "And strangled her" working as a joke! Of course, I
didn't make a joke of it - I had got to "No pain felt she" before they
laughed - but it still seems a real problem to spring the surprise
properly without getting a laugh. It would be quite wrong to make it
sinister from the start - the shock is essential.
Of course, the fact they laughed meant they actually were listening!
We decided the man must be mad. I still think that, among other
things.
Robert Stonehouse
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Came across this one by Robert Herrick (nearer to our groups'
>period of interest), which I thought quite fun. Sorry if the shape
>of the pillar it is supposed to resemble doesn't work! The meter
>is mind-blowing.
>
>*The Pillar of Fame*
>
>Fame's pillar here at last we set,
> Out-during marble, brass or jet;
> Charm'd and enchanted so
> As to withstand the blow
> Of overthrow;
> Nor shall the seas,
> Or outrages
> Of storms, o'erbear
> What we uprear;
> Tho' kingdoms fall,
> This pillar never shall
> Decline or waste at all;
> But stand for ever by his own
> Firm and well-fixed foundation.
Sonnet 3 is about the image in a mirror - "Look in thy glass ...". 16
is about a portrait (painted counterfeit) but really needs sonnet 15
to explain the opening, "But wherefore do not you a mightier way ..?".
Sonnet 2, "When forty winters..." is about carrying on the family
face.
George Herbert has a couple of figurative poems. The Altar introduces
the section called The Church:
A BROKEN ALTAR, Lord, thy servant reares,
Made of a heart, and cemented with teares;
Whose parts are as thy hand did frame;
No workman tool hath touch'd the same.
A Heart alone
Is such a stone
etc.
Easter-wings:
LORD, who created'st man in wealth and store,
Though foolishly he lost the same,
Decaying more and more,
Till he became
Most poore;
With thee
O let me rise
As larks, harmoniously,
And sing this day thy victories;
Then shall the fall further the flight in me.
etc.
(The word 'decaying' comes at the point when we realise the lines are
getting shorter; 'most poor' comes when they are at their shortest -
with the aid of some printer's juggling. Then they begin to recover at
'O let me rise'. You have to look at it sideways to get the wings, of
course.)
Robert Stonehouse
wrote:
A lot of poppycock! That was Porphyria's Lover! The English master
kept My Last Duchess for himself, obviously feeling the way Peter does
about it. But we did conclude they were both mad.
Obviously my memory is going.
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> As a contemporary poet, I think you should have a rule
> that at least half the poems you present are by living
> poets.
As a group who are simply trying to entertain people
during their lunchbreak, I think we should present poems
that our audience is likely to find entertaining, that
we enjoy performing, and that aren't too difficult to
get permission to use. In fact, living poets do play a
reasonable part in our programmes, but not because of
some rule of Poetical Correctness. HLAS, however, is
really about sixteenth & seventeenth century stuff.
> As what I call a burstnorm poet, I suggest you get
> in touch with Bob Cobbing (in London) for a specimen
> or two of visual or other unconventional poetry to
> present, too.
As what you call a burstnorm poet, why don't you tell
us about something relevant, so that we can consider
whether what you recommend is something that fits the
above 3 requirements?
> I don't know about the copyright baloney,
My feeling about it is much the same, but I do see the
point. It's what stops people like us obtaining money
from using the works of poets, be their norms never so
bursting, without so much as a 'by your leave'. What I
don't like, however, is having to ask every time,
rather than having (as we do for Betjeman's works) a
long-term agreement of some kind.
> I think it outrageous that anyone's permission should be
> required for a reading to a nonpaying audience. Call your
> event a class, and then claim fair use for educational
> purposes.
We have a retiring collection for charity. You seem to
assume that we have the right to decide whom the money
should go to for the use of somebody else's material.
But the National Trust has a legal right to revenue
from the use of Kipling's poems, for example, so the
law doesn't agree.
I have to tell you, Bob, that to date the only problem
that we have had in obtaining permission to perform
such copyright material free of charge has come from
the agents for Robert Frost; they asked a few questions
and, having received the answers, completely ignored us.
They were also, coincidentally, the only people so far
whom we found we had to approach on your side of the
Atlantic. So maybe they think it's baloney too, but as
a typical small-scale professional theatre company,
constantly walking the knife-edge between survival and
extinction, we can't take that chance.
I would really prefer not to get into this copyright
business any further. If you want to play the game I
suggested, however, I would really welcome your
recommendation of actual poems we might use, if
possible with any information you may about whom we
need to contact about copyright where applicable.
Peter Farey
relevant Sonnets.
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3d973de3...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
Peter Farey
Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>
> A lot of poppycock! That was Porphyria's Lover! The
> English master kept My Last Duchess for himself,
> obviously feeling the way Peter does about it. But
> we did conclude they were both mad.
>
> Obviously my memory is going.
I realized straight away which one you really meant,
having myself given Porphyria's Lover a couple of
times - once in a programme called 'Method and Madness'
(coinciding with a production of *Hamlet* we were
doing) and once in a self-indulgent programme of poems
we ourselves particularly liked. Other than a nervous
giggle or two from the audience, I think I managed on
both occasions to get the necessary stunned silence at
the appropriate time. (Knowing what's coming does help!)
A fellow-reader of mine, Brian, tells of having once
recited it whilst acting out the story with a very
attractive young actress. He was fine until he came to
the bit where he had to wind the hair "Three times her
little throat around" and found himself gazing right
down the most magnificent cleavage he had seen in a
long time. He says he had enormous difficulty keeping
his mind on the performance from that moment on!
Peter Farey
>
> A lot of poppycock! That was Porphyria's Lover! The
> English master kept My Last Duchess for himself,
> obviously feeling the way Peter does about it. But
> we did conclude they were both mad.
I meant to protest at this, by the way. I don't know
about your English master, but when the wind is
southerly, I certainly know a hawk from a handsaw!
Neil Brennen
> I have to tell you, Bob, that to date the only problem
> that we have had in obtaining permission to perform
> such copyright material free of charge has come from
> the agents for Robert Frost; they asked a few questions
> and, having received the answers, completely ignored us.
It was my understanding that the copyright on Frost's earliest poetry had
expired. Depending on the poem, you may not need to ask permission.
> They were also, coincidentally, the only people so far
> whom we found we had to approach on your side of the
> Atlantic.
I think that is indeed coincidence.
Your project sounds wonderful! Good luck with it.
Robert Stonehouse
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>>
>> A lot of poppycock! That was Porphyria's Lover! The
>> English master kept My Last Duchess for himself,
>> obviously feeling the way Peter does about it. But
>> we did conclude they were both mad.
>
>I meant to protest at this, by the way. I don't know
>about your English master, but when the wind is
>southerly, I certainly know a hawk from a handsaw!
I meant, of course, the lover of Porphyria and the Duke. Any other
interpretations are hereby expressly excluded!
I won't ask exactly what kind of bird a handsaw is.
Bob Grumman
> >
> > As a contemporary poet, I think you should have a rule
> > that at least half the poems you present are by living
> > poets.
>
> As a group who are simply trying to entertain people
> during their lunchbreak, I think we should present poems
> that our audience is likely to find entertaining, that
> we enjoy performing, and that aren't too difficult to
> get permission to use.
Okay, but one of my hobbyhorses is Unfair Treatment of Living Artists. And
I won't be knocked off it easily. So I must state that while your group
will probably do at least one poem by Keats (who is one of my favorite
poets), I strongly suspect that if it was 1819, you'd never consider doing
any of his poems.
I have to exhort you to help poetry, not just entertain people on their
lunch breaks, and the best way to do this is to mix challenging poems in
with crowd-pleasers. This will capture a few culturally adventurous people
for your audience, but--in the long run--it will also help hold your
normals, who will eventually tire of the standards, and imitations thereof.
It will also help boost the morale of living poets much more than it will
the morale of the dead poets.
> In fact, living poets do play a
> reasonable part in our programmes, but not because of
> some rule of Poetical Correctness.
If so, fine. But most such groups do not, and are not aware that they could
do so--which is why I ride the hobbyhorse I'm on now every chance I get.
> HLAS, however, is
> really about sixteenth & seventeenth century stuff.
So was my post: I claim that poetry by living poets is as worth doing as
sixteenth & seventeenth century stuff. More worth doing, really, since the
latter already gets all the play it needs (it's even multiply recorded, for
crying out loud).
> > As what I call a burstnorm poet, I suggest you get
> > in touch with Bob Cobbing (in London) for a specimen
> > or two of visual or other unconventional poetry to
> > present, too.
>
> As what you call a burstnorm poet, why don't you tell
> us about something relevant, so that we can consider
> whether what you recommend is something that fits the
> above 3 requirements?
See? You make my point. If you were open to helping contemporary poetry,
you would research burstnorm poetry and Bob Cobbing, etc., eager to find out
more about this poetry you (apparently) know little or nothing about.
Anyway, you might try to get hold of a copy of WORD SCORE UTTERANCE
CHOREOGRAPHY from Cobbing's Writers Forum, but available from New River
Project, 89a Petherton Road London N5 8QT. You have my permission to use
either of my two poems in it. One should be fun to declaim. The other,
though, is visual, so would have to be projected.
Two reasons for not printing either here are that both are visual, on the
page, and thus unreproduceable here; and that I'd prefer you see all the
poems in the book I mention than just mine.
I don't seriously expect you to drop everything to find and purchase the
book. Just hope the mention may help you or someone else notice it if you
ever accidently come on it, and actually look through it.
Oh, and I have no idea how well any of them fit any theme.
I will give you two excerpts from "The Wind," for the hell of it:
the wind
the wind
the wind
sky by sky whipping harsher
* * *
the sky
brattled delete
of all its braze and sleer
by the untethered, untethering fierce wind,
the debellishing, splangrous,
ancienting, remorseless wind.
> > I don't know about the copyright baloney,
>
> My feeling about it is much the same, but I do see the
> point. It's what stops people like us obtaining money
> from using the works of poets, be their norms never so
> bursting, without so much as a 'by your leave'.
I think it impedes good people like you, but not the real connivers, who
just go ahead, and just about never get caught--and/or figure out simple
ways around the rules like the universities whose teachers recite poems all
the time, and get paid well for doing so, and talking about them, but don't
pay anything to the poets involved.
You, by the way, could sell cookies or something at ountlandish prices (and
tell the people that the proceeds were for charity) and that way avoid
collecting money for reading poems.
> What I
> don't like, however, is having to ask every time,
> rather than having (as we do for Betjeman's works) a
> long-term agreement of some kind.
> > I think it outrageous that anyone's permission should be
> > required for a reading to a nonpaying audience. Call your
> > event a class, and then claim fair use for educational
> > purposes.
>
> We have a retiring collection for charity. You seem to
> assume that we have the right to decide whom the money
> should go to for the use of somebody else's material.
No, I think you should not have the right to decide that it go to you or
your theatre. Whether you should have the right to decide that it go to a
charity is a trickier question. I lean toward agreeing with you that you
haven't that right, but I suspect the money involved is too trivial to
matter (divided by the number of poems read).
> But the National Trust has a legal right to revenue
> from the use of Kipling's poems, for example, so the
> law doesn't agree.
>
> I have to tell you, Bob, that to date the only problem
> that we have had in obtaining permission to perform
> such copyright material free of charge has come from
> the agents for Robert Frost; they asked a few questions
> and, having received the answers, completely ignored us.
> They were also, coincidentally, the only people so far
> whom we found we had to approach on your side of the
> Atlantic. So maybe they think it's baloney too, but as
> a typical small-scale professional theatre company,
> constantly walking the knife-edge between survival and
> extinction, we can't take that chance.
I do understand, and am speaking more to any bureaucrats (ha!) who might be
listening in than to you. When I self-published my book on poetry (in an
edition of 100), Of Manywhere-at-Once, with chapters on Yeats and several
other modern poets, I got permissions, and wasn't charged or was charged a
small fee for all the poems I quoted in full except those of Yeats, so
there. I ended just quoting a Yeats that was out of copyright in full, and
excerpts of the others.
> I would really prefer not to get into this copyright
> business any further. If you want to play the game I
> suggested, however, I would really welcome your
> recommendation of actual poems we might use, if
> possible with any information you may have about whom we
> need to contact about copyright where applicable.
>
>
> Peter F.
> pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
> http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Back-channel me your address and I'll send you a few chapbooks (of recitable
poetry) to look through--including Richard Kennedy's favorite, John M.
Bennett, whom no one would understand, but would be entertaining for its
oddness.
--Bob G.
Gary Kosinsky
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
C'mon Peter, one more question. It had never occurred to me
that people have to get permission to read out other poets' poems in
public. Just out of curiousity, suppose you went ahead and used one
of Robert Frost's poems and somehow these agents learned of it. What
would they do? What could they do?
- Gary Kosinsky
Peter Farey
Neil Brennen wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > I have to tell you, Bob, that to date the only problem
> > that we have had in obtaining permission to perform
> > such copyright material free of charge has come from
> > the agents for Robert Frost; they asked a few questions
> > and, having received the answers, completely ignored us.
>
> It was my understanding that the copyright on Frost's
> earliest poetry had expired. Depending on the poem, you
> may not need to ask permission.
In England copyright lasts for seventy years from the
end of the year in which the author died. Thomas Hardy
(1928) and D.H.Lawrence (1930) are OK; G.K.Chesterton
(1936) and Rudyard Kipling (1936) are not. I know that
US copyright law differs in some ways, however, so I
had better make further enquiries about it. Frost
didn't die until 1963.
> > They were also, coincidentally, the only people so far
> > whom we found we had to approach on your side of the
> > Atlantic.
>
> I think that is indeed coincidence.
>
> Your project sounds wonderful! Good luck with it.
Thanks, Neil. In fact we've been doing this since May
'96, but are a bit concerned at the moment about a
possible change of the organization which manages the
theatre. We fear that new brooms may not take so
kindly to offering free use of their facilities for
such a purpose.
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Bob Grumman wrote:
> > >
> > > As a contemporary poet, I think you should have a rule
> > > that at least half the poems you present are by living
> > > poets.
> >
> > As a group who are simply trying to entertain people
> > during their lunchbreak, I think we should present poems
> > that our audience is likely to find entertaining, that
> > we enjoy performing, and that aren't too difficult to
> > get permission to use.
>
> Okay, but one of my hobbyhorses is Unfair Treatment of
> Living Artists. And I won't be knocked off it easily.
> So I must state that while your group will probably do
> at least one poem by Keats (who is one of my favorite
> poets), I strongly suspect that if it was 1819, you'd
> never consider doing any of his poems.
Can't say. But more than once a regular member of our
audience has decided never to darken our doors again
because of the 'unsuitability' of some of our material.
> I have to exhort you to help poetry, not just entertain
> people on their lunch breaks, and the best way to do
> this is to mix challenging poems in with crowd-pleasers.
Our programmes always contain a fair sprinkling of work
by little-known living poets. Provided the poem meets
those three criteria, it's in. My own use of the word
'entertaining' here would not exclude 'challenging'.
> This will capture a few culturally adventurous people
> for your audience, but--in the long run--it will also
> help hold your normals, who will eventually tire of
> the standards, and imitations thereof.
'Normals' - is that the opposite of 'wacks'? You may
be right. Some come for a while and leave, some have
been attending regularly for years. The average age
(both of the audience and the readers!) is pretty high.
> It will also help boost the morale of living poets
> much more than it will the morale of the dead poets.
Yes, it does. In fact there are three or four living
poets who attend regularly, and who are delighted when
we include one of their poems, which we nearly always
try to do.
> > In fact, living poets do play a reasonable part
> > in our programmes, but not because of some rule
> > of Poetical Correctness.
>
> If so, fine. But most such groups do not, and are
> not aware that they could do so--which is why I ride
> the hobbyhorse I'm on now every chance I get.
Fair enough. But I would still hope that others
(particularly Dave Kathman or Terry Ross, if they are
around) can lob in any ideas they may have of less
familiar work from 'our' period.
> > HLAS, however, is
> > really about sixteenth & seventeenth century stuff.
> So was my post: I claim that poetry by living poets
> is as worth doing as sixteenth & seventeenth century
> stuff. More worth doing, really, since the latter
> already gets all the play it needs (it's even multiply
> recorded, for crying out loud).
I was suggesting a regular topic for HLAS. Our charter
relates to that period. I was therefore asking for poems
or prose mainly from that period. In particular, I
thought it might be a way of bringing to the attention
of all of us some of the *lesser-known* poetry of the
time; material that does not get into the anthologies,
and has never been recorded at all, be it for crying
out loud or for reciting in a normal voice. I had in
mind the sort of items that Dave and Terry post for
our pleasure on their web page each Christmas.
> > > As what I call a burstnorm poet, I suggest you get
> > > in touch with Bob Cobbing (in London) for a specimen
> > > or two of visual or other unconventional poetry to
> > > present, too.
> >
> > As what you call a burstnorm poet, why don't you tell
> > us about something relevant, so that we can consider
> > whether what you recommend is something that fits the
> > above 3 requirements?
>
> See? You make my point. If you were open to helping
> contemporary poetry, you would research burstnorm
> poetry and Bob Cobbing, etc., eager to find out more
> about this poetry you (apparently) know little or
> nothing about.
My apparent reluctance had more to do with getting you
back to offering something relevant. It said nothing
whatesoever about whether or not I planned to go
exploring London in search of Bob Cobbing too.
> Anyway, you might try to get hold of
> a copy of WORD SCORE UTTERANCE CHOREOGRAPHY from
> Cobbing's Writers Forum, but available from New River
> Project, 89a Petherton Road London N5 8QT.
I might indeed. Thanks for the address.
> You have
> my permission to use either of my two poems in it.
> One should be fun to declaim.
Thanks again.
> The other, though, is
> visual, so would have to be projected. Two reasons
> for not printing either here are that both are visual,
> on the page, and thus unreproduceable here; and that
> I'd prefer you see all the poems in the book I
> mention than just mine.
>
> I don't seriously expect you to drop everything to
> find and purchase the book. Just hope the mention
> may help you or someone else notice it if you ever
> accidently come on it, and actually look through it.
Of course. And had you simply said this to start with,
rather than apparently attempting to lay down rules
for us, I would have been far less defensive about
what we are doing!
> Oh, and I have no idea how well any of them fit any
> theme.
That's what I was afraid of.
> I will give you two excerpts from "The Wind," for
> the hell of it:
>
> the wind
> the wind
> the wind
> sky by sky whipping harsher
>
> * * *
>
> the sky
> brattled delete
> of all its braze and sleer
> by the untethered, untethering fierce wind,
> the debellishing, splangrous,
> ancienting, remorseless wind.
Nothing there that we would have any problem with at
all. And it would have fitted fine within several of
our past programmes. One was called "Mad March Days",
for example.
> > > I don't know about the copyright baloney,
> >
> > My feeling about it is much the same, but I do see the
> > point. It's what stops people like us obtaining money
> > from using the works of poets, be their norms never so
> > bursting, without so much as a 'by your leave'.
>
> I think it impedes good people like you, but not the
> real connivers, who just go ahead, and just about
> never get caught--and/or figure out simple ways around
> the rules like the universities whose teachers recite
> poems all the time, and get paid well for doing so,
> and talking about them, but don't pay anything to the
> poets involved.
>
> You, by the way, could sell cookies or something at
> ountlandish prices (and tell the people that the
> proceeds were for charity) and that way avoid
> collecting money for reading poems.
No we couldn't. The theatre does all the selling.
> > What I
> > don't like, however, is having to ask every time,
> > rather than having (as we do for Betjeman's works) a
> > long-term agreement of some kind.
>
> > > I think it outrageous that anyone's permission should be
> > > required for a reading to a nonpaying audience. Call your
> > > event a class, and then claim fair use for educational
> > > purposes.
> >
> > We have a retiring collection for charity. You seem to
> > assume that we have the right to decide whom the money
> > should go to for the use of somebody else's material.
>
> No, I think you should not have the right to decide
> that it go to you or your theatre. Whether you should
> have the right to decide that it go to a charity is a
> trickier question.
It isn't a question at all, if it is legal right we are
talking about. And that's the one we are stuck with. We
do of course decide which charities get the money once
we have got permission.
> Back-channel me your address and I'll send you a few
> chapbooks (of recitable poetry) to look through--
> including Richard Kennedy's favorite, John M. Bennett,
> whom no one would understand, but would be entertaining
> for its oddness.
>
> --Bob G.
Will do. Thanks.
Peter Farey
Gary Kosinsky wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > I would really prefer not to get into this copyright
> > business any further.
>
> C'mon Peter, one more question. It had never occurred to me
> that people have to get permission to read out other poets' poems in
> public. Just out of curiousity, suppose you went ahead and used one
> of Robert Frost's poems and somehow these agents learned of it. What
> would they do? What could they do?
You may well ask that, Gary, but I couldn't possibly say.
It would appear that they didn't.
Bob Grumman
> > for your audience, but--in the long run--it will also
> > help hold your normals, who will eventually tire of
> > the standards, and imitations thereof.
> 'Normals' - is that the opposite of 'wacks'?
In this case, it's not; it's people whose cultural adventurousness is
average--i.e., practically non-existent.
****
> I was suggesting a regular topic for HLAS. Our charter
> relates to that period. I was therefore asking for poems
> or prose mainly from that period. In particular, I
> thought it might be a way of bringing to the attention
> of all of us some of the *lesser-known* poetry of the
> time; material that does not get into the anthologies,
> and has never been recorded at all, be it for crying
> out loud or for reciting in a normal voice. I had in
> mind the sort of items that Dave and Terry post for
> our pleasure on their web page each Christmas.
Fine. But I was not off-topic to discuss your request rather than simply
comply with it--or ignore it.
***
I MEANT to lay down rules for you and everyone doing readings--not in the
expectation that you would heed them but simply to try to get people
thinking about the value of repeating the work of established dead poets
versus introducing the work of living poets, especially those doing
unconventional work. As I have said, I was using you more as a vehicle to
complain than as a true target of my complaint.
Okay, the theatre could see cookies and give the proceeds to charity.
> > > What I
> > > don't like, however, is having to ask every time,
> > > rather than having (as we do for Betjeman's works) a
> > > long-term agreement of some kind.
> >
> > > > I think it outrageous that anyone's permission should be
> > > > required for a reading to a nonpaying audience. Call your
> > > > event a class, and then claim fair use for educational
> > > > purposes.
> > >
> > > We have a retiring collection for charity. You seem to
> > > assume that we have the right to decide whom the money
> > > should go to for the use of somebody else's material.
> >
> > No, I think you should not have the right to decide
> > that it go to you or your theatre. Whether you should
> > have the right to decide that it go to a charity is a
> > trickier question.
>
> It isn't a question at all, if it is legal right we are
> talking about.
I was talking about the moral right.
> And that's the one we are stuck with. We
> do of course decide which charities get the money once
> we have got permission.
In the US you can get away with a lot by declaring yourself non-profit
and/or charitable, as long as you pay the right lawyers to write up the
right papers.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
> >
> > I would suggest "two" unjustly neglected English
> > poets of the late Victorian to early modern period,
> > Michael Field(Actually a maiden aunt and niece) and
> > T.Sturge Moore.Both of them specialized in poetic
> > studies of pictorial(particularly Renaissance)art.
>
> <snip>
>
> I managed to find examples of the work of both "Michel
> Field" (out of copyright) and T. Sturge Moore (still
> in), but none relevant to this theme yet. Thanks for
> the suggestions, though. I'll keep on looking.
I always read T.Sturge Moore by the piece rather than the book and
now my four volume Collected Poems are literally tied up.If you care
enough to check your university library ,you will probably find the
names of more than one of the pictures and artists(Bacchus and Titian
stick in the memory)listed in the Tables of Contents.
As I did not think them suitable (length) I omitted two excellent
American poets,Edward Arlington Robinson,"Rembrandt on Rembrandt",
(not one of his best soliloquies), and Gladys Schmidt from my first
list.Schmidt's novel "Rembrandt" is literally a prose poem. She does a
long series of internal monologues as Rembrandt paints his
masterpieces.This is double tour de force(she creates here and
elsewhere a completely masculine rhythm response) and I will be
surprised if you cannot find three or four paragraphs to your purpose
.Otherwise she and Robinson are must for your next soliloquy night.
Schmidt died in the early seventies,but she is undeservedly
forgotton and I am sure the heirs should be delighted that someone is
giving her a little of the recognition she has already had from some
of the better critics of her time.
J. Karlin
> His [Yeats'] primary attraction was, however,Tarot cards. His own
> projected pack was largely stolen by the Satanist Arthur Edward
> Waite---
Over the years I've seen a number of people make reference to
this claim of yours, although they seldom put it as succinctly
and melodramatically as you have just done.
Some questions:
1. If Yeats was sufficiently attracted to Tarot cards to
"project" one, and if, as you claim, Waite largely stole
Yeats' project, why didn't Yeats do something about this
theft, or at least say something, even something veiled
and poetic, about what would seem to have been an
outrageous act on Waite's part?
2. You call Waite a Satanist, as if that distinguishes
him in some evil fashion from Yeats, and thus gives
subtle (or perhaps obvious) support to your claim about
Waite's theft. But, on what basis would you call Arthur
Edward Waite a Satanist? Please be very specific.
3. Since Waite and Yeats were taught the same symbolic
system of Tarot, in the Golden Dawn, why is it necessary
that a "theft" be employed to accomplish a similarity?
> (Fratres Lucis,Apex Lodge,London) as I have demonstrated in
> numerous lectures and workshops since the late l960's.
Then please do so once more (even in summary form).
> But these are false and inconstant images and need not concern
> us here.
Are you talking about Tarot images, or what exactly?
The truth should concern everyone, even here.
(jk)
**********************************************
Read jk's Tarot FAQ:
http://jktarot.com/faq.html
Read The most important Tarot essays ever written:
http://jktarot.com/jkbooks.html
**********************************************
Roger Nyle Parisious
> Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
>
> > His [Yeats'] primary attraction was, however,Tarot cards. His own
> > projected pack was largely stolen by the Satanist Arthur Edward
> > Waite---
>
> Over the years I've seen a number of people make reference to
> this claim of yours, although they seldom put it as succinctly
> and melodramatically as you have just done.
I was being literal and succinct,not melodramatic,at least less
melodramatic than what actually happened.Like the Anastasia or Hiss
cases or the Shakespeare case(which is why I slipped it in here to my
host Peter Farey's dismay),the Yeats-Tarot story is really one where
no novelist could invent a more incredible group of literate
characters or write better dialogue for them than they supplied for
themselves.
>
> Some questions:
>
> 1. If Yeats was sufficiently attracted to Tarot cards to
> "project" one, and if, as you claim, Waite largely stole
> Yeats' project, why didn't Yeats do something about this
> theft, or at least say something, even something veiled
> and poetic, about what would seem to have been an
> outrageous act on Waite's part?
(l) He did.A long series of Yeats poems,plays, and prose texts are
coded, including the entire text of "A Vision-A".These are usually
quick ( often marginal)anagrams in response to much longer attacks
that were launched by Waite,Machen,Marcus Blackden,and three or four
others, many years earlier.Yeats was too great an artist to turn
propagandist.In "A Vision-A",Phase 26,he skewered Waite for posterity
as the monstrous Hunchback.He was replying twenty years later to very
specific pages of Waite's "Hidden Church of the Holy Graal"(l909 but
written l906).
>
> 2. You call Waite a Satanist, as if that distinguishes
> him in some evil fashion from Yeats, and thus gives
> subtle (or perhaps obvious) support to your claim about
> Waite's theft. But, on what basis would you call Arthur
> Edward Waite a Satanist? Please be very specific.
(2)No, it distinguishes Waite historically from Yeats. I call him a
Satanist as I describe both Stalin and Gorbachov as heads of the
Soviet Communist Party.
>There is still a Church of Satan running on internet(Jayne Mansfield
was a prominent and,I think, innocuous member) and there is a split
off The Temple of Set.They may or may not know their heritage.I trace
the earliest extant published references to Paris in l853. One is by
J.Vaillant and the other by Magi Aurelius.Both maintain Satan is soon
going to take over the world.Vaillant links this to an elaborate Tarot
symbolism. No English writer before Michael Dummett(mid-l980's) took
note that these publications existed. I had seen private
translations(Dublin mss.) of extracts from Vaillant. Aurelius I owe to
Dummett. Waite re-edited the only later French text(Papus,Tarot of the
Bohemians,l888) to refer to the Vaillant publication of l853 in
l910.He cut the Vaillant quote and never again in his many hundreds of
pages on Tarot ever referred to this seminal work again. It is only
too apparant why if you compare this virtually unknown work against
Waite's "Pictorial Key to the Tarot"(l909),his "Manual of
Cartomacy"(l889,fifth edition,l912) and "Book of Destiny"(l912).I
recently did a short Tarot thread with Christian .Under a Marlowe
title,I there give a brief outline of the origins of the modern
Satan-Set movement(Turkish Donmuh;German Frankists;House of Wisdom
,Cairo), to William Oxley of Manchester.Despite the earlier French
publications the Set form(god with the Asses Head)came over directly
from America to England. Their first English publication contains a
chronological diagram of the lunar houses which directly served as a
source for the frontispiece of Yeats's "A Vision".
Check the R.A. Gilbert article in "Ars Quator Coronati",l986 which
describes a diagram of the Kabbalistic tree drawn by Waite.Each of the
eleven spheres(fruits) of the Tree is equated with an initiatic(or
counter-initiatic)organization. Near the top the GD merges with the
Frankist Theodore Reuss's
Order of the Illuminati(popularized by star Reuss pupil,Alistair
Cwowley, as the OTO).Why,with evidence like this before his eyes,
Gilbert went on to publish some fifteen further works which feature
Waite as a lovable Christian mystic is beyond my provenance.
> 3. Since Waite and Yeats were taught the same symbolic
> system of Tarot, in the Golden Dawn, why is it necessary
> that a "theft" be employed to accomplish a similarity?
But that's just it, they didn't! Everybody has had it wrong.Both
the white and the black organizations involved preceeded the GD. Many
members of the older organizations joined the GD later or first joined
the GD and then joined the more closed organizations like white
Sothes(SOS) and black Some(pronounced So-Mee,the third and fifth notes
of the scale).
>
> > (Fratres Lucis,Apex Lodge,London) as I have demonstrated in
> > numerous lectures and workshops since the late l960's.
>
> Then please do so once more (even in summary form).
>
> > But these are false and inconstant images and need not concern
> > us here.
>
> Are you talking about Tarot images, or what exactly?
>
> The truth should concern everyone, even here.
RNP
I'll be back to you on a new thread preferably in another
form.People here don't care.The only interest here is that something
very similar to what we contend here happened in the l7th Century
reoccurred to the greatest English speaking poet since Shakespeare in
the 20th century under equally covert circumstances.
J. Karlin
> "J. Karlin" <j...@jktarotX.com> wrote in message news:<3D9ED69E...@jktarotX.com>...
> > Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
> > > His [Yeats'] primary attraction was, however,Tarot cards. His own
> > > projected pack was largely stolen by the Satanist Arthur Edward
> > > Waite---
> > Over the years I've seen a number of people make reference to
> > this claim of yours, although they seldom put it as succinctly
> > and melodramatically as you have just done.
> I was being literal and succinct, not melodramatic, at least less
> melodramatic than what actually happened. Like the Anastasia or Hiss
> cases or the Shakespeare case (which is why I slipped it in here to my
> host Peter Farey's dismay), the Yeats-Tarot story is really one where
> no novelist could invent a more incredible group of literate
> characters or write better dialogue for them than they supplied for
> themselves.
Well, the dialog which demonstrates your claim is what I'm
interested in, and I hope that it is not incredible. No
doubt a story involving Yeats, and particularly something
Yeats authored, would stand a good chance to involve literate
lines. I'm not so sure expectations would be as high for
Waite's dialogs, but nevertheless his writing was at least
often amusing, even unintentionally.
So this story, if it is something more than that, does seem
to have escaped most commentators. The question I have is
whether that escape is justified by the lack of facts or
is another example of people missing something important.
> > Some questions:
> > 1. If Yeats was sufficiently attracted to Tarot cards to
> > "project" one, and if, as you claim, Waite largely stole
> > Yeats' project, why didn't Yeats do something about this
> > theft, or at least say something, even something veiled
> > and poetic, about what would seem to have been an
> > outrageous act on Waite's part?
> (l) He did. A long series of Yeats poems,plays, and prose texts are
> coded, including the entire text of "A Vision-A".
So you're saying that Yeats accuses Waite of having stolen
his Tarot designs in a coded prose text written sixteen years
after the alleged theft? Not in a letter, not in a plain
charge to the effect Waite was a plagiarist and thief?
And who decoded this code, this particular code which
supposedly indicts Waite?
And what does this code allegedly say about Waite?
> These are usually quick ( often marginal) anagrams in response
> to much longer attacks that were launched by Waite, Machen, Marcus
> Blackden, and three or four others, many years earlier.
So, you're saying all of these people attacked Yeats in some
"much longer" form and fashion, although what exactly is meant
by this with respect to Waite especially you did not say, and
then Yeats replied back with anagrams?
Now, just to clarify things for me, what kind of attacks are
you claiming Waite launched against Yeats? Or are you calling
the alleged Tarot theft the attack?
> Yeats was too great an artist to turn propagandist.
The question is whether such a great artist would care
if he were called a "propagandist" if the point was to
defend his work against theft by another. And I don't
know of anything that suggests Yeats would have resorted
to mere anagrams, published years after an injury, to
undo a literary and ethical injustice of the nature
you're claiming. That just doesn't make much sense.
Neither does it make sense that Pam Smith would have
participated in this conspiracy, for it would have
had to have been a conspiracy, and so you are also
accusing Waite's artist of theft as well.
What specific factual evidence can you present that
anything you're claiming here actually took place?
> In "A Vision-A", Phase 26, he skewered Waite for posterity
> as the monstrous Hunchback.
Could you demonstrate?
And how do you know this was meant to be a skewering of
Waite? And even if it was, how does this skewering
substantiate your charges?
> He was replying twenty years later to very
> specific pages of Waite's "Hidden Church of
> the Holy Graal"(l909 but written l906).
I thought you said he was replying to the theft of
his Tarot images. Now you're saying that this alleged
skewering had something to do with Waite's "specific
pages".
What exactly are you trying to say?
And what specific pages of Waite's work was Yeats sluggishly
skewering?
> > 2. You call Waite a Satanist, as if that distinguishes
> > him in some evil fashion from Yeats, and thus gives
> > subtle (or perhaps obvious) support to your claim about
> > Waite's theft. But, on what basis would you call Arthur
> > Edward Waite a Satanist? Please be very specific.
> (2)No, it distinguishes Waite historically from Yeats. I call him a
> Satanist as I describe both Stalin and Gorbachov as heads of the
> Soviet Communist Party.
So you're claiming Waite was head of some Satanic organization?
What was the name of this Satanic organization?
> >There is still a Church of Satan running on internet---
OK, but this Church of Satan doesn't mention anything about
A. E. Waite having been involved with its past administration.
> (Jayne Mansfield was a prominent and, I think, innocuous member)
> and there is a split off The Temple of Set. They may or may not know
> their heritage. I trace the earliest extant published references to
> Paris in l853. One is by J.Vaillant and the other by Magi Aurelius.
> Both maintain Satan is soon going to take over the world.
So you're claiming that the Church of Satan was established by two
people publishing "Satan is soon going to take over the world."?
That seems a little thin, don't you think?
And what does that have to do with A. E. Waite?
> Vaillant links this to an elaborate Tarot symbolism.
A lot of people link things to an elaborate Tarot symbolism,
or interpretation of the symbolism.
Why should we think that Waite's interest in Tarot symbolism
is Satanic?
> No English writer before Michael Dummett (mid-l980's) took note
> that these publications existed.
This is all very vague. Please specify.
What publications are you talking about that Dummett took
note of?
> I had seen private translations (Dublin mss.) of extracts
> from Vaillant.
Vaillant wrote a lot of books. Which ones particularly are
you talking about?
> Aurelius I owe to Dummett. Waite re-edited the only
> later French text (Papus, Tarot of the Bohemians, l888) to refer to
> the Vaillant publication of l853 in l910. He cut the Vaillant
> quote and never again in his many hundreds of pages on Tarot ever
> referred to this seminal work again.
Referred to what seminal work?
> It is only too apparant why if you compare this virtually unknown
> work against Waite's "Pictorial Key to the Tarot" (l909),
> his "Manual of Cartomacy" (l889, fifth edition,l912) and
> "Book of Destiny"(l912).
Are you saying he stole all this from Vaillant? I thought you
were claiming he stole PKT, or the deck anyway, from Yeats.
At any rate, I don't see how any of what you're saying here
indicates Waite was a Satanist, or that Waite stole his
Tarot designs from Yeats.
> I recently did a short Tarot thread with Christian.
Where did you do this thread? And who is Christian?
> Under a Marlowe title, I there give a brief outline of the origins
> of the modern Satan-Set movement (Turkish Donmuh; German Frankists;
> House of Wisdom ,Cairo), to William Oxley of Manchester.
So, William Oxley of Manchester founded the Church of Satan,
which A. E. Waite eventually took over, and because of this
he stole Tarot designs from W. B. Yeats?
Or what exactly?
> Despite the earlier French publications the Set form (god with
> the Asses Head) came over directly from America to England.
So the Church of Satan was REALLY founded in America, and
the poor English and French were led astray by the colonials?
I've heard that one before.
But that's still no substantiation to your claims about
A. E. Waite.
> Their first English publication---
Of what exactly?
> contains a chronological diagram of the lunar houses
> which directly served as a source for the frontispiece
> of Yeats's "A Vision".
Oh, so Yeats is the thief then. OK.
> Check the R.A. Gilbert article in "Ars Quator Coronati", l986 which
> describes a diagram of the Kabbalistic tree drawn by Waite. Each of the
> eleven spheres (fruits) of the Tree is equated with an initiatic (or
> counter-initiatic) organization.
So? And when is Waite alleged to have made this diagram?
> Near the top the GD merges with the Frankist Theodore Reuss's
> Order of the Illuminati (popularized by star Reuss pupil,
> Alistair Cwowley, as the OTO).
Your spelling and your facts seem a little shaky.
How does any of this substantiate your claims about Waite
being a Satanist, or stealing Yeats' Tarot?
Be specific.
> Why, with evidence like this before his eyes---
What evidence are you talking about?
> , Gilbert went on to publish some fifteen
> further works which feature Waite as a lovable Christian mystic
> is beyond my provenance.
Or providence.
But, why don't you just ask Gilbert, as I'm asking you, why
he thinks what he does?
By not bothering to do so, as it appears you haven't,
you give the impression his recalcitrance with respect
to your claims is a "mystery", when it may be based
on the simple fact he doesn't find your argument
compelling, or perhaps even coherently articulated.
> > 3. Since Waite and Yeats were taught the same symbolic
> > system of Tarot, in the Golden Dawn, why is it necessary
> > that a "theft" be employed to accomplish a similarity?
> But that's just it, they didn't! Everybody has had it wrong.
Perhaps "they" do. But there are other possibilities.
> Both the white and the black organizations involved---
What "white" and "black" organizations?
Involved in what?
> preceeded the GD. Many members of the older organizations---
What older organizations?
Again, what are you trying to say here?
> joined the GD later or first joined the GD and then joined
> the more closed organizations like white Sothes(SOS) and
> black Some (pronounced So-Mee,the third and fifth notes
> of the scale).
And are these supposed to be Satanic organizations?
> I'll be back to you on a new thread preferably in another
> form. People here don't care.
Well, "people" can do what they want. I'm talking to you.
Tom Reedy
>
<snip>
> Near the top the GD merges with the Frankist Theodore
Reuss's
> Order of the Illuminati (popularized by star Reuss
pupil,
> Alistair Cwowley, as the OTO).
I believe Cwowley was Fudd's pupil, not Reuss'.
TR
Roger Nyle Parisious
> Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
>
> > "J. Karlin" <j...@jktarotX.com> wrote in message news:<3D9ED69E...@jktarotX.com>...
> > > Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
>
> > > > His [Yeats'] primary attraction was, however,Tarot cards. His own
> > > > projected pack was largely stolen by the Satanist Arthur Edward
> > > > Waite---
>
> > > Over the years I've seen a number of people make reference to
> > > this claim of yours, although they seldom put it as succinctly
> > > and melodramatically as you have just done.
>
> > I was being literal and succinct, not melodramatic, at least less
> > melodramatic than what actually happened. Like the Anastasia or Hiss
> > cases or the Shakespeare case (which is why I slipped it in here to my
> > host Peter Farey's dismay), the Yeats-Tarot story is really one where
> > no novelist could invent a more incredible group of literate
> > characters or write better dialogue for them than they supplied for
> > themselves.
>
> > > Some questions:
>
> > > 1. If Yeats was sufficiently attracted to Tarot cards to
> > > "project" one, and if, as you claim, Waite largely stole
> > > Yeats' project, why didn't Yeats do something about this
> > > theft, or at least say something, even something veiled
> > > and poetic, about what would seem to have been an
> > > outrageous act on Waite's part?
>
> > (l) He did. A long series of Yeats poems,plays, and prose texts are
> > coded, including the entire text of "A Vision-A".
>
> So you're saying that Yeats accuses Waite of having stolen
> his Tarot designs in a coded prose text written sixteen years
> after the alleged theft? Not in a letter, not in a plain
> charge to the effect Waite was a plagiarist and thief?
Snip
> RNP
> > These are usually quick ( often marginal) anagrams in response
> > to much longer attacks that were launched by Waite, Machen, Marcus
> > Blackden, and three or four others, many years earlier.
>
> So, you're saying all of these people[two people] attacked Yeats in some
> "much longer" form and fashion, although what exactly is meant
> by this with respect to Waite especially you did not say, and
> then Yeats replied back with anagrams?
RNP
If you knew anything about the history of British occcultism
between l890 and l940 you would know that Blackden was for many years
one of Waite's closest associates. If you knew anything of English
literature between l890 and l940 you would know that Waite and Machen
were an inseperable team. When you have obtained enough elementary
knowledge of Waite's life and occult dealings to particularize come
back. But not before. Just to make your task a little easier,Blackden
published exactly one book.Machen and Waite published one book
together.You can see it at the Warberg Institute where my copy was
made.
>
> Now, just to clarify things for me, what kind of attacks are
> you claiming Waite launched against Yeats? Or are you calling
> the alleged Tarot theft the attack?
RNP
As should be obvious in context(perhaps one of your Tarot readings
is in order) this was not a fight between two men but between two
organizations,specifically Sothes and Some.Some's roots go back to the
Sabbataite heresy of l666 at Smyrna and but included a line of German
Frankists.I have not traced the term So-me earlier than the second
half of the nineteenth century but Waite sometimes applies it to
things which preceeded Sabbatai Zevi.Sothes was post l850 in its
present form.But it would have certainly have claimed a much older
origin for its parent organization to which Yeats and several well
known Celtic academics belonged.When you have done your homework on
the first two organizations correctly come back and we will discuss
the third, privately.
>
> > Yeats was too great an artist to turn propagandist.
>
> The question is whether such a great artist would care
> if he were called a "propagandist" if the point was to
> defend his work against theft by another. And I don't
> know of anything that suggests Yeats would have resorted
> to mere anagrams, published years after an injury, to
> undo a literary and ethical injustice of the nature
> you're claiming. That just doesn't make much sense.
RNP
Waite spoke from a collectivity.He was always an organization
man."Our name is legion for we are many." Yeats operated more
independently but he had joined Sothis and had a very close brush with
Some,proably at Salisbury ,Pembrokeshire,in the Spring to Summer of
l887.After that he specialized in GD until he bedded Florence Farr
very shortly after being rejected by Maud Gonne in l903.Yeats put a
lot into Sothis but it was never his show.However, much he poured in
as the High Priestess's live-in it was no longer his to do with as he
wished.That was the whole point of doing the later automatic writing
which began in l917. It started coincidentally with the death of
Florence Farr and enabled him to establish his copyright on his own
material by recasting it as a recent occult discovery and publishing
only after he had broken all known group links.It took him until the
latter 20's to honorably burn certain bridges.
>
> Neither does it make sense that Pam Smith would have
> participated in this conspiracy, for it would have
> had to have been a conspiracy, and so you are also
> accusing Waite's artist of theft as well.
This is the same tack Waite took when J.Brodie-Innes publically
accused him of the theft in February,l920."Pamela Coleman is still
alive." Yes,and she lived until the l950's. I knew three of her
friends well and two close second hand sources.No one ever heard of
her after l917.She only held one exhibition after the publication of
that accursed pack and quicklly embraced strict Roman Catholicism.She
was running for her soul.
> SNIP
> So you're claiming Waite was head of some Satanic organization?
RNP
I am stating he wanted to be the head. Never made it though.He
wasn't up to ritual murder.
>
> What was the name of this Satanic organization?
RNP
For the last time,SOME.You almost got it.
>
>.
>>
> > No English writer before Michael Dummett (mid-l980's) took note
> > that these publications existed.
>
> This is all very vague. Please specify.
RNP
It's all very specific. Read the references Dummett and I gave
you.You do not get to pass Goal before then.
>
Bob Grumman
Karlin. But I must say that you seem to respond to him very much as you
have responded to Tom Reedy: by ignoring direct questions, going off on
tangents, and accusing your questioner of being ignorant of essential
matters.
I honestly once thought you were less of a nut than the other Roger, but I'm
afraid I don't, anymore.
--Bob G.
"Roger Nyle Parisious" <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a3cc4070.02101...@posting.google.com...
Roger Nyle Parisious
> Roger, I haven't the slightest interest in who's right between you and J.
> Karlin. But I must say that you seem to respond to him very much as you
> have responded to Tom Reedy: by ignoring direct questions, going off on
> tangents, and accusing your questioner of being ignorant of essential
> matters.
>
> I honestly once thought you were less of a nut than the other Roger, but I'm
> afraid I don't, anymore.
>
> --Bob G.
One thing at a time, BG. We are getting a bit tetchy lately. Sort
of going off on tangents now and again.It is not a question of who
is right it is a matter of what has been said by a would be
challenger.
Now "He then said, She then said" contests are rarely rewarding
especially when they become three way contests like "He said,she said,
Madame Mao Tse Dung then said," contests.They are the kind of things
which invariably end up when deliberately used as shyster legal
techniques in ,at best,hung juries or cases which get reversed three
times in appeals courts and then, as confusion is thrice compounded,
end up the fourth time around in yet another hung jury.
There seem to be several curbstone shysters hanging around HLAS.
From the date of your communication I assume you are referring to
Tom's AND yours recent Locrine communications which the readership can
readily locate on Google.In these communications you began by
admitting that you were ignorant of the subject under discussion.I
found this astonishing as "Locrine" is the first dramatic piece to
ever bear the initials "W.S.".It is published by one of Shakespeare's
most prolific printers and/or publishers,Thomas Creede. It eventually
showed up in a folio.It has been the subject of six American Ph. D.
thesis at last count. You have been writing for years about the
alleged presumption of names and initials on title pages in respect to
Shakespeare and you had never
>heard of the first of the entire lot.
You were further unaware of the extensive literature relating to
Sir George Buc's annotations on the title page of said "Locrine" in
which he identifies Sir Charles Tilney as the author of the play and
himself as the maker of the dumb shows which he still has.The
"corrector" of this manuscript, which Buc regards as dishonorably
obtained ,is stigmatized as "some felon".Greg amended to "fellow"
which is at best a secondary reading and on which same he has been far
from universally followed on paleographical grounds.TCR than
intervened said it was my word against Greg and you again affirming
that you knew nothing about "Locrine" called yours truly very
uncomplementary names and terminated on the basis of the
pseudo-information provided by Reedy who either knew little more of
the subject than yourself or deliberately suppressed a nearly century
long discussion in the interests of scoring a very sleazy quick point.
You were not accused of ignorance ;the pair of you were accurately
described as ignorant of the subject you were discussing.
If the Buc memorandum is genuine, (and this is far more likely ,
most handwriting attributions are ,than that Hand D is William
Shakspere's), someone with the initials W.S.,whom many critics ,both
Strat and anti-Strat,believe to be William Shakspere of Stratford
began his career in dramatic print as the unauthorized reviser of two
anonymous members of the aristocracy. In fact, the "Locrine" quarto is
only one of two known Shakespearean cases(LLL being the other) where
a putative author is contemporaneously held to have intervened in the
published text.And in one of these a pair of aristocratic amateurs
were certainly concealed behind the psedononymous front man.
The case of Mr.Karlin,while of no real interest on this web site, is
actually more serious.Mr.Karlin has his own website devoted to Tarot
cards. He has published a translation from the eighteenth century
French at forty dollars.He sent in what appeared to be a serious
request for information and I answered him at great length with a
concise conspectus of a thesis on which I have spent over thirty
years,interviewed dozens of Yeats's and his artist Pamela Coleman
Smith's contemporaries,and worked with many thousands of pages of
manuscript and annotated materials.I gave him nearly a dozen rare
printed references and related them, when possible,to readily
accessable printed sources.I,in fact,gave two references which I have
never given publically before. I assumed that Mr.Karlin had at least
some(got to watch that word)knowledge of the evolution of Tarot
thought and with an hour's work a day over a week's time he could
assimilate my materials with his own sources and would then return to
participate in a mutually profitable exchange of thought.It had
already been specified to Mr. Karlin that this discussion was to be a
matter of exchange and/or instruction, not debate.
Mr.Karlin returned without having consulted one of the many leads I
offered him at considerable personal trouble.He then angrily demanded
all manner of additional information which he was prepared to fight in
advance.Vaillant,the name most under discussion between Karlin and
myself, was the first published Tarot theorist after Etteilla and
Court Court de Gebelin. His works are extremely difficult to locate.I
will no more spend anytime telling Karlin(who is a professed Tarot
expert) who Vaillant was than I will discuss with him who Arthur
Machan or Marcus Blackden were in relation to Waite and Yeats.
If someone comes on here and wants to know who Ben Jonson was and
did he know Shakespeare? We say good luck,kid, and refer him to an
appropriate source.See you later. If he's back two days later,hasn't
read his first source , wants twenty-five more sources and is prepared
to fight each of his informants on Shakespeare every inch of the way,
he will be sent ,upon his way mercifully.Karlin has not been
dismissed.He has been given additional references which he must seek
out himself.There is only one printed Blackden book in the world.If
Mr.Karlin cares to find it out,he will note an immediate typographical
peculiarity which links it typograhhically to two bibliographical
references I have already given him,Waite's "Hidden Church of the Holy
Graal" and a striking chronological diagram in Yeats's "A Vision-A".If
he notices this typographicall peculiarity, to take only one of many
possible instances,we will have something further to talk
about,otherwise not.
Mr.Karlin also seems to have a hangup about Satanism. It is
unfortunately getting to be a standard prop in modern occultism and
comparative religion,as unfortunate as abortion, but both are being
talked about these days.I gave him the two earliest texts relevent to
Tarot cards and two modern intermediate sources on Satanism,Scholem
and Dummett, which ever he finds easier.The discussion is now closed
until he does some work.
Which brings us back to BG and his complaint about my habit of
accusing my opponents of ignorance,say, I have treated Karlin as I
have treated Reedy in accusing both of ignorance.Wrong,I have
specified the areas in which Karlin and Reedy display ignorance, and
,at considerable effort,have devoted myself to preparing a projected
research course for Karlin.In the event Karlin cares enough to find
his Vaillant he can still come back and say I don't see any relation
between Vaillant,Papus, and Waite's edition of Papus, and what kind of
a blank would send me on a fool's chase like that?In TR's case he will
say you blank, blank,blank first and try to mug me for my hard earned
references.No soap.
BG has been doing a lot of believing rather than thinking lately.
He wouldn't sound off like this,I believe, if we were discussing New
Criticism.
Discussion closed via anything.
RNP
Bob Grumman
> From the date of your communication I assume you are referring to
> Tom's AND yours recent Locrine communications which the readership can
> readily locate on Google.In these communications you began by
> admitting that you were ignorant of the subject under discussion.
Hold it, there, Roger: when I say I am ignorant of something, I don't
necessarily mean WHOLLY ignorant. Secondly, what difference does it make
what you think you know, and what you think I know, etc.?
> I found this astonishing as "Locrine" is the first dramatic piece to
> ever bear the initials "W.S.".It is published by one of Shakespeare's
> most prolific printers and/or publishers,Thomas Creede. It eventually
> showed up in a folio.It has been the subject of six American Ph. D.
> thesis at last count. You have been writing for years about the
> alleged presumption of names and initials on title pages in respect to
> Shakespeare and you had never
> >heard of the first of the entire lot.
Blah blah blah. I heard about it and discussed it against the wack, Dooley.
Some of the details concerning it, such as its being the first W.S.
manuscript, if it is, I was unaware of.
> You were further unaware of the extensive literature relating to
> Sir George Buc's annotations on the title page of said "Locrine" in
> which he identifies Sir Charles Tilney as the author of the play and
> himself as the maker of the dumb shows which he still has.
So what? And I have never claimed to be a scholar in this area. Just a
layman with common sense, and some experience in interpreting texts.
And I believe I did hear or read about all that you mention, but dismissed
it as nonsense, and forgot about it.
snip.
I left the discussion after claiming that you never answered its main
question, which was when was the seventh signature discovered. You had said
you would provide documentary evidence that some Baconian knew about it
before the Folger announced it but you never did (that I know of), and now
seem likely never to even mention the subject.
snip of material about Roger's problems with Karlin.
> BG has been doing a lot of believing rather than thinking lately.
> He wouldn't sound off like this,I believe, if we were discussing New
> Criticism.
> Discussion closed via anything.
>
> RNP
Of course, I'd sound off against you if you discussed new criticism the way
you seem to discuss everything else: by belittling your opponents, going off
on tangents, and ignoring your opponents' points--and rarely, if ever,
making any attempt to simplify the discussion the way I have here.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
Now we know what the sound of one dewlap flapping is.
TR
J. Karlin
> One thing at a time, BG. We are getting a bit tetchy lately. Sort
> of going off on tangents now and again. It is not a question of who
> is right---
Actually, that is precisely what this is about, or more
precisely it is about whether or not your claims regarding
A. E. Waite's alleged theft of Yeats' Tarot are correct,
and whether or not you can substantiate those claims.
A related issue is whether or not your characterization
of Waite as a "Satanist" has any factual basis.
> it is a matter of what has been said by a would be
> challenger.
Your "challenger" in this case has affirmed very little,
so far. He has mainly up to this point asked you questions.
> Now "He then said, She then said" contests are rarely rewarding---
But that isn't, so far, the nature of this "contest".
I asked---you answered vaguely---I asked again---you answered
vaguely again and claimed I was too ignorant to be allowed
access to your secret interpretation of whatever facts you
may possess.
That's where we are so far.
A person interested in telling the truth would be interested
in getting further along than that.
At no point did I say what I know, or didn't know, or what
sources I had read, or hadn't read. I simply asked you
to support your very questionable claims about A. E.
Waite and W. B. Yeats. I wasn't asking you for your
estimate of what would be a proper education or
preparation for my being thought worthy by you of
asking you a question---and more than that, getting
a straight answer from you.
> You were not accused of ignorance ;the pair of you were accurately
> described as ignorant of the subject you were discussing.
But that's a tactic, not an argument, and it is a tactic often
used by people who don't actually have any evidence to support
what is in fact only a "faith" of theirs, an affirmation, a
questionable interpretation at best, and not a knowledge of
any facts.
To paraphrase and assist Waite, and to quote Mr. Karlin:
"Affirmations are not arguments."
And that goes for your affirmations as well.
> The case of Mr.Karlin, while of no real interest on this web site---
This isn't a web site. It's a newsgroup, a Usenet newsgroup.
I'm sure you can access it from a website, but that's merely
a portal to getting and posting here, not the "place" itself.
> , is actually more serious. Mr.Karlin has his own website devoted
> to Tarot cards.
That's true, and Mr. Karlin knows a great deal more about Tarot
than you.
That is why he is in a better position than most to be
able to knowledgeably question you about your claims.
And that is why, apparently, you need to quickly dismiss
him and his questions as being "unworthy".
And of course the REAL reason for that doesn't have anything
to do with Tarot, does it?
It is quite apparent you're concerned about any collateral
damage you may suffer here from certain deconstructive
inquiries.
> He has published a translation from the eighteenth century
> French at forty dollars.
He has actually published (and translated) a specific set
of 18th-century French texts, not "the eighteenth century
French"---whatever you think that's supposed to mean.
Specificity is not something you seem very fond of, either
in questions or in declarations of fact.
> He sent in what appeared to be a serious request for information---
Why do you think my request wasn't serious?
I told you the truth about my interests in questioning you.
Did you tell me and others here the truth? Are you doing
so now?
> and I answered him at great length---
But your answers were both vague and inconsistent with
the facts as I know them. In fact, your answers were
inconsistent with the claims of people with whom I've
spoken who say they've acquired their opinions about
this matter from personal conversations WITH YOU.
So, as you can see, there appears to be a mystery
here.
And I like mysteries, especially when they may involve
a person, such as yourself, who has perhaps pretended to
know than he actually does.
On the other hand, IF in fact you know something about
Tarot, something others have missed, I'm happy to learn
it from you. But you don't seem very interested in clearly
demonstrating that you have anything to teach.
> with a concise conspectus of a thesis on which I have spent
> over thirty years, interviewed dozens of Yeats's and his
> artist Pamela Coleman Smith's contemporaries---
And which one of these said anything like: "A. E. Waite
and Pam Smith knowingly stole the Tarot designs of
W. B. Yeats."?
That's a simple question.
And if you have a simple answer, or even a complex one,
you should have provided it. Instead you began posturing
about "rare texts" and your 30 years.
> , and worked with many thousands of pages of
> manuscript and annotated materials.
That's fine. But that in itself isn't convincing evidence
your claims are correct.
> I gave him nearly a dozen rare printed references---
But instead of doing that, why not point to specific
parts of these "rare printed references", specific
quotations, that you have determined are supportive
of your claims?
That's also simple enough to do, and you didn't do it.
Why not?
I could claim, for example, in response that I have a
"rare printed reference" that demonstrates your claim
is absolutely incorrect, in fact a statement by
W. B. Yeats to the effect that he STOLE everything
he ever wrote (or designed) about the occult from
A. E. Waite.
And you would, no doubt, want me not merely to name
this supposedly rare and nearly inaccessible text, but
also want me to quote to you the alleged statement by
Yeats that supposedly demonstrates what I'm claiming.
But, you don't appear to be similarly interested in
assisting others in understanding the credible nature
of YOUR claims. You seem more interested in protecting
a posture you've worked (you say) for thirty years to
construct and maintain.
One thing that is, I suspect, very similar in the natures of
many of those who study (or worship) the supposed secrets
of Shakespeare and his texts and those who study Tarot,
is that many people, involved in some scholarly (or
often pseudo-scholarly) way with Tarot, believe they
have stumbled onto some profound secret that everyone
else has missed. A truly bad sign with respect to the
credibility of these people's claims is when the
"discoverer" of the supposed secret, upon being asked to
specify why anyone else should be interested in it, replies
by noting his exclusive access to "rare texts" or his
exclusive ability to decipher (no doubt with divine
guidance) what those texts signify.
I'm sure the same problem occurs with respect to "expert
claims" in Shakespearean studies as well.
Indeed, I'm familiar with some of the details of one such
Shakespearean (or anti-Stratfordian) debate, and recognize in
some of its adherents the same sort of "myth-clinging"
resistance to credibly answering hard questions that one
finds in many groups of the Tarotic faithful.
I wouldn't be surprised to discover some x-overs in fact.
> and related them, when possible, to readily
> accessable printed sources.
In my other reply to you, I'll explain to you in detail
why your responses were insufficient.
However, below I'll talk about this with respect to your
erroneous claim about Vaillant's place and importance in
Tarot history.
> I, in fact, gave two references which I have
> never given publically before.
But no indication how these "references" supported your
claims.
> I assumed that Mr.Karlin had at least some (got to watch
> that word) knowledge of the evolution of Tarot
> thought---
You mean enough to share your opinion regarding what
the evolution means or how it took place?
It is always possible that I know more than you about
this. I'm sure you've considered that possibility.
Anyway, I find your claims, based on what I do know,
to be unlikely at best.
I am however perfectly willing to read any credible,
fact-based, arguments you wish to supply.
And I hope those will soon be forthcoming from you.
> and with an hour's work a day over a week's time he could
> assimilate my materials with his own sources and would then return to
> participate in a mutually profitable exchange of thought. It had
> already been specified to Mr. Karlin that this discussion was to be a
> matter of exchange and/or instruction, not debate.
Why should you, solely, be in charge of determining the nature
of the "exchange"?
You're making numerous public claims concerning the
honesty and integrity of people who, being conveniently
dead, can't be here to defend themselves against you.
From what I can tell, up till now, no one has publicly
challenged you on these claims.
Now your claims are being challenged.
You should look at that as an opportunity to demonstrate
that you are not merely slandering the memory of the people
you are accusing.
But you don't seem to see it that way.
> Mr.Karlin returned without having consulted one of the many leads I
> offered him---
Which one of the "leads" was I supposed to have consulted?
Please be specific.
Mr. Karlin found your replies unresponsive, vague, and
questionable.
So he asked you more questions in hopes you could provide
better, clearer, answers.
But, so far, that has not happened.
> at considerable personal trouble. He then angrily demanded
> all manner of additional information---
Where did I display "anger"?
In fact, I am not angry, just determined.
Would you like me to be angry?
> which he was prepared to fight in advance.
Again, in fact, all Mr. Karlin did was ask you some questions.
And your answers didn't make much sense to him.
So, he asked you more questions.
Then---well---it seems YOU got angry.
And now you're projecting your anger onto Mr. Karlin.
And that response of yours is also not a credible argument.
> Vaillant, the name most under discussion between Karlin and
> myself---
It is?
Actually, the names most under discussion are those of
A. E. Waite and W. B. Yeats---and Pam Smith of course.
Remember them?
> , was the first published Tarot theorist after Etteilla and
> Court Court de Gebelin.
OK, now you offer that as a plain statement of fact.
Good, we can do something with that statement. For example,
we can determine if that statement of yours is
true or not.
Now, if it isn't true, then what?
Will your whole theory---of whatever---collapse?
We'll see.
So, here are some more plain statements of facts:
1. Tarot was invented in Italy in the 15th century to play
card games. The occultist dogma associated with it was a
later addition, originating in the essays of two 18th-century
French writers, Antoine Court de Gébelin, and M. le Comte
de Mellet. The link in my sig is to my English translation
of these works.
2. Immediately following the publication (in 1781) of their
conjectures about Tarot, a kind of jack-of-all-swindles
named Alliette (who reversed his name to Etteilla) stole
some of their ideas, and mixed them with some other
impressive-sounding nonsense, and started peddling Tarot
"initiations" to French victims. Etteilla's remarks
about Tarot, however silly, nevertheless obtained
much currency in later Tarot dogma.
3. Note that here is where, if Roger Nyle Parisious is
correct in what he says about the sequence of published
development of Tarot occultism, we should find the
name of Jean-Alexandre Vaillant---recalling Parisious
has claimed authoritatively that Vaillant "was the first
published Tarot theorist after Etteilla and Court Court
[sic] de Gebelin." However, as noted in Dummett's "The Game
of Tarot", a reference Parisious hints he has read,
Dummett says the next pertinent name in the chain of
this evolution is in fact that of Eliphas Lévi, NOT
Vaillant. In fact Dummett writes (on page 142 of "The
Game of Tarot") with respect to Vaillant having possibly
read Eliphas Levi's remarks about Tarot BEFORE writing
his own:
"A few indications raise the question whether he [Vaillant]
has not also seen Eliphas Lévi's "Dogme de la haute magie",
or even his "Rituel"; but there is no ground for certainty
about this."
Nevertheless, there could be no ground for any speculation
whatsoever about "this" if in fact Lévi's Tarot ideas had not
been published BEFORE those of Vaillant.
And indeed that is the case, Vaillant's "Les Romes", in which
he discusses the alleged relationship of Gypsies to Tarot,
was published in 1857, several years after Lévi's much
more influential works on the subject, noted above
in the Dummett quotation.
4. Finally, on this point of Dummett supposedly revealing
Vaillant's great "Satanic" link to just about everything
else Satanic that has ever happened since, including some
vague link to A. E. Waite, Dummett in the 1980 "Game of Tarot"
had almost nothing to say about this at all, noting with
respect to an 1851 Vaillant work (NOT on Tarot, but on
something Vaillant called the "Bible of Bohemian [i.e.,
Gypsy] Science"):
"I have not seen it, but its occultist character cannot
be in doubt: R. Yves-Plessis, in his bibliography
of French writings on magic, comments that the booklet
is interesting for the Satanist opinions of the author
and the notes relating to the cult of Satan."
Later, in "The Wicked Pack of Cards", Dummett, having
by then read the booklet and the "Satanic" text in
question, summed it up in this fashion:
"The message in the booklet is in part a Satanist one,
in the sense that it teaches that the Jews, followed
by the Christians, have perverted the Indian deity
Sat-an into an image of evil, whereas in fact he
'is the Spirit who is self-sufficient', and this
spirit is God."
This dogma sounds more gnostic than strictly
Satanic, which is why Dummett qualifies his statement
about the text's nature.
That's it, no direct claim by Dummett that Vaillant WAS
in fact a Satanist, nor any that his beliefs inspired
later occultists in this way, especially not A. E.
Waite or W. B. Yeats.
Dummett remarks about Waite, noting as others have
his difference of feeling from W. B. Yeats on how
to advance matters in the Golden Dawn, that he (Waite)
favored a "Christian direction", hardly what one
would expect from a supposed Satanist, or even a
worshipper of Sat-an.
> His works are extremely difficult to locate. I
> will no more spend anytime telling Karlin (who is a
> professed Tarot expert) who Vaillant was than I
> will discuss with him who Arthur Machan or Marcus Blackden
> were in relation to Waite and Yeats.
I didn't ask you to tell me who Vaillant was, just how
what he wrote supported your claims. In fact, I asked
you to identify which of Vaillant's books you were
talking about. You didn't answer my question.
And, as we see, Dummett, who does bother to provide
specific quotations (and sometimes even thoughtful
interpretations of the meanings of facts), does not reach
the same conclusion as do you regarding the nature and
influence of Vaillant's "Satanist" remarks.
> If someone comes on here and wants to know who Ben
> Jonson was and did he know Shakespeare? We say good luck
> kid---
"we"?---or you?
> Karlin has not been dismissed.
Oh good.
You haven't been dismissed either.
So don't go anywhere.
> He has been given additional references---
But not any indication of specifics regarding these.
> There is only one printed Blackden book in the world.
And does it say: "A. E. Waite worships Sat-an."?
Or does it say: "A. E. Waite stole Yeats' Tarot."?
> If Mr.Karlin cares to find it out---
Find out what?
You are claiming vague things vaguely.
My interest is in Tarot, and the truth about it.
That is my only interest in pursuing your claims.
If the answers lie somewhere buried in the Encyclopedia
Britannica, telling me to read the whole bloody thing
is not providing me with a useful or pertinent reference,
nor is that a reference which supports your claims.
> Mr.Karlin also seems to have a hangup about Satanism.
Why do you think that?
> It is unfortunately getting to be a standard prop in modern
> occultism and comparative religion, as unfortunate as abortion---
So you're saying abortion is Satanic, or occultist?
Or what is your point?
> but both are being talked about these days.
The question is what are you talking about, and
what SPECIFIC and credible fact-based evidence can
you provide to support your claims.
> I gave him the two earliest texts relevent to
> Tarot cards and two modern intermediate sources on Satanism, Scholem
> and Dummett, which ever he finds easier. The discussion is now closed
> until he does some work.
Again, you are not solely in charge of saying when things are
closed.
> Which brings us back to BG and his complaint about my habit of
> accusing my opponents of ignorance---
Accusing people of ignorance is one thing. Demonstrating they
are in fact ignorant by your own demonstrations of knowledge
and facts is quite a different thing, and a thing regarding
your claims about Tarot you've so far failed to accomplish.
See you in my other reply to you---whether or not you're
brave enough to show up to read and reply to it.
J. Karlin
> > > > Some questions:
> > > > 1. If Yeats was sufficiently attracted to Tarot cards to
> > > > "project" one, and if, as you claim, Waite largely stole
> > > > Yeats' project, why didn't Yeats do something about this
> > > > theft, or at least say something, even something veiled
> > > > and poetic, about what would seem to have been an
> > > > outrageous act on Waite's part?
> > > (l) He did. A long series of Yeats poems,plays, and prose texts are
> > > coded, including the entire text of "A Vision-A".
> > So you're saying that Yeats accuses Waite of having stolen
> > his Tarot designs in a coded prose text written sixteen years
> > after the alleged theft? Not in a letter, not in a plain
> > charge to the effect Waite was a plagiarist and thief?
> Snip
You didn't answer those questions. Why not?
> > > These are usually quick ( often marginal) anagrams in response
> > > to much longer attacks that were launched by Waite, Machen, Marcus
> > > Blackden, and three or four others, many years earlier.
> > So, you're saying all of these people [two people] attacked Yeats---
Now, that's just plainly dishonest of you, isn't it?
You've included "two people" into my statement when neither
I, nor you, said there were two people.
YOU said Yeats was responding to "much longer attacks that were
launched by":
1. Waite
2. Machen
3. Marcus Blackden
4. and three of four others
So, let's see, that adds up to six or seven people, according
to you, NOT TWO.
Why did you change my text?
Be very specific.
> > in some "much longer" form and fashion, although what exactly is meant
> > by this with respect to Waite especially you did not say, and
> > then Yeats replied back with anagrams?
> RNP
> If you knew anything about the history of British occcultism---
I didn't ask you to estimate what I knew about this history
of British occultism.
I asked you what you were saying, to make sure I understood
you.
Your reply should have either been "yes", or if you thought
I had misunderstood you, your reply, if your intent was
to be helpful, would have sought to clarify your answer
for me.
But you didn't do that.
Why not?
> between l890 and l940 you would know that Blackden was for many years
> one of Waite's closest associates.
What has that got to do with my asking you if I had
correctly understood (or summarized) what you were attempting
to claim?
> If you knew anything of English literature between l890 and l940
> you would know that Waite and Machen were an inseperable team.
Again, how is this posturing of yours relevant to what I asked you?
> When you have obtained enough elementary knowledge of Waite's
> life and occult dealings to particularize come back. But not before.
Fortunately I don't take orders from you.
You responded to my questions not by answering them, but
with impertinence, arrogance, and what appears to be fear.
Why is that?
> Just to make your task a little easier---
My task would have been made easier if you had not so
quickly abandoned explaining YOUR claims, to suddenly
volunteer to characterize your views of my task.
I know what my task here is. And I know how best
to go about it.
And I know the difference between willing interest in
answering questions, and a desperate evasion from doing
so.
Your behavior fits the latter characterization.
> , Blackden published exactly one book.
So?
> Machen and Waite published one book together. You can see it at
> the Warberg Institute where my copy was made.
And what was the name of this book? And what relevance would
it have for one interested in determining the truth of
your claims about Waite's alleged theft of Yeats' Tarot?
> > Now, just to clarify things for me, what kind of attacks are
> > you claiming Waite launched against Yeats? Or are you calling
> > the alleged Tarot theft the attack?
> RNP
> As should be obvious in context
But it wasn't. So telling me what in your estimate SHOULD
BE so isn't helpful, is it?
> (perhaps one of your Tarot readings is in order)---
Perhaps you could stop posturing and answer my questions.
Any chance of that?
> this was not a fight between two men but between two
> organizations---
You said nothing before about "attacks" and "responses"
being between organizations, but between individuals.
Are you now changing your story, as you changed my text?
> specifically Sothes and Some.
And what relevance do these names have to your claims?
Don't tell me to read something. Answer my questions.
> Some's roots go back to the Sabbataite heresy of l666---
And that's why Waite stole Yeats' Tarot?
That's sounds like a stretch, don't you think?
> at Smyrna and but included a line of German
> Frankists.I have not traced the term So-me earlier than the second
> half of the nineteenth century but Waite sometimes applies it to
> things which preceeded Sabbatai Zevi. Sothes was post l850 in its
> present form. But it would have certainly have claimed a much older
> origin for its parent organization to which Yeats and several well
> known Celtic academics belonged. When you have done your homework on
> the first two organizations correctly come back and we will discuss
> the third, privately.
What relevance does any of this have to your claims?
Again, no "references", answer my question.
And why do we have discuss any of this privately?
Are you afraid of losing something in public?
> > > Yeats was too great an artist to turn propagandist.
> > The question is whether such a great artist would care
> > if he were called a "propagandist" if the point was to
> > defend his work against theft by another. And I don't
> > know of anything that suggests Yeats would have resorted
> > to mere anagrams, published years after an injury, to
> > undo a literary and ethical injustice of the nature
> > you're claiming. That just doesn't make much sense.
> RNP
> Waite spoke from a collectivity.
When? Where? What specifically are you talking about here?
> He was always an organization man."Our name is legion for we are
> many."
Yes, that's from Mark---the correct KJV quote is "My name is Legion:
for we are many."
So?
> Yeats operated more independently---
When? Where? With respect to what?
> but he had joined Sothis and had a very close brush with
> Some, proably at Salisbury, Pembrokeshire, in the Spring to
> Summer of l887. After that he specialized in GD until he bedded
> Florence Farr very shortly after being rejected by Maud Gonne in
> l903. Yeats put a lot into Sothis but it was never his show.
> However, much he poured in as the High Priestess's live-in
> it was no longer his to do with as he wished.
What wasn't his to do with as he wished? If something
wasn't his to do with as he wished then how would it
have been his to be stolen from him?
> That was the whole point of doing the later automatic writing
> which began in l917.
What was the whole point of it?
> It started coincidentally with the death of
> Florence Farr and enabled him to establish his copyright on his own
> material---
His own "automatically written" material. And what relevance does
this have to your claims that Waite (and Smith) stole Yeats'
Tarot?
> by recasting it as a recent occult discovery and publishing
> only after he had broken all known group links. It took him
> until the latter 20's to honorably burn certain bridges.
What the hell would honor have to do with NOT charging a thief
with theft? Unless there was no theft.
> > Neither does it make sense that Pam Smith would have
> > participated in this conspiracy, for it would have
> > had to have been a conspiracy, and so you are also
> > accusing Waite's artist of theft as well.
> This is the same tack Waite took when J. Brodie-Innes publically
> accused him of the theft in February, l920.
And where did J. Brodie-Innes do this? In a pub? In a
letter to Waite? In another anagram?
Be specific.
> "Pamela Coleman is still alive." Yes, and she lived until
> the l950's.
But that wasn't 1920, was it?
> I knew three of her friends well and two close second hand
> sources.
OK, and what did they have to say about your allegations
against her?
> No one ever heard of her after l917.
Obviously someone must have heard of her after then if she
survived into the 1950s.
> She only held one exhibition after the publication of
> that accursed pack---
And when and where was that exhibition?
> and quicklly embraced strict Roman
> Catholicism. She was running for her soul.
So you interpret her interest in Catholicism, about which
she's alleged to have said "it's such fun!", to be
rooted in some guilt she was feeling about helping
Waite to steal Yeat's Tarot, which wasn't his Tarot
anyway because it was a battle between organizations,
not men??
Is that what you're saying?
Or what exactly?
Remember I asked you: What specific factual evidence can
you present that anything you're claiming here actually
took place?
Do you understand what FACTual evidence is, or might be?
> > So you're claiming Waite was head of some Satanic organization?
> RNP
> I am stating he wanted to be the head.
And you base that charge on what specific factual evidence?
> Never made it though. He wasn't up to ritual murder.
What organization to which Waite belonged required him
to be up to ritual murder? You mean this one here:
> > What was the name of this Satanic organization?
> RNP
> For the last time, SOME. You almost got it.
So, Waite belonged to something called SOME, or So-me, or
something, and in this organization he was a Satanist, but
not good enough to be head of it because he wouldn't do
the ritual murder thing, even though you compared Waite
to Joseph Stalin, who also wasn't a Satanist.
Is that all correct?
> > > No English writer before Michael Dummett (mid-l980's) took note
> > > that these publications existed.
> > This is all very vague. Please specify.
>
> RNP
>
> It's all very specific.
No, specific is where you behave like Dummett to the extent of
providing specific names of books and quoting specific pertinent
texts and even explaining what, in your view, is the relevance
of these quoted texts, something I've been asking you to do
over and over again, and something you've refused to do.
For example---
I asked you what book of Vaillant's you were talking
about.
You did not answer.
I asked you with respect to your "It is only too apparent why"
comment about Waite's Tarot works, what specifically you
were claiming.
You did not answer.
I asked you what "short Tarot thread with Christian" you
were talking about.
You did not answer.
I asked you why you didn't talk to Gilbert to ask him why
he did not agree with your opinion of Waite as a Satanist.
You did not answer.
I asked you repeatedly to explain to me in specific terms
how the many vague and seemingly irrelevant things you were
saying served to substantiate your claims about Waite.
You did not answer.
> Read the references Dummett and I gave you.
Well, I noted your confusion about this in my other post.
I'm enjoying our "exchange" so far.
How about you?
Of course you said you weren't going to play with me anymore
<sniff, snuffle>, didn't you?
Tom Reedy
> Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
<snip>
> I asked---you answered vaguely---I asked again---you
answered
> vaguely again and claimed I was too ignorant to be
allowed
> access to your secret interpretation of whatever
facts you
> may possess.
Yep. That's Roger Nyle Parisious.
> That's where we are so far.
>
> A person interested in telling the truth would be
interested
> in getting further along than that.
But he's not interested in the truth; avoids it
consciously, as a matter of fact. What he is interested
in is being thought of as right.
<snip>
> It is quite apparent you're concerned about any
collateral
> damage you may suffer here from certain
deconstructive
> inquiries.
To be fair, I doubt that he could suffer any more
damage to his reputation than he already has.
<big snip>
> You are claiming vague things vaguely.
Yep. You've got him right down to the ground.
<snip>
> Accusing people of ignorance is one thing.
Demonstrating they
> are in fact ignorant by your own demonstrations of
knowledge
> and facts is quite a different thing, and a thing
regarding
> your claims about Tarot you've so far failed to
accomplish.
<snip>
He hasn't done too well with things Shakespearian,
either.
TR
Tom Reedy
> Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
>
<snip>
> Why did you change my text?
I doubt he can answer that.
<snip>
> I asked you what you were saying, to make sure I
understood
> you.
What he says changes by the minute, as you are
discovering.
<snip>
> You responded to my questions not by answering them,
but
> with impertinence, arrogance, and what appears to be
fear.
>
> Why is that?
I honestly don't believe he's aware of it. I think he
actually believes he is winning whatever "argument" he
thinks he's participating in.
> > Just to make your task a little easier---
>
> My task would have been made easier if you had not so
> quickly abandoned explaining YOUR claims, to suddenly
> volunteer to characterize your views of my task.
>
> I know what my task here is. And I know how best
> to go about it.
>
> And I know the difference between willing interest in
> answering questions, and a desperate evasion from
doing
> so.
>
> Your behavior fits the latter characterization.
To be fair, I really don't believe the man is aware of
what he writes. He seems to meander in and out of
consciousness, and his prose follows along. Trying to
make sense of a post by him is like trying to decode a
word association test of an amnesiac.
I wish you luck in getting a straight answer from him
without all the hand-waving and dust-throwing, which is
indicative of his mental state, I believe. I never
could get a straight-forward answer from him, and he
constantly threw in material that had me scratching my
head, the same way he's doing to you.
TR
Nicholas Whyte
> "J. Karlin" <j...@jktarotX.com> wrote in message
> news:3DAA0075...@jktarotX.com...
> > Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
>
> > That's where we are so far.
> >
> > A person interested in telling the truth would be
> interested
> > in getting further along than that.
>
> But he's not interested in the truth; avoids it
> consciously, as a matter of fact. What he is interested
> in is being thought of as right.
Indeed, in one of his exchanges with me he admitted that he is loath
to let the facts get in the way of a good story. Problem is, what he
thinks of as a good story leaves most of us puzzled and/or bored.
Nicholas
Roger Nyle Parisious
> snip to:
>
> > From the date of your communication I assume you are referring to
> > Tom's AND yours recent Locrine communications which the readership can
> > readily locate on Google.In these communications you began by
> > admitting that you were ignorant of the subject under discussion.
>
> Hold it, there, Roger: when I say I am ignorant of something, I don't
> necessarily mean WHOLLY ignorant.
WHOLLY is your word not mine. Still you admit "ignorant" in your
case could
imply wholly ignorant. Don't ask the readership to second guess you.
Secondly, what difference does it make
> what you think you know, and what you think I know, etc.?
RNP.
There you are going on again."You think you know what I know,
blah,blah". It is general knowledge what part of your thought which
you have unfortunately subscribed in print. You may occasionally be
held accountable to those very words by people without the slightest
further interest in your thought.
> RNP
> > I found this astonishing as "Locrine" is the first dramatic piece to
> > ever bear the initials "W.S.".It is published by one of Shakespeare's
> > most prolific printers and/or publishers,Thomas Creede. It eventually
> > showed up in a folio.It has been the subject of six American Ph. D.
> > thesis at last count. You have been writing for years about the
> > alleged presumption of names and initials on title pages in respect to
> > Shakespeare and you had never
> > >heard of the first of the entire lot.
> BG
> Blah blah blah. I heard about it
After years of faking people with your ill founded argument about
title pages bearing the name or initials of William Shakespeare or
Shakspere,you finally "heard "about the first probable title page
bearing the Shakspere initials.Well, at least you do not claim to have
READ anything about it before mouthing off with Pat.
and discussed it against the wack, Dooley.
> Some of the details concerning it, such as its being the first W.S.
> manuscript, if it is, I was unaware of.
RNP
The date of the publication is l595.That is some time before
LLL.There are no intervening dates to confuse you.Like a lot of
non-existent things which you are now managing to read into the last
communication,you are inventing the reference to the first W. S.
MANUSCRIPT.
>
> > You were further unaware of the extensive literature relating to
> > Sir George Buc's annotations on the title page of said "Locrine" in
> > which he identifies Sir Charles Tilney as the author of the play and
> > himself as the maker of the dumb shows which he still has.
>
> So what? And["So what? And." There seems something lacking in your thought.RNP] I have never claimed to be a scholar in this area.
RNP
This area happens to be the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon,the
subject to which this website is primarily devoted.Most people here
have never believed that you were a scholar in this area but they will
be less harsh with you now that you have candidly admitted the fact.
Just a
> layman with common sense, and some experience in interpreting texts.
> And I believe I did hear or read about all that you mention, but dismissed
> it as nonsense, and forgot about it.
RNP
Such are the vagaries of Neo-Stratfordianism.The future Master of
the Revels leaves a written warning on the first known W. S.title page
about a felon bearing the initials W.S. who is ripping off members of
the aristocracy,himself included.So,BG forgets about the Master of the
Revels and goes to bat for some really first class authorities like TR
whose texts his common sense is readily capable of understanding.
>
> snip.[check BG's snips. This current non-debate started when it was pointed out that BG was often snipping Toby when Toby him gave well deserved shafts.BG is a minimalist poet and is well on his way to becoming a minimalist critic.]
>
> I left the discussion[note shiftRNP] after claiming that you never answered its main
> question[more he said Madane Mao Tse Dung said junk], which was when was the seventh signature discovered. You had said
> you would provide documentary evidence that some Baconian knew about it
> before the Folger announced it but you never did (that I know of), and now
> seem likely never to even mention the subject.
>
> snip of material about Roger's problems with Karlin.[No problem with
Karlin;he's just another evil Reedy clone.Lots of mouth, no
substance.BG claimed I was mistreating Karlin and his "arguments",
which he compared to Reedy's. BG's right for once.I regarded Karlin as
exactly the same type of man as Reedy, but, as in the case of Reedy,I
resolved to treat him courteously until Mr. Karlin almost immediately
showed that[despite his not so artful questions] he understood only
too well the nature of the references which I gave him[as I suspected
his purpose in asking the questions] and has now chosen to go for
the heel. ]
> RNP
> > BG has been doing a lot of believing rather than thinking lately.
> > He wouldn't sound off like this,I believe, if we were discussing New
> > Criticism.
>
> > Discussion closed via anything.
> >
> > RNP
> BG
> Of course, I'd sound off against you if you discussed new criticism the way
> you seem to discuss everything else: by belittling your opponents,
RNP
How could I possibly belittle BG any further than he has admitted
to belittling George Buc?And thereby belittled his own capacity for
criticlly evaluating Shakespeare authorship evidence.Further I am not
and never will belittle BG or anyone else(not even the wretched
Reedy) in areas where he does not take overt steps to belittle
himself.Nor will I ever move from a particular to the general,
thereby accusing BG of seeming to discuss "everything else" in the
same vein as he is presently discussing the "Locrine" question.
BG
> going off on tangents, and ignoring your opponents' points--and rarely, if ever,
> making any attempt to simplify the discussion the way I have here.
>
> --Bob G.
I give the readership my assurance that I will never attempt to
simplify the discussion in the way BG has here.
RNP
PS. I regard this second communication as a fresh discussion on
BG's controversial methods, not a continuation of our last letter
which was concerned with a succinct demonstration of how BG's lack of
factual knowledge of both"Locrine" and nineteenth and early twentieth
century Tarot history had led him to misconstrue the nature of the
"debate " which was in fact concerned with the correction of
historical omissions and errors.
The new and specifically limited correspondence is again
terminated.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<9brq9.31154$OB5.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > "J. Karlin" <j...@jktarotX.com> wrote in message
> > news:3DAA0075...@jktarotX.com...
> > > Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
> > > That's where we are so far.
> > >
> > > A person interested in telling the truth would be
> interested
> > > in getting further along than that.
> >
> > But he's not interested in the truth; avoids it
> > consciously, as a matter of fact. What he is interested
> > in is being thought of as right.
>
> Indeed, in one of his exchanges with me he admitted that he is loath
> to let the facts get in the way of a good story. Problem is, what he
> thinks of as a good story leaves most of us puzzled and/or bored.
>
> Nicholas
I still owe you one on Bohemia to which I will be returning.And I
am quite sure you do not regard Dee and Kelly as good story
material.The children of the Cumberlands may honor us story tellers
longer than the children of Macedonia will honor the endless batches
of foreign imperialists who for two thousand years have endlessly
jockeyed with their lives.
No story telling for you, though you droned on here with several
thousand tedious words over two hundred irrelevent years of Bohemian
history.If it interested you good enough.
The only point at issue in that discussion was that the Western
Hapsburg coast was specifically available in l590-l595 to the Eastern
Hapsburgs the period under discussion,1590 more specifically. This was
the Bohemian year that concerned two Hermeticists who seem to have
attracted Shakespeare's attention according to Frances Yates and
others.There are a lot of wonderful things about Dyer,Dee, the
Winter's Tale,Hermeticism and Shakespeare that will leave you puzzled
and bored,Nicholas.But it is to be suspected that Shakespeare ,
Dee,probably Dyer and, may be even Kelley,in the end came to realize
the vanity of politics and power ploys and would have said with
Prospero,"My ending is despair unless I be relieved by prayer."
Bob Grumman
think I am, and the fact that Roger has discovered that I do not consider
myself a Shakespearean scholar, something I have never claimed to be and
have previously more than once announced I was not. In fact, by my
standards, and as I have previously more than once stated, I am not a
scholar in any field--although I happen to be a member in good standing of
an organization called the National Coalition of Independent Scholars
(something I just learned to my chagrin and amusement that Richard Whalen is
now a member of!)
> Such are the vagaries of Neo-Stratfordianism.The future Master of
> the Revels leaves a written warning on the first known W. S.title page
> about a felon bearing the initials W.S. who is ripping off members of
> the aristocracy,himself included.
Right, Roger. This future Power-of-the-Realm leaves a warning about
Shakespeare that NO ONE ever does anything about. In fact, they let him get
his FULL NAME on numerous later title-pages.
>So,BG forgets about the Master of the
> Revels and goes to bat for some really first class authorities like TR
> whose texts his common sense is readily capable of understanding.
I don't know whose authority I went by--probably Dooley, in reverse, since
he's proved wrong on everything he's spoken of.
> > snip.[check BG's snips. This current non-debate started when it was
pointed out that BG was often snipping Toby when Toby him gave well
deserved shafts.BG is a minimalist poet and is well on his way to becoming a
minimalist critic.]
If true, which I doubt, who cares?
> > I left the discussion[note shiftRNP] after claiming that you never
answered its main
> > question[more he said Madane Mao Tse Dung said junk], which was when was
the seventh signature discovered. You had said
> > you would provide documentary evidence that some Baconian knew about it
> > before the Folger announced it but you never did (that I know of), and
now
> > seem likely never to even mention the subject.
> >
> > snip of material about Roger's problems with Karlin.[No problem with
> Karlin;he's just another evil Reedy clone.Lots of mouth, no
> substance.
He just absolutely creamed you. And I assure you, I have no interest in
which of you is right. But he is absolutely coherent and accuses you of
arguing tarot cards almost exactly as Tom and I accuse you of arguing
Shakespeare.
Can you get even a Shakespeare-Rejector to agree that the threads you are in
are hopelessly tangled, in the main because you do not judiciously snip?
>
> RNP
>
> PS. I regard this second communication as a fresh discussion on
> BG's controversial methods, not a continuation of our last letter
> which was concerned with a succinct demonstration of how BG's lack of
> factual knowledge of both"Locrine" and nineteenth and early twentieth
> century Tarot history had led him to misconstrue the nature of the
> "debate " which was in fact concerned with the correction of
> historical omissions and errors.
>
> The new and specifically limited correspondence is again
> terminated.
Great. Now, instead of trying to prove how ignorant your opponents are, why
won't you answer even one of their direct questions. You might start with
mine about what evidence do you have that anyone discussed the seventh
Shakespeare signature in print before the Folger did.
--Bob G.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
RNP-Oct.l4-It was stated on our last communication that that
correspondence was closed.It was.We terminated it with enough serious
Tarot material to keep a professed expert busy for twelve hours.While
we had few illusions about the extent of Mr. Karlin's scholarly
capacities ,our materials were intended for the next serious Yeats or
Tarot scholar who came along to this web site.Two are already in
contact privately and are providing us with additional and extremely
rare materials.So our purpose here is fulfilled.
On the other hand,for the readership's benefit,it may be
enlightening to pinpoint exactly what kind of individual,TR is
squiring on this web site .Reedy is always writing about those
intellectuals to whom he goes back after skewering the morons on
HLAS.Is "Jess Karlin" one of those intellectuals concealed from the
HLAS hoi polloi in TR's closet?
On our very first Google throw, we hit a thread entitled
"J.Karlin-Offensive.(alt.Tarot. Post l997/07/18).Its opening
lines,"The bottom line is that hostility is the main components of
Jess Karlin's posts.Such a person cannot possibly have anything
valuable to say...
1.Do not read his posts.2.Do not stoop to his gutter level by
indulging in his kind of talk...."
Any question why TR finds "Karlin" sympatico?
Numerous other threads contained such topics as "Karlin a Fraud"
and "Is Karlin Evil?"Most of these are signed by people with names
like "dowhatthouwiltisthewholethe law","Lush" and "Kader Flyer".Nearly
everyone has an identity problem.Just like K.Q. Knave and Hermione
Winterstahl.
However,Mr.Karlin also has his defenders ,one of whom actually
sounds quite reasonable(Tape: Karlin offensive). He states states in
rebuttal that Karlin's vehemence and brutality" are "not always a bad
thing"(Reedy would proudly claim the same.) and honestly identifies
where Karlin is coming from,"a continuation of the Crowley/OTO/Golden
Dawn feud" in which Kalin represents the Crowley/OTO mob.
The few who take care may remember we had some very harsh things to
say about counter-initiate Theodore Reuss and his OTO in a prior
communication(hence fellow counter-initiate Karlin's
vehemence).Karlin's defender recognises that "if either of these
gentlemen[an A.E. Waite Tarot person who was debating Karlin is the
second]are adepts or Great Masters of some[Does SO-ME,the name of the
secret order, or Reuss's SO-NE ring a bell with Karlin?] secret
order,their secret pledges would not be that hard to determine based
on the content of 'historical' and their prejudicial views."
The thing that is bugging Karlin is that as a Crowleyite he has
been arguing for years against Waite's Christian mysticism, whereas in
fact Waite was a member of the Reuss organization years before Crowley
joined and Karlin(who not without reason is considered an
exceptionally astute Crowleyite) has been too thick to catch the ball
this time.In the heyday of the Soviet Union when the one open
Christian Seminary was limited to ten members, Beria introduced three
Secret Police agents none of whom were told of the others
identity.Result,all three found both their comrades in arms to be the
two most dangerous Christian subversives on the premises.So has it
happened to Mr.Karlin.
The present writer is a member of nothing more nor less than the
Eastern Christian church(I attend a small Baptist chapel in the
Cumberlands) and regular branches of the York and Scottish Rites.We
are greatly honored that more than one figure in the classic hermetic
tradition saw a way to openly share the purely theoretical part of
that traditional knowledge with us.Mr. Karlin's methods and logical
structures areindeed much closer to TR's than our own. And they strike
a responsive note in Reedy admirers BG and diplomat Nicholas Whyte.(It
is hoped that Nicholas doesn't buy the same kind of claptrap when
negotiating Balkan peace treaties.)
At this point we are snipping ninety per cent of the over eight
hundred lines that Karlin prints in two instalments. Tom Reedy finds
material close to what passes for a heart.For ourselves we are taking
the private advice of those who have dealt with Karlin before.And
trust the readership will do likewise.
SNIP
>
>
.
>
> I asked---you answered vaguely---I asked again---you answered
> vaguely again and claimed I was too ignorant to be allowed
> access to your secret interpretation of whatever facts you
> may possess.
>
> That's where we are so far.
>
> A person interested in telling the truth would be interested
> in getting further along than that.[This is where Nicholas Whyte butts in]
>
> At no point did I say what I know, or didn't know, or what
> sources I had read, or hadn't read.
RNP
For purposes of bringing out your background,we treated your
requests for information as they were genuine. After all they would
help someone else who really needed the information.And you would be
coming out of the Reedy closet very shortly.
>
> > > , Mr.Karlin has his own website devoted
> > to Tarot cards.
>
> That's true, and Mr. Karlin knows a great deal more about Tarot
> than you.
RNP
Karlin is just hyping his website.It shows no knowledge of the
nineteeth century personalities under discussion.
> SNIP
>
> > He has published a translation from the eighteenth century
> > French at forty dollars.
>
> He has actually published (and translated) a specific set
> of 18th-century French texts, not "the eighteenth century
> French"---whatever you think that's supposed to mean.
It means you can't understand common English.And you have only
published a small selection from a nine part single work. A valuable
essay but no overwhelming achievement.The eighteenth century French is
very similar to the twentieth century French.
>
> here.
>
> >
> > with a concise conspectus of a thesis on which I have spent
> > over thirty years, interviewed dozens of Yeats's and his
> > artist Pamela Coleman Smith's contemporaries---
>
> And which one of these said anything like: "A. E. Waite
> and Pam Smith knowingly stole the Tarot designs of
> W. B. Yeats."?
>
> That's a simple question.
Take A. E. Waite. Pamela is a different case. You were given
Brodie-Innes,Feb.,l920. You know it or you don't.
>
>
SNIP
>
> However, below I'll talk about this with respect to your
> erroneous claim about Vaillant's place and importance in
> Tarot history.
>
>
angrily demanded
> > all manner of additional information---
>
> Where did I display "anger"?
>
> In fact, I am not angry, just determined.
>
> Would you like me to be angry?
>
.
>
> > Vaillant, the name most under discussion between Karlin and
> > myself---
>
RNP
Dummett has published two later books on Tarot.
> (jk)BACK TOMORROW
Nicholas Whyte
>
> I still owe you one on Bohemia to which I will be returning...
> The only point at issue in that discussion was that the Western
> Hapsburg coast was specifically available in l590-l595 to the Eastern
> Hapsburgs the period under discussion,1590 more specifically.
To be precise: whether or not the availability was any different
before 1590 than in the 1590-1595 period. Also I dispute your use of
"Western" and "Eastern" Hapsburgs here: "Western" really ought to
apply strictly to the division from the abdication of Charles V in
1556 when Austria went to his brother Ferdinand I and Spain etc to his
son Philip II, rather than the 1576 hiving off of Inner Austria to
Charles of Styria. And given that Rudolf II ruled both Bohemia and
Hungary (which also had a coast) for almost his entire career, you
have to demonstrate why his regency over the Carniola coast in 1590-95
matters.
I think we had indeed settled the other questions:
+ the main city in the region is Trieste not "Firense" as you thought;
+ there is no evidence that anybody thought of the region as part of
Bohemia
+ it is pretty clear that the region was described as part of "Inner
Austria"
Nicholas
Roger Nyle Parisious
SNIP BG
Roger has discovered that I do not consider
> myself a Shakespearean scholar, something I have never claimed to be and
> have previously more than once announced I was not.
RNP
Considering that BG often clogs up this site with numerous
communications per day, the fact that ,in an excess of conscience, he
has "more once "{twice ,thrice?)admitted he is no scholar is no
excuse.Thousands who may know no more than he may have been deluded
by the man.
We trust that Kathman will henceforward warn the visitors to his
web sight with large captiions,NO SCHOLAR, against the name of Bob
Grumman.
> SNIP
RNP
> > Such are the vagaries of Neo-Stratfordianism.The future Master of
> > the Revels leaves a written warning on the first known W. S.title page
> > about a felon bearing the initials W.S. who is ripping off members of
> > the aristocracy,himself included.
>
> Right, Roger. This future Power-of-the-Realm leaves a warning about
> Shakespeare that NO ONE ever does anything about. In fact, they let him get
> his FULL NAME on numerous later title-pages.
No scholar and no logician,BG. How do you know no one did anything
about it?Since W.S. was a literary felon, someone had to do somwething
to smooth it over with Buc.You've been hanging out with Reedy and
Karlin too long.
>
>
> >So,BG forgets about the Master of the
> > Revels and goes to bat for some really first class authorities like TR
> > whose texts his common sense is readily capable of understanding.
>
>>
> > The new and specifically limited correspondence is again
> > terminated.
>
> Great. Now, instead of trying to prove how ignorant your opponents are, why
> won't you answer even one of their direct questions.
No ,since their is one demonstratable non-scholar, one liar and one
professed Crowleyite noted for his crazy internet behaviour.RNP
> --Bob G.
Bob Grumman
> Roger has discovered that I do not consider
> > myself a Shakespearean scholar, something I have never claimed to be and
> > have previously more than once announced I was not.
> RNP
> Considering that BG often clogs up this site with numerous
> communications per day, the fact that ,in an excess of conscience, he
> has "more once "{twice ,thrice?)admitted he is no scholar is no
> excuse.Thousands who may know no more than he may have been deluded
> by the man.
Wow! Thousands! But what exactly were they deluded about--my being a
"scholar?" Or what I've said, which I've almost always supported with facts
and reason.
> We trust that Kathman will henceforward warn the visitors to his
> web sight with large captions,NO SCHOLAR, against the name of Bob
> Grumman.
Why in the world should he do that, Roger? It's what I say at his site that
counts, not who I am. Or are you saying now that we should only listen to
scholars on the Shakespeare question, which is fine by me. Ah, but now I
see what you meant by "thousands"--you mean the few thousand that have put
my review of the wack, Michell, that is at the Kathman/Ross site, up on
their screens and perhaps read it. Nuts. I thought maybe you had
information I don't have that thousands are reading me at HLAS. My
impression is that maybe a dozen or two do.
> > SNIP
> RNP
> > > Such are the vagaries of Neo-Stratfordianism.The future Master of
> > > the Revels leaves a written warning on the first known W. S.title page
> > > about a felon bearing the initials W.S. who is ripping off members of
> > > the aristocracy,himself included.
> >
> > Right, Roger. This future Power-of-the-Realm leaves a warning about
> > Shakespeare that NO ONE ever does anything about. In fact, they let him
get
> > his FULL NAME on numerous later title-pages.
>
> No scholar and no logician,BG. How do you know no one did anything
> about it?
So far as we know. But we DO know he kept at his game with no seeming troub
le, which strongly suggests they let him alone.
>Since W.S. was a literary felon, someone had to do somwething
> to smooth it over with Buc.You've been hanging out with Reedy and
> Karlin too long.
I've only just met Karlin, Roger. And I've been enemies with Reedy ever
since he beat me out for head of ground control over at the Stratford Trust,
and I had three days more time-in-grade than he did!
> >
> > >So,BG forgets about the Master of the
> > > Revels and goes to bat for some really first class authorities like TR
> > > whose texts his common sense is readily capable of understanding.
> >
> >>
> > He just absolutely creamed you. And I assure you, I have no interest in
> > which of you is right. But he is absolutely coherent and accuses you of
> > arguing tarot cards almost exactly as Tom and I accuse you of arguing
> > Shakespeare.
> >
> > Can you get even a Shakespeare-Rejector to agree that the threads you
are in
> > are hopelessly tangled, in the main because you do not judiciously snip?
> >
> > >
> > > RNP
> > >
> > > The new and specifically limited correspondence is again
> > > terminated.
> Great. Now, instead of trying to prove how ignorant your opponents are,
why
> > won't you answer even one of their direct questions.
> No ,since there is one demonstratable non-scholar, one liar and one
> professed Crowleyite noted for his crazy internet behaviour.
RNP
That says it all, Roger.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> > SNIP BG
> > Roger has discovered that I do not consider
> > > myself a Shakespearean scholar, something I have never claimed to be and
> > > have previously more than once announced I was not.
> > RNP
> > Considering that BG often clogs up this site with numerous
> > communications per day, the fact that ,in an excess of conscience, he
> > has "more once "{twice ,thrice?)admitted he is no scholar is no
> > excuse.Thousands who may know no more than he may have been deluded
> > by the man.
>
> Wow! Thousands! But what exactly were they deluded about--my being a
> "scholar?"
Or what I've said, which I've almost always supported with
facts
> and reason.
RNP
Very often ,not almost always,but why quibble?The fact is that if
your opinions(when they are not governed by the necessities of a
somewhat less than scholarly sparring team ) are generally supported
with facts and/or reasons whether accurate or inaccurate,therefore
there is no reason why you should not consider yourself a scholar and
you obviously do not need a society to tell you so.Therefore,being
ordinarily well satisfied with your performances, you have on more
than one, but perhaps no more than twice or thrice ,referred to
yourself as "no scholar".You begged off on "Locrine" with "no
scholar"because of your highly egregreous errors on an item(
Buc's"Locrine" inscription) which cuts to the heart of your "name and
initials on the title page" argument.
"W.S." opened his title page career as the reviser of the work of a
dead aritocrat and the second half of that collaboration was outraged
by the publication.A second annotation by Buc on the title page of
George-a -Green published four years later records a conversation
with William Shakespeare regarding the authorship.Shakespeare seems to
have given Buc a false steer(a
lot of bull) about the authorship of a play demonstratably by Robert
Greene.
When I made my first appearance on this web site(and "web"
describes what goes on here much better than "news group")I
immediately threw out the case of hundreds(over a thousand?) of Carl
Barks scripts bearing the name of Walt Disney.Thereby demolishing in
less than ten words(including the "statistics")an argument on title
pages as published by Kathman in Elizabethan Review and, perhaps, here
also.(For all I know BG may have preceeded Kathman with this
argument.) Kathman ,as it shortly developed, had not yet heard of
Barks or considered the case of Disney Studios(he need have gone no
further than Henslowe's Diary).Kennedy saved the day by the simple
device of inserting "a known trade secret" into the Barks attribution.
The correct argument,which BG has adopted on occasion,would therefore
be,unlike the case of Barks which nevertheless deceived millions for
many years,there is no evidence of a similar practice in Shakespeare's
case.
This argument cannot be sustained in the light of the Buc
annotations.Buc left a number of authorship attributions on the title
pages of quartos.They have so far invariably been correct.Only two
involve contested identities.Both (within a four year publication
period)involve dubious information emanating from source(s) bearing
the initials "W.S."
> RNP
> > We trust that Kathman will henceforward warn the visitors to his
> > web sight with large captions,NO SCHOLAR, against the name of Bob
> > Grumman.
> BG
> Why in the world should he do that, Roger?
RNP
Because you professed to be disclaiing the role of scholar, and
obviously he wouldn't want to wound your sensibilities.
BG
It's what I say at his site that
> counts, not who I am. Or are you saying now that we should only listen to
> scholars on the Shakespeare question, which is fine by me. Ah, but now I
> see what you meant by "thousands"--you mean the few thousand that have put
> my review of the wack, Michell, that is at the Kathman/Ross site, up on
> their screens and perhaps read it. Nuts. I thought maybe you had
> information I don't have that thousands are reading me at HLAS. My
> impression is that maybe a dozen or two do.
Well, I've made two good unsolicited Yeats and Tarot contacts
through sticking up my notice here and a couple of very encouraging
letters from unregistered non-combatants came in during the recent
unpleasantness. On that showing I suspect an old timer like your self
should have rather more.
>
> > > SNIP
> RNP
> > > > Such are the vagaries of Neo-Stratfordianism.The future Master of
> > > > the Revels leaves a written warning on the first known W. S.title page
> > > > about a felon bearing the initials W.S. who is ripping off members of
> > > > the aristocracy,himself included.
> > >BG
> > > Right, Roger. This future Power-of-the-Realm leaves a warning about
> > > Shakespeare that NO ONE ever does anything about. In fact, they let him
> get
> > > his FULL NAME on numerous later title-pages.
> >RNP
> > No scholar and no logician,BG. How do you know no one did anything
> > about it?
> BG
> So far as we know. But we DO know he kept at his game with no seeming troub
> le, which strongly suggests they let him alone.
> RNP
> >Since W.S. was a literary "felon", someone had to do something
> > to smooth it over with Buc.[Consider that it was over three years from the registration of "Locrine" to the appearance of the now lost First Quarto of LLL .You probably know that a record of that Quarto has recently been discoveed in an important Irish collection.Judging by the transcript of title as reported in the TLS,three years later they were still using only letters on the title-page.
Due to this it can now for the first time be plausably argued
that the author is referring to revisions of his own First Quarto
upon the title page of the Second Quarto.On the other hand,it should
also be remembered that the same descriptive word was used on the
l595 Locrine title-page where it clearly denotes revision of someone
else's work.Under the latter interpretation in printing the name
William Shakespeare in full for the first time on a title page either
the reviser and/or Thomas Creede (who had published "Locrine" and was
printing LLL) were not taking good care to avoid another visit from
Buc.
Shakespeare got one anyway and the GAG title page annotation must
certainly date from shortly after the publication in l599, a few
month's after the publication of Meres's list.
Why?Because (a) Buc could hardly have been happy with the
Shakespeare interview (b) as you correctly point out nothing further
was done to impede publication(c)someone whom Buc respected ,or
feared, must after intervened at this point to argue as" divers of
worship " had done with Chettle.
You've been hanging out with Reedy and
> > Karlin too long.
>
> I've only just met Karlin, Roger. And I've been enemies with Reedy ever
> since he beat me out for head of ground control over at the Stratford Trust,
> and I had three days more time-in-grade than he did!
>
> > >
> > > >So,BG forgets about the Master of the
> > > > Revels and goes to bat for some really first class authorities like TR
> > > > whose texts his common sense is readily capable of understanding.
>
> > >>SNIP By BG
> > > He[Karlin] just absolutely creamed you. And I assure you, I have no interest in
> > > which of you is right. But he is absolutely coherent and accuses you of
> > > arguing tarot cards almost exactly as Tom and I accuse you of arguing
> > > Shakespeare.
RNP
A visit from an OTO initiate is like a visit from L.Ron Hubbard.
His arguments are like Reedy and also Karlin's.A common structure
emerges in all this.And believe me you don't use the word "cream" when
discussing the OTO sect, it can have a very definite vulgar
connotation as in the false rhyme "jeans".
> > >
> > > Can you get even a Shakespeare-Rejector to agree that the threads you
> are in
> > > are hopelessly tangled, in the main because you do not judiciously snip?
> > >
> > > >SNIP
> > > > RNP
> > > >
> > > and one
> > professed Crowleyite noted for his crazy internet behaviour.
>
> RNP
>
> That says it all, Roger. BG
Bob Grumman
> > since he beat me out for head of ground control over at the Stratford
Trust,
> > and I had three days more time-in-grade than he did!
>
> birth has its privileges in a conspiracy such as ours.
But, David, BOTH my cats have bloodlines that go back to the royal cats of
the first pharoahs! Reedy doesn't even HAVE a cat! And that absurdly bogus
line of his to . . . Sorry. I go too far. This is not the proper place to
air my small complaints.
--Bob G.
> [...]
Bob Grumman
one topic, and I'm not as worn-out as I now am, we can have a discussion on
Locrine or Loves Labours Lost. I'm not up to it now. And would never be up
to it if it required that I answer a post as tangled as the one that
follows.
--Bob G.
"Roger Nyle Parisious" <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a3cc4070.02101...@posting.google.com...
Art Neuendorffer
>>>I've only just met Karlin, Roger. And I've been enemies with Reedy ever
>>>since he beat me out for head of ground control over at the Stratford
>>> Trust, and I had three days more time-in-grade than he did!
> Dwebb wrote:
>> But you're not a lineal descendant in the Sacred Bloodline, Bob --
>> birth has its privileges in a conspiracy such as ours.
Bob Grumman wrote:
> But, David, BOTH my cats have bloodlines that go back to the royal cats of
> the first pharoahs! Reedy doesn't even HAVE a cat! And that absurdly bogus
> line of his to . . . Sorry. I go too far. This is not the proper place to
> air my small complaints.
No, Bob, please go on.
Art
Bob Grumman
Hah, you'd love that, wouldn't you! (At least the Trust hasn't yet promoted
YOU over me!)
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>>I've only just met Karlin, Roger. And I've been enemies with Reedy
>>>>> ever
>>>>>since he beat me out for head of ground control over at the Stratford
>>>>>Trust, and I had three days more time-in-grade than he did!
>>>Dwebb wrote:
>>
>>>>But you're not a lineal descendant in the Sacred Bloodline, Bob --
>>>> birth has its privileges in a conspiracy such as ours.
>>>
>>Bob Grumman wrote:
>>
>>>But, David, BOTH my cats have bloodlines that go back to the royal cats
>>> of
>>>the first pharoahs! Reedy doesn't even HAVE a cat! And that absurdly
>>> bogus
>>>line of his to . . . Sorry. I go too far. This is not the proper
>>> place to air my small complaints.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>> No, Bob, please go on.
Bob Grumman wrote:
> Hah, you'd love that, wouldn't you!
I'm there for you, Bob.
> (At least the Trust hasn't yet promoted YOU over me!)
Just let that anger out, Bob, we're listening.
Art
Tom Reedy
wrote in message news:3DAE125F...@comcast.net...
Mr. Grumman will make no more contributions to this
thread.
TR
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been enemies with Reedy ever since
>>>>>>> he beat me out for head of ground control
>>>>>>> over at the Stratford Trust, and I had
>>>>>>> three days more time-in-grade than he did!
>>>>>Dwebb wrote:
>>>>>> But you're not a lineal descendant
>>>>>> in the Sacred Bloodline, Bob --
>>>>>> birth has its privileges in a conspiracy
>>>>>> such as ours.
>>>>Bob Grumman wrote:
>>>>>But, David, BOTH my cats have bloodlines that go
>>>>> back to the royal cats of the first pharoahs!
>>>>> Reedy doesn't even HAVE a cat!
>>>>> And that absurdly bogus line of his to . . .
>>>>> Sorry. I go too far. This is not
>>>>> the proper place to air my small complaints.
>>>Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>>
>>>> No, Bob, please go on.
>>>
>>Bob Grumman wrote:
>>>Hah, you'd love that, wouldn't you!
>>
>> I'm there for you, Bob.
>>
>>> (At least the Trust hasn't yet promoted YOU over me!)
>
>> Just let that anger out, Bob, we're listening.
Tom Reedy wrote:
> Mr. Grumman will make no more contributions
> to this thread.
The Rex Deus has spoken!
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Reedy
wrote in message news:3DAEDEBE...@comcast.net...
Mr. Grumman's withdrawal from this thread is completely
voluntary, despite your thinly-veiled allegation to the
contrary. Mr. Grumman came to that decision entirely on
his own, without any persuasion from outside
influences. Other interested parties agree he made the
correct choice.
Any further communication on this matter must be
addressed to me.
TR
Roger Nyle Parisious
> very similar to the twentieth century French.Comprendez-vous?
> >
> > JK SNIPS RNP
> >
> > >
> > > with a concise conspectus of a thesis on which I have spent
> > > over thirty years, interviewed dozens of Yeats's and his
> > > artist Pamela Coleman Smith's contemporaries---
> >
> > And which one of these said anything like: "A. E. Waite
> > and Pam Smith knowingly stole the Tarot designs of
> > W. B. Yeats."?
> >
> > That's a simple question.
> RNP
> Take A. E. Waite.One thing at a time makes it simpler. Pamela is a different case. You were given
> Brodie-Innes,Feb.,l920. You know it or you don't.If you don't know the terms of the indictment: For the third time ,Waite was publically charged with fraud in Feb.,l920. He was charged a second time a few months later.
> >
> >
> SNIP
> > JK
> > However, below I'll talk about this with respect to your
> > erroneous claim about Vaillant's place and importance in
> > Tarot history.
> >
>
>
> >
> angrily demanded
> > > all manner of additional information---
> >
> > Where did I display "anger"?
> >
> > In fact, I am not angry, just determined.
> >
> > Would you like me to be angry?
> >
> .
> > RNP
> > > Vaillant,> >
> >> > > , was the first published Tarot theorist after Etteilla and
> > > Court Court de Gebelin.
> >
> > OK, now you offer that as a plain statement of fact.
> >
> > Good, we can do something with that statement. For example,
> > we can determine if that statement of yours is
> > true or not.
> >
> > Now, if it isn't true, then what?
> >
> > Will your whole theory---of whatever---collapse?
> >
> > We'll see.
> >
> > So, here are some more plain statements of facts:
> >
> > 1. Tarot was invented in Italy in the 15th century to play
> > card games. The occultist dogma associated with it was a
> > later addition, originating in the essays of two 18th-century
> > French writers, Antoine Court de Gébelin, and M. le Comte
> > de Mellet. The link in my sig is to my English translation
> > of these works.[Desperate to peddle her wares at forty books.RNP]
> RNP[to the readership. I did not snip any of this because it is best to let Miss Karlin put her foot in her own mouth.]
In his first book Dummett had erroneously stated that Vaillant's
first Tarot book was published in l857. Therefore Vaillant was clearly
preceeded by Eliphas Levi.A.E. Waite(l909) already gave the same
dates.
In his second Tarot book(mid l980's)Dummett discovered ,as I had
previously discovered from manuscripts circulating in the Yeats
circle, that Vaillant had published at least two earlier Tarot
monographs(twenty more and several illustrated supplements were
promised)in l853 and l854.Dummett's inferences were therefore
completely wrong which does not much matter.What is important is that
a complete Tarot system allegedly emanating from Roumania and Turkey
had appeared simultaneously with the Eliphas Levi publication.No one
has ever accused Eliphas Levi of being a systematic thinker.The
Vaillant publications are the earliest structed theoretical treatment
since Etteilla.Until we see the actual months of publication it is by
no means safe to claim Levi(who is not a structured theoretician but
an impressionist) preceeded Vaillant at all. Miss Karlin really
doesn't care.She and her mentor TR are well matched.
JK
> > 4. Finally, on this point of Dummett supposedly revealing
> > Vaillant's great "Satanic" link to just about everything
> > else Satanic that has ever happened since, including some
> > vague link to A. E. Waite, > >SNIP Later, in "The Wicked Pack of Cards", Dummett, having
> > by then read the booklet and the "Satanic" text in
> > question, summed it up in this fashion:
> >
> > "The message in the booklet is in part a Satanist one,
> > in the sense that it teaches that the Jews, followed
> > by the Christians, have perverted the Indian deity
> > Sat-an into an image of evil, whereas in fact he
> > 'is the Spirit who is self-sufficient', and this
> > spirit is God."
> >
> > This dogma sounds more gnostic than strictly
> > Satanic, which is why Dummett qualifies his statement
> > about the text's nature.
RNP
SNIP Dummett citres a second Satanic text of the same year.It is his
original discovery.The quesation isn't what he say but what the link
is between the two l853 publications and Waite and Yeats's treatment
of those materials.But Karlan cannot read what was written and why go
gfor the originals when she can foul mouth off on internet?
> >
>
> > > If someone comes on here and wants to know who Ben
> > > Jonson was and did he know Shakespeare? We say good luck
> > > kid---
> >
> > > There is only one printed Blackden book in the world.
> >
> > And does it say: "A. E. Waite worships Sat-an."?
> >
> > Or does it say: "A. E. Waite stole Yeats' Tarot."?
> >
> > > If Mr.Karlin cares to find it out---
> >
> > Find out what?
> >
> > modern intermediate sources on Satanism, Scholem
> > > and Dummett, which ever he finds easier. The discussion is now closed
> > > until he does some work.
> >
> > >
Art Neuendorffer
>Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>> The Rex Deus has spoken!
> Mr. Grumman's withdrawal from this thread is completely
> voluntary, despite your thinly-veiled allegation to the
> contrary. Mr. Grumman came to that decision entirely on
> his own, without any persuasion from outside
> influences. Other interested parties agree he made the
> he made the correct choice.
Tom Reedy wrote:
> Any further communication on this matter must be
> addressed to me.
Is Bob totally "grounded" or is he allowed
to respond to me on other matters?
It's really the fault of Webb (& maybe your son)
for saying too much.
Art
Tom Reedy
wrote in message news:3DAF347A...@comcast.net...
<snip>
>
> Is Bob totally "grounded" or is he allowed
> to respond to me on other matters?
I have no idea what you are talking about. "Bob" is not
"grounded." He has voluntarily decided to discontinue
the exchange with you. What he decides to do "on other
matters" is entirely up to his discretion, the same as
his decision to quit this thread.
> It's really the fault of Webb (& maybe your son)
> for saying too much.
Once again, I have no idea--none--what you are talking
about. I would suggest you follow "Bob's" example and
discontinue your inquiry.
TR
> Art
Art Neuendorffer
>> Is Bob totally "grounded" or is he allowed
>> to respond to me on other matters?
Tom Reedy wrote:
> I have no idea what you are talking about. "Bob" is not
> "grounded." He has voluntarily decided to discontinue
> the exchange with you. What he decides to do "on other
> matters" is entirely up to his discretion, the same as
> his decision to quit this thread.
Then why are you telling me this & not Bob?
>> It's really the fault of Webb (& maybe your son)
>> for saying too much.
> Once again, I have no idea--none--what you are talking
> about. I would suggest you follow "Bob's" example and
> discontinue your inquiry.
Or else?
Art
J. Karlin
> "J. Karlin" <j...@jktarotX.com> wrote in message news:<3DAA0075...@jktarotX.com>...
> > Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
> RNP-Oct.l4-It was stated on our last communication that that
> correspondence was closed.
Then why are you still talking?
Indeed, you're not merely still talking, you're double-replying,
always a sign of the talk-needy.
> It was.
Obviously, it wasn't. You are presumptuous about many things.
And erroneously so.
> We terminated it---
"we" did not.
"You" postured as if you had won something, instead of losing
everything.
But that was merely one of your several tactical blunders.
> with enough serious Tarot material---
You know nothing whatsoever about Tarot. You wouldn't recognize
serious Tarot material if it bit you on the ass. You're not
even familiar with the basic sources, primary or secondary,
not even the ones you ineptly attempt to manipulate for your
slanderous objectives.
> to keep a professed expert busy for twelve hours.While
> we had few illusions about the extent of Mr. Karlin's scholarly
> capacities ,our materials were intended for the next serious Yeats or
> Tarot scholar who came along to this web site. Two are already in
> contact privately and are providing us with additional and
> extremely rare materials.
You mean like pamphlets for exclusive mental-health treatment
facilities?
> So our purpose here is fulfilled.
Descend now back into the muck, your purpose
here fulfilled.
Messianic, aren't you? Or just messy.
> On the other hand,for the readership's benefit,
Wait a minute, you said THEY didn't matter.
> it may be enlightening to pinpoint exactly what kind of individual,
> TR is squiring on this web site.
You mean it would be useful to you to slander your opponents
all into one manageable booger.
No doubt. But your opponents may have other plans. And not
ones requiring coordination with each other, nor even
a knowledge of one another, but merely a common interest
in a virtuous objective---trying to determine the truth---
which object does seem naturally opposed to your interests.
> Reedy is always writing about those
> intellectuals to whom he goes back after skewering the morons on
> HLAS. Is "Jess Karlin" one of those intellectuals concealed from the
> HLAS hoi polloi in TR's closet?
If so, it is done without my knowledge. I've never heard of
anyone here---except you, and the fellow who has been quoting
my website. And my interest here is your still unsupported
claims about Tarot.
Imagine how this could have been, Roger, how you could
have simply told me you didn't feel comfortable talking
about your theories because they were nothing but baseless
conjectures. And I would have readily accepted that---that
is the truth after all---and left you here to blather on
ignorantly about Shakespeare.
But you wanted to play games.
So be it.
> On our very first Google throw, we hit a thread entitled
> "J.Karlin-Offensive. (alt.Tarot. Post l997/07/18). Its opening
> lines,"The bottom line is that hostility is the main components of
> Jess Karlin's posts. Such a person cannot possibly have anything
> valuable to say...
Even you don't believe that.
> Numerous other threads contained such topics as "Karlin a Fraud"
> and "Is Karlin Evil?" Most of these are signed by people with names
> like "dowhatthouwiltisthewholethe law","Lush" and "Kader Flyer". Nearly
> everyone has an identity problem. Just like K.Q. Knave and Hermione
> Winterstahl.
Mr. Karlin writes on Usenet, and has for many years. Being replied
to by people with odd names is not uncommon for these parts. Nor
is being featured in threads with questionable or ironic titles.
What Mr. Karlin doesn't do however is to be featured in threads
where he loses the game you're trying to play with him.
> However, Mr.Karlin also has his defenders, one of whom actually
> sounds quite reasonable (Tape: Karlin offensive). He states states in
> rebuttal that Karlin's vehemence and brutality" are "not always a bad
> thing"
"Mr. Karlin is will [sic] respond to a "trash" post or Ad with
vemhenance [sic] and brutality, this is not always a bad thing."
The question is whether one can reasonably characterize Parisious
postings as trash. My other reply here today addresses that
question in much detail.
> (Reedy would proudly claim the same.) and honestly identifies
> where Karlin is coming from,"a continuation of the Crowley/OTO/Golden
> Dawn feud" in which Kalin represents the Crowley/OTO mob.
And why does "Kalin" represent that mob?
Be specific.
> The few who take care may remember we had some very harsh things to
> say about counter-initiate Theodore Reuss and his OTO---
A lot of people have had harsh things to say about a lot
of people and things.
My concern was however the harsh things you were saying about
A. E. Waite, which things you've failed completely to be able
to substantiate.
So, now you're scrambling about trying to distract people from
your failure by further demonstrating your vast ignorance about
so many subjects.
And here you'd claimed the "exchange" was over.
See, I told you you weren't solely in charge of determining
that. And now you aren't in charge of it at all.
> in a prior communication (hence fellow counter-initiate Karlin's
> vehemence). Karlin's defender recognises that "if either of these
> gentlemen [an A.E. Waite Tarot person who was debating Karlin is the
> second] are adepts or Great Masters of some [Does SO-ME, the name
> of the secret order, or Reuss's SO-NE ring a bell with Karlin?]---
You know, each time you try to press your disadvantage, you simply
give me more insight into your character, or lack of same, and
your tactical profile.
You're accepting the insights of an individual who posted a few
times to a newsgroup, one I've posted to for eight years, as
if he knew what he was talking about.
Your NEED to believe something that may get you out of the jam
you're in has easily mastered any skeptical impulses you may have
ever possessed---though I rather doubt those were in plentiful
supply for you at any time.
> The thing that is bugging Karlin is that as a Crowleyite---
What is a "Crowleyite"?
And why is Karlin one of those?
And what relevance does it have to your continued refusal to
answer simple questions concerning your still unsubstantiated
charges concerning Waite's alleged theft of Yeats' Tarot?
Be specific.
> he has been arguing for years against Waite's Christian mysticism---
If that were true, and not merely more unsubstantiated trash
of yours, why would I be asking you to substantiate your
claims about Waite? Why would I in fact be pointing out
to you all the reasons your claims are highly questionable,
BECAUSE you're unfairly and unreasonably attacking Waite?
> whereas in fact Waite was a member of the Reuss organization
> years before Crowley joined---
Waite was a member of what Reuss organization?
> and Karlin (who not without reason is considered an exceptionally
> astute Crowleyite) has been too thick to catch the ball this time.
To catch what ball? Your affirmations are not evidence.
Your understandings are naturally incredible, again as I
demonstrate in my other posting.
> In the heyday of the Soviet Union---
They had propagandists employed in the same capacity as
you today.
I think they were probably more skilled at it than you.
> The present writer is a member of nothing more nor less than the
> Eastern Christian church (I attend a small Baptist chapel in the
> Cumberlands) and regular branches of the York and Scottish Rites.
So you're talking about yourself here?
Let's see, what's the "Eastern Christian church"?
Are you saying it's the same as the Baptist church?
Or what exactly?
And you're claiming also to be a Freemason, is that correct?
And what relevance do these confessions of yours have?
> We are greatly honored that more than one figure in the classic hermetic
> tradition---
What figures are you talking about?
> saw a way to openly share the purely theoretical part of
> that traditional knowledge with us.
OK, but that ad of yours really isn't pertinent to supporting
your questionable charges, either against Waite, or against
myself.
> At this point we are snipping ninety per cent of the over eight
> hundred lines that Karlin prints in two instalments.
Actually, you didn't snip them, you just pushed them down to
the bottom---that's called "top posting", and is considered rude
on Usenet (and elsewhere). But then you don't even know what
Usenet is, do you?
(jk)
J. Karlin
better part of a week, trying to think of something other
than witless slander to use in reply to Mr. Karlin,
wrote:
> rpari...@yahoo.com (Roger Nyle Parisious) wrote in message news:<a3cc4070.02101...@posting.google.com>...
> RNP [to the readership. I did not snip any of this because it is
> best to let Miss Karlin put her foot in her own mouth.]
Or her boot in your teeth, which recall you've asked for.
> In his first book---
What book was that?
> Dummett had erroneously stated that Vaillant's first Tarot book
> was published in l857.
That isn't true. Dummett never identifies any of Vaillant's
books as "Tarot books". The details of what people actually
write continue to be of little interest to you.
Why is that?
I have already explained what Dummett wrote, and when he
wrote it. And I have already explained that Dummett disagrees
with your estimate of the facts and their meanings.
You first need to reply to Dummett's rejection of your view
of things (which you attempt to in your reply, but only
briefly and incompetently) and you need to address
Gilbert's similar rejection of your view of things.
Increasingly it seems to me no great mystery that they reject
your view of things.
> Therefore Vaillant was clearly preceeded by Eliphas Levi.
You mean preceded?
So that means you were clearly in error when you said
otherwise.
> A.E. Waite (l909) already gave the same dates.
And Waite agrees with Dummett's assessment of the meaning
of the facts and dates, noting Vaillant's apparent debt
owed to Eliphas Lévi, who had written his books incorporating
Tarot dogma BEFORE Vaillant had written his.
> In his second Tarot book (mid l980's)---
What Tarot book of Dummett's would this be? What is its
title?
If you can not answer this reasonable question, I will
reasonably conclude that you are inventing facts and dates
and sources to support your baseless claims.
As we shall see below, even the facts and dates and
sources you CAN be determined to have used, do not end
up serving or supporting your claims, but quite the
opposite.
> Dummett discovered, as I had previously discovered from manuscripts
> circulating in the Yeats circle---
Note---more "exclusive texts". Recall the warning in my
previous posts regarding this tactic of the hopeless.
Don't slander Dummett (too) by claiming he and you share
YOUR misunderstanding of the facts.
> , that Vaillant had published at
> least two earlier Tarot monographs (twenty more and several
> illustrated supplements were promised) in l853 and l854.
That is precisely NOT what Dummett discovered, nor is it
what he wrote, but it is, more or less, what you earlier
claimed.
This is what you wrote (on October 7, 2002): "I trace
the earliest extant published references [of Waite's alleged
Satanic church] to Paris in l853. One is by J.Vaillant and
the other by Magi Aurelius. Both maintain Satan is soon going
to take over the world. Vaillant links this to an elaborate
Tarot symbolism. No English writer before Michael Dummett
(mid-l980's) took note that these publications existed. I had
seen private translations (Dublin mss.) of extracts from
Vaillant. Aurelius I owe to Dummett."
You also claim: "Waite re-edited the only later French
text (Papus, Tarot of the Bohemians, l888) to refer to
the Vaillant publication of l853 in l910. He cut the
Vaillant quote and never again in his many hundreds of
pages on Tarot ever referred to this seminal work
again."
With respect to this claim of yours about Papus'
text, and beginning the process of revealing
to you, and others here, just how it is you've
gotten the facts of this particular matter and
their meanings so entirely wrong, I will tell you
that I have two editions of this Papus translation
(in English), one edited by Waite, one not edited
by him. They both include a mention of several
Vaillant works, and provide there publication dates
for these works, almost all of which are INCORRECT.
You keep making reference to some Vaillant Tarot work
published in 1853. But if you are following, as you
suggest here you are, Papus' accounting of the
publication dates, then you are basing your
inference on erroneous information.
Here are the references in question:
1. The 1896 George Redway publication of A. P. Morton's
translation of "The Tarot of the Bohemians", lists
on pages 298-299 the following books and dates of
publication for Vaillant sources used by Papus:
a. Les Rômes---towards 1853 (actually published in 1857,
in the back this book is again mentioned as having been
published in 1850---that also is incorrect, but clearly
the publication dates were uncertain to the compiler)
b. La Bible des Bohémiens---1860 (actually published
in 1851, but isn't about Tarot, though it does have
your "Satanic" elements)
c. Clef Magique---1863 (actually published in 1861, is
about Tarot but obviously published years after
Lévi's books on the subject)
2. In the 1909 Rider publication, again of A. P.
Morton's translation of Papus' book, this one
edited by Waite, these same books are listed with
the following publication dates:
a. Les Rômes---1857
b. La Bible des Bohémiens---1860
c. Clef Magique---1863
The one obvious difference between the two is that
Waite correctly determined the publication date of Les
Rômes (a book which DOES mention Tarot) as 1857,
NOT 1853 or 1850 or some other earlier date.
Parisious has clearly become confused by these
differences, and by these incorrect publication
dates provided by Papus for Vaillant's books. We
shall see these are not the only things which have
confused him about this matter.
Now, with respect to Dummett's comments about Vaillant,
to provide some additional context to this, Dummett's
only reason for mentioning Vaillant is because
the French writer was used by later occultists (such
as Papus) as their source for the claim that Gypsies
invented or were anciently involved with Tarot. It was
not an original idea of Vaillant's, Court de Gébelin had
introduced the myth briefly in his 1781 essays, but
Vaillant fleshed it out with "anecdotes" and validated
it in a sense by way of his being thought an authority
on Gypsies. The Tarot-Gypsy connection, claimed as
something of ancient heritage, is of course false, and
Dummett's interest is both to show that Vaillant had no
factual basis for making it, and that in fact little that
Vaillant had to say about Tarot was systematic or even
original.
The only reference Dummett makes to Vaillant's multiple
monographs or booklets is what I've already said regarding
the "The Bible of Bohemian [or Gypsy] Science".
About this he says [on page 218 of "Wicked Pack
of Cards": "[In 1851] there appeared the first two
booklets, of about thirty-five pages each, out of
a projected twenty-five [booklets], which, when
completed, would form a volume of 800 pages entitled
"La Bible de la Science bohémienne"; twenty-two of
the booklets would contain text, and the remaining
three 'signs, figures and maps'...All this is announced
in the first booklet; but happily NO MORE WERE PUBLISHED
AFTER THE FIRST TWO [in 1851].
While Dummett discusses Vaillant's use of seemingly
"Satanic" imagery in these two brief works, this is
NOT done in the context or the service or the mention
of Tarot. Dummett specifically notes Vaillant's Tarot
commentaries don't begin (or at least don't seriously
manifest) until his 1857 publication of "Les Rômes".
"Then, in 1857, Vaillant published the work that
chiefly concerns us [because it deals with Tarot]:
"Les Rômes, Histoire vraie des vrais bohémiens."
---"The Wicked Pack of Cards", page 220
It is quite clear that Parisious has read this book,
or misread it, and misinterpreted what it says and
what it means. He has connected a bunch of dots that
serve his personal interests and mythology, but which
don't create a reliable map of the facts and their
reasonable indications.
This demonstrates both Roger's ineptitude as a reader
of English and as a researcher, and also again calls
into question his honesty, since certainly he could
have in the last few days gone back to the source
he misread and have corrected his error for himself
and reported it here. But he didn't do that.
Why not?
> Dummett's inferences were therefore completely wrong---
How so? We have already seen that you are basing your
understanding of the datings of the Vaillant books
on defective sources of information, and have also
seen that your misreading of what Dummett wrote has
served the invention on your part of a factually
baseless theory you've concocted literally out of
your own ineptitude.
As someone pointed out, there is no wonder whatsoever
that you are reluctant to provide specific sources
for your beliefs---upon any close examination of what
sources you will admit to clinging to (and mangling)
for credible validation, you and your claims sink
like a stone in a deep dark sea.
> which does not much matter.
It matters if in fact YOU are actually the one who is
wrong.
And that is the case.
> What is important is that a complete Tarot system---
What characterizes a "Tarot system"? Or a complete one?
Be specific.
You don't know or understand the first thing about Tarot.
> allegedly emanating from Roumania and Turkey---
Who has alleged this? What Dummett alleges, and what
he clearly says, is that Vaillant borrows or steals
most of what he reports about Tarot from Court de Gébelin
and Etteilla, and possibly Lévi and another writer
named Paul Boiteau d'Ambly. What Vaillant adds are
Gypsy narratives wrapped around standard occultist
dogma he picked up from a number of other sources.
> had appeared simultaneously with the Eliphas Levi publication.
That is incorrect.
> No one has ever accused Eliphas Levi of being a systematic thinker.
Has anyone ever accused you of being a thinker at all?
If so, based on the evidence I've seen, you were defamed.
> The Vaillant publications are the earliest structed theoretical
> treatment since Etteilla.
Dummett sums this up:
"Vaillant refers to [Court de Gébelin's] "Monde primitif",
and it is evident that much of what he says is derived
from that book. It is also plain, from his description
of the pack, that he was familiar with some form of Tarot
pack made in the tradition of Etteilla...It is not unlikely,
further, that he had read Boiteau's [cartomantic] book
of 1854, which may have been the source from which he
[Vaillant] learned about Court de Gébelin and which gave
him the idea of the Indian origin of Tarot cards and
their association with the Gypsies. He had certainly
seen Eliphas Lévi's "Dogme et rituel de la haute magie",
since he wrote a lengthy review it of under the title
"Magie et Sagie".
---The Wicked Pack of Cards, pages 223-224
And here are the dates given in the Bibliography of
"Wicked Pack of Cards" (again, published in 1996)
for Vaillant's works:
1844---"La Romanie"---NOT a work about Tarot.
1851---"La Bible de la science bohémienne"---NOT a
work about Tarot, but the source of the
"Satanic" comments.
1857---"Les Rômes"---does mention Tarot, but only
as Waite has noted, anecdotally.
1861---"Clef magique de la fiction et du fait"---
does mention Tarot, but again post-Lévi.
There is no mention made by Dummett of any Tarot works
published by Vaillant in the years 1853 or 1854,
although he does make this brief comment: "In the
years 1853-7 he [Vaillant] published many pamphlets
on the Eastern Question." The "Eastern Question"
concerned not Tarot, but the question of the
disposition of Turkey's European (i.e. Balkan)
possessions. And these pamphlets had nothing to do
with Tarot, nor with the multi-booklet project
abandoned by Vaillant after 1851.
Lastly, and briefly, your understanding concerning what you
call "Magi Aurelius" is also confused, and erroneous---
your favorite combination huh.
Dummett does mention an Aureolus Magnus (on page 287 of
"Wicked Pack of Cards"), questioning the fact that Lévi
had credited a Satanic work, written using this pseudonym,
to another writer, Paul Christian. Dummett simply dismisses
the work as "insane", noting "The author announces that
Satan is presently the God of this world, explaining that
there are coups d'état among the gods as there are among
men." You misread this to indicate Aureolus (and Vaillant)
were saying "Satan is soon going to take over the world."
Dummett certainly does not indicate this writer Aureolus
and his booklet have anything whatsoever to do with
Tarot, nor that Vaillant or Magnus have anything to
do with each other, nor that their ideas about
Satanism have any relationship to each other.
Again, you have invented conspiratorial relationships
(how Oxfordian!) that do not exist. Your reading of
the facts, of the texts, is incompetent and so
unreliable, as are any claims of yours based on
these bad readings of yours.
> Until we see the actual months of publication---
Try YEARS of publication.
And try paying attention. That will work better than
imposing your clearly dysfunctional moods upon
pertinent matters.
Now that we've established you are both illiterate
and dishonest, can we get back to the other questions
regarding your still baseless claims about A. E. Waite
and W. B. Yeats (oh, and Pam Smith too)?
Or, would you agree that at this point your claims about
much of anything stand as starkly incredible and thus
extremely doubtful until otherwise demonstrated, and
beyond a reasonable doubt, BY FACTS, and coherent arguments
regarding these?
Your arrogant and ignorant posturing, your inept attempt
to feign an education you clearly don't possess, your
obvious need to defame people's reputations in lieu of
actually having anything interesting to say about them
and THEIR works, is noted.
But those depraved features of your personality are
ALSO not evidence or arguments in support of your
claims about A. E. Waite's alleged theft of Yeats'
Tarot. They are good evidence that those claims of
yours should be placed in the loony-bin of idiotic
Tarotica until such time as you can demonstrate
why they should be viewed otherwise.
And that time won't be coming---ever---will it
Roger?
(jk)
Roger Nyle Parisious
> Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
Search Result 3
From: Fly on the Wall (flyont...@theseed.net)
Subject: Jess Karlin
View: Complete Thread (12 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.tarot
Date: 1999/11/27
[ For reasons which we made apparant in our last two contributions
to this thread, there will be no dialogue with "Jess Karlin".This
single further critique(out of a hundred immediately available
examples) places both "J.Karlin" and his/her intellectual admirer
"Tombo" Reedy in their proper squalid little place in the history of
Internet Rage.-RNP]
No matter how much talk and analysis occurs, his[Karlin's] infatuated
sirens are ...
carrion birds ...
And what about Jess's lackeys? They, like Jess, are officious
crotchety
dupeheaded YAMs. This is why is it that 99 times out of 100, he and
his
surly anecdotes should be shunned. Jess thinks that he can make me
faint if
he can outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and
fairness. He thinks he can impress us by talking about "specific
this" and
"how do you know that?....
Nevertheless,
Jess's method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly
what to
call it) might as well go by the name of "Jess-ism". It is a
villainous and
brutal philosophy that aims to cause
an increase in disease, emotionalism, crime, and vice.
..... He turns people around and around
on his merry-go-round - around indeed.
We must indicate in a rough and approximate way the two foolhardy
tendencies
that I believe are the main
driving
force of modern McCarthyism....
. Jess's
bait-and-switch
tactics are vicious in theory and yet worse in practice. While it is
reasonable to
expect that there is every indication that this is an exceptionally
convincing
illustration of the power wielded by Jess and of the destructive way
in
which he
uses that power, it remains that Jess once used his notoriety and name
recognition
dominate this forum.... He spouts the same bile in everything he
writes, making
only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand.
If you need proof that he feels no guilt for any of the harm he's
caused,
then
just take a look at him....
Those who toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness,
Moakely and rational debate out the window do us all a great
injustice.
The same might be said of the most incompetent yokels I've ever seen.
One of the enduring effects of Jess's
imprecations is surely the way they will gain a respectable foothold
for
Jess's
shallow faculty.... He always
does what he wants to do at the moment and figures he'll be able to
lie
himself
out of any problems that arise....
forbearance and kindly
deportment are lost upon him, we can conclude that Jess's left hand
doesn't
know
what his right hand is doing. He doesn't know which hand he using, let
alone
which
path he's following!....
I wonder what
would happen if Jess really did hold any real power. There's a spooky
thought. In theory, it is of paramount importance not to let
his assistants use 'organized violence' to suppress opposition. But in
reality,
the law is not just a moral stance ... I feel no more personal hatred
for him
than
I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous
reptiles.
One
does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one
pities
them.
I am not going to go into too great a detail about
morally-questionable
callous YAM-types,
but be assured that one does not have to delude and often rob those
rendered
vulnerable and susceptible to jk's snares because of poverty, illness,
or
ignorance in order to focus on the
major economic, social, and political forces that provide the setting
for
the
expression of an illaudable illuministic agenda.
Jess Karlin's helpers care more about speaking, acting, and even
thinking
like Jess
than they care about what makes sense.
They are YAMs [Yup,that's Reedy all the way home.RNP]
>
> > > > > Some questions:
>
> > > > > 1. If Yeats was sufficiently attracted to Tarot cards to
> > > > > "project" one, and if, as you claim, Waite largely stole
> > > > > Yeats' project, why didn't Yeats do something about this
> > > > > theft, or at least say something, even something veiled
> > > > > and poetic, about what would seem to have been an
> > > > > outrageous act on Waite's part?
>
> > > > (l) He did. A long series of Yeats poems,plays, and prose texts are
> > > > coded, including the entire text of "A Vision-A".
>
> > > So you're saying that Yeats accuses Waite of having stolen
> > > his Tarot designs in a coded prose text written sixteen years
> > > after the alleged theft? Not in a letter, not in a plain
> > > charge to the effect Waite was a plagiarist and thief?
>
> > Snip
>
> You didn't answer those questions. Why not?
>
> > > > These are usually quick ( often marginal) anagrams in response
> > > > to much longer attacks that were launched by Waite, Machen, Marcus
> > > > Blackden, and three or four others, many years earlier.
>
> > > So, you're saying all of these people [two people] attacked Yeats---
>
> Now, that's just plainly dishonest of you, isn't it?
>
> You've included "two people" into my statement when neither
> I, nor you, said there were two people.
[ RNP
Two NAMED people. Both of whom were discussed with very specific
citations.]
>
> YOU said Yeats was responding to "much longer attacks that were
> launched by":
>
> 1. Waite
> 2. Machen
> 3. Marcus Blackden
> 4. and three of four others[Many years earlier-RNP]
>
> So, let's see, that adds up to six or seven people, according
> to you, NOT TWO.
[Observe,Reader, according to Karlin(or Reedy) frequently becomes
according to their opponents in "Karlin" and/or Reedy threads. Neither
the readership nor RNP would attempt to add three named people in one
time zone with three unnamed people in a far different time zone.]
>
> Why did you change my text?
>
> Be very specific.
[ For once Mr/Mssssssssss."Karlin" gets it. MY brackets were added so
she/he/it would NOT change the very specific meaning that I intend to
give MY original text. Which was the signal for Karlin to do exactly
that,as "she" has done a thousand times before.
>
> > > RNP
>
>
>
>
>
> > When you have obtained enough elementary knowledge of Waite's
> > life and occult dealings to particularize come back. But not before.
>
> .SNIP(LARGE)
> RNP
> > , Blackden published exactly one book.
>
> [Doesn't ask the name. It is required reading fof the nastier type of the OTO groups. She doesn't have to ask the name on that one.]
>
> > Machen and Waite published one book together. You can see it at
> > the Warberg Institute where my copy was made.
> RNP
> And what was the name of this book?
RNP
"House of the Winding Stairs"[She's faking again. This is a
notorious OTO type sex manual with the emphasis on anal intercourse.]
>
>
> > this was not a fight between two men but between two
> > organizations---
>
> You said nothing before about "attacks" and "responses"
> being between organizations, but between individuals.
>
> Are you now changing your story, as you changed my text?
>
> > specifically Sothes and Some.
>
> And what relevance do these names have to your claims?
[As previously identified by "her" own correspondents whom I
previously cited she is a "Some" related black initiate and she is
here to find how much dirt on her fellow "occult masters" is in the
process of publication.
>
> Don't tell me to read something. Answer my questions.
>
> > Some's roots go back to the Sabbataite heresy of l666---
>
> And that's why Waite stole Yeats' Tarot?
>
>
>
> > at Smyrna and but included a line of German
> > Frankists.I have not traced the term So-me earlier than the second
> > half of the nineteenth century but Waite sometimes applies it to
> > things which preceeded Sabbatai Zevi. Sothes was post l850 in its
> > present form. But it would have certainly have claimed a much older
> > origin for its parent organization to which Yeats and several well
> > known Celtic academics belonged. When you have done your homework on
> > the first two organizations correctly come back and we will discuss
> > the third, privately.
>
>
> And why do we have discuss any of this privately?
>
> Are you afraid of losing something in public?
> > > > RNP
> > Waite spoke from a collectivity.
> JK
> When? Where? What specifically are you talking about here?
> RNP
> > He was always an organization man."Our name is legion for we are
> > many."
>
> Yes, that's from Mark---the correct KJV quote is "My name is Legion:
> for we are many."
>
> So?
["so" is order code word.Note ":" Waite[Some] has a very specific use
of that ":" when discussing demons. Note the three dashes. She is
being very private while addressing me publically.]
>
> > Yeats operated more independently---
>
>
> > but he had joined Sothis and had a very close brush with
> > Some, proably at Salisbury, Pembrokeshire, in the Spring to
> > Summer of l887. After that he specialized in GD until he bedded
> > Florence Farr very shortly after being rejected by Maud Gonne in
> > l903. Yeats put a lot into Sothis but it was never his show.
> > However, much he poured in as the High Priestess's live-in
> > it was no longer his to do with as he wished.
>
> The automatic writing
> > It started coincidentally with the death of
> > Florence Farr and enabled him to establish his copyright on his own
> > material---
>
>
> > by recasting it as a recent occult discovery and publishing
> > only after he had broken all known group links. It took him
> > until the latter 20's to honorably burn certain bridges.
>
> What the hell would honor have to do with NOT charging a thief
> with theft? Unless there was no theft.
[She really wants to say her organization Some owned the stuff to
begin with.]
>
> > > Neither does it make sense that Pam Smith would have
> > > participated in this conspiracy, for it would have
> > > had to have been a conspiracy, and so you are also
> > > accusing Waite's artist of theft as well.
>
> > This is the same tack Waite took when J. Brodie-Innes publically
> > accused him of the theft in February, l920.
>
> And where did J. Brodie-Innes do this?
Occult Review,Feb.,l920.
The readership has had enough of this piece of occult jetsam.
Bob Grumman
hominem crap? Even if it were 100% accurate, who needs it?!
End of my comment, so don't scroll unless you want to hunt for a fact or
argument I missed.
--Bob G.
"Roger Nyle Parisious" <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a3cc4070.02101...@posting.google.com...
Rob Zigler
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote on 10/18/02 6:46 PM:
> Roger, do you really not realize that this whole long post is nothing but ad
> hominem crap? Even if it were 100% accurate, who needs it?!
The signal to noise ratio *was* remarkably lower than the average
usenet post. (A very low standard to begin with.)
Here's the signal part.
JK wrote:
>>> And where did J. Brodie-Innes do this?
and Roger did reply
>> Occult Review,Feb.,l920.
Rob
Bob Grumman
but ad
> > hominem crap? Even if it were 100% accurate, who needs it?!
>
> The signal to noise ratio *was* remarkably lower than the average
> usenet post. (A very low standard to begin with.)
>
> Here's the signal part.
>
> JK wrote:
>
> >>> And where did J. Brodie-Innes do this?
>
> and Roger did reply
>
> >> Occult Review,Feb.,l920.
Aha! I stand corrected.
--Bob G.
>
> Rob
>
Tom Reedy
message
news:a3cc4070.02101...@posting.google.com...
> [Observe,Reader, according to Karlin(or Reedy)
frequently becomes
> according to their opponents in "Karlin" and/or Reedy
threads. Neither
> the readership nor RNP would attempt to add three
named people in one
> time zone with three unnamed people in a far
different time zone.]
<snip>
And this is the pride of the antiStratfordians? This
man is obviously suffering from a severe mental
disability.
TR
David Kathman
Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Roger Nyle Parisious" <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>message
>news:a3cc4070.02101...@posting.google.com...
><snip>
>
>> [Observe,Reader, according to Karlin(or Reedy)
>frequently becomes
>> according to their opponents in "Karlin" and/or Reedy
>threads. Neither
>> the readership nor RNP would attempt to add three
>named people in one
>> time zone with three unnamed people in a far
>different time zone.]
Is the above supposed to be English? I've just
spent a couple of minutes staring at it, and
I honest can't make head or tail of it. I can
usually at least figure out the drift of what
Parisious is trying to say, but in this case
I'm completely baffled.
><snip>
>
>And this is the pride of the antiStratfordians? This
>man is obviously suffering from a severe mental
>disability.
>
>TR
You're being kind, Tom.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Tom Reedy
news:aoqql2$5h6$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Well, I am known for my charity, especially when it
comes to mental defectives such as Parisious and
Crowley. People tell me I'm just too good.
TR
Roger Nyle Parisious
> Roger, do you really not realize that this whole long post is nothing but ad
> hominem crap? Even if it were 100% accurate, who needs it?!
>
> End of my comment, so don't scroll unless you want to hunt for a fact or
> argument I missed.
>
> --Bob G.
You need it, good squeeky clean BG.You have wallowed in IT.Your
buddy Tom has brought in one of the worst and meanest cranks on the
Internet.Both you and he praised the "logical" methods employed by
said crank.We published a small part of J. Karlin's record with
appropriate references to document said Karlin's record. "He"
regularly uses "logic" as something quite differeent. You said
correctly that the methods employed by Reedy and yourself in your
Shakespeare arguments were identical with Karlin's logical methods in
her Yeats
argument.Both are non-logical structures employed by mean spirited
cranks.Don't address me on this or any other subject again until how
you mouthed off for over five years on the subject of Shakespeare
title-pages and didn't know the Buc annotations existed(earlier in
this thread). You are a fake,BG. You need stronger mouthed fakes,like
Reedy and Karlin to support you.
>
> "
J. Karlin
> "Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message news:<aoq34...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> > Roger, do you really not realize that this whole long post is nothing but ad
> > hominem crap? Even if it were 100% accurate, who needs it?!
> > End of my comment, so don't scroll unless you want to hunt for a fact or
> > argument I missed.
> > --Bob G.
> You need it, good squeeky clean BG. You have wallowed in IT. Your
> buddy Tom has brought in one of the worst and meanest cranks on the
> Internet.
Tom didn't "bring in" anybody. You did.
You've squeezed as much as you could from this Waite-Yeats scam
of yours, one that you've been running for at least 15 years
now. That's right, Roger's been promising people about "secret"
information he was prepared to present to the world that would
finally reveal the true creator of the Waite deck since at
least 1987!
Needless to say, most people in the Tarot world, even the most
gullible of marks, have grown to seriously doubt Roger has
anything whatsoever to reveal.
So, when I saw him, on Google groups archive of this newsgroup,
once again foolishly posturing about how he would soon reveal
the evidence that would prove his case, I thought---FINALLY---
I could ask him straight up what he was talking about.
You all saw the results.
And the really bad part for Parisious is that now everybody
is going to see them.
That's what he really means about my being "mean" to him.
> You are a fake---
You have a fork in you. You know why?
You're done.
Bob Grumman
> > Roger, do you really not realize that this whole long post is nothing
but ad
> > hominem crap? Even if it were 100% accurate, who needs it?!
> >
> > End of my comment, so don't scroll unless you want to hunt for a fact or
> > argument I missed.
> >
> > --Bob G.
>
> You need it, good squeeky clean BG.You have wallowed in IT.
That's certainly true, Roger, but I'm going to stop here--at least for a
while!
--Bob G.
Roger Nyle Parisious
following month(March,l920) in l969 ,and used both as primal texts at
my Yeats and Tarot seminars in Sligo,where Kathleen Raine requested I
replace her,in l973, you indeed stand corrected.
Since both articles(not to mention much other published material)
contain many references to unpublished and often extremely restricted
manuscripts and since further I am not into the fast buck syndrome(or
any buck syndrome,alas) ,it was necessary until l987 to confine myself
to work in the Anne Yeats and other private collections,
correspondence with private scholars ,and lectures in
non-sensationalist mileaus.In l987 I made an international
announcement of W.B.Yeats's authorial role at the l00th anniversary
History of the Golden Dawn Society(Figures in a Dance) which was
recorded and sold by Adam McClaine.It may still be available on his
Alchemy website. A very comprehensive talk with illustrative documents
was(badly) recorded and(poorly) filmed at the Fortfest ,2000.A lot of
Karlin style interests did their best to suppress it and for some
strange reason it is not officially listed as being for sale,but if
any body cares enough to harrass the hostess she will probably sell
you one for around twelve bucks. I collect nothing but flack on this
so I can recommend it with all due modesty as being a remarkable
introduction to a little studied aspect of Yeats' life.
Bob Grumman
> > > usenet post. (A very low standard to begin with.)
> > >
> > > Here's the signal part.
> > >
> > > JK wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> And where did J. Brodie-Innes do this?
> > >
> > > and Roger did reply
> > >
> > > >> Occult Review,Feb.,l920.
> >
> > Aha! I stand corrected.
> >
> > --Bob G.
> following month(March,l920) in l969 ,and used both as primal texts at
> my Yeats and Tarot seminars in Sligo,where Kathleen Raine requested I
> replace her,in l973, you indeed stand corrected.
Etc.
Try to read, Roger. What I stood corrected of was my belief that your post
was all ad hominem baloney with no attempts to factually answer any
questions.
--Bob G.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
>
> >
> . You have wallowed in IT. Your
> > buddy Tom has brought in one of the worst and meanest cranks on the
> > Internet.
magician.(See CHARacter references below from other internet sites)
denotes a KAR which in the Talmudic Hebrew is said to be synonomous
with ASS.In black magical circles those frequented by Tom Reedy's
latest transexual internet companion,the word "ass" is then inevitably
equated with both meanings of the word.
Groups
Advanced Groups Search Preferences Groups Help
Groups search result 55 for
Sponsored Links:
Love Tarot
Psychic Helps to Reunite Lovers
Stops Divorce and Separation Now
AmazingLovePsychic.com
Interest:
TarotUniverse Tarot Store
500+ Tarot Decks & Accessories.
Books, oracles, imported tarot.
www.tarotuniverse.com
Interest:
Ann George - Clairvoyant
Professional psychic readings by
telephone.Tarot. References on line
www.anngeorge.com
Interest:
Search Result 55
From: Roger Nyle Parisious (rpari...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: The Constant Image
View: Complete Thread (69 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Date: 2002-10-17 14:00:37 PST
rpari...@yahoo.com (Roger Nyle Parisious) wrote in message news:<a3cc4070.02101...@posting.google.com>...
> "J. Karlin" <j...@jktarotX.com> wrote in message news:<3DAA0075...@jktarotX.com>...
> > Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
>
> RNP-Oct.l4-It was stated on our last communication that that
> correspondence was closed.It was.We terminated it with enough serious
> Tarot material to keep a professed expert busy for twelve hours.While
> we had few illusions about the extent of Mr. Karlin's scholarly
> capacities ,our materials were intended for the next serious Yeats or
> Tarot scholar who came along to this web site.Two are already in
> contact privately and are providing us with additional and extremely
> rare materials.So our purpose here is fulfilled.
>
>
> On the other hand,for the readership's benefit,it may be
> enlightening to pinpoint exactly what kind of individual,TR is
> squiring on this web site .Reedy is always writing about those
> intellectuals to whom he goes back after skewering the morons on
> HLAS.Is "Jess Karlin" one of those intellectuals concealed from the
> HLAS hoi polloi in TR's closet?
>
> On our very first Google throw, we hit a thread entitled
> "J.Karlin-Offensive.(alt.Tarot. Post l997/07/18).Its opening
> lines,"The bottom line is that hostility is the main components of
> Jess Karlin's posts.Such a person cannot possibly have anything
> valuable to say...
> 1.Do not read his posts.2.Do not stoop to his gutter level by
> indulging in his kind of talk...."
> Any question why TR finds "Karlin" sympatico?
>
> Numerous other threads contained such topics as "Karlin a Fraud"
> and "Is Karlin Evil?"Most of these are signed by people with names
> like "dowhatthouwiltisthewholethe law","Lush" and "Kader Flyer".Nearly
> everyone has an identity problem.Just like K.Q. Knave and Hermione
> Winterstahl.
>
> However,Mr.Karlin also has his defenders ,one of whom actually
> sounds quite reasonable(Tape: Karlin offensive). He states in
> rebuttal that Karlin's vehemence and brutality" are "not always a bad
> thing"(Reedy would proudly claim the same.) and frankly identifies
> what Karlin is crawling out of,"a continuation of the Crowley/OTO/Golden
> Dawn feud" in which Karlin represents the Crowley/OTO mob.[The pseudonym Jess prefixed to Karlin deals with a Talmudic prophecy regarding the branch of Jesse(Father of King David) which will produce the Ass Messiah.Like her male szygy,Master Reedy ,Mssssss Karlin suffers from advanced magalomania.]
>
> Karlin's defender recognises that "if either of these
> gentlemen[an A.E. Waite Tarot person debating Karlin is the
> second]are adepts or Great Masters of SOME[emphasis mine] secret
> order,their secret pledges would not be that hard to determine based
> on the content of 'historical' and their prejudicial views."
SO-ME is,of course, the cult's parent Turkish organization,the hard
core of that extremely peculiar ethnic group known popularly as the
Domainies or Donmuh . The Donmuh (and thereby Sone) have been directly
identified with the Kemali front since the Albanian born ,Salonikan
educated, Ataturk seized power in l912.Thanks to the gigantic amounts
of US monetary aid post Second World War,they are in a position to
pour huge and discreet sums of money among their foreign dupes without
a cent of personal expenditure.I believe I named them publically for
the first time on a general website here and it was inevitable that a
KARlin character or "her" parallel would surface shortly.
However
>
>
.Mr. Karlin's methods and logical
> structures are indeed much closer to TR's than our own. And they strike
> a responsive note in Reedy admirers BG ,David Kathman and diplomat Nicholas Whyte.(It
> is hoped that Nicholas doesn't buy the same kind of claptrap when
> negotiating Balkan peace treaties.Whether he will ever know it or not,he will certainly deal with well placed members of the cult if he sticks around the area long enough.)
>
©2002 Google
As on previous communications ,we will not reply directly to the
knowingly and consciously evil person concerned.This is not our
personal judgement of this brutal scion of a vicious and well healed
political cult but one rather widely held throughout the internet.It
is interesting that "her"partner(or is this a KQKnave situation?)Reedy
does not choose disassociate from even her most extreme beliefs.Can
the Chuckie doll coming out of the closet at last?
Karlin falsely describes us, or perhaps our informants ,as using
the word "secret" in respect to our sources We have never used the
word "secret" in respect to any information of our own since we began
our lectures in l969. We have held off publications on many occasions
at a total loss of over a hundred thousand dollars because we have not
had permission to use vital materials,most obviously the Yeats
automatic scripts which were solely in the control of George Mills
Harper under Michael Yeats,these and all other occult materials owned
by Senator Yeats were inaccessible to me.I had legitimate access only
to the materials owned by Anne Yeats. In fairness,I should say
Professor Harper made perhaps only three or four brief visits to Anne
during the entire period in which I prepared a massive xerox
duplication of some (no pun) fourteen thousand pages from every book
annotated or earmarked by WB.Yeats.
Secret? My archives have been for ten years with Warwick Gould,the
editor of Yeats Annual.There are often four to six times the materials
per book listed in the official Yeats bibliography .Any one can have a
look for free by simply asking Gould for my permission it is
invariably given to everyone except black magicians and people trying
to turn a quick buck.
>
> You've squeezed as much as you could from this Waite-Yeats scam
> of yours, one that you've been running for at least 15 years
> now. That's right, Roger's been promising people about "secret"
> information he was prepared to present to the world that would
> finally reveal the true creator of the Waite deck since at
> least 1987!
>
> Needless to say, most people in the Tarot world, even the most
> gullible of marks, have grown to seriously doubt Roger has
> anything whatsoever to reveal.
RNP:
I have before me the inscription from Dr. Kathlenn Raine made
three years ago in her final work on Yeats studies.It is
inscribed,"You have gone further than any of us."
>
> So, when I saw him, on Google groups archive of this newsgroup,
> once again foolishly posturing about how he would soon reveal
> the evidence that would prove his case, I thought---FINALLY---
> I could ask him straight up what he was talking about.
>
> You all saw the results.
>
> And the really bad part for Parisious is that now everybody
> is going to see them.
>
> That's what he really means about my being "mean" to him.
RNP:
"She " was described as one of the meanest spirited people on the
internet with references under "Karlin". It stands for all to see.
>
> > You are a fake---
>
> You have a fork in you. You know why?
>
> You're done.
>
> (jk)
A whole fork?Must be serious. "She" generallly uses pins.
Roger Nyle Parisious
RNP wrote:
>
> > > > These are usually quick ( often marginal) anagrams[by Yeats] in response
> > > > to much longer attacks that were launched by Waite, Machen, Marcus
> > > > Blackden, and three or four others, many years earlier.
> > > So, you're saying all of these people [two people-RNP] attacked Yeats---
>
> Now, that's just plainly dishonest of you, isn't it?
>
> You've included "two people" into my statement when neither
> I, nor you, said there were two people.
[ RNP
Two NAMED people. Both of whom were discussed with very specific
citations.]
>
> YOU said Yeats was responding to "much longer attacks that were
> launched by":
>
> 1. Waite
> 2. Machen
> 3. Marcus Blackden
> 4. and three of four others[Many years earlier-RNP]
> KARlin
> So, let's see, that adds up to six or seven people, ACCORDING TO YOU(my emphasis -RNP]
>
KARlin
Why did you change my text?
RNP (then corrected for the benefit of the readership)
Observe,Reader, "ACCORDING TO"Karlin(or Reedy) frequently becomes
"according to their opponents "in "Karlin" and/or Reedy threads. Neither
the readership nor RNP would attempt to add three named people in one
Tombo snips above and comes up with this.
>
> > according to their opponents in "Karlin" and/or Reedy
> threads. Neither
> > the readership nor RNP would attempt to add three
> named people in one
> > time zone with three unnamed people in a far
> different time zone.]
>
> <snip>
>
> And this is the pride of the antiStratfordians? This
> man is obviously suffering from a severe mental
> disability.
>
> TR
Faker.
Tom Reedy
The cream of the antiStratfordians and Jerry Downs'
best friend spews again. Not being a doctor, I don't
have the vocabulary to describe this man's mental
illness, but even as a professional writer, I don't
have the words to describe the revulsion his character
evokes.
Why aren't we hearing from any of his "friends" taking
up for him?
TR
Roger Nyle Parisious
> "David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:aoqql2$5h6$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > In article
> <L53s9.2033$071.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
> >, "Tom
> > Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >"Roger Nyle Parisious" <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote
> in
> > >message
> >
> >news:a3cc4070.02101...@posting.google.com..
> .
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >> [Observe,Reader, according to Karlin(or Reedy)
> frequently becomes
> > >> according to their opponents in "Karlin" and/or
> Reedy
> threads. Neither
> > >> the readership nor RNP would attempt to add three
> named people in one
> > >> time zone with three unnamed people in a far
> > >different time zone.]
> >
> > Is the above supposed to be English? I've just
> > spent a couple of minutes staring at it, and
> > I honest can't make head or tail of it.
the lines in your stare and stared five seconds longer you would have
noted that "KARlin" had written "according to you" whereas it was a
misattribution by Karlin of"according to Karlin".It was then taken up
by Reedy and became "according to Reedy". That extra five seconds
would show it was never "according to" yours truly.
Trouble is that "KARlin" like most neo-Strats(KQ Knave excepted)has
no sense of the absurd.If he knew anything about the badly manhandled
Yeats Tarot pack on which he professes to be an expert he would have
recognized that the "according to" is the Two of Pentacles,an
adolescent Satan rocking with a phallic infinity cord in hands.In
fact, it is identical with the phallic "A" in the signature of his
"Karlin's" patron saint Alistair Crowley.
I can
> > usually at least figure out the drift of what
> > Parisious is trying to say, but in this case
> > I'm completely baffled.
> >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >And this is the pride of the antiStratfordians? This
> > >man is obviously suffering from a severe mental
> > >disability.
> > >
> > >TR
> >
> > You're being kind, Tom.
> >
> > Dave Kathman
TR
> Well, I am known for my charity ... People tell me I'm just too good.
> RNP
> As your neo-Strat convert KARlin would say,"You have a good heart and a tender also". These people locate their "hearts" somewhat lower down than the solar plexus.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> but ad
> > > hominem crap? Even if it were 100% accurate, who needs it?!
> >
> > The signal to noise ratio *was* remarkably lower than the average
> > usenet post. (A very low standard to begin with.)
> >
> > Here's the signal part.
> >
> > JK wrote:
> >
> > >>> And where did J. Brodie-Innes do this?
> >
> > and Roger did reply
> >
> > >> Occult Review,Feb.,l920.
THREE times .Good of you notice one of them,hot shot.
>
> Aha! I stand corrected.
>
> --Bob G.
>
> Sure do.In a later thread"Yeats and Tarot" you have the audacity to ask me to reply "objectively" to another hundred line fulmination by KARlin.Before we get around to that Suppose you first read the Brodie-Innes article which started it all off.Karlin obviously never has.
The simple fact is that Yeats and his multi-talanted mistress
Florence Farr worked with a Scottish collection of Tarot cards(it had
a remarkable annotated catalogue,part of which quotes apparently
reappear in "The Greater Trumps" of Charles Williams) owned by a
Mr.Clulow ,a friend of Brodie-Innes.
Waite who had never seen the Clulow collection flubbed badly.He had
seen a similar pack at the British Museum and sent Pamela Coleman
Smith to fill in his rough sketches( which he removed from Yeats and
Farr) with what he believed to be the originals at the BM.In l920
Brodie-Innes dropped the boom on a Waite who, for one of the few times
of his life, lost his cool.All he could do was sputter about Pamela
Colman Smith still being alive and she could answer.How ?that she
burgled the Clulow collection?.Well, she was a strong
clairvoyant,possibly her astral body sleep walked through the Clulow
holdings.She likewise appears to have read the catalogue while
entranced as quotes allegedly reappear in Waite's "Pictorial Key to
the Tarot".
I interviewed a number of close friends.The Yeats family, who were
also like her family,still held a large collection of her hand
coloured art work.She never came back for it though she could have
used the sales desperately during her last years.Two other Tarot
women,Jesse Weston and Florence Farr, were allegedly victems of
vicious psychic attacks by Waite and a very dear friend between
Oct.,l9l6, and the summer of l917.Pamela had no intention of being the
third.
Now read the original or creep back into your lair.
RNP
> >
> > Rob
> >
Bob Grumman
> >In a later thread"Yeats and Tarot" you have the audacity to ask me to
reply "objectively" to another hundred line fulmination by KARlin.
It was not a fulmination. It was a careful, orderly
description of how Karlin thinks your HLAS tangle with him originated and
unfolded.
>Before we get around to that Suppose you first read the Brodie-Innes
article which started it all off.Karlin obviously never has.
>
This is so stupid, Roger. If this article is of consequence, quote what is
of consequence in it, and tell us why it is of consequence.
> The simple fact is that Yeats and his multi-talanted mistress
> Florence Farr . . . Now read the original or creep back into your lair.
> RNP
Why should I read it, Roger? It has no bearing on what is now being argued.
Go to Karlin's post and answer it, if you want to be taken as anything but
a total wack repeating your views on who created a Tarot deck (as if Yeats's
participation in such a thing would not be backed by all kinds of evidence
if it had been significant) and lashing out at ALL your opponents,
regardless of the field they oppose you in.
I shouldn't ask this, because it will no doubt increase the Parisiousic
froth to sanity ratio to over 6000%, but why is it that you believe a
commoner with no college like Yeats (who learned to read, I recall, only
comparatively late) could have written the works he is said to have?
--Bob G.
J. Karlin
> > > >>> And where did J. Brodie-Innes do this?
> > >
> > > and Roger did reply
> > >
> > > >> Occult Review,Feb.,l920.
>
> THREE times .Good of you notice one of them,hot shot.
Roger, the problem for you is that I noticed you got it
wrong---again.
What was the name of the article Brodie-Innes allegedly
wrote and published in the Occult Review of Feb., 1920?
> Suppose you first read the Brodie-Innes article which started it
> all off.
Which started what all off?
Are you claiming this article is the inspiration for your
theory?
Some questions with respect to this alleged article that
started it all off:
1. Did J. Brodie-Innes publish an article in the Occult
Review in February, 1920?
2. If so, what was the name of the article?
3. If J. Brodie-Innes published such an article as you
claim, did he say in this article what you claim he
said? Here is what you claimed he said: "J. Brodie-Innes
publically accused him [Waite] of the theft in February,
l920." You of course only subsequently, upon
cross-examination, allowed that this allegedly occurred
in an article published in the Occult Review.
4. If J. Brodie-Innes did say in this article what you
claim, provide the quotations from the article where you
believe he said it, and tell us how does that advance
your argument that Waite was a Satanist, and stole
Yeats' Tarot?
5. If J. Brodie-Innes didn't say what you claim, then what
was the point in your mentioning him and this article?
> Karlin obviously never has.
There are other reasonable interpretations of the
evidence.
> The simple fact is that Yeats and his multi-talanted mistress---
You keep mentioning this as if it's an essential quality of
hers---the "mistress", whom Yeats "bedded". Did she not also
"bed" Yeats, the boyfriend? Are you trying to imply that
this alleged physical intimacy counts toward connecting
these two individuals as some kind of Siamese (or would it
be "Satanic") collective, not quite married but certainly
sharing all of each other's plots and (just) deserts?
> Florence Farr worked with a Scottish collection of Tarot cards---
What do you mean a "Scottish collection"? You mean owned by a
Scot? Or what exactly? Then wouldn't that mean that this
collection didn't belong to Yeats or Farr? And what work
she allegedly did with it was based on something created
(and then collected) by others?
> (it had a remarkable annotated catalogue---
What happened to the remarkable annotated catalog?
> , part of which quotes apparently reappear in "The
> Greater Trumps" of Charles Williams)---
Did Charles Williams "burgle" the catalog? That would
have made him a catalog burglar.
Are you trying to be silly?
> owned by a Mr. Clulow, a friend of Brodie-Innes.
And Brodie-Innes says this in the article in question?
> Waite who had never seen the Clulow collection flubbed badly.
How so? And how, if he had never seen this collection, which
lucky Yeats and Farr are alleged to have seen, could he have
stolen something from it?
> He had seen a similar pack at the British Museum---
A similar pack of what at the British Museum?
First you say it's a "collection", now you're saying it's
a "pack".
And what do you mean by "a similar pack"? Similar to
what exactly?
> and sent Pamela Coleman Smith to fill in his rough
> sketches (which he removed from Yeats and Farr)---
He removed HIS rough sketches from Yeats and Farr?
What were they doing with Waite's rough sketches?
You just said THEY [Yeats and Farr] got whatever it is
they're alleged to have possessed from somewhere and
someone else (from something you call the "Scottish
collection"). So how is it THEY would have have
possessed it to be "stolen"? And how is it Waite
would have seen whatever this is supposed to be,
and then "removed" it, unless someone willingly
showed whatever it was to him? And, knowing that
Waite was doing the work of making a Tarot, wouldn't
it have been reasonable to think that showing him Tarot
designs one was working on for one's own Tarot project,
might at the least "inspire" Waite in some fashion?
So, perhaps, if you could prove what you're claiming
here is true (at least the bit about Waite being able
to see something Tarotic earlier copied by Yeats-Farr),
the better way to explain this, as some have indeed sought
to do, is to suggest that maybe Yeats and Farr
intentionally shared with Waite something they thought
might be helpful to him in his own project.
And finally, even IF what you're alleging to have
happened DID in fact happen, that is Waite saw
something (a Tarot pack) Yeats and Farr were intending
to exploit themselves, and Waite published it first,
there is such a thing as being faster on the draw.
I can see how you would naturally sympathize
with the late bird, seeing as how it's taken you
decades to reach even this muddled level of
explicitness, but one first has to accept your claim
that Yeats had any Tarot plan to be late about, and
that Waite somehow unfairly beat him to a punch.
You haven't demonstrated any "fight" was on in the
first place, nor that anything whatsoever has been
stolen, but merely that lots of borrowings may have
been going on by lots of people who had every reason
to believe that shared information might be used
and even published---by those with whom the
information was being shared.
> with what he believed to be the originals at the BM.
The "originals" of what at the BM?
The originals of something you've alleged Yeats and
Farr copied from the "Scottish collection"?
> In l920 Brodie-Innes dropped the boom on a Waite who,
> for one of the few times of his life, lost his cool. All
> he could do was sputter about Pamela Colman Smith still
> being alive and she could answer. How? that she
> burgled the Clulow collection?.
Here, let's simplify.
What specifically do you charge Pam Smith with stealing from
the Clulow Collection? Or from anything or anyone?
All you've said is that she went to copy something Waite
believed were "originals", housed at the BM (British
Museum?).
How does that demonstrate that she or Waite stole
anything?
> Well, she was a strong clairvoyant---
She didn't have to be clairvoyant, you've already admitted
she was sent to the British Museum to copy a specific
deck.
The question is, why did he send her to do that?
Certainly Waite is quite clear about what the aesthetic
inspiration was for the design of HIS Tarot pack:
"If any one will look at the gorgeous Tarot valet or knave
who is emblazoned on one of the page plates of Chatto's
"Facts and Speculations concerning the History of Playing
Cards", he will know that Italy in the old days produced
some splendid packs. I could only wish that it had been
possible to issue the restored and rectified cards
in the same style and size; such a course would have
done fuller justice to the designs...For the variations
in the symbolism by which the designs have been
affected, I alone am responsible."
---"Pictorial Key to the Tarot", pages 67-68
Isn't this an essential clue about what really happened?
Waite admits that he admires the craft and the design
employed to create Tarots "in the old days", he admits
that he would have preferred to have been able to produce
one of these large-sized, richly-colored packs. And then
he says HE alone is responsible for "variations"
in the designs. So, what seems quite reasonable, and
what has been suggested by a number of people who
have studied the Waite Tarot is that Waite had
Pamela Smith study and obtain inspiration from one
of the Italian Tarots produced "in the old days",
and in fact there was just such a deck, photographs
of which were housed in the British Museum at the
time Smith would have needed them, and these are
designs upon which Pam Smith CLEARLY based a number
of her card illustrations for Waite's deck.
Now, Roger, what is the name of this deck that Pam
Smith DID in fact employ to help her in the creation
of Waite's, not Yeats', Tarot?
> , possibly her astral body sleep walked through the Clulow
> holdings. She likewise appears to have read the catalogue while
> entranced as quotes allegedly reappear in Waite's "Pictorial Key to
> the Tarot".
So you're accusing Waite of plagiarizing Clulow's catalog?
OK. Demonstrate this. Provide a quotation from Clulow's
catalog and show where Waite copied from it in PKT.
> I interviewed a number of close friends.
Whose close friends?
What are their names?
> The Yeats family---
The whole family? And did the Yeats family claim A. E. Waite
stole W. B. Yeats' Tarot?
> , who were also like her family---
Like whose family? Pamela's? And yet you accuse Pamela
of stealing from her own "family".
So, what does the Yeats family have to say about your
allegations?
> , still held a large collection of her hand coloured art
> work. She never came back for it though she could have
> used the sales desperately during her last years.
Maybe that behavior suggests she was possessed of
honor and pride---not guilt.
> Two other Tarot women---
What do you mean by "Tarot women"? Is Yeats a "Tarot man"?
> , Jesse Weston and Florence Farr, were allegedly victems of
> vicious psychic attacks by Waite---
And who alleges this?
And where is it alleged?
Do you believe in "vicious psychic attacks"?
Or in those who claim they've been the victim of such
a thing?
> and a very dear friend between Oct., l9l6, and the
> summer of l917. Pamela had no intention of being the
> third.
What is that supposed to mean? Pamela had no intention
of being the third (victim?), and therefore what exactly?
> Now read the original or creep back into your lair.
Roger, has it ever occurred to you that you may be dead
wrong? Do you ever practice the art of countering your
own arguments with reasonable objections? Because if you
do not do this, if you do not question your own beliefs,
you are rudely expecting others to do this work for you.
And the thing is, sometimes they will do it, and far
better, and perhaps more rudely, than you had ever
imagined it could be done.
You certainly are not the first person, nor will you
likely be the last, to bite hard upon the lure of
Tarot, only to find your teeth broken upon a cloud.
(jk)
J. Karlin
> > > Is the above supposed to be English? I've just
> > > spent a couple of minutes staring at it, and
> > > I honest can't make head or tail of it.
> Well,David,if you would would have included the line directly above
> the lines in your stare and stared five seconds longer you would have
> noted that "KARlin" had written "according to you" whereas it was a
> misattribution by Karlin of"according to Karlin".
OK, Roger, I'll stop here to give you a brief lesson in how
English and math actually work.
Now pay attention.
First you wrote (speaking of how Yeats allegedly
counter-attacked his "longer" attackers):
"These are usually quick (often marginal) anagrams in
response to much longer attacks that were launched by Waite,
Machen, Marcus Blackden, and three or four others, many
years earlier."
I then asked you in reference to this:
"So, you're saying all of these people attacked Yeats in some
'much longer' form and fashion, although what exactly is meant
by this with respect to Waite especially you did not say, and
then Yeats replied back with anagrams?"
You then replied back to me, and changed my text:
"So, you're saying all of these people [two people] attacked
Yeats in some 'much longer' form and fashion..."
And your defense for making this change to my text was,
in your words:
"Two NAMED people. Both of whom were discussed with very specific
citations."
Yet, in fact, you wrote THREE names (of people) in your initial
paragraph:
1. Waite
2. Machen
3. Marcus Blackden
See Roger, TWO is a different word than THREE. It has a
different meaning. Do you understand that?
Here's an example of two names: Waite, Machen.
Here's an example of three names: Waite, Machen, Marcus Blackden.
Do you see the difference there? Note how Marcus Blackden's
name isn't in the first example?
But it is in the paragraph that you actually wrote, wherein
there are THREE NAMES (of people).
Of course I pointed this out to you before, didn't I?
And that's when you wrote this razor-edged reply:
"Observe, Reader, according to Karlin (or Reedy) frequently
becomes according to their opponents in "Karlin" and/or Reedy
threads. Neither the readership nor RNP would attempt to
add three named people in one time zone with three unnamed
people in a far different time zone."
That paragraph, written as if you were trying to
teach fortune-telling, instead of literary history, claims
an unfair manipulation of your text was performed by my
pointing out to you that you actually wrote THREE names,
and that you offered additionally that there were
"three or four others" you could have named. You became
indignant that I would actually read your THREE names
as THREE names instead of the TWO names you later claimed
you had "obviously" intended.
But you wrote THREE names. And then you added that
"three or four others" bit to make it more conspiratorial.
And all I did was question what you wrote.
And all you did was dishonestly reply to my question,
putting in words I didn't write to try to make me be
more congenial, and more supportive of how you'd like
the world to be, instead of how it actually is.
And you're still being dishonest, aren't you?
Now, this seems to most I'm sure like a very small
and unimportant point to quibble over, but it goes
to pointing out just how fundamentally delusional
(or simply dishonest) is your perception of the
world, and your reaction to it. You literally
think 2+2=5, or 2+1=2 or 1+1+1+(several) isn't
equal to a number greater than 2. Or, if you don't
think this, you don't mind using that anti-math
as a con.
That's again a symptom of yours, not an argument.
> Trouble is that "KARlin" like most neo-Strats (KQ Knave excepted) has
> no sense of the absurd.
One may have a sense of the absurd, and yet not require that
the absurd make sense.
> If he knew anything about the badly manhandled
> Yeats Tarot pack on which he professes to be an expert he would have
> recognized that the "according to" is the Two of Pentacles, an
> adolescent Satan rocking with a phallic infinity cord in hands. In
> fact, it is identical with the phallic "A" in the signature of his
> "Karlin's" patron saint Alistair Crowley.
Now, is that intended to be an example of your "absurdity",
or are you attempting to offer evidence?
Demonstrate to us that Waite's Two of Pentacles, with the
dancing man that so annoyed Brodie-Innes, is "identical" with
Crowley's "A" signature.
Roger Nyle Parisious
If any reader fails to see the direct relation between the Crowley
phallic A and the Waite dancing phallus, give up. Remember SUD is a
born again Crowleyite and by studying he/she/its tactics the reader
can see a hideous example of what life with Crowley did to a lot of
people. Never get into a he said/she/it said mind game with
it,however. Just look under "J.KARlin[as in Yeats'"ass-car"]on Google
for all the flaming testimonials.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> Roger Nyle Parisious, after scrambling about for the
> better part of a week, trying to think of something other
> than witless slander to use in reply to Mr. Karlin,
> wrote:
RNP:October 31,2002
> I just belatedly caught this piece of garbage by SUD(Subject
Under Discusion).No reply will be made to said pseud.However a brief
factual history of the Vaillant publications which history is so
mangled in the following paragraphs by said pseud will be given .
This self styled Satanist ,in a truly diabolical act,has eviscerated
facts publically available for nearly twenty years and available to
the present writer for a much longer period of time due to his
transcriptions from the papers of Mrs. Sophie Jacobs and her sister
Estelle Solomons.Mrs.Jacobs believed her sister and brother-in-law had
derived these notes of the earliest Vaillant publications from a
Tarot study group operating in Dublin circa l893-l896 .She further had
transcribtions of "Egyptian" astrological materials labelled as having
come from the Period,l895 to l896 ,cross references between the
Vaillant and "Period" materials were further linked to annotations to
a two volume l880's study by Gerald Massey and the first volume only
of John O'Neill's "Night of the Gods" .As the second invaluable
O'Neill volume was published in l897 the inference is that
Mrs.Jacobs(whom I never once found to be inaccurate) was correct in
her recollections of the dates her sister had given her.
J.A.Vaillant published two monographs of alleged Gypsey Tarot
astrological teaching out of a projected twenty-two(one for each trump
major)in l853 and l854.These publications were ignored by all
subsequent writers EXCEPT Papus who placed a quote from the gypsey on
the title page of his "Tarot of the Bohemians".This was quite
appropriate as this is the only example of a traditional Gypsey
talking about Tarot.Papus deliberately cut the items from his
Bibliography.The first English translation in the early l890's kept
the quote. Someone in Dublin picked it up.No one ever caught it again
till Dummett picked it up probably in the mid l980's. But SUD still
doesn't know about any of these publications. It's that simple.
> > rpari...@yahoo.com (Roger Nyle Parisious) wrote in message news:<a3cc4070.02101...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> That isn't true. Dummett never identifies any of Vaillant's
> books as "Tarot books". The details of what people actually
> write continue to be of little interest to you.
>
> Why is that?
>
> I have already explained what Dummett wrote, and when he
> wrote it. And I have already explained that Dummett disagrees
> with your estimate of the facts and their meanings.
>
> You first need to reply to Dummett's rejection of your view
> of things (which you attempt to in your reply, but only
> briefly and incompetently) and you need to address
> Gilbert's similar rejection of your view of things.
>
> Increasingly it seems to me no great mystery that they reject
> your view of things.
>
>
>