lashtal.com
Requests - Goetia of Dr Rudd
seajay - Apr 07, 2008 - 06:11 PM
Post subject: Goetia of Dr Rudd
ive been noticing this book the goetia of dr rudd???anyone read this book-is it worth reading???
ianrons - Apr 07, 2008 - 06:55 PM
Post subject: RE: goetia of dr rudd???
I suggest you read this series of blog posts, with comments:
http://danharms.wordpress.com/2007/10/2 ... dd-part-1/
The commenter named "Alan" is obviously Alan Thorogood -- he refers at one point to Skinner & Rankine being uninterested in criticism, which relates to earlier criticism of another book where their "Dr. Rudd" appears.
A generous person might say they're being "magickal with the facts" 
hawthornrussell - Apr 07, 2008 - 07:15 PM
Post subject:
Thanks for posting that blog Ian. The amount of detective work finding out who "was" Dr Rudd borders on Inspector Morse territory!! 
The thing is a lot of historical grimoires had authors who remained anonymous, so although Alan is right to raise some of the historical things Skinner and Rankine never covered, is it fair to criticise them for it? It comes down to whether you see a grimoire has a historical book for reference, or something to be used for praxis.
scrivener11 - Apr 07, 2008 - 07:25 PM
Post subject:
A better book and one of the best I have come across that is written on the Goetia, is "The Book of Soloman's Magick" by Carroll Poke Runyon.
It is a very practical book and also explains alot of the philosophy behind it.
ianrons - Apr 07, 2008 - 07:35 PM
Post subject:
hawthornrussell, did you actually read all those blog entries? I posted my comment at 6.55 and you replied at 7.15 without mentioning the serious criticisms from the later blog entries, seemingly referring only to the comments in part 4.
Walterfive - Apr 07, 2008 - 10:39 PM
Post subject:
Wow, those are quite interesting criticisms. I'm printing them out and tipping them into my copies of Practical Angel Magic and The Goetia of Dr. Rudd.
I own both of those books. I've quite enjoyed them. But I'll be looking at them with a more critical eye now. Frankly, I still think the worth of the material allows them to stand on their own merits, whatever the historical proofs of a Dr. Rudd may or may not be.
I have Dr. Runyon's book as well. Have you seen his DVD "Dark Mirror of Magick"? Quite interesting, the departures he makes from the traditional Solomonic techniques. But his O.T.A. has been teaching those variations for three decades now, and his lineage is undeniable.
Anticredos - Apr 07, 2008 - 10:47 PM
Post subject:
My own take on Dr. Rudd the magician is that he never existed and none of the other Rudds are an good match. I feel that Smart started out writing occult papers attributed to Dee (e.g. The Rosicrucian Secrets) but quickly realised that it would be more convincing to invent his own doctoral authority on magic: enter Rudd.
Not picked up Skinner's editions yet, but McLean's edition of the Treatise on Angel Magic is one of my favorite compilations of material...
fratersi - Apr 08, 2008 - 07:31 AM
Post subject:
David has responded to that review. I am not trying to open a can of worms but lets get everything out in the open.
I have been thinking for a while of addressing the points raised in the review so bravely and wittily written under a pseudo-aristocratic acronymic pseudonym (Sir Anon) which clearly belongs to Ian Rons. His mindset is illustrated in his opening paragraph by his completely unjustifiable and pointless remarks on Stephen's edition of Crowley's Tunisian diaries. Apart from reproducing Crowley's usual profanities and sexual innuendo (which is part of the job of accurately editing any manuscript) I fail to see what other profanities he is referring to . If a document is reproduced and contains profanities, then so what? The point of that particular work was to make more of Crowley's Diary material available.
So, to his claims in the review. Perhaps it is relevant here to mention that I have heard comments that Sir Anon was planning on publishing a complete book of Dee material in modern typeface, which has not actually appeared. If this is true, that may explain why he feels so proprietorial about Dee's work, and is so negative towards anyone he feels might have pre-empted him in any way.
Let me address Anon's points in turn, many of which would not have arisen if the reviewer had read all of the introduction with attention .
1. We never claim it is a Dee manuscript, rather we give two possible authors for the manuscript, favouring Thomas Rudd.
2. Funnily enough, we were aware of the fact that the manuscript had differences to others, that is the nature of manuscript material, and that is why we also comprehensively footnoted these differences in the material from Sloane 3821, Rawlinson D1067 and D1363, as well as the Golden Dawn Book H (F.L. Gardner's edition), showing how the other manuscripts derived from Sloane 307. It is up to the reader to determine how they wish to use the material or not.
3. Stephen Skinner was the person who printed the first modern edition of True & Faithful Relation in the 1970s and was therefore certainly aware of commonalities between the material, which is to be expected when people work from the same sources. He also published many magical classics like Agrippa's Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy and Paracelsus Archidoxes of Magic. His contribution to modern occultism is therefore substantial, Sir Anon's appears to be negligible and one might even say anonymous, beyond that of carping reviews. It seems to me there is a clear case of wand envy going on here.
4. How Anon can claim that he knows that the 17th century copyist did not have reasons for doing certain things is remarkable. Our foundation for claiming the copyist had intimate knowledge is that this is the original manuscript (Sloane 307) on which the subsequent manuscripts are based, and it demonstrates a working knowledge of magic.
5. As to the copyist not being aware of the correctly arranged tables in Sloane 3191, that would be the same material (the four manuscripts Ashmole had bound together) that was sitting hidden in a chest for 50 years? So unless the angels were revealing it as hidden treasure, there is a pretty good reason why nobody would have quoted from those manuscripts - they were out of circulation! Of course if the copyist saw it in the period 1605-08 then fair enough, but that would then give the earlier provenance we suggested and Sir Anon so vehemently denies. Either way his viewpoint is shown as spurious
6. The example that Anon gives of tracing the spelling of Choronzon ignores the fact that different spellings were the norm in the non-standardised English of the time. Still it does give Anon a chance to blow his own trumpet, he has simply scaned and reproduced various documents on his site, a feat of heroic scholarship!
7. The "strong impression" that this is new Enochian material is in fact both correct and not , as it is in fact old Enochian material, but being made available for the first time to the public, with all manuscript variants included. The reader may choose to agree or disagree with opinions expressed in the commentary, however the value of the manuscripts cannot be doubted.
8. Anon deliberately ignores the discussion of the line of descent of the manuscript material contained in the book, in an endeavour to poke fun and try to belittle, whilst making himself look clever, ho hum, yawn….
9. The example Anon gives, criticizing "esse" being expanded to "essence", indicates his own misreading of our book (how confidence inspiring), as the word is in fact "essce", which is clearly expanded to "essence" in line with our editorial policy explained i the introduction.
10. The question mark Rons referred to is a mistake - it didn't get removed from the draft of the book. Show me a book without typos and I will be amazed! Likewise we have to admit, Allan was definitely our worst mistake!
11. We have had many positive responses about the introduction and early chapters, so we leave that up to the reader. The only negative comments we have had so far have been from Anon, so I think that says something. His tone in these comments is not so much one scholar soberly commenting on the work of another, and welcoming the steady advances in the documentation of magical technology, but the rude vorciferations of someone who feels he has had his very own private territory intruded upon.
12. The listing of Cotton Appendix MS XLVI as Liber Mysteriorum Sextus et Secundus which Anon complains about is actually a correction of mislabelling by the British Library. Just as the Sloane 307 manuscript was mis-labelled as the Key of Solomon (which probably explains why it was largely overlooked for so long ). It is precisely this sort of correction whch has enabled previously 'hidden' MSS to be found, and is included for the convenience of the reader.
13. From here on the review descends to a level of tedium which does not even deserve a rebuttal.
In conclusion, might I suggest that Sir Anon perhaps actually gets down and does some useful work or actually produces something of value himself, rather than quibling over the work of others who have laboured long and hard to produce much material of value to the magical community.
ianrons - Apr 08, 2008 - 01:04 PM
Post subject:
fratersi, would you please point me in the direction of David Rankine's response to my review?
I am of course happy to respond to your remarks, and will do so in detail, but since you assert some connection with the authors without stating your identity I can only doubt this connection. If you don't wish to reveal your identity that's obviously your prerogative.
fratersi - Apr 08, 2008 - 01:07 PM
Post subject:
This was posted to the Golden Hoard Discussion group On Facebook.
ianrons - Apr 08, 2008 - 01:12 PM
Post subject:
Quote: › This was posted to the Golden Hoard Discussion group On Facebook.
I'm not a member of his discussion group, so it will of course be difficult for me to respond to that. Would you be able to post a copy here?
P.S. I don't actually own a copy of their book (I returned the last one to Amazon), so I'll have to go and buy another one. Hence I may not be able to respond for a few days.
fratersi - Apr 08, 2008 - 01:23 PM
Post subject:
Feel free to respond here and I will notify everyone. Or you can respond by joining the Golden Hoard group at www.facebook.com
ianrons - Apr 08, 2008 - 01:34 PM
Post subject:
I can't very well respond to David's remarks if I can't read them, and I am not a member of Facebook. To be absolutely clear about this, I posted a public criticism of a book he co-wrote. If he won't come out in public to respond then I have no interest in defending against what I have heard (and, from your post, what I can easily believe) are largely ad hominem remarks.
Just to repeat, I am more than happy to respond to your comments, and will do so. Just don't ask me to join a private club for the privilege of being "rebutted" by anyone.
Walterfive - Apr 08, 2008 - 02:11 PM
Post subject:
Right? I'm already on LJ and MySpace, I don't need or want to be part of Facebook. Cut and paste them over here, PLEASE, so we can merely see what was said. It's not Kosher to refer to an article on a closed list without *at least* excerpting the salient points of contention or conversation.
fratersi - Apr 08, 2008 - 03:53 PM
Post subject:
Everyone can read the response on Avalonia's public forum. Please feel free to reply.
http://www.avaloniabooks.co.uk/forum/vi ... 045#p26045
V
ianrons - Apr 08, 2008 - 06:32 PM
Post subject:
fratersi -- I wish you'd made it clear that that post of yours was actually Rankine's post from Facebook. As I said, I'll reply in due course -- once I have the book in front of me.
fratersi - Apr 08, 2008 - 06:44 PM
Post subject:
No problem I look forward to your response 
ianrons - Apr 09, 2008 - 03:07 PM
Post subject:
I've just noticed that Dan Harms has posted online a letter to Mr. Rankine on the subject of Dr. Rudd that he sent in November and which was mentioned in the previous series of posts.
I can only assume that the reply he mentions was simply an "I'll get back to you later".
sethur666 - Apr 10, 2008 - 11:15 AM
Post subject:
I had a word with Gareth J Medway yesterday, who is a bit of an expert on Grimoires. He stated that there are a number of Grimoires attributed to Dr Rudd and that he is of the opinion that either Rudd didn't exist or was merely a copyist. I suppose it is equally possible that Doctor Rudd, like Ned Ludd, was a cover name for a group of people.
Steve W
ernest - Apr 11, 2008 - 07:15 PM
Post subject:
ernest - Apr 11, 2008 - 07:15 PM
Post subject:
93 did you check out Thelema coast to coast. The interviue form the auther .
sorry not good at spelling.
ianrons - Sep 22, 2008 - 08:21 PM
Post subject:
[Oct 2009: My full response to David Rankine is now online here.]
I still haven't had the time to complete my critique of Mr. Rankine's rather unorthodox reply, mainly because in the process of addressing his points I have found it necessary to address other issues with The Practical Angel Magic..., and also to get into the equally strange claims made for "Dr. Rudd" in The Goetia of Dr. Rudd; which, with the help of others better informed than myself, will (with luck) appear in print at some stage. However, because it's coming up to 6 months since I first saw Mr. Rankine's reply to my review, as a gesture towards the final goal I will briefly address one of the points (number 9). It's a rather trivial point, but is illustrative of the wider issues with his book and of the problems with his reply to my review.
In the document that Mr. Rankine has transcribed, MS. Sloane 307, there is the following word:
It's the Latin word "esse", which can be translated (in this context) as "being". (The mark to the lower right is a comma.)
The passage where this word appears is copied from A True & Faithful Relation p.92 where it is also, clearly, "esse":
which in turn was copied from Cotton Appdx. MS. XLVI Pt. I f.91r, where it is also -- clearly! -- "esse":
However, in the Skinner/Rankine book they have transcribed this quite falsely as "essce", which they believe is an abbreviation for "essence".
My criticism of this went as follows:
Quote: › Doubts of the accuracy of the Skinner/Rankine transcription of Sloane 307 then arise, and a cursory inspection finds the first error only twelve lines into the manuscript: [the Latin] “esse” falsely read as the English “ess[en]ce”.
My critism stands; but this error is neither the sole nor the most serious transcriptional error that Mr. Rankine has made, as I will expound in due course. That Mr. Rankine has objected to my criticism (and indeed the manner in which he has done so) will, I trust, serve to illustrate the general quality of the other points he has made:
David Rankine wrote: › 9. The example Anon gives, criticizing "esse" being expanded to "essence", indicates his own misreading of our book (how confidence inspiring), as the word is in fact "essce", which is clearly expanded to "essence" in line with our editorial policy explained i the introduction.
Finally, let me reiterate that I will answer the other points in due course; however, the convoluted formulation of the various points made by Mr. Rankine, and the broader criticisms of Mr. Rankine's "Golden Hoard" publications that a full reply ought to encompass, has made impossible the speedy response that I would have liked to give.
ianrons - Oct 17, 2009 - 09:30 PM
Post subject:
93 all,
I finally got around to writing a full reply to David Rankine, which turned into an extended critique and touches upon a number of issues including “transcription and translation errors, unsubstantiable conjectures about historical characters presented as fact, false assertions concerning key documents that the editors don’t appear to have examined […] and inclusions that appear to be clearly plagiaristic”.
http://www.themagickalreview.org/review ... ic-update/
Comments always appreciated...
93 93/93
Ian
N.O.X - Oct 19, 2009 - 05:33 AM
Post subject:
I'm enjoying "The True Grimoire" very much. I'm glad I bought it instead of Dr. Rudd's. J.S.K has been a practicing Necromancer for 30+yrs. He even included the complete list of the Spirits of the Goetia. I can hardly wait for his second Encyclopedia Goetica. I have the "Death's Head" Ed. (its not sold out yet, so I suggest you out there interested in Gimoires to get one, if you have not already.) I Love it. His "Goes Ed." that sold out so fast is such a beautiful book. That is what a magickal grimoire should look like.
For those of you who don't like Dr. Rudd's Ed. or all the others, I suggest that you pick up J.S.K's "Death Head" Ed. and his next volume of The Encyclopedia Goetica Plus the "Deaths Head" Ed. Comes with one of Kyle Fite's "Ex-Libris" bookplates, which are sold out. Also, a small Talisman depicting a green butterfly....which, as a zootype of the vampire it can be used in Typhonian Magick.....well, that is IF you want to use it at all (it does make a nice little bookmark.) The whole concept of using an intermediary Spirit to deal with the other's on your behalf is unique among most Grimoire's. You can interpret the intermediary spirit as your H.G.A.(and subsitute your H.G.A's Name and Sigil (if you know them) but Scirlin should be used if you do not know thine Holy Angel's Name/Sigil, if it is possible using Both would make the Operation even more powerful I think, and thus that would make sure the Operations you conduct with the Spirits are aligned with your True Will , which then will assure the magick's complete success. J.S.K.'s Encyclopedia Goetica series, once completly released, will take the place of all the other Solomanic Gromoire's on my bookshelf. Most of those who are interested in the Grimoire Tradition should do the same. His notes and other comments make replacing your other Solomanic Grimoire's with J.S.K's, a must IMHO. He really knows his stuff, that's for sure! I was so impresseed with this book I gave away the Mathers/Crowley and the "Illustrated" (by DuQuette) Goetia paperbacks. (the less paperbacks on my sheves especially the shelves for my magickal/thelemic Tomes the better!)
Now I just need a Hardback of the newest "Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage", and all my paperback Grimoire's (except Lber Nigri Solis) will be replaced with expanded/updated hardcover's, then my shelves for occult books will ooze that magickal atmosphere similar, I think, to what Grant felt emanating from A.C.'s shelves at Hastings. We have access to information that A.C. didn't even have in his editions of the same Grimoire's. We really are in the golden age of the ability to obtain magickal lore that was, until now, incomplete. There are so many great publisher's out there making Wonderful Works on Magick, I'm delighted at the possibilities of Lore and techniques available, and am very grateful for all of these people making this magick accessable. I have at least two magickal books that will be published as soon as I am finished, so be on the lookout, so be on the lookout.
ianrons - Mar 10, 2010 - 07:16 PM
Post subject:
I note that David's wife, Sorita d’Este, has now withdrawn David’s comments from the Facebook group where they were posted. I suppose that’s a victory of sorts, but I would have preferred a proper response. I do think honesty in debate is important.
AEternitas - Mar 10, 2010 - 10:19 PM
Post subject:
Skinner's attempts to lay down his opinions as fact can be overly annoying and frustrating. Just looking at his "Techniques of High Magic" he incorrectly attributes the elements to the four adepts tools, and his explanation for doing so shows a lack of proper understanding of the deeper correspondences in the GD's qabalistic system, ultimately confusing the attributes of the elements with the Sephiroth, the Sephiroth with the Planets. He then prints the same arrangement in his "Complete" Magicians Tables which I wasted $50 on, and gives no reference to the original attributions! That the GD would incorporate such a lame blind into their system, or that their attribution of the elements to the tools overlooked some flaw is just absurd. Overall both books mentioned were garbage, and I can't believe I wasted my money on the crap.
Speaking of the Complete Magician's Tables, where, after the fashion of 777 (which he seems to ridicule to know end) we have a rather extensive resource of information covering a wide source of material related and unrelated to western esoterica and practical magic.
The rest of his books repeat one common theme, that he holds the secret to unlocking the magic of the grimoires. Each of his works claim to provide the supposedly lost and correct methods of performing the magic of the grimoires or the renaissance via some little known manuscript available at the British museum or some such place. His claims seem like little more than a whole lot of hyperbole, and his psuedo-academic method of backing up his piss poor opinions are a constant annoyance. When Im looking for an acedemically prepared rendition of some grimoire, I'd look to Joseph Petersen or some other such comparable translator who are a bit more HONEST in their work. That's my whole problem with Skinner's books, he seems like a dishonest book salesman. ANd he is dishonest "presenting Dr.Dee's Enochian System, as it was originally meant to be practiced!"
Really I don't see why this guy's books are so highly valued in any way.
alysa - Mar 11, 2010 - 04:23 AM
Post subject:
I can't all that much add to what you are saying of Stephen Skinner, but to me contemporary writers or editors of books of magick, of any note are Donald Tyson, David Rankine, Joseph Peterson, I also am interested of anything that has to do with Michael Staley, I can't say anything about Michael Ford, as I haven't read anything of his writings. So leaving so many contemporary authors/editors aside I think I have enough to keep me busy for a very long time!