Notifications
Clear all

Crowley on De Quincey  

  RSS

SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 351
25/11/2013 3:42 pm  

I believe that Crowley did not have a particularly high opinion of Thomas de Quincey.  Searching for some confirmation of this, I turned first to 'The Herb Dangerous' where in Part II, "The Psychology of Hashish", I found:

"Deeper and clearer is the information to be gained from the brilliant studies by Baudelaire, unsurpassed for insight and impartiality, and Ludlow, tainted by admiration of de Quincey and the sentimentalists."  (part I)

I was expecting to find more there.  Could someone point me in the direction of a more expansive reference by Crowley ?  De Quincey does not appear to warrent any inclusion in the 'Confessions' evidently.


Quote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4920
25/11/2013 4:06 pm  

It has been pointed out, somewhere, that Aleister had nothing good to say about anyone, except for Allan Bennett and Oscar Eckenstein. I'm sure we can fine exceptions to this rule from time to time (for example, Frank Bennett?), but generally speaking, he did tend to (attempt to) reduce anyone he penned about to ashes.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
27/11/2013 3:23 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
It has been pointed out, somewhere, that Aleister had nothing good to say about anyone, except for Allan Bennett and Oscar Eckenstein. I'm sure we can fine exceptions to this rule from time to time (for example, Frank Bennett?), but generally speaking, he did tend to (attempt to) reduce anyone he penned about to ashes.

Wasn’t Louis Wilkinson similarly under ‘most favoured’ status?  As far as I am aware, never a cross word was spoken between he & the goodly Aleister: they certainly don’t seem ever to have had a falling out, which was unusual.  (Otherwise I would have added the name of Karl Germer to the list here!)  But, I may be wrong.

Bennett and Eckenstein were both Crowley’s gurus, for want of a better word.  He no longer had a need for these later in his life, “assuming the position” as he did himself.  As far as I am aware, the only chela with whom he appeared never to have had a falling out with either was Raoul Loveday, who may have died before that pleasantry was due to arrive, however.

Minded to avoid drinking the local water,
Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/11/2013 4:40 pm  

As far as I know Crowley never had a bad word to say about Gurdjieff, even calling him a 'top man' and a 'true adept' in one of his letters, if my memory serves me well. Admittedly his mentions of Gurdjieff were scant.

Magmus


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/11/2013 7:38 pm  

Of course, Crowley only met Gurdjieff two or three times, so he would only qualify as a mere acquaintance.

Magmus


ReplyQuote
Markus
(@markus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 254
27/11/2013 7:40 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
... but generally speaking, he did tend to (attempt to) reduce anyone he penned about to ashes.

I disagree: R. Burton, A. Rhodin, T. Huxley, J. Frazer, etc. immediately jump to mind. Yes, Crowley had a low opinion of many people, however, he also held many in high regard.

Markus


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5320
28/11/2013 10:17 am  

Meanwhile... Back to De Quincey.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 351
28/11/2013 2:46 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
Meanwhile... Back to De Quincey.

  Well, you never know your luck, but its not looking promising so far...


ReplyQuote
Share: