Theos-Talk Archives (December 2010 Message tt00159)

The use of pen names was far more common in the 19th century than it is now 
 for a whole bunch of reasons that no longer exist any more.
 
Chuck the Heretic
 
_www.charlescosimano.com  

 
In a message dated 12/24/2010 8:43:21 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
kpauljohnson@uA70uXDFqeETejDKDRUl7dzrsxHUswGVDbn_pjvMpyPUHfVR4YLC8lF5CWmrGufW3QXhXop7eT7Znmz36uc.yahoo.invalid writes:

 
 
 
Let me follow up the last post which might have seemed to focus on HPB by  
mention of 1884, but my current interest is Emma Hardinge Britten's use of  
pseudonyms which has created an amazingly intricate set of puzzles for  
scholars. Will we ever get to the bottom of the mystery of Chevalier Louis?  Her 
biographer Marc Demarest will speak about her at the Church of Light  
biennial gathering next year, and Leslie Price and Paul Gaunt both have fine  
articles about Emma in the PsiPioneer for December 2010. Art Magic is one of  
the foundational works of the CofL yet its authorship remains as mysterious  
today as when it appeared in 1876. My blog post about these new Emma 
articles  provides links, at:





_ (http://www.charlescosimano.com/) 
_http://theosnet.ning.com/profiles/blogs/what-we-dont-know-about-one?xg_source=activity_ 
(http://theosnet.ning.com/profiles/blogs/what-we-dont-know-about-one?xg_source=activity) _

--- In _ (http://www.charlescosimano.com/) _theos-talk@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com) _, "kpauljohnson"  <kpauljohnson@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In  _ (http://www.charlescosimano.com/) _theos-talk@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com) _, Drpsionic@ wrote:
>  >
> > The best way to handle such clowns is to treat them as  clowns and 
banish 
> > them with ridicule. Do not argue with them, do  not reason with them. 
> > Simply make fun of them.
> >  
> 
> Simply offer a very clearcut alternative by participating in  
theosophy.net among a diverse group of scholars and inquirers fully devoted to  Open 
Source Theosophy. Use of pseudonyms brought on the great crises of the  
Theosophical movement in the 19th century, and even now blogging about  
pseudonymous communiques of the early TS provokes another round in the 21st!  Three, 
two, several, or one individual? People recommending their own writings  
while posing as disinterested appraisers of the evidence? Same  issues/questions 
today as in 1884.
>

_ (http://www.charlescosimano.com/) 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]