Talk:Andrew D. Chumbley

Archives

1

Choice of articles to cite; name of The Azoetia

Hello again Agreed with your point above regarding which magazines should be cited; if 'Chaos Int.' is in, why not 'The Cauldron' and 'Starfire' at least? These were the main vehicles for Chumbley's articles, and probably the most respected and widely-distributed UK magazines - some of the articles were later published in other, lesser-known, journals. I've given back the 'The' to 'Azoetia' in the bibliography; the first edition is titled 'The Azo.' on both its cover and title page, while the 2002 revised edition is simply 'Azoetia'. This entry now seems to have reached the state where it can worked up without too much contention - anyone fancy fleshing it out a little? Your intelligent adjudication is most valued, Fuzz! reineke 16:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

What about adding to the Azo bibliography that the name changed with the second edition? Nothing big, perhaps "Azoetia, 2002". It would certainly make things more accurate. I think adding The Cauldron and Starfire a splendid idea. The Cauldron is cited quite a bit in the references. It should be mentioned in the body. I feel like I'm adding too much here. Someone else want to make the changes?

I have "signed" my above postings but they aren't appearing as signed. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs)

Hello all, no danger of my "ire" being drawn — I'm just taking an interest and trying to help get this article going properly. I'm not so much a stakeholder as a friendly passer-by. And it's starting to come together nicely!

If you're having difficulty signing your edit, just remember, you sign in the main edit box where you're writing your comments (not in the Edit Summary box), and you place the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of what you've written, in the place where you want your signature to be. You can check how it looks by hitting the Show preview button. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Source for Ars Silvera?

I guess the consensus is that 'eclectic' stays - no matter how naff it sounds. Pity. Take your point (above) that 'New Age' may have taken the glimmer off the word 'syncretic' - but how much more so the word 'eclectic' ! Has anyone got a source for this supposed 'Ars Silvera' in the biblio.? I have never seen one (either on the Xoanon site, Occult Art Gallery or sales lists from Caduceus over the years). I think it's time for it to go - as did all the comments added by the same person on the same occasion.reineke 10:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Left-handed Tantrism?

Anyone mind if I remove the reference to 'left-handed Tantrism? Firstly, there is no other kind, and secondly I think I've dealt with this in my additions this morning (see f'note 7). This sentence now seems a bit lost - I'll happily remake it, retaining a reference to Gnosticism, though that will mean the Eliade footnote will become redundant. Any thoughts on that one before I start? What's the protocol for adding to the discussion thread? - shouldn't comments be added at the end of the document each time? Someone made some useful points, but put them up beside the para being comments upon - is that useful?reineke 10:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, after my last comment about left hand Tantra, I reread Schulke's quote in the article what says Chumbley was involved in left hand Tantra. The sentence has always been lost. The reference to Eliade is loose. Lulubyrd 12:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

New summary section

I've started a new section in which to summarise the salient points of Chumbley's work & magic; I hope this will give a better overview than the previous somewhat vague comparisons. Thanks for the Cauldron no. 98 article title!reineke 15:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Reineke, you're welcome. Nice additions to the text. What took you so long?

Fuzzypeg, with the new link to the obit, can we please do away with theself promotional mysterymag article? You know, it was the author that added it in the first place. - I've never seen reference to Ars Silvera anywhere, but I'm not as well read as Reineke. Lulubyrd 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove the Mysterymag link?

The obit seems good and well-written; I haven't done any detailed appraisal of it, just a quick scan. I'm still concerned that this article is ostensibly just something an unknown person wrote on a message board — not exactly meeting the requirements of a reputable source. Also, articles on message boards that don't have hard links (i.e. simple URLs without question marks, etc) tend to disappear or move more quickly, and if they do disappear they are harder to find using web archive tools like the Wayback machine. The best option would be if you could find something in print in some journal with an actual author it can be attributed to! But we work with what we've got. I'll leave it up to you guys whether the mystery mag article stays or not. I can't speak for its quality, but it does have the benefit of being from some kind of "magazine" which makes it more traceable. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sections on the discussion page

I've tried to create some headings so that the discussion so far is semi-readable (have any of you tried to read through all that's been said over the last few weeks?). It's still a dog's breakfast, and I suggest you could make things easier by starting any new topic of conversation under a new heading, and splitting your comments under several headings if you have several things to comment on... Hope this helps. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Why have the critical points been deleted? There were genuine honest criticisms of Chumbley's work on here and they were deleted. There is no point have a section on Chumbley if both sides of the debate cant be expressed freely .(Within reason). Is it to be assumed that the owners of the Xoanon editions who are posting here are attempting to give a false portrayal of Chumbley by misquoting articles written about him? And taking his "work" out of context? If genuine honest criticism of Chumbley cant be allowed in this section then it doesnt have any honest integrity.

I have indeed read through the entire discussion thread above; it isn't easy. Thanks very much for those discussion headings Fuzzy, nice move! - what is the best way for us to capitalise on them? Does anyone mind if we do what the machine suggests and archive the older material? - say about the first 75% - ? Then it'll be easier to add discussion under the appropriate subject headings, without "scrolling, scrolling, scrolling - RawHIDE!!" (Sorry.)

There is a hard copy journal to go with the Inominandum obit - I'll find and add the reference later.

My view on the MysteryMag piece is that it is entirely self-serving, and not at all enlightening about its subject; it's really only riding Chumbley's coattails, while having a poorly-informed go at 'debunking' him. It starts off posing as a beginner's introduction to Chumbley but quickly moves on to saying, "But he's not as original as people think - ha-hah!", which presupposes some knowledge of its subject on the part of the reader, otherwise they won't be amazed by MM's 'revelations', right? But then because the writer has little or no knowledge of Grant or Spare, or anything in that field of occultism, he can't deliver the promised sucker-punch, and just meanders about, ending up saying he might have nearly almost maybe met Chumbley in the flesh, but didn't - but he could have. It's all a bit like a cheerful but pugnacious drunk giving out opinions at the bar, gradually losing his thread as he goes along. The MM writer's agenda comes a bit clearer with the risible follow-up article, y'know, the sheep's head and so on. It's just trying to create a sensation. I suggest that we cover the points the MM writer raises, but in a more useful & relevant context, then dump the link. How 'bout that? I think I've at least partly accomplished that.

I'll be doing a little more work today - regroup later, alright?

Hi Lulubyrd - sorry I took so long. Actually I've been visiting periodically for a look-see; the AC entry was very basic but stable for a long time, then it seemed to become a battleground for competing factions of anonymous yobs with their spray-cans, and other vandalistic types with an axe to grind. A botched, hacked-up Wiki entry reflects on both Wiki and the subject of the entry, and I think Chumbley deserves more. Might have to change that 'Seven Shades' reference you provided, as the ref in 'The Golden Chain' is better, saying that Chumbley was both preceptor and initiate of the Kaula line. Is that OK? Happy Thursday! reineke 10:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have much to offer, Reineke. Are you going to flesh-out the Azoetia and Qutub books with descriptions, also? I don't mind a change in the reference at all. The idea is that of an article of merit reflecting the man. Can you cover the points in the MM article, with references, so the article can be dumped? That would be grand. I've always resented the publicity it gives the author with such weak attributions.

I think I read something online-an interview or something, with some Spare scholar who compared or corresponded Chumbley's work with Spare's. Is that a viable source for reference? You've got a Chumbley/Grant reference, but I don't see one with Chumbley/Spare. I can't remember the details but suppose it can be Googled. Lulubyrd 13:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to use anything I can for a reference, if it seems bona-fide. If something better comes along you can always upgrade and get rid of the old one (like the MM article for instance). But an online interview with a Spare scholar sounds perfectly good, especially if it's from a reputable website. By the way, I'm really impressed with the work that's been happening here! Fuzzypeg☻ 21:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's all for today - apologies for forgetting to sign in again earlier whilst editing! Thanks for the good support - I've checked the MM article over and I believe that everything is now covered. I suspect that removing the MM link will only result in it being reinstated by persons unknown who may or may not be connected with MM. But let's try it anyway. If it comes back, how about leaving it lying where it is at the bottom of the links? As long as the Wiki entry is a good read, and informative, then anyone following the MM link will just come back feeling disappointed. It's a suggestion. I've always liked the way MM says, "Looking at his published works in greater detail..." and then devotes 30 words to Qutub! I know the interview article you mean, it's by Gavin Semple - let's see if there is a relevant comment or two re Spare/Chumbley in it. Done the Azoetia and Qutub today, plus the unpublished texts. I have a few more ideas for things to add that will tie the article up at the end - I need to do some hunting first. What else would need to be covered? - don't let me hog the thing, OK? reineke 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rumi

I must admit I think Reinike is perhaps getting a little carried away with the Rumi comparisons - Chumbley's 'Qutub' is much more like a rather creaky 'Rubaiyat' imitation - I can't think of anything less like the couplets of 'Mathnavi' or 'Diwani-Shams e-Tabriz' in style or esoteric content than Chumbley's work. Isn't this Wiki article going from one extreme to another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.165 (talk • contribs)

Reinike seems to be citing the Hekas article for this influence on his work. I note his work is not being compared to Rumi's (as such), rather Rumi is given as an influence. If you believe that the citations as given don't claim there was an influence from Rumi, please explain. I don't have most of the cited works to refer to, so I can't tell whether they contain what you guys say they contain... Fuzzypeg☻ 00:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I simply reiterate what I said above, to my eye there is little in Chumbley's work that demonstrates the influence of the Mevlana Jalalludin Rumi, either stylistically or in terms of the sort of themes, symbolism and esoteric concepts which one finds expounded through the 6 books of the 'Mathnavi' or other works by Rumi. 'Qutub shows the influence of Omar Khayyam and the whole QTB = 111 by gematria was something which Chumbley took from Idries Shah's book 'The Sufis'.

If you can find a source who makes these same criticisms you could quote them in the article as a point of contrast; otherwise I'm afraid we're limited in the analyses we can make personally. About the most we can do, if we disagree with the opinion of a quoted source, is to ensure the opinion is clearly cited as originating with that person, and start looking for other commentators holding opposing views. This kind of editing quandry is described in WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Remember that Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion of material is verifiability, not truth. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that the Rumi ref ruffled some feathers - though I don't think I'm getting carried away, as the person with no name suggests. Chumbley cites Rumi as a favoured poet in an article, therefore he can be considered an influence; even though the work 'Qutub' itself is styled more like Fitzgerald. Now - with respect - I don't enough time to debate this kind of issue in depth online, so, as the nameless person there seems to know his Rumi and is making defensive noises, it's easiest to just remove the reference, which I will do. The subtext I read is that he doesn't approve of Chumbley's name being linked with that of Rumi in this way - correct? It's easily undone!

However, any writer or artist mentioned by Chumbley in print can be reckoned an influence, to my mind. Would it perhaps be useful to insert those names (such as Rumi, Nietzsche et alia), in the hope that others will pick up the threads and work the refs up?

I found the Sufi reference problematic to start with, my intent was to expand it into something more comprehensive. There's little purpose in dealing with the Shah thing at length - because Chumbley has already made it explicit in 'Qutub' what his points of reference were. (In fact it can be dealt with in one phrase in the paragraph on 'Qutub' itself. It's hardly revelatory.)

So if I introduce anything at which others demur I'm perfectly happy to take them out again. Kein problem! reineke 09:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Book Prices + Literary/Artistic value?

- Here's another problem I have with this article: it states that : - - 'The regard in which Chumbley is held - both within the occult community and amongst connoisseurs of art and fine books - is reflected in the high prices his work commanded even before his death.' - - Now are we really to accept that large, even grotesque, sums of money passing hands really constitutes in itself adequate and valid criteria of literary/artistic worth of the contents of a book - and presumably we should accept the converse, that if a book is priced in the lower range that naturally reflects badly on the contents and shows that they and the writer are not held in much esteem? I'm suprised at whoever thought that such a profane and quantitative yardstick constituted a valid indicator of a book's contents - whereas some might simply say that the inflated prices reflect little more than the questionable vagaries of the collector's book market, the law of supply and demand, scarcity and even the avarice of book dealers! Excuse my cynicism here but the notion that an artificially inflated price-tag proves that a book's contents are of intrinsic worth or that the writer is necessarily held in high regard illustrates Rene Guenon's 'reign of quantity'in action! I shake my head...Ye Nameless One

- Aha - we've had this one before, I think, Nameless. I think it sounds a tad grandiose myself. Well, if you don't like it, feel free to write something better that conveys the meaning. That's what Wiki is about - democracy and collaboration. - - I can only reiterate that that sentence - which I think I introduced few months back - does not refer to the contents of the book at all! It refers solely to "The regard in which Chumbley is held..." There are, as you say, many factors controlling the price of any collectable artifact, but I think the regard in which the creator is held can be metered by the price of the work at auctions and dealers. Perhaps you're allowing your view of the ills of the world (with which I do not disagree) to colour your ability to read a sentence.

Connoiseurs of art and fine books are prepared to pay substantial sums of money to own books and drawings by Chumbley. The prices went up when he died. What does this tell us about the regard in which they hold him? It's high, non? Alternatively we have to believe that they're all saying, "Well, secretly we hate the guy, but we're forced to write large cheques to obtain his stuff and keep it in our houses. Boo hoo."

What do you suggest as a yardstick - bearing in mind that the desired outcome is to inform the reader that Chumbley (himself, the author-artist) is held in high regard by many people in the occult community, and by collectors of art and fine books? reineke 12:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

- Also, I checked the Gavin Semple interview re Spare (at hermetic.com and others) and there is only a very slight comment regarding Chumbley in the context of 'Zos Kia Cultus' - I don't think it's relevant here, it doesn't throw any light on the Spare-Chumbley connection.

- I've added a tie-up paragraph using quotes from a respected occult author who actually knew Chumbley - I thought his comments could be considered authoritative as a description of the man. reineke 13:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

After considering the ref to which El Namelessoroso objected, I've reworded it. I removed "commanded" so that the works are no longer the active particpants in the transaction, and added "...may be gauged by..." In other words, you may gauge the state of his reputation by that, but you don't have to - you can measure it in some other way, or you can carry on feeling bad about expensive commercial deals instead if you want to. This revision asserts the freedom of the reader to consider it thusly, or not. Is that more satisfactory?

It's worth remembering that the original sale price of Chumbley's books was exceptionally reasonable for what they were; the 1992 Azoetia was about £15, for which you got one of only 300 copies direct from the artist, replete with his sigilly signatures - and Qutub was only £12 hot off the press in 1995! A giveaway really. The secondhand and subsequent buyers created the inflated market - you can't blame either the author or the books for that. And that's something to be analysed on the appropriate page of Wiki, not this one. reineke 15:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

- What has to be remembered is that there are people out there who have a vested interest in keeping the books "elite" and restricted. Chumbley went against wholesome occult magickal principles.He purposely discriminated with his work/material.Anybody who censors restricts occult material is a hypocrite and is a reflection of a non -existent magickal current.(which itself was parasitical)In essence his work was a occult / magickal failure.And it is still to be argued that he had a genuine legitimate link to a magickal current. Most of the "intelligences" published in Azoetia were cut & paste creations from chaos magick techniques. (Eg :Sethannos , a cut and paste from Set , Cerunnos , Thanatos etc.) You dont disrespect a gods name and come away in one piece..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.36.103 (talk • contribs)

Reineke: Certainly the outpouring of grief at Chumbley's passing shows the high regard felt for the man and his work. There is the obit in The Cauldron that may be referenced, and many other obits that ran in other magazines and webzines. These are indicators of high regard held for Chumbley on several continents that don't relate to the price of his work. I think there was an obit that ran in Portuguese in Brazil. At least one US occult magazine mourned his passing, and several in Europe. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think that sentence can be expanded to include this information and express a deeper appreciation for his work. You're quite well read. There were many book reviews when Azoetia Sethos came out. Have you other references such as obits or reviews that reflect the esteem in which Chumbley and his work was held?

You know, he didn't produce a great volume of work when all is said and done. However, he and his work are known and respected all over the world and I've only seen disparaging remarks about him and his work in blogs of rather pathetic individuals who have nothing of their own but a keyboard and computer screen. When I think about it, if I passed there would not be such an outpouring or sense of loss. Chumbley and his work was/is highly regarded, and not only by throwing money around. Do you have access to references that will show that? By the way, thank-you for all the information you've provided and the work you've done here. Lulubyrd 04:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google search brought these up. Some will have to be hunted down, like the Circle Magazine obit.

Lashtal.com: review of Azo by Jan Fries printed in the Mandrake Speaks newsletter (UK) http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=Comments&tid=211&sid=279#211

There was an obit in the Journal for the Academic Study of Magic-a juried journal. (UK)

An obit ran in Selina Fox' Circle Sanctuary 'Circle Magazine' (US).

Obit in Andrew Collins Earthquest news vol 8, no 1, spring 2005 (UK) "and although we never always saw eye to eye, his knowledge of ancient magical systems, sorcery and books of magic was second to none, providing an inspiration for budding witches and occultists worldwide." http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/news/news17.htm Lulubyrd 05:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg- Sorry about the bad formatting. That happened when I put back what had been removed. I copied from an earlier version and the bad formatting resulted. I really am sorry. Lulubyrd 02:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to revert some change there's a much easier method than cutting and pasting: in the history page you can click on any previous revision that you want to revert to, and it will show you the article as it was then; now click the edit this page tab, and you will get the normal edit window with a big warning saying that you are editing a previous version of the document and any changes made since that version will be lost if you submit. Simply enter a summary in the edit summary such as "revert blanking of discussion", and hit save page. And don't worry, I'm happy to clean up formatting, as long as you guys keep up the good work with writing the article. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and kind words, Fuzzypeg. There is a criticism up a few paragraphs that was lobbed in unsigned-just above my post to Reineke on 18 November. It is reading as part of my posting. I don't know how to place a signature in there. Will you do that, please? It begins: "- What has to be remembered is that there are people out there who have a vested interest.... (and ends with) in one piece..." My posting begins with the salutation to Reineke.Lulubyrd 13:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I checked with Circle Magazine and though a site that came up in a Google search said there was an obit in the magazine, they say it never ran. Ho hum. I thought I'd have something new to add. Fuzzypeg, thanks for the revert information. I got to use it twice tonight. I went ahead and reverted the main article after the unnamed guy changed it because it is very clear by his posts to this discussion page and the vandalization of my post that he is up to no-good. I used the revert here, but as you can see, reverting erased his unpleasant posts. I'm sorry, but I'm not much interested in reinstating his posts, so have not done so. Lulubyrd 04:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, I read that person's post, and I can't see any point reinstating it. If they would like to retype it they should first read Wikipedia's policy on civility. Regarding the use of the word "vandalism", it's probably better to use some other term such as "edit war" if it seems the editor in question might truly believe they are improving the article, or if they merely seem clumsy (such as posting in the middle of someone else's post). The term "vandalism" has a special meaning to Wikipedia administrators, and special conditions apply in the case of vandalism, such as the relaxing of the three revert rule. Sorry you have to go through this... Now, if you believe you've got all the salient points in the new obit, and the mysterymag article adds nothing useful, I suggest you do away with it. People can find it through google if they really want. A hard-copy article would have been nice, but them's the breaks... Fuzzypeg☻ 10:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fuzzypeg: Point taken regarding the term vandalism. I'm quite new here and don't understand the nuances of Wiki terms yet. I'll try to do better. -Not that I intend to stay much longer now that things are going so well. I do consider what occurred here regarding my post to be vandalism, though. Removing sentences, adding paragraphs and then commenting on the whole new shebang is not very nice and deleterious to my reputation. I believe that my posts here on the discussion page shouldn't be altered in that way. I certainly don't mind an independent posting, if civil.

There is some pretty strong referencing for what is in the article now. I would like to see deletions like the ones made yesterday carefully weighed before they're allowed to stay deleted and given the heated discourse here on the discussion page by some, they should probably be referenced-at least here. What was deleted yesterday has been referenced pretty well in the article. And really, when I reread the article in its entirety, I see that all my recent recommendations regarding the 'worth' of Chumbley's work other than monetary is there, but peppered throughout the article rather than attached to the money/value comment. Lulubyrd 15:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No loss. Many thanks to the administrator who 'blocked' non-signed in users (I just tried to edit, forgetting to log-I, and couldn’t) - I think that's a good move, there have been some very strange people coming around here. They must have mistaken the discussion page for a ‘discussion forum’. And thanks for archiving the earlier discussion Fuzzy-P - I was still wading through the literature on 'how to'.

Apropos some of the notes above: Lulu, I'd tend to disagree with your comment that 'he didn't produce a great volume of work'. A 350-page grimoire (Azoetia) and a c. 1200-page one (Draconian) seems quite a volume of work – it would be for me! - added to that the other published articles, the Toad book, and if he could work at that rate for 'public consumption', who knows what he may have produced on top? Chumbley's academic essay on the Toad bone used to be posted at 'The Cauldron' website - an impressive piece of work. Pity we can't link to it now. But I know what you mean - three published books doesn't seem like a lot, coming to the subject cold.

Would someone like to add some quotes from the obituaries? Andy Collins' comment appears to suggest an ongoing 'old mates'-type contact with Chumbley, though as far as I can discover (and I have done some digging) there was none. It looks a little like a bid for kudos. Also Collins comes from a completely separate esoteric field, having little or no overlap with Chumbley’s. If you think it’s worth a spin, however, please do put it in; how about overlooking the bit about “never always seeing eye to eye” ? (a nice bit of mangled English there!). How about snip the front off and say, “…his knowledge of ancient magical systems, sorcery and books of magic was second to none, providing an inspiration for budding witches and occultists worldwide.” JASM is a good one - could someone cull a selection from that? I don’t have a copy to hand.

The Jan Fries review is already in as a link (isn’t it? - I put it there the other day). reineke 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Touche, Reineke! Yes, by the parameters you outline, I am indeed a dilettante. I was looking at Chumbley's output by the volume of original finished pieces, not by what is within.

It looks like my posts are what incite the recent problem postings; for whatever reason I can't fathom.

I don't have anything more to add here at this time so will be shoving off. Reineke has sewn up the article nicely. I am glad to have been of some assistance during the expanding of the article. Reineke and Fuzzypeg, you have things well in hand and can keep an even keel. Good job, both! Lulubyrd 03:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Before you go Lulu (if you absolutely must), have you got the JASM obit handy? Glad you noticed that your thoughts re the 'value' (non-monetary) of the work percolated in - good team efort I reckon. reineke 11:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)