Titadrupah
What I've seen in too many posts here already is a certain tendency to interpret what is a perfectly natural desire to talk around fishy topics, as the unequivocal intention of establishing (or rescueing) an unsustainable theory. Personally, I don't give so much relevance to the lack of transparency in the conduct of nineteenth or eighteenth century occultists; what I find fascinating, in the first place, is the mere existence of those figures. Maybe because I'm full of literary curiosity. I believe it was Dumas that said: 'True, I have raped history, but it has produced some beautiful offspring'.
For the same reason I really enjoyed reading some chapters of the Histoire de la Magie, that an illustrious contributor just made a reference to. I have no problems with people proving historical frauds, as long as those involved in the discussion don't become the target of poisonous attacks. In the process of such investigations, I've found incredible cultural artifacts, ideas and data coming out, that I would otherwise never have the chance to hear about. Being this forum clearly oriented towards history and its facts, it must be admitted that speculation and of course fiction are a bit out of place. Fair enough.
For the same reason I really enjoyed reading some chapters of the Histoire de la Magie, that an illustrious contributor just made a reference to. I have no problems with people proving historical frauds, as long as those involved in the discussion don't become the target of poisonous attacks. In the process of such investigations, I've found incredible cultural artifacts, ideas and data coming out, that I would otherwise never have the chance to hear about. Being this forum clearly oriented towards history and its facts, it must be admitted that speculation and of course fiction are a bit out of place. Fair enough.