HPB-SB-14-144: Difference between revisions
(незначительные правки) |
(незначительные правки) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued|“The Theosophist” (Bombay).|14-143}} | {{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued|“The Theosophist” (Bombay).|14-143}} | ||
... | {{Style P-No indent|joinder to an intemperate and petulant notice of his review by the writers of the book. To suggest that a reviewer, because he objects to some published arguments, “in his private and individual character has an affinity for women of an inferior type” is (as he says) unkind, and far more. It is impertinent in every sense of the word.——Another author, Mr. Oxley, having objected to his reviewer, that writer makes an interminable rejoinder, which is incomplete. Surely this antiphonal discord of Reviewer and reviewed is deplorable, and to be avoided.}} | ||
{{HPB-CW-separator}} | |||
<div>{{Style P-Align center|The Psychological Review. December 1882.}}</div> | |||
{{HPB-SB-item | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| Line 15: | Line 19: | ||
| item = 1 | | item = 1 | ||
| type = review | | type = review | ||
| status = | | status = ok | ||
| continues = 145 | | continues = 145 | ||
| title = “Light” (London). | | title = “Light” (London). | ||
| hide = yes | |||
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| untitled = | | untitled = | ||
| Line 23: | Line 28: | ||
| author signed = | | author signed = | ||
| source title = Psychological Review, The | | source title = Psychological Review, The | ||
| source details = Vol.V, | | source details = Vol. V, December 1882; Monthly Summary of Contemporary Spiritual Opinion | ||
| publication date = | | publication date = 1882-12 | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
}} | }} | ||
... | {{Style P-Title|“LIGHT” (LONDON).}} | ||
The conduct of public circles occupies a large share of attention in all journals this month. It is interesting to note the various attitudes taken up by writers and editors. In entire agreement with the opinion of the ''Review'' is the general attitude of ''Light''. The more the subject is discussed, the more plain does it become that there is nothing more to be said that is worth the saying. The enthusiasts blindly ignore plain facts, and will not face them, though to avoid them is a matter of embarrassing difficulty. They are represented by the ''Banner of Light'', which has long been conspicuous for a thick-and-thin defence of all mediums. At a humble distance the ''Medium'' follows, hardly knowing whether to adhere to the general condemnation of public circles, which Mr. Burns very properly uttered some years since, or whether to take some new departure since that publication of the Declaration, which, though signed by over a hundred Spiritualists, representative names in the widest sense, is, of course, not to be entertained for a moment, since it did not emanate from the Spiritual Institution. In spite of this hesitation, there are words of timely wisdom mixed with much that is neither timely nor wise in what is said on Mediumship. The Chicago ''Journal'' is in the van of reform, maintaining its old attitude of uncompromising hostility to anything that wears the guise of fraud. It goes further than we in England have seen our way to go, and the forcible language which it uses may strike some of us as exaggerated, and even intemperate at times; but the stick has become so warped that it is well to bend it strongly in the opposite direction. Substantially the work of the ''Journal'' is the work of ''Light'' and the ''Review''.——The note appended by Mr. Eglinton to his signature is good. He “is opposed to ''all public séances'', whether in the light or the dark, unless the conditions are favourable to a complete investigation.”——The Hon. Roden Noel contributes a most elaborate{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|14-145}} | |||
{{ | {{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | ||
{{HPB-SB-footer- | {{HPB-SB-footer-sources}} | ||
<gallery widths=300px heights=300px> | |||
Psychological Review v.05 1882-12.pdf|page=82|Psychological Review, v. 5, December 1882, pp. 544-545 | |||
</gallery> | |||
Latest revision as of 20:48, 5 November 2026
 |
vol. title: vol. period: pages in vol.: |
< “The Theosophist” (Bombay). (continued from page 14-143) >
joinder to an intemperate and petulant notice of his review by the writers of the book. To suggest that a reviewer, because he objects to some published arguments, “in his private and individual character has an affinity for women of an inferior type” is (as he says) unkind, and far more. It is impertinent in every sense of the word.——Another author, Mr. Oxley, having objected to his reviewer, that writer makes an interminable rejoinder, which is incomplete. Surely this antiphonal discord of Reviewer and reviewed is deplorable, and to be avoided.
The Psychological Review. December 1882.
“LIGHT” (LONDON).
The conduct of public circles occupies a large share of attention in all journals this month. It is interesting to note the various attitudes taken up by writers and editors. In entire agreement with the opinion of the Review is the general attitude of Light. The more the subject is discussed, the more plain does it become that there is nothing more to be said that is worth the saying. The enthusiasts blindly ignore plain facts, and will not face them, though to avoid them is a matter of embarrassing difficulty. They are represented by the Banner of Light, which has long been conspicuous for a thick-and-thin defence of all mediums. At a humble distance the Medium follows, hardly knowing whether to adhere to the general condemnation of public circles, which Mr. Burns very properly uttered some years since, or whether to take some new departure since that publication of the Declaration, which, though signed by over a hundred Spiritualists, representative names in the widest sense, is, of course, not to be entertained for a moment, since it did not emanate from the Spiritual Institution. In spite of this hesitation, there are words of timely wisdom mixed with much that is neither timely nor wise in what is said on Mediumship. The Chicago Journal is in the van of reform, maintaining its old attitude of uncompromising hostility to anything that wears the guise of fraud. It goes further than we in England have seen our way to go, and the forcible language which it uses may strike some of us as exaggerated, and even intemperate at times; but the stick has become so warped that it is well to bend it strongly in the opposite direction. Substantially the work of the Journal is the work of Light and the Review.——The note appended by Mr. Eglinton to his signature is good. He “is opposed to all public séances, whether in the light or the dark, unless the conditions are favourable to a complete investigation.”——The Hon. Roden Noel contributes a most elaborate<... continues on page 14-145 >
Editor's notes
- ↑ “Light” (London). by unknown author, Psychological Review, The, Vol. V, December 1882; Monthly Summary of Contemporary Spiritual Opinion
Sources
-
Psychological Review, v. 5, December 1882, pp. 544-545