I suppose I am having a hard time figuring out your motive in writing your review, so many years after the mindset of the book. I know when I review I never give a calorie to a writer or poet whom I do not like. I refuse to give them the exposure. So, I ask you, what is your motive, aside from 35-40 years later, debunking? [Unquote]
And for that matter, why would an archaeologist go after a author that wrote a book that presents a possible alternative accounting of a few events in history?
As I also have questioned why there was such a sudden outpouring of published works, at right before the turn of the century, about so many things associated with the Knights Templar, alleged occult knowledge about the truth of the crucifixion,, r.e. the Divinci Code, the Priory of Zion, et al, etc. etc.?
I find that to be so curious in light of what Rudolf Steiner did actually predict [verifiable] and what Ravenscroft wrote, much of which was derived from works of Steiner, stating that the soul that had been Parsival in the days of Arthur and Camelot, along with many other souls that had been, in previous lives, Knights Templar that will choose to do so in support of the effort, the cause or mission that the reincarnated Parsival had as a duty of service... or words to a similar note...as it has been almost 13 years now since I read Trevor's book "The Cup of Destiny", that I can no longer remember the exact words to any of the passages, but I certainly do know what it is about, what it states to be as facts and for what reasons they are brought up in the book.
I have surmised, in fact, I'm nearly convinced it was all part of some plan as to which, at least a few, of those authors and commentators were involved with as to get a jump on the situation in the belief that Steiner might possibly have been giving a true prediction, more of a prophecy actually, in stating what He did. Thus, if and when Parsival did actually appear, along with anyone that would claim to be, or is suspected of being, one of the reincarnated knights then they would appear to be merely opportunists trying to "tailgate" on a trending historical interest for profit and maybe even fame?
Even that novel that was made into a movie, in which Tom Hanks played the leading role of a symbologist, I found to be suspicious in that the Sabian Symbols became of such importance to understanding astrology not too long after that movie was made and released. I read some of the book and saw the movie and I have to say, that if Tom Hanks character was the best the world had in that story, He ain't nothing compared to Dane Rudhyar.
And, since the subject came up,,,what is it that fellow, Trevor's one time son-in-law, Mr. Kidd wrote ..... that about motives for dredging up something written at a time now long past and trying to make an issue out of what someone wrote ...so long ago?
This thread was lying dormant for quite some time...just like those others that were recently "revived" in a few other sub-forums here at AW ...by the very same member that revived this one... and for a reason that directly involves something I wrote, in contention to, or to belittle, or for some reason or another that results in my having to reply to an old thread I lost interest in long ago...along with everyone else that was interested and, or involved obviously.
Is there an issue here that I'm unaware of? Did I offend in any way, say something offensive, run over someone's dog or cat and didn't stop? If I did I was unaware of it and I certainly would have stopped if I had known.
In fact I'll promise to stop in the future if you'll stop running over old posts of mine and making such picayune issues with them?
How's that?
"