Having read "A Vision of Lucifer" it brought a question to my mind: Was Smith Gnostic, or had interest in Gnostic myth?

Personally I find Gnostic myth to be one of the most interesting strains of JudeoChristian mythology, and find it both creatively stimulating and more easily agreeable than standard Catholic teachings. I note that Smith doesn't have a vast amount of material dealing with Lucifer and Christ but I thought I'd ask nonetheless.

Doominations,
Glen.

Was CAS gnostic?

No.

Was he interested in gnostic teachings (the use of the word "myth" is
too imprecise) - Clark had read everything available and his interests
were nearly universal - however, the notion that some folk take unto themselves the idea that they possess "secret knowledge" not accessible
or comprehensible to the common herd was considered absurd by Clark.

Your comment about Judaeo-christian mythology and a teaching that is
more "agreeable" than that of the Roman Catholic church suggests to me a need for caution - I find it highly dubious that any person who is not
a canon of the church would be qualified to state that they actually know the magisterium. Few are those who do -
I would also be curious as to how you understand the word "mythology" -
If in the high sense of scholarship such as that of Rudolph Bultmann,
Gerhard von Rad, or Robert Graves then the remark has some merit;
if, however, comprehended in the more pedestrian way, then it is merely
sophomoric.

It is gratifying to see a high level of interest in CAS' philosophy -
My memoir deals slightly with a discussion he and I had on dualism
on one occasion (found in "Sword) - Clark appreciated the concept of
"vicarious sacrifice" profoundly and, through the lives of his parents had experienced it personally. That there are indeed deep and arcane
secrets in the universe is manifestly obvious - that they are meant for
a select few to huddle about congratulating themselves on having the
"real" truth, and are therefore superior to others Clark found laughable.
drf

Hej!

Having studied Gnosticism to a small degree, in conjunction with my natural inclination and university researches into the history of Christian religions and heresies in the Roman Empire, and in conjunction with the recent reading of the non-fiction of CAs for the index I've just finished, I would also agree with Dr Farmer, and say no.

There is no trace in his nonfiction of adherence to, or belief in, any of the standard doctrines. One must also remember that Gnosticism itself, whilst holding certain basic concepts, was a diversified religious movement. So there is some overlap in CAS' world-view and temperament, but this, I feel, is more accidental than not, and therefore of no real importance when assigning causation.

Indeed, from Dr. Farmer's remarks, it is more probable that the similarities helped produce the interest that he did display.

Quote:

Your comment about Judaeo-christian mythology and a teaching that is more "agreeable" than that of the Roman Catholic church suggests to me a need for caution - I find it highly dubious that any person who is not a canon of the church would be qualified to state that they actually know the magisterium.

By "agreeable" I meant from a purely personal point of view, i.e. that I find the Gnostic stories of the Fall, Ialdabaoth, creation of Man, etc. to be a lot more sensible, interesting and fitting than the default Christian teachings. Of course, this is entirely within and of itself - there is no sensible way of advocating the Bible's "historical" accounts to be 100% fact.

Quote:

I would also be curious as to how you understand the word "mythology"

As I say above, I am refering to the Gnostic stories of gods and Man, in which case I guess I use it in the "sophomoric" sense :P. I call it myth because it is not fact - I could refer to them as "religious teachings" I suppose, but "myth" seems suitable enough.

Quote:

It is gratifying to see a high level of interest in CAS' philosophy - My memoir deals slightly with a discussion he and I had on dualism on one occasion (found in "Sword) - Clark appreciated the concept of "vicarious sacrifice" profoundly and, through the lives of his parents had experienced it personally.

I've seen that book ("Sword of Zagan") mentioned a lot (understandably :P) in the year or so I've been lurking around this site and it certainly sounds like something I need to read. Probably over this summer, when I plan to do a Lovecraft-and-related-authors binge because I'm ashamed at myself for the lack of knowledge I have about my favourite author :D.

Quote:

One must also remember that Gnosticism itself, whilst holding certain basic concepts, was a diversified religious movement. So there is some overlap in CAS' world-view and temperament, but this, I feel, is more accidental than not, and therefore of no real importance when assigning causation.

The main reason I ask is that CAS refers to Lucifer in the poem as both "the brother" and "the mind's ideal", whilst simultaneously saying "the darkness that is God". I interpreted this as depicting Lucifer as a paragon of knowledge, intelligence and wisdom which humanity could assail or strive to match; this is an idea which is fundamental to both Traditional Satanism and various factions of Gnosticism (especially Ophitic Gnosticism). The "darkness that is God" compounds this idea with the Gnostic and Satanic perception of God (i.w. YHWH, aka Ialdabaoth) as an arrogant, vain demiurge that is tyrannous over humanity.

If CAS did not at least take interest in this point of view I wouldn't see why he would write a poem about it? Unless it was like a Metaphysical poet writing about subject matter purely for the sakes of investigating it though they may never agree with it. With C G Jung bringing about a slight resurgence in interest toward Gnosticism around this time (i.e. the first half of the 20th century), I guess my assumption was that CAS at least took interest in it also. Of course, my knowledge of CAS is limited (as I originally took interest purely as a result of his association with Lovecraft) so I might be completely wrong - hence the topic! :P

Re a couple of your very interesting observations - look to
Zoroaster for more of CAS' interest - although he understood
that dualism, as a system, collapses under analysis -
Satan is not the opposite of Yahweh, but of Gabriel -
Lucifer, of course, means "light-bearer" and great wisdom and
knowledge reside in him - but it is equality he desires - a
dimension he is (or in Zoraster, Ahriman) given in dualistic
philosophies. Please recall that Clark, though largely
"sui generis" is forever a child of the end of the Victorian
Era - and its gentility and manners, even where pretense, nevertheless inform his attitudes - and, inevitably, that is
unavoidably, High-Church Anglican - While not a Christian
certainly, he nevertheless understood and admired the core
concept of vicarious sacrifice. It was the failure of those
he observed to live up to their words that drove this amazingly
insightful man away - In personal life, Clark valued nothing so
highly as a man keeping his word, speaking truth without deception of guile - he was himself utterly lacking in guile and was like a lamb led to the slaughter by deceitful publishers, neighbors, etc. ad infin., ad nauseam. I was glad for those few occasions when I could protect him.
Dr. F

I see here the difference between interest, and belief in a specific position. Thus CAS might, like myself, display an interest in Gnosticism, but not a reciprocal belief.

You might also need to consider the poem in question. How far is it akin in nature to a dramatic monologue, thereby articulating a position and attitude adopted by a speaker, or persona, rather then the poet in actuality. How far are the attitudes those of a character within the poem, or articulating an idea about that character? Also, how far are the lines based on standard equations of light=knowledge, darkness=ignorance, so that as the figure is ignorant of God's nature or mind, for that figure God is equated with darkness.

Quote:

so that as the figure is ignorant of God's nature or mind, for that figure God is equated with darkness.

My interpretation is that it is, at least in part, a statement of contempt, but, of course, the line is open to multiple readings.

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was CAS gnostic?
>
> No.
>
> Was he interested in gnostic teachings (the use of
> the word "myth" is
> too imprecise) - Clark had read everything
> available and his interests
> were nearly universal - however, the notion that
> some folk take unto themselves the idea that they
> possess "secret knowledge" not accessible
> or comprehensible to the common herd was
> considered absurd by Clark.

Indeed, Herr Doktor. Clark could even observe the ludicrous nature of this idea at close hand through a group in Placer County that called itself the Esoteric Fraternity, who practiced a type of "solar biology". He used a couple of their ideas in poems such as "Nyctalops" and "Fellowship" and in the fragment "The House of Haon Dor," but never regarded them as anything more than fellow eccentrics. Of course California was and is "the land of fruits and nuts," and nearby San Jose was the home of the Rosicrucian movement, elements of which he probably encountered around San Francisco when he visited Sterling or Berkeley when he stayed with Mrs. Sully. CAS also read Eliphas Levi and Montague Summer' works on magic, and may well have picked up some ideas from them. More later.
>
Scott

Lychgate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
[snippage]> If CAS did not at least take interest in this
> point of view I wouldn't see why he would write a
> poem about it? Unless it was like a Metaphysical
> poet writing about subject matter purely for the
> sakes of investigating it though they may never
> agree with it. With C G Jung bringing about a
> slight resurgence in interest toward Gnosticism
> around this time (i.e. the first half of the 20th
> century), I guess my assumption was that CAS at
> least took interest in it also. Of course, my
> knowledge of CAS is limited (as I originally took
> interest purely as a result of his association
> with Lovecraft) so I might be completely wrong -
> hence the topic! :P

Brian Stableford has an excellent article in the second issue of WORMWOOD (available from Tartarus Press; incidentally, the same issue contains my essay "Life, Love and the Clemency of Death: Clark Ashton Smith's 'The Isle of the Torturers' Re-examined") which traces the history of literary "satanism," or the use of the Devil as a heroic rebel against insurmountable odds, from Milton through Blake through the French Decadents and Symbolists, which would lead naturally to CAS. Look at the poets and authors who influenced him: Milton, Baudelaire, Anatole French: all of whom saw Lucifer not as a diabolic but as a Promethean figure, as opposed to the absolutist tyranny of Jehovah. Since Clark was by nature himself a rebel, it is not surprising that he would use this as a metaphor in his work. However, to assign him actual gnostic beliefs based upon this is akin to attributing to Lovecraft actual belief in Cthulhu &Co.

Scott

Quoth Scott Connors:

Quote:

"CAS also read Eliphas Levi and Montague Summer' works on magic, and may well have picked up some ideas from them."

And here, to modulate my earlier statement, he would have used what he picked up within a literary context, and not as a statement of belief.

It comes down to, to paraphrase Christopher brennan, the 'I' is not neccesarily CAS. As poets and other authors know, and as critics should, this 'I', this seemingly personal identification with the material in any given text may in fact be illusory when analysing it in search of a belief held by the author. Just because CAs wrote of Tsathogghua, it does not mean that he believed in Tsathogghua, any more than his writing of beliefs held by any of his characters reflects his own.

This is especially important when considering the 'I' of the poems, and where there is a strong, central figure, and the tone of the poem is constructed around that figure's worldview. His choice of Lucifer becomes, then, not a personal statement of belief in, or even in alliegence with, the views of Lucifer, nor do Gnostic elements signify a sympathy or like belief in Gnosticism, rather, they become literary expressions. It is the poem which determines what is said, not the poet.

The significance, then, of the confessional poets as distinct from other poets becomes obvious: their stress, their focus is upon the closeness of the poetic 'I', and the poets' 'I'.

Neither, however, can we assume that CAS did not necessarily identify with the "I" in at least certain of his poems. It's always prudent, of course, to assume that it is the "narrator" who is speaking, but one oughtn't to go overboard with this, either.

As to the subject of beliefs about religion, the occult and the like, my sense is that CAS retained an open mind, at least regarding the "open" nature of reality and its possibilities, but that he did not subscribe to any particular occult or religious belief system. Any comments, though, on the likelihood of Steve Behrends's claim (in his Starmont Guide, I believe, but I could be mistaken) that someone once spotted CAS performing a sort of ritual dance on his property? Scott? Dr. Farmer?

So, then, in order to distinguish between the 'I' that is not CAS, and that which is, we would need to focus upon external evidence, to texts and personal knowledge other than the text in question.

Here is where the letters of CAS, and the personal knowledge of Dr. Farmer become integral to a greater understanding of CAS, no?

Phillip

A quick observation occurs to me in the context of the "I" discussion, not necessarily true to the theme of Gnosticism, but relevant natheless(can't resist the Ashtonesque expression):
the era of the 40's and 50's saw a very significant increase in
the attention given to psychotherapy, and, to the horror of traditional academics, actual degrees in psychology were being proposed at the University level. Most of us then, and the die-hards among us now consider the most of it a great fraud (see
Dr. Tana Dineen's excellent "Manufacturing Victims"). The poetic world, and the ethos that led to the "beats" and the coffee house
phenomenon became self-absorbed to an alarming degree. The expression "contemplating one's navel" came into vogue. The "poet"
became consumed by the notion that his particular angst was the supremely interesting subject. Which is to say, boring being belief. Clark and I had many a good barb to throw in that direction. I am not sure I can adequately express the contempt Clark felt for "analysts" - He would have agreed with those Indian tribes in Cooper who thought of the Insane as especially touched by the divine, and should therefore be held in reverence. "Schizoid Creator" expresses his opinion well - and I should add if you haven't guessed already - when Clark parodies something it is not
satire but sarcasm - We discussed Ortega y gasset one evening and the point most relevant here is that satire is born of a love of the thing criticised and is driven by a desire to correct its faults -
Sarcasm is born of contempt, and driven by a desire to destroy or at least emasculate.
Finally, Clark held the Aristotelian philosophical view which dominated the 19th century regarding the muse: Absolute beauty exists in the minds of the God(s), and through the process of "mimesis" the artist, inspired by his muse, creates something which approaches that perfection. This gives rise to the "standards" by which art may be judged. Because the art is greater than the artist [having come by messenger(the muse)from the divine], we are able to respond spiritually and recognize this poem, that sculpture, this painting, or even that chair, as more beautiful than another because the divine within percieves a nearer approximation of the divine absolute poem, carving, painting, chair, etc. This philosophy came as a "given" at the time of Clark's birth; that he delivered the concept from Olympus and launched it into the cosmos as no one before had, is one of his great gifts to poetry, and one that is, as yet, little understood or appreciated.
Sorry for such a lengthy ramble - but much of real significance is going on in this discussion.- got to go for now, but much more is
generated by this and needs to continue.
dr.f

Smith was anti-Psychology? That surprises me greatly, as I thought he would have been interested in the concept of exploring "inner space" and the human mind. Or do you mean he was simply anti- the ways it was being carried out at the time?

Quote:

that he delivered the concept from Olympus and launched it into the cosmos as no one before had, is one of his great gifts to poetry, and one that is, as yet, little understood or appreciated.

That shall change :D.

voleboy:

Yes, I agree on both counts, although I suspect that certainty in such areas will remain forever elusive.

Dr. Farmer:

These are very interesting points. Although I would not presume to speak for those who claim to have benefited from these disciplines, I have always felt that the uncritically held presuppositions of psychology and psychoanalysis are very dubious, indeed. They are reductive, and, in many ways, a last redoubt against any sense of the numinous. For instance, they rationalize away notions of the mystic and the cosmic as a mere "regression" aimed at being re-united with one's mother, or similar such idiocy. The ideal that art ought to contain supra-personal aims and content seems sadly lost to us today. On the other hand, as I have often stated, the great merit and originality of CAS's work lies precisely in his forays "outside the human aquarium".

This last is a minor point, but I must quibble with the characterization of satire on offer here. Horatian satire, the lighter form of the beast, fits the strictures you suggest. The harsher Juvenalian satire, however, does not. Swift, fo instance, was a satirist, but a Juvenalian one; his work was animated by no love of humanity or belief in the possibility of correcting its foibles. That said, your remarks regarding CAS are quite interesting, and I agree with you regarding both his tone and his aims. I would cast him as a Juvenalian satirist, myself, but, in the end, such labels matter little, except as points of reference.