PREFACE THEOSOPHY AND THEOSOPHISM
First of all we need to justify the seldom used word serving as title to this study: why 'theosophism'[1] and not 'theosophy'? This is because for us these two words designate very different things; and even at the price of a neologism or of what may seem to be such, it is important to dispel the confusion that similarity of names is naturally bound to produce. This is all the more important, moreover, as it is in the interest of certain people to maintain this confusion so as to lead others to believe that they are connected to a particular tradition (or to any other tradition whatsoever for that matter), something which they cannot legitimately contend.
Indeed, long before the creation of the so-called Theosophical Society, the term theosophy was used as a common denomination for a wide variety of doctrines which were nonetheless all of the same type, or at least originated from the same tendencies. It is therefore appropriate to maintain the historical significance of the term. Without going into detail regarding the nature of these doctrines, we may say that their common and fundamental feature is that they are more or less strictly esoteric conceptions of a religious
or even a mystical inspiration, even though this mysticism is somewhat peculiar. They claim to belong to a totally Western tradition, the basis of which is always Christianity under one form or another. Of such a kind, for example, are the doctrines of Jacob Boehme, Gichtel, William Law, Jane Lead, Swedenborg, Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin, and Eckartshausen. We do not claim to furnish an exhaustive list, but merely mention a few of the better-known names.
Now, the organization presently called the 'Theosophical Society', which we intend to examine here exclusively, does not belong to any school related even indirectly to doctrines of this kind. Its founder, Mme Blavatsky, could have had a more or less thorough knowledge of the writings of certain theosophists, especially Jacob Boehme, and she may have picked up some of these ideas which she then inserted into her own writings along with a host of other elements of the most varied origins, but that is about all that can be said in this respect. Generally speaking, the more or less coherent theories issued or upheld by the leaders of the Theosophical Society have none of the characteristics just described, apart from a certain pretension to esoterism; moreover, they are presented falsely as of Eastern origin, and if at a certain point some people deemed it necessary to add a pseudo-Christianity of a most peculiar nature, it remains no less true that their original tendency was frankly antiChristian. 'Our goal,' as Mme Blavatsky used to say, 'is not to restore Hinduism, but to sweep Christianity from the surface of the earth.'[2] Since then, have things changed as much as a merely superficial view might suggest? Our own caution may be legitimated when we observe that the great propagandist of the new 'esoteric Christianity' is Mrs Besant, the same woman who formerly proclaimed that it was necessary 'above all to combat Rome and her priests, fight against Christianity all over the world, and chase God out of Heaven.' ${^3^}$ No doubt the doctrine of the Theosophical Society and the opinions of
its current president may have 'evolved', but it is also possible that their neo-Christianity is no more than a mask, for as is always the case in such circles, anything may be expected. We think that our present exposé will amply demonstrate how wrong we would be to lend credence to the sincerity of the people who lead or inspire movements such as the one here under examination.
Whatever may be the case regarding this last statement, at this point we can say plainly that between the doctrine of the Theosophical Society, or at least what is proclaimed as such, and theosophy in the true sense of the term, there is absolutely no filiation, not even on the level of ideas. Thus we reject as pure fantasy assertions tending to present the Society as the continuation of other associations, such as the 'Philadelphian Society', which existed in London toward the end of the seventeenth century [4] and to which Isaac Newton supposedly belonged, or the 'Fraternity of the Friends of God', said to have been created in Germany in the fourteenth century by the mystic John Tauler, who for reasons unknown to us is considered by some a precursor to Luther. [5] These assertions are perhaps even more groundless than those which are used by the Theosophists try to establish a connection with the Neoplatonists [6] on the ground that Blavatsky in fact adopted certain fragments of these philosophers' theories, although without really having assimilated them.
In reality, the doctrines professed by the Theosophical Society are wholly modern, and in almost every respect are so different from those to which the name theosophy legitimately applies, that the two could never be confounded except as a result of dishonesty or ignorance: dishonesty on the part of the heads of the Society, and ignorance on the part of the majority of those who follow them, and also, we have to admit, on the part of some of their adversaries who, being insufficiently informed, commit the grave error of taking these leaders' assertions seriously and believing, for example,
that they represent an authentic Eastern tradition, although this is simply not true. As we shall see, the Theosophical Society owes its name to purely accidental circumstances, without which it would have received an entirely different name. Thus its members are in no way theosophers, but rather 'theosophists', if you will. As for the rest, the distinction between the terms 'theosophers' and 'theosophists' is almost always made in English, where the word 'Theosophism' is frequently used to designate the doctrine of this Society. This distinction seems important enough in our eyes to be maintained equally in French, despite of its unusual character, and this is why before all else we were anxious to give the reasons why there is more to this than a mere question of words.
We have spoken as though there really were a theosophical doctrine; but the fact of the matter is that if the word 'doctrine' is to be taken in its strictest sense, or even if one simply wishes to designate something solid and definite thereby, it must be admitted that no such thing exists. What the Theosophists present as their doctrine appears after a modicum of serious examination, as filled with contradictions. Furthermore, from one author to another and sometimes with the same author, there are considerable variations, even on points regarded as of the utmost importance. In this regard we can distinguish above all two main periods, which correspond to the periods of Mme Blavatsky's and Mrs Besant's direction. It is true that contemporary Theosophists often try to obscure the contradictions by interpreting their founder's thought in their own fashion and by pretending that it was misunderstood at the beginning, but the discord is no less real. One will readily understand that the study of such inconsistent theories can hardly be separated from the history of the Theosophical Society itself. This is why it did not seem appropriate to divide the present work into two distinct parts, one historical and the other doctrinal, which would have been a natural thing to do in other circumstances.