ESOTERIC CHRISTIANITY
It is time now to turn to the most characteristic trait of the new orientation (new at least in appearance) given to the Theosophical Society under the instigation of Mrs Annie Besant, and which her antecedents could hardly have predicted; we refer to 'esoteric Christianity. [1] It must be said however that before this, the Christian current, or what is supposed to be such, was despite its apparent incompatibility with the ideas of Mme Blavatsky already represented in this milieu by certain more or less secondary elements, which of course did not express what might be called the official doctrine of Theosophy. There was first the 'Rosicrucianism' of Dr Franz Hartmann, which we spoke of above; any Rosicrucianism, no matter how deviant it might be in relation to the original Rosicrucianism, at least employs a Christian symbolism. But it must not be forgotten that in one of his books, Hartmann presents Jesus as an 'Initiate', a opinion shared by Edouard Schuré [1841-1929], [2] the inventor of an alleged 'Hellenic-Christian esoterism' whose character is most suspect, since, if one is to judge it by the very titles of the works that expound it, it must lead 'from Sphinx to Christ', then 'from Christ to Lucifer'! [3] Secondly, we will mention the more or less
similar works of G.R.S. Mead, Secretary-General of the European section, on gnosticism and the 'Christian mysteries'; we will see below that the restoration of these 'Christian mysteries' is one of the declared aims of contemporary Theosophists. Other than these works, largely inspired by the studies of 'non-initiated' specialists, Mead has also done very rough translations (to say no more than this) of several Sanskrit texts from the Upanishads; there one can find typical examples of the manner in which the Theosophists 'arrange' these texts according to the needs of their particular interpretation. [4] Finally, there was already an 'esoteric Christianity' properly so-called, connected with Theosophy; more precisely there were two that were not always unrelated: one is that of Dr Anna Kingsford [1846-1888] and Edward Maitland, and the other that of the Duchess of Pomar.
The first of these two theories was set forth in a book entitled The Perfect Way which appeared in 1882; [5] the authors' names were at first kept secret 'in order that their work might be judged only on its own merits and not on those of theirs, [6] although the authors' names appeared in subsequent editions. [7] We will add that a French translation followed published at the expense of the Duchess of Pomar for which Schuré wrote a preface. [8] Count MacGregor Mathers, dedicating his Kabbalah Unveiled to the authors of The Perfect Way, declared this book 'one of the most profoundly occult works written in recent centuries.' At the time The Perfect Way
appeared, Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland were both members of the Theosophical Society; it is true that they withdrew soon afterward, around the time when the Kiddle affair provoked numerous resignations in the English branch, of which we have spoken elsewhere. Nevertheless, on May 9, 1884 they founded in London a 'Hermetic Society' of which Anna Kingsford was president until her death in 1888, and whose statutes were in three articles copied from the declaration of principles of the Theosophical Society that we reproduced earlier. [9] Strangely, Olcott was present at this society's inauguration and gave a speech there which seems to support those who consider it a mere 'esoteric section' of the Theosophical Society. Thus there is reason to ask if the resignation of the founders was sincere, and we find something analogous in the case of the Duchess of Pomar.
How far did the opposition between the theories of Anna Kingsford and those of Mme Blavatsky extend? The first had a Christian label, but without even speaking of their very pronounced anti-clerical spirit (and here again it is allegedly through St Paul that 'the sacerdotal found entrance into the Church'), [10] the way in which Christian dogmas are interpreted there is quite peculiar; they especially wish to render Christianity independent of all historical considerations, [11] so that when Christ is spoken of it is in a 'mystical sense', by which it must always be understood an interior principle which each one must strive to discover and develop in himself. Now sometimes Mme Blavatsky also gives the name of Christos either to one of the higher principles of man, about whose position she moreover varies, or 'to the reunion of the three higher principles in a Trinity which 'represents the Holy Ghost, the Father, and the Son, since it is the expression of the abstract spirit, the differentiated spirit, and the embodied spirit. [12] We are here in total confusion, but what must be remembered is that for Mme Blavatsky as for
Anna Kingsford, the 'Christs' are beings who have developed in themselves certain higher principles which exist in a latent state in every man; and Anna Kingsford adds that the 'Christs' are not distinguished from other 'Adepts' except that, to their knowledge and the powers, they join a profound love of humanity. [13] Blavatsky said nearly the same thing when she taught that 'Christos [is the] Buddha state. [14] Here too there is not perfect accord among the Theosophists, and those of today think that this is rather the immediately inferior state, that of the 'Bodhisattva'. Mme Blavatsky's anti-Christian bias, which is especially directed against orthodox and socalled judaized Christianity, thus need not be too adverse to the idea of an 'esoteric Christianity' like this, where one finds a 'syncretism' rather similar to her own and almost as incoherent, although the confusion there is perhaps less inextricable. The principal difference is that a Christian terminology replaces the Eastern terminology, and that Buddhism is relegated to a secondary level even while being regarded as the complement of, or rather as the indispensable preparation for, Christianity. There is a passage on this subject too peculiar for us not to give it here:
Buddha and Jesus are, therefore, necessary the one to the other; and in the whole of the system thus completed, Buddha is the Mind and Christ is the Heart; Buddha is the general, Jesus is the particular; Buddha is the brother of the universe, Jesus is the brother of men; Buddha is Philosophy, Jesus is Religion; Buddha is the Circumference, Jesus is Within; Buddha is the System, Jesus is the Point of Radiation; Buddha is the Manifestation, Jesus is the Spirit; in a word, Buddha is the 'Man' [intelligence], Jesus is the 'Woman' [intuition].... Wherefore no man can be, properly, Christian, who is not also, and first, Buddhist. Thus the two religions constitute, respectively, the exterior and interior of the same Gospel, the foundation being in Buddhism-this term including Pythagoreanism [15]-and illumination in Christianity.
And just as without Christianity Buddhism is incomplete, so without Buddhism Christianity is unintelligible. . . . [16]
Anna Kingsford even assures us that the Gospel confirms this relationship in the account of the Transfiguration, where Moses and Elias represent Buddha and Pythagoras as their 'Hebraic counterparts'; [17] a singular interpretation, but no more astonishing than what is found a few pages further on, where the author claims on the basis of fantastic etymologies, that Abraham represents the 'Indian mysteries', Isaac the 'Egyptian mysteries', and Jacob the 'Greek mysteries'! [18] Despite this, for Anna Kingsford Christianity is superior to Buddhism as intuition is superior to intelligence, or as woman is superior to man; for she is a convinced feminist and regards woman as 'the crowning manifestation of humanity. [19] Let us add to this, in order to complete her physiognomy, that she was an apostle of vegetarianism [20] and a relentless adversary of the theories of Pasteur.
On various questions Anna Kingsford maintained positions quite peculiar to herself: thus, for example, she regarded human nature as fourfold, and she attributed a special importance to the number thirteen, in which she saw the 'number of woman' and the 'symbol of perfection. [21] But on most important points, whatever the appearances, she is fundamentally in agreement with Theosophical teachings. In particular, she admits 'spiritual evolution', 'karma', and reincarnation. Regarding the last she goes so far as to claim that 'the doctrine of the Progression and Migration of Souls . . . constituted the foundation of all [the] ancient religions,' and that 'one of the special objects of the [ancient mysteries] was to enable the candidate to recover the memory of his previous incarnations. [22] These teachings and many more of the same value are due, so it seems, to
the same 'source of information' as the doctrine as a whole, that is to say to the exercise of intuition 'whereby it [the Mind] returns towards its centre' and 'gains access to the interior and permanent region of our nature,' 'after exercising itself in an outward direction as Intellect in order to obtain cognition of phenomena. [23] Truly, one might almost believe that Bergson himself were speaking; we do not know if he knew Anna Kingsford, but in several respects she can certainly be ranked among the precursors of contemporary intuitionism. It is also interesting to note in her case the relationship between intuitionism and feminism, and we do not believe that hers is an isolated case; between the feminist movement and various other currents of the contemporary mentality there are relationships which would be most interesting to study. We will have to speak of feminism again in connection with the Masonic role of Mrs Besant.
Notwithstanding Anna Kingsford's affirmation, we do not believe that intuition-rather, we should say, imagination-was her only 'source of information', even though the fantastic assertions, of which we have given some examples, are certainly due to the exercise of this faculty. At the beginning at least there were borrowings from different doctrines, especially the Kabbalah and Hermeticism, and the comparisons indicated here and there bear witness to a knowledge that, although superficial, nevertheless existed. Moreover, Anna Kingsford had certainly studied the theosophists properly so called, notably Boehme and Swedenborg; it is especially this which she had in common with the Duchess of Pomar, and there was more theosophy, though rather mixed up, with these two than with Mme Blavatsky and her successors. As for the Duchess of Pomar, because it was especially in France that she developed her 'esoteric Christianity', and also because her personality makes it worthwhile, we believe it will be well to devote a special chapter to her.