ToMichaelMurphy
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Theideaforthisvolumegrewoutofdiscussionsovermealsataweek-long academicconferenceonWesternesotericism,heldattheEsalenInstitutein May 2007.Iwouldthereforeliketothank, firstofall,conferenceorganizers JeffreyJ.KripalandWouterJ.Hanegraaff – particularlythelatter.Itwasin conversationwithProfessorHanegraaff thatIoriginally floatedtheideaof proposingavolumeonWesternesotericismtoCambridge.Heencouraged metodoso,butthescopeofthevolumewaslaterwidenedtoinclude mysticismaswell.Thus,whatbeganasaproposalforamodestcollectionof aboutadozenorsoessaysgrewintothelargevolumethatyounowholdin yourhands.
EverythingthathappensatEsalenisdue,directlyorindirectly,tothe generosityandinspiringinfluenceofits “innkeeper,” MichaelMurphy. WithoutMike,therewouldhavebeennoconference,noconversations, andnobook.Thus,Idedicatethisvolumetohim.
Foradviceandguidanceintheselectionofauthorsandothermatters,I mustthank,again,WouterHanegraaff andJeff Kripal,andalsoDavid Appelbaum,AntoineFaivre,JoscelynGodwin,LeeIrwin,PeterKingsley, PeterManchester,RobertMcDermott,BernardMcGinn,Barbara Newman,FrankSinclair,andArthurVersluis.
ThanksarealsoowedtoBeatriceRehl,myeditoratCambridge,forher support,goodhumor,andpatience.Indeed,Imustthankthecontributors fortheirpatienceaswell,sincethisprojecthasbeenplaguedbymany setbacksanddelays.Nowthatithas finallycometofruition,Ihopethat everyoneinvolvedwillconsideritworththewait.
G.A.M.
NewYorkCity July 2015
EDITOR ’ SINTRODUCTION
1 ANewApproachtotheHiddenIntellectualHistoryoftheWest Thishandbookbringstogetherarticlesontwosubjects:Westernmysticism andWesternesotericism.Thesetwoareasaredistinct,yettheyarerelatedso intimatelythattreatingthemtogetherisnotonlypossiblebutultimately necessaryifeitheristobetrulyunderstood.
MysticismintheWesthastendedtoarise(asithaselsewhereintheworld) withinthecontextofareligioustradition,generallyasakindofdeeper reflectionontheinnermeaningofthereligion.Thisisobviouslythecase withJewish,Christian,andIslamicmysticism.However,theoriginsof Westernmysticismgobackmuchfurther,topaganpolytheisminfact,and themysteryreligionsofAncientGreece.
ScholarshiponWesternmysticismenjoysalong,establishedhistoryandis almostasoldasscholarshiponthereligionsfromwhichmysticismtypically springs.Thesameisnottrue,however,forscholarshiponWesternesotericism.Itis,infact,averyyoung field.Defining “esotericism” isadifficulttask, andonefraughtwithcontroversy.However,wemaybeginsimplybynoting thatthisisthewordincreasinglyusedtodaytodesignatecurrentsofthought formerlyreferredtoas “occultism” oras “theoccultsciences” (termsthat cameintowideusageinthenineteenthcentury).Thesecurrentshavealong historyintheWest,sometimeshiddenandsubterranean(astheword “occultism” implies) – atothertimes,intheRenaissanceforexample,as partofmainstreamthought.Esotericdoctrines,schools,orpracticesinclude alchemy,astrology,magic,Kabbalism,RenaissanceHermetism, Freemasonry,Rosicrucianism,numbersymbolism,sacredgeometry, Christiantheosophy,spiritualism,mesmerism,andmuchelse.1
1 Theterms “esotericism” and “esotericwriting” arealsousedbyacademicstorefertothe practiceofsecrecy,ofhidingone’smeaningorintentionbehindan “exoteric” veneer.Here xiii
Theideasandmovementsjustmentionedarefamiliar,inonewayor another,tomostpeople.Weknowthattheyexercisedagreatinfluencein thepast(andstilldo).Wehaveencounteredtracesoftheminliterature, film, andfairytales.Theypeekthroughthecracksofstandardhistoriesofphilosophy,science,andliteraturewhen,forexample,itismentionedinpassing thatRenaissanceartandsciencewereinfluencedbyhermeticandkabbalistic teachings;thatGoethewasanalchemist,andNewtonanastrologer;that KantandStrindbergreadSwedenborg,andSchellingwasaspiritualist;that BlakeandHegelwereinfluencedbyJacobBoehme;thatW.B.Yeatswasa memberoftheHermeticOrderoftheGoldenDawn;andsoon.Thesefacts arementioned,thoughnotemphasized.Theyareseldomdenied,butthey aremoreorlessavoidedbymostscholars.Thisbegantochangeonly recently.
Inthe 1930s,PaulOttoKristellerbecameoneofthe firstmodernscholars toclaimthatthestudyofhermeticandesotericliteraturewascrucialforan understandingoftheRenaissance.However,itwasnotuntilthepublication ofFrancesYates’ s GiordanoBrunoandtheHermeticTradition in 1964 thatthe academicstudyofesotericismreallytookoff.Yateswentontowriteseveral otherground-breakingbooks,including TheArtofMemory,TheOccult PhilosophyintheElizabethanAge,and TheRosicrucianEnlightenment.Her work,ineffect,spawnedanentirelynewdiscipline.
In 1965,anacademicchairforthestudyofWesternesotericismwas establishedattheÉcolePratiquedesHautesÉtudes(Sorbonne)inParis (currentlyheldbyJean-PierreBrach,andformerlybyFrançoisSecretand AntoineFaivre).In 1999,asimilarchairwasestablishedattheUniversityof Amsterdam(currentlyheldbyWouterJ.Hanegraaff),whereitisattachedto asmalldepartmentfeaturingseveralotherspecialistsinesotericismand offeringundergraduateandgraduate-leveldegrees(seewww.amsterdamher metica.nl).2 TheEuropeanSocietyfortheStudyofWesternEsotericism (www.esswe.org)heldits firstconferenceinJuly 2007,amajorevent,hosted
“esoteric” referssimplyto “hiddendoctrines” ofanysort,includingonesthatareskeptical, atheistic,andmaterialistic.LeoStraussandhisschoolarefamousforusingtheterm “esoteric” inthismanner.Asshouldbeobvious,thedenotationofthewordinthisvolumeisquite different – thoughthetwousagesarerelated.ForStrauss’sviews,seeLeoStrauss, Persecution andtheArtofWriting (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress, 1952).
2 In 2005,theUniversityofExeterintheUnitedKingdombecametheworld’sthird institutionofhigherlearningtocreateachairinesotericism.Thepositionwasheldby NicholasGoodrick-Clarke,whoservedasdirectoroftheCentrefortheStudyofEsotericism (EXESESO)withintheCollegeofHumanitiesatExeter.However,followingGoodrickClarke’suntimelydeathin 2012,theuniversitydecidedtocloseEXESESO.
bytheUniversityofTübingen.Since 2001,thesocietyhaspublishedapeerreviewedjournal, Aries:JournalfortheStudyofWesternEsotericism
IntheUnitedStates,theAssociationfortheStudyofEsotericism (www.aseweb.org)wasfoundedin 2002 byArthurVersluisofMichigan StateUniversity,andhasheldbiennialconferences.Itpublishesawebbasedjournal, Esoterica.Therearenowanumberofscholarsofesotericism teachingatAmericanuniversities,manyoftheminreligiousstudies departments.FormanyyearsnowthemeetingsoftheAmerican AcademyofReligionhaveincludedsessionsonWesternesotericism, beginningwiththe “EsotericismandPerennialismGroup” inthemid1980s.ThisgroupwasanoffshootoftheHermeticAcademy,anorganizationfoundedin 1980 byRobertA.McDermott,PresidentEmeritusofthe CaliforniaInstituteforIntegralStudies.
Thepresentvolumeincludescontributionsbymanyoftoday’sleading scholarsofWesternesotericism,bringingthemtogetherwithanumberof prolificandtalentedscholarsworkingintheareaofWesternmysticism. Treatingthesetwo fieldstogethermakesthis Handbook unique.Asweshall see,anunderstandingoftherootsofesotericcurrentsalmostalwaysleadsus backtothemysticaltraditions.Further,theworkofmanyofthemysticswas boundupwithwhattodaywouldbecalledesotericoroccult preoccupations.
Twothingsshouldbeclearfromwhathasbeensaidthusfar.First,theseare fascinatingsubjects.Second,theyconstitute,ineffect,thehiddenintellectual historyoftheWest,runninglikeadarkthreadthroughthefabricofthemore conventionalintellectualhistorywehaveallbeentaught.Theinfluenceof mysticsandesotericistsonscience,philosophy,theology,literature,politics, andpopularcultureisimmense,butitisastoryscholarsareonlyjust beginningtotell.Thisvolumeconstitutesakindof summa ofthepresent stateofresearch.
However,theforegoingmoreorlesspresupposesthatweknowwhatthe terms “mysticism” and “esotericism” mean.Buthowarewetodefinethem, andtodistinguishbetweenthem?Andshouldweevenattemptto?Afterall, onacertainunderstanding,thesetermscanbeseenasvirtuallysynonymous. Themysticalhasalwaysbeen “hidden”– ifonlyinthesensethatitisdifficult formosttoaccess.Theterm “mysticism” itselfisderivedfromtheGreek adjective mystikos,meaning “pertainingtothemysteries(tamysteria),” orthe secretritesofEleusis.ThiswordultimatelyderivesfromtheIndo-European root mu-,meaning “tobesilent.” Yet,whileeverythingthatismysticalmay behidden(inthesensejustmentioned),noteverythingthatishiddenis mystical.
GershomScholemattemptedtodistinguishbetweenthemysticalandthe esotericasfollows:
Mysticismmeansakindofknowledgewhichisbyitsverynature incommunicable.Itcannotbedirectlytransmitted;itcanbemade visibleonlyindirectly,becauseitssubstancecannotbeexpressedin humanlanguage.Esotericknowledge,ontheotherhand,meansa kindofknowledgethatmaybecommunicableandmightbe communicatedbutwhosecommunicationisforbidden.3
ButScholemisusing “esotericknowledge” inamuchnarrowersensethanis employedinthisvolume,andintheacademic fieldofWesternesotericism. Asthereaderwillsee,muchofwhatcurrentlyfallsunderthisrubricisnotand neverwas “secret” or “forbidden,” norwasitthepropertyofanelite.To takemerelyoneexample,spiritualismwasapopulistmovementwithan egalitarianethos,whoseproponentswereanythingbutsecretive(seethe essaybyCathyGutierrezinthepresentvolume).
Nevertheless,Scholem’sunderstandingofmysticismisfundamentally correctandcanbeusedasmeansnotjusttodistinguishmysticismfrom esotericism(asthetermisusedbytheauthorsherein)butalsotodiscernhow theyarerelated.
2 TheNatureofMysticism
Theessenceofmysticismistobefoundintheconceptof gnosis (aboutwhich WouterHanegraaff hascontributedanentireessayinthisvolume). Gnosis is preciselywhatwassupposedtohavebeenacquiredbythosewhoparticipated in tamysteria:adirectperceptionoftheultimatetruthofwhatis.This knowledgewaslifetransformingandimpossibletoadequatelyexpressin words.Ifweexamineallthatistypicallycategorizedas “mystical,” we find thatinonewayoranotheritalludestosuchanexperience,or flowsfromthe standpointofonewhohashadit,andattemptstohelpotherstobereceptive tothesame.4 (Itis,therefore,highlyappropriatethatthe firstessayinthis
3 GershomScholem, JewishMysticismintheMiddleAges,The 1964 AllanBronfmanLecture (New York:JudaicaPress, 1964), 3–4.
4 Agreatmanydefinitionsofmysticismhavebeenofferedbyscholars – toomanytocitehere.I recommendreadersconsultBernardMcGinn, TheFoundationsofMysticism,Vol. 1: The PresenceofGod:AHistoryofWesternChristianMysticism (NewYork:Crossroad, 1994),xv–xx. Inmanyways,WilliamJames’sdiscussionofmysticismin VarietiesofReligiousExperience (1902)remainsunsurpassed(seeLecturesXVIandXVIIinanyunabridgededition).
volume,writtenbyCharlesStein,introducesreaderstowhatweknowofthe mysteryritesofEleusis.)
Tobesure,therearesignificantdifferencesbetweenthemysticismsof Parmenides,Plato,Plotinus,5 Pseudo-Dionysius,JohnScotusEriugena,the Kabbalists,theSufis,theRhinelandmystics(HildegardofBingen,Meister Eckhart,etc.),andChristiantheosophistssuchasJacobBoehme – allof whomarediscussedinthiscollection.Stillgreaterdifferencesaretobefound betweenalltheaboveandwhatthoseofusintheWestcall “Eastern mysticism”:Vedanta,Shaivism,Tantra,Taoism,Zen,andsoon. Nonetheless,thereisanidentityunderlyingthesedifferences – areasonall ofthemhavea “familyresemblance” forusandleadustogroupthemundera singleterm,howeverinadequatethattermmaybe.
Allofthemystics – EastandWest – areconcernedwithknowledgeofthe transcendentsourceofallbeing,theobjectof gnosis.Sinceeverythinginour experience flowsfromthissource,orowesitsexistencetoit,thesourceitself cannotbeunderstoodintermsofthecategoriesweemployinthinkingor speakingabout finitethings.Thedoctrinethatthesourceis “beyondthe opposites” orthatwithinitallconceptualoppositionsmeetorareleftbehind (the coincidentiaoppositorum)isnearlyuniversaltowhatwecallmysticism.It followsthat,accordingtomysticism’speculiarlogic,thetranscendentsource transcendsthedistinctionbetweentranscendenceandimmanence.Further, ifthebeingofallistobefoundinaOnethatisbeyondeveryduality,thenin spiteofappearancesallreallyisone.
Thus,mysticismtypicallyteachesthatall finitethingsareconnected;allare partsoraspectsofacosmicorder – callitthe Tao,the Logos,theAbsolute,or whathaveyou.Wemightalsocallitan “infinitewhole,” meaningawholeor Onethatisnotlimitedbyanythingexternaltoitself,thusmakingitsimultaneouslythemostindeterminatebeing(sincenothingdeterminesit)andthe mostdeterminateone(sinceitis the One,subsumingalldeterminations). Usually,themysticsalsoholdthatthereisafundamentalidentitybetween ourselvesandtheOne.Thisdoctrineisperhapsmoststarklylaidoutin Vedanta,intheidentitybetween Atman (one’strueselfornature)and Brahman (thetranscendentsourceofallbeing) – butthesameteachingisto befoundinEckhart.Indeed,itisaperennialteachingandisoftenexpressed astheidentityofthemacrocosmandthemicrocosm.Further,iftheOne/All isidenticaltotheimpersonalanduniversalsoulofwhicheachofusisa finite
5 The firstthree figureslistedherearecommonlyreferredtoasphilosophers,andmodern historiansofphilosophywouldliketobelievethatthereisasharpdistinctionbetween mysticismandphilosophy.Thepresentvolume – especiallytheessaysdealingwiththese three figures – makesitclearthatmattersarenotsosimple.
inflection,thenitwouldseemtofollowthatthebeingofallthingsissoullike,orensouled.
Now,theprecedingisanattempttodescribewhatistypicallytaughtby themystics – withtheusualcaveatthattherearecountlessvariationsand differencesofemphasis.Butitiscruciallyimportanttounderstandthatwhen themysticstellusthesethings,theyareattemptingtoputintowordsthe “information” conveyedwordlesslyintheexperienceof gnosis.Nosuch accountcaneverbefullyadequate – yetthemostbrilliantwritersand teachersamongthemysticscangiveusavividglimpse.Thetypicalmystical experience(theexperienceof gnosis)seemstoinvolveseveralbasiccomponents.Theseinclude:afundamentalalterationinthe quality ofexperience,as thingsseemtobecomemorevividorreal;thesensethatoneisseeingintothe truenatureofthings;theintuitionthatallisreallyone;thesensethatthe distinctionbetweenselfandotherhascollapsed;andtheoverwhelming feelingofthe rightness ofthings – thateverything,justasitis,isfundamentally right.Allofthisisexperiencedatonce,andinaformthatisquitedistinct fromboththinking(inthesenseofreasoning)andmundanesenseexperience.Itisobvioushowthedoctrinesofmysticismsummarizedearlierarean attempttoputthewordlessintowords;toconveyintheformofcommunicableteachings,asfaraspossible,whatisrevealedin gnosis.(Aclassic,and highlypersonal,accountofthisattempttorenderthe “content” of gnosis in wordsistobefoundinthewritingsofJacobBoehme;seetheessayonhimin thisvolume.)
Theforegoingaccountofthenatureofmysticismshouldmakeitclear whyitisnecessarytodistinguishitfromesotericism.Forwhat,afterall,do astrology,magic,alchemy,andspirit-seeinghavetodowithwhatIhavejust discussed?Actually,aswillslowlyemerge,theyhaveagreatdealtodowith mysticism.Andyettheyaredistinctfromitatthesametime;esotericismis notmysticism.Sowhatisit?
3 ApproachestoUnderstandingEsotericism
Our firstimpulseistotrytoidentifywhatesotericcurrentsallhavein common;toidentifytheiressentialcharacteristics.Butwhenwespeakof esotericism,wearespeakingofacategorythatsubsumesquitealotofvery differentthings.Whatcanthefouresoteric “sciences” justnamed –astrology,magic,alchemy,andspirit-seeing – allhaveincommon?Tosay theleast,itisnotobvious.Andsoithasrecentlybeensuggestedthatinstead ofsearchingfortheessentialcharacteristicsofesotericism,weshouldunderstanditinsteadthroughthehistoryofhowthiscatchallcategorywas
“constructed.” ThisistheapproachtakenbyWouterHanegraaff inhis importantbook EsotericismandtheAcademy:RejectedKnowledgeinWestern Culture
ForHanegraaff,thestoryofesotericism’sconstructionbeginsinthe Renaissance,whenFlorentinehumanistsarguedforafanciful “genealogy ofwisdom” inwhich figuressuchasPlato,Plotinus,andHermes Trismegistuswereallseenastransmittinganancientwisdomwhosesource, ultimately,wasdivine.Thishugelyinfluential “ancientwisdomnarrative,” as Hanegraaff referstoit,wasineffectthe firstmodernattemptatahistoryof philosophy.Inthesecondhalfoftheseventeenthcentury,however, ProtestantGermantheologianswentontheattackagainsttheancientwisdomnarrative.Theiraimwasto “‘purify’ Christiantheologyfromitscontaminationbypaganerror.”6 Thus,theyjettisonedthe “Platonic orientalism” oflateantiquity,Hermetism,Gnosticism,Kabbalism,theosophy,alchemy,andgenerallyanythingthatseemedtosomehowconflictwith whattheysawastrueChristianity.AlsocastoutweretheRenaissance purveyorsoftheancientwisdomnarrative – suchasFicino,Picodella Mirandola,andBruno – aswellas figuressuchasParacelsusandBoehme. Theresultwasthecreationofakindof “wastebasket” ofrejectedknowledge(touseHanegraaff’svividdescription).Quitewithoutintendingto, thesehistorianshadcreatedthecategoryofwhatwecalltoday “esotericism.” Fromthenon,theseesoteric figuresandmovements – thoughtheyoftenhad littleincommon – wouldbeseenasallsomehowbelongingwithone anotherina “countertradition.” SecularEnlightenmenthistoriansbasically adoptedtheapproachoftheProtestants,onlythistimeesotericcurrentswere rejectednotbecauseoftheirapparentincompatibilitywithChristianity,but becausetheywereconsidered “irrational.” (Interestingly,boththeProtestant theologiansandtheEnlightenmentrationalistswereunitedintheirhostility totheesotericists’ claimsto “innerillumination.”7)Theresult,tomakea verylongstoryshort,wastheconstructionofthehistoryofscienceand philosophythatwearefamiliarwithtoday.Inbothcases,Hanegraaff argues, whathasoccurredisthatcertain figuresandschoolsofthoughthavebeen marginalizedduetotheprejudicesofhistorians.
6 WouterJ.Hanegraaff, EsotericismandtheAcademy:RejectedKnowledgeinWesternCulture (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2012), 103
7 SeeHanegraaff,EsotericismandtheAcademy, 137.Itwouldbeagrosserror,however,to makeasharpdistinctionbetweenthetwogroups.Itwaspossibleforsomeonetobebotha Protestanttheologian(or,atleast,aProtestant)andanEnlightenmentrationalist,andindeed manymensawthemselvesassuch.
Ontheonehand,Hanegraaff hasgivenusanaccountoftheprocessby whichdifferentesotericcurrentscametobeunderstoodasallbelonging togetherunderonerubric.Ontheotherhand,healsoarguesthatour modernconceptionsof “real” scienceand “real” philosophywereformed inoppositiontothisdiscarded “other”– whichwasitselfaconstructionof modernscienceandphilosophy!Thereisthusasimplereasonforthe embarrassmentofhistoriansofphilosophyandsciencewhenconfronted withthefactsmentionedearlieraboutNewton,Goethe,andKant:Tobe rationaland “modern” means not tobelieveintheesoteric.
Thisaccountoftheconstructionofesotericismoffersusagreatdealof insight,butitdoesnotfollowfromitthatwecannotdiscernfundamental commonfeaturesofthingsesoteric – andHanegraaff doesnotclaimotherwise.(Lateron,Iwillverybrieflydiscusshisownaccountofwhatcharacterizesesotericism.)AmuchmoreradicalversionofHanegraaff’ s “constructivist” approachistobefoundintheworkofKockuvon Stuckrad,who,forallintentsandpurposes,deniesthatthereisanysuch thingasesotericismwithdiscernible,commonfeatures.8 Instead,according toStuckrad,wecanspeakonlyof “esotericdiscourses,” unitedsolelybythe factthattheyareall “others” rejectedbytheculturalforcesofmodernity describedearlier.Esotericismis,thus,merelya “construct.”
Thispositioninvitesabasicquestion: Invirtueofwhat wereesoteric thinkers,schools,andtextsseenasbelongingtogether?Invirtueofwhat traitsweretheymarginalizedbymodernity?Wearefacedwithaquestion paralleltotheoneSocratesraisesaboutpietyinthe Euthyphro:Issomething esotericbecauseitwasrejectedbytheEnlightenment;orwasitrejectedby theEnlightenmentbecauseitwasesoteric(i.e.,becauseithadcertainspecific features)?Onmostdays,theitemsinmywastebaskethavenothingin commonotherthanthatInolongerwantthem.ButonthedaysIam pruningthehouseofspecificsortsofthings,theitemsinmywastebaskethave agreatdealincommon – eventhoughitmightnotbeobvioustoanyone otherthanmyself.
Ifweturn,then,toattemptstoidentifythecharacteristicfeaturesof esotericism – thefeaturesthatsoenragedEnlightenmentrationalists – we will findthatthebestplacetobeginiswiththeapproachofAntoineFaivre, arguablythemajor figureintheacademicstudyofesotericismnowliving.In AccesstoWesternEsotericism,Faivrestipulatesthattherearefourfundamental
8 SeeKockuvonStuckrad, LocationsofKnowledgeinMedievalandEarlyModernEurope (Leiden: Brill, 2010).Stuckrad’sapproachiscritiquedinHanegraaff, EsotericismandtheAcademy, 361–367
characteristicsofesotericism(whichhecallsa “formofthought”),thatis, fourbasiccriteriafordecidingwhethersomethingbelongstothiscategory. Hestates, “Bynaturetheyaremoreorlessinseparable,asweshallsee,but methodologicallyitisimportanttodistinguishbetweenthem.”9 These characteristicsare:
1 “Correspondences.” Theentireuniverseisconceivedinesotericthought asanemblembook. “Everythingisasign,” Faivrestates.10 Themost fundamentalofthesecorrespondencesisthatofthemacrocosmandthe microcosm,whichunderlies,amongotherthings,astrology.
2 “LivingNature.” Thisisthenotionofwhatissometimescalled “cosmic sympathies” (whichisobviouslyrelatedtotheideaofcorrespondences). Natureisalivingwhole,whose finitemembersexistinrelationsof sympathyorantipathytooneanother.AsFaivrepointsout,itisthe knowledgeofthesesympathiesandantipathiesthatformsthebasisof magic(aswellas,justtomentiontwomoreexamples,Paracelsismand animalmagnetism).
3 “ImaginationandMediations.” Faivreexplains: “Theideaofcorrespondencespresumesalreadyaformofimaginationinclinedtorevealanduse mediationsofallkinds,suchasrituals,symbolicimages,mandalas,intermediaryspirits.”11
4 “ExperienceofTransmutation.” Esotericismtendstoinvolvetheattempt toeffectafundamentaltransformationofthingsintheworld(asin alchemicaltransmutationormagic)and/oroftheself.Ofcourse,nuclear physicsalsodealswiththefundamentaltransformationofthingsinthe world,soherewemustnotetheobvious,thatesoterictransmutation involves,asFaivreputsit, “thepassagefromoneplane[ofreality]to another.”12 Andtheotherplane,standingopposedtothismundaneone, isnotaccessiblebyempiricalscience.
Inadditiontothesefourfundamentalfeaturesofesotericism,Faivrealsolists twootherelementsthatarefrequently,thoughnotalways,foundtogether withthosejustdiscussed:
9 AntoineFaivre, AccesstoWesternEsotericism (Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress, 1994), 10.AsIdiscussshortly,Faivreactuallylistssixcriteriaonpp. 10–15 of Access.Faivre repeatsthesamelistin ModernEsotericSpirituality,ed.AntoineFaivreandJacobNeedleman (NewYork:Crossroad, 1995),xv–xx;andin Theosophy,Imagination,Tradition (Albany: StateUniversityofNewYorkPress, 2000),xxi–xxiv.
10 Faivre, Access, 10.
11 Faivre, Access, 12
12 Faivre, Access, 13
“ThePraxisoftheConcordance.” Thisinvolvesatendencyonthepartof manyesotericthinkerstotryand findlinksbetweendifferenttraditionsor teachings,oramongallofthem.Thispraxisisitselfconceivedasameans toenlightenment:Itistheidentificationoftheone,true,universal tradition.One findsthisfeaturedisplayedprominentlyinthe “Traditionalist” schoolofRenéGuénon,andinC.G.Jung(bothof whomaregiventheirownessaysherein),amongothers.
6 “Transmission.” Esotericteachingsare “transmittedfrommastertodisciplefollowingapre-establishedchannel.” Thevalidityofesoteric knowledgesomehowdependsonthispedigree,and “initiation” into certainpathsisonlypossiblethroughanunbrokenlineoftransmission.13
Ofcourse,anyattempttodefineesotericism(oranyothersubject,forthat matter)intermsofasetofnecessaryandjointlysufficientconditionswill neverpleaseeveryone.Therewillalwaysbesomescholareagertoassertthat whilewearequitewillingtocall x esoteric,itdoesnot fitallthestipulated criteria.Butpartoftheproblemhereisthatmanyacademicsaresolostin minutiaeandsoweddedtoultra-fine-graineddistinctionsthattheyareoften unabletoseetheproverbialforestforthetrees.Indeed,somearesoaverseto generalizationsthattheybrandanyattempttosynthesizeknowledgewiththe shopwornpostmodernsmear “essentialism.” Butitisthenatureofthe humanmindtoseekthe “ essence ” ofthings,bywhichImeansimplya fundamentalcommontrait,orsetoftraits.Speakingofessentialtraitsis problematiconlywhentherearenone,orwhenwehavemisidentified them.(Andpostmodernistsareoblivioustotheironyofgroupingtheir opponentsundertherubricofessentialism – asif,afterall,theyshared somecommonessence.)
Inthemain,IthinkthatFaivre’smethodologyissound – andatleastgives usaplacetostart.14 Itisdifficulttothinkofanyesotericcurrentsdiscussedin thisbooktowhichhisfourprimarycriteriadonotapply.Butinordertosee thosecurrentsastheywereseenbytheEnlightenmentzealotswho,in Hanegraaff’saccount,marginalizedthemandtherebycreatedanesoteric countertradition,wehavetogodeeper.
13 Faivre, Access, 14–15
14 BothHanegraaff andStuckradhavecriticizedFaivre’sapproach.Iamnotaltogether persuadedbytheircriticisms,thoughIrecognizethatFaivre’saccounthasits flaws.As willbecomeapparent,IamusingitasameanstoreachwhatIregardasadeeperlevelof analysis.
TheNatureofEsotericism – ASynthesisofApproaches
IfoneconsidersFaivre’ s firsttwocriteria, “correspondences” and “living nature,” onewillrealizethatwhatisatworkinbothcasesisakindof “qualitative” approachtounderstandingnature.Forinstance,the RenaissancemagusMarsilioFicino(1433–1499)believedina spiritusmundi permeatingtheentireuniverse,whichhumanbeingscandrawontoimprove theirlot.Thisactivityismagic,anditconsistsprimarilyinattractingthe influencesofparticularplanetsthroughtheuseofvarioussubstancesassociatedwiththem:preciousstones,animals,scents,colors,andsoforth.To drawontheinfluenceofJupiter,Ficinoadvisesustouse “Jovialthings” such assilver,sugar,andwhitehoney;tothinkJovialthoughts;andtobearin mindJupiter’sassociationwithcertainanimals,suchaseaglesandlambs.15
Thus,correspondencesarebasedonqualitativeidentities:Thoughsilver, whitehoney,andeaglesarequitedifferent,theyallpossessa “Jovialquality” (or,wecouldsay,theyarequalitativelyrelatedtoJupiter).Atthebasisofthe ideaof “cosmicsympathies” isjustthisnotionofqualitativeties.Needlessto say,thiswayofthinkingisnowextremelyalientous,preciselybecauseitwas discardedinthemodernperiodinfavorofthe quantitative approachto understandingnature.Accordingtothemodernoutlook,allqualitative differencesultimatelyreducetoquantitativeones:tothecombinationand recombination,inquantifiablepatternsandproportions,ofbasicmaterial particlesthatare,inthemselves,bereftofanyofthequalitiesfamiliartous fromexperience.Thisquantitativeapproachis,ofcourse,stillverymuch withus – andnotjustinsciencedepartments.Itisatthebasisofthemodern worldviewitself:ourwayoflookingatlife,atvalue,atbeingassuch.Itisnot fornothingthatRenéGuénondescribedmodernityas “thereignofquantity” (seetheessayonhiminthisvolume).16
Thequalitativeapproachtonatureisnotjustafeatureofesotericism:One findsitinwhatwenormallycategorizeasancientphilosophyandscience.So, forexample,Aristotlein OnGenerationandCorruption speaksofwhathas cometobecalledthe “fourelements”– earth,air, fire,andwater – butwhich
15 See MarsilioFicino,ed.AngelaVoss(Berkeley:NorthAtlanticBooks, 2006), 116
16 We findearlieresotericistsexplicitlyawareoftheconflictbetweentheirapproachand modernity.Totakebutoneexample,FranzJosefMolitor(1779–1860)states: “Eachreallyexistentcreaturelyessenceexiststhusinalivingform.However,inourcurrentfallen condition,itisnolongereasilypossibletoknowtheinnerqualitativeessenceofthings ... whichispossibleviatheholylanguage.Wehavebecomeconcernedonlywiththeoutward ‘objective,’ quantitativerelationshipsamongthings;wehaveforgottenthattheouterforms orsignaturesofthingsrevealtheworldoftheirinner,spiritualqualities.” QuotedinArthur Versluis, Theosophia (Hudson,NY:LindesfarnePress, 1994), 77
wouldbemoreaccuratelydescribedasthefourmaterialqualities:thecold anddry,thehotandwet,thehotanddry,andthecoldandwet.Thesefour elementswere,ofcourse,bequeathedtoalchemy.Anditispartlyonaccount ofalchemy’squalitativeapproachthatitwasgraduallydivorcedfrom chemistry.17 (Thereareothermajorreasonsforalchemy’smarginalization, whichIwillcometoinamoment.)
ConsidernextFaivre’scategoryof “imaginationandmediations.” Faivre himselfnotes(asquotedearlier)thatthiswayofthinkingmakespossiblethe worldviewthatcontainscorrespondencesandcosmicsympathies.Andtothe modernmindset,itisfatallyandirredeemably “subjective.” Inthemodern worldview,objectivityisvirtuallythesameasmeasurability:Whatever cannotbemeasured,forallintentsandpurposes,maybesaidnottoexist. Thus,themodernidealofobjectivityisinextricablytiedtoitsemphasison thequantitative.Andthismakesmodernityfundamentally “extraverted,” for onlythe “outthere” canbemeasured.The “inhere,” myprivateworldof thoughts,feelings,and(aboveall)imaginationcannotbemeasuredinany trulyobjectivefashion.Theideathatprivateintuitions,feelings,andimaginativereveriesmightbeguidestotruthiswhollyanathematothemodern worldview.Formodernity,thesubjectiveisadarkrealm;asourceof falsehoodanddeception.Thus,anyknowledgeclaimsbasedonsuchsubjectivesourcesaresimplyruledout.Eveninmodernpsychology,whichis supposedtobethescienceofsubjectivity,strenuouseffortshavebeenmade tobanishsubjectivity.Behaviorism,ofcourse,isthemostextremeexample.
Onecaneasilyseethatatremendousamountofwhatweclassifyasthe esotericisbasedonthesubjectivesourcesjustdescribed.Afterall,howdid Ficino(andtheolderthinkershereliedon)arriveattheideathattherewas somekindofsympathybetween,forinstance,theplanetJupiterandlambs?It wasthroughtheuseofimagination:throughgettingacertain “feel” forthe connectionsbetweenthings.OccultistssuchasFicinowillclaimthatothers followingthesamepath,andwithasimilaropennessandsensitivity,will arriveatthesameconclusions – andthustheirassertionsofcorrespondences andsympathiesaregenuinelyobjective,byvirtueofintersubjectiveagreement.Needlesstosay,thispositionisnottakenseriouslybymodernthinkers.
Thesamesubjectiveelementistobefoundinalchemy – thatis,thesame relianceonfeltorintuitedconnections.Theessayonalchemyinthisvolume (byLawrencePrincipe)discusseshowtheJungianschool,andothers,have emphasizedthe “spiritual” elementofalchemyvirtuallytothepointof denyingthatlaboratoryalchemytookplace.Myownpositionisthat
17 SeeVersluis, Theosophia, 97
alchemywasindeedaphysicalprocess,butinseparable – inthemindsofmost alchemists – fromaspiritualone.(HeinrichKhunrath, 1560–1605,and OswaldCroll,ca. 1563–1609,areexcellentexamples.)Thisisarguablythe primaryreasonitwasbanishedfromthedisciplinewenowknowas chemistry.
Needlesstosay,everythinginesotericismthatinvolvesaccessto “higher worlds” (whetherthroughvisions, “astralprojection,” orwhathaveyou), spirit-seeing,mediumship, “psychichealing,” precognition,telepathy,sympatheticmagic,andsoforthalldependsonclaimsthat flowfromthe authorityofsomesupernormalaspectofsubjectivity.Thisbringsusdirectly toFaivre’sfourthaspectofesotericism, “theexperienceoftransmutation,” whichinvolves,asIhavealreadyquoted, “thepassagefromoneplaneto another.” Intheeyesofmodernity,thegreatestsincommittedbyesotericism isnotspecificallythesubjectivismIhavejustdiscussedbutrathertheclaimto haveobtained(viaspecialsubjectivepowers)accessto “otherrealities,” whichinprinciplecannotbereachedbytheempiricalmethodsofmodern science.Asnotedearlier,formodernitywhatisnotmeasurable “outthere”–directlyorindirectly – isnotreal.Thereisnotasingleaspectofwhatis treatedinthisvolumeasesotericismthatdoesnotexplicitlyorimplicitly challengethismodernconviction.
Finally,Faivre’ s fifthandsixthaspectsofesotericism,treatedtogether, bringustoafurtherandespeciallyrevealinginsightintotheunityof esotericism,fromtheperspectiveofmodernity.Faivrespeaks,again,of “thepraxisoftheconcordance” andof “transmission.” Thecommon denominatorofthesetwoisreverencefortheauthorityoftradition.And thisisarguablynotonlythekeyelementinvolvedinmodernity’srejectionof esotericcurrents – itmaywellgiveusthekeyfeatureofmodernityassuch.18 Contemptfortheauthorityoftraditionisascentraltothemodernmindsetas the “reignofquantity.” Fortheesotericists,truthistofoundintheoldestof oldthings;thenewandoriginalaregenerallyviewedwithsuspicion.19 For themoderns,onlythenewandtheoriginalareworthyofrespect;thepastisa recordofmistakes,notagoldmineofeternalverities,andthemoredistant thepastthedarkerthegloomofignoranceandirrationality.
Modernitywasborninthereactionagainstauthorityofallkinds.In philosophyandthesciences,itwasusuallytheauthorityofAristotle,and
18 AugustHeumann(1681–1764),oftencitedasthefounderofthemoderndisciplineofthe historyofphilosophy,claimedthatoneoftheworstsinsoftheesotericistswasthatthey appealtotraditionratherthantologic.SeeHanegraaff, EsotericismandtheAcademy, 131.
19 AnotableexceptiontothisisParacelsus,whooftenattackedtradition.ManyParacelsians didnotfollowhiminthis,however.
thosewhoweretaken(oftenerroneously)tobetruetohisthought.Whatis interesting,however,isthatAristotlehimselfneverappealstoauthority.He beginsmostofhisworksbyexplainingwhyhispredecessorswerewrongand isuniversallyquotedashavingsaid “DearisPlato,dearerstilltruth” (and thoughnoonecan findthislineinAristotle’swritings,itisnonethelesstrue tohisspirit).Imagine,therefore,theoutragethefathersofmodernitymust havefeltwhensittinginjudgmentonesoterictraditionsthatnotonly explicitlyappealedtoauthorityinmakingtruthclaimsbutthat – asper Faivre’spraxisoftheconcordance – viewedthesearchforagreementamong theauthoritiesasamethodfordiscoveringtruth!(Anappealtothemajority ofauthorities,inotherwords.)Here,wehaveoneoftheprincipalfactorsin theseparationofalchemyfromchemistry – or,wemightsay,theconstructionofthemoderndisciplineofchemistry.Modernchemistryacceptsno appealstoauthority,onlytesting,observation,andexperiment.Thealchemicaltradition,ontheotherhand,aboundsinsuchappeals.20
Wehavenowdiscoveredfourfundamentalfeaturesesotericcurrentshave incommon,whichledtotheirmarginalizationbytheEnlightenment.Taken together,theseelementsconstitutetheantithesisofthespiritofmodernity:
1.Aqualitativeapproachtounderstandingnature – asopposedtothe quantitativeapproachofmodernity.
2.Arelianceonsubjectivityandsubjectiveimpressionsofahighlyrarefied nature – asopposedtotherejectionofthesubjectiveinfavorofwhatis “objective” andmeasurable.
3.Knowledgeclaimsregardingotheraspectsofreality(orothersortsof beings)accessibleonlybythosesubjectivemeans – asopposedtothe narrowly-definedempiricismofmodernity.
4.Reverencefortheauthorityoftraditionasasourceoftruth – asopposed tomodernity’srejectionoftraditionandinsistencethathistoryisthe recordofouremergencefromdarknessintothelight.21
20 SeeHanegraaff, EsotericismandtheAcademy, 202–207,foradiscussionofhowpreoccupation withtheideaofrecoveringalosttraditionledtothemarginalizationofwhatwenowcall alchemyandthesharpdividebetweenalchemyaspseudo-scienceandchemistryas legitimatescience.
21 Thesefourfundamentalcharacteristicsarenotmeanttosupplanttheanalysisofferedby Faivre,butrathertodeepenit.ThefourIhaveofferedconstituteanattempttoidentifythe rootassumptionsorattitudesthatmakepossiblethefour(or,rather,thesix)discussedby Faivre.Hanegraaff alsoperceivesthatwhatFaivrehasofferedasthecharacteristicsof esotericismconstitute,ineffect,arepudiationofthemodernworldview.Hisobservations complementmyown: “thenotionof ‘correspondences’ isclearlyanalternativeto instrumentalcausality, ‘livingnature’ standsagainstamechanisticworldview, ‘imagination/meditations’ impliesamulti-leveledneoplatoniccosmologyasopposedtoa
Understoodintermsofthesefourfeatures,whatweknowtodayasthe differentvarietiesofesotericismhadtoberejectedbytheEnlightenment. Oneoftheinterestingthingsthatemergesfromthisanalysisistheeasewith whichonecanidentifythefundamentalfeaturesofmodernity(namedasthe secondelementineachnumbereditemabove)preciselyintermsofwhatit rejected(thussupportingHanegraaff’sthesisthatthemodernidentitywas partlyconstructedthroughwhatitdisowned).
Itwouldbefartoosimplistic,however,tosaythatthesefourcharacteristicsconstitutetheessenceofthe “pre-modernworldview.” Mattersare muchmorecomplexthanthat,regardlessofwhatearlymodernauthorsmay havethought.Aswehavealreadyseen,incertainwaysAristotlewasmuch closertothemodernsthantheythoughthewas.Indeed,ofthefour characteristicsjustsummarized,onlythe firstwouldbeapplicabletohim, andthenonlywithcertainqualifications.Aristotlewould,infact,have vigorouslyrepudiatedclaimstospecial,subjectiverevelations.22 Whereas anargumentcanbemadethatParmenides,thoughclassedwithAristotle amongthephilosophers, fitsallfour(seetheessayabouthiminthisvolume). Inacertainsense,therehavealwaysbeen “ancients” and “moderns.” Aristotleismuchclosertothemoderntemperamentthanwas,forexample, C.G.Jung,whononethelessdresseduphisthoughtinthegarbofmodern science.
Still,whileesotericismcannotbeidentifiedwiththeancientworldview simpliciter,Hanegraaff makesanexcellentpointwhenhesuggeststhatthe “redthread” runningthroughoutesotericismispaganism.Hewrites, “The factorof ‘paganism’ hasbeenneglectedbymodernscholarsofWestern esotericismtoanextentthatseemsamazingat firstsight:Whiletheimportanceofitsspecifichistoricalmanifestations(particularlyhermetism)is obviouslyrecognized,itplaysnostructuralroleinhowthe fieldhasbeen constructedordefined.”23 TheProtestanttheologianswhocastoutallthat wenowcallesotericismduetoits “un-Christian” qualitieswerecertainly bigoted,buttheywerenotwrong.Alittlereflectionontheesoterictopics andformsofthoughtdiscussedhereinwillsufficetorevealeithertheirorigin inthepagan,pre-Christianmilieu,ortheiraffinitieswithit.Astrology,
cosmosreducibletoonlymatterinmotion,and ‘transmutation’ impliesthetheosophical/ alchemicalprocessofregenerationbywhichfallenmanandnaturearereunitedwiththe divine.” SeeHanegraaff, EsotericismandtheAcademy, 254.Asnotedearlier,however, Hanegraaff iscriticalofFaivre’sapproach.Seeespeciallypp. 352–354
22 Intheshorttreatise Dedivinationepersomnum,Aristotleexpressesconsiderableskepticism aboutpropheticdreams.
23 Hanegraaff, EsotericismandtheAcademy, 369
magic,andnumbersymbolism(thinkPythagoras),spiritualism(thinkshamanismandnecromancy),andpanpsychismareobviousexamples.Andone hasonlytoscratchtheso-calledChristiansabit – mensuchasFicino,Pico, Paracelsus,andBoehme – to findthepagan.
Itseems,therefore,thatthefeaturesofesotericismdiscussedearlierare characteristicofacertainwayofthinkingthatwasindeedubiquitousinthe ancientworld – butthatisalsoperennial.Welackagoodwordforitand keepchangingourminds. “Esotericism” ismerelythetermcurrentlyin vogue – thoughitisnobetterachoicethan “occultism,” andpractically meansthesamething.HistorianssuchasHanegraaff arecorrecttonotethat beforemodernity,andwellintomodernity’sinfancy,whatwecallesotericismnotonlycoexistedwithwhatwenowthinkofasscienceandphilosophy,butthelinesbetweenthemwereoftenunclear.Yetitisafactthatwhat hasbeenlumpedtogetherundertherubricofesotericismhasdiscernible commonfeaturesthatsetitapartfromthetendenciesthatwereultimately victoriousinthemodernperiod.
ThepicturethatemergesisthatthetapestryofWesternintellectualhistory waswovenoutofanumberofdistinctandoftenantagonisticstrands.Butin thedistantpast,the figuresinthetapestry – notsurprisingly – oftendidnot discerntheindividualstrandsthemselves,ortheirantagonism.Theeffectof theEnlightenmentwasnotto “construct” esotericismbutto reveal itasa distinctcurrentofthought,orworldview,withperceptiblefeatures.Forthe firsttime,webecameawareofesotericismasadiscernibletendencyofthe humanspirit,whenthestarkcontrastwiththeideologyofmodernity finally madeitsoutlinesclear.Ironically,theEnlightenmentdidafarmorerigorous jobofdelineatingthenatureoftheesotericthantheRenaissanceproponents oftheancientwisdomnarrative.Indoingso,theEnlightenmentalsoinadvertentlyofferedtothosewhofeltrepulsedandalienatedbymodernityaway toconnectthedotsbetweenthedifferentstrainsofarchaic “irrationalism” to whichtheyfeltapassionateandintuitiveattraction.
Wearenowinapositiontosumthingsup. “Esotericism” referstoa numberoftheories,practices,andapproachestoknowledgeunitedbytheir participationinapremodern,largelypaganworldview.Centraltothis worldviewiscommitmenttotheideaoftheunityofexistence – that existenceisaninterrelatedwholeinwhichseeminglydissimilarthingsexist inqualitativecorrespondenceandvibrant,livingsympathy.Theruling correspondenceis “asabove,sobelow”:Theobjectsthatsurroundus(and theirrelationships)mirror,inafashionthatcanbecalled “emblematic,” the fundamentalfeaturesoftheuniverseasawhole.Mostimportantofall,we mirrorthosefeaturesinourownbodiesandsouls.Thesecorrespondencesare
discoveredthroughthecultivationofsupernormalaspectsofhumansubjectivity,especiallyoftheimagination.Esotericiststypicallyholdthatsuch knowledgecanbeutilizedtoeffectchangesintheworldorintheself throughcausalmechanismsthatempiricism findsinexplicable(and,therefore,rejectsasimpossible).Thiscommitmentusuallygoeshandinhandwith thebeliefthatthesamesupernormalaspectsofthesubjectcanrevealthe existenceofotherdimensionsofreality,usuallyhiddenfromview.Further, esotericiststypicallybelievethatthetruthsandpracticesjustmentionedareof thegreatestantiquity – perhapsoncewidelydisseminatedandopenlyproclaimed,butnow(andforagreatmanycenturies)hiddenandpreservedbya fewspecialindividualsorschools.Discoveryinesotericismisalmostalways rediscovery.
5 TheRelationofMysticismandEsotericism
Theprecedingaccountshouldalreadyhavealertedreaderstopointsatwhich esotericismandmysticismseemtoconverge.Ihavearguedthataparticular worldviewisattherootofesotericism,onethatassertsthatexistenceisan interconnectedwholeshotthroughwithcorrespondencesandsympathies, andthatthemostfundamentalofthesecorrespondencesisthatofmacrocosm andmicrocosm.
ButthisispreciselywhatIidentifiedearlierasthecoremysticalteaching –the “doctrine” thatemergeswhenmysticsattempttoconveyinwordswhat theexperienceof gnosis hastaughtthem.Thus, “esotericism” isfoundedon “mysticism.” Ihaveplacedthesewordsinquotesonceagainjusttoremind readersthatthewordsthemselvesareinadequate,andthatanalysisoftheir literalmeaningisnotareliablemeanstounderstandthattowhichtheyrefer. Itwouldbemuchmoreaccuratetosimplystatethatesotericismisfounded on gnosis,eitherdirectly(whenesotericiststhemselveshavetheexperienceof gnosis)orindirectly(whenesotericistsputtheirfaithinthetestimonyofthose whohavehadtheexperience).Everythingtreatedinthisbookasesotericism – alchemy,astrology,magic,numbersymbolism,visionsofotherworlds, spiritualism,andsoon – isfoundedinonewayoranotheronthemystical teachingof henkaipan (Oneandall),andeverythingthatitentails.
Itisusefulinthiscontexttorecalloneoftheexpressionsthathasbeen supplantedbytheterm “esotericism”:the “occultsciences.” Thisisnormally regardedasloosetalk,asaquaint,makeshiftwayofreferringtooursubject matter.Butthereismoretothetermthanmeetstheeye.Mysticismaffordsus withaspecialexperience(ifwearefortunate)orwiththenext-bestthing: reportsbythosewhohavehadtheexperience.Thevariousitemsgrouped
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
CHAPTER I. “MISERRIME.”
On the strength of his increase of income, Mr Holroyd purchased two ponies, and a cart (and this cart, it was noted, had a ladies’ step). He had long admired a certain empty bungalow with a large garden, and rose-screened verandah. More than once he had inspected the interior, and at last he boldly gave orders to the landlord to have the garden put in order, the hedges clipped, and the rooms matted. When it became noised abroad that George Holroyd had been seen looking over a large double house, that he had ordered a dinner-service, and a piano, the truth could be no longer concealed, he was going to be married! This was a fine piece of news for Mangobad. The men congratulated him somewhat sadly but the ladies made up for them in fervour, and were all on the qui vive to know what the bride would be like. Captain La Touche, being searchingly cross-questioned, was able to gratify them with a few particulars respecting her She was young—only nineteen—Irish, and pretty, and, as far as he could make out, she would be an agreeable addition to their circle. Mr. Holroyd was not the least bashful in accepting their good wishes, and seemed anxious to bespeak their friendship for his future wife. She was so young and inexperienced, he declared—quite a child in many ways, and only hitherto accustomed to a very quiet country life. He was exceedingly grateful for any suggestions offered by notable housekeepers and a great deal of advice was placed ungrudgingly at his service. The Judge’s wife engaged a cook, khansamah, and ayah; the Chaplain’s sister superintended the purchase of lamps and kitchen utensils, the Colonel’s two daughters chose furniture for the drawing-room, and went over the rooms and discussed arrangements and ornamentation with zeal.
All at once the community were electrified to hear that Mr Holroyd had suddenly changed his mind about what was called the “garden” bungalow, and was going into the two-storeyed one, which had so long stood empty—the bungalow in which the last tenant, Major Bagshawe, had cut his throat. What was the reason of such an extraordinary freak? Why exchange a modern, well-built house, with a cheerful aspect, for a gloomy tumble-down mansion—certainly more imposing, and standing in quite a park-like enclosure, but which had been abandoned to rats and ghosts for years. No one knew the motive for this strange proceeding—not even Captain La Touche.
A few days before “this mysterious caprice of George Holroyd’s,” the long desired mail had been received—the mail which was to bring him Betty’s answer in her own handwriting, instead of that of the telegraph Baboo. The night before it was delivered in Mangobad, he could scarcely close his eyes. He was astir by daybreak, and watching for the post peon long before that worthy began his rounds. Here he came in sight at last, and with a good plump packet of letters in his hand. George almost tore them from him, and then hurried into his room to read them in solitude, where no bearer with tea, or sweeper with broom, dared disturb him. There was one from his mother, one from his lawyer, one from Mrs. Redmond, one from Belle, but where was Betty’s? He turned them over very carefully, and then ran out after the dakwalla. “Hullo! Stop! Hold on!” he shouted (in Hindustani of course), “you have another letter for me.”
The man halted and showed his wallet; there was nothing else addressed to Mr. Holroyd, no, not even a trade circular. “There must be some mistake,” he muttered to himself, as he slowly retraced his steps. Could she have missed the mail? He must only content himself with Mrs. Redmond’s epistle for the present, and, happy thought, that thrifty old lady’s effusion might contain Betty’s letter after all! Alas, no, there was only one sheet of paper within the envelope, and this is what it said:
“D M . H ,—Your letter and enclosure reached me by the last mail, and I am rather concerned as to how to reply to it, for I have taken a step that will surprise you and
which you may never forgive—I have given your offer of marriage to my daughter Belle.”
A rush of blood came suddenly to George Holroyd’s ears, the paper seemed to swim before him; he threw it down on the table, and placing both hands to his head, exclaimed aloud:
“I must be going mad! Either that, or she is writing from a lunatic asylum!”
After a moment’s pause, he once more snatched up the letter, and read on:
“There was nothing in your note that did not equally apply to her, and Belle is so fond of you, and you paid her such marked attention, that if you were to marry Betty she would lose her reason—or break her heart.
“India has always been her dream, and, with you and India combined, her happiness is assured, and I may tell you frankly, that this is all that I now care for You will think me a very wicked, unprincipled old woman, but I have your interests at heart, as well as Belle’s, and, though I shall not live to know it, you will approve of my conduct yet. I am dying by inches. I may not see another summer, and I obey the most natural of all instincts in providing (when I can) for my own child. Even if you execrate me, I can endure your hatred, for I shall be supported by the conviction, that I have done well.
“Belle, beautiful, animated, and accustomed to the best military society, is the beau ideal of an officer’s wife, and will be in a congenial sphere—your credit and your comfort. Betty —a simple, little, awkward girl, with no ideas beyond horses and dogs and flowers—is cut out for the position she is about to fill; as the wife of a wealthy country gentleman, she can make herself happy in her own land, she is in her element among poor people, or in the hunting-field, and would be quite miserable in India. She is going to marry Augustus Moore;
they are devotedly attached to one another, and he has known her from her childhood.”
“Mentitor fortiter,” was Mrs. Redmond’s motto, and to do her justice, she lived up to it; in a crisis like the present what was a lie more or less? This notable falsehood gave a neat and suitable finish to the whole scheme. Moreover, like all lies of the most dangerous class, it contained a grain of the truth—Augustus Moore had known Betty from childhood, and a less keen-sighted woman than the mistress of Noone, could see that he was her slave; the match was merely a question of time.
“In withholding your offer from Betty,” the letter went on to say, “I am sparing you the mortification of a refusal. I have put the round people in the round holes in spite of you, you see, and by the time you are reading this, Belle (who knows nothing, poor darling) will be half way to India with the Calverts. Betty has been helping her most zealously in her preparations, and keeping up all our spirits with her merry ways, and gay little jokes and songs.
“I do not know what we should have done without her; she has not the faintest suspicion that you care for her, for all her thoughts are fixed in another direction. Be good to Belle—she is quite a child, a spoiled child in many ways; she is not much of a manager or housekeeper, for I have wished her to make the most of her youth, and only asked her to be happy and to look pretty. She is devoted to you, and has been so from the very first, though with true maidenly dignity she has concealed her feelings—even from me, but I know that the prospect of being your wife, has filled her with unspeakable happiness. Perhaps, after all, you may repudiate her love, you may refuse to receive her, and leave her a friendless, nervous, sensitive girl, unwelcomed in a strange land—only to return home brokenhearted, dis-illusioned, and disgraced; but I scarcely believe you will be capable of this, knowing that she loves you, confides in you, and has no friends in India. Do not answer this letter. I may as well tell you, candidly, that if you do I shall not read it, but will put it into the fire, for in my failing health, my medical man advises me strictly against any kind of unnecessary agitation. Pray, believe me yours most faithfully,
“E R ”
By the time George Holroyd had come to the end of this precious epistle, it would be impossible to describe his feelings; they were a mixture of incredulity, horror, agonising disappointment, and uncontrollable fury.
“Mrs. Redmond was mad!” this he swore with a great oath; “or he was mad, and everyone was mad.”
He seized his mother’s letter, much as a drowning man clutches at a straw; it proved to be a somewhat querulous effusion, wondering that he had never given her a hint of his intentions, amazed to hear of his engagement to Belle, and pathetically imploring him to “think it over,” but wishing him every happiness—whatever his fate. Delighted at the news of his uncle’s generosity, and hinting (nay, more than hinting) that he might share some of his good fortune with Denis—openly stating that his poor dear brother wrote the most pitiful accounts of his circumstances, and that she was sure he would be annoyed to hear that he had actually applied to Mrs. Maccabe for pecuniary assistance, instead of to his own flesh and blood, and that a line to Denis Malone, care of the barman at the Kangaroo Arms, Albany, South Australia, would always find him.
George put this epistle aside, and tore open Belle’s envelope with a shaking hand.
When his eyes fell on the page beginning “My own, own darling,” he crumbled the letter up into a ball, and dashed it from him with anything but a lover-like gesture.
Then he rose and began to walk about the room like a man possessed. He might have guessed how it would be! Betty was not bound to him in any way, and whilst he had been toiling for her in silence, at the other side of the world—Ghosty Moore was within speech—within a ride!
Ghosty Moore was rich, young, and popular. He could give her everything her heart desired. She would marry him, and be beloved, admired and happy. A county lady with half a dozen hunters, and as many dogs as she pleased. As for him, his life was wrecked, it did
not matter what became of him; he threw himself into a chair, leant his arms on the table, buried his head in them, and wished himself dead.
That Betty was lost to him was beyond doubt, and that Belle was on her way out to marry him, was also beyond doubt; but no, he said to himself fiercely, he would never make her his wife, and thus fulfil the schemes, and be the easy tool, of her iniquitous old mother; never!
To have the dearest hopes of his life dispersed by one shattering blow was surely sufficiently hard for a man to bear, but to have another fate imperatively thrust on him within the same hour—a fate from which his highest and best feelings instinctively recoiled—a fate that his heart most passionately repudiated—this was to drink the cup of bitterness to the dregs, twice!
And if he refused to accept Belle as his bride, what was his alternative? he asked himself, with fierce perplexity.
He felt dazed and stunned; the more he endeavoured to muster his thoughts, to pursue ideas, to reach some definite plan, the more unmanageable those thoughts and ideas became.
It was desperately hard to realise that one short ten minutes had changed the whole current of his life.
Even to one’s old familiar friend, I doubt if it is wise to give the entrée to your private room at all hours. He may chance to find a soul in earthly torment, a mind en deshabille, with the mask of conventionality, and the cloak of reserve, torn off, and thrown to the winds.
Captain La Touche was whistling cheerily as he crossed the verandah, and entered his comrade’s apartment. He looked cool, handsome, and debonnair in his creaseless white suit and spotless linen (he was such a dandy that he actually sent his shirts twice a month to England to be washed; and oh! feat beyond the
dhoby!glazed). He had evidently had a good mail, for his face was radiant, and he carried a packet of letters, and a French comic paper in his hand. All at once his whistling ceased, as his eyes fell on his comrade’s prone head—and the torn and discarded letters scattered broadcast about the floor.
“Hullo, George, my dear old chap!” he exclaimed, “you have not any bad news I hope. No one dead, eh?”
George raised a rigid white face to his, and gazed at him blankly and shook his head.
“Your money gone again, eh?”
“No!”
“Oh, come then, it can’t be so very bad, pull yourself together, my son, and have a whisky and soda; you look as if you had been knocked into the middle of next week. What is it all about?”
“I’ve—I’ve a splitting headache.”
“Oh, and is that all?” rather dubiously.
“And some rather worrying letters,” he continued, making a great effort to carry out the second part of his visitor’s prescription. “I shall be all right by and by, don’t mind me.”
At first a wild idea had flashed through his brain. He would consult his friend, and put the whole story before him, like a hard case in Vanity Fair, and say, “supposing a man proposes for one girl, and another comes out instead, believing that she is the right one—what would you do? Marry her?” But as he gazed at Captain La Touche, that sleek, prosperous, cynical bachelor, Lord President of the Mess (sometimes a heritage of woe) and bitter enemy of matrimony, his heart failed him. “Joe,” as he was called, would explode into one of his loud bursts of laughter, and declare that it was the best joke he had ever heard in the whole course of his life! Instead of being sober-minded and sympathetic, he would chaffingly examine the capabilities of the subjects for burlesque treatment; he would be jocose and unbearable. But in this belief George did his friend injustice!
In one vivid mental flash, he saw the ordeal he would now have to face at mess, an ordeal he dared not confront. The good-humoured jokes, congratulations, and presents of his brother officers, were acceptable enough yesterday, but to-day they would be torture, as it were, searing a gaping wound with red-hot iron. How was he to assume a part—he being no actor at the best of times—the part of the happy and expectant bridegroom! His thoughts flew to a certain lonely dâk bungalow, about twenty miles out, rarely frequented, and sufficiently far from the haunts of men. He would go in at once for ten days’ leave for snipe shooting, put a few things together, and gallop out there as soon as orderly-room was over. He must be alone, like some wounded animal, that plunges into the thicket, when it has received a mortal hurt—that it may die apart from its fellows, and endure its agony unseen.
Once there, he would have time to advise with himself, to review the whole burning question, and to meditate on falsified hopes, abandoned aims, and a lost love.
The maturing of this sudden project did not occupy sixty seconds, and Captain La Touche was still standing interrogatively in the doorway.
“I’m not feeling very fit, Joe, the cramming is beginning to tell as you predicted. I think I shall go out for ten days’ snipe shooting, to blow the cobwebs out of my brains.”
“It’s too early for snipe,” objected his visitor, “make it the end of next week, and I’ll go with you, old man!”
“I saw several wisps coming in last evening and——”
“And of course I forgot,” interrupted the other jocosely, “your time is short, poor fellow, and who knows if it may not be your last shoot. Such things have happened! Where are you going?”
“I was thinking of Sungoo,” he returned rather nervously.
“Sungoo! A nasty feverish hole! I would not go there if I were you.”
“There are several first class jheels about, and I’d like to make a good bag,” returned the other, now lying as freely as Mrs. Redmond
herself.
“Well, well, have your own way, you always do,” returned his chum with a French shrug of his broad shoulders. “’Pon my word, you gave me a jolly good fright, just now, I thought there was bad news, something up at home. By-bye,” and he opened his big white umbrella, and strode off to breakfast.
Sungoo dâk bungalow was retired enough for St. Anthony himself; it stood aloof from the high road, behind a clump of bamboos, and a hedge of somewhat dusty cactus.
George Holroyd’s active bearer made daily raids on the nearest village for fowl and eggs and goat’s milk, whilst his master paced the verandah, or tramped over the country, and fought with his thoughts, and endeavoured to shape out his future life. Willingly would he change his lot for that of one of the cheerful brown tillers of the soil, by whom he was surrounded, and whom he came across in his long and aimless wanderings. How absorbed and interested was that young fellow, as he sat at the edge of a tank, dividing his time between his bamboo rod, and bobbing line, and the inevitable huka that stood beside him.
He did not seem to have a care in the world!—and it was never likely to be his fate to marry a woman against his will! All the same, did his envious observer but know the truth, it was more than probable that the same young man had been married from his cradle.
Sungoo dâk bungalow was not only famed for seclusion and sport —it was notoriously unhealthy; the rank vegetation and the vapours from the neighbouring reedy snipe jheels made it an undesirable residence. Hideous spiders with wormy legs, and semi-tame toads abounded in the three small rooms. Mushrooms grew out of the walls, a family of noisy civet cats lodged in the roof, hundreds of frogs held oratorios in a neighbouring pond, rendering sleep impossible—and altogether it was as damp and dreary a dwelling as anyone could wish to see; and a man who had taken a dislike to existence could not have chosen a more congenial abode.
One day George’s bearer went considerably further than the nearest mud-walled village; he galloped post haste into Mangobad, and informed Captain La Touche and his brother officers that his master was very ill, in a raging fever, and “talking very strangely.”
“That’s it,” vociferated his chum, “I was afraid there was something up. You notice he never sent in a single brace of snipe, and he knows what a boon they are.”
He and the station doctor set off at once, and brought the patient in the next morning in a dhooly. He was still in a high fever, but perfectly conscious and alive to his surroundings.
For days he had been racked with an uncontrollable longing to see Betty only once, and to speak to her face to face—as vain a longing as that of the wretched captive in a deep, dark dungeon, who languishes to see the sun!
As Captain La Touche sat by him, and gazed at him anxiously, he opened his eyes, and said in a low voice: “Joe, I would give half my life to see her but for five minutes—and to speak to her face to face.”
Captain La Touche was exceedingly concerned, and subsequently told his brother officers that it looked like a bad business, for Holroyd was still delirious and wandering in his mind.
Ten days’ excellent nursing brought him round, and the doctor was most assiduous in what he called “patching him up” in order that he might be in time to meet the steamer. Nevertheless all George’s friends were shocked at the change that such a short illness had made in his appearance. He looked as if he had aged ten years in ten days; his eyes were sunken, his cheeks hollow, and he was so weak and emaciated that, according to one of his comrades, “he appeared to be walking about, to save the expenses of his funeral,” and in this cheerful condition he went down to Bombay, to accept the inevitable, and to receive his bride.
