(p. 1)

[Note: This page number refers to the pages in the original.]

 

BIOGRAPHICAL PREFACE

 

By Samuel Hopgood Hart

 

“I found him whom my soul loveth, I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my Mother’s house, and into the chamber of her that bore me.” – Cant. iii. 4.

“Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will remember the name of the Lord our God. They are brought down, and fallen: but we are risen, and stand upright.” – Ps. xx. 7-8.

“Thou shalt break the ships of the sea through the east wind.” – Ps. xlviii. 7.

 

           “INTERIOR knowledge, earnest aspiration, and purity of thought and life, are the keys by which alone can be opened the gates of the inmost and highest sphere.” (C. W. S., pt. i. Nº xxxix.) The Bible tells us that “the words of the Lord are pure words – even as the silver, which from the earth is tried, and purified seven times in the fire;” (Ps. xii. 6.) from which we are intended to understand that God’s truth is spiritual, and that all divine revelations are to be understood, not in a literal but in a spiritual sense. The Kingdom of God is not of this world. He who would know the truth must seek it above and within, where alone it is to be found. The heart must be lifted up, and the door of the outer senses must be shut. When Samuel heard the voice of the Lord, we are told, he was “laid down in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was”; (I Sam. iii. 3) and so must it be with us, if we would hear that voice. “Truth itself is unutterable, save by God to God.” (C. W. S., pt. i. Nº. iv.) “When man,” says Anna Kingsford, “has wearied himself to despair in futile endeavours to seize and fix truth on the plane of sense

(p. 2)

and fact, if he be worthy and faithful God reveals to him the higher plane of the Noumenal and Divine, where alone truth eternally abides.” In these pregnant words is to be found the keynote of the present volume of Lectures, Essays and Letters given and written by the late Anna Kingsford, (1) to which have been added some letters written by her friend and collaborator, the late Edward Maitland.

Most of the Lectures in this volume were given by Anna Kingsford to the Hermetic Society, which she founded, and of which she was the President, but which, owing to her early death, came to an untimely end. As, however, the value of Anna Kingsford’s life is to be measured not by the number of years she lived – she was but in her forty-second year when she died – but by its quality and great achievement, so the importance of the Hermetic Society, which had a life of but little over two years, must be measured not so much by the short period of its existence as by the value of the work accomplished by means of or through its agency – for, as will be seen, it was for the purpose of creating a then much-needed platform for the dissemination of teaching, such as is represented by these Lectures, that the Hermetic Society was founded. And it served its purpose, for had it not been for such Society, these Lectures would not have been given – lectures which were intended to “raise the level of the national religious ideal; and, by withdrawing it from the external and natural to the interior and spiritual plane, to defeat the designs of materialism upon the stronghold of the moral life.”

The circumstances which led to the formation of the Hermetic Society are fully set forth in that priceless record, The Life of Anna Kingsford, (2) and it is chiefly therefrom that the following particulars have been obtained.

In the months of May, June, and July, 1881, Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland gave to a private audience in London

(p. 3)

some wonderful lectures on Esoteric Christianity, which, in the following year, were published anonymously under the title of The Perfect Way, or the Finding of Christ. (1) Giving these Lectures brought them across some members of the then recently formed Theosophical Society, (2) and, as will be seen, it was owing to the hostile attitude taken up by certain prominent members of that Society towards Esoteric Christianity that it became necessary later on to found the Hermetic Society. Speaking of the audience of the “Perfect Way” Lectures, Edward Maitland says:

 

“Among these were sundry members of a body with which we now first formed acquaintance, bearing the name of the British Theosophical Society. These were a group of students of the occult science and mystical philosophy of the East, who formed a branch of a parent Society founded originally in New York by a Russian lady, Madame H. P. Blavatsky, and an American, Colonel H. S. Olcott, but whose headquarters were then in India.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. p. 15.)
 

Anna Kingsford’s and Edward Maitland’s purpose was “the restoration of the true, esoteric, and spiritual Christianity,” (Ibid., p. 277.) and they regarded it as a very remarkable coincidence that while the object of their collaboration had been, and was, “the restoration of the esoteric philosophy or Theosophy of the West, and the interpretation thereby of the Christian and kindred religions,” the collaboration between Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott had a similar object in regard to the esoteric philosophy or Theosophy of the East; and “both parties had until then been working on lines thus parallel in complete ignorance of each other’s existence.” But, Edward Maitland says, “while our knowledges were derived directly from celestial sources, the hierarchy of the Church invisible in the holy heavens, (3) theirs claimed as their source certain ancient Lodges of Adepts said to inhabit the inaccessible heights of the Thibetan Himalayas, an order of men credited with the possession of knowledges and powers which constituted them beings apart and worthy of divine honours.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. p. 16.)

(p. 4)

While the Theosophical Society was new, Theosophy was ancient. As Edward Maitland has pointed out:

 

“It was known very long before eight centuries ago. For it was no new thing in the days of St Paul, who says (I Cor. ii. 7), ‘We speak Theosophy (θεουσοФια) in a mystery,’ and Moses is declared (Heb. xi. 26) to have esteemed it ‘greater riches than the treasures of Egypt.’ For, in its true sense, it has ever meant the science of the perfectionment of the human ego – theologically called ‘regeneration’ – whereby man demonstrates the potential divinity of humanity, by realising it in his own person. In other words, Theosophy, in its supreme aspect, is that ‘Mystery of Godliness,’ the process whereby God is manifest in the flesh (I Tim. iii. 16).” (1)

 

To the reviewer of one of her books who had fallen into the error of regarding Theosophy “as a thing of recent invention, or, at least, importation,” Anna Kingsford replied:

 

“Theosophy – both the term itself and the system properly so called – has subsisted in the Church from the beginning; and what I have done is to restore and develop it – not as lately ‘come over to Europe,’ but as held by St Paul, by St Dionysius ‘the Areopagite,’ by the scholastics, and by the host of Christian mystical philosophers, to whom alone it is due that Christianity is now in any degree a spiritual religion, instead of having degenerated into a mere fetish-worship. I propound no ‘Modern Theosophy’ which is not also ‘Olden Mysticism’.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. p.257.)

            Among the members of the British Theosophical Society who attended the above-mentioned Lectures were Charles Carlton Massey, Dr. George Wyld, the Hon. Roden Noel, and Isabel de Steiger.
            During the year, 1881, A. P. Sinnett came over from India “for the purpose of publishing a book which was to introduce the alleged thaumaturgists of the East, whom the Theosophical Society claimed as its ‘Masters,’ to the notice of the Western world.” Edward Maitland says:

“We were naturally curious to know what he had to say, and he, on his part, was curious to make the acquaintance of those who – if all were true which he had heard about us – were in certain respects setting themselves up as rivals of his own venerated chiefs. It was arranged, therefore, that he should pass an evening with us. There were several points on which we desired information, especially the existence and powers of the alleged ‘Mahatmas,’ and the system of thought which

(p. 5)

constituted their ‘esoteric doctrine.’ That there should be persons such as the Mahatmas were stated to be was not impossible for us, it followed from the teaching we had already received, and which was contained in our eighth Lecture, (See The Perfect Way, Lect. viii.) though we had never before heard it said that such persons actually existed in the world now. We knew, too, that Reincarnation, under the name of Transmigration, was an Eastern tenet, and, consequently, the doctrine of Karma, which we had received in such plenitude of detail without ever having heard of that term for it. We were, therefore, greatly surprised to learn from Mr. Sinnett that these tenets formed no part of the doctrine of the Theosophical Society, being neither contained in their chief text-book, the Isis Unveiled of its founders, nor communicated to it by its Masters, and on these grounds Mr. Sinnett rejected them, sitting up with us until long after midnight arguing against them, and saying, among other things, of the doctrine of Reincarnation, that even of the Spiritualists only a few who followed Allan Kardec accepted it. Whereupon we stated our conviction that it would yet be given to his Society by its Eastern teachers, and that, as for Allan Kardec’s writings, we knew of them enough to know that they were far from trustworthy, and his presentation of that doctrine especially was unscientific and erroneous. For the sole source of his information was ordinary mediumship, as exercised by some sensitives who could see only in the astral, and represented, therefore, no true spiritual vision, but only the ideas of living persons, whom they reflected. And when his own book, The Occult World, made its appearance, as it did in the course of that same year, we were able to infer from it that, if there really was a true system of esoteric philosophy in the East, it had not yet been imparted to the Theosophical Society, if only for the reason that the doctrine of that book was sheer materialism, and had no room for the Theos, who forms so essential an element in that which is denoted by the term ‘Theosophy.’

Thus far our experience of that body was a disappointing one, or at least would have been so had we yet anticipated much of it. Recognising, as we did, the time as having come for the unsealing of the world’s Bibles, and our own appointed mission as that of unsealing the Bibles of the West, we should have welcomed eagerly a corresponding movement having for its purpose the unsealing of the Bibles of the East. The Theosophical Society

(p. 6)

was, however, still in its infancy, and we resolved to wait patiently and hopefully for its further unfoldment.” (1)

 

Referring to this time, Edward Maitland says:

 

“Meanwhile, another notable sign of the times occurred to mark the year 1881. This was the publication of the Revised Version of the English Bible. The fact of a new translation was welcomed by us, if only as constituting a blow to the idolatrous veneration in which the letter of the old translation was held, a striking example of which we recognised in the ground of the opposition to the proposed revision raised by the excellent Lord Shaftesbury – that it would deprive many pious persons of some of their favourite texts; by which it would appear that men’s blunders were more worthy of conservation than the inspirations of the Holy Ghost, to which he implicitly ascribed the Bible. The manner in which the work was accomplished would have been in the highest degree disappointing to us had we anticipated any other result than was actually attained. For we knew as did no others that the time was the winter solstice of the human soul, and spiritual perception was at its lowest ebb, so that, be the learning expended on it what it might, there would be no insight to guide it. The very first verse of Genesis more than confirmed our gloomiest anticipations. In the Authorised Version, the Hebrew word wrongly rendered ‘heaven’ in the first chapter was rightly rendered ‘heavens’ in the second chapter. In the Revised Version, both were wrongly rendered ‘heaven.’ This error in Hebrew as well as in doctrine was for us, with chapters vii.-x. of the Greater Mysteries (2) in our hands, proof positive the translators had not begun to understand the system of thought which underlies the Bible, and of which the Christ is the personal demonstration. And it was not without a sense of elation that we reflected that the real and vital translation of the Bible, its translation from the Letter to the Spirit, had been withheld from the magnates of the dominant orthodoxy, backed by the national purse, to be committed to such inconspicuous and poverty-stricken instruments as ourselves. There was an irony

(p. 7)

about it which argued a keen sense of humour in the divine disposers of events.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. pp; 22-23.)

 

The year 1881 also saw the founding in London of the Spiritualist paper Light. (1).

On the publication, in the following year, of The Perfect Way – which, it will be remembered, was published anonymously – a copy of the book was sent to the editors of the Theosophist (2) for review. At the same time, Anna Kingsford, without disclosing her name, (3) wrote to Madame Blavatsky a letter, in which – referring to The Perfect Way – she said:

 

“It would not have been in my mind to write thus to you, but that I find in the Theosophist for February (on p. 114) certain words concerning ‘Initiates’ which cause me to desire you should know something of the genesis of the book of which I have spoken. I have said that all that book contains came forth from my heart and lips. Yet I know nothing of your literature – and between you and me there is, nevertheless, perfect agreement and accord. Steadily, and not once nor twice, have I refused invitations to join the Theosophical Society in London, lest, perchance, it should be said that I had learnt somewhat from its members. See then, that it is possible to be initiated of one’s own interior Spirit, through whom the voice of the Gods speaks to man, if but his life be pure and free from lust. You, who are initiated, will know whether I have the truth. There is more – far more – that I am strictly forbidden to publish. If, in what is written, there be any error, that is the fault of the writer or of the seer, but not of that which was seen.

Madam: I pray you to ask your Brothers whether I have the truth. Tell them, if they need to be told, how it came to me, and whence I obtained it, and on what conditions.

You are doing a splendid work in India. I, too, hate the tenets of modern Christianity, and labour continually to destroy its idols. I, too, am a follower of holy Buddha, and not the less of the ideal Christ.

The first knowledge I had of you was from the author of the Occult World, who came to see me in London last summer. To

(p. 8)

him I told something of the method of my own initiation, and he was astonished. If you ask him about me, and learn from him – or from any other person – my name, pray consider it secret.”

 

In the same year, 1882, she and Edward Maitland resumed their meetings which, in the previous year, had proved such a success. (Life of A. K., vol. ii. p. 50.)

Two remarkable Lectures which were given by her at this time are reprinted in the present volume. I refer to the Lectures entitled “‘Violationism,’ or Sorcery in Science” and “The Systematisation and Application of Psychic Truth” respectively. They were both given to the British National Association of Spiritualists. Edward Maitland says that the former was “especially designed to rouse the Spiritualists from their indifference on the subject of vivisection by shewing them that their very claim to positive knowledge of the soul’s reality and persistence constituted an obligation on them to oppose a practice which is utterly at variance with all that the soul is and implies.” But, he adds, “as the result proved, the Spiritualists were too exclusively absorbed in their phenomenal experiences to care for the higher issues of their belief; and between spiritualism and spirituality there was a gulf which had yet to be bridged, and so far as they were concerned the appeal fell on deaf ears.” (Ibid., p. 47) (1) The object of the latter Lecture was “to raise the spiritualistic movement from the level of mere phenomenalism,” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. p. 60.) but, judging from some editorial comments thereon which appeared in the following number of Light (Light, 1882, pp. 269-270.) it is clear that her message was unacceptable to the “Spiritualists” of her day. Her platform was too high for them.

Edward Maitland says:

 

“The latter part of May brought us from India a copy of the Theosophist for that month, with the first portion of a review of The Perfect Way, written, we were given to understand, by our visitor of the preceding summer, the author of the Occult World, Mr. A. P. Sinnett. Coming, as did this review, from the one quarter in the world – so far as we were then aware – which laid claim to special knowledge of the

(p. 9)

subjects dealt with in our book, this review could not fail to have great interest for us; and it was, accordingly, with much satisfaction that we found it described at the outset as an ‘upheaval of true spirituality; a grand book by noble-minded writers, and one that if every man in London above a certain level of culture should read attentively, a theological revolution would be accomplished.’ (...) But though thus highly appreciative of the book from some aspects, the reviewer took violent exception to it from others, for he not only dissented from some of its teachings on occult matters, but objected to the symbolism in which, in order to interpret the Bible, we had followed the Bible – and notably the adoption of the term ‘Woman’ to denote the Soul and the Intuition; and he even ventured to assert positively that, instead of the Gospel narrative having been written expressly to illustrate a certain doctrine, as stated by us, the doctrine was but an ingenious application of the facts of the spiritual consciousness to a story which was altogether unintended to bear such relation; so that we were putting into the Gospels meanings of which their writers never dreamed, as if mystical theology had been of subsequent invention to the Christian era? instead of pervading – as we had shewn that it does pervade – the Bible from the beginning, and is declared in the Bible itself to do so; as, for instance, when St Paul declares of the books of Moses, ‘which things are an allegory,’ and Jesus finds the Christ-doctrine of which He was the personal illustration in the books of Moses. (...) Recalling his persistent denial of Reincarnation on his visit to us in the previous year, we were interested to find him now accepting the doctrine. (1) (...) Thus, while profoundly gratified by the review in some respects, we were almost as profoundly antagonised by it in others. And the result was a controversy in the pages of the Theosophist not altogether devoid of bitterness. (...) It was, however, finally and happily composed. Our reviewer concluded his part of the correspondence by describing us as ‘having produced one of the most – perhaps the most – important and spirit-stirring of appeals to the higher instincts of mankind which modern European literature has yet evolved.’

(p. 10)

To which we returned a conciliatory reply, pointing out at the same time certain respects in which he had mistaken us. And the controversy wound up with the following characteristic enunciation by the editor, Madame Blavatsky, in which, as will be seen, she entirely threw over Mr. Sinnett in his repudiation of an intended mystical sense as underlying Christianity.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. pp. 64-67.)

 

In the Editor’s Note Madame Blavatsky said:

 

“It is most agreeable to us to see our reviewer of The Perfect Way and the writers of that remarkable work thus clasping hands and waving palms of peace over each other’s heads. The friendly discussion of the metaphysics of the book in question has elicited, as all such debates must, the fact that deep thinkers upon the nature of absolute truth scarcely differ, save as to externals. As was remarked in Isis Unveiled, the religions of men are but prismatic rays of the one only Truth. If our good friends, the Perfect Way-farers, would but read the second volume of our work, they would find that we have been all along precisely of their own opinion that there is a ‘mystical truth and knowledge deeply underlying’ Roman Catholicism, which is identical with Asiatic esotericism; and that its symbology marks the same ideas, often under duplicate figures. We even went so far as to illustrate with woodcuts the unmistakable derivation of the Hebrew Kabala from the Chaldean – the archaic parent of all the later symbology – and the kabalistic nature of nearly all the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. It goes without saying that we, in common with all Asiatic Theosophists, cordially reciprocate the amiable feelings of the writers of The Perfect Way for the Theosophical Society. In this moment of supreme effort to refresh the moral nature and satisfy the spiritual yearnings of mankind, all workers, in whatever corner of the field, ought to be knit together in friendship and fraternity of feeling. It would be indeed strange if any misunderstanding could arise of so grave a nature as to alienate from us the sympathies of that highly advanced school of modern English thought of which our esteemed correspondents are such intellectual and fitting representatives.” (1)

 

(p. 11)

In the latter part of the year 1882, being then in Switzerland, where they were engaged in an anti-vivisection crusade, Edward Maitland received from England a letter, in which the writer – Mr. G. B. Finch – informed him as follows: –

 

“The Theosophical Society in England has arrived at a crisis. Dr. Wyld resigned the Presidency some time ago, and Mr. C. C. Massey has been elected. On his election he wrote to Colonel Olcott, asking whether it was any good keeping up the Society, and entering into full particulars about the state of affairs here. I learned these things from Mr. Massey, to whom I had gone to see whether something could not be done to keep what seemed to be a useful agency going. M. says that members are admitted too freely; that he had urgently proposed to put it on an ascetic basis, but that Madame Blavatsky had rejected this. She apparently wished the Society to be catholic. But it can be this and at the same time eclectic, for they have sections; and it would be in accordance with the practice of the Society elsewhere to have a section on the ascetic base, or any other base within the purview of the Society’s aims. M. seemed to wish for some such section, and if Mrs. Kingsford were in it, I think he would be greatly pleased. (...) I should like to be a member of some such section as I have described, if you and Mrs. Kingsford were members.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. p. 79.)

 

Edward Maitland says:

 

“This was the first suggestion to us of a conjunction with the Theosophical Society, and the idea had not occurred to us before; nor, now that it was suggested, and this by those whom we held in high esteem, did we feel drawn to it. On the contrary, we already knew enough about the origin motives, and methods of the Theosophical Society to distrust it. Its original prospectus committed the glaring inconsistency of declaring the absolute tolerance of the Society of all forms of religion, and then of stating that a main object was the destruction of Christianity. Its founders had committed it also to the rejection of the idea of a God, personal or impersonal, and this while calling it Theo-sophical. And it claimed for its doctrine a derivation from sources which, even if they had any existence – a matter on which we had no proof – were not to be compared with those from whom ours was derived, (See p. 3, ante.) while the doctrine

(p. 12)

itself was palpably inferior so far as yet disclosed, and this both in substance and form. (...) The matter went no further at this time; but we were struck by learning that Mary [Anna Kingsford] (1) had been recognised by the mysterious chiefs of the Theosophical Society as ‘the greatest natural mystic of the present day, and countless ages in advance of the great majority of mankind.’” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. pp. 80-81.)

 

The receipt of the above-mentioned letter was followed by some correspondence with C. C. Massey, the result of which was that Anna Kingsford consented to her nomination as President of the British Theosophical Society, whereupon C. C. Massey notified the Society of his intention to nominate her as its President for the ensuing year. In the notice, issued to the members, C. C. Massey referred to “the well-known fact that Anna Kingsford was one of the literary authors of that remarkable work The Perfect Way, or the Finding of Christ,” (2) and he added: “I may say that I have not decided on making this proposal without the most careful deliberation and consultation, and that I regard its adoption as of vital importance.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. pp. 103-105.)

Edward Maitland says:

 

“When at length we gave consent, we did so on condition that we retain absolute freedom of opinion, speech, and action, acknowledging no superiors, nor any allegiance save to our own Illuminators, (3) and reserving the right to use as we might deem fit any knowledges we might acquire. For, having obtained what we had already received expressly for the world’s benefit, we were resolved to remain unfettered in this respect. Our association was thus so ordered as to have for its purpose a simple exchange of knowledges. They should tell us what they knew, and we should tell them what we knew, both sides reserving the right of criticism, acceptance, and rejection, the Understanding alone, and in nowise Authority, being the criterion.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. p. 105.)

 

The election of Anna Kingsford as President, and Edward Maitland as Vice-President, of the British Theosophical Society

(p. 13)

for the ensuing year took place on Sunday the 7th January 1883, the day being that following the feast of the Epiphany. Dr. G. Wyld, the late President, was also elected a co-Vice- President along with Edward Maitland. The following letter (Life of A. K., vol. ii. p. 106.) written at this time by Anna Kingsford to Madame de Steiger is of interest: –

 

“21 AVENUE CARNOT, PARIS,

11^th January 1883.

DEAR MADAME DE STEIGER – I salute you in my new character of President of the British Theosophical Society; and, though I shall not be able for some time to come to take my place among you in the body, yet I hope that my new dignity will serve as a fresh link in the tie of friendship already existing between us, and that you will from time to time send me some account of your proceedings in the Society, and of your own personal reflections on the teaching we are now promised from the East.

I pointed out to Mr. C. C. Massey in a recent letter the singular coincidence that it was on Epiphany Sunday, the festival of the Magi, that the T. S. elected as its President for the new year a King’s ford; and I suggested that we might regard this fact as a happy augury for the prosperity of the Society in the immediate future; since now indeed the way seemed at last opened for the passage of the Kings of the East, and, as it is said in the Apocalypse, the River is dried up that the way of the Kings of the East may be prepared. (...) It gives me considerable surprise, and puzzles me not a little, to learn that Dr. Wyld is still not only a member of the Theosophical Society, but is absolutely accepted as co-Vice-President with Mr. Maitland! I quite understood from Dr. Wyld himself, and also from the circular issued by Mr. Massey, that the aims and programme of the T. S. had become so distasteful to the Doctor that he had determined to resign his connection with it. Strange that he should withdraw deliberately from the Presidency, only to come forward as Vice-President so shortly after! Can you explain this riddle? I should be very glad to have it solved.

I have requested Mr. Massey to retain his place as my locum tenens until I return, and feel sure that, as he is so manifestly in harmony both with our Indian correspondents and with myself, you will be glad of this arrangement. (...)

ANNA KINGSFORD.”

 

(p. 14)

On the 20^th May following they returned to England, when Anna Kingsford commenced her duties as President of the British Theosophical Society, which, on her suggestion, was afterwards designated the London Lodge of the Theosophical Society. (Life of A. K., vol. ii. p. 119.)

Writing, at this time, to Lady Caithness, Anna Kingsford says:

 

“I am going to do my utmost to make our London Lodge a really influential and scientific body. (...) Besides, we do not want to pledge ourselves to Orientalism only, but to the study of all religions esoterically, and especially to that of our Western Catholic Church. Theosophy is equally applicable to such study; but Orientalism can relate only to Brahmanism and Buddhism.” (Letter dated 8^th June 1883. Life of A. K., vol. ii. p. 119.)

 

And, in a further letter, she says:

 

“I have a plan which I earnestly hope I shall somehow have the means of carrying into practice next spring. It is to give lectures in London at one of the Lodge halls on ‘Esoteric Christianity.’ I should explain the hidden and true significance of the Catholic doctrines, – as much, of course, as is possible, – and the interior meaning of all sacred myths. I have already sketched out a little scheme which, if only it can be realised, will, I feel certain, do more for our Theosophy than any number of printed books.” (Letter dated 25^th June 1883. Life of A. K., vol. ii. p. 120.)

 

Anna Kingsford made her first public appearance in her new role as President of the British Theosophical Society at the reception which, on the evening of the l7th July 1883, was given by the Society, at the Princes’ Hall, Piccadilly, to Mr. Sinnett, who had then recently returned from India to this country. An account of the reception, which appeared in Light, (Light, 1883, p. 335.) says:

 

“Some 270 guests assembled, and among them were many faces well known in Society, and not a few men of letters and science whose judgment and opinion the world is accustomed to treat with deference. The company would be described in the language of the ordinary reporter as at once fashionable and influential.”

 

The proceedings were opened by Anna Kingsford, when she gave an eloquent address on Theosophy and the aims and objects of the Theosophical Society. (1) One of Mr. Sinnett’s objects in returning to this country had been the publication of his book Esoteric Buddhism, which had then recently appeared, but which, at that

(p. 15)

time, they had not had an opportunity of carefully and critically studying. (1) Speaking for herself as “a Catholic Christian,” and referring to the fact that the guest of the evening was a Buddhist, (2) she laid particular stress upon the fact that all the great religions of the world were fundamentally one and the same, claiming that “once the veil of symbolism is lifted from the divine face of Truth all Churches are akin, and the basic doctrine of all is identical”; and, she said:

 

“Some of us have dreamed that our English Branch of the Theosophical Society is destined to become the ford across the stream which so long has separated the East from the West, religion from science, heart from mind, and love from learning. We have dreamed that this little Lodge of the Mysteries, set here in the core of matter-of-fact, agnostic London, may become an oasis in the wilderness for thirsty souls, – a ladder between earth and heaven, on which, as once long since in the earlier and purer days, the Gods again may ‘come and go’ twixt [between] mortal men and high Olympus.’”

 

Speaking of Mr. Sinnett’s address on this occasion, Edward Maitland says: “Admirable as it was for its purpose, it struck some notes which we recognised as scarcely harmonising with the conceptions formed by us, and which therefore might not impossibly develop into an irresolvable discord.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. p.126.)

The first duty which devolved upon Anna Kings ford and Edward Maitland as the chiefs of the London Lodge of the Theosophical Society, was to study Mr. Sinnett’s Esoteric Buddhism; and, as the writers of The Perfect Way, they were equally bound to acquaint themselves with the teaching of and pass judgment on this book; and this, Edward Maitland says, “not for the sake merely of the members of the Society, but for the sake of our own work, and for the vindication before the world of the teaching

(p. 16)

committed to us, and which we knew of ourselves to be true, while – as the writer of Esoteric Buddhism frankly admitted – he was entirely dependent for his knowledge upon teachers of whom he had no personal knowledge, but whom, nevertheless, he had learnt to trust implicitly.” And, “Such being the position, our course seemed to us to be clear. This was to ignore persons, and judge the doctrine on its own merits, making appeal only to the understanding. Having ourselves insisted on the possibility of man’s attainment of knowledge and powers even transcending those claimed for the Eastern Adepts, we were by no means averse to the idea that such persons may actually exist. But there was no sufficient evidence of their existence, (1) or of the possession by those who asserted their existence of the ability to recognise them, even in the case of contact with them. For, as only they who possess the Christ spirit in a measure can recognise the Christ, so only they who are themselves adepts in a measure can recognise the Adepts. And even if the teaching in question came from the source alleged, what guarantee was there that it had not undergone in transmission a change sufficient to vitiate it? Our own position in regard to the current Christianity was, that the Church had all the truth, having received it from a divine source, but that the priests had materialised it, making themselves and their followers idolaters. And might not the same thing have happened with the teaching now propounded, and this while its propounders were acting in the best faith, owing to the lack of spiritual insight on the part of the recipients? The very designation, Esoteric Buddhism, moreover, was open to grave question. And there was the further consideration,

(p. 17)

that to accept it upon authority, and independently of the understanding, would be but to establish a new sacerdotalism in place of that which we and they alike sought to dethrone:

 

“And, indeed, it very soon became evident that matters were not only in danger of tending in this direction, but had already gone far in it. The idea of a group of divinised men, dwelling high up in the fastnesses of the Himalayas, and endowed with transcendent knowledges and powers, possessed a fascination for all but the stoutest heads; and that many had succumbed to the glamour of the supposed ‘Mahatmas,’ as the adept masters were called, was evidenced by their readiness to accept implicitly all that was put forward in their name, even to resenting as blasphemous the suggestion of need for caution and deliberation, and their refusal to recognise the presence of an esoteric element in Christianity corresponding to that which was claimed for Buddhism.

There was also much in the tone and character of the publications issued from the headquarters of the parent Society in India of which we disapproved as not only calculated to impair the credit of the Society with the public, but as harmful in itself and incompatible with its real aims. For, while we recognised the Society as at once representing high aims and possessed of invaluable knowledges, we were compelled to recognise the presence of other and conflicting elements which, unless eliminated, would assuredly wreck the whole movement. This is to say, that although_, owing to the heterogeneous nature of its elements, chiefly as regards the personalities of its foremost representatives, it was but a chaos, we discerned in it the possibilities of a Kosmos, provided only those elements could be duly redeemed from their limitations and fused into harmonious accord. For us its promoters were as children who, having become possessed of a valuable instrument which they were as yet incapable of appreciating, were in danger of destroying it through the exuberance of their child-nature, and their consequent disposition to play with it, instead of setting seriously to work to apply it to its proper uses.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. pp. 138-140.)

 

In view of these objections, Anna Kingsford, as President of the London Lodge, and describing herself as “a toiler in the Ship of Peter,” (1) addressed to Colonel Olcott, as President of the

(p. 18)

Parent Society, a long letter of remonstrance, (1) in which she pleaded for a truly catholic theosophy, and stated what she believed to be the right aim and method of their work, and the wisest policy for their Society to follow. In her letter she laid stress upon the fact that in Christian countries it is not so much the revelation of a new religious system that is needed, as a true interpretation of the religion now existing. “Orthodox Christianity, both in Catholic and in Protestant countries,” she said, “is languishing on account of a radical defect in its method, – to wit, the exoteric and historical sense in which, exclusively, its dogmas are taught and enforced.” And she pointed out that “It should be the task of Theosophy in these countries to convert the material – and therefore idolatrous – interpretation of the ancestral faith and doctrine into a spiritual one; to lift the plane of the Christian creed from the exoteric to the esoteric level, and thus, without touching a stone or displacing a beam of the Holy City, to carry it all up intact from earth to heaven.” (2) The Theosophical creed, she said, “should be essentially spiritual, and all its articles should relate to interior conditions, principles, and processes. It should be based upon experimental knowledge, not on authority, and its central figures should be attributes, qualities, and sacraments (mysteries), not persons, nor events, however great or remarkable. For persons and events belong to time and to the phenomenal, while principles and processes are eternal and noumenal. The historical method has been the bane of the Churches. Let Theosophy and Theosophists remember that history and individual entities must be ever regarded by them as constituting the accidental, and not the essential element in a system which aims at repairing the errors of the theologians, by reconstructing the Mysteries on a scientific and intelligent basis.”

 

Their dissent from Mr. Sinnett’s book, Esoteric Buddhism,

(p. 19)

and their attitude towards the alleged “Masters,” was not appreciated by the majority of the members of the London Lodge, who failed to understand them, and who failed to see whither under Mr. Sinnett’s influence they were being led and to what they were committing themselves and their Society. In a letter, dated 2nd November 1883, to her friend Madame de Steiger, who was a prominent member of the Society, Anna Kingsford, after saying that she never dreamed of disparaging the Brothers, nor of imputing that she did not believe in them, and after referring to the feeling of the members – the Cabal raised against her – and to the “folly” of the course then recently pursued by Mr. Sinnett in “dragging the names of the Brothers forward into undue prominence,” and so making the Society ridiculous in the eyes of the world, said: “Following Mr. Sinnett’s lead, you have, most of you, read into my address a meaning I had not the least wish to convey, and I am heartily sorry so many of my friends should so much have misunderstood me.” This letter drew from Madame de Steiger an answer, to which, in a letter dated 5th November 1883, Anna Kingsford replied, giving the following clear statement of her position: –

 

“(1) When I was invited to join the Society, I was emphatically and distinctly told that no allegiance would be required of me to the ‘Mahatmas,’ to Madame Blavatsky, or to any other person real or otherwise, but only to Principles and Objects.

(2) Consequently, I am no traitor to the express conditions on which I entered the Society when I say that I neither owe nor do I acknowledge the allegiance which now appears to be required of me to persons of whose existence and claims I am utterly unable to affirm or deny anything positively.

(3) If, then, it is the deliberate opinion of the whole Lodge – which it certainly was not six months ago – that it must have a President whose allegiance to the Mahatmas is sans peur et sans reproche, then I certainly am not, from the nature of things, fitted to occupy your Chair. And I do not see how anyone can occupy it, on such terms, who is not, of his own personal experience, in a position to testify to the existence and claims of the ‘Brothers.’ This even Mr. Sinnett cannot do, as he only knows them ‘through a glass darkly, and not face to face.’

(4) I cannot consent to pose before the world in the absurd position of a person claiming to act on principles of exact knowledge and scientific methods, who has abandoned the platform of Historical Christianity because its so-called events and

(p. 20)

personages are impossible of verification, and who yet accepts as indubitable another set of events and personages the evidence for which is meagre and unsatisfactory in a degree surpassing even that of Historical Christianity. All that is affirmed may be true; but I am not in a position to know its truth, and cannot therefore say I believe it, or disbelieve it. The utmost I can say in the present matter is – and this I say cordially – that I am heartily willing and anxious to hear all that comes to us from the East with serious attention, provided I am not called upon to connect it with subservience to any personal authority claiming my belief and confidence as a duty; and provided also that I may fairly and freely criticise what I hear, and test it by reason and experience.

(5) Madame Blavatsky calls the ‘Mahatmas’ Masters. Her experience and evidence may justify this epithet for her, but they do not justify me in using it. I do not, therefore, and will not, apply that term to any earthly being soever.

I may add that it is not I who seek to separate Esoteric Buddhism from Esoteric Christianity. First, the system expounded by Mr. Sinnett is not – so far as I can see – esoteric at all, being simply a scheme of transcendental physics; and, secondly, he is deliberately seeking to silence every other voice but that of the ‘Mahatmas.’ If there is to be unification and brotherhood, there must be equality. It now seems to me that I am the only representative of Christian doctrine left among you. (...)” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. pp. 147-148.)

 

With a view to the vindication of their own position in regard to Mr. Sinnett’s Esoteric Buddhism, they wrote a pamphlet, which consisted of a letter, dated December 1883, from Anna Kingsford to the London Lodge of the Theosophical Society; some “Remarks and Propositions on Mr. Sinnett’s Esoteric Buddhism,” by Edward Maitland; and a copy of Anna Kingsford’s letter, dated 31^st October 1883, to the President of the Theosophical Society, to which reference has been [previously] made. (1) The following passage from Anna Kingsford’s first-mentioned letter gives the key to the position taken up by them. She says:

 

“Pure Buddhism is in no radical respect different from pure Christianity, because esoteric religion is identical throughout all time and conditions, being eternal in its truth and immanent in the

(p. 21)

human spirit. I am myself as much the disciple of Buddha as of Christ, because the two Masters are one in Doctrine. But, in my view, such a system as Mr. Sinnett’s book reveals to us is as opposed to Buddhism as it is to Christianity, and is utterly incompatible with the avowed aims and teachings of the Society under whose aegis it is issued. No universal religion, no catholic brotherhood can be built on such a foundation as this; – it is but the germ of a new sect, and one more materialistic, exoteric, and unscientific than has ever yet been presented with serious claims to the modern world. Its tendency is to divide, to scatter, to repel, making all chance of unification impossible, instead of reconstructing, consolidating, and reconciling. East and West will never meet on such a bridge as this doctrine, nor will the conflicting testimonies of history and scientific criticism be silenced by enunciations of transcendental physics which directly impinge on their domain. In a word, this book is neither ‘Buddhism’ nor ‘esoteric.’” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. p. 152.)

 

The letter went on to propose that, on the recurrence of the elections for 1884 two Sections be created in the London Lodge; one, to be formed by the Fellows who desired to pursue exclusively the teaching of the Thibetan Mahatmas, and to be presided over by Mr. Sinnett; the other, to be known as the Catholic Section of the London Lodge, to be composed of Fellows who desired to adopt a broader basis and to extend research into other directions – “more especially with the object of encouraging the study of Esoteric Christianity, and of the Occidental theosophy out of which it arose” – the principal studies of this Section being addressed to “the analysis of the great religions and philosophies which have swayed mankind in the past, and which divide their allegiance in the present”; but notwithstanding these two Sections, Fellows of either Section were to be free to belong to both, and free to attend each other’s meetings.

Edward Maitland says:

 

“The great majority of the Lodge were strongly adverse to the line taken by us, (...) and it became clear that, when the time came, as it would come in January, for the annual election of Officers, we should be displaced. This was a conclusion which, so far as concerned ourselves, we contemplated with more than equanimity, with positive satisfaction and relief. The turmoil of the position, and the personal conflicts engendered, were distasteful to us in the extreme, and only the hope of saving the Society from its own discordant elements,

(p. 22)

to become a redeeming influence in the world, reconciled us to continued association with it.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. pp. 154-155.)

 

On the 21st December, after the printing of the above-mentioned pamphlet, Anna Kingsford received from Madame Blavatsky a letter dated “Adyar, 25^th November 1883,” which was said to have been written “under orders,” and which asserted that the policy and actions of Anna Kingsford were known to and approved of by the Mahatmas. The following is an extract from Madame Blavatsky’s letter:

 

“I happen to know – and I write this to Mr. Sinnett today – that notwithstanding your own doubts and slight misconceptions of our Masters, and the opposition you experienced (or rather Mr. Maitland) on the afternoon of October 26^th – and all the rest, they are still desirous (and ‘more than ever,’ as my Guru expresses it) that you should kindly pursue your own policy, for they find it good. This I write à l’aveugle, for I know nothing either of the said policy or what has been the nature of the disagreement between you in its details, though acquainted with its general character. I simply communicate to you the Order I receive, and the words used. ‘Future alone will shew why we take another view of the situation than Mr. Sinnett’ – are the words used. (...) I have always understood the Chelas to say that They – the Masters – knew and watched your proceedings, that you were notified of Their presence, and that you are the most wonderful sensitive in all Europe, not England alone.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. p. 159.)

 

           Writing of the position to Lady Caithness, Anna Kingsford says:

 

“The doctrine we have received is that of all Hermetic and Kabalistic teaching from time immemorial; and to forsake that and embrace the strange and inconsistent creed put forth as ‘Esoteric Buddhism’ would be to turn our backs at once and definitively upon all that is divine and true in the highest sense. None of us are capable of such folly as that would be.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. pp. 159-160, note.)

 

The meeting of the Society, which was held on the 27th January 1884, passed without any change being made. The reason for this was that both sides had represented their views to the Founders – Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott – and the elections were postponed until such time as word should be received from India. (Life of A. K., vol. ii. pp. 155, 158, 159.)

(p. 23)

C. C. Massey, to whom reference has been made, wrote at this time to a friend, saying:

 

“It is desirable that we should, by re-electing Mrs Kingsford (who is only opposed on account of her independence), reaffirm with some emphasis the principle of freedom of thought.” (Letter, dated 5^th February 1884, to W. F. Kirby)

 

Edward Maitland says:

 

“When the time came for the decisive meeting to be held, the occasion proved to be in the highest degree dramatic. The tension was extreme, so high did feeling run on both sides; and when, at the moment that the crucial question was to be put, Mary produced a telegram (1) from India saying ‘Remain President,’ and signed ‘Koot Hoomi,’ the sensation was indescribable. The mandate was at once recognised as imperative, and the election was but a formality.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. pp. 159-160.)

      

The result of the reference to India was the publication of a pamphlet, written by T. Subba Row and Madame Blavatsky, in support of Mr. Sinnett and his book. This, Edward Maitland says, “necessitated a rejoinder from us, which took the shape of another pamphlet, in which we shewed conclusively that the reply, so far from being an answer to us, was inaccurate and incoherent, and left our position untouched.” (2) In their rejoinder they said:

In March 1884 the Founders of the Theosophical Society were in Paris, and in the following month they came to England with the object of composing the division in the London Lodge. The two parties then first became acquainted with each other. A Lodge meeting was held, at which Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland were present for the purpose of inaugurating their successors. Edward Maitland, giving an account of this meeting, says: “Being unable to reconcile ourselves to their programme, and in deference to the general desire for officials devoted wholly to the Eastern teachings, we withdrew from our positions of President and Vice-President respectively of the London Lodge, (2) and sought an independent platform for our own teaching. The result was the formation of the Hermetic Society, in which we had the concurrence and assistance of the Theosophical Society Founders and several of its members, their desire being to make it a separate Lodge of their own Society. (3) This however, to our satisfaction, proved impossible, owing to the issue of a rule prohibiting membership of more than one Lodge at a time. The Hermetic Society was, therefore, established on an independent basis, with Mary as its President.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. pp. 186-187.) Their valued friend C. C. Massey heartily supported the new enterprise.

(p. 25)

The objects of the Hermetic Society were set forth in its Prospectus (1) as follows: –

 

“The designation of this Society was chosen in conformity with that ancient and universal usage of the Western world, which, regarding HERMES as the supreme initiator into the Sacred Mysteries of existence, has identified his name with the knowledge of things spiritual and occult.

Its objects are at once scientific, intellectual, moral, and religious.

Its chief aim is to promote the comparative study of the philosophical and religious systems of the East and of the West; especially of the Greek Mysteries and the Hermetic Gnosis, and its allied schools, the Kabalistic, Pythagorean, Platonic, and Alexandrian, – these being inclusive of Christianity, – with a view to the elucidation of their original esoteric and real doctrine, and the adoption of its expression to modern requirements.

The knowledges acquired will be applied, first, to the interpretation and harmonisation of the various existing systems of thought and faith, and the provision thereby of an Eirenicon among all Churches and communions; and, secondly, to the promotion of personal psychic and spiritual development.

To these ends the Society encourages and undertakes the publication of ancient and modern Hermetic literature, and invites its Fellows to further its efforts on this behalf by subscribing for the Works issued, by actively co-operating in the general purposes of the Society, and by contributing to the promotion of its special objects.

In carrying out these designs, the Society accords to its Fellows full freedom of opinion, expression, and action; and in regard to doctrinal questions, recognises reason and experience alone as affording legitimate ground for conclusion.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. p. 195.)

 

The Prospectus was accompanied by the following note: –

 

“In inviting your attention to the accompanying Prospectus, it is considered desirable to state that the Hermetic Society has been formed, not in any spirit of opposition to, or rivalry with, the Theosophical Society, or any of its branches, but rather as a supplement and complement to it and them, and in friendly co-operation to their declared aims. Desiring no less than the Theosophical Society to study the philosophical systems of the

(p. 26)

East, and to promote the sentiment of universal brotherhood, the Hermetic Society directs its attention more particularly to the systems of the West, and seeks, by comparing all systems, to ascertain their respective merits and mutual relation. In this it is actuated by the conviction that the common object of both Societies – to wit, the establishment of spiritual unity throughout the world – will be most effectually promoted, not by seeking to include all men under one denomination, but by exhibiting the substantial agreement already subsisting among their various systems and creeds.

These being the spirit and scope of the Hermetic Society, its Fellows feel that they are entitled to look confidently for such reciprocity between it and the Theosophical Society as will promote concurrent membership in both Societies.”

 

By the rules of the Society it was expressly provided that (inter alia) distinctions of race, religion, or sex should be no bar either to Fellowship or to office.

The Hermetic Society was inaugurated on Friday the 9^th May 1884 – St George’s Eve – at Nº. 43 Rutland Gate, London, the residence of Captain Francis Lloyd. There was a large attendance of members and guests, including Colonel Olcott, who expressed his sympathy with the objects of the new Society. (Life of A. K., vol. ii. pp.187, 188; Light, 1884, p.198.) An interesting address was delivered by Anna Kingsford, as President_, in which, Edward Maitland says, she:

 

“(…) made the legend of St George and the Dragon the basis of an exposition of Hermetic doctrine, in the course of which she shewed that it was one of many allegories of identical import. For as the Dragon of the sacred myths of old was always Materiality, and the Princess exposed to it was the Soul, so the Knight who rescues and finally carries her off in triumph as his bride to heaven is always, directly or by delegation, Hermes, the Angel of the understanding of divine things, by whose aid alone the soul is enabled to surmount the sense-nature, and man realises his Divine potentialities.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. p. 196.)

 

Applying this to the present age, Anna Kingsford said:

 

“In the revival of the Hermetic philosophy now taking place may be seen at once the token and the agent of the world’s deliverance. For it means the supersession of a period of obscuration by one of illumination, such that men can once more rise from the appreciation of the Form to that of the Substance, of the Letter to that of the Spirit, and thus discern the meaning of the Divine Word,

(p. 27)

              whether written or enacted. Such recognition of the ideal as the real signifies the reconstruction of religion upon a scientific basis, and of science upon a religious basis. So long as religion builds upon the mere facts and phenomena of history, she builds upon a sandbank, on which the advancing tide of scientific criticism is ever encroaching, and which must sooner or later be swept away with all that is founded upon it. But when she learns the secret of Hermetic, that is Esoteric, interpretation, then, and then only, does she build upon a rock, which shall never be shaken. Such is the import of the term ‘Peter,’ which, as one with Hermes, properly denotes not only rock, but interpreter.” (1)

 

And she announced a series of discourses by herself at future meetings of the Society explanatory of the terms of the Apostles’ Creed. (Light 1884, p.198.) Edward Maitland says:

 

“My contribution on the occasion was a sketch of the history and character of the Hermetic philosophy, which was followed by a discussion, the chief feature of which was an account given by Colonel Olcott of the origin and aims of the Theosophical Society, and of the derivation of its teaching from the sages of the East, whose methods and doctrines, he said, were purely Hermetic – a definition which we recognised as altogether excluding Mr. Sinnett’s Esoteric Buddhism.” (2)

 

(p. 28)

Writing in her Diary on the 11^th May – two days after the inauguration of the new Society – Anna Kingsford says:

 

“I do not yet know, myself, exactly what it is we seek to gain in this Society. I do not want to be a Teacher, arrogating to myself all authority and illumination. I want light. Perhaps the best way will be to have discussion days on the subject of some paper previously read. What we really seek is to reform the Christian system and start a new Esoteric Church. When once this is started it may go on indefinitely, as does the Exoteric Church.”

And in a letter, written on the following day, to Lady Caithness, she says:

“We want to get known. Sometimes I think that the truths and knowledges we hold are so high and so deep that the age is yet unable to receive them, and that all we shall be permitted to do is to formulate them in some book or books to leave as a legacy to the world when we pass away from it. The truth we have is far in advance of anything the disciples of Madame Blavatsky and her Gurus possess.” (Life of A. K., vol. ii. pp. 187 and 188.)

 

At the second meeting, on the 9^th May 1884, Edward Maitland read a paper on “Revelation as the Supreme Common Sense,” meaning that the consensus or agreement which it represents is that, “not of all men merely, but of all parts of man; of mind, soul, and spirit; of intellect and intuition, combined in a pure spirit and unfolded to the utmost.” For, he says: