No Religion Higher Than Truth: A History of the Theosophical Movement in Russia, 1875-1922 9781400872794

Table of contents :
Cover
Contents
Illustrations
Acknowledgments
Introduction: The Esoteric Tradition and the Russian Silver Age
I. A Historical Survey of Russian Occult Interests
II. The Early Days of Theosophy in Russia (1875-1901)
III. The Theosophical Society in Russia (1901-1917)
IV. Other Russian Theosophical Movements
V. Theosophical Doctrine: An Outline
VI. The Russian Reception of Theosophical Thought
VII. The Russian Theosophical Movement After 1917
Afterword: Theosophy's Impact on Fin De Siècle Russian Culture
Notes
Glossary
Bibliography. Theosophical and Related Works Published in Russia Between 1881 and 1918
Selected Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

“N O R E LIG IO N H IG H E R T H A N T R U T H ”

aN O R E L IG IO N H IG H E R T H A N T R U T H ”

A H I S T O R Y OF T H E T H E O S O P H I C A L M O V E M E N T IN RUSSIA, 1 8 7 5 -1 9 2 2

M a ria Carlson

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

PRINCETON, NEWJERSEY

C o p y rig h t © 1 9 9 3 b y P r in c e to n U n iv e rs ity P re ss P ublished by P rin ceto n U niversity Press, 41 W illiam S treet, P rin ceto n , N ew Jersey 0 8 5 4 0 In th e U n ite d K in gdom : P rin ceto n U niversity Press, C hichester, W est Sussex AU R ights R eserved L ib r a r y o f Congress C a ta lo g in g -in -P u b lic a tio n D a ta C arlson, M aria N o religion h ig h e r th an tr u th : a histo ry o f th e T heosophical m o v em en t in Russia, 1 8 7 5 -1 9 2 2 / M aria C arlson p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISB N 0 -6 9 1 -0 5 6 8 2 -X (alk. paper) 1. T h eo so p h y — S oviet U n io n — H isto ry — 1 9 th century. 2. T h eo so p h y — S oviet U n io n — H isto ry — 2 0 th century. I. T ide. B P 5 5 0 .S 6 C 3 7 1993 2 9 9 '.9 3 4 '0 9 4 7 0 9 0 3 4 — d c2 0 9 2 -1 9 4 5 1 C IP T his book has been co m p o sed in A d o b e Galliard P rin ceto n U niversity Press b o o k s are p rin ted o n acid-free paper, and m eet th e guidelines for p erm an en ce and durability o f the C o m m ittee o n P ro d u c tio n G uidelines for B ook L ongevity o f th e C ouncil on L ibrary R esources P rin ted in th e U n ite d States o f A m erica 10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Contents

Illustrations

vii

Acknowledgments

ix

Introduction: The Esoteric Tradition and the Russian Silver Age

3

I. A Historical Survey of Russian Occult Interests The Earliest Traditions The French Occult Revival Spiritualism Theosophy

15 15 19 22 28

II. The Early Days of Theosophy in Russia (1875-1901) The Magnificent Madame The Introduction of Theosophy into Russia

38 38 43

I I I . The Theosophical Society in Russia (1901-1917) The First Circles (1901-1908) Theosophical Work (1908-1914) Russian Theosophy during the First World War (1914—1918)

54 54 60 76

TV. Other Russian Theosophical Movements The Smolensk Theosophists Vasilii Bojushevskii and Teosoficheskoe Obozrenie An Independent: KhristoforovaJs Moscow Circle The Russian Anthroposophists: Steiner and Russia

81 81 86 88 94

V. Theosophical Doctrine: An Outline What Is Modern Theosophy? Theosophy and God Theosophy and the Universe Theosophy and Man The Meaning of the Path Anthroposophical Refinements: Rudolf Steiner's Spiritual Science

114 115 116 117 120 123 128

VI. The Russian Reception of Theosophical Thought The Three Critiques of Theosophy Theosophy and the Russian Intelligentsia Point and Counterpoint

137 140 158 167

Vi

CONTENTS

V II. T he Russian Theosophical M ovem ent after 1917 A fte r the Kevolution The “Russian Theosophical Society Outside Russia”

171 173 180

Afterword: Theosophy’s Im pact on Fin de Siecle Russian C ulture Orientologist and Painter: Nikolai Konstantinovich Roerich (1874-1947) Theorist, Philosopher, and Writer: A ndrei Belyi (1880—1934) In Conclusion

188 193 198 205

Notes

209

Glossary

249

Bibliography. Theosophical and Related Works Published in Russia between 1881 and 1918

253

Selected Bibliography

275

In d e x

283

Illustrations

Following p. 104: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

H. P. Blavatsky Mme Blavatsky and her sister, Vera Zhelikhovskaia Mrs. Annie Besant in 1885 Vsevolod Solov'ev Viacheslav Ivanov, Anna Mintslova, Kuzmin, and others Andrei Belyi Aleksandr Aksakov Viktor Pribytkov Anna Kamenskaia Elena Pisareva Rudolf Steiner and Marie von Si vers Steiner Title page of Vestnik teosofii Title page of Teosoficheskoe obozrenie Title page of Teosofskaia zhizn'

A cknow ledgm ents

I w o u l d l i k e to thank the N ational E ndow m ent for the H um anities for a fellowship, which supported the w riting o f this book. I w ould also like to thank th e helpful librarians at th e L enin Library in M oscow, the Helsinki Slavonic Library, the Slavic Library at th e University o f Illinois at C ham paign-U rbana, and the B ibliotheque PubIique e t U niversitaire de Geneve. My thanks also to E dw ard Kasinec, C h ief o f the Slavic and Baltic Division at the N ew York Public Library. I am grateful to my col­ leagues at the University o f Kansas, W illiam C. Fletcher and Stephen J. Parker, w ho w restled m anfully w ith w hat m ust have seem ed at tim es a very strange m anuscript indeed.

“N O R E LIG IO N H IG H E R T H A N T R U T H ”

Introduction T he E soteric T rad itio n and th e R ussian Silver Age

T h i s s t u d y o f th e Russian T heosophical M ovem ent seeks to restore an im p o rta n t m issing piece o f m osaic tile to th e intricate design o f fin de siccle Russian culture. T h e Russian Silver Age (1 8 9 0 —1914) is widely acknow ledged as a critical transitional p eriod in Russia’s cultural history; as such, its literature, history, art, and philosophy have received w ide­ spread and em inently deserved a tte n tio n from b o th Russian and W est­ ern scholars. As they have learned m ore a b o u t this com plex p eriod o f g reat intellectual ferm en t and social upheaval, scholars have inevitably becom e aware o f certain lacunae in th e scholarly m osaic. O ne such la­ cuna is th e Silver A ge’s passion for occultism and mysticism in b o th its refined and vulgar form s. T h e illegitim ate offspring o f th e Russian reli­ gious renaissance, occultism flourished in Russia in th e decad en t days th a t preceded w orld w ar and revolution. Like th eir E uropean contem poraries, the Russians w ere intrigued by spiritualism , table tu rn in g , fortu n e-tellin g , m agic, and mysticism o f every stam p. In term s o f intellectual im pact, how ever, th e m ost im p o r­ ta n t form o f occultism was m o d ern Theosophy, a con tem p o rary G nostic gospel invented and dissem inated by H elena BIavatsky (1 8 3 1 -1 8 9 1 ), an expatriate Russian w om an w ith an enthusiasm for B uddhist th o u g h t and a genius for self-prom otion. A lthough her “secret d o c trin e ” succeeded in seducing m any leading cultural figures o f the Russian Silver A ge, it has n o t received its due as a co n trib u tin g factor to the aesthetic and philosophical consciousness o f th e tim es. Scholars are aware o f T h e o so ­ phy and th e o th e r occult and mystical passions o f the Silver A ge, b u t erroneously disdain th em as trivial; yet, occultism in general and T h e o s­ ophy in particular are everyw here present, and are, in fact, a m ajor d e te r­ m inant in th e artistic and cultural course o f the Silver Age. This book outlines th e history o f the T heosophical M ovem ent in Russia, identifies its leading figures, and begins the d o c u m e n tatio n o f T h e o so p h y ’s role as a social and intellectual force in Russian society d u rin g the fascinating period o f the Russian fin de siecle. O ccultism and esotericism have always had their place in intellectual history. T h e ancient m ysteries o f th e East, th e secret rites o f the C hal­ deans, E gyptians, and Persians, the m ystery religions o f ancient Greece

an d th e N e a r E ast w ere in h e rite d by m edieval R abbalists, alchem ists, H e rm e tic ists, a n d religious m ystics; they w ere passed o n by a su p e rsti­ tious se v en te en th c e n tu ry ( “ c e n tu ry o f w itch c raft” ) to th e A ge o f R e a ­ son. T h e e ig h te e n th cen tu ry , ch ara c te riz e d n o t only by th e rationalism o f K ant, H u m e , an d V oltaire, b u t also by th e m ysticism o f E m anuel S w ed e n b o rg , th e pseu d o scien ce o f F ra n z A n to n M esm er, a n d th e black arts o f th e C o m tes de S a in t-G e rm a in a n d C a g lio stro , h e lp e d g en erate th e g re a t p o p u la r o c c u lt m o v em e n ts o f th e n in e te e n th century. N o r has in te re st in th e o c c u lt disap p eared in th e tw e n tie th century. O n e n eed only m e n tio n th e p o p u la r in terests in ex trasen so ry p e rc e p tio n (E S P ), G urdjieff, S atanism , o rie n tal relig io n s, a n d N e w A ge th o u g h t th a t e n ­ gages W estern society today. T h e o c c u lt tra d itio n flows parallel to b u t u n se en below th e s tro n g surface c u rre n ts o f prevailing w isd o m ; m ysterious a n d eso teric, it has been h id d e n by its initiates fro m th e p ro fan e eye, b u t has n ev er d isap ­ peared . A cco rd in g to cu ltu ral a n d intellectu al fashions, it m ay ru n closer to th e surface in som e ages th a n in o th ers. T his o c c u lt c u rre n t c re sted in th e last th ird o f th e n in e te e n th cen tu ry , spilling over in to th e c u ltu ral, intellectu al, an d artistic lif? o f A m ericans an d E u ro p ean s. By th e en d o f th e n in e te e n th century, th e E u ro p e a n passion fo r v ari­ o u s form s o f o ccultism h a d b e e n carried eastw ard to R ussia, w h ere it quickly grew in th e fertile R ussian soil. F o r som e R ussians, occultism was e n te rta in m e n t; for o th e rs, it was serious science, o r p hilosophy, o r even a n ew faith; fo r m any, it was th e m ere st n o n se n se , s o m e th in g to ridicule; for alm o st all, it was a p o p u la r to p ic o f discussion. T h e various form s o f o ccultism w ere sen satio n alized in th e p e n n y press, dissected in serious jo u rn a ls, d e b a te d a t pu b lic a n d private lectu res, a n d d e m o n ­ stra te d o n th e stage a n d a t o p e n seances. I t was th e to p ic o f co n v ersatio n in fashionable salons a n d a ro u n d th e fam ily d in n e r tab le. “ I n th e jo u r ­ nals a n d new spapers, everyw here, th e re are p u b licatio n s a b o u t b o o k s o n hy p n o tism an d sim ilar m ystical q u e s tio n s ,” w ro te an o v e rw h e lm ed R u s­ sian c o n tem porary. “ In b o o k sto re display w indow s, a t th e train sta tio n s, all these b o o k s a b o u t spiritualism , chirom ancy, occu ltism , a n d m ysti­ cism in general leap o u t a t y o u . Even th e m o st in n o c e n t boo k s are sold in covers d e c o ra te d w ith so m e k in d o f m ystical em blem s a n d sym bols w h ich assault th e eye.” 1 O ccu ltism , in a bew ild erin g variety o f form s, becam e th e intellectu al craze o f th e tim e. T h e R ussian S piritualist jo u rn a l R ebus re p o rte d in 1 9 0 6 th a t a cco rd in g to ou r co r re sp o n d en t, all o f P etersb u rg is ca u g h t up in an u nu sually p o w erfu l m ystical m o v e m e n t and at th e m o m e n t a veritable m aelstro m o f lit­ tle re lig io n s, cu lts, and sects has taken sh ape th ere. T h is m o v e m e n t em braces

both the upper and low er levels o f society. A m o n g th e upper levels w e find the T h eoso p h ic-B u d d h ist trend. Adm irers o f T h eo so p h y are u n itin g and are even b egin n in g to discuss th e q u estion o f b uildin g a B uddhist lam asery (a d orm i­ tory) and a T h eosop h ic-B u d d h ist tem ple. O n the other hand, w e observe a great rise o f interest in Freem asonry, as w ell as a resurgence in lo n g -silen t form s o f religious m ovem en ts from th e last century.2

A nd n o t only P etersburg was caught up in the tren d . M oscow and the provinces b u zzed w ith new secret societies, dem onstrations o f h y p n o ­ tism , public Spiritualist seances, gypsy fortune-tellers, and secret sectar­ ian ecstasies (radeniia). Every educated reader w ho was n o t a recluse had at least a n o d d in g acquaintance w ith T h eosophy and Spiritualism , b u t there was also R osicrucianism , Freem asonry, M artinism , and, o f course, those m ore sensational m anifestations o f popular, o r “ b o u le­ v ard ,” mysticism: the T aro t, som nam bulism , chirom ancy, phrenology, m esm erism , astrology, geom ancy, and hypnotism . People knew ab o u t these things, even if their know ledge was based only on cafe gossip and sensational new spaper articles in Novoe Vremm. By th e eve o f th e First W orld W ar St. P etersburg alone had m ore than thirty-five officially registered and c h artered occult circles; there were also h u n d red s o f unofficial and inform al circles. A nd they w ere n o t c o n ­ fined to M oscow and St. P etersburg; occult circles w ere registered in V iaz’m a in n o rth w estern Russia, Blagoveshchensk in the Russian Far East, Tiflis and U s t’-K am enogorsk in the so u th , and every place in b e­ tw een. M ore th an th irty occult journals and new spapers, published in Russia betw een 1881 and 1 9 18, attest to the extensive popularity o f the occult. Given th e high level o f illiteracy and th e rigors o f Russian secular and church censorship, this represents a form idable interest in th e topic. T he oldest o f these journals, Rebus, was published weekly for thirtyseven years; by 1905 it boasted m ore th an sixteen th o u san d subscribers. O ccult fervor was ubiquitous. T he tw o m o st im p o rta n t occult m ovem ents in fin de siecle Russia w ere T h eosophy and Spiritualism . T hey had the largest n u m b er o f a d ­ h erents and d o m in ated the journals and publications. O f the tw o, T h e ­ osophy was th e m ore philosophically im p o rta n t and culturally influen­ tial, alth o u g h Spiritualism had the larger m em bership and a higher public profile. T heosophy did n o t appear at the end o f the last cen tu ry by accident; it was called in to being by the frustration and dissatisfaction o f a grow ­ ing n u m b er o f th inking people w ho felt intellectually and spiritually cut adrift, unw illing o r unable to choose betw een the sterility o f scientific positivism and the im potence o f a dim inished church. They so u g h t the eternal verities and th e dignity o f m an, and they fo u n d dirty factories,

alien ated w orkers, crim e, Philistinism , a n d decadence. T h e o so p h y o f­ fered these b e re ft m o d e rn seekers a re so lu tio n to th e ir q u an d ary , t o ­ g e th e r w ith a h ighly s tru c tu re d W e ltan sc h a u u n g and a s tro n g m oral ethic. T h e o so p h ists defined th e ir d o c trin e as a syncretic, m ystico-religious philosophical system , “ th e synthesis o f Science, R elig io n , a n d P h ilo so ­ p h y ,” supp o sed ly based on an a n c ie n t esoteric tra d itio n called th e “S e­ c ret D o c trin e .” T h e o so p h y claim ed to resolve th e “ crisis o f cu ltu re an d co n scio u sn ess” th e n b e in g experien ced by E u ro p e a n an d R ussian th o u g h t. I f faith was n o lo n g e r alive, T h e o so p h y o ffered secret k n o w l­ ed g e to fill th e ach in g void. T h e m a jo r im p act T h e o so p h y m ad e o n R ussian fin d e siecle c u ltu re was certainly n o t u n d e re stim a te d by its c o n te m p o ra rie s. I n 1 9 1 5 Ivan o v -R a z u m n ik (R a z u m n ik VasiPevich Ivanov, 1 8 7 8 —1 9 4 6 ), a lead in g intellectu al h isto ria n a n d litera ry critic, w rote: T h e fu tu re h istorian o f literature w ill u n d o u b te d ly have to u n d ertak e excava­ tio n s in th e m u lti-v o lu m e “T h e o s o p h y ” o f o u r tim e; w ith o u t this n eith er A n ­ drei B elyi, n o r V iach eslav Ivanov, n o r th e n u m ero u s “Z h e o r z h ii N u lk o v s” o f S y m b olism and p se u d o -S y m b o lism w o u ld b e co m p re h e n sib le . T h e p sy c h o lo ­ g ist and th e h istorian w ill find m ore th an a little to in terest th e m in th e stu d y o f this d istin ctive sect o f o u r tim es; th e literary h isto ria n ca n n o t afford to pass it by.3

Iv an o v -R a z u m n ik ’s su g g e stio n , m ade so m any years ag o , deserves to be p u rsu e d . A g re a t m any pages have already b e e n w ritte n in th e U n ite d S tates a n d W estern E u ro p e a b o u t T h e o so p h y a n d th e T h e o so p h ic a l S o ­ ciety, b u t practically n o th in g has b een said a b o u t th e h isto ry o f th e T h e o so p h ic a l Society a n d its activities in Russia. Yet, T h e o so p h y (an d its “ C h ristia n iz e d ” o ffsh o o t, A n th ro p o so p h y ) w e n t far b e y o n d c h eerin g th e lives o f civil servants, d o c to rs, law yers, a n d society m atro n s in th e ir personal crises o f faith; it also tra n sfo rm ed th e th o u g h t, a rt, a n d d e sti­ nies o f m any m em b ers o f th e “ creative in te llig en tsia ,” th e lead in g w rit­ ers, m usicians, p h ilo so p h e rs, a n d artists o f th e R ussian Silver A ge. I t is n o ex ag g eratio n to su g g est th a t ce rtain aspects o f th e p e rio d c o u ld n o t be u n d e rs to o d w ith o u t th e d im en sio n o f T h e o so p h y a n d its sister th e o ­ ries, arcane th o u g h th ey m ay seem to us today. T h e o p u le n t e p o c h in R ussian cu ltu ral h isto ry k n o w n as th e Silver A ge spans th e p e rio d fro m th e last d ecade o f th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry to th e eve o f th e F irst W orld W ar. A p e rio d o f cu ltu ral sc h iz o p h ren ia , th e Silver A ge sim u ltan eo u sly ex perienced tw o a n tith e tic a l w orlds. O n e was th e b rig h t, ratio n al, scientific w o rld o f Karl M arx a n d historical m aterialism , M ax P lanck a n d q u a n tu m m echanics, an d A lb e rt E in stein a n d th e th e o ry o f relativity (1 9 0 5 ); m o d e rn science re ig n e d h ere. T h e o p p o site w o rld was th e dark, m ysterious realm o f F riedrich N ietzsch e an d etern al re-

tu rn , R ichard W agner and the m o d ern m ystery dram a, th e F rench poetes m audits, the h a u n tin g canvases o f Jean Delville, O dilon R edon, and Gustave M oreau; this was the o th er w orld o f M m e Blavatsky and the occult. Like their F rench predecessors, th e Russian Sym bolist w riters, artists, and G od-seekers w ho d o m in ated Silver Age culture preferred th e sec­ o n d w orld to th e first. T h e physical landscape o f the first w orld consisted o f expanding industry, strikes, social u n rest, and th e vulgarity and m ed i­ ocrity o f a grow ing m iddle class. T he Russian educated elite feared th a t it heralded the im m inent collapse o f culture and civilization. T hey chose instead to escape from th e noisom eness o f physical reality in to an alter­ native reality o f m ind and a rt w here absolute aesthetic and spiritual values still held. This educated Russian elite, b ro u g h t up on F rench decadent litera­ tu re , influenced by the F rench occult revival, and trained in G erm an id e ­ alist philosophy (infused by S chopenhauer w ith an u n d e rc u rre n t o f B ud­ dhist th o u g h t), presided over an aesthetically rich p erio d in w hich all intellectual endeavors (literature, philosophy, history, theology, m usic, painting, dance, and th eater) in teracted w ith one a n o th e r and blos­ som ed into th e m agnificent Gesamtkunstwerk th a t was the Russian Silver Age. In the face o f a fragm enting w orld m arching inexorably tow ard w orld w ar and revolution, the Russian creative intelligentsia so u g h t to stru c tu re an ultim ate synthesis o f culture in w hich art was identified w ith religion, and aesthetic th eo ry was transform ed in to a m etaphysical worldview. T heir search for a m eaningful ontological fo u n d atio n led them past a w eakened church tow ard m etaphysical idealism and T heosophical th o u g h t. T he result was n o t only a veritable blossom ing o f the arts, b u t also a renaissance in religious and idealist philosophy. Tragically, this m agnificent b u t delicate flower o f R ussia’s Silver Age bloom ed over an abyss. Its appearance m arked n o t only th e acme o f ar­ tistic achievem ent, b u t also the last m om ents o f a c o rru p t society: the society o f th e cafes, o f the M ad M o n k R asputin, o f cham pagne for breakfast and illicit trysts at Italian reso rt hotels, o f black ostrich plum es on m auve chapeaux, o f salon Satanism and fashionable d ru g addiction. T he Silver Age was n o t only th e idyll o f refined Sym bolist verse and the h a u n tin g and nostalgic paintings o f “T h e W orld o f A rt” ; it was also a period o f pornography, vulgarity, am biguous sexuality, crim e, antiSem itism , and political terrorism . In this upside-dow n and inside-out w orld hovering o n the brink o f catastrophe, the creative intelligentsia so u g h t eternal verities w herever it could find them ; and T heosophy prom ised to satisfy th eir spiritual hunger. T heosophy found its p ro p er niche in Russian Silver Age culture w ith ­ o u t m uch effort for a simple reason: despite its exotic coloring, T h e o so ­ phy in its Russian variant shared the m ajor concerns and vocabulary o f

the creative and G od-seeking intelligentsia. T heosophy rejected physical reality and its deadening positivism, and tu rn ed instead to th e w orld o f th e spirit; T heosophy was obsessed by the history o f religious th o u g h t, especially by m ystery cults and ancient rituals; T heosophy believed in and w orked for Russia’s cultural mission to the w orld and subscribed to the “ Russian Id ea” ; T heosophy tu rn ed eagerly to Russian sectarian and mystical theology, w ith its stro n g neo-P latonic and G nostic subtext. T heosophy’s was a com pelling (th o u g h now silent and fo rg o tten ) voice in the passionate religious dialogues o f th e Russian Silver Age. T he Silver Age figures w hose lives T heosophy to u ch ed (for b etter or w orse) are am ong th e m ost illustrious representatives o f the creative and G od-seeking intelligentsia. They include th e religious philosopher Vla­ dim ir Solov’ev; his b ro th er, th e novelist Vsevolod Solov’ev; the philan­ thropist A nna Filosofova; the poets K onstantin B aPm ont and Nikolai M inskii-Vilenkin; th e critic and philosopher D m itrii M erezhkovskii and his wife, the p o e t Zinaida H ippius; th e Sym bolist w riter and thinker A n­ drei Belyi; the w riter and translator Lev Kobylinskii-Ellis; Aleksei Petrovskii, Pavel Batiushkov, M ikhail Sizov, Nikolai Kiselev (from th e A r­ g onaut and M usaget circles·); A nna M intslova, a M m e Blavatsky double w ho “T heosophized ” the em inent scholar, w riter, and critic Viacheslav Ivanov; the journalist and p hilosopher P. D. Uspenskii, w ho later joined forces w ith another Russian mystic, Georgii G urdjieff, before finding his ow n mystical path; the w riter O l’ga Forsh; the respected religious p h i­ losopher Nikolai Berdiaev; the p o et M ax Voloshin and his wife, the painter M argarita Sabashnikova; th e actor and director M ikhail C h e­ khov; the com poser Aleksandr Skriabin; and th e painters Nikolai R o e­ rich and Wasily Kandinsky, to nam e only the m ost visible figures am ong th e creative intelligentsia w ho em braced Theosophy. Even M aksim G or’kii and A natolii Lunacharskii, b o th dedicated socialists and col­ leagues o f Vladim ir Lenin, w ere interested at certain points in th eir lives in T heosophy and occult th o u g h t. T h e interest o f these im p o rtan t Russian cultural figures in T heosophical doctrine affected their w ork, th eir philosophy, and, in som e extrem e cases, even m olded th eir entire worldview. As leading cultural and liter­ ary figures w ith an educated and devoted audience, they w ere in a p osi­ tion to dissem inate certain aspects o f Theosophical th o u g h t. To u n d er­ stand w hat m otivated them to tu rn to Theosophy, w hat they expected to find there, w hat they did find th ere, and how it affected their art and their lives, it is im perative to reach som e un d erstan d in g o f w hat T h eo so ­ phy is and how it fits in to the rich mosaic o f Silver Age culture. T he im portance o f T h eosophy’s role in Silver Age Russian culture is crystallized in the w ork o f A ndrei Belyi, w hom th e idealist philosopher N ikolai Berdiaev called “ the m o st characteristic figure o f th a t ep o ch .”

Berdiaev elaborated: “Belyi is characteristic o f the various trends o f the beginning o f th e century because he was unable to rem ain w ithin the fram ew ork o f pure literature and aesthetic consciousness; his Sym bolism had a mystical and occult character, he reflected all o f the spiritual m oods a n d searches o f th e p e rio d .”4 G ifted, adm ired, influential, p ro ­ foundly sensitive to th e fears, neuroses, and hopes th a t to rtu re d his g e n ­ eration, A ndrei Belyi acted o u t in his personal life and in his a rt the sym bolic spiritual dram as o f his tim e. Belyi divided Sym bolism in to tw o branches: Sym bolism as an aes­ thetic school, and Sym bolism as a worldview. H e w en t so far as to define the Sym bolist w orldview in T heosophical term s as “ a new religiousphilosophical d o c trin e,” synthetic in n atu re, and based on idealist, reli­ gious, and occult philosophies. I t is fairly easy to sp o t th e Solov’evian and neo-K antian elem ents in Belyi’s th o u g h t, b u t th a t th ird line, occult philosophy, is m ore problem atic for th e con tem p o rary scholar. P ursuing this occult line in Belyi’s philosophy leads in various directions, b u t pri­ m arily in the d irection o f T heosophy and its “W esternized” m odifica­ tio n , A nthroposophy (or “ C hristianized T h eo so p h y ” ), and to its im pact on Silver Age th o u g h t. Belyi led an entire gen eratio n o f y o u n g , welleducated Russians in this direction; th eir influence on Russian culture did n o t cease in 1917, b u t co n tinued well in to th e 1930s and is subtly visible even in Russia today. T hose scholars w ho venture into th e elegant and frequently arcane w orld o f the Russian Sym bolists are aware th at their subjects w ere, to a greater o r lesser extent, involved in these occult m ovem ents. Few, h o w ­ ever, have explored their history, let alone th e im portance and im plica­ tions o f this interesting pseudoreligious, philosophical doctrine for the w orks and th o u g h t o f the Russian Silver Age. A rcane th o u g h it may seem to m any, research in to T heosophy and A n th roposophy does p ro m ­ ise to illum inate certain dark corners o f this com plex period. W hat seem s arcane today was n o t always so. A t th e tu rn o f the cen ­ tury, Russian readers and critics had little difficulty in recognizing, h o w ­ ever superficially, the presence o f occult contents and vocabulary in the a rt, literature, and culture o f th e Silver Age. Belyi, for instance, was asham ed o f his first novel, Silver Dove, because it was so “ obviously T h eo so p h ical,” yet one w ould scarcely use th e w ord obviously today. Today m any scholars are unaw are o f th e degree to w hich Theosophical vocabulary and im agery left their subtle m ark o n the a rt and literature o f the Silver Age: th e fre q u e n t use— indeed, overuse— o f adjectives such as “ lig h t,” “ silent,” “ b rig h t,” “spiritual” (svetlyi, tikhii, iusnyi, dukhovnyi)] th e concept o f harm ony; th e n o tio n o f theurgy; th e im ages o f E ternity and th e Call; the idea o f correspondences; the central figure o f the T ri­ angle; th e im ages o f the spider and web (M aya, the w orld illusion); the

circle, the w heel, and th e spiral (o f reincarnation); th e Initiate and initia­ tion; th e idea o f th e Path; th e Abyss; th e struggle o f L ight and Darkness; the no tio n o f the M aster and th e B ro th erh o o d ; the secret society; the color w hite and th e m etal silver; exotic Eastern vocabulary; and the like— these are the com m onplaces o f T heosophy th a t en tered artistic discourse alm ost unnoticed. An awareness o f this occult subtext on the figurative and sem antic level opens fresh perspectives th a t can lead to new interpretive possibilities. In the second decade o f th e tw en tieth century, rapid historical, politi­ cal, and intellectual change in Russia replaced occult interests w ith other, m ore im m ediate concerns. As a result, the occult dim ension o f Silver Age culture was overshadow ed by o th e r events and philosophies and deprived o f th e atten tio n it m erits. Soviet critics, for many years prisoners o f the Russian variant o f historical m aterialism , have n o t been allowed to study it; W estern critics, products o f a postw ar scientific p o s­ itivism, have disdained it. This lack o f critical atten tio n to occult philos­ ophy, how ever, does n o t dim inish its im portance. F o r m any leading fig­ ures o f the Russian Silver A ge, occult philosophy was n o t an am using en tertainm ent, b u t a lifelong concern th at affected all aspects o f their personal, spiritual, and creative lives; thus it is em inently w orthy o f scholarly investigation. T heosophy, one o f the m o st influential forms o f Silver Age specula­ tive mysticism, is an “o ccu lt” doctrine, and any discussion o f it m ust necessarily include th e w ords occult, mystical, and esoteric. These w ords are n o t synonym ous. M m e Blavatsky, th e founder o f m odern T h eo so ­ phy, suggests the following w orking definition for occultism: “ O ccultism em braces the w hole range o f psychological, physiological, cosmical, physical, and spiritual phenom ena. F rom the w ord occult, hidden o r se­ cret; applying therefore to the study o f the Kabbala, astrology, alchemy, and all arcane sciences.”5 H e r broad definition reveals the basic problem in w riting ab o u t occultism : determ ining w hat it really is. To com plicate m atters still further, the w ord occultism has been hopelessly d isto rted in m odern popular usage— it means m uch m ore than black m agic, crystal balls, pentagram s, and seances. O ccultism is a system, a body o f know ledge w ith b o th a practical and theoretical dim ension. Practical occultism focuses o n th e techniques and procedures used to m anipulate and co n tro l th e supernatural and th e u n ­ know n, w hether by m agic, incantation, study, o r disciplined will. T h e o ­ retical occultism is a broad, synthetic (and frequently syncretic) p h ilo ­ sophical system, a worldview th a t seeks to u n d erstan d th e supernatural and the unknow n by p enetrating to a hid d en m ystery w isdom th a t p u r­ ports to explain m an and the universe. Like every o th er worldview, o c­ cultism is a m anner o f perceiving reality. I t is concerned w ith the broad-

ening o f hum an consciousness beyond the lim itations set by th e selfconscious ego and the physical organs o f perception. External reality plays a secondary role; occultism addresses th e relationship betw een the inner and o u te r m an, betw een spiritual and physical reality, and stresses the prim acy o f th e noum enal over the phenom enal. Such a definition o f occultism as a do ctrin e, a w orldview concerned w ith the broad en in g o f consciousness, leads naturally to the q u estion o f how occultism differs from m ysticism. B oth are exclusive; b u t w hile o c ­ cultism is essentially concealed w isdom , mysticism is secret experience.6 C h u rch polem ics actually clarify the situation. T he C hristian church d e ­ nounces occultism since it is a com petitive belief system th a t from the C hristian p o in t o f view is w ro n g and th u s evil. M ysticism , on the o th er h and, can exist w ithin th e stru ctu re and sym bology o f th e church and is therefore g o o d , since “th e m ystic’s experience tends to confirm th e re ­ ligious auth o rity u n d e r w hich he lives; its theology and symbols are p ro ­ jected into his mystical experience.”7 T he British scholar and mystic A. E. W aite (w ho was also captivated by T heosophy at one tim e) m aintains th a t th e w ork o f the mystic is c o n ­ cerned w ith “the soul’s u n io n w ith G o d ,” and th a t “ this and this only is the end o f M ysticism .”8 A n o th er definition o f mysticism com es from the em in en t scholar A ndrew Seth: “ I t appears in connexion w ith the e n ­ deavor o f th e h u m an m ind to grasp th e Divine essence o r th e ultim ate reality o f things, and to enjoy the blessedness o f actual co m m u n io n w ith the highest. . . . T he th o u g h t th a t is m o st intensely p resen t in the mystic is th a t o f a suprem e, all-pervading, and in-dw elling Pow er, in w hom all things are o n e .” 9 T h e theoretical occultist w ould agree w ith th e mystic th a t his goal also is “th e so u l’s u n io n w ith G o d .” T h e occultist seeks to co m p reh en d th e divine essence and achieve u nity w ith it as sincerely as a m ystic. T he difference betw een occultism and mysticism is n o t in w hat ^ is so u g h t, b u t in how it is sought. A survey o f those arcane systems traditionally labeled “ o ccu lt” (al­ chemy, astrology, herm etic philosophy, cerem onial m agic, and so fo rth ), reveals th a t they all have som e lore o r doctrine th a t m u st be learned. An individual cannot sim ply be an alchem ist; one does n o t com e to alchem y th ro u g h a revelatory experience, b u t th ro u g h the study o f a body o f secret know ledge. O n e m u st serve a p erio d o f apprenticeship, and, if fo u n d w orthy, be initiated in to an elite and closed society by those w ho are already alchem ists. H ence occultism is esoteric, i.e., in ­ ten d e d for a small g roup and concealed from th e uninitiated. H e re , th en , lies the fundam ental distinction betw een th e occultist and th e mystic. T h e ultim ate goal— th e realization, “in th o u g h t and feeling, [of] th e im m anence o f the tem poral in th e eternal, and o f the eternal in the tem p o ral”— m ay be the same for b o th ;10 how ever, the

m eans a n d expressions differ. T h e m ystic finds his vision n o n ratio n ally a n d intuitively, th ro u g h th e m ystical experience, th e s u d d e n epiphany, th e revelation. F o r th e m ystic, “ G o d ceases to be an o b jec t, a n d becom es an e x p erien ce.” 11 T his experience o f G o d m o st o ften takes place w ith in th e tra d itio n al s tru c tu re o f a living religious tra d itio n . T h e o c c u ltist, o n th e o th e r h a n d , does n o t seek su d d e n epiphany o r salvation th ro u g h grace; rath e r, th e occu ltist seeks to free th e divine e le m e n t w ith in h im ­ self th ro u g h kn o w led g e a n d study, n o t th ro u g h grace o r revelation. In th is, th e occu ltist is like th e scientist; occultism is, in fact, called th e “ se ­ c re t science” ( Geheimwissenschtift). T h e o c c u ltist’s c o n c e p tio n o f k n o w l­ e d g e , how ever, is n o t q u ite th a t o f th e m o d e m sc ie n tist’s (a lth o u g h th e historical ro o ts o f m o d e rn science are n o t co in cid en tally e m b e d d e d in m edieval occu ltism ); o ccultism claim s a “ h ig h e r” k n o w led g e— a sp iri­ tu al, n o t m erely physical, c o g n itio n . As th e “p eren n ial p h ilo so p h y ,” o c ­ cultism serves as an u n sta b le b rid g e b etw een th e em piricism o f m o d e rn science an d th e faith o f religion. T h e appeal o f such a b rid g e , in th e guise o f T h e o so p h y , to a fin de siecle E u ro p e a n c u ltu re c u t o f f fro m G o d by excessive rationalism a n d th e rise o f m o d e rn science a n d in d u stry , was e n o rm o u s. T h e m o d e rn E u ro p e a n m in d h a d lo st its faith; th e tra d itio n al C h u rc h c o u ld n o lo n g e r pro v id e it a d ire c t line to G o d . T h e scientific positivism th e n p rev alen t in E u ro p e a n c u ltu re d id n o t o ffer spiritual revelation; p eo p le lo o k ed b e ­ y o n d tra d itio n al relig io n an d science to m e e t th e ir spiritual needs: O u r c e n tu ry will n o t pass w ith o u t n ew discoveries giving us th e possibility o f m o re p ro fo u n d ly c o m p re h e n d in g th e essence o f h u m a n n a tu re , a n d , possibly, th e day is n o t far d ista n t w h e n a m o re p ro fo u n d u n d e rsta n d in g o f it will lead to th e reco n ciliatio n o f feeling an d k n o w le d g e, will b rin g peace to th e soul an d will d e stro y o n ce a n d fo r all th e feeling o f fear an d te rro r before th e u n ­ k now able an d th e infinite th a t co n sta n tly th re a te n it. O n e th in g w e can p r o m ­ ise: th a t i f it is fated th a t this m e rg in g o c c u r, th e n it will n o t o c cu r in th e area o f n a rro w m aterialism o r fruitless m etaphysics an d tra d itio n a l th e o lo g y .12

T h eo so p h y , as an o c c u lt d o c trin e , o ffered th e possibility o f rea c h in g G o d “ scientifically,” w ith th e rationalistic to o ls at h a n d , bypassing b o th “ n a rro w m aterialism ” and “ tra d itio n a l th e o lo g y .” I t o ffered access to th e divine n o t th ro u g h faith, b u t th ro u g h th e stu d y o f a h ig h e r k n o w l­ e d g e , th ro u g h th e “ secret scien ce.” T o th e m o d e rn E u ro p e a n m in d , w hose loss o f faith th re a te n e d it w ith fra g m e n ta tio n a n d a lie n atio n , this was a seductive offer in d eed . T h eo so p h y , th e n , appealed to m o d e rn E u ro p e an s in th re e im p o rta n t ways. F irst, it offered to resolve th e c o n tra d ic tio n b e tw e en science and relig io n , kno w led g e a n d faith, th e re b y c u rin g th e p o s t-E n lig h te n m e n t psychic sc h iz o p h ren ia th a t h ad led d irectly to th e crisis o f c u ltu re and

consciousness. Second, it dispensed w ith alienating m aterialism by sim ­ ply term in g it “illusory,” and offered m o d e m m an an eternal, spiritual life instead. T h ird , it replaced a w aning C hristianity’s th re a t o f u n e n d u r­ able and eternal to rm e n t in hell (or its m o d ern alternative, pessimistic existentialism ) w ith the m ore so o th in g concepts o f karm a and reincarna­ tio n , thus extending th e existence o f th e soul and providing a w orld th at is cosmically fair and just. T heosophy appealed to Russians educated in the E uropean m anner for the same reasons it appealed to E uropeans. Russians, to o , w ere expe­ riencing a crisis o f culture and consciousness. Russians, to o , so u g h t to bridge the g u lf betw een science and religion. T h e Russians, o f course, refracted T heosophy th ro u g h the prism o f their ow n particular national vision, w ith the result th a t Russian T h eosophy developed a m essianic, distinctly Slavic flavor. As a cultural and intellectual p h en o m en o n o f th e Silver Age, Russian T heosophy is to o im p o rta n t to be ign o red . Research in this area, h o w ­ ever, can be challenging. M aterial is frequently h ard to find; m any librar­ ies did n o t consider th e journals and ephem era o f the occult m ovem ents w o rth preserving; and the m aterial available is often unreliable. M any leading figures o f the various occult m ovem ents deliberately m isrepre­ sented their ow n h istory and activities; th eir faithful ad h eren ts, biogra­ phers, and hagiographers, a lth o u g h enthusiastic, w ere rarely objective. T he need to circum vent an unfriendly censorship in Russia to o k an ad d i­ tional toll on tru th in the p o p u lar press. M uch inform ation m ust neces­ sarily be based on m em oirs, w hich are subject to the caprices o f hum an m em ory. M uch o f th e m aterial re p o rte d in con tem p o rary journals is based on hearsay, ru m o r, and u n su b stan tiated com m ents m ade w ith u l­ terio r m otives, prim arily in th e unreliable sensational press. In spite o f th e particular problem s in h eren t in such research, a study o f T h eosophy in Russia can only enhance o u r u n d erstan d in g and appre­ ciation o f the subtleties o f Russian Silver Age culture. This book, the first such study to be w ritten by a scholar n o t ideologically co m m itted to T heosophy o r A nthroposophy, is designed for a rath er specific purpose: to provide in a single volum e a co h e re n t and contextualized d o c u m e n ­ tary h istory o f the Russian T heosophical M ovem ent. T h e book is in ­ ten d e d for cultural and intellectual historians, literary scholars, philoso­ phers, and o thers w ho are in terested in th e cultural life o f the Russian Silver Age. As a contextual study, this w ork begins w ith a survey o f the occult interests o f Russian educated society from the seventeenth century into the m o d ern period. Because T heosophy is a universal, cosm opolitan p h e n o m e n o n , this study provides a general histo ry o f the p a re n t T heosophical Society and introduces the m ajor figures o f the w orldw ide

T h eo so p h ical M o v e m e n t before focu sin g o n th e fo u n d in g o f th e R u s­ sian S ectio n , its principal m em b e rs, an d th e n a tu re o f its T h eo so p h ical w ork. I t places M m e Blavatsky, T h e o so p h y ’s fo u n d er, in a m o re R ussian c o n te x t th a n will be fo u n d in W estern b iographies. T h e stu d y also cov­ ers th e in d e p e n d e n t R ussian T h e o so p h ic a l circles (i.e., th o se n o t c o n ­ n e c te d adm inistratively w ith th e P a re n t Society), an d traces th e im p act o f th e T h eo so p h ic a T A n th ro p o so p h ic a l schism in E u ro p e a n d Russia. I t includes an o u tlin e o f th e basic te n e ts o f T h eo so p h ical d o c trin e a n d sur­ veys th e polem ics b e tw e en th e T h e o so p h ists and th e ir critics fro m th e areas o f R ussian O rth o d o x y , idealist philosophy, th e a rts, an d th e sci­ ences. I t indicates T h e o so p h y ’s role in th e p h ilosophical dialogues o f th e R ussian creative intelligentsia. Finally, this stu d y chronicles th e dem ise o f th e R ussian T h e o so p h ic a l a n d A n th ro p o so p h ic a l societies in th e p o s t­ rev o lu tio n ary perio d . T h e focus o f this b o o k is specifically o n R ussian T heosophy. A n th ro posophy, as a closely rela te d m o v em e n t, also plays an im p o rta n t ro le in R ussian c u ltu re o f this p e rio d b u t is n o t th e p rim ary su b ject o f this study. Since th e fo u n d e r o f A n th ro p o so p h y , D r. R u d o lf S tein er ( 1 8 6 1 1 9 2 5 ), was h im se lf at o n e tim e an influential T h e o so p h ist, since he h elp ed to shape m o d e rn T h eo so p h y an d was inevitably sh a p ed by it, and since his d e p a rtu re fro m th e T h eo so p h ical Society d id n o t te rm in a te his d ialogue w ith it, A n th ro p o so p h y is in clu d e d in this stu d y insofar as it relates to and illum inates th e R ussian T h eo so p h ical M o v e m e n t.13 T h e b o o k co n tain s a glossary o f co m m o n ly u sed T h eo so p h ical term s, in clu d in g th o se th a t occasionally cro p up in S ilverA ge tex ts, a b ib lio g ra ­ phy o f T h eo so p h ical m aterials, original a n d secondary, p u b lish e d in Russia b etw een 1881 an d 1 9 1 8 , and a general bibliography. T h e first, m o re co m p lete b ib lio g rap h y m akes it possible to d e te rm in e w h e n a n d in w h a t fo rm specific T h eo so p h ical texts becam e readily available to re a d ­ ers o f R ussian. E n g lish , F re n c h , a n d G e rm a n tex ts w ere also accessible, as w ere R ussian tran slatio n s in m anuscript. T his volum e does n o t p resu m e to be exhaustive. Its fu n ctio n is to in tro d u c e an im p o rta n t and com plex su b ject, th e h isto ry o f th e R ussian T h eo so p h ical M o v e m e n t a n d th e general p o sitio n o f T h eo so p h ical th o u g h t in R ussian Silver A ge c u ltu re, to readers unfam iliar w ith its g e n ­ eral c o n to u rs. I t aim s only to p rovide co n te x t; analysis o f literary tex ts o r o th e r w orks o f a rt are b e y o n d its purview . I t d o es, how ever, lay th e g ro u n d w o rk for fu rth e r research by p ro v id in g a general fram ew ork for fu tu re stu d y o f T h eo so p h ical a n d o c c u lt elem ents in Silver A ge w orks. Such studies will show co n cretely th e ways in w h ich an u n d e rsta n d in g o f o ccu lt p hilosophies can ex p an d th e m ea n in g o f S ym bolist texts a n d re ­ veal new in terp retiv e layers.

One A H is to r ic a l S u rv e y o f R u s s ia n O c c u lt I n te r e s ts

T h e R u s s i a n S i l v e r A g e sh a re d in th e u n p re c e d e n te d renascence o f in te re st in o ccultism a n d speculative m ysticism th a t sw ept E u ro p e in the second h a lf o f th e n in e te e n th century. T h a t R ussians w ere p a rt o f this renascence was in n o w ay ex ceptional, fo r m ystical in terests have o fte n fo u n d fertile soil a m o n g th e Slavs. T his la te -n in e te e n th -c e n tu ry fascinatio p o f R ussian e d u c a te d society w ith th e o c c u lt d id n o t n eed to be im ­ p o rte d fro m th e W est; as w ith o th e r ideas a n d p h ilo so p h ies, R ussian c u l­ tu re sim ply b o rro w e d fro m E u ro p e th e external s tru c tu re s th a t gave fo rm an d expression to po w erfu l in d ig e n o u s inclin atio n s. N in e te e n th c e n tu ry occultism in Russia was, in fact, p a rt o f a larger cu ltu ral tra d itio n an d was philosophically rein fo rc e d fro m w ith in . Its ro o ts go back to preC h ristian tim es. In Russia c e rtain p a g a n an d o c c u lt elem en ts persisted in folk beliefs a n d coexisted peacefully w ith C hristian ity (dvoeverie), leaving th e R u s­ sian m in d p red isp o sed to syncretism a n d to le ra n t to w a rd in d e p e n d e n t m ystical experience. L o n g before th e n in e te e n th cen tu ry , Russia h a d an extensive an d flo u rish in g tra d itio n o f w itch craft a n d so rcery (z n a k h a ri, kolduny, kudesniki, jyadalki, ved ’m y), as w ell as m ystical sectarianism ( Khlysty, Belye jyolubi, Skoptsy, a n d so o n ). In a d d itio n , th e R ussian O r ­ th o d o x c h u rc h (lo n g n o te d for its eccentric m ystics) d id n o t discourage p erso n al m ystical expression, even i f such expression did n o t fit exactly w ith in th e p rescrib ed , n a rro w fram ew ork o f d o g m a. T ra d itio n a l O r th o ­ doxy, rigidly s tru c tu re d o n o n e level, was in tellectually ad v e n tu ro u s o n a n o th e r; it always left som e ro o m fo r in d e p e n d e n t, m ystical experience. T h e G n o stic sp eculations an d S o p h io lo g y o f O rth o d o x lay a n d clerical th eo lo g ia n s d u rin g th e R ussian religious renaissance o f th e Silver A ge w o u ld have re su lte d in e x c o m m u n ic a tio n fo r heresy in th e W estern c h u rc h , b u t th ey w ere cautiously to le ra te d in th e E astern C h ristian tra ­ d itio n .

T h e E a rliest T r a d itio n s O c c u lt tra d itio n s (as o p p o se d to folk beliefs a n d su p e rstitio n s) have al­ ways b e e n associated w ith “se cre t w ritin g s” a n d “ m agic b o o k s .” T h e earliest e x ta n t R ussian m agic boo k s (volshebnye kn ig i) are fro m th e sev-

en teen th century. U sed prim arily for fortune-telling (gadanie), these “fo rb id d en ” m anuscripts go back m uch earlier. M any are com pilations o f far older geom antic and astrological texts translated from E uropean, Byzantine, A rab, and Persian sources. T he titles o f these Russian magic books are suggestive: R a fli, Voronograi, Z odii, Mestokryh Zvezdechetd^ Ostrolog, Charovnik^ Volkhovnik, Aristotelevy Vrata, T ainaia tainykh, and K n ig a im enuem aia Briusovskoi K a len d a r’. Som e o f these books continued to interest b o th scholars and general readers and were reis­ sued by the historians A. N . Pypin and M. N . Speranskii at various times d uring the nineteen th century. The w ell-know n Briusovskoi K a lendaK circulated in num erous exemplars; parts o f it w ere published in the o c­ cult journal Izid a as late as 1911—1912. These magic books never disap­ peared, b u t w ere copied and recopied by generations o f Russian readers over the centuries, w ith new texts added from tim e to time. They never had the approval o f th e church, and w ere forbidden by ecclesiastical au ­ thority long before they w ere officially banned by the C ouncil o f the H u n d red C hapters (Stoglav) in 1551; this, needless to say, enhanced rather than dim inished their popularity.1 T he “rational” eig h teen th century .was n o t w ith o u t its ow n occult side. In W estern E urope the excessive rationalism o f the Age o f E n lig h t­ enm ent was counterbalanced by a tendency tow ard the supernatural and occult th a t expressed itself n o t only in the refined speculative mysticism o f Em anuel Sw edenborg (1 6 6 6 —1772), b u t also in a veritable plague o f spirit visitations and w idespread w erew olf and vam pire scares inspired by the folk traditions o f the Slavic and C entral E uropean lands. T he eigh­ teenth century was n o t just the Age o f Voltaire, it was also the Age o f C agliostro, the psychic, occultist, and sorcerer. I t was an age o f m es­ m eric passes, seances, prophecies, magic cures, “ m iracles,” astrology, al­ chemy, anagogy, and occult charlatanism on an international scale. This dualism was m anifested in Russian culture as well. T here the eighteenth century began w ith P eter the G reat’s am bitious attem p t to reform and secularize Russian culture and society. In stitu ted quickly and brutally, his reform s p ro d u ced only the veneer o f rationalism . Beneath th a t veneer still lay the analogical, nonlinear, intuitive frame o f m ind th a t characterizes Russian th o u g h t even today. O ver the course o f the eighteenth century, this analogical m ode o f th o u g h t, coupled w ith the feeling o f spiritual em ptiness induced by “m o d e rn ” rationalism ’s separa­ tio n o f m an from the “ m edieval” traditional church and its values, served to tu rn educated Russians tow ard o th er esoteric systems, notably Freem asonry, by the last q u arter o f the eighteenth century.2 W hile C a th ­ erine II looked w ith disdain on th e occult, it was d uring h er reign, in 1779, th a t the n oto rio u s C o u n t C agliostro visited her capital, bringing w ith him magic cures and new M asonic rites.3

M ost studies assume (although conclusive d ocum entation has never been presented) th a t Freem asonry first came to Russia in 1731, early in the reign o f Em press A nne, w hen either C aptain Jo h n Phillips o r G en­ eral James Keith was nam ed Provincial G rand M aster for M oscow by L ord Lovell, then head o f the G rand L odge o f England. T he popular story o f P eter the G reat having u ndergone a M asonic initiation in E n ­ gland is probably apocryphal. By the m id-eighteenth century, num erous M asonic lodges had form ed in M oscow, St. P etersburg, and the p ro v ­ inces, and had quickly established connections w ith th eir French, Swed­ ish, and G erm an counterparts. Freem asonry flourished in Russia am ong the upper classes. Leading Russian Freem asons o f the period included the w riter and journalist Nikolai N ovikov (1 7 4 4 -1 8 1 8 ), Professor I. G. Shvarts, I. V. L opukhin, and C o u n t I. P. Elagin. As a result o f this occult, particularly M asonic, activity, a new type o f esoteric literature appeared in Russia at th e end o f th e eig h teen th cen ­ tury. It reflected occult interests th at were W estern rather than in d ig ­ enously Russian: M artinism (a blend o f theosophy, Rosicrucianism , and mystical Freem asonry attrib u ted to Louis C laude de Saint-M artin [1 7 4 3 —1803]), the Rose Cross, Illum inism , ancient m ystery cults, philosophical alchemy, and o th e r subjects associated w ith E uropean Freem asonry. T he occult texts th a t began appearing in the last q u arter o f the eighteenth century w ere alm ost exclusively translations o f E u ro ­ pean works and w ere published in Russia either by Nikolai Novikov, w ho operated the university press, o r by Ivan L opukhin, w ho had a se­ cret printing plant in addition to his regular press. N u m b erin g m ore than a h u n d red titles, these texts include translations o f M asonic clas­ sics, Rosicrucian texts, the Bhagavad G ita, the works o f Karl von Eckartshausen, Louis C laude de S aint-M artin, Paracelsus, as well as an th o l­ ogies o f mystical th o u g h t, supernatural events, and prophetic dream s, m uch o f it anecdotal.4 M any o f the incidents recorded w ould be told and retold in journals and anthologies th ro u g h o u t th e n in eteen th and early tw entieth centuries. AU o f these texts w ere popular in their tim e and w ere so u g h t after again at the beginning o f th e tw en tieth century, w hen they w ere advertised n o t only in occult publications, b u t in p o p u ­ lar journals and even in national bibliographies, such as ICnizhnaia letopis\ I f the prom inen t contem porary w riter and historian Nikolai Karamzin called mysticism “preposterology” (vzdorologiia), and if C atherine the G reat viewed spectral visitations w ith co n tem p t and M asonic lodges w ith apprehension, h er mystically inclined grandson, Tsar Alexander I, su rro unded him self w ith intim ates w ho w ere involved w ith the Swedenborgians, Freem asons, Russian mystical sectarians, and th e Bible So­ ciety (these included Prince Aleksandr G olitsyn, R odion Koshelev, the

Baroness von K riidener, and Ekaterina T atarinova).5 It was ru m o red th a t Alexander I him self becam e a Freem ason in 1803. U n d er Prince G olitsyn’s patronage (he was C hief P ro cu rato r o f the H oly Synod and later M inister o f Religious Affairs and E ducation) occult texts and jo u r­ nals (e.g., Sionskii Vestnik) circulated w ith relative freedom , despite offi­ cial ecclesiastical disapproval. By the sum m er o f 1822 th e O rth o d o x church, taking advantage o f A rchim andrite P h o tiu s’s considerable influence on the Tsar, convinced Alexander to confiscate occult books and to ban all mystical and secret societies o n the grounds th a t they w ere engaged in revolutionary activ­ ity, an accusation w ith considerable fou n d atio n , as N icholas I had o p ­ p o rtu n ity to discover in the D ecem brist U prising o f 1825. T he royal decree, however, did n o t eradicate Russian Freem asonry; th e M asonic lodges exercised greater secrecy b u t did n o t discontinue their m eetings and rituals. O ver the course o f th e century many Russian Freem asons also became m em bers o f French, G erm an, English, and Belgian lodges. A lthough N icholas’s co u rt, w hich was m ost unlike A lexander’s, re ­ m ained u n to u ch ed by occult tendencies, educated society’s interest in the subject did n o t lessen; only the means o f its expression was tran s­ form ed. T he wave o f G erm an rom anticism th a t spilled in to Russia d u r­ ing the first quarter o f th e n in eteen th century had carried w ith it a pas­ sion for things occult, fantastic, and supernatural, b o th on a popular and esoteric level. O ne result was the appearance o f a large body o f su p ern at­ ural fiction, again im itating W estern trends and m odels. T he period from 1825 to m id-century was characterized by the flowering o f the Russian supernatural sh o rt story, w hich involved b o th m inor and m ajor w riters (A ntonii P o g o rel’skii, Μ . N . Zagoskin, A. K. Tolstoi, V. F. Odoevskii, Nikolai G o g o l’, Aleksandr Pushkin, and others). I f fewer occult materials w ere being published in Russia by th e m id ­ nineteenth century, it was m ore the result o f the increasingly restrictive system o f censorship created by N icholas I than th e co unteracting effect o f m odern science and philosophical positivism. Books on occult topics had to be passed by b o th governm ent and church censors, and anything th a t looked suspiciously like a th reat to the teachings o r hierarchy o f the O rth o d o x church was n o t published. W hile certain eccentricities o f p er­ sonal behavior (such as atten d in g private seances) m ig h t be overlooked, occultism in print was ta n tam o u n t to spiritual sedition. T he result was th a t in the second half o f th e n in eteen th century Russian presses w ere set up in outposts o f the Russian Em pire and in E uropean cities, notably in Warsaw and Leipzig, and the books p rin ted there were then either q u i­ etly sm uggled o r occasionally “im p o rted ” in to central Russia as “for­ eign” publications (which came u n d er a different set o f censorship re ­ strictions). M aterials also circulated in m anuscript copies.

T h e F r e n c h O c c n lt R e v iv a l T he second half o f the nin eteen th century w itnessed a trem endous boom in occultism . I t started in France and inevitably spilled over into Russia w here, after the death o f the unim aginative N icholas I in 1855, the last three Russian Tsars em braced it enthusiastically. T h e doyen o f n in eteenth-century philosophical occultism , the au th o r o f the F rench occult revival, th e m an w ho is revered as “ one o f the key figures in the history o f m odern occultism ,” was Eliphas Levi (pseudonym o f A l­ phonse Louis C on stan t [1 8 1 0 -1 8 7 5 ]).6 Levi was a defrocked French priest w ho had a long-standing interest in occultism and mystical philos­ ophy. S tarting alm ost alone, he soon gathered aro u n d him a gro u p o f disciples and m ade France the vanguard o f the occult m ovem ent. H is studies, although vague, rom antic, and often contradictory, becam e in ­ creasingly popular and are even today considered classics o f ph ilo so p h i­ cal occultism . H is m ajor w orks, circulating in Russia in translated m an u ­ script, w ere Dojjme et rituel de la haute magie (Paris, 1 8 5 6 ), Histoire de la magie (Paris, 1860), and L a C le f desg ra n d s mysteres (Paris, 1861). Eliphas Levi was an extrem ely influential figure. N o t only did he initi­ ate the occult revival o f the second h a lf o f th e nin eteen th century, he also influenced the w ork o f many others: the French Sym bolist w riters (Charles Baudelaire, A rth u r R im baud, Paul Verlaine, Philippe Villiers de l’Isle-A dam , Joris Karl H uysm ans, Sar [Josephin] Peladan), th e painters o f the Salon de la R ose-C roix, the N abis (especially Paul Serusier and Paul R anson), O dilon R edon, Puvis de Chavannes, Gustave M oreau, Jean Delville, as well as the D u tch artist Jan T o orop, the English preRaphaelite painters, and th e scandalous poets Charles A lgernon Swin­ burne and Oscar W ilde.7 T he British w riter Edw ard Bulwer-L y tto n , him self a Rosicrucian, p u t Levi and his philosophy in to his popular n o v ­ els.8 T he H erm etic O rd er o f the G olden D aw n, w hose m em bers in ­ cluded Irish p o e t W illiam Butler Yeats and th e scholar A . E. Waite, a t­ tem p ted to synthesize the vast and bew ildering body o f occult material in to a system, using Levi as its foundation. M any o th e r occultists based their studies on Levi’s; even the eccentric M m e Blavatsky leaned heavily o n Levi’s w ork for her ow n T heosophical classics. W riting ab o u t the p e ­ riod in general, the popular au th o r A natole France observed: “A certain know ledge o f the occult sciences became necessary for the u n d erstan d ­ ing o f a great n u m b er o f literary works o f this period. M agic occupied a large place in the im agination o f o u r poets and novelists. T he vertigo o f the invisible seized them , the idea o f the unknow n h au n ted th e m .”9 In France, Eliphas Ldvi’s principal disciple was Stanislas de G uaita (1 860—1897). De G uaita, a m orphine addict and decadent p o et, earned

his place in the occult m ovem ent w ith th e publication o f tw o works. T he first (and m ore im p o rtan t) was Le Serpent de la Genese (Paris, 1891), w hich consisted o f tw o parts, Le Temple de Satan and La C le f de la maple noire. T he o th e r w ork was Essais de sciences m audites (Paris, 1894). D e G uaita, to g e th er w ith th e Kabbalist Oswald W irth, Papus, and others, dream ed o f u n itin g occultists everywhere in to a single, u n i­ versal Rosicrucian b ro th erh o o d , for occultism has traditionally been a cosm opolitan and n o t a nationalist p h en o m en o n . T here was to be a place for Russian occultists in this b ro th erh o o d as well. Leading Russian and Polish occultists h ad studied abroad w ith th eir E uropean m entors, and E uropean occultists regularly visited Russia; all necessary lines o f com m unication were already in place. A nother co n trib u to r to th e French occult revival was th e Polish m a th ­ em atician and occultist Joseph H oene-W rohski (1 7 7 8 —1853), w ho strove for the synthesis o f rationalism , religion, and belief in hum an progress. H e was the au th o r o f Messianisme, ou Reform e absolue du savoir hum aine (Paris, 1847), w hich advocated th e u n io n o f religion and philosophy. T he works o f Eliphas Levi and H oene-W rohski subse­ quently influenced Joseph Saint-Yves d ’Alveydre (1 8 4 2 —1910), a stu ­ d en t o f Eastern and W estern occult traditions, and his disciple, G erard Encausse (1 865—1916), w ho w rote prolifically on Kabbalism , alchemy, spiritualism , Rosicrucianism , Freem asonry, Theosophy, and th e T arot, un d er the nam e, fam ous all over E u ro p e, o f Papus. H e was translated into all the E uropean languages, and eleven o f his m ajor works appeared in Russian. H e headed the Faculte des Sciences H erm etiques o f th e U niversite Libre des H au tes Etudes in Paris, w hich attracted Russian students and w hose program form ed th e basis o f num erous private oc­ cult study courses in Russia. Papus was also the head o f L iOrdre du M artinism e and its affiliate, L iOrdre Kabbalistique de la Rose-Croix. Tw o F rench occultists became particularly influential in the Russian co u rt o f N icholas II. The first was Dr. Philippe (N izier-A nthelm e Vachod, 1 8 4 9 -1 9 0 5 ), w ho preceded G rigorii R asputin as spiritual m en to r o f the royal family. T he second was th e celebrated Papus, w ho was a popular and w elcom e visitor at the Russian co u rt. By 1899 Dr. Philippe and Papus had established a M artinist O rd er in the co u rt circle o f St. Petersburg. Tsar N icholas II was an initiate o f this O rder, b u t left the L odge w hen he became m ore seriously co m m itted to Russian O rth o ­ doxy. H is uncles, the G rand Princes Nikolai Nikolaevich and P etr N ikolaevich, as well as o th er m em bers o f th e royal family and num erous m em bers o f the governm ent, co n tin u ed as m em bers o f M artinist and oth er M asonic orders. N ina Berberova, in her book on Russian F reem a­ sonry and the Russian R evolution, p o in ted o u t th a t by 1914 “ there was no profession, no in stitution, no official o r private society, organization o r group in Russia w ith o u t Freem asons.” 10

T he French occult revival, once started , generated interest in many occult and mystical systems. G nosticism , ancient H erm eticism , medieval philosophical alchemy, Kabbalism, and Rosicrucianism were redis­ covered and popularized. Serious scholars o f these disciplines could choose from many reprints and translations o f original texts, as well as new studies o f the m aterial, am ong them M arcellin B erth elo t’s threevolum e Collection des anciens alcbimistes Grecs (Paris, 1887—1888), A. E. W aite’s H erm etic M useum (L o n d o n , 1893), C. W. K ing’s Gnostics an d Their R em ains (2d ed., L o n d o n , 1 887), and G. R. S. M ead’s threevolum e Thrice-Greatest H ermes (L ondon, 1 9 0 6 ).11 In terest in K abbal­ ism p roduced its ow n body o f literature, including A dolphe Franck’s now classic La Kabbale (2d ed., Paris, 1889), Papus’s La Q abalah (Paris, 1892), and Levi’s ow n Kabbalistic studies, La C lef des g ra n d s mysteres (Paris, 1861) and Le Livre des splendeurs (Paris, 1894). Paul C hristian’s Histoire de la magie, du monde surnaturel et de la fa ta lite a travers Ies temps et Ies peuples (Paris, 1870) becam e a basic tex tb o o k for aspiring occultists and journeym an astrologers. Classics o f medieval mysticism, religion, and occultism were reprinted, m aking th e works o f Paracelsus, A grippa von N ettesheim , H einrich K hunrath, R aim on Lully, and Jacob B oehm e, as well as th e later works o f Em anuel Sw edenborg and Klarl von Eckartshausen, easily available to an interested reading public, along w ith new studies o f these mystics and others. This huge body o f occult m aterial, m uch o f it in French and thus easily accessible to educated Russians, soon found its way in to Russia. T he Russian m iddle class and th e creative intelligentsia, cosm opolitan and fairly well read, were acquainted w ith these F rench occult classics. Works by Papus, Levi, St. Yves d ’Alveydre, Karl D uPrel, Camille Flamm arion, Allan Kardec, and Paul Sedir w ere translated in to Russian after 1905. M any Russian readers also read the works o f E uropean authors influenced by Levi and his disciples. Russian literary journals carried arti­ cles by and ab o u t them . T h eir literature was accessible to those w ho did n o t read French and English th ro u g h the co m p eten t translations o f Bal’m o n t, Briusov, and o th er Russian Symbolist writers. T he authors o f th e occult revival are represented in num erous popular texts, such Sofia Ivanovna T ukholka’s O kkuT tizm i mapfiia, w hich p red i­ gested the m ajor nin eteen th -cen tu ry occult trends for the middle-class reader, or Vladim ir Zapriagaev’s series o f paraphrases, in w hich he retold W estern occult texts for a specifically Russian audience unable to read them in the original.12 O n a m ore plebeian level were works like the Dom ashniaia volshebnaia knizhka, a reference book o f fortune-telling and black and w hite magic, w hich had been published in its th irteen th edi­ tion by 1909. Books on dream in terp retatio n , horoscope casting, and collections o f supernatural anecdotes and “tru e stories” w ere also im ­ mensely popular.

T he G olden Age o f Russian occultism came only at the beginning o f the tw entieth century, w hen secret societies and esoteric publications proliferated at an astonishing rate. This was due to the easing o f censor­ ship restrictions by the M anifesto o f O cto b er 17, 1905, which guaran­ teed fundam ental civil liberties, including freedom o f opinion, o f the press, o f assembly, and o f association. Even the m ore restrictive “p rovi­ sional rules” o f N ovem ber 2 4 , 1905, w hich negated som e o f the ad ­ vances m ade in O ctober, did n o t change th e fact th a t things were m uch freer than they had been on O cto b er 16. M ost im p o rtan t, church cen­ sorship was considerably curtailed, thus at last allow ing th e w idespread publication o f occult m aterial in Russia. Spreading doctrines contrary or inimical to the O rth o d o x church was no longer punishable by exile to Siberia, Russian occult interests ran th e entire gam ut: Spiritualism and T h eo s­ ophy attracted the m ost atten tio n and generated the largest n u m b er o f publications, b u t there was also R osicrucianism , alchemy, psycho­ graphology, phrenology, Kabbalism, Yoga, sectarianism , H erm eticism , hypnotism , Egyptian religion, astrology, chirom ancy, animal m agne­ tism , fakirism, telepathy, th e T aro t, and magic (b o th black and w hite). Freem asonry experienced a particular popularity, since several m em bers o f the royal family were active m em bers and p ro tected the m ovem ent w ith their patronage. H u n d red s o f occult societies and circles, registered and unregistered, were form ed in every m ajor city and in the provinces. M ore than eight h u n d red occult titles (excluding belles lettres) were published in Russia betw een 1881, w hen the passion for the occult th at had America and E urope firmly in its grip finally p en etrated th e Russian Em pire, and 1918, w hen scores o f occult societies found themselves banned, their books confiscated, th eir m em bers arrested, and their presses closed dow n by lack o f paper and by Bolshevik order. I f works o f fiction, original and translated, are added to this co u n t, the n u m b er o f occult publications climbs m uch higher. B etw een 1881 and 1918 some thirty occult journals were published, their titles reflecting the wide range o f occult interests: Rebus, Vestnik Teosofii, Iz id a , M en ta lizm , O ttu d a , Russkii Frank-m ason, Spiritualist, Voprosy khirom antii i βίρηοtizm a , Z h u rn a l psikho-£rafolo£ti, and others.

S p iritu a lism By far the m ost popular and w idespread n in eteen th -cen tu ry occult m ovem ent in Russia was Spiritualism . Spiritualism is a belief in the co n ­ tin u ed existence o f th e dead and in th e ability o f th e living to com m uni­ cate w ith them th ro u g h a sensitive, o r m edium . M anifestations o f spirit presence include rapping, table tu rn in g , autom atic w riting, spirit voices,

and ectoplasm ic m aterialization. N in eteen th -cen tu ry Spiritualism took one o f tw o forms. The first was scientific spiritualism (Anglo-American “ m odern Spiritualism ” ), w hich, regardless o f its “o ccu lt” trappings, was essentially positivistic in its insistence th a t th e various Spiritualist p h e ­ nom ena were indeed consistent w ith m o d ern science and w ould eventu­ ally be explained according to the laws o f nature; “scientific” spiritual­ ism attracted the atten tio n o f num erous scientists, w ho carried o u t laboratory research in an attem p t to discover these natural laws. T he sec­ ond was mystical spiritualism (the F rench ceSpiritism ejo o f Allan Kardec [H ippolyte Leon D enizard Rivail, 1 8 0 4 -1 8 6 9 ]), an alternative “reli­ gion” w ith a doctrine o f com pulsory reincarnation (a “soul” achieves spiritual perfection th ro u g h a sequence o f reincarnations). B oth forms o f spiritualism gained popularity in Russia. M odern Spiritualism traditionally dates from M arch 31, 1848, w hen tw o sisters, Kate and M argaret Fox, spoke w ith th e spirit o f a m u rdered peddler in a farm house in H ydesville, N ew York. In th e early 1850s it became the rage in E urope, attracting th e atten tio n o f th e educated public, and converting such divers persons as the artist Alphonse M ucha, the actress Sarah B ernhardt, th e writers V ictor H u g o and Eliza­ beth B arrett Brow ning, and Q ueen V ictoria. Russians w ho traveled abroad had b ro u g h t Spiritualism back to the capitals w ith them by the w inter o f 1852. Initially viewed as a salon en tertain m en t, early Russian Spiritualism consisted prim arily o f table tu rn in g and autom atic w riting; tw o decades w ould pass before it w ould be taken seriously in Russia. French Spiritism had com e to Russia by 1854, in tro d u ced by General A pollon B oltin.13 T he general accessibility o f the French language to e d ­ ucated Russians ensured th a t mystical French Spiritism, rather than A nglo-A m erican Spiritualism , was th e first to becom e popular in Russia. By the end o f the century, however, m ost educated Russians had com e to prefer “ scientific” Spiritualism to its mystical French variant. A t first Russian Spiritualism was lim ited to a small circle o f aristocratic enthusiasts, heirs o f the occult interests o f the S chopenhauer-oriented Odoevskii circle and intim ates o f th e co u rt. T heir m ost p ro m in en t rep ­ resentative was th e w riter A. K. Tolstoi (18 1 7 —1875), w ho had always expressed strong in terest in the occult and supernatural and w ho incor­ porated such elem ents in to his novels, poem s, and sh o rt stories. The Russian philosopher Vladim ir Solov’ev (18 5 3 —1900) later became part o f this circle; Solov’ev at one tim e indulged his interest in Spiritualism and even engaged in autom atic w riting. O th er p ro m in en t early Spiritu­ alists included C o u n t G rigorii Kushelev-B ezborodko; V ladim ir D al’, the com piler o f the famous Tolkovyi slovar\ Professor P. D. Iurkevich, a re ­ ligious philosopher and Vladim ir Solov’ev’s teacher at M oscow U niver­ sity; and Academ ician Μ . V. O strogradskii.

W hen th e internationally famous m edium D aniel D unglas H o m e (1 8 3 3 —1886) visited Russia, he was a frequent guest at the estate o f A. K. Tolstoi. H om e was b u t one o f th e many Spiritualists and m edium s invited to Russia to give seances for th e co u rt o f A lexander II. H o m e further strengthen ed his ties to Russia by m arrying C o u n t KushelevB ezborodkols sister-in-law, A lexandrina de Kroll, and spending a large p art o f every year in Russia.14 Spiritualism co n tinued to be a “ hobby” pursued by the Russian courts o f A lexander III and N icholas II. They sponsored Spiritualists, occultists, and mystics o f various stam ps, and in the face o f ecclesiastical disapproval gave th em th e lim ited p ro tectio n afforded by royal p atro n ag e.15 In the 1870s th e figure o f Aleksandr Nikolaevich Aksakov (1 8 2 3 1903), nephew o f the w riter Sergei Tim ofeevich Aksakov and younger cousin o f the Slavophile thinkers Ivan and K onstantin Aksakov, came to dom inate the field o f Russian Spiritualism. A. N . Aksakov’s early passion for Sw edenborg soon awakened a m ore general in terest in spiritualism and mysticism. Pursuing this interest in Russia, how ever, was decidedly difficult. T he church censorship prevented him from p rinting Spiritualist texts in Russia and his requests to publish a Russian Spiritualist journal were repeatedly rejected. Aksakov published m any translations o f wellknow n E uropean Spiritualist works, frequently at his ow n expense, at a press in Leipzig. A. N . Aksakov was also an au th o r o f original works on Spiritualism. H is A n im ism a nd Spiritism (first Russian edition, 1 893), in w hich he strove to be as scientific and objective as possible, rem ains an im p o rtan t w ork in the history o f Spiritualism even today; Karl D uPrel, th e G erm an mystical philosopher, called it “the p henom enology o f Spiritualism .” Founder, editor, and publisher o f the prestigious journal Psychische Studien (Leipzig, 1 8 7 4 -1 9 3 4 ), Aksakov was well know n and respected in Spiritualist circles in P etersburg, L o n d o n , and o n th e co n tin en t. In 1900 he was invited to chair th e Paris Spiritualist Congress. A. N . Aksakov was aided in his w ork in Russia by tw o professors from the Im perial University in St. P etersburg, th e chem ist Aleksandr M ikhailovich B utlerov (1 8 2 8 -1 8 8 6 ; B utlerov was m arried to A. N. Aksakov’s cousin) and the zoologist Nikolai Petrovich Vagner (1 8 2 9 1907). T he tw o professors, by th eir cautious su p p o rt o f the validity o f m edium istic phenom ena, to o k Spiritualism o u t o f the realm o f a m ere diversion for a bored, sensation-seeking society or a serious pursuit for only a small elite group o f scientists and philosophers, and tu rn ed it into an earnest controversy in th e Russian press. Professor Vagner w rote a letter to the editor o f Vestnik Evropy3 “Po povodu spiritualizm a” ; it was published in the April 1875 issue. This letter was followed by a storm o f articles in the press, especially in Peterburgskie Vedomosti3 Novoe Vremia,

and Birzhevye Vedomosti. M ore serious polem ics co n tinued in the m onthly journals. I t was trem endous free advertising for Spiritualism. In the w inter o f 1 8 7 5 -1 8 7 6 a Scientific Com m ission for th e Study o f M edium istic P henom ena, headed by D m itrii M endeleev (1 8 3 4 -1 9 0 7 ), the internationally know n chem ist and father o f the Periodic Table o f Elem ents, was form ed at th e St. Petersburg Im perial University. Scandal tore the Com m ission apart w hen M endeleev was accused o f attem p tin g to sabotage the investigation by publishing his negative conclusions ( M aterialy dlia suzhdeniia o spiritizm e [1 8 7 6 ]) before th e investigation had properly b e g u n .16 O pposing prejudices battled it o u t in th e press. Public opinion came dow n on the side o f th e Spiritualists, and Russian Spiritualism becam e solidly en trenched in th e culture o f its tim e. T he Spiritualists w ere d eterm ined to extract a full recantation from M endeleev; the best they w ould d o , however, was a co n tem p tu o u s, g rudging adm ission o f the existence o f m edium istic phenom ena som e tw enty years later. In January 1894, th e Spiritualist V. I. Pribytkov glee­ fully rep o rted th a t M endeleev had finally ad m itted th e existence o f such phenom ena. “D o you now adm it, D m itrii Ivanovich, the possibility o f the phenom ena themselves?” asked Pribytkov. “T hey exist. I ’ve seen them , b u t they happen very rarely. They are n o t w o rth paying atten tio n to, and n o serious, busy person is going to get involved w ith th e m ,” answ ered M endeleev.17 T he popularity o f Spiritualism co n tinued to increase in Russia. O n O cto b er 11, 1881, th e Spiritualists cautiously launched th eir first R us­ sian journal, Rebus. Rebus was th e brainchild o f V iktor Ivanovich P ri­ bytkov (d. 1910). H e and his wife, the m edium Elizaveta D m itrievna Pribytkova (d. 1896), w ere p ro m in en t St. P etersburg Spiritualists. Rebus (“M an is the m ost im m ediate and m ost com plex o f rebuses” ) began publication cam ouflaged as a weekly games and popular en ter­ tainm ent m agazine. I t gradually becam e apparent, however, th a t one o f the “gam es” involved was Spiritualism. Articles on autom atic w riting, Theosophy, animal m agnetism , and o th e r related topics soon appeared am ong the puzzles and rebuses. Thom as Berry, in his survey o f Russian Spiritualism , suggests th a t Rebus was allowed to exist specifically “b e ­ cause o f the interest in Spiritualism by th e royal family and high soci­ ety.” 18 Even w ith royal tolerance, certain censorship problem s could n o t be avoided in 1881 and the new journal had its share o f editorial h ead ­ aches; n o t until the end o f 1905 do th e w ords “ In d ep en d e n t O rgan o f the Russian Spiritualists” appear on Rebus’s title page. Pribytkov rem ained ed ito r o f Rebus until D ecem ber 1903, w hen ill­ ness forced him to surrender editorship o f th e journal to Pavel Aleksan­ drovich Chistiakov. Rebus’s offices m oved from St. Petersburg to the A rbat in Moscow. As an editor, Chistiakov was m ore biting, m ore sar-

castic than Pribytkov; he was less saccharine, m ore p en etratin g and witty. Rebus to o k on a different form at and a decidedly different flavor. Chistiakov’s own colum n, “ O n the P ath ,” has som e o f th e jo u rn al’s m ore interesting com m ents. O n O cto b er 31, 1905, alm ost im m ediately after th e O cto b er M ani­ festo, Chistiakov applied to th e Russian authorities for official registra­ tio n o f his unofficial M oscow Spiritualist Circle, w hich had been m eet­ ing openly since 1897. T he resulting “Russian Spiritualist Society for Study in the Areas o f Experim ental Psychology, Psychic Phenom ena, and Spiritualism ” was chartered in early 1906 and had its first official m eeting on M ay 26 o f th a t year. It began w ith th irty-eight charter m em ­ bers b u t m em bership soon grew in to the hundreds. O ne o f the first official acts o f the Russian Spiritualist Society was to organize a Russian Congress. O n O cto b er 2 0 —2 7 , 1906, th e longplanned C ongress o f Spiritualists was finally held in M oscow .19 A l­ th o u g h it was a closed C ongress for subscribers and collaborators o f Rebus and their invited guests, m ore th an four h u n d red people a t­ tended; m ore than three h u n d red h ad to be tu rn ed away because they lacked invitations (and th e hall could .not hold th em anyway). V. I. P ri­ bytkov was nam ed h o n o rary chairm an while P. A. C histiakov chaired the sessions. T he w eek-long Spiritualist Congress allowed representation by o th er occult groups, including the Theosophists, w ho us· I th e C o n ­ gress as a forum to acquaint interested Russians w ith their fo u n d er and their doctrine. In addition to all aspects o f Spiritualism and Spiritism, o th er occult sciences included in th e program o f th e Congress w ere n u ­ m erology, astrology, alchemy, and Kabbalistic studies. This was n o t surprising, as many people had an interest in m ore than one area o f occultism . A fter 1906, Rebus and the Russian Spiritualist Society w ere n o longer the exclusive arbiters o f Russian Spiritualism , although they co n tin u ed to dom inate it. V ladim ir Pavlovich Bykov, leader o f the M oscow Circle o f D ogm atic Spiritualists, im m ediately initiated a n u m b er o f new Spiri­ tualist journals and newspapers ( Spiritualist, Golos Vseobshchei L iu b vi, and O ttuda) in com petition w ith Rebus.20 I f Rebus represented th e p o in t o f view o f “scientific Spiritualism ,” then Bykov’s Spiritualist focused on the “religious” dim ension o f Spiritualism ; it frequently represented F rench mystical Spiritism, b u t w ith a C hristian twist. Each issue o f Spir­ itualist had som e articles o n C hristian m orality and ethics, theoretical Spiritualism , and practical Spiritualism (records o f seances, descriptions o f phenom ena). Bykov and Chistiakov polem icized w ith each oth er, at times rancorously, in Spiritualist and Rebus. Bykov finally gave up Spiri­ tualism and retu rn ed to th e O rth o d o x church.21

Spiritualism exuded a stro n g influence on Russian m iddle- and upperclass society. Vladim ir Bykov estim ated th at 1,672 Spiritualist circles, of­ ficial and unofficial, existed in M oscow and St. Petersburg at the begin­ ning o f the century. Bykov also offered figures th a t provide a genera) profile o f the Spiritualists am ong th e Russian population. H e claimed that his three publications had m ore than fifty thousand subscribers. “ C ategorizing my subscribers on the basis o f em ploym ent and social p o ­ sition, it is possible to determ ine quite accurately th a t persons living in the countryside constituted 27% o f my readers; civil servants and mili­ tary personnel, 53%; professionals and the independently wealthy, 12%; clerics, w ho doubtlessly subscribed to my publications and journals with the goal o f preparing themselves for the struggle against this evil, 8%.”22 Bykov is one o f the few Spiritualists (or ex-Spiritualists) actually to offer som ething approaching statistics, b u t all com m entators, b o th pro- and anti-Spiritualist, stress th at Spiritualism involved an enorm ous num ber o f people. Spiritualism ’s prim ary im pact was o n the m iddle and upper classes. Its considerable influence am ong m em bers o f the co u rt and the govern­ m ent has yet to be specifically docum ented, b u t it cannot be denied. A m ong the creative intelligentsia, Spiritualism appealed prim arily to those w ho m odeled themselves and their lives on the French D ecadents, many o f w hom openly indulged their occult and spiritualist interests. T hus the Symbolist p o et Aleksandr Blok atten d ed seances, presided over by the famous Polish m edium Jan G uzik, at Professor A nichkov’s hom e, while Valerii Briusov, an occasional co n trib u to r to Rebus and a fre­ quenter o f seances, contem plated w riting a novel called The M edium . The young Symbolist A ndrei Belyi, who had a falling o u t w ith Briusov, quite seriously accused the older p o et o f being “a pow erful hypnotist” w ho was attacking him w ith “ m edium istic m anifestations.”23 Belyi also caricatured the mystical anarchist Georgii Chulkov, him self passionately interested in extrasensory and spiritualist phenom ena, as C hukholka, an unconscious m edium transm itting dem onic forces, in his novel The S il­ ver Dove. Spiritualism also inspired a large body o f popular reading, es­ pecially the many novels o f Vera Kryzhanovskaia (“ R ochester” ), a so­ cially prom inent St. Petersburg Spiritualist, A. A. fo n -N o l’de, Andrei Zarin, and M m e Blavatsky’s sister, Vera Zhelikhovskaia. Spiritualism ’s popularity did n o t sit well w ith th e O rth o d o x church, despite m any Spiritualists claim ing to be “ C hristian Spiritualists” (as o p ­ posed to “ pagan Spiritualists” and “atheist” or “heretical” [B uddhist] Theosophistsu ). Bykov described a typical m eeting o f “ Christian Spiri­ tualists” in his ow n Circle: “After th e singing o f the usual prayers o f the Christian church, a lecture ab o u t th e C hristian-Spiritualist m ovem ent is

read; this is follow ed by a general discussion a n d an experim ental m edium istic sean ce,”24 W hile Spiritualism easily m ade ro o m fo r C hristianity, a n d Spiritualists p rep ared them selves by prayer and fasting to w ith stan d th e “ dark forces” th a t som etim es m anifested them selves a t seances, the converse was n o t tru e : C hristianity c o u ld n o t m ake ro o m fo r S piritu al­ ism. T h e clergy invoked th e Biblical p ro h ib itio n against Spiritualism and all form s o f m agic: “T h e re shall n o t be fo u n d am o n g you any o n e th a t m ak eth his son o r his d a u g h te r to pass th ro u g h th e fire, o r th a t u seth d iv ination, o r an o b serv er o f tim es, o r an e n c h an te r, or a w itch , o r a charm er, o r a c o n su lte r w ith fam iliar spirits, o r a w izard , o r a n e c ro m a n ­ cer, F o r all th a t d o these th in g s are an a b o m in a tio n u n to th e L o rd ” (D e u t. 1 8 :1 0 —12). T h ey clin ch ed th e ir a rg u m e n ts w ith references to Saul’s fateful visit to th e W itch o f E n d o r ( I Sam . 2 8 ). B u t th e ir a rg u ­ m en ts d id n o t sto p serious Spiritualists. Spiritualism appealed to its p ractitio n ers for various reasons. F o r m any, it was ju st fun. Ladies a n d g e n tle m e n w ere given an o p p o rtu n ity to sit to g e th e r in d ark en ed ro o m s, h o ld in g h an d s w ith o u t censure; c rit­ ics freq u en tly leveled th e accusation th a t Spiritualism openly e n c o u r­ ag ed sexual depravity. Spiritualism also titillated an d am used w ith im m e ­ d iate “ m iracles” : levitating fu rn itu re , stran g e knocks, a u to m a tic w rit­ in g , spirit voices, d isem b o d ied h an d s, ap p aritio n s, unseen violins, flowers d ro p p in g from th e ceiling, a spooky e n c o u n te r w ith th e land “ b e y o n d .” F o r som e it b ro u g h t co n so la tio n , c o n ta c t w ith th e ir d ear d e ­ p a rte d , a n d “p r o o f ’ th a t d e a th w o u ld n o t really be th e e n d o f th e m ­ selves e ith e r, at a tim e w h e n th e c h u rc h ’s prom ises o f an afterlife w ere no lo n g er so convincing. F o r o th e rs it was an entirely new d ire c tio n in “ scientific rese a rc h ,” o n e th a t s to o d o n th e th re s h o ld o f a b re a k th ro u g h to a new set o f n a tu ra l laws “p ro v in g ” th e existence o f life b e y o n d d eath. S piritualism spoke to th e p le th o ra o f n eu ro ses g e n e ra te d by a d isin te ­ g ratin g , m o rb id , and d e c a d e n t age.

Theosophy A lth o u g h n o t as s tro n g in term s o f n u m b ers o f a d h e re n ts as S piritualism , T h eo so p h y was th e m o st im p o rta n t o ccu lt tre n d o f th e late n in e te e n th c e n tu ry in term s o f cu ltu ral and philosophical c o n te n t. A llegedly coined by th e n e o -P la to n ist A m m onius Saccas (c. 160—2 4 2 ), th e w o rd theosophy com es fro m th e L ate G reek and m eans “ D ivine W isd o m ” ( theos, “ g o d ,” a n d sophia, “w isd o m ” ). T h e term theosophy m ay be used to refer to any system o f speculative m ysticism , fro m n e o -P la to n ism to th e p h ilosophy o f V ladim ir S olov’ev. O ver th e years it has com e to be specifically associ­ ated w ith th e esoteric philosophies o f th e m edieval m ystics (Jacob

B o eh m e, M eister E ck h art, Paracelsus, and o th ers). T h e o so p h y (w ith a small “ t ” ) as speculative m ysticism sh o u ld be d istin g u ish ed from T h e o s­ o p h y (w ith a capital “T ” ) as an o rg an ized m o v em e n t o f th e late n in e ­ te e n th century. T h e o so p h y (w ith a capital “ T ” ) was th e creatio n o f H e le n a P etro v n a Blavatsky (1 8 3 1 -1 8 9 1 ) , an expatriate R ussian th e n living in N ew York City.25 In 1 8 7 5 , this enigm atic w o m an , assisted by th e A m erican C o lo ­ nel H e n ry Steel O lc o tt ( 1 8 3 2 -1 9 0 7 ) , o rg an iz ed th e T h eo so p h ical S oci­ ety. T h e Society becam e p o p u la r a n d so o n claim ed ten s o f th o u sa n d s o f m em bers w orldw ide, sp reading eventually to Russia and a ttra c tin g n u ­ m ero u s a d h e re n ts from th e e d u c a te d m iddle classes. M o d e m T h e o s o ­ phy, regardless o f its su b seq u e n t c o n te m p t for Spiritualism (its greatest c o m p e tito r for th e h earts an d m inds o f th e m ystically in clined), evolved o u t o f Spiritualism . T h e tw o fo u n d ers o f T heosophy, C o lo n el H e n ry O lc o tt and M m e Blavatsky, b o th began th e ir o ccu lt careers in S p iritu al­ ism , th e fo rm er as a jo u rn a list, th e la tte r as a m edium . A lth o u g h M m e Blavatsky w o u ld c o n tin u e to believe in m edium istic p h e n o m e n a as psy­ chic manifestaYion, she a n d th e T h eo so p h ical p ro g ra m reje cte d th e idea o f “ spirits.” T h e o so p h y ’s a n d S piritualism ’s “ th eo lo g ic a l” divergences did n o t in h ib it people fro m ad h e rin g sim ultaneously to b o th m ove­ m ents. T h e C h a rte r o f th e T h eo so p h ical Society (1 8 7 5 ) states th a t th e p rin ­ cipal aim and o b ject o f th e Society is to fo rm th e n ucleus o f a U niversal B ro th e rh o o d o f H u m an ity , w ith o u t d istin ctio n by race, color, creed, sex, o r caste. T h e U niversal B ro th e rh o o d is based o n th e idea o f th e O n e Life, prev alen t in B uddhism a n d H in d u ism , w hich lies a t th e core o f T heosophy. T h e O n e Life is th e Soul o f th e W orld, th e u ltim ate reality in w hich each living th in g shares. A lth o u g h T h eo so p h ists deny it, th eir d o c trin e is essentially a form o f p an th eism . T h u s all h u m an beings have a single spiritual n a tu re and strive to w a rd a single spiritual goal. T h e Society’s subsidiary goals are to sp o n so r th e study o f an cient a n d m o d ­ ern religions, p h ilosophies, an d sciences, a n d to d e m o n stra te th e im p o r­ tance o f such study, since only in this way can th e single M ystery W is­ d o m be distilled o u t o f th e m , an d finally to investigate th e unexplained laws o f n a tu re a n d th e psychical pow ers la te n t in h u m a n beings. O n this last p o in t scientific Spiritualism a n d T h eo so p h y have som e th in g s in c o m m o n , ahd th e ih o v em en ts m ig h t have draw n closer to g e th e r h ad it n o t b een for M m e Blavatsky’s personal anim osity to w a rd th e L o n d o n Society for Psychical R esearch a n d to w ard leading Spiritualists, w ho co l­ lu d ed to expose h e r celeb rated psychic m anifestations as sophisticated trickery and by w h o m she c o n seq u en tly felt betrayed. T h eo so p h y provides its ad h eren ts w ith a s tru c tu re d W eltanschauung, yet at th e sam e tim e it is a m o rp h o u s e n o u g h to a c co m m o d ate interests

in o th e r form s o f m ysticism , occu ltism , a n d relig io n . M rs. A nnie Besa n t (1 8 7 4 —1 9 3 3 ), o n e o f th e M o v e m e n t’s leaders, p o in te d o u t th a t T h eo so p h y , A s the o rigin and basis o f all re lig io n s, . . . ca n n o t b e th e a n ta g o n ist o f any; it is in d e ed their purifier, revealin g th e valuable in ner m ea n in g o f m u ch th a t has b e c o m e m isch iev o u s in its extern al p resen ta tio n by th e p erversen ess o f ig n o ­ rance and th e accretion s o f su p erstition ; b u t it r e co g n iz es and d efen d s itse lf in ea ch , and seeks in each to u nveil its h id d en w isd o m . N o m an in b e c o m in g a T h e o so p h ist n e e d cease to be a C hristian, a B u d d h ist, a H in d u ; he w ill b u t acquire a d eep er in sig h t in to his o w n faith , a firm er h o ld o n its spiritual tru th s, a broader u n d ersta n d in g o f its sacred te a c h in g s.26

F ro m th e T h e o so p h ic a l p o in t o f view, an e n lig h te n e d individual c o u ld lay o u t th e T a ro t o n T uesday n ig h t, p a rticip a te in sectarian ecstasy o n W ednesday, speak to his T h e o so p h ic a l circle o n T h ursday, a n d receive th e E u ch arist o n S unday w ith no violence d o n e to his in n e r convictions. T h e o so p h y as a system c a te re d to th e eclectic spirit o f th e age. L e a d in g T h eo so p h ists defined th e ir d o c trin e as a syncretic, m ysticoreligious p h ilosophical system , “ a t o n ce an a d e q u a te p h ilo so p h y a n d an all-em b racin g relig io n a n d e th ic ,” w h ich is fo u n d e d o n an an cien t e so ­ teric tra d itio n .27 M m e Blavatsky called this tra d itio n , w hich she c o n sid ­ e re d th e o n e su p rem e source o f all th e religions in th e w o rld , th e M ystery W isd o m , o r th e S ecret D o c trin e . T his “ esoteric p h ilo so p h y re c ­ onciles all relig io n s, strips every o n e o f its o u tw a rd , h u m a n g a rm e n ts, an d show s th e r o o t o f each to be id en tical w ith th a t o f every o th e r g reat re lig io n .”28 T h u s T h e o so p h y affirm s “ th e antiquity, co n tin u ity , an d es­ sential u n ity o f esoteric te a c h in g .” T h e T h eo so p h ists claim ed th a t “ sages an d p ro p h e ts b e lo n g in g to th e m o st diverse ages have reach ed co n clusions id en tical in su b stan ce th o u g h differin g in fo rm , reg a rd in g th e first a n d last o f tru th s , a n d always a lo n g th e sam e p a th o f in te rio r in itia tio n an d m e d ita tio n .”29 S tu d y in g th e w o rld ’s g re a t religions th ro u g h a m e th o d o f “ com parative e so tericism ,” T h e o so p h y a tte m p te d to distill o u t th is universal m o th e r d o c trin e. T his S ecret D o c trin e , M m e Blavatsky alleged, h a d b e e n jealously g u a rd e d fo r th o u sa n d s o f years by a B ro th e rh o o d o f ageless ad ep ts (she called th e m M asters, o r “M a h atm as” ) w h o h a d lo n g co n cealed it from pro fan e eyes. “ P roofs o f its diffu sio n , a u th e n tic rec o rd s o f its history, a c o m p le te chain o f d o c u m e n ts, sh o w in g its c h aracter an d p resen ce in every lan d , to g e th e r w ith th e te a c h in g o f all its g re a t a d e p ts ,” she in ­ sisted, “ exist to this day in th e secret cry p ts o f libraries b e lo n g in g to th e O c c u lt F ra te rn ity .” 30 M rs. B esant e la b o rate d fu rth e r: T h e c o m m o n p rop erty o f th e relig io n s o f th e w o rld asserts th e ex isten ce o f an origin al tea c h in g in th e cu sto d y o f a B r o th er h o o d o f great spiritual T eachers,

w h o — T hem selves th e o u tc o m e o f p a st cycles o f ev o lu tio n — acted as th e in ­ stru c to rs an d g uides o f th e child h u m a n ity o f o u r p lan et, im p a rtin g to its races a n d n a tio n s in tu rn th e fu n d a m e n ta l tru th s o f religion in th e fo rm m o st a d a p te d to th e idiosyncrasies o f th e re c ip ie n ts.31

In th e seco n d h a lf o f th e n in e te e n th century, th e “ B ro th e rh o o d o f th e W h ite L o d g e , th e H ie ra rc h y o f A d ep ts w h o w atch over a n d gu id e th e e v o lu tio n o f h u m anity, an d w h o have p reserv ed these tru th s u n im ­ p a ire d ,” d e c id e d th a t th e tim e h ad co m e fo r these tru th s to be revealed to th e w o rld .32 U sin g M m e Blavatsky as a c h an n el, th e M asters “ o r ­ d e re d ” h er to fo u n d th e T h e o so p h ic a l Society as a m eans o f d issem in at­ ing this universal o c c u lt d o c trin e to th o se p re p a re d to b en efit fro m it. T aking c o n tro l o f h e r th o u g h ts , th e M asters c o m m u n ic a te d th ro u g h h er th e tw o m ajo r texts o f th e M o v e m e n t, Isis U nveiled a n d The Secret D oc­ trin e , w hich she th e n w ro te d o w n. M m e Blavatsky’s p ersonal fascination w ith E astern religions, B u d ­ dhism in p a rticu la r, led to th e in clusion o f a vast q u a n tity o f B u d d h ist m aterial in T heosophy. B u d d h ism ’s g re a te st c o n trib u tio n to T h e o so p h y was an exotic vo cab u lary a n d an involved co sm o lo g y th a t le n t T h e o s o ­ phy a ce rtain piquancy. A d h e re n ts also b o rro w e d th e unfam iliar b u t ex­ citin g activities o f m e d ita tio n , c h a n tin g , a n d incense b u rn in g ; som e m ade a h a b it o f w earin g o rien tal g a rm e n ts. T h e o so p h ic a l practices a d d e d e x c item e n t to th e m u n d an e n e ss o f everyday life. A lth o u g h T h e o so p h y is so m etim es called “n e o -B u d d h is m ,” “W est­ ern B u d d h ism ,” an d even “ esoteric B u d d h ism ,” it w o u ld be facile to dism iss T h e o so p h y as n o th in g m o re th a n a fo rm o f B u d d h ism , since it did n o t a d o p t E a ste rn ideas (m aya, karm a, re in c a rn a tio n , nirvana) c o n ­ sistently a n d w ith o u t som e W estern refinem ents. A nd T h e o so p h y b o r­ ro w e d n o t only fro m B u d d h ism ; it b o rro w e d selectively fro m any a n d all tim es a n d th o u g h t system s in its a tte m p t to show th e fu n d am e n ta l u n ity o f th e esoteric tra d itio n ; it th e n laid th e re su ltin g , highly syncretic m a te ­ rial over a q u a si-B u d d h ist cosm ology. T h e resu lt is a m ystical m elange d ’idees th a t draw s fro m all w o rld religions, m ajo r a n d m in o r, p ast a n d p re se n t, fro m o c c u lt system s such as K abbalism , H e rm e tic ism , G n o s ti­ cism , a n d alchem y, fro m an c ie n t m ystery cults ( o f O siris, A donis, D ionysos, M ith ra , th e M ysteries o f E leusis, O rp h ism ), a n d from any philo so p h ical-relig io u s system th a t m ay co m e to m in d (P lato n ism an d n e o -P lato n ism , P y th a g o re a n ism , m edieval speculative m ysticism , F re n ch occultism ). As an in te rn a tio n a l m o v em e n t, T h e o so p h y was by n o m eans m o n o ­ lithic. M any individuals em b ra ce d T h eo so p h y , b u t w ere u n a b le to em brace th e T h e o so p h ic a l Society, p refe rrin g to w o rk alone o r in sm all circles o f lik e -m in d ed , in d e p e n d e n t T h e o so p h ists, o r even to co m b in e th e ir T h e o so p h y w ith th e teach in g s o f rival o c c u lt schools. O th e rs, al-

th o u g h w o rk in g w ith in th e fram ew ork o f th e Society, follow ed th eir ow n radically d iffe re n t visions. T h e S ociety was also h e ir to all th e ills th a t plague any large o rg a n iz a tio n , such as financial p ro b le m s, b u re a u ­ cracy, p ersonal rivalries, a n d stru g g les fo r pow er. I t ex p erien ced several schism s an d co n sid erab le fra g m e n ta tio n after th e d e a th o f its fo u n d e r in 1 8 91. A fter M m e Blavatsky’s dem ise, C o lo n e l O lc o tt p resid e d over th e S o ­ ciety u n til his o w n d e a th in 1 9 0 7 , a t w hich tim e M rs. A nnie B esant, a social re fo rm e r a n d F abian socialist w h o cam e to T h e o so p h y o nly in 1 8 8 9 , to o k over th e S ociety a n d fo u n d in it a new o u tle t fo r h e r activ­ ism . M rs. B esan t’s s tro n g em phasis o n B rahm anism , h e r p ersonal in ­ v o lv em e n t in In d ia n co lonial p olitics, h e r excessive d eference to m orally q u e stio n a b le elem en ts w ith in th e T h e o so p h ic a l ad m in istra tio n in th e face o f s tro n g o p p o sitio n fro m th e m em b e rsh ip , a n d th e d ire c tio n o f h er leadership (th e p ro cla m a tio n o f a y o u n g B rahm in boy as th e new M es­ siah) lo st th e T h e o so p h ic a l Society m any m em bers. T h e first years o f h e r presidency saw th e resig n a tio n o f th e highly resp e c te d scholar, G. R. S. M ead , w h o h a d b e e n M m e Blavatsky’s private secretary a n d th e n e d ito r o f The Theosophical R e v ie w , a n d seven h u n d re d B ritish m em b ers to form a separate Q u e st Society. M rs. B esan t’s te n u re also saw th e secession o f th e e n o rm o u s A m erican S ectio n from th e p a re n t S ociety because o f ir­ reconcilable adm inistrative an d p ersonal disag reem en ts. W hile M rs. B esant, w h o h e a d ed th e T h e o so p h ic a l Society u n til h er d e a th a t an a d ­ vanced age in 1 9 3 3 , was able to inspire p assio n ate d e v o tio n a n d a d m ira ­ tio n , she was also capable o f in sp irin g th e ir opposites. T h e m o st d u rab le intellectu al challenge to T h e o so p h y cam e fro m A nth ro p o so p h y , a m o v em e n t fo u n d e d by th e G erm an T h e o s o p h is t R u d o lf S tein er (1 8 6 1 —1 9 2 5 ). T h e A u stria n -b o rn D r. S tein er, scholar, p h ilo so ­ p h e r, a n d o c c u ltist, first becam e affiliated w ith th e T h e o so p h ic a l Society in 1 9 0 2 . I n O c to b e r o f th a t year, M rs. B esant traveled to G erm an y to officially c h a rte r th e G e rm a n S ection a n d to accept R u d o lf S tein er in to th e E so teric S chool, an elite in n e r circle o f advanced occultists. H e was a m an d e stin e d to succeed: his k n o w led g e was universal, his gifts c o n sid ­ erable, his p erso n al h o n o r u n im p each ab le, a n d his en erg y b o u n d less. S tein er jo in e d th e T h e o so p h ic a l Society because a t th e tim e he shared a large p a rt o f its vision; he m o st certainly fo u n d it ad v an tag eo u s to have th e po w er an d s u p p o rt o f an in te rn a tio n a l o rg a n iz a tio n b e h in d him . W ith in a few years it becam e clear to M rs. B esant a n d to o th e r T h eo so p hists th a t, w hile D r. S te in e r’s o ccu lt science h a d m u c h in c o m m o n w ith T h eo so p h y , th e re w ere also critical differences. N o r c o u ld it have es­ caped M rs. B esan t’s n o tice th a t D r. S tein er was p o ten tia lly charism atic a n d by 1905 h ad dev elo p ed his o w n cu lt follow ing, all q u ite legitim ately w ith in th e perim eters o f th e T h e o so p h ic a l Society. H is follow ing grew every year.

S te in e r’s relatio n s w ith M rs. B esant becam e increasingly com plex, for h e was n o t a follow er an d c o u ld n o t approve o f e ith e r h e r leadership style o r its d ire c tio n . H is c o n n e c tio n w ith th e T h e o so p h ic a l S ociety fi­ nally e n d e d o n Jan u ary 1 4 , 1 9 1 3 , w h e n M rs. B esant w ith d re w th e C h a r­ te r o f th e G e rm a n S ection. A lm o st th re e th o u s a n d T h e o so p h ists, m ore th a n h a lf th e e n tire G erm an S ectio n , seced ed w ith S tein er to fo rm th e A n th ro p o so p h ic a l S ociety o n F e b ru a ry 2 , 1 9 1 3 . M rs. B esant realized th e rift was inevitable, b u t sincerely h o p e d th a t A n th ro p o so p h y w o u ld c o n tin u e to c o n trib u te to th e gen eral W ork. A lth o u g h h e gave his m o v e m e n t a d iffe re n t n a m e , R u d o lf S te in e r’s A n th ro p o so p h y is a refin em e n t a n d re d ire c tio n o f T h eo so p h y , n o t a m u ­ tually exclusive m o v em e n t. S tro n g ly influ en ced by M m e Blavatsky’s n e o -B u d d h istic w orks, S tein er was able to s tru c tu re a n d system atize h er ra th e r am o rp h o u s esoteric universe, b u t he w a rn e d against e ith e r an e x ­ clusively o rien tal o r an exclusively occid en tal process o f th in k in g . T h e general w orldview a n d th e basic cosm ology o f h e r T h e o so p h y a n d his A n th ro p o so p h y , how ever, even given som e difference in em phasis and term in o lo g y , rem a in e d sim ilar. B o th m o v em en ts s o u g h t to achieve clair­ voyance th ro u g h th e use o f in te lle c t an d reaso n ; b o th s o u g h t to over­ com e m aterialism a n d r e tu rn th e spiritual d im en sio n to h u m a n life; b o th desired to heal th e rift b etw een relig io n a n d science; b o th re p re se n te d a m o d e rn gnosis. W hile T h e o so p h y em p h asized th e o rie n ta l, in tu itiv e, passive principle as th e m eans to w a rd o c c u lt ends, A n th ro p o so p h y focused o n th e o cci­ d e n ta l, ratio n al, active principle. S te in e r avoided th e T h e o so p h ists’ e x ­ cessive d e p e n d en c e o n orien tal vo cab u lary a n d s o u g h t to p re se n t reli­ gious a n d o c c u lt c o n cep ts u sin g W estern term s. “T h e essential differ­ ence b e tw e en In d ia n T h e o so p h y an d A n th ro p o so p h y ,” explained E d o u a rd S ch u re, a T h e o so p h ist m u ch tak en w ith th e S teinerian variant, “ lies in th e su p rem e ro le a ttrib u te d by A n th ro p o so p h y to th e C h rist in h u m a n ev o lu tio n a n d also in its c o n n e c tio n w ith th e R osicrucian tra d i­ tio n ,” a specifically W estern , n o t E a ste rn , esoteric tra d itio n .33 S te in e r’s A n th ro p o so p h y , in fact, o ffered a “ C h ristian T h e o so p h y ,” a “W estern g n o sis,” as an alternative to th e “ H in d u g n o sis” o f M m e Blavatsky’s T h e o so p h y .34 T h e d isa g re em e n t b e tw e en T h e o so p h y an d A n th ro p o s o ­ p h y was m o re a m a tte r o f m eans a n d m e th o d , n o t o f u ltim a te goal. S te in e r’s m ajo r appeal was th e re fo re to th o se w h o felt d raw n to th e basic co n c ep t o f T h eo so p h y , b u t w h o felt u n c o m fo rta b le w ith its alien B u d d h ism . F o r th e m S tein er h a d a W estern vocabulary, based o n W est­ e rn E u ro p e a n o c c u lt, religious, an d p h ilosophical tra d itio n s to w hich th ey c o u ld relate. F o r th o se w h o w ere un w illin g o r u n ab le to su b stitu te M m e Blavatsky’s H im alayan M ahatm as for th e C h rist, S tein er fo rm u ­ late d th e “ C h rist Im p u ls e ,” sh o w in g C h rist to be th e axis o f h u m a n evo­ lu tio n , a n d n o t ju st o n e o f th e T h e o so p h ists’ M ahatm as.

A n d S tein er h a d a d iffe re n t style; a c ertain T h e o so p h ic a l factio n fo u n d his m o re disciplined, m asculine, “ G e rm a n ic ” scientific-philosophical a p ­ p ro ac h to Geheimwissenscbaft m o re con v in cin g th a n th e relatively c h a ­ o tic , fem inine, in tu itiv e T h e o so p h y o f M m e Blavatsky a n d M rs. B esant. T h e o so p h y was u n d o u b te d ly a m o v e m e n t d o m in a te d by s tro n g w o m en . I t was fo u n d e d by a w o m a n , its m o st n o ta b le lead er was a w o m a n , m o st T h eo so p h ical circles w ere ru n by w o m e n , th e m em b ersh ip was p r e p o n ­ deran tly fem ale, a n d T h e o so p h y was closely c o n n e c te d w ith th e W o m e n ’s M o v e m e n t. Such an e n v iro n m e n t m u st certainly have been th re a te n in g to m any E u ro p e a n m ales o f th e p e rio d ; to th e m D r. S tein er appeared m o re “ serio u s” a n d “ in te lle c tu a l,” as w ell as less “ se n tim e n ­ ta l.” H is style a n d “ ra tio n a l” a p p ro ach to o c c u lt th o u g h t certainly a p ­ pealed to m any y o u n g d e c ad e n ts lo o k in g fo r a s tro n g m asculine role m odel. T h e p o p u larity o f T h e o so p h y a n d sim ilar m o v em e n ts is c o n sisten t w ith several rela te d d ev elo p m en ts in n in e te e n th -c e n tu ry in tellectu al h is­ tory. T h ese in clu d e th e b eg in n in g s o f analytical psychology, ex p an d ed n ew research in com parative relig io n an d m y th , th e g ro w th o f o riental stu d ies, a n d a new, m o re so p h isticated a p p re c ia tio n o f E astern arts. G ro w in g o u t o f ro m a n tic ism ’s in te re st in m y th o lo g y an d relig io n (J. G. H e rd e r, A n to in e Pernety, th e Schlegels, Schelling, S c h o p e n h a u e r, F rie ­ d rich C re u z er, an d o th e rs), this in te re st ex p lo d ed in th e se co n d h a lf o f th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry in th e w orks o f th e O rie n to lo g ists F ried rich M ax M u lle r a n d P aul D e u sse n , th e e th n o lo g is t Sir Jam es F ra ze r a n d th e C a m b rid g e S ch o o l, a n d in th e w o rk o f W ilhelm W u n d t, G ustav Fechn e r, E d o u a rd v o n H a rtm a n n , H a ra ld H o ffd in g , a n d E m ilc B o u tro u x o n th e p h ilo so p h y an d psychology o f relig io n . N e w tran slatio n s o f im p o r­ ta n t H in d u w orks (particularly th e U p an ish ad s an d th e B h a g a va d G ita ), advances in E g y p to lo g y a n d th e archaeology o f th e H o ly L a n d , a n d n ew discoveries o f G n o stic texts m ad e available to E u ro p e a n readers th e p r e ­ viously u n k n o w n spiritual rec o rd s o f o th e r c u ltu res a t precisely th e tim e w h e n th eir ow n religious c u ltu re was collapsing. T h e o so p h y pick ed up th ese various in te rests, pack ag ed th e m , a n d m ade th e m available to a large p o p u la r audience. Essentially, th e im m ense p o p u larity o f S piritualism , T h e o so p h y , an d o th e r o c c u lt m o v em en ts was an expression o f so ciety ’s d isc o n te n t w ith th e m aterialism th a t d o m in a te d th e se co n d h a lf o f th e n in e te e n th c e n ­ tury. M aterialism , w ith its scientific positivism , its analytical, fra g m e n t­ in g n a tu re , its denial o f su p ersen so ry p h e n o m e n a an d spiritual ex p eri­ en ce, a n d its em phasis o n scientific m e th o d , th re a te n e d to u n se a t m an fro m his cen tral p o sitio n in th e universe an d his spiritual kinship w ith G o d . T h e o ccu lt m o v em en ts h o p e d to balance th e m aterialism o f th e age by re m in d in g m an o f his sp iritu al, in tu itiv e side. S piritualism s o u g h t

to resolve the metaphysical dilem m a by using science against itself to “prove” the existence o f the spiritual w orld. T heosophy recognized b o th a physical and spiritual reality, and so u g h t to show th a t “N ature is n o t ‘a fortuitous concurrence o f atom s,’ and to assign to m an his rig h t­ ful place in the scheme o f th e U niverse.” “The occult side o f N atu re,” exclaimed the Theosophists, “has never been approached by th e Science o f m odern civilization.”35 T heosophy offered som ething im p o rtan t to its adherents: a seemingly stable belief system w ith claims to a venerable past. W hen b o th n in e­ teen th -cen tu ry scientists and metaphysicians began to expose traditional Christianity as incapable o f m eeting the needs o f m o d ern m an, people tu rn ed to other belief systems to fill th e void. T heosophy appeared at a tim e o f crisis, w hen it seem ed to many th a t science and religion had b e ­ com e m utually exclusive, th a t C hristian morality was petit-bourgeois, and that cultural traditions had becom e generally discredited. T h eo so ­ phy prom ised the u n ion o f science and religion; M m e Blavatsky even used the subtitle “The Synthesis o f Science, Religion, and Philosophy” for her m ajor w ork, The Secret Doctrine. A. P. S innett claimed the eso­ teric doctrine was “th e missing link betw een materialism and spiritual­ ity,” and insisted th a t “ the esoteric doctrine finds itself u n d er no obliga­ tion to keep its science and religion in separate com partm ents. Its th eo ry o f physics and its th eo ry o f spirituality are n o t only reconcilable w ith each other, they are intim ately blended to g e th er and in terd ep en d en t.” 36 T heosophy also prom ised a m illenia-old esoteric tradition th at w ould dispel “the restless discontent w hich arises chiefly from th e im patient and hopeless feeling th a t life is unintelligible, unjust, and unm anage­ able,” and th a t was a great deal.37 It accounted, to a large extent, for T heosophy’s im m ense popularity. T hus the Theosophists were seekers, m aking their ow n co n trib u tio n to th e w aning cen tu ry ’s search for tim e­ less tru th s, new values, and a sense o f o rd er to replace w hat had been lost. In spite o f its laudable hum anitarian goals and extravagant claims to be the synthesis o f science, religion, and philosophy, T heosophy was u n ­ able to provide the panacea th a t w ould cure the tw entieth cen tu ry ’s cri­ sis o f culture and consciousness. I t did n o t really have the pow er to change anything. A lthough the Theosophists term ed their cosm ology “scientific,” it was no m ore scientifically dem onstrable than th a t o f the Spiritualists; in fact, b o th Spiritualism and T heosophy were destined to be the victims o f scientific positivism. W ith the rise o f contem porary sci­ ence and especially th e trem endous advances in nuclear physics, the ex­ otic B uddhist cosmology, reified by the Theosophists, looked like a fairytale, while Spiritualism ’s “scientific” seances were repeatedly ex­ posed as the m anipulation o f gullible dupes by ingenious medium s.

I n its p o p u lar, exoteric fo rm , T h e o so p h y becam e a pseudoscientific an d p seu d o relig io u s m eans o f p e rp e tu a tin g , in spite o f its B u d d h istic co lo rin g , an essentially C h ristian m orality, b u t as a d o c trin e it lacked th e p o w er to fill th e spiritual v acuum left by lo st religious faith. T h e o so p h y ad v o cated “rig h t th in k in g ,” giving T h e o so p h ic a l ex p lan atio n s in place o f C h ristian ones. O n closer e x a m in atio n , M rs. B esan t’s T h eo so p h ical “ rig h t th in k in g ,” in spite o f h e r perso n al con v ersio n to B rahm anism , r e ­ vealed h e r original ro o ts in F ab ian socialism an d b o re an u n c a n n y re se m ­ blance to Ju d e o -C h ristia n ethics. T h e o so p h y o ffe red co n so la tio n to a suffering h u m a n ity in a seem ingly cruel an d irra tio n al w o rld , b u t its d o c ­ trin e tu rn e d o u t to be spiritually im p o te n t. T h e o so p h y o ffe red a “ m o d ­ e rn ” relig io n w ith exotic term in o lo g y a n d d iffe re n t ritu a l, b u t ultim ately it was n o m o re th a n a m o d e rn sect, philosophically u n d iscip lin ed an d o fferin g a q u e stio n a b le gnosis. E ven if T h e o so p h y was o ld w ine in new b o ttle s, we m u st n o t lose sig h t o f its im m ense p o p u larity a n d th e in te rn a tio n a l en th u siasm w ith w h ich it was received a t th e b e g in n in g o f th e tw e n tie th century. N o r sh o u ld w e fo rg e t th a t in Russia it was n o t m erely a n o s tru m for th e e d u ­ ca te d m id d le class’s spiritual in d isp o sitio n , b u t also o n e possible so lu ­ tio n to th e literary a n d artistic e lite ’s crisis o f c u ltu re a n d consciousness. E ven if it is an a b e rra n t tw ig o n th e tre e o f R ussian Silver A ge religious an d p h ilosophical th o u g h t, T h e o so p h y m u st necessarily be in clu d e d in any discussion o f this p e rio d , especially since so m any o f its m ajo r re p re ­ sentatives en g a g ed in serious d ialo g u e w ith it (V ladim ir S o lo v ’ev, N ikolai Berdiaev, A n d rei Belyi, D m itrii M erezhkovskii). T h e o so p h y sh ared th e visionary goals o f th e R ussian relig io u s renaissance: it stressed th e b irth o f th e “N e w M a n ,” s o u g h t to recover G o d , a n d em phasized th e prim acy o f th e n o u m e n a l over th e p h e n o m e n a l. Like th e N ietzsch ein flu en ced , G o d -seek in g intellig en tsia, T h e o so p h ists lo o k e d to th e “ re ­ valu atio n o f all values” a n d th e b irth o f a n e w c u ltu re. T h e y su b scrib ed to th e “ R ussian Id e a ” a n d saw in T h e o so p h y th a t spiritual u n io n o f E ast an d W est th a t w o u ld b rin g Russia o u t o f its lo n g sleep a n d sen d it fo rth to save decaying W estern civilization fro m th e d e a d e n in g h a n d o f po si­ tivism a n d scientific m aterialism . T h e fu n d am e n ta l features o f th e T h e o so p h ic a l w orldview b ro u g h t it in to close philo so p h ical affinity w ith th e R ussian S ym bolist m o v em e n t an d even c o n trib u te d to th e p o sitin g o f S ym bolism as w orldview . Like T h eo so p h y , Sym bolism (as conceived by A n d rei Belyi a n d V iacheslav Ivanov, for exam ple) was a b ro ad ly ph ilo so p h ical-relig io u s m o v em e n t; like T h eo so p h y , its n a tu re was essentially sy n th etic an d eclectic; like T h e o so p h y it h o p e d to herald a new, m o re spiritual age. W ritin g a b o u t T h e o so p h y in 1 9 0 1 , th e op tim istic y o u n g A n d rei Belyi, ju st o n th e th re sh o ld o f his career, saw T h e o so p h y as “p re p a rin g m an k in d for th e acceptance o f th e A p p ro a c h in g T r u th .” 38

I t is n o t surprising th a t R ussians p articip a te d so w h o leh earted ly in th e la te -n in e te e n th -c e n tu ry o c c u lt revival, o r th a t th ey em b raced w h a t T h e ­ osophy claim ed to offer. T h e B ritish scholar E. M . B u tler observes th a t “ th e kind o f m ysticism th a t accom panies th e m o re am b ig u o u s types o f m agic pullulates in th a t enigm atic c o u n try [R ussia], so m u ch m o re closely akin to th e E ast th a n to th e W est. I t has h a rb o u re d in th e past an d d o u b tless will c o n tin u e to h a rb o u r h u n d re d s o f th o u sa n d s o f m ys­ tics, m ages, sages, m agicians, and h oly m en o f every conceivable d escrip­ tio n .” 39 T h e R ussians certainly to o k a lead in g role in p ro d u c in g m ages at th e tu rn o f th e century. If, in th e seco n d h a lf o f th e last cen tu ry , th e R ussian em pire c o n trib u te d T urgenev, D ostoevsky, T o lsto i, a n d C h ekhov to w o rld lite ra tu re , if it gave Tchaikovsky to w o rld m usic, Lobachevskii to m ath em atics, M en d eleev to science, and L en in to politics, th e n it also gave th e w o rld , w ith in a few years o f each o th er, G rigorii R asputin (1873? 1 9 1 6 ), a sectarian m o n k w h o rose fro m Siberian o b ­ scurity to d ire c t th e fate o f Russia by c o n tro llin g th e royal fam ily; G eorgii G u rd jie ff (1 8 7 2 -1 9 4 9 ) , w h o , to g e th e r w ith P. D . O uspensky (1 8 7 8 — 1 9 4 7 ), dev elo p ed a form o f Yoga fo r th e W estern m in d ; an d M m e Blavatsky, w h o in v en te d a n ew “ relig io n o f rea so n ” th a t survives to this day.

Two T h e E a rly D a y s o f T h e o s o p h y in R u s s ia (1875- 1901)

T h e M a g n ific e n t M ad am e T h e w orld cam e to k n o w th e fo u n d e r o f T h e o so p h y variously as H e le n a Blavatsky, M m e Blavatsky, o r H . P. B. A t th e b e g in n in g she was E lena P e tro v n a G an, th e d a u g h te r o f C a p ta in P e te r A lekseevich G an (1 7 9 8 — 1 8 7 3 ; o f th e H a h n v o n R o tte n s te in -H a h n family, princes o f M e ck ­ le n b u rg ) a n d E lena A nd reev n a G an (n ee F adeeva, 1 8 1 4 —1 8 4 2 ). E lena P e tro v n a was b o rn in E katerinoslav o n July 31 (O .S .), 1 8 3 1 . F ro m c h ild h o o d she c re a te d for h e rse lf a private w o rld o f im aginative fantasy; h e r y o u n g e r sister, Vera Z helikhovskaia (1 8 3 5 —1 8 9 6 ), w o u ld later claim th a t E lena P e tro v n a h a d revealed a ten d e n c y to w a rd so m n am b u lism a n d m ed iu m ism a t an early age. She was only eleven years o ld w h e n her m o th e r d ied , at w h ich tim e she w e n t to live w ith h e r m atern al g ra n d ­ m o th e r, th e scholarly E lena Pavlovna Fadeeva (nee Princess D o lg o rukaia, 1 7 8 7 —1 8 6 0 ), in Saratov a n d th e n in Tiflis. H e r life w ith th e Fadeevs was privileged. She was b r o u g h t u p by governesses, tu to r e d to speak several lan g u ag es, given th e ru n o f an excellent library, a n d al­ low ed to travel w ith h e r aristocratic c o u sin s.1 T h e Fadeevs w ere k n o w n fo r th e ir in tellig en ce a n d creativity. F ro m th eir m id st cam e several w riters: E lena A nd reev n a G an, E lena P e tro v n a ’s m o th e r, was a novelist o f th e 1840s w h o w ro te u n d e r th e p se u d o n y m “ Z in aid a R -va” ; th e critic Belinskii called h er “ th e R ussian G eo rg e S a n d .” G eneral R ostislav A ndreevich Fadeev, E lena P e tro v n a ’s u ncle, was a ch a rm in g m an k n o w n for his w ar tales. Vera P e tro v n a Z h e likhovskaia, E lena P e tro v n a ’s sister, was a jo u rn a list a n d prolific, if m in o r, novelist. O n e o f E lena P e tro v n a ’s m ate rn a l au n ts was a W itte by m arriage; h e r fam ous so n , C o u n t Sergei W itte (M in ister o f F inance u n d e r A lexander III a n d N icholas II) was E lena P e tro v n a ’s co u sin , as was th e travel w rite r an d jo u rn a list E vgenii L ’vovich M arkov. E lena P e tro v n a beg an h e r “o c c u lt e d u c a tio n ” w hile living w ith th e Fadeevs. H e r g rea t-g ra n d fa th er, P rince Pavel D o lg o ru k ii, h a d b e e n in ­ te re ste d in occultism an d his extensive lib rary was available to E len a P e ­ tro v n a as she was g ro w in g up in h e r g ra n d m o th e r’s h o m e. O n e o f th e fre q u e n t visitors to th e Fadeev h o u se h o ld was P rince A leksandr G o ­ litsyn, ru m o re d to be a F reem aso n and o ccu ltist (th e G olitsyn fam ily h a d

for generations been interested in occultism ; this Prince Golitsyn was apparently the grandson o f A lexander I ’s intim ate); he to o k a stro n g in­ terest in the precocious and eccentric young girl. Shortly after Prince G olitsyn’s departure from Tiflis in 1849, Elena Petrovna, alm ost eigh­ teen, m arried forty-year-old N ikifor Vasil’evich Blavatskii (1 8 0 9 -?), vice governor o f Erevan.2 W ithin three m onths she had left her husband and started an exotic life o f traveling, possibly w ith Prince G olitsyn’s assis­ tance. Relatively little is know n ab o u t Elena P etrovna’s life betw een 1849 and 1859. She left Russia th ro u g h C onstantinople and later claimed to have been in Egypt, India, T ib et, the M iddle East, and o th e r o u t-of-theway places. These claims are now a traditional p art o f the Blavatsky “ m y­ thology,” b u t they rem ain un d o cu m en ted and unsubstantiated. She probably did travel to Turkey, Greece, Egypt, France, and England. Theosophical biographers, however, provide a detailed itinerary for these years th a t takes Elena Petrovna aro u n d th e w orld an d even places her in N ew O rleans, investigating vood o o cults, visiting Indians, and crossing the U nited States in a covered w agon.3 It is an incredible itiner­ ary th a t w ould have been extrem ely difficult (if n o t im possible) even for a w om an o f unlim ited means in the nin eteen th century, and Elena P e­ trovna, despite her aristocratic lineage, did n o t have unlim ited means. Russian letters and m em oirs indicate th at Elena Petrovna was indeed traveling, b u t w ith an opera singer nam ed Agardii M etrovich and w ithin the Russian Em pire and in E urope. Certainly she was in L o n d o n in the early 1850s, and in 1858 she m et th e m edium D . D. H o m e in Paris w here she became an habituee o f Spiritualist circles, learning th e te c h ­ niques and style she later w ielded so successfully. In the w inter o f 1859—1860 Elena Petrovna retu rn ed to Russia and w ent to stay for a tim e w ith her recently w idow ed sister, Vera Petrovna Zhelikhovskaia (th en Iakhontova), in the n o rth ern Russian city o f Pskov. Zhelikhovskaia later w rote ab o u t her sister’s retu rn , describing how Elena Petrovna came accom panied by esprits frappeurs and soon became the center o f atten tio n as curious Pskovians came to observe her m edium istic phenom ena.4 She recounted how Elena Petrovna levitated tables (or m ade them to o heavy to pick up), held seances at w hich the Russian p o e t Aleksandr Pushkin appeared, and unm asked a m urderer by m eans o f h er incredible psychic powers. Elena Petrovna allegedly had the ability to “see” people w ho had lived in a particular room o r house in th e past; she was a superb clairvoyante. T hus, by 1859, Elena P e­ trovna was already assiduously cultivating the occult aura th at w ould surround her for the rest o f her life. After visiting in Pskov w ith h er sister, Elena Petrovna traveled south, to see family in Odessa and Tiflis. She spent considerable time mollifying relatives w ho were less than anxious to receive the itinerant black sheep

o f the Fadeev family. Later she claimed th a t she left Russia again in 1863 to travel in Italy, G reece, Egypt, th e Far East, and again in T ibet, w here she allegedly became a chela, (disciple) and received instruction in o c­ cultism from the M ahatm as o f th e G reat W hite B ro th erh o o d . This jo u r­ ney, to o , is u n docu m en ted , alth o u g h sensational rum ors circulated c o n ­ cerning her various activities, occult and secular, d uring this period. She actually rem ained in Russia m uch o f this tim e, had an affair, became pregnant, and gave birth to an illegitim ate child. A cripple, her son died w hen she w ent abroad again w ith Agardii M etrovich in 1864 o r 1865. She retu rn ed hom e to bu ry the child and left Russia again only in 1871. It is highly unlikely th a t she reached the T ibetan b order d uring this p e ­ riod o r became a disciple o f th e M ahatm as, as som e biographers claim .5 H ad she done so, she w ould have experienced difficulties in com m unica­ tion; although she spoke several E uropean languages, she knew no o ri­ ental languages, ancient o r m odem . By 1873 M m e Blavatsky, as Elena Petrovna now called herself, had m ade her way to the U n ited States. H aving setd ed in N ew York, she supported herself by w riting sensationalistic new spaper articles o f an anti-Jesuit and anti-PapaI ten o r; she co n trib u ted exotic descriptions o f the Caucasus for Am erican readers; and she w rote o n Spiritualism , the rage o f the day. She had becom e intim ately acquainted w ith various Eastern occult systems and actively encouraged h er Am erican colleagues to see her as a clairvoyant, a m edium , and a mystic. In those days she was com m itted to Spiritualism , b u t M m e Blavatsky was n o t b o rn to be a fol­ low er in o th er people’s m ovem ents. In N ew York City, o n S eptem ber 8, 1875, she and C olonel H en ry O lco tt (1 8 3 2 -1 9 0 7 ) pioneered a new d i­ rection in occultism by founding th e Theosophical Society. O lco tt later chose to use N ovem ber 17, th e Society’s cerem onial inauguration date, as th e official foun d in g date. M eeting w ith lim ited success in the U n ited States (even after th e p u b ­ lication o f her massive occult tex tbook, Isis Unveiled), M m e Blavatsky and C olonel O lco tt decided in 1878 to travel to India to set up an In ­ dian headquarters for th e Society. In India they found a natural ally for their w ork in D ayananda Saraswati, w ho was p rom ulgating a revised m odern variant o f H induism , th e A ry a Sam aj. M m e Blavatsky also agi­ tated am ong the natives against English rule and succeeded in convinc­ ing the local authorities th a t she was a spy for th e Russians (G reat Britain was m uch exercised over the “ G reat G am e,” and feared a Russian incur­ sion in to India durin g those years). This accusation o f spying w ould oc­ casionally resurface d u rin g the rem ainder o f her life, b u t M m e Blavatsky reveled in the notoriety.6 These tw o T heosophists traveled extensively o n the subcontinen t, setting up num erous branches o f their new Society and locating its headquarters in Adyar, M adras, w here the paren t branch

o f th e Society rem ains to this day. M m e Blavatsky k e p t an a c c o u n t o f th e ir jo u rn e y a n d se n t it to th e R ussian new spaper, Moskovskie Vedom osti, to earn extra m oney.7 Early in 1 8 8 4 M m e Blavatsky was ready to r e tu rn to E u ro p e , an d by M arch she was in Paris to proselytize for th e T h eo so p h ical Society. By th e n , th e E nglish Society for Psychical R esearch (SPR ) h a d b eco m e in ­ tere ste d in th e p h e n o m e n a a ttrib u te d to th e T h e o so p h ic a l S ociety’s enigm atic leader.8 M m e Blavatsky’s arrival in E u ro p e p re se n te d th e S P R w ith an o p p o rtu n ity to investigate h e r claim th a t she in d e e d possessed psychic pow ers, an d to settle o n ce a n d fo r all th e q u e stio n o f th e exis­ ten ce o f M a d a m e ’s M ahatm as. A n e n d o rse m e n t fro m th e S P R w o u ld have g u a ra n te e d th e success o f th e T h eo so p h ical Society, b u t M m e Blavatsky was u n d ersta n d ab ly w ary o f th e ir investigation. Aside fro m h er q u e stio n a b le psychic pow ers, M a d a m e ’s M ah atm as an d th e G reat W h ite B ro th e rh o o d w ere th e single g re a te st p ro b le m s in establishing th e credibility o f th e T h eo so p h ical M o v e m e n t. In th e b e ­ g in n in g , M m e Blavatsky’s ow n T eachers (w h o m she id en tified as M aster M o ry a a n d K o o t H o o m i), as well as th e o th e r “ a d e p ts,” h a d rem ain ed m o re o r less a lo o f a n d iso lated in th e H im alayas, c o m m u n ic a tin g w ith th e w o rld only th ro u g h th e ir chela, M m e Blavatsky. T h e ir existence h ad n o t b e e n em pirically d e m o n stra te d and re ste d exclusively o n th e claims o f M m e Blavatsky h e rse lf an d th e c o rro b o ra tio n o f h e r su g gestible co l­ leagues, C o lo n e l O lc o tt, A. P. S in n e tt (1 8 4 0 —1 9 2 1 ), an d th e R everend C . W. L e a d b ea te r (1 8 4 7 —1 9 3 4 ). M ystics a n d visionaries m ay experience subjective h allu cin atio n s th a t are en tirely real to th e m , an d th ese m ay have b e e n th e o rig in o f M m e Blavatsky’s M ahatm as. B u t h e r M ahatm as h a d recently b ecom e im p a tie n t w ith psychic co m m u n ic a tio n ; th ey had tak en to crafting letters o r c o m m u n ic a tin g directly w ith various leading m em b ers o f th e T h eo so p h ical Society. T h ese letters w o u ld d ro p from th e ceiling o r be m ysteriously delivered in o th e r ways. T h e w ritte n c o m ­ m u n icatio n s o f th e M ahatm as c o u ld n o t be explained by subjective h a l­ lu cin a tio n an d w ere u n co n v in c in g as m edium istic p h e n o m e n a ( “p rec ip i­ ta tio n ” ). W h e n tall, silent, ascetic H in d u s , tu rb a n e d a n d dressed in w h ite, actually beg an to appear to individuals, th e S P R suspected a hoax. By M ay 1 8 8 4 a m ajo r scandal becam e inevitable w h e n M m e Blavatsky lea rn ed th a t h e r o ld friend a n d con fed erate back a t T h eo so p h ical H e a d ­ q u a rte rs in A dyar, M rs. E m m a C o u lo m b , h ad tu rn e d o n her. Privy to th e details o f M m e Blavatsky’s past, M rs. C o u lo m b publicly a n n o u n c e d th a t “ M ad am e Blavatsky was a frau d , . . . M ad am e h a d forced h er [M rs. C o u lo m b ’s] h u sb a n d to b u ild a tra p d o o r to deliver M a h atm a letters and trick apparatus in th e O c c u lt R o o m .” She ad d e d th a t “M ad am e h ad b o r­ ro w e d m o n ey fro m h e r in C airo an d never repaid it; M ad am e h a d o n ce

had a h u s b a n d n a m e d A gardi M e tro v itc h ; ail o f th e E nglish w ere d upes a n d id io ts w h o h a d been tak e n in by H . P. B .’s in v e n te d M ahatm as; th e real p u rp o se o f th e T h e o so p h ic a l Society was to o v e rth ro w B ritish rule in In d ia .”9 E m m a C o u lo m b th e n p ro c e e d e d to p u b lish M m e Blavatsky’s in crim in atin g letters in a local colonial paper. T his d id n o t help M m e Blavatsky’s case w ith th e S ociety for Psychical R esearch. T h e y sen t a m em b er, R ich ard H o d g s o n , to In d ia to investigate in situ. W h en he ar­ rived in A dyar he d isco v ered th a t th e evidence in th e O c c u lt R o o m h a d b een d e stro y e d a n d its walls new ly plastered. In th e e n d , th e S P R d id n o t find for M m e Blavatsky. A fter th re e m o n th s in A dyar, H o d g s o n c o n c lu d e d th a t M m e Blavatsky was guilty o f palpable frau d a n d h e r follow ers o f excessive credulity. H e discovered th a t th e M a h atm a letters w ere w ritte n exclusively in E n g lish , in M m e Blavatsky’s h a n d w ritin g , a n d d rew his ow n conclusions. H e also learn ed th a t th e H in d u s living a t th e T h e o so p h ic a l H e a d q u a rte rs w ere accesso­ ries to th e plo t. T h e re w as n o th in g at all o c c u lt a b o u t th e O c c u lt R o o m . G iven th e evidence, R ich ard H o d g s o n was g e n e ro u s in his su m m a tio n fo r th e S P R re g a rd in g M m e Blavatsky: “F o r o u r o w n p a rt, w e reg a rd h e r n e ith e r as th e m o u th p ie c e o f h id d e n seers, n o r as a m ere vulgar ad v e n ­ turess; w e th in k th a t she has achieved a title to p e rm a n e n t rem e m b ra n ce as o n e o f th e m o st accom plished, in g en io u s, a n d in te re stin g im p o sto rs in h isto ry .” 10 M m e Blavatsky h a d little choice b u t to b raz e n o u t th e en su in g scan ­ dal. T h e S P R m ay have blackened h e r p erso n al re p u ta tio n , b u t it was u n ab le to d estro y th e T h e o so p h ic a l Society. She d e fe n d e d h e rse lf w ith p o rte n to u s references to m ysterious “ F orces o f D ark n ess” th a t w ere tr y ­ in g to d iscred it h e r a n d th e M o v e m e n t. B u t in spite o f th e disgrace, she c o n tin u e d to w in new co n v erts to T heo so p h y . H e r success was d u e as m u ch to h e r p e rso n ality as to th e appeal o f h e r S ecret D o c trin e . T h e m ag n ificen t M ad am e was a m aste r o f o c c u lt publicity. C ircum stances d ic ta te d th a t she c o n tin u e g e n e ra tin g th e m edium istic p h e n o m e n a even w h e n it becam e clear th a t ex posure was inevitable. She h a d b e g u n h e r professional life as a S piritualist an d knew ju st h o w co n v incing such p h e ­ n o m e n a c o u ld be; th ey w ere se co n d n a tu re to her, an d she was obviously g o o d at p ro d u c in g th e m w ith o u t d e te c tio n . She also felt th a t h e r follow ­ ers w a n te d p h e n o m e n a , a n d she was rig h t, because even after h e r “ e x p o ­ s u re ” th e M ah atm as a n d th e ir “ m iracles” c o n tin u e d to c a p tu re p e o p le ’s im ag in atio n s. T h e re w ere n u m e ro u s cases o f tru e believers h allu cin atin g th e ir ow n M asters— p h o to g ra p h s , lette rs, an d all.11 W h en C o lo n e l O lc o tt politely b u t firm ly refused to allow h e r to r e ­ tu rn to A dyar after th e scandal, M m e Blavatsky to o k up p e rm a n e n t resi­ d en ce in L o n d o n in M ay 1 8 8 7 . H e r h o m e a t 17 L an sd o w n e R o ad b e ­ cam e a place o f p ilgrim age. W riters, p a in te rs, scholars, aristo crats, an d w o u ld -b e occultists o f every p ersu asio n cam e to see th e large R ussian

w o m an w ith e n o rm o u s, p ro tru d in g , h y p n o tic eyes, lo n g ta p e re d fingers and ele g a n t h an d s, and an acidic to n g u e . M m e Blavatsky was inevitably dressed in lo o se, black, flow ing g arm en ts o f a m b ig u o u s c o n stru c tio n . She sm oked constantly. AU o f L o n d o n loved h er; she was an original. In L o n d o n M m e Blavatsky a n d h e r su p p o rte rs o p e n e d a new b ran ch o f th e T h eo so p h ical Society, th e Blavatsky L o d g e , an d beg an th eir ow n jo u rn a l, Lucifer. In L ansdow ne R o ad she w ro te h e r se co n d m ajor o ccu lt te x t, The Secret D o ctrine.12 She d ied th e re o n M ay 8, 1 8 9 1 , after a lo n g illness a n d m u ch pain (she suffered fro m rh eu m a tism , ed em a, a n d o th e r ills). T h e T h eo so p h ical Society celebrates th e day o f h e r “ d e p a rtu re fro m th e physical p lan e ” as th e D ay o f th e W h ite L o tu s (th e m ystical flow er o f th e E ast, it sym bolizes b o th th e B uddha-A vatar a n d th e U n ity th a t is concealed by m ultiplicity). In th e e n d , H e le n a P e tro v n a Blavatsky succeeded in living up to h e r nam e: Elenct (H e le n ) m eans “ th e b rig h t, sh in in g o n e ,” “ th e to r c h .” H e r p atro n y m ic c o n n ects h e r w ith th e fo u n d e r o f a n o th e r ch u rc h , St. P eter, petros, th e rock. A n accurate and com pletely factual b io g rap h y o f this rem arkable w o m an will never be w ritte n .13 M m e Blavatsky sp e n t a lifetim e ensu rin g th a t it w o u ld be im possible to separate fact fro m h e r fantasy. She p o s t­ d a te d an d p re d a te d , concealed, c re a te d , a n d cam ouflaged “ ev id en ce.” A lth o u g h she lied to o th ers a n d to h e rse lf w ith equal facility, h er c h a ­ rism a evoked passionate d e v o tio n fro m m any o f h e r follow ers. H e r e n ­ tire life, personal an d professional, co n sisted o f appearance, illusion, and effect. A n u n tra d itio n a l, creative, a n d stim u la tin g w o m an , she loved to shock an d a sto u n d , to be th e c e n te r o f a tte n tio n a t any cost. E xisting biographical m aterial, m o st o f it w ritte n by starry-eyed a d h e re n ts (for w h o m she is a divine g u ru ) o r m ilitan t an ti-T h eo so p h ists (w ho see h er as a tem p e ra m en ta l, nasty ch arlatan ), excludes m aterial th a t does n o t fit th e selected m ythic p aradigm . T h e fact rem ains th a t this im aginative w o m an consciously m y th o lo g iz e d h e r very existence; day by day she “ c re a te d ” h e r ow n life an d leg en d . H e r “ creatively lived life” was p e rfo r­ m ance a rt, raised to a n ew level by h e r u n d o u b te d ly charism atic, h y p ­ n o tic personality. She in fected an e n tire g e n e ra tio n w ith h e r m yth. She has b een called a genius an d a ch arlatan as th o u g h th e tw o w ere m u tu ­ ally exclusive; M m e Blavatsky was clearly b o th . N o o n e w o u ld be m o re pleased th a n she to k n o w th a t th e m ystification she e n g e n d e re d in h e r lifetim e co n tin u e s a c e n tu ry after h e r d eath.

The Introduction o f Theosophy into Russia F o r a w o m an w h o h ad chosen to lead an u n o rth o d o x life an d w h o ex­ isted p o u r epater la g a lerie , M m e Blavatsky seem ed u n d u ly obsessed w ith h er social a n d professional re p u ta tio n in h e r native land. She m ain-

tain e d h e r professional co n tacts w ith influential R ussian Spiritualists even after publicly d e n o u n c in g S piritualism . She c o rre s p o n d e d regularly w ith A leksandr Aksakov an d V ik to r P ribytkov, w h o occasionally fo u n d tra n sla tio n an d w ritin g w o rk fo r her. She w ro te hysterical letters to A k­ sakov, b e g g in g h im n o t to reveal h e r so rd id p ast to fellow R ussian S piri­ tualists, an d pressed h e r sister, Vera Z helikhovskaia, a n d h e r a u n t, N a d e z h d a Fadeeva, to d e fe n d h e r an d to p ro p a g a n d iz e h e r “ p h e n o m ­ e n a ” a n d h e r p h ilo so p h y a t h o m e. A nd y et fo r all M m e Blavatsky’s g e n u ­ ine love for R ussia, h e r co n c ern fo r h e r re p u ta tio n , a n d h e r desire fo r re c o g n itio n a t h o m e, h e r T h e o so p h ic a l S ociety tr o d a th o rn y p a th in h e r native lan d because o f h e r perso n ality a n d re p u ta tio n . T h e very earliest R ussian c o n c ep tio n s o f T h e o so p h y as a d o c trin e w ere n e b u lo u s a t best. B efore 1881 T h e o so p h y h ardly ra te d a m e n tio n in th e R ussian press. T his is n o t surprising, since th e n e w M o v e m e n t did n o t im m ediately g a th e r sufficient s tre n g th to a ttra c t serious in te rn a ­ tio n al a tte n tio n . B etw een 1881 a n d 1901 th e jo u rn a l Rebus, e d ite d by th e sym pathetic a n d kindly Pribytkov, served as th e m ajo r R ussian v e h i­ cle fo r T h eo so p h y . Its articles reveal th e c h a n g in g p o p u la r p e rc e p tio n s o f th e T h e o so p h ic a l M o v e m e n t th ro u g h th e prism o f R ebus'*s o w n S piri­ tu alist concerns. R ebus em p h asized M m e Blavatsky’s p h e n o m e n a a n d c o m m e n te d o n th e h ig h p o in ts o f T h e o so p h ic a l d o c trin e . T h e o b lig in g Spiritualists p u b lish e d an occasional le tte r from M m e Blavatsky, adver­ tised h er jo u rn a l, The Theosophisty a n d o ffered , for only o n e ru b le , a p h o ­ to g ra p h ic p o rtra it o f th e M ad am e herself. F req u en tiy , R ebus in d u lg e d in lig h t polem ics w ith th e T h eo so p h ists a b o u t th e n a tu re o f spiritu alism .14 Such polem ics o fte n e n d e d w ith th e S piritualists th ro w in g d o w n th e g a u n tle t to th e T h e o s o p h is ts : “You m ain ta in th a t y o u possess h ig h er, u n d o u b ta b le tru th s . P rove th e m to us w ith scientific arg u m e n ts a n d fac­ tual c o rro b o ra tio n , an d w e will believe y o u .” 15 R eb u s also p u b lish e d tran slatio n s from E u ro p e a n o c c u lt jo u rn a ls, in clu d in g M m e Blavatsky’s o w n Theosophist. A d d itio n a l in fo rm a tio n a b o u t T h e o so p h y e n te re d R u s­ sia th ro u g h E u ro p e a n b o o k s a n d jo u rn als in w hich M m e Blavatsky, th e M a h atm a scandal, an d th e Society received co n sid erab le a tte n tio n . A lth o u g h b rie f references to M m e Blavatsky a n d T h e o so p h y h a d o c ­ casionally b e e n m ade in som e o f th e m o re sensational R ussian new spa­ pers, th e first serious discussions o f th e d o c trin al aspects o f T h e o so p h y ap p eared only in 1 8 8 3 . T h a t fall Vera Z helikhovskaia, M m e B lavatsky’s sister a n d h e r m o st a rd e n t R ussian s u p p o rte r in th e early days, p ro v id e d extensive adv ertisin g fo r th e T h e o so p h ic a l Society in h e r len g th y c a ta ­ lo g u e o f M m e Blavatsky’s m ed iu m istic feats fo r R ebus.16 Z helikhovskaia to o k th e R ussian press to task for c o n stan tly a ttack in g th e ir eccentric b u t ta le n te d c o u n try w o m a n , b ro u g h t “ p r o o f ’ th a t h e r sister possessed in ­ credible m ed iu m istic pow ers, a n d o u tlin e d T h e o so p h ic a l d o c trin e in a

very general a n d diffuse way. H e r series a ttra c te d considerable a tte n tio n a m o n g th e g ro w in g n u m b e r o f p eo p le in te re ste d in occultism . A fter Z helikhovskaia’s m ajor c o n trib u tio n , s h o rt pieces o n T h e o s o ­ phy, a n u m b e r o f th e m inaccu rate, b e g a n to appear in Hebus regularly. A b rie f article, p u b lish e d A pril 2 2 , 1 8 8 4 , re p o rte d th a t M m e Blavatsky was c u rre n tly in Paris w ith C o lonel O lc o tt as a rep resen tativ e o f the T h eo so p h ical Society, b u t it seem ed u naw are th a t th ey w ere th e f o u n d ­ ers o f th e Society o r th a t it was a W estern , n o t an In d ia n , Society. T h e article a n n o u n c e d th a t th e Society has as its goals to found an international brotherhood o f peoples w ith ou t dif­ ferentiation o f race or creed; to study the literature o f the Eastern peoples and magic; to strive to know the hidden laws o f nature and psychic powers hidden in man. “T he Society” is trem endously im portant in the East, where m ore than a hundred sections have been op ened in India and C eylon. A t present its influence is penetrating to the W est, having found n o t a few proselytes in N ew York and other American cities. T he Paris and L ondon sections o f the Society count m any fam ous scholars am ong their m em bers.17

M o re in fo rm a tio n o n th e T h e o so p h ic a l Society a p p e are d in Odesskii Vestnik1 Novorossiiskii Telegraf1 an d Hebus in th e su m m e r o f 1 8 8 4 , in th e fo rm o f epistolary essays from th e prolific p e n o f Vera Z h e likhovskaia.18 V isiting h e r sister in Paris th a t su m m er, Zhelikhovskaia was again u p se t by th e way in w hich th e R ussian press was tre a tin g M m e Blavatsky a n d falsifying h e r m ission. u Novoe Vrem ia a n d m any o th e r new spapers have a n n o u n c e d th a t she cam e to Paris in o rd e r to d estro y C h ristianity a n d to b uild a tem p le to B u d d h a. She a n d o th ers d e v o te d to th e T h eo so p h ical Society never even d rea m ed o f such a th in g ,” she w ro te in R ebus o n o n e such essay.19 Z helikhovskaia to o k advantage o f th e essay’s p u b lic a tio n to give a su m m ary o f T h e o so p h y ’s m ain goals an d to speak o f th e M ahatm as an d M m e Blavatsky’s “m iracles.” L ater th a t sam e year E . F. B arabash, w hose relatively objective articles did m u ch to p ro p ag a n d ize T h e o so p h y in Russia in th e early days, w ro te a len g th y piece for R ebus in w hich he o u tlin e d in som e detail th e ten e ts a n d general cosm ology o f th e T h eo so p h ical d o ctrin e. B arabash arg u ed w ith T h e o so p h y from th e p o in t o f view o f Spiritualism , b u t rem ain ed essentially friendly to w a rd th e M o v em en t: T he ideas and goals o f this Society are o f m ore than a little interest, for think­ ing people in general and for th ose w h o have had the opportunity to be c o n ­ vinced o f the reality o f m edium istic phenom ena in particular, because these ideas are intim ately conn ected w ith the n ew Spiritualist m ovem ent, because they represent an entirely orig in a l poin t o f view on m edium istic phenom ena held by the adepts o f the Society, and because o f the im portant role which the

founders o f the Theosophical Society, H. P. Blavatsky and Colonel O lcott, p la y e d in th e n e w S p ir itu a lis m .20

A lth o u g h B arabash briefly m en tio n s th e M ah atm as, his article focuses prim arily o n T h e o so p h y as a secular faith, stressing its search for th e h id ­ d en laws o f n a tu re a n d its h u m an ita ria n ideals, its goal o f u n itin g all o f m an k in d in to a single B ro th e rh o o d , th e re b y d e stro y in g p reju d ice, in to l­ erance, social inequality, an d racism . B arabash was also flatterin g to T h e o so p h y an d M m e Blavatsky in his survey o f S piritualism th ro u g h o u t history.21 By 1 8 8 7 e n o u g h h a d b een said a b o u t th e T h e o so p h ic a l Society in th e R ussian press for th e sedate jo u rn a l K usskaia MysF to acq u ain t its re a d ­ ership w ith th e S ociety’s basic c o n to u rs. T h e to n e o f V. V. L esevich’s article for th a t jo u rn a l was skeptical a n d co n d e sc e n d in g ; he p re se n te d th e Society as a curiosity, a lth o u g h he d id lay o u t th e basic te n e ts o f T h e o so p h y in a relatively stra ig h tfo rw a rd m anner. Lesevich was u n im ­ pressed by M m e Blavatsky’s abilities as a th in k er: “She to o k it in to h e r h e a d to explicate th e p h ilo so p h y o f P la to a n d e n d e d up b a b b lin g o u t a tre m e n d o u s lo t o f all kinds o f ru b b is h ,” he c o n c lu d e d .22 T h ro u g h a rti­ cles like th o se o f B arabash a n d L esevich, in fo rm a tio n a b o u t M m e Blavatsky a n d th e T h eo so p h ical d o c trin e , m o st o f it n eg ativ e, was seep ­ in g slow ly b u t surely in to Russia in spite o f th e censorship. T h a t M m e Blavatsky a n d T h e o so p h y w ere b e in g tak e n seriously was m ade clear in 1 8 9 0 , w h e n th e resp e c te d p h ilo so p h e r V ladim ir S o lo v ’ev (1 8 5 3 —1 9 0 0 ) review ed h e r b o o k , K ey to Theosophy, in th e jo u rn a l R u sskoe Obozrenie.23 S olov’ev, a tru e th e o so p h ist (w ith a small “ t ” ) w h o was a c q u ain te d w ith th e various tra d itio n s o f speculative m ysticism , in ­ clu d in g G nosticism , K abbalism , an d m edieval m ysticism , im m ed iately c a u g h t th e p o in t th a t M m e Blavatsky’s T h e o so p h ic a l secret d o c trin e “ does n o t refer to th e w isdom o f G o d , b u t to divine w isd o m ,” an im p o r­ ta n t d istin ctio n fo r an u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e G o d h e a d .24 W ritte n in a slightly iro n ic to n e , especially w h e n to u c h in g u p o n th e u b iq u ito u s M a ­ h a tm a s, VI. S olov’ev’s review gave a general su m m ary o f th e principles o f th e d o c trin e , b u t c o n c lu d e d th a t “u n fo rtu n a te ly , th e positive side o f this d o c trin e is a lo t less clear a n d less defined th a n its negative sid e ,” a n d th a t M m e Blavatsky’s T h e o so p h y rem ains “ shaky a n d v a g u e .” 25 I f S olov’ev’s review was p ro b le m a tic , th e article a b o u t M m e Blavatsky th a t he p u b lish e d in 1 8 9 2 in S. A. V engerov’s bio g rap h ical d ictio n a ry was a n n ih ila tin g .26 S olov’ev b eg an his essay by p o in tin g o u t th a t tru e “ th e o s o p h y ” a n d “ B u d d h ism ” are, in fact, m u tu ally exclusive. “ T h e basic characteristic o f B u d d h ism is its n o n -re c o g n itio n o f G o d , i.e. as a single, ab so lu te b e in g .”27 In its fu n d am e n ta l u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e G o d ­ h e a d , th e n , M m e Blavatsky’s T h e o so p h y is already inim ical to C hristian-

ity. H e r Theosophy, Solov’ev w ent on, is “an anti-religious, anti-philo­ sophical, and anti-scientific d o ctrin e” th a t criticizes E uropean science for n o t w anting to accept Asian fables as tru th . A doctrine whose start­ ing p o in t is the assum ption o f the reality o f M ahatm as w ho lead a secret existence in the Himalayas and from there control hum an developm ent can scarcely call itself a serious doctrine, he p o in ted out. “ In the ‘T h eo s­ ophy’ o f M m e Blavatsky and C om pany we see the attem p t o f a charlatan to adapt actual Asiatic Buddhism to th e mystical and metaphysical needs o f a half-educated E uropean society th a t is dissatisfied, for one reason or another, w ith its own religious institutions and doctrines.”28 T he best that this “ untenable and false” doctrine can achieve is only a “relative tru th .” 29 Solov’ev’s philosophically trained m ind im m ediately discerned and revealed the inconsistencies and contradictions o f Theosophy. His stature am ong the creative intelligentsia ensured th a t this article w ould becom e the basis o f w hat the T heosophists w ould bellicosely call “antiTheosophical prejudice.” Solov’ev’s position did n o t prevent the Russian Theosophists from elevating him to p atro n saint o f their m ovem ent after his death. They saw his “Sophia, W isdom o f G o d ” as a variant o f their ow n “T heoSophia.” For the next tw enty years they were faced w ith the problem o f claiming Vladimir Solov’ev as their ow n while explaining away his attack on T heosophy and its founder. Years later, Elena Pisareva w ould insist th at his article was “ based on the purest m isunderstanding.”30 Anna Kamenskaia, head o f th e St. P etersburg T heosophists, w ould write (in Rebus) th a t Theosophy “is still com pletely unknow n am ong us; m o re­ over, it evokes prejudices against it, prejudices based on rather com plex reasons. O ne o f them consists o f the fact th at, in his article ab o u t T h eo s­ ophy, V ladim ir Solov’ev described this m ovem ent as an attem p t to dis­ sem inate neo-B uddhism .” B ut Theosophy, she goes on to say, “ could n o t rest on B uddhism alone, it gradually tu rn ed to Brahm anism , to the religion o f Z arathustra, and finally to Christianity.” To explain away the criticism o f the m uch-adm ired Solov’ev, Kamenskaia p o in ted o u t th at “Vladim ir Solov’ev, w ho became acquainted w ith T heosophy th ro u g h the first Theosophical books, could have inadvertently erred by confus­ ing the historical m om ent w ith the general attitu d e o f th e m ovem ent.” 31 Vladim ir Solov’ev’s article was n o t the only setback to T heosophy in Russia th a t year. Early in 1892 Vsevolod Solov’ev (1 8 4 9 -1 9 0 3 ), the philosopher’s older b ro th er and a popular rom antic and historical novel­ ist, began the publication o f Sovrem ennam zhritsa Izid y (Moe znakom stvo s E. P. Blavatskoi) in installm ents in the popular journal, Russkii Vestnik .32 A lthough M m e Blavatsky was n o t as well know n in Russia as in E urope, the book nevertheless upset many Russian T heosophists w ho saw it as Vs. Solov’ev’s attem p t to slander M m e Blavatsky because o f

private differences. S olov’ev’s book was successful e n o u g h to go th ro u g h several Russian editions and was so o n translated in to E nglish as A M odern Priestess o f Isis.33 V sevolod Solov’ev had m et M m e Blavatsky in Paris in M ay 1 8 84, w hen he was taking a cure for nerves and she was proselytizing for the new Society o n th e co n tin e n t. She im pressed him trem en d o u sly and m anaged to persuade him o f the au th en ticity o f her m edium istic pow ers and the vast ex ten t o f her popularity and influence. H e was convinced e n o u g h by h e r m edium istic d em o n stratio n s to w rite an “ eyew itness” le tte r to R ebus extolling h er abilities.34 Late in 1885 he re tu rn e d to St. P etersb u rg , w here he becam e b e tte r acquainted w ith Vera Zhelikhovskaia and quickly becam e an intim ate o f th e family. In confidence Zhelikhovskaia, th e n still am bivalent a b o u t h er sister’s chosen career and th e role o f R ussian “p ro p h e t” th a t M m e Blavatsky h ad forced o n her, to ld Solov’ev th e details o f M m e Blavatsky’s lurid p ast (th e second “m arriage” to A gardii M etrovich, various affairs, th e illegitim ate child, and so fo rth ). A lth o u g h Solov’ev him self was n o t w ith o u t skeletons in his ow n closet (som e “irregularities” in his relations w ith his sister-inlaw), he felt shocked and betrayed. W hen he re tu rn e d to E u ro p e in F e b ­ ruary 1 8 86, he spread am o n g his confidants th e m alicious stories he had learned from Zhelikhovskaia.35 Just as they had earlier been intim ate friends, he and M m e Blavatsky w ere now unforgiving enem ies. M m e Blavatsky’s scandals m ig h t have b een a nine days’ w o n d er in Russia had they n o t been k ep t alive by b o th V sevolod Solov’ev and Vera Zhelikhovskaia. Solov’ev felt th a t M m e Blavatsky h ad tricked him in a w eak m o m e n t; his vanity was bruised. F o r him , she was a charlatan, al­ th o u g h he paid her th e g enerous com p lim en t o f considering h er th e su ­ perio r o f C o u n t C ag lio stro .36 T h e ex ten t to w hich he tu rn e d o n M m e Blavatsky probably reflected the degree to w hich he felt he had been d u p e d by her. A t least he w aited u n til she was dead before p u b lishing his book. In Zbritsa Vs. Solov’ev explained his m otives th ro u g h a reference to a conversation he had had w ith Zhelikhovskaia: In Russia very little is k n ow n a b o u t the “T h eo so p h ica l S o cie ty ” and its fou n d er, and it w o u ld be b est n o t to speak o f th em at all. I prom ise y o u [i.e. Z helikhovskaia] that as lo n g as there are n o m isrepresentations ab ou t the “T h eosop h ical S o cie ty ” and H elen a P etrovna in the Russian press, I w ill re­ m ain silent. B u t if there is talk o f all this, and false talk at that, I w ill con sid er it m y d uty to speak the truth in print, to tell w hat I know . T h at is m y last w o rd .37

Zhelikhovskaia’s hagiographic biography o f M m e Blavatsky, published as a necrology in th e last tw o issues o f Russkoe Obozrenie for 1891 (she died M ay 8 o f th a t year), served as th e cue for the appearance o f his ow n version o f the Blavatsky m yth.

A lthough Vsevolod Solov’ev was by no means an im partial observer, his book did a great deal o f harm , n o t only to M m e Blavatsky personally bu t also to the Russian Theosophical M ovem ent. H e made many dam aging accusations and b ro u g h t dam ning evidence. Zhelikhovskaia w orked as hard as she could to defuse his attacks since, by th en , she and her three daughters had com m itted themselves com pletely to p ropagan­ dizing T heosophy in Russia. Blood was thicker than w ater, and they saw themselves as M m e Blavatsky’s rightful Russian cham pions (although there were individual Theosophists in Russia in 1893, it w ould still be another fifteen years before Russia w ould have an organized Theosophical Society to pro tect th e beloved preceptress’s nam e).38 Ironically, the panegyrical prose w ith which Zhelikhovskaia answered Solov’ev’s accu­ sations did little to establish her ow n credibility; on the contrary, it served to make Zhelikhovskaia appear credulous and placed the Society itself in a questionable light. After Zhelikhovskaia’s treacly, inflated m em oirs o f her sister, So­ lov’ev’s ta rt answer m ust have sounded like the voice o f reason to many readers. In fairness to him it m ust be poin ted o u t th at, while he illum i­ nated some o f the m ore horrid sides o f M m e Blavatsky’s character (sup­ p o rted by many o f the num erous biographies th a t have appeared since her death), he shows some understanding and sympathy for h er as well. “In her quiet and good m om ents,” he writes, “she was an incredibly sym pathetic individual. She had a certain charm . . . . T he reason for the ‘m odern priestess o f Isis’s’ strange sympathy m ust be so u g h t in her o rig­ inality, her unique, fiery talent, and in her stormy, wild energy. Such talent and energy are an elem ental force which is difficult to w ithstand.” N evertheless, Solov’ev adds, “this force, u n ited w ith a perversity o f the soul, w ith some sort o f savage inability to understand ‘in life’ the differ­ ence betw een good and evil, created one o f the m ost interesting and representative phenom ena o f the end o f the nin eteen th century— the ‘Theosophical Society.’ ” 39 Vera Zhelikhovskaia answered Vsevolod Solov’ev’s Zhritsa in a book o f her ow n, E. P. Blavatskaia i sovremennyi zhrets istiny (1893). The battle betw een them was vituperative. Solov’ev’s talented prose, al­ th o u g h petty and self-serving, avoided Zhelikhovskaia’s less talented but equally self-serving hysteria; as point and co u n terp o in t their polemics were fascinating reading and were avidly followed by Russians looking for sensational entertainm ent. Russian Theosophists later criticized Solov’ev’s book, b u t their accusations against him sounded naive and ignorant. W hile Solov’ev him self was scarcely objective, his d o cu m en ta­ tio n was superior and convincing, and he knew the principal personally. T he Theosophists were forced to adm it th a t his book “played a rather fateful role in Russian society’s opinion o f H . P. Blavatsky; anim ated and vividly w ritten, the book was read by many.”40

In 1893 Solov’ev follow ed up Sovrem ennaia zhritsa Izid y w ith an ar­ ticle in th e prestigious journal Voprosy Filosofii i Psikholopjii, o u tlin in g th e basic prem ises o f T heosophical belief.41 U sing the F ren ch translation o f A. P. S in n e tt’s Esoteric B uddhism (L o n d o n , 1883; Paris, 1891) and Louis D ra m a rd ’s La, Science occulte, etude sur la doctrine esoterique (Paris, 1 8 8 6 ) as his source texts, Solov’ev gave a th o ro u g h a n d conscien­ tious p resen tatio n th a t h ig h lig h ted the internal co n trad ictio n s and weaknesses o f T heosophical cosm ogenesis and anthropogenesis. T his, how ever, was insufficient for the e d ito r, w ho felt obliged to add his ow n com m ents to those o f the author. Solov’ev “speaks partly in th e to n e o f a disenchanted a d e p t,” said th e editor, B u t th e character o f th e p resen ted d octrin e is set forth clearly, and several d irection s (particularly at the en d o f th e article) are en o u g h to warn th e reader against th e attractions o f this p seu d op h ilosop h ica l and ign oran t d octrin e. T here is g o o d reason to presen t it in ou r journal as a w arn in g to Russian so c i­ ety against th e attraction o f th e absurd ravings o f W estern E uropean scien ­ tific-religiou s sectarians. It is useful to b eco m e acquainted w ith the fantastic in v en tion s o f the n eo -B u d d h ists.42

N e ith e r Solov’ev’s straig h tfo rw ard outline o f T h e o so p h y ’s extravagant cosm ology n o r the e d ito r’s c o n te m p tu o u s com m ents could have done m uch to enhance th e rep u ta tio n o f T h e o so p h y in Russia. T he p ercep tio n o f M m e Blavatsky and T h eo so p h y in Russia after this w ould never re tu rn to w h at it was d u rin g th e 1880s. T he focus o f the press th ro u g h o u t th e 1890s was n o t on h er Society, b u t o n h er excesses an d h e r scandals. Even Rebus, w hich had m ore o r less objectively d o c u ­ m en te d the g ro w th o f th e T heosophical Society ab road, chose n o t to publish an o b itu a ry w hen she died in 1891. T h e R ussian press sc ru p u ­ lously w eighed M m e Blavatsky’s E u ro p ean career and fo u n d it w anting. “AU serious [occult] researchers have recently beg u n to cleanse th e area o f th eir search o f everything th a t even hints at charlatanism and mystifi­ cation. M m e Blavatsky and her T heosophical Society have com e u n d e r particularly severe attacks from all sides,” re p o rte d R ebus.43 Even the M ahatm as re tu rn e d to h a u n t th e Society again. In 1894 E d m u n d G ar­ r e tt published a sensational study o f th e M ahatm a episode, Isis Very M uch Unveiled·, The Story o f the G reat M a h a tm a H oax, in L o n d o n . W ithin m o n th s M ikhail P etrovo-S olovovo’s len g th y review o f E d m u n d G a rre tt’s b o o k for R ebus indelicately raked over every h o rrid detail o f th e M ahatm a scandal an d m ade certain th a t th e facts w ere well know n in Russia.44 T h e T heosophical d o ctrin e received as m uch criticism as M m e Blavatsky herself. T h eo so p h y itself was “ shady,” p o in te d o u t Boris Taits in 1 8 9 4 .45 “M . G -v,” citing the e m in en t O rientalist M ax M uller, w rote

that Theosophy was no m ore than “ m isconstrued, m isunderstood, cari­ catured B uddhism ” and “Theosophical ravings.”46 Papus w rote about T heosophy in his Course methodique de science occulte, and excerpts o f it were im m ediately translated in Rebus. The famous French occultist w rote: W hat w ill th e reader, cu rious e n o u g h to lo o k in to th e w orks o f M m e Blavatsky, find? H ere are ou r o w n im pressions: I ) C o m p le te ab sen ce o f any system . . . 2 ) A n o v erw h elm in g q u an tity o f various assertion s, so m e o f w h ich have b een taken o u t o f c o n te x t, oth ers deprived o f all basis. 3 ) N u m er o u s co n tra ­ d iction s in the m o st basic th in g s . . . 4 ) N asty attacks o n C hristians and o n scholars, and sim u ltan eou sly a d efen se o f th o se scholars, b u t n o t o f C hris­ tians. In all o f th ese b o o k s [M m e Blavatsky] m aintains a d o ctrin e w h ich is difficult to define: a m ixture o f g n o sticism , B u d d h ism , Spiritism , th e Kabbala. Part o f it is taken from O rig en , part from T ib etan en cy clo p ed ia s . . . AU o f it is p resen ted u n d er th e nam e “T h eo so p h y .” In th e b eg in n in g o f ou r researches w e, t o o , jo in e d th e S ociety, co n sid erin g it to be seriou s, b u t w e so o n saw w hat was g o in g o n and w ithd rew .47

M m e Blavatsky’s Russian reputation did n o t rest entirely on her n o to ­ riety; she was also recognized for her literary work. Like the rest o f her rem arkable family, she tu rn ed o u t to be a prolific and imaginative writer. H er articles and stories in American and E uropean newspapers, m aga­ zines, and esoteric journals are num erous; less familiar are her articles and books published in Russia. Between 1879 and 1886, she w rote for Rebus, Moskovskie Vedomosti, Pravda (O dessa), Russkii Vestnik, Novoe Vremia, and Tiflisskii Vestnik u nder various pseudonym s, principally the exotic “Radda-Bai.” O ver the course o f 1878 she w rote eight install­ m ents o f the series “ Golos s to g o sveta” (signed “ G olos” ) for Tiflisskii Vestnik and another series for the Odessa newspaper Pravda. She also w rote a short story th a t appeared in Rebus.48 M m e Blavatsky’s m ajor w ork w ritten in Russian is I z peshcher i debrei Indostana, a series o f unusual travel notes. I t began serialization in Mikhail Katkov’s Moskovskie Vedomosti on N ovem ber 30, 1879, and ran until January 1882, w hen it ceased abruptly and was n o t com pleted. It resum ed serialization a year later in Katkov’s journal, Russkii Vestnik1 and ran until A ugust 1886. T he literary m erit o f I z peshcher i debrei In dostana is undeniable. Like her personality, M m e Blavatsky’s style is lively and u n traditional. H er account o f her travels around the Indian subcontinent in 1879 is awash w ith H in d u w ords and local color. She inserts anecdotes, tales, religious m yths, and stories o f sem i-occult, “fantastic” events into the tapestry o f her narrative seemingly to amuse m ore than to instruct. Readers seeking exotica, entertainm ent, and sen­ sation loved her work; it was popular. This para-Theosophical w ork also

h ad w oven in to it a crash course in th e B u d d h ist and H in d u religions, w ith a healthy dose o f com parative religions and som e facile a n d highly suspicious etym ologies (th e inevitable resu lt o f M m e Blavatsky’s superfi­ cial acquaintance w ith exotic and classical languages). T h e novelist V sevolod S olov’ev, h im self n o stra n g e r to stylistic excess, h ad high praise for her w it a n d style, b u t correctly w arn ed th e rea d e r against ta k ­ in g h e r travelogues seriously as fact.49 F o r som e tim e, M m e Blavatsky was view ed in Russia as e ith e r th e c o l­ orful a u th o r R adda-B ai, or a S piritualist g o n e b ad , o r a n o to rio u s charla­ ta n unm asked by th e L o n d o n Society for Psychical R esearch, o r all th ree. I t was n o t u n til th e tu rn o f th e c e n tu ry th a t h e r n o to riety , m iti­ ga te d by tim e, reced ed in to th e b ack g ro u n d and th e T h eo so p h ical M o v em en t was able to stan d o n its ow n m erits. Even so, th e R ussian T h eo so p h ists w ere never allow ed to fo rg e t h er scandalous b a c k g ro u n d entirely; it was periodically tro tte d o u t and used as a b lu d g e o n against th e m , a n d h e r n o to rie ty was a m ajor factor in re ta rd in g th e M o v e m e n t’s dev elo p m en t in Russia. R ussian T h e o so p h y never really lived d o w n E lena P etro v n a, a n d she was never h o n o re d as a p ro p h e t in h e r ow n country. T h e T heosophical Society a b ro ad learn ed to em phasize M m e Blavatsky’s w orks b u t to play d o w n h er personality; th e R ussian Society w o u ld be forced to answ er fo r th a t personality again a n d again. T he Russians dealt w ith th e p ro b lem o f M m e Blavatsky’s scandals by a tte m p tin g to h o ld to th e d ich o to m o u s view, first p o stu la te d by Z helikhovskaia, th at M m e Blavatsky’s private life d id n o t affect th e validity o f h e r revelation; R ussian T h eo so p h ists tried sim ply to ig n o re ad h o m in e m attacks o r to dism iss th e m as petty. D m itrii S tra n d e n , a pillar o f th e R ussian T h e o sophical Society, w ro te in 1 9 1 3 th a t “ th e tru th o f th e T heosophical d o c ­ trine rests n o t o n th e p e rfe c tio n o f th a t individual w ho pro claim ed it in o u r tim e, b u t o n a considerably m ore solid fo u n d a tio n — o n th e ag re e ­ m e n t o f th is d o c trin e w ith th e voices o f reason, conscience, and spiritual in tu itio n .” 50 E lena Pisareva, for w h o m M m e Blavatsky was “ a p ro p h etess o f h ig h idealism ,” p o in te d o u t th a t “in spite o f all in dications o f h e r p ro fo u n d ly sincere, w ide o p e n and m adly b o ld n a tu re , com pletely in ­ com patible w ith any kind o f c u n n in g and crookedness, th e c o n te m p o ­ raries o f H . P. [Blavatsky] fo u n d it easier to believe every slander against her th a n to adm it th a t she really did possess e x tra o rd in a ry psychic p o w ­ ers.” 51 Pisareva’s and S tra n d e n ’s naivete and sincerity c o u ld n o t c o n ­ vince th o se w ho d id n o t see life th ro u g h T heosophical spectacles, and M m e Blavatsky c o n tin u e d to be a targ et; h e r disgrace was used in g e n ­ eral to discredit o ccu lt ten dencies in R ussian society. T h e T h eo so p h ists w ere still dism issing attacks o n M m e Blavatsky’s character u p to th e very m o m e n t o f th e R ussian S ociety’s dissolution. O ld habits die h ard ; M m e

BIavatsky c o n tin u e d to appear in th e role o f occu lt o g re in Soviet a n ti­ occult and anti-M asonic publications well in to th e m o d e rn period. O nly after th e tu rn o f th e century, w hen T h eo so p h y m anaged at last to distance itself som ew hat from M m e Blavatsky’s extravagant perso n al­ ity and qu estio n ab le “m iracles,” d id th e M o v em en t becom e a real cul­ tural force in Russia. T h a t it achieved substantial p o pularity betw een 1901 an d 1922 says m u ch a b o u t w hat it h ad to offer th o se w ho w ere living th ro u g h th e Silver A ge’s crisis o f c u ltu re an d consciousness. A fter M m e Blavatsky’s d e a th in 1 8 9 1 , th e T heosophical Society cam e m ore and m ore u n d e r th e influence o f M rs. A nnie B esant’s paradoxically sober, b o urgeois approach to o ccu lt know ledge. Less em phasis was placed o n M m e Blavatsky’s personality an d , instead, h er m ajor w ork, The Secret D octrine, becam e m o re o f th e focus, alo n g w ith M rs. B esant’s m ore “ C h ristian ” texts. T his change was noticeable in th e R ussian press as well. A fter 1901 the to n e o f m any articles ch anged and T heosophy, pro and c o n tra , becam e a serious topic o f discussion in m iddle-class sa­ lons. T h e o so p h y was practiced by genteel ladies an d so b er g en tlem en w ho em phasized th e philosophical and p h ilan th ro p ic aspects o f th e d o c ­ trine. L egitim ate endeavor, c o m m itm en t, and study finally ed g ed o u t the sensational m iracle w orking associated w ith th e nam e o f M m e Blavatsky.

Three T h e T h e o so p h ic a l S o c ie ty in R ussia ( 1 9 0 1 - 1 9 1 7 ) T h e First Circles ( 1 9 0 1 - 1 9 0 8 ) B efore 1 9 0 1 , individual T h e o so p h ists an d a few sm all, private circles did exist in the R ussian provinces a n d in M oscow and St. P e tersb u rg ; h o w ­ ever, th e R ussian public a t large still h ad only a general n o tio n o f th e T h eo so p h ical M o v em en t and its aims. By 1901 this h a d c h an g ed , thanks to th e proselytizing efforts o f Vera Z helikhovskaia, th e press coverage p ro v id ed by R ebus an d a h andful o f o th e r journals an d new spapers, and th e increasing n u m b e r o f individuals, R ussian an d E u ro p e an , w ho b ro u g h t T h eo so p h y w ith th e m to Russia from th e c o n tin e n t and E n ­ gland. A n d so T h eo so p h y spread across Russia, thanks to individuals such as M r. Z o rn o f O dessa, w h o in th e 1880s collected o n e o f th e first T h eo so p h ical libraries in Russia; M m e M aria R obinovich o f V ladikavkaz in th e C aucasus, w h o becam e in te rested in M m e Blavatsky’s w orks in th e 1890s and was fu rth e r inspired after m eetin g M rs. A nnie B esant o n a trip to E n g lan d ; and o th e r Russians w h o h ad su ccu m b ed to th e a ttra c ­ tions o f T h e o so p h y while ab ro ad and shared th e ir discovery an d th eir books w ith friends an d colleagues a t h o m e .1 A ttem p ts to spread th e n ew d o c trin e in Russia w ere n o t always im m e ­ diately successful. M m e R o b in o v ich ’s efforts serve as a cau tio n ary exam ­ ple. She trie d to organize a circle in V ladikavkaz w h e n she re tu rn e d from ab ro ad , b u t im m ediately e n c o u n te re d difficulties w ith th e local a u th o ri­ ties w h o view ed h er activities n o t only as an heretical in frin g e m en t o n th e R ussian O rth o d o x c h u rc h ’s p rero g ativ e to spiritual hegem ony, b u t as politically suspicious. H e r T h e o so p h y p erforce rem ain ed w ithin her dom estic circle; she c o n v erted h e r children an d h er m o th er. M aria R obinovich was am o n g th e first to begin translating T heosophical literatu re in to R ussian. F o r m any years T h eo so p h ical literatu re circulated in R u s­ sia e ith e r as sm uggled fo reign volum es (principally E nglish a n d F re n ch ), o r as m an u scrip t translations. A fter 1 9 0 1 , th e R ussian T heosophical M o v em en t becam e inextricably linked w ith th e n am e o f A nna A lekseevna K am enskaia ( 1 8 6 7 -1 9 5 2 ) . Raised a n d ed u cated in Sw itzerland, K am enskaia re tu rn e d to Russia and becam e a private teacher. She was associated w ith M aria S to iu n in a ’s p r o ­ gressive gym nasium in St. P e tersb u rg , from w hich she retire d in 1915 after tw enty-five years o f teaching. She and a n o th e r T h e o so p h ist,

TsetsiIiia L iudvigovna G eT m boT dt (d. 1 9 3 6 ), ta u g h t to g e th e r briefly in th e ir ow n progressive school. A w o m an w ith a highly developed social consciousness, K am cnskaia was also active in social w ork (she ta u g h t evening courses for factory w orkers) an d th e g ro w in g R ussian W o m en ’s M o v em en t. T his energetic, stro n g -w illed , and d ed icated w o m an was the driving force b e h in d th e Russian T h eo so p h ical Society; she b uilt it and she h eld it to g eth e r. U n d e r th e p seu d o n y m “A lba,” K am enskaia p r o ­ d u c e d a h u g e body o f original articles and translations o f T heosophical classics; she lec tu re d tirelessly (and ceaselessly); she ed ited th e S ociety’s jo u rn a l, Vestnik Teosofii, and she oversaw th e n u m ero u s p u b licatio n s o f th e Society. K am enskaia was in tro d u c e d to T h e o so p h y by an acquaintance o f M aria R obinovich an d a p io n ee r o f th e R ussian T h eo so p h ical M o v e­ m e n t, N in a K o n stan tin o v n a G e rn e t (d. 1 9 3 2 ). M m e G e rn e t was a m e m ­ b er o f th e E nglish T heosophical Society and w orked w ith branches in G erm any, S w itzerland, F ran ce, an d Italy. She frequently traveled b e ­ tw een E u ro p e and Russia, sm uggling fo rb id d en T heosophical books in to h er native land. In te re ste d in E astern religions a n d m ysticism from an early age, M m e G e rn e t becam e an a rd e n t T h e o so p h ist w h en she dis­ covered th a t T h e o so p h y could provide h er w ith an o u tle t for h er in te r­ ests and a p u rp o se in life. M any R ussians first cam e to T h e o so p h y th ro u g h h er efforts. She also m ain tain ed a h ig h profile w ith in th e E n ­ glish T h eo so p h ical Society and pu b lish ed in th eir m ain o rg an , th e Theosophical R eview .2 N in a G e rn e t’s extensive a n d c o m p lete personal collec­ tio n o f T h eo so p h ical literatu re eventually becam e th e central library o f th e R ussian S ection. A nna K am enskaia and N in a G e rn e t w ere ch ild h o o d friends, having gone to school to g e th e r in S w itzerland. O n c e , w h en Kam enskaia was im m o b ilized w ith a broken leg, h e r friend b ro u g h t h e r a box o f T heosophical books. K am enskaia was initially u n in te re ste d , because “ am idst th e suffering a n d ig n orance w hich su rro u n d e d us, I believed th a t all o u r energy o u g h t to be given to th e stru g g le for lig h t and so I was a t first antagonistic to T heosophy. I m isto o k it for an aristocratic teaching, g o o d only for a few, and d a n g ero u s because it m ig h t tu rn away som e o f th e force n e e d ed to help th e helpless.” 3 U n able to w ork because o f h er b roken leg, b o red w ith d o in g n o th in g , K am enskaia a t last d ecided to look at som e o f th e books G e rn e t h ad left for her: “ S uddenly I re m e m ­ b e re d th e coffer w ith th e ‘stra n g e ’ literatu re a n d I to o k th e first b o o k I saw in it, [M rs. B esant’s] I n the O uter C ourt. I h ad n o t read tw o pages before I was deeply in te rested and as I read farth er I grew so m oved and excited th a t I could n o t take a m eal, o r speak, n o r sleep till I had finished it. I read it th e w hole n ig h t th ro u g h an d th e n thrice again. . . . It ch anged m y w hole life a n d I shall never fo rg et it.”4 K am enskaia’s inter-

est so o n co m m u n ic a ted itself to h e r close friend and colleague, TsetsiIiia G el’m b o l’d t, w ho w o u ld b ecom e K am enskaia’s closest associate after th e fo rm atio n o f th e Society. In th e su m m er o f 1902 K am enskaia accom panied G e rn e t to E ngland for tw o weeks; th ere , o n several occasions, she h e a rd M rs. A nnie B esant speak a b o u t T heosophy. A t th e tim e M rs. B esant, w h o w o u ld becom e th e Society’s p resid en t in 1 9 0 7 , was o n e o f th e m o st influential T h eo so phists in th e Society. B orn and raised in L o n d o n , unsuccessfully m arried to an A nglican clergym an, she had b e g u n h er professional life as a social refo rm er by em bracing atheism and F abian Socialism . T h e n , in 1 8 89, she read M m e Blavatsky’s Secret D octriney m e t th e c re a to r o f T h e o so p h y herself, and so o n afterw ard becam e h e r a n o in te d successor. A t th e tim e o f M m e Blavatsky’s d e a th in 1891 M rs. B esant h ad achieved consider­ able p ro m in e n ce w ithin th e Society. She traveled to A dyar in 1893 and a d o p te d B rahm anism (she claim ed th a t in m any o f h e r previous in carn a­ tions she h ad b e e n a H in d u , as well as H y p atia and G io rd an o B ru n o ). A nnie B esant was attractive, sincere, a n d enthusiastic; she im m ed i­ ately w o n over A nna K am enskaia. “A fter th a t, every tim e A [nnie] B [esant] was in E u ro p e , I w e n t to hear h e r,” w ro te K am enskaia. “ I a t­ te n d e d all th e T h eo so p h ical C ongresses and occasionally accom panied A. B. d u rin g h e r tournees. W h en I was in L o n d o n , she invited m e to com e to h er, and I w o u ld spend a p a rt o f th e m o rn in g w o rk in g in h e r r o o m .”5 T h r o u g h o u t th e rest o f h e r life K am enskaia w ould rem ain a p e r­ sonal friend and reso lu te d e fen d er o f M rs. B esant, w h o m she called “ my friend a n d m y g u r u .” K am enskaia’s personal d e v o tio n to M rs. B esant played a definitive role in fo rm in g th e character o f th e R ussian Society a n d eventually d e te rm in e d K am enskaia’s ow n fate. T h e n a n d th ere in 1 9 0 2 she m ade th e decision to carry th e to rc h o f T h e o so p h y to Russia. A nna K am enskaia, n o w a reg istered m em b e r o f th e E nglish S ection o f th e T h eo so p h ical Society, re tu rn e d to Russia from E n g la n d filled w ith T heosophical n o tio n s and w e n t to w ork im m ediately. A g o o d , if n o t original, speaker, she gave lectures o n com parative religion a n d T h e o s o ­ p h y in select private salons o f St. P etersb u rg . She so o n discovered w ill­ in g com rades, a m o n g th em M aria von S trauch-S pettini ( 1 8 4 7 -1 9 0 4 ), an actress recently re tire d from th e Im perial T h e a te r in St. P e te rsb u rg .6 V on S trauch was a m em b e r o f th e Berlin b ran ch o f th e T heosophical Society and h ad already co n sid ered sta rtin g a b ran ch in St. P etersb u rg . “ I have m et to g e th e r several tim es w ith Fraulein K am enskaia and n o w w e are in c o n sta n t c o n ta c t,” she w ro te from P e tersb u rg o n O c to b e r 31, 1 9 0 2 , to h e r close friend M arie von Sivers, w h o was th e n in Berlin w o rk ­ in g w ith D r. R u d o lf Steiner: Do you know, I have suggested to her that we start meeting once a m onth in order to lay the foundation of a small Theosophical organization. On Satur-

day, N o v em b e r 2 , w e are g o in g to have a tea at m y h o u se. I have in v ited Frau S ch ., Frau W ., her m oth er, and Frau v o n H . to c o m e , th en y o u r sister [O lg a v o n S ivers], and b oth o f th e Frauleins H e lm b o ld t [Tsetsiliia G e l’m b o i’d t and her sister L iutsiia]. . . . I have n o idea as y e t h o w it w ill all turn o u t, b u t h o p e ­ fully th e plan is viable and w ill be o f u se to all co n cern ed . Fraulein K [am enskaia] w an ted to in vite a few m ore ladies and g en tlem en . T h a t m eans w e already have ten p eo p le for a G erm an circle, and she w ill form just such an oth er R ussian o n e .7

T h e resu lt o f M aria von S tra u c h ’s S aturday a fte rn o o n tea was th e first b ran ch o f w h a t w o u ld b eco m e, alm ost exactly six years later, th e R ussian T h eo so p h ical Society. A fter h e r p re m a tu re d e a th at th e e n d o f 1 9 0 4 , this first T h eo so p h ical circle was n am ed for her. By 1905 th e M aria S trauch C ircle h a d g row n large e n o u g h to form a second u n it, th e H y p atia C ircle.8 S oon tw o m o re circles w ere org an ized and th e T h eo so p h ists w ere able to lo o k org anizationally b ey o n d St, P e ­ tersb u rg . A g ro w in g n u m b e r o f unofficial T h eo so p h ical circles p ro s­ p e re d in various cities o f th e em pire, largely because o f th e c o n trib u tio n o f th e itin e ra n t N in a G e rn e t, w h o was an early u n itin g force w ith in th e gro w in g R ussian M o v em en t. T h ro u g h h er, K am enskaia eventually m et E lena Pisareva from K aluga, N in a P shenetskaia an d Pavel B atiushkov from M oscow , E lizaveta R adzevich from Kiev, a n d m any o th e r in d iv id u ­ als w ho w o u ld later play m ajor roles in th e c reatio n o f th e official R u s­ sian Society. T h e m o st p ro m in e n t fo u n d in g m em b e r o f th e R ussian T heosophical Society was A nna Pavlovna Filosofova (nee D iagileva, 1 8 3 7 -1 9 1 2 ). A n influential w o m an in h er ow n rig h t, she was also th e m o th e r o f the w riter and p h ilo so p h er D m itrii Filosofov a n d th e a u n t o f Serge D iaghilev, th e org an izer o f th e R ussian “W orld o f A r t” M o v e m e n t an d the Ballet R usse. Filosofova was b o rn in to th e w ealthy gentry. T h e eldest o f nine ch ild ren , she m arried V ladim ir D m itrievich Filosofov in 1 8 5 6 , w h e n she was only n in ete en . Filosofov, a public figure, a refo rm er, an d a highly placed b u rea u c rat, was fifteen years h er senior; h e d id m u ch to m o ld his y o u n g w ife’s character a n d interests. L iberal a n d charitable, Filosofova so o n becam e involved w ith th e W o m en ’s M o v e m e n t and w o rk ed w ith th e peasants, establishing schools, m issions, and hospitals for th e p o o r. I n th e fall o f 1879 she was exiled ab ro ad fo r h e r p ro g re s­ sive ideas an d political leanings, u n acceptable in th e wife o f a highly placed public figure. She w e n t to W iesbaden, w here she discovered T h e ­ osophy. Early in 1881 she was p e rm itte d to re tu rn to Russia a n d to c o n ­ tin u e h er p h ila n th ro p ic and fem inist activities. A nna Filosofova first m et A nna K am enskaia in 1 9 0 2 , w h e n she a t­ te n d e d one o f K am enskaia’s private T h eo so p h ical lectures. Filosofova h a d fam iliarized h erself w ith T h eo so p h ical d o c trin e d u rin g h e r years

ab ro a d “ a n d fo u n d in it n o t only a co m p lete expression o f her ow n m ost sacred convictions, b u t also a clear explanation o f th a t active idealism w hich im b u ed h er en tire life.”9 Russia p rovided n o o u tle t for this in te r­ est, how ever. Kam enskaia enthusiastically in fo rm ed Filosofova th a t a small T h eo so p h ical circle was already active in St. P e tersb u rg , and so o n A nna Pavlovna becam e a m em b e r o f M aria von S trauch-S pettinP s circle. T h e jo in in g o f forces by these tw o dynam ic w o m en , K am enskaia and Filosofova, was to greatly advance th e T heosophical M o v em en t in Russia. A leading figure a m o n g R ussian T h eo so p h ists, Filosofova s u p p o rte d th e m w ith h er considerable financial m eans, w o rk ed for th e cause, and m ade h e r prestigious salon, fre q u e n te d by th e cream o f St. P etersb u rg society an d intelligentsia, available for dissem inating th e S ecret D o c ­ trin e th ro u g h discussion and lecture. She was freq u en tly one o f th e R u s­ sian representatives at various T h eo so p h ical C ongresses an d m eetings ab road. She also w o rk ed to pop u larize T h e o so p h y at hom e: she was th e logical choice, for exam ple, to lead th e T heosophical deleg atio n to th e C ongress o f R ussian Spiritualists in M oscow in 1 9 0 6 .10 Filosofova c o n ­ tin u e d to be an active and visible m em b e r o f th e Russian T heosophical Society u n til h e r d e a th o n M arch 17, 1 9 1 2 . O n th e D ay o f th e W h ite L o tu s (M ay 8, th e anniversary o f M m e Blavatsky’s “d e p a rtu re from the physical p la n e ” ), Filosofova’s p o rtra it jo in e d M m e Blavatsky’s and O lc o tt’s in p ro m in e n t display a t th e Society’s H e a d q u a rte rs as a “p io ­ n e e r o f th e m o v em en t in R ussia.” H e r c o n trib u tio n s to R ussian society in general an d to th e R ussian T h eo so p h ical M o v e m e n t in particu lar w ere considerable. T h e T heosophical circles c o n tin u e d th eir u n o b tru siv e w ork th ro u g h th e early years o f th e new century. T h e re was talk o f sta rtin g a jo u rn a l, reg isterin g as an official o rg an iz atio n , and finally jo in in g th e p a re n t T heosophical Society, b u t for several years it was unfeasible: a T h eo sophical Society w o u ld n o t be to le rate d by th e O rth o d o x ch u rc h and w o u ld certainly be d en ied a charter. T h e situation ch an g ed radically w ith th e R ev olution o f 1 9 0 5 -1 9 0 6 , w hich liberalized R ussian censor­ ship reg u latio n s. T h e first prio rity o f th e R ussian T h eo so p h ists in this ch an g ed c o n te x t was th e dissem ination o f T heosophical texts. T h e ir first publications w ere a jo u rn a l, Vestnik Teosofii (th e first issue appeared o n Jan u ary 7, 1 9 0 8 ), a n d a collection o f T heosophical articles, Voprosy Teosofii, w hich w e n t o n sale in D ec e m b e r 1 9 07. T h e five sections o f th e first volum e o f Voprosy Teosofii w ere d edicated alm ost exclusively to translations and paraphrases o f re c e n t lectures and articles by leading T h eo so p h ists, m o st o f th e m p re p a re d by A nna K am enskaia, E lena Pisareva, D m itrii S tran d en , Pavel B atiushkov, and A nna M intslova. T hese in clu d ed w orks by A nnie B esant (“T h e Search

fo r G o d ,” “T h eo so p h y and the N ew P sychology,” “D oes T h eo so p h y C o n tra d ic t C hristianity?” and “ T h e N ecessity o f R e in c arn a tio n ” ), R u ­ d o lf S teiner (“ T h e C u ltu re o f th e F ifth A ryan R ace,” “F ausi”)^ E d ith W ard ( “T h eo so p h y and Science” ), E d o u a rd S chure ( “ D ionysos and P e rse p h o n e ” ), a n d M m e Blavatsky’s Voice o f the Silence. E xcerpts from th e B hagavad G ita w ere also included. A second volum e o f Voprosy Teosofii appeared in 1 9 1 0 (and was reis­ sued in 1 9 1 1 ); this volum e was d e d ic a te d to M m e BIavatsky a n d in ­ clu d ed a new bio g rap h y by Elena Pisareva, a discussion o f th e lead er’s m ission by A nna R am enskaia, and m em oirs by M m e Blavatsky’s T h e o sophical colleagues. T h e m o st im p o rta n t m aterial in this second volum e was M m e Blavatsky’s “In tr o d u c to r y ” an d “ P ro e m ” to The Secret Doctrin e , seven stanzas from th e B ook o f D zyan {The Secret D octrine is an extensive c o m m e n ta ry o n these stanzas), h e r article, “ Practical O c ­ cu ltism ,” and several m in o r pieces, in clu d in g h er s h o rt sto ry “ Z akoldovannaia z h iz n ’.” T h e pu b licatio n o f Voprosy Teosofii signaled th e official d e b u t o f th e T h eo so p h ists in R ussian society and raised th eir profile am o n g e d u c ate d Russians. This d e b u t d id n o t pass u n n o tic e d . R r t e r r e p o r te d th a t “in early Ja n ­ uary [1 9 0 8 ], a m e e tin g o f representatives from th e R ussian T h eo so p h ical circles to o k place in M oscow ; certain m easures w ere o u tlin ed to facil­ itate th e unification o f th e circles, and Vestnik TeosofiitS relatio n to th e E u ro p e a n T h eo so p h ical M o v em en t was clarified.” 11 M any R ussian T heosophists, how ever, w ere in n o h u rry to affiliate them selves w ith th e P ar­ e n t Society. “ T h e p articipants o f th e m ee tin g arrived at th e conclusion th a t such a step was p rem a tu re and th a t it was generally u n d esir­ able to su b o rd in a te th e T heosophical M o v em en t in Russia to d ire c ­ tives from E n g la n d ,” re p o rte d th e c o rre sp o n d e n t for R usskii F rankm ason.12 C o n tin u in g th e ir discussions over th e course o f 1 9 0 8 , the rep re sen ta ­ tives o f th e various circles finally reached a m ajority decision to organize (w ith a significant n u m b e r o f circles ch o o sin g to rem ain in d e p e n d e n t). T h e y overcam e n u m ero u s b u reau cratic im p ed im en ts and officially reg is­ te re d th e new R ussian T heosophical Society ( “ Rossiiskoe Teosoficheskoe O b sh c h e stv o ” ; R T O ) w ith th e au th o rities in St. P etersb u rg on S ep tem b er 3 0 , 1 9 08. N o w c h a rte re d , th e R T O c o u ld beco m e a N a ­ tional S ection (th e R ussian S ection) o f th e w orldw ide T heosophical S o ­ ciety, affiliated w ith M rs. B esant an d th e T h eo so p h ical Society H e a d ­ q u arters in A dyar.12 T h e In au g u ra l M e etin g o f th e R ussian T heosophical Society was h eld o n N o v em b er 17, 1908 (th e th irty -th ird anniversary o f th e fo u n d in g o f th e Society by M m e Blavatsky a n d C o lo n el O lc o tt) in St. P e tersb u rg , w here th e new S ection w o u ld be h e a d q u a rte re d . A nna K am enskaia was elected G eneral Secretary.

T h e o so p h ic a l W ork ( 1 9 0 8 - 1 9 1 4 ) M em b ersh ip

D eterm ining the num ber o f Theosophists in Russia is difficult, since var­ ious factors affected m em bership co u n t bo th abroad and at hom e. After M me Blavatsky’s death in 1891, th e Theosophical Society soon splin­ tered into fragm ents th a t for political, adm inistrative, m oral, o r d o c­ trinal reasons cut their connections to C olonel O lcott, Mrs. Besant, and the parent Society. M m e Blavatsky’s M ahatm as, the scandalous accusa­ tions o f pedophilia against the Reverend C. W. Leadbeater (as well as his generally eccentric behavior), and Mrs. B esant’s showy H induism , cul­ m inating in the K rishnam urti affair, co n tributed in no small way to this.14 The first m ajor schism in 1895 broke o ff m ost o f the enorm ous A m er­ ican Section (m ore than six thousand m em bers) from the Society. In 1909 another group separated to form th e U n ited L odge o f Theosophists, while th a t same year M m e Blavatsky’s personal secretary, G. R. S. M ead, left the Theosophical Society to form the Q uest Society. In 1913 Dr. R udolf Steiner, an uneasy colleague o f Mrs. B esant’s from the start, took alm ost the entire German Society w ith him when he seceded to form the A nthroposophical Society. The m em bers o f these various o r­ ganizations rem ained in the Theosophical m ainstream , but could n o t be counted m em bers o f the Theosophical Society. Theosophical ideas and texts were also rew orked and incorporated into o th er esoteric m ovem ents, such as th e British O rder o f the G olden D aw n and the Stella M atutina, Alice Bailey’s Arcane School, and the Rosicrucian Fellowship (A M O R C ). M any individuals were attracted to certain aspects o f Theosophy, b u t never joined any society at all; they preferred to read and study alone o r in small, independent circles. O th er individuals w ith an interest in Theosophy had prim ary affiliations w ith o th er occult groups, such as the Spiritualists o r Freemasons. Thus, the actual dissem ination and im pact o f Theosophical ideas was considerably greater than m em bership statistics alone w ould indicate. T he Russian Theosophical Society (R TO ) was an officially recognized national Section o f the original Theosophical Society and loyal to Mrs. Besant. Russian Theosophists, however, were affected by the same p o lit­ ical and doctrinal argum ents th at beset Theosophy as a w hole, and so the m em bership statistics o f the RTO are b u t the tip o f th e Russian Theosophical iceberg. Shortly before the form ation o f the R TO , an edi­ torial in Rebus pointed out: There are several factions w ithin the T heosophical m ovem ent, the m ost ra­ tional o f w hich, and closest to patterns o f W estern European th ou gh t, is the

G erm an faction u n d er th e leadership o f R u d o lf Steiner. It m u st also b e n o te d th at th e A n g lo -In d ia n faction has at th e p resen t tim e p u t forw ard a clearly d elin ea te d , d o g m a tic p o sitio n , w h ich gives it a rather sectarian character. T his situ ation has resu lted in th e appearance o f m any [R u ssian ] T h eo so p h ica l or­ g a n iza tio n s n o t affiliated w ith th e cen ters o f th e T h e o so p h ic a l M o v e m e n t, b u t p roclaim in g th em selves in d e p e n d e n t follo w ers o f th e T h eo so p h ica l d o c ­ trine. S u c h , for in sta n ce, are a T h eo so p h ica l circle in M o sco w , a n o th er in O d e ssa .15

O n th e eve o f th e First W orld W ar p ro b ab ly several th o u sa n d Russians w ere sym pathetic to T h eo so p h y , a lth o u g h only th re e h u n d re d w ere r e g ­ istered officially w ith th e R T O in St. P e te rsb u rg in 1 9 1 3 .16 T his figure rep resen ts m o re th a n th re e tim es th e official m em b ersh ip o f th e Society w h e n it was c h a rte re d in late 1 9 0 8 , a n d th e Society c o n tin u e d to grow steadily.17 As a p o in t o f co m p ariso n , F inland h a d 518 reg iste red m e m ­ b ers, A m erica 4 ,1 4 5 (w ith th o u sa n d s m o re in th e separate A m erican S o ­ ciety), an d E n g lan d 2 ,2 8 0 in 1 9 1 3 . G e rm a n y ’s m em b ersh ip h ad d ro p p e d to 2 1 8 (co m p a re d to 2 ,4 4 7 th e previous year), reflecting th e d efectio n o f G erm an m em b ers to R u d o lf S te in e r’s A n th ro p o so p h ic a l Society. W orldw ide m em b ersh ip for 1 9 1 3 is given as 2 5 ,0 0 0 fo r the A dyar-based Society, b u t th e n u m b e r o f in te re ste d p arties was m u ch higher. I n 1911 th e re w ere m o re th a n fifty T h eo so p h ical jo u rn a ls, r e ­ flecting th e e n tire range o f allegiances, b e in g p u b lish ed in E u ro p e , A m erica, an d In d ia. F o u r w ere p u b lish e d in R ussia, only o n e o f w hich spoke fo r th e R T O . In all, so m e th irty o c c u lt jo u rn als ap p eared in Russia b e tw e en 1881 a n d 1 9 1 8 , a n d m o st o f th e m , a lth o u g h n o t d e v o te d ex­ clusively to T h eo so p h y , also in clu d e d T h eo so p h ical m aterial. In th e case o f th e R ussian S ectio n , official m em b ersh ip figures d o n o t accurately reflect actual in te rest. S om e R ussian T h eo so p h ists h a d reg is­ te re d as m em b ers o f E u ro p e a n branches (n o ta b ly in B elgium , E n g lan d , an d G erm any) before 1 9 0 7 and never ch a n g ed official m em b ersh ip to th e R ussian S ectio n , a lth o u g h th ey a tte n d e d m eetin g s a n d p articip a te d in R T O fu n ctio n s. O th e r in te re ste d p erso n s chose n o t to reg ister offi­ cially because th e R ussian O rth o d o x c h u rc h , o f w h ich m any T h e o so phists w ere active m em b e rs, d id n o t approve o f th e Society. C o n se rv a ­ tive g o v e rn m e n t agencies (an d m any T h e o so p h ists w ere in civil and m ilitary service) also disap p ro v ed o f em ployees w h o b e lo n g e d to an o r ­ g a n iz a tio n fro w n ed o n by th e O rth o d o x ch u rch . T h e Society d id ex p eri­ ence occasional h arassm en t an d its m iddle-class a d h e re n ts o fte n fo u n d it ex p ed ien t n o t to be officially listed. M o st o f th o se w h o w ere reg iste red m em bers lived in th e m ajo r cities w h ere th ere w ere active branches; n evertheless, T h eo so p h ists in th e provinces som etim es never b o th e re d to register. O th e r in te re ste d in d i­ viduals w ere a ttra c te d to T h e o so p h y b u t expressed th e ir disapproval o f

M rs. B esant a n d C. W. L ead b eater by n o t jo in in g . T hese individuals jo in e d in d e p e n d e n t T heosophical circles w hich, fo r a variety o f valid rea­ sons, chose n o t to affiliate w ith th e R ussian S ection and so d id n o t e n te r in to its statistics. T h e re was as m u ch in tern al politicking a m o n g th e R u s­ sian T h eo so p h ists as am o n g th e E u ro p e a n and A m erican branches. T h o u san d s o f R ussians all over th e co u n try , how ever, m an ag ed to a t­ te n d T heosophical lectures and o th e r functio n s regularly. T h e R T O ’s public functions w ere rem arkably well a tte n d ed . T h e vast m ajority o f th e R ussian T heosophical S ociety’s m em bers cam e from th e p e tty gentry, th e m iddle grades o f civil service, th e m ili­ tary, th e professions, th e creative intelligentsia, a n d fro m o th e r elem ents w ithin th e small b u t gro w in g R ussian e d u c ate d m iddle class. T h e o so p h y also a ttrac ted m em bers from th e aristocracy.18 T h e R ussian T h eo so p h ical Society was d o m in a te d by w o m en ; available in fo rm a tio n indicates th a t less th an a th ird o f its m em bers w ere m en. W om en h eld m o st o f the to p adm inistrative positions in th e R ussian S ection. W ith in th e Russian e d u c ate d class, w hich was still very small o n th e eve o f th e First W orld W ar, th e T h eo so p h ists form ed a respectable c o n tin g e n t, num erically an d financially. O f th e seven branches th a t m ade up th e R ussian S ection o f th e T h eo sophical Society, th e largest was th e St. P e tersb u rg b ra n c h .19 I t h a d ten circles, pro b ab ly rep re sen tin g m ore th an h a lf th e total R T O m em b e r­ ship. R eflecting th e p articu lar interests o f th e St. P e tersb u rg T h eo so phists, these in clu d ed th e M aria S trauch C ircle, H y p atia C ircle, the E astern C ircle, th e P edagogical C ircle, th e A rtistic C ircle, th e Dr. S teiner S tudy C ircle, th e Secret D octrine S tudy C ircle, th e C hristian C ir­ cle, a n d th e U n io n o f Races Circle. T h e active Kiev b ran ch h ad m ore th a n fo rty reg istered m em bers; M oscow had a b o u t thirty, plus tw o study circles (th e A nnie B esant an d th e V ladim ir Solov’ev S tudy C ircles).20 T h e Kaluga b ran ch , established o n April 2 1 , 1 9 0 9 , h a d few er th an tw en ty form ally reg istered m em bers, a lth o u g h it h a d th e h ig h est profile after th e St. P e tersb u rg b ran ch . T h e new est b ran ch in Yalta, w hich o p e n e d o n April 7 , 1 9 1 4 , was th e sm allest; K am enskaia m e n tio n e d th a t few er th an a d o z e n m em bers b elo n g ed in F e b ru ary 1 9 1 4 , b u t th e re w ere m o re th a n th irty “ in te rested p a rties,” w hich perhaps gives som e ro u g h in d icatio n o f th e ratio o f reg istered to u n reg iste red T h e o so p h ists.21 Tiflis, R o sto v -n a -D o n u (o p en e d o n M ay 10, 1 9 1 0 ), and th e provinces shared th e rest. T h e re w ere regional affiliates, b u t n o branches, in K har’kov, Poltava, Riga, and Iaroslavl’. T h e various branches h a d differ­ e n t interests: K aluga’s, for instance, was m usic a n d handicrafts, Kiev’s was ph ilo so p h y (m any m em bers w ere also active in th e Kiev R eligiousP hilosophical Society); th e Tiflis circle was in te rested in all form s o f o c ­ cult philosophy and spiritualism .

T h e K aluga branch o f th e R T O , despite its small size, was th e m ost im p o rta n t after St. P e tersb u rg because o f its p resid e n t, E lena F ed o ro v n a Pisareva, a n d her family. Pisareva first b eg an h o ld in g T h eo so p h ical m eetings for in te re ste d friends in Kaluga in 1 9 0 6 , a lth o u g h she had al­ ready been a T h e o so p h ist for som e years. She was ac q u ain te d w ith M aria von S trauch and was a close friend o f A nna Filosofova. H e r h u sb a n d , N ikolai Pisarev (secretary o f th e Kaluga b ran c h ), o w n ed th e F o to s P u b ­ lishing H o u se , th e first T h eo so p h ical press in Russia. F o to s p u blished tw en ty -o n e titles betw een 1905 an d O c to b e r 1 9 1 7 , w h en its press and stock w ere destro y ed by th e Bolsheviks. T h e Pisarev’s d a u g h te r, N atalia, was also involved in th e M o v e m e n t as a tra n sla to r o f T heosophical texts; she eventually m arried th e Italian T h e o so p h ist P ietro Bocca and m oved abro ad. T h e Pisarev family offered th eir c o u n try estate o u tsid e K aluga, P o d b o rk i, as a T heosophical center. P o d b o rk i was only 18 versts (a b o u t 12 m iles) from th e m o n aste ry o f O p tin a P u sty n ’, w here th e T h eo so phists w ere fre q u e n t visitors.22 M any T h eo so p h ists stayed at P odborki. A nna K am enskaia began sp en d in g h e r sum m ers th ere in 1 9 0 3 , and w ro te a b o u t it several years later: “ O ver th e years [P o d b o rk i] becam e a spiritual cen ter in w hich active T h eo so p h ical w ork w e n t o n an d to w ard w hich seeking an d h u n g e rin g h e a rts w ere d raw n .” 23 P o d b o rk i becam e th e R ussian version o f th e H e a d q u a rte rs H o u se in A dyar, M adras. E lena Pisareva was well k n o w n am o n g E u ro p e a n T h e o so p h ists. She was personally acq u ain te d w ith M rs. A nnie B esant, D r. R u d o lf Steiner, M arie von Sivers, G. R. S. M ead , M rs. C ooper-O akley, an d B ertram Keightley. A lth o u g h she lived in K aluga, she fre q u e n te d T heosophical circles in St. P e tersb u rg and M oscow , and h er con tacts in clu d ed th e m ajor unofficial T h eo so p h ical circles as well as affiliates o f th e R ussian Section. A fter Filosofova’s d e a th , K am enskaia a n d Pisareva becam e, w ith o u t a d o u b t, th e tw o m o st intern atio n ally visible R ussian T h eo so phists. D u rin g th e years w h e n n o R ussian S ection existed, th ey had learn ed to particip ate in E u ro p e a n T h eo so p h ical events a n d to m aintain a h ig h E u ro p e an profile. K am enskaia, Pisareva, and th eir R ussian co l­ leagues unfailingly a tte n d e d T h eo so p h ical C ongresses, conferences, su m m er courses, lectu re series, an d o th e r activities in E n g lan d a n d on th e c o n tin e n t, b rin g in g back lectures, lessons, and o th e r m aterials to share w ith colleagues at h o m e. L ittle tim e elapsed betw een E u ro p ean events a n d pub licatio n s, an d R ussian k n ow ledge o f them . E lena Pisareva’s original affiliation was w ith th e G erm an S ection o f th e T h eo so p h ical Society; she becam e a m em b e r o f th e B erlin b ran ch in 1905 and from 1908 h e a d ed th e R u d o lfS te in e r branch in K aluga. Pisa­ reva arra n g e d for S teiner to give a special lecture cycle designed for the R ussians in M ay a n d Ju n e o f 1 9 0 6 , in co n ju n c tio n w ith th e W orld T h eo -

sophical C ongress th e n taking place in Paris (June 3—6). A tte n d in g S tein er’s Paris cycle w ere th e w riters K o n stan tin B al’m o n t, N ikolai M inskii [V ilenkin], D m itrii M erezhkovskii a n d his wife Z inaida H ip p iu s, th e critic D m itrii Filosofov (A nna Filosofova’s so n ), M aksim ilian V o­ loshin and his wife and M argarita Sabashnikova, and o th e r m em bers o f th e R ussian co m m u n ity in Paris, as well as th e d e le g a tio n o f T h eo so phists from Russia (m o re th a n a d o z e n individuals, in clu d in g Pisareva herself, A nna K am enskaia, N in a G e rn e t, A nna Filosofova, and A nna M intslova). T h e Paris Cycle was n o t th e first lectu re series th a t S tein er h ad p re ­ p ared for th e R ussians, n o r w o u ld it be th e last. I n b o th 1 9 0 4 and 1905 S teiner h a d read cycles specifically d esigned fo r R ussian audiences; he w ould also read special lectures fo r th e R ussians in 1912 and 1913. R u s­ sian T h eo so p h ists, rem arkably perip atetic, w o u ld o fte n sto p in Berlin o r C o lo g n e o n th eir way h o m e fro m E u ro p e an m eetings to hear Dr. S tein er’s lectu res.24 T h e Paris Cycle, how ever, was historically im p o r­ ta n t, b o th for S teiner a n d for th e fu rth e r d ev elo p m en t o f R ussian T h e o s ­ ophy. T h e topic o f these im p o rta n t lectures (th e e v o lu tio n o f th e co s­ m os, th e e a rth , an d m an) already c o n ta in ed th e core o f m u ch o f S tein er’s su b seq u e n t th o u g h t a n d ma'de a lasting im pression o n his a u d i­ ences. M any o f th e T h eo so p h ists w h o a tte n d e d to o k n o tes, w hich they later read in th eir circles at h o m e, acco u n tin g in p a rt for S te in e r’s h ig h profile am o n g R ussian occultists. T h e m eetin g w ith S teiner a n d th e 1 9 0 6 Paris C o n g ress also served to in tro d u c e th e R ussian T h eo so p h ists to each oth er. H e re th e lead in g role was taken by th e g enerous a n d h o spitable A nna Filosofova. H e r close friend, th e T h e o so p h ist A. V. T yrkova, w ro te , “T h e re w ere m any R u s­ sian T h eo so p h ists a t th e C ongress. T hey had n o t yet org an ized ; in fact, m any o f th e m w ere n o t even acq u ain ted , b u t they so o n becam e friends in [Filosofova’s] draw ing ro o m .”25 Pisareva’s overall c o n trib u tio n to th e R ussian T heosophical Society was great. In a d d itio n to actively p ro m o tin g S tein er’s variant o f T h e o s o ­ phy, she tran slated n u m ero u s T heosophical texts, w ro te a R ussian b io g ­ raphy o f M m e Blavatsky, pu b lish ed p am p h lets, served as liaison b etw een R T O a n d n o n -R T O circles and betw een th e R ussian an d G erm an Sec­ tions, c o n trib u te d h e r editorial efforts to Vestnik Teosofii, an d lectu red extensively. Like K am enskaia a n d Filosofova, E lena Pisareva d e v o te d her life to th e T heosophical cause. Even after th e Bolshevik R ev o lu tio n , w h en she was ob lig ed to em igrate in 1 9 2 2 , she w e n t to Italy a n d c o n tin ­ u ed to w ork, w ith K am enskaia in G eneva, for th e R ussian T heosophical Society O u tsid e Russia. A th ird m em b er o f th e small b u t v igorous Kaluga b ran ch was Aleksandra Vasil’evna U nkovskaia ( 1 8 5 7 -1 9 2 9 ). A g rad u ate o f th e St. Peters-

burg C onservatory o f M usic, a professional violinist, and the w idow o f the famous operatic baritone N . V. Unkovskii, the popular Aleksandra Vasil’evna w orked on sound-color synesthesia, which she interpreted in a mystical way. She lectured and w rote on the Theosophical dim ensions o f sounds, colors, and music. She was a close friend o f Kamenskaia and contributed extensively to Vestnik Teosofii. Unkovskaia traveled fre­ quently and, like Pisareva and Kamenskaia, had num erous contacts with E uropean Theosophists. She also was acquainted w ith many leading fig­ ures in the w orld o f music and art.26 T he Kiev and M oscow branches followed St. Petersburg and Kaluga in visibility. The I-Qev branch was founded by Ariadna Vel’ts and Eli­ zaveta ViEgel’m ovna Rodzevich. Leading m em bers included E. G. Berdiaeva, w ho was also a m em ber o f the Kiev Religious-Philosophical Society and leader o f th e short-lived Sophia Circle for the study o f T h e ­ osophy and Christianity (founded February 15, 1915), Vasilii Alekse­ evich Sobolev, Evgenii K uz’m in, and Evgeniia Vasil’evna Pal’shau. T he M oscow branch was officially established on M arch 14, 1910, but never attracted many m em bers. This is n o t an indication, however, th at M uscovites were uninterested in T heosophy; on the contrary, M oscow actually had the largest num ber o f independent Theosophical circles in Russia. The adm inistration o f the M oscow branch was in the capable hands o f A nna Iakovlevna Rabinovich, a dentist w ith offices on the Arbat. Its first president was Iu. N. Kirpichnikova. O th er visible M oscow Theosophists included Nikolai Karlovich Boianus, A. V. Bornio, Sofia Vladimirovna G er’e (who w ould, as its president, see the M oscow branch th ro u g h th e Bolshevik Revolution, and die soon after), E. E. Lineva, E. N edovich, and Princess Sofia U rusova, w ho also served as president o f the branch.

Tbeosophical Life T he Russian Theosophists had their ow n particular life-style. T heir “ sea­ so n ” opened on Septem ber 18 (O cto b er I [N .S.J), which was Mrs. Besa n t’s birthday. It closed on April 25 (May 8 [N .S .]), on the Day o f the W hite Lotus. T he m ajor event o f the fall season was the anniversary cel­ ebration o f the founding o f the Theosophical Society on N ovem ber 17. By tradition, the provincial m em bers o f the RTO w ould com e to St. Petersburg for this “ G olden W eek” (zolotaia nedelia), w here they w ould enjoy a series o f special lectures, teas, musical perform ances, exhibits o f Indian art, and o th e r Theosophical entertainm ents. Each week during the season, the St. Petersburg branch w ould hold tw o or three open m eetings, w hich the general public was welcom e to

attend. These were so successful th at by the fall o f 1913 the RTO began using the main hall o f the Tenishev Academy (seating 41 3 ) for their public lectures. M any o f the leading m em bers also traveled extensively to lecture in the provinces. The Theosophists were enthusiastic lecturers and frequently packed auditorium s w ith talks on “Theosophy and Life,” “The S tructure o f the Cosm os and the S tructure o f M an,” “Reincarna­ tio n ,” “The D octrine o f Karma and D harm a,” “T he D evelopm ent o f Psychic Powers and the Education o f the New M an,” and “T he Path o f Discipleship and the M ission o f M ankind.” 27 T he public lectures w ould be reviewed in the local press and occasion­ ally in Rebus, which continued to m onitor the Russian Theosophical M ovem ent. From the first day o f the Society’s form ation Pavel C hi­ stiakov, Rebus’’s editor, rep o rted on its activities and aims, feeling it his duty to inform the public and keep the Theosophists honest. While hav­ ing few objections to Mrs. Besant herself, Chistiakov was n o t well dis­ posed tow ard her retinue. Thus w hen Iu. M. Kirpichnikova, th e presi­ d en t o f the M oscow branch, read th e persistently problem atic C. W. Leadbeater’s “ O utline o f T heosophy” at a lecture, Chistiakov w rote: We have already had cause m o re th a n once o n the pages o f R ebus to take n o te o f th e fantastic fabrications o f M r. L e a d b e a ter . . . , fo r instance, [his discus­ sion of] w hich kind o f harp th e Logos plays o r o f w h at color, in w hich c o u n ­ tries nym phs can be fo u n d . . . . A ny serious m o v em en t sh o u ld steer clear o f such u n restrain ab le ad ep ts, an d we th in k th a t th e T h eo so p h ical Society in P e­ te rsb u rg w o u ld d o well to take over th e M oscow b ran ch for a certain p erio d o f tim e, in o rd e r to p rev en t its ap p earin g in p ublic w ith such risk-laden and co m p ro m isin g n am es a n d id e a s.28

O n the w hole, however, Russian Theosophists m anaged to avoid m ost o f the eccentric excesses tow ard which a certain faction w ithin T h eo so ­ phy seemed inclined. Each week there w ould also be an equal num ber o f closed m eetings, open only to m em bers and their specially invited guests. Small, intim ate m eetings o f the various circles, for m em bers exclusively, were held reg u ­ larly. A t these m eetings the chairm an w ould frequently read the latest article by the P arent Society’s leading lights or conduct a symposium on Theosophical classics or som e aspect o f doctrine. T he public lectures and the lecture cycles for m em bers were still a p art o f “exoteric T h eo so ­ phy,” accessible to anyone w ho cared to join and do the readings; the Society also had an inner, secret “ Esoteric S ection” for the select few whose spiritual developm ent was m ore advanced and w ho were capable o f absorbing and understanding the m ost sophisticated occult philoso­ phy.29 AU m eetings frequently included musical interludes, recitation o f

inspirational verse and H in d u scriptures, and b u rn in g o f incense. Fridays w ere for tea and o p e n conversation at th e eleg an t, gilded R T O H e a d ­ q u a rte rs, w hich had to be ex panded to h o ld at least a h u n d re d m em bers for closed m eetings. T h eo so p h ists a tte n d e d n o t only th eir ow n lectu res, b u t also th o se o f th e ir d etracto rs. W h e n M e n tin lec tu re d against T h eo so p h y in Kaluga early in 1912 (T h e o so p h y is “ a d a n g e ro u s ep id em ic” ), E lena Pisareva, h er h u sb a n d N . V. Pisarev, and G. G agarin w ere p rese n t to d efen d th e Society. In P oltava, w h e n th e unfriendly re c to r o f th e local sem inary, A rch im an d rite V arlaam , lec tu re d o n th e “h arm ful influence o f fash io n ­ able T h eo so p h ical d o c trin e , w hich is b e g in n in g stro n g ly to a ttra c t o u r y o u th ,” T h eo so p h ists w ere th ere to d efen d th e ir p o sitio n a t th e lecture and in th e local new spaper.30 T h e T h eo so p h ists p refe rre d th eir ow n com pany and sp e n t th e ir free tim e w ith T heosophical com rades. T h ey h ad th eir ow n vegetarian res­ tau ran ts an d even a vegetarian dacha-pension, th e “V asanta,” in th e vil­ lage o f S a m o p o m o sh c h ’, forty-five m in u tes from St. P etersb u rg , w here th ey could reco u p th eir s tre n g th in th e fresh air an d th e T heosophical atm o sp h ere. T h e gift o f a m em b er, Ivan A n u ch k in , it b u rn e d d o w n in D ecem b er 1915. By th a t tim e th e T h eo so p h ists w ere already collecting m oney to b u ild a m o d e rn T h eo so p h ical san ato riu m , to be called the “ B ela,” o n th e Black Sea coast. T h e Pisarevs’ “ P o d b o rk i” also offered a refuge w h en n eed ed . Finally, th e Society was enthusiastically involved in plans to b uild a B u d d h ist tem ple in St. P e te rsb u rg .31 A lth o u g h T h eo so p h ists as a g ro u p w ere perceived by m any as being elitist a n d exclusive, even haughty, th ey w ere n o t isolated from o th e r social m o v em e n ts.32 T h e g ro w th o f th e T h eo so p h ical Society actually w e n t h a n d in h a n d w ith th e W o m en ’s M o vem ent. O n e reason for this m ig h t be th e h ig h visibility a n d assertiveness o f th e T heosophical w om en. M m e Blavatsky was a u n iq u e w o m an for h e r tim e; charlatan o r n o , she can be c re d ite d fo r accom plishing w h a t few m en could have achieved in th a t age. H e r g ra n d m o th e r was a d o m in a n t personality, h er m o th e r was an early fem inist w riter. A n n a K am enskaia was professionally involved in ped ag o g y a n d child rearing. N in a G e rn e t was a rem arkably in d e p e n d e n t and peripatetic w o m an for th e e n d o f th e n in e te e n th c e n ­ tury. M any w o m en w ith in th e T h eo so p h ical M o v em en t o w n ed their ow n businesses o r w ere them selves d o c to rs, den tists, teachers, o r o th e r professionals. A nna FiIosofova was in stru m e n ta l in involving th e T h eo sophical M o v em en t in p h ila n th ro p ic and social projects. Filosofova was a m ajor figure in th e R ussian W o m en ’s M o v em en t; w ith D r. A. N . S habanova, she helped org an ize th e first A ll-R ussian W o m en ’s C ongress (1 9 0 8 ), in w hich m any T h eo so p h ists, b o th m en and w o m en , partici-

p a te d . She was also involved in n u m ero u s p h ila n th ro p ic projects, in clu d ­ in g th e b u ild in g o f th e first d o rm ito ry for w o rk in g w o m en in St. P e ters­ burg. T h e W o m e n ’s M o v em en t saw a natu ral ally in th e T heosophical Soci­ ety because it was a m inority g ro u p w ith a large fem ale co n stitu en cy and scope for social activism . T h e T h eo so p h ists saw an ally in th e W o m en ’s M o v em en t because th e w o m e n involved h ad “vision” : “T h e voices from th e H ig h e r Planes [i.e., th e voices o f th e G reat T eachers] find th e g re a t­ est response in th e h e a rt o f w om an. F o r this reason th e W o m en ’s M o v e­ m e n t is stro n g , and for this reason it m u st be successful. In its dream o f h u m a n b ro th e rh o o d , regardless o f sex and class, it approaches and u n ites w ith T h e o so p h y ,” explained N a d e z h d a T ro fim en k o -D m itrie v a .33 In this view R ussian T h eo so p h ists e ch o ed th e views o f th e L eague o f Free W om en in L o n d o n an d o th e r in te rn atio n a l w o m e n ’s o rganizations. T h e y w ere pro-fam ily, as well as advocates fo r h ig h e r ed ucational o p p o r­ tu n ities for w o m e n a n d co m p lete equality w ith m en. T h e T h eo so p h ical M o v e m e n t was involved in a variety o f p h ila n ­ th ro p ic o rganizations. T h eo so p h ists o p e n e d vegetarian cafeterias an d fo o d kitchens for th e p o o r, w o rk ed in hospitals, ran k in d erg arten s, p r o ­ vided day care, p u t up C hristm as trees for th e ch ild ren o f th e p o o r, dis­ trib u te d candy, books, and toys, and h eld e n te rta in m e n ts for th e p e n u ri­ ous elderly. T h e T h eo so p h ists w ere am o n g th e first to express in te rest in M aria M o n te sso ri’s new tea c h in g m e th o d and to apply it to th eir ow n edu catio n al efforts; they w ere active in pedagogy. T h e R T O h ad a P e d a ­ gogical C ircle th a t m e t regularly, w o rk ed w ith k in d erg a rte n s, and p r o ­ d u c e d a small body o f literatu re o n u p b rin g in g a n d p rim ary e d u c a tio n .34 Finally, th e T h eo so p h ists also p a rticip a te d in various arts an d crafts m o vem ents, o n th e th e o ry th a t people w o u ld be h ealth ier a n d hap p ier if th ey w o rk ed w ith th eir hands. T h e R ussian T heosophical Society was associated w ith th e In te rn a tio n a l U n io n o f H an d iw o rk . P articularly ac­ tive in this aspect o f T h eo so p h ical life was A leksandr L oginovna Pogosskaia, w h o w ro te and translated for Vestnik Teosofii u n d e r th e p se u ­ d onym “ D a n a .” Pogosskaia h a d lived in F lorida and E n g lan d and frequ ently re tu rn e d to Russia to visit and lectu re for th e Kaluga branch. F o r tw en ty -tw o years she was involved in th e e x p o rt o f R ussian peasant handicrafts ab road. A n enthusiastic liaison b etw een R ussian a n d E nglish T h eo so p h ists, she traveled freq u en tly b etw een th e tw o countries. C o n tem p o raries w ere n o t unaw are o f this dim en sio n o f th e T h eo sophical Society. In his b o o k o n T heosophy, F a th e r D m itrevskii w rote: In order to give a real n o tio n o f th e social p o w er o f this m o v em en t, it is suffi­ cien t to list th o se leagu es and u n io n s, w h ich currently en ter in to th e charter o f th e T h eo so p h ica l Society. H e re th ey are: “T h e L ea g u e for th e D issem in a-

tio n o f T h eo so p h ica l L iterature” ; “T h e L eagu e o f th e P o w er o f T h o u g h t w ith th e A im o f P rovidin g W ork for S elf-Im p ro v e m e n t” ; “T h e L eagu e o f th e A e s­ th e tic ,” th e go a l o f w h ich is to spread th e ideal o f B eauty in society; “T h e L eagu e o f M oral E d u cation o f Y o u th ” ; “T h e ‘Isis’ U n io n ,” w h o se g o a l is to bring b eau ty and th e u n d erstan d in g o f art in to th e life o f th e p oor; “T h e B r o th erh o o d o f W orkers,” w h o advance th e id ea o f the h o lin ess o f labor and th e solidarity o f w orkers; “T h e In tern ation al U n io n o f H a n d iw o rk ” ; “T h e U n io n for th e P ro tectio n o f A n im als” ; “T h e L eagu e for A ctio n against V iv i­ se ctio n and G rafts.” 33

T h e T h eo so p h ists w ere indefatigable p h ilan th ro p ists. In fact, th e m ajo r­ ity o f R T O m em bers w ere w ell-m eaning, g en ero u s, idealistic m en and w o m e n w ho saw in T h e o so p h y n o t only a quasi-religion o r an esoteric d o c trin e, b u t a social and p h ila n th ro p ic o u tle t as well. T hey believed fervently in T h e o so p h y ’s c o n c ep t o f “ active idealism ” and subscribed to its te n e t th a t “ in th e social sphere T h eo so p h y teaches th e necessity o f bu ild in g a new life o n th e basis o f b ro th e rh o o d an d m oral responsibility o f each individual for o th e r peo p le, and o f all o th e r people for each in d i­ v id u al.” 36 T h e o so p h y satisfied th e ir n e e d to “ b e lo n g ” and to d o “ g o o d d e e d s” for “m a n k in d ” in th e n am e o f a h ig h e r idea. T h a t is w hy D m itrii M erezhkovskii p atro n izin g ly called th em “m ercilessly k in d .”

The H e r a ld o f Theosophy: Vestnik Teosofii T h e central o rg an o f th e R ussian T heosophical Society was Vestnik Teosofii ( Theosophical H e ra ld ).37 O n th e fro n t page was th e cred o o f th e Society: “N e t Religii vyshe Istin y ” (“T h e re Is N o R eligion H ig h e r T h a n T r u th ” ), w hich M m e Blavatsky had claim ed in I z peshcher i debrei I n dostetna was th e devise o f th e M aharajah o f Benares. T h e jo u rn a l’s p r o ­ gram was to: ( I ) include original articles a n d articles in tran slatio n o n T heosophy, com parative religions, occultism , studies o f th e psychic forces h id d en in n a tu re and in m an , an d psychology a n d o th e r related fields o f know ledge; (2) p rovide new s o f th e T h eo so p h ical M o v em en t in Russia an d ab ro a d a n d o f o th e r related spiritual a n d social m ovem ents; (3) include biographies o f leading representatives o f th e T heosophical w orldview ; 4 ) have an artistic an d literary sectio n , show ing th e reflection o f th e spiritual in art; (5 ) review books o n qu estio n s o f T heosophy, psy­ chology, spiritualism , and so fo rth ; a n d (6 ) provide a reference section and answ ers to subscribers’ questions. T h e Vestnik Teosofii h a d several reg u lar features. T hese in clu d ed th e “Scientific S e c tio n ” (for h e a lth , d iet, and science); th e “Survey o f T h e o sophical L ite ra tu re ,” a selective review o f all th e m ajor fo reign T h e o -

sophical journals, com piled by Varvara Nikolaevna Pushkina; “ C h ro n i­ cle o f the Theosophical M ovem ent,” w ritten by Alba-Kamenskaia; “ Chronicle o f Life,” which dealt primarily with the m inutiae o f Russian intellectual life; “From th e Newspapers and Journals,” w hich ran ex­ cerpts from the Russian press on items o f interest to T heosophists; a book review section th at reviewed books on the oddest subjects, m ost o f them unrelated to T heosophy b u t probably reflecting the interests and hobbies o f the reviewers; a “Q uestion and Answer” colum n p atterned on the dialogue structure o f M m e Blavatsky’s Key to Theosophy-, and “From a T heosophist’s Diary,” personal and professional excerpts from Alba-Kamenskaia’s journal. Sprinkled th ro u g h o u t each issue were gems o f wisdom m ined from various sources: G oethe, oriental scriptures, L. N. Tolstoi, Theosophical classics, the Bible, the Gnostics, and so forth. O ver the years the Vestnik discussed the various topics o f particu ­ lar peripheral interest to Russian Theosophists: morality, vegetarianism, education, Atlantis, philanthropy, problem s o f E uropean culture, crime, labor, the W om en’s M ovem ent, sectarianism, and quality o f life. T he form at o f Vestnik Teosofii was based primarily on th e L ondon journal, The Theosophical Review .38 Its early years were haunted by finan­ cial problem s, and the journal probably never showed a profit. M uch o f the publication costs after 1912 were covered by the editors and p u b ­ lishers (Kamenskaia and G el’m b o l’d t) themselves. Only readers’ support and contributions kept it going. T he Vestnik Teosofii was aim ed at a spe­ cific audience; while it m et the needs o f th at audience, it could n o t have had a broad appeal. It was w ritten primarily (b u t n o t exclusively) in “Theosophical language,” a m arked form o f discourse studded with platitudes, H induism s, and the excessive use o f “ gentle” vocabulary (svetlyi, tikhii, liubimyi, dorojyoi). Its tone ranged from serm onizing to being self-righteous and even ecstatic. O ver its eleven years o f publication, Vestnik m ade available to its read ­ ers num erous Theosophical classics in Russian translation. Some items, especially those th a t did n o t get by the censorship, circulated in m anu­ script only to m em bers and interested parties. T he quality o f the transla­ tions was uneven; some were com petent, others only approxim ate para­ phrases. Alba-Kamenskaia and the editorial board o f Vestnik were n o t above excising sensitive passages, o r rephrasing w ording so as n o t to irri­ tate the censorship, the authorities, o r the readership. In spite o f Kamenskaia’s efforts to avoid official attention, she was invited to visit the offices o f the T hird Section on several occasions. O ne time she was briefly detained for material published in Vestnik. O n M arch 12, 1912 Kamenskaia had her day in co u rt. She was sued for al­ lowing a disparaging com m ent ab o u t St. C onstantine the G reat to ap­ pear in the M arch 1912 issue o f Vestnik Teosofii, b u t she was acquitted

on May 18, 1912. It was her m ost serious, b u t n o t h er only, brush with the Tsarist secret police, w ho constantly kept the Theosophists under surveillance. T he serialization o f three im p o rtan t and influential texts— Mrs. Besan t’s A n cien t Wisdom (1897), E douard Schure’s Les G rand Inities (1889), and R udo lf Steiner’s Wie erIantCjt m a n Erkenntnisse der hoheren Welten (1904)— in Vestnik Teosofii were com pleted by the end o f 1909 and m ade im m ediately available, in attractive editions, to th e general reading public. W hile texts by various Theosophists and occultists ap­ peared o n the pages o f Vestnik, the Russian Theosophical M ovem ent was ham pered by the unavailability in Russian o f tw o o f its m ost im por­ ta n t texts, M m e Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine. N o t until 1913 did the journal began to serialize excerpts from The Secret Doctrine under the title Evoliutsiia simvolizma. M m e Blavatsky’s at times virulently anti-C hristian position consistently ran in to problem s w ith the censorship and prevented publication o f this classic Theosophical text. Subscription to the Russian translation o f The Secret Doctrine had originally been announced in Vestnik in 1911, b u t was subsequently disallowed by the censorship. T he January 1912 issue o f Vestnik an­ nounced th at “publication o f The Secret Doctrine is deferred due to cir­ cum stances beyond the control o f th e editorial b o ard ,” and offered a refund. O nly after the February 1917 revolution could the w ork appear in a m ore com plete form. I t was typeset and ready for printing w hen the Bolsheviks confiscated the plates in 1918 and closed th e press. Vestnik Teosofii published many works by leading American and E u ­ ropean Theosophists, notably M rs. Besant and Dr. Steiner, b u t also Dr. Theophile Pascal, M abel Collins, A. P. S innett, G. R. S. M ead, C. W. Leadbeater, Dr. Franz H artm an n , and M ichael W ood.39 Beginning in January 1910, Vestnik published large segm ents o f a translation (by Kamenskaia and Irm a M antsiarli) o f the Bhajjuvad G ita into Russian, as well as R udolf Steiner’s biographical series on medieval mystics from M eister Eckhart to G iordano B runo, D ie Mystik im A u fya n g e des neuzeitlichen Geisteslebens (1895). The translation o f Louis M enard’s Hermes Trismegistusm 1911 made available for th e first tim e certain an­ cient herm etic texts in Russian. A lm ost all o f these m ajor Theosophical works subsequently appeared in separate editions, many being reprinted several times, and sold n o t only at R TO lectures b u t also in many exclu­ sive speciality bookshops.40 T he journal also published Indian m yths, the stories o f R abindranath Tagore, fragm ents from Indian and Chinese religious classics, and inspi­ rational poetry by the philosopher Vladimir Solov’ev, the p o et Max Vo­ loshin, and the poet-sectarian Aleksandr D obroliubov, w hom R am en­ skaia considered a “pro fo u n d mystic” and a “popular theosophist.”

There were also articles on Russian O rth o d o x saints and elders popular w ith the T heosophists, especially St. Serafim o f Sarov (also revered by the Russian royal family and the Sophiologists). A lthough the p rep o n ­ derance o f material was Theosophical, every facet o f ancient and co n ­ tem porary occultism , religion, and speculative philosophy, w ith the ex­ ception o f black magic, found a place in the pages o f Vestnik Teosofii. A lthough the vast bulk o f Vestnik''s contents was material translated from E uropean sources, also included was original Russian material, only some o f it o f interest. The largest single Russian co n trib u to r was Anna Kamenskaia. N o t only did she write many o f the regular features, b u t as the president o f the R TO she had her ow n colum n, “F rom a T heosophist’s D iary” (and after the start o f the war in 1914, also “ O n W atch” ). Kamenskaia’s articles, while well in ten tio n ed , were n o t very stim ulating. She trained as a teacher, n o t as a thinker or a p rophet; her profession was apparent in h er articles. As early as 1903 M aria von Strauch-Spettini observed o f her: “I have a great yearning for deeper insights, and Fraulein Ramenskaia, as dear and as good as she is, is n o t substantial enough to give them to me. B oth ladies (Frl. G ernet) can only repeat w hat I can and already have read for myself. B ut I yearn for glimmerings th at w ould unlock deeper insights, th a t w ould awaken that w hich cannot awaken by itself.”41 W hat Ramenskaia lacked in flair, how ­ ever, she certainly made up for with com m itm ent and hard work. Vestnik Teosofii was a success first and forem ost because o f h er efforts. A nother im portan t co n trib u to r to Vestnik Teosofii was Pavel N ikolae­ vich Batiushkov (1864—c. 1930), th e grandson o f the p o et K onstantin Batiushkov. Batiushkov was interested in b o th spiritualism and T h eo so ­ phy. H is Theosophical interests antedate th e form ation o f th e RTO and can probably be traced to his cousin, A nna Sergeevna G oncharova (a relative o f Pushkin’s wife, Nataliia G oncharova), w ho retu rn ed to M oscow from Paris in 1901 a confirm ed Theosophist. G oncharova shared her new passion w ith h er cousin and his friends, the Symbolist w riter A ndrei Belyi and the o th er m em bers o f the M oscow A rgonaut Circle. A quiet, studious individual, Batiushkov w orked at the R um ian­ tsev M useum in Moscow. Batiushkov w rote m ore than a dozen original Theosophical articles (on spiritual alchemy, karma, and mysticism and poetry, am ong o th er subjects) and was a regular con trib u to r to Vestnik Teosofii. H e also trans­ lated excerpts from several Theosophical texts, including M abel C ol­ lins’s L ight on the Path·, this latter he published in th e first book o f the Symbolist anthology Svobodnaia SovesP in 1906. W hile Batiushkov’s contribution was n o t profound, he lent the Society his scholarly respect­ ability and was a reliable and m uch-liked colleague. H e also dissemi­ nated Theosophical ideas in Symbolist literary circles. Viewing Theoso-

phy as a living philosophical system , he strove to take certain basic T h eo so p h ical concepts b e y o n d th eir ro te p re se n ta tio n in T heosophical bro ch u res an d to place th e m in a m o re general philosophical co n tex t, freq u en tly relating th e m to th e th e o ry o f “Sym bolism as a w orldview ” advocated by his friends a n d colleagues am o n g th e A rgonauts. As Vestnik Teosofii c o n tin u e d to g ro w in size and circulation, o th e r R ussian c o n trib u to rs em erg ed to balance th e heavily E u ro p e an c o n te n t o f th e first tw o years o f p u b licatio n . A leksandra U nkovskaia w ro te a rti­ cles o n color, so u n d , and n u m b e r ( “T svet-zvuk-chislo” ), o n R ichard W agner, and o n o th e r m usical topics. She c o n trib u te d irre g u la r “ L etters o n M u sic,” in w hich she discussed h er “ c o lo r-so u n d ” ( tsvetozvuk) synesth etic theories, an d began h er “ sp iritu al” m em oirs in Vestnik. A nna R am enskaia’s sister, M argarita A lekseevna, w ro te letters from In d ia in 1 9 1 2 , w h ere she was a g u est a t th e A dyar H e a d q u a rte rs , as well as an article o n th e histo ry o f B uddhism . K o n stan tin K udriavtsev w ro te o n pseudoscientific topics associated w ith hy p n o tism and spiritualism . E vgenii K u z’m in, an active m em b e r o f th e Kiev b ran c h , w ro te several sum m ary articles fo r Vestnik Teosofii, w hich w ere later p u blished as p o p ­ ular b rochures. E lena Pisareva c o n trib u te d b o th general articles and b io ­ graphical m aterial o n M m e Blavatsky. D m itrii V ladim irovich S tran d en help ed spread th e T h eo so p h ical w o rd n o t only in occasional articles for Vestnik, b u t in his books as well. H is in terests w ere sectarianism , esoteric C hristianity, and philosophy. O th e r c o n trib u to rs inclu d ed P. I. T im ofeevskii; M . F. G ard en in a, w h o review ed bo oks; A leksandra Pogosskaia, w ho w ro te on th e virtues o f lab o r and w ro te an occasional co lu m n , “ L etters from E n g la n d ” ; Varvara P ushkina, w h o su p p o rte d M rs. Besa n t’s O rd e r o f th e Star in th e E ast; Vera R u dich a n d A nna Veselovskaia, w h o b o th tran slated and w ro te original o ccu lt verse fo r th e jo u rn a l; and, o f course, N in a G ern et, to nam e b u t a few. M any m ore T h eo so p h ists w o rk ed o n translations o f E u ro p e a n T h eo so p h ical texts for th e jou rn al. A t its peak, Vestnik Teosofii d istrib u te d som e th o u sa n d copies a m o n th . U n d e r R ussian co n d itio n s, and c o n sid erin g th e esoteric n a tu re o f the T h eo so p h ical d o c trin e, this was an e x trao rd in ary circulation.

A Theosophical Thinker: P. D. Uspenskii (1878-1947) T h e R ussian T heosophical Society d id n o t p ro d u c e from w ith in its ranks anyone o f th e statu re o f M m e Blavatsky, M rs. A nnie B esant, o r D r. R u d o lf Steiner. T h e m o st im p o rta n t and visible T h eo so p h ical th in k e r in Russia was P e tr D em ianovich U spenskii (O uspensky; 1 8 7 8 -1 9 4 7 ). H e cam e to T h e o so p h y in 1 9 0 7 , a lth o u g h for him it was only a way statio n o n his ow n esoteric p ath . H e w rote:

In 1 9 0 7 I fo u n d T h eosop h icaI literature, w h ich was p ro h ib ited in Russia— Blavatsky, O lc o tt, A n n ie B esan t, S in n ett, etc. It p rod u ced a very stro n g im ­ pression on m e alth o u g h I at o n c e saw its w eak side. T h e w eak side w as th at, su ch as it w as, it had n o co n tin u a tio n . B u t it o p en ed d oors for m e in to a n ew and b igger w orld. I discovered th e id ea o f eso tericism , fo u n d a p o ssib le ap­ proach for the stu d y o f religion and m ysticism , and received a n ew im pu lse for th e stu d y o f “h igh er d im e n sio n s.”42

A lthough he left Theosophy after seven years o f apprenticeship, Uspenskii never underestim ated its im portance in his life and th o ught. M uch o f his subsequent occult system was clearly ro o ted in Theosophy: in its moral dim ension, its emphasis on comparative religion, and its attem pt to unite science, philosophy, and religion. A nd he made his ow n co n tri­ bution to the M ovem ent, as well; Berdiaev called him “ the m ost in d e­ pendent and talented Theosophical w riter we have” in Russia.43 A m athem atician by training and a journalist by profession, Uspenskii was the R T O ’s m ost prom inent philosopher, author, and lecturer until he left the Society in 1914. His m ajor contribution to Russian Theosophical th o u g h t is contained in three books, Chetvertoe Izmereniey Tertiu m O rganum y and V nutrennii krug. Chetvertoe izmerenie and another text, Simvoly Taroy were published in Vestnik Teosofii. Uspenskii m ain­ tained th a t the three spatial dim ensions and the one linear tem poral di­ m ension characteristic o f the perceiyed phenom enal w orld are actually the pro d u ct o f Maya, the World Illusion. In maya, tim e appears u n i­ dimensional: a straight line, a series o f points w ith past, present, and future being three consecutive points on th a t line. T he o rder o f those points cannot be changed, and, once passed, those points cannot be re ­ peated. N ew points becom e new past, new present, new future. But, claimed Uspenskii, this is all illusion. Tim e is n o t really a straight line. It is a curve, or perhaps (as A ndrei Belyi w ould also subsequently suggest), a spiral. O th er dim ensions, such as eternity, actually exist, b u t these higher dim ensions are accessible only to the “new m an,” the superm an, w ho has developed “supersensible” (occult) sight. In his eclectic th e o ­ ries, Uspenskii united the “higher m an” o f the Theosophists, Vladimir Solov’ev’s Bogocheloveky and N ietzsche’s Obermenschy placing them in the context o f mystical Darwinism. “The m ajor co n ten t o f the Theosophical system ,” he w rote, “m ust be considered synthetic philosophy, evolutionary morality, and the doctrine o f the superm an.44 U spenskii’s syncretic approach was characteristic o f th e peculiar m en­ tal ferm entation th a t to o k place d uring th e Russian Silver Age; it strove to synthesize all the m ajor intellectual trends o f the tim e. Uspenskii sought to unite W estern philosophy and Eastern mysticism in a m ore balanced fashion and to correct the Theosophical list tow ard Buddhism.

H e b ro u g h t in N ie tz sc h e ’s concepts o f th e superm an and etern al re c u r­ rence, in te g ra te d th em w ith B u d d h ist n o tio n s o f th e h ig h e r self, reincar­ n a tio n , a n d th e O n e Life, an d grafted th e m o n to S olov’ev’s concepts o f th e A ll-U nity an d th e G o d m an . N o r did U spenskii’s th o u g h t lack th e necessary scientific dim ension. R ein carn atio n becam e “ ev o lu tio n o f th e s p irit,” D arw inism o f th e soul ra th e r th an o f th e organism . U spenskii “p ro v e d ” his th e o ry o f d im e n ­ sions w ith m ystical m athem atics, an exam ple o f “ scientific o ccultism ” ; his m ystical m athem atics o f space later influenced R ussian abstract art (M atiu sh in , M alevich, and o th ers). T h e im p o rta n c e and influence o f U spenskii as a synthesizer an d p o p u larize r o f fashionable philosophies in early tw e n tie th c e n tu ry Russia has been u n d erestim ated . In N o v e m b e r 1 9 1 4 U spenskii re tu rn e d to Russia from a len g th y trip, c u rtailed by th e o u tb re a k o f th e First W orld W ar, w hich h a d tak en him to E gypt, C eylon, and India. H e sp e n t tw o m o n th s o f his “search for the m iracu lo u s” in In d ia, w here he visited M rs. B esant at th e T heosophical H e a d q u a rte rs in Adyar. H e re tu rn e d disap p o in ted . U spenskii h ad al­ ready d ecided to leave th e T h eo so p h ical Society w h en he gave, early in 1 9 1 5 , th re e lectures sp o n so re d by th e T h eo so p h ists a b o u t his fo reign ad v en tu res. Vestnik rep o rted : P. D . U spenskii’s th re e lectu res a ttra c te d a h u g e audience, b u t th ey evoked perplexity. T h e lectu rer p ro m ised in th e p ro g ra m to talk a b o u t In d ia. In fact he talk ed only a b o u t d isillu sio n m en t in seeking th e m iraculous and a b o u t his u n d e rsta n d in g o f occultism a t variance w ith its u n d e rsta n d in g by T h eo so phists a n d th e T h eo so p h ical Society. W ith in d ig n a tio n h e said th a t th e T heosophists selected ethics an d philosophy, n o t occultism , as th e ir field o f effo rt, an d th a t ethics an d p h ilo so p h y are u n necessary to th e Society an d u n related to occultism . . . . H e also accused th e T h eo so p h ical Society o f arrogance and sectarian ism .45

U sp en sk ii’s presence and p o p u lar speeches w ere sorely m issed by th e R T O after his d e p a rtu re . U spenskii broke away from T h e o so p h y because he was lo o k in g for a m o re refined esoteric tra d itio n , as well as a m o re C h ristian -o rie n te d al­ tern ativ e to th e T h e o so p h ists’ B uddhism . Early in 1915 he to ld his frien d A nna B utkovskaia, th e n also a m em b er o f th e R T O , th a t he “ in ­ te n d e d to leave th e Society w hose m em bers w ere ju st sheep, sh ow ing no evidence o f in d e p e n d e n t th o u g h t; and a lth o u g h he h a d been invited to jo in th eir ‘in n e r circle’ w ith th e pro m ise o f e n lig h te n m e n t n o t accessible to th e rank and file, he felt th a t th e re he w o u ld only e n c o u n te r b igger sh e e p .”46 U spenskii’s decision to leave was reinforced by a m eetin g w ith G u rd jie ff in th e spring o f 1 9 1 5 , a m ee tin g th a t ch an g ed his life, al­ th o u g h his a n d G u rd jie ff’s ph ilo so p h y w o u ld develop in d ifferen t direc-

tions and the two m en w ould subsequently p art ways. In A ugust 1921 Uspenskii lectured in L ondon for the Q uest Society, form ed by G. R. S. M ead (another Theosophical “ expatriate” ), and eventually developed his ow n following. H e never returned to Russia, b u t his ideas did n o t em igrate with him. U spenskii’s Russian disciples to this day continue to read and study his books.47

R u ssian T h e o so p h y d u rin g th e F irst W orld War (1914- 1918) In 1915, a year after the start o f the First W orld War, the Russian Theosophical Society celebrated the seventh anniversary o f its Theosophical work. This was a m ajor m ilestone, for the principle o f “seven,” im por­ tant in alm ost all occult systems, here designates one com plete cycle, or phase, in the process o f spiritual developm ent. This first seven-year cycle had been devoted to building a Society and propagandizing Theosophy to Russian society at large; on the eve o f the war the RTO had enough mem bers and interested parties to state w ith o u t reservation th a t the Theosophists had indeed established a visible cultural and social pres­ ence w ithin Russian society. By 1916, at the start o f the second seven-year cycle, the Theosophists were a social force to be reckoned w ith. People regularly had to be tu rn ed away from their lectures for lack o f space, and, at each such g ath­ ering, sales o f books and pam phlets, costing only kopeks, w ould often exceed 100 rubles. Theosophical publications were regularly included for serious review by m ajor journals, such as Kusskaia MysP. In 1916 Ramenskaia, w ho was wary o f overstatem ent and rarely exaggerated the dim ensions o f Russian Theosophy, proudly po in ted o u t th a t “over the course o f the first phase o f o u r existence (the first seven years), we were a new phenom enon, incom prehensible to and unacknow ledged by R us­ sian society; we were n o t taken into consideration, we were w hat science calls a ‘quantite nejyligeable: B ut things have now changed: . . . people now view us w ith consideration, they have begun to acknowledge us, and to com e to us for assistance and advice.”48 D uring th e First W orld War the Russian Theosophical Society was at the pinnacle o f its success and influence. Success in num bers, however, was n o t the Theosophical Society’s mission in Russia. Taking stock o f th e Society’s considerable achieve­ m ents, Ramenskaia concluded th at in the next seven-year cycle the Theosophists w ould have an even m ore im portant role to play in Russian (and world) culture:

W e are u n d o u b te d ly m o v in g o n to a h igh er level o f w o rld life. N o t w ith o u t p u rp ose have all th e veils b een torn away and previous illu sio n s are b u rn in g in th e fire o f d ifficult, an d, at th e sam e tim e, p ro fo u n d ly m ea n in g fu l experiences; n o t w ith o u t p urpose are w e p assin g th ro u g h so m any sh ock s; n o t w ith o u t p u rp ose are all m ind s and hearts o p e n in g to n ew ideas and inspirations. B u t w h at kind o f w orld view w ill be capable o f exp ressin g this h ig h er level o f c o n ­ sciousness? O n ly th a t w o rld view w h ich can unify all th e co m p lex n eed s o f hum an life and p rovid e th e stren g th to b uild life o n earth o n the basis o f b r o th e rh o o d , lo v e, and m utual assistance. T h eo so p h y p rovid es such a w orld view. 4 9

T h e T h eo so p h ists w ere p eo p le o f vision. T heosophy, and specifically R ussian T h eo so p h y , was to facilitate th e cultural an d spiritual renew al o f th e w orld; it was th e h o p e o f th e fu tu re fo r a w o rld a t war. W hile som e R ussian occultists allow ed th e b e g in n in g o f th e First W orld W ar to pass th e m by as an illusory tem p e st in a p h e n o m e n a l te a ­ cup (it w e n t u n rem a rk e d in several o ccu lt p u b licatio n s, in clu d in g Rebus), th e w ar d id n o t go u n n o tic e d by th e T h eo so p h ists. I n S e p tem ­ ber 1 9 1 4 , K am enskaia began w ritin g “ O n W atch ” (“ N a sto ro z h e v o m p o s tu ” ), a new o p e n in g section in Vestnik Teosofii th a t c o n tin u e d to ap ­ pear u n til th e dem ise o f th e jo u rn al itself. K am enskaia u rg e d T h e o s o ­ phists to see th e w ar as a cosm ic event o f o ccu lt significance, a cleansing fire in w hose h eat w o u ld be fo rg ed a new, spiritual u n io n o f th e religious E ast and th e scientific W est, m ed iated by R ussian spirituality. Russia, w ith such an im p o rta n t historical m ission, w as sure to be victorious. R am enskaia’s p o in t o f view, n o t to m e n tio n h e r im agery and term in o logy, was shared by m any representatives o f th e creative and G od-seeking intelligentsia. I n A dyar, M rs. B esant h ad issued a s ta te m e n t a b o u t th e w ar alm ost im m ediately, a lth o u g h h e r rem arks d id n o t appear in Vestnik Teosofii u n til O c to b e r 1 9 1 5 .50 She p o in te d o u t th a t U niversal B ro th e rh o o d was a fact, w ar was a fact (a rep e a tin g fact o f ev o lu tio n ), G o d was a fact, and th e B ro th e rh o o d o f A depts was a fact. T h e refo re, w ar was an evil o u t o f w hich g o o d w o u ld com e. T h eo so p h ists sh o u ld tru s t th e B ro th e rh o o d o f A depts to see th e w o rld th ro u g h this p e rio d o f carnage and suffering; th ey knew w h a t they w ere d o in g , even if o rd in ary m o rtals did n o t. W ar, she felt, was w o rth w h ile , since th e ex trao rd in ary o p p o rtu n itie s it evoked fo r ex h ib itio n o f bravery, m ercy, an d self-sacrifice allow ed th e soul to achieve in days, w eeks, m o n th s w h a t w o u ld ordinarily take m any life­ tim es to achieve. W ar was th e g reat leveler. I t h ig h lig h te d injustice and th e crim es o f society. A n d , o f course, w ar was inevitable if it was karm a. M rs. B esant u rg e d T h eo so p h ists to accept w h a t was h a p p e n in g a n d to a d o p t a n e u tra l p o sitio n .

W riting a b o u t th e w ar at its o u tb re a k , K am enskaia also rec o g n ize d it as “ a frig h ten in g p h a n to m o f w o rld karm a n o t o v e rc o m e.” B u t K am enskaia co u ld n o t q u ite advocate th e n eu trality th a t M rs. B esant urg ed . G o o d T h eo so p h ists d o n o t ru n from war, she p o in te d o u t. T h ey recognize it as an in d icato r o f th e low level o f hum anity, and th ey differ­ en tiate betw een a rig h te o u s w ar (th e defense o f th e u n fo rtu n a te ) and a sinful w ar (an offensive, grasping w ar). T h ey feel them selves p a rt o f th eir o w n n a tio n an d m u st be p rep a re d to carry th e ir share o f natio n al k a rm a .51 K am enskaia perceived R ussia’s karm a to be c o n n e c te d w ith its Slavic m ission, and h o p e d th a t Russia w o u ld u n d e rsta n d th a t she was destin ed , th ro u g h T heosophy, “ to b ecom e th e link betw een th e W est and th e E ast, o f w hich V ladim ir S olov’ev d re a m e d ,” 52 H e r earliest c o m ­ m en ts w ere a b o u t th e g ro w in g u n ity o f th e R ussian peo p le, a b o u t the w ar as an o p p o rtu n ity to realize th e b est aspects o f th e rich Slavic soul, a b o u t th e m ission o f th e Slavs to heal an d renew th e w orld th ro u g h T h e ­ osophy. “ Saint Sophia, T heosophy, opens to us th e p a th to w ard th e ful­ fillm ent” o f this task, she w ro te. “T his task is close to th e R ussian soul, and all o f Slavic c u ltu re, n o w arising, is consciously and unconsciously d ire c te d to w a rd its realization. . . . T h e soul o f th e R ussian p eo p le feels this very strongly, and because it feels this so strongly, it will u n d o u b t­ edly ap proach th e realization o f its m ission, it will illum inate th e life o f this w orld w ith th e lig h t o f St. S o p h ia.”53 N o t surprisingly, the R ussian T h eo so p h ists shared in th e m essianic vision o f th e G od-seeking intelligentsia; m any T h eo so p h ists w ere m em ­ bers o f th a t intelligentsia. Like m any ed u cated Russians, they, to o , had invested a g rea t deal o f em o tio n al and intellectual energy in th e G erm an c u ltu re o f S ch o p en h au er, G o e th e , Schiller, S chelling, an d N ietzsch e, n o t to m e n tio n G erm an scholarship and science. Im m ediately after the o u tb re a k o f th e war, N ikolai R oerich, D m itrii Filosofov, D m itrii M erezhkovskii, Sergei Bulgakov, E. N . T ru b e tsk o i, an d m any o th e r leading intellectuals w ro te in th e new spapers and jou rn als a b o u t h o w shocked they w ere by “c u ltu re d ” G erm ans, so lo n g adm ired and im itated , break­ ing o u t in th eir “ anim al guise” ; th e generally h ig h reg ard th ey h ad for G erm an cu ltu re m ade it difficult, if n o t im possible, fo r th em to u n d e r­ stan d this fiercely warlike aspect o f th e G erm an n atio n . T h e G o d -seek ­ in g intelligentsia felt th a t they alone w ere left in th e w o rld to carry on th e b a n n er o f culture. T h e T h eo so p h ists shared th eir position: “ T h e old , e m b itte re d , eg o is­ tic, isolated w orld is dying. T h e u tilitarian, m aterialist cu ltu re is falling ap art; c o n te m p o ra ry G erm any is a vivid exam ple. T h e days o f e d u c ate d barbarianism , w hich replaced th e idea o f h u m an ity and justice w ith the idea o f b ru te force, s u p p o rte d by utilitarian science, are en ding. S hould we grieve for th e fall o f such a civilization?” asked K am enskaia. “ Isn ’t it

tim e to replace th e idol o f external c u ltu re a n d u tilitarian science w ith a religious ideal? D oes n o t th e m ission o f th e Slavs, th e m ission o f Russia consist o f this task?”54 T h e o u tb re a k o f th e First W orld W ar clearly revealed th e e x te n t to w hich th e R ussian T h e o so p h ists’ vision o f th e “ P a th o f St. S o p h ia ” and th e “ R ussian Id e a ” o f th e G od-seekers coincided. T h e rh eto ric m ig h t be dressed in universal T h eo so p h ical g a rm e n ts, b u t b e h in d “ O n W atch” and th e o th e r in d ig n a n t articles th a t pro liferated in Vestnik Teosofii lay the sam e m anifestations o f G reat R ussian chauvinism an d p a trio tic o p ti­ m ism m in g led w ith feelings o f g u ilt and condescension to w a rd th e R u s­ sian c o m m o n people ( naro d ), th e sam e faith in R ussian spirituality, the sam e advocacy o f a religious so lu tio n to th e p ro b le m at h a n d , th e same apocalyptic vision, as expressed by th e G od-seekers. T h e T h eo so p h ists sang th e sam e so n g as th e G od -seek in g intelligentsia: it was th e m ission o f u n c u ltu re d b u t spiritualized Russia to show th e c u ltu re d b u t sould ead W est ju st w h at real cu ltu re sh o u ld be. B o th expressed th e ir vision by u rg in g self-sacrifice; b o th u sed th e C h ristian im agery o f passion, c ru ­ cifixion, an d resu rre c tio n . K am enskaia w ro te a b o u t th e n eed to “ bravely drin k th e cup o f suffering to its dregs, never ceasing to serve R ussia.” 55 T his all fit th e T h eo so p h ical paradigm o f th e in itia to ry path: to be b o rn o n e m u st die; to advance spiritually, one m u st suffer. T h a t was w h at th e w ar m eant. T h e resu rre c tio n o f Russia w ould com e, th e spiritual re g e n e ra tio n o f th e R ussian people w o u ld h a p p en , b u t only after suffering and death. T h e w ar was th e passion o f th e R u s­ sian n a tio n , the d isto rte d m anifestation o f a n o u m en a l reality in p h e ­ no m en al tim e and space. T h e attack o f th e “ dark forces o f evil” p rovided th e o p p o rtu n ity to prove spiritual m ettle. T h e brave w o rd s o f th e T h e o s ­ ophists, freq u en tly rep e a te d in th e pages o f Vestnik and so u n d in g in the lectu re halls, w ere an echo o f B erdiaev’s earlier s ta te m e n t th a t Russia “ can pass o n to new aw areness only th ro u g h rep en tan ce an d self-indict­ m e n t,” o r Sergei B ulgakov’s w arn in g against th e “dark forces” th a t are to rtu rin g th e b o d y o f Russia and his call to “ a free, spiritual act, invisible b u t entirely rea l,” to dispel th e forces o f d ark n ess.56 T h e T h eo so p h ists a n d th e G od-seeking intelligentsia even used the sam e vocabulary: crisis o f consciousness, dark forces, carrying th e cross, R ussia’s m ission, G odb earin g p eo p le ( narod-bojjonosets), sacrifice, crucifixion, spiritual re ­ new al, resu rre c tio n , new p a th , and b rig h t future. T h e w ar show ed n o signs o f e n d in g quickly. T h e T h eo so p h ists rein ed in th e rh eto ric and w e n t back to th eir lec tu rin g activity, devotional and o ccu lt literatu re, and usual concerns. T h e w ar rem ain ed w ith th em , how ever, as T h eo so p h ists w ere called up and w e n t to fight. T h e T h e o s o ­ phists also w orked for th e w ar e ffo rt. T h e R T O h ad a “ K ru z h o k sluzhen iia,” led by V. N . Pushkina and Ts. L. G el’m b o l’d t, w hich en gaged in

volunteer work and war service. T he Service Circle w orked closely w ith existing relief organizations, such as the International R ed Cross. T he Theosophists organized vegetarian soup kitchens for soldiers and for their families, left behind w ith o u t support; made and collected u n d er­ wear and clothing for soldiers and refugees; donated reading m atter and read aloud to invalids in the military hospitals; helped w ith bookkeeping and records; did pedagogical work; tau g h t first aid; subsidized hospital beds, and volunteered in th e wards. M any w ent to th e front as Sisters o f Mercy. In 1916 the Theosophists felt the pinch o f war economy, as did all Russians. AU publications, including Vestnik Teosofii, were unable to find com petent typesetters, suffered from the paper shortage, and were h am ­ strung by rising printing costs. T h e cost o f Vestnik Teosofii had gone up to seven rubles in 1916 (it w ould rise to tw enty-one rubles by 1918). Kamenskaia begged her readership for support: “A t this critical m om ent in Russian life the voice o f Vestnik should n o t be silenced, the hearthfire should n o t go out. T he Editorial Board hopes th at those w ho w arm ed themselves at this hearthfire will n o t leave it in this difficult m om ent and will help to carry forw ard the light o f E ternity into the w orld.” 57 Each succeeding volum e was, nevertheless, shorter than the one before. The regular features disappeared. Vestnik Teosofii itself faded away w ith o u t fanfare in 1918. It seem ed, for all intents and purposes, to mark the end o f Theosophy in Russia.

F our O th e r R ussian T h eo so p h ica l M o v em en ts

T h e S m o len sk T h e o so p h ists N o t all Russian T heosophists were affiliated w ith the Russian T heosophical Society, nor could th a t organization even claim th e rig h t o f p rim o­ geniture. The very first attem p t to establish a Theosophical Society in Russia to o k place n o t in the capital o f St. Petersburg, b u t in th e provin­ cial city o f Smolensk, m ore than a full year before the R TO was officially chartered. Inaugurated on July 30, 1907, th e Smolensk Theosophical Society had a strong patriotic and Russian O rth o d o x coloring from its incep­ tio n .1 T he Smolensk Theosophists considered themselves un d er the p ro ­ tection o f the icon o f St. M ichael o f C hernigov; A rchim andrite Ignatii, a senior Russian O rth o d o x m onk and a m em ber o f the Society’s board, served a liturgy in its h onor, w ith prayers for th e Romanovs; the ser­ vice was attended by clergy from a nearby m onastery. The Society sent a telegram to Tsar Nicholas II, asking for his support, and sent messages to local O rth o d o x prelates: “The Smolensk Theosophical Society, hav­ ing as its goal the unification o f all in b ro th erh o o d and love, believing in and know ing the power th a t prayer to th e L ord G od gives all people, begs your holy and warm prayers and blessings for o u r new Society.”2 Kebus w elcom ed it, calling its charter “ an interesting case o f the refrac­ tion o f the principles o f T heosophy th ro u g h th e prism o f Russian Chris­ tian m ysticism.”3 The m ost interesting feature o f the Smolensk Theosophical Society was its ecumenical Christian dim ension. Its credo was published on the back cover o f every issue o f its journal, Teosofskuia- Z h izn y-. W hat is the T heosophical Society? T he T heosophical Society forms the nu­ cleus o f a Christian brotherhood, which studies religious system s, philosophy, and sciences; w hich investigates the forces o f nature latent in man; which struggles against the material side o f human nature; which disseminates the principles o f the know ledge o f the spirit o f truth; which develops its spiritual powers; and w hich establishes the power o f spirit over matter. The main credo o f the Society’s m embers is “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Their main task is to truly live the life o f a Christian; to be unsatisfied with only being called a Christian; to exhort others to do the same; and to serve as a true example and m odel o f Christian life, both in word and in deed.

T h e T h eo so p h ica l S o ciety is n o t a secret society, n or a sect, nor a specific faith. It seeks to c o llec t all C hristians b en eath its banner— in fa ct, n o t just in stated in ten tio n . T h e m em bers o f the T h eo so p h ica l S o ciety treat all p eo p le, acco rd in g to the exam p le o f their D iv in e T eacher, w ith h o n o r , lo v e, tolerance, d eferen ce, and g en tlen ess; they strictly ob serve C h ristian -T h eosop h icaI principles and d o n o t digress from the charter o f th e Society. Consequently: n o t in words, b u t in deeds: L ove G o d , lo v e thy n eig h b o r, k n o w thyself, d ev elo p stren gth o f spirit, suppress the p o w er o f th e passion s, serve as a g o o d exam p le to thy n eig h b o r, teach h im , b e h o n e st, just, toleran t, d eferen tial, g e n tle , and true to th e Charter.

Clearly th e Sm olensk T h eo so p h ists spoke o f T heosophy, b u t affirm ed ethical C hristianity and C h ristian charity. T h e ir credo led Rebus to o b ­ serve: “W e are n o t dealing h ere w ith T h e o so p h y as m u ch as w ith so m e ­ th in g w e sh o u ld really call ‘C hristianized T h e o so p h y .’ ” R ebus praised th e new Society fo r its rec o g n itio n th a t, given th e peculiarities o f the R ussian national consciousness, th e “ exotic flowers o f H in d u th o u g h t” w ould n o t g ro w well in R ussian soil w ith o u t som e serious graftin g o n o f O rth o d o x th o u g h t.4 V ladim ir Ivanovich S h tal’b erg, th e e d ito r o f Teosofskaia Z h iz n 3 and p ro m in e n t m em b e r o f th e Sm olensk Society, claim ed th a t Russia was a fundam entally C hristian c o u n try ; even its sectarians, he o p in ed , w ere tru ly C hristian. “A nd really,” he asked, “w h at is th e sense o f tra n sp la n t­ in g p u re T h e o so p h y in to R ussian soil? Its principles w o u ld n o t m erge w ith th e R ussian spiritual o u tlo o k , b u t w o u ld rem ain only an excres­ cence o n th e spiritual and m oral organism o f th e R ussian peo p le, having n o th in g in c o m m o n w ith th e m .” 5 T he Sm olensk T h eo so p h ists w an ted to give R ussian T h eo so p h y its ow n , in h eren tly Slavic face, a n d th a t m e a n t in jectin g a stro n g O rth o d o x elem ent. In this th e Sm olensk Society h ad th e assistance o f a certain faction w ith in th e local clergy. A rch im an d rite A leksandr, like fo u n d in g m em b er A rch im an d rite Ig n atii, view ed th e rising in te rest in T h eo so p h y as o n e m o re expression o f th e g ro w th o f spirituality in Russia. T h e p articip atio n o f th e clergy in th e Sm olensk Society, how ever, was short-lived. Even if a few archim andrites w ere into x icated by this heretical d o c trin e , th e rest o f th e Sm olensk clergy rem ain ed spiritually sober. A rg u m en ts w ere o f n o avail; th e archim andrites received o rd ers fro m th eir spiritual superiors to leave th e Society a few s h o rt m o n th s after they had h elp ed to fo u n d it. In vain S h tal’berg p e titio n e d th e Synod to allow clerical m em bers to co n tin u e th eir p articip atio n , arguing th a t th e Society had received a legal charter. T h e H o ly S ynod, by decree o n A pril 2 5 , 1 9 0 8 , did n o t find th e activity o f th e T heosophical Society im m oral, a n ti-C h ristian , o r sin-

fill; th e Synod d id , how ever, consider it specifically alien to O rth o d o x C hristian d octrine and could n o t allow O rth o d o x clergy to participate in o r su p p o rt such a society.6 T h e Synod was n o t pleased w ith the publicity th a t the archim andrites’ m em bership in th e Sm olensk T heosophical Society generated. Criticism o f clerical participation began to appear in th e Russian press. W riting in K o lo k o ly a new spaper associated w ith the reactionary b u t pow erful Black H u n d re d s, N . M ariu p o l’skii expressed a typical reactionary attitu d e t o ­ w ard Theosophy. “Last year a ‘T heosophical Society’ was organized in Sm olensk. Similar ‘societies’ are now springing up like m u sh ro o m s,” he com plained. “ N evertheless, th eir stance is u n questionably an ti-C h ris­ tia n .” H e was appalled th a t “ now , at a tim e w h en th e O rth o d o x C h u rch is being ru in e d by various sects and a lack o f faith, we find am o n g the m onastic b re th re n , a n d even am o n g th e m onastery leaders, those w ho establish societies inim ical to Christianity, w ho organize lectures on spiritualism , occultism , telepathy, clairvoyance, som nam bulism , and o th e r -isms, and even arrange seances!” 7 O bviously this m u st all be p a rt o f a M asonic conspiracy; how, M ariu p o l’skii w o n d e re d , d id th e gover­ n o r ever p e rm it the registration o f such a society? T h e activities an d publications o f th e Sm olensk T heosophical Society could m o st generously be described as eclectic. Several m em bers, n o ta ­ bly A. S. Kellet, L. F. fon-der-R aab T ilen, F ed o r P o tek h in , N . K. Boianus, and A. V. B ornio, w rote sum m ary articles a b o u t different form s o f occultism an d th eir history for Teosofskaici Z h iz n jl. As e d ito r, V. I. S htal’berg c o n trib u te d a regular colum n, “T h e S truggle o f th e Spirit w ith M a tte r,” th a t addressed ethics and m orality. T h e journal m ixed T heosophical m aterials (translations o f R u d o lf S tein er’s Wie erlangt m a n Erkenntnisse hoherer W elteny paraphrases o f M rs. B esant’s articles, and som e hagiographic m usings a b o u t M m e Blavatsky) w ith works by traditional mystics (E m anuel Sw edenborg, E ckartshausen) and Spiritu­ alists, seasoning th e w hole w ith local m em bers’ poem s an d descriptions o f strange and inexplicable th in g s th a t had h appened to th em or their friends. T he result was an am ateur mystical m elange o f n o identifiable occult persuasion. T he jo u rn al soon revealed th a t the Sm olensk Society’s interests lay n o t only in T heosophy, b u t also in spiritualism a n d hypnotism . “An occult-m entalist g ro u p has been organized w ithin th e Sm olensk T h e o ­ sophical Society for th e study and practical application o f spiritual forces in m an ,” a n n o u n ced the January 1908 issue. T h e m em bers h ad an “ o c­ cult-m ental prayer” th a t they all recited at exactly 10:33 p . m . Sm olensk tim e, no m atte r w here they w ere; they fo u n d it rem arkably efficacious.8 S oon th e jo u rn al was publishing co n d en sed stenographic rep o rts o f local spiritualist seances. L etters to Teosofskaia Z h iz n j indicate its close

ties to Sergei Dm itrievich Volkov (d. 1909), an occultist, Freem ason, Spiritualist, and leader o f a large unaffiliated Theosophical circle in Moscow. T he Smolensk Theosophists were n o t co n ten t to rem ain quietly in Smolensk. In February 1908, a m o n th after the m eeting o f all Russian Theosophical circles in M oscow had reached some basic agreem ent about the establishm ent o f a Russian Section, an interesting com m en­ tary about the new Smolensk Society appeared in Rebus'. We have been inform ed by our English correspondents that the administra­ tion o f the [Parent] TheosophicaI Society was som ew hat shocked and sur­ prised by the announcem ent it received from the Smolensk Theosophical Society about the latter’s joining it. W e find this surprise entirely understand­ able, and we sincerely advise the Sm olensk T heosophists to forget the w hole idea and to g o about their business independently. We are familiar with sev­ eral T heosophical circles in Odessa and M oscow w hich, quite to the contrary, n ot only are n ot seeking to join, but have actually declined joining even when invited to do so by the English T heosophists. After all, the situation threatens to be full o f practical difficulties: the position o f a legalized Russian Society which is sim ultaneously a section o f the foreign Society will be inconvenient at the very least. It’s w orth thinking ab out.9

(The request o f the Smolensk Theosophical Society for affiliation was declined by the English Theosophists.) In Septem ber 1908 the Smolensk Society took stock o f their year’s w ork; Shtal’berg was forced to conclude th a t its m em bers had certainly “ tro d a thorny p ath .” O n the debit side were the “ apathy, mockery, spite, and curses” to w hich they had been subjected. They had been ac­ cused o f Freemasonry. They had only thirty-three regular m em bers and Teosofskaiu Z h izn 1was 58 rubles, 50 kopeks, in the red. They had sought to provide spiritual food for a nation hungering for spiritual sustenance, and yet were attacked on all sides for their pains. O n the credit side, the thirty-three m em bers represented double the original m em bership o f sixteen; their journal had 130 annual subscribers and 10 six-m onth sub­ scribers; in addition, they had sold 105 separate issues.10 As the first such organization in Russia, the Smolensk Theosophical Society (even after changing its nam e to the Smolensk Christian Theosophical Society at the end o f 1908) bore th e b ru n t o f th e criticism th a t the m ore conservative elem ents in Russia obviously had in store for Theosophy: First o f all the false assertion was m ade, thanks to a certain faction am ong the press, that the Theosophical Society is really secret Freemasonry; then a pow-

erful opinion was expressed that Theosophical principles are alien to Christi­ anity and as such are unacceptable to Christianity; and then the persecutions began: there were cases o f members o f the Theosophical organization being refused H oly C om m union, the journal had to be sent out in plain brown paper wrappers so that those receiving it and their nearest and dearest would be spared great unpleasantness [and so o n ].11

In A u gust 1909 S htaP berg decided it had been a m istake to use the w ord Theosophy in his jo u rn a l’s title and to decorate th e cover w ith T heosophical symbols. In January 1910 he began publication o f a new jou rn al, Z h iz n y D u kh a , w hich he described as a spiritualist, religious, and philosophical jou rn al. Z h iz n y D u kh a appeared over th e course o f twelve m o n th s, w hen it “ tem porarily” ceased publication forever. This new journal was clearly a c o n tin u atio n o f Teosofskaia Z h izn \ th e form at was identical. Z h iz n 3 D u kh a n o lo n g er m ade any a tte m p t to identify it­ self as strictly T heosophical and, as th e p ro g ram o n th e back cover an ­ n o u n c e d , included articles o n “all branches o f the sacred sciences.” W ith o u t using the w o rd Theosophy, th e new jo u rn al still u rg ed its readers to “ Love thy n e ig h b o r as th y se lf’ and advocated goodness, b ro th e r­ h o o d , tolerance, and o th e r C hristian and T heosophical virtues. T he pages o f Z h iz n 3 D u kh a w ere graced w ith the presence o f Vera Ivanovna K ryzhanovskaia, to u te d as a regular co n trib u to r. K ryzhanovskaia was a w ell-know n St. P etersb u rg w riter, th e darling o f the o c ­ cult set, and the a u th o r o f a series o f im m ensely p o p u lar rom antic and historical novels w ith extensive spiritualist and esoteric c o n te n t.12 T he journal co n tin u ed to carry advertisem ents for the Sm olensk C hristian T heosophical Society (w hich was still extant, a lth o u g h n o t for long). Several o f the regular co n trib u to rs now sent in articles only w ith the u n d ersta n d in g th a t they w ould be p rin ted u n d e r pseudonym s. T h e c o n ­ siderable spiritualist bias o f th e Society’s m em bers becam e even clearer th an before. I t was inevitable th a t th e Sm olensk T heosophical Society w ould soon cease its activity. I t collapsed in early 1 9 11, b u t m any o f its m em bers c o n tin u e d th eir occult activities in o th e r organizations. A. V. B ornio jo in ed the M oscow branch o f the R T O , Dr. N ikolai Boianus joined K. P. K hristoforova’s unaffiliated T heosophical circle in M oscow , F ed o r P otekhin attached him self to the in d ep e n d e n t occultists associated w ith the herm etic journal Iz id a , c o n trib u tin g to it and to the new Teosoficheskoe Obozrenie. T h e m ore pow erful St. P etersb u rg R T O and its new jo urnal posed serious c o m p etitio n , how ever, an d Shtal’b erg gave up the struggle. T h e provinces had clearly n o t been the place from w hich to launch Russian Theosophy.

V asilii B ogu sh evsk ii and Teosoficheskoe O bozrenie T he Sm olensk T heosophists began their activity and their journal just one m o n th before the appearance o f an o th er T heosophical journal, Teosoficheskoe Obozrenie^ published in St. P etersburg by Vasilii L ’vovich Bogushevskii. This new journal claimed no affiliation w ith any particular branch or splinter g ro u p w ithin the T heosophical M ovem ent, although it to o k the devise o f the parent Society, “T here Is N o R eligion H igher than T ru th ,” as its ow n. It advocated th e same principle o f th e b ro th e r­ h o o d o f nations and urged the study o f com parative religions and the investigation o f the psychic pow ers latent in m an. Bogushevskii stated th at his journal simply so u g h t to provide interested Russian readers w ith inform ation ab o u t T heosophy in Russia and abroad: Teosoficheskoe O bozrenie is a free and in d ep en d en t organ o f the press and does n o t have as its goal the form ation o f a n ew sect or the dissem ination o f any sort o f specific doctrine; instead, it calls u p on every believer, regardless o f the religion h e espou ses, to exam ine those truths w hich form the foundations o f his ow n religion. . . . T h e journal recogn izes n o authority except reason. T he journal d oes n o t speak for any T h eosoph ical Society, and n o n e o f the extant Societies is responsible for the opinions expressed in its articles.13

T he stated goal o f Teosoficheskoe Obozrenie was to acquaint readers with “ the all-encom passing w orld view th at is the foundation o f all religious systems, philosophies, and sciences.” “W e are firmly convinced th at Russia, to o ,” said Bogushevskii, “will have its ow n original w ord to say and will bring to T heosophy its ow n uniquely Russian elem en t.” 14 Rebus reviewed the new journal: “We are forced to conclude th a t the acquaintance o f th e jo u rn al’s adm inistration w ith T heosophy is o f a rather casual so rt.” Still, Chistiakov, the editor o f Rebus and the au th o r o f the review, praised it for its “lively selection o f articles and the absence o f sectarian narrow m indedness in this selection. W e are familiar w ith m any T heosophical publications and this [narrow m inded] spirit can be seen in them everyw here.” 15 T he first few issues certainly contained lively and diverse materials. They included articles by Annie Besant, Dr. Franz H a rtm a n n , W ilhelm H iibbe-Schleiden (then a colleague o f Dr. S teiner’s in th e G erm an B ranch), Charles Jo h n sto n (M m e Blavatsky’s nephew -in-law ), M abel Collins, and E douard Schure, all w ell-know n English and E uropean T heosophists, as well as an essay on Spinoza and T heosophy by B o­ gushevskii, m aterials on the spiritual education o f children, F edor Potek h in ’s article on the D ukhobors, and m aterial on E speranto by P ro ­ fessor Radvan-Rypinskii.16 T he Russian contributions ten d ed tow ard

RUSSIAN THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENTS

87

fiction and devotional essays, on the o rd er o f “Tw o Years in the City o f H appiness” by “Strannik” [the W anderer], and the deservedly anony­ m ous “ I Love th e W hole W orld; a Fairytale.” A chronicle section gave the details o f the W orldwide Theosophical Congress in M unich, held May 1 8 -2 1 , 1907, and was pleased to re p o rt th at a lecture had been read there on the grow ing Theosophical M ovem ent in Russia. In his article on “T he D aw n o f T heosophy in Russia,” Bogushevskii optim istically observed: “T heosophy is gradually beginning to lay a path into Russia, the hom eland o f its founder, H elena Petrovna Blavatsky. Several circles have been form ed in St. Petersburg; they intend to w ork regularly, read lectures, and dissem inate inform ation. O th e r groups have form ed in M oscow, Kiev, Kaluga, and Vladikavkaz. Several articles on T heosophy have been published in the periodical press.” 17 H e re­ p o rte d on the newly form ed Sm olensk Society and urged cooperation am ong all Russian Theosophists. W hen Vestnik Teosofii began publica­ tion in January 1908 he reviewed it enthusiastically, b u t labeled it “very theoretical.” 18 Bogushevskii’s Teosoficheskoe Obozrenie was an interesting th ird voice in the Russian Theosophical M ovem ent. I f the Sm olensk Teosofsketia Z h iz n 3 preached C hristianity and practiced Spiritualism , and if Vestnik Teosofii represented theoretical T heosophy w ith the o d d concession to Russian reality, then the editorial bias o f Teosoficheskoe Obozrenie was clearly tow ard practical Theosophy, as practiced by the Am erican T h eo s­ ophists, th en led by K atherine Tingley.19 D espite Bogushevskii’s partic­ ular focus, however, the journal continued to accom m odate all T heosophical points o f view. Teosoficheskoe Obozrenie was short-lived: it ceased publication in Septem ber 1908, after exactly twelve issues. In an effort to recoup his investm ent, Bogushevskii renam ed the journal M ir, expanded its p ro ­ gram to include popular science, social and political trends, and popular literature, and continued to publish until January 1912. Rebus, as usual, had the last w ord after the alm ost inevitable demise o f Bogushevskii’s journal. “ Obviously the dem and for T heosophy has n o t yet reached the p o in t w here it can provide a sufficiently large co n tingent o f subscribers to su p p o rt three similar journals,” observed the editor.20 T he failure o f Teosoficheskoe Obozrenie and the Sm olensk Teosofskaia Z h iz n 1 was n o t due entirely to th e appearance in 1908 o f the superior publication, Vestnik Teosofiiy o r to the grow ing presence o f the R T O . T he first tw o journals simply did n o t offer prim ary Theosophical texts in com petent translations. T heir Russian offerings w ere weak, derivative, and excessively sentim ental. Teosoficheskoe Obozrenie did n o t have the unified vision o f an organized Society behind it, while Teosofskaia Z h iz n 1 was published by w ell-intentioned b u t am ateur T heosophists. D istribu-

tio n was irregular. N e ith e r had a w ealthy p a tro n to provide financial s u p ­ p o rt. AU three journals had solid c o m p e titio n for th e occult readership in the w ell-established, w ell-organized, a n d in te restin g Rebus, w hose subscribers n u m b ere d in the tens o f th o u san d s, and in th e o th e r Russian Spiritualist and herm etic jo urnals and new spapers. B eing essentially m iddle-class, ed u cated people, m any T heosophists read F ren ch , G er­ m an, o r E nglish, and p referred to subscribe to the su p erio r E uropean T heosophicaI journals. By 1910 Vestnik Teosofii an d th e R ussian T heosophical Society had consolidated th eir p o sition in th e vanguard o f th e Russian T heosophical M o vem ent. T h e R T O ’s beautifully fo rm atted jo u rn a l, flexible b u t c o ­ h e re n t editorial policy, and easily accessible, inexpensive translations o f T heosophicaI classics easily acco m m o d ated the needs n o t only o f the m ain Society, b u t th o se o f th e in d e p e n d e n t T heosophical circles as well.

An Independent: Khristoforova’s Moscow Circle T h ere is little info rm atio n a b o u t the in d e p e n d e n t T heosophical circles in Russia in the first years o f the tw en tieth century. T hese circles rarely published o r even kept no tes to becom e a m atte r o f public record; w hat records did exist w ere d estroyed o r confiscated shortly after th e R evolu­ tio n . T he usual sources o f such ih fo rm atio n , m em oirs and letters, are n o t available, since m o st o f th e people in these circles w ere n o t fam ous and their personal papers w ere lost. Rebus m ade several references to a large T heosophical circle in O dessa. T h e O dessa circle m ay well have been com posed prim arily o f foreigners o r Russians o f foreign extraction residing in th a t city; its few com m unications are signed “S m ith ” and “ G o rd o n .” A n o th e r large T h eo so p h ical circle in M oscow (w ith ties to th e Sm olensk T heosophical Society) was h eaded by Sergei D m itrievich Volkov {d. 1909). Volkov, w h o also claim ed to be a F reem ason a n d was considered a charlatan by som e, was in te rested n o t only in theoretical T heosophy, b u t in various form s o f applied occultism (m entalism , clairvoyance, and hypnotism ). Like m any in d ep e n d e n t circles, Volkov’s T heosophical circle was in te r­ ested in m any branches o f occultism , n o t only in Theosophy. T he o n e exception to th e general d e a rth o f in fo rm atio n is th e M oscow circle o f K leopatra P etrovna K hristoforova (d. 1 9 3 4 ), a w ell-tod o w om an from M oscow ’s m erch an t class. H e r circle, w hile probably n o t entirely representative o f the in d e p e n d e n t circles as a w hole, did re ­ flect th e traditional M oscow philosophical bias (as opposed to St. P e ­ te rsb u rg ’s literary em phasis). Som e o f its participants w ere m em bers o f th e Russian T heosophical Society; m ost w ere n o t. T h e K hristoforova

circle is relatively better docum ented because several leading literary and cultural figures were am ong its m em bers. It played a subtle b u t im por­ tan t role in Russian Silver Age culture. K. P. Khristofo rova’s circle m et at her hom e near D evich’e Pole in M oscow. Its m em bers included the Symbolist w riter A ndrei Belyi (Boris Nikolaevich Bugaev, 1 8 8 0 -1 9 3 4 ); his m o th er (and K hristoforova’s old friend), Aleksandra D m itrievna Bugaeva (1858—1922); Belyi’s friend, the prom inent T heosophist and A rgonaut Pavel Batiushkov; the future head of th e Russian A nthroposophical Society, Boris Pavlovich Grigorov (1 8 8 3 -1 9 4 5 ); G rigorov’s soon-to-be wife, N adezhda Afanas’evna Baryshkina (1 8 8 5 -1 9 6 4 ); Ekaterina M ikhailovna Kokhmanskaia (whose own Theosophical circle Belyi began attending in the autum n o f 1902); N ina Valentinovna Pshenetskaia (d. 1933), one o f Russia’s T heosophical pioneers and a translator o f Theosophical texts; the historian Mikhail Aleksandrovich E rtel’, son o f the populist writer, Aleksandr E rtel’; Dr. Nikolai Karlovich Boianus and his wife, O lga; D m itrii N edovich, a Herm eticist, occultist, and later Belyi’s colleague at the “ M usaget” journal, Trudy i D ni\ Princess Sofiia U rusova, then secretary, later president, o f the M oscow branch o f the Russian Theosophical Society; an assortm ent o f interested university students; and Elena Pisareva, w ho frequently vis­ ited M oscow from Kaluga and th ro u g h w hom K hristoforova’s circle was in to u ch w ith the Russian Section o f the Theosophical Society. O cca­ sional visitors to this circle included Belyi’s literary friends Lev L ’vovich Kobylinskii-Ellis (1 8 7 9 -1 9 4 7 ) and Aleksei Sergeevich Petrovskii (1881—1958), as well as the famous w riter and scholar, Viacheslav Iva­ nov. Arguably the m ost influential m em ber o f this circle was Anna M intslova. A fter M m e Blavatsky herself, A nna R udol’fovna M intslova ((1 8 6 5 1910?) was certainly the m ost extraordinary individual in the history o f Russian Theosophy. T he w ell-educated daughter o f a M oscow barrister, she was aware o f her resem blance to the extraordinary M m e Blavatsky and consciously cultivated it.21 B oth w om en had the same intense bluegrey eyes, the same hypnotic stare, and the same plum p hands with tapering fingers. They b o th w ore the same black, baggy garm ents o f am ­ biguous cut to cover their obesity. B oth were driven by a need for a tte n ­ tion and desire for pow er over others. Like M m e Blavatsky, M intslova claimed to be clairvoyant and frequently experienced hallucinations, trance states, and o th er paraoccult phenom ena; she read palm s, and Ekaterina Bal’m ont called her “A nna the Prophetess.” M intslova was also hysterical, sm othering, dem anding, and neurotic. Like M m e Blavat­ sky, she claimed to have her ow n M ahatm a w ho guided her spiritual work. She felt herself “chosen” to be the liaison betw een the B rother­ hood o f A depts and the m ost spiritually advanced Russian T heosophists.

M intslova began h er studies o f T h e o so p h y w ith classic w orks by M m e Blavatsky, A. P. S in n e tt, C. W. L ead b eater, and M rs. B esant, b u t soon discovered the teachings o f R u d o lf Steiner. P eripatetic by in clin atio n (she seem ed to have n o h o m e o f h e r o w n , and con stan tly stayed w ith friends), she began to fre q u e n t Dr. S tein er’s E u ro p e an lecture courses and to b rin g back n o tes to share w ith T heosophical friends in Russia. She a n d h er colleague, E lena Pisareva, m aintained a d ire c t line to Dr. S teiner th ro u g h th eir St. P e tersb u rg friend, M arie v o n Sivers, w h o was his secretary. T h ey w o rk ed to p o p ularize his variant o f T h e o so p h y in th e E soteric S ection o f th e R T O and am o n g intellectual T h eo so p h ists, n o ta ­ bly in th e M oscow circle o f K hristo fo ro v a. V arious co n tem p o raries have left descriptions o f A nna M intslova. A n ­ d rei Belyi p ro b ab ly exaggerated less th a n usual w h en he described how A heavy and large head w o u ld m o v e a m o n g u s, w ith y ello w d ish ev eled locks rising h ig h ab ove it; and n o m atter h o w she tried to co m b th e m , the locks stuck o u t like serp en ts, tu ftin g ab ove a b row less, en o rm o u s forehead; and her sm all, w eak -sig h ted , and w atery b lu e eyes w ere narrow ed, b u t o p e n th em u p , and th ey b ecam e like tw o w h e els, n o t eyes at all; and w h e n th ey darkened, th ey seem ed to be b otto m less; and th ey w o u ld snap o p e n , and she w o u ld sit im m o b ile , horribly rem iniscent o f th o se sto n e scu lp tu res, th e fem ale-sh aped Scythian statues am id the b u rn t-o u t step p es.22

N ikolai Berdiaev, w hose personal relationship w ith M intslova was less intellectually in tim ate th an Belyi’s, offered th e m o st so b erin g descrip­ tion: “She was an ugly, fat w om an w ith b u lg in g eyes. She b o re a certain resem blance to M m e Blavatsky. H e r appearance was ra th e r re p u l­ sive. . . . M intslova was an in te llig en t w o m a n , g ifted in h e r ow n way, a n d en d o w ed w ith g re a t ability to ap proach peo p le; she knew h o w to speak w ith w h o m .”23 A nna M intslova was rem arkably w ell c o n n e cte d am o n g th e literary elite o f th e Silver A ge, c o u n tin g am o n g h e r closest friends th e p o e t K o n ­ sta n tin Bal’m o n t, his first w ife, E katerina, th e p o e t M aksim ilian V o­ loshin, a n d his wife (E katerina Bal’m o n t’s niece), M argarita Sabashnikova; A ndrei Belyi a n d V iacheslav Ivanov w ere h e r intim ates up to the m o m e n t o f h er m ysterious disappearance in 19 1 0 . She was p rese n t at th e literary soirees in Ivanov’s T ow er a p a rtm e n t a n d a c q u ain ted w ith m o st m ajor an d m in o r w riters o f th e p e rio d . F o r m any she was alm ost a caricature o f th e eccentric lady T h e o so p h ist, for o th ers she was a spiri­ tu al d an g er (Berdiaev, in particu lar, fo u n d h e r th re a te n in g ), and for som e she becam e a g u ru . M ax V oloshin a n d M argarita Sabashnikova, recently re tu rn e d from E u ro p e an d enthusiastic a b o u t T heosophy, first in tro d u c e d M intslova to Viacheslav Ivanov in late 19 0 6 . V oloshin h a d m et M rs. B esant ab ro ad in

1894; he m et M intslova at a b o u t the same tim e. Ivanov’s wife, the w riter Lidiia D m itrievna Z in o v ’eva-Annibal (1 8 7 2 -1 9 0 7 ), was fasci­ nated by the exotic M intslova and began to study the “secret science” u n d er her tutelage. Ivanov him self soon becam e interested and in a sh o rt tim e was also receiving pages and pages o f occult “lessons” dic­ tated by M intslova’s “Voices.” For the three years follow ing his wife’s death, M intslova to o k control o f Ivanov’s life. H is grief, his weakness, and his curiosity m ade him particularly receptive to her prom ise that w ith her spiritual help he w ould be able to com m unicate w ith his b e­ loved wife. A ndrei Belyi had previously m et M intslova b o th at the hom e o f the Sym bolist w riter Valerii Briusov in M oscow and at Ivanov’s Tow er in St. Petersburg, b u t she becam e a serious force in his life only in 1908, w hen he becam e truly com m itted to Theosophy. D raw n to T heosophy since 1896, Belyi left the M ovem ent and retu rn ed to it several tim es during the first decade o f the tw entieth century. By 1908 he had read all the m ajor works o f Mrs. Besant, M m e Blavatsky, A. P. Sinnett, C. W. Leadbeater, Dr. T heophile Pascal, and E d o u ard Schure, given to him by his m o th e r’s friend and M intslova’s intim ate, Kleopatra K hristoforova. By 1908 he was well acquainted w ith the leading M oscow T heosophists and had becom e an avid reader o f Vestnik Teosofii, w here he was particu ­ larly taken by S teiner’s Knowledge o f the H igher Worlds a n d Its A t ta i n ­ m ent?^ T hat fall he was regularly attending K hristoforova’s circle, then directed by M ikhail E rteP , w ho, like M intslova, was a follow er o f Steiner.25 W orking together, K hristoforova and M intslova soon convinced Belyi th at M intslova was an agent o f “ the secret B R O T H E R H O O D in the Himalayas th at observes us all, w ith the help o f radiant forces.” She was “inspired by them. Kleopatra Petrovna [Khristoforova] strengthened this belief: ‘H ave courage. . . . You have been chosen as a disciple,’” she told Belyi.26 T he tw o w om en, he felt, were clearly preparing him for som ething im portant. In 1909 M intslova separately proposed to Belyi and Viacheslav Iva­ nov th a t they form a secret “ B ro th erh o o d o f the K nights o f T ru th ” to serve as conduits o f Spirit and T ru th in ord er to save the w orld from Eastern occultists and dem onic powers. She show ed them pictures o f tw o o f M m e Blavatsky’s M ahatm as, K oot H oom i and M aster M orya: “This one here is Blavatsky’s teacher, and th at one is B esant’s; you choose— u n d er w hose sign do you w ant to stand?”27 H e r proposal was an eclectic blend o f Blavatsky’s Theosophy, Steiner’s Rosicrucianism , Russian messianism, and her ow n personal vision. T he m odfs and im ­ ages generated by their discussions w ere echoed later in th e literary and philosophical works o f b o th Belyi and Ivanov: the threatening East

(S olov’ev’s p an m o n g o lism b len d e d w ith M intslova’s E astern occultists a n d C hinese T atars), secret enem ies, d em onic illusion, pow ers o f D a rk ­ ness a n d L ig h t, k n ig h th o o d , th e chivalric th e m e , th e R ose a n d th e C ross, th e spirituality o f Russia and R ussia’s salvation.28 A lth o u g h M intslova to ld Ivanov th a t Belyi was th e th ird leg o f th eir “ M ystical T ria n g le,” she did n o t tell Belyi a b o u t Ivanov u n til th e en d o f January 1910. T h e tw o w riters, she claim ed, w ere th e R ose a n d th e C ross, th e representatives o f th e N o r th and th e S o u th , w h o w ere to build th e new C hivalric O rd e r o f T r u th .29 I t is n o t know n if Viacheslav Ivanov seriously a tte m p te d to rec ru it anyone at all for M intslova’s Rosicrucian B ro th e rh o o d , as she req u ested . M intslova a p p ro ach ed several individuals, in clu d in g N ikolai B erdiaev a n d A leksandr Blok, apparently unsuccessfully. T h e enthusiastic A ndrei Belyi shared his T heosophicalR osicrucian expectations w ith his friends at th e M u sag e t P ublish in g H o u se: th e serious, e ru d ite , a n d intellectual Em ilii K arlovich M e tn e r (1 8 7 2 -1 9 3 6 ) , critic a n d h ead o f M u saget; N ikolai P etrovich Kiselev (1 8 8 4 -1 9 6 5 ) , one o f th e A rg o n au ts and M u sag e t’s secretary; M ikhail Ivanovich Sizov ( 1 8 8 4 -1 9 5 6 ) , a T h e o so p h ist d ev o ted to M intslova and, w ith Kiselev, an active m em b er o f th e R ussian S piritualist Society; and Aleksei Petrovskii, T h e o so p h ist, librarian, and tran slato r o f th e G erm an m edieval m ystic, Jacob B o eh m e.30 M intslova, aided and su p p o rte d by h er friend K hristoforova, in tr o ­ du ced Viacheslav Ivanov in to th e M oscow circle, th e b e tte r to co n tin u e th eir R osicrucian w ork. H e r p ro je c t failed, how ever, w h en Belyi, w ho had taken M intslova’s plans seriously, was d isap p o in ted by th e revela­ tio n th a t th e m ysterious “ O th e r ” w hom she h ad b een praising was n o t a learned R osicrucian sage, b u t only his old colleague, Viacheslav Iva­ nov. Belyi co m p lain ed , “ I loved Ivanov, b u t I saw th a t h e, having ac­ cep ted m any teachings and form ulas o f th e o ccu lt w o rld , was playing w ith these teachings in th e m an n er o f a d ile tta n te ; a n d M intslova was h id in g his dilettan tism u n d e r th e cover o f responsibility.” 31 A t th e sam e tim e Em ilii M etn er, w h o rese n ted M in tslo v a’s unilateral exclusion o f th eir friend, Lev K obylinskii-Ellis, from th e ir g ro u p o f “k n ig h ts,” w arn ed Belyi a b o u t h er instability. A sense o f tre m e n d o u s d isa p p o in t­ m e n t so o n settled over th e y o u n g M oscow occultists an d co m m u n icated itself to th e h ig h -stru n g M intslova. Belyi now saw “ M intslova’s fantastic m yths, in terw o v en w ith everyday life, to g e th e r w ith h e r fre q u e n t refer­ ences to occu lt b ro th e rh o o d s ,” as n o th in g m o re th a n an in d icatio n “th a t we w ere dealing w ith an ailing, very nerv o u s, a n d ex h au sted w o m a n .” 32 H e w ith d rew from th e M ystical T riangle. M intslova reg a rd e d h er failure to organize a R ussian R osicrucian B ro th e rh o o d am o n g th e Sym bolist elite as fateful. She convinced herself

th a t she had failed in the mission th at “T hey” had assigned her, and that “T hey” were subsequently rem oving her from the physical plane. Suffer­ ing from an acute persecution com plex, she felt she was being followed by evil forces from the East; strange m en in turbans, she claimed, were trying to sm other her, kidnap her, sabotage her occult mission. In 1910 M intslova left M oscow, then she left Russia. She sent several letters from Germany, and then she disappeared. N o one missed her at first because she was constantly traveling; everyone assum ed she was staying w ith som eone else. Viacheslav Ivanov and Nikolai Berdiaev later th o u g h t she m ight have gone to Italy and entered a convent w ith Rosicrucian connections; A ndrei Belyi suggested th at she had gone to N o r­ way and throw n herself into a fjord (she loved N orw ay). N o one ever saw her again and all attem pts to trace her failed. M intslova was regarded by som e as S teiner’s “ secret em issary” to Russia. T heir relationship before 1909, w hen M intslova was satisfied to be S teiner’s disciple, appears to have been cordial; their later relation­ ship was com plicated by M intslova’s conviction th a t she had reached a level o f initiation as high as Steiner’s and was his occult equal; Steiner w ould have viewed this as hubris and self-delusion. W hile he certainly felt th at th e Slavic folk soul had an im p o rtan t role to play in the future o f occult science, it is unlikely th at the exceedingly sober Steiner w ould have selected the neurotic and visionary M intslova to represent him in Russia. H e r increasingly subjective in terpretation o f his teachings w ould also have precluded his tru stin g h er w ith such a mission. Still, she did help to popularize Steiner’s philosophy in Russia, even if she w arned Belyi (ironically, as it becam e evident) th at Steiner was n o t for him .33 Steiner eventually repudiated M intslova. Belyi rep o rted th a t o th er A nthroposophists w hom he m et later in D ornach claim ed she was “ an epileptic, a sick and unhappy wom an! H e r illness took the form o f char­ latanism ; having fallen in to the hands o f occult societies, she is just such a Charybdis o f our m ovem ent, as atheism and skepticism o f the spirit are its Scylla.” 34 “Such individuals as M intslova,” concluded Nikolai Berdiaev, “ could wield so m uch influence only in the culturally elitist atm o ­ sphere characteristic o f the tim es, w hich w ere perm eated by occult tendencies and searches. In this atm osphere there was a great deal o f unconscious m endacity and self-deceit, and little love for tru th . People w anted to be deceived and seduced.” 35 G urus like M intslova, until she vanished, catered to those wants. Kleopatra K hristoforova’s Theosophical circle did n o t long survive M intslova’s disappearance: Khristoforova herself becam e ill; Mikhail E rte l’ had a nervous breakdow n; Belyi, Grigorov, Kobylinskii-Ellis, Sizov, and Petrovskii left Khristoforova to form their ow n Steinerian cir-

cle; all o f th em so o n left Russia an d traveled to W estern E u ro p e to h ear in p erso n th e lectures o f th e “ C hristian T h e o so p h ist” R u d o lf Steiner, w h o h ad displaced M m e Blavatsky from th e o ccu lt zodiac.

T h e R u ssian A n th r o p o so p h ists: S tein er a n d R ussia R u d o lf S teiner, th e son o f an A ustrian railway official, was b o rn in Kraljevic (near th e H u n g a ria n -C ro a tia n b o rd er) o n F e b ru ary 2 7 , 1861. A boundlessly en ergetic p h ilo so p h er, scholar, a n d e d u c ato r, he was a spe­ cialist o n th e scientific w orks o f G o e th e a n d o n e o f th e editors o f the G o eth e S tan d ard E d itio n . S teiner first becam e involved w ith T h e o so p h y in 1 9 0 0 , w h e n th e p ro m in e n t G erm an T h e o so p h ists, th e C o u n t and C o u n tess v o n B ro ck d o rff, invited him to speak a b o u t N ietzsch e to a largely T heosophical audience in B erlin. A t th e tim e S teiner was in the process o f defining th e co n to u rs o f his ow n o ccu lt system based o n th e trad itio n s o f W estern m ysticism . S teiner was an excellent and inspiring speaker; he so o n becam e a fre q u e n t lectu rer at th e B rockdorffs’ Theosophische Bibliothek. T h e re, w hile lec tu rin g o n E u ro p e an m ysticism in N o ­ v em b er 1 9 0 0 , he m et th e y o u n g and attractive M arie von Sivers from St. P etersb u rg . M arie von Sivers, w h o w o u ld eventually b ecom e F rau S teiner on C hristm as Evc 1 9 1 4 , was b o rn o n 'M a rc h 14, 1 8 6 7 , in W lotziaw ek (W arsaw p rovince), P o lan d , th e n p a rt o f th e R ussian E m pire. She cam e from a G erm an-B altic Evangelical fam ily w ith a tra d itio n o f R ussian civil an d m ilitary service. W h en she was te n years old , h e r father retire d and to o k th e fam ily to St. P etersb u rg . W hile stu d y in g artistic rec ita tio n (she cam e to be an inspiring speaker), M arie von Sivers had th e o p p o rtu n ity to travel an d sp en t considerable tim e in W estern E u ro p e. She translated w orks by th e fam ous F re n c h T h e o so p h ist E d o u a rd Schure; th ro u g h him she becam e acq u ain ted w ith th e T h e o so p h y o f M m e Blavatsky. B o th she a n d h e r sister, O lg a v o n Sivers (d. 1 9 1 7 ), becam e ferv en t T h e o so p h ists, finding ad d itio n al su p p o rt from th e ir friend and m e n to r in St. P e te rs­ b u rg , M aria von S trauch-S pettini. S teiner and Fraulein von Sivers w ere so o n w o rk in g to g e th e r at th e Theosophische Bibliothek in Berlin. T h ey a p p ro ach ed M rs. B esant and C o lonel H e n ry O lc o tt (th e n p resid e n t o f th e T h eo so p h ical Society) at th e T h eo so p h ical C ongress in L o n d o n in July 1 9 0 2 to req u e st an official c h a rter fo r th e G erm an branches. M rs. B esant h erself cam e to Berlin on O c to b e r 1 9 -2 1 , 1 9 0 2 , to oversee th e fo u n d in g o f th e G erm an Section. S teiner was elected secretary general o f th e new sectio n a n d M arie v o n Sivers becam e his assistant. O ver th e n ex t few years S teiner to o k an active and lead in g role in th e

Theosophical Society, using its su pport, adm inistrative stru ctu re, and platform to lay the foundation o f his ow n version o f Geheimwissenschaft, which he first called “an throposophy” in late 1902. D uring this period he lectured ceaselessly to b o th Theosophical and non-T heosophical au ­ diences in the G erm an-speaking areas o f central E urope and Scandina­ via; he also w rote three im p o rtan t, program m atic books: Das Christentu m als mystische Tatsache u n d die Mysterien des A lte rtu m s (1 9 0 2 ), Theosophie (1 9 0 4 ), and Wie erlangt m an Erkenntnisse hoherer Welten (1904). By 1906 it had becom e clear th at Steiner was diverging from the T heosophical canon as preached by Mrs. Besant, although he was still w ithin m ost o f the boundaries set by M m e Blavatsky’s m ore synthetic T heosophical vision. Steiner’s T heosophy gradually m inim ized th e ori­ ental dim ension and replaced it w ith a m ore C hristian vision, although th at vision was G nostic, n o t traditional, in character. Form ally trained in G erm an science and philosophy, Steiner was a m ore stru ctu red thinker than cither M m e Blavatsky or M rs. Besant; his T heosophy was placed over a suppo rtin g fram ew ork o f G erm an idealist th o u g h t and scientific m e th o d .36 Steiner opposed dogm atism in occultism and based his own Geisteswissenschaft, a system atic approach to “spiritual science,” o n p er­ sonal experience and experim entation. W hile Divine W isdom was still his goal (as it was also the goal o f the T heosophists), his geography o f the Path leading to the achievem ent o f th at w isdom was different; Steiner’s m ore disciplined Path w ound W estw ard, n o t Eastward. Early in his career Steiner came to believe th a t the Slavic “folk soul” (die slavische Volksseele) w ould play a m ajor role in the future evolution o f a spiritual hum anity. H im self th e a u th o r o f tw o significant philosoph­ ical works, D ie Philosophic der FreiheiP. G rundziige einer modernen Welt­ anschauung (1893) and D ie R dtsel der Philosophie (1 9 1 4 ), he was aware o f the various religious and philosophical developm ents in Russia. H e particularly adm ired the th o u g h t o f V ladim ir Solov’ev, w hom he saw as a m ediator betw een East and W est. Steiner’s initial source o f contact w ith the Russians was th ro u g h M arie von Sivers. “M ariia Iakovlevna” m aintained the ties th a t b o u n d her to St. Petersburg and to her particular friends, M aria von StrauchSpettini and Elena Pisareva, b o th founding m em bers o f the Russian T heosophical M ovem ent. She was also acquainted w ith A nna M intslova, Kleopatra Khristoforova, and a handful o f o th er Russian m em bers w ith close ties to the G erm an Section. W hen Russians w ished to be received by Dr. Steiner, they w rote first to Fraulein von Sivers.37 Elena Pisareva was R u d o lf S teiner’s first m ajor su p p o rter in Russia. M arie von Sivers in tro d u ced her to Steiner and to his Geheimwissenschaft, first by correspondence and then in person. Pisareva joined the

G erm an S ection in 1905. T h a t spring she visited M arie von Sivers in B erlin, and th e tw o p lan n ed to brin g S tein er to Russia for a lectu re se­ ries: “W e agreed o n a lectu re cycle a t an estate near K aluga [Pisareva’s P o d b o rk i] for June 1906. I t d id n o t com e a b o u t. I t was th e year o f the R ev o lution w hich follow ed th e w ar w ith Japan. T h e situ a tio n was u n c e r­ ta in .” C o n c e rn ed a b o u t th e disorders in Russia th a t sum m er, R u d o lf S teiner p ru d e n tly chose n o t to travel th ere . N evertheless, “th e R ussian friends asked to h o ld th e cycle in Paris, w here th ere has always been a sizable Russian em igre g ro u p . R u d o lf S teiner agreed; it was also th e year in w hich th e T h eo so p h ists h eld th e ir general m ee tin g in P aris.” 38 S teiner lectu red in Passy a n d Paris in M ay and June 19 0 6 . T h e tex t o f those lectures d id n o t survive, b u t n o tes o f his cycle o f eig h teen lectures o n “ E soteric C o sm ology,” read betw een M ay 25 and June 14, w ere taken by several o f th e Russians in atte n d an c e , as well as by th e F ren ch T h e o so p h ist and a u th o r, E d o u a rd Schur6, w h o also a tte n d e d at S te in e r’s and v o n Sivers’ personal in v ita tio n .39 T his cycle was especially im p o rta n t because it rep re sen te d th e final fruits o f a critical stage in S tein er’s o ccu lt d evelopm ent. I t was well a tte n d ed . A m o n g th o se p rese n t w ere M argarita Sabashnikova an d M ax V o­ loshin, th e n on th eir w e d d in g trip; K o n stan tin Bal’m o n t and his wife; an d N ikolai M inskii-V ilenkin. D m itrii M erezhkovskii and his wife, Z inaida H ip p iu s, in Paris w ith D m itrii Filosofov (A nna Filosofova’s so n ), asked M argarita Sabashnikova i f they m ig h t also a tte n d th e lec­ tu res. T h e chem istry b etw een th e M erezhkovskiis a n d S teiner was dreadful. Sabashnikova described th e ir m ee tin g in h e r m em oirs: M erezh kovskii cam e prejudiced against R u d o lf Steiner. Zinaida H ip p iu s curled up o n th e co u ch and ob serv ed S teiner in an arrogant m anner th ro u g h her lo r g n e tte, as i f he w ere so m e sort o f curious o b ject. M erezh k ovsk ii h im ­ self, very ex cited , in terrogated S teiner in th e style o f an inquisitor. “W e are naked and p o o r and thirsty,” he cried, “and lo n g for tru th .” O n e had the feelin g , h ow ever, that th ey did n o t feel at all p o o r, and w ere co n v in ced that they already had the truth. “Tell us o f th e u ltim ate m ystery!” baw led M erezhkovskii, to w h ich S teiner answ ered, “ O n ly if y o u tell us o f th e p e n u lti­ m ate o n e .”40

T h e m ee tin g e n d e d badly, w ith ill feeling against M erezhkovskii and his a tte m p t a t w h a t th e T h eo so p h ists felt w ere “ cheap po lem ics.” A fter S tein er’s Paris lectures for th e R ussian T h eo so p h ists, E lena Pisa­ reva a n d A nna M intslova a tte m p te d to p ro m o te his variant o f T h e o s o ­ phy back in Russia. Pisareva o rg an ized a small S tein er circle in Kaluga. B o th w o m en b ro u g h t back a n d circulated n o tes from th o se o f S te in e r’s E u ro p e an lectures th ey a tte n d e d , as well as m aterials th a t th eir friend from St. P e tersb u rg , M arie von Sivers, sent th e m .41 M intslova translated

S teiner’s fundam ental text, Theosophy, in to Russian.42 She also attem pted to persuade Steiner to lecture in Russia in 1908; like the 1906 visit, however, the 1908 visit did n o t take place.43 Pisareva’s and M intslova’s greatest co n trib u tio n to S teiner’s cause was to share his m ore coherent variant o f Theosophical doctrine w ith the m em bers o f K hristoforova’s private circle in M oscow. Betw een 1908 and 1912 Steiner w orked w ithin the stru ctu re and hi­ erarchy o f the T heosophical Society and seem ed c o n te n t to do so. H e sensed considerable interest am ong the T heosophists in his brand o f esotericism and had n o objection to an A nthroposophical w orkshop u n d er the auspices o f the T heosophical Society. H e only w anted it u n ­ derstood th at the section he led “w ould never w ork m erely according to set dogm as; it w ould engage in in dependent spiritual research, and, in m eetings w ith the whole Society, seek m utual understanding ab o u t the cultivation o f genuine spiritual life.”44 H is position proved to be divisive. T he relationship betw een Steiner and M rs. Besant was never particularly cordial or intim ate. H e viewed her increasingly H in d u inclinations and m aternalistic dogm atism as a vi­ olation o f the Society’s spiritual integrity. H e was particularly offended by her proclam ation o f the young H in d u , Jiddu K rishnam urti (1 8 9 5 1986), an avatar o f the Christ; this he saw as a critical m isreading o f spiritual reality, a “deterioration to a fearsom e d eg ree” o f the paren t So­ ciety’s integrity. H e r establishm ent in 1911 o f the O rd er o f the Star in the East to sponsor K rishnam urti and his mission becam e the causa finalis th at heralded the end o f S teiner’s association w ith M rs. Besant. T h ro u g h o u t 1912 he discussed breaking w ith the T heosophical Society w ith the various m em bers o f the G erm an Section w ho were fiercely loyal to him ; his decision to w ithdraw was m ade in early Septem ber. In his Autobiography he explained: Since 1 9 0 6 thin gs occurred in the [T h eosop hical] Society— upon w h ose lead­ ership I had no influence w hatever— w hich had the character o f spiritualistic aberrations and m ade it necessary for m e to stress ever m ore em phatically that the section o f the S ociety led by m e had absolutely n o th in g to d o w ith these thin gs. T h e climax o f all this cam e w h en it was asserted that Christ w ou ld appear in a n ew earth-life w ithin a certain H in d u boy. For the propagation o f this absurdity a special society, The S ta r o f the E ast, was foun ded w ithin the T h eosoph ical Society. It was quite im possible for m y friends and m yself to accept as m em bers o f the German S ection the m em bers o f this S ta r o f the East, as they, and m ore especially A nnie Besant the president o f the T heosophical Society, w ish ed .45

A fter receiving a telegram from Steiner’s section dem anding her resigna­ tio n , M rs. Besant w ithdrew the G erm an Section’s charter on January 14,

1913. O n F eb ru ary 2—3, th e originally scheduled E leventh G eneral M e e tin g o f th e G erm an S ection o f th e T h eo so p h ical Society in Berlin becam e th e First G eneral M e etin g o f th e new ly fo rm ed A n th ro p o so p h ical Society. T h e schism was felt n o t only in G erm any, b u t th ro u g h o u t th e n a ­ tional sections. In Russia, w here R u d o lf S teiner h ad a small b u t d ev o ted follow ing, th e break did n o t appear particularly ran c o ro u s, a lth o u g h Vestnik Teosofli lam en ted th e division: We have received sad tid in g s from th e G erm an S ection. O ver the last year a definitely isolated a n d so m ew h at fanatical a tm o sp h ere has fo rm ed , expressing itself th ro u g h th e refusal o f th e m em b ers o f th e G erm an S ection to recognize the d o c trin e o f T h eo so p h y in any form th a t d oes n o t c o rresp o n d to th e d o c ­ trin e o f th e h ead o f th e G erm an S ectio n , D r. R u d o lf Steiner. T his atm o sp h ere th ic k e n e d , an d it becam e clear th a t a schism in th e T. S. was im m in en t. R e ­ cently th e last act o f this sad ev en t was played o u t: T h e C o uncil o f th e G erm an Section expressed its co nviction (in a teleg ram , sen t to A dyar), th a t only the resig n atio n o f th e P resid en t [M rs. B esant] from h e r p o st w o u ld allow th e c o n ­ tin u e d existence o f th e T. S.

R eluctantly, Vestnik Teosofii c o n c lu d e d , “ b o th for th em and for us, it w o u ld be b e tte r if th ey o rg an ized separately.”46 A nna R am enskaia, w ith h er s tro n g E astern interests and h e r passionate personal d e v o tio n to A nnie B esant, c o n tin u e d to su p p o rt th e A dyar-based p a re n t Society and th e O rd e r o f th e E astern Star. H e r d o m in a n t personality k e p t th e R T O in line. E ven E lena Pisareva, despite h e r close personal ties to M arie von Sivers and h e r preference fo r S tein er’s T h e o so p h y (she was his prim ary tra n sla to r fo r Vestnik Teosofii), sided w ith R am enskaia and rem ain ed w ith th e p a re n t Society. T h e loss to th e R ussian T h eo so p h ical Society in term s o f m em bership was m inim al; m o st R ussian T h eo so p h ists w ho su b seq u en tly becam e A n th ro p o so p h ists h ad never officially reg istered w ith th e T h eo so p h ical Society. T h e rig o ro u s philosophical basis and th e academ ic elitism o f th e S teiner variant also m ade it less broadly appeal­ in g th a n T h eo so p h y in Russia, p ro d u c in g relatively few new converts. T h e birth p lace o f A n th ro p o so p h y in Russia was R leopatra R hristoforov a’s T h eo so p h ical circle. T h e leading lights o f w h at eventually b e ­ cam e th e R ussian A n th ro p o so p h ical Society— A ndrei Belyi, M ikhail Sizov, Aleksei P etrovskii7 N ikolai Riselev, Lev R obylinskii-Ellis, M ikhail E rte P , Boris G rig o ro v (w ho w o u ld head th e M oscow b ran c h ), and N a d e z h d a B aryshkina-G rigorova— all cam e to R u d o lf S teiner a n d Anth ro p o so p h y th ro u g h th e prim ary influence o f E lena Pisareva, A nna M intslova, an d R leopatra R h risto fo ro v a, yet th e o ld e r g e n e ra tio n chose n o t to leave th e T heosophical p a th .47 I n 1 9 1 1 , w hen K hristoforova’s circle beg an to dissolve, Boris Grig o ro v and Lev R obylinskii-Ellis invited certain o f its m em bers to join a

separate Steiner study group. This new g roup added to the grow ing n u m b er o f Russian Steinerians the am ateur classicist Vladim ir N ilender, E gyptologist V. M. V ikent’ev, M ikhail Sizov’s wife and sister, Trofim Trapeznikov, the artist A nna Alekseevna (Asya) Turgeneva, her sister N ataliia, the m inor critic D m itrii N edovich, and several others. By early 1912 the M oscow Steinerians had coalesced around a core g roup o f young Sym bolist w riters and critics associated w ith the M usaget P u b ­ lishing H ouse: Belyi, Kobylinskii-Ellis, Sizov, and Kiselev. Viacheslav Ivanov and Emilii M etner, both deeply involved in M usaget, were in ter­ ested in, b u t n o t totally com m itted to , Steiner’s A nthroposophy. Emilii M etner eventually rejected S teiner’s th o u g h t and em braced the depth psychology o f C. G. Jung; Steiner him self tu rn e d dow n Ivanov’s request to join the A nthroposophical group in 1912.48 O n M ay 8, 1913, three m onths after the founding o f the A nthroposophical Society in Berlin, the Russian A nthroposophical Society {R u sskoe Antroposoficheskoe Obshchestvo; RAO) was chartered in M oscow (R egistration N o. 58). Its charter stated: “T he Society has as its goal a fraternal association o f people on the grounds o f their recognition o f the general spiritual foundations o f life, on their com m on investigations into the spiritual nature o f m an, and on their study o f the com m on n u ­ cleus o f the w orld views and faiths o f different tim es and peoples.”49 The original m em bership was small, b u t enthusiastic. T he founding m eeting o f th e Russian A nthroposophical Society to o k place in M oscow on Septem ber 7 / 2 0 (O .S ./N .S .), 1913, th e eve o f the feast o f the B irth o f the Blessed V irgin, in a basem ent ro o m next to the C hurch o f the D o rm itio n o f the Virgin A m ong the Graves, on M ertvyi pereulok, 13 (now Pereulok N. A. O strovskogo). AU o f the w om en w ore w hite. A police officer was present to observe order. M argarita Sabashnikova had com e from Germany, from Steiner himself, for the cere­ mony. She read Vladim ir Solov’ev’s “T hree E n co u n ters,” a narrative poem in w hich he described his three m eetings w ith Sophia, the W isdom o f G od; afterw ard she spoke o f Russia’s mission. T he newly organized Russian A nthroposophists assum ed th a t the Russian Society w ould be nam ed for the mystic philosopher Vladim ir Solov’ev. “We asked R u d o lf Steiner for a nam e for the w orking group in M oscow, and expected it to be nam ed for Vladim ir Solov’ev o r another great m ystic,” w rote M argarita Sabashnikova. “We w ere astonished, even displeased, as we heard the nam e ‘M ikhail L om onosov.’ W hoever w ould have th o u g h t o f M ikhail L om onosov!” 50 Steiner had suggested “ M ikhail L om onosov” for a g o o d reason. M i­ khail Vasil’evich L om onosov (1711—1765)— Russian scientist, scholar, critic, and poet— was the quintessential m an o f the Russian E n lighten­ m ent. A peasant by birth , he em erged from obscurity to becom e an in ­ ternationally know n m em ber o f the newly form ed St. Petersburg Acad-

emy o f Sciences. Lom onosov was to Russian literature and culture w hat P eter the G reat was to Russian governm ent and society. H e rejected the passivity and spiritual conservatism o f the Russian M iddle Ages and b ro u g h t the E nlightenm ent, the “N ew A ge,” to Russia. Steiner ex­ plained: “There is a different regent o f earth life for every epoch, as it were; one regent follows another. U ntil 1879 th e spirit acting o u t o f the spiritual w orld was the one we call th e spirit Gabriel, if a nam e is to be used. From 1879 onwards it was the spirit we call Michael. I t is Michael w ho directs events in o u r tim es.” 51 From the A nthroposophical p oint o f view, “M ikhail” L om onosov was the em bodim ent o f the “Michaelic Spirit,” which uses intellect and reason to attain clairvoyance; thus he was the logical choice to inspire the new A nthroposophical L odge in Moscow. T he question o f w hether or n o t the first Russian lodge accepted Steiner’s choice has n o t been com pletely settled. Sabashnikova, w ho was present at the founding o f the RAO and w ho continued to w ork w ithin the Society until she left for G erm any in 1922, insisted in her memoirs th a t they did. M. Zhem chuzhnikova, a M oscow A nthroposophist w ho was only fourteen w hen the Russian Society was form ed and w ho at­ tended her first A nthroposophical lecture only after the R evolution, claimed that the M oscow A nthroposophists decided to nam e the M oscow Lodge for Vladimir Solov’ev against Steiner’s advice. A ccord­ ing to Zhem chuzhnikova, only after th e R evolution, w hen the M oscow Lodge split into tw o, did the practical A nthroposophists (under the leadership o f M. P. Stoliarov, Κ. N . Bugaeva, and V. O . AnisimovaStanevich) take the nam e “M ikhail Lom onosov,” while the esoteric Anthroposophists (under the continuing leadership o f Boris G rigorov) re ­ tained the name “Vladimir Solov’ev.”52 In 1912, before the A nthroposophical Society was founded, the M usaget Steinerians had established their own press, called “D ukhovnoe Z nanie” (Spiritual Knowledge), as an alternative to the RTO Press and Suvorin’s popularizing “Novyi Chelovek” (N ew M an). After the Russian A nthroposophical Society received its official charter in spring 1913, D ukhovnoe Znanie became publicly affiliated w ith it, claiming in its advertising that it adhered to the same principles served by the Anthroposophical Society. D ukhovnoe Znanie was a branch o f Emilii M etn er’s m odernist M usaget Publishing H ouse; the editorial offices o f the Symbolist journal Trudy i D n i, the philosophical and culturological journal Logos, D ukhovnoe Znanie, and M usaget itself were all located at Prechistenskii Boulevard, 31, apartm ent 9. D ukhovnoe Znanie p u b ­ lished theosophical and esoteric texts, w hich, according to an advertis­ ing insert, touched on “problem s o f the Spirit, the tasks and foundations o f spiritual culture, the m anifestation o f the spiritual powers o f m an,

classics o f the past, w hich have preserved evidence o f spiritual know l­ edge, and the works o f contem porary au th o rs.” They included M arga­ rita Sabashnikova’s book on St. Serafim o f Sarov, her translation o f M eister E ckhart, Aleksei Petrovskii’s translation o f Jacob B oehm e’s A u ­ rora, A ndrei Belyi’s answer to Emilii M e tn e r’s critique o f Steiner (p u b ­ lished by M usaget), and num erous translations o f the m ajor works o f R u d o lfS te in er (see bibliography). An event o f great im portance to the A nthroposophical Society as a w hole took place on the same day th a t the RAO held its founding m ee t­ ing: on Septem ber 20, 1913, R u d o lf Steiner laid the foundation stone o f the A nthroposophical tem ple on a hill at the edge o f the Swiss tow n o f D ornach, n o t far from Basel.53 I t was to be called the “ G o eth ean u m .” Steiner first contem plated such a building in 1911, w hen he discovered th at ordinary theaters were unsuitable for staging the m ystery dramas th at had becom e an integral p art o f his spiritual work. Symbolic, arche­ typal, and highly abstract, these m ystery plays served as an aesthetic p re ­ lude to his m ore im p o rtan t lecture cycles.54 Steiner conceived o f a spe­ cial, “new ” style o f building as the proper physical setting for the A nthroposophical m ystery dramas. T h at R u d o lf Steiner nam ed his A nthroposophical tem ple in D ornach the G oetheanum was a rem inder o f the identity he felt betw een his and G o eth e’s spiritual-scientific w ork and o f the im portance o f “ G oetheanism ” as a concept in Steiner’s ow n th o u g h t. T he G oetheanum was also som etim es called the “Johannesbau,” after an im p o rtan t character in Steiner’s m ystery dram as. (A nother character from the dram as, Benedictus, gave his nam e to the P etrograd L odge o f the Russian A nthroposophical Society, headed by Boris L ehm ann.) A nthroposophists from seventeen countries lived w ith Steiner in the A nthroposophical com m unity in D ornach and helped to build the G oetheanum . A m ong them were several Russians w ho had joined Steiner in 1911 and 1912, had becom e m em bers o f his new A nthroposophical Society while abroad, and now were building the G oetheanum w ith their ow n hands. These included (at various tim es) A ndrei Belyi, his wife, the artist Asya Turgeneva, her sister N atasha Turgeneva, her husband Aleksandr M ikhailovich P ozzo (1 8 8 2 -1 9 4 1 ), Trofim Trapeznikov, M argarita Sabashnikova, and M ikhail Sizov; M ax Voloshin also visited. T he Russian A nthroposophists carved w ood, etched glass, hauled m aterials, painted, and to o k their tu rn at n ig h t w atch. From D ornach they w elcom ed the form ation o f a Russian A nthroposophical Society in M oscow. In 1912 and 1913 R u d o lf Steiner gave tw o series o f lectures in H e l­ singfors; b o th series included special presentations for Russian m em ­ bers.55 Russians o f both Theosophical and Steinerian persuasion came

from St. P e tersb u rg and M oscow to h ear him speak; th ey w ere jo in e d by o th e r R ussians w ho had b een follow ing S teiner as he lec tu re d th ro u g h ­ o u t E u ro p e a n d Scandinavia. T h e 1 9 1 3 series a ttrac ted m o re th a n forty Russians, am o n g th e m N ikolai Berdiaev, w h o was p ro fo u n d ly in te rested in A n th ro p o so p h y a n d in S teiner at th e tim e. B erdiaev received a m ore h o spitable recep tio n from S teiner th a n V iacheslav Ivanov h ad in Basel th e previous Septem ber. S tein er’s H elsingfors lectures b ro u g h t several n ew m em bers to A nth ro p o so p h y , in clu d in g Boris L e h m an n , M argarita Sabashnikova’s friend fro m St. P e tersb u rg a n d th e fu tu re h e a d o f th e B enedictus L o d g e in P e tro g ra d , and A leksandr P o z z o , w h o w o u ld becom e A ndrei Belyi’s brother-in-law . T h e 1913 lectures also a ttra c te d K leopatra K hristoforova, Asya and N atash a T urgeneva, A ndrei Belyi, M ikhail Sizov, Kobylinskii-Ellis, T rapeznikov, and V ik e n t’ev. A fter th e lectures, th e R u s­ sians w o u ld g a th e r in Belyi’s ro o m s, a n d h e, as one o f S tein er’s ow n stu d e n ts, w o u ld go th ro u g h th e m aterials and explain th e m o re esoteric com plexities. T o th e R ussians S teiner spoke o f th e im p o rta n c e o f th e Slavic folk soul as a spiritual bridge b etw een th e passive O rie n t and th e active O cci­ d e n t. T h e religious th o u g h t o f th e O rie n t belongs to th e past; the p h ilo ­ sophical-scientific th o u g h t o f th e O c c id en t belongs to th e p resen t; the Slavic soul will b rid g e th e tw o and create a pathw ay to a spiritual fu tu re (in th e Sixth P o st-A tlan tean A ge). M o re th a n any o th e r natio n al soul, claim ed Steiner, th e Slavic folk soul strives to realize th e w orld o f th e spirit. B eing still very y o u n g , th e Slavic soul experiences th e pull o f m a­ terial existence a n d (because o f its closeness to th e A ryan soul) th e sway o f o riental th o u g h t; th e re in lies a certain danger. B u t w h e n it finally m anifests itse lf fully and becom es in d e p e n d e n t o f W estern m aterialism an d E astern passivity, th e n o b le an d beautiful R ussian soul will have m u ch to say to th e w orld. S teiner p o in te d o u t th e im p o rta n c e o f T olstoi, D ostoevskii, and V ladim ir Solov’ev for th e occidental spiritual im pulse; he felt th a t th o se thinkers had a g rea t deal to say to th e W est. S te in e r’s sym pathy for and know ledge o f R ussian c u ltu re, his u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e “M ission o f R ussia,” en d eared him to his R ussian follow ers. T h e R ussian A nthro p o so p h icaI M o v e m e n t c o n tin u e d to grow , b u t very slowly. A lth o u g h it never a ttrac ted a large g ro u p o f ad h eren ts, th o se w h o chose to em brace it te n d e d to be m o re intellectually rig o ro u s an d philosophically inclined th an th o se w h o chose T heosophy. T he R ussian A n th ro p o so p h ists te n d e d to be well e d u cated ; a h ig h er p e rc e n t­ age o f academ ics, p h ilosophers, and w riters w ere am o n g th e m th an am o n g th e T h e o so p h ists, w h o w ere m o re likely to be from th e p ro fes­ sional classes, th e civil service, a n d th e gentry. R ussian A n th ro p o so p h y was a rem arkably h o m o g en e o u s m o v em e n t, a ttra c tin g specifically a small core o f intellectual seekers w ho cam e to th e p ro b lem o f R ussia’s

crisis o f culture and consciousness th ro u g h the focus o f G erm an ideal­ ism, cultural philosophy, and E uropean cosm opolitanism . University trained, saturated w ith neo-K antianism , steeped in Troitskii, H artm an n , W indelband, W undt, and H offding, b u t still responsive to a religious urge and the creative im pulse, they dem anded a coherent m ethodology, scientific discipline, and aesthetic style in their occultism .56 D espite their respect for oriental th o u g h t, the Russian A nthroposophists distrusted oriental elem ents ( “panm ongolism ” ) in Russian cul­ ture; they were no less dissatisfied w ith its overtly “W esternizing” ele­ m ents (excessive m aterialism and rationalism ). O n the w hole they were pro-Slav and w anted to build on th e Slavophile tradition w ith o u t being trapped in the cul-de-sac o f traditional dichotom ies (the masses versus the intelligentsia, Slavophiles versus W esternizers, and so forth). They were “synthesizers” ; they em phasized “ creative will” as the catalyst th at w ould transform a stagnating Russia in to a synthesis o f the finest fea­ tures o f b o th Eastern and W estern culture. “Its geographic location places Russia betw een tw o extrem e, m onolithic cultures— betw een the m aterialist countries o f the W est and the passive, w orld-denying c o u n ­ tries o f the East. I t is appropriate th at Russia creatively unite these extrem es,” w rote A nthroposophist Nikolai Belotsvetov.57 Because Steiner’s contact w ith Russians was in fact contact w ith the G od-seeking intelligentsia, his theory o f the Slavic folk soul n o t surprisingly reflected many features o f this synthetic Slavophilism. D espite their hopes for Russian culture and their good intentions (m ore or less the same hopes and intentions, expressed in different im ­ agery, as those o f the rest o f Russia’s creative intelligentsia), the A nthroposophists w ere perceived by their society as being effete and recondite. In the St. Petersburg daily, R e c h \ D m itrii Filosofov attacked the M usaget Steinerians for their withdrawal from Russian reality: T h e falseness, the futility, and the non-historicity o f th e M usagetians consists o f the fact that, in a country thirsting for the building o f culture, w here even aged graybeards destroy in the nam e o f an unclear future, som e refined in d i­ viduals, “burdened by th e victories o f (n o t even their o w n , but W estern) civi­ lization ,” strive toward contem plative peace, toward Buddhism , and R u d o lf Steiner, and neo-Platon ism . Russia has aged graybeards, w hile the M usagetians keep talking about the end o f the b egin n in g, or they start building, as Ellis and A ndrei Belyi, togeth er w ith Steiner, are b uilding, som e sort o f Indo-E u rop ean tem ple near Basel. . . . A nd our unw ashed Russia is left aside som ew here. There is n o room for Russia in R u d o lf Steiner’s tem ple near B asel.58

A lthough they lived in a highly rarefied atm osphere, the Russian Anthroposophists exerted an influence disproportionate to their small num bers. V ictor Fedjuschin estim ates th at the n u m b er o f Russian An-

throposophists on the eve o f the Revolution was actually less than a h u n ­ d re d .59 M any o f them , however, were highly visible and respected intelligenty—writers, professors, scholars, and artists. Like the Theosophists, the Socialists, the God-seekers, and the G od-builders, they, to o , were convinced o f Russia’s im p o rtan t cultural mission and inspired by an o p ­ timistic vision o f Russia’s radiant future. They left an indelible m ark on the intellectual history o f their tim e, and the history o f Silver Age culture cannot be w ritten w ith o u t them .

I . M m e Elavatsky, at th e tim e o f w riting Isis Unveiled (1877)

2. M m e Blavatsky w ith h e r sister, Vera Z helikhovskaia; b e h in d th e m are M m e Blavatsky’s niece, Vera J o h n sto n , an d h e r h u sb a n d , C harles; on th e rig h t is C o lo n el O lc o tt

3. M rs. A nnie B esant in 1885

4. Vsevolod Solov’ev, a u th o r o f Sovremennaia zhritsa Izid y (1 8 9 2 )

5 . A nna M intslova, seated w ith th e w riter and scholar, Viacheslav Ivanov; seated w ith them is th e w riter and com poser M ikhail K uzm in; im m ediately behin d K uzm in is M argarita Sabashnikova (?), and family m em bers

6. Andrei BelYl, the Symbolist writer and leading Anthroposophist in the 1920s

7. Aleksandr Aksakov, leading Russian Spiritualist

8. Viktor Pribytkov, Russian Spiritualist and founder of the journal Rebus

9 . "Alba," Anna Kamenskaia, President

of the Russian Theosophical Society

10. E len a Pisareva, R ussian T h e o so p h ist; she was o n e o f th e first to in tro d u c e R u d o lf S tein er in to Russia

11. F o u n d e r o f th e A n th ro p o so p h ic a l Society, R u d o lf S teiner, w ith his w ife, M arie v o n Sivers-Steiner

12. Title page of Vestnik teosofii, chief organ of the R T O

13. Title page of unaffiliated journal, Teosoficbeskoe obozrenie

14. Title page of Teosofskaia zhizn1, chief organ of the Smolensk Theosophists

Five T h eo so p h ical D o ctrin e : A n O u tlin e T h e u n d e r l y i n g p r e m i s e o f Theosophy is th at there exists a single, u n i­ versal occult tradition (the Secret D octrine), ancient b u t ageless, on w hich all religions, past and present, are in part based. This ancient “wis­ dom -tradition,” claim T heosophists, unites religion, science, and p h i­ losophy into one grand synthesis th a t explains everything: G od, the Universe, M an, Being, and C reation. This com prehensive worldview, “a mine o f entirely trustw orthy know ledge from which all religions and philosophies have derived w hatever they possess o f tru th ,” has always been know n to the great religious figures and spiritual adepts o f the w orld, from the ancient Egyptian M agi to M me Blavatsky herself.1 M me Blavatsky always insisted th a t this “ m other do ctrin e” was n o t a religion (unless it was a “religion o f reason” ), b u t a belief system based on abso­ lute knowledge. As such a belief system, T heosophy is a form o f gnosis. It conceives o f itself n o t as a faith or an ecstatic revelation, b u t as “ esoteric know ledge” and “spiritual science” (R udolf Steiner’.s Geisteswissenschaft) .2 T he p ro ­ foundly gnostic worldview o f Theosophy is especially clear in the cosm ogenesis and anthropogenesis th a t M m e Blavatsky presents in her com m entaries to the “Stanzas o f D zyan” ; these “Stanzas” form the basis o f her massive study, The Secret D octrine.3 Later m ajor Theosophical texts (Mrs. Besant’s A n cien t Wisdom and Esoteric Christianity, A. P. Sinn e tt’s Esoteric Buddhism , and R udolf Steiner’s Theosophy and O utline o f Occult Science) all attem pt to give system and coherence to T heosophy as originally outlined in The Secret Doctrine and in M m e Blavatsky’s ear­ lier occult epic, Isis Unveiled; th e basic principles o f Theosophical d o c­ trine, however, are all contained in her tw o fundam ental works. Theosophical cosmology— its understanding o f the origin, structure, and dynamics o f the universe—is complex, intricate, and, at tim es, dis­ concertingly contradictory.4 While Theosophical literature boasts n u ­ m erous books and articles about its finer doctrinal points, and while some general summaries have been attem pted by pro-T heosophists and anti-Theosophists, few efforts have been made to provide a general o u t­ line o f the doctrine by non-T heosophists for non-Theosophists, p articu ­ larly w ith any scholarly rigor. Yet, if T heosophy’s particular role in the philosophical ferm entation o f the Russian Silver Age is to be under-

stood, one m ust understand the idiosyncratic worldview th at inform s T heosophical th o u g h t. An acquaintance w ith this worldview can illum i­ nate certain dark corners o f Russian Symbolism and expand the cultural fram ew ork in w hich we understand the G od-seeking o f the Russian Silver Age.

W hat Is M od ern T heosophy? Briefly stated, the T heosophical doctrine, as originally conceived by M m e Blavatsky, is a m odern form o f m etaphysical m onism , pantheism , and em anationism . As such, it traces all existence back to em anations o f a single reality and identifies G od w ith the Universe. T h e hum an soul, likewise an em anation o f this single reality, transm igrates th ro u g h an enorm ous n u m b er o f lifetimes, first dow nw ard in to m atter, th en upw ard into spirit, each incarnation shaped by the karm a generated by good or evil acts. T he present era o f earth history marks a tu rn in g p o in t at which th e dow nw ard m arch o f hum anity in to m atter m ust be reversed; e n lig h t­ ened individuals, aided by the revelations o f Theosophical doctrine, are ready to begin the ascent to the realm o f the spirit. A ll-em bracing, T heosophy derives its particular psychology and com ­ plex cosm ology from sacred H in d u texts, m ystery religions, G nosticism , neo-PIatonism , and the vast body o f W estern occultism , b o th ancient and m odern, w ith interpolations from the natural and social sciences, com parative religion, archaeology, m edicine, and evolutionism . T he re­ sult is an unusual blend o f pantheism , occultism , and facile rationalism . Vastly to leran t itself o f other creeds and even o f atheism , T heosophy was absolutely unacceptable to the Christian church, especially to the O r­ th o d o x C hristianity o f Russia. T he exotic vocabulary th at distinctively colors T heosophical cosm ol­ ogy is taken generally from B uddhism because, as A. P. S innett ex­ plained, “B uddhism rem ained in closer u nion w ith the esoteric doctrine than any o th e r popular religion.”5 M m e Blavatsky m ade it clear, how ­ ever, th a t her T heosophy did n o t derive from B uddhism in its tradi­ tional, o rth o d o x form ; instead, she postulated an esoteric Buddhism w hose vocabulary and cosm ology are similar to , b u t n o t identical w ith, those o f traditional Buddhism . This esoteric Buddhism was conve­ niently hidden from the profane eyes o f th e uninitiated (as well as from legitim ate Sanskrit and Pali scholars w ho m ight contradict Theosophical exegesis). T he following exposition outlines the basic tenets o f m odern T heosophy and considers the m anner in which its worldview accounts for G od, the U niverse, and M an.

T h e o so p h y an d G o d F o r th e T h eo so p h ists, th e D ivine Principle is unk n o w ab le, undefinable, and ineffable. I t has m any nam es, a n d m ay be called th e O n e A bsolute Reality, th e Infinite and E tern al, th e O m n ip re se n t P rinciple, th e O rig i­ nal C reative Im pulse, th e Prim al Source, the Abyss, th e O n e U nity, th e D ivine T h o u g h t. I t is u n b o rn an d u n d y in g , th e source a n d c o n te n t o f all. E v erything from th e m acrocosm to th e m icrocosm is b u t a d iffe re n ti­ ated o r tran sfo rm ed aspect o f this O n e U n ity a n d contains som e elem en t o f its T ru th an d N a tu re .6 T h e D ivine is th e AU in All a n d c a n n o t be c o m p re h en d e d by h u m an th o u g h t. T his O n e U n ity o f A b solute B eing and N o n b e in g sim ply is. T his P ri­ m al S o u rce, as th e F irst o r G re a t M o n a d , periodically m anifests itself in a finite series o f em anations o f lesser m o n ad s w ith o u t d im inishing Itse lf in any way.7 H e re T h e o so p h y grafts G nosticism o n to n e o -B u d d h ism , for th e initial· e m a n a tio n o f th e D ivine P rinciple, in m o st T h eo so p h ical paradigm s, is th e First L ogos, o r th e Prim al W ord. T h e D ivine Principle thinks th e paradigm o f th e universe, th e n speaks th e w o rd o f creatio n , a n d th e n th e w o rd , as so u n d , becom es th e m atte r o f th e cosm os. T h u s divine th o u g h t becom es creative w o rd , and creative w o rd becom es dense m atter. T his refined form o f G nostic em an atio n ism was reta in e d in th e C hristian tra d itio n a n d , in m odified fo rm , can be fo u n d in th e o p e n in g verses o f th e G ospel o f St. J o h n .8 As D ivine T h o u g h t reveals I ts e lf in a sevenfold process, it m oves from th e p erfect to th e less p erfect, first creatin g spiritual Essences th a t will co n tro l th e o rd e r o f th e C osm os, th e n th e C osm os itself, th e n N a tu re , th e n M a tte r.9 M a tte r, as th e o p posite and im p erfect e n d o f Spirit, is called D arkness and Evil. D arkness a n d Evil, how ever, are relative c o n ­ cepts in T heosophy, being n o t th e o p p o site o f Divinity, b u t only the m o st d ista n t a n d h ence m o st im p erfect a n d d isto rte d form s o f D ivine em anation. F ro m th e O n e Life em anate individual lives, from th e U niversal O verSoul (M m e Blavatsky’s A n im a S u p ra -m u n d i) em anate individual souls; these divine sparks are w rapped in m a tte r and becom e m icrocosm ic h u m an m onads. T h e h u m an m o n a d is th u s “a g o d in th e anim al fo rm ” ;10 it contains “w ith in itself germ inally, o r in a state o f latency, all th e divine pow ers a n d a ttrib u te s ” o f G o d , albeit tra p p e d w ith in a m a te ­ rial, physical sh ell.11 As an e m a n a tio n o f th e D ivine, each m icrocosm ic h u m an m o n ad duplicates perfectly th e m acrocosm ic G reat M o n a d . Each h u m an m o n ad , o r soul, is th u s m ore th a n th e m irro r o f G o d ; it is G od. T h e h u m an m o n a d ’s real se lf is eternal an d one w ith th e U niverse. D i­ vinity resides a priori n o t only in every m an , b u t in every ato m o f th e

Universe, since all is an emanation o f the Divine. Pantheistic in its appre­ hension o f Divinity as perm eating all of creation (even o f being identi­ fied with it), Theosophy rejects the idea o f a personal God or individual immortality, accepting only an all-embracing One Divine Principle that informs everything.

T h eo so p h y and th e U n iverse The Universe o f the Theosophists, based on a Buddhist paradigm, is characterized by periodicity and pulsation and ruled by the law o f cycles. Symbolized by the circle and the spiral, the Universe is the greatest ex­ ample o f the cyclical nature o f Being, for “N ature works always in com ­ plete curves, and travels always in paths which return into themselves.” 12 Being and N onbeing alternate in a cycle o f manvantaras, or periods o f manifestation and activity, separated from each other by pralayas, or pe­ riods o f dissolution (obscuration) and rest. A complete cycle o f m anvantaras and pralayas, according to Mme Blavatsky, is called a Day and a N ight o f Brahma, or the Waking and Sleeping o f the Universe. She cites 308,448,000 human years as the du­ ration o f a single m anvantara. To this she adds that “ 14 ‘Manvantaras’ plus the period o f one Satya Tuga make O N E DAY OF BBAHMA, or a complete [major] Manvantara and make . . . 4,320,000,000 years.” When 360 Days and Nights o f Brahma have passed, a Year o f Brahma is completed. One Age o f Brahma, or a Maha-Kalpa, being 100 Years o f Brahma, reaches into the trillions, even quadrillions o f hum an years.13 H uge blocks o f time, incomprehensible to the hum an mind, are in­ volved in the existence o f the universe. Such enormous numbers create a sense o f eternity; nevertheless, this near-eternity is ultimately finite, for the trillions o f years pass in an alternation o f activity and dissolution, and finally the universe itself dissolves and rests. Eventually the universe will become manifest again and another cycle o f equally unimaginable dura­ tion will begin. The cycles continue w ithout end. D uring each m anvantara, each solar system, or planetary chain, goes through a cycle o f seven planetary reincarnations; this is described as One Revolution o f the Wheel. O n each o f the seven planets there are seven waves o f seven kingdoms o f nature (various degrees o f mineral, vegetable, animal, human, and superhuman); the seventh wave is H u ­ manity (the hum an monads). O n each planet H um anity consists o f seven root races; each root race has seven sub-races; each sub-race has seven branches. Between planetary rounds there is a minor pralaya while the planets rest. Each planetary incarnation is “under the supervision and guidance o f special ‘Builders’ and ‘Watchers’—the various Dhyan-

Chohans [divine intelligent Essences charged w ith supervision o f the Cosm os],” 14 A ccording to Thcosophical cosmology, H um anity is cur­ rently in the fourth round, the E arth incarnation, and experiencing the fifth ro o t race, the Aryan. The Slavs are the seventh sub-race (i.e., the youngest branch) o f the Aryan ro o t race; their cosmic duty, or mission (dharm a), based on the Slavic folk soul’s ability to conceptualize and to receive the contents o f oth er cultures, is to assist in the realization o f a m ore spiritualized hum anity th at will be achieved with the sixth ro o t race. In the Theosophical paradigm M an is a god w ho, pulled by desires, has descended from spirit into the coils o f m atter and is working his way out o f material existence back to his spiritual hom e. Theosophy’s u nder­ standing o f m atter, particularly in its relationship to spirit, is profoundly Gnostic: Spirit is a relatively positive value, while m atter, associated in this w orld w ith “evil,” is a relatively negative value th a t m ust be over­ come. “The body is the tom b o f the soul,” w rote the ancient Gnostics; “the body is the sepulchre, the prison o f the soul,” w rote M m e Blavatsky.15 Like the Gnostics, the Theosophists interpreted the Fall as “the Fall o f Spirit into generation [m atter], n o t th e Fall o f m ortal m an” into sin.16 D uring the Revolution o f the W heel the hum an m onads, as they move from planet to planet, are Pilgrim-Souls th at descend from spirit into m atter and ascend back to spirit th ro u g h a series o f reincarnational cycles.17 The Universe, explained M me Blavatsky, manifests periodically, for purposes o f the collective progress o f the countless lives, the outbreathing o f the O ne Life·, in order that through the Ever-Becoming, every cosm ic atom in this infinite U niverse, passing from the formless and the intangible, through the mixed natures o f the semi-terrestrial, dow n to matter in full generation, and then back again, reascending at each new period higher and nearer the final goal; that each atom , we say, may reach through in d iv id u a l merits a n d efforts that plane where it re-becom es the one uncondi­ tioned ALL. But between the Alpha and the O m ega there is the weary “R oad” hedged in by thorns, that “goes dow n first, then W inds up hill all the way Yes, to the very end.” 18

Only by com pleting such a journey can the Pilgrim-Soul become a fully conscious divine agent. Em ploying the m etaphor o f the journey, this pilgrimage o f the soul expresses a divine archetype in the Jungian sense; in the Theosophical sense, it microcosmically expresses a macrocosmic reality. The w orld’s great myths o f the dying and resurrected gods (such as Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, and Christ) thus become Theosophical sym­ bols, expressions in metaphorical hum an term s o f the greater D ram a o f

the Soul: the so u l’s descent into the illusion and darkness o f m atter, its com prehension o f the illusory nature o f the m aterial w orld, its realiza­ tio n th a t behind the m anifestations in im perfect m atter one can “ read ” a noum enal tru th , and, finally, its conscious and freely desired retu rn to the light o f the Divine O n e .19 O n each planet the Pilgrim -Soul, or hum an m onad, undergoes a com plicated evolutionary sequence, involving, according to M m e Blavatsky’s estim ate, som e eight h u n d red incarnations. T he present E arth incarnation is the ro u n d in w hich the hum an m onad penetrates m ost deeply in to m atter. “T h e essential mission o f this epoch o f civilization is to adapt m an to the physical plane to develop reason and practical logic, to im m erse intelligence in physical m atter so th at m atte r may be u n d e r­ sto o d and finally m astered .” 20 O nce this m ission has been accom plished, “evolution has reached its acme o f physical developm ent, crow ned its w ork w ith th e perfect physical m an, and, from this p o in t, begins its w ork spirit-w ard.”21 This is, in fact, the reason th a t M m e Blavatsky’s M a h at­ mas, the adepts o f the G reat W hite B ro th erh o o d , chose this historical m o m e n t to reveal T heosophy to the masses th ro u g h their disciple: the hum an m onads have com pleted th eir descent into m atter, and are now ready to receive know ledge o f th e Secret D octrine th a t will guide them in their journey “spirit-w ard” tow ard their ultim ate reunion w ith the Divine O ne. Follow ing the greater cyclical p a tte rn o f manvanta-ra. and pralaya, the alternating m anifestations o f th e seven ro o t races on each planet are also separated from each o th e r by periods o f obscuration. T he approach o f such a period is signaled by cataclysms o f fire or w ater, eschatological signs, and a general sense o f im pending apocalypse. T heosophy p re ­ dicted th a t the A ryan ro o t race, th e fifth, m ost m aterial race in the E arth incarnation, had already reached the zenith o f “ physical intellectuality,” the highest p o in t o f its civilization, and was com ing to th e end o f its particular cycle. H isto ry w ould now m ove into a period o f “obscura­ tio n ,” accom panied by chaos and cataclysm. F rom the Theosophical p o in t o f view, this physical intellectuality, u n ­ inform ed by spirit, was clearly m anifested in the m aterialism and scien­ tific positivism th at characterized E uropean culture at the end o f the n in eteen th century. H aving reached this p o in t, hum anity’s progress t o ­ w ard “ absolute evil” (in T heosophical term s, th e m o n a d ’s com pleted involution, o r descent, in to m atter) w ould be arrested and the civiliza­ tion o f the fifth ro o t race destroyed. “W hen physical intellect, u n ­ guarded by elevated morality, runs over in to th e p roper region o f spiri­ tual advancem ent, . . . natural law provides for its violent repression,” w rote S in n ett.22 Given the intellectual and political clim ate o f fin de siecle E urope, given the sinister atm osphere o f senseless evil, ram pant

materialism, and the m uch-heralded death o f G od, th e Theosophical view o f hum an evolution offered a seemingly co herent explanation o f why things were bad, as well as hope th a t things at their w orst m ust cease. This explanation fed the general eschatological expectations o f th e age. In Russia, given th e innate tendency tow ard philosophical apoc­ alypticism, given the social and political upheavals caused by the RussoJapanese War, the Revolution o f 1905, and the First World War, and given the grow ing rift betw een positivism and idealism, all viewed thro u g h the focus o f the Russian religious renascence, the Theosophical interpretation o f events seem ed logical enough to many.

T h e o so p h y an d M an O n the basis o f the occult principle o f correspondences ( “T h at which is above is like th a t w hich is below, to perpetuate the m ystery o f the O ne T h in g ,” we read in the Tabula· Sm aragdina o f H erm es Trism egistus), the hum an m icrocosm replicates the m acrocosm o f the greater universe. M an is ternary in his essence, consisting o f m atter, intellect, and spirit (or body, soul, and spirit), and septenary in his evolutionary com posi­ tion. The seven principles o f m an, which constitute an upper, eternal, spiritual triad, and a lower, m ortal, physical quaternary, are: S p iritu al P rinciples:

1. A tm a. Pure, Universal Spirit. An emanation o f the Absolute. 2 . Buddbi. Spiritual Soul. The vehicle o f Universal Spirit. 3. Higher Manas. Mind. Intelligence. Human, or Consciousness Soul. P h ysical P rinciples:

4 . K am a Rupa. (Lower Manas), or Animal Soul, the seat o f animal desires and passions. Line o f demarcation, between the mortal and immortal ele­ ments. The agent o f Will during the lifetime. 5. Linga Sharira. Astral Body (vehicle o f life). Sentient soul. 6. Prana. The Etheric Double. Life essence, vital power. Matter as Force. 7. Rupa. The Dense Body. Gross, physical matter.

T he three lowest principles— the physical, etheric, and astral bodies— exist in the phenom enal w orld o f space, m atter, and time. They consti­ tute the m aterial man. T he reincarnational cycles are manifested in these three bodies, “ ‘th e three w orlds’ th ro u g h w hich lies the pilgrim ­ age o f the soul, again and again repeated. In these three worlds revolves the wheel o f hum an life, and souls are bo un d to th at wheel th ro u g h ­ o u t their evolution, and are carried by it to each o f these worlds in tu rn .”23

The two intermediary principles o f the higher and lower Manas are the mental principles, the highest hum an aspect o f G od in man. The further evolution o f these two principles belongs to the future o f the human race, although some chosen vessels, well advanced in spiritual evolution, may attain them now. In most hum an beings, however, the higher Manas is not yet developed.24 The sixth and seventh principles are the spiritual planes. “W hat lies beyond on the sixth and seventh planes is hidden in the unimaginable light o f G od.”25 In time man will develop all seven principles and become perfect; this will happen at the end o f the seven times seventh round o f reincarnations, at which time the spiritually developed individual will be God. Theosophical doctrine further distinguishes between a lower and a higher human Ego; the Ego it defines simply as m an’s sense o f “I am .” The lower, m ortal, personal Ego, incorporated in the three lower bod­ ies, is associated with a particular historical incarnation, and is called “personality.” The higher, im mortal, impersonal Ego, associated with the higher bodies, remains unchanged through the reincarnational se­ quence, and is called “individuality.” Since the universe and man are septenary in structure and function, the planes o f existence are also seven. These seven planes are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Physical Plane Astral Plane M ental (Manas or D evachanic) Plane Intuitional (B uddhic) Plane Spiritual (N irvanic) Plane M onadic (Para-nirvanic) Plane D ivine (M aha-para-nirvanic) Plane

AU seven planes exist simultaneously, although man has not yet become sufficiently “spiritualized” in this Earth incarnation to perceive more than three or (in some highly advanced individuals) four planes. M an is constantly aware o f the physical plane because his gross and etheric bodies (which sustain the life function) and his animal desires dwell in it. The physical senses, however, are no reliable measure o f real­ ity, the physical plane being only one o f several planes, and the least refined at that. Man becomes aware o f other planes only when he alters his consciousness (whether by spiritual exercise, madness, drugs, dreams, or death). W hat Theosophy terms the “astral w orld” or the “astral plane” is “not a place, but a state, or condition, o f existence. It surrounds us and we are immersed in it while we live on E arth.”26 The individual is able to perceive the astral plane passively through dreams, drugged states, or

insanity, and actively th ro u g h consciously developed spiritual sight. The occultist can train his astral body to leave the gross body u nder certain circumstances o f trance or sleep; it is then free to travel and act on the astral plane (astral projection). Feelings, ideas, and th o u g h ts experienced in the physical w orld exist on the astral plane as concrete animal forms: Steiner explained th a t “a feeling o f hatred against ano th er being appears [on the astral plane] as an attacking dem o n ,” while “a lie in the physical w orld becom es an agent o f destruction in the astral world. A lie is a m urder in the astral w orld.”27 Thus every idea o r thought, g o o d and harm ful, assumes a visi­ ble fo rm on the astral plane; the act o f th o u g h t becomes an act o f actual creation. T he im perishable astral impression o f every th o u g h t, feeling, and action since the Earth incarnation began is preserved as “living tab ­ leaux” on the Akashic R ecord. F or those w ith “supersensible sig h t,” the Akashic R ecord is an open book in w hich w orld history literally comes to life. Events on the astral and physical planes are closely, although in ­ versely, related: the one is the m irror im age o f the other. T hus the n u m ­ ber 1,000,000 in the physical w orld is the num ber 0000001 o n the as­ tral plane, and the harmless th o u g h t, “Enfranshish,” to take an example from A ndrei Belyi’s “astral novel,” Peterburg, becom es the dangerous dem on, “Shishnarfne.” Life on the astral plane is also lived in reverse order. T hus, “ all th at we throw o u t o f ourselves in to the astral w orld at one time will reappear in times to com e, on the physical plane. W hat we sow in the astral w orld we reap on E arth in future tim es.”28 Finally, the appearance o f objects on the astral plane is quite different from their form on the physical plane; in the astral w orld one perceives material objects from all sides at once. M oreover, certain forms o f m at­ ter, invisible to the physical eye, becom e visible to the supersensible eye on the astral plane. Every material object also has an astral counterpart, being in effect doubled. Some occultists describe the astral plane as the fourth dim ension. Those w ho are able to penetrate the astral plane learn th at “each liv­ ing creature is surrounded w ith an atm osphere o f its ow n, usually called its aura.” The hum an body produces (as does every anim ate and inani­ m ate object) an aura, a radiant energy field th at “is seen as an oval mass o f lum inous mist o f highly complex stru ctu re ,” a cloud o f color and light.29 A trained occultist w ho can project his astral body to th e astral plane can “read” a person’s aura by its colors, and can interpret the state o f th a t individual’s health, feelings, character, and even karma. T he hum an aura is tripartite, consisting o f the lowest sheath (showing the influence o f the body on the soul), the m iddle sheath (reflecting the life o f the soul), and the highest sheath (the spiritual state). T he precise

interpretation o f aura colors differs, but it is generally agreed that an obtrusive, dark red is associated with sensual desires and lust, while rose pink connotes motherly love or selfless affection; green is associated with lower natures and a sympathy to the physical world, brown and orange with egotism, pride, and ambition, yellow with intellect, blue with spirituality, piety, and wisdom, violet with religious fervor, white with transcendence and sanctity, black with malice and evil. The duller and muddier the colors, the more related they are to the body; the purer and brighter, the more they pertain to the spiritual in m an.30 The third plane accessible to the hum an m onad o f the Earth incarna­ tion (i.e., the hum an being) is the Devachanic plane. This is the “abode o f the G ods,” and corresponds roughly to the Christian concept o f heaven. The hum an monad, in the intermediate stage between incarna­ tions, ascends to Devachan and there integrates its past experiences and prepares for the next life. The higher planes above Devachan will be reached only in the distant future, when the human monad is further along on the spiritual path to the Divine One.

T h e M e a n in g o f th e P a th The hum an m onad’s task in this, its m ost material sequence o f incarna­ tions, is to recognize that the bondage o f m atter is illusory and to begin its journey back to spirit. For the Theosophists, as for the Gnostics, m at­ ter (understood as the entire phenomenal world) is an illusion. T heoret­ ically monistic, b u t practically dualistic, m ost esoteric philosophies (in­ cluding Theosophy) postulate the opposition o f phenom enal (material) and noumenal (spiritual) reality. Real reality is changeless and eternal; that which changes is illusory: “Spirit is the only reality,” wrote Edouard Schure. “M atter is nothing but its lower, changing, ephemeral expres­ sion, its dynamism in space and tim e.”31 To com prehend this and to overcome the illusion o f m atter is Theosophical wisdom. This point o f view is remarkably similar to that o f the Valentinian gnosis. The illusion o f m atter is perpetrated in Buddhist (and Theosophical) mythology by Maya, the Spider who weaves the material web o f the world illusion, or the phenom enal world. “Maya or illusion is an ele­ ment which enters into all finite things, for everything that exists has only a relative, n o t an absolute, reality, since the appearance which the hidden noum enon assumes for any observer depends upon his power o f cognition,” explained Mme Blavatsky. “N othing is perm anent except the one hidden absolute existence which contains in itself the noumena o f all realities.”32 Noum ena and phenom ena are connected by analogy and correspondence. Events in m atter are distorted, at times parodic,

even grotesque reflections o f events occurring on the spiritual plane. T he noum enon is enciphered in the phenom enal event, and the occultist w ho has developed his “ spiritual sight” can see behind the distorted pseudoreality o f the manifested mechanical Universe to the real m ean­ ing o f the noum enon that informs it.33 I f the w orld o f Spirit is the realm o f the O ne, the All-Unity, then the w orld o f M atter, maya, is the w orld o f the Tw o, o f dichotomy. In im ­ perfect m atter the divine U nity appears as duality so that m an’s con­ sciousness m ight com prehend empirically w hat he perceives: Light is empirically com prehensible only in relation to Darkness, G ood in rela­ tion to Evil, Life to D eath, Male to Female. While m an’s spiritual self is aware that duality is an illusion o f material existence, m an’s inferior physical self is easily misled by the illusion. M an m ust read N ature as a mystical text, learn to understand his own dualistic nature (spiritual and material), recognize the illusion o f the phenom enal w orld, and desire to return to the One. The three deceptions o f maya, the three prim ary illusions o f the p h e­ nom enal w orld, are D eath, Tim e, and Evil. D eath is illusory because only the hum an m onad’s material shell, a product o f maya, dies. The hum an m onad itself, being an em anation o f the Divine, is eternal. Para­ doxically, life in the material body becomes a form o f death, a “ burial” in m atter, while earthly death is liberation; a retu rn to the real w orld o f pure spirit, unpolluted by matter. H ere, again, Theosophy coincides with Gnosticism. Time is illusory because it exists only in the material world; the AllUnity, the Divine O ne, exists in Eternity, which alone is real. C h ro ­ nological tim e is perceived as the opposite o f eternity in dichotom ous material existence. The individual who has developed supersensible sight can sense the presence o f Eternity in Tim e, and learn to “ hear the call” o f Eternity, awakening him to the realization o f his divine nature. E vil is illusory because it is n o t absolute, b u t relative. N either good nor evil exist per se; each is generated and created o u t o f the other; they are, in fact, the dichotom ous expression o f a single tru th . Evil is no more than divine light condensed into material form. Thus Satan, or Lucifer, is an essentially positive concept for Theosophy, which claims th at G od and the Devil are b u t the tw o sides o f a single coin: Demon est Deus inversus. As the just and retributive agent o f karma, the Devil is the ser­ vant o f God. M me Blavatsky w ent so far as to say that “th at which the clergy o f every dogm atic religion— preem inently the Christian— points out as Satan, the enem y o f G od, is in reality, the highest divine Spirit— (occult W isdom on E arth)—in its naturally antagonistic character to every worldly, evanescent illusion, dogm atic or ecclesiastical religions included.” 34 Theosophy considered th at Christianity, by polarizing G od

and Satan, simply m isunderstood the hom ogeneity o f the Divine O ne, unable to look beyond its bifurcated m anifestation in m atter. T he task o f the hum an m onad in his m aterial existence is to realize th at m atter is illusory and to overcom e it, thus returning, step by reincarnational step, to the pure spirit o f the Divine O ne. W hile subject to the cyclical law o f reincarnation, the Pilgrim -Soul is b o u n d by the law o f karm a. A doctrine fundam ental to Brahm anism and B uddhism , karma was easily incorporated in to the syncretistic philosophy o f the Theosophists. Karma is u n d ersto o d as a cosmic law o f cause and effect th a t d e­ term ines o n e ’s hum an condition in any incarnation based on o n e ’s b e ­ havior in previous incarnations: W hat one sows in this life, w hether good or evil, one reaps in a later reincarnation; all th a t is done, is done for all eternity. M m e Blavatsky defined karm a as the LAW O F R E T R IB U T IO N ; the Law o f Cause and E ffect or Ethical C au­ sation. . . . It is the pow er that controls all things, the resultant o f moral ac­ tion , the m etaphysical Samskara, or the moral effect o f an act com m itted for the attainm ent o f som eth in g w hich gratifies a personal desire. T here is the Karma o f m erit and the Karma o f dem erit. Karma neither punishes n or re­ wards; it is sim ply the one Universal LAW w hich guides unerringly and, so to say, blindly, all other laws productive o f certain effects alon g the grooves o f their respective causations.35

T he situation is com plicated in th at an individual is involved n o t only in his o r her ow n karm a, b u t in the karm a o f the groups to w hich the indi­ vidual belongs. “While a m an makes his ow n individual karm a he also connects him self thereby w ith others, thus becom ing a m em ber o f vari­ ous groups— family, national, racial— and as a m em ber he shares in the collective karm a o f each o f these gro u p s.” 36 Karma, according to Theosophy, does n o t deny th e concept o f free will. M an’s free will lies in his ability to control the karma he creates in the life being lived. “ L et m an be left free to choose his own actions,” w rote M rs. Besant, “b u t let every action bring ab o u t an inevitable result; let him ru n loose am id all objects o f desire and seize w hatever he will, b u t let him have all the results o f his choice, be they delightful or griev­ o u s.” T he rem ainder o f h er explanation shows karm a to be a form o f cosmic shock therapy. I f m an experiences pain often enough in the wake o f “b ad ” choices, he will presently “ freely reject the objects w hose pos­ session ultim ately causes him pain; he will no longer desire them w hen he has experienced to the full th at their possession ends in sorrow. . . . T he lesson will be repeated any num ber o f tim es found necessary.”37 N either does karm a lim it the individual in any way; on the contrary, it frees the individual for conscious creativity on a large scale. By under­ standing o n e’s karm a and acting accordingly, the individual can con-

sciously design his o r h e r ow n p rese n t and fu tu re lives. Seeing o n e ’s p rese n t existence as p a rt o f a larger, u n fin ish ed tapestry, o n e is able to fashion o n e ’s ow n “creatively lived life” (in th e w o rd s o f th e Russian Sym bolists) and d e te rm in e th e d irectio n o f fu tu re incarnations. T h ro u g h its particu lar u n d e rsta n d in g o f karm a, T h eo so p h y was able to m odify subtly one im p o rta n t aspect o f p an th eism . W hile a t first glance th e T heosophical u n d e rsta n d in g o f m an seem s to dissolve th e in ­ dividual in th e e n o rm o u s collectivity o f th e cosm os (a specifically o rie n ­ tal featu re), in fact it c o n tin u e s th e tra d itio n o f occidental individualism th ro u g h its p articu lar revision o f karm a. E ach individual becom es the conscious d e te rm in e r o f his o r her o w n fate, becom es his o r her ow n “law giver,” w h o know ingly chooses th e d irectio n o f this a n d o f fu tu re lives. R eincarnation an d karm a w ere th e opiate o f th e T heosophical masses; w h en th e th o u g h t o f etern al life in th e paradise o f trad itio n al C h ristian ­ ity could n o lo n g er console, T heosophy, w ith its n o tio n o f rein c arn a ­ tio n , co uld. M rs. B esant w ro te th a t th e re is a “ fu n d am en tal necessity for rein carn atio n if life is to be m ade intelligible, and if injustice and cruelty are n o t to m ock th e helplessness o f m an. W ith rein carn atio n m an is a dignified, im m ortal b ein g , evolving to w a rd a divinely glorious end; w ith o u t it, he is a tossing straw on th e stream o f chance circum stances, irresponsible for his character, for his actions, for his destiny.” 38 T h e law o f karm a p ro v ed th a t evil and suffering are n e ith e r arb itrary n o r ran d o m . I t gave d ifferent m ean in g to th e co n c ep t o f F ate, in th a t blind chance was n o lo n g e r th e c o n tro llin g factor o f o n e ’s existence. A hig h er, logical law o f spiritual causation (in w h ich e n lig h te n e d in d iv id u ­ als them selves p articip ated ) d e te rm in e d in to w h a t tim e and place th o se individuals w ere b o rn and w h a t th ey h ad to overcom e o r accom plish in this p articular life. In th e last analysis, all th a t h a p p e n ed was just. K arm a pro v id ed a consoling explanation o f w hy things w e n t w ro n g , w hy in n o ­ c e n t people suffered, w hy cruelty a n d viciousness existed, and w hy life was unfair: it was all th e result o f karm a th a t h a d n o t b een w o rk ed o u t in previous reincarnations. T h e goal o f o n e ’s lives was to balance o u t bad karm a w ith g o o d , and th e n to act as little as possible, th u s red u c in g th e a m o u n t o f karm a cre ­ ated. I f th e h u m an m o n ad c o u ld in this life reduce th e “karm a o f d e ­ m e rit” for fu tu re lives and avoid th e creatio n o f n ew karm a, it w o u ld eventually reach a state o f perfect balance an d harm ony, th e final d eg ree o f w hich is th e ex tin ctio n o f existence in m atter. I t w o u ld be freed from h u m a n passion and anim al desires; it w o u ld reach th e state o f absolute existence, nirvana, and escape th e w heel o f m aterial rein carn atio n a lto ­ gether.

To the W estern m ind, reincarnation, karm a, and nirvana are n o t c o n ­ genial concepts. First, they are difficult for the W estern m ind to com pre­ hend in the m anner originally intended by Eastern th o u g h t, and so they reach the W estern m ind in a d istorted form , frequently as an attem pt, conscious or unconscious, to revise the Christian explanation o f suffer­ ing as the result o f original sin. Second, they encourage passivity and w ithdrawal from society and reality in W estern m an. O ne is inclined to spend o n e ’s life inducing dream s, visions, and m editative states (as m any turn-of-th e-cen tu ry Russian intellectuals did), since these are perceived as the m eans o f contact w ith the spiritual w orld. T he analytical psychol­ ogist C. G. Jung, w ho spent a lifetime studying alchemy and o th er oc­ cult sciences, considered T heosophy actually dangerous to the W estern mind: T he usual mistake o f W estern man w hen faced w ith this problem o f grasping the ideas o f the East is like that o f the stud en t in Faust. M isled by the devil, he con tem ptuou sly turns his back on science and, carried away by Eastern occultism , takes over yoga practices w ord for w ord and becom es a pitiable imitator. (T h eosop hy is our best exam ple o f this.) T hus he abandons the one sure foundation o f the W estern m ind and loses h im self in a m ist o f w ords and ideas that cou ld never have originated in European brains and can never be profitably grafted upon th em .39

Ju n g ’s conclusion, reached in 1929, echoes the w ords o f the Russian philosopher, Nikolai Berdiaev, from 1916. Berdiaev com plained th at T heosophy oversimplified com plex Eastern doctrines and, in this over­ simplified form , presented psychic tru th s, relevant to Eastern th o u g h t, to unprepared and uncom prehending W estern m inds. “T here is som e­ th ing in the H in d u understanding o f G od th at is incapable o f being ex­ pressed in ou r language, th at is untranslatable in to o u r W estern c o n ­ cepts,” he w rote.40 Ready as the Russian Theosophists were to em brace the enticingly exotic oriental trappings o f Theosophy, m uch as they m ight insist th at Russian T heosophy w ould facilitate the union o f oriental religion and W estern science and philosophy, it was the G nostic, rather than the B uddhist, dim ension in T heosophical cosm ology th at in the end m ade it particularly appealing to Theosophically inclined m em bers o f the R us­ sian creative intelligentsia. Russian O rth o d o x mystical theology has bent m ore than a little in the direction o f the G nostic heresy, and at no tim e was this as tru e as during the Silver Age. T he G nostic influence appears in Vladim ir Solov’ev’s Sophiology (in which the concept o f the “AllU n ity ” and the Valentinian m odel figure prom inently), and in the elab­ oration o f his w ork by the priests Sergei Bulgakov and Pavel Florenskii.

A t one point even Nikolai Berdiaev w elcom ed the tendency tow ard Gnosticism and urged th a t “ Gnosticism should be revived and should enter into our life for all tim e.”41 This Gnostic dim ension also found expression in Russian mystical sectarianism at the turn o f the century. T he Khlysty (“Flagellants” ) em ­ braced the same idea o f identity w ith divinity and called their elders “C hrists.” M any contem porary Russian scholars actually claimed that the roots o f this heretical sect lay in the Gnostic m ovem ents o f the sixth century and the M anichaeanism o f the medieval Bogom ils.42 This G nos­ tic m odel, which underlies Russian neo-Christianity, Sophiology, sectar­ ian beliefs, and Theosophy, fed the worldview o f the second-generation Symbolist writers and can be detected in Russian literature as late as the 1930s (in M ikhail Bulgakov’s novel Master i Margarita·, for example). In the end, Theosophy (as well as Spiritualism and o th er occult m ove­ m ents) fostered the passivity th at stems from rejection o f concrete real­ ity. Escape from contem porary reality, w hether it be in to th e past, into exotica, into dream s, o r into the world o f im agination, is also character­ istic o f Russian Symbolist art and literature. O ne need only look at the occult journals still being published during the First World War and the R evolution, particularly Rebus. N o historian could discover sufficient material there to docum ent the disintegration o f the monarchy, the dreadful defeats o f the war, or the excesses o f revolutionary activity. O ne w onders if this passive withdrawal, this Weltflucht1 w ould play a role in the events o f 1918 and afterward, w hen th e Russian m iddle class and the intelligentsia became the submissive victims o f Bolshevik excesses.

Anthroposophical Refinements: Rudolf Steiner’s Spiritual Science F or the ten years betw een 1902 (w hen he first became a m em ber) and 1912 (w hen he resigned), R u d o lf Steiner was a visible m em ber o f the TheosophicaI Society, co ntributing m ore to th e system atization o f Theosophical doctrine than m ost leaders o f the Society later cared to adm it.43 D uring th at tim e he developed his own variant o f theosophical occultism , which he called A nthroposophy. T he term was n o t original to Steiner. I t was first used by th e alchemist and Flerm eticist Thom as V aughan, tw in b ro th er o f th e English metaphysical p o et H en ry Vaughan, in the seventeenth century. Steiner selected it for its Rosicrucian associations; the Rosicrucianism initiation plays a central role in Steiner’s A nthroposophy. D uring his years as a T heosophist, Steiner did n o t tam per overm uch w ith traditional Theosophical doctrine, at least as it was presented by

A. P. S innett and M m e Blavatsky. W hat he did, however, was to purge the system o f M m e Blavatsky’s confusing {and confused) layers o f com ­ parative religion, questionable etym ologies, and creative m ythology. H e m inim ized the presence o f oriental th o u g h t and vocabulary, extracted w hat he believed to be the essence o f the doctrine, and arranged the whole in a relatively coherent, system atic form couched in vocabulary taken from the natural sciences, psychology, and W estern philosophy. H e thereby changed the nam es, if n o t the functions, o f traditional Theosophical concepts. T he p ra n a o f T heosophy becam e Steiner’s “etheric n a tu re ,” the chela, became a “spiritual researcher” w ho investigates a spiritual (n o t m erely physical) science, and so on. This change in term i­ nology was one o f the factors th at m ade S teiner’s occult science m ore accessible and acceptable to the educated E uropean m ind; nevertheless, there rem ained a definite doctrinal continuity betw een the T heosophy o f M m e Blavatsky and S teiner’s A nthroposophy, particularly in regard to the central concepts o f karm a and reincarnation. A nother m odification was Steiner’s shift in emphasis from purely in ­ tuitive cognition to a com bination o f intuitive, inspirational, and intel­ lectual cognition. Steiner called his m ore disciplined m ethod “spiritual science” ( Geisteswissenschaft), or “supersensible know ledge.” I t attem pts to make occult science a legitim ate discipline, w ith its ow n body o f facts and its ow n empirical know ledge, qualitatively different from b u t no less valid than th at o f traditional science, and closely related to it. By follow­ ing Steiner’s recom m ended m eth o d o f study, exercises, and m editations aim ed at developing the spiritual organs o f perception, spiritual re ­ searchers could train themselves to operate consciously on a level o f “ su­ persensible” cognition. Steiner did n o t scorn the advances o f m odern science. “T here can be no d o u b t w hatever th at the m eth o d o f th o u g h t derived from natural science is the greatest pow er in m odern spiritual life,” he w rote. “ O ne w ho is investigating the nature o f the spirit can only learn from natural science.”44 This apparent acceptance o f m odern science was a fundam ental feature o f the A nthroposophical Way, or P ath, and also co n trib u ted to its appeal to the m odern W estern m ind. Steiner was opposed to anything th at smacked o f superstition or could n o t be “proved” by individual spiritual experim entation. H e him ­ self claimed to have experienced, in addition to the waking and dream ­ ing states, an additional “ soul state” o f imaginative cognition in which the soul, although in a state similar to sleep, still retains consciousness and is able to imm erse itself in “symbolic visualization,” taking control o f events th at occur to the “S e lf’ o n o th er planes. Steiner was convinced th a t spiritually advanced hum an beings were capable o f developing c o n ­ scious control n o t only o f their physical body, b u t also o f their etheric and astral bodies. By purifying and refashioning the astral body th ro u g h

m ed ita tio n , c o n c e n tra tio n , and o th e r exercises, th u s en ab lin g it to ac­ q u ire h ig h e r organs o f supersensible p e rc e p tio n , tra in ed spiritual re ­ searchers co u ld participate actively in th e spiritual w o rld .45 T hey w o u ld achieve co m p lete a n d u n b ro k e n consciousness; they w o u ld rem e m b e r past incarnations and w o u ld c o n tro l su b seq u e n t in carn atio n s so as to re tu rn as th e sam e physical self (th u s creatin g th e illusion am o n g th e u n e n lig h te n e d th a t they h a d lived for h u n d re d s, even th o u sa n d s, o f years). Even before his break w ith th e T h eo so p h ical Society at th e e n d o f 1 9 12, S teiner was o p e n a b o u t w h a t he specifically fo u n d ob jectio n ab le in T heosophy. H e felt th a t M m e Blavatsky had b e e n p rem a tu re in re ­ vealing certain esoteric tru th s to th e w orld. N o th in g sh o u ld have been revealed u n til th e very e n d o f th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry (at th e en d o f every century, acco rd in g to S teiner, th e H eavenly H ierarch y sends th e h u m an race som e ad d itio n al spiritual assistance), and th e n th a t revelation had to be o f a particular kind, suitable for th e soul, m in d , and body o f W estern m an. U n fo rtu n ately , in D r. S te in e r’s view, M m e Blavatsky’s ow n soul was u n fo rm e d and chaotic; it d isto rte d th e w isdom th a t W estern Rosicrucian adepts sent th ro u g h it. C onsequently, E astern adepts w ere able to take c o n tro l o f it and in sert th eir ow n form o f specifically oriental spiritual know ledge. H e n c e th e un ex p ected (and e rro n e o u s) B u d d h ist n a tu re o f her revelation to W estern hum anity. E ventually, th e excessive chaos o f M m e Blavatsky’s soul forced all adepts to w ith d raw from it, leaving it an o p e n and d a n g e ro u s channel for negative o ccu lt forces.46 S tein er’s rejectio n o f T h e o so p h y ’s orien tal dim en sio n d id n o t m ean he was c o n te m p tu o u s o f o riental w isdom ; he sim ply felt th a t n o th in g w ith in th e orien tal tra d itio n w o u ld aid W estern m an in o v erco m in g the p o w er o f scientific m aterialism from w hich he h ad to escape to begin his jo u rn ey spiritw ard. T h e illu m in atio n o f W estern m an co u ld com e only from w ithin th e W estern tra d itio n itself. Scientific m aterialism , in S te in e r’s view, was th e G o lg o th a o f th e h u m an m ind; n o passive orien tal tra d itio n c o u ld possibly give m an th e stre n g th to sacrifice h im self ac­ tively o n this p articular cross.47 S teiner identified th re e kinds o f initiation: “ th e an cient Yoga, the really specific C hristian in itia tio n , and th a t in itiatio n w hich is entirely app ro p riate for m en o f th e p rese n t day, th e C hristian-R osicrucian in itia tio n ” :48 T h ere are three d ifferen t kinds o f in itia tio n , all o fw h ic h lead to th e sam e goal. T here are three p ath s, the ch o ice o f o n e o f w h ich d ep en d s u p o n a m a n ’s in d i­ viduality. O n e in itiation is that o f w isd om ; it is the fittin g g o a l for In dian and O riental training. T h is path is fraught w ith great dangers for E u rop ean and W estern b o d ies and is therefore n o t th e right o n e. T h e se co n d in itiation is

based u p o n th e life o f feeling; it is th e fundam entally C hristian path. Only few individuals can still take this path because it dem ands a strong pow er o f devo­ tio n and piety. T he th ird p ath is the Rosicrucian training, the path o f the initiation o f thinking and o f will. I t leads to union with the forces o f the o th er paths o f initiation. . . .to genuine spiritual sight and know ledge o f th e spiri­ tual w orld based on actual experience.49

Steiner clearly differentiated the Eastern soul, m ind, and body from the W estern. H e characterized the Eastern initiation as passive, achieved while the initiate was in a trance or sleep state. T he W estern, or Rosicrucian, initiation he him self proposed tau g h t th e initiate to w ork actively and consciously th ro u g h m ind, reason, and intellect to achieve en lig h t­ enm ent. U nlike the Eastern g u ru , w ho m erely im parts occult know l­ edge, the W estern teacher provides an intellectual stim ulus and waits for the developed m ind to reach its ow n spiritual conclusions. Steiner m ade no dem ands o f faith or belief in his system; he asked only th at his disci­ ples approach it w ith o u t prejudice. T he Rosicrucian initiation rests on a Christian foundation b u t has deeper roots in W estern medieval G nostic and H erm etic philosophies, all strongly colored by esoteric Christianity. Steiner nam ed the B rother­ h o o d o f St. Jo h n , the Knights o f the Grail, the Albigenses and Cathars, the Rosicrucian Fraternity, the Knights Tem plar, and, o f course, Anthroposophy, as preservers o f this W estern initiation and clothed some aspects o f his A nthroposophy in their m etaphors and vocabulary.

The C hrist Impulse S teiner’s C hristian-Rosicrucian initiation laid great stress on the role o f the C hrist Im pulse in hum an spiritual developm ent. H is com m itm ent to restoring the C hrist concept to a rationalistic and m aterialistic w orld is perhaps his greatest p o in t o f departure from traditional Theosophy. B oth Steiner and the Theosophists agreed th at Christianity, as p ro m u l­ gated by the organized C hurch, was a d istorted and m aterialistic form o f the original teaching; b o th agreed th at spiritual tru th lay in an esoteric C hristianity th at was n o t popularly dissem inated; b o th saw this esoteric C hristianity as based solidly on G nostic th o u g h t. Beyond th at, M m e Blavatsky had little tim e for C hristianity and, although she referred to it occasionally in o rd er to criticize it, did n o t make it a m ajor feature o f her neo-B uddhist worldview. Annie Besant, the author o f a m ajor Theosophical text on Esoteric C hristianity (1901), divided the C hrist into his­ torical, m ythical, and mystical figures. Jesus was a hum an being w ho had achieved a certain level o f spiritual developm ent and, at the m om ent o f

his in itia tio n in to th e “m ysteries,” becam e a “son o f G o d .” She d en ied to th e T heosophical C h rist th e role o f personal Savior and did n o t c o n ­ sider his existence to be a u n iq u e historical event, since any successful initiate can b ecom e a “ son o f G o d .” M rs. B esant’s G nosticism leaned to w ard th e oriental variant in its insistence th a t th e goal o f esoteric C h ristian initiatio n was to escape th e cycle o f re b irth an d th e circle o f g e n e ra tio n .50 T h e prim ary role o f th e C h rist in S tein er’s system is as cultural sym bol o f m a n ’s e m erg in g sense o f individuality, o f th e egoconsciousness (S tein er’s “ I A M ” ). “ H is m ission consisted in b rin g in g to m an k in d the full force o f th e ego, an in n er in d ep en d en ce in th e so u l.” 51 F o r Steiner, Christ Jesus is n o t only a Universal Principle; Christ is a Being w ho appeared once, and once only, at a definite m om ent in history. In human form, H e revealed by H is words and H is life, a state o f perfection which it is possible for all m en ultim ately to acquire by their ow n free will. Christ came to the Earth at a critical m om ent, when the descending arc o f human evolution was about to reach its Lowest p oin t o f materialization. In order that the Christ-Principle m ight awaken in man, the life o f Christ H im se lf on Earth was necessary in a human body. . . . The Christ Im pulse intervenes in [the] karmic process and becom es its central pivot. Since H e came to Earth the Christ has lived in the depths o f every human sou l.” 52

S te in e r’s C h rist, for all o f his presence and un iq u en ess, is n o t m o re tra d i­ tionally C hristian th an th e C h rist o f th e T h eo so p h ists; S te in e r’s form o f C hristianity is still th e expression o f a p antheistic w orldview , fo r his Son o f G o d is th e so n o f an etern al, h id d e n F a th e r w h o is concealed in N a ­ tu re . “ G o d is m agically concealed in th e w orld. A n d y o u n eed H is ow n force in o rd e r to find H im . T his force you m u st aw aken w ithin y o u r­ self.” 53 S teiner called this force th e C h rist Im pulse. H e p ro v id ed a fu rth e r clarification o f his peculiar u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e C h rist in his c o m m e n ­ tary to th e m o st G nostic o f th e C hristian gospels, th e G ospel o f St. Jo h n : The earth exists in order that full self-consciousness, the “I A M ,” may be given to mankind. Previously, everything was a preparation for this self-con­ sciousness, for this “I A M ” ; and the Christ was that Being W ho gave the im ­ pulse that made it possible for every human being— each as an individual— to experience the “I A M .” O nly with H is advent was the powerful impulse given which carries earth hum anity forward w ith a m ighty bou n d .54

T h u s S tein er’s C h rist is th e “ q u ick en er” o f th e “I A M ,” th e self-con­ scious, ratio n al, individual eg o (as o p p o sed to th e unconscious, in tu i­ tive, g ro u p ego th a t characterizes th e psyche o f prim itive m an ).

T he C hrist Im pulse was necessary if the hum an m onad was to be aided in its spiritual journey. T he pilgrim age o f the soul necessitated the hum an m o n ad ’s descent entirely in to m atter, because only by descend­ ing into m atter could he lose his sense o f one-ness w ith the Divine AU and be com pletely alone w ith his ow n Self. O nce isolated in m atter, m an w ould be able to identify and develop his individual ego consciousness th ro u g h intellect, allowing his ow n “ I A M ” to em erge. O nly by devel­ oping his Self (the “ I A M ” ) could m an com prehend th a t he alone was responsible for his ow n actions and th a t he had free will. T he “I A M ” was the only possible vehicle for m an’s conscious, rational, and freely chosen retu rn to the Divine AU. T he hum an m o n ad ’s ego consciousness em erged, however, at the very p o in t w hen hum anity was com pletely trapped in m atter and had lost every m em ory o f its spiritual heredity. A t this p o in t in hum an history the tim e had come for the appearance o f the C hrist, w ho came to break the illusory bonds o f m atter and to “ give again the impulse for finding the path back to the U niversal.” 55 T he C hrist Im pulse, claimed Steiner, is unique to the W estern Path. T he Eastern (and ancient) P ath, w ith its different tasks and different his­ tory, attem pted to restore the hum an m o n ad ’s original unity w ith the Divine n o t by accepting the reality o f m atter and actively overcom ing it, b u t by com pletely rejecting m atter as an illusion and yielding to reassim­ ilation in to Brahm an (the All-Spirit); such passive dissolution in the G odhead obliterates the “ I A M ,” destroys individual ego consciousness, and negates free will. W estern m an, had he followed this p ath , w ould never have created his m aterial culture or achieved free will or found spiritual redem ption. M m e Blavatsky, w ith her Eastern Theosophy, ad­ vocated a w rong, even a dangerous, Path for W estern hum anity; S teiner’s A nthroposophy returned it to the straight and narrow Path th a t led to a tru e understanding o f the M ystery o f G olgotha.

Ahriman and Lucifer Steiner’s A nthroposophy also furth er developed the T heosophical u n ­ derstanding o f evil. Evil, as an illusion perpetrated in m atter, cannot exist sui generis; evil is only an agent o f karm a. A nd as there is no per­ sonal G od in Theosophy, there can be no personal Devil. M m e Blavat­ sky explained Lucifer’s cu rren t satanic im age in C hristian culture as an act o f defam ation: Lucifer, the “ ‘Lum inous Son o f the M o rn in g ,’ or m anvantaric D aw n” was actually “ transform ed by th e C hurch in to Luci­ fer o r Satan, because he is higher and older than Jehovah, and had to be sacrificed to the new dogm a,” 56 w hen in fact he is “ allegorized as G ood,

and Sacrifice, a G od o f W isdom , u nder different nam es.”57 She agreed w ith the French occultist Eliphas Levi th a t Lucifer was actually a vehicle o f light (Lucifer literally means “Light bearer” ) and “ a m ediating force diffused th ro u g h o u t creation; th at it serves for creation and d estru c­ tio n .” F urtherm ore, she held th at “the light in question is o f the nature o f fire, that it is w arm ing and vivifying in its p ru d en t use, b u t th at it burns, dissolves, and destroys in its excess.”58 For Steiner, this was too effulgent an explanation; he offered a m ore stream lined one. Steiner m aintained, like the Theosophists, th a t “there is no essential evil. Everything evil arises from this: som ething th at is good in one direction is p u t to use in th e w orld in another direction and thereby turned to evil.”59 In A nthroposophical doctrine evil is intrinsi­ cally associated w ith tw o impulses: the luciferian and the ahrimanic. In the mythic figures o f Lucifer and A hrim an, Steiner created m etaphors o f the potentially dark forces that are p art o f th e universal o rder o f th in g s.60 A ccording to Steiner, Ahrim an (the Zoroastrian Prince o f Darkness) “is the Lord o f D eath, far and wide the ruler o f all the powers th a t have to bring about in the physical sense w orld w hat this w orld has to have, the annihilation and death o f its entities” ; A hrim an is the lawful ruler o f the ordering o f death. As such, he “ should n o t be regarded as an evil pow er b u t as one whose influence in the general w orld o rder is fully legitim ate.”61 Steiner uses the adjectives d'ark, hard, rigid, cold, descend­ ing, a nd lower to delineate the aspects o f the ahrimanic impulse. A hri­ m an controls hum an th o u g h t. W hen he brings his rigid, earth -b o u n d impulse to hum an th o u g h t he materializes it. As the arbiter o f th o u g h t, A hrim an, w hen allowed to outw eigh Lucifer, facilitates the developm ent o f the exclusively mechanistic aspect o f m odern science and th e exclu­ sively econom ic and material concerns o f society. Steiner felt th at A hri­ man was the predom inant force in m odern times. Lucifer, the force in opposition to A hrim an, is the pow er o f Will that tears hum an beings away from the w orld o f th e senses and helps them be creative, im aginative, and artistic. Steiner describes Lucifer as light, heat, motion, flexibility, ascent. W hat is great and sublim e in hum anity’s art and culture comes from the luciferian impulse. B ut to o m uch luciferian influence leads to egotism , willfulness, fanaticism, extravagant idealism, and the loss o f a grip on reality. W hen the luciferian im pulse p redom i­ nates in a hum an being, the individual becomes a slave to his or her passions, em otions, desires, and impulses. “T he whole art o f life,” w rote Steiner, “consists in finding the true balance between th e m ,” betw een Lucifer and A hrim an.62 Life should n o t be an attem pt to escape struggle and conflict and rest eternally in a passive state o f nirvana; life should be an active and constant attem pt to achieve a balance o f opposing forces, a balance betw een luciferian and

ahrim anic impulses. In their rightful places, and held in check by each other, Lucifer and A hrim an w ork beneficially in the hum an being. W hen the balance is upset, the overw helm ing elem ent, w hether luciferian o r ahrim anic, becom es dem onic and is experienced by the psyche as the Devil. Historically, the C hrist figure stands midway betw een Lucifer, incar­ nated three thousand years ago and associated w ith the Pagan Gnosis (the em ergence o f intellect w ith o u t the m oral principle), and A hrim an, w hose incarnation is yet to com e. “Just as there was an incarnation o f Lucifer in the flesh and an incarnation o f C hrist in the flesh, so, before only a p a rt o f the th ird m illennium o f the post-C hristian era has elapsed, there will be, in the W est, an actual incarnation o f A hrim an,” predicted Steiner.63 H e assimilated the future incarnation o f A hrim an to the p re ­ dicted appearance o f the A ntichrist, w hose b irth was to be accom panied by shattering, cataclysmic events on the physical plane. O nly by develop­ ing spiritual perception and becom ing aware o f the m ovem ent o f spiri­ tual forces th at inform the concrete events th a t occur in the physical w orld can hum anity avoid being forever held prisoner in m atter by the dark m aterialistic and intellectual forces o f Ahrim an. By creating his ow n coherent system o f “ spiritual science,” o r “ra­ tional m ysticism ” (A nthroposophy), Steiner hoped to avoid the vagaries o f mysticism, for he was m ore aware than m ost th at “again and again you will find th at tru th s which com e from the spiritual w orld lay th e m ­ selves open to the charge o f being contradictory.”64 H e claim ed th a t his system o f O bservation, T hinking, Reason, and Experience was indeed a “ scientific” approach to occult phenom ena, the penetration o f the m ys­ teries th ro u g h the use o f a disciplined, “ mystical” cognition. “Spiritual Science,” he claimed, “ has no desire to lead to belief, b ut to knowledge” o f the right and logical universal order o f things.65 This know ledge even­ tually became the subject o f m ore than 150 books and 6 ,0 0 0 lectures th at Steiner w rote and delivered during his lifetime. T he evolution o f S teiner’s system o f occult know ledge was rem arkably consistent, from his first occult writings at the very beginning o f the tw entieth century, th ro u g h the Theosophical years, until his death in D ornach on M arch 30, 1925. D uring his association w ith the T heosophical Society and after his break w ith it, Steiner’s A nthroposophy continued to be intim ately re­ lated to T heosophy (although som e A nthroposophists, being closely a t­ tu n ed to the finest nuances o f doctrinal divergence, may disagree). Steiner’s differences w ith T heosophy were personal, adm inistrative, and m ethodological, b u t n o t essentially theological. B oth T heosophy and A nthroposophy are a m odern gnosis; b o th are form s o f pantheism and metaphysical m onism ; b o th are em anationist; b o th claim to purvey ob-

jective know ledge rather than blind faith; b o th have fantastic cosm olo­ gies based, in large p art, on B uddhist paradigms; bo th believe in reincar­ nation and karma; bo th advocate an esoteric Christianity based on G nostic models (although A nthroposophy em phasizes it m ore). Anthroposophy’s scientific vocabulary, its restrained, “ pedagogical” tone, its preference for occidental over oriental term inology and tradition, and its logical coherence (the result o f Steiner’s brilliant gift for systema­ tization and organization) make it appear far m ore divergent from T h e ­ osophy th an it, in fact, is. T he underlying philosophical assum ptions and general worldview (perceptions o f reality, tim e, space, the I and the notI, and so forth) o f bo th doctrines rem ain rem arkably similar. B oth tu rn ed o u t to be “positivistic religions,” offering a seemingly logical theology based on pseudoscience. T he difference betw een them is es­ sentially one o f style and emphasis, although Steiner’s pointedly C hris­ tian dim ension and W estern vocabulary u n d oubtedly ensured th a t his A nthroposophy w ould have th e m ore p ro fo u n d appeal to th e educated E uropean m ind th a t h u n g ered for a C hristian Theosophy.

Six T he Russian R eception o f T heosophical T h o u g h t w ere correct in their often repeated lam ent that their critics did n o t understand T heosophy or they w ould n o t spread such silly reports about it. Like their E uropean breth ren , the Russian T heosophists expended oceans o f ink trying to set their critics straight. Rarely have so m any repeated them selves so often to so little avail. To them it seem ed th at non-T heosophists willfully conspired to m isunder­ stand the fundam ental prem ises o f T heosophy and to confuse it w ith vulgar occultism o f the basest sort. A nd it was true: the vast m ajority (but by no m eans all) o f T h eo so ­ p hy’s critics were abysmally ig norant o f the basic tenets o f the M ove­ m ent and terribly prejudiced against it. T heir articles clearly reveal th at they were n o t confused by any real know ledge or understanding o f T h e ­ osophy. O th e r critics, like the Rebus faction, had doctrinal differences w ith Theosophy; they criticized T heosophy’s divergence from their ow n particular p o in t o f view b u t rem ained open to occult th o u g h t in general. T he Theosophical Society also attracted considerable criticism from the church and the intellectual establishm ent. Still, certain critics had been adherents themselves o f T heosophy or had studied it seriously, and their criticism is p ertin en t indeed, for it clearly reflects the social and cultural currents o f the period. T he m ost serious attack o n the Russian Theosophical Society was, in fact, m ade by a defector from their ranks. T hat defector, K onstantin Kudriavtsev, was, in m any ways, an arche­ typal Russian T heosophist. H e was a m iddle-ranking St. Petersburg b u ­ reaucrat; one o f his duties was to edit the Izvestiiu Sankt-Peterbur^skoi jyorodskoi Aum y. H e was also a philanthropist, as far as his m eans allowed, and he w orked w ith the St. Petersburg Society for the P rotection o f C hildren from Cruelty. Finally, Kudriavtsev was a representative, if dis­ contented, “seeker” w ho had sam pled various occult m ovem ents before settling, briefly, on Theosophy. H e had practiced hypnotism and be­ longed to various esoteric groups, including the Russian Spiritualist So­ ciety (he was keen to take spirit photographs in his spare tim e); he co n ­ trib u ted to various journals, notably the Spiritualist publications Rebus and Iz M raka k Svetu. Kudriavtsev continued to have good relations w ith th e Spiritualists, w ho “personally attested th at Mr. Kudriavtsev was a m an o f the highest h o n o r and sincerity.” 1 Kudriavtsev was entirely devoted to the Theosophical Society during the years he was a m em ber. H e was one o f the Russian Society’s foundT h e T h e o s o p h is ts

ers; he fo u g h t for its c h a rte r w ith th e St. P e tersb u rg au th o rities; he served as th e First Secretary o f th e R T O ; he d id a g rea t deal o f editorial w ork for Vestnik Teosofii; he lec tu re d freq u en tly o n b e h a lf o f th e Society. Suddenly, a n d apparently unexpectedly, he left th e T h eo so p h ical Society in th e w in ter o f 1 9 1 1 -1 9 1 2 and attacked it in a sensationalist p am p h let, Chto m koe teosofiia i Teosoficheskoe Obshchestvo.2 K udriavtsev’s tra c t is o f p articu lar in te rest because it clearly verbalized th e o b jections m any R u s­ sians felt n o t to T h eo so p h y p er se, b u t to T h e o so p h y as p racticed and dissem inated by th e official T heosophical Society. I t also p o in te d o u t several o f th e inconsistencies in T h eo so p h ical d o c trin e and behavior. K udriavtsev’s arg u m en ts carried ad d itio n al w eig h t because he h ad been a highly visible and obviously sincere T h e o s o p h is t. H is accusations serve as a paradigm o f th e T h e o so p h ic a l/a n ti-T h e o so p h ic a l d eb ate in Russia. T h e b u rd e n o f K udriavtsev’s critique was th a t as a tru e O rth o d o x C h ristian believer he co u ld n o t u ltim ately reconcile T h e o so p h y w ith C hristianity, regardless o f th e fo rm e r’s claim th a t th e tw o system s were em inently com patible. K udriavtsev fo u n d he d id n o t, after all, care for th e “ foreign dogm as, g ro w n in d ista n t an d alien soil,” th a t com prise T heosophy. “ I have becom e co n v in ced ,” he w ro te, “ th a t th e T h eo so p h ical Society is n o t a society seeking k n o w ledge, b u t an external o rg an o f th e ‘U niversal B ro th e rh o o d .’ ” 3 H e h ad lo o k ed to T h e o so p h y to show him a new spiritual p a th , a new gnosis th a t w o u ld d eep en his ow n C h ris­ tian faith. A nd n o w he h ad discovered th a t T h e o so p h y was m isrep re­ sen tin g itself as a gnosis; it w as, in fact, a religion, a new, secret church inim ical to th e C hristian ch u rch and rep re sen tin g d a n g e ro u s E astern el­ em en ts. H e h a d b een p ro m ised th e u n io n o f Science, R eligion, an d P h i­ losophy and, in stead , h a d been given a cabal o f M ahatm as. K udriavtsev particularly o b jec ted to th e stro n g B u d d h ist e le m e n t in T heosophy. H e p o in te d o u t th a t M m e Blavatsky h ad c o n v erted to B u d ­ dhism ; th a t th e first p resid e n t o f th e T h eo so p h ical Society, H e n ry O lc o tt, had c o n v e rted to B u ddhism ; th a t th e c u rre n t p resid e n t o f th e T heosophical Society, M rs. B esant, had em braced B rahm anism . “W hy does B uddhism blossom in th e h e a rt o f th e T heosophical Society and w hy is it necessary to con v ert from C hristianity to B uddhism if all reli­ gions are th e revelations o f o n e and th e sam e tru th ? ” K udriavtsev asked.4 W hy, he w e n t o n , are T h eo so p h ists asked to venerate M aster M o ry a and K o o t H o o m i, M m e Blavatsky’s M ah atm a “ tea c h e rs,” a n d n o t Jesus C hrist? I n w h a t way is Jesus C h rist inferior to th e m o r to B uddha? A nd w hy d en ig rate C hristianity? K udriavtsev finally d ecid ed th a t T h e o so p h y was a “ betrayal o f C h rist” a n d o ffered th e su g g estio n , only p artly in jest, th a t th e existence o f “ th e T heosophical Society m ig h t be view ed as the resu lt o f th e C hristian c h u rc h ’s bad karm a and [past] evil d e e d s.” 5 K udriavtsev also saw T h e o so p h y as p a rt o f a larger M asonic co n sp ir­ acy. T his accusation is n o t q u ite as ab su rd as it first appears. T h e general

syncretism o f the age resulted in M asonic ideas and rituals being insinu­ ated into num erous o th er occult trends; M asonic esotericism was cer­ tainly incorporated into the Secret D octrine o f the T heosophists (but th en so w ere all o th er form s o f occult th o u g h t th a t were at all suitable). Kudriavtsev’s accusation is given additional w eight by the visible affilia­ tion o f the French occultist par excellence, Papus, w ith Rosicrucian, M artinist, and M asonic organizations, w here he had achieved the h ig h ­ est ranks. Papus had belonged to the General Council o f the T heosophical Society, knew the principals, and was an influential m em ber o f the French Theosophically oriented Societe Isis. H e had visited Russia sev­ eral tim es to found a M artinist L odge in St. P etersburg (the M artinists were mystical Freem asons). Several influential Russian T heosophists had connections w ith Papus and the various organizations w ith w hich he was associated.6 M oreover, M m e Blavatsky herself claimed M asonic ties: “I have been aw arded the O rder o f A rch A uditor [the sixth degree in the Royal O riental O rder o f Sat B ’hai (Seven B rethren), a M asonic order incorporating H in d u elem ents] from th e m ain M asonic Society in India. This is the m ost ancient o f the M asonic lodges and it is said th at it ex­ isted before the birth o f C hrist.”7 M rs. Besant had also been initiated into various M asonic orders, as had C. W. L eadbeater and R u d o lf Steiner; m ost high-ranking Theosophists held som e M asonic post. Kudriavtsev’s m ost scathing criticism , however, was directed at Mrs. Besant and the recently created “ O rd er o f the Star in the E ast.” Mrs. Besant had announced th a t her young disciple, Jiddu K rishnam urti (1895—1986) was an avatar o f the new M essiah, a vehicle o f the Christ. She had organized the O rder o f the Star in the East for the purpose o f supporting him and his mission, which she proclaim ed as the Second C om ing. M em bership in the international O rder o f the Star in the East was open to anyone, T heosophist o r not. In Russia, however, one had to be a m em ber o f the Theosophical Society to participate; otherw ise, the O rder w ould need to be registered w ith the authorities as a separate religious organization. Even in the slightly less reactionary p o st-1906 period, n o Russian authority w ould have granted a charter to an organi­ zation th a t recognized an unknow n H in d u youth as the C hrist. The Russian representative o f the O rd er was Kudriavtsev’s colleague at Vestnik Teosofiiy V. N . Pushkina. A dvertisem ents in the journal stated: “T h e O rd er o f the Star in th e East unites all w ho believe in the im m inent com ing o f the G reat W orld Teacher and desire to dedicate their efforts to preparing the way for H im .” This O rder created m uch dissent w ithin the w orldw ide Theosophical Society and finally resulted in a m ajor schism. M rs. Besant, w ho had her­ self converted to Brahm anism , did n o t seem to realize th at her act w ould necessarily alienate Christian T heosophists, w ho, if they were good Christians, m ust view it as blasphemy. Kudriavtsev (w ith others) found

Mrs. Besant’s position to be “a dogm a contradictory to Christian d o c­ trin e .”8 N o t only did it contradict the Christian Gospels, he m eticu­ lously pointed ou t, b u t it also ignored the Theosophical premise o f evolutionary cycles (by the last Theosophical reckoning, the Second C om ing was n o t to occur for another tw enty million years). Criticism o f the O rder was n o t lim ited to Kudriavtsev and a few apos­ tate Theosophists. “A m ore horrible, a m ore blasphem ous idea [than Mrs. Besant’s] could n o t have been invented by anyone except S atan,” w rote Vladimir Bykov, w ho had just th e n retu rn ed to the O rth o d o x church after several years as a Spiritualist and occultist.9 And Bykov did n o t stop w ith calling the K rishnam urti affair a “satanic p lo t” ; he w ent on to term it a Jewish plot and a M asonic p lot as well. Lev Kobylinskii-Ellis, a friend o f A ndrei Belyi and a m inor w riter associated w ith the M usaget m odernists, echoed the sentim ents o f the Symbolists w hen he criticized the “well-known scandal o f Annie Besant and the false C hrist, Krishn am u rti.” 10 N o r could Pavel Chistiakov, the critical editor o f Rebus, let such a Theosophical tem pest pass w ith o u t m aking a com m ent: W e w ill n o t try to give a n am e to this fantasy— it speaks for itself; b u t to th o se w h o seek spiritual p eace in T h eo so p h y , w h o seek a calm far from th e to rtu red d issen sion b etw een life and the con tem p orary form s o f relig io u s self-aw are­ n ess, w e can on ly say: “D o n ’t hurry . . . take a g o o d , clo se lo o k b efore sto p ­ p in g at con tem porary, m o d ern ized H in d u ism : it is n o t w h at it claim s to be or seem s to b e !” By th e way, it is w orth p o in tin g o u t that ou r este em ed T h eo so p h ists have n o w raised th e value o f C hrist a b it and say that h e is n o lo n g er a “ G reat D isc ip le ” and has b eco m e a “ G reat T eacher.” 11

While Kudriavtsev’s criticism had the piquancy o f being the criticism o f a disaffected Theosophist, his voice did n o t cry alone in the wilder­ ness. H is critical pam phlet, supported by som e parties w ithin the occult com m unity, by the clergy, and by o th er apostate Theosophists, heated up the polemical climate and supplied considerable am m unition for T heosophy’s num erous critics. The Theosophists found themselves fending o ff attackers on three different fronts.

T he Three C ritiques o f T h eosop h y I. aTheosophy is Incom patible w ith C h ristia n ityv Russian O rthodox critics ceaselessly bom barded Theosophists w ith ac­ cusations o f being anti-Christian. K onstantin Kudriavtsev’s th o ro u g h , “insider’s” critique o f Theosophy had reached the conclusion th at T h e ­ osophy purposely sought to confuse the issue by “using the same term i-

nology as Christianity, b u t im buing it w ith a different c o n ten t and thus leading its m em bers in to error: the ‘Son o f G o d ,’ according to Theosophical doctrine, is only one o f the levels o f ‘in itiation’ into the occult school. This concept in no way corresponds to the Christian teaching ab o u t the ‘Son o f G o d ’— it is fundam entally different, different in es­ sence and in spirit.” 12 Kudriavtsev precisely identified one o f the ele­ m ents th at m ade the polem ics betw een Theosophists and their Christian critics so provoking: each side spoke a superficially similar b u t doctrinally distinct language, the nuances o f w hich were philosophically u n ac­ ceptable to the other. In their attem p t to convince the uninitiated, the T heosophists cited T heosophical texts as “p ro o f” o f the correctness o f their position; such proofs could n o t possibly convince doctrinaire Christians, since, in their term s, the proffered proofs w ere based on pagan and heretical texts. T he Christian faction qu o ted scriptures back at the Theosophists, b u t their scriptural “proofs” were simply absorbed by and dissolved in the all-em bracing Theosophical doctrine. T he T h e­ osophists redefined basic concepts broadly, w hich they w ould cite as an example o f T heosophy’s “flexibility” and “ tolerance.” Christian critics, on the o th er h an d , d enounced such “flexible” thinking as syncretistic, reductive, am biguous, and, ultim ately, heretical. T he anim osity betw een the church and the Theosophical Society was initiated by M m e Blavatsky herself, w ho pointedly prom ulgated an antiChristian position. In The Secret Doctrine she w rote th a t T heosophy ac­ cepts all faiths and philosophies and “only refuses to accept any o f the gods o f the so-called m onotheistic religions, gods created by m an in his ow n image and likeness, a blasphem ous and sorry caricature o f the Ever U nknow able.” 13 N ever acclaimed for her verbal tact (R udolf Steiner generously called her “audacious” ), she tended to make extrem e state­ m ents. She herself was prejudiced against C hristianity (although she was occasionally indulgent tow ard Russian O rthodoxy) and flaunted her ex­ otic B uddhist sympathies before sedate Christian critics. B ringing p ro o f o f her sinister m ission, Kudriavtsev gleefully referred to her com m ents in the P all M all Gazette o f April 2 6 , 1884, in w hich, he alleged, M m e Blavatsky had stated th at the goal o f the T heosophists “is n o t to elevate H induism as m uch as it is to rem ove Christianity from th e face o f the ea rth .” 14 O th e r T heosophists strove to soften this position, b u t such w ords, once said, w ere hard to “ unsay.” In The Key to Theosophy M m e Blavatsky answered the question, “ D o you believe in G od?” in the follow ing m anner: Theo. That depends on what you mean by the term. Enq. I mean the God of the Christians, the Eather of fesus, and the Creator; the Biblical God of Moses, in short. Theo. In such a God we do not believe. We reject the idea of a personal, or

an extra-cosm ic and anthropom orphic G od, w ho is but the gigantic shadow o f mcm, and n ot o f man at his best, either. T he G od o f theology, w e say— and prove it— is a bundle o f contradictions and a logical impossibility. Therefore we will have n othin g to do w ith h im .15

The Theosophical concept o f divinity, as already noted, is radically dif­ ferent from that o f C hristianity in th at Theosophy does n o t recognize a personal G od and denies the uniqueness o f the Christian Revelation. Seeking G od, the T heosophist looks w ithin himself: G od is n o t outside him , but is actually one in essence w ith the “Self.” The Theosophists accepted ccTat tvctm asi* (“T hat art th o u ” ); this famous phrase from the U panishads emphasizes the identity o f the Self, A tm a n , with the U n i­ verse. Eventually, th e individual will dissolve in th e G odhead. T here can be no personal G od; there can be no individual im m ortality; there is no distinction betw een creature and Creator. In the eyes o f the Christian critic this was hubris, and entirely incom patible w ith the concept o f Christian humility. “T he dissolution o f the personality, o f th e unique individual, in a faceless divinity, in an abstract divine unity, is contradic­ tory to the Christian idea o f man and divine hum anity,” pointed o u t one o f the leading philosophers o f the Russian Religious Renaissance, N i­ kolai Berdiaev.16 T he Theosophical position on G od was unacceptable to Russian O r­ thodox critics, for w hom the only M an w ho was “one in essence” with G od was Christ. Theosophy, they said, encouraged the individual to b e­ lieve in personal divinity; it elevated th e hum an being and denigrated Christ; it was n o t C hristianity at all, b u t pantheism . “Theosophical co n ­ cepts, let us n o t speak o f their veracity or lack o f veracity,” w rote one Russian critic, “are quite foreign to the concepts o f Slavic-Byzantine Christian mysticism, and w hen they w ere transplanted to the soil o f the cold n o rth , it was impossible for them n o t to undergo considerable change. T he Slavs have never been pantheists, while Theosophy is a d o c­ trine o f pantheism and, m oreover, o f panlogism [i.e., w orld as actualiza­ tion o f Nous or Logos]·, neither the one n o r the o th er fits well w ith the conceptions o f Christian mysticism.” 17 T he official Theosophical position on G od was also unacceptable to the “ Christian Theosophists” o f the independent Smolensk Society. They differentiated betw een Christian and H in d u Theosophy as the products o f different cultures from different parts o f the w orld. H in d u ­ ism and Buddhism they found contradictory and clearly inimical to their ow n ecumenical Christianity. “T he followers o f Indo-B uddhist T heoso­ phy call themselves simply Theosophists, and in this way appropriate for themselves the right to universality,” w rote Vladimir Shtal’berg, presi­ den t o f the Smolensk Society. “ Christ they accept only as one o f the powerful prophet-teachers,” b u t n o t as a divine revelation. “H in d u The-

osophy generally rejects the unm ediated revelation o f G o d .” 18 ShtaFberg identified and rejected the “ great logical error, com m itted by Indian T heosophists, in their attem pt to make logical deductions and conclusions based on concepts that are incom prehensible to the hum an m ind” Li-e ·, a*i infinite, absolute, limitless, eternal, and uncreated G o d ].19 T he accusation o f anti-C hristianity was a particularly b itter pill for the Russian T heosophists, w ho had a far stronger Christian profile than their E uropean brethren in the Society. T he Russian m em bers co n tin ­ ued to insist th at Theosophy in no way excluded Christianity. Anna Kamenskaia w rote in all sincerity, “ I f we take T heosophy as a moral d o c­ trine, as a philosophical system o f th o u g h t, we will n o t find a single thing in it th at is inimical to Christianity; on the contrary, m any C hris­ tians find th at Theosophical ideas provide help, throw light on m any dark questions and make the Christian faith itself stronger and m ore spiritual.”20 In assum ing this position, Kamenskaia followed the lead o f the president o f the Theosophical Society, Mrs. Annie Besant, as far as she could w ithin the Russian context. M any critics found fault w ith Mrs. Besant’s understanding o f C hristi­ anity'. B rought up an Anglican, Mrs. Besant had passed th ro u g h theism to atheism and Fabian Socialism before she became passionately in­ volved w ith Theosophy and converted to Brahmanic H induism . In the eyes o f Russian O rth o d o x critics, in particular, these credentials were inadequate to grant legitimacy to her sweeping pronouncem ents about the “ obvious” com patibility o f T heosophy and Christianity. They re ­ sented Mrs. Besant’s reduction o f C hristianity to a moral doctrine and pointed o u t that her statem ents show ed clearly to just w hat doctrinal dangers the reductivism o f syncretic th o u g h t and im m ersion in oriental philosophy could lead. A m ajor point o f disagreem ent was the understanding o f the essence and role o f Christ. Anna Kamenskaia daringly claimed that “m ore devel­ oped Christians are beginning to see C hrist m ore and m ore as an ideal o f th at tow ard which all m ankind m ust strive, as a prom ise o f th at which m ankind will becom e, and least o f all as an external Saviour, redeem ing sins th ro u g h H im self.”21 Mrs. Besant had explained that T heosophy’s exoteric C hrist was one in a series o f “Divine m anifestations which from age to age are m ade for the helping o f hum anity, w hen a new impulse is needed to quicken the spiritual evolution o f m ankind, w hen a new civili­ zation is about to daw n.”22 H e was an A dept, a M ahatm a, a M aster, a Teacher; H e was everything th a t was good, b u t H e was n o t the one Re­ deem er or a unique historical fact. An example o f advanced Hum anity, Christ came into E a rth ’s current incarnational cycle to bring a portion o f the Secret D octrine to those w ho were ready for it.23

O rth o d o x critics were appalled. T heosophy “does n o t consider C hrist to be G od,” w rote a shocked A rchim andrite Varlaam o f Poltava. T h eo s­ ophy “places H im no higher than B uddha, M oham m ed, and o th er founders o f pagan religions.” In Theosophy “ all o f the great and divine w ork o f Christ is understood in a perverted sense, w ith com plete denial o f the divinity o f Jesus C hrist and his incarnation as G o d .”24 T heosophy is “ a denial o f the divine Saviour o f the w orld, H is passion, H is divine resurrection; it is the replacem ent o f the H oly Cross by . . . the Seal o f S olom on,” lam ented Vladimir Bykov.25 “It appears th at T heosophy is a dangerous enem y indeed,” w rote an anonym ous au th o r in the conserva­ tive O rth o d o x journal K h ristia n in . “A nd so a concerted struggle against it is necessary, if we wish to preserve o u r O rthodoxy, and even m ore, C hristianity itself.”26 T he objections were sincere. For anyone raised in a traditional O rth o d o x context, even if th at person chose to em brace agnosticism o r atheism , it was one th in g to reject Christ as a personal Saviour or the Son o f G od, b u t it to o k a leap o f faith o f quite a different sort to accept H im then as an A dept, a M ahatm a currently living with other great M asters in a secret lamasery in the Himalayas and from there guiding E arth ’s developm ent. T heosophy’s esoteric C hrist, according to M m e Blavatsky, corre­ sponds (in part) to the Gnostic Christos, “a candidate for hierophantship; w ho, w hen he had attained it, th ro u g h Initiation, long trials and suffering, and had been anointed (i.e., ‘ru b b ed w ith oil,’ as Initiates and even Idols o f the G ods were, as th e last touch o f ritualistic observance), was changed into Christos—the ‘purified’ in esoteric or m ystery lan­ guage.” 27 A m ajor part o f the gnosis received by this Initiate, now a “Son o f G od,” is th e know ledge th a t o n e’s spiritual self is one w ith G od, that the w orld o f m atter is illusory, th at o n e’s tru e hom e is w ith the Spirit. To the Initiate is revealed the eternal cosmic paradigm th a t in ­ forms o n e’s finite material existence. Refining this idea in th e m ore W estern light o f A n th ro p osophy, Dr. Steiner explained th at the hum an m onad “m ade a m ovem ent dow nw ard in to m atter, and th at before the lowest stage was reached, there came the oth er Im pulse which im pelled it again upw ard in the opposite direction [tow ard Spirit], This was the Christ Im pulse.”28 In his Russian translation o f Mrs. B esant’s “T he C hrist,” Pavel Ba­ tiushkov added an explanatory n o te to th e text, pointing o u t th a t “T h e ­ osophy distinguishes betw een th e historical ‘C hrist’ and th e mystical ‘C hrist,’ ” the difference being th at the latter is “ Christ as a state o f soul, and n o t as the G od-m an.” 29 Mrs. B esant’s elaboration o f the m ysti­ cal C hrist in Esoteric Christianity, w hich appears to have been a m uch studied and im portant text for the Esoteric Section o f the Russian Soci­ ety, reveals the profoundly G nostic dim ension o f her Theosophical con-

ception o f C hrist.30 A ccording to her, “ every m an is a potential C hrist” and undergoes C hrist’s sacrifice: “As he th en touches the lowest depth o f sorrow, the h o u r o f his trium ph begins to dawn. For now he learns th at he m ust him self becom e the G od to w hom he cries, and by feeling the last pang o f separation he finds the eternal unity, he feels the fount o f life is w ithin, and knows him self eternal.” 31 Clearly this position o f identification w ith divine being, echoes o f which are found am ong h e ­ retical Russian sects (primarily the W hite Doves and the Flagellants), w ould be viewed as uncanonical and profoundly heretical by the tradi­ tional O rth o d o x church, although m any Russian God-seekers o f the tim e, fascinated by sectarian theology, found it seductive. T he Russian T heosophists interpreted V ladim ir Solov’ev’s G od-m an in this same way, although Solov’ev him self never identified m an as a latent god, but spoke specifically o f the “image o f G o d ” w ithin man. T he T heosophists felt th at they and Solov’ev were w orking tow ard the very same goal and frequently cited him in su p p o rt o f their position. This superficial similarity o f goals is n o t surprising, since Solov’ev’s own work is perm eated by the same vocabulary, the same religious concerns, and the same Valentinian Gnosticism (as well as the theosophy o f Jakob Boehm e, the Kabbala, and o th er speculative mysticism). Solov’ev held th at m an has n o t yet com e to th e end o f his p ath o f organic and spiritual developm ent, th at m an’s task is to develop his still-weak spirit, and that his strengthened im m ortal spirit will eventually im m ortalize the body; this corresponded on some points w ith the T heosophical anthropogenesis. Nevertheless, Solov’ev was careful in his definitions; he did n o t share the fundam ental assum ptions o f the T heosophists or their antagonism tow ard the C hurch. H e even w arned his readers against M m e Blavatsky: as early as 1884 he w rote, “T h e m an w ho wishes to achieve divine know ledge by himself, bypassing the C hurch— such an individual mangod is the incarnation o f falseness, a parody o f C hrist, o r A ntichrist.” 32 “D eification” (or “divinization” ), as a concept, does exist in Eastern O rthodoxy. “ ‘In my kingdom , said C hrist, I shall be G od w ith you as gods.’ Such, according to th e teaching o f th e O rth o d o x C hurch, is the final goal at w hich every Christian m ust aim, to becom e god, to attain theosis, ‘deification’ or ‘divinization.’ F or O rthodoxy m an’s salvation and redem ption m eans his deification,” explains T im othy W are.33 Deifi­ cation in the O rth o d o x sense, however, is n o t understood in the same way as the T heosophists u n d erstood the G nostic identification o f m an w ith G od. In O rthodoxy, the mystical u nion betw een G od and m an is a true u n io n , yet in this union Creator and creature do n o t b ecom e fused in to a single being. U nlike the eastern religions w hich teach that man is sw allow ed up in the deity, O rth odox

mystical theology has always insisted that man, how ever closely linked to G od, retains his full personal integrity. M an, w hen deified, remains distinct (thou gh n ot separate) from G od. . . . N or does man, when he “ becom es g o d ,” cease to be human. . . . Man does n ot becom e G od by natu re, but is merely a “created g o d ,” a god by grace**

To identify with G od, the C reator, and n o t w ith His creation, was h er­ esy in the eyes o f O rth o d o x theologians. For the O rth o d o x Christian, salvation involves a greater divine grace and a lesser hum an will acting in concert (synergy); Theosophy, how ­ ever, does n o t share the Christian concept o f grace. The Divine AllU nity does n o t bestow grace; instead, the hum an m onad engineers its ow n spiritual retu rn to th e G odhead by acquiring spiritual know ledge and self-awareness. Theosophy replaces grace w ith know ledge and ju s­ tice. W hat is perceived as grace, M rs. Besant pointed o u t, is no m ore than the subtle w orking o f karma, the law o f retrib u tio n .35 Russian O rth o d o x critics im m ediately seized on this point. T h eo so ­ phy “is false in its very essence, since it did n o t recognize the presence o f grace in the w orld and thus lost sight o f this m ost sacred realm o f reli­ gious experience,” w rote Father Dm itrevskii.36 Grace does exist, he in ­ sisted, even if it does n o t visit Theosophists. W riting a few years later, the philosopher Nikolai Berdiaev concurred th at “the Eastern doctrine o f karm a is a negation o f loving grace and creative abundance. Every­ thing occurs and everything is given only by the m easure o f justice. But divine love is n o t justice; th ro u g h it one receives immeasurably m ore than one should receive th ro u g h justice. This is the mystery o f C h rist.”37 N o t all Theosophists rejected the Christ m ystery and the Christian notion o f grace; debate w ithin the Society on this doctrinal p o in t was one o f the elem ents th a t contributed to th e defection from the Society o f a significant body o f m em bers, including those w ho retu rn ed to the church and those who tu rn ed to A nthroposophy, rejecting T heosophy’s oriental dim ension and seeking a specifically Christian theosophy in ­ stead. C ertain aspects o f R udolf Steiner’s “ C hrist Im pulse,” already m entioned, can be viewed as an attem p t to accom m odate the concept o f divine grace in an occult system th at w ould seem to exclude it. This ac­ com m odation appealed to many Russian Theosophists and accounted for the popularity o f the Steinerian variant w ithin b o th th e Russian Theosophical Society and the independent circles. T he Russian Theosophists did n o t go nearly as far as M rs. Besant and the parent Society in their interpretation o f C hrist’s role. In many cases, Anna Ramenskaia’s versions o f Theosophical doctrine were in direct o p ­ position to Mrs. B esant’s. W here Mrs. Besant specifically stated th at Christ is a teacher, an adept, a founder o f an historical church in which

all can potentially becom e Sons o f G od, Anna Kamenskaia softened the contours, leaving Christ with som e o f His divinity intact. N o d o u b t Kamenskaia was constrained by w hat the Russian censor w ould m ost certainly reject for publication; surely other things were said in the m eet­ ings o f the Russian Esoteric Section; but, in all likelihood, Kamenskaia was creatively reinterpreting, rather than entirely evading, Mrs. Besant’s position in order to suit her Russian audience. M any o f the Russian Theosophists enthusiastically assumed the role o f m artyr vis-a-vis the O rth o d o x church. They accused their clerical crit­ ics o f intolerance, o f missing the p o in t th at T heosophy is “obviously” n o t inimical to any o th er religion, th at T heosophy’s goals o f b ro th er­ h o o d and tolerance are to be adm ired. They themselves entirely missed the point the Christian critics were trying to make. C hristianity is an intolerant religion; m ost religions are intolerant. Ram enskaia’s repeated affirmation that all religions preach tolerance is patently untrue, as even a cursory glance at w orld history shows. F rom the Christian point o f view, Theosophy constitutes heresy; its use o f Christian term inology does n o t make heresy any m ore palatable, b u t only m ore insidious and dangerous. T he problem was further com plicated by T heosophy’s internal in co n ­ sistency. O n the one hand, it claimed th at C hristianity was entirely com ­ patible w ith Theosophy; on the other, it criticized Christianity for its “ deadening dogm atism ” and m onotheism . T he Russian Theosophists could have avoided some o f the m ore virulent polem ics w ith the O rth o ­ dox church had they n o t attem pted to use C hrisdan concepts and term i­ nology to legitim ize their position vis-a-vis Christianity. T heosophy’s m ost sympathetic Russian O rthodox critic, F ather Dmitrevskii, n o ted the social pow er o f T heosophy and was also ready to grant th a t science had by no m eans accounted for everything in heaven and earth. Presentim ent, clairvoyance, prophecy, telepathy, he w rote, were recognized by science as fact and a hum an being was certainly m ore than the sum o f five physical senses. T he generous Father Dmitrevskii was able to find a place for m any aspects o f Theosophical d o c ­ trine w ithin Christianity, b u t even he was unable to get past the problem th at Theosophy, as a synthesis o f all faiths, past and present, is left w ith no faith at all. “Its luxuriant religious-philosophical structure is trans­ form ed into a cold palace for the dead,” he observed.38 In the end, he found Theosophy to be profoundly materialistic in its attem pt to make a doctrine, a science, and a philosophy o u t o f religion. In place o f living faith, T heosophy offered comparative religion, which he shrewdly char­ acterized as no m ore than the history o f dead faiths; in place o f a reli­ gious impulse, he lam ented, it offered B uddhist pseudoscience.

2. aTheosophy is N eo-B uddhism ” T he second m ajor cridcism leveled at Theosophy was th a t its pantheism and its worldview were overtly Buddhist. T heosophy was perceived n o t only as distinctly anti-C hristian, b u t also as militantly pro-B uddhist. A typical com m ent is th a t o f ex-Theosophist Lev Kobylinskii-Ellis, th at Theosophy is “n o t only a non-C hristian, b u t a specifically anti-C hristian m ovem ent, a restoration o f Brahm anism and Buddhism u n d er the guise o f pan-religious tru th .” 39 In 1893 Vladimir Solov’ev’s brother, Vsevolod, w ho never denied th a t he had fallen victim to T heosophy’s seductive appeal, w rote th a t the Theosophical Society was n o t the “universal b ro th erh o o d ” it claimed to be, but an orthodo x and acuve advocate o f Buddhism . “Such enm ity and hatred o f Christianity by the Theosophical Society is u nderstand­ able,” he said, continuing his shattering critique, because Christianity does n ot deny the reality o f life, and is thus capable o f developing and civilizing society. T heosophy sees life as “M aya” (an illusion), and so the society that accepts T heosophy cannot develop and civilize itself, but must inevitably degenerate; a g o o d example o f this is India itself. Christianity strives toward life, Buddhism toward death. The teaching o f Christ is true altruism, Buddhism is the em bodim ent o f egoism , made into an ideal. The ideal o f Buddhism is a man w ho is apathetic toward g o o d and evil, a hard­ hearted man, because only such a man creates neither g o o d nor bad Karma, no longer desires to live, calls life a boring illusion, and retreats into Nirvana.40

T hus Solov’ev w arned against the egoism , th e passivity, the rejection o f this w orld th a t is characteristic o f T heosophy’s neo-B uddhism and, in his view, inimical to O rth o d o x Christianity. O th er contem porary critics quickly identified the tw o basic premises o f Theosophy, reincarnation and karma, as fundam entally incom patible with O rthodox Christian doctrine. The Theosophists, w ith their all-em ­ bracing, syncretic theories, saw no contradiction. They integrated rein­ carnation into Christian th o u g h t by distinguishing between th e ephem ­ eral m ortal personality (lichnost*) and th e eternal divine spark, or soul ( individua-Vnost’). U nchanging, the soul w ent th ro u g h num erous p er­ sonalities over the course o f many reincarnations while seeking the D i­ vine O ne, as the soul o f the Christian seeks G od. Christianity had obvi­ ously m isunderstood its ow n gospels, M m e Blavatsky po in ted o u t, while Theosophy clearly com prehended th at “resurrection” really m eant the “reb irth ” o f the Ego in another form , i.e., reincarnation.41

Russian Christianity, needless to say, had a profoundly different ap­ proach to the gospels. I t could never accept the G nostic view o f the d u ­ alism o f m atter and spirit th at makes the n o tio n o f reincarnation possi­ ble. O rthodoxy considers each hum an being to be unique; and any form o f m etem psychosis is excluded by the doctrines o f the Incarnation, the A tonem ent, and the resurrection o f the body.42 Karma posed an additional, even m ore complex problem . D espite the oriental origin o f the concept o f karm a, m uch o f T heosophy’s u n d e r­ standing o f th at concept was inevitably refracted th ro u g h the prism o f the W estern religious, ethical, and mystical traditions. Steiner, raised as a C atholic, and Mrs. Besant, raised as an Anglican, may have intuited an im plicit parallel betw een the W estern C h u rch ’s emphasis on legalism and G o d ’s justice and the oriental concept o f karm a (as the law o f divine retribution and justice). N either legalism n o r justice, however, are the central focus o f the theology o f the Eastern C hurch; rather than divine justice and retrib u tio n , O rthodoxy emphasizes mysticism and sinful m an’s transfiguration by divine grace and love. R u d o lf Steiner attem pted to explain away the implacability o f karma and retu rn the concept o f grace by uniting the concepts o f karm a and Christ. In his 1908 reflections on the Gospel o f St. John, he claimed, “T he idea o f Karma is b o u n d up w ith the idea o f the C hrist in its deepest sense.” Focusing on the nonjudgm ental, forgiving attitudes o f C hrist, Steiner explained, “W hen anyone fully understands the idea o f Karma, he will understand it in this Christian sense” : It m eans that no man sh ould set h im self up as a judge o f the inner sou l o f another hum an being. U nless the idea o f Karma has been und erstood in this way, it has n o t been grasped in its deepest significance. W hen o n e m an judges another, the on e is always placing the other under the com p ulsion o f his ow n e g o . H ow ever, if a person really believes in the “I A M ” in the Christian sense, he will n o t judge. H e will say, “I k now that Karma is the great adjuster. W hat­ ever you may have d o n e, I do n ot judge it!”43

In this way Steiner reasoned th at all the C hristian virtues— Christian h u ­ mility, C hristian acceptance, Christian forgiveness, and Christian love, given freely even to o n e ’s enemies— all implicitly indicate the recogni­ tion th at o n e ’s actions and the actions o f others are karmic necessity and cannot be judged on the basis o f one act in one lifetime. In tegrating the concept o f karm a in to a C hristian paradigm was not easy, and Steiner com prehended a g o o d p art o f the problem : W hen karma is conceived as a necessity im posed on m an in order that his w ron g-d oin gs may be redressed and his errors redeem ed by an implacable

ju stice w o rk in g over from o n e incarnation to an oth er, th e o b je c tio n is s o m e ­ tim es raised that karma m u st d o away w ith th e role o f C hrist as R ed eem er. In reality, karma is a red em p tion o f m an by him self, by d in t o f his o w n efforts as h e gradually ascends to freed om th ro u g h th e series o f incarnations. It is th ro u g h karma that m an is able to draw near to C h rist.44

In a tte m p tin g an explanation th a t w o u ld allow him to retain b o th the redem ptive fu n ctio n o f th e C h rist an d karm a in his system , how ever, S teiner was forced to rely o n th e T heo so p h ical-G n o stic co n c ep t o f the id en tity o f m an and G o d , thus once again m oving to w ard p an th eism and away from any p o sitio n acceptable to Christianity. T h e em phasis o n karm a additionally raised th e p ro b le m for Russian believers o f freedom o f will. O rth o d o x C hristianity is n o t in te rested in p re d e stin a tio n ; it rejects a n y th in g th a t infringes o n th e in dividual’s free will. O rth o d o x critics ch arg ed th a t T heosophical d o c trin e d e n ie d n o t only th e individuality o f a h u m an b ein g (th ro u g h rein c arn a tio n ) b u t also freedom o f will (th ro u g h karm a): “ I f an individual is b o u n d by a karm ic necessity created d u rin g a sequence o f previous lives (th e specifics o f w hich o n e does n o t know in this life), w here is free will?” th ey asked. M rs. B esant never achieved an especially c o h e re n t u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e p ro b le m o f free will. H e r response only succeeded in m aking a m urky su b ject opaque: “M an by the exercise o f free will gradually cre ­ ates necessities for him self, and b etw een th e tw o extrem es lie all the co m b in atio n s o f free will an d necessity w hich m ake th e struggles w ithin ourselves o f w hich w e are co n scio u s.” 45 T his w o u ld hardly fit c o m fo rt­ ably in to R ussian O rth o d o x y , and it certainly did n o t satisfy th o u g h tfu l G od-seekers like N ikolai Berdiacv, w h o felt th a t T h e o so p h y ’s fu n d a ­ m en tal do ctrin al p o in ts cru sh e d n o t only free w ill, b u t any form o f free spiritual activity.46 T o an O rth o d o x believer, S tein er’s m o re “ C h ristian ” explanations o f th e lib eratin g aspect o f karm a leaned to w a rd paradox. H e explained th a t it was specifically “th e C h rist Im pulse [th a t] transform s im placable Law in to F re ed o m , an d th e source o f this im pulse is th e perso n and exam ple o f C h rist Jesus.” S teiner rejected any n o tio n o f fatalism (la ten t in any W estern co n c ep tio n o f karm a) and refused to identify th e n o tio n o f karm a as essentially “ fatalistic.” K arm a, he declared, was “ an in stru m e n t essential to th e a tta in m e n t o f th a t suprem e freed o m w hich is life in C h rist— a freedom a tta in e d n o t by defying th e w o rld o rd e r b u t by fulfill­ in g i t .”47 T h e U niversal B ro th e rh o o d o f th e M ahatm as, based o n th e oriental c o n c ep t o f “ tea c h e rs,” o r g u ru s, was a n o th e r m ajor stu m b lin g block to general acceptance o f T heosophy. M any w h o w ere ready to accept the G nostic, pantheistic basis o f T h e o so p h y balked a t accepting m agical M a-

hatm as, and yet the entire T heosophical doctrine appealed to the au­ thority o f the M ahatm as and rested on blind faith in them . Belief in the M ahatm as posited a faith every bit as nonrational as belief in C hrist, but the M ahatm as were n o t even divine; they were simply Advanced H u ­ manity. T heosophy had to establish the superiority o f the M ahatm as to Jesus Christ in a “scientific” way if they were to be taken seriously. The Russian T heosophists, ho p in g to evade the issue entirely, had renam ed the troublesom e M ahatm as the “U nseen Forces W ho Lead U s,” b u t it was clear to everyone w ho these “ U nseen Forces” were. Chistiakov, sniping from the pages o f Rebus, did n o t conceal his aversion to the “ nonsensical dogm a o f faith in those invisible and im m ortal ancients, the M ahatm as” : This d ogm a, unless it is a hidden sym bol, is naive and silly; m oreover, it has always rem ained a vexing and irritating p o in t o f contradiction and has fre­ quently precipitated unpleasant disagreem ents betw een T h eosoph ists and p eop le w h o are sym pathetic to their activity, but w ish to see T heosophical concepts based n o t on fables about invisible holy M ahatm as, but on a m ore rational foundation. . . . T he fable o f the M ahatmas has on ly inspired mistrust o f the Society and forced m any to think that it is u nconsciously and secretly affiliated w ith political Freem asonry.48

Again, w hen Kudriavtsev attacked Theosophy, it was this gullible and unquestioning acceptance o f the “obvious fairy tale” ab o u t the M ahat­ mas th at he despised m ost. T he extent to which Russian T heosophists seriously em braced B ud­ dhist and H in d u th o u g h t is difficult to establish, although th e external trappings o f Eastern tradition are everywhere visible. Theosophical texts are full o f B uddhist vocabulary, for example. T he T heosophists p e p ­ pered their texts w ith w ords like chela, m anvantara, devachan, G upta Vidya, kamaloka, maya, p a ra n irv a n a , and num erous o th er borrow ­ ings.49 M ikhail Petrovo-Solovovo, a frequent c o n trib u to r to Rebus, o b ­ served on m ore than one occasion th a t Theosophical vocabulary seem ed invariably saturated w ith “m ore than a few unintelligible H in d u term s, for w hich T heosophists have a particular weakness.”50 T he Russian T heosophists were also m uch taken w ith Indian m aterial culture. T he Indian m o tif was a large p art o f their image: they decorated their T heosophical salons w ith Indian textiles and art objects, sold I n ­ dian souvenirs to raise m oney, and used Indian jewelry, textiles, and d e­ sign in their ow n dress. Several Russian Theosophists becam e respected specialists in oriental culture and literature. O n her trip to Adyar to visit T heosophical H eadquarters in 1916, A nna Ramenskaia, w ho learned Sanskrit and eventually becam e a specialist on H in d u sacred texts, was en tru sted w ith the collecting o f objects o f Indian m aterial culture for the

Academy o f Science’s M useum o f A nthropology and E thnography in St. Petersburg. The m ore enthusiastic St. Petersburg Theosophists spoke o f building their own Buddhist tem ple in St. Petersburg, although there is no indication whatsoever th at large num bers o f Russian Theosophists ever converted to Buddhism . T he Theosophists also translated and paraphrased various H in d u and pseudo-B uddhist texts into Russian, and popularized them . Vera Jo h n ­ ston, M me Blavatsky’s niece, published “ Otryvki iz U panishad” in Voprosy Filosofii i Psikhologii; K onstantin Bal’m o n t, a Symbolist p o et and T heosophist, translated Asvagosha’s Life o f Buddha; Pavel Batiushkov translated parts o f M abel Collins’s L ight on the Path; Elena Pisareva was a prolific translator, n o t only o f M m e Blavatsky’s own invented “B ud­ dhist” texts (such as the “Stanzas o f D zyan” ), b u t also those o f M abel Collins (which she claimed were ancient Indian devotional texts trans­ m itted to her by “ H ilarion,” her personal M ahatm a). The works o f Rama-Krishna, Yogi Ramacharaka, Swami Vivekananda, and Sri-Shankara-Acharya were also available in Russian.51 There were several transla­ tions o f the Bhagavad G ita (which constitutes one section o f the Indian epic, the Mahabharata^ and is the one w ork o f H in d u metaphysics widely know n in the W est). T he m ost popular Russian translation o f this famous text was the w ork o f Kamenskaia and her friend, Irm a M antsiarli. Few Russian Theosophists, however, could w ork w ith original Sanskrit texts (Anna Kamenskaia being a notable exception), and m ost Russian translations were based on English, G erm an, or French translations o f oriental texts, allowing num erous errors and mistranslations to creep in. In spite o f the prevailing passion for things Indian, Theosophy, in its Russian variant, substantially reduced the excessive B uddhist and H indu elem ent th at Anglo-American and Indian T heosophy publicly em ­ braced.52 T he Russian Theosophists played dow n b o th M me Blavatsky’s anti-Christianity and Mrs. B esant’s pro-H induism . Vestnik Teosofii reg ­ ularly com m em orated Russian O rth o d o x holy days and made reference to O rthodox saints. Russian Theosophists looked as m uch to Tolstoi, Dostoevskii, and Vladimir Solov’ev for inspiration as to the Bhagavad G ita or the Upanishads. T heosophy’s in troduction o f the oriental com ponent into Russian popular culture at the tu rn o f the century resonated to the larger p h ilo ­ sophical concerns o f Russian society. While European T heosophy fre­ quently wore its oriental trappings as fashionable and exotic garb that served to distinguish its m em bers from the “com m on h erd ” and make them “interesting,” Russian T heosophy’s oriental trappings manifested the centuries-old ambivalence felt by Russian culture tow ard the East. Russian T heosophy actively participated in the larger expression o f the psychic crisis that had been form ulating itself in Russia since at least the

tim e o f Peter the Great: D id Russia belong to the East or to the West? This question was o f param ount im portance to the thinkers o f the R us­ sian Silver Age; it was asked over and over again by D m itrii M crezhkovskii (w ho w arned o f the “Yellow-faced Positivists” ), Nikolai Berdiaev (w ho feared oriental passivity and chaos), A ndrei Belyi (w ho titled his projected literary trilogy “East o r W est?” ), and o th er Godseekers o f the period. T he formless, chaotic threat o f pan-M ongolism and the Yellow Peril was certainly a psychic reality for the Russians (especially after the anni­ hilating defeats o f the Russo-Japanese W ar), and som e p art o f the R us­ sian m ind intuitively feared th e tu rn Eastw ard, feared the anti-individu­ alism, passive self-contem plation, withdrawal from life, and rejection o f m aterial reality th a t lay at the ro o t o f E astern th o u g h t. B ut another part o f the Russian psyche rejected th e regim ented m aterialism o f W estern culture and sought som e kind o f spiritual alternative. Russian thinkers like Vladim ir Solov’ev felt th at the mystical theology o f the E astern O r­ thodox church w ould provide the p ro p er platform for the synthesis o f occidental m aterialism and oriental spiritualism. Russian T heosophists, aspiring to similar goals, were certain th at T heosophy could best provide th at platform . F ather Dm itrevskii, one o f the T heosophists’ m ore objec­ tive and conscientious critics, noticed this very elem ent in Theosophical th ought: T he T heosophists p o in t to the particular place o f Russia betw een the East and the W est and to the m ission o f unification that stem s therefrom . T h ey say that T h eosop h y has grasped the religious th o u g h t o f the great religions o f the East and is under the influence o f Christianity; as such, it is the child o f various religious-philosophical trends; this is obvious from its literature, w hich bears the stamp o f am azing profundity and breadth. . . . It is possible that n o one has such an organic spiritual tie to ancient India as the Russians do: Russian m ysticism and the religious p hilosophy o f India have p rofound points o f c o in ­ cidence and w h o knows?— perhaps the culture o f the future will be born o f this fiery p o in t o f con tact.53

It was tem pting to see the Theosophical “ m arriage” o f Christianity and B uddhism as an attem pt to reconcile East and West. Such a reco n ­ ciliation, the T heosophists assured their critics, was an integral p art o f Russia’s cultural mission to the world: Carefully w ip ing the dust o f ages from th e treasures o f the religious th ou gh t o f th e ancient East, T h eosop h y has evoked th e Renaissance o f India, but it did n ot d o this in order to supplant Christianity and transfer the negative features o f the East to the West. The unification o f the spiritual creativity o f the East and the W est is necessary for both sides: for the East, so as to shift the passive

inertia o f its social con scio u sn ess w ith th e active en ergy o f the E uropean; and for th e W est, so as to spiritualize th e m aterial culture o f th e E uropeans w ith th e h ig h idealism o f th e H in d u s, so th at ou r sou lless and p etty b o u rg eo is c u l­ ture, m ad w ith th e pursuit o f paltry pleasures, can be inspired by th e n o b le , subtly aristocratic spirit w h ich p erm eates H in d u cu ltu r e.34

The events o f the First W orld War (essentially a W estern war) pushed Russian T heosophy further in the direction o f the O rient. An editorial in the fall 1915 issue o f Vestnik Teosofii pointed o u t how similar th e Rus­ sian m ind was to the oriental mind. Q u o tin g from a recent article on “N ational Types o f C u ltu re” th a t had appeared in Severnye Zapiskiy the author pointed o u t th at bo th the spiritual, ethical, and philosophical strivings o f the Russian people and their rejection o f materialism and bourgeois com fort make them similar to the H in d u , n o t to the W est­ erner.55 “ O f all the young races, the Slavs are closer to the East, the source o f religious light, than any other. A new Renaissance will burst forth in E urope after a period o f cleansing war. . . . It is difficult to go against the laws o f history: now, again, tired o f the false Teutonic cul­ ture, we w ho are plunged in darkness extend o u r supplicatory arms to the holy, radiant East.”56 M ore than any o th er discrete group except, perhaps, the G od-seeking philosophers, the Russian Theosophists helped to form ulate the p ro b ­ lem o f East and West in Russian culture. T heir voice spoke for the O rient in the popular intellectual debates o f the period; it forced the intelligentsia to rethink its ow n assumptions and to clarify its own ph ilo ­ sophical and religious positions. The intense animosity O rth o d o x critics felt tow ard T heosophy’s O rientalism was p ro o f b o th o f the th reat its neo-B uddhism potentially posed to O rth o d o x C hrisdanity and the se­ ductive pow er th a t oriental philosophy could wield over th e Russian religious mind.

3. “Theosophy is Pseudoscience a n d M ateria listic Pantheism 30 A ccording to another group o f critics, at T heosophy’s core lay an essen­ tially materialist, n o t idealist, doctrine. Theosophy, these critics claimed, tried to make a religion o u t o f th e “science” o f religion, i.e., the study o f the foundations o f religion; its scientific or pseudoscientific proofs, however, were powerless to replace religious faith. T heosophy provided a detailed cosm ogony, b u t never generated a theogony; it reconstructed “ ancient w isdom ,” b u t neglected (or was unable) to find G od. Its critics charged that it produced a nebulous, spurious, and, ultimately, sterile pseudoscientific doctrine. “Theosophy wants a purely hum an, earthly

religion. It wants only to satisfy the religious feelings o f m an, b u t w ith ­ o u t any th o u g h t o f G od, tow ard W hom the hum an spirit strives. T h eo s­ ophy wants to trick the religious m anifestation o f conscience; instead o f an anim ating faith in a Living G od, it provides a soporific atheism . For Mrs. Besant, w ho is an atheist by conviction (see her Autobiography), this is a natural step, b u t for a Christian, this is unacceptable,” co m ­ plained K onstantin Kudriavtsev.57 Since G od did n o t exist, the M ahat­ mas had to be invented to fill the external role o f G od in the T heosophical religious paradigm . A nd so T heosophy focused on B uddhism , and n o t on Christianity: oriental pantheism allowed it to say th at everything is divine. U nfortunately, concluded Kudriavtsev, this left the individual w ith no personal G od; and a religious-philosophical doctrine “a b o u t” G od, b u t “w ith o u t” G od, was pointless. T heosophy’s philosophical and logical errors were identified and cata­ logued n o t only by apostate Theosophists, philosophers, and ecclesiasti­ cal critics, b u t also by scholars and o th er representatives o f the “scien­ tific” p o in t o f view. These critics m aintained th at there was n o t and could n o t be anything “scientific” ab o u t a synthesis o f religion, science, and philosophy; such a synthesis w ould, by definition, be superficial and reductive. T heosophy was seeking scientific explanations for m etaphysi­ cal and mystical phenom ena; such explanations could only be pseu­ doscientific and m isleading. T he empirical cognition o f noum ena, as Kant had po in ted o u t, was impossible in a m odern, scientific w orld. Vsevolod Solov’ev, one o f T heosophy’s m ore inform ed critics, w rote, “For those w ho are familiar w ith the contem porary m oods o f o u r society and w ho take them seriously, the dam age th a t can be done by an attrac­ tion to a profoundly m aterialistic doctrine, painted over w ith various su­ perstitions and im aginary miracles and bearing the splendid nam e ‘T h e ­ osophy’ and the ‘W isdom R eligion,’ is obvious.” 58 A nd he was n o t alone in considering T heosophy to be “scientific superstition.” T he same co n ­ clusion had been reached by the ecclesiastical critics as well.59 T he com plaint th at T heosophy was guilty o f reductivism and syncre­ tism was m ade repeatedly. M m e Blavatsky had pointed o u t th at “eso­ teric philosophy reconciles all religions, strips every one o f its outw ard, hum an garm ents, and shows the ro o t o f each to be identical w ith th a t o f every o th er great religion.” 60 B ut in her attem pt to em brace the vast g ro u n d o f hum an religious th o u g h t, she succeeded only in form ing an artificial, com posite doctrine b u ilt o f the bits and pieces o f o th er faiths. “ It is n o t synthesis th at we see in Theosophy, b u t syncretism: the m e­ chanical com bination o f elem ents o f W estern and E astern th o u g h t, a rt­ fully com bined w ith a basic substratum o f B uddhism ,” observed Rebus in an article m arking the th irtieth anniversary o f the founding o f the Theosophical Society.61

T hcosophical texts, especially th e associative, hypnotic prose o f M m e Blavatsky herself, are rem arkable fo r the sheer scope o f th eir eclecticism . B enefiting greatly from G. R. S. M ead’s scholarly and co m p e ten t e d ito ­ rial h and, M m e Blavatsky’s m ajor w ork, The Secret D octrine, rem ains a to u r de force w ithin th e huge body o f occult literature. I t m ost clearly reveals, however, the problem s o f syncretism . M m e Blavatsky quarries q u o tatio n s from a m u ltitu d e o f sources; she m isquotes a n d m isinter­ prets, takes h er m aterial o u t o f co n te x t, and pairs it w ith o th e r seem ingly sim ilar m aterial. T h ere is n o religious thinker, philosopher, o r m etap h y ­ sician, from A belard to Z e n o , w hom she does n o t cite som ew here. T h e result is a w ork o f epic syncretism , w ide o p en to attack from clerics, sp e­ cialists in com parative religion, philosophers, an d scientists, as well as representatives o f o th e r occult m ovem ents. T h eosophy was th e ob ject o f particular criticism from th e em in en t O xford O rientalist Friedrich M ax M uller (1 8 2 3 -1 9 0 0 ), a specialist on th e sacred books o f the East, and T h e o so p h y ’s archenem y. A lth o u g h M uller was “ quite w illing to allow th a t M adam e Blavatsky started w ith g o o d in te n tio n s, th a t she saw and was dazzled by a glim m ering o f tru th in various religions o f the w orld, and th a t she believed in the possibility o f a m ystic u n io n o f the soul w ith G o d ,” he felt th a t she erred in her assum ption th a t “ it was in cu m b e n t on every fo u n d er o f a religion to perform m iracles.” In the e n d , he cam e to consider the Theosophical Society harm ful an d th e w orks o f its fo u n d er inaccurate, m isleading, and intellectually pernicious. M uller was particularly critical o f M m e Blavat­ sky’s ignorance o f Sanskrit, Pali, and the classical languages. “ U n fo rtu ­ nately,” he observed, “ she was w ith o u t th e tools to dig for those treas­ ures in th e ancient literatures o f the w orld, and her m istakes in q u o tin g from Sanskrit, G reek, and L atin w ould be am using if they did n o t appeal to o u r sym pathy rath e r for a w om an w ho th o u g h t th a t she could fly th o u g h she had n o w ings, n o t even those o f Icaru s.”62 M iiller’s widely circulated critical rem arks w ere quickly translated and eagerly shared w ith Russian readers by the editors o f Rebus. O rientalists repeatedly criticized the founders and leaders o f T h e o so ­ phy for their ignorance o f Indic languages and their selective and super­ ficial know ledge o f the h istory o f religion, especially B uddhism . T he T h eosophists c o u n te red by claim ing th a t their B uddhism was n o t o rd i­ nary, garden-variety B uddhism , b u t esoteric B uddhism . E soteric B u d ­ dhism was n o t th e exoteric teaching o f G uatam a B uddha (th a t was for th e masses); it was n o t co n tain ed in th e canonical B ud d h ist texts. T h eo sophical B uddhism was “ th a t religion signifying literally the doctrine o f w isdom , and w hich by m any ages antedates th e m etaphysical philosophy o f S iddhartha Sakyam uni,” p o in te d o u t M m e BIavatsky.63 In this way she ensured th a t educated O rientalists, having never seen th e hid d en se­ cret texts and having never m et the com pletely inaccessible T ib etan M a-

hatm as, co u ld n o t possibly criticize T h e o so p h y ’s esoteric B uddhism , T his ploy did n o t stop M uller from p o in tin g o u t th a t M m e Blavatsky’s “ eso teric” B u d d h ist w ritings w ere aberrations, th a t “n o traveler’s tale was ever m ore audacious and m ore in co n g ru o u s th an this m isrepresen­ tatio n o f B u ddha and his d o c trin e .” 64 Even w hile fighting th e accusations o f being pseudoscientific, T h e o s­ ophy was ironically unable to rise above th e positivist m in d set o f its age. T h u s T h eosophists p ro u d ly a n n o u n c ed th a t in T h eo so p h y “ th e fo u n d a ­ tio n s o f E astern d o ctrines (th e d o ctrin e o f rein carn atio n and th e d o c ­ trine o f karm a) m erge w ith the d o ctrin e w hich form s the basis o f all W estern E u ro p ean science (th e d o ctrin e o f ev o lu tio n ), and this m erging provides th e first com pletely rational an d scientifically based fo u n d atio n for the hypothesis o f th e im m ortality o f th e so u l.” 65 T h eo so p h y m ig h t speak o f astral planes and karm a a n d A tm an, b u t it still assum ed the D a r­ w inian idea o f progressive evolution and h u m an progress, even if this progress was achieved th ro u g h rein carn atio n instead o f in m ore co nven­ tional ways. In d e e d , various critics found T h eo so p h y to o m aterialistic, to o lacking in spirit, grace, and love, to o descriptive an d insufficiently creative to offer m uch to th e discrim inating seeker. B erdiaev accused T h eo so p h y o f being no m o re th an “ expanded positivism ,” and n o t tru e “ divine wis­ d o m ” : it “ transfers th e laws o f natural evolution to o th e r planes and o th e r w orlds, in to th e life o f th e sp irit.” B ut th a t, he p o in te d o u t, is n o t m ystery w isdom ; it is a variant form o f D arw inism . Berdiaev never d e ­ nied , how ever, th a t a lth o u g h “T h e o so p h y is n o t great in itself, it is c o n ­ n ected w ith th a t w hich is great and a reflection o f an cient divine w isdom does to u ch it.”66 M any T heosophists te n d e d to reify th eir d o c trin e ’s spiritual ten ets, to accept th em literally instead o f m etaphorically o r symbolically. T hey drew blueprints o f th e cosm os, m athem atically calculated cosm ic infini­ tu d es, p lo tte d th e life o f th e soul in th eir a tte m p t to apply “ scientific” m eth o d o lo g ies to th eir m etaphysics, tu rn e d karm a in to spiritual b o o k ­ keeping, and “ replaced th e u n m ed ia te d p ercep tio n o f existence w ith a percep tio n o f the diagram s o f existence.”67 T h e religious philosopher Ivan I l’in (1 8 8 2 -1 9 5 4 ) was severely critical o f th e T h e o so p h ists’ “scien­ tific” pretensions: They love to hide behind the word “science,” but in actual fact they preach and implement some sort o f ostensibly spiritual practice. In their crepuscular spiritual practice, which they conceive of, if not as wisdom, then at least as the true path toward wisdom, the pure light of philosophical knowledge grows dim and the conscious, intelligent life o f the spirit dissolves in the cultivation of the more physical sides and abilities of the soul: such is their “clairvoyance,” purchased at the price o f meaninglessness and the rejection o f free subjective

intuition. In vain they speak o f “science” : their science has n oth in g in co m ­ m on with that science w hich objectively studies the subject, openly affirms and openly proves; their science is m agic, and the con ten t o f their “d o c ­ trine”— a disturbing chim era.08

IF in c o n clu d ed th a t T h eo so p h ists a n d A n th ro p o so p h ists w ere “ enem ies and d isto rters o f tru e p h ilo so p h y ” and th a t th e ir d o c trin e was “ an u n ­ original and eclectic con fu sio n o f no in te re st w hatsoever.” 69 T heosophy, “th e synthesis o f science, religion, a n d p hilosophy,” failed to satisfy com pletely eith er th e intellectuals, o r th e scientists, or th e m ystics, o r th e p h ilo so p h ers, b e in g itself n e ith e r science n o r reli­ g io n n o r philosophy; its critics considered it n o m o re th a n a fashionable syncretism th a t offered th e gullible old w ine in cracked b o ttles. “T h e ­ osophy is full o f hopeless an tinom ies and c o n tra d ic tio n s,” lam en ted Lev K obylinskii-ElIis, “u n itin g th e absolute stasis o f E astern religion w ith th e lim itless evolutionism o f W estern th eo ries, them selves already superseded; Asian nationalism w ith Parisian m o d ern ism ; esoteric m agic w ith A m erican advertising; an d finally, claims to synthesis w ith vulgar ig n o ra n c e .” 70 N ikolai Berdiaev, w h o , like K obylinskii-Ellis, h ad flirted w ith T h e o s o ­ p hy in his y o u th b u t eventually fo u n d it w a n tin g , criticized b o th T h e o s­ ophy and A n th ro p o so p h y for ig n o rin g certain m ajor tre n d s in n in e ­ te e n th -c e n tu ry cu ltu re. T h e T h eo so p h ists a tte m p te d to com e to term s w ith th e natu ral sciences, B erdiaev p o in te d o u t, b u t avoided th e social sciences. R u d o lf S tein er’s A n th ro p o so p h y answ ered th e b io logist E rn st H aeckel ( 1 8 3 4 -1 9 1 9 ) and his th e o ry o f m aterialistic m onism (an easy ta rg e t), b u t n e ith e r T h e o so p h y n o r A n th ro p o so p h y answ ered Karl M arx .71 Yet, th e perceptive B erdiaev p o in te d o u t, T h e o so p h y a n d M a rx ­ ism h a d a g reat deal in c o m m o n . “ E astern T h e o so p h y is typical W est­ e rn iz in g o n R ussian soil,” he observed; it is an arcane form o f W estern positivism . B o th are artificial, co sm o p o litan , in te rn atio n a l m ovem ents w ith n o in d ig e n o u s, national ro o ts .72 B erdiaev even called T heosophical literatu re “p a rty ” literatu re and co m p ared it to enthusiastic b u t o p in io n ­ a te d an d cliche-ridden social-dem ocratic tracts. H is o p in io n e ch o ed th a t o f K obylinskii-Ellis, w h o also identified th e stro n g “p ro p ag a n d a ele­ m e n t” in T h eo so p h ical litera tu re an d te rm e d it “p arty a g ita tio n .” 73

Theosophy and. the Russian Intelligentsia T h e o so p h y to o k p articu lar h o ld o f certain m em b ers o f th e R ussian crea­ tive an d G o d -seek in g intelligentsia— w riters, critics, artists, a n d p h ilo so ­ phers— evoking from th em responses th a t w ere som etim es positive, som etim es negative, o fte n am bivalent. T h e in tellig en tsia’s a ttitu d e to-

w ard T h eo so p h y was, o f course, m ore com plicated th a n an in genuous acceptance o f it as an answ er to the n in e te e n th c e n tu ry ’s crisis o f culture and consciousness, o r a rejectio n o f it o n firm m oral o r religious g ro u n d s. T h eir polem ic w ith T h eo so p h y differed from th a t o f th e apos­ tate believers, th e traditional clergy, the th eo logians, and th e scholars. T h e Russian creative intelligentsia did n o t w rite th e T heosophists o ff as crackpots, b u t to o k th e dialogue w ith T h eo so p h y seriously; either they view ed it as a legitim ate voice in th e larger dialogue on culture, religion, and philosophy, o r saw it as p a rt o f tu rn -o f-th e -c e n tu ry soci­ ety’s general in te rest in o riental religions a n d cultures th a t was visible in R ussian scholarship, literatu re, m usic, a rt, a n d even architecture. T h e o s­ ophy was one o f several unusual paths explored by th e Silver Age intelli­ gentsia in th eir various spiritual, philosophical, and aesthetic quests. T h e creative intelligentsia was quick to identify an d resp o n d n o t only to T h e o so p h y ’s religious and philosophical dim ensions, b u t also to the m ythic, po etic, and aesthetic im plications o f T heosophical th o u g h t. This was especially tru e o f the R ussian Sym bolist w riters, w ho drew inspiration from T h e o so p h y and even used its cosm ogenetic paradigm to justify th eir ow n theories th a t a rt was religious creativity, as A ndrei Belyi did in his novels and th eo retical articles. N u m b e re d am o n g th e Sym bolists w ere n o t only co m m itted T h e o so p h ists, such as K o nstantin Bal’m o n t, N ikolai M inskii, M ax V oloshin, and A ndrei Belyi, b u t also curious seekers w h o flirted w ith , b u t eventually left, T heosophy, such as N ikolai Berdiaev, Aleksei Rem izov, Valerii Briusov, and ViachesIav Ivanov. C ertain R ussian m o d ern ist painters (N ikolai R oerich, M argarita Sabashnikova, and Wasily Kandinsky, am o n g o th ers) felt th a t T h eosophy h elp ed th em to enhance th e spiritual an d intellectual c o n te n t o f th eir p ain tin g . T h e com poser A leksandr Skriabin, a m em b er o f th e Belgian S ection o f th e T heosophical Society, based his th e o ry th a t th e creation o f m usic was a th eu rg ic act o f divine play directly o n T heosophical d o c ­ trin e .74 Like th e literary Sym bolists, Skriabin was co n cern ed w ith T h e o s­ o p h y ’s c o n cep t o f theurgy, the im p o rtan ce o f in can tatio n and rh y th m as a p ro fo u n d ly “ m agic” act, sobornost1 as m ystical experience, a rt as a form o f religious action, th e synthesis o f m a tte r an d spirit— all n o tio n s central to T heosophy. T h eo so p h y certainly to u c h e d th e interests o f th e reli­ gious and esoteric p h ilosophers, like N ikolai B erdiaev and P. D . U spenskii, w ho felt th e psychological a ttrac tio n o f T heosophical th o u g h t and p u rsu ed it at a form ative tim e in th eir lives, alth o u g h they eventually m oved beyond it. T h e creative intelligentsia and th e T h eosophists spoke a m utually in ­ telligible, if n o t identical, language. T hey used m any o f th e sam e cul­ tural catchw ords. Like o th e r intellectual m ovem ents o f th e early tw e n ti­ e th century, Russian T h eo so p h y clearly reflected th e apocalypticism o f

its age. C ertain aspects o f its d o c trin e played o n th e various eschatological fears and expectations o f th e Silver A ge. T h eo so p h ical n o tio n s o f w orld catastro p h e, cleansing d e stru c tio n , suffering, and th e b u ild in g o f a new, su p erio r cu ltu re in w hich Russia w o u ld play a leading role w ere variants o n th e sam e m essianic th e m e dear to G od-seekers an d G odbuilders alike. T h e o so p h y reso n a ted n o t only to th e religious visions o f N ikolai F edorov, V ladim ir S olov’ev, a n d D m itrii M erezhkovskii, b u t also to th e theurgical aspirations o f M aksim G orkii, based o n his p e r­ sonal tra n sm u ta tio n s o f m o d e rn T h eo so p h y a n d Slavic sectarian G n o sti­ cism. G orkii’s vision o f a N ew N a tu re and a N ew W orld (subsequently assim ilated to its socialist expression as th e R adiant F u tu re ) is fu n d a ­ m entally T h e o so p h ic a l.75 M any m em bers o f th e intelligentsia, particularly am o n g th e m o d e rn ­ ist w riters an d religious th in k ers, w ere also able to find c o m m o n g ro u n d w ith th e T h eo so p h ists because th e ir ow n views o f religion te n d e d t o ­ w ard th e u n co n v en tio n al. Like th e T h e o so p h ists, they, to o , w ere in te r­ ested in an cien t m ystery cults, sectarianism , G nosticism , and th e histo ry o f religious th o u g h t. Such views w ere occasionally expressed a t the m eetings o f th e various religious-philosophical societies th a t fo rm ed in St. P e tersb u rg , M oscow , Kiev, and o th e r cities o f th e R ussian E m pire. T h e m o re intellectually inclined T h eo so p h ists also b elo n g e d to these so ­ cieties and p a rticip a te d in th eir discussions. T h e nam es o f th e leading R ussian idealist p h ilosophers (Sergei Bulgakov, E. N . T ru b e tsk o i, Sergei F rank, N ikolai Berdiaev, Vasilii R ozanov, A leksandr M eier, D m itrii Filosofov, and N . O . Losskii) freq u en tly appeared in Vestnik Teosofii; th eir lectures and articles w ere regularly re p o rte d and review ed in its pages. A nna R am enskaia fo u n d V ladim ir S olov’ev’s an d N ikolai B erdiaev’s th o u g h t particularly relevant a n d cited th em often. In spite o f th eir criticism s o f certain aspects o f T heosophy, R am enskaia fo u n d n o in c o n ­ sistency in u sin g th e ir statem en ts to b u ttre ss h e r ow n b ro ch u re s an d lec­ tu re s .76 B o th S olov’ev and B erdiaev co n sid ered th e T h eo so p h ical p h e ­ n o m e n o n to be culturally im p o rta n t. “ D espite all o f th e T h eo so p h ical Society’s th eo retical and m oral flaws,” w ro te S olov’ev, “it, e ith e r in its p resent form or in th e form o f th e n eo -B u d d h ist m o v em e n t evoked by it, is apparently cast fo r an im p o rta n t historical role in th e im m ediate f u tu r e .” 77 B erdiaev also co n c ed e d th e im p o rta n c e o f T h e o so p h y and its variant form , A n th ro p o so p h y , for th e g ro w th o f th e R ussian religious urge. H e freely a d m itte d th a t th e role o f T h e o so p h y h a d grow n in R us­ sia and w o u ld co n tin u e to grow . “ Closely o b serv in g th e religious seek­ ing o f o u r tim e, o n e c a n n o t pass by T heosophy, because for certain strata o f c o n te m p o ra ry e d u c a te d society T h eo so p h y has m ade it easier to com e to re lig io n ,” he p o in te d o u t .78 B o th th in k ers, w hile generally critical o f T heosophy, expressed th eir o p in io n s o f it w ith sufficient am -

bivalence to w arrant Kamenskaia’s use o f their com m ents in certain contexts. The Theosophists felt themselves in touch n o t only with philosophi­ cal God-seeking, b u t also w ith literary m odernism , which had a strong religious-philosophical dim ension. Poems by Max Voloshin, Konstantin Bal’m ont, and Aleksandr D obroliubov (a decadent p o et w ho rejected contem porary society and founded his own religious sect), appeared in Vestnik Teosofii. The journal also made reference to oth er m odernist writers, such as Aleksandr Blok, Andrei Belyi, Viacheslav Ivanov, and Georgii Chulkov. Vestnik often printed entire articles by and ab o u t Lev Tolstoi. The Theosophists created their own cult o f Tolstoi, blending Theosophy, Tolstoyanism, and oriental th o u g h t into an exotic Theosophical version o f the Russian Idea. The Theosophists were m uch taken by Tolstoi, and he expressed in­ terest in their ideas as well, although he was ambivalent about the Theosophical Society as an organization and felt th at the well-meaning Theosophists frequently m uddled w hat were originally good ideas. Tolstoi had first heard o f Theosophy and M me Blavatsky from his friend Nikolai Aleksandrovich L ’vov (1834—1887), a well-known M oscow Spiritualist, early in 1884. “L’vov told me about Blavatskaia, the transm igration o f souls, the powers o f the spirit, the w hite elephant, and a new faith.”79 H e heard o f her again in May 1884, w hen his friend Leonid Dmitrievich U rusov w rote him from Paris, where M me Blavatsky had just then ar­ rived from India and was about to be investigated by the Society for Psychical Research. Tolstoi subscribed to several European Theosophical journals and became a reader o f Vestnik Teosofii shortly before his death. H e also read m ost o f the materials on oriental religions published under the auspices o f the Theosophical Society, from the Bhagnvtid Gita to the translations o f the Swamis Vivekananda and Ramakrishna. H e also read M me Blavatsky with interest, and liked her devotional work, Voice o f the Silence. Tolstoi was acquainted w ith several o f the leading T heosophists. H e had first m et Dm itrii Stranden, Kamenskaia’s right hand, w hen Stranden had been tu to r to the son o f Vladimir G rigor’evich Chertkov, Tolstoi’s friend and secretary. O n June 29, 1908, Anna Kamenskaia and Elena Pisareva made a pilgrimage to Tolstoi’s estate, Iasnaia Poliana, to discuss Buddhism and the fate o f Russia.80 Tolstoi also briefly corresponded with Elena Pisareva’s husband, Nikolai. The Theosophists had good reasons to be worshippers at Tolstoi’s shrine, for there were indeed parallels between Tolstoyanism and T heos­ ophy. Like the Theosophists, Tolstoi attem pted to rationalize faith, to make religion into knowledge rather than accept a belief n o t founded in “fact” ; like the Theosophists, he rejected the concepts o f mystery and

divine grace and focused on Christian ethics, n o t theology. H e was m uch taken by certain B uddhist ideas, including rejection o f the physical w orld, a consoling attitude tow ard death (which Tolstoi feared), and passivity in the face o f em otion and action (from which comes Tolstoyan nonresistance to evil), and, like the T heosophists, he filtered these ideas thro u g h a Russian prism. In Tolstoi’s m odern Buddhism is the source o f the latent pantheism and metaphysical impersonalism th a t characterizes m uch o f his th o u g h t. Finally, Tolstoi expressed his concern for the fate o f Russia in term s n o t dissimilar to those o f the Theosophists. They saw in him a natural ally for their cause. Theosophy was also a topic o f heated discussion in the rarefied atm o ­ sphere o f the Russian Religious-Philosophical Society in St. Petersburg. A t the end o f 1909 the Society devoted an entire session to an exam ina­ tion o f Theosophy. O n N ovem ber 24 Anna Kamenskaia was the fea­ tured speaker at their m eeting, chaired th a t evening by h er colleague, K, D. Kudriavtsev. H er talk, “Theosophy and G od-B uilding,” created a great deal o f controversy, w ith the religious syncretism o f T heosophy being one o f the chief objections voiced. Ramenskaia, w ho was ac­ quainted w ith m ost o f the regular m em bers o f the R eligious-Philosophi­ cal Society and easily anticipated their criticisms, presented a defense o f Theosophy, stressing the following points: Theosophy is not neo-B uddhism; Theosophy is not materialistic pantheism ; Theosophy is not an artificially created, eclectic, religio-philosophical system; Theosophy is a universal scientific-religious synthesis, at the basis o f w hich are the D o c­ trine o f the Logos, the D octrine o f the P ath, and Ethics.81 T he religious scholar, Symbolist p oet, and critic Viacheslav Ivanov was the first discussant in the lively session th a t followed her presenta­ tion. H e stressed the difference betw een “theosophy” as mystic gnosis, for which he had great respect, and “T heosophy” as th e doctrine o f the TheosophicaI Society, o f which he was wary. His m ajor objection was that T heosophy as a doctrine was excessively syncretic; this was p o te n ­ tially dangerous, since mixing religions, observed this Russian w riter w ho tried to revive the ancient G reek m ystery cults in the tw entieth cen­ tury, succeeds merely in distorting all o f them . Ivanov w anted to know w hether or n o t the TheosophicaI Society considered itself to be a church. H e feared th a t all Theosophists were actually Buddhists and th at M m e BIavatsky was profoundly anti-C hristian. The one Theosophist for w hom he had a good w ord was the “Christian T heosophist,” R udolf Steiner, to w hose p o in t o f view Anna M intslova had recently converted Ivanov. T he next attack came from the religious thinker and w riter D m itrii M erezhkovskii, w ho had actually attended Theosophical lectures, had heard R udolf Steiner lecture in Paris in 1906, and had participated in

the T heosophical discussions held in A nna Filosofova’s salon as the friend o f h er son, D m itrii Filosofov. M erezhkovskii ad m itted th a t T h e ­ osophy did n o t in terest him at all; he felt to w ard T h e o so p h y only “ a gloom y lack o f curiosity” ; as for th e T heosophists them selves, well, he fo u n d th em “ m ercilessly k in d .” 82 Typically, M erezhkovskii did n o t u n ­ d errate or u n d erstate th e im p o rtan ce o f T h eo so p h y as an intellectual force, b u t he was excessively condescending, calling it “ a terrible tra p .” I t certainly co m p eted w ith his ow n version o f neo -C h ristian ity and d e ­ flected a tte n tio n from him self. “ I feel revulsion and h a tre d [tow ard T h e ­ osophy] in p a rticu la r,” he added; it is n o m o re th an “th e inspiration o f th e com m onplace. E verything is unco m m o n ly tru e , b u t everything is also un co m m o n ly old h a t.” 83 As usual, M erezhkovskii soon m o u n te d and ro d e away o n his ow n h o b b y horse, th e pro b lem o f evil. This p ro b ­ lem , he claim ed, is central to Christianity, b u t only peripheral to B u d ­ dhism . T h e o so p h y lacks th e th re a t o f eternal p e rd itio n , a th re a t th a t M erezhkovskii apparently fo u n d appealing, for he spoke o f hell and d am n atio n enthusiastically and at len g th . H e , like Ivanov, feared th a t T h eo so p h y was a “ false c h u rc h .” T h e T heosophical position was defended by K am enskaia, K u ­ driavtsev, and E lena Pisareva. Pisareva answ ered th a t churches are based o n exoteric dogm as created by h u m an reason. T heosophy, o n th e o th er h an d , synthesizes esoteric teaching, w hich is one, regardless o f th e o u ter, exoteric garm ents it assum es historically; hence syncretism plays n o role. N e ith e r can T h eosophy be a “ religion” o r a “ c h u rc h ,” since it is “ scien­ tific.” 84 Kam enskaia, a co m p e ten t if u ninspired speaker, d efended T h e ­ osophy w ell, a lth o u g h she was unable to break th ro u g h th e p ro b lem o f definitions. K udriavtsev was an enthusiastic b u t unconvincing defender; his c o n trib u tio n was to p o in t o u t th a t D m itrii M erczhkovskii, as a reli­ gious thinker, was “u naw akened.” 85 Kam enskaia so o th e d h er G od-seek­ ing audience w ith a last w o rd th a t to u c h e d o n th e R ussian Idea: “ I f we have a d m itted th a t th e Russian people, th e Slavs, really have a particular ten d en cy to w ard m ysticism , th e n we sh o u ld allow th a t it is actually th ro u g h us [the Russians] th a t a new w o rd a n d a new revelation should go fo rth .” 86 A nd w ho w o u ld d o this b e tte r th an the internationally c o n ­ n e c te d and cosm opolitan Russian Theosophists? T h e a ttitu d e o f th e G od-seeking philosophers tow ard S teiner and his “ C hristian T h e o so p h y ” was considerably different from th eir attitu d e to w ard M m e Blavatsky and M rs. B esant; th a t they respected th e w ork o f th e G erm an T h eo so p h ist becam e clear at th e R eligious-Philosophical Society m eetin g o f N o v em b er 2 4 , 1909. Recalling his m eetin g w ith S teiner in Paris in th e spring o f 1 9 0 6 , M erezhkovskii, conveniently p u t­ tin g aside the tension his provocative behavior had gen erated , said: “H e [Steiner] had said th a t he had m uch to do in Russia; th a t he had m any

h opes for Russia; and th a t o u r m ee tin g was n o t accidental. T h e im p res­ sion th a t Viacheslav Ivanovich [Ivanov] received from a m o re p ro fo u n d study o f [S te in e r’s] w orks coincides com pletely w ith m y ow n im pression o f Steiner. I felt th a t in S tein er I had m e t n o t only a T h e o so p h ist, b u t an occu ltist as w ell.” 87 Viacheslav Ivanov, w h o was th e n taken w ith Steinerian T h e o so p h y (th ro u g h th e influence o f A nna M in tslova, M argarita Sabashnikova, a n d A ndrei Belyi), h a d called th e G e rm a n ’s T h e o so p h y “an in d e p e n d e n t S teinerian tre n d w hich seeks to define itself as C h ristian .”88 S teiner offered th e R ussian intelligentsia m u ch m ore th a n a “ C h ris­ tia n iz e d ” alternative to th e n e o -B u d d h ism o f T heosophy. H is e m erg in g esoteric system also focused o n th ree areas n o t generally em phasized by th e T h eo so p h ists b u t o f g rea t im p o rta n c e to a certain faction w ith in the R ussian G od-seeking intelligentsia: G erm an idealist philosophy, th e M ystery o f G o lg o th a (th e C h rist Im p u lse), and G oetheanism . By “ G oeth ea n ism ” S teiner m ean t an a tte m p t to c o m p re h e n d th e in te rre la tio n ­ ship o f th e spiritual and th e scientific search, as rep resen ted by G o e th e ’s literary and scientific studies. S teiner saw G o e th e as a m an w h o h ad learn ed ev ery th in g th a t m o d e rn science h ad to teach him , and, at the sam e tim e, had n o t neg lected to develop his ow n spiritual faculties: G o e th e sym bolized a m erg in g , in fact, o f th e scientific and the spiritual. In S tein er’s system , “ th e dualism b etw een religion and natu ral science was to be overcom e n o t th ro u g h a fuzzy p an th eism , b u t th ro u g h precise research in spiritual science [ Geisteswissenschaft]” o n G o e th e ’s m odel, explained M argarita Sabashnikova.89 T h u s d id S teiner seek to avoid th e accusations o f p an th eism and O rientalism th a t m ade dialogue betw een T h e o so p h y and C hristianity difficult at best. T h e se co n d -g e n e ra tio n Sym bolists (A ndrei Belyi, V iacheslav Ivanov, K obylinskii-Ellis, a n d o th ers) w ere all p e rm e ate d w ith G erm an idealist th o u g h t.90 T h e ir w orldview ow ed m u ch to m edieval G erm an m ystics, to S ch o p en h au er, Schelling, N ietzsch e, W agner, and th e neo-K antians. T h e idealist and religious philosophers cam e from sim ilar back g ro u n d s; w ith few exceptions they stem m ed from academ ic o r intelligentsia fam i­ lies. M any o f th e m stu d ie d w ith G erm an professors a t Russian universi­ ties; o th ers w ere ed u cated in G erm any; several tra in ed as natu ral scien­ tists b u t chose to devote th eir lives to the arts a n d philosophy; all w ere desirous o f reviving th e ir C hristian faith— now seen in a larger, n o t strictly Russian c o n te x t— in a p o st-K antian w orld. AU w ere c o sm o p o li­ tan , b u t w ith a stro n g neo-S lavophile residue. S te in e r’s credentials as rigorously train ed p h ilo so p h er in th e G erm an style, his know ledge o f E u ro p e an m ysticism , his belief in th e im p o rta n t role o f th e Slavic folk soul in h u m a n d ev elo p m en t, and his n e o -C hristianity m ade him a figure o f im m ense in te rest to these circles.

S teiner’s “ C hristian ized ” T heosophy, A nthroposophy, nevertheless did n o t escape criticism from the Russian G od-seekers. Berdiaev rec o g ­ nized A n th ro p o so p h y as “ G nostic C h ristology” and identified the Anth ro p o so p h ists as “ G nostic sectarians” ; this was acceptable before the First W orld W ar, w hen Berdiaev was him self u n d e r th e sway o f the G nostic heresy, b u t n o t later. T he archpriest G eorgii Florovskii im m ed i­ ately knew A n th ro p o so p h y for “ a psychological relapse in to G n o sti­ cism .” W hile A n th ro p o so p h y re tu rn e d C hrist to th e religious eq u atio n , th e role it assigned to Fiim d id n o t suit m any o f the Russian n e o -C hris­ tians any m ore th an it suited traditional O rth o d o x clerics. T h e m ajor criticism leveled against S teiner by the m ore am bivalent Russian G od-seekers was th a t the G erm an occultist was insufficiently sp o n tan eo u s and intuitive, hence anticreative. “S tein er’s secret science gives the im pression o f being n o t intuitive know ledge, n o t an integral p e n e tratio n in to th e m ysteries o f existence, b u t o f being an analytical an ato m izatio n o f existence,” com plained Berdiaev. “ Clairvoyance such as this exam ines the w orld as cadaver.”91 T ru e spiritual cognition should preserve th e h u m an dim ension. “M an is called u p o n to be an active c re­ ato r in cosm ic life, a n d n o t a passive in stru m e n t o f th e cosm ic process, th e m eaning o f w hich is alien and unk n o w n to h im .”92 Berdiaev relevantly p o in te d o u t th a t b o th M m e Blavatsky’s and Dr. S teiner’s doctrines w ere cosm ocentric. O n e can em phasize the cosm os, one can em phasize G o d , o r one can em phasize M an (an d th e G o d -m an , C hrist). B oth T h eosophy and A n th ro p o so p h y (the form er regardless o f its “ G o d ” -centered nam e and th e latter regardless o f its “M a n ” -centered nam e) are m ired in extravagant cosm ologies (w ith astral planes and th e reincarnations o f planetary chains and A tlantean and p o st-Lem urian epochs and M o o n beings); they are little m o re th an naturalistic taxonom ies o f cosm ic events and have lost sight o f b o th G o d and m an. Even C hrist, p o in te d o u t Berdiaev, is red u ced to being a cosm ic agent, a m o m e n t in th e evolution o f th e cosm os. “ C hristianity in A n th ro p o so ­ phy is a cosm ic, n o t a divine rev elatio n .”93 T his m akes th e d o ctrin e p r o ­ foundly anticreative and leads in the d irection o f fatalism . T h eo so p h y is so w eighted dow n by the tyranny o f its ow n d o ctrin e, claim ed Berdiaev, th a t it ig n o red spiritual creativity, the very essence o f m ysticism and re ­ lig io n .94 T h e one individual w h o succeeded in escaping this anticreative tyranny, observed Berdiaev, was A ndrei Belyi.95 Berdiaev was an in d ep e n d e n t th in k er w ho hovered for a tim e on the periphery o f S teiner’s sphere o f influence. W hile he rejected S teiner’s p opularizing and pedagogical to n e and could n o t agree w ith th e G er­ m an occu ltist’s a tte m p t to m ake a science o u t o f m ysticism , he n e v e rth e ­ less felt th a t S teiner was an im p o rta n t and significant th in k er.96 Berdiaev, how ever, was a loner, and he avoided jo in in g groups and being associ-

ated w ith any one trend; nevertheless, he was seduced (if only tem porar­ ily) by the initial appeal o f T heosophy’s G nostic pull. Because Berdiaev had felt these seductions, and w ithstood them , because he was, in his ow n w ords, a “mystical realist” by tem peram ent, he is a sophisticated com m entator on Russian Theosophy. Berdiaev’s know ledge o f Theosophy, A nthroposophy, and occultism , in general, was vast. H e had read all the m ajor texts; he had attended m eetings and lectures; he was personally acquainted w ith the members o f occult societies. Berdiaev was so au courant th a t many contem porar­ ies suspected him o f being an occultist. A lthough n o t a traditional Christian, he also knew the Christian tradition well. Finally, he was a philosopher born, n o t m ade; he had a strong sense o f intellectual in teg ­ rity. AU this makes Berdiaev an excellent field guide to the tangle o f R us­ sian occult paths. H is observations are those o f som eone w ho u n d er­ stands, who has even adm ired this particular worldview, b u t who has grow n beyond it. The curious Berdiaev had gone to m eet Steiner and hear his lectures on “T he O ccult Significance o f the Bhagavad Gita.” in H elsingfors, May 2 8 -Ju n e 5, 1913, in w hich Steiner focused on achieving a balance be­ tw een the materialism and fear o f G od characteristic o f the West and the “passive surrender to a w orld o f pictures” (maya) characteristic o f the East. Steiner has frequently been described as an hypnotic speaker and a charismatic personality; the phlegm atic Berdiaev described their m eet­ ing in the following manner: I wanted to acquaint m yself with Anthroposophy. Thanks to my acquaintance with som e A nthroposophists [principally Andrei Belyi], I had the opportunity to hear a cycle o f R u d olf Steiner’s lectures, w hich he read in H elsingfors in the Anthroposophical L odge. I observed many things there. The atmosphere was m ost alien to m e and I struggled against it constantly. Steiner himself, with w hom I becam e acquainted, made a com plex impression on m e, a rather ago­ nizing one. But he did n ot give the im pression o f a charlatan. This was a man w ho convinced and hypnotized n ot only others, but him self as well. . . . Rarely has anyone impressed m e as a person so untouched by divine grace, as Steiner. N o t a single ray came from above. H e wanted to achieve every­ thing from below, to force his way, by sheer effort, into the spiritual w orld.97

Berdiaev’s evaluation o f the A nthroposophists themselves was n o t par­ ticularly positive, either. “Some A nthroposophists im pressed me as p eo ­ ple possessed, in a maniacal state. W hen they spoke the w ords, ‘The D octor (i.e., Steiner) said,’ then the expression in their eyes changed, their faces became different, and it was impossible to continue the co n ­ versation.”98

D espite his m ore critical views later in life, in the years before his exile from Russia in 1922 Berdiaev regarded “W estern” A nthroposophy as being preferable to “ E astern ” Theosophy, since he felt it was m ore rele­ vant to W estern m an ’s psychic and religious experience. “T heosophy is m oving from East to W est,” he w ro te in 1916. “A nd th e C hristian W est is again rem em b erin g its ow n fo rg o tten W estern legends, w hich connect it directly w ith the w isdom o f Greece and E gypt. A W estern occult tra d i­ tion is beginning to m anifest itself, th e antithesis o f the E astern occult tradition. T he existence o f C hristian esotericism is being discovered. T he separation o f A n th ro p o so p h y from T heosophy to o k place o n this soil and the Steinerian tre n d becam e m anifest.”99 T he Russian G od-seeking intelligentsia and the T heosophists w ere, it tu rn e d o u t, searching for th e same thing: religious feeling and a c o ­ h e re n t, m eaningful, system atized universe im bued w ith divine being. T heosophy (and A n th roposophy) represented a desire to re tu rn to a spiritual path and to a G od from w hom hum anity had been violently separated by m o d ern science and m aterialism . In its atte m p t to reconcile science, philosophy, and religion, T h eosophy so u g h t o rd er in the chaos o f m o d ern th o u g h t and w holeness in a fragm ented m o d ern reality. I f the T heosophists w ere occasionally sim plistic and lim ited in th eir scope (here the G od-seekers gave preference to A nth ro p o so p h y as m ore so ­ phisticated and m ore “c o rre c t” ), they nevertheless n u rtu re d the desire and search for spirituality and prepared th e way for a future revelation, for a creative gnosis, w hich they, like the G od-seeking intelligentsia, identified w ith Sophiology, T olstoyanism , “ spiritual C hristianity,” and certain form s o f Russian sectarianism . As a result, the G od-seekers were T h e o so p h y ’s least critical critics.

P o in t and C o u n ter p o in t T h e m o st b iting criticism came from the church and from disappointed ex-T heosophists. A rchim andrite Varlaam refused to adm it th at T h e o so ­ phy m ig h t have som ething to say to his contem poraries and opined, “ O nce one is acquainted w ith T heosophy, it is im possible n o t to see th at in itself it is n o th in g new o r unheard-of; m oreover, it does n o t represent som e higher philosophy, reconciling science and religion, faith and know ledge. T o raise the old and outlived from the ashes o f centuries does n o t m ean to give th e w orld so m eth in g new ; to resurrect B uddhism in an im itation o f C hristianity does n o t m ean to create so m ething u n iq u e, som ething original.” 100 T h e A rchim andrite’s o pinion was ech ­ oed by Lev K obylinskii-Ellis, recently converted to A nthroposophy: “ H istorically, logically, and psychologically, it was inevitable th a t m an-

kind, w h en losing its [C hristian] relig io n , sh o u ld again tu rn to m agic and T h eo so p h y , i.e., to th e ‘an cient w isd o m ,’ to th e su rro g ates o f th e past. . . . C o n te m p o ra ry T h e o so p h y is only a new, m ore disguised re p e ­ titio n o f old e rro rs.” 101 T h e hopeless and p o iso n o u s essence o f T heosophy, V sevolod Solov’ev felt, was h id d e n from m o st o f its ad h eren ts by its seductive a t­ tractions. “ It attracts th a t m ind w hich is sick, w hich has a b a n d o n e d its previous faith and n o lo n g er know s o r u n d e rsta n d s th a t faith, to w ard a te m p tin g a n d m ysterious distance an d show s it g o ld en m irages th e re .” F o r him , T heosophy, w ith its m essage o f passive hopelessness and m asked pessim ism , was a p h a n to m rising from th e d e a th bier o f m a te ri­ alism; it was vulgar m aterialism ’s “astral body.” 102 N ikolai Berdiaev, w h o d e v o te d his life to developing a philosophy o f freed o m , o b jected to T heosophical occultism specifically because it ta u g h t n o t spiritual freed o m , b u t cosm ic necessity. “ I have never seen freedom o f spirit in people carried away by o ccu ltism ,” he o bserved in his a u to b io g rap h y .103 T h e o so p h y d id n o t enco u rag e o r even to lerate such fre e d o m , b u t enslaved h u m an ity to its cosm ic do ctrin e. I t was cosm ocentric ra th e r th a n a n th ro p o c e n tric o r th eo c e n tric; it em phasized th e prim acy o f th e universe and m ade h u m an beings prisoners o f cosm ic events and cosm ic hierarchies. In this it lo o k ed back to th e early gnosis, n o t forw ard to C hristian red em p tio n . T h e an ti-T heosophical tracts o f K o n stan tin Kudriavtsev, F a th er D m itrevskii, an d A rchim andrite V arlaam , all p u b lish ed w ith in a year o f each o th er, as well as attacks in m ainline O rth o d o x pub licatio n s, such as K h ristia n in y gave th e R ussian T h eo so p h ical Society cause for concern. Vestnik Teosofii p reserv ed p artial silence, b u t D m itrii S tran d en , w h o h ad replaced K udriavtsev as R am enskaia’s rig h t h a n d at th e R T O , answ ered th e criticism s in Teosofiia i ee k r itik i.104 FIe fo u n d F a th er D m itrevskii the least o b jectio n ab le, since his “ criticism ,” lean in g heavily o n M rs. Besa n t’s A n c ie n t W isdom and M oh in i M o h u n C h a tte rji’s Sacred K eligious Philosophy o f I n d ia y consisted m ostly o f a conscientious catalogue o f the fundam entals o f T heosophy. O nly in th e last chapter, “ B ezum ie Teosofii,” d id F a th er D m itrevskii offer a few pages o f O rth o d o x C hristian criticism , w hich S tran d en b rusquely dism issed as “definitely w ith o u t f o u n d a tio n .” 105 A nna K am enskaia and th e Russian T h eo so p h ists felt particularly b e ­ trayed by K udriavtsev’s an ti-T heosophical Chto takoe teosofiia i Teosoficheskoe Obshchestvo. Vestnik Teosofii review ed K udriavtsev’s b o o k in a ra th e r restrain ed to n e , saying only: Its cen ter o f gravity lies in its allegations that th e T h eo so p h ica l S o cie ty has secret, possibly revolu tionary goals and is practically a branch o f M asonry, and

in th e accusation th a t T h eo so p h y is inim ical to Christianity. O f course K. D . Kudriavtsev, a form er m em b er o f th e C ouncil from th e tim e th e Society was fo u n d ed , know s very well th a t th e Society does not engage in political activity an d has noth in g in co m m o n w ith M asonry. T h e q u estio n o f th e relationship betw een T h eo so p h y and C hristianity has been adequately elucidated in the T h eosophical lite ra tu re .106

Vestnik Teosofii m ade n o a tte m p t w hatsoever to address o n e o f K u ­ driavtsev’s prim ary criticism s, w hich con cern ed M rs. B esant’s establish­ m en t o f the O rd e r o f th e Star in the East. Religious and Spiritualist c rit­ ics, how ever, w ere generally pleased by K udriavtsev’s critique and his noisy re tu rn to th e fold. P. A. Chistiakov, review ing th e second ed itio n o f K udriavtsev’s book in Rebus1 felt th a t th e ex-T heosophist had p er­ form ed an im p o rta n t service and to ld his readers, “W e vigorously c o m ­ m end this b o o k to the a tte n tio n o f all persons w h o are just now b e g in ­ n ing to take an in terest in T h eo so p h y .” 107 S tra n d e n ’s answ er to T h e o so p h y ’s critics was typical o f T heosophical response to criticism . H e reso rte d to rep eatin g T h e o so p h y ’s credo as a self-evident answ er to its critics: T h eo so p h y is n o t inim ical to any religion, since it sees in each o f th e m an original expression o f o n e and th e sam e g re a t spiritual tru th ; it seeks th e ro o t o f all religions in o n e an d th e sam e source, th e in n er revelation o f th e W isdom o f G o d , in all ages and am o n g all peoples revealed to those w ho are pure o f h e a rt, an d w ho have achieved such h eig h ts o f m oral and spiritual p erfection th a t they have becom e w o rth y o f b ein g bearers o f th e u n m e d iatcd revelation o f D ivinity.108

S tran d en referred those critics w ho w ere u n c o m fo rtab le w ith the neoB uddhist dim ension o f T h eosophy to the “ C hristian T h e o so p h y ” o f R u d o lf S teiner (alth o u g h S tranden was m ost certainly aware th a t Steiner had recently left th e T heosophical Society after p ro lo n g e d struggle against those very B uddhist and H in d u elem ents). O therw ise, S tra n ­ d e n ’s “ p ro o fs” consist o f claims th a t “T h eo so p h y is acquired by living, n o t by th in k in g ,” th a t T h eosophy is scientific, unlike the u n su p p o rte d , subjective ravings o f its critics, and th a t T h e o so p h y ’s critics w ere all in ­ to le ran t, ig n o ra n t, and prejudiced. H is m ajor criticism , how ever, was reserved for Kudriavtsev, w ho h ad dared to w ash th e Society’s dirty linen in public. S tran d en dev o ted m o st o f his energy to condescendingly (b u t alas, unconvincingly) dism antling Kudriavtsev. T he T heosophists, how ever w ell-m eaning they m ay have been, were n o t able polem icists and th eir answers to th eir critics ten d e d to be hys­ terical, philosophically flaccid, sem antically u n certain, and even ig n o ­ ran t. T oo m any T heosophists, including D m itrii S tranden, were doctri-

nally confused, n o t only a b o u t B uddhism (after all, they had n o t grow n up in the co n tex t th a t inform s B uddhism and is inform ed by it), b u t also a b o u t the Russian O rth o d o x tra d itio n w hence they came. T hey were unable to avoid the seductive pitfalls o f their am ateur and to o often haphazard approach to the study o f com parative religions. T hey were insufficiently eru d ite to evaluate seriously M m e Blavatsky’s incredible etym ologies and extravagant analogies. Finally, they w ere neith er dis­ crim inating n o r rigorous in th eir philosophical th o u g h t. T he T h eo so p h ists’ sh ortcom ings in polem ics, how ever, in n o way negate the im portance o f th eir co n trib u tio n to the philosophical and cultural dialogue o f fin de siecle Russia. T hey added a creative and n e c ­ essary voice to the noisy and occasionally vituperative dialogue th at characterized th e Russian religious renascence. T raditional O rth o d o x C hristianity was becom ing less and less o f a viable force in th e lives o f som e elem ents w ithin Russian educated society; Theosophy, com peting w ith the neo-C hristianity o f D m itrii M erezhkovskii, the G od-b u ild in g o f M aksim G orkii, the Sophiology o f V ladim ir Solov’ev, the Dionysianism o f Viacheslav Ivanov, and o th e r esoteric worldview s presented by Russian Sym bolists, occultists, and am ateur philosophers, offered to fill the void in such a way th a t the desired reconciliation betw een religion and m aterialism m ig h t occur. U nfortunately, T h eosophy also proved to be unviable in the re to rt th a t was Russian Stiver Age culture. N e v e rth e ­ less, th at T h eosophy g enerated such a passionate fury o f discussion in educated circles is itself an indication th a t o n th e eve o f the First W orld W ar it to u ch e d the “bol’nye mesta, ” th e “ painful places” o f the Russian psyche and offered at least a tem p o rary respite from the suffocation o f a spiritual vacuum .

Seven T h e R u ssian T h e o s o p h ic a l M o v e m e n t a fte r 1 9 1 7

I n M a y 1 9 1 6 A n n a K am cnskaia received an in v ita tio n fro m M rs. B esant to visit th e T h eo so p h ica l H e a d q u a rte rs in A dyar th a t co m in g a u tu m n . She left R ussia a t th e e n d o f S e p te m b e r, trav elin g th ro u g h S iberia to C h in a a n d fro m th e re o v erla n d to In d ia. E x cited a b o u t h e r first visit to In d ia a n d to th e h e a rt o f th e T h e o so p h ic a l e m p ire , K am enskaia re ach e d th e S o ciety ’s H e a d q u a rte rs in A dyar, M ad ras, a m o n th a n d a h a lf later, oir N o v e m b e r 19, 1 9 1 6 , B ecause o f this visit to d is ta n t A dyar, she w o u ld n o t w itn ess th e b e g in n in g o f th e in cred ib le ev ents th a t to o k place in h e r nativ e land. W hile K am enskaia visited M rs. B esan t a n d stro lled th ro u g h th e lush g ard en s o f A dyar, th e u n b u ttre s s e d facade o f th e R ussian E m p ire c ru m ­ bled at last. A s th e R ussian m ilitary cam paigns o f th e F irst W orld W ar h ea d ed to w a rd d isaster, as R ussian losses m o u n te d , as th e R ussian e c o n ­ om y d isin te g ra te d , social u n re s t a n d la b o r strikes sp read . P u b lic tru s t in th e g o v e rn m e n t ev a p o rated . T h e c o n tin u in g influence o f th e h y p n o tic G rig o rii R asp u tin , th e sectarian m o n k , o v er th e royal fam ily fu rth e r sh ra n k th e already deflated credibility o f an in effectu al m onarchy. O n M arch 2 , 1 9 1 7 , in th e m id st o f chaos a n d in su rg en c e, T sar N ich o las II ab d ic a te d th e th ro n e o f th e R o m anovs a n d th e R ussian D u m a form ally a n n o u n c e d th e fo rm a tio n o f a P rovisional G o v e rn m en t. In R ussia, th e T h eo so p h ists g re e te d th e F e b ru a ry 1 9 1 7 R ev o lu tio n a n d th e P ro v isio n al G o v e rn m e n t w ith joy. W ritin g fro m In d ia , R a m e n ­ skaia was eq u ally en th u siastic. S he im m e d ia tely saw g re a t p o ssibilities for T h e o s o p h y in th e c u rre n t “ g re a t u p heaval in R ussia” :

W hat a great and all-encompassing mission has been assigned to our be­ loved Society! A free Russia will now take her honored place am ong enlightened peoples and soon will probably be called upon to play a great role in world history, having voiced her particularly “Russian w ord” on the questions o f the reor­ ganization o f social, hum an, and international relations. Political and social questions will naturally come to the fore and the heated work o f building wisely on new lines will attract all hearts, devoted to the M otherland. The Theosophists will o f course participate in this work.1 I f R ussian m essianism h a d fo u n d a peculiarly T h eo so p h ica l expression w ith th e ad v e n t o f w o rld w ar, th e F e b ru a ry R e v o lu tio n b ro u g h t a new

m essianic im pulse, inspiring Tsetsiliia G el’m b o l’d t and E lena Pisareva, ed ito rs o f Vestnik Teosofii in R am enskaia’s absence, to rhetorical flights. Surely th e rev o lu tio n ary events p ro p h esie d a crucial b re a k th ro u g h in th e h ig h er spheres; surely this was th e spiritual surge forw ard th a t R ussian T h eo so p h ists had lo n g been anticipating. S u m m o n in g up in its e n th u si­ asm every cliche c o n ta in ed in th e vocabulary o f th e R ussophiles and G od-seekers, an editorial in th e F e b ru ary Vestnik Teosofii effused: A blinding and stifling gloom surrounded us . . . It shrouded som ething great, im portant, som ething necessary to us all, som ething w ithout which it was impossible to continue living, som ething which terrified and troubled us with the riddle o f its existence, its undivined visage. . . . The tim e came for us n o t to gaze at our own individual portraits, exposing o u r own souls, but to apprehend our own, greater Visage, the unchanging, eternal Essence o f the Russian national soul. . . . The Visage o f H oly Russia revealed itself to us. . . . We had no po et-prophct to tu rn to in our days o f need, we had no leader, anointed by destiny. We had only the great H um ility o f the people, the centuries-long seeking, the craving for T ru th [Pravda], and the Suffering o f centu­ ries— the stigm ata o f the Cross. . . . N ow we have beheld, we have seen, and we can never forget. . . . T hat m o ­ m ent o f contact with the true Visage o f our Angel forever transfigured the popular elem ent, sealed it with a new stam p, gave it a new existence. The transfigured People, having conquered the darkness, will also conquer th em ­ selves. . . . Russia has a heavenly mission and thus her responsibility to the w orld is enorm ous. M agnanim ous and hum ble, w ith pure and unblem ished hands she m ust undertake the building o f the bright future for herself and for others. She will give the w orld a new religious consciousness, a divine revelation, apprehended in Brother-M an; she will realize in this world, together with Liberty and Equality, the forgotten ideal o f Fraternity, exhorting the m ighty and the powerful to sacrifice themselves in the service o f the powerless. F or a pure, virginal Spring o f creativity has been revealed in the depths o f the national soul and can never again be sealed up by anyone.2

F o r th e T h eo so p h ists th e m o v em en t o f h istory in general an d R ussian h isto ry in particu lar was a sequence n o t m erely o f w orld events, b u t o f cosm ic events. H isto ry was a d isto rte d and g ro te sq u e reflection in th e im perfect p h en o m en al w orld o f m ajor realignm ents tak in g place in th e n o u m en al w orld. T hose individuals w ith developed “ supersensible sig h t” c o u ld see the sym bolic logic th a t sto o d b e h in d seem ingly illogical events u n fo ld in g in th e w orld o f m aya. E ch o in g th e expectations (and vocabulary) n o t only o f R u d o lf Steiner, b u t also o f a particu lar seg m en t w ithin th e Russian intelligentsia, Pisareva p roclaim ed, “A new influx is beg in n in g , the seeds o f a new culture are finally sp ro u tin g , a new culture

w hich the Slavs are destined to provide for the sixth race o f the fu tu re .”3 She u rged th a t “ Russia create new paths, and n o t repeat the errors o f the W est, w hich has co n cen trated all its pow ers on building the o u ter m an and has com pletely fo rg o tten ab o u t edifying th e inner m an .”4 In their attitudes tow ard the F ebruary R evolution, the T heosophists surprisingly found com m on g ro u n d , ten u o u s th o u g h it m ig h t be, w ith the socialists. N. Plaksina, w riting in “ R evolution and O u r Tasks,” saw those tasks as the overcom ing o f egoism and com plete self-abnegation th ro u g h labor. “ It is o u r responsibility,” she w ro te, “ to au g m en t and illum inate the socialist concepts o f liberty, equality, and fraternity,” since the socialists in terp ret these concepts in an overly m aterialistic way; T heosophy w ould add a “spiritual” dim ension to th e N ew Russia th at socialist m aterialism alone could n o t supply.5 W hen A nna Ram enskaia eventually retu rn ed to Russia in M ay 1917, it was no longer th e Russia she had left eight m onths before. N ev erth e­ less, in spite o f strikes, chronic paper shortages, physical hardships, and a second, Bolshevik revolution in O cto b er, she rem ained optim istic ab o u t the N ew Russia and co n tin u ed to publish Vestnik Teosofii. W ithin m onths o f the O c to b e r coup, as the Bolsheviks began the consolidation o f their political p osition, R am enskaia’s enthusiasm w ithered.

A fter th e R e v o lu tio n In February 1918 Vestnik suddenly ceased publication w hen th e B olshe­ viks nationalized the paper supply and refused to issue paper to the Theosophical press, thus im posing a de facto censorship (censorship de jure w ould n o t be in place until th e e n d o f 1 921). Each issue since F e b ­ ruary 1917 had been g e ttin g sh o rte r and shorter. I f th e issues averaged 100 to 130 pages over the course o f w ar-torn 1916, th en th e tw o issues o f 1918 w ere sad little booklets by com parison, few er th an 55 pages, and p rin te d o n inferior paper. AU regular features w ere gone; th e reader was left only w ith th e opening chapters o f A nnie B esant’s Esoteric Chris­ tia n ity and a translation o f th e U panishads. N eith er w ork was com pleted in Bolshevik Russia. D isillusionm ent w ith the new regim e was soon w idespread in the oc­ cult com m unity. By governm ent order, the T heosophists, A nthroposophists, and o th e r mystical, occult, and religious groups w ere required to cease overt activities by th e end o f 1918. Som e m em bers w ere arrested; m any m ore left the co u n try while they could. T he O c to b e r coup was im m ediately follow ed by civil w ar, and the Bolsheviks had little tim e to w orry a b o u t enforcing th eir o rd er against the occult societies as they stru g g led to rem ain in power. E m erging vie-

torious in 1 9 2 0 , the Bolsheviks’ first priorities were necessarily political and econom ic. As soon as they felt secure, however, the Bolsheviks turned their attention to the mystical, occult, and religious groups. AU such groups were officially liquidated by a series o f governm ent decrees issued between June 1922 and July 1923. In her m em oirs, Kamenskaia described the imm ediate effect o f B o l­ shevik rule on the R T O : O u r press was closed, o u r savings w ere confiscated, o u r Society and even o u r private a p a rtm e n t w ere sealed. T h e T h eo so p h ical Society was u n a b le to c o n ­ tin u e its w o rk any longer. AU m eetin g s w ere fo rb id d en . W e m ade an a tte m p t to w o rk in th e co u n try sid e. W e w ere a g ro u p o f nin e m em bers o f th e T h eo sophical Society; o f th ese, fo u r w ere m em b ers o f th e C o u n cil, leaders o f th e M o v em en t. W e o p e n e d a w o rk in g c o m m u n e in V ladim ir province, an d shared o u r k n o w led g e w ith th e local peasants. O u r experience was em in en tly su c ­ cessful, b u t by sp rin g th e R ed Wave h a d flo o d ed th e co u n try sid e, and we had to flee from th ere. . . . W e re tu rn e d to P e te rsb u rg . . . . Som e o f o u r col­ leagues w ere already in p riso n o r in exile. W e d id n ’t know w h at to d o next; th e q u e stio n , p o in t-b la n k , was: sh o u ld we rem ain u n d e r th e new c o n d itio n s in Russia a n d b eco m e m artyrs, o r escape a n d co n tin u e o u r w ork abroad?6

The solution to Ramenskaia’s quandary arrived with a deputation o f E n­ glish workers on a visit to M oscow. T hey secretly carried a letter for Kamenskaia from Mrs. Besant. Kamenskaia made the decision to flee from Russia because “Annie Besant called m e, and her word was law to m e, and besides, I view ed events m ore optimistically, and thou gh t that in a year or tw o w e w ould be back in our native land” : She asked m e to com e an d stay w ith her. W e called o u r C o uncil to g e th e r and decided th a t th ree o f us, Ts. L. G el’m b o l’d t, V. N . P ushkina, an d I w o u ld flee ab ro ad , since th e re was n o possibility o f g e ttin g a p assp o rt to leave. We w ere fo rtu n a te e n o u g h to find an o rg a n iz a tio n w hich h elp ed refugees cross the b o rd e r in to F in lan d , a n d o n th e n ig h t o f I Ju n e 1921 Ts. L. a n d I crossed the b ord er. (V. N . fled a m o n th later.) In spite o f grave difficulties and dan g ers, w e successfully m ade o u r way to K uokkala an d w ere so o n hospitably received by th e F innish T [h eo so p h ical] S[ociety] in H elsin g fo rs.7

By the end o f July 1921 Pushkina was on her way to England, where she w ould work with the T heosophical service organization in London and continue as the Russian representative o f the Order o f the Star in the East, while Kamenskaia and G el’m b ol’dt were staying in Brussels w ith T heosophist friends. Ramenskaia was content to remain and work w ith either the Belgian or the Finnish Sections, but Mrs. Besant herself sent her to Geneva, where the Swiss Section had been having organiza­ tional difficulties. She was pleased to go to Switzerland, the scene o f her

childhood and youth. Back in Russia, with the departure o f the R T O ’s leaders, the slowly disintegrating Theosophical Society was headed by Sofiia Vladimirovna G er’e, the president o f the Moscow branch. Already ill and bedridden, she died soon after the Society was officially liqui­ dated in 1923, although Theosophical activity continued after her death, especially in the provinces. The Russian Aaithroposophists, although a considerably smaller group with a lower public profile, m et a similar fate. ATter the organized activities o f the Anthroposophical Society were officially curtailed, how ­ ever, A nthroposophical ideas were not immediately extinguished by the changed cultural environm ent in Russia. This was largely due to the ef­ forts o f Andrei Belyi and the prestige o f the Russian writers and critics interested in Steiner’s thought. Called up for Russian military service in 1916, Andrei Belyi had left D ornach and Steiner to return to Russia; he remained there through the years o f revolution and civil war.8 W hen he left Switzerland he had heard more than four hundred o f Steiner’s lectures and had attended Steiner’s elite Esoteric School. Between August 1916, when he returned to Petrograd, and O ctober 1921, when he again left Russia for Europe, Belyi was an active and influential participant in num erous artistic and philo­ sophical endeavors. H e also gave specialized lectures at meetings o f the M oscow Anthroposophical Society and hosted unofficial discussions about Steiner and Anthroposophy; these attracted considerable num ­ bers o f people. Belyi’s sincerity, depth o f knowledge, and sense o f con­ viction were inspiring; he made new converts to Anthroposophical thought after his return to Russia. Belyi was a founding m em ber o f VoVfila (The Free Philosophical As­ sociation, VoVnaia Filosofskaia Assotsiatsiiai Petrograd, 1 9 1 9-1923), an organization o f writers, philosophers, academics, and artists who met regularly to discuss literature and philosophy.9 The Petrograd VoVfila had a counterpart in Moscow, the Free Academy o f Spiritual Culture (VoVnaia A kadcm iia Dukhovnoi K uV turyi 1918—1 922).10 Many partici­ pants in these two organizations came from Theosophical and A nthroposophical backgrounds; still others were bound to Theosophy and A n­ throposophy by ties o f friendship and a m utual interest in speculative mysticism; almost all represented idealist philosophical tendencies. By 1920 the meetings o f VoVfila and the Free Academy attracted audiences as large as a thousand, while topics ranged from proletarian culture, Oswald Spengler’s culturological theories, and the philosophy o f Sym­ bolism, to Campanella’s City o f the Sun, neo-Platonism , the philosophy o f creativity, Russian literature, and A nthroposophy as a means o f self­ cognition. For four im portant years, from 1919 to 1923, Russian A n­ throposophy had a platform in Petrograd and in Moscow from which its

m o st visible ad h eren ts co u ld influence th e e m erg in g intellectual profile o f th e new Soviet regim e. By 1922 th e Russian A n th ro p o so p h ical S ociety’s activities had already b een lim ited a n d m any m em bers fled so u th to find relief from th e fam ine in th e cities. Seeking stre n g th in n u m b ers, th e Society (o n Vera Anisim ova-Stanevich’s initiative) a p p ro ach ed various spiritually inclined groups in an e ffo rt to o rganize th e Free A ssociation o f Spiritual T rends (Vo Vnoe Sodruzhestvo D ukhovnykh Techenii). A nisim ova a p p ro ach ed the T olstoyans, th e T h eo so p h ists, th e A narcho-M ystics, and th e C hristian S tu d e n ts U n io n , am o n g o th ers. T h e Free A ssociation m e t several tim es at th e T olstoyans’ vegetarian cafeteria in M oscow , b u t w ilted after less than a year. By 1 9 3 0 m any o f its m em bers w o u ld be in exile o r in lab o r cam ps. In 1923 th e occu lt an d spiritual m ovem ents fo u n d them selves se­ verely h a m p e red by g o v e rn m e n t disapproval. M o sco w ’s Free A cadem y o f Spiritual C u ltu re was d isb an d ed late in 1 9 2 2 a n d its philosophers w ere exiled from R ussia.11 P e tro g ra d ’s VoVfilet was closed early in 1923. T h e T h eo so p h ical and A n th ro p o so p h ical Societies, th e R ussian S p iritu ­ alist Society, th e M artinists, th e T olstoyans, an d all o th e r mystical and occu lt g ro u p s w ere perm an en tly liq u id ated by official decrees in th e first h a lf o f 1 9 23. In her discreet m em oirs, M . Z h em ch u zh n ik o v a, a y o u n g er m em ber o f th e M oscow A n th ro p o so p h ical Society, described how th e m em bers all felt “ th e closing o f th eir Society to be inevitable. I t was sim ple and m atter-of-fact. A decree appeared, req u irin g all societies, u n io n s, and org an izatio n s ‘n o t having m aterial benefit as th eir o b je c t’ to register. T h o se den ied reg istratio n w o u ld be subject to liq u id atio n . I t was q u ite clear th a t th e A n th ro p o so p h ical Society w o u ld n o t receive p er­ m ission to register.” 12 N o t all d e p lo re d the closing o f th e societies. A ndrei Belyi, w h o re ­ m ained a co m m itted A n th ro p o so p h ist to th e e n d o f his life, w ro te in 1928 th a t th e A n th ro p o so p h ical Society h a d in fact been a dead and useless th in g . “ It was clear to m e: S teiner is necessary, A n th ro p o so p h y is necessary, th e Society is unnecessary.” Belyi h ad left Russia in O c to b e r 1921 and was in G erm any w h en he learned th a t th e R ussian A n th ro p o sophical Society had b e e n closed.13 “ I was sad, b u t I was also glad; th e ‘A. S .’ S H O U L D N O T EX IST in Russia; the fate o f A n th ro p o so p h y is different here. A n th ro p o so p h y sh o u ld ‘b e d e w ’ peo p le, like dew m o is­ tens p arch ed e a rth , and n o t sim ply rem ain o n th e surface, like a ‘S O C I­ ETY .’ ” F o r Belyi, A n th ro p o so p h y was inextricably b o u n d up w ith his c o n c ep t o f cu ltu re and cultural renew al. A n th ro p o so p h y was a new, vital, spiritual cu ltu re; a society’s rigid bu reau cratic s tru c tu re and m u n ­ dane concerns only pulled each m em b e r away from th e a ll-im p o rta n t

spiritual task. H e concluded, “It is good that there are neither members nor a Society in Russia.” 14 The Bolsheviks waged war against the occult movements for a period o f twelve years. They closed the presses that published mystical and oc­ cult literature and confiscated their machinery. They removed occult books from bookstore and library shelves, sent them to inaccessible “special collections,” and, in some cases, even destroyed them as part o f their new campaign to eradicate remaining idealist, mystical, formalist, and “bourgeois intellectual” elements from their m idst.15 In spring 1922 the Bolsheviks opened a new “antireligious fro n t” that published a series o f books and journals calculated to “historicize” religion and “demystify” it. T hat fall, they exiled almost all the leading idealist phi­ losophers associated with the Russian Religious Renaissance; those not exiled would be arrested in the 1930s. These actions coincided with at­ tacks on mysticism by major figures o f the new regime, such as Trotsky’s virulent criticism o f Freemasonry at the F ourth Congress o f the C om in­ tern in D ecem ber 1922 and his attack on A nthroposophy and Andrei Belyi in Literature and Revolution (1923). The newspapers and popular press also ran num erous assaults on the occult societies. The official campaign against the “decadent bourgeois intelligentsia” signaled the end o f the period o f relatively open philosophical inquiry and the begin­ ning o f compulsory ideological conformity. After VoLfila and the occult societies were closed, the center o f Anthroposophical activity shifted briefly to the experimental Second Studio o f the Moscow Art Theater (MKhAT). Several o f its leading members were Anthroposophists, including the well-known actor and director Mikhail Chekhov (1 8 9 1 -1 9 5 5 ), who headed M KhAT’s Studio I from 1918 to 1924 (when it was renam ed Studio II), and from 1924 until 1928, when he em igrated in the wake o f accusations that he was using the Studio to disseminate Anthroposophical doctrines inconsistent with M KhAT’s worldview. Chekhov was responsible for the staging o f A n­ drei Belyi’s Anthroposophical drama, Petersburg, in 1925. H e also staged two A nthroposophical plays by N adezhda Nikolaevna Bromlei (1884—1966), poet, writer, dramatist, and actress at MKhAT: A rkhangel M ikhail (1922) and Korol kvadratnoi respubliki (1925). C he­ khov also incorporated Steiner’s concept o f the “H igher S elf’ into his acting m ethod. The MKhAT Studio II was an unlikely pulpit for the M ovem ent, but Anthroposophical ideas managed to stay alive there until 1928. The postrevolutionary legacy o f Theosophy and A nthroposophy also survived in Russian art and poetry o f the avant-garde. The twenties, d e­ spite the clouds o f repression clearly gathering on the horizon, was a

p e rio d o f intense intellectual a n d artistic ferm en t. O c c u lt co n cep ts and im ages e n te re d in to this heady, experim ental en v iro n m en t, o fte n in u n ­ suspected a n d ro u n d -a b o u t ways. E astern literatu re and m ysticism , th e T heosophical p h ilosophy o f P. D . U spenskii, a n d th e c o n tin u in g influ ­ ence o f m ajo r painters w ith T heosophical in terests, such as Wasily K andinsky and N ikolai R oerich, e x e rted an influence o n R ussian C u b o F u tu rism , especially o n th e p a in tin g o f M ikhail M atiu sh in (1 8 6 1 -1 9 3 4 ) and K azim ir M alevich ( 1 8 7 8 -1 9 3 5 ), and th e p o e try o f Aleksei K ruchenykh (1 8 8 6 —1 9 6 8 ). T h e p o e t V elim ir K hlebnikov (1 8 8 5 —1 9 2 2 ) also left a legacy o f o rien tal th o u g h t in his arcane and esoteric literary w orks.16 Russian abstract a rt, highly ideological, strove to realize U spenskii’s suggestion th a t “fro m th e fo u rth d im en sio n it sh o u ld be possible to see th e cu b e sim ultaneously from all sides an d fro m th e inside, as if from th e cen ter, even th o u g h in th re e dim ensions it m ig h t seem totally un tran sp a re n t.” 17 I n developing his theo ries o f th e fo u rth an d fifth dim ensions (in w hich linear tim e and th ree-d im en sio n al space are show n to be an illusion), U spenskii was influenced n o t only by C harles H in to n , R. M . Bucke, and F riedrich N ietzsch e, b u t also by M m e Blavatsky. H is th e o ry “p ro v e d ” th a t th e dim ensions o f tim e and space are th e illusory p ro d u c ts o f m aya, w hile e te rn ity is a n o th e r, h ig h er d im en sio n , visible to th e “ new m a n ” w ith “supersensible sig h t,” th e m a n .w h o realized his “ h ig h er self,” th e T h eo so p h ical Superm an. T h e B olshevik reg im e’s bans, reg u latio n s, a n d p ro p ag a n d a w ere in ef­ fective in sto p p in g occult activity in Soviet Russia as lo n g as physical repression was m inim al. W h en o ccu lt books w ere n o lo n g er openly available, occultists o b ta in e d th e m th ro u g h a black m ark et system o f p ri­ vate dealers specializing in fo rb id d e n books. W h en som e presses w ere closed, o th e r presses p rin te d texts in th e u n d e rg ro u n d , u sin g false im ­ p rin ts and b o o tle g g e d paper. T h e police did n o t (in d eed , could n o t) p rev e n t small gro u p s from g a th e rin g in private ap artm en ts. A nd while th e Bolsheviks did n o t hesitate to liq u id ate o ccu lt circles w ith obvious political agendas an d to arrest th eir m em b ers, actual liq u id atio n was in fact an exception, n o t a rule. D r. A leksandr Aseev, an in d e p e n d e n t R u s­ sian o ccultist th e n living in Yugoslavia, o b served th a t b e tw e en 1 9 2 3 and 1929 m any circles w ere able to c o n tin u e th eir w ork: O fficially th ese circles co u ld n o t, o f cou rse, be registered , b u t th ey actively fu n ctio n ed and w ere n o t in fact p ersecu ted , alth o u g h the w ell-in fo rm ed G P U m u st have b een aware o f their existen ce. O f th e old er o cc u lt org a n iza tio n s, th e T h eo so p h ists w ere q u ite active, even th o u g h th e R ev o lu tio n had deprived them o f their m o st exp erien ced leaders— a lm o s t th e en tire C o u n cil o f the R ussian T h eosop h ical S o cie ty em igrated; th e T h eo so p h ists regularly sch ed -

u lcd m eetin gs to w hich they invited guests; they had solid libraries o f o ccu lt b ooks, and fearlessly co rresp o n d ed w ith each other. . . . T h e A n th ro p o so phists m et alm ost op en ly as w ell. T h e R osicrucians and so m e M asonic organ i­ zation s also rem ained active, alth ou gh they w ere considerably m ore conspira­ torial; even som e n ew occu lt organizations em erg ed . 18

In the first twelve years th a t follow ed the Bolshevik revolution, while som e individuals were arrested and som e occult circles broken up, no serious mass repressions o f occultists o ccu rred and m any organizations carried on th eir activities discreetly, b u t m ore o r less openly, especially in the provinces. T he situation changed dram atically w ith the im plem entation o f the First Five-Year Plan in 1929. In th a t year the Bolsheviks, spurred on by Stalin, launched a new cam paign against the “ rem nants o f the bourgeois intelligentsia,” actively h u n tin g dow n and arresting m em bers o f occult groups on a large scale and confiscating th eir libraries and archives. After 1929 those T heosophists, A nthroposophists, and o th e r occultists w ho rem ained free w en t u n d e rg ro u n d or ceased their activities altogether. A rrest for “ occult pro p ag an d a” after 1933 inevitably m ean t exile and frequently m ean t execution. T he d e stru ctio n o f the occult societies by decree, arrest, exile, and execution did n o t destroy Russian interest in occultism , especially in its m ore vulgar form s. Spiritualism , m edium ism , parapsychology, and the supernatural co n tin u ed to attract m any Russians even after 1929. Tablerapping and hypnotism rem ained particularly popular. “A great a ttrac ­ tio n to spiritism has been observed in M oscow ,” lam ented a M oscow new spaper, “ and in spite o f the ban, public seances o f mass hypnotism are being held in one o f the w orkers’ clubs.” 19 N eith er did political repression term inate the sense o f m ission shared by th e occultists w ho had escaped arrest. M any co n tin u ed th eir studies individually or bravely lectured to sm all, tru ste d groups in the Russian spiritual u n d erg ro u n d ; they p ro d u ce d new translations o f m aterials th at occasionally seeped in from abroad; th ey copied and recopied existing m aterials to prevent the loss o f texts w hen their tiny private libraries w ere periodically confiscated and th eir m em bers taken away by the se­ cret police. A fter S talin’s d eath, exiled m em bers o f th e T heosophical, A nthroposophical, and som e o th e r occult societies w ere allow ed to re tu rn to M oscow and Leningrad. W hen those w ho had survived the purges fi­ nally did re tu rn to the capitals, they organized in small circles th a t the u ninitiated could n o t p enetrate and began to rebuild their libraries and their m ovem ents. Theosophical and A nthroposophical texts circulated am ong them in precious prerevolutionary editions and in m anuscript

copies th a t h ad been preserved at g reat risk th ro u g h th e years o f Stalinist te rro r and w orld war. T heosophical and A n th ro p o so p h ical circles have flourished in postSoviet Russia (as have n u m e ro u s o th e r occu lt g ro u p s, from R osicrucians to th e disciples o f N ikolai R oerich). T h e changes th a t began in Soviet society in the seco n d h a lf o f th e 1980s as a result o f M ikhail G o rb ach ev ’s policy o f glasnos? have b ro u g h t these Societies o u t o f th eir se m id o rm a n t state and allow ed th em to en ter, albeit tenuously, th e d ialogue a b o u t spiritual renew al in Russia. Z h e m ch u z h n ik o v a, w ritin g in 1 9 7 5 , antici­ pa te d th a t th e R ussian A n th ro p o so p h ical m o v em en t w o u ld send o u t new shoots once th e R ussian spiritual renaissance cam e, an d th a t “ the Soul o f th e R ussian people w o u ld be arrayed in th e m w h en , having passed th ro u g h its tragic p u rg ato ry , it w o u ld appear in all th e greatness o f its historical m ission.” 20

T h e “R u ssia n T h e o so p h ic a l S o c ie ty O u tsid e R u ssia ” W hile T h e o so p h y and A n th ro p o so p h y appeared to have little fu tu re in th e fu rth e r ev o lu tio n o f Soviet R ussian cu ltu re after 1 9 2 9 , A nna Ram enskaia succeeded in re sto rin g th e fo rtu n e s o f th e R ussian T h eo sophical Society O u tsid e Russia w ith in an am azingly s h o rt perio d . B e­ tw een 1922 and 1924 she tracked d o w n th e R ussian T heosophical dias­ p o ra and m anaged to m ake co n ta c t w ith m any R ussian T h eo so p h ists w h o h ad been scattered th ro u g h o u t th e w o rld after th e O c to b e r R evo­ lu tio n . M any R ussian T h eo so p h ists h a d tak en refuge w ith th e national sections o f o th e r countries. T h u s a R ussian T h eo so p h ical circle in Reval (T allinn), h e a d ed by an old R T O m em ber, Professor N . I. Erassi, was fo rm ed by th e fall o f 1921 a n d was affiliated w ith th e E nglish S ection in M ay 1922. T h re e separate R ussian circles w ere c h a rtere d by th e F innish Section b etw een 1920 and 1 9 2 4 .21 Sim ilar circles re p o rte d in from the Far E ast (from V ladivostok, T ia n tsin, S hanghai, H ankow , an d H o n g K ong), from B erlin, Paris, L y o n , F lorence, T u rin , C o n sta n tin o p le , San Francisco, B rooklyn, Batavia (D jak arta), an d various cities in S o u th A m erica. K am enskaia received new s o f all th e ir activities. In th e su m m er o f 1 9 2 4 M rs. B esant and th e T h eo so p h ical C ouncil gave A nna Kam enskaia perm ission to organize a R ussian A ssociation (Kusskoe O baedinenie) u n d e r th e auspices o f th e p a re n t Society as a p re ­ lim inary step to w ard officially c h a rterin g a Russian T h eo so p h ical Society O u tsid e Russia. M rs. B esant n a m e d K am enskaia chair o f th e R ussian A s­ sociation and fully em p o w ered h er to act for th e T heosophical Society. M em bership in th e R ussian A ssociation was n o t by application, b u t by

recom m endation. Russian Theosophical circles already associated w ith o th er national sections were encouraged to m aintain their affiliations and sim ultaneously participate in th e Russian A ssociation. T here were no m em bership dues; in m ost cases the d estitute Russian em igres w ould n o t have been able to afford them anyway. H aving lost one organization to the tidal wave o f history, the d e te r­ m ined and w ell-organized Ram enskaia succeeded in establishing an ­ other. A t the F iftieth A nniversary C ongress o f the T heosophical Society in Adyar, M adras, o n D ecem ber 2 4 - 3 1 , 1925, th e G eneral C ouncil o f the T heosophical Society approved the Russian A ssociation’s petitio n to be recognized once again as th e Russian N ational Section. O n the first o f th e year (January I , 1926) Ram enskaia received the charter, signed by M rs. Besant, auth o rizin g the “ Russian T heosophical Society O utside Russia” (Rossiiskoe Teosoficheskoe Obshchestvo vne Rossii; R T O vR ). T he charter allow ed the Russian Society to retain its historical status as the fo u rte en th national section ch artered by the p a re n t Society (forty-one national sections had been ch artered by 1925). A t the tim e o f this sec­ o nd charter, th e Russian Theosophical Society O utside Russia had 10 lodges, 20 centers, and 175 registered m em bers.22 T he Russian Section was the only national section w ith o u t a hom eland, and so it enthusiasti­ cally participated in international activities.23 Ram enskaia’s prim ary to o l in the renew al o f the R T O vR was h er new jo u rn al Vestnik: Satyat N a sti Paro D harm ah (“T h ere is no religion h igher th an tru th ). T he first issue, approved by the Theosophical Soci­ ety and financed by th e E uropean F ederation (the organization o f E u ro ­ pean national sections) and private donations, appeared in April 1924. A spare m agazine o f ab o u t a do zen pages, it was p rin ted in Brussels and d istrib u ted free o f charge. T h e jo urnal quickly d o u b led in size. Its for­ m at was essentially th at o f its St. P etersburg predecessor: it began w ith Ram enskaia’s editorial colum n, “ O n W atch,” and included sh o rt origi­ nal articles by Russian m em bers; poem s by V ladim ir Solov’ev, R onstantin Bal’m o n t, M ax V oloshin, A leksandr Pushkin, and others; gem s o f oriental and occidental w isdom ; translations o f W estern T heosophical classics and speeches by the president; and a chronology o f the T heosophical M ovem ent. Ram enskaia and G el’m b o l’d t ed ited it to g e th e r and w ere its prim ary co ntributors. “I receive letters and inquiries from alm ost all th e countries o f E u ­ ro p e,” w rote Ram enskaia in h er first editorial colum n; “ they also com e from the Americas and China. A nd all o f them tell o f terrible spiritual isolation and an acute h u n g e r for b o o k s.”24 Russian T heosophists from all over the w orld com plained o f th e d earth o f classic T heosophical texts in Russian, o f having to copy and share books preserved from th e Revo-

lution, o f the lack o f discussion materials. Clearly th e establishm ent o f a Russian press to print Theosophical books was o f param ount im por­ tance to the strengthening o f the new Society. And it was imperative th a t precious resources be husbanded: translating and publishing efforts had to be coordinated to avoid duplication and waste. N o one was b e t­ ter placed than Ramenskaia, in Geneva, to oversee this activity. E ventu­ ally she coordinated the publishing w ork o f three m ajor Russian Theosophical presses in Brussels, Geneva, and Tallinn. Smaller presses existed in China, Prague, and Paris. The Geneva Vestnik was a pale im itation o f the St. Petersburg publi­ cation. N o interesting original thinker o f the caliber o f P. D. Uspenskii or Pavel Batiushkov em erged from th e Theosophical em igration; even the translated articles were o f minimal interest. T he best m ind repre­ sented in the journal was Anna Ram enskaia’s, and she was occupied al­ m ost exclusively w ith holding the M ovem ent together: she published Vestnik, corresponded extensively, traveled a great deal, and lectured frequently. Spiritual sentim entality and em igre nostalgia reigned on Vestnik1s pages. Ramenskaia and the faithful Ts. L. G el’m bol’d t continued the tradi­ tions o f the Russian Theosophical Society th at they had helped to estab­ lish in St. Petersburg. They were joined by Elena Pisareva, w ho, after great difficulty, m anaged to leave Soviet Russia in the fall o f 1922 and go to her daughter in U dine, in n o rth ern Italy. AU three w om en were involved in philanthropic and international relief work. T he Geneva Theosophists, especially Anna Ramenskaia, w ere involved in various re­ lief projects sponsored by the League o f N ations, which they enthusias­ tically supported; they coordinated their Theosophical relief w ork w ith the League’s N ansen International Office for Refugees, based in G e­ neva. M any Russian Theosophists were associated w ith various charit­ able and public-spirited groups; they w orked for labor, peace, hum an rights, animal rights, education, philanthropy, and vegetarianism. Ramenskaia to o k on many public responsibilities, b o th for the Theosophical Society and for the num erous social organizations w ith which she was affiliated. In addition to her oth er duties, she ran th e In tern a­ tional Theosophical C entre in Geneva (sponsored by the European F ed­ eration) from its founding in 1928 to its dissolution a decade later. N o r did she neglect her own intellectual grow th: on June 17, 1926, R a­ menskaia defended a doctoral dissertation, “La Bhagavad-Gita, son role dans Ie m ouvem ent religieux de l’Inde et son u n ite,” at the University o f Geneva. F or the next twenty-five years she tau g h t at the university as a privat-docent; her specialty was H in d u philosophy. Ramenskaia lived and w orked together w ith G el’m b o l’dt, her girl­ hood friend; their Geneva apartm ent in the rue Cberbuliez, N o. 2, dou-

bled as the headquarters o f the RTOvR. G ePm boPdt helped her edit Vestnik and directed “ Giordano B runo,” the Russian Theosophical Lodge in Geneva. By 1933 they were joined in Geneva by Elena Pavlovna Solovskaia, an Odessa Theosophist who had participated in the establishm ent o f the “Iaroslav M udryi” Lodge in Belgrade, where there was a large and active Russian com m unity o f occultists.25 As the ailing G ePm boPdt became increasingly bedridden, Solovskaia took over her many duties. The three w om en lived together in their Theosophical apartm ent, which Solovskaia called “the occult nunnery.” Over the course o f its fifteen-year existence, the optimism o f Vestnik about Russia and the future o f Theosophical w ork in Russia never w a­ vered. The dedicated members o f the RTO vR believed th at everything they were accomplishing in exile was only preparation for the great role they would soon be called on to play in their hom eland as the time ap­ proached when they would return and lead the Revolution o f the Spirit. Again history was explained in accordance with the principles o f Theosophical cosmology: “The European war, the Russian Revolution, the extraordinary dimensions o f the w orld catastrophe which played itself out before our very eyes,” w rote Elena Pisareva, “evoked in my imagina­ tion the image o f a cosmic 'Pralayaj which separates one m anvantara from another.”26 World war, revolution, civil war were all perceived as reflections in the material world o f a cleansing catastrophe that heralded the end o f one cycle and, after a period o f obscuration, the beginning of a new, superior cycle in which Russia would fulfill its dharma, the “higher tru th ” that informs its cosmic mission, and finally give voice to its spiritual “w ord.”27 AU this had been predicted by M me Blavatsky, Mrs. Besant, and R udolfSteiner (well before 1917, he had made several predictions about the catastrophe that w ould overtake Russia). The Slavs were to be the people o f the next (sixth) sub-race; theirs was a brilliant future. Clearly the world catastrophe only heralded the end o f the fifth sub-race, the Aryan race that had so long dom inated world evolution. Following the cosmological pattern, the brief period o f obscuration w ould be followed by the rise o f the Slavs and the fulfillment o f their cosmic mission. The Theosophists, blending fin de siecle Russian millennialism and messianism with Buddhist cosmology, knew w hat that mission was to be. It was n o t to be bolshevism, o f that they were certain. T he Bolsheviks were an evil force let loose by the Russian nation’s bad karma to ravage a sinful and guilty Russian land. But bolshevism was only a tem porary chimera whose karma w ould ru n its course; meanwhile, “enorm ous possibilities” still lay dorm ant in Russia. The Theosophists saw the Bol­ sheviks as unconsciously working for the mission o f Russia and even interpreted the Soviet ham m er and sickle as hidden symbols o f the

b lacksm ith’s a rt, h in tin g at fu tu re tra n sm u ta tio n an d tra n sfo rm atio n .28 B olshevik rule w ould be th e cleansing fire o u t o f w hich a new, p u re R u s­ sia w ould be forged. T h e salvation o f Russia lay in its rec o g n itio n o f th e h ig h er tru th an d fulfillm ent o f its cosm ic m ission, o r d u ty (dharm a). T h e R ussian T h eo sophical p e rc e p tio n o f this d u ty h ad n o t ch an g ed since th e fo u n d in g o f th e Society: Russia’s d u ty was to b ecom e th e bridge betw een th e E ast and th e W est. “W e, th e Slavs, th e wall betw een th e E ast and th e W est, m u st sing o u r original song, w hich po u rs from o u r soul, and th ereb y build a b ridge across w hich shall com e th e n atio n s o f th e O rie n t an d the O ccid en t, and m erge in to o n e g reat, friendly, universal fam ily,” ex­ claim ed K am enskaia.29 T h e im age o f Russia as th e b ridge b etw een E ast and W est becam e th e central m eta p h o r o f R ussian T h e o so p h y in the em igration. A key tex t for th e R ussian T h eo so p h ists a b ro a d was A nna R a­ m enskaia’s speech a t th e V ienna T h eo so p h ical C ongress, “T h e In te r­ n atio n al M ission o f th e Slavs” ; it was re p rin te d in Vestnik in early 1925 and closely p e ru se d in th e various T h eo so p h ical stu d y g ro u p s, b ecom ing prescriptive for th e M o vem ent. “ T h e Slavic race does n o t know its fate, it lives in ex p ectatio n , it belongs to th e fu tu re ,” R am enskaia w ro te , play­ in g to th e hopes an d lon g in g s o f th e em ig ratio n . “T h e very n am e o f th e Slavs is s u rro u n d e d by m ystery, for o n the one h a n d it evokes th e eternal R arm a o f suffering and slavery (esclave), while o n th e o th e r it seem s to herald a glorious [slavnoe] fu tu re .” 30 R am enskaia fu rth e r related Slav­ d o m and “ g lo ry ” (slctvct) w ith “ th e w o rd ” (slovo), th u s creatin g an al­ m o st m ythic trin ity o f concepts th a t spoke to th e natio n alist and m essi­ anic dream s o f th e R ussian e m ig ratio n (such triu n e fo rm u latio n s w ere characteristic o f th e R ussian religious renaissance). She co n c lu d e d w ith a paean to th e m ysticism , in tu itio n , enthusiasm , love, a n d spirituality th a t she co n sid ered an integral p a rt o f th e Slavic soul. R am enskaia praised Slavic c o n te m p t for m aterial goods. T his very c o n te m p t for m aterialism allow ed m any R ussian intellectuals to see th eir p ro p erty confiscated, a n d to see in th a t confiscation a ju st act, and th e b eg in n in g o f a new era, she p o in te d o u t. “ O n e m u st b ecom e a new m an, free o f th e b o n d s [ o f m aterial desires and o f th e p a st], in o rd e r to freely b u ild th e T em ple o f th e fu tu re ,” she w ro te , so u n d in g oddly like Lenin. “ B etw een th e W est, w hich seeks th e G o o d , and th e E ast, w hich strives for T ru th , will it n o t be th e Slavs w ho build th e bridge across th e B eau­ tiful, w hich they revere?” 31 R am enskaia, h erself passionately d e v o te d to In d ia n c u ltu re, felt certain th a t in th e Slavs “ still live th e an cient A ryan trad itio n s and th e spirit o f th e Vedic h e ro e s.” T h e Slavs are a y o u n g race, she felt, an d they still have m u ch to learn, b u t th ey will eventually u n d e r­ stan d th e responsibility o f th eir freed o m , achieve self-aw areness, and c o m p re h en d th eir destiny, th eir dh arm a, w hich they are collectively

fated to fulfill. “In this h o u r,” she predicted, “ crucified Russia will com e dow n from th e Cross to w hich it has been nailed d u rin g these years o f indescribable suffering” and build the long-aw aited bridge u n itin g East and W est.32 I f Kam enskaia had a criticism o f the Slavic soul, it was in its undiscrim inating idealism and expansiveness o f character. She w arned against the tendency o f th e Slavs to endeavor to realize concretely their ow n tru th , to create heaven o n earth in their ow n im age, no m atte r w hat the cost. N o guarantee existed, how ever, th a t w hat the Slavic soul em braced w ith such passion was indeed the tru th (unless, o f course, it em braced T heosophy); one had only to look at th e results o f L enin’s atte m p t to create a socialist utopia in the Soviet U n io n . T h e Russian T heosophists saw their historical fate as a great trial, an initiation, d u rin g w hich they had to prove them selves w orthy o f th e for­ m idable task at hand. T hey explicitly identified them selves and the fate o f th eir co u n try w ith th e im ita tio Christi (as did A ndrei Belyi, and as did the philosophers o f Vekhi, then also in exile). W riting a b o u t her recep ­ tio n as a Russian expatriate in E ngland in 1924, Ram enskaia even used the im agery o f the Passion: everyw here she was “ m et as th e representa­ tive o f an em inent and enigm atic land, passing th ro u g h th e G olg o th a o f the historical cross tow ard a great fu tu re .” 33 T he vocabulary o f th e Pas­ sion was everyw here p resent in the T heosophical prose o f Vestnik: “ c ru ­ cifixion,” “ G o lg o th a,” “ nailed to the cross,” “suffering,” “ crow n o f th o rn s .” A t the end o f th e narrow way, how ever, always lay a fu tu re as b rig h t as, or even b righter th an , th a t prom ised by the Bolsheviks. In an effo rt to help Russians achieve self-awareness and discover their dharm a, Elena Pisareva founded th e “ U n io n o f Service to Russia” (Soiuz sluzkeniia Rossii) in 1924. Branches o f this U n io n so o n form ed in L o n ­ d o n , Brussels, Prague, Berlin, Reval (Tallinn), Belgrade, G eneva, and o th e r cities. T he U n io n ’s credo was: “ I believe in G od, I believe in the victory o f the G o o d , I believe in th e R esurrection o f Russia.” T h e U n io n to u c h e d on every m ythic m o m en t, every archetypal p erception, every em otional tie th a t b o u n d th e em igration to its hom eland. It encouraged Russian handicrafts, the study o f O rthodoxy, Russian folklore, art, liter­ atu re, and m usic. “W hat else can Russian exiles, forced o u t in to strange lands, think a b o u t, dream a b o u t, and speak a b o u t, if n o t ab o u t o u r dear, suffering, great M o th er-H o m elan d ?” asked Pisareva.34 T h e “U n io n o f Service to Russia” did everything it could to encourage th e preservation o f Russian culture so th a t w hen the tim e came to re tu rn to T heosophical w ork in th e hom eland, the T heosophists could restore to their native land th e Russian culture destroyed by the Bolsheviks. T h e R T O vR was n o t cut o ff from o th e r em igration m ovem ents or from in d ep en d en t Russian T heosophists ab ro ad .35 Kam enskaia stayed in to u c h w ith Russian religious philosophy o f the em igration and occasion-

ally debated w ith its representatives on the pages o f Vestnik. She took issue, for example, w ith articles and lectures by Nikolai Berdiaev, Dmitrii M erezhkovskii, Boris Vysheslavtsev, and oth er figures o f the Russian religious renaissance in the em igration. She was appalled th at although m ore than tw enty years had passed since their initial confrontation in the Religious-Philosophical Society, “we are forced to observe, w ith a cer­ tain incom prehension, th at the Theosophical doctrine, w ith w hich it has certainly been possible to becom e b etter acquainted, is still being treated by a well-known faction w ith th a t same puerile lack o f th o u g h t and that same superficial criticism which astounded us in the past.”36 The Russian Theosophical Society’s sense o f mission did n o t wane in the em igration; on the contrary, it grew ever stronger. Ramenskaia, w riting thirteen years after th e founding o f the U nion o f Service to R us­ sia, continued to extend the m etaphor, using the im agery characteristic o f the G od-seeking intelligentsia: Specifically h ere, abroad, w here our visage is n o t d isto rted , w here it can freely m anifest itself, specifically here w e are g iven an im p ortan t task: to preserve our native values and to bring th em carefully th ro u g h all storm s and ill w in d s, in order to place th em reverently at th e altar o f ou r resurrected h o m ela n d . W e m ust d o m ore than ju st bring th ese spiritual values in all their in violab ility as an o ffe rin g , b u t w e m u st also prepare ou rselves, as k n ig h ts bearing th e L ig h t, th e builders o f a future free R ussia.37

The last issue o f the Geneva Vestnik appeared at th e end o f 1940. In 1939 there had been some concern th at th e C ouncil o f the Theosophical Society m ight choose n o t to continue the charter o f the RTO vR, since the Russian Section had ceased to grow. Several o f the Russian lodges had disintegrated as their aged m em bers, those who had been affiliated w ith the original Russian Section in St. Petersburg, m oved away or died. Vestnik was a financial drain (it had been in th e red for m ost o f its existence, and Ramenskaia constantly begged for co n trib u ­ tions). Like the first Vestnik, also a victim o f historical catastrophe and war, the second Vestnik ceased publication w ith o u t notice. D uring the Second W orld War, Ramenskaia w orked for the peace m ovem ent and war relief efforts. She sent Theosophical texts and old copies o f Vestnik to Russian prisoners o f war. After the war, she w orked w ith displaced persons. She continued to teach at the University o f G e­ neva, fielded inquiries from Theosophists around the w orld, and distrib­ u ted her dw indling stockpile o f Russian Theosophical texts. W hen she finally died on June 23, 1952, just two m onths before h er eighty-sixth birthday, the obituary in th e Journctl de Geneve observed th a t she was “devoted to an ideal and ardent in th e service o f all noble causes.”38 Ramenskaia’s zealous and tenacious personality was the driving force behind the existence o f the Russian Theosophical Society from the very

beginning. A nna Kam enskaia was th e R T O . I t is appropriate th a t she was repeatedly and unanim ously reelected to th e presidency o f the R T O ; n o one else ever held th a t p o st at any tim e d u rin g the Russian Society’s entire existence. She saw the Russian Society th ro u g h th e traum as and setbacks o f the years in exile; th ro u g h K rishnam urti’s unexpected disso­ lu tio n o f the O rd e r o f th e Star in the East in 1929 and his resignation from the T heosophical Society the next year; th ro u g h the decim ation o f the Russian Society by the deaths o f its leading m em bers; th ro u g h M rs. B esant’s tu rn to w ard “ evangelical occultism ” and h er proclam ation o f the “N ew E ra,” w hich could n o t have been entirely to the Russians’ taste. T he R T O lived as lo n g as Kam enskaia sto o d “ O n W atch” and fo u g h t the Russian tendency tow ard fragm entation and ideological divi­ sion; it was fed by her stre n g th o f will, h er organizational com petence, her health, and h er com plete devotion to th e organization. W hen she died, the R T O died. A fter A nna Kam enskaia’s death th e Russian T heosophical M ovem ent inevitably dissolved because there was n o lo n g er a need for it. She had outlived her entire generation. I f she failed to build a Theosophical bridge betw een E ast and W est, she succeeded in creating an o th er bridge th at led the em igre Russian T heosophists from an old w orld to a new one; she was th eir reliable anchor in a disintegrating universe. N ow her generation was gone. Its children, if they rem ained T heosophists, m elted naturally in to the national sections o f o th e r countries, w hose lan­ guage they had accepted and in to w hose culture they had begun to as­ sim ilate. This second generation was already cu t o ff from Russian soil; the call to retu rn to Theosophical w ork in Russia did n o t com e in their lifetim e. M o d ern h istory m ade it im possible for th em to share th eir par­ e n ts’ optim istic and messianic expectations.

A fterw o rd : T h e o so p h y ’s Im p a c t on F in d e Siecle R ussian C u ltu re

o f th o u g h t and culture to dismiss as superficial and p e­ ripheral the role th a t Theosophy and o th er occult m ovem ents played in the crisis o f culture and consciousness experienced by fin de siecle E u ­ rope and Russia w ould be a p rofound error. The psychologist Carl G us­ tav Jung, speaking o f the proliferation o f such religious and quasi-religious m ovem ents at th e tu rn o f the century, pointed o u t th at “the w orld has seen nothing like it since th e end o f the seventeenth century. We can com pare it only to the flowering o f G nostic th o u g h t in the first and sec­ ond centuries after C hrist.” Jung was profoundly aware th at “th e spiri­ tual currents o f o u r tim e have, in fact, a deep affinity w ith G nosti­ cism. . . . T he m ost impressive m ovem ent numerically is undoubtedly Theosophy, to g eth er w ith its continental sister, A nthroposophy; these are pure Gnosticism in H in d u dress.” 1 Nikolai Berdiaev, an am bivalent seeker w ho was no friend to T heosophy in the latter part o f his life, nev­ ertheless realized th at “in spite o f the charlatanism w ith w hich it is so often associated, T heosophy is n o t to be taken lightly and we m ust rec­ ognize it as an im portant sym ptom . Its grow ing popularity is bou n d up w ith the crisis which has overtaken b o th science and Christianity. I t is sym ptom atic o f a profound unrest in man and o f a retu rn to the spiri­ tual. M oreover, neither science nor th e official church are attaching suf­ ficient im portance to Theosophy and the occultism connected with it.”2 T h at occult philosophy has long been considered incom patible w ith the prevailing worldview and “establishm ent culture” (and therefore in ­ tellectually unrespectable) in no way diminishes its enduring popularity or its im portance to the history o f ideas. James W ebb, in the in tro d u c­ tion to his chronicle o f nineteenth-century esoteric trends, The Occult Underground, concludes, “To ignore the occult revival o f the nine­ teenth century is to ignore a large slice o f m odern intellectual develop­ m en t” ; he goes so far as to suggest th at “the proper understanding o f the workings o f the occult m ind explains m uch which has been puzzling com m entators on the history o f the last fifty years as w ell.” 3 T heosophy was an organic part o f a broad and at times frantic search for new values and a new w orld conception. This search, o r quest (to use a m ore ro ­ mantic term ), was sym ptom atic o f the prew ar w orld, and if many chose to seek this w orld conception in Theosophy (and its b ro th er doctrine, A nthroposophy), it should com e as no surprise, for this M ovem ent was F o r h is to ria n s

one o f the few com plete “w orld conceptions” presented d uring a period o f intense intellectual and spiritual upheaval, and m any o f its aspirations and basic prem ises have affected the way we think today. This study has described T heosophy’s role as an influential force in Russian m iddle-class and popular culture o f the Silver Age. I t has o u t­ lined the history o f T heosophy in Russia and abroad and has traced its reception in Russia am ong the clergy, the m iddle and gentry classes, and the G od-seeking intelligentsia; it has presented the general features o f its doctrine. This b o o k has indicated th a t th e passionate interest in T h e o so ­ phy and o th e r form s o f occultism am ong the Russian m iddle and gentry classes was an expression o f th a t g ro u p ’s participation in th e Russian re­ ligious renaissance th a t ended the preceding period o f “ B ezvrem enn’e ” w hen little o f vital cultural im portance happened and intellectuals felt trapped in a spiritual void. T he study w ould n o t be com plete, however, w ith o u t som e indication o f T h eosophy’s influence on the Russian crea­ tive intelligentsia and speculation ab o u t the possible ram ifications th at an understanding o f T heosophy has for the understanding o f Russian fin de siecle art and culture. N ow here was th e overt and covert influence o f T heosophy as p r o ­ found as am ong those m em bers o f the Russian artistic elite (painters, philosophers, w riters, and com posers am ong them ) w ho tu rn e d to th at esoteric doctrine. These sensitive and talented individuals w ere p a rticu ­ larly predisposed to see T heosophy as a m eans o f exploring psychic and spiritual states th at defy rational (“positivist” ) com prehension. In T h e ­ osophy they found a new vocabulary for discussing topics th at could no longer be spoken o f in the existing term inology o f theology o r science. In T heosophical images they found a translogical m eaning th a t m oved far beyond the lim iting K antian categories o f tim e, space, and causality. T hey related to T h eo so p h y ’s use o f m etaphor and sym bol as the prim ary m eans o f conveying m eaning and agreed w ith T h eosophy’s claim th at im age has prim acy over concept (A ndrei Belyi term ed this “ th e prim acy o f creativity over co g n itio n ” ). Finally, they found in T heosophy the same identification o f aesthetic and religious action at w hich they th e m ­ selves had arrived. T hey had as examples before them the cosm ogenetic pow er o f certain Theosophical literary works, such as M m e Blavatsky’s highly poeticized “Seven Stanzas from the B ook o f D zyan” and her m editative Voice o f the Silence. A t th e same tim e, th e m ajority o f Russian intellt£enty w ith T heosophical interests were rem arkably independent. T hey distinguished betw een T heosophy as an organized m ovem ent and T heosophy as a religiousphilosophical doctrine, and so w ere “T heosophists” w ith o u t necessarily being dues-paying m em bers o f the T heosophical Society; they disdained the Society’s exoteric Theosophy, in tended n o t for th em , b u t for the

“ c o m m o n h e rd .” As creative artists they hesitated to su b m it them selves to th e co n strain in g atm osphere o f a s tru c tu re d Society and preferred to w ork in d ep en d en tly and selectively, o r even to create th eir ow n a ltern a­ tive circles. T hey w ere n e ith e r follow ers n o r joiners, unless they th e m ­ selves happened to be leaders o f the gro u p . B ut T heosophical ideas w ere “ in the air,” and the syncretic and diffuse n atu re o f T h e o so p h y e n c o u r­ aged selective and a t tim es irresponsible borro w in g . T h e o so p h y was taken seriously as religious philosophy by m any in its tim e, and n o t a few artists felt th e en o rm o u s archetypal pow er o f its basic im ages. In d e te rm in in g th e specific influence o f T h e o so p h y o n literatu re and th e arts, it is im possible in m o st cases (an d pointless as w ell) to identify m echanically the specific allusions to T h e o so p h y in th e cultural realm . M any artists accepted T heosophical ideas selectively an d , as creative p er­ sonalities, b uilt on o r strategically altered those ideas. In som e cases they m ay have expanded them far beyond th e possibilities offered by th e o rig ­ inal m aterial. Som e m erely read a few T heosophical texts in areas o f in ­ terest to th em and b o rro w ed a c o n c ep t o r tw o. O th e rs picked u p T h eo sophical ideas in fashionable salons w ith o u t knowdng w h at it was they had fo u n d . W h at is im p o rta n t, how ever, is th a t m any w riters and artists, especially am o n g th e Russian Sym bolists, did e n c o u n te r T h e o so p h y in Viacheslav Ivanov’s Tow er, at M argarita M o ro z o v a ’s exclusive in tellec­ tual soirees, at m eetings o f th e R eligious-P hilosophical Societies, at p u b ­ lic lectures, and in m any private salons. T hey fo u n d th ere theories o f creativity th a t co m p lem en ted th eir ow n u n d e rsta n d in g o f the creative act and a neo -P lato n ic w orld c o n cep tio n com patible w ith their n o tio n o f “Sym bolism as a w orldview ” (as defined for th e Silver A ge by A ndrei Belyi, one o f Sym bolism ’s leading thinkers and th eo retician s, b u t ech ­ oed by Pavel Batiushkov, Lev Kobylinskii-Ellis, and oth ers). T hese a r t­ ists a n d w riters d id n o t co m p artm en talize th eir w o rld c o n c ep tio n and th eir a rt in different p ig eo n holes; th e very c o n c ep t o f T h e o so p h y p re ­ cluded it, since a w orld co n cep tio n c a n n o t be separated from a rt (o r a rt from a w orld c o n c ep tio n ), aesthetics being necessarily p a rt o f a “ total w orldview .” T h e m o d ern critic sh o u ld , how ever, be sufficiently a cq u ain ted w ith th e p o p u lar occult m ovem ents o f th e fin de siecle to discern evidence o f th e c o n ta c t o f th e creative personality w ith T heosophy, w hen valid, and to consider the possible influence o f a T heosophical w orld co n cep tio n o r th e use o f key T heosophical im agery a n d vocabulary in th e artist’s w ork. Som e know ledge o f T h eo so p h y can be particularly p ro ductive, for exam ple, in dealing w ith m odernism in Russian literatu re and abstrac­ tio n in Russian p ainting. Sixten R in g b o m , w ritin g a b o u t th e tre m e n ­ dous social and intellectual changes th a t o ccu rred d u rin g th e fin de

siecle, points o u t th a t it is no coincidence th at “ abstract art [and, wc m ight add, m od ern ist literature] em erged by the end o f the first decade o f o u r century, the same decade th a t saw the publication o f theosophical works describing the non-objective w orlds in texts and illustrations.” H e goes on to say th a t T heosophy was “the creed th a t contained, as it w ere, a built-in link betw een the spiritualistic w orld conception and its m aterialization in an im age.”4 In the case o f Kandinsky and P iet M o n ­ drian, b o th o f w hom read A nnie B esant’s, Charles W. L eadbeater’s, and R u d o lf S teiner’s creative descriptions o f life on h ig h er planes and in dif­ ferent form s o f refined m atter, their abstract a rt clearly em erged from a desire to p ortray spiritual and psychic realities rath er th an from b o red o m w ith figurative p ainting o r the experience o f alienating angst (alth o u g h th at m ay have com e later, and was probably exacerbated by the subse­ q u e n t loss o f the spiritual th a t the first generation o f abstractionists was seeking to avoid). W hen the tw o painters, b o th attracted by T heosophy, used w ords like “ m ystic” and “ spiritual” to describe th eir art, they had specific co n n o tatio n s in m ind. This th o u g h t can be pursued in to th e realm o f m odern literature as well. T h e resonance betw een the abstract paintings o f Kandinsky and th e m odernist novels o f A ndrei Belyi is suggestive. B oth Kandinsky and Belyi w ere highly creative personalities, b o th had rigorous academ ic training, b o th were seriously interested in Theosophy. Belyi was p h ilo ­ sophically and aesthetically saturated w ith Theosophical doctrine; K an­ dinsky was m ore selective, as his and G abriele M iin ter’s personal occult library shows. Yet, in b o th cases, th e n o tio n o f the m odern th at em erges in their w ork is one based on the supersensible perceptions o f a higher reality, on the representation o f th a t w hich occurs beyond the plane o f gross m atter, w here spiritual “ form s” need n o t resem ble the form s o f physical m atter fo u n d in this w orld at all. T h eir works strive for an in tel­ lectual and spiritual dim ension th a t is sim ultaneously personal and u n i­ versal. Like the T heosophists, these artists strip away the “ o u ter gar­ m en ts” o f their historical period and their ow n personalities to reach the eternal and spiritual in art. I t is no coincidence th at the same p h e n o m e ­ n o n is p resent in A leksandr Skriabin’s m usic theory, w here he defined the concept o f “ Ecstasy”— a co ncept central to his creative philosophy and to his worldview — as “seeing o n the higher planes o f n a tu re .” A gain, such term inology is specific, n o t vague, in Theosophical term s. T heosophy and o th e r occult systems did n o t in tro d u ce, b u t they cer­ tainly popularized, the question o f w hat is really real at the tu rn o f the century. If, as the esotericists proclaim ed, the noum enal, spiritual realm is m ore real th an the illusory phenom enal w orld o f physical reality (Iva­ n o v ’s a realia ad realiora), if m atter is degraded spirit, and spirit is re-

fined m atter, then the “ tru e ” artist will find that figurative and represen­ tational forms, which depict only gross physical m atter, are invalid for the transm ission o f the higher reality. Naturalism and vulgar realism are to be despised, for they are blind to real, spiritual reality. A tru e artist m ust find other means o f expression. In their m odernist works, Kandinsky and Belyi were in fact being realistic, as they understood “re ­ alism” ; they accurately depicted the refined m atter o f the astral, m ental, and spiritual planes. A nd while such concepts o f reality were n o t exactly new in the history o f hum an ideas (they date back to N eoplatonism and form the ro o t o f G nosticism ), it was T heosophy th at made them a p o p u ­ lar topic in intellectual salon discussions o f the fin de siecle. W hile no one w ould insist on Theosophy as a single cause in the d e­ velopm ent o f m odernism (and it is n o t the aim o f this discussion to do so), the critic should consider seriously the w orld conception pro m u l­ gated by occult doctrines as one o f the factors in the developm ent o f m odernism , especially given the popularity o f the occult am ong intellec­ tuals at the tu rn o f the century and the respect that certain occult doc­ trines enjoyed at th at tim e, if n o t today. The general arena in which T h e­ osophy and occult th o u g h t played their particular role is a larger one. In painting, abstraction em erged as a rejection o f the rational and represen­ tational; in literature, the elusive, enciphered m odernist novel offered an alternative to traditional realism. These cultural developm ents had their counterpart in oth er aspects o f the intellectual history o f th e period: philosophy’s rejection o f positivism and rationalism for new forms o f idealism and religious philosophy; the em ergence o f analytical (depth) psychology from empirical and experim ental psychology; science’s ex­ ponential developm ent from classical mechanics to m odern theoretical physics, w ith all the m ind-boggling im plications th at subatom ic p arti­ cles, x-rays, and cinem atography had for an understanding o f reality and matter. T he specific implications these massive shifts in consciousness have for m odern culture have yet to be com pletely catalogued; this study is merely a p art o f the ongoing exam ination o f th a t critical period. In the course o f this study, every effort was made to identify those areas where T heosophy has im pinged on the th o u g h t o f Russia’s Silver Age, b u t it cannot be the purpose o f this prelim inary historical survey to examine in detail the transm utation o f Theosophical ideas into the specific literary or artistic text; that w ork lies in the future. To illustrate T heosophy’s particular im pact on the culture o f its tim e, however, it may be appropri­ ate to examine tw o very different representatives o f Russian fin de si£cle culture whose life paths and subsequent influence were configured by their contact w ith Theosophical th o u g h t. The two representative figures selected are Nikolai Roerich and A ndrei Belyi, although Maksimilian

V oloshin, A leksandr Skriabin, Wasily Kandinsky, or any one o f the o th e r leading cultural figures m en tio n ed in these pages could have served the purpose as w ell.5

Orientologist and Painter: Nikolai Konstantinovich Roerich (1 8 7 4 -1 9 4 7 ) O n e o f T h e o so p h y ’s least acknow ledged c o n trib u tio n s to Russian cul­ tu re was its en couragem ent o f in terest in th e East and in oriental studies, especially in Eastern religions and literary texts. E uropean in terest in the H in d u East began late in th e e ig h teen th century, w hen the Bhagavad G ita first becam e available in W estern translations. E astern th o u g h t was also popular am ong th e rom antics, notably Schelling, N ovalis, and, o f course, Schopenhauer. T h e m id -n in eteen th cen tu ry saw an increase in b o th translations o f texts and scholarship addressing oriental religion, philosophy, and art. By the end o f th e n in ete en th century, the T heosophists’ neo -B u d d h ist gospel fo u n d itself co m p etin g for public a tte n tio n n o t only w ith translated texts and Indian arts an d artifacts, b u t also w ith visiting swamis and gurus, oriental sectarians, enthusiastic W estern c o n ­ verts to oriental faiths, A m erican V edantists, and the newly founded Baha’is. Less quick to perm eate th e closed borders o f Russia than those o f E urope and Am erica, these oriental influences w ere encouraged by the Russian T heosophical Society. Several fine O rientologists em erged in Russia d u rin g the fin de siecle (n o t least am ong th em A nna Kam enskaia herself), pro d u cin g Russian translations o f B uddhist and H in d u texts, as well as co m p eten t co m ­ m entaries. T hey included I. M inaev, S. F. O l’d en b u rg , F. I. Shcherbatskoi, O . R ozenberg, and V. P. Vasil’ev. W ork o n the East was carried on by the O riental D ivision o f the Russian A rchaeological Society and by the Im perial A cadem y o f Sciences. P opular articles a b o u t O riental th o u g h t came from the pens o f V. V. Lesevich, A. I. Vvedenskii, V. A. Kozhevnikov, and others; they w ere read by th e subscribers o f Russkaia M y s P R u s s k ii Vestnik, Voprosy Filosofii i Psikhologii, and o th e r journals catering to th e intelligentsia. This scholarship, w hich coincided w ith the popularity o f T heosophy, helped to dissem inate inform ation a b o u t E ast­ ern th o u g h t and m ade T h eosophy less “ exotic” than it m ight otherw ise appear. T h e O rien t appealed to m ore traditional scholars as well. T h e influen­ tial Russian art and m usic critic and m em ber o f th e St. P etersburg A cad­ em y o f Sciences, V ladim ir Vasil’evich Stasov (1 8 2 4 -1 9 0 6 ), was greatly respected for his w ork in art and m usic history, archaeology, e th n o g ra ­ phy, and philology. Stasov held to th e theory, shared by several Russian

O rien to lo g ists an d later picked up a n d p ro m u lg a te d by th e R ussian T h eosophists, th a t th e an cient Slavic and an cient In d ia n cultures w ere closely in te rre la te d . Stasov felt, for exam ple, th a t th e In d ia n epic, The M a h abharataj h ad a definite influence o n R ussian epic g en res.6 Stasov’s th eo ry o f th e closeness o f India and Russia was shared by a y o u n g artist w h o m he served as m en to r: N ikolai K o nstantinovich R o e ­ rich (1 8 7 4 —1 9 4 7 ). A m em b e r o f th e “W orld o f A r t” an d personal friend o f m any leading Sym bolist w riters, R oerich was fascinated by th e ancient Slavic past, apocalypticism , an d E astern e th n o lo g y and religion. H e was convinced th a t th e Slavic an d In d ia n cu ltu res shared a c o m m o n origin and th a t th e destiny o f Russia was tied to this relationship. A p ro m in e n t artist, critic, stage designer, an d d e c o ra to r, he did m o re in his p aintings, articles, and lectures th an any o th e r single individual to popularize I n ­ dian a rt and cu ltu re am o n g th e R ussian creative intelligentsia. R oerich and his wife, E lena Ivanovna S haposhnikova-R oerich, quickly discovered T h e o so p h y and w ere m u ch taken w ith its n e o -B u d ­ dh ist dim ension. T h ey read th e B hagavad G ita and stu d ie d th e w orks o f R am akrishna and V ivekananda, all available in R ussian translation. C laim ing a “karm ic tie ” to H . P. Blavatsky, they becam e m em bers o f th e T h eo so p h ical Society and c o n tin u e d th eir co n n e ctio n w ith th e T heosophists and w ith in d e p e n d e n t R ussian occultists even after the R oerich fam ily left Russia follow ing th e F eb ru ary R ev o lu tio n , first fo r F inland, th e n for N ew York and th e Far East. B etw een 1 9 1 6 and 1921 R oerich w ro te m any o f th e poem s, w ith th eir stro n g T heosophical su b te x t, th a t com prise th e a n th o lo g y The Flowers o f M orya ( Tsvety M orii), w hile his wife w o rk ed o n a tran slatio n o f M m e Blavatsky’s Secret D octrine.7 R oerich c o n sid ered th e p oem s in The Flowers o f M orya to be p ro g ram m atic, to reflect th e essence o f his ow n creative p ath . Like his paintings, th e poem s are deceptively sim ple, filled w ith archetypal sym bols, m ystically am b ig u o u s, even elusive. “We go in search o f sacred sig n s,” says one o f th e p o em s, in tro d u c in g th e leitm otiv o f R o erich ’s co llection a n d his life. T h e read er en c o u n te rs th e lig h t, th e p a th , th e forest labyrinth, th e flow er, w ater, m o u n ta in s, and e te rn ity as he searches for th e sacred. M u c h o f R o e ric h ’s free verse is rem in iscen t o f M m e Blavatsky’s po etic m o m e n ts in “T h e Stanzas o f D z y a n ” an d The Voice o f the Silence, in clu d in g h e r p ro p h e tic , im personal to n e. T h e v o lu m e ’s title is also suggestive; M aster M o ry a was M m e Blavatsky’s M ahatm a c o n ta c t and R oerich believed in th e M ahatm as. M any o f R o erich ’s later w ritings are p rese n t in potentio in this slim v o l­ um e o f poeticized o riental w isdom , w hich was ap preciated and praised by adm irers as diverse as R a b in d ra n a th T ag o re, L eo n id A ndreev, and M aksim G orkii.

In late 1924 and th ro u g h o u t 1925 Nikolai R oerich u n d e rto o k a m ajor cultural expedition to C entral Asia w here, like m any occultists o f the tim e, he felt he m ight find traces o f the origins o f h u m an culture. In th e course o f the expedition he d e to u re d to th e T heosophical H e a d ­ quarters in Adyar and d o n a te d his painting “V estnik” (“T h e M essen­ g e r” ) to the Blavatsky M useum th ere .8 In a cerem ony at the recently fo u n d ed “Adyar A rt C e n tre ,” R oerich him self unveiled the deep red, violet, and golden painting, depicting a dark oriental tem ple, from w ithin w hich a young w om an opens a d o o r to adm it “T he M essenger,” a y o u n g m an bearing the L ight o f the W orld. It was the first p ainting c o n trib u te d to th e Adyar C ollection o f Spiritual Art. D u rin g the 1920s and 1930s, the Roerichs drew on th eir T heosophical fo u n d atio n to com pile th eir ow n doctrinal variant, called Agni Yoga, a synthesis o f Eastern and W estern th o u g h t heavily based on T heosophical doctrine. This creative aspect o f their T heosophical activities com plicated th e R oerichs’ relations w ith the m ore traditional Russian Theosophical Society O utside Russia. B u t they m aintained a cordial cor­ respondence w ith Elena Pisareva and several o th e r m em bers w ho tried to make peace betw een them and the strong-w illed, dogm atic A nna Ram enskaia as the tw o camps tried to position them selves as acknow l­ edged leaders o f the occult em igration.9 T h e th irte e n volum es o f the A jjn i Yojfa series, w ritten over a p e rio d o f tw enty years and published in E nglish, Russian, F rench, Polish, Latvian, B ulgarian, and o th e r E u ro ­ pean languages, have c o n tin u e d to be popular, b o th in the Russian em i­ gration and in the Soviet Russian u n d erg ro u n d . T he legacy o f the R oerichs in the area o f Theosophical culture is c o n ­ siderable. R oerich and the international Society th a t bears his nam e w ere dedicated prim arily to the ideas o f B eauty and C ulture as inspired by religious philosophy; R oerich defined his ow n personal m ission in these term s. In 1922 he founded th e Corona M u n d i, In tern atio n al A rt C e n ­ ter, w hich recognized B eauty as th e C row n o f H u m a n Existence; the C en ter was “dedicated to w idening the appreciation o f a rt, o f beauty, o f culture am ong all peoples.” 10 T h e Society R oerich fo u n d ed , inspired by his theosophical vision (w ith o u t being overtly “T heosophical” ), has to u c h e d o n nearly every aspect o f cultural life w orldw ide. I t has sp o n ­ sored schools, study o f the arts (m usic, art, architecture, ballet, dram a, languages and literature), libraries, lectures, a d u lt ed u catio n program s, m useum exhibits, concerts, perform ances, archaeological and scientific expeditions, w orking w ith th e blind and physically handicapped, th e arts for children, w o m en ’s g roups, and a broad variety o f international or­ ganizations. In this way th e R oerich Society continues th e social m ission th a t was an im p o rta n t dim ension o f T heosophical activity.

D uring the period between the First and Second World Wars Nikolai Roerich received many o f the w orld’s highest honors: he was recognized for his prom otion o f w orld peace and culture by the League o f N ations, the Vatican, heads o f state o f E uropean, American, and Asian govern­ m ents, num erous national academies o f sciences and the arts, and other cultural organizations; he was nom inated for the N obel Peace Prize; he was honored as the founder o f the Roerich Peace Pact and Banner o f Peace, advocating “ Peace T h ro u g h C u ltu re” (Pax C ultura) and seeking to protect cultural treasures in times o f war and destruction. The influence o f R oerich’s th o u g h t, m olded by the Theosophical M ovem ent, is international and enduring. Echoing the Theosophical credo, today’s Roerich M ovem ent asserts the pantheistic unity o f m an, w orld, and G od; it advocates tolerance and the B rotherhood o f M an; it strives for the synthesis o f religions. Roerich never abandoned his y o u th ­ ful belief in the spiritual affinity o f Russia and the East, and in his system the Slavs continued to play a central role as the future advocates o f peace, spirituality, and culture in the world. T he spirituality o f Russian O rthodox icons m erge in his art with Tibetan and Indian religious m o ­ tifs, and his drive tow ard Theosophical synthesis is apparent in his many mystical paintings (they have never been exhaustively cataloged, but there are m ore than seven thousand works). Like many spiritual pain t­ ings, R oerich’s canvases frequently evoke either adulation or dismissal, b u t they invite all viewers to enter a clearly sacred space. The Roerichs’ Theosophical ideas have taken particular hold in the Russian occult underground, and the idea o f his Pax C ultura has ap­ pealed to the Russian governm ent. W ith glasnost3 th e Roerich M ove­ m ent has openly becom e part o f the resurgence o f Russian interest in Eastern philosophy and mysticism; w ith th e cu rren t renew ed interest in the Russian religious renaissance, the Silver Age, and H . P. Blavatsky, it may well lead to a renascence in Russian Theosophical tho u g h t. The Roerich C enter in Riga, established during the interw ar period b u t d o r­ m ant since the Soviet occupation o f the Baltic countries, was revived at the end o f the 1980s and began alm ost immediately to issue the popular A g n i Toga series in Russian. R oerich’s influence continues in Russia today. O ne o f his sons, Iurii Nikolaevich Rerikh (1 9 0 2 -1 9 6 0 ) returned to live in the U S S R in 1957; he was considered a leading Soviet O rientologist. His o th er son, the portraitist Sviatoslav Roerich, has been a frequent visitor to Russia and has assisted in furthering his father’s mission by arranging immensely popular exhibits o f his art w ork there. Recently he donated the entire Roerich legacy to the Roerich Fund and Roerich C enter in M oscow.11 I f Nikolai R oerich’s particular brand o f T heosophy generated a reli-

gious, ethical, and social legacy, focused ou tw ard and expressed by an essentially figurative if exotic art style accessible to alm ost any viewer, th en the interest in T heosophy o f the abstract pain ter Wasily Kandinsky (1 8 6 6 —1944) led in a very different direction, tow ard a subtle applica­ tion o f T heosophical ideas th a t ultim ately m ade his “spiritual a rt” acces­ sible to only a few. Like m any intellectuals o f his day, Kandinsky lived in the h o th o u se o f avant-garde culture. H e had close connections to the G erm an avant-garde, m any o f them taken w ith Dr. Steiner, and to the “T h e o so p h iz e d ” Russian Sym bolists. H e was also acquainted w ith Aleksandra Unkovskaia, a p ro m in en t Russian T h eosophist, and had read her T heosophical synesthetic study, “T he M e th o d o f C olor-S oundN u m b e rs.” 12 Kandinsky’s know ledge o f T heosophy and acquaintance w ith T heosophical texts have been d o cu m en ted in the secondary m aterial on this im p o rta n t artist. H e was familiar n o t only w ith several fundam ental works o f M m e Blavatsky, M rs. Besant, Charles L eadbeater, and R u d o lf Steiner, b u t he had also a tten d ed S teiner’s lectures at the A rchitektenhaus in Berlin in 1907 and 1908. D espite his enthusiasm , Kandinsky brow sed selectively am ong occult offerings. H e was in terested in alter­ nate planes, depiction o f subtle em otions, especially as expressed th ro u g h the aura, and synesthesia. A nything th a t to u ch e d on his ow n passion, the eternal in art, com m anded his atten tio n . A m ong the m ost provocative T heosophical works for Kandinsky, as for m any o th e r E uropean and Russian w riters and artists, was M rs. Besa n t’s and Charles L eadbeater’s Thought-Forms.13 T he book was devoted to the mysticism o f form and color and to the use o f color and abstract form s as sh o rth a n d for em otions, th o u g h ts, and feelings p ro jected o n to th e astral plane. M uch o f th e m aterial in th e volum e had been presented earlier in M rs. B esant’s A n c ie n t Wisdom, b u t Thought-Forms lavishly il­ lustrated th e th o u g h t form s in vibrant color. T he volum e defines th o u g h t form as a m ental p ro jection, th o u g h t, o r idea, to o subtle to be seen in gross physical m atter, b u t th a t m anifests itself in refined astral m atter. W hile it may assum e th e form s o f physical m atter, it m ore co m ­ m only assumes a m ore abstract form natural to the astral o r m ental plane, and such a form w ould have n o th in g in com m on w ith its physical variant. T he b o o k contains illustrations o f such th o u g h t forms: g e o m e t­ ric figures, starbursts, hazy clouds, even p ro to c o m p u te r graphics, all highly suggestive o f later abstract art. W idely available and advertised, Thought-Forms was closely read by the avant-garde a rt com m unity. Kandinsky ow ned the 1908 G erm an translation and fam iliarized him self w ith it before publishing his own m ajor essay, TJber das Geistige in der K u n s t.14 In Russia T heosophists

a n d occultists read it in E nglish, in G erm an , o r in th e p o p u lar and fre­ q u e n tly rep rin te d R ussian paraphrase o f E lena Pisareva. O n e o f th o se w h o read it (as well as A n c ie n t W isdom) was th e Sym bolist w riter A ndrei Belyi.

T h e o r is t, P h ilo s o p h e r , a n d W riter: A n d r e i B e ly i ( 1880 - 1934 ) I f N ikolai R oerich cam e to T h e o so p h y prim arily because it p ro v id ed a vocabulary for his feelings for In d ia n cu ltu re an d religion and inspired his art and his sense o f m ission to th e w orld; if K andinsky selectively to o k from T h eo so p h y th o se co n cep ts th a t allow ed him to express the inexpressible th ro u g h his a rt; th e n A ndrei Belyi cam e to T h e o so p h y b e ­ cause it offered a to ta l w o rld c o n c ep tio n . R ussian litera tu re has tra d i­ tionally carried a g reat deal o f philosophical baggage. C ritics have little tro u b le dealing w ith such baggage w h en it is M arxist, F reu d ian , o r P o p ­ ulist, b u t th ey usually d e to u r a ro u n d occultism . Yet, any factor th a t fu n ­ dam entally d eterm ines an a u th o r’s w orldview will p ro fo u n d ly affect the w o rld o f th e novel. A nd exploring the b u ild in g blocks o f th e a u th o r’s w orldview , especially w h en th a t w orldview deviates considerably from a culturally accepted ideological o r religious n o rm ,' n o t only provides in ­ sig h t in to th e artistic m erits o f th e w ork, b u t also enhances th e re a d e r’s u n d e rsta n d in g o f it. In Belyi’s case, T h eo so p h y a n d A n th ro p o so p h y serve as th e key to m any o f his literary texts, a n d a case can be m ade th a t m any o f th e elem ents critics consider to be “ m o d e rn ” o r “en ig m atic” a b o u t his w ork are in fact “ o c c u lt.” Belyi first becam e in te rested in T h e o so p h y w h en only sixteen, in 1 8 96. H is was a co m m itm en t th a t w o u ld last a lifetim e, fo r in T h eo sophical d o c trin e he discovered a m o d e o f th o u g h t a n d a vision o f reality th a t c o rre sp o n d ed to his ow n in d ep e n d e n tly discovered w orld p e rc e p ­ tio n . Extensive critical a n d a u to b io g rap h ical m aterials, d o c u m e n tin g his com plex spiritual and philosophical ev o lu tio n , reveal an intim ate kn o w l­ edge o f th e m ajor texts o f M m e Blavatsky, M rs. B esant, E d o u a rd Schure, C harles L eadbeater, and R u d o lf Steiner. S teiner and A n th ro p o sophy did n o t d ro p in to Belyi’s life like a th u n d e rb o lt 1912; Belyi had been h earin g a b o u t S teiner fro m tw o o f his “ T h eo so p h ical ladies” (A nna M intslova an d E lena Pisareva) since 1 9 05. Belyi cam e to prefer S tein er’s ratio n alized a n d C h ristian ized T h e o so p h y to M m e Blavatsky’s an d M rs. B esant’s neo -B u d d h istic variant, b u t th e fu n d am en tal cosm ology and th e language o f m eta p h o r, im age, and sym bol d id n o t change. Belyi’s m atu re w orks, especially Serebrianyi G olub3 ( The Silver Dove, 1 9 0 9 ) and Peterburjy (Petersburg, 1 9 1 3 ), th e tw o co m p leted novels o f

the unfinished trilogy, “ East o r W est,” are perm eated w ith Theosophical c o n te n t b u t are n o t yet tendentiously A nth ro p o so p h ical. T his is n o t to say th a t T heosophy is the only o r even the m o st im p o rta n t inform ing elem ent o f these intricate and m ultidim ensional literary works. T he nov­ els build on the tradition o f Russian literature and can be read as p h ilo ­ sophical, psychological, historical, satirical, o r fantastic novels. B ut, in addition, b o th The Silver Dove and Petersburg incorporate a profoundly Theosophical worldview, and w ith o u t an appreciation o f this they re ­ m ain only partially accessible to the reader. O n a superficial level, the tw o novels are concerned w ith Russia’s des­ tiny d u rin g the fateful days o f the R evolution o f 1905. The Silver Dove is set in th e countryside and narrates the sto ry o f P e tr D a r’ial’skii, a young intelligent engaged to an attractive lady w ho lives w ith her g ra n d ­ m o th e r on th eir co u n try estate. D ar’ial’skii becom es infatuated w ith a pock-m arked peasant w ench and leaves his aristocratic ΙΗηοέε to live w ith the peasant w om an and a sectarian carpenter. H e enters in to their peasant life, b u t, com ing from a different w orld, is ultim ately unable to establish genuine co ntact w ith them : the co m m o n people and th e in te l­ ligentsia rem ain divided. In the en d th e sectarians m u rd er him . In c o n ­ trast to this rural apocalypse, Petersburg depicts revolutionary events in the capital. T he highly placed S enator A bleukhov is th e object o f an as­ sassination p lo t involving his son, N ikolai, and tw o terrorists, D udkin and L ippanchenko. T he p lo t fizzles, th e S enator retires from g o v ern ­ m en t service, and Nikolai goes to E gypt to seek esoteric know ledge. Critics have been attracted by th e innovative language, im agery, and stru ctu re o f the tw o novels, b u t som e aspects o f th e text rem ain obscure. H ere an acquaintance w ith T heosophy can assist the reader. M any o f the T heosophical and occult im ages in th e novels are easily identified w hen one know s th e vocabulary and the imagery. F o r exam ­ ple: P etr D a r’ial’skii, the hero o f The Silver Dove, is literally trapped by M aya in a spiderw eb (the w orld illusion) spun by the villainous sectarian carpenter; this w eb surro u n d s th e h ero and attem pts to ensnare him eternally on th e physical plane. T he p lo t literally realizes the m ystery dram a o f th e Pilgrim -Soul w ho descends from his spiritual hom e into the “labyrinth” o f m atter, becom es en tangled th ere, b u t hears the “ C all” and awakens from the “ dream o f this life” to re tu rn to th e “real” realm o f spirit; th e novel uses these T heosophical term s in th e text. T h e n eu ro tic stu d e n t C hukholka is a spiritualistic “m ed iu m ” for dark and evil forces th a t w ish to harm Russia; th e m ysterious S chm idt is an adept and D a r’ial’skii’s guru. T he w ork itself is T heosophically stru ctu red : the novel (O n e, th e U nity) is divided in to tw o parts (T w o, D uality o f M atter and Spirit); the first p art is divided in to four chapters (F our, the square, is the n u m b er o f M atter and Evil); and th e second p a rt consists o f three

chapters (T h ree, the triangle, is th e n u m b e r o f Spirit and G o o d ). A t its c e n te r is a h o ro sco p e w hich, w h en d ecip h ered , is fo u n d to c o n tain the p lo t, im agery, and verbal tex tu re o f th e novel. Petersburg contains a sim ­ ilar m enu o f overtly T h eo so p h ical im ages and vocabulary. M o re in trig u in g th a n th e o v ert T heosophical im ages and term s used in th e tw o novels is th a t th e novels express tw o fu n d am en tal a n d related generative principles th a t lie at th e ro o t o f T heosophical cosm ogenesis. T h e first is the generative principle th a t p ro d u ces th e novels them selves: theurgy. T h e u rg y is th e belief in th e m agical pow er o f w ords and sounds (prayer, in ca n tatio n , L ogos, a n d so fo rth ) a n d form s o n e o f th e c o rn e r­ stones o f A ndrei Belyi’s th e o ry o f sym bolism as a worldview . In esoteric philosophy, th e W ord is th e fu n d am en tal creative c ateg o ry th a t gives shape, form , a n d reason to chaos, transfiguring chaos in to cosm os. T h eu rg y in T h e o so p h y is associated w ith th e creative, Sperm atic W ord. In A ndrei Belyi, it becom es “ th e creative w o rd [th a t] creates th e w o rld ,” th e u n io n o f m ysticism and a r t.15 T h e excessive focus o n s o u n d in Sym ­ bolist literatu re is n o t accidental, b u t esoterically m otiv ated ; sounds have m agical potency. Belyi’s friend, th e p o e t A leksandr Blok, agreed th a t a rt is m agic: “ F ro m th e b eg in n in g th e Sym bolist is a th eu rg ist, i.e., th e possessor o f occult know ledge, b eh in d w hich stands o ccu lt activ­ ity.” 16 Analogically, p o ets create th eir literary and personal w orld as the D ivinity creates th e universe. T h u s Belyi creates The Silver Dove from the sounds o f th e an cient A lp h ab et o f th e M agi, said to c o n tain th e original sounds o f th e cosm os, as encip h ered in th e h o ro sc o p e o f th e no v el’s h e ro .17 T h e occult g e n e ra tio n o f Petersburg is based o n an allied occu lt p rin ­ ciple, th e co n c ep t th a t consciousness creates fo rm . U nlike scientific p o si­ tivism (th e archenem y o f Belyi a n d T h e o so p h y ), w hich claims th a t m a t­ ter creates th o u g h t ( th o u g h t defined as electric im pulses caused by chem ical reactions in th e m a tte r o f th e brain, for instance), th is fu n d a ­ m ental principle o f m any o ccu lt system s claims th a t, o n th e contrary, it is th o u g h t th a t creates m atter: th e sheer p o w er o f W ill can create palpa­ ble objects. T his c o n cep t was n o t in v en ted by Belyi. I t is m uch o ld er th an R ussian Sym bolism , b u t it was concisely fo rm u lated by M m e Blavatsky in Isis Unveiled·. As God creates, so man can create. Given a certain intensity of wilL, and the shapes created by the mind become subjective. Hallucinations, they are called, although to their creator they are real as any visible object is to anyone else. Given a more intense and intelligent concentration of this will, and the form becomes concrete, visible, objective; the man has learned the secret of secrets; he is a M AGICIAN.18

The implications for the author-m agician, the theurgist who parallels God in the creation o f an entire alternative universe by thinking, willing, and speaking, are clearly manifold. This is the source o f w hat Belyi de­ fines as mozgovaia igrct (“cerebral play” ) in his novel Petersburg. The characters “think” each other into being exactly as the author “thinks” the characters into being. In Petersburg Belyi’s description o f Senator Ableukhov mentally generating the terrorist D udkin is actually a “scien­ tifically” concrete description o f the generation o f thought-form s onto the astral plane as described by Mrs. Besant and Charles W. Leadbeater in their influential book, Thought-Porms. In Petersburg, Senator Ableukhov him self is n o t consciously aware o f what is actually happening, because he is an unenlightened prisoner o f scientific positivism. The Senator reads Auguste C om te, whose work Mme Blavatsky considered positivism carried to absurdity. His positivistic inclination is clear in that his house (a traditional m etaphor for the brain) is yellow. Yellow, in Thcosophical color theory, is the color o f pure intellect, untem pered by any other quality. (O ther elements o f Theosophical color theory, explicated in Thought-Forms, are also present in the novel.) And the Senator clearly believes that m atter generates thought: poor Senator Ableukhov, the novel’s narrator tells us, regards perception as “an irritation o f the cerebral m em brane, if n o t an indispo­ sition o f the cerebellum .” But physical senses and sensations are n o t the measure o f reality, and cannot be, in Theosophy; Theosophy subscribes to the idea that the physical plane o f existence is just one o f several, and the lowest and coarsest at that. There are other, m ore subtle planes o f existence, including two that are accessible to some hum an minds and several that are not. Accessible are the astral and the mental planes. The various planes o f existence, Mrs. Besant points o u t, are “concen­ tric interpenetrating spheres, n o t separated from each other by distance, but by difference o f constitution.” 19 They exist simultaneously and are, in fact, differing dimensions, or states o f consciousness (Steiner). They are invisible to the average hum an being, but can be contacted by those who are spiritually trained, mentally ill, or in a dream ing state. The world o f the astral plane exists simultaneously with the physical world and looks m uch like it. “Astral world scenery much resembles that o f earth in consequence o f its being largely made up o f the astral duplicates o f physical objects,” explains Mrs. Besant.20 Some Theosophists have called the astral plane the fourth dimension. It is inhabited n o t by hum an beings, b u t by all the thoughts, feelings, fears, desires, wishes, and impulses hum an beings feel. O n the astral plane thoughts take on visible, concrete form and become a living force. “While they maintain a separate existence they are living entities, with bodies o f elemental es-

sence and thoughts as the ensouling lives, and they are then called artifi­ cial elementals, o r th o u g h t-fo rm s,” Mrs. Besant explains.21 “T h o u g h t and action, will and deed, are one and th e same th in g ” in the astral w orld, continues Mrs. Besant. The th o u g h t on the physical plane becomes the deed on the astral plane. T he physical and astral worlds interact. O nce th oughts and feelings take on an astral existence o f their ow n, they in tu rn influence events th a t happen on the physical plane. Astrally inspired incidents on th e physical plane may appear arbi­ trary and incom prehensible, b u t they have their ow n ineluctable logic in the cosmic scheme o f things if one knows how to read the w orld as a mystic text (as Theosophists and Symbolists th o u g h t they did). T hus the Senator, a thought-form p roduced by th e au th o r’s m ind, or D udkin, a thought-form produced by the Senator’s m ind, live separate lives and affect events and people— as senator and revolutionary on the physical plane; as ancient Turanian destroyer and avenging H orsem an on the as­ tral plane. Astral m atter, or elem ental essence, has considerable fluidity. It is per­ ceived as fogs and shadows and as continually changing shapes th a t ap­ pear and disappear as hum an thought-im pulses constantly massage the elemental essence; the city o f Petersburg is so described in Belyi’s novel. Belyi’s shadows appear from and disappear into the St. Petersburg fog, echoing Mrs. Besant’s description, found in M a n a n d H is Bodies (the book one o f the characters is reading in the novel), o f the astral w orld as “full o f continually changing shapes; . . . vast masses o f elem ental es­ sence from which continually shapes em erge and into which they again disappear.” “An astral entity will change his w hole appearance w ith the m ost starding rapidity,” Mrs. Besant explains, “ for astral m atter takes form under every impulse o f th o u g h t, th e life swiftly rem oulding the form to give itself new expression.” 22 A nd this is one reason why characters in Petersburg constantly change into o th er people: the Se­ mitic-Ukrainian M ongol, L ippanchenko-M avrokordato, ShishnarfievShishnarfne-Enfranshish, V oronkov-M orkovin, the Bronze H orsem anD utchm an-sailor-B ronze Guest; this is why m etaphors are realized and why slippers and wallpaper com e alive and suitcases reshape themselves. They are all astral entities, constantly being rem olded by the overactive brains o f Russians thinking and feeling on the physical plane o f O ctober 1905. D uring the lectures he read for the Russians in Paris in 1906, Steiner added his own footnotes to Mrs. B esant’s entertaining travelogues o f the astral w orld. H e explained th at the astral w orld is, additionally, the “inverse unraveling o f th in g s,” th a t it is the m irror image o f the physical world. Everything that happens in the physical w orld plays backward in the astral world. This is incorporated into the novel in its m irror and

reflective im agery, in the detail th a t n u m b er 1000 is really 0 0 0 1 , th at Enfranshish is Shishnarfne; the S enator is his son, and the son is the father. H isto ry also runs backw ard. Cause follows effect, n o t effect the cause, thus m aking the goal, the aim , appear to be the cause, and p rov­ ing, as Steiner asserts, th a t aim and cause are ultim ately the same thing. A nd this is n o t idle play on Belyi’s p a rt, for these last tw o points are essential to th e m ain th ru s t o f the novel, th e fate o f Russia. I f history, Russian history in the novel, runs backw ard, th en a reverse c h ro n o lo g i­ cal sequence o f effects should lead back to a cause. T h e novel constantly returns to the past, to the tw o m ythic tu rn in g points in Russian history: to th e M ongols and th eir “ m ission o f d e stru c tio n ,” an d to P eter th e G reat and the astral city he built. (Shishnarfne identifies it as “our capital city,” the capital o f the “Shadow land.” ) “ P etersburg has n o t three di­ m ensions b u t four; th e fo u rth dim ension is subject to am biguity and is n o t indicated on m aps at all, except, perhaps, by a p o in t, for a p o in t is the place at w hich the plane o f this [physical] existence touches the spherical surface o f the en orm ous astral cosm os.” 23 We are to ld th at P etersburg will sink in to th e swam p (reversing the process o f its building). “ P etersburg, Petersburg! P recipitating o u t o f the fog, you have pursued me w ith idle cerebral play. H a rd -h e a rte d to r­ m entor! Restless specter!” observes th e narrato r.24 T he M o ngol cause was destru ctio n th ro u g h im m utability. T h e P etrine cause was d e stru c ­ tio n by division and change. By creating his city in the swam p by force o f conscious will, P eter “ d o o m ed Russia irrevocably.” H e created the destructive duality betw een East and W est, narod and intelligentsia, Slavophile and W esternizer, G od-seeker and G od-builder, M uscovite and P eterburgian: “ F ro m th a t p reg n a n t m o m en t w hen th e m etallic H orsem an first galloped to the banks o f th e N eva, from th a t m o m en t, p reg n an t w ith days, w hen he had flung his steed u p o n the gray Finnish granite, Russia was divided in tw o, and the destiny o f th e F atherland was divided also in tw o [hence “ East or W est?” as th e nam e o f the projected Trilogy]; suffering and w eeping, Russia was divided in tw o until the final h o u r.” 25 T h e cause— Peter— and the aim— division— were identical. T hus the city o f P etersburg becom es th e astral center o f the Russian universe. This city, th e “ m ost inten tio n al and rational city o n e a rth ,” in the w ords o f D ostoevskii, is willed in to existence by P eter th e G reat. H is intensity o f will created sim ultaneously a physical and an astral city. Since th a t tim e, the th o u g h ts and feelings o f th e Russian national c o n ­ sciousness have m olded and rem olded th e city’s astral im age, inhabiting it w ith s tra n g c a n d dangerous th o u g h t-fo rm s, ensouled by revolutionary and dangerous ideas; this astral capital is m ore real th an th e physical P e ­ tersburg. T he R evolution o f 19 0 5 , a tu rn in g p o in t in the consciousness o f the Russian intelligentsia, was precipitated o n to the physical plane by

all the negative forces th at Russian history had projected into the astral plane over the centuries. Those events were inevitable, they had their ow n inexorable cosmic logic: they were th e expression o f the negative collective karma o f the Russian people, and this karma had to be expi­ ated before Russia could fulfill her destined role as the savior o f Europe. Belyi consciously em bedded the m ost im p o rtan t intellectual p o in t o f his novel into a Theosophical framework. M any o f the m ore am biguous and puzzling aspects o f the novel take on m eaningful, if com plex, refer­ ents w hen considered in this Theosophical context. Petersburg, gener­ ally regarded as an inaccessible and eccentrically subjective novel, is, in fact, an “ astral” novel, as Belyi’s contem poraries were quick to notice. Nikolai Berdiaev, w ho even titled his review o f Petersburg “Astral’nyi rom an” (An astral novel), took Belyi’s Theosophical form at as given and perceptively noticed the striking parallel betw een w hat Belyi achieved in Petersburg and the painting style o f cubism .26 Belyi’s aim was n o t to be obscure or elitist in this quintessentially Symbolist novel, b u t to make sense o f the Russian crisis o f culture and consciousness. To this end he used a Theosophical w orld perception and its vocabulary as a form o f philosophical shorthand th at his readers w ould understand; sound and image he em ployed n o t in a purely formalistic way as literary device, b u t in a mythic way as a p o te n t magical symbol th at makes accessible the realiora that inform the realia o f historical events, "thereby transform ing chaos into cosmos. In his subsequent work Belyi became fixated on his own biography, in b o th fictional and nonfictional genres, but it was n o t biographical m ate­ rial in the traditional sense th at fascinated him. H is autobiographical works were, in fact, spiritual autobiographies. H is unpublished and u n ­ know n m agnum opus, “Istoriia stanovleniia sam osoznaiushchei dushi” (The history o f th e form ation o f the consciousness soul; a Steinerian term for the fifth principle o f m an), strove to sum m arize the develop­ m ent o f the entire history o f hum an th o u g h t and consciousness. This m am m oth w ork o f m ore than a thousand m anuscript pages is n o t merely a history o f hum an culture and philosophy seen th ro u g h Steiner’s Anthroposophical prism, b u t a m acrocosm ic version o f the microcosmic individual biography. As his biographical materials traced the physical, m ental, and spiritual developm ent o f Boris Bugaev (and his aesthetic alter ego, “Andrei Belyi” ), so “Istoriia” traces th e spiritual developm ent o f mankind. Theosophy and subsequently A nthroposophy appealed to Belyi pri­ marily because they offered a seemingly coherent explanation o f appar­ ently chaotic events and provided a vocabulary for discussing psychic states for which no vocabulary existed. Knowledge o f T heosophy sug­ gests that m uch o f w hat may seem startling, innovative, and opaque in

Belyi is actually m ainline Theosophy. A nd why Theosophy? Because Belyi th o u g h t it m ig h t be th a t system for w hich he searched all his life, a system th a t explained i t all, a system th a t allow ed him to c o n q u er the chaos th a t m odern life had becom e and resolve the crisis o f culture and consciousness he and his gen eratio n experienced so poignantly.

In Conclusion T h e Russian intelligentsia, from th e m o m en t it becam e conscious o f its separate and uniq u e identity som etim e in th e first q u a rte r o f th e n in e­ teen th century, has searched for a system , so m eth in g to organize and make co h e re n t Russia, the Russian m ind, and the universe. This search for a system u n d e r th re a t o f chaos has always been highly ideological and ham pered by the general Russian conviction (from w herever it springs) th a t there can be only one T ru th ( istin a), and th at m an exists to seek It. This T ru th , how ever it m ight be conceived at any given historical m o ­ m ent, m ust be all-encom passing. W hen this quest for T ru th to o k a reli­ gious form , as it did in the Russian M iddle Ages, religion struggled to subordinate the Russian secular w orld to its vision. W hen the quest to o k a secular form , as it did d u rin g the Soviet period, it s tru g g led to su b o rd i­ nate the religious im pulse to itself. O ne o f T h eo so p h y ’s g reatest tem p tatio n s for certain idealist elem ents w ithin the Russian intelligentsia was its prom ise o f the G reat Synthesis: o f science, religion, and philosophy, o f m atter and spirit, and o f East and W est. F o r these idealists T heosophy was, first and forem ost, a particular view o f th e w orld, o f life and d eath, o f G od and m an, o f g o o d and evil, and o f the purpose o f hum an existence. I t was n eith er a faith n o r a sci­ ence (b o th had been discredited), b u t it seem ed to have already achieved the unification o f th e secular and th e religious spheres in to one enorm ous, sublim e, and glorious system th a t reconciled all co n trad ic­ tions betw een sacred and profane and expressed the Truth. In the area o f religion, T heosophy claim ed to show th e derivation o f all w orld reli­ gions from a single divine source; in science, T heosophy claim ed to prove the contiguity o f the m aterial and physical w orlds; in art, T h e o so ­ phy u n ited all art u n d e r the aegis o f a single and eternal concept o f beauty, em phasizing the sym biotic interrelationship o f architecture, p o ­ etry, dance, m usic, literature, and the graphic arts, and identifying aes­ thetic creativity w ith religious creativity; in the social sphere, T heosophy prom ised a single b ro th e rh o o d u n itin g all hum anity, a global utopia. Furtherm ore Theosophy, as an all-encompassing, cosm opolitan M ove­ m ent seem ingly w ith o u t disciplinary o r political boundaries, easily m ade room for all o f the m ajor concerns o f the Russian intelligentsia. G od-

seeking, Pan-Slavism , eschatological ahistoricism , m essianism , an d th e R ussian Idea (regardless o f w h e th e r it was expressed as destiny, karm a, o r m ission), m ystical p o p u lism , and th e G nosticism underly in g m any R ussian mystical sects w ere all su b su m ed u n d e r its syncretic aegis. T h e ­ osophy revealed th e P a th o f R ussia’s destiny as b rin g e r o f spiritual values to th e W est. T his sense o f destiny was visible in th e role o f M m e Blavatsky herself, a R ussian w om an w h o carried spiritual values to th e rest o f th e w o rld th ro u g h T heosophy. H e r a p p ro p riatio n o f B u d d h ist th o u g h t from th e East an d h er dissem ination o f it in th e W est becam e a p o te n t m ythologem . T h e o so p h y ’s im plicit social agenda, its answ er to the q u estio n “H o w sh o u ld w e live?” was also attractive to th e R ussian in te l­ ligentsia. Its p ro g ram dealt w ith ev ery th in g from tolerance o f race and religion to vegetarianism . Finally, T h e o so p h y affirm ed th e in tellig en tsia’s spiritual a n d in tellec­ tual u n d e rsta n d in g o f h u m a n e v o lu tio n and h u m a n ity ’s central role in th e universe. Its com plex cosm ology provides “p r o o f ” th a t h u m an c o n ­ sciousness and h u m an cu ltu re w ere destin ed to evolve and w ere, in fact, evolving at th a t very m o m e n t in th e d irectio n o f th e spiritual. H u m a n ­ k ind h ad passed th ro u g h th e w orst, m o st m aterial stage o f its dev elo p ­ m e n t and was already o n the P ath upw ard to w a rd Spirit. T his spiritual D arw inism o f th e T h eo so p h ists easily fo u n d an echo in th e views o f th e R ussian G o d -b u ild ers an d th e idealistic socialists. · T h e o so p h y was forcibly evicted from R ussian soil by political events, and its credibility was fu rth e r dim inished in th e late 1920s and 1930s because it c o n tin u e d , in th e face o f a p ro fo u n d ly m aterial and te c h n o ­ logical tw e n tie th century, to deny m a tte r as illusory. S teep ed in p a n ­ theistic m onism , it also d e n ie d individualism , th e very basis o f p o st-E n lig h te n m e n t societal stru c tu re (a lth o u g h this aspect co n c ern e d W estern E u ro p ean T h e o so p h y m o re th an its R ussian variant). Psychologists, re c ­ o g n iz in g th e w idespread in te rest in T h eo so p h y a n d its k in d re d p h e n o m ­ ena, w arn ed against th eir seductions. P erhaps T h eo so p h y tu rn e d o u t to be p a rt o f th e darker side o f spiritual searchings o f th e R ussian Silver A ge, b u t, as th e intellectual histo rian S. A. Levitskii p o in te d o u t, periods o f “ creative in spiration are frequently associated w ith tem p ta tio n s an d heresies.” 27 Perhaps it was only a pseu d o in tellectu al pseudosystem after all, a p seu d o relig io n , a pseudophilosophy. Perhaps, in th e e n d , n e ith e r M m e Blavatsky’s E astern T h e o so p h y (w ith its n e o -B u d d h ism ) n o r Dr. S tein er’s W estern A n th ro p o so p h y (w ith its R osicrucianism ) was able to satisfy th e q u e st o f th e R ussian spirit for its R ussian T ru th . B u t for som e highly visible individuals— N ikolai R oerich, K o n stan tin B al’m o n t, M a r­ garita Sabashnikova-V oloshina, M aks V oloshin, Asya T urgeneva, and A ndrei Belyi am o n g th em — T h e o so p h y apparently pro v id ed som e m uch n e e d ed answ ers, gave stru c tu re a n d significance to th eir life, an d fo u n d

expression th ro u g h th eir work. It served to enhance, n o t im pede, their creative im pulse. Even those w ho subsequently rejected T heosophy— Viacheslav Ivanov and Lev Kobylinskii-Ellis, b o th o f w hom converted to Catholicism , or N ikolai Berdiaev, w ho follow ed his ow n philosophical im perative— evolved as they did in the co n tex t o f th eir e n c o u n te r w ith Theosophy. T heosophy did n o t pass th ro u g h Russian culture and th o u g h t w ith ­ o u t a trace. I f i t had, G od-seekers and O rth o d o x theologians w o u ld n o t have felt the n eed to co n tinue to discuss T heosophy and A nthroposophy, to refute its do ctrin e, and to criticize its practitioners for the rest o f their lives in the em igration. Nikolai Berdiaev devoted an entire section to “T heosophy and G nosis” in Filosofiia svobodnogo dukha (1 9 2 7 ), ar­ guably his m o st im p o rta n t single work. H e was answ ered in the em igre jo urnal P u t’ by N ataliia Turgeneva, the Paris A n th ro p o so p h ist and sister o f A ndrei Belyi’s first wife, th e A nthroposophical artist, Asya T u rg e ­ neva.28 In 1935 Berdiaev, Sem en Frank, Vasilii Zenkovskii, Boris Vyshe­ slavtsev, and F ather G eorgii Florovskii published in Paris a small b u t in ­ teresting volum e, Pereselenie dush\ problem a bezsmertiict v okkul’ tizm e i khristianstve, w hich co n tin u ed to address th e perceived im portance and potential th re a t posed by the occult, n eo-B uddhist th o u g h t o f M m e Blavatsky and Dr. Steiner o n th e philosophy o f th e Russian religious renaissance. Today it is still difficult for critics to take seriously the occult m ove­ m ents o f the fin de siecle and their influence o r to evaluate th a t influence objectively. It is far easier to lam poon or deride the o c c u lt’s m ore noto rio u s or bizarre m anifestations. B ut in th eir tim e such m ovem ents nevertheless attracted m any intelligent, serious, and respected individu­ als—scientists, scholars, artists, and w riters. T h e adherents o f these m ovem ents, except in the m ore extrem e cases o f B ohem ian excess, were n o t viewed as a lunatic fringe; m ost o f th em stem m ed from the m iddle and g en try classes and enjoyed social acceptability, even prestige. I t is n o t unusual in th e legitim ate and p o p u lar philosophical, religious, and scholarly literature o f the p erio d to see th e works o f M rs. Besant, R u d o lf Steiner, and E d o u ard Schure listed in bibliographies and cited as sources. It may be tru e th at, like th e characters o f U m b e rto E co’s m o d ern occult novel, Foucault’s P en d u lu m , T heosophy ultim ately invented n o th in g new; b u t it is also tru e th a t, like those sam e characters, it rearranged the old pieces and, m erely by d o in g so, rew rote history and changed reality. T he conflation o f tim e and space, the blu rrin g o f historical epochs and geographical locations, the frequently specious analogies characteristic o f m odernist and postm o d ern ist a rt may well have th eir ro o ts in the

analogical syncretism th a t T h eo so p h y (and o th e r occu lt m ovem ents) dissem inated in th e ir tim e as an a n tid o te to logical, linear th o u g h t. T he o ccu lt m ind is driven by analogy and by sym bol, n o t by th e principle o f cause and effect o r th e c o n c e p t o f “ fact.” T h e o so p h y was th e w idest p ro m u lg a to r o f th e analogical and synthetic, ra th e r th a n th e logical and analytic, m o d e o f th o u g h t in its tim e. I t h a d been called in to existence because o f a perceived n eed for an alternative to scientific positivism . P erhaps T h eo so p h y did n o t appeal to everyone; perhaps it did n o t suc­ ceed in solving th e G reat M ystery o f th e U niverse; b u t m any p referred it to th e existential th o u g h t th a t n o M ystery exists, and th a t at th e en d o f th e P ath lies n o th in g .

Notes

Introduction T h e E s o te r ic T r a d itio n an d th e R u ssia n S ilv er A g e

1. O tets Io an n D m itrevskii, Teosofiia— religioznaia filosofiia, nashejyo vrem eni (K har’kov: 1 9 1 1 ), I . Ironically, F ath er D m itrevskii m ig h t well be describing So­ viet Russian b o o k kiosks d u rin g th e heady days o f JjlasnosT. 2. L. E. O ., “ R eligiozno-m isticheskie b ro zh eniia v sovrem ennoi Rossii,” Rebus 8 /9 ( 1 9 0 6 ) : 4. T here was a m ore sinister side to th e occult p h e n o m en o n as well. A natolii B., w ritin g o n “ P eterburgskie satanisty” in R ebus 8 (1 9 1 3 ): 5, p o in ted o u t th a t th e capital was full o f “Satanists, Luciferians, fire-w orshippers, black m agicians, and occultists” (his article was rep rin ted from Golos Moskvy 34 [1 9 1 3 ]). A nd they w ere everywhere: am ong th e c o u rt pages, in the m edical academ ies, in the schools, and in th e elegant salons o f P etersb u rg ’s beau monde. T h e darker side o f Russian occultism was frequently associated w ith narcotics, suicides, confidence gam es, an d th e occasional Black Mass. Several foreign o c­ cultists (such as th e n o to rio u s Czeslaw v on C zinski) w ere to ld to leave Russia and never retu rn . 3. Ivanov-R azum nik, “A ndrei Belyi,” in S. A. V engerov, R usskaia litera tu ra x x veka, vol. 3, pt. 2 (M oscow : M ir, 1 9 1 6 ), 59. “ Z h eo rzh ii N ulkov” is a charac­ te r from Belyi’s fo u rth “Sym phony,” Kubok metelei (1 9 0 8 ); he is a parody o f the mystical anarchist and second-rate Sym bolist w riter, G eorgii C hulkov (1 8 7 9 — 1939). 4. Nikolai Berdiaev, Sam opoznanie (1 9 4 9 ; 2 d rev. ed. Paris: YM CA, 1983), 2 2 4 -2 5 . 5. H . P. Blavatsky, Isis U nveiled (N ew York: J. W. B o u to n , 18 7 7 ), vol. I , xxxvii. 6. Mystic an d mystery from G reek m usterion, secret rites, and mustes, one in i­ tiated in to secret rites; from m u e in , to in itiate, an d m u e in , to keep silence; occult from L atin occulere, to cover, conceal. 7. G ershom S cholem , On the K abbalah a n d Its Symbolism (N ew York: Schocken Books, 1 9 6 5 ), 9. Scholem is speaking theoretically on the n atu re o f mysticism in general. 8. A. E. W aite, Lam ps o f Western M ysticism (1 9 2 3 ; Blauvelt, N.Y.: R udolph Steiner P ublications, 1 9 7 3 ), 66. 9. A ndrew S eth , q u o te d in W illiam R. In g e, C hristian M ysticism (1 8 9 9 ; L o n ­ don: M e th u e n , 1 9 4 8 ), 339. 10. In g e, C hristian Mysticism, 5. 11. Ib id ., 339. 12. E. Barabash, “Teosofiia i teosofy,” R ebus 4 3 (1 8 8 4 ): 395. 13. A dditional info rm atio n o n Russian A n th ro p o so p h y is available in the re ­ cent b o o k by th e A n th ro p o so p h ist V icto r B. F edjuschin, Russlands Sehnsucht nach S p iritu a lita t (Schaffhausen, Sw itzerland: Novalis Verlag, 1988).

C h a p te r O n e A H is to r ic a l S u r v e y o f R u s s ia n O c c u lt I n te r e s ts

1. See A. N. Pypin, “ Lozhnye i otrechennye knigi russkoi stariny,” in P a m iatniki starinnoi russkoi literatury, ed. G. Kushelev-Bezborodko, pt. 3 (St. Petersburg: 1862), 1 6 1 -6 6 ; C o u n t Kushelev-Bezborodko was a leading o c­ cultist and Spiritualist; see also M. N . Speranskii, “Iz istorii otrechennykh knig,” in G aAaniia po psaltyri (1899), also his iiAristotelevy Vrata i Tainaia tainykh,” in Sbornik statei v chest’ A . I. Sobolevskogo (SORIaS C I;3) (Leningrad: 1928); A. N. Veselovskii, “ G adatel’nye knigi na Zapade i u nas,” in Vestnik Evropy 4(1886); A. A. Turilov, V. Chernetsov, iiR a fli— iazycheskie sviatsy Ivana Rykova,” in P a m ia tn iki kuT tury 1984 (Leningrad: N auka, 1986), 2 0 -2 8 . 2. For discussion o f Russian Freemasonry, see A. N. Pypin, Russkoe masonstvo X V I I I i pervaia chetverP X I X v. (Petrograd: 1916); [E. N. B crendts], Mason­ stvo, ili velikoe tsarstvennoe iskusstvo bratstva vol’nykh kam en’shchikov (St. Peters­ burg: 1911); Masonstvo v ego prosblom i nastoiashchem, 2 vols. (M oscow: 1914); A. V. M ezier, V poiskakh pravdy i smysla zhizni (Petrograd: [Stranstvuiushchii entuziast], 1919); Ocherk iz istorii russkogo masonstva (St. Petersburg: 1906); Tira O. Sokolovskaia, Russkoe masonstvo i ego znachenie v istorii obshchestvennogo dvizheniia. (St. Petersburg: 1908); VI. Tukalevskii, Iskaniia russkikh masonov (St. Petersburg: 1911). 3. Both Cagliostro and his occult contem porary, the charismatic C om te de Saint-G erm ain, continued to be a subject o f interest in Russia; Saint-Germ ain taught the old C ountess the trick o f the cards in Pushkin’s “Pikovaia D am a” ; Cagliostro was the subject o f an entire novel by Mikhail Kuzm in, Chudesnaia zh iz n ’ Iosifa BaPzamo, Grafa Kaliostro (Petrograd: 1919). B oth nam es fre­ quently appear in the supernatural fiction o f the nineteenth century w hen a “ mysterious foreigner” is required by the plot. 4. Representative eighteenth-century translated occult classics include: K hrizom andr (Moscow: Lopukhin, 1783); Dragotsennyi magicheskii kam en3 (M oscow: 1783); K ra ta Repoa (Moscow: 1784); KolybeP kam nia m udrykh (M oscow: Lopukhin, 1786); Paracelsus, Khimicheskii psaltyr’, ili filosofskaia pravda o kam ne m udrykh (Moscow: 1784); O drevnikh misteriiakh ili tainstvakh (Moscow: 1785); [St.-M artin], O zabluzhdeniiakh i istine (Moscow: Lopukhin, 1785); DolzhnosP braPev Z .-R . K. [Zlato-Rozovogo KrestaJ (Moscow: 1786); B agvat Geta [Bhagavad Gita] (Moscow: Novikov, 1788). Representative works by Eckartshausen include: Vazhneishie ieroglify chelovecheskogo serdtsa (St. Petersburg: 1803); N auka chisl, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg: 1815); Kliuch k tainstvam natury, 4 parts (1804; 2d ed. 1821); H alle, M agiia ili volshebnaia sila prirody, 9 vols. (Moscow: 1 7 8 4 -1 8 0 2 ). 5. M ichael Florinsky, Russia; A History a n d an Interpretation, vol. 2 (New York: M acmillan), 638—46. 6. C hristopher M cIntosh, Eliphas L iv t and the French Occult R evival (New York: Weiser, 1972), 141. 7. F or an informative description o f the French m anifestation o f the occult revival, see “ Religious U nease,” in Jean P ierrot’s The Decadent Im agination 1880-1900, trans. Derek C oltm an (Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1981), 7 9 -1 1 8 .

8. BuLwer- Lytto n ’s m ajor o ccult novel, Z a n o n i, was translated into Russian as P rizrak (St. P etersburg: 1879). 9. R evu e ittm tree, F eb ru ary 15, 1890; cited in M ircea Eliade, Occultism, W itchcraft, a n d C u ltu ra l Fashions (C hicago: U niversity o f C hicago Press, 19 7 6 ), 51. 10. N ina B erberova, L iu d i i lozhi; russkie masony x x stoletiia (N ew York: Russica, 1 9 8 6 ), 20. 11. T o H erm es Trism egisrus, th e “T hrice-G reatest H erm es,” w ere a ttrib ­ u te d an eclectic com pilation o f N eo p lato n ic, K abbalistic, and G nostic sacred texts from th e th ird cen tu ry B .C . to th e th ird century a . d . H e rm e s-T h o th was supposedly a sage-adept w ho preserved th e ancient m ystery w isdom o f the E gyp­ tian M agi; he shares his nam e w ith th e E gyptian g o d o f w isdom and learning. T he m edieval alchem ists used the term herm etic to refer to books o f mysticism and o ccult w isdom ; they, in tu rn , w ere called “ H erm eticists.” T h e term hermetic thus refers b o th to this ancient, G nostic tre n d and to m edieval philosophical alchemy, w hich claim ed to be a c o n tin u atio n o f th e ancient tradition. 12. T u k h o lk a’s b o o k was in a fo u rth ed itio n by 1917 and widely read; this was h e r m o st successful book, b u t she also w rote o n occult healing, the witch trials, and anim al m agnetism . Z apriagaev’s version o f T hom as H en ry Burgoy n e’s The L ig h t o f Egypt (1 8 8 9 an d su b seq u en t eds.) becam e an occult b est­ seller in Russia ( Svet Egipta1 ili n a u ka o zvezdakh i dushe [V iaz’ma: 1906; 2 d ed. 19 1 0 ]); Zapriagaev also published astrological ephem erides and occult “h o w ­ to ” texts. 13. E m m a H ard in g e B ritten , N ineteenth C entury Miracles; Spirits a n d Their Works in Every C ountry o f the E a rth (N ew York: Lovell, 1884), 3 49, 356. See also “ Kratkii ocherk razvitiia spiritualizm a v Rossii,” Rebus 2 0 (1 8 8 7 ): 2 0 7 —10. 14. D . D . H o m e an d th e Spiritualism he helped in tro d u ce in to Russia also fou n d th eir way in to Russian literature. L. N . T olstoi m et D . D . H o m e in Paris in 1857 and used him as th e m odel for th e m edium L andau in A n n a K arenina. Tolstoi also paro d ied th e passion for Spiritualism am ong the u p p er classes in his play, Plody prosveshcheniia (1 8 9 1 ). N . V. D avydov had arranged for T olstoi to atten d a seance at th e h o m e o f the w ell-know n M oscow Spiritualist N ikolai Aleksandrovich L ’vov (1 8 3 4 -1 8 8 7 ) som etim e in the m id-1880s. T o lstoi’s sa­ tiric play was based o n his experiences in th e L ’vov hom e. 15. Som e additional m aterial on spiritualism in Russia is available in T hom as Berry, S p iritualism in Tsarist Society a n d L itera ture (Baltim ore: E dgar Allan Poe Society, 1 9 8 5 ). Prof. B erry’s study, how ever, is prelim inary, w ith m any lacunae. 16. An insightful acco u n t o f this episode may be fo u n d in V. I. Pribytkov’s Vopros o spiritizm e v Rossii (St. Petersburg: Iz d a tel’stvo R ebusa, 1901); for m ore general in fo rm atio n , see A rth u r C onan D oyle, H istory o f Spiritualism (L ondon: G eorge H . D o ran , 1 9 2 6 ), 2 vols.; for a Russian p o in t o f view, sec V. S. Akatov, O p o zitivn ykh osnovakh noveishego sp iritizm a (M oscow : 1909). 17. Rebus 1 (1 8 9 4 ): 4. 18. T h o m as Berry, Spiritualism in Tsarist Society a n d L iterature, 112. F or m ore info rm atio n on th e form ative years o f Rebus, see th e Jubilee N u m b e r 1000 (9[M arch 4 , 1 9 0 1 ]; also issued separately as a book). 19. See Trudy pervogo vserossiiskogo s”ezda spiritualistov (M oscow: 1907, 1908).

20. O n D ecem ber 6, 1908, Russkie vedomosti and o ther newspapers carried an advertisem ent th at offered the following prem ium s to new subscribers: an Aksakov-approved ouija board, a black boule for developing clairvoyance, and a “ Palm ograph” to help with autom atic writing. New subscribers also had the right to subm it up to three questions a m onth to be asked at seances held under the auspices o f O ttu da1s editorial board. 21. At which p oint Bykov brutally attacked Spiritualism as a satanic, M a­ sonic, and Jewish conspiracy in Spiritizm pod sudom nauki, obshchestva, i religii (Moscow: Izdanie E. I. Bykovoi, 1914). 22. V. P. Bykov, Spiritizm pod sudom nauki, obshchestva i religii, 7 7 -7 8 . 23. Andrei Belyi, letter to Aleksandr Blok o f D ecem ber 18 or 19, 1904, in A n d rei Belyi— A leksandr Blok. Perepiska (Moscow: 1940; reprinted M unich: Fink Verlag, 1969), 116. 24. Spiritualist 1(1909): 32—33. 2 5 . T h at b o th Spiritualism and Theosophy originated in the New York area is n o t as coincidental as it may first appear. New York was the heart o f the socalled burned-over district, an area o f the American N ortheast th ro u g h which m ost im m igrants were channeled. T he “burned-over district” became famous for its revivalists, free thinkers, dissenters, and religious eccentrics o f every co n ­ ceivable stamp. T h e Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s W itnesses, Joseph Sm ith’s M orm onism , and M ary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science all em erged from this area, as well as the Transcendentalists and a variety o f social utopian groups. T h at M m e Blavatsky gravitated tow ard this area and that both Spiritual­ ism and Theosophy had their beginnings there is n o t to be w ondered at. 26. M rs. Annie Besant, The A n cie n t Wisdom (1897; Adyar: The Theosophical Publishing H ouse, 1977), 4 -5 . 27. Ib id., I. 28. M m e Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine (New York: The Theosophical P u b ­ lishing C o., 1888), vol. I , xx. 29. E douard Schure, The Great Initiates, vol. I , trans. Fred Rothwell (1889; L ondon: 1913), xx, xxi. 30. M m e Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, vol. I , xxxiv. 31. Mrs. Besant, T h eA n cie n t Wisdom, 3. 32. Ibid., 41. 33. Schure’s preface to Steiner’s A n Esoteric Cosmology (Blauvelt, N.Y.: Spiritual Science Library, 1987), 5; lectures read in Paris May 2 5 -Ju n e 14, 1906. 34. V. G ol’dberg, in Antroposofskoe dvizhenie i ego prorok (Berlin: 1923), w ent so far as to call A nthroposophy “the P rotestantization o f Indian w isdom ” (33). 35. M m e Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, vol. I , viii. 36. A. P. S innett, Esoteric Buddhism (London: Triibner, 1883), 22, 29. 37. Mrs. Amnie Besant, The A n cie n t Wisdom, 302. 38. Andrei Belyi, N otebook from 1901, M anuscript Division, Lenin Library, M oscow, M S# 25;1;4, fol. 80a. 39. E. M. Butler, M yth o f the M agus (Cam bridge: C am bridge University Press, 1948), 216.

C h a p te r T w o T h e E arly D a y s o f T h e o s o p h y in R u ssia ( 1 8 7 5 - 1 9 0 1 )

1. F o r inform ation o n M m e Blavatsky’s early life, see Vera Zhelikhovskaia, “ Elena Petrovna Blavatskaia (biograficheskii o ch erk ),” Russkoe obozrenie 1 1 (1 8 9 1 ): 2 4 2 -9 4 ; 12(1 8 9 1 ): 5 6 7 -6 2 1 ; Elena Pisareva, “ Elena Petrovna Blavatskaia,” in Voprosy teosofii; sbornik statei, p t. 2 (St. P etersburg: 1 9 1 0 ), 7 52; b o th are panegyrical an d hagiographical. M uch conflicting m aterial com es from M m e Blavatsky’s a u n t, N ad ezh d a A ndreevna Fadeeva, three years her sen­ ior and an intim ate friend and defender, and M ar’ia G rig o r’evna E rm olova, the wife o f th e governor o f Tiflis, w ho knew th e Fadeev family well. Elena P e­ tro v n a ’s sister, Vera Zhelikhovskaia, also w rote m em oirs o f h er y o u th , “ Rak ia byla m alen’kaia” and “ M oe o tro c h e stv o ,” w ith considerable m aterial ab o u t Elena Petrovna; Zhelikhovskaia also k ept a diary. I have n o t been able to locate these last materials. N u m ero u s biographies exist for readers w ho w ant m ore details o f M m e Blavatsky’s career; read w ith care. See: H e n ry Steel O lco tt, Old D ia ry Leaves (N ew York: G. P. P u tn a m ’s, 189 5 ), and A. P. S in n ett, Incidents in the Life o f H . P. Blavatsky (1 8 8 6 ; N ew York: Ayer, 19 7 6 ), tw o works w ritten by c o n te m p o ­ raries and fellow T heosophists; C o untess C onstance W achtm eister, e t al., R e m i­ niscences o f H . P. Blavatsky a n d the Secret D octrine (1 8 8 3 ; W h eato n , 111.: T he T heosophical Publishing H o u se, 1 976); Charles Ryan, H . P, Blavatsky a n d the Theosophical M ovem ent (1 9 3 7 2 d rev. ed. Pasadena: T heosophical U niversity Press, 187 5 ); M arion M eade, M ad a m e Blavatsky: The W oman Behind the M yth (N ew York: G. P. P u tn a m ’s, 1980). M ead e’s book, th e least flattering o f those listed, is readable and inform ative; w hile it presents the “ m ythology” o f M m e Blavatsky, as well as su b stan tiated facts, it does n o t in tegrate the m ythology unquestioningly in to th e biography. M eade seems to have m issed, how ever, the charism atic dim ension o f M m e Blavatsky’s character, a necessary p o in t if one is to u n d erstan d how a single w om an im pressed, convinced, and inspired so m any peo p le, given th e m ore incredible aspects o f h er T heo so p h y (and her try in g p er­ sonality). F o r a very different view o f M m e Blavatsky, see Sergei W itte’s M em oirs o f C o u n t W itte (G arden City, N.Y.: 1921). O th e r Russian m aterial includes Z inaida V engerova and V ladim ir Solov’ev, “Blavatskaia, Elena P etro v n a,” in S. A. V engerov’s ICritiko-biograficheskii slovar3 (St. P etersburg: Sem enovskaia tipografiia, 1 8 9 2 ), and V sevolod Solov’ev, Sovrem ennaia zhritsa Izid y (St. P eters­ burg: O bshchestvennaia P o l’za, 1893). O th e r m aterials are listed in th e general bibliography. 2. Pisareva implies th a t Prince G olitsyn was som ehow involved in E lena P e­ tro v n a’s disappearance from h o m e for several days, and th a t th e hasty m arriage w ith th e socially unsuitable and unloved N ikifor Blavatskii was arranged to save her re p u ta tio n . E lena Petrovna was m arried in 1849, n o t 1848, as m ost bio g ra­ phies state. 3. G eoffrey B arborka, H . P. Blavatsky, Tibet, a n d T ulku (Adyar, M adras: T he T heosophical P ublishing H o u se, 19 7 4 ), 2 4 -2 5 . 4. “ Pravda o E. P. B lavatskoi,” R ebus 4 0 - 4 1 , 4 3 - 4 4 , 4 6 ^ 8 ( 1 8 8 3 ) . 5. M m e Biavatsky’s later descriptions o f life in T ib et bear a m ore th an coinci-

den tal resem blance to classic travel texts o f th e p eriod; she h e rself ad m itte d re ­ so rtin g to c o n te m p o ra ry travel guides w hen w ritin g h e r In d ia n travelogues in th e late 187 0 s an d early 1 8 8 0 s, an d p ro b ab ly d id th e sam e for her T ib e ta n “ a d ­ v e n tu re s.” H e r narratives include n o u n iq u e experiences o r descriptions th a t w o u ld indicate th a t she h a d in fact p e n e tra te d o r even reach ed T ib e t, w hich at the tim e p e rm itte d alm o st n o fo reigners, and n o w hite w o m en , to cross its borders. 6 . T h e spying accusation possibly has fo u n d a tio n in fact. O n D ece m b er 2 6 , 1 8 7 2 , M m e Blavatsky w ro te from O dessa to th e D ire c to r o f th e T h ird S ection offering h er services as an agent; “ D u rin g these tw enty years I have becom e well acquain ted w ith all o f W estern E u ro p e , I zealously follow ed c u rre n t politics n o t w ith any goal in m in d , b u t because o f an in n ate passion; in o rd e r b e tte r to follow events an d to divine th e m in advance, I always h a d th e h a b it o f en terin g in to the sm allest details o f any affair, for w hich reaso n I strove to acquaint m yself w ith all th e leading personalities, politicians o f various n a tio n s, b o th o f th e g o v e rn m e n t factions an d o f th e far L e ft.” A fter re c o m m e n d in g h erself to th e D ire c to r by referrin g to h e r Fadeev co n n e c tio n s, she w e n t on: “As a S piritualist, I have a re p u ta tio n in m any places as a pow erfu l m ed iu m . H u n d re d s o f peo p le u n d o u b t­ edly believed and will believe in spirits. B u t I, w ritin g this le tte r w ith th e aim o f offerin g my services to Y our Excellency an d to m y native lan d , am o b lig a ted to tell you th e entire tr u th w ith o u t co n cealm en t. A nd th u s I m u st confess th a t th re e -q u a rte rs o f th e tim e th e spirits spoke and answ ered in m y w ords an d o u t o f m y co n sid eratio n s, for th e success o f m y o w n plans. Rarely, very rarely, did I fail, by m eans o f this little trap , to discover p e o p le ’s h o p es, plans, and secrets.” M m e Blavatsky follow ed h e r offer w ith a list o f all th e m ilitary secrets she had m anag ed to discover w hile in C airo th e previous year. T h e T h ird S ection did n o t accept h e r kind offer, a lth o u g h she q u ite accurately to ld th em : “ I have played every ro le, I am able to rep resen t m yself as any p erso n yo u m ay w ish” (T sG A O R [C entral S tate Archive o f th e O c to b e r R e v o lu tio n ], M S# 1 0 9 ;3 ;2 2 ; cited in L iteraturnoe obozrenie 6 [1 9 8 8 ]: 1 1 1 -1 2 .) P robably g e n u in e, this le tte r, w hich is alternately boastful an d o b seq u io u s, is suggestive o f h er personality. 7. R adda-B ai [pseud, o f H . P. Blavatsky], I z peshcher i debrei InAosta.no·; p is>m a no, ro d in u , A d d e n d u m to R u sskii vestnik 1—8 (1 8 8 3 ); seco n d series 1 1 (1 8 8 5 ), 2—3, 8 (1 8 8 6 ); Zopadochnye plem ena. T ri m esiatsa n o “Golubykh Gora k k ” M adrasa, in R usskii vestnik 1 2 (1 8 8 4 ), 1 -4 (1 8 8 5 ); separate e d itio n , I z p e ­ shcher i debrei Indostana. Zapadochnye plem ena n a “ Golubykh G orakhT D u rb a r v Lapore (St. P etersb u rg : V. I. G ubinskii, 18 9 3 ). T h e w o rk contains a biography o f M m e Blavatsky by V. P. Z helikhovskaia. A seco n d , illu strated ed itio n was pu b lish ed by S uvorin in 1 9 1 2 , u n d e r th e n am e E. P. Blavatskaia, n o t R adda-B ai. 8. F o u n d e d in 1 8 8 2 , th e Society for Psychical R esearch had m any p ro m in e n t m em b ers, in clu d in g E d m u n d G urney, F rederic M yers, H e n ry Sidgw ick, Sir W il­ liam B arrett, and A lfred Russel W allace; its m o re illustrious “affiliates” from the Royal Society rep resen ted th e acm e o f th e w orlds o f politics, letters, and p h ilo s­ ophy: Prim e M in ister G lad sto n e, A lfred, L o rd T ennyson, Jo h n R uskin, and W il­ liam Jam es. 9. M ario n M ead e, M a d a m e Blavatsky: The W om an B ehind the M yth (N ew York: G. P. P u tn a m ’s, 1 9 8 0 ), 2 8 9 .

10. Society for Psychical Research, “ R ep o rt o f the C o m m ittee A ppointed to Investigate P henom ena C o n n ected w ith the T heosophical Society,” Proceedings o f the Society fo r Psychical Research, no. 3 (D ecem ber 1885), 207. 11. A leading T h eo so p h ist w ho was residing at the Adyar H e ad q u a rte rs d u r­ ing th e M ahatm a scandal, Franz H a rtm a n n , w rote a sh o rt w ork entitled A n A d ­ venture A m o n g the Rosicrucians ( 18 8 7 ), in w hich a traveler is taken to one o f the ou tp o sts o f the B ro th erh o o d in th e Alps, and there m eets an adept nam ed “ Ellen” and hears astral bells (one o f M m e Blavatsky’s m ost frequently p ro d u ced phen o m en a). A p o p u lar translation in to Russian was serialized in R e te ib e tw e e n N ov em b er 2 1 , 19 0 4 , an d M ay 8, 1905. 12. The Secret D octrine, 2 vols. (L ondon: T he T heosophical Publishing C o., 1888); alm ost all o f M m e Blavatsky’s m ajor w orks u n d e rw e n t considerable revi­ sion and editing by h er colleagues an d disciples; the success o f The Secret Doc­ trin e rests largely o n th e m agnificent ed itin g job and revisions m ade by the reli­ gion scholar G. R. S. M ead and the co m p eten t A rchibald and B ertram Keightley. 13. M m e Blavatsky’s letters to Vera Zhelikhovskaia (those few th a t have been published in various T heosophical journals) indicate th a t this correspondence m ig h t be inform ative indeed. Soviet archives have n o t released any personal m a­ terials, alth o u g h any rem aining Blavatsky papers are probably scattered th ro u g h ­ o u t various archives. A t least p a rt o f M m e Blavatsky’s library also w en t to h er sister. Russkie vedomosti an n o u n ced o n January 18, 190 8 , th a t M m e Blavatsky’s T heosophical Library, d o n a te d to th e R um iantsev M useum in 1907 by Vera V ladim irovna Zhelikhovskaia, M m e Blavatsky’s niece, was cataloged and ready for use. T he library consisted o f th ree h u n d re d volum es. (T he new spaper article identified M m e Blavatsky as “ avantiuristka-teosofka.” ) 14. T h eo so p h y ad m itted the reality o f m edium istic p henom ena. I t did n o t agree, how ever, th a t these p h en o m en a w ere caused by the spirits o f the dead; m edium istic p h en o m en a, according to T heosophy, are eith er psychically in ­ duced or, in the w orst case, are th e w ork o f disintegrating astral bodies and elem entals, th e p ro jectio n o f unconscious th o u g h ts and wishes th ro u g h th e m ag ­ netic field in to astral m atter. T hese last are potentially very dangerous. Since elem entals have n o will o r in te n t, spiritualistic com m unications are frequently absurd and irrelevant; the elem entals, conclude th e T heosophists, are simply m aking a gam e o f gullible Spiritualists. 15. “Teosofiia i spiritizm ,” R ebus 7 (1 8 8 6 ): 79. 16. “ Pravda o E. R Blavatskoi,” see n o te 4; this series, to g eth e r w ith Z helikhovskaia’s “N e o b ”iasnim oe i n e o b ”iasn en n o e” in Rebus 4 (1 8 8 5 ) w ere sepa­ rately p ublished as a small b o o k e n titled Neob^iasnimoe i neob”iasnennoe in 1885. 17. Rebus 1 6 (1 8 8 4 ): 156. 18. Vera Zhelikhovskaia, “E. P. Blavatskaia i teosofisty,” Odesskii vestnik 123(June 5, 1884): 1 -3 ; rep rin ted in R ebus 2 8 (1 8 8 4 ): 2 6 3 -6 5 , 2 9 (1 8 8 4 ): 2 7 4 -7 5 ; “V oblasti okk u l’tizm a i m ag n etizm a,” Odesskii vestnik 166, 172, 181, 184 (1 8 8 4 ); recapped as “ P h enom eny okkul’ticheskoi sily g-zhy Blavatskoi” in Rebus 5 0 (1 8 8 4 ): 4 6 5 —67; “Pis’m a iz-za granitsy,” Novorossiiskii Telegraf no. 2 78 9 (Ju n e 6, 1884).

19. “ E. P. Blavatskaia i teosofisty,” Rebus 28(1884): 263; excerpted from a letter by Vera Zhelikhovskaia to the editor o f Odesskii vestnik (w ritten from Paris, May 2 5 /J u n e 6, 1884). T he reference is to an interview with M m e Blavatsky in the L ondon Pa-Il M ull Gazette o f April 26, 1884, in which M m e Blavatsky claimed that the first goal o f her Theosophical Society was “the restoration o f B uddhism to its original purity” ; she also had unkind words for Christianity as an institution ( Gazette, 4). She said nothing in th at particular interview about building Buddhist tem ples, b u t she gave many other interviews at the tim e, and the patently outrageous claim about destroying Christianity and building B ud­ dhist temples would n o t have been o u t o f character. 20. E. Barabash, “Teosofiia i teosofy,” 41(1884): 375; the article ran for three issues, 41—43(1884). 21. “Spiritizm v istorii,” Rebus 20—38(1885). 22. “Noveishie dvizheniia v B uddizm e,” Russkuia mysV 8(1887): 17, 2d pagination. Lesevich’s article served as an introduction for C olonel O lco tt’s “B uddhist Catechism ” and Edward A rnold’s In d ia Revisited, published in the same issue. Edw ard A rnold was popular in Russia (as well as in Europe), and his Li£fht o f A sia (Sv et A z ii [St. Petersburg: 1893]), translated in to Russian by M ar­ garita Sabashnikova’s uncle, Ivan Sabashnikov, w ent th ro u g h num erous edi­ tions. 23. Vladimir Solov’ev, Russkoe obozrenie 8(1890); also in his Sobranie sochinenii, ed. E. L. Radlov and S. M. Solov’ev, vol. 6, 2 d ed. (St. Petersburg: Prosveshchenie, 1 9 1 1 -1 9 1 3 ), 2 8 7 -9 2 . 24. VI. Solov’ev, Sob. soch. vol. 6, 287. 25. Ibid., 2 8 9 , 291. 26. Vladimir Solov’ev, “Blavatskaia, Elena Petrovna,” in S. A. Vengerov’s Kritiko-biografickeskii slovar’ (St. Petersburg: Semenovskaia tipografiia, 1892), vol. 2, 3 1 5 -1 9 ; printed together w ith Zinaida Vengerova’s biographical sketch, 3 0 1 -1 5 . Also in Solov’ev’s Sob. soch., vol. 6, 3 9 4 -9 8 , under the title “Zam etka o E. P. Blavatskoi” ; a reprint o f Solov’ev’s “ Zam etka o E. P. Blavatskoi” (under the title “V. Solov’ev o teosofii” ) was begun in Rebus 4(1915): 1 -2 , bu t never com pleted. 27. Vengerov, 315. 28. Ibid., 318. 29. Ib id., 319. 30. Pisareva, “ E. P. B.” (Boston: Alba, 1966), 9; hectograph. 31. Alba, “Zadachi Teosofii,” Rebus 6 / 7 ( 1907): 6. 32. Russkii vestnik 2 -5 , 9 -1 2 (1 8 9 2 ); St. Petersburg ed.: 1893; subsequent editions. 33. Translated by W. Leaf, a m em ber o f the Society for Psychical Research, and published in L ondon in 1895. 34. Vs. Solov’ev, “ Interesnyi fenom en,” Rebus 26(1884): 243; letter to the editor from Paris, dated June 1 0 /2 2 , 1884. 35. M eade, 367; also Vs. Solov’ev, Sovremennaia zhritsa Izid y, 36. Vs. Solov’ev, Zhritsa, 217; all citations from St. Petersburg 1904 ed. 37. Ibid., 236.

38. Zhelikhovskaia’s effo rt m ust have been w o rth it, because after the R evo­ lu tio n , th e T heosophical Society pen sio n ed tw o o f M m e Blavatsky’s nieces (N ad ezh d a V ladim irovna, th e childless w idow o f G eneral Brusilov, w hom she had m et w hile w orking w ith th e R ed Cross o n the Galician fro n t, and Elena V ladim irovna, a child ren ’s w riter w ho never m arried) and su p p o rted th em for the rest o f th e ir lives; they lived in C zechoslovakia. T h e th ird niece, Vera V ladi­ m irovna, m arried th e Irish T h eo so p h ist and O rientalist Charles Jo h n sto n . 39. Vs. S olov’ev, Zhritsa, 252. 4 0 . Pisareva, “ E. P. B „ ” 10. 41. Vs. Solov’ev, “ C h to takoe ‘d o k trin a teosoficheskogo obshchestva,’ ” Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii 18(M ay 1893): B ook 3, 4 1 - 6 8 , 2 d pag. 42 . Ib id ., editorial fo o tn o te , 41 . 43 . N . F., “D va novye inostrannye otzyva o g-zhe Blavatskoi,” Rebus 38 (1 8 9 4 ): 361. 44. Rebus 18(1 8 9 5 ): 1 8 1 -8 3 . 45. “Istoricheskii ocherk vozniknoveniia i rasprostraneniia noveishcgo spiritu alizm a,” Rebus 1 4 (1 8 9 4 ): 1 4 5 —46. 46 . uM aks M iuller o noveishei teosofii i ee rasprostraniteliakh,” from Spiritualistische B latter 4 (1 8 9 4 ), in R ebus 2 1 (1 8 9 4 ): 2 1 3 . T he article borrow s freely from M uller’s en tertain in g an d sincere essay, “ Esoteric B uddhism ,” from The N ineteenth C en tu ry {L o n d o n ), 33:195 (M ay 18 9 3 ), 7 6 7 —88. 47. Rebus 3 8 (1 8 9 4 ): 362. 48. R adda-B ai, “P eshchera O zerkov,” R ebus 1 -3 (1 8 8 6 ); m odified Russian version o f her “ Cave o f th e E ch o es.” 49 . Vs. Solov’ev, Zhritsa, 2 7 9 . M m e Blavatsky’s travel notes w ere never co m ­ pleted in R usskii vestnik a lth o u g h a c o n tin u atio n was prom ised. I t is entirely possible th a t Vs. Solov’ev, w ho had influence w ith M ihkail Katkov, the jo u rn al’s ow ner, enco u rag ed him to have n o th in g m ore to d o w ith th e n o to rio u s M m e Blavatsky. 50. S tran d en , Teosofiia i ee k r itik i (St. P etersburg: Stasiulevich, 1913), 35. 51. E. Pisareva, “M issiia E. P. B lavatskoi,” Vestnik teosofii 1(1913): 15. C h a p te r T h r e e

T h e T h eosop h ical S ociety in R ussia ( 1 9 0 1 - 1 9 1 7 ) 1. A nna K am enskaya, “T h eo so p h y in R ussia,” Theosophic Messenger 6(M arch 1909): 2 3 4 . 2. N ina G ern et c o n trib u te d several pop u larizing articles on Russian and a n ­ cient Slavic m ysticism , Russian Freem asonry, R ussian folklore and legends, and so fo rth , to th e L o n d o n -b ased Theosophical Review. Som e w ere misty, m oody pieces describing “H elen a Blavatsky’s Russia.” H e r articles were frequently signed “A R ussian” and go back to a t least 1898. H e r longest w ork was “T he Rosy C ross in R ussia,” in th e Theosophical R eview 3 8 (1906): 4 8 9 —501; 3 9 (1 9 0 7 ): 9 - 2 0 , 1 3 8 -4 4 , 2 0 1 -1 1 , 3 0 4 -6 ; th e articles contain little substance. 3. A nna Kam enskaya, “T h eo so p h y in R ussia,” Theosophic Messenger 6(M arch 1909): 2 3 4 .

4 . Ib id . 5. “A nni B ezan t (V ospom inaniia A. K am en sk oi),” Vestnik: S n tya t N a sti Paro D h a rm a h (G eneva) 1 9 3 7 (O c to b e r), 5. 6. M aria von S trau ch -S p ettin i (nee M aria M agdalena Speckien; S pettini was h er stage nam e) was o n e o f th e first serious T h eo so p h ists in Russia. She was b o rn in K onigsberg in 184 7 . A n actress by professio n , she appeared o n th e G erm an and Russian stage, b u t re tire d after m arry in g Evgenii F ed o ro v ich fon S h trau k h , a state co u n cillo r in St. P etersb u rg . A n in tim ate friend an d m e n to r to M arie vo n Sivers (su b seq u en tly M m e S tein er), she h a d close ties to R u d o lf S tein er an d th e G erm an S ection o f th e T h eo so p h ical Society. M arie von Sivers h a d lived in St. P etersb u rg ; her sister O lga c o n tin u e d to reside th ere. M aria von S trauch died unexpected ly o f p n e u m o n ia o n D ec e m b e r 2 8 , 1 9 0 4 , n o t lo n g after fo u n d in g th e circle. 7. H ella W iesberger, ed ., A u s dem Leben von M arie von Sivers; Biographische Beitrdge u n d eine Bibliographie (D o rn ach : R u d o lf S teiner N achlassverw altung, 1 9 5 6 ), 1 5 9 -6 0 . 8. H y p atia o f A lexandria (370H 115) was a m ath em atician , a stro n o m er, and N e o p la to n ist p h ilo so p h er. She was killed by fanatic C hristians. H y p atia figures in M m e Blavatsky’s Isis U nveiled in h e r attack o n C hristianity; see vol. 2 , 53. R am enskaia’s m e n to r, M rs. B esant, claim ed th a t she was H y p atia in a previous incarn atio n . 9. Pisareva, Vestnik teosofii 7/ 8 (1 9 1 2 ): 15. 10. A n n a Filosofova apparen tly d id n o t thrill th e spiritualist p ublic, because P. A. C histiakov, th e e d ito r o f R ebus, su b seq u en tly re p o rte d th a t “ at th e re c e n t C ongress th e T h eo so p h ical d o c trin e was ra th e r weakly rep rese n ted ; th e reasons for this are tw ofold: th e first, o u r friends th e T h eo so p h ists d id n o t prepare su it­ able m aterials in tim e after th e ir su m m er holidays; and the seco n d , I, as the chairm an o f th e o rg an izatio n al c o m m itte e , d id n o t find it possible to pass several item s su b m itte d to th e C ongress because o f th e ir rath e r specialized term in o lo g y and a certain d o g m a tism ” (R ebus, 4 3 / 4 4 [ 1 9 0 6 ]: 8 -9 ). Filosofova read “ E tiu d y p o teosofii” o n O c to b e r 2 5 , 1 9 0 6 . 11. R ebus 3 (1 9 0 8 ): 4. T h e cryptic c o m m e n t a b o u t Vestnik teosofifs “ relation to th e E u ro p ean T h eo so p h ical M o v e m e n t” refers to splinter g ro u p loyalties. By n o m eans did all Russian T h eo so p h ical circles rep resen ted at th e Jan u ary m e e t­ in g w ish to e n te r in to th e p ro p o se d R ussian T h eo so p h ical Society, w hich w ould be loyal to M rs. B esant. M any circles c o n tin u e d to fu n c tio n in d ep en d en tly , es­ pecially in M oscow ; these re p re se n te d a g ro u p at least as large, if n o t larger, th a n th e Russian Section. 12. “ K h ro n ik a,” R u sskii F rank-m ason 1 (1 9 0 8 ): 22. 13. As so o n as feasible, th e St. P e te rsb u rg circles beg an finding like-m inded individuals in o th e r R ussian cities. T h e T h eo so p h ical Society re q u ire d th a t seven b ranches exist b efore a n a tio n a l S ectio n c o u ld be o p e n ed . T his re q u ire m e n t also c o n trib u te d to th e late sta rt in c h a rte rin g th e Russian S ection. M e e tin g Russian reg u latio n s was only h a lf th e p ro b le m ; T h eo so p h ical Society reg u la tio n s h a d to be m e t as well. 14. T h e R everend C harles W eb ster L ead b eater ( 1 8 4 7 -1 9 3 4 ) was a B ritish clergym an w h o em b raced T h e o so p h y in 1 8 8 4 ; h e was charged on several occa-

sions w ith im m oral practices involving you n g boys and was forced to resign from the Society in 1906. L ead b eater h ad considerable influence over M rs. B esant, and she allow ed him to re tu rn to th e Society in 1909 over the p ro test o f m any m em bers. L ead b eater’s rein statem en t led to th e resignation from the Society o f G. R. S. M ead (th e n e d ito r o f the Society’s m ajor o rgan, The Theosophica-I R e ­ view) and m o re th a n seven h u n d re d m em bers o f the British C onvention alone. T he situation becam e m ore com plicated w hen L eadbeater was given responsibil­ ity for the tu to rin g o f the y o u n g Jid d u K rishnam urti (1 8 9 5 -1 9 8 6 ), w hom he and M rs. B esant proclaim ed th e “vehicle o f th e C h rist” and th e new M essiah. M rs. B esant o rganized th e O rd e r o f th e Star in the East to spo n so r Krishnam u rti. T his may have been acceptable to converts to B uddhism (such as Leadbeater and M rs. B esant), b u t it was considered blasphem y by m any C hristians, b o th w ithin and outside the T heosophical Society. K rishnam urti eventually re ­ jected th e role p repared for him and left th e T heosophical Society in 1929; his dep artu re was a trem en d o u s blow to M rs. Besant. 15. Rebus 5 1 /5 2 (1 9 0 7 ): I. 16. Vestnik teosofii 5 /6 ( 1 9 1 4 ) : 7 8 -7 9 . A n o th e r indicator o f participation is th e n u m b e r o f Russian T heo so p h ists a tte n d in g In tern atio n al Congresses. In 190 6 a b o u t a dozen Russian delegates a tte n d e d the T heosophical C ongress in Paris; in 1913 th e Russian deleg atio n to th e C ongress in S tockholm n u m b ered sixty-five. Russian T h eo so p h y was grow ing fast en o u g h for M rs. Besant to agree to have th e 1914 W orld T heosophical C ongress in Russia. Russian T heosophists were busy m aking necessary arrangem ents w hen the war changed everyone’s plans. See Vestnik: Satyat N a sti Paro D h a rm a h (G eneva) 2(M arch 1938): 4. 17. T h e official figure for Russian m em bership in 1912 was 2 2 5 ; in 1910, 170. 18. L. N. T o lsto i’s daughter-in-law , C o untess S o f’ia N ikolaevna Tolstaia (d. 193 4 in P rague; wife o f T olsto i’s second son, Il’ia), a friend o f A nna Kamenskaia and m em b er o f th e K aluga branch; Varvara Pushkina, nee Princess Golitsyna; Princess A da T rubetskaia; Prince Sergei M ikhailovich Volkonskii (1 8 6 0 -1 9 3 7 ), th e D irecto r o f th e Im perial T h eatre; Princess Sofiia Vladim irovna U rusova, w ho was first secretary, later p resident, o f th e M oscow branch, et al. 19. Addresses: St. P etersburg branch, Ivanovskaia, 2 2 ; M oscow branch, A rbat, Starokoniushennyi pereu lo k 19; after O c to b e r 19, 1914, B ol’shoi U spenskii p ereulok, D o m N o . 8; public m eetings o f M oscow branch w ere held on th e Z nam enka, at E. K irpichnikova’s gym nasium ; Kiev branch, B ol’shaia Podval’naia, 26; Kaluga b ran ch , Voskresenskaia, dom N . V. Pisareva, also the Pisarev estate, P odb o rk i; R o sto v -n a-D o n u b ranch, N akhichevan, 4-aia liniia, d. 12.

20 . Izvestiia R T O 1 (1 9 1 4 ). 21 . W orking w ith a ratio o f th ree to o n e , we could posit nine h u n d red R us­ sian T heosophists o f the A dyar persuasion. T h e n u m b e r o f serious in d e p en d e n t Russian T heosophists w o u ld easily d o u b le th a t figure; add to th a t figure casually interested individuals w ho b o u g h t T heosophical brochures and occasionally a t­ te n d e d lectures, and th e n u m b er m ig h t d o u b le again o r even triple. T h a t Vestnik teosofii was selling seven h u n d re d copies m o n th ly in 1911, w hen official m e m ­ bership hovered aro u n d tw o h u n d re d , is also suggestive.

T heosophy was n o t always as well tolerated in the provinces as in M oscow and St. Petersburg. In M arch 1914 the Theosophists encountered trouble with the authorities in Yalta about the opening o f the new branch. T he police arrived to break up an "unauthorized m eeting” o f dangerous Theosophists at Elizaveta R odzevich’s hom e and to arrest the conspirators; the “m eeting” was a tea party, hosted by Rodzevich for Kamenskaia and tw o o th er ladies ( Vestnik teosofii 5 / 6(1914): 53). 22. O ptina Pustyn’ was a m onastery founded in the fourteenth century; a herm itage was added in 1821. N oted for its mystical practices and Hesychast traditions, O ptina Pustyn’ was a spiritual M ecca for many mystically inclined Russians, including Ivan Kireevskii, Nikolai G ogol’, F edor Dostoevskii, Lev Tolstoi, and Vladimir Solov’ev. M any Theosophists, in spite o f im portant doctrinal divergences, were active m em bers o f the Russian O rthodox church and had close ties w ith certain church mystics and elders. Nikolai Berdiaev pointed o u t in his autobiography th at “not only the n eo -Christians revered the elders, bu t also the Theosophists and Anthroposophists, w ho really had little in com m on w ith the church. They saw the elders as ‘initiates’ ” (Samopoznanie [Paris: YMCA, 1983 (1949)], 214). 23. Vestnik teosofii 12(1913): 57. 24. Several Russian Theosophists (notably Elena Pisareva and Anna M intslova) had close ties to the Germ an Section and to Dr. Steiner in particular. They b ro u g h t his lectures and materials back with them and shared them with their colleagues. Thus, for example, Elena Pisareva read several o f S teiner’s lec­ tures at Anna Filosofova’s casual salon in a M oscow hotel during the Congress o f Spiritualists in O ctober 1906 (“ Knowledge o f the Supersensible in our T im e,” “Blood is a Very Special Fluid (on F a u st)” “T he Relation o f Precious Stones to the H u m an Senses,” and “T he Relation o f H um an Senses to the Sur­ rounding W orld” ). Tw o weeks earlier Pisareva had returned from Steiner’s lec­ tures in Berlin. 25. A. V. Tyrkova, “A. P. Filosofova i ee vrem ia,” Sbornik p a m ia ti A . P. Filosofovoi, vol. I (P etro grad: 1915), 443. 26. O th er m em bers o f the Kaluga branch included Iraida Chulitskaia (d. 1913), one o f the founding m em bers o f the R T O , later secretary o f the M oscow branch; M. F. Vasil’eva, and Countess S. N . Tolstaia, an active philanthropist. 27. The titles o f these lectures were taken from the January and February 1914 schedule o f the R TO ; these and eleven o ther lectures were read publicly in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, Kaluga, and the Crim ea betw een January 17 and February 18, 1914. Additional lectures were read in closed m eetings. See Vestnik teosofii 3(1914): 81—82. 28. Chistiakov, Rebus 16(1910):3; a year later, in Rebus 37(1911): 6, C hist­ iakov w ould add, “This unrestrained visionary [Leadbeater] has greatly discred­ ited the Theosophical doctrine in the eyes o f m any with his hilarious visions.” 29. T he notion o f an Esoteric Section was the brainchild o f M m e Blavatsky, w ho form ed it to prevent serious occultists, bored by the well-m eaning bu t u n ­ sophisticated middle-class Theosophists who em braced the M ovem ent, from leaving T heosophy to start their own circles; her Esoteric Section was called “D zyan” and w orked on practical occultism and raju-yogct. VI. Solov’ev, writing about the structure o f the Theosophical Society in his

review o f M m e Blavatsky’s Key to Theosophy, added: “ M em bers o f th e Society em ployed in exoteric tasks, specifically p h ilan thropy and the study o f Eastern doctrines, are called lay m em bers; those w h o devote th eir lives to th e m astery o f secret d octrines an d forces are called in itiates” (Sob. soch., vol. 6 , 2 8 8 ). I was u nable to discover w ho ran th e Russian Esoteric Section and w ho were its m em bers. T here are only occasional veiled references to its existence, and it may even have been k ept secret from th e m ajority o f the R T O m em bership b e­ cause o f possible problem s w ith th e authorities. 30. Vestnikteosofii 4 (1 9 1 2 ): 8 2 -8 3 . 3 1 . It is im possible now to d eterm ine how m any Russian T heosophists a ctu ­ ally follow ed th e example o f M m e Blavatsky, C olonel O lc o tt, M rs. Besant, A. P. S in n ett, C. W. L eadbeater, an d o th e r p ro m in e n t T heosophists and actually co n ­ v erted to H in d u ism . Talk o f building a B u d d h ist tem ple in St. P etersb u rg , ho w ­ ever, speaks o f m ore th a n a casual interest. A B ud d h ist tem ple was built in St. P etersb u rg , b u t for B uddhists, n o t for T heosophists. T h e “Buddiiskaia p ag o d a ” was located just outside St. P eters­ b u rg , in Staraia D erevnia, o n th e BoPshaia N evka River. 32. W hen the ch arter o f the R T O was legalized, R ebus co n g ratulated the new T heosophical Society and w ished th em luck, th e n ad ded th a t Rebus hoped th a t “ in th e new Society brotherly tolerance and the absence o f dogm atic p re ju ­ dice tow ard related m ovem ents, schools, and trends w o u ld really blossom .” T he article w en t on: “We express this second wish because th e m ajority o f th e R us­ sian representatives o f th e T heosophical w o rld view d o n o t distinguish th e m ­ selves by ad equate tolerance an d bro ad views and te n d very m u ch tow ard d o g ­ m atic n arrow m indedness and self-adoration” (R ebus 3 2 [1 9 0 8 ]: 3). 33. N . T [rofim en k o -D m itriev a], “Teosofiia i zhenskoe dvizhenie,” Vestnik teosofii 1 2 (1 9 1 5 ): 2 4 -2 5 . 34. See the follow ing representative pam phlets: A lba (K am enskaia), Voprosy vospitaniia v sviazy s za dacham i dukhovnoi k u l’tu ry (St. Petersburg: 1912); Vekhi: Pervoe semiletie rebenka. R e ziu m e rabot Pedayyoyyicheskogo K ru zh ka R T O 1910—1915 (P etrograd: 1918). 35. O tets I. D m itrevskii, Teosofiia— R elig ioznaia filosofiia nashego vrem eni (K har’kov: 1 9 1 1 ), 2. 36. Vestnik teosofii 1 (1 9 1 5 ): 11. 37. Vestnik teosofii St. P etersburg: January 7 , 1908—1918; publ. and ed. A nna A lekseevna K am enskaia, later K am enskaia and Ts. G eP m bol’d t, o n the seventh o f every m o n th ), no . 5 / 6 (M ay 7); no . 7 / 8 (A ugust 7). By 1 9 1 4 th e R T O h a d grow n large e n o u g h to justify a second publication: Izvestiia Rossiiskogo Teosoficheskogo Obshchestva (St. P etersburg, 1 9 1 4 -1 9 1 7 ; pub l. an d ed. Ts. L. G eP m bol’dt). T h e Izvestiia R T O w ere published tw o to fo u r tim es a year, as m aterial p erm itted . T hey co n tain ed the reports o f th e vari­ ous circles, chronicles o f events, letters. 38. L o n d o n ; fo u n d ed by H . P. B. in 1 8 8 7 u n d er th e title L ucifer, vols. 1—43 (S eptem ber 1 8 8 7 -F e b ru a ry 19 0 9 ). In F eb ru ary 1909 th e ed ito r, G. R. S. M ead, resigned from th e T heosophical Society and sh u t dow n th e journal. See n o te 14. 39. See “ B ibliography o f T heosophical and R elated W orks P ublished in R us­ sia Betw een 1881 and 1 9 1 8 ” ; th e one m ajo r T heosophical w ork, in addition to M m e Blavatsky’s Secret D octrine, w hich was n o t published in Russia in its en-

tirety, was Mrs. Besant’s Esoteric Christianity, because o f the same censorship objections (strongly anti-C hristian bias). 40. Bookstores selling Theosophical books include: in Kiev, “Knizhnyi magazin N. Ia. O globlina,” Kreshchatik 33; in St. Petersburg, “D obroe D elo,” Basseinaia 4, and “Knizhnyi m agazin Karbasnikova” in Gostinnyi Dvor; in M os­ cow, “Knizhnyi m agazin Karbasnikova” on the M okhovaia, across from the University, “Biblioteka Skibnevskoi” on Malaia Bronnaia, “Posrednik” on the Petrovskic Linii; Odessa: “T ru d ” and “ Odesskie novosti,” both on Deribasovskaia. Russian and East European Theosophical books were also available by mail and from the editorial offices o f Vestnik teosofii. 41. L etter from von Strauch-Spettini to von Sivers, St. Petersburg, April 3, 1903; W iesberger, A u s dem Leben, 162. 42. From A Further Record o f Extracts fro m Meetings H eld by P. D. Ouspensky Between 1928 a n d 1945 (Capetow n: S tourton Press, 1952); cited in Merrily Tay­ lor, Rem em bering Pyotr Demianovich Ouspensky (N ew Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), 11. 43. Berdiaev, “Tipy religioznoi mysli,” Russkaia mysP 11(1916); I (2d pagi­ nation). 44. P. D . Upsenskii, Chetvertoe izmerenie (St. Petersburg: T rud, 1910), 95. 45. Izvestiia R T O y 1(1915): 35. 46. J. H . Reyner, Ouspensky: The Unsung Genius (L ondon: G eorge Allen and U nw in, 1981), 28; the “inner circle” refers to the Esoteric Section o f the Theosophical Society. 47. See “Bibliography o f Theosophical and Related W orks,” for U spenskii’s Russian publications. Even during th e bleakest days o f the “Period o f S tagnation,” U spenskii’s books continued to sell in Soviet second-hand bookstores for 150 to 400 rubles a volume. Sold discreetly and only to know n clients, prerevolutionary Russian occult texts o f all kinds have always been available in the Soviet U nion. 48. Vestnik teosofii 1(1915): 10-11. 49. Izvestiia R T O 2(1916): 5-6. 50. A. Bezant, “Bratstvo i voina,” Vestnik teosofii 10(1915): 8 -2 0 . 51. Vestnik teosofii 7/ 8(1915): 1—2. 52. Ibid., 14. 53. Ibid. 5 /6 (1 9 1 5 ): 14-15. 54. Ibid. 4(1915): 12. 55. Ibid. 5 /6 (1 9 1 5 ): 11. 56. Landmarks; A Collection o f Essays on the Russian Intelligentsia 1909, trans. M arian Schwartz (New York: Karz H ow ard, 1977), 9, 44. 57. Vestnik teosofii 10(1917): 12. Chapter Four O ther Russian T heosophical M ovem ents I. T he Society was planned and organized during the sum m er o f 1907. It was advertised by flyers that m em bers handed o u t and was mailed to publishing houses. By fall the new Society had won some local approval by organizing a

philan th ro p ic circle, h elping needy Sm olensk families, and assisting w ith flood relief. 2. Teosofskaia z h iz n ’ 1 (1 9 0 7 ): 13. 3. L. E. O ., “Teosoficheskoe obshchestvo v S m olenske,” R ebus 3 9 (1907): 4. 4. Rebus 3 9 (1 9 0 7 ): 4 -5 . 5. Teosofskaia z h iz n ’, 2 (1 9 0 7 ): 4. 6. Ib id . 9 (1 9 0 8 ): 4 7 -4 8 . 7. N . M ariupoPskii [I. G. A ivazov], “ Pravoslavnyi arkhim andrit— u c h re d itel’ ‘T eosofskogo O bshchestva,’ ” Kolokol 681(M ay 2 1 , 1908): 4. 8. Teosofskaiazhizni 5 (1 9 0 8 ) :2 . 9. R ebus 5 (1 9 0 7 ): 4. 10. Teosofskaia Zhizni 1 (1 9 0 8 ): 1 -5 . 11. [A nonym ous], “ Protiv ro z h n a ,” Teosofskaia Z hizni 1 0 /1 1 (1 9 0 9 ): 4 1 2 . 12. See, for exam ple, her E liksir zb izn i, M agi, Gnev Bozhii1 Sm erti planetov, and V inom m ire, am o n g m any oth ers, th a t were published b o th in Russia and in France u n d e r h er pseudonym , “ R ochester.” 13. “ O t redaktsii,” Teosoficheskoe obozrenie 1 (1 9 0 7 ): 3. 14. Ib id ., 4. 15. R ebus 5 (1908): 4. 16. Evgenii V iktorovich R advan-R ypinskii, a “professor” o f E speranto in St. P etersb u rg an d an active proselytizer. H e was affiliated w ith th e “ E spero” Soci­ ety and th eir jo u rn al, R u sla n d a Esperantisto. M any T heosophists, E u ropean and R ussian, w ere in terested in E sp eran to , given th e in ternational nature o f T h e o so ­ phy, and stu d ied it w ith enthusiasm . Radvan-Rypinskii published a com pact gram m ar and d ictionary o f E speranto in installm ents in Teosoficheskoe obozrenie. 17. Teosoficheskoe obozrenie 1 (1 9 0 7 ): 44. 18. Ibid. 5 (1 9 0 8 ): 388. 19. A fter th e d eath o f W illiam Q . Ju d g e, K atherine Tingley (1 8 4 7 -1 9 2 9 ) to o k over th e en o rm o u s A m erican T heosophical Society, w hich had seceded from the A dyar-based p a re n t Society d u rin g the pow er struggle th a t followed M m e Blavatsky’s d eath in 1891. Influenced by th e Social G ospel and late-ninetee n th -c e n tu ry A m erican u topianism , T ingley’s vision was to com bine hum anitarianism , social reform , and o ccult philosophy. T h e culm ination o f h e r experi­ m e n t in applied T h eo so p h y was a T heosophical u to p ian com m unity at P o in t L om a, California. 2 0 . R ebus 5 0 (1 9 0 8 ): 2. 21 . A. R. M intslova’s father, R u d o l’f R udoPfovich M intslov (1 8 4 5 —19 0 4 ), was also a w ell-know n bibliophile and journalist; her b ro th er, Sergei R u d o l’fovich M intslov (1 8 7 0 -1 9 3 3 ) was an archaeologist (w ho specialized in Russian c o u n try houses), a bibliophile, and a w riter; he was fascinated by the supernatural. T h e M intslov family h ad en tree to the musical and literary salons o f b o th St. P etersb u rg and M oscow. 2 2 . A ndrei Belyi, M ezhdu dvukh revoliutsii (L eningrad: IzdateP stvo pisatelei, 193 4 ), 355. M argarita Sabashnikova, w ho knew M intslova well and even lived w ith h er for a tim e in St. P etersb u rg , left a sim ilar description: “H e r figure was w ith o u t form , h e r forehead was overlarge, as often depicted on angels in old G erm an paintings, h e r p ro tu b e ra n t blue eyes w ere very sh o rtsig h ted — neverthe-

less, she had a glance that saw into horrendous distances. H er red-blond hair was parted in the m iddle and its frizzy waves were in disarray, her bun th rea t­ ened to come apart, and she constantly rained hairpins everywhere. H er nose was coarsely form ed, and her entire face was sweaty and bloated,” and so forth. Like Eerdiaev, Sabashnikova was m uch taken with M intslova’s fascinating hands and tapering fingers, on one o f which she wore an am ethyst ring, which Andrei Belyi subsequently claimed she gave him (Die griine Schlunge [Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Verlag, 1982], 144). 23. Nikolai Berdiaev, Sa.mopozna.nie (1949; 2 d rev. ed. Paris: YMCA, 1983), 221.

24. See Belyi’s “Kasaniia k teosofii,” M anuscript Division, Lenin Library, Moscow, MS# 25;31;2; 16 fols.; also his “Nachalo veka” (1 9 2 8 -1 9 3 0 ) M anu­ script Division, Saltykov-Shchedrin Library, St. Petersburg, M S# 60;13, fols. 29, 32ff. Steiner’s K ak dostignut’ poznaniia vysshikh mirov was serialized in Vestnik teosofii over the course o f 1908 and 1909. 25. A lthough Belyi did n o t become a devoted Steinerian until 1912, every­ thing ab out his Theosophical experience conspired to bring him inevitably to Steiner: the influential Pisareva was a m em ber o f the German Section and had known Steiner and popularized his works in Russia since 1903; Mintslova, who m esm erized Belyi w ith her promises o f occult superiority, fed him Steinerianism, claiming it was her own brand o f occultism; Mikhail E rtel’ was Steiner’s disciple; Grigorov, initially a student o f E rtel’s, eventually w ent abroad to w ork with Steiner directly. 26. Andrei Belyi, “Nachalo veka,” fol. 40^11; emphasis in original. The two wom en played to Belyi’s sense o f self-importance and spiritual superiority, tak­ ing advantage o f his neurotic, unstable, and overworked state. The w riter had a nervous breakdown early in 1909, hastened and exacerbated, no doubt, by M intslova’s occult hysteria. 27. Ibid., fol. 72. 28. For further details o f M intslova’s relation to Belyi and Ivanov, see Maria Carlson, “Ivanov-Belyj-Minclova: T he Mystical Triangle,” in C ultura e Memoria; A tti del terzo Simposio Internazionale dediccato a Vjaceslav Ivanov, ed. Fausto M alcovati, vol. I (Firenze: 1988), 63—79. 29. In her book L iu d i i lozhi (New York: Russica, 1986), Nina Berberova writes th at “the Lucifer Lodge, which was close to the M artinists [a MasonicRosicrucian organization], was form ed about 1910 and lasted only a short time. According to n o t entirely reliable docum entation, several Symbolist poets be­ longed to it, including Viach. Ivanov, Briusov, Belyi, and Belyi’s friend A. Petrovskii” (24). Clearly this refers to the Rosicrucian “ O rder” M intslova was try ­ ing to create w ith Belyi and Ivanov. Briusov, who was acquainted with M intslova, w ould have been an occasional visitor. M intslova was dreadfully dis­ appointed when Ivanov and Belyi refused to travel to Italy to be “initiated” into the O rder at a M artinist-Rosicrucian Congress planned for early 1910. Steiner him self was briefly connected with various Masonic groups, including the M artinists (as was Mintslova, for the M artinists initiated both m en and w om en); he shared their Rosicrucian dim ension. Steiner’s Germ an Theosophical journal was called Lucifer.

30. T h e last m em b er o f M usaget, Belyi’s old friend Lev Kobylinskii-Ellis, was excluded at M intslova’s req u est; she felt he was a m edium w ho was unable to co n tro l th e passage o f dark forces th ro u g h him self and could therefore jeo p ard ­ ize th e “ m ission.” Ellis was offen d ed , o f course. 31. A ndrei Belyi, “N achalo veka,” fol. 117. 32. A ndrei Belyi, Vospominaniia o Bloke, Epopeia, vols. 1 -4 (M oscow -B erlin: 1 9 2 2 -1 9 2 3 ; rep rin ted as Vospominaniia ob A . A . Bloke [M unich: 1 9 6 9 ]), 195 [6 7 5 ). 33. “ Belyi, prom ise m e, really prom ise m e th a t you will n o t go to S teiner,” Belyi later claim ed she said to him ; “rem em ber, they w o n ’t u n d erstan d you th ere; you are com pletely d iffe re n t” ( “N achalo veka,” fol. 55). 34. Belyi, “ N achalo veka,” fol. 101. 35. Berdiaev, Sam opoznanie, 2 2 2 . 36. R u d o lf S teiner a tte n d e d th e O b errealschule in W iener N e u sta d t, th en stud ied at th e T echnische H o ch sch u le in V ienna; he defended his d o ctoral dis­ sertatio n , “W ahrheit u n d W issenschaft,” a t th e U niversity o f R ostock in 1891. 37. W hen A ndrei Belyi req u ested an interview w ith R u d o lf S teiner in May 19 1 2 , he w ro te first to M arie v on Sivers, usin g A nna M intslova’s and K leopatra K hristoforova’s nam es as references to co m m end him self to von Sivers and Steiner (letter from A ndrei Belyi to M arie S teiner-von Sivers, in A n d r e j Belyj u n d R u d o lf Steiner; Briefe u n d D okum ente, ed. W alter K ugler and V ictor Fedjuschin. Beitrkge zu r R u d o lf S teiner G esam tausgabe 8 9 /9 0 [D o rn a c h : Steiner N achlassverw altung, 1 9 8 5 ], 10). 38. M arie von Steiner, in A u s dem Leben von M arie Steiner-von Sivers, com p. H ella W iesberger (D o rn ach : R u d o lf Steiner N achlassverw altung, 1 9 5 6 ), 4 3 ; also cited in R u d o lf Steiner and M arie Steiner-von Sivers, Correspondence a n d D ocum ents 1 9 0 1 -1 9 2 5 (L o n d o n : R u d o lfS te in e r Press, 1 9 8 8 ), 2 7 8 —79. 39. Schure and S tein er m e t fo r th e first tim e at this lectu re cycle. S chure’s resum e o f th e lectures was originally p u b lish ed in F rench and E nglish in 1928; a new ed itio n appeared in 1987: R u d o lf Steiner, A n Esoteric Cosmology (Blauvelt, N.Y.: Spiritual Science Library, 19 8 7 ). 40 . W oloschin [Sabashnikova], M argarita, D ie g riin e Schlange (F rankfurt am M ain: Fischer Verlag, 1 9 8 2 ), 163. 41 . In h er b rie f biography o f Filosofova, for exam ple, Pisareva m entions th a t she read S teiner’s Berlin lectures in Filosofova’s h o tel ro o m in M oscow to in te r­ ested m em bers d u rin g th e Spiritualist C ongress (“ Pam iati A nny Pavlovny Filosofovoi,” Vestnik teosofii 5 -8 [1 9 1 2 ]). 42 . R u d o lf Steiner, Theosofiia, trans. A [n n a] M [intslova] (St. P etersburg: 1910); a translation o f th e 2 d ed. o f Theosophie; E in fiih ru n g in Ubersinnliche W elterkenntnis u n d M enschenbestim m ung (1 9 0 8 ; 1st ed. 1904). 43 . Steiner again planned to visit Russia in 1912 and 1 9 1 3 , b u t was denied perm ission; he lectu red in H elsingfors instead. S teiner never visited Russia. 44. R u d o lf S teiner, A n Autobiography, trans. by Rita S teb b in g (Blauvelt, N.Y.: R u d o lfS te in e r Publications, 1 9 7 7 ), 363. 45 . Ib id ., 3 6 2 -3 6 3 . 46 . A lba [A. A. R am enskaia], “ K hronika T eosoficheskogo dvizheniia,” Vestnik teosofii 2 (1 9 1 3 ): 63.

47. O th e r p ro m in e n t R ussian A n th ro p o so p h ists, M argarita Sabashnikova, E katerina B aP m ont, Klavdiia N ikolaevna VasiPeva (1 8 8 6 -1 9 7 0 ; she w ould be­ com e Belyi’s second w ife), h er first h u sb a n d , D r. Pavel Nikolaevich VasiPev (d. 1 9 7 6 ), Boris L ehm ann (w ho w ould h ead the St. P etersb u rg branch), O Pga N ikolaevna A nnenkova (d. 1 9 4 9 ), and several o th e r Russian seekers, alth o u g h acquainted w ith and influenced by M intslova, fo u n d th eir ow n, separate way from T h eo so p h y to Steiner. 4 8 . W hen M argarita Sabashnikova m et S teiner in Berlin in 1908, he had al­ ready heard a b o u t Viacheslav Ivanov from M intslova; he asked Sabashnikova for m ore in fo rm atio n (W oloschin, D ie g riin e Schlange, 195): “ H e was particularly interested in w h at I th o u g h t Ivanov’s cultural m ission was. I said, in th e fact th a t he was able to u n ite the natural intellectuality o f antiquity w ith C hristianity; I also spoke a b o u t his w orks and his ability to awaken th e creative instinct in those individuals w ith w hom he com es in c o n ta c t.” Sabashnikova had ju st re tu rn e d from visiting Ivanov. “ ‘W h en I saw y o u last, you w ere m ore creative and richer than n o w ,’ ” S teiner said laconically to Sabashnikova. H e evidently concluded, for w hatever reasons, th a t Ivanov did n o t have th e rig h t approach o r attitu d e tow ard th e secret science. In 1 9 1 2 , w hen Viacheslav Ivanov visited Belyi in Basel (the latter h a d gone w ith a g ro u p o f Russians to hear S tein er’s lecture series on “T h e G ospel o f St. M ark” betw een S ep tem b er 15 and 2 4 ), S teiner rejected Ivanov’s request to a t­ te n d th e lecture courses for m em bers only, Belyi rep o rte d th a t Steiner said, “ I do n o t th in k th a t my courses w o u ld be o f any use to M r. Ivanov at this tim e ” (Belyi, “ N achalo veka,” fol. 170). In h er m em oirs Belyi’s first wife, Asya T u r­ geneva, recalled th a t Ivanov “w an ted to join th e Society and asked us to arrange a m eetin g for him w ith Steiner, b u t S teiner d irected us to advise Ivanov against this” (A. T urgeneva, “A ndrei Belyi i R u d o l’f S tein er,” Mosty 1 3 /1 4 [ 1 9 6 7 1 9 6 8 ], 2 4 5 ). Shortly th ereafter S teiner forbade Belyi an d Sabashnikova to share m aterials from th e private lectures w ith Ivanov. 49. C ited in Kudriavtsev, Chto takoe teosofiia i teosoflcheskoe obshchestvo, 2d rev. an d exp. ed. (St. Petersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia, 1 9 1 4 ), 27. 50. W oloschin, D ie g r iin e Schlange, 2 7 1 . 51. R u d o lf S teiner, The Destinies o f In d iv id u a ls a n d o f N ations, trans. A nna R. M euss (L o n d o n : R u d o lf S teiner Press, 1 9 8 6 ), 75; originally this was a course o f fo u rte e n lectures given in Berlin betw een S eptem ber I , 1 9 1 4 and July 6, 1915. W hile S teiner gave 1879 as th e year in w hich the M ichaelic Spirit becam e th e g u id in g force, th e year 1912 (w hen th e decision was first taken to create th e A nthro p o so p h ical Society) is also im p o rta n t, because 1912 was 1,879 years after th e b irth o f th e “ I A M ” (i.e., 1,879 years after th e crucifixion and resu rrectio n o f C hrist). T h e n u m b e r 1,8 7 9 reduces, according to th e prim ary num erological principle, to seven, the o ccult num ber. 52. M . Z hem ch uzh n ik o v a, “V ospom inaniia o M oskovskom A ntroposoficheskom O bshchestve 1 9 1 7 -1 9 2 3 ,” 1975 ms. in private hands, fol. 44. 53. M argarita Sabashnikova was struck by this coincidence, and observed th a t it was “ a rem arkable stroke o f fate, th a t at th e very h o u r w hen we assem bled in M oscow to celebrate th e fo u n d in g o f o u r A nthroposophical Society, th e lay­ ing o f th e co rn ersto n e o f th e building o n th e hill in D orn ach to o k place.” T ying

th e fate o f th e Russian A nthroposophicaI Society to th e fate o f the first G o eth ean u m , M argarita Sabashnikova p o in te d o u t th a t “w hen the [ G oetheanu m ] building fell victim to fire [it was com pletely destroyed o n the n ig h t o f D ecem ber 31 , 1 9 2 2 -Ja n u a ry I , 1 9 2 3 ], it was at a b o u t the same tim e, in 1922 or 19 2 3 , th a t th e R ussian A rrthroposophical Society was b an n ed by th e B olshe­ viks” (W oloschin, D ie g r u n e Schlange, 2 7 3 ). 54. S teiner w ro te fo u r m ystery dram as: Pforte der E inw eihung— ein Rosenkreuzerm ysterium (1 9 1 0 ), D ie P ru fu n g der Seele (1 9 1 1 ), D er H iiter der Schwelle (1 9 1 2 ), an d D er Seelen Erwachen (1 9 1 3 ). H e had p ro d u ced E d o u ard S chure’s m ystery dram as, D as heilige D ra m a von Eleusis and D ie K in d e r des L u zifer (translated in to G erm an by M arie von Sivers) in 1907 and 1909, respectively. B o th S chure an d S teiner w ere as strongly influenced by th e aesthetic vision o f Richard W agner as by th e dram atic rituals o f ancient m ystery cults. In 1906 Steiner explained th e im p o rtan ce o f th e m ystery dram a to spiritual science in a lecture given in Berlin: “T h e M ystery is th e tru e birthplace o f A rt. T h e m ysteries w ere real and alive in astral space. In th em is th e synthesis o f tru th , beauty, and religious feeling” (L ecture o f O c to b e r 2 1 , 19 0 6, Berlin; cited in R u d o lf Steiner: Im M itte lp u n k t der Mensch; eine E in fu h ru n g in die ausgewdhlten Werke R u d o lf Steiners., ed. H elIa W iesberger and W alter K ugIer [F rankfurt am M ain: Fischer V erlag, 1 9 8 5 ]). S teiner’s em phasis o n th e im portance o f th e m ystery dram a fo u n d particu lar resonance in Russia in th e literary w ork o f Viacheslav Ivanov and A ndrei Belyi. 55. A pril 3—19, 1912: L ecture series o n “Spiritual Beings in the H eavenly Bodies an d in th e K ingdom s o f N a tu re ” ; in this sequence S teiner em phasized the “ sym phonic” stru c tu re o f th e w orld, show ing how m an him self, th e beings w ho have already passed th ro u g h th e earth in carnation and are m ore spiritually developed th a n m an, an d som e natu re and elem ental beings w hich are below m an in spiritual d ev elo p m en t, all in terrelate. T h e 1913 sequence to o k place b e ­ tw een M ay 28 and June 5; it addressed “T h e O ccu lt F o u n d atio n s o f th e Bhag a v a d G ita P 56. M atvei M ikhailovich T roitskii (1 8 3 5 -1 8 9 9 ): professor o f philosophy, M oscow University, first chairm an o f M oscow Psychological Society, au th o r o f N a u k a o dukhe, 2 vols. (M oscow : 1 8 8 2 ); E d u ard von H a rtm a n n (1 8 4 2 -1 9 0 6 ): psychologist w ho p o stu lated th e unconscious and th e n pro p o sed th a t it was the source o f all o ccult p h en o m en a, a u th o r o f Philosophie des Unbewussten, 3 vols. (1 8 6 9 ; R ussian ed. 187 3 ); W ilhelm W indelband (1 8 4 8 -1 9 1 5 ): p re-em in en t G erm an historian o f philosophy, idealist p h ilo so p h er w hose m ajor w orks ap­ peared in Russia w here he was well know n; W ilhelm W u n d t (1 8 3 2 -1 9 2 0 ): G er­ m an p h ilo so p h er and psychologist w hose w ork o n m ythopoesis and the psychol­ ogy o f m yth, Mythos u n d R eligion (1 9 0 5 ), was o f in terest to the Sym bolists; H arald H o ffd in g (1 8 4 3 -1 9 3 1 ): D anish p h ilosopher, psychologist, and specialist in th e p h ilosophy o f religion w ho p ro p o se d a th eo ry o f “critical m onism ” (form o f idealistic m onism ). Carl G ustav Ju n g (1 9 7 5 -1 9 6 1 ), w h o was in terested n o t only in d e p th psychology b u t also in m ythology and th e history o f occult th o u g h t, came o u t o f this same G erm an psychological tradition. R u d o lf Steiner was acq u ain ted w ith th e w ork o f b o th Ju n g and S igm und Freud; Ju n g was aware o f S tein er’s philosophy as well.

Belyi, in particular, d ep lo red T h eo so p h y ’s lack o f m ethodology: “T h e T h e o s­ ophy w e have today disregards m eth o d o lo g ical criticism: consequently, m any valuable prop o sitio n s p u t forw ard by c o n tem p o rary T heo so p h y have n o co g n i­ tive value b ehind th em ; a striving to w ard th e synthesis o f science, philosophy, and religion w ith o u t m eth o d o lo g ical criticism doom s co n tem porary T h eosophy to sterility” (A ndrei Belyi, com m entaries to th e article “ E m blem atika smysla,” in his Simvolizm- [M oscow : Skorpion, 1 9 1 0 ], 505). 57. N ikolai Belotsvetov, K elig iia tvorcheskoi volt (P etrograd: F. F. Turn, 1 9 1 5 ), 10. This desire to find o r to be th e synthesis o f tw o antithetical theses also appears in T heo so p h y ; it is a leitm otiv o f Silver A ge culture in general. I t appears even in th e futuristic dream s o f th e Russian socialists. 58. D . Filosofov, “ Z ashchitniki k u l’tu ry ,” R echj, July 14, 1914. 59. V ictor Fedjuschin, R m sla n d s Sehnsucht nach S p iritu a lita t (Schaffhausen: Novalis Verlag, 1 9 8 8 ), 112. C h a p te r F ive T h e o s o p h ic a l D o c tr in e : A n O u tlin e

1. Alfred Percy S in n ett, Esoteric B uddhism (L o ndon: T riibner, 1 8 8 3 ), vi. 2. T h e w ords gnosis and Gnosticism are used frequently in this discussion and m erit som e definition. Gnosis (literally, knowledge) cam e to refer to th e esoteric know ledge o f a h ig h er spiritual tru th (i.e., self-know ledge, insight, o r in tu itio n , rath e r th an faith o r revelation) claim ed by n u m ero u s sects, b o th pagan and C hristian, in the H ellcn ized E ast d u rin g the first centuries o f the new era. T he ro o ts o f th e gnosis lie unm istakably in th e pre-C h ristian m ystery religions. T he form s o f its expression are considerably diverse. A highly syncretic G nostic w orldview (Gnosticism) grew o u t o f th e pagan m ystery religions; in m any cases it m erg ed w ith early C hristian d octrine. G n o sti­ cism posits spiritual m onism an d m aterial dualism , and strives for th e tran scen ­ dence o f m atter (spirit having a positive valence, an d m atter a negative one). An essentially cosm ocentric (ra th e r th a n th eo cen tric o r an th ro p o c en tric), em anationist d o ctrin e, G nosticism has an extensive and com plex cosm ology. T he u n i­ verse em anates from an unknow able G o d ; in th e process o f em anation a p o rtio n o f the D ivine Spirit (lig h t, G o o d ) falls in to m a tte r (darkness, Evil) and m ust be redeem ed. T h e e a rth an d m an k in d w ere created by a D em iourgos to facilitate this red em p tio n . T h e C h rist is an em issary o f th e original D ivine Being; he d e ­ scends from Spirit in to M a tte r in o rd e r to b rin g the gnosis to an elite group o f spiritual seekers and th ereb y provide h u m an ity w ith th e know ledge it needs to achieve th e red em p tio n o f spirit. A lth o u g h criticized by the C hristian church as heretical, G nostic th o u g h t has never lost its psychological appeal. G nosticism was rediscovered and popularized in the second h alf o f th e n in e te e n th cen tu ry as archaeological discoveries and new research in th e history o f religions m ade texts available to general readers for the first tim e. B oth T h eo so p h y and A n th ro p o so p h y are m o d ern variants o f the gnosis. F o r an excellent sum m ary overview, see: H an s Jonas, The Gnostic Religion; The Message o f the A lie n God a n d the B eginnings o f C hristianity, 2 d rev. ed.

(B oston: B eacon, 1963). F o r m aterials th a t influenced T heosophical th o u g h t, see: Charles W illiam K ing, Gnostics a n d Their K em ains, A n c ie n t a n d M edieval (1 8 8 7 ; M inneapolis: W izards B ookshelf, 197 3 ); G. R. S. M ead, Fragm ents o f a F aith Forgotten (1 9 0 0 ; N ew H yde Park, N.Y.: U niversity B ooks, 1 9 6 0 ), and his Pistis Sophia: A Gnostic Gospel (1 9 2 1 ; B lauvelt, N.Y.: Spiritual Science Library, 198 4 ). T h e scholar G. R. S. M ead was for several years M m e BlavatskyL personal secretary. Before th e N ag H am m ad i cache o f G nostic m anuscripts was discov­ ered in 1945 (a discovery th a t rev o lu tio n ized m any aspects o f the field), M ead was considered a leading au th o rity o n G nostic texts. 3. “T h e Stanzas o f D zy an ,” from M m e Blavatsky’s devotional classic, The Voice o f the Silence (1 8 8 9 Pasadena: T h eosophical U niversity Press, 1976). She claim ed to have taken th e “Stanzas” from The Book o f Golden Precepts, com piled by A ryasanga for T ib etan m onks. N o e x ta n t texts have ever been found to c o rre ­ spo n d to M m e Blavatsky’s “ S tanzas.” Professor M ax M uller suggested th a t the “S tanzas” and th e te x t o f The Voice o f the Silence were M m e Blavatsky’s ow n brilliant forgeries; th a t is still th e prevailing assum ption. R egardless o f th eir provenance, th e “S tanzas” are m arvelously p oetic. As m o n u m en tal, m y th o p o ­ etic texts they certainly m ade an im pression o n various Russian Sym bolist p o ets, notably K onstantin Bal’m o n t and Auidrei Belyi. See th e “ In tro d u c to ry ” to The Secret D octrine. 4. O n e o f th e m ajor reasons th a t T h eo so p h y and A uithroposophy are difficult to define and outline concisely is th a t b o th d octrines continually redefine basic concepts (such as L ogos, C h rist, soul, spirit, plane, and so fo rth ) according to th e im m ediate dem ands o f th e p o in t u n d e r discussion. T h e u n d erstan d in g o f the various term s also change w ith tim e, to p ic, ex egete, and the p o in t o f the a rg u ­ m en t: M rs. B esant and R u d o lf Steiner, for exam ple, frequendy (th o u g h n o t al­ ways) m ean very different things w hen they use the w ord Logos; th eir definitions are, in tu rn , different from eith er th e traditional C hristian o r the G nostic u n d e r­ stan d in g o f th a t im p o rta n t term . A t th e sam e tim e, en o u g h points o f coinci­ dence lull th e reader in to a false sense o f id en tity o f concepts. T h e result is th a t it becom es im possible to g e t a real grip o n w hat should be basic building-block ideas. F u rth e rm o re , occultists te n d to develop th e ir argum ents n o t by d ed u c tio n o r even in d u c tio n , b u t by analogy. T h e reader, at th e tim e o f reading, m om entarily senses th e relationship o f term s an d intuitively o r sym pathetically perceives the parallel; afterw ard, u n d erstan d in g dissipates. Finally, n o t only d o th e T heo so p h ists constantly redefine th eir ow n term s, b u t they “tran slate” th e statem en ts o f n o n -T h eo so p h ists in to th eir ow n te rm i­ nology, invariably m u d d lin g th e translation. T heir definitions o f basic concepts are u n fo rtu n ately so loose and subjective th a t ju st a b o u t any alien co n cep t can be subsum ed by th em . T h u s, for exam ple, A nna Ram enskaia, discussing F edor D ostoevskii (w ho was n o t m u ch taken w ith oriental philosophy) blithely a ttrib ­ utes to him th e idea th a t m ankind will achieve spiritual heights n o t th ro u g h sorro w an d suffering, b u t th ro u g h th e radiant flight o f an exultant soul liberated from th e chains o f karm a (I), alth o u g h D ostoevskii w ould never have chosen to express h im self in this way. 5. S in n ett, Esoteric B uddhism , viii.

6. Com pare the One Unity with Vladimir Solov’ev’s “Vse-Edinstvo,” which stands at the beginning o f his universe as the O ne Unity stands at the beginning o f the universe in Valentinian Gnosticism. 7. Compare to the em anation o f the Aeons into the Pleroma as described in the Syrian-Egyptian Gnosis o f Valentinus. 8. I f the positivists assumed that m atter produced hum an th o u g h t (in the sense that the physical brain produced chemical and electric reactions that were called “th o u g h t” ), the Theosophists, to the contrary, assumed that thought generated matter. The form o f physical m atter was, in their view, the creation o f an acting consciousness. M me Blavatsky expounded: “As God creates, so man can create. Given a certain intensity o f will, and the shapes created by the m ind become subjective. . . . Given a more intense and intelligent concentration o f this will, and the form becomes concrete, visible, objective; the man has learned the secret o f secrets; he is a M A G ICIA N ” (Isis Unveiled, vol. I [New York: J. W. B outon 1877], 62). Theosophy subscribed to the belief in the magical, creative power o f thought and w ord, or theurgy [from the Greek, theourgia, divine rite; literally, “godw orking,” or even “working on (or like) the gods” ]. Edouard Schure called theurgy “the supreme art o f the m agus” ( The Great Initiates, vol. I [1889; L on­ don: William Rider 8c Son, 1913], xxii). Mrs. Besant, in Esoteric Christianity, explained it as the ascent o f the “intellectual and divine part” o f m an to the “gods” in order to learn “the truths o f the intelligible w orld” (Esoteric Christi­ anity [1901; Adyar: Theosophical Publishing H ouse, 1966], 16). Theosophical definitions o f theurgy were based primarily on popular concepts deriving from the French occult revival. The French occultist Paul Christian defined theurgy as the creation o f “works similar to those o f G od by the progressive discovery o f the secrets o f universal life” ( The History and Practice o f M agic [1870; Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel, 1972], 246, 121). The m ost powerful theurgic act was the act o f creation. Theosophy accom m odated theurgy because the syncretic Theosophical doc­ trine embraced not only theoretical occultism, but applied occultism (or magic) as well. Originally used as a synonym for sorcery, theurgy came to be associated by the Theosophists with the magic potency o f the spoken w ord, w hether spo­ ken by the C reator or by an occultist-mage; both create by the magic pow er o f the w o rd /so u n d . Theurgy is, first and forem ost, a direct means o f contact with the superhum an or divine. Clearly theurgy as a concept would appeal trem endously to the Symbolist poets, especially to Andrei Belyi and Viacheslav Ivanov, both o f whom used the term frequently in this context (o f the spermatic word, capable o f creating alter­ native aesthetic universes). They used Vladimir Solov’ev (as well as Theosophy) to buttress their claim that the true and highest purpose o f the poet is “theurgic service” (Viacheslav Ivanov, Borozdy i mezhi [Moscow: 1916], 115; the article that develops this thought, “Religioznoe delo Vladimira Solov’eva,” was first delivered as a lecture in February 1911 and published shortly afterward in the journal P u tx). 9. To summarize the precise sevenfold sequence in the “O utbreathing” o f the Universe: (I ) the unmanifested Logos is; (2) Universal Ideation (latent) be-

gins; (3) Universal A ctive Intellig en ce is form ed; (4) C osm ic (C haotic) Energy is gen erated ; (5) Astral Id e a tio n (th e paradigm o f terrestrial things) occurs; (6) Life Essence, o r Energy, arises; and (7) the E arth (M atter) is form ed. In “T h e Stanzas o f D zy an ,” w hich form s the basis o f h er Secret D octrine, M m e Blavatsky expands th e seven principles in to ten: ( I ) Parabrahm a (the abso­ lute A bsolute); (2) th e First L ogos (U nm anifested Prim al C ause); (3) the Sec­ o n d L ogos (S p irit-M atter, p o ten tial differentiation); (4) th e T h ird Logos (W orld C onsciousness); (5) B u d d h i (W isdom ); (6) Mctnas (M ind); (7) Causal Plane; (8) M ental Plane; (9) Astral Plane; and (10) Physical Plane. W hile break­ in g several o f th e steps in to th e ir c o m p o n e n t p arts, M m e Blavatsky preserves the overall in te n tio n o f th e original sequence, m o vem ent from unconscious n o n ­ m anifestation to conscious m anifestation. 10. M m e Blavatsky, The Secret D octrine, vol. 2 (L o n d o n : T he T heosophical P ub lish in g C o ., 1 8 8 8 ), 81. 11. M rs. A nnie B esant, The A n c ie n t Wisdom (1 8 9 7 ; Adyar: T he T heosophical Publishing H o u se, 1 9 7 7 ), 180. 12. S in n ett, Esoteric B uddhism , 33. M m e Blavatsky elaborates: “T h e w orld m oves in cycles. T he com ing races will be b u t the rep ro d u ctio n s o f races long bygone; as we, perhaps, are th e im ages o f those w ho lived a h u n d re d centuries a g o ” ( Isis U nveiled, vol. I , 51). O n this p o in t (as well as on others) M m e Blavat­ sky anticipates F riedrich N ietzsch e’s n o tio n o f E ternal R ecurrence (Also Sprach Z a ra th u stra was n o t p u b lish ed u n til 1883—1892). T h e T h eosophists viewed N ietzsche as one o f th eir ow n “p ro p h e ts.” 13. M m e Blavatsky, The Secret D octrine, vol. 2 , 6 9 -7 0 . M m e Blavatsky’s use o f “cosm ic m athem atics” in this passage is a g o o d exam ple o f th e way in w hich T heo so p h y unites science and m etaphysics. T he B uddhist calculation o f tim e creates th e illusion o f “scientific fact” ; actually it is scientific m eth o d o lo g y ap ­ plied to an u n provable prem ise w ith o u t scientific basis. 14. M m e Blavatsky, The Secret D octrine, vol. I , 2 33. 15. M m e Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, vol. 2 , 112. 16. M m e Blavatsky, The Secret D octrine, vol. I , 192. 17. In Russian term in o lo g y th e d escen t in to m atte r is niskhozhdenie and as­ cen t in to spirit is voskhozhdenie; th e very sam e term inology was used by Viacheslav Ivanov to describe th e creative m o v em ent betw een the noum enal and p henom enal w orlds. 18. M m e Blavatsky, The Secret D octrine, vol. I , 268. 19. Viacheslav Ivanov’s co n cep t o f th e m ystery dram a corresponds to this view. C om pare also Joseph C am pbell’s Hero w ith a Thousand Faces (P rin ceto n , N .J.: P rin ceto n U niversity Press, 19 6 8 ). 2 0 . R u d o lf Steiner, A n Esoteric Cosmology (Blauvelt, N.Y.: Spiritual Science Library, 1 9 8 7 ), 123; lectures delivered in Paris M ay 2 5 , to Ju n e 14, 1906. 2 1 . M m e Blavatsky, The Secret D octrine, vol. I , 232; M m e Blavatsky p o e ti­ cally describes th e P ilgrim -S oul’s journey: “S tarting u p o n the long journey im ­ m aculate; descending m ore and m o re in to sinful m atter, and having co n nected h im self w ith every ato m in m anifested Space— the P ilgrim , having stru g g led th ro u g h and suffered in every form o f life and being, is only a t th e b o tto m o f the valley o f m atter, an d h alf th ro u g h his cycle, w h en he has identified him self w ith

collective H um anity. T his, he has m ade in his own image. In o rd er to progress upw ards an d hom ew ards, th e ‘G o d ’ has now to ascend th e w eary uphill p a th o f th e G o lg o th a o f Life. I t is th e m arty rd o m o f self-conscious existence. Like Visvakarman [a Vedic deity] he has to sacrifice h im se lf to h im self in o rd e r to re ­ deem all creatures, to resurrect from th e m any in to th e One Life. T h e n he as­ cends to heaven indeed; w here, p lu n g ed in to th e incom prehensible absolute Being and Bliss o f Paranirvana, he reigns unconditionally, and w hence he will re-descend again at th e n ex t ‘co m in g ’ ” ( The Secret D octrine, vol. I , 2 6 8 ). 22. S in n ett, Esoteric B uddhism , 6 1 -6 3 . 23. M rs. B esant, The A n c ie n t Wisdom, 174. 24. M m e Blavatsky’s M ahatm as are an exception: th ro u g h massive spiritual effort, som e h u m an m onads have reached th e spiritual level th a t others will achieve only in th e next ro u n d . T hese are th e g reat adepts and teachers w h o help presen t h u m an ity m ove forw ard. 25. M rs. B esant, The A n c ie n t Wisdom, 184. 2 6 . Steiner, A n Esoteric Cosmology, 58. 27. Ib id ., 6 0 , 63. 28. Ib id ., 64. 29 . C. W. L eadbeater, The A stra l Plane (1 8 9 5 ; Adyar: T heosophical P ublish­ in g 3 H o u se , 1 9 7 7 ), 21. 30. T heosophical aura colors and th eir relations to th o u g h ts w ere extensively developed in M rs. A nnie B esant’s and C. W. L ead b eater’s b o o k Thought-Forms (1 9 0 1 ; W h eato n , 111. T heosophical Publishing H o u se , 1971). Sec also “ C olors and T h eir M ean in g ,” in Charles L ead b eater’s M a n Visible an d Invisible (1 902; W h eato n , 111.: T heosophical Publishing H o u se , 1925); and R u d o lf S tein er’s “T h o u g h t-F o rm s an d th e H u m a n A u ra,” in his Theosophy: A n In tro d u ctio n to the Supersensible Knowledge o f the World a n d the D estination o f M a n (1 9 0 4 , 1908; N ew York: A n th ro p o so p h ic Press, 19 7 1 ). T h e T h eo so p h ists’ co lo r-feelin g -th o u g h t-fo rm paradigm attracted th e a tte n ­ tio n o f th e R ussian creative intelligentsia, p ro d u c in g som e interestin g results, such as A ndrei Belyi’s 1903 article “Sviashchennye tsveta” (in his Arabeski [M oscow : S korpion, 1 9 1 1 ], 1 1 5 -2 9 ), and his sophisticated use o f color im agery in his w orks, and Wasily K andinsky’s T heosophically p erm eated color th eo ry as o u tlin e d in his essay TJber das Geistige in der K u n st (M unich: 1912). 31. E d o u a rd Schure, The G reat In itia te s, trans. F red R othw ell, vol. I (L o n ­ don: W illiam R ider & S on, 1 9 1 3 ), xxii, 32. M m e Blavatsky, The Secret D octrine, vol. I , 39. 33. T his p ro fo u n d ly G nostic paradigm is also the fo u n d atio n o f seco n d -g en ­ eration Sym bolism ’s th e o ry o f Sym bolism as a worldview. Vladislav K hodasevich explained h o w this n o u m en al-p h en o m en al dualism gripped his generation: “ E verything seem ed to have a d o u b le m eaning, a second level; th e co n to u rs o f objects appeared to fluctuate. Reality, dispersing itself th ro u g h consciousness, becam e transparent. W e lived in a real w orld— and, at th e same tim e, in its spe­ cial, n eb u lo u s, and com plex reflection, w here everything was ‘th a t, and yet n o t th a t.’ Every o b ject, every step, every gesture was as if conditionally reflected, p ro jected in to o th e r planes o n a nearby b u t intangible screen. P h en o m en a b e­ cam e visions. Every ev en t acquired, beyond its obvious m eaning, a second

m eaning th a t n eed ed to be d eciphered. I t was n o t always easy for us to decipher it, b u t we knew th a t this second m eaning was actually the rig h t one. “T hus we lived in tw o w orlds. B u t unable to discover the laws by which events occu rred in this second w o rld , seem ingly m ore real th an simply real to us,— we only languished in dark and tro u b le d p resentim ents. W e felt th a t every­ th in g th a t h ap p en ed to us was an omen. B u t o f w hat?” (K hodasevich, Nekropol’; Vospominaniici [Paris: Y M CA, 1 9 7 6 ], 102—3). 34. M m e Blavatsky, The Secret D octrine, vol. 2 , 377. 35. M m e Blavatsky, The ICey toTheosophy, 341. 36. M rs. Besant, The A n c ie n t Wisdom, 2 7 4 . 37. Ib id ., 2 3 5 -3 6 . 38. Ib id ., 265. 39. C. G. Ju n g , A lchem ical Studies, trans. R. F. C. H u ll, vol. 13 o f th e Col­ lected Works (P rin ceto n , N .J.: P rin ceto n U niversity Press (B ollingen), 1 9 6 8 ), 7. 40. N ikolai Berdiaev, “Tipy religioznoi mysli v Rossii,” R usskaia mysT 1 1 (1 9 1 6 ): 7 (2d pag in atio n ). 4 1 . Ib id ., 17. 4 2 . See, for exam ple, P. I. M el’nikov-Pecherskii, Belye golubi and Tainye sekty, vol. 14 o f his Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (P etersburg-M oscow : 18 9 8 ), 2 0 3 —3 5 3 ; also th e n u m ero u s w orks o f A. S. P rugavin, Μ . V. M uratov, and D . G. Konovalov. T h e literatu re on Russian m ystical sectarianism is extensive. 43. S tein er’s tw o pro g ram m atic w orks from th e early p e rio d are Theosophy: A n In tro d u ctio n to the Supersensible Knowledge o f the World a n d the D estination o f M a n (1 9 0 4 ; 1908; and n u m ero u s su b seq u en t eds.) and A n O utline o f Occult Science (1 9 0 9 ; su b seq u en t eds.). O ccult Science outlines S teiner’s com plex c o s­ m ology in g reat detail. 4 4 . R u d o lf Steiner, C hristia n ity as M ystical Fact a n d the Mysteries o f A n tiq ­ uity (1 9 0 2 ; 2 d rev. ed. 191 0 ; Blauvelt, N.Y.: S teinerbooks, 1 9 6 1 ), 4 3 , 45. 45 . “A ccording to esoteric C hristianity, it is correct to say th a t th ro u g h his processes o f in itiatio n th e C hristian esotericist attains th e purification and cleansing o f his astral body; he m akes his astral body in to th e V irgin Sophia and is illum inated from above— if you w ish, you m ay call it overshadow ed— by the ‘H o ly S pirit,’ by th e C osm ic, U niversal E g o ,” elaborated Steiner {The Gospel o f St. John [S pring Valley, N.Y.: T h e A n th ro p o so p h ic Press, 1 9 6 2 ], 179; lectures read in H a m b u rg M ay 18—31, 1 9 0 8 ). H e also identified the M o th e r o f Jesus in the G ospel o f St. Jo h n as th e external historical personality o f the V irgin Sophia. E xplanations such as this, using familiar term inology (b u t frequently w ith real difference in m eaning) allow ed Russian T heo sophists and A n throposophists to p o in t to th e “ parallels” betw een S teiner an d V ladim ir Solov’ev; in m any cases (b u t n o t in all) these parallels are fallacious. 4 6 . See S tein er’s discussion o f M m e Blavatsky’s “ en tice m en t” in to oriental form s in his lecture o f O c to b e r 2 3 , 19 1 1 , p rin te d in E arthly a n d Cosmic M an (Blauvelt, N .Y .: Spiritual Science Library, 1 9 8 6 ), 23ff. 4 7 . T h e em in en t psychologist C. G. Ju n g eventually cam e to a similar co n ­ clusion a b o u t th e psychic dangers o f orien tal th o u g h t for occidental m an. Al­ th o u g h Ju n g d id n o t find S teiner o r A n th ro p o so p h y congenial, S teiner actually anticipated m any o f J u n g ’s concepts: th e anim a, th e C h rist as archetype o f the

Self and sym bol o f ego-consciousness, initiatio n as individuation, and so fo rth . T his is scarcely surprising since b o th scholars came from th e same G erm an aca­ dem ic tra d itio n , w ith its p articular em phasis o n m etaphysical idealism , p h ilo so ­ phy o f religion, an d psychology. See: G erh ard W ehr, C. G. J u n g u n d R u d o lf Steiner: K o n fro n ta tio n u n d Synapse (F rankfurt am M ain: IG ett-C o tta im U llstein-T aschenbuch, 19 8 2 ). S teiner w o u ld have been a fascinating subject for Jung; in m any cases th e tw o m en w ere discussing the same psychic processes, b u t using different m etaphors an d vocabularies. 4 8 . S teiner, The Gospel o f St. John, 167. 4 9 . R u d o lf Steiner, R osicrucian Esotericism (Spring Valley, N.Y.: T he Anthropo so p h ical Press, 1 9 7 8 ), 1 2 1 -2 2 ; lectures read in B udapest June 3 -1 2 , 1909. 50. M rs. B esant, Esoteric C h ristianity, 42. 5 1 . Steiner, The Gospel o f St. John, 8 2 . 52. Steiner, A n Esoteric Cosmology, 118. 53. Steiner, C hristianity as M ystical Fact, 6 6 -6 7 . S teiner seems never to have been concerned by his decided doctrinal divergence from traditional C hristian­ ity; he also atte n d e d and particip ated in various C hristian services and liturgies, including th e O rth o d o x (as, for exam ple, d u rin g his lecture series in H elsinki d u rin g O rth o d o x E aster, 1913). O n several separate occasions he p o in ted o u t th e follow ing: “Spiritual science does n o t w an t to usurp the place o f C hristian­ ity; on th e co n trary it w ould like to be in stru m en tal in m aking C hristianity u n ­ d ersto o d . T h u s it becom es clear to us th ro u g h spiritual science th a t th e being w hom we call C hrist is to be reco g n ized as th e cen te r o f life o n earth , th a t the w hole C hristian religion is the ultim ate religion for th e e a rth ’s w hole fu tu re ” (Steiner, “A n th ro p o so p h y and C hristianity” [Spring Valley, N.Y.: T h e A n throposop h ic Press, 1 9 8 5 ], 17; lecture delivered at N o rrk o p in g , July 13, 1914). 54. Steiner, The Gospel o f St. John, 56. 55. Ib id ., 86. S tein er’s C hrist Im pulse is a co n tem porary variant o f th e G n o s­ tic “ Call from W ith o u t.” T h e G nostic C hristos is the “ Caller o f the C all,” the call th a t awakens th e spiritual m an from th e dream o f this m aterial w orld to the reco g n itio n o f his spiritual n atu re. T h e Call (Zov) appears frequently in early Russian Sym bolist literature. 56. M m e Blavatsky, The Secret D octrine, vol. I , 7 0 —71. 57. Ib id ., vol. 2, 237. 58. Eliphas Ldvi, The H istory o f M agic (1 8 6 0 ), trans. A. E. W aite (1 9 1 3 ; N ew York: W eiser, 1 9 6 9 ), 159. M m e Blavatsky q u o tes this passage in The Secret Doc­ trine, vol. 2 , 511. 59. R u d o lf Steiner, Secrets o f the Threshold (H u d so n , N.Y.: T he A n th ro p o so phic Press, 1 9 8 7 ), 33; lectures given in M u n ich A ugust 2 4 - 3 1 , 1913. 60. A hrim an is ch ief o f th e fallen angels, the te m p ter o f m ankind, and the principle o f evil in Z oroastrianism ; Lucifer, in C hristian trad itio n , is one o f the nam es o f Satan, o r th e Devil. In C hristian m ythology Lucifer, cast o u t o f heaven for hubris and arrogance, reigns in hell. 61. Steiner, Secrets o f the Threshold, 1 9 -2 0 . 62. R u d o lf S teiner, Balance in the World a n d M an: L ucifer a n d A h rim a n (N o rth V ancouver, C anada: S teiner B ook C e n tre, 1 9 7 7 ), 22; th ree lectures given in D o rn ach N o v em b er 2 0 - 2 2 , 1914.

63. R u d o lf Steiner, The Influences o f L ucifer a n d A h r im a n (N o rth V ancou­ ver, C anada: S teiner B ook C e n tre , 1 9 5 4 ), 10; lectures from N ovem ber 1919. 64. Steiner, Balance m the World a n d M a n , 18. 65. Steiner, The Gospel o f St. John, 191. C h a p te r S ix T h e R u s s ia n R e c e p t io n o f T h e o s o p h ic a l T h o u g h t

1. Rebus 1 3 (1 9 1 2 ): 3. 2. K. D. Kudriavtsev, Chto takoe teosofiia i teosoficheskoe obshchestvo (St. P e ­ tersburg: 1 912; 2 d rev. and exp. ed. 1914). 3. Ib id ., 5 -6 . 4. Ib id ., 20. 5. Ib id ., 4 4 -4 5 . 6. Papus also b elo n g ed to th e Ordre K abbalistique de la Rose-Croix, an eso­ teric o rd e r spuriously co n n ected w ith th e R osicrucian trad itio n . In late R enais­ sance R osicrucian literatu re, from w hich m any ideas w ere later ap p ropriated by Freem asonry, th ere is a claim th a t R osicrucian adepts w en t o ff to live in T ib et; th e T heo so p h ists claim ed th a t this was a reference to th e ir M ahatm as, w hose L odge was in th e Him alayas. In this was a perceived con tin u ity am o n g Rosicrucianism , M asonry, an d T heosophy. T he leaders o f th e Ordre were Josephin Peladan and th e M arquis Stanislas de G uaita, one o f th e m ore p ro m in e n t o cc u lt­ ists associated w ith th e F rench O ccu lt Revival. See relevant entries in K enneth M ackenzie’s The R oyal M asonic Cyclopaedia (1 8 7 7 ). 7. L etter from M m e Blavatsky (to A. N . A ksakov), O c to b e r 2 , 1877; cited in Vs. Solov’ev’s Sovrem ennaia zhritsa Izid y (St. P etersburg: O bshchestvennaia P o l’za, 1 9 0 4 ), 287. 8. Kudriavtsev, Chto takoe teosofiia, 16. 9. V. P. Bykov, S p iritizm pered sudom nau ki, obshchestva i religii (M oscow : Izdan ie E. I. Bykovoi, 1 9 1 4 ), 36. 10. Lev Kobylinskii-Ellis, Vipilemus! (M oscow : M usaget, 19 1 4 ), 101. 11. “N ovoe v teosoficheskom ob sh ch estv e,” Rebus 1 4 (1912): 4. 12. Kudriavtsev, Chto takoe teosofiia, 5 5 -5 6 . 13. M m e Blavatsky, The Secret D octrine, vol. I (L ondon: T h e T heosophical P ublishing C o ., 1 8 8 8 ), xx. 14. Kudriavtsev, Chto takoe teosofiia, 25 . M m e Blavatsky did n o t actually say th e w ords as K udriavtsev a ttrib u te d th em to her; th e P all M a ll G azette records only th a t “she dilated for nearly h alf an h o u r w ith m uch fervour and natural eloq u en ce co n cern in g th e m elancholy co n trast betw een th e professed creed o f C h risten d o m and the political actions o f C hristian nations, proclaim ing herself o n th e side o f th e h eath en w hom they despise.” She did add, rath er arrogantly, th a t h er T heosophical Society “aim s, first, at th e resto ratio n o f B uddhism to its original purity,” an d , seco n d , “ to resto re B rahm anism to th e p u rer ideal w hich finds expression in th e V edas.” O nly th e n d id she plan to “ co m b at a false m ateri­ alism by th e establishm ent o f p u re spiritual tr u th .” T h e G azette, a respectable miscellany o f articles on politics, business, society, and th e arts, concluded th at M m e Blavatsky “is a w om an w ho, reg ard ed from the purely intellectual stan d ­ p o in t, deserves m o re a tte n tio n th an she has h ith e rto received,” alth o u g h it

found her Theosophy “inexpressibly bizarre and paradoxical” (Pall M all Gazette [London], April 26, 1884, 3-4). 15. Mme Blavatsky, The Key to Theosophy (1889; Pasadena: Theosophical University Press, 1972), 61. 16. Nikolai Berdiaev, Samopoznanie (1949; Paris: YMCA, 1983), 207. 17. L. E. O ., “Teosoficheskoe obshchestvo v Smolenske,” Rebus 39(1907): 5. 18. V. I. Shtal’berg, “Khristianskaia i indo-buddiiskaia teosofiia,” Teosofskaia zhizn’ 2 /3 (1 9 0 8 ): 116. 19. Ibid., Teosofskaia zhizn' 4 /5 (1 9 0 8 /1 9 0 9 ): 197. 20. “Alba” [Anna Ramenskaia], “Protivorechit Ii teosofiia khristianstvu? (po A. Bezant),” Voprosy teosofii, vol. I (St. Petersburg: Gorodskaia tipografiia, 1907), 149. 21. Anna Ramenskaia, “Zadachi teosofii,” Rebus 6 /7 (1 9 0 7 ): 6. 22. Mrs. Annie Besant, Esoteric Christianity (1901; Adyar, Madras: Theosophical Publishing House, 1953), 90. 23. Numerous legends about Christ existed among Theosophists, many o f them contradictory. Some examples: Christ was divine only during the years o f mission, when he was animated by the Mahatma Illarion; Christ was a chela [dis­ ciple] who revealed the Word too soon; and so forth. 24. Archimandrite Varlaam, Teosofiia pered sudom khristianstva (Poltava: G. E. Markevich, 1912), 4 3 -4 4 . 25. Bykov, Spiritizm pod sudom, 35. 26. N. N ., “Teosofskoe uchenie,” Khristianin 4(1910): 775. 27. Mme Blavatsky, The Key to Theosophy, 325. 28. Rudolf Steiner, The Gospel o f St. John (Spring Valley, N.Y.: The Anthroposophic Press, 1962), 159; lectures given in May 1908. 29. Voprosy teosofii, vol. I; 159-68; materials based on Mrs. Annie Besant’s Esoteric Christianity (1901; Adyar: Theosophical Publishing House, 1953), 159n. 30. Mrs. Besant’s work was additionally influenced by the Theosophist G. R. S. Mead’s translation o f the Gnostic texts o f the Pistis Sophia; in Esoteric Christianity she uses the Valentinian cosmogony as her starting point (the fall o f Sophia from the Pleroma into matter, and so on). 31. Mrs. Besant, Esoteric Christianity, 126, 151. 32. Vladimir Solov’ev, “Dukhovnye osnovy zhizni,” in his Sobranie sochinenii, 2d ed., vol. 3 (St. Petersburg: Prosveshchenie, 1911-1913), 402. 33. Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (Baltimore: Penguin, 1964), 236; Ware quotes from the Canon for Matins o f Holy Thursday, Ode 4, Troparion 3. 34. Ibid., 237. 35. Mrs. Besant, Esoteric Christianity, 290. 36. Fr. Ioann Dmitrevskii, Teosofiia— Religtoznaia filosofiia n ashego vremeni (Khar’kov: Tip. Mirnyi trud, 1911), 78. 37. Nikolai Berdiaev, “Tipy religioznoi mysli v Rossii,” Russkaia mysi’ 11(1916): 5, 2d pagination). Berdiaev continued: “Theosophy does not wish to know this mystery o f Christ, this miraculous liberation through grace from the yoke o f the past, from the power o f time, this abridgement o f endless time into

one m o m en t. E verything in T h eo so p h y is based o n a terrible and inevitable c o n ­ form ity [to th e law o f k a rm a \\ it applies even to th e very dep th s o f divine life. Karmic fate is ju st an d ap p ro p riate, b u t it know s n o forgiveness o r mercy, it know s n o love o r freedom . C hristianity is above all a religion o f love and free­ d o m , n o t o f justice and conform ity to [karm ic] law.” Berdiaev was particularly irritated by T h e o so p h y ’s inability to accom m odate th e concepts o f R edem ption and Grace. 38. D m itrevskii, Teosofiia, 59, 80. F ath er D m itrevskii’s o p inion is echoed in N . N .’s article in K hristicinin: “ T here is n o reason to descend in to the u n d e r­ g ro u n d vaults o f ancient pagan tem ples, th ere to ro o t in the d u st and garbage o f th e obsolete pagan cultures th a t d estroyed th e an tiq u e w o rld ” (5 [1 9 1 0 ], 1 1 1 ). 39. Kobylinskii-Ellis, Vigilemus!, 41 . 4 0 . Vs. S olov’ev, “C h to takoe ‘d o k trin a teosoficheskogo obschestva,’ ” Voprosyfilosofii ip sikhologiii 1 8 (1 8 9 3 ), B ook 3, 6 7 -6 8 , 2 d pagination. 4 1 . M m e Blavatsky, The K ey to Theosophy, 3 6 2 -6 3 . 4 2 . T h e d o ctrin e o f th e In carn atio n affirms th a t, as an act o f th e w hole G o d ­ head , C h rist, th e eternal S o n o f G o d , was b o rn o f a h u m an m o th e r and becam e sim ultaneously M an an d G o d , th u s excluding th e partial, incom plete actualiza­ tio n im plied by cyclical reincarnation; th e d o ctrine also affirms the uniqueness o f this historical event. As b o th M an a n d G o d , C hrist was the bridge betw een the hum an and divine th a t w o u ld m ake possible th e eventual red em p tio n o f fallen m an and his reconciliation w ith G od. T h e d o ctrine o f th e A to n e m en t affirms m an ’s reconciliation w ith th e G od h ead th ro u g h C h rist’s Sacrifice o f H im se lf for the sins o f all m en. T h e A to n e m e n t for sin is com plete, obviating any n eed for repetitio n . T h e d o ctrin e o f resu rrectio n in th e body, w hich h ad a particular h o ld on th e O rth o d o x m in d a t th e en d o f th e n in ete en th cen tu ry (see N ikolai F e ­ dorov, Filosofiia obshchego dela, 1 9 0 6 , 1 9 1 3 ), affirms th e resu rrectio n in the body o f all d ep arted souls at th e tim e o f th e Parousia, o r Second C om ing. T he prom ise o f this resurrectio n is im plicit, by analogy, in th e resurrection o f C hrist. This resu rrectio n is to eternal life, n o t to th e endless recapitulations o f im perfect m ortal existences. AU th ree do ctrin es, and especially th e last, assume th e u n iq u e ­ ness o f historical m anifestation and th u s deny any form o f reincarnation o r m e ­ tem psychosis. 4 3 . Steiner, The Gospel o f St. John (Spring Valley, N.Y.: T h e A nthroposophic Press, 1 9 7 3 ), 1 2 1 , 120; lectures given in H a m b u rg M ay 1 8 -3 1 , 1908. 4 4 . Steiner, A n Esoteric Cosmology (B lauvelt, N.Y.: Spiritual Science Library, 19 8 7 ), 118; lectures read in Paris M ay 25 to June 14, 1906. 4 5 . M rs. A nnie B esant, The A n c ie n t Wisdom (1 8 9 7 ; Adyar: T heosophical P ublishing H o u se , 1 9 3 9 ), 2 8 9 . M rs. B esant m ay be suggesting th a t freedom requires a stru ctu re in w hich to o p e ra te , o therw ise it is m ere chaos. T h e logical conclusion o f this approach is th a t g reater freedom requires greater stru c tu re, and th a t final, tru e freedom is to be fo u n d only in com plete necessity. H ow ever congenial this p o sitio n m ig h t be to som e P ro testan ts (follow ing St. A ugustine, for exam ple, o r M artin L u th er) and M arxists (“F reedom is th e recognition o f necessity” ), it w o u ld have had lim ited appeal to m ost o f h er Russian O rth o d o x con tem p o raries.

46. See, for exam ple, B erdiaev’s discussion in chapter 13, “T vorchestvo i mistika. O kkuP tizm i m agiia,” o f Smysl tvorchestva, vol. 2 o f his Sobranie sochinenii (1 9 1 6 ; Paris: YM CA, 1 9 8 5 ), 3 3 2 -5 4 . 4 7 . S teiner, A n Esoteric Cosmology, 119. 4 8 . Rebus 3 7 (1 9 1 1 ): 6. “ F reem aso n ry ” was o n e o f th e m o st dam ning in d ic t­ m ents in th e entire lexicon o f Russian O rth o d o x intellectual th o u g h t. 4 9 . M m e Blavatsky’s b o o k The Key to Theosophy provides a convenient glos­ sary o f T heosophical term s; here: chela, disciple; devachan, the state betw een tw o earth lives; G upta Vidya, th e secret science; kam aloka, the sem im aterial plane; paranirvana, b eyond nirvana; see also glossary, this volum e. 50. R ebus 1 8 (1 8 9 5 ): 181. 51. R am a-K rishna (1 8 3 4 —1 8 9 6 ), H in d u p h ilo so p h er and reform er; Yogi R am acharaka (1 8 6 2 -1 9 3 2 ; pseud, o f A m erican o ccultist W illiam W alker A tkin­ son), prolific a u th o r o f p o p u lar texts a b o u t H atha-Y oga, Raja-Yoga, JnanaYoga, o riental philosophy, and so fo rth ; Swami V ivekananda (1 8 6 3 -1 9 0 2 ), a disciple o f R am a-K rishna, p o p u larized th e p hilosophy o f the V edanta in E u rope; Sri-Shankara-A charya (c. 6 8 8 -7 2 0 a .d . ) , H in d u m etaphysician, m o st influential o f all H in d u occultists, fam ous for his com m entaries to th e B rahm a Sutra, TJpanishads, Bhagavad G ita. See B ibliography o f T heosophical and R elated Works. 52. D u rin g th e p erio d o f th e fo rm atio n o f th e Russian T heosophical Society (1 9 0 7 -1 9 0 8 ), th e In tern atio n al Society was u n d e r the leadership o f M rs. Besa n t, w h o h ad been b o rn an d raised in E n g lan d d u rin g th e tim e o f the Raj; w ho had con v erted to B rahm anism ; w ho resided in Adyar, M adras, w here th e T heosophical H e ad q u arters w ere; an d w h o was an active force in th e m ov em en t for In d ian independence. Ironically, th e n eo -B u d d h ism o f th e T heo so p h ists did n o t have th e u n q u ali­ fied approval o f th e H in d u s. T h e g u ru M ahatm a A gam ia Param akhanza, head o f th e In d ian Society o f Representatives o f V edantic Philosophy, “ considered it his duty, for th e sake o f H in d u y o u th , to p ro te st against th e d isto rtio n o f ancient H in d u doctrines and against th eir appearance in the d ilu ted and entirely d is­ to rte d form in w hich M rs. B esant and th e T h eosophists offered it b o th in India and in th e W est” (“ O tzyvy In d u so v o teo so fak h,” R ebus 2 8 [1 9 0 5 ]: 3). T he g u ru d id n o t u n d erstan d w hy M rs. B esant h ad decided to becom e an h o n o rary H in d u , n o r d id he have a h ig h o p in io n o f th e invisible M ahatm as. 53. D m itrevskii, Teosofiia, 4 7 , referring to R am enskaia’s article “Russkaia ideia,” Vestnik teosofii 1 (1 9 1 0 ): 4 - 5 ; 9 (1 9 1 0 ): 6 9 , 87. 54. Pisareva, review o f Berdiaev’s “T ipy” (R usskaia mysT 11 [ 1 9 1 6 ]) in Vestnik teosofii 2 (1 9 1 7 ): 9 -1 0 . 55. “T ao s,” “ L iteratu rn o e o b o z re n ie ,” Vestnik teosofii 9 (1 9 1 5 ): 94; refer­ ence to N ikolai Shapir, “ N atsio n al’nyc tipy kul’tu ry ,” Severnye zapiski 3 (1 9 1 5 ). 56. Vestnik teosofii 9 (1 9 1 5 ): 95. 57. Kudriavtsev, Chto takoe teosofiia, 2 4 ; K udriavtsev was referring to M rs. B esant’s socialist past. K udriavtsev’s conclusion was m ore succinctly form ulated by Boris Vysheslavtsev: “ B uddhism is a religion w ithout God\ B uddhism knows a certain h ig h er m ystical state, n ir v a n a , b u t its m ysticism is an atheistic m ysti­ cism. In India everything is religious an d m ystical— even atheism ” (“ Krishn am u rti [zavershenie teo so fii],” P u T [Paris] 1 4 [D ecem ber 1 9 2 8 ], 95).

58. 59. 60. 61.

Vs. Solov’ev, Sovrem ennaia zhritsa, 293. N . N ., “Teosofskoe u ch en ie,” K h ristia n in 4 (1 9 1 0 ): 795. M m e Blavatsky, The Secret D octrine, vol. I , xx. “S .,” ctSO-Hletie Teosoficheskogo O b shchestva,” R ebus 4 3 /4 4 (1 9 0 5 ) :

4. 62 . F. M ax M uller, “ E soteric B u d d h ism ,” in The N ineteenth C entury, M ay 189 3 , 7 7 0 -7 1 . T his w ell-know n article was translated in to G erm an and p u b ­ lished in Spiritualistische B la tter (4 [1 8 9 4 ]); excerpts w ere translated in to R us­ sian and appeared in Rebus as “M aks M iuller o noveishei reosofii i ee rasprostraniteliakh” {Rebus 21 [1 8 9 4 ]: 2 1 3 ). 63. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, vol. 2 (N ew York: J. W. B o u to n , 18 7 7 ), 143. 64. M uller, “ E soteric B u d d h ism ,” 7 8 3 . M u ller’s position was th a t “ if there is any religion entirely free from esoteric do ctrines, it is B uddhism . T here never was any such th in g as m ystery in B u d d h ism ” (776). A nd M m e Blavatsky’s eso­ teric B uddhism was “ n o th in g very new, n o th in g very o ld, b u t simply a m edley o f w ell-know n th o u g h generally m isu n d ersto o d B rahm anic o r B uddhistic d o c ­ trin e s” (7 7 5 ). 65 . Kam enskaia, Rebus 7, 1 1 (1 9 0 7 ). 66. Berdiaev, “T ipy,” 5. 67. Ib id ., 16. 68 . Ivan I l’in , “Filosofiia kak d u k h o v n o e d elanie,” R usskaia mysl’ 3 (1 9 1 5 ): 125, 2 d pagination. 69 . Ib id ., 126, 125. 70. K obylinskii-Ellis, Vipfilemus!, 102. 71. E rn st H aeckel (1 8 3 4 —1 9 1 9 ) began w ith D arw inism , b u t soon developed a th e o ry o f th e essential unity o f th e organic and inorganic. H aeckel’s anti-idealistic, anti-agnostic, m aterialist p o sitio n did n o t accept revealed religions, b u t posited a m onistic religion o f n atu re (see his R id d le o f the Universe [1 8 9 9 ]). H is w ork was p o p u lar in its tim e. 72. Berdiaev, “T ipy,” 1 5 -1 6 . 73 . Kobylinskii-Ellis, Vipilem us!, 102. 74. See L eonid Sabaneev, Skriabin (M oscow : Skorpion, 1916); Boris Schloezer, A . Skriabin: m onoprafiia o lichnosti i tvorchestve (Berlin: G rani, 1923). 75. See M ikhail Agursky, tcM aksim G orky and th e D ecline o f Bolshevik T heom achy,” in C hristianity a n d R ussian C u lture in Soviet Society (B oulder: W estview Press, 1 9 9 0 ), 8 1 , 84ff. A gursky discusses in greater detail G orkii’s con tacts w ith T heosophy. 76 . See, for exam ple, R am enskaia’s b ro c h u re, “ Z adachi teosofii,” also re ­ prin ted in R ebus 6 -7 (1 9 0 7 ), w hich relies o n Berdiaev and Solov’ev to lend cre­ dence to h er position. 77 . VI. Solov’ev, “ R etsenziia na knigu E. P. Blavatskoi: The Key to Theoso­ phy,” in his Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 6 , 292. 78 . Berdiaev, “T ipy,” I . 79. Lev T olstoi, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 4 9 (M oscow : G osiitizdat [iubileinoe izd an ie], 1 9 5 2 ), 84.

80. “Yesterday th e T heosophists w ere h e re ,” T olstoi laconically n o te d in his diary th e n ext day. H e did n o t seem particularly im pressed, b u t th en T olstoi was n o t im pressed by o rg an izatio n s, b u t by ideas (Lev T olstoi, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 56 [M oscow : G oslitizdat [iubileinoe izdanie], 1 9 3 7 ], 138). 81. “Stenograficheskii o tc h e t zasedaniia Rel.-Filos. O bshchestva v Spb. 2 4 noiabria 1909 g. po d okladu A lba ‘Teosofiia i b o g o stro itel’stv o ,’ ” Vestnik teosofii 2 (1 9 1 0 ): 62; th e tex t o f th e entire lecture and discussion is given o n pages 62 to 111. 82. Vestnik teosofii 2 (1 9 1 0 ): 86. 83. Ib id ., 102. 84. Ironically, T h eo so p h y w ould becom e, i f n o t a church, at least a religion, by th e en d o f 1925. A t th a t tim e th e T h eosophical C ouncil voted to accept T h e ­ osophy as th e “ O n e U niversal R eligion.” 85. Vestnikteosofii 2 (1 9 1 0 ): 108. 86. Ib id ., 106. 87. Ib id ., 103. 88. Ib id ., 98 . 89. W oloschin, D ie g r u n t Schlttnge (F rankfurt am M ain: Fischer Verlag, 19 6 8 ), 246. 90. Bcrdiaev even p o in te d o u t th a t th e activities o f Belyi, M etner, and the Logos and T ru d y i d n i w riters w ere to o “ G erm an .” “ Even A. Belyi was o f a purely G erm an persuasion, in spite o f his Russian lack o f organ izatio n and chaotic h a b ­ its” ( Samopoznetnie, 188). 91. Berdiaev, “T ipy,” 13. 9 2 . Ib id ., 11. 93. Ib id ., 10. 9 4 . Berdiaev’s criticism here is n o t m eticulously fair, as m any o f his criticism are, since T h eo so p h y never claim ed to be eith er m ysticism o r religion. 95. R egarding Belyi (w hom he considered to possess “possibly the greatest creative gift in Russia” ), Berdiaev w ro te th a t “A. Belyi is very Russian, and his path is characteristic o f th e Russian soul. Steinerianism can scarcely be g o o d for artistic creativity. S tein er’s p a th can actually w eaken creativity. C reativity as­ sum es th e overcom ing o f ketrmet once and fo r all, it assumes a victory over it, and n o t an eternal, gradual overcom ing o f it. C reativity assumes th e dualism o f the w orld o f spiritual freedom an d th e w o rld o f n atu ral necessity. Insofar as A. Belyi receives creative im pulses from A nthro p o so p h y , he represents an exception to the ru le ” (“T ipy,” 17). 96. “ Dva pis’m a N . A. Berdiaeva A ndreiu B elom u,” published in Mosty 1 1 (1 9 6 5 ) by L. M urav’ev, w ith com m entaries by F e d o r S tep u n , 3 5 9 -6 8 . (R e­ published in N ovyi zhurnctl 1 3 7 [D ecem b er 1 9 7 9 ], 1 1 8 -2 3 .) L e tter o f Ju n e 8, 1912, 3 6 0 -6 1 . Berdiaev approved o f Belyi’s going to R u d o lf Steiner, b u t su g ­ gested th a t Belyi ask Steiner “w hy th ere is n o Saviour, and n o C h rist” in S tein er’s system o f salvation, an d “w hy S teiner so com pletely denies th e D i­ onysian elem en t in life, why he does n o t wish to know th e instinctive, passion­ ate, and sub-conscious value” (1 1 9 —20). 97. Berdiaev, Samopoznanie^ 2 1 9 -2 2 .

9 8 . Ib id ., 219. 9 9 . Berdiaev, “T ipy,” 9. 100. Varlaam, T eo so fiia 25. 101. Kobylinskii-Ellis, Vigilemus!, y ii. 102. Vs. Solov’ev, a C h to takoe ‘do k trin a ,’” 6 8 , 2 d pagination. 103. Berdiaev, Samopoznanie, 219. 104. D m itrii S tran d en , Teosofiia i ee k ritik i (St. Petersburg: Stasiulevich, 1913). 105. Ib id ., 7. 106. Vestnikteosofii 4 ( 1 9 1 2 ) :8 3 . 107. Rebus 1 1 (1 9 1 4 ): 6. 108. S tranden, Teosofiia, 6. C h a p te r S even T h e R u ssia n T h e o s o p h ic a l M o v e m e n t after 1 9 1 7

1. Izvestiia R T O 2 (1 9 1 7 ): 4 1 ; after an initially rap tu ro u s reaction to events at hom e, Kam enskaia’s su b seq u en t letters referred only to events at Adyar, such as th e “ holiday o f lig h t” th a t com m em o rated the anniversary o f C olonel O lc o tt’s death. Today h er letters so u n d rem o te, even insular, w hen read in the co n tex t o f th e first Russian revolution and w h at follow ed. 2. Vestnik teosofii 2 (1 9 1 7 ): 5 -6 . 3. E. Pisareva, “N a storozhevom p o stu ,” Vestnik teosofii 3 /5 (1 9 1 7 ) : 7; ac­ cord in g to b o th T heosophy an d A nthroposophy, th e w orld was com pleting the cycle o f the fifth, the A ryan, root-race, and b eg inning the sixth E arth root-race, w hich w o u ld be d o m in ated by th e Slavs. 4. Ib id ., 9. 5. Izvestiia R T O 2 (1 9 1 7 ): 10; here are echoes o f T h eo so p h ist P. D . U spenskii’s earlier “m ystical socialism ” an d “ creative labor.” F or a m odern discussion o f occultism and socialism as th e strangest bedfellows o f the n in etee n th century, see Philippe M uray, Le dix-neuviem e siecle a travers Ies Ages (Paris: D enoel, 1984). M uray discusses the hybridization o f occultism and socialism to produce a n o tio n o f m odernity based o n reg im en ted h um anity organized according to a principle o f hig h er H arm o n y ; P. D . U spenskii said m uch the same thing. 6. A. Ram enskaia, “ M oi vstrechi s A. B ezant,” Vestnik: Satyat N a sti Paro D harm ah (G eneva) 3(M ay 1938): 5. 7. Ib id ., 5 -6 . 8. T h e o u tb reak o f th e w ar h ad com plicated life in th e A nthroposophical com m unity in D ornach; Steiner com plained a b o u t the A n throposophists’ in ­ ability to overcom e feelings o f nationalism and chauvinism . M ost o f the Russians in D ornach had left fo r th e ir h o m elan d in th e first weeks o f the war, while it was still possible for th em to travel th ro u g h Germany. A ndrei Belyi and his brotherin-law, A leksandr P o zzo , left in 1 9 1 6 , taking a ro u n d -a b o u t path th ro u g h France and Scandinavia. T rifon T rapeznikov left in January 1917 by the same ro u te; M argarita Sabashnikova-V oloshina traveled by sealed train th ro u g h G er­ m any th a t sum m er. 9. M em bers and participants o f VoPfila included, in ter alia, th e fam ous p o et

Aleksandr Blok, the critic Ivanov-Razumnik (R. V, Ivanov), the philosopher and journalist Aaron Shteinberg, the m inor poet Konstantin Siunnerberg-Brberg, the philosopher and critic Aleksandr Meier, the painter Kuz’ma Petrov-Vodkin, Professor N. O. Losskii, Professor S. A. Askol’dov, the teacher L. V. Pumpianskii, who later introduced the famous pianist Maria Iudina to Anthroposophy, the avant-garde artist Mikhail M atiushin, the writer OPga Forsh, M argarita Sabashnikova-Voloshina, and others; m ost o f them had had some contact with Theosophy or Anthroposophy. 10. The members o f the M oscow Dukhovnaia Akademiia included critics and philosophers Gustav Shpett, M. P. Stoliarov, and Mikhail G ershenzon, as well as three major figures o f the Russian religious renaissance, Nikolai Berdiaev, Boris Vysheslavtsev, and Fedor S tepun. 11. Russia’s leading idealist philosophers (Nikolai Berdiaev, Fedor Stepun, Sergei Bulgakov, Boris Vysheslavtsev, and Semen Frank), along with many other academics and members o f the intelligentsia, were deported from Russia by order o f the Bolsheviks in the fall o f 1922. 12. M. Zhem chuzhnikova, uVospominaniia o Moskovskom Antroposoficheskom Obshchestve 1 9 1 7 -1 9 2 3 ,” 1975 ms. in private hands, fol. 50. The RAO did subm it a registration request, which was denied by the authorities. 13. Belyi received permission to leave Russia because o f his deteriorating health. His plan was to rejoin the Dornach community, but both his wife, Asya Turgeneva, and Dr. Steiner advised against it. Belyi felt rejected and furious at first, but eventually understood that his task in this life was to continue the work in Russia. Klavdiia Nikolaevna VasiPeva was' sent from Russia to bring him back, and in O ctober 1923 Belyi returned to Moscow. H e remained in the Soviet Union for the rest o f his life. Despite some critics’ claims to the contrary, Belyi never abandoned A nthroposophy but lived within its spiritual context for the rest o f his life; see Boris Christa, “Andrey Bely’s Connections with European O ccultism ,” Russian and Slavic Literature (Selected Papers in the Hum anities from the Banff 1974 International Conference), ed. Freeborn, M ilner-Gulland, Ward (Ann Arbor: Slavica, 1976), 2 1 3-23. 14. Andrei Belyi, Pochemu ia stal simvolistom (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1982), 117. 15. Many Russian occult texts would be offered to the West for purchase with gold-based currencies; the “Vsesoiuznoe m ezhdunarodnoe auktsionnoe obshchestvo ‘M ezhdunarodnaia Kniga’” prepared a catalog o f such materials for sale to the West in the 1930s. Such books have always been available in the USSR to trusted customers in second-hand bookshops. 16. See C harlotte Douglas’s article “ Beyond Reason: Malevich, M atiushin, and Their Circles,” in The Spiritual in A rt: Abstract Painting 1890-1985, ed. Edward Weisberger, 185—200 [Exhibition Catalog, Los Angeles C ounty M u ­ seum o f Art] (New York: Abbeville, 1986), in which she explores in detail the m anner in which the Cubo-Futurists united the Theosophical, neo-Buddhist idea th at higher consciousness and supersensible sight can be achieved by o r­ ganic evolution, with Uspenskii’s theory o f m ultiple dimensions. 17. Petr Demianovich Uspenskii, Chetvertoe izmerenie (St. Petersburg: T rud, 1910), 29. 18. Aleksandr Aseev, “ Okkul’tnoe dvizhenie v Sovetskoi Rossii,” OkkuPtizm

i ioga 3 (1 9 3 4 ), 9 0 -9 1 . As new org an izatio n s he nam es th e “ B ratstvo svetlogo g o ro d a ” and th e “Severo-kavkazskie soedinennye shtaty.” Kamenskaia also w ro te a b o u t th e “ K nights o f th e R adiant C ity,” defining them as a grass-roots “ G nostic-m ystical m o v em en t” ; “they use R ussian folklore as m aterial and speak in term s very dear to th e Russian h e a rt in th e language o f ancient heroic poem s and o f national legends and fairy-tales. T he legend o f Kitej, the R adiant City, is the basis o f th eir sym bolic teach in g ” (“ Russia and Russian T heosophy,” The Theosophist (A dyar), N o vem ber 19 3 1 , 2 0 4 ). T he m yth o f K itezh has always been a p o te n t archetype in Russian culture and appears regularly in Russian a rt, m usic, and literature. A ccording to legend, the city o f K itezh was originally located in th e forests near Lake Svetloiar, G od placed this h o ly city o n th e b o tto m o f th e lake to prev en t it from being sacked by th e Tatars. T h o se w ho are p u re o f h e a rt can, o n St. Jo h n ’s Eve, hear the bells o f th e churches o f K itezh a n d see th eir gold en spires from Svetloiar’s shore. K itezh will rise from th e w aters an d appear again w hen Russia is no longer “ g o d ­ less” an d once m ore w o rth y to see it an d its priceless treasures. K itezh was an im p o rta n t sym bol o f th e Russian sectarians, especially th e O ld Believers, the Flagellants, an d th e W h ite D oves, w ho g ath ered at th e shore o f Lake Svetloiar every year o n June 24. T h e K itezh m yth particularly captured th e im agination o f the early tw entieth century. In 1905 th e K itezh legend was associated w ith the hopes o f the rev o lu ­ tio n (cf. M stislav D o b u zh in sk ii’s 1905 illu stration, “ U m iro tv o ren ie,” w hich shows th e M oscow K rem lin rising from th e w aters, covered by a rainbow ). A fter 1918 “ godless Russia” was eq u ated w ith th e Bolshevik regim e, and K itezh b e ­ came a sym bol o f spiritual o p p o sitio n (as in th e “K nights o f th e R adiant C ity ” ). 19. Aseev, “ O k k u l’tn o e d vizhenie,” 9 2 . Aseev is q u o tin g from an unspecified issue o f Vechermma Moskva from th e early 1930s. 2 0 . Z hem ch u zh n ik o v a, fol. 52. 21 . O n e o f these was in Kuokkala; th eir leader, Vera K holshevnikova, was invited to lecture o n T h eo so p h y at “ Penaty,” th e studio-dacha o f th e fam ous painter, Ilya R epin. See Vestnik (G eneva) 4 (S ep tem ber 1924): 10. 2 2 . A t th e tim e o f th e F iftieth A nniversary C ongress, the T heosophical Soci­ ety w orldw ide had 1 ,5 4 0 lodges and 4 1 ,4 9 2 officially registered m em bers. This does n o t exhaust th e n u m b e r o f actual T heoso p hists; m any had broken w ith the Society or chose n o t to pay dues ( Vestnik [G eneva] 4[A pril 1925): 19). 2 3 . T h e national sections w ere always th e fo u n d a tio n o f th e T heosophical stru c tu re . U nlike th e A n th ro p o so p h ists, w ho w ere m ore cosm opolitan in o u t­ look an d seem ed satisfied w ith th e ir w orld cen ter in D ornach and th e general use o f th e G erm an language, th e T heo so p h ists em phasized th e distinctive national colo rin g o f its sections. O n e is te m p te d to draw a parallel betw een th e A n th ro posophical an d T heosophical societies, o n th e o n e h an d , an d th e W estern and Eastern churches, o n th e o th er: w hile th e m o re rational C atholic ch urch univer­ sally retained L atin as th e ecclesiastical language and had its center in th e V atican w ith a single p o p e, th e m ore m ystical E astern O rth o d o x church m aintained seven (later m ore) patriarchs an d used som e form o f the local vernacular as its ecclesiastical language. 24 . Vestnik (G eneva) !(A pril 1924): I .

25. The Belgrade occult com m unity had strong Theosophical interests. One o f their num ber, Dr. Aleksandr Aseev, edited and published the journal O kkuPtizm i iojja. (10 books, 1932—1938); he subsequently moved to South America and continued his occult activities there. Elena Pisareva made occa­ sional contributions and Aseev planned an alTBlavatsky issue (which did no t materialize), but closer relations with the Geneva Theosophists, who tended to remain aloof, never developed. 26. Elena Pisareva, “Rostki budushchego,” Vestnik (Geneva) l(A pril 1924): 6. 27. It is difficult to gauge the degree o f the Theosophists’ own belief in their mission and in their role in the future resurrection o f Russia. Enthusiasts like Professor Nikolai Erassi, who m ust have realized that he would not see the New Russia in his lifetime (Erassi died in 1930), claimed that “the Great Russia o f the Future is already built and lives on the higher planes in the world o f true, eternal Reality” (“Krest russkoi em igratsii,” Vestnik [Geneva] 6 / 8 [June/A ugust 1926]: 20). 28 E. Pisareva, “Rostki budushchego,” Vestnik (Geneva) l(A pril 19): 9. M etallurgy and alchemy have always been connected by the analogical im agina­ tion since both deal w ith transm utation; both processes aim to destroy impure elements with fire and release thereby a refined product, w hether that be forged metal (the sm ith) or spiritual gold (the alchemist). Fire is associated with trans­ figuration, regeneration, and purification, while iron is associated with the astral world (as well as with Mars, the god o f war). Thus in many primitive societies, the blacksmith is a magical, num inous figure.· T hat this imagery complex (visu­ ally incorporated in the forging ham m er and the forged sickle [scythe], and unit­ ing war, death, and transm utation) was chosen by the Soviets as their “icon,” m ust have seemed relevant and symbolic to the Theosophists. 29. A. Kamenskaia, “Na storozhevom postu,” Vestnik (Geneva) 7(D ecem ber 1924): 4. 30. A. Kamenskaia, “M ezhdunarodnaia missiia slavian,” Vestnik (Geneva) l(January 1925): 14. 31. A. Kamenskaia, “Missiia slavian,” Vestnik (Geneva) 2(February 1925): 7. 32. Ibid., 9. 33. “Khronika teosoficheskogo dvizheniia,” Vestnik (Geneva) 4(Septem ber 1924): 15. 34. E. Pisareva, “Pis’ma k chitatel’iam ,” Vestnik (Geneva) 3(M arch 1925): 9. 35. Theosophists unaffiliated with the R T O vR kept lines o f com m unication open and shared many o f the Society’s optimistic visions. Dr. Aleksandr Aseev, editor o f OkkuPtizm i io£a, w rote the following from Belgrade: “We know that the W hite B rotherhood [of the Mahatmas] has already more than once saved o u r hom eland in difficult m om ents o f its existence. The national soul knows several o f them as saints and holy men o f the O rthodox church, and today, dur­ ing the difficult period o f the Kali Yuga [the dark age, fourth age o f the world, violent and bloody], during the days o f the intensified struggle between dark­ ness and light, these Brothers invisibly assist our hom eland, and through the cru­ cible o f suffering and m ourning will lead it to the Radiant City” (“ P ut’ zarubezhnogo okkul’tizm a,” OkkuPtizm i toga, 2 [1934], 5).

36. A. Kamenskaia, “Na storozhcvom postu,” Vestnik (Geneva) 6 /8 ( J u n e / A ugust 1928): I. She referred to Berdiaev and Vysheslavtsev; the latter answered her obliquely in P utj: “Only a com plete incom prehension o f the fundamental differences between Christian and H indu religious th ought makes possible the strange fact th at some Theosophists also consider themselves members o f the church, w hether O rthodox or Catholic. H earing Krishnamurti speak just once, or reading just one o f his works is sufficient to perceive once and for all the impossibility o f the Theosophists’ naive confusion o f all altars, dogmas, faiths, and philosophies” (Boris Vysheslavtsev, “Krishnamurti [zavershenie teosofii],” P u tj [Paris] 14[Decem ber 1928], 106). 37. A. Kamenskaia, “N a storozhevom postu,” Vestnik (Geneva) 2(M arch 1938): I. 38. Obituary notice, Journal de Geneve 147(June 25, 1952): 5. A fterw ord T h eo so p h y ’s Im pact o n F in d e siecle R ussian C ulture

1. C. G. Jung, Civilization in Transition, trans. R. F. C. H ull, vol. 10 o f the Collected Works (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1970), 82. 2. Nicolas Berdiaev, Freedom and the Spirit (New York: Scribner’s, 1935), 272. 3. James W ebb, The Occult Underground (LaSalle, 111.: O pen C ourt, 1974), 1- 2 .

4. Sixten Ringbom , The Sounding Cosmos. A Study o f the Spiritualism of Kandinsky and the Genesis o f Abstract Painting, Acta Academiae Aboensis, Ser. A: H um aniora, vol. 38, nr 2 (Abo [Turku], Finland: Abo Akademi, 1970), 24. Discussing the source o f Kandinsky’s innovations in the area o f abstraction, Ringbom points out, “It is one o f the ironies of art history that the abstract idiom which its founders intended as a vehicle for com m unicating an essential content actually came to be regarded as a play with forms, that ‘inhaltsloses Spiel m it den Form en’ which Kandinsky dreaded. If expressed publicly in our own day, the claims made by the pioneers o f abstract art would probably be dismissed as expressions o f naivete or affectation” (113). 5. A lthough Voloshin’s Theosophical dimensions have as yet only been hinted at in the secondary literature, Aleksandr Skriabin’s mystical theories o f music and debt to Theosophical tho u g h t have been discussed both by Boris Schloezer and Leonid Sabaneev; Sixten Ringbom has meticulously outlined the influence o f selected Theosophical ideas on Kandinsky’s art in The Sounding Cos­ mos·, see the general bibliography. 6. See V. V. Stasov, “ Proiskhozhdenie russkikh bylin,” Vestnik Evropy I — 4(1868). 7. Tsvety M orii (Berlin: Slovo, 1921) was recently published for the first time in the Soviet U nion (Moscow: Sovremennik, 1988). Elena Roerich published two volumes o f her translation o f The Secret Doctrine in Riga shortly before the Second World War; the third volume was no t printed ( Tainaia doktrina; sintez nauki, religii i filosofii, trans. Elena Rerikh [Riga: U guns, 1937]). The Russian Theosophical M ovem ent has ironically been ham pered for m ost o f its history by

the lack o f com plete and accurate translations in to Russian o f the fo u n d er’s tw o m ajor texts, Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine. 8. R ep o rted by I. V. M antsiarli, “ Pis’m o iz A diara,” Vestnik (G eneva) 4(A pril 1925): 1 7 -1 9 ; an a u th o r’s copy o f th e p ain tin g is in the M useum o f O riental A rt in M oscow. 9. L etter by Elena R oerich to an unspecified individual, dated D ecem ber 17, 1936: “ I m ust say th a t K am enskaia is clearly an enem y o f th e D o ctrine. W e have inform ation from m any sources a b o u t her harm ful, slanderous activities. O f course we w ere w arned in advance a b o u t M m e Kamenskaia an d thus know th at she is h u rtin g th e G reat Task. B u t we have m ore th a n a few friends am ong the T heoso p h ists, and h er calum nies have alienated those w ho know how to think in d ep en d en tly ” (cited in Vest’ E. P. Blavatskoi, L eningrad: 1 9 9 1 , 81). 10. Roerich M useum : A Decade o f A c tiv ity 1921-1931 (N ew York: Roerich M useum Press, 1 9 3 1 ), 11. 11. This eno rm o u s legacy consists o f m ore th a n four h u n d re d paintings, the ashes o f N . K. and E. I. R oerich, th e ir letters, d o cum ents, and m anuscripts. See Irm a M am aladze and L.V. Shaposhnikova, “ N asledie R erikha,” in L itera tu rn a ia Jjttzeta- 22(M ay 30, 1990): 8. 12. A leksandra U nkovskaia, “M e to d a tsveto-zvuko-chisel,” Vestnik teosofii I , 3 (1 9 0 9 ). Kandinsky refers to this w ork in various w ritings. As U nkovskaia’s w ork was never published separately, Kandinsky could only have read it in Vestnik teosofii o r received th e m anuscript from th e author. Kandinsky and U nkovskaia were acquainted and shared friends in art, m usic, and T heosophical circles. 13. M rs. A nnie B esant and C. W. L eadbeater, Thought-Porms (L ondon: T heosophical Publishing H o u se, 1901; n u m ero u s su b seq u en t eds. in all m ajor languages). 14. Wasily Kandinsky, TJber das Geistige in der R u n sti insbesondere in der M alerei (M unich: 1912; 7 th ed. Bern: 197 3 ); th e essay was w ritten over the course o f 1910. I t reflects m any o f th e ideas in M rs. B esant’s and L eadbeater’s Thought-Forms; it also m en tio n s th e w orks o f S teiner and M m e Blavatsky. K andinsky’s w ork contains references to a n u m b e r o f artists and m usicians w ho were in terested in T h eo so p h y (M o n d rian , Skriabin, Sabaneev). 15. A ndrei Belyi, “ M aterial k biografii (intim n yi),” (C entral Archives o f L it­ erature an d A rt (TsG A LI), M oscow , M S# 53;2;3 (1 9 2 3 ; covers 1880—1915), fol. 41a. 16. A leksandr Blok, “ O sovrem ennom sostoianii russkogo sim volizm a,” Apollon 8 (1 9 1 0 ): 22. 17. F o r a detailed discussion o f this aspect o f th e novel, see M aria C arlson, iiThe Silver Dove," in A n d rey Bely: S p irit o f Symbolism, ed. Jo h n M alm stad ( I th ­ aca, N.Y.: C ornell U niversity Press, 198 7 ), 60—96 . 18. H . P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, vol. I (N ew York: J. W. B o u to n 1877), 62. 19. M rs. A nnie B esant, The A n c ie n t Wisdom (1 8 9 7 ; Adyar: T heosophical Publishing H o u se, 197 7 ), 63. 20. Ib id ., 65. 21. Ib id ., 67.

22. Mrs. Annie Besant, M an a n d H is Bodies (1896; Adyar: Theosophical Publishing H ouse, 1975), 39. 23. A ndrei Belyi, Peterburg (M oscow: N auka, 1981), 298. 24. Belyi, Peterburg^ 214. 25. Belyi, Peterburg^ 99. 26. Nikolai Berdiaev, “Astral’nyi rom an (Razmyshleniia po povodu rom ana A. Belogo Peterburg)P Birzhevye vedomosti 1 5 6 5 2 (1916); also in his K rizis iskusstva (M oscow: 1918) and Tipy religioznoi mysli v Rossii, vol. 3 o f his Sobranie sochinenii (Paris: YMCA Press, 1989), 430-4:0. 27. S. A. Levitskii, Ocherkipo istorii russkoi filosofskoi i obshchestvennoi mysli, vol. 2 (Frankfurt am M ain: Possev, 1981), 35. 28. Nataliia Turgeneva, “ O tvet N. A. Berdiaevu po povodu A ntroposofii,” P u t’ (Paris), 25(D ecem ber 1930): 9 3 -1 0 4 .

Glossary

T heosophical Vocabulary drew m uch o f their occult vocabulary from exotic Eastern religions and were often creative in their definitions; M m e Blavatsky’s defini­ tions arc particularly opaque and changed as she developed her doctrine. N or did all Theosophists agreed on a single m eaning for their term inology. Theosophical definitions should, in m any cases, n o t be identified entirely w ith the meanings o f the term s in the original languages and religious contexts. This glossary provides Theosophical definitions o f som e o f the m ore co m ­ m only encountered term s, m ostly taken from Sanskrit. The reader is additionally referred to the follow ing works: H . P. Blavatsky’s Tbeosopbical Glossary, ed. G. R. S. M ead (1892 and subsequent editions); The Key to Theosophy (1889 and subsequent editions), w hich contains a glossary w ith highly questionable defini­ tions and etym ologies; R u d o lf S teiner’s Foundations o f Esotericism (L ondon: R u d o lfS tein er Press, 1982; English translation o f lectures read in 1905), w hich contains a brief “Glossary o f Indian Theosophical Term s,” as well as outlines o f the Theosophical cosm ology; and The New Steinerbooks D ictionary o f the P ara­ norm al (N ew York: Steinerbooks, 1980). T h e T h e o s o p h is ts

Akasha — M m e Blavatsky defines this elem entary principle as “ the astral light,” “ the universal Soul, the M atrix o f th e U niverse, th e ‘M ysterium M agnum ’ from w hich all th a t exists is b o rn by separation or differentiation. I t is the cause o f existence; it fills all th e infinite Space; is Space its e lf ( The Secret Doc­ trine, vol. 2 [L ondon: T he Theosophical Publishing C o., 18 8 8 ], 511—12). AU feelings, th o u g h ts, actions, and events in w orld history are im pressed into this fine etheric m atter th a t surrounds the w orld. Those individuals w ho have achieved supersensible sight can “read” the entire history o f the w orld (as a tableau viva n t) in the Akashic Record preserved in the w orld ether. A s tr a l— T he astral w orld, sphere, or plane is the second o f seven levels o f being. I t surrounds and interpenetrates th e lowest plane, the physical, b u t is invisible to ordinary sight because astral m atter is finer th an gross, physical m atter. T h e astral plane is in habited by elementals and by the recently d e­ ceased, w hose physical body has dropped away b u t whose astral m atter has n o t yet disintegrated. T he astral body is the double o f th e physical body (the hum an being wears physical, astral, and m ental bodies sim ultaneously while in earth incarnation); it is the doppelganger o f th e psychologists. I t is the in strum ent o f passion, desire, feeling, and carries the hum an aura. T he “spiritual scientist” is able to project his astral body o u t o f his physical body and m ove ab o u t the astral plane at will (which he does at his ow n risk). A tm a , A tm a n — T he Universal Spirit; the Spirit Self; pure consciousness. T he highest, and m ost divine, o f th e seven principles o f m an. W ritten w ith a capital

“A,” it is identifiable with Brahm an; with a small “a,” it refers to the individ­ ual E go, the “higher selP’ o f the hum an being. A u ra — A psychic essence that emanates from bodies, invisible to m ost humans. The aura radiates certain colors that reveal the spiritual, m ental, and physical state o f the individual em anating it. Thus, a predom inantly black aura indi­ cates hatred and malice; blood-red indicates sensuality, while crimson reveals love; dull brown-grey is selfishness, and yellow is intellectuality. Dark blue is religious feeling, while lilac blue indicates spiritual idealism. Green is one o f the more difficult colors to interpret, indicating adaptability in both positive and negative aspects. (See Leadbeater, M an Visible and Invisible.) A va tar — Incarnation o f a divine being in a physical body. Brahman — The Soul o f the Universe, from which everything emanates and into which everything returns; Brahman cannot be created, destroyed, or even cognized; it is w ithout beginning and w ithout end; it is the Divine Essence. Brahman is not to be confused with Brahma, the Creator, who exists for the duration o f the M anvantara and then is annihilated. Buddhi — The Spiritual Soul; the Universal M ind; the sixth principle o f man. Causal Body— The “incarnating entity” o f man that follows him through his multiple reincarnations; a vehicle for the ego w ithout gender distinction, it is composed o f “higher mental m atter.” N o t a “ body” at all, according to Mme Blavatsky, the Causal Body is really a m erging o f Buddhi, the Spiritual Soul, and Manas, the M ind, the H igher Ego. The causal body is the perm anent carrier o f the personality. Chela — A student o f the occult, a follower o f a guru or mahatma. Devachan — The mental plane, also called Spirit Land, or Dwelling o f the Gods. It corresponds roughly to Christian Heaven. After death, the impersonal ego, separated from the lower, material bodies, spends its time between incarna­ tions in Devachan. Devas— Spiritual, celestial beings, they live on planes higher than the physical. M me Blavatsky attributes their “resplendence” as stem m ing from the ro o t div, to shine. Dharma — The laws o f religion; the cosmic principles according to which all things exist; the divine and cosmic order o f things. Dhyan-Chohans— “The Lords o f L ight”; they correspond to Christian Arch­ angels. Perfected hum an beings from previous planetary incarnations, they su­ pervise the developm ent o f the cosmos. Ego — Ego is the consciousness o f the “I AM .” Theosophy defines two egos in every being: a m ortal, personal ego that characterizes a particular individual incarnation (called the “personality” ), and the divine, impersonal ego that ties together the sequence o f incarnations (called the “individuality” ). Elementals— The astral plane is inhabited not by people, but by all the thoughts, feelings, fears, desires, wishes, and impulses that hum an beings feel or think on the physical plane. On the astral plane they take on visible, con­ crete forms and become a living force. “While they m aintain a separate exis­ tence they are living entities, with bodies o f elemental essence and thoughts as the ensouling lives, and they are then called artificial elementals, or thought form s,” Mrs. Besant explains ( The A ncient Wisdom [1897; Adyar: The Theosophical Publishing H ouse, 1977] 67). Thus tho u g h t and action are the same

in the astral world, as thought on the physical plane is transformed into deed on the astral plane. Elementals may resemble human beings, or they may take abstract forms o f their own. Astral matter, or elemental essence, has considerable fluidity. Thus elementals continually change shape as human thought-impulses massage the ele­ mental essence. Elementals are potentially dangerous, since many o f them “incorporate” negative thoughts and feelings (rage, hatred, envy, avarice, malice). Ether — The substance that pervades the entire universe; ether is a higher form of matter. Gupta Vidya— Secret science, occult knowledge. Individuality — See Ego. K ali Tuga — The “Dark Age,” the fourth and present Age o f the world and the one most characterized by destruction and war; it began i n 3102 B . C . The Kali Yuga lasts a total o f 432,000 years. K ama — The quality o f being astral; associated with the substance o f thoughts and desires; hence K am a rupa, astral body, and Kamaloka, the semimaterial plane, sometimes identified with the astral plane. Karma — The cosmic law of cause and effect, or ethical causation; Mme Blavatsky called it the “Law o f R etribution.” Each individual’s life in a particular incarnation depends on the balance o f his or her positive and negative actions in previous incarnations. Karma becomes a form of cosmic justice that ex­ plains why bad things happen to people, seemingly w ithout reason. Linga shanra — The etheric body, or “life” body. Made o f finer matter than the physical body, but o f coarser m atter than the astral body. While the astral body can leave the physical body and roam at will, the separation o f etheric from physical body will cause death. M ahatma — A combination o f “M ahat,” great ^ and “Atm an,” spirit.; meaning a “great soul,” a sage or guru. Mme Blavatsky used the word to refer to her invisible guides, adepts o f the highest order, far ahead of m ankind’s develop­ m ent and already living in their spiritual bodies. Guiding the development o f humanity from afar, they formed the Brotherhood o f the White Lodge (the Great White Brotherhood). M a n a s— Mind; the intellectual, mental principle; the H igher Ego, or individu­ ality. M anva n ta ra— One Cosmic Day; it alternates equally with Pralaya (Cosmic Night). Together, Manvantara and Pralaya constitute 8,640,000,000 years; seven Days and seven Nights constitute a Great Age, or Maha Yuga. Maya — The illusion and deception o f the world o f physical matter, symbolized by Maya, the Spider which weaves the web o f world illusion in order to trap the ignorant. Only the noumenal world o f the spirit, eternal and unchanging, is real; the phenomenal world o f differentiation and change is demonic delu­ sion. Metempsychosis— The notion, central to Buddhism, Hinduism , and Theosophy, that the immortal soul may incarnate repeatedly, passing from one mortal body to another in succession; reincarnation. N irvana — The extinction o f existence in the body, escape from matter, break­ ing away from the tyranny of the wheel o f reincarnation; the achievement of

the state o f absolute consciousness and at the same time absorption into Spirit. There are three states o f nirvanic being (from lowest to highest): nir­ vana, paranirvana, and mahaparanirvana. Personality — See Ego. Plane — A plane can refer to an extension o f a state o f consciousness o r a state o f m atter (thus being simultaneously a metaphysical and physical concept). There are seven planes (from lowest to highest): physical, astral, m ental, intu­ itional, spiritual, m onadic, and divine (see chapter 6). The planes interpene­ trate each other and exist simultaneously on different levels o f being, for they are made o f various kinds o f m atter (from gross to ultrarefined). Pralaya — Period o f dissolution, or rest, between manvantaric rounds. Prana — The general Principle o f Life. R a ja Το,βα — In Theosophy, a moral and virtuous life is no t enough to awaken the spiritual faculty. Theosophy advocates the physical and spiritual exercises o f Raja Yoga, an advanced Yoga system that, through highly developed physi­ cal and spiritual m editation exercises, allows for the developm ent o f a high level o f consciousness. While these exercises entail a certain am ount o f psychic risk, Theosophy points o u t that only the m ost strenuous efforts will lead to true spiritual revelation. R u p a — Having form; a body; cf. arupa, w ithout form. Tat Twam a si— “T hat thou art” or “T hat art th o u ,” a Vedic form ulation that reveals th at the individual Ego and Brahman-Atman are O ne, i.e., a pantheis­ tic form ulation o f m an’s identity with the cosmic divinity.

B ibliography T h e o so p h ical a n d R elated W orks P u b lish ed in Russia b etw een 1881 a n d 1 9 1 8

T he Russian TheosophicaI Society published popular Theosophical brochures in num erous editions betw een 1907 and 1918. Each brochure appeared in a ru n o f 700 to 1200; some w ent th ro u g h as m any as te n editions. These included: Alba [Anna Kamenskaia]. Chto takoe teosofiia. N o. I. [Charles Leadbeater]. Chelovek i ego vid im yi i nevidim yi sostav, T rans­ lated by E[lena] P[isareva]. T ranslation o f M tm , Visible a n d Invisible (1902). N o. 2. E[lena] Pfisareva]. Zakon prichin i posledstvii (K a rm a ). N o. 3. E[lena] P[isareva], Perevoploshchenie. N o. 4. A nnie Besant and Charles Leadbeater. Sila mysli i mysle-obrazy. T rans­ lated by E[lena] Pfisareva]. T ranslation o f Thought-Forms (1902). N o. 5. A [nnie] Besant. Zakony vysshei zhizni. N o. 6. Ch[arles] Leadbeater. Z h iz n ’ posle sm erti po ucheniiu teosofii. M o n o g r a p h s a n d A rtic le s

A bedananda, Suomi. Kak sdelaVsia iogom. St. Petersburg: Novyi chelovek, 1913. Adams, M arsham . Skrizhali uchitelia, ili Epfipetskoe uchenie o svete, rozhdennom ot M ateri-D evy. T ranslated by V. Pushkina. Vestnik teosofii 1 -1 2 (1 9 1 6 ). Alba. See Kamenskaia, Anna. Anatolii. “Teosofiia i nauka.” Vestnik teosofii 11(1913): 6 7 -7 4 . Antoshevskii, I. K. Orden M artinistov. St, Petersburg: Izd. Izid y, Tip. “ Pechatnyi T ru d ,” 1912. Arnold, Edw in. Svet A z ii. Translated by Ivan Sabashnikov. St. Petersburg: 1893; 2 d abridged ed. 1903. T ranslation o f L ight o f Asia; o r The Great R e ­ nunciation (M ahabhinishkram ana), Being the Life an d Teaching o f G autam a, Prince o f In d ia a n d Founder o f B uddhism (B oston: R oberts, 1861); m ore than a h u n d red subsequent editions and translations. ---------- Svet A z ii. Translated by A. M . Fedorov. C om m entaries by th e O rientologist Professor Sergei O l’d enburg. St. Petersburg: “Svetocha,” 1906. [Arnold, E dw in]. “Tseiion i Buddisty.” Translated by A. S. Petrunkevich. R usskaia MysV 8 (1887): 3 6 -5 1 . E xcerpted from Edw in A rnold’s In d ia Revisited. Arnol’d, G. Tainy indiiskikh fakirov. Trans, from G erm an. Saratov: Izd. N auchno-Psikhologicheskogo K nigoizdatel’stva, 1912. Asvagosha. Z h izn ’ Buddy. Translated by K onstantin Bal’m ont. M oscow: Sabashnikovy, 1913. [A tkinson, William W alker] Iogi Ramacharaka. ICarma-ioga. St. Petersburg: Novyi chelovek, 1914.

[A tkinson, W illiam W alker] Iogi Ram acharaka. Khatkha-ioga. Uchenie iogov o fizicheskom zdorovH s mnogoehislennymi uprazhneniiam i. Translated by V. Sing. St. P etersburg: 1909; also St. Petersburg: Novyi chelovek, 1914. ---------- N a u k a o dykhanii indiiskikh iogov. St. P etersburg: Novyi chelovek, 1914. _______Osnovy m irosozertsaniia indiiskikh iogov. St. P etersburg: Novyi ch e ­ lovek, 1 9 1 3 ,1 9 1 4 . ---------- P u t} dostizheniia indiiskikh ίοβον. St. P etersburg: Novyi chelovek, 1913. ---------- Radzha-ioga. Uchenie iogov o psikhicheskom m ire cheloveka. St. P eters­ burg: Novyi chelovek, 1914; 2 d ed. Petrograd: 1915. ---------- R elig iia i tainye ucheniia vostoka. St. P etersburg: N ovyi chelovek, 1914. ---------- Zhnani-ioga. St. Petersburg: Novyi chelovek, 1914. Barabash, E. “Teosofiia i teosofy.” R ebus 4 1 (1 8 8 4 ): 3 7 5 -7 7 ; 42: 3 8 3 -8 5 ; 43: 3 9 3 -9 5 . Barker, Elsa. Pis’m a zhivogo usopshego. T ranslated by E. P[isareva], Vestnik teosofii 2 -1 2 (1 9 1 5 ); 1 -3 (1 9 1 6 ). B arth, A uguste. R elig ii In d ii. T ranslated and ed ited by Prince S. T rubestkoi. M oscow : K ushnerev, 18 9 7 . T ranslation o f Les Religions de P Inde (1 8 7 9 ). Batiushkov, Pavel N ikolaevich. uBlizhaishie zadachi teosoficheskogo obshchestva.” Vestnik teosofii 2 (1 9 1 5 ): 1 0 -1 2 . -----------“ C h to daet nam teosofiia.” Vestnik teosofii 5 /6 (1 9 1 1 ) : 5 7 -5 9 . -----------“D ukhovnaia al’khim iia.” Vestnik teosofii 1 2 (1 9 0 9 ): 4 -8 . -----------“ E zoterizm religii.” Vestnik teosofii 1 2 (1 9 1 1): 2 3 -2 7 . -----------“K arm a.” In A P m a n a k h ccG rifix 1 4 3 -4 8 . M oscow: Grif, 1904. —. “K arm a-ioga.” Vestnik teosofii 1 0 (1 9 0 9 ): 1 9 -2 2 . -----------“M irovoe proiavlenie p o teosofskom u m iro so zertsan iiu .” Vestnik teosofii 9 (1 9 0 9 ): 9 -1 3 . ---------- “M istika i poeziia zvuka.” Vestnik teosofii 1 0 (1 9 1 0 ): 4 6 -5 2 . -----------“ O snovy teosofskogo sin teza.” Vestnik teosofii 3 (1 9 0 8 ): 5 2 -5 3 . ---------- “ Perevoploshchenie.” Vestnik teosofii 1 1 (1 913): 36- 40. -----------“ P u t’ d u k h o v n o g o soznaniia.” Vestnik teosofii 5 /6 (1 9 1 3 ) : 5 1 -5 5 . -----------“Sinteticheskoe m irosozertsanie i m onadologicheskoe m iroponim anie. Vestnik teosofii 5 /6 (1 9 0 8 ) : 6 2 -6 6 . -----------“Teosoficheskoe m iro p o n im an ie.” Vestnik teosofii 12(1908): 1 -5 . ---------- “ K arm a.” Voprosy teosofii 1 (1 9 0 7 ): 8 5 —90. P etersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia. Belotsvetov, N ikolai. R elig iia tvorcheskoi voli. C hertyre lektsii, chitannye v Russkom A ntroposoficheskom O bshchestve: I. N ad istinoi i zabluzhdeniem (problem a teorii znaniia); 2. O p o sto ian n o i tsennosti (problem a etiki); 3. GoIos m irov (problem a religii); 4. V ozvrashchenie Z aratustry (religioznaia estetika budushchei kul’tury). P etrograd: F. F. T urn, 1915. Belyi, A ndrei. R udoP fi Shteiner i Gete v m irovozzrenii sovremennosti. M oscow : D uk hovnoe znanie, 1917. Berdiaev, N ikolai. “G noseologicheskie razm yshleniia ob okkul’tizm e.” Trudy i d n i, B ook 8 (1 9 1 6 ), 4 9 -6 9 . ---------- Smysl tvorchestva; opyt opravdaniia cheloveka. M oscow: 1915. 2 d ed. Paris: YM CA, 1985.

--------- . “Tipy religioznoi mysli v Rossii. Teosofiia i antroposofiia.” Russkaia mysl’ 11(1916): 1 -3 4 , 2d pagination. Besant, Annie. Avtobiografiia. Translated by Alba [Anna Kamenskaia] and V. P[ushkina]. St. Petersburg: Izdanie Vcstnika teosofii, 1912. Translation o f My A utobiography ( 189 3 ). —------ - “Bratstvo i voina.” Translated by E. P[isareva]. Vestnik teosofii 10(1915): 8 -2 0 . ______ Bratstvo religii; vseobshchie osnovaniia religii i nravstvennosti. T rans­ lated by E. Pisareva. St. Petersburg: Izdanie Vestnika teosofii, 1912. First p u b ­ lished in Teosoficheskoe obozrenie l-2 (O c to b e r-N o v e m b e r 1907). Subse­ quently serialized in Vestnik teosofii 1 -8 (1 9 1 1 ). Reissue authorized in Geneva [printed in Tallinn] in 1927. Translation o f Brotherhood o f Religions (1897). ---------- “Chelovecheskaia volia i su d ’ba.” Vestnik teosofii 11(1908): 1-5. _ Chetyre velikie religii. Translated by E. D andre. Vestnik teosofii 2 12(1917). Translation o f Four Great Religions: H induism , Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity (1897). —.----- .. Chaianie novogo veka [Teosofiia]. Petrograd: Pervaia gosudarstvennaia tipografiia sovetskikh rabochikh i krasnoarmeiskikh deputatov, 1918. ------------“C h to chelovek poseet, to i p o zh n et.” Translated by A. K[amenskaia], Geneva: Izd. Vestnika, 1925. Translation o f no. 3 o f The Great Truths series. Teosofskaia zh izn ’ (3[1907): 3 6 -4 3 ) has an unspecified translation by A. Bornio o f “Karma, ili chto poseesh’, to i pozhnesh.’ ” ---------- D kharm a. Translated by N. V. Pshenetskaia. St. Petersburg: Izd. Vestnika teosofii, 1910. Originally serialized in Vestnik teosofii 1-3 (1 9 1 0 ). Translation o f D xarm a (1899). ---------- “D ogm atizm i mistitsizm v religii.” Vestnik teosofii 9(1909): 1-8. ---------- D revniaia mudrost’. Translated by E. Pisareva. St. Petersburg: Izd. Vestnika teosofii, 1910; 2d ed. 1913. Serialized in Vestnik teosofii 1 -1 2 (1 9 0 8 ); 1 -3 , 5 -8 , 1 1 -1 2 (1 9 0 9 ). R eprinted in Paris in 1925. Translation o f The A n ­ cient Wisdom (1897). Circulated widely in French: La Sagesse antique; Ie Christianisme a u point de vue theosophique; FIdeal theosophique (Paris, 1899); or La Sagesse antique, expose sommaire d :enseignement theosophique (Paris, 1905). ---------- Dzhordano Bruno. Translated by A. K[amenskaia]. Vestnik teosofii 1-2, 4(1914). “D zh o rd an o .” Separate ed. Petrograd: Izd. Vestnika teosofii, 1914. ---------- Evoliutsiia zh izn i i form y. Translated by S. V. Tatarinova. Petrograd: Izd. Vestnika teosofii, 1918. ----------- Ezotericheskoe khristianstvo, ili malye misterii. Translated by E. F. Pisa­ reva. Vestnik teosofii 1(1918): 1 1 -2 6 ; 2(1918): 16 -3 8 . This m ajor Theosophical text was n o t yet com pleted w hen Vestnik teosofii ceased publication. The com plete text was published only in 1930 in Geneva, through Anna Ramenskaia’s efforts. Translation o f Esoteric Christianity, or the Lesser Mysteries( 1901). “Intuitsiia s tochki zreniia teosofii i filosofii.” Translated by E. Pfisareva], Vestnik teosofii 12(1913): 1-13. ---------- “Io g a.” Translated by D . Stranden. Vestnik teosofii 2(1909): 1-31.

256

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Besant, Annie. "Iskanie Boga." Translated by Alba [Anna Kamenskaia]. In Voprosy teosofii, vol. 1, 1 3 1 - 3 4 . St. Petersburg: Gorodskaia tipografiia, 1907. "Khristos." Translated by P. N . Batiushkov. Voprosy teosofii, vol. 1, 1 5 9 68. St. Petersburg: Gorodskaia tipografiia, 1907. Kommentarii k Bkbaga.vad-Gite. Translated by E. Pfisareva]. Petrograd: Izd. Vestnika teosofii, 1915. Serialized in Vestnik teosofii 11(1914); 1— 4(1915). "Kratkii ocherk Teosoficheskogo dvizheniia." Vestnik teosofii 1(1908): 16-34. "Mistitsizm." Translated by A. V. Vestnik teosofii 12(1910): 3 9 ^ 4 . " N e o b k h o d i m o s t ' perevoploshcheniia." Translated by Alba [Anna Kamenskaia]. In Voprosy teosofii, vol. 1, 6 7 - 8 4 . St. Petersburg: Gorodskaia tipografiia, 1907. " O Karme." Vestnik teosofii 1 - 8 ( 1 9 1 1 ) . " O nastroeniiakh." Translated by E. Pisareva. Vestnik teosofii 1 0 ( 1 9 0 9 ) . " O nekotorykh zatrudneniiakh vo vnutrennoi zhizni." Translated by E. I. In Voprosy teosofii, vol. 1, 1 8 1 - 9 6 . St. Petersburg: Gorodskaia tipografiia, 1907. " O znachenii teosoficheskogo obshchestva." Translated by A. B o m i o . Vestnik teosofii 5 / 6 ( 1 9 0 9 ) . Obshchedostupnye lektsii po teosofii. Prague: 1927. Originally 1910 typed ms. Osnovy religii i etiki. Translated by V. Pushkina. Vestnik teosofii 1, 3 - 4 , 9-11(1912). "Osviashchennaia zhizn'." Translated by V. Molokina. Vestnik teosofii 5/6(1912): 68-74. "Preddver'e (Ochishchenie)." Translated by Alba [Anna Kamenskaia], In Voprosy teosofii, vol. 1, 169—80. St. Petersburg: Gorodskaia tipografiia, 1907. "Problema stradaniia." Translated by M . R[obinovich]. Vestnik teosofii 4(1911): 53-65. "Problema zla i stradaniia." Translated by M . Robinovich. Vestnik teosofii 11(1910): 2 4 - 4 1 . "Protivorech.it' li teosofiia khristianstvu? (po A. Bezant)." Paraphrased by Alba [Anna Kamenskaia], In Voprosy teosofii, vol. 1, 149—58. St. Petersburg: Gorodskaia tipografiia, 1907. "Psikhizm i d u k h o v n o s t V ' Vestnik teosofii 7 / 8 ( 1 9 0 8 ) : 4 4 - 5 7 . . Put' k posvictshcheniiu i sovershenstvovaniia cheloveka. Translated by V. Pushkina. St. Petersburg: Izd. Vestnika. teosofii, 1914, 1918. First serialized in Vestnik teosofii 1 - 6 ( 1 9 1 3 ) . Also Boston: Alba, 1963 [reproduction of typewritten ms.]. • . Put1 uchenichestva. S predisloviem Alba [Anna Kamenskaia], Translated by N . Nikol'skii. St. Petersburg: Izd. Vestnika teosofii, 1911. "Religiia i muzyka." Translated by A. Unkovskaia. Vestnik teosofii 9(1911): 46-58. "Religioznye problemy: dogmatizm ili mistitsizm." Translated by Alba [Anna Kamenskaia]. Vestnik teosofii 7 / 8 ( 1 9 1 4 ) : 4 - 1 5 .

---------- “Sfinks teosofii.” Vestnik teosofii 9 (1 9 0 8 ): 1 -1 4 . ---------- Sila mysli. Translated by N . T. Vestnik teosofii 5 -1 2 (1 9 1 1 ); 1 -2 , 4 (1 9 1 2 ). Originally adapted and paraphrased by P. N . Batiushkov in Voprosy teosofii, vol. I , 1 9 7 -2 1 0 . St. Petersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia, 1907; also B oston: Alba, 1967. Translation o f Thought Power (1901). “S m ert’ za g ro b o m .” Translated by A. Bornio. Vestnik teosofii 9(1909): 4 6 -5 4 . ---------- Stroenie kosmosa. Translated by S. Tatarinova. St. Petersburg: Izd. Vestnik teosofii, 1914. Originally in Vestnik teosofii 1 -6 (1 9 1 4 ). — “Sverkhfizicheskie issledovaniia.” Translated by A. L f’vov], Vestnik teosofii 11(1914): 8 1 -9 4 ; 12(1914): 117—38. R eprinted Boston: Alba, 1961. ---------- Teosofiia i novaia psikhologiia. Translated by E. Pisareva. St. Petersburg: Izd. Vestnika teosofii, 1908; 2d. ed. Petrograd: 1915. O riginally in Voprosy teosofii, vol. I , 2 8 -6 6 . St. Petersburg: Gorodskaia tipografiia, 1907. Also se­ rialized as supplem ent in Vestnik teosofii: 1 -2 , 4 -6 (1 9 0 8 ). ---------- “Tsarstvo m ira.” T ranslated by I. M antsiarli. Vestnik teosofii 7 /8 (1 9 0 9 ): 1 -6 . Translation o f “T he Place o f P eace.” ---------- “ U chenie serdtsa.” T ranslated by N . Dm itrieva. Vestnik teosofii 10(1914): 7 -1 7 . ---------- V preddverii khram a. T ranslated by Alba [Anna Kamenskaia]. Kaluga: Tip. G ubernskoi zem skoi upravy, 1910; 2 d ed. St. Petersburg: Izd, Vestnika teosofii, 1913; 3d ed. 1918. Translation o f In the O uter C ourt (1 8 9 5 ); tra n ­ scripts o f five lectures: “ Purification,” “T h o u g h t C o n tro l,” “T he B uilding o f C haracter,” “Spiritual Alchem y,” and “O n the T hreshold.” French transla­ tion: Vers Ie temple (Paris, 1899; 1906; subsequent eds.). ---------- Zagctdki zh izn i i kctk teosofiia otvechaet na nikh. Translated by E. Pisa­ reva. Vestnik teosofii 3 -1 1 (1 9 1 5 ). Separate ed. Kaluga: L otos, 191?. ---------- Zakovy vysshei zhizni. Translated by M . A. E rtel’. Vestnik teosofii 3— 6 (1 9 0 9 ). Issued as a pop u lar pam p h let published by the Russian Theosophical Society in num erous editions and large quantities. E ditions appeared in Russia as late as 1918. R eprinted Boston: Alba, 1967. ---------- “ Zhivet Ii chelovek posle sm erti?” [Speech read in L o n d o n in April 1905.] Rebus 20(M ay 14, 1906): 4 -6 . Bettany, G eorge T. Velikie religii Vostoka. Translated by L. B. Khavkina and ed ited by Professor A. Krasnov. M oscow: P. Sytin, 1899. Translation o f The Great In d ia n Religions (1 8 9 2 ). B ezhan, S. Psikhologiia buddizm a. K har’kov: EparkhiaFnaia tipografiia, 1913. Bibikova, A. “Karmicheskie iavleniia v svete vysshego izm ereniia.” Vestnik teo­ sofii 5 /6 (1 9 1 6 ): 6 7 -7 8 . Bibliografiia okkuPtizm a. E dited by I. K. Antoshevskii. St. Petersburg: Izd. Izidy, 1910; 2d rev. ed. 1911. Bibliotheca Buddhica; sobranie buddiiskikh tekstov. M onograph series o f the Academy o f Sciences in St. Petersburg. 1 8 9 7 -. T w enty volum es w ere p u b ­ lished before 1917. Bkhagavad Gita. T ranslated from Sanskrit by M . E. Voprosy teosofii, vol. I , 2 2 4 32. St. Petersburg: Gorodskaia tipografiia, 1907.

B khagavad G ita, Ui Pesnj Gospodnia. T ranslated by A nna K amenskaia and I. V. M antsiarli. Kaluga: Izd. Vestnika teosofii, 1914. T he translation was m ade three years before, in 1910 (see Vestnik 1 2 [1 9 1 3 ]: 54); it ran in Vestnik teosofii 1 1 (1 9 0 9 ), 1 -1 2 (1 9 1 0 ). T ranslated freely from F rench. Bkhapjavat G ita; misticheskaia chast: M agabparaty. Verse translation by A. P. Kaznacheeva. Vladim ir: T ip. V. A. Parkova, 1909. Blavatskaia, E. P. “ E st’ Ii dusha u zhivotnykh?” T ranslated by A. Bornio. Voprosy teosofii, vol. 2, 181—2 0 7 . St. P etersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia, 1910. ---------- Evoliutsiia sim volizm a. Excerpts from The Secret Doctrine. A ddendum to Vestnik teosofii 1 -2 , 4 -1 2 (1 9 1 3 ), I , 3, 5 / 6 , 11 (1 9 1 4 ). ---------- Golos bezmolviia. T ranslated by E. Pisareva. Kaluga: L otos, 1908. Also in Voprosy teosofii. Vol. I . St. P etersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia, 1907. 2 1 1 223. T ranslation o f The Voice o f the Silence (1 8 8 9 ). F rench trans.: L a Voix du silence (1 8 9 9 ). ---------- Isis Unveiled. N ew York: J. W. B o u to n , 1877. A lth o u g h this was M m e Blavatsky’s first m ajor T heosophical text, it was never published in Russia. Parts o f it circulated in m anuscript translation. M ost Russian T heosophists read b o th Isis U nveiled and The Secret D octrine in F rench. T h e w ork existed in F rench tran slatio n as early as 1 8 8 4 (see Vs. Solov’ev, Sovrem ennaia zhritsa Izid y , 64 ). ------------ “ Izvlecheniia iz Golosa Bezm olviia; sem J vrat, dva p u ti. Translated and w ith n o tes by E. Pisareva. In Voprosy teosofii, vol. 2 , 1 6 7 -7 3 . St. Petersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia, 1907. -------------The K ey to Theosophy. L o n d o n : T heosophical P ublishing C o., 1889. Like m any o f h er o th e r m ajor texts, M m e Blavatsky’s Key also rem ained long u ntran slated in to Russian; nevertheless, VI. Solov’ev review ed it in 1890 (see Solov’ev). A F rench translation was available: L a C le f de la theosophie (Paris, 1895). A G erm an translation, ed ited by R u d o lf Steiner, was p rin ted in Leipzig in 1907. ---------- “Kitaiskie te n i.” Novoe Vremia 1 4 9 3 (1 8 8 8 ). ---------- “N auka o zhizni (L. N . T o lsto i).” T ranslated by D . Stranden. Vestnik teosofii 1 2 (1 9 1 0 ): 6 -1 6 . ---------- Ob okkuTtnoi i sovremennoi nauke. Excerpts from The Secret Doctrine. P ublished as an ad d en d u m to Vestnik teosofii 1—1 2 (1 9 1 5 ); 2—7 / 8 , 1 0 (1 9 1 6 ); 3 /5 ( 1 9 1 7 ) . ---------- ‘O k k u l’tizm i m agicheskoe iskusstvo.” T ranslated by E. P[isareva]. Vestnik teosofii 1(1912): 3 -1 4 . ---------- “Peshchera O zerkov.” Rebus l-3 (J a n u a ry 5 ,1 2 ,1 9 , 1886). ---------- “Pis’m o ” [T o th e Times o f L o n d o n , O c to b e r 9, 18 8 4 ]. Rebus 41 (O c to ­ ber 14, 1884): 380. ---------- “Pis’m o ” [letter to th e ed ito r]. Rebus 37 (S eptem ber 2 2 , 1885): 3 3 5 36. ---------- “Prakticheskii o kkul’tiz m .” T ranslated by R. T. In Voprosy teosofii, vol. 2 , 1 7 4 -8 0 . St. P etersburg: 1910. ---------- “P ro lo g [ ’’P ro e m ” from The Secret D octrine] .” T ranslated by E. P[isareva], In Voprosy teosofii, Vol. 2 , 122—45. St. P etersburg: 1910. ---------- “Sem ’ stans iKnigi D zian .’ ” T ranslated by P. Batiushkov, In Voprosy

teosofii, vol. 2 , 1 46—56. St. P etersburg: 1910. T he “ Seven Stanzas from the B ook o f D zyan ” is th e te x t on which The Secret D octrine is based. -----------“S okrovennoe znanie i tainye iskusstva.” T ranslated by R. T. Vestnik teosofii 5 /6 ( 1 9 1 0 ) : 1 -1 3 . -----------T ainaia doktrina·, izvlechenie iz otdela “Evoliutsiia sim volizm a.” E d ­ ited by A. K am enskaia an d E. Pfisareva]. P art I . P etrograd: Izd . Vestnika teo­ sofii, 1915. O riginally published in Vestnik teosofii as an ad d en d u m (see E vo­ liu tsiia simvolizma·, see also Ob okkuPtnoi i sovremennoi nauke). Translation o f excerpts from The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis o f Science, Relijyion, a n d Philosophy (1 8 8 8 ). French editions include L a D octrine secrete, synthese de la science, de la religion et de la philosophic. T ranslated by D . -A. C ourm es (Paris, 1 899; 2d ed ., 1906); La D octrine secrete. P ublications theosophique fran?aises (Paris, 190 1 ); th ere w ere d ozens o f F rench eds. by 1910. ---------- “V vedenie k Tainoi doktrine.” T ranslated by Alba [A nna Kamenskaia]. In Voprosy teosofii, vol. 2 , 9 3 -1 2 1 . St. P etersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia, 1910. [Blavatskaia, E. P.]. “ G olos s to g o sveta.” Tifliiskii Vestnik April; M ay 17; Sep­ tem b er 13, 16, 2 3 , 2 9 , 1878. Signed “ G o lo s.” -----------“ G -zha Blavatskaia.” [E d itorial m en tio n in] Rebus 16(April 2 2 , 1884): 1 5 5 -5 6 . [Blavatskaia, E. P.] R adda-Bai. I z peshcher i debrei Indostana; p is’m a na rodinu. A d d en d u m to R usskii vestnik 1 -8 (1 8 8 3 ). O riginally published in Moskovskie Vedomosti from N ovem ber 30, 187 9 , th ro u g h January 1882. I z peshcher i debrei Indostanay p isJm a na rodinu. 2 d series. Russkii vestnik 1 1 (1 8 8 5 ), 2 - 3 ; 8 (1 8 8 6 ). -----------I z peshcher i debrei Indostana. Zagadochnye plem ena n a ccGolubykh Gora k h A D u rb a r v Lagore. St. P etersburg: V. I. G ubinskii, 1893. 2d ed. St. P e­ tersburg: Suvorin, 1912. T h e second ed itio n was published w ith num erous illustrations in th e tex t and w ith o u t Zhelikhovskaia’s panegyrics, u n d e r the nam e “ Blavatskaia,” n o t th e pseudonym “R adda-B ai.” -----------Zagadochnye plem ena. T ri mesiatsa n a aGolubykh Gorakhs M adrasa. R usskii vestnik 1 2 (1 8 8 4 ); 1 -4 (1 8 8 5 ) (okonchanie). ---------- “ Z akoldovannaia z h iz n ’.” R ebus 2 4 -2 9 (1 8 9 1 ). Also in Voprosy teosofii, vol. 2, 2 0 8 —43. T ranslated by E. P[isareva]. St. Petersburg: 1910. Russian version o f a literary a tte m p t by H . P. B. d u rin g her last illness, w hen she am used herself by w riting fantastic stories, posthum ously gathered in th e v o l­ um e N ightm are Tales (1 8 9 2 ). B oehm e, Jacob. A u ro ra , ili u tre n n ia ia za ria . T ranslated by Aleksei Petrovskii. M oscow : M u sag et, 1914. B ogushevskii, L. L. “Spinoza kak teo so f.” Teosoficheskoe obozrenie 1(1907): 2 6 32. B oianus, N . K. “C h to takoe teosofiia.” [b ro ch u re] 1907? P rinted in S p iritualist l(Ja n u a ry 1908): 1 4 -1 9 , as “U niversal’naia religiia.” ---------- Review o f Voprosy teosofii, Vol. I . S p iritu a list 1(1908): 4 3 —44. B oulanger, Pavel A leksandrovich. Z h iz n ’ i uchenie Siddarty Gotamy, prozvannogo Buddoi, i.e. cSovershenneishimT S prilozheniem izvlecheniia iz buddiiskikh pisanii. E d ited by Lev T olstoi. M oscow : P osrednik, 1911.

B o u tro u x , Em ile. N a u k a i religiia v sovremennoi filosofii. T ranslated and ed ited by N . M . Solov’ev. M oscow : Tvorcheskaia mysl’, 1910. -----------N a u k a i religiia v sovremennoi filosofii. T ranslated by V. Bazarov. St. P etersburg: Shipovnik, 1910. Buddiiskie Sutty. T ranslated by N . Gerasimov. M oscow : 1900. B uddiiskii katekhizis. St. P etersburg: M itiurnikov, 1902. Bulgakov, S. V. “Teosofy (sovrem ennye).” In his N astoP naia kniga dlia sviashchenno-tserkovno-sluzhitelei. O td el istoriko-statisticheskii, 2 0 5 -6 . K har’kov: Tipografiia gubern sk o g o pravleniia, 1900. C hatterji, M ohini. Sokrovennaia religioznaia filosofiia In d ii. T ranslated and w ith forw ard by E. P[isareva]. Kaluga: L o to s, 1906; 2 d ed. Kaluga: 1908; 4 th ed. 1915. [Chistiakov, P. A. (?) and B obrov, S. D . (?)]. “ N e-posviashchennyi.” “ C h to takoe teosofiia. (Pis’m o vo red ak tsiiu ).” R ebus 4 4 /4 5 (D e c e m b e r 5, 1904): 9 -1 0 . Clery, L eon. “ C h to tak o e teosofiia?” Rebus I —4(January 7 —2 8 , 19 0 1 ). T ransla­ tio n o f “ Q u ’est-ce q u e la th e o so p h ie ,” from L a R evue bleu, F ebruary 10, 1900. C ollins, M abel. Id illiia belogn lotosa. T ranslated by M. R odon. Teosoficheskoe obozrenie 4 - 5 , 7 -1 2 (1 9 0 8 ). ---------- Id illiia belogo lotosa. T ranslated by E. P[isareva]. Vestnik teosofii 1 12 (1 9 1 5 ). ---------- Istoriia goda. T ranslated and w ith forew ord by E. P[isareva]. Kaluga: L otos, 1909. ---------- Kogda solntse dvizhetsia na sever. T ranslated by M ariia D epp. M oscow : D ukh o v n o e znanie, 1914. ---------- Svet n a p u ti. T ranslated by P. Batiushkov. In Svobodnaia sovest\ vol. I , 1 4 0 -5 2 . M oscow : Sytin, 1906. ---------- Svet n a p u ti, Iz drevnego indusskogo pisaniia K n ig a zolotykh pravil. Translated by E. Pfisareva]. Published w ith h e r Uchenie o K arm e. Separate editio n w ith com m entaries. M oscow : P osrednik, 1905. ---------- Svet n a p u ti i K a rm a (O tryvok iz K n ig i zolotykh pravil. [T ranslated by E. Pisareva.] C om m entaries by M . K [am enskaia], St. Petersburg: N ovyi chelovek, 1914. D enis, L eon. Posle sm erti; nauchnye i moraPnye vyvody filosofii. T ranslated from F rench by V. K. 3d ed. St. Petersburg: G ubinskii, 1910. D eussen, Paul. Vedanta i P laton v svete kantovoi filosofii. T ranslated by M ikhail Sizov. M oscow : M usaget, 1911. D m itrevskii, Fr. Io an n . Teosofiia— R elig io zn a ia filosofiia nashego vremeni. K har’kov: Tip. M irnyi tru d , 1911. Reviewed in Vestnik teosofii 4 (1 9 1 3 ): 80. D uP rel, Karl. Filosofiia m istiki, Ui dvoistvennost1 chelovecheskogo sushchestva. Translated by M . S. Aksenov. St. Petersburg: K ushnerev, 1895. ---------- Monisticheskoe uchenie o dushe. Posobie k resheniiu za g a d ki o eheloveke. T ranslated from G erm an by M . Aksenov. M oscow : Kushnerev, 1908. ---------- Zagadochnost’ chelovecheskogo sushchestva. Vvedenie v izuchenie okkuTtnykh nauk. T ranslated from G erm an by M . Aksenov. 2 d ed. M oscow: Kushnerev, 1904.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

261

Dzhinaradzhadaza. Vo imia Ego. St. Petersburg: Izd. Vestnik a teosofii, 1914. D z h o n s t o n , V. V. "Novyi perevod Upanishad." Voprosy jilosofii i psikhologii 5 1 ( 1 9 0 0 ) : Book 1, 2 1 - 4 2 , 2 d pagination. " O c h e r k Bkhagavad-gity." Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii 4 7 ( 1 8 9 9 ) : Book 2, 1 7 3 - 2 1 3 ; 4 8 ( 1 8 9 9 ) : Book 3, 3 5 9 - 8 2 .

"Otryvki iz Upanishad." Voprosyfiiosofiiipsikhologii (31)1896: Book 1, 1-34. "E. P. Blavatskaia i teosofisty." Rebus 2 8 - 2 9 ( 1 8 8 4 ) . Eckhart, Meister. Izbrannye propovedi. Translated from German by M . V. Sabashnikova. Moscow: D u k h o v n o e znanie, 1912. Ellis. See Kobylinskii, Lev. Fechner, Gustav. Kntzhka o zbizne posh smerti (cover title), Zhizn' posle smerti. Petrograd: Suvorin, 1915. " F e n o m e n y okkul'tnyoi sily g-zhi Blavatskoi." Rebus 5 0 ( 1 8 8 4 ) . Fielding-Hall, Harold. Vnutrennii svet. Translated by N . Dmitrieva. 1913? Translation of The Inward Light (1908), about Buddhism in Burma. 2d ed. St. Petersburg: B. M . Vol'ff, 1913. Gerasimov, N. Filosofiia dushi. Moscow; 1897. Filosofiia sozncmiia, bytna bezkonechnogo. Moscow: 1898. Nirvana i spa-senie. Moscow: Levenson, 1914. de Gernet, Nina K. " T h e Rosy Cross in Russia." Theosophica.1 Review ( L o n d o n ) 38(1906): 4 8 9 - 5 0 1 ; 3 9 ( 1 9 0 7 ) : 9 - 2 0 , 1 3 8 - 4 4 , 2 0 1 - 1 1 , 3 0 4 - 6 . Gladkov, B. I. Besedy o pereselenii dush i snosheniiakh s zagmbnym mirom (Buddizm i spiritizm). St. Petersburg: Tip. "Obshchestvennaia poPza, 1911. H a r t m a n n , Franz. " C h t o takoe teosofiia?" Teosoficheskoe obozrenie 1(1907): 18— 25. " O b opastnostiakh okkul'tizma." Translated by N . B[oianus]. Vestnik teosofii 9(1909): 3 8 - 4 1 . Obshchenie s mirom dukhov. Translated by D . Stranden. Vestnik teosofii 9 - 1 0 ( 1 9 1 0 ) . Separate ed. 1910. Hiibbe-Schleiden, Wilhelm. "Teosoficheskoe dvizhenie i ego protivniki." Teosoficheskoe obozrenie 2 ( 1 9 0 7 ) : 8 2 - 8 8 . Iasinskii, T. "Lektsiia g-zhi Kamenskoi v Rige." Rebus 13(April 2 8 , 1913): 4 - 6 . Il'in, Ivan. "Filosofiia kak dukhovnoe delanie." Russkma, mysl' 3(1915): 1 1 2 28, 2d pagination. Ivanov, Ivan. Rasskazy o sturine. Budda i buddizm. ICul 'turno- isto richeskii ocherk. Moscow: D . Tikhomirov, 1907. Izvestiia Rossiiskogo Teosoficheskojjo Obshchestva. Edited and published by Ts. L. G e l ' m b o l ' d t . St. Petersburg: 1 9 1 4 - 1 9 1 7 ( 1 9 1 4 , nos. 1 - 3 ; 1915, nos. 1 - 4 ; 1916, nos. 1—4; 1917, nos. 1 - 2 ) . Jacolliot, Louis. Spiritizm v Indii. Fa-kiry ocharovnteli. Moscow: S. Rumilov, 1883. James, William. Mnogoobrnzie religioznogo opyta. Translated by MalakhievaMirovich i M . V. Shik. Edited by S. V. Lur'e. Moscow: Izd. Russkoi mysli, 1910. Translation of Varieties of Religious Experience (1902). J o h n s t o n , Charles. "Religiia drevnego Egipta." Translated by O . Annenkova. Teosoficheskoe obozrenie 4(January 1908); 226—34.

Jo h n sto n , Vera. See D z h o n sto n , Vera. “ K aled.” “ C h to takoe Teosofiia? (K d o k la d u K am enskoi).” O riginally published in Peterburgskie Vedomosti; rep rin ted in Vestnik teosofii 3 (1 9 1 3 ): 8 2 -8 3 . [K am enskaia, A nna Alekseevna] K am enski, Dr. A nna. “La Bhagavad-G ita; son role dans Ie m ouv em en t religieux de l’ln d e et son u n ite .” D issertation. G e­ neva: 1926. [K am enskaia, A nna Alekseevna] Alba. Chto takoe Teosofiia. P opular pam phlet published by the Russian T heosophical Society in n u m erous editions and large quantities. ---------- “G. S. O l’k o tt. Biograficheskii o ch erk .” Vestnik teosofii 9 (1 9 1 0 ): 4—10. ---------- “ Missiia krasoty v svete T eosofii.” Vestnik teosofii 1(1914): 2 7 -3 3 . ---------- “ Missiia E. P. Blavatskoi.” Voprosy teosofii 2: 5 3 -5 9 . St. Petersburg: 1910. ---------- “Teosofiia i b o g o stro iteP stv o .” Vestnik teosofii 2 (1 9 1 0 ): 6 2 -7 9 . See also “ Stenograficheskii o tc h e t zasedaniia Rel.-Filos. O bshchestva v Spb. 24 noia bria 1909 g oda po dokladu A lba “Teosofiia i B o g o stroiteP stvo.” Vestnik teo­ sofii 2 (1 9 1 0 ): 7 9 -1 1 1 . ---------- “Teosofiia i ee veianie v R ossii.” Vestnik teosofii 1(1911): 1 -1 1 . ---------- “Teosofiia v Rossii” (Speech from N o v em ber 2 1 , 1 9 0 8 , Russian T heosophical Society m eeting). Vestnik teosofii 1(1909): 4 -1 1 . -------------Teosofiia i bogostroitePstvo. St. Petersburg: Izd. Vestnika teosofii, 1910. Text o f lecture delivered to St. P etersb u rg R eligious-Philosophical Society on N ovem ber 2 4 , 1909. ---------- Voprosy vospitaniia v sviazi s za dacham i dukhovnoi kuP tury. St. P e ters­ burg: Izd. Vestnika teosofii, 1912. -----------‘Zadachi d ukhovnoi k u P tu ry .” Vestnik teosofii 4 (1 9 1 1 ): 8—14. ---------- Z adachi teosofii. (1907?) R ep rin ted in R ebus 6(F eb ru ary 6, 1907): 5 -8 ; 7(F eb ru ary 11, 1907): 7 -1 1 . Kamenskaia, A [nna A lekseevna]. “ Istinnyi o kkul’tiz m .” Vestnik teosofii 1 1 / 12 (1 9 1 6 ): 9 5 -1 0 1 . -----------“Nevidim yi m ir i okkul’tiz m .” Vestnik Teosofii 1(1916): 6 5 -7 6 . -----------“ R eligioznaia filosofiia drevnci Indii. Vestnik teosofii 12 (1 9 1 5 ): 5 {B-67. K am enskaia, A nna Alekseevna. M ad a m e A n n ie B esant et la campagne electorale. 1913. A defence o f M rs. B esant from th e attacks o f E ug en e Levy, representa­ tive o f the A nthroposophical Society in Paris. Levy was th e a u th o r o f A n n ie Besant et la crise theosophique (Paris: G. D ussardier et P. Frank, 1913). K [am enskaia], A [nna Alekseevna]. “T h eosophy in R ussia.” Theosophic Messenger (Am erican) X:6 (M arch 1909): 2 3 4 -3 5 . -----------“Teosofiia v G erm anii v kontse X V III i v nachale XIX veka (re c h ’ D o k to ra S hteinera na Teosoficheskom kongresse v Parizhe v 1 9 0 6 ).” In Trudy pervogo vserossiiskogo s ccezda spiritualistov, 2 4 8 -5 5 . M oscow : 1907. Kam enskaia, M . “Istoricheskii ocherk b u d d iz m a .” Vestnik teosofii 7—11 (1 9 1 3 ). K ariagin, Κ. M . S a k iia -m u n i (B udda)\ ego z h iz n 3 i filosofskaia deiatePnost’. St. Petersburg: 1897. ---------- B udda. O ren b u rg : Bakt, 1913. “ K arm a” [In d ian legend]. Rebus 3 3 / 3 4 , 35 , 3 6 /3 7 , 3 9 (1 9 0 7 ). R eprinted from Priroda i liudi.

Kellet, A. O kkuV tizm , ego sushchnost3, razvitie, i otnoshenie k khristianstvu. Teosofskaia z h iz n 3 !(S e p te m b e r 1 9 0 7 )-l(S e p te m b e r 1908). Knizhnik-V etrov, I. S. Review o f BkhagavaA-G ita, Ui Pesn3 Gospodnia. T rans­ lated from E nglish and Sanskrit by A. Kamenskaia and I. M antsiarli. St. P e­ tersburg: 1914. Reviewed in R usskaia mysP 2 (1 9 1 5 ): 8 -9 , 3d pagination. -----------Review o f R u d o lf S teiner’s D as C hristentum als mystische Tatsache (1 9 1 0 ). R usskata mysl39 (1 9 1 2 ): 3 2 6 -2 7 . [Kobylinskii, Lev] Ellis. Vigilemusl T raktat. M oscow : M usaget, 1914. K oni, A. F. uM isticheskie sluchai v zhizni V. S. Solov’eva.” R ebus 2( January 11, 1909): 6. Paraphrase o f article from Moskovskii ezhenedeVnik 4 9 (1 9 0 8 ). KWnissi, D , P. “ ‘T ao -te-k in g ’ o f Lao Si.” Voprosyfilosofii i psikhologii 1 8 (1 8 9 3 ), B ook 3, 2 7 -4 5 ; 2 3 (1 8 9 4 ), B ook 3, 3 6 3 -7 9 . K ozhevnikov, Vladimir. B u d d izm v sravnenii s khristianstvom , P etrograd: M erkulev, 1916. K ozitskii-Fidler, A. “Spiritizm i teosofiia.” Rebus l(Ja n u a ry 6, 1902): 1 0 -1 2 . K ra tk a ia entsiklopediia tatnykh nauk. St. P etersburg: 1903. K rishnam urti, Jiddu. U nog uchitelia. 2 d rev. ed. Kaluga: L otos, 1912. ---------- Vospitanie kak v id sluzheniia. St. P etersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia, [1 9 1 3 ], Kudriavtsev, K. D . Chto takoe teosofiia i teosoficheskoe obshchestvo. St. Petersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia, 191 2 ; 2 d rev. and exp. ed. 1914. ------------ “Intelligentsiia i n a ro d .” Vestnik teosofii 1(1909): 6 9 -7 3 . R ep o rt o f St. P etersb u rg R eligious-Philosophical Society M eeting. ---------- uM agnetizm i g ip n o tizm , ikh skhodstvo i razlichie.” St. Petersburg: Izd . Vestnika teosofii, 1911. O riginally in Vestnik teosofii 1(1911): 6 4 -8 0 . ---------- TseliteVnaia zh izn e n n a ia sila. St. P etersburg: Izd. Vestnika teosofii, 1913. K uz’m in, E. Tsel3 i p u t 3. I. Z akon chistoty. St. P etersburg: Izd . Vestnika teosofii, 19 1 1 . First in a series o f pop u larizin g texts o f T heosophy. O riginally p u b ­ lished in Vestnik teosofii 3 -4 (1 9 1 1 ). ---------- Tsel3 i p u t 3. II. Zakon svobody. St. P etersburg: Izd. Vestnika teosofii, 1 9 1 3 . First published in Vestnik teosofii 3 (1 9 1 3 ): 33^16. Lavrova, P. M . uO trech en ie E. Shure o t Teosoficheskogo O b -v a.” Rebus 14(M ay 2 5 , 1 914): 3. L eadbeater, Charles. “A ro m at E g ip ta .” T ranslated by K. T runevoi. Vestnik teo­ sofii 3 (1 9 1 6 ): 2 9 -3 8 . -----------A straV nyi pla n . T ranslated from F rench by A. V. Troianovskii. St. P e ­ tersburg: V. L. B ogushevskii, [1 9 0 8 ]. A ddendum : Bibliography o f occult w orks. T ranslation o f The A s tra l Plane (1 8 9 5 ; G erm an trans. 1896; F rench trans. 1899). ---------- Belaia i chernaia m agiia. In Izid a 3ff.(1912); separate ed. St. P eters­ burg: Izd . Izid y, 1913. ---------- Iasnovidenie. T ranslated by M . Staniukovich. St. P etersburg: Izd. Vestnika teosofii, 1914. Staniukovich’s translation was originally p rin ted in Vestnik teosofii 1 1 (1 9 1 2 ); 1 -1 1 (1 9 1 3 ). T ranslation o f Clairvoyance (1 8 9 9 ). ---------- K r a tk ii ocherk Teosofii. T ranslated by E. P[isareva], Kaluga: L otos, 1911. T ranslation o f A n O u tlin e o f Theosophy (1 9 0 2 ; French trans. 1903).

L eadbeater, Charles. “M elkie trev o g i.” T ranslated by Essel’. Vestnik teosofii 9 (1 9 1 0 ): 36^41. ---------- “ M en tal’noe te lo .” T ranslated by E. R odzevich. Vestnik teosofii 9 (1 9 1 6 ): 8 3 -8 8 . -----------M entaV nyi plan. T ranslated by A. V. Troianovskii. St. P etersburg: Izd. N aum ova, T ip. Pechatnyi tru d , 1912. ---------- N evidim ye pomoshchniki i N evid im yi m ir. T ranslated by E. P[isareva]. Kaluga: L o to s, 190 9 . T ranslation o f Invisible Helpers (1 8 9 9 ; G erm an trans. 1897; F rench trans. 1902). ---------- N evid im yi m ir. T ranslated by M . S. Vestnik teosofii 3 (1 9 0 9 ). ---------- “ Poiavlenie novoi pod-rasy.” T ranslated by I. M atveeva. Vestnik teosofii 6 /9 - 1 0 / 1 1 ( 1 9 1 7 ) . ---------- “ Posle sm erti.” T ranslated by E. P[isareva]. Vestnik teosofii 1(1916): 7 7 -8 5 . ---------- “Predvidenie b u d u sh c h e g o .” T ranslated by A. I. Vestnik teosofii 2 (1 9 1 6 ): 6 7 -7 0 . ---------- “Razvitie o k k u l’tnykh sil.” T ranslated by V. Laletin. Vestnik teosofii 5 /6 ( 1 9 1 4 ) : 4 7 -5 0 . ---------- “Sfery.” T ranslated by V. L aletin. Vestnik teosofii 2 (1 9 1 5 ): 8 5 -8 9 . ---------- . Sny; teosoficheskoe issledovanie. T ranslated from G erm an by A. V. B ornio. M oscow : T ip. A. I. M am ontova, 1909. ---------- “T sentry m ysli.” Vestnik teosofii 2 (1 9 1 8 ): 39^43. ---------- “T sentry sily.” T ranslated by V. Laletin. Vestnik teosofii 2 -3 (1 9 1 2 ). ---------- “Usloviia posle sm e rti.” T ranslated by E. R odzevich. Vestnik teosofii 3 (1 9 1 6 ): 5 7 -6 0 . ---------- “Vysshic izm ereniia.” T ranslated by E. P[isareva]. Vestnik teosofii 1 1 /1 2 (1 9 1 6 ): 1 4 6 -4 9 . ---------- Z b iz n j posle smerto po ucheniiu teosofii. T ranslated by E. F. Pisareva. Kaluga: L o to s, 1914. Lebedev, P. B u dda i b uddizm . 2 d ed. M oscow : Sytin, 1911. Lem an, Boris. Sen-M arten [S ain t-M artin ]. M oscow : D ukhovnoe znanie, 1917. Lesevich, V. V. “ Buddiiskii nravstvennyi tip .” Severnyi vestnik 5 (1 8 8 6 ): 4 1 -7 7 . -----------“N oveishie dvizheniia v B u d d izm e.” Russkaia mysV 8 (1 8 8 7 ): 1—17, 2d pagination. Levi, Eliphas [C o n sta n t, A lphonse L ouis], Uchenie i ritu a l vysshei m agii. Vol. I. Uchenie. B iblioteka okk u l’tnykh nauk. T ranslated by A. Aleksandrov. St. P e­ tersburg: M il’shtein, 1910. L odge, Sir Oliver. “ Bessm ertie d u sh i.” Teosoficheskoe obozrenie 3 (1 9 0 7 ): 1 1 5 24. Lodyzhenskii, Μ. V. M isticheskaia trilogiia: I. Sverkhsoznanie i p u ti k ego dostizheniiu; indusskaia radzha-ioga i khristianskoe podvizhnichestvo. St. P e ters­ burg: T ip. SeVskogo vestnika, 1 911; 2 d ed. 1912; 3d ed. 1915. II. Svet nezrim yi ( iz oblasti vysshei m istiki). St. P etersburg: Tip. SeVskogo vestnika, 1912; 2 d ed. 1915. III. Tem naia sila. P etrograd: Tip. “Ekaterininskaia,” 1914. -----------Vragi khristianstva. P etro g rad : 1916. L om akin, I. S. M udrostj iogov i khristianskie idealy Evropy. M oscow : D ziubenko, 1914.

Lukinskii, A. “Teosofiia i khristianstvo.” Rossiia 1412(June 17, 1910). M ariupol’skii, N. [Pseud, o f I. G. Aivazov). “Pravoslavnyi arkhimandrit-uchreditel’ ‘Teosofskogo Obshchestva.’ ” Kolokolm t politicheskaia, tserkovno-narodnaia i literaturnaia gazeta, May 31, 1908, 4 (in letter to editor). M ead, G. R. S. “Po povodu Eleny Petrovny Blavatskoi.” Translated by E. P is a ­ reva]. Voprosy teosofii 2:76—89. St. Petersburg: 1910. Originally in Theosophical Review (April 1904). -------------“Real’nost’ mistiki.” Translated by E. P[isareva]. Vestnik teosofii 12(1912): 1-8. M enard, Louis. Germes Trismepist. Translated by A. K[amenskaia], Vestnik teo­ sofii 7-1 1 (1 9 1 1); 1(1912), Translation o f Hermes Trismepiste; traduction complete precedee d ’une etude sur Toripine des livres hermetiques [par M enard]. Paris: 1866, 1867. M etner, Emilii Karlovich. Razmyshleniia o Gete. [Razbor vzgliadov R. Shteinera v sviazi s voprosami krititsizma, simvolizma, i okkul’tizm a.] Moscow: Musaget, 1914. “Miatushchaiasia dusha. K sovremennomu teosoficheskomu dvizheniiu.” Moskovskie vedomosti 114(May 20, 1910); 115(May 21, 1910). Mintslova, Anna R udol’fovna. “O teosoficheskom kongresse. Pis’m o iz Londona. Iskusstvo 5 /7 (1 9 0 5 ): 152. M orsier, Eduard. “Evoliutsiia okkul’tizm a.” Translated by O. Famintsyna. Vestnik teosofii 7 /8 (1 9 1 3 ): 75—85. M uller, Max Friedrich. ShesT sistem indeiskoi filosofii. Translated by N. Nikolaev. Moscow: 1901. “N. N .” “Teosofskoe uchenie (kratkii kriticheskii razbor ego).” K hristianin 4(1910): 7 6 7 -98; 5(1910): 72-111. “N. S.” “Karma.” Rebus 6(February 11, 1901): 59-60. Nikolaev, Iurii. V poiskakh za bozhestvom. Ocherki iz istoriipnostitsizma. St. Pe­ tersburg: Suvorin, 1913. N irvana; Buddiiskoe skazanie. Translated by P. Bulanzhe. Moscow: Kushnerev, 1901. N irvana; iz oblasti buddiiskoi psikholopii. St. Petersburg: 1909. Novoselov, Mikhail Aleksandrovich. Zabytyi p u t1opytnopo bopopoznaniia v sviazi s voprosom o kharaktere pravoslavnoi missii. Religiozno-filosofskaia biblioteka. Vol. I. V.-Volochek: 1903. “ Obshchestvo Teosofov.” Rebus 22(June 3, 1884): 208. [O lcott, Colonel H enry S.]. “Katekhizis B uddizm a.” Translated by A. S. Petrunkevich. Russkaia mysT 8(1887): 18-35, 2d pagination. O lcott, Colonel H enry S. “Teosofiia, kak nauchnoe obosnovanie religii.” Trans­ lated by Alba [Anna Kamenskaia]. Vestnik teosofii 10(1912): 17-28. O ldenburg, H erm ann. Budda; epo zhizn, uchenie, i obshchina. Translated by P. Nikolaev. 3d ed. Moscow: 1989. O l’denburg, Sergei Fedorovich. Buddiiskie lependy i buddizm. St. Petersburg: 1894, 1896, and subsequent eds. ----------Buddiiskii sbornik aG irlianda D zhatak” i zam etki o zhatakakh. St. Pe­ tersburg: Akademiia Nauk, 1892. Osnovy Upanishad. Sbornik vyderzhek, aforizmov, tekstov iz Upanishad, sviashchennykh indusskikh knip. Translated by V. Sing. St. Petersburg: 1909.

“ O tzyvy indusov o teosofakh.” Rebus 28(July 17, 1905): 2 -3 . Papus [E ncausse, G erard]. Chelovek i vselennaia. M oscow : Spiral’, 1909. ---------- PervonachaPnye svedeniia po okkuP tizm u. T ranslated by A. V. Troianovskii. St. P etersburg: 1904; 3d ed. St. P etersburg: T ru d , 1911. ---------- Prakticheskaia m agiia. T ranslated by A. V. Troianovskii. St. Petersburg: L uch, 1913. Parker, Jo h n . Sila v n u tri nas. St. P etersburg: Tainy zhizni, n.d. Pascal, T h e o p h ile . “B ratstvo.” Vestnikteosofii 1 (1909): 1 2 -2 4 . ---------- D revn ia ia m udrosP n a protiazhenii vekov. T ranslated by A. Gralevskaia. St. P etersburg: Izd. Vestnika teosofii, 1911. O riginally in Vestnik teosofii 2 11(1910). Pavlinova, N . “ O rficheskie m isterii.” Vestnik teosofii 7 /8 ( 1 9 1 3 ): 3 4 -4 4 . Petrovo-Solovovo, M ikhail, G raf Perovskii. Review o f E d m u n d G a rre tt’s Isis Very M uch Unveiled; The Story o f the G reat M a h a tm a H oax. L ondon: W est­ m inster G azette, 1894. R ebus 18(A pril 3 0 , 1895): 181—83. P[isareva], E flena F edorovna]. Chelovek i ego vid im yi i nevidim yi sostav. Popular p am p h let published by th e Russian T heosophical Society in n u m erous edi­ tions and large quantities; based o n C. W. L ead beater’s M a n Visible a n d In vis­ ible (1 9 0 2 ). -----------“E lena P etrovna Blavatskaia.” In Voprosy teosofii, vol. 2, 7—52, St. P e­ tersburg: 1910. 2 d ed. Geneva: 1937. R ep rin ted B oston: “A lba,” 1966. ---------- Sila mysli i mysle-obrazy. P o p u lar pam p h let based on A nnie B esant’s and Charles L ead b eater’s w ork Thought-Fbrms and published by th e Russian theosophical Society in n u m ero u s editions and large quantities. ---------- Zakon prichin i posledstvii (K a rm a ). P o p u la rp a m p h le t published by the Russian T heosophical Society in num ero u s editions and large quantities. Pisareva, EIena F edorovna. “ Missiia E. P. Blavatskoi.” Vestnik teosofii 1(1913): 1 5 -2 8 . ----------. “ O razvitii psikhicheskikh sil cheloveka.” Vestnik teosofii 4 (1 9 1 4 ): 2 6 49. ---------- Perevoploshchenie. P o p u lar p am p h let p ublished by the Russian T h e o ­ sophical Society in n u m ero u s editions and large quantities. ----------. “T sen n o st’ teosoficheskikh uchenii dlia chelovecheskoi z h izn i.” Vestnik teosofii 4 (1 9 1 6 ): 1 4 -2 6 . [Pisareva, Elena F edoro v n a]. O skrytom smysle zh izn i. Pis’m a teosofa k russkim ehitateliam . Kaluga: L otos, 19 1 3 . 2 d ed. Geneva: Izd. Vestnika1 1931. P[isareva], E [lena F ed o ro v n a], trans. Svet n a p u ti i K a rm a . See Collins, M abel. L ig h t on the Path. Pfisareva], E [lena F ed o ro v n a], and A lba [A nna K am enskaia], com ps. “ O sim volizm e p o A. B ezan t.” In Voprosy teosofii, vol. I , 1 3 5 -4 8 . St. Petersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia, 1907. Pisareva, Elena F edorovna, an d A nna Alekseevna Kamenskaia. Zadachi Soiuza vospitaniia svobodnogo cheloveka. P etrograd: 1918. Pistis Sophia; gnosticheskii p a m ia tn ik . T ranslated by A. V inogradov. M oscow : D uk h o v n o e znanie, ?. This b o o k was advertised, b u t may never have ap ­ peared because o f th e events o f 1 9 1 7 -1 9 1 8 ; L enin Library could find no indication o f its publicatio n , alth o u g h publication had been an n o unced.

Probably a translation o f G. R. S. M ead ’s Pistis Sophia; A Gnostic Gospel (1 8 9 6 ). Fragm ents o f these G nostic texts were accessible in circulating m anu­ script. Pogosskaia, Aleksandra Loginovna. Idealy tru d a kak osnova shchastlivoi zhizni. Kaluga: L otos, 1914. PoiasnitePnyi slovar’ k teosoficheskoi literature. M oscow: Kushnerev, 1912. d u Prel: see D uPrel. Pratim oksha-sutra; buddiiskii sluzhebnik. T ranslated by I. Minaev. Zapiski A k a d e m ii N a u k 1 6 (1 8 6 9 ), A d dendum I. Pushkina, V. N . Skoro SpasiteP pridet. Petrograd: Izd. O rdena Zvezdy na Vostoke, 1918. ---------- U znaem Ii m y egot Petrograd: Izd. O rd ena Zvezdy na V ostoke, 1918. P u tj k istine. Izrecheniia buddiiskoi nravstvennoi mudrosti. T ranslated, w ith in ­ tro d u c tio n by Gerasimov. M oscow : 1898. Radda-Bai. See Blavatskaia, E. P. Ram acharaka, Iogi. See A tkinson, W illiam Walker. Ram akrishna [Param aham sa]. Izbrannye p ritchi R a m a -K rish n y. Paraphrased by V. A ltukhov i I. Sanin. Rebus !(Jan u ary 2 , 1905): 6—7; 7(F ebruary 13, 1905): 8; 1 8 /1 9 (M a y 15, 1905): 10. ---------- Prozvestie R am akrishny, s predisloviem i vvedeniem Suom i Abedanandy. St. Petersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia 1914. T ranslation o f The Sayings o f Sri R a m a krish n a 7 com p. Swami A b h ed an an d a. N ew York: V edanta Society, 1903. Rebus. EzhenedePnyi zhurnal. F rom 51(1 9 0 5 ): Nezavisim yi organ russkikh spiritualistov; from 1905: Populiarno-nauchnyi zh u rn a l po voprosam spiritualizm a, psihhizm a i m ed iu m izm a \ from 1909: Z h u rn a l psikhizm a, m edium izm a, i sp iritualizm a. St. P etersburg: 1 8 8 1 -1 9 0 3 ; edited and published by V. I. Pribytkov. M oscow : 1 9 0 4 -1 9 1 7 ; ed ited and published by P. A. C h ist­ iakov. V. I. Pribytkov edited the journal fro m no. I to no. 1125 (Dec. 21, 19 0 3 ), w hen he retired because o f ill health; P. A. Chistiakov assum ed ed ito r­ ship in M oscow from n o . 1126. 52 nos. annually until 1903; thereafter from 3 0 -5 2 nos. annually. Jubilee N o . 9 / 1 0 0 0 (M arch 4 , 1901). Rees-Davies, Professor T. V. Ocherk zh izn i i ucheniia G autam y Buddy. T rans­ lated from th e eig h teen th English ed. by M . G iunsburg. 2 d ed. St. Petersburg: G ubinskii, 1906. R ichet, Charles. Opyt obshchei psikhologii. T ranslated from French by N. Fe­ dorov. St. Petersburg: 1 8 9 5 ; 2 d ed. St, P etersburg: 1903. — — — S om nam bulizm , dem onizm i iady intellekta. St. P etersburg: 1885. R ozenbakh, D r. Pavel Iakovlevich. Sovremennyi m istitsizm . St. Petersburg: Rikker, 1891. See especially “Teosoficheskii kul’t ,” 3 2 -3 8 . Ryshkovskii, N . I. In d iv id u a lizm i bessmertie. Sm olensk: Izd. iiTeosofskaia zh izn ,' ” 1910. “S .” “ 30-tiletie T eosoficheskogo O bshchestva.” Rebus 4 3 /4 4 (1 9 0 5 ) : 4. Sabashnikova, Μ . V. Sviatoi Serafim. M oscow : D ukhovnoe znanie, 1913. Saint-Yves d ’Alveydre, Joseph. “G im n L u n y ” (poetic cycle). R endered by A. V. Troianovskii. Teosoficheskoe obozrenie 4 (January 1908): 2 7 7 -8 3 . ------------ K liu ch i vostoka. Tainy rozh d m iia . Pol i Hubovj. Tainy sm erti. Soglasno

u k a za n iia m Vostochnoi Kabbaly. T ranslated by M . A. Radynskii; edited by A. V. Troianovskii. St. P etersburg: Iz d . Izidy, 1912. Saint-Yves d ’AIveydre, Joseph. Missiia- I n d ii v Evrope. M issiia Evropy v A z ii. Petrograd: Novyi chelovek, 1915. Sbornik p a m ia ti A . P. FUosofovoi; s ta t’i i m aterialy. 2 vols. P etrograd: M . O . W ol’f, 1915. Schure, E douard. “D ionis i Persefona.” T ranslated by E. P[isareva]. In Voprosy teosofii, vol. I , 2 5 5 -5 8 . St. P etersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia, 1908. ---------- Ocherki iz istorii religit. iiR a m a F Teosoficheskoe obozrenie 4 - 6 , 8 / 9 (1 9 0 8 ). -----------Poety z a r 1 i sumerek. T ranslated by M . Staniukovich. Vestnik teosofii 1 2 (1 9 1 2 ). ---------- Velikie posviashchennye. T ranslated by E. Pisareva. St. P etersburg: Izd. N . V. Pisareva, G orodskaia tipografiia, 1 9 1 0 ; 2 d ed. Kaluga: L otos, 1913. First appeared in Vestnik teosofii 2 -1 2 (1 9 0 8 ); 3 - 8 , 1 0 -1 2 (1 9 0 9 ). Translation o f his m ajor w ork, Les,grands in ities (Paris: P errin, 1889); m ore th an a h u n ­ dred F ren ch editions alone; translated in to all m ajor languages. ---------- Zhritsa·. A ntichnaia biblioteka (series). T ranslated by K. Zhikhareva. M oscow : Sfinks, 1911. S cott-E llio t, W. Istoriia A tla n tid y . T ranslated by N . D m itrieva. Vestnik teosofii 9 -1 2 (1 9 1 6 ). S hcherbatskoi, F ed o r Ippolitovich. Teoriia p o zn a n iia i logika po ucheniiu buddistov. 3 vols. St. Petersburg: G ero l’d; 1 9 0 3 -1 9 0 9 . Shtal’berg, V. I. Boriba dukha s m aterieiu. Sm olensk: Izd. iiTeosofskaia z h iz r i,” n.d. O rig. published in th e journal Teosofskaia z h iz n 3 !(S ep te m b er 1 90 7 )—1 2((A ugust 1908); !(S e p te m b e r 1 9 0 8 )—2 / 3 ( O c to b e r/N o v e m b e r 1908). ---------- K hristianskaia i indo-buddiiskaia teosofiia. Sm olensk: Izd. iiTeosofskaia ZhizriVf n.d. S innett, A lfred Percy. O kkuP tnyi m ir. T ranslated by A. Vestnik teosofii 1 2 (1912): 9 -1 1 . T ranslation o f The Occult World (1 8 8 1 ). [Sizov, M ikhail] Sedlov, M . Tsezari Lombroso i spiritizm . Istoricheskii i k riticheskii ocherk. M oscow : M usaget, 1913. Soiuz vospitaniia sv o b o d n o g o cheloveka. Otchet deiatel’nosti za 1 9 1 7/18 (pervyi) god. P etrograd: 1918. ------------ Vekhi. Pervoe i vtoroe sem iletiia rebenka. Papers o f th e Pedagogical C ir­ cle o f th e Russian T heosophical Society, 1 9 1 0 -1 9 1 5 . E d ited by M . F. G ardenina. P etrograd: 1918. Solov’ev, V ladim ir Sergeevich. “Blavatskaia, Elena P e tro v n a.” In S. A. V en­ gerov, Kritiko-biograficheskii slovari, vol. 2 , 3 1 5 -1 9 . St. P etersburg: Semenovskaia tipografiia, 1892. Also in Solov’ev Sobranie sochinenii, ed. E. L. Radlov and S. M . Solov’ev, vol. 6 , 2 d ed., 3 9 4 -9 8 . (Title: “Z am etka o E. P. Blavatskoi.” ) ---------- “ Rersenziia na k nigu E. P. Blavatskoi The Key to Theosophy.''' Russkoe obozrenie 8 (1 8 9 0 ). Also in Sobranie sochinenii, ed. by E. L. Radlov and S. M. Solov’ev, vol. 6, 2 d ed ., 2 8 7 —92. St. Petersburg: Prosveshchenie, 1912. ---------- “V. Solov’ev o teosofii.” R ebus !(Ja n u a ry 11, 1915): 2 - 3 . R eprint o f

Solov’ev’s review o f The Key to Theosophy; his “ Z am etka o E. P. Blavatskoi” was begun In R ebus 4 (Jan u ary 25, 1915): 1 -2 , b u t never com pleted. Solov’ev, V sevolod Sergeevich. “ C h to takoe ‘doktrina teosoficheskogo obshchestva’.” Voprosyfilosofii i psikholojyii 1 8 (1 8 9 3 ), B ook 3, 4 1 - 6 8 , 2 d pagina­ tion. ---------- “Interesnyi fe n o m en .” L etter from Paris, June 1 0 /2 2 . Published in Rebus, 2 6(July I , 1884): 243. ---------- Sovrem ennaia zhritsa Izidy. R usskii vestnik 2—5, 9—1 2 (1 8 9 2 ), [not 1—6 as is usually given in bibliographies]. Separate ed. St. Petersburg: O bshchestvennaia P o l’za, 1893; n u m ero u s su b sequent eds. E nglish translation: A M odern Priestess o f Isis. T ranslated by W. L eaf (m em ber o f the Society for Psychical R esearch). L on d o n : L ongm ans, G reen Sc C o., 1895. ---------- Velikii Rozenkreitser. O kkuT yni rom an. St. P etersburg: 1890. ---------- Volkhvy. O kkuP tnyi rom an. St. P etersburg: 1889. Sredi Rozenkreitserov. P rikliucheniia odnoj/o issledovatelia okkuP tizm a. R ebus 4 0 / 4 1 (N ovem ber 2 1 , 1904): 8 -1 0 ; 4 6 / 4 8 (D ecem ber 12, 1904): 1 3 -1 5 ; 5 1 / 5 2 (D ecem ber 2 6 , 1904): 12—13; !(Ja n u a ry 2 , 1905): 8 -1 0 ; 2(January 9, 1905): 6 - 7 ; 3(January 16, 1905): 7 -8 ; 4 (January 2 3 , 1905): 7 -8 ; 5(January 30, 1905): 7 -9 ; 6 (F eb ru ary 6, 1905): 8 -1 0 ; 8(F eb ru ary 2 0 , 1905): 8; 1 0 (M arch 6, 1905): 8 -9 ; ll( M a r c h 13, 1905): 1 0 -1 1 ; 13(M arch 2 7 , 1905): 1 0 -1 2 ; 14(A pril 3, 1905): 8 -1 0 ; 15(A pril 10, 1905): 7 - 8 ; 16(A pril 17, 190 5 ): 7 -8 ; 17(M ay 8 , 1905): 7 -8 . Sri-Sankara-Acharya. A tm a -B o d kh a s Ui samopoznanie. K har’kov: Tip. Radom yshel’skogo, 1912. -----------Tattva-Bodkhas Ui p oznanie bytiia. T ranslated by N . A. Sheierm an. K har’kov: Tip. R adom yshel’skogo, 1913. -----------Viveka C h u d a m a n is Ui sokrovishcha prem udrosti. T ranslated by N . A. Sheierm an. K har’kov: tip. R adom yshel’skogo, 1912. Steiner, Rudolf. B rochure series published by “D u k h o v n o e Z n an ie” : I. Teosofiia i sotsiaPnyi vopros (1 9 1 7 ). II. Filosofiia i teosofiia (1 9 1 7 ). III. SushchnosP iskusstva (1 9 1 7 ). A u th o rized trans. o f stenograph o f lec­ tu re read O c to b e r 2 3 , 1909. IV. Otche nash (1 9 1 7 ). A u th o rized trans. by E. P. M ashkovtseva. V. Rozhdestvo. R azm yshlenie iz zh izn i-m udrosti (V itaesophia) (1 9 1 8 ). Based o n C hristm as lecture, D ecem ber 13, 1907. A u th o rized trans. V I. Posviashchenie i m isterii (1 9 1 8 ). -----------Akasha-IChronika (Istoriia proiskhozhdeniia mira i cheloveka). T rans­ lated by A. B o rn io . M oscow : M oscovskaia tipografiia, 1912. Reviewed in Vestnik teosofii 9 (1 9 1 3 ). T ranslation o f A u s der A kasha-C hronik (1 9 0 4 ). ---------- Dukhovedenie; vvedenie v sverkhchuvstvennoe poznanie m ira i naznachenie cheloveka. D ornach: 1927. ------------Evoliutsiia m ira i cheloveka. Lectures read in Paris in 1906. Paraphrased and ed ited by E. Pisareva. Vestnik teosofii 1 -9 (1 9 1 1 ). ---------- uF aust G ete (tolkovanie).” T ranslated by A. M [intslova]. In Voprosy teo­ sofii, vol. I , 2 3 3 -5 4 . St. P etersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia, 1908.

Steiner, R udolf. FUosofiia svobody was an n o u n ced in 1918 by D ukhovnoe znanie, b u t was never published. ---------- uG ekkeP, mirovye zagadki, i T eosofiia.” Vestnik teosofii 1 1 (1908): 56— 74. ---------- Istina i nauka. P ro lo g k Filosofii svobody. M oscow : D ukh o v n o e znanie, 1913. A u th o rized trans. by B. G rigorov. T ranslation o f D ie Fhilosophie der Freiheit (1 8 9 4 ). ---------- I z letopisi m ira. A u th o rized trans. o f A u s der A kasha-C hronik (w hich appeared serially in Luzifer-G nosis in 19 0 4 ). M oscow : D ukhovnoe znanie, 1914. ---------- K a k dostich’ p o zn a n iia vysshikh (sverkhchuvstvennykh) mirov. [1911?]. T ranslation o f Wie erlangt m a n Erkenntnisse der hoheren W eltenl (1 9 0 4 ). ---------- K a k dostigaetsia poznanie vysshikh mirov. T ranslated by A. V. B ornio. Teosofskaia z h iz n J !(S e p te m b e r 1 9 0 7 ); 3 -7 (N o v e m b e r 1 9 0 7 -M arch 1908); 12(A ugust 190 8 ); l-1 2 (S e p te m b e r 1908—A u g ust 1909). Separate ed. S m o ­ lensk: Izd. “ Teosofskaia z h i z n \ " n .d . T ranslation o f Wie erlangt m a n Erkenntnisse der hoheren W eltenl (1 9 0 4 ). ---------- K a k d o stignut’ p o zn a n iia vysshikh mirov. T ranslated by V. Laletin. Seri­ alized in Vestnik teosofii I —1 2 (1 9 0 8 ); 1 -1 1 (1 9 0 9 ). T ranslation o f Wie erlangt m a n Erkenntnisse der hoheren W eltenl (1 9 0 4 ). ---------- K a k dostignuU p o zn a n iia vysshikh mirov. A u th o rized trans. M oscow: D uk h o v n o e znanie, 1918. C ontains S tein er’s in tro , to his rev. 5 th ed. (1 9 1 4 ). T ranslation o f Wie erlangt m a n Erkenntnisse der hoheren W eltenl (1 9 0 4 ). ---------- K hristianstvo kak misticheskii f a k t i m isterii drevnosti. Translated by [O l’ga N ikolaevna A nnenkova]. 2 d ed. M oscow : D ukhovnoe znanie, 1917. T h e 1st Russian ed. appeared u n d er th e title M isterii drevnosti i khristianstvo (see). T ranslation o f Das C hristentum als mystische Tatsache u n d die Mysterien des A lte r tu m s (1 9 0 2 ; 2 d ed. 1910). -----------“ K ul’tura piatoi rasy.” In Voprosy teosofii, vol. I , 9 1 -1 0 8 . St. P eters­ burg: G orodskaia tipografiia, 1908. T ext o f lecture read in Berlin in N o v em ­ ber 1 9 0 6 , p rep ared by Elena Pisareva. -----------M isterii drevnosti i khristianstvo. M oscow : D ukhovnoe znanie, 1913. A u th o rized trans. o f 2 d G erm an ed ., 1910 (D as C hristentum als mystische Tatsache. 2 d rev. and enl. ed. Leipzig: 191 0 ). T he 2 d Russian ed. appeared u n d e r th e title Khristianstvo kak misticheskii f a k t i m isterii drevnosti (see). Be­ fore this w ork appeared in R ussian, it was know n in th e F rench translation o f E d o u ard S ch u re: Le Mystere chretien et Ies mysteres antiques (1 9 0 8 ). ---------- M istika n a zare dukhovnoi z h izn i novogo vrem eni i ee otnosheniia k sovrem ennym m irovozzreniiam . M oscow : D u k hovnoe znanie, 1917. -----------M istiki. T ranslated by E. Pfisareva]. Vestnik teosofii 3 -1 0 (1 9 1 0 ). ---------- “ O chelovecheskoi au re.” T ranslated by E. P[isareva], Vestnik teosofii 1 0 -1 2 (1 9 1 1 ). -----------Ocherki tainovedeniia. A u th o rized trans. o f 6 th ed. M oscow: D uk hovnoe znanie, 1916. -----------Ocherki teorii p o zn a n iia getevskogo m irovozzreniia was an n o u n ced by D ukh o v n o e znanie in 191 8 , b u t never published. -----------Porog dukhovnogo m ira. M oscow : D u k hovnoe znanie, 1917.

---------- P u t’ k posviashcheniiu i kak dostig n u t’ p o zn a n iia vysshikh mirov. T rans­ lated from G erm an. Kaluga: L o to s, 1911. ---------- P u t’ k sam opoznaniiu cheloveka. V vos’m i m editatsiiakh. A uthorized trans. M oscow : D u k h o v n o e znanie, 1913. ---------- Sokrovennye zn a n iia . M oscow : D u k hovnoe znanie, ?. Listed as in prepa­ ratio n in 1 9 1 3 , b u t could n o t verify. T ranslation o f Geheimwissenschaft im Umriss (1 9 0 9 ). ________“Teosofiia i G ra f L. N . T o lsto i.” Vestnik teosofii 7 /8 (1 9 0 8 ) : 5 8 -6 4 . ------------- Teosofiia i nauka. T ranslated by O . A [nnenkova]. Vestnik teosofii 1 (1910): 2 1 -2 8 . ---------- “Teosofiia i sotsial’nyi v o p ro s.” T ranslated by E. P[isareva], Vestnik teo­ sofii 3 (1 9 1 2 ): 7 -1 4 ; 4 (1 9 1 2 ): 2 3 -3 3 . ---------- Theosofita. T ranslated by by A [n n a] M fintslova]. St. P etersburg: Stasiulevich, 19 1 0 . T ranslation o f Theosophie; E in fiih ru n g in Ubersinnliche Welterkenntnis u n d M enschenbestim m ung, 2 d G erm an ed. (1 9 0 8 ; orig. 1904). S tran d en , D m itrii. G erm etizm . Ego proiskhozhdenie i osnovnye ucheniia. ( Sokrovennaia filosofiia E giptian). St. P etersburg: A. V oronets, 1914. R eprinted B eograd: 1937. _______Teosofiia i ee kritiki. O tvet ottsu I. D m itrevskom u, arkhim . Varlaam u i IC D. ICudriavtsevu. St. P etersburg: Stasiulevich, 1913. ---------- “Teosofiia i filosofiia.” Vestnik teosofii 5 /6 ( 1 9 1 2 ): 4 1 —59. S [tra n d e ]n , D fm itrii]. Z abytaia storona khristianstva. T aina K hrista. St. P eters­ burg: K irshbaum , 1912. S u tta -N ip a ta ; buddiiskaia kanonicheskaia kniga. T ranslated by N . I. Gerasimov. M oscow : 1899. Suvorin, A. A. [Aleksei P o ro sh in ]. N ovyi chelovek. St. P etersburg: Novyi chelovek, 1913. Teosoficheskoe obozrenie. Ezhemesiachnyi zhurnal, posviashehennyi teosofii i teosoficheskomu d vizh en iiu v Rossii i za-granitsei; w ith 1907, N o . 3: P u t’ k vsem irn o m u bratstvu. Z hu rn a l, posviashehennyi bratstvu chelovechestva, teosofii, i izu ch en iiu etiki, filosofii, n a u k i iskusstv. E d ited and published by V. L. Bogushevskii. St. P etersburg: 1 9 0 7 -1 9 0 8 (1 9 0 7 , no. I [O c to b e r]-n o . 3 [D e ­ cem b er]; 19 0 8 , n o . 4 f Ja n u a ry ]-n o . 12 [S ep tem ber]). 9 1 8 pp. Superceded by M ir, a general jo u rn al w ith n o o ccu lt co n ten t. “Teosofiia i sp iritizm .” Rebus 7 (F eb rn ary 16, 1886). Teosofskaia z h iz n I Posviasheheno teosofskomu dvizheniiu i izucheniiu filosofii, n a u k i religii. O rgan Smolenskogo Teosofskogo Obshchestva. F rom 1 9 0 9 , no. 6 / 7 : “ K hristianskogo” instead o f “ S m olenskogo.” E d ited and published by V. I. S htal’berg. Sm olensk: 1 9 0 7 -1 9 0 9 (1 9 0 7 , no. I [S e p tem b er]-n o . 4 [D e ­ cem ber]; 1 9 0 8 , no. 5 [Ja n u a ry ]-n o . 12 [A ugust], no. I [S ep tem b er]-n o . 2 / 3 [O c to b e r/N o v e m b e r]; 1 9 0 8 /1 9 0 9 , n o . 4 / 5 [D ec e m b e r/Jan u a ry ]; 1 9 0 9 , n o . 6 / 7 [F e b ru a ry /M a rc h ]-n o . 12 [A ugust]). Superceded by Z h izn 1 dukha. Tim ofeevskii, P. I. O t sm erti k bessmertiiu. 1914. ---------- Voprosy vechnye i teosofiia. St. P etersburg: Izd . Vestnika teosofii, 1914. R ep rin ted from Vestnik teosofii 5 /6 ( 1 9 1 3 ) : 1 1 -3 3 . L ecture read January 17, 1 9 1 3 , in th e Russian T heosophicai Society.

Tits, L. “RoP Teosoficheskogo O bshchestvav perezhivaemuiu epokhu.” Vestnik teosofii 12(1914): 31-39. Tsiolkovskii, Konstantin. Nirvana·. Kaluga: Lotos, 1914. Tukholka, Sofiia Ivanovna. Okkul’tizm i magiia. 2d ed. St. Petersburg: Suvorin, 1907; 4th ed. 1917. Turaev, B. Bog Tot. Leipzig: 1989. A study o f Herm es Trismegistus. Unkovskaia, Aleksandra Vasil’evna. “M etoda tsveto-zvuko-chisel.” Vestnik teo­ sofii I, 3(1909). ----------“Pis’ma o muzyke.” Vestnik teosofii 9—12(1912); 7, 10, 12(1913); 5 / 6(1914). Uspenskii, Petr Demianovich. Chetvertoe izmerenie. Opyt issledovaniia oblasti neizmerimogo. St. Petersburg: Trud, 1910. Chetvertoe izmerenie. Obzor glavneishikh teorii i popytok issledovaniia oblasti neizmerimogo. 2d rev. ed. St. Petersburg: T rud, [1913] 1914. Originally published in Vestnik teosofii: 7-1 2 (1 9 0 9 ). Book ed. has additional chapter on the Theosophical w orld­ view. ----------- Iskaniia novoi zhizni. Chto takoe ioga. St. Petersburg: Gerol’d, 1913. 2d ed. Petrograd: Novyi chelovek (Suvorin), 1915. ---------- Kinem odram a (N e dlia kinematografa)\ okkul’tnaia. povest1. Petrograd: Brianchaninov, 1917. -------------“M ir kazhushchii i mir real’nyi.” Biulleteni literatury i zhizni (M oscow), 7 /8 (1 9 1 5 /1 9 1 6 ): 335-49. Three chapters from Tertium Organum . ----------Razgovory s diavolom. OkkuVtnye rasskazy. Petrograd: Brianchaninov, 1916. ----------Simvoly Taro. Filosofiia okkuVtizma v risunkakh i chislakh ( Ocherk iz knigi Mudrosti bogov). St. Petersburg: Gorodskaia tipografiia, 1912. O rigi­ nally in Vestnik teosofii 3(1912): 4 0 -8 4 . English trans. by A. L. Pogossky: The Symbolism o f the Tarot: Philosophy o f Oceultism in Pictures and Numbers (with pen drawings o f the twenty-two Tarot cards). St. Petersburg: T rud, 1913. ----------Tertium Organum. Kliuch k zagadkam mira. St. Petersburg: T rud, 1911. 2d. rev. and exp. ed. Petrograd: N. I. Taberio (Trud), 1914; 3d ed. 1916. ----------Vnutrennii krug. St, Petersburg: T rud, [1912] 1913. Varlaam, Arkhimandrit. Teosofiia pered sudom khristianstva. Poltava: G. E. Markevich, 1912. VasiPev, Vasilii Pavlovich. Buddizm; ego dogmaty, istoriia i literatura. Parts I and 3 (no others published). St. Petersburg: 1857, 1869. ----------R eligii vostoka: Konfutsianstvo, Buddizm , i Daosizm. St. Petersburg: 1873. Vedy. Vosem1gim nov Rig-Vedy. Translated by A. Krushevskii. Kazan’: 1879. Vengerova, Zinaida. “Blavatskaia, Elena Petrovna.” In K ritiko-biograficheskii slovar\ ed. S. A. Vengerov, vol. 3, 301-15. St. Petersburg: Semenovskaia ti­ pografiia, 1892. Vestnik teosofii. Religiozno-filosofsko-nauchnyi zhurnal. Edited and published by Anna Kamenskaia; from 1912, published by Kamenskaia and Ts. L. GePmboPdt. Seven hundred copies published in 1911. St. Petersburg: 1 9 0 8 -

1918 (1 9 0 8 -1 9 1 6 , nos. 1 -1 2 ; 1 9 1 7 , N os. 1 -2 , 3 / 5 , 6 / 9 , 1 0 /1 2 ; 1918, N os. 1 -2 ). P ublication ceased in 1918. V ivekananda, Suom i. Bkhakti-ioga. T ranslated by la. K. Popov. St. Petersburg: T ip. A. L e o n t’eva, 1914. ---------- D zhnana-ioga. T ranslation o f 2 d ed. by la. K. Popov. St. Petersburg: L e o n t’ev, 1914. ---------- Filosofiia toga. Lektsii o R adzha-Ioge, chitannye v N iu -Io rke zim o iu 1895-1896 g . Suom i V ivekananda o R a d zh a -Ioga Ui podchinenii vnutrennei prirody. T ranslated by la. K. Popov. Sosnitsa: 1906; 2 d ed. Sosnitsa: Tip. U e z d n o g o zem stva, 1911. ---------- K a rm a Ioga. T ranslated by la. K. Popov. St. Petersburg: L e o n t’ev, 1914. V oloshin, M aks. “A nni B ezant i ‘russkaia shkola.’ ” (Pis’m o iz Parizha.) R u s ’ 18 6 (A ugust 12, 1905): 3. Voprosy teosofii. Sbornik statei. Vol. I . St. P etersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia, 1 9 0 7 , 1908. Review ed by N . B oianus in S p iritu a list 1(1908): 4 3 -4 4 . Voprosy teosofii. Sbornik statei. V p a m ia ti Eleny Petrovny Blavatskoi. Vol. 2. St. P etersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia, 1910. T he second volum e o f Voprosy teo­ sofii was reissued in 1911 as Elena Petrovna Blavatskaia, ee biografiia, otzyvy o net uchenikov, i obraztsy ee sochinenii, vyshedshikh v A n g lii. V vedenskii, A. I. “ Buddiiskaia nirv an a.” R usskii vestnik 7 (1 9 0 1 ): 133—47; 8 (1 9 0 1 ): 4 2 1 -3 4 . . “ Buddiiskii ‘p u t’ k spaseniiu.’ ” R usskii vestnik 1 1 (1911): 1 2 3 -3 5 ; 1 2(1 9 1 1 ): 5 4 3 -6 0 . W ard, E dith. “Teosofiia i n au k a.” T ranslated by D . S [tran d en ], In Voprosy teo­ sofii, vol. I , 109—30. St. P etersburg: G orodskaia tipografiia, 1908. W ood, M ichael. I z letopisi chelovecheskoi dushi. Translated by E. Pfisareva]. Kaluga: L o to s, 1913. ---------- “M a t’ vsekh skazanii.” T ranslated by E. Pfisareva]. Vestnik teosofii 2 (1 9 1 3 ): 4 1 -5 0 . W oodhouse, E. A. M ir v ozhidanii. P etrograd: Izd . O rd en a Zvezdy V ostoka, 1917. [Z helik h o vskaia, Vera P etrovna], E. P. B lavatskaia i sovremennyi zhrets istiny (otvetgospozhy Ig re k g . Vsev. Solov’evu). St. P etersburg: 1893. Zhelikhovskaia p ublished h e r response to Vs. Solov’ev’s negative article as a separate brochure at h er ow n expense because R usskii vestnik refused it. Zhelikhovskaia, Vera P etrovna. “ E. P. Blavatskaia i teosofisty.” Odesskii vestnik 12 3 (Ju n e 5, 1884): 1 -3 . R ep rin ted in Rebus 28(July 15, 1884): 2 6 3 -6 5 , 2 9(July 2 2 , 1884): 2 7 4 -7 5 . ----------.. “Elena P etrovna Blavatskaia (biograficheskii o ch erk ).” Russkoe obozrenie 1 1 (1 89 1 ): 2 4 2 -9 4 ; 12(1 8 9 1 ): 5 6 7 -6 2 1 . ---------- . Neob^iasnimoe ili neob’Hasnennoe iz lichnykh i semeinykh vospominanii. St. P etersburg: Izd . Rebusa, 18 8 5 . M aterials originally published in R e b u s A i4 8 (O c to b e r 2 8 -D e c e m b e r 2 , 1884) as “ Pravda o E. P. Blavatskoi” and in 4 (January 2 7 ,1 8 8 5 ), as “N e o b ” iasnim oe i n e o b ”iasnennoe.” ---------- “ Pis’m a iz-za granitsy.” Series w ritten for Novorossiiskii telegraf (O dessa new spaper) in M ay and June 1884.

Zhelikhovskaia, Vera Petrovna. “V oblasti o k k u l’tizm a i m ag n etizm a.” Odesskii vesm ik 166(July 2 6 , 1884): 1 -3 ; 1 7 2 (A u g u s t2 , 1884): 1 -3 ; 181(A ugust 14, 1884): 1 -2 ; 184(A ugust 18, 188 4 ): 1 -2 . A bridged in R ebus as “Fenom eny okkul’ticheskoi sily g-zhy B lavatskoi,” 5 0 (D ecem ber 16, 1884): 4 6 5 -6 7 . [Zhelikhovskaia, Vera P etrovna] I. Ia. “ Pravda o E. P. Blavatskoi.” Rebus 4 0 (O c to b e r 16, 18 8 3 ), 4 1 , 4 3 - 4 4 ; 4 6 -4 8 (O c to b e r 2 3 -D e c e m b e r 11, 1883). Zhelikhovskaia, Vera V ladim irovna. “Iasnovidenie i psikhom etriia.” Novosti [new spaper] 3 4 8 -5 0 (1 8 9 0 ). First p ublished in Rebus 3(January 19, 1886). Z h iz n 3 dukha. Spiritualisticheskii re Iijji ozno-fdosofsk i i zhurnal. O n cover: Teosofiia. O k k u T ttzm . R elijjiia. N a u ki. Supercedes Teosofskaia z h i z n E d ited and published by V. I. Sh tal’berg. Sm olensk: 1910 (1 9 1 0 , no. I [Jan u ary ]-n o . 1 1 /1 2 [N o v em b er-D ecem b er]).

Selected B ibliograph y

T his bibliography does n o t p re te n d to be com plete. I t lists only secondary sources th a t I fo u n d particularly helpful in reaching an und erstan d in g o f the topic u n d e r discussion. A g n i Toga series. [Vois. 1 -2 ] Leaves o f M orya1s G arden (“T h e C all” and “Illu ­ m in atio n ” ), by N . K. R oerich 1923; 1 9 2 4 -2 6 [1 9 5 2 -5 3 ]; [Vol. 3] C o m m u ­ n ity 1926 [1 9 5 1 ]; [Vol. 4 ] A g n i Toga 1929 [1 9 5 4 ]; [Vol. 5] In finity, pt. I , 1930 [1 9 5 6 ]; [Vol. 6] In fin ity , pt. 2 , 1930 [1 9 5 7 ]; [Vol. 7] H ierarchy 1931 [1 9 4 4 ]; [Vol. 8] H e a r t 1932 [1 9 3 4 ]; [Vol. 9] Fiery World, pt. I , 1933; [Vols. 1 0 -1 1 ] Fiery World, pts. 3 an d 4 , 1 9 3 4 -3 5 [1 9 4 6 -4 8 ]; [Vol. 12] A u m 1936 [1 9 5 9 ]; [Vol. 13] Brotherhood 1937 [1 9 6 2 ]. N ew York: A gni Yoga Society. A hern, Geoffrey. Sun a t M idnight; The R u d o lf Steiner M ovem ent a n d the West­ ern Esoteric Tradition. W ellin g b o ro u g h , G.B.: A quarian, 1984. A llen, Paul M . V la d im ir Soloviev, R ussian Mystic. Blauvelt, N.Y.: 1978. A n d r e j Belyj u n d R u d o lf Steiner; Briefe u n d D okum ente. B eitrage zu r R u d o lf Steiner G esam tausgabe, N r. 8 9 / 9 0 . E d ited by W alter K ugler and V ictor B. Fedjuschin. D ornach: 1985. Aseev, A leksandr. “ O kkul’tn o e dvizhenie v Sovetskoi Rossii.” O kk u T tizm i ioga. B ook 3 (1 9 3 4 ): 9 0 -9 8 . B arborka, G eoffrey A. H . P. Blavatsky, Tibet a n d Tulku. Adyar, M adras: T heosophical Publishing H o u se, 1974. Belyi, A ndrei. “ D ie A n th ro p o so p h ie u n d R ussland,” D ie D rei (S tu ttg a rt) 4— 5 (1 9 2 3 ). Separate E nglish ed.: Anthroposophy a n d Russia. T ranslated by Linda M aloney. S pring Valley, N.Y.: St. G eorge, 1983, ---------- “A ntroposofiia i D o k to r Gans L ezeg an g .” Beseda (B erlin) 2 (1 9 2 3 ): 3 7 8 -9 2 . ---------- “ Iz vospom inanii.” Beseda(BctXin) 2 (1 9 2 3 ): 8 3 -1 2 7 . -----------M ezhdu dvukh revoliutsii. L eningrad: Isd atel’stvo pisatelei, 1934. -----------“N achalo veka.” 1 9 2 8 -3 0 . U n p u b lish ed ms. M anuscript D ivision, Saltykov-Shchedrin Library, L eningrad. F o n d 60; item 13; 128 fols. ---------- “M aterial k biografii (intim n y i).” 192 3 . U n p u blished ms. C entral State Archive for L iteratu re an d A rt, M oscow. F o n d 5 3 , k. 2; item 3; 164 fols. --------------Vbspominaniia o Bloke. M o n o g ra p h publ. in Epopeia, vols. 1-4. M oscow an d Berlin: 1 9 2 2 -1 9 2 3 . R ep rin ted as Vospominaniia ob A . A . Bloke. M unich: Fink Verlag, 1969. ---------- Vospominaniia o Shteinere. E d ited an d a n n o tate d by Frederic Kozlic. Paris: La Presse L ibre, 1982. B erberova, N ina N . L iu d i i lozhi; russkie masony x x stoletiia. N ew York: Russica, 1986. Berdiaev, N ikolai. “ Dva pis’m a N . A. Berdiaeva A ndreiu B elom u.” P ublished by L. M urav’ev, w ith afterw ord by F. S tepun. Mosty 11 (1 9 6 5 ): 3 5 8 -6 8 .

Berdiaev, Nikolai. Filosofiia svobodnogo dukha. 2 vols. Paris: 1927. See esp. sec­ tion on Theosophy. Translation: Freedom and the Spirit. New York: Scrib­ ner’s, 1935. ----------- Samopoznanie. 2d rev. ed. Paris: YMCA, 1983. See especially chaps. 6-8 for an account o f the Russian occult revival o f the Silver Age. ----------Symsl tvorchestva. Moscow: 1915. 2d ed. Paris: YMCA, 1985. See espe­ cially chap. 13: “Tvorchestvo i mistika. Okkul’tizm i magiia” (332-54). ------------“Spor ob Antroposofii (O tvet N . Turgenevoi).” F u t3 (Paris), 25(December 1930): 105-14. Berry, Thom as. Spiritualism in Tsarist Society and Literature. Baltimore: Edgar Allan Poe Society, 1985, Bland, Rosamund. Extracts from N ine Letters Written . . . a t the Beginning o f P. D. Ouspensky’s London Work in 1921. Cape Town: S tourton, 1952. Blavatsky, H . P. H . P. B. Speaks. 2 vols. Adyar, Madras: Theosophical Publishing H ouse, 1951. Bowlt, John. “Esoteric Culture and Russian Society.” In The Spiritual in A rt: Abstract P ainting 1890-1985, ed. Edward Weisberger, 165-84 [Exhibition Catalog, Los Angeles C ounty M useum o f Aut]. New York: Abbeville, 1986. Bragdon, Claude. Merely Players. New York: Knopf, 1905, 1928. Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1972. Britten, E. H . Nineteenth Century Miracles; or Spirits and Their Work in Every Country o f the Earth. New York: Lovell, 1884. Bugaeva, Klavdiia Nikolaevna. Vospominaniia o Belom. Edited and annotated by John Malmstad. Berkeley: Berkeley Slavic Specialties, 1981. Bulgakov, Sergei. The Orthodox Church. Rev. trans. New York: St. Vladimir’s, 1988. Butkovsky-Hewitt, Anna. G urdjieff in St. Petersburg and Paris. London: R outledge and Kegan Paul, 1978. Campbell, Bruce F. A n cien t Wisdom Revived. A History o f the Theosophical Movement. Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1980. Carlson, Maria. “Ivanov-Bclyj-Minclova: T he Mystical Triangle.” In C ultura e Memoria. A tti del terzo Simposio Internazionale dedicate a Vjaceslav Ivanov. I. Testi in italiano, francese, inglese, ed. Fausto Malcovati, 6 3 -7 9 . Firenze: 1988. Christa, Boris. “Andrey Bely’s Connections with European O ccultism .” In R u s­ sian and Slavic Literature, ed. Freeborn, M ilner-Gulland, and Ward, 2 1 3-23. Selected papers in the humanities from the Banff 1974 International C onfer­ ence. Ann Arbor: Slavica, 1976. Christian, Paul. The History and Practice o f Magic. Translated by James Kirkup and Julian Shaw. Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel, [1972]. Translation o f Histoire de la magie du monde surnaturel et de la fa ta lite a travers Ies temps et Ies peuples. Paris: 1870. Conan Doyle, Arthur. History o f Spiritualism. 2 vols. London: 1924. [C onstant, Alphonse Louis] L6vi, Eliphas. The History of Magic. 1860. Trans­ lated by A. E. Waite. London: 1913. Reprinted New York: Weiser, 1969. Cooper, M artin. “Scriabin’s Mystical Beliefs.” Music and Letters 16(1935): 110-15.

D ecter, Jacqueline. Nicholas Roerich; The L ife a n d A r t o f a R ussian Master. R ochester, V t.: Park S treet Press, 1989. D ouglas, C h arlo tte. “B eyond Reason: M alevich, M atiushin, and T h eir C ircles.” In The S p iritu a l in A r t: A b stra ct P a in tin g 1890-1985, ed. E dw ard Weisberger, 1 8 5 -2 0 0 [E xhibition C atalog, Los Angeles C o u n ty M u se u m o f A rt]. N ew York: A bbeville, 1986. The Theosophical M ovem ent 1875-1950. Rev. ed. Los Angeles: C unningham Press, 1951. Eliade, M ircea. The Sacred a n d the Profane. T ranslated by W. R. Trask. N ew York: H a rc o u rt, Brace, an d W orld, 1959. Ellis [Kobylinskii, Lev], Russkie simvolisty. M oscow : M usaget, 1910. [Encausse, G errard] Papus. Les Doctrines theosophiques·, Ies sept principes de P hom m e au p o in t de view scientifique. Paris: C onference de la Societe theosofique “ H erm es,” 1889. Encyclopedia o f Occultism a n d Parapsychology. E d ited by Leslie A. Shepard. 2 vols. N ew York: A v o n /G a le , 1978. F edjuschin, V ictor B. R usslands Sehnsucht nach S p iritu a lita t. T heosophie, Anth ro p o so p h ie, R u d o lf Steiner u n d die R ussen; eine geistige W anderschaft. Schaffhausen, Sw itzerland: Novalis Verlag, 1988. Florovskii, G eorgii. P u ti russkogo bogosloviia. 2 d ed. Paris: YM CA, 1981. O rig i­ nally Paris: 1937. F o d o r, N andor. A n Encyclopedia o f Psychic Science. 1934. R ep rin ted Secaucus, N .J.: C itadel Press, 19 6 6 . A F urther Record Chiefly o f E xtracts fr o m M eetings H eld by P. D . Ouspensky B e­ tween 1928 a n d 1945. C ape Tow n: S to u rto n Press, 1952. G arre tt, E d m u n d . Isis Very M uch Unveiled; The Story o f the G reat M a hatm a H oax. L on d o n : W estm inster G azette, 1894. G ertsyk, Evgeniia. Vospominaniia. Paris: YM CA, 1973. G o l’d en b erg , V. Antroposofskoe dvizhenie i ego prorok. V seobshchaia biblioteka, 4 5 / 4 6 . Berlin: R usskoe universal’n o e izd atel’stvo, 1923. G om es, M ichael. The D a w n in g o f the Theosophical M ovement. W heaton, 111.: T heosophical Publishing H o u se , 1987. G rig o ren k o , A. Iu . R a zn o lik a ia m agiia. M oscow : Sovetskaia Rossiia, 1987. H an so n , V irginia, ed. H . P. Blavatsky a n d The Secret Doctrine; C om m entaries on her C ontribution to World Thought. W h eato n , 111.: T heosophical Publishing H o u se, 1 9 7 1 . H em leb en , Johannes. R u d o lf Steiner; A D ocum entary Biography. East Grinstead, Sussex: H e n ry G o u ld en , 1975. H ow ell, B. P., ed. The Theosophical Society. The First Fifty Tears. L o ndon: T heosophical Publishing H o u se , 1925. Huxley, A ldous. The P erennial Philosophy. N ew York and L o n d o n : H arpers, 1945. In g e , W illiam. C hristian Mysticism. L on d o n : 1899; L ondon: M eth u e n , 1948. Jam es, W illiam. The Varieties o f R eligious Experience. 1902. R eprinted N ew York: P enguin, 1982. T heosophical Society. The Golden Book o f the Theosophical Society 1875—1925. E d ited by C. Jinarajadasa. L o n d o n : T heosophical Publishing H o u se, 1925.

Jonas, H ans. The Gnostic R eligion. The Message o f the A lie n God a n d the B egin­ nings o f C hristianity. 2d rev. ed. B oston: B eacon, 1963. Jullian, Philippe. D ream ers o f Decadence; Symbolist P ainters o f the 1890s. T rans­ lated by R o b e rt Baldick. N ew York: Praeger, 1971. Ju n g , Carl Gustav. A io n : Researches into the Phenomenology o f the Self. T rans­ lated by R. F. C. H u ll. Vol. 9, pt. 2 o f th e Collected Works. P rin ceto n , N .J.: P rin ceto n U niversity Press, 1959. ---------- Archetypes o f the Collective Unconscious. T ranslated by R. F. C . H u ll. 2d ed. Vol. 9 , pt. I o f th e Collected Works. P rin ceton, N .J.: P rinceton U niversity Press: 1970. Kamensky, Dr. A nna. “ Russia and Russian T h eo so phy.” The Theosophist (Adyar) (N o v em b er 19 3 1 ), 2 0 3 -1 0 . Kandinsky, Wasily. Uber das Geistige in der K u n st; insbesondere in der Malerei. M unich: R. Piper, 1912. Kasinec, E dw ard, and Boris K erdim un. “ O ccu lt L iterature in R ussia.” In The S p iritu a l in A r t: A b stra c t P a in tin g 1890-1985, ed. E dw ard W eisberger, 3 6 1 — 6 6 [E xhibition C atalog, Los A ngeles C o u n ty M useum o f A rt]. N ew York: A bbeville, 1986. K night, R ichard Payne. Symbolical L anguage o f A n c ie n t A r t a n d Mythology; A n Inqu iry. 1818; N ew York: J. W. B o u to n , 1876. K ozlik, F rederic C. LHnfluencc de Panthroposophie sur Poeuvre d yA n d re i B iilyi. 3 vols. F rankfurt am M ain: Fischer VetJag, 1981. Landau, R om . God is my A d venture. [L o n d o n ]: N icholson and W atson, 1935. N ew York: K nopf, 1936. See especially chap. 8, “W ar A gainst Sleep: P. D . Ouspensky. ” Leisegang, Dr. H ans. “A n troposofiia.” Beseda (Berlin) 1(1923): 2 3 7 -6 3 . Lossky, Vladim ir. The M ystical Theology o f the Eastern Church. C am bridge: Clark, 1957. M ackenzie, K enneth. The R oyal M asonic Cyclopedia. 1877. R eprinted W elling­ b o ro u g h , G.B.: A quarian Press, 1987. M cIn to sh , C h ristopher. Eliphas Levi a n d the French O ccult R evival. N ew York: W eiser, 1972. M cN eile, E . R. From Theosophy to C hristian Faith. L o n d o n : L ongm ans, G reen, 1919. M acoy, R o b ert. General History, Cyclopedia a n d D ictionary o f Freemasonry. N ew York: M asonic Publishing C om pany, 1870. M eade, M arion. M a d a m e Blavatsky. The W oman B ehind the Myth. N ew York: P u tn a m ’s, 1980. M il’d o n , V. I. “Blavatskaia, Elena P e tro v n a .” In R u sskiepisateli 1800-1917; biograficheskii slovar\ vol. I , 2 7 2 -7 3 . M oscow : Sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 1989. M uray, Philippe. Le dix-neuviem e siecle a travers Ies ages. Paris: D enoel, 1984. N em anov, I. N ., M . A. R ozhnova, and V. E. R ozhnov. K ogda d u kh i pokazyvaiut kogti. M oscow : P olitizd at, 1969. See especially pages 1 4 3 -6 8 o n Blavatsky and T heosophy. N eu m an n , Erich. The O rigins a n d H istory o f Consciousness. T ranslated by R. F. C. H ull. P rin ceto n , N .J.: P rin ceto n U niversity Press, 1954.

N icoll, M aurice. Psychological Com m entaries on the Teaching o f G. I. G u rd jie ff a n d P. D. Ouspensky. 5 vols. L ondon· V. S tu art, 1 9 5 2 —1956. N o tt, C. S. Journey Through This World, T he S econd Journal o f a Pupil. In clu d ­ ing an A ccount o f M eetings w ith G. I. G urdjieff, A. R. O rage, and P. D. Ouspensky. N ew York: W eiser, 1978. O kkuP tizm i Ioga. Journal edited by A leksandr Aseev. Belgrade: 1 9 3 4 -1 9 3 6 ; Sofia: 1 9 3 7 -1 9 3 9 . O lc o tt, H e n ry Steel. O ld D ia ry Leaves. N ew York: G. P. P u tn a m ’s, 1895. Pereselenie dush. Problema bezsm ertiia v okkuPtizm e i khristianstve. Paris: YM CA, [1 9 3 5 ], A rticles by N ikolai Berdiaev, Sergei Bulgakov, Boris Vy­ sheslavtsev, V ladim ir Zenkovskii, G eorgii Florovskii, and Sem en Frank. “ Pcterburgskie satanisty.” Golos Moskvy 3 4 (1 9 1 3 ). R eprinted in Rebus 9 (F e b ru ­ ary 2 4 , 1913): 4 -5 . P ierro t, Jean. The D ecadent Im a g in a tio n 1880-1900. Translated by D erek C o ltm a n . Chicago: U niversity o f C hicago Press, 1981. Praz, M ario. The R o m a n tic Agony. 2 d ed. L on don: O xford, 1970. R ansom , Josephine. Short H istory o f the Theosophical Society. Adyar: T heosophical Publishing H o u se, 1938. Reyner, J. H . Ouspensky: The U nsung Genius. L ondon: G eorge Allen and U nw in, 1 9 8 1 . R ingbom , Sixten. “A rt in th e ‘E poch o f th e G reat Spiritual’: O ccult E lem ents in the Early T h eo ry o f A bstract P a in tin g .” J o u rn a l o f the W arburg a n d Courta u ld Institutes 2 4 (1 9 6 6 ): 3 8 6 —418. ---------- The Sounding Cosmos. A Study o f the Spiritualism o f K andinsky a n d the Genesis o f A b stra ct P a in tin g . Abo [T u rk u ], Finland: Abo A kadem i, 1970. A c ta A cadem iae Aboensis, ser. A: H um an io ra. Vol. 38, n r 2. R oerich, Elena. Letters 1929-1938. N ew York: Agni Yoga Society, 1954. O rig i­ nally published in Russian by th e Latvian R oerich Society in Riga in 1939. Ryan, C. J. H . P. Blavatsky a n d the Theosophical M ovement. Pasadena: T heosophical U niversity Press, 1937. R ozhnov, V. E. Proroki i chudotvortsy. M oscow : Politicheskaia literatura, 1977. [Sabaneev] Sabaneef, L eonid. “ Religious and M ystical T rends o f Russia at the T urn o f th e C en tu ry .” R ussian R eview 2 4 :4 (O cto b er 1965): 3 5 4 -6 8 . Sabaneev, L eonid. Skria b in . M oscow : Skorpion, 1916. Schloezer, Boris Fedorovich. A . Skriabin: monografiia o Uchnosti i tvorchestve. Berlin: G rani, 1923. English translation, Scriabin: A r tis t a n d Mystic. T rans­ lated by N icholas Slonimsky. Berkeley: U niversity o f California Press, 1987. Scholem , G ershom . On the K abbalah a n d Its Symbolism. N ew York: Schocken, 1969. Seligm ann, K urt. M agic, Supernaturalism a n d Religion. N ew York: P antheon, 1948. S in n ett, Alfred Percy. The Early Days o f Theosophy in Europe. L ondon: T heosophical Publishing H o u se, 1922. ------------ Incidents in the Life o f M m e Blavatsky, L ondon: G eorge Redway, 1886. Solov’ev, S. M . Z h iz n ’ i tvorcheskaia evoliutsiia V ladim ira Solov’eva. Brussels: Foyer O riental C hretien, 1977.

Spence, Lewis. A n Encyclopaedia o f Occultism. 1920. R eprinted Secaucus, N .J.: C itadel Press, 1977. Steiner, R udolf. A n Autobiography. Blauvelt, N.Y.: R u d o lfS te in e r P ublications, 1977. -----------The Essential Steiner. E d ited by R o b e rt A. M cD erm o tt. San Francisco: H arp er and Row, 1984. S teiner, R udolf, and M arie Steiner-von Sivers. Correspondence a n d D ocum ents 1901—1925. L o n d o n : R u d o lfS te in e r Press, 19 8 8. Taylor, M errily E. K em em bering Pyotr D em ianovich Ouspensky. N ew H aven: Yale U niversity Press, 1978. The Theosophical M ovem ent 1875—1925; A H istory a n d a Survey. N ew York: E. P. D u tto n , [1 9 2 5 ]. T ru b etsk o i, E. N . M irosozertsanie VI. S. Solov’eva. 2 vols. M oscow : Izdanie avtora, 1913. T um in s, V. A. “ E n lig h ten m en t and M ysticism in E ig h tee n th -C en tu ry Russia.” Studies on Voltaire a n d the Eighteenth C entury. 5 8 (1 9 6 7 ): 1 6 7 1 -8 8 . T urgeneva, Asya. “A ndrei Belyi i R u d o l’f Steiner.” Mosty 1 3 -1 4 (1 9 6 7 -1 9 6 8 ): 2 3 6 -5 1 . [T urgeneva] T urgenieff, Asya. E rrin eru n g en a n K u d o lf Steiner. S tu ttg art: Freies G eistesleben, 1973. T urgeneva, N . “ O tv e t N . A. B erdiaevu p o p o v o d u A ntroposofii.” P u t’ (Paris), 2 5 (D ecem b er 1930): 9 3 -1 0 4 . U nderh ill, Evelyn. Mysticism. A S tu d y in the N a tu re a n d D evelopm ent o f M a n ’s S piritu a l Consciousness. 1910. N ew York: N e w A m erican Library, 1955. Vestnik. Satyat N a sti Paro D harm ah. G eneva [p rin ted in Bruxelles, G eneva, T al­ linn]: 1 9 2 4 -1 9 3 9 . E d ited by A nna R am enskaia, Tsetsiliia G eP m bol’d t, and Elena Solovskaia. Vysheslavtsev, Boris. “ K rishnam urti (zavershenie teosofii).” Pw ijl(Paris) ^ ( D e ­ cem ber 1928): 9 1 -1 0 7 . W achsm uth, G uenther. The L ife a n d Work o f K u d o lf Steiner. 2 d ed. Blauvelt, N.Y.: Spiritual Science Library, 1989. W achtm eister, C ountess C onstance. Reminiscences o f H . P. Blavatsky a n d The Secret Doctrine. L o n d o n : T heosophical P ublishing Society, 1893. R eprinted W heaton, 111.: T heosophical P ublishing H o u se , 1976. W aite, A rth u r E dw ard. A N ew Encyclopedia o f Freemasonry. N ew York: W eathervane, 19 7 0 . R ep rin t o f 1937 ed itio n , published in one volum e, o f original 1911 ed itio n , p ublished in tw o volum es. ------------Lam ps o f Western Mysticism. 1923. Blauvelt, N.Y.: R u d o lfS te in e r P u b li­ cations, 1973. W are, T im othy. The O rthodox Church. Baltim ore: P enguin, 1964. W ebb, Jam es. The O ccult U nderground. LaSalle, 111.: O pen C o u rt, 1974. W eber, E ugen. France, F in de Siecle. C am bridge, M ass.: H arv ard U niversity Press, 1986. W eisberger, E dw ard, ed. The S p iritu a l in A r t: A bstract P a in tin g 1890—1985 [E xhibition C atalog, Los A ngeles C o u n ty M useum o f A rt], N ew York: A b­ beville, 1986.

W iesberger, H ella. A u s dem Leben M arie Steiner-von Sivers; Biqgraphische Beitrage u n d eine Bibliographic. D ornach: D er R u d o lf Steiner-NachIassverw altung, 1956. W iesberger, H ella, and W alter K ugler, eds. Im M itte lp u n kt Aer Mensch. B in E in fu h ru n a in die ausaewdhlten Werke R u d o lf Steiners. F rankfurt am M ain: Fischer, 1985. W oIoschin [Sabashnikova-V oloshina], M argarita. D ie g r u n e Schlange. Lebenserinnerungen einer M alerin. 1965. F rankfurt am M ain: Fischer, 1982. Zirkoff, Boris de. H ow The Secret D octrine o f H . P. Blavatsky Was W ritten. Adyar: T heosophical Publishing H o u se , 1977.

Index

A dyar (M adras, India; T h eosophical Soci­ ety H ead q u arters), 4 0 , 4 1 , 56, 5 9 , 7 3 , 75, 9 8 , 181, 2 3 8 n .5 2 ; Kam enskaia in, 1 5 I, 171, 2 4 1 n .l; R oerich in, 195; and S.P.R. scandal, 4 1 -4 2 A dyar A rt C en tre, 195 A gni Yoga, 195, 196 A grippa von N ettesheim (1 4 8 6 -1 5 3 5 ; G er­ m an philo so p h er and m ystic), 21 A hrim an, 1 3 3 -1 3 5 , 2 3 4 n .6 0 Akashic record, 122, 24 9 Aksakov, C o u n t A leksandr N ikolaevich (1 8 3 2 -1 9 0 3 ; Spiritualist), 2 4 , 4 4 Alba (pseud.). See A nna Kamenskaia A lbigenses, 131 alchemy, 10, 11, 16, 17, 2 0 , 2 1 , 2 2 , 2 6 , 31, 7 2 , 127, 2 1 1 n . l l , 2 4 4 n .2 8 A lexander I, Tsar (1 7 7 7 -1 8 2 5 ; ru led 1 8 0 1 -1 8 2 5 ), 1 7 -1 8 A lexander II, Tsar (1 8 1 8 -1 8 8 1 ; ru led 1 8 5 5 -1 8 8 1 ), 24 A lexander III, T sar (1 8 4 5 -1 8 9 4 ; ru led 1 8 8 1 -1 8 9 4 ), 2 4 , 38 A ll-U nity, 7 5 , 1 24 , 127 , 14 6 ; VI. So­ lov’ev’s Vse-Edinstvoy 2 3 0 n .6 A m m onius Saccas (c. 175—2 4 2; p h ilo so ­ p h er and m ystic), 28 anagogy, 16 A n c ie n t Wisdom. See A nnie Besant A ndreev, L eonid N ikolaevich (1 8 7 1 1919; d ecad en t w riter), 194 anim al m agnetism , 2 2 , 2 5 , 211 A nisim ova-Stanevich, Vera Oskarevna (1 8 9 0 -1 9 6 7 ; A n th ro p o so p h ist, transla­ to r), 1 0 0 ,1 7 6 A nnenkova, O lga N ikolaevna (d. 1949; A n th ro p o so p h ist, au th o rized translator o f Steiner in Russia), 2 2 6 n .4 7 A nthroposophy, d o ctrin e, 1 2 8 -1 3 6 ; in Russia, 9 4 -1 0 4 , 1 6 3 -1 6 7 , 1 7 5 -1 7 7 ; 2 2 8 n .2 , 2 2 9 n .4 , 2 3 3 n .4 5 , 2 3 4 n .5 4 , 2 4 0 n .9 5 , 2 4 1 n .8 , 2 4 2 n .l3 , and passim; survey of, 3 2 -3 4 A nuchkin, Ivan A ristarkhovich (St. P eters­ b u rg T h eo so p h ist), 6 7 apocalypticism , 120, 15 9 , 194

A rgonauts (Sym bolist w riters’ g ro u p ), 8, 7 2 , 7 3 , 8 9 , 92 A rn o ld , Sir E dw in (1 8 3 2 -1 9 0 4 ; a u th o r o f th e very p o p u lar L ig h t o f A sia ), 2 1 6 n .2 2 Arya Samaj (m o d ern variant o f H in d u ism ), 40 aryan race, 59, 102, 118, 119, 183, 184, 2 4 1 n .3 Aseev, A leksandr (m edical d o cto r, em igre occultist), 1 7 8 , 2 4 4 n .2 5 A skol’dov (Alekseev), Sergei Alekseevich (1 8 7 1 -1 9 4 5 ; professor, p h ilo so p h er), 2 4 2 n .9 astral body ( ka-ma-rupa), 1 2 0 , 1 2 2 , 129, 168, 2 3 3 n .4 5 ,2 4 9 , 251 astral plane (kam a-loka·), 1 2 1 -1 2 2 , 165, 1 9 7 , 2 0 1 -2 0 2 , 2 0 4 , 2 3 1 n .9 , 2 4 9 , 2 5 0 , 251 astrology, 5, 10, 11, 16, 2 2 , 2 6 A tkinson, W illiam W. See Ram acharaka A tlantis, 70 A tm a, A tm an , 120, 1 4 2 , 1 5 7 , 2 4 9 , 251 a to n e m e n t, 1 4 9 , 2 3 7 n .4 2 aura, 39, 1 2 2 , 1 2 3 , 1 9 7 , 2 3 2 n .3 0 , 2 4 9 , 25 0 ; aura colors, 2 5 0 auto m atic w riting, 2 2 , 2 3 , 2 5 , 2 8 , 2 1 2 n .2 0 B aha’is, 193 Bal’m o n t, E katerina Alekseevna (1 8 6 7 1 9 5 6 ; T h eo so p h ist, first wife o f K. D . Bal’m o n t), 8 9 , 9 0 , 2 2 6 n .4 7 B aP m ont, K on stan tin D m itrievich ( 1 8 6 7 1 9 4 2 ; T h eo so p h ist, Sym bolist p o e t), 8, 2 1 , 6 4 , 9 0 , 9 6 , 1 5 2 , 1 5 9 , 161, 181, 2 0 6 , 2 2 9 n .3 B arabash, E. F. (Spiritualist), 4 5 —46 B aryshkina-G rigorova, N ad ezh d a A fa­ n as’evna (1 8 8 5 -1 9 6 4 ; A n th ro p o so p h ist, wife o f B. P. G rigorov), 8 9 , 98 Batiushkov, Pavel N ikolaevich (1 8 6 4 1930?; T h eo so p h ist), 8 , 5 7 , 5 8 , 7 2 , 89, 1 4 4 , 1 52 , 1 8 2 , 190 B audelaire, C harles (1 8 2 1 -1 8 6 7 ; French Sym bolist p o e t), 19

Belotsvetov, Nikolai (Anthroposophist), 103 Belye Golubi. See W hite Doves Belyi, Andrei (pseud, o f Boris Nikolaevich Bugaev, 1880-1934; Symbolist writer, critic, and Anthroposophist), 6, 8 -9 , 27, 36, 72, 74, 89, 103, 153, 161, 164, 185, 191, 198-205, 206, 224n.29, 226n.48, 229n.3, 240n.90, 241n.8, 2 4 2 n .l3 ; and Anthroposophy, 9 8 -9 9 , 10 1 -102, 166, 175, 176, 177, 224n.25, 225n.27, 227n.54, 240n.95; and Mintslova, 9 0 -9 3 , 224nn. 22 and 26, 225n.33; and Symbolism as a theosophical world view, 9, 36, 159, 165, 189, 190, 192, 198, 228n.56, 230n.8, 232n.30. M a j o r W o r k s : Petersburg, novel, 122, 198, 2 00-204; play, 177; The Silver Dove, 9, 27, 198-200 Benedictus Anthroposophicai Lodge, 101, 102 Berdiaev, Nikolai Aleksandrovich (18741948; idealist philosopher), 79, 127, 128, 142, 146, 150, 153, 157, 158, 159, 160, 165-168, 188, 207, 220, 2 3 6 -2 3 7 ; and Belyi, 8 -9 , 204, 240; and Mintslova, 90, 92, 93; and Steiner, 102; and Uspenskii, 74 Berdiaeva, E. G. (Kiev Theosophist), 65 Bernhardt, Sarah (1844-1923; French ac­ tress), 23 Besant, Annie (1847-1933; president of the International Theosophical Society), 32, 53, 54, 63, 65, 7 7 -7 8 , 90, 138, 191, 197, 198, 218n.8, 229n.4, 230n.8, 238n.52, and passim; and Kamenskaia, 55 -5 6 , 171, 174, 180; and Krishnamurti, 60, 97, 139-140, 219; and Russian Theosophy, 143, 144, 14 6 -147, 149, 152, 183, 187; and Steiner, 3 2 -3 4 , 60, 9 4 -9 5 , 9 7 -9 8 ; and Theosophical doctrine, 30, 36, 125126, 131-132, 150, 155, 201-202, 236n.30, 237n.42; and Uspenskii, 75. M a j o r W o r k s : A ncient Wisdom, 71, 114, 168, 197, 198, 250; Esoteric Chris­ tianity 114, 131, 144, 173, 230n.8, 236n.30; Thought-Forms, 197, 201, 232n.30, 2 4 6 n .l4 Bhagavad-Gita, 17, 34, 59, 71, 152, 161, 166, 193, 194, 227n.55; Ramenskaia's dissertation on, 182

Blavatskii, Nikifor VasiPevich (Mme Blavatsky’s husband, vice-governor o f E re­ van), 39, 213n.2 Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna (Mme Blavatsky, H.P.B., 1831—1891; founder o f the Theosophical Society), 3, 2 9 -3 4 , 35, 45 -5 3 , 67, 8 9 -9 1 , and passim; biogra­ phy of, 38—43; and Christianity, 141; and espionage, 214n.6; founding o f T. S., 29, 39—41; and Freemasonry, 139; and Mahatmas, 41, 138; reception in Russia, 4 3 -4 5 , 5 1 -5 2 ; and VI. So­ lov’ev, 46—17; and Vs. Solov’ev, 4 7 -5 0 ; and S.P.R. scandal, 4 1 -4 2 ; and Spiritual­ ism, 29. W o r k s : Isis Unveiled, 31, 40, 71, 114, 200, 218n.8; Iz peshcher i debrei Indostana (From the Caves and J u n ­ gles o f H industan), 5 1 -5 2 , 69; Key to Theosophy, 46, 70, 141, 221n.29, 238n.49; Secret Doctrine, 31, 35, 43, 53, 56, 59, 62, 71, 114, 141, 156, 194, 2 1 5 n .l2 , 229n.3, 231nn. 13 and 21, 2 45-246 n .7 ; Voice o f the Silence, 59, 161, 189, 197, 229n.3 Blok, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich (1 8 8 0 1921; Symbolist poet), 2 7 , 92, 161, 200, 242n.9 Bocca, Pietro (Italian Theosophist; hus­ band o f NataPia Pisareva), 63 Boehme, Jacob (1575—1624; German philosopher and mystic), 21, 29, 9 2, 145 Bogomils (twelfth-century Bulgarian heret­ ical sect), 128 Bogushevskii, Vasilii L’vovich (Theosophist-publisher), 86 -8 7 Boianus, Nikolai Karlovich (medical doc­ tor, Theosophist), 65, 83, 85, 89 Bolsheviks, 63, 64, 65, 71, 173-174, 177-179 , 183 -1 8 5 , 227n.53, 2 4 2 n .ll, 2 4 3 n .l8 Boltin, Apollon (early Spiritualist), 23 Bornio, A. V. (Theosophist), 65, 83, 85 Boutroux, Emile (1 8 4 5 -1 9 2 1 ; philoso­ pher and historian o f religion), 34 Brahma (the Creator), 117, 250 Brahman (the Absolute), 133, 250, 252 Brahmanism (form o f Indian philosophi­ cal, theological, ethical th o u g h t based on Vedas and Upanishads), 47, 125, 148, 2 3 5 n .l4 ; Amnie Besant’s conver­ sion to , 32, 36, 56, 138, 139, 238n.52

Briusov, VaJerii Iakovlevich (1 8 7 3 -1 9 2 4 ; Sym bolist p o e t), 2 1 , 2 7 , 9 1 , 159, 2 2 4 n .2 9 von B rockdorff, C o u n t Cay L orenz (1 8 4 4 -1 9 2 1 ) and C o u n tess Sophie (1 8 4 8 -1 9 0 6 ; G erm an T h eo so p h ists), 94 Brom lei (Shushkevich), N a d ezh d a N ikolaevna (1 8 8 9 -1 9 6 6 ; A n th ro p o so phist, dram atist), 177 B ro th erh o o d o f th e G reat W hite L odge, 31, 4 0 , 4 1 , 119, 2 4 4 n .3 5 , 2 5 1 . See also M ahatm as B row ning, E lizabeth B arrett (1 8 0 6 -1 8 6 1 ; English p o e t), 23 B ru n o , G iordano (1 5 4 8 -1 6 0 0 ; heretical m onk, philosopher), 5 6 , 7 1 ; G iordano B runo T heosophical L o d g e, 183 Brusilov, Aleksei A lekseevich, G eneral (1 8 5 3 -1 9 2 6 ; m arried to niece o f M m e Blavatsky, N adezh d a Zhelikhovskaia), 2 1 7 n .3 8 B ucke, B ichard M aurice (1 8 3 7 -1 9 0 2 ; m edical d o cto r, m ystic), 178 B uddha, G autam a S id d h arth a (5 6 0 —4 7 7 B .C .; fo u n d er o f B u d d h ism ), 4 5 , 138, 144, 156- 157; B uddha-A vatar, 4 3 B uddhism , 2 9 , 33, 52, 1 2 5 , 2 1 6 n .l9 , 2 3 8 n .5 2 , 2 3 9 n .6 4 , and passim; and Christianity, 4 6 -4 7 , 1 4 2 -1 4 3 , 1 4 8 , 153, 154, 155, 167; and T heosophy, 31, 46- 4 7 , 51, 11 5 , 1 1 6 , 1 1 7 , 123, 130, 138, 148, 151, 152, 1 5 5 -1 5 7 ; and T olstoi, 1 6 1 -1 6 2 ; an d U spenskii, 7 4 75 Bugaev, Boris. SeeA ndrei Belyi Bugaeva, A leksandra D m itrievna ( 1858— 1922; A ndrei Belyi’s m o th e r), 89 Bugaeva, Klavdiia. See Klavdiia Vasil’eva Bulgakov, M ikhail A fanas’evich (1 8 9 1 1940; dram atist an d novelist), 128 Bulgakov, Sergei N ikolaevich (1 8 7 1 — 1944; idealist p hilo so p h er, p riest), 7 8 , 7 9 , 127, 160, 2 4 2 n . l l B ulw er-L ytton, E dw ard (1 8 0 3 -1 8 7 3 ; n o v ­ elist, occultist), 19 b u rn ed -o v er district (in U n ite d States), 2 1 2 n .2 5 Butkovskaia, A nna (T h eo so p h ist, follow er o f G urdjieff), 75 B utlerov, A leksandr M ikhailovich (1 8 2 8 — 1886; Spiritualist; chem istry professor), 24

Bykov, V ladim ir Pavlovich (Spiritualist, ed i­ to r), 2 6 , 2 7 , 140, 144 C agliostro, A lessandro, C o m te de (1743?— 1 7 9 5 ; o ccultist), 4 , 16, 4 8 , 2 1 0 n .3 C astrates (Skoptsy)y 15 C athars, 131 censorship, 5, 18, 2 2 , 2 4 , 5 8 , 7 0 , 173; o f Secret D octriney 71 C hekhov, M ikhail A leksandrovich (1 8 9 1 1 9 5 5 ; A n th ro p o so p h ist, actor, d irecto r), 8, 3 7 , 177 C hertkov, V ladim ir G rigorievich (1 8 5 4 1 9 3 6 ; close associate o f Lev T olstoi), 161 chirom ancy, 4 , 5 , 22 Chistiakov, P avelA leksandrovich (S piritual­ ist, second ed ito r o f Rebus), 2 5 , 2 6 , 66, 8 6 , 140, 151, 169, 2 1 8 n .l0 C h rist Im pulse, 3 3 , 1 3 1 -1 3 3 , 144, 146, 1 5 0 , 1 6 4 , 2 3 4 n n . 53 an d 55 C hulitskaia, Iraida T im ofeevna (d. 1913; T h eo so p h ist), 2 2 0 n .2 6 C hulkov, G eorgii Ivanovich (1 8 7 9 -1 9 3 9 ; mystical anarchist, w riter), 2 7 , 161, 2 0 9 n .3 C ollins, M abel (1 8 5 1 -1 9 2 7 ; p ro m in en t B ritish T h eo so p h ist, w riter), 7 1 , 7 2 , 86, 152 C ooper-O akley, Isabel (1 8 5 4 -1 9 1 4 ; I n ­ d ia n -b o rn E nglish T h eo so p h ist), 63 C o ro n a M u n d i (In tern atio n al A rt C en te r), 195 C o u lo m b , E m m a (T h eo so p h ist, close asso­ ciate o f M m e Blavatsky), 4 1 -4 2 C reu zer, G eo rg Friedrich (1 7 7 1 -1 8 5 8 ; classicist, historian o f religion), 34 C u b o -F u tu rism (art m o v em en t), 178, 2 4 2 n .l6 v on C zinski, Czeslaw (disreputable o c ­ cultist, M artin ist), 2 0 9 n .2 D al’, V ladim ir Ivanivich (1 8 0 1 —1 8 7 2 ; Spir­ itualist; d ictionary com piler), 23 D arw inism , 7 4 , 7 5 , 157, 2 0 6 , 2 3 9 n .7 1 deification (theosis), 145 D elville, Jean (1 8 6 7 -1 9 4 3 ; F ren ch p h ilo ­ sophical Sym bolist p ainter, T h eo so p h ist, w riter), 7 , 19 D eussen, Paul (1 8 4 5 —1 9 1 9 ; G erm an sp e ­ cialist in In d ian philosophy), 34 devachan, 121, 1 2 3 , 1 5 1 , 2 3 8 n .4 9 , 2 5 0

Devas, 250 dharm a, 6 6 , 118, 183, 1 8 4 , 1 8 5 , 2 5 0 D hyan -C hohans, 1 1 7 -1 1 8 , 2 5 0 Diagjhilev, Serge (Sergei Pavlovich, 1 8 7 2 1 929; im pressario), 57 D iks, Boris. See Boris L ehm ann D ionysianism , 170 D ionysos, 31, 59, 118 D m itrevskii, F ather, 6 8 , 146, 1 4 7 , 153, 168, 2 3 7 n .3 8 D obroliubov, A leksandr M ikhailovich (1 8 7 6 -1 9 4 4 ? ; decad en t p o et w ho fou n d ed his ow n religious sect), 71, 161 D obuzhinskiii, M stislav Valerianovich (1 8 7 5 -1 9 5 7 ; artist), 2 4 3 n .l8 D ostoevskii, F ed o r M ikhailovich (1 8 2 1 1881; novelist), 37, 102, 152, 2 0 3 , 2 2 0 n .2 2 , 2 2 9 n .4 D u k h o b o rs (religious sect), 86 “ D ukh ov noe zn an ie” P ublishing H o u se,

100 D uP rel, Karl L udw ig (1 8 3 9 -1 8 9 9 ; G er­ m an occultist, Spriritualist), 2 1 , 2 4 dvoeverie (dual faith), 15 D zyan, Stanzas of. See H elen a Blavatsky E ckartshausen, Karl von (1 7 5 2 -1 8 0 3 ; G er­ m an m ystic, occultist), 17, 2 1 , 83 E ckhart, M eister (c. 1 2 6 0 -1 3 2 7 ; G erm an D om inican mystic and heretic), 2 9 , 7 1 , 101 Eddy, M ary Baker (1 8 2 1 -1 9 1 0 ; A m erican fo u n d er o f C hristian Science), 2 1 2 n .2 5 ego, 121, 148, 2 3 3 n .4 5 , 2 5 0 , 251 E lagin, Ivan Perfil’evich (1 7 2 5 —1794; F ree­ m ason), 17 elem entals, 2 0 1 —2 0 2 , 2 1 5 n .l4 , 2 2 7 n .5 5 , 2 4 9 ,2 5 0 - 2 5 1 Ellis. See Kobylinskii-Ellis em anationism , 115, 116 Encausse, G erard. See Papus E n lig h ten m en t, 16, 7 5 , 9 9 , 1 0 0, 131 Erassi, N ikolai Ivanovich (d . 1 9 3 0 ; T heosophist), 180, 2 4 4 n .2 7 E rm olova, M ar’ia G rigorievna (wife o f G overnor o fT iflis, friend o f Fadeev fam ­ ily), 2 1 3 n .l E rtel, M ikhail A leksandrovich (d. early 1920s? T h eo so p h ist), 8 9 , 9 1 , 9 3 , 9 8 , 22 4 n .2 5 Esoteric C hristianity. See A nnie B esant

esoteric section, 6 6 , 9 0 , 1 4 4 , 1 4 7 , 2 2 0 2 2 1 n .2 9 E speranto, 8 6 , 2 2 3 n .l6 eternal recurrence, 6 , 7 5 , 2 3 1 n ,1 2 eth er, 2 4 8 , 2 4 9 , 2 5 0 , 251 etheric body (d o u b le), 120, 121, 129, 2 5 0 , 251 evolutionism , 1 1 5 , 158 Fabian socialism , 3 2 , 3 6 , 5 6 , 143 Fadeev, Rostislav A ndreevich (M m e Blavatsky’s u n d e , sh o rt sto ry w riter), 38 Fadeev family, 3 8 , 4 0 , 2 1 3 n .l Fadeeva, E lena A ndreevna (1814—1842; M m e Blavatsky’s m o th e r, m in o r w riter), 38 Fadeeva, E lena Pavlovna (1 7 8 7 -1 8 6 0 ; M m e Blavatsky’s g ra n d m o th e r), 38 Fadeeva, N a d ezh d a A ndreevna (1 8 2 8 19 1 9 ; M m e Blavatsky’s a u n t, intim ate friend), 4 4 , 2 1 3 n .l fakirism, 22 Fedorov, N ikolai F edorovich (1 8 2 8 -1 9 0 3 ; religious and mystic p h ilo so p h er), 160, . 2 3 7 n ,4 2 Filosofov, D m itrii V ladim irovich (1 8 7 2 1 9 4 0 ; p hilosopher, w riter, friend o f th e M erezhkovskns, son o f A nna Filosofova), 5 7 , 6 4 , 7 8 , 9 6 , 103, 160, 163 Filosofova, A nna Pavlovna (1 8 3 7 -1 9 1 2 ; T h eo so p h ist, p h ilan th ro p ist), 8, 57, 58, 6 3 , 6 4 , 6 7 , 9 6 , 1 6 3 , 2 1 8 n .l0 , 2 2 0 n .2 4 , 2 2 5 n .4 1 Flagellants (IChlysty), 15, 1 2 8 , 145, 2 4 3 n .l8 F lam m arion, Cam ille (1 8 4 2 —1925; F rench astro n o m er, Spiritualist), 21 Florenskii, Pavel A leksandrovich (1 8 8 2 19 3 7 ; priest, th eo lo g ian , ph ilo so p h er), 127 Florovskii, G eorgii Vasil’evich (1 8 9 3 19 7 9 ; priest, th eo lo g ian , ch u rch h isto ­ rian), 1 6 5 , 20 7 folk soul, Slavic, 7 8 , 9 3 , 9 5 , 102, 103, 1 1 8 , 164 F o n -N o l’d e, A. A. (Spiritualist), 27 Forsh, O P ga D m itrievna (1 8 7 3 -1 9 6 1 ; w riter, early T h eo so p h ist), 8 , 2 4 2 n .9 fo rtu n e-tellin g , 3, 16 Fox Sisters, Kate (1 8 4 1 -1 8 9 2 ) and M arga-

ret (1 8 3 8 -1 8 9 3 ; pioneers o f m odern Spiritualism ), 23 France, A natoIe (1 8 4 4 -1 9 2 4 ; p opular French w riter), 19 Frank, Sem en L iudvigovich (1 8 7 7 -1 9 5 0 ; religious philosop h er), 2 0 7 , 2 4 2 n . l l Frazer, Sir Jam es G eorge (1 8 5 4 -1 9 4 1 ; British an th ro p o lo g ist, a u th o r o f The Golden Bough), 34 free will, 125, 132, 1 3 3 , 150 Freem asonry, 5, 1 6 -1 7 , 2 0 , 2 2 , 3 8 , 177, 179, 2 3 8 n .4 8 ; M m e Blavatsky’s ties to , 139; and Russian co u rt, 18, 22; an d T heosophy, 6 0 , 838 4, 85, 88, 1 3 8 -1 3 9 , 1 4 0 , 1 5 1 , 1 6 8 169, 2 2 4 n .2 9 , 2 3 5 n .6 . See also M artinism, R osicrucianism F rench occult revival, 1 9 -2 2 F reud, S igm und (1 8 5 6 -1 9 3 9 ; A ustrian fo u n d er o f psychoanalysis), 2 2 7 n .5 6 From the Caves a n d Jungles o f H in d u sta n . See H elena Blavatsky G agarin, G. (K aluga T h eo so p h ist), 67 fon G an, P e tr Alekseevich (1 7 8 9 -1 8 7 3 ; M m e Blavatsky’s fath er), 38 G ardenina, M . F. (T h eo so p h ist), 73 G arrett, Fydell E d m u n d (1 8 6 5 -1 9 0 7 ; p o p ­ ular au th o r), 50 G autam a B uddha. See B uddha G d ’m b o l’d t, Liutsiia L iudvigovna (d. 1933; T h eo so p h ist), 57 G eP m boP dt, Tsetsiliia L iudvigovna (d. 1936; T h eo so p h ist, close associate o f A nna K am enskaia), 5 5 , 5 6 , 5 7 , 7 0 , 7 9 , 172, 174, 181, 1 8 2 -1 8 3 G er’e, Sofiia V ladim irovna (d. after 1922; T h eo so p h ist, p resid en t, M oscow R T O ), 6 5, 175 G ern et1 N ina K onstantinovna (d. 1932; early T h eo so p h ist), 5 5 , 5 6 , 5 7 , 6 4 , 6 7 , 72, 7 3, 2 1 7 n .2 G ershenzon, M ikhail O sipovich (1 8 6 9 1925; intellectual h istorian), 2 4 2 n .l0 G ippius. See H ippius G nosis, G nosticism , 2 1 , 3 1 , 4 6 , 1 1 5 , 128, 160, 192, 2 0 6 , 2 2 8 -2 2 9 n .2 ; A eons, 2 3 0 n .7 ; in A nthroposophy, 33, 144, 165, 188, 22 8 n .2 ; in T heosophy, 33, 51, 114, 116, 124 , 1 3 2, 1 4 4 , 1 8 8 , 2 0 7 , 2 2 8 n .2 ; T h e Call, 9, 1 9 9 , 2 3 4 n .5 5 ; T he C hristos, 144 , 2 3 4 n ,5 5 ; D em io u rg o s,

2 2 8 n .2 ; M anichaeanism , 128; Plerom a, 2 3 0 n .7 , 2 3 6 n .3 0 ; VaIentinian G nosis, 1 2 3 , 1 2 7 , 1 4 5 , 2 3 0 n .6 , 236 G o d builders, 104, 160, 162, 170, 103, 206 G o d -M an , 7 4 -7 5 , 1 4 4 -1 4 5 , 165 G od-seekers, 7 , 7 9 , 1 4 5 , 1 5 0 , 1 5 3 , 160, 1 6 5 , 167, 1 7 2 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 7 G od-secking, 8, 36, 7 7 , 7 8 , 7 9 , 103, 115, 1 5 4 , 158, 161, 1 6 3 , 164, 167, 186, 189 G o d -w orking. See T h eu rg y G o eth e , Jo h an n W olfgang (1 7 4 9 -1 8 3 2 ; G erm an w riter, th in k er) 7 0 , 7 8 , 9 4 , 1 0 1 , 164 G oeth ean ism , 101, 164 G o eth ean u m (A nthroposophical Tem ple in D o rn ach ), 1 0 1 , 2 2 7 n ,5 3 G o g o l, N ikolai Vasil’evich (1 8 0 9 —1852; w riter), 18, 2 2 0 n .2 2 G olitsyn, A leksandr, Prince (1 7 7 3 —18 4 4 ; occu ltist, m inister o f ed u catio n , intim ate friend o f T sar A lexander I), 1 7 -1 8 G olitsyn, A leksandr, P rince (occultist, Fadeev family friend; gran d son o f Prince A leksandr G olitsyn, A lexander I ’s in ti­ m ate) 3 8 -3 9 , 2 1 3 n .2 Golos vseobshchei liu b vi ( The Voice o f U n i­ versal Love, M oscow jou rn al), 26 G oncharova, A nna Sergeevna (T h e o so ­ p h ist), 72 G orkii, M aksim (Aleksei Peshkov, 1 8 6 8 19 3 6 ; w riter, social activist), 8, 160, 17 0 , 194, 2 3 9 n .7 5 G race, divine, 12, 146, 1 4 9 , 162, 2 3 6 2 3 7 n .3 7 G re a tW h ite B ro th e rh o o d . See B ro th e r­ h o o d o f th e G reat W hite L odge G rigorov, Boris Pavlovich (1 8 8 3 -1 9 4 5 ; A n th ro p o so p h ist, head o f M oscow C ir­ cle), 8 9 , 9 3 , 9 8 , 1 0 0 , 2 2 4 n .2 5 G rigorova-B aryshkina, N ad ezh d a. See N ad ezh d a B aryshkina-G rigorova G uaita, Stanislas d e, M arquis (1 8 6 0 -1 8 9 7 ; decad en t p o e t, occultist), 19, 2 0 , 2 3 5 n .6 G upta Vidya (occult know ledge), 151, 2 3 8 n .4 9 , 251 G urdjieff, G eorgii Ivanovich (1 8 6 6 -1 9 4 9 ; occultist, teach er o f “psychic sciences” ), 4 , 8, 37 , 75 G uzik, Jan (P olish m edium ), 27

H aeckel, E rn st (1 8 3 4 -1 9 1 9 ; G erm an posi­ tivist philosopher), 158, 2 3 9 n .7 1 H ah n . See G an handicrafts, 6 2 , 68, 185 H a rtm a n n , E douard von (1 8 4 2 -1 9 0 6 ; G erm an psychologist, developed th eo ry o f the U nconscious), 3 4 , 103, 2 2 7 n .5 6 H a rtm a n n , F ranz (1 8 3 8 -1 9 1 2 ; G erm an occultist, T h eo so p h ist, close associate o f M m e Blavatsky), 71, 8 6 , 2 1 5 n . l l H ath a Yoga. See Yoga H erd er, Johann G o ttfried (1744—1 8 0 3 ; G erm an cultural philo so p h er), 34 H erm etic O rd er o f th e G olden D aw n, 19, 60 H erm eticism , 7 1 , 2 1 1 n . l l H ilarion (M abel C ollin’s personal M a­ hatm a), 152 H in d u ism , 2 9 , 60, 140, 1 4 1 , 1 4 2 , 143, 152, 2 5 1 ; See also Arya Samaj H in to n , C harles H o w ard (1 8 5 3 -1 9 0 7 ; British philosopher, a u th o r o f several po p u lar w orks on the fo u rth d im e n ­ sion), 178 H ippius, Z inaida N ikolaevna (1 8 6 9 -1 9 4 5 ; Sym bolist w riter, critic), 8 , 6 4 , 96 H o d g so n , R ichard (1 8 5 5 -1 9 0 5 ; English S.P.R. researcher w h o investigated M m e Blavatsky’s A dyar p h en o m en a ), 42 H o c n e -Wroi'ski, Joseph-M aria (1 7 7 8 — 1853; Polish m athem atician, o ccultist),

20 H o ffd in g , H arald (1 8 4 3 -1 9 3 1 ; D anish m etaphysician), 34, 1 0 3 , 2 2 7 n .5 6 H o m e , D aniel D unglas (1 8 3 3 —1886; fam ous Scotch-A m erican m edium , freq u en t guest in Russia), 2 4 , 39, 21 In .1 4 H tibbe-S chleiden, W ilhelm (1 8 4 6 -1 9 1 5 ; G erm an T heo so p h ist), 86 H u g o , V ictor (1 8 0 2 -1 8 8 5 ; F rench novel­ ist), 23 H uysm ans, Joris-Karl (1 8 4 8 -1 9 0 7 ; F rench decad en t w riter), 19 H ypatia o f A lexandria (3 7 0 -4 1 5 A . D . ; N eo -P lato n ist philo so p h er killed by C hristians), 2 1 8 n .8 ; as earlier incarna­ tion o f A nnie B esant, 56, 2 1 8 n .8 H ypatia Circle (St. P etersb u rg ), 57, 62 H ypnotism , 4, 5, 2 2 , 73 , 8 3 , 8 8 , 137, 179

“ I A M ” (S tein er’s self-conscious e g o ), 1 3 2 -1 3 3 , 149 Idealism , G erm an philosophical, 7 , 9 5 , 10 3 , 1 6 4, 2 3 4 n .4 7 Id e atio n , 2 3 0 - 2 3 I n .9 Il’in, Ivan A leksandrovich (1 8 8 2 -1 9 5 4 ; idealist philo so p h er, friend o f B erdiaev), 1 5 7 -1 5 8 Illu m in ism , 17 In carn atio n , d o ctrin e of, 1 4 9 , 2 3 7 n .4 2 individuality, 1 2 1 , 1 3 2 -1 3 3 , 1 4 2 , 148, 1 5 0 , 2 5 0 , 25 1. See also E go Isis Unveiled.. See H elen a Blavatsky Iu d in a, M ariia V eniam inovna (1 8 9 9 1 9 7 0 ; c o n cert pianist, T h eo so p h ist), 2 4 2 n .9 Iurkevich, Pamfil D anilovich (1 8 2 6 -1 9 7 4 ; professor o f philosophy, Spiritualist), 23 Ivanov, Viacheslav Ivanovich (1 8 6 6 -1 9 4 9 ; Sym bolist p o e t, philo so p h er, classicist, occultist), 8 , 8 9 , 1 5 9 , 2 0 7 ; an d D ionysianism , 170; in M ystical T riangle w ith Belyi and M intslova, 9 0 - 9 3 , 2 2 4 n n . 28 an d 2 9 ; an d Steiner, 9 3 , 9 9 , 164, 2 2 6 n .4 8 ; an d Sym bolism , 36, 191, 2 2 7 n .5 4 , 2 3 0 n .8 , 2 3 1 n .l9 ; and T h e o so ­ phy, 1 6 1 -1 6 2 Ivanov-R azum nik (R azum nik VasiPevich Ivanov, 1 8 7 8 -1 9 4 6 ; literary scholar, rad ­ ical idealist), 6, 2 4 2 n .9 I z m ra ka k svetu ( O u t o f the Darkness into Linht^ S t. P etersb u rg jo u rn al), 137 Iz id a (Isis, St. P etersb u rg jo u rn a l), 16, 2 2 , 85 Jnana Yoga. See Yoga Jo h an n esbau , 101 Jo h n sto n , C harles (1 8 6 7 -1 9 3 1 ; Irish T h e ­ o so p h ist, orientalist), 8 6 , 2 1 7 n ,3 8 Jo h n sto n , Vera (1 8 6 4 -1 9 2 3 ; translator, niece o f M m e Blavatsky, wife o f Charles Jo h n sto n ), 1 5 2 , 2 1 5 n .l3 , 2 1 7 n .3 8 Ju d g e, W illiam Q . (1 8 5 1 -1 8 9 6 ; A m erican T h eo so p h ist), 2 2 3 n .l9 Ju n g , C arl G ustav (1 8 7 5 -1 9 6 1 ; Swiss ana­ lytical psychologist), 9 9 , 127, 188, 2 2 7 n .5 6 , 2 3 3 - 2 3 4 n .4 7 Jun g ian archetype, 118 K abbalism , 10, 2 0 , 2 1 , 3 1 , 5 1 , 4 6 , 145 Kali Yuga (“ D ark A ge” ), 2 4 4 n .3 5 , 251

K am a-Ioka. See A stral plane K a m a rupa. See Astral body Kamenskaia, A nna Alekseevna (pseud Alba, 1867—1952; first and only presi­ d e n t o f Russian T heosophicaI Society), 4 7 , 5 4 -5 9 , 6 2 , 6 3 , 67, 7 1 , 7 6 -7 9 , 9 8 , 143, 147, 1 6 0 -1 6 1 , 174, 187, 193, 2 4 1 n .l, 2 4 5 n .3 6 ; and A nnie B esant, 5 5 -5 6 , 1 4 6 -1 4 7 ; death of, 186; escape from Russia, 174; m G eneva, 1 8 0 -1 8 2 , 184, 1 8 5 -1 8 6 ; as H in d u scholar, 1 5 1 152; an d R eligious-Philosophical S oci­ ety, 162—163; and R oerichs, 195, 2 4 6 n .9 ; and Vestnik teosofii 7 0 , 7 2 , 77, 80; visit to Adyar, 171, 173 Kamenskaia, M argarita Alekseevna (d. 1929; A nna Ram enskaia’s sister), 73 Kandinsky, Wasily (1 8 6 6 -1 9 4 4 ; m odern abstract painter, in terested in esotericism ), 8, 159, 17 8 , 191, 192, 193, 197, 198, 2 3 2 n .3 0 , 2 4 5 n .4 , 2 4 6 n .l2 K ant, Im m anuel (1 7 2 4 -1 8 0 4 ; G erm an E n ­ lig h ten m en t philosopher), 4 , 155 K aram zin, N ikolai M ikhailovich (1 7 6 6 1826; w riter and historian), 17 K ardec, Alan (H ippolyte L eon D enizard Rivail, 1 8 0 4 -1 8 6 9 ; F rench Spiritist), 2 1 ,2 3 karm a, 13, 31, 7 7 -7 8 , 115, 1 2 2 , 146, 157, 24Q n.95, 25 1 ; and Christianity, 146, 1 4 8 -1 5 0 , 2 3 7 n .3 7 ; an d evil, 124, 133; and free will, 125; and Russian n a ­ tional karm a, 7 8 , 138, 183, 2 0 4 ; T heosophical definition of, 1 2 4 -1 2 7 Katkov, M ikhail N ikiforovich (1 8 1 8 1887; new spaper ed ito r), 5 1 , 2 1 7 n .4 9 Keightley, B ertram (1 8 6 0 -1 9 4 5 ) and A rchibald (1 8 5 9 -1 9 3 0 ; English T heosophists), 6 3 , 2 1 5 n .l2 K eith, Jam es (B ritish F reem ason), 17 Kellet, A. S. (Sm olensk T h eo so p h ist), 83 Key to Theosophy. See H elen a Blavatsky Khlebnikov, Velimir (1 8 8 5 -1 9 2 2 ; futurist p o et), 178 Khlysty. See Flagellants K hodasevich, Vladislav Felitsianovich (1 8 8 6 -1 9 3 9 ; m o d ern ist p o e t), 2 3 2 n .3 3 K holshevnikova, Vera N ikolaevna (St. P e­ tersb u rg T heo so p h ist), 2 4 3 n .2 1 K hristoforova, K leopatra P etrovna (d. 1934; head o f T heosophical circle in M oscow , friend o f Belyi and M intslova),

85, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 102, 2 2 5 n .3 7 K h unrath, H einrich (1 5 6 0 -1 6 0 5 ; G erm an alchem ist), 21 Kireevskii, Ivan Vasil’evich (1 8 0 6 -1 8 5 6 ; religious thinker, Slavophile), 2 2 0 n .2 2 K irpichnikova, Iu . N . (first p resident o f M oscow ch ap te r o f Russian T h eosophical Society)» 6 5 , 66 Kiselev, N ikolai P etrovich (1 8 8 4 -1 9 6 5 ; m useum cu rato r, Spiritualist, o ccultist), 8 , 9 2 , 9 8 ,9 9 K itezh, legend o f the city o f, 2 4 3 n .l8 K n ig h th o o d , 9 1 , 9 2 , 131, 186, 2 4 3 n .l8 K nights o f th e G rail, 131 K nights o f th e R adiant City, 2 4 3 n .l8 K nights o f T ru th , 9 1 -9 2 K nights T em plar, 131 K obylinskii-Ellis, Lev L’vovich (1 8 7 9 1 947; Sym bolist w riter, o ccultist), 8, 89, 9 2 , 9 3 , 9 8 , 9 9 , 102, 103, 140, 148, 158, 164, 167, 190, 2 0 7 K okhm anskaia, Ekaterina M ikhailovna (M oscow T h eo so p h ist), 89 K oot H o o m i (M m e Blavatsky’s personal M ahatm a), 4 1 , 91, 138 Koshelev, R o d io n (1 7 4 9 -1 8 2 7 ; mystic, intim ate friend o f Tsar A lexander I), 17 Kozhevnikov, V. A. (popularizer o f o rien ­ tal th o u g h t), 193 K rishnam urti, Jiddu (A lcion, 1 8 9 5 -1 9 8 6 ; H in d u declared by M rs. B esant to be an avatar o f the C hrist), 6 0 , 9 7 , 1 3 9 -1 4 0 , 187, 2 1 9 n .l4 , 2 4 5 n .3 6 ; as M essiah, 3 2 , 139, 2 1 9 n .l4 . See also O rd e r o f the Star in the East von K riidener, Barbara Juliana, B aronin (1 7 6 4 -1 8 2 4 ; occultist, intim ate o fT s a r A lexander I), 18 K ryzhanovskaia, Vera Ivanovna (1 8 6 1 1925; prolific occult novelist w ho w rote u n d er th e pseudonym “ R ochester” ), 27, 85 Kudriavtsev, K onstantin D m itrievich (St. P etersburg T h eo so p h ist w ho defected from the Society), 7 3 , 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 1 5 1 , 155, 162, 163, 168, 169, 2 3 5 n .l4 , 2 3 8 n .5 7 ; Chto takoe Teosofiia i Teosoficheskoe obshchestvo ( W hat Theosophy a n d the Theosophical Soceity A re), 1 3 8 -1 4 0

290 K ushelcv-B ezborodko, G rigorii, C o u n t (Spiritualist), 2 3 -2 4 K uz’m in, Evgenii M . (Kiev T h eo so p h ist), 65, 73 L eadbeater, C harles W ebster (1 8 4 7 -1 9 3 4 ; leading T heosop hist, close associate o f A nnie B esant), 4 1 , 6 2 , 6 6 , 7 1 , 9 0 , 9 1 , 139, 191, 197, 198; an d scandal, 6 0 , 2 1 8 - 2 1 9 n .I 4 , 2 2 0 n .2 8 , 2 2 1 n .3 1 ; and Thought-Forms, 197, 2 0 1 , 2 3 2 n .3 0 , 2 4 6 n .l4 L ehm ann, Boris Alekseevich (1 8 8 0 -1 9 4 5 ; A n th ro p o so p h ist, head o f B enedictus L odge; pseud. Boris D iks), 1 0 1 , 102, 2 2 6 n .4 7 L enin, V ladim ir Il’ich (1 8 7 0 -1 9 2 4 ; B ol­ shevik), 37, 184, 185 Lesevich, V ladim ir V iktorovich (1 8 3 7 1905; critical positivist ph ilo so p h er), 4 6 , 193, 2 16 Levi, Eliphas (A lphonse Louis C o n stan t, 1 8 1 0 -1 9 7 5 ; French o ccultist, leader o f “ French O ccult Revival” ), 19, 2 0 , 2 1 , 134 Levitskii, Sergei A leksandrovich (1 9 0 9 — 1983; intellectual histo rian ), 2 0 6 Lineva, E. E. (M oscow T h eo so p h ist), 65 L ogos (T he W ord), 66, 1 1 6 , 1 4 2, 162, 2 0 0 , 2 2 9 n .4 , 2 3 0 -2 3 1 n .9 Logos (M oscow jo u rn al), 100, 2 4 0 n .9 0 L om onosov, M ikhail Vasil’evich (1 7 1 1 1765; scientist, scholar, p o e t o f Russian E n lig h ten m en t), 9 9 -1 0 0 L om onosov A nthroposophical L o d g e, 100 L o pukhin, Ivan V ladim irovich (1 7 5 6 — 1816; ju d g e, social th in k er, F reem ason), 17 Losskii, N ikolai O nunfrievich (1 8 7 0 1965; philosop her), 160, 2 4 2 n .9 “L o to s” P ublishing H o u se , 63 Lucifer, 4 3 , 124, 133, 134, 135, 2 3 4 n .6 0 Lucifer L odge (short-lived Russian Martinist-R osicrucian o rg an izatio n ), 2 2 4 n .2 9 Lully, R aim on (also R aym ond, c. 1 2 3 5 1315; Spanish m onk, A rabist, K abbalist, alchem ist), 21 Lunacharskii, A natolii Vasil’evich (1 8 7 5 — 1933; P eople’s C om m issar o f E n lig h ten ­ m en t), 8

IN D E X L u th er, M artin (1 4 8 3 -1 5 4 6 ; fou n d er, G er­ m an R eform atio n ), 2 3 7 n .4 5 L ’vov, N ikolai A leksandrovich (1 8 3 4 1887; w ell-know n M oscow Spiritualist), 1 6 1 , 2 1 1 n .l4 magic boo k s, Russian, 1 5 -1 6 m agnetism . See anim al m agnetism Mahcibharccta (Ind ian epic po em ), 152, 194 m ahaparanirvana (th e h ig h est state o f nirvanic bein g ), 121, 252 M ahatm as (ad ep ts), 30, 3 3 , 4 1 , 4 2 , 4 6 , 11 9 , 1 3 8 , 1 5 0 -1 5 1 , 1 5 5 , 157, 2 3 2 n .2 4 , 2 3 8 n ,5 2 , 2 4 4 n ,3 5 ; as M m e Blavatsky’s teachers, 4 0 , 4 1 , 9 1 ; and Freem asonry, 151, 2 3 5 n .6 ; and M a­ hatm a (S.P.R.) scandal, 41 42 ; and M intslova, 9 1 ; and R oerich, 194; and VI. Solov’ev, 4 6 , 4 7 . See also B ro th er­ h o o d o f th e G reat W hite L odge M alevich, K azim ir Severinovich (1 8 7 8 1935; Suprem atist a rtist), 7 5 , 178 M anas (M in d ), 1 2 0 , 1 2 1 , 2 3 1 n .9 , 2 5 0 , 251 M an -g o d , 145 M antsiarli, Irm a V ladim irovna (T h e o so ­ phist, close associate o f A nna K am cnskaia), 7 1 , 152, 2 4 6 n ,8 m anvantara (“ cosmic day” ), 1 1 7 , 133, 250, 251, 252 M ariupol’skii, N . (reactionary jo u rn alist), 83 Markov, Evgenii L ’vovich (1 8 3 5 -1 9 0 3 ; travel w riter, jo u rn alist, cousin o f H e ­ lena Blavatsky), 38 M artinism (form o f F reem asonry and Rosicrucianism developed by L ouis C laude de S ain t-M artin , 1 7 4 3 -1 8 0 3 ), 5 ,1 7 , 2 0 , 139, 176, 2 2 4 n .2 9 , and passim M arx, Karl (1 8 1 8 -1 8 8 3 ; socialist p h ilo so ­ p h er), 6, 158 M asonry. See F reem asonry M atiushin, M ikhail Vasil’evich (1 8 6 1 1934; F u tu rist a rtist), 7 5 , 178, 2 4 2 n .9 Maya, T h e W orld Illusion, 9 , 31, 7 4 , 123, 12 4 , 1 4 8 , 151, 1 6 6 , 172, 1 7 8 , 199, 251 M ead, G eorge R o b e rt S tow (1 8 6 3 -1 9 3 3 ; T h eo so p h ist, historian o f G nosticism ,

founder, Q u est Society), 2 1 , 32, 6 0 , 6 3 , 7 1 , 7 6 , 156, 2 1 5 n .l2 , 2 1 9 n .l4 , 2 2 9 n .2 , 2 3 6 n .3 0 m edium ism and m edium istic p h en o m en a , 2 4 -2 5 , 2 7 , 2 9 , 38 , 3 9 , 4 0 , 4 1 , 4 5 , 179, 2 1 5 n .l4 ; o f M m e Blavatsky, 2 9 , 38, 39, 4 0 , 4 1 - 1 2 , 4 4 , 4 7 , 2 1 4 n .6 m edium s (psychic sensitives) 2 2 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 7 , 35, 4 0 , 199, 2 1 1 n .l4 , 2 2 5 n .3 0 M eier, A leksandr A leksandrovich (1 8 7 5 1939; philosopher, jo u rn alist), 1 6 0 , 2 4 2 n .9 M endeleev, D m itrii Ivanovich (1 8 3 4 1907; professor, research chem ist, a u ­ th o r o f p erio d table o f elem ents), 2 5 , 37 m ental plane, 121, 1 9 2 , 197, 2 0 1 , 2 3 1 n .9 , 2 4 9 , 2 5 0 , 2 5 1 , 2 5 2 M erezhkovskii, D m itrii Sergeevich (1 8 6 5 — 1941; Sym bolist w riter, p h ilo so p h er), 8 , 36, 7 8 , 153, 160, 170, 186; and Steiner, 64, 9 6 ; and T heosophy, 69, 1 6 2 -1 6 3 M esm erism , 5 M essianism , 9 1 , 171, 183, 2 0 6 m etem psychosis (tran sm ig ratio n o f souls), 149, 2 3 7 n .4 2 , 251 M etner, Emilii Karlovich (1 8 7 2 —1936; G oethean, critic, p ublisher), 9 2 , 9 9 , 100, 101, 2 4 0 n .9 0 M etrovich, A gardii (o p era singer, M m e Blavatsky’s com pan io n ), 39, 4 0 , 4 2 , 48 M ichaelic A ge, 100, 2 2 6 n .5 1 M inskii-V ilenkin, N ikolai M aksim ovich (1 8 5 5 -1 9 3 7 ; d ecad en t p o et, T heosop h ist), 8, 6 4 , 9 6 , 159 M intslov, R u d o P fR u d o F fo v ic h (1 8 4 5 1904; jurist, father o f A nna M intslova), 2 2 3 n .2 1 M intslov, Sergei R u d o l’fovich (1 8 7 0 1933; antiquary, travel w riter, b ro th e r o f A nna M intslova), 2 2 3 n .2 1 M intslova, A nna R udoF fovna (1865?1910?; T heo so p h ist), 8, 5 8 , 6 4 , 8 9 -9 4 , 9 5 , 9 6 -9 7 , 98, 162, 164, 198, 2 2 0 n .2 4 , 2 2 3 -2 2 4 n .2 2 , 2 2 4 n n . 2 5 , 2 6 , and 2 9 , 2 2 5 n n . 30 and 3 7 , 2 2 6 n .4 7 ; in M ystical R osicrucian T riangle w ith Belyi and Ivanov, 9 0 —9 3 , 2 2 4 n n . 28 an d 29 m o n ad , 1 1 6 -1 1 9 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 4 , 1 2 5 , 133, 144, 2 3 2 n .2 4

m onism , 1 1 5 , 1 2 3 , 135, 158, 2 0 6 , 2 2 7 n .5 6 , 2 2 8 n .2 , 2 3 9 n .7 1 M o n tesso n , M aria (1 8 7 0 -1 9 5 2 ; Italian p ed ag o g u e), 68 M oreau , G ustave (1 8 2 6 -1 9 0 8 ; F rench Sym bolist artist), 7 , 19 M oro zo v a, M argarita K irillovna (1 8 7 3 1958; w ealthy hostess o f M oscow reli­ gious-philosophical salon), 190 M orya, M aster (M m e Blavatsky’s M a ­ h atm a), 4 1 , 9 1 , 138, 194 M o sc o w A rt T h eatre (M K hA T), 177 M uller, F riedrich M ax (1 8 2 3 -1 9 0 0 ; E n ­ glish o rien to lo g ist, com parative myth o lo g ist), 3 4 , 5 0 , 1 5 6 , 1 5 7 , 2 2 9 n .3 , 2 3 9 n .6 4 M u n ter, G abriele (1 8 7 7 -1 9 6 2 ; M unich artist, close associate o f K andinsky), 191 “ M u sag et” P ublishing H o u se , 9 2 , 9 9 , 1 0 0 , 101 M ystery dram a, 7 , 1 0 1 , 199; an d V iacheslav Ivanov, 2 2 7 n .5 4 , 23 In .1 9 M ystery religions, 2 , 2 1 , 115, 162, 2 2 8 n .2 m ysticism , definition, 1 0 -1 2 m ythopoesis, 2 2 7 n .5 6 , 2 2 9 n .3 N abis ( “B ro th e rh o o d ” o f F rench S ym bol­ ist artists), 19 N edovich, E. (M oscow T h eo so p h ist), 65, 8 9 , 99 N eo -B ud dh ism . See T heo so p h y N eo -C h ristian ity (o f th e Russian religious renaissance), 128, 163, 164, 165, 170, 2 2 0 n .2 2 N eo-K antianism , 9 , 1 0 3 , 164 N icholas I, Tsar (1 7 9 6 -1 8 5 5 ; ruled 1 8 2 5 1 8 5 5 ), 18, 19, N icholas II, T sar (1 8 6 8 -1 9 1 8 ; ruled 1 8 9 4 -1 9 1 7 ), 2 0 , 2 4 , 38, 8 1 , 171 N ietzsch e, Friedrich (1 8 4 4 —19 0 0 ; G erm an ph ilo so p h er), 6, 7 4 , 7 5 , 7 8 , 9 4 , 164, 178; Also Sprach Z arathttstra, 4 7 , 2 3 1 n .l 2 N ilender, V ladim ir O tto n o v ich (1 8 8 3 19 6 5 ; T h eo so p h ist, classicist), 99 nirvana, 3 1 , 1 2 6 , 1 2 7 , 1 3 4 , 1 4 8 , 2 3 8 n .4 9 , 2 5 1 , 252 niskhozhdenie (descent), 2 3 1 n .l7 N ovalis (Friedrich von H ard en b erg , 1 7 7 2 -1 8 0 1 ; G erm an R om antic p o et and ph ilo so p h er), 193

Novikov, N ikolai Ivanovich (1 7 4 4 -1 8 1 8 ; E n lig h ten m en t journalist, F reem ason), 17 Novoe vrem ia ( The N ew Times, reactio n ­ ary, sensationalistic new spaper, St. P e­ tersb u rg ), 5, 24, 4 5 , 51 “ Novyi chelovek” (N ew M an) P ublishing H o u se (o f A. Suvorin), 100 num erology, 26 occultism , definition, 1 0 -1 2 O c to b er R evolution. See Bolsheviks O doevskii, Prince V ladim ir Fedorovich (1 8 0 3 o r 1 8 0 4 -1 8 6 9 ; w riter an d critic), 18, 23 O lco tt, H en ry Steel, C olonel (1 8 3 2 -1 9 0 7 ; A m erican Spiritualist, co -fo u n d er o f T heosophical Society), 2 9 , 3 2 , 4 0 , 4 1 , 42, 4 5 , 4 6 , 59, 6 0 , 7 4 , 9 4 , 138, 221 n .3 1 O ld Believers, 2 4 3 n .l8 O l’d en b u rg , Sergei Fedorovich (1 8 6 3 1934; o rien to lo g ist), 193 O ptina P ustyn’ M onastery, 6 3 , 2 2 0 n .2 2 O rd er o f the Star in the East, 7 3 , 9 7 , 139, 169, 174, 187, 2 1 9 n .l4 L ’O rd re K abbalistique de la R ose-C roix, 2 0 , 2 3 S n .6 O rphism , 31 O strogradskii, M ikhail Vasil’evich (1 8 0 1 1861; m athem atics professor, S piritual­ ist), 23 O ttu d a ( From Beyond, M oscow Spiritualist new spaper), 2 2 , 26, 2 1 2 n .2 0 O uspensky, P. D . See U spenskii, P etr D em ianovich P al’shau, Evgeniia Vasil’evna (Kiev T heosophist), 65 panlogism , 142 Pan-M ongolism , 9 2 , 10 3 , 153 panslavism , 206 pantheism , 2 9 , 115, 126, 135, 1 4 2 , 148, 150, 154, 155, 162, 164 Papus (G erard Encausse, 1 8 65 —1916; French occultist, M artin ist), 2 0 , 2 1 , 5 1 , 139, 2 3 5 n .6 parabrahm a, 231 n .9 Paracelsus, 17, 2 1 , 29 Param akhanza, A gam ia (tu rn -o f-th ecen tu ry leader o f the In d ian Society o f

R epresentatives o f V edantic P h ilo so ­ phy), 2 3 8 n .5 2 paranirvana, 151, 2 3 2 n .2 1 , 2 3 8 n .4 9 , 2 5 2 Parousia, 2 3 7 n .4 2 P ath (T he Way to spiritual purity, w isdom , and G o d ), 10, 7 9 , 9 5 , 123, 129, 133, 16 2 , 194, 2 0 6 ; Russia’s P ath , 2 0 6 Pax C u ltu ra, 196 p edagogy (and T heo so p h y ), 6 7 , 68 Peladan, Josephin, called Ie Sar (1 8 5 9 19 1 8 ; occu ltist, F rench Sym bolist w riter, artist) 19, 2 3 5 n ,6 Pernety, D o m A n toine (1 7 1 6 -1 8 0 1 ; F rench alchem ist, scholar o f m y th ), 34 personality, 121, 1 4 2 , 1 4 8 , 2 3 3 n .4 5 , 2 5 0 , 2 5 2 . See also individuality P etrovo-S olovovo, M ikhail, G rafP erovskii (Spiritualist), 5 0 , 151 Petrovskii, Aleksei Sergeevich (1 8 8 1 1 9 5 8 ; T h eo so p h ist, A n th rop oso ph ist, librarian, scholar), 8 , 8 9 , 9 2 , 9 3 , 9 8 , 101, 2 2 4 n .2 9 Petrov-V odkin, K uz’ma Sergeevich (1 8 7 8 -1 9 3 9 ; early Soviet artist), 2 4 2 n 9 Phillips, Jo h n (B ritish F reem ason), 17 phrenology, 5, 22 physical plane, 1 1 9 , 1 2 0 , 1 2 1 , 122, 135, 191, 199, 2 0 1 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 3 , 2 3 1 n .9 , 2 4 9 , 2 5 0 -2 5 1 , 2 5 2 Pilgrim -Soul, 1 1 8 , 1 1 9 , 125, 1 9 9 , 2 3 1 2 3 2 n .2 1 Pisarev, N ikolai Vasil’evich (K aluga T h e o s­ o p h ist, publisher, Elena Pisareva’s h u s­ b an d ), 6 3 , 6 7 Pisareva, Elena F edorovna (d. 1940s?, K aluga T h eo so p h ist, friend o f S teiner), 4 7 , 5 7 , 5 8 , 6 3 -6 4 , 6 7 , 8 9 , 161 163, 1 7 2 , 1 8 2 , 183, 195, 2 4 4 n .2 5 ; fou nd er, “ U n io n o f Service to R ussia,” 185; as M m e Blavatsky’s bio g rap h er, 52, 59, 6 4 , 73; an d S teiner, 6 3 -6 4 , 9 0 , 9 5 -9 7 , 9 8 , 198, 2 2 0 n .2 4 , 2 2 4 n .2 5 , 2 2 5 n .4 1 ; as translator, 6 4 , 9 8 , 152, 198 Pisareva, N a ta l’ia N ikolaevna (1 8 8 6 ? 1 9 3 9 ; d au g h te r o f E lena Pisareva), 63, 182 Plaksina, N . (T h eo so p h ist), 173 planes o f existence, 1 2 1 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 9, 157, 2 0 1 , 2 3 1 n .9 , 2 5 2. See also astral, m e n ­ tal, physical, and spiritual planes P latonism , 31

P o d bo rk i (Pisarev estate), 6 3 , 6 7 , 9 6 , 2 1 9 n .I9 P o g o rel’skii, A ntonii (A leksandr A leksan­ drovich Perovskii, 1 7 8 7 -1 8 3 6 , rom antic a u th o r), 18 Pogosskaia, A leksandra L oginovna (pseud. D ana, 1 8 4 8 -?, T h eo so p h ist, associated w ith Internationai U n io n o f H a n d i­ w ork), 6 8 , 73 positivism , 5, 12, 34, 3 5 , 1 1 9 -1 2 0 , 158, 192, 2 0 0 , 201 Potekhin, F ed o r (occultist, T h eo so p h ist), 83, 85, 86 P o zzo , A leksandr M ikhailovich (1 8 8 2 1941; T5U rthroposophist, ju rist, h u sb an d o f N atasha T urgeneva), 1 0 1 , 102, 2 4 1 n .8 pralaya (period o f dissolution), 117, 119, 183, 2 5 1 , 252 prana (life principle), 120, 129, 252 predestination, 150 Pribytkov, V iktor Ivanovich (d. 1910; S pir­ itualist, first ed ito r o f Rebus), 2 5 , 2 6 , 4 4 Pribytkova, Elizaveta D m itrievna (d. 1896; V ik to r P ribytkov’s wife, S piritual­ ist m edium ), 25 Pshenetskaia, N ina V alentinovna (d. 1933; M oscow T h eo so p h ist o f K hristoforova’s circle), 57, 89 psycho-graphology, 22 Pum pianskii, L. V. (V itebsk A n th ro p o so phist), 2 4 2 n .9 Pushkin, A leksandr Sergeevich (1 7 9 9 1837; p o et), 18, 3 9 , 1 8 1 , 2 1 0 n .3 Pushkina, Varvara N ikolaevna (Princess G olitsyna, d. 1931; T h eo so p h ist, R us­ sian R epresentative o f th e O rd er o f the Star in the E ast), 7 0 , 7 3 , 7 9 , 1 3 9 , 174, 2 1 9 n .l8 Puvis de C havannes, P ierre (1 8 2 4 -1 8 9 8 ; F rench Sym bolist a rtist), 19 Pypin, A leksandr N ikolaevich (1 8 3 3 1 904, literary and cultural h istorian), 16 Pythagoreanism , 31 Q u est Society, 32, 60 , 76 R abinovich, A nna Iakovlevna (T h eo so ­ phist, M oscow d en tist), 65 Radda-B ai (pseud, o f M m c Blavatsky), 51, 52

R advan-R ypinskii, Evgenii V iktorovich (professor o f E sp eran to ), 8 6 , 2 2 3 n .l6 R adzevich, Elizaveta (Kiev T h eo so p hist), 57 Raja-yoga. See Yoga R am acharaka, Yogi (pseud, o f W illiam W alker A tkinson, 1 8 6 2 -1 9 3 2 , A m erican businessm an and law yer), 152, 2 3 8 n .5 1 R am akrishna (1 8 3 4 -1 8 8 6 ; reform er o f H in d u ism , teach er o f V ivekananda), 152, 1 6 1 , 1 9 4 , 2 3 8 n .5 1 R anson, Paul (1 8 6 1 -1 9 0 9 ; F rench S ym bol­ ist artist), 19 R asp u tin , G rigorii Efim ovich (1 8 7 1 -1 9 1 6 ; sectarian m o n k w h o held sway over the last R om anovs), 7, 2 0 , 37, 171 R ebus (St. P etersb u rg , su bsequently M o s­ cow, Spiritualist jo u rn al), 5, 2 2 , 2 5 -2 6 , 8 8 , 2 2 1 n .3 2 , and passim; T h eo so p h y in, 4 4 - 4 5 , 5 0 , 66 , 8 7 , 137, 140, 151 R edeem er, 1 4 3 , 150 red em p tio n , 133, 145, 150, 168, 2 2 8 n 2 ., 2 3 7 n n . 3 7 and 42 R ed o n , O d ilo n (1 8 4 0 -1 9 1 6 ; F rench Sym ­ b olist artist), 7 , 19 rein carn atio n , 13, 31, 7 5 , 118, 1 2 0 -1 2 1 , 1 2 5 , 1 2 6 -1 2 7 , 1 4 8 -1 4 9 , 1 5 7 , 2 3 7 n 4 2 ., 2 5 0 , 2 5 1 ; o f p lanetary chains, 117, 165; in Spiritism e, 23. See also m e te m ­ psychosis R eligious-Philosophical Society, 160, 190; in Kiev, 65 ; in St. P etersb u rg , 1 6 2 -1 6 3 , 186 R em izov, Aleksei M ikhailovich (1 8 7 7 19 5 7 ; m o d ern ist w riter), 159 R epin, Il’ia Efim ovich (1 8 4 4 -1 9 3 0 ; a rt­ ist), 2 4 3 n .2 1 R erikh, Iurii N ikolaevich (1 9 0 2 -1 9 6 0 ; orien to lo g ist, T h eo so p h ist), 196 R evaluation o f values, 36 R im baud, A rth u r (1 8 5 4 -1 8 9 1 ; F rench Sym bolist p o e t), 19 R obinovich, M aria E. (Vladikavkaz T h e o s­ o p h ist), 5 4 , 55 R odzevich, Elizaveta V il’g e l’m ovna (Kiev, later Yalta, T h eo so p h ist), 6 5 , 2 2 0 n 21 R oerich, Elena. See ShaposhnikovaR oerich R oerich, N ikolai K onstantinovich (1 8 7 4 1 9 4 7; artist, o rien to lo g ist, T h eo so p h ist,

R oerich, N ikolai K onstantinovich {com.) fou n d er o f the R oerich Society, Pax Cultu ra, C o ro n a M undi), 8, 7 8 , 159, 178, 180, 192, 193- 198, 2 0 6 , 2 4 6 n . l l R oerich, Sviatoslav N ikolaevich (son o f N ikolai R oerich, p o rtraitist), 196 ro o t races, 1 1 7 -1 1 8 , 119, 2 4 1 n .3 R osicrucianism , 5, 17, 2 0 , 2 1 , 2 2 , 33, 6 0 , 9 1 -9 3 , 130, 2 3 5 n .6 ; M intslova’s R us­ sian R osicrucian O rd er, 9 2 -9 3 , 2 2 4 n .2 9 , and P apus’s L ’O rd re Kabbalistique de la R ose-C roix, 2 0 , 2 3 5 n .6 ; and S tein er’s R osicrucian in itiatio n , 33, 128, 1 3 0 -1 3 1 , 206 R ozanov, Vasilii Vasil’evich (1 8 5 6 -1 9 1 9 ; p hilosopher, w riter), 160 R ozenberg, O tto n O tto n o v ich (1 8 8 8 1919; o rientologist, specialist in B ud­ d hist philosophy), 193 R udich, Vera Ivanovna (T h eo so p h ist, p o e t, translator), 73 Russian Idea, 8, 36, 79, 161, 163, 2 0 6 Russian T heosophical Society (Rossiiskoe Teosoficbeskoe Obshcbestvo), 5 4 -8 0 , and passim Russian T hcosophical Society O u tsid e R us­ sia (Rossiiskoe Teosoficheskoe Obshcbestvo vne Rossii), 1 8 0 -1 8 7 , and passim R usskaia my si1 {R ussian Thought, M oscow journal), 4 6 , 7 6 , 193 Russkii vestnik {The R ussian H era ld , M oscow journal), 4 7 , 51, 193 Sabaneev, L eo n id L eonidovich (1 8 8 1 1968; m usic scholar, sym pathetic to T heosophy), 2 4 5 n .5 , 2 4 6 n .l4 Sabashnikov, Ivan M ikhailovich (m edical do cto r, uncle o f M argarita Sabashnikova, translator o f po p u lar L ig h t o f A sia ), 2 1 6 n .2 2 Sabashnikova-Voloshina, M argarita Vasil’evna (1 8 8 2 -1 9 7 4 ; artist, A n throposophist), 8, 96, 101, 2 0 6 , 2 2 6 2 2 7 n .5 3 , 2 4 1 n .8 , 2 4 2 n .9 ; an d Ivanov, 90, 164, 2 2 6 n .4 8 ; an d M in tslova, 9 0 , 2 2 3 -2 2 4 n .2 2 ; and Steiner, 6 4 , 9 9 , 100, 164, 2 2 6 n n . 4 7 and 4 8 ; T heo so p h y in her art, 159 de Saint-G erm ain, C om te (1 6 9 6 ?-1 7 8 4 ; F rench occultist, fam ed for legendary ex­ ploits), 4 , 21 On. 3 de S aint-M artin, Louis C laude (1 7 4 3 -

1 8 0 3 , fo u n d er o f M artinism , o ccultist), 17 Saint-Yves d ’Alveydre, Jo sep h , M arquis (1 8 4 2 -1 9 1 0 ; F rench o ccultist, P apus’s m aster), 2 0 , 21 Sakyam uni, S id d h arth a (“Sage o f the Sakyas,” i.e., G autam a B ud d h a), 156. See also B uddha salvation, 12, 145—146; o f Russia, 9 2 , 184 Sam skara, 125 Saraswati, D ayananda (Swami D ayananda; p ro m u lg a to r o f Arya Sam aj; In d ian col­ league o f M m e Blavatsky) , 40 Satan, 2 0 , 1 2 4 , 1 2 5 , 1 3 3 , 1 4 0 , 2 3 4 n .6 0 Satanism , 4 , 7 , 2 0 9 n .2 Schelling, F riedrich W ilhelm , 1775—1854; G erm an idealist p h iloso p h er) 3 4 , 7 8 , 164, 193 Schiller, Jo h an n Friedrich (1 7 5 9 -1 8 0 5 , G erm an p o e t, dram atist, critic), 78 Schlegel, A ugu st W ilhelm (1 7 6 7 —18 4 5 ) and F riedrich (1 7 7 2 -1 8 2 9 ; literary h is to ­ rians and philosophers o f cu ltu re), 34 S chopenhauer, A rth u r (1 7 8 8 -1 8 6 0 ; G er­ m an p h ilo so p h er influenced by B uddhist th o u g h t), 7, 3 4 , 7 8 , 164, 193 S chure, E d o u a rd (1 8 4 1 -1 9 2 9 ; T h e o so ­ ph ist, dram atist, w riter, friend to R ich­ ard W agner, R u d o lf S tein er), 3 3 , 59, 8 6 , 9 1 , 9 4 , 9 6 , 123, 1 9 8 , 2 0 7 , 2 2 5 n .3 9 , 2 2 7 n .5 4 , 2 3 0 n .8 Secret D octrine. See H elen a Blavatsky sectarianism , R ussian, 8 , 15, 8 2 , 1 2 8 , 145, 160, 1 6 7 , 2 3 3 n .4 2 , 2 4 3 n .l8 ; in Belyi’s Silver Dove, 199 Serafim o f Sarov, Saint (1 7 5 9 -1 8 3 3 , can­ o n iz ed 1 9 0 3 ; adm ired by S ophiologists), 7 2 , 101 Serusier, Paul (1 8 6 4 -1 9 2 7 ; F ren ch Sym ­ bolist artist), 19 Sedir, Paul (1 8 7 1 -1 9 2 6 ; F rench occultist), 21 Shabanova, A nna N . (m edical d o cto r, lead ­ ing figure in Russian W o m en ’s M o v e­ m en t, friend o f A nna Filosofova), 6 7 Shankara, also Shankara-A charya (6 8 8 — 720 A .D .; In d ian saint, philosopher, and fo rem o st ex p o n en t o f A dvaita V e­ d an ta), 1 5 2 , 2 3 8 n .5 1 Shaposhnikova-R oerich, Elena Ivanovna (1 8 7 9 -1 9 5 5 ; pseud. N atalia R okotoff; T h eo so p h ist, tran slato r o f Secret Doc-

t r in e , wife o f N ikolai R oerich), 194, 2 4 5 n .7 , 2 4 6 n n . 9 and 11 Shcherbatskoi, F e d o r Ippolitovich (1 8 6 6 1942; scholar o f B u ddhist philosophy and culture), 193 S h p ett, G ustav (Shpet, G u sta f G ustafovich, 1879—1940; idealist p hilosopher, H usserlian), 2 4 2 n .l0 S htal’berg, V ladim ir Ivanovich (T h eo so ­ phist, p resid en t o f Sm olensk Society), 8 2 -8 5 , 142, 143 S hteinberg, A aron Z akharovich (1 8 9 1 1975; philosopher), 2 4 2 n .9 Shvarts, Ivan G rigorievich, (d. 1784; p ro ­ fessor o f philosophy at M oscow U n iv er­ sity, R osicrucian, Freem ason), 17 S in n ett, A lfred Percy (1 8 4 0 -1 9 2 1 ; p ro m i­ n e n t T heosophist, friend o f M m e Blavatsky), 3 5 ,4 1 , 71, 7 4 , 9 0 , 9 1 , 1 1 5 , 119, 129, 2 2 1 n .3 1 . M a j o r W o r k : E soteric B u d d h ism , 50, 114 S iunnerberg (E rb erg ), K on stan tin A leksan­ drovich (1 8 7 1 -1 9 4 2 ; m in o r p o e t, fo u n d ­ ing m em ber o f Vol’fila), 2 4 2 n .9 von Sivers, M arie (M ariia Iakovlevna fon Sivers, 1867—1948; R u d o lf S tein er’s as­ sistant, m arried him in 1 9 1 4 ), 5 6 , 57, 6 3 , 9 0 , 9 4 -9 6 , 9 8 , 2 1 8 n .6 , 2 2 5 n .3 7 , 2 2 7 n .5 4 fon Sivers, O l’ga (sister o f M arie von Sivers), 57, 2 1 8 n .6 Sizov, M ikhail Ivanovich (pseuds. M . Sedlov, M ikhail G orskii, 1 8 8 4 -1 9 5 7 ; Spiri­ tualist, A n th ro p o so p h ist, erstw hile p o et, associated w ith th e Sym bolists), 8 , 9 2 , 9 3 , 9 8 -9 9 , 1 0 1 , 102 Skriabin, A leksandr N ikolaevich ( 1 8 7 2 1 915; T h eo so p h ist, co m p o ser), 8 , 159, 191, 193, 2 4 5 n .5 , 2 4 6 n .l4 Slavophiles, 2 4 , 103, 1 6 4 , 203 S m ith, Joseph (1 8 0 5 -1 8 4 4 ; fo u n d e r o f M o rm onism ), 2 1 2 n .2 5 Sm olensk T heosophists, 8 1 -8 5 Sobolev, Vasilii A lekseevich (Kiev T h e o so ­ p h ist), 65 socialism , an d socialists, 8, 104, 160, 173, 1 85, 2 0 6 , 2 2 8 n .5 7 , 2 4 1 n .5 Society for Psychical R esearch (S.P.R .), 2 9 , 4 1 -4 2 , 52, 161, 2 1 4 n .8 Solov’ev, V ladim ir Sergeevich (1 8 5 3 1900; religious p h ilo so p h er), 8, 2 8 , 36, 7 1, 7 4 -7 5 , 78, 9 2 , 9 5 , 9 9 -1 0 0 , 102,

127, 1 5 2 , 1 5 3 , 1 6 0 , 170, 181, 2 2 0 n .2 2 , 2 2 0 -2 2 1 n .2 9 , 2 3 0 n n . 6 and 8, 2 3 3 n .4 5 , 2 3 9 n .7 6 ; and M m e Blaracsky, 4 6 -4 7 ; and the G od-m an (Bqpochelovek), 74—7 5 , 145; and Spiritualism , 23 Solov’ev, V sevolod Sergeevich (1 8 4 9 — 1903; po p u lar novelist, b ro th e r o f V ladi­ m ir Solov’ev), 8 , 4 7 , 4 9 -5 0 , 5 2 , 148, 1 5 5 , 1 6 8 , and M m e Blavatsky, 4 7 -4 9 , 2 1 7 n .4 9 ; Sovrem ennaia zhritsa Izid y (A C ontem porary Priestess o f Isis), 4 7 -5 0 Solovskaia, E lena Pavlovna (O dessa T h e o s­ o p h ist w ho becam e A nna K am enskaia’s assistant in G eneva), 183 som nam bulism , 5, 3 8 , 83 S ophia (T he W isdom o f G o d ), 2 8 , 4 7 , 65, 7 8 , 7 9 , 99 , 2 3 3 n .4 5 , 2 3 6 n .3 0 Sophiology, 15, 7 2 , 127, 1 2 8 , 1 6 7 , 170 S pengler, O sw ald (1 8 8 0 -1 9 3 6 ; G erm an p hilo so p h er and h istorian), 175 Speranskii, M ikhail N estorovich (1 8 6 3 1 9 3 8 ; historian, Slavist, eth n o g ra p h e r), 16 Spinoza, B aruch (1 6 3 2 -1 6 7 7 ; Jewish m e ta ­ physician), 86 spiritual plane, 1 2 1 , 1 2 4 , 1 9 1 , 1 9 2 , 201 Spiritism (F rench form o f S piritualism ), 2 3 , 2 4 , 2 6 , 51, 179 Spiritualism , 5 , 2 2 -2 8 , 2 9 , 3 4 -3 5 , 128, 179, 2 1 2 n ,2 5 ; an d M m e Blavatsky, 4 0 , 4 4 ; C ongress o f Spiritualists (O c to b e r 2 0 -2 7 , 1 9 0 6 , M oscow ), 2 6 , 2 1 8 n .l0 , 2 2 0 n ,2 4 ; an d literatu re, 21 In . 14; R u s­ sian Spiritualist Society (Rossuskoe Spiritualisticheskoe Obshchestvo), 2 6 , 9 2 , 1 3 7 , 176; and T heosophy, 4 5 —46 S p iritu a list (M oscow jo u rn a l), 2 2 , 2 6 Stalin (D zhugashvili), Io sif Vissarionovich (1 8 7 9 -1 9 5 3 ; Soviet leader), 1 7 9 , 180 Stasov, V ladim ir VasiTevich (1 8 2 4 -1 9 0 6 ; critic, a rt h istorian), 1 9 3 , 194 S teiner, R u d o lf (1 8 6 1 -1 9 2 5 ; fo u n d e r o f A n th ro p o so p h y ), 5 6 , 5 9 , 6 1 , 9 3 , 9 9 , 1 0 0 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 2 , 1 0 3 , 1 2 2 , 1 3 9 , 163, 1 7 2 , 1 7 7 , 1 9 7 , 2 1 8 n .6 , 2 2 4 n .2 9 , 2 2 5 n .3 6 , 2 2 7 n n . 54 and 5 6 , 2 3 3 n .4 5 , 2 2 3 -2 2 4 n .4 7 , 2 4 1 n .8 ; and A n th ro p o sophical d o ctrin e, 9 5 , 1 2 8 -1 3 7 , 144, 1 4 6 , 1 4 9 -1 5 0 , 158, 1 6 4 , 1 9 1 ,2 0 2 , 2 3 4 n .5 3 ; an d Belyi, 1 7 5 -1 7 6 , 198, 2 0 4 , 2 2 4 n .2 5 , 2 2 5 n n . 33 and 37,

Steiner, R u d o lf ( cont.) 2 2 7 n 54, 2 4 0 n .9 5 , 2 4 2 n .l3 ; and Berdiaev, 1 6 5 -1 6 6 ; and Ivanov, 9 3 , 9 9 , 162, 164, 2 2 6 n .4 8 , 2 2 7 n .5 4 ; and M erezhkovskii, 64, 9 6 , 1 6 3 -1 6 4 ; and M m tslova, 90, 9 3, 96 , 2 2 0 n .2 4 ; and Paris Cycle, 63—6 4 , 9 6 ; and Pisareva, 6 3 -6 4 , 90, 9 5 -9 7 , 9 8 , 198, 2 2 0 n .2 4 , 2 2 4 n .2 5 , 2 2 5 n .4 1 ; and Russia, 94—104, 1 6 4 -1 6 5 , 183, 2 0 6 -2 0 7 , 2 2 5 n .4 3 ; and T heosophical d o ctrin e, 14, 3 3 -3 4 , 95; and T heosophical Society, 32—3 4 , 6 0 , 9 4 - 9 5 , 9 7 - 9 8 , 128, 1 3 0 , 135. 169. M a j o r W o r k s : C hristianity as Mystical Fact, 95; Knowledge o f the H igher Worlds a n d Its A tta in m e n t, 7 1 , 8 3 , 9 1 , 9 5 ; O utline o f O ccult Science, 114; Theos­ ophy, 9 5 , 9 7 , 114, 2 2 3 n .3 0 Stella M atutina (esoteric society), 60 S tcpun (S teppun), F ed o r A vgustovich (1 8 8 4 -1 9 6 5 ; idealist philo so p h er, neoSlavophile), 2 4 2 n .l0 Stoliarov, M ikhail Pavlovich (1 8 8 8 -1 9 3 7 ; pseud. Strelets; A n th ro p o so p h ist, transla­ to r, critic, literary scholar), 100, 2 4 2 n .l0 S tranden, D m itrii V ladim irovich (T heosop hist, A nna K am enskaia’s associate), 52, 58, 7 3 , 161, 168, 169 von S trauch-S pettini, M ariia M agdalena (1 8 4 7 -1 9 0 4 ; actress, friend o f M arie von Sivers and A nna Ram enskaia, early T h eo so p h ist), 5 6 -5 7 , 58, 6 3 , 7 2 , 9 4 , 9 5 , 2 1 8 n ,6 ; M aria von Strauch Circle, 62 fon S traukh, Evgenii F edorovich (State C ouncilor, husb an d o f M aria von S trauch-S pettini), 2 1 8 n .6 Superm an (LTbermensch), 74, 7 5 , 178 Sw edenborg, E m anuel (1 6 8 8 -1 7 7 2 ; S w ed­ ish philosopher and theosophical m ys­ tic), 4, 16, 2 1 , 2 4 , 83 Sw inburne, A lgernon C harles (1 8 3 7 1909; English decad en t p o e t), 19 Sym bolism (literary m o v em en t), 6 , 36, 115, 175, 2 3 2 n .3 3 ; as defined by A n ­ drei Belyi, 9, 36, 159 , 1 6 5 , 189, 190, 192, 198, 2 2 8 n .5 6 , 2 3 0 n .8 , 2 3 2 n .3 0 ; and T heosophy, 36, 7 3 , 1 9 0 , 2 0 0 synaesthesia, 65, 7 3 , 197 syncretism , 15, 139, 155, 156, 158, 162, 163, 208

Tabula S m a ra g d in a (E m erald T ab let o f H erm es T rism egistus), 120 T ag o re, R abindranath (1 8 6 1 -1 9 4 1 ; B en­ gali w riter, N o b el Prize recipient, 1 9 1 3 ), 7 1 , 194 Taits, Boris (Spiritualist), 50 T aro t, 5, 2 0 , 2 2 , 30 T atarinova, E katerina (m ystic, sectarian, associate o f A lexander I), 18 Tchaikovsky, P etr Il’ich (1 8 4 0 —1 8 9 3 ; co m ­ poser), 37 telepathy, 2 2 , 8 3 , 147 Tenishev A cadem y (St. P etersb u rg ), 66 Teosoficheskoe obozrenie ( Theosophical R e ­ view, St. P etersb u rg jo u rn al), 8 5 -8 8 , 2 2 3 n .l6 Teosofskaia z h iz n ’ ( Theosophical L ife, S m o ­ lensk jo u rn al), 8 1 -8 5 , 87 T heism , 143 theosis. See deification T h eo -S op h ia, 4 7 . See also Sophia (W isdom o f G od) T heosophical Society, fo u n d ed by M m e Blavatsky and C ol. O lc o tt, 2 9 , 31, 4 0 4 1 ; Blavatsky L odge of, 4 3 ; C h arter, 2 9 ;'m em b ersh ip , 6 1 ; and S teiner, 3 2 33, 9 7 - 9 8 , 1 2 8 , 1 3 0 , 135; an d passim. See in d iv id u a l entries fo r m ajor represen­ tatives a n d concepts T heosophy, d o ctrin e, 1 1 4 -1 3 6 ; general survey, 2 8 -3 7 ; as heresy, 2 7 . 8 2 -8 3 , 14 1 , 147; in tro d u c tio n in to R ussia, 4 3 — 53; recep tio n in Russia, 1 3 7 -1 7 0 ; d u r­ ing W orld W ar I, 76 —80 ; and passim theurgy, 9 , 159, 1 6 0 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 1 , 2 3 0 n .8 th o u g h t-fo rm s, 1 9 7 , 2 0 1 -2 0 3 , 2 5 0 Thought-Forms. See A nnie B esant T ilen, L. F. F o n -d er-R aab (Sm olensk T h eo so p h ist), 83 Tim ofeevskii, Pavel Il’ich (p ro m in e n t St. P e tersb u rg T h eo so p h ist, m edical d o c ­ to r), 73 Tingley, K atherine (1 8 4 7 -1 9 2 9 ; A m erican T h eo so p h ist), 8 7 , 2 2 3 n .l9 Tolstaia, S o f’ia N ikolaevna (d. 1934; Ka­ luga T h eo sop hist, d aughter-in-law to Lev T olstoi), 2 1 9 n .l8 , 2 2 0 n .2 6 T olstoi, Aleksei K onstantinovich (1 8 1 7 1 8 7 5 ; S piritualist, o ccultist, rom antic w riter), 18, 2 3 -2 4 T olstoi, Lev N ikolaevich (1 8 2 8 —1910; w riter an d social th in k er), 7 0 , 102, 152,

161, 2 2 0 ; and Spiritualism , 2 1 1 ; and T heosophy, 161—1 6 2 , 2 4 0 n .8 0 T olstoyanism , 161, 167, 176 T o o ro p , Jan (1 8 5 8 -1 9 2 8 ; D u tch Sym bol­ ist artist), 19 T ranscendentalists, 2 1 2 n .2 5 T rapeznikov, Trifon G eorgievich (1 8 8 2 1926; A n th roposo p h ist, a rt specialist), 9 9 , 101, 102, 2 41 n .8 T rofim enko-D m itrieva, N ad ezh d a A leksan­ drova (T heosophist), 68 T roitskii, M atvei M ikhailovich ( 1 8 3 5 — 1899; professor o f philosophy, specializ­ ing in G erm an philosophy; interested in spiritualism , psychology), 103, 2 2 7 n .5 6 T rotsky (B ronshtein), Lev D avidovich (1 8 7 9 -1 9 4 0 ; M enshevik), 177 T rubetskaia, Princess Ada (A n th ro p o so ­ p h ist), 2 1 9 n .l8 T rubetskoi, Evgenii N ikolaevich (1 8 6 3 1920; philosopher, VL Solov’ev’s in ti­ m ate friend) 78, 160 Trudy i d n i ( Works a n d Days, M oscow journal), 89, 100, 2 4 0 n ,9 0 T ukholka, Sofiia Ivanovna (popularizer o f occult texts), 21, 2 1 1 n .l2 T urgenev, Ivan Sergeevich (1 8 1 8 —1883; novelist), 37 T urgeneva, Asya (A nna Alekseevna, 1 8 9 0 — 1966; A n th roposo p h ist, A ndrei Belyi’s first wife), 9 9 , 101, 102, 2 0 6 , 2 2 6 n 4 8 , 2 4 2 n .l3 T urgeneva, N atasha (N atal’ia Alekseevna, 1 8 8 6 -1 9 4 2 ; A nth ro p o so p h ist, Asya T urgeneva’s sister, wife o f A leksandr P o zzo ), 101, 102, 2 0 7 T yrkova, A riadna V ladim irovna (T h e o so ­ phist, intim ate o f A nna Filosofova), 64 U nkovskaia, A leksandra Vasil’evna (1 8 5 7 1929; Kaluga T h eo so p h ist, violinist, synaesthesiast, friend o f Wasily K andin­ sky), 64, 65, 73, 197, 2 4 6 n .l2 U nkovskii, N.V. (opera singer, hu sb an d o f Aieksandra U nkovskaia), 65 U panishads, 34, 142, 1 5 2 , 173 U rusov, L eonid D m itrievich (friend o f Lev T olstoi), 161 U rusova, Princess Sofiia V ladim irovna (M oscow T heo so p h ist), 6 5 , 8 9 , 2 1 9 n .l8 U spenskii, P e tr D em ianovich (1 8 7 8 -

1947; T h eo so p h ist, later disciple o f G urdjieff, occu lt th in k er), 8, 3 7 , 7 3 —7 6 , 159, 178, 182, 2 2 2 n .4 7 , 2 4 1 n .5 , 2 4 2 n .l6 ; Chetvertoe izm erenie ( The Fourth D im ension), 74 U topianism , 185, 2 0 5 , 2 2 3 n .l9 V achod, N izier-A nthelm e (D r. Philippe, 1 8 4 9 -1 9 0 5 ; French occultist, w ith Papus fo u n d ed th e St. P etersb u rg Martinist L o d g e), 20 Vagner, Nikolai P etrovich (1 8 2 9 -1 9 0 7 ; zoology professor, Spiritualist), 24 Valentinus (second cen tu ry A . D . ; G nostic th eo lo g ian ), 2 3 0 n n . 6 and 7 Varlaam, A rchim andrite (anti-T heosophical cleric), 6 7 , 144, 167, 168 Vasil’ev, Pavel Nikolaevich (A n th ro ­ p o so p h ist, m edical d o cto r, Klavdiia Vasil’eva’s first h u sb an d ), 2 2 6 n .4 7 Vasil’ev, V. P. (o rien to lo g ist), 193 Vasil’eva (Bugaeva), Klavdiia N ikolaevna (1 8 8 6 -1 9 7 0 ; A n th ro p o so p h ist, Belyi’s second w ife). 1 0 0 , 2 2 6 n .4 7 , 2 4 2 n .l3 Vasil’eva, M . F. (Kaluga T heo so p h ist), 2 2 0 n .2 6 V aughan5T hom as (1 6 2 2 -1 6 9 5 ; English al­ chem ist, R osicrucian), 128 V edanta (one o f th e six philosophical sys­ tem s o f In d ia), 2 3 8 n ,5 1 V edantists, 193 Vedas (oldest texts o f H in d u ism ), 184, 2 3 5 n .l4 , 252 vegetarianism , 7 0 , 182 Vcl’ts, A riadna F. (Kiev T h eo so p h ist), 65 V erlaine, Paul (1 8 4 4 -1 8 9 6 ; French Sym ­ bolist p o et), 19 Veselovskaia, A nna A. (T heosophist, p o e t), 73 Vestnik teosofii ( Theosophical H erald, St. P e­ tersb u rg jo u rn al), 55, 5 8 , 5 9 , 6 9 —7 3 , 7 7 , 8 0 , 8 7 -8 8 , 9 8 , 138, 152, 160, 161, 1 6 8 -1 6 9 , 172, 173, 2 1 8 n . l l , 2 1 9 n .2 1 , 2 2 2 n .4 0 , 2 4 6 n ,1 2 Vestnik'. S atyat N a sti Paro D harm ah ( The H era ld : N o R eligion H igher Than T ruth, G eneva jou rn al), 1 8 1 -1 8 2 , 183, 1 8 5 -1 8 6 V ictoria, Q u een o f E ngland (1 8 1 9 -1 9 0 1 ; ru led 1 8 3 7 -1 9 0 1 ), 23 V ik en t’ev, V. M . (historian and E g yptolo­ gist, A n th ro p o so p h ist), 9 9 , 102

Villiers de L ’Isle-A dam , A uguste (1 8 3 8 1889; pre-Sym bolist F rench w riter), 19 V isvakarman (Vedic deity ), 2 3 2 n .2 1 V ivekananda, Swami (1 8 6 2 -1 9 0 2 ; influen­ tial Bengali yogi w ho becam e an in te r­ p reter o f Yoga and H in d u ism to the W est), 152, 1 61 , 194, 2 3 8 n .5 1 vivisection, 69 VoFfila (Vol’naia Filosof. assotsiatsiia, Free Philosophical A ssociation, P etro g rad ), 175, 176, 177, 2 4 2 n .9 Volkonskii, Prince Sergei M ikhailovich (1 8 6 0 -1 9 3 7 ; D irecto r o f Im perial T h e a­ ters; sym pathetic to T h eo so p h y ), 2 1 9 n .l8 Volkov, Sergei D m itrievich (d. 1909; M oscow T h eo so p h ist, o ccultist, F re e ­ m ason), 8 4 , 88 Volksseele. See F olk Soul V oFnaia akadem iia dukh ovnoi k u l’tury (Free A cadem y o f Spiritual C u ltu re, M oscow ), 175, 2 4 2 n ,1 0 V oloshin, M aksim ilian A leksandrovich (1 8 7 7 —1932; A n th ro p o so p h ist, p o e t), 8, 6 4 , 9 0 , 9 6 , 101, 159, 161, 181, 193, 2 0 6 , 2 4 5 n .5 Voltaire (M arie Francois A ro u et, 1 6 9 4 - · 1778; F rench E n lig h te n m e n t w riter and philosopher), 4 , 16 Voprasy fllosofli i psikhologii (Problems in Philosophy n n d Psychology, M oscow jo u r­ nal), 50, 1 5 2 , 193 Voprosy teosofii (Problems in Theosophy, an ­ th ology), 58—59 voskhozhdenie (ascent), 2 3 1 n .l7 Vse-Edinstvo. See A ll-U nity V vedenskii, A leksandr Ivanovich (1 8 5 6 1925; professor, philo so p h er, psycholo­ gist), 193 Vysheslavtsev, Boris P etrovich ( 1 8 7 7 1954; law professor, th eo lo g ian , p h ilo so ­ ph er), 186, 2 0 7 , 2 3 8 , 2 4 2 n .l0 , 2 4 5 n .3 6 W agner, R ichard (1 8 1 3 -1 8 8 3 ; G erm an com poser), 7, 7 3 , 16 4, 2 2 7 n .5 4 W esternizers, 103, 158, 203 W hite D oves (B elyegolubi), 15, 143, 2 4 3 n .l8 W ilde, O scar (1 8 5 4 -1 9 0 0 ; E nglish deca­ d e n t w riter), 19

W in d elb an d , W ilhelm (1 8 4 8 -1 9 1 5 ; G er­ m an N eo -K an tian p h ilo so p h er), 103, 2 2 7 n .5 6 W itte, Sergei IuFevich (1 8 4 9 -1 9 1 5 ; M inis­ te r o f F inance u n d e r N icholas II; cousin o f M m e Blavatsky), 38 W oloschin, M argarita. See SabashnikovaV oloshina, M argarita W u n d t, W ilhelm M ax (1 8 3 2 —1920; G er­ m an p h ilo so p h er, psychologist), 34, 10 3 , 2 2 7 n .5 6 Yeats, W illiam B utler (1 8 6 5 -1 9 3 9 ; Irish Sym bolist w riter), 19 Yoga, 2 2 , 1 2 7 , 130; H a th a Yoga, 2 3 8 n .5 1 ; Jnana Yoga, 2 3 8 n .5 1 ; Raja Yoga, 2 2 0 n .29, 2 3 8 n .5 1 , 2 5 2 Z agoskin, M ikhail N ikolaevich (1 7 8 9 1 8 5 2 ; novelist), 18 Zapriagaev, V ladim ir N ikolaevich (astro lo ­ ger, occu lt p opularizer, pu b lish er), 2 1 , 2 1 1 n .l2 Z arin , A ndrei Efim ovich (1 8 6 3 —1929; jo urnalist, a u th o r o f occu lt an d su p er­ n atural fiction), 27 Zenkovskii, Vasilii VasiFevich (1 8 8 1 1 962; religious philo so p h er, h isto rian ), 207 Z helikhovskaia, Elena V ladim irovna (1 8 7 3 -1 9 4 9 ; M m e. Blavatsky’s niece, ch ild ren ’s w riter), 2 1 7 n .3 8 Z helikhovskaia, N a d ezh d a V ladim irovna (1 8 6 2 -1 9 3 2 ; M m e Blavatsky’s niece, w ife o f General Aleksei B rusilov, p h ilan ­ th ro p ist), 2 1 7 n .3 8 Z helikhovskaia, Vera P etro v n a (1 8 3 5 1 8 9 6 ; sister o f M m e Blavatsky, novelist a n d jo u rn alist), 4 4 , 52, 5 4 , 2 1 3 n .l, 2 1 5 n .l3 ; as M m e Blavatsky’s b io g ­ rapher, 3 9 , 4 4 -4 5 ; 4 9 , 2 1 3 n .l; as novelist, 2 7 , 38; an d Vs. Solov’ev, 4 7 49 Z helikhovskaia, Vera V ladim irovna. See Vera Jo h n sto n Z h em ch u zh n ik o v a, M ariia (A n th ro p o so ­ p h ist), 1 0 0 , 1 7 6 , 180 Z in o v ’eva-A nnibal, Lidiia D m itrievna (1 8 7 2 -1 9 0 7 ; w riter, wife ofV iacheslav Ivanov), 91 Z oroastrianism , 134, 2 3 4 n .6 0