And yet the Archbishop of Canterbury has recently told the world

that “the Church wishes the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

the truth, to be told,” and the Bishops of Carlisle, Durham,

Peterborough, Manchester, Liverpool and Bedford, have also used

words to the same effect. But although I have spent the best part of

my life (17 years) in striving to find one clergyman (from the

highest to the lowest), I have not found one who would allow this

liberty to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

truth, concerning Christ Crucified. And I appeal to the rulers of

the Church to allow this liberty—and to the people to demand and

obtain this liberty, if the rulers of the Church refuse it. For I

have a letter from Canon Liddon, in which he says to me, “I can

believe with all my heart, although I only know you from the two

letters which you have written to me (upon my sermons), that if you

were to preach, people would go to hear you as they go to hear me.”

Is there not a cause then, why I should complain of being thus

cruelly and unjustly boycotted for 17 years without any reason?

The chief organ of the Church and the Press (the _Times_) in the

supposed chief Christian city in the world, refused to publish, even

as an advertisement, any one of the three following appeals, on the

ground that they were _inadmissible_. Yes, _inadmissible_, whilst

all the minutest details of the Barrett trial, the Dilke trial, the

Colin Campbell trial, the Seabright trial, and a host of others of a

like nature, were all _freely admissible_.

I.

“A pulpit wanted, in the National Church, in which liberty will be

allowed to teach the truth of Christ Crucified, openly and

fearlessly, in order that it may no longer remain either a

stumbling-block to the Jews, foolishness to the world, or a mystery

to the teachers of it (as it is to this day, for want only of this

liberty), but may verily be seen to be, as it is, and as St. Paul

asserted it to be, the power of God, and wisdom of God for the

salvation of all men.”

II.

“The Rev. T. G. Headley, of Petersham, S.W., appeals to the Clergy

and people of the Church of England for a pulpit in which he may be

allowed to preach seven sermons: I. on Unbelief; II. the Trial of

Abraham; III. the Day of Judgment; IV. Mary Magdalene; V. Conversion

of St. Paul; VI. Jesus, only; VII. Inspiration.”

III.

“The Rev. T. G. Headley, of Petersham, S.W., appeals to the Clergy

for a pulpit in which he may be allowed to explain the mystery of

Christ Crucified, that it may no longer remain a mystery.”

Rev. T. G. HEADLEY.

Manor House, Petersham, S.W.

---

[This persistent refusal is the more remarkable as other preachers

are allowed to teach worse, _from an orthodox standpoint, of

course_. Is it _inadmissible_ “to explain the mystery of Christ

Crucified,” as the Rev. Mr. Headley is likely to, lest it should

interfere with the explanation and description of Jehovah—“_one with

Christ Jesus_” in the orthodox dogma—by the Rev. H. R. Haweis, M.

A.? Says this truthful and cultured if not very pious orator: “At

first the chief attributes of Satan were given to Jehovah. It was

God who destroyed the world, hardened Pharaoh, tempted David,

provoked to sin, and punished the sinner. This way of thinking

lingered even as late as 700 B.C.: ‘I the Lord make peace and create

evil’ (Isa. xlv. 7). We have an odd survival of this identification

of God with the Devil in the word ‘_Deuce_,’ which is none other

than ‘_Deus_,’ but which to us always means the Devil. As the Jew

grew more spiritual he gradually transferred the devilish functions

to a ‘Satan,’ or accusing spirit. The transition point appears in

comparing the early passage (2 Sam. xxiv.), when _God_ is said to

‘move’ David to number the people, with the later (1 Chron. xxi.),

where _Satan_ is said to be the instigator who ‘provoked’ the

numbering. But Satan is not yet the King Devil. We can take up our

Bible and trace the gradual transformation of Satan from an accusing

angel into the King Devil of popular theology.”—(_The Key_, etc p.

22.) This, we believe, is an even more damaging teaching for the

Orthodox Church than any theory about “Christ Crucified.” Mr.

Headley seeks to prove Christ, the Rev. Haweis ridiculing and making

away with the Devil, _destroys and makes away for ever with Jesus_,

as Christ, also. For, as logically argued by Cardinal Ventura de

Raulica, “_to demonstrate the existence of Satan, is to

re-establish_ ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL DOGMAS OF THE CHURCH, _which

serves as a basis for Christianity, and without which_, Satan (and

Jesus) would be but names”; or to put it in the still stronger terms

of the pious Chevalier des Mousseaux, “_The Devil is the chief

pillar of Faith_ ... if it was not for him, the Saviour, the

Crucified, the Redeemer, would be but the most ridiculous of

supernumeraries, and the Cross an insult to good sense.” (See _Isis

Unveil._ vol. i., 103; vol. ii., 14.) Truly so. Were there no Devil,

a Christ to save the World from him would be hardly wanted! Yet, the

Rev. Haweis says: (p. 24) “I cannot now discuss the teaching of the

N. T. on the King Devil, or I might show that Jesus did not endorse

the popular view of one King Devil, and ... notice the way in which

our translators have played fast and loose with the words _Diabolus

and Satan_;” adding that the Tree and Serpent worship was an

Oriental cult, “of which the narrative of Adam and Eve is a Semitic

form.” Is this _admissible_ orthodoxy?—ED.]

SOCIALISM AND THEOSOPHY.

_To the Editors of_ LUCIFER.

MESDAMES,—In the December number of LUCIFER Mr. J. B. Bright takes

exception to some remarks on Socialism in an article on

“Brotherhood,” which appeared in your pages a month previously.

As the writer of that article, I think it right to accept Mr.

Bright’s challenge, and endeavour to replace my somewhat hasty

generalisations by a more precise statement of the teachings of

Theosophy, as they appear to me to bear on the question at issue.

Mr. Bright objects to my use of the phrase “_materialistic_

Socialism.” My intention was to draw a distinction between that

which “concerns itself primarily with the material or physical

condition of mankind,” and that other form of purely voluntary

association, springing, as regards each of its members, from a

recognition of their unity of purpose, and the realisation of the

idea of brotherhood, for an example of which we may turn to the

communistic system of the early Christian Church. I would point out

that this is not a fanciful distinction, as in the first case what

is described as “a juster distribution of wealth” is the very

essence of the Socialistic idea, while in the second it is only an

incident, arising from the conviction that worldly possessions have

in themselves no value in comparison with “the things of the

spirit.” I maintain then that the teachings of Theosophy are opposed

to “modern materialistic Socialism,” and I will endeavour to point

out, as briefly as possible, in what this opposition consists.

There is at the outset a fundamental difference between Theosophy

and Socialism in the value they attach to the “material and

physical” well-being of mankind. Theosophy regards any given earth

life as an infinitesimal link in the chain of lives which leads from

the first glimmerings of a separate consciousness up to the very

threshold of Divinity and All-knowledge. And taking the doctrines of

Re-incarnation and Karma, as interacting laws, it sees in the

apparent injustices of physical life, and in the inequalities of

intellectual and moral development among mankind, the results of

good or bad use made of opportunities in previous incarnations. The

Universe is governed by the great law of Harmony, whose agent is

Karma, and infractions of this law, or rebellion against it, are

punished by the action of Karma, whether in the individual or the

race. Thus the position of every individual in respect to his fellow

men, and the position of every nation (the compound, as it were, of

individual Karmas) in respect to other nations, is the direct result

of previously acquired characteristics and affinities. The

re-incarnation of an individual will be governed by his personal

affinities; firstly, to the general Karma of his nation: secondly,

to the particular circumstances of his parentage and condition in

life. Theosophy therefore teaches that so far as regards his

individual Karma, a man’s place in Society is what he has made it,

and he has no right to cry out against the injustice of the law

which he has broken, and which inexorably exacts the penalty of his

default. This does not however quite hold good as regards the

national or the cyclic Karma. It is quite possible that by the

action of cyclic Karma injustice may be done to individuals, to be

atoned for no doubt in future existences, but at the same time

calculated to impede their due and regular development. The

combating of this cyclic Karma, in so far as it deals unjustly with

individuals, is the work of the great and wise ones of this earth,

and every true Theosophist will to the best of his ability take part

in the struggle. But the Socialist movement is itself a part of the

cyclic Karma, and in its endeavour to rectify what seem, from its

limited point of view, injustices, it cannot fail to be unjust to

those the justice of whose position in life it declines to

recognise. Thus it cannot be otherwise than that it should meet with

opposition from those whose object is the improvement of humanity as

a whole.

I must in the second place point out that the teaching of Theosophy

is entirely opposed to the idea that any very great progress can be

made by humanity as a whole, within the space of a few generations.

Speaking of the destruction of evil in the human heart, the author

of “Light on the Path” says, “Only the strong can kill it out. The

weak must wait for its growth, its fruition, its death. And it is a

plant which lives and increases throughout the ages. It flowers when

man has accumulated unto himself innumerable existences.” This is

undoubtedly Theosophical teaching, but I do not think it tallies

with Mr. Bright’s view that “this self same society——contains within

it all the germs of such a reconstruction of the physical

environment as shall shortly place the means of spiritual and

psychical regeneration within the reach of all.” It is impossible

that Socialism or any other external organisation can “raise the

intellectual and instinctive moral standard of the whole community

to such an extent that all will, in the next generation after the

Social Revolution, be amenable to the truths” of Theosophy. This

would be equivalent to saying that every member of the community was

prepared definitely to undertake the task of self-conquest, and it

happens unfortunately that almost all the external work of Socialism

is in the opposite direction. Further, it must be distinctly pointed

out that this task of self-conquest must be undertaken and carried

through by each man for himself, and only those who have reached a

certain point in human evolution are ready for the struggle. There

is one other point on which I feel some stress must be laid. It

seems to me impossible that Theosophy, recognising as it does the

immense gulf which exists between ordinary humanity (in which term I

of course include all its followers), and those who are on the

threshold of Divinity, can fail to recognise at the same time the

principle of hierarchy in its best and noblest sense. I mean of

course a spiritual hierarchy, but even this is incompatible with

that innate hatred of domination which is so obvious in Socialism.

There is no doubt some inconsistency in this hatred of domination,

as in practice Socialists are prepared to substitute for the

existing domination of intelligence that of mere numbers, but this,

if anything, only makes the contrast between the two ideas somewhat

stronger. It is only right to point out that an accepted disciple

(not a mere student) practically surrenders his personal liberty,

and pledges himself to obedience to those great ones who are the

initiators of the Theosophical movement.

I have endeavoured thus far to particularise my general statement

that the teachings of Theosophy were opposed to Socialism. I think

Mr. Bright’s objections to my other statements are in effect

answered in what I have already said, but I may perhaps be permitted

to deal with them separately. If Mr. Bright has understood the

meaning of the article on Brotherhood, he will, I think, see that

whereas the Theosophical idea of brotherhood is based on the

identity of the Divine spirit inherent in humanity, and thence

working downwards, the brotherhood of Socialism is based on the

assumption of equality on the material, or intellectual plane, and

has, _per se_, no existence at all on the higher plane. The

brotherhood of Theosophy, once rightly understood, will no doubt be

manifested on the lower planes, but that does not make it the same

thing as an idea of Brotherhood which begins and ends in physical

existence.

As to my remark that Socialism is an attempt to interfere with the

action of the Laws of Karma, I should perhaps have added the word

“individual,” which, in conjunction with my reference to the parable

of the talents, should make the meaning clear. Socialism aims at the

levelling of classes, which is nothing else than a redistribution of

the responsibilities of life. I understand the parable of the

talents to indicate the true meaning of the differences in

opportunities accorded to individuals during their life on earth.

Every opportunity is also a responsibility, and from those to whom

much is given much will be demanded. Further, responsibility is

thrust upon those who can bear it, and to relieve them from it, and

transfer it to the shoulders of the weaker brethren, is an

interference with the laws of Karma, and can only lead to a

retardation of the general evolution of humanity. I will only say in

conclusion that I have endeavoured to confine my remarks to the view

of Socialism advanced by Mr. Bright. It is indeed hardly necessary

to point out that Theosophy can never be a party to the incitements

to violence, and the appeals to the baser passions which Mr. Bright

rightly deprecates, but which are unfortunately too often the

stock-in-trade of the Socialist orator.

I feel that there are many points in Mr. Bright’s letter to which I

should be glad to reply more in detail, but I fear that in so doing

I might be considered as trenching too much on those purely

political aspects of the question which are outside the scope of

Theosophical work.

I am, Mesdames,

Your obedient servant,

THOS. B. HARBOTTLE.

-----------------------

WHAT IS THEOSOPHY?

_The question is answered by Schopenhauer as follows_:

“... Starting from the plane of _mental conception_ (_Vorstellung_),

and proceeding on our way towards the attainment of _objective

knowledge_, we shall never be able to arrive at a higher point than

our own conception (imagination), _i.e._ of the external appearance

of the object of our observation; but we shall never be able to

penetrate into the interior of the things and to find out what they

really are (not what they merely appear to be). So far I agree with

_Kant_. But as a counterpoise to this truth I have called attention

to another one; namely, that we are not merely the _cognising

subject_, but we are also ourselves a part of object of our

cognition, we are ourselves the _Thing itself_. There is

consequently an interior way open to us from that self-existing and

interior essence of things, which we cannot approach from the

outside; a kind of subterranean passage, a secret connection, by

which we by treason, as it were, may at once penetrate into a

fortress which was impregnable from the outside. The _Thing itself_

can as such enter our consciousness only in a direct manner, _i.e._

_by becoming conscious of its own self_. To attempt to know it

objectively is to ask for a self-contradiction.” (_The World as Will

and Conception._ Vol. ii., Cap. 18).

What Schopenhauer expresses in modern philosophical language might

perhaps be stated in a few words by saying, that man cannot become

conscious of the truth unless the truth is in him, and in that case

it is not the man who recognises the truth, but the truth which

recognises itself in man. He who wants to know it objectively must

separate himself from it, because no one can see his own face

without the help of a mirror; but if he separates himself from it,

the truth exists in him no longer. It is therefore the truth itself

which may become self-conscious in man, provided there exists any

truth in him.

F. H.

-----------------------

A NOTE OF EXPLANATION.

I would much rather suffer an unintentional misrepresentation of my

meaning than take the trouble to reply, and have no desire to

magnify small matters of difference. But a very critical friend

calls my attention to certain statements and apparent discrepancies

in the “Esoteric Character of the Gospels,” on which I will beg

leave to say a word.

I find it affirmed on p. 300, in a foot-note, that “Mr. G. Massey

is not correct in saying that ‘_The Gnostic form of the name

Chrest or Chrestos denotes the Good God, not a human original,’

for it denoted the latter, that is, a good, holy man._” But either

the statement has no meaning as an answer to me, or it is based on

a misunderstanding of mine.[135] I was showing that the _original_

Christ of the Gnosis was not one particular form of human

personality, like the supposed historic Christ, and that the name

denoted a divine, and not a human _original_. I was perfectly well

aware, as your quotations show, that the name was _afterwards_

conferred on the “good” as the Chrestoi or Chrestiani. Nor do I

say, or anywhere imply, that the “_Karest_,” or mummy-type of

immortality _was_ the _only form of the Christ_, as your

quotations again will prove. I have written enough about that

Gnostic Christ who was the Immortal Self in man, the reflection

of, or emanation from, the divine nature in humanity, and in both

sexes, not merely in one.[136] This is the Christ that never could

become a one person or be limited to one sex. This you accept and

preach; yet you can add “_Still the personage (Jesus) so addressed

by Paul—wherever he lived—was a great initiate, and a ‘Son of

God.’_”[137] But the Christos of Paul, being the Gnostic Christ,

as you admit (301), it cannot be a personage named Jesus, or a

great Initiate, who was addressed by him. It appears to me that in

passages like these, you are giving away all that is worth

contending for, and vouching for that which never has been, and

never can be, proved. I have searched for Jesus many years in the

Gospels and elsewhere without being able to catch hold of the hem

of the garment of any human personality. Ben-Pandira we know a

little of, but cannot make him out in the Christ of the Gospels.

The Christ of the Gnosis can be identified, but not with any

historic Jesus.

-----

Footnote 135:

The remark made has never been meant as “an answer,” but simply as

an observation that the word “Chrestos” applied to a “good man,” a

“human original,” and not to a “good God only.” If such was not

the intention of Mr. Massey, and he amplifies his idea elsewhere,

it was not so amplified in his article in the “Agnostic Annual.”

It is, therefore, simply a bare statement of facts referring to

that particular article and no more. I do not for one moment

oppose Mr. Massey’s conclusions, nor doubt his undeniable learning

in the direction of those particular researches, _i.e._, about the

words “Christos” and “Chrestos.” What I say is, that he limits

them to the negation of an historical Christ, and, for reasons no

doubt very weighty, does not touch upon their principal esoteric

meaning in the temple-phraseology of the Mysteries.—H.P.B.

Footnote 136:

This is absolutely and preeminently a Theosophical doctrine taught

ever since 1875, when the Theosophical Society was founded.—[ED.]

Footnote 137:

This, I am afraid, is a misunderstanding (due, no doubt, to my own

fault) on the part of our learned correspondent, of the meaning

that was intended to be conveyed in the articles now criticized.

If he goes to the trouble of reading over again the paragraph that

misled him (see p. 307, 5th paragraph), he will, perhaps, see that

it is so. That which was really meant was that, though the terms

_Christos_ and _Chréstos_ are generic surnames, still, the

personage so addressed (not by Paul, necessarily, but by any one),

was a great Initiate and a “Son of God.” It is the name “Jesus,”

placed in the sentence in parentheses that made it both clumsy and

misleading. Whether Paul knew of Jehoshua Ben Pandira (and he must

have heard of him), or not, he could never have applied the

surname used by him to Jesus or any other _historic_ Christ.

Otherwise his _Epistles_ would not have been withheld and exiled

as they were. The sentence which precedes the two incriminated

statements, shows that no such thing, as understood by Mr. Massey,

could have been really meant, as it is said “Occultism pure and

simple finds the same mystic elements in the Christian as in other

faiths, _though it rejects emphatically its dogmatic and historic

character_.” The two statements, viz., that Jesus or Jehoshua Ben

Pandira _whenever he lived_, was a great Initiate and the “Son of

God”—just as Apollonius of Tyana was—and that Paul never meant

either him or any other living Initiate, but a metaphysical

Christos present in, and _personal_ to, every mystic Gnostic as to

every initiated Pagan—are not at all irreconcileable. A man may

know of several great Initiates, and yet place his own ideal on a

far higher pedestal than any of these.—[H.P.B.]

-----

We do not go to the Christian Gospels to learn the true nature of

the Christ, or the incarnation according to the Gnostic religion

(I use this term in preference to yours of the “Wisdom-Religion,”

as being more definite and explanatory; not as a religion,

supposed by the _Idiotai_ to have followed in the wake of Historic

Christianity!). These were known in Egypt, more than six thousand

years ago. When the monuments began the Cult of the Supreme God

Atum was extant. We know not how many æons earlier, but six

thousand years will do. Atum = Adam was the divine father of an

eternal soul which was personated as his son, named Iu-em-hept

(the Greek Imothos or Æsculapius), an image of whom used to be

seen (on shelf 3,578, b. 1874), in the British Museum. He was the

second Atum = Adam, and is called the “Eternal Word” in the

Ritual. In external phenomena this type represented the Solar God,

re-born monthly or annually in the lunar orb; in human phenomena

the Christ or Son of God as the essential and eternal soul in man.

But he was neither a man nor an Initiate. He was just what the

Logos, the Word of Truth or Ma-Kheru, the Buddha or Christ is in

other Cults.[138]

-----

Footnote 138:

Nor shall I dispute this statement in general. But this does not

invalidate in one iota _my_ claim. The temple priests assumed

the names of the gods they served, and this is as well known a

fact, as that the defunct Egyptian became an “Osiris”—was

“osirified”—after his death. Yet Osiris was assuredly neither

“man nor an Initiate,” but a being hardly recognised as such by

the Royal Society of materialistic science. Why, then, could not

an “Initiate,” who had succeeded in merging his spiritual being

into the _Christos state_, be regarded as a Christos after his

last and supreme initiation, just as he was called _Chrestos_

before that? Neither Plotinus, Porphyry nor Apollonius were

Christians, yet, according to esoteric teaching, Plotinus

realized this sublime state (of becoming or uniting himself with

his _Christos_) six times, Apollonius of Tyana four times, while

Porphyry reached the exalted state only once, when over sixty

years of age. The Gnostics called the “_Word_” “Abraxas” and

“Christos” indiscriminately, and by whatever name we may call

it, whether Ma-Kheru, or Christos or Abraxas, it is all one.

That mystic state which gives to our inner being the impulse

that attracts “the soul toward its origin and centre, the

Eternal good,” as Plotinus teaches, and makes of man a god, the

Christos or the unknown made manifest, is a preeminently

theosophical condition. It belonged to the temple mysteries, and

the teachings of the Neo-Platonists.—[H.P.B.]

-----

I cordially agree with “M,” a correspondent whom you quote, and wish

that all our orthodox friends would as frankly face the facts. If

any historic Jesus ever did claim to be the Gnostic Christ made

flesh[139] once for all, he would be the supremest impostor in

history.

Let us define to ourselves very strictly what it is we do mean, or

we shall introduce the direst confusion into the conflict, and we

shall be unable to distinguish the face of friend from foe in the

cloud of battle-dust which we may raise. What I find is, that

Historic Christianity was based either upon the suppression or the

perversion of all that _was_ esoteric in Gnostic Christianity. And

to bring any aid from the one to the support of the other is to try

and re-establish with the left hand all that you are knocking down

with the right.

I am also taken to task on page 307 for alluding to the Bible as a

“Magazine of falsehoods already exploded, or just going off,” by the

writer who adds force to my words later on in characterizing these

same writings as a “Magazine of (_wicked_) falsehoods”[140] (p.

178), which was going farther than I went, who do set down as much

to ignorance as to knavery. What I meant was, that the “Fall of Man”

in the Old Testament, is a falsification of fable, now exploded, and

that the redemption from that fall, which is promised in the New,

whether by an “Initiate” or “Son of God” is a fraud based on the

fable, and a falsehood that is going to be exploded. There is no

call to mix up the Book of the Dead, the Vedas, or any other sacred

writings, in this matter. Each tub must stand on its own bottom, and

the one that won’t, can’t hold water.[141]

GERALD MASSEY.

P.S. By the by, I see the Adventists, and other misleading

Delusionists are all agog just now about the wonderful fulfilment of

prophecy, and corroboration of historic fact, that we are now

witnessing. The “Star of Bethlehem” has reappeared, so they say, to

prove the truth of the Christian story. But, sad to say, it is not

the star of Christ that is now visible in the south-east before

sunrise every morning. It is Venus in her heliacal rising. It is

Venus as the Maleess, or Lucifer as “Sun of the Morning.” This

particular Star of Bethlehem—there are various others less brilliant

and less noticeable—generally does return once every nineteen months

or so, when the planet Venus is the Morning Star. Only the gaping

camel-swallowers, who know all about the “Star of Bethlehem,” and

the fulfilment of prophecy, are not up in Astronomy, and they will

no doubt squirm and strain at this small gnat of real fact offered

to them by way of an explanation.

G. M.

-----

Footnote 139:

“Christ made flesh,” would be a claim worse than imposture, as it

would be _absurdity_, but a man of flesh assuming the

_Christ-condition_ temporarily, is indeed an occult, yet living,

fact.—[ED.]

Footnote 140:

Just so, if it has been originally written to be accepted in its

dead letter sense. But, as I entirely agree with Mr. Massey, that

historic Christianity was based upon the suppression, and

especially the _perversion_ of that which was esoteric in

gnosticism, it is difficult to see in what it is that we disagree?

The perversion of esoteric facts in the gospels is not so cleverly

done as to prevent the true occultist from reading the Gospel

narratives between the lines.—[H.P.B.]

Footnote 141:

If Mr. G. Massey kindly waits till the conclusion of “the Esoteric

character of the gospels” to criticise the statements, he may

perhaps arrive at the conviction that we are not so far apart in

our ideas upon this particular question as he seems to think. Of

course my critic being an Egyptologist, opposed to the Aryan

theory, and arriving at his conclusions only by what he finds in

strictly authenticated and accepted documents—and I, as a

Theosophist and an Occultist of a certain school, accepting my

proofs on data which he rejects—_i.e._ esoteric teachings—we can

hardly agree upon every point. But the question is not whether

there was or never was an _historical_ Christ, or Jesus, between

the years 1 and 33 A.D.—but simply were the Gospels of the

gnostics (of Marcion and others, for instance) perverted later by

Christians—esoteric allegories founded on _facts_, or simply

meaningless fictions? I believe the former, and esoteric teachings

explain many of the allegories.—[H.P.B.]

-----

-----------------------

[_We give room to this remarkable letter with the object of

comparison. The Secularists are loud in proclaiming the modes of

expression of the Theosophists as “stultic profundity,” and the

Esoteric Doctrine as “a hopeless chaos,” a “rudely methodised

madness.” At the same time the Hylo-Idealists are_ PERSONÆ

GRATISSIMÆ _in the “Secular Review,” and no such remarks are

passed about their theories and style_. Readers please to compare.

“Fiat Justitia, ruat Saladinus!”—ED.]

HYLO-IDEALISM—THE SECRET OF JESUS.

“Behold, the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.”

The primacy of Self is indisputable, if by reason of one fact

only—that this, self-same, Self is the initial postulate of all sane

philosophy. And, when Philosophy soars to Metaphysic, Scientific

Analysis “takes up the wondrous tale,” and its burden is Self-hood

also. All roads lead to Rome. All analysis runs into the Egoistic

Synthesis. “The One [Ego] remains, the Many change and pass.” Yet

the passing is only the flux and ebb of the One. In Hegel’s words,

“that which passes away passes away into its own self: only the

passing away passes away.” Which things are an allegory, and yet

“_solvitur ambulando_.” A recent traveller in the United States

tells us, that, in the Emerson country, he chanced upon cross-roads,

and found there an apparently contradictory direction-post. One arm

of it bore the inscription, “This is the way to Concord,” the other,

pointing in the opposite direction, was similarly worded, “This is

the way to Concord.” The Hylo-Ideal Thesis is this Ideal Concord, to

be reached whether you travel by way of Eastern Idealism, or by the

route of plainer Western Materialism. For, and here all

contradictions are reconciled, in the one Subject-object which is

Self, there is no diversity, neither Jew nor Greek, neither Idealism

only, nor Materialism only, or exclusively, but all is one.[142] And

in Unity there is no class distinction, no nomenclature, no

“otherness,” no Ebal _and_ Gerizim, but only the Mount of God. What

the Ego is, _all_ is.[143] It is the _x_ of every problem and

answers to any value save the spurious and indifferent one of the

Dualist.

-----

Footnote 142:

Hence the Spirit of _Non-Separateness_ in esoteric philosophy must

be the ONE _truth_.—ED.

Footnote 143:

Only this “Ego” is _universal_, not _individual_: _Absolute_

Consciousness, not the _human_ Brain.—ED.

-----

I find Hylo-Idealism (Auto-centricism)—this “pearl of great

price”—canvassed and examined by many modern thinkers, only to be

contemptuously cast away, though it would have made each one of them

in turn “richer than all his tribe.” But it was ever thus. In this

rejection there is no despair in the view of the _illuminati_. All

is ours, and paltering with the central truth of SOLIPSISM, as men

have ever paltered, does not change or diminish the truth itself, or

lessen the assurance of its ultimate victory, since to go from, or

flee from, the Egoistic presence is an impossibility. We wander here

and there, but to seek to transcend ourselves is vain. There must,

sooner or later, be the _resipiscentia_, the coming home at last to

Self, and Self only, as to the better home at last.

In this view there is no _Logos_—save that indisputable one, which

maketh all things to every one of us—no “true Light” save that

effulgent one which “lighteth every man that cometh into the world,”

namely, his own creative and illuminating Egoity—_sans_ which there

is but nothingness. Such a Gospel as this should be termed the

Evangel of common-sense were it not that that phrase shows only one

side of the question—“_Virginibus, puerisque est_” but it is also

the very acme of the exalted intelligence, “the last and sharpest

height” of human thought where the atmosphere is all too rare for

mortal breath.

The highest and the lowliest[144] are ever thus akin—“Aryan worship

secreted in the Holy of Holies the utensils of the dairy.” Grasp but

the centre truth of truths—that the Ego and its products are _one_,

that every one of us spins, from his own consciousness, the web of

thing and circumstance, which envelopes him—and you see at once and

as it were instinctively, that in this Universe-circle of Egoity

there is no “otherness” even thinkable, no lower and no higher, no

difference, nothing essentially common or unclean, everything being,

not so much cleansed of God, as very THEOBROMA,[145] God’s food and

nutrient element, seeing that in it, and by it, and through it, we

and all things CONSUBSTANTIALLY EXIST.

-----

Footnote 144:

Then why not term the philosophy “_High-Low_-Idealism” _vice_

“Hylo-Idealism”?—ED.

Footnote 145:

“Theobroma”—the same as _cacao-butter_. We take exception _to the

phraseology_, not to Dr. Lewins’ ideas.—ED.

-----

Thus _veræ causæ_ and other figments are not so much unsearchable,

or past finding out, as out of court or indifferent. Whether all be

of God, or all be from a “clam-shell,” does not matter—does not, by

one jot, affect our Thesis. Indifferently we are by origin,

patricians or “gutter-snipes.” The Ego is free of the Cosmos—equal

to either fortune, high or low, makes _its own_ universe, calls it

by its own name, and it “lives and moves and has its being.”

G. M. McC.

-----------------------

GERALD MASSEY ON SHAKSPEARE.

Mr. Massey has sent us a circular, the contents of which should be

of interest to the lovers of Shakspeare and the buyers of rare

books. The writer says:

“My work on the Secret Drama of Shakspeare’s Sonnets, with Sketches

of his Private Friends, and of his own Life and Character, first

published in the year 1866, the Second Edition of which was issued,

with a Supplement, for Subscribers in 1872, has now been out of

print many years. It is frequently enquired for, and very rarely to

be found in the catalogues of second-hand booksellers. Therefore I

am about to reproduce the work. It will have to be re-cast and

re-written where necessary, as the writing can now be more

definitely done. Errors must be confessed and corrected. The new

volume will be on lines similar to those of the earlier work,

accentuated in many of the details, but modified in others. There

will be something new and more decisive to say concerning both sets

of the Sonnets, which I call the Southampton and Herbert series; and

not without reason or warrant will the Comparative method be pushed

much farther than before. The work will be written up to date in the

light of the latest knowledge. The most recent data, the latest

results of Shakspearian Siftings, will be utilised; and something

will have to be said concerning the current Baconian Craze, which

was no doubt foreseen by the Great Humourist when he wrote, ‘_A most

fine figure! To prove you a Cypher!_’ is my aim to fight one last

battle on this field for what I maintain to be the cause of truth

and right; to entrust a final answer on the Sonnet question to the

types of John Guttenberg, and leave in his safe keeping a plea that

shall be heard hereafter, as a permanent memorial to the writer’s

love and admiration for Shakspeare the Poet and Man. After twenty

years the ground is felt to be firmer underfoot. The building will

have a more concrete base. I am enabled to give a closer clinch to

my conclusions, and, as I think, complete my case. Necessarily the

book must be large, 700 or 800 pp. The price will be One Guinea.”

[Illustration: decorative separator]

=CORRESPONDENCE=

INTERESTING TO ASTROLOGERS.

ASTROLOGICAL NOTES—No. 3.

_To the Editor of_ LUCIFER.

Question, at London, 11.45 a.m., Feb. 26th, 1887.

Will the quesited die from his present illness?

Hearing by letter that my uncle, an octogenarian, was seriously ill

from pneumonia, I drew a figure for the moment of the impression to

do so, which occurred while reading the communication. His illness

had commenced about February 7th, and he was now confined to his

bed.

The following are the elements of the figure:—

Cusp of 10th house 0° ♓.

— 11th house 3° ♈.

— 12th house 20° ♉.

— 1st house 4°

38’♋.

— 2nd house 20° ♋.

— 3rd house 8° ♌.

Planets’ places: ♆ 25° 10’ ♉; ♅ 11° 46 R ♎; ♄ 15° 54’ R ♉. ♃ 5° 48’

R ♏; ♂ 20° 31’ 31” ♓; ☉ 7° 35’ 50” ♓; ♀ 27° 53’ 14” ♓; ☿ 23° 18’ 58”

♓; ☽ 16° 22’ 36” ♈. Caput Draconis 27° 35’ ☊; ⨁ 13 24’ ♌.

As the quesited was the 4th of my mother’s brothers and sisters, my

mother being the 8th and last, I took the 10th house of the figure

for herself, the 12th (or 3rd from the 10th) for her eldest brother

or sister, the 2nd for the 2nd, the 4th for the 3rd, the 6th for the

4th—the quesited—and the 1st (the 8th from the 6th) for his 8th, or

house of death. ♂ was lord of his first house, and ☽ of his 8th. The

aspect was ☽ 25° 51’ 5” ♂, separating from the quindecile, and

applying to the semisextile. As the significators were in good

aspects, separating from one and applying to the other, and within

orbs of both, it signified sure recovery; more especially as ♂

received ☽ by house, and was dignified by triplicity. Nevertheless,

the severity of the illness was shown by _Cauda Draconis_ in

quesited’s 4th house; by ♄, lord of quesited’s 4th, posited in

quesited’s 8th, retrograde, in his detriment, and in close □ to ☽,

lady of quesited’s 8th and posited in his 6th. Furthermore, as ☽,

the applying planet of the two significators, was in a cardinal sign

and in a succeedent house of the figure, each degree signified a

week; therefore as ☽ wanted 4° 8’ 55” of the perfect semisextile

aspect, I judged that he would be convalescent in 4 weeks and 1 day,

or March 27th. _On March 29th he walked out in his garden for the

first time_, and fully recovered from his attack.

NEMO.

------------------

ERRATUM.—Page 76, 2nd column, line 2, _for_ ♍ _read_ ♏.

LUCIFER

------------------------------------------------------------------------

VOL. I. LONDON, FEBRUARY 15TH, 1888. NO. 6.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

“WHAT IS TRUTH?”

“_Truth_ is the Voice of Nature and of Time—

_Truth_ is the startling monitor _within us_—

Nought is without it, it comes from the stars,

The golden sun, and every breeze that blows....”

—W. THOMPSON BACON.

“... Fair Truth’s immortal sun

Is sometimes hid in clouds; not that her light

Is in itself defective, but obscured

By my weak prejudice, imperfect faith

And all the thousand causes which obstruct

The growth of goodness....”

—HANNAH MORE.

“What is Truth?” asked Pilate of one who, if the claims of the

Christian Church are even approximately correct, must have known it.

But He kept silent. And the truth which He did not divulge, remained

unrevealed, for his later followers as much as for the Roman

Governor. The silence of Jesus, however, on this and other

occasions, does not prevent his present followers from acting as

though they had received the ultimate and absolute Truth itself; and

from ignoring the fact that only such Words of Wisdom had been given

to them as contained a share of the truth, itself concealed in

parables and dark, though beautiful, sayings.[146]

-----

Footnote 146:

Jesus says to the “Twelve”—“Unto you is given the mystery of the

Kingdom of God; but _unto them that are without, all things are

done in parables_,“ etc. (Mark iv. II.)

-----

This policy led gradually to dogmatism and assertion. Dogmatism in

churches, dogmatism in science, dogmatism everywhere. The possible

truths, hazily perceived in the world of abstraction, like those

inferred from observation and experiment in the world of matter, are

forced upon the profane multitudes, too busy to think for

themselves, under the form of _Divine revelation_ and _Scientific

authority_. But the same question stands open from the days of

Socrates and Pilate down to our own age of wholesale negation: is

there such a thing as _absolute truth_ in the hands of any one party

or man? Reason answers, “there cannot be.” There is no room for

absolute truth upon any subject whatsoever, in a world as finite and

conditioned as man is himself. But there are relative truths, and we

have to make the best we can of them.

In every age there have been Sages who had mastered the absolute and

yet could teach but relative truths. For none yet, born of mortal

woman in _our_ race, has, or could have given out, the whole and the

final truth to another man, for every one of us has to find that (to

him) final knowledge _in_ himself. As no two minds can be absolutely

alike, each has to receive the supreme illumination _through_

itself, according to its capacity, and from no _human_ light. The

greatest adept living can reveal of the Universal Truth only so much

as the mind he is impressing it upon can assimilate, and no more.

_Tot homines, quot sententiæ_—is an immortal truism. The sun is one,

but its beams are numberless; and the effects produced are

beneficent or maleficent, according to the nature and constitution

of the objects they shine upon. Polarity is universal, but the

polariser lies in our own consciousness. In proportion as our

consciousness is elevated towards absolute truth, so do we men

assimilate it more or less absolutely. But man’s consciousness

again, is only the sunflower of the earth. Longing for the warm ray,

the plant can only turn to the sun, and move round and round in

following the course of the unreachable luminary: its roots keep it

fast to the soil, and half its life is passed in the shadow....

Still each of us can relatively reach the Sun of Truth even on this

earth, and assimilate its warmest and most direct rays, however

differentiated they may become after their long journey through the

physical particles in space. To achieve this, there are two methods.

On the physical plane we may use our mental polariscope; and,

analyzing the properties of each ray, choose the purest. On the

plane of spirituality, to reach the Sun of Truth we must work in

dead earnest for the development of our higher nature. We know that

by paralyzing gradually within ourselves the appetites of the lower

personality, and thereby deadening the voice of the purely

physiological mind—that mind which depends upon, and is inseparable

from, its medium or _vehicle_, the organic brain—the animal man in

us may make room for the spiritual; and once aroused from its latent

state, the highest spiritual senses and perceptions grow in us in

proportion, and develop _pari passu_ with the “divine man.” This is

what the great adepts, the Yogis in the East and the Mystics in the

West, have always done and are still doing.

But we also know, that with a few exceptions, no man of the world,

no materialist, will ever believe in the existence of such adepts,

or even in the possibility of such a spiritual or psychic

development. “The (ancient) fool hath said in his heart, There is no

God”; the modern says, “There are no adepts on earth, they are

figments of your diseased fancy.” Knowing this we hasten to reassure

our readers of the Thomas Didymus type. We beg them to turn in this

magazine to reading more congenial to them; say to the miscellaneous

papers on Hylo-Idealism, by various writers.[147]

-----

Footnote 147:

_e.g._, to the little article “Autocentricism”—on the same

“philosophy,” or again, to the apex of the Hylo-Idealist pyramid

in this Number. It is a letter of protest by the learned Founder

of the School in question, against a _mistake_ of ours. He

complains of our “coupling” his name with those of Mr. Herbert

Spencer, Darwin, Huxley, and others, on the question of atheism

and materialism, as the said lights in the psychological and

physical sciences are considered by Dr. Lewins too flickering, too

“compromising” and weak, to deserve the honourable appellation of

Atheists or even Agnostics. See “Correspondence” in Double Column,

and the reply by “The Adversary.”

-----

For LUCIFER tries to satisfy its readers of whatever “school of

thought,” and shows itself equally impartial to Theist and Atheist,

Mystic and Agnostic, Christian and Gentile. Such articles as our

editorials, the Comments on “Light on the Path,” etc, etc.—are not

intended for Materialists. They are addressed to Theosophists, or

readers who know in their hearts that Masters of Wisdom _do_ exist:

and, though _absolute_ truth is not on earth and has to be searched

for in higher regions, that there still are, even on this silly,

ever-whirling little globe of ours, some things that are not even

dreamt of in Western philosophy.

To return to our subject. It thus follows that, though “general

_abstract_ truth is the most precious of all blessings” for many of

us, as it was for Rousseau, we have, meanwhile, to be satisfied with

relative truths. In sober fact, we are a poor set of mortals at

best, ever in dread before the face of even a relative truth, lest

it should devour ourselves and our petty little preconceptions along

with us. As for an absolute truth, most of us are as incapable of

seeing it as of reaching the moon on a bicycle. Firstly, because

absolute truth is as immovable as the mountain of Mahomet, which

refused to disturb itself for the prophet, so that he had to go to

it himself. And we have to follow his example if we would approach

it even at a distance. Secondly, because the kingdom of absolute

truth is not of this world, while we are too much of it. And

thirdly, because notwithstanding that in the poet’s fancy man is

“... the abstract

Of all perfection, which the workmanship

Of heaven hath modelled....”

in reality he is a sorry bundle of anomalies and paradoxes, an empty

wind bag inflated with his own importance, with contradictory and

easily influenced opinions. He is at once an arrogant and a weak

creature, which, though in constant dread of some authority,

terrestrial or celestial, will yet—

“... like an angry ape,

Play such fantastic tricks before high Heaven

As make the angels weep.”

Now, since truth is a multifaced jewel, the facets of which it is

impossible to perceive all at once; and since, again, no two men,

however anxious to discern truth, can see even one of those facets

alike, what can be done to help them to perceive it? As physical

man, limited and trammelled from every side by illusions, cannot

reach truth by the light of his terrestrial perceptions, we

say—develop in you the _inner_ knowledge. From the time when the

Delphic oracle said to the enquirer “Man, know thyself,” no greater

or more important truth was ever taught. Without such perception,

man will remain ever blind to even many a relative, let alone

absolute, truth. Man has to _know himself_, _i.e._, acquire the

_inner_ perceptions which never deceive, before he can master any

absolute truth. Absolute truth is _the symbol of Eternity_, and no

_finite_ mind can ever grasp the eternal, hence, no truth in its

fulness can ever dawn upon it. To reach the state during which man

sees and senses it, we have to paralyze the senses of the external

man of clay. This is a difficult task, we may be told, and most

people will, at this rate, prefer to remain satisfied with relative

truths, no doubt. But to approach even terrestrial truths requires,

first of all, _love of truth for its own sake_, for otherwise no

recognition of it will follow. And who loves truth in this age for

its own sake? How many of us are prepared to search for, accept, and

carry it out, in the midst of a society in which anything that would

achieve success _has to be built on appearances, not on reality, on

self-assertion, not on intrinsic value_? We are fully aware of the

difficulties in the way of receiving truth. The fair heavenly maiden

descends only on a (to her) congenial soil—the soil of an impartial,

unprejudiced mind, illuminated by pure Spiritual Consciousness; and

both are truly rare dwellers in civilized lands. In our century of

steam and electricity, when man lives at a maddening speed that

leaves him barely time for reflection, he allows himself usually to

be drifted down from cradle to grave, nailed to the Procrustean bed

of custom and conventionality. Now conventionality—pure and

simple—is a congenital LIE, as it is in every case a “_simulation_

of feelings according to a received standard” (F. W. Robertson’s

definition); and where there is any simulation _there cannot be any

truth_. How profound the remark made by Byron, that “truth is a gem

that is found at a great depth; whilst on the surface of this world

all things are weighed _by the false scales of custom_,” is best

known to those who are forced to live in the stifling atmosphere of

such social conventionalism, and who, even when willing and anxious

to learn, dare not accept the truths they long for, for fear of the

ferocious Moloch called Society.

Look around you, reader; study the accounts given by world-known

travellers, recall the joint observations of literary thinkers, the

data of science and of statistics. Draw the picture of modern

society, of modern politics, of modern religion and modern life in

general before your mind’s eye. Remember the ways and customs of

every cultured race and nation under the sun. Observe the doings and

the moral attitude of people in the civilized centres of Europe,

America, and even of the far East and the colonies, everywhere where

the white man has carried the “benefits” of so-called civilization.

And now, having passed in review all this, pause and reflect, and

then name, _if you can_, that blessed _Eldorado_, that exceptional

spot on the globe, _where_ TRUTH _is the honoured guest, and_ LIE

_and_ SHAM _the ostracised outcasts_? YOU CANNOT. Nor can any one

else, unless he is prepared and determined to add his mite to the

mass of falsehood that reigns supreme in every department of

national and social life. “Truth!” cried Carlyle, “truth, though the

heavens crush me for following her, no falsehood, though a whole

celestial Lubberland were the prize of Apostasy.” Noble words,

these. But how many think, and how many will _dare_ to speak as

Carlyle did, in our nineteenth century day? Does not the gigantic

appalling majority prefer to a man the “paradise of Do-nothings,”

the _pays de Cocagne_ of heartless selfishness? It is this majority

that recoils terror-stricken before the most shadowy outline of

every new and unpopular truth, out of mere cowardly fear, lest Mrs.

Harris should denounce, and Mrs. Grundy condemn, its converts to the

torture of being rent piecemeal by her murderous tongue.

SELFISHNESS, the first-born of Ignorance, and the fruit of the

teaching which asserts that for every newly-born infant a new soul,

_separate and distinct_ from the Universal Soul, is “created”—this

Selfishness is the impassable wall between the _personal_ Self and

Truth. It is the prolific mother of all human vices. _Lie_ being

born out of the necessity for dissembling, and _Hypocrisy_ out of

the desire to mask _Lie_. It is the fungus growing and strengthening

with age in every human heart in which it has devoured all better

feelings. Selfishness kills every noble impulse in our natures, and

is the one deity, fearing no faithlessness or desertion from its

votaries. Hence, we see it reign supreme in the world and in

so-called fashionable society. As a result, we live, and move, and

have our being in this god of darkness under his trinitarian aspect

of Sham, Humbug, and Falsehood, called RESPECTABILITY.

Is this Truth and Fact, or is it slander? Turn whichever way you

will, and you find, from the top of the social ladder to the bottom,

deceit and hypocrisy at work for dear Self’s sake, in every nation

as in every individual. But nations, by tacit Agreement, have

decided that selfish motives in politics shall be called “noble

national aspiration, patriotism,” etc.; and the citizen views it in

his family circle as “domestic virtue.” Nevertheless, Selfishness,

whether it breeds desire for aggrandizement of territory, or

competition in commerce at the expense of one’s neighbour, can never

be regarded as a virtue. We see smooth-tongued DECEIT and BRUTE

FORCE—the _Jachin_ and _Boaz_ of every International Temple of

Solomon—called Diplomacy, and we call it by its right name. Because

the diplomat bows low before these two pillars of national glory and

politics, and puts their masonic symbolism “in (cunning) strength

shall this my house be established” into daily practice; _i.e._,

gets by deceit what he cannot obtain by force—shall we applaud him?

A diplomat’s qualification—“dexterity or skill in securing

advantages“—for one’s own country at the expense of other countries,

can hardly be achieved by speaking _truth_, but verily by a wily and

deceitful tongue; and, therefore, LUCIFER calls such action—a

_living_, and an evident LIE.

But it is not in politics alone that custom and selfishness have

agreed to call deceit and lie virtue, and to reward him who lies

best with public statues. Every class of Society lives on LIE, and

would fall to pieces without it. Cultured, God-and-law-fearing

aristocracy being as fond of the forbidden fruit as any plebeian, is

forced to lie from morn to noon in order to cover what it is pleased

to term its “little peccadillos,” but which TRUTH regards as gross

immorality. Society of the middle classes is honeycombed with false

smiles, false talk, and mutual treachery. For the majority religion

has become a thin tinsel veil thrown over the corpse of spiritual

faith. The master goes to church to deceive his servants; the

starving curate—preaching what he has ceased to believe

in—hood-winks his bishop; the bishop—his God. _Dailies_, political

and social, might adopt with advantage for their motto Georges

Dandin’s immortal query—“Lequel de nous deux trompe-t-on ici?”—Even

Science, once the anchor of the salvation of Truth, has ceased to be

the temple of _naked_ Fact. Almost to a man the Scientists strive

now only to force upon their colleagues and the public the

acceptance of some personal hobby, of some new-fangled theory, which

will shed lustre on their name and fame. A Scientist is as ready to

suppress damaging evidence against a current scientific hypothesis

in our times, as a missionary in heathen-land, or a preacher at

home, to persuade his congregation that modern geology is a lie, and

evolution but vanity and vexation of spirit.

Such is the actual state of things in 1888 A.D., and yet we are

taken to task by certain papers for seeing this year in more than

gloomy colours!

Lie has spread to such extent—supported as it is by custom and

conventionalities—that even chronology forces people to lie. The

suffixes A.D. and B.C. used after the dates of the year by Jew and

Heathen, in European and even Asiatic lands, by the Materialist and

the Agnostic as much as by the Christian, at home, are—a _lie_ used

to sanction another LIE.

Where then is even relative truth to be found? If, so far back as

the century of Democritus, she appeared to him under the form of a

goddess lying at the very bottom of a well, so deep that it gave but

little hope for her release; under the present circumstances we have

a certain right to believe her hidden, at least, as far off as the

ever invisible _dark_ side of the moon. This is why, perhaps, all

the votaries of hidden truths are forthwith set down as lunatics.

However it may be, in no case and under no threat shall LUCIFER be

ever forced into pandering to any universally and tacitly

recognised, and as universally practised lie, but will hold to fact,

pure and simple, trying to proclaim truth whensoever found, and

under no cowardly mask. Bigotry and intolerance may be regarded as

orthodox and sound policy, and the encouraging of social prejudices

and personal hobbies at the cost of truth, as a wise course to

pursue in order to secure success for a publication. Let it be so.

The Editors of LUCIFER are Theosophists, and their motto is chosen:

_Vera pro gratiis_.

They are quite aware that LUCIFER’S libations and sacrifices to

the goddess Truth do not send a sweet savoury smoke into the noses

of the lords of the press, nor does the bright “Son of the

Morning” smell sweet in their nostrils. He is ignored when not

abused as—_veritas odium paret_. Even his friends are beginning to

find fault with him. They cannot see _why it should not be a

purely Theosophical magazine_, in other words, why it refuses to

be dogmatic and bigoted. Instead of devoting every inch of space

to theosophical and occult teachings, it opens its pages “to the

publication of the most grotesquely heterogeneous elements and

conflicting doctrines.” This is the chief accusation, to which we

answer—why not? Theosophy is divine knowledge, and knowledge is

truth; every _true_ fact, every sincere word are thus part and

parcel of Theosophy. One who is skilled in divine alchemy, or even

approximately blessed with the gift of the perception of truth,

will find and extract it from an erroneous as much as from a

correct statement. However small the particle of gold lost in a

ton of rubbish, it is the noble metal still, and worthy of being

dug out even at the price of some extra trouble. As has been said,

it is often as useful to know what a thing _is not_, as to learn

what it _is_. The average reader can hardly hope to find any fact

in a sectarian publication under all its aspects, _pro_ and _con_,

for either one way or the other its presentation is sure to be

biassed, and the scales helped to incline to that side to which

its editor’s special policy is directed. A Theosophical magazine

is thus, perhaps, the only publication where one may hope to find,

at any rate, the unbiassed, if still only approximate truth and

fact. Naked truth is reflected in LUCIFER under its many aspects,

for no philosophical or religious views are excluded from its

pages. And, as every philosophy and religion, however incomplete,

unsatisfactory, and even foolish some may be occasionally, must be

based on a truth and fact of some kind, the reader has thus the

opportunity of comparing, analysing, and choosing from the several

philosophies discussed therein. LUCIFER offers as many facets of

the One universal jewel as its limited space will permit, and says

to its readers: “Choose you this day whom ye will serve: whether

the gods that were on the other side of the flood which submerged

man’s reasoning powers and divine knowledge, or the gods of the

Amorites of _custom_ and _social falsehood_, or again, the Lord of

(the highest) Self—the bright destroyer of the dark power of

illusion?” Surely it is that philosophy that tends to diminish,

instead of adding to, the sum of human misery, which is the best.

At all events, the choice is there, and for this purpose only have

we opened our pages to every kind of contributors. Therefore do you

find in them the views of a Christian clergyman who believes in his

God and Christ, but rejects the wicked interpretations and the

enforced dogmas of his ambitious proud Church, along with the

doctrines of the Hylo-Idealist, who denies God, soul, and

immortality, and believes in nought save himself. The rankest

Materialists will find hospitality in our journal; aye, even those

who have not scrupled to fill pages of it with sneers and personal

remarks upon ourselves, and abuse of the doctrines of Theosophy, so

dear to us. When a journal of _free thought_, conducted by an

Atheist, inserts an article by a Mystic or Theosophist in praise of

his occult views and the mystery of Parabrahmam, and passes on it

only a few casual remarks, then shall we say LUCIFER has found a

rival. When a Christian periodical or missionary organ accepts an

article from the pen of a free-thinker deriding belief in Adam and

his rib, and passes criticism on Christianity—its editor’s faith—in

meek silence, then it will have become worthy of LUCIFER, and may be

said truly to have reached that degree of tolerance when it may be

placed on a level with any Theosophical publication.

But so long as none of these organs do something of the kind, they

are all sectarian, bigoted, intolerant, and can never have an idea

of truth and justice. They may throw innuendoes against LUCIFER and

its editors, they cannot affect either. In fact, the editors of that

magazine feel proud of such criticism and accusations, as they are

witnesses to the absolute absence of bigotry, or arrogance of any

kind in theosophy, the result of the divine beauty of the doctrines

it preaches. For, as said, Theosophy allows a hearing and a fair

chance to all. It deems no views—if sincere—entirely destitute of

truth. It respects thinking men, to whatever class of thought they

may belong. Ever ready to oppose ideas and views which can only

create confusion without benefiting philosophy, it leaves their

expounders personally to believe in whatever they please, and does

justice to their ideas when they are good. Indeed, the conclusions

or deductions of a philosophic writer may be entirely opposed to our

views and the teachings we expound; yet, his premises and statements

of facts may be quite correct, and other people may profit by the

adverse philosophy, even if we ourselves reject it, believing we

have something higher and still nearer to the truth. In any case,

our profession of faith is now made plain, and all that is said in

the foregoing pages both justifies and explains our editorial

policy.

To sum up the idea, with regard to absolute and relative truth, we

can only repeat what we said before. _Outside a certain highly

spiritual and elevated state of mind, during which Man is at one

with the_ UNIVERSAL MIND—_he can get nought on earth but relative

truth,_ _or truths, from whatsoever philosophy or religion_. Were

even the goddess who dwells at the bottom of the well to issue from

her place of confinement, she could give man no more than he can

assimilate. Meanwhile, every one can sit near that well—the name of

which is KNOWLEDGE—and gaze into its depths in the hope of seeing

Truth’s fair image reflected, at least, on the dark waters. This,

however, as remarked by Richter, presents a certain danger. Some

truth, to be sure, may be occasionally reflected as in a mirror on

the spot we gaze upon, and thus reward the patient student. But,

adds the German thinker, “I have heard that some philosophers in

seeking for Truth, to pay homage to her, have seen their own image

in the water and adored it instead.”...

It is to avoid such a calamity—one that has befallen every founder

of a religious or philosophical school—that the editors are

studiously careful not to offer the reader only those truths which

they find reflected in their own personal brains. They offer the

public a wide choice, and refuse to show bigotry and intolerance,

which are the chief landmarks on the path of Sectarianism. But,

while leaving the widest margin possible for comparison, our

opponents cannot hope to find _their faces_ reflected on the clear

waters of our LUCIFER, without remarks or just criticism upon the

most prominent features thereof, if in contrast with theosophical

views.

This, however, only within the cover of the public magazine, and so

far as regards the merely intellectual aspect of philosophical

truths. Concerning the deeper spiritual, and one may almost say

religious, beliefs, no true Theosophist ought to degrade these by

subjecting them to public discussion, but ought rather to treasure

and hide them deep within the sanctuary of his innermost soul. Such

beliefs and doctrines should never be rashly given out, as they risk

unavoidable profanation by the rough handling of the indifferent and

the critical. Nor ought they to be embodied in any publication

except as hypotheses offered to the consideration of the thinking

portion of the public. Theosophical truths, when they transcend a

certain limit of speculation, had better remain concealed from

public view, for the “evidence of things not seen” is no evidence

save to him who sees, hears, and senses it. It is not to be dragged

outside the “Holy of Holies,” the temple of the impersonal divine

_Ego_, or the indwelling SELF. For, while every fact outside _its_

perception can, as we have shown, be, at best, only a relative

truth, a ray from the absolute truth can reflect itself only in the

pure mirror of its own flame—our highest SPIRITUAL CONSCIOUSNESS.

And how can the darkness (of illusion) comprehend the LIGHT that

shineth in it?

[Illustration: decorative separator]

THE SOLDIER’S DAUGHTER.

(Judges xi., 6-xi., 39.)

In the early days of Israel’s history, whilst Israel was struggling

to be a nation and a kingdom, there was a people called the

Ammonites, who were making war upon the Israelites.

And we are told that the Israelites, in great distress and fear,

went out of their country, into the land of Tob, to find a man named

Jephthah, who was a man of mighty valour, in order to persuade him

to return with them, and be the captain and leader of their army, to

fight against, and save them from the Ammonites.

Now this man Jephthah was himself an Israelite by birth, but because

his mother had not been legally married to his father, Gilead, the

sons of Gilead’s lawful wife conspired together to drive him from

his hearth, home, and country, as a disgrace to the family and to

Israel; but the true reason was that they were envious and jealous

of him, in like manner as the brethren of Joseph who had previously

conspired against him.

For Jephthah himself was wholly innocent of having done anything to

disgrace either the family or the nation. And therefore, in common

justice, he ought not to have been made to suffer merely for the

form and manner of his birth; over which neither Jephthah nor any of

us have any control, either as to the time, when, or the manner, in

which we should be born. But although Jephthah was despised and cast

out as a dog, in the days of Israel’s prosperity, yet in the day of

Israel’s adversity and weakness, Israel no longer allowed any mean

and petty distinctions to prevent her from recognising the noble

character of Jephthah, and she entreated him to forget past

ill-usage, and return to be her captain and leader to save her from

the Ammonites.

And as this proposal of Israel afforded Jephthah the long wished-for

opportunity of returning to his country, and of establishing an

honourable reputation, _therefore_ he was not only ready to forget

and forgive the insults and injuries which he had received in the

past from his brethren, but he was also ready to return with them,

and share their troubles and dangers, even to sacrificing his life,

if need be, in order to save their lives and property.

Jephthah was the more willing to return and make this sacrifice

because he had a daughter, an only daughter and child; and she was

all the world to him, as he was to her; “for beside her he had

neither son nor daughter,” and she had patiently and willingly

suffered with him, and borne all his sorrows as her own.

But imagine the horror of Jephthah, after having saved the lives and

property of his brethren and countrymen by risking his own life, at

being then required, by these very brethren and countrymen, to shed

the blood of his only child! Immediately after the war was over,

Jephthah was required to sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering

to the Lord of Battles, for having assisted Israel to overcome the

Ammonites; and so great was the love of this heroine for her father,

and for everything that concerned his honour and glory, that she

willingly consented to be sacrificed as a burnt offering.

Can anything be conceived more heartrending and terrible than that

Jephthah should thus be required by these very brethren and

countrymen whom he had saved, to shed the blood of his only child as

a sacrifice, in acknowledgment that he owed his victory to

miraculous assistance and favour, and not to his own skill and

valour?

What to him was the deliverance either of Israel or of his brethren

(who had cared naught for him), if they now required him to

sacrifice the only being in the world that he loved, and that loved

him, and who was therefore all the world to him?

It is true that Jephthah had made a foolish and rash vow, in the mad

excitement of the moment before going into battle, that if he came

out of the battle victorious, he would sacrifice, as a burnt

offering to the Lord, the first thing that came to meet him from his

house as he returned from the battle; but when the first person that

met Jephthah was his only daughter, _what could that Deity be, which

accepted as a sacrifice the blood of this child?_ What could the

religion of Jephthah’s brethren and countrymen be, that allowed and

required him to commit such an evil deed?

For if Jephthah had saved his brethren and countrymen from their

enemies, could they not now save Jephthah from shedding the blood of

his daughter as a sacrifice, in the name of religion, _when_ the

very deed itself proclaimed the religion, and their conception both

of religion and of the Deity, to be evil? And if his brethren and

countrymen would not save his daughter, but even required him to

fulfil his vow, could not Jephthah save himself and his child by

refusing to commit this evil deed? But if, in order to save his own

blood from being shed as a blasphemer for an atonement, Jephthah had

to flee from the country as an outcast and a criminal, whither could

he flee to, that would make life worth keeping? For surely the world

would be no desirable place for an honest man to live in, if he had

to live at enmity with men both at home and abroad, because he had

made a rash and foolish vow, which no Deity worthy of being

worshipped could or would require him to perform?

Because under such a sanguinary conception of religion, and of the

Deity, there was no remission, or redemption either, with, or

without, the shedding of blood. If Jephthah refused to shed the

blood of his daughter, then both his own and his daughter’s would be

shed by his brethren and countrymen, whilst if Jephthah shed the

blood of his daughter, as a sacrifice to save his own, what

remission or redemption was there in this? None!

And he cried for a deliverer to save him and his daughter, from this

great trouble. For he had staked his life and his all upon obtaining

a position and reputation for himself and his daughter at home in

Israel; and now, to give up hope of this for ever, and to shed the

blood of his daughter, or again flee as an outcast—what was it but a

living death to Jephthah, either way, whether he remained and

sacrificed his daughter, or fled to save her?

But who, in this agonising moment of Jephthah’s trouble, could raise

his voice to demand, in the name of religion, this diabolical

sacrifice of his innocent child?

Yes; diabolical. For what spirit, or voice, but that of a devil or

fiend could _counsel_ men to shed the blood of this pure and noble

girl? And where could the devil or fiend be found who would _commit_

the deed itself?

Jephthah is mockingly told that he is the fiend who must sacrifice

his child, as Abraham is said to have offered Isaac. And Jephthah is

told that he has no one to blame but himself, for having made the

vow. But who heard the vow? or who accepted the vow? Who could he,

or they be, who would require the fulfilling of it?[148]

-----

Footnote 148:

Jehovah, of course, in his own national character of Baal, Moloch,

Typhon, etc. The final and conclusive identification of the “Lord

God” of Israel with Moloch, we find in the last chapter of

_Leviticus_, concerning _things devoted not to be redeemed_.... “A

man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, _both of man_

and beast.... None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall

be redeemed, _but shall surely be put to death_ ... for it is

_most holy unto the Lord_.” (See Leviticus xxvii., 28, 29, 30.)

“Notwithstanding the numerous proofs that the Israelites

worshipped a variety of gods, and even offered human sacrifices

until a far later period than their Pagan neighbours, they have

contrived to blind posterity in regard to truth. They sacrificed

human life as late as 169 B.C. (_Vide_ “_Joseph. contra Apion_,”

11, 8—what Antiochus Epiphanius found in the Temple), and the

_Bible_ contains a number of such records. At a time when the

Pagans had long abandoned the abominable practice, and had

replaced the sacrificial man by the animal, and the ox of

Dionysius was sacrificed at the Bacchic Mysteries (“Anthon,” p.

365), Jephthah is represented sacrificing his own daughter to the

‘Lord’ for a burnt-offering.” _Isis Unveiled_, vol ii., pp. 524,

525.

-----

Are they worthy of the name of brethren and countrymen who would

persuade Jephthah _to assassinate_ his daughter, in the name of

religion, or even look on at such an assassination? Would it not be

blasphemy to say that a good Deity required Jephthah to kill his

innocent child? And would not a good Deity release Jephthah from his

vow, and forbid him to sacrifice his daughter, in like manner as the

Scriptures teach us Abraham was forbidden to sacrifice his son

Isaac? And if it is said, it would have been faithless and sinful of

Jephthah after returning from the battle victorious, to have refused

the offering of his daughter as a sacrifice; yet surely to bind

Jephthah to break the Sixth Commandment, and to shed innocent blood

in the name of religion, would be making the Deity that required

such a sacrifice to be evil, and His worshippers to be the doers of

evil; and thus Jephthah would be required to sell himself to the

devil.

And how could men be other than the doers of evil, and the priests

of evil, who would counsel Jephthah to commit this evil deed, and be

ready to commit it themselves if he hesitated? How? Whether Jephthah

received any miraculous assistance or not, in the war, yet he was in

no wise bound to surrender his personality and to become an abject

slave to the supposed power that helped him. For Jephthah’s personal

services were needed as an instrument to deliver and save the

Israelites, or his services would not have been asked for. It was

also possible that he might have given certain services, which even

a miraculous power was unable to give—as we read in the Book of

Judges that “Judah could not drive out the inhabitants of the

valley, because they had chariots of iron.” (Judges i. 19.)[149]

-----

Footnote 149:

It is said in the “Holy Book,” that it was “the Lord (who) was

with Judah,” who “could not drive out the inhabitants of the

valley, because they had chariots of iron,” (Judges i. 19), and

not “Judah” at all. This is but natural, according to popular

belief and superstition that “the Devil is afraid of _iron_.” The

strong connection and even identity between Jehovah and the Devil

is ably insisted upon by the Rev. Haweis. See his “Key” (p.

22).—ED.

-----

And again, if all the glory of Jephthah’s victory had to be ascribed

to a miraculous power, then likewise all the shame would have to be

ascribed to that power also, for having ordained that Jephthah’s

daughter should be the first person to meet him after the war, to

pay _the price of victory_ to Jephthah, with _death to his

child_—for whom, alone, he coveted victory.

Victory on such terms was defeat and shame, not glory; for surely

such views of religious worship must be the _d’evil_ worship which

the Psalmist speaks of (Psalm cvi., 37), and not the service or

worship of a good God who would have mercy and _not_ sacrifice, as

Abraham learnt when he went out of the Philistine city into the

wilderness, and communed with God alone on Mount Moriah.

But it was one thing for a single individual like Abraham, at the

close of a long life, to acquire the knowledge “that God would have

mercy and not sacrifice”; and quite another thing for a Town, a

City, a Nation, or the World, to have acquired this knowledge in its

infancy; as even Abraham only acquired this knowledge by going out

of the city into the wilderness, and communing alone with God.

We can well understand how impossible it would have been for Abraham

even to have attempted, on his return from the mountain, to teach

the Philistines the faith or gospel (that God would have mercy and

not sacrifice), from the very fact that when Jesus Christ came _into

the world_ to teach the faith or gospel, which Abraham had gone _out

of the world_ to learn, Jesus was condemned by Caiaphas to be

crucified with malefactors, as a blasphemer. And to this very day

this doctrine of the power of Caiaphas, the adversary of Jesus,

continues to be taught as the doctrine of the Church, which it is

necessary to believe in order to obtain the blessing of the Church

here and of God hereafter.

Therefore it is manifestly evident that after Abraham had acquired

the knowledge that God would have mercy and not sacrifice, yet he

could not publish it, but could only lay it up in his heart as a

secret treasure, to be disclosed in the distant future, which in the

vision of his mind he saw. Meanwhile he prayed that the Lord would

raise up messengers and stewards to prepare the world to receive

this faith or gospel, because of its being too Herculean a task for

any one person to alter suddenly the religion of a people.

For whilst priests continued to teach, and the people to believe

that sacrifices of human beings were acceptable to God, how was the

man who dared (suddenly and without the cloak of a parable) to

reveal and publish the contrary, to escape being himself slain as a

blasphemer, whose blood it would be doing God service to shed for an

atonement? And until the world was sufficiently educated to declare

the generation of him who should be unjustly slain (Isaiah liii.),

it could only be like throwing pearls to swine for such an one to

attempt the task.

Then from whence, and from whom could Jephthah, who had saved

others, now look for the salvation of his daughter, or of himself,

if he refused to sacrifice that daughter?

And, in the anguish of his soul, Jephthah rent his clothes, and

bemoaned his trouble, whilst his daughter fled to the mountains to

pour out the sorrow of her soul, during the few short days she had

yet to live.

It is true that, in order to save her father from the cruel pain of

assassinating his devoted child, the noble girl may have voluntarily

leapt into the sulphurous flames on the burning altar; just as the

noble Roman soldier Curtius on his horse leapt down into the dark

and awful volcanic gulf as a sacrifice to save his countrymen.

But the more heroic and divine these persons were, the more

demoniacal and diabolical must be the religion of those persons who

required them thus to suffer.[150]

-----

Footnote 150:

And yet it is this “demoniacal and diabolical religion” that

passed part and parcel into Protestantism.—ED.

-----

It is true that the priests of such a religion may have believed in

it themselves, and may have been ready to sacrifice their own sons

and daughters in like manner; but that in no wise lessens the crime,

but on the contrary it intensifies it a hundred fold. How were the

people to be saved from a religion, of which the priests themselves

needed to be saved, whilst the priests had the sole education of the

people from infancy upwards, as well as the Chief power in the State

to make and unmake its laws, even to making and unmaking its kings?

Whilst the priests and rulers of the church taught such a cruel

religion,[151] would not the people and priests need a Mediator to

deliver and save them from practising it?

-----

Footnote 151:

So “the people and priests” do now. And as the late Rev. Henry

Ward Beecher once said in a sermon, “could Jesus come back and

behave in the streets of Christian cities as he did in those of

Jerusalem, he would be declared an impostor and then confined in

prison.”—ED.

-----

If He who mediated to deliver and save us was Himself condemned to

be slain, and crucified with thieves as a blasphemer whose blood

ought to be shed for an Atonement, what hope of salvation can there

be for the world from such a Religion, until the people not only

uplift the Crucified Jesus as having been no blasphemer, but also

expose the doctrine to be evil and false which is quoted as an

authority for requiring the blood of “the Just one” to be shed for

an Atonement? And if it is said that we have no longer women brought

like Jephthah’s daughter to be assassinated and burnt as a

sacrifice, or noble men condemned to be burnt as heretics, yet we

have to the present day noble men and women condemned by the Church

as evil (to be accursed here and damned hereafter), simply and

solely because they refuse to believe this evil doctrine of

Atonement, which is oftentimes such a burden to their soul (either

to accept or reject) that they are driven to the very verge of

madness.

It is no uncommon thing to hear priests revile even our Queen as

being no true Christian, simply because they suppose she does not

believe in this evil doctrine of atonement, which is the doctrine of

Caiaphas, the enemy of Christ, and not Christ’s doctrine, teaching,

or gospel.

Should not such scriptural stories as these of the assassination of

Jephthah’s noble daughter, of the crucifixion of Jesus, and the

spilling of the blood of a whole host of martyrs, awaken men who

have slumbered to rise, to hear, to see, to speak, and run to save

the world from having to believe in this sanguinary doctrine, which

is a stumbling-block to the Jews, foolishness to the world, and a

mystery even to the teachers of it. This doctrine of Atonement can

not be reconciled as either good or true; and therefore it is the

cause of all progress being prevented so far as the world is

dependent on the Church for progress.

Yet the man who doubts or denies the goodness of this doctrine is

branded by the Church, to the present day, as a Sceptic and Atheist,

whom all sound Churchmen should avoid. And for sixteen centuries the

Church used its sovereign power to condemn those who rejected its

doctrine of Atonement as criminals, whom it would be doing God

service to burn as heretics; and the Church is only prevented from

doing so now _because_ (to its great regret) it has no longer the

power which it formerly had in the days of “the Inquisition.” The

doctrine remains the same still, and therefore the people owe it, as

a duty to the long roll of martyrs, to expose it. For it has been

the cause of much evil, and even to this day it assassinates the

souls of noble men and women, who incarcerate themselves in

monasteries and nunneries in the vain attempt to attain a sound

belief in it.

But when the Church is willing to allow (what it has refused to the

present day) liberty in the pulpit for explaining the mystery and

translating the truth of a “Crucified Christ,” then it will be seen

that the truth is not only a light to the Gentiles, but also the

glory of Israel; and the truth shall make us free.[152] (John viii.,

32.)

Adyar, 17th October, 1887. H. S. OLCOTT, P.T.S.

-----

Footnote 152:

Only, as such _truth_ and _freedom_ amounts to the Church

committing suicide and burying herself with her own hands, she

will never allow such a thing. She will die her natural death the

day when there will not exist a man, woman or child to believe any

longer in her dogmas. And this beneficent result might be achieved

within her own hierarchy, were there many such sincere, brave and

honest clergymen who, like the writer of this article, fear not to

speak the truth—whatever may come—[ED.]

-----

LUNIOLATRY.

A friend has just informed me of the fact that when President

Cleveland was making his recent tour through the States an old negro

presented him with _the left hind foot of a grave-yard rabbit, which

had been killed in the dark of the moon_. In making his present the

negro said he had sent it because he desired the reelection of

President Cleveland. “_Tell him to preserve it carefully, and that

as long as he keeps it he will always get there._”

The friend whom I speak of had just been reading a lecture of mine

on “Luniolatry,” in which the imagery and significance of the hare

and rabbit in the moon were spoken of all too briefly, and he wishes

to know if I can interpret the meaning of the negro’s gift. I guess

so. As previously explained the hare and the rabbit are both

zootypes or living images of lunar phenomena. A rabbit pounding rice

in a mortar is a Chinese sign of the moon. Swabian children are

still forbidden to make the likeness of a rabbit or hare in shadow

on the wall, as it would be a sin against the moon. The hare in the

moon is a well-known Hindu type of Buddha. It is mythically

represented that Buddha once took the form of a hare on purpose to

offer himself as food for a poor famishing creature, and so the

Buddha was translated in that shape to be eternized as the hare in

the moon. That is one illustration of the way in which the book of

external nature was filled full of mystic meanings, the essence of

which escapes altogether in trying to read such things as

historical, no matter whether they are related of Buddha, Horus, or

Jesus. This hare or rabbit in the moon is a symbol or superstition

with various races, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, and White. When the

meaning was understood it was a symbol; when the clue is lost it

becomes a superstition of the ignorant; thus the ancient symbolism

survives in a state of dotage with the negroes as well as with the

“noble Caucasian.”

The frog in the moon was another lunar type. In a Chinese myth—that

is, a symbolic representation—the lunar frog has three legs, like

the Persian ass in the Bundahish. In both cases the three legs stand

for three phases of the moon reckoned at ten days each in a

luni-solar month of thirty days. Now it happens that the rabbit’s

period of gestation is thirty days; and the early races included

very curious observers amongst their naturalists, who had to think

in things and express their thought in gesture-signs and _zootypes_

before there were such things as printer’s types. Hence the frog

that dropped its tail, the serpent that sloughed its skin, the

rabbit with its period of thirty days, were all symbols of the moon.

Enough that the rabbit _was_ a zootype of the moon, and the rabbit

is equal to the hare. Hor-Apollo tells us that when the Egyptians

would denote “an opening,” they delineate a hare, because this

animal always has its eyes open (B. I. 26). This can be corroborated

in several ways. The name of the hare in Egyptian is “Un,” which

means open, to open, the opener. It was applied to Osiris,

“Un-Nefer,” in his lunar character as the good opener, otherwise the

splendid or glorious hare, because “Nefer” means the handsome,

beautiful, perfect, or glorious. Also the city of Unnut was that of

the hare, “Un,” and this was the metropolis of the 15th Nome of

Upper Egypt, which is another mode of identifying the open-eyed hare

with the moon at the full, called the “Eye of Horus,” and with the

woman of the moon who brings her orb to the full on the 15th day of

the month (Egyptian Ritual, ch. lxxx). The hare was also a symbol of

the opening period at puberty, a sign therefore of being open,

unprohibited, or “it is lawful” (Sharpe). Hence the Namaqua

Hottentots would only permit the hare to be eaten by those who had

attained the age of the adult male. The proverb, “_Somnus

leporinus_,” relates to the hare that sleeps with its eyes open; and

in our old English pharmacopœia of the folk-lore or leech-craft, the

brains and eyes of the hare are prescribed as a cure for somnolency,

and a sovereign medicine for making or keeping people wide-awake.

The rabbit equates with the hare, and has the same symbolical value.

Now it is sometimes said that the hare-rabbit is of both sexes. So

the moon was both male and female in accordance with the dual

lunation. The new moon with the horns of the bull or the long ears

of the ass, the rabbit, or hare was considered to be male. The dark

lunation or hinder part was female. In the ancient symbolism the

front or fore-part is masculine, the hinder-part or the tail is

feminine. The two were head and tail in the earliest coinage as well

as on the latest coins. In Egypt the South was front and is male;

the North was the hinder-part and is female. Hence the old Typhon of

the Northern part was denoted by the tail-piece, and it follows that

Satan with the long tail is of feminine origin, and so the devil was

female from the first. The same symbolism was applied to the moon.

In the light half it was the male moon, in the dark half female. The

new moon was the Lord of Light, the Increaser, the sign of new life,

of saving and healing. The new moon was the messenger of immortality

to men in the form of the hare or the rabbit. The waning moon

represented the devil of darkness, the Typhonian power that said to

men “even as I die and do not rise again so will it be with you.”

Offerings were made to the new moon. When the moon was at the full

the Egyptians sacrificed a black pig to Osiris. This represented

Typhon, his conquered enemy. But in the dark half of the lunation

Typhon had the upper hand when he tore Osiris into fourteen parts

during the fourteen nights of his supremacy. The lunar zootype then

is male in front, and female in the hinder-part of the animal. In

the hieroglyphics the khepsh-leg or hind-quarter is the ideographic

type of Typhon, the evil power personified. Further, the left side

is female and Typhonian; the right is male. Ergo, _the left hind leg

of the grave-yard animal that was killed in the dark of the moon_,

stood for the hind (or last) quarter of the moon; literally the end

of it. And if the negro laid hold of that rabbit’s foot the right

way, we can read the symbol that he probably did not understand,

although he knew the rabbit’s hind foot was a good fetish. It shows

the survival of _intended_ symbolism, which represents some sort of

victory over the power of darkness analogous to taking the brush of

the fox (another Typhonian animal) after it has been hunted to

death. This was the last leg that the devil of darkness had to stand

on, and so it was a trophy snatched from the Typhonian power to be

worn in triumph as a token of good luck, of repetition or renewal,

thence a second term.

It would be a sort of equivalent for taking the scalp of Satan, who

could only be typified by the tail or hinder leg. The gift was

tantamount to wishing “_A Happy New Moon to You!_” expressed in the

language of symbolism, which was acted instead of being spoken. The

negroes consider this particular talisman bequeathed by “_Brer

Rabbit_” represents all the virtues and powers of renewal that are

popularly attributed to the New Moon. But do not let me be

misunderstood by those who know that in the Negro Märchen the rabbit

is the good one of the typical two, and that the fox plays the

Typhonian part. The rabbit or hare of the moon may be pourtrayed in

two characters or in one of two. In both he is the hero, the Lord of

Light and conqueror of the Power of Darkness, the rabbit, so to say,

that rises again from the graveyard in or as the New Moon. The

figure of the hind quarter and latter end of the dying moon is thus

a type of the conquered Typhon, but the magical influence depends

upon its being also a type of the conqueror, the rabbit of the

resurrection or the New Moon. It is a curious coincidence that the

luckiest of all Lucky Horse-Shoes in England is one that has been

cast off the _left hind foot_ of a Mare.

Lastly, this hind leg of the lunar rabbit is a fellow-type with the

leg of pig that is still eaten in England on Easter Monday, which is

a survival of the ancient sacrifice of the pig Typhon, in the solar

or annual reckoning, as pourtrayed in the planisphere of Denderah,

where we see the god Khunsu offering the pig by the leg in the disc

of the full moon. It must have been a potent fetish long ages ago in

Africa, and a medicine of great power according to the primitive

mysteries of the dark land. It may be surmised that much of this

fetishtic typology is still extant amongst the negroes in the United

States, and it is to be hoped that the Bureau of Ethnology at

Washington, which has done, and is doing, such good work under the

direction of Major J. W. Powell in collecting and preserving the

relics of the Red Men, will extend the range of its researches to

the black race in America, and not leave those matters to

irresponsible story-tellers.

GERALD MASSEY.

=THE BLOSSOM AND THE FRUIT=:

_THE TRUE STORY OF A MAGICIAN_.

(_Continued._)

---------------------

BY MABEL COLLINS.

---------------------