voicing the feelings of other students, is a vindication of the memory
of that great teacher against certain charges brought against her.
The charges are many and mutually inconsistent; so that if brought
together they would confute each other and the various critics might be
left to settle their own quarrel. Thus H. P. Blavatsky is accused both
of inventing her teachings, and also of plagiarizing them from other
people; her works are said to be at once a stale rehash, and a new
fad. But, as any one of these charges may appear alone and thus gain a
plausibility it would not otherwise have had, it is both the desire and
the duty of those who uphold the truth about H. P. Blavatsky to show up
the absurdity of the attacks.
The particular charge in question just now is that of unoriginality.
It has been based on a quotation from the Introduction to H. P.
Blavatsky's great work, _The Secret Doctrine_, which is as follows:
I may repeat what I have stated all along, and which I now clothe in
the words of Montaigne: Gentlemen, "I HAVE HERE MADE ONLY A NOSEGAY OF
CULLED FLOWERS, AND HAVE BROUGHT NOTHING OF MY OWN BUT THE STRING THAT
TIES THEM."
The attempt to construe this into a charge of plagiarism signifies
the wish to depreciate H. P. Blavatsky's writings, as being so stale
and unoriginal that it is not worth while reading them. But, if this
were so, why did the critics deign to notice them at all, instead of
suffering them to sink into the rapid and perfect oblivion which awaits
all works that are actually open to such a charge? Evidently there was
a desire to prejudice the mind of the inquirer, so that he would be
deterred from reading the works for himself and thus forming his own
opinion. In short, the arguments of these critics, not resting upon
fact, would have been disproved by such a reading; and therefore they
have preferred to rest their statements upon mere assertion.
Of course the genuine truth-seeker will always derive his opinion from
his own investigations; and if he finds anywhere the help and knowledge
for which he is seeking, he will not hesitate to accept it from any
doubts as to the popularity of the author. Rather he will base his
opinion of the author upon his or her works. But as the conditions of
life render it necessary for us to a great extent to be dependent
upon the judgments of professional literary people, it is possible for
any prejudice that may exist in that quarter to inflict much injustice
by lending the weight of authority to false representations. We may
find, for instance, some standard work, having great influence and
repute, treating of H. P. Blavatsky and Theosophy in a way that would
lead one to think the writers had studied these subjects; whereas the
contrary is the case, and the apparently scholarly treatise is actually
a misrepresentation of fact, amounting to throwing dust in the eyes of
the inquirer.
The inquirer, the sincere seeker for knowledge, is therefore referred
to _The Secret Doctrine_ itself, where he may ascertain what the author
really does say in her Preface and Introduction and where he may study
the actual teachings she thus introduces. Her attitude is both plain
and frank; there should be no difficulty in understanding it, and its
sincerity is apparent to anyone who has studied the book enough to see
whether or not the writer has justified her claims. In the Preface we
read:
These truths are in no sense put forward as a _revelation_; nor
does the author claim the position of a revealer of mystic lore now
made public for the first time in the world's history. For what is
contained in this work is to be found scattered throughout thousands
of volumes embodying the scriptures of the great Asiatic and early
European religions, hidden under glyph and symbol, and hitherto left
unnoticed because of this veil.
Here the charge of having invented a new system is met by the express
affirmation that the materials are gleaned from ancient sources; while
the charge of unoriginality is rendered pointless. A plagiarist is one
who gives out the teachings of others as his own, and the charge of
unoriginality is not usually brought against writers who set out with
the deliberate and announced intention of quoting and expounding other
writers. As H. P. Blavatsky herself says, in the very passage from
which the words of the critic were selected, it would be as reasonable
to charge Renan with having plagiarized his _Life of Jesus_ from the
Gospels, or Max Müller his _Sacred Books of the East_ from the Indian
philosophical writings.
And what shall be said of the insinuation that _The Secret Doctrine_
is merely a compost, a stale and profitless rehash? That it is equally
absurd. A nosegay is not a mere heap of flowers, nor does a heap of
stones make a temple. The riddle of ancient knowledge is not solved by
merely collecting the scattered fragments. Anyone may bring together
a lot of colored threads, but only a weaver and artist can make them
into a beautiful and symmetrical fabric. The question is, What has H.
P. Blavatsky made of her studies of the world's mystic lore? What use
has she made of her quotations and references? Has she succeeded any
better than other writers who have delved in the same soil? Is _The
Secret Doctrine_ really but one more of those numerous compilations
that find a speedy and eternal tomb on dusty shelves?
On consulting the Preface we find that the author has made the claim
that she has been able to weave the tangled threads into a symmetrical
whole, to put the various fragments in their right places, and to apply
a key that will unlock mysteries. In proof of her claim she refers the
reader to the book itself. This is the only test she demands; surely
not an unreasonable one!
It is written in the service of humanity, and by humanity and the
future generations it must be judged. Its author recognizes no
inferior court of appeal.--_Preface._
Other authors who have compiled voluminous works on ancient lore have
signally failed to render them profitable to the student. They have
either been mere compilers having no definite purpose other than the
production of a learned book, or they have been overruled by some
theory or fad which they have sought to prove. But H. P. Blavatsky has
pointed out the real clues and for the first time made sense of what
was chaotic. To quote her words again:
What is now attempted is to gather the oldest tenets together and to
make of them one harmonious and unbroken whole. The sole advantage
which the writer has over her predecessors is that she need not
resort to personal speculations and theories. For this work is a
partial statement of what she herself has been taught by more advanced
students, supplemented, in a few details only, by the results of her
own study and observation.
It is not easy to see how a plainer and franker statement could have
been made. The indebtedness to other sources is freely admitted; and,
as the reader can see, all references to sources are fully given in the
text. The author mentions her own teachers, but not for the purpose of
lending a fictitious authority to her statements. For these statements
do not need any such support, consisting, as they do, of appeals to
reason, to the weight of testimony, and to accepted authorities in the
different branches of learning. The reference to her teachers was made
simply in modest and honorable disclaim of credit which the writer
felt was due to others. As to the teachings thus received and thus
transmitted by her, they are to be judged on their merits, and should
neither be accepted or rejected on any other principle. Information
is information, however gained; and a man lost in a forest, who has
actually been conducted out of it, does not need any testimonials to
the trustworthiness of his guide. If _The Secret Doctrine_ can really
solve problems, answer questions, and remove doubts, that fact alone is
sufficient for the genuine truth-seeker; and the author's statement as
to the source of her knowledge will be taken for what it was intended
for--a due acknowledgement of gratitude and indebtedness.
If H. P. Blavatsky's work is of the kind which these critics wish to
make it out to be, surely the student may be trusted to find out that
fact for himself; but if it is not of this kind, then the statement
that it is, is a misrepresentation--founded possibly on ignorance,
but in any case unworthy of a scholar. She claims that she has
_pointed out_ many things that have hitherto _escaped the attention_
of scholars. And this is a statement which can only be tested by
investigation; anyone presuming to affirm or deny it without such
investigation is either a simpleton or a bigot. The pointing out of
truths is not an act of dogmatism, since the person to whom they are
pointed out is left perfectly free to use his own judgment (if he has
any) as to whether that which he has been shown is true or not, whether
it is what he was looking for or not.
H. P. Blavatsky did not write for recognition, but she has succeeded in
the object for which she did write--that of arousing thought, calling
attention. She desired to startle the world of thought; and this she
has certainly done; for her opponents cannot let her alone. Moreover
a kind of acknowledgement is to be found in the large and increasing
number of facts, denied in her day but since admitted by scholars.
It is true that for these revised views credit is not given to their
originator; but that must be left to posterity when time shall have
obliterated selfishness and ignorance. The question of originality may
be settled by calling H. P. Blavatsky a pioneer. The lands into which
she has led us are indeed ancient and many a foot has trod them of
yore; yet to the modern world they were virgin forests.
But one word remains to be said. Fortunately for the credit due to
Theosophy and its first promulgator in this age, H. P. Blavatsky's
writings do not constitute the whole of her work. She has left
behind her the Universal Brotherhood and Theosophical Society,
an organization which embodies many teachings which could never be
communicated by books alone. This means that her work is in hands that
will take care that she gets the credit to which she is entitled, and
that the real Theosophical work is of a kind that can only be done by
Theosophists, and so can not be plagiarized. And even the clues given
in her writings will prove inadequate unless taken in connexion with an
application of Theosophy in the student's daily life; for she took good
care to show the inseparable connexion between knowledge and conduct.
Thus those who try to use _The Secret Doctrine_ as a mine from which
they may dig out something that they can use to their own private
advantage are more likely to serve the author's cause than their own;
for the only use that can be made of half-truths is to point the way to
the _missing_ halves.
[Illustration: Lomaland Photo. and Engraving Dept. A FARMHOUSE ON
THE NORFOLK BROADS, ENGLAND A district to the west of Great Yarmouth
watered by three rivers with many open spaces called "broads," roads
and long narrow lanes, all of water. Many birds--water-fowl--nest and
feed amongst the sedges; pure white swans sail about with majestic
dignity and grace, some carrying their cygnets on the back, between the
raised wings.]
[Illustration: Lomaland Photo. and Engraving Dept. BUCKINGHAM PALACE,
LONDON: THE LONDON RESIDENCE OF THE BRITISH SOVEREIGN]
BUCKINGHAM PALACE, LONDON
The illustration shows the eastern façade of Buckingham Palace, the
residence of King George V when in London. It is taken from St. James'
Park. The end of the lake, which is five acres in area, can be seen in
the picture. The private gardens occupy fifty acres. The eastern wing
of the palace, 360 feet long, was added by Blore in 1846, making the
building a large quadrangle. Buckingham Palace was originally erected
in 1703 by a Duke of Buckingham, on the site of Arlington House,
where it is recorded that tea was first drunk in England. George III
purchased it, and it was remodeled by Nash in 1825 for George IV. The
exterior is generally condemned as an architectural failure, imposing
only from its size, but the interior has some good features. The white
marble staircase is considered very handsome. The palace contains a
fine sculpture gallery, library, etc. The Throne Room is 66 feet long,
the State Drawing Room 110 feet by 60. The Picture Gallery, which is
180 feet long, contains a very fine collection, chiefly Dutch pictures.
There are excellent examples of Rembrandt (the great _Adoration of the
Magi_--1667), Hals, Teniers, Rubens, Osrade, Van Dyck (_Charles I on
horseback_), Cuyp, Potter, De Hooch, Titian, Carracci, Claude, etc.
Permission for strangers to visit the gallery is difficult to obtain,
but may sometimes be obtained when the court is not in residence. The
new monument to Queen Victoria, just unveiled, stands in front of
Buckingham Palace.
THE GOLDEN CHAIN OF PLATONIC SUCCESSION: by F. S. Darrow, A. M., Ph.
D. (Harv.)
A key to the interpretation of Greek philosophy, generally neglected
except by Platonists and Theosophists, is given by the following
statement of Proklos, the "Platonic Successor":
What Orpheus delivered in hidden allegories, Pythagoras learned when
he was initiated into the Orphic Mysteries, in which Plato next
received a perfect knowledge from the Orphic and Pythagorean writings.
In this connexion it was pointed out by H. P. Blavatsky, the foundress
of the Theosophical Society (_Isis Unveiled_, vol. II, p. 39, Point
Loma edition) that Plato himself in his Letters declares that his
teachings were derived from _ancient_ and _sacred_ doctrines. In the
Seventh Letter of the collection which has come down to us he says:
It is ever necessary to believe in the truth of the _Sacred Accounts_
of the _Olden Time_, which inform us that the soul is immortal and has
judges of its conduct and suffers the greatest punishments when it is
liberated from the body. Hence it is requisite to regard it a lesser
evil to suffer than to commit the greatest sins and injuries.
It is unjustifiable to assume as scholars usually do that we are in a
position to judge correctly of all of Plato's thoughts because, most
fortunately, it appears that all of his published works have been
preserved. The last thirty-eight years of Plato's life were spent as
Scholarch or Head of the Platonic School among the olive groves of
the Academy where the philosopher dwelt with some of his principal
students, namely, his successor and pupil Speusippos, Xenokrates,
and others, teaching Divine Wisdom freely to those who were able to
understand. The fact that Aristotle refers to various teachings of
Plato not now extant in the Platonic works, as well as the request in
the Second of our Platonic Letters that the letter be burned after its
frequent reading so that it may not fall into improper hands, both
afford corroborative evidence of the tradition that Plato refused
to _publish_ any of his numerous lectures and oral teachings. It is
therefore _a priori_ probable that Plato treated philosophy in two
distinct ways, one treatment intended for public circulation and the
other intended for School instruction. If this be true, presumably
his published dialogs give mere indirect hints, illustrations, and
applications of the central principles of his teachings, which were
revealed only orally to a selected audience. Doubtless the character
of his oral instructions also varied and certain teachings were given
only to a few of his more advanced students, as even Grote admits.
Therefore in seeking to understand Plato it is important to recollect
that today "the Prince of Western Philosophers" is known only from
his Dialogs, while his teachings as Scholarch are now unknown. It is,
however, certain from the statement of Aristotle in regard to Plato's
lectures "On the Supreme Good," that Plato in his oral instructions
taught Pythagorean Doctrines, and dealt with the highest and most
transcendental concepts in a mystical and enigmatical way.
In regard to this there are important declarations in the extant
Letters of Plato, Letters which it is orthodox to declare to be
apocryphal, but whose genuineness is rightly defended by Grote in his
_Plato and Other Companions of Socrates_. In the Second Letter, which
is addressed to Dionysios the Younger of Syracuse, Plato uses some very
suggestive language in referring to the effect upon the newly fledged
student of entering the School:
I must speak to you in enigmas that should this tablet meet with any
accident by land or by sea, he, who might perchance read it, may
not understand. This has not happened to you alone but in truth no
one when he first hears me is otherwise affected. Some have greater
troubles, others less but nearly every student has a struggle of no
slight power from which in truth he is freed only with difficulty.
Be careful, however, that these discussions do not become known by
men devoid of knowledge--discussions which if continually heard for
many years at length with great labor are purified like gold. Many
persons apt at learning and remembering have heard them for not less
than thirty years and after testing them in every way have recently
declared that those things which formerly appeared to them to be least
worthy of belief now appear to be most worthy of belief and perfectly
clear. The most important protection is to learn but _not_ to _commit_
to _writing_ because what is written will almost certainly become
public knowledge. _Therefore on this account I have never myself at
any time written anything on these subjects. There neither is nor ever
shall be any treatise of Plato. The opinions called by the name of
Plato are those of Socrates in his days of youthful vigor and glory._
These words of Plato, if admitted to be genuine, especially when linked
with the following statements made in the Seventh of our Letters, show
the futility of the current dogmatism of what purport to be correct and
complete modern expositions and criticisms of Platonism, and ought to
instil more humility in the orthodox dogmatists who strive to interpret
the thoughts of the Master. The declarations referred to in the Seventh
Letter are set forth as follows:
In regard to all who either have written or who shall write
confidently stating that they know about what I am occupied, whether
they claim to have heard it from me or from others or to have
discovered it themselves, _I can say that it is impossible for them to
know anything as to my beliefs about these matters; for there is not
and never will be any composition of mine about them_. _For a matter
of this kind can not be expressed in words as other sciences are. But
by a long acquaintance with the subject and by living with it suddenly
a light is kindled in the mind, as from a fire bursting forth, which
being engendered in the soul feeds itself upon itself._
He adds:
I should consider it the proudest accomplishment of my life, as well
as of signal benefit to mankind, to bring forward an exposition of
Nature luminous to all. But I think the attempt would be in nowise
beneficial except to a few who require merely slight guidance to
enable them to find it out for themselves; to most persons it would do
no good but would only fill them with the empty conceit of knowledge
and with contempt for others, as if they had learnt something solemn.
It may therefore be safely assumed that Plato intentionally refused to
publish his views upon the most important subjects in a world of spite
and puzzling contention. Note what he says in the Seventh Letter of the
true disciple who is
_in fact_ a lover of Wisdom, related to it and worthy of it by reason
of his own inherent divinity. He thinks that he has been told of a
wonderful Path, on which he ought forthwith to travel and that any
other manner of life is unendurable. After this he does not torture
both himself and his Leader by departing from the Path before he
reaches the Goal, thereby obtaining the power of journeying without a
Guide to point out the way before him. But they, who are not really
lovers of Wisdom, but have only a coating of color like those whose
bodies are sunburnt, when they perceive how many things are to be
learnt and find out how great is the labor and what temperance in
daily nourishment is requisite, they deem it too difficult and beyond
their powers and become unable to attend to it at all and some of them
persuade themselves that they have sufficiently heard the whole and do
not wish further to exert themselves.
At Plato's death in 347 B. C. the house, the library, and the garden in
the Academy, were bequeathed by the Master as the permanent property
of the School, whose income in the course of the centuries was largely
increased by endowments. For about three hundred years the grounds at
the Academy remained uninterruptedly the Headquarters of the School,
but during the Siege of Athens by the Roman general Sulla in 87 B.
C., the Teacher or Scholarch of that time was forced to retire within
the city walls and gave his instruction in the Gymnasium, called
Ptolemaeum, where Cicero heard the Scholarch Antiochos in 79 B. C.
For more than six hundred years longer the grounds at the Academy
remained in possession of the School, which however soon degenerated
into a form of philosophical scepticism and eclecticism, from which
it was later recalled by the so-called Neo- or New Platonists.
Finally under the pressure of ecclesiastical bigotry and greed the
Emperor Justinian confiscated the School property and forbade the
last Scholarch Damascius to teach. Accordingly a little band of seven
Platonic Pilgrim-sages, consisting of Damascius, Simplicius, Eulalius,
Priscian, Hermeias, Diogenes, and Isidore, to avoid ecclesiastical
persecution, were forced to wander away from the domains of Christendom
over mountain and desert to the distant court of the Persian Emperor
Chosroës, who four years later forced Justinian by treaty to let
the last of the Neoplatonists return to their native land and die a
natural death, guaranteeing them protection against further monkish
persecution. It is a strange fact that as soon as the School grounds
in the Academy were confiscated, a rumor, true or false, presently
spread to the effect that the deserted property had become straightway
unhealthy, a rumor which has persisted to this day, although it is
impossible for one who has visited the spot to perceive any reason why
it should not under proper cultivation re-become the healthful and
beautiful garden it once was.
The following notice appeared in the _Bibliotheca Platonica_ for
November-December, 1889:
_Secure the Academy!_ We desire to call the attention of Platonists
throughout the world to the fact that the site of the Ancient Academy
at Athens, Greece, could probably be secured by prompt and concerted
action. Proper measures should be taken at once to organize an
association having for its object the purchase, preservation and
restoration of the place where Plato lived and taught and where his
disciples continued his sublime and enlightening work for centuries.
It should be rescued from the hands of the profane, and set aside
for the perpetual use and benefit of all true followers of Divine
Philosophy. There is no good reason, why, in due time, the Platonic
School should not again become, as it once was, the nursery of Science
and Wisdom for the whole World.
Note the significant words of Thomas Taylor, the great Platonist of a
hundred years ago, who in the words of H. P. Blavatsky is "one of the
very few commentators on old Greek and Latin authors who have given
their just dues to the ancients for their mental development":