The Theosophical Current: A Periodization by Antoine Faivre

The Theosophical Current: A Periodization by Antoine Faivre

École Pratique des Hautes Études

(Section des Sciences Religieuses), Sorbonne

When we use the term “theosophy”, (a word with a long-standing history), we should always be specific about the sense in which we intend it. In 1987, James Santucci and Jean Louis Siémons published the results of their respective research on the use of the word ‘theosophy’ during late antiquity and the Middle Ages 2 1 From this it springs out that Porphyry (234-305) appears to have been the first to introduce the term “theosophia”. In Porphyry’s view, a “theosophos” is an ideal being within whom are reconciled the combined capacities of a philosopher, an artist and a priest of the highest order . Iamblicus (250-330) spoke of “the divinely inspired Muse” (theosophos Mousê”; Proclus (412-485) uses theosophia to mean “doctrine”, whereas, among the first Christian writers, for example, Clement of Alexandria (circa 150-215), we find that “theosophos” means “moved by divine science”. Likewise, when reading the works of pseudo-Dionysus we are hard put to distinguish between “theologia”, “theosophia” and “divine philosophy”, whereas the late Platonists used the word “theosophia” to designate practically any kind of spiritual tenet, even theurgy itself. Finally, during the middle ages the term ended up acquiring the ordinary meaning of “theologia”4 , “theosophoï” thereby becoming, just as in the Summa Philosophiae attributed to Robert Grosseteste, (1175-1253) merely another name for the authors of Holy Scripture.5

These few examples exhibit as much multiplicity of meaning as they do affinity. Accordingly, 5 if we assume that the overall significance of the word ‘theosophy’ remains the “Wisdom of God” or the “science of divine things”, one can choose either to emphasize the semantic discrepancies among the different meanings or to look for a middle term and a common ground, according to our individual preference. In the first case, one risks overlooking the subtle ties which connect the different writers; in the second, one risks obscuring the contours of individual meanings so that both the authors and their theories become interchangeable. It is not only the texts from late antiquity and the middle ages which present us with this dilemma: from the time of the Renaissance until today the word ‘theosophy’ has continuously had different meanings ascribed to it. Here, my aim is not simple enumeration, because that would yield only a fragmented picture of the whole, nor shall I attempt to reduce all of these terms to one common principle (an impossible task; moreover, one which would imply a doctrinal bias). Rather, I mainly want to draw attention here to the advantage of starting from empirical data and to ask questions such as these: Is it possible for an observer to draw some major trends from the myriad uses and meanings which the word ‘theosophy’ has been given in the West, and how? If so, what are the essential elements each of these trends is comprised of? Approaching the subject in this way means we are afforded an escape from the dilemma which has just been alluded to, while at the same time the landscape is allowed to disclose itself as it really is.

It seems that the answer to the first question could hardly elude any visitor to the imaginary museum composed of the esoteric and mystical currents which pervade modern and contemporary western culture. Two major forms appear to stand out: on the one hand, there is a single esoteric current among others which does not correspond to an official Society; on the other, there is an official Society which has given to itself the title “theosophical” and simultaneously a programmed orientation. The first major form is an initially amorphous galaxy which began to acquire shape in the spiritual climate of late 16th century Germany, reaching such heights in the 17th century that it has continued to penetrate, with phases of growth and decline, part of western culture until the present day. The second major form is represented by the Theosophical Society itself, officially founded in 1875 at the instigation of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (18311891), which has pursued relatively precise directions and goals ever since its inception, (an endeavor incumbent upon any group of this kind), to the point where it is sometimes, rightly or wrongly, regarded as a new religious movement, if not a new religion. Of course, there are obvious similarities between these two: first, they both play an important part in western esotericism; and secondly, both claim to deal with “wisdom” or “knowledge” or “divine things”, not from a theological perspective, but from a gnostic one. The gnosis in question—particularly the rapport and mediation which unite the human being to the divine world—is considered to be a privileged path of transformation and salvation. Why then the attempt to distinguish between these two “theosophies”? In the first place, they do not actually rely on the same reference works; in the second place, their style is different. The referential corpus of the first belongs essentially to the Judeo-Christian type; its foundational texts date from the end of the16th to the beginning of the 17th centuries. That of the second reveals a more universal aspect; it is deeply infused with eastern elements, particularly Hindu and Buddhist. Of course, transitions and common elements among the material used by both trends are in evidence: for example, borrowings from the theosophical current by the Theosophical Society are not unknown.

In Politica Hermetica (see above, note 2) Jean-Louis Siémons points out that at least twenty references to Boehme can be found in Mme Blavatsky’s works. While acknowledging obvious discrepancies between the Theosophical Society and western theosophy, Siémons adds that these dissimilarities, “however, are not important enough to cause an insurmountable barrier . . .”. One cannot help but agree with him on this point. If we admit the existence of different rooms inside the esoteric mansion as we can observe it, then each should be allotted its own style of furniture; if, on the other hand, each of the two theosophical “ families” is large enough and rich enough to settle in one or even several of these rooms, there is nothing to prohibit their sharing the common rooms and the grounds. Likewise, although western Europe has indeed known a Romantic era, it would be meaningless to put both Novalis and Alfred de Musset into the same category unless one had in mind the concept of an “eternal Romanticism” (not unlike that of the “ primordial Tradition” so dear to some). But here we would deal with a different matter, one which is fraught with subjectivity and not without doctrinal undertones.

These preliminary distinctions being made, the purpose now is to present the genesis, development and specific features of the first form (“classical theosophy”) in the framework of a periodic overview. It appears that four different periods comprise its historical evolution, and these periods have provided me with the structure I adhere to in the present article 8 : I) From the end of the 16th century through the 17th, the development of a specific textual corpus which will be deemed “theosophic” from that time on; this period is a kind of first “Golden Age” of this particular current. II) The spreading of that corpus and its reception by historians of philosophy in the first half of the 18th century. III) Its revival in the pre-Romantic and Romantic era (i.e., the second “ Golden Age” ). IV) Its decline and also its endurance from the mid-19th century until the present.

For more : Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition Studies in Western Esotericism