Issues of Theosophical History:
Description of Contents

Back to Past Issues Description of Contents INDEX

Vol. XIV, (January-April 2008)

A Note on the Journal’s Date and the Proper Subject of Theosophical History

Over the past few months, a few correspondents have questioned whether the past few issues of the journal were misdated as 2007 rather than 2008. As regular readers are aware, Theosophical History has been behind schedule, a situation due to a number of reasons, among which include my duties as Chair of the Department of Comparative Religion along with a heavy teaching assignment. Ordinarily, this is not of any major significance apropos the contents of the journal, at least not until now. Rather than report the passing of the noted Theosophical biographer Jean Overton Fuller on April 8, 2009 in the appropriately-numbered issue (June 2009), which will not be published until sometime in 2010, the news demands immediate publication. There is another reason for this announcement. The main article, “Jean Overton Fuller, Master Narayan, and the Krishnamurti-Scott-Anrias Issue,” is largely a reaction to Miss Fuller’s research both in her biography, Krishnamurti and the Wind: An Integral Biography, and her earlier examination of Cyril Scott, Cyril Scott and A Hidden School. The correspondence that ensued between her and Mr. Schuller culminated in a final letter, dated 21 August 2006, in which Miss Fuller declared her own position on this topic. It is more appropriate, however, to include this letter and Mr. Schuller’s response in a later issue.

* * *

The Passing of Jean Overton Fuller

As mentioned, Jean Overton Fuller passed away on April 8, 2009. The obituary, written by her long-time collaborator Timothy d’Arch Smith, discusses Ms Fuller’s remarkable life, beginning with early childhood experiences, her experience as a stage actor during her youth, her role as poet and biographer, and her friendship with Noor Inayat Khan, the British Special Operations Executive agent during the Second World War who was captured and executed at Dachau. Ms Fuller’s friendship with Noor led her to write Ms Khan’s biography, Madeleine, which was first published in 1952. These items are detailed in Mr. d’Arch Smith’s obituary as also in Ms Fuller’s autobiography, Driven to It. Of special interest for me, however, is her relationship to Theosophical History. Her interest and participation in establishing Theosophical History was greater than I had previously thought, and for the continued support she has given over the years she richly deserves our praise and gratitude. To quote Ms Fuller’s autobiography:

A Theosophical acquaintance of mine, Leslie Price, had floated the idea of a magazine devoted to Theosophical history and this had fruited in a quarterly of that title, Theosophical History [in 1985]. In July [1986] a Conference was arranged in connection with it and he invited me to be one of the speakers. My talk was on the Saturday, with Leslie in the chair. I gave a foretaste of my coming biography of Blavatsky [Blavatsky and Her Masters], concentrating on some aspects of the Coulomb affair [346]

Ms Fuller continued to support the journal over the years, contributing on a regular basis from the very first issue (Jan. 1985). Her most significant contributions, however, were the two publications in the Theosophical History Occasional Paper Series: Joan Grant: Winged Pharaoh (Vol. II) and Cyril Scott and A Hidden School: Towards The Peeling Of An Onion (Vol. VII).
Ms Fuller was a respected Theosophical commentator who led a very productive literary life, and for that she will be fondly remembered by her friends and colleagues.

* * *

In This Issue

Govert Schuller’s article “Jean Overton Fuller, Master Narayan, and the Krishnamurti-Scott-Anrias Issue” is unlike most past articles appearing in this journal, mainly because it does not conform to its usual historical subject matter. This article is about the identification of a Master, in this case Narayan, who is generally not mentioned in most academic references to Masters. Just who is Narayan? Is he identified with two yogis, Tiravala and Nagaratnaswami, as Jean Overton Fuller contends? Why is this important? The issue surrounds Krishnamurti’s intended role as World Teacher and what was written about him by two “Theosophically-minded” writers, Cyril Scott and David Anrias, in two books written in the early 1930s, The Initiate in the Dark Cycle and Through the Eyes of the Masters. Since both Scott and Anrias took a negative view of Krishnamurti, a view based upon a Master’s opinion communicated to Anrias, then the question must be raised: “Who was the Master?” What proceeds is a complicated story that is given in great detail by Mr. Schuller. This topic alone will certainly raise questions from non-Theosophical historians as also the methodology employed. For one, it may be objected that this is not a proper topic for an academic study since Masters are presumed by many of the more sceptical historians to be fictional characters invented by H. P. Blavatsky. Second, Schuller incorporates his beliefs into the study. Third, the format of the study may appear to be theological in nature, not academic in scope.
The article requires a few observations apropos Theosophical studies. While some readers may not be convinced that the subject of this article does not fall within the scope of legitimate academic study, Mr. Schuller addresses this argument by employing academic sources that reject such reductionist approaches. Most academicians today discuss Theosophical topics from either sociological or historical
perspectives. This is understandable since both are empirical in kind, with the former primarily data-based and statistical and the latter based upon the written record. It is true that Mr. Schuller takes the position that Cyril Scott and David Anrias “were the chosen vehicles of the Masters to make their assessment of Krishnamurti known,” an assessment, incidentally, that is negative. If this were the central focus of investigation, then the article would be inappropriate for this journal. The main thrust of the article, however, is the identification of the Master Narayan based upon Theosophical accounts, including those of H.P. Blavatsky, H.S. Olcott, Ernest Wood, and co-authors Scott and Anrias. Mr. Schuller is careful in his examination of the written sources, allowing him to make reasoned judgments on the evidence presented. What I look for in investigative articles is the author’s command of the subject matter, the comprehensiveness and command of the primary and secondary material, the evaluative quality of the conclusions, and the honesty of the author. Regarding the last point, if investigators are relatively free of an ideological stance, their personal beliefs are irrelevant; if they have personal beliefs and opinions that are freely admitted, however, the value of their work rests on the cogency and breath of their research and conclusions. What is important in this whole matter is whether the conclusions are based upon the evidence uncovered, which must be comprehensive and not selective, and whether their conclusions are properly derived from the evidence and not forced to conform to a predetermined conclusion.
It is my opinion that Mr. Schuller succeeds in this study. Rather than ignoring a vast swath of Theosophical literature as not fitting for academic study because it is dissociated from empirical reality, this article points to the possibility that such studies can be proper subjects for academic research. This article is not the first to discuss such topics in an academic manner. I also consider K. Paul Johnson’s two books, The Masters Revealed and Initiates of Theosophical Masters, to be models for such studies. I do not expect many studies of this sort, but if executed in the manner described above, they will be welcomed.

The second offering is Leslie Price’s communication, “A Theosophical Scientist,” which mentions the recent publication of William H. Brock’s William Crookes and the Commercialization of Science. Mr. Price adds to the value of the biography by clarifying some of Brock’s observations pertinent to Theosophy.
Finally, mention is made of the most recent study on the Theosophical movement in the form of a Ph.D. dissertation, The Theosophical Revival in Denmark, written by René Dybdal Pedersen. Mr. Pedersen passed his oral defense dissertation at the University of Aarhus in June 2009 and has since been awarded the Ph.D.

* * * * *