She herself explained the reason in the first volume she published.
« What’s in a name?
Very often there is more in it
than the profane is prepared to understand (or more in it than the learned
mystic is prepared to explain). It is an invisible, secret, but very potential
influence that every name carries about with it and leaveth wherever it goeth.
Carlyle thought that:
- “There is much, nay, almost all, in names.”
And Trismegistus writes:
-
“Could I unfold the influence of names, which are the most important of
all clothings, I were a second great Trismegistus.”
The name or title of a magazine
started with a definite object, is, therefore, all important; for it is,
indeed, the invisible seed grain, which will either grow “to be an
all-overshadowing tree” on the fruits of which must depend the nature of the
results brought about by the said object, or the tree will wither and die.
These considerations show that
the name of the present magazine—rather equivocal to the orthodox Christian
ears—is due to no careless selection, but arose in consequence of much thinking
over its fitness, and was adopted as the best symbol to express that object and
the results in view.
Now, the first and most
important, if not the sole object of the magazine, is expressed in the line
from the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, on its title page:
- “It is to bring light to the hidden things of
darkness.” (4:5)
To show in their true aspect and
their original real meaning things and names, men and their doings and customs;
it is finally to fight prejudice, hypocrisy and shams in every nation, in every
class of Society, as in every department of life.
The task is a laborious one but
it is neither impracticable nor useless (if even as an experiment), and thus
for an attempt of such nature, no better title could ever be found than the one
chosen: “Lucifer”.
Because in Latin the word lucifer
is the pale morning-star, the precursor of the full blaze of the noon-day sun.
Is the “Eosphoros” of the Greeks. It shines timidly at dawn to gather forces
and dazzle the eye after sunset as its own brother “Hesperos”, the radiant evening
star, or the planet Venus.
No fitter symbol exists for the
proposed work—that of throwing a ray of truth on everything hidden by the
darkness of prejudice, by social or religious misconceptions; especially by
that idiotic routine in life, which, once that a certain action, a thing, a
name, has been branded by slanderous inventions, however unjust, makes
respectable people, so-called, turn away shiveringly, refusing to even look at
it from any other aspect than the one sanctioned by public opinion.
Such an endeavor then, to force
the weak-hearted to look truth straight in the face, is helped most
efficaciously by a title belonging to the category of branded names.
Piously inclined readers may
argue that “Lucifer” is accepted by all the churches as one of the many names
of the Devil.
According to Milton’s superb
fiction, Lucifer is Satan, the “rebellious” angel, the enemy of God and man. If
one analyzes his rebellion, however, it will be found of no worse nature than
an assertion of free-will and independent thought (as if Lucifer had been born
in the XIXth century).
This epithet of “rebellious” is a
theological calumny, on par with that other slander of God by the
Predestinarians, one that makes of deity an “Almighty” fiend worse than the
“rebellious” Spirit himself; “an omnipotent Devil desiring to be ‘complimented’
as all-merciful when he is exerting the most fiendish cruelty,” as put by James
A. Cotter Morrison.
Both the foreordaining and
predestining fiend-God, and his subordinate agent are of human invention; they
are two of the most morally repulsive and horrible theological dogmas that the
nightmares of light-hating monks have ever evolved out of their unclean
fancies.
They date from the Mediaeval age,
the period of mental obscuration, during which most of the present prejudices
and superstitions have been forcibly inoculated on the human mind, so as to
have become nearly ineradicable in some cases, one of which is the present
prejudice now under discussion.
So deeply rooted, indeed, is this
preconception and aversion to the name of Lucifer, that by adopting it for the
title of their magazine the editors have the prospect of a long strife with
public prejudice before them (even among the educated classes).
However, the word “Lucifer”
originally meaning only “light-bringer” (from lux, lucis, “light,” and ferre, “to bring”) (1).
So absurd and ridiculous is that
prejudice, indeed, that no one has seemed to ever ask himself the question:
How came Satan to be
called a “Light-Bringer”?
Unless the silvery rays of the
morning-star can in any way be made suggestive of the glare of the infernal
flames!
It is simply as Henderson showed:
« One of those gross perversions
of sacred writ which so extensively obtain, and which are to be traced to a
proneness to seek for more in a given passage than it really contains a
disposition to be influenced by sound rather than sense, and an implicit faith
in received interpretation. »
This is not quite one of the
weaknesses of our present age. Nevertheless, the prejudice is there, to the
shame of our century.
This cannot be helped. The two
editors would hold themselves as recreants in their own sight, as traitors to
the very spirit of the proposed work, were they to yield and cry craven before
the danger.
If one would fight prejudice, and
brush off the ugly cobwebs of superstition and materialism alike from the
noblest ideals of our forefathers, one has to prepare for opposition.
“The crown of the reformer and
innovator is a crown of thorns” indeed.
If one would rescue Truth in all
her chaste nudity from the almost bottomless well, into which she has been
hurled by cant and hypocritical propriety, one should not hesitate to descend
into the dark, gaping pit of that well.
No matter how badly the blind
bats (the dwellers in darkness, and the haters of light) may treat in their
gloomy abode the intruder, unless one is the first to show the spirit and
courage he preaches to others, he must be justly held as a hypocrite and a
seceder from his own principles.
Hardly had the title been agreed
upon, when the first premonitions of what was in store for us, in the matter of
the opposition to be encountered owing to the title chosen, appeared on our
horizon.
One of the editors received and
recorded some spicy objections and the scenes that follow are sketches from
nature.
Case 1
(Conversation with a well-known novelist.)
Novelist. Tell me about your new
magazine. What class do you propose to appeal to?
Editor. No class in particular:
we intend to appeal to the public.
Novelist. I am very glad of that.
For once I shall be one of the public, for I don’t understand your subject in
the least, and I want to. But you must remember that if your public is to
understand you, it must necessarily be a very small one. People talk about
occultism nowadays as they talk about many other things, without the least idea
of what it means. We are so ignorant and—so prejudiced.
Editor. Exactly and that is what
calls the new magazine into existence. We propose to educate you, and to tear
the mask from every prejudice.
Novelist. That really is good
news to me, for I want to be educated. What is your magazine to be called?
Editor. Lucifer.
Novelist. What! Are you going to
educate us in vice? We know enough about
that. Fallen angels are plentiful. You may find popularity, for soiled doves
are in fashion just now, while the white-winged angels are voted a bore,
because they are not so amusing. But I doubt your being able to teach us much.
Case 2
(Conversation with a man of the world in a careful undertone for the
scene is a dinner-party.)
Man of the world. I hear you are
going to start a magazine, all about occultism. Do you know, I’m very glad. I
don’t say anything about such matters as a rule, but some queer things have
happened in my life which can’t be explained in any ordinary manner. I hope you
will go in for explanations.
Editor. We shall try, certainly,
because my impression is that when occultism is in any measure apprehended, its
laws are accepted by everyone as the only intelligible explanation of life.
Man of the world. Just so, I want
to know all about it, by my honor, life’s a mystery. There are plenty of other
people as curious as myself. This is an age which is afflicted with the Yankee
disease of “wanting to know”. I’ll get you lots of subscribers. What’s the
magazine called?
Editor. Lucifer—and (warned by
former experience) don’t misunderstand the name. It is typical of the divine
spirit which sacrificed itself for humanity—it was Milton’s doing that it ever
became associated with the devil. We are sworn enemies of popular prejudices,
and it is quite appropriate that we should attack such a prejudice as
this—Lucifer, you know, is the Morning Star—the Light-bearer…
Man of the world (interrupting).
Oh, I know all that—at least I don’t know, but I take it for granted you’ve got
some good reason for taking such a title. But your first object is to have
readers; you want the public to buy your magazine, I suppose. That’s in the
programme, isn’t it?
Editor. Most decidedly.
Man of the world. Well, listen to
the advice of a man who knows his way about town. Don’t mark your magazine with
the wrong color at starting. It’s quite evident, when one stays an instant to
think of its derivation and meaning, that Lucifer is an excellent word. But the
public don’t stay to think of derivations and meanings; and the first
impression is the most important. Nobody will buy the magazine if you call it
Lucifer.
Case 3
(Conversation with a fashionable lady interested in occultism.)
Lady. I want to hear some more
about the new magazine, for I have interested a great many people in it, even
with the little you have told me. But I find it difficult to express its actual
purpose. What is it?
Editor. To try and give a little
light to those that wants it.
Lady. Well, that’s a simple way
of putting it, and will be very useful to me. What is the magazine to be
called?
Editor. Lucifer.
Lady (after a pause). You can’t
mean it!
Editor. Why not?
Lady. The associations are so
dreadful! What can be the object of
calling it that? It sounds like some
unfortunate sort of joke, made against it by its enemies.
Editor. Oh, but Lucifer, you
know, means Light bearer; it is typical of the Divine Spirit…
Lady (interrupting). Never mind
all that! I want to do your magazine
good and make it known, and you can’t expect me to enter into explanations of
that sort every time I mention the title. Impossible!
Life is too short and too busy.
Besides, it would produce such a bad effect; people would think me priggish,
and then I couldn’t talk at all, for I couldn’t bear them to think that.
Don’t call it Lucifer—please
don’t. Nobody knows what the word is typical of; what it means now is the
devil, nothing more or less.
Editor. But then that is quite a
mistake, and one of the first prejudices we propose to do battle with. Lucifer
is the pale, pure herald of dawn…
Lady (interrupting). I thought
you were going to do something more interesting and more important than to
whitewash mythological characters. We shall all have to go to school again, or
read up Dr. Smith’s Classical Dictionary.
And what is the use of it when it is done?
I thought you were going to tell
us things about our own lives and how to make them better. I suppose Milton wrote
about Lucifer, didn’t he? But nobody
reads Milton now. Do let us have a modern title with some human meaning in it.
Case 4
(Conversation with a journalist)
Journalist (thoughtfully while
rolling his cigarette). Yes, it is a good idea, this magazine of yours. We
shall all laugh at it, as a matter of course; and we shall cut it up in the
papers. But we shall all read it, because secretly everybody hungers after the
mysterious. What are you going to call it?
Editor. Lucifer.
Journalist (striking a light).
Why not The Fusée? Quite as good a
title and not so pretentious.
* * * * * * *
The novelist, the man of the
world, the fashionable lady, and the journalist, should be the first to receive
a little instruction. A glimpse into the real and primitive character of
Lucifer can do them no harm and may, perchance, cure them of a bit of this ridiculous
prejudice.
They ought to study their Homer
and Hesiod’s Theogony if they would do justice to Lucifer, “Eosphoros and Hesperos,”
the Morning and the Evening beautiful star. If there are more useful things to
do in this life than “whitewash mythological characters,” to slander and
blacken them is, at least, as useless, and shows, moreover, a narrow-mindedness
which can do honor to no one.
To object to the title of “Lucifer”
only because its associations are so dreadful, is pardonable (if it can be
pardonable in any case) only in an ignorant missionary of some dissenting sect,
in one whose natural laziness and lack of education led him to prefer ploughing
the minds of heathens, as ignorant as he is himself, to the more profitable,
but rather more arduous, process of ploughing the fields of his own father’s
farm.
But in the cultured
clergy, however, who all receive a more or less classical education, and are,
therefore, supposed to be acquainted with the ins and outs of theological
sophistry and casuistry, this kind of opposition is absolutely unpardonable.
Because it not only smacks of hypocrisy and deceit, but places them directly on
a lower moral level than him they call the apostate angel.
By endeavoring to show the
theological Lucifer, fallen through the idea that:
“To reign is worth ambition,
though in Hell, better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.”
Because they prefer reining over
the spirit of the masses by means of a pernicious dark LIE, productive of many
an evil, than serve heaven by serving TRUTH.
And these practices are typical
of the Jesuits, but their sacred writ is the first to contradict their interpretations
and the association of Lucifer with Satan.
For example in chapter xxii of
Revelation, verse 16th, says:
« I, Jesus, I am the root and Lucifer. »
And here by the word of “Lucifer”
is not referring to a diabolical being but to Divine Being, to the “bright
Morning Star” which means in Latin.
The opprobrium attached to this
name is of such a very late date, that the Roman Church found itself forced to
screen the theological slander behind a two-sided interpretation:
Christ, we are told, is the
Morning Star (is the divine Lucifer) and Satan is the usurpator of the Verbum
(is the infernal Lucifer) (2).
And the Archangel Michael (“the
great conqueror of Satan”) is identical in paganism with Mercury-Mithra, to
whom, after defending the Sun [symbolical of God] from the attacks of
Venus-Lucifer, was given the possession of this planet, in the text “et datus
est ei locus Luciferi” (3).
(And you must know that many
Christian dogmas were originally adopted from pagan religions.)
And since the Archangel Michael
is the “Angel of the Face” and the “Vicar of the Verbum” he is now considered
in the Roman Church as the regent of the planet Venus which “the vanquished
fiend had usurped” (4).
And this gives the reason why one
of the early Popes was called Lucifer, as Yonge and ecclesiastical records
prove it (5).
Conclusion
It thus all follows that the
title chosen for our magazine is as much associated with divine and pious ideas
as with the supposed rebellion of the hero of Milton’s Paradise Lost.
And by choosing it, we throw the
first ray of light and truth on a ridiculous prejudice which ought to have no
room made for it in this our “age of facts and discovery”.
We work for true Religion and
Science, in the interest of fact as against fiction and prejudice. And it is
our duty (as it is that of physical science) to throw light on facts in Nature
hitherto surrounded by the darkness of ignorance.
And since ignorance is justly
regarded as the chief promoter of superstition, that work is, therefore, a
noble and beneficent work. But natural Sciences are only one aspect of Science
and Truth.
While psychological and moral
Sciences (or theosophy) the knowledge of divine truth, wheresoever found, are
still more important in human affairs, and real Science should not be limited
simply to the physical aspect of life and nature.
Science is an abstract of every
fact, a comprehension of every truth within the scope of human research and
intelligence. But the genuine esoteric teaching is the “Shakespeare’s deep and
accurate science in mental philosophy” (Coleridge), and has proved more
beneficent to the true philosopher in the study of the human heart—therefore,
in the promotion of truth—than the more accurate, but certainly less deep,
science of any Fellow of the Royal Institution.
Those readers, however, who do
not find themselves convinced that the Church had no right to throw a slur upon
a beautiful star, and that it did so through a mere necessity of accounting for
one of its numerous loans from Paganism with all its poetical conceptions of
the truths in Nature, are asked to read our article “The History of a Planet”, perhaps, after its perusal, they will see
how far Dupuis was justified in asserting that “all the theologies have their
origin in astronomy.
With the modern Orientalists
every myth is solar, and this is one more prejudice, and a preconception in
favor of materialism and it will be one of our duties to combat it with much
of the rest. »
(Lucifer Magazine, Vol. I, No.1, September, 1887, p.1-7. Retranscribed in Blavatsky Collected Writings, Volume 8, p.5-13)
Notes
(1) It was Gregory the Great who was the first to apply this passage of
Isaiah, “How art thou fallen from the heavens, Lucifer, son of the morning”,
etc., to Satan, and ever since the bold metaphor of the prophet, which
referred, after all, but to an Assyrian king inimical to the Israelites, has
been applied to the Devil.
(2) de Mirville’s 2nd Mémoire to the Academy of France, Vol. IV, quoting
Cardinal Ventura. [This ref. has not been definitely identified.—Comp.]
(3) de Mirville, “Des
Esprits, etc. ”, Vol. IV, p. 161.
(4) “Angelus faciei Dei sedem superbi humilis obtinuit”, says Cornelius à
Lapide (in Vol. VI, p. 229). [This reference is probably to Élysée Pélagaud’s
edition of the works of Cornelius à Lapide, not located as yet. The Latin
sentence is quoted by de Mirville, op. cit., Vol. IV, p. 163, footnote.—Comp.]
(5) [Unfortunately this is not easily ascertainable as to which Yonge is
meant here; most probably, however Charles Duke Yonge (1812-1891), Professor of
History and English Literature in Queen’s College, Belfast.
As to ecclesiastical records, referred
to by Blavatsky, the best known among them, bearing on the history of the
Papacy, make no mention of any Pope by that name. In this connection, the
student is referred to the Liber Pontificalis, or Gesta Pontificum Romanorum,
consisting of the lives of the bishops of Rome from the time of St. Peter to
the death of Nicholas I in 867, to which-were appended supplements at a later
date, continuing the series.
The Liber, used by Bede for his
Historia Ecclesiastica, was first printed at Mainz in 1602. The best edition is
by the French scholar, Monsignor Louis Marie Olivier Duchesne (2 volumes,
Paris, 1886-1892). No Pope by the name of Lucifer occurs in the above-mentioned
work, or any other available sources.
It is conceivable however that Blavatsky
may have meant Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari (hence called Caralitanus), an
ardent supporter of the cause of Athanasius, and who died in 371. He is
popularly regarded in Sardinia as a saint. A number of his controversial
writings are still extant.
We mention him as being the only
individual named Lucifer of whom there exist tangible records in the history of
the Church.—Compiler.]
OBSERVATION
Before publishing this article,
Blavatsky had already discussed this topic with her sister Vera in a letter
that she wrote:
« We are about to found a
magazine of our own, Lucifer. But don’t allow yourself to be frightened: it is
not the devil, into which the Catholics have falsified the name of the Morning
Star, sacred to all the ancient world, of the “bringer of light”, Phosphoros,
as the Romans often called the Mother of God and Christ.
And in Saint John’s Revelation does
it not say:
“I, Jesus, the morning star”?
I wish people would take this to
mind, at least. It is possible that the rebellious angel was called Lucifer before
his fall, but after his transformation he must not be called so. »
(www.blavatskyarchives.com/blavle11.htm)
No comments:
Post a Comment