HPB Explains the Name of Her London Magazine
Helena P.
Blavatsky
000000000000000000000000000000000000
Editorial Note:
This extraordinary
text is reproduced from
“Theosophical Articles”, by H.P.
Blavatsky,
Theosophy Company,
Los Angeles, U.S.A., 1981,
vol. III, pp.
368-375. Original title: “What’s In
a Name?” It was
first published in the London
magazine “Lucifer” in September 1887.
(CCA)
What’s in a name?
Very often there is more in it than the profane is prepared to understand, or
the learned mystic 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”. “Could
I unfold the influence of names, which are the most important of all clothings,
I were a second great Trismegistus”, he writes.
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-over-shadowing 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 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”, (iv. 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.
Thus, for an attempt of such nature, no better title
could ever be found than the one chosen. “Lucifer”, is the pale morning-star,
the precursor of the full blaze of the noon-day sun - 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 endeavour 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 a 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 J. Cotter Morison. 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 Mediæval 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 - meaning no worse than “light-bringer” (from lux, lucis,
“light”, and ferre “to bring”) [1] - even among the educated classes,
that by adopting it for the title of their magazine the editors have the
prospect of a long strife with public prejudice before them. 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” - which
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 the 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. The scenes that follow are
sketches from nature.
I
A Well-known 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. 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.
II
A Man of the World (in a careful undertone, for the scene is a
dinner-party). 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.
My impression is, that when occultism is in any measure apprehended, its laws
are accepted by everyone as the only intelligible explanation of life.
A M. W. Just so, I want to know
all about it, for ’pon my honour, 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 to 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, . . . . . .
A M. W. (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.
A M. W. Well, listen to the advice
of a man who knows his way about town. Don’t mark your magazine with the wrong
colour 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.
III
A Fashionable Lady Interested in Occultism. 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 want it.
A F. L. 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.
A F. L. (After a pause.) You can’t
mean it.
Editor. Why not?
A F. L. 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-
A F. L. 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.
IV
A 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 Fusee? 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 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 “to whitewash mythological characters”, to slander and
blacken them is, at least, as useless, and shows, moreover, a narrow-mindedness
which can do honour 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 American 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. In the
English clergy, however, who receive all 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. 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
endeavouring 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,
they are virtually putting into practice the supposed
crime they would fain accuse him of. They prefer reigning over the spirit of
the masses by means of a pernicious dark LIE, productive of many an evil, than
serve heaven by serving TRUTH. Such practices are worthy only of the Jesuits.
But their sacred writ is the first to contradict their
interpretations and the association of Lucifer, the Morning Star, with Satan.
Chapter XXII of Revelation, verse
16th, says: “I, Jesus . . . am the root . . . and the bright and Morning Star” (ορθρiνοS “early rising”): hence Eosphoros, or the Latin Lucifer.
The opprobrium attached to this name is of such a very late date, the Roman
Church found itself forced to screen the theological slander behind a two-sided
interpretation - as usual. Christ, we are told, is the “Morning Star”, the divine Lucifer; and Satan the usurpator of the Verbum, the “infernal Lucifer”. [2] “The great Archangel Michael, the conqueror of Satan, is
identical in paganism [3] 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, et datus est ei locus Luciferi. 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 that planet Venus which ‘the vanquished fiend had
usurped’.” Angelus faciei
Dei sedem superbi humilis obtinuit, says Cornelius à Lapide (in
Vol. VI, p. 229).
This gives the reason why one of the early Popes was
called Lucifer, as Yonge and ecclesiastical records prove. It thus 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”. 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. It is our duty, as it is
that of physical Science - professedly its mission - 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. 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. “Shakespeare’s
deep and accurate science in mental philosophy” (Coleridge), 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”.[4] 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.
This is one more prejudice, and a preconception in favour of materialism and
physical science. It will be one of our duties to combat it with much of the rest.
Lucifer, September, 1887
NOTES:
[1] “It was Gregory the Great who was the first to apply
this passage of Isaiah, ‘How art thou fallen from Heaven, Lucifer, son of the
morning’, etc., to Satan, 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.” (HPB)
[2] “Mirville’s Memoirs to the Academy of France”, Vol. IV,
quoting Cardinal Ventura. (HPB)
[3] Which paganism has passed long millenniums, it would
seem, in copying before-hand
Christian dogmas to come. (HPB)
[4] (A 2014 Note by the Editor) Under the title “The History of a
Planet: Venus”, this article can be read at our associated websites. (CCA)
000
See also the
articles “The Bright Side of Saturn”
and “A Few Words on Uranus”, both by Carlos Cardoso Aveline, and “The History of a Planet: Venus”, by
Helena P. Blavatsky.
On the role of the esoteric movement in
the ethical awakening of mankind during the 21st century, see the book “The Fire and Light of Theosophical
Literature”, by Carlos Cardoso Aveline.
Published in
2013 by The Aquarian Theosophist,
the volume has 255 pages and can be obtained through Amazon Books.
000
