Setting Forth a Canon of the Gurdjieff Work

27 Pages·2021·0.194 MB·English

by  David Seamon

Postscripts 12.2 (2021) 261–287 Postscripts ISSN (print) 1743-887x
http://www.doi.org/10.1558/post.20837 Postscripts ISSN (online) 1743-8888
Setting Forth a Canon of the Gurdjieff Work
David Seamon
Kansas State University
This article considers whether there might be a canon of the Gurdjieff
Work and, if so, what that canon might include. The author empha-
sizes that any canonical explication must incorporate two complemen-
tary aspects: first, texts that describe the psychological, philosophical,
metaphysical, and cosmological structure of Gurdjieff’s system of self-
transformation; second, an integrated set of guidelines, procedures,
and techniques that provide the experiential and spiritual engine for
actualizing potential self-transformation. Taking this twofold canonical
definition into account, the Gurdjieff canon is defined as an ensemble
of texts, methods, and performative media that when, engaged sincerely
and persistently, might facilitate self-transformation psychologically
and spiritually. This article gives attention to written texts because the
starting point of Gurdjieff’s system is intellectual understanding. These
written texts are overviewed in terms of seven categories: (1) Gurdjieff’s
Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson and Ouspensky’s In Search of the Miracu-
lous; (2) additional texts by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, including Gurdjieff’s
Meetings with Remarkable Men and Ouspensky’s The Fourth Way; (3) com-
mentaries on Beelzebub’s Tales; (4) commentaries on the Gurdjieff Work as
presented in Maurice Nicoll’s Psychological Commentaries and Jane Heap’s
Notebooks; (5) biographies of Gurdjieff; (6) memoirs of Gurdjieff; and
(7) works that extend Gurdjieffian ideas in innovative directions.
I ask in this essay whether there might be a canon of the “Gurdjieff Work”
and, if so, what that canon might include. The academic and theological
literatures on canons and canonicality offer considerable definitional
range as to what these terms refer. Typically, canon is used broadly to
Keywords: Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson, canon, G. I. Gurdjieff, Gurdjieff can-
on, Gurdjieff Work, In Search of the Miraculous, P. D. Ouspensky, the
Work
© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2021
Office 415, The Workstation, 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield, S1 2BX
262 Setting Forth a Canon of the Gurdjieff Work
refer to any body of work that claims some manner of objective endorse-
ment, authority, or permanence—for example, a canon of American lit-
erature, of modernist art, of feminist writings, of Romantic poetry, of
Western classical music, and so forth (Aliteri 1983; Bloom 1994; Camille
1996; Gamer 2018; Readings 1989; Ross 1998). The underlying assump-
tion of canonicality is that limits must be imposed to help one locate
a particular tradition’s works of most significant quality and standing
(Bloom 1994, 35). Here, I ask what these significant works might be for
“the Work”—the system of psychological and spiritual self-transforma-
tion set forth by G. I. Gurdjieff (c.1866–1949) and his student and associ-
ate P. D. Ouspensky (1878–1947).
In studying its intellectual history, one finds that the idea of canon was
originally associated with the Hebrew and Christian traditions, relat-
ing to the authoritative sacred writings of these religions (Kruger 2013).
Camille referred to “the sacred authority of eternally reinterpretable
texts,” and Ulrich emphasized “a fixed standard or collection of writings
that defines the faith and identity of a particular religious community”
(Camille 1996, 199; Ulrich 2002, 34). Ulrich concluded that, in the Chris-
tian tradition, canon is understood, first of all, as “the definitive, closed
list of the books that constitute the authentic contents of scripture”—in
short, the Bible’s Old and New Testaments (Ulrich 2002, 34). Canonical
scholars considering the term theologically, however, also recognize that
canon and canonicality may have a processual dimension in that can-
ons can include directives as to how practically claimants, supporters,
or adherents should conduct their lives and spiritual formation (Ulrich
2002, 25–26). In this processual sense, canon refers to a set of precepts
and directives that guide, motivate, and concretize the sacred tradition:
“A law, principle, body of law, or set of standards, enacted or endorsed by
competent authority” (Ulrich 2002, 28).
In seeking out a canon of the Gurdjieff Work, I emphasize at the start
that any designation must draw on both aspects of canon: first, a tex-
tual core that describes the psychological, philosophical, metaphysical,
and cosmological structure of Gurdjieff’s system of self-transformation;
second, an integrated set of guidelines, procedures, and techniques that
provide the experiential and spiritual engine for actualizing potential
self-transformation. I therefore tentatively define the Gurdjieff canon as
an ensemble of texts, methods, and performative media that when, engaged sin-
cerely and persistently, might facilitate self-transformation psychologically and
spiritually.
If one defines the Gurdjieff canon in this comprehensive manner, one
© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2021
David Seamon 263
recognizes four interconnected components: first, well-respected writ-
ten works of the Gurdjieff tradition; second, Gurdjieff’s music; third, his
sacred dances, or “Movements”; and, fourth, the inner psychological
exercises that became an important part of Gurdjieff’s teaching methods
beginning in the early 1930s. In this article, I emphasize written texts
because the starting point of the Gurdjieff Work is intellectual under-
standing. As Ouspensky explained, “[W]e must begin with intellect. Our
intellectual centre is better developed, or more under its own control ….
[S]ince we have more command of our intellectual centre, we have to use
it until either we become more conscious or learn to use other functions
more efficiently” (Ouspensky 1957, 61). My aim is to present one compi-
lation of key written works that contribute to a Gurdjieff canon. Obvi-
ously, this selection is grounded in my personal understanding and is,
therefore, subjective, tentative, and open to criticism and revision. Other
individuals involved with the Gurdjieff tradition, either as practitioners
or researchers, might delineate a considerably different list. In this sense,
my compilation provides one baseline for comparison and contrast.
In making the selections offered here, I have been guided by what liter-
ature-canon scholar Harold Bloom called the “daemon”—“the inspiring
power that appears whenever we write or read a work of true imagi-
nation” (Bloom 2019, 2). I argue that many of the written works of the
Gurdjieff Work ignite this daemon of “true imagination” and “inspiring
power.” I first discovered Gurdjieff in the early 1970s in a university col-
league’s office where I happened to notice, on his desk, a copy of Ous-
pensky’s In Search of the Miraculous. Attracted by the provocative title, I
opened the book randomly and happened to read, “The human organ-
ism receives three kinds of food: (1) the ordinary food we eat; (2) the air
we breathe; (3) our impressions” (Ouspensky 1949, 181). Instantly, I was
struck by the reasonable but novel idea that impressions could be food.
I had never encountered anyone else stating such an obvious fact, once
one thought about it. Very soon, I was reading my own copy of Search.
Shortly after, I joined a Gurdjieff group. In relation to Bloom’s daemon,
the point I make is that, regularly in the Work literature, one discovers
the rousing insights and inspiration of which Bloom speaks. One sees and
understands aspects of human life and experience out of sight before.
Written texts and the Gurdjieff canon
As one becomes familiar with the written materials relating to the Gurd-
jieff Work, one realizes the wide range of entries generated since Ouspen-
sky’s death in 1947 and Gurdjieff’s in 1949. Published in 1985, researcher
Walter Driscoll’s invaluable compilation, Gurdjieff: An Annotated Bibliog-
© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2021
264 Setting Forth a Canon of the Gurdjieff Work
raphy, listed over 1,100 books, articles, and other entries in English; and
several hundred more in other languages (Driscoll, 1985). Since then
the number of publications has increased dramatically; for example, my
personal library of Work-related books currently numbers some 500 vol-
umes. In short, there is a huge range of published materials that poten-
tially contribute to a Gurdjieff canon. In this article, I set forth a range of
central texts organized in terms of the seven following categories, each
of which is then discussed in detail. For each category, I have chosen the
particular entries because, at least for me, their language, expression,
and content house the creative energy that marks Bloom’s daemon. The
seven categories are as follows:
1. Gurdjieff’s Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson and Ouspensky’s In Search
of the Miraculous
2. Additional texts by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, including Gurdjieff’s
Meetings with Remarkable Men and Ouspensky’s The Fourth Way
3. Commentaries on Beelzebub’s Tales
4. Commentaries on the Gurdjieff Work as presented in Maurice
Nicoll’s Psychological Commentaries and Jane Heap’s Notebooks
5. Biographies of Gurdjieff
6. Memoirs of Gurdjieff
7. Works that extend Gurdjieffian ideas in innovative directions.1
1. In Search of the Miraculous and Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson
In identifying key works in Gurdjieff canon, I begin with Gurdjieff’s Beel-
zebub’s Tales to His Grandson and Ouspensky’s In Search of the Miraculous
(Gurdjieff 1950; Ouspensky 1949). I expect that most Gurdjieffians would
agree that these texts are the two anchor entries for any Gurdjieff canon.
These two works are striking in their contrast: Ouspensky’s—clear,
accessible, and carefully structured throughout to identify key precepts
and principles; Gurdjieff’s—dense, difficult, and uneven in its passages
of unexpected revelation or disconcerting ordinariness. Search is Ous-
pensky’s first-person account of his time spent with Gurdjieff from 1915
to 1918, after which he broke with Gurdjieff and did not work with him
again. Search is unique in that it provides an accurate, comprehensible,
in-depth description of the integrated psychology, philosophy, and cos-
mology of Gurdjieff’s system, carefully explicating humans’ crucial role
1. For other efforts to identify key texts of the Gurdjieff tradition, see the special issue
of Gurdjieff International Review on the “Gurdjieff literature” (Driscoll and Loy 1998).
Also see bibliographer J. Walter Driscoll’s most recent inventory (Driscoll 2017).
© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2021
David Seamon 265
in the universe as well as precisely explaining Gurdjieff’s central psy-
chological claims that “human beings are machines”; “human beings are
asleep”; “human beings are not one ‘I’ but many”; and “human beings are
three-centered” (i.e., human experience incorporates bodily, emotional,
and intellectual functions that must be understood and integrated if one
is to be a complete human being).
Portions of the manuscript of Search were read to Ouspensky’s London
groups in the 1930s, but the text remained unpublished at his death in
1947. In 1949, Madame Ouspensky showed the manuscript to Gurdjieff,
who was said to exclaim, “Before I hate Ouspensky; now I love him. This
very exact, he tell what I say” (Moore 1999, 205). As Driscoll concluded,
Search “remains unparalleled as a lucid and systematic account of Gurd-
jieff’s early formulation of his ideas” (Driscoll and Loy 1998, 67). Taylor
made a similar point when she wrote that Search is the most thorough
compilation of Gurdjieff’s teaching during the years of the First World
War and Russian Revolution:
The form of the book allows Ouspensky to present Gurdjieff’s
ideas in a specific psychological sequence and in carefully selected
juxtapositions without calling this strategy to the attention of the
reader. The vast ideas covered include philosophy, cosmology,
psychology, religion and traditional knowledge of all kinds, and in
this book Gurdjieff’s synthesis of them was introduced to the West
for the first time. (Taylor 1978, 22)
In turning to Gurdjieff’s Beelzebub’s Tales, one encounters a second
anchor text that is much more obscure, confusing, and—for many read-
ers—off-putting. Reviewer Martin Seymour-Smith argued that Beelze-
bub’s Tales is uniquely difficult because “Gurdjieff believed that his recon-
structed doctrine contained much of the truth about human existence;
he thought truth difficult; he therefore made intense difficulties and
created may obstacles for anyone who wished to discover it” (Seymour-
Smith 1998, 448).
Partly myth, partly science fiction, partly teaching parable, Gurdji-
eff’s masterwork begins aboard the spaceship Karnak, which transports
extraterrestrial Beelzebub and his grandson Hassein to a conference on
a far planet where the wise Beelzebub will share his life experiences and
scientific research. As they travel, Beelzebub tells Hassein stories about
the universe, the Earth, and psychological and cosmic laws. Via these
accounts, Gurdjieff unfolds his understanding of human nature and the
inescapable role that human beings play in the involution and evolution
of the universe. Central to this cosmology is Gurdjieff’s notion of “Recip-
© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2021
266 Setting Forth a Canon of the Gurdjieff Work
rocal Maintenance” and the “Trogoautoegocratic process”—the continu-
ous, universal exchange of substances in which everything in the cos-
mos is in an interdependent relationship with everything else, whereby
all portions of the cosmos are always interconnected. Only conscious
awareness, including human understanding, stands potentially outside
this inexorable, universal process, propelled by two fundamental laws
that Gurdjieff identifies as the “Law of Three” and the “Law of Seven.”
Beelzebub explains to Hassein how all living beings, including organic
life on earth, are apparatuses for transforming energies required for the
Trogoautoegocratic process. Because, however, they are a more sophis-
ticated transforming apparatus than plants or animals, human beings
can potentially choose the kind of energies required for their existence.
Like plants and animals, they can generate these energies unconsciously
and habitually, whereby they “feed the moon” and “die like dirty dogs.”
Or, through awareness and understanding, they can become attuned to
their mechanical, sleeplike lives and learn ways to become more present
and real, escaping the involution of mechanical humanity and moving
toward a hard-earned, self-conscious evolution.
The history of the publication of Beelzebub’s Tales is complicated and
usefully summarized by Gurdjieff scholar Paul Beekman Taylor (Taylor
2012, Ch. 5). No doubt the English version of the book gains much of its
force through the extraordinary editing and writing abilities of Gurdjieff
colleague A. R. Orage, a major figure in early-twentieth-century British
literary, political, and economic circles. The original English version of
Beelzebub’s Tales, edited by Orage, was published in 1950. In 1992, a revised
English edition was released, said to be a more accessible “modern” ver-
sion than the 1950 edition and based largely on a French translation of
1956. At the time the new edition was published, there was considerable
controversy as to the accuracy or need of the revised translation, appar-
ently directed by Gurdjieff associate Jeanne de Salzmann (see Taylor
2012, Ch. 10; Taylor 2013; Grant 2013; Moore 1994; Staveley 1993). Both
English versions of Beelzebub’s Tales have their strengths and weaknesses;
through comparing and contrasting the two texts, one discovers aspects
of the “mother work” that one might not see otherwise. I agree with
Gurdjieffian Stephen A. Grant, who concluded that it is time “to respect-
fully recognize the merits of both books…. [W]e … should be big enough
to accept both [editions]without trying to impose one over the other”
(Grant 2013, 86, 89).
© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2021
David Seamon 267
2. Additional texts by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky
There are additional texts by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky that contribute to
the proposed canon, and here I highlight four: Gurdjieff’s Meetings with
Remarkable Men (1963) and Life Is Real Only Then, When “I Am” (1981); and
Ouspensky’s The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution (1950) and The Fourth
Way (1957). Meetings with Remarkable Men is the second of the “three
series” of books that, as a comprehensive explication of his system, Gur-
djieff called All and Everything. Gurdjieff’s aim in the “First Series,” Beelze-
bub’s Tales, was to provoke readers to call into question their taken-for-
granted understandings of human life and experience. In the “Second
Series,” Meetings with Remarkable Men, Gurdjieff aimed to depict more
authentic ways of human life; in the “Third Series,” Life Is Real Only Then,
When “I Am,” he offered practical means whereby an authentic way of life
might be facilitated. The achievable result might be “a veritable, nonfan-
tastic representation not of that illusory world which he now perceives,
but of the world existing in reality” (Gurdjieff 1981).2
At first glance, Meetings with Remarkable Men seems autobiographi-
cal, since most of the book describes Gurdjieff’s childhood and his later
involvement in the expeditions of a group of men (and one woman) as
they quest for scientific, sacred, and esoteric knowledge. Though most of
these expeditionary efforts probably happened, there are events depicted
that sometimes seem more fantastical than real—e.g., the group’s coping
with a fierce sandstorm in the Gobi Desert by walking on stilts above the
tumultuous winds. Other than the first and last, all chapters in Meetings
are titled by names of “remarkable men” who played important roles in
Gurdjieff’s life: “My Father,” “My First Tutor,” “Bogachevsky,” “Prince
Yuri Lubovedsky,” “Professor Skridlov,” and so forth. All these individu-
als—relatives, teachers, priests, doctors, engineers—are remarkable men
“not from their surface appearance but from their resourcefulness, self-
2. There are three other writings attributed to Gurdjieff that I have not included here:
The Herald of Coming Good (1933); Views from the Real World (Gurdjieff 1973); and In
Search of Being (Gurdjieff 2012). I have not included Herald because Gurdjieff retracted
the work shortly after publication. The other two works I have not included because
their provenance has not been clearly established. Views is comprised mostly of
undated talks by Gurdjieff recollected and written down after the fact by students
not identified in the text (Taylor 2007, 311). Though the author of In Search of Being
is stated to be Gurdjieff, most of the book appears to be “retranslations” of entries
from the earlier Views from the Real World and Ouspensky’s In Search of the Miracu-
lous. By whatever manner the book’s contents came into being, a good portion is
drawn from a “new English translation of the original Russian text of [In Search of
the Miraculous]” (xiii). In this sense, the author of the volume is as much Ouspensky
as Gurdjieff, and it is an enigma as to why Gurdjieff is named as sole author.
© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2021
268 Setting Forth a Canon of the Gurdjieff Work
restraint, and compassion” (Moore 1999, 25). In this sense, Meetings can
be understood as “a parallel geography of [Gurdjieff’s] psyche and the
route he followed to penetrate it” (Moore 1999, 24). More broadly, the
book’s purpose is “to convey a picture of a value system different from
modern man, rather than to give an [exact] account of Gurdjieff’s own
life” (Bennett 1973, 16).3
As Taylor (1997, 179) pointed out, Life Is Real Only Then, When ‘I Am’ is the
least studied and referenced of Gurdjieff’s three series, partly because
the book is incomplete and suffers from a lack of closure.4 Life Is Real is
the most directly personal of the three series in that Gurdjieff discusses
his spiritual search and his efforts to found Work groups in Europe and
the United States. His primary case study is the New York City group led
by A. R. Orage and its eventual dissolution and reconstitution (after Gur-
djieff’s controversial removal of Orage as group leader—see Taylor 2001).
Bennett pointed out that Life Is Real is much more than “a personal self-
revelation” because the book emphasizes that human beings “can fulfill
[their] destiny and achieve the purpose for which [they] exist here on
the Earth, only if [they are] ready to suffer and make sacrifices” (Bennett
1975, 23). Bennett explained:
In order to have a real life both inwardly and outwardly, a great
transformation must take place, and for this transformation, a
great price has to be paid. This price is expressed as “conscious
labor and intentional suffering,” which I would render as “service
and sacrifice.” We must be prepared to serve, first, the cosmic
process in which we are involved, but we must also serve the
welfare of our neighbour and, perhaps most significantly, we
must serve posterity, to prepare as far as it is in our power a better
future for humankind. (Bennett 1975, 15)
As an introduction to the Gurdjieff Work, Life Is Real is not a helpful text
because it assumes a level of Work knowledge and experience that most
newcomers do not have. Originally, in fact, Gurdjieff envisioned that the
book would only be read to long-time students who had demonstrated
a sincere interest in his ideas and practices. This question of accessible
3. Helpful overviews of Meetings include Bennett (1973, 83–96); Moore (1999, 24–33);
Webb (1980, 30–47). Film and theatre director Peter Brook and Jeanne de Salzmann
produced a film version of Meetings, released in 1979; an insightful comparison of
the book and the film is Cusack 2011.
4. In fact, there appear to be several versions of Life Is Real. J. G. Bennett hoped to pub-
lish a version of the text considerably different from the published work sponsored
by Jeanne de Salzmann. On various versions, see Bennett (1975); Taylor (1997, 2012,
72–78).
© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2021
David Seamon 269
introductions to the Work is crucial in envisioning a Gurdjieff canon, and
two of the most useful texts for newcomers are Ouspensky’s A Psychology
of Man’s Possible and The Fourth Way (Ouspensky 1950; Ouspensky 1957).
In Work groups in which I have been involved, we almost always intro-
duce newcomers to Gurdjieff by reading Man’s Possible Evolution because,
in five chapters of some one-hundred pages, Ouspensky provides a mas-
terful overview of key work ideas and principles that include human
mechanicality, people as three-centered beings, negative emotions,
identification, inner considering, inner talking, false imagination, mag-
netic center, the three lines of Work, and so forth. In terms of an acces-
sible introductory text that can be read aloud in group context, Man’s
Possible Evolution is one of the best overviews available.
The other text useful for group reading is Ouspensky’s The Fourth Way,
which is an expertly assembled collection of Ouspensky’s London and
New York Work talks from 1921 to 1946, including questions and answers
(Ouspensky 1957). As the book’s subtitle explains, the chapters are “an
arrangement by subject of verbatim extracts from the records of Oupen-
sky’s meetings.” The first chapter is a compelling overview of funda-
mental Work principles amplified in following chapters. Though there
are three other book-length compilations of Ouspensky’s talks over the
years, The Fourth Way has a clarity of outline and style of commentary
that is forthright, clear, and convincing (Ouspensky 1951; Ouspensky
1986; Ouspensky 2008). The book is an excellent text for reading aloud in
groups, once students have a foundational understanding of Work ideas.
Like The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution, The Fourth Way is an essen-
tial contribution to the Gurdjieff canon, particularly because of its value
for collective understanding through group work.
3. Commentaries on Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson
Gurdjieff’s Beelzebub’s Tales is a remarkable handbook for potential self-
transformation, though its mythic form, strange prose, meandering
sentences, and puzzling structure often leave newcomers discouraged
and confused. Gurdjieff researcher Anna T. Challenger suggested that,
because of the considerable amount of time and effort required for its
mastery, Beelzebub’s Tales has generated few constructive commentaries
and critiques (Challenger 2002, 72). In the last several years, however,
discussion of the book has expanded markedly, and a body of informed
interpretation has begun to appear.5 Presently, two of the most incisive
5. For an overview, see the special issue of Gurdjieff International Review on Beelzebub’s
Tales (Loy 2012). Also see the annual proceedings of the All and Everything Interna-
tional Humanities Conference, first convened in1996 and continuing to the pres-
© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2021
270 Setting Forth a Canon of the Gurdjieff Work
commentaries on Beelzebub’s Tales are by A. R. Orage and British philos-
opher J. G. Bennett, both of whom knew Gurdjieff and Ouspensky and
were students at Gurdjieff’s Institute for the Harmonious Development
of Man at the Prieuré in Fontainebleau-Avon, France. I propose these
two commentaries for a Gurdjieff canon because they delineate many
difficult aspects of Gurdjieff’s book in thought-provoking texts that have
much emotional force. In reading these commentaries, one “feels and
senses” the extraordinary power and possibilities that Beelzebub’s Tales
might offer.
As a superb writer and editor in his own right, Orage was unimpressed
with the first drafts of chapters of Gurdjieff’s book but eventually became
the primary editorial force for ensuring the English version’s potential
(if by no means certain) readability.6 Over time, Orage recognized the
book’s unorthodox singularity, calling it “full of ideas” and “an objective
work of art, of literature of the highest kind…. It is consciously designed
to have a definite effect on everyone who feels drawn to reading it” (Nott
1961, 93). What is wonderful about Orage’s commentaries is that they
insightfully appropriate and rephrase the intricate, challenging asser-
tions of the original work.7 As Gurdjieffian A. L. Staveley wrote in her
introduction to Orage’s commentaries:
[T]here is a freshness about Orage’s commentary that comes …
partly from his own experience of wonder and even delight in
recognizing the truth and precision, as well as the newness, of
Gurdjieff’s presentation of man-as-he-is to Man-himself, together
with indications of how he could be. He conveys the authentic
sense of immediacy which, along with the quality of timelessness
… is the hallmark of a scripture. (Staveley 1985, v)
A second inspired commentary on Gurdjieff’s book is Bennett’s Talks on
Beelzebub’s Tales, edited by Bennett associate A.G.E. Blake (Bennett 1977).
The entries in this text were mostly given as talks in 1974 at Bennett’s
International Academy for Continuous Education, although there are
ent. A recent addition to Beelzebub commentaries is Robin Bloor’s multi-volume
To Fathom the Gist (Bloor 2013–2019).
6. On Orage’s relationship with Gurdjieff, see Taylor (2001); Welch (1982); also see the
special Orage issue of the Gurdjieff International Journal (Loy and Driscoll 1998).
7. There are currently two versions of Orage’s commentaries: first, British writer
C. S. Nott’s summary prepared from Orage’s New York weekly talks on the book from
1926 to 1930 (Orage 1961); second, a much longer summary of these talks based on
notes taken by Orage students Lawrence Morris and Sherman Manchester (Orage,
Morris, and Manchester 2013). For newcomers, the Nott rendition is recommended
for study first because Orage’s insights are thoughtfully summarized and carefully
phrased, showcasing his prodigious intellectual and emotional sensibilities.
© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2021