232
dealt ostensibly with the macrocosmic presentation of the Divine Drama, and with its individual meaning by implication only as is now asserted this statement is altogether at variance with the following statements in the introductory essay:—"The Greek mysteries dealt only with two subjects, the first being the Drama of the rape and restoration of Persephone; the second that of the incarnation, martyrdom and resuscitation of Dionysos Zagreus." It cannot, surely, be contended that these form the subject-matter of the macrocosmic presentation of the Divine Drama: and we are further informed that the Hellenic mysteries dealt only with these two subjects. If so, the presentation is pre-eminently if not entirely microcosmic and the macrocosmic position assigned to Dionysos and the difference pointed out between him and Osiris in the introductory essay by reason of such position, is out of place in the Grecian mysteries. Any number of difficulties may be pointed out in the position assumed by Dr. Kingsford, and the explanation now offered is likely to make matters worse.
As regards the guardian angel of Christian Theosophy, I find it necessary to state that this guardian angel is not the counterpart of Isis. If Isis is not a principle but a mere influence as stated by my critic, it is difficult to understand how this influence can discharge the duties assigned to, and be invested with, the attributes of a guardian angel in the Christian doctrine.
With reference to Dr. Kingford's letter I have only to state further that I did not use the expression cited for the purpose of disparaging the Grecian mystical doctrines. According to ordinary usage the expression in question was the only one which I could use to indicate that part of the Grecian literature which dealt with mystical and occult subjects. But my convictions are equally strong that there is a greater depth of occult significance in the allegorical fables of Egypt than in those of Greece, and that it will be extremely unjust to the Egyptian doctrine to interpret it in accordance with Hellenic notions.
Mr. Maitland's letter requires but very few words in reply. He makes no attempt to justify his assertion that the number of the Vedas or their sub-divisions is 42, but raises a discussion which is altogether irrelevant and unnecessary. I do not see how he can hold me responsible for any misapprehension that might have arisen from his own words. Mr. Maitland seems to think that I have no right whatever to speak of the misconceptions regarding the Hermetic doctrine that seem to exist in the minds of the so-called "Western Hermetists," because the said doctrine is "their own doctrine," and it must therefore be presumed that they know all about it. If, by Hermetic doctrine Mr. Maitland simply means the doctrine now professed by the so-called "Western Hermetists"