Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household: The Christian Mystical Teachings of a Nineteenth Century Religious Leader 3030850498, 9783030850494

Citation preview

Laurence Oliphant (1829– 1888) and The Household The Christian Mystical Teachings of a Nineteenth Century Religious Leader

Jeffrey D. Lavoie

Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household

Jeffrey D. Lavoie

Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household The Christian Mystical Teachings of a Nineteenth Century Religious Leader

Jeffrey D. Lavoie Philosophy Middlesex Community College Lowell, MA, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-85049-4    ISBN 978-3-030-85050-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Pattern © Harvey Loake This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Dedicated to my Wife and Children

Preface

The preface is supposed to tell the story behind the story/book, to justify to the reader why this book was necessary to publish in the first place. As I sat down enthused to write the “typical” and obligatory preface, I came to the following conclusion: “Who wouldn’t be interested in the practices and teachings of a secret nineteenth-century sex-cult?” Especially one that was set up by a Victorian adventurer, best-selling author, diplomat, and A-list celebrity—Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888). Even without having started a nefarious “sex-cult” later in life, Oliphant’s life-story alone would serve as a captivating tale of battles, exotic locations, and high-level politics. What drew me to such an intriguing character is a bit more complicated of a backstory. For years, my studies focused on the Theosophical Society including any primary, secondary, and tertiary figures related to this nineteenth-­century movement. This research has led me to consider a number of utopian societies including what might be considered (and were considered) “sex-cults” by outsider opinions. These groups included John Humphrey Noyes (1811–1886) and his fascinating and financially successful Oneida Community (they created lovely silverware sets and rugged animal traps); Theophilus Ransom Gates (1787–1846) and his Battle-Axe, free-loving, nudist community; and most especially the Brotherhood of the New Life (aka The Use) led by Thomas Lake Harris

vii

viii 

Preface

(1823–1906) who combined utopian ideals with his own unique eschatological brand of Christian Spiritualism.1 As a historian in Victorian religious movements, the name “Laurence Oliphant” kept appearing all over the place both in mainstream publications but also in the more obscure, esoteric sources. Over and over again this name kept appearing throughout my studies. I started to wonder: who is this international figure that exerted such influence on so many individuals spanning across the Victorian world? Oliphant’s many experiences made him the equivalent of a modern celebrity, whose moves and endeavors caught the attention of reporters and newspapers on both sides of “the Pond.” Despite this mainstream popularity, later in life Oliphant became connected to a circle of Christian mystics and corresponded regularly with the likes of Major-General Charles George Gordon (1833–1885— Oliphant referred to him as the “most Christ-like man I ever knew”)2 and Charles Carleton Massey (the subject of one of my more recent biographies). Thus, I came across Oliphant from many different subject-angles, yet, there was still an air of mystery behind him. Several biographies have been written on his life and especially his earlier years; however, none of them delve much into his later years and his intriguing “sex-cult.” Perhaps there were just not enough sources to justify this focus or to properly understand what was happening in Haifa…at least until now.

What Is a Cult? Normally, the word cult is used by those outside of a movement as a negative way to describe said new or modern religious group. These “cults” and their practices generally do not fit into the typical orthodox religious movements. For a note of comparison, J. Gordon Melton explained that “in the United States the United Methodist Church is one of the dominant religious bodies; In Greece, the government cited it as being a destructive cult”3; thus, cultural perspective plays a central role in 1  Many of these nineteenth-century groups would reconceptualize the teachings of the seventeenth-century theosophist named Jacob Böhme (1575–1624), especially his philosophy on the bi-sexual nature of God. Robert, H. Lauer and Jeanette C. Lauer, The Spirit and the Flesh: Sex in Utopian Communities (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1983), p. 230. 2  The Letters of General C. G. Gordon: To His Sister M. A. Gordon (London: Macmillan and Co., 1888), p. 389 f. 3  J. Gordon Melton, “An Introduction to New Religions,” The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, ed. James Lewis (Oxford University Press, 2004), 16–38 (p. 25).

 Preface 

ix

­ etermining whether a group is labeled a cult or not. In addition, the d media plays an important role in the classification of “cults” as well which is based on the terms they use to designate such organizations. Thus, a “cult” appears as anything outside the mainstream, popular religious beliefs. While there are many other traits that one could argue are necessary to designate a group as a cult including such elements as a charismatic leader, a scripture/divine revelation, a separation from the world, and so on, nevertheless, the classification of a cult remains relative to the individual/institution. Because of this inherent relativism in classification, the term “modern religious movement” seems a preferable designation. None of this changes the fact that The Household fits into this grouping (whatever one might call it). It is a modern religious movement that only lasted for (roughly) three years having been started around 1885 and petering out largely by 1888 following the founder’s demise. It is due to this negative association with the word cult, that the term “modern religious movement” will be employed throughout this study. In my studies, I was fortunate enough to have stumbled across an archive that came from an affluent family estate that included the writings of a Suffolk artist named Laurence Carrington Grubbe (1854–1912). At the time, I had no idea who Grubbe was or how he fit into the larger picture of Oliphant’s life and subsequent religious movement; nevertheless, as I examined his letters and journals, I realized he played an integral role in this untold story. In addition to this role, each of Grubbe’s journals contained a strange code that appeared to hide the innermost details of his life and sexuality including his experiences with Oliphant. Obviously, as a historian I was intrigued by this coded mystery! This led to years of in-­ depth research and has resulted in the work you now hold in your hand (whether in book or tablet form!); it has taken many years to prepare and compile this large archive into one concise study. Thus, after years of staring at codes and compiling sources, I am pleased to present the sympneumatic teachings of Laurence Oliphant as well as shed some light onto the background of some of the intriguing characters that called The Household home (even if only for a couple months).

x 

Preface

Laurence Carrington’s Cryptic Code This book’s greatest contribution to Victorian historical, philosophical/ sexual, and religious studies (including a re-examination of the life and studies of Laurence Oliphant) resides in the detailed correspondence of Laurence Carrington Grubbe (1854–1912). During his time with Oliphant, Grubbe maintained a consistent journal and engaged in multiple correspondences that are cited throughout this study. Still, the majority of Grubbe’s thoughts remained hidden via a strange substitution code that he invented as a youth. As I started to read his journals, I became aware that large parts of it were hidden in this enigmatic code. I surmised that the key to understanding Grubbe and his life could only be revealed by cracking this code. Because of this necessity, I vowed to unlock this cryptic code once and for all. I began by purchasing a basic code-breaking book titled Cryptanalysis (1956) by Helen Gaines and set off to work. This book taught some basic code-breaking information including the fact that out of all the words in the English language, the most commonly used word is “the” (which now seems a bit obvious).4 It also gave suggestions for trouble shooting by starting with the two-letter words first in order to come up with more letters in the code; it also provided an invaluable word bank for three-, four-, and five-letter words that were all listed according to their common usage in English language. This system allowed me to start with simple two-letter words and expand them into longer complex terms such as “this” or “that”; eventually the rest came together (very slowly I should add). Armed with this foundational information, I was able to crack Grubbe’s code and develop a working cipher. Needless to say, I felt empowered by this act and considered myself similar to Indiana Jones in The Last Crusade after he had solved all three of the Grail Temple mysteries, though fortunately for me, no one’s life depended on my translations! Naturally, the code was challenging at first; however, it was all a matter of patience and perseverance. Furthermore, it is intriguing that this code can be traced through all of Grubbe’s journals and writings beginning with his early days as a student at Eton (circa 1871) and into his later journals as an adult ending around the year 1911. For forty plus years, Grubbe utilized this code to hide his youthful dalliances ranging from his 4  Helen Fouche Gaines, Cryptanalysis: A Study of Ciphers and Their Solution (New York: Doyer Publications Inc., 1956). p. 72.

 Preface 

xi

excursions in Eton to his time spent at Cambridge to his experiences in the British Armed Forces even until his middle-aged life as an artist in Paris. He even continued using this cipher following his marriage to Margaret in 1909. In addition, the fact that Grubbe was a homosexual meant that he utilized this code as a means of remembering his early homo-sexual thoughts and experiences which he would have never written down otherwise for fear of legal, social, and religious persecution (in the nineteenth century homosexuality was still illegal and considered an “immoral” sin, at least, officially speaking). This code gave Grubbe the ability to record his innermost thoughts without fear of prying eyes or nosey siblings reading his secrets without permission. More importantly for this study, this code served to hide important ideas related to his true thoughts and understanding of Laurence Oliphant’s sympneumata; Grubbe was able to express his opinions secretly but honestly without any fear that this would get back to the leaders Rosamond or Oliphant or anyone else for that matter. This coded journal provides intimate access into the mind of a sincere Victorian spiritual seeker. Thus, no matter where one’s interests lay in the Victorian era, whether it be in religion, gender, or sexuality, this book traces these fields as they intersect in the fascinating life and times of Laurence Oliphant. Lowell, MA, USA

Jeffrey D. Lavoie

References Gaines, Helen Fouche. 1956. Cryptanalysis: A Study of Ciphers and Their Solution. New York: Doyer Publications Inc. Lauer, Robert H., and Jeanette C. Lauer. 1983. The Spirit and the Flesh: Sex in Utopian Communities. Lanham: Scarecrow Press. Melton, J.  Gordon. 2004. An Introduction to New Religions. In The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, ed. James Lewis, 16–38. Oxford University Press. The Letters of General C. G. Gordon: To His Sister M. A. Gordon. 1888. London: Macmillan and Co.

Contents

1 Introduction  1 2 Biography and Background  9 3 The Sympneumata 23 4 Charles Carleton Massey (1838–1905) 37 5 Rosamond Dale Owen (1846–1937) 47 6 James Murray Templeton (1860–1892) 59 7 Jennie Tuttle 65 8 Hannah Whitall Smith (1832–1911) 73 9 Laurence Carrington Grubbe (1854–1912) 81

xiii

xiv 

Contents

10 A Scandal from Within 93 11 Conclusion105 12 Addendums113 Bibliography149 Index155

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2

Fig. 3.3

Fig. 4.1

Fig. 5.1 Fig. 6.1

Photo of Thomas Lake Harris (1823–1906) the spiritualist, poet, and founder of the Brotherhood of the New Life community. (Courtesy of Sonoma State University Library Special Collections. From the Gaye LeBaron Collection) 20 Illustration from Micrographic Dictionary, eds. J. W. Griffith and M. Duncan, 3rd ed. (London: Jon Van Voorst, 1875), plate 24 26 Portrait of Laurence Oliphant circa 1887 from Margaret Oliphant, Memoir of the Life of Laurence Oliphant and of Alice Oliphant, His Wife, I (London, William, Blackwood and Sons, 1891), 2 vols 34 An image of Alice Le Strange the first wife of Laurence Oliphant and the co-writer of his first spiritual book titled The Sympneumata (1884). Margaret Oliphant, Memoir of the Life of Laurence Oliphant and of Alice Oliphant, His Wife, II (London, William, Blackwood and Sons, 1891), 2 vols 35 A picture of Charles Carleton Massey included in his posthumous collection of writings titled Thoughts of a Modern Mystic: A Selection from the Writings of the late C. C. Massey (London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Trübner & Co., 1909) 45 A photo of Rosamond Dale Owen date unknown. (Courtesy of the David L. Rice Library University Archives and Special Collections at the University of Southern Indiana)57 A portrait of James Murray Templeton. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)63

xv

xvi 

List of Figures

Fig. 7.1 Fig. 8.1

Fig. 9.1 Fig. 10.1 Fig. 12.1

Fig. 12.2 Fig. 12.3 Fig. 12.4 Fig. 12.5 Fig. 12.6

Pencil drawing of Rev. James A. Allan, one of the members of the Household as drawn by L. C. Grubbe. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)71 A picture of Hannah Whitall Smith (1887) an outspoken critic of Oliphant’s teachings and The Household. (Image from Mrs. Hannah Whitall Smith the “American Secretary, World’s W. C. T. U.” in Henry William Blair, The Temperance Movement: Or, The Conflict Between Man and Alcohol (Boston: William E. Smythe Company, 1887), p. 259) 79 Laurence Grubbe posing in his Army uniform at Elliot and Fry Photography. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)91 The hidden code of Laurence Grubbe including a listing of the characters employed in his substitutionary cipher. (From the Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)102 Pencil drawing of The Household headquarters (i.e., Oliphant’s estate) in Haifa as sketched by L. C. Grubbe. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)138 Laurence Grubbe with his future wife Marie and her family [?] n. d. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)139 Laurence Carrington Grubbe (54) out again with his future wife Marie Ellen Seymour Lucas (20) taken on October 23, 1899. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)140 Grubbe with his future wife Marie (again) taken on October 14, 1899. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)141 One of Grubbe’s homo-erotic paintings of two young boys from his “Sketchbook” ca. 1887–1888. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)142 A detailed sketching of one of Grubbe’s “boy love” relationships—Sydney Tippets (usually Sidney is spelled with an “i” instead of a “y” throughout Grubbe’s journals). This was the “boy-love” relationship that Grubbe journaled in code that he was “now a bit disturbed about S[idney] and resolved to have no more caresses. God preserve him from evil. Will be his friend only.” (Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1886–1893: Entry dated: March 26, 1888). (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)143

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Abstract  This chapter provides an overview for the life of Laurence Oliphant and his works. This also includes a general survey of the phenomenon known as the “Victorian morality” which was a prevailing attitude toward sexuality that impacted Oliphant’s teachings and more importantly how they were perceived by contemporaneous social figures. Keywords  Laurence Oliphant • Victorian morality • Victorian sexuality

Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) remains an intriguing, yet vastly underappreciated figure in Victorian history. He became a celebrity of sorts having published his first book, A Journey to Katmandu in 1852; however, it was his second book that catapulted him to widespread fame. The Russian Shores of the Black Sea was published in 1853 and its release date overlapped the commencement of the Crimean War when the gaze of the Western world was transfixed on Russia. Thus, the timing of this conflict and Oliphant’s publication ensured the success of this work for many years to come. Additionally, Oliphant worked as a correspondent for The Times during the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871) and served as a secretary to

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. D. Lavoie, Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0_1

1

2 

J. D. LAVOIE

Lord Elgin in Canada, China, and Japan.1 He also became a companion to the Duke of Newcastle as he traveled across the Victorian world. Because of his proximity to various battles and military conflicts, Oliphant experienced several near-death escapes which included him being shot at, stabbed, and once he barely escaped being hit by a cannonball! In addition to his status as a best-selling travel author, Oliphant served as a Member of Parliament. Yet, eventually he would leave all of this fame and fortune behind in search of something greater—true spiritual meaning and purpose. He seemingly found it in an American commune led by the eccentric spiritualist Thomas Lake Harris (1823–1906); later in life Oliphant broke away from Harris and started his own religious community called the Household that built upon a strange doctrine known as the “sympneumata” which is the focus of this present study. There was something deeply controversial about the sympneumatic practice that would have caused a scandal were it not for Oliphant’s early demise in 1888. Oliphant left behind a life full of mystique and adventure: because of his affluent familial background, he had many unusual privileges and travel opportunities that the average Victorian could never experience; however, they could read all about them in his published works. Oliphant also promulgated a mysterious religious doctrine that has long since alluded modern historians and researchers. This project will examine this doctrine by utilizing newly discovered sources in order to understand Oliphant’s teachings on sexuality both in their conceptualization and in practice. After all, there was something intriguing about the sympneumata that violated the official “Victorian moral code” of the time period; it questioned many long-held traditional Judeo-Christian views of sexuality and marriage. While many have written their opinions about the sympneumata and its impartation, it has only been recently through the discovery of a follower’s journal that a fuller understanding of the sympneumatic force can be understood. This work will explore the lives of those closest to Oliphant ranging from his disciples to self-appointed critics; the primary goal of this examination is to focus on his unique religio-sexual practice. The aim of this study is to mine the available information on the sympneumata and to construct a composite of what it consisted of and how it was practiced within the community. 1  Laurence Oliphant, The Russian Shores of the Black Sea in Autumn of 1852 (Cambridge University Press, 2012), n. p.

1 INTRODUCTION 3

Due to the prevailing Victorian moral code, writings on sexuality were not common especially in the mainstream; they were typically expressed using either obscure metaphors or private code words. Because of this adverse view toward sexuality, the truth of the sympneumata has always hovered on the fringes of Victorian studies as finding accurate sources on sexuality remains difficult. Unlike Oliphant’s life, his true teachings and what became a “sex cult” of sorts have remained incapable or verification…until now. A handwritten journal by one of Oliphant’s closest followers has recently been discovered. Its author had developed a complex code system in order to conceal the controversial entries hidden within its pages. Fortunately, the present author has been able to crack the code revealing many new details on Oliphant’s teachings and fascinating practices; however, before this journal can be examined, a brief overview of the moral and historical context must be examined.

The Origin of “Victorian Morality” While the implications of a “Victorian morality” are still debated today, few would deny that sexuality was largely repressed in most public mediums that is, newspapers, magazines, political discourse, and so on. Many Victorians were taught to publicly fear sex along with its many different expressions. Sex was something that just was not typically discussed in polite conversation. This Victorian view of sexual discourse is typified in the novel Clarice: A Scientific Novel written by Rosamond Dale Owen (1846–1937), the second wife and widow of Laurence Oliphant. In this story, a conversation between a “Mrs. Fairfield” (the mother of the female protagonist Clarice) and her eventual son-in-law “Roy” takes place. Mrs. Fairfield is of the opinion “that to speak about sex at all was improper, the only decent course being complete silence.”2 Roy responds to her in full agreement noting that, “It is certain that moral filth is found in all civilized countries…what must be done about this sex-pollution? That it is evil is certain; that it is contaminating is equally sure.”3 This quote indicates that to the author, any talk of sexuality is “filth” and an evil “contaminant” that dared not be spoken of in mixed company.

2  Rosamond Dale Owen, Clarice: A Scientific Novel (Worthington, Sussex: The Author, unknown), p. 112. 3  Ibid.

4 

J. D. LAVOIE

This traditional attitude toward sexuality was the result of a culture that had become deeply rooted in evangelical, Judeo-Christian values; there existed an undeniable link between the Anglican church and the English monarchy. As early as 1787, King George III issued his “Proclamation Against Vice and the Encouragement of Piety and Virtue.” He urged his subjects against “excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord’s day and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices” which included “all public gaming houses.”4 This proclamation would become the cornerstone for “Victorian morality” and its practice (though curiously enough it was not officially repealed until 1959). Following this Act, a Proclamation Society was founded to enforce King George III’s ruling; it is not surprising that membership for this Society came largely from religious Evangelical groups. Their purpose was admittedly to “enforce a stricter execution of the laws against vice and immorality” and “to afford the Magistracy such assistance in the discharge of their duty as the nature of the case may require.”5 One of the Society’s roles was to issue legal proceedings against publications that were deemed blasphemous and indecent, especially those in relation to sexuality; thus, through this proclamation Georgian morality became legally enforceable as it discouraged open discussions of sexuality. A lot of these ideas sprang out of something called the Evangelical revival which was carried on from the 1790s until the 1840s. During this time, “sin” was identified with specific activities including drinking and fornication and especially keeping the Sabbath day holy. Also, fueling this Victorian morality was the rise of the Oxford Movement which pushed for High Church worship and maintained a heavy influence on Anglicanism in the 1830s and onward. All of this had long been established by the time a teenage Queen Victoria took the throne in 1837. By 1860, Queen Victoria issued her own royal proclamation that was designed for the encouragement of piety and virtue. This decree called on “all persons of honor, or in place of authority” to serve as good examples to others, and on justices of the peace in particular “to be very vigilant and strict in the discovery and the effectual prosecution and punishment of all personal who shall be guilty of

4  Michael Shermer, The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Led Humanity Toward Truth, Justice and Freedom (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2015), p. 198. 5  Mike Huggins, Vice and the Victorians (New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015), p. 3.

1 INTRODUCTION 5

dissolute, immoral and disorderly practices.”6 Thus, political and social leaders became moral enforcers and role models for society at large. This Victorian act also imposed a fine of up to ten pounds for a wide variety of moral offences including breaking windows or lamps, throwing stones or snowballs, “inscribing,” or “delineating” obscene graffiti, setting of fireworks, lighting bonfires, using profane language, violent cursing, and the like. With the Queen’s new proclamation, vice became not just a moral issue but a criminal one as well. Evangelical and Enlightenment ideals led to a more conservative view of sexuality especially in the middle and working classes. A new set of manners and codes surrounded personal behavior. This royal and religious association was identified by Lord Melbourne (Victoria’s first prime minister) as he believed that there was such thing as “too much religion”; he told the young queen that: “Nobody is gay now; they are so religious…I think you will live to see this country become very religious; too much so…I think there’ll be a good deal of persecution in the country before long and that people would be interfering with one another, about going to church, and such things.”7 These “such things” included a socially oppressive and a fearful approach toward sexuality and its expression at least on paper. By 1865, public houses were denounced as places where “every sort of viciousness was engendered.”8 In 1887, the Social Purity Alliance supporter Rev. E.  Lyttleton (who became the headmaster of Eton where Laurence C.  Grubbe went to school) published his famous Causes and Prevention of Immortality in School; this was an attempt to give advice to the young male students, for: “Of all the sins to which a boy is tempted at school the most prevalent, the most alluring and the most enduring and deadly…is impurity” caused by “dirty talk” and “curiosity.” His lack of clarity about what impurity entailed “probably stimulated curiosity rather than curtailed it.”9 Thus, even a natural and healthy curiosity concerning sex was discouraged among students (even if a number of older homosexual teachers at Eton were fired from their positions for engaging in 6  Duncan Macfarlan, A Treatise on the Authority, Ends, and Observance, of the Christian Sabbath Law (Glasgow: William Collins, 1832), pp. 267–268. 7   Leslie George Mitchell, Lord Melbourne, 1779–1848 (Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 31. 8  Huggins, Vice and the Victorians, p. 3. 9  Ibid.

6 

J. D. LAVOIE

“inappropriate” relationships with their students).10 Still, at least “officially” the school’s stance was clear. Additionally, during the Victorian era there was a re-emergence of evangelical practices and restraints; this led to social censorship and the likes of the Obscene Publications Act of 1857. This Act was superseded by the 1787 Proclamation of George III mentioned above. Before this Act, the Vagrancy Act of 1824 made the sale of “obscene books and prints” illegal, but it was merely a common law misdemeanor, and it was ineffective at prosecuting authors and publishers. Queen Victoria’s act enabled any plain-clothes policeman to purchase an obscene work. They could then obtain a warrant and confiscate the materials so the onus would fall on the owner to defend why he believed these works should not be considered obscene. The bigger issue in this Act was that Victorian laws enforced a Puritanical and heavily restricted view of sexuality. While this “Victorian morality” might have been the result of various legal strictures, nevertheless, sexuality was not monolithic during this time period. There were alternative expressions that stand in opposition to the typical “Victorian morality” of the day. This has led some researchers to question the prevalence of this mainstream moral view. One such researcher was Michel Foucault (1926–1984) who advocated his “repressive hypothesis” that suggested early-on in the sixteenth century that the bourgeois class repressed sexuality as a means of controlling the working class. Sexuality was understood in terms of economic productivity and the ruling class did not want the lower classes to waste energy on sexual pursuits. Therefore, sex outside of procreative purposes was repressed. Consequently, it is only through sexual freedom that one liberates oneself from such oppression.11 Additionally, to Foucault, sexuality must be understood as a bourgeoisie invention that ensures dominance. Even today, he argued, its purpose is to maintain power. As such, Foucault questioned the “Victorian morality” as a product of the bourgeoisie with its images of prudery and repression. Foucault does not seem to question the validity of sexual repression 10  There were numerous Eton professors who were fired for inappropriate relationships with their male students that included Reginald Baliol Brett (1852–1930), Oscar Browning (1837–1923) and head master “WJ” or William “Johnson” Cory (1823–1892) among others. Deborah McDonald, The Prince, His Tutor and the Ripper (Jefferson, NC: McFarland Press, 2010), p. 20. 11  Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction (New York: Vintage Books, 1990), pp. 3, 6120–127.

1 INTRODUCTION 7

during the Victorian era; rather, he argues that one must understand why such a prohibition was taking place in the first place. Of course, the very fact that sexuality was being discussed at all in the nineteenth century reveals a progression taking place within the larger history of sexuality. Thus, sexual condemnation reveals that some sexual expression was taking place; however, to what degree remains elusive. While the history of sexuality is in itself a complex issue, the mainstream legal/official view undeniably favored the existence of a “Victorian morality.” Otherwise, Oliphant could have openly discussed his ideas on sexuality and defended them against his critics who instead used what little information they had discovered as a means of threatening and attacking his reputation (both socially and legally). Thus, there was clearly a cultural morality that Oliphant’s teaching defied through the practice of this sympneumata. Oliphant argued that even though the Judeo-Christian laws came from a spiritual text that is, the Bible, nevertheless, there were many equally valid spiritual texts and voices in the nineteenth century some of which promoted contrarian views relating to sexuality. Recognizing the existence of this Victorian morality along with its restrictive approach toward sexual expression, remains a critical background element when considering the world out of which Oliphant’s teachings emerged.

References Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage Books. Huggins, Mike. 2015. Vice and the Victorians. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Macfarlan, Duncan. 1832. A Treatise on the Authority, Ends, and Observance, of the Christian Sabbath Law. Glasgow: William Collins. McDonald, Deborah. 2010. The Prince, His Tutor and the Ripper. Jefferson: McFarland Press. Mitchell, Leslie George. 1997. Lord Melbourne, 1779–1848. Oxford University Press. Oliphant, Laurence. 2012. The Russian Shores of the Black Sea in Autumn of 1852. Cambridge University Press. Owen, Rosamond Dale. unknown. Clarice: A Scientific Novel. Worthington: The Author. Shermer, Michael. 2015. The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Led Humanity Toward Truth, Justice and Freedom. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

CHAPTER 2

Biography and Background

Abstract  This chapter presents a fuller background of Laurence Oliphant’s life and his early religious experiences. Special attention is focused on his time spent at a spiritualist Christian commune called The Brotherhood of the New Life and the influence of its leader Thomas Lake Harris (1823–1906). Harris’ doctrine of the counterparts is explained with an emphasis on its practice which provides a solid foundation that Oliphant would later build upon through his founding of the Household. Keywords  Thomas Lake Harris • Counterparts • Alice le Strange • Magnetism • Lily Queen The life of Laurence Oliphant has already been recounted in painstaking detail by previous biographers though perhaps most thoroughly by Herbert W. Schneider and George Lawton in their 1942 work titled A Prophet and a Pilgrim. These two researchers utilized handwritten diaries, letters, and interviews bringing them together to compare Oliphant to his teacher and later rival Thomas Lake Harris (1823–1906). These writings were assembled through old-fashioned journal investigation and hunting down sources and letters. They even donated many of these resources to Columbia University, thereby, creating an archive for all future research and study. Schneider and Lawton were thorough in their research, and, as such, the aim of this project is not biographical, rather, it is to examine the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. D. Lavoie, Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0_2

9

10  

J. D. LAVOIE

teachings of Oliphant; more specifically this study will focus on defining and determining how the sexual esoteric philosophy known as the sympneumata fit into Victorian culture and the life of its practitioners. Oliphant’s life is a fascinating journey through adventure, romance, politics, and religion; it represents the quest of a true spiritual seeker who is intelligent, sincere, and open minded. Oliphant grew up under the elite shadow and affluence of his father Anthony and his mother Maria who married together in 1828; Anthony was second only to the governor of the British Cape Colony in southern Africa. Oliphant’s parents were both government and society leaders and they raised their children to be evangelical in their faith placing a special emphasis on the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and his return to the earth. Anthony would go on to follow the famed Scottish preacher Edward Irving (1792–1834) whose teachings focused on eschatology and emphasized that the Jews must return to Palestine in order for the end of the world to begin.1 This eschatological focus on the Jews and their return to Palestine was quite influential on a young Oliphant and would play an important role in his later years. In 1848, the Oliphant’s family relocated to Ceylon, India when Oliphant was nineteen years of age. He worked as his father’s secretary and spent three years studying law and traveling abroad the island.2 Given this penchant for travel, Oliphant began recording his experiences and became a traveling reporter of sorts. Through his writings, the average Victorian reader could experience Oliphant’s life and epic adventures to exotic locations such as India, China, and Palestine to name a few.3 He wrote about these experiences abroad and the many exciting adventures that took place. This included his service to Lord Elgin where he became an international diplomat getting into all sorts of dangerous and captivating situations. Eventually, he took a position in Parliament and became a successful political leader.

1  Bart Casey, The Double Life of Laurence Oliphant: Victorian Pilgrim and Prophet (New York: Post Hill Press, 2015), p. 6. 2  Philip Henderson, The Life of Laurence Oliphant: Traveller, Diplomat and Mystic (Bristol: Robert Hale Limited, 1956), p. 16. 3  Oliphant wrote exciting travel books including A Journey to Katmandu (the capital of Nepaul) with the Camp of Jung Bahadoor (1852), The Russian Shores of the Black Sea in the Autumn of 1852 (1853), Minnesota and the Far West (1855), A Narrative of the Earl Elgin’s Mission to China and Japan, in the Years 1857, 1858, 1859 (1859), among many others.

2  BIOGRAPHY AND BACKGROUND 11

It is also worth mentioning that as a young adult (and even beyond) Oliphant was known for his reputation with the ladies and his sexual promiscuity. It was rumored that he had made it a personal goal to “know” at least a thousand women in his lifetime.4 There was even a rumor circulating that Oliphant seduced his mother’s maid Constance…much to his mother’s dismay! In addition, he possessed such an open view of sexuality that it prompted one of his dearest friends the Prince of Wales to candidly remark that Oliphant “sugar-doodles the ladies.”5 Additionally, one of the ladies he grew up with noted, after reading an 1891 biography on his life, that there is “too much of his rather mawkish twaddle” and that “he led an exceedingly bad life in Ceylon- the hoggishness of a sensual life.”6 Thus, at this early stage Oliphant’s playboy lifestyle and womanizing attitude cannot be overemphasized. Of even more consequence was the rumor floating around (which seems to have been grounded in fact) concerning his sexual health. It was widely maintained that Oliphant suffered from a sexually transmitted disease known as syphilis; if this were true, it would seemingly ensure that the sympneumatic act was not about intercourse but something else entirely.7 Contracting this disease may have been one of the (if not “the”) main contributing factors that led him to turn his back on his materialistic life of privilege and to seek out more; this search for meaning led him to an American “cult” led by an eccentric, spiritualist preacher named Thomas Lake Harris.8 Apparently, Harris had lured Oliphant in by promising a  Casey, The Double Life of Laurence Oliphant, p. 92.  Ibid. 6  Letter from Sir Henry Brackenbury to Florence Henniker [July 27, 1891]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 7  George Schneider and Herbert W. Lawton, A Prophet and a Pilgrim: Being the Incredible History of Thomas Lake Harris and Laurence Oliphant (Columbia University Press, 1942), p. 114. 8  Philip Henderson in his biography suggests “knowing that to the Victorians syphilis was the ultimate horror, there would seem to have been other than purely religious reasons for Oliphant’s sudden disappearance to America to live in an obscure community.” Henderson, The Life of Laurence Oliphant, p. 133. A similar idea was proposed by Lawton and Schneider suggesting a veiled reading of Harris’ The Brotherhood of the New Life (1891) which spoke of a “brilliant, aristocratic Glyndon [Oliphant] who forces himself upon the retirement of Zanoni [Harris]; is healed of his mortal malady [syphilis] by means of infusions of the vrilic essence, is fed with supreme knowledges and given years of affluent vigor.” In this reference …read “Harris” instead of “Zanoni,” “Oliphant” instead of Glyphon, and “syphilis” instead of “mortal malady.” To these translations add that of “vril,” which is a Rosicrucian term meaning “sexual power.” Again, the connection between contracting syphilis and join4 5

12  

J. D. LAVOIE

cure for this cultural “scourge” known as syphilis.9 Thus, around 1865, Oliphant became involved in a new religious movement called the Brotherhood of the New Life (also known as “The Use”). Harris played an integral role in understanding Oliphant’s thought process at this later stage in his life. Almost overnight, Oliphant had transformed as a smooth-­ talking ladies-man, who was well versed in politics and social philosophy into a poor, religious seeker with only a few earthly possessions. After all, even the residual income Oliphant continued to receive from royalties and the like was donated to Harris because Oliphant had given up his life of luxury for this simpler existence: he worked at splitting wood for the Brotherhood while sleeping on a hay stack and living a solitary existence which he continued to do for ten years. This was Oliphant’s way of detaching himself from “the worldly systems” and to re-attach himself to a true Christian spiritual life of submission to God’s prophet. Naturally, this “conversion” perplexed many of his family, friends, colleagues, and readers who could not understand why Oliphant would make such a drastic life-change. Oliphant’s acceptance of Harris (and his religious commune) served as a type-of celebrity-endorsement as Harris knew that Oliphant’s membership (along with that of his mother, the Lady Maria C. Oliphant) was a tremendous validation of his community. Also, Oliphant’s attendance served to legitimize Harris’ religious teachings (similar to Alison Mack joining NIVM or Tom Cruise joining Scientology). Oliphant was a prized convert; naturally, many of his former friends and colleagues would never understand what motivated him to move into the Brotherhood commune in upstate New York and donate his wealth and possessions to this “crank” preacher. Yet, there was something Oliphant learned from Harris that would become the backbone of his later teachings—the doctrine of counterparts. In 1872, Oliphant met a young lady named Alice le Strange who was twenty-five years old and by his own admission a very pretty individual.10 The two would go on to marry in 1885 with Harris’ blessing/permission; however, over time Harris’ overt control and meddling in their personal ing Harris’ commune offers one possible solution as to why Oliphant would withdraw from his affluent lifestyle and move to a primitive commune in New York. Schneider, A Prophet and a Pilgrim, pp. 116–117. 9  Anne Taylor, Laurence Oliphant, 1829–1888 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 257. 10  Schneider, A Prophet and a Pilgrim, p. 42.

2  BIOGRAPHY AND BACKGROUND 13

relationship became a major issue for the couple. After they had married, Harris quickly moved Alice from Brocton, New York, to a new commune location just outside of Santa Rosa, California—a place known as Fountaingrove. Alice took on a new role serving as a muse to Harris and assisting him with his “nocturnal gyrations” which, he maintained, would ultimately prepare the world for the second coming of the Lord.11 Meanwhile, Oliphant remained on the other side of the country at the New York commune where he kept on with his tasks of cutting wood and living out a poor unassuming lifestyle.12 Not surprisingly, Oliphant eventually had enough of Harris’ manipulation and controlling nature; he finally left the Brotherhood with Alice by his side. Oliphant was even successful in his litigations against Harris and received restitution for the majority of his substantial “donations.” By 1881, the lawsuit was over, and these finances provided Oliphant the means to set out and start his own religious community. After his mother’s death, Oliphant left with his wife Alice in tow and the two went on to invest in Palestinian real estate. This investment included purchasing the field of Armageddon among several other sacred sites. In 1886, Oliphant purchased a house in Haifa and commenced his new religious movement that became known among its members simply as The Household; however, tragedy soon struck in Oliphant’s life. For, later that same year, his wife and true love Alice passed away. In death, Alice succeeded in her role thereby transforming the couple into a true counterpart relationship—Oliphant was the earthly element and Alice served as the heavenly one. Within a short time after his wife’s demise, Oliphant remarried one Rosamond Dale Owen (1846–1937) a younger lady who was well-known for her role in cooperative social movements and utopian societies. Rosamond was the daughter of the renowned socialist and spiritualist leader Robert Dale Owen (1801–1877) and the granddaughter of Robert Owen (1771–1858) the founder of the New Harmony community in Indiana. The pair were married in a ceremony performed on August 16,  Casey, The Double Life of Laurence Oliphant, p. 167.  Oliphant was left in New York to live on the other side of the US, away from his new bride. This meant that even traveling aboard the newly developed Transcontinental Railroad at a minimum would take roughly ten days to travel from New York City to San Francisco depending on what class one traveled in. Sally Senzell Isaacs, Stages and the Pony Express: 1820 to 1900 (Chicago, IL: Elsevier Inc., 2009), p. 22. 11 12

14  

J. D. LAVOIE

1888, in Malvern.13 The newlyweds were only together for a forty-eight-­ hour period when, without warning, Oliphant became very ill. The general consensus of his doctors maintained that Oliphant would make a full recovery from his ailment; however, fate had other plans. Rosamond served as a dutiful bride staying by his side and helping him regain his strength for several months; however, nothing could change the inevitable. Finally, on December 23, 1888, Oliphant passed away. This brief biography provides some understanding and allows the reader to appreciate his teachings and better understand the context and world out of which the sympneumata emerged.

Thomas Lake Harris’ Influence Anne Taylor perceives Oliphant’s connection (and later obsession) with Harris in her biography. She suggests that from earliest childhood Laurence had had thrust upon him by his parents’ Evangelical teaching a sense of responsibility not only for himself, but for all mankind. The grace with which he bore this appalling burden was part of his charm, but the strain it imposed must have been almost intolerable. Now here was Harris, exhorting him to ‘live the life’ and ready to tell him exactly how to do it.14

Oliphant had traveled to Harris’ compound in Brocton, New  York, in search of something tangible and spiritual. Roughly a decade later, he would leave Harris’ fold and travel to Palestine this time not as a student but as a teacher. Apparently, Oliphant had found the spiritual truth that he was seeking, and it was Harris who helped him to discover it. There is one fact about Oliphant’s teachings that cannot be denied: his philosophy and theology owed a tremendous debt to Harris. Whether consciously or otherwise, Oliphant borrowed his key ideas from Harris even though he attempted to reconceptualize them in his own way. This reconceptualization is evidenced most notably in Oliphant’s doctrine of counterparts that included significant changes in both structure and practice. Harris’ profound influence seems only logical given the many years Oliphant spent studying under him; of course, Oliphant’s own movement would seek to improve upon the defects as he perceived them to be.  Margaret Oliphant, Memoir of the Life of Laurence Oliphant and of Alice Oliphant, His Wife, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Berhard Tauchnitz, 1891), I, p. 246. 14  Taylor, Laurence Oliphant: 1829–1888, p. 123. 13

2  BIOGRAPHY AND BACKGROUND 15

Harris’ writings are tedious and are further complicated by their need to fit into a poetic structure. There is rarely a lucid thought contained within them and to most readers they appear largely nonsensical. Despite hiding behind this veil of obscurity (or madness), Harris’ spiritualist doctrines included some complex teachings that were interspersed within including: a belief in “divine respiration” which enabled the Brotherhood to commune with God through rhythmic breathing; a belief in the biune nature of God that the Divine was both Male and Female; and then, finally, his acceptance of the doctrine of spiritual counterparts, which maintained that each earthly person had a (typically) heavenly counterpart with which one can intimately connect to throughout their lifetime. This was a powerful doctrine as it instilled Harris with the ability to control his follower’s mates and sexuality. This teaching warrants further investigation for it was especially influential on Oliphant and his conceptualization of the sympneumata.

Doctrine of the Counterparts The term “sympneumata” came from Harris and it was based on the idea of “breathing exercises” with one’s counterpart and with the community; thus, the sympneumata became Oliphant’s reconceptualized form of Harris’ counterparts.15 According to Harris, in most marriages the spouse was rarely (if ever) connected to their actual spiritual/heavenly counterpart. As such, most of the earthly marriages of his members had to be dissolved in order to fit into this new spiritualist socialist order; this was given as one of the main reasons for separating couples as they entered the Brotherhood community providing Harris with an unprecedented power over the members.16 Harris had developed a secret, esoteric ritual that was employed in order for the practitioner to find their true counterpart; however, this ritual was rarely (if ever) practiced by Harris’ male followers (except by 15  The author Respiro, who was a devoted follower of Thomas Lake Harris, remarks that “Laurence Oliphant occasionally enunciated some profound esoteric truth which he annexed from elsewhere.” Thus, this writer reveals that it was rumored that the majority of Oliphant’s key doctrines were derived from Harris (including the bisexuality of the divine being). Respiro [Edward William Berridge], “XVI- Counterparts, Or, The Marriage of Heaven on Earth for Eternity” in The Brotherhood of the New Life: An Epitome of the Work and Teaching of Thomas Lake Harris (C. W. Pearce and Company, Glasgow, 1909), p. 13. 16  Schneider, A Prophet and a Pilgrim, p. 183.

16  

J. D. LAVOIE

Harris himself). Following their meticulous survey of Harris’ teachings, Schneider and Lawton concluded that: “No first-hand account of any such ritual as practiced by Harris has been found in his writings or the records left by the members of the colony.”17 The doctrine existed in their teachings, but the practice/ritual of it was uncommon, and the only disciple to ever experience this ritual was potentially Laurence Oliphant and perhaps Arthur Cuthbert, that is, only the most dedicated and loyal followers could participate in this “ritual.” Everyone else was expected to live a celibate lifestyle. In 1877, Harris bragged that there had only been five births to members of the Brotherhood over a seventeen-year period, thereby illustrating that his followers were heeding his rule of celibacy (or a much more likely scenario is that they had become adept in practicing birth control techniques).18 Over the years, different clues to the ceremonial practice have leaked out in various secret publications and writings. Therefore, Harris’ doctrine of the counterpart can be pieced together through examining several obscure sources which will also be helpful toward understanding both its meaning and application. It is not surprising that these sources are written from a female’s perspective as, again, most of his male members would not be privy to this ritual. The first source is derived from the testimony of one Sarah Smillis of Germantown, Pennsylvania. She recounted her role in the counterpart process and believed that “the doctrine of the counterparts was revealed to her” and that “God had a wonderful counterpart in waiting for her, whose life was incomplete until she joined him.”19 She explained that the method of starting this process at first felt “peculiar” to her. Smillis remarked that this step included going into Harris’ room and getting into bed with him (who at the time was allegedly channeling his own female counterpart-personality known as the Lily Queen). To this request, Smillis was taken back and asked what would Harris be doing in bed with her? To which it was replied: “Oh, Lily queen is inside of Father [Harris] and consequent he, of course stays in the bed, and by getting into his arms we get into her arms.”20 This suggests the ­counterpart  Schneider, A Prophet and a Pilgrim, p. 184.  Joshua Paddison, “Disorderly Doctrines: Religion, Race, and the Fountaingrove Sex Scandal of 1891–1892,” Journal of Gilded and Progressive Era, 14 (2015), 475–502 (p. 480). 19  Ray Strachey, Group Movements of the Past and Experiments in Guidance (London: Faber and Faber, 1928), p. 234. 20  Ibid. 17 18

2  BIOGRAPHY AND BACKGROUND 17

ritual was similar to a traditional bundling process where (typically the male) is wrapped up tightly and the female spends the night with him. Of course, no sexual contact is possible because the partner is tied up tightly and has no access to their hands or any other limbs. This was normally part of the courtship process especially common in various Pennsylvanian Dutch traditions. The second key account of Harris’ application of the counterpart ritual comes from an unknown journal that allegedly dates back to May 16, 1881. This journal was reprinted many times under various titles, and it was well circulated among the Brotherhood; however, whether it was intended to be commune propaganda or not remains irrelevant for the sake of this study. What is curious in this journal, is the manner in which the counterpart ritual is described. The anonymous female writer records that early on she was told to sleep with Harris and as a result she “kept feeling the sensations” in her arm.21 Over time, these sensations began to extend over her entire body and there was a feeling of intense pleasure as she describes: I felt it enter my head and also pass into my thighs. The first time it came into my body, that is the trunk [?], it seemed to enter through the generative organs, and with it came the thought, this is like sexual intercourse, only infinitely more so, in that every atom of your frame enters into union with another atom to the furthest extremity of your body…I felt infinitely calm and peaceful…and my only desire was to constantly pray in thankfulness. If it were…my counterpart, I can imagine in some slight degree what may be in store for us all.22

There was clearly something sexual about the counterpart as it was even associated with some form of intercourse. Thus, there seemed to be a grooming process for the counterpart relationship that Harris utilized. This writer goes on to describe a tour of the grounds led by one “Mrs. Cuthbert” (a woman who would later defect and leave her husband behind in order to join Oliphant’s community in Haifa). Cuthbert described a large female bathroom in which they would all wash together; they would also help one another wash their feet as well as the rest of their bodies if needed, for “our father says that before we can be in any true condition we must all be so innocent that we can stand naked before each other without  Schneider, A Prophet and a Pilgrim, p. 510.  Ibid., pp. 510–511.

21 22

18  

J. D. LAVOIE

a thought of shame and wash and dress each other.”23 According to Harris, the sexuality of the counterpart must be to obtain a type of innocence combined with a sincere desire for spiritual growth.24 This anonymous journal also reveals the different stages of the counterpart process. First, one felt a sense of calming peace mixed with pleasant physical sensations; in the beginning these feelings are located primarily in the stomach and groin areas though they soon begin to extend over the entire body.25 Over time these sensations become more intense and are described as “a wonderful fluttering, stirring, rushing, and rapid movement within”; in addition, whenever the writer thinks about her counterpart she experiences “chills from head to foot.”26 These sensations are further connected to some type of tranquil inner voice that quietly whispers soothing remarks such as “The Lord is in His Holy temple, let all the earth keep silence before Him.” It was alleged that the sensations and feelings produced by the counterpart were “different from everything else” in life and that it feels like “every nerve and atom in the body is filled with Divine harmony and sweet music, and each nerve and organism becomes sensitive to its intense joy.”27 Most importantly, as one journal entry claims, this process “is the recognition of the quality of the various affections.”28 Curiously enough for this female practitioner, “the counterpartal action always seems to flow in through the womb” and whenever she would think about the Divine Father-Mother (i.e., the biune principle) she “nearly always feel[s a] delightful sensation in her breast.”29 One of the greatest supernatural benefits of the counterpart aside from the pleasurable sensations and tranquility, is the experience of a new method of breathing. As our female practitioner noted: “I seem to breathe through the external part of my body, taking in the air through the interspace of the whole body. It is a different air from which I breathe in my  Ibid., p. 519.  Additionally, this idea of getting victims to be comfortable being naked is a common grooming tool still used by sexual predators today Internet Child Abuse: Current Research and Policy eds. Julie Davidson and Petter Gottschalk (New York: Routledge Press, 2011), pp. 105, 107–108. 25  Schneider, A Prophet and a Pilgrim, p. 513. 26  Ibid., pp. 516, 532. 27  Ibid., pp. 526–527. 28  Ibid., p. 527. 29  Ibid., p. 529. 23 24

2  BIOGRAPHY AND BACKGROUND 19

lungs. My body at such times seems to be conscious of a changed air which surrounds us, but we are not yet in a fit condition to receive it at all times.”30 Thus, the result of this ritual leads to the obtainment of real psychical breathing powers, that is, breathing at a higher and more physically evolved level. The relationship with one’s counterpart continues all throughout the year; however, at the end of the year all counterparts are separated from their partners and are married to Harris himself acting as the earthly vessel of the Mother-Father being. There is even a special marriage ceremony held at the close of every working year. Thus, this journal provides valuable information on the role of the counterpart and its connection to psychical powers that include a calming state which comes from breathing and various sexual sensations within the individual. While obvious similarities exist between Harris’ and Oliphant’s theological systems, researchers have been careful to identify the differences between Harris’ counterparts and Oliphant’s later sympneumata. They were based on some important distinctions in the organization of the two communities: first, Harris was the only leader of his commune; whereas, the Oliphants suggested biune leadership of both a male and female dual role.31 Second, at Oliphant’s “Household” there was more of a focus on the education of members that was necessary to live out “co-­operative responsibilities.” This latter difference would have seemingly proved to be The Household’s undoing if Oliphant had lived much older. For no longer was the sexual element confined to the leader and a few of his most intimate and devoted followers; now the sexual element was freely practiced by every follower and member. This practice could in turn lead to various emotions, jealousies, pride, and so on, which would have caused quite a scandal if it was practiced on a larger scale. Even at the early introductory stage, one of the sixteen original members defected from Oliphant’s teachings and attempted to cause a scandal through publicizing the sympneumatic “ritual.” One further difference between the two communities is that unlike Harris who regarded the spiritual struggle to primarily be the individuals’ responsibility, Oliphant maintained that spiritual evolution was a collective journey for the entire group/community to obtain together. The  Ibid., p. 533.  Ibid., p. 396.

30 31

  20

J. D. LAVOIE

Fig. 2.1  Photo of Thomas Lake Harris (1823–1906) the spiritualist, poet, and founder of the Brotherhood of the New Life community. (Courtesy of Sonoma State University Library Special Collections. From the Gaye LeBaron Collection)

sympneumata could only be achieved by working with each other—male with females. Therefore, this system demanded an intimate connection with every member. As Lawton and Schneider suggested in their detailed study: “Oliphant…thought of himself more as an intimate member dispensing his ‘magnetism’ through intimate contact with others. His published statements on this subject were guarded, but they were liable to the kind of interpretation his enemies put on them.”32 This subject of practice leads to several important questions: given this group focus, how was the sympneumata practiced on a regular basis in the Household community? How was it imparted or shared? While it was related to Harris’ doctrine of counterparts, what else was unique about it? Thus, Oliphant’s reconceptualization of the nature and practice of the sympneumata deserves further consideration (Fig. 2.1).  Ibid., p. 401.

32

2  BIOGRAPHY AND BACKGROUND 21

References Berridge, Edward William. 1909. XVI- Counterparts, Or, The Marriage of Heaven on Earth for Eternity. In The Brotherhood of the New Life: An Epitome of the Work and Teaching of Thomas Lake Harris. Glasgow: C. W. Pearce and Company. Casey, Bart. 2015. The Double Life of Laurence Oliphant: Victorian Pilgrim and Prophet. New York: Post Hill Press. Henderson, Philip. 1956. The Life of Laurence Oliphant: Traveller, Diplomat and Mystic. Bristol: Robert Hale Limited. Internet Child Abuse: Current Research and Policy, ed. Julie Davidson and Petter Gottschalk. 2011. New York: Routledge Press. Isaacs, Sally Senzell. 2009. Stages and the Pony Express: 1820 to 1900. Chicago: Elsevier Inc. Lawton, Herbert W., and George Schneider. 1942. A Prophet and a Pilgrim: Being the Incredible History of Thomas Lake Harris and Laurence Oliphant. Columbia University Press. Letter from Sir Henry Brackenbury to Florence Henniker [July 27, 1891]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Oliphant, Margaret. 1891. Memoir of the Life of Laurence Oliphant and of Alice Oliphant, His Wife, 2 vols., I. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz. Paddison, Joshua. 2015. Disorderly Doctrines: Religion, Race, and the Fountaingrove Sex Scandal of 1891–1892. Journal of Gilded and Progressive Era 14: 475–502. Strachey, Ray. 1928. Group Movements of the Past and Experiments in Guidance. London: Faber and Faber. Taylor, Anne. 1982. Laurence Oliphant, 1829–1888. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CHAPTER 3

The Sympneumata

Abstract  In this chapter, the act of the sympneumata is explored in Oliphant’s teachings and major published works. This doctrine is further contextualized and understood in light of his view of “atomic beings” and the spiritual soteriology that his wife Alice had put forth in the book The Sympneumata (1884) as well as his later clarification of these ideas in his later work titled Scientific Religion (1887). Keywords  The Household • Sympneumata • Scientific Religion (1887) • Atomic

Laurence Oliphant and the Sympneumata Oliphant attempted to put forth his new religious teachings over the span of two main books. The first was called The Sympneumata which was published in 1885; it was only printed under the stipulation that Oliphant had to pre-purchase the entire run of 1000 copies.1 Most of this first work was channeled directly by his first wife Alice le Strange (1845–1886) by 1  Casey, The Double Life of Laurence Oliphant, p. 236. This paying to publish was more than acceptable to Oliphant as he did “not want it published in the ordinary way, as it is not an ordinary book…in fact, it is a confession of faith…I believe, if published in the usual way, it would make something of a sensation, and bring down showers of criticism and ridicule.” Schneider, A Prophet and a Pilgrim, pp. 388–389.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. D. Lavoie, Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0_3

23

24  

J. D. LAVOIE

c­ommunicating with invisible psychic beings while the pair resided on Mount Carmel. By Oliphant’s own admission, he served merely as the editor of this work; however, he insisted that the teachings therein reflect his “own convictions and experiences” and are “the result of...prolonged investigations.”2 In 1888, Oliphant wrote a summary of these doctrines based on his own impressions which he called Scientific Religion; in this book he attempted to build onto these earlier teachings most notably the doctrine of the sympneumata. Also, in this work, Oliphant argued against the historical canon and the traditional view of biblical inspiration; he sets forth a belief that every person has the atomic structure necessary to connect with the same (or similar) spirit teachers as did the early church leaders and apostles.3 Since anyone could experience divine revelation, contemporaneous teachings such as mesmerism, spiritual mediums, and invisible masters could theoretically become just as valid as anything contained in the biblical text. Still, Oliphant was not willing to wholly dismiss the Bible, and suggested that it contained the most highly evolved teachings of any traditional Scripture or cannon in existence. It was inspired; however, it was not without error or issue. Oliphant blamed these issues on the writer’s/medium’s own education (or lack thereof) and their background, not from the holy revelations that the writers had received via their atomic abilities.4 In Scientific Religion, Oliphant puts forth a system that is quite complex and involves the spiritual and physical man interacting with each other via invisible (internal and external) atoms (similar to Harris’ system described in the previous chapter); humans could contact invisible beings based on the evolutionary level of their atoms. For, Oliphant maintained, every creature and environment is composed of various atom-like beings. These spiritual “atomic beings” are continually moving and appear as moving amoeba-like creatures: their shapes and sizes are based on the moral quality of both the individual person and the environments to which they are exposed. Oliphant even provided his readers with a visual as to what these atomic, amoeba-like beings look like in the spirit world; he suggests they are similar to “infusoria,” for example, small one-celled microscopic beings found in 2  Laurence Oliphant, Sympneumata, Or, The Evolutionary Forces Now Active in Man (London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1885), p. vii. 3  Laurence Oliphant, Scientific Religion, or Higher Possibilities of Life and Practice Through the Operation of Natural Forces (London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1888) p. 183. 4  Oliphant, Scientific Religion, pp. 280, 167.

3  THE SYMPNEUMATA 25

freshwater pools (see Fig. 3.1). While these “atomic beings” look similar to one-celled beings (i.e., “amoeba-like”), they appear big enough to be visible to the naked eye providing one is spiritually advanced enough to view them. Additionally, in the spirit world, a person’s atomic-beings are always moving and engaging with the other atomic-beings they come across; these atomic-beings come from the individuals that one interacts with along with any other ones that might be lingering in the environments they visit. Thus, in this spirit world, there is a never-ending battle between these beings since they are attached to everything everywhere, that is, all things, persons, and places. These “amoeba-type-of-beings” are constantly fighting for dominancy and control of the individual (and their environment) as their goal is to destroy any opposing atoms to which they have contact. The strength of the good/positive atomic-beings is based on the spiritual level/quality of each individual person. The more spiritual a person may be then the purer/higher level of atoms will be produced and surround them. Thus, Oliphant is putting forth a complex spiritual theory where millions of these good/positive atomic-beings are fighting with bad/negative ones at every moment of every day. Oliphant adds to the complexity of this system that: It is a field of predatory warfare of the most sanguinary [causing a lot of bloodshed] description. It is ‘matter in motion’ indeed, and very angry matter. Whole hordes of these militant atoms seem now and then to invade spaces where the texture of the atmosphere is finer, the colour lighter, and the atoms less voracious; then the nature which appeared beneath it become obscured, and a new region is more completely subjugated than it was before by the in-rolling volume of more dense and concentrated evil.5

Therefore, the “good” atoms are fighting the “evil” atoms. This atomic process is especially important to understand as it provides a means for creating spiritual and physical change in the practical world: for if a diseased person can transmit their diseases to other people via breathing and microbes/atoms, then why couldn’t a spiritually and physically healthy individual generate organisms/atoms that are life-giving? Couldn’t we share our atomic-beings with other people and in other environments? Oliphant was clearly influenced by older mesmeric practices as he claimed these life-giving microbes/atoms exist in the “sentient atoms of healing magnetism” the quality of which depends largely on the respiratory 5

 Ibid., p. 118.

  26

J. D. LAVOIE

Fig. 3.1  Illustration from Micrographic Dictionary, eds. J.  W. Griffith and M. Duncan, 3rd ed. (London: Jon Van Voorst, 1875), plate 24

3  THE SYMPNEUMATA 27

process of the operator (i.e. the breath/pneuma).6 Thus, the breath holds a spiritual and supernatural power that is connected to this atomic process. It is during this process of breathing together that “an advanced practitioner” can breathe “life-giving microbes into their partner, leading to [a] counterpartal contact. This contact would ultimately lead to the cessation of ‘race reproduction’ and children would no longer be born.”7 Therefore, advanced breathing could ultimately lead to a pure form of procreation (with no sex required)! These secret abilities could only be developed and transmitted by humanity forming individual “sympneumatic groups” (and households) where members separated themselves from the world and lived together in Christian and atomic unity. Oliphant remarked that: “We are like mariners swimming from a wreck to the shore with life-ropes; and it is not until sympneumatic groups, more numerous than yet exist, are formed both in the seen and unseen that the next revelation will be made.”8 Therefore, the goal of humanity is to live and function within these sympneumatic groups in order to develop these supernatural powers, create positive atoms, and prepare humanity for its imminent higher evolution. As such, there was a clear connection between soteriology (salvation) and the sympneumata, for these groups are essential toward pushing the human race further in their spiritual evolution. Oliphant believed that everyone has a sympneumatic nature which is connected to love, marriage, and sexuality.9 He also stressed that females play an important role in this practice as evidenced in his philosophy of the Divine Feminine. According to Oliphant, women are the connecting link between men and angels, and it is only through them that the Divine Feminine can descend onto the earth.10 This was the result of a sympneumatic descent that took place when human beings fell from the divine bi-­ sexual nature of God; therefore, it is only by reuniting together and becoming one body in sexual nature that “when they are joined together the (two together) appear to form only one body.”11 Oliphant remarked on 6  Julie Chajes, “Alice and Laurence Oliphants’ Divine Androgyne and ‘The Woman Question’ -Postprint,” in https://www.academia.edu/33049376/Alice_and_Laurence_ Oliphants_Divine_Androgyne_and_The_Woman_Question_Postprint_Accepted_for_publications_in_Journal_of_the_American_Academy_of_Religion_2015 [accessed on September 27, 2020], 1–42 (p. 20). 7  Chajes, “Alice and Laurence Oliphants’ Divine Androgyne,” pp. 20–21. 8  Oliphant, Scientific Religion, pp. 351–352. 9  Ibid., p. 355. 10  Ibid., p. 357. 11  Ibid., p. 360.

28  

J. D. LAVOIE

the relationship between Adam and Eve and the equality between men and women insisting that “man is impossible without woman.” He quoted the book of Genesis claiming that there was nothing shameful taking place in the Garden of Eden even though “they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed” and this “signifies the absolute and essential purity of the divine bisexual life-principle.”12 This harkens back to Harris’ principles that until a woman can be naked with one another and remain innocent (i.e. no lustful thought currents) the counterpart process cannot be completed. Oliphant suggested a similar idea though he included males into his process: that men and women need to be able to get naked together without feeling and experiencing any lower lustful thoughts. Through this belief, Oliphant championed the equality of women who were central in his religious teachings though their roles remained distinct (especially in the sympneumata process). He observed that: in the case of the woman there remains beyond, a depth into which man can never penetrate;- in that “within” she is eternally alone with God. What she knows within that depth is for ever to man a mystery, save for what God, for ends of service, instructs her to set forth; but it can never be known to man except through woman. In the deep and inward man-woman union of pure essences she touches to herself; through whatever atomic chain of beings this union is effected, man touches God through her.13

Thus, women become the spiritual gatekeeper for all men as only they possess the power to unlock esoteric knowledge and provide a proper understanding of the Divine. Oliphant expounds on these spiritual gender roles within this new religious system and the sympneumata; in writing this, he provides some understanding of this important ritual/practice: when two young people, who are both in quest of this pearl of great price and who are passionately attached to each other, feel that they must marry if they would win it, and yet never know in this life what the marriage relation…is. Or if man consistent in intimacies which, though pure and innocent, are calculated to arouse jealousy in quarters where it would be legitimate under ordinary circumstances, and excite suspicions which nothing but supreme faith can banish…for the position of man in relation to woman, in this particular struggle, is reversed. It is she who when she has  Ibid., p. 237.  Ibid., p. 337.

12 13

3  THE SYMPNEUMATA 29

herself attained to the consciousness of sympneumatic life, must lead him to it. From first to last he must be a passive instrument in her hands; under her guidance he must crush out of his nature every instinct of animal passion and become dead to all the old sensation, before he can become alive to the new. The man who has under gone this training finally becomes absolutely impervious to…the subtle magnetisms which radiate from ordinary women.14

Thus, this sympneumatic condition appears to be related to some form of sexual activity; Oliphant himself hinted at this connection by noting that “the restoration of the sympneumatic union involves, sooner or later, the restoration of the divine conditions of procreation [i. e. sex]…it is not expedient to write further at present.”15 He carefully recognized that his writings would not be accepted by most Victorians and that they could get him into a lot of trouble during the sexually restrictive Victorian era with its prudish “morality code.” Oliphant even concluded the book by explaining that “the real mystery for which they [readers] are not yet prepared lies within.”16 By his own admission, Oliphant never engaged in sexual intercourse with his first wife Alice during the course of their marriage (this might have been due to his syphilis affliction; however, he did have sex with his second wife Rosamond).17 A lot of this was based on his view of love which he connected to electricity and its atomic nature. He wrote to a follower who was considering marriage that: What is commonly called “love” is not a mere sentiment; it is a force closely allied to electricity. It is the most powerful force in nature, for it is that which keeps it going…but it is fundamentally diseased and corrupt. It is from this taint which pollutes the divine sustaining principle, that all the physical disease and moral misery of the world proceeds. If the cure could be discovered, and the taint eliminated we should be able to strike at the root of the world’s malady….It is because we have found this remedy…that we have given ourselves to the work of invoking what we call the sympneumatic descent which our darling Alice yearned so earnestly that you should be conscious of [emphasis added].18

Therefore, there existed an important and world-changing purpose to the sympneumata—to cure the world of its evil taint (and evil atoms)! Oliphant  Ibid., pp. 348–349.  Ibid., p. 351. 16  Ibid., p. 389. 17  Casey, The Double Life of Laurence Oliphant, p. 248. 18  Schneider, A Prophet and a Pilgrim, pp. 380–381. 14 15

30  

J. D. LAVOIE

urged this follower, to live out this higher principle and marry “selflessly” rather than “selfishly.” While this selfless marriage included no intercourse, it could “procure the joys that Alice” and he experienced together which would enable them both to develop this higher sympneumatic power.19 The reason behind this request, Oliphant declared, was that it “strikes at the very root of their power for evil in the world.” He went on to communicate that a more optimistic future was soon on its way, and that20: The day will come when certain couples will have so far purified themselves, that they will be permitted to bring children into the world, who will be of a new and higher type morally, inheriting from their parents greater faculties for good. But in the meantime, all those who desire to enlist in the great work of the world’s renewal must love each other on this new and higher ground.21

Thus, whatever the sympneumata may have been, intercourse was not a part of it …at this early stage anyways. Still, there did remain a clear connection to some type of sexual sensation as his critic Arthur Cuthbert later commented on Oliphant’s system: “His system is to seek the internal and that which he calls ‘God’ through sexual sensation…As gilding for this pill, to induce some if possible to receive it, he steals a showing of great part of Father’s [Harris’] self-­ abnegating and humanitarian principles, all which with him is simply disgusting hypocrisy.”22 Cuthbert suggests that Oliphant’s key idea was that God could be known through “sexual sensation” though he stopped short of explaining what that meant or implies. It should be noted that Cuthbert openly criticized Oliphant’s teachings as being nothing more than a ­relabeling of Harrisonian terms and ideas (even though Cuthbert’s wife and son would later join the Oliphants in their Palestinian commune). While this study has examined the philosophy that led to the establishment and creation of the sympneumatic process as well as its connection to T. L. Harris, still the practice itself remained shrouded in mystery; as such, further investigation is necessary.

 Ibid., p. 381.  Ibid. 21  Ibid. 22  Schneider, A Prophet and a Pilgrim, pp. 390–391. 19 20

3  THE SYMPNEUMATA 31

What Is the Sympneumatic Touch? Anne Taylor attempted to answer this question in her biography of Oliphant published in 1982. She came to the following conclusion: From the evidence available in Laurence and Alice Oliphant’s writings, in their letters and in the accounts of those who witnessed the imparting of the Sympneuma two facts emerge. [1] One is that it did not involve the sexual act [intercourse]. The other [2] that it was always imparted from man to woman and vice versa, and not between members of the same sex- that was, after all, the whole point of the doctrine of counterparts.23

Thus, the sympneumata was not purely sexual intercourse and it could only be passed on through heterosexual relations (this will be important point later on when the connection between the sympneumata and Laurence Grubbe is examined). Julie Chajes posits a similar view in her paper “Alice and Laurence Oliphants’ Divine Androgyne and the Woman Question” (2016) that “the Oliphants’ surprising message was that humanity must abandon sexual intercourse in favor of individual communion with this counterpart. Sexually abstinent married couples were to support each other in this goal.”24 Therefore, Chajes echoes Taylor in her belief that the sympneumatic act did not include intercourse as well as the Harrisonian principle that most married couples were not true counterparts. Like Harris, Oliphant believed that each person has a counterpart of the opposite gender. Harris and Oliphant both believed that it was very rare for both counterparts to be incarnated and married; thus, generally speaking, one’s counterpart is a spiritual being. Thomas Henderson remarked more explicitly that the whole doctrine and practice of the sympneumata, or “breathing together” amounted to some form of “mystical masturbation.”25 Henderson maintained that “since the purpose of life, in their view, was to unite with the sympneuma, to induce it in others was to impart to them the greatest bliss imaginable.”26 A more recent biographer Bart Casey suggests his own description of the sympneumatic process. Casey believed that people traveled to Oliphant communes to “find and unite” with their counterparts and that they should 23  Anne Taylor, Laurence Oliphant: 1829–1888 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 252. 24  Chajes, “Alice and Laurence Oliphant’s Divine Androgyne,” p. 2. 25  Henderson, The Life of Laurence Oliphant, p. 236. 26  Ibid., p. 236.

32  

J. D. LAVOIE

be taught the “techniques of lying and breathing together to achieve Sympneumata.”27 In order to accomplish this feat, Oliphant and his beautiful wife Alice would strip down and “hug and breathe deeply with potential converts of the opposite sex, to show the way.”28 Thus, Casey viewed the sympneumata as a type of full-body erotic massage without the act of intercourse taking place. Regardless as to how this act was practiced, one thing remains clear, it violated the Victorian morality of its day and for that reason the process was never openly recorded in any depth. Some might argue it was this taboo element that made Oliphant’s teachings so appealing to his followers; this idea deserves further contextualization.

Sexuality in the Victorian Era Sex (whether with flesh and blood partners or spiritual ones) was a taboo subject in a culture that was steeped in what is known as the Victorian code of morality. This code of morality was identified by Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn in their book Victorian Morality and it is defined as “ any set of values that espouse sexual restraint, low tolerance of crime and a strict social code of conduct.”29 Thus, this belief system was typically connected to Judeo-Christian social ideas and values. John Wagner explores this idea more fully explaining that the Victorian morality “is so often ridiculed as merely sexual prudery today. Victorian morality was far more than this. It was a set of ideals that was near-universally accepted if anything but universally practiced. It encompassed the ideals of…sexual propriety. It seemed exemplified by the queen, the prince, and their family life, and it became a code of ideal conduct for the increasingly affluent and increasingly political middle-class.”30 Thus, morality was determined by the political and social leaders who were largely influenced by their Judeo-Christian views of modesty and ideals of sexual abstinence. These ideals came largely from the Church of England which had connected the church and state together upon its inception under Henry VIII. As such, there was a strong Christian moral value rooted in Victorian etiquette that was taught in schools, institutions, and practiced in the  Casey, The Double Life of Laurence Oliphant, p. 236.  Ibid., p. 236. 29   Anita Ahmadi and Mittapali Rajeshwar, “Victorian Morality and Its Victims,” International Journal of English and Literature, 3:1 (March 2013), 177–122 (p. 119). 30  John A. Wagner, Voices of Victorian England: Contemporary Accounts of Daily Life (Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press, 2014), p. xix. 27 28

3  THE SYMPNEUMATA 33

typical Victorian family (regardless of class). Yet, Oliphant’s sympneumata stood against these commonly accepted Victorian morals as he pushed forward the boundaries of sexual practice. As mentioned above, one could argue that this taboo is what made his movement more appealing to potential members who were not as accepting of the oppressive Victorian approach to sexuality. In order to practice such views, Oliphant started his “Household” and individual sympneumatic groups where his teachings could be put into practice by all of his followers.

The Household By 1888, Oliphant pulled together a larger sympneumatic group that he referred to as “The Household.” The Household was an artistic community that attracted several painters there; however, its real purpose was the spiritual evolution of the group. Oliphant describes that: For regard to Haifa, it will not do for anyone to go there who does not feel thoroughly impelled internally to do so -and it would be necessary before coming to a final decision to read my book and feel how far it works with an internal response, for a visit there must be made on spiritual grounds, and with the hope that it may conduce to moral progress and internal illumination, and as a necessary training to a life which is to be dedicated to the service of humanity. It is no good going there on a lower ground [which] would only lead to disappointment. It is a refuge for people in certain conditions and I am ordered to keep my house and heart open to people in those conditions, but I cannot decide for them in the matter, nor can I press them. They must come under a more internal pressure…Of course art is a very secondary consideration to moral progress.31

He wrote in Scientific Religion that it was the home circle/community that would evolve and invoke a change and spiritual progression that would transform the entire human race; therefore, the sympenumata was too important to fail!32 Of course, the key to this entire process began with 31  Letter from Laurence Oliphant to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [June 13, 1888]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 32  Oliphant, Scientific Religion, p. 70. There was even mention of an unofficial dress code at The Household: “With regards to the dress-suit, Mr. O. says he always likes one as one may be invited to a state dinner anywhere and about; the shirts- the flannel are perhaps more convenient but to take the ones you prefer wearing, and imagine one can dress as one chooses there.” Letter from Rosamond Dale Owen Oliphant to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [November 11, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie.

  34

J. D. LAVOIE

Fig. 3.2  Portrait of Laurence Oliphant circa 1887 from Margaret Oliphant, Memoir of the Life of Laurence Oliphant and of Alice Oliphant, His Wife, I (London, William, Blackwood and Sons, 1891), 2 vols

the establishment of sympneumatic home-groups which Oliphant maintained through the intentional recruitment of those interested in his teachings, mainly those engaged with a mystical form of Christianity. One such seeker was a renowned spiritualist, Theosophist, and Christian mystic known among his colleagues simply as C. C. Massey (Figs. 3.2 and 3.3).

3  THE SYMPNEUMATA 35

Fig. 3.3  An image of Alice Le Strange the first wife of Laurence Oliphant and the co-writer of his first spiritual book titled The Sympneumata (1884). Margaret Oliphant, Memoir of the Life of Laurence Oliphant and of Alice Oliphant, His Wife, II (London, William, Blackwood and Sons, 1891), 2 vols

References Ahmadi, Anita, and Mittapali Rajeshwar. 2013. Victorian Morality and Its Victims. International Journal of English and Literature 3 (1): 177–122. Casey, Bart. 2015. The Double Life of Laurence Oliphant: Victorian Pilgrim and Prophet. New York: Post Hill Press. Chajes, Julie. 2015. Alice and Laurence Oliphants’ Divine Androgyne and “The Woman Question”  – Postprint. https://www.academia.edu/33049376/

  36

J. D. LAVOIE

Alice_and_Laurence_Oliphants_Divine_Androgyne_and_The_Woman_ Question_Postprint_Accepted_for_publications_in_Journal_of_the_ American_Academy_of_Religion_2015. Accessed on 27 Sept 2020. Henderson, Philip. 1956. The Life of Laurence Oliphant: Traveller, Diplomat and Mystic. Bristol: Robert Hale Limited. Lawton, Herbert W., and George Schneider. 1942. A Prophet and a Pilgrim: Being the Incredible History of Thomas Lake Harris and Laurence Oliphant. Columbia University Press. Letter from Laurence Oliphant to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [June 13, 1888]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Letter from Rosamond Dale Owen Oliphant to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [November 11, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Oliphant, Laurence. 1884. Sympneumata, Or, The Evolutionary Forces Now Active in Man. London: William Blackwood and Sons. ———. 1888. Scientific Religion, or Higher Possibilities of Life and Practice Through the Operation of Natural Forces. London: William Blackwood and Sons. Taylor, Anne. 1982. Laurence Oliphant, 1829–1888. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wagner, John A. 2014. Voices of Victorian England: Contemporary Accounts of Daily Life. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press.

CHAPTER 4

Charles Carleton Massey (1838–1905)

Abstract  The correspondence between Charles Carleton Massey and Laurence Oliphant is explored with special attention paid to the discussion of the sympneumata and specifically how Oliphant convinced Massey to join The Household in Palestine. Keywords  Charles Carleton Massey • The Sympneumata (1885!) • Haifa • Parliament • Community Charles Carleton Massey (1838–1905) is a fascinating character in his own right. He was a successful lawyer turned spiritualist and became an integral part of the early Theosophical Society. He was the founder of its London Lodge and a member of various spiritualist societies including the London Spiritualist Alliance (LSA), the Psychology Society, the Society for Psychical Research (SPR), and British National Association of Spiritualists (BNAS) among others. He was a well-respected occultist and spiritualist researcher who spoke three languages (German, French, and English); he was known mostly for this German to English translations of such obscure German spiritualist texts written by the likes of Carl du Prel (1839–1899), Johann Carl F. Zöllner (1834–1882), and Eduard von Hartmann (1842–1906).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. D. Lavoie, Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0_4

37

38  

J. D. LAVOIE

There are some startling similarities between Oliphant’s and Massey’s life experiences: they were born within a decade of each other (though Oliphant was a bit older than Massey); both were seekers of mystical and occult powers; both had vast experience in spiritualist and occult groups; and both ended up with a similar view mystical view of Christianity. Additionally, both came from similar backgrounds: Oliphant’s family and prestige were explored in the last chapter; Massey also came from a similar situation: his father was William Nathaniel Massey (1809–1881) a respectable Member of Parliament who served from 1852 to 1865. Ironically, the same year William retired was Oliphant’s first year in Parliament; it seems likely they would have known each other especially given the fact that William moved to India afterward. While residing there William became a member of the Council of the GovernorGeneral of India; thus, given the Oliphant’s prominence among English aristocrats living in India, there seems little doubt that they would have known of each other (at least by reputation if not on a more personal level). Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find two individuals running in closer socio-­economic circles than Massey and Oliphant; as such, it seemed only natural that their paths would eventually cross. This meeting seemingly took place around the year 1883, when these two Christian mystics began corresponding via post (when Massey was forty-five years of age). Because of his achievements and similar background, Massey held a deep respect for Oliphant and his teachings.1 This respect was evidenced 1  During their early correspondence, Massey was unsure of two key points which he ultimately rationalized in his own mind. The first point that he disagreed on was his view of the divine as a biune—mother and father; rather, Massey claimed that God was a trinity and unity of the bi-unity. However, he found a statement in the Scientific Religion that satisfied his solidarity with Oliphant who noted that: “The effort for union with God, through service for the neighbour, must be solely based upon the idea that the neighbour cannot be saved (served?) except by virtue of this union, because it is this union alone which can render man a fitting instrument in divine hands to aid his fellows.” This admission was enough to assuage Massey’s intellectual doubts. Second, Oliphant believed that in order to build a relationship with God one must first engage the sympneumata with one another; however, Massey believed one must first build a relationship with God, then the closer we get to God the closer we get to each other. Thoughts of a Modern Mystic: A Selection from the Writings of C.  C. Massey, ed. W.  F. Barrett (London: Kegan Paul, 1909), p.  62.; Oliphant, Scientific Religion, p. 170.

4  CHARLES CARLETON MASSEY (1838–1905) 39

by the fact that in July of 1888 he (Massey) dedicated a copy of Oliphant’s Scientific Religion to the headquarters for the Society for Psychical Research; Massey also wrote a letter to his close friend Mary Atwood noting that he had “already pledged to go to Haifa, associating myself with Oliphant and his experiment there.”2 Unfortunately, before Massey could leave for Palestine, Oliphant passed away. Despite missing their connection, Massey became a close friend to Oliphant, and a confidant of sorts: Massey was one of only a small group of people who attended Oliphant’s funeral on December 27, 1888 which, ironically, was presided over by a Church of England priest (according to Grubbe it was none other than James A. Allan who performed the funeral service).3 In their correspondence, one can evidence Oliphant’s charismatic and magnetic personality shining through these letters. It was not all that difficult to convince Massey to follow him, as he (Massey) had been searching for years to find a community that would accept him into their ranks.4 At one point, Massey even considered joining the Catholic church, but figured he would not be accepted into their membership given his unique and added beliefs.5 As noted above, Massey began corresponding with Oliphant some time in 1883 (and possibly much earlier); the two started out as “pen pals” given that one of Oliphant’s main requirements for joining his commune included a physical in-person meeting so they could learn to know “one another face to face, to which no doubt the instinct of one or other of us will move us in due time.”6 In other words, they would need to meet in person “if” (or once) Massey became more serious about joining the commune. There were many types of visitors staying at the Household commune around this time; indeed, the length of their stay seemed to reflect their various levels/stages of commitment to the movement:  Thoughts of a Modern Mystic, p. 59.  “Supplementary Library Catalogue,” in Journal of Society for Psychical Research, 3:52 (July 1888), 304. 4  For a full biography of Massey see Jeffrey D. Lavoie, A Search For Meaning in Victorian Religion: The Spiritual Journey and Esoteric Teachings of Charles Carleton Massey (Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 2015). 5  Lavoie, A Search for Meaning in Victorian Religion, p. 90. 6  As Oliphant remarked in a letter on March 3, 1885. See Massey, Thoughts of a Modern Mystic, p. 215. 2 3

40  

J. D. LAVOIE

some guests stayed for a few days or weeks for “sheer recuperation” or to learn more “information”; others might stay for several months. Still, other members joined “indefinitely” and wanted to “take an active part in the little organization” of the community and/or “in the industrial, commercial, or intellectual operations that” they were “endeavouring to establish.”7 Massey’s own reason for joining the Household was to live in a community with other mystics and to develop an ability to tap into the sympneumatic force. Following his disillusionment and the ultimate negative experience of manipulation that occurred within the Theosophical Society (especially by its founder H. P. Blavatsky 1831–1891), Massey was desperate to find an honest community that would embrace his eclectic views. At first glance, the Household seemed to be a perfect fit for Massey to join. After all, Oliphant was a respectable and proven leader. Also, his doctrine, beliefs, and the experiences he wrote about in his letters seemingly aligned with Massey’s own worldview—for Oliphant was daring to create a true Christian community based on the purely mystical teachings of Jesus Christ! This goal would resonate with Massey who had spent much of his leisurely life searching for a spiritual community to call his own.8 The excitement (or pressure) began on January 20, 1887, when Oliphant eagerly wrote to Massey concerning this new Household community in Palestine: he had purchased a home and was hoping to form “the nucleus of an attempt for evolution into new and higher conditions.”9 Later that same year, Oliphant described some of the positive changes that were taking place inside this fledgling community as he had “nothing but good news to report” to the intrigued Massey. Oliphant recounted “some new and very remarkable experiences” since his return which he claimed he “cannot write about, but which prove to me increased power to act on my organism on the part of my wife, and lead me to think that I may have to go on a missionary cruise all over the world, to announce the coming  Thoughts of a Modern Mystic, pp. 214–215.   Massey spoke in detail about joining a Christian commune with fellow Christo-­ Theosophical member Elizabeth Blackwell (also the first female medical doctor in the United States!). See Jeffrey D. Lavoie, George William Allen and Christian Socialism: A Study of the Christ-Theosophical Society (London: Academica Press, 2020), pp. 145–153. 9  Thoughts of a Modern Mystic, p. 216. 7 8

4  CHARLES CARLETON MASSEY (1838–1905) 41

of the Bridegroom.”10 While Oliphant explained these eschatological connections, he was careful to warn Massey to not let it “make any difference in your plans, as feelings are no indication as to time, and it may be a year before I leave this. At the same time, don’t come on any pressure from me…don’t let consideration of inclinations and convenience interfere with that pushing.”11 While some might argue that Oliphant was implementing a reverse psychology approach using the power of suggestion to subtly manipulate Massey; it seems possible that Oliphant was truly passionate about this new movement and merely wanted Massey to share in the excitement. Regardless of Oliphant’s motivation, there came a point in their correspondence when Massey considered the possibility of withdrawing from society all together and living out a monastic-type of intellectual solitude and study. Oliphant replied harshly to Massey’s monastic suggestion as he believed that the sympneumatic force could only be understood through experiential practice that came from living in a community with other people; it could not be experienced by someone living all alone even if they spent their days researching and studying. For, as Oliphant explained, the “highest moral truth is never gained through intellectual efforts” as he believed that the true life-giving “element comes from love” and that “it is through loving what is good, and acting out that love, that we arrive at what is morally true, for moral truth lies embedded in what is the highest good we can perceive, and the value of which we can only test by action.”12 In other words, practice and application are the keys to harnessing the sympneumatic power. One must train oneself through discipline and opportunity for the “power and an influence over others for good…comes inevitably with self-imposed sacrifices. There is nothing like it for strengthening the character all round.”13 Thus, self-discipline led to spiritual evolution and resulted in the development of the sympneumatic force. Three weeks later Oliphant wrote again to Massey covertly pressuring him to come to Haifa and see for himself the type of spiritual evolution that was taking place there. He wished for Massey “to see some  Ibid., p. 217.  Ibid. 12  Ibid., p. 218. 13  Ibid., p. 219. 10 11

42  

J. D. LAVOIE

remarkable spiritual experiments which have just been occurring.”14 In order to entice him further, Oliphant told a story about his Arabic friend whom he had hired to translate his writings into Arabic. When this friend started to translate Oliphant’s writings, suddenly the papers he held became too hot for him to hold onto. As if this experience was not strange enough, later that same night this Arabic friend experienced a surreal spiritual vision of the entire world and everything in it being destroyed; the only way to avoid this disastrous destiny was for him to “give up everything to follow” Oliphant and join the Household. This anonymous friend explained his vision to Oliphant and together the two had an intense spiritual experience that “would have astonished the Psychical Research Society” (SPR—an organization to which Massey belonged).15 Following this mystical vison, this unnamed Arabic friend could now “apprehend…the whole [of] nature and philosophy better than anybody” Oliphant had ever met in England or anywhere else. The implication of this story was obvious—real spiritual transformation was taking place at Haifa! Still, Oliphant nonchalantly concludes this letter writing that: “I only mention this to show you how things are beginning to move.”16 Obviously, Oliphant was trying to entice Massey to come and join the community with a similar fervor as this young Arabic friend. Within their first fortnight of March in 1887, this fledgling community consisted of four individuals aside from the two leaders (which were Alice and Oliphant). More importantly this community instilled in Oliphant a renewed sense of spiritual purpose and meaning. This was evident as he wrote to Massey that I was finally able to “find happiness in my home, which…I never thought would again be possible for me in this life.”17 Thus began the Household community and the impartation of the sympneumata which would go on to assist humanity in their spiritual evolution and lead them to a higher level of spiritual purpose…or would it?

 Ibid.  Ibid., p. 220. 16  Ibid., p. 221. 17  Ibid., p. 216. 14 15

4  CHARLES CARLETON MASSEY (1838–1905) 43

C. C. Massey and the Sympneumata On February 8, 1885, Massey discussed his view of the sympneumata with a close colleague and fellow SPR member Frederic W.  H. Myers (1843–1901). At this earlier time, Massey possessed a different opinion relating to Oliphant’s teachings; he had even surmised beforehand that the Sympneumata was not written by Oliphant alone but by his wife Alice. Massey explained: “The Sympneuma is the sep-counterpart; the sensible or quasi-sensible evolution of whom the writer thinks will characterise the coming time, as also will the sensible altruistic rapport. It is a curious book, but after reading 100 pages I am less impressed than I half expected to be from what he wrote and said to me.”18 At first reading, this book did not impress Massey; however, it was through his later correspondence with Oliphant that he was convinced of his need to join this new religious movement. There is no denying the enormous impact that Oliphant was able to bring in a highly intellectual barrister like Massey who came from an affluent and wealthy family who possessed ample finances to contribute to the movement’s projects. Oliphant had convinced him to leave his comfort zone and dedicate his life (and finances) toward pondering the mysteries of life at the Household commune many miles away. Of course, it did not hurt that Massey held a deep-seated respect for Oliphant and the sympneumata even if he was never able to fully embrace it. As Massey maintained in one of his letters to Oliphant: “the sympneumatic development is not for [me].”19 To this attitude, Oliphant apologetically responded writing that “all sensation must in its essence have its origin in God”; that “to close the external consciousness to these sensations is to close the channel for the Divine love current. To open it improperly is to open it to the infernal lust current.”20 Thus, the sympneumatic connection involves experiencing certain sensations, feelings, and a love current (not a lust one).

18  Letter from Charles Carleton Massey to Frederic W. Myers [February 8, 1885]: Cambridge University Special Archives (3:25). Printed courtesy of the Master and Fellows of Trinity College Cambridge. 19  Thoughts of a Modern Mystic, p. 221. 20  Ibid., pp. 211–212.

44  

J. D. LAVOIE

Oliphant believed everyone adapted to the sympneumatic force differently and that “there can be no arbitrary rule laid down of its application to whom, or when, or in communities that is the only best.”21 Because of this versatility, one must “seek to keep the relations of life and family and friendship elastic and malleable.”22 In addition, Oliphant claimed that “no man can predicate of himself that God cannot touch him in that way- always assuming that it is God Who so touches….my experiences have been that God imposes upon him who is ready to sacrifice all to find truth…The trouble is that the ones He imposes, don’t always suit our tastes…as the ones we impose upon ourselves.”23 Thus, stubbornness and selfishness could interrupt the sympneumata from working in the practitioner’s life; therefore, one must put oneself into a community which could serve as a training ground on which one could learn how to maximize the sympneumatic energy. Whatever Oliphant said to convince Massey face-to-face, it eventually worked. By February 1, 1888, Massey had zealously pledged to join Oliphant and travel to Haifa to assist him with his elaborate social “experiment” there and to “follow his [Oliphant’s] spiritual fortunes had he recovered.”24 While Massey was zealous to participate in this new social experiment, it never came to fruition because on December 23, 1888, Oliphant passed away. The week before Oliphant’s death, Massey held an hour meeting with him; it was apparently in this face-to-face meeting that Oliphant had managed to convince him to travel to Haifa and join the Household community. Thus, Massey serves an example of how Oliphant recruited “enlightened” individuals into his community and, more importantly, how he brought up the sympneumatic sex question which became the core doctrine of this new movement. While Oliphant excessively explained what the sympneumata can do throughout his printed writings (and even in his private letters to Massey), he was careful never to clearly explain the process of which acts it consists of. This was no doubt influenced by the prevailing Victorian morality code of the day where sexuality was rarely openly discussed; however, there are several historical views of Oliphant’s teachings. Actually, it can be argued that there were many different ideas about what the sympneumata  Ibid., p. 214  Ibid. 23  Ibid., pp. 221–222. 24  Ibid., pp. 59, 209. 21 22

4  CHARLES CARLETON MASSEY (1838–1905) 45

Fig. 4.1  A picture of Charles Carleton Massey included in his post-humous collection of writings titled Thoughts of a Modern Mystic: A Selection from the Writings of the late C. C. Massey (London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Trübner & Co., 1909)

consisted of depending on who was being asked. Some of these differing views will now be explored as they each reveal a unique interpretation and description of this secretive and covert religious act (Fig. 4.1).

References Lavoie, Jeffrey D. 2020. George William Allen and Christian Socialism: A Study of the Christ-Theosophical Society. London: Academica Press. ———. 2015. A Search for Meaning in Victorian Religion: The Spiritual Journey and Esoteric Teachings of Charles Carleton Massey. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press.

  46

J. D. LAVOIE

Letter from Charles Carleton Massey to Frederic W. Myers (February 8, 1885): Cambridge University Special Archives 3: 25. Printed Courtesy of the Master and Fellows of Trinity College Cambridge. Supplementary Library Catalogue. 1888. In Journal of Society for Psychical Research 3: 52, 304. Thoughts of a Modern Mystic: A Selection from the Writings of C.  C. Massey, ed. W. F. Barrett. 1909. London: Kegan Paul.

CHAPTER 5

Rosamond Dale Owen (1846–1937)

Abstract  This chapter examines Oliphant’s second wife, Rosamond Dale Owen. Owen was the daughter of the famous commune leader Robert Dale Owen and was the granddaughter of Robert Owen both of whom were leaders of New Harmony in Indiana. This section focuses on her brief marriage to Oliphant which occurred just before he passed away in 1888. Special focus is placed on her early interpretation of the sympneumata (or her “misunderstanding” of it) as well as her later move away from it toward a more abstinence approach to sexuality (at least anything outside of traditional marriage). Keywords  Rosamond Dale Owen • Marriage • Christianity • New Harmony Rosamond Dale Owen (1846–1937) became Oliphant’s second’s wife when the two were joined in holy matrimony on August 16, 1888. Rosamond was an obvious choice for Oliphant; after all, she had experience in facilitating a large commune growing up under her father’s and grandfather’s shadows, both of whom were successful leaders of the New Harmony utopian community in Indiana (IN). Additionally, she was a well-recognized spiritualist lecturer and a respected writer and artist as well as a social reformer. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. D. Lavoie, Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0_5

47

48  

J. D. LAVOIE

Meeting Her First Husband Oliphant was introduced to Rosamond via a mutual friend named James Murray Templeton (explored more fully in the next chapter). Templeton had met Rosamond in 1884 during her first visit to Glasgow, Scotland. Apparently, Rosamond had always dreamed of visiting her ancestral home where her great-grandfather, David Dale had become a sort of living legend among the townsfolk; he was well known as one of “Glasgow’s most eminent citizens.”1 In addition to this familial pilgrimage, she also made time to visit among some of the local spiritualist groups and even lectured on such topics as “Man’s Spiritual Possibilities” and “What the Spirits Have Taught Me.”2 She made quite an impression on this Glasgow group as one observer recounted that “her face…lit up at times with trust and hope, like some of the Madonna’s of the old masters.”3 It was at one such spiritualist meeting where she first met the young son of one of Glasgow’s most renowned merchants—a youthful James Templeton. Templeton had initially visited the group in order to hear Rosamond’s speech; however, he was also on his own spiritual journey in search of solid proof for the return of spirit and spiritualism as a whole.4 There is little doubt that it was this shared interest in the spiritualist ideas and a love for art that formed the foundation of their friendship. Over time, Templeton corresponded with Rosamond; he lived in Paris, which was the art epicenter of the Western World, while Rosamond returned to the spiritual New Harmony compound in Indiana. It was through this ongoing communication that Templeton noticed something peculiar: there was a direct connection between the sympneumatic teachings of his recently widowed mentor, Laurence Oliphant and Rosamond’s own views on sexual practice and reform. As such, Templeton  James Robertson, Spiritualism: The Open Door to the Unseen Universe (London: L. N. Fowler & Co., 1908), p. 158. 2  Robertson, Spiritualism, p. 161. 3  Robertson, Spiritualism, p. 160. 4  Following this meeting in Glasgow, Templeton experienced several sittings in London. Perhaps, most notable was one that was performed on June 11, 1885, where he with the famous (or infamous) slate medium Eglinton. This incident was recorded by Frank Podmore in the second volume of his groundbreaking book Modern Spiritualism. See Frank Podmore, Modern Spiritualism: A History and a Criticism, vol. 2 (London: Methuen & Co., 1902), pp. 213–215. 1

5  ROSAMOND DALE OWEN (1846–1937) 49

dutifully shared Rosamond’s information with Oliphant and proceeded to tell him all about her life, her familial position, and the connections she had with the New Harmony commune.5 Oliphant’s interest was piqued, and he proceeded to reach out to her by mailing Rosamond a copy of his religious manifesto Scientific Religion (1888). Rosamond devoured this work and determined that the two should meet in person; thus, in July of 1888, Oliphant visited New Harmony, Indiana. It was during this initial meet and greet that Oliphant invited Rosamond to move to Palestine with him. Rosamond impulsively agreed and ten days later they set sail out of New York together. Not long afterward, on August 16, 1888, they joined in holy matrimony in Malvern. However, there was something slightly unusual about this marriage. Researcher Silke Tornede identified this in her master’s degree thesis, claiming that this relationship had little to do with love, as underneath it was a marriage of convenience. Tornede claimed this is evidenced by the terms Oliphant used for his new bride including such names as “helpmate” and “child.” This convenience element was further illustrated by Oliphant’s belief that Rosamond’s role was to strengthen his relationship with his dearly departed first wife and counterpart—Alice. Thus, Rosamond played more of an assistant’s role than she ever did as a wife. Furthermore, Rosamond was constantly reminded that she could never replace the position of Oliphant’s first wife (and passionate lovegiver). At first, Rosamond became frustrated at this close intimate spiritual connection between Oliphant and his first wife, for she had come to genuinely love her new husband. She looked at his figure and was “tempted to cry out: Give me the right of possession, do not ask me to serve as the handmaiden of another woman dead and out of sight.”6 Yet, ultimately, Rosamond rationalized her situation and believed it was God’s task for her to serve this new husband for the greater cause of Christianity. In terms of being an “evenly matched” couple, nothing could be further from the truth. Oliphant was fifty-nine years old, handsome,  Robertson, Spiritualism, p. 165.  Rosamond Dale Owen, My Perilous Life in Palestine (New York: Duffield & Co., 1929), p. 21. 5 6

50  

J. D. LAVOIE

and dignified; he possessed a long silver-silky beard and a well-fitted black suit. He was an English gentleman in every sense of the word, experienced in diplomacy and easy to talk to. Contrary to this dashing English gentleman, stood Rosamond: forty-two years old and she made her debut in England as an aloof, clumsy, and awkward-looking lady; her clothes appeared baggy, and homemade as they represented an illfitted fashion style. It was obvious that Rosamond cared little for her physical appearance as she shunned mainstream materialism. These two could not be more opposite in their appearance and attitude; however, they shared a similar passion for sexual reform within their religious practice.7 It is a pity that this pair did not have much time to get to know one another; as it was roughly only forty-eight hours after being married, that Oliphant fell ill. For four months, Rosamond took on the role as an attentive and dutiful wife stationed at his bedside all hours of the day and night, but on December 23, 1888, the inevitable occurred—Oliphant passed away. For most of their time spent together Oliphant was sick; still, by this point Rosamond possessed some idea as to what his sympneumata philosophy was all about. Thus, after his death she attempted to revise her role in this new religious movement/community. In her autobiography (which was written when Rosamond was over eighty years of age), she writes at length concerning her own beliefs on sexuality observing that “sex sins are the most dangerous sins on earth.”8 In this work, she recounts a conversation she had with her husband aboard their steamer en route to Palestine. She asked Oliphant why he set these groups of single men and women to live together in the first place. His response appears to be an apologetic and romanticized explanation for the sympneumata process. Clearly, this wife wished to defend her husband and his teachings from any outside criticism. According to Rosamond, Oliphant responded to her sheepishly: So, I have tried to push the world on a little faster by placing two or three young couples, who were not married, in a tempting proximity in order to teach them the habit of self-control.

7  Silke Tornede, In Search of Arcadia: The Life of Rosamond Dale Owen Oliphant Templeton, 1846–1937 (Master of Arts, Department of History, Indiana University (May 1992)), pp. 83–86. 8  Owen, My Perilous Life in Palestine, p. 23.

5  ROSAMOND DALE OWEN (1846–1937) 51

Laurence asked: “Do you think that this was a wise course to take? I, like Murray, have come to trust your judgment as I trust the wisdom of no other mortal creature; so tell me, dear one, do you think I was right or wrong?”9 To this question, Rosamond responded with the following “prayerful thoughts”: No, absolutely no. It is clear to me that if you have been misled, as I believe you have been. Then the mistake you have made is to your credit, in this sense: Having had the strength of will to become complete master of yourself, you have believed that other more ordinary men would do likewise. So, I do not condemn you, but I honour you, even though it seems to me you have made a mistake…and for this reason: As only our God can search the human soul to its depth, it seems to me that you have been wrongfully seeking to assume his prerogative.10

By her own admission, all of this sympneumata business was the result of a slight misunderstanding on her husband’s part. A misunderstanding that was performed by over-estimating the character of the various men and women who joined the Household. While Rosamond was aware of the process that Oliphant referred to as “sympneumatic groups,” there was also some sexual component that Rosamond herself did not seemingly agree with. When considering the much later date of this publication, Rosamond’s “slight misunderstanding” excuse appears just a bit too convenient; this is more than likely a later public relations spin in order to recast Oliphant’s reputation in a positive view (after all this biography was published in 1928—roughly forty years after the events recorded in it took place). It could even be debated whether this conversation actually took place or if this merely served as a literary vehicle used by an older Rosamond to defend her first husband’s reputation and spiritual legacy. At a minimum, it can be concluded that Rosamond was aware that Laurence performed such experiments with different couples (and this appeared to be her way of salvaging her husband’s legacy); any required 9

 Ibid., p. 24.  Ibid., pp. 24–25.

10

52  

J. D. LAVOIE

guilt that came from his actions was merely the result of naivety and his high moral character. As if this defense were not suspicious enough, Oliphant’s supposed response to this question remains suspect as well. He “speaks” as if he had never really thought about these implications to any great degree and that, in the end, Rosamond was the one who had finally enlightened him to his erring ways. Rosamond recorded Oliphant’s apparent conclusion to all of this: “I think you are right and it is an immense relief to me to believe that you are. A weight has dropped from my shoulders, Yes, I see that we must let God manage His own children in His own way as usual, it is conceit which has misled me. I thought I could improve on God’s methods and hurry his work.”11 Intriguingly enough, this biography was published later in the twentieth century when Rosamond’s theology was a bit more orthodox and less experimental than it was at this earlier interval. For example, in 1922 Rosamond put together her own philosophy that she revealed through the publication of a massive book entitled The Mediators and Duality. This work, she maintained, was divinely inspired “from above” and went on to label her unusual form of Christian teachings that favored strenuous work/devotion and concentrative prayer as being a “common-sense religion.”12 Over time, Rosamond’s views of Christianity became more evangelical and thereby orthodox; she even crossed the line into religious exclusivism believing that Christianity was the only acceptable religion for faith and practice (and, as a result, all other religious traditions were inferior). As such, she made it her mission in these later years to convert Jews and Muslims to the Christian faith and to make Christianity the dominant religion of Palestine. There is little doubt that this extreme Christians lens filtered these later writings as well as her own recollection of memories as reported in this autobiography. This brings up a key point in Oliphant’s own philosophy; he was passionate about converting the Arabs and Palestinians as well. However, he wanted to convert them to his unique view of Christian mysticism (not the orthodox view that his wife would later espouse). He held a special place  Owen, My Perilous Life in Palestine, p. 25.  Rosamond Dale Owen, The Mediators and Duality: A Synopsis (Beirut: American College Press, 1922), p. 7. 11 12

5  ROSAMOND DALE OWEN (1846–1937) 53

for the Jews in his teachings as he believed they would become the vessels to deliver his new religious teachings and sympneumatic commune-living lifestyle to the masses; Oliphant maintained that the Jews were intimately responsible for the elevation of humanity to this new higher condition that he commonly referenced.13 Thus, his wife took on his same mission only with a different theological interpretation of the Bible. There is a drastic shift that takes place in Rosamond’s theology from the years 1895 to 1919. She becomes more aggressive and sends out various letters and pamphlets to “men of influence” to convince them of the righteousness of her cause and her “Christian” spiritual mission to religiously dominate the land of Palestine. Despite her best efforts, she had very limited success in her proselytization process. Rosamond strived to preserve the Jewish national culture and traditions while changing their religious beliefs to Christianity. Still, in fairness to Rosamond, this view of Western superiority was reflected in many other missionaries from this time period as well. As for Rosamond’s personal views of sexuality, they fit in more with the seemingly fictitious conversation she had with Oliphant than to his actual views. She took an abstinence approach toward sexuality at least until marriage; once married sex must be viewed as form of worship to God. She believed “that no mates should ever permit a sex sensation to surge through them…until prayer has spiritualized their passion. Only in the presence of God may a legitimate caress be given. When this injunction is obeyed love will no longer incline brute-ward, but will rise angel-ward.”14 Rosamond’s goal was to attack the central citadel of Satan himself and to rescue sex in order to reclaim it in the name of Jesus. She agreed with her husband’s idea that “sex, hallowed, would save the world”; however, “it must [first] be made safe through sanctity.”15 For “the sacred truth [was] that only a pure bridal love could save the world, and that this divine Passion is vouchsafed only when self is banished and God enters, unhindered” (these lines might have been written by Oliphant himself though minus the word “bridal” of course!).16 However,  Oliphant, Scientific Religion, pp. 310–311.  Owen, My Perilous Life in Palestine, p. 159. 15  Owen, Clarice, p. 132. 16  Ibid., p. 134. 13 14

54  

J. D. LAVOIE

Rosamond took this “conclusion” in a very different direction than her first husband would have approved, for she came to espouse the following unusual belief: that babies who were “conceived” at the exact moment while their parents were in prayer and/or worshipping God, that these creatures would become more spiritually pure than those who were not conceived in a similar manner. Thus, she viewed sex as a spiritual process that resulted in “a purer race being born” and the only way “the world [can] be best cleansed from sin.” Then she asked of her readers: “Are you willing to help in this work?”17 Rosamond maintained that marriage is a sacrament and an important part of possessing the true Christian faith.18 During the initial four-month period, while she took care of her dying first husband, Rosamond wrote to one of Oliphant’s most dedicated followers (Grubbe) explaining their position related to the sympneumata and its practical application. She wrote in a metaphorical code using the analogy of painting to describe the sex act: With regard to the difficulty of stopping when one is wraft in the joy of expressing [orgasm?], in seeking to express something of the divine- that is just where the training comes in, but for instance after a year or two of such training you will find that you have cleared away a lot of rubbish from the passage ways of your soul and that God can transmit Himself through you more perfectly.19

Thus, she suggested a form of sexual continence; Rosamond went on to explain that there were certain rewards to developing this mental and spiritual discipline: Your pictures by degrees, slow it may be and with many backsets, nevertheless surely, will gradually come to have a potency, a something which will make men ashamed of evil. A man who cannot perfectly control himself in every manifestation, cannot radiate far-reaching spiritual waves; the softest sound from the perfectly trained throat of a Patri (?) fills an immense building if he had no power of muscular control this would be impossible.  Owen, My Perilous Life in Palestine, p. 159.  Ibid., p. 160. 19  Letter from Rosamond Dale Owen Oliphant to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [November 11, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 17 18

5  ROSAMOND DALE OWEN (1846–1937) 55

It is not hard to shout and bang either physically or spiritually, strength is shown by that which we can stop doing quite as much as by what we can do.20

One can notice how discreetly the code for sexual intercourse is disguised through the analogy of painting a picture: “The next time you are wrapt in your work (or if there is not a sitter to be put out) stop dead short and you will see by the effort that it is soul training.”21 In other words, when you are in normal position where most people cannot stop—stop anyways! This sexual act had a unique name during the Victorian era as it was known as male continence: when one is masturbating it is easy to do this to completion and orgasm, however, “strength is shown by that which we can stop doing.”22 This process harkens back to what an earlier leader named John Humphrey Noyes (1811–1886) suggested in a booklet called Male Continence (1872) that he had circulated among his own free-love commune—the Oneida community out of New York. This continence was part of a much more ancient practice called coitus reservatus—a prolonged condition with no emission of semen and the gradual loss of the erection while the penis is still in the vagina (though this fact seemed relatively unknown at this time as this process is typically associated with Noyes). Therefore, regardless of Rosamond’s later affinities, one learns something new about the sympneumatic force from her writings: mainly, that it is connected to sexual discipline and self-control even if she disagreed as to what that control looked like in practical application. As to openly suggesting these practices to others, Rosamond was aware of the difficulty. She criticized her husband for putting unmarried couples together in scandalous and controversial positions. She also remarked that we tend to judge and attack those we are trying to help, and it is only when “by an effort of prayerful will, project ourselves into their lives and look at the subject from their standpoint” then and only then will we be able to understand their thought process and life decisions. According to Rosamond, when one engages in this process of understanding someone  Ibid.  Ibid. 22  Ibid. 20 21

56  

J. D. LAVOIE

else’s perspective this is a spiritual act and it can only be accomplished with much discipline and training. Rosamond remarked in an earlier letter sent to one of Oliphant’s disciples in November of 1889: But this I think we must always bear in mind, the utmost we can do is not to hinder God. We are instruments, conductors…each human being is a bit of God, overlaid it may be, but divine at the core, and we can only know God by entering into subjective sympathy with these fragments- of the divine which surround us and thus making a complete mosaic of the bitswhich seem without completeness of form until they are thus set in the universal picture. For six years, I have been trying to learn this and yet again and again I am overcome with an almost sickening sense of failure, it is so easy to hammer away at people from one’s own vantage ground, so difficult to look at the world from their stand-point...perhaps entirely different from one’s own. We are so apt to hand a telescope to the man examining a water drop and a microscope to the man who is gazing at a star.23

This excerpt indirectly serves as Rosamond’s critique of Oliphant’s sympneumatic process: it misses the mark! It is like handing a telescope to someone examining a drop of water or giving a microscope to the man gazing at a star—that is, the wrong tools and process to really understanding the true sexual role of the human race. While Oliphant’s beliefs were controversial, his second wife attempted to smooth them over in her autobiography. Also, Rosamond identifies a connection between the sympneumata, sexuality, and discipline/control. She further confirms that Oliphant created several sympneumatic groups for the purpose of building self-control in these young couples; however, how these groups actually functioned remains a mystery. Indeed, more information is found when one considers the writings of Rosamond’s second husband, a close follower of her late husband, a young painter and artist named James Murray Templeton. An examination of his life will shed even more light on the mysterious practice of the sympneumatic act (Fig. 5.1).

23  Letter from Rosamond Dale Owen Oliphant to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [November 11, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie.

5  ROSAMOND DALE OWEN (1846–1937) 57

Fig. 5.1  A photo of Rosamond Dale Owen date unknown. (Courtesy of the David L. Rice Library University Archives and Special Collections at the University of Southern Indiana)

  58

J. D. LAVOIE

References Letter from Rosamond Dale Owen Oliphant to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [November 11, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Owen, Rosamond Dale. 1922. The Mediators and Duality: A Synopsis. Beirut: American College Press. ———. 1929. My Perilous Life in Palestine. New York: Duffield & Company. Podmore, Frank. 1902. Modern Spiritualism: A History and a Criticism, 2 vols., II. London: Methuen & Company. Robertson, James. 1908. Spiritualism: The Open Door to the Unseen Universe. London: L. N. Fowler & Company. Tornede, Silke. 1992. In Search of Arcadia: The Life of Rosamond Dale Owen Oliphant Templeton, 1846–1937. Master of Arts, Department of History, Indiana University.

CHAPTER 6

James Murray Templeton (1860–1892)

Abstract  This chapter explores the tragic life of James Murray Templeton and his marriage to Rosamond Dale Owen after Oliphant’s demise. New sources are reprinted in this chapter that reveal the issues he had with Oliphant’s teachings and ideology. Keywords  James Murray Templeton • Artist • Physical

James Murray Templeton (1860–1892) was a dedicated disciple of Laurence Oliphant. He was the only son of John Stuart Templeton a wealthy and prestigious carpet manufacturer from Glasgow, Scotland. Templeton was the chosen heir to inherit the family business and fortune following his father’s demise. Given his family’s success, Templeton grew up in an upper-class household; however, he felt that he did not have the correct temperament and disposition to carry on the family business. He even came to resent his family’s success, affluent status, and privilege. Instead, he favored the life of their factory workers and their humble conditions. This conflicting worldview created a wedge between Templeton and his father: there was a tension between what his family wanted him to

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. D. Lavoie, Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0_6

59

60  

J. D. LAVOIE

do and what he personally felt passionate about—which was painting and art.1 Templeton possessed some natural artistic talent; however, as one snarky researcher noted: his “desire to paint was not matched by his ability”; thus, it was implied that Templeton was not a very gifted artist.2 Still, his father paid the way for him to study in Paris and London throughout the 1870s. In 1888, Templeton moved to Paris in order to fully pursue his artistic career. It was here on the streets of Paris where he first met Oliphant and was introduced to one of Oliphant’s followers—a fellow painter by the name of Laurence Carrington Grubbe (who will be explored in a later chapter). After having studied under Oliphant for a short while, Templeton entered into one of his sympneumatic groups. He became part of a group along with a female artist named Jennie Tuttle—though the two likely lived with several other couples or single men as well. Given his faith in Oliphant’s teachings, Templeton prepared to travel to Palestine with his friend Grubbe; however, during their journey Oliphant passed away. The two decided to continue to their destination anyways and met up with Oliphant’s second wife Rosamond who became the unofficial leader of The Household following her husband’s demise. After all, they had already embarked on this exciting journey, and they might as well see it through. The pair arrived at Oliphant’s 200-acre compound on Friday, February 8, 1889, where they lived along with several other individuals. At first, they kept busy by exploring the vast estate and the surrounding villages; they went for long horse rides together and spent much time painting and sketching. However, eventually, Rosamond returned home and Templeton’s dear friend Grubbe became suspicious of her and her teachings (especially the physical sympneumatic force). Grubbe soon left Palestine shortly after arriving; however, Templeton remained there indefinitely and ended up marrying Rosamond—the teacher’s second wife and widow. About six months later in 1890, Templeton reached out to Grubbe sending him a letter to discuss the possibility of him returning to Haifa. He also explained their new stance against the physical transmission of the sympneumata (which seemingly was the main reason why Grubbe had left). Templeton wrote: “We…are entirely opposed to any physical transmission of the sympneumatic force; but more and more is given to us to 1 2

 Schneider, Prophet and Pilgrim, p. 404.  Taylor, Laurence Oliphant, p. 242.

6  JAMES MURRAY TEMPLETON (1860–1892) 61

know how real, how essentially divine, is this thing. Yet there is no subject more dangerous, more capable of perversion, none whereby one may climb to such heights of prayers of pure and holy thinking and doing.”3 It is curious that Templeton admits the sympneumata was “dangerous” and “capable of perversion” (this is apparently not an act that could be dismissed as a simple misunderstanding as Rosamond had suggested). Templeton went on to explain that: After going home some months ago … I came here to Paris and had some most marvelous experiences and revelations all alone by myself. I wish that I could convey to you some of this knowledge not gained in a day, neither without the strongest most patient endeavor the soul can make. I could explain a good deal to you, and there have certainly been errors, but in the main “Scientific Religion” is right. You have been unfortunate, still in a manner your previous life may account for some portion of this. I should be so sorry if you entirely give up thinking of this subject, even if only to be the more conclusively opposed to the matter in its spiritual elements as relating to the creations of ideas and pictures etc. There are so many wonderful developments, so great a blessing in the constant presence of one’s beloved friends and guides on the other side. If you should wish to ask me anything, by all means do so.4

Templeton attempts to bring Grubbe back into the Household with promises of “wonderful developments” and “great blessings” via his new revelations. He applauds Oliphant’s Scientific Religion as a textbook for spiritual evolution, but he has also learned some important lessons that he wants to share in-person with Grubbe. Nevertheless, Grubbe remained unconvinced and sent the following response: I cannot but thank you much I could not “cease to think of these things” if I wished. My inability to appreciate the sympneumatic ideas however as you would have…remains the same as when I left Syria. It maybe as you suggest my misfortune, or it may be my fault. That there are certain strange sensations and experiences which apparently belong to some and not to others and ones certainly inexplicable to me. I am as aware as I was this time last year, but of their source and meaning I am ignorant and therefore dare not

3  Letter from James Murray Templeton to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [March 2, 1890]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 4  Ibid.

62  

J. D. LAVOIE

trust them. Is it wise to submit oneself to unrecognizable influences of such a kind?5

Grubbe mentions the nature of the sympneumata, and their hesitancy to talk openly about sexuality was very typical within this time period. Sex remained a taboo subject in a culture that was steeped in a code of morality and popular Judeo-Christian values. Regardless, Grubbe does not trust the origin of these teachings and remains suspicious. Templeton, on the other hand, remained firmly convinced of the power and source of the sympneumata; he maintained that it provided him with the “power” of control that he had been seeking (the end result worked for him even though the process might have been questionable): With regard to my own experience, I am absolutely certain that the trial Laurence suggested has taught me a far greater self-control, and it would grieve me deeply…as I settled myself…I remembered that I [sought]…to live a pure life. My relation to Jennie had been the outcome of this desire; I had connected to our intimacy solely because I wished to use it as a means of fortifying my self-control. It may have been, taken it altogether, a mistaken means, but it certainly was not a self-indulgent course to take- quite the contrary for it entailed a severe struggle and I, may say, a successful one.6

Some valuable information is contained in this correspondence: that the sympneumata was connected to strange sensations and experience; we also learn that it was no longer being applied physically thereby showing a move away from the “physical” (i.e., sexual) impartation that Oliphant had set up. As Templeton’s writings are examined, there appears to be another connection to the sympneumata worth mentioning. When he was placed in a sympneumatic group he met a young lady named Jennie; she attempted to publicize the teachings of Oliphant which led to a small scandal that nearly ruined Oliphant’s legacy and with it his philosophy of the sympneumata. Jennie’s story provides a more critical view of the sympneumatic force, and it also sheds more light onto its practice (Fig. 6.1).

5  Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to James Murray Templeton [March 23, 1890]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 6  Owen, My Perilous Life in Palestine, p. 79.

6  JAMES MURRAY TEMPLETON (1860–1892) 63

Fig. 6.1  A portrait of James Murray Templeton. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)

References Lawton, Herbert W., and George Schneider. 1942. A Prophet and a Pilgrim: Being the Incredible History of Thomas Lake Harris and Laurence Oliphant. Columbia University Press. Letter from James Murray Templeton to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [March 2, 1890]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie.

  64

J. D. LAVOIE

Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to James Murray Templeton [March 23, 1890]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Owen, Rosamond Dale. 1929. My Perilous Life in Palestine. New York: Duffield & Company. Taylor, Anne. 1982. Laurence Oliphant, 1829–1888. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CHAPTER 7

Jennie Tuttle

Abstract  This chapter highlights Jennie’s role in the early Household and her sexual connection to Laurence Oliphant. Her broken engagement to James Murray Templeton further fueled her desire to cause a scandal with the Household and especially its leader Laurence Oliphant. She does not explain as to what the sympneumatic act consisted; however, it was clearly sexual in nature (and apparently quite scandalous). Keywords  Jennie Tuttle • Glasgow • National Vigilance Alliance (NVA) • Arthur Guthrie • Charles Allen In 1887, Oliphant had met a widowed artist named Jennie Tuttle as he was preparing for his return to Haifa. He recruited her to his mystical mission, but eventually she detracted and attempted to start a scandal relating to the sympneumatic process. Unfortunately, by this time Oliphant was too sick to respond to her accusations and finally passed away; this forced these allegations to be largely dismissed since Oliphant was not around to defend himself and the case was largely a “he said-she said” sort. Yet, Jennie’s accusations reveal a critical and physical description of the sympneumata and its practice which is invaluable for this study (even if she did take them out of their religious context). Jennie was assigned to the same sympneumatic group as the young, dashing, and wealthy James Templeton. The two lived in close proximity © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. D. Lavoie, Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0_7

65

66  

J. D. LAVOIE

to each other and practiced the sympneumata together (which held some form of sensations and feelings related to sexuality, breathing, and discipline). Elsewhere, Oliphant made reference to “quartettes” as he had several different couples living in similar types of arrangement trying to overcome their lust; in order to develop self-discipline they were engaging in the sympneumatic act as a form of pure worship to the Divine. At the beginning of their meetings, Oliphant outlined the sympneumatic process to Jennie; she later explained feeling shocked to hear a spiritual leader speak in such a way. Still, Jennie “felt such confidence in his extreme spirituality and such reverence for him as teacher” that she believed this shocking information might come from her own unevolved, misunderstanding of higher spiritual ideals.1 Whatever her later explanation might be, it seems obvious that she was plainly told what the sympneumatic act consisted of and yet she did not choose to leave the Household. According to her later testimony, Jennie believed that her understanding of the process would change over time as she learned and practiced these sympneumatic teachings; however, this was not the case. Soon Jennie claimed that Oliphant took advantage of her sexually and together they had even gone so far as to engage in sexual intercourse. This intercourse accusation is suspicious given Oliphant’s alleged syphilis, but this cannot be proven (or disproven) at this late stage. Regardless as to what this sympneumatic act consisted of, this activity appeared consensual as Jennie hoped “that the personal touch would bring about the sympneumata for which she so longed.”2 Furthermore, Jennie claimed that Oliphant wanted her to engage in sexual intercourse with other men and to “share her bed with them.”3 This brazen request pushed her to leave Paris as she came to believe that there was nothing spiritual about Oliphant or his teachings and that “it was all of the flesh.”4 While this might seem incriminating at first glance, there are more details to this story. It has already been noted that Jennie was placed in close proximity to James Templeton so they could work on the sympneumatic force together. Over time, Jennie become smitten with Templeton who again was the chosen heir of his father’s successful business, wealth, and estate (plus he was considered quite handsome). It did not take long  Strachey, Group Movements of the Past, p. 222.  Ibid. 3  Ibid. 4  Ibid. 1 2

7  JENNIE TUTTLE 67

for these two to become engaged to be married; however, this amicable relationship would not last very long as something began to go wrong. It is at this part where the story becomes a bit confusing. What is known is that Templeton was the one to break off the engagement. Jennie claimed it was due to her refusal to continue living and working with Laurence Oliphant that ultimately pushed Templeton to break up with her; whereas, Templeton claimed this dissolution came from a disagreement between Jennie and himself. Apparently, Jennie wanted them to return to Glasgow and his family’s estate and business so they could live out the privileged aristocratic lifestyle. However, as already noted, this was not the type of life Templeton desired; therefore, the engagement was broken off because Jennie did not share his counter-social revolutionary ideas. Regardless of whose version of the story is correct, the engagement was eventually broken, and Jennie felt that she had been wronged through this process. As a result, she flew to Glasgow and caused a scene among the Templeton family and their neighbors and workers. Naturally, Templeton believed this was Jennie extracting her revenge by inventing wild stories and interpretations about his beloved teacher (Oliphant) and his mystical teachings. Jennie inflicted as much damage as possible; she even decided to go to the press and write a pamphlet “exposing” all of Oliphant’s twisted and perverted teachings. She wrote to a mutual friend (Laurence Grubbe) inquiring if he would back her up and bear witness to what took place during their time together. Grubbe refused to be a part of this “circus” and claimed that he would “not enter into any discussion touching the private affairs of others.”5 He did not think it fair to attack Oliphant seeing as he was no longer alive to defend himself; Grubbe even went on to say that he had observed nothing suspicious during his time with Oliphant or in Haifa and that she had probably misunderstood Oliphant’s views (or the intentions behind them). Still, something sexual took place even though it appeared consensual and not performed with any malice or ill intent. Grubbe’s firm resolve might have convinced Jennie not to write the pamphlet, but she was still hell-bent on destroying Oliphant’s reputation in any way that she could. Afterall, according to her story, Jennie’s entire life had been ruined when Templeton left her and chose to live with 5  Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Mrs. Tuttle [May 26, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie.

68  

J. D. LAVOIE

Oliphant instead. Another follower of Oliphant, an organ player and artist named Rev. James A.  Allan wrote in a private letter about how Jennie approached him to testify against Oliphant in May of 1889. Allan wrote that: she saw at first that I wasn’t prepared to swallow all she said (especially where her statements came into direct contradiction with Templeton’s and Mrs. O’s) without confirmation where upon she took offence and refused to inflict upon me the sickening details she seems to have told to others of her experiences with Oliphant and Templeton for which I was truly thankful, so that I know nothing of what her statement contains- or to what extent her relations with Templeton as the people who have heard her story- take their cue from her and won’t tell me what she had told them- as they say they have no right to speak of these things if she did not see fit to tell me them herself- which is of course quite a legitimate position to take up- only that they haven’t been at all so honourable in their treatment of confidential letters from Mrs. O. and Templeton.6

Here Allan who was a sympathetic supporter and follower of Oliphant, met with Jennie and merely asked for some proof of her claims. This request made Jennie upset and she refused to keep discussing this subject with Allan nor give him any of the details (which was more than fine with him). Still, her vengeance did not end there, and she went all around town telling any interested party all about Oliphant and how he had set Templeton against her and how he used women to fulfill his own sexual deviancy and gratification.7 Yet, there were even more details to this broken and unfortunate love story. As hinted at in this above quote, something was heating up in Palestine between Templeton and Oliphant’s second wife and widow—Rosamond (who happened to have been quite a bit older than Templeton). Their relationship seems to have been the real source of Jennie’s wrath; for not long afterward the pair joined together in wedded matrimony. As part of Jennie’s scheme to discredit Oliphant and destroy his reputation, she filed a report with the National Vigilance Alliance (NVA), but 6  Letter from James A. Allan to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [May 17, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 7  Templeton himself claimed that: “Jennie was going from house to house among my kindred and friends, and I was told that her story was believed because she was even willing to implicate herself in order to seek to unmask Laurence and to wan my friends into what depth I had fallen through his influence.” Owen, My Perilous Life in Palestine, pp. 76–77.

7  JENNIE TUTTLE 69

nothing seemed to come of it. Anne Taylor in her biography of Oliphant relays some details that questioned Jennie’s claim as it seemed a bit one sided. Taylor explained that the president of the NVA, W.  T. Stead (1849–1912) held some close connections to Thomas Lake Harris and this relationship makes any claims or allegations made by the organization suspicious at best.8 Still there appeared to be something to these allegations. Hannah Smith in her assorted writings claimed that a case had been open regarding Oliphant and allegedly his “corrupting the morals of a minor”; however, Taylor puts these haunting allegations to rest as she discovered there was no such offense in English law at this time (also any allegations written by Hannah are questionable—see next chapter). While these NVA allegations appear to be grounded more in rumor than reliable historical fact, they are valuable for they reveal Jennie’s perception of what Oliphant was doing or attempting to do through his new religious movement. While no written proof remains of what was said by Jennie to the Templeton family and associates, it was licentious enough to prompt Templeton’s parents to force an ultimatum: either he was to leave Oliphant and the Household commune immediately or else he would be disowned by the entire family (and by extension be written out of the will). Given Templeton’s resentment for his family’s privileged position, his choice should not seem all that shocking to the reader: he chose the Oliphant’s spiritual family over his own biological one. This was the most tragic result to come from Jennie’s scandalous accusations: Templeton ultimately was disinherited from his family and tragically died before any reconciliation could be made. A recently discovered letter provides some evidence as to the type of things that Jennie recounted to her would be in-laws and their associates. One of the Templeton’s employees by the name of Arthur Guthrie wrote an accusatory letter after hearing about Jennie’s sexual allegations. By his own admission, Arthur was associated with the Templeton family, as this letter was written on “J and J. S. Templeton Carpeting” stationery. In this letter, Guthrie equated Oliphant’s corrupt teachings to “the horsewhipping of little children by strong men” and noted that he “would fight to the death to put such doctrines down.”9 In fact, he believed that this

 Taylor, Laurence Oliphant, p. 250.  Letter from Arthur Guthrie to Laurence Grubbe [March 8, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 8 9

70  

J. D. LAVOIE

“horsewhipping” illustration was mild when compared to “Laurence Oliphant’s creed and conduct” which was both “brutal” and “devilish.”10 Guthrie continued to call Oliphant a “beast [who] took pure-minded girls and under the plea of leading them on to a mystical purity, made them bit by bit bend to his sensual will.”11 Furthermore, these were acts of a “moral and spiritual fiendishness for which” he could “find no physical illustration- the torturing of little children is nothing to it!”12 Guthrie concluded the letter by noting the sexual nature of these actions threatening that “we shall send out a few of our worst Harlots to mission among you at Haifa  – they could teach you purity.”13 This gives the reader a glimpse into what the process of the sympneumatic act looked like to someone who did not understand the spiritual purpose behind it (or did not want to)—it was not about a sacred sort of sexual purity, rather it was about Oliphant’s sexual deviancy and desires. In the end, Jennie Tuttle would go on to find love once again through her later marriage to one Charles Allen from Glasgow (the same city that the Templeton family lived in).14 Allen has been described as a “rich young man” and “a fine young fellow” and together they lived out a “very comfortable existence”; thus, in the end Jennie found happiness and Templeton’s mind was put to rest.15 Yet, something was certainly going on in Haifa, but no one seemed to know exactly what was taking place outside of the Household. This chapter has revealed more information about the sympneumatic touch: that it is connected to sexuality, and it was something that when not properly understood in context would rile people up under the prevailing Victorian moral system. For if one told the act of the sympneumatic touch—the how without the why—then it would make Oliphant and his teachings look perverted and scandalous. Jennie Tuttle was the first to exploit this idea regardless of what her true motivations were for doing so. While she was the first to question the sympneumatic touch, she would not be the last. Years later a book was published by a religious writer named Hannah Whitall Smith; she would question the infamous  Ibid.  Ibid. 12  Ibid. 13  Ibid. 14  Schneider, A Prophet and a Pilgrim, p. 416n. 15  Owen, My Perilous Life in Palestine, p. 109. 10 11

7  JENNIE TUTTLE 71

Fig. 7.1  Pencil drawing of Rev. James A.  Allan, one of the members of the Household as drawn by L.  C. Grubbe. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)

sympneumatic touch and forever taint Oliphant’s legacy. This revelation deserves consideration as it also provides further information on how the sympneumatic touch was practiced and passed on (Fig. 7.1).

References Lawton, Herbert W., and George Schneider. 1942. A Prophet and a Pilgrim: Being the Incredible History of Thomas Lake Harris and Laurence Oliphant. Columbia University Press. Letter from Arthur Guthrie to Laurence Grubbe [March 8, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Letter from James A. Allan to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [May 17, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Letter. from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Mrs. Tuttle [May 26, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie.

  72

J. D. LAVOIE

Owen, Rosamond Dale. 1929. My Perilous Life in Palestine. New York: Duffield & Company. Strachey, Ray. 1928. Group Movements of the Past and Experiments in Guidance. London: Faber and Faber. Taylor, Anne. 1982. Laurence Oliphant, 1829–1888. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CHAPTER 8

Hannah Whitall Smith (1832–1911)

Abstract  This section explores Hannah Whitall Smith’s early interactions with Oliphant at the onset of this new religious movement. Oliphant was on furlough and attempting to recruit for the Household; however, he seemed to have infuriated Smith who made it her mission to destroy his reputation. Smith also recorded a rumor as to what the sympneumatic act consisted of and why it was supposedly practiced in the manner that it was. Keywords  Hannah Whitall Smith • The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life (1875) • Robert Pearsall Smith (1827–1898) • Ray Strachey (1887–1940) • François Marcellin Certain de Canrobert (1809–1895) Hannah Whitall Smith (1832–1911) was a lay leader in the nineteenth-­ century holiness movement; she is best known for her book The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life (1875) which was published in over thirty English-­language editions and has remained a devotional classic for over a century. This accessible work suggests a practical form of holiness (albeit a bit extreme). Despite her religious following, by the end of her life, Hannah’s theology had shifted to become more universalistic

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. D. Lavoie, Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0_8

73

74  

J. D. LAVOIE

and inclusive than many of her evangelical peers would have preferred. Even today her works are reprinted by evangelical associations that conveniently leave out any of her writings on universal salvation (they seem to prefer exclusivism over Smith’s inclusivism). By her own admission, Hannah started off as an open-minded spiritual seeker looking to experience the reality of the Divine Being. While she might have started off as a religious seeker, Hannah soon became more rigid and critical using her fame as a platform to deconstruct certain religious movements of which she disapproved. Hannah was married to Robert Pearsall Smith (1827–1898); together these two became popular speakers for the higher life/holiness movement; this platform lasted until her husband’s chronic adultery made them lose credibility among their peers and followers. Still, Hannah continued to promote her feminist views though her various solo-speaking engagements and published works. Given her early journey for spiritual meaning/truth, she became interested in new contemporaneous Christian movements. She wrote numerous papers critiquing these Victorian religious groups; eventually these articles were collected and published posthumously in 1928 by her granddaughter and feminist leader named Ray Strachey (1887–1940). While Strachey published the papers that she deemed most important and relevant under the title Religious Fanaticism, many were not able to be included in this posthumous publication (in 1934, a second edition was published and retitled Group Movements of the Past). It is curious that Hannah’s own daughter was very familiar with Oliphant as her first husband B.  F. C.  Costelloe was allegedly the lawyer that represented the plaintiff in a case pending against Oliphant at the time of his death (though the nature of this charge is unknown).1 Thus, this publication represents a family bias against Oliphant that extends back at least three generations. In this book, Hannah recounts her “privileged” meetings with Oliphant that occurred on several occasions. It must be noted, that while Hannah recorded these experiences, she never actually published them. Instead she left these materials behind for her heirs to sift through, edit, and print them at a much later date. Hannah cautioned them about the timing of such a publication: “You must not publish them until after I am dead…nor until all the people I mention are 1

 Schneider, A Prophet and a Pilgrim, pp. 114, 375.

8  HANNAH WHITALL SMITH (1832–1911) 75

dead. But then I think they ought to be published…I think these things ought to be known, for they are a snare to so many poor, innocent, earnest souls.”2 In this admission, Hannah seemed to be referring specifically to Laurence Oliphant and what she felt was the potential for the tremendous growth of his movement (which she imagined would have increased over the years). By her own reckoning, Hannah’s understanding of Oliphant’s sympneumata “shocked her more than any of the other strange things she had encountered.”3 Hannah’s account of the sympneumata began at her first meeting with Oliphant as described in a letter written on August 1886; Hannah had traveled all the way to Dorking in order to fulfill her curiosity and meet the legendary adventurer, writer, and politician—Laurence Oliphant. At this meeting, she recounted that Oliphant had just come back to England from Haifa on a zealous evangelical mission: to put forth a type of “mystic spiritualism of a most peculiar kind. It is set in a book he and his wife wrote in partnership called Sympneumata.”4 After they had eaten dinner with their hosts and company, Oliphant proceeded to entertain the party by reading a lengthy paper that Hannah initially found quite confusing; Oliphant kept talking about “It and He” most of which she “could make neither head nor tail” about; however, by the end of it, she did come to realize one thing—“that the ‘It’ meant the sympneumata [and] it sounded like pure unadulterated trash!”5 Later in these collected writings, she expands upon this initial meeting in more detail. As a follow up to his lecture, Hannah’s friend asked Oliphant what the “it” was meant to mean and how can one go about gaining such power? To this question, Oliphant blushed and replied, “I cannot tell you in this company.” That evening the company went off to bed and the following morning Hannah made Oliphant’s acquaintance again; this time she pressed him to answer this previous night’s question to which he finally acquiesced: “Do you know what I would have answered… His reply was, ‘If I dared to, I would have said, “Come and get into bed with me.”’”6

 Strachey, Group Movements of the Past, p. 16.  Ibid. 4  Ibid., p. 17. 5  Ibid., p. 17. 6  Ibid., p. 225. 2 3

76  

J. D. LAVOIE

Upon hearing this response, Hannah began to lecture Oliphant and inquired if he was afraid of getting into trouble with beliefs such as this; to which Oliphant replied, “yes, there was always that danger, but that the missionary who propagated a new faith, and especially such a splendid faith as the one that he been propagating, must not hesitate at any risk, but must be willing to face martyrdom, if necessary in the cause of truth.”7 This bluntness enlivened Hannah who said, “I am very glad, however, that I know what his teachings really are, as I can warn people more intelligently against them. It seems very sad to see such a really bright and good man so deluded.”8 Religious Fanaticism was published for this exact purpose to expose Oliphant’s Household; however, despite this negative approach, one thing remains clear from this account—this sympneumatic act refers to contact in an intimate setting. Again, Hannah’s book was not formally published until 1928, making it suspicious as there was really no one alive who could verify the veracity of her writings.9 Given this lack of corroboration, Hannah was able to publish any rumor or story she had heard about Oliphant and pass it off as fact. While some of these stories came from a variety of conversations and rumors, many of them came from one singular source, none other than the broken-hearted fiancé herself—Jennie Tuttle. As noted previously, Jennie went before the National Vigilance Association (NVA), but nothing ever came of it due to a lack of evidence. Not surprisingly, Hannah tells a different tale about these events; she recorded that the Vigilance Association of London actually shut the Oliphants down and implied that this was a widely accepted belief at this time (though she offers no citations or proof that can be verified in their present-day records). Hannah explained that Jennie Tuttle had come to her requesting a confidential interview regarding her experiences (while Hannah never mentions Jennie by name, she is clearly the person being referenced in her writings). According to Hannah, Jennie’s story was “sorrowful” recounting that she was originally an art student in Paris and had  Ibid., p. 226.  Ibid. 9  Taylor, Laurence Oliphant, p. 257. 7 8

8  HANNAH WHITALL SMITH (1832–1911) 77

met and become engaged to be married to James Templeton whose family was very wealthy and affluent. However, at the time she was unaware that James was a disciple of Laurence Oliphant. James spoke with great enthusiasm about this new “wonderful” religion that Oliphant had discovered. Jennie was initially impressed by Oliphant’s spirituality as well as the mystery of his teachings. It did not take long before Jennie herself joined the folds of this “new and strange religion.” As noted previously, it was not long after joining that Oliphant started to “take personal liberties” with her; the relationship finally deteriorated when Oliphant “began to urge her to spread the blessing by herself enticing young men into the same relations with her as his own.”10 While every story has two sides to it, it is clear that the sympneumatic touch was related to an intimate act. Whether Jennie felt pressured and manipulated into these acts or whether they were fully consensual (as seems most likely), the truth cannot be known at this late stage. It seems that this sexual act would become a sacrament of sorts for his new religion as he asked Jennie to share this “sympneumatic power” with other members. It is ironic that in Hannah’s aim to stop Oliphant’s religion from growing, she actually recorded one of the clearest practical explanations of the sympneumata available today! Hannah recounted an alleged conversation that took place between her and Marechale Canrobert (1809–1895), who, she assures her readers, had “a great public character.”11 Canrobert was a devoted follower of Oliphant, and, as such, he was hoping to get an invitation to join his community. In this conversation, Canrobert explained that the Oliphants were doing “wonderful missionary work among the Arabs” by imparting to them the “Sympneumata.” He also described that the sympneumatic process “was the coming of the spiritual counterpart to the individual.”12  Strachey, Group Movements of the Past, pp. 221–222.  Ibid., p. 221. Madame Canrobert’s name was only referenced by initials in Smith’s writings; however, through an interview with Mrs. Smith’s daughter this full name was revealed. Not surprisingly her name and information can also be found recorded in John Murray Templeton’s address book as Smith admitted that Canrobert was a devoted follower of the Oliphants. Schneider, A Prophet and a Pilgrim, p. 376 fn. 12  Ibid. 10 11

78  

J. D. LAVOIE

Canrobert went on to give a glimpse into the method of transmission for “the way Mrs. [Alice] Oliphant accomplished this was by getting into bed with these Arabs, no matter how degraded or dirty they were, and the contact of her body brought about, as she supposed, the coming of the counterpart.”13 Canrobert also noted that “It was a great trial to her to do this, and she felt that she was performing a most holy mission. As she was one of the most refined and cultivated of English ladies, it is evident that nothing but a strong sense of duty could have induced her to such a course.”14 Given this detailed description, two key ideas about the sympneumata can be derived from the above accounts: First, there is an element of lying naked with the opposite sex and a touch that takes place. Secondly, Alice Oliphant (and Laurence as well) believed that this was a holy and sacred task. While the truth of this claim remains questionable, it does seem to complement the other sources previously examined. While Hannah explained its practice without providing any spiritual context, nevertheless, at least some idea of how it was passed on is mentioned. Additionally, this could explain how Oliphant’s religious moment began to grow so quickly. Alice had a reputation for being quite beautiful. After all she was marked by Harris to become his own sexual counterpart due to her good looks. Also, the Household found great favor among the Palestinian men; thus, as Hannah noted that “a great many refined people from England joined the Oliphant’s community.”15 At this stage readers have been given a proper contextualization of the world out of which Oliphant and his sympneumata emerged. A fuller understanding of the purpose and role of the sympneumata has been examined as well as what the sympneumatic touch looked like to outsiders and how it was supposedly “imparted” or passed on; however, the final section gives out some very specific information and details with the impartation process and the sympneumata as a whole (Fig. 8.1).

 Ibid.  Ibid. 15  Strachey, Group Movements of the Past, p. 221. 13 14

8  HANNAH WHITALL SMITH (1832–1911) 79

Fig. 8.1  A picture of Hannah Whitall Smith (1887) an outspoken critic of Oliphant’s teachings and The Household. (Image from Mrs. Hannah Whitall Smith the “American Secretary, World’s W. C. T. U.” in Henry William Blair, The Temperance Movement: Or, The Conflict Between Man and Alcohol (Boston: William E. Smythe Company, 1887), p. 259)

  80

J. D. LAVOIE

References Lawton, Herbert W., and George Schneider. 1942. A Prophet and a Pilgrim: Being the Incredible History of Thomas Lake Harris and Laurence Oliphant. Columbia University Press. Strachey, Ray. 1928. Group Movements of the Past and Experiments in Guidance. London: Faber and Faber. Taylor, Anne. 1982. Laurence Oliphant, 1829–1888. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CHAPTER 9

Laurence Carrington Grubbe (1854–1912)

Abstract  This chapter is a major contribution to the study on the Household and suggests new sources and information from Laurence Carrington Grubbe, who was “behind the scenes” at the Household as well as a practitioner. Special attention is paid to his background, his homosexuality, and his connection to Oliphant. Keywords  Laurence Carrington Grubbe • Spiritualism • Homosexuality • Blanche Matthews • Paris • Occultism • Quartettes Laurence Carrington Grubbe (1855–1912) was the son of Julia Catharine Hall (1820–1901) and John Eustace Grubbe (1815–1899) the eventual mayor of Southwald. Laurence was a soldier who earned the rank of captain and his family was well known among the aristocratic classes. A little-­ known fact about Grubbe was that he remained a closeted homosexual throughout most of his adult life. The code that he developed in his writings likely came out of a necessity to hide and protect his inner sexual feelings against prying eyes. While his sexuality does not define him, it played an important role as he joined a modern religious movement known for its esoteric sexual practices. Furthermore, Grubbe was a poet, writer, and a painter who had met Oliphant while studying art in Paris

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. D. Lavoie, Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0_9

81

82  

J. D. LAVOIE

through one of their common friends—James Templeton. Grubbe and Templeton held several things in common: First, they were both passionate about sketching and painting; second, together they dabbled into the world of modern Spiritualism and occult philosophies. Lastly, they both had become enamored by the teachings of Laurence Oliphant. Grubbe was en route to the Household commune at Haifa when Oliphant passed away. Because he had already set his mind to travel there, Grubbe continued on this trip. Along the way he met up with Templeton (and eventually Allan) and together they traveled to the Palestinian commune which was now being led by the guru’s second wife named Rosamond Dale Owen (Oliphant). While residing in this commune, Grubbe had some experiences that made him question Rosamond’s role as the Household’s new leader; these experiences ultimately prompted him to return to England and go back to his father’s estate. Given this later connection to Oliphant, many followers did not know Grubbe was even a part of the infamous “Household” and, as such, he was known (by the few who were aware of his presence) as the man “behind the scenes.”1 Indeed, Grubbe is not mentioned by any of Oliphant’s biographers; he is most notably absent in the meticulous research of Lawton and Schneider as well as by his other major biographies including those written by Margaret Oliphant, Anne Taylor, Philip Henderson, and more recently Bart Casey. Even in Oliphant’s autobiography the name Laurence Grubbe is notably absent, thereby confirming his role as a person who really did work and travel “behind the scenes.” This gave Grubbe the unique experience of being able to penetrate the inner crowd of Oliphant’s disciples without suffering any fear of a personal scandal (while Jennie Tuttle did attempt to persuade him to testify on her behalf, Grubbe adamantly refused her request; he even denied being a member of The Household altogether though it seems apparent that he was one). In order to ensure his journal entries could never be recovered, Grubbe wrote in a cipher of which only he knew the key-code. Fortunately, that code has been deciphered by the author, thereby revealing a unique perspective from one of Oliphant’s closest followers. This provides a new background out of which to interpret Oliphant’s key religious ideas and teachings.

1  Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Arthur Guthrie [March 31, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie.

9  LAURENCE CARRINGTON GRUBBE (1854–1912) 83

Grubbe, Spiritualism, and the Sympneumata Grubbe first became attracted to spiritualism and its ideals at an early age; however, it was while studying in Paris in December 1887 that he “made friends quickly with Templeton, who has initiated me into the secrets of Spiritualism; and truly it has…affected the whole course of my life.”2 Spiritualism and occultism became life-changing philosophies for the middle-­aged Grubbe especially as they related to the philosophy of the soul: “for how can one have a profound conviction of the reality of the Soul’s Eternity without [it] shaping one’s course through Earth life more carefully.”3 In 1888, Templeton loaned him a book by the former Theosophist and noted Christian Spiritualist Edward Maitland (1824–1897) titled The Soul and How It Found Me (1877). Earlier that year, Grubbe had actually met Maitland in person (through a common friend) and together they “had a long and interesting chat.”4 In addition to this book, Grubbe borrowed a copy of a biographical type of work by the noted Spiritualist Morel Theobald (1828–1908) titled Spirit Workers in the Home Cabinet (1887). He remarked on the impression it had made on him describing that “I was particularly struck with the beauty of the…book and the nice manner in which it was written. That book alone convinced me, nor did the literature I afterwards perused against Spiritualism in the least [did not] shake my belief. I wanted no proof, but I have had them already- proofs satisfactory enough to myself though not so perhaps to others.”5 Grubbe consistently maintained a journal throughout this time period in which he collected his various experiences with Spiritualism. He did not expect to have intense materializations, but he thought it might amuse him later on to read over these early Spiritualist experiences. Grubbe started the record off with a titillating entry observing that he had been: constantly conscious of what I… choose to consider unseen beings. Little touches… of feeling hands all over my body and limbs at all hours, not only 2  Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1886–1893: [n. p.] Entry dated: December 12, 1886: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 3  Ibid. 4  Ibid., Entry dated: April 17, 1887. 5  Ibid., Entry dated: Monday, December 12.

84  

J. D. LAVOIE

in my studio but at Constants and wherever I may be. They come particularly after I am in bed and seem as they were performing some operations a sort of sucking operation or rather pumping. Monday I felt quite uneasy as to whether they were good or evil.6

Thus, there appeared to be a connection between sexuality and spiritualism in Grubbe’s belief system as well as an uneasiness as to the origin of these feelings—were they good spirits or evil ones? Still, these types of experiences were nothing new for Grubbe who recorded having a similar spiritual-sexual experience five years previous to this in 1882. Long before he had met Laurence Oliphant or identified as a Spiritualist, Grubbe had a spiritual-sexual experience that he would later come to identify as a sympneumatic touch. He recorded the following recurring dream that began with a funny sensation: The sensation comes over me as I am asleep- perfectly conscious where I am – of something. It seems a spirit getting into my bed and embracing me – generally from behind. I feel a lifting of the clothes and think to myself—“here is the spirit again”. Then sure enough I feel a trembling form, and a hot breathing about my ear. I try to loose myself and wake but seem helpless in the power of something or other. Two of these minutes seem to pass, and then I wake always with blood-hotter, excited and perspiring but with a feeling of relief. It…comes twice in a night and only on an average about once in three months. It came last night and when I woke up, I made up my mind I would record it [emphasis added].7

Having experienced this sexual-spiritual connection described above ensured that Grubbe would be more susceptible to Oliphant’s sympneumatic belief system. Indeed, Grubbe was likely relieved to know that someone else had similar spiritual and sexual experiences as he did (especially given the fact that Victorians did not typically discuss their sexual experiences whether real or psychical). Grubbe continued to associate these invisible sexual touchings and feelings with the spirit world. On January 8, 1888, he observed that ever since late last year he had been “absolutely chaste [no sexual encounters]  Ibid., Entry dated: Wednesday, December 14, 1887.  Ibid., Entry dated: November 9, 1879-September 23, 1882; Entry dated: Tuesday, September 19, 1882. 6 7

9  LAURENCE CARRINGTON GRUBBE (1854–1912) 85

in dreams and otherwise- a result I must ascribe to some healing process performed by spirits.”8 The idea that being sexually chaste was regarded as part of a healthy “healing process” reveals the deep-seated Victorian moral view of sexual abstinence which sprung out of evangelical values. These values maintained that any form of sex outside of marriage is wrong/evil (apparently even when it is performed subconsciously with spirits); therefore, abstinence and chastity were praised as a virtue (at least in public). Grubbe remarked that he had the opportunity to read The Occult World by another noted Theosophist and spiritualist Alfred Percy Sinnett (1840–1921) as well as three journals of Psychical Research Proceedings. He attempted to implement all he had learned from these works into his own personal séances, but nothing seemed to come of it. He wrote that “I sat occasionally by myself…but obtained no result further then the little taps on the planchette and sometimes in the immediate neighborhood. Altogether the sense has not been quite so strong as formerly but have on many occasions felt it distinctly especially in the last few days.”9 Then on March 11, 1888, everything began to change. Grubbe recorded this experience in his journal: James Murray Templeton has returned to Paris and “he has been with L. Oliphant who is coming over here- he was opening a new phase last night which I hope to know more of soon.”10 Grubbe and Templeton had found a new spiritual teacher in the person of Laurence Oliphant who would connect them with unrivaled access to the spirit world and teach them how to “open a new phase” of life and to prepare for the descent of the sympneumata. Over the next month or so, Grubbe continued to see “a good bit of Mr. Oliphant, whom I like much and whose work much interests me. So much so that I am resolved if it can be brought about to go out to Palestine next Autumn.” The reason for this proposed Eastern journey had two purposes: First, was the public reason: this was the one he would tell his family and friends that mainly this trip was about painting the historic and religious sceneries of Israel; however, his second reason (and the real one) for departing was one that he would keep to himself and a few confidants. For  Ibid., Entry dated: January 8, 1888.  Ibid., Entry dated: Sunday, January 8. 10  Ibid., Entry dated: March 11, 1888. 8 9

86  

J. D. LAVOIE

Grubbe noted in his journal that he would leave “under his auspices, ostensibly to paint but I hope also to take some share in the work there and know more of these things.”11 Grubbe wanted to become part of the Household commune and to learn more about Oliphant’s sympneumatic teachings; therefore, traveling to Palestine was the only logical option. While in Paris, Grubbe had “received magnetism” from Oliphant though he doubted that he would feel any difference in kind to what he had felt before. Grubbe soon found his answer and recorded that “the influence seems growing much stronger. T. who has also received it experiences it much stronger and in a different way. Mrs. T. also experiences it strongly in addition to the magnetism.”12 It is from this point on that Grubbe starts to use the proper name for these feelings, sensations, and experiences—the sympneumata! He wrote: Feeling the sympneumatic influence one day when in Hughes neighborhood resolved to broach the subject to him. Asked him up to my studio and who should accompany him but Middleton. The influence however touched me slightly and I therefore plunged into it. H. was interested and is now having interviews with Templeton…Carline to whom I mentioned Mr. O. by letter, wrote to me that after reading my letter he began in the middle of a book while at lunch and being interested turned to the authors named which he found to be L. O. so more interested.13

Grubbe was very ambitious to share these life-changing teachings with his own friends and family; he even targeted a fellow artist named George Francis Carline (1855–1920) to join the Household ranks; however, Carline held a different attitude concerning Oliphant’s teachings: while at first he appeared “interested in them,” in the end he was “not inclined to take sympneumatic life up.”14 Not only did he attempt to convert Carline, but Grubbe also engaged “the subject of Scientific Religion with Henry and Mary Willait and Miss N. -myself have been feeling less of it lately but am not surprised.” He was attempting to spread Oliphant’s teachings even while the effects were losing potency in his own spiritual practice.

 Ibid., Entry dated: Sunday, April 22, 1888.  Ibid., Entry dated: June 15. 13  Ibid. 14  Ibid., Entry dated: Sunday, July 22. 11 12

9  LAURENCE CARRINGTON GRUBBE (1854–1912) 87

Grubbe mentioned a curious connection in another journal entry writing that: “One night T. told me he had an inspirational impression that our friends in the invisible wished us to marry however she will not have it now at any rate.”15 This proves that there was a connection between sexuality, marriage, and sympneumata that was observed by both Grubbe and Templeton. As an avid disciple of Oliphant, Grubbe willingly participated in a sympneumatic group—a foursome or quartette. This was a partnering of three males with at least one female in each group (thus a quartette/foursome); the female role was filled in Grubbe’s group by a young lady known simply as “Blanche.” Grubbe became a part of Oliphant’s socio-sexual experiment which was similar to Jennie Tuttle and James Templeton’s experience (or perhaps they were in the same group). The entry on June 15th in Grubbe’s journal connects the sympneumata to his relationship with one “Ms. Matthews” (presumably Blanche) and some sensual touching: The last 2 months have been exceedingly interesting: I am now experiencing the sympneumatic influence much stronger and it acts I suppose in other ways. Miss B[Blanche?] M[atthews?]. who comes up to my studio had a bad headache there the other day, and it occurred to me that what Mr. O had got me to do for him successfully might also succeed with her. So I stroked her head till the pain went into the back, then the back till it went into the arm and then down the arm till it was gone. We were both astonished. Mr. O. wishes me to cultivate her magnetism which I set about doing (emphasis added) [italics signify words written in code].16

Grubbe utilized the sympneumatic touch to heal Blanche’s headache; this lady seems to be the same Blanche who was mentioned by name in a letter from Oliphant to Grubbe sent on June 13, 1888: I had been thinking much about you and Blanche- I feel that spiritually she is still such a baby that you have a great responsibility in us and to her but I feel also that she has many sweet undeveloped qualities and that where she comes into a full apprehension of the great work in which she may be engaged they will display themselves and her climactic will evolve and all her higher and latent faculties blossom… You can see how Blanche develops and  Ibid., Entry dated: June 15.  Ibid., Entry dated: June 15.

15 16

88  

J. D. LAVOIE

how she feels about it as she knows and understands more… Keep me informed of your whereabouts. I shall want to see both you and Blanche in August either together or apart as circumstances may determine. Give her my truest love. I shall hope to hear from her long in answer to a letter I wrote her. She must not think that time or distance affects the affection I feel for her- I am greatly encouraged by my work here and feel someday how rapidly movements are taking place in the invisible which must surely be represented by corresponding movements here.17

As mentioned previously, Grubbe was part or a quartet with Blanche along with some individuals known as “Jim” (likely James Templeton) and “Jessie” (which may have been a spelling error on Oliphant’s part who intended to write “Jennie”). Regardless, Oliphant offers a solemn warning: “If the quartette does not hang together as it should, it will not be the fault of the men. I often feel anxious about it, but as woman has a higher mission than man in this movement, so as her difficulties and temptations greater.”18 Thus, as Oliphant warned throughout Scientific Religion, this movement depended significantly on the women’s role within it. According to Oliphant, his teachings and the entire Household movement were more difficult for their female members than it was for the males. In these early days before the women’s suffrage movement, women followers could easily become the greater source of vicious social rumors, and derogatory remarks and accusations for daring to step outside the prevailing Victorian moral norms of the day (this was certainly the case with Jennie Tuttle who publicly revealed “shameful” sexual details that most women would have kept quiet). As he was preparing to leave Paris, Grubbe corresponded with Oliphant at least two times as he was becoming anxious and excited to meet up with him in Palestine.19 However, Oliphant sent a note of warning to Grubbe that he needed to really “count the cost” before embarking on such a drastic mission: For regards to Haifa, it will not do for anyone to go there who does not feel thoroughly impelled internally to do so -and it would be necessary before 17  Letter from Laurence Oliphant to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [June 13, 1888]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 18  Ibid. 19  Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1886–1893: Entry dated: July 22: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie.

9  LAURENCE CARRINGTON GRUBBE (1854–1912) 89

coming to a final decision to read my book and feel how far it works with an internal response. For a visit there must be made on spiritual grounds, and with the hope that it may conduce to moral progress and internal illumination, and as a necessary training to a life which is to be dedicated to the service of humanity. It is no good going there on a lower ground [painting] would only lead to disappointment. It is a refuge for people in certain ­conditions and I am ordered to keep my house and heart open to people in those conditions- but I cannot decide for them in the matter, nor can I press them. They must come under a more internal pressure.20

While Grubbe especially looked forward to painting the scenery in Israel, more importantly he wanted to join in Oliphant’s new community and to “share in the work there” and to study more of Oliphant’s teachings in the proper setting. Meeting him along the way, was his dear friend Templeton as well as two lady artists: the first of these ladies was none other than Jennie Tuttle herself and the other was known simply as Miss B. Matthew (which possibly refers to the “Blanche” mentioned in Oliphant’s letter to Grubbe quoted earlier). Grubbe claimed these ladies “are tending in the same direction as ourselves and with whom O. associates in as much as possible”; however, these two ladies never actually left Europe. In the end, this was a positive move, for as one of Oliphant’s other followers James A. Allan would later remark: “I have seen enough to know she [Jennie] would have been a very disturbing element if she had gone to Haifa.”21

Homosexuality and the Sympneumata As noted previously (and further explored in Addendum A), Grubbe maintained many homosexual relationships throughout his lifetime. This leads to a number of important questions including: How did Grubbe’s “taboo” homosexual orientation fit into Oliphant’s teachings, that is, the sympneumata? Was Oliphant aware of Grubbe’s sexual identity/attraction? If he was aware of these proclivities, it might have been Oliphant’s suggestion that the sympneumata could “heal” Grubbe and re-direct him into having “healthier” (i.e., heterosexual) intimate relationships (similar 20  Letter from Laurence Oliphant to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [June 13, 1888]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 21  Letter from James A. Allan to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [May 17, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie.

90  

J. D. LAVOIE

to what T.  L. Harris had promised Oliphant concerning a cure for his syphilis). Though it must remain speculative, it seemed that Grubbe’s sexuality was an important factor that might have been one of the main reasons that led him to Oliphant in the first place. Secretly, Grubbe spiritualized his sexual tension claiming that there was an inner magnetic force at work; he wrote that “I made another boy’s acquaintance. Am more than ever certain there is electricity in nature. I seem to have attracted him.”22 Elsewhere, Grubbe describes these feelings as spirits noting that “the first night experienced the ravishing spirit which almost gave me the idea the room was haunted.”23 Thus, Oliphant’s sexual philosophy seemed to be the solution to Grubbe’s sex problems; after all, Oliphant possessed extreme powers of self-discipline and control over his desires (he never had intercourse with his first and very attractive wife Alice). Oliphant claimed that he could teach others to have this same level of discipline and control over themselves and their sexuality. By accomplishing this discipline, his followers would begin to change the world one community at a time and thereby the world could continue to evolve into a stage of perfection and thereby enter a brand-new eschatological golden era.24 This chapter has revealed a behind-the-scenes look at the detailed process that made up the sympneumatic act: the first stage began through a magnetic healing practice; this was followed by arranging one’s living situation to be in a sympneumatic group. Afterward, they would be invited to join Oliphant’s commune in Haifa where they would learn how to practice and pass this act on to other interested parties. Thus, in the next chapter, the sympneumatic act is finally defined with one misplaced word haphazardly written on the bottom of a page in Grubbe’s journal (Fig. 9.1).

 Ibid., Entry dated: January 18, 1881.  Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1882–1885: Entry dated: September 21, 1884: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie 24  Whether Grubbe actually told Oliphant about his homosexual and pederast thoughts remains unknown. His friend James Murray Templeton was either unaware of these thoughts or else he thought Grubbe could overcome them, as Templeton wrote to him in a letter on March 2, 1890 that: “I trust…some day [you] may be as happy in a wife as I am.” Julia Maria Grubbe would become the fulfillment of these “well-wishes” having married her in1909; however, Grubbe’s true feelings about this marriage remain unknown and unrecorded (even in code form!). 22 23

9  LAURENCE CARRINGTON GRUBBE (1854–1912) 91

Fig. 9.1  Laurence Grubbe posing in his Army uniform at Elliot and Fry Photography. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)

  92

J. D. LAVOIE

References Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1882–1885: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1886–1893: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Letter from James A. Allan to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [May 17, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Arthur Guthrie [March 31, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Letter from Laurence Oliphant to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [June 13, 1888]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie.

CHAPTER 10

A Scandal from Within

Abstract  This chapter further examines the scandal caused by Jennie Tuttle and how The Household members responded to it. It also suggests a definition of the true sympneumatic act and the reasons behind its practice. Keywords  Suicide • Onanism • Sex matter • British Museum

Grubbe had left around the same time that Jennie Tuttle began causing a stir with her one-sided reports of Oliphant’s behavior and teachings. As mentioned previously, Grubbe even had several correspondences with Jennie Tuttle who was adamant about arranging a private meeting with him. Eventually, Grubbe offered to meet her at the Entrance Hall of the British Museum between 1 p.m. and 2  p.m. that following Wednesday; however, there is no record that they ever met in person.1 Grubbe wrote that: I cannot tell exactly what passed between Mr. Oliphant and Mrs. Tuttle or between Templeton…the key to Oliphant’s character is the recognition of the fact that there is a world of invisible beings in this world with which he 1  Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Jennie Tuttle [June 2, 1899]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. D. Lavoie, Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0_10

93

94 

J. D. LAVOIE

was in communication. Without this recognition, the whole last half of his life may not unreasonably be attributed to insanity. Whether he was right or wrong in giving himself up to their guiding or what these beings are in the first place is another matter.2

Regardless as to who should be blamed for the whole Jennie Tuttle fiasco (if anyone), the issue that especially disturbed Grubbe was Templeton’s decision to abandon his family over a doctrine and a woman (even if their attitude toward Rosamond would eventually change after their son’s demise).3 Grubbe urged Templeton to reconcile with his family. He reminded Templeton that after Oliphant’s death they had continued their travels to the Household on a whim. Grubbe explained that they initially joined the Household out of curiosity more than anything else. As a close friend, Grubbe emotionally appealed to him: I know it is a terrible pill to swallow – Go home and tell your father the exact truth, if you desire, as I believe you do, at the bottom of your heart that you have made a grievous mistake. Surely the result must be an utter mistrust…in the invisible beings and have abandoned all connection with them in the future. Tell him the exact truths the whole extent to which you have gone. Why you did it. If he does not believe as I do that you thought you were doing right and intentions were good you will at least have taken the only honorable course that appears to be open and done your best to set yourself right in the eyes of those you have and who now…look upon you as a common fraud…If you do this I will do all I can to support you as far as your intentions are concerned because I believe in them but if I answer any questions at all I will not depart one jot from the truth so far as I know it.4

Grubbe urged Templeton to be honest with his father and advised him to be hundred percent truthful as Grubbe implied he would not lie for his friend. Additionally, Grubbe believed Templeton’s actions were based on a sincere belief that what he was doing was right even if he later determined it was a misguided action: 2  Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to James A. Allan [May 20, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 3  Rosamond later admitted that “the sequel proved that Murray’s father had always continued to love his noble son, and in the end…the father behaved in a generously kind manner to myself, even though he had, to the last, no faith in me, so it seemed.” Owen, My Perilous Life in Palestine, p. 81. 4  Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to James Murray Templeton [May 5, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie.

10  A SCANDAL FROM WITHIN 

95

For my own part I presume to let us not blame the Almighty because our aspirations after higher things have led us astray. We may think and speculate as we will upon the why and wherefore of evil but all the efforts of all the good men that ever lived have not removed it…The anomalies of life are inexplicable and the planet we live on is too insignificant a portion of the mighty universe for anyone on it to say why things are not as they might be or was the original design of the Creation. We can only see there is a design in it all and be grateful to the good God who has given us so much to love and so much to make us happy (but by trying to desert our own lives as purely being kind and gentle to those around us) (not by tampering and experimenting with the tree of life and blindly following the guidance of we know not whom).5

Grubbe reminds Templeton that it was their search for higher powers and abilities that led them “astray” in the first place. Furthermore, he urges Templeton to admit that the things they did were wrong instead of justifying them and making excuses for said behaviors; Grubbe continued: If I seem to preach to you forgive me. I have no right. But I claim another thing I must say and it is a fact which may explain your present inability to come to any decision how to act and your readiness to propound excuses for past events rather than recognize an ugly fact and acknowledge yourself in the wrong...I have not lived with you in the same room for 3 weeks and failed to perceive that whether the sickness be recent and temporary or of old-standing, your body is not in a fit state to contain a sound mind and I will not think you take the proper means to make it so. You recognize the intimate connection of physical and psychical atoms, which you say makes it impossible for the latter to be affected although the former…But the truth, the whole unvarnished truth with nothing kept back that can be flung in your face afterwards. Do you think the force supposing it to be good …would it not be the best possible test as to its origin.6

As noted above, Grubbe lived in close proximity with Templeton in this sympneumatic group for three weeks and the two were largely isolated. Because of this living situation, Grubbe believed that it affected their minds and ability to make rational decisions. As such, Grubbe pleaded for Templeton to be honest with his family and with his own self. After all, they were not in a place to judge each other given that both their minds had been influenced by their time spent 5 6

 Ibid.  Ibid

96 

J. D. LAVOIE

in The Household. “You are something to those when you have talked over and (alas I must say it) deceived anyone not directly connected with the matter who if asking impertinent questions I would bid mind his own business.”7 Thus, Grubbe believed they had deceived others and the truth must come out if only to those who the matter concerns, that is, the sixteen original household members (of which Grubbe said he did not belong). Grubbe went on to confront the question of sexuality in his journal writing that: I am perplexed much about the sex question. The advice given to me and which I foolishly followed though only for a short time, I believe now to have been wrong; in the way it was put it appeared to me at the time to be right. But unquestionably in my own mind now it was wrong. The lesson I learn from what has happened is- do not allow yourself in future to be guided by those who follow these unseen unknown guides, for you are liable to be misguided entirely, even when your guides appear most sincere and plausible and such is the subtlety of their influence that your own reason may gradually be perverted so that black shall appear white and wrong right. But you cannot live with them and not be influenced by them, so clear out.8

Grubbe came to realize that beliefs on sexuality were “misguided” and that they were the result of his submission to Oliphant and his invisible beings. As noted above, Grubbe had traveled to Haifa even after Oliphant’s death and stayed there with Rosamond and several others. He had resided there for roughly a month’s time when something happened (around March 15, 1889). Exactly what transpired is never explained, but this something (or realization) prompted Grubbe to question the sympneumatic force and Oliphant’s entire system. Whatever brought this suspicion on (or whatever Grubbe became privy to), it pushed him to distance himself away from The Household and to move out of the commune altogether. This decision had something to do with Rosamond and the doubts Grubbe had about her psychic abilities. Grubbe strongly protested and wrote in his secret code that: [I] have had a great revulsion of feeling against all this Oliphant business which I fear is too doubtful in origin to allow me to follow T. further. So am resolved to go back to England and live quietly there with my paints and 7 8

 Ibid.  Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1886–1893: Entry dated: March 24, 1889.

10  A SCANDAL FROM WITHIN 

97

doing what good I can after my own fashion, never again making the mistake of submitting my private judgment right and wrong to any human being.9

Thus, Grubbe decided to leave the Household commune as well as his dear friend Templeton who refused to see the truth of what Grubbe had revealed to him. On March 3, 1889, Grubbe wrote a follow-up letter to Templeton reiterating his earlier doubts into the authenticity of the Household teachings. Furthermore, he offered a final plea for Templeton to leave Palestine (and Rosamond) behind and to return to his family in Glasgow: because the world is not all it should be, it does not follow that Mr. Oliphants (sic) method of setting it right is the proper one or that is likely to succeed. You know we entered into this thing with great doubts both of us as to whether we even were on a right path or a wrong one. Let us go see! We knew what was at risk but “shall know more by and bye!” was our resolution. Well my dear fellow I myself have gone far enough quite to be assured that I made a mistake, though in as much as I was too cautious to harm anybody but myself, to bring evil consequences on anyone but myself- I regret nothing. We do not regret the past so much I may learn and be the best by our errors if we will only look the truth in the face afterwards and fear nothing. Do not think I reproach you. I am your fellow sinner not your judge and not so guiltless a man that I can presume to cast stone at anybody. If I tell you what I think I do so for your own sake for if you remain hugging this theory flattering and deceiving yourself with Mrs. Oliphant to help you I fear for what you may one day become.10

This ominous last sentence appears both haunting and foreshadowing when one considers the fact that not long after reading this appeal, Templeton would go on to his untimely ending. It is obvious in this writing that Grubbe and Templeton did some things that they thought were wrong or sinful. These “sins” appear to have been sexual in nature as Grubbe suggested the following: “my advice to you is to write to you father and tell so at once before it is too late. Tell him the exact truth, the whole extent to which you have gone in the sex matter and why you have

9

 Ibid., Entry dated: Friday, March, 15.  Ibid., Entry dated: May 3, 1889.

10

98 

J. D. LAVOIE

done what you have, but don’t try to make yourself out a saint or a martyr.”11 Despite Grubbe’s best warnings, Templeton never reconciled and was eventually disowned by his family. He explained: “My good father declared at last that I must either denounce Laurence [Oliphant] or be repudiated by him and by my family, I have chosen the latter.”12 It is unclear how much of this was a natural rebellion against authority, that is, his father, as he had planned long before he met Oliphant to live among his father’s workers in social equality (much to his family’s dismay); however, with Oliphant he had finally found a source of purpose for his rebellion—faith (in Oliphant) and love (with Rosamond). Regardless as to what the sympneumata touch consisted of, Grubbe regretted his involvements in these sexual practices. He wrote in a private letter to Templeton on May 31, 1889: I myself have gone far enough quite to be assured that I made a mistake…We do not regret the past…I mean …no disrespect to Mrs. Oliphant [only] to help you…but so far as I can ascertain who is a good woman actuated by noble motives, as I am convinced Mr. Oliphant was himself, but as mistakes and self deceived as he. The very act of supposing oneself a specially chosen agent of Heaven is a sin in itself.13

Oliphant and Rosamond both believed themselves to have been chosen agents by invisible forces and spirits; they used this sexual touch known as the sympneumata as a way of connecting the average person with the spirit world and seemingly to assert power over them. As noted earlier, Grubbe began to doubt that there was any merit in the sympneumata as he no longer felt it the same way he did early on when Oliphant was alive and well. He was willing to admit this lack of feeling sensation might be due to his own frame of mind or to his ignorance of knowing the true source; however, he was not willing to give control over to beings that he did not know or trust.

 Ibid.  Owen, My Perilous Life in Palestine, p. 75. 13  Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to James Murray Templeton [May 31, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 11 12

10  A SCANDAL FROM WITHIN 

99

A Tragic Death Templeton ended up marrying Rosamond—his teacher’s second wife and widow; however, tragedy soon struck their relationship in 1892. It is generally acknowledged that Templeton committed suicide by throwing himself overboard; he even left a note for his wife that read: “God has asked me to give my life, and I have sacrificed it for His humanity’s sake.”14 However, Grubbe hinted at what he perceived the real cause behind Templeton’s final fateful decision: He had scribbled the following message on the back of an envelope containing one of Templeton’s letters: “Three years afterwards [1892] I learnt poor T. disappointed in Mrs. Oliphant whom he had married and probably awaking his self-deception committed suicide.”15 This reveals something further about the sympneumata: it had the potential to be destructive as it seemed to require Templeton to deceive himself and it led to such a tragic event. It is curious that Grubbe firmly believed Rosamond was to blame for Templeton’s suicide; he seemed to know more details than he was willing to admit. Still, Grubbe hints that there was something unnerving about her teachings even if he failed to mention specific details other than the following vague explanations: “she is a reincarnationist” who is “controlled by invisible beings” and she is “absolutely positive that those who guide her are angels.”16 Grubbe admitted that there were “regions into which I cannot follow her” though these seemed related to the notion of freewill and how human atoms connect to other earthly atoms and those of guardian angels and invisible beings.17 Whatever the truth of the matter was, it seems that there was something harmful about the sympneumata, or, more accurately, the Victorian moral system that implied discussions relating to sexuality were shameful and any “taboo practices” (such as the sympneumata) were seen as an unhealthy and immoral vice.

 Owen, My Perilous Life in Palestine, p. 259.  Unmarked and Undated Envelope Addressed to Jennie Tuttle: n. d., n. p.: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 16  Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1886–1893: Entry dated: Saturday, March 24, 1889. 17  Ibid. 14 15

100 

J. D. LAVOIE

Solving the Sympneumata It is from the code in Grubbe’s journal that a final confirmation proves once and for all what the process of the sympneumata consisted of and how it was imparted. On the bottom of a page in his journal, written underneath this diary entry on the “sex question” there is one code word written: onanism. While the subject of masturbation in the Victorian era is a massive topic that leads far outside the scope of this study, it is worth mentioning that this word comes from a character in a Bible story. Onan was a man who, at the moment of climax, spilled his semen on the floor (instead of climaxing in his partner). In addition, this was a proper way to describe masturbation during the Victorian era which attempted to explain sexuality in obscure metaphors and vague terms. Grubbe wrote this in code at the bottom of the page and made no attempt to define it or explain it in any way; rather, it stands alone as a one-word explanation for the sex-question. While other researchers have suggested this idea, none could offer proof until now. Ultimately, Grubbe provided the missing piece to the “sex question” and its relation to the sympneumata—it included a form of masturbation. This makes sense when considered alongside all of the previous depictions of the sympneumatic touch. Of course, there was a whole theological system behind it, but this was what the act consisted of. This also explains the reluctancy for practitioners to discuss this sympneumatic act. During this time, onanism was seen as a carnal disease in the Victorian era or, at a minimum, it was an unhealthy habit that needed to be cured. It was one of those issues that was widely participated in such as brothels, multiple partners, and so on, yet no one openly discussed it. Also, there were few medically accurate books, pamphlets, or journals concerning such acts of sexuality. In fact, the materials that were widespread and circulated were the medical cures for this “illness.” One doctor in particular, encouraged his patients to put iodine on their penis—the idea behind this process was to make the area so painful that one would not want to touch it anymore. Other medical and religious professionals suggested electric shock therapy of some kind including buying strange metal clamps that were sold for the purpose of restricting access to the genitals or implementing pain to them both of which would potentially lead to less touching and masturbation. While this might seem a barbaric practice today, it was used to help those in the Victorian era who could not seem to keep their hands off of themselves without some form of intervention.18 18  John Hilton, “On the Treatment of Onanism,” in The Retrospect of Practical Medicine and Surgery (August 1, 1863), 106–107 (p. 106).

10  A SCANDAL FROM WITHIN 

101

In the religious world, the term “self-pollution” was used and it became a subject that was rallied against by preachers of all denominations. One of the more common anti-masturbation preachers was a certain Presbyterian minister named Sylvester Graham (1794–1851). He believed this “carnal desire” that was masturbation could cause headaches, epilepsy, and even insanity. As such, he invented a tool that would help his followers stop this practice; in 1829, he invented a bland, biscuit-like cracker to “cure” masturbation; it was ingeniously called “the Graham cracker.”19 One was supposed to eat one of these and it would take away their desire for “selfpollution.” Graham’s view against masturbation reflected the commonly held religious stance—it was a sinful practice. Church of England preacher Edward Thring (1821–1887) (who also happened to be a teacher at Eton College where Grubbe went to school) declared that masturbation led to “early and dishonoured graves.”20 Given this prevailing attitude toward masturbation and the widespread misinformation about its practice (and the disinformation spread by social leaders), it is not surprising that Oliphant hid his view of the sympneumata from society at large and buried it in obscurity. Regardless as to what transpired between Grubbe and his teacher, it seems apparent that Oliphant’s teachings did hold a lasting influence over him; this idea is exemplified in the final entry of Grubbe’s journal dated October 1891. He writes mysteriously in this final report: Over a year since I last wrote. The habit of keeping a journal is dying apparently and when I look back to some of these pages as I have been doing, I rather wish they had never been written. Nevertheless, they are so interesting to me that I cannot destroy them. Spencer has it the errors one goes through on the way to truth are innumerable. Not that I believe less in an invisible world now than I did 2 or 3 years ago. L. O was right in one respect. There is not a sane person on earth. We are all mad and maddest when we think we are sanest all except young children with nothing in their heads. We laugh at a flock of geese waddling in single file, but human beings are just the same! I keep my ears open and my mouth shut now and busy myself in my painting.21

Thus, Oliphant and his sympneumatic belief system of the afterlife and sexuality maintained a lasting influence on Grubbe throughout his 19  Natalie O’Neil, “The Graham Cracker was Invented to Stop You From Masturbating”, in The New York Post [September 13, 2016]; Alan Hunt, “The Great Masturbation Panic and the Discourses of Moral Regulation in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Britain” in Journal of the History of Sexuality, 8:4 (April 1998), 575–615. 20  George R.  Parkin, Edward Thring Headmaster of Uppingham School: Life, Diary and Letters (New York: Macmillan Company, 1900), p. 276. 21  Saturday, October 10, 1891.

102 

J. D. LAVOIE

Fig. 10.1  The hidden code of Laurence Grubbe including a listing of the characters employed in his substitutionary cipher. (From the Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)

lifetime. In the end, Grubbe lost interest in such matters, but he still believed in an invisible world of spirit and some form of sympneumatic influence (Fig. 10.1).

10  A SCANDAL FROM WITHIN 

103

References Hilton, John. 1863. On the Treatment of Onanism. The Retrospect of Practical Medicine and Surgery, 106–107. Hunt, Alan. 1998. The Great Masturbation Panic and the Discourses of Moral Regulation in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Britain. Journal of the History of Sexuality 8 (4): 575–615. Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1886–1893: Entry dated: March 24, 1889. Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to James A. Allan [May 20, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to James Murray Templeton [May 5, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to James Murray Templeton [May 31, 1889]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Jennie Tuttle [June 2, 1899]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. O’Neil, Natalie. 2016. The Graham Cracker was Invented to Stop You From Masturbating. The New York Post, September 13. Owen, Rosamond Dale. 1929. My Perilous Life in Palestine. New York: Duffield & Company. Parkin, George R. 1900. Edward Thring Headmaster of Uppingham School: Life, Diary and Letters. New York: Macmillan Company. Unmarked and Undated Envelope Addressed to Jennie Tuttle: n.d., n.p.: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie.

CHAPTER 11

Conclusion

Abstract  This closing chapter presents a summary of the previous writings on the sympneumatic act and pools them together to examine what this study has added to the historical study of the sympneumata and The Household. Keywords  Brotherhood • Masturbation • Moral code

This journey into the life and teachings of Laurence Oliphant, and by extension the modern religious movement known as The Household, has provided a lens for understanding the Victorian view of sexuality. Oliphant went to great lengths to hide any direct implication of sexual expression within obscure analogies and illustrations. As such, he never fully explained how the sympneumatic touch worked or how it was shared and passed on to others; however, this process can be reconstructed based upon the writings and letters of his followers and critics as exemplified through this study. These individual writers all provide different facets and perspectives of the sympneumata that when assembled together present a composite picture and provide a fuller understanding of what this process was and how it was practiced. In the first chapter, it was decided that Oliphant relied heavily on T. L. Harris’ doctrine of the counterparts and reconceptualized this idea © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. D. Lavoie, Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0_11

105

106  

J. D. LAVOIE

into his own sympneumatic touch. In Harris’ application of counterparts, it was only himself who got to engage in the rituals along with various female members from the Brotherhood; whereas, in Oliphant’s practice, every member was important and valued as an integral part of redeeming this fallen world by joining in a sympneumatic group and practicing it with one another (and, in turn, sharing it with others). The exact ritual that Harris engaged in his counterparts looked a bit like “bundling” and perhaps included some form of intercourse or a similar such process. Given the rumor that Oliphant had syphilis, it seemed that his reconceptualized sympneumata did not include intercourse and it was something different based largely on touching and breathing. Allegedly, Oliphant was dictated the content of the Sympneumata by his first wife Alice which he proceeded to published in 1884; then, in 1888, he wrote Scientific Religion to clarify and expand upon these earlier views. In these books, Oliphant was largely unsuccessful in defining the process of the sympneumata, though he does suggest some of the higher purposes and justifications behind its practice. The main goal, according to Oliphant, was nothing more than the complete salvation of the human race and its freedom from evil atomic structures; thus, it was only through the male and female working together that the true evil in the world could be vanquished. It must be remembered that Oliphant was an affluent celebrity during the Victorian era and his fame and status alone ensured that many people would join his new religious movement. One such individual included the famed lawyer, spiritualist, and Theosophist named Charles Carleton Massey. Massey corresponded with Oliphant as he tried to convince Massey to sell his possessions and join his new “Household” in Haifa. These writings further reveal that not everyone felt confident enough to develop the sympneumatic force including Massey who was well-versed in occultic and mystical rituals (as was his spiritualist friend the renowned psychographer W.  S. Moses who could not make much sense out of Oliphant’s system/publications either—see the appropriate Addendum C). This disconnect prompted Massey to consider pursuing a scholarly life of solitude and study. Oliphant adamantly pushed against this proposal believing that true sympenumatic power could only be developed by living in community with other people. It only took one face-to-face conversation for Oliphant to persuade Massey to give up his belongings and travel to Palestine to join his Household community. This reveals Oliphant’s general likeability and his emanation of a personal magnetism that made

11 CONCLUSION 107

people want to follow him. Also, there was something exciting about Oliphant and the work he was accomplishing; this led people to want to follow after him whether it be in politics, in his exotic travels, or in his religious movement. Unfortunately, Massey’s move never came to fruition as Oliphant died before his passage could be arranged. Still, this unique correspondence between these two mystics reveals Oliphant’s strong people skills even later in life as well as his ability to draw people to his causes. In Chap. 5, Oliphant’s second wife, Rosamond seemed aware of his sympneumatic teachings and continued leading the Household following his demise; however, it soon imploded. Rosamond seemingly agreed with her husband’s views of sexuality at first; however, it did not take long for the sympneumata to transition from a physical impartation to a spiritual one. Its role changed as well as it became a matter of male continence over mutual masturbation/touching. To be fair, Rosamond and Oliphant were not married for very long before his death. Still, she was aware that he had performed some “discipline” experiments with different couples; however, she claimed to believe that any blame that might be passed onto Oliphant was all the result of naivety that came from his high moral character. As time went on, Rosamond took a more “traditional” view of marriage and sexuality. She did not seem to promote masturbation or penetration of any kind outside of a marital relationship. Therefore, we learn from Rosamond that the sympneumata was not about personal pleasure and sensuality, it was about maintaining a disciplined and correct spiritual attitude of the higher world even while being sexually stimulated. Rosamond’s second husband James Murray Templeton was also a committed follower and a member of one of Oliphant’s sympneumatic groups. After the potential scandal with his ex-fiancé Jennie Tuttle, Templeton (and Rosamond) moved away from any physical connection between the sympneumata and sexuality. Thereby, revealing that there was something deeply sexual and disturbing to those who did not properly understand the theology behind this practice. As a result of his decision to stay with Oliphant and remain involved in the sexual sympneumatic rituals, Templeton was disinherited from his family. No doubt in part influenced by this aggressive family squabble, Templeton committed suicide which also raises many questions as to the psychological impact that the sympneumata might have exerted upon its followers (or perhaps more fairly on how people perceived this act in light of the prevailing Victorian moral code).

108  

J. D. LAVOIE

The practice of the sympneumata was further detailed by Jennie Tuttle herself who claimed that she and Oliphant had shared a bed and that she did not feel the spiritual sympneumatic touch. Furthermore, she maintained that Oliphant’s teachings were all sensual and “of the flesh.” Jennie first started off as a willing participant in one of Oliphant’s sympneumatic groups. She was eventually paired with Templeton; however, after a failed engagement with him, Jennie began to turn on the Household along with all of its members. She even attempted to start a scandal against Oliphant and his “sensual” teachings, as she began preparing a booklet to expose him to the general public. In the meantime, Jennie was more than willing to gossip with any interested parties in Glasgow who were willing to listen to her stories—these included Templeton’s own family and the great number of company workers that his family employed (it seems likely that Jennie’s stories became the major reason why Templeton was cut off by his family). However, when Oliphant passed away in December, there was little damage left for Jennie to inflict and she seemed to settle down. Still, her negative talk about The Household caused irreparable damage as evidenced in Guthrie’s letter which revealed what the average Victorian likely would have thought about the sympneumata when it was divorced from its spiritual context, that is, that even “harlots” had better morals when compared to the predatory practices of Laurence Oliphant! In her distress, Jennie turned to one Hannah Whitall Smith for guidance. Hannah recorded their personal conversations with each other and spoke out against Oliphant in writing even though it was published many years after his demise. Hannah recounted her experiences with Oliphant including a discussion they had early on; this conversation concerned the nature of the sympneumata and “getting into bed” with Oliphant to experience the touch. Additionally, Hannah was privy to another conversation about the nature of the sympneumatic practice that included lying naked with the opposite sex and touching them in some way so that the sympneumatic touch could be passed on. Thus, Hannah identified the practice and what it might look like to the uninitiated thereby shedding further light onto this hidden sexual practice. Finally, it is in the writings of Laurence Carrington Grubbe, the man behind the scenes, that it can be deduced once and for all what the actual process of the sympneumata consisted of. Grubbe’s account ties together all of these previous testimonies and reveals the most detailed information on the sympneumatic touch (though to be fair he tried to hide it via a

11 CONCLUSION 109

secret cipher). It could all be summarized into one word that was written in code at the bottom of a journal page that discussed the sex question— onanism. Using this code, Grubbe suggested that the process was based on a Hebrew term called onanism. This word was derived from a story in the Hebrew Bible about a man named Onan, who shoots his seed onto the floor instead of into his partner, that is, a process of masturbation. Regardless of the sympneumatic touch, in the end, Grubbe gave up on his quest for knowledge having been disappointed by the powers of Rosamond. Now if Oliphant had managed to recover from his illness, it seems probable that Grubbe would have stayed on longer at the Household (perhaps even indefinitely). Regardless as to Grubbe’s participation, given the end results of Jennie, Templeton, and himself [Grubbe] it seemed like there was something psychologically dangerous in the sympneumata act (though not everyone can be accounted for in this situation there was some connection evidenced); however, this “danger” must be considered in the context of the Victorian moral code which was likely the true culprit serving to damage anyone who dared to stray outside of its strict boundaries and severe limitations. This study has launched a historical survey of the sympneumata—a sexual practice that might have been lost to modern-day society if not for the scant pieces of evidence that have been recollected and examined in this study. Ultimately, the sympneumata was a mystical form of masturbation that had been ritualized; this religious import instilled a deeper emotional sensation on an already pleasant physical sensation. Given the prevailing Victorian moral code, it is no wonder that it led to feelings of remorse and self-deception. There was a great fear of writing directly about the act itself which accounts for the mystery surrounding this subject. The Victorian code of morality ensured that there would always be a secretive element to this practice conceivably making Oliphant’s teachings all the more alluring to potential members. Oliphant also maintained that the sympneumata was the key to understanding true Christianity as it provided the only means for the complete salvation of the world. This belief would have added further mystique to this “Christian” community: for, after all, the act itself was contrarian to what most Christian leaders and medical doctors taught about sexuality as they viewed masturbation as a potentially dangerous sexual act. Yet, ironically, in Oliphant’s philosophy this very act and its practice held the only hope for saving the world and evolving the human race. As such, the sympneumata revealed an optimistic focus in Oliphant’s teachings: for when it

110  

J. D. LAVOIE

was practiced correctly and faithfully, it would lead humanity to evolve to a higher place with purer atoms where sexual intercourse would become advisable again—it would create a whole new generation who could be born into an even higher state of understanding! For the researcher, Oliphant’s sympneumata provides a lens for studying and understanding Victorian society and especially their haphazard attitudes and approaches toward sexuality. Sex was something that should not be talked about openly—it was a dirty secret albeit one filled with pleasurable sensations and joy. Monogamy and sex inside of marriage provided an ethical staple that held together the etiquette of Victorian society; sex was viewed as embarrassing and inappropriate topic in polite conversation and even in private settings it was not discussed in any great detail (for the most part). Now, as to whether Oliphant believed this idea himself, though he was rich and affluent one cannot over-emphasize the power of Harris and the ten years of being programmed by the repetition of Harris’ eccentric preaching mixed with the debilitating act of hard labor. It seemed the doctrine of the counterparts was forced deep into his subconscious mind and he wanted to share its value with everyone—in the end, who can really blame him? Unlike Harris who wanted to be selfish in his exploration of sexuality and limit it for only himself and a chosen few, Oliphant wanted everyone to properly and safely experience this act of worship through the practice of mystical masturbation with the opposite sex. Therefore, Oliphant was not just an adventurer, politician, or religious leader, he was a sexual reformer as well! Oliphant attempted to change the norms of sexual practice; he even suggested that sexuality was a sacred act and that it was a means of expressing true worship to one’s Creator. Few would deny that practicing the sympneumata might make the world a better and a happier place for humans to live. By taking a more relaxed view of sexuality than the Victorian morality permitted, Oliphant’s teachings were intended to assist humanity in their evolutionary process; however, it was not achieved in the mystical manner to which Oliphant intended. No, his writings might have influenced the Victorian view of sexuality presenting it as a pure and healthy activity created by God; however, any serious religious connections or associations have been lost in the obscurity in which he placed them. Thus, it seems now in a past-modern society, that Oliphant’s views and teachings are finally ready to be understood on their own terms and in their own context; for the sympneumata no longer remains a hidden,

11 CONCLUSION 111

shameful secret, but now it has been redeemed in the light of modern history; it can now be seen and appreciated for what it was: an act of sexual freedom and social defiance from a time long past. It also provides a much fuller understanding of Jesus’ key teaching—for the sympneumata was a picture of true selflessness and cooperation as Oliphant connected: “A method has been provided, in the infinite love of God, by which the Divine Feminine principle can descend, through Christ, to all who love the neighbour better than themselves.”1

Reference Oliphant, Laurence. 1888. Scientific Religion, or Higher Possibilities of Life and Practice Through the Operation of Natural Forces. London: William Blackwood and Sons.

1

 Oliphant, Scientific Religion, p. 306.

CHAPTER 12

Addendums

Abstract  This addendum examines the homosexuality of Laurence Carrington Grubbe and his pederast view of Victorian society. It is only by translating the coded entries in his journal that an unprecedented view into the world of Victorian homosexuality can be understood. It was his “divergent” sexual views that seemingly led Grubbe to Oliphant in the first place. Keywords  Victorian homosexuality • Boy love • Oscar Wilde • Pedophile • Pedarest

Addendum A: Laurence Carrington Grubbe (1854–1912), “Boy Love” and Homosexuality These new “Grubbe archives” provide not only a behind-the-scenes look at Laurence Oliphant and The Household, but they also offer a fresh perspective into the history and philosophy of Victorian sexuality. In this massive family archive, several of Grubbe’s personal journals can be found many of which contain large sections written in a mysterious code.1 These coded-writings present an unprecedented glimpse into Victorian sexuality

1  J.  Eustace Grubbe, Pedigree of Grubbe, of Southwold, Suffolk, formerly of Horsenden, Buckinghamshire (n. p., 1891).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. D. Lavoie, Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0_12

113

  114

J. D. LAVOIE

and practice as they reveal an uncensored description of homosexual life and pederasty in the Victorian era. Grubbe attempted to hide his homosexual lifestyle. Later in life, he even had a daughter named Margaret with his much younger bride; however, the code in these journals explain that he preferred boys over girls…and much younger boys at that. Grubbe participated in a practice that he called “boy love,” and even used his journals as an opportunity to describe his relationships with such “little creatures” and “sweet pets.” These fascinating journals provide a deeper understanding of what life was like for a well-educated homosexual pederast and prominent member of society during the Victorian era. This new source material provides several new subjects of research: (1) it allows one to better understand the dichotomy of sexuality during this era (along with any sexual “diversion” away from the prevailing “Victorian morality”); (2) it presents certain details from various secret relationships of a prestigious homosexual artist named Laurence Carrington Grubbe and examines how these relationships developed in light of an apparent strict Victorian “moral code.” Grubbe wrestled with his sexual identity and these writings reveal a deep-seated inner struggle to both understand and express his sexual feelings during this time. Grubbe redirected his homosexual feelings into other forms of “sexual deviancy” including a preoccupation with younger boys. Several of these relationships will be examined alongside Grubbe’s mode of grooming these younger partners. All of this took place while Grubbe maintained appearances and hid this secret from his friends and family; this privacy was very important to Grubbe who used (what he believed to be) an indecipherable code to protect his thoughts and experiences. Ironically, Grubbe was overtly confident in his simple substitution code. In one instance, he even taunted potential readers: for tucked into the front pages of one of his journals was a peculiarly defiant (though enigmatic) note on which Grubbe teased: O, reader, think not, as thy curious eye, Lights on this book to read with just amaze; Some doubtful incident of my young days. That all this book contains thou canst espy. How hard to then understand it – for only I, See spirits that haunt my own life’s sweetest ways. But every line has power for me to raise.

12 ADDENDUMS 115

Long thought and many a fond regretful sigh, If thou who knowest me not, discernest here, Inklings of aught which seemest unto thee, Less beautiful and good than it is dear, Beware pray how thou dost measure me; By standard of thine own read if thou care, But reading- read I pray also with charity.2

Thus, Grubbe believed that no one would be able to crack his hidden code even if they might become suspicious from reading the entries. Despite the confidence that Grubbe placed in this code, he considered (more than once) burning these journals; however, in the end, he could not bring himself to do this given the long-cherished memories that were contained in its pages: “See spirits that haunt my own life’s sweetest ways; But every line has power for me to raise.”3 He simply could not discard a lifetime of memories and sexual experiences. As noted above, Grubbe maintained that the content included “less beautiful” descriptions of times and places. Yet, his poetic introduction puts forth a serious reminder for all would-be historians and readers of this journal—to be wary to understand his writings within the specific historical context of the nineteenth century (instead of applying a set of twenty-­ first-­century morals and values to a nineteenth-century subject). This is especially true when it comes to a “Victorian morality” and a view of sexuality that at first glance might appear prudish; however, the historical context must be considered. For at a minimum, the Victorian era would provide the Western world with a sociological step that would ultimately lead to the sexual revolution of the twentieth century and beyond. Thus, the Victorian era served as a crossroads for sexual expression; this is an important insight to consider especially when reading an article such as this. Grubbe believed his secrets would remain safely locked behind his code; however, it was this very belief in privacy (false as it may have been) that allowed him to write openly and record such thoughts that would have otherwise been lost to modern researchers. These writings provide new details about a practice that was rarely discussed openly due to a cultural phenomenon known today as the “Victorian morality.” At this 2 3

 Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1879–1882: loose-leaf paper.  Ibid.

116  

J. D. LAVOIE

early stage, this Victorian moral belief system deserves further consideration as it influenced the sexuality of entire generations for years to come (both in England and even across the puddle in the United States). The “Victorian Morality” As noted previously, while the “Victorian morality” appears as the “public” opinion of the culture, there were certainly exceptions to this system. There were “alternative” expressions including those described by the writer Edward Carpenter (1844–1929) who went on to publish his pivotal work The Intermediate Sex in 1909 (just after the Victorian era though he was a practicing homosexual during this earlier period). In this work, Carpenter argues that homosexuality represented a more evolved and intermediate state of sexuality and that an individual might possess an inner sex in their mind that was unique from their biological sex. Of course, the very fact that sexuality was being discussed at all shows a progression taking place within the history of sexuality. Its condemnation reveals that sexual expression was taking place; however, to what degree remains an elusive subject at this later date. Grubbe’s journal provides some answer to this question, though it seems to favor the existence of a “Victorian morality.” Indeed, the very fact that Grubbe felt the need to conceal his writings on sexuality in code (both “hetero” and “homo”) reveals something about Victorian sexuality and the limited freedom that one possessed in this time frame. Grubbe directed his sexual energy into a unique form of “deviant” sexuality—pederasty. As a well-known and respected painter, he had access to younger boys for hours, days, and weeks at a time. Also, given that openly talking about sexuality was normally restricted, few would suspect any sinister intent especially given Grubbe’s status in the community. This is not to imply that Grubbe acted out his sexual urges on these young sitters; however, the access was certainly there. Regardless as to what one believes about Victorian sexuality, most would agree: if “Victorian morality” (in whatever form it took) stifled any fringe expression of healthy heterosexuality, it was even more dismissive of homosexuality; this subject deserves further extrapolation.

12 ADDENDUMS 117

Examples of Homosexuality in the Victorian Era One of the fascinating elements in this journal-text, aside from the spirituality, is what it reveals about the sexuality of Laurence Grubbe. Particularly in the nineteenth century, writings about homosexuality were written in either code or allegories which have largely been lost to modern readers. Aside from these codes, most direct writings were intentionally destroyed. For example, John Addington Symonds (1840–1893) had his early poems locked up in a black tin box; he then gave the key to his close friend Henry Sidgwick who ended up throwing them into the river Avon. Later, Edmund Gosse (1849–1928) and the librarian of the London Library organized Symonds’ more controversial papers into a pile out in the library garden and proceeded to set fire to them. There were other examples of this type of secrecy going on during this time. For example, it was rumored that Richard Burton’s research notes on “pederasty” were likely destroyed by his widow. Also, according to her brother Fred, Mary “Minnie” Benson aka “Ben” (1841–1918) handed down to her son Arthur a packet of letters that contained “very dangerous stuff” and another that “had to be burnt unopened.” Allegedly, Edward Lear’s (1812–1888) papers were selectively destroyed after his death by the very man for whom Lear had harbored a “thwarted, frustrated, impossible love.”4 Thus, notes and sources that described a homosexual lifestyle during the Victorian era were largely destroyed, and, as such, any descriptions remain relatively rare; these behaviors seem to further validate some form of “Victorian morality” and justify the value of Grubbe’s journal to modern researchers. Today’s biographer is left to sort through multiple obscure metaphors that are vague at best as most sources have been intentionally censored or destroyed. In addition to this, in order to prove that any historical figure was a practicing homosexual (especially someone from the nineteenth century) requires an enormous amount of evidence that is nigh impossible to find. Such clear and direct documents were not kept openly as it would threaten the family, career, freedom, and even the life of the practitioner. Even the figures who were thought to be most certainly homosexual (such as Thomas Gray [1716–1771] or Thomas Lovell Beddoes [1803–1849]), cannot be proven at this later date given a severe lack of evidence. As such,

4  Graham Robb, Strangers: Homosexual Love in the Nineteenth Century (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2003), p. 137.

118  

J. D. LAVOIE

unless there is consistent and weighty evidence, an individual is assumed to be heterosexual by default. To further complicate this issue, Grubbe also enjoyed relationships with younger boys and they were undoubtedly one of his favorite subjects for painting. This artistic connection seems similar to the photography of Charles Dodgson (1832–1898) aka Lewis Carrol, the author of the famous children’s book Alice in Wonderland. Dodgson took roughly 3000 photographs, half of which were of children, and thirty of these were taken while the child was nude or semi-nude. While some of these images might shock modern readers, the context must be remembered. In the Victorian era such pictures were more standard of the culture than they might be today. Despite the prevailing Victorian morality, photographs of nude children could be found on post cards and birthday cards alike. This reveals an early expression of nudity and thereby sexuality that was still developing in the Victorian era. Dodgson viewed childhood as a picture of innocence and thus his status of pedophile remains uncorroborated. However, the same cannot be said of L. C. Grubbe. These journals with his coded writings translated reveal his own secret life not just of homosexual practice, but his involvement with younger boy figures whom he appears to have engaged in some form of intimacy with. Now that an understanding of how homosexuality was approached during this time period, an examination of Grubbe’s life and his relationships are worth considering for what they reveal about nineteenth-century homosexual practices. The Life of Laurence Carrington Grubbe Laurence Carrington Grubbe (1854–1912) is best remembered as a young vibrant artist, poet, and a soldier (if he is remembered at all). He was the seventh of twelve children born to the affluent John Eustace Grubbe (1816–1899) a magistrate, parliamentary agent, and mayor of Southwold. Grubbe’s mother was Julia Catherine, the daughter of Rev. Dr. George William Hall, Master of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge. Grubbe was educated at the prestigious Eton College, a formal, all-male boarding school for boys ages thirteen to eighteen5; he was also admitted to Trinity 5  Grubbe spent his early years at Eton College which likely exerted a significant impact on his formative years and sexuality. While Eton certainly raised some fine outstanding young men, there is a dark undercurrent in its history. The institution promoted a bullying-sort-of

12 ADDENDUMS 119

Hall, Cambridge, in 1872. Grubbe joined the British army and earned the rank of Captain in the Sixteenth Regiment. Upon his retirement, Grubbe took up figure painting and went on to exhibit at the London Salon and at the Royal Academy in 1893. He enrolled at the Academie Julian in Paris under the tutelage of such artists as Benjamin Constant (1845–1902), Gustave Boulanger (1824–1888), and Jules Joseph Lefebvre (1834–1912). Along with his passion for painting, Grubbe was an aspiring poet and writer. He wrote several poems which have survived through the years as well as several full-­ length manuscripts on South Africa and the Second Boer War. He also wrote a full-length manuscript on the Battle of Waterloo which he self-­ illustrated. Unfortunately, Grubbe did not have much luck in publishing and most of these projects were transformed into high-level lectures that were read before the East Anglian Literary Guild. In June 1910, Grubbe was married to Marie Ellen Seymour (1879–1951) who happened to be the daughter of the renowned artist John Seymour Lucas (1849–1923). It is worth mentioning that a significant age gap existed between the couple as Grubbe was fifty-six and his new bride was just thirty-one years of age. Together they had one child on February 17, 1911, a girl named Margaret Julia Maria Grubbe (1911–1997). Given this history of a long line of Suffolk artistry and creativity, it is little wonder that young Margaret went on to become a respected miniature painter by her own merits. Thus, from the outside, Grubbe appeared to be a “typical” English gentleman; however, underneath the surface there was a strong sexual tension as he wrestled with the social and sexual norms of the day. It is this tension that Grubbe references directly in his coded writings. His Sexuality One must start with the facts: it is an unassailable fact that on June 23, 1909, Grubbe married Marie Ellen Seymour; thus, Grubbe married smartly later in life and just two years before he passed away in 1912 at the young age of fifty-six. In his personal archives, there are several pictures of practice known as “fagging”; this is where older students are assigned their own fag, that is, an incoming freshman student who they treat as their slave during the school year (if the student were a sexually frustrated individual then it seems likely this could turn into a sexual sort of relationship).

120  

J. D. LAVOIE

him with his future wife Marie. These pictures are especially interesting for they reveal the obvious age gap between this couple as they capture a fifty-­ year-­old Grubbe intimately embracing a young twenty-year-old Marie. However, Marie looks much younger than Grubbe and it was no doubt due to her youthful appearance and personality that Grubbe was attracted to her in the first place (he was inevitably attracted to her “innocent” nature—see images listed below). During his teenage years, from 1871 to 1873 (when Grubbe was roughly seventeen to nineteen years old), he was primarily interested in gaining the attention of certain female students who were affiliated with Eton College, that is, he pursued heterosexual relationships. However, from 1882 (around age 28) onward he focused on describing only his homosexual and these “boy love” relationships as he lovingly referred to them. Grubbe would make a “coded entry” in his journal whenever he spied a prime specimen of early masculine form, referring to them with such gentle names as “little creatures,” “little angels,” or “sweet pets.” Additionally, there are some blatant homo-erotic references in his journals which leave little room for any debate regarding his sexual preferences (especially in the Victorian era where most talk of homosexuality was shrouded in ambiguous metaphors and similes such as those suggested by Edward Carpenter). Despite getting married late in life, internally Grubbe “struggled” with his homosexual feelings (most likely due to both the legal and social consequences of this time). After all, even the most popular of Victorian homosexuals including Oscar Wilde (1854–1900) and John Addington Symonds (1840–1893) were both married and had several children.6 Thus, while in the early 1870s Grubbe was experimenting with his sexuality and appeared interested in women (or only wrote about these desires), by the next decade his sexual interests shifted toward men…and typically younger boys at that. Nevertheless, one must remember that a Victorian figure cannot be judged based on twenty-first-century laws and moral standards; rather, in Victorian England, the age of consent was a fickle matter, and it was quite younger than it is today. The age of consent was set at age twelve up until 1875 when it was changed to age thirteen, until 6  Symonds had four daughters with Catherine North whom he married on November 19, 1864. He found that after marriage his attraction to men actually increased even though he attempted to suppress this desire. Jonathan Ned Katz, Love Stories: Sex Between Men Before Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2001), p. 240.

12 ADDENDUMS 121

finally it was pushed up to sixteen years of age in 1885.7 Even though some behaviors may seem unhealthy or criminal by modern strictures, there was nothing illegal about sex with post-pubescent “children” during this time. Still, the age preference of the young boys that Grubbe preferred remains unknown at this later date; all that exists are the drawings that Grubbe made of some of his willing “partners” during this time. Sex Code Early on, it seems plausible that Grubbe had created a secret code as a means of hiding information from his older brothers. Living in a large home with many siblings, it was not unusual for his brothers to “borrow” his writings and imaginative stories and then use their contents to humiliate him at the dinner table and beyond. This desire for privacy likely resulted in the formation of a substitution code. It was only natural that Grubbe would later use this code as a means of hiding his sexual exploits that began during his time at Eton and continued into Cambridge and beyond. This code provided a safe way for Grubbe to hide his sexual ideas as well as to remember key events and emotions, especially for this part of his life that he could not write openly about. This included his curious interest in “boy love.” There are two examples that divulge Grubbe’s prurient curiosity in children especially within a same-sex relationship. First, there is some suggestive homo-eroticism in his personal sketch book. Due to their innocence and the beauty of their pre-pubescence, Grubbe loved to sketch pictures of young boys. His sketch pad includes examples from the various sitters he hired along his travels from within England and beyond to Palestine and Rome. These sitters were typically young males/boys who were paid to sit still, so that Grubbe could paint their portraits. There are several boys in this sketch pad that appear in Grubbe’s journals. Also, there is one painted sketch that includes an image of two boys standing near each other naked; however, they were made to appear like hermaphrodites as their genitals were blurred over in this painting. One thing seems certain: Grubbe preferred younger male models (though not exclusively as several young females appears in his sketchbook as well). This leads to the second example of Grubbe’s erotic interests which can be found in the pages of his journals shrouded in his secret code. Grubbe 7

 Adrian Gray, Crimes and Criminals in Victorian Essex (Countryside Press, 1988), p. 63.

122  

J. D. LAVOIE

was a renowned painter, and he came from a prominent and wealthy family. This occupation served as the ideal occupation for a pederast: it provided a justification for Grubbe to be alone with younger boys and even have multiple meetings/sessions alone with them. Being a painter combined with his wealth and status ensured plenty of opportunity to groom these boys over a longer time period without appearing overtly suspicious. In his journals, the reader is given a glimpse into Grubbe’s private relationships and his opinions of these younger male sitters. While at first glance, these relationships might appear innocent enough, it seems suspicious that most of the entries that describe his behavior with younger boys are written in code. If his interests remained innocent, then why would Grubbe need to hide his feelings and relationships using this code? While he was clearly a homosexual (or bi-sexual), Grubbe’s preoccupation with young boys appears to place him even further away from typical Victorian practices and acceptable behaviors. The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name There was an interesting term that Grubbe used for his homosexual condition as he utilized a historical name calling it “boy love.” He maintained a curious relationship with younger males which he recorded throughout the pages of his journal (via the secret code). For example, when he was in the army, he records having met “an officer who I suspect has known the boy love as myself.”8 This was a real emotional sensation for him, and he maintained several of these relationships over the years. To most twenty-first-century readers, this “boy love” might seem synonymous with pedophilia; however, there is no proof that anything sexual took place in the majority of these relationships.9 Grubbe explained this emotional sensation in his own words remarking that he was “sweet with the sweetness of another boy love.”10 On the connection between “boy love” and sexuality, Chris White remarked in his Nineteenth-Century Writings on Homosexuality (1999) that: Sex is not the automatic, explicit or implicit, goal of these narrators. The fetishic elements of these texts are focused not on acts, but on the type of  Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1879–1882: Entry dated: May 14, 1882.  Though to be fair, one would not expect much proof from this time period. 10  Ibid., Entry dated: Thursday May 5, 1881. 8 9

12 ADDENDUMS 123

boy, his purity and passivity, and his fidelity to the adult. Sex and the flesh are there to be negotiated, but it is thus that the double bind arises. Sex might be nice, but if the boy should actively choose it, then sex is no longer wanted because the precondition of the desire for sex has gone.11

Thus, this “boy love” is based upon the innocence and naïve nature of being with a younger boy; as such, it is not based on the “what” but on the “who” that is acted upon. Again, it is imperative at this juncture that the audience should not read twenty-first-century implications into this or any other Victorian terms or sexual descriptions. In modernity, there are many titles, names, and descriptions available to describe any number of sexual activities or proclivities; however, this accessible and diverse “sex language” did not exist in the Victorian era. As noted previously, sex was rarely discussed “publicly”; however, even when it was, Victorian homosexuals did not have a list of terms or language that they could use to define their love interests. Terms such as bi-sexual, transexual, top, bottom, and the like were not defined at this earlier time period. Thus, they had to content themselves with the limited vocabulary of their day, when the only terms available to them held a number of harsh legal and criminal connotations including words like buggery, self-pollution, sodomy, and the like. Indeed, the fact that men who had sex with other men were placed in the same category as pedophiles, zoophiles, and rapists reveals a deep-­ seated institutional homophobia that raged underneath the surface of Victorian culture.12 These early men (and women) struggled for words to use to define themselves in the dominant condemnatory sexual terms of nineteenth-century society; as such, it is by studying their words that a brand-new sexual world in the making is revealed.13 For example, even to take the word “love” in dissecting the longer phrase “boy love.” “Love” could have so many different meanings and expressions related to it. While most modern readers might connect the notion of love to some form of sexual expression, in the Victorian era, this implication was not necessarily there. Love could refer to a “familial love” or a “brotherly love” just as easily as it could refer to an erotic sort. 11  Nineteenth-Century Writings on Homosexuality: A Sourcebook, ed. Chris White (London: Routledge, 1999), p. 317. 12  Robb, Strangers, p. 21. 13  Katz, Love Stories, p. 332.

124  

J. D. LAVOIE

This lack of a language emerges as one of the key points made by Jonathan Ned Katz in his book Love Stories: Sex Between Men Before Homosexuality (2001). As hinted in the subtitle of this work, there was a severe lack of vocabulary for sexual terms and sensual feelings that homosexuals could relate to back in the Victorian era. Even the word “homosexual” was not widespread until the middle of the twentieth century; before this time, words like “uranian” or “sexual inversion” were primarily used. This language gap, mixed with the repressive “Victorian morality,” makes any study of same-sex relationships in the Victorian era problematic (in whatever form they might have been). Katz went on to discuss a significant change in the role of sex since the days of the Victorian era.14 At this time, sex was largely billed as a means of procreation between a husband and a wife (a view derived from a literal application of Judeo-Christian ethics though most notably the story of Onan in Genesis 18:1–10). However, today in Western culture, the role of sexuality has shifted and evolved dramatically to becoming a socially engaging topic as well as its usage—it is now a source of pleasure and of empowerment. Furthermore, over the years, the Lesbian/Gay/Bi-sexual/Trans-gender/ Queer (LGBTQ) community has pushed for equal acceptance and the subject of sexuality has been thrust into a public forum. For example, in the United States, issues relating to equal rights for transgendered people is still in the news and being voted upon, thereby evidencing the ongoing public discussion on sexuality.15 Needless to say, such open conversations did not occur publicly in the Victorian era (for the most part) though the very fact that they had such laws against these type of “lewd” conversations reveal there was a need to control such expressions. After all, the act known as “sodomy” was illegal and Grubbe had to be careful to hide his sexuality and especially his penchant for “boy love.” It was this desire for younger boys, that could lead to his classification as a pederast for the simple fact that he enjoyed these ambiguous “boy love” relationships. Again, the reader must note that there is no mention or connection of sexual activity to any of these “affairs.” Rather, it seems Grubbe enjoyed being in the company of male beauty and innocent expressions of affection were not necessarily sexual. For Grubbe, beauty was something to be  Ibid.  This was a key issue in the 2020 election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. There are many contemporary sources for such topics as this—see David Weigle, “The Trailer: Why Republicans Keep Running Against Trans Rights”, in The Washington Post (March 2, 2021). 14 15

12 ADDENDUMS 125

sought out as he himself explained in his journal: “Boys were there I experienced great delight on their account or one of them. Am convinced about my theory as to beauty [is] the soul’s natural food.”16 This is a poetic expression of his view on relationships: He started them to fill his soul’s yearning for beauty. There are several examples of this type of “boy love” relationship within Grubbe’s writings and these journals give an unprecedented look into the mind of a Victorian pederast and the methods he used to groom them. Grubbe’s Boy-Love Relationships There are several “boy love” relationships chronicled in Grubbe’s journals. These were all written in his unique code as he might have been imprisoned for carrying on such relationships if anyone had discovered them (and not because of the age difference, but because of their homosexual nature). In fact, there were even worse punishments than this for practitioners of homosexuality. The crime known as “sodomy” was punishable by death in England and Wales up until the year 1861; in the United States there were only eighty-nine reports of sodomy alleged between the years 1800 to 1925 and, of those, only twenty-five included consensual sodomy between two men.17 Perhaps the most famous case of legal persecution for his sexuality was none other than the Irish poet Oscar Wilde (1854–1900). Wilde was convicted of the “terrible vice” sodomy and was placed in prison from 1895 to 1897. News of his incarceration surely would have elicited the dutiful attention of Laurence Grubbe who had his own sexual activities to account for. A further examination of these “boy love” relationships will now be considered. Please note that all of these writings are written in Grubbe’s substitution code and were never intended to become accessible to the general public. These coded entries record the methods Grubbe employed to get close to these younger men which will be noted throughout.

16  Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1879–1882: Entry dated: Thursday, May 6, 1880: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 17  Graham, Strangers, pp. 17; 21.

126  

J. D. LAVOIE

“Guy”:1881 The first “boy love” relationship that the reader is made privy to concerns a younger boy named Guy. Grubbe wrote on April 29, 1881, that he had “a most delightful afternoon…held G. in arms and [it was] G.’s birthday.”18 Thus, some tender form of touching took place. This “holding” served as a relatively safe and playful way for Grubbe to test the boundaries that each boy had developed. Grubbe went on to note on May 4 about having made a bet with the young Guy: I betted G. sixpence he would not hit a post before me with a stone…he hit the post again before me…and won three more pennies. Afterwards the scene between his father…was splendid about betting, I then took him to buy some string for the kite. He was loathe to break into the bet because Campbell [his father] disapproved of his spending…I said…Papa would overlook it this time and raid the sixpence…[I] accepted four coppers from him to keep. Two are in the drawer of my desk.19

There is something unsettling about the compulsion for Grubbe to take a keepsake from this relationship. Additionally, we find that Grubbe sent him a nice gift of a soccer ball that Guy thanked him for noting that: “I [Guy] wish you [Grubbe] were here to play with me. Goodbye from Guy.” This was likely part of the grooming process where Grubbe would use his financial means as a way of buying and impressing whatever “boy love” he might be courting at the moment.20 Still, like most pederast relationships, this was short lived, but Grubbe would not let go of this relationship without a fight. He “begged” Guy to hear him out and reconsider; however, Guy refused to do so. This response made Grubbe feel “deeply disappointed” and so he “removed in my heart by giving Mrs C. [his mother!] a hint to the real reason of my wish to paint Guy and wrote her a short note knowing how apt one is under these circumstances to be foolish, kept it till next morning to revise. Sent it [at] the last moment lest Mrs C. should think it had selfish motive.”21

 Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1879–1882: Entry dated: April 29, 1881.  Ibid., Entry dated: Wednesday, May 4, 1881. 20  Ibid., Entry dated: Wednesday, May 14, 1881. 21  Ibid., Entry dated: May 4, 1882. 18 19

12 ADDENDUMS 127

One can only wonder what this note actually said and/or revealed! What is known is that on May 14, Guy responded to it prompting Grubbe’s entry that “Guy’s letter lives in my pocket – wonder what Mrs. C[ampbell] thinks.” As do we all! This relationship did not seem to last very long and ten days later Grubbe reported the following enigmatic entry in his journal: “Unhappy, Unhappy that cursed sin. G[uy] forgets me.” Thus, Grubbe associated his relationship with a “cursed sin” which ended this first “boy love” relationship recorded in his journals. It is important as it reveals some of the methods Grubbe employed to get the attention of these young suitors. “Gerald”: 1884 The next relationship occurred over the year 1884. This particular “boy-­ love” relationship concerned a young boy named Gerald; however, the nature of the relationship and the time span remains unknown. Grubbe alludes to it occasionally observing that “Gerald is gone and I miss him. He is a warm hearted affectionate little darling. He came to say goodbye… I took him down to the under-climb and…we had an affectionate farewell. I promised to send him a picture and he to write and thank me for it. I still never forget you.”22 Whatever this affectionate farewell consisted of, specific details are not mentioned. Grubbe wrote concerning another occasion where “Poor G[erald] grew quite sad and spoke of never perhaps seeing me again…I never thought he cared for me. He has presented me with a picture of his own doing and a little match box. I am almost sorry I have made him love me. It is sweet enough to love little boys without being loved by them.”23 Therefore, if Grubbe’s own testimony is to be believed, this strange couple shared a “loving” relationship. Then on August 15, Grubbe records his own response to the end of this relationship, noting: “It is a terrible thing to see any sadness in [his eyes]…At the door of his house he said again I shall never see you again and kissed me.”24 Therefore, at a minimum, “holding” and “kissing” were some of the acts Grubbe engaged in with these younger love interests. Whatever the other acts consisted of, 22  Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1882–1885: Entry dated: Friday, August 15, 1884. 23  Ibid., Entry dated: Wednesday, August 13, 1884. 24  Ibid., Entry dated: Friday, August 15, 1884.

128  

J. D. LAVOIE

this relationship was also short lived. Grubbe makes one further entry in an uncoded part of his journal on September 21, 1884: “Have sent picture to G. without result.” Thus, ended another example of Grubbe’s unusual “boy love” relationships. While there are other specific examples listed below, some of the sporadic ones from this time will now be explored. Random Relationships from 1881–1884 Several of Grubbe’s relationships were fleeting and only appear randomly in the pages of his journals, and many times there is no indication of their age. One such example can be found in 1881, when Grubbe meets an “acquaintance” named Willie. Together they “spent most of the evening” conversing “much of artillery, visited the nursery and inspected his ‘batteries’ [artillery unit- though odd that it is inside quotation marks]. Then took one of the guns up hill to fire it. As he carried the appliances in his bosom and loosed the lucifer matches there I had of course to fool for them.”25 A few evenings later, while Grubbe was visiting a colonel, presumably for work reasons, he was informed by the colonel’s wife that “Willie reckoned’ Grubbe as his ‘greatest though his newest friend.’”26 Grubbe responded to these remarks, in his journal, in an uncoded entry which offers an unprecedented glimpse into the pride and confidence that L. C. Grubbe exhibited in his abilities to attract the love of these younger boys—he wrote: “how easy it is and how delightful to win a little boy’s heart. One had but to take or assume an interest in whatever most interests him and talk seriously– not condescendingly with him for a quarter of an hour, and he will lay his thoughts open and confide in you as his best friend.”27 This reveals one of Grubbe’s intellectual strategies for grooming these youngsters: he must appear “authentically” engaged in their interests and treat them as valid equals/peers (not treating them as though they are “beneath him” in social status as most adults tend to do). A similar ambiguous relationship comes from an entry dated September 2, 1884. In this entry, Grubbe introduces the reader to a young man named Cecil who was a gifted violin player. One evening, Grubbe had the 25  Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1879–1882: Entry dated: Thursday, July 13, 1882. 26  Ibid., Entry dated: Saturday, July 15, 1882. 27  Ibid.

12 ADDENDUMS 129

opportunity to hear him play and remarked in an “uncoded” journal entry: “I wish I could hear him in his best”; then below that in “code” he confided in his journal: “I could soon make him love me. His eyes already told me that.” Here again the confidence (or perhaps, arrogance) of Grubbe is displayed: after years of navigating the secret world of Victorian pederasty, Grubbe could now identify potential partners just by reading their expressions…or at least this is what he seemed to believe. Still, whether this was true or not does not matter, as it reveals Grubbe’s candor and his need to read someone’s body language in order to know if they were safe to approach whether for a conversation or more. In addition to these above instances of homosexual engagement, another secret relationship is explained in Grubbe’s coded language. This time it was with a guy known as “Chet.” Chet appears to have been a fellow army volunteer alongside Grubbe; thus, he would have been older than some of the other relationships identified in this chapter. The couple had met up during one of Grubbe’s “pleasant” day visits to the town of Barnish. Grubbe describes their time spent together engaging in a “long talk with Chet about my leaving the army. He backs me up and also wants to give me fifty pounds a year for th[r]ee years, He is also going to make enquiries about Paris for me.” Chet was showing his admiration and possibly his love for Grubbe through offering to relieve him from a job to which Grubbe was no longer interested. Chet seemingly wanted exclusive access to Grubbe. Then, a few weeks later on October 18, 1884, Grubbe records a first-hand account about homosexual love in the Victorian era: together the couple “conversed much about love. I must say I cannot quite understand Chet. I sometimes think he cares extraordinarily for me but can hardly think it.” This brief statement reveals that struggling to come to terms with one’s own sexuality was a serious though common trait among Victorian homosexuals (for all of the reasons explored in this article). Grubbe does make one final mention of Chet, observing that the two took a “stroll” together and Grubbe left him “at his club. He has given me a letter from Colonel Bramstone which will I think be of great use to me in Paris.”28 Grubbe had wanted to travel to Paris for some time as he had decided to attend art school; it also seems likely that Grubbe wanted to move so that he could live a more open lifestyle in the “queer” metropolis

 Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1882–1885: Entry dated: October 18, 1884.

28

130  

J. D. LAVOIE

of Paris where he could find more “inverted” individuals such as himself.29 However, Grubbe wouldn’t make it there until a couple of years afterward around 1886. “Cyril Saunders” 1885 Another “boy love” relationship heated up this time in 1885 when Grubbe had met a young boy named Cyril Saunders. Grubbe details their first meeting together: He met Cyril as he was “bowling a hoop”; this implies Cyril was quite young as “bowling a hoop” is the classic Victorian game where a child will roll a hoop along the ground using a stick or some other device in order to keep the hoop rolling along upright.30 This reveals again that Grubbe began a connection with young boys by playing alongside them to test their boundaries. Grubbe wrote romantically (if not immaturely) of the young boy, claiming: “Cyril Saunders you have got my heart.”31 Grubbe then proceeded to recount in his journal how he took Cyril for a walk in the garden and brought him to see a Roman Drain; however, Grubbe remarked, “like an ass [I] was too shy to make the most of the opportunity.”32 Then just a few short weeks later, Grubbe noted that he has “not seen Cyril since the Roman Drain day. I think he must be away.”33 A few months later Cyril makes another appearance in the journal as Grubbe playfully exclaimed that he “saw Cyril a few days ago [he]…stopped and talked and he saluted me like a soldier.”34 The end of this relationship is not recorded though it seemed to slowly fizzle out as Cyril returned back to school and Grubbe returned to his own responsibilities. While this relationship was brief, it explains that Grubbe went for walks with Cyril and it was usually on him to make the first move romantically so he could “make the most of the opportunities” that he had.

29  Florence Tamagne, “Paris: Resting on its Laurels?’ in Queer Cities, Queer Culture: Europe Since 1945, eds. Matt Cook and Jennifer V.  Evans (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 240–260 (p. 240) 30  Ibid., Entry dated: October 24, 1885. 31  Ibid., Entry dated: Wednesday, July 29, 1885. 32  Ibid., Entry dated: July 29, 1885. 33  Ibid., Entry dated: August 25, 1885. 34  Ibid., Entry dated: October 24, 1885. Paris.

12 ADDENDUMS 131

“Sidney Tippets” 1889–1910 There is one final relationship recorded in the journal and this one seemingly lasted for many years. This odd relationship occurred between Grubbe and a young boy named Sidney Tippets. Grubbe describes it in great detail and even provides a sketch-drawing of the young boy in his sketch pad. It is intriguing that Grubbe first met Sidney through his brother Percy. Grubbe expounded on this fortuitous first meeting and observed that: “[Sidney]… is the brother of the boy I met in the rain on the common. I saw him 2 years ago when they had the Lawe’s house— met him one day along the shore last Autumn but it was not till this Summer, I made acquaintance joining him and his brothers and sister ‘accidentally’ on the common.”35 Grubbe “soon perceived he was as sweet natured as beautiful.”36 As such, he began grooming young Sidney by paying him to sit for a portrait painting and remarked that “the mother having no objection, I set about his portrait, first on a small then on a lifesize scale full length which is getting on well.”37 As usual, these morning sessions turned into all day visits “commencing with the early bathe.”38 Together the two would embark on adventures including sailing and the “rigging of his [Sidney’s] boat” which provided them with “many a pleasant hour in the afternoon” together.39 The couple went “mushrooming” together on Walberswick off the Suffolk Heritage Coast as well as shared “some delightful walks along the beach.”40 Grubbe volunteered as a tutor for Sidney and his “examination into Mercers.” Sidney’s parents were concerned about his reading abilities and so Sidney “consented to do some with me. I keep the result in a little red book he brought for the purpose with a cupid on the cover.”41 There is some obvious symbolism here as cupid was the winged Roman god of affection and erotic love. Cupid used his arrows to pierce the hearts of unsuspecting individuals; thereby, causing them to fall in love with one another. Cupid’s appearance is also worth mentioning as he was a young child-like being typically portrayed in the nude.  Ibid., Entry dated: Tuesday, September 24, 1889.  Ibid. 37  Ibid. 38  Ibid. 39  Ibid. 40  Ibid 41  Ibid. 35 36

132  

J. D. LAVOIE

This symbolic love that was pictured on the notebook might have been lost to Sidney though it certainly would have delighted Grubbe whose studies in classics surely would have taught him the true meaning behind this erotic symbol. He wrote out his emotions like a love-sick teenager noting that: “I hope to see a great deal more of Sidney. They have asked me to visit them in London and…we have begun a correspondence also.”42 Eventually, Sidney had to go back to school. This led Grubbe to write that “Since I last wrote have made another never to be forgotten friend. Sidney went away on the 9th and since then I have been dull—sometimes almost intolerably so.”43 Grubbe expected Sidney to return in a few months, and in a journal entry dated December 17 makes mention of their “renewed intimacy” via their correspondence “during the autumn.” He offers further details that “[Sidney] ...spent all his mornings with me and generally we took walks together in the afternoon or I went and tea’d with the family.”44 Grubbe found it “impossible to continue painting operations in the cottage,” as such he hired his own private house for thirty-nine days which was likely so he could spend time with Sidney without fear of prying eyes taking notice of the couple.45 Still all good things must come to an end and yet again it was time for Sidney to return to school. Grubbe gives some details about their time together: “S[idney] went back to school about the 21st January. The last week during which was laid up, he visited me daily and spent an hour or so in the evenings playing games, doing anything he could for me. Dear little boy! And now our correspondences continues.”46 This relationship continued into 1890 and a few months later Grubbe recorded that he “looked in at the Tippetts as I had been expecting Sidney and found him and Percy dressed and about to start for the Fancy Ball at the Mansions House- Percy was Robin Hood, Sidney [was] … George III. Both very good and excited.”47 Grubbe observed that during that next summer, he “painted Sidney’s head, and Sidney making a boat.” In addition, Grubbe “went to Southwold  Ibid.  Ibid. 44  Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1886–1893: Entry dated: Friday, February 14, 1890. 45  Ibid. 46  Ibid. 47  Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1886–1893: Entry dated: April 17, 1890. 42 43

12 ADDENDUMS 133

and had a jolly time with my faithful S[idney] till his return to school about the 7th Sept. Painted him with a kite of a morning.”48 Another journal entry reads that “at Percy and Sidney’s suggestion…organised a paper chase, which [in] spite of unfavorable weather, proved a great success.”49 Thus, the couple spent an entire summer of fun and bonded with one another. It seems a bit unusual that Sidney’s parents were unaware that something was taking place behind the scenes with their son and Grubbe; however, apparently Grubbe had learned to become an adept groomer. For whatever his end-goal was with these young boys, he maintained several ongoing relationships. A middle-aged Grubbe commented on this forbidden relationship with Sidney (noting “the baths” specifically): the morning bathes were pleasant in the extreme, various walks and “messings about” all with S., 2 books read him, and his scrapes and flashes of temper are so many chapters of an absorbing book to me. When I expect him and he does not come I am miserable, as I was from Saturday till last Monday night, when unable to bear it longer, I went to his home. Then it turned out (O, Humour be silent) that while I was regretting and looking out and wondering what offense I might have given or whether his affection was coming to an end, the object of my veneration was spending the afternoon in bed [as] a naughty boy. They punished him by not letting him come to me.50

Thus, it seems that the parents were beginning to notice something peculiar in this relationship. Grubbe’s codependency and obsession with Sidney is apparent in this above quote, but the exact nature of their relationship remains unknown. However, they continued to see each other. Grubbe recorded many of these experiences: in code “S. knows how to make the most of things, and doubtless the children sleep as sound in packing cases as they would in spring beds… S is adjutant of the Herts Volunteers.”51 The Herts Volunteers was a military branch for younger cadets similar to the Reserved Officer’s Training Corps (ROTC) in the United States Army. Grubbe continued on: “One day Tippetts and his 2 boys P. and S. and self, skated up the river to be Wenhaston which has  Ibid., Entry dated: October 7, 1890.  Ibid. 50  Ibid., Entry dated: Tuesday, October 7, 1890. 51  Ibid. 48 49

134  

J. D. LAVOIE

probably never been done before.”52 Grubbe even recounted Sidney’s experience with whooping cough writing that: “During the summer, the T’s had the whooping cough and consequently I spent some pleasant days with Sidney an invalid. About the middle of June they came to Southwold and S. elected to come and do lessons with me which he stuck to nobbing till the last week before giving back.”53 It seems that Grubbe was attracted to Sidney for his carefree nature and enjoyed engaging in the youthful activities that a “boy love” would desire to do. Grubbe’s immaturity and inability to outgrow boyhood activities seemed to be one of the key motivations behind these relationships; however, there was something darker going on behind the scenes. The reader gets a glimpse of it in this relationship with young Sidney. Grubbe openly enjoyed what he called “sweet caresses” with his “boy loves” (though especially with Sidney); however, something happened with Sidney that greatly disturbed him. Grubbe wrote on March 26, 1888, that I “am now a bit disturbed about S[idney] and resolved to have no more caresses. God preserve him from evil. Will be his friend only.”54 This evinces that something inappropriate occurred within their “special relationship”; it seemed the intimacy had gone too far and something took place that went beyond what Grubbe normally came to expect from such relationships. The years of grooming had apparently led Grubbe to develop his own set of ethical guidelines and boundaries which he refused to cross (or perhaps because he had crossed them already!). Regardless of what took place here, Grubbe writes that he will be Sidney’s friend only. However, this new resolution did not last very long, and within a month of writing this initial entry, Grubbe records meeting with Sidney again noting that he “travelled there with P. and S. Tippets” and he “saw much of S. at Sole.” During this time Sidney was “as nice to me as ever. The sweetest half hour the return journey when he slept with his head on my breast between Ipswich and London.”55 The two maintained a very close relationship for many years to come. It can be questioned if the relationship ever did come to an end for even in a later journal entry dated May 9, 1910 (a year after Grubbe’s marriage to Margaret), Grubbe made note of a special dinner guest coming to town. The entry read: “Sidney  Ibid., Entry dated: October 10, 1891.  Ibid. 54  Ibid., Entry dated: March 26, 1888. 55  Ibid., Entry dated: April 17, 1890. 52 53

12 ADDENDUMS 135

Tippetts…to dinner.”56 In addition, when he had to be away, Grubbe sent various letters home, asking them to check up on the Tippet family including his sister Constance and his mother, among others.57 There are many details of this relationship that remain unknown, but what is known, is that Sidney and Grubbe carried on a relationship for many years (whatever it may have consisted of). Regardless as to what the Victorian morality claimed about homosexuality, one thing remains clear: Grubbe believed his homosexual thoughts were unnatural. There are hints of this all throughout his journal entries. Indeed, one begins to feel sorry for Grubbe when considering these statements. One such example is found in an 1880 entry when Grubbe wrote that he was “very unhappy about the way I have degenerated again, I must amend.”58 In 1882, he made several remarks about being “concerned everything depends on my giving up my besetting sin.”59 Later in May 1882, he wrote: “Unhappy, Unhappy that cursed sin.”60 There is a real dichotomy transpiring in Grubbe’s mind—a tension between what polite Victorian morality and society maintains is the right way of living and what his physical urges led him to do—to seek out these fulfilling “boy love” relationships.

56  Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe  – 1910: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. p. 41. 57  “I made one attempt to see the little Tippets and went to the front door. When I saw them in the…boats they said they could not come in then were going to get shrimps for their tea and then going for a long walk with the Governess.” Letter from Julia Grubbe to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [April 28, 1892]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. “Tippets have just over the influenza…I went in and saw them both in bed. When they were getting well and came out with a much more cordial feeling towards so messy an ailment than I took with me.” Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Constance [February 11, 1892]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. In another letter, Grubbe asked Constance: “Do you ever see anything of the little Tippets?...Give them my love when you see them.” Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Constance Grubbe [May 6, 1890]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. On October 11, 1890, Grubbe wrote again to Constance: “The Tippets are all very well. I go round after dinner pretty frequently once or twice a week…Sidney frequently spends his half holiday with me and comes to church Sunday evenings. So we are still chums.” Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Constance Grubbe [October 11, 1890]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 58  Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1879–1882: Entry dated: April 26, 1880: Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 59  Ibid., Entry dated: February 18, 1882. 60  Ibid., Entry dated: May 24, 1882.

136  

J. D. LAVOIE

Conclusion There was a clear dualism and spiritual struggle taking place in the soul/ mind of Laurence Grubbe. For Grubbe, this inner dualism caused him to live out two separate lives: the first person was the bohemian artist and son of an important politician who was a Cambridge-educated and morally respectable citizen and Army captain; the second life was far more complex: Grubbe lived a secret life with a tortured soul and was constantly fighting his inner sexual desires which resulted in “boy love” relationships; these relationships were likely easier for him to engage in given his occupation as an artist and all of the private time he would have with his “sitters.” He utilized many different means to engage in these relationships. First, he started by examining the body language and mannerisms of potential “partners”—this would indicate whether they were open to his advances or not. Second, he would play with the boys and tease them in order to test their physical and emotional boundaries. He employed a psychological method of treating them as equals and showing them that he was a friendly adult and interested in the things they were into. Third, he might send them a present or gift to show them their importance to him, or he might offer to pay them so they could sit for him in private for long periods of time. This would inevitably lead to conversations and could result in secrets being told and trust being established within this confidentiality. Finally, Grubbe would begin with light touches such as holding hands, kissing each other, and perhaps even more (though this is an act to which the reader is never made privy which is to be expected given the harsh penalties associated with such illegal and “socially deviant” behavior). This process combined with Grubbe’s skill at identifying willing participants provides information on how he started these types of relationships during a time when practicing his sexuality was for all intents and purposes illegal. Despite his zeal and confidence in recording these entries, looking back Grubbe came to resent keeping these journals; he knew the potential legal and social harm they could inflict on his reputation and that of his family and friends. Reflecting back in 1891, Grubbe wrote “when I look back to some of these pages…I rather wish they had never been written.” Still, he quickly admitted that they held some appeal to him noting that: “nevertheless, they are so interesting to me that I cannot destroy them. Spencer has it the errors one goes through on the way to truth are innumerable…There is not a sane person on earth! We are all mad and maddest

12 ADDENDUMS 137

when we think we are sanest, all except young children with nothing in their heads.”61 Thus, we see how Grubbe viewed children as being part of a higher level/plane than the rest of humanity. It was this innocent nature that children possessed having “nothing in their heads” that seemingly made them appealing to Grubbe. They were truly, as he had called them many times, “little angels” for both their innocence and incredulity. Grubbe continued this entry reflecting on human nature that: “We laugh at a flock of geese waddling in single file, but human beings are just the same! I keep my ears open and my mouth shut now and busy myself in my painting.”62 Was this Grubbe’s way of explaining that he didn’t give in to such homosexual desires any longer? Or did it mean that he was not daft enough to record such feelings and experiences (even in code)? Regardless as to his meaning, Grubbe developed real feelings for these younger boys. While today, the extreme age difference might seem unforgivable, the reader is reminded to allow historical context to speak for itself—the simple truth is that the age of consent was much lower than it is today, and this applied largely to legal requirements not so much sexuality. This is not meant to redeem Grubbe, merely to provide understanding for his situation. Regardless of these extreme age differences, Grubbe “struggled” with these homosexual feelings as evidenced throughout these journals; he despised having to live as a hypocrite in order to keep pursuing these types of relationships and fulfill his sexual desires which he strived to keep repressed. Additionally, as for the “Victorian morality,” a both/and approach seems an appropriate method toward understanding sexuality in this era. For it was true that the “Victorian morality” existed, though it existed alongside individual expressions of sexuality as evidenced in Grubbe’s journals and elsewhere during this time. His journals seem to prove the existence of such a dichotomy and a tension between the Victorian morality and his own desire to express sexuality. There was a line that Grubbe had developed between what he would speak about openly (i.e., the “Victorian morality”) as opposed to the material and subjects he kept hidden. Grubbe had developed some standards that made him distinguish between what was palatable for a general audience and what needed to remain hidden (literally); thus, this reveals the both/and tensions in his writings. This article is not meant to justify Grubbe’s actions and  Saturday, October 10, 1891.  Ibid.

61 62

  138

J. D. LAVOIE

Fig. 12.1  Pencil drawing of The Household headquarters (i.e., Oliphant’s estate) in Haifa as sketched by L. C. Grubbe. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)

relationships (whatever they were in private), it merely serves as an attempt to understand and process Grubbe’s lifestyle through this complicated context. If Grubbe was allowed to express his feelings openly in today’s world, who knows what decisions he would have made differently. Still, at the end of the day, it is not the historian’s job to provide justification for his subjects, merely to share new and interesting stories, and few would deny that the secret homosexual life of L. C Grubbe is one such intriguing story (Figs. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, and 12.6).

Addendum B: Margaret Julia Grubbe and the Sympneumata Laurence Grubbe’s mother remains an intriguing figure in her own right. Born Julia Catharine Hall at Gloucester on September 1, 1820, she was the daughter of the renowned Rev. George William Hall D. D. who served as the Master of Pembroke College at Oxford University from 1809–1843

12 ADDENDUMS 139

Fig. 12.2  Laurence Grubbe with his future wife Marie and her family [?] n. d. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)

and became the Vice Chancellor there from 1820–1824.63 On March 25, 1845, Julia married one John “Eustace” Grubbe (1815–1899) and together they had twelve children one of whom happened to be Laurence Carrington Grubbe. Eustace (as her husband was known) had earned a Master of Arts degree from Oxford University and became a barrister in practice serving as a parliamentary agent though he retired in 1891 and, in his retirement, was elected as the mayor of Southwald in Suffolk, England. Julia was a captivating character and was well-read on most subjects including religious studies (after all her father was an Anglican priest). She was especially curious in her son’s involvement with Laurence Oliphant; however, admittedly, she struggled to read his main works on religion 63  J.  Eustace Grubbe, Pedigree of Grubbe, of Southwold, Suffolk County, formerly of Horsenden, Buckinghamshire, n.p. (1886).

  140

J. D. LAVOIE

Fig. 12.3  Laurence Carrington Grubbe (54) out again with his future wife Marie Ellen Seymour Lucas (20) taken on October 23, 1899. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)

12 ADDENDUMS 141

Fig. 12.4  Grubbe with his future wife Marie (again) taken on October 14, 1899. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)

  142

J. D. LAVOIE

Fig. 12.5  One of Grubbe’s homo-erotic paintings of two young boys from his “Sketchbook” ca. 1887–1888. (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)

which were quite dense. Thus, the question remains: how did Julia feel about her son’s growing spiritual interests in the teachings of Oliphant? Surely, she had heard similar rumors to the ones that Jennie told the Templetons over in Glasgow. As such, was she hostile toward Oliphant or The Household? There is only one letter that deals with Julia’s thoughts on Oliphant and his teachings directly. It contains a large excerpt from Julia’s writing and it was sent in an envelope marked from Farmham and dated January 7, 1889 (roughly a year after Grubbe’s visit to Palestine). It provides Julia’s response and opinions on Oliphant and his esoteric teachings: I did not say much about Oliphant’s book for the simple reason that I have not read it properly – I have got through it piecemeal reading a bit at a time when I was so weary both in body and mind that I very often fell asleep over it. When I am a little rested, I will read it all through at once and tell you what I think of it. Of course, the Colonel thinks him a “library crank” from scraps he had read here and there, but I know so much more of the spiritual part of the matter, that I can understand it far better than most people. And yet because I do am a little afraid of putting too much faith in it all.

12 ADDENDUMS 143

Fig. 12.6  A detailed sketching of one of Grubbe’s “boy love” relationships— Sydney Tippets (usually Sidney is spelled with an “i” instead of a “y” throughout Grubbe’s journals). This was the “boy-love” relationship that Grubbe journaled in code that he was “now a bit disturbed about S[idney] and resolved to have no more caresses. God preserve him from evil. Will be his friend only.” (Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1886–1893: Entry dated: March 26, 1888). (From the Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie)

  144

J. D. LAVOIE

Some of it is so exciting. What was told me by the spirits, but yet was qualified when questioned closely with, “we do not know but we think it is so.” The Bi-sexual God is not new to me. I once read a pamphlet by a converted Jew, who explained the first chapter of Genesis in very much the same way. That Adam was put into a deep sleep and the female spirit withdrawn from his body and put into a body prepared for it. He said, “There had been several types of the pure spiritual body (which would see no corruption but be translated as it was) vis – Enoch, Melchisedeck, Elijah and last but the purest  – Christ. I dare say Mr. Oliphant’s knowledge was taken from the same source. A number of things were told me and written that I dare not mention but I should be doing harm if I was believed (which is doubtful) especially as great falsehood was mixed up with it and I feared that my own brain was partly diseased which might have caused some of the “hallucinations” or what would be called so by my friends. One powerful “impression”, I can call it nothing else was “that the first Adam brought sin into the world and the second Adam died to restore all things, and that he and Jesus were the same. That he returned to earth to live it all once again and having accomplished it without sin, the sins of the world were forgiven for His sake, and that the Holy Spirit was the premium principle, probably love–purified from all earthly dross. He (Christ) is so often spoken of as the “first born of all creation” “the only begotten son” “I am Alpha and Omega” and in innumerable places as “the first born” and Melchisedek as without descent &c- I think the creation has only reference to our earth. It has been so long supposed that we on this small (in comparison to other planets) world are the centre of the universe – that it is rather hard to disabuse ourselves of the idea and know that we are a mere atom (unit) in the great whole. I have just been looking out of the window at our Glorious Heavens. Such skies as you in foggy England never dream of and the grandness and vastness is overwhelming to our finite ideas – and leads one to think it useless to try to fathom what is quite beyond our comprehension. To live as much as we can the “Christ” life, which even unbelievers acknowledge to be the purest earth has known and leave the rest to be developed in the course of time. This shrinking from death is for a good purpose and is given us for some wise purpose probably it is important for our spiritual life to live out our appointed time on this earth. This is all on this subject but I think may add by way of explanation that when she had what she says her friends would call hallucinations- it was after a time of great trial and trouble, when she had from circumstances to give up well nigh all her worldly wealth– change her whole manner of life, keep my father from breaking down utterly from the effects of a blow over which

12 ADDENDUMS 145

he had then no control  – nurse a ...dying child and take upon her own ­unaccustomed shoulders the management of every thing in order to stay clear of further troubles and…loss. It took years of patience and unselfishness, but they were through it at last – and my father’s last days were full of happiness and peace.64

Thus, one family member had copied an “extract from mother’s letter” and sent it to Grubbe shortly after he had come back from Oliphant’s commune having been disappointed by his new spiritual leader; the writer concluded this letter by noting that they were: “telling you this [because it] will explain why I say this letter should be treated as a private one for to boast of mentioned want, robs them of their value and I know she would not like it. I only add this to enable you to understand a little better what mother is.”65 Thus, it seemed Grubbe took comfort in knowing his mother’s stance on his youthful excursions and religious affairs.

Addendum C: William Stainton Moses and the Sympneumata Comments from a Contemporary The renowned medium William Stainton Moses (1839–1892) in the pages of a noted Spiritualist journal Light, extrapolates on what he considered to be the clearest explanation for the sympneumata possible (given its obtuse nature). Moses was well-versed in occult and spiritualist philosophies and practices, yet even he was not able to understand what the sympneumata was or how it was supposed to be practiced. He observed that: I have not been so fortunate as to arrive at any fruitful comprehension of these doctrines. I have made many attempts, but they elude my grasp, and if I seem to myself at some time to have comprehended them, further reflection shows me that the understanding is inadequate, and that I have not mastered them so as to make them my own. They have not fed, nor nourished any portion of that system of belief and knowledge which I have made my mental equipment. Doubtless, the fault is my own…and few of us are mentally constituted as to be able to take in more than a very few of its 64  Letter from Maurice to Laurence Carrington Grubbe, From Farmham [7 January 1889]: The Personal Archives of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. 65  Ibid.

146  

J. D. LAVOIE

aspects. If this be the truth, I have faith enough to believe that I shall one day come to know it. I can afford to wait.66

After delivering this lengthy but important disclaimer, Moses proceeded to print out this unpublished “clear statement of belief” concerning Oliphant’s sympneumatic system: 1) Man is a battery of impure magnetic forces which are constantly radiating from him, and which by their interplay act and re-act throughout the human race. 2) All human beings are constantly giving and receiving each other’s magnetism, which varies in quality according to the moral condition of the individual. This magnetism being relatively pure and sustaining in some cases, impure and exhausting in others, but none of it being really pure. 3) The remedy of the world’s malady consists in the introduction into it of a new and pure current of that force by which the human race was intended in the first instance to be sustained and propagated. 4) A method has been provided by which this pure current can be invoked and although in the early stages the process must be slow, and attended with much effort and suffering…yet experience has shown that it can be transmitted from one to the other with advantage to those who have been its recipients even in their present imperfect condition. 5) The effect of this transmission is to place those who receive it in an attitude for a direct consciousness of it without a human intermediary. 6) Great suffering, patiently borne for others, obedience to the inner voice of God, and absolutely purity of life are conditions essential to the development of the magnetic power thus imparted, which thus becomes a new descent of another quality of life into the organism, and so prepares that soul which is now encrusted with a gross animal covering to return gradually forward to its primitive fluid, or ethereal condition by means of the new agency operating within it. 7) This descent takes place irrespective of race or creed. It may touch the organic centers of the devout Romanist during moments of spiritual intensity, or that of a sceptic while pouring out his love and charity upon an outcast. Provided there is an intense love for God,  William Stainton Moses, “Notes by the Way,” Light, 11:547 (June 27, 1891), 301–302.

66

12 ADDENDUMS 147

and compassion for the human race, and desire for its redemption, it can reach all alike, irrespective of surface prejudices. 8) Its tendency is to draw all those who feel it slowly but surely together, and in the end to bring those who recognize it as a Divine force, and have overcome all personal inclinations and natural affections, and earthly ambitions and motives, to a personal consciousness that a personal channel exists for its descent, and that this personal channel is Christ, acting through an agency which we call the Sympneuma, because it partakes of the human quality of the completing half of our own personality, whether masculine or feminine, but which Christ, when on earth, called the Comforter, of Whose approach man has been dimly conscious since the promise of its advent was made, and whose final union with the race is prefigured in the words “The coming of the Bridegroom” and “The marriage of the Lamb.”67 While this list attempts to succinctly put forth eight basic ideas associated with the practice of the sympneumata (e.g., they must join a sympneumatic group), the actual practice remains abstract. Oliphant buried the method of the sympneumata in obscurity; however, its benefits are clearly described: “Men and women who have arrived at these new relations towards each other, enjoy a happiness in them which compensates for all the suffering they have undergone to reach most blessed duties which develops upon those who are labouring in this new sphere of action.”68

References Gray, Adrian. 1988. Crimes and Criminals in Victorian Essex. Newbury: Countryside Press. Grubbe, J. Eustace. 1886. Pedigree of Grubbe, of Southwold, Suffolk County, formerly of Horsenden, Buckinghamshire, n. p. ———. 1891. Pedigree of Grubbe, of Southwold, Suffolk, formerly of Horsenden, Buckinghamshire, n. p. Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1879–1882: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1882–1885: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie.  Ibid.  Oliphant, Scientific Religion, pp. 348–349.

67 68

  148

J. D. LAVOIE

Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1886–1893: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Journal Laurence Carrington Grubbe Journal – 1910: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Katz, Jonathan Ned. 2001. Love Stories: Sex Between Men Before Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago. Letter from Julia Grubbe to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [April 28, 1892]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Constance Grubbe [May 6, 1890]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Constance Grubbe [October 11, 1890]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Constance [February 11, 1892]: The Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie. Moses, William Stainton. 1891. Notes by the Way. Light 11 (547): 301–302. Nineteenth-Century Writings on Homosexuality: A Sourcebook, ed. Chris White. 1999. London: Routledge. Oliphant, Laurence. 1888. Scientific Religion, or Higher Possibilities of Life and Practice Through the Operation of Natural Forces. London: William Blackwood and Sons. Robb, Graham. 2003. Strangers: Homosexual Love in the Nineteenth Century. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Tamagne, Florence. 2014. Paris: Resting on its Laurels. In Queer Cities, Queer Culture: Europe Since 1945, ed. Matt Cook and Jennifer V. Evans, 240–260. London: Bloomsbury. Weigle, David. 2021. The Trailer: Why Republicans Keep Running Against Trans Rights. The Washington Post.

Bibliography

Archive Materials (from the Private Collection of Jeffrey D. Lavoie) Grubbe, Laurence Carrington. The Antique Ring: A Story (n.p., n. d.) Letter from Arthur Guthrie to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [March 8, 1889] Letter from James A. Allan to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [May 17, 1889] Letter from James Murray Templeton to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [March 2, 1890] Letter from Julia Grubbe to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [April 28, 1892] Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Arthur Guthrie [March 31, 1889] Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Constance Grubbe [May 6, 1890] Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Constance Grubbe [October 11, 1890] Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Constance [February 11, 1892] Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to James A. Allan [May 20, 1889] Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to James Murray Templeton [May 5, 1889] Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to James Murray Templeton [May 31, 1889] Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to James Murray Templeton [March 23, 1890] Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe to Jennie Tuttle [June 2, 1899] Letter from Laurence Carrington Grubbe To Mrs. Tuttle [May 26, 1889] Letter from Laurence Oliphant to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [June 13, 1888] Letter from Maurice to Laurence Carrington Grubbe, From Farmham [January 7, 1889]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. D. Lavoie, Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0

149

150 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Letter from Rosamond Dale Owen Oliphant to Laurence Carrington Grubbe [November 11, 1889] Letter from Sir Henry Brackenbury to Florence Henniker [July 27, 1891] Unmarked and Undated Envelope Addressed to Jennie Tuttle [n. d.] Unmarked Green Notebook [n. d.]

The Journals of Laurence Carrington Grubbe Personal Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: Pawsey’s London Diary 1871 Personal Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1879–1882 ———: 1882–1885 ———: 1886–1893 Personal Journal of Laurence Carrington Grubbe: 1910

Books and Journals A Day of My Life, or Every Day Experiences of Eton. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, 1879. Ahmadi, Anita, and Mittapali Rajeshwar. March 2013. Victorian Morality and Its Victims. International Journal of English and Literature 3 (1): 177–122. Aldrich, Robert. 2003. Colonialism and Homosexuality: Gender and War Since 1600. London: Routledge Press. Casey, Bart. 2015. The Double Life of Laurence Oliphant: Victorian Pilgrim and Prophet. New York: Post Hill Press. Chajes, Julie. Alice and Laurence Oliphants’ Divine Androgyne and ‘The Woman Question’ Postprint. https://www.academia.edu/33049376/Alice_and_ Laurence_Oliphants_Divine_Androgyne_and_The_Woman_Question_ Postprint_Accepted_for_publications_in_Journal_of_the_American_ Academy_of_Religion_2015. Accessed on 27 Sept 2020, 1–42. Cohen, Morton N. 1996. Lewis Carroll: A Biography. New York: Random House. Creasy, Edward Shepherd. 1876. Memoirs of Eminent Etonians. London: Chatto and Windus. Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage Books. Gaines, Helen Fouche. 1956. Cryptanalysis: A Study of Ciphers and Their Solution. New York: Doyer Publications Inc. Grubbe, J. 1886. Eustace. In Pedigree of Grubbe, of Southwold, Suffolk County, Formerly of Horsenden, Buckinghamshire, n.p. Henderson, Philip. 1956. The Life of Laurence Oliphant: Traveller, Diplomat and Mystic. Bristol: Robert Hale Limited.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

151

Hilton, John. 1863. On the Treatment of Onanism. In The Retrospect of Practical Medicine and Surgery, 106–107. Huggins, Mike. 2015. Vice and the Victorians. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Hunt, Alan. April 1998. The Great Masturbation Panic and the Discourses of Moral Regulation in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Britain. Journal of the History of Sexuality 8 (4): 575–615. Internet Child Abuse: Current Research and Policy, ed. Julie Davidson and Petter Gottschalk. New York: Routledge Press, 2011. Isaacs, Sally Senzell. 2009. Stages and the Pony Express: 1820 to 1900. Chicago: Elsevier Inc. Katz, Jonathan Ned. 2001. Love Stories: Sex Between Men before Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago. Lauer, Robert. 1983. H. and Jeanette C. Lauer, The Spirit and the Flesh: Sex in Utopian Communities. Lanham: Scarecrow Press. Lavoie, Jeffrey D. 2015. A Search For Meaning in Victorian Religion: The Spiritual Journey and Esoteric Teachings of Charles Carleton Massey. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press. ———. 2020. George William Allen and Christian Socialism: A Study of the Christ-­ Theosophical Society. London: Academica Press. LeBaron, Gaye, and Bart Casey. 2018. The Wonder Seekers of Fountaingrove. Santa Rosa: Historia II Publications. Letter from Charles Carleton Massey to Frederic W.  Myers [8 February 1885]: Cambridge University Special Archives (3:25). Printed courtesy of the Master and Fellows of Trinity College Cambridge. Macfarlan, Duncan. 1832. A Treatise on the Authority, Ends, and Observance, of the Christian Sabbath Law. Glasgow: William Collins. McDonald, Deborah. 2010. The Prince, His Tutor and the Ripper. Jefferson: McFarland Press. Melton, J.  Gordon. 2004. An Introduction to New Religions. In The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, ed. James Lewis, 16–38. Oxford University Press. Mitchell, Leslie George. 1997. Lord Melbourne, 1779–1848. Oxford University Press. Moses, William Stainton. 1891. Notes by the Way. Light 11: 547, 301–302. Nineteenth-Century Writings on Homosexuality: A Sourcebook, ed. Chris White. London: Routledge, 1999. Oliphant, Laurence. 1885. Sympneumata, Or, The Evolutionary Forces Now Active in Man. London: William Blackwood and Sons. ———. 1888. Scientific Religion, or Higher Possibilities of Life and Practice Through the Operation of Natural Forces. London: William Blackwood and Sons. ———. 2012. The Russian Shores of the Black Sea in Autumn of 1852. Cambridge University Press.

152 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Oliphant, Margaret. 1891. Memoir of the Life of Laurence Oliphant and of Alice Oliphant, His Wife, 2 vols. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz. O’Neil, Natalie. 2016. The Graham Cracker was Invented to Stop You From Masturbating. The New York Post, September 13. Owen, Rosamond Dale. 1922. The Mediators and Duality: A Synopsis. Beirut: American College Press. ———. 1929. My Perilous Life in Palestine. New York: Duffield & Co. Owen, Rosamond Dale. unknown. Clarice: A Scientific Novel. Worthington: The Author. Paddison, Joshua. 2015. Disorderly Doctrines: Religion, Race, and the Fountaingrove Sex Scandal of 1891–1892. Journal of Gilded and Progressive Era 14: 475–502. Parkin, George R. 1900. Edward Thring Headmaster of Uppingham School: Life, Diary and Letters. New York: Macmillan Company. Podmore, Frank. 1902. Modern Spiritualism: A History and a Criticism. Vol. 2. London: Methuen & Co. Respiro [Edward William Berridge]. 1909. XVI- Counterparts, or, The Marriage of Heaven on Earth for Eternity. In The Brotherhood of the New Life: An Epitome of the Work and Teaching of Thomas Lake Harris. Glasgow: C. W. Pearce and Company. Robb, Graham. 2003. Strangers: Homosexual Love in the Nineteenth Century. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Robertson, James. 1908. Spiritualism: The Open Door to the Unseen Universe. London: L. N. Fowler & Co. Schneider, George, and Herbert W. Lawton. 1942. A Prophet and a Pilgrim: Being the Incredible History of Thomas Lake Harris and Laurence Oliphant. Columbia University Press. Shermer, Michael. 2015. The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Led Humanity Toward Truth, Justice and Freedom. New York, Henry Holt and Co. Strachey, Ray. 1928. Group Movements of the Past and Experiments in Guidance. London: Faber and Faber. Supplementary Library Catalogue. Journal of Society for Psychical Research 3: 52 (July 1888), 304. Tamagne, Florence. 2006. A History of Homosexuality: Berlin, London, Paris, 1919–1939. Vol. 2. Berlin: Algora Publishing. Taylor, Anne. 1982. Laurence Oliphant, 1829–1888. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Letters of General C. G. Gordon: To His Sister M. A. Gordon. London: Macmillan and Co., 1888. Thoughts of a Modern Mystic: A Selection from the Writings of C.  C. Massey, ed. W. F. Barrett. London: Kegan Paul, 1909.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

153

Tornede, Silke. 1992. In Search of Arcadia: The Life of Rosamond Dale Owen Oliphant Templeton, 1846–1937. Master of Arts, Department of History, Indiana University. Versluis, Arthur. 2008. The Secret History of Western Sexual Mysticism: Sacred Practices and Spiritual Marriages. Rochester: Inner Traditions. Wagner, John A. 2014. Voices of Victorian England: Contemporary Accounts of Daily Life. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press.

Index1

A Abstinence, 32, 53, 85 Africa, 10 Afterlife, 101 Alice in Wonderland (1865), 118 Allan, James A., 39, 68, 71, 82, 89 Angel(s), 27, 99, 120, 137 Anglican church, 4 Arabic, 42 Art, 33, 48, 60, 76, 81, 129 Atom/atomic, 17, 18, 24, 25, 27–29, 95, 99, 106, 110, 144 Atomic being, 24, 25 B Barrister, 43, 139 Beddoes, Thomas Lovell (1803–1849), 117 Benson, Mary “Minnie” (1841–1918), 117 Bible, 7, 24, 53, 100, 109

Blanche (Matthews), 87–89 Blavatsky, H. P. (1831–1891), 40 Böhme, Jacob (1575–1624), viiin1 Boy love, 113–147 Breast, 18, 134 Breathe/breathing, 15, 18, 19, 25, 27, 31, 32, 66, 84, 106 Bride, 13n12, 14, 49, 114, 119 British Museum, 93 British National Association of Spiritualists (BNAS), 37 Brocton, NY, 13, 14 Brotherhood of the New Life (The Use), vii, 11n8, 12, 20 Bundling, 17, 106 C Canada, 2 Carline, George Francis (1855–1920), 86

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. D. Lavoie, Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) and The Household, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85050-0

155

156 

INDEX

Carpenter, Edward (1844–1929), 116, 120 Casey, Bart, 31, 32, 82 Catholic church, 39 “Chet,” 129 China, 2, 10 Christ, Jesus, 10, 40, 111, 144, 147 Christian/Christianity, viii, 12, 27, 32, 34, 38, 40, 40n8, 49, 52–54, 74, 109 The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life (1875), 73 Clarice: A Scientific Novel (1931), 3 Code, ix–xi, 3, 5, 29, 32, 33n32, 44, 54, 55, 62, 81, 82, 87, 90n24, 96, 100, 102, 109, 113–117, 121–122, 125, 129, 133, 137, 143 Coitus reservatus, 55 Commune, 2, 12, 12n8, 13, 15, 17, 19, 30, 31, 39, 40n8, 43, 47, 49, 69, 82, 86, 90, 96, 97, 145 Community, vii, 2, 11n8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 33, 39–42, 44, 47, 50, 55, 77, 78, 89, 90, 106, 109, 116, 124 Compound, 14, 48, 60 Consciousness, 29, 43, 146, 147 Counterpart(s), 12–20, 28, 31, 49, 77, 78, 105, 106, 110 Crimean War (1853–1856), 1 Cruise, Tom (1962–), 12 Cult, viii–ix, 11 Cupid, 131 Cuthbert, Arthur, 16, 17, 30 D Divine Feminine, 27, 111 Dodgson, Charles (1832–1898), 118 Dream(s), 84, 85, 144

E Enlightenment, 5 Erection, 55 Erotic, 32, 121, 123, 131, 132 Esoteric, viii, 10, 15, 15n15, 28, 81, 142 Eton College, 101, 118, 118n5, 120 Evangelical, 4–6, 10, 14, 52, 74, 75, 85 Evolution, 19, 27, 33, 40–43, 61 F Female, 3, 15–20, 27, 40n8, 60, 87, 88, 106, 120, 121, 144 Foucault, Michel (1926–1984), 6 Fountaingrove, 13 Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871), 1 G George III, King (1738–1820), 4, 6, 132 “Gerald,” 127–128 Glasgow, 48, 48n4, 59, 67, 70, 97, 108, 142 God, viiin1, 12, 15, 16, 27, 28, 30, 38n1, 43, 44, 49, 51–54, 56, 95, 99, 110, 111, 131, 134, 143, 146 Gordon, Charles George, viii Graham, Sylvester (1794–1851), 101 Gray, Thomas (1716–1771), 117 Grubbe, John Eustace (1815–1899), 81, 118 Grubbe, Julia Catharine Hall (1820–1901), 81, 138 Grubbe, Laurence Carrington (1854–1912), ix–xi, 60, 81–92, 108, 113–147 Grubbe, Marie Ellen Seymour nee Lucas (Grubbe’s wife), 119, 140

 INDEX 

157

Guthrie, Arthur, 69, 70, 108 “Guy,” 126–127

A Journey to Khatmandu (1852), 1 Judeo-Christian, 2, 4, 7, 32, 62, 124

H Haifa, viii, 13, 17, 33, 39, 41, 42, 44, 60, 65, 67, 70, 75, 82, 88–90, 96, 106, 138 Hall, Julia Catharine (1820–1901), 81 Harris, Thomas Lake (1823–1906), vii, 2, 9, 11–20, 11–12n8, 15n15, 24, 28, 30, 31, 69, 78, 90, 105, 106, 110 Hartmann, Eduard von (1842–1906), 37 Henderson, Philp (1906–1977), 11n8, 31, 82 Homosexual/homosexuality, xi, 5, 81, 89–91, 113–147 Household, The, ix, 2, 13, 19, 20, 27, 33–35, 33n32, 39, 40, 42–44, 51, 60, 61, 66, 69–71, 76, 78, 79, 82, 86, 88, 94, 96, 97, 105–109, 113, 138, 142

K Katz, Ned, 120n6, 124

I India, 10, 38 Infusoria, 24 The Intermediate Sex (1909), 116 Invisible world, 101, 102 Irving, Edward (1792–1834), 10 J Japan, 2 Jew/Jews, 10, 52, 53, 144 Journal(s), ix–xi, 2, 3, 9, 17–19, 82, 83, 85–87, 90, 96, 100, 101, 109, 113–118, 120–122, 125, 127–137, 143, 145

L Lawton, George (1900–1957), 9, 11n8, 16, 20, 82 Lear, Edward (1812–1888), 117 LGBTQ, 124 Lily queen, 16 London Lodge, 37 London Spiritualist Alliance (LSA), 37 Love, 13, 27, 29, 30, 41, 43, 48, 49, 53, 68, 70, 88, 94n3, 95, 98, 111, 117, 122–125, 127–129, 131, 132, 135n57, 146 Love Stories: Sex Between Men Before Homosexuality (2001), 124 M Mack, Alison (1982), 12 Magnetism, 20, 25, 29, 86, 87, 106, 146 Maitland, Edward (1824–1897), 83 Male, 5, 6n10, 15–17, 19, 20, 28, 55, 87, 88, 106, 107, 121, 122, 124 Male Continence (1872), 55 Marriage, xi, 2, 15, 19, 27–30, 49, 53, 54, 70, 85, 87, 90n24, 107, 110, 120n6, 134, 147 Martyr, 98 Massage, 32 Massey, Charles Carleton (1838–1905), viii, 34, 37–45, 106, 107

158 

INDEX

Massey, William Nathaniel (1809–1881), 38 Masters, 24, 48 Masturbation, 31, 100, 101, 107, 109, 110 Materialism/materialist, 50 Mediators and Duality (1882), 52 Medium(s), 3, 24, 48n4, 145 Mesmerism, 24 “Moral code,” 2, 3, 107, 109, 114 Moses, William Stainton (1839–1892), 106, 145–147 Mother-Father, 19 Muslim, 52 Myers, Frederic W. H. (1843–1901), 43 Mystic/mystical, viii, 31, 34, 38, 40, 42, 65, 67, 70, 75, 106, 107, 109, 110 N National Vigilance Alliance (NVA), 68, 69, 76 New Harmony, IN, 13, 47–49 Nineteenth Century Writings on Homosexuality (1999), 122 NIVM, 12 Noyes, John Humphrey (1811–1886), vii, 55 O Obscene Publications Act (1857), 6 Oliphant, Laurence (1829–1888), vii, 1, 9, 23, 38, 47, 59, 65, 74, 81, 93, 105, 113, 139 Onan, 100, 109, 124 Onanism, 100, 109 Oneida, vii, 55

Owen (Oliphant), Rosamond Dale Owen (1846–1937), 3, 13, 47–57, 82 Owen, Robert (1771–1858), 13 Owen, Robert Dale (1801–1877), 13 Oxford Movement, 4 P Painting, 54, 55, 60, 82, 85, 89, 101, 118, 119, 121, 131, 132, 137, 142 Palestine, 10, 14, 39, 40, 49, 50, 52, 53, 60, 68, 85, 86, 88, 97, 106, 121, 142 Paris, xi, 48, 60, 61, 66, 76, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 119, 129, 130 Parliament, 10, 38 Penis, 55, 100 Prel, Carl du (1839–1899), 37 Prince of Wales, 11 Privilege, 2, 11, 59 Proclamation Society, 4 Prophet, 12 A Prophet and a Pilgrim (1942), 9 Psychic/psychical, 19, 24, 84, 95, 96 Psychology Society, 37 Pure/purity, 27, 28, 53, 54, 61, 62, 66, 70, 75, 110, 123, 144, 146 Q Quartette, 66, 87, 88 R Race, 27, 33, 54, 56, 106, 109, 146, 147 The Russian Shores of the Black Sea (1853), 1

 INDEX 

S Sabbath, 4 “Saunders, Cyril,” 130 Schneider, Herbert W. (1892–1984), 9, 11n8, 16, 20, 82 Scientific Religion (1888), 24, 33, 33n32, 38n1, 39, 49, 61, 86, 88, 106 Scientology, 12 Semen, 55, 100 Sex/sexual/sexuality, ix–xi, 2–7, 10, 11, 11n8, 15, 17–19, 18n24, 27, 29–33, 44, 48, 50, 51, 53–56, 62, 66–70, 77, 78, 81, 84, 85, 87–90, 96–101, 105, 107–111, 113–125, 118–119n5, 129, 136, 137 Sin, xi, 4, 5, 50, 54, 97, 98, 127, 135, 144 Smillis, Sarah, 16 Smith, Hannah Whitall (1832–1911), 69, 70, 73–80, 108 Smith, Robert Pearsall (1827–1898), 74, 77n11 Social Purity Alliance, 5 Society for Psychical Research (SPR), 37, 39, 42, 43 Sodomy, 123–125 The Soul and How it Found Me (1877), 83 Southwald, 81, 139 Spirit(s), 24, 25, 48, 84, 85, 90, 98, 102, 114, 115, 144 Spiritual, xi, 2, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31–33, 35, 40–42, 44, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 56, 61, 66, 69, 70, 74, 77, 78, 84–86, 89, 107, 108, 136, 142, 144–146

159

Spiritualist, 2, 11, 13, 15, 20, 34, 37, 38, 47, 48, 85, 106, 145 Spirit Workers in the Home Cabinet (1887), 83 Stead, W. T. (1849–1912), 69 Strachey, Ray (1887–1940), 74 Le Strange, Alice (1845–1886), 12, 23, 35 Suicide, 99, 107 Supernatural, 18, 27 Symonds, John Addington (1840–1893), 117, 120, 120n6 The Sympneumata (1884), 23, 35 Sympneumata/sympneuma/ sympneumatic, xi, 2, 10, 24, 38n1, 50, 60, 65, 75, 85, 98, 105, 138–145 Syphilis, 11, 11n8, 12, 29, 66, 90, 106 T Taboo, 32, 33, 62, 89, 99 Taylor, Anne, 14, 31, 69 Templeton, James Murray (1860–1892), 48, 48n4, 56, 59–63, 65–70, 68n7, 77, 77n11, 82, 83, 85–89, 90n24, 93–95, 97–99, 107–109, 142 Theobald, Morell (1828–1908), 83 Theosophical Society, vii, 37, 40 Theosophist, viiin1, 34, 83, 85, 106 Thring, Edward (1821–1887), 101 The Times, 1 “Tippets, Sidney,” 131–135, 135n57, 143 Tornede, Silke (1968–), 49 Tuttle, Jennie, 60, 65–71, 76, 82, 87–89, 93, 94, 107, 108

160 

INDEX

U Uranian, 124 Urges, 77, 95, 116, 135 Use, The, see Brotherhood of the New Life Utopia/utopian, vii, viii, 13, 47 V Victoria, Queen (1819–1901), 4 Victorian morality, 3–7, 32, 44, 110, 114–118, 124, 135, 137

Violin, 128 W Wilde, Oscar (1854–1900), 120, 125 “Willie,” 128 Womb, 18 Z Zöllner, Johann Carl F. (1834–1882), 37