Neither Hermann von Keyserling nor his son Arnold are particularly famous in the English-speaking world. But there is an interest in these notes, taken from a translation of selections from a work of Arnold’s, called “Souvenirs de Gurdjieff,” a work I have not been able to locate.
Arnold says that he was introduced to Gurdjieff in 1948. From the translation, I would infer that he was introduced by a lady friend of Clive Entwistle, “Mephisto.” He was persuaded to go, attracted only by the idea of the Movements, which he thought of as “spiritual dances,” and not at all wishing to meet Gurdjieff. That changed as soon as Gurdjieff walked in: “He was rather small … with a huge belly and his Asian hat. There was a red light around him, a purple red. I had never seen a man endowed with such a presence.. From that moment I was convinced of its value.” I think he meant “his value.”
He was invited to a dinner, at which Gurdjieff said to him: “Today you’re here for the first time; it’s pink-pink, after that, it’s manure-dung.” I suspect Gurdjieff said: “roses, roses … merde, merde.” When dinner finished, Gurdjieff told him: “You are a good companion, but not a disciple.” Later, he adds that Gurdjieff told him that his (Arnold’s) work was “an artist’s” and not “a disciple’s.”
Gurdjieff had him arrange the translation of In Search of the Miraaculous into German, which he did. When a German-speaking pupil of Gurdjieff arraigned him, and they quarrelled. Gurdjieff heard them arguing and said: “Ah, it’s boiling together; it’s good cooking.” (perhaps, “cooking well.”)
One day at dinner, Keyserling had substituted water for the expected vodka in his glass. Gurdjieff apparently realised this, and told him to give his neighbour his drink. Gurdjieff spoke of women who were “eager to go to the skies in Jewish jewels.” (to heaven?) Gurdjieff said that Keyserling had a “good grandfather,” which he took to mean, a “good essence.”
He wrote: “He (Gurdjieff) never said anything to anyone’s morale – except to the members of his family with whom he was very strict, with the Armenian girls for example. He never did what the gurus do. He never told anyone what to do. On the contrary one day he asked to translate in full labour to accompany him to the countryside. Then naturally he shouted at her. “But it was you who asked me to come!” says for translator. “But why do you do what I ask you?” Guredjieff answers. I think he means the lady was in an advanced stage of pregnancy.
A slightly different translation, with a different selection of material, will be found at https://schoolofwisdom.com/laws-of-wisdom/laws-of-coherence/
I will close with this extract: “The last time I saw him, he called me. “I have something very serious to tell you.” I asked what it was. I heard from the other side my friend Archangel Wizus who told me that the world was going to end a certain day in October.” I replied the world maybe but Austria never. Do not make jokes, I know it. I apologise, I told him, I do not believe a word and what happened? At the appointed day he is dead.” I suspect it should be this: “The last time I saw him, he called me. “I have something very serious to tell you.” I asked what it was. (Gurdjieff said:) “I have heard frommy friend Archangel Looisos on the other side. He told me that the world was going to end a certain day in October.” I replied: “The world maybe, but Austria never!” “Do not make jokes,” he replied, “I know it.” I apologised, (but) I told him that I did not believe a word of it. And what happened? On the day he had mentioned, he died.”
On the website [https://gurdjieff-oregon.net/#audio] there is a mp3 recording of Arnold Keyserling’s talk at Bennett´s Sherborne Academy.
title: 1973-1974 A Keyserling Chakraphone Sherborne House
On the web site there’s an error: it is written “Kayeerling”. It has an introduction by Bennett. There’s a lot of material on that site – I had not come across it. Thank you
This article took me back to 2011-2014 when I was researching the traces of Gurdjieff in Germany in the 20s and 30s and beyond. Thank you!
Some of the material I unearthed, in particular the letters Louise March, Gurdjieffs translator for the German version of ‘All and Everything’, exchanged with her colleague and friend in Frankfurt, Alfons Paquet, went into the 2nd edition of “The Gurdjieff Years 1929-1949: Recollections of Louise Goepfert March”.
As part of my research I came across a nice text that was printed on the original book flap of the first edition. It doesn’t sound like it’s from Gurdjieff oder Ms March. I tend believe Keyserling wrote it. It’s also different from the text that was on the original French version and the translation of which Dolmen Meadows editions has on their website. I haven’t seen the German text translated but I’m happy to share a translation with deepl.
Thanks. That would be appreciated.
“An analysis of the psychological nature of human beings and the forms of state, social, and religious life developed by humans—or a new myth, that is, condensed recognition, a unified view of a complexity that can no longer be grasped rationally in images? G. Gurdjieff’s “Beelzebub’s Tales” are both in one. That is why this book is “difficult to read,” because we constantly have to change the level at which we encounter it and engage with it.
What is to be understood literally, what as a condensed symbol, what as an allegorical comparison? And where – because this also happens – does the author, who is a serious scholar, have a mischievous streak, fooling us with striking and challenging twists, even grotesqueries? – A provocative book that does not allow you to rest, a sauna for the mind that throws us from a hot steam bath into ice-cold water and repeatedly beats us with rods in between.
But it cleanses the pores of all sluggish and impure elements, especially self-deception and self-reassurance, so that we can breathe freely. And it invigorates in an astonishing way the blood circulation of our thinking, which cannot take place in the sphere of an incorporeal-theoretical abstraction, but only in spiritual-mental (and even physical) experience. A realistic book; but at the same time an idealistic one, in that it shows in Beelzebub the idea, the model
of man, in whom, despite original sin, the possibility of greatest fulfillment and perfection lies. A revolutionary book, full of precious experiences for anyone who seriously asks themselves the big questions about the foundations, purpose, and goal of human existence.”
For those interested in the original German version:
Eine Analyse der psychologischen Natur des Menschen sowie der von den Menschen entwickelten staatlichen, gesellschaftlichen und religiösen Lebensformen – oder ein neuer Mythos, das heißt verdichtetes Erkennen, In-eins-Schau einer rational nicht mehr erfaßbaren Komplexität im Bild? G.
Gurdjieffs „Erzählungen Beelzebubs“ sind beides in einem. Darum ist dieses Buch „schwer zu lesen“, weil wir dauern die Ebene wechseln müssen, auf der wir ihm begegnen und uns mit ihm auseinandersetzen. Was ist wortwörtlich, was ist als verdichtetes Sinnbild, was ist als allegorischer Vergleich zu verstehen? Und wo – denn auch das geschieht – sitzt dem Autor, der ernsthaft Wissender ist, der Schalk im Nacken er narrt uns mit frappierenden und herausfordernden Wendungen, ja Grotesken? –
Ein aufreizendes Buch, das einen eben nicht zur Ruhe kommen läßt, eine Sauna des Geistes, die uns vom heißen Dampfbad ins eiskalte Wasser wirft und zwischendurch immer wieder mit Ruten schlägt. Aber er reinigt die Poren von allen trägen und unreinen Elementen insbesondere des Sichselbstbetrügen und Sichselbstberuhigen, so daß wir frei atmen können. Und es belebt in erstaunlicher Weise den Blutkreislauf unseres Denken, das sich nicht in der Sphäre einer unkörperlichen-theoretischen Abstraktion, sondern nur in der geistig-seelischen (ja auch körperlichen) Erfahrung vollziehen kann. Ein realistisches Buch; aber zugleich auch ein idealistisches, indem es in Beelzebub die Idee, das Vorbild des Menschen zeigt, in dem trotz ursprünglicher Verschuldung die Möglichkeit zu größter Vollendung und Vollkommenheit liegt. Ein revolutionäres Buch, voll kostbarer Erfahrungen für einen jeden, der sich wirklich ernsthaft die großen Fragen nach den Grundlagen, nach Zweck und Ziel des menschlichen Daseins vorlegt.
I am the author of the article you’re quoting, an interview of Arnold Keyserling I did in the 1990s. I have the original French version of that article, and there are a few mistranslations in your quotations.
I see. Well, if they are significant, please let me know and I would be delighted to correct them.
Would you like me to send you the original French version? Perhaps that would help you. I’ll address the few mistranslations later on.
Thanks
Did I ever send you this original version? I’m not sure I have a way to send it to you. Maybe I can publish it on my Substack and then you may read it. In French and in English. Would that suit you?
That would be much appreciated – but if it is a PDF, could it be e-mailed?
“I suspect Gurdjieff said: “roses, roses … merde, merde.” = it was “now it’s rose-rose, and later it will be manure-manure” (fumier-fumier).
“Ah ! Ça bouillir ensemble, ça faire bonne marmite.” (It’s all boiling together, that will make a good dish.”
“Gurdjieff spoke of women who were “eager to go to the skies in Jewish jewels.” (to heaven?)”
= “eager to go to heaven with Jewish clogs on their feet” (I have no idea what Jewish clogs are).
“On the contrary one day he asked to translate in full labour to accompany him to the countryside. Then naturally he shouted at her. “But it was you who asked me to come!” says for translator. “But why do you do what I ask you?” Guredjieff answers. I think he means the lady was in an advanced stage of pregnancy.”
The meaning of that is different. The person was a translator (a man) who was in the middle of a translating job. Gurdjieff invited him to his house in the countryside. The translator was unhappy because he couldn’t work and said that he, Gurdjieff, was the one who asked him to come. Hence Gurdjieff’s answer. No pregnancy was involved.
The second version of the last quotation is correct.