In a recent telephone conversation (22 April 2025), Anthony Blake suggested that Gurdjieff may have intended that his Movements be studied in a particular order. The question should, he said, be addressed, if not only because it was Gurdjieff who selected the order of the American series. That intrigued me, for several reasons. First, I have wondered about the possibility of some sort of guiding star about the order of learning Movements. Second, I had not heard that Gurdjieff had himself ordered the American series, but if so, then that had to be significant. Third, I am fairly certain that Dushka Howarth (pictured) was correct that Gurdjieff considered that, of the late Movements, only the 46 were to be used. I shall enlarge on this, point by point.

Important update 19 August 2025: Anthony’s guess was correct: Gurdjieff did choose the order of the American series, see Dushka Howarth, It’s Up To Ourselves, “… French #19 (the Stop) … chosen by Mr Gurdjieff as the very first of the American series.” (470) This makes perfect sense, for stop is the first position of the First Obligatory. It is right that it be the first of the final series.

39 or 46 Movements?

It is well known that there are 39 Movements in the French series, but 46 in the American. How did this come about? In It’s Up To Ourselves, in the middle of a letter from Jessmin Howarth, a paragraph in square brackets, says: “Another seven movements were completed during Gurdjieff’s 1949 visit to America and added to the series so that the “American Thirty -Nine” really total 46!” (462)  Whoever wrote it, this states that there were 39 Movements when Gurdjieff travelled to the USA in December 1948, and there added seven more.  This is almost but not entirely accurate, as we shall see below.

My reasoning is as follows: first, when Gurdjieff went to America in December 1948, he had not finished the 39. In fact, number 39 French = 46 American was not given until 11 October 1949. This alone would show that the comment on p.462 cannot be the whole truth. Second, in a letter of 30 May 1949, Jessmin Howarth wrote to Ethel Merston:

As you know, Aubrey Wolton arrived in New York last November with a young Frenchman, Alfred Etievant, who had been sent over by Mr Gurdjieff to teach the new Movements in preparation of G.’s visit. He started at once. … I went over to see on the second night, and on the third I joined the class. … I found even the first exercises quite difficult for the elderly and inactive lady I had become …” (It’s up to Ourselves, 200-201) A little later, she adds: “Alfred had been told to dictate the thirty-five Movements he knew as quickly as possible.” (201)

This confirms my first deduction: Alfred Etievan knew thirty-five Movements when he travelled to the USA in November 1948 to prepare Movements classes for Gurdjieff’s coming.

Third, below I set out a table of the 46 in sequential order, with the French number in the second column. To anticipate, there can only have been 39 Movements in total when Gurdjieff left the USA because number 40 in this list, “Cosmic Rhythm” (French number 33 = American 40) was given on 22 February 1949, and  Gurdjieff had left the USA for France on 11 February 1949 (Howarth, 212; plus a notation on the MS of 33=40).

Fourth, all the French Movements 33-39 comprise 40-46 of the American series, whereas there is substantial rearrangement of the preceding Movements. Even without the direct evidence of the production of 33-39 in and after February 1949, this would establish  to a high level of certainty that there were only 39 authorised and completed Movements from the late series on 11 February 1949 when Gurdjieff left the USA for France.

Fifth, it would follow that when Etievan arrived in NY in November 1948, he had the first 32 Movements, plus we need to look for another three to make 35. They must be, I suggest American 7 (I Wish to Be); and 37 and 38 (English Movements). The “English Movements” were probably named for the English pupils who had been crossing the Channel to Paris since 1946 when Jane Heap’s groups started.

To get to the 39 which were finished when Gurdjieff left NY in 1949, we add four more: American 6 (American March); American 23 (American Multiplication); American 24 (I Am); and American 26 (American Morse.) Numbers 6, 23, and 26 have “American” in the title, and the notes for number 24 say that there is no French equivalent.

I think the case is conclusive that this is how the 39=46 lists developed. Alfred Etievan travelled to NY in 1948 with 35 Movements, three of which were not in the official series (which makes me think Gurdjieff may have produced those three before he began French 1). In the USA, Gurdjieff added four more, and rearranged the 39 Movements Alfred knew to produce the order of American 1-39. Then, in France, the last seven were added in their order to the American 39.

As Dushka says, there were 46 approved Movements from this last period (469), and not 39.

Elizabeth Bennett’s Diaries

We can securely date the last Movement Gurdjieff gave. In Idiots in Paris, in Elizabeth’s words, under 11 October 1949 we read:

In the evening there were Movements. … before he went he gave us the beginning of a truly amazing new movement – No. 39. One sits cross-legged on the floor, and Solange came out and counted aloud, sitting at the side … When we had worked for a while. G stopped us and made a petit addition. Then he said we could practice this “in maison” and next time he would add to it. (115-116)

On 25 October, they returned to No. 39, with de Salzmann who mentioned the inner work, but Gurdjieff was not there. (127) Note the fact that it was at that time known as #39 and not as #46, which again raises the question of why the American order was not used in Paris. Now I turn my mind to it, I wonder, was de Hartmann asked to write music for the 39 or the 46? The Triangle edition only has the 39. It has some other late Movements, but I am not sure that any of these are for the additional seven, suggesting that there is doubt about their canonicity. Observe, too, that he told them they could practise an unfinished Movement at home.

The Two Series, Side by Side

Dushka states that the 46 plus the early Movements (i.e. from the 1920s) are the corpus of Movements which Gurdjieff authorised for use. These are them:

Am 1	Fr 19	Stop
2	5	The Pointing Dervish
3	2	Prayer in Four Parts
4	30	Canon of Six Measures
5	31	Rhythms
6		American March, Head Nodding
7		I Wish to Be
8	16	Running Exercise
9	18	Body Circling
10	10	Persian Dance
11	17	Multiplication
12	13	Persian Waltz
13	12	Alleluia
14	1	Canon of Automatons
15	23	Mazurka
16	32	Automaton (Note Values)
17	24	Shassé, Vassé
18	11	Lord Have Mercy
19	27	Canon of Twelve
20	8	Walking Six Positions
21	3	The Three Tableaux
22	21	Remorse
23		American Multiplication
24		I Am
25	14	Reading from a Sacred Book (Breast-Beating Dervish)
26		American Morse
27	4	The Essentuki Prayer
28	6	Canon
29	15	Lundi, Mardi
30	7	Women’s Dance
31	9	Olbogmek
32	20	Tramping Dervish
33	22	March
34	25	White Magic/Black Magic
35	26	Cutting Multiplication
36	28	Machine Group
37		English Turning (First English)
38		Second English
39	29	Old 39
40	33	Cosmic Rhythm
41	34	Multiplication of 10 March 1949
42	35	March
43	36	Canon of Left Arm
44	37	Dance
45	38	Twice Six
46	39	Meditation

Other Thoughts

Gurdjieff clearly enough intended these Movements to be learnt, hence, a year or more after he had produced the Movement known as “Alleluia” (A13/F12), he was personally teaching it to pupils in Paris after his return from the USA (220).

But which Movements did he intend be taught, and in what order? And how were they to be taught?

To take my own questions out of order, Dushka wrote: “The classes (with Gurdjieff) always lasted at least two hours, often three, and I think everyone agreed that the second hour onwards produced the best results.” (468) I have known since I read her book some years ago that Gurdjieff took these long classes, but my idea was that while Gurdjieff could help one sustain such a class, we could not do so. I am now not sure: I think we need to raise the level, the challenge, for two to three hour classes, but they give much greater results than one hour classes (all things being equal).

Before I re-read p.470 of Dushka’s book and made the important update, I had already conjectured that no one else would dare to reorder them, and so it had been Gurdjieff. But then, someone who should have known better, decided to work with 39 only, and not 46. So I am sure Anthony Blake is correct, the American order is what Gurdjieff wanted used. I do not yet know the 46 well enough to be able to draw many conclusions from the order, except that more than the French series, the American mixes exo-, meso-, and esoteric Movements; suggesting that this is the big category distinction in these latter Movements, not French-American. This alone would be reason to study them all.

All due credit to Anthony for raising this question: it seems to me that Gurdjieff did indeed his last Movements to be learnt as one massive corpus.

Endnote

Someone sent this post to a Movements assistant who replied, rather imperiously, that the order of the 39 was given by de Salzmann and Alfred Etievan. But Dushka remembered Gurdjieff, as he was satisfied with each Movement of the 39 asking: “What number are we at now?” By this he meant the incremental number that this series under construction, the ’39 series’ was given.” Wim van Dullemen, The Gurdjieff Movements, Hohm Press, Chino Valley, 196. The question is: who is responsible for the varying order between American 1-39 and French 1-32? And why? [26 April 2025]