Gurdjieff’s America
Reviewed by Simson R. Najovits

Simson R. Najovits,

Gurdjieffian adept, 1961-1972. Author of Egypt, Trunk of the Tree: The Contexts and Egypt, Trunk of the Tree: The Consequences. New York: Algora Publishing,

2003 Former Editor-in-Chief at Radio France Internationale, Paris.

Paul Beekman Taylor's Gurdjieff's America gives us an overview of Gurdjieff the man and his general ideas much better than does James Moore's Gurdjieff, although it is in the same category of perception as Moore, rather than in the category of those who try to see from inside the Work and plunge intimately into method like Ravi Ravindra's Heart Without Measure, or the champion of them all, Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous. Taylor's option, or necessity, is to stay general and not plunge into the nuts and bolts of the Work as anybody who has thoroughly lived it would or could.

For me, the important aspect of Taylor's book is that it confronted me with Gurdjieff the man, while my chief interest was always the system, the Work itself, and in fact, when I started out in the Work, first with Tom Daly in Montreal and then with Madame de Saltzmann in Paris, the main emphasis was on the content and methods of the Work rather than on Gurdjieff the man. That was so even in our readings of Gurdjieff's and Ouspensky's texts; not that Gurdjieff the man was ignored, far from it, but there was direct practice of Work methods rather than constant and cultic references to the man...with a single annual exception - our celebration of his January 13th birthday. Although, of course, amongst us adepts, we talked often about the enigma and strangeness of Gurdjieff the man and many of the people Taylor refers to in his book spun their personal reminiscences of Gurdjieff.

Taylor quite correctly points out that in Gurdjieff's case "Gurdjieff's work is Gurdjieff the man" and that it both "hide[s] and reveal[s]" him. Now, this might seem obvious once it is said, but if left unsaid, it is not obvious and even a matter of considerable controversy. I do not separate the man and the work, but like Ouspensky, I believe that some of it is not for me and furthermore, I believe that many of its basic premises and promises are religious pie-in-the-sky...and yet both the Work and the man have had an enduring influence on me and I gladly admit that I still practice self-remembering and that Gurdjieff's grid of evaluation is still part of my system of values.

A few other remarks: Taylor's chapter on "The Cultural Space of Gurdjieff's America" is an excellent, wide-ranging analysis of the situation in America and elsewhere which led - and still leads - to such fervent interest in Gurdjieff's ideas; one didn't have to believe or disbelieve any of the isms and one could be religious or atheistic and still be attracted to Gurdjieff's system. Taylor justifiably insists on Gurdjieff's frequently expressed opinion that the faults and lacks of Americans are easier to perceive than those of other peoples, but that nevertheless the biggest potential for "normal" development is among the Americans. However, I don't think Taylor does justice to the key role that Madame de Saltzmann played in consolidating Gurdjieff's work in America and everywhere else, and I think there can hardly be any doubt that for the American adepts and most adepts everywhere, the center of the Work was Madame de Saltzmann and Paris and not Pentland or Welch and New York. Moreover, Madame de Saltzmann, although Gurdjieff's designated successor, changed the style of the work - compared to what we can read or still glean about Gurdjieff's style; her style was more austere and structured, more like what we read in In Search of the Miraculous; in fact, she even did away with what I would have loved - the toasts to idiots.

Finally, a few details: Gurdjieff's apartment on the rue des Colonels Renard was not really, or only, a private museum for former pupils (as Taylor states); it was also used as a meeting place for groups and personally - if I remember correctly - I attended meetings there for two years. Something strikes me as odd: how come Taylor doesn't know that Michel and Josée de Saltzmann had a son, Alexandre, who is now about 45 and is still in the Work? Is there something here that I have misunderstood in what Taylor says or omits, or have I and many, many others misunderstood who was the boy Alexandre whom we knew?

The main importance of Taylor's Gurdjieff's America is its meticulous contribution to the enigma which will never be solved - Who was Gurdjieff the man and what were his motives - if any outside of his own essence - beyond the obvious motive of human development using esotericism?