James Moore (4) (1929–)

Writer and historian, James Moore, has dedicated his life to the Gurdjieff movement, as a pupil of Kenneth Walker, and then of Henriette Lannes from 1957 -1978, as a teacher within the Gurdjieff Society of London, as an independent practitioner after 1994 when he left the Society to work with his own groups. As an insider and witness to the development of the Gurdjieff Work in the UK and outside it, Moore is in a privileged position to chronicle its history through a multi-faceted lens, shedding light on its mysteries, and at times revealing what went on behind the curtains to the dismay of those exposed.
Throughout his long career, Moore has brought his readers fascinating volumes on key figures in the Work, starting from Gurdjieff and Mansfield (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980),Gurdjieff : Anatomy of a Myth, (Element Books, 1991)regarded by many as the only serious biography of Gurdjieff, Gurdjieffian Confessions: A Self Remembered (Gurdjieff Studies, LTD, 2005), a memoir, and lastly Eminent Gurdjieffians Lord Pentland, a study of the man who for three decades headed the Work in America, as Charter President of the Gurdjieff Society of New York. This last, written in the style of Strachey’s Eminent Victorians, is Moore’s most controversial work, for this unauthorized biography has trampled sensitive toes in portraying Pentland as little more than a shadow – a “nonentity,” as reviewer Rawlinson has noted, a “two-dimensional” figure, and yet a “trophy-pupil,” astute climber of “institutional scaffolding,” and a shrewd consolidator of power.
Pentland, entrusted by Gurdjieff himself, and later by Mme. De Salzmann with the promoting of Gurdjieff’s ideas in the “continent-sized historical hinterland” of the United States, had before him no small task. Writes Moore, “The evangelical challenge he had faced was formidable. “America’s materialism, egalitarianism, and its Bible Belt religiosity hardly made it the seed-bed for any subtler spiritual ministry.” Under Pentland’s stewardship, the Work grew in numbers, prestige, and assets . One of his first tasks was to create official groups in California in 1955 and consolidate them under the Gurdjieff Foundation. Ten years later in 1965, the Foundation purchased their legendary hacienda-style headquarters in St. Elmo Way. One hopes that someday soon the senior pupils of those groups will provide us with an account of the period that followed, an exciting time in American culture, with its “mind-blowing” mix of “chemical culture,” Orientalism, New Thought, the Esalen Institute, Humanistic Psychology, the sexual revolution, Carlos Castaneda, and all the rest of California counterculture which transformed western notions of “self,” “cosmos,” and “well-being” forever. Cross pollination among schools did take place, even though Pentland must have worked hard to keep the Gurdjieff strain “pure” of adulterating influences in such a hotbed of spiritual influences. Yet Castaneda’s books were adopted by Gurdjieffians around the world as allegories of the Gurdjieff work, and the master himself, as Moore recounts, was invited to watch a class of the Gurdjieff Movements, which at that time were still shrouded in secrecy. Perhaps that’s where Castaneda got the inspiration for his Tensegrity movements. The last two chapters of Moore’s study are particularly intriguing for their recreation of the Gurdjieff milieu on the East and West coasts.
This book may disappoint some for its narrow focus on Pentland’s childhood, early years, and his connection with the Work, ignoring his affectional and business life, which surely would have helped fill out the blank spaces of his character. Yet Moore’s research as a whole is of inestimable value in recreating those cultural currents and contexts in which the Gurdjieff Work sprang up and expanded, a world which to some may seem “peculiar,” with its toasts to the idiots, but which attracted to itself some of the twentieth century’s most brilliant minds in diverse fields, as well as an army or two of ordinary individuals, of every imaginable background, nation, age, and race.

Here as in his previous books, Moore’s delightful style crackles with wit and irony, although sometimes goes heavy on the sarcasm . “The Work a shimmering reality, while Pentland, notwithstanding his good points, had as much shimmer as a municipal dust-bin lid” -- a claim that contradicts Moore’s previous comment that Pentland served as a “fashion-accessory” for the Work, thanks to his money, aristocratic title, and patrician chic, which Americans found appealing.
Moore’s research departs from the subtext of that dust-bin lid: how did such an uncharismatic individual rise to such heights in the Gurdjieff Work?. Nowhere does the author find a satisfactory answer, but does admit “ In administration, Pentland proved a nonpareil…Around him there had thriven up a wealthy and powerful authoritarian network with sharp prescriptive and proscriptive powers. As an institution-builder he could echo St Paul the Apostle, “ I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.”
As for dull dust-bin lids, we may all easily be compared to those, and to much worse as well, in Gurdjieff’s view, Pentland would probably not have been scandalized by the comparison. To Pentland’s credit, at least from what we may gather from Moore’s research, it seems he never identified himself with his role as Gurdjieffian VIP. “ I am not a role model,” he asserted with admirable humility. Indeed, he had money, power, good looks, a life of his own, and a talent for worldly success, the latter a trait much appreciated by Gurdjieff. Unlike many of those who flock to groups of all kinds, Pentland did not need the Work as “self-help” to make up for anything lacking in his personal life , and herein perhaps lies the secret of his ascendancy in the Gurdjieff hierarchy. One has the sense of an ordinary man put in an uncomfortable place, determined to do his best against the odds in spite of himself. In other words, no hero but an Everyman.
Reading Moore’s portrait of Lord Pentland, I was reminded of Henry James’ story, The Private Life, in which two unusual characters are contrasted. One, Lord Mellifont, exists only in public; in private he vanishes, the other Vawdrey, a writer, has two selves. Vawdrey 1 lives in a whirl of social engagements leaving little time for anything else; Vawdrey 2 spends 24 -7 writing in the penumbra of his room. Although many people believe they have made Vawdrey’s acquaintance, the real individual is hidden from public view, never meets anyone, concentrating on his real work. Which of the two, Mellifont or Vawdrey, is a more fitting cipher for Lord Pentland? By the fruits you shall know the tree.


… (more)