Determining the Founder of New Thought

Home , Annie Rix Militz, Christian Science (book), Emma Curtis Hopkins, Ernest Holmes, Franz Mesmer, Georgine Milmine

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2018-08-14 What Makes a Founder? : Determining the Founder of New Thought

Shopf, Kevin

Shopf, K. (2018). What Makes a Founder? : Determining the Founder of New Thought (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/32815 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/107635 master thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

What Makes a Founder? : Determining the Founder of New Thought

Kevin Shopf

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

CALGARY, ALBERTA

AUGUST, 2018

Abstract

This thesis both rekindles the debate over the title of “founder” of New Thought and presents a definitive statement on who should be considered the “founder.” In this debate, the long-standing and most accepted “founder” is Phineas Parkhurst Quimby. Phineas Quimby was a mental healer who is credited with inspiring many important figures in metaphysical movements in America including Mary Baker Eddy, Warren Felt Evans and Julius and Annetta Dresser. In various histories on New Thought, Quimby is regarded as the intellectual founder for the movement. However, this view of Quimby is the product of later developments in the New

Thought movement that required an intellectual founder to validate its status over Christian

Science.

This thesis builds upon more recent suggestions and argues that Emma Curtis Hopkins is the organizational and theological founder of New Thought. Hopkins’ role in the structural development of the New Thought religion and its major branches has been recognized in titles such as “teacher’s teacher” and “Mother of New Thought.” Hopkins, through her extensive teaching activities and the foundation of the Emma Curtis Hopkins College of Christian Science, influenced several significant figures in New Thought including Charles and Myrtle Fillmore, the founders of Unity; Ernest Holmes, the founder of Religious Science; Annie Rix Militz, the founder of Homes of Truth; and Malinda Cramer and the Brooks sisters, the founders of Divine

Science. These activities establish her status as the organizational founder of New Thought.

However, Hopkins’ theological contributions to the formation of New Thought have been unduly minimized due to the shadow of Quimby and the lack of recognition of her distinctive ii intellectual contributions. This thesis validates Hopkins’ contributions to New Thought theology, especially in reference to its construction as a religion and some of its distinctive ideas.

iii

This thesis is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, Kevin Shopf.

Table of Contents

Abstract ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ i

Table of Contents ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ iv

Chapter 1 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 1

Chapter 2 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 7

Chapter 3 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 39

Chapter 4 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 66

Chapter 5 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 87

Bibliography ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 97 1

Chapter 1

In the mid-1800s Americans were exploring new concepts of philosophical and religious thinking. Spurred on by societal changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution and inspired by similar movements in Europe and a growing awareness of Eastern beliefs and ideas, a series of new religious movements began to appear. Many of these movements focused on a greater awareness and involvement of mental faculties. As Catherine L. Albanese wrote in A Republic of

Mind and Spirit, “metaphysical forms of religion have privileged the mind in forms that include reason but move beyond it to intuition, clairvoyance, and its relatives such as ‘revelation’ and

‘higher guidance’.”1 These metaphysical movements all put emphasis on the power and ability of the mind, in some degree, to shape and influence reality. Various groups are included in this category such as Spiritualism, Theosophy, Christian idealism, New England Transcendentalism, and Mesmerism. To varying degrees these groups may all be considered a part of, or at the least related to, the family of metaphysical religions. The two mainstays of this family, as well as the ones from which the name is first derived, are New Thought and Christian Science. It is these two movements that best exemplify the principles of the metaphysical movements, particularly the power of the mind and its influence on reality. It is important to note that the term metaphysical in this instance is not a reference to metaphysics in the philosophical sense; instead, it is a term referencing these religious groups’ emphasis on the mental over the material, or physical. This is an insider term that was popularly used and subsequently adopted by scholars as a convenient and useful classification indicating the similarities between these groups and how they differ from other religious traditions.2 These metaphysical religions are idealistic

1 Catherine Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007), 6. 2 Horatio Dresser, A History of the New Thought Movement (New York, NY: T. Y. Crowell, 1919), 141-142; Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 4. 2 groups that to varying degrees believe in the primacy of the mental over the material.3 Christian

Science is the most entrenched in the idealism of the movements since Christian Science rejects the material world as reality, instead believing it to be an illusion created by the mind. New

Thought does not fully reject the material world; but it holds that the mind has primacy and control over the material.

New Thought, in contrast to Christian Science, has had rather sparse attention given to it throughout its history. Unlike Christian Science, New Thought has remained largely free from public controversy and thus garnered much less attention than Christian Science. What controversy and debate has occurred in regard to New Thought is, in some way, related to Mary

Baker Eddy. For instance, Charles Braden’s Spirits in Rebellion, which is considered the official history of New Thought, spends a significant amount of time addressing Eddy and her relation to

New Thought. The close relation between Eddy, controversy, and the history of New Thought is a topic that will be explored more fully in later chapters.

Following Braden there was a dearth of scholarly work on New Thought for a number of years. In the late 1980s academic attention into New Thought grew, notably with the founding of the Society for the Study of Metaphysical Religions.4 The 2002 publication of Gail Harley’s

Emma Curtis Hopkins: Forgotten Founder of New Thought represents a new phase in the study of New Thought. Harley’s book serves as an excellent biography of Emma Curtis Hopkins as well as the starting point of the Hopkins as New Thought’s founder debate. For most of New

Thought’s history, Hopkins has been a largely overlooked figure. While scholars such as Braden recognized that Hopkins was important to New Thought, mainly through acknowledging her

3 Idealistic here refers to the philosophical concept that reality is fundamentally mental in nature. 4 While no longer functioning, the Society for the Study of Metaphysical Religions and their regularly published journal were a major source of scholarly work on metaphysical religions, especially New Thought. 3 epithet “teacher’s teacher,”5 this recognition was limited to no more than a mere acknowledgement. Hopkins was treated like a footnote in New Thought’s history rather than an important figure. Harley changed this by compiling as much biographical information on

Hopkins as she was able, providing a more complete view and analysis of Hopkins and her contributions to New Thought than had previously been seen.

Research into the history of New Though has not only been limited; but biased. The majority of scholarship in regard to New Thought has been from an emic perspective.6 Those scholars interested in New Thought in its early years, such as Horatio Dresser, were interested precisely because they were part of the movement.7 Consequently, most of the foundational works of New Thought are from emic perspectives and those works that have built off of this foundation have tended to be influenced by these emic perspectives. This is best seen in Charles

Braden’s Spirits in Rebellion. Braden’s work serves as the official history of New Thought for both New Thought churches and academics. However, Braden’s work is based largely on

Dresser’s uncritical and biased scholarship. While Braden’s work is still of great value to the study of New Thought, it should be kept in mind that the sources that Braden utilized were uncritical and that Braden himself was probably not as critical as he should have been.

5 Charles Braden, Spirits in Rebellion (Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963), 143. 6 Emic, or insider, perspectives are that of participants within the movement. These perspectives can offer great detail and insight into the religious movement; but they are often biased and uncritical. Etic, or outsider, perspectives are ideally that of academics studying the religious movement. These perspectives should be critical and strive to avoid bias wherever possible. For more information see Jörg Rüpke, “History,” in The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the Study of Religion, ed. Michael Stausberg and Steven Engler (New York: Routledge, 2011), 288-289. In many cases when studying religious movements (including the metaphysical movements) emic sources form the foundation of scholarly sources. In this instance, Horatio Dresser served as the first major historian of New Thought as well as the editor of The Quimby Manuscripts. Horatio’s bias affects his published works and needs to be recognized when referencing said works. Having emic sources proves problematic if later scholars do not recognize them as emic sources. This may lead to scholars from an etic perspective uncritically referencing emic sources resulting in the proliferation of emic constructs and narratives as occurred with Braden’s use of Horatio’s works. 7 Horatio Dresser’s influence on New Thought scholarship is significant particularly in his obscuring of Hopkins’ role and pushing forward Phineas Quimby as the founder. His reasons for doing so are complex and will be analyzed more extensively in later chapters. 4

More recent scholarship has been from an etic perspective, such as Catherine Albanese’s

A Republic of Mind and Spirit. Albanese’s work is in many ways a more critical expansion of

Braden’s. However instead of focusing solely on New Thought as Braden did, Albanese is examining the entirety of metaphysical religion in America. This makes for a much broader work and, though Albanese provides more depth and analysis than one would normally expect from such a broad work, the scope of her work prevents a complete analysis of New Thought’s history and development. Albanese does not take a formal position in her book on the attribution of founder. While she freely refers to other figures as religious founders throughout the book, she is careful to not apply this to anyone within New Thought. She does acknowledge Quimby and the influence his work may have had on New Thought; but his work is always distilled through others, namely Eddy, Evans, and the Dressers.8 Likewise Albanese does acknowledge Hopkins’ work and the influence that she had on New Thought but Albanese does not go as far as claiming

Hopkins the founder. In fact, Albanese is critical of Harley’s attribution of Hopkins as founder based on the grounds that Hopkins’ teachings were “mostly derivative.”9 On the whole, Albanese seems to indicate that New Thought was an almost founder-less religion, emerging from a milieu of metaphysical concepts and ideas.10 Albanese fails to recognize that, though Hopkins drew from the milieu of metaphysical concepts and ideas that were part of the overarching intellectual/religious investigations of the Gilded Age, she incorporated specific ideas that distinguished New Thought from its “competitor” Christian Science; reinforced its religious character and provided the framework for its Declaration of Principles.

8 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 300. 9 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 318. 10 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 314. 5

Scholarship, on the whole, is rather lacking in regard to Hopkins. This is likely due to a combination of many factors such as Hopkins’ lack of self-promotion, the desire to make

Quimby seem a more important figure in New Thought,11 and the tendency for women’s roles to be downplayed in importance in the 19th – early 20th century. Most scholars, as mentioned, only briefly address Hopkins’ contributions to New Thought; mainly noting the popular epitaph given to her, “teacher’s teacher.”12 Recent scholarship has afforded more attention to Hopkins. The most significant work on Hopkins is Harley’s Emma Curtis Hopkins: Forgotten Founder of New

Thought. As mentioned previously, this mainly biographical work provides a critical examination of Hopkins’ life and the significant role Hopkins played in the formation and development of New Thought. As the title of the work suggests, Harley puts forth the idea that

Hopkins ought to be considered the founder of New Thought. However this is not the main purpose of Harley’s book. While Harley does put forth the idea, her focus is on providing a biography of an overlooked and marginalized figure. What Harley’s book does contribute to the debate is substantial information on Hopkins’ organizational contributions to New Thought.

Harley shows throughout her book that Hopkins was instrumental in teaching a wide number of people across the country. Those people in turn would teach others, often in permanent churches that they established in the cities where Hopkins first taught them. Wherever Hopkins went churches would spring up in her wake and many of them proved to be enduring; continuing on to the present day. If it were not for Hopkins’ efforts to spread New Thought teachings it is highly unlikely that the movement would have been able to last.

11 Quimby’s attribution as founder rather than Hopkins was put forth mainly by the Dresser family, particularly Horatio Dresser. Horatio Dresser’s role in this regard as well as his reasoning for doing so will be more fully addressed in later chapters. 12 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 143. 6

Beyond the organizational contributions that Hopkins provided to New Thought, Hopkins also supplied a theological base for the movement. Through classes offered at her seminary,

Hopkins taught the principles of New Thought that would be continued by the various New

Thought branches led by Hopkins’ students. While much of Hopkins’ theology was certainly inspired or influenced by other sources, this was true for all of the figures in the metaphysical religions. Religions do not develop in a vacuum, they are a product of the people and society that they are formed by and as such have a multitude of influences affecting development.

The lack of recognition in terms of Hopkins’ status as founder is due to:

1. The definitional debate that arose between Christian Science and New Thought during

the Quimby-Eddy debate and the use of the emic histories on this debate.

2. The initial lack of recognition of female figures and their contributions during the

nineteenth and early-twentieth century and the ongoing tendency to focus only on

specific contributions

3. The tendency to regard Hopkin’s intellectual contributions as minor or derivative.

This thesis endeavors to restore Hopkins to full status as founder. My thesis proceeds as follows;

Chapter 2 provides the background for the development of the metaphysical religions. This is designed to briefly indicate some of the common elements of the religious transformation entering the Gilded Age as they pertain to this thesis. Chapter 3 examines the main individuals and their roles in terms of the early history of New Thought. Chapter 4 details the thesis of

Quimby as the founder and how this thesis emerged largely as a result of the efforts of Horatio

Dresser. Chapter 5 presents reasons for considering Hopkins as the founder of New Thought.

Chapter 2

The mid-nineteenth century was a hotbed of religious development in America. New religions sprouted and found rapid growth in the fertile soil of industrial America. Following the

Industrial Revolution, America saw rapid growth in production and economics. With the increased production ability that the Industrial Revolution brought about, a growing demand for labor led to a massive migration of Americans from rural areas to large urban areas. This was particularly strong in certain commercial hubs like New York, Boston, Chicago, Kansas City, and other cities.13 This migration to urban areas led to a large population of people with few ties to their community (due to recent relocation from rural areas) and with more opportunities to experience and become aware of new cultures and concepts (due to inherent diversity in large urban areas). As noted by Joel Shrock,

The lives of average Americans did undergo enormous changes in the Gilded Age as the country was transformed by the forces of immigration, industrialization, corporatization, urbanization, mechanization, and a revolution in transportation. Indeed, the United States witnessed the creation of modern, mass urban society, interconnected by new transportation and communication networks. These forces altered the country from a predominantly rural nation based on primarily agriculture and dedicated to the Protestant work ethic into an industrial, urban- dominated society that embraced leisure as one of the best things in life. The effects of these large changes on America were dramatic.14 This “modern mass urban” leisure class proved a fertile ground for new religious movements.

This thesis acknowledges the significance of the social transformation associated with the

Gilded Age for the development of new religious movements. However, it is beyond the scope of this thesis to engage in an extensive examination of the socio-historical context of the Gilded

13 Lawrence V. Roth, “The Growth of American Cities,” Geographical Review 5, no. 5 (1918): 384-387. 14 Joel Shrock, The Gilded Age, Popular Culture Through History, ed. Ray B. Browne (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004), xiii. 8

Age and its implication for the development of New Thought. In reference to the founder debate, consideration of specific aspects of the socio-historical context is vital and these aspects will be examined. The issue of socio-historical context reveals a gap between the American historians and the historians of American religion. Albanese, in her address to a roundtable discussion for

The Conference on Faith and History, remarked that most American historians engaged in

“’Protestant-nation’ historiography [which] delivers an impoverished account on what went on in the past and what is going on today.”15 Her point was that American religiosity was/is much more varied and complex and that, in specific reference to the Gilded Age through to the present, the metaphysical religions require serious consideration. However, Albanese and other historians of American religion, as will be discussed, tend to focus on intellectual developments or theology and neglect the socio-historical context. Again, within the focus of the founder debate, the significance of the socio-historical context requires examination

The shock of this social transformation and the paradox of what Mark Twain labeled as the Gilded Age is captured in the following quote from Chicago in the Age of Capital: Class,

Politics, and Democracy During the Civil War and Reconstruction.

During the Winter of 1869, an article in the Chicago Daily Tribune found that “in our principal thoroughfares the richly-dressed lady of the avenue magnificently sweeps by her thinly-clad sister of the alley, who scantly clothed, hurries from her fireless garret to perform her daily fourteen hours labor for a pittance too small to pay rent and purchase sufficient food, much less comfortable raiment, for this inclement season. Worse than this, there are houseless wanderers in our streets who in vain seek for employment, and whose mode of existence is a mystery. Worse of all, there are many among us to whose dire poverty is added sickness, or may be, they are crippled from accident, and who are entirely dependent on the charity of the public.” The writer was experiencing the shock of a new social order that had emerged with amazing rapidity during the 1860s, while the country was fighting the Civil War and trying to reconstruct the South. The new social

15 Albanese, “American Metaphysical Religion,” Fides et Historia 44, no.2 (2012). http://link.galegrroup.com/apps/doc/A388263170/AONE?u=calgary &sid+AONE&xid=6800d1fb (accessed June 6, 2018). 9

world was rooted in the transformation of the city from a commercial center into a dynamo of industrial capitalism.16 As noted in the quote, some of the consequences of the shift to urban areas were the effects to public health. The close proximity of large numbers of people in urban areas as well as the often poor and unsanitary living conditions led to increased rates of illness.17 Working conditions were also often unsafe leading to a high number of injuries, many of which were quite severe.18 At the time of the mid-nineteenth century, medicine was not as advanced as it is today and was not as well trusted as it is currently. As noted by John C. Waller, “[t]he theories and therapies of early nineteenth-century medicine were perfectly reasonable to an age innocent of what we have learned from the sciences of physiology, biochemistry, bacteriology, histology, genetics, immunology, and endocrinology.”19 For example, it is only in 1867 that Joseph Lister would publish his paper, “Antiseptic Principle in the Practice of Surgery,” which would lead to the adoption of antiseptic procedures meant to sterilize surgical equipment.20 Prior to that point surgeries often led to infections and other complications, making people wary of doctors sometimes viewing the cure as worse than the disease.21 Therefore, the Gilded Age entertained the efficacy of alternative treatments ranging from herbalists to mental healing.22

The shock of social transformation had its own particular impact on the health of the new urban leisure class. The negative affects to public health were noticed by a number of people with many theories of the cause(s). One theory that was popularly received at the time was by

16 John B. Jentz and Richard Schneirov, Chicago in the Age of Capital: Class, Politics, and Democracy During the Civil War and Reconstruction (Urbana, Chicago, and Springfield, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2012), 13. 17 Gerald Grob, The Deadly Truth: A History of Disease in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 119-120. 18 John C. Waller, Health and Wellness in 19th-Century America (Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2014), 143. 19 Waller, Health and Wellness, 15. 20 Joseph Lister, “Antiseptic Principle in the Practice of Surgery,” British Medical Journal (Sept. 21 1867): 9-12. 21 Waller, Health and Wellness, 158. 22 Throughout Waller’s book, he discusses the complex and complicated development of the modern medical model as it emerged over the 19th century and the various alternatives for ensuring health. Health and Wellness. 10

Dr. George Beard. Beard introduced and promoted a diagnosis that he referred to as neurasthenia or “American nervousness.”23 As the name suggests Beard assumed neurasthenia to be an affliction of the nerves that was primarily seen in Americans. Beard proposed that the nervous system was overwhelmed and a large number of symptoms would develop from this.24

Neurasthenia had a wide variety of symptoms including tenderness of the scalp, dilated pupils, headache, changes in the expression of the eye, congestion of the conjunctiva, noises in the ear, deficient mental control, irritability, hopelessness, and many others.25 Beard listed the main cause of neurasthenia as “modern civilization;” specifically “steam power, the periodical press, the telegraph, the sciences, and the mental activity of women.”26 While neurasthenia as a valid diagnosis has been largely discarded by the medical community, the contemporaneous awareness and acceptance of it as an illness indicated that people were (or at least feeling) affected by the changes in society. And the acceptance of modern civilization as the cause of neurasthenia indicates the recognition of the drastic changes in society and how these changes could negatively affect them. Finally, it was the urban leisure class or the developing middle-class professional class who were the main “victims,” and it was these “victims” who sought treatment.

To cope with the loss of their rural community, people were forced to find or make new communities. This can still be seen in a number of large cities, such as New York City which has a number of neighborhoods that have historically been dominated by various ethnic groups such as Hell’s Kitchen that was historically a predominantly Irish community or Little Italy, which as

23 George Beard, A Practical Treatise on Nervous Exhaustion (Neurasthenia), (New York: William Wood & Company, 1880), xiv. 24 Beard, A Practical Treatise, 9. 25 Beard, A Practical Treatise, 15-26. 26 Beard, American Nervousness, Its Causes and Consequences (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1881), 96. 11 the name implies, was predominantly Italian.27 While the specifics in how and why these neighborhoods formed is complex and beyond the scope of this thesis, the existence of these neighborhoods provided a community for incoming immigrants who were in an unfamiliar environment. In doing so, these residents could form communities based on shared cultural ties and connections. Unlike in rural areas where a single community dominated an area, in urban areas multiple communities existed together; with the members of these communities interacting with each other and with other communities, sharing and spreading their culture and ideas. This was particularly true in urban areas that saw high numbers of immigrants. As Susan Mizruchi wrote in her book The Rise of Multicultural America, “places where immigrants were most numerous relative to other groups, it was impossible to avoid confronting a variety of languages and cultures.”28 The interactions between these various communities led to a sharing of beliefs and ideas, offering new perspectives for a number of Americans. “Between 1865 and 1915,

America underwent the most rapid corporate capitalist development in history and at the same time unparalleled rates of immigration. The result was the first multicultural modern capitalist society. Cultural diversity and ever-growing awareness of it provided one of the conditions of capitalist America that distinguished it from all the other modern capitalist countries-such as

Britain, France and Germany.”29 As, Mizruchi noted the multicultural development of America involved both the rejection of the “alien” and “stranger” and the embrace of a cosmopolitan diversity. It provided a milieu for exchange of ideas and concepts; whether these were European philosophies or Asian religions.

27 John R. Logan, Wenquan Zhang, and Richard D. Alba, “Immigrant Enclaves and Ethnic Communities in New York and Los Angeles,” American Sociological Review 67, no. 2 (April 2002): 302-303. 28 Susan Mizruchi, The Rise of Multicultural America: Economy and Print Culture (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2009), 4. 29 Mizruchi, The Rise of Multicultural America, 15. 12

Another societal change involved the role of women. Beginning in the late eighteenth century, the education of women was promoted. Often, phrased in terms of ensuring the proper functioning of the family and the state, the educated woman was caught between cupid (love, sexuality and family) and Minerva (knowledge).30 The urban capitalist transformation of

America contributed to the shift in roles as women engaged in work outside of the home, developed intellectual interests to occupy their leisure time and/or participated in moral public discourse.

By 1840, scores of academies, seminaries and collegiate institutes existed offering a variety of educational opportunities for women. Schools such as the Troy Female Seminary (founded by Emma Willard in 1821), the Harford Female Seminary (founded by Catherine Beecher in 1823) and Mount Holyoke (founded by Mary Lyon in 1837) offered women the equivalent of a college education though without explicitly referring to it as such. In 1837, Oberlin College admitted its first female students, paving the way for women’s admission to other colleges in the decades to follow. Well-educated women filled the ranks of teachers, authors, missionaries and reformers.31 These educational opportunities provided women new options in a workforce that was more and more seeing women become involved. The 1870 U.S. Census reports that women made up approximately fifteen percent of the workforce.32 Forty-seven percent of women in the census were registered as domestic servants, twenty percent as agricultural laborers, five percent as tailoresses and seamstresses, five percent as milliners, five percent as teachers, and three percent as laundresses.33 As the century came to a close the number of women in the workforce would continue to grow. Furthermore, women were increasingly becoming self-employed; owning and

30 This image is evoked in Lucia McMahon, Mere Equals: The Paradox of Educated Women in the Early American Republic (New York: Cornell University Press, 2012), 8-9. 31 McMahon, Mere Equals, 167. 32 1870 U.S. Census, Persons in Each Class of Occupations, 670, https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1870/population/1870a-59.pdf (accessed June 12, 2018). 33 1870 U.S. Census, Females Engaged in Each Occupation, 686-694, https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1870/population/1870a-61.pdf accessed June 12, 2018). 13 operating their own business, working independently under their own control. Sarah Deutsch, in

Women and the City: Gender, Space, and Power in Boston, 1870-1940, notes that;

Female petty entrepreneurs were everywhere in turn-of-the-century cities, and Boston was no exception… By 1900, women headed more than half the lodging and boarding houses that ringed the commercial center. They comprised as many as a fifth of Boston’s grocers and dry goods dealers, a third of its fancy goods dealers and employment agency owners, half its variety shop owners, virtually all its milliners and dressmakers, and owned smaller numbers of Boston’s bakery and confectionary shops, restaurants, clothing stores, and other businesses. In addition, women professionals in healing and teaching opened their own schools, free-lanced music and art lessons, offered homeopathic care, acted as Christian Science practitioners in independent offices, or set up small maternity hospitals as paying concerns.34 The increase of women in the workforce was met with some controversy. Women working in order to earn a wage were often looked upon with suspicion, the assumption being that a woman going out in public without a man must be engaged in some sort of immoral activity. The standard accusation was that these women were likely to engage in prostitution or some other socially inappropriate dealing.35 Women were able to find certain occupations that were considered respectable and also avoided the poor conditions of factories and sweatshops. These occupations such as teaching and nursing were considered appropriate work for women, due to their associations with caring for children and the ill respectively.36 Another realm that offered women the opportunity to engage in work that was considered respectable was religion.

Historically religion has been dominated by men, at least in terms of leadership roles.

This was the case for American religions as well, with men making up the vast majority of the leadership of various religious groups despite women forming the majority of the congregation for most of these religions. In the latter half of the nineteenth-century women taking on

34 Sarah Deutsch, Women and the City: Gender, Space, and Power in Boston, 1870-1940 (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000), 115-116. 35 Susan Cruea, “Changing Ideals of Womanhood During the Nineteenth-Century Woman Movement,” ATQ: 19th Century American Literature and Culture 19.3 (Sept. 2005): 194. 36 Cruea, “Changing Ideals of Womanhood,” 194-195. 14 leadership roles in religious organizations became increasingly common.37 In particular, women leaders tended to appear in new religious movements such as Christian Science and New

Thought.38 Various religions such as Spiritualism, Theosophy, Christian Science, and New

Thought were begun by women and maintained strong female leadership. These new religious movements all provided opportunities for women to enter the public sphere without undue suspicion as well as earn a living in what was seen as a respectable career option. Even those women who did not become religious leaders were able to find employment through these new traditions; such as Spiritualism where women could work as independent mediums or Christian

Science where women could operate as practitioners.39

The education of women did not dissolve the models of gender difference and the separate spheres of the public and private. The recognition of these separate spheres, the social

(public) and domestic (private), were the result of industrialization moving the workplace from the farm/household to factories. This separation of work from the home led to the ideology that the public sphere is where men operated; since they were the ones expected to work outside the home. Likewise the private sphere was the realm of women, who were expected to work within the home.40 This separation of spheres led to certain expectations for both men and women. Men were constructed as pragmatic and rational, prioritizing success (particularly economically) in the public sphere, even sometimes at the cost of compromising morals. Women were expected to

37 Ann Douglas, The Feminization of American Culture (New York: Doubleday, 1977); Barbara Welter, “The Feminization of American Religion 1800-1860,” in Religion in American History, ed. Jon Butler and Harry S. Strout (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 58-78. 38 Mary Farrell Bednarowski, “Outside the Mainstream: Women’s Religion and Women Religious Leaders in Nineteenth-Century America,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 48, no. 2 (June, 1980); 207-231 and essay collected in Women’s Leadership in Marginal Religions: Explorations Outside the Mainstream, ed. Catherine Wessinger (Chicago, Il: University of Illinois Press, 1993). 39 Mediums were people that were able to communicate and engage with spirits. Mediums would often be paid to conduct séances. Christian Science practitioners operated largely independently and offered healing services for which they would be paid. Both Spiritualism and Christian Science will be expanded upon later in the chapter. 40 Christopher Wells, “Separate Spheres,” in Encyclopedia of Feminist Literary Theory, ed. Elizabeth Kowalski- Wallace (New York City, NY: Garland Publishing, 1997), 366. 15 be more emotional and focused on the good of the family, maintaining the moral values that may be compromised in the public sphere.41 The exception to this restriction was largely in the realm of morality, which was considered part of the private sphere. Women became more active in upholding moral principles through such activities as the development of the Women’s Christian

Temperance Union, a group dedicated to social reform specifically through the prohibition of alcohol. Joining the WCTU and other organizations advocating for social reform were accepted roles for women in the separate spheres ideology because they were concerned with upholding morals.42 Given the issues associated with the massive transformation to an urban capitalist society such as poverty, lack of labor laws, adequate housing, and limited access to healthcare, women were frequently engaged in the public sphere.43

While women were charged with morality in the public sphere, men were not excluded from concerns raised with the transformation of American society. Mark Twain and Charles

Dudley Warner in their satire, The Gilded Age, critiqued the greed, speculation, corruption and fraud that enabled the tycoons and robber barons to build their urban palaces and promote themselves through the funding of universities, libraries and museums. The dominant Protestant churches had a spectrum of responses from support of the capitalist system as part of God’s plan to advocacy of a more compassionate business approach to the criticism of the Social Gospel.44

41 Ann Braude, Sisters and Saints: Women and American Religion, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007), 50. 42 There is much more complexity in terms of women within the public sphere; however, a fuller examination is beyond the scope of this thesis. The diversity and complexity of women in the public sphere is evident in the following publications. Deutsch, Women and the City; Lorman Ratner, Paula T. Kaufman and Dwight T. Teeter, Paradoxes of Prosperity: Wealth Seeking Versus Christian Values in Pre-Civil War America (Urbana/Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2008). For a review of scholarship on women and the nineteenth century, see Elisabeth Israels Perry, “Men are from the Gilded Age, Women are from the Progressive Era,” The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. 1, no.1 (2002): 25-48. 43 For examples, see: Deutsch, Women and the City and Ratner et al., Paradoxes of Prosperity. 44 Gary Scott Smith, “Protestant Churches and Business in Gilded-Age America,” Theology Today 60, no. 3 (2003): 311-331. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1177/004057360306000303 (accessed June 1, 2018). 16

Another specific focus was the development of the businessman “whose integrity and determination were the bedrock of his success.”45 John Corrigan discusses how the American businessman was caught between two poles; he was expected “to excite the economy through investment and trade, through speculation on markets futures, through the assumption of risk.”46

However, businessmen were also portrayed as a “Shylock[s] who put profit margin ahead of all other concerns.”47 One of the male concerns was the management of wealth within a morally acceptable framework.

In summary, the nineteenth century was one of the most transformative periods in

America society. It would result in the creation of the modern leisure class who possessed the time and resources to consume through the developing print culture and entertainment vehicles the innovations in science, technology, medicine, philosophy, culture and religion. The

“underbelly” of this transformation included issues of poverty and illness that required innovations in the developing secular medical model and alternative forms of healing. It was also a period of multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism that facilitated and promoted the exchange of new ideas. The transformation included shifts in terms of gender roles that promoted female participation within the public sphere in terms of moral concerns and male contributions in reference to the development of wealth.

Religious Developments

Eastern religious traditions and philosophies comprised one of the clusters of ideas and concepts consumed during the nineteenth century. Western study of Eastern cultures, particularly

45 John Corrigan, Business of the Heart: Religion and Emotion in the Nineteenth Century, (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001), 73. 46 Corrigan, Business of the Heart, 80. 47 Corrigan, Business of the Heart, 80. 17 through translation of religious writings was increasing in the nineteenth century.48 This introduced new concepts and ways of thinking to a Western audience. In particular, the

American Transcendentalist movement was inspired by readings of Indian religious texts such as the Bhagavad Gita.49 A number of new religious and intellectual groups introduced these concepts to the America public at large; particularly those in middle class urban areas. The

Vedanta Society of New York, founded by Swami Vivekananda introduced the ideas of Vedanta

Hinduism to the American public.50 In particular, Vivekananda presented a Hinduism that regarded all religions as valid and Brahman as part of all things. This meant people were divine; all things and people were connected to Brahman and each other, and the separateness between the divine and the physical was an illusion that would be removed by purifying the mind.51 The

Theosophical Society, founded by Helena Blavatsky, also expanded the American public’s awareness of Eastern thought. However, whereas the Vedanta Society was distinctly a Hindu movement, the Theosophical Society was something less clear. Blavatsky’s Theosophy was an esoteric movement that was heavily influenced by Eastern, particularly South Asian, traditions; but these influences were combined with those of Western esoteric traditions.52 For example, the teachings of Theosophy were generally attributed to the Masters. Considered among the Masters were a number of figures from Western and Eastern traditions such as Confucius, Siddhartha

48 Arthur Versluis, American Transcendentalism and Asian Religions (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1993), 7-8. 49 Versluis, The Esoteric Origins of the American Renaissance (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2001), 3. 50 George Chryssides, Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2011), 319. 51 J. Gordon Melton, Encyclopedia of American Religions, (Farmington Hills, MI: Gale, 2003), 913-914. 52 Despite the clear Eastern influences seen in Theosophy, Helena Blavatsky was actually a Russian immigrant who claimed to have learned the principles of Theosophy on a world-wide tour that she had undertaken in her youth. Her movement, with its peculiar mixing of ideas from various cultures and traditions, found purchase in New York City. Her success in New York was, at least partially. a result of the population’s experience with encountering new ideas from a variety of differing cultures due to the large immigrant population in New York and the subsequent immigrant communities that formed there. For more information on Helena Blavatsky see: Sylvia Cranston, HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky, Founder of the Modern Theosophical Movement, (New York City, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1993). 18

Gautama, Laozi, Moses, Abraham, Solomon, and Jesus.53 These Masters represented and taught various aspects of Theosophy’s rather complex religious system, or, as Blavatsky would advocate, the “essential truth” that was under religion, philosophy and science. Blavatsky’s system, reflecting its borrowing from Hinduism, understood the cosmos as an emanation of the

Absolute; however, due to maya or illusion, humans did not perceive the Absolute and regarded the physical or illusion as real. Unlike Hinduism, Blavatsky proposed greater interaction and connection in which the evolution of the cosmos; solar system and planets was interconnected with the evolution of humanity and the individual. For the individual, there were a number of planes of existence that facilitated the spiritual development of individual; these planes, ranked from the fully material sphere to the partially enlightened, which permitted the use of psychic skills, to the fully divine realm and absorption into the Absolute. Similar to Vedanta, Theosophy believed that all life was connected as one unified whole. The focus of the movement was to spread the hidden knowledge of Theosophy (indicated by the name which means “divine wisdom”) to humanity.54 As can be seen with Theosophy, these new movements were not just transplants of other religions or new developing branches. Oftentimes these new movements developing in America were new and unique religions inspired and influenced by other older traditions. In other words, there was a tendency during the nineteenth century for religious transformation to combine or reconfigure different ideas and concepts from various religious traditions. In addition, as observed by Albanese, the religions of this period developed a focus on the mind. Theosophy and Vedanta emphasized the connection of the mind with the

Absolute/Brahman and the use of the mind as a vehicle through which one would realize the illusory nature of the material.

53 Bruce Campbell, Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of the Theosophical Movement (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1980), 54. 54 Melton, Encyclopedia of American Religions, 626-629, 645. 19

Theosophy may have made another contribution to the confluence of nineteenth-century ideas. Joy Dixon, in Divine Feminine: Theosophy and Feminism in England notes that

Theosophy’s combination of Eastern philosophies, Western esotericism and Blavatsky’s cosmology resulted in various discussions about the feminine and masculine aspects of the

Absolute, the progressive development of feminine wisdom, the idea of a divine age reflecting femininity and the potential of a female messiah. This discussion of the divine female though was still embedded in the social constructs of the nineteenth century; therefore, the feminine reflects imperial and class consciousness.55 It is beyond the scope of this thesis to outline the possible dissemination of Theosophy’s cluster of ideas supporting the divine feminine; however, given the century’s tendency to conflate religious ideas, there is the potential that these

Theosophical ideas were part of the greater religious environment.

While many new religious movements that developed in America during this time were heavily inspired by Eastern influences, this was not the only source of inspiration. One of the earliest movements to appear during this period was Spiritualism, begun in 1848 in New York by the Fox sisters. Spiritualism, inspired by the work of Emanuel Swedenborg and Franz Mesmer, was a movement focused on mediumship both mentally (trance induction, clairvoyance) and physically (manifestation of material from the spirit world).56 Swedenborg claimed to speak with spirits about the structure of the spiritual world and the nature of the afterlife. Mesmer introduced the techniques of hypnotism and trance that were utilized by the mediums.57 This mediumship involved the medium contacting spirits, which responded in a variety of ways such as rappings

55 Joy Dixon, Divine Feminine: Theosophy and Feminism in England, The John Hopkins Studies in Historical and Political Science 119th Series (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2001). 56 Adam Crabtree, “Mesmerism and the Psychological Dimension of Mediumship,” in Handbook of Spiritualism and Channeling ed. Cathy Gutierrez (Boston, MA: Brill Publishing, 2015), 21-24. 57 Spiritualism, like many other groups that developed during this time, was often combinative; taking ideas from various traditions and combining them into new and different forms. 20

(knocking on tables and other objects), writing messages, and even trances where the spirit spoke through the medium. Spiritualism put a greater emphasis on the power of the mind then was generally found in American religious practice at the time, particularly Protestantism - the dominant religious group in nineteenth century America. Spiritualist practices such as clairvoyance were predicated on a belief that the mind was capable of performing actions that were beyond the physical world due to a connection to the spiritual world.58 These beliefs were bolstered by the popularity of séances wherein spirits purportedly affected the physical world; for instance, by rapping, moving objects, speaking through mediums, etc. Similar to the conclusions drawn by Mesmer and his adherents, these physical occurrences, with no perceivable physical agent, led to the conclusion that another power was at work. Spirits could affect the physical world in some way. Since these occurrences relied on the presence of a medium, it was believed that mediums possessed some hitherto unknown mental abilities that facilitated the spirits’ interaction with them.59 Spiritualism is also an example of the blurred lines between spirituality, religion and science. It originally was regarded as a “scientific” way of investigating the nature of the afterlife. It is linked to the development of psychic research and it maintained an ongoing debate with medicine.60 Spiritualism also presented the allure of learning more about the afterlife in a way that seemed real and testable.61 People were intrigued by the possibility of communing with the dead and contacting family members who had died; this was a major societal concern given the loss of life and the trauma of the Civil War and deaths associated with the “underbelly” of the new industrial age.62 Spiritualism was intimately connected with the

58 Melton, Encyclopedia of American Religions, 678-680. 59 Crabtree, “Mesmerism and the Psychological Dimension of Mediumship,” 14-19. 60 Molly McGarry, Ghosts of Future Past: Spiritualism and the Cultural Politics of Nineteenth-century America (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2008). 61 Charles Colbert, Haunted Visions: Spiritualism and American Art (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 2-3. 62 McGarry, Ghosts of the Futures Past, 25-63. 21 urban leisure class. The places for séances were the parlors of the leisure class and the lyceum circle.63 It would be disseminated through the newly developing consumer culture via journals, novels, lectures and art.64 It also was particularly associated with women in terms of the mediums and the participants.65 Spiritualism, in this séance-form, would remain popular into the twentieth century; however, by the 1880s accusations of fraud would hurt the movement’s credibility. In particular, the Fox sisters confessed in 1888 that the rappings (the noises spirits used to communicate) were a hoax and were actually performed by the sisters themselves.66

Emanuel Swedenborg, mentioned above, was a Swedish scientist and theologian.

Swedenborg’s earlier career was that of an accomplished scientist. He spent considerable time in the field of geology, serving as a member of the Bureau of Mines in Sweden. His time as a scientist came to an end after he resigned from the Bureau of Mines. He wanted to focus on developing the spiritual ideas that were inspired by his spiritual dreams and visions.67

Swedenborg claimed that in his visions he could travel to spirit realms and receive revelations from spiritual figures. These revelations focused mainly on the nature of life, the nature of God, life after death, and what he called the “law of correspondences.”68 The law of correspondences was predicated on the idea that there were two separate, but connected worlds; the spiritual and the physical. Everything in the physical world was due to causes that “corresponded” with events

63 McGarry, Ghosts of the Futures Past, 14. 64 Ann Braude provides a list of the Spiritualist publications. “News from the Spirit World: A Checklist of American Spiritualist Periodicals 1847-1900,” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 99 (October 1989): 399-462. In terms of literature, see: John J. Kucich, Ghostly Communion: Cross-Cultural Spiritualism in Nineteenth-Century American Literature (Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press, 2004). Lectures will be discussed in this chapter in terms of the lyceum circuit. And in terms of art, see: Colbert, Haunted Visions. 65 Braude, Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women’s Rights in the Nineteenth Century (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989), 2. Both Braude and McGarry discuss the involvement of female Spiritualists in terms of activism in reference to women and other moral issues ranging from poverty to the interactions with American Indians. 66 Frank Podmore, Modern Spiritualism: A History and a Criticism (1902; London, UK Methuen; repr.; 1902; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011),188. 67 Melton, Encyclopedia of American Religions, 678. 68 Melton, Encyclopedia of American Religions, 678. 22 in the spiritual world.69 This is a different formulation than the spirit and physical connections assumed within Spiritualism, which focused on the existence of two separate, but interactive, realms divided by death. Swedenborg’s formulation implied that the mind/spirit could impact the body. Another major focus of Swedenborg’s writings was his efforts to determine the spiritual meaning hidden within Biblical scripture. His works on religion would later be adopted into the movement known as Swedenborgianism. Though Swedenborgianism was founded in 1787 in

Europe, it had a significant influence on the development of American religious movements.

Swedenborg’s teachings on the connection between the physical and the spiritual, specifically how the physical world is affected by spiritual causes, would influence a number of movements in America.70 In addition, Swedenborg’s method of interpreting Biblical passages in terms of metaphorical and spiritual messages, rather than literal readings, was frequently practiced by a number of later movements.71 For many of these movements Swedenborg’s ideas served as a foundation into metaphysical thinking, particularly in how the spiritual and physical were connected and could influence one another. Swedenborg’s ideas were spread through his multiple published works as well as a church that formed after his death; the Church of the New

Jerusalem. The Swedenborgian church and its missionaries; such as John Chapman, more commonly known as the American folk hero Johnny Appleseed, helped spread Swedenborg’s ideas throughout America where they would influence a number of figures and movements.72

69 Signe Toksvig, Emanuel Swedenborg: Scientist and Mystic, (Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1972), 285. 70 Encyclopedia of World Religions, (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2006), 1041. 71 There is minimal discussion about the biblical interpretation within the new religions of the nineteenth century; it is another future avenue of research. Susanne Scholz, “Beyond Postmodernism: Esoteric Interpretations of Gen. 1-3 by E. Swedenborg, R. Steiner and S.D. Fohr,” in Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings of Genesis, ed. Caroline Vander Stichele and Susanne Scholz (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014), 169-195 and Lydia Willsky, “The (Un)plain Bible: New Religious Movements and Alternative Scriptures in Nineteenth-century America,” Nova Religio, 17, no. 4 (2014): 13-36 72 William Kerrigan, Johnny Appleseed and the American Orchard: A Cultural History, (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), 102-103. 23

The ideas spread by Swedenborgianism would also find root in the American consciousness through a number of writers belonging to the Transcendentalist movement.

Transcendentalism was, broadly speaking, a philosophical movement that developed in the New

England area in the early nineteenth century. Among its members were a number of influential writers, including Emerson and Thoreau.73 In his books, The Esoteric Origins of the American

Renaissance and American Transcendentalism and Asian Religions, Arthur Versluis argues that the Transcendentalist movement was inspired by both Western esotericism (such as

Swedenborg) and Asian traditions (specifically readings of The Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, and the Upanishads).74 Emerson, one of the most well-known and influential of the

Transcendentalists, was likely inspired by readings of the Bhagavad Gita in his own development of the concept of unity of all things.75 Again, the Transcendentalists provide another example of the various permutations that developed as different religious, philosophical and intellectual groups combined, merged and conflated the diverse religious, philosophical, and intellectual ideas and concepts. While the Transcendentalists did not have a cohesive system of beliefs, there were basic principles that they largely agreed upon. The movement largely focused on the self, emphasizing a unity with the self and all things, especially nature and God. Another feature of the movement was an acceptance of the individual’s intuition as superior to rational thought.76 Although the focus on the Transcendentalist movement has been on their contribution to American literature and their ideas of individualism and self-reliance, there was a social activism associated with the movement that has been neglected. For example, David M.

73 Philip Gura, American Transcendentalism: A History, (New York City, NY: Hill and Wang, 2007) 7-8. 74 See Versluis, The Esoteric Origins of the American Renaissance, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014) and American Transcendentalism and Asian Religions, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1993). 75 Russell Goodman, “East-West Philosophy in Nineteenth-Century America: Emerson and Hinduism,” Journal of the History of Ideas 51, no. 4 (Oct. – Dec. 1990): 627-628. 76 Joel Myerson, Transcendentalism: A Reader, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000), xxix-xxx. 24

Robinson notes, “[Margaret] Fuller exemplifies the shifting nature of transcendentalism itself, which had moved from the arena of theology to that of politics by the middle of 1840s and was emerging as a philosophy of moral engagement and social justice.”77 Clemens Spahr draws attention to Orestes Brownson who proposed a form of utopian socialism as an alternative to the emerging capitalism.78 In other words, the Transcendentalist movement, similar to other spiritual and intellectual groups, reflected some of the middle class concerns and advocacy of the period.

Another movement that is crucial to understanding the religious and intellectual transformation of the Gilded Age was Mesmerism. Unlike its European sibling

Swedenborgianism, Mesmerism was not a religious movement; instead, it was a scientific movement. Mesmerism was founded, as the name suggests, by Franz Mesmer; a German physician who thought that there was a natural transfer of energy between animate and inanimate objects that he termed animal magnetism. Mesmer understood that this magnetic force could be manipulated in various ways; including in terms of healing individuals. Unable to physically see this force, which he often described as a fluid, Mesmer concluded that this force was similar in nature to gravity; an unseen force that affected all things and one that Mesmer (and others) could manipulate to provide certain effects.79 Practitioners, called mesmerists, would generally put patients into a trance and then manipulate the magnetic force within the patient in order to cure diseases. How this manipulation was accomplished varied between different mesmerists; but it usually involved laying their hands on the patient in order to affect and alter the flow of the

77 David M. Robinson, “Margaret Fuller, New York and the Politics of Transcendentalism,” ESQ: A Journal of American Renaissance,” 52, no. 4 (2006): 272. 78 Clemens Spahr, “Transcendentalist Class Struggles: Orestes Brownsons’ Early Writings,” Nineteenth Century Prose 36, no. 2 (2009). http:link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A209204458/AONE?u=ucalgary&sid=AONE&xid=c0e75973 (accessed June 11, 2018). See also Lance Newman, Our Common Dwelling: Henry Thoreau, Transcendentalism and the Class Politics of Nature (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005). 79 Robert Darnton, Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment in France, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Press, 2009), 4. 25 magnetic force.80 During Mesmer’s life the effectiveness and validity of his mesmeric practices were highly contested. A royal commission conducted tests to prove the validity of Mesmerism in 1784, concluding that the magnetic force described by Mesmer did not exist.81 This did not convince proponents of Mesmerism who argued that the commission was biased. They countered with the number of reported cures achieved through Mesmerism as evidence of its effectiveness.82 Repeated studies and reports condemning Mesmerism and the advancement of other medical practices would eventually lead to Mesmerism losing its popularity; but, from the late eighteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century, Mesmerism was accepted as a valid method of healing. Mesmerism explained that disruption in the body’s animal magnetism resulted in illness and it provided, through trance and hypnosis, techniques for investigating one’s supply of animal magnetism and potential healing.83 It was one of the various alternative methods of healing available.84 In addition, mesmerists noted that during trances, “patients” could recall forgotten memories or perform “feats of telepathy, clairvoyance, and recognition.”85

In other words, Mesmerism exposed the possible power of the mind; it introduced the basis of psychology.86

For some American mesmerists, similar to Spiritualism, Mesmerism existed in a liminal stage between science and the supernatural.

The phenomena of direct thought transference, clairvoyance and prevision defied explanation by reference to neural forces constrained within the brain. As one early researcher insisted, the “doctrine of animal magnetism is the connecting link between

80 Darnton, Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment in France, 4. 81 Darnton, Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment in France, 62-64. 82 Darnton, Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment in France, 64. 83 Robert C. Fuller, “Mesmerism and the Birth of Psychology,” in Pseudo-Science and Society in 19th-Century America (Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2015), 207-208. 84 John S. Haller, Swedenborg, Mesmer, and the Mind/Body Connection: The Roots of Complementary Medicine, Swedenborg Studies No. 19 (West Chester, PA: Swedenborg Foundation, 2010). 85 Fuller, “Mesmerism and the Birth of Psychology,” 208. 86 Fuller, “Mesmerism and the Birth of Psychology,” 205-220. 26

physiology and psychology … it demonstrates the intimate interconnection between the natural and the spiritual.” The mesmerists believed that although it is possible to offer physiological descriptions of any and all mesmeric phenomena. According to the mesmerists, mental processes, at least those occurring spontaneously to individuals when in the mesmeric state, demanded an explanation that was at once psychological and metaphysical – that is, one that testified to the existence of animal magnetism.87 Robert C. Fuller attributes this shift to Mesmerism’s introduction to America during the period of the Great Awakening that entertained the idea that humanity’s “lower nature” could be reformed through various social reforms. It linked together clusters of ideas associated with: psychology; the potential of mind to impact the body; individual well-being; morality, and the spiritual.88

As noted previously, this new industrial urban class had the time and resources to engage in various leisure activities. One of the common forms of leisure pursuits was the lyceum movement. In the nineteenth century the lyceum movement, a series of organizations that offered public lectures and entertainment, became popular. The lyceum movement consisted of a large number of informal groups that offered lectures, debates, and performances, as well as other things with the intention of improving American society.89 While these were often geared toward intellectual improvement, the movement was also seen as a form of entertainment. Lecturers and entertainers (including famous Transcendentalists like Emerson and Thoreau, Spiritualists, mesmerists and others) would travel what was called the “lyceum circuit,” venturing to various towns and cities to lecture, speak, entertain, etc.90 The lyceum movement introduced many new ideas to the American public, particularly those who would not otherwise become aware of these ideas. For instance, in many ways, the spread of Mesmerism in America may be attributed to the

87 Fuller, “Mesmerism and the Birth of Psychology,” 212. 88 Fuller, “Mesmerism and the Birth of Psychology,” 214-218. 89 Tom F. Wright, “Introduction,” The Cosmopolitan Lyceum: Lecture Culture and the Globe in Nineteenth-Century America, ed. Tom F. Wright (Amherst/Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2013), 3-4. 90 Mindy Spearman, “Teachers’ Lyceum in Early Nineteenth-century America,” American Educational History Journal 36, no. 1-2 (2009): 207. 27 lyceum movement with mesmerists performing mesmeric healing on the circuit as a way to show off the new healing method.91 Above all, the lyceum was a vehicle for the exchange of the multitude of scientific, technological, cultural, historical, philosophical, and spiritual innovations associated with the societal and religious transformation of nineteenth century America.92

In summary, the religious transformation of the Gilded Age featured a confluence of ideas drawn from Eastern religions, Western Esoteric traditions, Swedenborgianism,

Mesmerism, Spiritualism, Transcendentalism and other religions and intellectual traditions. As briefly discussed, these cluster of ideas were adopted, adapted and combined to produce different movements. This tendency to mix, reformulate and blend various religious and intellectual ideas and concepts is one of the hallmarks of this period. In addition, as implied, the increased participation and involvement of Gilded Age women is also attested in this religious transformation. It is evident in the leadership of Helena Blavatsky, the dominance of female

Spiritualist mediums, and the participation of women such as Margaret Fuller. Women were a significant part of this religious transformation. This religious transformation reflected specific concerns of the Gilded Age. These concerns ranged from coping with death of loved ones, seeking alternative therapies for illness, comprehending the role of women, resolving issues of poverty and social justice, and reformulating the nature of the cosmos and human nature in light of the massive transformations in science, technology and society.

Christian Science and New Thought

91 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 285. 92 The lyceum movement could be seen as part of the developing communication system of the nineteenth century Additional sources on its impact include: Wright, ed., The Cosmopolitan Lyceum: Lecture Culture and the Globe in Nineteenth-Century America and Angela G. Ray, ed., The Lyceum and Public Culture in the Nineteenth Century United States (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2005). 28

With this social and religious/intellectual background, the focus now shifts to the specific groups associated with the thesis; mental healing, Christian Science and New Thought. The confluence of the various religious, philosophical and scientific ideas present in nineteenth- century America is apparent in mental healing, Christian Science and New Thought. In the remainder of this chapter and the subsequent analysis, the influence of Transcendentalism,

Spiritualism, Mesmerism, and Swedenborgianism is part of the intellectual development of the groups, and the belief systems of the pivotal human agents. In addition, the impact of the societal transformation of the Gilded Age is also obvious, including: the embeddedness of the groups within the urban leisure class; concerns about health and well-being, and the participation and roles of men and women.

Mental Healing

The first of these “groups” is connected with mental healing. Mental healing, as mentioned previously, was a method of healing developed by Phineas Quimby, which operated under the assumption that the belief of the patient was what was primarily responsible for healing.93

Quimby differed from Mesmer specifically in his attribution to what healed patients. While

Mesmerism attributed patients’ healing to the manipulation of a magnetic force in the body,

Quimby attributed it to the mind. Specifically Quimby believed that disease was due to an error of the mind, a wrong belief brought about by outside forces such as parents or the public. If these errors were corrected then the disease would disappear and the patient would be cured.94 As opposed to Mesmeric healing, which was focused on the manipulation of a hitherto unknown force (magnetic force) in the body, Quimby’s mental healing did not involve manipulation of any

93 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 52-53. 94 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 59. 29 force. Instead, mental healing was focused on the power of the mind, specifically the idea that one’s own belief produced illness. By correcting this belief (by making the patient believe that the sickness is only a result of their mind), the patient is then cured. Quimby’s concept of one’s mind affecting another was similar to (and likely influenced by) Spiritualist and mesmerists’ beliefs of clairvoyance and thought-transference. In any case, physical effects were brought about through mental ability; either through the medium as in Spiritualism, the mesmerist or through the mental healer in Quimby’s practice. It was these basic principles of mental healing that would influence the later development of Christian Science.

Christian Science Beliefs

Christian Science, the first of what can be considered the two core metaphysical religions, was founded in 1875 by Mary Baker Eddy. Eddy was a former student of Quimby’s who, following his death, was injured after falling on some ice. Eddy described herself as being near death from her injury when she was able to heal herself due to a revelation. While reading the Bible, she came to the conclusion that “all causation was Mind, and every effect a mental phenomenon.”95 After a number of years spent developing her theology, Eddy published Science and Health: With Key to the Scriptures as a guideline for her new religion.96 As the name

Christian Science implies Eddy identified herself and her new movement as primarily Christian.

Eddy did not see herself as founding a new religion, instead she believed that she had discovered an age old “Truth” that was known by Jesus Christ and was the source of his healing abilities.97

Eddy put forward that Jesus was not performing miracles but instead practicing science in

95 Mary Baker Eddy, Retrospection & Introspection (Boston, MA: The First Church of Christ, Scientist, 1892), 32. 96 As can be seen by the sub-title of the book Science and Health is presented as a companion piece to the Bible. Eddy saw Christian Science as a distinctly Christian movement and does not seek to replace the Bible as doctrine. Instead Science and Health is meant to serve alongside the Bible as a doctrinal work. 97 Eddy, Retrospection & Introspection, 33-34. 30 accordance with what she called “divine laws.”98 She believed that everyone had the same capacity to do what Jesus had done and only lacked the knowledge of the “Truth” that Jesus knew and that she had re-discovered; only the mind is real and matter is an illusion, if this is recognized then one can affect change in matter and the self.

As mentioned earlier, Christian Science understands itself as primarily a Christian movement. While Science and Health is a key part of the doctrine, Christian Science holds the

Bible in high importance as well. This relation with Christianity and with the Bible is seen in the outline of basic tenets that Eddy included in Science and Health.

1. As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life. 2. We acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God. We acknowledge His Son, one Christ; the Holy Ghost or divine Comforter; and man in God's image and likeness. 3. We acknowledge God's forgiveness of sin in the destruction of sin and the spiritual understanding that casts out evil as unreal. But the belief in sin is punished so long as the belief lasts. 4. We acknowledge Jesus' atonement as the evidence of divine, efficacious Love, unfolding man's unity with God through Christ Jesus the Way-shower; and we acknowledge that man is saved through Christ, through Truth, Life, and Love as demonstrated by the Galilean Prophet in healing the sick and overcoming sin and death. 5. We acknowledge that the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection served to uplift faith to understand eternal Life, even the allness of Soul, Spirit, and the nothingness of matter. 6. And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure.99

All of the tenets were clearly couched in Christian terminology and understanding but with well- defined changes that separated Christian Science from Christianity. For example Eddy referred to Jesus as the Way-shower, emphasizing his importance in Christian Science as the one who first showed the way; but also considering him as something other than the sacrificial Son of God

98 Eddy, Retrospection & Introspection, 32. 99 Eddy, Science and Health: With Key to the Scriptures, (Boston, MA: Trustees Under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy, 1906), 497. 31 that would be seen in mainline Christianity. While Christian Science presented itself as the

“correct” form of Christianity, it generally was/is not considered a Christian sect. This is due to the differences between the two movements. Christian Science differs in its understanding of the world, specifically reality. In Christian Science the material world is an illusion created by the

Mind.100 This is summarized in the Christian Science scientific statement of being,

There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter. All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all. Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error. Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal. Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness. Therefore man is not material; he is spiritual.101 In Christian Science the material is an error, an incorrect belief in the Mind that if corrected will be overcome. This belief is most notably seen in Christian Science healing practices. Disease is considered an error like all other material things in Christian Science and like all other errors if it is corrected than the disease will be overcome. This is similar in concept to Quimby’s mental healing though with a different focus and developed theology behind it. In their formative years many Christian Scientists performed as healers and it was the healing reputation of the movement that served to inspire its earliest converts.

Christian Science and its belief system are relatively unique in the study of religion as it offers the rare opportunity to see how a belief system grows and develops over time. Eddy was an active founder in that she continued to refine Christian Science over the years and document these changes as can be seen in the numerous editions of her various works. Eddy also responded to questions about Christian Science, providing clarification on what she specifically meant.

Eddy was very authoritarian in her role as leader of Christian Science and the movement’s

100 Mind here is capitalized as it frequently is in Christian Science literature as its intent is to indicate something more than an individual’s mind. In Christian Science, Mind refers to God but God is seen as infinite; so, this term also encompasses the individual’s mind as well. See Eddy, Science and Health: With Key to the Scriptures, 469. 101 Eddy, Science and Health: With Key to the Scriptures, 468. 32 structure reflects this. To this day Science and Health has received no editing other than that performed by Eddy herself. While Eddy’s strict control and management of Christian Science’s development likely benefitted the movement, there were a number of members who did not align with Eddy and would go on to have a major impact on another movement, New Thought.

New Thought Beliefs

New Thought, the second of the two core metaphysical movements, has a significantly more complicated and muddled nature than its sister movement. Many of the early members of

New Thought were former Christian Scientists, often excommunicated members who disagreed with Eddy’s teachings. Having similar concepts and beliefs to Christian Science, New Thought was a natural haven for these Christian Science expatriates. Likely in response to Eddy’s authoritarian nature, the earliest New Thought groups tended toward a much more free and open management, which heavily influenced the development of the movement. While definite New

Thought beliefs were developed, no official doctrine or dogma was ever established. Instead

New Thought quickly developed multiple branches, all with similar beliefs but none quite the same. Unlike Christian Science’s sharply defined belief system and practices, New Thought embraced a diversity of beliefs. While this does make it difficult to exactly define New Thought beliefs, there are a number of basic tenets that flow throughout New Thought. These tenets are seen in the Declaration of Principles produced by the International New Thought Alliance.102

1. We affirm God as Mind, Infinite Being, Spirit, and Ultimate Reality. 2. We affirm that God, the Good, is supreme, universal, and everlasting. 3. We affirm the unity of God and humanity, in that the divine nature dwells within and expresses through each of us, by means of our acceptance of it, as health, supply, wisdom, love, life, truth, power, beauty, and peace.

102 The International New Thought Alliance is an umbrella organization meant to connect and serve the various New Thought branches. For more information see Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 170-229. 33

4. We affirm the power of prayer and the capacity of each person to have mystical experience with God, and to enjoy the grace of God. 5. We affirm the freedom of all persons as to beliefs, and we honor the diversity of humanity by being open and affirming of all persons, affirming the dignity of human beings as founded on the presence of God within them, and, therefore, the principle of democracy. 6. We affirm that we are all spiritual beings, dwelling in a spiritual universe that is governed by spiritual law, and that in alignment with spiritual law, we can heal, prosper, and harmonize. 7. We affirm that our mental states are carried forward into manifestation and become our experience in daily living. 8. We affirm the manifestation of the kingdom of heaven here and now. 9. We affirm expression of the highest spiritual principle in loving one another unconditionally, promoting the highest good for all, teaching and healing one another, ministering to one another, and living together in peace, in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and other enlightened teachers. 10. We affirm our evolving awareness of the nature of reality and our willingness to refine our beliefs accordingly.103

One can see that, though the Declaration of Principles has similarities to the tenets laid out in

Christian Science, there are significant differences. Immediately apparent is the emphasis on divinity. New Thought puts emphasis on the unity of God and humanity and the inherent divinity of humans. There is also the tacit acceptance of the material as real. Unlike Christian Science,

New Thought does not fully reject the material. Instead, the material is accepted as real; but, the

Mind has primacy over the material and can affect and shape it. The Principles also indicate New

Thought’s use of affirmations and denials. This is a common New Thought practice wherein one recognizes an issue or problem as an incorrect belief. The person then denies the existence of that wrong belief and affirms a correct belief instead. Also significant is the vagueness in which these principles refer to God. Whereas the Christian Science tenets clearly indicate a

Christianity-based conception of God, the New Thought principles are careful to not tie the concept of the divine to any other specific formulation. This is due to a disagreement between the various branches of New Thought on the nature of God and the validity of other religions.

103 About the INTA, “Declaration of Principles,” at http://www.newthoughtalliance.org/about.html (accessed March 15, 2018). 34

Unity, the largest New Thought branch, maintains a close connection to Christianity. In a similar manner to Christian Science, Unity maintains that Jesus was the first to understand New

Thought principles.104 Unity, like other New Thought branches, subscribes to the inherent divinity of humanity and ascribes no special quality to Jesus beyond being the first to realize the power of what Unity commonly refers to as the Christ-Mind. The Christ-Mind is the realization of Truth, the understanding of New Thought principles that allow one to shape the world around them.105

In other New Thought branches there is no special allegiance or association with

Christianity like that seen in Unity. Other New Thought groups are freer with their associations and take inspiration from a number of various religions and religious figures. In Emma Curtis

Hopkins’ Class Lessons, 1888, a compilation of lectures that form some of the earliest New

Thought teachings, references to the Bible, the Quran, the Upanishads, Zohar, Plato, and many others are all made and these various writings and figures are all counted as having touched on the Truth (New Thought principles).106 These figures are all seen and treated as important; but, they are not given the same kind of reverence that they do in other religions.

The belief that separates New Thought the most from Christian Science is its emphasis on prosperity. Like Christian Science, when New Thought was first developing, its primary focus was on healing. However over time New Thought became more concerned with suffering caused by poverty than suffering caused by disease.107 Early New Thought teachings began to focus on prosperity and the idea of an “abundance of all things” that is available.108 It is important to note

104 Charles Fillmore, Mysteries of John (Unity Village: Unity Books, 1946), 15. 105 Fillmore, Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, (Unity Village: Unity Books, 1994), s.v. “Jesus”. 106 Emma Curtis Hopkins, Class Lessons, 1888, (Chicago, IL: Ministry of Truth International, 1987). 107 Hopkins, “Hopkins Metaphysical Association,” Christian Science 1, (Oct. 1888): 40. 108 Fillmore, Prosperity, (Kansas City, MO: Unity School of Christianity, 1938), 16. 35 that early New Thought teachings focused largely on prosperity for more than just the individual.

The understanding was that prosperity was available to all and that all should be prosperous. This focus on increasing prosperity shifted New Thought away from healing practices and toward ministry, to share the ideas of New Thought and the availability of prosperity to others. New

Thought was responding to the additional issues of poverty and inequality that were significant concerns in the Gilded Age.

Gary Ward Materra in his dissertation “Women in early New Thought: Lives and

Theology in Transition, from the Civil War to World War I” identifies what he considers are the two diverging styles of New Thought theology. These styles are centered on the idea of prosperity and differ on the individual’s approach to this belief. The first style Materra identifies as “affective.”109 Affective New Thought is the earliest style of New Thought and focuses on community and others while being presented as distinctly religious. The second style that

Materra identifies is the “noetic” style. This style is focused more on the self and business with religious elements being deemphasized.110

The affective style, as the name suggests, is more emotional in focus and perspective.

Followers of the affective style focus more on family and community. They put greater emphasis on the religious nature of New Thought, particularly the unity of all things. The affective style appeals more to members who are attracted to the religious and communal nature of New

Thought. Materra recognizes the affective style as the earliest style of New Thought and the style

109 Gary Ward Materra, “Women in Early New Thought: Lives and Theology in Transition, from the Civil War to World War I,” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1997), 300. 110 Materra, “Women in Early New Thought,” 300-301. 36 practiced by its earliest members, particularly the founders of the various New Thought groups and churches.111

According to Materra, the earliest New Thought teachings and groups were of the affective style. These groups were particularly popular among women, with women making up most of the membership and leadership of early New Thought. Materra argues that the affective style appealed to women more since women of the time were expected to be more nurturing and empathetic which is in accordance with the affective style.112 The affective style also encouraged social change with many early New Thought leaders and members active in various social movements such as women’s suffrage and socialist groups. These movements were focused on fighting against oppression of various groups which would appeal to nineteenth century women who were familiar with being oppressed.113

The noetic style, as the name suggests, is more focused on the intellectual nature of New

Thought. This style focuses more on business and what benefits the self. This style tends to deemphasize the religious elements of New Thought, sometimes replacing religious terms such as prayer with “suggestion.”114 The noetic style appeals more to members who are attracted to the beneficial aspects of New Thought, mainly the belief that one’s mind can positively influence the material world for one’s benefit. This style of New Thought has been influential on certain

111 These groups and their leaders were all students of Emma Curtis Hopkins, a figure whose role in New Thought will be expanded upon in later chapters. 112 Materra, “Women in Early New Thought,” 302. This expectation for women to be nurturing and empathetic is an extension of the private (domestic) sphere that saw women’s role as caring for the home/family and maintaining moral values. 113 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 323. 114 Materra, “Women in Early New Thought,” 300. 37 business practices and self-help movements, the most notable of which is Norman Vincent

Peale’s book The Power of Positive Thinking.115

According to Materra, the noetic style was a later development in New Thought. This style became more and more popular as men began to dominate the movement.116 Materra argues that men were more inclined toward the noetic style as the principles of self-improvement and business oriented practice were appealing to nineteenth and early twentieth century men who were expected to be self-reliant “thinkers and doers.”117 As more men entered into New Thought,

New Thought became more noetic. And as New Thought became more noetic, more men entered into New Thought.

It is important to note that Materra does not present the affective and noetic styles of New

Thought as separate branches of the movement. Instead they are meant to be seen as opposite sides of a spectrum along which any New Thought group or member could fall.118 Women’s approach to New Thought tended toward the affective style and this can be seen in female- dominated New Thought groups and publications. Men’s approach to New Thought tended toward the noetic style as can be seen in male-dominated New Thought groups and publications.

While there are gendered aspects to the affective and noetic styles of New Thought, it would be misleading to over-emphasize the gender element. As discussed previously, due to the societal shifts in the Gilded Age, various concerns developed in terms of poverty, inequality, social justice and business ethnics. Due to the dual sphere ideology of the nineteenth century, these concerns tended to divide along gender lines with women involved in advocating for social

115 Materra, “Women in Early New Thought,” 332. 116 Materra, “Women in Early New Thought,” 302. 117 Materra, “Women in Early New Thought,” 302. 118 Materra, “Women in Early New Thought,” 305. 38 justice and female equality and men focused on business ethics. However, as will be discussed in terms of New Thought, often these gendered concerns overlapped.

To best determine how New Thought was founded and who the true founder of New

Thought is it is important to consider the cultural and societal background in which the movement developed. Religions do not develop in a vacuum, they are influenced and inspired by complimentary ideas and beliefs. Likewise the figures who found religions are also influenced and inspired by others. It is the connections between ideas, beliefs, figures, and movements that make up a religion and to determine how certain figures have influenced a religion’s development it is necessary to also understand how those figures were themselves influenced.

Chapter 3

These movements did not form spontaneously, the formation of these movements was the result of the efforts of their founders and related figures. It was the actions and interactions of these figures that led to the eventual development of Christian Science and New Thought. It was also the actions and interactions of these figures that led to controversies that contributed to the obfuscating of the founding of New Thought.

Quimby

Phineas Parkhurst Quimby was born in 1802 in Lebanon, New Hampshire. A clockmaker by trade, Quimby became interested in metaphysical concepts after witnessing a demonstration of Mesmerism in 1838.119 Quimby began to practice Mesmerism quickly partnering with a young man named Lucius Burkmar. Quimby and Burkmar would travel the lyceum circuit demonstrating the healing power of Mesmerism. In these demonstrations Quimby would act as the mesmerist, putting Burkmar into a trance during which Burkmar would “read” what disease was affecting the patient and then Burkmar would prescribe a remedy.120 Following the nature of the lyceum circuit, these demonstrations would be done publically before a crowd, both as an opportunity to demonstrate what were seen as medical advances or evidence for new perspectives of reality as well as providing a form of entertainment for the audience.

Over time Quimby began to doubt Mesmer’s thesis that it was the manipulation of a magnetic force that was healing patients. While working with Burkmar, Quimby suffered from what he believed to be a failure in one of his kidneys. One day Burkmar identified that Quimby

119 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 48. 120 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 285. 40 was in pain and where the pain was located. Burkmar confirmed Quimby’s belief that his kidney was in bad condition, stating that a piece had almost fully separated from the rest. Quimby believed that his condition was incurable; but, Burkmar insisted that he could cure it. Burkmar laid his hands on Quimby and told him that he had joined the pieces together and that they would heal. Following that point Quimby wrote that he no longer suffered from pain in his kidney.121

Quimby found the idea that he was cured through such a simple remedy to be absurd. He instead became convinced that Burkmar was not mystically seeing the actual internal state of his kidney; instead, he was reading Quimby’s mind and seeing Quimby’s belief that his kidney was injured.

This in turn led Quimby to the assumption that his kidney was never actually injured; it was only his belief in the injury that was causing him pain. Furthermore, Burkmar did not heal a physical injury; he changed Quimby’s belief in the injury which is what relieved him of his pain.122

Quimby began to consider that it actually was the belief the patient had in the healing process that was truly healing them. More and more Quimby became convinced that it was the mind that was truly responsible for healing. Braden indicates that Quimby was likely inspired by similar ideas in Spiritualism on the power of the mind and thought transference.123 Quimby became convinced that disease was caused by incorrect beliefs and that patients were cured when they believed that they were. It was at this time that Quimby developed a disdain for doctors as he believed that it was their diagnoses that caused people to believe that they were ill and that they could only be healed through various medicines.124 It was following this realization that Quimby abandoned Mesmerism and began referring to himself as a “mental healer.”125

121 Phineas Quimby, The Quimby Manuscripts, ed. Horatio Dresser (New York, NY: The Julian Press Inc. Publishers, 1961), 33-34. 122 Quimby, The Quimby Manuscripts, 34-35. 123 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 50. 124 Quimby, The Quimby Manuscripts, 35. Quimby’s change in belief was not solely the result of his healing session with Burkmar. The healing session served as a tipping point built upon a number of observations Quimby made 41

When Quimby abandoned Mesmerism he also ended his association with Burkmar.

Quimby would continue healing people through what he termed mental healing, as opposed to the magnetic or mesmeric healing. Quimby would continue his mental healing practice from his home in Portland, Maine up until his death in 1866.126 While there a number of his patients would take on the role of students for a time and, while Quimby himself died well before the development of the metaphysical movements, these patients (specifically Julius and Annetta

Dresser, Warren Felt Evans, and Mary Baker Eddy) would to one degree or another play various roles in the development of these movements.

Quimby never published anything while he was alive; he did have a number of writings that would eventually be published after his death. These writings reveal a somewhat confused series of ideas and concepts alternating between philosophical musings and attempts at scientific study. Quimby’s focus remained on the power of the mind, specifically in the scope of healing by affecting others; but, Quimby’s writings indicate that he never quite developed a consistent understanding or at least complete explanation of this power. Quimby’s writings also reveal an interesting relationship with religion. Quimby spoke out against religion, specifically mainstream

Christianity; he showed disdain for it and he blamed priests and pastors (as well as doctors) for causing misery, through instilling wrong beliefs in people.127 In a portion of his writings written in 1865, not long before his death, Quimby made clear his opinion on doctors and religion.

Therefore I know what I say is true: that if there had never been a physician in the world there would not have been one-tenth of the suffering. It is also true that religious creeds have made a very large class of persons miserable, but religion like all creeds based on superstition must give way to Science. So superstition in regard to religion will die out as while working as a Mesmeric healer. For more information on these observances see Quimby, The Quimby Manuscripts, 27-48. 125 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 285. 126 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 285. 127 Quimby, The Quimby Manuscripts, 262-263. 42

men grow wise, for wisdom is all the religion that can stand and this is to know ourselves not as man but as a part of Wisdom. But disease is making havoc among all classes, and it seems as though there would never be an end of it unless some one should step in and check this greatest of evils.128 In a sense, Quimby presented the idea that religion with its irrational ideas would be replaced by a new scientific perspective of reality. Quimby believed that his mental healing, his science, would replace these authorities and cure people of their diseases and their incorrect beliefs

While Quimby was critical of religion, his writings often contained Biblical references and he frequently compared himself to Christ. Quimby made a distinction between Jesus the man and Christ, presenting Christ as that which made Jesus different from others. Quimby also identified that what made Christ different was his healing ability. Quimby presented Christ’s healing ability as similar to his own mental healing. In this way Quimby viewed himself to be like Jesus Christ, not as a religious figure; but, what Quimby would consider a scientific figure, one capable of healing others. It is important to note that Quimby also presented Christ (separate from Jesus) as identical to science (specifically mental healing); indicating that he did not necessarily view himself in a messianic fashion, but possibly more as a revelator of scientific thought.129 In terms of his use of biblical references, these were read through the lens of his own understanding of reality as seen in the following quote from his writings.

I found that there is a Wisdom that can be applied to these errors or evils that can put a man in possession of a Science that will not only destroy the evil but will hold up its serpent head, as Moses in the wilderness held up the errors of religious creeds, and all that looked upon his explanation were cured of the diseases that followed their beliefs. Science will hold up these old superstitious beliefs and theories and all that listen and

128 The Quimby Manuscripts, 277. It is important to note that in Quimby’s original writings he did not capitalize Science or Wisdom. The capitalization of these terms was done by the editor Horatio Dresser whose stated intent was to signify that these were “synonyms for Christ, or God. 129 Quimby, The Quimby Manuscripts, 350-368 and Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 288. 43

learn can be cured not only of the disease that they may be suffering from but they will know how to avoid the errors of others.130 Quimby focused on what he referred to as a science (mental healing) that he believed he discovered. The evil and errors that he is referring to are the wrong beliefs instilled in his patients that can be cured through mental healing. The Biblical references are interpreted though the lens of his mental healing and are employed rhetorically. Similar to various writers and groups, like the Swedenborgians, Quimby re-read the Bible through the lens of his metaphysical system; in terms of his revised understanding of reality.

Quimby’s major significance was his reputation as a mental healer. As will be noted throughout this chapter, many of the other individuals, Julius Dresser, Mary Baker Eddy and

Warren Felt Evans sought out Quimby for the purposes of healing their illnesses. He never established a movement, an association, or a following. He wrote; however, as will be discussed, these writings were not published until decades after his death. In these writings, Quimby is focused on developing an overarching theory of reality that presents the science of his healing.

His focus was on his health practice.131

Julius and Annetta Dresser

Julius Dresser, in what would be a common theme, became involved with Quimby due to illness. In 1860, Julius sought out Quimby and was healed. Following this Julius stayed on as a student of Quimby’s. It was during this time that he met another patient of Quimby’s, Annetta

Seabury whom he married in 1863.132 In 1866, the Dressers moved to Webster, Massachusetts

130 The Quimby Manuscripts, 61. 131 Quimby maintained his mental healing practice at his home in Portland, Maine up until his death in 1866. Never returning to give lectures on the lyceum circuit, Quimby’s interacted only with those who visited him in person or wrote to him for healing. Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 83. 132 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 131. 44 where Julius served as the editor of the Webster Times.133 It was at this point that Julius was contacted by Eddy (another of Quimby’s former students) with a request to continue Quimby’s healing practice and heal an injury that Eddy had suffered. This request was refused; Dresser stated that he neither the ability nor inclination to continue Quimby’s practice.134 Following this point the Dressers would be uninvolved with the metaphysical movements for a number of years, only returning in 1883 to begin a feud with Mary Baker Eddy based on accusations that she had stolen Quimby’s ideas. While Charles Braden credits the Dressers with being the first to organize

New Thought, this is not supported.135 The Dressers did open a mental healing practice of their own following their return in 1883 and they did offer lessons; however, there is no evidence that these lessons had any true impact on New Thought’s development or that any influential New

Thought members/leaders were taught by the Dressers. Braden’s recognition of the Dressers is likely due to his reliance on the works of Horatio Dresser, the son of Julius and Annetta, who wrote a number of works on New Thought. In Horatio’s works he naturally emphasized the role his parents had in regard to formation of New Thought, which in turn was reflected in Braden’s later works. The role of the Dressers was basically as students of Quimby; who, as will be elaborated, became entangled in a controversy regarding the source of Mary Eddy Baker’s ideas.

Warren Felt Evans

Warren Felt Evans led an eclectic career before he met Quimby. Born in 1817 to a farming family in Vermont, Evans attended Chester Academy and Middlebury College before transferring to Dartmouth in 1838 from which he would later withdraw.136 After leaving

133 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 131. 134 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 314. 135 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 89. 136 John F. Teahan, “Warren Felt Evans and Mental Healing: Romantic Idealism and Practical Mysticism in Nineteenth-Century America,” Church History 48, No. 1 (Mar. 1979): 64. 45

Dartmouth Evans was ordained as a Methodist minister; serving in eleven different positions during his time as a minister.137 Evans’ frequent change of positions may have been an indication of his restlessness in Methodism. His writings indicate an increasing dissatisfaction with the

Methodist Church and the development of ideas not aligned with the church. In 1864, Evans left the Methodist church and entered the Swedenborgian Church of the New Jerusalem where he would serve as an active leader for the next five years.138 Around the time that Evans became active in the Swedenborgian church he paid a visit to Phineas Quimby in the hopes that Quimby could heal his chronic nervous system disorder.139 Following this Evans studied under Quimby for a time until Evans believed that he too could heal.140 The historical record of this time in regard to both Evans and Quimby is spotty and it is unclear how long Evans spent with Quimby.

Horatio Dresser emphasized these meetings and gave them special significance; but other sources (particularly Evans’ own writings) indicate that these meetings were relatively short and inconsequential to Evans. Evans left Quimby and opened his own mental healing practice in

Claremont, New Hampshire; by 1867 he had moved to the Boston area where he continued the practice for a number of years.141

The influence Evans had on the metaphysical movements was not in his healing practice or in teaching; Evans is a significant figure due to the series of six books on mental healing that he published between 1869 and 1886. As Albanese notes, these books give a sense of the

“shifting discourse community of American metaphysics as it transitioned from high-century phrenomagnetic and Swedenborgian séance spiritualism to the theosophizing world of the late

137 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 90. 138 Teahan, “Warren Felt Evans and Mental Healing,” 64. 139 Teahan, “Warren Felt Evans and Mental Healing,” 64. 140 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 90. 141 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 303. 46

1870s and 1880s.”142 Evans’ books reveal the interaction and intersection of ideas that characterized most of the metaphysical speculation. The earliest of Evans’ books, such as The

Mental Cure, presents mental healing in the context of Swedenborgian and Spiritualist concepts.

By his third book, Soul and Body, Evans shows an interest and awareness in Hermetic traditions.143 This interest would be fully realized with the publication of The Divine Law of

Cure, Evans’ fourth book. This book combined Hermeticism with philosophical idealism, bringing in philosophers such as Hegel, Schelling, Jacobi, and others; all of whom were popular with the Transcendentalists. Evans’ penultimate work, The Primitive Mind-Cure, expanded in a new direction; Theosophical ideas were paired with Evans’ growing emphasis on idealism.144

Evans’ series of books ended in 1886 with Esoteric Christianity and Mental Therapeutics.145 As the name suggests, Christianity remained at the core of Evans’ theology. Indeed, throughout his works Evans maintained a close connection with Christianity; forming his ideas on and within a distinctly Christian framework. Evans’ works illustrate the metaphysical milieu that was present at this time in American culture. Albanese, with the advantage of hindsight notices a broad trajectory; however, this intellectual and religious speculation was more of a confluence of several streams of thought than a single river. Drawing influence from a large number of sources to create his unique theology, Evans’ books would in turn be influential to a number of New

Thought writers and leaders. Evans’ influence begins and ends with his work as an author; he

142 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 303. 143 The Hermetic tradition is based upon the writings of Hermes Trismegistus from whom it takes its name. Hermeticism has experienced surges of popularity over time, particularly during the Renaissance and Reformation, with Western audiences generally focusing on Hermeticism’s ideas of alchemy and science as well as the concept of an all-encompassing divinity. As such Hermeticism has been a major influence on Western esoteric traditions. See Florian Eberling, David Lorton, and Jan Assmann, The Secret History of Hermes Trismegistus: Hermeticism from Ancient to Modern Times (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007), 1-2. 144 Idealism here refers to the philosophical concept that reality is fundamentally mental in nature. Jeremy Dunham, Iain Hamilton Grant, and Sean Watson, Idealism: The History of a Philosophy (Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2011), 3-4. 145 For a more complete summary of Evans’ work and the evolution it underwent please refer to Albanese. Albanese provides a detailed account of the growth and development of Evans’ series on mental healing and how it connects to the metaphysical milieu of the period. See Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 303-314. 47 was never an active member in any metaphysical movement nor did he teach any classes on his theology as others did.

Mary Baker Eddy

The last and most notable of Quimby’s students was a woman named Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science. Eddy was born in 1821 in Bow, New Hampshire.146 In her early years Eddy was a member of the Congregational church; this church experience would influence Eddy’s theological ideas and the development of Christian Science.147 At this period of time Eddy continually suffered from ill health and she sought many varying treatments. Albanese points to neurasthenia, also known as “American nervousness,” as a likely culprit for Eddy’s illness.148 Neurasthenia, as discussed in Chapter 2, refers to a condition that mainly afflicted

Americans149 and had a wide variety of symptoms including tenderness of the scalp, dilated pupils, headache, changes in the expression of the eye, congestion of the conjunctiva, noises in the ear, deficient mental control, irritability, hopelessness and other varying symptoms.150 This condition, was a popular diagnosis in the late 1880s and the variety of symptoms indicates that a large number of people were suffering from some kind of illness(es) during this period. Beard listed the main cause of neurasthenia as “modern civilization,” specifically “steam power, the periodical press, the telegraph, the sciences, and the mental activity of women.”151 Eddy sought a number of different treatments for her illness including homeopathy, hydropathy, Mesmerism,

146 Stephen Gottschalk, Rolling Away the Stone: Mary Baker Eddy’s Challenge to Materialism (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2005), 10. 147 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 284. 148 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 284-285. 149 Beard, A Practical Treatise on Nervous Exhaustion (Neurasthenia), 9. 150 Beard, A Practical Treatise on Nervous Exhaustion (Neurasthenia), 15-26. 151 Beard, American Nervousness, Its Causes and Consequences, 96. 48 and eventually her search led to Quimby.152 Under Quimby Eddy served as both patient and student. Finding Quimby’s healing effective, she remained as his student transcribing his notes and even “correcting” them.153

Eddy’s time as Quimby’s student came to a sudden end with the death of Quimby in early

1866. At the time Eddy seemed to hold Quimby in high regard, writing a poem about Quimby that was published in the Lynn Weekly Reporter following Quimby’s death.154 Within two weeks of Quimby’s death Eddy slipped on some ice and suffered severe pain to her head, neck, and back. While injured Eddy wrote a letter to another of Quimby’s students, Julius Dresser, and asked him to take up Quimby’s healing practice. Julius refused to do so, indicating that he had neither the ability nor inclination to do so.155 While bedridden from her injury and with no

Quimby or other mental healer to turn to, Eddy read a passage from the New Testament on one of Jesus’ healing miracles. Upon reading the passage Eddy underwent a revelation, in this moment Eddy had “discovered” Christian Science.156 Following this point Eddy was able to heal her own injuries and began developing her theology that would later become Christian Science.

This theology undoubtedly took inspiration from Quimby’s mental healing, particularly the principle that the mind is responsible for healing the body. However, Eddy developed this train of thought much further than Quimby. Building upon Quimby’s muddled and sometimes contradictory thoughts, Eddy combined these thoughts with a theological framework inspired by

152 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 285. 153 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 285. 154 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 289. The poem, titled “Lines on the Death of Dr. P. P. Quimby, who healed with the truth that Christ taught, in contradistinction of all isms,” showed both the sadness Eddy felt at his passing as well as the respect that she had for Quimby. Eddy’s opinion of Quimby would seemingly change as claims made by Eddy later in her life significantly downplayed the regard that she held for Quimby during the period that she knew him. 155 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 314. 156 The term “discovered” is used as a reference to how Eddy and Christian Science view this event. Eddy maintained that Christian Science beliefs were not created by her; they were an age old Truth that was first realized by Jesus Christ and later re-discovered by Eddy herself. Robert Peel, Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery (New York City, NY: Henry Holt & Company, 1966), 195-197. 49 her Congregational church background. Eddy’s new theology denied the reality of matter, holding only the mind as real. In keeping with her Calvinist leanings Eddy also conflated matter with sin and evil, declaring all as unreality though possessing a very real sense of danger.157

For nearly a decade after her fateful fall on the ice, Eddy worked and developed her theology; until in 1875, when she began to spread the ideas of Christian Science with the publication of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. This book, along with the Bible

(note the subtitle Key to the Scriptures), would take center place in Christian Science as the official scripture of the church. Within Science and Health Eddy laid out her developed theology and explained what she saw as both a religious truth and a forgotten scientific principle. Unlike many religious authors, Eddy was an active editor of her work making numerous changes, additions, and clarifications to Science and Health and other documents up until her death.158

Following the publishing of Science and Health, Eddy’s new religion developed at a rapid pace. In 1876, Eddy established the Christian Scientists’ Association which would be reformed into the Church of Christ, Scientist (the official name of the church) by 1879. Eddy founded the Massachusetts Medical College and the National Christian Science Association in

1882 and 1886, respectively.159 Christian Science was spreading rapidly; but with this spread the movement encountered problems. By 1889, according to Eddy, her students were becoming too independent and in an effort to centralize the movement and regain control, Eddy dissolved the

Association and closed the church and college. In 1892, Christian Science was reborn with the founding of the Mother Church in Boston and the requirement that all Christian Scientists would

157 Eddy, Science and Health, 339. See the Declaration of Principles in Chapter 2. 158 “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures Milestones,” The Mary Baker Eddy Library, http://www.marybakereddylibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SHMilestones.pdf. ( accessed April 6, 2018). 159 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 298. 50 need to apply for membership to be considered as part of Christian Science.160 In 1895, Eddy published Manual of the Mother Church, which detailed how the church would be governed laying the groundwork for the movement to continue functioning without Eddy’s direct presence.

Beyond forming a well-developed organizational structure Eddy also made significant effort to spread her teachings to as wide an audience as possible. In addition to her major publication Science and Health, Eddy also took advantage of other forms of written media forming the Christian Science Journal in 1884.161 In 1898, the Christian Science Journal was joined by Christian Science Weekly (later renamed Christian Science Sentinel). All of these materials came under the umbrella of the Christian Science Publishing Society. In all, Eddy took advantage of print media to spread church knowledge and awareness as much as she was able.

It is in a way ironic that the causes of neurasthenia (which Eddy may have suffered from), namely “steam power, the periodical press, the telegraph, the sciences, and the mental activity of women” were all major contributing factors to the success of Eddy and Christian

Science.162 Steam powered trains assisted Christian Scientists in spreading the church across

America. The telegraph and especially the periodical press facilitated the wide dissemination of the Christian Science beliefs and assisted Eddy in maintaining strict control over the development of the beliefs of the various churches. The sciences, or rather the idea of being scientific, were a key part of the Christian Science identity as can be seen from the name. And finally the mental activity of women was crucial to Christian Science. Not only was a woman,

160 Gottschalk, Emergence of Christian Science in American Religious Life (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1973), 175. 161 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 299. 162 Beard, American Nervousness, 96. 51

Eddy, the founder and leader of the church but a large majority of church members were women.163

Eddy and Dissenters

While Christian Science did develop successfully and experience rapid growth in membership, it was not without its problems. Eddy’s strict control of the movement, while likely helpful in maintaining a cohesive structure and direction, alienated many Christian Scientists who chafed under her authority. A number of these members would leave the movement and in many cases continue to practice their version of Christian Science. This greatly upset Eddy who had a tendency to lash out at dissenters. One of these former members, Edward J. Arens, left the church in 1880 and began practicing independently. Arens also published a pamphlet, The

Science of the Relation Between God and Man and the Distinction Between Spirit and Matter, which freely plagiarized Eddy’s Science and Health. The third edition of Science and Health, which was published after Arens plagiarized Eddy, included a foreword by Eddy’s husband, Asa

Gilbert Eddy who had originally taught Arens. It referenced a plagiarist (though not by name) who had attempted to steal Eddy’s work and pass it off as his own.164 Despite being aware of and critical of Arens’ plagiarism, Eddy did not take any legal action against Arens at the time.

Over the preceding years Eddy had become suspicious of a number of her former students and their reasons for leaving Christian Science. In many cases she believed that her students were being swayed by mesmeric attacks on their mind and that her former students were capable of mentally doing harm to others, particularly herself and her husband. In 1878, Eddy had been involved in a court case against one of her former followers that contended that the

163 Gottschalk, Emergence of Christian Science, 233, 244. 164 Peel, Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Trial, (New York; Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971), 87. 52 follower had used a mental attack in order to harm a patient.165 Following the plagiarism accusations against Arens, Asa Gilbert Eddy’s health began failing. A doctor diagnosed the problem as heart disease; Eddy believed that the true cause was a mental attack by Arens.166 She believed that Arens was performing a mental attack, what Eddy called “malicious animal magnetism” or “mental assassination,” and that this attack was capable of injuring and even killing the target.167 On June 2, 1882 Asa Gilbert Eddy died and Eddy was convinced that Arens was responsible. Eddy gave an interview to a reporter from the Boston Post during which she said that her husband had been killed by a “mesmeric poison.”168

In the midst of this conflict Julius and Annetta Dresser returned. Having been absent from the metaphysical milieu since the death of Quimby in 1866, the Dressers moved to Boston and contacted Arens, quite possibly due to an awareness that Arens was at odds with Eddy. In early 1883, Julius Dresser wrote an article that appeared in the Boston Post that touted Quimby as a mental healer and the originator of the ideas that Eddy presented in Christian Science. The article also indicated that Quimby’s writings would soon be published (though this would not occur for many more years).169 This article began a series of responses between Eddy and Julius

Dresser showing their hostility toward each other over the subject of Quimby’s and Eddy’s ideas, their origin and association. In an apparent contradiction to her earlier mentions of Quimby, such as the poem she wrote following his death, Eddy was significantly less appreciative of Quimby and his work. Eddy indicated that she was never a student of Quimby’s. She was only a patient.

She implied that he never practiced mental healing but instead remained a mesmerist.170 Whether

165 Peel, Mary Baker Eddy, 40. 166 Peel, Mary Baker Eddy, 113. 167 Eddy, “Malicious Animal Magnetism,” The Christian Science Journal, (February, 1889). 168 Boston Post, (June 5, 1882). 169 Peel, Years of Trial, 130. 170 Peel, Years of Trial, 130. 53

Eddy had sincerely changed her opinion on her relationship with Quimby or she was distancing herself and her movement from Quimby in order to be protected from another possible avenue of attack is unclear; the result was the same. Denying Quimby’s influence established her position in a feud that would follow her for the rest of her life and greatly affect the landscape of the metaphysical movements.

Following Julius Dresser’s article and response in the Boston Post, Eddy finally decided to sue Arens over copyright infringement on April 6, 1883.171 In response to this Arens published a new version of his work which included a preface crediting a number of ideas in the work to

Quimby. This would serve as the basis for Arens’ legal argument; he contended that his work could not be considered plagiarism of Eddy’s writing because she had herself plagiarized

Quimby. However Quimby’s work had not been published and his son George Quimby was unwilling to present the manuscript to anyone. Therefore, Arens was unable to present any evidence in support of his claim and he lost the case. Arens was served an injunction that forbid him from circulating his work and all remaining copies of said work were destroyed.172

While Eddy had successfully stopped Arens’ plagiarism of her work, this did not end all controversy for Eddy or Christian Science. For the rest of her life Eddy would deal with a number of issues ranging from disgruntled former students, criticism of her and her religion, and even a trial that called into question her mental capability. Throughout these controversies a common theme was often the involvement to one degree or another of the debate that began with

171 The late nineteenth-century saw a growing concern with copyright protection in America. The increase in publishing allowed by more advanced printing methods as well as a push to establish a distinct American literary tradition led to an increased focus on protecting the intellectual rights of authors. For more information see: Steven Wilf, “Copyright and Social Movements in Late Nineteenth-Century America,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 12, no. 1 (Jan. 2011): 123-160. 172 Peel, Years of Trial, 134. 54 a trial on plagiarism and an article in the Boston Post; the question of whether Eddy stole the ideas of Phineas Quimby or whether those ideas were her own.

In summary, Eddy’s role in events contributed, unintentionally, to the significance of

Quimby and his ideas in the development of the metaphysical movements. Her personal interaction with her independent students produced several dissenters to Christian Science; dissenters who would eventually contribute to the development of New Thought. Finally, her actions would impact the identity formation of both Christian Science and New Thought.

Emma Curtis Hopkins

The last of the major figures in the New Thought founder debate, Emma Curtis Hopkins, is unique in that she was the only one not to have been acquainted with Quimby. Whereas the other figures became involved with the metaphysical movements by the 1860s, Hopkins would not enter the frame until 1883. Emma Curtis Hopkins was born in Killingly, Connecticut on

September 2, 1849.173 There is not a significant amount of detail on Hopkins’ early years; though a letter she wrote to Mary Baker Eddy in December of 1883 indicates that she had spent time as a teacher.174 In October 1883 Hopkins was spending time at the home of Mary Berry, a Christian

Scientist, when she first encountered Eddy who gave an “impromptu talk” on the principles of

Christian Science healing.175 This talk, which would have occurred around the time that Eddy was dealing with Julius Dresser and Arens, intrigued Hopkins; though in a letter to Eddy she admits that she was initially skeptical of Eddy’s claims.176 Hopkins came to believe in Christian

Science healing after being healed of an illness by a practitioner sometime following her meeting

173 Gail Harley, Emma Curtis Hopkins: Forgotten Founder of New Thought (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2002), 7. 174 Hopkins, “Letter to Mary Baker Eddy,” December 17, 1883. 175 Harley, Forgotten Founder of New Thought, 11. 176 Hopkins, “Letter to Mary Baker Eddy,” December 12, 1883. 55 with Eddy.177 This led Hopkins to begin a correspondence with Eddy so that she could learn the principles of Christian Science “directly from [Eddy’s] own lips.”178

By December 27, 1883 Hopkins had gone to Boston and enrolled in a Christian Science course taught by Eddy.179 Hopkins fully threw herself into Christian Science and working with

Eddy and by 1884 had become the assistant editor and then the editor of the Christian Science

Journal.180 Hopkins was the first person, other than Eddy, to be listed as the editor of the

Christian Science Journal. Under Hopkins the journal expanded and began issuing monthly.

Also during her time as editor Hopkins freely spoke out against those who were appropriating the teachings of Eddy. In particular, in the July 1885 issue of the journal Hopkins included a section that criticized a former student of Eddy’s by the name of A. J. Swarts. Swarts, like Arens and other former students of Eddy, had been accused of taking her teachings and distorting them.

In the case of Swarts, Eddy had accused him of combining her teachings with Spiritualism.

During this time, Hopkins was Eddy’s staunchest supporter and assured those who read the

Christian Science Journal that Swarts had only minimal association with Eddy and had never completed a formal course with her.181 Hopkins also accused Swarts of plagiarizing Eddy, calling him the editor of an “obscure little publication in Chicago” who was “quoting carelessly from the pages of Science and Health without crediting the same.”182

Despite Hopkins’ strong support for Eddy and her work, their association came to an abrupt end toward the end of 1885 when Hopkins was summarily dismissed from her role as

177 Harley, Forgotten Founder of New Thought, 11. 178 Hopkins, “Letter to Mary Baker Eddy,” December 12, 1883. 179 Ernest Bates and John Dittemore, Mary Baker Eddy: The Truth and the Tradition (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1932), 464. 180 Harley, Forgotten Founder of New Thought, 14. 181 Hopkins, “What is Plagiarism,” Christian Science Journal, (July 1885). 182 Hopkins, “What is Plagiarism,” Christian Science Journal, (July 1885). 56 editor of the journal and evicted from her residence. The reason for the dismissal is unclear; though a number of theories have been put forward by scholars. The official reason given to

Hopkins when she was fired seems to be financial, namely a lack of funds for the journal.183 The quick replacement of Hopkins as editor and the continuation of the journal make this reason suspect. Ernest Bates and John Dittemore think the firing was due to Hopkins eclecticism and willingness to accept ideas from other traditions.184 This is a reasonable theory and easily could have been a factor considering that a distortion of Eddy’s teachings was a complaint made against numerous former students such as Swarts. However, Hopkins eclecticism was apparent from one of her first articles for the journal, “God’s Omnipresence.” In the article Hopkins lists a large number of religious traditions and scriptures and indicates that she sees all of them as valid frameworks for her beliefs.185 While Hopkins eclecticism may have played a role in the degradation of Eddy’s relationship with Hopkins, it is unlikely that it was the sole reason considering Hopkins served as the editor for over a year following the publishing of “God’s

Omnipresence.”

Braden’s theory on the firing was that Hopkins was becoming too independent for Eddy and it was she who had begun to break away from Christian Science.186 While this theory is also reasonable considering that Eddy already had issues with students who grew too independent; it does not seem well supported by letters written by Hopkins to Eddy. There is no indication that

Hopkins had any intention of breaking away from Eddy or Christian Science. Hopkins was an

183 Hopkins, “Letter to Mary Baker Eddy,” Undated. 184 Bates and Dittemore, Mary Baker Eddy, 265. 185 Hopkins, “God’s Omnipresence,” Christian Science Journal (April 5, 1884). This is largely in opposition to Eddy’s framework, and by extension standard Christian Science’s, which is firmly centered on a Christian foundation. The differing views indicated by these frameworks could have been a factor in the firing of Hopkins, though there is no evidence that Eddy took issue with what Hopkins published in “God’s Omnipresence.” 186 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 141. 57 ardent student of Eddy’s, even signing a letter to her “Lovingly, your disciple.”187 Even after her dismissal and despite a certain amount of hostility from Eddy, Hopkins remained positive of

Eddy and her work. Unlike many of Eddy’s other former students Hopkins did not denigrate

Eddy or her work; instead, Hopkins seemed to continually hold Eddy in high regard. According to Peel, a letter addressed to Eddy from Hopkins shows this regard, with Hopkins insisting that she still spoke highly of Eddy and Science and Health in her Chicago classes.188 Hopkins’ opinion of Eddy did not seem to be reciprocated; Eddy continued to count Hopkins as yet another traitor to herself and Christian Science, writing in an issue of the Christian Science

Journal that Hopkins was “deluding the minds she claims to instruct.”189

Harley introduced the theory that Hopkins was fired because Eddy had become concerned that Hopkins would side with Julius Dresser, instead of Eddy, over the Quimby debate. On November 4, 1885, the same day that Hopkins officially resigned from the Christian

Science Association, she sent a letter to Eddy’s longtime aide Julia Bartlett. In the letter Hopkins mentions that she was always “digging for facts.”190 According to Harley, the facts that she was digging for were in reference to the claim made by Julius Dresser that Eddy had stolen the ideas of Quimby. This again is a plausible reason and perhaps the most likely. Eddy had reason to suspect that her students could and would turn on her considering it had happened multiple times previously. If Eddy became aware that Hopkins was researching Julius Dresser’s claims, it is quite possible that this knowledge alone would convince Eddy to fire Hopkins. However, in this instance patience and close reading would likely have served Eddy better. Hopkins includes in

187 Hopkins, “Letter to Mary Baker Eddy,” November 4, 1884. 188 Peel, Years of Trial, 180. 189 Eddy, “Questions Answered,” Christian Science Journal, (April 1887). 190 Hopkins, “Letter to Julia Bartlett,” November 4, 1885. 58 her letter to Bartlett her conclusion that Eddy was the originator of her ideas and that Julius

Dresser’s claim held no merit.191

The true reason is not known for Hopkins’ firing, though the results remained the same.

Hopkins left Eddy and Boston altogether; but she did not give up on Christian Science as easily.

While no longer an official member of Christian Science, Hopkins continued to teach and practice what she considered to be Christian Science. Having moved to Chicago, Hopkins first spent her time offering healing services before assuming the role of editor of the Mind Cure

Journal. The Mind Cure Journal was a publication run by A. J. Swarts; the former Christian

Scientist who Hopkins herself had criticized for plagiarizing Eddy. Harley indicates that Hopkins likely became the editor for Swarts due to her association with Mary Plunkett, another former

Christian Scientist and friend of Swarts.192 Hopkins only served as the editor for the Mind Cure

Journal for a few months before leaving to open a college focusing on metaphysics. In early

1886 Hopkins founded the Emma Curtis Hopkins College of Christian Science. Hopkins would serve as the teacher for the college and Mary Plunkett would serve as the administrative president. Following the first graduation of the college a new association was formed made up of the graduating students called the Hopkins Metaphysical Association with Plunkett serving as the first president.193 Though at this time the name Christian Science was still used by the group, the

Hopkins Metaphysical Association has been recognized by some scholars as the first recognizable New Thought organization.194

191 Hopkins, “Letter to Julia Bartlett,” November 4, 1885. 192 Harley, Forgotten Founder of New Thought, 37. 193 Harley, Forgotten Founder of New Thought, 38. The naming of the college and the association after Hopkins could be indicative of the respect that students held for Hopkins and how important her teachings were seen to be. 194 See Harley, “Emma Curtis Hopkins,” Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Lindsay Jones, 2nd ed., vol. 10, (Macmillan Reference USA, 2005) and Dell deChant, “New Thought Movement”, Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Lindsay Jones, 2nd ed. (Macmillan Reference USA, 2005), 59

While Hopkins continued to offer lessons at her college, she also began traveling to various cities to give lessons. In 1887 Hopkins made three trips, to San Francisco, Milwaukee, and New York; these trips are indicative of the missionary viewpoint that Hopkins brought to

New Thought.195 Graduates of the college frequently followed Hopkins’ example and would teach classes in various cities. By the end of 1887 there were seventeen branches of the Hopkins

Metaphysical Association spread across the entire United States.196

While 1887 was a fruitful year for Hopkins and her association, by 1888 a number of problems began to develop. In early 1888 Plunkett, who had served mainly as administrator and promoter for both the college and the Hopkins Metaphysical Association, decided to separate from Hopkins and start her own metaphysical group in New York. Plunkett also chose to take with her the periodical Truth, which was the main connection between Hopkins and the main branch of the association and the other branches across the country.197 The loss of Plunkett and

Truth revealed how unorganized Hopkins’ association was as branches began to lose contact and student numbers dwindled. Hopkins was forced to take more active control of both her college and association, becoming president and setting about a reformation for both groups. It was at this time that Hopkins began to focus less on the healing aspects of the tradition and focus more on the religious aspects. In an ad for the college published in 1888 Hopkins wrote, “Christian

Science is not a business or a profession, it is a ministry.”198 Other groups and teachers that

195 At each of these stops Hopkins taught a large number of people, in San Francisco alone there were 250 students present. Each of these cities would develop New Thought churches and serve as a hub for New Thought in their regions. The groups formed by Hopkins’ and her students’ teaching trips would form the earliest national New Thought organization. See Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 316-317 and Harley, Forgotten Founder of New Thought, 42. 196 Harley, Forgotten Founder of New Thought, 42-43. 197 Harley, Forgotten Founder of New Thought, 44. 198 Ad in Christian Physician, (1888). Note that at this time Hopkins was still using the term Christian Science. This would remain the term used by New Thought groups until the 1890s when Eddy began to enforce copyright on the term and these groups were forced to adopt an alternative. 60 splintered off of Christian Science focused on the healing aspect of the movement; that is to say they focused on what they considered to be both a science and a business. Hopkins, however, was transitioning her group to a decisively religious orientation. This was followed by Hopkins converting her college into a seminary, the Theological Seminary for the Preparation of Students for the Christian Science Ministry. With a more decidedly religious focus for her seminary and association, Hopkins replaced the loss of Truth with a new periodical known as Christian

Science.199 Despite the trials Hopkins and her association faced following Plunkett’s departure, the trials provided Hopkins with the opportunity to reform her association into a true religious organization and one that was more capable of developing and enduring.

Once Hopkins had re-organized she quickly returned to focusing on expanding her organization once again, writing in Christian Science “we ought to send missionaries out… other cities need us.”200 This focus was reflected in Hopkins’ actions with her seminary. In 1889

Hopkins ordained a number of graduates from the seminary, both men and women. By 1893,

Hopkins had ordained at least 111 ministers.201 This was a stark difference from Eddy’s

Christian Science where only Eddy herself was considered ordained, all other leaders were lay people. 202 Among those ordained were virtually every major early leader or significant figure of the various New Thought branches including Charles and Myrtle Fillmore, the founders of

Unity; Ernest Holmes, the founder of Religious Science; Annie Rix Militz, the founder of Homes

199 Harley, Forgotten Founder of New Thought, 46. 200 Hopkins, Christian Science, (Nov. 1888), 68. 201 Melton, “New Thought’s Hidden History: Emma Curtis Hopkins, Forgotten Founder,” Journal of the Society for the Study of Metaphysical Religion 1.1 (1995)21. 202 This also served as a stark difference to organizations founded by other former Christian Scientists such as Arens and Swarts. These organizations focused mainly on the healing and scientific aspects, functioning more as businesses. Hopkins’ shift toward a religious organization changed the focus to that of spreading the teachings of New Thought to benefit others rather than focusing on benefitting oneself. 61

of Truth, and Malinda Cramer and the Brooks sisters, the founders of Divine Science.203 The sheer number of students who learned from Hopkins, as well as the importance of many of those figures, led to Hopkins receiving the popular epitaph “teacher’s teacher.”204 Hopkins was not the first or only student of Eddy’s to break away and begin teaching their own version of Christian

Science. Hopkins differed from these other ex-Christian Scientists in that she developed an organization capable of growth and expansion. Through the ordination of ministers Hopkins was able to spread the roots of her teachings across America and internationally, culminating in the formation of the various major New Thought groups.

Hopkins was a student of Eddy’s before her abrupt removal from Christian Science and she did freely use the term Christian Science for a number of years to refer to her movement; however, it is clear that what Hopkins was teaching was not Eddy’s Christian Science. Obviously inspired and based upon ideas that Hopkins learned from Eddy, Hopkins took those ideas and developed something new out of them that became what would later be called New Thought.

One of the major differences between Eddy and Hopkins was Hopkins willingness to view other religious viewpoints as valuable and valid. As can be seen from her article “God’s

Omnipresence,” Hopkins freely pulled ideas from a multitude of religious and philosophical traditions, claiming that “it is blessed evidence of the universal goodness and impartiality of

God, that to every people and nation of the earth He has manifested Himself as Life, Truth,

203 Each figure listed is a founder of a branch of New Thought. Unity is the one of the oldest New Thought groups, having been founded in 1889, and the largest with a current membership estimated to be over 100,000 worldwide. Religious Science (founded in 1927) is the second largest New Thought group with an estimated worldwide membership of approximately 60,000. Homes of Truth, founded in 1887, is one of the first New Thought groups whose early membership was almost exclusively women. Current membership numbers for Homes of Truth are not available but membership declined following the death of its founders. Militz is also notable for establishing Master Mind magazine, a popular New Thought periodical. Divine Science, founded in 1888, is one of the oldest New Thought groups and the least institutionalized. Its members have been responsible for publishing numerous popular New Thought texts such as Emmett Fox’s The Golden Key. Divine Science despite its age is one of the smallest New Thought groups with a membership of fewer than 5,000. Dell deChant, “New Thought Movement,” Encyclopedia of Religion, 6586 - 6588. 204 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 143. 62

Holiness—Health.”205 This differed from Eddy’s Christian Science that was much more firmly rooted in Christianity. While Hopkins ideas were also rooted in Christianity, as can be seen by the terms used in her writing and New Thought writing in general, this is understandable considering that Christianity was the dominant religion in America and the one that Hopkins and her audience would be most familiar with. However, despite framing much of her New Thought beliefs and teachings in Christian terminology, Hopkins combined this with other ideas and concepts that were being considered by the American populace at the time.

The most substantial change that Hopkins brought to her movement was a focus on prosperity. Beginning in 1887 and becoming more developed over time, Hopkins introduced the idea that being prosperous was “the acknowledgement, either consciously or unconsciously, of the presence of God. He who is prosperous has eliminated from his mind some idea which the one who is seemingly not prosperous still holds.”206 While economic success was an integral part of prosperity to Hopkins it was not the only aspect. To Hopkins prosperity was a general success and improvement of one’s life.207 In an article on her teachings Hopkins writes, “You must not be sick if you are a believer in the new religion. You must not be poor. You must not cry… If you are any one of these you are not yet a member of the new church.”208 In Scientific Christian

Mental Practice, Hopkins details a series of denials and affirmations to make to move toward prosperity, “If, when we are trying to talk for health, and talk for prosperity, and talk for wisdom, everything seems against us and everything hurts us greatly, we must put great vehemence into our saying, "I do not believe in sickness, I believe in health. I do not believe, or think, that

205 Hopkins, “God’s Omnipresence.” As noted, throughout the article Hopkins cited a number of sources from various religions including Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism, Hinduism, Judaism, and others. 206 Hopkins, Scientific Christian Mental Practice (California; DeVorss & Company, 1920), 50. 207 This expanded and diverse view of prosperity is reflected in the Declaration of Principles as listed in Chapter 2. 208 Hopkins, “The New Religion,” International Magazine of Christian Science (July 1888), 5. 63 misfortune has any power whatsoever. I believe in prosperity and success."”209 Though the idea of prosperity and how it is viewed in New Thought has been expanded upon by other New

Thought leaders and writers it originated with Hopkins.210 In particular, Hopkins originated teachings on prosperity that would be considered affective New Thought; prosperity focused on improving oneself and one’s community. Later figures would build off of Hopkins’ original teachings on prosperity and apply a greater focus on prosperity in economics and business in what would be considered noetic New Thought.

The other major difference that Hopkins brought was a feminist emphasis to New

Thought belief. While Eddy’s role as the leader of Christian Science was a notable feminist achievement of the time period, Eddy’s teachings were not significantly feminist with most of her organizational structure being based on her Calvinist upbringing. This is not to say that there were no feminist elements in Christian Science. Christian Science did have a number of feminist elements and has been largely dominated by women since its inception.211 However, feminism was never a focus of Eddy’s or of Christian Science. With Hopkins feminism held much greater importance. This can be seen both in the belief systems of New Thought and Hopkins’ social efforts.212

Hopkins brought decidedly feminist terminology and understanding to New Thought beliefs, such as her inclusion of the Mother God. Drawing from Christian conceptions of the

Trinity, Hopkins transformed the Holy Ghost into a distinctly feminine aspect. Furthermore likely drawing from Swedenborgian metaphorical interpretations of the Bible, which were

209 Hopkins, Scientific Christian Mental Practice, 90. 210 Harley, Forgotten Founder of New Thought, 72-73. 211 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 299-300. 212 Hopkins’ and New Thoughts’ feminist thought and activism is similar to Blavatsky and Theosophy, see Chapter 2. The discussion of this similarity and if it is due to specific influences, shared sources or parallel developments is beyond the scope of this thesis. 64 popular at the time (particularly through the Transcendentalists and writers like Evans), Hopkins identified a coming third age that corresponded to the now feminine Holy Ghost or Mother

God.213 At the commencement ceremony for the first class to graduate from Hopkins’ seminary, the guest speaker, Louise Southworth a suffragist with the National Women’s Suffrage, stated

“Divine Truth has come at last to give woman her proper status in the world.”214 For Hopkins this status seemed to be at the head of New Thought. The vast majority of Hopkins’ graduates were women and these women would go on to found and lead churches, write books, edit and publish journals, and expand New Thought into a developed religion.

Hopkins’ expectations of the coming third age as well as her belief in prosperity, not just for herself and New Thought members but for people in general, led into Hopkins’ increased emphasis on social reform. With her view that the coming third age was an age of women and her desire to spread prosperity Hopkins was active in social movements, particularly those geared toward helping women. For instance, in 1888 Hopkins helped the Woman’s Federal

Labor Union in “assisting the working girls of Chicago,” working toward sweatshop reforms.215

Hopkins and a large number of early New Thought members and leaders were also active in a number of other social movements. Hopkins herself gave support for the temperance movement.216 And Materra identified that a large number of early New Thought members were active in socialist movements.217

Hopkins’ emphasis on social reform and the coming age of women went hand in hand with her view on the importance of missionary work. From the very beginning of her time in

213 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 319. 214 Louise Southworth, “Baccalaureate Address,” Christian Science 1 (Feb. 1889), 141-145. 215 Ida Nichols, “Minutes of Hopkins Association,” Christian Science (Dec. 1888): 66. 216 Hopkins, “International Bible Lessons,” Christian Science (Dec. 1888). 217 Materra, “Women in Early New Thought,” 236-245. 65

Chicago, Hopkins put a great emphasis on teaching and spreading the views of New Thought.

This emphasis on missionary efforts proved fruitful in expanding New Thought across America and even internationally. It is also likely that without these efforts New Thought would not have grown as widely and may not have endured as well as it has.

In summary, Hopkins was not a student of Quimby’s; she was, for a time, a devoted student and follower of Mary Baker Eddy. She was attracted to Eddy’s ideas; but she adopted other concepts and combined these collections into an intellectual system that formed the foundation of teaching through the New Thought Ministry. She shifted her movements’ emphasis from healing to concerns about societal reform and a prosperous way of life.

These figures, from Quimby to Hopkins, all hold significance to New Thought and the founder debate. It was through their actions and their interactions with each other that New

Thought came to be what it is and the debate over the founder of New Thought began. New

Thought was the culmination of years of development by Emma Curtis Hopkins who in turn built her theology on a foundation inspired by earlier movements and figures. Though Quimby is not and should not be considered the founder of New Thought, he did play a role in its development. Quimby and his ideas inspired Mary Baker Eddy who used this inspiration when developing Christian Science. In turn, Hopkins was inspired by Eddy and Christian Science and used her inspiration when developing New Thought. Religion does not spring fully formed out of the ether, separate and monolithic. Religions develop over time, drawing upon influences and inspirations from their surroundings. To better understand New Thought it is important to consider the figures that were involved in influencing its development.

Chapter 4

As shown in the previous chapter, Emma Curtis Hopkins was a significant figure in the development of the New Thought movement. Despite this, only recent publications have recognized her efforts and contributions. In earlier academic works, including the most influential and widely used history of the movement Spirits in Rebellion, Hopkins was treated more as a footnote than as a significant figure. When Hopkins was mentioned, it was generally only a brief recognition of her role as a teacher of some of New Thought’s most important leaders, with no greater consideration given to her as an important intellectual figure or theologian, much less a founder. The sources that expanded on Hopkins’ contributions to New

Thought also criticized, up to a point, the accepted claim that Phineas Quimby was the founder of New Thought. How was a figure as important to New Thought’s development as Hopkins mostly forgotten for so long? And why has the debate over New Thought’s founder only recently developed?

The answer to these questions is somewhat complicated and is tied into the Quimby-Eddy controversy that began in 1883. As mentioned in the previous chapter, in 1883 Julius Dresser wrote an article in the Boston Post that accused Eddy of stealing her ideas from Quimby. This coincided with the Arens plagiarism case in which Edward J. Arens was accused of plagiarizing

Eddy’s Science and Health. Arens’ legal argument was that he could not have plagiarized Eddy since she had already plagiarized Quimby. While this argument failed in court, it failed because

Arens was unable to provide any of Quimby’s writings. While Eddy took this to be vindication in the matter, arguing that the court ruled that her work was original, many believed that the only 67 reason Eddy won was because Quimby’s writings were not produced for the court.218 The

Dressers continued to stoke the fires of the controversy by accusing Eddy of stealing from

Quimby, an accusation which other opponents of Eddy were happy to accept and adopt. While many of these opponents were not involved in the metaphysical movements;219 a large number of

New Thought members had originally been Christian Scientists. Many of these former Christian

Scientists had left on bad terms, either pushed out by Eddy’s authoritarian nature or forced out by Eddy for dissension. This led to New Thought and Christian Science being on poor, if not hostile, terms for a long period. Christian Scientists viewed New Thought as a distortion of

Christian Science teachings, a view encouraged by Eddy. New Thought, in turn, largely disliked how Eddy ran Christian Science, seeing her as too controlling. The Quimby-Eddy controversy found fertile ground with these New Thought members who had reason to dislike Eddy and

Christian Science. The controversy served as a way to delegitimize Eddy and Christian Science.

Furthermore, once the Dressers presented Quimby as the founder of New Thought, the controversy would further legitimize New Thought. New Thought was not an offshoot of

Christian Science; instead New Thought was the true metaphysical religion with Christian

Science being a distorted copy created by Eddy for nefarious reasons (the reason given was often so that she could financially take advantage of people).220

Historically New Thought has been a religion marked by its free-wheeling nature. New

Thought has shown little concern for contrasting viewpoints, largely accepting differing views as

218 Willa Cather and Georgine Milmine, The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1993), 100. 219 Georgine Milmine was credited as the principal author for a series of articles on Mary Baker Eddy published in McClure magazine that were later compiled into a book. The book, The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science, (actually mostly written by Willa Cather despite Milmine originally receiving credit) was highly critical of Eddy and displayed her in a very poor light. David Stouck, “Introduction,” in Cather and Milmine, The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy, xvii. 220 Cather and Milmine, The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy, 436-437. 68 valid.221 This has led to a large number of different New Thought groups functioning largely independently of each other. New Thought also lacks any scripture or established doctrine.222

Instead the New Thought groups rely on a variety of teachings and writings by a number of figures and, similar to other groups of the period, developed a list of core principles. However,

New Thought developed a specific interest in establishing the movement’s history. This is of particular significance in regard to the Quimby-Eddy controversy and the Quimby as founder argument because the main transmission of these two theses was New Thought histories.

Specifically, these two arguments were brought to academic and public attention through the writings of one of New Thought’s most influential writers, Horatio Dresser.

Horatio Dresser was the son of Julius and Annetta Dresser. Born in 1866 just one day before Phineas Quimby’s death, Horatio never met Quimby, though he knew of him through his parents and was friendly with the Quimby family. Horatio entered Harvard in 1891, though he would drop out in 1893 following the death of his father. During this time Horatio became active in the New Thought movement, helping found the Metaphysical Club of Boston in 1895. During this period Horatio also began publishing a number of books on metaphysics, beginning with The

Power of Silence in 1896. In 1903 Horatio returned to Harvard, earning his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1907. With the exception of a few years teaching at the Ursinius College in Pennsylvania,

Horatio spent his time writing and lecturing. During his life Horatio published a number of books

221 This can be seen in most New Thought groups’ casual acceptance of and reference to various religions and figures as having valuable insight. Of the major groups only Unity (which explicitly identifies with Christianity) and Religious Science (which explicitly does not identify with Christianity) break this pattern, though even these groups are more casually accepting of differing viewpoints and ideologies than many other religious groups. For more information on the makeup and practices of the various New Thought groups see Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 233- 320. 222 The various New Thought groups do have a number of shared beliefs, such as those presented in Chapter 2; however, these beliefs tend toward a more general nature and are open to interpretation by the various groups. These beliefs also lack the authority that one tends to find in the beliefs in other religions that are based upon an established scripture. For more information on the shared beliefs of the various New Thought groups see Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 233-320. 69 on New Thought including The Handbook of New Thought (1917), The Spirit of New Thought

(1917), A History of the New Thought Movement (1919) and his edited version of the Quimby

Manuscripts (1921).223 Of his numerous publications his two most significant books were A

History of the New Thought Movement and the Quimby Manuscripts.

A History of the New Thought Movement served as the first history of New Thought and was published in 1919. While Horatio was certainly enthusiastic, he was not a historian and his book had a number of issues. J. Gordon Melton comments that in regard to Horatio’s history he

“performed as an amateur and in an amateurish manner.”224 Horatio’s history largely focuses on the New Thought elements and groups with which he was personally familiar and involved. As a consequence of this a number of New Thought groups and developments are either not mentioned or largely glossed over. This is particularly noticeable the farther west one looks.

Horatio was centered in the New England area and focused his attention there. New Thought groups and authors that had a large footprint in areas farther west were largely ignored in

Horatio’s history. This includes most of the Hopkins related organizations such as Homes of

Truth (centered in San Francisco), Unity (centered in Kansas City), and Divine Science (also centered in San Francisco). These groups were the largest and most enduring of the New

Thought groups which makes Horatio’s neglect of them particularly egregious. This also had the effect of obscuring the origins of these groups in Hopkins’ classes and teachings and concealing

Hopkins herself.

223 Melton, Religious Leaders of America (Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Publishing Company, 1999), 169-170. 224 Melton, New Thought’s Hidden History, 6. 70

In his history Horatio mentions an obituary for Charles B. Patterson, a well-known New

Thought writer. In the obituary Patterson is credited as the founder of New Thought.225 Horatio argues against this because Patterson’s work did not begin until 1887 and he was only one of a number of New Thought leaders in the Hartford and New York area.226 Given that Horatio needed to address this confusion over the attribution of the founder indicates that there was no consensus on New Thought’s founder at the time. In fact, this lack of consensus on New

Thought’s founder was a major focus of Horatio’s history. Throughout the book Horatio repeatedly connects New Thought to Phineas Quimby, seeking to establish him as the definite founder of New Thought. Picking up his father’s crusade Horatio argues that Quimby was the founder of New Thought and that Mary Baker Eddy stole his ideas to create Christian Science.

Despite having never met Quimby, Horatio shows a significant respect, almost reverence, for him. Throughout his history Horatio speaks very highly of Quimby, at one point Horatio remarks

“Phineas Parkhurst Quimby was a pioneer in the truest sense of the word… Few men have owed so little to the age in which they lived.”227 Horatio seems to have subscribed to the Great Man

Theory of History, crediting Quimby with inherent greatness and indicating that Quimby’s ideas were developed because of his genius, not due to any outside forces or influences. This ignores the socio-historical background of Quimby and how this contributed to his ideas. Horatio instead disregards these various influences, particularly Spiritualism with its beliefs on the mind having certain powers (such as clairvoyance and thought transference). In doing so, Horatio attempts to

225 Dresser, A History of the New Thought Movement, 157. Charles B. Patterson was a New Thought leader and author who worked in Hartford, CT and New York City, NY. Patterson served as a leader for various New Thought organizations, including as president for the International New Thought Alliance. Patterson also opened the Alliance Publishing Company which published numerous New Thought books by various authors. While an important early New Thought figure Patterson was never seriously considered as the founder of New Thought beyond the New York Times article that was published after his death. For more information see: Nicholas J. Mount, When Canadian Literature Moved to New York, (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2005), 88-92. 226 Dresser, A History of the New Thought Movement, 157. 227 Dresser, A History of the New Thought Movement, 19. 71 establish Quimby as a “pioneer,” discovering new concepts and ideas that are fully his with no inspiration or influence from others. The importance of establishing Quimby as a figure who formed wholly unique ideas was vital to Horatio due to the ongoing feud between the Dresser family and Mary Baker Eddy. While putting forward Quimby as the founder and speaking of his greatness, Horatio also uses A History of the New Thought Movement as an opportunity to speak out against Eddy. Clearly adopting his parent’s view of Eddy Horatio presents Eddy as a thief who intentionally stole from Quimby and put forward lies to advance her own movement.

Mrs. Eddy did not arrive at any new principle. There is no evidence in her published writings that she advanced beyond Quimby in any way… To try to make these claims good it was necessary to ignore Mr. Evans, whose books began to appear in 1869; to discredit Quimby as an “ignorant mesmerist”; and in many other ways to substitute misstatements for facts.228 Horatio’s claim against Eddy was that she stole her ideas from Quimby not that she was inspired by Quimby. By depicting Quimby as a “pioneer” in A History of the New Thought Movement,

Horatio widens the gap between Quimby and Eddy and establishes Quimby as an intellectual genius and founder of the key ideas in the metaphysical movements of both Christian Science and New Thought.

While Horatio’s poor opinion of Eddy most likely stemmed from his parents’ opinion of her, his role as a New Thought member in the New England area likely also played a factor.

Christian Science and New Thought, particularly in the early twentieth century, had a contentious relationship. Eddy’s authoritarian nature and Christian Science’s strict organization were at odds with New Thought’s more free-wheeling and open system.229 The New England

228 Dresser, A History of the New Thought Movement, 119. 229 Many of the early New Thought members and leaders were ex-Christian Scientists that disagreed with how strict Eddy and Christian Science were, particularly in regard to expression of new ideas. As a result New Thought was much more open and accepting of ideas, even competing ones. Even Horatio in his history notes that the “new age” 72 area in general and Boston in particular had strong Christian Science representation as well as a sizable number of New Thought groups.230 The contentious relationship New Thought members often had with Christian Science and Eddy likely primed them to gladly accept Horatio’s presentation of Quimby as the founder of New Thought. Having Quimby as the founder helped legitimize New Thought, which was often presented by Christian Scientists as a distorted copy of their religion. By identifying a founder that predated Christian Science, New Thought could lay claim to an origin free of Christian Science influence. The Quimby as founder claim delegitimizes Christian Science. A key component (arguably the main intent) of Horatio’s argument is that Eddy stole her ideas from Quimby. This flips the common Christian Science accusation making Christian Science the distorted copy with New Thought being the “true” religion.

Horatio’s hostility toward Eddy is clearest in what was his most influential work, his edited version of the long promised Quimby Manuscripts. First promised in Julius Dresser’s

Boston Post article that initiated the Quimby-Eddy controversy, Quimby’s writings were expected by many of Eddy’s opponents to conclusively show that Eddy had stolen her ideas from

Quimby. The Quimby Manuscripts, edited by Horatio Dresser, was finally published in 1921; thirty-eight years after Julius’ Boston Post article, fifty-five years after Quimby’s death and ten years after Eddy’s. The reason for the delay was due to the refusal of the Quimby family

(particularly Quimby’s son George) to allow the writings to be published. Horatio’s explanation is that George Quimby believed that the world was not ready for his father’s writings and he was

(a term he often used in reference to New Thought) was partly begun as a rebellion against authority in favor of a more individualistic nature. See Horatio Dresser, A History of the New Thought Movement, 8. 230 Boston was the site of Christian Science headquarters and the Mother Church, so the city served as the epicenter of Christian Science. 73 waiting for the right time to come.231 The publication of the Quimby Manuscripts did not conclusively end the argument, as Horatio intended; but it finally provided the opportunity to study Quimby’s thoughts and compare them to Eddy’s ideas. Ultimately the Quimby

Manuscripts show that neither the Dresser’s claim of Eddy’s theft nor Eddy’s claim of having not been influenced by Quimby were accurate.

Eddy clearly was inspired by Quimby and adopted/adapted some of his ideas (particularly on the power of the mind). However Eddy had developed new ideas beyond what Quimby had, taking her ideas in more and different directions than Quimby. While Quimby played with idealistic ideas, his writings indicate that he always maintained materialistic ties. Numerous times throughout his writings Quimby indicates what Horatio interprets to be a rejection of matter. “With God all matter is imagination, for to him it is but shadow.”232 However instead of denying the reality of matter, Quimby was replacing matter with what he called “wisdom.”

“Wisdom is the solid or substance. Matter or mind is the shadow of the spiritual wisdom.”233 To

Quimby wisdom was omnipresent unchanging. At times Quimby treats wisdom like a Platonic ideal, with wisdom containing all things. At other times Quimby treats wisdom as an etheric fluid, in essence acting in a similar way to the magnetic force theorized by Mesmer. Quimby’s use of wisdom is indicative of the confused and somewhat contradictory nature of his ideas.

While Quimby made efforts to move away from materialism, his writings show that he always returned to it in some way. Horatio’s works, particularly his editing of the Quimby Manuscripts, sought to downplay Quimby’s materialism in order to make it more closely align with New

Thought beliefs as well as with Eddy’s. Eddy fully broke away from materialism and made

231 Dresser, The Quimby Manuscripts, 19. 232 Quimby, The Complete Writings, ed. Ervin Seale (Marina Del Rey, CA: Devorss & Company, 1988), 2:83. 233 Complete Writings, 3:293. 74

Christian Science decidedly idealistic. In Christian Science, matter is an illusion created by the mind and it is only the mind that is real. Unlike Quimby, whose ideas were at best confused,

Eddy developed a consistent theology, merging her ideas (most likely inspired by Quimby’s) with a Christian, specifically Calvinist, background. Separating from Quimby’s muddled conception of wisdom; Eddy applied the power of the mind to the Christian understanding of

God, often referring to God as Mind which is intended to signify the connection between the individual’s mind and the divine all-ness of God.234 For Eddy it is Mind (God) that is reality with the material being an error that must be corrected through the recognition of Mind as reality.

While Eddy was certainly influenced by Quimby she was only influenced by Quimby, she did not steal his ideas and pass them off as her own.235 Eddy built upon Quimby’s ideas and developed her own original ideas, eventually turning her original ideas into the belief system that became Christian Science. Quimby’s ideas (though not being as unique as Horatio indicates) were significant; but they were not as fully developed or realized as Eddy’s. Quimby had a conception of wisdom as an omnipresent force from which things were derived; but he never developed a consistent understanding of what wisdom was. Most pivotal is the fact that Quimby was developing an intellectual/scientific system and not a religion. Eddy advanced past

Quimby’s ideas and developed a consistent system, turning it into a full-fledged religious movement.

While Horatio’s A History of the New Thought Movement served as the history of New

Thought for a number of years, it was eventually supplanted by a more comprehensive and complete work done by Charles Braden. Braden earned his Ph. D. in practical theology from the

234 Eddy, Science and Health, 469 235 As noted in Chapter 2, the religious transformation of the nineteenth century is marked by the tendency to combine, recombine and re-interpret confluences of ideas as part of the societal transformation of the period. 75

University of Chicago in 1926.236 Whereas Horatio Dresser was a philosopher, Braden was a historian, publishing numerous academic works on religious history and serving as the Chair of the Department of History and Literature of Religions at Northwestern University.237 As a historian Braden was better equipped to provide a history of New Thought. Published in 1963,

Braden’s Spirits in Rebellion was a more effective history of New Thought than Horatio’s A

History of the New Thought Movement. Beyond Braden’s advantage as a trained historian, he also had the benefit of distance due to time. Horatio’s history was written in 1919; while New

Thought was still relatively newly formed and unsettled. Braden’s history, coming forty-four years after Horatio’s, focused on a New Thought that was older and more stabilized. Because of this Spirits in Rebellion is a more complete and encompassing history of New Thought. Braden’s history became the main academic source on New Thought history and the official history for

New Thought members.

While Spirits in Rebellion is a better history than Horatio’s A History of the New Thought

Movement, it is not without its flaws. Braden’s work suffers from one major weakness, an over- reliance on Horatio Dresser’s works. An unfortunate tendency in the study of religion is scholars’ sometimes uncritical acceptance of early emic sources.238 These sources generally are written by religious insiders who enjoy a proximity to important figures and religious

236 “Braden, Charles Samuel, 1887-1970,” Northwestern, https://findingaids.library.northwestern.edu/agents/people/1181 (accessed June 15, 2018). 237 “Braden, Charles Samuel, 1887-1970,” Northwestern, https://findingaids.library.northwestern.edu/agents/people/1181 (accessed June 15, 2018). 238 Emic, or insider, perspectives are that of participants within the movement. These perspectives can offer great detail and insight into the religious movement but they are often biased and uncritical. Etic, or outsider, perspectives are ideally that of academics studying the religious movement. These perspectives should be critical and strive to avoid bias wherever possible. . For more information see Rüpke, “History,” 288-289. In many cases when studying religious movements (including the metaphysical movements) emic sources form the foundation of scholarly sources. In this instance, Horatio Dresser served as the first major historian of New Thought as well as the editor of The Quimby Manuscripts. Horatio’s bias affects his published works and needs to be recognized when referencing said works. Having emic sources may prove problematic if later scholars do not recognize them as emic sources. This may lead to scholars from an etic perspective uncritically referencing emic sources result in the proliferation of emic constructs and narratives as occurred with Braden’s use of Horatio’s works. 76 developments that provides more and greater detail than would be available in other sources.

However the proximity and familiarity of these insider sources also bring with it an inherent bias that may distort these sources. Braden’s uncritical acceptance of Horatio’s works (particularly A

History of the New Thought Movement and the Quimby Manuscripts) resulted in Braden building off of Horatio’s version of New Thought history rather than critically questioning Horatio’s version. In particular, Braden accepted Horatio’s Quimby as founder argument without question, treating it as an established fact instead of one side of the Quimby-Eddy controversy.239 Braden’s acceptance of the Quimby as founder argument solidified this argument as the accepted view both for scholars and for New Thought members.

A side-effect of Horatio’s history and its influence on Braden’s later work is the unintentional overshadowing and marginalization of Hopkins and her efforts. Horatio’s focus on the Quimby-Eddy controversy and on the New Thought groups that he was familiar with led him to largely neglect Hopkins, her seminary, and the groups that developed in her wake. This combined with Hopkins disinterest in being recognized as an important New Thought figure, instead focusing solely on teaching and missionary work, led to Hopkins falling to the wayside in early New Thought history discourse. When Braden produced his more comprehensive history he did take notice of Hopkins, calling her the “teacher’s teacher.”240 This epitaph was in regard to the number of her students that would go on to found the major New Thought branches which

Braden also recognized (much more than Horatio did). In the section of Spirits in Rebellion on the various New Thought groups in America, Braden devotes a chapter each to Unity, Divine

239 At the time Braden was researching and publishing Spirits in Rebellion there was not a debate on the founder of New Thought. Thanks to the influence of Horatio’s published works, Quimby had largely been accepted as the founder. Considering this Braden did not necessarily have reason to question Quimby’s status as founder. The other major figure involved in the founder debate, Emma Curtis Hopkins, was largely overlooked at this time. Scholars following Braden, such as Melton and Harley, would bring attention and awareness to Hopkins’ vital role in New Thought, beginning the founder debate in New Thought. 240 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 143. 77

Science, and Religious Science with the other New Thought groups sharing a chapter. These three movements were all founded by students of Hopkins and proved to be some of the most successful and notable of the New Thought groups. Braden did note Hopkins’ involvement with these groups; however, it does not appear that he spent significant effort researching Hopkins herself. Therefore, Hopkins remained in the shadows of New Thought discourse.

Quimby as Founder Argument

As has been shown previously, the Quimby as the founder of New Thought argument is closely tied to the Quimby-Eddy controversy. In particular, both the argument and the controversy contend that Quimby was the source of important religious beliefs and concepts.

This is natural considering that the argument and the controversy both originate with the

Dressers. Much of the Dressers’ (both Julius’ and Horatio’s) argument focused on the use of terms by Eddy that they claimed originated with Quimby.241 The Dressers, particularly Horatio, put great emphasis on connecting certain terms used by Quimby, Eddy, and in New Thought.

These terms (such as Mind, Truth, Science, and error) were generally associated with basic concepts that served as fundamental beliefs in both Christian Science and New Thought.

However of much lesser importance to the Dressers was the context of these terms. An instance of this is found in a section in the Quimby Manuscripts titled “Christian Science.” In this section

Horatio argues that Quimby originated the term Christian Science and provides the paragraph in which this usage occurs. While the term Christian Science is used, it is not used in the same way that Eddy uses the term. Instead the term is used more in the context of expressing a freedom of thought in opposition to the authority of religion and society which Quimby blamed for causing most diseases. Horatio also makes the unsupported argument that when Quimby uses the term

241. Dresser, The Quimby Manuscripts, 388-389. 78

Science that it stands for “the Science of the Christ” or “Science of Health and Happiness.” 242

This is an instance of Horatio’s tendency to explain the meaning of Quimby’s writings for his audience by connecting it to both New Thought ideas and Christian Science. In this instance by defining Quimby’s use of Science as meaning “Science of the Christ” or “Science of Health and

Happiness,” Horatio is suggesting that Eddy took both the name Christian Science and her book title Science and Health from Quimby.

In particular, throughout the Quimby Manuscripts Horatio made the decision to alter the capitalization of certain terms to make them appear more similar to how they are used in New

Thought. This decision changes the context of these terms giving them the connotations found in

New Thought and Christian Science. Specifically, Horatio writes that the terms “Science, Truth,

Wisdom have been capitalized throughout in conformity with the usage in some of the articles in which these words are synonyms for Christ, or God. The same is true of the general terms for

Quimby’s theory, the Science of Health, the Science of Life and Happiness.”243 As noted in the quote, the capitalization of these terms was done to make them appear as synonyms for Christ or

God. Quimby though was not interested in developing a religious system; his focus was on the science of mental healing. As noted previously in Chapter 3, Quimby viewed religious creeds as superstitions and priests and pastors as disseminators of incorrect beliefs and misery. Christ was a mental healer who performed his practice through his grasp of science/wisdom. Mental healers, like Quimby himself, followed in Christ’s legacy because they understood the nature of reality.

It was the efforts of the Dressers, particularly Horatio, that made Quimby appear more religiously-minded than he truly was. Horatio’s efforts to make Quimby’s writings seem more similar to Eddy’s was successful as can be seen in Braden’s Spirits in Rebellion where he notes

242 Dresser, The Quimby Manuscripts, 388-389. 243 Dresser, The Quimby Manuscripts, 1. 79 that “Quimby was using the terms “error” and “Truth,” capitalizing the latter, just as is regularly done in Science and Health.”244 By capitalizing Truth in various places throughout the Quimby

Manuscripts, Horatio convinced Braden of a connection between Quimby and Eddy that was not actually there, helping to proliferate the Quimby-Eddy controversy and erroneously establish

Quimby as the founder of New Thought.

While Horatio may have made the decision to alter certain words as part of an effort to clarify things for his readers, it is evident that he also used this as a way of making it appear that

Eddy’s thoughts were closer to Quimby’s. For instance, Christian Science is a decidedly idealistic movement that denies the existence of matter; whereas Quimby frequently treats matter as real. In the Quimby Manuscripts Horatio admits that Quimby never says that there is no matter but follows this by immediately adding, “[t]his is a legitimate back-handed way of declaring what to him was the greatest truth: there is no reality save that which exists in God or Science.

His realization of this truth was so strong that he did not need denials.”245 It is clear that Horatio was determined to delegitimize Eddy by even suggesting, counter to Quimby’s own writings, that he denied the existence of the material world 246 It is also important to note that this explanation serves a dual role; one of the main practices in New Thought is that of affirmations and denials, something lacking in Quimby’s writings. Horatio, by proposing that Quimby did not

244 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 58. 245 Dresser, The Quimby Manuscripts, 390. 246 In his book The Village Enlightenment in America, Craig Hazen devotes a chapter to Quimby and his ideas. In this chapter Hazen shows how Quimby had a much greater focus on materialism than is often otherwise presented. Hazen traces this back to Dresser’s editing of the Quimby Manuscripts with Dresser making an effort to idealize Quimby’s materialism so that it better falls in line with Christian Science and New Thought. This is also supported by Albanese who also recognizes this idealization of Quimby’s materialism. Albanese also notes that Quimby was more familiar with and likely inspired by Spiritualism than is indicated by Horatio. The extent of Horatio’s changes to the Quimby Manuscripts only became clear in 1988 when Ervin Seale published a new complete edition of Quimby’s writings without Horatio’s alterations. See Craig Hazen, The Village Enlightenment in America, (Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2000); Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit; Phineas Quimby, The Complete Writings, ed. Ervin Seale (Marina Del Rey, CA: Devorss & Company, 1988). 80 feel the need to deny matter, is also explaining why Quimby’s writings are missing a basic New

Thought practice.

The most obvious question/criticism to the Quimby as founder argument is how Quimby may be considered the founder of New Thought if he died at least two decades before New

Thought became a recognizable movement. Since Quimby published nothing before his death and New Thought was well established by the time that his writings were published, they are not a valid vehicle to connect Quimby to New Thought. Instead the Quimby as founder argument relies on his students (Eddy, the Dressers, and Evans) as the connection between Quimby and

New Thought.

Eddy, despite being the most obvious connection between Quimby and New Thought, does not fit well in the Quimby as founder argument.247 Since the argument is an extension of the original Quimby-Eddy controversy Eddy’s role in the argument is that of a thief, stealing

Quimby’s ideas to present as her own. As such it is necessary for the argument to disregard

Christian Science as its own religion; instead treating Christian Science as at best an offshoot of

Quimby’s ideas/New Thought. However the differences between Christian Science and New

Thought make this difficult to justify. Despite showing a number of similarities, Christian

Science and New Thought are decisively different religions. Since both religions differ from each other, it is necessary to accept that Eddy’s ideas differed from Quimby’s to a significant enough degree that a new religion was formed. As Christian Science developed before New

Thought and New Thought beliefs and teachings share similarities with Christian Science’s, it is

247 As discussed in the previous chapter, many of the earliest New Thought members were former members of Christian Science who had left the group for a variety of reasons, often being forced out. Because of this a clear connection between Christian Science and New Thought can be made. These former Christian Scientists (such as Hopkins) often became active writers and leaders in New Thought. This provides the most direct connection between Quimby and New Thought, but the inclusion of Eddy and Christian Science indicates that there must be some change in thought between Quimby and New Thought. 81 much more reasonable to conclude that New Thought is based on Christian Science and not on

Quimby. For Quimby’s writings to be expressed in New Thought in a way that isn’t Eddy’s it would be necessary for someone outside of Christian Science to provide a connection between the two. For supporters of the Quimby as founder argument this connection is provided by

Quimby’s other students.

In Spirits in Rebellion, Braden credits the Dressers as the first to create a New Thought organization.248 In support of this assertion by Braden and its connection to the Quimby as founder argument, the Dressers did have access to some of Quimby’s writings and reportedly taught using the writings beginning in 1883.249 While there is evidence that the Dressers were teaching classes, it is important to remember that Quimby’s writings were focused on his healing methods and were largely non-religious. There is little detail given on the scope of what the

Dressers taught in their lectures other than it involved ideas and/or sections from Quimby’s writings; so, it is difficult to determine the focus of these lectures. There are surviving records of notes taken by a Mrs. Harriett Hemmenway on a series of lectures given by the Dressers in early

1887. These notes do contain numerous references to God and seem to indicate that religious thoughts were being taught in the Dressers’ lectures.250 However, as these classes began well after Eddy popularized teaching mental healing in a religious sense (and were possibly begun in response to this) one wonders what influence Eddy’s teachings had on the Dressers and if the more overt religiosity of these lectures was inspired by Eddy’s similar usage in Christian Science teaching. Despite Braden reporting that the Dressers’ teaching was successful, they founded no lasting organization and taught no notable students.

248 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 89. 249 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 133-134. 250 Harriett Hemmenway, “Notes on Class Lectures of Julius Dresser and Annette Dresser,” (Jan. 1887). 82

The final and most crucial connection in the Quimby as founder argument is Warren Felt

Evans. Evans is presented in the argument as the main transmitter of Quimby’s ideas to New

Thought. The argument portrays Evans rapidly acquiring an understanding of Quimby’s healing and spreading Quimby’s ideas in his six books on metaphysics. These books were both popular and being read by New Thought figures.251 While not directly being involved in New Thought, the Quimby as founder argument presents Evans as the intellectual connection between Quimby and New Thought.

This connection relies on the assumption that Evans’ books are the product of Quimby’s teachings. If this is assumed, then Quimby’s thoughts were transmitted via Evans’ books to various New Thought figures. However this assumption has multiple problems that must be addressed. The first and most obvious problem is the assumption that Evans did not develop any new insights for himself. This is clearly not the case as Evans’ works show a clear progression in the development of his ideas. Even if Evans based his first book on Quimby’s teachings, the following five books show a distinctive development that could only be attributed to Evans, not to Quimby. This makes the connection between Quimby and Evans far more tenuous. It would be more appropriate to say that Evans is the founder of New Thought not Quimby, as the bulk of the ideas would have had to have come from Evans.

Further, in Evans’ six books on mental healing he only mentions Quimby one time. In his second book, Mental Medicine, Evans refers to Quimby as an exceptional healer who would have been mythically famous if he had been born in an earlier time. While this does indicate that

Evans viewed Quimby in a positive fashion, Evans does not mention any of Quimby’s ideas or his theological prowess; only his healing ability. Evans’ encounter with Quimby and his own

251 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 313. 83 writings confirm Quimby’s status as a mental healer and the recurrent theme with all of

Quimby’s students in which they receive healing and engage intellectually with Quimby for a varying amount of time. Normally one could make the argument that Evans relied on Quimby but neglected to credit him by name, an occurrence all too common among nineteenth century works. However, as Albanese notes, Evans was surprisingly professional in his citation of others; providing frequent citations and acknowledging most of his references.252 If Quimby’s teachings were so fundamentally vital to Evans it would be strange for Evans to acknowledge figures as diverse as Berkeley, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Spinoza, Kant, Goethe, Emerson, Schleiermacher,

Coleridge, Buddha, Confucius, Lao-tze, Jesus Christ, Paul, Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, Philo of

Alexandria, Boehme, Swedenborg, and many others and not acknowledge Quimby. Instead it seems more likely that Evans, despite having spent some time with Quimby, never considered

Quimby’s ideas to be all that important to the development of Evans’ own ideas. Since Evans was developing his ideas around the same time as Quimby, it is likely that he saw Quimby more as a contemporary who was exploring ideas based on the some of the same resources that Evans himself was acquainted; namely Swedenborgianism, Mesmerism, Theosophy, Hinduism, and so on.

A part of the Quimby-Evans connection that could be quite significant is the nature of the meetings between Quimby and Evans. A number of sources reference that Evans visited Quimby on two separate occasions during which Evans was presumably healed and taught by Quimby.253

However no detail is ever provided about these meetings. Proponents of the Quimby as founder argument likely assume that these meetings were long and fruitful with Evans learning all that

252 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 303. 253 Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 90-91; Horatio Dresser, History of the New Thought Movement, 74-75; and Julius Dresser, The True History of Mental Science (Boston, MA: Alfred Mudge & Sons, 1887), 21. 84

Quimby could teach him. However there is no evidence to support that these meetings were either extensive or significant. What little information there is on these meetings originates with

Julius Dresser. According to Julius he received this information from Evans during a conversation between the two in 1876. Evans met with Quimby twice and, according to Julius,

“so readily did he understand the explanations of Quimby, which his Swedenborgian faith enabled him to grasp the more quickly, that he told Quimby at the second interview that he thought he could himself cure the sick in this way. Quimby replied that he thought he could.”254

This quote confirms the assumption that Evans viewed Quimby more as his intellectual equal.

Recent efforts by Albanese have brought to light the personal journals of Warren Felt

Evans from 1850-1865; the period during which Evans met Quimby.255 Similar to Evans’ books on mental healing, there is a surprising absence of references on Quimby. In fact, at no point in his journals does Evans make mention of Quimby or indicate that he learned something of significance from him. In light of this it seems that Evans’ meetings with Quimby were of no intellectual significance. Furthermore, these journals confirm that Evans’ development of his metaphysical ideas began before his meeting with Quimby. His journals indicate that Evans was considering how the power of the mind could affect physical change by early 1860, well before he met Quimby.256 Therefore, it seems that Evans, in need of medical assistance, sought out the

254 Julius Dresser, The True History of Mental Science, 21. Again, given the tendency of the nineteenth century religious transformation, there is the potential that Quimby may have been influenced by Swedenborg. Haller, Swedenborg, Mesmer and the Mind/Body Connection, 164-166. Haller’s examination does add validity to the idea that there were sufficient connections between the thought of Swedenborg and Mesmer, for Evans to quickly comprehend Quimby’s ideas and to view those ideas as extensions of Swedenborg and/or Mesmer. 255 Edited by Albanese, The Spiritual Journals of Warren Felt Evans cover the years 1850 to 1865. Warren Felt Evans, The Spiritual Journals of Warren Felt Evans: From Methodism to Mind Cure, ed. Catherine Albanese (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2016). 256 In her previous work A Republic of Mind and Spirit, Albanese indicates her belief that Quimby was influential to Evans in the development of his works, crediting Quimby as a “ghost among the spirits” in Evans’ first book. With the discovery of Evans’ journals and the added evidence they provide, Albanese indicates that her opinion on Quimby’s influence on Evans seems to have changed. For more information see: Albanese, ed., The Spiritual Journals, 6-9; and Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 305. 85 best known mental healer in the area, Quimby. Quimby’s approach to healing resonated with

Evan’s own view of reality and the success of the treatment confirmed that Evan’s was correct in his own views.

Conclusion

The marginalization of Emma Curtis Hopkins was largely the result of Horatio Dresser.

Horatio’s works were clearly biased with the intended goal of discrediting Mary Baker Eddy. In doing so Horatio elevated Phineas Quimby and marginalized those figures and groups who were responsible for the development of New Thought. His decision to use his works as a method of discrediting Mary Baker Eddy pushed forward the idea that Phineas Quimby was more religious- focused and involved in the metaphysical movements than he truly was. By altering and editing

Quimby’s writings Horatio established the idea that the founder of New Thought was Quimby.

In doing so Horatio drew the attention of scholars away from Hopkins and toward the Quimby-

Eddy controversy. This was only further exacerbated by Horatio’s failure to recognize New

Thought groups that were active farther west than his New England stomping grounds. That these were the groups that were the most involved and indebted to Hopkins and her teachings served to further obscure Hopkins’ role in New Thought’s development from both scholars and the public. While Braden’s later history of New Thought would serve to bring these groups into the spotlight, his reliance on Horatio as a credible source only further served to bury Hopkins and her efforts in obscurity. Furthermore, Braden’s adoption and acceptance of the tenuous connection between Quimby and New Thought that led through Evans and the Dressers only served to add more validity to the Quimby as founder argument. This connection tenuous as it is also relies solely on the assumption that Quimby’s ideas on mental healing were unique only to him and that they could not have been developed or built upon by others. This was clearly not 86 the case as evidence points to Evans being familiar with the idea of mental healing before ever meeting or coming into contact with Quimby. As Chapter 2 showed, during this period a large number of ideas were spread, shared, combined, and changed in an intellectual and theological milieu in which all of these figures; Eddy, Quimby, and Evans participated. The works of

Horatio Dresser and Braden, while helpful in bringing some attention to New Thought, were harmful in that they served to marginalize and obscure Emma Curtis Hopkins’ role in the movement. It is only thanks to the efforts of scholars like Harley and Melton that Hopkins’ contributions are finally being recognized. 87

Chapter 5

In the study of religion scholars have found that certain terms and concepts may at first seem simple to define; however, they are actually extraordinarily complex when seriously considered. The crowning example of this is, of course, the term religion itself. Many scholars have attempted to definitively define exactly what constitutes religion and, while many of these definitions are excellent, none fully encapsulate the phenomenon of religion. That is not to say that scholars have failed in defining religion; the definitions provided by scholars may not put the matter to rest, but their definitions have largely been useful in providing understanding of what religion is.

Thomas Tweed puts forward the theory that how religion is viewed and defined by scholars is determined by what they are doing with religion. Max Muller’s theory of religion focused on language because he was translating Sanskrit texts. Marx’s view of religion as a tool for the economically powerful came from his observations of poverty. And Freud saw religion as a neurosis because he listened to his patients and their problems.257 These various ways of defining or examining religion are not all-encompassing; they do not consider every aspect of every religion. What they do accomplish is they present a particular aspect of religion for study.

Depending on the scholar and what they are studying these views of religion can prove highly useful or highly unhelpful. If unhelpful than a different view of religion will highlight the aspects of religion that that scholar seeks to investigate. In the past scholars, such as Max Weber, were concerned predominantly with religious experience and beliefs. As such, their view of religion was one that highlighted those aspects most concerned with religious experience and beliefs. The

257 Thomas Tweed, Crossing and Dwelling: A Theory of Religion, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 18-19. 88 figure they were most concerned with was the prophet, “a purely individual bearer of charisma, who by virtue of his mission proclaims a religious doctrine or divine commandment.”258 For

Weber, the prophet could also serve as the founder of a religion; but it is the authority given to the prophet through revelation and their charisma that is of importance.259 The focus then for

Weber, and for other scholars like Weber, was on the ideas that make up a religion; for it was these ideas and their expression that revealed the revelations and the charismatic authority of the prophet. But as the study of religion has progressed a number of differing views of religion have developed. For instance, a number of scholars have focused on the social formation of religion and the idea that “religion is primarily locative.”260 Religion occurs in and occupies a place within a society; it is not just a theoretical assortment of ideas, it is also a social construct that is both practiced and lived. In his book Crossing and Dwelling, Tweed defines religion as

“confluences of organic-cultural flows that intensify joy and confront suffering by drawing on human and suprahuman forces to make homes and cross boundaries.”261 This view of religion as confluences of organic-cultural flows is useful in regard to Christian Science and New Thought, with their many connections and interactions that served to develop both traditions. It is also constructive because it recognizes the dynamics between society, culture and religion; a dynamic, as discussed in Chapter 2, that is vital for understanding religious movements in nineteenth century America.

The usefulness of Tweed’s definition and others in regard to New Thought is not the focus of this thesis; the focus is on determining a founder. Tweed’s work on religion is important in that he recognizes religion as lived. Religion is not just a collection of ideas and it is not static;

258 Max Weber, Sociology of Religion, (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1963), 46. 259 Weber, Sociology of Religion, 46. 260 Tyler Roberts, “All Work and No Play: Chaos, Incongruity, and Difference in the Study of Religion,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 77, no. 1 (Mar. 2009): 81. 261 Tweed, Crossing and Dwelling, 54. 89 it is a confluence of flows, interconnected and constantly changing. In other words, religion lives; it grows and shrinks, develops and changes. Religions occupy places and how they came to occupy said places is important to understanding them. Weber was concerned with the prophet, but in doing so he constructed a specific idea about founders. The role of the founder is not the same as the prophet, as defined by Weber. While Weber’s prophet may also be the founder of a religion, the roles are functionally different. Similar to scholars’ decisions to define religion so as to better understand it, to best understand what makes a founder it is important to consider the definition of a founder.

While defining religion has been a concern for scholars, the term founder unfortunately has not. Scholars have studied founders at length; yet, there has been relatively little attention given to determining exactly what makes a founder. One scholar who has provided a definition of a founder is Gerardus van der Leeuw. Van der Leeuw, in his book Religion in Essence and

Manifestation, describes the qualities he thinks a founder should hold.

A founder, in the first place, is primarily a witness to revelation: he has seen, or has heard, something… Then he speaks of his experience, and appears as prophet. Founders, again, usually base a (partially) new doctrine on their own experience, some new law: in that case they are also teachers. They must then adapt themselves to what has already been given in tradition, and can thus become theologians; but in any event they are always to a certain degree reformers. Their doctrine, however, possesses power only in so far as their whole life enters into the “founding”: then they are examples, archetypes of the genuinely pious life replete with power. When, finally, they devote their entire existence to foundation, they are called mediators.262 This definition is quite detailed, with multiple factors or roles of a founder: witness, prophet, teacher, theologian, reformer, example, and mediator. The number of roles considered as aspects of a founder by van der Leeuw makes more sense in context because van der Leeuw considers

262 Gerardus van der Leeuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation: A Study in Phenomenology, trans. J. E. Turner (New York City, NY: Harper & Row, 1963), 651. 90 that “every genuine religious experience is a foundation.”263 While van der Leeuw recognizes that scholars are generally more concerned with founding in a larger historical scale, that is to say the founding of a religion such as New Thought, it is important to recognize van der Leeuw’s understanding of founding informs how he determines his definition of a founder. By viewing every religious experience as a founding van der Leeuw, in essence, is accepting all people who have had or have influenced a religious experience as a founder, essentially making founders infinite. While his definition proves useful in his work because his intent is to focus on religious experience as the essence of religion, for the purposes of determining the true founder of New

Thought his thoughts require some revision. The roles of teacher, theologian and reformer, in combination with Tweed’s view of religion, may be understood more as social or cultural roles.

These are roles that founders perform as they participate, contribute and guide people within the

“confluences of organic-cultural flows that intensify joy and confront suffering.” They instruct, systemize and rework traditions to show others how to “[draw] on human and suprahuman forces to make homes and cross boundaries.”

With these revised characteristics of a founder, there is no one better qualified than

Emma Curtis Hopkins for New Thought. Hopkins’ career is marked with the activities associated with teacher, theologian and reformer. Hopkins established the Emma Curtis Hopkins College of

Christian Science, the first organization to teach distinctly New Thought teachings. Furthermore the college soon became a seminary and Hopkins began to ordain graduates of the seminary.

Using Tweed’s definition of religion, Hopkins made the decisive choice to focus on the

“suprahuman” or “spiritual” forces as a vital element of New Thought. This decisive shift toward an overt religious system serves as the establishing point for New Thought. By converting her

263 van der Leeuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation, 651. 91 college into a seminary Hopkins was making a deliberate decision to focus not on scientific teaching (how other metaphysical groups presented their teachings) but on definitively religious teaching with the express purpose of creating missionaries to spread these teachings. Of the many ordained graduates of the seminary one can find the teachers, reformers, and theologians of each major New Thought group that formed in the early years of the movement. This includes

Charles and Myrtle Fillmore the founders of Unity, New Thought’s largest branch; Annie Rix

Militz, the founder of Homes of Truth which was the most expansive New Thought group in its early years though its numbers have largely fallen over time; and as Malinda Cramer and the

Brooks sisters, the founders of Divine Science. Beyond these church founders a large number of the graduates of the seminary would go on to start New Thought periodicals and write books on

New Thought.264 Of the early New Thought churches the only major one not started by a graduate of Hopkins’ seminary was Ernest Holmes the founder of Religious Science. Religious

Science, the second largest New Thought group, was founded in 1927 much later than the other major churches. While Holmes was not a graduate of Hopkins’ seminary he was a student of hers. In 1924, not long before Hopkins’ death in 1925, Holmes visited her home and began to learn from her. After Hopkins’ death Holmes would go on to publish Science of Mind and thereafter begin Religious Science.265

While Hopkins herself never founded a church, her decisive choice to focus on the spiritual and her teaching, had a vital impact on the development of New Thought through her various students. Hopkins served as the impetus for New Thought’s national and international spread through her seminary and her focus on missionary work. Likewise New Thought has

264 The large number of significant figures that were taught by Hopkins has been well recognized by most scholars with even Braden recognizing her role as the “teacher’s teacher.” See Braden, Spirits in Rebellion, 143. 265 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 425-427. 92 endured through those groups founded by Hopkins’ students. Without Hopkins’ efforts it is unlikely that New Thought would have developed or survived and it certainly would not be the same New Thought that is known today. Beyond this, there is no other figure that can make the claim to be as important to the physical establishing and development of New Thought as Emma

Curtis Hopkins. If one were to decide a religious founder based solely on the organizational development than Hopkins would without question be the founder of New Thought. However as mentioned previously, a religion is complex and so too is a religion’s founding. More than organizational efforts are expected from a religious founder, theological development is also a factor.

When considering the theological development of New Thought things become significantly less clear. Whereas social development tends to be concrete and relatively easily discernable, theological development is more fluid and hard to determine. Social development generally comes with the benefit of established records, such as a list of members or a deed of ownership that can be used to determine who established and/or led a group. Conversely, theological development by its nature is centered on thoughts and ideas; concepts that can be shared and spread easily with no definite claim to originality. Often the focus on determining the origins of theological development in religion is to identify certain basic or fundamental ideas and beliefs and establish the earliest point that these ideas and beliefs appeared. In doing so one can, ideally, identify how this development came about and who was responsible for it.

Oftentimes the figure responsible for this development is the religious founder. This preoccupation with identifying basic or fundamental concepts in many ways explains why the

Dressers were so concerned with the use of certain terms by Quimby, Eddy, and New Thought.

By connecting shared terms to fundamental beliefs they could make the argument that Quimby 93 was the founder of New Thought. If Quimby originated the concept of the power of mind to heal than a religion that held the fundamental belief in the power of mind could arguably have been founded by Quimby.

As previously noted, this is a relatively clean and simple way to determine a religious founder; however, it is too clean and simple. Distilling religious belief to a basic tenet removes the cultural and social context of the religion, in effect stripping away that which makes it a religion in the first place. As Tweed emphasizes, religion is “confluences of organic-cultural flows that intensify joy and confront suffering.” And, as discussed in Chapter 2, the social, cultural and religious transformation of nineteenth century America was filled with several streams of philosophical, scientific, technological and spiritual ideas, groups and movements that developed in response to the societal upheaval of the period.

With this in mind what possible contributions could Quimby have made toward New

Thought’s development? Quimby’s ideas were all centered on the power of mind as it pertained to healing. This is a concept in New Thought. New Thought groups have moved away from a healing focus, the power of mind to bring about change is now extended beyond the power of mind to heal. Quimby’s focus was limited; it centered on issues of individual health and well- being.

What then of Hopkins’ contributions? Hopkins, as could be expected of someone known for teaching New Thought ideas to others, contributed a significant number of theological ideas.

Hopkins’ lessons and her writings included the major features common to New Thought practice; such as the recognition of God (or Mind) as universal and divine, the inherent divinity and goodness of humanity, and the usage of affirmation and denial. These features are largely 94 derived from Christian Science beliefs and practice, likely due to Hopkins’ (and many of her students) former involvement in Christian Science. Hopkins differed from Eddy and Christian

Science in her acceptance of other religious movements and their ideas as being valid and having value. While Christian Science was distinctly Christian in orientation, Hopkins and New

Thought were largely accepting of other religious ideas and systems.266 This acceptance of alterative religious paradigms would provide New Thought with an additional potential for reformation and renewal as evident in the number of New Thought groups. The most notable contributions credited directly to Hopkins were her emphasis on a distinctly feminine concept of divinity (and an accompanying focus on equality for women) and prosperity. As discussed, the focus on the divine female resulting in an engagement with various social activitist groups who were concerned with “intensifying joy” and “confronting suffering” from the level of “working girls” to the middle class concern over women’s right to vote. The idea of a new female divine age addressed the social uneasiness about the potential impact of the new industrial capitalist system and its impact on the morality of the nation. New Thought’s concerns included social and individual wellbeing. This is also evident in Hopkins’ focus on and development of the idea of prosperity, which largely replaced healing as the main focus of New Thought groups. The idea of prosperity, again extended beyond individual, to include the social; there was the idea of prosperity on both levels. In addition, while the divine feminine, resulting in engagement with various social issues involving women; New Thought’s prosperity addressed issues associated with newly constructed business. As previously noted, it provided a way of viewing the acquisition of wealth through a specific moral lens.

266 Unity is the major exception to this as they identify as distinctly Christian, using Christian terminology for their understanding of New Thought beliefs. 95

There is often criticism made against Hopkins’ teachings for not being original and this is used to deny her the status as a founder figure. Albanese is critical of Hopkins’ contributions, writing “Hopkins’s material was mostly derivative—one reason why the “founder” attribution seems strained at best.”267 Albanese does recognize Hopkins’ contributions mentioned in the previous paragraph as being her own; but, on the whole Albanese remains critical of Hopkins’ intellectual/theological contributions to New Thought. In this case Albanese is largely correct

Hopkins’ theological material is largely derivative, in the sense that it has been derived from other sources.268 Hopkins freely borrowed and adapted concepts and ideas from a number of sources and combined them in her teachings. This was not something that she hid; it is something openly apparent even in her early days as the editor of the Christian Science Journal where she freely mentioned a number of religious figures. In Hopkins’ view New Thought was not truly a new thought but a new expression of very old truths that had existed for a long time but were only at that point becoming truly apparent. This view was not just held by Hopkins herself; it was the standard view of the entirety of New Thought. New Thought has always operated with a collaborative mindset, freely taking and adapting concepts with the view that these concepts are just parts of an age old truth that they had re-discovered. Hopkins was derivative in the same way that New Thought itself is derivative. The cultural milieu that New

Thought was born in was essential to the development of the movement. New Thought was predicated on the collaborative cultural nature of the time. In the same way that the

267 Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 318. Albanese does recognize Hopkins’ emphasis on the feminine and prosperity as new contributions. While Albanese does not specify which of Hopkins’ teachings she finds derivative beyond this she does indicate her belief that they were largely derived from Eddy, Evans, and Blavatsky. One can relatively safely assume that Albanese is referring to the more common New Thought ideas taught by Hopkins that are largely shared between New Thought and Christian Science. 268 While the Dressers’ started the narrative that Quimby’s ideas were unique and produced solely by him, it is clear that even Quimby’s ideas were influenced by other concepts such as Mesmerism and Spiritualism as has been shown by numerous later scholars including Albanese. However, there has been a tendency in scholarship to treat Quimby’s ideas as better or more original and Hopkins’ ideas as lesser despite recognizing that both figures were inspired by other concepts and figures. 96

Transcendentalists that came before it borrowed and adapted from other philosophies and religions so too did New Thought.

The second argument Albanese makes was that Hopkins should only be credited with founding one of two diverging branches of New Thought, affective and noetic. However, as discussed earlier and noted above, Hopkin’s idea of prosperity is pivotal for the development of

New Thought and both affective and noetic New Thought rely on this idea of prosperity.

Returning to the roles of the founder figures, van der Leeuw includes the reformer. This is very apt given Tweed’s dynamic understanding of religion. All religions are to a certain degree derived from other ideas and concepts. The very nature of ideas is to adapt and build on observations, information, and other ideas. While New Thought may more freely and openly take and adapt ideas it is by no means alone in this regard. The religious transformation of nineteenth century America is characterized by its tendency to conflate, combine and recombine clusters of ideas drawn from a multitude of religious and intellectual traditions. New Thought is a religion based on ideas derived from other sources and influences. It is a hodgepodge of concepts reformed into a cohesive and unique whole. As such it is fitting (and not wholly unexpected) that a religion predicated on its combinativeness would have a founder that freely combined ideas as well. While Hopkins’ ideas do not have a claim to true originality, they were not pulled directly from the theological ether fully formed and without influence, what can be claimed about these ideas is functionality. Hopkins’ ideas formed a functional belief system that she was able to share and teach her students. These students in turn would go on to teach others and form new groups and churches, building upon the foundation Hopkins provided to make the movement that would become known as New Thought. 97

Bibliography

Primary Sources

1870 U.S. Census, Females Engaged in Each Occupation.

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1870/population/1870a-61.pdf

(accessed June 12, 2018).

1870 U.S. Census, Persons in Each Class of Occupations.

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1870/population/1870a-59.pdf

(accessed June 12, 2018).

About the INTA, “Declaration of Principles.” at http://www.newthoughtalliance.org/about.html

(accessed March 15, 2018).

Ad in Christian Physician, (1888).

Boston Post, (June 5, 1882).

Beard, George. A Practical Treatise on Nervous Exhaustion (Neurasthenia). New York: William

Wood & Company, 1880.

------American Nervousness, Its Causes and Consequences. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons,

1881.

Dresser, Horatio. A History of the New Thought Movement. New York City, NY: T. Y. Crowell,

1919.

Dresser, Julius. The True History of Mental Science. Boston, MA: Alfred Mudge & Sons, 1887. 98

Eddy, Mary Baker. “Malicious Animal Magnetism.” The Christian Science Journal, (February,

1889).

------“Questions Answered.” Christian Science Journal, (April 1887).

------Retrospection & Introspection. Boston, MA: The First Church of Christ, Scientist,

1892.

------Science and Health: With Key to the Scriptures. Boston, MA: Trustees Under the Will

of Mary Baker G. Eddy, 1906.

Evans, Warren Felt. The Spiritual Journals of Warren Felt Evans: From Methodism to Mind

Cure. Edited by Catherine Albanese. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2016.

Hopkins, Emma Curtis. Class Lessons, 1888. Chicago, IL: Ministry of Truth International, 1987.

------“God’s Omnipresence.” Christian Science Journal (April 5, 1884).

------“Hopkins Metaphysical Association.” Christian Science 1, (Oct. 1888).

------“International Bible Lessons.” Christian Science (Dec. 1888).

------“Letter to Julia Bartlett,” November 4, 1885.

------“Letter to Mary Baker Eddy,” December 12, 1883.

------“Letter to Mary Baker Eddy,” December 17, 1883.

------“Letter to Mary Baker Eddy,” November 4, 1884.

------“Letter to Mary Baker Eddy,” Undated. 99

------Scientific Christian Mental Practice. California: DeVorss & Company, 1920.

------“The New Religion.” International Magazine of Christian Science (July 1888).

------“What is Plagiarism.” Christian Science Journal, (July 1885).

Lister, Joseph. “Antiseptic Principle in the Practice of Surgery.” British Medical Journal (Sept.

21 1867): 9-12

Nichols, Ida. “Minutes of Hopkins Association.” Christian Science (Dec. 1888).

Quimby, Phineas. The Complete Writings. Edited by Ervin Seale. Marina Del Rey, CA: Devorss

& Company, 1988.

------The Quimby Manuscripts. Edited by Horatio Dresser. New York, NY: The Julian Press

Inc. Publishers, 1961.

Southworth, Louise. “Baccalaureate Address.” Christian Science 1 (Feb. 1889).

Secondary Sources

Albanese, Catherine. A Republic of Mind and Spirit. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,

2007.

------“American Metaphysical Religion.” Fides et Historia 44, no.2 (2012). http://link.galegrroup.com/apps/doc/A388263170/AONE?u=calgary

&sid+AONE&xid=6800d1fb (accessed June 6, 2018).

Bates, Ernest and John Dittemore. Mary Baker Eddy: The Truth and the Tradition. New York,

Alfred A. Knopf, 1932. 100

Bednarowski, Mary Farrell. “Outside the Mainstream: Women’s Religion and Women Religious

Leaders in Nineteenth-Century America.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion

48, no. 2 (June, 1980); 207-231.

Braden, Charles. Spirits in Rebellion. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963.

“Braden, Charles Samuel, 1887-1970,” Northwestern,

https://findingaids.library.northwestern.edu/agents/people/1181

(accessed June 15, 2018).

Braude, Ann. “News from the Spirit World: A Checklist of American Spiritualist Periodicals

1847-1900.” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 99 (October 1989): 399-

462.

------Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women’s Rights in the Nineteenth Century. Boston:

Beacon Press, 1989.

------Sisters and Saints: Women and American Religion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press, 2007.

Campbell, Bruce. Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of the Theosophical Movement. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press, 1980.

Cather, Willa and Georgine Milmine. The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of

Christian Science. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1971.

Chryssides, George. Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Lanham, MD:

Scarecrow Press, 2011. 101

Colbert, Charles. Haunted Visions: Spiritualism and American Art. Philadelphia, PA: University

of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.

Corrigan, John. Business of the Heart: Religion and Emotion in the Nineteenth Century.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001.

Crabtree, Adam. “Mesmerism and the Psychological Dimension of Mediumship.” In Handbook

of Spiritualism and Channeling. Edited by Cathy Gutierrez. Boston, MA: Brill

Publishing, 2015.

Cranston, Sylvia. HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky, Founder of

the Modern Theosophical Movement. New York City, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1993.

Cruea, Susan. “Changing Ideals of Womanhood During the Nineteenth-Century Woman

Movement.” ATQ: 19th Century American Literature and Culture 19.3 (Sept. 2005): 187-

205.

Darnton, Robert. Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment in France. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University, Press, 2009. deChant, Dell. “New Thought Movement.” In Encyclopedia of Religion. 2nd ed. MacMillan

Reference USA, 2005.

Deutsch, Sarah. Women and the City: Gender, Space, and Power in Boston, 1870-1940. Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Dixon, Joy. Divine Feminine: Theosophy and Feminism in England. The John Hopkins Studies

in Historical and Political Science 119th Series. Baltimore: John Hopkins University

Press, 2001. 102

Douglas, Ann. The Feminization of American Culture. New York: Doubleday, 1977.

Dunham, Jeremy, Iain Hamilton Grant, and Sean Watson. Idealism: The History of a Philosophy.

Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2011.

Eberling, Florian, David Lorton, and Jan Assmann. The Secret History of Hermes Trismegistus:

Hermeticism from Ancient to Modern Times. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007.

Encyclopedia of World Religions. Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2006.

Fillmore, Charles. Metaphysical Bible Dictionary. Unity Village: Unity Books, 1994. s.v.

“Jesus”

------Mysteries of John. Unity Village: Unity Books, 1946.

------Prosperity. Kansas City, MO: Unity School of Christianity, 1938.

Fuller, Robert C. “Mesmerism and the Birth of Psychology.” In Pseudo-Science and Society in

19th-Century America. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2015.

Goodman, Russell. “East-West Philosophy in Nineteenth-Century America: Emerson and

Hinduism.” Journal of the History of Ideas 51, no. 4 (Oct. – Dec. 1990): 625-645.

Gottschalk, Stephen. Emergence of Christian Science in American Religious Life. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press, 1973.

------Rolling Away the Stone: Mary Baker Eddy’s Challenge to Materialism. Bloomington,

IN: Indiana University Press, 2005. 103

Grob, Gerald. The Deadly Truth: A History of Disease in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 2002.

Gura, Philip. American Transcendentalism: A History. New York City, NY: Hill and Wang,

2007.

Haller, John S. Swedenborg, Mesmer, and the Mind/Body Connection: The Roots of

Complementary Medicine. Swedenborg Studies No. 19 West Chester, PA: Swedenborg

Foundation, 2010.

Harley, Gail. Emma Curtis Hopkins: Forgotten Founder of New Thought. Syracuse, NY:

Syracuse University Press, 2002.

------“Emma Curtis Hopkins,” Vol. 10 of Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Lindsay Jones,

2nd ed., Macmillan Reference USA, 2005.

Hazen, Craig. The Village Enlightenment in America. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press,

2000.

Jentz, John B. and Richard Schneirov. Chicago in the Age of Capital: Class, Politics, and

Democracy During the Civil War and Reconstruction. Urbana, Chicago, and Springfield,

IL: University of Illinois Press, 2012.

Kerrigan, William. Johnny Appleseed and the American Orchard: A Cultural History. Baltimore,

MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012.

Kucich, John J. Ghostly Communion: Cross-Cultural Spiritualism in Nineteenth-Century

American Literature. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press, 2004. 104

Logan, John R., Wenquan Zhang, and Richard D. Alba. “Immigrant Enclaves and Ethnic

Communities in New York and Los Angeles.” American Sociological Review 67, no. 2

(April 2002): 299-322.

Materra, Gary Ward. “Women in Early New Thought: Lives and Theology in Transition, from

the Civil War to World War I.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara,

1997.

McGarry, Molly. Ghosts of Future Past: Spiritualism and the Cultural Politics of Nineteenth-

century America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2008.

McMahon, Lucia. Mere Equals: The Paradox of Educated Women in the Early American

Republic. New York: Cornell University Press, 2012.

Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedia of American Religions. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale, 2003.

------“New Thought’s Hidden History: Emma Curtis Hopkins, Forgotten Founder.” Journal

of the Society for the Study of Metaphysical Religion 1.1 (1995): 5-40.

------Religious Leaders of America. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Publishing Company, 1999.

Mizruchi, Susan. The Rise of Multicultural America: Economy and Print Culture. Chapel Hill,

NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2009.

Mount, Nicholas J. When Canadian Literature Moved to New York. Toronto, ON: University of

Toronto Press, 2005.

Myerson, Joel. Transcendentalism: A Reader. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000. 105

Newman, Lance. Our Common Dwelling: Henry Thoreau, Transcendentalism and the Class

Politics of Nature. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Peel, Robert. Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Trial. New York; Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,

1971.

Perry, Elisabeth Israels. “Men are from the Gilded Age, Women are from the Progressive Era.”

The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. 1, no.1 (2002): 25-48.

Podmore, Frank. Modern Spiritualism: A History and a Criticism. 1902; London, UK Methuen;

Reprint, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Ratner, Lorman, Paula T. Kaufman, and Dwight T. Teeter. Paradoxes of Prosperity: Wealth

Seeking Versus Christian Values in Pre-Civil War America. Urbana/Chicago, IL:

University of Illinois Press, 2008.

Ray, Angela G. Edited, The Lyceum and Public Culture in the Nineteenth Century United

States. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2005.

Robinson, David M. “Margaret Fuller, New York and the Politics of Transcendentalism,” ESQ:

A Journal of American Renaissance 52, no. 4 (2006): 271-299.

Roberts, Tyler. “All Work and No Play: Chaos, Incongruity, and Difference in the Study of

Religion.” In Journal of the American Academy of Religion 77, no. 1 (Mar. 2009): 81-

104.

Roth, Lawrence V. “The Growth of American Cities.” Geographical Review 5, no. 5 (1918). 106

Rüpke, Jörg. “History.” In The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the Study of

Religion, Edited by Michael Stausberg and Steven Engler. New York: Routledge, 2011.

Scholz, Susanne. “Beyond Postmodernism: Esoteric Interpretations of Gen. 1-3 by E.

Swedenborg, R. Steiner and S.D. Fohr.” In Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings

of Genesis, Edited by Caroline Vander Stichele and Susanne Scholz. Atlanta: SBL Press,

2014.

“Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures Milestones.” The Mary Baker Eddy Library.

http://www.marybakereddylibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SHMilestones.pdf

(accessed April 6, 2018).

Shrock, Joel. The Gilded Age, Popular Culture Through History, Edited by Ray B. Browne

Westport, CT/London, UK: Greenwood Press, 2004.

Smith, Gary Scott. “Protestant Churches and Business in Gilded-Age America.” Theology Today

60, no. 3 (2003): 311-331. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1177/004057360306000303 (accessed June 1, 2018).

Spahr, Clemens. “Transcendentalist Class Struggles: Orestes Brownsons’ Early Writings.”

Nineteenth Century Prose 36, no. 2 (2009).

http:link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A209204458/AONE?u=ucalgary&sid=AONE&xid=c0

e75973 (accessed June 11, 2018).

Spearman, Mindy. “Teachers’ Lyceum in Early Nineteenth-century America.” American

Educational History Journal 36, no. 1-2 (2009). 207-218. 107

Teahan, John F. “Warren Felt Evans and Mental Healing: Romantic Idealism and Practical

Mysticism in Nineteenth-Century America.” Church History 48, No. 1 (Mar. 1979): 63-

80.

Toksvig, Signe. Emanuel Swedenborg: Scientist and Mystic. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries

Press, 1972.

Tweed, Thomas. Crossing and Dwelling: A Theory of Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 2006. van der Leeuw, Gerardus. Religion in Essence and Manifestation: A Study in Phenomenology,

Translated by J. E. Turner. New York City, NY: Harper & Row, 1963.

Versluis, Arthur. American Transcendentalism and Asian Religions. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press, 1993.

------The Esoteric Origins of the American Renaissance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press, 2001.

Waller, John C. Health and Wellness in 19th-Century America. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood,

2014.

Weber, Max. Sociology of Religion. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1963.

Wells, Christopher. “Separate Spheres.” In Encyclopedia of Feminist Literary Theory, Edited by

Elizabeth Kowalski-Wallace. New York City, NY: Garland Publishing, 1997. 108

Welter, Barbara. “The Feminization of American Religion 1800-1860.” In Religion in American

History, Edited by Jon Butler and Harry S. Strout, 58-78. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1998.

Wilf, Steven. “Copyright and Social Movements in Late Nineteenth-Century America.”

Theoretical Inquiries in Law 12, no. 1 (Jan. 2011): 123-160.

Willsky, Lydia. “The (Un)plain Bible: New Religious Movements and Alternative Scriptures in

Nineteenth-century America.” Nova Religio 17, no. 4 (2014): 13-36.

Wright, Tom F. “Introduction.” The Cosmopolitan Lyceum: Lecture Culture and the Globe in

Nineteenth-Century America, Edited by Tom F. Wright. Amherst/Boston, MA:

University of Massachusetts Press, 2013.