2

I N VENTO RY AND C LASSIFICATION

O F GURD JIEFF ’S LE GAC Y
 
Art without a magical component does not exist. Great
magic cannot exist without great art.
– Valentin Bresle

W hen Gurdjieff died, on the 29th of October 1949 at Neuilly,

near Paris, he left an oeuvre comprising a script for a ballet,
three books, three hundred musical compositions and just as many
dances, which are referred to as his “Movements” in this book. In
addition, there are sound recordings of him playing the harmonium,
and on occasion recordings of his voice, made in the twilight years
of his life. This is the most direct and tangible part of his legacy,
exceptional in its diversity. Of course, there have been religious figures
who have written philosophical treatises, such as Teilhard de Chardin,
and also philosophers who composed music, such as Nietzsche, but
Gurdjieff’s legacy is beyond comparison, given the three fields that it
covers. And then, there is the sheer volume of the works! The first book
alone has 1300 pages of India paper in small print. His Movements
are set out in the smallest detail: one single Movement comprising
a complexity of combined multiple roles. His musical compositions
appear to have been composed in passing, in the midst of his creative
eruptions, in just a matter of years. How should this legacy, created
with such passionate energy, be regarded?
A preliminary inventory presents us with three main elements,
each representing a different discipline, three independent worlds as
it were: Gurdjieff’s books, music and Movements. These elements
 Inventory and Classification of Gurdjieff’s Legacy

originate directly from Gurdjieff. He wrote his books himself in his

own words. His music, though not scored by him, is still clearly
his. His Movements have been passed on by several of his pupils
independently and we can assume that around 250 of them have been
preserved in a historically reliable form.
In the first place, Gurdjieff was an esoteric teacher and not an
author, composer or choreographer. When I mention Gurdjieff’s
teaching, I mean his own words of explanation that he gave in a form
that was comprehensible for each and every one of his small circle of
pupils in the first stage of his teaching, from 1912 to 1924. Why then
are his teachings missing from the elements of his legacy? The reason
is that the logically structured component of his teaching reached us
exclusively through his pupils and, as such, cannot be mentioned
in the same breath as the aforementioned elements of his legacy. It
should also be considered that the content of the pupils’ words is
colored by the reader’s or listener’s subjective associations, and on top
of this altered in the course of time by the “spirit of the times.” Words
lack the precision of the mathematical physical positions, movements
and rhythms of Gurdjieff’s Movements that leave no room for doubt
or vagueness. Words are more vulnerable to false interpretation,
manipulation and even sheer fabrication.
An attempt to classify the elements of this legacy immediately raises
questions of how this should be tackled. Are they interconnected, and
if so in what way? How do his books, music and Movements relate to
his teaching? Are all parts equally important? Or does one of them form
the center of gravity, around which the other parts revolve as mere il-
lustrations, or clarifications, of the core? This last question is essential,
because after Gurdjieff’s death his legacy has been studied by groups,
institutes or organizations that focus on one of the components at the
expense of the others, depending on the preferences and tastes of those
leading these groups. Therefore, each group or organization has already
answered this question. Their answers are far from unanimous.

15
 THE GURDJIEFF MOVEMENTS

For an analysis and historiography of the Movements, it is

necessary to examine the aforementioned questions, although I do
not labor under the illusion that I can completely answer them. All I
can do is present and classify the facts as I understand them, defining
keywords, providing them with a historical framework. No matter how
rudimentary and clumsy the definitions of these keywords may be,
they will hopefully prevent us from losing our way and serve to keep
us on a negotiable path.

ART, SCIENCE OR OTHERWISE?

Under which banner can the components of Gurdjieff’s legacy be ac-

commodated? Gurdjieff’s music and his Movements can clearly be
categorized as “art,” but does this apply to his books too? The blend of
mythical, fantastic and autobiographical elements they comprise argue
in favor of this, were it not that many believe that the books proclaim
a new kind of science about the human and the cosmos. Should they
be classified as esoteric?
In the above paragraph, words like “art,” “science” and the “eso-
teric” are bandied about. The meanings of these words float around
us like leaves falling from a tree, carried along on every gust of wind.
Let us set up these three keywords in relation to each other as if they
were the corners of a triangle. Entering the silent realm of geometric
abstractions, we will label the points of the triangle and look at what
they have in common and where they differ from each other.  
Art is an irrational domain in which the question of truth or false-
hood is irrelevant. The fact that a work of art exists is its truth. Science
is a rational endeavor, in which the veracity of statements or propo-
sitions can be tested through logic or experiment. The result of such
investigation is either a confirmation or negation of their correctness.
The esoteric, a banner that accommodates all religions and a wide
variety of occult and mystical ideas, may meet with a response from

16
 Inventory and Classification of Gurdjieff’s Legacy

the inner being, borne out by the fact that since time immemorial,
every religion and culture has been in search of an answer to “the
ultimate question,” as described by Gurdjieff and Breton in the pre-
vious chapter. Unfortunately, the truth or falsehood of all these ideas
can never be proven. Were this the case, humanity would have been
spared insufferable misery, religious wars and genocides. The irratio-
nal system of the esoteric is on good terms with the other irrational
system, the arts. Gurdjieff’s legacy is proof of this.
Let us consider this from a broader perspective and continue our
geometrical exercise with the triangle we have imagined. Let us suppose
that the triangle’s origin was a single point, from which, over time, three
lines grew longer and further apart, to such an extent that they have
now become wholly alienated from each other. This geometrical picture
is close to the historical truth. In ancient times, art, science and esoteri-
cism formed a unity, and each in its own way testified to a harmonious
universe, created and governed by a higher intelligence than that of the
human. Over the course of time, scientists did their job so well that this
view of the world, in which they had a deep-rooted faith, was played
out. Sir Isaac Newton was one of these scientists. He was not just deeply
religious, but also spent more time on treatises about alchemy than on
physics. Even so, he is the father of contemporary physics. Only in the
nineteenth century, a period so aptly called “Flight from Reason” by
historian James Webb, did the paths of science and esotericism part
for good. It is no coincidence that the devotees of esoteric systems are
often nostalgic for the past—for those distant days when science, art
and religion formed a whole—that they display a weakness for ancient
monuments, such as pyramids, Aztec temples, shrines overgrown by
forests, medieval cathedrals, Tibetan monasteries and such. Beliefs and
ideas that have drifted miles apart, historically speaking, such devo-
tees of the esoteric attempt to reunite within themselves. This is not
exclusive to them. All of us are the products of history and doomed to
personify random hybrids of the rational and the irrational.

17
 THE GURDJIEFF MOVEMENTS

For some, Gurdjieff’s books are the harbingers of a new science, but
can they actually be classified as such? This is an important question,
even more so because bridging the gap between Western sciences
and Eastern mysticism was one of Gurdjieff’s goals. His first and most
important work, Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson, is about as accessible
for an approach employing a logical conceptual basis as a raw piece of
marble. The reader feels something of the incredible energies and high
fusion points that created this rich material, veined and veiled with
secret code, but it cannot be deemed scientific. There is little other
choice than to classify it alongside Gurdjieff’s music and his Movements
as “art.” The important role played by unusual concepts and images
in his book confirms this classification. In other words, for the time
being we can conclude that the tangible parts of Gurdjieff‘s legacy—his
books, music and Movements—comprise artistic expressions.

NEW QUESTIONS ABOUT COHERENCE

The versatility of the parts of Gurdjieff’s legacy makes these artistic

expressions unique, but this versatility also instantly poses new ques-
tions. Are they the work of a talented individual who has not been
able to formulate a clear, uniform vision? Is this oeuvre incoherent,
or not? During the period in which he pursued writing, composing
and physical movements, the chronology of Gurdjieff’s life has clearly
delineated periods, but this does not mean that there is coherence
among his works. Does this coherence exist and, if so, from what is
this evident?
These are not rhetorical questions. If indeed there is no coher-
ence, each part of this legacy could assume a life of its own. And
this is exactly what is happening on a large scale, but this is certainly
not what Gurdjieff had intended. A free interpretation of Gurdjieff’s
music has recently made it into the Top Ten of a classical music chart,
and the majority of those presently practicing his Movements, or what

18
 Inventory and Classification of Gurdjieff’s Legacy

they believe to be as such, have never read any of his books. It is even
doubtful if they are actually interested in Gurdjieff’s ideas at all.  
My motivation for writing this book is to reply to the question of
coherence in Gurdjieff’s legacy with a straightforward, heartfelt Yes,
and my answer is based on four solid reasons:
• Gurdjieff’s works complement each other
• they all share a ritualistic character
• they all share a hidden content
• their common source is the same: his teaching.
I will explain these four reasons in order.

Complementing Each Other

Gurdjieff’s books, music and Movements should be seen in the light
of his basic idea that thoughts, feelings and the body constitute the
three main functions of the human and that, consequently, he tailored
his Works for each of those functions respectively—a trichotomy which
gives the works a complementary character. Just words, sounds or move-
ments separately were not enough for him.

A Ritualistic Character
Gurdjieff’s creations in the three artistic disciplines can be seen as a
Gesamtkunstwerk and that explains their ritualistic character. The idea
of a Gesamtkunstwerk, in which different arts intermingle to evoke a new
vision, was first introduced by Richard Wagner and greatly influenced
Russian Symbolism. This is not to say that Gurdjieff’s work displays
any affinity with Wagner’s work. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a
greater difference. However, one particular element in the idea of the
Gesamtkunstwerk has a very strong presence in Gurdjieff’s oeuvre. 
To explain this, it will be necessary to dwell briefly on Symbolism,
a cultural development from the last decade of the nineteenth century
and the first decade of the twentieth.

19
 THE GURDJIEFF MOVEMENTS

Symbolism had a marked influence on the intelligentsia, in

Belgium, France and Russia, but was not exclusive to them as it also
formed a seedbed from which many other esoteric systems sprouted.
Symbolism was a reaction to the increasing industrialization of the
nineteenth century, and more especially a reaction to the tarnishing
of the old, classical model of humankind by more modern, scientific
developments. Galileo had already robbed humankind of its central po-
sition in the universe, but now Darwin undermined the divine origins
too. Finally, the notion of humans as at least the lords and masters
in their own castles was unmasked by Freud. We are subject to vital
forces outside the periphery of our perception, in the subconscious.1
Symbolism preached the return to the realm of the spirit, to the
restoration of human dignity and emphasized the singularity of each
individual’s personal experiences. In whatever form Symbolism ex-
pressed itself, two characteristics stand out again and again. First, that
this deeply individual mysticism is usually experienced as tragic, and
secondly, the belief that artistic expression is essentially a religious act,
meaning that all the arts should together form a liturgy enabling the
human to evolve into a higher form of being. It is this last point, the
liturgical and ritual element that forms a useful clue. Gurdjieff’s legacy
can be seen as the result of a major effort to create an entirely new
ritual in which essential questions are approached not only through a
mental effort, but a ritual that simultaneously stimulates and mobilizes
the sensitivity of the body and emotional life.

Shared Hidden Content

Another argument for regarding Gurdjieff’s different artistic expres-
sions as one single entity is the fact that they all have a hidden content,

1
This, in a nutshell, is what Sigmund Freud wrote in an article about narcissism, dating
from 1917.

20
 Inventory and Classification of Gurdjieff’s Legacy

and this is very typical for everything regarding his teaching and his
work. The word “esoteric” is usually used as a synonym for a deeper,
hidden meaning, although the original meaning of this word is “that
which lives inside a human being.” The esoteric plays a role in all
religious, spiritual and mystical systems and Gurdjieff’s works are no
exception. Secrecy, concealing information or taking gullible souls for
a ride has nothing to do with it. This is not esotericism but deceit. A
useful alternative word for esotericism is “inaccessible.”
The inaccessible in Gurdjieff’s work can be understood in three
ways:
1. First, the geographical inaccessibility of the sources of his
knowledge
2. Second, an insight can be inaccessible because it is cast in
another, less obvious form, such as allegorical stories or hidden
in a traditional art form.
3. Finally, a lack of preparation or a lack of knowledge can create
a barrier.
Let me comment one at a time on these three forms.
As a young man, Gurdjieff was convinced that somewhere on
earth an old form of knowledge still existed and he went looking
for it. Whether or not he succeeded in finding it is unclear, but his
idea is less otherworldly than it might at first seem. The existence
of ancient forms of culture in remote areas certainly seems plausible.
In contemporary ethnological musicology, “uneven distribution” is a
recognized phenomenon. This accounts for the continued existence,
in geographically or culturally remote areas or communities, of music
that cannot be found anywhere else anymore. A farmer who grew up
in the Appalachian Mountains in North America could bellow out a
song that had crossed the ocean with his ancestors and had been pre-
served in his remote village, but long forgotten, in Europe.
Gurdjieff grew up in an environment where stories, myths, music
and dance were passed on without losing any discernible vitality. Not

21
 THE GURDJIEFF MOVEMENTS

just his native soil, but also his travels through the East must have
brought him into contact with an enormous divergence of traditions
and arts that originated from the ancient past, and had not been swept
away by the “tidal wave of mud,” a term with which he referred to
Western civilization. He suspected that their folkloric form was just a
cloak for real knowledge, purposely disguised in the distant past. In
the case of myths, this was obvious, but traditional music and dance
could contain information too, and about anything at all: a historical
incident or bread recipe. Important knowledge could also be found
in customs, habits and folklore, a secret codex transmitted from one
unsuspecting generation to the other in a deceptively innocent form,
waiting to be deciphered some day in the future. This form was akin to
a time capsule, having a very long lifespan and protected from misuse.
Gurdjieff used the word “legominism” to describe this form. In the
future, only those who could interpret the codes could obtain access
to the secret, others could not. “Those who know, know. Those who
do not know, do not know” was one of Gurdjieff’s cryptic statements
that would not be out of place here.2 It is consequently logical that
Gurdjieff’s own artistic works have a deeper heart of insight hidden
under their artistic cloaks.

The Common Source

Finally, consider the inaccessibility caused by a lack of knowledge
or resources. This is the meaning of the old adage that states that
“something cannot be given that cannot be received.” This is true for
everything. A layperson cannot perceive the structure of a building in
the way an architect does, nor can an untrained ear absorb music as
a musician’s. It may seem dogmatic, but I believe the significance of

2
Solange Claustres, one of Gurdjieff’s pupils, remembered this statement by Gurdjieff
during an interview published in Bres, number 186, 1997 (see footnote in Preface).
Quoted with kind permission from Bres Magazine.

22
 Inventory and Classification of Gurdjieff’s Legacy

Gurdjieff’s works and his teaching can only be understood by putting

them into practice. To the extent that people attempt to apply the
content of his books, music and Movements, his doctrine will grad-
ually unfold. His works must be understood as a single work of art,
created in different areas, but fed from a single source and energized
with a single force: his vision of fate and the potential of the individual
considered within the scope of a vast creation. Gurdjieff‘s legacy pro-
vides the material in the form of a ritual. This ritual puts his teaching
into practice in order to test it, study it and decode it, like in a labora-
tory. His legacy also provides the material as in a workshop, in which,
in quiet contemplation, his books are read aloud, his musical com-
positions are listened to and his Movements can be practiced. Books,
musical compositions and Movements are the liturgical elements of
his works. 
As noted previously, the bulk of Gurdjieff’s teaching, in the form of
explanations to his immediate circle of pupils, was given from 1912 to
1924. Not that he was no longer active as a teacher after this, he con-
tinued to teach until his death, but he made use of entirely different
means. The clear argumentation, by means of which he displayed his
daring vision during the period prior to 1924, was definitely confined
to the past and was replaced with personal conversations, readings
from his books, his music and his Movements. The Movements could
be described as his final, regular and structured form of education.  
Like a continent split by a fault line, in 1924, the year of his car ac-
cident, the rationally accessible part of Gurdjieff’s teaching was divided
from everything that followed. His biographers and pupils offered
various reasons for why this happened. The opinions vary markedly
and are no more than surmise and speculation. More likely, he re-
alized that spiritual ideas cannot be conveyed rationally, or through
employing rationality alone, and for this reason he later hid them
in his works of art, his “legominisms.” One way or another, it must
be emphasized that it is impossible for anyone to form a complete

23
 THE GURDJIEFF MOVEMENTS

picture of Gurdjieff’s teaching without knowing his pre-1924 expo-

sitions. The same is true for the comprehension of his books, music
and Movements. The study of a fragment of Gurdjieff’s legacy, isolated
from his teaching, will produce a distorted picture and only deliver
results that have little or nothing to do with the content and with
Gurdjieff’s actual objective.
The odd thing now is the fact that his teaching, understood here
as its rational part, unlike its irrational part formed by his works of
art, is the source of his legacy as described in the opening lines of this
chapter, but that it is not named as such, nor can it be. It has reached
us solely through other people’s testimonies.

24