Time forbids a proper response today (I’m writing the last chapter for Bookshelf) right now in which Burnett is discussed with Blyton and Goudge). Just as an FYI, though: I read this week that Burnett insisted she was not a Christian Scientist or New Thought advocate. She thought of herself as a believer in “Beautiful Thought,” which differed from Christian Science in having a sacramental or material aspect (hence the love of gardening, etc., you point out that an Eddyite would think delusional). I’m sure folks of her day thought her a Christian Scientist because of the esoteric books she wrote, because of her association in Boston with Eddyites, and because of her near-merciless doctor bashing in her stories. But none of that equates to Christian Science, as you point out…

That being said, I am floored by the connections between The Secret Garden and Christian Science or other metaphysical movements of the late 19th century (when my great-grandmother began to follow Mary Baker Eddy’s teachings). The Secret Garden was always strange to me – I really don’t the content to be inline with Christian Science in that it is so connected to the natural world (i.e., the Garden) and Christian Science sees “matter” – which would include the physical realm – as “temporal” and therefore non-spiritual or “unreal.” It is not the physical garden that represents a Christian Science view, but that which cannot be seen, the spiritual life which Christian Science would teach is real. To focus on the temporal world – even one so beautiful as The Garden – would be a temptation to a Christian Scientist, in fact, it’s antithesis.

Case in point – Jesus is considered the Way Shower to the truth (i.e., Christian Science) but Christ is a completely separate concept. Jesus was temporal, Christ is spiritual. It’s an idea – and ideas are what are valued in Christian Science. To look on the material world is to be tempted. It’s hard for me to make the case that The Secret Garden could even be remotely connected to Christian Science because it would be considered a temptation to succumb to the effect of “mortal mind.”

I don’t see how, from a Christian Science point of view, that it’s possible to represent through allegory and physical symbol a theological philosophy that rejects the physical as unreal – including an allegorical garden. This is one of the most frustrating and indeed frightening parts of Christian Science in that it is a mind-set, where indeed there needs to be a “spell” and one must live in that “spell” for if the spell is broken then the temptation to see the physical world and its manifestations as anything but an illusion would mark certain doom. It compels Christian Scientists to not leave what is for all intensive purposes – a cult. A garden would be – as it was for our human ancestors – a point of temptation.

What does cause me to pause – and I think I’m going to need to think about this a bit – is what role the Holy Spirit plays in the regeneration of the human soul. How does the Garden motif reflect the role the Holy Spirit plays when we are set free from the bondage of sin and death? Is the Garden (post-Eden) an illustration, even a Christian illustration, of our regeneration when we are born from above, born again? Jesus prays, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven …” What does that look like?

Over the years I’ve seen the Garden in the Secret Garden as being an illustration of the human heart. It seemed to me that the rejuvenation the children experience as they tend the Garden – as they begin to abide there – the thorns and thickets of unresolved pain and unforgiveness are weeded out and they are changed themselves as they tend the Garden. We recognize this work as Jesus said that He is the Vine and we are branches and our life comes from being attached to the Vine, by abiding Him. The Garden, as the children first rediscover it – is so detached from the Vine it is dead. What brings it back to life is love.

It seems to me that the Secret Garden may be another example of what C.S. Lewis’ called the “Tao.” It is the most basic natural law. What is missing is the Master Gardener. There does seem to be an Earth Mother – but no Master Gardener and the work suffers for that.

I’d like to do some more thinking about this though. One of my all-time favorite books as a child was the Little Princess (or a young reader’s edition that I had nearly memorized called “Sarah Crew”). I also have a terrific adaption of Little Lord Fauntleroy on recorded tape with Alec Guinness and Ricky Schroeder. It’s excellent.

The 1993 film version of The Secret Garden is mystical – which for this present generation is a respite from the non-magical works of 20th century high literature. The hunger, I would maintain, for mystery is one of the things that marks this present generation – and who would have thought it after the stripped down literature, art, and architecture of the 20th century. Even our churches were built without attention to mystery, being more inclined as entertainment centers than lofty cathedrals. That the present generation – from Star Wars to Harry Potter – is inclined toward mystery (which again is a fault of The Secret Garden in that mystery is never sustained – in fact, mystery is not present in Christian Science for then the scientific method could not be employed). The desire of this present generation to live with mystery, for evangelicals, for example, to rediscover ancient Christian practices such as celebrating the Eucharist – to the power of “magic” as a power of the imagination (again cast aside by the pundits of the 20th century) is, well, a mystery!

Finally, though, this post that John has put together here – it causes me to rethink Harry Potter’s meeting with Dumbledore from a Christian Science perspective. I have felt unease with those scenes and now looking it, it could be that my unease has come from a sense that even those scenes feel strangely akin to the type of understanding of life/afterlife/death that we find in Mary Baker Eddy’s writings. With the death of J.K. Rowling’s mother, one can wonder if she didn’t explore some of these types of faith healing theologies and philosophies – perhaps to discard them, or – as she seems to have admitted herself – to find her faith.

-ZR
BabyBlueOnline.org

Having said that, the book offers very little but hints on the subject we are discussing here. Burnett denied being a Christian Scientist, for instance, and supposedly subscribed to what she called ‘Beautiful Thought’ rather than ‘New Thought’ (which had the New Age pagan, syncretic associations it has today).

But there is nothing about Theosophy or Blavatsky or the occult except a paragraph from a letter describing how exciting she found the “concentrated’ almost universal interest in “the occult.” There is no description of her religious upbringing in the editor’s biography of Burnett that is included or account of her relationship with the Hall family of Boston that is supposed to have introduced her to New Thought, Christian Science, etc.

All of which has to be counted as a great failing. The notes themselves are cursory and go into no depth. She does note that a lamb is a symbol of Christ, that Martha and Mary are meant to be understood as figures from scripture, and that the ‘Magic’ chapter is about Burnett’s beliefs — but, incredibly, says little more. Is Dickon meant to be a Christ figure as the guardian of the lamb? Is Mary’s one necessary thing serving Dickon? There is the suggestion in these notes that the story is a Christian allegory in which Colin is Lazarus but nothing beyond the hint. Saying the ‘Magic’ chapter is about Burnett’s beliefs without making the connections was especially disappointing.

The editor, an English Professor at Dartmouth, has also edited the Norton Critical edition of Secret Garden. It is available for even less (used, at least) than this Annotated version and I have ordered it (if only for the essay in it, ‘The Secret Garden and the Occult’). Though this book is beautiful and appropriately priced at $7 new, I recommend readers interested in the meaning of Secret Garden as we are discussing it here get the Critical edition of the book and/or an academic biography of Burnett that explores her religious/spiritual tenets.

Wikipedia/Paracelsus:
“Paracelsus is credited as providing the first clinical/scientific mention of the unconscious. In his work Von den Krankeiten he writes: ‘Thus, the cause of the disease chorea lasciva is a mere opinion and idea, assumed by imagination, affecting those who believe in such a thing. This opinion and idea are the origin of the disease both in children and adults. In children the case is also imagination, based not on thinking but on perceiving, because they have heard or seen something. The reason is this: their sight and hearing are so strong that unconsciously they have fantasies about what they have seen or heard.’”

Does it go all the way back to alchemy’s origins in Egypt?

Just thinking about the hermitic tradition, ’tis all. (And also how strange it is that Paracelsus was born in the same village as my great-grandfather on my mother’s side, which also happens to have a very large Benedictine monastery).

Though I also did discover that the word “dis-ease” (which implies an emotional state-illness connection) wasn’t utilized until the 13th/14th Century; I always assumed (via “dis-) that it was of Greek origin, but apparently “ease” is untraceable.