“The London Lodge is in its sharpest crisis. ... I could not (especially in my present state of nervousness) stand by and listen calmly to the astounding news that Sankaracharya was a theist, and Sabba Row knows not what he is talking about, without kicking myself to death; or that other still more astounding declaration that Masters are evidently ' Swabhavikas.' And shall I begin contending against the Goughs and Hodgsons who have disfigured Buddhism and Adwaiticism even in their exoteric sense, and risk bursting a blood-vessel in London upon hearing their arguments reiterated ? . . . Let me die in peace if I have to die, or return to my Lares and Penates in Adyar, if I am ever doomed to see them again.”

In spite of the reluctance thus expressed, she ultimately came to London and stayed for several months, but meanwhile she remained in Paris for a few weeks and was there joined by some of her Russian relatives and friends. Mme. de Jelihowsky, whose writings have been quoted so largely in the earlier chapters of this memoir, again took pen in hand to describe some phenomena that occurred during this period.

In an article contributed to a Russian newspaper, she says: — “When, about the middle of May, we arrived in Paris for an interview with Mme. Blavatsky, we found her surrounded by a regular staff of members of their Society who had gathered at Paris, coming from Germany, Russia, and even America, to see her after her five years' absence in India ; and by a crowd of the curious who had heard of the thaumaturgic atmosphere always around her, and were anxious to become eye-witnesses to her occult powers. Truth compels me to say that H. P. Blavatsky was very reluctant to satisfy idle curiosity. She has her own way of looking very contemptuously at any physical phenomena, hates to waste her powers in a profitless manner, and was, moreover, at the time quite ill. Every phenomenon produced at her will invariably costs her several days of sickness.“ I say ' at her will,' for phenomena, independent of her, took place far more frequently in their midst than those produced by herself. She attributes them to that mysterious being whom they all call their ' Master.' Such manifestations of forces (to us) unknown leave her unhurt. Every time that an accord or arpeggio of some invisible chords resounded in the air, wherever she was, and with whatever occupied, she used to hasten to her room, from whence she emerged with some order or news. Most of the ' secretaries' of the Society received very often such summons quite independently of her. ... I give one instance. On May the 18th, Colonel Olcott returned from London and showed to us a curious Chinese envelope with a similar paper in it, a letter he had received personally, as he tells us, from one of the Masters on April 6th, in a railway carriage, in the presence of witnesses. The letter had dropped on his knees, and warned him of a grave treason that was being prepared for them all at Adyar (their Madras headquarters) by persons whom they had trusted, and who owed to them all during their five years' long stay in their house. Every detail in the letter was corroborated two months after. Mme. Blavatsky paid little attention to it at the time. But when the news corroborative of the prophecy arrived, she felt extremely hurt. . . .“

As to phenomena produced at will, this is what Professor Thurmann heard in company of several persons, myself included.”

He was telling us one night of some musical sounds he had heard at a spiritual séance in the dark. H. P. Blavatsky, who was sitting in her arm-chair, quietly laying out a Russian patience with cards, laughed at the narrative, and remarked, ' Why should darkness be necessary for such manifestations ? When there is no deception there is no need of darkness. . . . ' And upon saying this, with one hand upon the table, she lifted the other in the air as though throwing off some current, and said: ' Now, listen !'”

At the same instant we heard, in that corner of the room towards which she had waved her hand, the harmonious sound as though of a harp or zither. . . . The scale of melody resounded clear and sharp, and then died away in the air. Again she lifted her hand, moving it in an opposite direction, and the same phenomenon was produced! . . . We all started from our seats, struck with amazement. For the third time she moved her hand in a third direction, as though cutting the air through with her arm — this time toward a large bronze chandelier over our heads — and, at the same instant, the chandelier emitted a sound, as if in every one of its jets lay concealed a musical chord, which had vibrated in response to her command. ...”

Mme. de Jelihowsky also recounts the following incident: — “

We were, four of us, at Rue Notre Dame des Champs, 46 — Mme. N. A. Fadeeff, Mme. Blavatsky, the eminent Russian author, M. Soloviof, and I, — having tea at the same table of the little drawing-room, about 11 P.M. . Mme. B. was asked to narrate something of her ' Master,' and how she had acquired from him her occult talents. While telling us many things which would be out of place in public print, she offered us to see a portrait of his in a gold medallion she wore on a chain round her neck, and opened it. It is a perfectly flat locket, made to contain but one miniature and no more. It passed from hand to hand, and we all saw the handsome Hindu face in it, painted in India."

Suddenly our little party felt disturbed by something very strange, a sensation which it is hardly possible to describe. It was as though the air had suddenly changed, was rarefied, the atmosphere became positively oppressive, and we three could hardly breathe. . . . H. P. B. covered her eyes with her hand and whispered:—

“ 'Attention !'...! feel that something is going to happen. . . . Some phenomenon. . . . He is preparing to do it. . . .' ”

She meant by 'He', her guru-master, whom she considers so powerful. . . .

" At that moment M. Soloviof fixed his eyes on a corner of the room, saying that he saw something like a ball of fire, of oval form, looking like a radiant golden and bluish egg. ... He had hardly pronounced these words when we heard, coming from the farthest end of the corridor, a long melodious sound, as if some one had brushed the chords of a harp — a melody far fuller and more definite than any of the musical sounds we had previously heard.

" Once more the clear notes were repeated, and then died away. Silence reigned again in the rooms." I left my seat and went into the passage hall, brightly lighted with a lamp. Useless to say that all was quiet, and that it was empty. When I returned to the drawing-room I found H. P. Blavatsky sitting quietly as before at the table between Mme. Fadeeff and M. Soloviof. At the same time, I saw as distinctly as can be, the figure of a man, a greyish, yet quite clear form, standing near my sister, and who, upon my looking at him, receded from her, paled, and disappeared in the opposite wall. This man — or perhaps his astral form — was of a slight build, and of middle size, wrapped in a kind of mantle, and with a white turban on his head. The vision did not last more than a few seconds, but I had all the time to examine it, and to tell everyone what I distinctly saw, though, as soon as it had disappeared I felt terribly frightened and nervous. . . . Hardly come back to our senses, we were startled with another wonder, this one palpable and objective. H. P. B. suddenly opened her locket, and instead of one portrait of a Master, there were two — her own facing his!

“ Firmly set inside the other half of the medallion, under its oval glass, there was her own miniature likeness, which she had just casually mentioned."

The locket was once more carefully examined by the three witnesses, and passed from hand to hand.

” This was not the finale. A quarter of an hour later the magical locket, from which we three literally never took off our eyes for one second, was opened at the desire of one of us — her portrait was no more to be found in it. . . . It had disappeared.”The statement that follows, relating to another incident of Mme. Blavatsky's stay in Paris, was published in Light for July 12, 1884: —  

“The undersigned attest the following phenomenon:

"On the morning of the IIth of June, instant, we were present in the reception room of the Theosophical Society at Paris, 46 Rue Notre Dame des Champs, when a letter was delivered by the postman. The door of the room in which we were sitting was open, so that we could see into the hall; and the servant who answered the bell was seen to take the letter from the postman and bring it to us at once, placing it in the hands of Mme. Jelihowsky, who threw it before her on the table round which we were sitting. The letter was addressed to a lady, a relative of Mme. Blavatsky's, who was then visiting her, and came from another relative in Russia. There were present in the room, Mme. de Morsier, secretary-general of the ' Société Théosophique d'Orient et d'Occident'; M. Soloviof, son of the distinguished Russian historian, and attaché of the Imperial Court, himself well known as a writer; Colonel Olcott, Mr W. Q. Judge, Mohini-Babu, and several other persons. Mme. Blavatsky was also sitting at the table. Mme. Jelihowsky, upon her sister (Mme. Blavatsky) remarking that she would like to know what was in the letter, asked her, on the spur of the moment, to read its contents before its seal was broken, since she professed to be able so to do.

"Thus challenged, Mme. Blavatsky at once took up the closed letter, held it against her forehead, and read aloud what she professed to be its contents. These alleged contents she further wrote down on a blank page of an old letter that lay on a table. Then she said she would give those present, since her sister still laughed at and challenged her power, even a clearer proof that she was able to exercise her psychic power within the closed envelope. Remarking that her own name occurred in the course of the letter, she said that she would underline this through the envelope in red crayon. In order to effect this she wrote her name on the old letter (on which the alleged copy of the contents of the sealed letter had been written), together with an interlaced double triangle or ' Solomon's seal' below the signature, which she had copied as well as the body of the letter. This was done in spite of her sister remarking that her correspondent hardly ever signed her name in full when writing to relatives, and that in this at least Mme. Blavatsky would find herself mistaken. 'Nevertheless,'she replied,'I will cause these two red marks to appear in the corresponding places within the letter.'” She next laid the closed letter beside the open one upon the table, and placed her hand upon both, so as to make (as she said) a bridge, along which a current of psychic force might pass. Then, with her features settled into an expression of intense mental concentration, she kept her hand quietly thus for a few moments, after which, tossing the closed letter across the table to her sister, she said, 'Tiens, c'est fait.' ('The experiment is successfully finished.') Here it may be well to add, to show that the letter could not have been tampered with in transit — unless by a Government official, — that the stamps were fixed on the flap of the envelope, where a seal is usually placed."

Upon the envelope being opened by the lady to whom it was addressed, it was found that Mme. Blavatsky had actually written out its contents ; that her name was there; that she had really underlined it in red, as she had promised; and that the double triangle was reproduced below the writer's signature, which was in full, as Mme. Blavatsky had described it.”

Another fact of exceptional interest we noted. A slight defect in formation of one of the two interlaced triangles, as drawn by Mme. Blavatsky, had been faithfully reproduced within the closed letter." This experiment was doubly valuable, as at once an illustration of clairvoyant perception, by which Mme. Blavatsky correctly read the contents of a sealed letter, and of the phenomenon of precipitation, or the deposit of pigmentary matter in the form of figures and lines previously drawn by the operator in the presence of observers.

(Signed)

“ VERA JELIHOWSKY.
VSEVOLOD SOLOVIOF.
NADEJDA A. FADÉEFF.
EMILIE DE MORSIER.
WILLIAM Q. JUDGE.
H. S. OLCOTT. PARIS,

Paris, June 2lst, 1884.”

In the St Petersburg Rebus (a periodical of psychological sciences) of July 1, 1884, No. 26, the same account appeared over the signature of V. Soloviof, an eye-witness to the above fact, under the title of

A LETTER TO THE EDITOR.

“Several persons, among that number myself, met casually H. P. Blavatsky (the founder of the Theosophical Society, then on a visit to Paris) about 10 A.M. in the forenoon. A postman entered and brought, among others, a letter for a relative of Mme. B., then on a visit to the latter, but owing to the early morning hour still absent in her bedroom. From the hands of the postman the letter passed on, in the presence of all present, upon the table in the parlour, where we were all gathered. Glancing at the postmark and the address of that particular letter, both Mme. Blavatsky and her sister, Mme. Jelihowsky, remarked that it came from a mutual relative then at Odessa. The envelope was not only completely closed on all its flaps, but the post-stamp itself was glued on the place where the seal is habitually placed — as I got convinced by carefully examining it myself. H. P. Blavatsky, who was on that morning, as I had remarked, in very high spirits, undertook, unexpectedly for all of us, with the exception of her sister, who was the first one to propose it and to defy Mme. B. to do it, to read the letter in its closed envelope. After this she placed it on her forehead, and with visible efforts began to read it out, writing down the pronounced sentences on a sheet of paper. When she finished, her sister expressed her doubts as to the success of the experiment, remarking that several of the expressions read out and written down by Mme. B. could hardly be found in a letter from the person who had written it. Then H. P. B. became visibly irritated by this, and declared that in such case she would do still more. Taking the sheet of paper again she traced upon it with red pencil, at the foot of the sentences supposed to be contained in the closed letter, noted down by her, a sign, then she underlined a word, after which, with a visible effort on her face, she said : ' This sign that I make must pass into the envelope at the end of the letter, and this word in it be found underlined, as I have done it here.' . .

.“ When the letter was opened, its contents were found identical with what Mme. Blavatsky had written down, and, at the end of it, we all saw the sign in red pencil correctly repeated, and the word underlined by her on her paper was not only there, but equally underlined in red pencil."

After that an exact description of the phenomenon was drawn up, and all of us, the witnesses present, signed our names under it.”

The circumstances under which the phenomenon occurred in its smallest details, carefully checked by myself, do not leave in me the smallest doubt as to its genuineness and reality. Deception or fraud in this particular case are entirely out of question.

Vs. SOLOVIOF.

PARIS, 10 (22) June 1884.

Still, partly owing to the principle on which, as the reader will have seen, she has endeavoured all along to carry out her task — partly because her love of exercising her abnormal faculties continually overcomes her irritation at the annoyances for her to which their exercise has often given rise — she has displayed these from time to time up to a recent period.

She stayed with us for a week only on her first arrival in London and then returned to Paris. She came over to London again on the 29th of June, and stayed with friends in Elgin Crescent, Notting Hill, where she remained till early in August, going over then to Germany with a party of Theosophists on a visit to friends in Elberfeld. Her presence in London during the period referred to became rather widely known, and large numbers of people contrived to make her acquaintance. Streams of visitors were constantly pouring in to see her, and with her usual abandon of manner she would receive her callers in any costume, in any room which happened to be convenient to her for the moment — in her bedroom, which she also made her writing-room and study, or in her friends' drawing-room thick with the smoke of her innumerable cigarettes, and of those which she hospitably offered to all who cared to accept them.

Occasionally it happened that some manifestations of her occult powers would be given on these occasions, as, for example, on the evening referred to in the following letter: —

HOLLOWAY'S HOTEL,
48 DOVER STREET, PICCADILLY, LONDON,

 

August 9, 1884.“

MY DEAR MR-----,—

I see no difficulty whatever in telling you what happened in my presence a few days ago at Mrs Arundale's house, where I had been dining with Mme. Blavatsky.

”In the midst of the conversation, referring to various subjects, Mme. Blavatsky became silent, and we all distinctly heard a sound that might be compared to that produced by a small silver bell."

The same phenomenon was produced later on in the drawing-room, adjoining the dining-room.

" I was naturally surprised at this manifestation, but still more by the following incident. I had been singing a Russian song that I had brought with me that evening, and which seemed to give much pleasure to my audience. After the last chord of the accompaniment had died away, Mme. Blavatsky said, ' Listen!' and held up her hand, and we distinctly heard the last full chord, composed of five notes, repeated in our midst.”

I have, of course, not the slightest means for giving any kind of explanation, but the facts were such as I have stated.

(Signed)

“ OLGA NOVIKOFF, née KIRÉEF.”

“ELBERFELD, August, 1884.

 

“ DEAR MADAM,

You requested me to state to you the particular circumstances under which I received my first communication from Mahatma K. H.. I have much pleasure in doing so.

“On the morning of the first of this month Colonel Olcott and I were travelling by an express train from here to Dresden. A few days before I had written a letter to the Mahatmas, which Colonel Olcott had addressed and enclosed to you, which, however, as I now hear, never reached you, but was taken by the Masters while it was in the hands of the post officials. At the time mentioned I was not thinking of this letter, but was relating to Colonel Olcott some events of my life, expressing also the fact that since my sixth or seventh year I had never known peace nor joy, and asking Colonel Olcott's opinion on the meaning of some striking hardships I have gone through.

“In this conversation we were interrupted by the railway guard demanding our tickets. When I moved forward and raised myself partly from the seat, in order to hand over the tickets, Colonel Olcott noticed something white lying behind my back on that side of me which was opposite to the one where he was sitting. When I took up that which had appeared there, it turned out to be a Tibetan envelope, in which I found a letter from Mahatma K. H., written with blue pencil in his well-known and unmistakable handwriting. As there were several other persons unacquainted with us in the compartment, I suppose the Master chose this place for depositing the letter near me where it was the least likely to attract the unwelcome attention and curiosity of outsiders.

“The envelope was plainly addressed to me, and the communication contained in the letter was a consoling reflection on the opinion which I had five or ten minutes ago given on the dreary events of my past life. The Mahatma explained that such events and the mental misery attached to it were beyond the ordinary sum of life, but that hardships of all kinds would be the lot of one striving for higher spiritual development. He very kindly expressed his opinion that I had already achieved some philanthropic work for the good of the world.

“In this letter were also answered some of the questions which I had put in my first-mentioned letter, and an assurance was given me that I was to receive assistance and advice when I should be in need of it.

“I dare say it would be unnecessary for me to ask you to inform the Mahatma of the devoted thankfulness which I feel towards him for the great kindness shown to me, for the Master will know of my sentiments without my forming them into more or less inadequate words.

“I am, dear Madam, in due respect, yours faithfully,

(Signed) " Dr HUBBE SCHLEIDEN.

“To MM. BLAVATSKY,
ELBERFELD.”

At Elberfeld, Mme. Blavatsky was the guest of Mr and Mrs Gebhard, and one of their sons, Mr Rudolph Gebhard writes as follows:—

“I have always taken a great interest in conjuring tricks. When in London I had an opportunity of taking lessons from Professor Field, a most skilful sleight-of-hand conjurer, who very soon made me quite proficient in his art. From that time forward I have given performances wherever I went (as an amateur, of course), and made the acquaintance of nearly all our renowned ' wizards,' with whom I exchanged tricks. As every conjurer has some favourite sleight in which he excels, I was bound to be very careful in watching them in order to make myself perfect in all the different lines of card or coin conjuring, or the famous mediumistic feats. This, of course, made me in good time a pretty close observer as far as tricks are concerned; and I feel justified in giving here an opinion on the phenomena which came under my observation.

“Two of them occurred in our house in Elberfeld, during the stay in it of Mme. Blavatsky, Colonel Olcott, and a small party of friends and Theosophists.

“The first one was a letter from Mahatma K. H. to my father, and took place one evening in the presence of a number of witnesses, partly members of our Society, and of Major-General D. O. Howard, of the U.S. Army. It was about nine P.M. We were sitting in the drawing-room discussing different topics, when Mme. Blavatsky's attention was suddenly attracted by something unusual taking place in the room. After a while she said that she felt the presence of the 'Masters'. That they had, perhaps, the intention of doing something for us, and so she asked us to think of what we should like to occur. Then a little discussion took place as to what would be the best thing, and finally it was unanimously resolved that a letter should be asked for, addressed to my father, Mr G. Gebhard, on a subject on which he should mentally decide himself.

“Now my father had, at the time being, great anxiety about a son in America, my elder brother, and was very eager to get advice from the Master concerning him.

“Meanwhile, Mme. B., who, on account of her recent illness, was resting on a sofa, and had been looking around the room, suddenly exclaimed that there was something going on with a large oil painting hanging over the piano in the same room, she having seen like a ray of light shooting in the direction of the picture. This statement was immediately corroborated by Mrs H-----, and then by my mother also, who, sitting opposite a looking-glass and turning her back to the picture, had also observed in the mirror like a faint light going towards the painting. Mme. B. then required Mrs H----- to see, and say what was going on, when Mrs H-----said that she saw something forming over the picture, but could not distinctly make out what it was.

“Everybody's attention was now fixed in the direction of the wall high above and under the ceiling, where so many saw bright lights. But, I must confess, that for my part, not being clairvoyant, I could neither see lights nor any other thing except what I had always seen on that wall. And when Mme. Blavatsky said she now felt absolutely sure that there was something going on. I got up (we had kept our seats all this while) and climbing on the piano lifted the picture right off the wall, but not off the hook, shook it well and looked behind it — nothing! The room was well lit up, and there was not an inch of the picture which I could not see. I dropped the frame, saying that I could see nothing; but Mme. Blavatsky told me that she felt sure that there must be something, so up I climbed once more and tried again.

“The picture in question was a large oil painting, suspended from the wall by a hook and a rope, which made it hang over at the top, so that when the lower part of the frame was lifted off the wall, there was a space of fully six inches between the wall and the back of the picture, the latter being virtually entirely off the wall. There being a wall gas-bracket fixed on each side of the painting, the space between the latter and the wall was well lit up. But the second time, no better than the first, was I able to detect anything, though I looked very close. It was in order to make perfectly sure that I got up on the piano, and passed my hand twice very carefully along the frame, which is about three inches thick, up and down — nothing. Letting the picture drop back, I then turned round to Mme. Blavatsky to ask her what was to be done further, when she exclaimed: ' I see the letter; there it is !' I turned quickly back to the picture, and saw at that moment a letter dropping from behind it on to the piano. I picked it up. It was addressed to ' Herrn Consul G. Gebhard,' and contained the information he had just asked for. I must have made rather a perplexed face, for the company laughed merrily at the ' family juggler.'

“Now for me this is a most completely demonstrated phenomenon. Nobody had handled the picture but myself ; I was careful to examine it very closely, and as I was searching for a letter, such a thing could not have escaped my attention, as perhaps would have been the case if I had been looking for some other object; as then I might not have paid any attention to a slip of paper. The letter was fully four by two inches, so by no means a small object.

“Moreover, it was the company that had decided upon Mr G. Gebhard as the person who should be the recipient of a letter; and as I knew what was weighing on my father's mind at the time, it was I myself who had suggested that he should ask for an answer on that special object, when he said he would.

“Let us consider this phenomenon from a sleight-of-hand point of view.

“Suppose several letters had been prepared beforehand, addressed to different persons, treating of different subjects. Is it possible to get a letter to an appointed place by a sleight-of-hand trick ? Quite possible ; it only depends what place it is, and if our attention is drawn beforehand to such a place or not. To get that letter behind that picture would have been very difficult, but might have been managed if our attention had for a moment been directed to another place, the letter being thrown behind the picture in the meantime. What is sleight-of-hand ? Nothing else but the execution of a movement more or less swift, in a moment when you are not observed. I draw your attention for a short while to a certain spot, say, for instance, my left hand, my right is then free to make certain movements unobserved ; as to ' the quickness of the hand deceives the eye' theory, it is entirely erroneous. You cannot make a movement with your hand so quickly that the eye would not follow and detect it, the only thing you can do is either to conceal the necessary movement by another one which has nothing to do with what you are about, or to draw the attention of the looker-on to another point, and then quickly do what is required.

“Now, in this instance all our attention had been drawn to the picture, before ever the question was put as to what we should like to have, and was kept there all the while; it would have been impossible for anyone to throw a letter without being observed. As for the letter having been concealed behind the picture beforehand, this, is out of the question altogether, it could not have escaped my attention while I repeatedly searched for it. Suppose the letter had been placed on the top of the frame, and my hand had disturbed it passing along without my knowing it, this would have caused the letter to drop down instantly, whereas, about thirty seconds passed before it put in an appearance. Taking all circumstances together, it seems to me an impossibility to have worked this phenomenon by a trick.

“The day after this had occurred, I went into Madame's room about noon ; but seeing that she was engaged I retired to the drawing-room, where we had been sitting the night before, and just then the idea struck me to try that picture again, in order to make perfectly sure that the letter could not have been concealed somewhere behind it, without being detected. I was alone in the room, and during my examination of the painting nobody entered it; I fully satisfied myself that a letter could not have escaped my attention, had it been concealed behind the picture. I then went back to Madame's room, where I found her still engaged with the same woman. In the evening we were again sitting together.

“ 'The Masters watched you today, and were highly amused with your experiments. How you did try to find out if that letter could not have been concealed behind the picture.'

“Now I am positively certain, first, that nobody was in the room at the time I tried the picture ; and secondly, that I had told no one in the house of my experiment. It is impossible for me to explain how Madame could have found out my movements, except through her clairvoyance. . . .

RUDOLPH GEBHARD.

“ELBERFELD(Cologne), September, 1884.”

More than a year later, when a report was issued by the Society for Psychical Research, in which discredit was cast on a great many phenomena recorded in connection with Mme. Blavatsky, but for the most part not mentioned in the course of this memoir, it was suggested in regard to Mr Gebhard's story, of which the Society had received a somewhat briefer account than that given above, that Mr Gebhard did not seem to have contemplated the possibility of a confederate having been present who might have thrown the letter without being observed — not a very forcible suggestion in regard to an incident occurring in the presence of several persons all watching for its occurrence, and in a private room with only members of the family and intimate guests present. However, on that subject, Mr Gebhard writes to me under date 18th January 1886, as follows:—

“ELBERFELD, I8th January 1886.

“MY DEAR MR SINNETT, —

Many thanks for your kind letter, with enclosures, which I received yesterday morning. Considering the very weak way the S.P.R. report has met my letter to Hodgson regarding the letter phenomenon in Elberfeld, I think it may be some use to point out that (I) an account of the phenomenon was written by me a very few days after the occurrence, a copy of which I found this morning; (2) in this first account I have very seriously considered the possibility of the letter having been thrown by a confederate; but having, I think, conclusively shown that such a thing was out of the question, I never came back to it in later reports. The two reports absolutely tally in the main points, the only two differences being that in the first report I give the space between picture and wall as 6 in., in the second as 8 in. Secondly, the size of the letter is given in the first instance as 4 in. x 2 in in the second report as 5 in. x 2½ in. (the latter is the right size, as I have taken exact measure of the letter today). The second report is even somewhat more detailed than the first one, owing, as I think, to questions which I was repeatedly asked by people to whom I related the incident, and which I wanted to guard against from the outset.

“I made this morning rather a curious discovery, and am only sorry that I did not make the same trial before. Taking the identical letter, I got up on the piano, and threw it behind the picture, but the letter stuck between the picture and the wall, and repeated trials showed me that the picture, being very heavy, rests with the bottom part so closely to the wall that not even a letter can fall between it and the wall. I lifted up the picture several times and let it fall back again, but the effect was always the same. I am more than ever at a loss to explain, because, to my best knowledge, the letter fluttered from behind the picture on to the piano.”

The close of Mme. Blavatsky's European visit was overshadowed by a disagreeable incident which gave rise to widely ramifying results.

A magazine at Madras — an organ of the Christian missionaries at that place — the Christian College Magazine by name, published a series of letters purporting to have been written by Mme. Blavatsky to a certain Mme. Coulomb, who had lived with her in India for some years, first at Bombay and then at Madras. Mme. Coulomb and her husband formerly kept a hotel at Cairo, where Mme. Blavatsky had made their acquaintance, to her sorrow, in the days of her abortive Société Spirite. Years afterwards, the Coulombs turned up in India in great straits, and were hospitably sheltered by Mme. Blavatsky at Bombay. They eventually settled down as members of her household, Mme. Coulomb looking after the housekeeping in return for her board and lodging, and her husband being supposed for a long time to be looking out for work. The arrangement was altogether of a very informal kind, but it continued longer than many such arrangements established to begin with on a more permanent basis. In progress of time, however, the kindly feelings on both sides, out of which it may be supposed the arrangement took its rise, gave place, on Mme. Coulomb's part at all events, to sentiments of a very different sort. The whole matter but for its after consequences would be too ignominious to discuss, but without even now going into details, which could only be treated, if at all, at a length altogether disproportionate to their importance, it may be explained that Mme. Coulomb supplied the editor of the magazine with a series of letters apparently from Mme. Blavatsky to herself, some of which, if genuine, would have shown her to have employed Mme. Coulomb and her husband as confederates in a long succession of fraudulent phenomena.

When the magazine containing the letters was received in Europe, Mme. Blavatsky wrote the following letter on the subject to the Times. It appeared on October the 9th :—

Sir, —

With reference to the alleged exposure at Madras of a dishonorable conspiracy between myself and two persons of the name of Coulomb to deceive the public with occult phenomena, I have to say that the letters purporting to have been written by me are certainly not mine. Sentences here and there I recognize, taken from old notes of mine on different matters, but they are mingled with interpolations that entirely pervert their meaning. With these exceptions the whole of the letters are a fabrication.

“The fabricators must have been grossly ignorant of Indian affairs, since they make me speak of a 'Maharajah of Lahore', when every Indian schoolboy knows that no such person exists.”

With regard to the suggestion that I attempted to promote the 'financial prosperity' of the Theosophical Society by means of occult phenomena, I say that I have never at any time received, or attempted to obtain, from any person any money either for myself or for the Society by any such means. I defy anyone to come forward and prove the contrary. Such money as I have received has been earned by literary work of my own, and these earnings, and what remained of my inherited property when I went to India, have been devoted to the Theosophical Society. I am a poorer woman today than I was when, with others, I founded the Society. —

Your obedient Servant,  

H. P. BLAVATSKY.

“77 ELGIN CRESCENT, NOTTING HILL, W.,

“ October 7.”

The same paper also contained on the same date a letter from Mr St George Lane Fox:—

“Sir,

In the Times of September 20 and September 29 you publish telegrams from your Calcutta correspondent referring to the Theosophical Society. As I have just returned from India, and am a member of the board of control appointed to manage the affairs of the Society during the absence from India of Colonel Olcott and Madame Blavatsky, I hope you will allow me through your columns to add a few words to the news you publish. First, then, these Coulombs, who, in conjunction with certain missionaries, are now trying to throw discredit on the Theosophical Society, were employed at the Society's headquarters at Adyar as housekeepers, and the board of control, finding that they were thoroughly unprincipled, always trying to extort money from members of the Society, discharged them. They had meanwhile been constructing all sorts of trap-doors and sliding panels in the private rooms of Madame Blavatsky, who had very indiscreetly given over these rooms to their charge. As to the letters purporting to have been written by Madame Blavatsky, which have recently been published in an Indian 'Christian' paper, I, in common with all who are acquainted with the circumstances of the case, have no doubt whatever that, whoever wrote them, they are not written by Madame Blavatsky. I myself attach very little importance to this new scandal, as I do not believe that the true Theosophic cause suffers in the slightest degree.

“The Theosophical movement is now well launched, and must go ahead, in spite of obstacles. Already hundreds, if not thousands, have been led through it to perceive that, for scientific and not merely sentimental reasons, purity of life is advisable, and that honesty of purpose and unselfish activity are necessary for true human progress and the attainment of real happiness. —

Your obedient Servant,

ST G. LANE FOX, F.T.S.

“ LONDON, October 5.”

A good deal of anxiety was nevertheless felt among some persons who had been greatly interested in the reports of Mme. Blavatsky's occult achievements in India, as to how far the letters might be genuine, and, finally, the Society for Psychical Research decided to send out to Madras one of their own members willing to undertake the investigation on the spot of all the transactions to which the letters referred. Mr Richard Hodgson, the gentleman in question, went out to India in November 1884, and stayed there till the following April. On his return he gave his Society a report that was altogether unfavorable to Mme. Blavatsky, and the committee of the Society appointed to inquire into the character of the phenomena “connected with the Theosophical Society” reported in their turn to a meeting of the Society held on the 24th of June, that the letters were genuine in the opinion of the experts, and that they sufficed to prove that Mme. Blavatsky “has been engaged in a long-continued combination with other persons to produce by ordinary means a series of apparent marvels for the support of the Theosophical movement.”

Meanwhile Mme. Blavatsky had returned to India. On the arrival at Madras of the steamer in which she came, a delegation of native students of the Madras colleges went on board to welcome her. The meaning of the demonstration turned upon the fact that the current charges against her had originated in the letters alleged to be written by her, and published in a magazine professedly identified with one of the colleges. Conducted to a public hall where a large number of natives were assembled, the student delegates read her the following address:—

“In according to you this our heartiest of welcomes on your return from the intellectual campaigns which you have so successfully waged in the West, we are conscious we are giving but a feeble expression to the ' debt immense of endless gratitude' which India lies under to you.

“You have dedicated your life to the disinterested services of disseminating the truths of Occult Philosophy. Upon the sacred mysteries of our hoary Religion and Philosophies you have thrown such a flood of light by sending into the world that marvelous production of yours, the "Isis Unveiled". By your exposition has our beloved Colonel been induced to undertake that gigantic labor of love — the vivifying on the altars of Aryavarta the dying flames of religion and spirituality.

"While at one quarter of the globe you had been with all your heart and soul addressing yourself to the work of propagating eternal Truth, your enemies on this side have been equally industrious. We allude to the recent scandalous events at Madras, in which an expelled domestic of yours has been made a convenient cat's-paw of. While looking upon such futilities with the indignant scorn which they certainly deserve, we beg to assure you that our affection and admiration, earned by the loftiness of your soul, the nobility of your aspirations, and the sacrifices you have made, have become too deeply rooted to be shaken by the rude blasts of spite, spleen, and slander, which, however, are no uncommon occurrences in the history of Theosophy.”

That the revered Masters whose hearts are overflowing with love for Humanity will continue as ever to help you and our esteemed Colonel in the discovery of Truth and the dissemination of the same, is the earnest prayer of, —

Dear and Revered Madame, your affectionate Servants,

 

“ STUDENTS OF THE COLLEGES OF MADRAS.”

During a great part of the time spent by Mr Hodgson at Madras, Mme. Blavatsky lay on a sick-bed, dying as her friends believed, and as she herself supposed, her restoration to comparative health in the end constituting in itself one of the not least surprising “phenomena” connected with the story of her life. She wrote to me towards the close of this period: —
 

“I am compelled to write to you once more. My own reputation and honor I have made a sacrifice of, and for the few months I have yet to live, I care little what becomes of me. But I cannot leave the reputation of poor Olcott to be attacked as it is by Hume and Mr Hodgson, who have become suddenly mad with their hypotheses of fraud more phenomenal than phenomena themselves. I, with a thousand other Theosophists, protest against the manner and way the investigations are carried on by Mr Hodgson. He examines only our greatest enemies, thieves and robbers like ------, and being shown by him some letters received by him, as he assures Hodgson, seven years ago from America, Hodgson copies some paragraphs from them that he believes the most damaging, and builds on that the theory of my being a Russian spy. . . . You know how I tried to conciliate the Hindus with the English. How I did all in my power to make them realize that this government, bad as it seemed to them, was the best they could ever have. I defy to find a respectable, trustworthy Hindu who will say that I ever breathed a disloyal word to them. And yet because of a certain paper stolen from me by ------, and that the missionaries have shown to him a paper, partially or wholly written in cipher, Mr Hodgson has publicly proclaimed me a Russian spy.”

“They (meaning the missionaries) took it to the Police Commissioner, had the best experts examine it, sent it to Calcutta for five months, moved heaven and earth to find out what the cipher meant, and now gave it up in despair. It is one of my Zenzar MSS. I am perfectly confident of it, for one of the sheets of my book, with numbered pages, is missing.”

Zenzar is a mystic language, with a peculiar character of its own, used by the initiated occultists of Tibet.

Mme. Blavatsky remained for a time at a hotel near Naples, when she reached Europe on her return after her illness, and thence wrote to my wife on the 21st of June, in reply to a letter of sympathy.

“The sight of your familiar handwriting was a welcome one indeed, and the contents of your letter still more so. No. . . . I never thought that you could have believed that I played the tricks I am now accused of, neither you nor any one of those who have Masters in their hearts, not on their brains. Nevertheless, here I am, and stand accused without any means to prove the contrary, of the most dirty villainous deceptions ever practised by a half-starved medium. What can I do, and what shall I do ? Useless to either write to persuade, or try to argue with people who are bound to believe me guilty, to change their opinions. Let it be. The fuel in my heart is burnt to the last atom. Henceforth, nothing is to be found in it but cold ashes. I have so suffered that I can suffer no more. I simply laugh at every new accusation.

“'Notwithstanding the experts,' you say. Ah! they must be famous those experts who found all the Coulombs' letters genuine. The whole world may bow before their decision and acuteness, but there is one person at least in this wide world whom they can never convince that those stupid letters were written by me, and it is H. P. Blavatsky.

“Now, look here, and I want you to know these facts. To this day I have never been allowed to see one single line of those letters. Why could not Mr Hodgson come and show me one of them at least ? . . . Pray, tell me, is it the legal thing in England to accuse publicly even a street sweeper in his absence without giving him the chance of saying one single word in his defense ; without letting him know even of what he is precisely accused, and who it is who accuses him, and is brought forward as chief evidence ? For I do not know the first word of all this. Hodgson came to Adyar, was received as a friend, examined and cross-examined all whom he wanted to; the boys (the Hindus) at Adyar gave him all the information he needed. If he now finds discrepancies and contradictions in their statements, it only shows that, feeling as they all did, that it was (in their sight) pure tomfoolery to doubt the phenomena of the Masters, they had not prepared themselves for the scientific cross-examination, may have forgotten many of the circumstances. . . .

“Here I am. Where I shall go next, I know no more than the man in the moon. Why they should want to keep me still in life, is something too strange for me to comprehend; but their ways are, and always have been, incomprehensible. What good am I now for the cause ? Doubted and suspected by the whole creation except a few, would I not do more good to the T.S. by dying than by living ? ”

Two months later she moved on from Italy to a quiet little town in Germany, where I visited her last autumn (1885). In the interim the Psychic Research Society had held its meetings, at which the Committee “appointed to investigate phenomena connected with the Theosophical Society”, had reported that the Coulomb letters were really written by Mme. Blavatsky, that the “shrine” at Adyar was elaborately designed to subserve treachery and false manifestations, and that the marvels related of the occult power of the Mahatmas were deliberate deceptions carried out by and at the instigation of Mme. Blavatsky. In August she wrote to me: —

“... Trust and friendship, or distrust and resentment — neither friends nor foes will ever realise the whole truth; so what's the use. . . . The only difference between Coulomb-Patterson-Hodgson charges now and those previous to the Adyar scandal is this: Then the newspapers only hinted, now they affirm. Then they were restricted, however feebly, by fear of law and a sense of decency; now they have become fearless, and have lost all and every manner of decency. Look at Prof. Sidgwick. He is evidently a gentleman and an honourable man by nature, fair minded, as most Englishmen are. And now tell me, can any outsider (the opinion of the Fathers of S.P.R. is of course valueless) presume to say that his printed opinion of me is either fair, legal, or honest ? If, instead of bogus phenomena, I were charged with picking the pockets of my victims, or of something else, the charging with which, when unproved, is punishable by law, if not wholly demonstrated, would Prof. Sidgwick, you think, have a leg to stand upon in a court of justice ? Assuredly not. Then what right has he to speak publicly (and have his opinion printed) of my deceptions, fraud, dishonesty, and tricks ? Shall you maintain that it is fair of him, or honest, or even legal, to take advantage of his exceptional position and the nature of the question involved to slander me, or, if you prefer, I shall say, to charge me thus and dishonor my name on such wretched evidence as they have through Hodgson ? . . . Can you blame, after this ----- and other Russian Theosophists for saying that the chief motive of their wrath against me is that I am a Russian ? I know it is not so, but they, the Russians, like------, and the Odessa Theosophists, cannot be made to see the cause of such a glaring injustice in any other light.

“Please read . . . about their disclaiming any intention of imputing wilful deception to poor Olcott. Following this there comes the question of envelopes in which the Mahatma's writing was found — which might have been previously opened by me or others. Letters from the Masters received at Adyar when I was in Europe ' might' have been in all cases arranged by Damodar. The disappearance of the Vega packet ' can be easily accounted for ' by the fact of a venetianed door near Babula's room — a door, by-the-by, which was hermetically covered and nailed over (walls and door) with my large carpet, if you remember. But we shall suppose that the Vega packet was made to evaporate fraudulently at Bombay. How then shall Mr Hodgson, Myers & Co. account for its immediate instantaneous reappearance at Howrah, Calcutta, in the presence of Mrs and Colonel Gordon and of our Colonel, if the said Colonel is so obviously immaculate that the Dons of S.P.R. felt bound to offer him public excuses. One thing is obvious : either Colonel Gordon or Mrs Gordon or Colonel Olcott was, one of them, at that time my confederate, or they, the gods of S.P.R., are making fools of themselves. Surely, as ------says, no sane man with sound reasoning, acquainted with the circumstances of the Vega case, or the broken plaster portrait case, or Hübbe Schleiden's letter, received on the German railway while I was in London, and so many other cases, shall ever dare to write himself down such an ass as to say that while I am a full-blown fraud, and all my phenomena tricks, that the Colonel is to be charged simply with ' credulity and inaccuracy in observation and inference.' ”

In a tone of bitter mockery, after some scornful language concerning the intelligence of the S.P.R. inquirers, she goes on to leave her “scientific friends” to assume that Isis Unveiled, and all the best articles in the Theosophist, as every letter from both Mahatmas, whether in English, French, Telegu, Sanscrit, or Hindi were written by Mme. H. P. Blavatsky. She is willing to have it believed, that for more than twenty years she has bamboozled the most intellectual men of the century in Russia, America, India, and especially in England. Why, genuine phenomena, when the author herself of the one thousand bogus manifestations on record before the world, is such a living incarnated phenomenon as to do all that and much more. . . .

“Why should I complain ? Has not Master left it to my choice to either follow the dictates of Lord Buddha, who enjoins us not to fail to feed even a starving serpent, scorning all fear lest it should turn round and bite the hand that feeds it; or to face Karma, which is sure to punish him who turns away from the sight of sin and misery, or fails to relieve the sinner or the sufferer. . . . Am I greater or in any way better than were St Germain and Cagliostro, Paracelsus, and so many other martyrs whose names appear in the Encyclopedia of the nineteenth century over the meritorious title of charlatans and impostors? It shall be the Karma of the blind and wicked judges, not mine.

“... I can do more good by remaining in the shadow, than by becoming prominent once more in the movement. Let me hide in unknown places, and write, write, write, and teach whoever wants to learn. Since Master forced me to live, let me live and die now in relative peace. It is evident He wants me still to work for the T.S., since He does not allow me to make a contract with ----- [mentioning a foreign publisher, who had offered her very favourable pecuniary terms] to write exclusively for his journal and paper. He would not permit me to sign such a contract last year in Paris when proposed, and does not sanction it now, for He says my time shall have to be occupied otherwise. Ah ! the cruel wicked injustice that has been done to me all round. Fancy the horrid calumny of the C.C.M. [Christian College Magazine], whose statement that I sought to defraud Mr Jacob Sassoon of Rs. 10,000 in that Poona business has been allowed to go uncontradicted even by ----- and -----, who know as well as they are sure of their own existence that this special charge, at any rate, is the most abominable lying calumny.

“Who of the public knows that after having worked for and given my life to the progress of the Society for over ten years, I have been forced to leave India a beggar depending on the bounty of the Theosophist (my own journal, founded and created with my own money) for my daily support. I made out to be a mercenary impostor, a fraud for the sake of money, when thousands of my own money earned by my Russian articles have been given away, when for five years I have abandoned the price of "Isis" and the income of the Theosophist to support the Society. . . . Pardon me for saying all this and showing myself to be so selfish, but it is a direct answer to the vile calumny, and it is but right that the Theosophists in London should know of it.”

The assurances mentioned above that her time would be “otherwise occupied” in her German retreat than in writing stories and social articles for Russian magazines has been very fully vindicated. Within the last three months of 1885 she began to receive the occult “inspiration”, or whatever it may be called by people more or less acquainted with the circumstances of her higher life, required for the production of the long-promised book on "The Secret Doctrine". This book was foreshadowed by notices in the Theosophist as far back as the beginning of February 1884. It was then proposed that the work should be “a new version of "Isis Unveiled", with a new arrangement of the matter, large and important additions, and copious notes and commentaries” ; and Mme. Blavatsky's intention in the first instance had been that it should be issued in monthly parts, beginning in March 1884, or, provided so early a date could not be managed, in June. Mme. Blavatsky's visit to Europe, however, in the spring of that year interfered with the undertaking, and in Europe the multifarious claims made on her time stood fatally in its way. Then, in the summer of 1884, the “Coulomb scandal” exploded, and, with all its exasperating consequences, operated to render it impossible for her to begin a task claiming steady and prolonged devotion, concentration of purpose, and something like tranquillity of mind.

"The Secret Doctrine" was still untouched in September 1885, when my wife and I saw her in Germany. We found her settled in an economical way, but in comfort and quietude, cheered just then by the companionship of her aunt, Mme. Fadeef, to whom she is warmly attached. She was naturally seething with indignation at the wrongs she had suffered at the hands of the S.P.R. committee, even though the cruel and calumnious report by Mr Hodgson, on which they professed to have based their conclusions, had not been finally perfected. On the whole, however, she seemed in better health and spirits than we expected, and some premonitory symptoms indicated that the preparation of "The Secret Doctrine" might shortly be set on foot.

A month or so after our return to London in October I received a note from Mme. Blavatsky, in the course of which she wrote: —

“I am very busy on Secret D. The thing at New York [meaning the circumstances under which "Isis Unveiled" was written] is repeated — only far clearer and better. I begin to think it shall vindicate us. Such pictures, panoramas, scenes, antediluvian dramas, with all that! Never saw or heard better.”

Early in December I received a letter from the Countess Wachtmeister, then staying on a visit with Mme. Blavatsky. The Countess is an English lady, though bearing a foreign title, herself gifted with clairvoyant faculties of a high order, lifting her entirely out of the reach of the clumsy scraps of materialistic evidence with which the denser-minded enemies of the Theosophic cause were so busily assailing her trusted and esteemed friend. She wrote: —

“The Secret Doctrine contains a translation of ------ [certain occult writings of which the world at large knows nothing]. The public at present will have but a faint