THE ORIGINS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
On leaving for America, where she arrived in New York on July 7, 1873, Mme Blavatsky claimed that she was 'controlled'-or 'guided' as the French spiritists would say-by a 'spirit' named John King. It is worth noting this curious fact, for the same name is invariably found in the manifestations of a number of fake mediums unmasked at about the same time, [1] almost as though these mediums were all acting under the same inspiration. What is also very significant in this respect is that in 1875 Blavatsky wrote:
I was sent from Paris to America in order to verify the phenomena and their reality and to show the deception of the spiritualist theory. [2]
Sent by whom? By the 'Mahātmās', as she was to later say, although at this time there had not yet been any mention of them, and moreover that she received her mission in Paris and not in India or Tibet.
On the other hand, it seems that when Blavatsky arrived in America she would ask all the persons she met whether they knew anyone named Olcott. [3] She finally met up with this Olcott on October 14, 1874, at the Chittenden farm (in Vermont), the home of the Eddy family where 'spirit materializations' and other phenomena of the same kind were taking place. Henry Steele Olcott was born in Orange (New Jersey) on August 2, 1832. A son of respectable farmers, he had at first been an agricultural engineer and then, during the Civil War, served in the military police, where he had earned the title of colonel, so easy to obtain in the United States. When the war was over he took to journalism, while dividing his leisure time between Masonic Lodges and spiritist societies. Working for several newspapers, especially the New York Sun and the New York Graphic, he wrote various articles on the Chittenden phenomena, [4] and it was probably through reading these articles that Mme Blavatsky finally learned the whereabouts of her future associate.
But who gave Mme Blavatsky the notion of contacting Olcott, a man without a particularly conspicuous status in the 'spiritist' world? What may offer the key to this mystery, if we discard the hypothesis of communication with the 'Mahātmās', an hypothesis which cannot be seriously upheld and which is no more than an after-the-fact explanation, is that Olcott already knew John King, if we are to believe the following, which he wrote in 1876 about this so-called 'spirit' to William Stainton Moses, an English spiritist well
known under the pseudonym M.A. Oxon: 'He has often been in London; in fact, I myself met him there in 1870.' In the correspondence where this sentence is found, and which Stainton Moses himself later published in his journal, [5] there are many assertions difficult to take seriously, and we often wonder whether Olcott was trying to fool others or was himself the dupe. For our part, we do not believe that he was always as naive as he wished to appear, or as the investigators of the Society of Psychical Research of London also thought in 1884; nor that he was as completely under the influence of Mme Blavatsky as were certain others, such as Judge and Sinnett for instance. Moreover, he himself declares that he is 'neither an enthusiastic novice nor a credulous fool,' defining his role as that of 'braying in order to attract people's attention,' so that his sincerity is quite dubious. However that may be, truth sometimes rises to the surface in spite of all the fantasies that overlay it. Thus, in a letter dated 1875, one reads: 'Try to get a private interview with John King; he is an Initiate and the frivolity of his speech and action hide serious business.' This is still quite vague, but in another letter (the same one where Olcott refers to his personal relationship with John King, while speaking of him in a way which, by and large, hints that he is nothing but a 'materialization') he says that this same John King is a member of a Masonic Lodge (the verb is used in the present tense), as was also Olcott himself, as well as his correspondent, the Reverend Stainton Moses, and also, as we have already said, Victor Michal, who was Blavatsky's first magnetizer.
We shall have other occasions further on to point out many more relations between the Theosophical Society and various branches of Masonry; but the point here is that it seems John King's name could very well have been a cover for a living man whose identity had to remain unknown. Was he the one who courted Mme Blavatsky and arranged her association with Olcott? It is at least highly probable, and in this case one must admit that this mysterious individual was acting on behalf of a no less mysterious party, which the following further confirms by showing other similar cases. However we do not claim to have resolved the question as to who John King was
and shall simply note that Olcott, in a passage from his Old Diary Leaves describing a 'phenomenon' produced by Mme Blavatsky in April 1875 (a sketch allegedly drawn by occult means in a notebook, showing a Masonic Rose-Cross jewel), links John King's name to that of a certain Henry de Morgan (these two names having apparently been written above the drawing in question). [6] This might be evidence, but we would not like to make too much of it. There was indeed a professor de Morgan who was president of the Mathematical Society of London and took an interest in psychism, but we do not think that it is he who is involved here. On the other hand, in a letter addressed to Solovioff dated February 1886, Blavatsky speaks of a certain M... who she claims had 'betrayed and ruined her by telling lies to the medium Home, who had brought discredit on her for the past ten years.' One may suppose that this initial 'M' refers to the same character, and it must be concluded that for some reason this Henry de Morgan-if this is his real name-supposedly deserted his former agent around 1875 or 1876 , that is to say around the same time the new 'miracles club' established in Philadelphia met with a setback of the same kind as that in Cairo, and for exactly the same reason, the discovery of Mme Blavatsky's numerous frauds. [7]
In fact, John King was no longer mentioned at that time and a notable change of direction was to be observed in Mme Blavatsky, a coincidence that confirms what we have just said. The main reason for this change was her encounter with a certain George H. Felt, who was introduced to her by a journalist named Stevens. This Felt, who claimed to be a mathematics teacher and Egyptologist, [8] was a member of a secret society commonly known by the initials 'H B of L' (Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor). [9] Now, although it played an important role in the production of the first phenomena of 'spiritualism' in America, this society was totally opposed to spiritist theories since its teachings claim that these phenomena are not caused by the spirits of the dead but by certain forces controlled by living people. It was on September 7, 1875, precisely, that John King was replaced as Mme Blavatsky's 'control' by another 'spirit' calling
himself by the Egyptian name Serapis, and who was soon reduced to being a mere 'elemental'. At this time the medium Dunglas Home publicly attacked Mme Blavatsky in a book entitled Incidents in My Life, and soon Blavatsky, who till then seemed to have been involved only in spiritism, was to declare with obvious insincerity that she 'never had been and never would be a professional medium', and that she had 'devoted her entire life to the study of the ancient Kabbalah, occultism, and occult sciences. [10] This was due to Felt's having recently affiliated her, as well as Olcott, with the 'HB of L': 'I belong to a mystical Society', she used to say a little earlier, 'but it does not follow that I have become an Apollonius of Tyana in skirts. [11] After this statement which expressly contradicts the story of her former 'initiation', she would add however that 'John King and I have been connected since ancient times, since long before he started materializing in London.' Without a doubt it was this 'spirit' that was supposed to have protected her since her childhood, a role then passed on to 'Mahātma' Morya, at which point she started talking about John King with the utmost contempt:
Like attracts like. There are several high-minded, pure, good men and women, known to me personally, who have passed years of their lives under the direct guidance and even protection of high 'Spirits', whether disembodied or planetary. But these Intelligences are not of the type of the John Kings and Ernests who figure in séance rooms. [12]
We will again come across Ernest later when we speak of Leadbeater, who, incidentally, sometimes claimed that the occult protection enjoyed by Mme Blavatsky during her youth was provided by 'fairies' and 'nature spirits'. Theosophists really need to agree on their stories in order to tally their assertions! But, following her own admission, what is one to make of Mme Blavatsky's 'purity' and 'spirituality' at the time she was 'controlled' by John King?
In order not to have to return again to this subject, let us now say that Mme Blavatsky and Olcott did not remain affiliated with the 'HB of L' for very long, and that they were expelled from this organization shortly before their departure from America. [13] This observation is important because the preceding facts have sometimes given rise to remarkable errors. For instance, in a study published a few years ago, [14] Dr J. Ferrand wrote the following in connection with the hierarchy existing among the members of the Theosophical Society:
Above the leaders who constitute the Oriental Theosophical School (another name for the 'esoteric section'), there is yet another secret society, recruited among these leaders, whose members are unknown but who sign their proclamations with the initials 'HB of L'
Knowing full well everything relating to the 'HB of L' (whose members, moreover, never sign their writings with these initials but only with a 'swastika') we can assert that, since the above-mentioned events, the 'HB of L' never had any official or unofficial contact with the Theosophical Society. [15] More than that, the 'HB of L'
was in constant conflict with the Theosophical Society as well as with the English Rosicrucian societies that we shall speak of later, although certain individuals could have belonged to these different organizations simultaneously, which may seem strange under such conditions, but is not such an unusual thing in the history of secret
societies. [16] Moreover, we have in our possession documents furnishing absolute proof of what we state here; in particular, a letter from one of the dignitaries of the 'HB of L' dated July 1887 in which 'esoteric Buddhism'-that is, the Theosophist doctrine-is described as 'an attempt to pervert the Western mind,' and where among other things it is also said that 'the true and real Adepts do not teach the doctrines of 'karma' and 'reincarnation' emphasized by the authors of Esoteric Buddhism and other Theosophical works,' and that 'neither in these aforesaid works nor in the pages of the Theosophist do we find an accurate view or the esoteric meaning of these important issues.' Perhaps the division of the 'HB of L' into an 'outer circle' and an 'inner circle' gave Blavatsky the idea of creating in her own Society an 'exoteric section' and an 'esoteric section', but the teachings of these two organizations are in conflict on many essential points. In particular, the doctrine of the 'HB of L' is clearly 'anti-reincarnationist'. We shall come back to this subject when we speak of a passage from Isis Unveiled which really seems inspired by it, this work having been written by Mme Blavatsky at precisely the time now under consideration.
Let us now return to the course of events. On October 20, 1875, that is to say a little less than two months after Serapis made his entrance on stage, a society called 'Spiritualist Investigations' was founded in New York. Olcott was president, Felt and Dr Seth Pancoast were vice-presidents, Mme Blavatsky being content with the modest role of secretary. Among the other members, we shall mention William Q. Judge, later to play an important role in the Theosophical Society, and Charles Sotheran, one of the high dignitaries of American Freemasonry. And we may add in this connection that
General Albert Pike, Grand Master of the Scottish Rite for the southern jurisdiction of the United States (whose headquarters were then in Charleston), was also in touch with Blavatsky around that time. But these relations really seem to have had no sequel. It would seem in this case that Pike was more clear-sighted than many others, and that he quite quickly recognized with whom he was dealing. Since we have the opportunity to do so, let us add that Albert Pike's reputation as a Masonic writer was quite overrated: a considerable part of his major work Morals and Dogma of Freemasonry is clearly plagiarized from Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie by the French occultist Éliphas Lévi.
By November 17, 1875, the above-mentioned society, scarcely two weeks old, was changed into the 'Theosophical Society' on the proposal of its treasurer Henry J. Newton, a wealthy spiritualist who certainly knew nothing about theosophy, but was pleased by this title without really knowing why. The origin of this name is thus purely accidental, since it was accepted only to please a member commanding attention because of his large fortune. Moreover, there are plenty of examples of rich people being seduced from time to time by the leaders of the Theosophical Society, who succeeded in extracting from them subsidies for their own benefit and that of their organization by promising all kinds of wonders. This is the only reason why Felt, whose opposition was dismissed, would have preferred the title 'Egyptological Society'. After having given a lecture on the 'Egyptian Kabbalah', Felt, who had promised three more, suddenly disappeared, leaving various papers with Mme Blavatsky; no doubt his mission was fulfilled. As for Newton, it was not long before he resigned from the Society, after having observed, along with Judge R.B. Westbrook, the fraudulent acts Mme Blavatsky committed with the help of a certain Mrs Phillips and her servant. [17]
The declaration of principles of the first Theosophical Society began as follows:
The title of the Theosophical Society explains the goals and desires of the founders: they aspire to attain knowledge of the nature and attributes of the Supreme Power and of the highest spirits by means of physical procedures [sic]. In other words, they hope that by going deeper into ancient philosophies than modern science has done, they will be rendered capable of gaining-for themselves and for other investigators-proof of the existence of an invisible universe, of the nature of its inhabitants if there are any, of the laws ruling them, and of their relationships with mankind.
This proves that the founders knew hardly anything of theosophy, as shown by the whimsical definition given in Webster's Dictionary:
Alleged relation to God and the higher spirits, and subsequent acquisition of a superhuman science through physical procedures, the theurgic operations of the ancient Platonists or the chemical methods of the German fire philosophers.
From the declaration of principles we again extract the following:
Regardless of the private opinions of its members, the Society has no dogma to impose, no worship to propagate. . . Its founders, starting with the hope rather than the certitude of reaching the goal of their desires, are motivated solely by the sincere intention to learn the truth, wherever it may come from, and they consider that no obstacle, however serious, no affliction, however great, could ever be an excuse for giving up their aim.
This is indeed the language of people who seek, and not of those who know; how then can all this be reconciled with the extraordinary claims later expressed by Mme Blavatsky? It seems more and more clear that the initiation she supposedly received in Tibet was a pure invention, and that contrary to Countess Wachtmeister's allegations she had not studied in Egypt the mysteries of the Book of the Dead, which was probably first made known to her by Felt.
However, after a short while yet another change took place: Serapis, who had replaced John King, was in turn replaced by a 'Kashmiri brother'. What had really happened? Through the agency of a
certain Hurrychund Chintamon [18] (who for reasons unknown to us later inspired real terror in Mme Blavatsky), Olcott and Blavatsky had concluded an 'offensive and defensive alliance'[19] with the Arya Samāj, an association founded in 1870 in India by Swāmi Dayānanda Saraswatī, and their Theosophical Society was to be regarded from then on as constituting a section of this association. When her Isis Unveiled appeared, Blavatsky, distorting the truth as she so often did, wrote regarding this:
I have been given the rank of Arch Auditor by the chief Masonic Lodge of India; this is the oldest of all Masonic Lodges and is said to have existed before Jesus Christ. [20]
Now the Arya Samāj had only recently been created and had no Masonic character whatsoever; and furthermore, there has never been any Masonry in India other than that introduced by the English. The goal of the Arya Samāj was 'to bring religion and worship back to the primitive Vedic simplicity.' Like several other organizations formed in the same country during the nineteenth century, particularly the Brahma Samāj and its various branches (which all failed in spite of the support provided by the English because of their anti-traditional tendencies), the Arya Samāj proceeded from a 'reforming' spirit quite comparable to Western Protestantism. Was not Dayānanda Saraswati called 'the Luther of India'? [21] Such a man certainly cannot be regarded as an authority on the Hindu tradition; some people went so far as to say that 'his philosophical ideas did not even go as far as those of Herbert Spencer, [22] which we believe is a little exaggerated.
But why should Dayānanda Saraswatī want to attach himself to Blavatsky and her Society? In the declaration of principles of November 17, 1875, after having written that 'the Brahma Samāj has made a serious start at the colossal work of purifying the Hindu religions from the froth that centuries of scheming priests had infused into them', the following was added:
The founders, seeing that all attempts to acquire the desired science is thwarted in other countries, turn to the East, whence all religions and philosophical systems are derived.
If the Brahma Samāj, already quite divided at the time, did not respond to these proposals, the Arya Samāj did, and as we have just said, these two organizations arose from the same original tendencies and had an almost identical goal. Besides, Mme Blavatsky herself gave as another reason for this alliance that
all Brahmins-orthodox or otherwise-are terribly opposed to spirits, mediums, necromantic evocations, or relations with the dead in whatever form. [23]
This assertion is perfectly correct, and we have no difficulty believing that no such alliance would ever have been possible were it not for the anti-spiritualist attitude that Mme Blavatsky had proclaimed for some time-more precisely since her affiliation to the 'H B of L'. However, whereas orthodox Brahmins would have considered such an agreement on a purely negative point a highly inadequate guarantee, it was not the same for the 'others', or at least for one of them, this Dayānanda Saraswatī whom Olcott at the time called 'one of the noblest living Brothers'; [24] and whose correspondence in fact, transmitted in a completely natural way, was soon to be transformed into 'astral messages' emanating from Tibetan 'Mahātmās'. However, this same Dayānanda Saraswati was to put an end to his alliance with the Theosophical Society in 1882 by denouncing Blavatsky, with whom he had meanwhile come into close contact, as a 'trickster', declaring that 'she knew nothing of the occult science of the ancient Yogis
and her so-called phenomena were nothing but mesmerism, skilful preparations and dexterous conjuring,' which was indeed the truth. [25]
This is an opportune place to point out that the names of Mme Blavatsky's so-called 'spiritual guides'-first John King, then Serapis, and finally the 'Kashmiri brother'-in short only express the various influences that successively worked on her. This is the very real backdrop to the wild imaginings with which she surrounded herself, and till now too little notice has generally been taken of these relationships which existed at the beginning, as well as later on, between the Theosophical Society and certain other more or less secret organizations. This all too neglected side of its history is however most revealing. From all that we have shown, one can rightly conclude that in many circumstances Mme Blavatsky was above all a 'subject' or an instrument in the hands of occult individuals or groups using her personality as a cover, while others in turn were instruments in her hands. This explains although it does not excuse her impostures, and those who believe that she made it all up, that she did everything by herself and on her own initiative, are nearly as mistaken as those who, on the contrary, have faith in her claims concerning the alleged 'Mahātmās'. There is still something else that may shed fresh light on these aforesaid influences: we mean the action of certain Rosicrucian or supposedly Rosicrucian organizations which moreover have always maintained excellent relations with the Theosophical Society, contrary to those we have been speaking about.