2 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). 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, was a member of a secret society commonly known by the initials 'HB of L (Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor)^[8]. 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 'Mahātmā' 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 'H B 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 'H B of L' never had any official or unofficial contact with the Theosophical Society.^[15] More than that, the 'H B 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

'HB of L, one must no doubt seek them in organizations which have been known under various other names, notably P.B. Randolph's 'Fraternity of the Eulis' (see p28, n4; _Eulis_ is a deliberate alteration of _Eleusis_), and even in the mysterious 'Order of Ansaireh' to which the latter was connected; on this point we also refer to what we said in _The Spiritist Fallacy_ (pt. 1, chap. 2). In addition, we can now say that unpublished documents concerning the 'HB of L' were given to us by F.-Ch. Barlet, who had been its official representative for France after having been one of the founders of the first French branch of the Theosophical Society; he broke with the Society in 1888 following dissensions of which we find echoes in the review _Le Lotus_.

The hostility of the Theosophical Society toward the 'HB of L' was particularly manifest in 1886, in connection with a plan for a kind of agricultural colony in America by members of the 'HB of L. At that time Mme Blavatsky found a favor-able occasion to avenge herself for her exclusion in 1878, and she manoeuvred in such a way that she succeeded in denying the Secretary-General of the Order, T.H. Burgoyne, access to the territory of the United States, sending to the American authorities documents establishing that he had once been convicted of fraud. But Peter Davidson, who bore the title of 'Provincial Grand-Master of the North, went to settle with his family at Loudsville, Georgia, where he died some years ago. After the 'HB of L' had already 'gone back to sleep, he founded a new organization called the 'Order of the Cross and the Serpent' (an allusion to the biblical symbol of the 'Serpent of Bronze') which published as mouthpiece a review called _The Morning Star_. It is Peter Davidson who in July 1887 wrote F.-Ch. Barlet the letter we quoted above. Here is another extract from this same letter:

> It should also be noted that since the arrival of Mme Blavatsky and Col. Olcott in India, the Theosophical Society is not and never has been under the direction or inspiration of the authentic and real Brotherhood of the Himalayas, but under that of a very infe-rior Order belonging to a Buddhist cult. Here I speak to you of something I know and hold on unquestionable authority; but if you have some doubt as to my statements, Alexander of Corfu possesses several letters from Mme Blavatsky in some of which she clearly confesses what I say to you.

The Buddhist Order in question here is most likely none other than the Mahā-Bodhi Samaj, that is to say the organization which had as its head the Rev. H. Sumangala, principal of the Vidyodaya Parivena of Colombo (see pp 104-105 and 169-170). A year later Peter Davidson wrote in another letter this somewhat enig-matic sentence: 'The true Adepts and the genuine Mahātmās are like the two poles of a magnet, although several Mahātmās are assuredly members of our Order; but they only appear as Mahātmās for very important reasons.

societies.^[16] Moreover, we have in our possession documents fur-nishing absolute proof of what we state here; in particular, a letter from one of the dignitaries of the 'H B 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 'H B 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 'H B 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 Pan-coast were vice-presidents, Mme Blavatsky being content with the modest role of secretary. Among the other members, we shall men-tion William Q. Judge, later to play an important role in the Theo-sophical 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 Swami Dayānanda Saraswati, 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 Saraswati 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 Saraswatī 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.