6 MADAME BLAVATSKY AND SOLOVIOFF
ON HER RETURN TO EUROPE, Mme Blavatsky first settled at Würzburg, in Germany. Once again, certain noteworthy events took place there. Blavatsky had invited Solovioff to spend some time with her, with the promise that she would teach him every-thing and show him as many phenomena as he liked;[1] but Solovioff was suspicious, and each time Blavatsky tried something she was caught out and her fraud exposed.[2] This was all the easier because her only available accomplices at the time were Bavaji, who had accompanied her on her trip, Dr Hartmann, and a certain Miss Fly-nes. During a visit to Paris in September 1885, Bavaji had told Mme Emilie de Morsier, then secretary of the Paris branch who was soon to resign, that 'as Mme Blavatsky knew that she could only win over Solovioff through occultism, she kept on promising to teach him new mysteries,' and that she would sometimes ask, 'But what more can I tell him? Bavaji, save me, find something; I don't know what to invent.' Mme de Morsier wrote down these statements and some while later handed them to Solovioff under her signature. In 1892 Solovioff in turn published the account of all he had seen, along with Mme Blavatsky's letters and the oral confessions she had made to him, in the form of articles later compiled in a book and translated into English by Dr Leaf under the title _A Modern Priestess of Isis_; this translation was published under the auspices of the Society for Psychical Research.
One day, Solovioff found Bavaji in a hypnotic trance, struggling to write something in Russian, a language totally unknown to him; it was allegedly a message dictated by a 'Mahātmā', but unfortu- nately a gross error had slipped into the text: because of a few miss- ing letters, the sentence 'Blessed are they that believe' had become 'Blessed are they that lie.'[3] On seeing this, Mme Blavatsky flew into a terrible rage and contended that Bavaji had been fooled by an 'ele- mental.'[4] On another occasion an involuntary blunder by Mme Blavatsky revealed to Solovioff the secret of the 'astral hand-bell':
One day her famous 'silver bell' was heard, when suddenly some- thing fell beside her on the ground. I hurried to pick it up—and found in my hands a pretty little piece of silver, delicately worked and strangely shaped. Helena Petrovna changed countenance, and snatched the object from me. I coughed significantly, smiled, and turned the conversation to indifferent matters.[5]
On another occasion, Solovioff found a packet of Chinese envelopes in a drawer, just like those which usually contained the so-called let- ters of the 'Masters'.[6]
Solovioff ended by telling Mme Blavatsky that it was time to put an end to this sham and that he had been convinced of the false- hood of these phenomena for a long time; but in order to provoke her to confide further, he added:
To play the part you play, to make crowds follow you, to interest the learned, to found 'societies' in distant lands, to start an entire movement—good gracious! Why, it is all so out of the common, that I am enraptured at you against my will! In all my life I have never met so extraordinary a woman as you, and I am sure I shall never meet another. Yes, Helena Petrovna, I admire you, as a real, mighty, Herculean force....[7]
Taken in by such flattery, Mme Blavatsky answered:
It was not for nothing that we met.... Olcott is useful in his place; but he is generally such an ass [sic], such a blockhead! How often he has let me in, how many blunders has he caused me, by his incurable stupidity! If you will only come to my aid, we will astonish the world between us, we shall have everything in our hand![8]
It was at this juncture that Solovioff obtained the names of the real authors of Koot Hoomi's letters; he even persuaded Mme Blavatsky to show him the magical hand-bell she concealed under her shawl; but she did not let him examine the mechanism at leisure. In con- clusion, Blavatsky said to him:
Prepare the ground for me to work in Russia. I thought I should never go back to my own land; but now it is possible. Some peo- ple are doing all they can there, but you can do more than any one now. Write more, louder, about the Theosophical Society, rouse their interest. And 'create' Koot Hoomi's Russian letters; I will give you all the material for them.[9]
Solovioff could certainly have done all that Mme Blavatsky asked, for he was the son of a famous historian, and himself a writer he also held position in the Russian Court. But far from accepting, he took leave of her two or three days later and left for Paris, vowing that he would not attempt anything in her favor either in literary circles and the Russian newspapers, or with the Society for Psychical Research, whose report was then ready for printing.
After some time Blavatsky sent Solovioff the letter from which we have already produced some excerpts, and thinking that he would communicate it to some members of the Society, she threatened to proclaim publicly the nonexistence of the 'Mahātmās', all the while talking a great deal about her private life, which was of no interest to anyone. A few days later she wrote yet another letter, begging her compatriot not to 'betray' her. In reply to this, on February 16, 1886, Solovioff sent his resignation to Oakley, secretary of the Society of Adyar, giving as his main reason that 'Mme Blavatsky wanted to make use of my name and made me sign and publish the account of a phenomenon obtained fraudulently in the month of April 1884.' Blavatsky habitually behaved in this manner and thought she had her dupes under her control because of their signatures. She had said to Solovioff:A
Would you believe that all this time, before and after the Theosophical Society's foundation, I have not met more than two or three men who knew how to observe and see and remark what was going on around them? It is simply amazing. At least nine out of ten people are entirely devoid of the capacity of observation and of the power of remembering accurately what took place even a few hours before. How often it has happened that, under my direction and revision, minutes of various occurrences and phenomena have been drawn up; lo, the most innocent and conscientious people, even skeptics, even those who actually suspected me, have signed _en toutes lettres_ as witnesses at the foot of the minutes! And all the time I knew that what had happened was not in the least what was stated in the minutes. [10]
If like many others Solovioff had signed, there were still some exceptions; indeed, this is what Dr Charles Richet wrote to Solovioff on March 12, 1893:
I met Mme Blavatsky in Paris in 1884, through Mme de Barrau.... [11] When I saw you, you told me: 'Reserve judgment. She has shown me things that appear to be really astonishing, I have not yet made up my mind, but I do believe this is an extraordinary woman, endowed with exceptional faculties. Wait and I will give you more detailed explanations.' I waited and your explanations were quite in conformity with what I had first supposed, that she was undoubtedly a hoaxer—certainly very intelligent, but of questionable integrity. The examinations published by the English Society for Psychical Research were soon released and there was no more room for doubt. This whole thing appears quite simple to me. She was clever, shrewd, sometimes juggled ingeniously, and at first baffled us all. However, I defy anyone to quote one single line by me, printed or handwritten, which conveys anything but enormous doubt and prudent reserve. To be truthful, I never believed seriously in her power, because in terms of experience, the only true observation that I could admit, she never showed me anything conclusive. [12]
It would have been preferable had Dr Richet always shown as much precaution and insight as he did at that time, but he too was later reduced to signing statements about mediumistic phenomena that were of as much worth as those of Mme Blavatsky, and about 'materializations' that were in every respect comparable to those of John King and Babula's 'Mahātmās out of muslin'.
Solovioff's information confirming Hodgson's report brought about the resignation of Mme de Morsier, Jules Baissac, and the other most committed members of the Paris branch _Isis_, [13] which was organized in 1884 under the presidency of a former member of the Commune, Louis Dramard, a close friend of Benoît Malon and his colleague at the _Revue Socialiste_[14] and it was not long before this branch had to be dissolved, Dramard attributing this outcome to the machinations of the 'clerics'.[15] To replace _Isis_, another branch was formed a little later by Arthur Arnould,[16] also a former 'Communard'[17] (as was also Edmond Bailly, editor of Theosophist publications); it was given the distinctive title _Hermes_. Among its early members were Dr Gérard Encausse (Papus) who acted as secretary, and several occultists from his school.[18] However, in 1890 Papus and his followers resigned or were expelled following a disagreement of which the causes were never completely clarified. Papus himself later claimed that after resigning he had discovered extremely serious facts which supposedly drove him to request expulsion.[19] In any event, this incident brought about the dissolution of _Hermes_ in turn, which was decided on September 8, 1890, and almost immediately another reshuffling took place. The new branch, called _Le Lotus_, was also presided over by Arthur Arnould, 'under the supreme guidance of Mme Blavatsky, and in 1892 it was in turn transformed into 'Loge Ananta'. Subsequently, on several occasions the Theosophists accused the French occultists of 'practicing black magic'; their adversaries responded by reproaching them for their 'pride' and 'mental intoxication'. Quarrels of this kind are far from re-formed under this name. Moreover, within the space of a few years there were so many reorganizations and dissolutions that it is rather difficult to identify them all. We have given only a brief summary of the disputes that took place among the French Theosophists at this time, and on which the review _Le Lotus_ gives the most edifying details.
rare among the different schools that can be called 'neo-spiritualist', and they almost always exhibit violence and incredible bitterness. As we remarked earlier, all of these people preaching 'universal brotherhood' would do well to begin by showing more 'fraternal' feelings in their relationships with one another.[20]
As for the accusation of 'black magic' in particular, this is a charge levelled most frequently and almost indiscriminately by the Theosophists against all those whom they consider their enemies or rivals. We have already seen this accusation raised against the members of the Order of the Dew and Light, and we shall find another such instance further on in a dispute between Theosophists themselves. Moreover, Blavatsky herself was the first to set an example of a similar attitude, for in her works she often refers to 'black magicians, whom she also calls _Dougpas_ and 'Brothers of the Shadow', and whom she opposes to the 'Adepts' of the 'Great White Lodge'. In reality the _Dougpas_ are the red Lamas of Tibet, that is, Lamas of the original rite prior to Tsongkhapa's reform; the yellow Lamas of the reformed rite are called _Gelougpas_, and moreover there is no antagonism between the two. One may wonder why Mme Blavatsky harbored so much hatred toward the _Dougpas_; perhaps it was simply because she had failed in an attempt to establish relations with them, which might have led her to feel deep frustration. We cannot assert this definitively, but at least it seems the most likely explanation; it also corresponds most clearly to the irascible and vindictive character that even her best friends could not fail to recognize in the founder of the Theosophical Society.