THE

OCCULT WOULD PHENOMENA,'

AND

TEE SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH.

BY

A. P. SINNETT,Anthor of "The Occult World," "Esoteric Buddhism,"

WITH

A PBOTEST

BY

M A D A M E B L A V A T S K Y .

LONDON:

G E O E G E EEDWAT,15, Y O H K S T K E E T , C O V E N T G A R D E N .

188C.

THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA,'

THE Report which lias been addressed by Mr. E.Hodgson to the Committee of the Psychical ResearchSociety, " appointed to investigate phenomena con-nected with the Thcosophical Society," is publishedfor the first time in the December number of the Pro-ceedings of that Society,—six months after the meet-ings were held at which the Committee concerned an-nounced its general adhesion to the conclusionsMr. Hodgson had reached. In a letter addressed toLight on the 12th of October, I protested against theaction thus taken by the Psychical Research Societyin publicly stigmatising Mine. Blavatsky as havingbeen guilty of "a long-continued combination withother persons to produce, by ordinary means, a seriesof apparent marvels for the support of the Theosophicmovement," while holding back the documentaryevidence on the strength of which their opinion hadbeen formed.

In a note to the present Report (page 276) Mr.Hodgson says: " I have now in my hands numerousdocuments which are concerned with the experiencesof Mr. Hume and others in connection with Mme.Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society. Thesedocuments, including the K. II. MSS. above referredto, did not reach me till August, and my examinationof them, particularly of the K. H. MSS., has involved

4 THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA."

:i considerable delay in the production of this Report."In other words, Mr. Hodgson has employed the timeduring which his Report has been improperly withheldin endeavouring to amend and strengthen it so as torender it better able to bear out the committee's hastyendorsement of the conclusions he reached before heobtained the evidence he now puts forward.

But even if the committee had been in possession—which it was not—of the Report as it now stands, itsaction in promulgating the conclusions it announcedon the 24th of June, would have been no less unwar-rantable and premature. The committee has not atany stage of its proceedings behaved in accordancewith the judicial character it has arrogated to itself.It appointed as its agent to inquire, in India, into theauthenticity of statements relating to occurrencesextending over several years—alleged to have takenplace at various parts of India, and in which manypersons, including natives of India and devotees ofoccult science in that country were mixed up—agentleman of great, of perhaps too great, confidencein his own abilities, but, at all events, wholly un-familiar with the characteristics of Indian life and thecomplicated play of feeling in connection with whichthe Theosophical movement has been developed inIndia during recent years.

Nothing in his Report, even as it now stands—amended with the protracted assistance of moreexperienced persons unfriendly to the Theosophicalmovement—suggests that even yet he has begun tounderstand the primary conditions of the mysterieshe set himself to unravel. He has naively supposed

1

II

THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA." 5

that every one in India visibly devoted to the workof the Thcosophical Society might be assumed, onthat account, desirous oi' securing his good opinionand of persuading him that the alleged phenomenawere genuine, lie shows himself to have beenwatching their demeanour and stray phrases to catchadmissions that might be turned aeainst the Theo-

CJ "—

sophical case. He seems never to have suspectedwhat any more experienced inquirer would havebeen aware of from the beginning, that the Theo-sophical movement, in so far as it has been concernedwith making known to the world at large the existencein India of persons called Mahatmas—very far ad-vanced in the comprehension of occult science—and ofthe philosophical views they hold, has been onewhich many of the native devotees of these Mahatmasand many among the most ardent disciples andstudents of their occult teaching, have regarded withprofound irritation.

The traditional attitude of mind in which Indianoccultists regard their treasures of knowledge, is onein which devotion is largely tinged with jealousy ofall who would endeavour to penetrate the secrecy inwhich these treasures have hitherto been shrouded.These have been regarded as only the rightful acquire-ment of persons passing through the usual ordeals andprobations. The Thcosophical movement in India,however, involved a breach of this secrecy. The oldrules were infringed under an authority so great thatoccultists Avlio found themselves entangled with thework could not but submit. But in many cases suchsubmission has been no more than superficial. Any

THE " OCCULT WOULD PHENOMENA.'

IIone more intimately acquainted, than the agent of the

S. P. R., with the history and growth of the Theo- ^sr.phical Society would have been able to indicatemany persons among its most faithful native mem-bers, whose fidelity was owing entirely to the Mastersthey served, and not to the idea on which theywere employed—at all events not so far as it wasconnected with the demonstration of the fact thatabnormal physical phenomena could be produced byIndian proficients in occult science.

Now for such persons the notion that Europeanoutsiders, who had, as they conceived, so undeservedlybeen admitted to the inner arcana of Easternoccultism, were blundering into the belief that theyhad been deceived,—that there was no such thine as

' *—'

Indian occultism, that the Theosophical movementwas a sham and a delusion with which they would nomore concern themselves—was enchanting in its attrac-tions; and the arrivals in their midst of an exceedinglyself-reliant young man from England attempting theinvestigation of occult mysteries by the methods of aScotland Yard detective, and laid open by total un- H|familiarity with the tone and temper of modernoccultism to every sort of misapprehension, wasnaturally to them a source of intense satisfaction.Docs the committee of the S. P. R. imagine that thenative occultists of the Theosophical Society in Indiaare writhing at this moment under the judgmentit has passed ? I am quite certain, on the contrary,that for the most part they are chuckling over it withdelight. They may find the situation complicated asregards their relations with their Masters in so far as

THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA."

they have consciously contributed to the easy mis-direction of Mr. Hodgson's mind, but the ludicrousspectacle of himself which Mr. Hodgson furnishes inhis Report—where we see hiui catching up unfinishedsentences and pointing out weak places in the evidenceof some among the Indian clicks, against whom, if hehad better understood the task before him, he ought tohave been most on his guard—is, at all events, onewhich we can understand them to find amusing.

I regard the committee of the S. P. R.—Messrs.E. Gurney, F. W. H. Myers, F. Podmorc, H. Siclgwick,and J. II. Stack—much more to blame for presumingto pass judgment by the light of their own unaidedreflections on the raw and misleading report suppliedto them by Mr. Hodgson, than he for his part is toblame, even for misunderstanding so lamentablythe problems he set out naturally ill-qualified to in-vestigate. It would have been easy for them to haveculled in any of several people in London, qualified todo so by long experience of the Theosophical move-ment, to report in their turn on the prima fade case, somade out against the authenticity of the Theosophicalphenomena, before proceeding to pass judgment on thewhole accusation in the hearing of the public at large.We have all heard of cases in which judges think itunnecessary to call on the defence; but these havegenerally been cases in which the judges have decidedagainst the theory of the prosecution. The com-mittee of the S. P. 11. furnish us with what is probablyan unprecedented example of a judicial refusal to heara defence on the ground that the ex parte statementof the prosecutor has been convincing by itself. The

8 THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.

committee brooded, however, in secret over thereport of their agent, consulted no one in a positionto open their eyes as to the erroneous method onwhich Mr. Hodgson had gone to work, and concludedtheir but too independent investigation by denouncingas one of the most remarkable impostors in history—a lady held in the highest honour by a considerablebody of persons, including old friends and relations ofunblemished character, and who has undeniably givenup station and comfort to struggle for long years inthe service of the Theosophical cause amidst obloquyand privation.

She is witnessed against chiefly for Mr. Hodgson,as any one who will read his Report Avill sec, in spiteof his affected indifference to their testimony, by twopersons who endeavour to blacken her character byfirst exhibiting themselves as engaged in fraud anddeception, and by then accusing her of having been baseenough to make such people as themselves her con-federates. These are the persons whom his Reportshows Mr. Hodgson to have made the principal alliesof his inquiry. It is on the strength of writings ob-tained from such persons that the committee of theS. P. R. chiefly proceeds in coming to the conclusionthat Mine. Blavatsky is an impostor. And this courseis pursued by a body of men who, in reference toPsychical phenomena at large (which the designationof their society would suggest that they are concernedwith) decline all testimony, however apparently over-whelming, which comes from spiritualistic mediumstainted by receiving money for the display of theircharacteristics. I am not suggesting that they ought

THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA." 9

to be careless ia. accepting such testimony, but merelythat they have violated the principles they profess—when the repression of unacceptable evidence is atstake—in a case in which, by their disregard, it waspossible to frame an indictment against persons—whom I am not justified in assuming that they wereprejudiced against from the first, but whom, at allevents, they finished by condemning unheard.

And going further than this, they have not hesitatedto publish, with all the authority their proceedingscan confer, a groundless and monstrous invention con-cerning Mine. Blavatsky, which Mr. Hodgson putsiorward at the conclusion of his report to prop up itsobvious weakness as regards the whole hypothesis onwhich it rests. For it is evident that there is apowerful presumption against any theory that imputesconscious imposture and vulgar trickery to a personwho, on the fac(3 of things, has devoted her life to aphilanthropic idea, at the manifest sacrifice of alL theconsiderations which generally supply motives of actionto mankind. Mr. Hodgson is alive to the necessity offurnishing Mmc. Blavatsky with a motive as degradedas the conduct he has been taught by M. and Mme.Coulomb to believe her guilty of, and he triumphs overthe difficulty by suggesting that she may be a Russianpolitical agent, working in India to foster disloyalty tothe British Government. It is nothing to Mr. Hodgsonthat she has notoriously been doing the reverse ; thatshe lias frequently assured the natives orally, bywritings, at public meetings, and in letters that can beproduced, that with all its faults the British Govern-ment is the best available for India, and repeatedly

10 THE "OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.'

from the point of view of one speaking en connaisancede cause she has declared that the Russian, would beimmeasurably worse. It is nothing to Mr. Hodgsonthat her life has been passed coram populo to analmost ludicrous extent ever since she has been inIndia, that her whole energies and work have beenemployed on the Theosophic cause, or that theGovernment of India, after looking into the matterwith the help of its police when she first came to thecountry, soon read the riddle aright, and abandonedall suspicion of her motives. Mr. Hodgson is carelessof the fact that every one who has known her for anylength of time laughs at the absurdity of his hypothesis.He has obtained from his guide and counsellor—Mine. Coulomb—a fragment of Mme. Blavatsky'shandwriting, picked up, it would seem, some yearsago, and cherished for any use that might ultimatelybe made of it—which refers to Russian politics, andreads like part of an argument in favour of theRussian advance in Central Asia. This is enough forthe Psychical Researcher, and the text of this docu-ment appears in his Report in support of his scandalousinsinuation against Mme. Blavatsky's integrity. Thesimple explanation of the paper is, that it is evidentlya discarded fragment from a long translation of ColonelGrodekoff's Travels in Central Asia (or whatever titlethe series bore) which Mine. Blavatsky made at myrequest for the Pioneer (the Indian Governmentorgan), of which I was at that time Editor. I willnot delay this pamphlet to write to India and get thedates at which the GrodekolF series of articles ap-peared in the Pioneer. They ran for some weeks^

THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA." II

and must have appeared in one of the latter years ofthe last decade, or possibly in 1880. By applying tothe Pioneer printers, Mr. Hodgson could perhapsobtain, if the MS. of this translation has been pre-served, several hundred pages of Mine. Blavatsky'swriting, blazing with sentiments of the most ardentAnglo-phobia. It is most likely, as I say, that thepilfered slip of which he is so proud, was sonic rejectedpage from that translation, unless, indeed, which wouldbe more amusing still, it should, happen to have fallenfrom some other Russian translations which Mine.Blavatsky, to my certain knowledge, once made forthe Indian Foreign Ollicc durinir one of her visits too o

Simla, when she made the acquaintance of some ofthe officials in that department, and was employed todo some work in its service.

I venture to think that if Mme. Blavatsky had notbeen known to be too ill-supplied with money toclaim redress at the costly bar of British justice—ifshe had not been steeped to the lips in the flavour, soungrateful to British law courts, of Psychic mystery,the committee of the S. P. R. would hardly havethought it well to accuse her, in a published document,of infamous conduct, which, if she were really guiltyof it, would render her a public foe in the land of heradoption and an object of scorn to honourable men—at the flippant suggestion of their private agent indesperate need of an explanation for conclusionswhich no amount of pedantically ordered circum-stances could render, without it, otherwise than in-credible ;

12 THE "OCCULT WOULD PHENOMENA.

II.

I now pass on to examine in detail that portion ofMr. Hodgson's Report which affects to criticise inyown narrative of phenomena recorded in the Occ/dtWorld. I shall neither weary the reader nor myself,by expanding this pamphlet into a detailed reply tothe whole catalogue of minute conjectures whichMr. Hodgson has put together in his Report whileabusing the hospitality which was extended to him atthe head-quarters of the Theosophical Society at Adyar,and while leading the guileless representatives ofthe movement in Madras to suppose, that by openingtheir hearts and records to his inspection, by givinghim the freest access to their apartments and theirdiaries, they would best persuade him of the simpletruthfulness of their lives and the improbability thatthey were slaving amidst penury and self-sacrifice forthe propagation of an empty delusion and the crueldeception of their best friends. It will be enough formy present purpose if I blow out the keystone of theclumsy arch he has constructed ; if I show the futilityof the attempt he has made to discredit the testimonyI have myself given of the occult phenomena thathave passed under my own observation. If my recordstands, Mr. Hodgson's general theory must fall to theground. He has recognised this,and has directed aconsiderable portion of his essay to the criticism ofmy own book.

1.1

I

o

THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.' 13

He begins by quoting a passage from my " deposi-tion to the committee." A few words of explanationmay be given here about this deposition. I had gladlytendered myself for cross-examination by the com-mittee in reference to the story I had told in mypublished Theosophical writings. The only membersof the committee present on the only occasion whenit was thought worth while to examine me wereMr. Gurney and Mr. Stack. A shorthand-writerrecorded what passed. I do not know whether thetestimony I gave has been written out in full. It has,at all events, never to my knowledge been published.I fully recognise that no particular object would beserved by its publication, for^the committee neverseemed to grasp the purpose with which I had con-ceived that it might be worth while to take myevidence. If there had been any weak points in anypart of my story, inquiry directed to these might citherhave shown that I had not been sufficiently careful instating my case, or such cross-examination would, inreality, have served to strengthen instead of disturbingit. But the committee had no questions to ask me,and merely wished to know, in a general way, what Ihad to say. I had taken with me various letters andpapers referred to in the Occult World. In theabsence of any systematic direction by the committeeof my examination, I showed some of these, and madesome general statements as to the circumstances withwhich they had been connected, thus necessarilygoing over some of the ground already trodden in myoriginal narrative. The passage quoted in Mr. Hodg-son's report is apparently from such general state-

TITE "OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA."

ment. It relates to an incident described in theOccult "World (pp. 96-7, 4th edition). I obtained ananswer from iny Mahatma correspondent written insidea closed note of my own, the point of the whole storybeing that Mine. Blavatsky, to whom I confided theletter, had never been out of my sight for anyappreciable interval from the moment she put myletter in her pocket to the time, a few minutes later,when she gave it me back with the answer writteninside the unopened envelope.

In the deposition I appeal to have said: "Shewas out of my sight but for an instant of time . . . .I will undertake to say she was not out of my sightfor ten seconds." This account Mr. Hodgson com-pares with the original account of the transactionwhich appears in the Occult World. He writes:

"In the account given in the Occult World Mr. Sinnettundertakes to say only that she had not been away to her ownroom thirty seconds, admitting that she was also»out of his sightfor a minute or two in Mrs. Sinnctt's room. After this I cannotfeel certain that Mme. Blavatsky may not have been absent inher own room for considerably more than thirty seconds, nor doI feel certain that Mme. Blavatsky may not have retired to someother room during the interval of a few minutes which Mi-.Sinnett assigns to her conversation with Mrs. Sinnett in theadjoining room. Even .apart from this uncertainty I cannotattach any importance to the case after finding that, on mysecond trial, I could open a firmly-closed ordinary adhesiveenvelope under such conditions as are described by Sir. Sinnett,read the enclosed note and reply to it, the question and thereply being as long as those of Mr. Sinnett, and reclose theenvelope, leaving it apparently in the same condition as before,in one minute, and it appears to me quite possible that Mme.Blavatsky, with her probably superior skill and practice, mighthave easily performed the task in thirty seconds."

II1QIII

n

TUT, " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.' 15

If Mr. Hodgson had said something quite differentfrom all this, and if I had wanted to write a ludicrouscaricature of some unsound argument he might haveemployed, it seems to me I could hardly have writtenanything more grotesque than the passage quotedabove. It has been to me a source of inextinguish-able wonder that a man exhibiting intelligence insome directions could present himself to the publicwith an argument like that in his mouth. When,under circumstances when it is quite obvious that onecould not have been tracking the moments with awatch, a man speaks of a limited number of seconds,a round number like thirty, it simply means a veryshort interval of time. Moreover the account as itreally stands in the Occult World is as follows:

" She put it in her pocket, went into her own room, whichopened out of the drawing-room, and came out again almostinstantly. Certainly she had not been away thirty seconds."

And because on another occasion I tell the samestory and say:—

"She was out of my sight but for an instant of time. I willundertake to say she was not out of my sight ten seconds."

Mr. Hodgson has the comical assurance to saythat my parallel statements betray discrepancy, andthat the accuracy of my testimony therefore standsimpugned. And this, in spite of the fact that Idrew a sketch at the time of my " deposition" toshow the committee how the rooms were actuallyarranged. The drawing-room and Mme Blavatsky'sroom were side by side, both opening out of theverandah in which my wife and Mme. Blavatsky were

16 THE "OCCULT WOULD PIIKNOMENA."

sitting, when I gave her the letter (not "in thedrawing-room," as the committee's notes have inac-curately reported me as saying). Mme. Blavatslrywent into her room by one door—all standing open,be it understood, as is usual during the day in thecool weather in India—while I went via the drawing-room on my way back to my own writing-room.The door of connection between the drawing-roomand Mme Blavatsky's room was but a few feet fromthe verandah and of the wall. It was at this thatMme. Blavatsky appeared before I had crossed thedrawing-room, saying the letter had been alreadytaken. Any one else is in as good a position asI to estimate the number of seconds during whiclishe can have been out of my sight. It was a verysmall number. Dwelling on the matter it becomesclear that my loose estimate, thirty seconds—equiva-lent to a very brief interval, and used as analternative expression to " almost instantly"—wasexcessive; that ten would certainly be nearer themark. Counting seconds now—as I write—andimagining myself pacing across that corner of myroom at Allahabad, I am disposed to think thatfive would really be a better estimate again.

Now, Mr. Hodgson actually goes on in hisReport to argue that I must be an inaccurate anduntrustworthy narrator because of this discrepancyof my evidence about the ten and the thirty seconds.When a man is guilty like this of the ne plus ulfraof folly in an argument, one does not know whatto say to him. One cannot emphasize by illustrationthe nonsense involved in his contention. Nothing

1

1

1

I

I

THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA." 17

could ho moro nonsensical than the contention itself.But it is nevertheless the foundation of the majorpart of Mr. Hodgson's subsequent theorising aboutmy book. I am an inaccurate man; I must begiven up; I have been shown to have told onestory at one time and another at another about thesame thing, and there is an end of me. And what-ever I may say after this, even if the thing itselfdocs not betray error, it is impossible to have con-fidence in so careless an estimator of seconds. Andthe picture Mr. Hodgson gives us of himself openinga letter—doubtless with ready appliances of boilingwater and all that may be wanted, his monstrousassumption that Mme. Blavatsky has "probablysuperior skill and practice" at such work—withwater, it is to be presumed, always boiling in herpocket, is merely the beginning of the stupendouspyramid of extravagant conjecture which he builds,bottom upwards, upon the famous discrepancy ofthe seconds; and which men with reputations forintelligence to squander, arc, marvellous to say,not ashamed to publish in the Proceedings of thePsychical Research Society.

As for the two or three minutes Mme. Blavatskyspent in ray wife's room—from which Mr. Hodgsondraws erroneous conclusions he has never checked byfrank inquiry—the two rooms were connected by awide open door, through which Mme. Blavatsky,lounging about and waiting, only passed after mywife had entered her room coming round the otherside of the house. Even while in rny wife's room shewould not have been out of my sight had I risen frommy chair and looked round.

is THE "OCCULT WOELD PHENOMENA."

The next matter Mr. Hodgson refers to is a casein which I describe a letter as dropped before me ina marvellous way in a room at Bombay. He con-jectures that it was dropped through a slit in theboards of the ceiling. Mr Hodgson thinks that, ^and I think differently, that is all that can be saidabout the matter, except that there is no particleof evidence to support Mr. Hodgson's belief, beyond kthe fact that Mme. Coulomb suggested it. ip

The committee says (p. 204 of the Report) that"where persons like the Coulombs have been con- fbcerned, their unsupported assertion cannot betaken as evidence." Now one of the gross incon-sistencies and unfair attributes of the present Reportis, that while the committee thus affects to take creditfor care in the reception of evidence, Mr. Hodgsondevours, open-mouthed, anything the Coulombs say tohim, presenting their statements in due course to hisreaders. He affects, at intervals, to regard theirtestimony as worthless, but still he gives it; andsince the committee cannot shake off responsibilityfor the Report which forms the basis of their own ^judgment, and which they publish to the world,all that can be said in regard to the pretence theymake in the sentence just quoted is, that they have mmnot acted up to it. They say such and such evidencemust not be taken, and then they proceed to takeit and to put it forward, and, as a careful examina-tion of the Report will show, to build conclusionsupon it, and use bricks made out of M. and Mme.Coulomb's statements as the foundation for the fan-tastic edifice they rear above.

00I

THE "OCCULT WOULD PHENOMENA.' 19

The incident referred to at the bottom of page258 is relatively trivial, and could not be elucidatedproperly without drawings and explanations out ofkeeping with its importance. I mentioned the in-cident in the original story, page 90, as "interestingrather for its collateral bearings than by itself alone."Mr. Hodgson next deals with a case I describe, inwhich a fragment of plaster bas-relief was appa-rently brought by occult means to me at Allahabadat about the time when the plaster cast from whichit was taken fell and broke at Bombay, and thepieces, minus that conveyed to me, were collectedby several persons present. Mr. Hodgson's con-jecture is, that the fragment I found at Allahabadwas previously broken off by Mine. Blavatsky andsent to Allahabad to be hidden there in my roomby a confederate. It is only by an examination ofthe fragments still in my possession that this ground-loss conjecture can be tested. The nature of thefracture, as it happens, is such as to make it appearto any reasonable observation mechanically impos-sible; first, that the important piece could havebeen broken off by itself, leaving the plaque other-wise intact; secondly, that had the piece beenthus broken off, the plaque in its fall, could not havestarred in the way the fracture has actually occurred.

Mr. Hodgson's comments on certain notes whichI received apparently by occult means at Allahabadabout the same time, and in Mmc. Blavatsky's absence,form an amusing illustration of the way in which hisindictment has been prepared. He says, "This iscuriously like the en cos which was provided by

20 THE " OCCULT WOULD PHENOMENA."

Mme. Blavatsky for General Morgan in connectionwith the Adyar saucer phenomenon, and which, asGeneral Morgan did not ask any questions, remainedin the possession of the Coulombs." Of course it isMr. Hodgson's assumption that the scrap of paper -^thus produced by the Coulombs was prepared byMine. Blavatsky, but, as usual, Mr. Hodgson's emptyguesses on one page become adamantine facts when fhreferred back to at a'later stage of his narrative. Hi

Amongst the simplest of the incidents I describedin the Occult World were those which had to do with Mjthe power Mine. Blavatsky possessed of emitting somekind of current from her hands, which made anaudible sound on objects she touched, or even ~fcheld her hand over. On one special occasion a crowdof people, after a dinner-party at which she had beenpresent, made a pile of their hands, held one aboveanother on the table, and all declared when Mme.Blavatsky rested her hand on the top of the pile, andemitted the current I have spoken of, that they ielt aslight shock pass through their hands, which we allheard record itself as a rap on the surface of the r^table. In reference to this incident, Mr. Hodgsonremarks, " I have not taken part in Ibrming a pile ofhands such as Mr. Sinnett describes" (as if the defi- [̂ciencies of his experience were a serious factor inthese transactions), " but I cannot," he says, " attri-bute any importance to his confident statement con-cerning this and similar incidents, now that I haveexamined some of the possibilities in other cases aboutwhich he speaks with equal if not greater confidence."That is to say, now that the general accuracy of my

THE "OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.' 21

testimony is impaired by the wonderful discovery Mr.Hodgson has made about the ten and thirty seconds,for, ludicrous as the position is, that impeachmentcontinues to underlie all the groundless pretences whichMr. Hodgson makes throughout this Report in regardto having shaken the value of my testimony.

As regards the bell sounds, of which so much hasbeen said, Mr. Hodgson thinks they might at leasthave been produced by Mine. Blavatsky by means ofa machine concealed about her person, crediting hisowiv sagacity in this way with a suspicion he appearsto think too profound to have entered any othermind previously. It is enough to say that this elemen-tary conjecture was of course a primary idea in allour minds when these bell-phenomena were firstbrought under our notice, only to be rejected as soonit arose on account of its manifest inapplicability tothe case. It is true Mr. Hodgson fortifies his con-jecture—writing, " Mrne. Coulomb asserts that theywere actually so produced by the use of a smallmusical-box . . . . and showed mo stains resemblingiron-mould (on some discarded under-gannents ofMine. Blavatsky) which she affirmed had been causedby contact with the metal of the machine."

Later on, Mr. Hodgson shows great patience incounting g's with their tails turned one way, ord's with their stems turned another, and in onedocument finds a particular d, 1310G times. Ifany one exhibiting similar mechanical patience,would go through the whole Report, and countthe number of times in which, as in the case justquoted, it breaks faith with the committee's dcclara-

22 THE " OCCULT WOKLD PHENOMENA.

tion that the assertion of the Coulombs cannot betaken as evidence, an array of cases might be com-piled rivalling in number some varieties of Mine.Blavatsky's g. But certainly, if Mr. Hodgson hadhonestly refrained from imbibing ideas at the ever-flowing fountain of Mine. Coulomb's evidence, hewould have come home with a comparatively meagrestock of accusations to bring against the good faithof Mme. Blavatsky and her Theosophical colleaguesin India.

Mr. Hodgson says about the bell sounds: " Mr.Sinnett seems to have overlooked the great uncer-tainty in all localisation of sounds (Mr. Sinnetthaving, of course, assumed that his readers wouldcredit him with paying attention to childishsimple considerations of that kind), and the possi-bility that, if Mme. Blavatsky had one suchmachine she might possibly have had two, does notseem to have occurred to Mr. Sinnett." If a savage,looking at a locomotive engine, suggested that therewas a horse inside, and hearing that I had deniedthis, as inadequate to explain the motion of the train,remarked that " it does not seem to have occurred toMr. Sinnett that there might be two," he wouldhave risen to the exact level of Mr. Hodgson'ssagacity as exhibited in this criticism.

I must pass over some trifling criticisms, temptingas some of them are by their naivete, to deal with theelaborate comments now put forward in regard to thenarrative of the Simla picnic. This was the occasionon which a much talked-of cup and saucer were dugup from the ground. An important feature in con-

•I

THE "OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA." 23

nection with this occurrence, «is described by myselfis " that Mmc. Blavatsky had no share in the choiceof the spot chosen for the luncheon," as Mr. Hodgsonnow sums the matter up. As a matter of fact thefeast was a breakfast, and was so described by me inthe Occult World. The inaccuracy, therefore, that Mr.Hodgson commits, in referring to it as a luncheon,is one that I should think well within the grasp of theS. P. R. committee, and calculated to give themmuch concern. But to pass on. Mr. Hodgson says :" Almost the reverse of this appears from the openingsentences of Colonel Olcott's account." This accountwas written by Colonel Olcott for circulation at thetime among the Fellows of the T. S. at Bombay.Now, in reference to Colonel Olcott, when dealingwith his testimony, Mr. Hodgson convicts him ofvarious instances of "unreliability," "lapses ofmemory," and "extreme deficiency in the faculty ofobservation." On these grounds he feels justified inputting Colonel Olcott's testimony aside as worthlesswhenever it is convenient to do so. But now that anarrative of Colonel Olcott is discovered, which failsto correspond with a narrative of the same events bymyself, Mr. Hodgson's volatile imagination at onceinvests it with all the attributes of an Indisputablestandard, and triumphantly points to the certainevidence thus afforded of my own inaccuracy. Alarge part of the criticism on which we arc nowentering rests on this assumption—so daring, con-sidering the previous passage—that if a difference isdetected between my account and Colonel Olcott's ̂that proves that I am wrong. But unfortunately for

21 THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA."

Mr. Hodgson's argument it is only his own extra-ordinary faculty for stumbling over the literal phra-seology of a sentence and failing to catch its essentialmeaning that has made him think there is any dif-ference of the least importance between ColonelOlcott's narrative and my own. The passage fromColonel Olcott's Report now quoted is as follows:

" Although she had never been at Simla before, she directedua where to go, describing a certain small mill, which theSinnetts, Major —•—, and even the jampanies affirmed didnot exist. She also mentioned a small Tibetan temple as beingnear it. We reached the spot she had described and found themill at about 10 a.m., and sat in the shade and had the servantsspread the collation."

Now Colonel Olcott is, broadly speaking, right inhis account, and yet it is true that Mine. Blavatskyhad no share in the choice of the spot selected forour breakfast. The explanation of the simple paradoxis as follows:—One objective point for our expeditionwas a Tibetan temple, which Mme. Blavatsky declaredmust exist somewhere down in the valley, andasserted to be near a mill. We wished to visit thetemple because we had reason to believe it had latelybeen visited by a certain occultist. Not to dwell upondetails, which, as will be seen shortly arc of no-realimportance, we found our temple, and, amidst sonicmerriment, a very small water-wheel in the neigh-bourhood, a little native construction fixed in ustream, which justified Mme. Blavatsky's clairvoyantepertinacity about a mill. But then ice proceeded on ourjourney. There is the only imperfection in ColonelOlcott's narrative, a hiatus which at the time was of

THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA. 25

no interest to him. I was on in advance with thegentleman here spoken of as Major , and led theway to the spot which I had selected in my own mind,—a certain place beside the stream where I had oncebeen before,—as that at which our breakfast should bespread. There, however, we found the water of thestream dirty and disagreeable, and, moreover, dis-covered a little way down that preparation was beingmade for a Hindu cremation. Major and Ithen struck upwards into the woods to choose a moresuitable encampment, and of our own independentvolition chose one, where the servants, when theycame up, were ordered to prepare the breakfast. Allthis, of course, Mr. Hodgson ignores, even assumingas the basis of his later remarks that the picnic tookplace at the spot chosen by Mme. Blavatsky, for hewrites: " As this place appears in Mr. Sinnctt'saccount as a, place they are not likely to go to, wecannot attach much weight to his opinion that thecup and saucer were of a kind they were not likelyto take."

It is tedious to continue a repetition of the sameremarks, but here again it will be observed thatMr. Hodgson finds fault with the particular statementin hand for no better reason than that one of its pre-decessors stands bespattered with his own groundlessinsinuations. From first to last of these criticismslevelled against the Occult World phenomena I denythat there is a single allegation which has any rationalfoundation whatever, or one that could have stood thetest of an honest discussion with myself before animpartial tribunal if the committee had conceived the

THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA."

fair treatment of this inquiry desirable, or had ven-tured to play the part of an impartial tribunal itself."Probably," says Mr. Hodgson, "Mnie. Blavatsky'snative servant Babula, an active young fellow, who Iam assured on good authority had formerly been inthe service of a French conjuror, could throw evenmore light upon the day's proceedings than ColonelOlcott's account." Fresh insinuation—groundless,offensive, unintelligent—put forward with all theauthority of the S. P. R. as the result of a specialmission to India and an incubation of six months overits eggs. Moderate common sense, by the light of thei'acts described, will show that neither Babula nor allthe active young fellows in Simla together could havecontributed to the result which actually occurred inthe smallest degree. The cup and saucer were dugup within a few yards of the spot where we break-lasted. That Mine. Blavatsky should " create" a cupand saucer was a joking suggestion of one of the ladiespresent, itself the consequence of fortiiitous conditions,and all the silly and inappropriate objections thathave been brought against my narrative of the occur-rence—Mr. Hodgson's among the number—leave theforce of its evidence absolutely unimpaired.

Two other prominent phenomena took place duringthe picnic, besides that of the cup and saucer. Mr.Hodgson writes: " The concealment of the diplomaand the management of the bottle of water would havebeen still easier tasks for Babula than the burying ofthe cup and saucer in the rooted bank." In i'ace ofsuch remarks it is difficult to maintain our trust in theperfect good faith of the present Report, but we must

THE "OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA. 27

imitate the plan adopted by Mr. Hodgson when,finding it diilicult to face the unimpeachable goodi'aith of Colonel Olcott—and justify his moral attitudeat the expense of his understanding. Neither withthe diploma nor with the bottle of water couldBabula have had anything to do. To do full justiceto Mr. Hodgson's criticisms I must trouble the readerwith some further quotations.

" In connection with this incident Mr. Sinnett has much tosuggest about the abnormal stupidity of a certain cooly whohad been sent with empty bottles to a brewery with a pencil uotoasking for water, and who, finding 110 European at the breweryto receive the note, brought back the empty bottles. It wasapparently one of these empty bottles thus brought back thatMine. Blavatsky took for her experiment. Who was thisabnormally stupid cooly? Surely not Madame Blavatsky'spersonal servant, Eabula? and yet Babula was in some wayconcerned. Colonel Olcott wrote,—after saying that wantingsome tea they found they were out of water,—

"' Servants were sent in various directions, but could get none.While Babula was sent off on a second search, Madame quietlywent to the lunch baskets, took an empty water bottle, put itin the loose sleeve of her gown, and came straight to where wewere sitting on the grass. The bottle was full of the clearestand softest water, of which we all partook.'

" Granted that Babula was present, the fact that all the bottlesbecame empty, and afterwards that one of them became full,may bo easily accounted for without the necessity of supposingthat there was anything more substantial than a smile inMine. Blavatsky's sleeve. It is curious how much Babula hasbeen kept in the background of Mr. Sinnett's account, care-lessly, no doubt, and not carefully, but then, if carelessly,Mr. Siunctt must be charged with a grievous lack of ordinaryperspicacity."

One hardly knows where first to pick out the bits

28 THE ''OCCULT WOULD PHENOMENA.

of false assumption, foolish reasoning, and self-sufficientperversity which constitute the tangled web of thiswhimsical criticism. Of course the "abnormallystupid cooly" icas not Babula, but one of my owncoolies employed on the service of the day. Hisjourney to the brewery and return are covered inColonel Olcott's Report by the single sentence, " Ser-vantswcresent in various directions but could get none."The fact that Babula had gone " on a second search"(following Colonel Olcott's description) when Madamecontrived to fill one of the previously empty bottles,has no bearing on the event at all, any more thanthe great truth that there are milestones on theDover Road. What purpose has Mr. Hodgson inview in pressing upon the attention of the reader thefact that, while Mine. Blavatsky performed the featdescribed with one of the empty bottles, which weall saw her take from the basket where we knew therewere none but empty bottles—Babula had gone awayon a second search ? If he was off the scene he couldnot be helping to do the trick. But Mr. Hodgson seemsto think that any kind of darkly significant mention ofBabula's name, < in the cruel theory about the simple anddevoted boy that he has constructed, will impress his'readers with a general notion that there was trickerysomehow going on. The only trickery concernedreally is the rhetorical trickery to which Mr. Hodgsonthus descends, but .of this, indeed, there is buttoo much in the present Report. That " Babula hasbeen kept in the background of Mr. Sinnett's narra-tive" is simply explained by his total insignificance onthis occasion. Mr. Hodgson has dragged him now into

III

TIIR "OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA." 20

a European celebrity to suit the strained necessities ofhis own attack, and if Mr. Hodgson could have beenseen looming on the horizon, in 1880, then Babulawould perhaps have been left at home. Not that thatwould have mattered in the slightest degree to ourpresent fertile critic, whose methods of analysing suchoccurrences as I have had to describe rises triumphantabove the limitations of circumstance as of commonsense. But no matter how inapt, how illogical, howflippant from what ought to be the point of view of apsychic researcher, any silly insinuation he once makesagainst me, however gratuitous, is firm ground forhim to stand upon thenceforward when misrepre-senting me as found lacking in ordinary perspicacity.

I shall rest content with blowing a few more holesthrough this criticism of the Occult Wor/d, at once themost elaborate and most irrational, the most patient andthe pettiest, the most microscopic and the most un-discerning review,—and immeasurably the most un-scrupulous,—to which that much discussed book hasbeen subjected, and will leave some blocks of Mr.Hodgson's shattered ediiice for readers of intelligence,guided by the explanations here given, to break upinto smaller fragments for themselves if they choose.Let me pass on now to Mr. Hodgson's treatment ofthe pillow incident. (Occult World, pp. 75-79.)Mr. Hodgson writes:

" Mr. Sinnett's subjective impressions of the previousnight appear to bo in close relation with the incident, if notto form part of it. But as they arc not exactly describedI am, of course, unable to deal with them. If they were neitherhallucination nor extreme illusion suffered by Mr. Sinnett, they

30 THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.

may have been due to Mine. Blavatsky's boldness andcleverness, in which case the cushion may have been mani-pulated before Mr. Sinnett spoke of his impressions thatmorning."

The use which Mr. Hodgson can make of the ttpotential mood, when he has no solid evidence (derivedfrom M. or Mme. Coulomb) to go upon, will amuse thepatiently analytical reader of the wonderful composi-tion under notice. But the real art of the sentence justquoted lies in the introduction of the idea that thepoint for Mine. Blavatsky to work at during the earlymorning of the day under discussion was the subse-quently famous cushion. Mr. Hodgson writes as ifthe whole difficulty were how Mme. Blavatsky or herassumed confederate, Babula, should get at the cushion.The cushion, at that period, had not entered on the ^field of view. But Mr. Hodgson wishes us to supposethat its selection later in the day by myself, as a placewhere the token to be given me should be found, wns ^something that Mme. Blavatsky could easily haveforeseen. He writes, "Mme. Blavatsky's intimateacquaintance with Mr. Sinnett may have enabled herto anticipate with considerable confidence that liewould choose the cushion!" For pure absurdity thisremark deserves to rank among the first half-dozengems of that sort in Mr. Hodgson's collection. Anintimate acquaintance with any one might enable afriend to forecast his probable choice of a favouriteauthor, or favourite opera, but would not suggestbeforehand what horse he would be likely to draw ina sweepstakes, or what bean out of a bagful. Yetthe " choice" of the cushion was an issue almost as

(I

I

THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.' sr

unforeseeable in its nature as the choice of the beanwould be. Mr. Hodgson argues to suit the facts ofthe moment, " Simply because such places as theground and the tree had been chosen before, they•were not likely to be chosen again." Had the cir-cumstances been different, and his object to disparagethe choice of a spot of ground, can we doubt thatMr. Hodgson would have written "Simply byobserving his previous habits of choice, Mine.Blavatsky must have known that the ground or a treewould be selected." But on the theory that thesewere ruled off by previous experiments, why was Iprecluded from selecting, as a place of concealment—under the table-cloth on the grass, for example, orinside the then uncut cake (which I remember crossedmymiud as a place to choose, but was mentally dis-

carded in favour of the cushion), or inside one of myown pockets, or underneath my wife's jampan setdown at random on the ground, or underneath anyothcr of the half-dozen jampans present, or under-neath a napkin spread on the ground for the purpose,or on the roof of the stone hut near where we weresitting, or somewhere within that hut (such an obviousplace! Mr. Hodgson would have said if that had boonselected), or in one of the luncheon-baskets—or so onfor another page or two. And yet Mr. Hodgson haseither the simplicity or assurance to say the cushionwas likely to be chosen.

Of course he proceeds to fortify this hypothesis withothers of a like nature, trusting that his readers willregard three or four untenable conjectures as perhapsin the mass more tenable than cither separately. If

•

32 THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA." ~fc

the cushion had not been chosen " some conversationmight ensue as to whether the place fixed upon was ^best, and ultimately it might be decided they shouldlook for it in one of the cushions." Provided theoccult feat under notice had actually been faulty inthus involving preliminary conversation as to theplace to be chosen, Mr. Hodgson might have hadsome ground for suggesting that this destroyed the fhpoint of the performance; but seeing that the featwas performed straight off, without hesitation, as Idesired, the suggestion that under different circum-stances it would have been suspicious, does not seemvery forcible or sagacious. If I were to point toan animal-and say "that is a donkey " (and a naturalistshould confirm my opinion), I am so far shown toknow a donkey when I see one, and my judgment insuch matters is not impugned if any one tells me,—" Suppose you had first said it was a cow and then apig, you might have gone on guessing till you got ^right in the end." The evidential value of the" Pillow Incident" remains, in truth, absolutely un-touched by Mr. Hodgson's gratuitous hypothesis. ^His pretence is, that he is suggesting ways in whichthe result accomplished might have been brought offby ordinary means, and he merely staggers aboutamong the facts, ignoring one while he is framing ahypothesis, incompatible with it, to explain another,and then attempting to get over the first fact by f||suggesting some other alternative hypothesis incom- Wipatible with the second. The multiplication oftheories on this principle ad nauseam is not legitimateargument, but disingenuous trickery with words, by "

1

THE OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA. 33

which it is hoped the intelligence of careless readersmay be ensnared,—or else it shows what so manyother characteristics of Mr. Hodgson's Report exhibit,indeed but too plainly, that he is distinguished by asingular inability to apply anything but the coarsestmaterial reasoning to any problem ; and while tolerablyskilful with boiling water and sealing wax, is corre-spondingly deficient in the gifts required for esti-mating probabilities.

And while quite in his proper sphere when tryingexperiments with sealing wax and gum, to try howlong it would take him to get inside a letter andfasten it up again so as to look as it did at first, Mr.Hodgson shows himself a gobemouche of the first waterwhen he scents a new suspicion. Passing on tocriticise the circumstances of the incident known toreaders of the "Occult World" as that of the Jhelumtelegram, he appends the following note to the state-ment that " afterwards Mr. Sinnett was requestedthrough Mine. Blavatsky to see the original."

" I may bore mention a curious document that was unin-tentionally lent me for several days by Mr. Damodar. I hadwith some difficulty obtained several specimens of Mahatinawriting, and in an envelope inclosing some of these I afterwardsfound a slip of paper which had not—as I concluded when laterI discovered that it was not enumerated among those lent to me—been observed in the envelope when Mr. Damodar gave mepel-mission to take the specimens away. This document was asingle small fragment of paper, undated and unsigned. Onone side of it were written the following words in red ink, andthe writing resembles that attributed to Mahatina M.:—' Sendthis by copying telegram and original telegram to A. P. S.Charge to my account and send bill. Let Deb. study more

I34 THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.'

Icarefully his part.' Whether this document had anything todo with the above incident I can, of course, only conjecture."

This note is interesting in two ways. First, itshows us that Mr. TTodgson did not hesitate to use asevidence against the Theosophical group at Adyar,and Mr. Damodar in particular, a paper which hethought had slipped into his possession "uninten-tionally "—which, therefore, he had no better moralright to use, than he would have had if he had takenit off or out of Mr. Damodar's desk in his absence.Secondly, it shows us the temper of mind in whichthis scientific, careful investigator collected and re-ported on his evidence—and won from the committeeto whom he made his report the public declaration,that " they have satisfied themselves as to thethoroughness of Mr. Hodgson's investigation, andhave complete reliance on his impartiality." For alonger acquaintance than Mr. Hodgson possessed with ^the course of my relations with the Mahatmas wouldhave shown him that the slip of paper he fastened onwith so much interest, believing himself to have got »hold of it " unintentionally," related to one of severaltransactions occurring long after the incident of theJhelum telegram, though long before the " invcsti- Bjgation " at Madras. Mahatma M. sent me two orthree telegrams at various times through Mr. Damodaron business relating to the Society, during the coldweather of 1881-82, and as the original of one suchtelegram in Mahatma M.'s handwriting coming to meby post from Mr. Damodar, and following the transinis-.sion of the same words over the wires, is still in my

1

THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA." 35

possession, in all probability this is the message towhich the directions on the slip of paper referred.They could not have any reference to the Jhclunitelegram for two reasons—firstly, because MahatmaM. had nothing whatever to do with the Jhelumtelegram, the original of which was in MahatmaK. H.'s handwriting. Will Mr. Hodgson hereintroduce his favourite potential mood, and suggestthat whoever wrote the message in Mahatma M.'shand, may also have written the Jheium message inMahatma K. H.'s? Then I will recommend toattention my second reason, which was that I obtaineda sight of the original of the Jhelum telegram not byhaving it sent me by Mr. Damodar, but by favourof the officials of the telegraph department, whohad it forwarded, to oblige me, from their Jhelum totheir Allahabad office.

Mr. Hodgson infects me with a disposition to mnkoconjectures, so 1 will hazard a suggestion that theslip of paper in this case may have been includedbut not enumerated among the series lent to Mr.Hodgson, rather less " unintentionally" than hesupposes. It looks to me only too much like anexperiment on his credulity—perhaps already con-jectured to be voracious for suspicions which mightpoint to knavery lying hidden in the midst of guile-less integrity—and perhaps as a test for the questionhow far he might be disposed to make use of infor-mation he might think "unintentionally" conveyedto him.

Mr. Hodgson has not much to say that is verycrushing about the Jhelum incident itself except to

3G THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.'

suggest that Mme. Blavatsky may have read myletter, and "have telegraphed the right reply to aconfederate at Jhelum, one of the various people who,to suit Mr. Hodgson's hypotheses, is taught before-hand, in the interests of the ever-ramifying fraud, toproduce a fair imitation of the handwriting I conceiveto be that of the Mahatma K. H. It is amusing toobserve how at every turn Mme. Blavatsky, whosemeans, to judge from her ordinary life all this whilein India, are not at all superabundant, is freelycredited with maintaining confederates and bribingservants, and the "peons," or messengers of the postoffice, all over the country. This feature of Mr.Hodgson's criticism is only one more illustration of apsychological fact which he emphasises strongly alsoin many other ways, though quite unconsciously, thata considerable degree of physical cunning is quitecompatible with a marvellous inability to appreciatemoral probabilities.

Had the Jhelum incident stood alone, and had Iendeavoured to rest large inferences on the circum-stances under such conditions, there might have beensome force in the conjecture that it might have beenbrought about by confederacy; but when, in themidst of an immense multiplicity of occult phenomenathat manifestly could not be promoted by all the con-federacy in creation, there stand a considerable numberof the kind that could only be explained by highlycomplicated confederacy, ramifying all about India,costing much money, and subject to innumerabledangers of betrayal: when it is manifest that MadameBlavatsky could not be thus supported by a regiment of

II

I

II

THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA. 37

confedcrates, the confederacy hypothesis in each caseshares the discredit that attaches to it as a compre-hensive theory.

It will, perhaps, have been apparent already thatMr. Hodgson's criticisms on the "Occult"World" phe-nomena sin sometimes against fairness and candour,and sometimes against intelligence, but the final remarkwhich closes the scries ingeniously unites bellicharacteristics. I tell a story in the Occult World,pp. 137-139, concerning the production of a certainprofile portrait on a sheet of previously white paperwhich lay under plain observation, in a book, on thedrawing-room table, during the interval of time whichelapsed between its last inspection as blank paper andits discovery impressed with the portrait. On thisnarrative Mr. Hodgson remarks:

" It is not necessary to say any more concerning the exiguityof Mr. Simiett's account than that Mine. Blavatsby is exceedinglyskilful in the use of both pencil and brush. I have seen specimensof her handiwork, not only on certain playing cards which ColonelOlcott showed me, each card being a clover humorous sketch,but in drawings precisely similar to that mentioned by Mr.Sinnett, where the face on the white paper was defined bycontrast with cloudy blue shading."

The sneer here at what is called the exiguity ofmy account is ill placed, because the point of theincident, regarded as a test phenomenon, resides inits extreme simplicity. Here is no congeries ofcircumstances to be weighed and compared with oneanother, claiming a long elucidation, as in the case ofthe Vega incident, or even the Jhelum telegram.The charm of the portrait incident as an occult test

I38 THE "OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.

turns on the utter simplicity of the transaction. Thepaper was seen to be blank before breakfast, left in abook on the table in sight of us all while we had thatmeal, and found to bear a portrait when we went tolook at it immediately afterwards. Mr. Hodgson can ^hardly suggest confederates here, nor count g's, nor pexhibit his cleverness in opening closed envelopeswith steam from boiling water. There is, of course, Hhnothing to allege or urge against the story. If I amtelling what I believe to be the truth—and hithertomy bitterest opponents have recognised that peoplewho know me would think it stupid to suggest thecontrary—there is no getting out of the conclusionthat on this occasion an occult phenomenon waswrought. I think there is no getting out of thatconclusion, compatibly with sound sense, in a greatmany other cases as well; but we may keep for amoment to the portrait incident.

Mr. Hodgson would obviously have complimentedmy story if he had called it concise, under the circum-stances, but by using a synonymous expression, carryinga slight flavour of opprobrium, he may entrap a weak- ^minded reader in thinking there must be somethingwrong about a narration that can be regarded asexiguous. But then comes another insinuation, ground- |B|less and irrelevant, but quite on lago's pattern, as (J|vaguely suggestive of an undefined suspicion. Mme.Blavatsky is skilful with pencil and brush! As to 1|the fact it is not worth arguing the matter. The UPtestimony of her intimate friends would, I think, bequite the reverse, in spite of the pen-and-ink illumina-tions on the playing cards above referred to, and I "

i

THE "OCCULT WOULD PHENOMENA." :w

conjecture that the blue shading drawings shown toMr. Hodgson as hers were shown to him as occultprecipitations of hers, though he now calmly sup-presses this. But in any case the remark has nopractical or logical bearing on the case in hand at all.Mine. Blavatsky might have had the artistic genius ofMichael Angelo and the resources of a drawingschool in her bed-room, and it would not have madean atom of difference to the phenomenal character ofthe transaction I describe, for she was eating herbreakfast with us the whole time during which thesheet of white paper became impressed with the blueportrait. The paragraph under, review, in fact, is amere snarl without any sense or meaning in it, and Ican only interpret the action of the committee inallowing it to stand in their published Proceedings bysupposing that they preferred, as I have been toldthey desire, to repudiate responsibility for the reportas to its details. If they began to edit it they wouldvery likely have been puzzled to know where theyshould stop. They elected a course, therefore, whichbade fair to get the Thcosophical Society blackenedas much as possible, while by professing to shirkthe responsibility it was their duty to bear, they havetried to prevent any of Mr. Hodgson's black fromcoming off on their own fingers.

Complacently pluming himself in conclusion onthe success which he has not attained in showing thatthe Occult World phenomena can be satisfactorilyaccounted for by trickery, Mr. Hodgson gives me upas an observer who docs not exercise due caution, liehas riddled each of my stories in detail with the

40 THE "OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.

I1

lightning of his penetrating sagacity, and now thewreck can be put aside once for all. out of the pathof a Psychic Research, carried on, in harmony withprevailing modes of thought, by the help of measuringtapes and caligraphic experts. ik

I think that all reasonable men, on the contrary,especially if (hey start from any moderate familiaritywith the psychic fermentation going on in the world Ifewill be rather drawn over to the conclusion that theindependent investigation of a man so glaringly unableto deal fairly with the investigations of others, and so •ill prepared, to judge by the exhibition he uucon- ™sciously makes of the quality of his own mind, toenter into sympathy with spiritual ardour or self-devotion to a lofty cause, is itself discredited by hisabsolute failure to shake the solidity and coherenceof the plain and unvarnished tale told in my book.Nothing I can say, I am well aware—it is unlikelythat anything any one can say—will disturb thesupreme satisfaction with which Mr. Hodgson con-templates the fruit of his Indian mission enshrined inhis long-studied Report. He is so content with his rkown conclusions that lie never, it would seem, curesto check them for his own guidance by consultationwith others. During the half year he has spent in H|polishing his Report he has never referred to me to !;'Ifind out what I could say in defence of my narrative,how I could answer for this or that circumstance that JT|appeared to him suspicious. He has preferred to lUblunder alone into the quagmire of inconsistency andmisapprehension the foregoing pages have shown toconstitute his Report so far as it deals with my own ^

THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.' 41

work. To confront with suspicions that arise in hismind the person against whom they are levelledwould appear to be a course of action foreign to Mr.Hodgson's instincts. He came into possessou while atMadras of the famous Coulomb letters (or, at all events,obtained some of them); he knew that Mme.Blovatsky had declared them to be replete with forgedinterpolations. He never took them to her and said," What part do you declare to be forged, and how doyou account for the apparent cohesion of the letters ?"From the depths of his own consciousness, and bymeditating profoundly on the tails of g's, as it mayfairly be presumed the forgers, if there were forgers,had in their tuna meditated before him, he decidedthat Mme. Blavatsky must be an impostor. A sus-picion, it would seem in Mr. Hodgson's mind, is aprecious treasure to be guarded from rude contact withthe rough airs of Heaven until, nourished by carefulaccumulation of circumstance, and fortified by con-sultation with persons known to be in sympathy withthe young serpent in the egg, it grows big enoughto be let loose for mischief. And careful all the whileto observe the spirit of the maxim about treating yourfriends as though they might one day be your enemies,Mr. Hodgson makes notes to be used against them ofunfinished phrases that drop from the lips of his hostsat Adyar, and getting himself photographed in fra-ternal association with a crowd of Theosophists at theconvention, so cleverly guides them to invert hispolicy themselves, that they guilelessly treat as a friendthe investigator who can hardly, the while, have beenunaware that he was destined to develop into theirenemy.

42 THE "OCCULT WOULD PHENOMENA."

III.

I do not, as the title of the pamphlet will haveshown, design it to be a reply adequately meeting thewhole battery of attack now directed by the PsychicResearch Society against the honour and credit ofthe leaders in the elevated philosophical movementthe committee seems so little able to appreciate. Theenormous pile of entirely one-sided evidence collectedby its agent during the first half of the past yearand worked into what has been thought to be themost damaging shape it could assume, during thesecond half, manifestly constitutes a paper which Icannot profess a readiness to deal with in all itsdetails offhand and within a few days. But Mr.Hodgson's second-hand suspicions concerning theshrine, and the multifarious accusations by Mme.Coulomb of which he has meekly made himself thechannel, beat in vain against the Theosophical posi-tion if my narrative stands. It has seemed to medesirable, therefore, to show without delay what hastyreaders, less conversant with the whole case thanmyself might not so quickly have perceived, that intruth there is no force whatever in the objectionswhich Mr. Hodgson brings against any one of thelong series of experiences related in my book. It isonly by beginning with criticisms so absurd that it isdifficult to understand how he can have vanquishedthe sense of shame he must have felt in first en^deavouring to work with them—those concerning the

TJIE '' OCCULT WOULD PHENOMENA." 40

ten and thirty seconds—that he was able to inaugu-rate the system on which he has striven to damagethe credit of my story. That system has been tolevel an undue reproach at me, and to keep referringto me as a man who has incurred that reproach. Andeach fresh reference of that kind is an excuse forsuggesting that I am probably at fault again. A manopen to so much reproach can hardly be trusted evenwhen you cannot prove him wrong. And so the longindictment rolls like a snowball.

Very little would it have concerned me, indeed,under other circumstances, what Mr. Hodgson mightthink or say about my book or my capacity or in-capacity for describing events as they occur. I havenot trembled before possibilities of ridicule or in-credulity in helping to explain recent Theosophicaldevelopments to the world. I write for those whomight understand, and have faculties of mind to catchthe value of my message; and these have proved farmore numerous than I ever hopcdin the beginningwouldbe the case, and for the rest, whoever may disbelieve orthink my statements of no importance, those arc peoplewith whom I have no intellectual business to transact.When they like to jeer, it amuses them, and there isan end of the matter. But other interests of fargreater importance than my literary credit have becomeinvolved in the attack now made upon me, and it has,therefore, been my duty to expose the worthlesscharacter of Mr. Hodgson's fault-finding.

The Psychical Research Society for its part seemsto follow a different policy from that I have justindicated as my own, and striving above all things to

I44 THE "OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.'

keep well with public opinion, to make terms withprejudice, to hold at arm's length -whatever mayentangle it with psychical developments, for which thegeneral sense of the community is not yet ripe, it hasconceived itself bound to shake off with every ap- •pearance of detestation the brief association intowhich it was at one time tempted with the leaders ofthe Theosophical Society. These persons were under 11a cloud of suspicion; the published letters of Mine.Coulomb's collection raised doubts of their probity.I do not for one moment blame the leading membersof the S. P. R. for resolving on a searching inquiry.It is the manner in which that 'inquiry was carriedout from first to last that I condemn, and I condemntliat- most unreservedly. There has been no stoptaken that looks as if it had been dictated by a care-ful sense of justice only, anxious to arrive at the truth.The examination of the Coulomb letters, conductedas it has been, has been but the mockery of an ^examination. The committee and the agent theyemployed have equally shrank, at every freshturn their investigation took, from calling on the mpersons they have accused, for any defence. To anyone acquainted with the people concerned and familiarwith the circumstances of the case, the spectacle of •Mr. Hodgson winding his way as he describes amongthe chelas at Adyar, conceiving suspicions andhiding them from everyone in a position to explainthem away, disguising his mind to the last— "never diverging into the candour which oughtto have characterised his action throughout—is onewhich makes the whole proceeding in which he has-

I

THE "OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.' 45

been employed a comprehensive outrage on all theprinciples of'justice and fair play.

With adequate pains taken I believe that everyallegation which Mr. Hodgson makes in his Report tothe moral prejudice of each and all of the Theosophiculgroup in India, and of Mme. Blavatsky in particular,could be demolished and shown to be the result offalse testimony or of misunderstanding, to be stupidbeside other facts, that are in themselves indisputableand totally undeserved. But it is relatively easy tocirculate injurious charges, it is sometimes a task ofHerculean magnitude to disprove them in detail.For the present I do not intend to go into a weari-some examination of Mr. Hodgson's hearsay evidenceabout the shrine. I content myself with giving in auAppendix to this reply some extracts from evidenceof an opposite kind collected at the time by some ofthe Thcosophists at Adyar to check the apparenttestimony of the Coulomb letters; and in regardgenerally to all that concerns Mme. Blavatsky in thepresent Report, I would suggest that people whofancy Mr. Hodgson has made out a prima facie caseagainst her (he cannot have done more, for the defencehas not yet been heard), I would suggest that beforerivalling the committee of the Psychical ResearchSociety in precipitately giving judgment on an exparts statement, they at least await the appearance ofcertain Memoirs of Mine. Blavatsky which, driven bywhat has now been published to make a somewhatpremature use of materials in my hands, I am engagedin preparing for the press. These Memoirs willappear, no doubt, in the course of the spring. Mean-

46 THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.

while the flood of calumny which is now directedagainst her is onl}7 effective in the estimation ofpersons who remain outside the circle of her intimateacquaintance, and inoperative with those for whompersonal knowledge of her life and character renderinherently absurd the conclusions now derived fromthe circumstantial evidence Mr. Hodgson has solaboriously scraped together, and that the S. P. R.has recklessly hurled against her without waiting tohear how it might be analysed or elucidated by anycompetent critic.

NOTE.

Mr. Mohini, knowing me about to issue a pamphletdealing with Mr. Hodgson's Report, wishes to commenton the random attacks Mr. Hodgson levels against hisveracity. His analysis—with explanation sufficientlydetailed to illuminate Mr. Hodgson's mistakes—ofthe various comments on his evidence and statementsscattered through the Report, would extend this pub-cation to inconvenient length. Moreover, I do notwish for a moment that it should be regarded as acomplete reply. It is only designed to bring aboutthe leading features of Mr. Hodgson's methods, andto exhibit plainly a few of the considerations whichrender his Report so discreditable to himself and tothe committee which has assumed the responsibilityof publishing it. However, I cannot deny Mr. Mohinithis opportunity of pointing out one salient blunder

II1

1

I

I

I

TUP, " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA."

•which Mr. Hodgson falls into in dealing with histestimony.

Referring to the evidence about "the strange voice"(see pp. 357-8 of the Report) Mr. Mohini now says:

Briefly stated, the phenomenon consisted in myhearing at the same time two voices—Mine. Blavatsky'sand another—while sitting with her alone in her roomin the house of the late Mr. Nobin K. Bannerji atDarjilinf]. " Concerning this incident," Mr. Hodgsonsays, " I need only remind the reader of the hollowin the wall which was near the corner of Mine.Blavatsky's room. The confederate may have beenBabula, previously instructed in the reply, and with amangoe-leaf in his mouth to disguise his voice." Inregard to this hypothesis I, in my turn, needonly remind the reader that the incident did not takeplace at Madras, where Mr. Hodgson examinedMine. Blavatsky's rooms, but at Daijiling, in the Hima-layas, months before the house at Madras was boughtor occupied. What light is thrown on Mr. Hodgson'sconclusions by this inaccuracy, after all his patientand searching inquiry, in which great attention isalways professed to have been paid to facts, I leaveothers to determine.

The following protest by Mr. Mohini, on behalf ofan absent person misrepresented by Mr. Hodgson,must not be withheld.

In conclusion, I protest against the cruel misrepre-sentation of the position of Mr. Babaji, which occurson p. 247. He is not " entirely homeless, apart fromthe Theosophical Society," in the sense in which alonethe words will be understood by the English reader.

48 THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.'

He is homeless as any man of respectable parentagemay be if he takes monastic vows. His family, whoare well off, will gladly find him a home if ever heshould want it. But in adopting a religious life hehas, in accordance with custom, set himself apart fromthe world and its ties.

I regret that I cannot, without unduly delayingthe issue of this pamphlet, insert a letter I have re-ceived from Mr. Rudolph Gebhard, witness of certainphenomena which Mr. Hodgson has criticised in hisReport in the same spirit he has shown in dealingwith my own narrative. Mr. Gebhard conclusivelyshows that Mr. Hodgson's theory as to how theElberfeld letter phenomenon may havo been pro-duced, is quite untenable and incompatible with thefacts.

1

I

I

1

I

I

I

DII

OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.

MADAME BLAVATSKT'S PEOTEST.

The *•' Society for Psychical Research" have nowpublished the Report made to one of their Committeesby Mr. Hodgson, the agent sent out to India to inves-tigate the character of certain phenomena, describedas having taken place at the Head-quarters of theTheosophical Society in India and elsewhere, andwith the production of some of which I have beendirectly or indirectly concerned. This Report im-putes to me a conspiracy with the Coulombs andseveral Hindus to impose on the credulity of variouspersons around me by fraudulent devices, and declaresto be genuine, a series of letters alleged to be writtenby me to Mine. Coulomb in connection with the sup-posed conspiracy, which letters I have already myselfdeclared to be in large part fabrications. Strange tosay, from the time the investigation was begun,fourteen months ago, and to this day, when I amdeclared guilty by my self-instituted judges, I wasnever permitted to see those incriminating letters. Idraw the attention of every fair-minded and honour-able Englishman to this fact.

Without at present going into a minute examina-tion of the errors, inconsistencies, and bad reasoningof this Report, I wish to make as publicly as possiblemy indignant and emphatic protest against the gross

I50 THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA."

aspersions tlms put upon me by the Committee of thePsychic Research Society at the instigation of the ^single, incompetent, and unfair inquirer whose con-clusions they have accepted. There is no chargeagainst me in the whole of the present Report thatcould stand the test of an impartial inquiry on thespot, where my own explanations could be checkedby the examination of witnesses. They have been Ikdeveloped in Mr. Hodgson's own mind, and keptback from my friends and colleagues while he re-mained at Madras abusing the hospitality and un-restrained assistance in his inquiries supplied to himat the Headquarters of the Society at Adyar, wherehe took up the attitude of a friend, though he nowrepresents the persons with whom he thus associated—as cheats and liars. These charges are now broughtforward supported by the one-sided evidence collectedby him, and when the time has gone by at which evenhe could be confronted with antagonistic evidence ^and with arguments which his very limited knowledgeof the subject he attempted to deal with do not supplyhim. Mr. Hodgson having thus constituted himself Mmprosecutor and advocate in the first instance, andhaving dispensed with a defence in the complicatedtransactions he was investigating, finds me guilty of feall the offences he has imputed to me in his capacityas judge, and declares that I am proved to be anarch-impostor.

The Committee of the P. R. S. have not hesitatedto accept the general substance of the judgment whichMr. Hodgson thus pronounces, and have insulted mepublicly by giving their opinion in favour of their

THE " OCCTLT WORLD PHENOMENA. 51

agent's conclusions—an opinion which rests whollyand solely on the Report of their single deputy.

Wherever the principles of fairness and honourablecare for the reputation of slandered persons may beunderstood, I think the conduct of the Committeewill be regarded with some feeling resembling theprofound indignation of which I am sensible. ThatMr. Hodgson's elaborate but misdirected inquiries,his affected precision, which spends infinite patienceover trifles and is blind to facts of importance, hiscontradictory reasoning and his manifold incapacityto deal with such problems as those he endeavouredto solve, will be exposed by other writers in duecourse—I make no doubt. Many friends who knowme better than the Committee of the P. R. S. willremain unaffected by the opinions of that body, andin their hands I must leave my much abused reputa-tion. But one passage in this monstrous Report Imust, at all events, answer in my own name.

Plainly alive to the comprehensive absurdity of hisown conclusions about me as long as they remainedtotally unsupported by any theory of a motive whichcould account for my lifelong devotion to my Theo-sophical work at the sacrifice of my natural place insociety in my own country, Mr. Hodgson has beenbase enough to concoct the assumption that I am aRussian political agent, inventing a sham religiousmovement for the sake of undermining the BritishGovernment in India! Availing himself, to givecolour to this hypothesis, of an old bit of my writing,apparently supplied to him by Mme. Coulomb, but-which he did not know to be as it was, a fragment of

52 THE "OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA.

an old translation I made for the Pioneer from someRussian travels in Central Asia, Mr. Hodgson haspromulgated this theory about me in the Report,which the gentlemen of the P. R. S. have not beenashamed to publish. Seeing that I was naturalised ^nearly eight years ago a citizen of the United States,which led to my losing every right to my pension of5,000 roubles yearly as the widow of a high official in ••Russia; that my voice has been invariably raised in 0India to answer all native friends that bad as I thinkthe English Government in some respects—by reason tmof its unsympathetic character—the Russian would bea thousand times worse; that I wrote letters to thateffect to Indian friends before I left America on my l||way to India, in 1879; that every one familiar withmy pursuits and habits and very undisguised life inIndia, is aware that I have no taste for or affinity withpolitics whatever, but an intense dislike to them ; thatthe Government of India, which suspected me as aspy because I was a Russian when I first went toIndia, soon abandoned its needless espionage, and hasnever, to my knowledge, had the smallest inclinationto suspect me since—the Russian spy theory aboutme which Mr. Hodgson has thus resuscitated from thegrave, where it had been buried with ridicule for years,will merely help to render his extravagant conclusionsabout me more stupid even than they would havebeen otherwise in the estimation of my friends andof all who really know me. But looking upon thecharacter of a spy with the disgust which only aRussian who is not one can feel, I am impelled irre-sistibly to repudiate Mr. Hodgson's groundless and

I

THE " OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA. 55

infamous calumny with a concentration of the generalcontempt his method of procedure in this inquiryseems to me to merit, and to be equally deserved bythe Committee of the Society he has served. Theyhave shown themselves, by their wholesale adoptionof his blunders, a group of persons less fitted toexplore the mysteries of psychic phenomena than Ishould have thought—in the present day, after allthat has been written and published on the subject oflate 3rears—could have been found among educatedmen in England.

Mr. Hodgson knows, and the Committee doubtlessshare his knowledge, that he is safe from actions forlibel at my hands, because I have no money to conductcostly proceedings (having given all I ever had to tliccause I serve), and also because my vindication wouldinvolve the examination into psychic mysteries whichcannot be dealt fairly with in a court of law; andagain because there arc questions which I am solemnlypledged never to answer, but which a legal investi-gation of these slanders would inevitably bring to thefront, while my silence and refusal to answer certainqueries would be misconstrued into " contempt ufcourt." This condition of things explains the shamelessattack that has been made upon an almost defencelesswoman, and the inaction in i'ace of it to which I amso cruelly condemned.

II. P. ULAVATSKY.

Jan. 14, 1886.

III

IIII

1

APPENDIX.

The following evidence is taken from a Pamphletprepared at Madras as " the Kesult of an Investiga-tion into the charges against Mine. Blavatsky,brought by the Missionaries of the Scottish FreeChurch at Madras":

FACTS BEGABDINCI THE " OCCTTLT EoOSl" TIP TO JANUABY,

1884, AND AFTEB.

1.

" When I was at Head-quarters at Adyar lajt January (1883),I went into the Occult room five or six times. Of these, on fouroccasions during day time. On two of these occasions duringthe day there happened to come into the room several Thco-sophists from Southern India who were desired by MadameBlavatsky on one occasion and Mr. Damodar on the other toexamine the shrine and the walls of the room. These persons,after very careful examination, found nothing suspicious. Theshrine was found attached to a solid wall behind, and there•were no wires or other contrivances which could escape thetrained eye of a Police officer like myself who was watchingclose by."

E. CASAVA PILLAI,Inspector of Police, Nellore.

" I witnessed a phenomenon (011 1st April, 1883), a fullaccount of which was published by me in the PhilosophicInquirer of the 8th April, 1883. I went up to the shrine withtwo sceptical friends of mine and the doors were opened for meto inspect closely. I carefully examined every thing, touching

56 THE " OCCULT WOULD PHENOMENA."

the several parts with my hand. There was no opening or holeon this side of the cupboard (shrine). I was then led into theadjoining room to see the other side of the wall to which theshrine is attached. There was a large alrnirah standing againstthis wall, but it was removed at my request that I might seethe wall from that side. I tapped it and otherwise examined itto see if there was no deception, but I was thoroughly satisfiedthat no deception was possible.

On 14th September, 1884, after reading the missionary article,I again went to see the room at 8 a.m. and was met by Mr. Judge,Dr. Hartmann, and Mr. Damodar, who took me upstairs. Outhe other side of the wall at the back of the shrine, I saw closeto the wall an ingenious, furniture-like apparatus, to which wasfastened a sliding door, which, when opened, showed a smallaperture in the wall. Inside of this there was hollow spacelarge enough for a lean lad to stand in if he could but creepinto it through the aperture and hold his breath for a fewseconds. I attempted in vain to creep in through the optuins,and afterwards stretched out my hand with difficulty into thesmall hollow to see the internal structure. Tliere was no com-munication with the lacJc board of the ilvrine. I could see thatthe machinery had not been finished, and the sliding panels, &c.,all boro the stamp of the freshness of unfinished work."

P. RUTHNAVELU,

Editor, Philosophic Inquirer.

3.

" I first saw the Occult room in August, 1883. Since then Ihave frequently examined the shrine and the wall at the back ofthe shrine up to January, 1884, when I left the Head-quarters,and 1 can safely affirm th»k any trickery was impossible. Mrs.Morgan was engaged in new papering the back wall of theshrine, and I frequently saw the work in progress in Decemberlast, so that any tampering with the back of the shrine wouldhave been discovered then if anything of the kind had occurred."

19iA Aug., 1884.H. E. MORGAN,

Major-Genl. (Madras Army), retired.

THE " OCCULT WOULD PHENOMENA/

4.

57

" I had a scientific education in my younger days, and for thelast 12 years or more I have been a teacher inter alia of Naturalscience. When I was in England in 1870, one of my favouriteplaces of resort was the Polytechnic Institution where scientificlectures are delivered. One of these lectures was—I maymention—the raising of ghosts Ly Professor Pepper, and I amfully conversant with the appliances and apparatus he used toillustrate his lectures with. I have had considerable experiencein Parlour Magic, Prestidigitation, &c.

" In May, 1883, when I was a guest at the Head-quarters, Ihad many opportunities of being in the Occult room, and ofexamining it and the shrine, and once I V3ry carefully examinedthe shrine at the desire of Madame Blavatsky before and afterthe occurrence of a phenomenon that I <=aw. I can safely say,without any equivocation or reservation, that in the Occult room,or auywhero within the precincts of the Head-quarters, I nevercould find any apparatus or appliances of any kind suggestiveof fraud or tricks."

J. N. UNWALLA (M.A.)3n2 Aug., 1884. lid. Master, BTiaimagar, High School.

5." I went to tho Head-quarters of the Theosophical Society, at

Adyar, on 5th July, 1883. I examined the rear, top, bottom,and side planking of the shrine, as also the walls in its vicinity,most carefully and minutely, and found no cause to suspect fraud."

C. SAMBIAH CHETTT,\.7th Sept., 1884. Local Fund Engr., Ountoor.

0'.Mrs. Morgan writes:—" I can state for a fact, that during my

stay at Adyar during December, 1883, Madame Blavatsky tookMr. C. and myself and showed us the back of the shrine andthe wall she had built behind it, where there had been a door,and the people were welcome to inspect this and see it wasbarred and bolted, yet she thought it would remove the leastoccasion for suspicion, were it bricked up, and so had it done.

58 THE "OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA." TM

The wall then presented a fine, highly polished white surface.This wall I shortly after saw papered, as I superintended thehanging of the paper." '•

7." I have very often been at the Head-quarters at Adyar before

18th May, 1884, and have been hi the Occult room and seen theshrine many a time. I have carefully examined the walls andfloor of the room, but have never found any secret door, windowor trap of any kind."

1st Sept., 1884. HAEISINGJEE EOOPSINGJEE.

8." Examined the trap doors, which very clearly appear to have

been newly made, and in such a clumsy manner that they couldnot be used at all."

14th Sept., 1884. A. G. BALKEISHNA ITEE.

9." I have now seen two of the so-called sliding panels, evidently

manufactured not with the purpose to assist phenomena, butwith the object of bringing discredit on them."

2nd October, 1884. W. BATCHELOE.

10." Previous to 18th May, 1884, I had examined the Occult

room several tunes along with the shrine and its surroundings. ^I had an interest in so examining, as I wanted to be able togive my unqualified testimony conscientiously to a prominentsceptical gentleman at Madras who knew mo well, and whourged me to state all my experiences about phenomena. MadameBlavatsky herself asked me on several occasions to examine. Iknew more of the phenomena of Madame Blavatsky than any out-sider. Madame Coulomb was herself treating me as a real friend, -^and telling me things which she would not tell to others. I haveno hesitation in stating it for a fact that any contrivances liketrap-doors, Ac., had nothing at all to do with Madame Blavatsky,who had not the remotest idea of them. The Coulombs are thesole authors of the plot.

" I have witnessed the phenomena of the Mahatmas at different

TIJE "OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA." 50

times and places where there was not the least possibility oilhaving trap-doors or praciisiug any trickery. I have seen andknown the exalted sages who are the authors of these phenomena,and I could therefore confidently assert that the phenomena thatused to take place at Adyar were all genuine."

30/7t Auyiist, 1884. BABA.JI DHAKBAGIEI NATH.

11." I was present on several occasions when witnesses to Occult

phenomena examined the shrine. There was a wardrobe onthe other side of the wall behind the shrine, and this wasremoved on two occasions in my presence that sonic Theosophists,who wanted to satisfy themselves, might examine the wall. InJuly, 1883, Madame Blavatsky went to Ootacamund. Duringher absence, every week without fail, I used to take out all thethings from the shrine and clean it myself from the inside witha towel. I cleaned it several times in the presence of MadameCoulomb, and on other occasions in the presence of others. Iused to rub hard the frame with a towel, and had there beenany workable panel at the time, it would not but have movedunder the pressure. It was during that time that GeneralMorgan saw the phenomenon of the broken saucer, and it wasalso during that period that Mr. Shrinivas Eow put in his letterin the shrine and received an instantaneous reply. In December,1883, owing to the observation made by a visitor, MadameBlavatsky asked me to examine the shrine, and I and Mr. SubbaEow very carefully examined it as well as the wall behind; andwe were both thoroughly satisfied that there was no ground fortrickery."

19th August, 1884. DAHODAR K. MAVALANKAE.

12.Dr. Hartmann on the very day of hia arrival (4th December,

1883), expressed a desire to see the shrine and was taken there.He states : " The so-called shrine was a simple cupboard hungloosely to a wall in Madame Blavatsky's room. I examined iton this occasion, and more carefully afterwards, and found it likeany other cupboard, provided with shelves and a solid unniovabluback, hung upon an apparently solid and plastered wall."

60 THE "OCCULT WORLD PHENOMENA."

13.Apart from the numerous instances on which Col. Olcott

had occasion to see the shrine, he states he had twice theopportunity of distinctly seeiug the surface of that part of thewall where the cabinet (shrine) was hung up. About the 15thof December, 1883, he returned from his northern tour, andtwo days after his arrival, feeling much indisposed, he slept inthe Occult room upstairs. He had been told to try a certainexperiment by making some marks " on the spots of the wallcorresponding to the centre and four corners of the cupboard."This he did by having the cupboard moved by the assistance ofservants. After the anniversary was over he went to Ceylon,whence he came back to Adyar on the 13th of February, 1884,and was there up to the 15th. At this time he again had theshrine moved to examine the marks.

Col. Olcott, therefore, could distinctly state that from the 17thof December, 1883, up to the 15th February, 1884, there wasno hcrle or opening of any kind in the surface of the wall whichtouched the back board of the " shrine."

14.Mr. Grabble, the gentleman employed by the missionaries as

an expert, states as follows:" I was also shown two oi *e sliding doors and panels said

to have been made by M. Coulomb after Madame Blavatsky'sdeparture. One of these is on the outside of the so-called Occultroom upstairs. Both of these have been made without theslightest attempt at concealment. The former is at the top of aback staircase, and consists of two doors, which open into akind of bookshelf. This gives the idea of having been constructedso as to place food on the shelves inside without opening thedoor. The other contrivance is a sliding panel which lifts up,and opens and shuts with some difficulty. It is evidently ofrecent construction. Certainly, iu its present state, it would bedifficult to carry out any phenomena by its means. Neither ofthese two appliances communicate with the shrine, which issituated on the cross wall dividing the Occult room from an ad-joining bedroom."

IIIII

Printed by Jas. Wade, 18, Tavistock Street, Corent Garden, London,