[158]

The Challenge of Rudolf Steiner

In this issue, we print the first of three articles originally written in Dutch for the Netherlands Section of the T. S. magazine “Teosofica”. We are greatly indebted to the author, translator and editor for permitting this formal English publication. For readers who want to make their own enquiry into Dr. Steiner and Theosophy, we repeat the suggestion made in “Madame Blavatsky Unveiled?” (p.27) that his lectures, “The Occult Movement in the Nineteenth Century and its relation to modern culture” (London, Rudolf Steiner Press, 1973), form a good starting point. The Anthroposophical Society itself is at Rudolf Steiner House, 35 Park Road, London NW1 6XT, and has a library open to nonmembers on subscription.

Anthroposophists are not at ease with the Theosophical side of their history, just as Theosophists are embarrassed by their Spiritualist links. Mr. Charles Lawrie when Librarian at the House, took a particular interest in historical matters, including the question of H. P. B., but some other Anthroposophists are disdainful of Theosophy, except for the book by Dr. Steiner of that title! Anthroposophical historians are not always accurate in basic Theosophical names or dates when they are obliged to mention them.

This journal has always defined its task to include all the schools of thought that were linked with the T. S. Precisely because Dr. Steiner was important, and raises difficult questions, we cannot ignore him. Incidentally, despite the recent short book by Colin Wilson, there is a need for more non-committed scholarly biographies of Dr. Steiner.

L.P.

S. P. R. Archives will resume next time.

[159]

Dr. Rudolf Steiner on Helena Petrovna Blavatsky

by H.J. Spierenburg (translated by J.H. Molijn)

Many members of the Theosophical Movement have in one way or another come into contact with the Anthroposophical Movement or allied organizations and persons such as the Steiner schools, anthroposophical physicians, manufacturers of medicines prepared according to anthroposophical principles, etc.

Moreover, it is generally known that those who founded the “Anthroposophische Gesellschaft” in 1913 were all members of the Theosophical Society (Adyar). Meanwhile we write 1985, i.e. 72 years later.

For some reason or another a fairly large number of groups have left the Theosophical Society (Adyar). However, all these newly formed organizations have the same basis as the Theosophical Society, i.e. the foundress of the Theosophical Movement: Madame H. P. Blavatsky. Most of the secessions were due to the fact that it was doubted whether the basis was respected enough! There is, however, one exception, viz. the Anthroposophical Movement, the founder of which, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, fully occupies the place which H.P.B. occupies in all echelons of the Theosophical Movement.

The question that is put —and I suppose is answered —in the present article reads: What did Dr. Steiner think of H. P. Blavatsky?

The data of Dr. Steiner’s statements mentioned in the present article are related to the titles and numbers of the “Rudolf Steiner Gesamtausgabe” given in the bibliography at the end of our article.

[160]

Dr Rudolf Steiner

Dr. Rudolf Steiner was born at Kraljevic (Croatia) on 27th February 1861. He studied at the Technological University of Vienna and took his doctor’s degree at Rostock in 1891 on a thesis entitled: Die Grundfrage der Erkenntnistheorie mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Fichte’s Wissenschafts-Lehre. From 1890 to 1897 he was a collaborator in the Goethe-Schiller Archiv at Weimar, and edited Goethe’s scientific works. The contacts he had made with theosophists since 1899 and the lectures he had delivered for the German Branch of the Theosophical Society (Adyar) resulted in his being asked to become Secretary-General of the German Branch. He accepted this position in 1902. On May 10th 1904 Dr. Annie Besant appointed him Arch-Warden of the Esoteric School in Germany and Austria,. A facsimile of this appointment is included in the Gesamt-Ausgabe-Nr. 264: Zur Geschichte und aus den Inhalten der ersten Abteilung der Esoterische Schule 1904–1914, Dornach 1984, p. 26. A difference of opinion with Dr. Besant on the planned role of Krishnamurti as “world teacher” finally led to the formation of the “Anthroposophische Gesellschaft”. The first few designs for the Goetheanum at Dornach (Switzerland) were made in 1913. This (first) Goetheanum was ready for occupation in 1920. Dr. Steiner founded the so-called “Freie Waldorfschule” at Stuttgart in 1919. On New Year’s Eve 1922–23 the Goetheanum was burned down. A new Goetheanum was built in accordance with Dr. Steiner’s architectonic principles, but it was only finished after his death. He died at Dornach on March 30th, 1925.

The Literary Legacy

Dr. Steiner left an amazing number of texts. In addition to some ten books, not including the Goethe editions, he wrote a few hundred articles for period-

[161]

icals, made designs for sculptures and lay-outs, painted meritoriously, designed eurythmics, applied his knowledge of the “Geisteswissenschaften” to the investigation of diseases and homoeopathic medicines, and between the year 1900 and 28th September 1924 he gave some six thousand lectures, five thousand of which have been preserved in the form of shorthand reports or notes.

H.P.B’s etheric body

The particular faculties which H.P.B. possessed were attributed by Dr. Steiner to her Russian descent. On 11-04-1912 he said in Helsinki to a party of Russian listeners that the body in which the individuality who in that incarnation was called H.P.B. was locked up, could only originate from Russia. On 28-03-1916 he repeats this statement, but goes into the matter more deeply. There he says that the way in which the spiritual and the physical co-operate in Russians absolutely differs from what is customary elsewhere in the world. From this milieu H.P.B. came forth, though she cannot be regarded as 100% Russian. At any rate—says Dr. Steiner—this makes it understandable that with her the activities of etheric body, more particularly the activities relating to insight (”Erkenntnis”), far exceeded those of the physical body. Thus—says Dr. Steiner—she is someone who could gain numerous experiences in her etheric body, which of course is something quite different from obtaining insight through the intellect.

H.P.B’s nativity

Dr. Steiner’s ideas about the doctrine of cycles are quite different from those of H.P.B. Thus, in Zürich Steiner says on 06-11-1917 that in the year 1841 something peculiar had happened. In the spiritual worlds a battle had started between spirits of darkness and spirits of light, which continued until the autumn of 1879. The battle was fought about the question whether from the spiritual worlds a quantity of know- [162]

ledge should be prepared which was to be given to humanity in the third part of that century. This battle ended in 1879, with the victory of the spirits of light. Dr. Steiner also sees a strong relationship between this battle and the so-called utilitarianism of the 19th century. Utilitarianism is based on the principle that the correctness or incorrectness of an action is determined by the good or evil effects which result from it. On 07-10-1916 he relates this utilitarianism with H.P.B.’s horoscope: “ . . . when in the middle of the 19th century the utility principle caused a crisis in the development of Europe, the personality Madame Blavatsky was born, whose natural gift enabled her to reveal a great deal from the spiritual worlds to humanity. One who would like to consider this point from an astrological point of view might make the following experiment: he could investigate the moment which the utility crisis in the 19th century had reached its culmination and draw a horoscope of it. If he should take H.P. Blavatsky’s horoscope, he would come to the conclusion that these are the same.”

Theosophists will know that H.P.B. ‘s horoscope has been published in H.P. Blavatsky’s Collected Writings, vol. 1, p. lxxiv.

Commotion in the Occult Fraternities about H.P.B.’s Birth

Dr. Steiner holds the view that the so-called “higher degrees” of freemasonry may be regarded as the “outside aspect” of the real occult fraternities. He says this on 28–03–1916. Already in the early phase of his career, i.e. on 23–10–1905, he points out the fact that H.P.B. was a member of a lodge with these “higher degrees”, while he speaks with praise of the signatory of H.P.B. s diploma, the well-known John Yarker. This will indicate to the reader what Steiner means when he speaks of occult fraternities.

According to Dr. Steiner H.P.B.’s birth caused great commotion among the members of the occult fraternities. On 18–03–1916 he speaks about this point and

[163]

says that the conclusion was reached that H.P.B. possessed powers which were described as faculties which will belong to future humanity. Literally he says: “There arose lively interviews in the Anglo-Saxon orders .... Those who were the genuine guardians of those orders said to themselves: ‘It must be significant that exactly at this moment such a personality has come from the easterly portion of humanity. This has to be investigated and we need to take a stand.’ This led to the actual question: ‘How can that which through strong psychic faculties might betray certain deep secrets to the world, be channelled in such away that this Russian futurity element connects itself with the essence of Anglo-Saxondom? – Binding Blavatsky’s properties direct to the essence of Anglo-Saxondom became the object to be attained. One wanted at least to make an attempt to attain above all that through the psychic qualities of Blavatsky only those occult dogmas should be given to the world which had been chosen by the occidental orders .... At first matters proceeded as planned, so to say. Indeed, Blavatsky began to acquaint herself with the spiritual life of Central Europe.”

H.P.B. in Paris

In a letter to the Russian Prince Dondoukoff-Korsakoff (H.P.B. Speaks, vol. II, Adyar 1951, p. 23) H.P.B. says that in 1873 the Mahatma K.H. ordered her to Paris. Writing to Mr. A. P. Sinnett (The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett, London 1925, letter LXI, p. 153–4) she says that she stayed there with her cousin Nicolas Hahn (Nikolay Gustavovich von Hahn) at No. 11 Rue de l’Université. She told Col. Olcott that she intended to stay there some time (H. S. Olcott, Old Diary Leaves, vol. I, 2nd ed., reprint Adyar 1974, p. 20). In Paris she makes the acqaintence of a physician, Mrs. Dr. L. M. Marquette, who later wrote a letter to Olcott, which he published in his Old Diary Leaves (as above, p. 27–8). In this letter, Dr. Marquette writes that she associated with H. P. B. every day;

[164]

further that the latter passed her time with writing and painting, and seldom left her room. Among H. P. B.’s regular visitors were the Leymaries, a well-known French spiritualist couple. Contrary to what H. P. B. says, Dr. Marquette mentions the Rue du Palais as her address; she calls H. P. B.’s cousin her brother, and in addition relates that the latter’s friend, a certain Mr. Lequeux, also lived in the house. This is all we know about H. P. B.’s three months’ stay in Paris in 1873. At the moment there are no other known sources. However, Dr. Steiner is able to tell us much more about this period, viz. in his lectures of 12– 03–1916, 18–03–1916, 28–03–1916, 19–11–1916 and 26–12–1916. The following compilation has been taken from Dr. Steiner’s statements made in the lectures referred to. After she had worked under very competent leadership for some time, and had developed in herself much that led to the desired end, the matter was guided in such a way that in Paris she joined an order with high degrees, which, however, was dependent on the British occult movements. There she was to be manipulated in such a way that her soul would express only what they wanted. However, this was like a dagger-stab to her. They wanted to use her only as a highly developed medium. But H. P. B. was such a strong personality that the whole plan failed. At a certain moment H. P. B. was visited by an American, who had intended to use for himself what he had come to know as a member of the occidental fraternities. He revealed to her the objective of these fraternities, viz. to employ spiritualism in an attempt to convince humanity of the existence of the spiritual worlds. This attempt was well meant—says Dr. Steiner—but was based on a mistake since the public drew quite different conclusions from spiritualism. However all this may be, for H. P. B. the revelation led her to make demands. Nevertheless she made such conditions that it was impossible to meet her requirements. Dr. Steiner even says literally: “... the results of which would be that the entire history of France would have taken a different turn.” He adds

[165]

that if those demands had been complied with, this occult fraternity would have signed its own death-sentence, in any case would have eliminated itself. It was a result of all this—says Dr. Steiner—that membership was denied her. Thereupon she went to America.

H. P. B. in America

Dr. Steiner describes three events in detail, viz.:

- H. P. B. with the fraternities; - the replacement of the Mahatmas K. H. and - H. P. B.’s occult captivity,

in nine lectures: 01–08–1915, 11–10–1915, 17–10–1915, 12–03–1916, 18–03–1916, 28–03– 1916, 07–10–1916, 09–12–1916 and 26–12–1916.

A problem is posed by the fact that the sequence of events related in the lectures changes continually, while he yet recounts them as if one occurrence had proceeded from the previous one. This may also have been: due to inaccuracies on the part of the stenographers. We simply do not know. Another problem lies in the fact that the writing of Isis Unveiled does not fit into the series of events mentioned, though this writing had covered many years. In our comment on H. P. B.’s short stay in Paris we have summed up all that is known. And that is not much! But we know a great deal about the years that H. P. B. spent in America. There are diaries, articles in the periodicals, newspaper reports, hundreds of dated letters and many personal testimonies. In some cases we know what H. P. B. did from day to day. The events related by Dr. Steiner are stated below in the order which as it were necessarily arises from the occurrences documented, while–e.g.–the writing of Isis Unveiled has been fitted in.

With the Fraternities in America

After a stay of about three months in Paris, [166]

H. P. B. arrived in the port of New York on 7th July 1873, where she went—as she herself writes—by order of the same authority—the Mahatma K.H.—who sent her to Paris months before (see The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett, London 1925, letter LXI, p.154; H. S. Olcott, Old Diary Leaves, vol. I, 2nd, ed., reprint Adyar 1974, p. 20; A. P. Sinnett, Incidents in the Life of Madame Blavatsky, London 1886, reprint 1976 N. Y., Arno Press, p. 175; and The Path, vol. IX, February 1895, p. 385. In his lecture given on 11–10–1915 Dr. Steiner says that there has possibly been a form of contact between Col. Olcott and H. P. B. when the latter (still) belonged to an American Lodge, but he is not sure about it. However this may be, we know that the recorded meeting between H. P. B. and Col. Olcott took place on October 14th 1874 at Chittenden, Vermont (see Old Diary Leaves, as above, p. 15, and H. S. Olcott, People from the other World, Hartford (Conn.) 1875, reprint Rutland (Vermont) 1972, p. 293–306). From these sources it follows logically that H. P. B.’s contacts with the occult fraternities must have occurred between July 1873 and October 1874. H. P. B.’s contacts with the fraternities are described by Dr. Steiner in his lectures of 11–10– 1915, 17–10–1915, 12–03–1916, 18–03–1916, 28–03–1916 and 26–12–1916. Here he says among other things: “... in America she was actually admitted in an occult fraternity and as a result she obtained considerable insight into the objects which such occult fraternities pursue, and also into those which on no account strive for the welfare of humanity.... She communicated with American spiritualists who wanted to do away with the teaching of reincarnation. Mediumship was the means to attain this.... Such a field of activity was not in Blavatsky’s nature. Therefore she was expelled from this fraternity, the reason given being: An attack on the constitution.”

[167]

Colonel H. S. Olcott

In his Old Diary Leaves (as above, p. 4) Col. Olcott describes how, together with a friend he saw H. P. B. for the first time, while she was having a meal in the company of another lady. The first thing that struck him was the flaming red Garibaldi blouse she was wearing. It was so conspicuous in the local surroundings that he said to his friend: “Good gracious! look at that specimen, will you.” As mentioned before, this was on 14th October 1874. Dr. Steiner knew Col. Olcott—who died on February 17th 1907 —personally. On the occasion of the approaching White Lotus Day on May 8th, Dr. Steiner spoke about the Presidentfounder on the 05–05–1909. He said that if an inhabitant from Mars should have come down who accidentally had observed Olcott and the Theosophical Society, he would have recognized Olcott as the natural President even without knowing anything about the constitution in force. He says literally: “The Theosophical Society has been lucky in having such an excellent founder in Col. Olcott. And things will go ill in the T. S. when one day the spirit, so to say, which had flowed into it through Olcott, will no longer be operative.” Years later, on 18–11– 1916, Steiner says in Dornach: “... parenthetically it may be remarked that those who read Max Eyth (Hinter Pflug und Schraubstock, 2 vols, 2nd. ed., Stuttgart 1899) may also learn something quite different, something which may for instance be interesting for theosophists to know about matters relating to the life of the first President of the T. S., Olcott. This is quite evident from Max Eyth, who was in America when Olcott made a mess of it.”

The Replacement of the Mahatma K. H. and the Role of John King

Dr. Steiner discusses this subject in his lectures of 01–08–1915, 11–10–1915, 17–10–1915, 12–03–1916, 28–03–1916, 07–10–1916 and 26–12–1916. Firstly Dr. Steiner explains the technique which is used to make someone believe that he is in contact

[168]

with a Mahatma, after which he states the reason behind it: “... there appear imposters who want to promulgate a one-sided world-view and thereby make use of a mediumistic personality.., such as the one who has taken the place of the Master K.H. ...” About the beginning of those events Dr. Steiner says: “After a Mahatma who is indicated by the letters K. H. had exercised a beneficial influence on her for a considerable time, he was— owing to a number of machinations—replaced by another....” In another lecture: “About this time H. P. B. started to co-operate with a person possessing an enormous organizing ability... viz. Olcott.... Then—in a certain sense under the mask of a previous individuality—a person entered the spiritual horizon of H. P. B. who was actually the carrier of what one wanted to be introduced into the world from India... under the mask of... the Mahatma K. H. You probably know that Olcott has written a great deal about this Mahatma K. H., including the fact that in 1874 this Mahatma K. H. gave his opinion about the individuality which resided in him. He said that in fact his name was John King and that he had possessed the personality of a pirate who had been famous in the 17th century.... Further, Col. Olcott expressed himself in a curious manner about this John King. He says that probably one has not at all to deal with the pirate’s spirit, but with the creation of an order which exists as a visible order amidst physical humanity, while for results it is dependent on the invisible.” As source Dr. Steiner mentions Olcott’s book People from the other World (Hartford (Conn.) 1875, reprint Rutland (Vermont) 1972.) As regards the above statement by Dr. Steiner that the Mahatma K. H. is reported to have said that he was actually John King, I venture to maintain here that such a passage does very definitely not occur in Olcott’s books! On p.454 of Olcott’s book may be found his supposition that the outbreak of spiritualistic phenomena in America is under the control of an Order… nothing else! H. P. B. herself says that she met the Mahatma K. H.

[169]

for the first time in 1868 and lived for a short time in his sister’s house at Tzi-gadze (see The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett, London 1925, letter LXI, p. 153, letter XCV, p. 215; The Path, vol. IX, January 1895, p. 299; The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, letter CXL, ed. London-New York 1923, p. 478–9, ed. Adyar 1962, p. 470–1). If we start from the supposition that Dr. Steiner is right, then H. P. B. worked under the guidance of the ‘real K. H.’ from 1868 to 1874. In the theosophical literature John King is an undigested lump. We must admit this. Thus, in a letter to General Lippitt (H. P. B. Speaks, vol. I, Adyar 1950, p. 84–5) H. P. B. says: “I know John for 14 years. Not a day but he is with me.” This letter bears the date June 12th 1875; according to H. P. B. herself she met John in 1861, i.e. seven years before she met the Mahatma K. H.! On the other hand she says in 1884 that she had never heard the name John King before 1873, further that a portrait which she had painted in an extraordinary way (see H. P. B. Speaks, vol. I, opposite p. 78) and which she had represented as a picture of John King, was actually the Mahatma Hilarion whom she had known since 1860 (see Collected Writings, vol. VI, p. 271 and the compiler’s remark on p. 280). In the same place she says that John King should be regarded as a generic name for more than one spirit and that she had known more than one John King. A riddle which has as yet not been solved. However all this may be, we are concerned here with the remarks made by Dr. Steiner, and he has told us that the Mahatma K. H. was replaced by someone else in 1874. About this person he says: The latter had deserted one of the occult fraternities in whose higher degrees he had been initiated, so that he was in a position to remain in the background as a ‘Mahatma’ and attain the goals in view through Blavatsky.

The Theosophical Society

As is known both in theosophical and anthropos-

[170]

ophical circles the Theosophical Society was founded in New York by H. P. Blavatsky, H. S. Olcott, W. Q. Judge and thirteen others on November 17th 1875. On 10–06–1904 Dr. Steiner says: “Nostradamus... wrote a number of prophetic stanzas.... These Centuries by Nostradamus include the following: ‘When the 19th century will have come to an end, one of the Brother’s of Hermes will come from Asia to unite humanity again.’ – The Theosophical Society is only a fulfilment of this prophecy by Nostradamus.” (Nostradamus’s French text in Century 10.75 reads: Tant attendu ne reviendra jamais, Dedans l’Europe, en Asie apparoistra, Unde la ligue yssu du grande Hermes, Et sur tous Roy des Orients coistra. Translated: So long expected shall never come, Into Europe, in Asia shall appear, One issued of the line of the great Hermes, and shall be over all the Kings of the Orient.).

“Isis Unveiled”

The compiler of H. P. B.’s Collected Writings, Boris de Zirkoff, has given in his edition of Isis Unveiled, vol. I, p. (1)–(61), a historic account of the writing of Isis which contains all relevant material. In this history Mr. de Zirkoff included a letter by H. P. B. (on p. (33)), the original of which is in Adyar, and in which she says: “Isis was the first work with the exception of a few articles.., that I ever wrote in English in all my life and it was mostly dictated by K. H. (Kashmiri) as you know.” It was also the Mahatma K. H. who wrote that the (definitive) commission to H. P. B. to write Isis Unveiled was given in a year after the founding of the Theosophical Society (see The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, letter LII, ed. London-New York 1923, p. 289, ed. Adyar 1962, p. 285). The present article, under the heading ‘H. P. B. in America’, already states that Dr. Steiner mentions in an erratic order a number of events which happened in America. For instance, in the lecture given on 12–03–1916 he says that the Mahatma K. H. was replaced after Isis had been written. Now Isis appeared in

[171]

1877, whereas the passages dealing with John King in Olcott’s People from the other World, which Dr. Steiner relates to this matter in his lecture of 11–10–1915, refer to 1874 (this date he mentions himself also in this lecture), while Olcott’s book was published in 1875. The burning question now is: Who largely dictated Isis Unveiled? Was it the real or unreal K. H.? On 25– 04– 1906 Dr. Steiner replies to a question: “First a European was her guide, thereupon an Egyptian, and after that she wrote Isis Unveiled.”

H. P. B.’s occult captivity

Dr. Steiner speaks about H. P. B.’s so-called occult captivity in the following lectures: 11– 10–1915, 12–03–1916, 18–03–1916, 28–03–1916 and 26–12–1916. In this lecture of 28–03–1916 Dr. Steiner says: “Then recourse was had to a device that is very, very seldom used: one availed oneself of this device to put in occult captivity, as it is called, this dear, poor Blavatsky, who—as you know—had already been used as a puppet by diverse powers which influenced her. Occult captivity implies that care is taken that everything which is evolved by the soul concerned does not pass beyond a certain sphere and thereafter is thrown back. This is achieved by a certain form of ceremonial magic.... This was decided on in 1879 at a meeting of occultists from various countries.” As the reason for such action Dr. Steiner in the other lectures mentions the fact that she would then be unable to betray particular secrets.

The Mahatma Letters

In the book H. P. B. Speaks (vol. I, p. 140) already referred to before, we read that the Mahatma Serapis (the Egyptian, as Dr. Steiner said) commissions H. P. B. on 14th November 1878 to go to India. She leaves with Olcott on 19th December of the same year from New York harbour. They reach Bombay on February 16th 1879. Now we have heard already that the occult captivity was decided upon in 1879. In his lecture of

[172]

18–03–1916 Dr. Steiner says that she was in Asia at the time, whereas in his lecture of 26– 12–1916 he mentions that this captivity lasted for years. Every theosophist knows that the famous letters to A. P. Sinnett were written between 1880 and early 1886. Now these letters formed the source for Sinnett’s books The Occult World (1881) and Esoteric Buddhism (1883). Hence, these letters must have been written during H. P. B.’s occult captivity! On 11–10–1915 Dr. Steiner says: “... it is this John King (so the one who personated the Mahatma K. H.) who, by means of the precipitation process, produced the letters for Sinnett’s books, both the first book The Occult World and the second Esoteric Buddhism.”

What did Dr. Steiner think of H. P. B.?

The present article could easily be prolonged five times. However, it should be regarded as an impulse to a further study. The foregoing has given the reader an idea of what Dr. Steiner thought about the person of H. P. B., and only a small portion of the available material has been used. The question to what extent H. P. B.’s and Dr. Steiner’s teachings diverge has not been asked. The investigation into the similarities and differences between Theosophy and Anthroposophy has not yet begun.

______

(Bibliography; continued from next page but one.)

Other volumes from the ‘Gesamtausgabe’ in which H. P. B. is regularly discussed:

No. 245 Anweisungen für eine esoterische Schulung (Aus den Inhalten der “E. S.”). No. 262 Rudolf Steiner/Marie Steiner-von Sivers: Briefwechsel und Dokumente 1902– 1925.

No. 264 Zur Geschichte und aus den Inhalten der ersten Abteilung der E. S. 1904–1914.

[173]

Bibliography of Dr. Steiner’s works

Lectures in which H. P. B. is mentioned, stating the place, date, number of the cycle of the lectures (‘Gesamtausgabenummer’) and the title of the cycle. Berlin, 23–10–1905, No. 93 Die Tempellegende und die goldene Legende. Leipzig, 25–04–1906, No. 97 Das christliche Mysterium. Berlin, 07–05–1906, No. 96 Ursprungsimpulse der Geisteswissenschaft. Stuttgart, 24–08–1906, No. 95 Vor dem Tore der Theosophie. Stuttgart, 30–08–1906, No. 95 Idem. Dusseldorf, 12–04–1909, No. 110 Geistige Hierarchien und ihre Widerspiegelung

in der physischen Welt. Berlin, 05–05–1909, No. 284 Bilder okkulter Siegal und Säulen. Karlsruhe, 08–10–1911, No. 131 Von Jesus zu Christus. Stuttgart, 15–10–1911, No. 284 Bilder okkulter Siegal und Säulen. Stuttgart, 16–10–1911, No. 284 Idem Berlin, 23–10–1911, No. 133 Der irdische und der kosmische Mensch. München, 25–02–1912, No, 143 Erfahrungen des Uebersinnlichen. Helsinki, 11–04–1912, No. 158 Der Zusammenhang des Menschen mit der elementarischen Welt (Das russische Voldstum). Helsinki, 12–04–1912, No. 136 Die geistigen Westenheiten in den Himmelskörpern und Naturreichen. Helsinki, 13–04–1912, No. 136 Idem. Helsinki, 14–041922, No. 136 Idem. Keulen, 08–05–1912, No. 143 Erfahrungen des Uebersinnlichen.

[174] Munchen, 16–05–1912, No. 143 Idem. Dornach, 01–08–1915, No. 162 Kunst und Lebensfragen im Lichter der Geisteswissenschaft. Dornach, 11–10–1915, No. 254 Die okkulte Bewegung im neunzehnten Jahrhundert und ihre Beziehung zur Weltkultur. Dornach, 17–10–1915, No. 254 Idem. Dornach, 18–10–1915, No. 254 Idem. Stuttgart, 12–03–1916, No. 174b Die geistige Hintergründe des Ersten Weltkrieges. München, 18–03–1916, No. 174b Mitteleurope zwischen Ost und West. Berlin, 28–03–1916, No. 167 Gegenwärtiges und Vergangenes im Menschengeiste. Dornach, 07–10–1916, No. 171 Innere Entwicklungs impulse der Menschheit. Dornach, 19–11–1916, No. 172 Das Karma des Berufes des Menschen in Anknüpfung an Goethes Leben. Dornach, 27–11–1916, No. 172 Idem. Dornach, 09–12–1916, No. 173 Zeitgeschichtliche Betrachtungen (Erster Teil). Dornach, 26–12–1916, No. 173 Idem (Erster Teil). Dornach, 30–01–1917, No. 174 Idem (Zweiter Teil). Dornach, 10–06–1923, No. 258 Die Geschichte und die Bedingungen der Anthroposofischen Bewegung im Verhältnis zur Anthroposofischen Gesellschaft. Dornach, 12–06–1923, No. 258 Idem. Torquay, 20–08–1924, No. 243 Das Initiaten Bewusstsein. Torquay, 21–08–1924, No. 243 Idem. [p. 172]

Other volumes from the ‘Gesamtausgabe’ in which H. P. B. is regularly discussed:

No. 245 Anweisungen für eine esoterische Schulung (Aus den Inhalten der “E. S.”).

No. 262 Rudolf Steiner/Marie Steiner-von Sivers: Briefwechsel und Dokumente 1902– 1925.

No. 264 Zur Geschichte und aus den Inhalten der ersten Abteilung der E. S. 1904–1914.

[175]

THE REAL ORIGIN

We are reprinting in this issue two articles which appeared in the Spiritualist weekly “Light” on 23 and 30 November, 1895. Readers of Josephine Ransom’s “Short History” will know that the first treasurer of the T.S., Mr. Newton, claimed to have suggested its formation. His claim to this position is not a weighty one; one might have supposed, for example, that in the Judge controversy, then in progress, a supporter of Mr. Judge might have been glad to suggest that Colonel Olcott had not proposed the T.S., but I am not aware that this was done. (For Annie Besant’s claim that H.P.B. suggested the T.S., see James Santucci “Theosophy and the Theosophical Society”, T.H.C. 1985.)

The main point of these two articles is Mr. Newton’s claim; though there are echoes of it elsewhere, this is possibly the most detailed statement of it, and unlikely though it is, it ought not to be forgotten, as sometimes happens to traditions incompatible with the accepted versions. For the rest, Mr. Newton clearly shows a Spiritualist animus against the later direction of the T.S. and all his statements must be treated with caution. When “Old Diary Leaves” appeared in “The Theosophist” Colonel Olcott included descriptions of his original colleagues, including Mr. Newton.; these were much cut down for the book version (which may not have pleased Mr. Newton!), but we hope to reprint them, with other material on Mr. Newton, at a later date. This may be a suitable moment to call attention to “Light”, a newspaper which in the early days of the T.S. was the main channel of discussion for Theosophists in England, after “Light” started in 1881. We frequently have occasion to quote it; it was “The Times” of Spiritualism. (See page 187 for subscriptions)

[176]

THE REAL ORIGIN OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

By Quæstor Vitæ

Some interesting information with regard to the inception of the Theosophical Society has been imparted to me by Mr. H. J. Newton, the venerable president of the First Society of Spiritualists of New York, which information will be of interest to Theosophical as well as general readers. A certain Mr. Felt, a professor of mathematics, was introduced in 1875 by Mr. H.A. Stevens, on the editorial staff of the ‘Observer,’ to Madame Blavatsky, who was then known in New York as a Spiritualist, and in fact posed among her acquaintances as being a medium. This Mr. Felt claimed to possess a knowledge of the ancient Egyptian occult arts by which he could evoke phantoms of the dead, by using certain magical formula, combined with the burning of aromatic herbs, &c., and without the presence of a Spiritualistic ‘medium.’ He was asked by Madame Blavatsky to give a lecture in her rooms in Irvingplace, on the Egyptian Kabbala, and to illustrate it with experiments in magic. She invited a number of people interested in such subjects to hear the lecture. Mr. Felt did give a lecture, but dealt mainly with geometry and but little with Kabbalism. He related his experiments in magical evocations, but gave no illustrations thereof. Colonel Olcott claims, in his ‘Old Diary Leaves,’ to have proposed the formation of the Theosophical Society on this occasion. Mr. Newton contravenes this, and affirms that he himself rose and orally suggested the organisation of a society to investigate Mr. Felt’s statements. This proposal was supported; a committee was named, of which he was appointed chairman; and this committee met at his house, once a week, to discuss the organisation of the society, until they had completed their work and framed the by-laws, &c., of the projected society. This work occupied about two months, when the preamble and bye-laws were read, and the first five of the original

[177]

fifty-five people subscribed their signatures thereto, thereby becoming members in the society thus constituted, on October 30th, 1875. Mr. Newton still holds the original manuscript book in his possession, containing the record of the constitution of the society, with its bye laws, and bearing the fifty-five signatures of the original members. Among the subjects discussed by this original committee, of which Mr. Newton was chairman, was that of the most suitable name to be given to the society they were initiating, and which name might define its object, viz., the searching, by physical means, for knowledge with regard to the Infinite. For this purpose a dictionary was used which is still in Mr. Newton’s possession, and which he fetched, in order to show how they came to select the term Theosophy, as best meeting the above requirements. The dictionary is Webster’s unabridged, American edition, in which it will be found that Theosophy is defined as ‘supposed intercourse with God and superior spirits, and consequent attainment of superhuman knowledge by physical processes, as by the theurgic operations of ancient Platonists, or by the chemical processes of the German fire philosophers.’ This circumstance, says Mr. Newton, and no other, was the origin of the use of the term Theosophy in connection with the society they constituted. The committee engaged rooms for the society in Mott Memorial Hall. They also engaged Mr. Felt to give a course of four lectures, explanatory of Egyptian Kabbalism, to the society, at a fee of twenty-five dollars per lecture. After giving one lecture to the newly-constituted society (on May 24th, 1876, as per his receipt), and receiving his fee, Mr. Felt came to Mr. Newton, who had been made treasurer to the society, and asked him to advance him the payment for the three lectures which remained to be given. This Mr. Newton declined to do. Mr. Felt, however, then went to Colonel Olcott, and came back with a note from the Colonel (dated June 24th, 1876) to Mr. Newton (and still in his

[178]

possession), advising him to pay Felt, which Mr. Newton therefore did. That was the last that was seen by the society of Mr. Felt. Colonel Olcott and Mrs. Emma Hardinge Britten then gave some lectures to the society on different aspects of spiritualism. Of these lectures no record was kept. The society continued in existence for about two years, becoming more and more thinly attended, till it died out. Colonel Olcott has stated, in his ‘Old Diary Leaves,’ that Mr. Newton withdrew from the society when he found that neither Mr. Felt nor H.P. Blavatsky was going to show him an adept or an elemental. Mr. Newton says that he only withdrew after about two years, when the society died a natural death. Mr. Judge, it appears, claims that the society continued to exist till Colonel Olcott and H.P. Blavatsky went to India. Mr. Newton says that there had been no meeting of the society for a year or two prior to their leaving for India. Colonel Olcott published a long letter in the New York ‘Sun’ when they left, stating that they were sent by the New York society as missionaries to India. This was pure fiction, says Mr. Newton, the society having ceased to exist, except in the fertile imaginations of H.P. Blavatsky, Colonel Olcott, and Mr. Judge. The only fact of any importance that occurred in connection with the existence of the society was that of its sending the medium Slade to Europe. Colonel Olcott, when referring to this incident on p. 654 of the ‘Theosophist,’ does not say a word with regard to its having occurred in connection with the Theosophical Society; his statement is so framed as to imply that the incident pertained only to the private life of H.P. Blavatsky and himself. Yet he admits that the inquiry entailed extended till May, 1876, while it will be noted that the Theosophical Society was constituted October 30th, 1875, which fact shows that it does pertain to the history of the Theosophical Society, and also shows its original Spiritualistic character. Numerous other discrepancies

[179]

will be noticed between the account appearing in the ‘Old Diary Leaves’ and the facts as given by Mr. Newton. An effort is made to convey the impression that the society was instituted under the guidance of Theosophic adepts for the furtherance of Theosophic teachings. Its purely Spiritualistic origin and tendencies are carefully veiled. H.P. Blavatsky’s letters to Aksakoff, however, at this period, as published by Solovyoff, reveal her as describing herself as an ardent Spiritualist. In consequence of this correspondence, apparently, Aksakoff wrote, asking that a reliable medium might be sent him recommended by the society, offering to pay 1,000 dol. for travelling expenses. The society appointed a committee of three to investigate mediums and find one that would answer the requirements. The committee sent a report to Aksakoff recommending Slade, and he replied requesting that Slade should be sent, which was done. It was subsequent to this that Slade was arrested in London. He got away to Germany, however, and thence to Russia. Zollner’s book on ‘Transcendental Physics’ was one of the consequences resulting from this visit. One of the strongest documents in support of Spiritualism is thus due to the contributory assistance of the original Spiritualistic Theosophical Society. We find that a pamphlet was published in Bombay, in 1879, containing an address, delivered by Colonel Olcott, on the society and its objects, in which a glowing description is given to the Easterns of the society and its work as being carried on both in the West and the East. To this pamphlet are added what purport to be the principles, rules and byelaws supposed to have been framed at New York on October 30th, 1875. But on comparing these printed rules with the original manuscript book, still in Mr. Newton’s possession, the two documents are found to be entirely different from each other, the later production bearing not the slightest resemblance to the original above referred to, and to which are attached the fifty-five signatures of the original members.

[180]

The fact is that Colonel Olcott had no copy of the original, which remained in Mr. Newton’s hands when the society became extinct. And this in itself shows to what extent the society had become extinct when H.P. Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott left in search of fresh pastures. If the society had continued to live as a society, they would have retained possession of their original constitution. That they did not, leads to the inference that it died out and became extinct. When endeavouring to start a fresh venture in the East, it was, no doubt, considered good policy to present this new venture to the Easterns, as being a branch of an already existing important body in the West, and not as a fresh venture to re-establish a literary speculation which had already fallen flat elsewhere. Unfortunately, these two productions, when compared, are found to have no identity with each other. Mr. Newton wishes to say that he will be glad to show the original manuscript book to Mrs. Besant, if she desires to see it, on the first occasion she may visit New York. The title page bears the following names as officers:- President, H.S. Olcott; Vice, S. Pancoast, M.D., and J.H. Felt; Corresponding Secretary, H.P. Blavatsky; Recording Secretary, J. Storer Cobb; Treasurer, H.J. Newton; Librarian, Ch. Southeran [sic]; Councillors, Rev. J.H. Wiggin, Mrs. E. Hardinge Britten, B.B. Westbrook, C.E. Simmons, M.D., and H.D. Monachesi; counsel, W.Q. Judge. Organised in the City of New York, October 30th, 1875.

[The preceding portion of this article appeared in the November 23th, 1895 issue of Light: 569–70. The text that follows appears in the November 30th, 1875 issue of Light: 577.]

______

The following extracts from the ‘Preamble’ will be of interest, as confirming Mr. Newton’s statement that the society was formed for the purpose of obtaining knowledge with regard to the unseen aspects of the Universe, and of the higher spirits, by study and by the use of physical processes. There was no such

[181] thing as a proposition of studying or of proclaiming any one particular system presented as already existing. be found that the society expressly ‘disclaims all pretension to the possession of unusual advantages.’ Not a word with regard to Mahatmas is suggested. The society met to investigate the pretensions of a Kabbalist, pretensions which he could not maintain. And let it be here remembered that H.P. Blavatsky’s own correspondence, written about this period, presents herself to Aksakoff as an ardent Spiritualist, ready to make any effort and sacrifice for the sustenance of Spiritualism. It is only after this venture had fallen flat, and a new and more successful effort was made in India, that the original ‘higher spirits’ were made to wear Eastern robes, and re-appeared as Mahatmas. In the interval ‘Isis Unveiled’ had been written, entailing much study of Occultism and Kabbalism, and consequently greater knowledge. But the departure for the East was accompanied by the departure from Western Occultism; and the original attitude of devotion to discovery of truth wheresoever it may be found; and the disclaiming of all pretension to the possession of unusual advantages, or of having any system of philosophy to disseminate, were abandoned. The ‘Book of Dzyan’ was produced from hoary antiquity. An esoteric system of philosophy appeared, backed up by Chelas, Mahatmas, and even Nirmanakayas! In subsequent years, after the society became a financial success, it was sought to attribute its inception to the inspiration and direction of romantic, invisible adepts. But that all such romance is pure fiction now appears from the statements of its original proposers, and is confirmed by the internal evidence of its own documentary constitution. It is clear from this internal evidence that the Eastern paraphernalia were a subsequent growth of gradual development, resulting from the experience culled in the later Eastern venture, and grafted on to the first programme, when the original society had conveniently melted away.

[182]

PREAMBLE

The title of the Theosophical Society explains the objects and desires of its founders: they seek to obtain knowledge of the nature and attributes of the Supreme Power and of the higher spirits, by the aid of physical processes. In other words, they hope that, by going deeper than modern science has hitherto done into the esoteric philosophies of ancient times, they may be enabled to obtain for themselves and other investigators proof of the existence of an ‘Unseen Universe,’ the nature of its inhabitants, if such there be, and the laws which govern them, and their relations with mankind. Whatever may be the private opinions of its members, the society has no dogmas to enforce, no creed to disseminate. It is formed neither as a Spiritualistic schism, nor to serve as the friend or foe of any sectarian or philosophic body. Its only axiom is the omnipotence of truth, its only creed an unqualified devotion to its discovery and propagation. In considering the qualifications of applicants for membership it knows neither race, sex, colour, country nor creed. The founders of the Theosophical Society begin their work with a solemn conviction of its importance. They do not undervalue the difficulties, intrinsic and extrinsic, of the task. Materialists have not attempted, and the Theologians have undervalued. Starting with a hope rather than a conviction of the attainment of their desires, they are animated solely by an earnest purpose to learn the truth, wheresoever it may be found; and esteem no obstacle so serious, no pains so great, as to excuse them for relinquishing it. They look in vain to the Church for such evidence of immortality as will satisfy the exactions of a fearless reason. The Spiritualists, who profess to be in constant relations with the departed, are unable to agree upon a system of philosophy. Thus the longing of the race for a practical demonstration of its future existence goes unsatisfied; the laws of

[183]

inter-communication between the visible and invisible worlds are not accurately defined; and the problem of the two eternities which bound this life remain unsolved.”

It then proceeds to specify the activity of mental independence which finds expression in the East and West, and continues:

In view of the existing state of things it will be seen that the Theosophical Society has been organised in the interests of religion, science, and good morals, to aid each according to its needs . . . The Theosophical Society, disclaiming all pretension to the possession of unusual advantages* ... invites the fraternal co-operation of such as can realise the importance of its field of labour, and are in sympathy with the objects for which it has been organised.—November, 1875.

A further incident must be referred to in this connection, however unpleasant. Personal incidents do not, as a rule, concern us, unless the principles represented are involved by the mode of presentation expressed by the personal representative. The incident in question is of interest as an indication of modes which may have been applied in other instances, in support of what clearly appears to have been purely and simply a speculative venture. Mr. Newton is an amateur photographer of considerable repute. He has been president for twenty years of the photographic section of the American Institute, and is known as the father of the dry plate process in the United States. He has made numerous experiments in spirit photography and has assisted in the exposure of bogus pretensions in that direction. On one occasion he experimented in his own house in the presence of the medium, Dr. Ruggles. Mr. Newton prepared and developed the plates himself. He prepared the camera and sat for it, the medium simply opening and closing the lens. On the background of a portrait thus obtained of himself a letter B was found to be presented on the negative, which negative Mr. Newton still has in his

[184]

possession and showed to me. Colonel Olcott happened to call on Mr. Newton the morning after this negative had been taken, and Mr. Newton showed it to him. He showed it to no one else, or spoke of it to no one else. Some days afterwards he received the following letter, which I copy from the original:—

113 West Forty-first Street. SIR, - I feel myself impelled to write you a very singular communication. Impelled, inasmuch as in doing so I do my personal feelings injury, for the woman who is interested in it is an enemy to me. Also, I have certain feelings as a Catholic, which the strange manifestations I have had thrust upon me conflict with, and render my life one of incessant tumult. But of this I will speak no further, but relate as I am ordered in my thrice-repeated vision. I saw you seated in what was, apparently, a studio. You were having your photograph taken. An under-sized man, with red hair, was moving about in the room. He was evidently a strong medium, as from his person emanated the most powerful electric aura. Suddenly, over your head, appeared a transparent and luminous B. My guide, an aged Egyptian woman, pointed to it, when I beheld it gradually, as it were, unfold, and from its rays form the following words: ‘Be faithful, be friendly, and be guided. BLAVATSKY.’ Mrs. Phillips, 113, West Forty-first Street, N.Y. I am in generally after eight o’clock in the evening should you wish to see me further upon the subject.

Mr. Newton said nothing about this letter to anyone: not even to his wife, and put it away. Three years or so afterwards Mr. Newton was at a reception given by Charles Foster at 1257, Broadway. A lady was introduced to him as Mrs. Phillips. She asked if his name was H.J. Newton? If he lived in Forty-third Street? Did he remember getting a letter about a letter B? To which questions Mr. Newton

[185]

responded successively in the affirmative. She then informed him that it was she who wrote that letter, and that it was Colonel Olcott who dictated it to her. Now, as Mr. Newton observes, no human being could know of the existence of that letter, except himself and the person who wrote it (and the one who dictated it). She further volunteered the statement that it was her maid-servant who had personated a Mahatma, at Colonel Olcott’s request, who had appeared at a reception given by H.P. Blavatsky to Judge R.B. Westbrook, where she had glided into the room and given a letter to H.P. Blavatsky. H.G. Alger was present at this reception. Mr. Newton informed Judge Westbrook of this statement at the time, and the latter said that he would publish it; but Mr. Newton does not know whether he carried out that intention or not. I hereby confirm the statements attributed to me in the above article, as also the extracts from the original manuscript book and letter still in my possession. – HENRY J. NEWTON.

——————————————————————————————————— *The italics are mine - ‘Quæstor Vitæ’

…………………………………….

The publication of these articles in “Light” was followed by a minor correspondence. The following letter appeared on 14 December, under the heading, like its two successors, “The Theosophical Society”.

Sir,- Having read the communications by ‘Quæstor Vitæ’, in reference to the origin of the Theosophical Society, will you permit me to state that if Colonel Olcott did not desire that the servant of Mrs. Phillips should personate a Mahatma, he ought to deny it in the columns of your valuable journal? I have frequently heard with pleasure and edification the eloquent lectures of Mrs. Besant, and am inclined to believe

That the creatures just existing When the change of death is o’er, In some other form returning. Taste of conscious life once more

[186]

and to think that the theory of re-incarnation may be correct, but I object to any truth being bolstered up by fraud or falsehood, and want to know whether Colonel Olc[o]tt did, or did not, desire that a servant of Mrs. Phillips should personate a Mahatma.

124, Wilderspool road, Warrington. S. KENYON.

To this there came a reply from a leading worker who had been in Adyar, but was now in Europe, published on 21 December. Sir,- Colonel Olcott told me not so long ago that he always reads ‘LIGHT’ with interest; and so he probably will reply to Mr. S. Kenyon’s letter, if he does not consider it too great an impertinence to call upon him in that way, point blank, to say whether he is or is not a contemptible fraud; but he is in India at present, and, in the meantime, will you permit me, as one who knows him well, to say that any such deception as that attributed to him by ‘Quæstor Vitæ’s’ New York authority is perfectly inconceivable by anyone who knows the man himself, or who is aware of the extremely serious frame of mind he was in—almost a state of religious exhaltation— at the time of the alleged occurrence? It is more usual to regard Colonel Olcott as a credulous dupe in those days, and far more credible; and, although he certainly may have been neither, he cannot have been both. I think that neither ‘Quæstor Vitæ’ nor Mr. S. Kenyon would suspect him of any such miserable trickery, had they read his lately published ‘Old Diary Leaves.’ I may say, however, that Colonel Olcott very seldom takes the least notice of such questions as that of Mr. S. Kenyon; for a person who would believe him capable of such fraud would believe him capable of denying it; therefore a denial on his part would be of no value in that persons eyes, but would only lead to some further indignity. For my part, I think that to throw mud at anyone is bad enough, but then to call upon him publicly to wipe it off is adding insult to injury.

RICHARD HARTE.

Mr. Kenyon responded, on 4 January 1896; [187]

Sir,- Having read the letter by Mr. Richard Harte, will you permit me to state that, believing that Colonel Olcott is the president-founder of the Theosophical Society, and, as many of the teachings of Theosophy are in accordance with my own ideas, some of which were expressed in verse more than ten years ago, on reading the communications to ‘LIGHT’ by ‘Quæstor Vitae, ‘ a writer of ability, I was greatly shocked; for after having frequently heard Mrs. Besant, I began to think that Theosophists might possibly have some means of verifying the accuracy of such ideas. In wishing, therefore, to ascertain whether a servant of Mrs. Phillips’ did or did not personate a Mahatma, I have not cast mud at Colonel Olcott or soiled my fingers with it.

S. KENYON.

It seems likely that the articles of Quæstor Vitæ provoked other correspondence here or elsewhere, and we hope to print whatever comes to our attention. Readers will naturally be interested in the identity of Quæstor Vitæ. We do not know it, though quite possibly it was disclosed in a later volume of “Light”, for example in his obituary notice. Many Spiritualists kept their identity secret for professional reasons. Quæstor Vitæ wrote regularly in “Light” on Spiritualism, and he reappears in an anti-Theosophical connection from Paris, with a story about HPB being mesmerised there to produce a Mahatma personality some years before the T.S. was founded, a tale also told by later French authors. (We hope to deal with it before long.) Perhaps Mr. Fraser Nicol, or some student of the early volumes of “Light” can reveal the identity of Quaestor Vitae to us!

L. P.

Light today is a quarterly published by The College of Psychic Studies, 16 Queensbury Place, London SW7 2EB, yearly post paid £5, overseas £6 or U.S. $10, airmail $15. It covers the whole field of psychic and spiritual knowledge, and can be recommended to all interested in latent powers.

[188]

Book Review

The Comte de Saint-Germain the Secret of Kings. Isabel Cooper-Oakley (T.P.H., reprint 1985). £8.55 This book was first published in 1912. The author had before her only the chapter on Saint-Germain by Sypesten in his book on distinguished foreigners who had sojourned in the Hague, and the chapter on him by Andrew Lang, in his Historical Mysteries. Hers was, therefore, the first full length book to be devoted to him, and as such deserves the honour accorded to pioneer works. She was a Theosophist, a pupil of Madame Blavatsky, and therefore it is written with reverence. She has laboured to present the figure of a great Adept and helper of humanity, not the charlatan of so many silly tales, and for this she deserves our thanks. What spoils her book is the extent to which she has made use of spurious sources. The most glaring case is that of the so-called Souvenirs attributed to the Countess d’Adhémar. She knew the authenticity of this book to be questionable, for she wrote in her Preface:

It has been suggested . . . that these Memoires are apocryphal . . . I do not think so, as the present Comtesse d’Adhémar informed me they have documents about the Comte de Saint- Germain in their possession.

Now the point is, whether or not this American lady was right in averring her husband’s family to have documents concerning Saint-Germain—which obviously she did not produce for Mrs. Cooper-Oakley, and which have never yet been produced—nobody doubts that there was a historic Comtesse d’Adhémar who belonged to the entourage of Marie-Antoinette, but the Souvenirs were not published until 1836, after her death, and posthumously published memoirs need to be scrutinised with care. They may, as intherecent case of “Hitler’s diaries” be forgeries foisted upon the public. [189]

The establishment of their authenticity or otherwise may be approached by way of a careful check as to how the events narrated tally with history. The historic Comtesse d’Adhémar married the Comte d’Adhémar in 1782, when she was twenty-two. She could not, therefore, have been present at Saint-Germain’s arrival in the court of Louis XV, which she mistakenly places in 1743. She avers that Louis XV begged Saint-Germain for a medicine that would save the life of Madame de Châteauroux, but, having known him only for a year, left it too late to ask him. Madame de Châteauroux was a very early mistress of Louis XV, and died in 1744. That was long before Saint-Germain entered France. It was in the middle of his London period, when he was playing his violin for the Prince of Wales and for the great English ladies who gave musical evenings in their drawing-rooms. When we turn to genuine French State Papers, we find, in the Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, that during the spring of 1758, Saint-Germain was writing letters to the Marquis de Marigny (brother of Madame de Pompadour) complaining that despite the letters he had written, upon an important matter, he still had not met the King. He must, in fact have been first received in audience by Louis XV in the summer of 1758. The story of the King’s having asked him to try to save Madame de Châteauroux’s life is therefore apocryphal. As one proceeds with the examination, one perceives the Souvenirs to have been built up from earlier dubious works, the memoirs of Madame de Hausset, dubious as to their veracity, and the anonymous Chronicle de l’Oeuil du Boef, generally recognised as spurious. (All three of these unfortunate sources are also quoted by Mrs. Cooper-Oakley as texts additional to the Souvenirs of the Comtesse d’Adhémar.) To continue with the checking of the Souvenirs of the Comtesse d’Adhémar, Saint-Germain is throughout represented as having for his deadly enemy the Comte de Maurepas. Now. J.-F. de Maurepas, one time Minister of the Navy and Secretary of the King’s house-

[190]

hold, had written a disgusting rhyme about Madame de Pompadour. I doubt whether the English reader, seeing it only in the translation by Mrs. Cooper-Oakley, would understand the meaning of the French, which is indecent. Indeed, I doubt whether Mrs. Cooper-Oakley understood it, though it was very well understood by Nancy Mitford. Madame de Pompadour suffered poor health, and upon one unfortunate occasion a “monthly” period came upon her at an unexpected time, suddenly and without warning, so that her dress became stained, during a formal dinner at Versailles. This was the subject of de Maurepas’s sickening rhyme. The King, Louis XV, rallying to the defence of his mistress, sent him a curt note, informing him his services no longer pleased, relieving him of all his offices and banishing him from the Court. All this happened long before Saint-Germain entered France, yet in the Souvenirs of the Comtesse d’Adhémar, he is made to say of de Maurepas that he “included me in his scheme of vengeance. He will never forgive me”—implying it was Saint-Germain who had persuaded the King to banish him. All this Mrs. Cooper-Oakley copies out without perceiving that it cannot be true. Then, in the Souvenirs from which she continues quotations, in the succeeding reign, Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette are represented as tyrannised over by de Maurepas, and Saint- Germain is made to say to the Comtesse d’Adhémar:

“The Queen will repeat to the King what I have said to her and Louis XVI will tell it to M. de Maurepas; this Minister will draw up a warrent against me, and the head of the police will have orders to put it into execution... I have no desire to go to the Bastille. . . .” And he vanishes into thin air!

Now it is true that Louis XVI, after his coronation, in 1774, recalled de Maurepas, but the subject of the writer’s real allusion is the Duc de Choiseul, Minister for Foreign Affairs under Louis XV. Choiseul it was who was Saint-Germain’s great enemy, and the issue which brought this enmity about was not a

[191]

wretched rhyme about a woman’s embarrassment but political. France had become locked in a war with England, which it had lost all hope of winning, and which was draining the resources needed for reorganisation at home. Choiseul alone wanted to keep it going. Louis and Madame de Pompadour craved only for a Peace, but had not the strength to stand up to the imperious and high-handed Minister on whom they had depended for so long. Choiseul, hoping to draw Spain into it, too, upon their side, was employing delaying tactics, such as disputing even the place at which a conference could meet to discuss terms. Because Saint-Germain had lived in England and knew the English, there grew up, between him and the King and Madame de Pompadour, the idea that he should go unofficially to the Hague, speak with the English Minister there, whom he knew slightly, confide to him privately that what the King of France wanted was Peace and ask him whether the King of England, George II, was—as he believe—also willing for it. This mission had great chance of succeeding, only unfortunately Choiseul got wind of it. and, feigning to believe the King would not have sent an unofficial Embassy unknown to his Foreign Minister (which was exactly what he had done), issued a warrent for Saint-Germain’s arrest and confinement. Louis was too weak to stand up for his confidant against his Minister; Saint-Germain had to flee and it was because of the warrant he was obliged to give up the name of Saint-Germain and live under other names. This Mrs. Cooper-Oakley does not explain. That the writer of the Souvenirs made Choiseul into de Maurepas, rolling the two very different persons into a single rollypolly, is sufficient proof of the spurious nature of the composition. Unhappily, it occupies forty pages of Mrs. Cooper-Oakley’s book, forming the chapters entitled, ‘The Coming Danger’ and ‘Tragical Prophecies’, in which S-G is made to appear a prophet of doom in the French Court, saying, “I am Cassandra” and uttering “prophecies” about the coming Revolution, which one

[192]

can feel comfortably certain were composed by the forger— probably Lamathe-Lagnon, as Chacornac suggests—some forty years after it had taken place, when a new generation had grown up that was avid for memoirs of the Terror and of the last days of the former regime. Yet the real Saint-Germain was, in truth, concerned about the ruin of France which he saw looming. To stop the war with England was only the first of the steps he prescribed. There must also be a stop put to the living by France upon loans from Foreign Governments, which she had not a hope of ever being able to pay back, and which could only lead to national bankruptcy. He came not to wail like Cassandra, uselessly, but to offer France a business which would have restored its finances. There are some hints of this in papers at the Hague, which Mrs. Oakley-Cooper found, or someone found for her, but she puts them into an Appendix, without comment, as though they were of less importance than the so-called Souvenirs of the Comtesse d’Adhémar, to which she gives pride of place. The Souvenirs are part of the refuse historians have to sweep away. Even with regard to the papers at the Hague there is an oddity. The extracts from Bentinck’s diary which she presents as Appendix III are described by her as “Translated from the Dutch”. The diary is not in Dutch, it is in French. Some person must have translated these passages into English and sent them to her, without telling her the language of the original. The selections leave out some of the most interesting parts. We are also indebted to Mrs. Cooper-Oakley for discovering the references to Saint-Germain in the Mitchell Mss in the British Museum, and in the letters of foreign ambassadors (intercepted) in the Public Record Office—which, however, she has consigned to Appendix VII. A note at the head of this mentions the lines of numerals, constituting the code, interlaced

[193]

with lines in clear text, and she says they may of course contain direct contradictions of the written words. But. . . since the cipher of the period changed, and the key is necessarily only known to those who have the charge of these affairs. . . No! She must surely have had in her mind the example of a cipher contradicting the apparent text given in an earlier era by Sir Francis Bacon. What is here involved is something different, and she has not understood what she was looking at. Ambassadors, Ministers and Residents etc. when writing home to their Governments usually had their texts given by the secretary who took them down to a cipher clerk, who enciphered them, for transmission, the cipher consisting in numerals. When they were received, the recipient’s cipher clerk deciphered them, and then wrote the deciphered text in clear, between the lines of cipher, so that the recipient could read the letter intended for him. The writing in words is the decipherment of the numerals. She quotes from a nineteenth century periodical extracts from the genuine correspondence between Masons that is at Wolfenbüttel, but did not try to see what more of it the library there possessed, and puts on a par with them “Masonic” papers obviously spurious. It is this want of discrimination between trustworthy and untrustworthy material that spoils her book. It has been pointed out that the letters she reproduces in facsimile signed Saint-Germain and de Welldone (the last name he used) are not in the same hand. It is the one signed de Weildone that is in the hand of Saint-Germain; but the one signed Saint-Germain may be genuine but in the hand of his secretary, even to the signature. It is unfortunate that she has given credence to the Memorial d’un Mondain by Maximilien von Lamburg. This book, in which the author claimed to to be an intimate of Saint-Germain, was published in Saint-Germain’s life-time. To an enquirer who asked him what he made of the matter about himself in this

[194]

book, he replied that the writer (contrary to his pretension) was not acquainted with him, and he commented, “That man is mad”. We can agree. It is not to Saint-Germain only but others to whom he ascribes abnormal powers of an absurd nature. The letter he prints, purporting to be from Saint-Germain to himself (quoted by Mrs. Cooper-Oakley on her p. 36), saying that it was when he sailed to India with Clive under Rear-Admiral Watson in 1755, that he learned the secret of “melting jewels” is plainly spurious. Saint-Germain did not sail with Clive, under Rear-Admiral Watson in 1755, for he was at that time in the Hague, trying to help a friend obtain backing for his invention of a pumping machine to clean ports. He did not “melt” jewels. Nobody can melt jewels. SaintGermain, could, indeed, remove flaws from diamonds and improve their colour, and that of other stones and metals; but he himself stated that he never used fire or heat in any of his processes. His processes were all cold. Mrs. Cooper-Oakley is a bit apt to take it that anyone called Saint-Germain is our SaintGermain. Thus, the person of that name she found coming from Lausanne, in 1774, long after Saint-Germain had abandoned use of that name, is probably Field-Marshal le Comte de SaintGermain. Chacornac accuses her of confusing him with the Field Marshal in respect of the experiments at Anspach and meeting with Orlov and the Russian fleet; but there, it is Chacornac who is wrong. She was right. That Saint-Germain is our Saint-Germain. On the other hand she confuses him with the Freemason, Robert Quesnay de Saint-Germain, grandson of Madame de Pompadour’s physician, François Quesnay. When she defends Saint-Germain loyally against the Abbé Barruel’s charge of Masonic improprieties at Ermenonville, she could, so far as our SaintGermain is concerned, have spared herself the trouble, since the subject of the accusation would have been his namesake, who founded the Club d’Illuminés in Paris, in 1781, while our SaintGermain was in Schleswig.

[195]

Mrs. CooperOakley was all agog when she found the name of Saint-Germain listed amongst all those attending a convention of the Philalètes in Paris in 1885 —a year after the decease of our Saint-Germain was registered in Eckernförde, but it will have been Quesnay de SaintGermain who attended the convention in 1785 of the lodge he had created. On such confusions legends feed. Theosophists may still reflect that a Master is likely to lose no time before reincarnating, but that is another matter. But who is he? In adhering to the Theosophical tradition that relates him to the family of Prince Rákóczy of Transylvania, I am sure she is right, and Chacornac, who in his book, Le Comte de Saint-Germain (Paris, 1947) tries to make him the bastard son of Queen Anna-Maria of Spain is wrong. But when she tries to decide which Rákóczy he was, she gets into trouble. On pp. 12 and 15, she refers to an archivarius for the year 1736, and says:

“... we find in the volume for 1736 the will of the late Prince Franz-Leopold Rákóczy, in which both his sons are mentioned, and also a third son...”

No! Firstly, we do not find the will, but only a short, garbled piece of gossip about it. The full will is published in the Testament politique et morale (The Hague, 1751), wherein it occupies over 50 pages of print. The reason why it is so long is that Prince Rákóczy—Francis Rákóczy II, the great Rákóczy—when he left France for Turkey in 1717, at the urgent invitation of the Sultan, took with him a great following. When he found he had been tricked and trapped, his people stayed with him, in the exile that was to be their lot thereafter. Eighteen years it lasted, until in 1735 he passed from his mortal frame. The will he made was comprehensive because it had to make some kind of provision for so many people, not in all cases financial for he had not that much to leave. He left some small token of his esteem to every member of his

[196]

numerous household. After all the small particular legacies, he left everything to his son, George. The writer of the archivarius garbles this, saying he left everything to his eldest son and nothing to his younger. No. The compiler has supposed the principle of primogeniture, but that was just what Rákóczy had put aside. He left everything to the younger. That was because the younger son, George, had come to see him in his exile, whereas the elder, Joseph, had not come. But what is this “third son” she discerns? There is none in the will. Yet Mrs. Cooper-Oakley leaves him everything that was in fact left to George. How did she come to make so strange a mistake? I looked at the old German archivarius and there I read, following the names of the Executors, that there was committed to them, “den Caminer Junker, Ludovicum Molitard, den er erzogen gehabt (und der vermutlich sein naturliche Sohn gewesen.. .” (I translate: “his pageboy, Louis Molitard, whom he had brought up (and who was very likely his natural son)”. No. To go back to the will, one sees that in fact, Prince Rákóczy commends to the care of his Executors, all of whom were Frenchmen, “Louis Molitard, a young Frenchman whom I have brought up”. Nothing was left to Louis Molitard, and I would think his father was one of the French people who had followed Rákóczy to Turkey, and died there. Rákóczy’s hope was probably that the Executors would, of their goodness, arrange for him to be fetched back to his native France, and there find for him some employment. In fact, this was done, and he entered the service of Rákóczy’s son, George, the one who received the inheritance. Mrs. Cooper-Oakley is aware of what Saint-Germain told his last host and deepest friend and pupil, Prince Carl of Hesse-Cassel, that he was brought up in Italy, by the last of the Medicis. She quotes it. How can she then make him simultaneously the young Frenchman brought up by Prince Rákóczy himself in Turkey? She affirms them to be one and the same. Does she not see there is a contradiction? And why does she suppress the name, Louis Molitard?

[197]

Why was he brought up by the Medicis in Italy and who his mother was, are questions to which I have suggested an explanation in my own forthcoming book. Nobody is obliged to accept it, but the identification attempted in the work under review is founded only on muddle and misunderstanding.

Jean Overton Fuller ______

THEOSOPHY AND ART

Janet Ross is researching the mutual interactions of modern theosophy and art, and in 1985 she spent some time at the library of the T.S. in England. Apart from general information on this theme, she is particularly interested in tracing Alvin Langdon Coburn, the photographic artist. In his personal papers at George Eastman House, Rochester, New York, there is evidence that he and his wife Edith joined the T.S. in 1915 when he was in London. English T.S. membership records are imperfect before the 1930s unfortunately. Any further data to Ms. Ross at Mail Station AS 1.1. Box 830688, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, 750830688, USA .

______

[198]

Correspondence

(The following comments were made in response to the recent T.H.C. booklet “Madame Blavatsky Unveiled?”. Ed.)

One aspect of the issue which it seems to me has not been fully taken into account by historians is its context in the larger history of India under the British Raj at the time. Although I have not seen this discussed, I wonder if it is more than a coincidence that the fraud charges against Theosophists broke just after the great controversy starting in 1883 over the Ilbert Bill, promoted by the liberal Viceroy Lord Ripon and which would have reformed the Indian judiciary so that it might have been possible for a European to be tried by an Indian magistrate. This possibility produced an explosive reaction in the Anglo-Indian community, with mass meetings, broadsheets, enraged newspaper articles and letters, much of it reflecting blatantly racist attitudes. In the end the Viceroy had to back down to a weak compromise. In turn, that led to a disillusionment on the part of native intellectuals and a few European liberals which directly engendered the Congress, in which of course O. Hume played a leading role. But my feeling is that, in this embitterd atmosphere, Europeans like the Theosophists who openly worked with “natives” and sympathized with Indian religion and culture would become highly unpopular with Europeans and likely targets of emotional rage as much political as religious. The several references to the Ilbert Bill in the Mahatma Letters are very intriguing: guarded, outrage at the racist attitudes, but feeling it was “untimely,” of benefit only to an Indian elite and liberal opinion at home, and that the whole row would do more harm than good. All of which may be the way it worked out in the end. But I think the Ilbert bill background may help explain why the charges and SPR investigations became such a cause célèbre. Charges of religious fraud are, of course, as we say, a dime a dozen; when one emerges as a great international issue one has to ask why this particular case? What larger symbolic and social significance does it have to lift it above all the others? Several factors may have been involved, but one surely must have been the conspicuously international and interracial nature of the Theosophical movement, so much against the grain of the times in India. [199]

A good study of the whole history is Edwin Hirschmann, ‘White Mutiny’ The Ilbert Crisis in India and the Genesis of the Indian National Congress (New Delhi: Heritage Publishers, 1980). The book does not mention the Theosophical crisis specifically, however. I know the author somewhat, and once wrote Professor Hirschmann (who is at Towson State University, Maryland) to ask him what he thought about the possible Theosophical connection. He replied that he did not feel he knew Theosophical history well enough to make a final judgement, but that the idea sounded like a very likely prospect.

Sincerely

Robert Ellwood Professor of Religion

School of Religion University of Southern California University Park, Los Angeles, California, 90089-0355

______

Subscriptions

The first volume of T. H. ends with the October issue, to which we hope to attach an index. With the January issue, subscriptions will rise to £8 annually (£l2 for two years). American dollar subscriptions will be $20 annually ($30 for two years). Airmail is 50% extra. Canadian cheques add $3. The subscription increases reflect in part the growth in size of the magazine. Subscriptions received before 1 January 1987 will be charged at the old rates, so whether you have received a subscription reminder or not, why not renew it now? T. H. subscriptions also make excellent presents. The 1987 associate subscription to T. H. C. will be £6 ($12 American $15 Canadian). This brings free copies on publication of T. H. C. pamphlets. You can send a single cheque to cover both T. H. and T. H. C. payments. [200]

THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY CENTRE

Two extra attractions for the International Conference on Theosophical History this July 18– 20, whose programme appeared in the April issue. Dr. Vernon Harrison has kindly agreed to be guest of honour, and participants will have the opportunity of meeting the author of the famous S. P. R. paper. And our T. H. C. hon. president Miss Lilian Storey invites participants to a Reception immediately after Friday evening’s session. (Dress informal!)

The next T. H. C. pamphlet has been sent to the printer. This will be a verbatim edition of the unpublished autobiography of A. P. Sinnett, sometimes cited (e.g. by Virginia Hanson’s “Masters and Men”) but hitherto fully available only in typescript at some major Theosophical libraries.

To obtain T. H. C. publications free on issue, any person may become an associate of the Centre for £4 (or $8) in 1986. T. S. members may also pay their annual dues through T. H. C. and become full members.

In view of the good response to the 1986 conference, we are giving preliminary consideration to a 1987 conference in London, possibly on an equivalent weekend.

______

Theosophical History is edited by Leslie Price. Cover design by Claire Jameson. Subscription – £5 per year ($10) or £8 for 2 years ($15) from The Editor, 46 Evelyn Gardens, London SW7 BH. Canadian cheques add S4. All material is copyright to authors and publishers, and may not be reproduced without permission. Views expressed are those of the authors alone, not those of any Theosophical body.