In 1882 Spiritualism
and Theosophy in London had jointly given birth to a new kind of spiritual
group, the Society for Psychical Research, or S. P R.
With the agreement of
Colonel Olcott a bright young Cambridge lawyer, Dr. Richard Hodgson, a believer
in telepathy and occultism and a friend of Theosophy, was sent to India to
investigate the claimed phenomena of Out of Body travel and Materialization.
If Blavatsky was able
to produce miracles at will, as her supporters continue to maintain today, she
had ample opportunity to demonstrate this to Hodgson. Instead she was content
to hold her hands to the back of his head and crack her knuckles, claiming that
the spirits were rapping. She also contributed some cranky notes in the margins
of various documents. Hodgson's report, based on months of extensive
interviews, Blavatsky, Olcott, Sinnett, Hurrychund Chintamon, and a
variety of Indian and British witnesses, said that Blavatsky's phenomena were
conjuring tricks, that the Adyar house showed clear evidence of rigging with
sliding panels, hollow chambers, and ceiling wires, that Theosophists had
admitted to him that they had destroyed other evidence of sliding panels and
similar tricks, that Blavatsky had employed several confederates among her
native following, and that Blavatsky herself was probably a Russian spy.
Needless to say, this
report, published in the Proceedings of the S. P R. in 1885, has always been
the subject of scorn by Theosophists. For all their fulminations, though, it
still stands on its own-the hyperemotionalism of
their responses has left little room for substantive argument. In sixty pages,
for instance, William Kingsland's Was She a Charlatan? manages to sandwich only
one defensible point between his furious personal attacks on Hodgson's
character. This bears on whether the Indian disciple Damodar
or Emma Coulomb was in charge of the keys to the house in early 1884. Kingsland
did demonstrate this inaccuracy in Hodgson's report: The point is significant
although hardly crucial. He then capitalized on this minor error to insist that
Hodgson committed "a willful and deliberate falsehood", rhetorically
addressing the late investigator to insist "you say one thing at one time
and exactly the opposite at another time as may suit your purpose. Is this a
proper response to a single unimportant oversight concerning a fact of which
Hodgson had no firsthand knowledge, which he had to piece together laboriously
from interviews? The rest of Kingsland's book is a kind of sententious froth
congratulating itself as a triumphant rebuttal. This low tone is however
characteristic of Theosophical replies to critics including today 2003.
Because it has been
suppressed by the TS for so many years, here then for the first time on the
internet, the fourth authentic part of the Hodgson Report on Esoteric and
Science News.
"The Occult World" Phenomena
The phenomena
described by Mr. Sinnett in "The Occult
World" now demand consideration. And first I shall deal with several cases
selected by Mr. Sinnett in his deposition to the
Committee, as these were presumably thought by him to be of special importance.
The first case described by Mr. Sinnett to the
Committee was that of a letter which he had written to Koot
Hoomi.
Having completed the
note, I put it into an envelope, and took it to Madame Blavatsky, who was
sitting in the drawing-room with my wife. I said to her, "Will you get
that taken, if you can, and get me an answer?" She put the letter into her
pocket, and rose to go to her room. All the windows were open, as is usual in
India. As she passed out I walked to the drawing-room door. She was out of my
sight but for an instant of time, when she cried out, "Oh, he has taken it
from me now." I will undertake to say that she was not out of my sight for
10 seconds. Having uttered that exclamation, she returned to the drawing-room,
and we then proceeded together to my office at the back of my house. I went on
with what I was doing, and she simply lay on the sofa in my full view. She
remained there, perhaps, for between 5 or 10 minutes, when, suddenly lifting
her head from the pillow, she pointed to it and said, "There is your
letter." I should mention, as a little fact which may bear upon occult
physics, that the moment before I distinctly heard a peculiar rushing sound
through the air. It was I think, the only occasion on which I had heard such a
sound, and she asked me afterwards if I had heard it. The letter lay on the
pillow, the name which I had written on the envelope being scratched out, and
my own name written immediately above it. The envelope was unopened, and in
precisely the same state, with the difference I have mentioned, as when I gave
it to Madame Blavatsky. I cut the envelope, and found inside an answer to the
question which I had asked the Mahatma.
From this account it
appears that Madame Blavatsky was not out of Mr. Sinnett's
sight for ten seconds, but in the account given in "The Occult World"
(pp. 96-97) Mr. Sinnett undertakes to say only that
she had not been away to her own room thirty seconds, admitting that she was
also out of his sight for a minute or two in Mrs. Sinnett's
room. After this I cannot feel certain that Madame Blavatsky may not have been
absent in her own room considerably more than 30 seconds, nor do I feel certain
that Madame Blavatsky may not have retired to some other room during the
interval of "a few minutes" which Mr. Sinnett
assigns to her conversation with Mrs. Sinnett in the
adjoining room. Even apart from this uncertainty, I cannot attach any
importance to the case after finding that on my second trial I could open a
firmly closed ordinary adhesive envelope under such conditions as are described
by Mr. Sinnett, read the enclosed note and reply to
it, the question and the reply being as long as those of Mr. Sinnett's, and re-close the envelope, leaving it apparently
in the same condition as before, in one minute; and it appears to quite
possible that Madame Blavatsky, with her probably superior skill and practice,
might have easily performed the task in 30 seconds. I do not suppose that Mr. Sinnett would wish to maintain that the "peculiar
rushing sound through the air" could not have been produced by ordinary
means at the disposal of Madame Blavatsky.
The next case
mentioned by Mr. Sinnett was the fall of a letter in
the guest-room at Crow's Nest Bungalow, and is thus described in his
deposition.
I had been expecting
a letter from Koot Hoomi,
but on my arrival at Bombay I did not find one awaiting me at the headquarters
of the Theosophical Society there. I had written, asking him several questions.
I had got in late at night, and on the following morning I was walking about
the verandah talking to Madame Blavatsky. We went into a room which I had
occupied as a bedroom during the night-a big room, with a large table in the
middle of it. I sat down while we were talking, and she occupied another chair
at a considerable distance from me. I said "Why on earth have I not had a
letter in answer to mine?" She replied, "Perhaps he will send it to
you. Try to exercise your will-power; try to appeal to him. Ask him to send it
to you." I retorted, "No I will wait his time; he will send sooner or
later, no doubt." At that moment a packet fell before me on the table. It
was a large envelope containing at least 30 pages of manuscript-heavy draft
paper. The packet only came into view a few feet-two perhaps-above the table,
though I do not attach much importance to the precise distance, as in a case of
that sort the eye cannot be certain to a foot. The room was brilliantly light,
this being in the morning.
MR. GURNEY: Did
Madame Blavatsky know that you had written a letter and were expecting an
answer, before this conversation with her?
MR. SINNETT: Certainly;
but the point to which I attach importance in this case is that the thing
happened in broad daylight in a room which I had myself occupied the previous
night, and which I had been in and out of during the whole of the morning.
Everything occurred fully before my eyes. It is impossible that Madame
Blavatsky could have thrown the letter with her hand. All the circumstances are
incompatible with that. I was not writing at the time, but talking to her, so
that the idea that she could have thrown the letter is simply preposterous.
[See "The Occult World," p. 120.)
It might be suggested
that the remarks made by Madame Blavatsky were calculated to render this
phenomenon more striking than it actually was if Mr. Sinnett
could have been prevailed upon to "exercise his will power," and it
is to be inferred from Mr. Sinnett's accounts that he
made no examination whatever of the ceiling either from the room below or from
the garret above. According to M. Coulomb the packet had been arranged in the
trap in the garret before the arrival of Mr. Sinnett
on the previous evening, but as Mr. Sinnett was late
in arriving, the phenomenon was deferred until the following morning. The room
where the letter fell has already been described, and the incident needs no
further comment.
The third case was
that of a sealed envelope, a case which Mr. Sinnett
seems to have regarded as "quite complete," in his deposition to the
Committee. (See "The Occult World," pp. 95-96.) This envelope, which
contained a letter for the Brothers, and which Mr. Sinnett,
after gumming and seating, had given to Madame Blavarsky,
was in Madame Blavatsky's possession for several hours, and when it was
returned to Mr. Sinnett, he found it "absolutely
intact, its very complete fastenings having remained
just as" he had arranged them. Cutting the envelope open, Mr. Sinnett found inside, not only the letter it had previously
contained, but also another, from Koot Hoomi. Mr. Sinnett showed me the
envelope. The fastenings were not by any means what I should call complete; so
far was this from being the case, that owing to the length of the flap, which
was only sealed at its lower extremity, the letter might have been abstracted,
and re-inserred with other letters, without even
steaming the envelope, or loosening the adhesion of the gum by any other
process; and if the gum had been loosened, say by careful steaming, the
abstraction and re-insertion would have been superlatively easy.
The last case given
by Mr. Sinnett in his deposition to the Committee,
and emphasised by him as a "phenomenal
test," is the alleged instantaneous transportation of a piece of plasterplaque from Bombay to Allahabad. ("The Occult
World," pp. 126-131.) The important facts are briefly these. Colonel
Olcott, accompanied by Mr. Bhavani Rao (now Inspector of the N.W Theosophical
branches), was on his way from Bombay to Calcutta, and was staying with Mr. Sinnett at Allahabad on the route. One evening, on his
return home, Mr. Sinnett found, in one of several
telegram envelopes awaiting him, a note from Mahatma M., telling him to search
in his writing-room for "a fragment of a plaster bas-relief that M. had
just transported instantaneously from Bombay." Mr. Sinnett
found the fragment in the drawer of his writing-cable. A document signed at
Bombay shows that somewhere about the same time as Mr. Sinnett
got this note, a loud noise, as of something falling and breaking, was heard by
several persons as they sat in the verandah adjoining Madame Blavatsky's
writing-room. A search was immediately made in this room, which proved to be
empty, but a certain plaster mould was found lying in
pieces on the floor. On fitting the pieces together, it was found that one
fragment was missing. Shortly afterwards Madame Blavatsky went into her other
room and shut the door. After a minute's interval, she called Mr. Tookaram Tatya and showed him a
paper containing the handwriting of "Mahatma M.," which informed them
that the missing piece had been taken to Allahabad. The remaining pieces were
sent a few days later to Mr. Sinnett, and he found
that his piece "fitted in perfectly." Of course, the weak point of
the case is that there is no proof whatever that the piece of plaster received
by Mr. Sinnett was in Bombay when the peculiar
breakage occurred, for it appears from the statement of the witnesses at Bombay
(shown to us by Mr. Sinnett, but not printed complete
in "The Occult World") that the only evidence for the previously
unbroken condition of the plaster mould is that
"Madame Blavatsky on inquiry ascertained DI from the servants that all the
furniture had been cleaned and dusted two days before, and the portrait was
intact then.
What arrangements
would be necessary for the phenomenon if it was a trick? Madame Blavatsky, we
may suppose, begins by breaking off a corner of the plaster mould,
and in so doing breaks the mould into several pieces.
After some difficulties, M. Coulomb fits the pieces together-all but one-and
keeps them in place by a strip of cardboard frame fastened in such a manner
that it can be jerked away by a string pulled from outside the room where the mould was suspended. The cardboard strip containing the mould is arranged on the nail. As M. Coulomb is going with
Madame Coulomb to Poona, he instructs Babula how to
pull the string. The fragment of plaster withheld is given (or sent) to some
confederate to be placed in Mr. Sinnett's drawer,
together with a note in the handwriting of "Mahatma M.," which is to
be placed, if possible, in some "closed" envelope at Mr. Sinnett's house; an hour is agreed upon, say 7 p.m., March
11 th, Bombay time, and at the appointed hour, Babula pulls the string, the plaster falls with a crash,
and witnesses are there to hear the noise and fit the fragments together.
Madame Blavatsky enters her inner room alone and provides a Mahatma note.
Meanwhile, the confederate has succeeded in inserting the note in a telegram
envelope (possibly by careful manipulation of the eyelets ble
to secure the proper conditions, I have not allowed the results of the
experiments to enter into the sum total of my conclusions.
That Mr. Sinnett looks upon the cases we have just considered in
detail as instances of the passage of matter through matter or of its
pre-precipitation or reintegration, forces me to the opinion that his modes of
investigation have not been what I should call "scientific," and that
the same lack of due caution probably characterised
his observation of test-conditions in those instances which I have not been
able to investigate personally, as in those instances where I have had the opportunity
of examining the conditions applied. Thus, for example, I have not taken part
in forming a pile of hands such as Mr. Sinnett
describes on p. 33, but I cannot attribute any importance to his confident
statement concerning this and similar incidents, now that I have examined some
of the possibilities in other cases about which he speaks with equal, if not
greater, confidence. The raps occurring when Madame Blavatsky places her hands
upon the patient's head, I have, however, experienced,-though, as Madame
Blavatsky sat behind me and placed her hands upon the back of my head, I was
unable to watch her fingers. She had not informed me what she intended doing,
and I conjectured that she was attempting to "mesmerise"
me; the so-called "shocks" which I felt impressed me simply as
movements of impatience on the part of Madame Blavatsky.
My attention being
then drawn to them as "phenomena, they were repeated, but I found them not
at all like the "shocks" experienced when taking off sparks from the
conductor of an electrical machine, as Mr. Sinnett
describes them. The sharp thrilling or tingling feeling was quite absent.
Unfortunately, I am unable to gently crack any of the joints of my fingers, I
can but clumsily and undisguisedly crack one of the joints of my thumbs, yet I
find that the quality of the feeling produced when I thus crack my thumb-joint
against my head exactly resembles that which I had perceived under the supple
hands of Madame Blavatsky. The explanation which accounts satisfactorily for my
own experience I do not pretend to offer as an assured explanation of the
experiments made by Mr. Sinnett, though I do not by
any means feel certain that it may not be sufficient. It is true that Mr. Sinnett regards the hypothesis as "idiotic" (-The
Occult World," p. 33); but then he regarded the suggestion that the letter
he described as "materialised, or reintegrated
in the air," was an outcome of any concealed apparatus, as
"grotesquely absurd" (p. 120), notwithstanding the facts that the
phenomenon occurred at the headquarters of the Theosophical Society, that the
ceiling of the room abounded with interstices, and that the garret above might
have been crammed up to the tiled roof with all sort of conjuring devices for
aught he knew to the contrary. Mr. Sinnett treats
with scorn the supposition that Madame Blavatsky could have produced either the
"raps" or the "astral bells" by means of any machine
concealed about her person; but I cannot help thinking that the latter sounds
at least might have been produced in this way. Madame Coulomb asserts that they
were so actually produced, by the use of a small musical-box, constructed on
the same principle as the machine employed in connection with the trick known
under the name "Is your watch a repeater and she produced garments which
she asserted had belonged to Madame Blavatsky, and showed me stains resembling
iron-mould on the right side, slightly above the
waist, which she affirmed had been caused by contact with the metal of the
machine. She declares also that the machine was sometimes carried by Babula, on the roof or in the various rooms of the house or
outside, and when used by Madame Blavatsky herself was worked by a slight
pressure of the arm against the side, which would have been imperceptible to
the persons present. I think the "astral bells" may be thus accounted
for, and I must remind the reader of an important consideration which Mr. Sinnett seems to have overlooked-namely, the great
uncertainty In all localisation of sounds of which
the cause and mode of production are unknown, especially pure tones such as he
describes the "astral bell" sound to be, and the great ease of
inducing by trifling indications the adoption of an altogether erroneous
opinion concerning the position where the sonorous disturbance originates.
Further, we may
suppose, without any extravagance of hypothesis, that Madame Blavatsky may
possess more than one of these machines alluded to, so that the sounds may be
heard in different places at the same time. Yet the possibility that if Madame
Blavatsky had one such machine she might have had two does not seem to have
occurred to Mr. Sinnett, if I may judge from his
argument that the letter he described as "materialised,
or reintegrated in the air," was an outcome of any concealed apparatus, as
"grotesquely absurd" (p. 120), notwithstanding the facts that the
phenomenon occurred at the headquarters of the Theosophical Society, that the
ceiling of the room abounded with interstices, and that the garret above might
have been crammed up to the tiled roof with all sort of conjuring devices for
aught he knew to the contrary. Mr. Sinnett treats
with scorn the supposition that Madame Blavatsky could have produced either the
"raps" or the "astral bells" by means of any machine
concealed about her person; but I cannot help thinking that the latter sounds
at least might have been produced in this way. Madame Coulomb asserts that they
were so actually produced, by the use of a small musical-box, constructed on
the same principle as the machine employed in connection with the trick known
under the name "Is your watch a repeater~- and she produced garments which
she asserted had belonged to Madame Blavatsky, and showed me stains resembling
iron-mould on the right side, slightly above the
waist, which she affirmed had been caused by contact with the metal of the
machine. She declares also that the machine was sometimes carried by Babula, on the roof or in the various rooms of the house or
outside, and when used by Madame Blavatsky herself was worked by a slight
pressure of the arm against the side, which would have been imperceptible to
the persons present. I think the "astral bells" may be thus accounted
for, and I must remind the reader of an important consideration which Mr. Sinnett seems to have overlooked-namely, the great
uncertainty In all localisation of sounds of which
the cause and mode of production are unknown, especially pure tones such as he
describes the "astral bell" sound to be, and the great ease of
inducing by trifling indications the adoption of an altogether erroneous
opinion concerning the position where the sonorous disturbance originates.
Further, we may suppose, without any extravagance of hypothesis, that Madame
Blavatsky may possess more than one of these machines alluded to, so that the
sounds may be heard in different places at the same time. Yet the possibility
that if Madame Blavatsky had one such machine she might have had two does not
seem to have occurred to Mr. Sinnett, if I may judge
from his argument.
"Managed a
little better, the occurrence now to be dealt with would have been a beautiful
test" ("The Occult World," p. 43); for a certain class of
readers it is told "not as a proof but as an incident," and it is
worth a brief consideration from this point of view. Mrs. Sinnett
"went one afternoon with Madame Blavatsky to the top of a neighbouring hill. They were only accompanied by one other
friend." While there Madame Blavatsky asked Mrs. Sinnett
"what was her heart's desire." As Mr. Sinnett's
correspondence with "Koot Hoomi"
appears to have begun about this time, it is probable that much interest was
excited by the idea of receiving communications from the Adepts," and it
cannot, therefore, be regarded as at all unlikely that Mrs. Sinnett
should ask as she did "for a note from one of the Brothers."
Moreover, it does not appear that Madame Blavatsky guaranteed the fulfilment of
Mrs. Sinnett's "heart's desire" until she
knew what the desire was, any more than she guaranteed the fulfilment of Mrs. Sinnett's wish that the note should "come fluttering
down into her lap," and this last wish was not granted. "Some
conversation ensued as to whether this would be the best way to get it, and
ultimately it was decided that she should find it in a certain tree." Mr. Sinnett does not lay any stress upon the identity of the
paper folded up by Madame Blavatsky with the paper of the pink note received by
Mrs. Sinnett, nor will any person experienced in
strawberry hunts, or familiar with leafy trees, be in the least degree
surprised that Mrs. Sinnett did not at once perceive
the "little pink note" upon the "twig immediately before her
face.
The note was stuck on
to the stalk of a leaf that had been quite freshly torn off, for the stalk was
still green and moist-not withered as it would have been if the leaf had been
torn off for any length of time." "Length of time is vague.
The incident ought to
be instructive. Colonel Olcott was the friend who accompanied Mrs. Sinnett and Madame Blavatsky to the top of the hill, where,
according to his diary, they had seen on the previous day, "through a
field-glass, a man in white making signals" to them. The "man in
white" may account for the expedition to the hill; he may also account for
the pink note in the tree. We are unlikely to discover how many of Madame
Blavatsky's pre-arrangements were never carried out, owing to the complete
failure of her anticipations; but the case before us clearly illustrates a
partial failure. If Mrs. Sinnert had made some other
answer than the one she actually made to the question, put "in a joking
way" b we should probably have never heard of the condition at all. Mr. Sinnett has not told us defin
Madame Blavatsky or Colonel Olcott (whose n by Mr, Sinnett at all in connection with the in to Mrs. Sinnett's request that the letter sho
down into her lap," nor has he told us what was.
It is implied,
however, that Madame B the tree supposed to be chosen by the "Brothe point out the wrong tree? Perhaps she anticipa might, for her own satisfaction, suggest the o
there may have been a mistake between hers white." The note said, "I
have been asked to leave what can I do for you?" The words are not
according to the account given by Mr. Sinnett, the
“Brother” had chosen the spot himself.
We "come now to
the incidents of a very re Occult World," pp. 44-59), that of the Simla 1880-the day of the cup and saucer, diploma Mrs.
Hume's brooch. The account given by C October 4th, 1880, and sent round at the tim. Fellows of the Theosophical Society, throws a re Mr. Sinnett's narrative.
Thus, whereas from Mr. of the events, it would seem that Madame Blav the choice of the spot chosen for luncheon, alm appears from the opening sentences of Colonel
Great day yesterday
for Madame's ph the morning she, with Mr. and Mrs. S1
-, Mr. S. M., Mrs. R., and myself w nic. Although she
had never been at S she directed us where to go, describi
small mill which the Sinnetts, Major the jampanis (palki-wallahs)
affirmed, d She also mentioned a small Tibetan tem
near it. We reached the spot she had de found the mill at about 10 a.m.; and
sat and had the servants spread a collation.
I received from
Colonel Olcott, not only a copy of the circular from which the above extract is
taken, but a transcript from his diary account, and also further oral
explanations. From these last it would further appear that Madame Blavatsky and
X. were in front of the others, and that Madame Blavatsky described the road
which they should take; that it was Madame Blavatsky and X. who together chose
provisionally the spot for the picnic encampment; and that Mr. Sinnett and X. then walked on further to see if a better
spot could be chosen, and decided to remain at the place where the halt had
already been made.
As this place appears
in Mr. Sinnett's account as a place they "were
not likely to go to" (p. 49) we cannot attach much weight to his opinion
that the cup and saucer were of a kind they "were not likely to take.
Probably Madame Blavatsky's
native servant Babula, an active young fellow, who, I
am assured on good authority, had formerly been in the service of a French
conjurer, could throw even more light upon the day's proceedings than Colonel
Olcott's account. The previous abstraction of the cup and saucer, their burial
in the early morning, the description of the spot to Madame Blavatsky, the
choice of the particular service taken, are deeds which lie easily within the
accomplishment of Babula's powers. Concerning a later
period of the day, when the party had shifted their quarters to another part of
the wood, Mr. Sinnett writes, on p. 5 1: "X. and
one of the other gentlemen had wandered off." From Colonel Olcott's
accounts it appears that they had gone back to the previous encampment in order
to ascertain if there were any traces of a tunnel by which the cup and saucer
might have been previously buried in an ordinary way, and that when they
returned they expressed their conviction that the cup and saucer might have
been so buried, but that the ground about the spot had been so disturbed by the
digging and throwing of earth, that evidence of such a tunnel could not be
found. Before the party returned from the picnic it was known that three of
them, viz., Mrs. R., Mr. S. M., and Major - (mentioned by Mr. Sinnett as X.), were dissatisfied with the
"phenomenon"; the three who came away believing, were Mr. and Mrs. Sinnett and Colonel Olcott,-all of whom seem to have
previously fully attained the conviction of Madame Blavatsky's good faith.
Shortly afterwards Major Henderson wrote a letter to the Times of India, in
which he stated: "On the day in question I declared the saucer to be an
incomplete and unsatisfactory manifestation, as not fulfilling proper test
conditions. My reasonable doubt was construed as a personal insult, and I soon
discovered that a sceptical frame of mind in the
inquirer is not favourable to the manifestation of
the marvels of Theosophy... I am not a Theosophist nor have I any intention of
furthering the objects of the Society in any way."
The concealment of
the diploma and the management of the bottle of water would have been still
easier tasks for Babula than the burying of the cup
and saucer in the rooted bank. Against Mr. Sinnett's
account of the finding of the diploma by X., I have to set Colonel Olcott's
statement that the particular shrub where the diploma was found was pointed out
to X. by Madame Blavatsky, this statement being made in connection with the
passage in Colonel Olcott's diary: "She points to a bit of ground, and
tells him to search there. He finds his diploma ... under a low cedar
tree." In continuation Colonel Olcott writes: "Later, we are out of
water, and she fills a bottle with pure water by putting the bottle up her
sleeve." In connection with this incident Mr. Sinnett
has much to suggest about the abnormal stupidity of a certain coolie who had
been sent with empty bottles to a brewery with a pencil note asking for water,
and who, finding no European at the brewery to receive the note, had brought
back the "empty" bottles. It was-apparently--one of these
"empty" bottles thus brought back that Madame Blavatsky took for her
experiment. Who was this abnormally stupid coolie? Surely not Madame
Blavatsky's personal servant Babula?
It is difficult to
suppose that Mr. Sinnett would speak of Babula as a coolie, and he could hardly make a greater
mistake than to attribute abnormal stupidity of Babula
rather than abnormal cleverness. And yet Babula was
in some was concerned. Colonel Olcott wrote, after saying that wanting some tea
they found they were out of water:
Servants were sent in
various directions but could get none. While Babula
was off on a second search Madame quietly went to the lunch-baskets, took an
empty water-bottle, put it in the loose sleeve of her gown, and came straight
to where we were sitting on the grass. The bottle was full of clearest and
softest water, of which we all partook.
Granted that Babula was present, the fact that all the bottles became
empty, and that afterwards one of them became full, may be easily accounted for
without the necessity of supposing that there was anything more substantial
than a smile in Madame Blavatsky's sleeve. It is curious how much Babula has been kept in the background of Mr. Sinnett's account; carelessly, no doubt, and not carefully;
but then, if carelessly, Mr. Sinnett must be charged
with a grievous lack of ordinary perspicacity.
Finally, came the
"celebrated brooch incident." ("The Occult World," pp.
54-59.) Of this it will suffice to say that the brooch formed one of several
articles of jewelry which Mrs. Hume had given to a person who had again parted
with them to another who had "allowed them to pass out of their
possession." It is an admitted fact that many of these articles, parted
with at the same time as the brooch, did actually pass through Colonel Olcott's
hands very soon afterwards. Colonel Olcott does not remember seeing the brooch;
but that Madame Blavatsky may at that time have had an opportunity, which she
seized, of obtaining possession of it, is obviously highly probable, though
there is no absolute proof of this. It is at any rate certain that she
entrusted a brooch, which needed some slight repair, to Mr. Hormusji
S. Seervai, of Bombay, who shortly afterwards
returned it to Madame Blavatsky. When the "brooch incident" occurred
later, and the account of it was published containing a description of the
brooch, Mr. Hormusji found that the description
exactly fitted the brooch which had been entrusted to him for repair by Madame
Blavatsky. For these facts I rely chiefly on statements made to me personally
by Mr. Hume and Mr. Hormusji, though, indeed, the
first links of the chain had been previously published in various forms, and
were never challenged, and I may add that Mr. Hormusji's
testimony is confirmed by that of two other witnesses who remember his
immediate recognition of the description given in the account of the
"brooch incident" as that of the brooch Madame Blavatsky had given
him to be repaired. The above outline is, I think, specific enough to lead the
reader to a right conclusion. The fact that Mrs. Hume chose the lost brooch as
the object to be brought to her by the "Brother," Mr. Hume is
inclined to explain as a case of thought-transference to Mrs. Hume from Madame
Blavatsky, who was probably willing intensely that Mrs. Hume should think of
the brooch. I do not dispute this opinion, though I cannot regard the case as a
proven instance of telepathy; Madame Blavatsky may have had enough knowledge of
the history of the brooch and enough practical acquaintance with the laws of
association, to make it easy for her to suggest that family relic to the
thoughts of Mrs. Hume, without exciting the suspicion of the persons present,
who, by Mr. Sinnett's account, seem to have been as far
as possible from attempting to realise what a special
chain of reminiscence may have been quickened into vivid life by Madame
Blavatsky's words.
It must not be
forgotten, in dealing with these cases, that we do not know how many
"phenomenal tests" may have been arranged by Madame Blavatsky which
did not succeed. She may have failed in leading to the needful topic of
conversation; she may have been asked for objects she had not obtained, or
could not obtain, and so refused on one pretext or another to comply with some
request made; she may have offered an answer to a letter neither she nor any
confederate was able to read, and failed in her Mahatma-reply to make any
reference whatever to the specific question asked in the undecipherable
document; she may have been requested to produce phenomena in a way different
from that already prepared; she may not have provided for contingencies such as
the absence of the persons required for the experiment, and so on. There are
samples of these several kinds of failures, which would, I presume, be regarded
by Mr. Sinnett merely as interesting
"incidents." A notable incident of this kind may be given as it is
closely related to the next group of "proofs" to which we pass in Mr.
Sinnett's "The Occult World." It appears
that Madame Blavatsky, for the benefit of Captain Maitland, had professed to
send a cigarette tied up with her hair to a place under the horn of the unicorn
on the coat of arms under the statue of the Prince of Wales, opposite Watson's
Hotel in Bombay. Captain Maitland telegraphed (from Simla)
to Mr. Grant in Bombay, asking him to look immediately for the cigarette. Mr.
Grant found no cigarette in the place described. Madame Coulomb asserts that
she was the person who was to have put the cigarette there, but that she
"never went near the place." ("Some Account," by
Madame Coulomb, pp. 16-18.) Hence the failure, not mentioned by Mr. Sinnett. The Blavatsky-Coulomb documents sufficiently
discredit the cigarette phenomena, and it can be seen at once that those quoted
by Mr. Sinnett might have been arranged with perfect
ease by Madame Blavatsky. In the first case, that of Mrs. Gordon, the
"place indicated" as the place where the cigarette would be found is
not stated. In the two other instances given, the cigarettes were found in
places where they would probably remain undiscovered for some time, unless
particular search for them were made, and Madame Blavatsky-or, by her
instructions, Babula-might have deposited them there
previously. Mr. Sinnett says that "for persons
who have not actually seen Madame Blavatsky do one of her cigarette feats it
may be useless to point out that she does not do them as a conjurer
would," and certainly it is difficult for such persons to understand the
profound conviction which Mr. Sinnett displays
("The Occult World," p. 63) concerning the identity of the corner of
the paper torn off with the corner given to the percipient, in the face of such
sleight of hand performances as he himself describes:
You take two pieces
of paper, and tear off a corner of both together, so that the jags are the
same. You make a cigarette with one piece, and put it in the place where you
mean to have it ultimately found. You then hold the other piece underneath the
one you tear in presence of the spectator, slip in one of the already torn
corners into his hand instead of that he sees you tear, make your cigarette
with the other part of the original piece, dispose of that anyhow you please,
and allow the prepared cigarette to be found. Other variations of the system
may be readily imagined.
Mr. Sinnett's naive remark that the certainty of the spectator
would be enhanced by the pencil-marks drawn upon the cigarette paper before his
eyes, compels me to suppose that his experience in conjuring must be very limited.
For it appears that the pencil-marks were chosen and drawn by Madame Blavatsky
herself; she declined to let Captain Maitland "mark or tear the
papers"; otherwise there might have been no apparent similarity between
the paper marked and that which had already been deftly rolled by Madame
Blavatsky's fingers, and was lying snugly on a shelf inside the piano, or in
the covered cup on the bracket.
Mr. Sinnett's confidence that the cigarette feats are not
conjuring performances will appear still more singular to persons who have practised palming, as I have myself done, and who read the
following sentences from the accounts given on p. 62:
The cigarettes being
finished, Madame Blavatsky stood up, and took them between her hands, which she
rubbed together, After about 20 or 30 seconds, the grating noise of the paper,
at first distinctly audible, ceased.
With the remainder of
the paper she prepared a cigarette in the ordinary manner, and in a few moments
caused this cigarette to disappear from her hands.
In short, if Madame
Blavatsky does not do her cigarette feats as a conjurer would, the descriptions
quoted by Mr. Sinnett, pp. 60-63, must be
fundamentally erroneous.
The next case for our
consideration is the Pillow Incident. ("The Occult World," pp. 75-79.)
Mr. Sinnett's "subjective 'impressions of
the previous night appear to be in close relation with the incident, if not to
form part of it; but as they are not exactly described, I am unable, of course,
to deal with them. If they were neither hallucination nor extreme illusion
suffered by Mr. Sinnett, they may have been due to
Madame Blavatsky's boldness and cleverness, in which case the cushion may have
been manipulated before Mr. Sinnett spoke of his
impressions that morning. And here again appears the invaluable Babula, who was probably the "Brother" who
inserted the brooch and the note provided by Madame Blavatsky, in the jampan
cushion. Was it a remarkable fact that this particular cushion was chosen?
There may, indeed, have been a second object, and a note in some adjoining tree
in case a tree had been chosen, and there may have been a third buried in the
ground; though I think it unlikely that Madame Blavatsky would have taken any
trouble to provide for these contingencies, even if there were other objects
which might have "hinged on" to Mr. Sinnett's
subjective impressions. Simply because such places as the ground and the tree
had been chosen before, they were not likely to be chosen again; it was not so
exceedingly improbable that the firmly-made "usual jampan cushion"
which Mrs. Sinnett might certainly be expected to
take with her should be selected. Madame Blavatsky's intimate acquaintance with
Mr. Sinnett may have enabled her to anticipate with
considerable confidence that he would choose the cushion. Besides, if it should
unfortunately not be chosen, some conversation might ensue as to whether the
place fixed upon was the best, and ultimately it might be decided that they
should look for it in one of the cushions. If any mistake were made about the
cushion, Madame Blavatsky might again get into communication with Koot Hoomi, and ascertain that it
was in Mrs. Sinnett's cushion that the object was
being placed, as in the case of the "incident" discussed above.
But Mr. Sinnett gave a note to Madame Blavatsky, apparently just
before starting out, for Koot Hoomi.
This note is said to have disappeared when they were about half way to their
destination, yet no reference to this was made in the Koot
Hoomi note found in the cushion. Let us suppose,
allowing the picnic-spot to be only half an hour's distance, that this involved
only a quarter of an hour's interval between the disappearance of the note and
the choice of the cushion, followed by the preparation of the
"currents." What happened during this quarter of an hour? We read in
other places of instantaneous transportations of solid objects, instantaneous
precipitations of answers to questions, &c. I suppose this quarter of an
hour would be accounted for by the blundering of a Chela, the Chela being Madame
Blavatsky. It will hardly be pleaded that "the currents for the production
of the pillow dak" had been set ready some time before the pillow had been
chosen, unless it is intended to take refuge in the surrejoinder that Koot Hoomi knew that Mr. Sinnett would be certain to choose the pillow, and could,
therefore, pre-arranged the "currents," but that Koot
Hoomi did not know when he thus prearranged the
currents, what Mr. Sinnett had written, or even that
Mr. Sinnett had written a letter at all.
All this ignorance on
the part of Koot Hoomi,
notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Sinnett's letter
was in answer to a Koot Hoomi
note, and that Koot Hoomi
was supposed to be busy with phenomena for Mr. Sinnett's
behoove! Mr. Sinnett's faith, however, does not seem
to have been affected by this little hiatus of time, though it seems to have
been stimulated by the underlining of a "V in the Koot
Hoomi cushion note, as on the previous evening
"Madame Blavatsky had been saying that Koot Hoomi's spelling of 'Skepticism' with a V was not an
Americanism in his case, but due to a philological whim of his." (This
"philological whim" is not always remembered; I have myself seen
"skeptic" spelt with a "c" in a Koot
Hoomi document.) That the note found in the cushion
bore reference throughout to the conversation (we will suppose, not led up to)
of the previous evening, but contained not the slightest allusion to Mr. Sinnett's note of the following morning, leads me to the
inference that the said Koot Hoomi
note was inserted in the cushion in the interval-and, as I have stated, by Babula.
The Jhelum telegram
case might be explained in a variety of ways, but Mr. Sinnett
has not given us the detail necessary to enable us to form any conclusion. The
incident was briefly as follows. ("The Occult World," pp. 80-83). Mr.
Sinnett, before leaving Simla
for Allahabad, wrote a letter to Koot Hoomi which he sent to Madame Blavatsky, who was at
Amritsar. This letter was written on October 24th, 1880. The envelope of this
letter was returned to Mr. Sinnett by Madame
Blavatsky, and bore, as I understand, the afternoon postmark of October 27th.
On October 27th, Mr. Sinnett, then at Allahabad,
received a telegram from Jhelum sent on October 27th. This telegram contained a
specific reply to his letter. Afterwards Mr. Sinnett
was requested, through Madame Blavatsky, to see the original 13 of the Jhelum
telegram. This he succeeded in doing, and found the writing to be that of Koot Hoomi.
Let us suppose that
Madame Blavatsky did not forge the "evidential" postmark; that
post-office peons were none of them bribed to mark or deliver a letter
otherwise than in due course; that the letter enclosed by Mr. Sinnett in the envelope was actually despatched
in that envelope; that previous to its despatch the
contents were known to no one but Mr. Sinnett, and no
one acquired any knowledge of the contents before the letter reached Madame
Blavatsky's hands. Under these circumstances it would still have been possible
for Madame Blavatsky to have read the letter, and to have telegraphed the right
reply to a confederate in Jhelum, who might then have penned or pencilled the telegram to Mr. Sinnett
in sufficiently close imitation of the Koot Hoorni handwriting ordinarily produced by Madame
Blavatsky, to have deceived Mr. Sinnett. I have made
all the above suppositions for the purpose of drawing the reader's notice to
the fact that, presuming that the Jhelum telegram document, afterwards
inspected by Mr. Sinnett, was actually the document
handed in as the message to be despatched to him, we
should require some further evidence of the identity of its handwriting with
that of Mr. Sinnett's Koot Hoomi documents generally, than that furnished by the
examination of Mr. Sinnett himself, who appears not
to have observed the numerous traces of Madame Blavatsky's handiwork in the
earliest Koot Hoomi letters
he received.
I think it probable,
however, that the document was, as a matter of fact, written by Madame
Blavatsky herself, and that Mr. Sinnett's letter
reached her, either in the envelope in which he enclosed it, or in another,
before the 27th. It surprised me considerably to find that Amritsur
was only 21 hours from Simla, and Jhelum only 8 hours
from Amritsur. Madame Blavatsky is said to have
received Mr. Sinnett's envelope not earlier than the
afternoon of October 27th, so that, if the Amritsur
postmark was bonafide, it probably left Simla on October 26th. Mr. Sinnett's
letter was written on October 24th. This large hiatus of time is not alluded to
in Mr. Sinnett's account, which is remarkable for the
scantiness of its detail concerning the most important conditioning elements.
He does not explicitly mention either when he wrote his letter (the date
appears on p. 83 in the Koot Hoomi
quotation) or when or by whom the letter was posted. He does not mention the Simla postmark, nor does he make any suggestion, for the
benefit of the English reader, as to the distances between Simla,
Amritsur, and Jhelum. Yet Mr. Sinnett
seems to have regarded this fragmentary evidence as likely to appeal to other
minds besides his own ("The Occult World," p. 80); no doubt it may do
so if they take for granted that the details neglected contribute to the
marvellousness of the phenomenon.
With reference to the
portraits drawn in Mr. Sinnett's house ("The
Occult World," pp. 137-139), it is not necessary to say any more,
considering the exiguity of Mr. Sinnett's account,
than that Madame Blavatsky is exceedingly skillful in the use of both pencil
and brush. I have seen specimens of her handiwork, not only in certain
playing-cards, which Colonel Olcott showed me--each card being a clever,
humorous sketch,-but in drawings, precisely similar to that mentioned by Mr. Sinnett, where the face on the white paper was defined by
contrast with "cloudy blue shading.
On the whole, then, I
think I am justified in saying that the phenomena relied upon by Mr. Sinnett in "The Occult World" can be accounted
for much more satisfactorily than can the performances of any ordinary
professional conjurer by the uninitiated observer, however acute; that the
additional details which I have been enabled to furnish in connection with some
of the incidents Mr. Sinnett has recorded, clearly
show that he has not been in the habit of exercising due caution for the
exclusion of trickery; and that he has not proceeded in accordance with those
"scientific modes of investigation" which he explicitly declares
("The Occult World," p. 35) he regarded as necessary for the task he
attempted.
For updates
click homepage here