< Poor Firman! a most extraordinary medium... (continued from page 12-12) >
medium, he set himself off as a schoolmaster, and that he was eager to give a scriptural discourse on a Sunday evening at Cavendish Booms. His importunity was accepted, but he broke down after making a few silly remarks. Ho was unreliable to begin with, but the easy life of a medium in Paris has not improved him. Only the worthy should be sought as mediums, and they should sit little and work hard, earning an honest living, and such a result as Firman’s would not be so possible. Unfortunately, dilletante u investigators” are often no better than they should be, and any medium, male or female, that falls into their hands is on a dangerous path. True Spiritualists would bear different fruit.—Ed. Μ.]
A Personal Explanation
It is impossible for the Founders of the Theosophical Society to answer more than a few of the attacks made upon them in the Anglo-Indian Press. They are natural I exposed to many such libellous accusations as the Theosophical movement excites the hostility of two great armies of bigots—the bigots oi science, and the bigots oi religion. But enemies who are honest enemies, who assail the teaching, or what they conceive to be the teaching of the Theosophical Society in a legitimate way by argument—even when the argument is intemperate and uncivil in tone—may be left to the influence of time and those tendencies in human thought which have generally defeated Bigotry in the long run. For the rudeness of antagonists who know nothing about the real nature of their pursuits, and will not take the trouble to enquire into these, the Founders of the Theosophical Society are fully compensated by the sympathy and regard of those who are better informed and more intelligent.
It happens sometimes, however, that occasional enemies who are not honest,—people who have conceived a grudge against the Founders, or either of them—on private grounds, will take advantage of opportunities afforded by the hostility of the orthodox press to Theosophy, and will write articles ostensibly about Theosophy, but really for the purpose of insinuating some ignoble calumny about the. foremost, though humble, representatives thereof. In this way an article, the authorship of which is as obvious to the undersigned, as that, of a familiar handwriting would be, was lately contributed to the Statesman of Calcutta. The writer had previously procured the insertion of similar slanderous attacks in the Civil and Military Gazette, but at length refused further favours by that paper he has apparently sought another opening for his contributions, finding this with the Statesman. On the 6th instant that journal published a long, leading article in vilification of the Theosophical Society, its Founders and its friends. The greater part of this is unworthy, either of quotation or reply but one passage was not alone insulting and calumnious; it was libellous, even as libels are estimate I by Courts of Law. Messrs. Sanderson and Co., solicitors of Calcutta, were, therefore, duly instructed on behalf of the undersigned to apply for legal redress, and they addressed to the editor of the Statesman the following letter:—
Sit, in the Statesman of Tuesday, the 6th instant, there appears an article having reference, among other matters, to Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott, the Founders of the 'theosophical Society. In the course of that article, it is stated:—
“It is now asserted not only that the resources of both (Madame Blavatsky and Col Olcott), are exhausted, but that they are largely in debt, on account, it is alleged, of the expenses of the Society. It is not difficult for any one to arrive at the conclusion that it would be highly desirable and expedient for the Founders of the Theosophical Society to have these debts paid off. This is a simple and not unpraiseworthy instinct. The question that remains is, as regards the means by which this consummation is to be effected.”
The remainder of the article, which we need not quote at length, is an elaborate insinuation that Madame Blavatsky is endeavouring to procure from a gentleman named, by spurious representations, the payment of her debts.
Now, the allegation about Madame Blavatsky being in debt is, we are instructed, absolutely false to begin with; nor is the Society which she helped to found in debt, unless, indeed, it be to herself. The accounts of the Society, published in the Theosophist for last May, show that the outlay incured on behalf of the Society up to that date had exceeded the receipt (consisting of “initiation fees” Rs 3,900, and a few donations) by a sum of Rs. 19,846, but this deficit was supplied from the private resources of Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott.
We may further explain that Madame Blavatsky is a Russian lady of high rank by birth (though since naturalised in the United States), and has never been in the penniless condition you article insultingly ascribes to her—whatever mistakes may have arisen from the improper publication of a private letter by Colonel Olcott to a friend in America, the careless exaggerations of which, designed merely for a correspondent familiar with the real state of the affairs to which these referred, have given you occasion for some offensive remarks.
We, therefore, duly instructed on behalf of Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott, now require of you that you should publish this letter, together with an apology for the scandalous libel to which you have been misled into giving currency.
We also require that in further refutation of these and in general reply to the insulting language of your article, you should publish the enclosed explanations extracted from the Pioneer of the 10th instant.
In the event of your failure forthwith to comply with our request, or to give up the name of the writer of the article in question, we are instructed to proceed against you in the High Court for recovery of damages for the libellous attack of which our clients complain.— Yours faithfully,
This letter was published by the editor of the Statesman in his issue of December 17, together with an article which, in a private letter to Messrs. Sanderson and Co., he refers to as his “apology.” This so-called apology, in the midst of a good deal of comment designed apparently to sound as offensive as it can be made compatibly with safety for the writer as regards legal penalties, says:—
... “The statement that the Founders of the Theosophical Society were in debt, has already been contradicted by us. on the authority of the Pioneer, in our issue of Monday last, the 12th instant. As soon as we learned from the Pioneer that the deficit in the accounts of the Society had been paid off by Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott out of their private resources, we took the earliest opportunity of giving publicity to the fact.......”
Later on, the apology adds:—
... “We are, of course, delighted to hear that Madame Blavatsky has never been in the penniless condition in which «he was represented to be, and that being so, we regret that the public should have been so misled, and that we should have been led to base a mistaken inference upon the statements that were before the public. We may add that we have much pleasure in publishing Messrs. Sanderson’s repudiation, (for unless it is so, their letter has no meaning) of any wish or intention on the part of the Founders of the Theosophical Society to obtain money from wealthy members of the Society. This, we should have thought, would be one of their great objects, as we do not see how otherwise the Society can go on and flourish: but we never said that they were likely to seek that <... continues on page 12-14 >
Editor's notes
- ↑ A Personal Explanation by H.P. Blavatsky, H.S. Olcott, Supplement to the Theosophist, v. 3, No. 4, January, 1882, pp. 1-2
Sources
-
Supplement to the Theosophist, v. 3, No. 4, January, 1882, pp. 1-2