Jump to content

Blavatsky H.P. - Who Fabricates: Difference between revisions

Blavatsky H.P. - Who Fabricates (view source)

Revision as of 11:22, 4 December 2024

85 bytes added ,  4 December 2024
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 101: Line 101:
{{Vertical space|}}
{{Vertical space|}}


{{Page aside|81}} {{Style P-Quote|In a few minutes she appeared again, and remarked that she had not been sufficiently materialized and said she would like to try again, if we could wait a little while. We waited about fifteen minutes, when she rapped on the cabinet, signifying that she was ready to come out. She did so, and we obtained the third negative.
{{Page aside|81}} {{Style P-No indent|{{Style P-Quote|In a few minutes she appeared again, and remarked that she had not been sufficiently materialized and said she would like to try again, if we could wait a little while. We waited about fifteen minutes, when she rapped on the cabinet, signifying that she was ready to come out. She did so, and we obtained the third negative.}}}}
 
(Signed) Dr. H. T. Child.}}


{{Style P-Signature|(Signed) Dr. H. T. Child.}}
{{Vertical space|}}
And so, Dr. Child, we have obtained this, we did that, and we did many other things. Did you? Now, besides Dr. Child’s truthful assertions about his being out of town, especially at the time this third negative was obtained, we have the testimony of the photographer, Dr. Selger, and other witnesses to corroborate the fact. At the same time, I suppose that Dr. Child will not risk a denial of his own article. I have it in my possession and keep it, together with many others as curious, printed like it, and written in black and white. Who fabricates stories? Can the doctor answer?
And so, Dr. Child, we have obtained this, we did that, and we did many other things. Did you? Now, besides Dr. Child’s truthful assertions about his being out of town, especially at the time this third negative was obtained, we have the testimony of the photographer, Dr. Selger, and other witnesses to corroborate the fact. At the same time, I suppose that Dr. Child will not risk a denial of his own article. I have it in my possession and keep it, together with many others as curious, printed like it, and written in black and white. Who fabricates stories? Can the doctor answer?


How will he creep out of this dilemma? What rays of his spiritual “sunshine” will be able to dematerialize such a contradictory fact as this one? Here we have an article taking up two spacious columns of The Daily Graphic, in which he asserts as plainly as possible, that he was present himself at the sittings of Katie King for her portrait; that the spirit came out boldly, in full daylight, that she disappeared on the threshold of the cabinet, and that he, Dr. Child, helping her back to it on account of her great weakness, saw that there was no one in the said cabinet, for the door remained opened. Who did he help? Whose fluttering heart beat against his paternal arm and waistcoat? Was it the bonny Eliza? Of course, backed by such reliable testimony, of such a truly trustworthy witness, the pictures sold like wildfire. Who got the proceeds? Who kept them? If Dr. Child was not in town when the pictures were taken, then this article is an “evident fabrication.” On the other hand, if what he says in it is truth, and he was present at all, at the attempt of this bogus picture taking, then he certainly must have known “who was who, in 1874,” as the photographer knew it, and as surely it did not require Argus-eyes to recognize in full daylight, with only one shutter partially closed, a materialized, ethereal spirit, from a {{Page aside|82}} common, “elbow-crooking” mortal woman, whom, though not acquainted with her, the doctor still “knew her well.”
How will he creep out of this dilemma? What rays of his spiritual “sunshine” will be able to dematerialize such a contradictory fact as this one? Here we have an article taking up two spacious columns of The Daily Graphic, in which he asserts as plainly as possible, that he was present himself at the sittings of Katie King for her portrait; that the spirit came out boldly, in full daylight, that she disappeared on the threshold of the cabinet, and that he, Dr. Child, helping her back to it on account of her great weakness, saw that there was no one in the said cabinet, for the door remained opened. Who did he help? Whose fluttering heart beat against his paternal arm and waistcoat? Was it the bonny Eliza? Of course, backed by such reliable testimony, of such a truly trustworthy witness, the pictures sold like wildfire. Who got the proceeds? Who kept them? If Dr. Child was not in town when the pictures were taken, then this article is an “evident fabrication.” On the other hand, if what he says in it is truth, and he was present at all, at the attempt of this bogus picture taking, then he certainly must have known “who was who, in 1874,” as the photographer knew it, and as surely it did not require Argus-eyes to recognize in full daylight, with only one shutter partially closed, a materialized, ethereal spirit, from a {{Page aside|82}}common, “elbow-crooking” mortal woman, whom, though not acquainted with her, the doctor still “knew her well.”


If our self-constituted leaders, our prominent recorders of the phenomena, will humbug and delude the public with such reliable statements as this one, how can we Spiritualists wonder at the masses of incredulous scoffers that keep on politely taking us for “lunatics” when they do not very rudely call us “liars and charlatans” to our faces? It is not the occasionally cheating “mediums” that have impeded or can impede the progress of our cause; it’s the exalted exaggerations of some fanatics on one hand and the deliberate, unscrupulous statements of those, who delight [in] dealing in “wholesale fabrications” and “pious frauds” that have arrested the unusually rapid spreading of Spiritualism in 1874, and brought it to a dead stop in 1875. For how many years to come yet, who can tell?
If our self-constituted leaders, our prominent recorders of the phenomena, will humbug and delude the public with such reliable statements as this one, how can we Spiritualists wonder at the masses of incredulous scoffers that keep on politely taking us for “lunatics” when they do not very rudely call us “liars and charlatans” to our faces? It is not the occasionally cheating “mediums” that have impeded or can impede the progress of our cause; it’s the exalted exaggerations of some fanatics on one hand and the deliberate, unscrupulous statements of those, who delight [in] dealing in “wholesale fabrications” and “pious frauds” that have arrested the unusually rapid spreading of Spiritualism in 1874, and brought it to a dead stop in 1875. For how many years to come yet, who can tell?
Line 116: Line 116:


We shudder indeed at the thought of the exposure of so much sensitiveness to so much pollution! Alas, soiled dove! How very sensitive must a person be who picks up such evil influences that they actually force him into the grossest of fabrications, and which make him invent stories and endorse facts that he has not and could not have seen. If Dr. Child, victim to his too sensitive nature, is liable to fall so easily as that under the control of wicked “Diakka” our friendly advice to him is, to give up Spiritualism as soon as possible, and join the Young Men’s Christian Association; for then, under the protecting wing of the true Orthodox Church, he can begin a regular fight, like a second St. Anthony, with the Orthodox Devil. Such Diakka, as he fell in with at the Holmeses, must beat Old Nick by long odds, and if he could not withstand them by the unaided strength of his own pure soul, he may with “bell, book and candle,” and the use of holy water, be more fortunate in a tug with Satan; {{Page aside|83}} crying as other “Father Confessors” have heretofore, “Exorciso vos in nomine Lucis!” and signifying his triumph, with a robust “Laus Deo!”
We shudder indeed at the thought of the exposure of so much sensitiveness to so much pollution! Alas, soiled dove! How very sensitive must a person be who picks up such evil influences that they actually force him into the grossest of fabrications, and which make him invent stories and endorse facts that he has not and could not have seen. If Dr. Child, victim to his too sensitive nature, is liable to fall so easily as that under the control of wicked “Diakka” our friendly advice to him is, to give up Spiritualism as soon as possible, and join the Young Men’s Christian Association; for then, under the protecting wing of the true Orthodox Church, he can begin a regular fight, like a second St. Anthony, with the Orthodox Devil. Such Diakka, as he fell in with at the Holmeses, must beat Old Nick by long odds, and if he could not withstand them by the unaided strength of his own pure soul, he may with “bell, book and candle,” and the use of holy water, be more fortunate in a tug with Satan; {{Page aside|83}} crying as other “Father Confessors” have heretofore, “Exorciso vos in nomine Lucis!” and signifying his triumph, with a robust “Laus Deo!”
{{Style P-Signature|H. P. BLAVATSKY.
{{Style P-Signature|H. P. BLAVATSKY.}}
Philadelphia, March, 1875. <ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[In her {{SB-page|v=1|p=23|text=Scrapbook, Vol. I, p. 23}}, H.P.B. made a notation on top of the page indicating that this article was written March 16, 1875. —Compiler.]}}</ref>}}
 
{{Style P-No indent|Philadelphia, March, 1875. <ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[In her {{SB-page|v=1|p=23|text=Scrapbook, Vol. I, p. 23}}, H.P.B. made a notation on top of the page indicating that this article was written March 16, 1875. —Compiler.]}}</ref>}}


{{Footnotes}}
{{Footnotes}}
Retrieved from "https://en.teopedia.org/lib/Special:MobileDiff/24001"