From Across the Ocean. The Spiritists and the Curious Battle Mme. Blavatsky Fought with Mr. Huxley
Vera Petrovna Zhelikhovsky about her sister Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
There exist a different world and different folkways. . . Being far too used to our own humdrum life with its utter absence of anything reminiscent of original aspirations or personalities that would stand out by something more distinctive than their threadbare vulgar shortcomings or ridiculous aspects; acts more independent than just a liberal mot[1] dropped á couvert[2], we cannot help feeling astounded by watching a great multitude of ways and thoughts widely displayed by people belonging to a world which is different to us. Try as they would, our own or other travelers are just incapable of giving us a perfect idea of nature and customs reigning across the opposite hemisphere as it contains a lot of what cannot be explained to or even comprehended by our minds. Truly, American thought and manners belong to the same class as American vegetation does: both are distinctive for powerful growth and infinite variety that can have any botanist puzzled and observer embarrassed. Just a few days ago, I hit on three American newspaper issues: the New York Times and Boston Banner of Light. Even in those scattered leaves have I found a lot of things so original and captivating that I venture to share them with the public.
Our transatlantic friends are known to go to extremes in demonstrating tolerance and allowing unrestricted latitude to freedom of conscience. This is plainly shown by the great plenitude of most original sects and societies described by Dixon[3] and others. But however prolific, Dixon's pen failed to embrace the entire variety of forms under which the elastic religious beliefs of Americans manifest themselves. This can be proved by what I will presently tell about the Theosophical, or as it sometimes prefers to call itself, Masonic[4] Society numbering hundreds if not exceeding 1,000 members presided by Col. Olcott. His personality has become known to the Russian public through Professor Wagner's articles on the Eddy mediums.[5] The Theosophical Society, I believe, is nothing but an association of our old acquaintances, Spiritists, acting under a new alias, a new half mask.[6] Half mask, I say, because even though they grant, in word and in deed, full freedom to their members to profess their own faiths while demanding of them only respect (at least, merely outward) for the abstract idea of Deity, the President himself as well as all others Society functionaries are Spiritists. The object of the Theosophical Society (as determined by their President) consists in spreading Truth, which is understood in the broadest sense of the word, defying any preconceived views or time-honored faiths of the past generations or even personal outlooks of the Society's Head Office personnel. To achieve this one object, they (the members) are equally expected to study sciences, history of all nations, their religions, faiths of all ages, and especially, psychology – human spiritual powers and correlations between these powers and laws of Nature. It does not pretend to teach but, finding modern sciences and faiths far too unsatisfactory for explanation of moral and mental powers granted by Nature to mankind, it prays that its members meticulously study all of its Powers, those discovered by Science and those remaining still hidden. Thus, the Society's theoretical object is Truth while its practical one is good acts, benefaction not for Theosophists alone but, rather, for the whole of Mankind. The Society's motto is: “It's not words that matter but acts!”, the emblem being a star encircled by a serpent biting its own tail – a symbol of Eternity. Eternity is one of the fundamental tenets of Theosophists. They do not recognize unconditional death in anything: there is no annihilation in Nature but only a change of form. Everything, from man down to the tiniest blade of grass, dies daily only to be daily reborn. Only, this blade of grass, when spring comes, will blossom in a beauty visible to human sight while men, after dying, are reborn into a more perfect life, this life of our immortal spirit being what Theosophists are striving to comprehend and fathom, for which purpose they resort to the still poorly determined spiritual powers of the living, feeble though they are as compared to those of the dead, and the inherent faculties of the soul still imprisoned in matter, however inferior they may be compared to those of the souls already liberated from their earthly bonds, which, however, are still capable, under certain conditions, of reassuming their earthly clothes – materializing. The first half of this almost universal belief shared by all Theosophists is as old as the world, and no monopoly in it can be claimed by them. It's only the second half which is somewhat new, for it was contemplated by Messrs. mediums and remains exclusive property of Spiritism. At any rate, none of the ancient legends mentioning the invocation of spirits seems to say that shadows invoked from Pluto's realm could really create a tangible handshake ritual or snap their fingers while strolling barefoot, as the original spirits at the Eddy Homestead did. . . Invocation of spirits is nothing new, but the discovery of the notorious materialization is an undeniable fruit of the latter half of the 20th century. Praise be to its seers and invokers! . . By searching painstakingly for the practical application of their discoveries for the benefit of humankind, spirit mediums will, perhaps, succeed in spreading their art of clothing things with matter, i.e., with flesh and blood, so that from materializing the souls of their departed neighbors they can proceed to materializing also the vapor issuing (as old housekeepers believe) from animals parting with this transitory world. Among other things, humanity would be saving on cooking steaks and roasts! . . One such cow or well-fed turkey could provide a few families of Theosophists with fresh meat à perpétuité[7]. What makes my hypothesis even more plausible is the new conditions enunciated by G. Adams in the Boston Banner of Light[8] – conditions under which any fraud with regard to the invocation of spirits would become unthinkable. All mediums, he says, lest they be branded as impostors, should begin their practical sessions in no other manner but by surrounding themselves – their chairs and space sufficient for spirits to appear and move around included – with a net made of a cloth transparent and loose enough for the materialized souls of relatives not only to be visible to the public but also to be able to shake hands with their families and even kiss them. The only precaution to be taken in such situations is to ascertain that no body, compact enough even prior to the invoker's magical sleep, can get into the enchanted area within which spirits are expected to appear, without breaking the net. Should the honorable Spiritists, even under so restricted conditions, prove able to demonstrate a few or, at least, one sole visitor from the world of shadows – materialized, moreover, into what once was his own flesh and blood – then, I believe, nobody will be able to further question the possibility of applying my above-mentioned hypothesis (with regard to perpetually roasting the meat of the same cow) to living practice. A discovery like this would become a truly universal boon that the New York Masonic Society is so strenuously striving to give to humanity! Then, Spiritism would hardly need even such a talented defense as a work (published recently in Boston) by Alfred Russel Wallace, a well-known naturalist and Ch. Darwin's companion in their researches into the origin of species. This work titled A Defense of Modern Spiritualism (1874)[9] states that “the assertion so often made, that Spiritualism is . . . the revival of old superstitions, is . . . utterly unfounded,” that a group of people “which inculcates investigation” of human nature through the strict exploration of its moral powers; “which teaches that happiness in a future life can be secured by cultivating and developing to the utmost the higher faculties of our intellectual and moral nature . . . is and must be the natural enemy of all superstition.”[10]
“Spiritualism,” honorable A. P. Wallace continues, –
“is an experimental science, and affords the only sure foundation for a true philosophy . . . It abolishes the terms ‘supernatural’ and ‘miracle’ by an extension of the sphere of law and the realm of nature; and in doing so it takes up and explains whatever is true in the superstitions and so-called miracles of all ages. It, and it alone, is able to harmonize conflicting creeds,” . . . which have “for so many ages been the source of . . . incalculable evil; and it will be able to do this because it appeals to evidence instead of faith, and substitutes facts for opinions; and is thus able to demonstrate the source of much of the teaching that men have so often held to be divine.
“It will thus be seen that those who can form no higher conception of the uses of Spiritualism, . . . than to detect crime or to name in advance the winner of the Derby, not only prove their own ignorance of the whole subject, but exhibit in a marked degree that partial mental paralysis, the result of a century of materialistic thought . . . It will be seen also that Spiritualism is . . . a science of vast extent, having the widest, the most important, and the most practical issues, and as such should enlist the sympathies alike of moralists, philosophers and politicians, and of all who have at heart the improvement of society and the permanent elevation of human nature” [11]
Further, to repel the public incredulity, Mr. Wallace asks the public to look at the results produced by the Spiritists’ practical experiments in the minds of “the long roll of men of ability who, commencing the inquiry as skeptics, left it as believers.”
“I would ask them,” this ardent Spiritist naturalist writes, –
“to dwell upon the long series of facts in human history that Spiritualism explains, and on the noble and satisfying theory of a future life that it unfolds. If they will do this, I feel confident that the result I have alone aimed at will be attained; which is, to remove the prejudices and misconceptions with which the whole subject has been surrounded, and to incite to unbiased and persevering examination of the facts. For the cardinal maxim of Spiritualism is, that every one must find out the truth for himself. It makes no claim to be received on hearsay evidence; but, on the other hand, it demands that it be not rejected without patient, honest and fearless inquiry.”[12]
These are the closing lines of the work written by Darwin's companion who has made his name with his former works on Natural History and Geography (such as Explorations on the Amazon, The Natural History of the Malay Archipelago, The Theory of Natural Selection, etc.). The New York public accepts enthusiastically his works that are in great demand here – which, however, does not prevent it from spending, at the same time, 5,000 dollars on three lectures of a traveling learned materialist.
An equal success of so opposite views, isn't it the best proof that such a society is intellectually independent, that it fears not facing any collision of beliefs, it doesn't care of other people's opinions and, indeed, seeks to take any path to learn the truth fearlessly.
Happy is a society which has developed strong enough to deliberately allow freedom of expression precisely to obtain an opportunity to learn of any subject everything that is possible, to know it through and through, all pros and cons, and then make a judgment and choice independently. Both social affairs and private (or shall we say, honest) persons, under such conditions, can easily flourish as the former and the latter have every opportunity to find out the truth. . .
Returning to America and Huxley, I see in surprise, just side by side with the name of this scientist in the columns of a transatlantic newspaper, a name, also rather popular here (in our Transcaucasian parts, it is, perhaps, even better known than the name of this London celebrity) – the name of the Corresponding Secretary of the Theosophical Society, H. P. Blavatsky.
The best and shortest way to explain this curious fact would be, I believe, to cite a passage from her own letter. To begin with, I have to explain that as follows from the New York magazines that she's sent to me, not only does the said person serve as Secretary in that Masonic society but also occupies a rather prominent place in the American press. Her travel stories, accounts of her Caucasian life and polemical articles are highly valued by the Americans and see numerous reprints in a number of papers.
Her latest articles, her extremely witty satires on the Pope for his sympathy with Turks against Christians (articles which she signs with her full name adding to it the words: a Russian woman) have produced such a storm of applause, on the one hand, and concerns, on the other, that the local Cardinal, an Irish, McCloskey[13] found it reasonable to send his secretary to negotiate and calm the situation, whose mission, though, ended in total failure as he proved unable to convince her.
“I told him,” H. P. Blavatsky writes, “that whatever faith I may profess personally as a Theosophist is none of his business, while the Orthodox faith of my brothers is sacred to me. I'll always intercede both for it and Orthodox Christians and shall be writing against any attacks upon them as long as my hand can hold a pen without fearing their Pope's threats or wrath of their Romish Church – la Grande bête de l’Apocalypse . . .”[14]
“I am sending to you, my friends,” she continues, “one more article of mine which received by no means small honors here and was reprinted by several New York papers.[15] This is the way it happened: the London scientist Huxley has been visiting here, the ‘father of protoplasm and a great priest of psychophobia,’ as I have christened him. He delivered three lectures. At the first, he made short work of Moses and abolished the whole of the Old Testament, by declaring to the audience that man is nothing but a great-grandson of a Silurian frog. At the second he ‘beat everyone’, like a new Kit Kitich.[16] ‘You are fools, that's you are! Here's a four-toed foot of an antediluvian hipparionic horse for you, from which it appears that we, five-toed human beings, are the closest lineal descendants of it. . . ’ But at the third lecture our Psychophobist, overstepping the mark and outdoing himself, started telling fibs. ‘I have looked into the telescopes, I have whistled under the clouds in balloons, I have looked out for God everywhere with great zeal; and nowhere, in spite of all my efforts, did I see or meet him! Ergo[17] – there is no God and there never was any such!’ (Was the lecturer worth the 5,000 dollars paid to him for the lecture?)! The same, he continues, can be said of the human soul, Anima Mundi[18], Æther, or Plato's Archos. I have searched for the soul with the aid of spy-glasses and microscopes; I have observed the dying and anatomized the dead, but there is no trace of it anywhere! It is all a lie of the Spiritists and the Spiritualists!’ ”
“I was very much grieved then,” continues our Russian American, “so grieved as even to lose my temper! I may as well go and write a revealing article about this London Kit Kitich, I thought to myself!
“And what do you think? I have written it. And it came out not at all so bad, as you can see by the enclosed copy. Needless to say, I sent it through our corresponding members to London, to be delivered to Huxley with my most earnest compliments. . .”
“After all the flourish which attended his coming, all the expectations that had been aroused, all the secret apprehensions of the church and the anticipated triumph of the materialists, what did he teach us that was really new or so extremely suggestive? Nothing, positively nothing,”[19] the article states. “Of him it may be said, . . that what he said that was not false was by far not new; and that which was new was absolutely false.”[20]
Here, to prove her opinion about the false arguments cited by the lecturer, Mme. Blavatsky displays her extreme erudition. She turns to ancient heathen accounts of creation, refers to the Hindu and Brahmin faiths, their sacred books, and she proves that “the benighted Hindus, it seems, made the trifling improvement over modern science, of hooking a First Cause on the further end of the chain of evolution. . .”[21]
In those ancient fruits of human thought she finds confirmation of the utter triviality of ideas passed off by materialists as the latest scientific discoveries: “. . . the ancient Hindus many centuries before the Christian era taught the doctrine of evolution. Martin Haug[22], the Sanskrit scholar, asserts that the Vedas were already in existence 2,000 B.C.”
Further, Mme. Blavatsky proves that materialists have no grounds to charge them, Spiritists, with “false pretences” and portray them as being “lost to reason.” As for their “false pretences,” she mentions one of their fellows, medium Slade, who was arrested at the complaint of Duke Lancaster for cheating him and taking $5 for a sole séance, and she asks whether he is more guilty of false pretences than Huxley himself, a soulless person who wheedled not 5 but 5,000 dollars out of credulous New York residents for imparting them a very old hypothesis that man descended from an antediluvian four-toed horse?
“To be consistent he must show that while the horse was losing at each successive period a toe, man has in reversed order acquired an additional one at each new formation; and, unless we are shown the fossilized remains of man in a series of one-, two-, three-, and four-toed anthropoid apelike beings antecedent to the present perfected Homo, what does Huxley’s theory amount to? . . ”[23] What grounds do we have to believe such bold assumptions, undemonstrated by anything but the lecturer's authority, more than numerous eye-witnesses of spirit phenomena? Of course, hypothesis, whether of positive sciences or of the realm of psychology, is no false pretence; but an unsupported assertion. However, as soon as it crosses the line, as soon as it is offered as a fact or enforced as a faith, such a hypothesis and its proponents can be charged with false pretences, especially when people are charged money (and a great amount at that!) for it.
If, satisfied with the osseous fragments, rather incomplete and scattered, of various antediluvian creatures, materialists assume the right (without taking the risk of being branded as people lost to reason) to build a complicated theory of self-generation and origin of species passing it off as the scientific truth, if Cuvier,[24] grants rights of citizenship in natural history to the image of a whole mammoth based upon a small bone, a small osseous fragment of the antediluvian giant, why should Spiritualists be branded as those lost to reason (asks Mme. Blavatsky) when they base their conclusions on far more definite principles? In support of their theory of afterdeath life, they do not exhibit just small bones but, rather, entire hands, feet and even human bodies that appear during their séances in which they frequently recognize their departed relatives and acquaintances.
Mme. Blavatsky closes her article by comparing the damage caused by the “system” of materialists, such as one propounded by the lecturer, with the evil presumably caused by Spiritists in promoting their highly (as she believes) moral theories of Spiritism. I need not say that she arrives at the conclusion that if the English found it possible to sentence medium Slade to three months in prison for extortion of five dollars, the Americans should have jailed materialist Huxley, at least, for three years – in proportion with the amount he was paid in New York for his false pretence!
Of all the sad things to be seen in this era of “shams”, our ardent Spiritist[25] concludes, none is more deplorable – though its futility is often ludicrous – than the conspiracy of materialists to stamp out the multitude of facts corroborating the philosophy of Spiritists from history. What the ancient and modern authors narrate, “that can be used to bolster up the physical part of science, scientists accept and sometimes cooly appropriate without credit;”[26] while what they recognize as contrary to the order of nature, they “incontinently reject as mythical . . .” “They adopt the contrary course to Lord Verulam[27], who, arguing on the properties of amulets and charms, remarks that, ‘we should not reject all this kind, because it is not known how far those contributing to superstition depend on natural causes.’ ”[28] Clearly, humankind will never get to the truth as long as the freedom of thought and truthful exposition of scientific discoveries remains suppressed by preconceived opinions. More than that, “there can be no real enfranchisement of human thought, nor expansion of scientific discovery, until the existence of spirit is recognized, and the double evolution accepted as a fact. Until then, false theories will always find favour with those who, having forsaken ‘the God of their fathers,’ vainly strive to find substitutes in nucleated masses of matter . . .”
That's how the Russian Theosophist vigorously stood up for her brothers venturing to deal with the London scientist.
Footnotes
- ↑ Word (Fr.)
- ↑ Secretly (Fr.).
- ↑ William Hepworth Dixon (1821 – 1879) was an English writer and traveller, the author of a number of biographical and historical works, including those focusing on religious sects in the United States, such as New America (1867), Spiritual Wives (1868), and in the Russian Empire, such as Free Russia (1870).
- ↑ So far, this assertion has not found confirmation in the writings of the Founders of the Theosophical Society. In 1877, V.P. de Zhelihovsky's views of the theosophical principles were rather superficial as she was only beginning to learn more about them. Hence, her erroneous opinion largely shared by the public.
- ↑ N.P. Wagner, Mediumism, Russkiy Vestnik, 1875, No. 10. Nikolai Petrovich Wagner (1829–1907) was a zoologist, Professor at St-Petersburg University; an author, one of the leaders of the Russian movement of experimental spiritism. Brothers William (1832–1932) and Horatio (1842–1922) Eddy were American mediums at whose homestead H. P. Blavatsky first met H.S. Olcott (October 14, 1874) and where her theosophical activity entered a permanent and active stage.
- ↑ H. P. Blavatsky repeatedly denied similar speculations. In the Theosophical Glossary, for instance, she calls spiritualism necromancy (vide: Spiritualism).
- ↑ Perpetually (Fr.)
- ↑ Adams G., Materilizations (Banner of Light, 1876, vol. XL, № 5, October 28).
- ↑ A Defense of Modern Spiritualism by Alfred R. Wallace, F.R.S., Boston: Colby and Rich, 1874.
- ↑ Op. cit., p. 62.
- ↑ Ditto.
- ↑ Ditto, p. 63.
- ↑ John McCloskey (1810–1885) was the first American born cardinal, Archbishop of New York (1864-1885).
- ↑ The Great Beast of the Apocalypse (Fr.).
- ↑ Vide: The article Huxley and Slade: Who is More Guilty of “False Pretences”? Banner of Light, Boston, Vol. XL, No. 5, October 28, 1876.
- ↑ Tit Titych Bruskov, a character of a comedy titled Pay with a Hangover for the Feasting of Others by Russia's famous writer A.N. Ostrovsky. A rich, conceited and stupid despot.
- ↑ Therefore (Lat.).
- ↑ The World Soul (Lat.)
- ↑ Huxley and Slade: Who is More Guilty of “False Pretences”? Vide: H. P. Blavatsky, BCW, p. 226.
- ↑ Ditto. The quotation is not quite accurate. The correct text is as follows: “. . . what he said that was new was not true; and that which was true was not new.”
- ↑ Ditto, pp. 226-227.
- ↑ Martin Haug (1827–1876) was a German Orientalist, Iran and Sanskrit scholar.
- ↑ Ditto, p. 229.
- ↑ Jean Léopold Cuvier, known as Georges Cuvier (1769–1832), was a French naturalist and zoologist.
- ↑ H. P. Blavatsky never regarded herself as a Spiritist. On the contrary, to oppose Spiritualism (which she viewed as necromancy) she put forward Theosophy as the true teaching about ethereal worlds and spiritual Nature.
- ↑ Op. cit., p. 232.
- ↑ Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Albans, also known as Lord Verulam, (1561-1626) was an English philosopher, historian and statesman. Bacon has been called the father of empiricism and English materialism.
- ↑ Op. cit., pp. 233.