---

The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950

By

---

Col. Olcott, Annie Besant, And W. Q. Judge

IN 1892, the future course of the Movement depended in large part on Annie Besant—upon whom she would trust for counsel, and upon the position she assumed with respect to H.P.B. Would she side with Olcott and become “organization-minded,” or would she stand with Judge, who held that the Movement could be no greater than the moral vitality of its members? Mr. Judge might hope that Mrs. Besant would see where the real work of the Movement lay, but he could only set an example and encourage her own efforts in the right direction; meanwhile, he was himself the constant target of all those who had come to adopt what may be called the “Adyar attitude” of reliance on organization, rules, and “official” authority.

The first important event that was to shape the circumstances in which Mrs. Besant made her choice was the announcement by Col. Olcott of his resignation from the Presidency of the Society. The notice of this decision, which appeared in the Path for March, 1892, came as a complete surprise to all but a handful of the members of the Society. While Col. Olcott attributed his retirement to ill-health, the real reason came to light several years later, in a letter by Herbert Burrows to the English Theosophist for November, 1895. Explaining his own resignation from the Society, Mr. Burrows referred to the “accusations of grave immorality against Col. Olcott, laid before him by Mrs. Besant and Mr. Judge, and in consequence of which the Colonel 1 resigned his presidency.”

Mrs. Besant had planned to go to India toward the close of 1891. Instead, she traveled to New York to discuss with Mr. Judge the accusations against Col. Olcott which had been brought to her attention in London. She repeated the charges to Mr. Judge in the presence of confidential witnesses, one of whom was E. August Neresheimer, and demanded immediate action, requesting that Judge, as Vice-President of the Society, 2 ask Col. Olcott to resign. Mr. Judge thereupon wrote a letter to Col. Olcott, not as Vice President, but as an old friend, advising him of the charges and the evidence supporting them. He suggested to Olcott that if the charges were true, he had better resign. Mrs. Besant sent Mr. Judge’s letter to India by special messenger. Upon receiving it, Col. Olcott denied the charges against him, but put in his resignation as President of the Society. This should not, however, be construed as certain evidence of Olcott’s “guilt,” but rather of his desire to protect the Society from any breath of scandal. According to F. T. Sturdy, who was Mrs. Besant’s emissary, the charges related to an incident in Col. Olcott’s private life.

At the Sixth Annual Convention of the American Section, held at Chicago, April 24-25, 1892, the members selected William Q. Judge as their choice for Col. Olcott’s successor in the Presidency, but at the same time requested the Colonel to revoke his resignation. In accordance with the instructions of the Convention, Mr. Judge cabled this resolution of the American theosophists to Olcott, who at once replied: “Am willing to do anything that is just and fair; I must 3 stop here [Adyar] until I hear definitely from you (by Mail).” Col. Olcott also published in the Theosophist some brief announcements implying practical difficulties in the way of his retirement and suggesting that his health was improving.

Meanwhile, in Lucifer for May, 1892, Mrs. Besant noted the action taken by the American Convention, remarking that its “resolutions, of course, do not bind the Society and no definite arrangement can be come to until the European Section has added its voice to those of the other Sections.” A letter of greeting from the American Theosophists, signed by Mr. Judge, was presented to the European Section, which convened on July 14, 1892. This letter referred to Col. Olcott’s resignation:
At our Convention in April last we asked you to unite with us in a request to Colonel Olcott to revoke his resignation. This we did in candour and friendship, leaving it to you to decide your course. We recollected what was so often and so truly said by H. P. Blavatsky, that this organization, unique in this century, partook of the life of its parents. One of them is Col. Olcott. It would be disloyal to our ideals to hurry in accepting his resignation, even though we knew that we might get on without his presence at the head. And if he should hold to his deter mination our loving request would fill his remaining years with pleasing remembrances of his brothers without a trace 4 of bitterness

The European Convention, however, instead of following the example of the American Section, proceeded to elect William Q. Judge to the Presidency, and explained in a resolution that “we consider that the answer of the President-Founder renders any 5 further action impossible.” The action of the European Section placed Olcott in a difficult position. He solved the problem by inserting a notice in the Theosophist explaining that the London Convention had acted under the misapprehension that he “had definitely and finally refused to revoke my [his] January letter of 6 resignation.” He continued:
The fact being that the terms of my May note upon the subject . . . left the question open and dependent upon the contingencies of my health and the proof that my return to office would be for the best interest of the Society. A long rest in the mountains has restored my health, and renewed my mental and physical vigor, and therefore, since further suspense would injure the Society, I hereby give notice that I revoke my letter of resignation and resume the active duties and responsibilities of office; and I declare William Q. Judge, Vice-President, my constitutional successor, and eligible for duty as such upon his relinquishment of any other office in the Society which he may hold at the time of my death.

The episode of Olcott’s “resignation” might have ended without further repercussions, had it not been for an injudicious action by Mrs. Besant, soon after the President-Founder's decision to resign was first made public. Having put pressure on Mr. Judge to request Olcott to resign, she returned to London and there advocated the election of Mr. Judge to the Presidency. On March 10, 1892, she sent to all members of the Esoteric Section a circular letter urging the choice of Judge as Olcott’s successor. She did this without Mr. Judge’s knowledge, full of zeal to influence others to act according to her ideas. Judge, when he learned of Mrs. Besant’s Circular, quickly prepared another, defining the relationship between the E.S. and the Society. This Circular, which was dated July 29, contained an “Important Notice” which read as follows:
The E.S.T. has no official connection with the Theosophical Society. When first organized it was known as a section of the T. S. but it being seen that the perfect freedom and public character of the Society might be interfered with, H.P.B., some time before her departure,gave noticethat allofficial connection between thetwoshould end, and then changed the nametothe presentone. This leaves all T. S. officials who are in the E.S.T. perfectly free in their official capacity, and also permits members if asked to say with truth that theSchool has noofficialconnectionwith theT.S. and is not a partof it. Members will please bear this in mind.

This notice was signed by Mrs. Besant and Mr. Judge. The Circular continued:
Members must carefully remember that the School has no official connection with the Society [T.S.]. although none are admitted who are not F.T.S. [Fellows of the T. S.]. Hence the T. S. must not be compromised by members of the School. We must all recollect that the T. S. is a free, open body. So if one of the Heads is also an official in the T. S., his or her words or requests as such T. S. official must not under any circumstances be colored or construed on the basis of the work of this School.
This caution is necessary because some members have said to the General Secretary of the U.S. Sect. T. S. [Mr. Judge] that they regarded his words as such official to be an order. This is improper and may lead to trouble if members cannot see their plain ethical duty under the pledge. They are, surely, to work for the T. S., but must also use their commonsense and never let the T. S. become dogmatic.

Following the Convention of the European Section, partisans and friends of Col. Olcott voiced the suspicion that the whole affair of the resignation and the failure of the European Section to ask Col. Olcott to reverse his decisionwere part of a politicalmaneuver byMr.Judge to gain the Presidency. Mrs. Besant’sE.S. circular of March 10, urging thatJudge be elected,seemed to confirm thissupposition, asitwas known that Mrs. Besant had great confidence in Mr. Judge at that time. (Olcott himself probably shared the suspicion, for among the charges preferred against Judge in July, 1894,was one alleging “lack of straightforwardness” on the part of Mr. Judge in connection with Col. Olcott’s tenure of the 7 Presidency. ) Another Circular issued by Mrs. Besant, and signed also by Mr. Judge, was sent to all E.S. members on August I, 1892, in which Mrs. Besant affirmed that her previous Circular (of March 10), expressing the hope that “the choice of the Society would fall upon William Q. Judge, as President,” had not been made by her as “one of the Outer Heads” of the E.S. By this means an attempt was made to show that the exoteric Society was not “controlled” by “private orders” in the Esoteric Section. Thereafter, the question of Judge's action in connection with Olcott’s resignation remained quiescent until two years later, when Annie Besant turned against Mr. Judge.

During these troubled years, the real work of the Movement in America was carried on without serious disturbance from organizational problems. By the 1892 Convention of the American Section, the number of local branches in the United States had risen to sixty-nine, giving tangible evidence that the American Section was now the strongest of all, with more active branches and workers than either the European or the Indian Section. As a matter of fact, Col. Olcott, in his Presidential Address before the Indian Convention in December, 1892, felt obligated to refer to the “intense action” of the American Section, while noting a “marked lassitude” in the Indian work.

The explanation for the progress of the work in America is to be found in the efforts and impersonalmethods of WilliamQ.Judge.His Pathmagazine breathes a differentspiritfromthat of theEuropean and Asiatic publications, and even the Convention reports of theAmerican Section reflect the devotion of Judge and his close associatesto the real ideals of the Theosophical Movement. In America, reference to Brotherhood was more than rhetorical flourish, with emphasis upon the practical spread of Theosophical teachings rather than upon organizational structure. The Path took its tone from the writings of Mr.Judge.Hardly amonthwent bywithoutsome useful article from his pen. His style of writing, while unpretentious and even homely, was clear and penetrating, and the subjects he chose for discussion always bore some particularrelation to the needs of the Path readers. In 1892, for example, he contributed articles on Hatha Yoga practices, metaphysical healing, mesmerism, and a discussion of disease. There were also several articles on reincarnation in this volume, and a notable contribution in two parts: “The Synthesis of Occult Science.” Concerning the Movement, he wrote with great insight on “Dogmatism in Theosophy,” “The Future and the Theosophical Society,” and “On the Future: A Few Reflections.” His articles, “Mesmerism,” and “Sheaths of the Soul,” taken together, form an exhaustive treatise on the astral body, invaluable to students. In this year alone, Mr. Judge’s articles seem to give thorough coverage of the many facets of the Theosophical teaching, and the provocative manner of his discussions maintained a constant stimulus to further investigation on the part of readers of the Path. A study of the early volumes of this magazine will show as nothing else can the difference between the Theosophy of William Q. Judge and the “political” activities which occupied so much of the time of the other Sections of the Society.

Above all, there is to be discerned in the Path a continuous loyalty to H.P.B. and a faithful re-presentation of her philosophical teachings. This loyalty, however, was not of the blind, emotional variety, nor was the fidelity to H.P.B.’s teachings a slavish repetition of Theosophical “dogmas.” Judge was loyal to his colleague and co-founder of the Movement because, as the history of that Movement shows, he understood the character of her mission and was himself continuing the work she had begun. To make dogmas of her statements would have been a betrayal of her great educational purpose; on the other hand, to neglect the Message she had recorded would have rendered her labors without effect. Judge would do neither. He simply continued doing as he had been doing while H.P.B. was alive, defending her when she was attacked or belittled, appealing to common sense when she was referred to with ostentatious “reverence” as an infallible prophet, but always making evident his own conviction that she was the Teacher, the Agent of the Adepts, and the one who set the example for successful work on behalf of the Theosophical Movement.

Judge also showed his philosophic grasp of the teachings of Theosophy by the way in which he took note in the Path of the distortions and mistakes of other Theosophical writers. He never sought a quarrel, but neither did he allow serious errors in the philosophy to go by without comment. Thus, when Mr. Sinnett published a book on Mesmerism, in which he asserted that the Higher Self of man is the acting agent in mesmerized subjects who show clairvoyance and clairaudience, Judge was obliged to contradict him. The higher self, Mr. Judge wrote, “is a part of the supreme spirit, and as such cannot be made to go and come at the beck of a mesmerizer.” The gross physical power of mesmerism, he pointed out, can neither act on nor affect the spiritual 9 man, but only the astral and psychic nature. In a similar instance, Mr. Sinnett had found occasion to revive his differences with H.P.B. concerning the occult doctrine of planetary evolution. Here, again, Mr. judge felt it necessary to call attention to the fact that Mr. Sinnett's views on this subject, as expressed in Esoteric Buddhism, had been corrected by H.P.B. in The Secret Doctrine, many pages being 10 given to a detailed discussion of the points at issue.

This controversy over the teachings of Esoteric Buddhism came to new prominence through a paper by W. Scott Elliott, in the form of a “Transaction” of Mr. Sinnett’s London Lodge, in which Sinnett's materialistic version of the “planetary chains” was repeated. Mr. Elliott also offered other “facts” claimed to be now “given out to the world for the first time.” Alexander Fullerton, who had charge of much of the editorial routine in the Path office, made the mistake of printing an enthusiastic review of Elliott’s paper. Mr. Judge, who probably did not see a proof of Fullerton's review, met the situation in the next issue of the Path (July, 1893), stating in a signed editorial:
In the June PATH there was printed a review of a pamphlet issued by the London Lodge T. S., and this magazine may perhaps be construed as committed to an approval of everything contained in the pamphlet, although the private initials of the reviewer were annexed to the remarks. The pamphlet referred to brings up an old dispute which we had thought was settled by what is found in The Secret Doctrine. . . . H.P.B., the only person in actual and constant communication with the Masters, corrected the mistake made by Mr. Sinnett. . . . Her correction of the misconception was made upon the written authority of the same Masters who sent through her the letters on which Esoteric Buddhism was written.
On the ground of authority in respect to this question, about which none of the Theosophical writers have any information independent of what the Masters have written, we must conclude that the statement in The Secret Doctrine is final. If no other point were involved, there would be no necessity for going further with the matter, but as the consistency of the entire philosophy is involved, it is necessary to advert again to this 11 subject.

Mr. Sinnett regarded this as a direct challenge, which he answered in the Path for September. After a page of introduction, he said, “. . . the really important point developed by the controversy has to do with the question, What was Madame Blavatsky’s position really in the occult world, and what kind of authority should be attached to the writings she has left behind her?” While Mr. Sinnett makes no categorical answer to this question, his own opinion soon becomes plain. He concedes “that she [H.P.B.] was truly in close relations with the great Masters of esoteric wisdom,” but merely as “one of their partly initiated disciples.” Then, after speaking of his “debt of gratitude” to H.P.B. for bringing him into contact with the Theosophical Adepts, he continues: “It is not my business here to offer hypotheses to account for the strange misapprehensions into which Madame Blavatsky fell when writing the Secret Doctrine, not merely as regards these questions of Mars and Mercury, but also in regard to some other points which have not yet attracted attention.” He reviews the controversy regarding the planets and then announces that “within the last few months” he has received vindication from “the Master himself.”

At this point, Mr. Sinnett launches into the claim that even during H.P.B.’s lifetime, he enjoyed “private and personal” channels of communication with the Master, of which intercourse H.P.B. knew nothing. His previous silence as to these communications is accounted for in the following passage:
Madame Blavatsky disliked anything that savored of interference with her rights as founder of the Theosophical Society, and while she lived no one else would have been allowed to speak on behalf of the Masters to the Society at large. But it will be obvious on reflection that unless the whole design of occult teaching is a delusion also, fresh neophytes as time goes on must come within the scope of the personal teaching of the Masters. In this respect we are moving forward now in a new era. . . . as it had been my duty in the past to put the teaching of the Mahatmas before the world, so it looks probable that such tasks will present themselves again, and on this account it is that I am bound at the present crisis to speak rather more plainly than inclination in other 12 circumstances would have prompted.

To this bid byMr.Sinnettforrecognitionas a“channel”totheMasters inthe“newera,”Mr.Judgerepliedsimplyandbriefly,bypointingout: In her Secret Doctrine, availing herself of the same teachers to whom she introduced Mr. Sinnett, she corrected two errors into which she said he had fallen, i.e., respecting Devachan and our companion planets. It is a perfectly unthinkable proposition to say that she was not advised by the Masters when writing the Secret Doctrine. I who saw many of the Masters’ letters in 1888 in reference to the Secret Doctrine certainly cannot give up the evidence of my inner and outer senses. I know as surely as I know any fact that the same teachers were giving her in 1887 and 1888, as before, information for that book, in black upon white, and I am certain they dictated the corrections given in Secret Doctrine upon the points now before us.

In the next issue of the Path, Mr. Judge reprinted the letter received from the Master by Col. Olcott while in mid-ocean, en route to London in 1888. One passage in particular served as a commentary on Mr. Sinnett’s innuendoes and claims:
“. . . Since 1885 I have have not written nor caused to be written save through her [H.P.B.’s] agency direct or remote a letter or a line to anybody in Europe or America, nor communicated orally with or through any third party. Theosophists should learn it. You will understand later the significance of this declaration, so keep it in mind. . 13 . .”

The bearing of this statement on later events is significant, as years after it became known that Mr. Sinnett believed H.P.B. to be a deliverer of bogus messages from the Masters. A letter by him, published in 1895, accuses her of fabricatingmessagesto further her policies in the Society, and he asserts that he discovered she did this about the year 1887. In view of the opinion held by the author of Esoteric Buddhism, it is not difficult to understand the ease with which he contradicted the statements of The Secret Doctrine. The real explanation, however, is that Mr. Sinnett had himself lapsed into Spiritualism,theLondonLodge becoming littlemore than a cultured Theosophical séance circle, with results of a quality that might be expected. (See Sinnett’s Early Days of Theosophy in Europe, written 14 in 1919, but posthumously published.)

In the controversy between Mr. Sinnett and Mr. Judge concerning planetary evolution, Mrs. Besant chose “to follow H. P. Blavatsky’s teachings,” saying that “for the teaching she brought us we are deeply grateful, and we do not care to benefit by the message and constantly 15 cavil at and find fault with the messenger.” From Col. Olcott, who published Mr. Sinnett’s reply to Mr. Judge in the Theosophist, there came as comment only repetition of his old refrain regarding the “human fallibility of H.P.B.,” and the admonition that “loyalty to an idea” does “not imply willful blindness as to the merits or deficiencies of its 16 exponents.

By this time, Col. Olcott’s habit of warning students against believing too much in H.P.B. had become a major theme in nearly all of his written and spoken utterances. A year before, in the Theosophist for March, 1892, he had begun publishing the series of rambling autobiographical articles entitled “Old Diary Leaves,” in which he recounted his personal recollections of the Movement. “Old Diary Leaves” is written in an easy, lucid and interesting style, overflowing with stories of marvelous and mysterious phenomena. It deals graphically with the human and anecdotal side of the Movement—a side purposely ignored in all the writings of H.P.B. and W. Q. Judge. Olcott explained his purpose in writing these reminiscences three years later, in 1895, when the first series of “Old Diary Leaves” was issued in book form He said in his Foreword:
The controlling impulse to prepare these papers was a desire to combat a growing tendency within the Society to deify Mme. Blavatsky, and to give her commonest literary productions a quasi-inspirational character. Her transparent faults were being blindly ignored, and the pinchbeck screen of pretended authority drawn between her actions and legitimate criticism. Those who had least of her actual confidence, and hence knew least of her private character, were the greatest offenders in this direction. It was but too evident that unless I spoke out what I alone knew, the true history of our movement could never be written, nor the actual merit of my wonderful colleague become known. In these pages I have, therefore, told the truth about her and the beginnings of the Society—truth which nobody can gainsay. . . . I have pursued my present task to its completion, despite the fact that some of my most influential colleagues have, from what I consider mistaken loyalty to “H.P.B.,” secretly tried to destroy my influence, ruin my reputation, reduce the circulation of my magazine, and prevent the publication of my book. . . .

. . . Karma forbid that I should do her a feather-weight of injustice, but if there ever existed a person in history who was a greater conglomeration of good and bad, light and shadow, wisdom and indiscretion, spiritual insight and lack of common sense, I cannot recall the name, the circumstances or the epoch.

Olcott continued writing the “Old Diary Leaves” series, publishing its chapters in the Theosophist from month to month, with occasional interruptions, until his death in 1907. Protected from public criticism by both H.P.B. and Judge, and honored and respected throughout the Society for his long service and unquestioned sacrifices on its behalf, Olcott naturally enjoyed the full confidence of most of the members of the Society, particularly in India and Europe. The statements in Old Diary Leaves, therefore, were accepted without question by many, whose opinions concerning H.P.B. and Judge were shaped, as a result, by Olcott’s judgments of these two. When he began writing Old Diary Leaves, Olcott was more than sixty years old, broken in health, deeply wounded in his feelings over the charges which had caused him to offer his resignation, and over the seeming unconcern with which his resignation was received by theosophists at large. Judge’s loyalty to H.P.B. in this period was doubtless a thorn in Olcott's side, for Judge—who must have seemed but a boy to the Colonel when he was bearing the brunt of the struggle—was next in line for the Presidency of the Society, and Olcott was already anticipating a lonely and neglected old age.

The attack on William Q. Judge, which threw the Society into turmoil during the years 1894-95, originated with the correspondence between Olcott and Judge concerning the extract from an adept communication which Jasper Niemand (Mrs. Archibald Keightley) had placed at the head of an article she contributed to the Path for August, 1891. (See Chapter xii, p. 169.) When Annie Besant was in America During the winter of 1892-93, Mr. Judge showed her his correspondence with Olcott, including his reply to Olcott’s strictures concerning the Niemand article. Mrs. Besant obtained from Judge permission to printthisletterinLucifer,where it appeared in the April, 1893, issue, as a letter addressed to “An Indian Brother,” Col. Olcott’s name not being given. In this letter, Mr. Judge spoke of the importance of keeping before the general public the idea of the existence of Masters. “The assertion of that fact,” he wrote, “made so often in America has opened up channelsin men’s minds which would have remained closed had silence been observed about the existence of thoseBeings.”Concerning themessage itself,he said:
It is true I had later the privilege of seeing his [Jasper’s] message, but only read the text, did not examine the signature, and do not remember if even it had a signature. The signature is not important. The means for identification are not located in signatures at all. If you have not the means yourself for proving and identifying such a message, then signature, seal, papers, watermark, what not, all are useless.

Mr. Judge expressed a similar unconcern over the matter of the “seal,” to which Olcott attached much importance, and emphasized what Olcott seems to have ignored—the intrinsic value of this particular message:
The qualities spoken of [he wrote] were more than ever needed at that crisis [the death of H.P.B.], and words of encouragement from Masters, however trite, were useful and stimulating. We do not—at least I do not—want Masters to utter veiled, mystical, or portentous phrases. The commonplace ones suit me best and are best understood. Perhaps if you were satisfied with simple words from Them you might have had them. Who knows?

Mr. Judge corrected Olcott’s supposition that he (Judge) was Jasper Niemand, and defended from the viewpoint of policy the publication of the message:
. . . when we come to examine thework and the foundation of theT. S. and its policy,I find it perfectly properforme to assert, asI do, in accordance with my own knowledge and belief, that our true progress lies in fidelity to Masters as ideals and facts. . . . I have the right to say that I think a constant reliance on Masters assuch ideals and facts—or either—will lead theT. S. on togreaterwork. . . .
I belong to that class of persons in the T. S. who out of their own experience knowthatthe Masters exist and actually help the T. S. You belong to a class which—as I read your letters and those of others who write similarly—express a doubt on this, that, or the other, seeming to question the expediency, propriety, and wisdom of a man’s boldly asserting confidence and belief in Beings who are unprovable for many, although you say (as in your present letter) that you believe in and revere the same Masters as I do. What, then, must I conclude? Am I not forced to the conclusion that inasmuch as you say you believe in these Beings. you think it unwise in me to assert publicly and boldly my belief? Well, then, if this is a correct statement of the case, why cannot you go on your way of belief and concealment of it, and let me proceed with my proclamations? I will take the Karma of my own beliefs. I force no man to accept my 17 assertions.

When the copy of Lucifer containing this article reached India, Olcott’s supporters hastened to reply. In the Theosophist for July, 1893, N. D. Khandalavala, a prominent Indian member, compared Judge’s statement about the importance of “reliance on Masters as ideals and as facts” with the “canting” of Christian missionaries, and he attacked also Judge’s view that the means of identifying a genuine message from the Masters must be “within” the recipient himself, In the same issue of the Theosophist, another article, “Theosophic Freethought,” by Walter R. Old and Sidney V. Edge, condemned Judge's statements as dogmatism. Mr. Judge, these writers said, must provide “proof ” of his intercourse with the adepts, and they branded his personal declaration of belief as “extremely inimical to the spirit of our Society.”

Meanwhile, Olcott, in the early chapters of the “Old Diary Leaves” series, was proclaiming that H.P.B. was the “subject of a distinct mental evolution”; that she knew nothing of reincarnation until 1879, when she was instructed in this doctrine in India. in a somewhat absurd justification of this opinion, Olcott hazards the guess that possibly H.P.B.’s adept-teacher was himself ignorant of reincarnation in the early days of the Movement, “and that he [the Adept], as well as H.P.B., had to learn it subsequently. . . .

In 1893, Annie Besant came to the United States to attend the World's Parliament of Religions to be held September 15-16 at the Chicago Fair. Included in her party was G. N. Chakravarti, a Brahmin member of the T. S. who had been invited to represent the Brahmin religion at the Parliament. Prof. Chakravarti was a scholarly Hindu who had greatly impressed Bertram Keightley as being possessed of occult knowledge, and the latter, while in America, had urged the selection of Chakravarti as the Brahmin representative. In Chicago, the Hindu emissary soon rose to the position of an unique presence. His share in the Parliament grew with his prestige. and he was invited to participate in the dedicatory ceremonies at the opening of the Congress of Religions. The Theosophical program during the Congress was a noteworthy success, and in this distinction Prof. Chakravarti and Mrs. Besant held the leading place. The effect of all this upon the general public and the membership of the Theosophical Society was immediate and marked. An immense interest in everything Theosophical sprang up. The whole Theosophical world was elated. To be called a “theosophist” was equivalent to “honorable mention”; to enjoy the personal acquaintance of Chakravarti and Mrs. Besant, a coveted privilege.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Besant was slowly succumbing to the Oriental charm of her Brahmin companion. She had already adopted the external forms of occultism—she was a strict vegetarian, even carrying her own table utensils with her on trips—and she was alert to the various “practices” advocated in the Orient for “development.” She now discovered that Chakravarti possessed “psychic powers,” and became in effect his disciple. Prof. Chakravarti, it should be noted, was not a member of the Esoteric School of Theosophy. Dr. Archibald Keightley, in the Path for June, 1895, described in some detail the psychic subordination of Mrs. Besant to Chakravarti. Dr. Keightley had personally witnessed some of Mrs. Besant’s “psychic experiences” under the influence of the Brahmin, who frequently “magnetized” her, making her hear what she supposed was the “Master’s” voice. Dr. Keightley commented:
“I soon saw the mental effect of this in Mrs. Besant’s entire change of view, in other matters besides those of H.P.B. and Mr. Judge.” Dr. Keightley said also that Mrs. Besant “admitted occult ties with a group of Brahmins in India, such ties being prohibited by the rules of 18 a private body to which we and she then belonged.”

Mrs. Besant returned to London with Chakravarti and a little later followed him to India. After the December Convention she toured India until March, 1894,when she set sail for England. In all the annals of the Theosophical Society, there is nothing comparable to this Indian visit of Mrs. Besant’s.
Natives and Europeans, members and non-members of the Society, crowded her with attentions. She was christened avatara Annabai by the enthusiastic Hindus. Her visits to sacred places were religious fêtes. She conferred with leading priests, proclaimed herself an Indian at heart, and took the Brahmanical thread. Olcott, at the 1893 Convention, declared that the Masters had sent him Annabai to share his burden, and that this new helper would in time be “able to render service that her Teacher [H.P.B.] could not, by her peerless oratory and her scientific training.” He spoke of his accord with Mrs. Besant concerning the Esoteric Section—which, he said, had previously been the cause of “misunderstandings,” i.e., while H.P.B. was alive—and hoped that Mrs. Besant would devote part of her future to work in India. Olcott then referred to recent assurances from the Masters of the future success of the Society, together with a warning to expect “fresh disagreeable surprises,” after which the Society would emerge “purer and stronger 19 than ever

The first of these “surprises” was not far off. Early in February, Mrs. Besant, Col. Olcott, and their party reached Allahabad—the home of Prof. Chakravarti. Here, fittingly enough, Mrs. Besant handed Col. Olcott the following: Allahabad, Feb. 6th, 1894

To the President-Founder of the Theosophical Society. Dear Sir and Brother,— Some little time ago an appeal was made to me by members of the T. S. belonging to different Branches, to set their minds at rest as to the accusations made against the Vice-President of the Society, Bro. W. Q. Judge, with reference to certain letters and sentences in the alleged writings of the Mahatmas. As it is to the detriment of the whole Society that such accusations—believed to be true by reputable members of the Society—should be circulated against a prominent official without rebuttal and without investigation, I ask you, as the President of the Society, to direct that the charges made shall be formulated and laid before a Committee, as provided by Art. VI, 20 Secs. 2, 3 and 4. Fraternally yours, ANNIE BESANT

On the next day Colonel Olcott wrote the following official communication to Mr. Judge:
To William Q. Judge, Vice-President T. S. Dear Sir and Brother,
— I enclose herewith a certified copy of Annie Besant’s formal letter to me, dated Allahahad, Feb. 6th inst. In it she demands an official enquiry, by means of a Committee, into the matter of your alleged misuse of the Mahatmas’ names and handwriting.
By virtue of the discretionary power given me in Art. VI of the Revised Rules, I place before you the following options :
(1) To retire from all offices held by you in the Theosophical Society and leave me to make a merely general public explanation; or— 
(2) To have a judicial Committee convened, as provided for in Art. VI, Sec. 3, of the Revised Rules, and make public the whole of the proceedings in detail.
In either alternative, you will observe, a public explanation is found necessary: in the one case to be limited as far as possible and made general; in the other to be full and covering all the details.
I suggest that if you decide for a Committee you fix London as the place of meeting, as by far the most central and convenient to all concerned. But whether you choose New York, London, or elsewhere, I shall in all probability be represented by proxy, unless something now unforeseen should arise to make it imperative that I shall personally attend.
As it will be much better that I should know your decision before Annie Besant leaves India (March 20th), I would ask you to kindly cable me the word “first” if you choose to resign; or “second” if you demand the Committee. 
Fraternally yours, H. S. OLCOTT, President Theosophical Society