---

The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950

By

---

The Society Versus The Movement

ALTHOUGH A CAUSE with the highest conceivable ideals, capable of drawing out from men their best efforts and stirring them to unselfish determination, the Theosophical Movement was nevertheless subject to the common weaknesses and failures of human nature. Again and again, the Movement suffered setbacks from the failure of theosophists to distinguish between the real work they had to do—popularizing the fundamental ideals of brotherhood, moral law, and cyclic spiritual evolution—and the merely incidental issues of personality and organization. H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge are singled out in the present volume as the real founders of the Theosophical Movement, not because of any particular regard for them as personalities, but because their work reveals that they understood and practiced the principles of soul-education, that they knew the needs of the race and time and met those needs with selfeffacing devotion and unparalleled efficiency.

Until her death in 1891, H.P.B. bore the brunt of the inner and outer reactions generated by the moral power of the Theosophical Movement. Fated from the beginning to suffer alike from the enmity of sceptics and the emotional enthusiasm of mere “believers,” she did her work without regard for any personal consideration. She found Olcott, instructed him in as much as he could learn, and with his help established the Society. In Judge she nurtured the seed of inner perception and made him her colleague in the occult tasks she had undertaken. She wrote down the Theosophical philosophy in systematic form, re-established in the West the School for Disciples of the Wisdom-Religion, and bore with fortitude the vicious attacks that seemed to dissolve all that she had attempted to accomplish, always returning to her labors with undaunted vigor and an infinite supply of energy and inspiration.

H.P.B. cared nothing for the nominal achievement of a large “Society.” She cared only for the Theosophical Movement, which was, for her, a living power in the hearts of men. More than once she found it necessary to declare to Olcott that if he continued to obstruct her work, or if he failed to support her in some important decision, she would leave the Society entirely and work with those who understood what she was trying to do. Olcott, on his part, was fanatically devoted to the Society as an institution. From the attack of the Coulombs to the machinations of Prof. Coues, Olcott’s policy was always to protect the Society first, with the result that if he believed H.P.B. had acted injudiciously in relation to the Society’s welfare, his defense of her was half-hearted at best. The PresidentFounder’s reverence for “organization” naturally led him to oppose those of H.P.B.’s actions which, as he saw them, might disturb the harmony or lessen the prestige of the Society. He complains repeatedly in Old Diary Leaves of H.P.B.’s “interference” in the practical affairs of the Society and attempts to convey the impression to his readers that he was the long-suffering wheel-horse of the Theosophical Movement, who patiently endured the results of H.P.B.’s erratic policies and adjusted as best he could the conflicts and difficulties arising from her mistakes.

Olcott’s attitude toward H.P.B. in 1888 is disclosed by events which followed his visit to Europe in that year. He had traveled from India in order to deal with a quarrel among the Paris members, and in arbitrating the issue he acted against the wishes of H.P.B. As the differences between them became increasingly evident to the members of the Society, the two Founders felt it advisable to issue a joint note, which appeared in both the Theosophist and Lucifer, affirming “that there is no enmity, rivalry, strife, or even coldness, between us, nor ever was; nor any weakening of our joint devotion to the Masters, or to our work, with the execution of which they have honoured us. Widely dissimilar in temperament and mental characteristics, and differing sometimes in views as to methods of propagandism, we are yet of absolutely one mind as to that work.”

In the same issue of Lucifer in which the Joint Note of the Founders appeared (October, 1888), Olcott permitted publication of extracts from a letter he had received a few weeks previously from one of the Theosophical adepts. This letter, he recounts in Old Diary Leaves, was received “phenomenally” in his cabin aboard the 2 Shannon, the boat which brought him to England in 1888. It is to Olcot’s credit that he authorized publication of passages from the letter, for it is a direct warning to him as to his feelings toward H.P.B. Years later, this letter was published in its entirety in Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom, a slim volume issued by the Adyar Theosophical Society in 1919. In Lucifer, lines seriously critical of the President were excised, as needlessly exposing Olcott’s weaknesses. A portion of the letter appears below, with brackets around lines omitted from the Lucifer extracts:

“. . . [Put all needed restraint upon your feelings, so that you may do the right thing in this Western imbroglio. Watch your first impressions. The mistakes you make spring from failure to do this. Let neither your personal predilections, affections, suspicions nor antipathies affect your action.]
“Misunderstandings have grown up between Fellows both in London and Paris, which imperil the interests of the movement. You will be told that the chief originator of most, if not of all these disturbances is H.P.B. This is not so; though her presence in England has, of course, a share in them. But the largest share rests with others, whose serene unconsciousness of their own defects is very marked and much to be blamed. One of the most valuable effects of Upasika’s mission is that it drives men to self-study and destroys in them blind servility for persons. Observe your own case, for example. But your revolt, good friend, against her infallibility—as you once thought it—has gone too far and you have been unjust to her, for which I am sorry [to say, you will have to suffer hereafter along with others. Just now, on deck, your thoughts about her were dark and sinful, and so I find the moment a fitting one to put you on your guard.]
“Try to remove such misconceptions as you will find, by kind persuasion and an appeal to the feeling of loyalty to the Cause o f truth if not to us. Make all these men feel that we have no favourites, nor affections for persons, but only for their good acts and humanity as a whole. But we employ agents—the best available. Of these for the past thirty years the chief has been the personality known as H.P.B. to the world (but other wise to us). Imperfect and very troublesome, no doubt, she proves to some; nevertheless, there is no likelihood of our finding a better one for years to come—and your theosophists should be made to understand it. Since 1885 I have not written, nor caused to be written save thro’ her agency, direct or remote, a letter or line to anybody in Europe or America, nor communicated orally with, or thro’ any third party. Theosophists should learn it, You will understand later the significance of this declaration, so keep it in mind. Her fidelity to our work being constant, and her sufferings having come upon her thro’ it, neither I nor either of my Brother associates will desert or supplant her, As I once before remarked, ingratitude is not among our vices. . . .
“To help you in your present perplexity: H.P.B. has next to no concern with administrative details, and should be kept clear of them [so far as her strong nature can be controlled]. But this you must tell to all:—With occult matters she has everything to do. We have not abandoned her; she is not ‘given over to chelas.’ She is our direct agent. [I warn you against permitting your suspicions and resentment against ‘her many follies’ to bias your intuitive loyalty to her.] In the adjustment of this European business, you will have two things to consider—the external and administrative, and the internal and psychical. Keep the former under your control and that of your most prudent associates, jointly; leave the latter to her. You are left to devise the practical details. . . . Only be careful, I say, to discriminate when some emergent interference of hers in practical affairs is referred to you on appeal, between that which is merely exoteric in origin and effects, and that which beginning on the practical tends to beget consequences on the spiritual plane. As to the former you are the best judge, as to the latter, she.

The importance of this counsel to Olcott cannot be overestimated.* It was he, not she, who “interfered,” and in a way calculated to disturb and subvert the real work of H.P.B. In April, 1886, H.P.B. wrote a long letter to Franz Hartmann, who, it will be remembered, was at Adyar during the Coulomb episode, and who witnessed the Indian Convention’s practical desertion of H.P.B. Hartmann had written to her at length, asking a number of questions. Her reply throws light on Olcott’s shortcomings:
As to . . . that portion of your letter where you speak of the “army”of the deluded—and the “imaginary” Mahatmas of Olcott—you are absolutely and sadly right. Have I not seen the thing for nearly eight years? Have I not struggled and fought against Olcott’s ardent and gushing imagination, and tried to stop him every day of my life? Was he not told by me . . . that if he did not see the Masters in their true light, and did not cease speaking and enflaming people’s imaginations, that he would be held responsible for all the evil the Society might come to? . . .
Ah, if by some psychological process you could be made to see the whole truth! . . . I was sent to America on purpose and sent to the Eddys. There I found Olcott in love with spirits, as he became in love with the Masters later on. I was ordered to let him know that spiritual phenomena without the philosophy of Occultism were dangerous and misleading. I proved to him that all that mediums could do through spirits others could do at will without any spirits at all. . . . Well, I told him the whole truth. I said to him that I had known Adepts, . . . That, whether they were called Rosicrucians, Kabalists, or Yogis, Adepts were everywhere Adepts—silent, secret, retiring, and who would never divulge themselves entirely to anyone, unless one did as I did—passed seven and ten years’ probation and given proofs of absolute devotion, and that he, or she, would keep silent even before a prospect and a threat of death. I fulfilled the requirements and am what I am; and this no Hodgson, no Coulombs, . . . can take away from me. . . .

When we arrived [in India], and Master coming to Bombay bodily, paid a visit to us . . . Olcott became crazy. He was like Balaam’s she-ass when she saw the angel! Then came other fanatics, who began calling them “Mahatmas”; and, little by little, the Adepts were transformed into Gods on earth. They began to be appealed to, and made puja to, and were becoming with every day more legendary and miraculous. . . . Well, between this idea of the Mahatmas and Olcott’s rhapsodies, what could I do? I saw with terror and anger the false track they were all pursuing. The “Masters,” as all thought, must be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. . . . The Masters knew all; why did they not help the devotee? If a mistake or a flapdoodle was committed in the Society—“How could the Masters allow you or Olcott to do so?” we were asked in amazement. The idea that the Masters were mortal men, limited even in their great powers, never crossed anyone’s mind. . . .
Is it Olcott’s fault? Perhaps, to a degree. Is it mine? I absolutely deny it, and protest against the accusation. It is no one's fault. Human nature alone, and the failure of modern society and religions to furnish people with something higher and nobler than craving after money and honors—is at the bottom of it. Place this failure on one side, and the mischief and havoc produced in people’s brains by modern spiritualism, and you have the enigma solved. Olcott to this day is sincere, true and devoted to the cause. He does and acts the best he knows how, and the mistakes and absurdities he has committed and commits to this day are due to something he lacks in the psychological portion of his brain, and he is not responsible for it. Loaded and heavy is his Karma, poor man, but much must be forgiven to him, for he has always erred through lack of right judgment, not from any vicious 4 propensity.

Olcott’s understanding of the adepts—the “Theosophical Mahatmas”—was thus a modified conception of “miraculous” beings. He lacked a rational grasp of the idea of natural adepts, as products of evolution, and tended as a result to surround his statements concerning H.P.B.’s teachers with an atmosphere of miracle. But Madame Blavatsky’s work and interest were in precisely this field which Olcott could not understand—the actual processes of moral evolution. Debarred from any real collaboration with her on this plane, he became wholly absorbed in the work of the Theosophical Society. This concentration of his energies was an important factor in shaping his attitude toward H.P.B. He writes in Old Diary Leaves of a letter he received from her shortly after she had moved to London, in the summer of 1887:
At Chupra, among my foreign letters I received one from H.P.B. which distressed me much. She had consented to start a new magazine with capital subscribed by London friends of hers, while she was still editor and half proprietor of the Theosophist—a most unusual and unbusinesslike proceeding. Besides other causes, among them the persuasion of English friends, a reason which strongly moved her to this was that Mr. Cooper-Oakley, her own appointee as Managing Editor [of the Theosophist], had more or less sided with T. Subba Row in a dispute which had sprung up between him and H.P.B. on the question whether the “principles” which go into the make-up of a human being were seven or five in number. Subba Row had replied in our pages to an article of hers on the subject, and her letters to me about it were most bitter and denunciatory of Cooper-Oakley, whom she, without reasonable cause, charged with treachery. It was one of those resistless impulses which carried her away sometimes into extreme measures. She wanted me to take away his editorial authority, and even sent me a foolish document, like a power-of-attorney, empowering me to send him to Coventry, so to say, and not allow any galley-proof to pass to the printer until initialed by myself. Of course, I remonstrated strongly against her thus, without precedent, setting up a rival competing magazine to hurt as much as possible the circulation and influence of our old-established organ, on the title-page of which her name still appeared. But it was useless to protest; she said she was determined to have a magazine in which she could say what she pleased, and in due time Lucifer appeared as her personal organ, and I got on as well as I could without her. Meanwhile, a lively interchange of letters went on between us. She was at strife then, more or less, with Mr. Sinnett, and before this was settled, a number of seceders from his London Lodge organized as the Blavatsky Lodge, and met at her house in Lansdowne Road, where her sparkling personality and 5 vast knowledge of occult things always ensured full meetings.

Here Olcott appears as the patient and judicial observer, sitting out H.P.B.’s temperamental storms. The fact was that Subba Row’s Brahman pride had got the better of him, and the papers printed by Cooper-Oakley in 1887 in the Theosophist amounted to a virtual betrayal of H.P.B. in a connection concerning which, for occult reasons, she could say very little that was explicit. She did, 6 however, make a friendly reply to his criticisms. Subba Row continued the controversy, imputing to H.P.B. the authorship of the “sevenfold classification” given in Sinnett’s book, Esoteric Buddhism, and holding her likewise responsible for statements in another work, 7 Man: Fragments of Forgotten History. H.P.B. replied to these charges in the Theosophist:
This is hardly fair. The first work [Esoteric Buddhism] was written absolutely without my knowledge, and as the author understood those teachings from letters he had received, what have I to do with them? . . . Finally “Man” was entirely rewritten by one of the two “chelas” and from the same materials as those used by Mr. Sinnett for “Esoteric Buddhism”; the two having understood the teachings, each in his own way. What had I to do with the “states of consciousness” of the three authors, two of whom wrote in England while I was in India? . . . .
This will do, I believe. The Secret Doctrine will contain, no doubt, still more heterodox statements from the Brahminical view. No one is forced to accept my opinions or teaching in the Theosophical Society, one of the rules of which enforces only mutual tolerance for 8 religious views.

Both Subba Row and Cooper-Oakley eventually left the Society. A later effort to invite them to return to membership was prevented by H.P.B., who cabled Olcott in December,1888, that the entire Blavatsky Lodge would resign from the Society if Cooper-Oakley were re-admitted to membership.

Richard Harte, said to be author of the famous Lucifer editorial addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, had returned to India with Olcott in the fall of 1888, to assist in the conduct of the Theosophist. Harte was an old-time friend of Col. Olcott, a former New York newspaper man who had joined the Society in 1878. The part he was to play in India, as Olcott’s supporter and aide, soon became evident in the pages of the Supplement to the Theosophist. The January, 1889, issue, immediately following the 1888 Convention at Adyar, contained a report of the “Revised Rules” of the Society, involving various changes in policy. Elaborate “Introductory Explanations” were attached to these rules, signed “F.T.S.” This was succeeded in February by an article by “F.T.S.,” entitled “The Theosophical Society,” which took up the theme begun in January.

Briefly, “F.T.S.” wrote in a studied effort to subordinate the vital aspect of the Theosophical Movement to the exoteric Society as an organization. Both the “Explanations” and the article on the Society enjoyed the position and reflected the authority of an editorial expression, justifying the conclusion that they were written by Mr. Harte. In his “Explanations,” F.T.S. speaks knowingly of the “apparent antagonism between the esoteric and exoteric aspects” of the Society and deplores as an evil the neglect by Branch members of the “Parent Society.” The “supreme central authority” 9 of the Society is defined as the Adyar General Council. The January article,“The Theosophical Society,” attempts to convey the impression that the development of the Movement was nothing more than the “constitutional” evolution of the Society, that the “Universal Brotherhood” established as the first Object was dependent upon the “rules” of the Society. “F.T.S.” reported the action of the 1888 Convention as “in favor of unity,” so that, “as a 'nucleus of Universal Brotherhood' the Society is saved 10 from a lamentable and ridiculous failure.” The account of the “evolution” of the Three Objects given in this article was such that Mr. Judge, during the April, 1889, Convention of the American Section, felt it necessary to observe:
. . . in a paper published in the . . .[February] Theosophist signed “F.T.S.” an attempt is made to show that the “objects have never been definitely formulated.” This article is full of misconceptions, and, therefore, of wrong conclusions, because the gentleman who wrote it was not acquainted with the facts nor in possession of the Records. He refers to the printed “Rules” of each year, and says that in 1882 for the first time they appeared as they were printed last year, but on looking over my records I find, not only that they have been always the same—except in minor elaborations not affecting the substance,—but that they were originally formulated in the shape they appeared before the last Convention in India, at the time that this Society was organized 11 in 1875.”

In June, 1889, the leading editorial of the Theosophist again offered its readers a “comfortable” brand of organizational Theosophy. The writer, again probably Mr. Harte, whittles away at both the purpose and the philosophic content of the Theosophical Movement. Of the first Object—that of forming “the nucleus of Universal Brotherhood”—he says that “it becomes vague and confused when the attention is directed to it, and to most Fellows this Object is about equivalent in practice to the formation of a nucleus for the recurrence of the Golden Age, or for the re-establishment of the garden of Eden. . . .” As for the body of ideas constituting the Theosophical philosophy, he says:
Here and there a Fellow of the Society outside of India may be found who is willing to accept the Eastern Initiates, whether ancient or modern, as teachers; but the majority prefer to think and theorize for themselves, which is, after all, the best way for anyone to learn who can think and theorize logically. . . .

The title of this article is “Applied Theosophy,” and its writer, having shown the idea of universal brotherhood to be “vague,” virtually “impractical,” and having asserted that “the majority” prefer their personal theories to the teachings of “Eastern Initiates,” is now ready to present his own thesis: that practical Theosophy is possible only “through the Society.” The editor waxes poetic:
It is this mystic individuality, “the sum total,” that gives strength to all societies and congregations of men, and becomes the real dominating power, to which all contribute some of their force, and which stands behind every unit and lends its whole strength to it. . . .

It is from the Society that radiates the “dominating power”; from the Society that members are to draw their sustenance and support, not from any Teacher or philosophic principles. The model to follow, the example for theosophists to emulate, is pictured by the editorial:
Who speaks when a priest of the Roman Catholic Church utters a command? The united power of the Church of Rome. Who speaks when a disfrocked priest says something? A nonentity. Who speaks when the Judge, the General, the Statesman open their mouths? “The State,”—the tremendous and often tyrannical personality that comes into life and action when the units that compose it [are] bound together, through organization, by a common will and a common purpose.

This idea that it is only “through organization,” through making the Society the prime object of devotion, with its “authority” through the voice of its officials supreme over the individual conscience and action, that “applied Theosophy” can be a success, is argued at length, reaching, finally, its culmination in the suggestion that the Adyar Headquarters must be made a second Rome, and, by implication, the President-Founder of the Society a Theosophical Pope! The editorial continues:
ADYAR is a principle and a symbol, as well as a locality. ADYAR is the name which means on the material plane the Head-quarters of an international, or, more properly speaking, world-wide Society. . . . Every loyal Fellow has in his heart a little ADYAR, for he has in him a spark of the spiritual fire which the name typifies. . . . “ADYAR,” is symbolical of the principle of unity, as well as of the material life of the Society, and in every sense loyalty to ADYAR means loyalty to the objects of the Society and to 12 the principles of Theosophy

In the same issue of the Theosophist—for June, 1889—Mr. Harte printed over the signature, “F.T.S.,” another article entitled “The Situation.” The purpose of this article, quite obviously, was to establish certain ideas as “facts” in the minds of the readers. At the outset, “F.T.S.” suggests that the formation of the Esoteric Section was due to and dependent upon the order of the President-Founder, and that the reason for its organization was to separate the “esoteric element from the exoteric” in the Society. The view is intimated that an influential Society must have a worldly basis and authority in order to “be a moral and spiritual power in the world.” It must use “such methods in its dealings with that world as the latter can appreciate and understand, or which, at all events, will not excite its prejudices, and put it into a fury of opposition at the very first go off.” What is needed, therefore, is not the basis and methods of H.P.B., which have been the disturbing factor, but the basis and methods of Col. Olcott, Mr. Sinnett, and others who were eminent in the exoteric Society.
Mr. Harte finds in the Adept communication to Olcott while aboard the Shannon a mandate from the occult fraternity for insisting that H.P.B. should “mind her own business” regarding the conduct of the Theosophical Society. He speaks of her obligation to abstain “in future from any direct interference with the worldly or exoteric management of the Society.” This separation of “functions,” the article declares, produced a feeling of relief “on both sides.”

Occultism [it continues] is above all “rule” or “bye-law” emanating from the will of the governed, which is the only possible basis of a popular government such as that of the Theosophical Society. The result of trying to make two such different things work harmoniously was like that which might be expected from harnessing together a “sacred bull” and a draft horse. . . . Now, happily, there has been a division of labour, each driver has got his own animal to himself.

Taken as a whole, this article suggests the following conclusions: (1) that H.P.B. and Olcott were originally on a plane of entire equality with regard to the Theosophical Adepts; (2) that the “interference” of H.P.B. in the affairs of the Society was as displeasing to the adepts as it was to Olcott; (3) that the adepts instructed Olcott to “order” the formation of the Esoteric Section to set some definite limitation upon H.P.B.’s activities, leading to a “bargain” between the leaders of the Society that H.P.B. should be let alone in her esoteric division, while Olcott should not be interfered with in the Society as a whole. Mr. Harte’s own attitude toward the Esoteric Section becomes plain from the mood of his description of it:

The head of the Esoteric Division is at liberty to impose pledges, institute degrees, and ordain exercises, and without let or hindrance to issue instructions and orders to those who place themselves under her guidance; . . .
With the affairs of the Esoteric Division this article has nothing to do. That Division seems to be a kind of Annex to the Theosophical Society proper, having two doors of exit—one leading up to higher levels, the other leading down and out. Not only do advanced students seek entrance to it, but it appears to have especial attractions for many who are spiritually somewhat crippled. The halt, the maimed and the blind, blissfully unaware of their infirmities, and oblivious of their utter want of preparation, knock incontinently at the door, and the Head of the Division cannot always refuse them a chance. At the first little “trial” these weak brothers lose their heads and their holds, fall flat on their noses, and go off howling.

Next, notice is served on the various sections of the Society that they “have got somewhat too high an opinion of their own importance.” This is directed primarily at the American, British, and Esoteric Sections, the members of which looked to the philosophy and to the example and guidance of H.P.B. and Judge, rather than to Olcott and the “Rules and Bye-laws” of the Parent Society. Readers are told that the all-powerful President-Founder could easily end the existence of any local group:
They [the Sections and Branches] exist only by virtue of Charters issued by the President of the Theosophical Society. It is the fact of the possession of those Charters that makes them different from other little collections of students of Theosophy in the countries where they exist, and gives them what credit they enjoy. . . .Suppose it became necessary to withdraw the Charters of certain Sections, does anyone believe for a moment that the Theosophical Society would eventually suffer? . . . If every existing Charter of Section and branch of the Theosophical Society were withdrawn tomorrow, the Society would, in all probability, be a stronger body in a short time than it is now, and certainly it would not be a weaker one. . . . The Theosophical Society would then exist as a homogeneous whole, composed of loyal Fellows animated by a common spirit, and Adyar would be what it ought to be—the centre of a system for the circulation of Theosophical ideas and literature, and for the 13 organization of Theosophical activities all over the globe. 

To complete the symmetry of his dream of centralization of authority and power, Mr. Harte printed in the July Theosophist a letter sent to him privately by Bertram Keightley, in which the latter, who was Secretary of the Esoteric Section disclaimed any intention on the part of esotericists to control the work or policies of the public Society. Mr. Keightley had written:
“We are all, H.P.B. first and foremost, just as loyal to the Theosophical Society and to Adyar as the Colonel can possibly be. . . . I have nothing more to say, except to repeat in the most formal and positive manner my assurance that there is not a word of truth in the statement that the Esoteric Section has any desire or pretension to ‘boss’ any other part or 14 Section of the T. S.”

To appreciate fully the force and bearing of the editorials and articles printed by Mr. Harte, it should be remembered that the Theosophist was the official organ of the Society; the Path a n d Lucifer being Theosophical, not organizational, publications; further, that the Theosophist was the only one of the three with any circulation in India, and was, in addition, sent officially to every Branch throughout the world and had a wide circulation among the Fellows in England, France, and the United States. For a large portion of the membership it was the only means of information concerning the Society, and, in India, the only channel both for Theosophy and the Society. Indian members, therefore, were entirely dependent on it for the accuracy, completeness and authenticity of its statements.

Immediately following the Convention of 1888, Col. Olcott had departed on a tour in Japan from which he did not return until the latter half of 1889. During his absence Mr. Harte was in entire charge of the Theosophist, and was one of the three “Commissioners” to whom he had delegated his powers as President, the other two being Hindu members of his “General Council.” Harte, therefore, was editorially responsible for what appeared in the Theosophist at this time. As soon as the advance proofs of the two articles quoted from reached America, Mr. Judge prepared a long communication taking issue with the facts, the implications, the spirit, and the tendencies thus expressed with every appearance of authority and Presidential sanction in the official organ of the Society. This was sent privately by Mr. Judge direct to Col. Olcott with request for its insertion in the Theosophist, on the assumed ground that the articles complained of were written without Col. Olcott’s knowledge and that he, no less than Mr. Judge, would hasten to correct the misstatements and false suggestions conveyed by the articles in question.

In the September, 1889, Theosophist, Col. Olcott published as the leading editorial and over his own signature an article entitled “Centres of The Theosophical Movement.” He refused to print Mr. Judge’s article in full, declaring that it—
contains passages of a far too personal character for me to admit them. . . . I have taken no part, nor shall I, in the various unseemly quarrels, public and private, which the friction of “strong personalities” among us has and probably always will engender. They are mostly unimportant, involving no great principle or vital issue, and therefore beneath the interest of those who have the high purposes and aims of the Society at heart.

He calls Mr. Judge’s criticisms “mayavic delusion.” He then quotes Mr. Judge that the “Centre” is wherever H.P.B. may be; that it was originally in New York, then in Bombay, then “a short time at Adyar” (while she was there)—
. . . for where she is burns the flame that draws its force from “the plane of ideas” . . . . The mere location of the President in Adyar, and the existence of a library there, do not make that spot our “Rome.”. . . What would become of this new Rome—Adyar—if an order were received for Col. Olcott and H. P. Blavatsky to betake themselves to America once more and there set up the Theosophical Society Headquarters? Such a thing might happen. It happened before, and the channel for the order was H. P. Blavatsky. Does any one suppose that either Col. Olcott or H. P. Blavatsky would be obstructed in their actions by the “Revised Rules” ?*

This query rouses Col. Olcott over what he calls his “irascible” colleague's questions and conundrums. He proceeds to argue at length from the record of the various minutes and changes of by-laws and rules that the President-Founder is the real fountain of authority in the Society and the real “Rome” is wherever the President-Founder may be domiciled. He does not claim “spiritual authority,” he says, but he does claim he has been “granted absolute and unlimited discretion as to the practical management of our affairs.” He has never interfered with H.P.B.—
P.B.— . . . who taught and introduced me to my Initiators, but it was I who gave officially to her last year, a charter to form her Esoteric Section. Between her and myself there was never any dispute upon these points, she sustaining my exoteric authority as loyally as I have ever recognized her superior connection with the “Founders”. . . .
Col. Olcott did not move the Headquarters to India by any one’s order: his “orders” came from the depths of his own heart, . . . If in the course of the Society’s development the transfer of Head-quarters should ever be advisable—which neither I nor Mr. judge can now forecast—doubtless I shall receive direct notice with ample time to make all the necessary arrangements in a business-like and constitutional manner.
. . . But when it is a question of papal infallibilities and Romes, it is just as well to say it was I who proposed the formation of the Society, who had all the early burden of guiding its infant steps, and who, after the collapse of the original legislative scheme of Rules and Bye-Laws, had—as above 15 remarked —all the executive responsibility. . .

Olcott, it appears, was not altogether unwilling to wear the robes of papal authority offered him by Mr. Harte.
In Lucifer for August, 1889, under the caption, “A Puzzle from Adyar,” H.P.B., like Mr. Judge, assumes that the Theosophist articles have been written without the concurrence of Col. Olcott and without intention to aid and abet the enemy. “Now what,” she asks,—
may be the meaning of this extraordinary and most tactless “sortie” of the esteemed acting editor of our Theosophist? Is he . . . like our (and his) editorenemies across the Atlantic, also dreaming uncanny dreams and seeing lying visions—or what? And let me remind him at once that he must not feel offended by these remarks, as he has imperatively called them forth himself. LUCIFER, the PATH and the THEOSOPHIST are the only organs of communication with the Fellows of our Society, each in its respective country. Since the acting editor of the Theosophist has chosen to give a wide publicity in his organ to abnormal fancies, he has no right to expect a reply through any other channel than LUCIFER. Moreover, if he fails to understand all the seriousness of his implied charges against me and several honourable men, he may realise them better, when he reads the present.

H.P.B. then reprints the “Disclaimer” from the Supplement to the July Theosophist, and analyzes the several insinuations in regard to members of the E.S., who, she says, “stand accused by Mr. Harte . . . of ‘arbitrary and under hand proceedings’.” She asks, “Is not such a sentence a gross insult thrown into the face of honourable men—far better Theosophists than any of their accusers—and of myself ?” Of the plain intimation that the American or British Sections or the Blavatsky Lodge or the E.S.wanted to “boss Adyar,” she says:
That the E. S. had never any pretensions to “boss the T. S.” stands to reason: with the exception of Col. Olcott, the President, the Esoteric Section has nothing whatever to do with the Theosophical Society, its Council or officers. It is a Section entirely apart from the exoteric body and independent of it, H.P.B. alone being responsible for its members, as shown in the official announcement over the signature of the President-Founder himself. It follows, therefore, that the E.S., as a body, owes no allegiance whatever to the Theosophical Society, as a Society, least of all to Adyar.

Next she takes up another statement in the “Disclaimer”: It is pure nonsense to say that “H.P.B. . . . is loyal to the Theosophical Society and to Adyar” (!?). H.P.B. is loyal to death to the Theosophical CAUSE, and those great Teachers whose philosophy can alone bind the whole of Humanity into one Brotherhood. Together with Col. Olcott, she is the chief Founder and Builder of the Society which was and is meant to represent that CAUSE; and if she is so loyal to H. S. Olcott, it is not at all because of his being its “President,” but, firstly, because there is no man living who has worked harder for that Society, or been more devoted to it than the Colonel, and, secondly, because she regards himas a loyalfriend and co-worker.Therefore the degree of her sympathies with the “Theosophical Society and Adyar” depends upon the degree of the loyalty of that Society to the CAUSE. Let it break away from the original lines and show disloyalty in its policy to the CAUSEand the original programme of the Society, andH.P.B., calling theT. S. disloyal,willshake itoff likedustfromherfeet

And what does “loyalty to Adyar” mean, in the name of all wonders? What is Adyar apart from that CAUSE and the two (not one Founder, if you please) who represent it? . . . Adyar is the present Headquarters of the Society, because these “Headquarters are wherever the President is,” as stated in the rules. To be logical, the Fellows of the T. S. had to be loyal to Japan while Col. Olcott was there, and to London during his presence here.

She then makes the memorable declaration of the actual existing status of affairs:
There is no longer a “Parent Society”; it is abolished and replaced by an aggregate body of Theosophical Societies, all autonomous, as are the States of America, and all under one Head President, who, together with H. P. Blavatsky, will champion the CAUSE against the whole world. Such is the real state ofthings.

The theory of government of the Society held, practiced and preached by Col. Olcott and his pliant supporters, is next covered by her declaration made in that regard also:
Whenever “Madame Blavatsky does not approve” of “an action of the General Council” (or “Commissioners” of whom Mr. R. Harte is one),she willsay so openly and to theirfaces.Because (a) MadameBlavatsky does not owe the slightest allegiance to a Council which is liable at any moment to issue silly and untheosophical ukases; and (b) for the simple reason that she recognizes but one person in the T. S. besides herself, namely Colonel Olcott, as having the right of effecting fundamental re-organizations in a Society which owes its life to them, and for which they are both karmically responsible. If the acting editor makes slight account of a sacred pledge, neitherCol.Olcott norH. P.Blavatsky are likely to do so.H. P.Blavatskywill always bowbefore the decision of themajority of a Section or even a simple Branch; but she will ever protest against the decision of the General Council,were it composed of Archangels and Dhyan Chohansthemselves, if their decision seemsto her unjust, or untheosophical, orfailstomeetwith the approval of the majority of the Fellows. No more than H. P. Blavatsky hasthe President Founderthe right of exercising autocracy or papal powers, and Col. Olcott would be the last man in the world to attempt to do so. It is the two Founders and especially the President, who have virtually sworn allegiance to the Fellows, whom they have to protect, and teach those who wanttobe taught, andnototyrannize andruleoverthem.

Here, as always, where the weaknesses, the foibles, and the derelictions of her associates and students are involved, H.P.B. writes only under the gravest compulsion, with extreme reluctance, and in such terms as to hold wide the door of return to right action with the least possible humiliation to the pride and vanity of human nature. She sums up, and conveys at the same time her appeal to the best in her colleagues, in these terms:
And now I have said over my own signature what I had to say and that which oughtto have been said in somany plainwordslong ago.The public is all agog with the sillieststories about our doings, and the supposed and real dissensions in the Society. Let every one know the truth at last, in which there is nothing to make any one ashamed, and which alone can put an end toamostpainful andstrainedfeeling.Thistruthis assimple as canbe.

The acting editor of the Theosophist has taken it into his head that the Esoteric Section together with the British and American Sections, were either conspiring or preparing to conspire against what he most curiously calls “Adyar” and its authority. Now being a most devoted fellow of the T. S. and attached to the President, his zeal in hunting up this mare's nest has led him to become more Catholic than the Pope. That is all, and I hope that such misunderstandings and hallucinations will come to an end with the return of the President to India. Had he been at home, he, at any rate, would have objected to all those dark hints and cloaked sayings that have of late incessantly appeared in the Theosophist to the great delight of our enemies.
But it is time for me to close. If Mr. Harte persists still in acting in such a strange and untheosophical way, then the sooner the President settles these matters the better for all concerned. Owing to such undignified quibbles, Adyar and especially the Theosophist are fast becoming the laughing stock of Theosophists themselves as well as of their enemies.

And, lest her unfailing clemency should again be misconstrued and abused to their own injury, and that of the Cause to which they, no less than herself, are pledged, she concludes with an appeal mingled with warning to those at fault:
I end by assuring him [Mr. Harte] that there is no need for him to pose as Colonel Olcott’s protecting angel. Neither he nor I need a third party to screen us from each other. We have worked and toiled and suffered together for fifteen long years, and if after all these years of mutual friendship the President Founder were capable of lending ear to insane accusations and turning against me, well—the world is wide enough for both. Let the new Exoteric Theosophical Society headed by Mr. Harte, play at red tape if the President lets them and let the General Council expel me for “disloyalty,” if, again, Colonel Olcott should he so blind as to fail to see where the “true friend” and his duty lie. Only unless they hasten to do so, at the first sign of their disloyalty to the CAUSE—it is I who will have resigned my office of Corresponding Secretary for life and left the Society. This will not prevent me from remaining at the head of those— 16 who will follow me. H. P. BLAVATSKY