---

The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950

By

---

The Theosophical Society And Its Founders

THE HISTORY of the Theosophical Society, as the first practical vehicle of the Theosophical Movement of the nineteenth century, is inextricably bound up with the life and work of H. P. Blavatsky. Whatever the outward steps leading to the formation of the Theosophical Society, it was her sense of mission that recognized the need for the Society and generated the interest of others who became associatedwithherinthat enterprise.

By birth a Russian of noble family, Madame Blavatsky had been a wanderer for more than twenty years in many lands, both East and West. The record of these journeyings is partly contained in her own writings, and an account of her early years is provided by A. P. Sinnett 1 in his Incidents in the Life of Madame Blavatsky. Although the events of this period may at times cast a suggestive light on obscure problems of the Movement, such details have no fitting place in the present work, nor could they be properly understood without a thorough grasp of the Theosophical philosophy. We are at present concerned with her public work in the world, which began soon after her arrival in New York in July of 1873. She lived in retirement in Manhattan and Brooklyn for more than a year. In October of 1874 she visited the Eddy farmhouse near Chittenden, Vermont, where the brothers, William and Horatio Eddy, had gained notoriety by the production of extraordinary spiritualistic phenomena. There she became acquainted with Col. Henry S. Olcott, who had been commissioned by the New York Graphic to investigate the Eddy phenomena and to report on them for its readers.

Olcott was an American who had acquired his title during the Civil War. At the time of meeting Madame Blavatsky, he was forty-two years old—her junior by a year. He had been agricultural editor of the New York Tribune, had written numerous articles on various subjects for many publications. and was at the time a well-known lawyer with a wide ac quaintance among prominentmen. For years a Spiritualist, he hadwritten an eye-witness account of the mediumship of the Eddy brothersfor the NewYork Sun, earlierin the year, and in Septemberreturned to theEddy HomesteadfortheGraphic.

The phenomena of the Eddy brothers, described in detail by Col. Olcott in letters to the Graphic, and later, in his book, People from the Other World (published in January, 1875), were of the sort known to Spiritualists as “materializations.” His dramatic account of these phenomena, including his careful precautions against fraud, aroused much attention, likewise his description of the remarkable effect of the presence of Madame 2 Blavatsky on the “Spiritual” manifestations . As he relates, the phenomena changed greatly in character and variety immediately after her arrival at the Eddy homestead, Asiatic “ghosts” in bizarre native dress being added to the throng of American Indian and other “spirit guides” of William and Horatio Eddy. Intrigued by these developments, Olcott continued his acquaintance with Madame Blavatsky after their return to New York.

The first communications by Madame Blavatsky that appeared publicly in the United States were her letters to the Daily Graphic, dated October 27 and November 10, 1874, in which she defended the Eddy brothers against charges of fraud by Dr. George M. Beard, “an electropathic physician of New York City.” Beard’s arrogant assault on the genuineness of the Eddy phenomena brought a fiery and brilliant reply from the Russian woman, who, through this and similar letters to the press,soon gained the reputation of being one of Spiritualism’s ablest advocates. In the character of a champion of honest mediums, her letters and articles were frequently reprinted in Spiritualistic journals, with the result that her fame spread rapidly among all serious students of psychic or spiritual phenomena. During the winter of 1874-75, Madame Blavatsky visited Philadelphia, where she made the acquaintance of several leading Spiritualists, among them Robert Dale Owen, author of Footfalls from Another World, and a son of Robert Owen, the economic reformer. While in this city she became involved in another defense of mediums, this time of Mr. and Mrs. Nelson Holmes, who were charged with imposture by an erstwhile colleague. In defending the Holmes’, Madame Blavatsky was placed in the difficult position of having to admit that some of their phenomena were fraudulent, while other exhibitions, she maintained, were unmistakably genuine. Her skill in marshalling facts and in intellectual controversy is effectively displayed in these early articles on behalf of authentic psychic phenomena. (A number of Madame Blavatsky’s articles and letters to the press, published in 1874 and 1875, were reprinted in A Modern Panarion, a volume issued in 1895 by the Theosophical Publishing Society.)

Through these writings, she attracted the attention of the more intelligent Spiritualists, and upon returning to New York, her days were crowded with correspondence, her evenings given to long discussions with numerous visitors. A newspaper reporter dubbed her apartment at 46 Irving Place “the lamasery,” and the name quickly became current as typifying the flavor of mystery surrounding her and the subjects discussed at these soirées. Olcott was nearly always present, and also a young lawyer, William Q. Judge, whom Olcott had introduced to Madame Blavatsky at her request. Judge, then in his early twenties—he was born in 1851—was of Irish parentage and had come to America while still a boy. His youth had been characterized by an intense interest in religious philosophy, mysticism, mesmerism and Spiritualism.

With the coming together of these three, the Founders of the Theosophical Movement were joined in an association that was to last throughout their lives: Madame Blavatsky, who was soon to excite public attention by extraordinary demonstrations of occult power, and by equally extraordinary, though less sensational, teachings of occult philosophy; H. S. Olcott, journalist, man of the world, and well-known Spiritualist; and W. Q. Judge, young, ardent, and, as the years would show, endowed with a rare sagacity and an unparalleled fixity of purpose, although, in those days, he was an unknown quantity, and would so remain for a decade or more.

During the early months of 1875, Olcott and Judge were made to r e a li z e tha t Madame Bl ava tsk y wa s no ordina r y “Spiritualist”— if, indeed, she was a Spiritualist at all. While she began her public work as a militant defender of honest mediums, another note, guarded, but unmistakable, soon became apparent in her writings. Although of necessity adopting much of the Spiritualistic vocabulary, she wrote with increasing philosophic power, displaying an obvious familiarity with the conceptions and practices of both the ancient and the medieval theurgists. To certain of her correspondents she disclosed hints of a great mission with which she had been entrusted by occult Teachers. On February 16, 1874, she wrote to Professor Hiram Corson, of Cornell University, who had been attracted by her analysis of the mediumship of the Holmes’ of Philadelphia:

“I am here in this country sent by my Lodge on behalf of Truth in modern spiritualism, and it is my most sacred duty to unveil what is, and expose what is not. Perhaps did I arrive here one hundred years too soon. May be, and I am afraid it is so, . . . in this present state of mental confusion. . . . In my eyes, Allan Kardec and Flammarion, Andrew Jackson Davis and Judge Edmonds, are but school boys just 3 trying to spell their ABC and sorely blundering sometimes.”

First public evidence of her knowledge and purpose appeared in the Spiritual Scientist, an independent Boston weekly devoted to the Spiritualist cause. Under instruction from her “Lodge,” and because this paper, edited by Elbridge Gerry Brown, had shown philosophic qualities absent from most Spiritualist journals, Madame Blavatsky began to support it and to contribute to its pages. In the Spiritual Scientist for April 17, 1875, there appeared a notice headed, “Important to Spiritualists,” and signed, “Brotherhood of Luxor.” Olcott had written this notice, known as the “Luxor” circular, at the request of this occult brotherhood of which Madame Blavatsky was a member. The circular reviewed briefly the situation of Spiritualism in the United States. Noting that twenty-seven years had passed since the outbreak of Western Spiritualism in 1848, it reproached American Spiritualists for teaching “so few things worthy of a thoughtful man’s attention,” and proposed that the Spiritual Scientist become the organ of a more fundamental inquiry into “the laws which lie back of the phenomena.”

This announcement, of course, drew fire. One writer challenged the existence of the “Brotherhood of Luxor.” Another, over the signature, “Hiraf,” contributed to the Spiritual Scientist an article devoted to the lore of the Rosicrucians, thus providing Madame Blavatsky with an opportunity to launch a discussion of occultism, which appeared during July (later reprinted in A Modern Panarion under the title, “Occultism or Magic”). This exposition, referred to by Col. Olcott as the “Hiraf ” letter, and by Madame Blavatsky as her “first occult shot,” is of peculiar importance in that it outlines several of the major conceptions of what was later to become known as the Theosophical philosophy; and establishes, also, certain historical facts relating to the theosophical movement in the West.

“Hiraf ” was the pseudonym of a young lawyer named Failes who apparently had read much on the Rosicrucians. His article, which ran in two issues of the Spiritual Scientist, was said by Olcott to be “full of theosophical ideas interpreted in terms of Rosicrucianism.” Madame Blavatsky, however,while considerate of this effort to explore a subject that was virtually unknown in America, turns the “Hiraf ” article to her own purpose. Her answer to “Hiraf ” lays the foundation for themes that would recur again and again in the literature of the Theosophical Movement. At the outset, she stresses the inadequacy of “book learning” alone, in the field of Occultism, emphasizing the necessity for “personal experience and practice.” She refersto her own “long travels throughout the length and breadth of the East—that cradle of Occultism” and assuresthe reader of the fact(doubted by “Hiraf ”)that collegesforthe trainingof neophytesinoccultscience still existinIndia, AsiaMinor, and other countries. Shefinds erroneousthe assumption by “Hiraf ” that practical knowledge of the secretscience died outwith the Rosicrucians and criticizes his identification of all “adepts” as Rosicrucians.

To correct these misconceptions she reviews the history of the Rosicrucian order, from its founding by the German ritter, Christian Rosencranz, and tells her readersthat the Rosicrucian Kabalah is based on themore ancient and completeOrientalKabalah,which treatise,she says, “is carefully preserved” at the headquarters of an Eastern Brotherhood—amysterious Lodgewhich still exists and “haslost none of the primitive secret powers of the ancientChaldeans.”The lodges of this Brotherhood, she continues, are few in number and “are divided into sections and known but to the Adepts; no one would be likely to find them out, unless the Sages themselves found the neophyte worthy of initiation.” We are informed that the doctrines of the Oriental Kabalah, possessed by these living sages, have been transmitted from generation to generation of wise men, and their purity jealously guarded by the initiates of Chaldea, India, Persia and Egypt, suffering distortion only in the Hebrew Kabalah, in which some of the symbols of the ancient teaching were purposely misinterpreted. But the Oriental Kabalah remained uncorrupted, and Madame Blavatsky declared her adherence to its doctrines by saying:

“As a practical follower of Eastern Spiritualism, I can confidently wait for the time, when, with the timely help of those ‘who know,’ American Spiritualism, which even in its present shape has proved such a sore in the side of the materialists, will become a science and a thing of mathematical certitude, instead of being regarded only as the 4 crazy delusion of epileptic monomaniacs.”

Previous to the appearance of the “Hiraf ” letter, Madame Blavatsky’s publicwritings had been restricted to polemics on behalf of mediums who were unjustly attacked, or to letters advocating impartial investigation of psychic phenomena.AfterJuly, 1875, her contributions became powerful asseverations of the reality of occult science. By this time her personal correspondence was full of inquiries concerning occultism, and in another article for the Spiritual Scientistshe established the principles that, she said, would have to be adopted in the quest for secret knowledge. Occultism,she wrote, was not for dabblers, the half hearted, nor the merely curious. She would recommend no books on thismysterioussubject,forthe reason that—“Whatmay be dearto one who is intuitional, if read in the same book by another person might prove meaningless. Unless one is prepared to devote to it his whole life, the superficial knowledge of Occult Sciences will lead him surely to 5 become the target for millions of ignorant scoffers. . . .” She continued:

If a man would follow in the steps of the Hermetic philoso phers, he must prepare himself beforehand for martyrdom. He must give up personal pride and all selfish purposes, and be ready for everlasting encounters with friends and foes. He must part, once for all, with every remembrance of his earlier ideas, on all and on ever ything. Existing religions, knowledge, science, must rebecome a blank book for him, as in the days of his babyhood, for if he wants to succeed he must learn a new alphabet on the lap of Mother Nature, every letter of which will afford a new insight to him, ever y syllable and word an unexpected revelation. . . .

To science it will be the duty—arid and sterile as a matter of course—of the Kabalist to prove that from the beginning of time there was but one positive science—Occultism; that it was the mysterious lever of all intellectual forces, the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil of the allegorical paradise, from whose gigantic trunk sprang in every direction boughs, branches and twigs, the former shooting forth straight enough at first, the latter deviating with every inch of growth, assuming more and more fantastical appearances, till at last one after the other lost its vital juice, got deformed, and, drying up, finally broke off, scattering the ground afar with heaps of rubbish.

To theology the Occultist of the future will have to demonstrate that the Gods of the mythologies, the Elohim of Israel as well as the religious and theological mysteries of Christianity, to begin with the Trinity, sprang from the sanctuaries of Memphis and Thebes; that their mother Eve is but the spiritualized Psyche of old, both of them paying a like penalty for their curiosity, descending to Hades or hell, the latter to bring back to earth the famous Pandora’s box, the former to search out and crush the head of the serpent—symbol of time and evil—the crime of both expiated by the pagan Prometheus and the Christian Lucifer; the first delivered by Hercules, the second conquered by the Saviour.

Here was more than Spiritualist controversy, however brilliant and skillful. 

Mastery of her subject is evident in every line of this article by Madame Blavatsky. She writes with accents of certainty and power, projecting the far-seeing gaze of the disciplined occultist upon the contemporary scene; she defines with the surety of one who has triumphed over them the obstacles which stand in the way of the seeker after secret truth. The authentic credentials of H. P. Blavatsky, as Teacher and Adept, are in these articles printed in the Spiritual Scientist in 1875. Intimate, first-hand knowledge is the context of what she wrote; her words are joined with meaning that grows, not from “literary research,” but from evident personal power based on practical experience in the science of occultism.

Having vividly described the ardors of the path to certain knowledge, she passes to the hazards that face every occultist who would use what he has discovered for the general good—the contemptuous negations of scientific materialism, and the vindictive opposition of orthodox religion. Prophetic of her own tragic future, and of the attacks that the Theosophical Movement would sustain, she wrote of the vicious enmity of Public Opinion, ever responsive to the demagogue’s whip, that would condemn without a hearing the efforts of occult students to lead the masses to truths ignored by both science and religion. Occultists, she said, must be prepared to meet and deal with the pitiless forces of bigotry and prejudice—enemies which seldom err in recognizing any genuine threat to their control over the minds of the masses, and—which “never conspire except againstreal Power.”

Even before the founding of the Theosophical Society. Madame Blavatsky made her true opinion concerning mediums and Spiritualistic phenomena unequivocally clear. When a prominent Spiritualist editor, Luther Colby, of the Banner of Light, implied that “the notion that there is such a thing as magic” is mere “humbug,” she contributed a challenging article to the Spiritual Scientist, offering a scientific definition of magic, and distinguishing the exercise of magical or occult powers from the involuntary phenomena of the Spiritualist mediums. She addresses Mr. Colby:

Did you suppose that Magic is confined to witches riding astride broomsticks and then turning themselves into black cats? Even the latter superstitious trash, though it was never called Magic, but Sorcery, does not appear so great an absurdity for one to accept who firmly believes in the transfiguration of Mrs. Compton into Katie Brinks. The exercise of magical power is the exorcise of powers natural, but superior to the ordinary functions of Nature. A miracle is not a violation of the laws of Nature, except for ignorant people. Magic is but a science, a profound knowledge of the Occult forces in Nature, and of the laws governing the visible or the invisible world. Spiritualism in the hands of an Adept becomes Magic, for he is learned in the art of blending together the laws of the universe, without breaking any of them and thereby violating Nature. In the hands of an experienced medium, Spiritualism becomes unconscious sorcery; for, by allowing himself to become the helpless tool of a variety of spirits, of whom he knows nothing save what the latter permit him to know, he opens, unknown to himself, a door of communication between the two worlds, through which emerge the blind forces of Nature lurking in the astral light, as well as good and bad 6 spirits.

This candor regarding mediums was to earn Madame Blavatsky the hatred of many a “spirit-guide,” and evoked streams of vituperation from emotional Spiritualists who quickly forgot her courageous defense of their phenomena and thereafter devoted themselves to venomous attacks upon theosophists and the Theosophical teachings. She was not done, however, in this important article, with her critical comparison between Magic and Spiritualism. Spiritualist writers had been claiming all great teachers and wonder workers of the past as “mediums”—a misconception which had to be corrected:

To doubt Magic is to reject History itself, as well as the testimony of ocular witnesses thereof, during a period embracing over 4,000 years. Beginning with Homer, Moses, Hermes, Herodotus, Cicero, Plutarch, Pythagoras, Apollonius of Tyana, Simon the Magician, Plato, Pausanias, Iamblichus, and following this endless string of great men—historians and philosophers, who all of them either believed in Magic or were magicians themselves—and ending with our modern authors, such as W. Howitt, Ennernoser, G. des Mousseaux, Marquis de Mirville and the late Eliphas Lévi, who was a magician himself—among all of these great names and authors, we find but the solitary Mr. Colby, editor of The Banner of Light, who ignores that there ever was such a science as Magic. He innocently believes the whole of the sacred army of Bible prophets, commencing with Father Abraham, including Christ, to be merely mediums; in the eyes of Mr.Colby,theywere allof themacting under control!

FancyChrist, Moses, or anApollonius of Tyana, controlled by an Indian guide! The venerable editor ignores, perhaps, that spiritual mediums were better known in those days to the ancients, than they are now to us, and he seemsto be equally unaware of the fact that the inspired sibyls, pythonesses, and other mediums were entirely guided by their high priest and those who were initiated into the esoteric theurgy and mysteries of the temples. Theurgy was Magic; as in modern times, the sibyls and pythonesses were mediums; but their high priests were magicians. All the secrets of their theology, which included Magic, or the art of invoking ministering spirits, were in their hands. They possessed the science of discerning spirits; a science which Mr. Colby does not possess at all—to his great regret, no doubt. By this power they controlled the spirits at will, allowing but the good ones to absorb their mediums. Such is the explanation of Magic—the real, existing, White or Sacred Magic, which ought to be in the hands of science now, and would be, if science had profited by the lessons which Spiritualism has inductively taught for these last twenty-seven years.

. . Magic exists, and has existed, ever since prehistoric ages. Beginning in history with the Samothracian Mysteries, it followed its course uninterruptedly, and ended for a time with the expiring theurgic rites and ceremonies of Christianized Greece; then reappeared for a time again with the Neoplatonic, Alexandrian school, and, passing by initiation to sundry solitary students and philosophers, safely crossed the medieval ages, and notwithstanding the furious persecutions of the Church, resumed its fame in the hands of such Adepts as Paracelsus and several others, and finally died out in Europe with the Count St. Germain and Cagliostro, to seek refuge from frozen-hearted scepticism in its native country of the East.

In India, Magic has never died out, and blossoms there as well as ever. Practiced, as in ancient Egypt, only within the secret enclosure of the temples, it was, and still is, called the “Sacred Science.” For it is a science, based on the occult forces of Nature; and not merely a blind belief in the poll-parrot talking of crafty elementaries, ready to forcibly prevent real, disembodied spirits from communicating with their loved ones whenever 7 they can do so.

The Spiritualists of 1875 knew nothing of these matters; one need only turn the pages of the journals devoted to Spiritualistic phenomena and religion to discover the striking contrast between the philosophic vigor of the writings of Madame Blavatsky and the psychic fancies of conventional Spiritualism. The doctrines of the Spiritualists were a shallow reflection of wishful thinking, well intentioned, but without either intellectual strength or firm moral foundation. Lacking in philosophy, the religious ideas of the Spiritualists drew support from fanatical conviction rather than from metaphysical depth, tending to repel rather than to invite intelligent inquiry. Theirs was a faith in which inherited sentiments united with intense emotionalism—a faith cut off from the possibilities of rational development. To accept, therefore, the line of investigation proposed by H. P. Blavatsky meant for the Spiritualists a willingness to admit the pitiful inadequacy of their explanations of psychic phenomena and to con

fess the moral weaknesses of all their doctrines. Would they be willing to forego the slack simplicity of trusting to Indian “spirit guides” for their teachings? Could they acknowledge that twenty-seven years of séances had brought them no genuine progress, but only a vast accumulation of trivial psychic messages, of no particular importance save for the “miraculous” manner of their communication?

The task assumed by Madame Blavatsky involved winning the attention of the public for the teachings she had to impart. Her defense of the Spiritualists, so far as the reality of their phenomena was concerned, had made the members of this outcast sect her friends and temporary allies; but what would they say when she repudiated as false and even dangerously misleading their claims and theories of “spirit survival”? As she disclosed that her intent was to expose the errors of Spiritualism, as well as to establish the fact of psychic phenomena, would the devotees of nineteenth-century Necromancy be able to recognize the larger meaning of their movement, and to become, like the ancient hierophants, masters of psychic phenomena instead of its fetish-worshipping slaves?

What she could say openly on behalf of the Spiritualists, she did, with that generosity of spirit which characterized all her public utterances. And while the majority of them drew back in injured alarm at the occult critique of spiritualistic theories, there were a few who saw the promise of these ideas, and were reflective enough to admit the justice of Madame Blavatsky's strictures on the low moral tone of most séance communications. Her real labors were with these few, and with Olcott and Judge, who met with her night after night during 1875, to be instructed in the philosophy of occultism and the rationale of psychic or spiritualistic phenomena. From Col. Olcott's Old Diary Leaves, published many years later in the Theosophist, we learn how the hours of his early acquaintance with Madame Blavatsky were spent. To the evening gatherings in her “lamasery” came Spiritualists, Kabalists, Platonists, students of science and of ancient religion, the skeptical, the curious, and seekers after the marvelous. Olcott's own interest was heavily weighted by his spiritualistic tendencies. Slow to grasp the full significance of Madame Blavatsky's analysis of the dangers of mediumship and phenomena-hunting, his account of these days during 1875 places undue emphasis on occult powers and reveals his limited understanding of the great intent of the movement he was to help found. He never quite quenched his Spiritualistic thirst for “miracles,” and his ingenuous boasting of the wonders performed by Madame Blavatsky, his letters to the press concerning occult phenomena, and his failure to realize what the inevitable results of this emphasis would be, were to exact heavy penalties in the future—obscuring, for the public, the authentic moral inspiration of the Theosophical Movement, and exposing his teacher and benefactress to popular ridicule and unjust accusations. Read between the lines, the pages of Old Diary Leaves help to explain why Madame Blavatsky has been ignorantly called a “medium” and a Spiritualist, and show, also, her incalculable patience with Olcott’s personal weaknesses and love for “phenomena.” His admiration for her was too much based upon awe of her powers, and his devotion to her work, which became the cause of the Theosophical Society, often found expression in verbal extravagances. He was nevertheless determined in his efforts, and a true friend and co-worker, despite many mistakes. For this, he gained the undying gratitude of Madame Blavatsky.

William Q. Judge, the youthful Irish-American lawyer, left no detailed record of the period before the founding of the Society, but certain of his published statements reveal the character of his relationship with Madame Blavatsky. On the occasion of her death, in 1891, he referred to their first meeting at her rooms in Irving Place, in January, 1875. The meeting of these two, thereafter to be inseparably joined in labors for the Theosophical Movement, was no casual event. In Judge’s words:
“It was her eye that attracted me, the eye of one whom I must have known in lives long passed away. She looked at me in recognition at that first hour, and never since has that look changed. Not as a questioner of philosophies did I come before her, not as one groping in the dark for lights that schools and fanciful theories had obscured, but as one who, wandering many periods through the corridors of life, was seeking the friends who could show where the designs for the work had been hidden. And true to the call she responded, revealing the plans once again, and speaking no words to explain, simply pointed them out and went on with the task. It was as if but the evening before we had parted, leaving yet to be done some detail of a task taken up with one common end; it was teacher and pupil, elder brother and younger, both bent on the one single end, but she with the power and the knowledge that belong but 8 to lions and sages.

Judge, like Olcott, was witness to numerous demonstrations of occult powers by Madame Blavatsky, done in illustration of some principle or tenet in which they were being instructed. Her purpose, in these demonstrations, was to establish the difference between the perfectly controlled powers of the adept, and the involuntary wonders produced by mediums in Spiritualistic trance. Judge’s later works show the fruit of this training, for he discusses occult subjects as one writing from personal experience—a quality lacking in most Theosophical authors other than Madame Blavatsky herself. Years afterward, he spoke of these “amazing feats of magic, hundreds of which I witnessed in broad daylight or in blazing gas-light, from 1875 9 to 1878.”

During 1875, Olcott and Judge learned from Madame Blavatsky more or less of her travels and their purpose. Among many other things, she told them of her unsuccessful attempt to establish a group at Cairo, Egypt, in 1871, to investigate the rationale of mediumship and its phenomena. Moved by what he had seen and heard, and by his ardent desire to explore more deeply the phenomena which fascinated him, Col. Olcott, in May, 1875, proposed the formation of a private “Miracle Club” for psychic research. This project, however, failed for lack of a medium. Olcott next became interested in the “occult” promises of a Mr. George Felt, an Egyptologist who claimed to be able to control the “elementals” or nature-spirits. On the evening of September 7, 1875, Mr. Felt lectured in Madame Blavatsky’s apartment on “The Lost Canon of Proportion of the Egyptians.” While those present were discussing the talk, Col. Olcott passed a note to Judge bearing these words: “Would it not be a good thing to form a society for this kind of study?” Mr. Judge read the note, passed it to Madame Blavatsky, who nodded assent, and Judge proposed that the assemblage come to order and that Col. Olcott act as chairman to consider the proposal. It was unanimously agreed that a society should be formed, and on the following evening, sixteen persons met and expressed their desire to join in founding a society for occult study. Other meetings were held at Col. Olcott’s law offices, and at the residence of Mrs. Emma Hardinge Britten, a well known Spiritualist author. The name, “The Theosophical Society,” was chosen on September 13 and several new members were then added to the list of “Founders.” On October 30, Olcott’s Preamble was approved, by-laws were adopted, and officers and a Council were elected. Among the officers were Col. Olcott as President, Madame Blavatsky as Corresponding Secretary, and Mr. Judge as Counsel. On the evening of November 17, a formal meeting was held at Mott Memorial Hall, 64 Madison Avenue. Col. Olcott delivered an “Inaugural Address” and 500 copies were ordered for “immediate 10 distribution.

Looking back on the event of the founding of the Society, Madame Blavatsky wrote in 1881:

the death of its founders, but the IDEA which it represents and which has gained so wide a currency, will run on like a crested wave of thought until it dashes upon the hard beach where materialism is picking and sorting its pebbles. Of the thirteen persons who composed our first board of officers, in 1875, nine were Spiritualists of greater or less experience. It goes without saying, then, that the aim of the Society was not to destroy but to better and purify spiritualism. The phenomena we knew to be real, and we believed them to be the most important of all current subjects for investigation. For, whether they should finally prove to be traceable to the agency of the departed, or but manifestations of occult natural forces acting in concert with latent psycho-physiological human powers, they opened up a great field of research, the outcome of which must be enlightenment upon the master problem of life, Man and his Relations. We had seen phenomenalism running riot and twenty millions of believers clutching at one drifting theory after another in the hope to gain the truth. We had reason to know that the whole truth could only be found in one quarter, the Asiatic schools of philosophy, and we felt convinced that the truth could never be discovered until men of all races and creeds should join like brothers in the search. So, taking our 11 stand upon that ground, we began to point the way eastward.

This was Madame Blavatsky’s attitude toward Spiritualism in 1875—a qualified interest in the possibilities of psychic research, as a door to knowledge of the inner nature of man. Spiritualist phenomena, for her, were a point of departure, not ends in themselves. Olcott partly understood this view point, but enthusiasm for “occult” revelations unbalanced his judgment. His state of mind is faithfully reflected in the Inaugural Address delivered on November 17. Not content with defining the broad philosophical purpose of the Society, Olcott made extravagant claims for Mr. Felt’s “magical” powers, ending on a note of gleeful anticipation of the embarrassment which he expected would overtake the Spiritualists when Felt’s experiments were successful. While Madame Blavatsky, during this early period, exercised great tact in her effort to open up a wider horizon of understanding for the Spiritualists, Olcott’s naïve assertions made many of the Spiritualists furious. Professor Corson, the scholarly Spiritualist whom H.P.B. had visited in Ithaca. attacked Olcott rather unjustly in a letter to the Banner of Light, but there was some substance in his charges. It was Madame Blavatsky, of course, in this case as in so many others, who bore the brunt of the reaction to Olcott’s injudicious behavior. She at once wrote to Corson, attempting to moderate the sting in Olcott’s boasting address, and to qualify his strictures on Spiritualist morality. Taking her learned friend into strict confidence, she accounted for the extreme tone of the Inaugural Address by describing the sudden reform in Olcott’s personal life, due to his occult aspirations. She wrote:

“Olcott is a fanatic, so much so, that I am afraid that this abrupt change from a comfortable life, good eating and drinking and indulging in all sorts of worldly things, will either bring him to insanity or death. . . . He eats no more meat, renounces supper and wine; his only aim in life is to become purified, as he says, of his past life, of the stains he has inflicted on his soul. I can do nothing with him. I have evoked the spirit of fanaticism in him, and now I cruelly repent, for this man does nothing by halves. . . . Because Olcott views spiritualism perhaps too exultingly, and expresses himself in too strong terms,—for I agree with you in that—why should people misunderstand him for that which never entered his mind? Many and many times, day after day, I repeat to him that 12 he must not brag of what is not done yet. . . .”

Of Felt’s claims, she said, “I do not know whether or when he will make his promise good.” Prof. Corson was mollified by this letter, but his main interest was Spiritualism, not Theosophy, as later became plain. This incident is of importance chiefly as illustrating Olcott’s habitual emphasis on the phenomenal aspects of occultism, and his tendency, never entirely overcome, to hope for conversion of others to Theosophy through miraculous demonstrations, for which he turned, usually in vain, to his wiser colleague. Olcott’s folly in promoting Felt as one who would amaze the world with occult phenomena was soon evident, for that gentleman, after obtaining one hundred dollars for “expenses” from the Society’s treasury, failed to produce any Elementals at all— “not even the tip end of the tail of the tiniest Nature spirit,” as Olcott mournfully related. He found this a “mortifying disappointment” which resulted in the departure from the Society of several whose interest was limited to sensation-seeking.

At this time, the affairs of the Society were largely in Olcott’s hands. Meetings were held irregularly, and many plans for occult experimentation were proposed. Neither Madame Blavatsky nor Judge took any active part in the meetings after the first few sessions. The former, Olcott complains in Old Diary Leaves, “refused to do the slightest phenomenon.” She was then extremely busy with correspondence, with letters to the press and with the steady stream of visitors to the “lamasery.” She had also begun the writing of her first book, Isis Unveiled. Mr. Judge was occupied with practicing law during the day, and he gave his evenings to study under Madame Blavatsky’s direction.

As originally constituted, the Theosophical Society was entirely democratic in its by-laws and organization. All officers were elective. The by-laws provided for three classes of Fellows: Active, Corresponding, and Honorary. The earlier Societies established after the foundation of the Parent body adopted its preamble and made additional rules and by-laws, not in conflict, to suit themselves. Intercourse between the various Societies was more or less desultory and informal, but all Fellows received their diplomas from the Parent Society until branch Societies began to be formed in India, when diplomas were signed by Col. Olcott and Madame Blavatsky. There were various arrangements in the issuing of diplomas until 1885, after which time, Madame Blavatsky being in Europe, Mr. Judge in America, and Col. Olcott in India, all regular diplomas were signed by Col. Olcott as President of the Theosophical Society. These diplomas were recognized as certificates of Fellowship by all lodges, wherever situated.

No formal Convention of all the Societies was ever held during the existence of the Parent body, but in India a species of gathering or “Anniversary Convention” was held as early as 1880, and thereafter annually at the end of each year. These were attended by delegates from the Indian and Ceylon Lodges and by occasional visitors from Europe and America.