Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00396)

K. Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> I know Theosophists believe that Vernon Harrison has "vindicated"
> HPB, but he recoiled from that word when I asked him about it,
> and said not at all-- he had simply demonstrated that Hodgson's
> case against her was unproven.  I find the question of
> handwriting rather irrelevant and uninteresting, since if I were
> going to compose letters and attribute them to someone else, and
> knew that people would suspect me of authorship, I'd certainly
> not send them in my own handwriting.  And HPB was shrewder than
> I.  The real question is not who physically wrote the versions
> Sinnett received, but who composed the contents.  And Marion
> Meade makes these telling (if not always entirely fair)
> observations about K.H.'s letters:
>
> He does not, however, speak or write German, Punjabi, Hindi or
> Tibetan; his Latin is faulty, his Sanskrit non-existent, his
> French impeccable, his English queer.  He also has a habit of
> overlining his m's, a mannerism of Russians writing in English or
> French.  Although his letters are written in English, it is not
> the English of an educated Indian and they sometimes falter in
> the use of punctuation, spelling, and grammar.  For example, he
> inserted commas between subject and predicate.  Worse yet, K.H.
> is fond of American slang and his awkward sentence constructions
> lead one to believe he is thinking in French but translating his
> thoughts into English...[examples]
>
> K.H. is in semi-command of Western literature, science, and
> philosophy.  He quotes Shakespeare correctly, and Swift
> incorrectly, has a passing acquaintance with Thackeray, Tennyson
> and Dickens, and keeps au courant by reading English novels.  "My
> knowledge of your Western science is *very* limited," he insists,
> which does not prevent him from aiming barbs at Darwin, Edison,
> Tyndall, and some thirty others.  In personality, he was
> alternately witty, stern, cheerful, spiteful, highly idealistic,
> petty, and downright bitchy.  But he was always entertaining.
>
> p. 236, Mme. Blavatsky: The Woman Behind the Myth

Daniel Caldwell replies:

Concerning Paul Johnson's latest comments on the Mahatma Letters, much
could be said on the subject.

I will simply start by making one observation that everything Paul
writes is very vague and in very general terms.  Details are what really
counts in these issues.  Pages could be written analyzing what Marion
Meade writes and determining whether what she asserts is true, false,
inaccurate, whatever.  Although Meade's biography of HPB is very well
written, the bio is full of errors.  A HUGE list of mistakes could be
given documenting that she did not always do her homework, etc.  Just as
I've published articles showing examples of Jean Overton Fuller's and K.
Paul Johnson's sloppy research, I could do one also on Ms. Meade's bio.
Here is just one GLARING mistake of many that could be cited:

Marion Meade in her biography p. 497 writes

"In all, about nine or ten persons testified to having seen the
Mahatmas: Annie Besant, Henry Olcott, Damodar Mavalankar, Isabel
Cooper-Oakley, William Brown, Nadyezhda Fadeyev, S.R. Ramaswamier,
Justine Glinka and Vsevolod Solovyov. Franz Hartmann said that while he
never actually saw them, he felt their presence."

I remember reading this statement by Meade some fifteen years ago and
exclaiming to myself, "Oh Marion Meade, you haven't done your homework!"
Off the top of my head, I could count at least twenty-five people who
testified to having seen the Mahatmas during H.P.B.'s lifetime. And
despite Meade's statement to the contrary, Hartmann had testified that
he had actually seen one of the Mahatmas. Apparently Meade had never
carefully read two of the titles listed in her own bibliography:
Geoffrey Barborka's The Mahatmas And Their Letters (1973) and Franz
Hartmann's Report Of Observations, etc. (1884); both titles prove Meade
didn't know what she was writing about concerning Hartmann.

So the question I raise is:

Has Johnson researched and verified what Marion Meade says about the
Mahatma Letters or has he just accepted without investigation her
chacracterization?

Now let us leave Meade's bio and turn our attention to some of the
latest of Paul Johnson's comments:

>I find the question of
> handwriting rather irrelevant and uninteresting, since if I were
> going to compose letters and attribute them to someone else, and
> knew that people would suspect me of authorship, I'd certainly
> not send them in my own handwriting.  And HPB was shrewder than
> I.  The real question is not who physically wrote the versions
> Sinnett received, but who composed the contents.

I find Paul's statement concerning "the question of handwriting rather
irrelevant and uninteresting" somewhat amusing.  For more than 100 years
most skeptics of Blavatsky have used Hodgson's charge that Blavatsky
physically wrote most of the Mahatma Letters to paint her as a charlatan
and declare that the Mahatmas were non-existent.  Now Paul comes along
and finds this aspect of the case "rather irrelevant and uninteresting"?
Maybe this issue is psychologically "uninteresting" to Paul so we won't
pursue this aspect.  But I contend that the question of handwriting is
not "irrelevant".  Both Dr. Harrison and Dr. Paul Kirk are of the
professional opinion that Blavatsky did not write the KH letters. Then
who did?

Now let us get very specific and consider various historical incidents
related to the Mahatma Letters.  I could bring up dozens of examples but
will cite just one or two for those who are interested in *thinking
through the subject* rather than just naively accepting or rejecting
what Marion Meade and Paul Johnson assert about this subject.

In October 1880 when Blavatsky, Olcott and their servant Babula was
visiting Simla in northern India, the first Mahatma Letters were
received (in Simla) by A.P. Sinnett.  Look at Mahatma Letters 1, 2, 3a,
3b and 3c.  Who wrote these letters?  If one is inclined to think Madame
Blavatsky somehow palmed these letters off on Sinnett, then who in the
hell physically wrote them?  If it wasn't Blavatsky (as Johnson is
currently contending) then was it Olcott or Babula?  Or does Johnson
believe that there was some other unknown confederate lurking in the
Simla bushes?  Who paid this confederate's salary?  And did this unknown
confederate continue to write the letters over the next 4 and 1/2
years?
More specifically, on October 20, 1880, the "Pillow Incident" occurred
in which Letter 3b and a brooch of Mrs. Sinnett's appeared in Mrs.
Sinnett's jampan pillow.  No skeptic has ever convincingly explained how
this trick was pulled off, if indeed it was but a trick.  Yet we have
this Letter 3b.  I have a photocopy of it right before my eyes.  Who
composed the words?  And who physically wrote each and every word in
Letter 3b?  If Paul Johnson believes Blavatsky composed the words, who
physically inscribed the words on the notepaper?  This is in the KH
handwriting.  And how on earth did the letter get inside this pillow?
This pillow, according to A.P. Sinnett, was in the drawing room the
whole morning before the picnic.  One must read very carefully Sinnett's
account to understand all the details surrounding this one letter (3b).
See Sinnett's Occult World or my compilation THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME
BLAVATSKY, pp. 134-138.

The note found in the pillow reads:

"My "Dear Brother,"

This brooch No. 2 -- is placed in this very strange place simply to show
to you how very easily a real phenomenon is
produced and how still easier it is to suspect its genuineness. Make of
it what you like even to classing me with confederates.

The difficulty you spoke of last night with respect to the interchange
of our letters I will try to remove. One of our pupils will
shortly visit Lahore and the N.W.P. and an address will be sent to you
which you can always use; unless, indeed, you really
would prefer corresponding through -- pillows. Please to remark that the
present is not dated from a "Lodge" but from a
Kashmir valley.

Yours, more than ever,

Koot' Hoomi Lal Sing."

Sinnet in his narrative writes:

"On the hypothesis. . . that the cushion [pillow] must have been got at
by Madame Blavatsky, it must have been got at since I spoke of my
impressions that morning, shortly after breakfast. . . . [and no later
than the time of the picnic when the note and brooch were found in the
pillow."

So for the skeptic who can't believe in psychic precipatation, etc, some
person had to physically write this note, somehow physically insert it
into the pillow (See Sinnett's narrative) and do all this BEFORE they
went on the picnic.  This would have to have been done in Sinnett's
house. Please note that the writer of this letter had to know that Mrs.
Sinnett's jampan pillow cushion would LATER be selected as the place
where the letter would be deposited (read the text of 3b). Even Olcott
in his handwritten diary account (which has never been published) was
amazed by this performance.

So if Madame Blavatsky did not physically write the letter (as Johnson
prefers to believe today) then that narrows down the number of options.
That narrows it down to Olcott and Babula if we are looking for physical
"confederates".  Unless Johnson and other skeptics want to hypothesize
some other totally unknown person slipping in and out of Sinnett's
house, etc.  But I have never heard from any skeptic (and I have known a
good number) a reasonable explanation of how this letter got into the
pillow by PHYSICAL means.  Yes, you can ignore the testimony of Sinnett
(there are at least two accounts by him) and Olcott (there are 2
accounts by him including the unpublished diary account).  But if you
adopt this ploy here, then you can do so similarly with ANY account
relating to ANYTHING in Madame Blavatsky's life.  Why consider evidence
if you always push it aside when it conflicts with your background
assumptions and beliefs?

ONE MORE BRIEF EXAMPLE:  In March 1882 Madame Blavatsky was in Bombay.
Sinnett was in Allahabad.  And Olcott was at a town located between
Allahabad and Calcutta.  Please look at a map of India and the distances
involved.  One morning Olcott got up and found on the table a letter
from KH to Sinnett.  Olcott was instructed to send it on to
Sinnett.  This has never been cited before.  It is to be found in
Olcott's unpublished handwritten diary.  No writer including Olcott
himself has ever published anything about the receipt of this particular
Mahatma Letter.  I have identified which Mahatma Letter was involved in
this incident.  Now who physically wrote this letter?  And who placed it
on Olcott's table?  Blavatsky was literally on the other side of India
at the time.  And Olcott was travelling alone.

Let the wiggling and explaining away begin!

{This is a rough draft.}