Theos-Talk Archives (April 2002 Message tt00185)

Reg. Blavatsky 2


The psychical phenomena of the nineteenth century range themselves 
under two general classes, --- those of 
Modern Spiritualism and those of theosophy, the latter being in some 
respects a divergent offshoot of the former. 
The subject matter of this narrative is one that is connected with 
both Spiritualism and theosophy, and I bespeak 
the reader's careful attention thereto in all its details. I think it 
will be found of interest. 

In the entire history of the modern theosophic movement, extending 
from 1875 to the present time, there is, in my 
opinion, no one episode of more surpassing import, than that which 
may be appropriately called "the Kiddle 
Plagiarism." A complete account of this episode, with its various 
points consecutively presented, has never been 
published; and believing such to be a desideratum of moment, the 
following sketch of this incident, and of its results 
has been prepared, as a not unimportant contribution to the history 
of that peculiar phase of thought, the outcome 
of one determined woman's persistent efforts, that the nineteenth 
century has seen evolved under the name of 
theosophy. The details of the "Kiddle Plagiarism" are scattered about 
in a number of periodicals and books, 
published in India, England, and America. From these I have outlined 
this narrative; and it is probable that, after it 
perusal, my readers may see the force of my remark that the series of 
facts involved in this one matter, in my 
judgment, demonstrates in a distinct and positive manner the real 
character of the alleged teachings of the 
mahatmas or adepts of Tibet, the source of these teachings, the 
existence or non-existence of the said mahatmas, 
and the true nature of the foundations upon which the whole structure 
of theosophy rests. I fail to see how any 
candid, impartial, judicial mind can calmly and rationally consider 
the evidence presented, --- nearly all of which is 
derived from theosophic sources, and the truth of which is beyond 
question, --- and not regard the truth or falsity of 
the claims of theosophy as permanently settled. 

In June, 1881, Mr. A. P. Sinnett published in London the first 
edition of a book called "The Occult World." In 1885 
there was published in Boston the second American, from the fourth 
English edition, with corrections and additions. 
The pagination is exactly the same in the original London and the 
last American edition, --- each edition following 
the other, line for line and page for page. In this book, if I 
mistake not, the world was for the first time introduced 
to the now notorious Koot Hoomi Lal Singh, the alleged Tibetan 
mahatma, the supposed inspiring guide of 
Madame H. P. Blavatsky, the founder of theosophy. Mr. Sinnett 
published in this work a number of letters 
received by him and claiming to be written by the said Koot Hoomi. On 
pages 148-150 there is printed a long 
passage from a certain one of these Koot Hoomi letters to Mr. 
Sinnett. 

In the London Spiritualistic Journal, Light, for September 1, 1883, 
there was published a letter from Mr. Henry 
Kiddle, the well-know Spiritualist, dated New York, August 11, 1883. 
In this letter Mr. Kiddle, among other things 
says, --- 

"On reading Mr. Sinnett's `Occult World,' more than a year ago, 
I was very greatly surprised to find 
in one of the letters presented by Mr. Sinnett as having been 
transmitted to him, in the mysterious 
manner described, a passage taken almost verbatim from an 
address on Spiritualism by me at Lake 
Pleasant, in August, 1880, and published the same month by the 
Banner of Light. As Mr. Sinnett's 
book did not appear till a considerable time afterwards (about a 
year, I think), it is certain that I did not 
quote, consciously or unconsciously, from its pages. How, then, 
did it get into Koot Hoomi's mysterious 
letter? I sent to Mr. Sinnett a letter through his publishers, 
enclosing the printed pages of my address, 
with the part used by Koot Hoomi marked upon it, and asked for 
an explanation, for I wondered that so 
great a sage as Koot Hoomi should need to borrow any thing from 
so humble a student of spiritual 
things as myself. As yet I have received no reply; and the query 
has been suggested to my mind. --- Is 
Koot Hoomi a myth? or, if not, is he so great an adept as to 
have impressed my mind with his thoughts 
and words while I was preparing my address?" 

The passage in the letter in "The Occult World" referred to by Mr. 
Kiddle as almost identical with a portion of his 
printed address on Spiritualism, is that I have mentioned above as 
being found on pp. 148-150 of the first English 
and the second American edition of Mr. Sinnett's book. In the third 
English edition it begins on page 102. 

The following are the passages referred to, printed in succession for 
the sake of ready reference. 

Extract from Mr. Kiddle's discourse entitled "The present Outlook of 
Spiritualism" at Lake Pleasant Camp 
Meeting on Sunday, Aug. 15, 1880. 

My friends, ideas rule the world; and as men's minds receive new 
ideas, laying aside the old and 
effete, the world advances. Society rests upon them; mighty 
revolutions spring from them; institutions 
crumble before their onward march. It is just as impossible to 
resist their influx, when the time comes, 
as to stay the progress of the tide. 

And the agency called Spiritualism is bringing a new set of 
ideas on the most momentous subjects, 
touching man's true position in the universe; his origin and 
destiny; the relation of the mortal to the 
immortal; of the temporary to the Eternal; of the finite to the 
Infinite; of man's deathless soul to the 
material universe in which it now dwells --- ideas larger, more 
general, more comprehensive, 
recognizing more fully the universal reign of law as the 
expression of the Divine will, unchanging and 
unchangeable, in regard to which there is only an Eternal Now, 
while to mortals time is past or future, 
as related to their finite existence on this material plane, 
etc., etc. 

Extract from Koot Hoomi's letter to Mr. Sinnett, in the "Occult 
World," 3rd Edition, p. 102. The first edition was 
published in June, 1881. 

Ideas rule the world; and as men's minds receive new ideas, 
laying aside the old and effete, the world 
will advance, mighty revolutions will spring from them, creeds 
and even powers will crumble before 
their onward march, crushed by their irresistible force. 

It will be just as impossible to resist their influence when the 
time comes as to stay the progress of the 
tide. But all this will come gradually on, and before it comes 
we have a duty set before us; that of 
sweeping away as much as possible the dross left to us by our 
pious forefathers. New ideas have to be 
planted on clean places, for these ideas touch upon the most 
momentous subjects. 

It is not physical phenomena, but these universal ideas that we 
study; as to comprehend the former, we 
have first to understand the latter. They touch man's true 
position in the universe in relation to his 
previous and future births, his origin and ultimate destiny; the 
relation of the mortal to the immortal, of 
the temporary to the Eternal, of the finite to the Infinite, 
ideas larger, grander, more comprehensive, 
recognizing the eternal reign of immutable law, unchanging and 
unchangeable, --- in regard to which 
there is only an ETERNAL NOW; while to uninitiated mortals time 
is past or future, as related to their 
finite existence on this material speck of dirt, etc., etc. 

In reply to Mr. Kiddle's letter, as above, in Light, Mr. Sinnett 
published a statement in Light of September 22, 
1883, in which he professed ignorance of ever having received the 
letter of inquiry that Mr. Kiddle said he had sent 
him. Mr. Sinnett also in the same article spoke of the matter as 
a "trivial" one, as being "rather out of date now," 
and as a "merely ridiculous incident." 

It should here be noted that in the Koot Hoomi letter, as published 
in "The Occult World," the remark, "Plato was 
right," immediately precedes the beginning of the passage parallel 
with that in Mr. Kiddle's address, as printed in 
Mr. Kiddle's letter in Light; the mahatma letter therefore 
read, "Plato was right. Ideas rule the world, etc., etc." 
This sentence, "Plato was right," Mr. Kiddle did not include in his 
publication of the parallel passages, there being 
nothing in his address corresponding thereto. These facts concerning 
this Platonic sentence should be borne in 
mind in connection with the criticisms made upon Mr. Kiddle and his 
address by prominent theosophists, 
consequent upon the publication of Mr. Kiddle's letter in Light. 

In the Religio-Philosophical Journal, of Chicago, in December, 1883, 
or January, 1884, Mr. Wm. Q. Judge, the 
present President of the American Branch of the Theosophical Society, 
and the editor of The Path, the American 
theosophic monthly, published an article in criticism of this alleged 
plagiarism from Mr. Kiddle by Koot Hoomi. In 
defense of Koot Hoomi, Mr. Judge advanced the following: 

"1.—It is not proven that Mr. Kiddle was the first to use the 
form of words adverted to. 

2.—"It is an idea which has been common property for a long 
time, and has been used, in nearly 
identical words by others before Kiddle. Can Mr. Kiddle claim 
that `Ideas rule the world,' is an 
expression original with that gentleman? Is the clause, `It is 
just as impossible to resist their influx 
when the time comes as to stay the progress of the tide,' also 
new with Kiddle? I think not. These very 
ideas and sentences I have used myself often before 1880, and 
have heard others use them. 

"In the inaugural address before the Theosophical Society; Nov. 
17, 1875 (in print), the same ideas, 
inspired by Koot Hoomi, may be found. In July, 1880, a circular 
was written and printed in India for 
distribution through the Theosophical Society. It arrived here 
before Mr. Kiddle's lecture was 
reported, and contains among other things, this: `Individuals 
count as nothing; the idea we represent is 
everything. Though an entire branch of the Society should be 
obliterated. . . this idea which has been 
set before the century would run through its entire career and 
work out its legitimate results.' 

"Here is the same proposition in slightly different language, 
but neither author can be accused of 
plagiarism. 

"Again, Mr. Editor, let me make the declaration that I knew of, 
and heard from, Koot Hoomi in New 
York in the beginning of 1875 to date, and have often heard the 
declaration contained in the Kiddle 
lecture repeated by Koot Hoomi orally and in writing, just five 
years before Mr. Kiddle's lecture." 

The insufficiency of this defense, even though it was literally true 
in every particular, is apparent to every reader. 
Because the thought or sentiment that "ideas rule the world" is not 
original with Mr. Kiddle and may be 
paraphrased in other writings, or even in the alleged language of 
Koot Hoomi previous to Mr. Kiddle's address, 
that is no explanation of the fact that a continuous passage of 
twenty-seven printed lines of Mr. Sinnett's book, 
received by him from Koot Hoomi, is almost word for word identical 
with a passage in Mr. Kiddle's printed lecture. 
It is not the mere similarity of ideas that need explanation; it is 
the verbal identity of language running through the 
twenty-seven printed lines. It is evident that Mr. Judge has given 
his imagination full swing in his citations of the 
alleged use by Koot Hoomi of similar ideas and language to those of 
Mr. Kiddle. His statement that in the 
inaugural address before the Theosophical Society, November 17, 1875, 
similar ideas to those of Mr. Kiddle are 
found, is untrue. I have a copy of that address, and a careful search 
thereof fails to reveal anything in it at all 
resembling the remarks of Mr. Kiddle. The claim that this 1875 
address was inspired by Koot Hoomi is equally 
false. The address was delivered by Col. Olcott, and its contents 
attest it to be the Colonel's own composition. It 
has never before been claimed, so far as I am aware, that the 
writings of Col. Olcott were or are inspired by any 
mahatma; and as Koot Hoomi has never been the Colonel's special 
mahatma-guru, another alleged mahatma 
named Morya having always been claimed as Olcott's guru (teacher), it 
follows necessarily that if any one 
"inspired" the inaugural address in 1875, it must have been Morya, 
not Koot Hoomi. It seems that in order to 
have it appear that Koot Hoomi used the ideas in Mr. Kiddle's lecture 
long before they were uttered by Mr. 
Kiddle, Mr. Judge, in his usual reckless and inaccurate manner, made 
the positive assertion that they were 
contained in the 1875 address (prudently omitting any reference to 
Col. Olcott as the author of the address), which 
address, he added, was inspired by Koot Hoomi, --- both assertions 
being alike devoid of foundation. Not content 
with this, in order to still further make it appear that Koot Hoomi 
had voiced these ideas long before Mr. Kiddle 
had, Mr. Judge went so far as to assert that he had often heard the 
declaration in Mr. Kiddle's lecture repeated by 
Koot Hoomi orally and in writing just five years before Mr. Kiddle's 
lecture, --- that is in the autumn of 1875. As 
Madame Blavatsky and Col. Olcott founded the Theosophic Society Nov. 
17, 1875, Mr. Judge must have often 
heard Koot Hoomi orally and in writing just prior to the foundation 
of the Society. I can understand how he might 
have heard K. H. orally, but I am at a loss to conceive how he could 
have heard him in writing. If I mistake not, the 
name Koot Hoomi was not heard of in the world until after the arrival 
of Blavatsky and Olcott in India. Occasional 
brief visits of one or more alleged adepts to Blavatsky, Olcott, and 
Co., in America, have been asserted; but that 
Koot Hoomi was a familiar visiting acquaintance of Mr. Judge in 1875, 
and was in the habit both of talking and 
writing to him and others about "Ideas ruling the world" is not 
credible. Moreover, Mr. Judge's assertion that not 
only has he heard Koot Hoomi and others use the "very ideas and 
sentences" contained in Mr. Kiddle's lecture, 
but that he himself (Mr. Judge) has often used them before 1880, is, 
undoubtedly, as much a work of imagination, 
as are his statements about the inaugural address and Koot Hoomi. It 
should be specially noted that the whole of 
Mr. Judge's remarks is devoted to establishing that the letter to Mr. 
Sinnett from Koot Hoomi was written by the 
mahatma entirely independent of and with no reference to the address 
of Mr. Kiddle. It is also insinuated by Mr. 
Judge, though not asserted in so many words, that in place of Koot 
Hoomi having plagiarized from Kiddle, the 
latter Mr. Kiddle, has plagiarized from Koot Hoomi. 


In Light, November 10, 1883, Mr. W. T. Brown, F. T. S., published a 
rejoinder to Mr. Kiddle's letter. It should 
here be noted; (1) that at that time Mr. Brown who was then in India, 
was positively assured of the existence of 
Koot Hoomi, of whom he was a chela, and of the bona fides of Madame 
Blavatsky in her assertions concerning the 
mahatmas and the writings alleged to have proceeded from them; and 
(2) that since then Mr. Brown has become 
firmly convinced that Koot Hoomi was a myth and that he was cunningly 
deceived by the Madame and others. He 
has recently published an expose of the frauds practised upon him and 
others, entitled "The Shrine of Koot 
Hoomi." In his critique of Mr. Kiddle in 1883, Mr. Brown said, 

"Mr. Kiddle will not, I am sure, maintain that the ideas in his 
excerpts are original and are placed by 
him for the first time before an attentive world. Our master 
puts the same idea before us (in pretty 
much the same words, it is true), but refers, beforehand, to a 
gentleman of the name of Plato. The 
sentences to which Mr. Kiddle lays claim are found among a 
number of others bearing on the subject, 
but the latter are not, so far as we have heard, to be found in 
any discourse delivered at Mount (sic) 
Pleasant or elsewhere. Whence come they? is the query which 
arises. [The answer to this query will 
appear in the sequel.] . . . The explanation is occult, and 
deals with an essence known as `astral light.' 
Our master has, no doubt, seen the idea, and, being tired. . . 
has written or impressed it hurriedly 
without regard to the feelings of Mr. Kiddle on the one hand or 
of Plato on the other . . . The absence 
of knowledge on the part of Mr. Kiddle is assuredly his loss --- 
not ours." 

In this case we again have insinuation, though not positive 
assertion, that Mr. Kiddle is the plagiarist instead of 
Koot Hoomi. Mr. Judge insinuated that Mr. Kiddle plagiarized from 
Koot Hoomi; Mr. Brown insinuates that Mr. 
Kiddle plagiarized from Plato. In Mr. Kiddle's reply to Mr. Brown, 
dated Nov. 21, 1883, is found the following: 

"Mr. Brown says conjecturally, 'Our master has, no doubt, seen 
the idea [how about the words?] and 
being tired has written or impressed it hurriedly without regard 
to the feelings of Mr. Kiddle on the one 
hand or of Plato on the other.' Beautiful childlike faith! But 
does this satisfy the keen intellect of an 
occultist? If the master was too tired to avoid copying without 
quotation points, how is it that his mind 
was so active in adapting the passage to Occultism, while it was 
meant for Spiritualism? And why did 
he interject the remark about Plato, attributing to that ancient 
philosopher what he was copying from 
my address? I humbly request Mr. Sinnett, Mr. Brown, or Koot 
Hoomi himself, to show me by definite 
citation that the passage referred to was written by Plato. I 
certainly did not translate it from any of his 
words. . . . It [the truth] is very `occult,' I am told; `it 
deals with an essence known as "astral light."' 
Oh! And then I am somewhat impertinently (not pertinently, I 
mean) informed that `the absence of 
knowledge on the part of Mr. Kiddle is assuredly his loss.' Yes, 
but when I find my property in the 
possession of another person it seems like adding insult to 
injury to be told, `You are an ignorant 
fellow, else you would know where and how I got it, and that you 
have no rightful claim to it. Don't 
charge me with stealing, but look to my friend and accomplice 
Astral Light.'" 

Simple insinuation, as above, that Mr. Kiddle had been guilty of 
plagiarism, was quickly followed by direct and 
circumstantial charges of plagiarism made against that gentleman by 
prominent theosophists. A letter from Mrs. 
Ellen H. Morgan, F. T. S., written from the headquarters of the 
Theosophical Society, Adyar, Madras, India, was 
published in the London Medium and Daybreak, January 4, 1884. In this 
letter, Mrs. Morgan charged Mr. Kiddle 
as "disingenuously passing off the saying, `Ideas rule the world,' as 
his own, when in reality it comes from Plato." 
To sustain this assertion, she made several quotations from Plato, in 
none of which was found the saying of Mr. 
Kiddle ascribed to Plato; though, of course, as Mr. Kiddle said, in 
reply to Mrs. Morgan, Plato "expresses the 
influence and importance of ideas." Commenting upon the letters of 
Mrs. Morgan et al., Mr. Kiddle in the Medium 
and Daybreak of April 18, 1884, in a letter written by him, January 
18, 1884, remarks as follows:--- 

"I . . . have merely asked for an explanation of this curious 
phenomenon; and lo! a storm has been 
raised. The `elementary spirits' seem to be driven here and 
there, and their earthly representatives 
get into a state of excitement quite phenomenal in chelas, or 
disciples of `white magic,' which, it is 
claimed, raises the minds of mortals to the serene heights of 
pure soul life, far above the agitations of 
vulgar, earthly passion. The explanation, meanwhile, is not 
forthcoming; but instead thereof a violent 
accusation of plagiarism and `disingenuousness' against me. If I 
were disposed to become a follower of 
Satan (the accuser) and to recriminate, I might point to the 
obvious disingenuousness of representing 
the whole matter copied to consist of a single short sentence, 
when, in fact, it was a whole page; and, 
moreover, of quoting a few sentences from Plato's Dialogues 
expressing thoughts or propositions that 
have but a remote or indirect bearing on the statements which I 
am charged with stealing; and then 
triumphantly asserting that Koot Hoomi (or whoever it was) was 
right in inserting the words before my 
statement, `Plato was right.' I have not verified the passages 
given from Plato; but if these are all that 
can be found after diligently exploring his works, evidently 
Koot Hoomi was wrong, in artfully 
appending Plato's great name to the passage in question." 

In The Theosophist, published at Madras, by Madame Blavatsky, for 
December-January, 1883-84, were various 
articles bearing upon the Kiddle-Koot Hoomi matter. Conspicuous among 
them was one by Major-General H. R. 
Morgan, F. T. S., dated Ootacamund, Nov. 2, 1883, in which he makes 
quotations from Plato similar to those in 
Mrs. Morgan's letter in the Medium and Daybreak; and remarks, 

"When the ideas, if not the very sentences, can be proved 
Plato's, then who is the greater `plagiarist' 
of the two, Mr. Sinnett's correspondent or Mr. Kiddle? The 
former, who shews the sentences to be if 
not quotations at least not his own ideas, or the latter who 
throws them into the ears of his audience 
without tracing them by one word to their original source? The 
most that could be said is, that the 
Mahatma attributed to Plato that which belonged to Kiddle, doing 
thereby the last-named individual an 
honor that he certainly deserves very little, Inspector or 
Director of Public Instruction though he be. 
The significant fact that Mr. Kiddle in Light carefully omits 
the introductory words, --- "Plato is right" 
--- is more than suspicious; it shows deliberate malice on its 
very face. . . Would our great Master but 
permit us . . . the world of sceptics and scoffers would be 
shown whether men possessed of such 
wonderful knowledge have any occasion to resort to plagiarism 
from unknown and very indifferent 
lecturers. As for Mr. Kiddle, it is to be hoped he reads the 
Theosophist, and may see these lines, when 
perhaps he may find it was his guiding spirit that induced him 
to palm off on his audience indifferently 
constructed sentences of Plato's ideas, for his own. . . . Louis 
Napoleon in making war on Italy 
declared it was only France that went to war for an `idea.' 
Probably he also plagiarized from Plato. 
Does Mr. Kiddle think, he alone is to have a monopoly 
of `ideas'? It is too absurd!" (Supplement to 
the Theosophist, Dec. --- Jan. 1883-83, pp. 30 and 31). 

The reader will, of course, notice the depreciatory and insulting 
manner in which General Morgan refers to Mr. 
Kiddle. Not only does he charge him with plagiarism and "deliberate 
malice," but he stigmatizes him as an 
"unknown and very indifferent lecturer," who "palms off on his 
audiences indifferently constructed sentences of 
Plato's ideas." The author of this unjust attack on Mr. Kiddle, 
General Morgan, may appropriately be termed the 
Thos. R. Hazard of theosophy. Originally a Spiritualist, he became 
converted to theosophy, in which latter cause he 
has ever been noted for his extreme credulity and his 
pugnacious "vindication" a la Hazard of the genuineness of 
all the questionable phenomena attributed to the mahatmas and Madame 
Blavatsky, coupled with violent abuse of 
those reflecting in any manner upon the purity, truth, and honesty of 
Mme. B. He it was who, after examination, 
denounced as forgeries all the letters of Mme. Blavatsky to the 
Coulombs, which the latter produced in evidence of 
the fraudulent character of the mahatmic manifestations; although 
other more competent and impartial authorities 
have pronounced them genuine. He it was who brought suit against the 
Coulombs for slander of Mme. Blavatsky; 
but as the case appears never to have been tried, it is probable that 
the astute Mme. B. succeeded in getting the 
doughty, irascible General to withdraw the action, the Madame, for 
prudential considerations, having no desire for 
a legal sifting of the incriminating evidence against her. The 
General is evidently so biased and prejudiced, so 
deficient in judgment and critical acumen, that his evidence in any 
test case is absolutely valueless. 

On pages 86, 87, of the same number of The Theosophist, there is an 
article headed "Happy Mr. Henry Kiddle's 
Discovery," by T. Subba Row. Mr. Row is said to be the ablest 
Sanskritist connected with theosophy, and for some 
time he was, first, assistant editor, and then the virtual editor, of 
The Theosophist. It will be noted that the very 
name of Mr. Row's article contains a sneer at Mr. Kiddle. Among other 
things Mr. Row says: 

"So far as the leading idea in the passage is concerned, if 
anybody has committed literary theft it is the 
complainant himself and not the accused. I find no reference to 
Plato in the passages quoted from Mr. 
Kiddle's lecture in his letter published in `Light,' and the 
complainant has very prudently omitted the 
reference to the Greek philosopher that precedes the passages 
which he reproduced from the 
Mahatma's letter." 

In a foot-note to this, Madame Blavatsky herself states that there is 
also no reference to Plato in Mr. Kiddle's 
lecture at Lake Pleasant, "for we have procured (?) and carefully 
read it." Mme. Blavatsky here sanctions the 
imputations made by her assistant, Mr. Row, of plagiarism from Plato 
by Mr. Kiddle. Mr. Row then continues: 

"There seems to be nothing very sublime in the language used by 
Mr. Kiddle in the passage under 
consideration;" and again: "It seems to me that even the 
word `idea' has been used in two different 
senses by the Mahatma and Mr. Kiddle respectively. The former 
means by the word `idea' the original 
form or type according to which the objective manifestation 
takes place. And this is Plato's meaning 
which the Spiritualistic lecturer has not properly understood. 
Mr. Kiddle, on the other hand, uses the 
same word in the sense it is ordinarily used by English 
writers." "The Mahatma against whom the 
accusation has been brought, will, of course, think it beneath 
his dignity to offer an explanation in his 
own defence to Mr. Kiddle or his followers or supporters." 

In the same Theosophist (pages 69, 70) Madame Blavatsky, in the 
opening editorial, has something to say on the 
Kiddle incident, in which she alludes to "Mr. Kiddle's fancied expose 
of Mr. Sinnett's `Guru' --- who stands 
accused of having `appropriated' some stray sentences from a lecture 
by that new convert to Spiritualism!!" and 
she refers to "the utter absurdity of the whole accusation, in 
whatever way and from whatsoever stand-point one 
may look at it." "To suspect," says she, "the writer of such letters, 
the Teacher of such a grand system of 
philosophy. . . of plagiarizing a few stray sentences from a very 
indifferent lecture, remarkable for nothing but its 
correct English, is an insanely absurd improbability." Speaking of 
the many chances of detection of the "parallel 
passages" if they were copied as alleged from Mr. Kiddle's speech in 
the Banner of Light, she says, "It is 
preposterous, therefore, to connect such insane actions with any one 
outside a lunatic asylum." 

In reply to this it may be said, (1) that this alleged "insane" 
action was really done, and (2), that the chances that 
any of the few friends of Mr. Sinnett, to whom he might show some of 
the many letters he was receiving from Koot 
Hoomi, would ever discern any connection between a small portion of a 
lecture of Mr. Kiddle's published in the 
Banner of Light and one of his (Mr. S.'s) mahatmic letters, were 
infinitesimally small; and the truth of this has 
been attested by the facts of the case. It appears that no friend of 
Mr. Sinnett ever did discern the plagiarism; and 
that, even after the publication of Mr. Sinnett's book, in which the 
plagiarized passages occur, no one ever found 
out the plagiarism except Mr. Kiddle himself. It is very probable 
that when the alleged Koot Hoomi letter 
containing the Kiddle plagiarism was written to Mr. Sinnett, the 
writer had no thought that Mr. Sinnett would ever 
publish to the world that letter. 

I find in the same Theosophist a letter from Colonel H. S. Olcott, 
President of the Theosophical Society, to the 
Editor of Light, dated Adyar, Sept. 27, 1883, in which the Colonel 
says, 

"Surely my friend forgets himself . . . when he finds in the 
appearance of a few unquoted and 
unimportant sentences from Mr. Kiddle, in the `Occult World,' 
any warrant for such jealous nagging. . . 
. I do not undertake to explain the Kiddle mystery at all, nor 
do I think it of much consequence. It is 
highly absurd to think that a mind capable of reducing to 
expression in a foreign tongue so lofty a 
scheme of evolution as that in Esoteric Buddhism, would be 
driven to fish in Mr. Kiddle's journal." 

We have seen in what a sneering, insulting, and depreciatory manner 
these leading lights in theosophy have 
referred to Mr. Kiddle. For simply stating the facts and asking an 
explanation thereof, he is abused, traduced, 
scoffed at, and his literary abilities belittled and sneered at; "the 
head and front" of the Theosophical Society 
have, one and all, treated him shamefully and scandalously, --- 
exemplifying in a signal manner the sublime 
principles of altruism and brotherly love which are said to be the 
foundation-stones of the to-be-builded 
theosophical temple. "Real Theosophy," says Mme. Blavatsky, in 
Lucifer, May, 1889, "is Altruism, and we 
cannot repeat it too often. It is brotherly love, mutual help, 
unswerving devotion to the truth." 

In a second article [see below] I shall include the explanations 
given by Koot Hoomi and others as to the reason for 
the similarity between Mr. Kiddle's lecture-passages and the letter 
in Mr. Sinnett's work, together with the later 
developments in the matter and their bearing upon said explanations. 
The most interesting and conclusive part of 
this exposition is yet to be presented. 

To understand the explanations that have been given us of the causes 
of the resemblance between Mr. Kiddle's 
lecture at Lake Pleasant and the Koot Hoomi letter in Mr. Sinnett's 
work, it is necessary that comprehension be 
had of the alleged manner of production of the letters from the 
Mahatma. In the letter of Col. Olcott, published in 
the Theosophist, December-January, 1883-84 (supplement pp. 28-29), it 
is stated that "many of the K. H. letters 
are written by them [his Tibetan chelas or pupils] as his 
secretaries, he merely giving them the general ideas, and 
they elaborating them, and even `precipitating' them in proper 
handwriting." The following account of the process 
of precipitation is published on page 64 of the Theosophist, 
December, 1883: 

"When a master wants a letter to be written . . . he draws the 
attention of the chela, whom he selects 
for the task, by causing an astral bell . . to be rung near him. 
The thoughts arising in the mind of the 
Mahatma are then clothed in words, pronounced mentally, and 
forced along the astral current he sends 
towards the pupil to infringe on the brain of the latter. Thence 
they are borne by the nerve-currents to 
the palm of his hand and the tips of his fingers, which rest on 
a piece of magnetically-prepared paper. 
As the thought-waves are thus impressed on the tissue, materials 
are drawn to it from the ocean of 
akas (permeating every atom of the sensuous universe) by an 
occult process, out of place here to be 
described, and permanent marks are left." 

We are also informed from another source that "the recipient of the 
message [the chela] manufactures the 
material substance which conveys the words impressed upon his brain. 
The writing does not appear on the surface 
of the paper, but is incorporated in its fibre, and forms an integral 
part of its substance." (Light, July 5, 1884, 271, 
note.) In further explanation of this peculiar psychical phenomenon, 
I find in Light, July 12, 1884, p. 281, note, a 
statement by the well-known Spiritualist scholar and writer, "M.A. 
(Oxon)" that he had been told by Madame 
Blavatsky "that it is usual for the chela to have by him some blue 
powder when engaged in this work of 
precipitating a letter in blue characters." According to Koot Hoomi's 
statement in the "Occult World," 2d 
American edition, appendix p. 212, it is not the original 
precipitated document that is sent to the person for whom 
the letter is intended, but a copy of it is transcribed by the chela 
for that purpose; and on page 214 Koot Hoomi 
speaks of the colors for a precipitated message being drawn 
from "that exhaustless storehouse of pigments (as of 
everything else) the akasa." 

Note the contradictions in these several statements of the mode of 
precipitation through a chela. In one account 
the paper is seemingly ordinary paper magnetized, prepared beforehand 
for the purpose, upon which the chela 
rests his hand while receiving the mental impressions from 
the "master," while the marks on the paper or the 
writing is made from materials occultly drawn from the akasa. In 
another account the paper is occultly 
manufactured from the akasa, during the process of precipitation, 
while the writing is made from un-occult blue 
powder, which the chela has with him for use in that manner. At one 
time we learn that the original precipitated 
letters, written in blue pencil, are given to the persons addressed; 
while at another we are told that the originals are 
kept, while a copy is made from the precipitation by the chela, and 
sent to the one for whom it is intended. In 
addition to this, there are various published accounts of 
precipitated writings by Koot Hoomi and other mahatmas, 
including some in blue pencil, which were the direct work of the 
mahatmas themselves, without the assistance or 
intervention of chelas. The following queries naturally present 
themselves: (1) Are the mahatmic precipitations 
made by the mahatmas in person, or are they made through the 
mediumship of chelas? (2) Are the precipitations 
made upon paper prepared beforehand for the purpose or upon paper 
occultly manufactured from the akasa at the 
time of the precipitation? (3) Is the writing in colors, on or in the 
paper, made from ordinary blue (or other colored) 
powder which the chela has by him for the purpose, or is it made 
magically from pigments in the akasa? (4) Is the 
original precipitation sent to the addressee, or is a chela-prepared 
copy sent to him? It should be observed that, 
according to one statement, the paper is magically produced from the 
akasa, and the coloring for the writing is not; 
while from other accounts we learn that the materials for the writing 
are occultly fabricated from akasa, and the 
paper is not. In which of these lies the truth, or is neither true? 

A diligent search of theosophical literature reveals no trace of any 
information having been given to the world, or 
to Mr. Sinnett, by Koot Hoomi or any one else, that the assistance of 
a chela was required for the precipitation of 
mahatmic messages, until after Mr. Kiddle had publicly called 
attention to the plagiarism by Koot Hoomi from his 
lecture at Lake Pleasant. On page 144 of Mr. Sinnett's "Occult World" 
(2 Am. Ed.) Koot Hoomi, in a letter to Mr. 
Sinnett, informs that gentleman of three modes in which his letters 
to Mr. Sinnett are and will be written. They are 
these: (1) They are precipitated by himself, Koot Hoomi; (2) they are 
dictated to an amanuensis by whom they are 
written; and (3) they are written by himself, Koot Hoomi, in the 
ordinary manner. Nothing is said of their being 
precipitated through and by a chela. The reader will remember that 
Mr. Kiddle's lecture at Lake Pleasant was 
delivered August 15, 1880, and Koot Hoomi has told us ("Occult 
World," 2d Am. Ed. p. 212) that his letter to Mr. 
Sinnett, containing the alleged plagiarisms from Mr. Kiddle, was 
written "some two months" after Mr. Kiddle 
delivered his lecture; that is, in October or November, 1880. It 
could hardly have been in October; for we learn 
from Mr. Sinnett ("Occult World," p. 116-121) that the third letter 
received by him from Koot Hoomi (not counting 
small notes and brief communications) was sent to him after October 
27, 1880; and as the plagiarized letter was not 
one of the three which was first sent to Mr. S. by the mahatma (all 
three being published in the "Occult World"), it 
necessarily follows that the letter of Koot Hoomi containing the 
Kiddle parallels must have been written about 
November 1, 1880, or later. This letter is, therefore, perhaps, the 
fourth or fifth of the Koot Hoomi letters to Mr. 
Sinnett. It appears from the "Occult World," pp. 143, 144, that the 
letter of the mahatma, naming the three modes 
in which his letters to Mr. Sinnett were prepared, was the second one 
to Mr. Sinnett concerning the manner of 
production of these letters; and as it names three processes by which 
he has already written to Mr. Sinnett, it is 
very probable that quite a number of mahatmic letters had been sent 
to Mr. Sinnett before this second letter of 
explanation was written. At all events there can scarcely be a doubt 
that it was written after the so-called 
plagiarized letter, which latter, we have seen, was perhaps the 
fourth or fifth of the Koot Hoomi letters to Mr. 
Sinnett. We thus see that in a letter to Mr. Sinnett, written after 
the plagiarized letter had been sent to Mr. Sinnett, 
Koot Hoomi, in naming the modes by which his letter to Mr. Sinnett 
had been prepared, omits all reference to the 
process of precipitation by the aid of chelas. But now we are told 
that this Kiddle letter and others were and are 
precipitated by chelas; in fact, the explanations given of the 
precipitation process, since the plagiarism was 
discovered, imply that precipitation by chelas is the usual process, 
rather than precipitation by the "Master" 
direct. 

In the article on "Precipitation," published in The Theosophist for 
December, 1883, in which for the first time we 
have an explanation given us of the process of precipitation through 
chelas, the writer quotes from the two letters 
to Mr. Sinnett from Koot Hoomi published in the "Occult World," 
descriptive of precipitation, to which I have 
made reference above; and he then continues thus: "Since the above 
was written the Masters have been pleased 
to permit the veil to be drawn aside a little more, and the modus 
operandi can thus be explained now more fully to 
the outsider." This is equivalent to saying, that since the two 
letters were sent to Mr. Sinnett, in 1880 or 1881, 
about precipitation, nothing further had been given to Mr. Sinnett or 
the public, explanatory of the process of 
precipitation, until publication of the article in The Theosophist, 
December, 1883. That is, "the Masters" were not 
pleased to "permit the veil to be drawn aside," until the exposure of 
the Kiddle plagiarism compelled them to 
publish some other explanation of their mode of "precipitating" 
letters than that given in 1880-1881. The 
publication of Mr. Kiddle's letter in Light placed Koot Hoomi in a 
hobble, and some means must be devised to 
relieve the mahatma from the dreadful predicament of having 
plagiarized from a poor, despised Spiritualist 
lecturer. So the chela-theory of precipitation was given out to the 
world in successive modified, variable, and 
contradictory forms. The first introduction of the chela seems to 
have been made by Col. Olcott, who, in his letter 
to Light, written immediately after Mr. Kiddle's article in Light had 
reached India, stated that many of K.H.'s 
letters were written by Tibetan chelas as his secretaries, or 
even "precipitating" them in proper handwriting. This 
indicates that at the theosophical headquarters it was at once 
determined to make some real or supposed chela the 
scapegoat for Koot Hoomi's plagiarism. Exactly in what manner this 
should be done appears not to have been at 
that time decided upon, hence Col. Olcott's vague reference to chelas 
acting both as secretaries and as direct 
precipitators. A month or two afterward The Theosophist published an 
explanation of the whole process of 
precipitation through the mediumship of a chela; and subsequently 
other statements of this process were published, 
at variance more or less with previous affirmations. This constant 
variation or modification in statement is in 
accordance with the usual practice of Madame Blavatsky. From 1875 to 
the present time her statements of 
doctrines, of principles, and of facts, have been incessantly 
altered, modified, amended, and contradicted from time 
to time; in some instances four or five different theories of the 
same thing having been presented, all emanating 
from the omniscient, infallible mahatmas of Tibet. 

A peculiar fact about these mahatmic letters is this: They are 
written in good English as regards both language and 
chirography, and all the Koot Hoomi letters, so far as known, are, at 
the most, in two not greatly variant 
handwritings. Competent experts have declared that the great bulk of 
the Koot Hoomi writings are modifications of 
the ordinary handwriting of Madame Blavatsky, and that the few 
remaining ones are in a disguised form of the 
handwriting of her Hindu confederate, Mr. Damodar K. Mavalankar, --- 
modified so as to resemble the Blavatsky 
form of the Koot Hoomi writing. It is claimed that some of the Koot 
Hoomi letters are written by Tibetan chelas, 
acting as secretaries to the mahatma, and that others are copies of 
precipitated letters, written by chelas from the 
precipitated originals. In both of these cases, the letters should be 
in the handwritings of the chelas, not of the 
mahatma; yet every Koot Hoomi letter of which we have any knowledge 
is written in Koot Hoomi's own 
handwriting, so called. It is also a mystery how these young Tibetan 
chelas understand and write the English 
language, printed and written, so thoroughly. It is claimed that Koot 
Hoomi studied the English language while in 
Europe a number of years ago, --- hence his command of that tongue; 
but that Tibetan boys or youths should be as 
proficient in the use of English as their "Master," so much so that 
even their copies of the mahatma's letters are 
written in the exact handwriting of the "Master," is somewhat 
puzzling. 


Let us now consider the special explanations that have been given of 
the mode of production of the Koot Hoomi 
letter containing the plagiarism from Mr. Kiddle. Mr. Subba Row, the 
assistant editor of The Theosophist, in the 
Dec.-Jan. number, 1883-84, p. 87, informs us that the passage in the 
mahatma's letters parallel with that from Mr. 
Kiddle's lecture "was unconsciously altered through the carelessness 
and ignorance of the chela by whose 
instrumentality it was `precipitated.' Such alterations, omissions, 
and mistakes sometimes occur in the process of 
precipitation; and I now assert, I know it for certain from an 
inspection of the original precipitation proof, that 
such was the case with regard to the passage under discussion." In 
reply to this, it may be asserted that Mr. Row 
could not possibly know that which he says he "knows for certain." 
Granting that he saw the so-called 
"precipitation proof" (that is, one or more pieces of paper with 
writing on it or them, which paper contained the 
Koot Hoomi letter referred to, with additions, alterations, etc.) 
what proof had he that this writing was the original 
draft of the letter as precipitated by the Tibetan chela? Neither Mr. 
Row nor any one else has told us whence this 
so-called proof was derived. There is no evidence that any of the 
witnesses have seen either Koot Hoomi or the 
chela, the alleged authors of the writing. All that seems to have 
been done is that a certain asserted precipitation 
proof has been seen at the Theosophical headquarters at Madras, by a 
few persons. What proof is there that this 
writing was not prepared for the occasion by Madame Blavatsky, and 
submitted to Mr. Row and the others as the 
work of the far-away Tibetan chela? And had Mr. Row been informed, in 
person, by Koot Hoomi and the chela, 
that the writing shown him was the original precipitation proof, even 
then he could not have "known for certain" 
that such was the case. It is evident, therefore, that Mr. Row is a 
swift witness, readily testifying to his positive 
knowledge of that concerning which he really knows nothing. Scant 
reliance can be placed in the evidence from 
such a source. 

In the same number of The Theosophist (Supplement p. 30), General H. 
R. Morgan furnishes us a little more 
information concerning this "precipitation proof." 

"Would our great Master but permit us, his humble followers," 
remarks the General, "to photograph 
and publish in The Theosophist the scraps shown to us, scraps in 
which whole sentences, parenthetical, 
and quotation marks are defaced and obliterated, and 
consequently omitted in the clumsy transcription 
- the public would be treated to a rare sight, something 
entirely unknown to modern science - namely, 
an akasic impression as good as a photograph of mentally 
expressed thoughts dictated from a 
distance." 

It should be noted that both Mr. Row and General Morgan place the 
entire blame, for the incorrect and incomplete 
transcription of this mahatmic letter, upon the poor chela. Mr. Row 
says it was "unconsciously altered through the 
carelessness and ignorance of the chela," and the General says that 
much of it was omitted in the chela's "clumsy 
transcription." According to Mr. Row, during the process of 
precipitation the chela made mistakes, alterations, and 
omissions in the message received by impression from Koot Hoomi. One 
would suppose that the "precipitation," 
no matter whether agreeing exactly or not, with the message as 
dictated by the mahatma, would be a continuous, 
connected document, and that the parts omitted or altered would not 
appear in the precipitated proof. If they did 
appear in the precipitated document, then the mistakes were not made 
in the said document, but in the subsequent 
transcription by the chela. 

>From Mr. Row's account one would naturally infer that in receiving 
the impressions of his "Master" by mental 
telegraphy, the chela failed to catch at all some of the words and 
ideas, while in other cases he unconsciously 
altered them during the work of precipitation; and in that case, of 
course, the message as precipitated would be an 
exact copy of the imperfect impressions received by the chela, and 
necessarily would not contain the omitted 
passages or the correct version of the altered passages, - in other 
words, it would, chirographically considered, be a 
perfect document, although incomplete, imperfect, and partially 
erroneous in the words and ideas which it 
embodied. But we learn from General Morgan that it was something 
quite different. He calls it, as seen by him, a 
collection of "scraps, in which whole sentences, parenthetical, and 
quotation marks are defaced and obliterated." 
How did these defacements and obliterations occur? If the message was 
received correctly by the chela, with 
proper quotation marks, etc., why did the chela alter it, defacing 
and obliterating it in a number of places? How 
could the chela "unconsciously" alter it, as alleged by Mr. Row? The 
alteration occurred, according to Mr. Row, 
during its precipitation by the chela. How, then, did so many words 
and sentences, quotation marks, etc., become 
defaced and obliterated in the precipitated copy? How was it that 
every quotation mark in that part of the 
mahatma's letter published in Mr. Sinnett's book that corresponds to 
the passages in Mr. Kiddle's lecture, as 
published by him in Light, has been omitted, if there were, as 
alleged, a number of them in the original precipitation 
(now all defaced), while in the other part of the mahatma's letter, 
as published in the Occult World, preceding the 
passages parallel with those in Mr. Kiddle's lecture, there are 
several quotation marks not defaced? How was it 
that the chela failed to deface or obliterate the unimportant 
quotation marks in one part of the mahatma's letter, 
while in the other part, where they were specially important, they 
were every one obliterated? 

There is a common-sense view of the so-called precipitated proof that 
was shown to Mr. Row and General 
Morgan, which is this: Neither Koot Hoomi nor the chela has been 
produced, in propria persona, to testify 
concerning this letter. Nothing has been published purporting to come 
from the chela; and as for Koot Hoomi, 
instead of publicly showing himself and presenting tangible proofs of 
his innocence of plagiarism, he has, as 
heretofore, kept himself in seclusion; and all that he has done in 
explanation of Mr. Kiddle's statements, is to send 
Mr. Sinnett a letter, - another precipitated one, it is presumed, - 
which letter will be duly considered anon. There is 
no proof that this letter was really written by the alleged Koot 
Hoomi, or that either the mahatma or the chela had 
aught to do with the precipitation proof that was seen by Messrs. 
Morgan and Row. To seemingly vindicate Koot 
Hoomi, it was necessary to show that parts of his letter to Mr. 
Sinnett had been omitted, other parts altered, etc.; 
and in order that this might be done, the intermediation of a third 
party became requisite. So a Tibetan chela, till 
then unheard of, was materialized, and he became the scapegoat for 
Koot Hoomi's literary malfeasance; and there 
was published - after the Kiddle matter was made public - detailed 
explanations of the process of precipitation 
through the medium of a chela, - a process till then also unheard of 
by the outside world. Next, there was 
manufactured, by the same person who originally wrote the Koot Hoomi 
letter, a so-called precipitation proof of 
that letter, in which various words, sentences, quotation marks, 
etc., were defaced, scratched out, obliterated; and 
this was brought forward in proof that mistakes had been made by the 
chela in his precipitation and transcription of 
the letter for Mr. Sinnett. But, as we have seen, instead of being 
evidence of the chela's blunders, it is a proof that 
the alleged precipitation proof is bogus, - was prepared for the 
purpose, to induce unthinking people to believe that 
there were gaps and errors in the copy of the letter as sent to Mr. 
Sinnett. If this was a genuine precipitation, 
according to the process described, there would be no erasures, 
defacements, etc.; the document would be a 
continuous, harmonious whole, just as the letter was which Mr. 
Sinnett received and published. The presence of 
defaced and erased passages in it demonstrates it to be a spurious 
production, fabricated to bolster up the 
allegation of omission and alteration by the suppositious chela. 

It may also be pertinently inquired, what is the necessity for a 
chela in the process of precipitation by a mahatma? 
There are various instances published of the mahatmas having 
themselves, as alleged, produced precipitated 
writings in a direct manner; and in the case of a chela being used, 
it is evidently not the power of the chela himself 
that works the marvel, - it is the mahatmic power manifested through 
the chela. It would seem much simpler and 
easier for the mahatma to make the precipitation himself, than to 
indulge in the cumbersome and complicated mode 
of so-doing through the aid of a chela. But as it was impossible to 
apparently vindicate the mahatma in the Kiddle 
case, without having the work done through a chela, the fanciful and 
irrational method of chela precipitation was 
invented by the ingenious writer of the so-called Koot Hoomi letters, 
to cover up the mahatma's plagiarism. 



The fourth English edition of "The Occult World," and the second 
American edition, published in 1885, contain in 
the Appendix (pages 208-217) a long explanation by Mr. Sinnett of the 
Kiddle incident; and in it is found Koot 
Hoomi's official account of the matter. Here is what Koot Hoomi says: 

"The letter in question," writes the Mahatma, referring to the 
communication Mr. Sinnett originally 
received, "was framed by me while on a journey and on horseback. 
It was dictated mentally in the 
direction of and precipitated by a young chela not yet expert at 
this branch of psychic chemistry, and 
who had to transcribe it from the hardly visible imprint. Half 
of it, therefore, was omitted, and the other 
half more or less distorted by the `artist.' When asked by him 
at the time whether I would look over 
and correct it, I answered - imprudently, I confess - `Anyhow 
will do, my boy; it is of no great 
importance if you skip a few words.' I was physically very tired 
by a ride of forty-eight hours 
consecutively, and (physically again) half asleep. Besides this, 
I had very important business to attend 
to psychically, and therefore little remained of me to devote to 
that letter. When I awoke I found it had 
already been sent on, and as I was not then anticipating its 
publication, I never gave it from that time a 
thought. Now I had never evoked spiritual Mr. Kiddle's 
physiognomy, never had heard of his 
existence, was not aware of his name. Having, owing to our 
correspondence, and your Simla 
surroundings and friends, felt interested in the intellectual 
progress of the Phenomenalists, I had 
directed my attention, some two months previous, to the great 
annual camping movement of the 
American Spiritualists, in various directions, among others to 
Lake or Mount Pleasant. Some of the 
curious ideas and sentences representing the general hopes and 
aspirations of the American 
Spiritualists remained impressed on my memory, and I remembered 
only these ideas and detached 
sentences quite apart from the personalities of those who 
harbored or pronounced them. Hence my 
entire ignorance of the lecturer whom I have innocently 
defrauded, as it would appear, and who raises 
the hue and cry. Yet had I dictated my letter in the form it now 
appears in print, it certainly would look 
suspicious, and however far from what is generally called 
plagiarism, yet in the absence of any inverted 
commas it would lay a foundation for censure. But I did nothing 
of the kind, as the original impression 
now before me clearly shows." 

"In a case such as mine the chela had, as it were, to pick up 
what he could from the current I was 
sending him, and patch the broken bits together as best he 
might. Do not you see the same thing in 
ordinary mesmerism - the maya impressed upon the subject's 
imagination by the operator becoming 
now stronger, now feebler, as the latter keeps the intended 
illusive image more or less steadily before 
his own fancy. And how often the clairvoyants reproach the 
magnetizer for taking their thoughts off the 
subject under consideration. And the mesmeric healer will always 
bear you witness that if he permits 
himself to think of anything but the vital current he is pouring 
into his patient, he is at once compelled 
to either establish the current afresh or stop the treatment. So 
I, in this instance, having at the moment 
more vividly in my mind the psychic diagnosis of current 
Spiritualistic thought, of which the Lake 
Pleasant epoch was one marked symptom, unwittingly transferred 
that reminiscence more vividly than 
my own remarks upon it and deductions therefrom. So to say, 
the `despoiled victim's' - Mr. Kiddle's - 
utterances came out as a high light, and were more sharply 
photographed (first, in the chela's brain, 
and thence on the paper before him, a double process, and one 
far more difficult than thought reading 
simply), while the rest, my remarks thereupon and arguments - as 
I now find, are hardly visible and 
quite blurred on the original scraps before me. . . If the 
mental picture received [by the chela] be 
feeble, his visible reproduction of it must correspond." 

"Well, as soon as I heard of the change, the commotion among my 
friends having reached me across 
the eternal snows, I ordered an investigation into the original 
scraps of the impression. At the first 
glance I saw that it was I the only and most guilty party, (sic) 
the poor boy having done but that which 
he was told. Having now restored the characters and the lines 
omitted and blurred beyond hope of 
recognition by any one but their original evolver, to their 
primitive color and places, I now find my 
letter reading quite differently, as you will observe. Turning 
to the `Occult World,' the copy sent by 
you, to the page cited, I was struck, upon carefully reading it, 
by the great discrepancy between the 
sentences, a gap, so to say, of ideas between part 1 and part 2, 
the plagiarized portion so-called. There 
seems no connection at all between the two; for what has indeed 
the determination of our chiefs (to 
prove to a skeptical world that physical phenomena are as 
reducible to law as anything else) to do with 
Plato's ideas which `rule the world,' or `Practical Brotherhood 
of Humanity.' I fear that it is your 
personal friendship alone for the writer that has blinded you to 
the discrepancy and disconnection of 
ideas in this abortive precipitation even until now. Otherwise 
you could not have failed to perceive that 
something was wrong on that page, that there was a glaring 
defect in the connection. Moreover, I have 
to plead guilty to another sin: I have never so much as looked 
at my letters in print, until the day of the 
forced investigation. I had read only your own original matter, 
feeling it a loss of time to go over my 
hurried bits and scraps of thought." 

"The sentences transcribed by the chela are mostly those which 
are now considered as plagiarized, 
while the missing links are precisely those phrases that would 
have shown the passages were simply 
reminiscences, if not quotations, the key-note around which came 
grouping my own reflections on that 
morning. For the first time in my life I had paid a serious 
attention to the utterances of the poetical 
`media' of the so-called `inspirational' oratory of the English-
American lecturers, its quality and 
limitations. I was struck with all this brilliant but empty 
verbiage, and recognized for the first time fully 
its pernicious intellectual tendency. It was their gross and 
unsavory materialism, hiding clumsily under 
its shadowy spiritual veil, that attracted my thoughts at the 
time. While dictating the sentences quoted - 
a small portion of the many I had been pondering over for some 
days - it was those ideas that were 
thrown out en relief the most, leaving out my own parenthetical 
remarks to disappear in the 
precipitation." 

The following are - so Koot Hoomi says - the passages in this famous 
letter as they were originally dictated by him 
to the chela. The omitted passages are placed between single 
quotations marks. I invite the reader to observe the 
great difference between the original letter as published and this 
amended letter, with its large numbers of 
additional sentences, words, etc. 

" . . . Phenomenal elements previously unthought of . . . will 
disclose at last the secrets of their 
mysterious workings. Plato was right `to readmit every element 
of speculation which Socrates had 
discarded. The problems of universal being are not unattainable, 
or worthless if attained. But the latter 
can be solved only by mastering those elements that are now 
looming on the horizons of the profane. 
Even the Spiritualists, with their mistaken, grotesquely 
perverted views and notions, are hazily 
realizing the new situation. They prophesy - and their 
prophecies are not always without a point of truth 
in them - of intuitional prevision, so to say. Hear some of them 
reasserting the old, old axiom that' 
"ideas rule the world," and as men's minds receive new ideas, 
laying aside the old and effete, the 
world `will' advance, mighty revolutions `will' spring from 
them; `institutions, aye, and even' creeds 
and powers, `they may add,' will crumble before their onward 
march, crushed by their own `inherent 
force,' `not the' irresistible force of the "new ideas" 
offered `by the Spiritualists, Yes, they are both 
right and wrong. It will be just as impossible to resist their 
influence when the time comes as to stay the 
progress of the tide - `to be sure. But what the Spiritualists 
fail to perceive I see, and their spirits to 
explain (the latter knowing no more than what they can find in 
the brains of the former) is that all this' 
will come gradually on, and `that' before it comes `they, as 
well as ourselves,' have all a duty `to 
perform, a task' set before us - that of sweeping away as much 
as possible the dross left to us by our 
pious forefathers. New ideas have to be planted on clean places, 
for those ideas touch upon the most 
momentous subjects. It is not physical phenomena, `or the agency 
called Spiritualism,' but these 
universal ideas that we `have precisely to' study; `the noumenon 
not the phenomenon;' for to 
comprehend the `latter' we have first to understand 
the `former.' They `do' touch man's true position 
in the universe, to be sure, `but only' in relation to 
his `future' not `previous' births. It is `not physical 
phenomena however wonderful, that can ever explain to man' his 
origin, `let alone' his ultimate 
destiny, `or as one of them expresses it,' the relation of the 
mortal to the immortal, of the temporary to 
the eternal, of the finite to the infinite, &c. `They talk very 
glibly of what they regard as new ideas,' 
"larger, more general, grander, more comprehensive," and at the 
same time they recognize instead of 
the eternal reign of immutable law, `the universal reign of law 
as the expression of a Divine will. 
Forgetful of their earlier beliefs, and that it "repented the 
Lord that he had made man," these 
would-be philosophers and reformers would impress upon their 
hearers that the expression of the said 
Divine will "is unchanging and unchangeable,' in regard to which 
there is only an Eternal Now, while to 
mortals [uninitiated?] time is past or future as related to 
their finite existence on this material `plane," 
- `of which they know as little as of their spiritual spheres' - 
a speck of dirt `they have made the latter, 
like our own earth, a future life that the true philosopher 
would rather avoid than court. But I dream 
with my eyes open. . . At all events, this is not any privileged 
teaching of their own. Most of these ideas 
are taken piecemeal from Plato and the Alexandrian 
philosophers.' It is what we `all' study, and what 
many have solved, etc., etc." 

In reply to this peculiar and labored explanation of the alleged 
mahatma, I would ask my every intelligent reader, if 
it is not extremely improbable - not to say, well-nigh impossible - 
that, in precipitating this letter to Mr. Sinnett, the 
poor chela should have made all the multitudinous omissions specified 
above between single quotation marks and 
exactly in the manner stated? Let any one compare this purported 
original letter with the actual letter received by 
Mr. Sinnett, as published by me in the Dove for May, 1890, and note 
the special character of the words, clauses, 
and sentences said to have been omitted by the chela in 
transcription. Every word in any manner indicating that the 
writer was quoting from or criticising the writing of another (Mr. 
Kiddle) is missing from the letter as received by 
Mr. Sinnett; and these omissions, in the shape sometimes of one word, 
two words, or a few words, sometimes of 
parts of sentences of four or five lines, and sometimes of whole 
sentences, happen to be just those which, if they, or 
any part of them, had been in the letter as received, would have 
relieved Koot Hoomi of the charge of plagiarism. 
There are twenty-eight different places in this short letter in which 
omissions are said to have occurred during 
precipitation and transcription, - a remarkable circumstance; and of 
the entire twenty-eight passages (all having 
reference more or less to the alleged quotations from and comments 
upon Mr. Kiddle's remarks), not one of them 
did the unlucky chela contrive to catch upon his precipitation proof, 
unfortunately for the mahatma. We are told by 
Koot Hoomi that his mind being so much the more surcharged with Mr. 
Kiddle's remarks than with his comments 
thereon, the former came out distinctly during the precipitation, 
while the latter were blurred and illegible. If this 
was the case, it is a little strange that, in the letter as received 
by Mr. Sinnett, there are interpolated between 
portions of the remarks taken from Mr. Kiddle's speech, two complete 
sentences, of over fifty continuous words, 
entirely distinct from the matter borrowed from Mr. Kiddle, but in 
these two new sentences, not derived from Mr. 
Kiddle, there is no allusion to the fact that the writer is, in the 
letter he is writing, quoting from or replying to the 
remarks of another. Koot Hoomi was not so tired and sleepy, but that 
he was able to precipitate clearly, (in the 
middle of the remarks taken from Mr. Kiddle's speech) over fifty 
continuous words, not taken from Mr. remarks; 
but he was not able to precipitate even one word, though he attempted 
to do so a number of times, that would 
indicate that he was quoting from and referring to the remarks of a 
Spiritualist lecturer. This would be truly a most 
remarkable fact, were it a fact. 

In the letter as received by Mr. Sinnett, there is not a word 
referring to Modern Spiritualism and its phenomena 
and philosophy; but instead, all the language of Mr. Kiddle's letter, 
which referred exclusively to Spiritualism, has 
been slightly modified so as to make the whole of it refer to 
occultism and theosophy, in place of Spiritualism; that 
is, Koot Hoomi (?) borrowed Mr. Kiddle's language in toto; and, by a 
few changes in phraseology here and there, 
made it applicable to theosophical phenomena and teachings. But, in 
the amended and expanded letter, which is 
claimed to be the original one, before it was mangled by the chela, 
the purport of the communication is something 
quite different. Instead of being devoted to theosophy and its 
teachings, it consists of quotations from "the 
Spiritualists," and a refutation of their doctrines. One copy of the 
letter is devoted to theosophy, with no allusion to 
Spiritualism, while the other copy treats exclusively of Spiritualism 
and its defects. Again I ask, if it is not almost 
an impossibility for such a variety of omissions to have been made 
during precipitation, and the whole of the 
twenty-eight omissions be just such as were required to change the 
entire subject of the communication? These 
twenty-eight omissions compass two distinct things - (1) they change 
the subject of the remarks from Spiritualism 
to theosophy, and (2) they change the character of the remarks, from 
that of quotations from and comments upon 
the language and ideas of another (Mr. Kiddle), into that of a 
strictly original communication. That the chela should 
make just such changes, large and small, in the communication he 
received from Koot Hoomi, as were required to 
transform an original into an apparently plagiarized production is, 
of itself, almost an impossibility, but that, at the 
same time, with these same changes, large and small, he should alter 
the entire subject of the writing, is wholly 
incredible. Such a duplex transmogrification, simultaneously made, 
through the agency of the same verbal 
omissions, unknowingly and accidentally, may be deemed a greater 
marvel than any of the other alleged mahatmic 
wonders ascribed to the thaumaturgic powers of the Tibetan Brothers, 
one and all. 


Koot Hoomi tells us that he dictated the so-called Kiddle letter on 
horseback and half asleep, after "a ride of 
forty-eight hours consecutively (sic)." The natural query arises, Why 
did not the mahatma wait until he was in good 
physical condition before dictating this letter? There was nothing in 
it requiring such pressing attention, that it 
could not be postponed for a few hours. He says that he had been 
thinking over its subject-matter for "some 
days;" and recognizing the "pernicious intellectual tendency" of the 
utterances of Spiritualistic lecturers, he 
dictated this letter in exposition and criticism of said 
Spiritualistic productions; that is, this letter is the result of 
several days' excogitation upon the evils of Spiritualism. Yet, 
marvelous to relate, the letter, as received by the 
chela, did not pertain to Spiritualism in any manner whatever. We are 
told that the mahatmas possess the wisdom 
of the gods and powers transcending those of the ablest and wisest of 
the inhabitants of earth who are not 
mahatmic in attainment. Nevertheless, the wise and gifted Koot Hoomi 
was so deficient in judgment, foresight, and 
actual power, that in the attempt to dictate a letter, treating upon 
a subject regarded as of much importance, which 
he had been "days" in preparing, he made an inglorious and disastrous 
failure; he bungled matters so badly that 
the letter as received from him did not contain a word relative to 
the important subject concerning which it was 
written, but treated upon a different matter. In addition, his 
extraordinary and mahatmic bungling caused the 
disappearance from his letter of every word indicating that he was 
using another man's language, and left it in such 
a condition that it reads throughout as an original production of the 
writer himself, - in other words, he mismanaged 
matters so thoroughly and uniquely, as only a mahatma could do, that 
he furnished the world the most conclusive 
evidence that he was a plagiarist; and a plagiarist too from those 
whom he affected to despise, - the Spiritualist, 
lecturers, whose utterances are full of a "pernicious intellectual 
tendency" and of "gross and unsavory 
materialism." 

Moreover, he performed the remarkable feat of causing the remarks 
quoted by him, which he regarded as having a 
"pernicious intellectual tendency," and which he criticised so 
sharply, as alleged, in the letter as originally dictated 
by him, - he performed the unrivaled mahatmic feat of causing 
these "pernicious" remarks to be received as his 
own mahatmic wisdom-of-the-gods utterances; and, more than that, led 
them to be published as his own in a 
widely-circulated volume; and more wonderful, if possible, than all 
the rest, he never discovered that all these 
strange metamorphoses had taken place in his letter, as published in 
Mr. Sinnett's Occult World, until the 
publication of Mr. Kiddle's letter calling attention to the 
parallelism between it and his lecture at Lake Pleasant. 
We are often told of the extraordinary knowledge and remarkable 
powers possessed by the mahatmas, and after 
this we may readily credit the facility with which they can 
accomplish the most unexampled performances; for in all 
the history of ordinary mankind, I am confident that nowhere can be 
found the record of aught having ever been 
done, by anyone, that is comparable to the five wondrous exhibitions 
of wisdom and power that I have enumerated 
above in connection with the dictation of this famous letter. None 
but an extraordinary person, of unique mental 
development, could possibly have been guilty of such mahatmic 
botchwork, miscalculation, fatuity, and lack of 
sagacity. 

The mahatmas are said to be informed concerning the secrets of the 
universe, - they know all about God and 
creation, the past and the future of our earth, in all their details; 
and we are informed in the Occult World (p. 15) 
that "the clairvoyant faculties of the adept are so perfect and 
complete that they amount to a species of 
omniscience as regards mundane affairs." Where was the "omniscience" 
displayed in this Kiddle matter? Koot 
Hoomi, according to his explanation, did not know, at the time he 
dictated the letter, that if sent in his then 
exhausted condition, it would be impossible for the chela to properly 
precipitate and transcribe it. He did not 
intellectually perceive the necessity for delay on his part in the 
dictation thereof. He did not know the state in 
which his letter would be received by the chela, marred and blurred 
beyond hope of restoration by any one but the 
dictator himself. He did not know that just those words, clauses, and 
sentences would be omitted - in twenty-eight 
different places - that were required to convert a letter against 
Spiritualism into one in which Spiritualism is never 
mentioned. He did not know that precisely such omissions - just 
twenty-eight in all - would be made, as would cut 
out of his letter every allusion to the fact that quotation was being 
made from another writer or speaker and that he 
was criticising the said other writer. He did not know that the 
omissions that would be made from his letter would 
necessarily cause it to be regarded as an entirely original 
composition of his own, although as received it would 
consist entirely of the language and ideas of Mr. Kiddle, modified so 
as to be applicable to theosophy, instead of to 
Spiritualism. He did not know that by his bungling he would cause 
innocent Mr. Kiddle to be insulted, abused, 
sneered at, and unjustly charged with plagiarism from Plato and from 
himself (Koot Hoomi), by the leading 
theosophists of the world. He did not know that Mr. Sinnett would 
publish his letter to the world, and as a 
consequence the seeming plagiarism would be proclaimed far and wide. 
He did not see the hobble in which he 
placed himself in this matter, - a hobble from which it is impossible 
for him to be extricated. He did not know that 
he would be considered guilty of plagiarism, not only by unbelievers 
generally, but by theosophists as well. He did 
not know that he was furnishing to the opponents of theosophy one of 
the most potent weapons against its claims 
that has ever been brought to bear upon it and them. He did not know 
of the great injury which would result to the 
Theosophical Society through his dictation of that letter, causing 
the resignation of important members and a 
weakening of its hold and influence upon others. He did not know that 
he would be compelled, in self-defense, to 
prepare and publish what sensible people must regard as a weak and 
self-evidently absurd explanation of the 
alleged plagiarism, - that which Mr. Sinnett has given from him in 
the appendix of the fourth edition of the Occult 
World. He did not know that in this matter he was furnishing the 
strongest and most positive evidence yet obtained 
of his own non-existence, - the most convincing proof that the 
letters claiming to emanate from him are written in 
his name by another person, and of the identity of which person there 
is no reasonable doubt. And this, this is 
mahatmic "omniscience"! 

Yet other examples of the Brother's ignorance are given us in his 
explanation. First, he states that when he 
attended the Lake Pleasant Camp-meeting (in his astral body, I 
presume) he for the first time paid serious 
attention to the utterances of the "poetical `media' of the 
inspirational oratory of the English-American lecturer" 
(sic). That is very strange. For five years previous to that time 
(1880) his "initiate" Madame Blavatsky, the 
mouthpiece of his ideas, had been animadverting upon the dangers of 
Spiritualism and its phenomena, and the 
unsoundness of the teachings of its lecturers, poetical, 
inspirational ,etc. "Isis Unveiled," published in 1877, we are 
told, is virtually the work of Koot Hoomi, and in it Spiritualism and 
its phenomena and philosophy are largely 
treated. Notwithstanding, Koot Hoomi had no practical acquaintance 
with or knowledge of the true character of 
Spiritualistic oratory and teachings until he attended the Lake 
Pleasant and other camps in 1880. Next, Koot 
Hoomi claims Mr. Kiddle as a "poetic," "inspirational" orator, 
whereas Mr. Kiddle is a non-poetic, normal 
speaker, making no claim whatever to mediumship or "inspirational" 
gifts. We are also informed by the mahatma 
that when he wrote the Kiddle letter, he had never heard of the 
existence of Mr. Kiddle. This is decidedly 
mahatmic. Koot Hoomi had visited Lake Pleasant and heard Mr. Kiddle 
deliver an address; he had paid so much 
attention to this address, that two months after he was able to write 
long extracts from it verbatim; and yet he had 
never heard of the existence even of Mr. Kiddle!! Neither was he 
aware of the name of Mr. Kiddle. 

This is strange for an "omniscient" adept. The name of Mr. Kiddle had 
been prominent in Spiritualism for a year 
or more previous to this time, - the facts of his conversion, and of 
the publication of his work on Spiritualism, 
having spread his name far and wide. The Theosophists in India seem 
to have been informed concerning him, as 
appears from their published comments upon Mr. Kiddle's letter to the 
editor of Light; and yet the fact of the 
existence of such a person, we are asked to believe, had never 
reached the all-knowing Koot Hoomi. And more 
than this, although, as he tells us, Koot Hoomi visited in 1880, 
astrally, clairvoyantly, or otherwise, various spiritual 
camp-meetings besides the one at Lake Pleasant, and therefore must 
have heard many other lectures, including 
those that were really delivered by "poetic," or "inspirational" 
lecturers, the only words he could remember of all 
this mass of oratory, after several days thought thereupon, and when 
he desired to comment upon the "pernicious 
intellectual tendency" and "the gross and unsavory materialism" of 
this oratory, were the few sentences which he 
copied verbatim from Mr. Kiddle's published non-inspirational speech. 
In other words, to demonstrate the 
"pernicious tendency" of "inspirational" oratory he selected 
sentences from a non-inspirational discourse 
prepared in Mr. Kiddle's study; and read or delivered from 
manuscript. It would be difficult to point out the 
"pernicious intellectual tendency" of the paragraphs from Mr. 
Kiddle's lecture utilized by Koot Hoomi. They 
consist of truisms and general statements wholly devoid of anything 
pernicious, intellectually or otherwise, even 
from the standpoint of theosophy. 

"As to `gross and unsavory materialism' [says Mr. Kiddle, in a 
letter in Light, Sept. 20, 1884], it is a 
false charge, as any reader of the discourse must acknowledge, 
though the perversions of its language 
by this alleged Mahatma are, in some particulars, manifestly 
both `unsavory' and materialistic. No 
exalted mind could bring so false an accusation against the 
teachings of that discourse, and I challenge 
him to point out a single passage that has even a materialistic 
tendency. Mere phenomenalism is 
pointedly condemned in it, more strongly, indeed, than in the 
interlined sentences of the `explanation.' 
But I would ask what has Occultism to boast of as its foundation 
but materialistic wonder-working, 
so-called miracles, physical feats, conjuration, or magic?" 

In the same letter Mr. Kiddle points out the mahatma's blunder, in 
classing his address - which was not 
"inspirational," but written in New York - among "the utterances of 
the poetical media." It is seen that, in order to 
demonstrate the pernicious, materialistic tendency of inspirational 
teachings, the all-wise Koot Hoomi quotes and 
criticises passages from a non-inspirational speech, containing 
nothing whatever having a pernicious or 
materialistic tendency. Still further, although Koot Hoomi had 
visited Lake Pleasant and heard Mr. Kiddle lecture, 
and although the name of the camp had been specifically stated in Mr. 
Kiddle's letter and other documents 
published before Koot Hoomi's explanation was written, and despite 
the fact that for many years previous the 
Lake Pleasant camp-meeting had been perhaps the most widely noted of 
all Spiritualistic convocations in the world, 
still this omniscient adept did not know whether the camp was called 
Lake Pleasant or Mount Pleasant! We thus 
have the spectacle of an all-knowing mahatma, the depository of the 
wisdom of the universe and of the immortal 
gods, in attendance upon a camp the name of which he does not know, 
hearing a lecture delivered by a man of 
whose existence he is not aware and whose name he does not know (did 
not the chairman announce it?), the name 
of the address heard by him whether inspirational or not he does not 
know (mistaking normal oratory for 
inspirational), and the tendency of the ideas in the discourse he 
does not know (thinking them pernicious and 
materialistic, when they are not). And this, this is again mahatmic 
omniscience. Verily, instead of his "clairvoyant 
faculties" being "so perfect and complete that they amount to a 
species of omniscience as regards mundane 
affairs," it would more closely approximate the truth if we 
denominated Koot Hoomi the great Tibetan 
Know-Nothing! 

The mahatma asserts that his letter was dictated from memory of the 
passages which he had heard at Lake 
Pleasant two months before. In disproof of this, the following two 
points, among others, may be stated. First, the 
mahatmic letter containing selections from Mr. Kiddle's lecture was 
not written until a short time after the arrival 
by mail in India of the Banner of Light containing in print the 
address of Mr. Kiddle. Koot Hoomi speaks of the 
address being delivered two months before the letter was written. Why 
did the adept wait all that time before 
writing his comments upon it? If he had written that letter before it 
was possible for a printed copy of the lecture to 
have reached India, we should then have had indisputable evidence 
(aside from the possibility of the passages 
having been telegraphed to India) of the possession of abnormal power 
by the writer or inspirer of the letter, be it 
Koot Hoomi or another. Here was an excellent opportunity for the 
adept to prove the reality of his claim to 
clairvoyant power, but he does not seem to have had sufficient sense 
or forethought to avail himself of it; and he 
quite foolishly waits until printed copies of the lecture have 
reached India before he attempts to reply to it, and 
when he does try to comment upon it, what a sorry mess he makes of 
it. Next, in Mr. Kiddle's address as it 
appeared in the Banner of Light the words "eternal now" were printed 
thus: Eternal Now, - with a capital E and N, 
and in italics. In the mahatma's letter, as published in Mr. 
Sinnett's Occult World, they are printed thus: Eternal 
Now, with capital E and N, the rest in small capitals. Can there be a 
doubt that in the adept's letter these words 
were copied from the printed report of Mr. Kiddle's address? If Koot 
Hoomi wrote these two words from the 
memory of having heard them delivered two months before, is it 
conceivable that he would have emphasized them 
in writing after the manner Mr. Kiddle had done in the manuscript and 
printed form of his speech? One was 
undoubtedly copied from the printed edition of the other. It is 
evident, therefore, that the statement of the mahatma 
that his knowledge of Mr. Kiddle's remarks was derived from memory is 
false, - as false as is the whole of his 
clumsy, involved attempt to clear himself of this plagiarism. 


My readers will remember that became the mahatmic letter said, "Plato 
was right. Ideas rule the world," and Mr. 
Kiddle's lecture omits reference to Plato, he was charged by various 
theosophists with having plagiarized from 
Plato. If we examine the amended letter of Koot Hoomi, the form in 
which he claims he intended it to have been 
precipitated and sent to Mr. Sinnett, we discover some important 
facts. First, that the remark "Plato was right," in 
this letter, is separated from the remark, "Ideas rule the world," by 
five complete sentences, and that no 
connection whatever exists between them. Then we see that the 
remark, "Ideas rule the world," is duly credited, in 
quotation marks, to a Spiritualist; that is, to Mr. Kiddle. It is 
thus perceived that their "Master," Koot Hoomi, 
fully vindicates Mr. Kiddle from the aspersions of plagiarism from 
Plato which were freely showered upon him by 
the credulous partisan, reckless, and indiscriminately unjust 
followers of the so-called mahatma. Although they 
were thus shown by their "Master" to be in error, and that they had 
shamefully attacked an innocent man, not one 
of them has, so far as I can discover, ever expressed the least 
regret for his or her injustice to Mr. Kiddle, or 
offered an apology to that much-injured gentleman for their sneers 
and insults. But then, of course, no one 
expected that any of these persons would have the manliness or the 
womanliness to do the right thing in this 
matter. As it is, ever since the publication of Koot Hoomi's 
explanation, all of them have been "dumb as oysters" 
on the Kiddle incident. Not a word have they dared to publish on the 
subject since that time, so far as I can learn. 

As we have seen, in the amended or in the purported original form of 
the mahatmic letter, the remark, "Plato was 
right," is completely dissociated from the other remark, "Ideas rule 
the world;" while in the letter as originally 
received and published by Mr. Sinnett, these two sentences follow 
each other, and are in close connection. To my 
mind the separation of the two sentences in the amended letter is a 
strong proof of the bogus character of said 
letter, and that the letter as first published by Mr. Sinnett was the 
genuine one just as it was written by the 
purported adept. It is well know that Plato's writings teem with 
remarks upon the importance and dominance of 
"ideas." The "ideas" of Plato are a commonplace in the world's 
philosophy, and it was quite natural for the writer 
of the mahatmic letter to interpolate in the passage copied from Mr. 
Kiddle's speech, "Plato was right," although 
Plato had never used the words, "Ideas rule the world." But when we 
find, in the amended letter, that "Plato was 
right" refers to the difference between his philosophy and that of 
Socrates and that five sentences, of ninety-one 
words, intervene between "Plato was right" and "Ideas rule the 
world," all of which were omitted by the chela in 
the precipitation and transcription, we feel confident that these 
ninety-one words formed no part of the letter as 
originally written, but have been deliberately manufactured since, in 
the unskillful attempt, made in the name of 
Koot Hoomi, to relieve him of the alleged plagiarism. That the first 
omission in or blurring of the dictated letter 
should consist of five sentences and ninety-one words, while the 
second omission is one word, the third also one 
word, and soon, is beyond my power of credence, - however much 
gullible theosophists may be disposed to accept 
it, and anything else that purports to come from their "Masters" of 
Tibet. 

Comparing closely the original letter received by Mr. Sinnett from 
the mahatma with the so-called correct or 
amended letter, which Koot Hoomi claims was the form in which he 
really dictated it to the chela, some strange 
facts present themselves. In the latter, as published in the "Occult 
World" appendix, the words and sentences said 
to have been omitted by the chela in precipitation are printed in 
italics. In the first place we find that these italicized 
words and sentences are in various instances erroneous. The adept has 
placed in italics a number of words which 
were not omitted in the original chela-prepared letter, and he has 
failed to place in italics, but left in roman letters, 
various other words that were omitted in the chela-letter, but which 
appear in his restored or amended version, - 
being errors both of commission and omission. More examples of the 
mahatma's "omniscience!" The all-knowing 
adept, having copies of the two forms of the letter before him, was 
yet unable to see which of the words in the 
longer or so-called correct version were absent from the shorter 
form. His vision was so defective, that he 
supposed certain words not in the shorter letter were in it, and that 
certain words that were in it were really not in 
it. Again am I tempted to designate Koot Hoomi as the great Tibetan 
Know-Nothing! As examples of these two 
forms of error made by the all-wise mahatma, the following is in 
point! In the longer version, we read, "the world 
will advance, mighty revolutions will spring," although the 
word "will" in each case appears in the shorter version, 
and therefore ought not to be in italics. Again, the longer version 
says, "all this will come gradually on," despite 
the fact that "all this" is in the shorter form just as it is in the 
longer, and so should not be italicized. On the other 
hand, in the longer letter we read, "irresistible force of the new 
ideas," where the words, "of the new ideas," which 
are not in the shorter letter, are printed in roman when they ought 
to be in italics. The same error is made where, in 
the longer version, it reads, "in the universe, to be sure," the 
words "to be sure" being in roman instead of in 
italics; also, where we read, "larger, more general," the words "more 
general" should be italicized instead of being 
in roman. These are not all of the errors of these two classes that 
are found in the amended letter, these few are 
given as samples only. The best friends of Madame Blavatsky testify 
to her great, exceptional inaccuracy of 
expression, while the suppositions mahatmas are said to be omniscient 
in mundane matters. Which of the two, then, 
is most likely to have written this alleged explanation of Koot 
Hoomi, - the all-knowing adept or the 
notoriously-inaccurate Madame? 

The next peculiar circumstance in this matter is this: Comparing Mr. 
Kiddle's speech with the shorter letter, we 
see that certain phrases, clauses, and words of Mr. Kiddle's address 
are not in the said letter. But, strange to say, 
they are in the longer letter. Koot Hoomi has told that in the 
passages from Mr. Kiddle's speech, being the more 
vividly impressed upon his mind, were the parts of his dictated 
letter that were caught and correctly precipitated by 
the chela, while his original language, in the dictation, was feebly 
impressed upon the chela and became blurred in 
the precipitation. Yet here we have the converse of this. In the 
shorter letter, as originally precipitated by the 
chela, there are two complete sentences, of fifty-three words, 
entirely original with the mahatma, sandwiched in 
between parts of the matter taken from Mr. Kiddle's address, while 
parts of Mr. Kiddle's language that should 
have been in the letter - according to Koot Hoomi's amended form 
thereof - are omitted from the copy transcribed 
by the chela. For example: the words, "the agency called 
Spiritualism," are in Mr. Kiddle's speech. In the shorter 
letter, these words are omitted, and there is substituted this: "It 
is not physical phenomena. In the amended 
version we read, "It is not physical phenomena, or the agency called 
Spiritualism." How was it that, in this 
instance, the chela failed to catch the language of Mr. Kiddle, but 
did catch the original ideas and words of the 
mahatma, which he added to or substituted for those of Mr. Kiddle? 
Here the facts are in direct opposition to Koot 
Hoomi's explanation. 

Again, Mr. Kiddle's address speaks of "recognizing more fully the 
universal reign of law as the expression of the 
Divine will, unchanging and unchangeable." In the shorter letter, 
this is modified so as to read, "recognizing the 
eternal reign of immutable law, unchanging and unchangeable." As the 
Mahatma did not recognize such a thing as 
"Divine will," the clause was modified so as to conform to his, and 
Madame Blavatsky's, quasi-atheistic or 
Pantheistic notion. In the amended letter, we have the following much 
expanded version of this part of the letter: - 
"and at the same time they recognize instead of the eternal reign of 
immutable law, the universal reign of law as 
the expression of a Divine will. Forgetful of their earlier beliefs, 
and that `it repented the Lord that he had made 
man,' these would-be philosophers and reformers would impress upon 
their hearers that the expression of the said 
Divine will `is unchanging and unchangeable.'" In the amended letter, 
the "Divine will," which was omitted from 
the shorter letter, is restored; and in order to make the letter, 
with this restoration, read consistently with the 
amended purport of the letter - that is, a criticism of Mr. Kiddle's 
Spiritualistic ideas, - the insertion of a mass of 
entirely new matter, far fetched and not germane to the original, 
shorter letter, consisting of about sixty additional 
words, was necessitated. Is it not evident to every candid, thinking 
mind, that the passage as it appears in the so 
called chela-prepared letter was just as the writer intended it to 
be, and that the bungling, involved amplification 
thereof, in the amended letter, is a fabrication, manufactured in an 
inartistic manner to smooth over the 
inconsistency that would obtain in the letter, were not something of 
this sort foisted in it? 

In connection with the other inconsistencies above noted, reference 
may be made to the fact that whereas Messrs. 
Subba Row and General Morgan asserted that the mistakes omissions, 
etc., in the original letter, as precipitated 
by the chela, were due to the clumsiness or other delinquency of the 
chela, we are told by Koot Hoomi that the 
chela was entirely innocent in the matter, all the fault for the 
defective precipitation resting with the mahatma 
himself. Another peculiar thing is this: The letters from the adept 
to Mr. Sinnett were, as we have been told, 
received by him through Mme. Blavatsky, and she was presumed to 
receive them from the "Master" in an occult 
manner. Previous to the expose of the Kiddle plagiarism, it was 
always understood that she received them, in this 
occult or magic manner, direct from Koot Hoomi. But, in re this 
plagiarised letter, we are told by the mahatma that 
it was "sent on" - that is, to Madame Blavatsky - while he was 
asleep. Are we to suppose that a Tibetan "boy" - 
as this chela is called - possesses the magical powers of 
his "Master," that he can forward letters from Tibet to 
India in the same marvelous manner that the mahatmas employ? We are 
informed that it is only by various 
incarnations and long and arduous studies that the adepts acquire 
such wonderful mastery of the forces of nature 
as enables them to perform the extraordinary feats attributed to 
them. How is it, then, that a simple pupil, a mere 
boy, is enabled to exercise the same control over nature's laws as is 
employed by his "Master?" We are told that 
chelas are required to undergo at least seven years' tutelage before 
they are even permitted to be received as an 
initiate. "Never, I believe, in less than seven years from the time 
at which a candidate is accepted as a 
probationist, is he ever admitted to the very first of the ordeals, 
whatever they may be, which bar the way to the 
earliest decrees of occultism" (Sinnett's "Occult World," p. 25). No 
chela is ever admitted even to the rudimentary 
fields of occultism; it is only the accepted initiates, who have 
passed through their seven or more years of 
chelaship, that are made acquainted with the simplest of the laws of 
occultic manifestation. How, then, is it possible 
for a "boy," only a chela, not an initiate, to possess such 
remarkable occultic power, rivaling those of the mahatma, 
as are ascribed to this much-talked-of chela of Koot Hoomi? Is it not 
probable that, had not the plagiarism, in the 
letter we are discussing, been discovered, the world would never have 
learned of this wonderful chela and his 
remarkable mahatmic powers? and is it not also probable that the 
existence on earth of this chela is due solely to 
the publication of Mr. Kiddle's letter in Light of September 1, 1883, 
and that had not that letter been published, 
the "materialization" of this Tibetan boy, by the writer of the 
original Koot Hoomi letter, would never have been 
thought of or attempted? 

It will be remembered that Koot Hoomi alleges that, in the process of 
precipitation of his letter to Mr. Sinnett 
containing the Kiddle quotations, owing to his exhausted and sleepy 
condition, the language of Mr. Kiddle was 
more sharply photographed upon the chela's brain, and thence on to 
the paper before him, than were the ideas and 
words of the mahatma himself; that is, he was so tired and sleepy 
that he was unable to project his own composition 
save in a distorted, inaccurate, and very imperfect manner. In view 
of this alleged fact, a remarkable circumstance 
presents itself. The letter to Mr. Sinnett, containing the so-called 
Kiddle passage, as published in the Occult 
World, pp. 148-150, consists of 65 lines; and we gather from Mr. 
Sinnett's language on p. 148, that these 65 lines 
do not constitute the whole of the letter; they constitute only 
a "passage" from the letter. Moreover, of the 65 
lines published, 35 lines of other matter precede, and 2 lines 
succeed, the passage containing the so-called Kiddle 
matter. Saying nothing of the unpublished matter that was in this 
letter, to the character and quantity of which we 
have no clew, we have 37 lines of matter projected by Koot Hoomi, and 
received and precipitated by the chela, 
entirely independent of the matter which the mahatma acknowledged to 
have been based on Mr. Kiddle's speech. 
According to the Mahatma's statement, his use of Mr. Kiddle's 
language began with the phrase, "ideas rule the 
world;" all previous to that is claimed to be Koot Hoomi's original 
language. It seems, then, according to the 
adept's statement, he was not too tired and sleepy to project 
accurately, and without flaw, at least 35 lines of 
alleged original matter; but as soon as he came to that part of his 
letter in comment upon Mr. Kiddle's remarks, - 
as he alleges, - the power of correct precipitation became 
exceedingly muddled. Not a word was omitted or blurred 
of the 35 or more lines in this letter, until the mahatma struck the 
Kiddle matter, and then what a transformation! 
First, five consecutive sentences, of nine lines, are omitted; then 
separate words, clauses, phrases, and parts of 
sentences are omitted, altered, and otherwise distorted from the 
mahatma's original language. After the Kiddle 
matter is finished, other original language of the adept is received 
by the chela, in which no mistake is made in 
precipitation. Is it at all reasonable that the adept, despite his 
exhaustion and loss of sleep, would send correctly 
and perfectly 35 lines, plus the additional unknown quantity of 
matter unpublished; then send a passage of 579 
words, of which 336 were omitted in precipitation; and, immediately 
following this mass of incorrect projection, 
would or could project additional matter, in quantity also unknown, 
free from all error or omission, - the alleged 
incorrect precipitation being sandwiched in between two correct and 
flawless precipitations? 

Another strange thing is this: The chela is said to have received a 
passage from Koot Hoomi in which 336 words 
out of 579 were blurred or unintelligible. Why did the chela not call 
the attention of the "Master" to this fact in a 
more positive manner than he is said to have done? Koot Hoomi tells 
us that the boy asked him to look over and 
correct the proof, but he replied to him, "Any how will do, my boy; 
it is of no great importance if you skip a few 
words." Why did not the boy tell him that, instead of a few words, 
over three-fifths of the passage was blurred; that 
over three hundred words were illegible? And why did not the boy, 
seeing that so large a part of the letter was 
missing or unintelligible in the proof, retain the letter until 
the "Master" had recovered from his exhaustion, and 
then invite his attention to its defective character? How was it that 
Koot Hoomi knew nothing of the wholesale 
defective character of the letter, from the boy or from any other 
source, until the publication of Mr. Kiddle's letter 
in Light in 1883? Again, Koot Hoomi has informed us that he deemed 
this letter of so much importance that he had 
pondered over its subject-matter for days, yet when told by the chela 
that it had been incorrectly precipitated, he 
regarded it as of so little importance that he directed the letter to 
be forwarded as it was, as "anyhow" would do. 

The reader will have noticed that, in comparing the remarks of Mr. 
Kiddle with their counterpart in the Koot 
Hoomi letter, certain additions have been made in the latter to Mr. 
Kiddle's language; and these additions are of 
importance in indication of the authorship of the Koot Hoomi letter. 
These changes are in consonance with a 
marked peculiarity in Madame Blavatsky's literary style, - that of 
redundancy and repetition of language. Often, in 
her writings, the same idea is expressed, in varied language, two or 
three times in the same sentence; and several 
instances of this occur in the Koot Hoomi modification of Mr. 
Kiddle's remarks. Mr. Kiddle speaks of the "reign 
of law unchanging and unchangeable." Koot Hoomi transformed this 
into "the eternal reign of immutable law 
unchanging and unchangeable." Mr. Kiddle said, "Institutions crumble 
before their onward march." The mahatma 
altered this to "will crumble before their onward march crushed by 
their irresistible force." Mr. Kiddle's "material 
plane" is changed to "material speck of dirt;" and man's "destiny" is 
changed to "ultimate destiny." (See 
remarks of "Quodlibet," in Light, July 26, 1884.) 

Mr. C. C. Massey, of London, is one of the leading mystics of 
England, and one of the most intellectual persons 
that has been affiliated with the Theosophical Society. Consequent 
upon the publication in the appendix to the 
fourth edition of the "Occult World" of Koot Hoomi's explanation of 
the alleged Kiddle plagiarism, Mr. Massey 
published in Light, July 26, 1884 an extended critique of the said 
mahatmic explanation. His critique effectively 
riddled Koot Hoomi's attempt to explain away the plagiarism, and 
demonstrated the total untruth of the mahatma's 
(?) assertions. He gave as his decided opinion in the matter, that 
the so-called adept's letter was not written in 
Tibet by either Koot Hoomi or a chela, and that it was based upon the 
printed copy of Mr. Kiddle's speech, as 
published in the Banner of Light. Although still accepting as true 
the existence of adepts or mahatmas, he was yet 
compelled to see in their methods, or rather in the things that are 
said and done in their names, such deviations 
from our Philistine sense of truth and honor as to assure us that 
something is very wrong somewhere. For this [the 
Kiddle plagiarism] is by no means a singular case. The repeated 
necessity for explanations - which are always 
more formidable than the thing to be explained - must at length tire 
out the most patient faith, except the faith 
superseding all intelligence, the credo quia impossible [I believe 
because it is impossible]. Thinking that the 
publication of his conclusions on this subject were not consistent 
with loyal fellowship to the Theosophical Society, 
Mr. Massey's resignation as a fellow of that society was then and 
there forwarded. 

NEW AND UNEXPECTED PHASE OF THE KIDDLE 
PLAGIARISM. 

In Light, Sept. 20, 1884, Mr. Kiddle published a reply to the 
explanation of Koot Hoomi relative to the parallels 
between his letter and Mr. Kiddle's address, in which a new and 
unexpected phase of the matter was presented. 
Reference has been made to there being 35 printed lines in the 
original Koot Hoomi letter preceding the remark, 
"Plato was right. Ideas rule the world." These 35 lines had been 
regarded as not pertaining to Mr. Kiddle's 
address, and as original with Koot Hoomi; as Mr. Kiddle made no 
reference to them in his original letter in Light 
inviting attention to the parallelism between his lecture and the 
adept's letter. But in his letter in Light of Sept. 20, 
1884, Mr. Kiddle shows that the plagiarism did not begin with the 
sentence, "Ideas rule the world," as his previous 
letter seemed to indicate, and in proof thereof he submitted the 
following additional parallel passage: - 

EXTRACT FROM MR. KIDDLE'S DISCOURSE OF AUGUST 
15, 1880. 

The terms inspiration and revelation have hitherto been used in 
a very loose way, as implying 
something mysterious and abnormal; but in the light that has 
been shed upon recipient minds during 
the last few years, these words become the definite 
representative of truth as reducible to law as the 
simplest phenomena of the physical universe. 

Our opponents say, "The age of miracles is past," but we say it 
never existed. . . . . . 

For the agency that is now making itself felt, while not 
unparalleled, or without its counterpart in human 
history, is, as experience in the future will most certainly 
verify, one of overpowering influence - both 
destruction and constructive - destructive of the errors of the 
past, but constructive of institutions 
based upon more truthful principles. Phenomenal elements, 
previously unthought of - undreamt of - are 
manifesting themselves day by day with constantly augmented 
force. Usually unseen and unfelt, 
scarcely known even in the results of their activity, these 
elements now clearly display their existence 
and agency; and, under some extraordinary impulse which they do 
not divulge, disclose the secrets of 
their mysterious workings. 

EXTRACT FROM KOOT HOOMI'S LETTER. 
(Borrowed Words Italicised.) 

The terms Unscientific, Impossible, Hallucination, Imposture, 
have hitherto been used in a very loose, 
careless way, as implying in the occult phenomena, something 
either mysterious and abnormal, or a 
premeditated imposture. And this is why our chiefs have 
determined to shed upon a few recipient 
minds more light upon the subject, and to prove to them that 
such manifestations are as reducible to 
law as the simplest phenomena in the physical universe. The 
wiseacres say, "The age of miracles is 
past," but we answer "it never existed." While not unparalleled 
or without their counterpart in 
universal history, these phenomena must and will come with an 
overpowering influence upon the 
world of skeptics and bigots. They have to prove both 
destructive and constructive - destructive in the 
pernicious errors of the past, in the old creeds and 
superstitions which suffocate in their poisonous 
embrace, like the Mexican weed, nigh all mankind; but 
constructive of new institutions, of a genuine, 
practical Brotherhood of Humanity, where all will become co-
workers of Nature, will work for the 
good of mankind, with and through the higher planetary spirits, 
the only spirits we believe in. 
Phenomenal elements previously unthought of, undreamed of, will 
soon begin manifesting themselves 
day by day with constantly augmented force, and disclose at last 
the secrets of their mysterious 
workings. 

The editor of Light follows Mr. Kiddle's letter containing these 
parallelisms with some remarks by himself. He 
states that, upon comparing the passages to verify them before 
publication, he was surprised to find that Mr. 
Kiddle had not even yet exhausted the passages borrowed by Koot Hoomi 
from the former's Lake Pleasant 
address. He then publishes the paralleled extracts found below, which 
immediately precede the portion of the 
adept's letter given above. 

EXTRACT FROM MR. KIDDLE'S DISCOURSE. 

These truths constitute, indeed, a body of spiritual philosophy 
at once profound and practical; for it is 
not as a mere addition to the mass of theory or speculation in 
the world that they have been given to 
us, but for their practical bearing on the interests of mankind. 

EXTRACT FROM KOOT HOOMI'S LETTER. 
(Borrowed Words Italicised.) 

These truths and mysteries of Occultism constitute, indeed, a 
body of the highest spiritual importance, 
at once profound and practical, for the world at large. Yet it 
is not as an addition to the tangled mass 
of theory or speculation that they are being given to you, but 
for their practical bearing on the 
interests of mankind. 

These two additional passages of 35 lines constitute, with the 30 
lines of plagiarised matter to which Mr. Kiddle 
first called attention, the whole of the Koot Hoomi letter as 
published in "Occult World," pp. 148-150, except two 
or three lines of a personal character at the end of the published 
extract; that is, instead of only 30 of its 65 lines 
having been plagiarised from Mr. Kiddle the whole 65 lines were based 
upon that gentleman's address. In view of 
this, the editor of Light called upon Mr. Sinnett to publish the 
whole of the letter as he received it from the 
mahatma, any private parts excepted. Mr. Sinnett paid no attention to 
this request. It is possible that had the 
entire letter been published, it would have been manifest that other 
parts of this letter were borrowed from Mr. 
Kiddle, just as the parts published had been. It may be that Mr. 
Sinnett compared the unpublished parts with Mr. 
Kiddle's address, and finding them also parallel, concluded the 
wisest thing for him to do was to say nothing more 
on the subject. 

The editor of Light also invited attention to the fact that the 
explanation of Koot Hoomi as to the cause of the 
seeming plagiarism in the thirty lines first indicated by Mr. Kiddle, 
could not possibly apply to the parallelism in 
the remaining 35 lines, then for the first time mentioned by Mr. 
Kiddle. In Koot Hoomi's explanation of the 30 
lines, he refers to the preceding 35 lines, "as his own composition, 
and tries to make out that there is a want of 
connection between the two parts." If my readers will refer to the 
explanation of Koot Hoomi, published by me in 
the Dove for September, it will be found that the mahatma says, that 
he was struck, upon carefully his letter in the 
"Occult World," by the great discrepancy between the sentences, a gap 
so to say between part 1 (the 35 lines last 
published by Mr. Kiddle in Light) and part 2, the plagiarize portion, 
so-called; that there seems to be no connection 
between the two; and in order to connect them, he, in the amended 
version of his letter, inserts nine lines of new 
matter, said nine lines being, however, not germane to the contents 
of the original letter, and are lugged in by the 
heels, as it were, to cover in an artificial and unskillful manner 
the plagiarism which had been charged. Koot 
Hoomi, then, in his explanation, gives what he calls the passages "as 
they were originally dictated" by him, as he 
alleges. This amended version applies only to the 30 lines originally 
referred to by Mr. Kiddle. The alleged 
omissions and blurrings in the precipitation proof referred to by 
Subba Row, General Morgan, and Koot Hoomi, 
pertain exclusively to the part contained in the said 30 lines; the 
preceding 35 lines were, according to Koot 
Hoomi's explanation, his own original composition, and were 
precipitated by the chela, free from break, error, or 
omissions. But Mr. Kiddle and the editor of Light prove that they 
were just as much a plagiarism as the original 30 
lines to which the "explanation" of Koot Hoomi alone pertains. The 
proof presented that the preceding 35 lines 
were all plagiarized, overthrows completely the long involved and 
ingenious "explanation" of the mahatma as to 
the other 30 lines. It demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt, that 
this explanation is devoid of truth throughout, 
that from first to last it is a mass of falsehood, a sickening 
revolting mass of blackest falsehood, worthy of the 
source whence it came, characteristic of the mind that produced it, 
in full keeping with the enormous aggregation of 
falsehood, plagiarism, and fraud, that the world has been cursed with 
emanating from the same mentality during the 
last fifteen years. It is positively demonstrated then, that the 
whole of this mahatmic letter, as published, was 
plagiarized from Mr. Kiddle's address. It necessarily follows then, 
that the theory of its precipitation by and 
through a chela is false; that the so-called precipitation proof, 
blurred and defaced, that was seen at the 
theosophical headquarters at Adyar, was a forgery; that the 
explanation of the plagiarism, and all else that Koot 
Hoomi is alleged to have said and done in this matter, is false. It 
will be exceedingly difficult to find an element of 
truth in the whole affair, from first to last, so far as the 
Theosophical Society and its members, chelas and 
mahatmas are concerned. 

The publication of Mr. Kiddle's letter in Light, Sept. 20, 1884, must 
have been like the explosion of a bombshell in 
the theosophic camp or to the theosophists that read it. It so 
thoroughly demolished the explanation of Koot 
Hoomi, that an answer to it was impossible, and none has been 
attempted. Not a word about it has Koot Hoomi 
ever said since, so far as can be ascertained. Not a word has Madame 
Blavatsky said; not a word has Mr. Sinnett 
said; not a word has W. Q. Judge, Subba Row and General and Mrs. 
Morgan said, so far as I have been able to 
find. Mr. Kiddle's unexpected second proof of plagiarism struck them 
all dumb, from Koot Hoomi down, and dumb 
have they remained ever since. Madame Blavatsky has long ago realized 
that one of the most disastrous mistakes 
ever made by her was when she wrote the letter to Mr. Sinnett in Koot 
Hoomi's name, borrowed from Mr. Kiddle's 
Lake Pleasant address of August 15, 1880. 


One leading theosophist, Col. H. S. Olcott, published a letter in 
Light of October 11, 1884, relative to the Kiddle 
incident and the mahatma's explanation. It is dated Elberfeld, 
Germany, Sept. 27, 1884. Its contents indicate that 
the writer had seen Mr. Kiddle's letter in Light of Sept. 20, 1884. 
In this letter, Col. Olcott says: 

"I have no explanation to offer of the alleged plagiarism, save 
that which the properties of the Akasa 
(Astral Light,) and the relations thereto of the human mind, 
afford. It is conceivable to me . . that all 
Mr. Kiddle's phrases could have been absorbed into the current 
of an Adept's thought, and 
transmitted telepathically, as alleged . . . It is to me a 
deplorable business altogether, and no one will 
be more glad than I to have the honest truth brought to 
light . . . I do not admit that a general 
proposition gains any additional cogency when enunciated by a 
mahatma, a seer, or a medium . . .When 
in the physical body, he [a mahatma] is as subject to 
intellectual error as any other mortal of equal 
intelligence . . . Without questioning the correctness of his 
explanation of any particular fragment to 
which his attention was called by Mr. Kiddle's remarks, it is an 
entirely possible conjecture that, after 
once calling forth from the Astral Light, the whole of that 
gentleman's lecture, the mahatma-man went 
on dictating and using inadvertently here a sentence, and there 
a word, or a whole paragraph to 
express his thought. In such cases, the several facts would 
naturally be accreted into the argument 
intended, with connecting words and ideas emanating from his own 
mind. And - time and space not 
being cognized - he would not detect whether he was using 
fragments of a speech of Zoroaster or one of 
Bright; ideas never rust or rot . . . If the physical body was 
momentarily exhausted, or pre-occupied by 
any cause, and the physical memory partly paralysed, it would be 
quite possible that the other man's 
ideas should be emitted from the psychic store-house without the 
thinker perceiving that he was 
quoting something not original with himself. I do not affirm 
this to have been the case in the present 
instance; I only believe it . . . I insist again that the 
teaching of a mahatma is no more and no less true 
because he is one. It is either true or false, and must be 
determined upon its intrinsic merit." 

We here have a new theory broached. Colonel Olcott says that he 
believes that Koot Hoomi was an unconscious 
plagiarist from Mr. Kiddle. If he believes this, then, perforce, he 
must believe that the detailed explanation of Koot 
Hoomi, regarding the plagiarism, is devoid of truth, - that 
everything which he says regarding the use of Mr. 
Kiddle's language in his letter is false, and that the purported 
precipitation proof is a forgery. The mahatma says 
that he deliberately and knowingly used Mr. Kiddle's language, after 
several days' study of the said language, and 
in proof of it refers to the blurred and illegible proof. Col. Olcott 
says he believes that the mahatma used Mr. 
Kiddle's language and ideas without being aware of it. The mahatma 
says that he was fully conscious that he was 
quoting from another, a Spiritualist lecturer, and that in his letter 
as dictated, he placed the extracts from said 
lecturer in quotation marks, as per the revised form of the letter. 
Col. Olcott says that he believes that Koot Hoomi 
was not conscious "that he was quoting something not original with 
himself." Ergo, according to Col. Olcott's 
belief, the mahatma is a willful, ingenious and wholesale falsifier 
and forger; and therefore he is utterly unworthy of 
credence or respect. Note that Col. Olcott twice emphasizes the 
important statement, that truth does not 
necessarily inhere in the teaching of a mahatma, and that what he 
says must be judged as true or false precisely as 
in the case of other persons. This is tantamount to warning us to be 
on the look-out for false statements emanating 
from the mahatmas. 

I have already referred to a number of instances of what may be 
called "know-nothingism" on the part of Koot 
Hoomi, based upon his explanation of the plagiarism in this case. If 
Col. Olcott's belief, respecting Koot Hoomi in 
this matter, be regarded as correct, still another example of the 
colossal ignorance of the mahatma is manifest. 
According to Col. Olcott, an "omniscient" mahatma is liable at any 
time to use, as his own original language and 
ideas, the words and sentiments of another, in utter unconsciousness 
that he is self-appropriating that which 
belongs to another. It is an impossibility for an ordinary mortal to 
indulge in plagiarism of the character of the 
Kiddle incident without knowledge of the fact; and so we perceive the 
advantage of being a mahatma, - the great 
superiority which an adept enjoys over common humanity. The latter, 
if detected in literary theft, is debarred from 
the plea of having done the deed unconsciously; but in case a mahatma 
is caught in literary malfeasance, he can 
clear himself from the charge of conscious plagiarism by pleading 
ignorance of the fact that he had made use of 
another's property, and by laying all the blame upon "the Astral 
Light"! Mahatmas are said to possess means of 
acquiring knowledge, much transcending those of ordinary men and 
woman; yet, if Col. Olcott's theory is true, it is 
impossible for them to tell whether their own thoughts are original 
with them, or are the ideas of others that have 
become impressed upon their sensoriums; that is, when an adept 
dictates an essay or writes a letter, he is unable to 
determine whether the words dictated or written are the emanations of 
his own mentality, or extracts from an 
address by Zoroaster, John Bright, or Henry Kiddle. It is evident, 
then, that the limitations of knowledge, in the 
case of the mahatmas, are much greater than they are with non-adept 
humanity, and that, while professing to 
possess unlimited knowledge, their knowledge, in some directions at 
least, is exceeded by that of every-day men 
and women. 

SUMMARY. 

In the beginning of this series of papers, it was remarked that 
the "facts involved in this one matter, in my 
judgment, demonstrate in a distinct and positive manner, the real 
character of the alleged teachings of the 
mahatmas or adepts of Tibet, the sources of these teachings, the 
existence or non-existence of the mahatmas, and 
the true nature of the foundations upon which the whole structure of 
theosophy rests." I shall now sum up the 
results of the facts adduced, relative to the mahatma's plagiarism 
from Mr. Kiddle, and see if they do not fully 
bear out my remark as above. 

I. What is the true character of the alleged teachings of the 
mahatmas, as evidenced from the facts I have 
presented in this matter? It has been proven beyond all reasonable 
doubt, that the whole of the letter claiming to 
be written by Koot Hoomi to Mr. A. P. Sinnett, so far as published in 
pages 148 to 150 of his "Occult World," 2d. 
American edition was plagiarized bodily from an address on 
Spiritualism, by Mr. Henry Kiddle of New York City, 
delivered at Lake Pleasant camp-meeting August 15, 1880, and 
published in extenso in the Banner of Light 
September 18, 1880, - modifications being made here and there in Mr. 
Kiddle's address by the alleged mahatma, 
so as to make the remarks applicable to theosophic occultism instead 
of to Spiritualism. It is also proven that the 
explanations given, both by leading theosophists and by the adept 
himself, as claimed, are destitute of truth; and 
that, in the attempt to clear the mahatma of the plagiarism, a forged 
document was prepared, called a precipitation 
proof of the mahatmic letter as it was originally dictated, which 
forgery was endorsed as genuine, and the mode of 
its production elaborately explained, in a letter published to the 
world in Koot Hoomi's name. 

Granting the existence of Koot Hoomi, and that the writings put forth 
in his name are, in realty, his productions, 
what follows? Necessarily, that so far as morals are concerned, 
instead of being so immeasurably superior to 
mankind in general, he is much inferior to the better classes of 
humanity, - that he scruples not to descend to the 
commission of such mean and ignoble practices as thousands, yea, 
millions, of earth's inhabitants would scorn. A 
person who, while pretending to despise Spiritualism, and while 
belittling and ridiculing its lecturers, would steal 
from a Spiritualist lecturer's printed address some sixty lines of 
said lecturer's language, and by slight 
manipulation, adapt it to another subject, and then palm it off as an 
original production; who, when discovered in 
this literary theft, would manufacture or cause to be made a forged 
document to sustain a totally false defense of 
said theft; and who would deliberately invent a tissue of falsehoods 
like that composing the so-called explanation of 
Koot Hoomi, - a person who could be guilty of all this is morally 
despicable, and worthy only of the scorn and 
contempt of every lover of truth, honor, and honesty. One who could 
falsify in this wholesale manner is unworthy of 
credit on any subject; his or her assertions or teachings are, in 
themselves, absolutely worthless in all matters. No 
reliance can be placed in a single word emanating from such a corrupt 
and constitutionally untruthful source. The 
mind that produced the Koot Hoomi writings in this matter has 
falsehood, deception, craft, and low, cunning 
trickery ingrained in its innate constitution; it is saturated with 
steeped in, mendacity, forgery, and fraud. 

It is claimed that the knowledge of the mahatmas is of God-like 
proportions, that they are possessed of the wisdom 
of the gods; and that being thus possessed, their teachings should be 
received in great measure at least, as in 
consonance with that of divine truth. It has been demonstrated in 
this examination of the Kiddle plagiarism (See 
Parts three and four in the Dove for October and subsequent months) 
that so far as the knowledge of the alleged 
Koot Hoomi goes in terrestrial affairs, it by no means exceeds that 
of an ordinary mortal; that he has displayed no 
superior insight, forethought, or judgment; that he has acted 
throughout in a reckless and foolish manner, far 
removed from that which would be dictated by good sense and clear 
penetration, saying nothing of his asserted 
transcendent mahatmic wisdom. Did it display any command of wisdom, 
or even of ordinary knowledge, to filch 
another's language and ideas which had just been printed, and send 
them as original to a journalist, who might at 
any time publish them, as he did a short time after, or to prepare 
for publication such a foolish, self-evidently false 
explanation of the plagiarism as that published in Koot Hoomi's name? 
The character of this long, involved, 
farfetched explanation, is such as to effectually damn Koot Hoomi, so 
far as the possession of any superior 
intellectual endowments is concerned. If Koot Hoomi really possessed 
the great wisdom with which he is accredited 
by theosophists, he certainly would have been able to fabricate a 
more plausible explanation, and one more 
calculated to favorably impress his readers. There has been, I think 
no other time in the history of theosophy, since 
the mahatmas have been introduced to the world on paper, when a 
greater manifestation of mahatmic wisdom was 
imperatively called for than was demanded from Koot Hoomi in the 
explanation of the alleged plagiarism. At this 
time, above all others, should he have given to the world substantial 
evidence of his alleged surpassing wisdom, in 
vindication of himself from the grave charge made against his honesty 
and truth. His action at this crisis, in this 
serious emergency, is really the touchstone in gauge of his 
acquirements; and alas! how weak, how foolish, how 
miserably unmahatmic was that action! The most credulous theosophist, 
it seem to me, is forced to acknowledge 
that in this matter Koot Hoomi "has been weighed in the balance and 
found wanting." Morally considered, his 
writings have been found despicable and valueless; and intellectually 
considered, they are seen to be of no greater 
value. The alleged surpassing knowledge of the mahatma is proved to 
be as mythical as is his honor, truth, or 
integrity. No attention, then, should any sensible person pay to the 
teachings attributed to him in the works of Mr. 
Sinnett, Mme. Blavatsky, and others. The doctrines which are 
published to the world, in his name, about 
re-incarnation, karma, elementary and elemental spirits, the seven 
principles of man, devachan, the seven rounds, 
the various races of man (ethereal, sexless, boneless, hermaphrodite, 
moon-born, egg-born, sweat-born, etc.), the 
derivation of the earth from the moon, and all the other nonsensical 
rubbish, cosmogonic, anthropological, 
astronomical, philological, mystical, etc., etc., - all these are 
seen to be devoid of authority, of no value whatever, 
emanating as they do from an eminently untruthful, deceptive, and 
tricky source; a source making claim to the 
possession of the wisdom of the universe while, in truth, all its so-
called wisdom of the gods is made up of 
selections from the mystical, mythological, religious, and scientific 
literature of the world, dovetailed together with 
a few fanciful additions and embellishments, the outcome of the vivid 
imagination of its promulgator; that is, at 
least nine-nine hundredths of all that is taught as the "Wisdom-
Religion" of the mahatmas is plagiarized from 
Asiatic, European, and American books, while the remaining hundredth, 
required to unite into seeming harmony 
the incongruous elements borrowed from such variant sources, may be, 
and probable is, due to the outre 
excogitations of the founder and elaborator of the system. So much 
for the true character of the mahatmas' 
teachings as evidenced by the Kiddle plagiarism. 


II. What are the true sources of the so-called mahatmas' teachings, - 
do they emanate from the alleged adepts, and 
if not, whence are they derived? I have shown that, granting that the 
mahatmic teachings do proceed from the 
adepts, they are false and valueless. But if they do not come from 
the mahatmas, and these mahatmas are myths, 
their falsity and lack of value are still further emphasized. In 
order to be a mahatma, as alleged, one must possess 
certain powers and endowments of a superlatively exalted order, far 
removed from those of common humanity. If 
those powers and endowments are lacking, then the person thus 
deficient can be no mahatma. The plagiarized 
letter, the precipitation proof, and the explanation of the 
plagiarism, - these three are said to be the work of Koot 
Hoomi as a mahatma, - they are alleged to be his handiwork in his 
capacity and in the exercise of his peculiar and 
exceptional powers as a mahatma. My examination and criticism of 
these documents has shown in a positive 
manner I think, that all three of these papers are decidedly 
unmahatmic in character. 

First, the plagiarized letter. It is absurd to suppose that a person 
such as Koot Hoomi is represented to be, 
possessed of practical omniscience in mundane matters, and conversant 
with the knowledge and wisdom of the 
gods, not only as regards this planet but the whole universe, - is it 
not absurd to think that a being of so exalted 
character could possibly be guilty of such a petty theft as was 
certainly committed in his name when the plagiarized 
letter was sent to Mr. Sinnett? Is it not equally as absurd to 
suppose that a man with his lofty intellectual 
endowments, as alleged, would be forced to borrow from the non-
mahatmic utterances of a Spiritualist lecturer (one 
of a class of persons whom he affects to hold in very light esteem), 
in order to express his opinions concerning the 
value and results of the phenomena and philosophy of theosophy? It is 
not conceivable that either morally or 
intellectually a true mahatma - did such a being exist - could have 
acted in the manner that the writer of the Sinnett 
letter assuredly did. 

Next, no mahatma could possibly be guilty of forging a document like 
that precipitation proof, in order to clear 
himself of a charge of which he was certainly guilty; and third, it 
is unthinkable that a genuine mahatma could 
fabricate such a silly and self-evidently false explanation of the 
Kiddle incident, as that attributed to Koot Hoomi. 
A mahatma must, by virtue of his being a mahatma, occupy a moral and 
spiritual plane of so sublime a nature and 
height, that the bare thought of practicing such meanness, trickery, 
and falsehood, as has been done in the name of 
Koot Hoomi in this matter, would never even occur to him. He must 
also, by virtue of his being a mahatma, possess 
such towering wisdom, that it would be about as impossible for him to 
be guilty of such weak and foolish actions as 
are laid at Koot Hoomi's door in this case, as it would be for 
Herbert Spencer and Professor T. H. Huxley, in the 
plenitude of their mental vigor and intellectual strength, to so 
debase themselves as to join the Theosophical 
Society and acknowledge themselves to be believers in the "Secret 
Doctrine" of Mme. Blavatsky. The entire 
course of action ascribed to Koot Hoomi in this matter is that which 
no mahatma could possibly engage in, in any 
particular; and the fact that such action was done is proof positive 
that it did not proceed from any mahatma. 
Therefore, no adept or mahatma has had anything to do with the Kiddle 
plagiarism. But if the mahatmas are 
innocent, from whom, then, did the three documents above referred to 
emanate? 

We are informed by Mr. Sinnett that the letters sent to and received 
from Koot Hoomi by him passed through 
Mme. Blavatsky as intermediary. Letters for Koot Hoomi from Mr. 
Sinnett were given to the Madame, and she 
sent them to the adept in a magical occult manner; and in like manner 
she received letters from the adepts for Mr. 
Sinnett. If then the letters said to come from Koot Hoomi did not 
proceed from him, it necessarily follows that we 
must look to Mme. Blavatsky for their authorship. The letters in the 
Kiddle matter certainly did not come from the 
mahatma, as has been shown; then they emanated from the busy pen of 
Mme. Blavatsky. That this is the case, as 
regards the mahatmas' letters in general, has been further endorsed 
by the fact that their subject-matter and style 
of expression agree with known peculiarities of Mme. B.; and also by 
the still more significant fact that the 
mahatmic letters contain the same marked peculiarities in the use or 
misuse of the English language as do the 
writings of the Madame, in the matter of improper spelling, bad 
grammar, defective construction, gallicisms, etc. I 
give a few examples (See Richard Hodgson's Report on Phenomena 
connected with Theosophy, pp. 306, 307.) 



KOOT HOOMI 

Spelling. 

Your's, her's. 
Thiefs. 
Leasure. 
Alloted 
Circumstancial 

Structure. 

Give an advice. 
Tolerably well English. 
Rather than to yield. 
Preventing them to come. 
Along hundred of (for "a hundred"). 
Did not abuse of the situation. 
So more the pity for him. 

Division of the Words at the end of a Line. 

Incessan-tly, direc-tly. 
Po werless. 
Fun-ctions. 
Rea-ding, discer-ning. 

MME. BLAVATSKY. 

Spelling. 

Your's. 
Thiefs. 
Deceaved, beseached. 
Cooly (for "coolly"). 
Conscienciously, hypocricy 

Structure. 

Give an evidence; offering advices. 
Very well English. 
Rather than to hear. 
Preventing the spirits to come. 
With hundred others. 
Fear of being shown. 
So more the pity for those. 

Division of the Words at the end of a Line. 

Recen-tly, hones-tly, perfec-tly. 
Po-wers 
Correc-tness. 
Retur-ning, trea-ting, grea-test. 


Moreover, a number of special peculiarities in the handwriting of 
Mme. Blavatsky are present in the Koot Hoomi 
writings. These facts, taken with the demonstration that the letters 
in the Kiddle matter certainly never came from 
a mahatma, while they came from the Madame, in the alleged character 
of intermediary, establish conclusively 
that the author of the Koot Hoomi letters was none other than Mme. 
Blavatsky. This is strengthened by the 
following considerations: The Koot Hoomi letters in the Kiddle case, 
including the precipitation proof, are 
saturated with falsehood, deception, trickiness; and for over a dozen 
years past, falsehood, trickery, deception 
have been freely imputed to Mme. Blavatsky, in the matter especially 
of the production of occult phenomena, as in 
this instance. Her best friends admit that she is addicted to 
habitual fiction in her conversation, etc. I am in 
possession of positive evidence that a number of the leading 
theosophical workers in the world, the head and front 
of the Society, are aware of and acknowledge that Mme. B. practices 
deception in occult phenomena and in the 
production of alleged Koot Hoomi letters. The true source of the 
mahatmic letters is thus seen to be not the 
Brothers of Tibet, or the adepts, but Mme. H. P. Blavatsky. This is 
beyond reasonable doubt. 

III. What do these facts indicate as regards the existence or non-
existence of the mahatmas? Some leading 
theosophists, while admitting that most of the letters and the other 
phenomena attributed to the "Masters" are the 
work of Mme. Blavatsky and her confederates, nevertheless claim that 
the adepts do exist, and that a small part of 
the phenomena does actually proceed from them. To me such a 
conclusion seems more foolish than the acceptance 
of the whole as the work of "the Brothers." The latter is at least 
consistent and understandable. If these 
"Brothers" exist in Tibet, and are intimately connected with the 
Theosophical Society, as alleged, they certainly 
know of the gigantic mass of fraud and falsehood, that for so many 
years has been practiced in their name; and yet 
they never protest against it. They quietly assume the responsibility 
for all that has been done in their name, they 
condone a load of imposture and deception rarely paralleled in the 
earth's history, they still uphold and work for 
the advancement of the Society in whose interest this great wrong has 
been committed, and they still fellowship 
with and sustain the woman who has saddled upon them all the shady 
transactions and contradictions and absurd 
doctrines laid to their charge during the last dozen years or more, - 
in which work she still engages as indefatigably 
as ever. No true mahatma, did such a being exist, could possibly do 
this. The fact of being a mahatma, of itself, 
precludes one from the commission of such low, immoral conduct, 
saying nothing of its great folly and weakness. If 
the mahatmas sustain and encourage those guilty of systematic fraud 
and imposture, they are as guilty in a moral 
sense as those whom they protect and assist; and therefore being 
such, they cannot be mahatmas. Ergo, the 
mahatmas do not exist, - they are creations of the mind of Mme. 
Blavatsky, to bolster up and father her pretended 
marvelous knowledge and wonderful occultic powers. 

Take the case of this Kiddle matter. The plagiarized letter is 
published to the world as the production of Koot 
Hoomi, in a book devoted to the establishment of the existence of the 
mahatmas, with proofs of their remarkable 
endowments, as manifested partially through the mediation of Mme. 
Blavatsky. There are a number of letters in 
this work claiming to come from Koot Hoomi, just as the Kiddle letter 
did. These letters are proved to be the work 
of Mme. Blavatsky; hence Koot Hoomi had nothing to do with the matter 
in Mr. Sinnett's book, - the whole thing is 
an imposition upon Mr. S. by the wily Madame. When the plagiarism was 
discovered, Koot Hoomi - if he exists - 
must have been aware of it, and of the preparation of the 
forged "proof" and of the bogus explanation published in 
his name. If this mahatma really does exist, think to what a 
degradation he has been subjected by Mme. 
Blavatsky. He has been proved a petty plagiarist, a forger of a 
spurious document gotten up in defense of 
falsehood, and the writer of an explanation, weak and silly, - one 
long mass of sickening falsehood and moral 
putridity. If Koot Hoomi does exist, would he submit to all this, and 
never attempt to check Mme. B. in her wicked 
work in his name, fastening upon him these series of misdeeds? Would 
he allow all these falsehoods to be 
published to the world in his name, and do nothing to correct them? 
If he possesses the power ascribed to him, he 
could easily stop the work being done by the Madame to his disgrace; 
and that he does not do so is proof that he is 
not in existence. Besides, if Mme. B. knew that there was an actual 
Koot Hoomi, as she represents, she would 
scarcely dare to use his name as she does. The fact that for so many 
years she has practiced a continuous 
deception in the name of this adept is conclusive proof that no such 
person exists. This circumstance, to me, is one 
of the strongest evidences of the non-existence of the mahatmas. No 
reasonable doubt can, therefore, obtain as to 
the mythical character of Koot Hoomi and the other so-
called "Brothers" of Tibet. 

IV. What is the true nature of the foundations upon which the whole 
structure of theosophy rests? The teachings of 
theosophy emanate as a whole from Madame Blavatsky; she is the 
founder, leader and duly-accredited exponent 
of the doctrines constituting the philosophy of theosophy. The 
theosophic teachings in the writings of other persons, 
such as those of Mr. Sinnett, Col. Olcott, W. Q. Judge, M. M. 
Chatterji, and the rest, are all based upon the 
peculiar ideas and theories of Mme. Blavatsky. As W. Q. Judge is 
reported to have said: "The Theosophical 
Society is Madame Blavatsky." But whence does the Madame obtain the 
teachings she promulgates as 
theosophy? She claims that they are not original with herself, but 
that they are the veritable oracles of divine 
wisdom, handed down from the Dhyan Chohans (planetary spirits or 
creative intelligences), through a long line of 
adepts, to the present mahatmas, and by the latter transferred to 
her; in other words, it is claimed that the 
doctrines of theosophy are, as a whole, derived from the alleged 
mahatmas of Tibet. The entire system of 
theosophy is rooted and grounded in the so-called Tibetan adepts. 
They are, it is claimed, the veritable founders, 
guardians, and inspirers of the Theosophical Society; the Society is 
their offspring, and by them it is being reared 
and nurtured. The raison d'etre of the Society hangs upon the 
existence of the adepts as adepts, in possession of 
the powers ascribed to them. 

In this connection, I may quote the words of the Countess 
Wachtmeister, the confidential friend and companion of 
Madame Blavatsky, and one of the leading theosophists of England. In 
a letter from her, published in Mr. 
Sinnett's "Incidents in the Life of Madame Blavatsky," pp. 317-210, 
the Countess remarks as follows: 

"I have latterly heard among people who style 
themselves `Theosophists,' expressions which surprised 
and pained me. Some such persons said that `if it was proven 
that the mahatmas did not exist, it would 
not matter,' that theosophy was neverthelest a truth, etc., etc. 
Such and similar statements have come 
into circulation in Germany, England and America, but to my 
understanding they are very erroneous; 
for, if there were no Mahatmas or Adepts . . . then the 
teachings of that system which has been called 
`Theosophy' would be false." 

It is thus seen that if there are no adepts, the Theosophical Society 
necessarily collapses. Establish the 
non-existence of the mahatmas, and the foundation of the whole 
theosophical structure are uprooted and 
overthrown, - the bizarre vagaries of the theosophical culte become 
as unreal and mythical as the mahatmas upon 
whom it is upreared. This being true, what becomes of theosophy, in 
the light of the facts herein before presented? 
The adepts have been shown to be myths, creations of Madame 
Blavatsky; therefore the doctrines of theosophy 
were not derived from the adepts, and therefore, again, these 
doctrines are not parts of the wisdom-religion handed 
down from the heavenly hierarchies through successive lines of adepts 
to the present. It follows therefore, that 
these doctrines are, in a sense, merely the products of Madame 
Blavatsky's mind, and possess no authority 
whatever due to their having emanated from a supermundane, magical, 
spiritual, or occultic source; they are 
proved to be of the earth, earthy. In saying that these doctrines 
are, in a sense, the products of Mme. B's mind, it 
is not meant that they are, to any great extent, original with her; 
for, as before remarked, they are, as a whole, 
borrowed by her from the mystical, mythological, religious, and 
scientific literature of the world, the basic principles 
thereof being derived mostly from four sources, - the writings of (1) 
Paracelsus and of (2) Eliphas Levi, and the 
teachings of (3) Brahmanism and (4) Buddhism, while minor 
contributions from a variety of sources are dovetailed 
into the conglomerate patchwork labelled theosophy by her. There is 
scarcely an idea, theory, doctrine, term, or 
special phrase of importance, that is contained in the whole of the 
voluminous writings of Madame Blavatsky and 
of the other theosophic authors, whose works include alleged mahatmic 
teachings, of which I cannot point out the 
source in the world's literature whence it has been derived, or, to 
speak more correctly perhaps, plagiarized. No 
mahatma is needed to father any of the teachings of theosophy; they 
have all been borrowed from the writings of 
past ages and of the present; and since their true source is ignored, 
and the false claim is made that they consist of 
portions of the Divine Wisdom-Religion which have been imparted to 
Madame Blavatsky by the adepts, the term 
"plagiarized" is, I think, fitly descriptive of the alleged mahatmic 
doctrines. 

It is then, established that theosophy is founded upon myth, 
pretense, falsehood, delusion, plagiarism, fraud, and 
folly; its entire underpinning is rotten to the core. From the 
beginning of the theosophic movement in 1875 to the 
present time, two elements have been paramount in its career, - 
mendacity and fraud; not monetary or financial 
fraudulence, but intellectual and phenomenal fraudulence, such as 
fraudulent teachings, fraudulent adepts, 
fraudulent psychical manifestations. And as regards mendacity, every 
department of theosophy has been saturated 
with it at all times. 

I have shown, in this series of papers, how these two elements were 
regnant in the episode of the Kiddle 
plagiarism, and this episode is illustrative of the general history 
of the movement; it is a typical example - 
somewhat more conspicuous to the general public than the average 
workings of the Society and its leaders - of the 
practical operations of the sublime and divine Wisdom-Religion, as 
manifest in the words and deeds of its founders 
real and pretended, and of its most active workers and propagandists. 
As was the character of the Kiddle episode, 
so was and is that of theosophy and the Theosophical Society in its 
varied ramifications. In truth, then, can it be 
said that theosophy is one of the most remarkable and most colossal 
humbugs of this age, if not the most 
remarkable and the most colossal; and in the entire circuit of its 
peculiar history, perhaps there has been no 
incident more signally probative of its colossal humbuggery than that 
of Henry Kiddle and the Mahatma.