Two topics that are significant to Theosophists and the history of the Theosophical Society appear in this issue: the charge of plagiarism allegedly committed by H.P. Blavatsky in her significant writings, and the Judge Case of the 1890s.
The charge of plagiarism has plagued Blavatsky since a Spiritualist, William Emmett Coleman, accused her, in a series of articles written from 1888 to 1895, of falsely claiming as her own the words of 25 authors. In the present day, this is a most serious charge, but was it as serious in the 19th century and earlier? This is the issue raised in the paper, “Plagiarism and the Secret Doctrine.” Its author, Darrell Erixson, was introduced to this topic in my Esotericism and Theosophy class at California State University, Fullerton. When a charge such as plagiarism is made, it carries with it serious consequences, not least of which pertaining to the character of the alleged plagiarist. Without any questioning of the source, some historians simply repeat the accusation without commenting on its veracity. Perhaps the worst example is Bruce Campbell’s emphasis on this issue in his Ancient Wisdom Revised (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980). The question remains, however, what is meant by plagiarism, and how serious a charge was it in H.P. Blavatsky’s day?
Although I am repeatedly told that plagiarism is well defined, I know from personal experience that beyond the usual conception that it refers to the uncited copying of words, there is the issue of intentionality that sometimes is taken into account. Did the writer knowingly and willingly copy the passage? Aside from trusting writers who claim that they were unaware what they have done, some administrators or faculty might claim that ignorance is not an excuse for innocence. On the other hand, it may be that some phrases, definitions, or descriptions are so common that they may be viewed as clichés. This becomes an issue when a Website such as Turnitin.com is employed to detect plagiarism. Then again, what if plagiarism refers to the misappropriation of ideas? To what extent should this standard be followed?
Mr. Erixson has pursued this issue in a very careful manner by reviewing the current definition or description of plagiarism—the “inappropriate use of the ideas…of another writer”—and by examining its place in history. Indeed, it is this latter investigation that leads to his conclusion that Blavatsky, as a result of her newly acquired U.S. citizenship in 1878, was not subject to the document that legally protected all literary and artistic works from misappropriation by others.
The cause for this action was due to the hesitation of foreign exhibitors to display their inventions at the 1873 International Exhibition of Inventions (Vienna) for fear that they would be stolen (<http://www.wipo.int> and <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/general>). The fallout from this reluctance was potentially economically damaging, eventually resulting in the Paris Convention of 1883, which provided protection of industrial property. More appropriately to the issue in question was the establishment of the Berne Convention of 1886, agreed upon with the intention of protecting literary and artistic works. This Convention has since undergone numerous revisions over the past century. Mr. Erixson’s conclusion reflects this chronology. Since Blavatsky became a citizen of the U.S. in 1878, and because the U.S. did not become a signatory until 1989, the issue of plagiarism is legally moot for U.S. citizens. If this is correct, the only question that remains is why Coleman brought up the charges in the first place. Perhaps plagiarism was considered more of an ethical or moral issue; perhaps it was due to ignorance of the law or lack thereof. Or could it be animus toward Blavatsky pure and simple? The moral issue is certainly true today amongst various organizations such as the American Historical Association. As is always the case in issues such as plagiarism, solutions bring more questions.
* * *
The second contribution is Ernest Pelletier’s “The Judge Case—Exhibit ‘A,” a response to Brett Forray’s review (TH, April 2005) of his book, The Judge Case: A Conspiracy Which Ruined The Theosophical CAUSE (2004). Aside from the publication of The Theosophical Movement in 1875–1950 (1951), The Judge Case is the only work that has seriously dealt with this controversy in over half a century. The charges that were made against the Vice President of the Theosophical Society, William Q. Judge, led to the separation or declaration of autonomy—depending upon the legal interpretation—of The American Section T.S. from the Adyar T.S., at the Ninth Annual Convention of the American Section and First Convention of the Theosophical Society in America (April 28–29, 1895). Mr. Pelletier has collected what must be every bit of available evidence that relates to the charges against Judge and the subsequent separation of the Societies. Among the issues raised by the Case, the one that stands out is the influence of the Black Magicians, whom Judge believed to have instigated the Hindu members of the Society and Annie Besant to oppose Judge’s work. This is the conspiracy referred to in the title and sub-title of the book. As Mr. Forray writes, “Mr. Pelletier’s analysis of the material is calculated to uphold the conspiracy that Judge first presented in an Esoteric Section circular issued well into the conflict on November 3, 1894” (p. 15). It is only fair to Mr. Pelletier that he have the opportunity to respond to Mr. Forray’s review and to clarify his position further. Regardless of the side the reader takes, Mr. Pelletier is to be congratulated for compiling this material and for making The Judge Case such a valuable resource for researchers.
The last item in this issue is a reprint of the obituary of Gladney Oakley, appearing, with permission, in Theosophy in Australia (vol. 70, March 2006). Mr. Oakley was the visionary behind The Union Index of Theosophical Periodicals and Other Materials, a listing of a growing number of Theosophical articles (143,000 at last count) appearing in 120 Theosophical journals. This work is online at <http://www.austheos. org.au/indices/pindex. htm# fulllist>.
* * * * *
The one event that was to
leave a permanent stain upon the reputations of the Theosophical Society and
of H.P. Blavatsky was the publication of an exposé in The Madras Christian
College Magazine (September and October 1884) claiming fraud of the most serious
proportion allegedly perpetrated by Madame Blavatsky. This publication brought
into question the very existence of Blavatsky’s Masters and the letters
that they supposedly wrote to such individuals as A.P. Sinnett and A.O. Hume.
Under the title “The Collapse of Koot Hoomi,” portions of fifteen
letters purportedly written by Blavatsky to Emma Coulomb, the former housekeeper
at the Adyar estate, were offered as proof that Blavatsky purposefully deceived
those who accepted her claim that highly evolved Masters conversant in the Secret
Wisdom existed and were involved in the activities of the Society. When these
charges were investigated by Richard Hodgson (1855–1905) of the Society
of Psychical Research (London), he concluded, in his report of 1885, that: (a)
the letters to the Coulombs (both her husband Alexis and Emma) were written
by Blavatsky, (b) that the Coulombs were her accomplices in the production of
fraudulent phenomena, (c) that the primary witnesses to the existence of an
Occult Brotherhood, including Blavatsky, made false statements, (d) that the
Masters Koot Hoomi and Morya must be fictitious, since their handwriting resembled
Damodar K. Mavalankar’s and Blavatsky’s, (e) that no instance of
phenomena was witnessed by Hodgson, and (f) that the true purpose of The Theosophical
Society were political and that Blavatsky was a Russian spy.
This episode in the history of the Theosophical Society is but the center-piece
of the story. The events surrounding the appearance of the Mahatma letters and
the Coulombs involvement in casting doubt on their veracity are discussed in
depth by Michael Gomes in this publication. Beginning with Blavatsky’s
first meeting with Emma Cutting (Coulomb) in 1871 and progressing to the late
20th century with Vernon Harrison’s conclusion that Hodgson’s methodology
was anything but stellar, the events described in this study, accompanied by
documentation, make a fascinating study of this most controversial case. Who
better to summarize this chapter in the Society’s history than the foremost
historian of Theosophical history? Mr. Gomes’ past publications include
The Dawning of the Theosophical Movement (Wheaton, IL: The Theosophical Publishing
House, 1987), Theosophy in the Nineteenth Century: An Annotated Bibliography (N.Y. and London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1994), and an abridged version of
Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled (Wheaton: Quest Books, 1997). He also delivered
the Blavatsky Lecture for 2000, “Creating the New Age: Theosophy’s
Origins in the British Isles” edited and introduced the first volume of
the Theosophical History Occasional Papers series, Witness for the Prosecution:
Annie Besant’s Testimony on Behalf of H.P. Blavatsky in the N.Y. Sun/Coues
Law Case (1993), and the fourth volume of the series, W.T. Brown’s “Scenes
in My Life” (1995).
One of the lesser known
and ignored founders of the Theosophical Society and one of the prominent
figures in Spiritualism, Emma Hardinge Britten (1823-1899) is the subject
of a major study by Robert Mathiesen, Professor of Slavic Languages at Brown
University in Rhode Island (USA). Dr. Mathiesen writes:
Emma Hardinge Britten (1823-1899) is, for most people, a forgotten figure,
who seems to merit no more than a footnote in the separate histories of
Spiritualism, the Theosophical Society and nineteenth-century occultism.
Only recently, due largely to Joscelyn Godwin and John Patrick Deveney,
has her historical importance begun to be reassessed. The present monograph
is meant to broaden and deepen our understanding of the several important
roles which she played in public and in private throughout the years of
her long life.
To this end, Professor Mathiesen includes chapters on Hardinge Britten’s
early life (1823-1856), her career as Spiritualist, the identity of the
Chevalier Louis de B___, his role in the publication of Art Magic and Ghost
Land, the occult society in which he was a member, the “Orphic Circle,”
and her involvement in the early years of the Theosophical Society. Appendices
include a chronology of Emma Hardinge Britten’s life and a bibliography
of her books. An extensive bibliography and notes are also included.
The Unseen Worlds of Emma Hardinge (ISBN 1-883279-09-7) is approximately
90 pages in length. The date of publication is scheduled for February 15,
2001. The pre-publication price (postmarked prior to January 25) is $18.00
(£12.00); the full publication price of $24.00 (£15.00) will
take effect on January 25, 2000. For airmail, please add $3.50 (£2.50)
and $2.00 (£1.40) for each additional copy. There is no extra shipping
and handling charge except for airmail. For California residents, please
add 7.75% sales tax ($19.39 for pre-publication price; $25.85 for publication
price). Purchase of five or more copies will receive a 20% discount.