Selections from correspondence by A. D. Bathell | Notes by H.P.B.
To the Editor of Lucifer.1
No doubt many of your readers will be aware that, for some considerable time, there has been published week by week in the Medium, what purports to be a “history” of the most imposing personages of Modern Spiritual History; but instead of a clear record, with a general view of both sides of the question being presented, it is only a reiteration—of what might appear on the surface—the most damaging points against the claims, as “Teachers” and “Leaders” of certain expressions of Modern Spiritual Thought. Whether it has succeeded in its object of vilification of the persons concerned, is more than doubtful.2
. . .
Had the efforts of the assumed “head” of the “Spiritual Institution,” been crowned with successful life as an “Organization,” and as “a leading power of Spiritual Thought and expression,” instead of a gradual decay of power and influence, we should have had no one-sided review, and no vilification of the life and labours of the personages named in “Modern Spiritual History,” by William Oxley.3
Editor’s Note [H.P.B.]:
As we are very little concerned with either the pop-guns shot at us, or those who amuse themselves in shooting them, we at first hesitated to insert the above. Having so many of our own quarrels on hand, we were unwilling to meddle with those of others. We have not the pleasure of knowing Mr. Bathell personally; but since his letter throws independently such a flood of light on the true causes of the animus of some of our ex-Fellows—ever the most relentless in slandering the Society—we publish it most willingly.
Personally, we feel very grateful to Mr. Bathell for his considerate defence. As, however, the experience of several years has proved to us that every slander on the T.S. has only led to the increase of its members, and every direct attack against the Founders and lie about the modest editor of this journal, have invariably brought to the front unexpected and devoted friends, we feel rather unwilling to lose our dear and faithful detractors and slanderers. May they prosper and increase, the charitable and truthful souls! As the Khalif of the tale, who would not part with a beloved boil, for the latter helped to purify and keep his blood in good order, so we would not part—if it can only be avoided—with our active and amiable calumniators. They are the generous and volunteer scavengers of the Theosophical Society, so to speak, its vernal blue pill and black draught. Every malicious fib of theirs is an additional bar furnished to us gratis toward the erection of our Theosophical Eiffel Tower, and the future eminence of its architects. Dearly beloved enemies, pray let yourselves be entreated not to turn your backs upon us!
1. We must apologise to our correspondent for the omission of part of his letter, as well as of some passages from the accompanying documents. This correspondence has been awaiting publication since March last, and the great pressure on our space renders its insertion in extenso quite impossible.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
2. We can assure our esteemed correspondent that the attempt made has proved a sad failure—in our case, at any rate. For years we have not read a single paragraph in the Medium and Daybreak, and feel as indifferent to its abuse or praise as the moon to the nocturnal howling of jackals.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
3. The petty spite shown to us by Mr. W. Oxley, an ex-F.T.S., is very natural. An ardent Theosophist at first, but a still more ardent Spiritualist, this tender-hearted gentleman began by writing letters to one of our Masters, whose neglect to notice him, and his Angelic Revelations, hurt his feelings. Moreover, the criticism which Busiris, the ancient Aryan “Spirit” and Sage in his “Philosophy of Spirit,” received at the hands of Mr. Subba Row and other Hindus in the Theosophist (vide No. of May, 1882 et seq.) was not calculated to make the flame of brotherly love burn brighter in Mr. Oxley’s bosom. He would be more than an average Spiritualist, verily a sage or an Indian philosopher himself, had he accepted the just criticism in a brotherly spirit and never retaliated. But Mr. Oxley is not a philosopher, still less a sage! hence this laborious though vain attempt at mud-throwing. We hope he will not catch cold during the operation.—Ed. [H.P.B.]