1
10
5
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d13ed9db848b5b0ec35d62553bb6d36d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BaB6uRo1B7meaeVTVTeqMrwWSwek-A2mkL4AETxYM2Lwawpt2Y-PoeBoB5apsEDcBEDRHU%7ESLUNNhVHy-jq8ZcXEL7ejCe8ewpmkLxwthWzqZ0WhU0flNn02SEZZrhmF2c82-CFikxMYpm-I2PkhggtcxhEZSNgDckc8JTsN1rdqieZevSG5X-Oadqa%7EoJxiMHRXXC6skHyGFzj47DyHQfcEVj5KdaZndX3BpuY87YNnjXH3kHcw3lFExDkC8JjWygbFZpW3WLLwDxYrUXGcd3aXc2c-WV2cY2F4RVixe0r3U3Tna2-vkA%7E1cRYYhYIwlKmvpyydHJBKf5fI64lXSA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3b7c3d6237af69c47c551fe622895a15
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE NEW CAGLIOSTRO
AN OPEN LETTER
TO
MADAME BLAVATSKY
It is worth considering what element your Quack specially works in:
the element of Wonder ! The Genuine, be he artist or artisan, works
in the finitude of the Known; the Quack in the infinitude of the
Unknown.—Carlyle.
Price Twopence.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1889.
�THE NEW CAGrLIOSTRO.
AN OPEN LETTER TO MADAME BLAVATSKY.
Madam,—In addressing this open letter to you I am
writing for the public rather than for yourself. I have
no expectation, and certainly no desire, of influencing
you in the slightest degree. You are personally a
stranger to me, your orbit is far removed from mine,
and I should never have felt any interest in your move
ments or teachings had it not been for the conversion
to Theosophy of a lady for whose character I entertain
the highest respect. Mrs. Besant’s change of position
was a phenomenon to which I could not remain
indifferent.
I had occasion to criticise her new
opinions, and in doing so I was obliged to notice you.
Mrs. Besant eulogised your personal character in glow
ing language. With that, however, I did not concern
myself; I was unable to perceive its connexion with
the truth or falsity of theosophic principles. But you
were also credited, at least by implication, with the
possession of extraordinary powers, which ordinary
men and women would regard as miraculous. It was
more than hinted that you were the connecting
link between the humble devotees of Theosophy in
the benighted West and the Wise Men of the East who
deliver their supernal oracles in the unexplored regions
of Thibet. Such statements were open to criticism,
and I dealt with them in my reply to Mrs. Besant.
My remarks were brief and pointed ; the space I
devoted to you being simply proportionate to the part
you played in Mrs. Besant’s apology. What I had to
say was not very complimentary, and I am not sur
prised at your annoyance. But I am suprised at your
being stung into replying. It is more than I dared
�g *2*9 3
The New Gagliostro.
3
to hope. I was afraid you would follow your wise old
plan of letting the storm blow until it spent itself and
was forgotten ; but, instead of this, you have given me
an opportunity of writing at greater length on what is
now an interesting subject.
Your pamphlet betrays a dreadful ill temper. This
is a fact of which I do not complain. A cross dis
putant generally gives himself away, and his sarcasms
are apt to raise a smile of pity. It was not with anger
that I read your observation that “ The Freethinker
has shown its foot, and henceforth it cannot fail to be
recognised by its hoof.” This delicate badinage is a
revelation of the sweetness and light which prevail in
the upper circles of esoteric philosophy. It shows
what exquisite powers of wit are wielded by the Chelas
and adepts who have cultivated their spirits on the
heights of being, and breathed the pure air of theosophic perfection.
You tell your readers, madam, that I am a
“slanderer,” that I am guilty of “false and malicious
accusations as brutal as they are uncalled for,” that I
have “ abused and denounced you,” that I have “ flung
handfuls of mud ” at you, that I have circulated “ lies
which have never been proven, and on which no
evidence is adduced,” and that I have made free with
your “ private life and personality.”
I reply that I have done nothing of the kind. I have
made no accusations against you ; I have not said a
single word about your private life.
With regard to the latter charge, I defy you to pro
duce a single proof. What are the facts ? Mrs. Besarit
described you, in her Star article, as “ the most
remarkable woman of her time,” as one who had “ left,
home and country, social position and wealth, to spend
her life and marvellous abilities ” in spreading
Theosophy. Now this is a publie utterance, open to
public criticism ; and as one of the public, I ventured
to ask the simple and modest questions—“What is
Mde. Blavatsky’s home, what is her country, what was
her social position, and what is the extent of her
wealth ? ” Certainly I have no claim to have these
questions answered, but when your praise is sounded
�4
The New Gagliostro.
so lustily, I have a right to ask them. Instead of
replying, you fly into a passion, and cry “impertinent! ”
Would it not be wiser to restrain the enthusiasm of
your friends? If they drag your “ personality ” into
the discussion, you ought not to be surprised at its
being canvassed. Am I to understand that you are
willing to profit by their eulogies, but resentful at any
request for information ?
You decline to answer my “ impertinent question,”
and refer me with a regal air to the Indian Political
Department and the Russian Embassy. No doubt both
of them have a pretty full dossier on Mde. Blavatsky,
but I have no intention of consulting them. They are
not likely to entrust me with their secrets, which may
be important if you visit India again. I notice,
however, that you supply the public with information
through circuitous channels. You are too discreet to
write your own biography ; you assign that mission to
your friends. Accordingly I find a long account of
your family connections in the Birmingham Gazette,
from the pen of Mrs. Besant. It is a subject on which
that lady has no personal knowledge, having only
recently formed your acquaintance. Still, I have no
reason to doubt her statement. I learn that you are
the widow of a Russian Councillor of State, that you
belong to the “highly placed family” of the Von
Hahns, and that your “ means ” are your own, drawn
from your father. This is very interesting, but the
extent of your “ means ” is not indicated. Mde.
Coulomb says you told her, in 1880, that the whole of
your income was derived from a sum of money left to
you by your father, which did not yield you more
than a hundred rupees a month. Of course poverty is
no crime, as wealth is no virtue ; and intrinsically it is
indifferent whether you are an aristocrat or a plebeian,
or rich or poor. But while you are enlightening the
world, through the agency of your friends, you may as
well be precise ; and when they parade your sacrifices
it is absurd to quarrel with a natural curiosity.
This is the full extent of my inquisitiveness as to
your “ private life,” and how does it justify your
indignation ? I made no charges ; I did not even
�The New Cagliostro.
5
make a statement; I simply asked a question, which
was provoked by the zeal of your admirers. I never
concerned myself for a moment with your domestic
affairs, how you live, what you eat and drink, and
whose society you frequent. I have nothing to do
with such matters, and I am as little of a Paul Pry as
any man on this planet. I am known, more or less
intimately, by hundreds of people, who are the judges
of my taste in this direction.
If I know myself, too, I would not do any person an
injustice, not even the prophetess of Theosophy. I
hasten, therefore, to withdraw a word I used, and the
only one I see reason to regret. I said that twenty
years ago you were “ practising as a spiritist 1 mejum ’
in America.” Now practising is the wrong word ; it
conveys more than I intended. I should have written
operating, or some such word. I did not mean that
you were living by your mediumship, and I frankly
apologise for the inadvertency. My object was to show
that you were a Spiritualist, and a medium, long before
you were a Theosophist, and this you are unable to
deny. It is proved by your letter to Human Nature
in April 1872, it is proved by Colonel Olcott’s People
from the Other World, and corroborated by Mde.
Coulomb. This lady says the Cairo seances came to
grief because the devotees found the apparatus with
which they had been deluded, especially the “ long
glove stuffed with cotton,” which represented ‘‘the
materialised hand and arm of some spirit.”
I am defied to “ prove beyond doubt or cavil that
Mde. Blavatsky has ever asked for or received any
reward whatever, of a material nature, during her
fifteen years of voluntary labor.” As I have never
asserted anything of the kind, I do not feel called upon
to prove it. I am not in a position to say Aye or No.
Every reader of Mde. Coulomb’s pamphlet will be able
to judge for himself in some respects, especially if he
looks carefully at two interesting letters (pp. 81, 85)
by Colonel Olcott, and another on the very next page
by Mde. Blavatsky herself.
“ Reward ” does not
always take the shape of direct payment. Besides, it
seems to me that “ the lady doth protest too much.”
�6
The New Cagliostro.
There is really no harm in living by the cause to which
you devote your life. Mrs. Besant herself has done it,
and is still doing it so far as Freethought is concerned.
The indispensable condition is that it be done honestly
and above-board.
On the other hand,, too much
protestation is apt to breed suspicion.
Your cash transactions, madam, were not called in
question in my pamphlet. They did not so much as
form the subject of an allrfsion. Why then are you so
vehemently indignant on the matter ? And why is so
scrupulous a lady so very tzwscrupulous in her
quotations. You represent me as saying that “ denuncia
tion of landlords, capitalists, and all privileged persons,
is silly screaming against 1 eternal justice.’ ” I did
indeed write the words, but I did not father them. I
said they were true, in my opinion, if—mark the if—if
Mrs. Besant’s doctrine of Karma were sound, if each
man “reaps exactly as he has sown,” (/each Ego goes
into “ such physical and mental environment as. it
deserves.” I was asking Mrs. Besant to reconcile
Karma with Socialism. You know this, yet you place
me before your readers as a person who cites “ eternal
justice ”—in which I do not believe—as the friend of
landlordism and privilege.
Again, you tell your readers that I described my
friend Mr. Wheeler as a profound scholar whom
Mrs. Besant “ can never hope to emulate.” What I
said in my pamphlet was that “ it would take Mrs.
Besant many years of close study to rival ” his “ know
ledge of Brahminism and Buddhism, as well as of
general ‘ occult ’ literature.” I also said in the Free
thinker that he knew “more about Buddhism and
Oriental thought generally than Mrs. Besant is ever
likely to learn.” I am writing nearly three hundred
miles from home, and the file of my paper is not before
me, but I unhesitatingly deny having written that Mr.
Wheeler was a “ profound scholar ” whom Mrs. Besant
“ can never hope to emulate,” notwithstanding your
printing the words as a quotation.
Mrs. Besant
knows a great deal, but not in this particular direction,
whereas Mr. Wheeler has studied Oriental literature
for more than twenty years.
�The New Cagliostro.
7
Further, you say that I censure, ‘ ‘ Mde. Blavatsky’s
arrogance” for “assuming to know more of these
religions and occultism than does Mr. Mazzini
Wheeler.”
Sheer invention, madam ; the birth of
your own fertile brain ! I did refer to your “ arro
gance,” but only in connexion with your attitude
towards Darwin and Haeckel, whom you presumed to
instruct in evolution ; one of whom you described as
“ idiotic,” and both of whom you styled “ the intel
lectual and moral murderers of future generations.”
I am aware that you are extensively read in useless
literature. You have a prodigious knowledge of occult
authors. You have made a wonderful collection of the
maggots of the human brain. There is hardly a
superstition which is not wholly or partially sanctioned
in your four portly volumes. Your heap of rubbish
is colossal. Mr, Wheeler himself looks upon it with
amazement. But after all, to borrow a phrase from
Charles Lamb, you have only gathered the rotten part
of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
I will now consider what I did say of you in my
pamphlet. It is not true that I called you “ a thorough
paced adventuress.” I applied that phrase to the
writer of the letters to Mde. Coulomb, which I honestly
said you had “ repudiated as forgeries.” I as honestly
said, however, that Mde. Blavatsky “does not vin
dicate herself in the law courts, and the letters cer
tainly came from a more fertile brain than Mde.
Coulomb’s.”
What is your reply to this ? You scream at Mde,
Coulomb as a “Judas,” you protest against “insults
and slanders,” and you declare that they were “in
vented ” by the “ goldy Christian missionaries ” who
‘‘ bribed Mde. Coulomb ” and then “ cheated her out of
her well-earned blood-money.”
Admirable! madam. Your courage is superb. It
is worthy of Cagliostro himself when caught in the
toils. But, alas, your answer will not bear examina
tion. You have overdone your part. If Mde. Cou
lomb was bribed by the missionaries she might have
dishonestly put her name to forged documents in
India ; but, if she was cheated of her blood-money,
�8
The New Oagliostro.
why should she allow the pamphlet to be republished
in England ? If her motive was purely mercenary,
and she was without any other feeling, why should
she encourage the persons who have cheated her of
the price of her treachery ? Vengeance is sweet, and
the lower the nature the sweeter it is. The more,
therefore, you represent Mde. Coulomb as mean and
avaricious, the more incredible is her silence. If she
rounded on you, with no case, why, with a splendid
case, does she not round on the missionaries ? On the
other hand, is it conceivable that the missionaries
would invent the slanders, forge the correspondence,
and then, by withholding the “blood-money,” put
themselves at the mercy of a disappointed and
exasperated woman ?
There is one letter, ostensibly yours, madam, which
the missionaries could not have “ invented,” and from
which I take a striking extract. You are represented
as writing to Mde. Coulomb, from Poona, in October,
1883
“ Now, dear, let us change the subject. Whether something
succeeds or not, I must try. Jacob Sassoon, the happy pro
prietor of a crore of rupees, with whose family I dined last
night, is anxious to become a Theosophist. He is ready to
give 10,000 rupees, to buy and repair the headquarters, he said
to Colonel (Ezekiel, his cousin, arranged all this) if only he
saw a little phenomenon, got the assurance that the Mahatmas
could hear what was said, or gave him some other sign of their
existence (?!!). Well, this letter will reach you by the 26th
(Friday); will you go up to the shrine and ask K. H. (or
Christofolo) to send me a telegram that would reach me about
4 or 5 in the afternoon, same day, worded thus :
“Your conversation with Mr. Jacob Sassoon reached
Master just now. Were the latter even to satisfy him, still
the doubter would hardly find the moral courage to connect
himself with the society.
“ Ramalinga Deb.
“ If this reaches me on the 26th, even in the evening, it will
still produce a tremendous impression. Address, care of N.
Kandalawala, Judge, Poona. Je berai ee reste. . Oela
coutera quatre ou cinq roupies. Cela nc fait rien. [I will do
the rest. It will cost four or five rupees. That is of no con
sequence.]
“ Yours truly,
“ (Signed) H. P. B.” 1
i Some Accownt of my Intercourse with Aide. Blavatsky from 1S72 to
1884. By Madame Coulomb. London: Elliot Stock.
�The New Cagliostro.
9
Mde. Coulomb affirms that she sent the desired
telegram, as from Root Hoomi, a great Mahatma far
away in Thibet ; and I have been told that “ the fish
was landed.” You shelter yourself behind a general
repudiation. This is a plea of Not Guilty, but it is no
evidence for the defence. There is apparently a strong
corroboration of Mde. Coulomb’s story. Mr. Richard
Hodgson, who went out to investigate your occult
phenomena on the spot for the Society for Psychical
Research, reported as follows :—
“ The envelope which Madame Coulomb shows as belonging
to this letter bears the postmarks Poona, October 24th
Madras, October 26th; 2nd delivery, Adyar, October 26th; (as
to which Madame Blavatsky has written in the margin of my
copy of Madame Coulomb’s pamphlet: ‘ Cannot the cover have
contained another letter ? Funny evidence! ’). Madame
Coulomb also shows in connexion with this letter an official
receipt for a telegram sent in the name of Ramalinga Deb from
the St. Thome office, at Madras, to Madame Blavatsky at Poona,
on October 26th, which contained the same number of words
as the above.”2
I do not stand sponsor for the authenticity of your
reputed letters to Mde. Coulomb. I have my impres
sions, of course ; but, for all I know, you may have an
overwhelming defence. When yon offer it I will
listen with the deepest attention. Meanwhile I must
say that screaming “Judas 1” is not evidence. These
accusations of imposture are deliberate and circumstantial. If they were made against me, and I were
guilty, I would hold my tongue. If I were innocent, I
would refute them point by point, or vindicate my
character before a legal tribunal.
It is idle, madam, to ask me why I do not prosecute
the Christian Evidence agents for their “ shameful
accusations of gross profligacy launched against the
immaculate editor of the Freethinker.” Such accusa
tions are loose innuendoes, not open charges. They
are made against me in common with Mrs. Besant and
every other Freethought leader. And they are made
in the streets, in such circumstances that the law of
2 Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Eesearc/i, December, 1885,
�10
The New Cagliostro.
libel cannot reach them. I have heard for instance,
that I have run away with some one’s wife. Well, I
can afford to smile at such nonsense. All the same,
however, it may deceive the ignorant and unwary, and
T would prosecute the slanderers if they would only
put their libels in black on white. You urge that a
Christian jury would be prejudiced. Very likely.
But that has not prevented Mr. Bradlaugh from prose
cuting his libellers. In any case, one’s own friends,
and the impartial public, would have the facts before
them, and be able to form their own judgment.
You appear to forget an important point of your case.
My “ profligacy ” would not affect the truth of Freethought, but your “ imposture ” would seriously affect
the truth of Theosophy. The facts on which Freethought is based are quite independent of my
character; but what becomes of the wonderful
Mahatmas if the lady who is the authority for their
very existence is found concocting their messages ?
I now turn to the Report of the Society for Psychical
Research, with regard to which you write very in
accurately. You allege that in 1885 the Society accused
you of being a Russian spy. This is absolutely false.
The Society published Mr. Hodgson’s careful, elaborate,
and extremely able Report on your Indian wonders,
but did not endorse his speculations as to your moti ves.
It was Mr. Hodgson, and Mr. Hodgson only, who sug
gested a political motive for your Eastern adventures.
He found a rumor current in India that you were a
Russian spy, but he put it aside as “ unworthy.”
Subsequently, however, a singular piece of your hand
writing fell into his possession, breathing a strong
hatred of the British, looking forward to “ the approach
ing act of the Eastern drama ” which was to be “ the last
and the decisive one,” and declaring that those who
sat idle while the great preparations were going on
were traitors to their “ country and their Czar.” You
explained to Mr. Hodgson that it was probably a por
tion of a translation you had made from a Russian
work. “ Be this as it may,” Mr. Hodgson says, “ I
cannot profess myself, after my personal experiences
of Madame Blavatsky, to feel much doubt that her
�The New Gagliostro.
11
real object has been the furtherance of Russian
interests.”
Mr. Hodgson went out to India on behalf of the
Society to investigate your marvels on the spot. The
Society is on the hunt for occult phenomena, and
anxious to find them. Mr. Hodgson himself was far
from indisposed to discover something; whatever
prepossessions he had were “distinctly in favor of
occultism and Mde. Blavatsky.”
But after three
months’ close investigation he was obliged to conclude
that “ the phenomena connected with the Theosophical
Society were part of a huge fraudulent system worked
by Mde. Blavatsky with the assistance of the Coulombs
and several other confederates, and that not a Single
genuine phenomenon could be found among them all.”
The Psychical Society had for its president Professor
Balfour Stewart, Professor ’Sidgwick was among the
vice-presidents, Mr. F. W. H. Myers was a member of
the Committee with Professor Sidgwick, and among
the honorary members I see the names of Professor
Crookes, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. John Ruskin, Dr. A. R.
Wallace, and Lord Tennyson. When this is known,
madam, it will be futile on your part to ask English
men to regard the Society as a band of libellous
blackguards, whose Report would only be believed by
a “ fool.”
The Committee of the Psychical Society received
from Mr. Hodgson a selection of your reputed letters
to Mde. Coulomb, with some letters undoubtedly written
by you. These “ were submitted to the well-known
expert in handwriting, Mr. Netherclift, and also to Mr.
Sims, of the British Museum. These gentlemen came
independently to the conclusion that the letters were
written by Mde. Blavatsky.”
After carefully weighing all the evidence, the Com
mittee arrived at the following conclusions :—
(1) “ That of the letters put forward by Mde. Coulomb, all
those, at least, which the Committee have had the opportunity
of themselves examining, and of submitting to the judgment
of experts, are undoubtedly written by Mde. Blavatsky, and
suffice to prove that she has been engaged in a long-continued
combination with other persons to produce by ordinary means
�12
The New Cagliostro.
a series of apparent marvels for the support of the Theosophic
movement.
(2) “That, in particular, the Shrine at Adyar, through
which letters purporting to come from Mahatmas were re
ceived, was elaborately arranged with a view to the secret in
sertion of letters and other objects through a sliding panel at
the back, and regularly used for this purpose by Mde.
Blavatsky or her agents.
(3) “ That there is consequently a very strong general pre
sumption that all the marvellous narratives put forward as
evidence of the existence and occult power of the Mahatmas
are to be explained as due either (a) to deliberate deception
carried out by or at the instigation of Mde. Blavatsky, or (b) to
spontaneous illusion, or hallucination, or unconscious mis
representation oi' invention on the part of the witnesses.”
You cannot pretend, madam, that the Society has
been animated by prejudice or a desire to expose
you. . Its investigations were carried on quietly,
and its Report was published in the usual way
for its members.. Your injudicious friends are
responsible for this extended publicity. If you are
innocent, and all the evidences against you are
ridiculous fabrications, you have a splendid case
against the respectable firm of Triibner and Co, and the
wealthy members of the Society for Psychical Research.
Now for your Mahatmas. The great Root Hoomi’s
letters have been declared to be in your own
handwriting. Further, they betray your very tricks of
style. Mde. Blavatsky wrote “ Olcott says you speak
very well English,” and Root Hoomi wrote one who
understands tolerably well English.” Here is a small
list of their similarities of spelling
Mde. Blavatsky.
your’s, her’s3
expell
thiefs
deceaved, beseached
quarreling
cool.v (for “ coolly ”
lazzy, lazziness
consciensciously
defense
Koot Hoomi.
your’s
dispell, fulfill
thiefs
leasure
quarreling
alloted
in totto
circumstancial
defense.
Mde. Blavatsky makes the very same blunder “their’s” in the
pamphlet before me.
�The New Gagliostro.
13
Koot Hoomi also spelt “ skepticism,” an American
fashion of spelling, which yon might have acquired
in the land of the Stars and Stripes before your voyage
to India. Finally, Koot Hoomi spelt “ remarqued,” a
form of spelling easily fallen into by a Russian lady
with a good command of French and an imperfect
command of English.
It is also very singular, madam, that Koot Hoomi not
only repeated your curiosities of spelling, and your
very tricks of style, but actually repeated your crude
scientific blunders; writing of “ a bacteria,” and
confusing “ carbonic ” with “ carbolic ” acid. Still
more singular is it? if possible, that Koot Hoomi’s
hand-writing is remarkably like Mde. Blavatsky’s
disguised, and that the experts declare his letters to be
undoubtedly from your pen.
Considering that Koot Hoomi is a Wise Man of the
East, possessing supernormal wisdom and supernormal
powers, it is astonishing that he should write to Mr.
Sinnett from Thibet, in 1880, and give as his own a
long passage borrowed from a speech of Mr. H. Kiddle,
an American Spiritualist, which was reported in the
Banner of Light two months before the date of Koot
Hoomi’s letter.
Koot Hoomi’s explanation was
shuffling and preposterous; and, subsequently, Mr.
Kiddle was able to show that Koot Hoomi’s amended
letter still contained a number of unacknowledged
borrowings, in addition to the passages now marked
as quotations. Who can resist the conclusion of the
Psychical Society’s committee, that “The proof of a
deliberate plagiarism, aggravated by a fictitious defence,
is therefore irresistible ” ?
Koot Hoomi made another dreadful mistake in a
letter to Mr. Hume with reference to a young man in
his employment. After speaking of the young man’s
“inner soul-power and moral sense,” the Mahatma
continues :—
“ I have often watehed that silent yet steady progress, and
on that day when he was called to take note of the contents of
your letter to Mr. Sinnett, concerning our humble selves, and
the conditions you imposed upon us—I have myself learned a
�14
The New Oagliostro.
lesson. A soul is being breathed into him, a new Spirit let in,
and with every day he is advancing towards a state of higher
development. One fine morning the ‘ Soul ’ will find him ; but,
unlike your English mystics across the great Sea, it will be
under the guidance of the true living adept, not under the
spasmodic inspirations of his own untutored ‘ Buddhi,’ known
to you as the sixth principle in man.”
Mr. Hume appends a note that, at the very time this
was written, the good young man “ was systematically
cheating and swindling me by false contracts, besides
directly embezzling my money.” So much for the
“ learned spirit of human dealings ” of the great
Mahatma who is “ able to read the hidden thoughts of
others without first mesmerising them.”
As for Koot Hoomi’s poor tricks—such as disinte
grating and reintegrating letters, saucers, and cigarettes
—they would be looked upon with contempt by any
third-rate English conjuror ; while his “ astral appear
ance ” to the faithful at Madras is declared by the
Coulombs to have been operated by means of a dummy.
With respect to your own “ remarkable powers,”
they are probably as authentic as those of the Sheik
you tell of in Isis UnveiLed, who was absolutely bullet
proof, even at close quarters. We are informed that
you are very chary of exercising your “ remarkable
powers,” because they extend to the very life of other
people ; but most sensible persons, I fancy, will smile
at such extravagant pretensions. Nevertheless, I do
not undertake to deny your occult resources. I am
willing to believe you can “ eat a crocodile or drink up
Eisel ”—on production of proof.
You charge me, madam, with grossly misrepresent
ing Theosophy. I reply that all I have said of it is
based on the writings of yourself and Mrs. Besant. I
said that “ Spiritism is the logical issue of this fanciful
philosophy.” You answer that you are not a Spiritist.
I never said you were. I spoke of “ the logical issue ”
of your teaching. But why, in any case, will you
quarrel over straws ? You talk ofil astral appearances,”
and Mrs. Besant says the Ego can be separated from the
body during life and “ appear apart ” from it. Strictly
speaking, perhaps, this is not Spiritualism, as presented
�The New Oagliostro.
15
by the mediums ; but I venture to include it under the
general head of Spiritism.
You are good enough to remind me that my scepticsm
belongs only to “ a fraction ” of the human race. But
what does that signify ? Truth is not established by
appealing to numbers. I have no ambition to be on
the side of the majority. I desire to be on the side of
Truth.
With characteristic flippancy and inaccuracy, you
say that I urge the antiquity of the doctrine of re
incarnation as an objection to Theosophy.
I did
nothing of the kind. I gave a brief historical sketch of
the doctrine from the most obvious sources, in order to
give point to my wonder that Mrs. Besant should have
been “ struck with the charming novelty of very
ancient doctrines.” I need not deal, therefore, with
your demolition of your own man of straw.
You seek to turn the edge of my criticism of the
ethics of Theosophy by explaining away every
objectionable feature. Thus the “ destruction of self,”
and the “ killing out of personal desires,” are whittled
down to “ a control over one’s animal passions.” Really,
madam, one would think you were writing for children.
Do you imagine that grown-up people are to be cheated
into regarding “ control ” and “ destruction ” as
equivalent ?
You say I am fighting an imaginary windmill in
denouncing your doctrine of celibacy ; yet, in the very
same breath you show all the exquisite urbanity of
your refined nature, in asserting that my “ material
instincts ” are aroused against celibacy, which is
natural in one “ who is proud to claim kinship with
the gorilla.” I am not aware that I have ever pro
fessed pride in any kinship ; on the other hand, I do
not despise my lowly relatives ; and, on the whole, I
would sooner claim kinship with a gorilla than with a
Cagliostro.
Celibacy, you tell me, is “ not enforced ” in your
inner circle.
Very likely.
You are not able to
“ enforce ” anything. But is it not the rule ? With
respect to those who “ enter on the Path,” Mrs. Besant
states that “ if they mean to go any distance,
�16
The New Cagliostro.
they must lead a celibate life.” Observe the word,
madam—must!
You forget, also, what you have
written yourself on the subject. I take the following
passages from your own tract:—
“ Even the love for wife and family—the purest as the most
unselfish of human affections—is a barrier to real occultism . . .
The aspirant has to choose absolutely between the life of the
world and the life of Occultism. It is useless and vain to
endeavour to unite the two, for no one can serve two masters
and satisfy both. No one can serve his body and the higher
Soul, and do his family duty and his universal duty, without
depriving either the one or the other of its rights ; for he will
either lend his ears to the “ still small voice ” and fail to hear
the cries of his little ones, or he will listen but to the wants of
the latter and remain deaf to the voice of Humanity. It would
be a ceaseless, a maddening struggle for almost any married
man, who would pursue true practical Occultism instead of its
theoretical philosophy.4
You see, madam, I am not so “ absurdly ignorant ” of
your writings as you allege. When you write for
Theosophists you insist on celibacy ; when you write
for the outer world you pooh-pooh it, and instance “ a
member of the ‘ inner circle ’ who has just got married
to a second wife.”
You conclude by bidding the “ genii of Freethought”
to “ learn good manners first of all.” Thank you,
madam ; I have learnt many things from you. I have
learnt that Socrates died for the rotundity of the earth,
that men at one time had three eyes and four arms,
that Darwinism is moonshine, and that apes are the
offspring of human and animal parents. While you
impart such transcendent wisdom I shall always listen
with profound respect. It will cost me an effort to
believe it all, but I promise you, madam, that I will
believe as much as I can ; and after Mrs. Besant has
developed such unexpected credulity, there is surely
hope for the shrewdest Freethinker.
Yours doubtfully,
G. W. FOOTE.
4 “Theosophical Tracts,” No. vii., pp. 14, 15.
.Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The new Cagliostro : an open letter to Madame Blavatsky
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Madame Blavatsky co-founded the Theosophical Society and was a leader of the Theosophy religious movement. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N256
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theosophy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The new Cagliostro : an open letter to Madame Blavatsky), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Annie Besant
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
NSS
Theosophy
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c9655754bce799f131a9e4da03ba08a8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=cS2La78pJvrfCI7ZRjqtft9TgVsN%7EmFvlW7IJ6Lui9O%7EEYivM%7Ep5nlJfEwl9mEyU3ubWwatYxC4QuNfU26sfYfgWFR3k9yapy8dJaCRxA7V-rcFvqmHfxHWIl8y0Xyu2P4fh9hI-WPyQNcVJVYsvY8Ep1kKRqJAm%7EnYh0LfZMheWi%7EpLEUSmLM%7EDThIESGOBGe3L5XdGROxDpc8I9gGJr%7ErR9n4OgBTGnUlejSySczj-UessvQ8-ExdhfRFXwubFplAaPzW5Sy8YIT8iTRL-oTGL82YWtp2rGf2V%7ECFtjGj8P4AzdtZNcxnMUnMcHNrhhw8TFdctwz5uz1bSX2xNRg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
aef73bd82281a0b371c058b31d269d01
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
SECULARISM
AND
THEOSOPHY
A Rejoinder to Mrs. B esani's pamphlet
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
bonbon :
PROGRESSIVE
PUBLISHING
COMPANY,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E,0.
1889.
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
A REJOINDER TO MRS. BES ANT’S PAMPHLET.
MRS. Besant has at length discovered that she owes a
duty to the Secular party, and to all the persons she
has for many years been helping to mislead. The
obligation does not seem to have occurred to her until
I pointedly urged it in my pamphlet on Mrs. Besant's
Theosophy. But better late than never. Her recanta
tion and her fresh programme, minus some discreet
omissions, are placed before her old friends and
followers, and I now submit them to a fuller •
examination.
I must first, however, clear away some personal
matters. Mrs. Besant apparently pleads that her delay
in addressing the Secular party was necessitated. “ I
had no paper,” she says, “ in which I could give my
reasons for becoming a Theosophist.” True, but not
the whole truth. I cannot believe Mr. Bradlaugh
would have denied her space in the National
Reformer; I am certain I would not have denied her
space in the Freethinker. Even if the Freethought
papers were closed to her, there was still the alternative
of a pamphlet, and that she has now adopted.
Mrs. Besant complains that she has been misrepre
sented. I do not admit it ; but who was at fault if it
be true ? I took what she had written, and I could
not know what she had not written. She has only
herself to blame for any misunderstanding.
Curiously enough, she has only detected one “ mis
representation ” in my pamphlet, and that is no misrepresentation at all, as I shall show presently. The
other “ misrepresentations ” are discovered in the Free
thinker. I am rebuked for quoting a portion of a
�13^505
SECULARISM . AND THEOSOPHY.
3
review of my pamphlet in the Medium and Daybreak,
The fact is, I had not seen the paper itself, which was
not forwarded, but only the extracts I used, which
were copied and sent me by a friend. Mrs. Besant
quotes “the context,” but she only quotes as much as
serves her purpose. She indulges in the withering
but hackneyed remark that “ comment is needless.” I
agree with her. The matter is of infinitesimal import
ance. It is a speck of dust in comparison with such a
mistake, for instance, as the one about Krishna and
Christ in her Roots of Christianity; a mistake which
has been pointed out to her again and again, but which
I am not aware that she has taken the slightest pains to
correct, although it is a serious damage to the Freethought cause in controversy with the agents of the
Christian Evidence Society.
Another point is not worth the space it occupies.
It was stated in the Freethinker, on the authority of a
Theosophist, that Mde. Blavatsky was going abroad for
a holiday, and would confide the presidency of the
Society to Mrs. Besant. Now Mde. Blavatsky is “the
centre ” of the movement in England, as Mrs. Besant
wrote in the Star, but she is not the “ president.’
Theosophically the distinction is immense. The
Freethinker clearly circulated false news.
I plead
guilty. I put on sackcloth. I humble myself in the dust.
I am oppressed by the enormity of my crime. But if
every editor as guilty joined me, what a company we
should be.
It is a pity Mrs. Besant is so lacking in humor.
She seems to think her old colleagues are in a conspiracy
to insult her.
She complains of “ rebuke,” of
“ reproach,” of “ bigotry.” She apostrophises Truth,
and declares she will follow her “ into the wilderness.”
She even writes an epitaph for her martyr’s tomb.. All
this shows she is very much in earnest, but is it
pertinent, is it sensible ? Does criticism become
persecution when Mrs. Besant is its object ? Is no one
to tell her that her new opinions are false ? Is no one
to point out their incompatibility with Secularism ?
Is she to be treated as the spoilt child of Freethought ?
Must we applaud her passionate appeals to Truth and
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
never let her hear a little ? I protest that when any
one gets into this frame of mind a douche of plain
speaking is the only proper remedy. Theosophy is not
above criticism, neither is Mrs. Besant. She is free to
change her views as often as she pleases. She may
turn Roman Catholic if she likes. Freethinkers will
respect her motives and admire her eloquence. But
they will retain their right to criticise her religion as
theyT would any other, and to define where and how it
clashes with Secularism.
When Mrs. Besant says that I write “ with exceeding
bitterness,” I can only reply that I am not conscious of
doing so. I spoke of her as “ a brave as well as a good
woman.” I said I “ admired Mrs. Besant’s eloquence
and abilities, and still more her generous and enthusi
astic character.” Is this “ exceeding bitterness ” ? My
criticism is called the “ recent attack on me.” There
is the secret. Mrs. Besant has been humored and
fluttered so long that criticism is an “attack.’’
Still more absurd is the complaint that I “ warn her
off the platform.” “ I will cherish a hope,” I said,
“ that a lady so gifted, so eloquent, so devoted, and so
brave, may some dayT see that Theosophy itself is Maya,
or illusion, and return to the sound and bracing philo
sophy that once guided and inspired her.” This is not
warning her off the platform, but hoping she will
return to the platform she has virtually left.
I certainly did complain of Mrs. Besant’s having
used the Freethought platform “ in an unjustifiable
manner ” to propagate Socialism. I also remarked—
but this is judiciously avoided—that “ she advocated
Socialism in Secular halls, but not Secularism in
Socialist meeting-places.” Hundreds of Freethinkers
said the same thing, but it did not reach Mrs. Besant’s
ears. Well, it should, and it has. I fear she will never
forgive me for telling her, but truth is higher than
politeness, and I risk the consequences.
Mrs. Besant says that “ in myT younger and broader
days ” I lectured from the Freethought platform on
various subjects. She is mistaken. Let us take the
Hall of Science in London. Sunday evening lectures
are delivered there by the leaders of our party. That
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY,
5
is the Freethought platform. I have always recognised
it and acted accordingly. There are also Sunday
morning lectures during a few of the winter months.
That is not the Freethought platform. It is merely an
adjunct. Besides, the character of those lectures was
decided by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant. All I had
to do was to acquiesce. At any rate, the Secular party
was not committed to any views expressed on those
occasions ; nor could it be, for one Sunday Mr. Brad
laugh was lecturing against Socialism, and the next
Mrs. Besant was lecturing for it. But Mrs. Besant was
not satisfied with that. She took to lecturing in the
evening, and used the Freethought platform for a
foreign purpose. I do not expect her to agree with me,
but I say it was wrong. Her being a Socialist did not
conflict with her being a Secularist, but there is a time
and a place for everything, and a party organised for
one object will split up if it deals with twenty. As a
Freethinker, belonging to a party which teaches the
supreme value of liberty, I might (I apprehend) speak
from the platform against compulsory vaccination. But
the separate question of the medical character of vac
cination is an open one. Freethinkers may and do
differ upon it, and what right have I, or what right
has anyone, to use a platform maintained by all for
the regular advocacy of sectional views ? I might use
my position and my popularity, such as they are, to
carry my own way, as far as the party would stand it;
but in doing so I should be a traitor to the cause, I
should be setting myself above its welfare and its
traditions.
Again and again I have declined, as a special lec
turer of the National Secular Society, to speak against
Socialism. Some of our members were Socialists, and
I was bound to refrain from attacking their opinions
on our common platform. I have tried to carry out
the same policy in the Freethinker. It is a just and
a wise policy, and Mrs. Besant was thinking more of
Socialism than of Secularism when she violated it so
flagrantly.
Mrs. Besant’s position is untenable. She claims the
right of “ using the platform for lecturing on any sub
�6
SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
ject that seems to me to be useful.” What, on any
subject ? Crinolines, tall hats, and French pastry ?
Clearly any is too sweeping. Suppose Mrs. Besant
turned a Roman Catholic, or a Lutheran, or a Wesleyan,
or a Salvationist, would she still claim the right of
airing her views on the Freethought platform ? Again
any is too sweeping. There are necessary limitations,
and Mrs. Besant has not troubled to ascertain them.
Let me tell her what I believe her right is on the
Freethought platform. It is not a right to lecture on
any subject she thinks useful, but a right to lecture on
any subject the party thinks useful- To this com
plexion she must come at last.
Meanwhile Mrs. Besant forces upon me an unplea
sant duty. She will have no compromise, and no
accommodation, until the Secular party is stung into
taking action on the matter. She is going round the
country preaching Theosophy from our platform.
Very well, I shall go round and oppose it. I will
spare it no more than any other superstition. And she
has no reason to complain. She will do her duty, and
I will do mine. When the party decides, I will
submit or retire. That it must decide I have no doubt.
Foreign matter will sometimes enter an organism, but
the organism tries to expel it, and if strong enough it
succeeds. I am sure Freethought is strong enough,
and I believe this controversy will help to accentuate
its principles and define its policy.
Let me also tell Mrs. Besant why I said she might
“lead Freethinkers astray.” She protests that Free
thinkers are “ competent to form their own judgment,
not mere sheep, to be led one way or the other.”
Borrowing her own expression, I call this clap-trap.
Judgments are formed by hearing both sides. That is
one reason for my interference. Then there are Free
thinkers and Freethinkers. The best of us are human,
and many excellent persons have followed a trusted
leader into new paths, out of sheer love and admira
tion. When Mrs. Besant was so annoyed with Mr.
Ball’s pamphlet on her Socialism, when she denounced
it in the National Reformer as insulting, declining to
answer it on the ground of its scurrility, and refusing
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
7
her old contributor a word of explanation—I met
with one Freethinker whom she did lead astray. He
said he was sorry to hear that Mr. Ball had grossly
insulted Mrs. Besant, and on being asked if he had
read the pamphlet, replied “ Certainly not, I shouldn’t
think of doing so.” Here and there, then, a Free
thinker is a sheep, in certain moods ; and it is well
to protect these weaker brethren against their own
frailties.
Now for the single “ misrepresentation ” in my
pamphlet. I spoke of Mrs. Besant’s belief in the
“ transmigration of souls.” Upon this she remarks :
“ I can but suppose that he is moved rather by a desire
to discredit me than by a desire for truth ”—and this
from a lady who is herself so sensitive to criticism!
Was there no alternative but a dishonorable motive on
my part ? Mrs. Besant had not fully explained herself ;
I took what she offered, and paid her the compliment
of supposing she was logical. She believed in re
incarnation, and I thought she accepted its conse
quences, like the Brahmins and Buddhists, like the
ancient Egyptians, and indeed like every other people
among whom the doctrine has prevailed. If there is
ascent, there is also descent; if those who purify them
selves are reincarnated in higher forms, those who
degrade themselves are reincarnated in lower forms.
Such is the philosophy of reincarnation in ancient and
modern faiths. But Mrs. Besant does not “ believe in
the transmigration of souls, or that the human Ego can
enter a lower animal.” I accept the correction. I was
ignorant of what Mrs. Besant had not informed me.
I had not—and I said I had not—made a minute study
of the expensive publications of the Theosophical
Society. I now learn that this mushroom school, this
plagiarist of the great oriental faiths, sacrifices logic to
agreeableness, and puts a Western brand on its stolen
property from the East.
Mrs. Besant goes a great deal too far, however, in
speaking of “ an absurd statement ” in the Freethinker
“ about the souls of ill-behaving Hindu wives passing
into various animals,” as she is guilty of gross mis
representation in calling it “ a caricature of Theosophy.”
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
Theosophy was not so much as mentioned.
is the whole paragraph.
Here
“ Mrs. Besant goes in for the transmigration of souls. But
this doctrine is as useful to priests as the doctrine of heaven
and hell. Bombay girls have been taught in the Government
school that in the next life a wife who is cross with her
husband will become a village dog; the woman who eats
sweetmeats without sharing them with her husband’s relatives
will become a musk-rat living in filth. On the whole we think
hell is slightly preferable.” *
Calling this “ absurd ” does not dispose of it. It is a
fact. Surely Mrs. Besant is not ignorant that this kind
of thing is taught in the Hindu scriptures. I will give
her chapter and verse if she disputes it.
We will now take Mrs. Besant’s reasons for leaving
Atheism and Materialism ; then we will hear what she
says about Theosophy ; and finally we will see if her
new teaching is compatible with Secularism.
Mrs. Besant says she was satisfied with Atheism on
the negative side, but not on the positive side, for it
did not explain Life and Mind. But is Atheism called
upon to do so ? The origin of life is a question for
biologists. Should it never be cleared up our ignorance
will not prove there is a God. Nor is an Atheist com
pelled to be a material Monist. The late Professor
Clifford inclined to believe in matter-stuff and mind
stuff (not spirit stuff, which was all stuff), and he was
a thorough-going Atheist. But. waiving this, I will
ask Mrs. Besant a question. Why did she keep her
dissatisfaction with Atheism, on the positive side, so
carefully to herself ? I have looked through some of
her pamphlets without finding a hint in that direction.
I have spoken to friends who have frequently heard
her lecture (a pleasure necessarily denied to me), and
not one of them suspected the dissatisfaction she now
proclaims. To say the least, it is very unfortunate.
Atheism is now left for Pantheism, which I need
not attempt to argue against, no defence of it being
made. Mrs. Besant plainly says that her new “ theory
of the Universe ” is taken “ on the authority of certain
Freethinker, July 28, 1889, p. 298.
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
9
individuals,” the said individuals being the Wise Men
of the East, or rather their intermediaries like Mde.
Blavatsky. “ God is all and all is God.” This is the
new shibboleth. But Mrs. Besant is anxious to break
it gently to Atheists, so she tells them she has “ no
personal God.” This is cheating us with phrases.
If our Ego is spirit, and comes from the uni
versal spirit-fount, what makes our personality
must also make the infinite personality. I know the
subtle answers to this, but they make no impression
on me. The broad fact remains that non-miraculous
men and women cannot talk of God without a concep
tion of personality. The pronoun is always he or she,
and never it. There are expressions to satisfy any
Theist in Mde. Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled. She speaks
of “the Universal Soul,” of “the one living God,”
and of “the Father Spirit.” So true it is that
God must necessarily be a magnified man.
With respect to Materialism, Mrs. Besant did more
than conceal her dissatisfaction. Only last year she
spoke of her individuality as a combination, and said
“ if the combination is destroyed I am destroyed.” She
ridiculed the notion that “ the forces of the soul, love,
memory, thought, could not perish with the bodily
dissolution, but must continue to exist somewhere.”
She laughed at Canon Liddon for talking of “ a dis
embodied spirit.”* If this is the language of doubt,
or even of suspense, I am very much deceived. It
seems to me the language of absolute conviction.
I have already, in my previous pamphlet, given my
opinion that the. “causal link” Mrs. Besant was
privately in search of is a mental figment. I deny that
Cause and Effect are external realities ; I assert that
they are subjective conceptions. There is no solution
of continuity in nature. We isolate phenomena in
thought for convenience, just as in the definition of a
line we isolate the idea of length. And as Cause and
Effect are subjective, the “ nexus ” is also subjective,
which is precisely what I have affirmed.
Whoever asks for the Why of nature is simply asking
* National Reformer, April 8, 1888.
�10
SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
for an anthropomorphic explanation.
The question
“ Why should it be so ? ” is answered by the question
“ Why should it not be so ? ” The solid fact remains
that it is so. We can learn the How of nature, and the
statement that there is anything else to learn is a sheer
assumption.
Oxygen and hydrogen exist together as free gases in
mechanical mixture. They are precipitated by elec
tricity into water. The two gases are now in chemical
combination, and we have a visible and palpable fluid.
A great change has taken place, but the process is ex
plained. Science is satisfied. But Mrs. Besant is not.
Besides the oxygen, hydrogen, and electricity, she
wants a fourth thing that made the other three
cooperate. That is, she is in the same position as the
metaphysicians who were satirised by Swift in his
“meat-roasting power of the meat-jack.”
Passing along the line of evolution we come to com
binations of increasing complexity, but all built up from
the same matter. No new substance is introduced.
The inorganic gradually becomes organic, differentia
tion follows differentiation, the law of continuity is
never broken, and finally we come to man. If we
study man separately he is unintelligible. He must be
studied in connexion with other living forms. His
nature is involved in his history, and his destiny in
his origin.
Man did not spring into existence as Minerva leapt
full-armed from the brain of Jove. He is the last of a
long line of ascending forms. All his faculties are
incipient, and some of them well developed, in lower
animals. Whatever difficulty there may be in explain
ing whij he thinks, must also be found in explaining
why animals think.
Mrs. Besant follows nerve vibrations till she comes
to a thought, and says “ Here is something fresh.” She
means, I presume, that there is a psychical and a physi
cal aspect of the complete process. What is objectively a
nerve vibration is subjectively a sensation or a thought.
That the two aspects are correlated is indisputable.
Now it is asserted that besides the body there is a
spirit. Mrs. Besant says that “ Body and Mind, how-
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
IT.
ever closely intermingled, are twain, not one.” But
she does not explain the absolute co-operation of two
dissimilar entities. If the body cannot think how can
the mind act? Why is it that mental and moral
phenomena appear so dependent on nervous activity ?
Leibniz was driven to the colossal joke of pre-estab
lished harmony. God arranged the bodily and spiritual
phenomena at the outset, so that they should always
go together without any real relation, like two different
clocks keeping exactly the same time!
Observe the extremities to which spiritualists are
reduced. Every theory must show a true cause : that
is, a cause which is not invented for the occasion, but
is capable of being demonstrated independently. Now
the spiritualist is asked to establish his cause. He says
it works through the body, and he is desired to show
that it exists and operates elsewhere.
The usual
answer is, “Wait till you are dead.” But a number of
level-headed people reply, “Well, if I must die before
I can learn, I won’t trouble myself about it till I am
dead.” Then another answer is made. The spiritists
say, “The spirit does manifest itself apart from the
body in this world.” Thus we have “ materialised
spirit forms ” in Spiritism, and “ astral appearances ”
in Theosophy. Mrs. Besant is driven by an inevitable
logic to declare that body and spirit “are not only
separable at death, but may be temporarily separated
during life, the intellectual part of man leaving the
body and its attached principles, and appearing apart
from them.” This belief was once almost universal,
but it dies away in the progress of civilisation. Up to
a certain point it is consistent with legal sanity
beyond that point it leads straight to the asylum.
Mrs. Besant presses hypnotism into her service, but
I confess I see nothing in it to support her theory.
Double consciousness and other abnormal processes
are being carefully studied, and sensible persons will
wait for the scientific explanation. It is simply idle
to base far-fetched theories on our temporary igno
rance.
I pass lightly over the calculating boy. He does
not upset my philosophy. As for the ignorant servant
�12
SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
girl who “ talks Hebrew in her sleep,” I suspect she is
the person I read of in Coleridge, who picked up
Hebrew sounds unconsciously in the service of a
learned parson. Shakespeare understood this well
enough, and made Ophelia sing a questionable song
in her madness, which she might have heard from the
lips of a loose-minded nurse.
Let me remind Mrs. Besant that Theosophy is not
Pantheism or Idealism. What she has to defend is its
speciality—the doctrines that differentiate it from other
systems. On these points, however, she condescends
to say very little.
She gives us the sevenfold division of man—Atma,
Buddhi, Manas, Kamarupa, Prana, Linga Sharira, and
Rupa. I was not conscious of all that cargo. I sus
pect I should laugh if it were not for the imposing
terminology. At any rate it is hardly worth discuss
ing. Nor, indeed, can it be discussed. No evidence
is offered ; the category is accepted from the Wise Men
of the East.
Only one proof is offered of re-incarnation. We are
told that Hofmann, the infant prodigy of music, acquired
his faculties and knowledge in a previous existence.
But why Hofmann ? Mozart was a far greater prodigy.
Both of them were the offspring of professional
musicians, and the law of heredity is a sufficient ex
planation. It would be more to the purpose if Hof
mann had been born among the Hottentots.
Mrs. Besant forgets her own principles, or she would
see that the Hofmann’s case is not explained by rein
carnation. Waiving the fact that faculty is not acquired
individually, I inquire of the Theosophists how long
a period of Devachan intervenes between successive
incarnations. Mr. Sinnett says it may be “ thousands
of years,”* while 1,500 years is the very lowest
estimate.f Mde. Blavatsky says “ many centuries.” Now
if Hofmann’s previous incarnation was only “ many
•centuries ” ago, how did he acquire a musical know
ledge which was then impossible ? Harmonic music
is little more than three centuries old.
* Theosophical Tracts. No. 4, p. 5.
f Esoteric Buddhism, p. 120.
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
15
Reincarnation is supported by no evidence, and is
therefore a superstition. Karma, being based upon it,
shares the same fate. Mrs. Besant asks me if I believe
in ethical causation. Of course I do—in this life.
Secularism has always taught that doctrine, and has
nothing to learn from Theosophy.
It appears to me that Mrs. Besant has dropped Secu
larism out of her mind altogether ; otherwise she
would scarcely ask us to concede that Theosophy isnot a “superstition” because it has been granted a
Charter of Incorporation at St. Louis, in America.
Christianity has a very big Charter of Incorporation in
England in the form of a State Church. On the other
hand, Secularism is outlawed, being incapable of hold
ing property or receiving bequests. Surely the Secu
larist will look grimly at this Theosophical passport of
respectability. I fancy, too, he will look no less grimly
at “ the broad platform ” offered him, which is to hold
“ Atheist and Theist, Christian and Hindu, Mohamme
dan and Secularist.” What a happy family ! The
only broad platform on which all men may stand is
the platform of humanity.
With respect to the Mahatmas, or Masters, or Wise
Men of the East, Mrs. Besant informs us that she
knows nothing of them personally. She “ believes in
the existence of these teachers on second-hand evi
dence.” These Great Souls do not appear to utter any
surprising wisdom. The specimens I have seen are
seldom worth the paper they are printed on. Their
“ abnormal powers ” are displayed in performances
that are common among Spiritualists and conjurors.
For my part, I am prejudiced against a Gospel which
is heralded by travelling cigarettes, broken-mended
saucers, and letters dropping from the ceiling. I pro
test that in comparison with the stories told of the
Adepts the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a respectable
superstition.
This leads me to Mde. Blavatsky and her credentials.
Mrs. Besant accuses me of cirulating “ malignant
libels ” on this wonderful woman, and I am asked
what I should think if Mrs. Besant “ soiled her pages
with a repetition of the stories told against me by the
�14
SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
lecturers of the Christian Evidence Society.” But I
fail to see the analogy. If I were a thief, it would not
prove that Jonah was swallowed by a whale ; it 1 were
an adulterer, it would not prove the Incarnation ; it 1
were a murderer, it would not prove the Resurrection.
But if Mde. Blavatsky’s authority is offered for in
credible occurrences, what is one to .do but see if the
lady’s bond fides will bear investigation ? I discovered
that Mde. Blavatsky had been openly accused of decep
tion ; I looked into the evidence; and I satisfied
myself that a very black prima facie case was made
out against her. The charges were printed by respon
sible persons after careful and minute investigation.
Besides the terrible exposure of the Coulomb otters,
the letters of Koot Hoomi, a great Mahatma m Thibet,
are declared by experts to be in Mde. Blavatsky s hand
writing, and it is shown that Koot Hoomi made, the
same mistakes in spelling as Mde. Blavatsky, fell into
her foreign idioms in writing English, and reproduced
her very tricks of style. To call this a “ malignant
libel” is no answer. I say it is preposterous to accept
extravagant statements on the bare authority ot a lady
who lies under such grave suspicion of imposture.
Mrs. Besant is discreetly silent about the grotesque
science of Mde. Blavatsky in her Secret Doctrine, and
her extravagant credulity in Isis Unveiled. It would
not do to press these absurdities on the attention ot
Freethinkers. Nor does Mrs. Besant notice the curious
mistakes of Koot Hoomi, some of which, with their
attempted explanations, are enough to wrinkle the face
of an omnibus horse with laughter.
I now come to the question of celibacy. Mrs.
Besant seeks to minimise the effect of this doctrine.
This is a policy I shall at once expose. Unfortunately
for Mrs. Besant, her Theosophical mistress has spoken
too plainly about “ the path.” It appears that a Lanoo
r
(disciple) must take care to “ separate his outer body
.
_ ..
• T 1 _ J * 1 —T
from all external influence,” and “ must avoid bodily
______
He must
contact with human as with ^animal being.
touuh'even'the hand of the nearest and dearest ”
nOt “ tuLlVXX
™
,,
,,12~_ -1 -__ 'd
Even the love for wife and taniily5 ” we are told,
41 the purest as the"most unselfish of human affections,
U---------
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
15
is a barrier to real occultism.” Mde. Blavatsky insists
that “no one can serve his body and the higher Soul,
and do his family duty and his universal duty, without
depriving either the one or the other of its rights.” She
adds that “ it would be a ceaseless, a maddening struggle
for almost any married man, who would pursue true
practical Occultism.” *
Does not this corroborate what I said in my
pamphlet ? Does it not show that Theosophy, like
every sincere form of spiritualism, inevitably leads to
a war between the honest claims of “ the flesh ” and
the autocratic claims of “ the spirit ” ?
How far has Mrs. Besant departed from her old
teaching on this subject! “ Asceticism,” she said in
her tract on Secular Morality, “ asceticism, in any
shape, is immoral; it decreases the amount of temporal
happiness ; and whether it please God or no, whether
it give a seat in heaven or no, whether it brin^
happiness in a future life or no, it is equally immoral
it is equally wrong ” It-requires very little sagacity
to see that Theosophy, on this side, is quite incompatible
with Secularism.
The only answer Mrs. Besant makes is that everyone
need not become celibate. But she cannot deny that
celibacy is necessary to the “ higher life.” It is idle to
instance music, and to urge that people who have no
vocation for it need not “ practise eight hours a day.”
If music were the essential path to our highest spiritual
•culture we should be bound to give it our fullest devo
tion. Besides, there are degrees in music, but none in
celibacy. You cannot be partially celibate.
Mrs. Besant confesses that ,£ celibacy is one of the
smallest of the sacrifices ” which the higher Theosophy
demands. I am thankful for the admission. It will
put Secularists on their guard. Forewarned is fore
armed. It is well to know that “ the path ” leads to
•endless macerations of “ the flesh.”
Let me appeal to Freethought mothers to see what
Theosophy would mean to them. The doctrine of re
incarnation, for instance, would play havoc at once in
* Theosophical Tracts, No. 77pp. 5, 6,14, 15.
'
�16
SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
the domestic circle. When the mother is crooning to
her babe, and watching the reflexion of her smiles on
its face, she is under a delusion. The baby is an old
stager. It is not her child. It is no relation to her.
Their connexion is nothing but a fleshly accident.
Once admit this monstrous idea, and celibacy and all
the rest of it may be accepted without a shudder.
I will conclude with another passage from the tract
on Secular Morality. “ Our morality,” Mrs. Besant
said, “ is tested only—be it noted—by utility in this
life, and in this world ; with any other life, with any
other world, we have nothing whatever to do.” All
this is now unsaid, and I am obliged to hold that Mrs.
Besant has ceased to be a Secularist. For what is the
Secular position with regard to Theism and Immortality ?
Our position is Agnostic. W§ neither deny nor affirm.
We say there is no knowledge. We take our stand on
that. We confine our practical philosophy to this life,
and admit no motives, sanctions or consolations that
relate to another. Mrs. Besant is no longer in this
position. I am convinced of it, and I honestly say so.
It is not for me to say more—at present. Secularists are
not fond of ostracism, and it is unfair to throw un
necessary responsibilities upon us.
Mrs. Besant
has become a Theosophist, and it is for
to determine
whether her new ideas are consistent with her old
convictions ; it is for her to decide whether they are in
harmony with the accepted principles and traditional
policy of our party. #
Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London, .0.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Secularism and theosophy : a rejoinder to Mrs Besant's pamphlet
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed and published by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N263
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Theosophy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Secularism and theosophy : a rejoinder to Mrs Besant's pamphlet), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Annie Besant
NSS
Secularism
Theosophy
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/92c519bee98aed5fa0ed67e0293b5c51.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ig3ydc%7EvET%7E%7E0IRTYJpP6ieyaqatlgtuJP0CW8m7lR8lQf16u%7EJ0eyUlywX4hsIdzN2e4xrE2-ywLB1k4x7d5xdFu4v3FgpWeIiq18U-cutNUyhUFYth%7EE%7Ed32EhXbZTLn15fgwAzjsly5Lu5HVJxEGmNZV8DrbMDCyKVkqhCC9b%7EzIHWQqkF5JTcbjKzxY1fUz2JKDMZKn76-qh%7Eo2R2NkMVFHbxggZB7fgedkF7nlpKrmeWFgJcAMAMIFOt1kdVRBlKpVOXcUupaFf2L-iM4aThIqxfqrug-1djX4tvZYgO3aTLGrptJ%7Ejl9rsfyJW9zqCz7qT2DFWn%7E4K0Rk3XA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
92a637b8785d58ba977567c48a80f82c
PDF Text
Text
National secular sor—v
MRS. BESANT’S
THEOSOPHY
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
Price Twopence.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1889.
�MRS. BESANT’S THEOSOPHY.
For a considerable time I have seen that Mrs. Besant
was gradually drifting away from Secularism. I said
nothing, because I had no right to, nor would it have
been useful to do so. I was not in her confidence, so
that I could not speak with her on the subject ; and
my conviction of the change which was coming over
her was not grounded on anything that could be laid
before the public ; it was forced upon me by a hundred
indications, as though a hundred fingers, at different
times and places, all pointed in the same direction.
This conviction filled me with pain for many reasons.
I admired Mrs. Besant’s eloquence and abilities, and
still more her generous and enthusiastic character.
These are naturally of great service to whatever cause
she espouses. She was also a woman, and that fact
weighed even more heavily. There is no other lady of
the first rank on the Freethought platform, and in the
present transition state of society women are the best
missionaries. Until both sexes take an equal part in
public affairs, and in the promotion of principles, and
while audiences chiefly consist of men, a lady speaker
will exercise an influence quite out of proportion to
her intellect and information ; for difference of sex
tells unconsciously, and from the lips of a woman,
especially if young or engaging, even commonplaces are
apt to pass with men as revelations, and faulty logic is
wonderfully convincing.
Buc what I most admired in Mrs. Besant was her
courage. I regard this as the supreme virtue, and by
no means a simple one, for it includes many high
qualities. Mrs. Besant is a brave as well as a good woman.
I have special reasons for saying so, and the writing of
this pamphlet is one of the most painful duties I have
ever undertaken. Much
I respect Mrs. Besant, I
�Mrs. Betant’s Theosophy.
3
have a higher respect for truth ; much as I regard her
feelings, I have a deeper regard for the interests of
the Freethought party. There are times, and this is one
of them, when persons must yield to principles ; and
in such cases it is both honest and merciful to speak
with the utmost plainness.
Although the change I observed in Mrs. Besant gave
me pain, I will now say that it gave me no surprise.
Among all her fine qualities she has not the gift of origi
nality. She seems to me very much at the mercy of her
emotions, and especially at the mercy of her latest friends.
A powerful engine, she runs upon lines laid down for her.
Only on this theory can I account for the suddenness
of her changes. Nothing could exceed the vehemence
with which she attacked Socialism and Socialists after
the Bradlaugh-Hvndman debate, but what a brief time
elapsed before she was a thorough convert to what she
so denounced I Still more sudden is her latest revo
lution. The news fell upon the Freethought party
like a bolt from the blue. Without a word of warning,
without a public sign of change, Mrs. Besant printed
an article in the National Reformer, which, while it
puzzled most of its readers, showed them conclusively
that she had renounced the greater part of her previous
teaching. There was apparently no gradation in the
change. At one leap she left Atheism and materialism
and plunged into the depths of the wildest Pantheism
and spiritualism. Reviewing anonymously Madame
Blavatsky’s “ Secret Doctrine ” in the Pall Mall Gazette
of April 25, she concluded by saying “ Of the truth in it
our superficial examination is insufficient to decide.”
Yet in less than six weeks—or two months at the out
side—she was a Fellow of the Theosophical Society I
Surely no intellect like Mrs. Besant’s could undergo
such rapid changes by itself. Madame Blavatsky on
the one side, and Mr. Herbert Burrows on the other,
may supply the explanation.
Mrs. Besant said nothing on this subject at the
National Secular Society’s Conference on June 9,
although she must have contemplated, and perhaps,
written, her Theosophical article in Lucifer. Appa
rently she did not even take Mr. Bradlaugh into her
�4
Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
confidence. He speaks of her conversion to Theosophy
as wrought “ with somewhat of suddenness, and with
out any interchange of ideas with myself.”*
I must also express my opinion that Mrs. Besant has
treated the Freethought party very cavalierly. Men
and women with whom she had worked so long were
entitled to an explanation. Those she had for years
misled, if her new opinions were true, were even
entitled to hear her regret the misfortune. But she
recognised no such obligation. “ It is not possible,”
she simply said, “ for me here to state fully my reasons
for joining the Theosophical Society.”! Yet only a
few days afterwards she wrote “ Why I Became a
Theosophist ” in the Star.
I turned to this article with eagerness ; I read it
with disappointment. The “ Why ” .was a complete
misnomer. Mrs. Besant afforded not the slightest ex
planation. I do not want her to tell me what Theo
sophy is—for that is all she does, and very inadequately,
in the Star article. I do not want her to restate as
though they were true, positions she formerly assailed
as false. Both parties know there is an inside and an
outside of every position. I want to|know why Mrs.
Besant passed over from one side to the other. All she
does is to show me a map.
Suppose, for instance, I went over to Christianity.
Would it explain why /believed in the Resurrection if
I put forward the stock arguments in its favor ? My
friends would be entitled to know what change had
taken place in me. They would expect to be informed
why an argument once looked false and now looks true.
Was something overlooked? Has a new light fallen
upon the subject ? These are questions demanding an
answer, and they might be answered honestly even if
unsatisfactorily.
Amidst all her changes Mrs. Besant remains quite
positive. It does not occur to her that a person who has
been mistaken once may be mistaken twice or thrice.
The fact that she held one thing yesterday, and holds
the opposite to-day, does not shake her self-assurance.
* National Reformer, June 30, 1889 (p. 409).
t Ibid
�Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
o
She does not pause and let time decide whether her
new views are permanent. Previous mistakes do not
suggest hesitation and self-mistrust. Every time she
changes her course she asks others to follow her with
perfect confidence.
It is unpleasant to write thus, and I would hold my
hand if I were not apprehensive that Mrs. Besant
might lead Freethinkers astray. Her procedure on her
conversion'to Socialism was a warning. She used the
Freethought platform, as I think, in an unjustifiable
manner. Shethad not made it ; none of us made it;
it has been made by hundreds of workers through
more than one generation. Yet Mrs. Besant insisted
on using it to the uttermost for the ventilation of her
new views, on the principle, I suppose, that the end
justifies the means.
She advocated Socialism in
Secular halls, but not Secularism in Socialist meeting
places. I feel, therefore, the danger which now
threatens our party, and I speak out simply from a
desire to guard it, as far as I may, from this deadly
peril. If we are to have a Theosophical agitation
carried on in our midst there will be discord and
division; and I, for one, even at the risk of being mis
understood, or incurring Mrs. Besant’s enmity, prefer
to take time by the forelock on this occasion.
From the terms of her eulogy on Madame Blavatsky,
I infer that this lady is (at present) Mrs. Besant’s
guide, philosopher and friend. She takes Theosophy
on trust from “the most remarkable woman of her
time one\who asks for no reward but “ trust,” which
is what every mystery-monger starts with, and leads to
everything else ; one who has “ left home and country,
social position and wealth,” in order to bring us lessons
from “ the Wise Men of the East.”
Has Mrs. Besant made inquiry into these things, or
has she succumbed, body and soul, to the spell of the
sorceress ? Where is Madame Blavatsky’s home, what
is her country, what was her social position, and what
the extent of her wealth ? Many persons would like
these questions answered.^ Twenty years ago Madame
Blavatsky was practising as a spiritist “ mejum ” in
America. In 1872 she gave seances in Egypt. Three
�6
Mrs. Besa/nt’s Theosophy.
years later she started the Theosophical Society. In
India she was cordially welcomed, and many signs and
wonders attended her steps. None of them, it is true,
were of the slightest use to mankind. Cigarettes and
broken saucers played a leading part in the “ mani
festations.” The miracles were investigated on behalf
of the Society for Psychical Research by Mr. R. Hodg
son, who went out for the purpose, and reported them
as “ part of a huge fraudulent system.”* A fuller
exposure is the pamphlet by Madame Coulomb, one of
Madame Blavatsky’s friends.f This lady reveals the
whole mystery of sliding panels, hidden holes, and
secreted articles whose position was indicated by the
spirits who placed them there! The letters from
Madame Blavatsky to her chere amie are those of a
thorough-paced adventuress. She repudiated them as
forgeries, but she does not vindicate herself in the
law courts, and the letters certainly came from a more
clever and fertile brain than Madame Coulomb’s.
What has passed between Mrs. Besant and Mde.
Blavatsky I know not, nor am I anxious for informa
tion ; but the fact is public that the neophyte has been
greatly influenced by The Secret Doctrine, a bulky
work in two quarto volumes, containing nearly 1500
pages. An admirable review of this ponderous first
half of the new revelation has been written by my
colleague, Mr. J. M. Wheeler, whose knowledge of
Brahminism and Buddhism, as well as of general
“ occult ” literature, it would take Mrs. Besant many
years of close study to rival. For my own part, I
cannot say that I have read these volumes ; but I have
looked through them, and read some portions carefully.
Where it touches upon matters I am more or less
familiar with, the work seems a terrible jumble of
second-hand knowledge and first-hand pretence. How
ever Mrs. Besant could read some of it without a
guffaw at Mde. Blavatsky’s credulity, or disgust at her
arrogance, passes my comprehension. The mysterious
* Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, vol. iii., p. 210.
t Some Account of my Intercourse with Madame Blavatsky from
1872 to ISSp dy Madame Coulomb. London: Eliot Stock.
t Freethinker, July 14, 1889.
�Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
7
Book of Dzyan, which forms the basis of this revela
tion, and from which seven enigmatic stanzas are
translated as a sample, and as much as the feeble
Western intellect can stand at present, is boldly
declared to be of such antiquity that a later book, 5,000
years old, is juvenile in comparison. We are intro
duced to a Thibetan monastery, far away among hills
that no European foot has ever trodden, with sub
terranean galleries and halls containing books which
£ould not “ find room even in the British Museum.”
This mistress of Theosophy assures us that monsters
are still “ bred from human and animal parents,” and
refers us for proof to unspecified “ medical records.”
She denounces Darwinism, and will not hear of our
ape-like ancestry. Her theory of apes is that they are
the offspring of bestiality between men and animals !
The pineal gland is the atrophied “ third eye,” a fact
apparently not discovered by Theosophists until
scientific speculation had arisen on the subject. But
this third eye was really the first. Man had one eye
to begin with, somewhere at the top or the back of his
head ; the two eyes in front were developed after
wards, and the original optic atrophied away. But if
man had at first only one eye, he was compensated by
Having four arms. Such is the biological wisdom of
this amazing book!
Mde. Blavatsky banters the geologists smartly on
ffieir chronological differences. She could tell them
the true chronology “ an she would.” Meanwhile she
does something safer ; she reveals the chronology of
the future. The Americans are the founders of the
coming race. About 25,000 years hence they will
really begin business. Europe and the whole Aryan
race will be destroyed, and after “ many hundreds of
milleniums ” the Sixth-Root Race will be perfected.
Mde. Blavatsky and Prophet Baxter are in the same
line, but two of that trade never agree.
Natural Selection, we are told, is an exploded doc
trine. Haeckel, Huxley and Btichner, whom Mrs.
Besant has translated, are “ the intellectual and moral
murderers of future generations.” Haeckel, indeed, is
more than wicked ; he is “ idiotic.” Atheists and
�8
Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
materialists, if versed in anatomy, are “hopelessly
insane.” This statement, I presume, after Mrs. Besant’s
conversion, will be modified in any future edition.
Mde. Blavatsky speaks of the “materialised forms
which are sometimes seen oozing out of the bodies of
certain mediums.” This was a primeval mode of
sexless procreation, before the race fell into carnality,
and it “ cannot fail to be suggestive to the student.”
Indeed it cannot ! If Mrs. Besant has swallowed this
Wisdom of the East, it is no wonder that Mr. Bradlaugh
“looks to possible developments of her Theosophic
opinions with the very gravest misgiving.”
Leaving Mde. Blavatsky’s book for the present, I
come to what Mrs. Besant herself says about Thesophy.
In the first place it is Oriental. But that is not special,
for all our Western religions came from the East.
Many years ago Mrs. Besant rejected the Oriental
creed in which she was nurtured. She now accepts
another, and I fear just as blindly. Yet she thought
herself out of the first, and perhaps she will think
herself out of the second.
“ The Orient,” Mrs. Besant tells us, “begins to study
the universe just where the Occident ceases to study,”
which is a pretty way of saying that the Orient has an
insatiable appetite for metaphysics, while the Occident
has developed a taste for science and positive methods.
The result is that while the East is searching with the
patience of a million jackasses for hidden wisdom,
the West is master of scientific knowledge and practical
wisdom, and is thus able to rule the East with striking
facility. The grip of fact is the secret of mastery.
All this Eastern philosophy, except in some of its
ethical aspects, is like the German’s account of the
camel, developed from his inner consciousness. Only
the poverty of the human imagination prevents there
being a thousand different theories of the universe, past,
present, and to come, all equally sound, and all equally
hollow. That Theosophy, or Esoteric Buddhism, hangs
together, goes for nothing. Catholicism hangs together,
Calvinism hangs together, Swedenborg’s elaborate
mysticism hangs together; and for the same reason
that a drama, a novel, or a romance hangs together;
�Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
9
because the imagination has its laws as well as the
intellect, and construction is construction whether the
materials are fancies or facts.
Western positive philosophy discourages the spinning'
of systems, spider-like, out of ourselves. It deals with
the How, not with the Why, and takes its stand on the
relativity of knowledge. Every sentient being learnswhat it does learn by using its intelligence upon the
evidence of its senses. All knowledge, therefore, is
necessarily phenomenal. What noumena, or things in
themselves, may be, or whether they exist at all, are
idle and indifferent questions. Sugar is sweet, and if
we know nothing, and can know nothing of substance,
the sweetness is all the same.
Mrs. Besant has been satisfied with this philosophy
hitherto, but now she yearns for something higher.
She is impatient at the thought that “ the Why
ever eludes us,” that “causes remain enwrapped in
gloom.” She follows a vibration along a nerve until
she comes to a sensation in the brain. Formerly she
was satisfied with the phenomenal succession ; now
she asks for “ the causal link.” She admits that science
cannot give it ; and she might have added that since
the days of David Hume it has been obvious to experientialists that the “causal link” is a figment of
imagination. She regards its absence, or rather its
occultness, as a chasm and as a blank wall ; but the
latter metaphor has her preference, for she presently
sees Theosophy coming down (where from ?) as “ a
fairly long ladder,” and tries hex- “ luck at scaling it.”
I hope she will pardon me for leaving her there.
Scaling the Infinite is a pretty long climb. According
to a more commonplace metaphor, Mrs. Besant is trying
to get out of her own skin.
She admits as much, indeed, for the sublime investi
gation of causal links requires “ further mental equip
ment than that normally afforded by the human body.”
This is enough to daunt common people, but Mrs.
Besant introduces her “ Eastern sages ” who have
superior faculties, and can see through millstones and
into the middle of next week. They wield mysterious
powers “miraculous to the ordinary person.” Mrs.
�10
Mrs. Besant’t Theosophy.
Besant instances clairvoyance, mesmerism, and hypno
tism as abnormal faculties ; but clairvoyance has never
been established as a fact, and nothing has transpired
in mesmerism and hypnotism which goes beyond the
power the operator exerts through the patient’s
imagination.
These “ Eastern sages,” or Mahatmas, dwell on such
lofty planes of thought and power that, like men on
mountains, they have to be very careful what they
drop down. A big truth might floor us all, so they
dribble out a little at a time. “ Ultimately,” says Mrs.
Besant, “ in the course of myriad generations, the
whole race will reach this higher plane.” What an
elevation it must be ! Three hundred thousand years,
at least, must elapse before the mass of us will arrive
there! Theosophy cuts up the cake of Time in
remarkably big slices.
Some of the hidden wisdom of the Initiates, Adepts,
Arhats, Mahatmas, or Masters, has “ filtered out during
the last few years,” and here it is in The Secret
Doctrine. Mr. Wheeler describes it as “ a complete
hodge-podge of Yogi philosophy, Esoteric Buddhism,
Ignatius Donelly, Ragon and Eliphas Levi.” Mde.
Blavatsky is widely read in the barren literature of
occultism, has a good memory, a ready command of
her resources and a facile pen. But we look in vain
for method and lucidity. Dr. Tylor’s Primitive Culture
is a work of scientific genius ; Mde. Blavatsky’s Secret
Doctrine is the work of an accomplished charlatan.
Hidden wisdom is an easy thing to boast of. The
showman may enjoy a boundless reputation who is
never obliged to draw the curtain. Were the Adepts
to speak out, the world would see whether they are so
much wiser than Homer, JEscyhlus, Plato, Aristotle,
Virgil, Lucretius, Dante, Spinoza, Bacon and Shake
speare. The really great and wise men have poured
fourth their wisdom royally, like the sovereign sun
that sheds its glorious rays on all, leaving everything
to profit as it can.
As a matter of fact, except for its pretentious orient
alisms, there is nothing in Theosophy, as Mrs. Besant
has accepted it, which she could not have picked up
�Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
11
in the benighted West. That man’s Ego is immortal
is the current doctrine of Christendom. That Nature
is the manifestation of intelligence is taught almost
universally. Mesmerism is a commonplace of evening
entertainments Second-sight once abounded in the
Scotch highlands. Materialised spirit forms turn up
at ordinary seances. “ Mejums ” carry on daily commu
nication with the spirit world. The mystic number
seven flourishes in the Bible. Karma itself, with
out the doctrine of transmigration, is taught by
every great moralist; thoughts and deeds become habits,
■and habit is second nature.
Freethinkers will note the immense change in Mrs.
Besant’s views. She has “ no personal God,” but, “ the
universe is essentially Intelligence.” Matter is Maya,
illusion ; the Theosophist, like the Berkleyan idealist,
■“ seeks in the mental and spiritual planes of being the
causes of the material effects.” Mrs. Besant has turned
right about face ; and, once started on this new path,
there is no saying where she will go.
Besides her “ essentially Intelligence ” universe, or
perhaps I should say in it, Mrs. Besant has now a
multitude of “ intelligent beings ” other than mankind,
whose operations we mistake for “ the forces of nature.”
After death our Ego re-incarnates itself, again and again,
until it has purified itself from desire, when re-incarna
tion is no longer neccessary, and “ a man passes on to
higher planes of being.” Those who have thus passed
■on are a part of the “ intelligent beings ” aforesaid.
Spiritism, of course, is the logical issue of this fanci
ful philosophy. Theosophists seem all infected with
this melancholy superstition, which flourishes in gross
luxuriance among savages ; and it is to be feared that
Mrs. Besant will not escape the contagion.
Spiritism was not brought in by Theosophy, nor
was the doctrine of re-incarnation. Mrs Besant might
have learned it without the aid of Mde.' Blavatsky.
The transmigration of souls was a special feature of
the religion of ancient Egypt. It was taught by Plato.
It was received among the Jews ; witness Herod’s
exclamation about Jesus—“This is John the Baptist,
whom I beheaded.” The demons who took up their
�12
Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
abode in “ possessed ” persons were also supposed to be
the souls of deceased wicked men. Metempsychosis
was gravely satirised in the seventeenth century by Dr.
Donne in a remarkably learned and powerful poem.
The pre-existence of the soul, which is an aspect of
the same doctrine, is insisted on in Wordsworth’s
great Ode on Immortality, where the poet adopts Plato’s
doctrine of reminiscence. Tennyson refers to the
forgetfulness in one incarnation of our experience in
previous ones.
Some draught of Lethe doth await,
As old mythologies relate,
The slipping through from state to state.
These literary references are not recondite, and I cannot
help feeling surprised at Mrs. Besant’s being struck,
through the agency of the Theosophic sorceress, with
the charming novelty of very ancient doctrines.
Still less do I understand her deception as to the
sacred number seven, which is so frequent in Theoso
phy. Mrs. Besant accepts the “ sevenfold nature of
man ” from the Wise Men of the East through the
prophetess Blavatsky ; and, having swallowed one
seven, I suppose she will not scruple at the rest. This
seven business, like lunacy, comes from the moon.
Early men found out the lunar twenty-eight days ; they
halved that number and found fourteen ; they halved
this and found seven ; they tried to halve that and
failed. This indivisible number was also connected
with sexual periodicities, and thus it became mysterious
and sacred. This accounts for its constant recurrence
in religious systems.
According to Mde. Blavatsky “ the number of
Monads is necessarily finite and limited.” They
arrived on this earth (from somewhere) in emigrant
streams long ago, but in time this planet got stocked.
Mr. Sinnett indulges in an innocent speculation as to
their number. This is still undecided, though it is
agreed that the number is large enough to necessitate
an interval of centuries between one incarnation and
another. Mde. Blavatsky says “ many centuries.” Mr.
Sinnett says “ fifteen hundred years at least.” Theo
�Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
13
sophy, it appears, though, supernally wise, is rather
vague in its arithmetic.
A principal doctrine of Buddhism is Karma, and
this is a leading tenet of Theosophy. “ Karma,” Mrs.
Besant says, “ is the expression of eternal justice,
whereby each reaps exactly as he has sown. It is the
impersonal law of retribution, distributing the fruit of
good and bad actions. During one incarnation is
Wrought the Karma which shall mould the circum
stances of the next, so that each man beautifies or mars
his own future. None can escape from the operation
of Karma, nor modify it save by the creation of fresh.
Karma presides, so to speak, over each re-incarnation,
so that the Ego passes into such physical and mental
'©nvironment as it deserves.”
Thus the problem of evil no longer disturbs Mrs.
Besant. She now sees nothing but “ eternal justice.”
Karma, says Mde. Blavatsky, reconciles us to “ the
terrible and apparent injustice of life.” According to
Mr. Sinnett “ the great inequalities of life ” are per
fectly explained. Each of us gets exactly what he
deserves, aud grumblers should reflect that suffering
and degradation are simply “ a new way to pay old
debts.” The subtle Sinnett relaxes, however, in the
■case of accidents. Cripples, and children injured at
birth, are victims of those little disorders that will
happen in the best regulated families ; but there is
■consolation in the thought that “ the undeserved suffer
ing of one life is amply redressed under the operation
of the Karmic law in the next, or the next.” Beautiful!
“ Blessed are ye that mourn now, for ye shall be com
forted.”
How Mrs. Besant reconciles Karma with Socialism
I leave her to explain. I am not a devotee of Socialism
myself, but I respect its objects if I dissent from its
policy. But if each man “reaps exactly as he has
■sown,” if each Ego goes into “ such physical and mental
environment as it deserves,” the Socialist—and, indeed,
■.every social reformer—is fighting against Karma ;
while denunciation of landlords, capitalists, and all
privileged persons, is silly screaming against “ eternal
justice.” Thus, at least, it appears to me. But I do
�14
Mrs, Besant’s Theosophy.
not dogmatise ; I am open to learn ; and I will listen
to what answer Mrs. Besant brings me from the WiseMen of the East.
Theosophy, of course, like every other system, has
its moral aspects, and Mrs. Besant deems them super
latively beautiful. I do not share her admiration ; on
the contrary, I regard the ethics of Theosophy as
detestable.
Mrs. Besant gravely tells us that Altruism “ differen
tiates ” Theosophy from “ all other systems as though
disinterestedness and self-sacrifice were not heard of
before the gospel of Blavatsky ; as though, indeed, she
had not herself written a pamphlet on Auguste Comte,,
whose maxim was Vivre Pour Autrui—Live For
Others. Altruism has existed in every ethical system.
No sane person thinks of neglecting its august claims.
Religious systems, however, have a knack of carrying
everything to excess, and Theosophy is no exception to
the rule. Mrs. Besant is not satisfied with giving
society as well as the individual its rights. Self is not
only to be subordinated to the general good, it is “ to
be destroyed.” We must be “ wholly selfless,” we
must “ kill out all personal desires.” Could anything
be more grotesque ? Could anything be more perni
cious ? Such a philosophy, if carried out, would reduce
its devotees to the flabbiest sentimentality and the most
hopeless impotence. Fancy, for instance, the attempt
to perpetuate the race, not by sexual desire, but by
altruistic principles! It is individual passion that
moves us. Without it we should stagnate, decay, and
perish. Every individual is necessarily the centre of
his own world. The difference between good and bad
men is a question of circumference. How many are
included in the range of one’s sympathies ? The selfish
man includes few, the unselfish man many, the true
saint all. Even then the imagination, which again is
individual, interposes its limitations. Thus we are
profoundly moved by calamities at home, and read of
calamities in distant, and especially alien countries,
with scarcely a sigh.
We may liken the individual and the social instincts
to the centrifugal and centripetal forces which keep
�Mrs. Besant’s lheosophy.
15
the earth revolving in its orbit. Mrs. Besant would
abolish the centrifugal force and shoot the earth into
the sun. This magnificent imperialism may have its
charms, but the majority of sensible people prefer a
compromise in the shape of Home Bule.
“ Identifying the individual with the all ” is a finesounding phrase. The doctrine, however, is that of
ascetics in all ages and climes. As a mood it has its
value ; it is suicidal as a philosophy. The mystics who
cut themselves off from society, immured themselves
in cells or hermitages, sought for “ purification,”
trampled upon “ self,” and tried to extinguish all
“personal desire,” were identifying themselves with,
God. Theosophy substitutes “ the all ” for God, but it
is the same old process with a new name.
The final ethical developments of Theosophy are
suggested by Mrs. Besant, and they should be carefully
noted. Within the Theosophical Society there is an
“inner circle” of those who desire to enter on “the
Path.” For “obvious reasons” Mrs. Besant says little
about this doubly esoteric circle. The reasons may be
“ obvious ” to her, but twenty people, I venture to say,
would give twenty different guesses. However, we
must take what is vouchsafed. The inner circle, it
appears, must “ abstain from all intoxicants ”—not in
cluding Theosophy ; and “ the use of meat is dis
countenanced.” So far there is nothing very “ occult ”
in the prescription. Teetotalism is at least as old as
the Nazarites, and is a rule of Mohammedanism ; while
Vegetarianism, also a very ancient practice, is spreading
quite independently of Theosophy.
The third point is the critical one. Those who
mean to pursue the Path “ must lead a celibate life.”
That is the centre of gravity of all these “ spiritual,r
systems. The poor flesh is to be mortified, whipped,
and suppressed. The spirit is to be all in all. At a
single bound Mrs Besant reaches the sexual doctrine
of St. Paul. All her old teaching on this pc int is cast
to the winds. Page on page of her pamphlet on Mar
riage must be cancelled to bring it into conformity
with the new doctrine. Marriage is now a mere con
cession to human weakness. Celibacy is the counsel
�16
Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
of perfection. The sacred names of husband and wife,
father and mother, are to be deposed as usurpers. At
the very best they are only to be tolerated. It is idle
to reply that celibacy is only for the “ inner circle.”
If it be the loftiest rule of life, it should be aimed at
by all.
Celibacy is not the loftiest rule of life. Physically,
mentally, and morally, it is attended with the gravest
dangers. What it has led to in pietist circles is only
too well known. Turned out of doors, nature climbs
in at the window. The frustration of honest instinct
makes men and women flighty and feverish, or fills
them with the malaise of unsatisfied yearning. Dis
used functions avenge themselves, and the body
becomes a hospital or a churchyard of effete, vicious,
nr cadaverous organs.
Spiritism on the one side, and celibacy on the other,
are the evil angels of Theosophy. I will not venture
to speculate on where they may lead an ardent and
devoted nature like Mrs Besant’s. She is not an adven
turess, and is more likely to be the victim than the
mistress of this superstition. Others may be only
partially deluded, and sufficiently free to find influence
and profit in ministering to the credulity of their dupes.
But Mrs Besant is made of different stuff. She will go
on “ the Path ” with perfect confidence ; she will
preach and proselytise. What will be will be ; the
end I cannot foresee or avert. Yet I will cherish a
hope that a lady so gifted, so eloquent, so devoted, and
so brave, may some day see that Theosophy itself is
Maya, or illusion, and return to the sound and bracing
philosophy that once guided and inspired her.
Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.;
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Mrs Besant's theosophy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N254
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theosophy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Mrs Besant's theosophy), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Annie Besant
NSS
Theosophy
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b2c98c2b9f1d8f4df143cf82b9ec770d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=U3GJheclmgsbrhX4WLMMsz7EXu0t6pGduxrKisEC7LPZpdzFN6o7ot33uI39YSl9SBI57WvDeLvYC6VCsuUdi04mdnek%7EU74BuC2Wd76IbAI8JGNHu5hur2e4FmnPNP0KYuMXee0v6EB-w7rxyWXGEkeQmjwos35qXabzww36WRnalM9tNJOLzMx1hPuHP-91rpYaf7-yJiR2I5rpeK7xj4089hHXkd2qFdK%7EenYMkD7uqTAbC8zWhc4HTjMLgzZXxuUG4TVXhaao8F11OIMrRw0%7EO36zRd6bcbwwGQsk2i58RnzphTbSjn5pE0r%7Efiibsl3-sZSvxOGJJ2fFFcA7A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b62877aa2d89580a6fff7833f8ff9bd3
PDF Text
Text
rJtÎs
national sectile society
THE
|
INFLUENCE OF HEREDITY
i ,*■
ON FREE WILL.
»■
BY
PROFESSOR LUDWIG BUCHNER,
Author
of
“ Force and Matter,” “ Man : his Past, Present,
and Future,” etc., etc.
. [Translated, Inj permission, l>y Annie Besantd\
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, STONEGUTTER STREET, E.C.
1 880.
PRICE
TWOPENCE,
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�THE
INFLUENCE OF HEREDITY ON
FREE WILL.
“ How naive is the empty conceit of the freedom of the
human will when Nature completely rules it by those instincts
of self-preservation which she has implanted in man!”—G. H.
Schneider.
Two diametrically opposed views, or philosophical opinions,
have always been maintained on the important and much
•debated question of the freedom of the human will. The one
•declares that its absolute freedom, the freedom of the Ego,
is proved by the facts of consciousness, or by the knowledge
that in a given case we can do one thing as well as another,
and that it is therefore raised above all doubt and above all
•discussion. The other maintains the exact contrary, and
says that the human will is absolutely determined, and
since it is dependent upon influences from without and from
within it is in reality unreasonable to speak of a free choic^
•or decision between two possible courses. The notion that
a man can of his own free choice do this or that, arises, say
the upholders of this view, from a delusive appearance
or from self-deception. The will follows the relatively
strongest motive or the relatively pleasantest idea, since it
is impossible that the contrary should prevail. Also the
interdependence of phenomena, the so-called laws of
causality—urge the defenders of this opinion—prove the
�4
The Influence of Heredity on Free Will.
impossibility of free will, for each action, according to theselaws, is necessary and is unavoidable by the actor.
It is not, indeed, a satisfactory proof of the depth or
the certainty of human knowledge that in a question so
theoretically and practically important, opinions so es
sentially different and opposed, so mutually exclusive,,
should have faced each other unreconciled during long
centuries, and should remain in like fashion facing each
other to-day. There is, however, one circumstance to be
taken into account as a partial explanation of this long
controversy, which is a fault of man’s heart rather than his
head; so-called ethical motives have been mixed up with
the handling of this question, and the freedom of the will
has been defended as a postulate of morality without 'which
the groundwork of our whole moral system would be in the
gravest peril. In a scientific consideration of the matter
such a side question is manifestly irrelevant, and if science
were able to demonstrate the absolute determination of the
human will, then must its determination be admitted, even
though the whole of human society were thereupon to fall
to pieces. Fortunately, this danger is purely imaginary.
It is, on the contrary, to be hoped that morality itself will
rise in the same measure as we learn the inner and outer
influences which determine the actions of men, and thereby
become able to work definitely upon these influences.
Further, this proof of the absolute determination of the
will is hardly to be made, without logical artifices or unfaii
arguments. The statistical facts which are often brought
forward to support that determination, prove nothing as to
the individual will, but only show that the actions of men,
or their volitions, are determined on a large scale, and on
the whole, by certain influences, which under otherwise
�The Influence of Heredity on Free Will.
5
■similar circumstances cannot fail to show, or at least permit
to be seen, a certain regularity. For instance, the condition
■of a nation has the greatest influence over the actions of an
individual, and these actions change when the condition
■changes. Thus, according to experience, famine, want of
work, commercial crises, wars, etc., raise to the highest
point the number of crimes against life and property or the
number of suicides, while, on the other hand, they lessen the
¡number of marriages. It is also proved that the number of
the last, for example, rises and falls with the relative price
of corn. But although all these and many similar influences
are among the causes which help to determine the will of
■the individual, they are yet not the only ones. A far more
.powerful and more important factor in this determination is
the personality of the actor himself; statistics can only
■disclose to us the outer, and not the inner, motives of
■a single action, while this personal factor naturally with
draws itself from all statistical calculations. Yet this will
•of the individual decides whether or not he will yield to those
influences of the environment which can be reached by
■observation.
Further, motives from without and from within are to be
■distinguished also in the individual will itself ; among the
¡first the special and personal conditions amid which an action
takes place must be understood, while the inner motives
■arise from the inner nature, or disposition of the individual
person, from his personality itself, his character. The
■character must be regarded as the real immediate cause of
all voluntary actions, while the determining outside motives
appear more as indirect causes. The worth of a man is al
ways to be measured as greater or less accordingly as his
•character is proved or maintained amid the influences
�6
The Influence of Heredity on Free Will.
brought to bear upon it by circumstances. Here then is the.
important point upon which modern investigation of nature
brings to bear its mighty lever, so as to let in a hitherto
unknown light on the freedom of the human will, and to
conclude by actual proofs the hitherto unfruitful speculations
of theoretical philosophy. No one should now be ignorant
of the dazzling light thrown by the great natural investi
gator, Darwin, on the evolution of the individual characters
of men and beasts, of his enthralling researches on the in
fluence of physical and psychical inheritance, and on thegradual evolution of the whole organism. So long as people
did homage to the now fortunately exploded theory of
separate creative acts, and regarded each species of animalsas the special production of a creative will they naturally
had no need to examine into the evolution of the individual
character; it was plainly, just like the bodily organism, the
production of the creative will, and no further explanation’
was needful. But when the unscientific nature of such a
doctrine was recognised people began to understand that
each individual was or might be the last product orevolution of a long series of preceding species and of past
centuries ; then they demanded also some further explanation
of the individual character, the mental personality, and this
naturally was only to be had where the physical evolution
had been found, that is to say in the incidents of descent
and development. In fact, there cannot now-a-days be thesmallest doubt, scientifically, that the individual character,
the whole mental personality of an individual, must beregarded as the last result or production of an interwoven
series of developments, a long succession of earlier species, and
as moulded also by the conditions environing the act of gene
ration. In other words : character, or that which determines-
�The Influence of Heredity on Free Will.
7
by preference the actions of men (and of beasts) is, as to by far
its greatest part, inherited from parents and ancestors, and
arises by natural necessity out of the constitution of the
procreator and his partly inherited, partly acquired cha
racteristics, as well as out of the conditions of the pro
creation itself. “ Man,” says Vibot, in his excellent book
on inheritance (p. 374, etc.), “who has inherited the thought
tendencies of his ancestors, is driven to will, and therefore
to act, like them. This heritage of impulses and propen
sities forms a circle of inner influences in the midst of
which he lives, and the power to judge these and, if need
be, to overcome resides ever in himself. . . . But in
this unceasing conflict between individual and generic
qualities between the person and his inheritance, or
speaking generally, between freedom and destiny, freedom is
conquered more often than is thought.” Or, as the famous
physiologist, Burdach, put it j more than fifty years ago:
“ Descent has more influence on our physical and psychical
character than all outward material and spiritual cir
cumstances.” (Physiology as an Experimental Science,
vol. i., p. 571.) We must not, indeed, omit to say that the
truth here enunciated is a very old one, and that unpre
judiced philosophers and practical physiologists well knew
the powerful influence exercised over human will and action
by inherited character; perhaps no one knew this better
than the great dramatist Shakspere, whose dramatic characters
are all men of flesh and blood, and not the poor puppets
which other dramatists dance between heaven and earth,
marionette-fashion, on their self-constructed psychological
wires. Those who have read my “ Force and Matter” will
know that in the chapter on freewill, I myself, five years
before Darwin, laid great stress on this fact, and brought into
�8
The, Influence of Heredity on Free Will.
prominence the vast influence of the inherited propensities
of character on human will and action, prompting to this or
that course. But the great rôle played by the origin of the
individual character, the physical inheritance going hand in
hand with the mental or spiritual inheritance, could not then
be so emphasised as it deserved to be, and as is now possible,
thanks to Darwin and the light thrown upon it by his
famous theory.
It must not, however, be forgotten that the individual
character is not formed only and exclusively by hereditary
transmission, but that the environment, experience, train
ing, education, example, etc., also powerfully co-operate in
moulding and changing it. But I think I shall not be
wrong in maintaining that the inborn and inherited ten
dencies of the character, or the inherited propensities, in
stincts, and appetites, are so strong both in men and beasts
that, in comparison with them, all other influences and
motives fall more or less into the background, and that it
is consequently only possible for an individual man to
struggle against this perpetual compulsion under very ex
ceptional circumstances. He who brings into the world with
him an innate tendency to goodwill, sympathy, conscientious
ness, love of right-doing, etc., will, with few exceptions, and
under all circumstances, be a genuine moralist, even though
he have learned few moral laws ; while, on the contrary, an
innate propensity to melancholy, or to deceit, or to frivolity,
or to folly, or to pride, or to avarice, or to sensuality, or to
drunkennesss, or to gambling, or to violence, and so on, is,
as a rule, not to be controlled or held back by any kind of
will or argument. Daily experience most plainly teaches
that each person, as a rule, acts in the manner most in ac- ,
cordance with his nature and inner propensities, and that
�The Influence of Heredity on Free Will.
9
these innate tendencies and inclinations of our nature
generally exercise an influence on our decisions and on
our actions, in comparison with which other motives, es
pecially those due to reflection, fall more or less into the
background. The youth or the sensualist sacrifices every
thing to his bodily desires; the old man or the miser and the
covetous man sacrifices everything to the desire of gain, to
the struggle for possessions ; the lazy to the longing for rest
or the shunning of work ; the ambitious to the striving for
honor and distinction; the mother to the love of her children,
and so on. The miser, who already has heaped up millions,
and who, perhaps, has no children to whom he can bequeath
his treasures, aye, and who perhaps has reached the evening
of life and knows that he must soon divide his goods among
strangers, yet does not cease to gather together wealth.
The voluptuous King Henry VIII. of England broke
through every bond of decency and morality, and separated
himself and his country from the then all-powerful Papacy,
simply that he might satisfy his longing for sexual pleasure.
The tendency to shame or modesty, which amongst civilised
nations has been gradually developed and has been more
-and more strengthened by inheritance, can transform
our maidens and women into veritable heroines in de
fence of their purity, while among many savage tribes
who go perfectly naked, no trace of shame nor of sexual
modesty is to be found. Or again, even the civilised
nations of antiquity thought and felt quite differently
from ourselves on this matter. Innate passion con
quers all representations, listens to no reason, and forgets
all prudence and all danger. No man can by his simple
' will thoroughly master innate timidity, and he who has once
.given way to the demon of drunkenness or gambling, will in
�10
The Influence of Heredity on Free Will.
very few cases be able to set himself free again by his owns
determination. The passionate man perpetrates in anger deeds
of which in more quiet moods he would think himself quite'
incapable ; the compassionate or the generous sacrifices him
self for others, while the hardhearted does not permit such,
feelings to have the smallest influence over his conduct..
Beasts, when they are under the control of certain propen
sities, such as sexual desire, hunger, maternal love, etc., arewont to forget utterly all danger and all prudence, and
blindly to sacrifice themselves, even although of the most
shy or the most timid species. Notwithstanding, we seethat also among beasts prudence and consideration may oc
casionally overcome a propensity or a desire. For example,,
if young animals have been attracted by a bait and have
fallen a sacrifice, the older ones, wise by experience, know
how to resist the temptation, and either leave the bait un
touched or manage to snatch it in some cunning fashion,
without being caught at the same time. Among men,,
whose reasoning and reflective powers are so far raised above
those of beasts, this is naturally the case to a far greater
extent, so that man is able to speak of a choice or the
expression of a free will, in which reason and thought win
the victory over desires aroused by sensation or perception
this is a temporary victory of a more rational idea over a
less rational. But, as a rule, the individual upon every
occasion follows that idea which is the pleasantest to himEven suicides or religious martyrs are determined on their
course by the idea that the condition which awaits them isa more agreeable one than the present.
So, as Gr. H. Schneider (“ On the Animal Will,” p. 145,.
etc.) very well says, all voluntary decisions, both of men
and of beasts, are determined partly by objective conscious-
�The Influence of Heredity on Free Will.
11
Hess, and partly without it; that is, they depend partly
on inherited organisation and partly on an act of the under
standing. In each single circumstance both factors are
concerned. The will, as such, depends, according to'
him, on the so-called intellectual tendencies, which have
been gradually developed from sensations and perceptions.
The further we descend in the animal kingdom—according toSchneider—the more weight have these tendencies of feeling
and thought, that is the innate and inherited instincts or
natural propensities ; while, on the contrary, imagination,
and reason, or acts of the will arising from conscious
ness, increase in the same measure as the animal gradationsapproach their highest point, or man. Therefore also, no
decided line can be drawn between instinct and will, and the
old theological doctrine that animals only act from instinct,
from an implanted impulse to purposeful action, without
consciousness of the purpose, but man, on the contrary, only
from free will, has quite faded. Man is led both by will
and by instinct, but there is in him more will and less
instinct than in beasts. From this point of view the
childish, the childlike, or thoughtless human being, in whom
sensational and perceptive impulses more easily master
prudence and reason, comes nearer to the animals than the
older man, grown wise by experience and by the cultivation
of his mental powers. The will is, therefore, never abso
lutely free, since the inherited organisation traces for it
very decided limits, and since outside this organisation a
great number of other circumstances—the full investigation
of which does not come within the scope of this paper—in
fluence it, narrowing and hemming it in. But in each case
the chief limits set to free will appear to lie in the laws of
inheritance, and an accurate knowledge of these is therefore
�12
The Influence of Heredity on Free Will.
imperative in order to judge riglitly in this weighty matter.
Unfortunately our knowledge of these laws is still very im
perfect ; yet we at least know this much with certainty,
that psychical heredity displays the same—if not a greater—
power and influence, as does physical, and that the abilities
■acquired during life possess the same transmissibility as those
inherited. Hence follows this result—immeasurably im
portant for progress and for the future of the human
race—that this transmission, although made without in
tention and unconsciously, tends towards a continual
improvement of the human race, and—result even yet more
solemn—that we ourselves have a share in making this
improvement. Then in the same measure as each single gene
ration works for its own training, moulding and improve
ment, inner and outer, in that same measure also it works
for the good and for the improvement of all following
generations ; so that each thus improved race hands on to the
following race not only the mental and material treasures
which it has gained and heaped together, but also a higher
and increased ability for improvement and further progress.
Heredity—however slowly and with often great breaks
due to popular commotions—raises us step by step to an
ever higher grade of moral, mental, and material develop
ment, and we shall make the attainment of this object the
easier just in so far as we work for our own moral, intel
lectual, and material perfection, and as in this fashion we
enrich the heritage which we bequeath to the next genera
tion. In any case such a prospect and such a call to labor
for our further improvement is worth more than all the
quackery and nonsense of antiquated dogmas and supersti
tious fancies, with which the ruling religious systems have
sought and still seek to satisfy the mental and emotional
�The Influence of Heredity on Free Will.
13
needs of man. For of what use can be all those imagina
tions of man as to eternity if they miss scientific truth, and
if they hinder instead of furthering the progress of know
ledge, or lead it into false paths? I consider it wholly im
possible that man, already so far advanced, can allow
himself to be guided any longer by these leading strings,
and the time cannot be very far off when he shall tread the
paths of reason and science instead of those of lies and
hypocrisy!
Ere I conclude, I would ask you not to regard this paper
as one which even half solves the important and scarcely
wholly soluble problem of the freedom of the human will. For
that task there is not now the necessary time, nor are my
weak powers sufficient. I have only aimed to show you—
or rather to call to your attention—how great an influence
the inherited mental organisation or character exercises over
our decisions, and therefore over our actions, over our will
—over' that will which appears to be bound in so many other
ways as well as in the most essential. But since this
organisation is not rigid, unchangeable, fixed for all time,
but can be changed and improved partly by our own exer
tions, I have ventured to impress on you the important
duty which is binding upon us of striving after that perfec
tion in which all good men agree.
Lastly, for the sake of greater clearness both for myself
and for my hearers, I will endeavor to define the results of
my enquiry and my opinions in a few brief sentences of
summary and review.
1. The will is neither absolutely free nor absolutely
determined.
2. It is determined or bound by a large number of inner
and outer influences, among which the inherited organisa-
�14
The Influence of Heredity on Free Will.
lion, the inborn nature of the mind and character, plays
■the chief part.
3. It is relatively free in so far as purposeful reason or
»reflection masters in any particular case thoughtless or in
nate or instinctive propensities and desires.
4. Innate propensities or instincts yield gradually more
.and more to reason and thought as we rise in the animal
kingdom, as well as in the development of the individual
man ; whence the will becomes freer step by step, and
(becomes more defined by the subordination of the former.
5. That since the will is not rigid nor unchangeable, it is
-therefore in the power of man himself by progressive traindno-, moulding, and improvement to free himself from these
.animal instincts more and more, and thereby to make him
self better, happier, and more contented than he has hitherto
been.
6. Freethouglit is above all called to work for the accom
plishment of this great end.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The influence of heredity on free will
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Buchner, Ludwig [1824-1899]
Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933] (tr)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1880
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N113
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free will
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The influence of heredity on free will), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Annie Besant
Free Thought
Free Will and Determinism
Heredity
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/fe3c948c036a20d84731950a31e99043.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=qBgR%7EBZcfEnC4I0%7EbFu690ZcMcYDbwzVjMqqYtOPyfxObE9iyfVKlGvIRD2HTlSDCYvo2RkUCHZUNof7OktYYNa9w%7ELuD5cqRmzpyxCvIeVxwVBlzH33sejRLHgmUBgxxURfUZGt3r9pT0gPAV-3hZdnV%7Eq-P5H4meDWvXlDERyFHWNzPtoHhudVq9JwfnS0Waifa1Jyflk33G4T7I42jliRgdmwv8vUrM54H2ZIqsxav3RLF83rRtpoo0LXGkd3%7EZugGIE1V2pi93ksKMj7XHePrf96Fzqo1-Hxz8aTIQnf5iBer0-ax7z%7E2TKChPz%7EK8ZU%7E5tRZ-1TQ6qXMt13AA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
aca8d898975b944d452c6a53311f4f21
PDF Text
Text
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, 8.E.
Price Fourpence.
�I I
�EUTHANASIA.
“ T HAVE already related to you with what care they
J. look after their sick, so that nothing is left
undone wfflich may contribute either to their health or
ease. And as for those who are afflicted with incurable
disorders, they use all possible means of cherishing
them, and of making their lives as comfortable as pos
sible ; they visit them often, and take great pains to
make their time pass easily. But if any have tortur
ing, lingering pain, without hope of recovery or ease,
the priests and magistrates repair to them and exhort
them, since they are unable to proceed with the busi
ness of life, are become a burden to themselves and all
about them, and have in reality outlived themselves,
they should no longer cherish a rooted disease, but
choose to die since they cannot but live in great misery;
being persuaded, if they thus deliver themselves from
torture, or allow others to do it, they shall be happy
after death. Since they forfeit none of the pleasures,
but only the troubles of life by this, they think they
not only act reasonably, but consistently with religion;
for they follow the advice of their priests, the expound
ers of God’s will. Those who are wrought upon by
these persuasions, either starve themselves or take
laudanum. But no one is compelled to end his life
thus ; and if they cannot be persuaded to it, the former
care and attendance on it is continued. And though
they esteem a voluntary death, when chosen on such
authority, to be very honourable, on the contrary, if
�4
Euthanasia.
any one commit suicide without the concurrence of the
priest and senate, they honour not the body with a
decent funeral, but throw it into a ditch.”*
Tn pleading for the morality of euthanasia, it seems
not unwise to show that so thoroughly religious a man
as Sir Thomas More deemed that practice so consonant
with a sound morality as to make it one of the customs
of his ideal state, and to place it under the sanction of
the priesthood. As a devout Roman Catholic, the
great Chancellor would naturally imagine that any
beneficial innovation would be sure to obtain the sup
port of the priesthood; and although we may differ
from him on this head, since our daily experience
teaches us that the priest may be counted upon as the
steady opponent of all reform, it is yet not uninstructive to note that the deep religious feeling which dis
tinguished this truly good man, did not shrink from
the idea of euthanasia as from a breach of morality, nor
did he apparently dream that any opposition would (or
could) be offered to it on religious grounds. The last
sentence of the extract is specially important; in dis
cussing the morality of euthanasia, we are not discus
sing the moral lawfulness or unlawfulness of suicide in
general; we may.protest against suicide, and yet uphold
euthanasia, and we may even protest against the one
and uphold the other, on exactly the same principle, as
we shall see further on. As the greater includes the
less, those who consider that a man has a right to
choose whether he will live or not, and who therefore
regard all suicide as lawful, will, of course, approve of
euthanasia; but it is by no means necessary to hold
this doctrine because we contend for the other. On the
general question of the morality of suicide, this paper
expresses no opinion whatever. This is not the point,
and we do not deal with it here. This essay is simply
* Memoirs. A translation of the Utopia, &c., of Sir Thomas
More, Lord High Chancellor of England. By A. Cayley the
Younger, pp. 102, 103. (Edition of 1808.)
�Euthanasia.
5
and solely directed to prove that there are circum
stances under which a human being has a moral right
to hasten the inevitable approach of death. The subject
is one which is surrounded by a thick fog of popular
prejudice, and the arguments in its favour are generally
dismissed unheard. I would therefore crave the reader s
generous patience, while laying before him the reasons
which dispose many religious and social reformers to
regard it as of importance that euthanasia should be
legalised.
In the fourth edition of an essay on Euthanasia, by
P. D. Williams, jun.,—an essay which powerfully sums
up what is to be said for and against the practice in
question, and which treats the whole subject exhaust
ively—we find the proposition, for which we contend,
laid down in the following explicit terms :
“ That in all cases of hopeless and painful illness, it
should be the recognised duty of the medical attendant,
whenever so desired by the patient, to administer
chloroform, or such other anaesthetic as may by-and-by
supersede chloroform, so as to destroy consciousness at
once, and to put the sufferer to a quick and painless
death ; all needful precautions being adopted to prevent
any abuse of such duty; and means being taken to
establish, beyond the possibility of doubt or question,
that the remedy was applied at the express wish of the
patient.”
It is very important, at the outset, to lay down
clearly the limitations of the proposed medical reform.
It is sometimes thoughtlessly stated that the supporters
of euthanasia propose to put to death all persons suf
fering from incurable disorders ; no assertion can be
more inaccurate or more calculated to mislead. We
propose only, that where an incurable disorder is accom
panied with extreme pain—pain, which nothing can
alleviate except death—pain, which only grows worse
as the inevitable doom approaches—pain, which drives
almost to madness, and which must end in the intensi
�6
Euthanasia.
fied torture of the death agony—that pain should be at
once soothed by the administration of an anesthetic,
which should not only produce unconsciousness, but
should be sufficiently powerful to end a life, in which
the renewal of consciousness can only be simultaneous
with the renewal of pain. So long as life has some
sweetness left in it, so long the offered mercy is not
needed; euthanasia is a relief from unendurable agony,
not an enforced extinguisher of a still desired existence.
Besides, no one proposes to make it obligatory on any
body ; it is only urged that where the patient asks for
the mercy of a speedy death, instead of a protracted one,
his prayer may be granted without any danger of the pen
alties of murder or manslaughter being inflicted on the
doctors and nurses in attendance.
I will lay before
the reader a case which is within my own knowledge,—
and which can probably be supplemented by the sad
experience of almost every individual,—in v’hich the
legality of euthanasia would have been a boon equally
to the sufferer and to her family. A widow lady was
suffering from cancer in the breast, and as the case was
too far advanced for the ordinary remedy of the knife,
and as the leading London surgeons refused to risk an
operation which might hasten, but could not retard,
death, she resolved, for the sake of her orphan children,
to allow a medical practitioner to perform a terrible
operation, whereby he hoped to prolong her life for
some years. Its details are too painful to enter into
unnecessarily; it will suffice to say that it was per
formed by means of quick-lime, and that the use of
chloroform was impossible. When the operation, which
extended over days, was but half over, the sufferer’s
strength gave way, and the doctor was compelled to
acknowledge that even a prolongation of life was im
possible, and that to complete the operation could only
hasten death. So the patient had to linger on in almost
unimaginable torture, knowing that the pain could only
end in death, seeing her relatives worn out by watching,
�Euthanasia.
7
•and agonised at the sight of her sufferings, and yet
compelled to live on from hour to hour, till at last the
anguish culminated in death. Is it possible for any
one to believe that it would have been wrong to have
hastened the inevitable end, and thus to have shortened
the agony of the sufferer herself, and to have also spared
Sier nurses months of subsequent ill-health. It is in
»uch cases as this that euthanasia would be useful. It
s, however, probable that all will agree that the benefit
conferred by the legalisation of euthanasia would, in
nany instances, be very great; but many feel that the
objections to it, on moral grounds, are so weighty, that
10 physical benefit could countervail the moral wrong.
These objections, so far as I can gather them, are as
bllows:—
Life is the gift of God, and is therefore sacred, and
nust only be taken back by the giver of life.
*
Euthanasia is an interference with the course of
•lature, and is therefore an act of rebellion against God.
Pain is a spiritual remedial agent inflicted by God,
.-jid should therefore be patiently endured.
Life is the gift of God, and is therefore sacred, and
.nust only be taken back by the Giver of life. This
objection is one of those high-sounding phrases which
mpose on the careless and thoughtless hearer, by catchng up a form of words which is generally accepted as
m unquestionable axiom, and by hanging thereupon
in unfair corollary. The ordinary man or woman, on
tearing this assertion, would probably answer—“ Life
tacred ? Yes, of course ; on the sacredness of life
lepends the safety of society ; anything which tampers
vith this principle must be both wrong and dangerous.”
Ind yet, such is the inconsistency of the thoughtless,
hat, five minutes afterwards, the same person will glow
.vith passionate admiration at some noble deed, in
* We of course here have no concern with theological questions
nuching the existence or non-existence of Deity, and express no
pinion about them.
�8
Euthanasia.
which the sacredness of life has been cast to the winds
at the call of honour or of humanity, or will utter words
of indignant contempt at the baseness which counted
life more sacred than duty or principle. That life is
sacred is an undeniable proposition; every natural gift
is sacred, i.e. is valuable, and is not to be lightly
destroyed ; life, as summing up all natural gifts, and
as containing within itself all possibilities of usefulness
and happiness, is the most sacred physical possession
which we own. But it is not the most sacred thing on
earth. Martyrs slain for the sake of principles which
they could not truthfully deny ; patriots who have
died for their country; heroes who have sacrificed
themselves for others’ good ;—the very flower and glory
of humanity rise up in a vast crowd to protest that
conscience, honour, love, self-devotion, are more precious
to the race than is the life of the individual. Life is
sacred, but it may be laid down in a noble cause ; life
is sacred, but it must bend before the holier sacredness
of principle ; life which, though sacred, can be de
stroyed, is as nothing before the indestructible ideals
which claim from every noble soul the sacrifice of per
sonal happiness, of personal greatness, yea, of personal
*
life
It will be conceded, then, on all hands, that the
proposition that life is sacred must be accepted with
many limitations : the proposition, in fact, amounts
only to this, that life must not be voluntarily laid
down without grave and sufficient cause. What we
have to consider, is, whether there are present, in any
proposed euthanasia, such conditions as overbear con
siderations for the acknowledged sanctity of life. W e
* The word “ life ” is here used in the sense of “ personal exist
ence in this world.” It is, of course, not intended to be asserted
that life is really destructible, but only that personal existence, or
identity, may be destroyed. And further, no opinion is given on
the possibility of life otherwhere than on this globe; nothing is
spoken of except life on earth, under the conditions of human
existence.
�Euthanasia.
9
contend that in the cases in which it is proposed that
death should be hastened, these conditions do exist.
"We will not touch here on the question of the
endurance of pain as a duty, for we will examine that
further on. But is it a matter of no importance, that
a sufferer should condemn his attendants to a prolonged
drain on their health and strength, in order to cling to
a life which is useless to others, and a burden to him
self ? The nurse who tends, perhaps for weeks, a bed
of agony, for which there is no cure but death whose
senses are strained by intense watchfulness whose
nerves are racked by witnessing torture which she is
powerless to alleviate—is, by her self-devotion, sowing
in her own constitution the seeds of ill-health that is
to say, she is deliberately shortening her own life. We
have seen that we have a right to shorten life in obedi
ence to a call of duty, and it will at once be said that
the nurse is obeying such a call. But has the nurse a
right to sacrifice her own life—and an injury to health
is a sacrifice of life—for an obviously unequivalent
advantage? We are apt to forget, because the injury
is partially veiled to us, that we touch the sacredness
of life whenever we touch health : every case of over
work, of over-strain, of over-exertion, is, so to speak, a
modified case of euthanasia. To poison the spring of
life is as real a tampering with the sacredness of life
as it is to check its course. The nurse is really com
mitting a slow euthanasia. Either the patient or the
nurse must commit an heroic suicide for the sake of
the other—which shall it be ? Shall the life be sacri
ficed, which is torture to its possessor, useless to
society, and whose bounds are already clearly marked ?
or shall a strong and healthy life, with all its future
possibilities, be undermined and sacrificed in addition
to that which is already doomed 1 But, granting that
the sublime generosity of the nurse stays not to balance
the gain with the loss, but counts herself as nothing in
the face of a human need, then surely it is time to urge
�IO
Euthanasia.
that to permit this self-sacrifice is an error, and that to
accept it is a crime. If it be granted that the throwing
away of life for a manifestly unequivalent gain is wrong,
then we ought not to blind ourselves to the fact, that
to sacrifice a healthy life in order to lengthen by a few
short weeks a doomed life, is a grave moral error, how
ever much it may be redeemed in the individual by the
glory of a noble self-devotion. Allowing to the full the
honour due to the heroism of the nurse, what are we
to say to the patient who accepts the sacrifice 1 What
are we to think of the morality of a human being, who,
in order to preserve the miserable remnant of life left
to him, allows another to shorten life 1 If we honour
the man who sacrifices himself to defend his family, or
risks his own life to save theirs, we must surely blame
him who, on the contrary, sacrifices those he ought to
value most, in order to prolong his own now useless
existence. The measure of our admiration for the one,
must be the measure of our pity for the weakness and
selfishness of the other. If it be true that the man who
dies for his dear ones on the battlefield is a hero, he
who voluntarily dies for them on his bed of sickness is
a hero no less brave. But it is urged that life is the
gift of God, and must only he taken hack hy the Giver
of life. I suppose that in any sense in which it can be
supposed true that life is the gift of God, it can only be
taken back by the giver—that is to say, that just as
life is produced in accordance with certain laws, so it
can only be destroyed in accordance with certain other
laws. Life is not the direct gift of a superior power :
it is the gift of man to man and animal to animal, pro
duced by the voluntary agent, and not by God, under
physical conditions, on the fulfilment of which alone
the production of life depends. The physical condi
tions must be observed if we desire to produce life, and
so must they be if we desire to destroy life. In both
cases man is the voluntary agent, in both law is the
means of his action. If life-giving is God’s doing, then
�Euthanasia.
11
life-destroying is his doing too. But this is not what
is intended by the proposers of this aphorism. If they
will pardon me for translating their somewhat vague
proposition into more precise language, they say that
they find themselves in possession of a certain thing
called life, which must have come from somewhereand
as in popular language the unknown is always the
divine, it must have come from God : therefore this life
must only be taken from them by a cause that also
proceeds from somewhere—i.e., from an unknown cause
—i.e., from the divine will. Chloroform comes from a
visible agent, from the doctor or nurse, or at least from
a bottle, wich can be taken up or left alone at our own
h
*
choice. If we swallow this, the cause of death is known,
and is evidently not divine ; but if we go into a house
where scarlet fever is raging, although we are in that
case voluntarily running the chance of taking poison
quite as truly as if we swallow a dose of chloroform,
yet if we die from the infection, we can imagine the
illness to be sent from God. Wherever we think the
element of chance comes in, there we are able to imagine
that God rules directly. We quite overlook the fact
that there is no such thing as chance. There is only
our ignorance of law, not a break in natural order. If
our constitution be susceptible of the particular poison
to which we expose it, we take the disease. If we
knew the laws of infection as accurately as we know
the laws affecting chloroform, we should be able to fore
see with like certainty the inevitable consequence ; and
our ignorance does not make the action of either set of
laws less unchangeable or more divine. But in the
“ happy-go-lucky ” style of thought peculiar to ignor
ance, the Christian disregards the fact that infection is
ruled by definite laws, and believes that health and
sickness are the direct expressions of the will of his
God, and not the invariable consequents of obscure but
probably discoverable antecedents ; so he boldly goes
into the back slums of London to nurse a family
�12
Euthanasia.
stricken down with fever, and knowingly and deliber
ately runs “ the chance ” of infection—i.e., knowingly
and deliberately runs the chance of taking poison, or
rather of having poison poured into his frame. This
he does, trusting that the nobility of his motive will
make the act right in God’s sight. Is it more noble
to relieve the sufferings of strangers, than to relieve the
sufferings of his family ? or is it more heroic to die of
voluntarily-contracted fever, than of voluntarily-taken
chloroform 1
, The argument that life must only be taken back by the
life-giver, would, if thoroughly carried out, entirely pre
vent all dangerous operations. In the treatment of
some diseases there are operations that will either kill
or cure: the disease must certainly be fatal if left alone;
while the proposed operation may save life, it may
equally destroy it, and thus may take life some time be
fore the giver of life wanted to take it back. Evidently,
then, such operations should not be performed, since
there is risked so grave an interference with the desires
of the life-giver.
Again, doctors act very wrongly
when they allow certain soothing medicines to be taken
when all hope is gone, which they refuse so long as a
chance of recovery remains : what right have they to
compel the life-giver to follow out his apparent inten
tions ? In some cases of painful disease, it is now
usual to produce partial or total unconsciousness by the
injection of morphia, or by the use of some other
anaesthetic. Thus, I have known a patient subjected
to this kind of treatment, when dying from a tumour
in the sesophagus; he was consequently, for some
weeks before his death, kept in a state of almost com
plete unconsciousness, for if he were allowed to become
conscious, his agony was so unendurable as to drive
him wild. He was thus, although breathing, practi
cally dead for weeks before his death. We cannot but
wonder, in view of such a case as his, what it is that
people mean when they talk of “ life.” Life includes,
�Euthanasia.
13
surely, not only the involuntary animal functions, such
as the movements of heart and lungs; but conscious
ness, thought, feeling, emotion. Of the various con
stituents of human life, surely those are not the most
“ sacred ” which we share with the brute, however
necessary these may be as the basis on which the rest
are built. It is thought, then, that we may rightfully
destroy all that constitutes the beauty and nobility of
human life, we may kill thought, slay consciousness,
deaden emotion, stop feeling, we may do all this, and
leave lying on the bed before us a breathing figure,
from which we have taken all the nobler possibilities
of life; but we may not touch the purely animal exist
ence ; we may rightly check the action of the nerves
and the brain, but we must not dare to outrage the
Deity by checking the action of the heart and the
lungs.
We ask, then, for the legalisation of euthanasia,
because it is in accordance with the highest morality
yet known, that which teaches the duty of self-sacrifice
for the greater good of others, because it is sanctioned
in principle by every service performed at personal
danger and injury, and because it is already partially
practised by modern improvements in medical science.
Euthanasia is an interference with the course of
nature, and is therefore an act of rebellion against
God. In considering this objection, we are placed in
difficulty by not being told what sense our opponents
attach to the word “ nature; ” and we are obliged once
more to ask pardon for forcing these vague and highflown arguments into a humiliating precision of mean
ing. Nature, in the widest sense of the word, includes
all natural laws; and in this sense it is of course
impossible to interfere with nature at all. We live,
and move, and have our being in nature ; and we can
no more get outside it, than we can get outside every
thing. With this nature we cannot interfere : we can
study its laws, and learn how to balance one law
�14
Euthanasia.
against another, so as to modify results; but this can
only be done by and through nature itself. The
“ interference with the course of nature ” which is in
tended in the above objection does not of course mean
this, impossible proceeding ; and it can then only mean
an interference with things which would proceed in
one course without human agency meddling with them,
but which are susceptible of being turned into another
course by human agency. If interference with nature’s
course be a rebellion against God, we are rebelling against
God every day of our lives. Every achievement of civili
sation is an interference with nature. Every artificial
comfort we enjoy is an improvement on nature.
“Everybody professes to approve and admire many
great triumphs of art over nature: the junction by
bridges of shores which nature had made separate, the
draining of nature’s marshes, the excavation of her
wells, the dragging to light of what she has buried at
immense depths in the earth, the turning away of her
thunderbolts by lightning-rods, of her inundations by
embankments, of her ocean by breakwaters. But to
commend these and similar feats, is to acknowledge
that the ways of nature are to be conquered, not
obeyed; that her powers are often towards man in
the position of enemies, from whom he must wrest, by
force and ingenuity, what little he can for his own use,
and deserves to be applauded when that little is rather
more than might be expected from his physical weak
ness in comparison to those gigantic powers. All
praise, of civilisation, or art, or contrivance, is so much
dispraise of nature; an admission of imperfection,
which it is man’s business, and merit, to be always
endeavouring to correct or mitigate.”* It is difficult
to understand how anyone, contemplating the course of
nature, can regard it as the expression of a divine will,
which man has no right to improve upon. Natural
law is essentially unreasoning and unmoral: gigantic
* “Essay on Nature,” by John Stuart Mill.
�Euthanasia.
*5
forces clash, around us on every side, unintelligent, and
unvarying in their action. With equal impassiveness
these blind forces produce vast benefits and work vast
catastrophes. The benefits are ours, if we are able to
grasp them; but nature troubles itself not whether we
take them or leave them alone. The catastrophes may
rightly be averted, if we can avert them; but nature
stays not its grinding wheel for our moans. Even
allowing that a Supreme Intelligence gave these forces
their being, it is manifest that he never intended man
to be their plaything, or to do them homage; for man
is dowered with reason to calculate, and with genius to
foresee; and into man’s hands is given the realm of
nature (in this world) to cultivate, td govern, to im
prove. So long as men believed that a god wielded
the thunderbolt, so long would a lightning-conductor
be an outrage on Jove; so long as a god guided each
force of nature, so long would it be impiety to resist,
or to endeavour to regulate, the divine volitions. Only
as experience gradually proved that no evil consequences
followed upon each amendment of nature, were natural
forces withdrawn, one by one, from the sphere of the
unknown and the divine. Now, even pain, that used
to be God’s scourge, is soothed by chloroform, and
death alone is left for nature to inflict, with what
lingering agony it may. But why should death, any
more than other ills, be left entirely to the clumsy,
unassisted processes of nature ?-—why, after struggling
against nature all our lives, should we let it reign
unopposed in death ? There are some natural evils
that we cannot avert. Pain and death are of these;
but we can dull pain by dulling feeling, and we can ease
death by shortening its pangs. Nature kills by slow
and protracted torture; we can defy it by choosing a
rapid and painless end. It is only the remains of the
old superstition that makes men think that to take life
is the special prerogative of the gods. With marvel
lous inconsistency, however, the opponents of euthan
�i6
Euthanasia.
asia do not scruple to “interfere with the course of
nature ” on the one hand, while they forbid us to inter
fere on the other. It is right to prolong pain by art,
although it is wrong to shorten it. When a person is
smitten down with some fearful and incurable disease,
they do not leave him to nature; on the contrary, they
check and thwart nature in every possible way; they
cherish the life that nature has blasted; they nourish
the strength that nature is undermining; they delay
each process of decay which nature sows in the dis
ordered frame; they contest every inch of ground with
nature to preserve life; and then, when life means
torture, and we ask permission to step in and quench
it, they cry out that we are interfering with nature.
If they would leave nature to itself, the disease would
generally kill with tolerable rapidity; but they will not
do this. They will only admit the force of their own
argument when it tells on the side of what they choose
to consider right. “Against nature ” is the cry with
which many a modern improvement has been howled
at; and it will continue to be raised, until it is gener
ally acknowledged that happiness, and not nature, is
the true guide to morality, and until man recognises
that nature is to be harnessed to his car of triumph,
and to bend its mighty forces to fulfil the human will.
Pam is a spiritual remedial agent, inflicted hy God,
and should therefore he patiently endured. Does any
one, except a self-torturing ascetic, endure any pain
which he can get rid of? This might be deemed a
sufficient answer to this objection, for common sense
always bids us avoid all possible pain, and daily expe
rience tells us that people invariably evade pain, when
ever such evasion is possible. The objection ought to
run : “ pain is a spiritual remedial agent, inflicted by
God, which is to be got rid of as soon as possible, but
ought to be patiently endured when unavoidable.”
Pain as pain has no recommendations, spiritual or
otherwise, nor is there the smallest merit in a voluntary
�Euthanasia.
J7
and needless submission to pain. As to its remedial
and educational advantages, it as often as not sours the
temper and hardens the heart; if a person endures
great physical or mental pain with unruffled patience,
and comes out of it with uninjured tenderness and
sweetness, we may rest assured that wre have come
across a rare and beautiful nature of exceptional strength.
As a general rule, pain, especially if it > be mental,
hardens and roughens the character. The use of anaes
thetics is utterly indefensible, if physical pain is to be
regarded as a special tool whereby God cultivates the
human soul. If God is directly acting on the sufferer s
body, and is educating his soul by racking his nerves,
by what right does the doctor step between with his
impious anaesthetic, and by reducing the patient to un
consciousness, deprive God of his pupil, and man of
his lesson ? If pain be a sacred ark, over which hovers
the divine glory, surely it must be a sinful act to touch
the holy thing. We may be inflicting incalculable
spiritual damage by frustrating the divine plan of edu
cation, which was corporeal agony as a spiritual agent.
Therefore, if this argument be good for anything at all,
we must from henceforth eschew all anaesthetics, we
must take no steps to alleviate human agony, we must
not venture to interfere with this beneficent agent, but
must leave nature to torture us as it will. But we
utterly deny that the unnecessary endurance of pain is
even a merit, much less a duty; on the contrary, we
believe that it is our duty to war against pain as much
as possible, to alleviate it wherever we cannot stop it
entirely ; and, where continuous and frightful agony
can only end in death, then to give to the sufferer the
relief he craves for, in the sleep which is mercy. “ It
is a mercy God has taken him,” is an expression often
heard when the racked frame at last lies quiet, and the
writhed features settle slowly into the peaceful smile of
the dead. That mercy we plead that man should be
allowed to give to man, when human skill and human
�18
Euthanasia.
tenderness have done their best, and when they have
left, within their reach, no greater boon than a speedy
and painless death.
We are not aware that any objection, which may not
be classed under one or other of these three heads, has
been levelled against the proposition that euthanasia
should be legalised. It has, indeed, been suggested
that to put into a doctor’s hands this “ power of life
and death,” would be to offer a dangerous temptation
to those who have any special object to gain by putting
a troublesome person quietly out of the way. But this
objection overlooks the fact that the patient himself must
ask for the draught, that stringent precautions can be taken
to render euthanasia impossible except at the patient’s
earnestly, or even repeatedly, expressed wish, that any
doctor or attendant, neglecting to take these precautions,
w’ould then, as now, be liable to all the penalties for
murder or for manslaughter; and that an ordinary
doctor would no more be ready to face these penalties
then, than he is now, although he undoubtedly has
now the power of putting the patient to death with
but little chance of discovery. Euthanasia would not
render murder less dangerous than it is at present, since
no one asks that a nurse may be empowered to give a
patient a dose which would ensure death, or that she
might be allowed to shield herself from punishment on
the plea that the patient desired it. If our opponents
would take the trouble to find out what we do ask,
before they condemn our propositions, it would greatly
simplify public discussion, not alone in this case, but
in many proposed reforms.
It may be well, also, to point out the wide line of
demarcation, which separated euthanasia from what is
ordinarily called suicide. Euthanasia, like suicide, is
a voluntarily chosen death, but there is a radical dif
ference between the motives which prompt the similar
act. Those who commit suicide thereby render them
�Euthanasia.
*9
selves useless to society for the future j they deprive
society of their services, and selfishly evade the duties
which ought to fall to their share ; therefore, the social
feelings rightly condemn suicide as a crime against
society. I do not say, that under no stress of circum
stances is suicide justifiable ; that is not the question ;
but I wish to point out that it is justly regarded as a
social offence. But the very motive which restrains
from suicide, prompts to euthanasia. The sufferer who
knows that he is lost to society, that he can never
again serve his fellow-men ; who knows, also, that he
is depriving society of the services of those who use
lessly exhaust themselves for him, and is further injur
ing it by undermining the health of its healthy mem
bers, feels urged by the very social instincts which
would prevent him from committing suicide while in
health, to yield a last service to society by relieving it
from a useless burden. Hence it is that Sir Ihomas
More, in the quotation with which we began this essay,
makes the social authorities of his ideal state urge
euthanasia as the duty of ,a faithful citizen, while they
yet, consistently reprobate ordinary suicide, as a Ibsemajeste, a crime against the State. The life of the
individual is, in a sense, the property of society. The
infant is nurtured, the child is educated, the man is
protected by others; and, in return for the life thus
given, developed, preserved, society has a right to
demand from its members a loyal, self-forgetting devo
tion to the common weal. To serve humanity, to raise
the race from which we spring, to dedicate every talent,
every power, every energy, to the improvement of, and
to the increase of happiness in, society, this is the duty
of each individual man and woman. And, when we
have given all we can, when strength is sinking, and life
is failing, when pain racks our bodies, and the worse
agony of seeing our dear ones suffer in our anguish,
tortures our enfeebled minds, when the only service
�20
Euthanasia.
we can render man is to relieve him of a useless and
injurious burden, then we ask that we may be per
mitted to die voluntarily and painlessly, and so to
crown a noble life with the laurel-wreath of a selfsacrificing death.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Euthanasia
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Author not named on pamphlet but known to be Annie Besant. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Also published with the added subtitle: 'A pamphlet advocating the legalization of the administration of poison by a medical attendant to persons suffering from incurable and painful diseases'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1875]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5502
Subject
The topic of the resource
Euthenasia
Ethics
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Euthanasia), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Annie Besant
Conway Tracts
Death
Ethics
Euthanasia
Health