1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/acd211e2f07470c71792affb24ab756d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=DuFlcV1jgMTw3carBL94gzEfB92eu6dNtlav1lMGg6Reuc3ZzPjMOtbPf8GA-mBw-hzOuwwVX6PYwvtu2fhKBBNbNxR9Tw7qjB30XF2jd-Llj4JrGcKYc9ganc3CugKMjAFTO1poJ96TkGCquHlCJTa%7EZpdJKns-dLvwkZrJUy4G0GHlbot3SFoNGUn82t7vepCSADeoFUoBZY3Xkly9ZzbstzWYZxVDzM6lLaSJyT6wm5H-eMRkj8J93iS4JiVMpGO95XMQRVITBbGjuu3CqZb8nM%7EB7gdO4DjTnMKdg4vy129livEYBjHQGRbGhm3eUxWvR8Yk2pKHdYuGzOwOnA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5cef4340d15a126eff3244a8eae6d3dc
PDF Text
Text
v_
j '-I
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE THERSITES
OF
FREETHOUGHT.
BEING
Keplg to certain Attacks.
BY
H. P. ^BLAVATSKY.
Xonfcon:
THEOSOPHICAL PUBLICATION
7 DUKE STREET, STRAND.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
SOCIETY,
�LONDON:
PRINTED
A BONNER, 34 BOUVERIE STREET,
FLEET STREET, EC.
�The Thersites of Freethought.
"Says Massinger:
" . . . . Malice scorn’d puts out
Itself; but argued gives a kind of credit
To a false accusation.”
These wise lines ought perhaps to stop my pen as they
have in many other cases. But if they fail to do so in
this instance, and if despite the contempt I feel for my
slanderers, I still notice false and malicious accusations
as brutal as they are uncalled for, it is not to “ argue ”,
but simply to correct some of them for the information
of fair-minded people. There is a counterpart to
Massinger’s sage remark in as wise an Eastern pro
verb : “If thou dost not wash off the mud thrown at
thy face, people will believe it dirty ”.
An article which appears in Lucifer for September,
“ Lie not one to another,” and which contains a few
words of sympathy for Mr. G. W. Foote, editor of the
Freethinker, was written in Jersey for the August Lucifer
and sent by me to Mrs. Besant to read and approve of,
since she is the heroine thereof. To my surprise she
kept it back, simply saying that she found it—in view
of some fresh developments, the nature of which she
did not communicate,—“too kind” with regard to
certain Freethinkers. It is only on returning to Lon
don that I had the opportunity of fully appreciating
the delicate feeling that made my friend withhold that
article at the time. A bigoted pamphlet called “ Mrs.
Besant’s Theosophy ” had just been written and pub-
�4
THE THERSITES OF FREETHOUGHT.
lished by that very G. W. Foote; and while I was:
expressing my sympathy with him as a persecuted
Freethinker, he was abusing and denouncing me, of
whom—outside of the slanders and lies so freely
invented and circulated against me by Christians in
connection with Theosophy—he knew, very evidently,
absolutely nothing. Indeed, although I had never sym
pathised with a certain brutal caricature on the Biblical
God in a now famous Christmas number of the Free
thinker, nor with other such caricatures, or his extreme
views, I had yet sympathised with him in his trouble,
and even strongly defended him, in India as well as in
England, considerably to my own disadvantage. Great
was my surprise, therefore, to find Mr. Foote in his last
pamphlet, while nominally aiming at Mrs. Besant,
continually flinging handfuls of mud at myself!
While fully admitting his right to discuss and even
abuse Theosophy, for it is a public movement, I deny
him that right with regard to my private life and
personality. Knowing nothing or little about the Theo
sophical Society, and still less of Theosophy, he has an
excuse—like everyone else who judges of that movement
on hearsay—for misrepresenting it, though even that
clashes strangely with his pretensions to be regarded as
an impartial and tolerant thinker. But what right has
Mr. Foote or his alter ego, Mr. Mazzini Wheeler, to
report about me lies which have never been proven, and on
which no evidence even is adduced ? It is these that I am
now determined to expose. I will begin, however, with
an innocent aberration of Mr. Foote.
Speaking of Mrs. Besant’s rapid conversion, who, “ in
less than six weeks or two months at the outside”, after
reviewing my “ Secret Doctrine”, became “ a fellow of
the Theosophical Society ”, the far-seeing editor of the
Freethinker shrewdly remarks :—
“ 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.”
This phrase, “ no intellect like Mrs. Besant’s could
undergo such rapid changes by itself”, has an ominous
ring, when coming from a Freethinker. It suggests
mental pictures of hypnotic malpractice, of witch’s
�THE THERSITES OF FREETHOUGHT.
5
^nvoutement, and crafty suggestion to believe oneself a
Theosophist. With such “ an intellect ” it implies more
than regular hypnotism, but verily Circean fascination
according to the rules of the black art. Does Mr.
Foote believe then in such possibilities in Nature?
And if he does, what a future pregnant with dangers for
Freethought does it unveil! For, if even Mrs. Besant’s
remarkable intellect has succumbed to Herbert Burrow’s
or to my magic powers, then why not the less remarkable
intellects of Mr. Foote and his friend, the champion
Orientalist of the age—Mr. Mazzini Wheeler? In this
case one would be inclined to believe in the truth of the
Light of the World's assertion, that poor Mr. Foote is
indeed “ filled with alarm, dismay, and despair ”, For,
as intellectually—though an undeniably clever man—he
is on a far lower plane than Mrs. Besant, as will be
recognised by all, what if he, the editor of the Free
thinker, ever fell under our lethal spells ! Should he
succumb next to our collective fascination, he would
have to become a fellow of the Theosophical Society, or
—die. And as it is not so certain at all that he would
be accepted by us in his present mood, I shudder to
think of the fatal consequences it would entail upon the
Freethought party.
As to supplying to Mr. Foote “ the explanation” he
demands, perhaps Mr. H. Burrows may condescend to
do so. As for “ Madame Blavatsky ”, she has no
intention whatever of supplying him with any explana
tion. All she has to say to him is that she is innocent
of Mrs. Besant’s conversion. This lady is a living
witness—whose truthfulness and word even Mr. Foote
would never dare to deny—to the fact that I had no
hand at all in her joining the Theosophical Society. I
had seen Mrs. Annie Besant only once, in the presence of
several other persons, and then we engaged only in general
conversation, previous to her sending in an application for
membership. Nor have I ever put any pressure upon her
—whether hypnotic or magical, since Mr. Foote seems to
endow me with such power. I will say more. Had I given
to the Theosophical Society such a valuable acquisition,
it would have been to me a matter for pride; but it was
not so, and, therefore, I feel compelled to reluctantly
�6
THE THERSITES OF FREETHOUGHT.
deny the flattering imputation. Moreover, I do not
hesitate to declare that “ an intellect like Mrs. Besant’s ”
yields to no pressure, except that of her own reasoning
powers. A noble heart like Mrs. Besant’s listens to no
voice, save that of the inner voice of truth—that of man’s
Divine nature, to which Mr. Foote is deaf and blind,
though it is a voice which speaks louder in us than all
the tones which ever roared amid thunder and lightning
on any Mount Sinai. Annie Besant has heard and
recognised that voice, and—she has becomesTheosophist
—which is more than simply “a fellow of the.
Theosophical Society ”.
Such a mistake on the part of the author of “ Mrs..
Besant’s Theosophy” is, however, a natural one, and
we have no quarrel with it. But when Mr. Foote
arguing “ from the terms of her (Mrs. Besant’s) eulogy
on Madame Blavatsky ” repeats satirically those terms
and forthwith falls foul of the latter, the question
becomes more serious.
This is what he says of one whom he ironically
suspects of being Mrs. Besant’s present “ guide, philo
sopher, and friend ” :—
“ She (Mrs. Besant) takes theosophy on trust from ‘ the most re
markable 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’,”
And then this “ wise man of the West ” proceeds to
ask:
“ 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. ...”
* Would not Mr. Foote, who is no “ mystery-monger," it is
evident—ask and expect “ trust ’’ from any pupil to whom he is
imparting instruction, though the latter is no better than the ex
ploded hypothesis of men descending from one common ancestor with
the tailless apes ? When he is able to prove beyond doubt or cavil
that Madame Blavatsky has ever asked for or received any reward
whatever, of a material nature, during her 15 years of voluntary
hard labour, then he may have more right to sneer at the statement,
than he has now.
�THE THERSITES OF FREETHOUGHT.
7
Very well; and I am willing to satisfy these persons.
To this portion of his impertinent question “ where is
my home, what was my country, social position ”, I
answer: Apply to the same source of information
whence Lord Ripon, when Viceroy, and the Simla
authorities derived their’s when they sent to Russia the
same queries. The official answers they received and
which were reprinted in the Pioneer (1880), were pre
sumably to their satisfaction, since they have never
repeated the question again. My “ home ”, is no State
secret; my “ country ” and late “ social position ”—no
chateau en Espagne, or that of a “ Swiss Admiral ”, but
matters of official documents and records in the AngloIndian Political Department and the Russian Embassy.
Let the pamphleteer apply there, if either will open its
doors to him, or condescends to answer.
He forgets one more accusation on a par with the
others. Why not add that in 1885, I was accused by
the S.P.R. of being a “ Russian Spy,” the admitted
mistake of the Anglo-Indian Government, notwith
standing ? But then, had not the gentlemanly Psychical
Researchers resorted to this last trump-card to prejudice
the British public against me, and show a motive for
my alleged “ frauds ”, what fool would ever have be
lieved in their Report ?
But Mr. Foote does not stop here. With the air of
one perfectly sure of his facts, he undertakes to answer
his questions himself, and adds:
. . . . “ Twenty years ago Madame Blavatsky was practising as
a spiritist ‘ mejum ’ in America.
In 1872 she gave seances in
Egypt
To this Madame Blavatsky replies to her slanderer:
You speak a deliberate falsehood, slandering another
more basely than you have yourself been slandered.
The writer dares not attack Mrs. Besant too roughly,
for there is not one honest, respectable Freethinker,
who would not in that case turn his back upon him.
The object of his present wrath is too well known, too
much respected and admired, by friend or foe, not to
find hundreds of defenders among honourable men, nor
can Mr. Foote—or rather he dares not—conveniently
forget the debt of gratitude he owes to her personally.
�8
THE THERSITES OF FREETHOUGHT.
And, because he dares not ventilate all his senseless
rage upon Annie Besant, he turns round, and like a
coward, insults and slanders another woman, because
he hopes to have nothing to fear from her !
A noble example of Freethought, forsooth! one that
every fair-minded English Secularist and Freethinker
may well feel proud of. The repetition of these slanders
puts the editor of the Freethinker almost on a par with
the godly Christian missionaries who have invented
them—those who first bribed Madame Coulomb to play
Judas, and then cheated her out of her well-earned
“ blood-money ”—and yet he is but a poor imitator of
all those Dissenters and Sectarians of the Pecksniffian
type. They, at least, have the merit of original inven
tion, while he only repeats what he hears others say,
and even that he must needs sorely mix up and con
fuse !
I defy the whole world to bring one single respectable
eye-witness to the fact that I have ever “ practised ” as
a spiritist medium, at any time of my life, or ever
given seances. As well call some of the English royal
family, the late Napoleon III, or the Russian Emperor
“mejum”, because they believed and do believe in
mediumistic phenomena, and investigated them. I
paid for my experience in abnormal manifestations, but
was never paid for them. Nor does it behove one who
experienced to his sorrow the leniency and impartiality
of the courts of law, to say as he does, that though she
(I) repudiated the “ Coulomb letters ”, she does not
“ vindicate herself in the law courts ”, When Mr. Foote
is ready to admit that the “ Blasphemy Law ” has been
justly applied in his case, and that he is ready to place
the vindication of his honour in the hands of a Christian
jury, then will he have some shadow of a right to twit
me for avoiding to do the same. Again; am I to as
sume that the shameful accusations of gross profligacy
launched against the immaculate editor of the Freethinker
by Christian agents of a type similar to those who ac
cused me, are true because he has not condescended to
prosecute them ? And am I to be free to repeat these,
and to give them wide circulation, merely answering
when challenged : “ Oh, they must be true, or he
�THE THERSITES OF FREETHOUGHT.
9
would have disproved them in court ” ? Or would Mr.
Foote regard it as a reputable mode of controversy if, in
order to raise prejudice against Secularism, I ask insult
ing questions as to the details of his private home life ?
What would the Freethinkers think of me if, because
a prominent Theosophist joined their ranks, thus going
back on our speculative metaphysics, I should write a
pamphlet over my own signature and in order to dis
credit Freethought, should ask (paraphrasing what Mr.
Foote says of me) the following slanderous gossip about
himself.
“ Has Mr., or Mrs. *** made inquiry into these things
• • • Where was Mr. Foote’s home, what his social
position, and the extent of his wealth before he became
a Freethinker ? Thirty years ago he was a Catechist
and public lecturer in camp meetings taking up ‘ collec
tions ’. In 1883 he was tried for blasphemy and con
demned to prison. He is a jail-bird. His so-called
Freethought was investigated by the Christian Evidence
Society and shown up as a wind-bag, and his supposed
science and learning have been exploded as ‘ part of
a huge fraudulent system ’; while the Y.M.C.A. has
revealed him to be ‘ a thorough paced adventurer ’ and
his Freethinker and other brutal and vulgar publications,
‘ the work of an accomplished charlatan ’—published
merely for gain.”
The sentences between quotation marks are Mr.
Foote’s own elegant expressions directed against me.
Would not every decent person on reading such an
attack, say that there can be very little to say against
Freethought if “ Madame Blavatsky ” in resenting
the conversion to it of a Theosophist, only repeats
against a leading Freethinker stale Christian abuse ?
Profiting by this opportunity I will close the subject
of Mr. Foote’s uncalled for attack on my personality to
say a few words with regard to his accusations—as
muddled up and confused as his first statements—
directed against Theosophy. He is quite welcome to
“regard the ethics of Theosophy as detestable”, for
it is but a tit for tat: I regard the teachings of
Materialism as detestable. So on that point, at least,
we are square. But, while I have studied and know
�IO
THE THERSITES OF FREETHOUGHT.
something of his materialistic teachings, he knows
nothing at all, I see, of Theosophy. It is not to answer
him or dissipate his prejudices, that I notice a few of
the mistakes, but to show to those who may have read
his misleading pamphlet how superficially he has
acquainted himself with that which he so vehemently
attacks. “ Spiritism ”, he says, “ is the logical issue of
this fanciful philosophy ”—to wit: the Secret Doctrine.
“ Theosophists seem all infected with this melancholy
superstition which flourishes in gross luxuriance among
savages.” And also, Mr. Foote might have added
among sixty thousand Parisians, in the capital of France
alone: plus, among several millions of more or less
cultured Americans and Englishmen, without stopping
to notice the “ savages ” of other nationalities. But it
so happens that “ Spiritism ” or Spiritualism has not
infected Theosophists at all. Fellows of our Society
really “ infected ” (the word is happily chosen) with
belief in “Spirits” are very few, and then, while re
maining members of the Theosophical Society, are no
“ Theosophists ”—but “ Spiritualists ”, one name not
interfering with the other. Spiritualism is tolerated
and its rights respected in our ranks, just as is
Christianity, Socialism or Freethought of any degree.
Our rules do not permit us to meddle with the personal
belief, religious or political views, or private life of the
members, so long as these do not interfere with, or
become harmful to, our three declared objects. Perhaps,
before talking of and criticising a subject he knows
evidently nothing about, Mr. Foote would do well to
read “The Key to Theosophy” just published. Nor
does “ Madame Blavatsky ” believe in Spiritualism or
the “return of the dead” ; nor does the Theosophical
doctrine countenance either. Both, however, teach the
occurrence of a great variety of phenomenal, or so-called
mediumistic manifestations, refusing at the same time
to see in them anything supernatural, or outside the
powers of man. Surely, even Materialism, with all its
arrogance, can hardly claim possession of the last word
of science—its negative views being simply the result of
the collective experiences of sceptics in every age—a
very small portion of humanity. Freethought (when under
�THE THERSITES OF FREETHOUGHT.
II
stood in its general and original meaning, and before the
noble term was narrowed down and dwarfed by its
bigoted sectaries to its present meaning) includes even
“ Spiritism,” as well as every other belief that happens
to run off the orthodox track of Churches and Revela
tions (Vide Webster’s Diet.). Under these circumstances,
Mr. Foote’s noiseful personality can hardly be found
included in the number of those of whom Job ironically
predicated that “ wisdom shall die ” with them ; so that
his opinion cannot be held to conclude the controversy.
We believe in the testimony of our senses, first of all;
then, in the accumulated experience and evidence of that
portion of mankind which believes in unseen worlds and
invisible Presences, and which is as 99 to 1 when com
pared with that fraction which denies all. Withal, I
for one am not a “ Spiritist ” nor am I a “ modern
Spiritualist ” ; and did the editor of the Freethinker know
anything at all of our society, he would have paused
before confusing Theosophy with Spiritism. The
animosity shown to Theosophy, and myself especially,
by “ Spiritists ” the world over, is neither less deep nor
more polite in its expression than the bad feeling shown
by Mr. Foote. In this he is on a par with the believers
in Biblical “ miracles ” and in rapping “ spirits ”.
Then, we are twitted with the undeniable fact that
the doctrine of re-incarnation “was not brought up by
Theosophy”. No one has ever thought of putting
forward any such claim, and every school-boy must
know that belief in re-incarnation—flippantly called
metempsychosis—is as old as the world. Nor would it
gain ground as it does were it a new-fangled belief.
But as it is a doctrine believed in by the greatest and
most intelligent nations of antiquity, by the greatest
philosophers and sages, and that it is also the most logical
doctrine which leaves no gaps, knows of no missing
links, and explains almost every social and human
problem—Theosophists, as the most intellectual among
the members of the Theosophical Society, believe in it.
But Mr. Foote—who innocently imagines that no Theo
sophist, nor any other mortal save himself, probably,
can know that which he, and the erudite Mr. Mazzini
Wheeler know—gravely brings forward against us
�12
THE THERSITES OF FREETHOUGHT.
proofs which he believes very crushing. Had he only
looked into our Theosophical literature he might have
found therein ten times more evidence about the
antiquity of the doctrine of reincarnation, than he has
adduced. Reading his oratory one can only wonder
that among his new and crushing proofs that Theosophy
is an old superstition, he fails to notify his credulous
readers of Queen Anne's death; but as his object is to
show that we are plagiarists and frauds, he is not very
careful in the selection of his weapons ; hence he adduces,
as one more striking argument against Mrs. Besant’s
delusion, that reincarnation (or “ transmigration of souls”
as he calls it) was taught by the Egyptians, by Plato,
and the ancient Jews.
Well, and what of that ? Because Mr. Foote has
neither invented nor begotten Freethought, shall we
therefore, be justified in asserting that there is no truth
in his disquisitions against the Bible ? Shall we, because
Democritus, Epicurus, and even the pre-Buddhistic
Nastikas were Atheists, and preached the infidel doc
trines that we find in the Freethinker; shall we say that
all those who join the ranks of Freethought must have
been moonstruck “through the agency” of the infidel
Sorcerer, who goes by the name of G. W. Foote ? For
such are the weighty and eloquent arguments brought
by our traducer against Theosophy for Mrs. Besant’s
information.
Then comes the query how that devoted lady “ recon
ciles Karma with Socialism ”. The denunciation of
both is too sneering to be of any philosophical value.
“ Denunciation of landlords, capitalists, and all privi
leged persons, is silly screaming against ‘ eternal
justice’” he tells us. Thus, at least, “it appears” to
Mr. Foote. The subject is too wide a one to deal with
here, so we refer Mr. Foote for information to an article
on the subject in this month’s Lucifer.
The altruism taught by Theosophy comes in next for a
shower of delightful tropes. Our critic seems quite in
nocent of the distinction between theoretical and practical
altruism. The “killing out of personal desires ”, i.e., con
trol over one’s animal passions, which alone distinguishes
rational man from the irrational brute, is branded as a most
�THE THERSITES OP FREETHOUGHT.
13
“ pernicious and grotesque ” teaching ; after which the
writer approaches his final and “ critical ” point. He
analyses the rules of the “ inner circle ” or rather what
he thinks he knows of them on the scanty information
received, and forthwith falls foul of the idea that to
pursue the “ path ” one “ must lead a celibate life ”.
Against this rule all the materialistic instincts of one
who is proud to claim kinship with the gorilla are fairly
aroused. “ Celibacy is not the loftiest rule of life”, he
exclaims. “ Physically, mentally, and morally, it is
attended with the gravest dangers”, and so on, the
reader being treated to almost every stale and wellknown argument upon the question. The eloquent
editor of the Freethinker fights the wind-mills of his own
imagination as no Don Quixotte has ever fought them—
begging pardon of the noble Spaniard’s shade for the
comparison. His article is brought to an end by the
following solemn announcement: “ Spiritism on one side
and celibacy on the other, are the evil angels of Theo
sophy ”, They may lead Mrs. Besant, who “ is not an
adventuress ”, into dangers ominously hinted at.
This phrase settles Mr. Foote in our opinion. He is a
very brutal but not skilful fencer, and his arguments
are as—
“ Blunt as the fencer’s foils which hit but hurt not.”
Celibacy is not enforced either in the Society or its inner circle
any more than vegetarianism. Thus once more the vituper
ative critic is shown not to know what he is talking
about. A sufficient proof of this will be found in the
fact that a large proportion of the members are married
people, and that some eat meat and, when sick, drink
wine even in the inner circle. None of these rules are en
forced, and they are optional. A member of the “ inner
circle ” has just got married to a second wife, and this
does not prevent him from belonging to it as in the past.
Of course there are circumstances when all these injunc
tions become obligatory; but it also stands to reason
that the details of such cases will not be made public to
satisfy curiosity. Suffice it to say that whether arguing
against Theosophy and the rules of the Society, or
throwing mud at people who have never injured him,
�14
THE THERSITES OF FREETHOUGHT.
Mr. G. W. Foote shows himself absurdly ignorant of
the subjects of his insane attacks. It is, however,
Freethought alone that he injures by such language,
Theosophy being too invulnerable to be wounded by
such poor logic as seems to be at his disposal. Ex pede
Herculem! The Freethinker has shown its foot, and
henceforth it cannot fail to be recognised by its hoof.
As to our other opponent from the same quarter—
the omniscient Mr. J. Mazzini Wheeler, “ whose know
ledge of Brahmanism and Buddhism, as well as of
general ‘ occult ’ literature, it would take Mrs. Besant
many years of close study to rival ”, as saith the editor
of the Freethinker—it is hardly worth my while to
notice his Oriental effusions, even as he has noticed my
“ Secret Doctrine,” which, by-the-bye, he obtained from
me in somewhat dubious fashion. Having written to
me a polite letter to ask for the work to review it, he
took the opportunity of flinging abuse at both work and
author. And yet the knowledge of this “ renowned
Orientalist ” and daring explorer, who studied Brah
manism and Buddhism (let alone ‘ occult ’ literature) in
the unapproachable fastnesses of the British Museum,
seems shaky indeed, as I will now prove. Nevertheless,
his “ profound scholarship ” on these subjects, attained
by his indefatigable travels in the dangerous wilds and
the table-lands of the Museum’s halls, is contrasted
with “ Madame Blavatsky’s arrogance” for assuming to
know more of these religions and Occultism than does
Mr. Mazzini Wheeler ! Indeed, in the inexorable logic
and modesty of these two apostles of Freethought, one
who has been almost born and brought up among
Buddhists and passed many years in India and Central
Asia, is not supposed to know more than a man who
has never set foot in these lands, and who certainly is
not a Max Muller. I have read Mr. Wheeler’s
“ Buddhism in Tibet,” a long article in which, for every
line which emanated from his own pensive brain, one
finds fifty lines of quotations and compilations from well
known works on Buddhism, in which hypothesis and
conjectures supplement personal knowledge on every
page. So learned is that profound scholar, whom Mrs.
Besant “ can never hope to emulate ”, that, in his philo-
�THE THERSITES OF FREETHOUGHT.
15
logical achievements, he seems even unable to recognise
•one Buddhist name from another, when, instead of being
transliterated, it is written phonetically! Thus one
instance will suffice to expose the ignorance of this'
“reputable traveller” in the unexplored lands of the
London libraries. Copying and repeating, parrot-like,
information culled from Schlagintweit and Sarat
Chandra Das (the latter being known personally to Indian
and some European Theosophists), he gravely declares:
“ Of Thibetan Buddhists there are nine sects . . . .
*
needless to say, the Root Hoompa are not among them.”
We open Schlagintweit’s “Buddhism in Tibet” and read
page 73: “ 3. The Kadampa sect .... founded
in the year 1002 a.d., etc.” Now “ Kadampa,” pro
nounced in Bhutan, Kau-dtompa ; is written, Kagdamspa;
and pronounced a little further to the East, Koot-hoompa.
Every Lama in Darjeeling will tell him so. But, of
course, Mr. Wheeler cannot be expected to know the
difference. His remark was meant as a witty sally at
Theosophists and myself who wrote about that sect.
And perhaps also at Koothoomi, the Sanskrit name of
a sage, which name has nought to do with that
of Koothoompas.
But, indeed, the genii of Freethought have already
had more attention bestowed upon them than they are
worth. Let them learn good manners first of all; then,
perhaps, in their next incarnation, they may hope to
learn as much about real Buddhism and Brahmanism
(not book speculations and guesses) as I have forgotten
in this one.
* There are seventeen, if you please, which can be enumerated
from the work of Ugyen Gyats’ho, a learned Lama from the
Pemiongchi Lamasery, an author a little more learned about his own
country than Schlagintweit, and known well to the Government
officials in Bengal. He was the teacher of Major Lewin, late
Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling.
�>
. •■ Sot rii
. >. ': ,.^'aaoHf
:m-X v;r>v,^
,
.ii . .!-, y/rfco •
’’frh
■- . r. <
;
hff.'X
:r
.
,6 -;m ?'
';.:.-’O-..';, s.?k lo”
■'. e Atj thA. £
,
jt
«.; in J.i!>xChX jjJirt
; f
t
T;
.‘.I'tiOV/
�
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 Thersites of freethought being a reply in certain attacks
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Blavatsky, H. P. (Helena Petrovna)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: A riposte to the opinions and writings of G.W. Foote. Printed by A. Bonner, 34 Bouverie Street, London. Tentative date of publication from KVK (OCLC WorldCat). Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was a Russian occultist/esoteric philosopher, and author who co-founded the Theosophical Society in 1875.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Theosophical Publication Society
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
G5796
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theosophy
Free thought
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The Thersites of freethought being a reply in certain attacks), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><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
Freethought
George William Foote
Theosophy