7/28/2019 Hodgson, Richard - Franz Hartmann on of the Ultimate Fate of the Shrine (Art)

1/3

Franz Hartmann on

the Ultimate Fate of the Shrine

by Richard Hodgson

[First published in Richard Hodgson's "Account of Personal

Investigations in India, and Discussion of the Authorship ofthe 'Koot Hoomi' Letters,"Proceedings of the Society for

Psychical Research, Volume III, 1885, pp. 224-226. For

more on the Shrine, seeWalter A. Carrithers, Jr.'s overviewand analysis, especially Section J on the "Traces of the

Hole in the Wall."]

The ultimate fate of the Shrine, according to a statement made by Dr. Hartmann to Mr. and

Mrs. Cooper-Oakley, Mr. Hume, and myself, was as follows. After the expulsion of theCoulombs, Mr. Judge, an American Theosophist, then residing at the headquarters of the

Society, was desirous of examining the Shrine. Mr. Damodar, who possessed the key of the

Occult Room, avoided this examination several times on one pretext or another; but,eventually, a party of Theosophists proceeded to the inspection of the Shrine. The Shrine

was removed from the wall and its doors were opened. Mr. T. Vigiaraghava Charloo,

(commonly called Ananda) a Theosophist residing in an official position at theheadquarters, struck the back of the Shrine with his hand, exclaiming, "You see, the back is

quite solid," when, to the surprise of most of those who were present, the middle panel of

the Shrine flew up. It seemed undesirable to some of the witnesses of this phenomenon that

the discovery should be made public, and they resolved accordingly to destroy the Shrine.

To do this they considered that the Shrine must be surreptitiously removed, but suchremoval was inconvenient from the Occult Room. The Shrine was therefore first removed

openly to Mr. Damodars room, and, on the following night, was thence removed secretlyby three Theosophists, concealed in the compound, afterwards broken up, and the

fragments burned piecemeal during the following week. Dr. Hartmann had only retained

two portions of the back of the Shrine, which he had enveloped in brown paper and keptcarefully concealed in his room, - substantial pieces of cedar wood, black-lacked. It was of

such wood, according to a previous statement of M. Coulomb, that the back of the Shrine

was made.

Dr. Hartmann has since furnished me with a statement in writing which is of interest as

affording evidence respecting the hole between the recess and the Shrine. That this hole hadmanifestly existed and had been blocked up, I had been assured by another Theosophist

who is particularly observant, and who discovered its traces independently of Dr.Hartmann. The following is an extract from Dr. Hartmanns written account: -

[Account by Dr. Franz Hartmann

on the Ultimate Fate of the Shrine]

http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/obituar3.htmhttp://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/obituar3.htmhttp://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/obituar3.htmhttp://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/obituar3.htm#J.%20TRACES%20OF%20THE%20HOLE%20IN%20THE%20WALLhttp://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/obituar3.htm#J.%20TRACES%20OF%20THE%20HOLE%20IN%20THE%20WALLhttp://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/obituar3.htm#J.%20TRACES%20OF%20THE%20HOLE%20IN%20THE%20WALLhttp://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/obituar3.htmhttp://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/obituar3.htmhttp://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/obituar3.htm#J.%20TRACES%20OF%20THE%20HOLE%20IN%20THE%20WALLhttp://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/obituar3.htm#J.%20TRACES%20OF%20THE%20HOLE%20IN%20THE%20WALL

7/28/2019 Hodgson, Richard - Franz Hartmann on of the Ultimate Fate of the Shrine (Art)

2/3

At what time the hole in the wall was made is as much a mystery to me as it is to you; but

from a consideration of all the circumstances as laid down in my pamphlet, I came to theconclusion and am still of the opinion, that they were made by M. Coulomb after H. P.

Blavatsky went to Europe, and I am now inclined to believe that M. Coulomb made them to

ingratiate himself with Madame Blavatsky to facilitate her supposed tricks. All the traps are

too clumsy, and it would tax the utmost credulity to believe that such phenomena as I knowof could have been made by their means. In fact I do not know of a single phenomena [sic]

that happened in my presence where they would have been of the slightest use.

Of the existence of a movable back to the Shrine and a filled-up aperture in the wall, none

of us knew anything, and although superficial examinations were made, they divulgednothing; because to make a thorough examination, it would have been necessary to take the

Shrine down, and we were prevented from doing this by the superstitious awe with which

Mr. Damodar K. Mavalankar regarded the Shrine, and who looked upon every Europeanwho dared to touch or handle the "sacred" Shrine as a desecration.

At about the time when Major-General Morgan sent his invitation to Mr. Patterson to cometo headquarters, that examination was made, and it was found that the back of the Shrine

could be removed, and on moistening the wall behind the Shrine with a wet cloth, it wasfound that an aperture had existed, which had been plastered up.

Why these discoveries should have thrown any discredit on Madame Blavatsky I cannot

see, because they as well as the other traps were the work of M. Coulomb, and there was no

indication whatever that H. P. Blavatsky knew anything of their existence, and moreoverthe testimonials of such as claimed to have examined the Shrine went to show that they

were of recent origin.

Nevertheless, I must confess that it seemed to me that if at that inopportune moment this

new discovery, to which I then alluded in the papers (seeMadras Mail), would have been

made public, it would have had a bad effect on the public mind. If I had been here as a

delegate of the Society for Psychical Research, or as a detective of the missionaries, I

would, perhaps, not have hesitated to state the exact nature of the new discovery; but in myposition I had to look out for the interests of Madame Blavatsky, and I did not, therefore,

consider it prudent to speak of this discovery; neither was I authorised to do so, neither did

I (as I then stated) feel justified in letting the enemies of H. P. Blavatsky invade her privaterooms without her consent.

A gentleman who was present, and who shared my opinions, was of the opinion that the

Shrine had been too much desecrated to be of any more use, and he burned the Shrine in

my presence . . . I never told Colonel Olcott nor Madame Blavatsky, nor any one else atheadquarters up to that time, what had become of the Shrine. But when you and Mr. Hume,

besides a lot of other absurd theories, also asserted your conviction, that Madame Blavatsky

had sent her servant, Baboola, for the purpose of doing away with the Shrine, and that hehad done so by her orders, I thought it about time to show you that even a member of the

Society for Psychical Research may err in his judgment.

7/28/2019 Hodgson, Richard - Franz Hartmann on of the Ultimate Fate of the Shrine (Art)

3/3

We learn from Dr. Hartmann that any thorough examination of the Shrine was prevented by

the "superstitious awe" with which Mr. Damodar regarded it. Dr. Hartmanns assertion iscorroborated by the testimony of Mr. Lane-Fox, who has also very emphatically expressed

to me his conviction that no examination of the Shrine by native witnesses can be

considered as of the smallest value, in consequence of the exceeding reverence in which it

was universally held. But it will be observed that in one part of his account Dr. Hartmannappears to lay some stress on "the testimonials of such as claimed to have examined the

Shrine" before the exposure; he gave me, on different occasions, accounts of his

examinations, and these accounts, besides being inconsistent with one another, areinconsistent with his final statements, - as he at once cheerfully admitted, retracting all his

previous utterances on the subject.