Q. Agreed. Well, have either of the Founders, Colonel H.S. Olcott or H.P. Blavatsky, ever made any money, profit, or derived any worldly benefit from the T.S., as some papers say?

A. Not one penny. The papers lie. On the contrary, they have both given all they had, and literally beggared themselves. As for "worldly benefits," think of the slanders and vilification they have been subjected to, and then ask the question!

Q. Yet I have read in a good many missionary organs that the entrance fees and subscriptions much more than covered all expenses; and one said that the Founders were making twenty thousand pounds a year!

A. This is a fib, like many others. In the published accounts of January, 1889, you will find an exact statement of all the money ever received from any source since 1879. The total received from all sources (entrance fees, donations, etc., etc.) during these ten years is under six thousand pounds, and of this a large part was contributed by the Founders themselves from the proceeds of their private resources and their literary work. All this has been openly and officially admitted, even by our enemies, the Society for Psychical Research. And now both the Founders are penniless: one, too old and ill to work as she did before, unable to spare time for outside literary work to help the Society in money, can only write for the Theosophical cause; the other keeps laboring for it as before, and receives as little thanks for it.

Q. But surely they need money to live?

A. Not at all. So long as they have food and lodging, even though they owe it to the devotion of a few friends, they need little more.

Q. But could not Madame Blavatsky, especially, make more than enough to live upon by her writings?

A. When in India she received on the average some thousand rupees a year for articles contributed to Russian and other papers, but gave it all away to the Society.

Q. Political articles?

A. Never. Everything she has written throughout the seven years of her stay in India is all there in print. It deals only with the religions, ethnology, and customs of India, and with Theosophy-never with politics, of which she knows nothing and cares less. Again, two years ago she refused several contracts amounting together to about 1,200 rubles in gold per month; for she could not accept them without abandoning her work for the Society, which needed all her time and strength. She has documents to prove it.

Q. But why could not both she and Colonel Olcott do as others-notably many Theosophists-do: follow out their respective professions and devote the surplus of their time to the work of the Society?

A. Because by serving two masters, either the professional or the philanthropic work would have had to suffer. Every true Theosophist is morally bound to sacrifice the personal to the impersonal, his own present good to the future benefit of other people. If the Founders do not set the example, who will?

Q. And are there many who follow it?

A. I am bound to answer you the truth. In Europe about half-a-dozen in all, out of more than that number of Branches.

Q. Then it is not true that the Theosophical Society has a large capital or endowment of its own?

A. It is false, for it has none at all. Now that the entrance fee of £1 and the small annual due have been abolished, it is even a doubtful question whether the staff at the headquarters in India will not soon be starved to death.

Q. Then why not raise subscriptions?

A. We are not the Salvation Army; we cannot and have never begged; nor have we ever followed the example of the Churches and sects and "taken up collections." That which is occasionally sent for the support of the Society, the small sums contributed by some devoted Fellows, are all voluntary donations.

Q. But I have heard of large sums of money given to Mme. Blavatsky. It was said four years ago that she got £5,000 from one rich, young "Fellow," who went out to join them in India, and £10,000 from another wealthy and well-known American gentleman, one of your members who died in Europe four years ago.

A. Say to those who told you this, that they either themselves utter, or repeat, a gross falsehood. Never has "Madame Blavatsky" asked or received one penny from the two above-named gentlemen, nor anything like that from anyone else, since the Theosophical Society was founded. Let any man living try to substantiate this slander, and it will be easier for him to prove that the Bank of England is bankrupt than that the said "Founder" has ever made any money out of Theosophy. These two slanders have been started by two high-born ladies, belonging to the London aristocracy, and have been immediately traced and disproved. They are the dead bodies, the carcasses of two inventions, which, after having been buried in the sea of oblivion, are once more raised on the surface of the stagnant waters of slander.

Q. Then I have been told of several large legacies left to the T.S. One-some £8,000-was left to it by some eccentric Englishman, who did not even belong to the Society. The other-£3,000 or £4,000-were testated by an Australian F.T.S. Is this true?

A. I heard of the first; and I also know that, whether legally left or not, the T.S. has never profited by it, nor have the Founders ever been officially notified of it. For, as our Society was not then a chartered body, and thus had no legal existence, the Judge at the Court of Probate, as we were told, paid no attention to such legacy and turned over the sum to the heirs. So much for the first. As for the second, it is quite true. The testator was one of our devoted Fellows, and willed all he had to the T.S. But when the President, Colonel Olcott, came to look into the matter, he found that the testator had children whom he had disinherited for some family reasons. Therefore, he called a council, and it was decided that the legacy should be refused, and the moneys passed to the legal heirs. The Theosophical Society would be untrue to its name were it to profit by money to which others are entitled virtually, at any rate on Theosophical principles, if not legally.

Q. Again, and I say this on the authority of your own Journal, The Theosophist, there's a R ja of India who donated to the Society 25,000 rupees. Have you not thanked him for his great bounty in the January Theosophist for 1888?

A. We have, in these words, "That the thanks of the Convention be conveyed to H.H. the Mah r ja. for his promised generous gift of Rupees 25,000 to the Society's Fund." The thanks were duly conveyed, but the money is still a "promise," and has never reached the Headquarters.

Q. But surely, if the Mah r ja promised and received thanks for his gift publicly and in print, he will be as good as his promise?

A. He may, though the promise is 18 months old. I speak of the present and not of the future.

Q. Then how do you propose to go on?

A. So long as the T.S. has a few devoted members willing to work for it without reward and thanks, so long as a few good Theosophists support it with occasional donations, so long will it exist, and nothing can crush it.

Q. I have heard many Theosophists speak of a "power behind the Society" and of certain "Mahatmas," mentioned also in Mr. Sinnett's works, that are said to have founded the Society, to watch over and protect it.

A. You may laugh, but it is so.