Published by Blavatsky Study Center. Online Edition copyright 2004.

Letter from Dr. J.D. Buck

Pellets from the Pulte Professor, some of Sugar and others
of Nitro-Glycerine, for the Journal, Coleman, and Blavatsky.

by J.D. Buck

[Reprinted from The Religio-Philosophical Journal
(Chicago, Illinois) May 19, 1888, p. 3.]

Every member of the Theosophical Society, and I think every lover of truth must be pleased at the fair and generous hearing accorded by the Journal to the recent theosophical convention that assembled in Chicago. This, however, can be no surprise to those who have been familiar with the long-time policy of the Journal, which has been characterized by good old-fashioned common-sense and honesty. Moreover the Journal proper has been more in the habit of plain speaking than of gush and gabble. No one familiar with the editorial columns of the Journal would be likely either to accuse it of having no views, or would be in any doubt as to what those views are. One thing has been apparent, viz., an uncompromising warfare against fraud and imposture, while its columns have been open to hearing or defense of all cases or causes coming within the scope of its work. These reflections have been called up this morning by reading the Journal for May 5th; the redundance of good things is remarkable. What the Journal says of "This Doctor Business" is literally true, as true from the standpoint of the busy practitioner of medicine as from that of the common-sensed laity. It is becoming quite notorious, not that the poor are neglected, they are often allowed to get well in vulgar obscurity, while the few simple appliances really necessary are furnished by some angel of mercy standing "in Christ’s stead," the literal embodiment of Divine Providence. Not so with the rich and famous. The gauntlet they have to run is also well represented in this same issue of the Journal by Matthew Arnold:

"Some doctor full of phrase and fame,
"To shake his sapient head and give
"The ill he cannot cure, a name.

But, Mr. Editor, excuse a still more personal interest which the present writer feels in the letters from Helen Densmore and the Countess Wachtmeister, and their reference to the spiteful personal attacks of a Mr. Coleman on Madame Blavatsky. Who this personality may be, who froths at the mouth with personal spite, and slops over with slander and calumny, I neither know nor care, and I am sorry that the estimable ladies referred to, so full of all sweet charities as their letters prove them to be, should have condescended to notice these calumnies. One can not touch pitch without being defiled. Neither evidence nor argument have any weight or existence with a soul masquerading in the human form, and reeking with venom which they are ready to pour out on sick and defenseless women whenever and wherever they can get a hearing. The best way to dispose of such creatures is to let them severely alone, when they are certain to devour themselves for very spite. To convince them of their error or reform them is a hopeless task.

Those who are upright and pure are always tolerant and charitable; knowing that human nature is liable to err, and that human life is full of mistakes. The upright man or woman will never wantonly attack the reputation of another. In the case under consideration, his own writings convict and condemn him. That Madame Blavatsky needs any defense from these, I do not for a moment believe. She has never posed for a saint or a prophet; her private life and personal habits are her private property and all reports of these from those who, like the Countess Wachtmeister, know anything about the subject, invariably show her to be, as she has for many years been, an invalid, who works from twelve to sixteen hours a day in the furtherance of the one object for which the T. S. was organized, and to which she has dedicated her soul, her life, and her estate. The principles that she advocates, and the voluminous writings she has put forth are just subjects of criticism, and it is the custom of those who have not sufficient intelligence to comprehend, or heart enough to appreciate these, to slander and revile her private character, well assured from her long habit of silence in the face of calumny, that being a woman, the chastisement which these defamers so richly deserve will not be indicted.

With those who have followed Madame Blavatsky’s career, who are familiar with the stupendous work which she has already accomplished in the face of almost inconceivable obstacles, there is but one verdict, and she can rest secure that through her work, she will be enshrined in the heart of every true philanthropist and lover of his race.

From such as these, the wise scholar, the profound philosopher, the occultist, and the philanthropist, Madame Helen P. Blavatsky, needs no defense, if perchance, she chooses to smoke cigarettes, and sometimes calls things by their right names.

Cincinnati, O.

[See Coleman's reply titled:  "Madame Blavatsky and Theosophy: A Reply to My Critics"  Part Two. - BA Editor.]