Published by The Blavatsky Archives Online.  Online Edition copyright 2000.

The Blavatsky Correspondence

by George Patterson

[Reprinted from The Madras Mail,  September 29, 1884, p.  5.]

Sir, --- Will you allow me to make the following statement, for the benefit of those interested in the now famous Blavatsky correspondence published in the Madras Christian College Magazine.  This morning, by previous arrangement with Dr. Hartmann, I went to the Head quarters of the Theosophical Society, Adyar, to examine the letters from Mme. Blavatsky to General Morgan, which that gentleman had, at my request, sent to Madras for my inspection.  I was accompanied by Mr. J.D.B. Gribble (late M.C.S.) the Rev. J.E. Padfield (C.M.S.), Masulipatam, and the Rev. A. Alexander, of Madras.  Dr. Hartmann, Mr. W. Q. Judge, Barrister-at-Law, Mr. Subba Rao, B.A., B.L., and others met us, and I submitted the following documents for their inspection: ---

(1.) Letter respecting the cigarette phenomenon, printed on p. 201 of the September number of the Madras Christian College Magazine.

(2.) The letter beginning “Vous n’avez pas besoin d'attendre l’homme  Punch,” printed on p. 211 of the same Magazine.

(3.) The letter in which General Morgan is referred to, printed on the same page of the same Magazine.

(4.) The letter written on the back of Mrs. Carmichael’s note, the postscript of which is quoted on p. 213 of the same Magazine.

(5.) The long letter from Paris, dated 1st April 1884, printed on p. 309-316 of the October number of the same Magazine.

In return we were permitted to examine: ---

(1.) The letter transmitted to Dr. Hartmann for that purpose by General Morgan.

(2.) A portion of a letter from Paris said to be written about the same date as No. 5 above.

(3.) The forgery perpetrated on Dr. Hartmann, referred to on p. 302 of the C. C. M. for October and already printed in your columns.

(4.) Sundry documents recently written by Mme. Blavatsky, and apparently prepared for the press.

The result of a very careful comparison of these documents has been to strengthen our conviction that the letters published are undoubtedly genuine.  The considerations on which this conclusion rests I need not now particularize.  Suffice it to say that I am quite prepare to bear the responsibility which I have incurred by the publication of these letters as genuine, as well as the further responsibility incurred by the suggested explanation of the forgery perpetrated on Dr. Hartmann, given on p. 302 of the C. C. M. for October.  I may add also, in answer to many queries that have appeared in the Press, that the “every precaution” taken to determine the genuineness of the letters prior to publication did include their scrutiny by the best experts in hand-writing procurable in South India.

Geo. Patterson,
Editor, C. C. M.

Sept. 27th