Yearning for the New Age: Laura Holloway-Langford and Late Victorian Spirituality

4. “The First Bomb-shell from the Dugpa World”

72 4 “The First Bomb-shell from the Dugpa World” Inthespringof1886,HelenaP.Blavatskyfeltthat“fiercewaves”ofevil spirits were “heaving and spreading and beating ferociously around the [Theosophical] Society.”1 She had left India at the end of March 1885, some months before the Society for Psychical Research labeled her a fraud. The Society for Psychical Research had been founded in London in 1882 with the goal of examining paranormal phenomena through scientific methods. In December 1884, its representative, Richard Hodgson, had arrived at the Theosophical Headquarters in Adyar, India, where he conducted a three-month investigation. A report presented to a General Meeting of the Society for Psychical Research in June 1885 concluded that Blavatskywasneither“themouthpieceofhiddenseers”nor“amerevulgar adventuress;we think she has achieveda title to permanent remembrance as one of the most accomplished, ingenious, and interesting imposters in history.”2 BlavatskylaterallegedthatthedefamationoftheTheosophicalSociety began when Laura Holloway-Langford arrived in Europe in the summer of 1884.ShecalledHolloway-Langfordthe“firstbomb-shellfromtheDugpa world,” sent “by the opposing powers for the destruction of the Society.”3 Blavatsky also accused the prominent British Theosophist A. P. Sinnett of betrayal because he had “welcomed and warmed” the American in his “ownbreast.”4 Amiddle-class,middle-agedjournalist,Holloway-Langford was an unlikely candidate for a she-devil; nevertheless, Blavatsky came to view her as a snake that had insinuated itself into the Society, corruptS front/backmatter 73 “The first Bomb-shell from the Dugpa World” 73 ing the hearts of its followers and undermining their loyalty. Some later TheosophistslabeledHolloway-Langforda“SexMaya,”usingtheSanskrit term for “illusion.” They contended that she had disguised her true nature and had tempted male members of the Society to abandon the truths of Theosophy. Even when the story of Laura Holloway-Langford was rendered in less dramatic terms, she was portrayed as a failed disciple of the Masters, an aspirant with a flawed character who had flirted briefly, if intensely, with Theosophy, but who quickly abandoned it for the comforts of bourgeois life in Brooklyn. For many years, Holloway-Langford would puzzle over the meaning of her experiences in Europe. During the first two weeks of June 1884, she mingled with Theosophists in Paris, but rather than remaining there with Helena Blavatsky, she proceeded to London, where A. P. Sinnett and his wife, Patience, had invited her to be a guest in their home.5 Sinnett introduced her to the posh world of British occultists, and he persuaded her to assist in psychic experiments by becoming a medium for his communicationswiththeMasters .WhenBlavatskyarrivedinLondon,shedemanded that Holloway-Langford cut off her relationship with Sinnett and instead live with her at the home of Francesca Arundale, a spiritualist who had become a Theosophist. Having little knowledge about politics within the Theosophical Society, Holloway-Langford found herself in the middle of a bewildering internecine struggle for power between A. P. Sinnett and HelenaBlavatsky.Intheensuing“flapdoodle,”touseoneofBlavatsky’sfavorite words, tensions over class and race that had been simmering within the Society erupted. Additionally, Holloway-Langford’s presence highlighted unresolved questions about gender.6 Despite the movement’s commitment to universal brotherhood, it was unclear whether a woman, other than Blavatsky herself, might attain the designation of “chela,” or disciple of the Masters. Even Blavatsky did not claim to be “head” of the Theosophical Society, stating that “a society, the central feature of which is the Masters, could never be under the leadership of a woman.”7 Laura Holloway-Langford had given up a thriving career in Brooklyn in the belief that as a Theosophist she could recreate her life free of the cultural constraints of Victorian womanhood. She looked to Helena Blavatsky as a model for female autonomy. During the summer of 1884, however, she discovered that the 74 front/backmatter 74 Yearning For the New Age Theosophical Society did not provide a clear path for female leadership. Ratherthanescapingthelimitationsimposedbyhersex,LauraHollowayLangford became entangled in controversies where gender was employed as a tool to control the behavior of both male and female members of the Theosophical Society. THE MAHATMA LETTERS The uproar that Holloway-Langford’s Theosophical apprenticeship created is preserved in about thirty letters from the Mahatmas written between early July and mid-October 1884. Except for two letters from Master Morya, all the letters came from an adept named “Koot Hoomi.” Laura Holloway-Langford received at least ten letters from him, while nine were sent to Helena Blavatsky and about a dozen more were directed to other...