6 Elliot, In Mem or /am : Elliott Coues. \ ^^^ 



LJan. 



out and believe the truth and match their own lives to it." It 

 was therefore in his search for truth and an attempt to apply the 

 principles of physical science to psychical research that in 1880 

 he became affiliated with the Theosophical Society of India and 

 was elected President of its American Board of Control, and was 

 continued in that office for several years. He was much inter- 

 ested in the subject and investigated its principles and methods 

 with his usual thoroughness, even visiting Europe in company 

 with Madame Blavatsky and other prominent members of the sect, 

 and his connection with this and kindred societies resulted in the 

 production of several publications such as , ' Eiogen ' and the 

 ' Djemon of Darwin.' But the knowledge that he gained of this 

 interesting but peculiar doctrine was not of that satisfying char- 

 acter as to cause him to hold fast to its tenets, nor to enable him 

 to retain his respect for its leaders, and although he gives no rea- 

 sons for the action, yet in the memorandum in which he records 

 his election as President in 1885 and his reelection in the follow- 

 ing year, with characteristic frankness he states that he was 

 expelled from the Society in i88g. Those of us who have little 

 sympathy with the claims asserted by the disciples of Theosophy 

 can not but regard his expulsion from the Society as having con- 

 ferred a greater honor upon him than his election to the Presi- 

 dency, and can easily imagine the action he may have taken in 

 the Council to cause such a result after he finally satisfied himself 

 that the doctrine could not substantiate its claims. He detested 

 shams of all kinds and hurled the full force of his invective 

 against those who had proved themselves unworthy or who strove 

 to appear entitled to more than was their due. 



As a critic in certain lines he was unrivaled and exhibited the 

 highest practice of the art in his reviews, dwelling most upon 

 what was meritorious in the treatment of the subject before him, 

 for he believed true criticism was to seek that which was praise- 

 worthy rather than something to condemn. But no one could be 

 more caustic in his treatment, nor wield a sharper weapon, when 

 he found that praise would be misapplied and it would be kinder 

 to act a§ the skillful surgeon does, create wounds in order that 

 the patient's recovery might be more sure and lasting. Rarely, 

 however, for one who published so much, was he severe in his 



