Widow of John Judson Bagley, ex-governor of Michigan, America. Known to be “a lady of rare culture and unusual spirituality”, “one of Detroit’s most widely known and honoured women.” She was spirited enough to defy the outcry of the orthodox community opposed to Swamiji. Had been elected one of the lady managers at the Chicago World’s Fair. Swamiji was her guest in Detroit in February and March 1894. She held a grand reception in his honour attended by scholars, clergymen (even those with reservations) and all leading citizens Detroit. Strongly defended him against his detractors, issuing statements and writing letters. Swamiji was her guest at Annisquam, a seaside village (16.8.1894 – 5.9.1894). Died in early 1898.
Mrs. Bagley always stood by Swamiji and defended him when his adversaries sought to malign or discredit him. It has to be remembered that in those days to be a hostess to a person from another religion was to invite censure. She was undoubtedly severely reproved but she was able to withstand and overcome the criticism boldly and courageously because of her devotion, conviction, charm and the position she held in the elite society to which she belonged.
Swamiji delivered three lectures at Boston and three at Harvard in May, 1894. The Boston Daily Advertiser of the 16th of May, 1894, published an article under the heading ‘A Prophet from India’ accusing Swamiji of being a sort of Bohemian who preached a pseudo-Hinduism. Mrs. Bagley was disturbed on reading this article and sent a copy of it from Detroit to Swamiji at Chicago. Apparently she did not write any letter to Swamiji for sometime thereafter. Swamiji misconstrued this silence and on the 18th of June wrote to Professor Wright: “Mrs. Bagley seems to be unsettled by that article in the Boston paper against me…. Lord bless her. She has been very kind to me.” This was rather unusual as Swamiji’s inner mind and heart was filled only with spiritual joy and love even during a period of outward trial and tribulation. But perhaps June 1894 at Chicago was indeed a dark period for him as, being maligned by people from many quarters, he thought that Mrs. Bagley had lost faith in him. This must surely have hurt him deeply.
The fact, however, was that Mrs. Bagley knew Swamiji well and she was not really unsettled. Her faith in Swamiji was unshakable. She and her daughter Helen had been writing letters repudiating the scandal his adversaries had spread in Detroit and elsewhere through anonymous letters and whispering campaigns. In a spirited defence of Swamiji, through a letter to a friend on the 22nd of June (which was only four days after Swamiji’s letter to Professor Wright) Mrs. Bagley wrote:
“I am glad of an opportunity to express my admiration of his character and it makes me most indignant that anyone should call him in question…. All who say one word against him are jealous of his greatness and his fine spiritual perceptions… a charming companion and an ever-welcome guest…. He is a strong, noble human being, one who walks with God. He is simple and trustful as a child…. Every human being would be made better by knowing him…. I want everyone in America to know Vivekananda.” (Source: Western Women in the Footsteps of Swami Vivekananda)
Francis Bagley Wallace
Grand-daughter of Mrs. J. J. Bagley of Detroit, U.S.A., who was nine years old when Swamiji was a guest at their Detroit residence on his first visit there (1894). Her schoolmates made faces at her for her family being host to “a heathen”. At that time all sorts of rumours circulated about Swamiji’s “supernatural” powers. The incident she recalls took place during a grand reception held in honour of Swamiji by her grand-mother, Mrs. Bagley. The story goes that Swamiji, after being locked up in her grand-father’s study at one end of the house, materialized in the big parlour at the other end of the house where all the other guests were. When the door to the study was unlocked, he was found there, sitting in the same position as when he had been locked in (Swami Vivekananda in the West—New Discoveries, Vol. 1, pp. 294, 332).