< Form Manifestation (continued from page 11-316) >
...
A Warning
...
An Australian Blavatsky
...
"The Knight Without Reproach or Fear."
Sir,—Since you were kind, enough to republish in your paper of the 6th instant an article from the Statesman headed “An Australian Blavatsky,” you will permit, I hope, to the Bombay individual of that name to make a few remarks thereon. I will only draw your attention to what I may term the most remarkable feature of that gentlemanly edito¬rial, namely, the double-edged aspect of the weapon used against the object of that attack. It is not to be searched for in the outward aspect of the attack itself—one of the many brutal, uncalled for, and libellous articles directed against my name and repu¬tation lately; not even in the abuse and impertin¬ence of its too witty editor. Still less is the point at issue, for the present, in the question whether I am deservedly or undeservedly placed on a parallel with Mrs. Jackson, whom the Statesman pleases to represent as an adventuress, an impostor, and a thief, since she is accused of having obtained a large legacy by fraud and under false pretences. The latter point I may safely leave to the Calcutta courts to decide and pronounce upon. No; that wondrous feature is rather in the cool and serene cheek of the editor, whose mental attitude may be characterized by what the Frenchman unpoetically, but graphically, represents as cracher en l’air pour se le faire retomber sur le nez—“spitting in the air but to feel it fall back on the spitter’s nose”—an attitude truly worthy of a “Bayard,” the “Knight without re¬proach or fear!” However, the Statesman’s editor claims, I believe, to be regarded as a staunch defender of the Indian people’s rights; as a redresser of their wrongs; one who breaks his chivalrous lance in honour of fair Aryavarta? So does the editor of the Theosophist—a journal founded for the benefit of and solely for the natives. While he defends their political rights, we, Theosophists, try our best to defend their religious rights, and to prove their claims to the most ancient civilization, literature, and wisdom, thus showing their superiority, in many respects, to our Western civilization—a babe of yesterday. To this effect the political Statesman was started at Calcutta, and the “religio-philosophical” Theosophist in Bombay. How far and whe¬ther we have succeeded at all in our respective ob¬jects is a question which we must leave to time alone to decide. All I can say is, that we, at least, tried our best and according to our humble lights and means to achieve our task. But here all com¬ parison between the Statesman and the Theosophist abruptly ceases. For that which for the latter was and is a labour of love and devotion to an idea—how¬ soever Utopian it may seem to many—a labour re¬ warded by the majority of the natives (on whose behalf it was started) by the most foul abuse, sus¬picion, and ceaseless attacks upon the Theosophists, the Statesman expected and demanded that his work should be remunerated. We all remember its loud and pressing appeals for money in the Co¬ Regent of Hyderabad case to the peoples of India. Rajas and ryots, Brahmin and Sudra, Prince and Mang, were all expected to lay their mite on the altar of’ national defence; thousands and; lakhs of rupees were demanded in order that the I Statesman might defend the combined interests of the people of India; and one Sabha alone is said to have sent to London between twenty and thirty thousand rupees. How much good the native con¬tributors got for the worth of their money I do not know, for I have no interest or concern with poli¬tical brawls. But I have a right to observe that this defence of and alleged devotion of the Statesman to the natives of India is not what one might view as wholly disinterested. On the other hand the Theosophist never made the slightest appeal, or ever laid any claim to the national pocket. The Theosophist never asked for one pie, nor does it hope to be ever pecuniarily remunerated for its trouble and losses. I advise the Statesman to deny this, if it can.
Whence and what for, then, this most sudden and unexpected series of attacks upon us in which the Statesman has lately so- largely indulged? May it not be that it fears possible competition as to remu¬nerations received from the defended natives? Let its editor, or editors, in such case, rest undis¬turbed on their laurels. Neither the Theo¬ sophist nor its editor are likely to ever sell or prostitute their favours. The little they have to give, they give freely, expecting nothing but ingratitude in return, for they serve an idea, not individuals. True devotion to a cause is not to be bought or sold; and, for her money, India can buy any day as many able defenders as she might choose. Thus the Statesman’s insolent parallel between “Blavatsky” and “Jackson” is utterly irrelevant, being simply a brutal libel. “It is as if seeking to establish in the Theosophist a like comparison, we called the editor of the Statesman “a British Robert Macaire.”
To prove to you that I am no adventuress, and to. show finally who I am, I send you two documents for your private perusal. One is from my uncle, General Fadeyef, Assistant Minister of the Interior I at St. Petersburg, the other, a private letter from Prince Dondoukoff Korsokoff, Governor-General of Southern Russia, with whom I am acquainted for the last thirty-five years. The official document from him testifying to my identity will be shortly published.
Bombay, Breach Candy, December 9.
“J’atteste par la présente que Madame Hélène Blavacki, demeurant actuellement à Simla (Indes Britan niques), est du côté paternal fille du Colonel Pierre et petite-fille du Général-Lieutenant Alexes Hahn, de Rottenstein-Hahn (maison noble Meklembourgeoise fixée en Russie). Et du côté maternel fille d’Hélène Fadieff et petite-fille du Conseiller Privé André Fadieff et de la Princesse Hélène Dolgouriki qu’elle est veuve du Conseiller d’Etat Nicephore Blavacki cidevant vice-Gouverneur de la province d’Erivan Caucase.
“Général Maj or Rostislaw Fadieff, de l’Etat Major de S. M. I. Adjoint du Ministre de l’Intérieur.
Saint Petersbourg petite morsuiaia.
- N. 23.
“18-30 September, 1881.”
...The letter of Prince Dondoukoff Korsokoff is too long for insertion.— Ed., B. G.
Editor's notes
Sources
-
Harbinger of Light, No. 136, December 1, p. 2102