HPB-SB-12-14

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

T i

vol. 12, p. 14

vol. 12

page 14

 

SBT, DT

Legend

• HPB note
• HPB highlighted
• HPB underlined
• HPB crossed out
• <Editors note>
• <Archivist note>
• Lost or unclear
• Restored

<<   ☰   >>

eng • рус

< A Personal Explanation (continued from page 12-13) >

object by dishonest means, and therefore, we do not see clearly wherein the scandalous libel consists......”*

The Statesman then goes on to offer a gratuitous opinion on certain “apparently miraculous achievements attributed to Madame Blavatsky by the Pioneer.” As the Statesman thus shows that it has not yet reached the stage of being able to define with, accuracy the object of its disbelief, it is unnecessary to pay much attention to its conclusions as to who are “dupes in this case,—the open-minded students of Nature’s mysteries who find help in Theosophy, or the orthodox professors of faith in the science of the Pentateuch, and the religion of Mr. Huxley.

To render the personal explanation complete, it seems desirable—distasteful as it is to Madame Blavatsky to advance any claims to public respect, except those which she confidently rests on her devotion to the noble intellectual revival on which the Theosophical Society is engaged—to republish in connexion with it a certain article which was published on the appearance of the libellous article in the Statesman, in the Pioneer of December 10. This was as follows:—

MADAME BLAVATSKY AND “THE STATESMAN.”

Pending any further proceeding that may be taken by the lady concerned, in reference to a libellous attack on Madame Blavatsky in the Calcutta Statesman of 'Tuesday, we feel bound to publish a translation of a letter we have just received, (by the mail which arrived yesterday morning,) from Odessa. The establishment of Madame Blavatsky’s real identity by formal proofs of this nature has never been necessary for any person of culture or intelligence who knows her. but foolish or malevolent people, proceeding on vague and erroneous conjectures as to the nature of the work to which she has devoted herself in this country, have ventured to imply that she must be an impostor, aiming at common place ends—money, or social position. The absurdity of this contention is made evident by the following letter, which 'show’s to what rank in society she properly belongs:—

Sir,—Having heard with astonishment that there exist somewhere about the world persons who have an interest in denying the personality of my niece, Mme. Η. P. Blavatsky, pretending that she has appropriated to herself a name that does not belong to her, I hasten to send yen these lines, bugging you to make use of them to dissipate the very strange calumny. I say strange, but I might say senseless (insensée). For why should she choose (supposing she had really any necessity to change her name) a family which is not at all illustrious except by literary and scientific merits, which, indeed, would do honour to its name whatever that might be. What astonishes me especially is that any one can make a mistake about the origin of a person so erudite and of so cultivated an education as that of my niece.

However, as it is the burlesque fancy of her personal enemies to treat her as an impostor, will yen receive my personal guarantee (given on my honour) that she is what she affirms herself to be Madame Helen P Blavatsky, widow of a Councillor of State, ex-Vice-Governor of the Province of Erivan n the Caucasus, daughter of a Russian Colonel, Pierre Von Hahn (whose ancestors were allied with the Counts Von Hahn of Germany, and whose mother was née Countess Probsting) and my niece by her own mother, my sister née Fadeeff, grand-daughter of the Princess Dolgorouky of the elder princely line.

To establish her identity I enclose in this letter two of her portraits, one taken twenty years ago in my presence, the other sent from America four or five years ago. Furthermore, in cider that sceptics may not conceive suspicions as to my personal identity, I take the liberty of returning your letter received through Μ Ie Prince Dondukoff-Korsakoff, Governor-General of Odessa I hope that this proof of authenticity is perfectly satisfactory. I believe, moreover, that you will have already received the certificate of the individuality of Madame Blavatsky that the Governor-General desired himself tb send to Bombay.

I ought also to mention a rather important fact, which is. that since the departure of my niece Helene Blavatsky from Odessa for America, in 1872. she has always been in continuous correspondence, not only with me, but all her relations in Russia— a correspondence which has never been interrupted even for a month, and that all this time there has been no change whatever in her style, which is peculiar to herself, nor in her handwriting. This can be proved by all her letters to any one who wishes to convince himself. This tact alone can leave no doubt except to idiots or evil-intentioned persons who have their own ends to serve. But with these there is no need to waste time.

I cause my signature to be certified by the confirmation of a notary.

On which I beg you to receive the expressions, &c (signed) Nadejda A. Fadeeff (daughter of the Privy Councillor), member of the Council of the Theosophical Society, daughter of the late Russian Privy Councillor, formerly director of the Department of State Lands in the Caucasus, and member of the Council of the Viceroy of the Caucasus.

Odessa, 3rd (15) November.

(The signature is formally authenticated by the Notary of the Bourse at Odessa, and the letter bears bis official stamp.) We must add, in explanation, that the enclosed portraits are undoubtedly portraits of Madame Blavatsky, and that we have seen the formal certificate† of her identity forwarded direct (for the better assurance of sceptics to the care of a gentleman in. high official position at Simla) by General Fadeeff, at present Joint Secretary of State in the Home Department at St. Petersburg. We have also seen the letter addressed to Madame Blavatsky as to an intimate friend by Prince Dondoukoff, expressing, besides warm sympathy, no small measure of (well-deserved) contempt for persons who could misunderstand her true character.

The statesman now argues at great length that Madame Blavatsky must have come to India in order to beguile any well-to-do persons she might be able to dupe, into giving her hospitality and possibly money. Of course, no one can escape beyond the limits of his own nature in estimating the motives of others; and the author of the article in the Statesman may be unable to imagine human creatures governed by any other motive but the desire to procure money or meals; but for most people it will be plain that if so, the imagination of the Statesman does not range over the whole subject in this case.

One element in the present libel is to the effect that in connection with the affairs of the Theosophical Society Madame Blavatsky has incurred large indebtedness. This statement, which is entirely false, is a blundering misconception of the published fact that the receipts of the Theosophical Society have fallen short of its expenditure by Rs. 16.000 or more. But this deficit is not a debt by Madame Blavatsky; it would be a debt to her, if she cared to regard it in that light, she having supplied the money from her private resources supplemented by those of the other equally self-devoted apostle of Theosophy—Colonel Olcott.

The certificate sent by General Fadeeff and referred, to in this statement runs, as follows:—

“I certify by the present that Madame H. P. Blavatsky now residing at Simla (British India) is from her fathes’s side the daughter of Colonel Peter Hahn and grand-daughter of Lieutenant-General Alexis Hahn von Rottenstern-Hahn (a noble family of Mecklemburg, Germany, settled in Russia). And. that she is from her mother’s side the daughter of Helene Fadeew and grand-daughter of Privy Councillor Andrew Fadeew and of the Princess Helene Dolgorouki; that she is the widow of the Councillor of State, Nicephore Blavatsky, late Vice-Governor of the Province of Erivan, Caucasus.

“(Signed.) Major-General Rostislav Fadeew, of H. I. Majesty’s Staff,

“Joint Secretary of State at the Ministry of the Interior.

“St. Petersburg 29, Little Morskaya,

“18th September, 1881.”

Taken in connexion with the official documents published in the Theosophist of January 1881, concerning the social status in America of Colonel Olcott, these explanations, may, it is hoped, lay at rest once for all the wonderful question on which many people in India have wasted a good deal of speculation, whether the undersigned are or are not “adventurers.” They were most unwilling in the beginning to make any fuss about their own personality, or the worldly sacrifices they have made in the hope of serving the principle of “Universal Brotherhood” and of contributing to revive the philosophical self-respect of the Indian people. But when malevolent antagonists—as short-sighted as they are vindictive,— attempt to impede the progress of Theosophy by trying to represent its Apostles in the country as self-seeking aspirants for contemptible worldly advantage, it is time to show once for all. by an exhibition of the worldly advantages tiny have chosen to surrender, the abject absurdity of this miserable accusation.

H. P. BLAVATSKY.

S. OLCOTT.

Bombay. December 31, 1881.

* The innocent “simplicity” of the argument is truly remarkable! If accusing a person of seeking to obtain money under false pretenses (the latter bring the “apparent miraculous achievements,” and other alleged claims) be not a scandalous libel, then we do not know what the word “honesty” conveys to the mind of the editor of the Statesman? The excuse is certainly calculated to leave every reader under the impression that the editor of the journal in question has very strange notions of accuracy of language. What, we wonder, would he have done under like circumstances?

† No copy of tins certificate is in our possession at this moment, or we would publish it herewith, but its tenor precisely corresponds with the explanation in the above letter,—

Ed

. Pioneer.

Editor's notes