Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
10,789
edits
Olcott HS - Letter to Zhelikhovsky VP (1892-06-20) (view source)
Revision as of 07:01, 4 July 2022
, 4 July 2022no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| location = GARF, items:<br>Ф. Р-5972. Оп. 1. Д. 79. Л. 15<br>Ф. Р-5972. Оп. 1. Д. 79. Л. 16<br>Ф. Р-5972. Оп. 1. Д. 79. Л. 16об | | location = GARF, items:<br>Ф. Р-5972. Оп. 1. Д. 79. Л. 15<br>Ф. Р-5972. Оп. 1. Д. 79. Л. 16<br>Ф. Р-5972. Оп. 1. Д. 79. Л. 16об | ||
| files = Olcott HS - Zhelikhovsky VP, 1892-06-20, 1.jpg; Olcott HS - Zhelikhovsky VP, 1892-06-20, 2.jpg; Olcott HS - Zhelikhovsky VP, 1892-06-20, 3.jpg | | files = Olcott HS - Zhelikhovsky VP, 1892-06-20, 1.jpg; Olcott HS - Zhelikhovsky VP, 1892-06-20, 2.jpg; Olcott HS - Zhelikhovsky VP, 1892-06-20, 3.jpg | ||
| russian_section = Олкот Г.С. - Письмо Желиховской В.П. (1892-06-20) | |||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 22: | Line 23: | ||
Your telegram has thrown me into great perplexity since you did not follow my plan of “Yes” or ‘No”, but have said “no facts”, which I cannot understand at all. It may mean (a) that I am to publish no facts in case I say anything about the marriage – which would be absurd; or (b) that having no facts about the case, you cannot advise me whether I should publish or suppress. If you had really wanted to tell me that you should have employed some other words – as for example “Exercise your discretion” or “Decide yourself”, or something equivalent . And now I must absolutely use my best judgment, since neither you nor I can afford the cost of long telegrams. I have pondered over the matter for several weeks & have even consulted Judge (W.Q.) who acted as H.P's counsel in the divorce proceedings. He cabled me “Publish the Betanelly facts.” My final conviction is that it is best to do so & for this reason: if I keep silence the enemies of Helena Petrovna, who have already slandered her, will cry out that there was a crime concealed & I am hiding it. If I print the facts I can vindicate her character & if I give only the man’s initial people in Russia will not be likely ever know who the person was. It was Betanelly to whom I | Your telegram has thrown me into great perplexity since you did not follow my plan of “Yes” or ‘No”, but have said “no facts”, which I cannot understand at all. It may mean (a) that I am to publish no facts in case I say anything about the marriage – which would be absurd; or (b) that having no facts about the case, you cannot advise me whether I should publish or suppress. If you had really wanted to tell me that you should have employed some other words – as for example “Exercise your discretion” or “Decide yourself”, or something equivalent . And now I must absolutely use my best judgment, since neither you nor I can afford the cost of long telegrams. I have pondered over the matter for several weeks & have even consulted Judge (W.Q.) who acted as H.P's counsel in the divorce proceedings. He cabled me “Publish the Betanelly facts.” My final conviction is that it is best to do so & for this reason: if I keep silence the enemies of Helena Petrovna, who have already slandered her, will cry out that there was a crime concealed & I am hiding it. If I print the facts I can vindicate her character & if I give only the man’s initial people in Russia will not be likely ever know who the person was. It was Betanelly to whom I | ||
alluded in my Chapter | alluded in my Chapter III (June 21st) in describing the phenomenon of the precipitation of writing and drawing inside my note-book, and to whom the words “Ways of Providence” (which stretches from his name to mine in the drawing of the R+ jewel) referred. The marriage was, | ||
from the worlds point of view a mad freak to yield her no advantage beyond a few months’ support. But it seems it was inevitable under the imperative workings of the Law of Karma “she told me it was a supreme mortification inflicted upon her to break her devilish pride which | from the worlds point of view a mad freak to yield her no advantage beyond a few months’ support. But it seems it was inevitable under the imperative workings of the Law of Karma “she told me it was a supreme mortification inflicted upon her to break her devilish pride which | ||
impeded her soul process.” There was no consummation of marriage, she told me, in fact it was no better than a farce – a tragic one for Betanelly. | impeded her soul process.” There was no consummation of marriage, she told me, in fact it was no better than a farce – a tragic one for Betanelly. | ||