An easy entrance to ignoble minds . . .
But not to find an answer is a worse, . . .
I
Ygrek (Y) is a very transparent, and therefore not entirely fair and completely unnecessary pseudonym given to me by Mr. Solovyov in his interesting articles The Modern Priestess of Isis, which were finally printed in the December issue of Russkiy Vestnik.
If this Latin letter Y, by means of which the witty author covered only half of my personality, in most cases calling me directly “Zhelikhovsky,” misled anyone, then I quite willingly expose myself, removing the nickname given to me, probably, with the only purpose of presenting to the public not only my conversations, that I had eight years ago, – what a lucky memory Mr. Solovyov has! – but also my letters...
Without having any need to hide or especially be ashamed of my words and letters – if they are conveyed in their true light – I have nothing against this; all the more, by such actions he gave me the opportunity to use, without undue hesitation, the data available to me, thus having done me a favour.
I, unfortunately, can’t restore my conversations with our glorious novelist word for word, as he can; but I, thanks to my lucky stars, have the opportunity to accurately convey their essence, as I and my daughter kept diaries all the time. Thus, without claiming to struggle with Mr. Solovyov in his eloquent ability to put only his foot forward, telling so vividly and entertainingly, mixing up the true story with tall tales, that readers, for the most part searching only for entertainment, lose any desire for a critical analysis of the described “facts” (?), it is a pleasant impression of an entertaining story that remains. I will still hope that some of them will pay attention to my modest testimony in favour of the deceased sister, for whom there is no one but me to stand up.
First of all, I’m asking all honest and fair people: what has a person who undertakes to write about another person to know first of all?.. It seems that there can be no discord in the answer. Everyone will probably agree that he needs to know the person, his activities, and if he is an author, then his writings...
To all this here are my testimonies from which – I hope – the “writer” of the Modern Priestess of Isis himself will not be able to renounce:
1) Mr. Solovyov associated with my sister, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, for only six weeks in Paris, for the same period in Würzburg and for a few days in Elberfeld, where he twice visited her as a friend.
2) With her practical work, he could not get acquainted himself at that time, because there was not yet Theosophical Society in Europe; he couldn’t read translations of the theosophical literature either except the shortened manuscript of Isis Unveiled, – the first of her works, which she herself (publicly) certified unsatisfactory, inconsistently and unclearly written.
3) Mr. Solovyov did not read and does not know many works of the last years of her life (The Secret Doctrine, The Key to Theosophy, The Voice of the Silence, Gems from the East, The Theosophical Glossary and many articles in magazines and newspapers in Europe, America, India), because of the utter ignorance of English, for translations are still almost nowhere found except theosophical magazines. But now he is keeping away from a theosophical heresy (?!), according to his own statement ... Yes, even if he did not keep away from it, and he could find all Blavatsky's works only in English. But this language is unfamiliar to him, as he himself stated more than once, it will be seen later by the way. For example, asking my sister for instructions in case of a trip to London to visit her, he frankly says: “Will you send me the most detailed instructions, because I'm dumb for England!” (Letter October 22, 1884), and in another letter he exclaims: “What a meanness, that I do not speak English!”
So, on what grounds is Mr. Solovyov going to write of a woman about whom he knows so little, and about her affairs, of which he does not know at all?.. Only on the grounds of his personal feelings and opinions?.. But if these feelings and opinions changed, like weathercocks, and at different times they were expressed differently – which statements of Mr. Solovyov must be believed?
He can no doubt say that then he was wrong, carried away, was hypnotized, – as he claims about his vision of the Mahatma in Elberfeld. But if such faults, likings and extraneous “suggestions” are a thing with him, then where are the grounds for readers to recognize when he writes the real truth, and when he fools them with his erroneous passions or insane statements of the hypnotist?.. I do not know!
As for me, if I, God forbid, someday cast aspersions on myself, like horrors of dishonesty and insidiousness as Mr. Solovyov cast on himself (February, Russkiy Vestnik, p. 51), confessing that he “exaggerated his ignorance of English” to more conveniently eavesdrop and learn about everything; or that while visiting my sister, he pretended to be her friend in order to deceive her and collect as much information about her as possible, which subsequently served him in his greatest accusations of her, I would at once admit myself to be possessed with enemy force!..
It's much better to be under evil suggestion or admit oneself temporarily mentally upset, than to blame oneself for such impossible tricks.
Have mercy! What does the whole Russian Orthodox world reproach the followers of Loyola for, if not for their shameful rule of justifying the means by the goal?.. It's hard to believe that a Russian person, a well-known writer, an advocate of the Russian Orthodoxy and a persecutor of all heresies, as Mr. Solovyov proclaims himself, could coolly confess in such actions, without being influenced by any malicious “indwelling” of the dark force that could obsess him, or at least by painful delirium, which could make him irresponsible for his words.
I will be content with consistent and, as far as possible, brief objections to his depressing accusations.
Let's start in order, from Russkiy Vestnik. February issue.
II
I’m really touched by the woeful exclamations of Mr. Solovyov: how he “would like to forget everything that he knows about the unhappy Hel. Petr. Blavatsky”!.. How he could be pleased not to touch his cherished “package of documents” (?!) against her – if it were possible!.. I’m equally touched and amazed by his reproaches that I and I alone am to blame for inflicting this moral torture on him through my unprecedented audacity, that is, getting Russian people to know of good opinions about her activities and some writings of clever foreign writers[2]...
Could I foresee such a sad result of my writings?!.
I could not foresee and did not expect such a result, and because of this, I feel still deeper the moral obligation to justify her, even from some of his ... erroneous attacks, originating from a misunderstanding of the cause and goals of my sister.
Mr. Solovyov proves with an example (p. 43), that “phenomena are inextricably linked” with the Theosophical Society and my sister; and because of them she “turned into a fury” and that he is very unhappy that I, her sister, keep silent about this, completely forgetting in his noble anger that even if he were right, so after all the law itself mercifully liberates the blood relatives from indictments. In addition, he obviously forgets that without ever being interested, actually, in “miracles,” as he is, I did not attach importance to any “demonstrative phenomena,” so to speak, material, in the theosophical work. Quite another thing is the manifestation of the psychological powers as clairvoyance, spirituality, psychometry, reading of thoughts and other higher spiritual gifts; I always recognized them in my sister. Let not Mr. Solovyov blame me for not being very familiar, de facto, with the Society founded by my sister, and on this issue I rely more on the opinion of “foreigners” close to the case than on arbitrary conclusions of my own or his opinions: most of highly devoted Theosophists, like Ms Besant, Professor Buck, Fullerton, Eaton, and many of the closest associates of H. P. Blavatsky, acquired by her in the last years of her life, never saw any miracles, visions or just those fakir tricks, which she herself called “psychological tricks,” and they were not interested in them and didn’t want to talk about them. They did not attach any importance to them, not the slightest significance. Exactly the same opinion about phenomena was expressed by those who saw them, as, for example, Dr. Fr. Hartmann, who does not deny them, but positively denies their necessity or importance. He even, on this occasion, wrote a satirical novel “The talking Image of Urrur,” where he laughs at people who believe in them as the main value of Theosophy. And if Blavatsky did not sympathize with his thoughts, then, of course, she would not have published this work in her own London magazine Lucifer.
It is impossible to quote here wordy opinions of the above-named and other best workers and writers of the Theosophists, who think, like all those who know the case better, that indiscreet stories by Olcott, Sinnett, in part Judge and other devotees of the phenomenal side of the doctrine, did a lot of harm; but the theosophical magazines of India, America and Europe are available to those who are interested in this issue. There are also non-theosophical organs, such as London magazines, The Agnostic, The Review of Reviews or The North American Review, and many American periodicals that speak very highly about Theosophy, without attaching any importance to the phenomena and being not the members of the Society. In Russkoe Obozrenie, p. 611 in my article “H. P. Blavatsky,” those who wish can read about her and the work of Mr. Stead, the publisher of The Review of Reviews; there you can also find references to articles and people confirming my opinion. Namely: he who in theosophical teaching sees and attaches importance only to phenomena, astral flights and Mahatma letters, is likened to a worm who contemplates only a tip of the boot of a beautifully dressed man.
I am boldly asserting that, despite Mr. Solovyov’s not entirely courteous and completely groundless opinion about the unfaithfulness of my testimony and the possibility, in his opinion, of any fraud and inaccuracy of the translations, everything indicated by my references will be reliably found, and all the translations will prove to be true[3].
It is such a strange quality of Mr. Solovyov that he can suggest his own, groundless prejudices to his readers on his bare word accusing others of the weaknesses inherent in himself, and he firmly expects that everyone will believe him as an unconditional authority. He continually expresses suspicion of the authenticity of my references, having applied no attempts to check them; and sometimes, simply of course due to absentmindedness, ascribes to me personally the testimonies and beliefs of very different people, against the opinions of which I myself often declaim... These mistakes will be indicated by me everywhere, and here's an example for a start.
Mr. Solovyov writes (p. 42, February): “If the works of H. P. Blavatsky were, as Mrs Zhelikhovsky tells us, the works of her mysterious teacher, the great sage-demigod dictating to her...”, etc. I am sending every literate person to my article in the November book of Russkoe Obozrenie 1891, and there he himself will read in Chapters III, IV and VI, how I did not believe that dictation; how I rebelled against that testimony, seriously fearing for my sister's reasoning, and frankly expressed the distrust to her.
Why did Mr. Solovyov conclude that I, who at that time did not even believe in the existence of the Mahatmas themselves, assert the fact that I rebelled against myself?.. He, of course, did not carefully read my article, otherwise he would have known (Russkoe Obozrenie, p. 269) that I was even guilty of not understanding the possibility of suggestion, which my sister explained to me in a letter beginning with the words:
“You do not believe that I'm writing the real truth to you about my teachers. You consider them myths...”, etc.
That's what Mr. Solovyov would have noticed in “my” stories … and I repeat: I, once, had even been stupid not to believe in suggestion, while he widely admitted its power. I can see this from his words about the vision of Mahatma Morya that was allegedly inspired by my sister. After all, he did not only see him for an hour, but even had a confidential conversation with him about his intimate affairs, as he reported in the journal of the London Psychical Society. All that was influenced by the insidious suggestion of Blavatsky! Not only that: there, in Elberfeld, she “inspired” to him such a conversation that matched – like galoshes to the boot – the meaning of the letter that the very “terrible woman” put “beforehand” into the notebook which Mr. Solovyov himself held in his hands... That amazing incident is eloquently described by him in the letter, about the existence of which he probably forgot, for I find with amazement (on page 205, April R. V.) that he considered more convenient for himself to replace it with a ridiculous fictional scene, which never happened... What makes him let poor Olcott have such advantages personally rendered him by the Mahatmas!?.. Everything is due to forgetfulness!.. But I, in my place, will restore this event in its true light, by means of the letter of the “priest of truth” (also fin de siècle[4]?), Solovyov.
At any rate he forgets the facts or memorizes them too well, but they remain facts, and according to them his complete inconsistency is clear. Why did Blavatsky inspire him with visions and conversations; but he does not want to let someone, stronger than her, inspire intelligent things to her?.. I never had any suggestion, and I did not believe in it for a long time, having the right to do so; Mr. Solovyov has no right to deny the possibility of the influence of others on H. P. Blavatsky, since he confidently declares that he himself was under the influence of her malicious suggestion.
Does it seem to be clear?
III
Obeying the chronological order, I am here obliged to say honestly that the whole conversation between Mr. Solovyov and my sister, regarding Mr. Judge (p. 55), is positively the result of his romantic fantasy.
Anyone with any knowledge of Mr. Judge, his past and present activities, and his constant relationship with H. P. Blavatsky will undoubtedly confirm my testimony. This very respected lawyer from New York, the publisher of The Path, being (from the day of the Society's foundation) a representative of American Theosophists, now unanimously elected the future president of the entire Theosophical Society after the death of my sister instead Colonel Olcott who wants to resign, never looked like a gloomy villain, as Mr. Solovyov decided to expose him.
I, of course, may not be trusted by those who more trust in Mr. Solovyov's testimony, nevertheless, I must say that almost every year meeting Judge at my sister's place in London and being familiar with their correspondence, I know for sure that she could not think of him badly, or, even less so, defame him before an outsider whom she saw for the second time in her life.
I will not answer documentarily Solovyov's statement that he is truly aware (?!) that I myself was a member of the Theosophical Society (p. 60), as it is only an innocuous misconception.[5] As for the following right after that the incrimination of me in ignorance, I will not even argue at all. I will even thank him for a kind desire to enlighten me towards the end of my life, giving me the opportunity to understand the difference between the adversary Arius[6] and ancient Aryas or Aryans, about which I, according to him, lost any comprehension, having forgotten texts of the primary school textbooks...
But what I cannot thank him at all for is why he does not renounce his own words and his own desires... Why does he say (p. 69) that he was surprised when he “accidentally” saw my correspondence from Paris in Odessa newspapers in 1884, obviously violating the truth!.. Coming back to Odessa, I hurried to send my own satirical articles to Odesskiy Vestnik and Novorossiyskiy Telegraph because we agreed on writing for newspapers, I – for the provincial ones, he – for the capital ones. Why then at once was not he surprised by my “slander” against him?.. Why, after being with me since then for two years in constant correspondence and in the greatest friendship, he never showed me his displeasure at the fact of my mentioning his name and referring to his testimony in my articles?!.
Why, at last, the writer of the epic “fin de siècle” did not mention half a word in it that not I alone wrote “about phenomena,” but he also wrote and did it very eloquently! Those who want to see his eloquence can turn to the magazine The Rebus (July 1, 1884) and read the story of Mr. Solovyov under the title Interesting Phenomenon. This is one of those forgotten by him phenomena, of which I, among many others, can remind him by a passage (concerning it) from his own letter, from August 6/18, 1884, to my sister, to London:
Paris. Rue Pergolese.
“...Alea jacta est[7] – my letter to The Rebus has already raised a certain storm, and I'm beginning to be bombarded with questions: What? How? Really?.. Ma ligne de conduite est tranchée[8] – and you should know it. I'm not afraid of sneers, I'm indifferent to the epithets of a fool, a madman, etc. But why do you turn me down?.. I can’t think that any "Chief" (Mahatma) told you that you were mistaken, and that you do not need me''!”
Here is how Mr. Solovyov was afraid that H. P. Blavatsky could listen to her “teachers” – when they began to say that he “wasn’t needed” in the Society! This is significant... But later he forgot the circumstances, as well as he forgot the very existence of the feuilleton[9] in The Rebus, accusing me alone of the letters which the curious wrote to him about phenomena?
He has a very specific memory: he remembers word for word the conversations being held eight years ago, but he forgets things that happened much later. So, for example, he struck me with the remark (the same 69th page.): why I did not mention a single word about him in the biography of my sister ... I could reasonably reply to him that in such a small note about such a big woman and such a significant matter there can be no question of people who flashed without trace their ways, as he flashed with his only and also fooled (as we were fooled once!) supporter, Mme de Morsier. It is he who is trying to prove that he caused great damage to the Theosophical Society; but in fact “l'incident Soloviof,”[10] as at that time a mess raised by his tricks in the miniature circle of the Paris quasi Theosophists was called, passed almost unnoticed by the Society and did not leave any trace at all.
It would seem, how this wasn’t known to Mr. Solovyov and how he wasn’t satisfied with such a clear reason. But he is not content with it, and makes me put dots on i. Speaking in his words, he “does not let me forget my package of documents” and forces me to tell what disreputable role he played in short-term relations with my sister, and to prove that I only spared him without mentioning his name unnecessarily.
However, I can still remind him of a fact among many other facts, completely forgotten by him: he himself repeatedly asked me and my whole family never to mention his name in connection with the name of H. P. Blavatsky or her Society. I willingly fulfilled his desire, especially since I myself hate touching those extremely grave memories. I assure Mr. Solovyov that I didn’t count on his “human weakness,” and even less “his shame”-false or not false; and I just made allowance for him and was sure that he would be grateful to me for my silence – how much a person like him can feel grateful – this is the property of great souls...
I see now that once again I was mistaken in him and, of course, I will reply with direct disclaimers to his not always direct testimony.
I will finish the review of the first four chapters of Mr. Solovyov’s article by restoring some more of his ... mistakes.
On pages 70 ff he lists all those who, according to his conclusions, visited H. P. Blavatsky in Paris, determining their exact (?!) number of 31 persons... “Well, let's say thirty-five (italics added),” he adds graciously, “in case I forgot someone insignificant at all or at that time, without speeches...” Well, how not to notice that Mr. Solovyov, reproaching me with “writing history as a story for easy reading” – is himself unforgivably addicted to his fantasy of a born storyteller?.. Why does he think that everyone is obliged to believe immutably in his statistical lists of persons, familiar to his acquaintances?.. As if he served my sister as a concierge and made notes to all incoming and outgoing!..
I lived in her house during H. P. Blavatsky's stay in Paris, wrote a diary every day, but I know that not all of her visitors were mentioned in it and could never feel responsible mentioning all of them in it for I was busy and pretty often was absent from home. I only know for sure that there was a constant maelstrom of visitors in the house. How, then, can an outsider, visiting almost every day, but staying not all day long in our living room, sum up and present personal lists (moreover, with certificates of maturity or immaturity – in addition!), confidently defining even the number of visits of other people’s guests?!. You can think of yourself as an infallible Pope, but it seems to be not proper to declare yourself as him.
I must positively dispute some of Mr. Solovyov's definitions, without entering, naturally, with him in controversy over the number of persons he missed, and still less about who and how many times – one or ten – visited my sister.
A personal opinion, to some extent, is not forbidden to anyone, but one can’t so unceremoniously extol the qualities and advantages of his friends to the detriment of others and talk slanderously about his enemies. In vain, Mr. Solovyov, proclaiming the talents of Madame de Morsier, calls her “the real author of the theosophical pamphlets published ''under the guise'' of the works of Duchess de Pomar, Lady Caithness,” assessing the latter as some half-witted one. Lady Caithness published not only theosophical pamphlets (she largely disagrees with the theosophical teaching); she wrote several bulky, more or less philosophical works and constantly publishes the magazine L'Aurore. As a very wealthy woman, she pays well to Mme. De Morsier for translating her manuscripts from English for it is easier for Lady Caithness to write in it than in French, which she does not speak fluently; perhaps, Mme de Morsier, also performs some other editorial work – I do not know; but does it mean that she writes, and the duchess uses her fame?..
I'm pretty close with Lady Caithness; we sometimes write about things that interest us; I respect her for the loyalty and friendship with my sister, despite many disagreements in the views, and it would be nice if my testimony could overpower Mr. Solovyov's wrong testimony. In view of this goal, I wrote to her, asking her to testify to my truth, and that's what I got in reply:
Paris, Avenue de Wagram 124
Dear Mme Jelihovsky, Madame de Morsier was with me when I received your letter concerning the opinion of Mr. Solovyov on my articles. I was very proud that he considered them good enough to belong to her pen... But it's not so: I write them myself, and she is so kind as to translate them into French.
Of course, I read your letter to her, and she asked me for permission to write herself and tell Mr. Solovyov that he was mistaken; because she is too truthful to allow him to remain under the impression that my articles were written by her. What a strange man he must be to think like that!.. But, as I said before, – I take this as a compliment, knowing how he admires Mme de Morsier. Only I'm afraid that after learning the truth, he will never want to read my writings... And it would be very sad, as they are very religious and moral and are meant to do the evil people – good, and the good – even better!..
Maria Caithness, Duchess of Pomar
A few days later, I received, unexpected by me in any way, a letter from the most important associate of Mr. Solovyov, Mrs. de Morsier. Here it is.
Paris, Claude-Bernard st., 71
Madame, the Duchess of Pomar told me that you wrote to her, that Mr. Solovyov had published in a Russian magazine information, as if I were writing articles and pamphlets that she was signing.
I certainly want to convince you that this testimony is inaccurate; at any time I did nothing of the kind, I only translated the works of the Duchess de Pomar and tried to even translate them word for word. I would like that there is not the slightest doubt about the matter, and as a result, I am writing these lines to you.
My best regards and so on.
To this letter the letter of Mr. Solovyov to Madame de Morsier (from 2/14 January 1893) was attached, in which he declares that “she herself, Mme de Morsier, never told him about the character of her theosophical and literary works with the Duchess and that he drew this information ... from another source”...
Likewise, Mr. Solovyov speaks incorrectly about the Countess d'Adémar, from whom he makes an empty-headed, enameled doll. He declares that he “never heard from her anything even slightly theosophical” ... It is very possible that he had not heard anything, but if he had used to delve deeper into the information that he proclaims as true, then he could not help knowing that the Countess had been publishing a magazine for several years, which copies are now lying in front of me. Here is its title:
Revue Thésophique. Redacteur en chef: H. P. Blavatsky. Directrice: Comtesse Gaston d'Adhémar[11]. Due to these two false testimonies one can judge others.
On page 72 of the book, Solovyov presents a letter to him from Charles Richet, apparently written after a commotion among the handful of Parisian Theosophists stirred by the gullible Mme de Morsier? Because of her faith in – the unfaithful, – evidence of the same Vs. S. Solovyov. In this letter Richet expresses a lack of faith in Blavatsky and her cause, that is, actually the phenomena. But, here it is as Vsevolod Sergeevich himself is writing about him in one of his letters to her:
“Today I spent the morning with Richet and again (sic) talked a lot about you in connection with Myers and the Psychic Society. I can positively say that I convinced Richet in reality of your personal power and the phenomena originating from you (italics added). He put categorically three questions. The first two (?) I answered in the affirmative; regarding the third (?) I said that I would be able to answer in the affirmative, without any embarrassment, in two or three months (?!). But I have doubt that I will answer in the affirmative, and then, you will see, there will be such a triumph, due to which all psychics will be forgotten (?!).”
This letter was written on October 8, 1885. So, at the time when Mr. Solovyov knew, as now, all the deceptions and malicious deeds of the “thief of souls,” whom he had long been trying to expose and disarm, in order to be the selfless saviour of the “innocent souls” of the Parisians caught by her, as he has sensationally been recounting readers for a whole year, why did he destroy the “innocent soul” of Professor Richet, asserting him in pernicious delusions against which, according to him, since the autumn of 1884, he had been arraying in Don Quixote's armour and helmet?!.
“It’s very odd! An incomprehensible thing!” we have to exclaim. Does not this fact eloquently indicate, that I am right, when asking in perplexity: when and in which exactly Solovyov's testimony can we believe, without risking anything?!
Above I allowed myself to call Mme de Morsier – “gullible.” But do not the readers think that I said it from myself. No! I’ve just repeated the words of her friend, Mr. Solovyov. The fact is that he was not always her friend: at first I often had to intercede for her in conversations with him; he made friends with her after our departure, and here it is, as he wrote to us about this and about her:
“...I was three times at Mme Morsier’s; she seems to be kind, but gullible being even comic, and at the same time considers herself to be a skeptical person…” (July 7, 1884).
Alas! It is this weakness that some resourceful people had used to manipulate her at their discretion... But about this below.
Here is another passage from Soloyov’s letter to H. P. Blavatsky, from Paris to London, a month later (August 6, 1884).
“...Mme Morsier went to the sea, very pleased that the Master (teacher) found out about her fear of cholera and through Djual Khool (?) asked her not to be afraid. Before leaving, she came to an ecstatic state at old Ewett’s[12], she felt me (?!) and decided that I was "darling" and from the same sphere with her, while in a waking state she still considered me an icy and mysterious person... She's nice and I’m getting to like her; but if I were her husband, I would have killed her myself!”
What does this dream mean? – It's not our business.
IV
From the first chapter in March issue of Russkiy Vestnik. Mr. Solovyov begins rashly to dream up: I have never positively known either theosophical signs or passwords; but, in spite of this, out of respect for my sister, her work and hospitality, I would not allow myself to laugh at their conventional signs, and even for the first time seeing a person. Subsequently, it is true, that when Mr. Solovyov managed to win my favour by stories about his misfortunes, about people's injustice to him, – I, feeling sympathy for him, often tried to keep him from passions; I did not even doubt, – completely trusting his honesty, – to share with him some fears, which I, perhaps, had no right to feel.
I never concealed my distrust of the miraculous side of my sister's activities; I expressed it to her openly and at that time, not knowing all that I had learned afterwards, I was largely unjust to her and to the people around her ... Of course, I would have refrained from sharing my fears with Mr. Soloviev if I could assume, that he would take advantage of my friendly trust not only in his own favour, but as an instrument against me and my loved ones; as means of his explosion that he tried to do – first verbally, and now in papers – to settle enmity between them and me...
I will not dwell on the falsification of details in the story concerning two phenomena (Chapters V and VI), because they have been already mentioned above and published in a timely manner by me and Mr. Solovyov. I have only to dwell on one sentence. Speaking about the letter that my sister read psychometrically, through a closed envelope, he says the following:
“Then the letter was given through an open door to Mrs. N.,” etc. This is not true! And the untruth is deliberate, because Mr. Solovyov knows perfectly well that he himself would not have been the first to describe the phenomena in The Rebus (July 11, 1884), nor to sign the protocol written by Mrs. Morsier on the spot and kept by me intact with his and other signatures. If the letter had been removed for a moment from the drawing-room table, where it was laid on not by Babula, but by a postman, Mr. Solovyov and others would have the right to express (eight years later) their doubts; but the matter is, that it was not given through the door, and Mrs. H. entered into the room, and in front of all present immediately opened the envelope.
How could Solovyov raise his hand to write about the possibility of forgery, when he himself solemnly declared in The Rebus:
“The circumstances under which the phenomenon took place and all the minute details checked by me do not leave any doubt about its purity (bold added) and reality. There can be no talk about deceit and focus.”
Here is the truth of the author of The Priestess of Isis!
However, now psychometry is a thing so proven and well-known that it is hardly worthwhile to break spears for it. As for the second phenomenon, with the portraits of the Mahatma and my sister’s, he of course, speaks in a skeptical tone only now. The current version, oh-oh, is far from the statements of 1884!.. That's what I find in my diary – I convey the essence.
When I told Vsev. Sergeyevich about the amazing disappearance of my satirical article from Helen’s scrap-book[13] – (the third “phenomenon,” which there is no use to talk about here), he decisively announced to me that he “does not understand why I am so surprised?” “If we were able to see yesterday moving, disappearance and reappearance of portraits, then ''everything can happen, and I, he said, will not be amazed at anything...”. “You,” he said, “ought to be ashamed not trust your sister and evidence! You will see that you will be disgraced for your distrust” ...
Alas! It turns out on the contrary that I am now disgraced by an inappropriate confidence in a person who should not have been believed.
As I told in a timely correspondence, I left before Olcott's return, and therefore I did not see the end of the phenomenon with the portrait, namely of moving it into a hat. I did not know that Mr. Soloviev buried it in the garden; I confess that when I read his story, I seriously doubted it, having the right to think that way: he also argues that I “persuaded him to write about phenomena” – and I know for certain that I never persuaded him to do so. How could I persuade him when I myself strongly doubted the “miraculousness” of these manifestations and I kept him from too much enthusiasm about them?.. He constantly predicted to me that my skepticism “will be confounded,” that I “am unfair to my sister;” and now he thinks that it would be more convenient to tell that I was trying to persuade him, and he, such a clever person, abstained and did not write ... Woe, although he does not mention his article in The Rebus, but, nevertheless, it is a fact! That time I, at least, did not hear from him about the burial of the portrait; but that I heard with my ears and that I testified in the feuilleton in Odesskiy Vestnik, which I sent immediately to Paris (as mentioned above) and what Mr. Soloviev never disputed before, is his enthusiastic (but not ironic) cries when seeing flying fireballs! And luminous, and egg-shaped, fiery phenomena – round, oval, flattened – all sorts! Namely, every rubbish, which, perhaps, really is the “fruit of his creative imagination” – but certainly not mine.
Further Mr. Solovyov's convincing hand written proofs will be given to show the oblivion by him his own words and testimony. I hope that these eloquent proofs will support my rightness in this statement too, for which I, unfortunately, have no direct evidence.
He sent me the portrait of my sister at the beginning of last year, before he planned to publish his sensational fiction The Modern Priestess of Isis. At the same time he made a proposal to return all his letters to me and to my sister – (in case I have them). He, however, offered to exchange his letters for my letters to him and, in case of my consent, promised not to mention my name in the above-named article...
I answered that the insults to my deceased sister for me were more painful to me than personal ones, and therefore let him write whatever he pleased, but I would not give him his letters. And how well I did that I had not give them to him!
Oh! My God, how many extra words Mr. Solovyov put in my mouth during our walk through Paris, which he describes in the seventh chapter of his work, and how many details he again forgot to remember, speaking of himself. I assure you, my readers, that I could never “complain,” as if my sister made me write about phenomena, because she never did so. I wrote about her and her work, I still write and probably will write not about phenomena, but in general about Theosophy, only on my own, without any external influences on me. I wrote and still write and will write not in the way that Mr. Solovyov intimidates Russian orthodox people, for I never betrayed Russian Orthodox Church and there has never been such a time in my life when I was afraid to cross myself in public or enter the church, which sometimes happened with some of my acquaintances, and which I may tell about below. I wrote and I will write about Theosophy, not as a “new religion,” which Mr. Solovyov reproaches me with quite unjustifiably, for in this case I would write nonsense about a non-existent subject, but as a very profound philosophy, a source of all ancient beliefs. However, all the mystifications and falsifications of Mr. Solovyov can’t be called to mind!
In my diaries I find that no one so often and persistently sought “secret audiences” with my sister, like Mr. Solovyov, and he does not even mention them at all!.. We, who were close to H. P. Blavatsky, knew perfectly well not only the essence of these conversations, but all their details both from her and from him in part, because with me, in moments of passion for talking to the soul, he was sometimes frank and truthful. He besieged her with requests to share with him her knowledge of the phenomena that can be demonstrated; he desired to return to Russia as a prototype of “prince-magician” in the novel The Magi. On the eve of our walk, about which he told so much extra things, but about the essential he kept silent, Helena told us:
“I just do not know what to do with this Solovyov! He does not give me any rest, begging to teach him phenomena, but is it possible to learn them at once?!. "How do you get this music from the air?" ... How can I tell him this?.. Here, I say, as you can see yourself: I am waving my hand through the air and chords can be heard from there ... What can I tell him more?.. Let him go through all things that I went through, living in India – maybe he will perceive! But now, he only takes my time and he himself spends it in vain.”
It was because of such speeches of my sister that I wanted to keep Mr. Solovyov from vain strivings, sincerely confessing to him that I myself do not believe in anything, and I think that my sister only harms herself and her work, letting her enthusiastic admirers of her knowledge proclaim her “magical powers.”
I remember another time, when H[elena] P[etrovna] even got angry and told us when Solovyov left: “What an amazing man! He reproaches me that I taught Olcott – but I do not want to teach him!.. I did not think to teach Olcott anything, but he himself is an inherent magnetizer and visionary...”
It is true that the colonel was indeed a very powerful magnetizer and cured many people beneath our eyes, including me from chronic rheumatism; and even Mr. Solovyov himself, according to his assurances of that time; but now he will probably say that he testified falsely, according to the suggestion of my sister?..
In my diary (the date 5 (17) June, Tuesday) the following can be found about this walk through Paris:
“At two o'clock, as was agreed, I was on a "rendezvous" with Solovyov, Plase de l'Etoile. We walked for a long time. We were sitting in the Park Monceau for two hours and he told me his whole biography... What a poor man! The end will be, probably, bad ... What a keen dreamer! If you believe him, you will keep your mouth open when listening to all the miracles that happened to him. He assures that he remembers perfectly well, as in his childhood he flew above the trees. Have mercy, Lord!.. I went inside our church; it was very beautiful. It's strange that Solovyov did not want to go in there by no means ... Why?.. He did not explain.”
After reading this note, I clearly remember my surprise and vain inquiries about this. “Why, are you, Vsevolod Sergeevich, practicing black magic? Or do you want to register with Buddhists?” I asked, amazed, but I did not get a response. I had every right to ask him about Buddhism, since he had repeatedly proved to me that the religion of the Buddha gives no less for the happiness of man than Christianity. He answered in the negative, and, of course, I tactfully did not insist on the question.
Nevertheless, the incident with the Russian church made a painful impression. At that time I was very fond of Vsevolod Sergeevitch and wished him happiness with all my heart ... I do not even wish him any more misfortunes today, – not being, thank God, vindictive; only, speaking with his own words, in view of his grave accusations of the deceased, who cannot justify herself: “I can’t neglect circumstances – I can’t and I should not!” For (again repeating his words): “In the chain of evidence of his deceptions, not only his verbal but also written confessions, are the most important link''” ...
These are the words of our accuser; let him not take offence that I turn against him the weapon he raised against us.
His March article ends with a thunderous philippic[14] against the “thief of souls,” H.P.B., who “lifting up her hand” (?), “ringing with her invisible silver bells and making her phenomena,” invited the Parisian Theosophists, “rush headlong into the abyss”...
Good gracious! What passions ... It is good that, judging by the facts, the danger was somewhat exaggerated. That's how many years have passed – the theosophical movement has multiplied 10 times by number and significance. And in Paris it intensified (although comparatively, very little), but not a single theosophist perished. Moreover, everybody had the best opinion of the “terrible thief of souls,” as it is proved by the zealous translations of her writings, which now began to be seriously translated. No one has fallen into the abyss, and everyone reads and praises her books, and no one cares about exposing her by the “duped young Hodgson,” as the magazine The Path calls him, as well as about the conclusions of the London Psychological Society. And nobody remembers, except perhaps several eccentrics, following the example of Mr. Solovyov, who naively believed the whole essence of theosophy in the “silver ringing of the bells” and in the astral flights of the Tibetan sages to meet him, “in the trading city of Elberfeld.”
Without a doubt, the desire “to get acquainted with the theosophical teachings and literature well and understand its content” (the matter is its content, Mr. Solovyov!), the desire expressed by the author of The Priestess of Isis on page 100 is very commendable. But it is not even easy to satisfy the desire of a man who does not speak English very well now; but eight years ago it was completely unthinkable. So, seriously speaking, and not for misleading readers, everyone who respects himself wouldn’t find such an excuse to explain the need to continue communicating with Blavatsky, once convinced of her unfair acts.
But Mr. Solovyov chose the excuse, judging that this “noble goal” would justify his ... various means. Disappointed in the prestidigitating abilities of my sister, but still persistently believing that the whole meaning of her teaching was in the “phenomena,” he quand même[15], continued over a year to impose upon himself penance of pretense and deceit ... I believe that this should there be a real penance – for an honest man ... To be forever under the oppression of the comedy played; to be eternally hypocritical, under the guise of friendship and devotion of the individual, whom he despised and “always considered being desperate” according to his later opinion. “God have mercy!” but such a torture would hardly have been suffered so long by Judas himself. And what for?.. “To get a good acquaintance with the theosophical teaching” ... But really, it could be arranged at the cost of smaller sacrifices.
Than to bear such an uneasy burden, for a decent person who toils, would it not be easier to devote free time to learning English, writing out books of theosophical content and learning from them whether there really is any clever and good in this “theosophy” by which Helena Petrovna Blavatsky attracted the hearts and minds of tens of thousands of people?.. That would be a good, honest thing! What was inaccessible to him then (see p. 51), would have become more accessible now and would help him to judge the case more correctly and fairly.
And in order to prove that, although Mr. Solovyov now speaks only of his poor knowledge of English, but before he sincerely and openly stated that he did not know it at all, I will quote his own words from letters, where he desperately exclaims: “What meanness, that I do not speak English!”
This, let's say, is too sharp... Ignorance is not baseness. There are other kinds of baseness ... Ignorance is only an inconvenience that can be overcome; but, of course, until it is eliminated, a conscientious person is obliged to refrain from judgments about objects unknown to him.
In chapter VIII Solovyov devotes two pages to exposing the fraud of Babula, my sister’s servant. But all this, apparently, he thought up later, on the basis of not always true testimonies of the London Psychical Society, which agent[16] decided to make an acolyte[17] of a French magician and also a linguist from that common Hindu. But in fact, he had never been either of them. If he were such a clever magician or scientist, he would have probably preferred other activities more than cleaning boots and washing up, which he’s still doing in Adyar. There wasn’t any scandal with Babula, that Solovyov suggests (p. 103); and he was allowed to go to India earlier, because his wife got sick there, – which everyone, and Mr. Solovyov himself, knew in time.
I loved to ask this not stupid guy about their life in Adyar; I remember that I often laughed at his stories, but to tell the truth I can testify that there was never any talk about the “muslin” Mahatmas. If this word were uttered by him, then with my then unbelief in the existence of those wise Hindus, I would have never left that testimony without attention, but would have asked both Babula and his mistress about its meaning, with whom I never was too shy to have arguments.
I do not want to stop at unworthy tales of Mr. Solovyov on p. 105–107 about how my sister treated Colonel Olcott, that intelligent, knowledgeable, energetic, nice old man, her assistant in labours and her best friend. I am ashamed of the storyteller in the eyes of a stranger!
V
I turn to the April book of Russkiy Vestnik; and begin to read chapter IX of Mr. Solovyov’s invention and – I am at a dead end!
Yes, I positively get into a blind alley, in front of the incomprehensible... I do not know how to express myself without sharp words?.. Well, in front of blatant dishonesty of that amazing man!
I ask everyone to read page 194, where he certifies that Usis Unveiled, the first great work by my sister, “is a huge sack, into which, without any parsing and system, the most diverse things and all kinds of nonsense are dropped, and nothing is unfit.” I ask not to ignore the note in which Mr. Solovyov unabashedly rebukes me, and in the most abrupt terms, because I believed his “thrown in the conversation” phrase that the book was a “phenomenon” and dared to repeat it ... And now, when you read these stormy protests against my free handling of his words (and what should I say about his free handling of my words? I ask, in brackets) – I ask you to read my excuse, in the following letters of Mr. Soloviev himself.
Paris. Rue Pergolese 48
Dear Vera Petrovna,
Your letter made me very, very glad, – however, I expected that you would not forget your promises ... As the hasty work is over and we are now resting, there is an open space for gloomy thoughts. We need to invent a new job ... The knocking, the sounds, and all the awkward. For example: an unknown voice says: “Well, there will be knocking on the window glass” – and that instant knocking begins ... I almost constantly feel around me the breath and someone's presence and to the point that it becomes disgusting... (That's it, Mr. Solovev!.. But ... are they not phenomena ?!). I’ve read the letters of Koot Hoomi (Mahatma) and approved the content of these very highly. I’m reading the second part of Isis – and I am absolutely convinced that it is a ''phenomenon''!.. etc.
Could I suspect that the most enthusiastic oral responses, and such written statements were just irony, jokes and lies?!.
And here's another letter to my sister, from Paris to London.
Dear Helena Petrovna.
On Friday, barely on my feet, I spent the whole day with Olcott. On Saturday he, with R. Gebhard, having returned from Ademar, had dinner at my place, and after dinner, I was taken ill and am still in bed. I caught a cold, and it turned out very bad.
...The second part of Isis[18]. I think that you should also send the first part to Paris, as this book must certainly be published here for the French. Mme Morsier is very useful for mistakes (?) And she is ready to work. It seems to me that if a duchesse[19] (the Duchess of Pomar) is left an honourary president, then if she is at least to some extent a respectable woman and respects herself, she must do something for the “society”. Let her publish your Isis. Will you send Oakley to her – he will say that the Parisian “society” is in dire need of the publication of this book and hopes that the honourable duchesse will do her direct duty...
If she is such a Plyushkin[20], that she cannot, with all her wealth, make such a trifle – then what is she suitable for?!.
If she does not formally undertake to publish Isis, then I feel that I will not hold out and produce a kind of “flyushka” (scandal – in the intimate language of H.P.B.). I hate such a nasty (?!), as that duessess!..
Maybe Mme de Morsier should write to her on behalf of the “society” about the need to publish Isis?.. Will you think it over and let me know.
Bye, see you. With all my heart.
It seems that by these two letters I am removing from myself the criticism of Mr. Solovyov, and I do not need my words here anymore?
About miraculous things that occurred with the creator of the peripeteia[21] in the style of the author of The Gorbatovs[22] during his trip to Elberfeld in the autumn of 1884, I knew in a timely manner both from his letters and from the message of that lady whom he calls by the letter “A”. Since I will not have to talk about her any more, then I, incidentally, will note that, as usual, Mr. Solovyov maligned her a lot. She is, in fact, much smarter, more honest and kinder than some of his glorified close friends.
Now about “miracles in the sieve,” as Mr. Burenin put it rightly in the newspaper Novoye Vremya, in his article (Mr. Vsevolod Solovyov and the Priestess of Isis).
Knowing about these prophetic visions (April, R.V., p. 199), I confess to be always wondered at what right Mr. Solovyov had to doubt the authenticity of the appearance of Mahatma Morya to him?.. But, if we admit that he spent an hour talking with an astral spirit by the suggestion of my sister, then why didn’t he tell us that the one whose suggestion had given him a pleasant sight (also in the astral light?) of nature's pictures, he, in fact, only met the next day?.. After all, the one must also have been a magician and sorcerer, not inferior in the power of Blavatsky.
What can I say about the story of Mr. Solovyov being visited by a “demigod, mysterious teacher,” whom suggestion to my sister he can’t admit for some reason?.. In the current version, he presents precisely that complex amalgam of truths and perjury, which the English call “the true lie, – the worst specimen of lies,” that is, such kind of an artificial vinaigrette of intricacies with which the struggle is very difficult ... I can only say with certainty that in Mr. Solovyov’s letter to me, which I’m referring to, there was not the slightest doubt, but everything was told, as a fact undeniable. He hesitated, somewhat later, putting the question: Was not this vision suggested to him and in part,was due to the long contemplation of the portrait of Morya? – it's true; but, nevertheless, he confirmed that for him it was the most actual reality. And indeed! Visual impressions are known to be only a faithful repetition of the seen; and after all, the Mahatma appeared to him standing, then he sat down on a chair and was talking to him for an hour about various intimate affairs... Is it a “repetition” of the seen?..
Here are some excerpts from Mr. Solovyov’s letter dated October 30th / 18th 1884, from Paris.
“... I am sending you a copy of the story of my adventures in Elberfeld, which I have sent as a report to the London Psychical Society. From the story you will learn everything that interests you, and make sure of my courage in front of any public opinion. But, however, my courage has its limits, and I definitely do not want my adventures to get into Russian newspapers...” (What kind of courage is there? one can exclaim, but judging by the events that follow, one should rather notice: what a far-sighted precaution!). “I wrote to Pribytkov about that,” Mr. Solovyov continues. “Everything will come to its own end and everything, one way or another, will be explained – for there is nothing secret that would not have become obvious” ... etc.
Verily!.. And what a great happiness for honest people, that this gospel word is sometimes justified on the Earth...
Here are one or two fragments, in support of my words about the incomplete identity of the real testimony of Mr. Solovyov in the first story published in the journal of the London Psychical Society (I have a copy of it). For example, on page 202 of Russkiy Vestnik, April it is said:
“I lit a candle, and I imagined that my clock showed two hours...”
And in the previous description of the event it is simply stated:
“I saw that my clock showed two hours...”
Further, on the same page of Russkiy Vestnik:
“His head (the Mahatma’s) made a movement (?), He smiled and said, again in the silent thought language of dreams...” and so on.
And in the story, of the time of the incident, it is said in the affirmative – that hardly Mr. Solovyov thought he was going crazy, he immediately saw, in the same place, “a magnificent man in white robes.”
“He nod his head and, smiling, told me,” says the visionary, “be sure that I am not a hallucination,” etc., without any indication of the language in which the Mahatma spoke.
Do you agree that these stories produce completely different impression?
In the story written by the hero of the Elberfeld miracles at the spot, or immediately upon his return to Paris, there are absolutely no expressions like: “it seemed to me, it was only my imagination” – and, undoubtedly, there is no hint at anything similar to that spiteful, completely fictional satire, in which he now tries to portray Blavatsky, Olcott and all those around them in Elberfeld.
It would be impossible for him, who believed then (or falsely assured that he believed – I do not know) in all phenomena. He has devised now a vaudeville scene in which my sister sends upstairs for Olcott; she asks him: “on which side” he felt the approach of the “teacher”; she orders him to empty his pocket, where the fabricated note of Morya was found (he forgot that he then called him not Morya, but Koot Hoomi); but – at that time – there was not a word of Olcott's “pocket”! He himself, Mr. Solovyov, boasted that he had directly received a note from the “teacher.”
In the proof, I cite passages relating to the case, from his letter to me, on November 21/9, 1884, from Paris:
“...Now to another thing. In vain are your reproaches! – my soul is open to you (why did Mr. Solovyov need to fool me with his devotion? Me, who never deceived him!) And I trust you completely. I'll start with the smaller thing. You’d like to know what intimate things Morya told me. But, who told? Was it Morya? I strongly doubt it... I hope you do not doubt in my writing, – I described everything as it was.[23] I told Professor Myers about it and I had to agree to send my message to the London Psychical Society,” he continues.
Further lengthy explanations about the possibility of hypnotic suggestion, and then a new message illustrating once again the miraculous powers and properties of my sister. It is the incident with Mr. Solovyov, which he now replaced with – “a note found in Olcott's pocket,” ''between a button and a toothpick. Here it is in his first edition, in the same letter of Mr. Solovyov:
“...But here is a ''fact. In the same place (in Elberfeld) I received, to the great envy of the Theosophists, Koot Hoomi's own handwritten note and even in Russian. I wasn’t at all surprised when finding it in the notebook I was holding in my hand, I had a premonition and almost knew it. But it struck me that that note run clearly and definitely about what we were exactly talking about a minute ago!!! There was an answer to my words – and during that minute I was standing alone, no one came up to me. If it can be assumed that someone had put a note in the notebook beforehand, then that someone took possession of my thoughts and made me say those words, the direct answer to which was in a note ... This amazing phenomenon I distinctly observed several times happened to myself and to others. What a power ?! And next to this power, what an impotence sometimes!..”
The power is undoubtedly great, but ... where is the “button, toothpick''” and other objects “pulled out of Olcott's pocket,” Mr. Solovyov?.. You, this time, are right: with such a spiritual power of her gifts the “weekness” of H. P. Blavatsky was exactly noticed. How couldn’t she, unhappy, but know that not in front of every compatriot, even a named friend, the pearls of her psychic powers might be lavished? How could not she foresee that that friend, when death would close her mouth, would find it possible, instead of the “fact,” which aroused to him the “envy of all theosophists” to tell about the boon scene that he had painted on page 205 of his unceremonious fiction?!.
Here is another funny bévue[24] by Solovyov. Oh! Forgetfulness is a big defect! On page 215 the last words of the letter are given, in which H[elena] P[etrovna] asks him to find out the address of the Mme Tcheng, chromophotographist, formerly living in rue Byron. On the next page, he pompously declares that, “of course, he did not fulfill” any orders of “madame,” and “did not look for some kind of chromophotographist, who shouldn’t have seen or known me – all this would be, at least ridiculous!”
Was it ridiculous, and how could the sister ask him to remain anonymous to Ms. Cheng, as he simply and directly wrote to her that both himself and Mme Morsie, accepted her and talked with her about H. P. Blavatsky, – I do not know! But here is his letter about this meeting in the entire inviolability of the lines relating to it:
Paris
Dear Helena Petrovna, a chromophotographist with a Chinese name is living right there, she is currently in Paris and is engaged not only in the production of portraits, but also in the production of some articles in the local newspapers Le Gaulois and Le Gil Blas.
Mme de Morsier says that I hypnotized her today, and the hypnotization consists in the fact that she has fallen in love with you terribly (!?!) and felt, holding my hands – terribly ticklish – and smelling (?) your last letter with the addition of Koot Hoomi – that you are completely sincere et bonne, donne comme du pain[25]!
That's how it really happened with the chromophotogdaphist!.. Good Mr. Solovyov tried to fulfill my sister's assignment better than she wanted, and now it occurred to him that he had not “of course” fulfilled it !!
Here is the end of the letter of October 1 and a few interesting letters, which fully confirm the opinion of Mr. Burenin (Novoye Vremya No. 6038), that the cruel accuser of my sister himself believed in the “existence and great powers” of muslin sage-demigods[26]:
I must certainly know when, with what train Mohini will arrive. I hope he visits me, then Mme de Morsier (this is her desire) would appear with Bessak. Bessak is now ending a very serious, extensive and sympathetic article on Theosophy; but he runs into some mistakes that Mohini can show him.
Yesterday I sent you two letters. With this, I’m sending a reply from Keightley ...
I'm waiting for you, although I still do not believe in such luck.
Yours, with all my heart.
To me:
Dear Vera Petrovna, I have just received your letter and I am in a hurry to talk with you... I returned from Elberfeld on these days, where I spent a week at the bedside of poor Helena Petrovna. I must tell you that from the point of view of European medicine, she is very, very ill; but more than ever, along with those around her, believes in the power of her Mahatmas and knows that her illness is not to death. In any case, she will have to spend a long time in Elberfeld. Doctors stated: obesity of the heart, sugar sickness and the strongest rheumatism, from which her left hand swelled up, and the heart is not far away. She suffers greatly, but is amazingly cheerful in spirit!.. Wonders are beyond count! And, in the end, perhaps, she will recover, which I want with all my might, for I love her (sic)!
Please note that this letter was written under the fresh impression after return from Elberfeld, where H.P.B[lavatsky] was recognized by Vs. S. Solovyov a criminal without appeal. Here are a few more lines written at a time when he already knew – if you believe his confessions in The Modern Priestess of Isis – that the Mahatmas are malicious invention of Blavatsky and in fact they do not exist at all.
Tomorrow Helena Petrovna is leaving for Liverpool, Egypt, and from there to India. How she is still alive, how she can go, and go so far and at such a time of the year is a miracle for me! Or rather, one of the proofs (sic) of the Mahatmas’ existence!..
The following passage from a letter dated November 21/9, 1884, which will be further reproduced in full, characterizes Mr. Solovyov in a manner that shows how worthy he is to be believed:
“... And when her existence[27] ends, which – I must think so, is now supported only artificially, by some magical power – I will always mourn the loss of this unfortunate and remarkable woman!..”
And now – he’s mourning for her!..
He is mourning the loss of her, applying to her all the abusive and humiliating epithets that can be invented by human malice and deceit, counting on the credulity of the people and on his complete impunity!
How can I not recall here the words of H. P. Blavatsky in one of her letters to me:
“If Solovyov were a suspecting, but an honest enemy – he would not lie!..”
And further:
“I tell you, Vera, one thing, I am prophesying and predicting: you will bitterly regret the trust and friendship with Solovyov – when it's too late! I loved him too, like a brother!..”
Oh! how many times later I remembered this prophecy and how bitterly I am thinking now about it!.. When now I see what the hand of this “unfortunate” man is rising at (I will also call him unfortunate, as he is always calling my sister!). One can read with amazement that next to cursing and slander, he dares to cite such scenes as a description of her sufferings and her requests addressed to him as “to a sincere friend” – as to the Russian one – not to leave her alone, on the deathbed:
“Have pity on me,” Mr. Solovyov quotes on pages 207-208 and continues, “her voice broke off, tears sprang from her eyes. After all, I'm alone! They are all strangers, strangers!.. Only you are a friend, Russian!.. My dear friend, do not leave me, the old woman, at such a time ...”
Oh my God! Does Mr. Solovyov not understand that he is beating himself?!.. After describing such scenes, his cynical confessions in the immediately accepted intention to deceive, raid on this suffering (by his conviction, dying) compatriot who appealed to him as to Russian – as a friend, sound even more terrible, even more offensive to him?
However, what should I say on my behalf?.. Letters from him, letters and letters!.. They must act more convincingly than any exclamations. In them, Mr. Solovyov himself will prove to Russian readers that of all people who have the right to resent others' deceptions, he has surely lost it!
VI
By this kind of sweet letters he lulled us, not only my sister, but me too, who certainly was not guilty of deceits, either before him or anyone!.. Please do not forget that they all belong to the time about which he, with such violent indignation of the righteous, recounts in chapter XII of his present invention.
Paris
Dear name day ladies!!! I have the honour to congratulate you (me and my daughters) on your angel's day and first of all to wish you... (friendly, comic wishes and thanks for the photos sent to him). I received an order from H. P. with postscript *** and Ts** (visitors who came to me sister from Odessa, after the departure of Mr. Solovyov) again to come to Elberfeld. But I cannot do this, for I am terribly busy; carried away by theosophy, or rather, a representative of it; God knows what I made up in his new novel and now I’m busy with corrections, and the editor from Petersburg is urging: quick ! quick !
Helena Petrovna is angry and has a magic effect on me. I feel the effect, but I’m getting stronger, like a real “chela” (disciple of the Mahatma), who must be “higher than desires”...
Forgive me for the awful handwriting – the consequence of an incredible pen – and for the ridiculous (would not it be more correct to say: hypocritical?) letter – a consequence of a mental breakdown, I hope a temporary one ...
How I would like to spend the 17th of September with you. I used to have three sisters who had their angel’s day on this date... and now you!
Yours, from all my heart,
Let me explain here that in all his letters Mr. Solovyov was constantly making my daughters declaration of “brotherly friendship” and he assured them to be “his sisters in spirit.” It goes without saying that he assured me of his friendship and filial devotion. We, without knowing either his family or his wife, very much regretted that family quarrels forced the poor man to renounce his own sisters! Here is, simultaneously, his letter from the same time, to the “terrible thief of souls,” which he really decided to destroy:
Dear Helena Petrovna, not possessing magical abilities, I may not know what is happening to you, if I do not receive any news and if my letters remain unanswered. But why don’t you know and see what's going on here?!. As you know, Duchess Pomar refused the presidency[28]. She is deeply offended by the colonel. The defender of the American Negroes (Olcott) really turned out to be inexcusable in his explanations with the European grande dame[29]. She hisses like a cat, which tail was stepped upon, and, like a hissing cat, she is dangerous! She shows a letter to her from that Odessa lady, Mrs. G., or, in a word, the one with a hunchbacked son. The lady, in turn, was enraged at the reception made to her in Elberfeld, mainly from the fact that Mohini (?!) was being hidden from her. Of course, everything falls on you and both those ladies (?!) are playing horrible mean tricks. The local society is in a state of decay and extreme mistrust.
Mrs. G. promises to open people’s eyes in Russia[30]... To talk about various stories, rumors and gossips is disgusting and not worthy[31]. Dramar and Bessak could be useful, only now they are losing heart. Mme Morsier is ranting and raving, and only controlling herself due to the love for Koot Hoomi and partly by me. What I can do, I do! I am indifferent to the theosophical society, the understanding of which is eluding me, thanks to your distrust of me (?!); but I treasure your reputation. If I cannot do a lot for her here, I could do in Russia. Therefore, I needed a date with Ts. **. I could, with his help, clip Mrs. G.'s wings, and could strengthen him, for after staying in Elberfeld, everyone needs to be strengthened, since there are a lot of mistakes in Elberfeld that do not come from you, but which you, for some reason, do not see. I do not care about others, but I need you to be uninvolved. I cannot paint further. If you wish, it will be clear to you (?). Respond, though.
Yours, from all my heart.
It was, without a doubt, clear! Unfortunately, at my own request, most of my sister's Russian correspondence after her death was burned. Only what she herself gave me and that they sent me later from Adyar survived. If it were not for this inexcusable recklessness, it would probably be possible for me now to explain to the readers what the cautious Mr. Solovyov himself found inconvenient to “paint” ...
Here are the letters pages 215-217th.
Dear Helena Petrovna, now I received your letter. Believe it or not, but neither it nor even the postscript of Koot Hoomi surprised me at all. I will make a sensation through Mme Morsier.
Mohini, if he is well and firmly (?) directed is very useful!.. What a meanness, that I do not speak English!
I need to see you positively and I can’t say, how happy I would be if you came to me!.. It’s not only me, but we would be happy. And I hope it would be convenient for you. It’s a small detour from Elberfeld to London via Paris...
Perhaps we would have agreed on something in Russian[32]... And I would take you to London ...
I do not know how to beg you not to hurry to resign. Let’s have a talk before, and if this is unavoidable, then in your presence I will write everything and everywhere it is necessary.
What can be written in letters ?! Looking forward to hearing from you.
Yours, from all my heart,
P.S. Do not worry, in the name of all that is holy!
Is this not a speech of a sincere friendship?.. It's just that you can make a mistake and think that Mr. Solovyov did not then bluff Blavatsky, but ''now he is bluffing Russian Orthodox Christians.
But here's what is truly unclear: why did he need to persuade my sister not to resign? What was he so fervently wishing to talk with her before and, perhaps, “to agree on something?..” Will he explain the details to those who are interested in his “revelations?..” But is not this a strange contradiction? He himself states in public that he would have left her alone if she had listened to him – she would have indulged only in literary activities given up to engage in malicious theosophy, or suddenly, when she wants to leave the representation of a “gloomy”, “destructive for the human souls society,” he himself – “does not know how to beg her not to resign” ... What does this mean? What are such contradictions for?!
But that's just the point, to be able to keep silent in time. This Talleyrand[33] rule is distinguished by clever people who can speak well, and even better – be silent!
In this fraudulent time, Mr. Solovyov tried not to compromise himself, adding in writing something that was discussed only verbally at “secret audiences” between him and my sister. He replaced frank speech with hints, which only she could understand.
All these phrases: “I can’t write a lot ... If you wish it will be clear for you!.. Your health is dear to me as much as for yourself ... Come and maybe we will agree!.. What can be written in letters?” Were all these reminders and hints written for nothing if they had no deep meaning?.. Had not he cherish, much more significant goals than the purposeless exposure of Blavatsky; had not he made a mistake in his calculations he would probably not have been so indecently generous in the outpouring of his revenge and bile on her grave. And not without grounds I called purposeless all his humiliating comedies, fraud and slander, he knew perfectly well and still knows now that he can not shake her work or undermine her fame in foreign countries, but in Russia theosophy has nothing to do ...
If Mr. Solovyov had definately stood up for truth alone and the salvation of innocent souls from the evil tenets of the “terrible deceiver,” then, having finished this mission, having fully understood Blavatsky's criminality, he would not have waited for seven years, and immediately would have accused her. And, first of all, he would have abandoned the destructive society and, having shaken off the dust from his feet, would not have continued his role as a betraying friend for more than a year, after Blavatsky’s return from India, until the beginning of 1886. Apparently, Mr. Solovyov was waiting for something from my sister that caused him to play up to her for so long, and to leave the Society only in February 1886 and not write about her while she was alive.
After all, he can fool the ignorant people with fables about the fact that while I was silent about theosophy, – he said nothing. It is not true! I kept writing and publishing all these years, from time to time, just when I felt like it, and he knew it perfectly well, but he did not raise his voice, because he was afraid of my sister. He had to wait for her death to speak freely…
Fortunately, he was yet somewhat mistaken in thinking that time had destroyed all the evidence: there are still enough of them, and I firmly believe that they will shake his arrogant considerations of the strength of his opinions and authority.
Evidently, artfully, con amore[34], as a true artist, Mr. Solovyov was in his Iscariot’s[35] correspondence with H. P. Blavatskaya, if she, overloaded with work, literary writings and the organization of the branch of the Theosophical Society in London – a real, serious society, but not a parody of it, what was in Paris – wrote to me, by the way, having returned home from Elberfeld, in September 1884
“...What should I do with the pitiful letters of admirers who are in love with me?.. I have not to answer half of them at all, but, after all, there are many such ones, whom I myself love and feel sorry about – like our poor Vsevolod Sergeevich Solovyov! How long have I been in London, and I've already received two pitiful letters. He asks only to love and not to forget... He says that he did not like anybody from strangers like me, the old one. Thanks to him!..”
That's how her future formidable judge “got round” the poor fraudster... Well, did he do it only to her?.. Even though he needed her, he even had his own interests in her, for which, perhaps, his humiliatingly false mess was worth dragging out. But why did he fool me and my whole family?.. Positively for the love of art – every week he wrote sweet letters, then to me, then to my daughters, declaring his friendship[36]. And among these assurances in the unconscious and boundless feelings of love and devotion personally for us, he had never forgotten to squeeze such reassuring lines about Helena:
“I do not play double games with anyone, and the following phrases in the letters I receive can prove that: "You’re writing that you do not care about the Society; but I gave up my life, health, soul, honor, future for it ... If you, my sincere friend, directly suspect me that when I fail in producing a phenomenon, then I counterfeit it, what will the enemies say?"”
“But she knows that I really love her and that I'm her friend!” – immediately, after quotations from my sister's letters to him, Mr. Solovyov continues fooling me, ending the very letter (from November 9) with the notorious phrase that, when this wonderful woman dies, “I will forever mourn her”. “Let's understand each other,” he asks me, “that is, to forgive not in words, but in deeds” ... And so on.
Could I not calm down by such Christian rules of Vsev. Serg. In the course of more than a year of my life, I, a gray-haired woman, schooled by experience, seemingly having some knowledge of human treachery, believed him, of course, and loved him, almost like a son!.. I know that such confession will not raise my mental abilities in the eyes of people, but I consider myself obliged to bear the shame of that public confession, for the sake of explaining the subsequent events. When unfavourable rumors reached me, I hastened to blame everyone, except the real culprit, calmed down with his pious words.
“Dear Vera Petrovna! – he wrote to me then. – I can’t be afraid for our relations with you, no matter what gossip threatens them, – but what melancholia this all causes!.. Everything is very clear to me, and now I can say that H[elena] P[etrovna] gave all her soul up for the Society. For the "Society" and its work. They are afraid of your influence on me to the detriment of the "Society" (!), And now I’m really needed by the "Society" ... My soul is open to you,” etc., etc.
Really, “a cock-and-bull story,” which I had an unexplained subsequently for me stupidity to believe in. That's where there was true “suggestion” and dense blinding. Later, I often recalled Mr. Solovyov's assurances that he was allegedly emanating a certain “fluide” which acted magnetically ... I wondered if he had used it to his advantage to stir up our (my, my sister’s and my children’s) distrust and anger, unfairly, against the close people?
VII
It is clear that I cannot and will not respond to the fully reproduced report of the London Psychical Society.[37] Yes, if this were conceivable in the place and volume that my answer should have in defense of my sister, I would not have undertaken it, for the following reasons:
I) Refutations to this report (biased even in the opinion of non-theosophical newspapers) were written at the same time, on the spot, both in England and in America, by many people who were far more competent than me, who inherited the matter, who carried out an investigation of any invistigation of that Hodgson “bypassed by missionaries” and “fooled by the natives.” This is how people, who know the details of the case better than Mr. Solovyov, call him. The people (the fanatical natives), they say, have never approved the exposure of the existence and activities of their Gurus (Mahatmas), considered holy by them, and were very happy to refute their reality in the opinion of Europeans. But we do not care!.. I will name the most important of the articles written in the refutation of the Report of the Psychical Society, and then let those wishing to know their essence – themselves will turn to them. (1) Report of the result of an investigation into the charges against Mme Blavatsky, brought by the Missionaries of the Scottish Free Church, at Madras. Reexamined by a committee appointed for that purpose by the General Council of the Theos. Society, Madras, 1885. (2) Reply to an examination, by I.D.B. Gribble, M.C.S., into the Blavatsky correspondence. By H. R. Morgan. Major General, Madras Army. (3) Official Report of the Ninth Session of the General Convention. Madras. (4) The “Occult World phenomena” and the Society for Psychical Research, by Sinnett. With a Protest by Mme Blavatsky. London. 1886. (5) The Great Mares Nest of the Psychical Research Society by Mrs. Annie Besant (Appendix to the newspaper The Times). (6) A detailed study by Dr. Hartmann (which I read with great interest, but I can not name, because I do not have it at the moment). If not mistaken, its title: Report of Observations of a Private Visitor. And so on-without end, or ending with a protest sent from London, about three years ago, to our newspapers; a protest signed by a significant number of people, which, however, did not find a place in the Russian press, as “the message not interesting for the Russian public” ... I keep it in my possession.
I continue enumerating reasons why I will not answer the testimonies of the “Report” of the Psychical Society in detail.
II) Because my personal answer to the author of the The Modern Priestess of Isis – thanks to his fantasy on H. P. Blavatsky's charges – is already threatening to drag out more than I would have wished; and his arguments for me are much more important than the arguments of Hodgson, Myers and Co., –up to the Coulombs and the Jesuits inclusive.
III) It is also because, for me, as for all those who know the teaching and scientific works of H.P.B., the truth or falsity of the phenomena themselves is nothing in the theosophical movement! It is instituted and founded firmly not on the “bells” or even on the “air messages” of its “patrons, mysterious teachers” – but on real books of my sister and her many scientific associates and, in part, on the real charity institutions named after H. P. Blavatsky, as, for example, the Shelter for female workers in East End,, a beggarly quarter of London. Unfortunately, Mr. Solovyov has no idea about those books, or about those charitable institutions of the Theosophical Society (I make such conclusions because he would probably have mentioned them also, describing the life and significance of the founder of the Society, if he knew anything about them).
IV) Another reason is that I suppose that, no matter how the psychologists and Mr. Solovyov described their charges, it is unlikely that people who are reasonable more or less well will believe that H.P.B. was such an idiot that in her absence from Adyar to order traps, double cabinets and all sorts of adaptations for tricks in her rooms. If she did not have the wits at all to think that such machinations must be carried out before her eyes, with all sorts of concealment, then at least she would not allow outside visitors to enter her rooms without her permission. But the facts are as follows: the Scottish missionaries, having bribed the Coulombs, sent their agents to inspect their work in Adyar... The Jesuit Patterson himself admitted (this was stated in many articles that Mr. Solovyov should read together with the “Report” by Hodgson which he learnt by heart) that at different times he paid the Coulombs for their service, especially for the letters allegedly written by Blavatsky. I am amazed at the protests of Mr. Solovyov against forgery in the letters of my sister! He has not seen the letters ... Does not he really know that such things happened in the world?.. Which crimes didn’t fanaticism generate, especially when vindictive people began acting, like the Jesuit Patterson, “into the glory of God!”
And, finally, my fifth and final reason for not paying attention to the intrigues of the Coulombs, Patterson, Hodgson and Co. is an acquaintance with the protests against them, protests that, in most cases, were initiated through the first acquaintance with their testimony. Every impartial person always immediately rebelled against such slanders, – as Mr. Solovyov himself turned against them, then still looking at things sensibly and fairly.
This is what he himself wrote to my sister in a timely manner.
Paris. Rue Balzac 4.
Dear Helena Petrovna!.. Those two weeks here were not in vain. Sinnett and Crookes came here. I met them, but that's not the point, but the fact is that everything is arranged and prepared so that, at least here – that is, in the local press – to disgrace that foul of Coulomb and all the donkeys – though they would belong to some learned Society – who could at least give a moment's meaning to her infamous pamphlet. This brochure here aroused general indignation, and I did not even have to defend you to anyone – because after this nasty intrigue, sympathy for you only increased (!?!)... Ah! If we could see each other!
Sincerely yours, devoted and loving
This is what Mr. Solovyov thought and said before; and since my main goal in this article is not at all to justify my sister from the attacks of her other enemies – in front of whom she has long been justified – but to prove to the Russian public that one cannot believe the accusations and stories of Solovyov himself then I won’t talk about it any more. I also know that the evidence in tricks – which she herself called psychological tricks – will not undermine her authority and will not harm her or her cause in the opinion of the competent people, who do not believe all her merits to be several manifestations of power – in Europe, still unknown – learned by her when living in India. Eventually, however, they will be appreciated at its true value, as Radda-Bai was appreciated by the founder of Russkiy Vestnik so highly that he found time to be with her in personal correspondence in spite of being very busy.
Here are a few lines from one letter to my sister written by Mikh[ail] Nikif[orovich] Katkov, directly indicating his attitude to her and her cause.
Moscow
Dear Madam, Helena Petrovna!
I use the first idle minute to answer you. You cannot doubt my desire to ensure your cooperation in my publications.
I appreciate both your talent and your search in esoteric realms and do not belong to the “people of science” who believe wisdom in not wanting to know what they do not know.
I do not retreat before the reports of a purely fantastic property and if I'm at a loss, then only where the explanation begins to become some tendency, propaganda... I consider it a duty to say that at the heart of all religions I recognize the transcendental reality and do not consider it a fable; but I remain convinced that there is only one religion in which all transcendental religions find their true place and true illumination. And I would have to talk about this a lot, but I must hurry with my answer, which, I'm afraid, is too late, as it is... I'm amazed and happy about how strong and alive the Russian origin is in you – so long ago having left home – which is so good affects your language and your Russian sympathies.
Accept the assurance of my respect and sincere devotion.
Pointing at the beginning of this chapter to some sources where those who want to know how and by what means the supporters of H. P. Blavatsky refute the arguments of the Psychical Society, can read their testimonies, I, with the permission of Mr. Solovyov, will leave all that case long ago abolished by competent people, and resurrected from the dead only by him, I will take up raising objections to some of his own notes and remarks.
Although he accuses me of incorrect translations (why do such ugly and unsubstantiated accusations so easily come from the pen of the translator of Hodgson’s “Report?” All that remains for me is to be surprised!), and on page 229, Apr., R.V., he accuses me in the malicious unfounded testimony, but I boldly direct the last charge to him. Moreover, I will add to it that he raised his unfounded accusation against me in the direct hope that readers will not compare his instructions with my article in Russk. Vest... I ask those wishing to know the truth to make a comparison. They will see then what, undoubtedly, Mr. Solovyov must have seen namely, that I everywhere make references and I do not say by arbitrary conclusions, not even by the letters of my sister, but by the testimony of the witnesses who were there and among them the Cooper-Oakley. I emphasize this name not in vain, but because I still have to talk with my merciless “accuser” because of it.
On page 226 I find a witty message, in which Mr. Solovyov, with his usual frivolity, reproaches my sister for lying. She boasted to him that one theosophist offered her 40,000 rubles, the other two villages, the third offered to pay all the costs in the case against the Coulombs and the Jesuits; and she in the press says that she “does not have any money to hold the trial” ...
Indeed! It’s an amazing thing: good people give money, and a stupid woman does not take it – preferring to suffer personally, than to use the generosity of friends and ruin them for her cause. And if Mr. Solovyov knew, as I know it, how many times Helena [Petrovna] did such a foolish thing as refusing very large sums, when those who gave them demanded that she would take money for herself, and not use it for the Society, he would be even more surprised... If, after the first outbursts of despair, she did not understand that the slander and betrayal that tormented her would not at all tell on the Society, and theosophical movement would not be stopped – oh! then she would no doubt have taken advantage of the generous offerings of her devoted people. But she did not want to spend other people's money just to satisfy anybody’s self-esteem, or cause personal revenge and personal justification.
Can there really be people who do not understand or even condemn this?
(Pages 227). Regarding Mr. Solovyov's surprise, despite his efforts to translate my sister's letters into French (letters, it should be noted, written only for him, in moments of extreme distress, anxiety, in times full of despair); despite the zealous distribution, for the edification of the French, of the incriminating report and all sorts of truths and untruths, the Theosophical Society and her cause did not only die with her, but they are being expanded, and I will note again that no efforts of the enemies can change the essence and meaning of the works of H.P.B. He draws his readers' attention to the fact that her letters to him are “especially interesting for comparing them with actual facts.” I also hope that the comparison of his letters with what he is now saying will prove to be interesting.
On page 228, an extremely naive reference can be found. This is what Mr. Solovyov observes in her:
“When I asked Blavatsky, back in Paris, "to whom she left her house in Adyar," she replied: "Oh, I am quite at peace, there I have my old friend and assistant, Mme Coulomb, and her husband – people, entirely devoted to my cause" ... "Then, suddenly," he continues, "to my amazement, in the camp of the defenders of Blavatsky these friends and helpers turned into "bribed servants"...”
Only think! what has Mr. Solovev found to be surprised at!?.. Are there few examples, when old, devoted servants are considered as friends? It's also not surprising that sometimes servants are hypocritical and can betray, becoming enemies from friends … My sister had known the Coulombs for many years. Unaware that they had fled from Egypt and France, where they were being searched by the police, she met them in Bombay in total poverty, saved them from starvation; sheltered them, employed the wife as a housekeeper, and then, elevating her to a position like a secretary, since she could speak English and French. Her husband, with the move to Adyar, also after having been first employed as a delivery man and a carpenter, was given a position as an officer in charge of the library. At first, my sister did not call them servants out of delicacy; but after spreading disgusting gossips, making all sorts of tricks, luring money out of everyone, they had to be put in their place; and in the absence of the owners, they caused so much trouble and many problems for everyone in Adyar that Mr. George Lane-Fox left as a head of the department wrote to Colonel Olcott in Europe that he had to fire them and he told them that they should look for another job. It was then, when both the husband and the wife realized that it would be more advantageous for them to serve the Jesuits, who promised a good payment for incriminating Blavatsky in charlatanry. After asking Lane-Fox to give him time for finding employment, the husband began making his carpenter tricks in Helena Petrovna's bedroom, about which I tell (not from myself, but from the words of Mrs. Cooper-Oakley) on page 583 in my article about my sister in Russkoe Obozrenie; and the wife tried to sell Patterson her in advance trumped-up letters, which she had previously decided to use, but could not make up her mind[38]... What is Mr. Solovyov marveling at? At the mistake of my sister, who considered the Coulombs to be her devoted friends?.. But, my God, he must know that my poor sister was repeatedly mistaken in people and more than once she gave herself to the power of “unfaithful friends” through her excessive frankness. To be surprised at their treachery is also strange, on his part!.. Why is not he surprised at himself?.. He, after all, is no match for those plain people – a famous writer – but he turned from a devoted friend – into an ardent enemy!..
Of course, explaining that change, he refers to more or less prudent forces majeures[39]: excusing his hypocrisy through “jealousy for Russian Orthodoxy” and the desire to save the fatherland from an unknown danger; but, in fact, the traitors, the Coulombs acted for the same “noble sentiments.” The Jesuits, perhaps, directed their hearts and minds to “exposing the thief of souls,” so they suddenly realized and began to work “ad majorem Dei gloriam”[40] ... Nothing new!
Now about the expertise of handwriting. If Mr. Solovyov refers to the testimony given in the Report of the Psychical Society, the calligraphers of London who determined the similarity between the handwritings of Blavatsky and the Mahatmas, I can only ask him: why doesn’t he immediately give the opinion of the Berlin experts? After all, the opinion of the calligrapher at the Emperor of Germany court, and at the Berlin courts, Ernst Schuetz, who was produced, several letters from both “teachers” and H.P.B. by the whole commission, entered into all exculpatory articles of her defenders. And any conscientious narrator of events related about that intricate case should mention how determinedly the Berlin expert stated that in their handwriting “there was not a single similar feature” ... Similarly, the opinions of official experts in Madras were divided, which was witnessed in many non-theosophical organs of India and England. Not willing to offense all the calligraphers who served Hodgson and Solovyov, I will allow myself to ask an “unfounded” question: When my sister, overload with writing, with her enormous works, publication of her magazines, fictional articles in foreign journals (the latter only fed her), the formation of the Society, weekly lectures, etc., countless lessons, could find time to fabricate letters? And, not single ones, but series of them, of which two volumes are now compiled[41]. Moreover, in all sorts of Indian new and ancient languages!.. This is the first question that puzzles me, but the second one: who is writing them now?.. They continue to pour in exactly the same strange, “Tibetan”[42] – as the Theosophists call them, – envelopes and in the same handwriting. I have official documents for this from the Headquarters in London.
Let readers not think that I am writing this, wanting to prove the existence of the Mahatmas or the authenticity of their transcendental correspondence – by no means! I have not received their letters, nor seen them, and do not particularly care for them, – although in the name of truth I will say that I cannot deny their existence ... This is another, third-party question. Now I would just like to prove that it is unfair to make of my sister, who served the Society with many real merits, some whipping boy responsible for all its confusion and lawlessness-if such can be conceded.
Mr. Solovyov has another remarkable note, on page 235.
In order to explain – the possibility of its origin, I must say here that H. P. Blavatsky, among many of her good qualities, had one thing, brought to the extreme, and therefore turned into a flaw, because of which she had to suffer first: she hated hypocrisy. With friends and enemies she was always sincere; expressed her feelings directly and often so wittily stigmatized people who aroused her indignation or contempt that the nickname remained with them forever. Thus, she from early youth had a lot of enemies; especially in Tiflis, where she wrote a lively and faithful, but very biting satire on the contemporary society and it was passed from hand to hand. From this we can conclude how many ill-wishers there were there and how many impossible fables were told about her, in retaliation!
Some of them were very evil, others – ridiculous and very many cynical up to disgrace and untruth. For example, I will point out the fabrications used by the maid of honour Sm[irno]va (I do not know why Mr. Solovyov calls her “old Sm[irno]va” when she's still not old). Some liars, probably those inhabitants of Tiflis offended by Helena Petrovna’s wit, told her fables, which she, in the innocence of the soul, spread for truth. Because of those absurdities, Blavatsky had to resort to the testimony of her old acquaintance, Prince Dondukov-Korsakov, who was Commander-in-chief at the Caucasus, and who sent her an official certificate that she was not involved in any thefts or reprehensible cases, she had nothing to do with police and from Tiflis was not evicted, but left it at will. It is the very “testimony” that provokes the ridicule of Mr. Solovyov: as if it is worse than any disgrace!.. I agree, but what to do with other, indiscriminate accusations that do not disdain any weapon?..
By his remark (on page 235) about “absolutely impossible story in the press,” which he, however, found the opportunity to squeeze into one of the best Russian journals! – Mr. Solovyov reminded me of the remarkably correct definition of him by my sister, in one of the later letters:
“What have I done to that man? She exclaims. – Wishing to harm me, he is turning into the hyena-grave robber. He is digging out not only rubbish and garbage pits, but old, decayed graves and is beating me with bones of skeletons...”
Well, sewage of garbage pits is not a weapon of an honest enemy who respects himself and the human opinion about himself!..
Who did not have any sins in the past? Where is the chosen lucky one who, after looking back, will not see stumbling blocks in the past behind him, which with evil intents, can be built up in the mountains of impurity?.. But is it the business of respectable people to engage in this unseemly work?.. And who will not remember, when loading stones on other people's heads, and even more on other people's graves, the Saviour's words: “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first?..” Oh! how heavy, there must be this stone!..
But Mr. Solovyov ends his testimony in the April book of the Russkiy Vestnik with such a charm that it is impossible not to point out in all its inviolability.
He finds “the most curious” that I, accusing Hodgson of prejudiced bad faith, of the unilateral isolation in which he carried out the investigation in Adyar, content with the testimony of some prosecutors, cite the unseemly fact that he refused to show H.P.B. and friends, her letters, – fabricated by the housekeeper Coulomb.
I definitely condemned and still condemn it, completely agreeing with the opinion of the honest people pointing out this abuse, as the best proof that Hodgson was afraid of any comparisons. But, I confess, that the thought of Mr. Solovyov’s special explanation by which he justifies that incident, finding it possible even to praise Hodgson's wisdom in it could never occurred to me...
“As if it is not entirely clear (?!),” he declares, “that if such documents, which included the death sentence of "madame" (?!?) and her closest collaborators, were shown to those condemned to death (italics added), then they would not stand on ceremony: they would simply (?!) wrest documents from the hands of the investigator and destroy them...”
Oh-oh-oh!.. By what examples does Mr. Solovyov judge?!.
True, he very emphatically calls the Theosophists all kinds of shameful nicknames, but still!.. Or does he seriously think that such a thing is possible?!. Is it possible and even “simple”?!.
In that case, how happy I am that he did not have access to his letters kept by me.
VIII
In the May issue of Russkiy Vestnik, Solovyov continues to harping on the same string of the “report” of Hodgson, Myers and Co., the report which, in effect, ought to raise my sister to the degree of a woman of genius, especially in the eyes of people like him, not considering shaming to deceive and be hypocritical for public benefit. If he had the task of “saving the Parisian theosophists from the evil deceptions of the thief of souls,” H. P. Blavatsky herself had goals incomparably higher and more benevolent: the salvation of the whole of Western Europe, perhaps of the whole world, from the influx of materialism, from the deceptions of atheists, who do not believe in anything spiritual, who deny immortality and righteous retribution. A man holding Loyola's rules like him would have to bow before people who are not embarrassed by a “little lie” for the sake of great good.
This is simple logic!
So, I positively come to the conclusion that Mr. Solovyov, not knowing those aspects of H.P.B., for which straightforward and knowledgeable people respect my sister, in his own way glorifies her: her ability to cunning and inflate the most respectable public, for the sake of the public itself. He condemns in her his own manner of “influencing the masses”, probably out of habit not to confess his real feelings...
Involuntarily having come to this conclusion, I, from now on, abolish all feeling of indignation against him and even more cold-bloodedly I will try only to restore the truth from the point of view not so much of my own but of people who, in these matters, should rightly belong to authority.
Thus, I must attach a document that clearly proves the lie of Mr. Hodgson to the page XIII of the chapter of his work, or “pamphlet,” as he replaces everywhere the word article (without translating it for some reason from English, although it has a completely different meaning in Russian). Here are his words:
“Mr. Damodar and Mr. Bavaji are the chief persons who, according to their own experience, (except for Blavatsky), affirm the existence of the brotherhood in Tibet.”
This is what Hodgson says, and Mr. Solovyov is following him.
And here is what you can read in The Boston Courier, July 18, 1886. This is an official newspaper, which does not belong to the Theosophical Society on any side.
“We, the undersigned, were unspeakably surprised to read the "Report of the Psychical London Society" on Theosophy. We dare to say that the existence of the Mahatmas, otherwise the Sadhu, is in no way premeditated by Madame Blavatsky and no one else. Our great-great-grandfathers, who lived and died long before the birth of Mme Blavatsky, had complete faith in their existence and psychic powers, knew them and met them. And at the present time there are many persons in India who having nothing to do with the Theosophical Society are in constant communication with these Superior Beings. We have many means to prove these reliable facts; but we have neither the time nor the wish to prove this to the Europeans ...
“Let Mr. Hodgson and his "committee" – if they look seriously at the matter – look for the truths deeper, and then they, perhaps, will find that they hurried and made a very erroneous conclusion.
“Of course, Hodgson will not shake our beliefs at all; but only he and his committee showed great ignorance and utter ignorance of the history of India and the Hindus!... It seems to us that the notorious "Society for Psychical Research" did not satisfy the single hope of the mystics who placed their hope in its discovery; but it has never done before a grosser error, like its Report on the Theosophical Society.”
This “protest of the pundits (learned people) from Negapatam,” a country considered in India, as a repository of enlightenment, and especially of the experts of antiquity, was sent to Adyar signed by seventy people and kept there in the library; copies were sent from there, from Negapatam, and not from Adyar – to other countries, where they were published by many newspapers and republished by all twenty theosophical organs.
On pages 250 and 261 I find witty remark of Mr. Solovyov about my lies. He finds that, referring to the testimony of Sinnett, my sister's biographer, quite impartially, that is, declaring what I think of them as incorrect and what is certainly false, I “punish” myself (I appreciate the delicate remark of Gogol's expression!), like a non-commissioned officer’ wife in the “Inspector” ... It seems to me that the use of such a comparison with respect to a person who is much older than him, and besides being a woman, is not so much acrimonious to me but degrades good manners of the “brilliant Russian writer.” This, however, is a matter of taste, but since he found it possible to apply it to me, so I'm allowed to tell him that it was he who, with this Gogol phrase, flogged himself, and according to his deserts!
How is it not embarrassing for him to admit in public that he cannot understand the simplest conscientiousness? He reproaches me for pointing out an impartial lie, not analyzing, whether it is out of tune or in unison with my own desires?.. He does not understand that one can refer to other people's opinions in general, but it is necessary to state if something in them seems wrong?..
It's peculiar!.. Peculiar and – typical!
“Ten years ago,” my merciless denunciator comments ironically, “she published a pamphlet The Truth About H.P.B., and now (Russkoye Obozrenie, 1891, November, p. 249) admits that in this truth ... there was no truth!” After reading this, many readers, probably, will find me a liar; but meanwhile, here are my testimonies, from which Mr. Solovyov extracts his conviction.
Having begun the story of H. P. Blavatsky's early years when she had been missing for almost ten years, I frankly tell the readers that I prefer to keep silent about that time, because the stories about it told by my sisters were very confused and inconsistent. “She forgot so much and mixed up,” I say, “and, as in our conversations in recent years (that is, twenty years later, after her second and final departure from Russia) it turned out that she wanted to purposely hide the period that I prefer now to tell nothing about those years” ... The word – now – it is that related to what I expressed before – in a pamphlet written by me in 1881, that is before I saw my sister in twenty years of separation (from 1864 to 1884). Here are my words:
“Now (that is, having learned what I know now), I will not venture to argue that the little I told myself, from her words, in my pamphlet The Truth About H.P.B. would be full of truth.”
This is why Mr. Solovyov found it possible to reproach me for lying and exposing me to the ridicule of the Russian people, by comparison with Gogol's “non-commissioned officer’ wife.” Yes, it is up to the very readers to decide who mercilessly ... “punished oneself?”
I have never fooled readers and “lured” them – as he reproaches me there. For me, truth and always truth!
That's all my guilt before Mr. Solovyov, but I hope it would not disgrace me in the opinion of other, impartial people.
If he so obviously neglects the truth and shuffles his cards unfairly for living people – is it possible to believe his offensive testimony – against the dead?..
This I say in response to his story on page 254.
“She (H. P. Blavatsky),” he says, “was eager to become a secret agent of the Russian government in India.”
Was she eager and did she say about it to Mr. Solovyov?!? Lord have mercy, but in that case she was “absolutely, in general, or at that time” – speaking in the style of the author of “The Gorbatovs”[43], – an inveterate idiot or completely crazy. Was Solovyov then a chief of the secret police?.. On this side, his activities are completely unfamiliar to me!
Let’s jump to page 261 of the May issue of Russkiy Vestnik and read the last lines on it:
“It’s a real scandal in London (due to the "report" of Hodgson?). H. P. Blavatsky is staying in Würzburg and keeping silent (if the writer cherished the truth, he would say: she is writing her European-known work The Secret Doctrine both days and nights).” “But the Theosophists,” he continues, “expect that now she will rise and, with the help of the Mahatmas Morya, Koot Hoomi and their "chelas," will strike with such a response that all psychists will disappear from the face of the earth...”
Well yes, of course. But only Mr. Solovyov mixed himself personally with the all-powerful Mahatmas: after all, it was he, at this very time, promised to H.P.B. to produce “such a triumph that all psychists will be forgotten” (in the letter of October 8, 1885). And he also confirmed impressively: “Yes! So it will be!”
Well, it is clear that after that promise, everyone was waiting for the defeat of the perjurers Hodgson, Myers and Co.. And now he has forgotten all this and is laying his own intentions on the Mahatmas ... What an amazing man!
No, I should positively, according to Mr. Solovyov, be exiled, although in places not so remote!
On page 263, he solemnly accuses me of deliberately declaring “nonsense” (and all at the instigation of the vicious Theosophical Society, please, mind!), assuring that the letter from Mrs. Coulomb herself, where she swore, that “she didn’t speak about any deceptions” was found in Blavatsky’s papers.
“Everyone will easily understand,” he continues, “that if such a letter really existed, and it would be genuine, it would not have lain in the papers of Blavatsky until her death...”
After reading that “strict reprimand” for the inherent spread of “nonsense,” I got sad ... I brought my article in Novosti into the light of day to check what “nonsensical letter” of my own composition I published there?.. I am looking for: what kind of letter was there, of which those frivolous Theosophists took advantage only after the death of my sister?.. There is no such a thing!.. I collate cited by me letter in my translation ... and with a light heart I see it cited in almost all defensive articles written at the very time of the incident ... Thank God: once again Mr. Solovyov ... was mistaken!..
It is of course, – errare humanum est[44], – and to Mr. Solovyov, apparently, from this side, indeed, “nothing human is alien” – nevertheless, it is a little compromising to the historical narrator to carelessly treat materials. He ought to have read, well, at least one exculpatory article in defense of the person on whom he is so generously pouring only accusations under the guise of “her biography” ... Instead of asking me to send his letters back, he would have asked me for some books. I would have lent him them and even translated them with pleasure ... He would have seen then, on the first page of the pamphlet published by the investigative commission, in Madras in 1885, the very letter about which, according to his unceremonious statement, I said “nonsense.”
Since he himself – what a pity – did not cite it, and some readers of Russkiy Vestnik, perhaps, didn’t read the paper Novosti, so let me be allowed, in my sister's justification and to my pleasure, translate it again.
Here is the letter, published immediately after the infamous, treacherous comedy of the scoundrels Coulombs, the Jesuit Patterson and the “duped youth” Hodgson was played out. I will say in the explanation that it was written by “Coulombsha,” as our sister called her between us, while St. George Lane-Fox, Hartmann, and Damodar told her that they both husband and wife would look for another job; not quite sure of the generosity of Patterson, she still valued the affection of H. P. Blavatsky and hastened to write her in Europe the following:
“... Perhaps I said something in my anger, but I swear by all that is sacred to me, that I never uttered the words: deception, secret moves, traps; further, that my husband helped you, in whatever way. If my tongue uttered these words, I pray the Almighty to pour on my head the worst curses in nature.”
About at the same time she wrote to Olcott.
“... I never spoke about any deceptions! I never said that my husband was an accomplice of the madame. Why, I, at least, would be a fool if I blamed my husband, being the only person I love on earth, for assisting in such humiliating things!”
Both these letters are kept in Adyar. They were seen by hundreds of people interested in the case. Of course, I cannot show them; but I can show you a brochure where they were published in 1885.
Who says nonsense – Mr. Soloviev?
In the May volume of Russkiy Vestnik there are still two notes to which I must object (page 265). H.P.B. did not pretend to be a widow, but she was recognized as such by the Tiflis authorities, which sent her a certificate in 1884, where she was called a “widow of Dsd.[45] N. V. Blavatsky.” Not being with him in relations for more than twenty-five years, she completely lost sight of him and did not know as we didn’t, whether he is alive or dead. This is the fault of the Tiflis police, and not hers.
“What she gave to the Theosophical Society is unknown!” Mr. Solovyov exclaims (page 266).
Perhaps it is not known to him, although it is rather strange for a person involved in literature not to know that books bring something to the authors ... H.P.B. gave everything that she received for her English books during her lifetime to the Society; she spent for herself exclusively only what she earned publishing fiction in Russian and other foreign journals. In addition to her work during her lifetime, she still bequeathed to the Theosophical Society all her separate editions, all the income from her books for all time. If we take into account that some of them (like Isis and The Secret Doctrine) are very expensive and sold very quickly; that for 15 years the first book had 18 editions (3,000 copies each), and the second one, published three years ago and is still incomplete (the third part is now being published), has already issued in the third edition and is being prepared completely for the fourth edition, then the exclamation of Mr. Solovyov will, like much in his article, appear to be unfounded.
IX
After a break that lasted the whole summer, Mr. Solovyov, continuing his stories in the same spirit of an incorruptible “priest of truth,” declares to the readers of the September Russkiy Vestnik that after the departure of my sister (in the autumn of 1884) to India, he did not know anything about her throughout the winter.
I have to say to him one thing: if he was interested in her faits et gèstes[46], then he should not let her go away without asking her personally about everything on that memorable December evening when she showed up to him in a vision ... Why did he miss the opportunity to grab more firmly the folds of her “black robe” and not to let her “astral body” go back to India – since it could speak ...
Do you think I'm joking?.. Here, you can read this excerpt of his letter to me, of December 22, 1884.
“...Three weeks ago, we had dinner in a green dining room familiar to you, with V. I ate with an appetite; drank, as always, very little – in a word, was in my usual form. After I finished dinner, I went upstairs to my room, for a cigar. I opened the door, lit a match, lit a candle – and before me there stood Helena Petrovna, in her black robe ... She bowed, smiled – "Here I am!" – and disappeared. What is it??!! Again your question: a hallucination or not? – Yes, how do I know!? It is true that one can go mad! But I will try not to do this...” etc., signed by:
Well, what tricks happened to Vsev. Sergeevich!.. There he wasn’t blinded by any “portrait” of H. P. Blavatsky, and I think it was inconvenient for her to hypnotise him across the ocean! Well then, she surely visited him... And such a wonderful “fact” he, all of a sudden, in his memories of acquaintance with her, forgot to mention!.. Well, am I right, calling his memory very peculiar?.. It's good that his letter helped me to restore this gap in his acquaintance with her.
Then he also wrote to me on March 7, 1885:
“There recently was a young Gebhard who returned from India. He told me that H.P.B. was feeling very bad. Then we received a circular from Olcott, announcing a miracle that happened to her (her recovery). But, in any case, in my opinion, her days are numbered. Awfully early!.. And she is not old, and most importantly – her mind is clear and literary talent is in full development ... Well, why talk about this!..”
When my sister came back to Europe in spring and wrote a letter to him from Naples (cited on page 153), he himself burst out in an unselfishly joyful greeting.
Dear Helena Petrovna, I do not know how to express to you, to what extent I am glad that you are back in Europe! – it seems to me that you are closer and that a rendezvous is possible. However, your departure from India did not seem a news to me: at the very first tidings of your moving through Asia[47], A. began to assure me that you would inevitably get any trouble with the British and that you would leave.
Do you remember, I told you, that the time is coming for the Russian and the Hindu to become friends? It seemed to you that it would not be soon. But you see – apart from human desires and plans, the inevitable historical destinies do their job ... I cannot get Russkiy Vestnik here, but I was informed long ago from Moscow, that your Blue Mountains should appear soon. That's right, they have already been published. Now it's high time to write about India ... Get well!!! Drop a word. I will write to you, being free from work, and often.
Yours sincerely devoted
At the same time, Mr. Solovyov in almost every letter informed me of my sister in a friendly manner and “about her affairs in Paris,” although that time he was busy, very busy and, in extremely reduced circumstances. I mention this not without purpose: on page 160 (Sept., Russkiy Vestnik), he gives readers the opportunity to assume that he was so generous that – quand même, despite everything – helped my sister in her temporary need ...
“In a few days,” he says, “at the most critical moment for herself, Helena Petrovna received a "certain amount of money from an unknown friend" and, of course, wanted to know – who had come to her help?.. She wrote to Mme de Monsieur…” etc.
“Of course, Mme de Morsier could not tell her anything...”
It’s a pity! “Some amount,” probably, would have been returned to the “unknown friend” long ago, if my sister or I could have guessed his identity – but it was quite impossible to suspect Mr. Solovyov's generosity in this: his simultaneous letters to us, from the 3rd, 18 and 19 May 1885 equally tell of his own extreme, at the time, impoverishment ... All the letters I have before my eyes: I, as soon as I read this indirect confession – immediately turned to them, and I see in his letter to me such details about who and how “robbed” the poor Mr. Solovyov (and without that being already according to his expression, “tout à fait à sec”[48]), that I was completely touched by his virtuous generosity!.. How could he endure so long – magnanimously waiting for the death of his unconscious debtor – to finally give the world an example of such a classic exploit, when she could no longer either to repay, or to thank him?
But, obviously, “feats of magnanimity” are not uncommon for Mr. Solovyov! Here is another one: a letter to my sister from May 18, 1886. If you take into account that it was written by him precisely in those days when, having endowed his enemy with “some amount,” he immediately became convinced (for the tenth time!) in her criminality (which he states on page 163: “Before me there was a massacre of some two grandiose poissards[49]”, etc.), this letter is positively a feat. So I give it here as completely as possible.
Paris. Rue Pergolese 48.
Dear Helena Petrovna, what does this mean? I wrote to you twice and I myself dropped the letters to the post office. I received one letter from you in which you informed me about your arrival in Torre del Greco. Today, Mme de Morsier told me that you had not received my letters. I immediately sent you a telegram; I have registered the letter!.. It is inconceivable where our letters disappear!.. But, in any case, you have no right to doubt my sincere attitude to you. I am not changing – it's not in my nature! I am very ill too, dear H.P.B., I have a severe liver disease, and no one has helped me here. Misfortunes and troubles are beyond count...
Believe that I'm doing my best to come to you if only I have a week's time and enough strength. But in my position it's so difficult, I'm so tightly constrained, that I'm very much afraid that it will remain a dream ... What should I do?.. I have no right to live my life ... I have a dream to spend this spring in Italy – then I would, so to speak, accidentally (?!) meet with you...
Here are details of how he was deceived and robbed, and then further:
In general, I was greatly disappointed in the local people. Any relationship, at first pleasant, invariably ended in all sorts of exploitation and a gross encroachment on my pocket...
Today there was a meeting with Mohini at Mme de Morsieu’s. Mohini was talking to Richet (?!); but they do not understand and cannot understand each other. Tomorrow I am having a meeting. Mme de Morsier arranged it without asking me beforehand and suddenly your duchesse turns to me and asks a permission to come ... I had to bow to her with a sweet smile. But how it pleases me – you can judge! – Yes it's all nonsense, everything here is un mauvais quart d'heure à passer, rien que ça[50]!.. The trickery of your enemies regarding the study of phenomena may be a trifle. But force must be countered with force! I must see you! But I have one head, two arms, two legs, a very sick body, and besides karma binds me in all directions ... What can I do about it?! Please write at least something. Get well, this our heartfelt desire for you.
Mr. Solovyov's letter, quoted by me in Chapter VII, belongs to the same time, in it he affirms that the general sympathy and respect for my sister could only increase after the intrigues of “this bastard Coulomb” and the “donkeys,” scientists (psychologists?).
Are these the very letters with which he contemptuously informed Blavatsky that – he “did not believe any of her Mahatmas and phenomena?” – the letters about which he speaks so confidently at the end of XVI chapter of his work? Where is in them an excuse for H.P.B. to ask him, even for the sake of their friendship, not to leave the Society? In the letters he does not even express in the slightest intention to leave it ... It’s strange!.. Or have those strict and mocking letters of an incorruptible “priest of truth” to the unworthy even his pity, a deceptive “priestess,” the goddess of the pagans, evaporated?.. For, judging by the dates, at the time Blavatsky did not receive any other letters... Did not her “shells” play a cruel joke with him?.. Anything can happen in nature.
But, as for the funny story of Mr. Solovyov about the error in spelling by a “little Hindu” Bawaji, I must declare my unshakable confidence that if in fact he, “wrote at the instigation of Blavatsky instead of "blessed are the believers" – "blessed are the liars"” – he did so at her own will ... She could easily play such a joke on Mr. Solovyov! Several letters from her, at that time, testify that she had already noticed some foible in his speech; because she complains to me about some troubles that occurred due to his not quite true testimony and talkativeness (she then considered these manifestations of hypocrisy on his part to be only frivolous talkativeness). Addressing this hint, about the bliss of the liars, directly to Mr. Solovyov, she probably wanted to hint him and laugh at him. He chose not to understand her irony!
X
The October article by Mr. Solovyov begins with a spectacular scene: the careless H. P. Blavatsky made a blunder, having dropped a “silver bell” (the one from which the ringing was not heard, but the chords of a string instrument, like an aeolian harp that I and many people heard, not guessing about such an interesting “thing”). Of course, he lifted it politely and gave it to her, without refraining from smiling, by which he showed her that he had discovered her deceit (pages 231 and 232).
“Helena Petrovna,” he says, “has changed in her face and snatched the thing from me. I gave a meaningful grunt (oh, Mephistopheles!), smiled and began to speak of a quite another thing...”
Willing to give Solovyov another chance – “to grunt meaningfully” and ... “begin to speak of a quite another thing,” we remind him of one of his – also “meaningful” – letters sent to London:
Paris. Rue Pergolese.
“Dear Helena Petrovna, I did not write to you because there was something wrong in a small house with a garden. Now somehow things calmed down. Karma is cruel!.. At some grave moment, a non-existing bell was clearly and loudly ringing on the table, and a sudden thought about you flashed through my mind and heart...” and so on.
Which bell was it, that in difficult moments of life consoled Mr. Solovyov?!
Probably a distant relative of the “little silver thing” he lifted in Würzburg?.. It’s funny!
He amusingly continues to talk about a bottle of bigarade oil, which my sister wanted him to think that the Mahatma sent him some rose oil from Tibet as a present, and she adroitly dropped it in his pocket. But Mr. Soloviev is an old sparrow! A d'autres[51]!.. The clumsy, fat woman (who also barely moved her hands and feet swollen with rheumatism, according to his own testimony) – even though she acted with the quickness of a pickpocket, could dupe him by no means!.. Here again, the poor one, played the fool!.. What can one do: do not encroach on such vigilant and sensitive people!.. And, by the way, do not give them the keys to your cherished boxes...
Poor, witty Helena Petrovna! She herself sent Mr. Solovyov to look for a portrait; she herself gave him the key to where she hid (badly hid!) envelopes, for the falsified by her the Mahatmas’ letters, and she thus gave herself away to the whole world (although not as a clever liar, but as a born fool) – for, Mr. Solovyov, having waited exactly seven years until her death, mercilessly told about all the stupid things she had committed ...
But if, in Chapter XIX, Mr. Solovyov exposes my sister as a deceiver and an idiot, then we must do justice to him, that he did not spare himself either! I am sure that many honest people who read his stories about how he wriggled, being cunning, flattered and deceived in order to catch another person in wrongdoings no worse than his own; Mr. Solovyov himself in all his splendour intelligence, ingenuity and nobility has become incomparably more antipathetic than the one whom he wished to put to execution. One shouldn’t, however, forget that he is inclined to ... fantasy!..
After reading his righteous speech (page 234): “It's time, at last, to finish this comedy ... Is it really not clear to you that in Paris (does he mean June 1884?) I was convinced of the falsity of your phenomena?” etc.; having read it and compared these indignant speeches with what he did when he returned to Paris – namely, remembering his letter of October 8, 1885, the only thing you have to do is to lift your hands with surprise!.. Willy-nilly, I should again remind the readers of this letter that I already quoted several times, concerning Mr. Solovyov’s diligent convicting Professor S. Richet, “in the reality of the phenomena” and the personal psychic power of H. P. Blavatsky.
Here is its beginning:
Paris
Dear Helena Petrovna, what is better: to write in vain or be silent and act for the benefit of your correspondent?.. I made friends with Mme Adam[52], told her a lot about you, she got very interested and told me that her Revue is open not only for theosophy, but also for the protection of you personally, if necessary. I praised Mme de Morsier to her, at the same time there was another person who spoke in your favour in the same tone, and Mme Adam wished to get acquainted with Mme de Morsier, who is staying in Paris as an official mediator between me and Nouvelle Revue. Yesterday, the acquaintance of these ladies took place, our Emilia (de Morsier) is in full delight ... In any case, it's very good. Today I spent the morning with Richet and again spoke a lot about you, in relation to Myers and the Psychic Society. I can positively say that I have convinced Richet in reality of your personal power and the phenomena (?) coming from you…”, etc. –
already known to our readers, which triumph would be, to the ruin of the psychists when he, Mr. Solovyov, is able to answer Richet the third (?) question “in the affirmative”...
Yes, it will be so! – he finishes this meaningful letter – for, you did not play me like a pawn, did you?!.. I'm leaving the day after tomorrow for Petersburg ... something should happen?!
Yours, cordially faithful,
Now I boldly appeal to all sensible, fair and reasonable people and ask them:
“Would have Mr. Solovyov really written such a letter to my sister, on his return from Würzburg, if that what he is now writing really had happened between him and her there?!”
Do the readers agree with me that, despite all the shamelessness of hypocrisy in which Mr. Solovyov himself confesses, it is difficult to imagine that after full rupture, after all the stupid filth that he ascribes to my sister (Bavaji's instigation, caught envelopes and a bell, dropping bottles with oil in pockets and the like of absurdity), he would take the shameful liberty of convincing such people as Richet and Mme Adam in her favour? The European-known people who at any given time can publically ask him how he dared to fool them?.. And on the other hand, if we assume that he invented all that and did not convince them of rightness and “real power” of H. P. Blavatsky, it is she, Blavatsky, who, as it were, accepted such a letter of the person who humiliated, exposed her and just mixed her with dirt and immediately made her happy with the notice that he had turned two of the foremost people of Europe to friendship and belief in her?!.
Is it compatible? Is it possible?! Does this letter (from October 8, 1885) serve as irrefutable evidence that everything he told on two hundred pages of Russkiy Vestnik of October is his later fiction for fun and his new fooling the public?
I know for certain that when he arrived in Petersburg in winter, he believed not only in the possibility of the existence of the Mahatmas, but also waited for charity from them. He told us all about that when he arrived in St. Petersburg; however, the last words in the letter confirm it.
I suppose it's too much to object page 241, where it is alleged that H.P.B. beat and tyrannized Bawaji (as previously reported that she tyrannized Colonel Olcott too)... In Mr. Solovyov's article, there are many such pages, which (as one person who is quite close to him, recently wrote to me,) “one would really like to turn with a pair of tweezers, so nasty they are”…
To such ... inconvenient pages belongs page 246 of the 20th chapter.
I ask readers to pay attention to Mr. Solovyov's letter to my sister of May 3, 1885, where he reminds her of how she did not want to believe him when he foretold to her “soon drawing together of the Hindu and the Russian” – and to decide whether the disbelief of H. P. Blavatsky agrees with the words that he is now ascribing to her: “I will easily organize a huge uprising. I guarantee that in a year of time the whole India will be in Russian hands!”
But I certify that my sister would never have said such a stupidity!
And now, let my sister herself, out of the coffin, speaks for herself – maybe, her justification will be believed by impartial people. She wrote the letter to me in the spring of 1886 from Elberfeld, where she begged me to come and where Mr. Solovyov did not want me to come very much.
Elberfeld
Solovyov accuses me now that I offered myself to him as a spy of the Russian government in India ... If a person in his right mind thinks about such a charge seriously, he will see its nonsense. I have been publicly accused of spying for Russia and they make this having the goal and the direct motive of all the false (supposedly) phenomena and the “Mahatmas invented by me!” I, almost dying, was sent out of India because of such a ridiculous accusation, which, despite its absurdity, could be ended for me by prison and exile only because I am Russian and, I was already a victim of that slander, not knowing a thing in politics, – and I will offer myself a spy!.. And ... to whom? – To Solovyov!!. To him, – knowing him for uncontrollable talker and gossip!.. Well, do I want to be hung, or what?!. Why, I would close to myself forever entering India by this. After all, he, spreading these rumours about me, plays directly into the hand of England and ruins me for nothing, for no reason! After all, he himself, in the course of five weeks (starting with hints from Paris!), persuaded me daily (N[adezhda][53] and Ts[orn][54] – they know) to return to Russian citizenship, to use all my influence on the Hindus against the British and for the Russian. He told that it was a noble, great cause and that it would prove my patriotism! He asked and begged to put on paper all that I can do in the respect for Russia in India, and that he himself will present that paper, or “project,” in Petersburg ... I replied to all his words that I was ready to die, to lay my life and soul down for Russia; that there was no Russian citizen in Russia, more committed to the Sovereign and homeland than I was, a citizen of America; but that I was incapable of the matter, knowing not a thing in politics, and only would risk my neck and hundreds of Indians if I had decided to do so.
Here, Vera, is the holy truth, which I will repeat when I die. If I have ceased to be Russian Orthodox or any Christian believer, I deeply believe in the afterlife, in punishment and retribution. I swear by all the powers of heaven, that I say the truth alone...
And does he have a brass forehead[55] to lay his words on me?
It's disgusting to talk about him and remember how sincerely I loved him and trusted him!.. Vera, beware! He will go against you and stab you without a knife!
Are these words prophetic? Is not the present effort of Mr. Solovyov to show me to my friends a liar, a juggler, a traitor and so on, – an attempt to stab me morally?.. But, for the happiness of honest people, such gentlemen have bad knives, grinded by themselves!
Mr. Solovyov states that while he was in Russia, “the most outrageous story caused by the victim of Don Juan's inclinations of Mohini” was played out (page 251). I affirm and, if there was not a shortage of space and time, I would have named dozens of witnesses to it, that no one, but Mr. Solovyov himself, had brewed all that mess in Paris with the help of his “hypnotized” – as people, close to him and know their relationship call her – victim, Mme de Morsier, and no one, but he himself (and not Blavatsky), played a “very bad role” in that story. I will tell, in brief, everything that I know about it for sure; but, first of all, I should cite two more letters of Mr. Solovyov to fully describe his relationship to persons involved in the new gossip, being not really played out, since Miss L. was just a dreamer, and Mohini was not guilty before her at all. Here are two letters of Mr. Solovyov.
(Without date)
Dear Helena Petrovna.
Mohini is a very clever man, and I believe that he will be honoured by his teacher with great praise for the stay in Paris. To arrange something really good and serious with the local gentlemen is of no human abilities; but he has done what could be done.
Today at Morsier’s (it was the last meeting) he has been magnificent! He spoke so well, cleverly and, most importantly, to the point, that I really wanted to kiss his Brahmin’s inaccessibleness with my lips, spoiled by wine drinking, meat-eating and sinful kisses. Although I am known here as a skeptic who struggles with every sort of occultism (?!) and even with you, but still, since it is also known that I am your compatriot and devoted to you, as “Helena Petrovna,” my words may seem biased and not make a proper impression. Meanwhile, Mohini is something like a small infallible Pope, in whose mouth there is no lie or bias. In view of this, I asked him to tell us everything he knows about you and give you a testimonial. He proceeded to do this perfectly well and began to make a strong impression. But since he was going to leave with the evening train, I, looking at the clock, was convinced that I had to interrupt immediately the started conversation, to rush for his things being at my place, to feed him and rush to catch the train – or it would be late ... Suddenly something strange happened to me! I got all cold (they touched my hands – like ice!) Head went around, I closed my eyes; something was passing on from me to the present there somnambulist, Edward, due to which he began to snore – and I, with my eyes closed, – saw you and felt (?!) that you wanted Mohini to stay until the morning train...
I had to inform everyone about that ... Mohini stayed and finished his brilliant, convincing talk.
Now, of course, everyone is waiting to know what it was really like: the actual transmission of your thought and desire at a distance, your magnetic influence on me – or my fantasy, but, perhaps, even a fiction. More than anybody else, of course, I'm interested in it, so I ask you not to leave us in the unknown. If that was true, then let Mohini immediately report about it to Mme de Morsier, while Dramar has not left yet.
I’m looking forward to hearing from you, be healthy and strong.
Yours,
The second letter is also without a date, but it is evident from the context that it was written after returning from Würzburg in the autumn of 1885.
Dear Helena Petrovna, Bavaji is now with us and in an hour A. will take him to the station to leave for Wurzburg. My head literally goes around from various big and small affairs (??). I'll send a letter in French concerning Mashka tomorrow. As for Mme L. (the same Englishwoman who had so severely slandered Mohini, – V.Z.) – your warning came too late[56]; but do not worry: after recommending herself as a friend of Sinnett, the person took possession of de Morsier, and I found her treating Morsier, as some miracle and a holy one ...
I did not shoot any Mephistophelian glances, but told her not to make much of that theosophist, because she wanted to seduce a chela, who, however, was at the height of his calling and mission. So, you see, the reputation of Mohini does not suffer at all and there cannot be any trouble for you (?!); moreover, de Morsieu reacted to the unsuccessful seduction extremely leniently (?!).
And then Bawaji told her the whole story; but without me, and I do not know how he did it ... Imagine! Cette pauvre enfant[57] – an old girl, under forty, with yellow, painted hair and a face representing a kind of box with powder, which is pouring down!.. Of course, no one will suspect that poor Mohini when looking at her.
I'll send you Isis on one of these days ... We’re sending you our warmest regards. Be healthy, do not torment yourself for nothing and do not torment poor Bavaji, who can go crazy in cold Germany.
Yours sincerely devoted
How that friendly letter fits perfectly with Mr. Solovyov's farewell to H. P. Blavatsky in that strictly instructive form, as he now paints it (p. 249)! How are his words to Madame de Morsier that “Mohini remained at the height of his mission” consistent with the trivial abuse and the words about the poor Hindu, as though my sister reprimanded him in Mr. Solovyov present, about which he speaks on page 249, October R.V.:
“She gave me the opportunity to leave her forever without a feeling of pity!” – he declares (p. 260).
Amazed and shocked readers expect that he is returning to Paris and finally executing the criminal! He describes it in his article in such a way, that readers are more amazed by courage of Blavatsky, whom he tells about further (p. 251):
“She did not want to admit that our relations were finished, that I had said goodbye to her forever ... She counted on my pity for the sick and old woman, finally, on my "politeness" (?!). Well, how can I not answer when she is complaining about her suffering and appealing to my heart?.. However, I found that it was too much ... I stopped responding to her letters...”
What incorrupt rigor! What an inexorable sentence!.. We would have the right to consider Mr. Solovyov, judging by his Modern Priestess of Isis, for the unyielding husband of honour in relation to truth, for the true priest of truth, if ... if small, gray sheets of postal paper would not give away him and his jokes completely!..
Yes! He is more kind in deeds than in words, that forgetful Mr. Solovyov: I do not know what exactly he thought about my sister, but his letters (as seen from the above) were written to her in a very frivolous friendly style and he conscientiously tried to find for her useful friends in the sphere of science and literature – convincing Charles Richet, Mme Adam, and probably many other persons, in her psychic powers.
Farceur[58]!.. It is now that he came up with playing the judge and the executioner.
XI
Now it's time to start speaking on behalf of myself, that is, not to refute only Mr. Solovyov's falsity by using his own letters, but to tell the real truth, known not to me alone, and almost completely written down in our letters and diaries.
When, in the autumn of 1885, Mr. Solovyov came to Petersburg, he, as a deeply devoted friend (as he showed himself during the almost two-year intensive correspondence with me and my two elder daughters, not to mention his devotion to my sister) visited us every day. His correspondence – about all sorts of interesting subjects, mainly about literature, about poetry and their best representatives, – was very interesting to my daughters; he himself was even more interesting to all of us with his live stories, his original mystical views on everything in the world and his good-natured sincerity, sometimes reaching extremity. He got the last feature so well into his habit that he positively fascinated us with his truthfulness ... But most of all, we must admit that we were attracted to him by his “misfortunes,” his undeservedly difficult situation in the family, the bad, “unjust,” as we thought then, relationship to him of all those close to him in blood and the romantic details of his then existence, which was presented to us from the most sublime, sympathetic side ... In a word, Vsevolod Sergeevich easily occupied in our family, which had just moved to St. Petersburg from the south and was sad for lack of family or friend connections, – a place of a very close and dear friend.
There for the first time we began to hear from him questionable, even unfriendly testimonials about my sister and her work. To prove the extent to which this change was unexpected, I quote a few lines from Elena Petrovna's letter proving that for her such volte-face [59] of Mr. Solovyov was a surprise too – ergo[60] his break with her and all the entertaining “scenes” of his stay in Würzburg are the fruits of his later, novel works. In response to my astonished reports on what I first heard from him, she wrote to me on February 2, 1886.
“You are an amazing subject, Vera Petrovna! Well, why shall I answer you with "abuse"?.. Because you, according to your inner understanding and conscience, tell me what you think?.. It would not be, certainly, in the theosophical way on my part. But it is my direct duty to answer and I must answer with "abuse" at the address of those who lie to you, turning you against myself and those who are not guilty of anything and love you more than you think they do[61] ...
“In your short letter, a new and unattractive light shines through, in which Theosophy, and I, and Mohini, and even some good Christians are presented to you ... Well, so listen to my song too – and do not take a sin upon your soul, – to condemn people for slander, without any investigating ...”
Then a long description of the scandal with Miss L. and Mohini comes, indicating the real source of these gossips and the main “exaggerator” of them. But none of us believed the last statement of my sister. In our opinion, Mme de Morsier and everything in the world could be guilty – but certainly not Vsevolod Sergeich!.. I continue to extract from the letter of my sister.
“…Further you write that 1) the Society is breaking up; 2) that it goes against Christianity; 3) that Solovyov is leaving the Society because he got convinced of its anti-Christianity. – Three lies!.. Never has the Society stood so firm as now ... (details) ... Who told you about the disintegration of the Theosophical Society?.. Was it Solovyov?!. De Morsier described him in such a way, didn’t she?.. Is the society against Christianity? It is so against it, that members of the Anglican church, liberals, join it, but the Christians who are zealous; Lady Caithness is writing a book Christian Theosophy; Mr. Bannon is writing another book Christ in Theosophy, etc. And as for the fact that Vsev. Sergeyevich broke up with the Society because he found it not Christian, I'll tell you that he probably made that discovery in your living room ... Neither I nor anyone here (in Wurzburg) has heard from him anything like that. And if it were, it would surely have been heard ... He could not keep silent, if only he thought that way...”
(I ask you to note how I got caught in the middle and had to take the rap!.. I also ask you to note the further testimony of H.P.B., about farewells in Wurzburg, and take into account that my sister could not lie, even if she wanted, for there were other witnesses who unanimously confirmed to me what she wrote).
“We were parting with him as close relatives almost with bitter tears ... I have not heard a word, except for vows to intercede for me in Russia (sic!), to help in everything. And now he suddenly became silent! For no reason, it started already in St. Petersburg... You do not know due to the innocence of your soul, but I know: he just got scared of the abuse of the Psychic Society!.. You see, it mentioned Gentilhomme'e de la Chambre[62] who was either lying or hallucinating ... But will you read the attached letter to me, written just before he left Paris. "I'm sure that will come true!" You did not play me as a pawn, did you?" he writes ... He evidently just got angry that what he expected had not happened yet, that's an excuse: "anti-Christianity"!.. Ah, Vera, Vera! You are a clever woman, but you allow yourself to be fooled ... Sin on Vsevolod Sergeyitch! A double sin: both for slander, and for it’s not him to throw a stone at Mohini, if there was really something!.. All his good intentions disappeared, as soon as what he expected to happen in two or three-month period, had not happened ... The very letter of his will prove to you that it is not because he took a dislike to me, that my society is "anti-Christian"!.. Look deeper ... As for my anti-Christianity, you know it. I am an enemy of Catholic and Protestant church excesses; the ideal of the crucified Christ brightens for me every day more clearly and purer, and as for the Russian Orthodox church – let them hang me – I will not go against it! Russia is so dear to me, my heart is so sad for my motherland, for I would give my soul into bondage for ten thousand years for it. But I do not want to be a hypocrite. That's the whole truth for you, every indignation and pain in me soul. And I have suffered a lot for these ten years!.. I have redeemed past sins with good deeds, as far as I could, – I hope that I will appear with a blank sheet, if my agony is taken into account; but ... as a sinful person I would like to be condemned here and not without an appeal!.. I would not like to die, leaving a muddy spattered name...”
In recent years Elena Petrovna finished her letters with such an yelling cry from the depths of her painful soul. I am sure that many readers will understand that a moral duty to whitewash her memory, as far as possible, from the malicious and deceitful censures of unscrupulous enemies, awakens in me with renewed vigour when reading such letters of my sister and I should, for her and for myself, satisfy this just desire.
Nevertheless, although the feeling of pity for the moral and physical suffering of my sister often tormented me, but I never thought for a minute that mine and the whole family indignation against her, distrust and prejudice against our common loved ones with her, had been aroused by either fiction, or by on the fly caught outbursts of their anger, just as skillfully excited (in Würzburg) against me, as in St. Petersburg my anger was excited against them. And it was not excited for anything else, but to force me and my family to blurt out in the moments of extreme excitement – and to give him an opportunity to increase the accumulation of information that Mr. Solovyov called so picturesque his “baggage”...
“At that time there was some misunderstanding between Mrs. Ygrek and Helena Petrovna,” he surely informs his readers (October, Russkiy Vestnik, p. 252).
But he does not inform them who created that misunderstanding. Who needed it to be stirred up and supported by all sorts of untruths that reached even the assurances that both my sister and another person close to me claimed that I had concealed the money of our deceased father...[63] To justify my then madness, I can say the only thing: I was so strongly incited that I couldn’t even realize that neither my sister nor any of the relatives could say this, for they knew that my father had died while living away from me, with his other children in Stavropol, a thousand miles from Tiflis, where I lived without break.
And then, when I got to half-madness, and my children flew to an extreme degree in rage for me, – everything was carefully taken into account and everything that could come off our tongues in the most extreme exaggerated sense of irritation was recorded. Those letters belong to that kind of “baggage” of Mr. Solovyov, which he now published under the transparent cover of the nickname given to me by him, the letter “Y”. Not only that all our conversations were recorded, but they were immediately transmitted to à qui de droit[64], exactly in the same manner as all that was said and not said in Würzburg was transmitted to us, with the most cold-blooded consideration set us against H.P.B. Here is an excerpt from my sister's letter of March 28, 1886, directly indicating it. At the beginning of it, she exhausts all her eloquence in order to correct the evil effect on me by my slandering on people close to us, in order to reconcile us, urging us not to blame each other with angry speeches and letters.
“It's sinful, Vera,” she says, “and it's just terrible for me!.. After all, it's necessary to tell the truth: they got angry with you because of me! I've done something stupid. Grumbling and angry with you, I sent Solovyov’s letter to me there, which he begins in the most mysterious way: "After what has happened, we have nothing more to talk with you about!" – and he ends with some hints to things that were twenty and thirty years ago... Where did he hear all this?.. Let's say that there are people in Petersburg who know something and could tell him – but not in such details, Vera! I'm not angry with you, I understand your irritation; but she is more to me than just a relative, she is a friend of my life, and she was indignant for me, having learned that all the nightmares of my youth with which I tortured myself now became the property of the Mme de Morsier salon, and they were picked up by Solovyov in your house! To be honest: no the Coulombs, no psychiatrists, no one has done me as much harm as those Solovyov's gossip!.. For fifteen years I have been working tirelessly for the benefit of people, doing good to anybody with anything I could; I tried to get the forgiveness of my sins through deeds. How many women and men I saved from debauchery, drunkenness, all sorts of sins, turning them to believe in immortality, in the spiritual side of being; and now I'm standing spattered – more! Covered with a thick layer of mud and by whom?.. Solovyov, he, he – with his grave sin in his soul – he first is throwing a stone at me[65]!... You say: "recklessness." A good recklessness! He has killed me, sold me like Judas, because "onhait toujous ceux à qui l'on fait du mal sans raison"[66] – he has no other reasons for hatred for me!.. He has gossiped, ruined and begun to hate even more!”
Well, that's how Mr. Solovyov took advantage of our trust in the moments when he excited and irritated us against my sister. All this would be buried forever – if he himself did not want to force me to confess myself and unwillingly to surrender to the Russians not only myself, but all his actions, intrigues and falsity.
If his skillful maneuvers could drive me, a woman incomparably more cold-blooded than my sister was, to the oblivion of reason – what's so surprising that she, who was distinguished by sincerity and quick temper all her life, wrote crazy letters to him?.. In the letter, cited in chapter XXII, I recognize her hot temper, which reached, in moments of excitement, insanity. I recognize her ... But at the same time – I recognize this letter as well ... It is the same letter that made so much noise in Paris and turned away many of the Theosophists from Blavatsky, like an ardent Mme de Morsier, who believed his French translation, which had never been shown to me neither by Mr. Solovyov nor anyone else[67], but the sense of which was conveyed to me by many of its readers, when I stayed at my sister’s next summer. The main point of this translation, they told me (please note that I do not affirm the full truth of these statements, for, I repeat – no one wanted to show me a French letter) – was that “Blavatsky denied the Mahatmas and confessed that she invented their existence.”
This fact mainly angered the Parisians against H. P. Blavatsky; but, as readers see, there is nothing of the kind in her letter – in her Russian letters. Where did it come from in the French translation – and even in a certified one?.. “The Mystery is great” – between Mr. Solovyov and Mrs. Morsier...
I will return to this episode when I speak about the November issue of Russkiy Vestnik; now it is time to cite the last letter, – really the last one of Mr. Solovyov to my sister. It is written in response to the information given on pages 255-259 of Russkiy Vestnik for October.
Helena Petrovna! You are too smart a woman to indulge in a frenzy of madness, in which you wrote your letter yesterday, entitled “confession.” If I really were your personal enemy, I would now triumphantly expect your appearance in Paris (?!) or London (?!?) and would be coolly present at your death (!?!), which can be harmful to me in no way now, for while I was acquainted with you, I acted consciously. My every step taken in relation to you, every word I have spoken to you or written, directly points to my goal (?!), in which for me, as for a Russian man and a Christian, there is no dishonour!
(Up to the last phrase, underlined by me, all the italics were added by Mr. Solovyov himself).
“As you know, I have reached my goal – not in vain I had been staying in stinking Würzburg for 6 weeks! – Do you really think that I can be frightened by insolent slander and lies and that I have not been prepared for you, just in case – for I have always been waiting anything from you, – a fair amount of surprises (?!?). It is you yourself who are only your own worst enemy and you do not know what you are doing and what you are aiming at; – I know perfectly well what I'm doing and what will happen, although your Mahatmas do not incite me ... After all, my head is cold, as you yourself said; well, and you have a hot one up to incomprehensibility and when it burns, you do not see anything (sic).
“Do you want a scandal? You had few of them, did you?! Well, – please, welcome! And let’s start.
“In the story of Mohini with Miss L. – who is pregnant with him (this indication turned out to be a lie – if you do not assume that she is still eight years pregnant, V. Zh.), I did not take any part, it's not over my parts. I was in Russia all the time…”
(Here again I must interrupt this remarkable message to remind readers of Mr. Solovyov’s letter, where he informs my sister that her request, not to spread the gossip, came “too late.” He really was in Russia when they played out the consequences of those gossip, but of their creators, indisputably, he was one of the main).
... I knew the story from the letters of Mme de Morsier. Then Miss L. appealed to my honour, asking me to tell the truth about opening her letter by you. I had to tell the truth and said, and I certainly confused nothing[68] – the fact of their relations is proved and there is no doubt. All documents are in the hands of lawyers. You are expected only one thing – to write that Miss L.: “Being confident in the honesty of Mohini and not having in hand any evidence of the contrary, I badly spoke of you. If Mohini deceived me and acted dishonourably, I ask you to excuse me and, in that case, of course, I consider it my direct duty to take back all my accusations against you.” – That's all. There is absolutely nothing humiliating for you, – on the contrary, to write such a letter is worthy! It's a direct duty if you respect yourself!.. Write – and the scandal will be avoided, and you can peacefully return to your literary works, to which I really sincerely wish every success, until they get off the literary ground (?!). I have nothing more to say to you. I am not your enemy at all, I wish you all the best, and most importantly – peace of mind away from all these troubles. If you liken yourself to a boar and want to bite – please! – traps are ready. Excuse me for the tone – it's yours, not mine.
That was a farewell letter of Mr. Solovyov to my sister.
Evidently, the traps were so badly set by her former “devoted till the coffin friend;” for my sister was several times in Paris, where she was always greeted with honour, joyfully welcomed and seen off by many of her faithful friends to this day; in London, she lived the last five years of her life, surrounded by complete respect, honour and even the enthusiastic worship of many people who are incomparably superior by mind and knowledge than some of her “accusers.” Actually, the awareness of these facts irritated their morbid self-esteem that they forgot all decency and every kind of reason, in embittered testimonies. Besides Mr. Solovyov, there are two or three intemperate enemies of Blavatsky abroad … And it was precisely those who, like him, imagined that the Society really needed them and that no “Master” could think that they were useless for it; in a word those who hoped to play a major role in it and were mistaken in their calculations!
So, despite Solovyov's statement (p. 261) that he and Mme de Morsier “understood well that there was no need to wait for the appearance of Blavatsky in Paris or London,” the facts proved that they were mistaken in that, as being wrong in so many other things. As, for example, he was mistaken, asserting that Bavaji (the Hindu, hinting at him about the bliss of “the lying ones”) was afraid to death of “Blavatsky” who “beat him,” and he did not dare to say a word against her; meanwhile, Bavaji, as soon as the slander on Blavatsky spread, as if she “renounced the Mahatmas,” he got so angry that immediately left her and even temporarily moved to the camp of her opponents.
XII
In the winter, shortly after Solovyov's departure for Russia, my sister again became very ill; who lived with her in Würzburg the Countess Constance Wachtmeister wrote to me about the desperate responses of doctors and conveyed her requests that I should come to see, probably, to say goodbye to her. Despite all the slanders I believed at that time (except for theosophical cases proper, at the same time there were family fines, gossip and troubles – all from the same source), I would immediately go to her; but I myself was in bed most of the winter, and after rising up after cruel bronchitis, pleurisy, etc. pleasures, I could not get rid of a cruel cough for several months. But I wrote that in the spring or summer I'll come by all means; so that Mr. Solovyov makes me in vain (page 282) make a stupid and false testimony, as if I went to my sister only in order to defend his interests... This would be original!
It should be noted here that when, in January, the current wife of Solovyov came, he begged me to take her for a few days to myself, since she had nowhere to stay in St. Petersburg: none of her relatives (not including her mother), but all the more, none of the friends, for some reason, did not want to shelter her, and she could not settle in a hotel because she had no documents. Sympathizing with both of them and completely trusting their testimony, I willingly lent them this friendly service. I blessed them when they went to get married[69] from my house and, of course, this further cemented, apparently, the bonds of our affection, so that after their departure after the wedding, the correspondence between them and my family continued even friendlier...
Then a completely unexpected story took place, which I only realized afterwards. That's what happened.
When the project of Mr. Solovyov to tear away H. P. Blavatsky from the Theosophical Society, to turn her activity into a matter of ordinary writing, through the intimidation of the Miss L. process, was fiasco; when he was convinced that my sister would not write “renunciation of her words” – from the accusations of this intriguante, who blackened the man whom she herself pursued with her explanations of love, and, most importantly, when he finally became convinced that nothing would wait from the mercies of the Mahatmas, then only in February 1886, he really turned his back on the Theosophical Society and its founder. The first thing that expressed his new attitude towards her and her cause was the spread among the Parisian theosophists of the conviction that she herself denies the existence of the Mahatma, confessing that they are her fiction.
Hearing about this, we were amazed to the utmost!.. Knowing how my sister was burdened by Mr. Solovyov's requests for assistance to the Mahatmas in what they probably recognized as impossible (in which – I, without having explicit evidence, I keep silent!), I thought that she resorted to such an unexpected passage, so that only he left her alone. My suspicion was shared by many who knew the circumstances of their acquaintance and hopes, which he laid, at first, on her friendly disposition. I wrote to my sister how she “risked such frankness without binding him with a promise to keep her confession in secret” (I ask you to take into account that I myself did not quite believe in the reality of the Mahatmas).
My sister answered me with a desperate letter, where she expressed complete bewilderment, insisting that she had never been able to write anything like this. But I did not believe it, supposing that, in fits of quick-tempered, she herself put on a fable, and then forgot. So it happened more than once: under the influence of temporary excitement, it sometimes, itself, riveted itself in the past, if only to avoid a real embarrassment; those close to her always knew in her this feature of frivolity and imprudence that came from impatience, and reproached her more than once for such recklessness.
But what I could not explain to myself, it was: how could Vsevolod Sergeitch so unintentionally betray her to him private letters – to publicity?!.
Knowing that he soon had to come again to Petersburg, my sister begged me to visit him, to read her Russian letter; which I did as soon as they returned. It was not difficult, because in anticipation of hiring a summer house, his wife once again settled in Peterhof for a few days.
Having read this huge message, written, obviously, in some delirium, I was amazed and straightly expressed to Mr. Solovyov his perplexity: there was no “confession in the fabrication of the Mahatma” in the letter. Where did the Parisians come up with this?.. Mr. Soloviev answered that he himself does not understand why they invented it!.. I was also amazed why the whole Russian letter was stamped with Mr. Jules Baissac; Mr. Solovyov explained that this is for the sake of loyalty, – as proof that the translation is correct. I asked: “And where is the translation? Let's have a look!” But there was not a translation or a copy from him from Mr. Solovyov; he announced that he was at Mme de Morsier, in Paris. It remained to be assumed that some mistake had crept into the translation, which I said, asking very much, Mr. Solovyov, to give me at least a copy, if not the Russian letter of my sister, so that I could convince everyone that there is no “confession of crime,” But there is only the delirium of injustice and sorrows of women He, as he himself claims, did not agree to this just demand ... Why?.. It’s his business!
As soon as I came to Elberfeld and heard the stories of those who read the translation of this letter, I assumed that the case was as follows: probably the whole paragraph starting with the phrase (p. 259): “I will say and publish in The Times that "master" (Morya) and Mahatma K. H. (Koot Hoomi) are the fruits of my imagination,” etc., should be translated in the affirmative sense, instead of the conditional one, in which they remember me[70] [61]; but now, seeing this letter in the press, I think that the case of “denial of the Mahatmas” was made even easier: all subsequent phrases of the Russian letter, without an initial, basic sentence, were simply translated: (I probably even say: “I will even go to lies, to the greatest lie, which is why they will believe it all the easier.” If this phrase is omitted – the whole true meaning of everything further expressed is lost and, indeed, is a credible, convincing confession in the falsity, deception and “fabrication” of the Mahatmas.
I understand that this accusation is capital and therefore, even after all the manipulations of the author of the Modern Priestess of Isis, which I have undoubtedly proven, I declare him not in the affirmative (as he almost does on every page of his work, directly reproaching me for non-existent lies) but I express it as an assumption on which my rights are: (1) If everything was true in the translation, Mr. Solovyov would have no reason to refuse to copy a Russian letter to me. (2) He would have sent this copy, no doubt, when the Theosophists demanded it from Elberfeld and Paris, to restore his own righteousness, to prove that he had correctly translated Blavatsky's letter. (3) The translation, in its true sense, could in no way give rise to the beliefs of Mme Morsier and others in that “Mme Blavatsky a renié les Mahatmas!”[71] As they are convinced even now. (4) Mr. Solovyov, not without an intention, does not say anything about this inexplicable incident – the main motive for my trip to Elberfeld. He could not forget that I was traveling to certify everyone that in my sister's letter there was “no recognition that she composed the Mahatma...” Why does he not mention this fact in a word in his article?!.. And , finally, (5) because I could not even now, eight years later, being in Paris, get a glimpse of this notorious translation...
This seems to be weighty reasons.
Mr. Soloviev confidently declares that the translation is kept by Mme de Morsier, in Paris (p. 284) – and that she is ready to show it to anyone who wants to compare the letter with the translation – but this is not true, and this is the proof.
Last summer I was personally at Bessak and asked him to tell me: did he testify to my sister's letter, written in 1886, and a translation from it; as well as show me the French text, so that I can finally understand what's the matter – for which Mme de Morsier armed herself with her sister and made all the porridge?
On the first question, he replied that, as then, he still does not understand, because of which the Paris Theosophists were aroused, because in my Russian letter my sister had nothing, for her compromising, and also in a certified translation, although he found in It was initially inaccurate, but insisted that they be corrected; on the second request he promised to get the translation for sure and show it to me. But I waited in vain for three weeks and finally received the following notice.
Paris
Madame, I would like to see the translation myself, about which you asked me. This translation is not in the hands of Mme de Morsier, and therefore I could not cope with it. I cannot say that I have kept a true memory of him, but I can certify that I found him similar to the Russian script. I will add to this that, as far as I remember, neither in the translation, nor in the original was there anything that could arouse distrust of Mrs. Blavatsky. The only not completely clear (un peu louche)[72] phrase could fully be explained in the sense of a conditional, and so I understood it; I would prefer this sense, as the most probable and fair one.[73]
Accept assurance, etc.
This letter was not at all what this venerable, but very relaxed years old man told me; verbally, with witnesses, – admiring my sister, offering me to read a pamphlet written about the theosophical teaching that will prove to me how much he values Mme Blavatsky, and such flattering things. The influence of his dear friend, Mme Morsier, was evident in him; but the main thing is clear: they did not want to show me the translation, and Solovyov's attorney said no.
Where is it?
The “theosophical revenge” of Madame Blavatsky, whom Mr. Solovyov tells about with such enthusiasm, was limited to indignation, because of which she was ill. As for those two people from our embassy who spoke very unflatteringly about Mr. Solovyov (not to Duchess Pomar alone), then I know them ... There's nothing to be surprised at their unfavorable opinion (p. 270), for one of them is a supporter of his first wife, and the second – a friend and a big fan of his brother, Vladimir Sergeich.
I will not say anything about conversations with myself, which are again extensively quoted in Chapter XXIV, except that the absurdity of their invention is obvious. No matter how I tried to justify Mr. Solovyov and support in myself the belief in his straightforwardness and honesty, faith – with which it was shameful and painful for me to part, but going to a dangerously sick sister, even with the task of settling misunderstandings between them, I could not possibly have him to assure that the food “only(?!) in order to shield him and to him alone to prove his friendship...” Oh! The conceit of Mr. Solovyov often leads him into a mess! Does he not feel that the phrases he attributes to me on page 282 (“I'm trembling for you,” etc.) – do they make him ridiculous?..
In general, Mr. Solovyov overly multi-faceted “composes” conversations! He makes so many silly and evil speeches that I can only wonder how unceremoniously he treats other people's feelings and words. It can be seen that censure and fiction to him not how much!.. It's true, it's normal...
But I could, without imagining, remind him of his comments about people extremely close to him ... False testimonials, or rather, accusations written to them with complete calm. But I am more generous than Mr. Solovyov and I will not name them, and I will not tell anyone what he wrote about them. May my generosity be in disgrace!
Gebhard was absolutely right in assuring that H.P.B. claimed that the translation of her letter to Mr. Solovyov was incorrect (p. 287). He could add that this and I affirm. Otherwise, Mr. Solovyov would not be afraid to send copies from him, and the Parisians would not have made a false opinion of him. That he was referring to and referring to documents kept by Monsieur, “his sincere friend” (p. 288), a friend (whom he, nevertheless, at first very much denigrated) is, after all, this one a diversion of eyes, as Bessak's letter testifies. “The artful lady,” Mr. Solovyov (p. 289), calls me in vain because I tried to justify him, talking about him with Gebhard, while I was slow to believe his untruth; he would rather forgive me to be called “a foolish and naive lady” – for the fact that I so trusted him. And I was really so foolishly convinced of his conscientiousness that when the Theosophists loudly started talking about the falsification of the translation, about fake (un faux), I exclaimed indignantly that “I would rather believe that Vs. S. Solovyov went insane and committed an unconscious act, than such a terrible thing.”
Very vainly he talks about our gloomy compote[74], about some insidious plot of mine and my sister, to extradite him for a madman. Of course, the readers of the Russkyi Vestnik, which Mr. Solovyov did not say anything about Blavatsky's famous accusation of renouncing the Mahatma and the awareness that she had invented them, it's completely incomprehensible why Gebhard wrote that we called him “crazy,” and not by another name; but in this name alone I am to blame.
When Mr. Solovyov demanded to meet me in the winter, motivating our common acquaintance (A.A.B.) his desire to see me, in order to explain about some of our personal accounts, namely, that I declared him crazy in Elberfeld[75], I wrote that and that now I will repeat in my defense.
Dear Mr. A.
On the questions that Mr. Solovyov instructed me to make to you, I will answer you, on the points that I ask him to inform. What kind of persuasion he says – definitely I do not know! I have never been able to persuade him (why exactly with him), after the death of my sister, not to transfer to Russia what they say about her abroad or their personal memories of her. Such a deal has no raison d'etre[76], and there was none.
To spread (as he says) in Russia Theosophy, I will never undertake, that by me, everything that I wrote about it, was evidenced everywhere clearly and categorically. I even usually start my articles by denying all the meaning of its establishment in Russia – “where the ideals of Christianity are strong and the foundations of Orthodoxy are strong...” Anyone who read my articles in News and in the Review, my indifference to the prosperity of the doctrines of Theosophy can not but be obvious. So, the phrase of Mr. Solovyov that he should (why exactly he?) zealously support the foundations of Orthodoxy, – caring about him more than others, including myself, is only an excuse and nothing more.[77] I, on my part, put Orthodox Christianity so high that I think that no theosophy is actually needed and it will not touch it, although I certainly admit that its pure and moral spiritual-abstract doctrine for the Westernizers shattered by unconcern is saves!.. A lot of English publications, in Russia, few people available, I was convinced of this.
My participation in the episode of Solovyov's acquaintance with my sister was limited to the fact that I – as he knows – from the skin climbed, trying to explain what then seemed to me a misunderstanding, and reconcile them. When I read Elena's letter to him – a letter in translations of which she had been charged with her accusation in Paris – I told him at the time that “I do not see in him those confessions in deceptions about which the Parisians who are receding from her scream.” I asked him to entrust me this letter for comparing it with the translation, but he did not give it to me.
Upon my arrival in Elberfeld, I was convinced that the translation could not be accurate, – something that my sister wrote in the form of a guess was translated in the affirmative. Asked to account for this, Bessac, an interpreter at the Paris court, responded that he had not read the whole letter, but only attached the seal to one paragraph, – so Mr. Gebhard gave his answer to us (his letter is intact). Then I and my daughter, V.V. Jonston, urged Vsevolod Sergeich to send a notarized copy from the letter of H. P. Blavatsky, – but he stubbornly refused this.
This strange obstinacy deprived me of the opportunity to justify Mr. Solovyov – having proved that the whole matter was in negligence, in the error of an interpreter, and all of my companion's defenders of my sister made the worst guess... He put me in a desperate position and the need to convict him not in one frivolity, as I thought before.
I do not remember that I “declared” Mr. Soloviev to be insane; but I think that he could not be offended if I, in a fit of embarrassment and indignation, instead of directly blaming him for the horror in which he was accused of everything (having learned that in a Russian letter the sister is not at all denied by the Mahatma) , – and exclaimed that he was crazy, so acting ...Madness is God's inflicted illness, misfortune, not disgrace, whereas forgery, in which accused and accused him, who dealt with this case, is a shameful accusation.
This is all my part in this sad matter.
While I was with my sister, there was no horror that Mr. Solovyov (living in Peterhoff where my family lived also) did not intimidate my younger children, trying to instill in them, a complete disgust for their aunt and insisting that we, with Vera, quick return. All their letters to me are full of fear for us – for the death of our souls and for all sorts of heavenly punishments, which, according to Mr. Solovyov, should fall on us, for supporting my sister and trying to calm her down. All this is recorded in the diary of my second daughter, who, believing Mr. Solovyov, survived the true torture while we were absent. When the true participation of Mr. Solovyov in all the sorrows of my sister and ours was clarified, and we returned to Russia, our acquaintance with him, of course, ceased.
I did not mention anything in the press about all these circumstances; Really, in gratitude for my modesty, Mr. Solovyov will find it possible for me to answer, having confused my name in its vicissitudes and disappointments in the Theosophical Society?!. What do you think, A. Ah, is it compatible with the alphabet of integrity?.. No matter how Mr. Solovyov himself looked at my sister, he must, of course, understand that now, more than ever, an insult to her – a serious insult to me. Let him know that I will rise more resolutely for my deceased sister than for living, if he forces me to stand up for her memory.
You sincerely respecting
To this I received a reply from Mr. B. in which he informed me that he had done everything he could to ward off Solovyov from his hostile intentions-which I had no doubt, but that he replied that he was not afraid of me, for I have no evidence of justification, except for his letters on private matters, which do not concern the facts subject to his exposures.
He probably did not know that in my hands some of his letters to my sister, and forgot that in those he wrote to me, not all his private affairs alone. He, however, suggested to me at the cost of returning his correspondence with my family to pay off his personal attacks on me; but I myself have refused the ransom ...
XIII
It remains for me to say a little more. It is only necessary to reply to Mr. Solovyov with two remarks about him concerning the two persons – their own answers to him. But first let it be allowed to me to say – n'en déplaise[78] to Solovyov and AM Butlerov's relatives, who assert the opposite – that I saw a letter and a portrait of the late professor in the hands of my sister. As for the fact, about her letter from Ostend, in which she, simultaneously with the newspapers, informed us of his death – it is my whole; and besides, I told many then about this proof of her spirit and showed this letter... I do not understand why Mr. Solovyov, himself, being such a jury, does not want to admit the possibility of this property to others?
Now let's turn to the testimonies of the persons on whom Mr. Solovyov refers ... is not true.
On page 285 of the November Russian Messenger he says:
“A few months later I learned that this same Gebhard was disappointed in H. P. Blavatsky.”
After reading this paragraph, I translated it and sent it to Berlin to Mr. Gebhard, with whom our good relations never ceased, and that's what I got in return.
(I do not want to stretch the articles, I translate all English and French letters in brief, keeping the originals intact).
Berlin. Stüler Straße 13.
Dear Mme Jelihovsky!
In response to your kind letter, I bring to you my sincere gratitude for the fact that you are giving yourself the trouble of responding to the nonsense of a man like this – Solovyov. I would strongly advise you to leave aside all that such a madman (halluciné) spoke or will speak. I have never written otherwise to Madame de Mercier, as in the types of interests of your lamented sister.If she gave my letters, under the influence of a hypnotic state, in which she also almost always finds herself, Solovyov, this is very unscrupulous of her.
As for my feelings for H.P.B., I can only tell you that the deep vecnaration that I have always felt for your sister has passed on to her memory and is still alive. I never belonged to the great number of those who, like Morsye and Solovyov, knelt before H. P. Blavatsky, treating her like a goddess, kissing her shoe, and who now, when this great woman turned to dust, insult her memory with slanders. As for me, I repeat: I always had and retain a deep affection, sympathy, friendship and gratitude towards our deeply lamented friend. I will always regard it as one of the highest minds generated by our century.
Now, my dear Mrs. Zhelikhovsky, my sincere thoughts, which I myself am not able to present in a printed article, because I am in a state of extreme grief[79]... I am pleased to extract from this letter what you want, in response to this dishonest person[80].
Please accept my respectful greetings and bow.
This letter, as I did not soften, written so sharply that I did not expect such a response from a cold-blooded, always calm the old man, which has remained in my memory this Elberfeld millionaire. But here is another answer to Mr. Solovyov, from the person very much affected by him. At the end of Chapter XXIII the author of the sensational satire on H. P. Blavatsky with the profound indignation and irony, which would have to kill me if I did not laugh! – betrays me to judge and condemn a human for the incorrect translation (from a sick head to a healthy one?!) articles by Mrs. Cooper-Oakley were dead my sister.
“Articles by Ms. Zhelikhovsky (contemptuously he says on page 275), as already sufficiently proved (?!), it is risky to rely...” And then come to the opinion that “still” it's hard to imagine that I'm all of them were very composed ... I am very grateful to Mr. Soloviev for such award me at least the smallest dose of truth, but very sorry that I cannot answer him the same courtesy in his story about Mrs. Cooper-Oakley is without an iota of truth!
Not I, she accuses him in that.
You need to know that this woman is one of the hottest followers and friends of my sister; to the last minute she left, the same as her sister, miss Laura Cooper.
When she heard that Mr. Soloviev touched on it in his “memoirs,” then immediately wrote me the following letter; and when it was translated all that he about it told the Russian audience, she immediately added to it a thorough refutation of everything he spoke about her. This rebuttal is so broad, that I have to use only the most significant excerpts. To start with this letter.
London, Avenue Road 17
Dear Mme Jelihovsky, be, please, so kind – refute any testimony about me Mr. Solovyov. I only once met him in the house of Mme de Marse where I was with the doctor Keighley and his brother. I haven't had any conversations, but because any speech from me, they printed, must be false.
He has been writing the most wild and false accusations at Mme Blavatsky; but although all that he talked about her, did not make me or the brothers Keighley unimpressed, we left the house in the belief that together it is bitter and unscrupulous enemy of your sisters, equally unkind, and untruthful people.
I can add that during many years of my friendship with Mr. Jay Blavatsky, the falseness (falseness) the testimony of Mr. Solovyov been proven many times. I am very sorry that you had so much anxiety over it!..
I ask you to do as you please with my letter, and wishing You all the best, please believe the sincerity of your
Three days later, m-is Cooper-Oakley wrote another retraction, on 3 pages. In it she says she studied Isis Unveiled along with her husband and was fond of teaching my sister, much earlier than Sinnett wrote his book. (So not the drag force, which it sought to enter the Society, – the 1st untruth.)[81]
“I was with Mme Blavatsky in Madras on their own – she writes further, – nursed her in sickness, was with her when the Teacher came to save her from death, and went along with her to Europe if she is not sick...”
This disease and its relapse in Paris, – not the "horrors" that took place with her at Adyar, she explains his thinness and pallor had nothing in common with theosophy – (the 2nd untruth).
“The statement that I ran away from Adyar, says Mrs. Cooper-Oakley is definitely false (the 3rd untruth). I left because the doctor found it necessary... as for the fact that Mme de Morsier G. Solovyov saw me in tears, or some emotion is a lie (it is a lie[82] – in order, the 4th untruth).
“At the time I was in friendly correspondence with Mme Blavatsky and, more importantly, I came at the request Sinnett and Keighley, is to learn from friends, Ms. L.[83], based on what it claims? Neither Mme, Morse nor Mr. Solovyev can't repeat my words, because I never said a word about her husband or about yourself? Anyone who knows me will confirm that I'm not as talkative and easy worried woman...”
From this it follows that the stories on 274 pages – the 5th untruth.
“Article written by me in the magazine Lucifer, is a completely independent statement of the facts and absolutely truthful in every detail (pp. 276-277). This expression is exactly what I thought when met with G. Solovyov from Mrs. Morse, and the fact that I knew in India, and what never changed opinion (alas! the 6th untruth). To speak about me “violence” (members of the Theosophical Society) – from the Mr. Solovyov positive absurd (the 7th untruth)!..
“Ms. Zhelikhovsky did faithful and accurate translation of my words (by this denounced the eighth untruth of Mr. Solovyov, two-and-a-half pages of his works ... Eloquently!). I can at any time to provide further answers and details if need be...
So ends Mrs. Cooper-Oakley is your thorough reading of Dec. 28, 1892.
At the end of Chapter XXIII and a series of falsehoods, that I mentioned, Solovyov writes:
“Curiously, what would have done and said to the deceased (?!) mistress Oakley, if Mme de Marse or I met her with such (course. of the author) her "memoirs" in his hands and said, "What does that mean?"”
Gloomy and austere tone of this appeal before me frightened that I hurried to write the culprit of his anger, and I'm very glad that could satisfy his “curiosity.”
Now Mr. Solovyov knows “what she did and what she told him!”
I hope that he is happy?!
After reading these responses of persons affected by casual satire on my sister; reading private letters Mr. Solovyov – the testimony given by him against himself, is someone else can be a drop of confidence in the testimony of his against the dead?..
I, for my part, I think it unnecessary to continue my rebuttal, although I did not learn from the mass of letters Mr. Solovyov and the tenth part of their testimony, and eloquently describing it in other ways, i. e. in his relations with other individuals. I wanted to burn them, but now I see that with some people it is necessary not to neglect the least rusty, but honestly obtained, and therefore a mighty weapon...
No!.. I'm not going to burn his letters; his two-year friendship letters to all my family. Let lie. Without the need I won't touch and the first will not cause menacing to false and insincere people shadows of the past. But in defense of the truth, for those who himself can not protect, I will not stop to get through the hard days like what I have experienced now... Old letters to dead loved ones is hard to read; but it's even harder to delve into the old correspondence with people, once close, with the people of truth and friendship believed – and that not only changed your confidence, but unjustly, cruelly mocked over you ... Yes, will not seek they the Lord God! That's all I have, thank God, can sincerely wish them. I hope that this desire is not everybody would constitute an act of hypocrisy, at least for the following two reasons: as a thoroughly tried Mr. Solovyov to denigrate me in front of the Russian people, I hope that he is not particularly successful. As for the personality of my sister, she's so far above it untenable attacks that all clumps of dirt, it started up, hardly reached the foot high pedestal, which erected a monument to her in three parts of the world.
XIV
Having stated this fact, I, of course, must confirm its reliability. To do this, I only need to open two or three journals, among the dozens of the two Theosophical organs[84] existing in the white light on the initiative of my sister, and I immediately get so rich proof that I will only have l'embarras du choix[85].
I am sending those who would like to know which and how many speeches of gratitude were made over the coffin of H. P. Blavatsky and the anniversary of her death and how many articles were written in her memory – at least to the one most accessible of all these journals, – to the Lucifer. It is inconceivable even to list them by the names or names of those who spoke or wrote their faces – there are so many of them. I can only choose two or three excerpts from these speeches and articles, namely those that express not personal feelings for her and relationships, but are repeated more often than others, in all of her memories in general. They will give to the ignorant the actual merits of H. P. Blavatsky and the works her approximate concept of them; they, at least in part, will explain to her countrymen the reason for those extraordinary honors of her memory in Western Europe, in America and Asia, which I will discuss below.
Here are some excerpts from the article of the person who was with her the last six or seven years of her life, which she sent “to work” to India a few months before her death, which now consists of one of the main figures there and the presidential aides, having given her whole life and all state to the work of the Theosophical Society, – Mr. Bertram Keightley. He is also one of the many ridiculed Mr. Solovyov, which does not prevent him from being very intelligent, educated and – most importantly – very sincere and honest person.
“From the moment I first met her gaze,” he writes among other things, “I had a feeling of complete trust in her, as if to an old, experienced friend. This feeling never faded and did not change – was it growing stronger and stronger as I knew her better ... Often months, even years later, as my moral growth allowed me to understand things more clearly and broadly, I, looking back at his past, was amazed that he did not understand before all the correctness of her instructions ... Over the years, the debt of my gratitude to her-her guide to my good hand-has grown, as a mountain avalanche grows from a handful of snow and I can never return it to her all her good deeds...”
Here he tells how his doubts, the unbelief and materialism of our time, seized him; how he entered into an active life only under the protection of conventional morality, a patterned consciousness of honor, with some dose of young sentimentality, ready to admire the alien virtues, but at the same time strongly doubting not only their merit and necessity, but resolutely “in everything could not prove modern science.”
“"What did my life prepare for me? What would happen to me?" He exclaims. "I would plunge into total egoism, self-destruction of the spirit." From such a fate, H. P. Blavatsky saved me by her teaching ... She saved me, as she saved many others. Before I knew it, life for me was devoid of an ideal, worthy struggle ... Recognition of the destruction indicated by materialism – this fatal and final act of being – dampened every generous movement with the bitter consciousness of its uselessness and my impotence ... I did not see reasons and goals to pursue the difficult – for the high and the far, when the devouring death must, of course, cut the thread of life, long before reaching the intended good goals!.. Even the vague hope of benefiting future generations fell into the dust at contemplation and insane aimlessness, the idiotic uselessness of life's struggle!..
“It was from this that weakening moral paralysis, which, with its heavy oppression, strangled my inner life and poisoned every hour of my existence, she, H. P. Blavatsky, rescued me! Me – and others!.. Do not we owe her more than life?..
“I continue. Every thinking and feeling person sees himself surrounded by fateful tasks. On all sides threatening sphinxes are ready to absorb entire races, if they do not solve their riddles... We see that the best efforts of mankind bring evil, and not good. The gloomy emptiness embraces us, and where to seek us light?..[86] H. P. Bavatskaya pointed this light to us. She taught those who wished to listen to her, to search within oneself for the rays of that "eternal star of light that shines on the path of time" – and the desire for self-improvement indicated the possibility of burning them... She made us realize that a man strong in spirit, able forget about oneself in the desire to help mankind, in its hands holds the key to salvation, for the mind and heart of that person are overwhelmed with wisdom, resulting from pure, altruistic love, which gives knowledge of the true ways of life.
“This is what H.P.B. led us, myself and many, to admit for the truth. Is she worthy of gratitude?”
This, a very long article, ends with the panegyric to the personal kindness of my sister, her generosity, generous and not ignorance. Examples and proofs of these beautiful properties are given, in the testimony of which, however, all those who knew it agree. Of course, in addition to personal enemies who turned after her death to the beaten instruments of all pseudo-priests of truth, adorning themselves with her mask, only to sow defamation safely.
I brought, as a sample of opinion about the late sister of my people who knew her closely, several phrases of the Englishman; but for the change, several testimonies of a person who knew her much less, the Marquis of José Chifrè, who came by the delegate of the Spanish branch of the Theosophical Society to the convention of the European section in London, shortly after her death.
Speaking in general about this “fatal, irreparable loss” for the Society – his “creator and educator,” the Marquis of Shifre explains that he considers his personal obligations, – the profound veneration and boundless gratitude of the deceased, – by no means an isolated phenomenon, that he has the right to speak about them, as if expressing the feelings of most of her who knew.
“... I would like to point out to the whole world the tremendous influence that its lofty soul had on me! – he says (Lucifer and other theosophical journals for July and August 1891). – For the change that took place in my feelings, thoughts and concepts about spiritual and material things – in my whole life, in a word, – when I met this amazing woman. Mr. Sinnett, in his remarkable article on it in The Review of Reviews (June, 1891), said quite correctly: "H. P. Blavatsky dominated always and everywhere. She had to be either infinitely loved or hated! She could never be the object of indifference to those who approached her..." In my opinion this is a remarkably fair test...
“When I first came to London with the sole purpose of seeing and getting to know her – with H.P.B.[87], to whom the gifts made a deep impression on me, I understood that I would see the remarkable personality of our age, as in the mind, and on its extensive knowledge. The feeling that attracted me to her was not mere curiosity, but an all-powerful, irresistible attraction ...
“But the reality surpassed all my expectations!.. Her first glance penetrated my soul and, as it were, humiliated, destroyed in me that personality that I was before ... This process, incomprehensible and inexplicable for myself, but absolutely real and inevitable, was manifested immediately and non-stop in the deep recesses of my spiritual and moral being ... The transformation of my individuality, with its former inclinations and feelings, gradually came to the end ... I will not try to explain this seemingly striking fact, I have my old identity, but from my memory, he never blotted out ...
“With each new appointment, feelings of trust, affection, and devotion to her increased in me. I owe ''her'' to her rebirth! Only when I recognized her did I know the moral balance and peace of mind. She gave me hope for the future. She introduced into me her generous, noble aspirations. It radically changed my everyday coexistence, raising the ideals of life, indicating to me in it a high goal: the pursuit of the tasks of Theosophy, to self-improvement in work, for the benefit of mankind ...
“The death of H. P. Blavatsky is a bitter test for me, as for all Theosophist workers who knew her personally and were indebted to him for the immortal duty of gratitude.
“I, personally, lost in it a friend and teacher who cleansed me from the defilement that brought me back to the faith in humanity!.. In the great example of her courage, self-denial, unselfishness and generosity, I will find strength all my life to work for a cause that we all owe protect.
“May her memory be blessed!
“Dear brothers and friends, these are the few words I wanted to say that I will never forget, than I owe to her. Let the enemies and materialists explain, if they can, the power and influence of H. P. Blavatsky; If they can not – let them be silent!.. The tree is known by its fruits, – and our actions will be judged and evaluated, – according to their results.”[88]
These two testimonies taken for good luck, from the mass of similar ones, belong to people of European descent and education. Despite this, I missed a lot in them and tried everywhere to soften their enthusiastic tone. As for the memories of H. P. Blavatsky friends of her other races, admirers of her teachings and personal qualities belonging to the Eastern civilization, I will not touch them, for fear that they will seem like a painful delirium to Russian people, before their eulogies are enthusiastic.
May readers not reproach me, following the example of Mr. Solovyov, that I magnify my sister and her teaching. I do not exalt them, but I want to prove that in the West and in the East there are a lot of people who have the data to look at it truly with reverence; which means that she had real merit, out of common, even in addition to her scholarship and, of course, besides all the “phenomena” to which only superficial people, completely unfamiliar with her teaching, could attach any importance.
By virtue of this legitimate desire to restore the identity of my sister in the opinion of the Russians who learned of her only from the humiliating satire of Mr. Solovyov (and such, unfortunately, not a few!) – I wrote this last chapter, dedicated to her alone.
Fortunately, among the people who gave her justice, there are many names that are much more known to the world than the “novelist” Solovyov. All countries responded to her death, and people like Crookes, Flammarion, Stead, Hartmann, Hübbe-Schleiden, Beck, Fullerton, Eaton, Buchanan and many others honored her with memories and speeches.
I will even quote the words of Professor Hübbe-Schleiden here. Here is what he wrote in his journal Sphinx:
“Whatever a friend or an enemy were thinking about the deceased – whether they would give her divine honors or contempt – everyone must agree that she was one of the most remarkable human creations that have appeared in our age: she was the only one of her kind... It is not yet the time of the final verdict on her; but we cannot refrain from saying that we, like many others who are conscious of the same thing, are indebted to her and thank her for the inspiration that there is no price!.. She is one of those whom Schiller said truly:
All surrounded by love and hatred of a pariah, |
There were many women in the world who did not differ either in their special origins, in their wealth, in their connections or in the protection of the powerful, but only with their personal merit, upon whose death such an epitaph would be offered?.. And we must take into account that she was not offered by any of Blavatsky's personal friends, devoted to her in life and death, but a man who was comparatively outsiders, who knew her very little, who judged her more by the results of her work and scientific works than by sympathy.
At an emergency convention on the death of the founder of the Theosophical Society, who came from India, America, Australia and, of course, from almost all Western European countries, delegates, under the chairmanship of the founding president, devoted all her first meetings to her memory. In the big hall of the rallies in London's main Theosophical apartment there was not enough room: it was necessary to hire outside rooms, where more than a thousand people could bridge.
Immediately it was decided to open the ubiquitous subscription to the capital of Blavatsky, “H.P.B's Memorial Fund,” for the sake of fulfilling her desire, for which she worked tirelessly; namely: the printing of works on Theosophy, both original and translated from Sanskrit and ancient Tamil languages; works, acquaintance with which “will serve as an alliance between East and West.”
Then the question arose about the vaults for the ashes[89] of her. Theosophists of India demanded that her ashes be returned to them; so that he, according to her own desire, rested in Adyar. But Colonel Olcott, condescending to the desires of “the brothers of other countries of the world,” decided, taking into account that the theosophical activity of H.P.B. “is divided into three periods: New York, its cradle; Adyar, its altar and London, its grave,” offered to divide it into three parts, and his proposal was unanimously approved.
Immediately delegates from Sweden asked to allow them to deliver, for the London Main Apartment, a bronze urn, the work of the famous Stockholm master Bengston. The Colonel Olcott said that a mausoleum will be built in the Garden of Adyar, to preserve the ashes of “their teacher's beloved.” In New York, at the Headquarters of the American Theosophists, a magnificent mausoleum is being built, for the same purpose, according to the plan of the best of architects, a member of the Theosophical Society, who offered his works for free.
The urn, sent from Sweden, is magnificent. She was placed in my sister's room, which she decided to keep forever in the form in which she was with her. It is usually locked; it only includes the case – to take one of the books of her library or to show its premises to visitors – Theosophists. On the 8th of May, new. On the day of the anniversary of the death of my sister, the whole room, especially the Dagobah (the urn with the ashes of H. P. Blavatsky), and behind it the portrait of her “teacher Morya,” standing in the same place as during her lifetime her, were entirely covered with white flowers, roses, jasmine, but most of all lilies, – prototypes of lotuses, which in Europe are not reachable.
This day, on May 8, the official decision voted at Adyar on April 17, 1892, and approved by all theosophical centers unanimously, was decided to be called the “Day of the White Lotus” and to dedicate it annually to the memory of the founder of the Theosophical Society, trying to signify it not only with speeches about it readings of her writings, but, if possible, by charity. So, in the garden of the Theosophical Quarter[90] in London on that day, neighboring beggars were fed; in India, not only in Adyar, where all its former rooms were covered with lotuses, but in Bombay and Calcutta, besides food, copies of their sacred book of the Bhagavad Gita were distributed to the poor. The same thing happened in New York, and in Philadelphia and in the extra-large cities of the United States where Theosophy is flourishing – and it nowhere thrives in every respect, like in America.[91]
But nowhere was the sadness of H. P. Blavatsky's death manifested itself so demonstratively as on the sharp. Ceylon.
There, “apart from the press reports, overwhelmed by her name,” the high priest of Sumangala made a solemn commemoration of her, and all the girls' Buddhist schools were closed for three days. The next day in Colombo was an emergency meeting of the Theosophists, on which it was decided to make a bronze plaque with the name of its founder, the numbers of her birth, her arrival to India and her death, into the walls of the meeting of the Society – to her eternal memory. The vice-president of the Eastern College, a zealous Theosophist, gave a lecture on her activities and teachings; especially about her merits before the tribes of India and before the Buddhist world, – acquainting the West with the beliefs, knowledge and literature of the Aryans.
The following Sunday, the Theosophical Society, in Colombo, predominantly composed of Buddhists, invited, according to local custom, 27 people from the monastic brotherhood to take food and charity in memory of the deceased; and one of the monks received a gift of clothes and all the few items that monks are allowed to own: a mug for alms and a metal jug for water, a razor, a belt, etc. In addition, several hundred people of beggars were fed by a memorial dinner in memory of the deceased, and all these rites are decided to be performed annually. On the anniversary of her death, the number of fed poor brothers rose to 3,000; and in the reports of The Theosophist magazine it appears that three orphans will be brought up for the perpetuity of the Blavatsky fund collected in Ceylon to the memory of eternity: these are NRV scholarships.
In general, in memory of it, in many parts of the world many charitable and useful affairs have been established, not to mention the many new branches of the Theosophical Society, which now and then elect its initials by its name. In England, America and India, the name of this Russian woman is extremely respected and popular.
Oh, at least for that, her compatriots would not think ill when remembering this name!.. Orthodox people can condemn her in the name of Christianity; one can, without doubt, not sympathize with her, in part pantheistic, teaching; but you cannot insult a woman who could excite such a huge mental movement, such a great rise in the morality and spiritual strength of dozens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people perishing from the materialism of our century, and touching her private life and calling her by nicknames – “charlatans, thieves of souls, deceivers and furies”...
Let these shameful nicknames fall on the head of their author, who thinks himself a righteous man who has the right to dig up other people's lives, throw a shadow of shame on others, without thinking about his own past ... I'm sure that most Russian people reject these nicknames and his calumnies and willingly join the wish of one highly developed clergyman, who said in the comfort of those close to her, H. P. Blavatsky, who mourned her death and her personal religious misconceptions, these truly Christian words:
“The Lord of truth will have mercy and forgive her all her sins for the fact that she, in her ultimate understanding, has always and unswervingly sought for the good of truth.”
These are the words worthy of the shepherd of the one true Christ church, and by them I will end my answer in defense of my sister.
St. Petersburg, January, 1893
Footnotes
- ↑ St. Petersburg, 1893 (Желиховская В. П., «Е. П. Блаватская и современный жрец истины: Ответ г-жи Игрек (В. П. Желиховской) г-ну Всеволоду Соловьеву». СПб., 1893).
- ↑ “Other people's opinions about the Russian woman” in the newspaper Novosti.
- ↑ I have written proof of the correctness of my translations from persons who wrote articles. This is the subject of discussion.
- ↑ The end of the century. – Tr.
- ↑ V. P. Zhelikhovsky was not a member of TS. – Ed.
- ↑ Arius (Greek Ἄρειος; 256-336, Constantinople) – Libyan presbyter and ascetic, priest in Baukalis in Alexandria, Egypt. One of the early heresiarchs, founder and eponym of Arianism. – Tr.
- ↑ The die is cast (Lat.). – Tr.
- ↑ My line of behavior is sharply outlined (Fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ Satirical article – Tr.
- ↑ The Incident of Solovyov (Fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ I am very sorry that I cannot write freely due to the size of the article everything that could lead to my sister's benefit. Otherwise, I would certainly translate here the beautiful letter of the Countess Ademar from Lucifer in July 1891, in which she commemorates the memory of H.P.B., recalling Mr. Judge about the “wonderful two weeks” spent by them in Enghien, staying with her.
- ↑ This is the same Evett, a magnetizer and friend of the baron Du-Poet, whom Mr. Solovyov so sarcasts on pages 75-77.
- ↑ Album for newspaper clippings (English). – Tr.
- ↑ A philippic (/fɪˈlɪpɪk/) is a fiery, damning speech, or tirade, delivered to condemn a particular political actor. – Tr.
- ↑ All the same (fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ Solovyov. – Tr.
- ↑ Assistant, henchman, follower (French acolyte). – Tr.
- ↑ Obviously this is the answer to a letter from H.P.B., published on the pages of Russkiy Vestnik (May – if I'm not mistaken), where she asks: “have you read the translation of Isis Unveiled?”
- ↑ Fr. Duchess. – Trans.
- ↑ Stepan Plyushkin is a fictional character in Nikolai Gogol's novel Dead Souls. In English the words “pack rat” and hoarder are used for such people. – Tr.
- ↑ A sudden reversal of fortune or change in circumstances, especially in reference to fictional narrative. – Tr.
- ↑ The Last Gorbatovs by Vs. Solovyov. – Tr.
- ↑ No, I did not doubt then the truthfulness of Mr. Solovyov, but I was very surprised, because he first expressed to me the doubt about the authenticity of the Mahatma appearance. – V.Z.
- ↑ Missing, inadvertent (Fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ Good, kind as bread (Fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ I agree: I do not recognize them as muslin ones. I believe in the possibility of their existence.
- ↑ H. P. Blavatsky.
- ↑ The Duchess of Pomar had deeply been devoted to my sister all her life; but at that time she abandoned the Theosophical Society precisely because the authority and faith in Blavatsky, in the Paris circle, were, temporarily, successfully undermined by the intrigue of her enemies.
- ↑ Olcott is still in the best possible relationship with the Duchess.
- ↑ To whom?.. In Russia, where even now they do not know and are not interested in the theosophical affair.
- ↑ And it is not even possible for Mr. Solovyov, because he would have to confess his own activities and a double, unseemly game.
- ↑ On what?.. On the complete conviction of H. P. Blavatsky's guilt – or on getting from her what Mr. Solovyov was seeking?.. That is the (Hamlet's) question!
- ↑ Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (1754-1838) – French statesman and diplomat noted for his capacity for political survival, who held high office during the French Revolution, under Napoleon, at the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy, and under King Louis-Philippe. – Tr.
- ↑ With love (Ital.).
- ↑ Treacherous. – Tr.
- ↑ It’s not the proper place for such documents, but they are kept by me, like all the letters I have mentioned here.
- ↑ Richard Hodgson, the member of the Society for Psychical Research was the investigator and the author of the so called "Hodgson Report", in which he declared that Madame Blavatsky used fraudulent means to produce phenomena. – Ed.
- ↑ Times, The Great Mare's Nest by An. Besant. And the other above mentioned articles.
- ↑ Insurmountable circumstances (Fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ To the glory of God (Lat.). – Tr.
- ↑ Some of these letters by Kut Humi, translated and published by Sinnett as a separate book, are Vs. S. Soloviev read in Paris and “very approved” – as he himself stated.
- ↑ The very envelopes, which, according to Mr. Soloviev, he found a whole bundle in the box of H. P. Blavatsky, from which she gave him the key (?!). That was crazy!
- ↑ “The last Gorbatovs”, Vs. Solovyov. – Tr.
- ↑ To err is human (Lat.). – Trans.
- ↑ A valid state councilor. – Tr.
- ↑ Adventures, activities. – Tr.
- ↑ The case of the general Komarov at Kushka.
- ↑ Quite without a penny. – Tr.
- ↑ Poissarde (Fr.) – bazaar merchant. – Tr.
- ↑ Lousy spent a quarter of an hour and nothing more (Fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ I am nobody’s fool! (Fr.) – Tr.
- ↑ In my article, in Nouv. revue (October 1892), Mme Adam changed the words “je suis en grande amitié” (I am in great friendship) to a simple statement: “Je suis en relations aves Mme Adam” (I am familiar with Madame Adam) on the grounds, she says, that “she could not be in friendship with a person she had seen only twice” and who “at first sight did not inspire her to be sympathetic...”
- ↑ N. F. Fadeeva, aunt of H. P. Blavatsky and, most likely, the head of the first in Russia Theosophical Society in Odessa. – Tr.
- ↑ Mr. Tsorn, secretary of the Theosophical Society in Odessa. – Tr.
- ↑ Front d’airain (Fr.) – extreme shamelessness. – Tr.
- ↑ “Warning” should be called entreaty. My sister begged him not to tell anything about what he had heard in Würzburg; and he did not only noised it abroad, but also added something that never happened ... Here is a harmful fantasy and a habit of writing novels!
- ↑ That unfortunate child (Fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ A wag, a joker (Fr.) – Tr.
- ↑ An abrupt change. – Tr.
- ↑ Hence (Lat.). – Tr.
- ↑ This in response to my questions about my sister: did one very close person tell me about the “horrors and slander” that Mr. Solovyov told me about ... But since this is a matter that does not directly concern my sister, then I will skip further about it.
- ↑ Talented nobleman (Fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ I have a proof that Mr. Solovyov said this – in his own letter. V. Zh.
- ↑ To the proper person (Fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ If Mr. Soloviev had not insulted my sister's memory with many hints of her private life in her youth, which was by no means subject to his analysis, I would have missed her such words about him and had not touched his private relations to us. But with his incontinence, he deprived me of the right to spare him.
- ↑ They hate those who have been pained for no reason (Fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ In this case, Gebhard's mistake in writing to Mme Morsier, as if I read from Mr. Solovyov’s translation of my sister's letter, is understandable: it is based on my firm belief that the original does not resemble the translation. But I am unspeakably surprised by the mocking reproaches of Mr. Solovyov that I reported about it myself. If I had read the translation, I would not have wondered at the distortion in it, but would directly point to it. Who, finally, knows better than Mr. Soloviev himself that I would have at once refuted that unintended false testimony? He, to whom Mme de Morsier showed all her letters, could not help reading the following letter to her, written by me from Elberfeld, in June 1886; fortunately, I kept a copy and can quote from it excerpts relating to the case, for those wishing to be convinced of the fact. Here they are, in translation:
I have just written to Mr. Gebhard, asking him to correct the mistake that had crept into his letter to you, which you sent to Mr. Solovyov. Probably, my deep conviction that there should be a disagreement between the translation and the original letter of my sister in Russian to the above-named Mr., made Gebhard think that I was shown the original and the translation together. No to misfortune! As you know, Mr. Solovyov does not have a copy from the French translation that is in your hands ... Because of that, I could neither read it nor say that I had read it.
So that there will be no further misunderstandings about those words, but I ask you to take note of my personal opinions and testimonies about that unlucky affair: (1) I read my sister's original letter and assert that there were no confessions in deceptions, tricks or renunciation of the Mahatmas. Reading it I got positively convinced that the meaning of the translation, made in Paris, differs from the real text. (2) I have always maintained that comparing the letter with the translation would lead to the desired clarification of the error; but unfortunately, Mr. Solovyov refuses to send me a copy of the letter and thereby deprives me of the opportunity to settle the matter peacefully, finding out a misunderstanding ... (3) In my sincere and profound conviction, the original letter of Madame Blavatsky to Mr. Solovyov could never give rise to accusations (in renouncing the existence of the Mahatmas), of whom she became a victim...
If you do not think that I'm right, pointing to an erroneous translation, I would be extremely obliged to you if you send a certified copy of it. Your and Solovyov's refusals to compare copies of the letter and its translation can only intensify unpleasant conclusions, that there is a deliberate malice in their essential discord.
I ask you to accept the assurance of, etc.
V. ZhelikhovskyWhy does not Mr. Solovyov cite on the pages of Russkiy Vestnik this letter of Mrs. “Ygrek?..” And besides the translation from the letter of Madame Blavatsky?.. The same invisible translation, which is so well kept by Mme de Morsier and is not shown to anyone, as will be told below.
- ↑ The eyewitnesses of the scene of reading the letter tell about it quite differently: the letter was not opened by Blavatsky, they say, but it arrived in a torn, tortured form, with Miss L.'s photographic card falling out of it. And Blavatsky never blamed or condemned Mohini in such terms, in which Solovyov describes the scene.
- ↑ I hasten to make a reservation: I blessed one bride. Mr. Solovyov never agreed that I crossed it in an image that I was extremely upset: I thought that this strangeness had passed him.
- ↑ Before the appearance of the letter in the press, I thought that probably the French verbs missed the “s” at the ends, which would turn the conditional into an affirmative “conditional inclination of the verb in the affirmative.” But now I think that the last lines have been translated correctly, but the words of the beginning have been omitted: “I will even go to a lie,” etc.
- ↑ Madame Blavatsky rejected the Mahatma (Fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ A little suspicious. – Tr.
- ↑ When Gebhard rode, during the incident, for information to Paris to Bessak, the latter also told him that there were not exactly any confessions in the Mahatm fabrication in Blavatsky's Russian letters; that, however, he did not read them whole, because Mr. Solovyov did not show all the letters to him, “but only certain lines (certains passages).” Bessak added that after reading the letter and the translation he had testified, “his personal opinion of Madame Blavatsky has not changed a little” ... This is a letter from Gebhard from June 27, 1886, from Paris, I'm intact. It must be taken into account that Bessak was then younger and, moreover, the incident was recent, and therefore his testimony to Gebhard, from the place described last, is of great importance and weight.
- ↑ Conspiracy (French compl.). – Tr.
- ↑ I apologize to Mr. B. for bringing my letter to him and in general his name; but I hope that, as he allowed to mention Mr. Solovyov about him, he will not refuse me to do the same.
- ↑ A convincing argument for existence (Fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ According to the testimony of many booksellers who came to me for information about where you can write the works of my sister and theosophical publications in general, as well as the number of requests from private people about the same, I see that Mr. Solovyov’s sensational article achieved results completely opposite to his good goals: they never were interested in theosophy so much in Russia as now – thanks to his efforts.
- ↑ No offense will be said (Fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ His wife has just passed away.
- ↑ The original letter says: “ce miserable” (this unfortunate). In general, expressions in it are so mercilessly offensive that I find it necessary to soften them greatly for printing.
- ↑ The comments in brackets belong to me. – V. Zh.
- ↑ In original this phrase is in English. – Tr.
- ↑ (Mohini’s accuser). Were these friends, then, Morsier and Mr. Solovyov? How does he say that he did not take any part in it?
- ↑ The Theosophist; Lucifer; The Path; Theosophical Siftings; Light; The Theosophical Forum; Vahan; Buddhist; Pacific Theosophist; New Californian; Anti-Caste; Pauses – and others. English, Indian and American. Lotus Bleu; Aurore – and others French. Sphinx is German. Estudios Theosophicos and El Silencio are Spanish. Theosofic-Tidscrift – Swedish, etc. Not counting those printed in India and Ceylon in local dialects.
- ↑ Difficult to choose (Fr.). – Tr.
- ↑ How can one not recall the words of H. P. Blavatsky herself in one of her letters to me:
“Orthodox Russia is happy that its foundations are strong; that it did not lose the ideals of pure Christianity!.. But in the West, especially in England, where the routine materialism of science and madness of 666 sects killed all faith in the spiritual tasks of being, theosophy is saving!.. They require scientific evidence of the prevalence of spirit over matter – and it gives them.”
- ↑ Aich-Pi-Bi – the English pronunciation of the letters H.P.B. – was and is the name of my sister, in the whole theosophical world. In England, close people always call each other their initials.
- ↑ “What H.P.B. did for me,” Lucifer, July, 1891, Excerpts.
- ↑ H. P. Blavatsky bequeathed that her body should be committed not on the earth, but to the flames. It was burned at the London crematorium on May 11, 1891.
- ↑ The Headquarters of the Theosophical Society in London consists of three houses facing two streets, with a front garden and a large inner garden.
- ↑ During my sister's life in America, there were no more than 50 branches of the Theosophical Society; now there are more than 70 of them, and all of them have the first or last name of her: “Blavatsky Lodge” or “Branch. H.P.B.’s Section,” etc.