HP Blavatsky and the modern priest of truth VP Zhe

 Reply of Mrs. Ygrek (V.P. Zhelikhovskaya) to Mr. Vsevolod Solovyov
 
 
 Slander, that worst of poisons, ever finds
An easy entrance to ignoble minds . . .
  Juvenal
 
To hear an open slander is a curse,
But not to find an answer is a worse, . . . 
 Ovid
 
 The duty of defending a fellow-man stung by a poisonous tongue during his absence, and to abstain, in general, “from condemning others” is the very life and soul of practical theosophy. 
 Blavatskaya
 
 
 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 over in the December issue of "The Russian Herald".
 If this Latin letter "Y", by means of which the witty author has covered only half of my personality, in most cases calling me directly "Zhelikhovskaya", 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 happy memory for Mr. Solovyov!  - but also my letters ...
 Without having to hide or especially be ashamed of my words and letters - if they are conveyed in their true light - I have nothing against it; 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 favor.
 I, unfortunately, can’t restore my conversations with our glorious novelist word for word, as he does;  but I, thanks 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 favor of the deceased sister, for whom there is no one but me to stand up for.
 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 this person, his activities, and if he is an author, then his writings? ..
 On 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 Blavatskaya, for only six weeks in Paris, for the same period in Wьrzburg 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 at that time, because the Theosophical Society was not yet in Europe;  he couldn’t read translations of the theosophical literature either except the shortened manuscript of "Isis Unveiled" [1], - the first of her works, which she herself (in printed form) 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 [2] and many articles in journals and newspapers in Europe, America, India), because of the utter ignorance of the English language, for translations are still almost nowhere except theosophical journals.  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 in it he could find all Blavatsky's works only in English.  But this language is unfamiliar to him, he himself stated more than once, as will be seen later.  For example, asking my sister for instructions in case of a trip to London to visit her, he directly says: "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 about a woman who knows so little, and about her affairs, which he does not know at all? .. Only on the grounds of his personal feelings and opinions? .. But if these feelings and opinions have been changed, like weathercocks, and at different times they were spoken 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, is. of the Russian Herald, p. 51), confessing that he "exaggerated his ignorance of the English language" to more conveniently eavesdrop and learn 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 her greatest accusations, I would admit of myself  to be flooded 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!  Why does the whole Orthodox world reproach the followers of Loyola, but 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 Orthodoxy and the persecutor of all heresies, as Mr. Solovyov himself proclaims,  could coolly confess in such actions, without being influenced by any malicious "indwelling" of the dark force that have obsessed him, or at least painful delirium, which makes him irrelevant in words.
 I will be content with consistent and, as far as possible, brief objections to his depressing accusations.
 Let's start in order, from February "Russian Herald".

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 El.  Peter. Blavatskaya!  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 is to blame for inflicting this moral torture on him through my unprecedented audacity, that is getting Russian people know about good opinions about her activities and some writings of clever foreign writers [3] ...
 Could I foresee such a sad result of my writings?!.
 I could not and did not expect, and because of this, I feel even more strongly 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, on 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 very unhappy that I, her sister, keep silent about this, completely forgetting in his noble anger that even if he was right, so after all the law itself mercifully liberates the blood relatives  from indictments.  In addition, he obviously forgets that without ever being interested as he, actually, in "miracles", 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 ones: most of highly devoted Theosophists, like Ms Besant, Professor Buck, Fullerton, Eaton, and many of the closest associates of HP 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" [4], 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 Blavatskaya 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 the long opinions of the above-named and other best workers and writers among the Theosophists, who think, like all those who know the case better, that the unrestrained stories of Olcott, Sinnett, in part Judge and other devotees of the phenomenal side of the doctrine,  did a lot of harm;  but the theosophical journals of India, America and Europe are available to those who are interested in this issue.  There are also non-theosophical organs, such as the London "The Agnostic Journal", "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 "Russian Review", p. 61,1 in my article "HP 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: that one who sees and attaches importance in theosophical teaching 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, in spite of the fact that Mr. Solovyov has not entirely polite and completely groundless opinion about the unfaithfulness of my testimony and the possibility, in his opinion, of fraud and inaccuracy of the translations, everything indicated by my references will be reliably found, and all the translations will prove to be true [5].
 It is such a strange quality of Mr. Solovyov that he can suggest his own, groundless prejudices to readers, unfoundedly accusing others of the weaknesses inherent in himself, and he firmly expect that everyone will believe him as an unconditional authority.  He continually casts suspicion on 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 HP Blavatsky were, as Ms Zhelikhovskaya 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 "Russian  Review " 1891, and there he himself will read in Chapters III, IV and VI, as I did not believe this dictation;  how I rebelled against this testimony, seriously fearing for my sister's reasoning, and expressed this distrust directly to her.
 From what did Mr. Solovyov conclude that I, who at that time did not even believe in the existence of the Mahatmas themselves, assert what I rebelled against myself? .. He, of course, did not carefully read my article, otherwise he would have known (p. 269 "  Russian Review ") 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 ... I repeat: I, once, had even been stupid not to believe in suggestions, then, as he widely admitted their 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 this is influenced by the insidious suggestion of Blavatskaya!  Not only that: there, in Elberfeld, she "inspired" him such a conversation that he matched – like galoshes to the boot – to the meaning of the letter that this very "terrible woman" put “beforehand” into the notebook that Mr.  Solovyov himself held in his hands ... This amazing incident is eloquently described by him in the letter, about the existence of which he probably forgot, for I find it with amazement (on page 205, April "R.") that he considered more convenient for himself to replace it with a ridiculous fictional scene, which never happened ... What makes him give such advantages personally rendered him by the Mahatmas to poor Olcott! .. Everything from 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 siиcle [6]?)  Solovyov.
 Be that as it may, he forgets or over-memorizes the facts, but they remain facts, and according to them the complete inconsistency of him is clear.  Why did Blavatsky inspire him with visions and conversations;  but he does not want to let someone, the strongest of her, inspire intelligent things to her? .. I never had any suggestions, and I did not believe them 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 HP Blavatsky, since he confidently declares that he himself was under the influence of her malicious suggestions.
Does it seem to be clear?