Reply of Mrs. Ygrek (V.P. Zhelikhovskaya) to Mr. Vsevolod Solovyov


In the May issue of Russkiy Vestnik, Solovyov continues to draw the same rottenness of the «report» of Hodgson, Myers and Co., a 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 hypocritical in view of public good. If he had the task of «saving the Parisian theosophists from the evil deceptions of the thieves of souls,» she herself, E.E. Blavatsky, had goals incomparably wider 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. Soloviev, not knowing those aspects of HPB, 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 her sake same, this audience, good. He condemns in it his own manner of «influencing the masses», probably out of habit of not confessing 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 as people who, in these matters, should rightly belong to authority.

Thus, 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), I must attach a document that clearly proves lie of Mr. Hodgson. Here are his words:

«The chief figures who, according to their own experience, (except for Blavatsky), affirm the existence of the brotherhood in Tibet — Mr. Damodar and Mr. Bavadzhi.»

This is what Hodgson says, and Mr. Soloviev 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 Mahatma, 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 m-me Blavatsky, had complete faith in their existence and psychic powers, knew them and saw them. And at the present time there are many persons in India who have nothing to do with the Theosophical Society, in constant communication with these supreme beings (Superior Beings). We have many means to prove these reliable facts; but we have neither the time nor the hunt 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 a grosser error, like his Report on the Theosophical Society, it has never done before. «

This «protest of the pundits (scientists), from Negapatam,» a country considered in India, as a repository of enlightenment, and especially of the experts of antiquity, was mainly sent to Adyar signed by seventy people and kept there in the library; copies were sent from there, from Negapatam, and not Adyar — to other countries, where they were printed by many newspapers and reprinted by all twenty theosophical bodies.

On pages 250 and 261 I find witty remark of Mr. Soloviev 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 in the «Inspector» … It seems to me that the use of such a comparison with respect to a person is much older than him, and besides women, it is not so much slandering me as the degradation of the «brilliant Russian writer». This, however, is a matter of taste, but since he found it possible to attach it to me, so be it I’m allowed to tell him that it was he who, with this Gogol phrase, put himself out, and by merit!

How is it not embarrassing for him to admit that he can not understand the simplest conscientiousness? He reproaches me for pointing out an impartial lie, not analyzing, whether it is in a cut or in unison with my own desires? .. He does not understand that you can refer to other people’s opinions in general, but it is necessary to state if something in them it seems wrong? ..

It’s original! .. Original and — typical!

«Ten years ago,» my merciless denunciator comments ironically, «she published a pamphlet:» The Truth About HPB «, and now (Russkoye Obozreniye, 1891, November, p. 249) admits that in this truth … there was no truth! «. After reading this, many, probably, will find me a liar; but meanwhile, here are my testimonies, from which Mr. Soloviev extracts this conviction.

Having begun the story of HP 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 this time, because the stories about him my sisters were very confused and inconsistent . «She forgot so much and mixed herself,» 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 she wanted to purposely hide what I prefer now about those years, nothing to tell «… The word — now — it was 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 (since 1864 to 1884). Here are my words:

«Now (that is, having learned what I have learned now), I will not venture to argue that the little I have told myself, from her words, in my pamphlet:» The Truth About HPB «would be full of truth.»

This is why Mr. Soloviev found it possible to reproach me for lying and betray the ridicule of the Russian people, by comparison with Gogol’s «non-commissioned officer». Yes, it is up to these very readers to decide who is merciless … «punished»?

I have never fooled readers and «lured» them — as he reproaches me right there. At me, the truth — always, the truth!

That’s where my whole lies against Mr. Soloviev, but I hope she does not destroy me in the opinion of other, impartial people.

If he so obviously neglects the truth and falsifies his cards against living people — is it possible to believe his offensive testimony — on the dead? ..

This I say in response to his story on page 254.

«She (HP Blavatsky),» he says, «was eager to become a secret agent of the Russian government in India.»

She wanted this and said about it to Mr. Solovyov?!? Lord have mercy, but in that case she was «absolutely, in general, or at that time» — speaking in the syllable of the author of the Gorbatovs, — with an idiot or completely crazy. Was Solov’ev then the chief of the secret police? ..On this side, his work is completely unfamiliar to me!

We flew to the page of the 261th May «R. in. «and read the last lines in it:

«The scandal is made in London (this is a» report «of Hodgson?) Is real. HP Blavatsky sits in Würzburg and is silent (if the writer cherished the truth, he would say: he writes his 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 Mahatma of Moria, Kut Humi and their» people «, will strike with such a response that all psychologists will disappear from the face of the earth …»

Well yes. Of course. But only Mr. Soloviev mixed himself personally with the all-powerful Mahatmas: after all, it was he, at this very time, promised to HPB to produce «such a triumph that all psychologists will get rid of» (in a letter of October 8, 1885). And he also confirmed impressively:

«Yes! So it will be! «

Well, it is clear that after this promise, everyone was waiting for the defeat of the perjurers Hodgson, Myers and Co.. And now he has rebooted all this and his own intentions are hurling at the Mahatm … A wonderful man!

No, I am positive, according to Mr. Soloviev, should be sent to live, 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, mind you!), Assuring that Blavatsky’s handwritten letter contained a letter from Mrs. Coulomb, where she swears, «Everyone will easily understand,» he continues, «that if such a letter really existed, and it would be genuine, it would not lie in the papers of Blavatsky until her death …» . After reading this «strict reprimand [34]» for the inherent spread of «nonsense», I was sad … I pulled my article out from under the canvas into gas. «News» to check what I put there «a nonsensical letter,» my own composition? .. I see: what kind of letter was there, to which these frivolous Theosophists took advantage only after the death of their sister? .. I see — there is no such thing! .. I agree with the above I have a letter in my translation … and with a light heart I see him placed in all the almost defensive articles written at the very time of the incident … Thank God: once again Mr. Soloviev … was mistaken! ..

It is finite, — errare humanum est [35], — and to Mr. Solovyov, apparently, from this side, indeed, «nothing human is alien» — nevertheless, it is a little incomprehensible to the historical narrator to carelessly treat materials. He ought to have read, well, at least one exculpatory article in defense of the one on which he so generously pours some accusations under the guise of «her biography» … He would have taken it, but instead of asking me to send my letters back, I asked for something -What books. I would lend him them and even transferred them with pleasure … He would see then, on the first page of the pamphlet printed by the investigative commission, in Madras in 1885, this is the letter about which, according to his unceremonious statement, I said «nonsense» «.

Since he himself, it’s a pity, did not bring it, and some readers «Russk. messenger «, perhaps, a gas. «News» is not read, so let me be allowed, in the sister’s justification and my pleasure, translate it again.

Here is this letter, published immediately, when the infamous, treacherous comedy of the scoundrels Coulomb, the Jesuit Patterson and the «duped youth» of Hodgson was played out. I will say in the explanation that it was written by «Coulomb», as our sister called it between us, while St. George, Lane-Fox, Hartmann, and Damodar told her that they both husband and wife would look for places ; not quite sure of the generosity of Patterson, she still valued the affection of HP Blavatsky and hastened to write to Europe the following:

«… Perhaps I said something in my anger, but I swear to all that is sacred to me, that I never uttered words: deception, secret moves, traps; below, 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. «

At the same time, approximately, she wrote to Olcott.

«… I never talked about cheating! Never said that my husband was an accomplice of madame. Why, I, at least, would be a fool if I blamed my husband for being the only person I love on earth, in that he contributed to such humiliating things! «

Both these letters are kept in Adyar. They were seen by hundreds of people interested in the case. Of course, I can not show them; but I can show you a brochure where they were published in 1885.

Who says nonsense — Mr. Soloviev?

In the May book «Russian. messenger «there are still two callouts to which I must object. (Page 265). EPB [lavatsky]. did not pretend to be a widow, but was recognized as such by the Tiflis authorities, who sent her a certificate in 1884, where she was called «widow of the village d. [36] 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 how we are, either he is alive or has died. This is the fault of the Tiflis police, and not hers.

(Page 266).

«What is it she gave to the Theosophical Society — is unknown!», Exclaims Mr. Soloviev.

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 … HPB [Lavatskaya] gave everything that she received for her English books during her lifetime, wholly in the Company; she spent only herself exclusively on what she earned in belles-lettres 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 «[Unmasked Isis]» and «Secret Doctrine») are very expensive and diverge very quickly; that for 15 years the first had 18 editions (3,000 copies each), and the second, published three years ago and still incomplete (the third part is now being printed), has already appeared in the third edition and is preparing completely for the fourth edition, then the exclamation of Mr. Solovyov will, like much in his article, be unfounded.


After a break of the whole summer, Mr. Soloviev, continuing his stories in the same spirit of an incorruptible «priest of truth,» declares to the readers of the September «Russian. messenger «that after the departure of my sister (in the autumn of 1884) to India, he did not know anything about it throughout the winter.

I have this to say to him one thing: if he was interested in her faits et gèstes [37], then he should not let her go away on that memorable December evening when she showed up to him without asking her personally about everything … Why he missed the opportunity to grab her more firmly for the folds of her «black hoodie,» and not to let her «astral body» back to India — it’s good to speak skillfully …

Do you think I’m joking? … Here, read this excerpt of his letter to me, on December 22, 1884.

«… Three weeks ago, we had dinner in a green dining room familiar to you, with the B-th. I ate with an appetite; drank, as always, very little — in a word, was in its form. After I finished dinner, I went upstairs to my room, behind a cigar. He opened the door, lit a match, lit a candle — and before me stood Elena Petrovna, in her black robe … She bowed, smiled — «Here I am!» — has disappeared. What is it??!! Again your question: a hallucination or not? — Yes, how do I know !? What can go wrong with this is true! but I will try not to do this … «etc., signed by:

«Your Sun. Soloviev ».

Well, after all, that’s what things are with Vsev. Sergeevich happened! .. Already here he was blinded by no «portrait» of HP Blavatsky, and I think it was inconvenient to hypnotise her because of the ocean-ocean? So, he visited him exactly … And such a wonderful «fact» he, suddenly, in his memories of acquaintance with her, forgot to remember! .. 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:

«Here recently was a young Gebhard who returned from India. He told me that Peter was not feeling well. Then we received a circular Olcott, announcing the miracle that had been accomplished with her (her recovery). But, in any case, in my opinion, her days are numbered. Awfully early! .. And for a year small, and most importantly — the mind is clear and literary talent in full development … But what about this! .. ».

When her sister came back to Europe in the spring and wrote a letter from Naples (cited on page 153) from Naples, he himself burst out in an unselfishly joyful greeting.

May 3, Sunday.

«Dear Elena Petrovna, I do not know how to express to you, to what extent I am glad that you are in Europe! — yet it seems that it is closer that a rendezvous is possible. However, your departure from India did not seem new to me: at the very first news of our movement in Asia [38], A. began to assure me that you would inevitably get any trouble from the British and that you would leave.

Do you remember, I told you, that the time is coming when the Russian and Indian people will converge? It seemed to you that it was not soon. But you see — and in addition to human desires and plans, the inevitable historical destinies do their job … I can not get it here. » messenger «, but I have been informed for a long time, from Moscow, that your» Blue Mountains «should begin. That’s right, they’re already printed. Now it’s time to write about India … Recover !!! Drop a word. I will write to you, free from work, and often.

To you sincerely devoted

Sun. Soloviev ».

At the same time, Mr. Solovyov and me, in almost a letter, informed me of my sister in a friendly manner and «about her business in Paris,» although this time was a busy, very busy and, in many circumstances, extremely difficult for him. 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 — quandmême aunt, despite everything — helped my sister in her temporary need …

«In a few days,» he says, «at the most critical moment for herself, Elena 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 m-me de Monsieur … «, etc.» Of course, m-me de Morsier could not tell her anything «…

Very sorry! «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, the 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. Soloviev (and without that the former one his expression, «tout à fait à sec» [39]), that was completely touched by his virtuous generosity! .. How could he endure so long — generously wait for the death of his unconscious debtor — to finally give the world an example of such a classic exploit , when neither to give, nor to thank him, she can no longer?

But, obviously, «feats of magnanimity» Mr. Soloviev is not uncommon! Here is another one: a letter to my sister from May 18, 1886. If you take into account that it was written to them precisely in those days when, having benefited from his enemy «some amount», he immediately became convinced (for the tenth time! ) in her criminality (which she claims on page 163: «Before me there was a massacre of some two grandiose» poissards «[40]», etc.), this letter is positively a feat. So I bring it as completely as possible.

Monday, May 18, 1885

Paris. Rue Pergolese 48.

«Dear Elena Petrovna, what does this mean? I wrote to you twice and myself dropped the letters to the post office. I received a letter from you in which you inform me about your arrival in Torre del Greco. Today, m-me de Morsier informed me that you did not receive my letters. I immediately sent you a telegram; I’ll send this letter to the registered person! .. Where our letters disappear is inconceivable! .. But, in any case, to doubt my sincere attitude to you, you have no right. I do not change — it’s not in my nature! «I, too, am very ill, dear E [lena] P [etrovna], I have a severe liver disease, and no one helped me here. The trouble and troubles can not be achieved …

Believe that I’m doing everything that is in my power so that if only a week’s time is enough, go to you. But in my position it’s so difficult, I’m so tightly connected, 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 had a dream: this spring to spend in Italy — then I would, so to speak, accidentally (?!) met 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. All intercourse, at first pleasant, invariably ended in all exploitation and a gross assault on my pocket …

Today there was a meeting with Mohini at m-me de Morsieu. Mohini was explaining to Richet (?!); but they do not understand and can not understand each other. Tomorrow I have a meeting. Mme de Morsier arranged this without asking me beforehand-and suddenly your duessess comes to me and asks permission to come … I had to bow to her with a kind smile. But as it pleases me — you can judge! — Yes it’s all nonsense, everything here is un mauvais quart d’heure à passer, rien que ça [41]! ..It can be a trifle and the trickery of your enemies regarding the study of phenomena. But force must be countered — force! I must see you! But I have one head, two arms, two legs, a very sick body, and even karma binds in all directions … What can you do about it ?! Please write at least something. Get well is our heartfelt desire.

Your Sun. Soloviev ».

By the same time, Mr. Solovyov’s letter, quoted in Chapter VII, belongs to me, where he claims that the general sympathy and respect for my sister could only increase after the intrigues of «this Coulomb asshole» and the «asses» of scientists (psychologists?).

Are these the very letters with which he blasphemously informed Blavatsky that — «does not believe any of her Mahatmas and phenomena»? — letters about which he speaks so confidently at the end of XVI chapter of his work? Where is the excuse for them to ask him, even for the sake of friendship, not to leave the Society? He does not even intend to leave it in the slightest intention … Strange! .. Or are those strict and mocking letters of an incorruptible «priest of truth» to the unworthy even pity of his «priestess» deceptive, the goddess of the pagans, evaporated? .. For, judging by the numbers , others at the time did not receive Blavatsky … She was not «husk-li» it played a cruel joke with him? .. In nature, anything can happen.

But, about the funny story of Mr. Soloviev about the error in the spelling of the «Hindu» of Bawaji, I must declare my unshakable confidence that if in fact he, «at the instigation of Blavatsky wrote, instead of» blessed believers «-» blessed are the liars «» — it did so at her own will … From her, such a joke with Mr. Soloviev could be very much! Several letters from her, at that time, testify that she had already noticed some weakness in his tongue; because he complains about troubles that occurred because of his not quite true testimony and talkativeness (she then considered these manifestations of hypocrisy on his part only frivolous talkativeness). Addressing this hint, about the bliss of the liars, directly to Mr. Solovyov, she probably wanted to hint and laugh at him. It was free to him not to understand her irony!


The October article by Mr. Solovyov begins with a spectacular sketch: the careless HP Blavatsky made a disobedience, dropped the «silver bell» (the one from which the ringing did not ring, but the chords of string, like the aeolian harp that I and many people heard, not guessing about such an interesting «thing»). Of course, he lifted him politely and gave it to her, without refraining from smiling, to which he had shown her that she had discovered her deceit (pages 231 and 232).

«Elena Petrovna,» he says, «has changed in the face and snatched from me this thing. I gave a meaningful grunt (oh, Mephistopheles!), Smiled and spoke of an outsider … «.

Wanting to give Solovyov a case once again — «meaningfully to grunt» and … «talk about an outsider», we remind him of one of his — also «significant» — a letter he wrote to London:

6/18 August 1884

Paris. Rue Pergolese.

«Dear Elena Petrovna, did not write to you because in a small house with a garden it was very unfortunate. Now somehow calmed down. Karma is cruel! .. At some grave moment, a bell on the table that did not exist was clearly and loudly ringing, and a sudden thought about you flashed through your mind and heart … «and so on.

This is what was behind the bell, which was in difficult moments of life to console Mr. Solovyov ?!

Probably a distant relative of the «little silver thing» he raised in Würzburg? .. Funny!

He continues to talk about the bubble of orange oil, which my sister wants to think that he brought a rose oil from Tibet to Tibet as a present, and put it in his pocket. But Mr. Soloviev is an old sparrow! A d’autres [42]! .. His — a clumsy, fat woman (who also barely had her hands and feet swollen with rheumatism, moved — according to his own, there, the direction) — even though she acted with the jokes of the pickpocket pickpocket «And [43], could not podnadut! .. Here again, poor fellow, played a fool! .. What to do: do not encroach on such vigilant and sensitive people! .. Yes, by the way, and do not give them the keys to their reserved caskets …

Poor, witty Elena Petrovna! Itself sent Mr. Solovyov to look for a portrait; she gave him the key to where she hid (badly hid!) envelopes, for the letters she wrote, the Mahatmas, and herself thus gave out to the whole world (although not a clever liar, but for that fool’s joke) — for, Mr. Soloviev, having waited exactly seven years and waiting for her death, took, and even ruthlessly told her all the stupid things he had committed …

But if, in Chapter XIX, Mr. Solovyov exposes my sister as a deceiver and an idiot, then we must give justice, that he did not spare himself! I am sure that many honest people who read his stories about how he treated, cunning, flattered and deceived in order to catch another in wrongdoings no worse than his own, he himself, Mr. Soloviev, in all its splendor intelligence, ingenuity and nobility — has become incomparably more antipathic than that which he wished to put to execution. We must, however, do not forget that he is inclined to … hobbies! ..

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 (in June 1884 — means?), I was convinced of the falsity of your phenomena?» And t. further; having read and compared these indignant speeches with what he did when he returned to Paris — namely, remembering his letter of October 8, 1885, — only you will dissolve your hands with surprise! .. Willy-nilly, I must again remind the readers of this a letter that I already quoted in several of his passages, about the diligent convictions of Mr. Solovyov, Professor S. Richet, «in reality of the phenomena» and the personal psychic power of HP Blavatsky.

Here is its beginning:

On the 8th of October. 1885


«Dear Elena Petrovna, what is better: write in vain or be silent and act for the benefit of your correspondent? .. I made friends with m-me Adam [44], told her a lot about you, very interested her, and she told me that her «Revue» is open not only for theosophy, but also for the protection of you personally, if necessary.I praised her m-me de Morsier, at the same time there was another person who spoke in your favor in the same tone, and m-me Adam wished to get acquainted with mme de Morsier, who remains in Paris as the official mediator between me and «Nouvelle revue ». Yesterday, the acquaintance of these ladies, our Emilia (de Morsier) in full delight … In any case, it’s very good. Today I spent the morning with Richet and again spoke a lot about you, on the occasion of Myers and the Psychic Society. I can positively say that I convinced Richet, in reality, of your personal strength and the phenomena (?) Coming from you … «, etc., already known to readers, about what a triumph will be, to the perniciousness of psychologists when he, Mr. Soloviev, will be able to answer the third (?) question of Richet «in the affirmative» … «Yes, it will be so! — he finishes this historic letter — for, you did not play me like a pawn! .. I’m leaving the day after tomorrow in Petersburg … something will happen ?! You are cordially faithful to Sun. Soloviev ».

Now I boldly appeal to all reasonable, fair and reasonable people and ask them:

«Did Mr. Soloviev write such a letter to my sister, on his return from Wurzburg, if what he now wrote really happened between him and her ?!»

Do they agree with me that, despite all the shamelessness of hypocrisy in which Mr. Soloviev himself confesses, it is difficult to imagine that after the rupture of the full, after all the stupid filth that he ascribes to my sister (Bavadzhi’s instruction, captured envelopes and bell, in a pocket of bubbles with oil and the like of absurdity), he would take on the shameful courage to convince in her favor such people as Richet and m-me Adam? People — European-known — people who at any given time can, by the press, ask him how he dared them to fool? .. And on the other hand, if we assume that he did all this and did not convince them of the truth and the «reality of power» of HP Blavatsky, it is she, Blavatsky, who, as it were, accepted such a letter of a humiliating, exposing person who had just mixed it with dirt and immediately made her happy with the notice that he turned to friendship and belief in her two of the foremost people of Europe?!.

Is it compatible? Is it possible to?! Does this letter (from October 8, 1885) serve as irrefutable evidence that everything he told on two hundred pages of «Russian. messenger «for October — his later fiction for fun and a new frostbite of the public?

I know for certain that when he arrived in Petersburg in the winter, he not only believed in the possibility of the existence of the Mahatmas, but also waited on them for charity. He told us all about this when he arrived in St. Petersburg; yes, this, however, and the last words in the letter confirm it.

Against page 241, where it is alleged that E [lena] P [etrovna] beaten and tyrannized Bawaji (as previously reported that she tyrannized and Colonel Olcott), I suppose it’s too much to object … In Mr. Soloviev’s article, there are many such pages , which really (as a person recently wrote to me, who is quite close to him) «I would like to turn the tweezers» …

To such … inconvenient pages is the page of the 246th chapter of the 20th chapter.

I ask the readers to pay attention to Mr. Solovyov’s letter to my sister from May 3, 1885, where he reminds her of how she did not want to believe him when he foretold to her «the rapprochement of a Hindu with a Russian man» — and to decide is consistent whether this is the disbelief of HP Blavatsky with the words that he now ascribes to her: «I easily organize a huge uprising. I guarantee that in a year of time all of India will be in Russian hands! «.

But I assure myself that my sister would never have said such stupidity!

And now, let my sister herself, because of the coffin, speaks for herself — maybe, and her justification will be believed by impartial people. This letter she wrote to me in the spring of 1886 from Elberfeld, where she begged me to come and where I so much did not want me to go, Mr. Soloviev.

16th of May.


«Soloviev 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 his nonsense. I have been publicly accused of spying for Russia and make this the goal and the direct motive of all the false (supposedly) phenomena and the «Mahatmas invented by me!» I am dying from India because of such a ridiculous accusation, which, despite its absurdity, could be played out for me by prison and exile only because I am Russian and, already injured for this slander, do not understand aza-in-the-eye in politics, — I will offer myself a spy! .. And … who? — To Solovyov !!. To him, — knowing him for uncontrollable talker and gossip! .. Why am I — I want to be hung, or what?!. Why, I would close this to myself forever to enter India. After all, he, spreading these rumors about me, plays directly into the hand of England and ruins me for not even saying anything about that! After all, he himself, in the course of five weeks (starting with hints from Paris!), Persuaded me daily (H [adezha] [45] and C [Orn] [46] — they know) to return to Russian citizenship, to use all my influence on Hindus against the British and the Russians. He said that this noble, great cause and prove my patriotism! I asked and prayed to put on paper all that I can do in this respect for Russia in India, and that this paper, or «project,» he himself will present in Petersburg … I answered all this that I was ready to die, to put life on and your soul for Russia; that there is no Russian citizen in Russia, more committed to the Sovereign and homeland than I am, a citizen of America; but that I am incapable of this matter, do not know anything about politics, and only risk my neck and hundreds of Indians if I decided to do so.

Here, Vera, is the holy truth, which I will repeat when I die. If I have ceased to be Orthodox or any Christian at all, I deeply believe in the afterlife, in punishment and retribution. I swear by all the powers of heaven, that I say one truth …

And he has his brass forehead his words — to take me on?

It’s disgusting to talk about him and remember how sincerely I loved him and trusted him! .. Believe, beware! He will go against you and kill you without a knife! .. ».

Are these words prophetic? Is it not the present effort of Mr. Soloviev to show me a liar, a juggler, a traitor to friends, and so on., — an attempt to kill me morally? .. But, for the happiness of honest people, such gentlemen have knives bad — they themselves are jagged!

G. Soloviev states that while he was in Russia, «the most outrageous story raised by the victim of Don Juan’s inclinations of Mohini» was played out (page 251). I also affirm and, if there was not a shortage of space and time, I would have led dozens of witnesses to this, that no one, like Mr. Soloviev himself, had brewed all this mess, again using his «hypnotized» — as people call it, close who know their relationship, are victims, mme de Morsier in Paris, and no one, like himself (and not Blavatsky), played a «very bad role» in this story. I will tell, in brief, everything that I know for sure; but, first of all, he must bring two letters from Mr. Solovyov to fully describe his relationship to persons involved in the new gossip, however, did not play out, since Miss L. was just a dreamer, and Mohini before her — nothing guilty. Here are two letters from Mr. Soloviev.

Monday. Evening. (Without number).

«Dear Elena Petrovna.

Mohini is a very clever woman, and I believe that he will be honored by his teacher with great praise for this stay in Paris. To arrange something really good and serious with the local gentlemen — there is no human opportunity; but what could be done — he did.

Today at Morsier (this was the last meeting) he was magnificent! I spoke so well, cleverly and, most importantly, by the way, that I really wanted to kiss his Brahminess nedotrozhestvo mine, spoiled wine drinking, meat-eating and sinful kisses, lips. Although I am known here for a skeptic who struggles with all occultism (?!) And even with you, but still, since it is also known that I am your compatriot and devoted to you, like «Elena 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 fondness. In view of this, I asked him to tell us everything he knows about you and make a statement. He proceeded to do this perfectly and began to make a strong impression. But since he was thinking of going with the evening train, then, looking at the clock, I was convinced that I had to interrupt immediately the conversation started, to rush for his things to me, to feed him and more likely to the train — or it would be late … Suddenly with me happened Something strange! I was all cold (touched my hands — like ice!) Head went around, I closed my eyes; from me, on the former somnambulist, Edward, something went off, from which he began to snore — and here I, with my eyes closed, — saw you and felt (?!) that you want Mohini to stay until the morning train …

I had to inform everyone about this … Mohini stayed and finished his brilliant, convincing conversation.

Now, of course, everyone is waiting to know what it was like: the actual transmission at a distance of your thought and desire, your magnetic influence on me — or my fantasy, but, perhaps, even a fiction. Most of all, of course, I’m interested in this, so I ask you not to leave us in the unknown. If this was true, then let Mohini immediately report this to m-me de Morsier, while Dramar has not left yet.

I expect news from you, be healthy and strong.

Your Sun. Soloviev ».

The second letter is also without a number, but it is evident from the sense that it was written after returning from Würzburg in the autumn of 1885.

«Dear Elena Petrovna, Bavadzhi sits with us and in an hour A. will take him to the station and send him to Wurzburg. At me the head literally goes around from any affairs and affairs (??). I’ll send a letter concerning Mashka in French tomorrow. As for m-lle L. (the same Englishwoman who had so severely riveted on Mohini, V.J.) — your warning came too late [47]; but do not worry: after recommending yourself as a friend of Sinnett, this person took possession of de Morsier, whom I found wandering with her, as with some miracle and a holy one …

I did not throw any Mephistophelian views, but told her not to be very worried about this theosophist, because she wanted to seduce the chela, who, however, was at the height of her calling and vocation. So, you see, the reputation of Mohini does not suffer at all and there can not 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 … Imagine! Cette pauvre enfant [48] — 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 is looking at her.

«[Unveiled] Isis» I’ll send one of these days … We send you our warmest regards. Be healthy, do not torment yourself for nothing and do not torment poor Bavadzhi, who can already go crazy in cold Germany.

To you sincerely devoted

Sun. Soloviev ».

How this friendly letter fits perfectly with Mr. Solovyov’s farewell to HP Blavatsky in that strictly instructive form, as he now paints it (p. 249)! How are his words consistent with Madame de Morsier’s assertion that «Mohini remained at the height of her vocation» -with this trivial abuse and the words about the poor Hindu, as though my sister was reprimanded in his presence, Mr. Solovyov, about which he speaks on page 249, October. «R. at.».

«She gave me the opportunity to leave her forever without a feeling of pity!» — he declares (p. 260).

Amazed and shocked readers expect that, here, he now returns to Paris and finally executes the criminal! He describes it in his article, so that the readers are amazed by the more 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, for my «politeness» (?!). Well, how can I not answer when she complains about her suffering and appeals to my heart? .. However, I found that 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 truth of the husband of honor, for the true priest of truth, if … if the small, gray sheets of postal paper were not issued, with his head, his jokes! ..

Yes! He is more kind in deeds than in words, this forgetful Mr. Solovyov: I do not know what exactly he thought about my sister, but letters (as seen from the above) were written to her by the pre-hungry, pre-ordained and conscientiously tried to find her useful friends in the environment science and literature — convincing Charles Richet, m-me Adam, and probably many more, in her psychic powers.

Farceur [49]! .. He now only came up with playing the judge and the executioner.


Now it’s time to start talking to me, that is, not to refute only Mr. Solovyev’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. Soloviev 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 sister’s devotion to mine) we have every day.His correspondence — about all sorts of interesting subjects, mainly about literature, about poetry and their best representatives, — was very interested in my daughters; he himself was even more interested in all of us with his live stories, his original mystical views on everything in the world and his good-natured sincerity, sometimes reaching sharpness. He learned this last feature so skilfully that he positively fascinated us with his own truth … 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 they thought we then, the relationship to him of all those close to him in blood and the romantic details of his then-existent existence, which was presented to us from the most sublime, sympathetic side … In a word, Vsevolod Sergeevich easily occupied in our family, who had just moved to St. Petersburg from the south and with flax pined for lack of family or friend connections, — a place very close and dear friend.

Here for the first time we began to hear from him questionable, even unfriendly testimonials about my sister and her business. To prove the extent to which this change was unexpected, I quote a few lines from Elena Petrovna’s letter proving that for her too such volte-face [50] Mr. Soloviev was a surprise — ergo [51] that his break with it and all the entertaining «scenes» of his stay in Würzburg, the fruits of his later, novel works. In response to my astonished reports that I first heard from him, she wrote to me on February 2, 1886.

«You are an amazing subject, Vera Petrovna! Well, for what I will answer «abuse»? .. Because you, according to your inner understanding and conscience, tell me what you think? .. This is exactly, it would not be theosophical on my part. And here is what I will answer and I must answer «abuse» at the address of those who lie to you, restoring you against me and those who are not guilty of anything and love you more than you think it is, it is my direct duty [ 52] …

In your short letter, that new and unimpressive light shines through, in which you are now represented by Theosophy, and I, and Mohini, and even some good Christians … Well, so listen to my song too — and do not take the sin of a soul , — to condemn people for slander, without investigating them … ».

Then a long description of the scandal with Miss L. and Mohini, indicating the real source of these gossip and the main «fan» of them. But the last instruction of his sister, none of us believed. In our opinion, m-me 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 leaves the Society because he was convinced of his anti-Christianity. — Three lies! .. Never did the Society stand so tightly as now … (details) … This is who told you about the disintegration of the Theosophical Society? .. Really Soloviev?!. Did de Morsier describe him correctly? .. Is the society against Christianity? It is so against it, that members of the Anglican church, liberals, join it, but the Christians are hot; Lady Caithness writes a book: «Christian Theosophy»; m-r Bannon — another: «Christ in Theosophy», etc. And that Vsev. Sergeyevich broke up with the Society because he found it not Christian, so I’ll tell you that he probably made this find in your living room … There’s something here (in Wurzburg), and no one has heard from him nothing like this. And when it was, they would surely have heard … He would not keep silent, if only he thought so … «.

(I ask you to note how I got caught between two fires and received a hangover at another’s feast! … I also ask you to note the further testimony of HPB, about farewells in Wurzburg, and take into account that my sister could not lie , if I wanted, for these facts were other witnesses who unanimously confirmed to me what she wrote).

«We said goodbye to him as a family, 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 took it, and was silent! For no reason, no one in St. Petersburg has found a strip … You do not know, in the innocence of his soul, but I know: he just got scared of the abuse of the Psychic Society! .. You see, about Gentilhomme’e de la Chambre [53 ] it responded that he was either lying or hallucinating … But read the attached letter to me, just written before he left Paris. «I’m sure that will come true!» You did not play me as a pawn, «he writes … He evidently just got angry that what he had expected had not happened yet, that’s our excuse:» anti-Christianity «! .. Ah, Vera, Vera! You are a clever man, but you allow yourself to be fooled … Sin Vsevolod Sergeyitch! A double sin: both for slander, and for not throwing a stone at Mohini, if that was what happened! .. All his good intentions disappeared, as soon as he did not expect so soon what he had expected in two or three of the month … The very letter of his will prove to you that it is not because of him that he has become vexed with me, that my society is «anti-Christian»! .. Look deep … As for my anti-Christianity, you know him. 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 against the Orthodox Christian church — let them hang me — I will not go! So Russia is dear to me, it made my heart so sad for my motherland, for everything that my soul would have given into bondage for ten thousand years for it. But I do not want to be a hypocrite. That’s the whole truth for you, everything that was on your mind boiling and aching. And I have suffered and suffered for these ten years! .. I have redeemed past sins well, as far as I could, — I hope that I will appear with a blank sheet, if my agony is taken into account; but … a sinful person — I would like to be condemned here and not without an appeal! .. I would not want to die, leaving a muddy spattered name … «.

Thus, from the depths of a painful soul, a yelling cry, often, in recent years Elena Petrovna’s letters were coming to an end. I am sure that many will understand that it is a moral duty to encourage her memory, as far as possible, from the malicious and deceitful censures of unscrupulous enemies, awakens in me with renewed vigor when reading such letters of my sister and, what I owe, for her and for myself itself, to satisfy this just desire.

Nevertheless, although the feelings of pity for the sufferings of my moral and physical sisters often tormented me, but I did not think for a minute that all the incentives that our common stimuli aroused in everything — mine and the whole family — my indignation against her, distrust and prejudice against our common loved ones with her, would be either fiction, or on the fly caught by outbursts of their anger, just as skillfully excited (in Wurzburg) against me, -as in St. Petersburg my anger against them was incited. And he was not excited for anything else, to force me and my words to utter in moments of extreme excitement — and to give that opportunity to increase that accumulation of information that Mr. Solovyov calls his «baggage» so picturesque …

«Mrs. Ygrek was at that time in a quarrel with Elena Petrovna,» he certainly informs the readers (October, Russkiy Vestnik, p. 252).

But does not inform them who created this quarrel? Who needed 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 … 54. To justify my own folly, I say one thing: I was so good was prepared that she did not even realize that neither the 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 a break.

And then, when I got to half-madness, and my children were to an extreme degree of rage for me, — everything was carefully taken into account and everything that could come off our languages ​​in the most extreme exaggerated sense of irritation was recorded.To this kind of «baggage» of Mr. Solovyov belong those my letters, which he now printed under the transparent cover of the nickname I gave him, the letters «Y». Not only that all our conversations were recorded, but they were immediately transmitted to à qui de droit [55] — so exactly as we were given, with the most cold-blooded calculation we were annoyed against the E], [P] etrovs, than it was said and did not say in Würzburg. Here is an excerpt from a sister’s letter, directly indicating it, on March 28, 1886. At the beginning of it, she exhausts all her eloquence in order to correct the evil effect of slandering me on people close to us, in order to reconcile us, urging us not to blame angry speeches to each other 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 a letter to Solovyov there, which he begins in the most mysterious way: «After what was, we have nothing more to talk to you about!» — and ends with allusions to things twenty and thirty years ago. .. Where did he hear all this? .. Let’s say that there are people in Petersburg who know; could tell him — but not in such detail, Vera! I’m not angry with you, I understand your irritation; but she is more to me than her own, she is a friend of my life, and was indignant for me, having learned that all the nightmares of my youth that I had exhausted myself now became the property of the m-me de Morsier salon, and they were drawn by Soloviev you in the house! It’s no use to hide: no Coulombs, no psychiatrists, no one has done me as much harm as these Solovyov’s gossip! .. For fifteen years I worked tirelessly for the benefit of people; she did good, to whom and with what she could; I tried to pardon my sins by deeds. How many saved both women and men 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 — what! covered with a thick layer of mud and through whom? .. Soloviev, he, he — with his grave sin in his soul — he first throws a stone at me! … You say: «recklessness.» A good recklessness! He killed me, sold me like Judas, because «onhait toujous ceux à qui l’on fait du mal sans raison» [57] — he has no other reasons for hatred for me! .. He has been whipping, destroying and hating even more! » .

Yes, that’s how Mr. Soloviev took advantage of our trust in the moments he was excited about, irritation against my sister. All this would be buried forever — if he himself did not want to force me to obey myself and unwillingly to surrender to the Russians not myself, but all his actions, intrigues and falsity.

If I, a woman incomparably more cold-blooded than my sister was, skillful maneuvers could lead him to oblivion of reason — what’s so surprising that she, who was sincere and insane in her entire life, wrote crazy letters to him? .. In a letter, given in chapter XXII, I recognize her fervor, which reached, in moments of excitement, into insanity. I recognize her … But at the same time — I recognize this letter as well … This is the same letter that made so much noise in Paris and turned away many of the Theosophists from Blavatsky, like the ardent m-me of Morsier, who believed his French translation, which neither Mr. Soloviev nor I ever showed [58], but the meaning of which was conveyed to me by many of his readers, when I was with my sister 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 Mahatma and confessed that she invented them Existence».

That, in the most important way, angered the Parisians against HP Blavatsky; but, as readers see, this in her letter — in her Russian letters — no. Where did it come from in the French translation — and even witnessed? .. «The Mystery is Great» — lying between Mr. Soloviev and Mrs. Morsier …I will return to this episode when I speak about the November issue of the «Russian Herald»; Now it is the place to bring the last, — really the last letter of Mr. Solovyov to my sister. It is written in response to the information given on the pages. 255th — 259th «Russian. messenger «for October.

(Without number).

«Elena 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 was your personal enemy, now with triumphantly I would expect your appearance in Paris (?!) And London (?!?) And would be present at your death (!?!) Coolly, which to me already does not damage can in no way, for while I was acquainted with you, I acted consciously. 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 dishonor! «

(To the last phrase, underlined by me, all the italics of Mr. Soloviev himself).

«The goals of this, as you know, I have reached — not in vain I sat in stinking Würzburg for 6 weeks! — Do you really think that I can be stymied by insolent slander and lies and that I have not been prepared for you, just in case — for I have always been waiting for you, — a fair amount of surprises (?!?). This is you yourself are only your own worst enemy and 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 teach me … After all, my head is cold, as you yourself said; Well, and you — hot to incomprehensibility and when it burns, you do not see anything (sic).

Do you want a scandal? You had few of them! Well, — please, welcome! And we’re going to work.

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 his same Mr. Solovyov, 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 these gossip, but of their creators, indisputably, he is one of the main).

«… I knew this story from the letters of m-me de Morsier. Then Miss L. turned to my honor, asking me to tell the truth about printing her letter by you. I had to tell the truth and said, and certainly nothing confused [59] .- The fact of their connection is proved and there is no doubt. All documents are in the hands of lawyers. From you only want one thing — that you wrote this miss: «Being confident in the honesty of Mohini and not having in hand any evidence of the contrary, I foully spoke of you. If Mohini deceived me and acted dishonorably, 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. In this there is absolutely nothing for you humiliating, — 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 peacefully return to your literary works, which I, God God, sincerely wish for every success, until they get off the literary soil (?!). 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 this tone — it’s yours, not mine.

Sun. Soloviev ».

That’s what was the farewell letter of Mr. Solovyov to my sister.

Evidently, the traps were so badly organized by her former «co-betrayed friend» before the coffin; for my sister was several times in Paris, where she was always greeted with honor, joyfully welcomed and greeted by many of her faithful friends and her memory to this day; in London, she lived the last five years of her life, surrounded by complete respect, honor and even the enthusiastic worship of many people who are incomparably superior to the mind and knowledge of people than some of her «accusers». Actually, the consciousness of these facts irritated their morbid self-esteem before oblivion of all decency and every kind of reason, in embittered testimonies. In addition to Mr. Soloviev, there are two or three unimaginable enemies of Blavatsky and abroad …And it was precisely from those who, like him, imagined what the Society really needed and that no «Teacher» could find that they were useless for him; in a word those who hoped to play a major role in it and were mistaken in their calculations!

So, despite Solovyov’s assertion (p. 261) that he and m-me Morsier «understood well that there was nothing to wait for the appearance of Blavatsky in Paris or London,» the facts proved that they were mistaken in this, how wrong in so many other things. As, for example, he was mistaken, arguing that Bavaji (the Hindu, hinting at him about the bliss of «lying») was afraid of «Blavatsky» who had «killed him», did not dare to say a word against her; Meanwhile, Bavadzhi, as soon as the slander spread to Blavatsky, as if she «renounced the Mahatma,» was so angry that he immediately left her and even temporarily moved to the camp of her opponents.


In the winter, shortly after Solovyov’s departure for Russia, my sister again became very ill; who lived with her in Würzburg 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. Soloviev makes me in vain (on 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 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. Soloviev to tear away HP 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 intrigante, 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 — glasnosti?!.

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 delirious delirium, I was amazed and straightly expressed to Mr. Soloviev his perplexity: there was no «confession in the fabrication of the Mahatma» in the letter. Where did the Parisians come up with this? .. G. 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 ‘ a; Mr. Soloviev 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. Soloviev; he announced that he was at m-me 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 «consciousness 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? .. 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 «(Moriya) and Mahatma K. Kh. (Kut Humi) are the fruits of my imagination», etc., should be translated in the affirmative sense, instead of the conditional one, in which they remember me [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. Soloviev 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 m-me Morsier and others in that «m-me Blavatsky a renié les Mahatmas [62]!» As they are convinced even now. 4) G. Soloviev, not without an intention, does not say much 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.

G. 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 m-me 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 and show it to me. But I waited in vain for three weeks and finally received the following notice.

June 5, 1892


«Madame, I would like to see the translation myself, about which you asked me. This translation is not in the hands of m-me de Morsier, and therefore I could not cope with it. I can not 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 [63]) 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 [64].

Accept assurance, etc.

Jules Baissac. «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 ​​m-me Blavatsky, and such flattering things. The influence of his dear friend, m-me 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 he?

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. Soloviev (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 «is unique (?!) 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 completely calmly. 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 E [lena] P [etrovna] claimed that the translation of her letter to Mr. Soloviev was incorrect (p. 287). He could add that this and I affirm. Otherwise, Mr. Soloviev 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. Soloviev (p. 289), calls me in vain because I tried to justify him, talking about him with Gebhard, while I was lazy to believe his untruth; he would rather forgive me to be called «a near 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. Soloviev went insane and committed an unconscious act, than such a terrible thing. «

Very vainly he talks about our gloomy «compote» [65], about some insidious plot of mine and my sister, to extradite him for a madman. Of course, the readers of R. messenger «, which Mr. Soloviev did not say anything about Blavatsky’s famous accusation of renouncing the Mahatma and the consciousness 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. Soloviev demanded a meeting with me in the winter, motivating our common acquaintance, AAB-vu, his desire to see me, in order to explain about some of our personal accounts, namely, that I declared him crazy in Elberfeld [66] , 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 could never persuade him, after his sister’s death, to transfer to Russia what she was told abroad or her personal memories of her. Such a deal has no raisond’etre [67], and it never was.

To spread (as he says) in Russia to Theosophy, I will never undertake, that by me, everything that I wrote about it, is 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 he?) Zealously support the foundations of Orthodoxy, — caring about him more than others, including myself, is only an excuse and nothing more. [68] 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 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 G.Gebhard gave his answer to us (his letter is intact). Then I and my daughter, V.V.Dzhonston, urged Vsevolod Sergeich to send a notarized copy from the letter of HPBlavatsky, — but he stubbornly refused this.

This strange obstinacy deprived me of the opportunity to justify Mr. Soloviev — 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. Soloviev (living in Peterhof 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, soon returned. 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. Soloviev, should fall on us, for participating in 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. Soloviev 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. Soloviev 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 V.Zhelikhovskaya. «

To this I received a reply from Mr. BV, 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 …


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 [69] 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. Soloviev, 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. Soloviev 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 HP Blavatsky.»

After reading this paragraph, I translated it and sent it to Berlin to G.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).

January 8, 1892

Berlin. Stüler Straße 13.

«Dear m-me 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 NRV, 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 HP Blavatsky, treating her like a goddess, kissing her shoe, and who now, when this great woman turned to dust, insult her memory with slander. 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. Zhelikhovskaya, my sincere thoughts, which I myself am not able to present in a printed article, because I am in a state of extreme grief [70] … I am pleased to extract from this letter what you want, in response to this dishonest person [71] ].

Please accept my respectful greetings and bow.

G.Gebhard ».

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 them very much affected person. 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 (the blame – on others?!) 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 «all the same» it’s hard to imagine that I’m all of them were very composed… I am very grateful to G. Soloviev for such award me at least the smallest dose of truth, but very sorry that I can not answer him the same courtesy in his story about Mrs. Cooper-Oakley is without an iota of truth! Not I, ‘ she accuses. 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 G. 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. Dec 25 1892 London. Avenue Road 17. «Dear m-me Jelihovsky, be, please, so kind – refute any testimony about me G. Solovyov. I only once met him in the house of m-me 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 m-me 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. Can we add that during many years of my friendship with Mr. Jay Blavatsky, the falseness (falseness) the testimony of G. 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 Isabel Cooper-Oakley». 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, – not true 1-I)[72]. «I was with m-me 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 – (true 2nd). «The statement that I ran away from Adyar, says Mrs. Cooper-Oakley is definitely false (not true 3-I). I left because the doctor found it necessary… as for the fact that m-me de Morsier G. Soloviev saw me in tears, or some emotion is a lie (it is a lie[73], – account, 4-I!). At the time I was in friendly correspondence with m-me Blavatsky and, more importantly, I came at the request Sinnett and Keighley, is to learn from friends, Ms. l[74], based on what it claims? No m-me, Morse or G. 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 in 274 countries. – not true 5-I!). «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! true 6-I). To speak about me “violence” (members of the Theosophical Society) – from the G. Soloviev positive absurd (lie 7-I)!.. Ms. Zhelikhovsky did faithful and accurate translation of my words (SIM denounced eighth true G. Solovyov, two-and-a-half pages of his works… Eloquently!). I can at any time to provide further answers and details if need be… Isabel Cooper-Oakley». So ends Mrs. Cooper-Oakley is your thorough reading of 28 Dec. 1892. At the end of Chapter XXIII and a series of falsehoods, that I mentioned, Solovyov writes: «Curiously, чтò would have done and said to the deceased (?!) mistress Oakley, if m-me de Marse or I met her with such (course. of the author) her «memoirs» in his hands and said, «Чтò 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 G. Soloviev knows «чтò she did and чтò told him»! I hope that he is happy?! After reading these responses of persons affected by casual satire on my sister; reading private letters G. Soloviev – 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 G. Soloviev 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 all would constitute an act of hypocrisy, at least for the following two reasons: as a thoroughly tried G. Soloviev 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.


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 [75] 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 [ 76].

I am sending those who would like to know which speeches and speeches were made over the coffin of HP 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 HP 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 Kitley. He is also one of the many ridiculed Mr. Soloviev, 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 recognized it closer … 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, HPBlavatskaya 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, Helen 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 [77]? .. HPBavatskaya pointed this light to us. She taught those who wished to listen to her, to search within her 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 HPB 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: «HP 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 NRV [78], 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 HP 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 it. Let the enemies and materialists explain, if they can, the power and influence of HP 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 «[79].

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 HP 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 in a number of ways, 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» Soloviev. All countries responded to her death, and people like Crookes, Flammarion, Stead, Hartmann, Hubbe-Shlayden, Beck, Fullerton, Eaton, Bukanan and many others honored her with memories and speeches.

I will even quote the words of Professor Hubbe-Schlaiden here. Here is what he wrote in his journal «Sphinx»:

«If 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 … Not the time of the final verdict on her was yet to come; but we can not 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,

In the annals of world history, its personality is coming — it is immortal! «.

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 to 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 the 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 [80] 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 HPB «is divided into three periods: New York, its cradle; Adyar, her altar and London, her 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. 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 its 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 HP Blavatsky), and behind it the portrait of her «teacher-Moria», 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 [81] 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. [82]

But nowhere was the sadness of HP 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.

For all that, her compatriots did not even mention that name alone! .. Orthodox people can condemn it in the name of Christianity; one can, without doubt, not sympathize with its, in part pantheistic, teaching; but you can not 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 who have disappeared from the materialism of our century, 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, HP 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.

© Zhelikhovskaya V.P. HPBlavatskaya and the modern priest of truth:

Reply of Mrs. Ygrek (V.P. Zhelikhovskaya) to Mr. Vsevolod Solovyov. St. Petersburg., 1893.

[1] «The Unmasked Isis.» — Ed.

[2] The Secret Doctrine, The Key to Theosophy, The Voice of Silence, The Pearls of the East, The Theosophical Dictionary. — Ed.

[3] The gas. «News». «Other people’s opinions about the Russian woman.»

[4] Psychological tricks (English). — Ed.

[5] I have written proof of the correctness of my translations from persons who wrote articles. This is the subject of discussion.

[6] The end of the century. — Ed.

[7] The die is cast (lat.). — Ed.

[8] My line of behavior is sharply outlined (Fr.). — Ed.

[9] The Incident of Solovyov (Fr.). — Ed.

[10] 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 HPB, recalling Mr. Judge about the «wonderful two weeks» spent by them in Enghien, staying with her.

[11] This is the same Evett, a magnetizer and friend of the baron Du-Poet, whom Mr. Solovyov so sarcasts on pages 75-77.

[12] Album for newspaper clippings (English). — Ed.

[13] The magician (English prestidigitator — magician). — Ed.

[14] All the same (fr.). — Ed.

[15] assistant, henchman, follower (French acolyte). Ed.

[16] Obviously this is the answer to a letter from HPB, published on the pages of «Russian Herald» (May — if I’m not mistaken), where she asks: «have you read the translation of» Isis Unveiled «?».

[17] An honest lie is the worst example of a lie (English). — Ed.

[18] Missing, inadvertent (Fr.). — Ed.

[19] Good, kind as bread (Fr.). — Ed.

[20] I agree: I do not recognize them as muslin mites. I believe in the possibility of their existence.

[21] E.P. Blavatsky

[22] 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.

[23] Olcott is still in the best possible relationship with the Duchess.

[24] To whom? .. In Russia, where even now they do not know and are not interested in the theosophical affair.

[25] And Mr. Soloviev is not even possible, because he would have to confess his own activities and a double, unseemly game.

[26] Up to what? .. Until the complete conviction of HP Blavatsky’s guilt — or until you get from her what Mr. Soloviev was seeking? .. That’s what (Hamlet’s) question!

[27] With love (lat.). — Ed.

[28] Here such documents are not the place, but they are kept by me, like all the letters I have here.

[29] Times «The Great Mare’s Nest» — by An. Besant. And the other above mentioned articles.

[30] Insurmountable circumstances (Fr.). — Ed.

[31] To the glory of God (lat.). — Ed.

[32] 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.

[33] The very envelopes, which, according to Mr. Soloviev, he found a whole bundle in the box of HP Blavatsky, from which she gave him the key (?!). That was crazy!

[34] A reprimand, a suggestion (fr.réprimande). — Ed.

[35] It is a mistake for a human being (Fr.). — Ed.

[36] A valid state councilor. — Ed.

[37] Deeds (Fr.). — Ed.

[38] The case of the gene. Komarov at Kushka.

[39] Quite without a penny. — Ed.

[40] Bazaar Merchant (French poissarde) .- Ed.

[41] Lousy spent a quarter of an hour and nothing more (Fr.) .- Ed.

[42] Tell someone else (Fr.). — Ed.

[43] Pickpocket, Thief (English). — Ed.

[44] In my article, in «Nouv. revue «(October 1892), m-me Adam changed the words -» je suis en grande amitié <i am in great friendship «, — to a simple statement:» Je suis en relations aves m-me Adam <I am familiar with Madame Adam «, on the grounds, she says, that» she could not be in friendship with a man she had seen only twice «and who» at first sight inspired her not to be sympathetic «…

[45] NF Fadeeva, Aunt HP Blavatsky and, most likely, the head of the first in Russia Theosophical Society in Odessa. — Ed.

[46] G. Zorn, secretary of the Theosophical Society in Odessa. — Ed.

[47] «Caution» should be called entreaty.The sister begged him not to tell him anything about what he had heard in Würzburg; and he not only rastrezvonil, but also added something that never happened … Here is a harmful fantasy and a habit of writing novels!

[48] ​​This unfortunate child (Fr.). — Ed.

[49] The Joker. — Ed.

[50] The abrupt change (in English). — Ed.

[51] Therefore (lat.). — Ed.

[52] 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 the sisters, then I will skip further about it.

[53] Talented Nobleman (Fr.). — Ed.

[54] I have proof that Mr. Soloviev said this — in his own letter. V.Zh.

[55] By belonging (Fr.). — Ed.

[56] 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.

[57] They hate those who have been pained for no reason (Fr.). — Ed.

[58] In this case, Gebhard’s mistake writing to m-me Morsier, as if I read from Mr. Soloviev and the translation of my sister’s letter — is understandable: it is based on my firm belief that the original does not resemble a translation. But I am unspeakably surprised by the mocking reproaches of Mr. Soloviev in that I reported 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, is better than Mr. Soloviev himself who knows that I at the same time refuted this unintended false testimony? He, to whom she showed all her letters, could not help reading the following letter to her, written from Elberfeld, in June 1886; fortunately, I kept a copy and quote from it excerpts relating to the case, for those wishing to be convinced of the fact. Here it is, in translation.

«I just wrote to Mr. Gebhard, asking him to correct the mistake that crept into his letter to you, which you sent to Mr. Soloviev. Probably, my deep conviction that there should be a disagreement between the translation and the Russian, this letter of my sister to the above-named master, made Gebhard think that I was shown the original and the translation together. No to misfortune! as you know, Mr. Soloviev does not have a copy from the French translation that is in your hands … Because of this, I could neither read it nor say that I read it.

So that there will be no further misunderstandings about these words, but about this unfortunate affair, I ask you to take note of my personal opinions and testimonies about him: 1) I read my sister’s present letter and assert that there are no confessions in deceptions, tricks or renunciation of the Mahatmas. Reading him I 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 will lead to the desired clarification of the error; but unfortunately, Mr. Soloviev 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 present letter of Madame Blavatsky to Mr. Soloviev — never could not give rise to accusations (in renouncing the existence of the Mahatmas), of which she became a victim …

If you do not think that I’m right, pointing to an erroneous translation, you would be extremely obliged to me by sending a certified copy from him. Your and Solovyov’s refusals to compare copies from a letter and a translation can only intensify your unpleasant conclusions, that in their essential discord, there is a deliberate malice.

I ask you to accept the assurance, etc.

V. Zhelikhovskaya.

Why, it seems, Mr. Solovyov does not bring in the pages of «Russian. messenger «and this letter of Mrs.» Yzgur «? .. By the way, and the translation from the letter of Madame Blavatsky? .. The same invisibility translation, which is so well kept by Mme de Morsier, that it is not shown to anyone, — as will be shown below.[59] The eyewitnesses of the scene read the letter quite differently: the letter was not printed by Blavatsky, they say, but came 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 , which describes Solovyov.

[60] I hasten to make a reservation: I blessed one bride. G. Soloviev never agreed that I crossed it in an image that I was extremely upset: I thought that this strangeness had passed him.

[61] 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 conditionnel 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.

[62] Madame Blavatsky rejected the Mahatma (fr.). — Ed.

[63] A little suspicious. — Ed.

[64] When Gebhard rode, during the incident, for information to Paris to Bessak, the latter also told him that there were no 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.

[65] Conspiracy (French compl.). — Ed.

[66] 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.

[67] A convincing argument for existence (Fr.). — Ed.

[68] According to the Witnesses