XII
In the winter, shortly after Solovyov’s departure for Russia, my sister again became very ill; the Countess Constance Wachtmeister who lived with her in Würzburg wrote to me about the desperate opinions of doctors and conveyed her requests that I should come to see, probably, to say goodbye to her. Despite all the slanders I believed then (except for theosophical cases proper, at the same time there were family reproaches, gossip and troubles — all from the same source), I would immediately go to her; but I myself stayed in bed most of the winter, and having got 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’d come by all means; so that Mr. Solovyov in vain (on page 282) makes me say a stupid and false testimony, as if I went to my sister only in order to defend his interests … This would be very peculiar!
It should be noted here that when, in January, the present wife of Solovyov came, and he begged me to let her stay for a few days at my place, since she had nowhere to stay in St. Petersburg: none of her relatives (not excluding her mother), but all the more, none of her friends, for some reason, did not want to shelter her, and she could not stay 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 wedded[1] from my house and, of course, the fact further cemented, apparently, the bonds of our affection, so when they left after the wedding, the correspondence between them and my family continued even friendlier .. ..
Then a completely unexpected incident took place, which I only realized afterwards. That’s what happened.
When the project of Mr. Solovyov to tear away HP Blavatsky from the Theosophical Society, to turn her activity into a matter of ordinary writing, through the intimidation of Miss L.’s proceedings, was a fiasco; when he was convinced that my sister would not write «renunciation of her words» — the accusations of that 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 be expected 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 spreading among the Parisian theosophists of the conviction that she herself denied the existence of the Mahatmas, having confessed that they were her fiction.
Having heard about this, we were amazed to the utmost! .. Knowing what a burden on my sister was Mr. Solovyov’s requests for assistance of the Mahatmas which they probably recognized as impossible (about what — I, without having explicit evidence, keep silent!). I thought that she resorted to such an unexpected turn, so that he would only leave her alone. My suspicion was shared by many who knew the circumstances of their acquaintance and the hopes, which he laid, at first, on her friendly disposition. I wrote to my sister how she «risked being such frank 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 that. But I did not believe it, supposing that, in fits of quick temper, she told fables about herself, and then forgot. So it happened more than once: under the influence of temporary excitement, she sometimes, herself, invented fables about her past to only avoid the current 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 was: how could Vsevolod Sergeevitch so thoughtlessly make her private letters to him public?!.
Knowing that he soon had to come again to Petersburg, my sister begged me to visit him and read her Russian letter to him; which I did as soon as they returned. It was not difficult, because in anticipation of hiring a summer house, his wife once again stayed at my place in Peterhof for a few days.
Having read that huge message, written, obviously, in some delirium, I was amazed and straightly expressed to Mr. Solovyov my perplexity: there was no «confession in the fabrication of the Mahatmas» in the letter. What’s all the fuss about? Where did the Parisians take all this? .. Mr. Solovyov answered that he himself did not understand why they had invented it! .. I was also amazed why the whole Russian letter was stamped with Mr. Jules Baissac’s stamps; Mr. Solovyov explained that it was for the sake of conformation, — as proof that the translation was correct. I asked: «And where is the translation? Let’s have a look! «. But there was not a translation or a copy from it with Mr. Solovyov; he announced that it was at m-me de Morsier, in Paris. I had only to suppose that some mistake had crept into the translation, which I said, begging Mr. Solovyov, to give me at least a copy, if not the Russian letter of my sister itself, so that I could convince everyone that there was no “confession of any crime”, but there was only a delirium of a woman driven crazy by injustice and sorrow. He, as he himself claims, did not agree to that just demand … Why?.. It’s his business!
As soon as I came to Elberfeld and heard the stories of those who read the translation of that 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 the «Chief»(Morya) and the Mahatma K. H. (Koot Hoomi) are the fruits of my imagination«, etc., should be translated in the affirmative sense, instead of the conditional one, in which I remember them [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 only translated, the following words were omitted: «I will even agree to lie, the greatest lie, to which they will believe much 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 the accusation is severe and therefore, even after all the manipulations of the author of the Modern Priestess of Isis, which I have undoubtedly proven, I declare it not in the affirmative (as he does almost on every page of his work, directly reproaching me for the non-existent lie) but I express it as an assumption on which my rights are as follows: 1) If everything were true in the translation, Mr. Solovyov would have no reason to refuse to copy the Russian letter to me. 2) He would have sent that 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 [[2]]!» They are convinced in that even now. 4) Mr. Solovyov, not without an intention, keeps absolute silence as for the inexplicable incident — the main motive for my trip to Elberfeld. He could not forget that I went to certify everyone that in my sister’s letter there was «no confession in inventing the Mahatmas» … Why does not he mention that 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 the notorious translation…
They seem to be weighty reasons.
Mr. Solovyov 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 the proof is the following:
last summer I was personally at Bessak’s and asked him to tell me: did he certify my sister’s letter, written in 1886, and its translation; as well as to show me the French text, so that I can finally understand what the matter was; why m-me de Morsier set against my sister and put the chestnuts in the fire?
On the first question, he replied that, he as then didn’t understand and still now does not understand, why the Paris Theosophists were aroused, as the Russian letter of my sister had nothing compromising for her, and also in a certified translation, although he at first found in it some inaccuracy, but insisted that it be corrected; as for the second request he promised to get the translation by all means and show it to me. But I waited in vain for three weeks and finally received the following notice.
June 5, 1892
Paris
«Madame, I would like to see the translation myself, about which you asked me. The translation is not in the hands of m-me de Morsier, and therefore I could not cope with it. I cannot say that I have kept a true memory of it, but I can certify that I found it 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 to Mrs. Blavatsky. The only not completely clear (un peu louche [[3]]) 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 [[4]].
Accept assurance, etc.
Jules Baissac.»
This letter was not at all what that venerable, but very relaxed by years old man told me; verbally, with witnesses, — admiring my sister, offering me to read his pamphlet written about the theosophical teaching that would prove to me how much he valued m-me Blavatsky, and such flattering things. The influence of his dear friend, m-me Morsier, was evident in him; but the main thing was clear: they did not want to show me the translation, and Solovyov’s trustee said no.
Where is it?
The «theosophical revenge» of Madame Blavatsky, whom Mr. Solovyov tells about with such enthusiasm, was limited to indignation, because of which she was ill. As for those two people from our embassy who spoke very unflatteringly about Mr. Solovyov (not about the 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 is a friend and a big admirer of his brother, Vladimir Sergeich.
I won’t 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 never assure him that I travelled “only (?!) in order to shield him and to him alone to prove my friendship» … Oh! The conceit of Mr. Solovyov often is the reason for him to be trapped! Does he not feel that the phrases he attributes to me on page 282 («I’m trembling for you«, etc.) make him ridiculous? ..
In general, Mr. Solovyov “invents” overly multi-word conversations! He makes me say 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 is nothing, he doesn’t care a straw! .. It seems usual for him…
But I could, without imagining, remind him of his comments about people extremely close to him … False testimonials, or rather, accusations written by him absolutely in cold blood. But I am more generous than Mr. Solovyov and I won’t name them, and I won’t tell anyone what he wrote about them. May my generosity be to his disgrace!
Gebhard was absolutely right in assuring that E. P. claimed that the translation of her letter to Mr. Solovyov was incorrect (p. 287). He could add to it, that I affirm too. Otherwise, Mr. Solovyov would not be afraid to send copies of it, and the Parisians would not have made a false opinion of it. The fact that he referred to and is still referring to the documents kept by Monsieur, his «sincere friend» (p. 288), the friend (whom he, nevertheless, at first denigrated very much) is, after all, only for a diversion of attention, as Bessak’s letter testifies. Mr. Solovyov (p. 289), calls me “the artful lady” in vain because I tried to justify him, talking about him with Gebhard, being slow to believe his untruth; he would rather have called me «a narrow-minded and naive lady» — for the fact that I so trusted him. And I was really so foolishly convinced of his conscientiousness that when the Theosophists loudly started talking about the falsification of the translation, about fake (un faux), I exclaimed indignantly that «I would rather believe that Vs. S. Solovyov went insane and committed an unconscious act, than such a terrible thing.»
Very vainly he talks about our gloomy «complot» [[5]], about some insidious plot of mine and my sister, to extradite him for a madman. Of course, readers of “R. Vestnik», to whom Mr. Solovyov did not say anything about Blavatsky’s famous accusation of renouncing the Mahatmas and confessing that she had invented them, it’s completely incomprehensible why Gebhard wrote that we called him» crazy, «and not by another name; but it is me to be blamed.
When Mr. Solovyov demanded to meet me in the winter, motivating our common acquaintance, A. A. B., his desire to see me, in order to explain about some of our personal affairs, namely, that I declared him crazy in Elberfeld [[6]], I wrote the following and I can repeat it now in my defense.
«Dear Mr. A.
The questions that Mr. Solovyov instructed you to ask me, I will answer you point by point and I ask you to inform him. What kind of agreement is he talking about — definitely I do not know! I could never make an agreement with him (why with him?!) after my sister’s death, not to transfer to Russia what she was spoken about abroad or about my personal memories of her. Such an agreement has no raisond’etre [[7]], and there was none.
I will never undertake to spread (as he says) Theosophy in Russia , because everything that I wrote about it was evidenced clearly and categorically. I even usually start my articles by denying any sense of its establishment in Russia — «where the ideals of Christianity and the foundations of Russian Orthodox Church are so strong» … For anyone who read my articles in “Novosti” and in “Obozrenie”, my indifference to the prosperity of the doctrines of Theosophy cannot but be obvious. So, the phrase of Mr. Solovyov that he should (why he?) zealously support the foundations of Russian Orthodox Church, — caring about it more than others, including myself, is only an excuse and nothing more. [[8]] I, on my part, put Orthodox Christianity so high that I think that no theosophy is actually needed and it can’t reach it, although I certainly admit that its pure and moral spiritual-abstract doctrine for the Westerners shattered by unbelief is the saving! .. I was convinced that a lot of English publications are available to few people in Russia.
My participation in the episode of Solovyov’s acquaintance with my sister was limited to the fact that I — as he knows – was all over myself trying to explain what then seemed to me a misunderstanding, and reconcile them. When I read Helena’s letter to him- on the translation of which he had based his accusation of her in Paris — I told him at the time that «I did not see in it her confessions in deceptions about which the Parisians who were receding from her were so screaming.» I asked him to entrust me the 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. When I asked Bessac, an interpreter at the Paris court, about the translation he responded that he had not read the whole letter, but only attached the seal to one paragraph, — Mr. Gebhard gave his very answer to us (his letter is kept intact). Then I and my daughter, V.V. Jonston, urged Vsevolod Sergeich to send a notarized copy from the letter of HP Blavatsky, — but he stubbornly refused to do that.
This strange obstinacy deprived me of the opportunity to justify Mr. Solovyov — having proved that the whole matter was in negligence, in the error of the interpreter, which made all of my sister’s defenders to guess the worst… He put me in a desperate position and the need to blame him not only in the frivolity, as I thought before.
I do not remember that I «declared» Mr. Solovyov 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 everybody (having learned that in her Russian letter my sister did not renounce the Mahatmas) exclaimed that he was crazy, acting in such a way…Madness is God’s inflicted illness, misfortune, not disgrace, whereas forgery, in which he was accused by those, who dealt with that case, is a shameful accusation.
This is my part in that sad case.
While I was with my sister, there was no such horror that Mr. Solovyov (living in Peterhof where my family lived too) wouldn’t have intimidated my younger children, trying to instill in them a complete disgust for their aunt and insisting on our, with Vera, quick return. All their letters to me were full of fear for us — for the death of our souls and for all sorts of heavenly punishments, which, according to Mr. Solovyov, should fall on us, for supporting my sister and trying to calm her down. All this is recorded in the diary of my second daughter, who, believing Mr. Solovyov, survived the true torture while we were absent. When the true participation of Mr. Solovyov in all the sorrows of my sister and ours was clarified, and we returned to Russia, we stopped, of course, keeping up acquaintance with him.
I did not mention anything in the press about all these circumstances. Really, in gratitude for my modesty, will Mr. Solovyov find it possible to respond, having implicated my name in his vicissitudes and disappointments in the Theosophical Society?!. What do you think, A. A., — is it compatible with the alphabet of respectability? .. No matter what Mr. Solovyov himself considered my sister, he must, of course, understand that now, more than ever, an insult to her is a serious insult to me. Let him know that I will rise more resolutely for my deceased sister than when she was alive, if he forces me to stand up for her memory.
Yours, sincerely respecting V.Zhelikhovskaya.»
I received a reply from Mr. B-v, 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 had no evidence of justification, except for his letters on private affairs, which did not concern the facts subject to his exposures.
He probably did not know that I had some of his letters to my sister, and forgot that in those letters written by him to me, there were not 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 refused the ransom…
XIII
I have to say a little more. It is only necessary to reply to Mr. Solovyov concerning his two remarks about two persons – by their own replies to him. But first let it be allowed to me to say — n’en déplaise [[9]] to Solovyov and A.M. 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 intact; and besides, I told many at the same time about that proof of her spiritual vision and showed the letter … I do not understand why Mr. Solovyov, himself, being such a visionary, does not want to admit the possibility of the power to others?
Now let’s turn to the testimonies of the persons to whom Mr. Solovyov refers … not correctly.
On page 285 of November Russkiy Vestnik he says:
«A few months later I learned that the very Gebhard was disappointed in HP Blavatsky.»
After reading that paragraph, I translated it and sent it to Berlin to Mr. Gebhard, with whom our good relations never ceased, and that’s what I got in return.
(I do not want to stretch the article and 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 that Solovyov. I would strongly advise you to leave aside everything that such a madman (halluciné) spoke or will speak. I have never written otherwise to Madame de Morsier, as for the interests of your lamented sister. If she gave my letters to Solovyov, under the influence of a hypnotic state, in which she almost always finds herself, this is very unscrupulous of her.
As for my feelings for HPB, I can only tell you that the deep veneration(venération), that I had 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 Morsier and Solovyov, knelt before HP Blavatsky, treating her like a goddess, kissing her shoe, and who now, when that 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 her as one of the highest minds generated by our century.
Here are, dear Mrs. Jelihovsky, my sincere thoughts, which I myself am not able to present in a printed article, because I am in a state of extreme grief [[10]] … I am pleased to extract from the letter what you want, in response to that dishonest person [[11]].
Please accept my respectful greetings and bow.
Mr. Gebhard».
The letter, nevertheless how much I tried to moderate it, was written so sharply that I did not expect such a response from a cold-blooded, always calm old man, how remained in my memory that Elberfeld millionaire. But here is another answer to Mr. Solovyov, from a person very much affected by him. At the end of Chapter XXIII the author of the sensational satire on H. P. Blavatsky with the profound indignation and irony, which would have killed me if I did not laugh! – betrays me to human judgment and condemnation for the incorrect translation (shift the blame where it doesn’t belong?!) of some articles by Mrs. Cooper-Oakley about my deceased sister.
«It is risky to rely on the articles by Ms. Zhelikhovsky (contemptuously he says on page 275), as it has been already sufficiently proved (?!)…». And then he condescends to the opinion that «nevertheless» it’s hard to suppose that I invented everything in them… I am very grateful to Mr. Solovyov for such awarding me at least the smallest dose of truth, but very sorry that I cannot answer him the same courtesy: in his story about Mrs. Cooper-Oakley there is no an iota of truth!
Not I, but she accuses him. You need to know that that woman is one of the most ardent followers and friends of my sister; to the last minute she didn’t leave my sister, the same as her sister, Miss Laura Cooper.
When she heard that Mr. Solovyov referred to her in his «memoirs», then she immediately wrote me the following letter; and when everything he told the Russian audience about her was translated to her, she immediately added to it a thorough refutation of everything he spoke about her. The rebuttal is so wordy, that I have to use only the most significant excerpts.
To start with is the letter.
Dec 25 1892 London. Avenue Road 17.
«Dear m-me Jelihovsky, would you be, please, so kind as to refute any testimony of Mr. Solovyov about me. I only once met him in the house of m-me de Morsier where I was with the doctor Keightley and his brother. I didn’t have any conversations with him, and any talks published by him must be false.
He was writing the most wild and false accusations of m-me Blavatsky that time; but although all that he talked about her, did not impress me or the brothers Keightley at all, we left the house in the belief that he was bitter and unscrupulous enemy of your sisters, equally unkind, and untruthful person.
I can add that during many years of my friendship with Mrs. Blavatsky, the falseness of Mr. Solovyov’s testimony had been proven many times. I am very sorry that you had so much problems due to him!..
I ask you to do as you please with my letter, and wish you all the best.
Sincerely yours,
Isabel Cooper-Oakley».
Three days later, Mrs. Cooper-Oakley wrote another retraction, on 3 pages. In it she says that she studied Isis Unveiled along with her husband and was fond of my sister’s teaching, much earlier than Sinnett wrote his book. (It means that she sought to enter the Society not because being fond of my sister herself, – untruth № 1)[[12]].
«I was with m-me Blavatsky in Madras of my own free will – she writes further, – took care of her in sickness, and I was with her when the Teacher came to save her from death, and would have gone along with her to Europe if I were not sick myself…». She explained her thinness and pallor with that disease and its relapse in Paris, but not with «horrors» that occurred to her at Adyar, having nothing in common with theosophy – (untruth № 2).
«The statement that I ran away from Adyar – Mrs. Cooper-Oakley says – is definitely false (untruth № 3).
I left because the doctor found it necessary… as for the statement that m-me de Morsier and Mr. Solovyov saw me in tears, or some agitation is a lie (№ 4!).
At the time I was in friendly correspondence with m-me Blavatsky and what is more important, that I came at the request of Sinnett and Keightley to learn from the friends of Ms. L.[[13]], what her claims were based on? Neither m-me Morsier nor Mr. Solovyov could reproduce my words, because I never said them a word about my husband or about myself. Anyone who knows me can confirm that I’m not a talkative or easily agitated woman…». (From this it follows that the stories on page 274 are not true № 5!).
«The 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). I expressed exactly what I thought when I met Mr. Solovyov at Mrs. Morsier’s, and what I knew in India, and I never changed my opinion about (alas! untruth № 6).
To speak about “violence” over me (on the part of the members of the Theosophical Society) – is positively absurd on the part of Mr. Solovyov (lie № 7)!..
Mrs. Jelihovsky did a proper and exact translation of my words (this denounced the eighth untruth of Mr. Solovyov, on two-and-a-half pages of his works… Eloquently!). I can at any time provide further replies and details if needed…
Isabel Cooper-Oakley».
Thus Mrs. Cooper-Oakley finishes her thorough testimony of 28 Dec. 1892.
At the end of Chapter XXIII and a series of falsehoods, that I mentioned, Mr. Solovyov writes: «I wonder what the lost (?!) Mistress Oakley would do or say, if m-me de Morsier or I met her with such (italics added) her «memoirs» in her hands and said, «What does that mean?«».
The gloomy and austere tone of his appeal so frightened me that I hurried to write the culprit of his anger, and I’m very glad that I could satisfy his «curiosity».
Now Mr. Solovyov knows «what she did and what she told him»! I hope that he is happy?!
After reading these responses of persons affected by casual satire on my sister; reading private letters of Mr. Solovyov – the testimony given by him against himself, if anyone can have a drop of confidence in his testimony against the deceased?..
I, for my part, think it unnecessary to continue my rebuttal, although I did not learn from the mass of letters of Mr. Solovyov even the tenth part of his testimony – eloquently characterizing him at other aspects – i.e. 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 them lie. Without the need I won’t touch them and won’t be the first to call into being the shadows of the past menacing to false and insincere people. But in defense of the truth, for those who cannot protect themselves, I will not stop to get through the hard days like what I have experienced now…
Old letters to dead loved ones are hard to read; but it’s even harder to delve into the old correspondence with the people, once close, whose truth and friendship was believed – and who not only betrayed your confidence, but unjustly, cruelly mocked over you… May the Lord God not make them answer! It is the only thing that I, thank God, can sincerely wish them. I hope that this desire is not considered by everyone as an act of hypocrisy, at least for the following two reasons: in spite of the fact that Mr. Solovyov thoroughly tried to denigrate me in front of the Russian people, I hope that he was not particularly successful. As for the personality of my sister, she’s so far above his untenable attacks that all clumps of dirt, thrown at her, hardly reached the foot of a high pedestal, which was erected as a monument to her in three parts of the world.
XIV
Having stated this fact, I, of course, must confirm its reliability. To do this, I only need to open two or three magazines, among two dozens of the Theosophical organs [[14]] existing in the world on the initiative of my sister, and I immediately get so strong proof that I will only have l’embarras du choix [[15]].
I am drawing attention of those who would like to know which speeches and how many speeches of gratitude were made over the coffin of HP Blavatsky and at the anniversary of her death and how many articles were written in her memory — at least to the one most accessible of all those magazines, — to Lucifer. It is inconceivable even to list them by their titles or names of those who spoke or wrote in them — there are so many of them. I can only choose two or three excerpts from those speeches and articles, namely those that express not personal feelings for her and relationships, but are mentioned more often than others, in all of the memories about her in general. They will show to the ignorant of the actual merits of HP Blavatsky and her works an approximate concept of them; they, at least in part, will explain to her countrymen the reason for those extraordinary honours 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 for the last six or seven years of her life, whom she sent «to work» to India a few months before her death, who is now one of the main figures and president assistants, having given his whole life and all fortune to the work of the Theosophical Society, — Mr. Bertram Keightley. He is also one of the many persons ridiculed by Mr. Solovyov, which does not prevent him from being a very intelligent, educated person and — most importantly – a very sincere and honest person.
“From the time when I first looked into her eyes, there sprang up within me a feeling of perfect trust and confidence, as in an old and long-tried friend, which never changed or weakened, but rather grew stronger, more vivid. and more imperious as close association taught me to know the outer H. P. Blavatsky better,
Looking back over the years that have fled since she uttered those few words, I see clearly that her warning would have been fulfilled with the certainty of fate
and though, since then, my debt of gratitude to her guiding and saving hand has grown like a mountain avalanche, yet I look back to those few minutes as perhaps the most decisive in my life.”
Then 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 constitutional morality, a patterned consciousness of honour, with some dose of young sentimentality, ready to admire others’ virtues, but at the same time strongly doubting not only their merit and necessity, but resolutely everything that could be not proven by the modern science.
“What would have been the probable outcome?”
He exclaims.
“Surely a slow descent into utter selfishness and self absorption.
From this fate H. P. B., by her teaching, her experimental demonstration, above all by the force of her daily life, saved me as she saved many another.
Before I knew her, life had no ideal worth striving for— to me at least- since the ultimate blank destruction to which materialism must point as the final outcome of the world-process, chilled each generous emotion or effort with the thought of its perfect uselessness; left no motive to strive after the difficult, the remote, since death, the all-devourer, would cut short the thread of lifelong ere the goal be reached, and even the faint hope of benefitting generations yet to come sank into ashes before the contemplation of the insane, idiotic purposelessness and meaninglessness of the whole struggle.
From this enervating paralysis, crushing all real inner life and tainting each hour of the day, H. P. B. delivered me and others. Do we not owe her more than life?
Yet further. Every thinking or feeling man finds himself surrounded on all sides by terrible problems, sphinxes threatening to devour the very race unless their riddles are solved. We see the best intentioned efforts do harm instead of good; blank darkness closes us in; where shall we look for light? H. P. B. pointed out to us the yet dim star shining down the pathway of time, she taught those who would listen to seek within themselves its ray, pointed out the road to be travelled, indicated its sign posts and dangers, made us realize that he who perseveres and endures in self-forgetting effort to help humanity holds in his hands the clue to life’s tangled mazes, for his heart and mind alike grow filled with the wisdom that is born of love and knowledge, purified from all taint of self. This H. P. B. caused many to realist; does she not deserve all our devotion?”
That, a very long article, ends with the panegyric to the personal kindness of my sister, her generosity, magnanimity and forgiveness. Examples and proofs of these beautiful properties are given, in the testimony of which, however, all those who knew her agree, of course, except her personal enemies who turned after her death to the beaten instruments of all pseudo-priests of truth, adorning themselves with its mask, only to sow slander safely.
I cited several phrases of the Englishman, as a sample of opinion about the late sister of some people who knew her closely; but for a change, I cite several testimonies of a person who knew her much less, the Marquis of José Chifrè, who came as a 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 the «fatal, irreparable loss» for the Society — its «creator and educator», the Marquis of Chifre 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 people who knew her.
“I wish only to speak of the links which united me to H.P.B., and of the mighty influence which her high-souled individuality exercised upon me”, — he said — (Lucifer and other theosophical magazines for July and August 1891) “on my method of thought, of feeling, and also on my views of moral, intellectual and material things- in fact on my whole life.”
“In the remarkable article published on the 15th June, in the The Review of Reviews (August, 1891, Mr. A. P. Sinnett well says: » She dominated every situation in which she was placed, and she had to be either greatly loved or greatly hated by those she came in contact with. She could never be an object of indifference.”
In my opinion it is remarkably fair evidence…
“When first I came to London with the sole aim of meeting and knowing H.P.B., whose gifts had made a profound impression on me, I realized that I was going to make the acquaintance of the most remarkable person of this age: remarkable alike for the depth of her knowledge and for her vast wisdom. It was no mere curiosity, but a feeling of all-powerful attraction which drew me to her, a feeling sui generis, which can only be explained on an occult basis. The reality was beyond my utmost expectation; I felt that the glance of H.P.B. had penetrated and destroyed the personality that I had been up to that moment: a process, new, strange, inexplicable, but most real, effectual and undeniable, was accomplished in the innermost recess of my moral and spiritual nature. The transformation took place, and from that moment the old personality, with its ideas, tendencies, and prejudices more or less ingrained, disappeared… but never will it be erased from my memory.”
“Every time I saw H.P.B., my affection, loyalty and admiration for her increased. To her I owe all that I know, for both mental tranquillity and moral equilibrium were attained on making her acquaintance. She gave me hope for the future; she inspired me with her own noble and devoted principles, and transformed my everyday existence by holding up a high ideal of life for attainment; the ideal being the chief object of the Theosophical Society, i.e., to work for the good and well being of humanity. “
“Her death was a hitter grief to me, as to all those who are working for the common cause, Theosophy, and who having known her personally, have contracted a debt of undying gratitude towards her.”
“I have lost my Friend and Teacher, who purified my life, who gave me back my faith in Humanity, and in her admirable example of courage, self-sacrifice, and disinterestedness, and virtue, I shall find the strength and courage necessary for working for that cause which we are all bound to defend.”
“May her memory be blessed!”
“These, dear brethren and friends, are the few words which I wished to say to you, greatly desiring to declare before you all that I shall never forget what owe to H. P. Blavatsky.”
“Let enemies and materialists explain, if they can, the power and attraction of H.P.B., and if they cannot, let them be silent.”
“The tree will be known by its fruits, as actions will be judged and valued by their results.” [16]
These two testimonies taken at random from the mass of similar ones belong to people of European descent and education. Despite this, I omitted a lot in them and tried everywhere to soften their enthusiastic tone. As for the memories of HP Blavatsky’s friends of 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, as their eulogies are too enthusiastic.
May readers not reproach me, following the example of Mr. Solovyov, that I magnify my sister and her teachings. I do not exalt both, but I want to prove that in the West and in the East there are a lot of people who have the reason to look at her 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.
Due to the legitimate desire to restore the identity of my sister in the opinion of the Russians who learned of her only from the humiliating satire of Mr. Solovyov (and such, unfortunately, not a few!) — I wrote this last chapter, dedicated to her alone.
Fortunately, among the people who gave her justice, there are many names that are much more known to the world than the «novelist» Solovyov. All countries responded to her death, and people like Crookes, Flammarion, Stead, Hartmann, Hubbe-Shlayden, Beck, Fullerton, Eaton, Bukanan and many others honoured her with memories and speeches.
I will even quote the words of Professor Hübbe-Schleiden here. Here is what he wrote in his magazine «Sphinx»:
«Whatever a friend or an enemy were thinking about the deceased — whether they would give her divine honours or contempt — everyone must agree that she was one of the most remarkable human creatures appeared in our age: she was the only one of her kind … The time of the final verdict on her has not come yet; but we cannot refrain from saying that we, like many others who are conscious of the same thing, are indebted to her and thank her for the inspiration that has no price! .. She is one of those about whom Schiller said truly:
«All surrounded by love and hatred of the pariah,
In the annals of world history, her personality is coming immortal! «.
Were there 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 in their personal merits, upon whose death such an epitaph would be offered? .. And we must take into account that it was not offered by any of Blavatsky’s personal friends, devoted to her to life and death, but by a man who was rather an outsider, who knew her very little, who judged her more by the results of her activities and scientific works than by sympathy.
***
At an emergency convention devoted to the death of the founder of the Theosophical Society, those 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 their first meetings to her memory. There was not enough room in the big hall for the rallies at London’s Theosophical Headquarters: they need to occupy next rooms, where more than a thousand people could be placed.
Immediately it was decided to start an ubiquitous subscription to the fund of Blavatsky, H.P.B’s Memorial Fund, for the sake of fulfilling her wish, for which she worked tirelessly; namely: publishing works on the Theosophy, both original and translated from Sanskrit and ancient Tamil language; works, reading which «will serve as an alliance between East and West.»
Then the question arose about the vaults for the ashes [[17]] of her. Theosophists of India demanded that her ashes be returned to them; so that the ashes, according to her own wish, could be rested in Adyar. But Colonel Olcott, condescending to the wish of «brothers of other countries of the world,» decided, taking into account that the theosophical activity of HPB «was divided into three periods: New York, her 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 would be built in the Garden of Adyar, to preserve the ashes of «their beloved teacher». 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. It was placed in my sister’s room, which is decided to be kept forever as it was when she lived there. It is usually locked; it is only entered to take one of the books of its library or to show its premises to visitors — Theosophists. On the 8th of May, new style, 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 Morya«, standing in the same place as during her lifetime, were entirely covered with white flowers, roses, jasmine, but most of all lilies, — prototypes of lotuses, which in Europe are not available.
This day, May 8, by the official decision voted at Adyar on April 17, 1892, and approved by all theosophical centres unanimously, was decided to be called the White Lotus Day and to dedicate it annually to the memory of the founder of the Theosophical Society, trying to signify it not only with speeches about her and readings of her writings, but, if possible, with charity. So, neighboring beggars were fed in the garden of the Theosophical Quarter [[18]] in London on that day; in India, not only in Adyar, where all her 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 some cities of the United States where Theosophy is flourishing — and it nowhere thrives in every respect, like in America. [[19]]
But nowhere was the sadness of HP Blavatsky’s death manifested itself so demonstratively as on the island of 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 dates of her birth, her arrival to India and her death, and insert it into the wall of the meeting room of the Society — to her eternal memory. The vice-president of the Eastern College, a zealous Theosophist, delivered a lecture on her activities and teachings; especially on 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 beggars were fed by a memorial dinner in memory of the deceased, and all such 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 in The Theosophist 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 scholarships are after the name of HPB.
In general, in her memory, in many parts of the world many charitable and useful affairs were established, not to mention the many new branches of the Theosophical Society, which now and then elect her initials as their name. In England, America and India, the name of this Russian woman is extremely respected and popular.
For all that, may her compatriots not mention her name only badly! .. Russian orthodox people can condemn her in the name of Christianity; one can, without doubt, not sympathize with her, in part pantheistic, teaching; but you cannot insult a woman who could arise 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 suffered from the materialism of our century, touching her private life and calling her by nicknames — «charlatan, thief of souls, deceiver and fury «…
Let these shameful nicknames fall on the head of their author, who thinks himself a righteous man having the right to poke into 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 steadily sought for the good of truth.»
These are the words worthy of the shepherd of the one true Christ’s church, and with such I will end my response in defense of my sister.
St. Petersburg. January. 1893.
[1] I hasten to make a correction: I blessed only the bride. Mr. Solovyov would never agree me to cross him with an icon, so I was extremely upset: I thought that this strangeness had passed him.
[2] Madame Blavatsky rejected the Mahatmas (Fr.). — Ed.
[3] A little suspicious (Fr.). — Ed.
[4] When Gebhard went, during the incident, for information to Paris to Bessak, the latter also told him that there were not exactly any confessions in the Mahatmas fabrication in Blavatsky’s Russian letters; however, he did not read them whole, because Mr. Solovyov did not show all the letters to him, «but only certain lines (certain passages).» Bessak added that after reading the letter and the translation he had certified, «his personal opinion of Madame Blavatsky has not changed a little» … The letter from Gebhard of June 27, 1886, from Paris, I keep 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 site described last, is of great importance and weight.
[5] Conspiracy (Fr.). — Ed.
[6] I apologize to Mr. B. for citing my letter to him and in general his name; but I hope that, as he allowed mention him to Mr. Solovyov, he will not refuse me to do the same.
[7] A convincing argument (Fr.). — Ed.
[8] According to the testimony of many booksellers who came to me for information about where they could subscribe to works of my sister and in general to theosophical publications, as well as the number of inquiries of private individuals about the same, I see that the sensational article of Mr. Solovyov reached the results, completely contrary to his good goals: people have never so interested in Theosophy in Russia, as now, — thanks to his efforts.
[9] No offense will be said (Fr.). — Ed.
[10] His wife has just passed away.
[11] The original letter says: «miserable». And in general the expressions in it are so mercilessly offensive that I find it necessary to soften them greatly for the press.
[12] The remarks in parentheses belong to me. V. Zh.
[13] (The accuser of Mohini). These friends, then, were Morsier and Mr. Solovyov? Why does he say that he took no part in it?
[14] The Theosophist; Lucifer; The Path; Theosophical-Siftings Light; The Theosophical Forum; Vahan; Buddhist; Pacific Theosophist; New Californian; Anti-Caste; Pauses — and other English, Indian and American magazines. Lotus Bleu; Aurore — and other French ones. Sphinx is German. Estudios Theosophicos and El Silencio — Spanish. Theosofic-Tidscrift — Swedish, etc. apart from those that are published in India and Ceylon in local dialects.
[15] Difficulty in choosing (Fr.). — Ed.
[16] H.P.B. Lucifer, August, 1891, extracts
[17] HP Blavatsky bequeathed her body to be betrayed not to the earth, but to the fire. It was burned in the London crematorium, May 11, 1891.
[18] The main apartment of the Theosophical Society in London consists of three houses overlooking two streets, with a front garden and a large garden inside.
[19] During my sister’s life in America, there were no more than 50 branches of the Theosophical Society; now there are more than 70 of them and all the latter have her name or surname: «Blavatsky’s Lodge» or «Branch, H.P.B’s Section «, etc.