In the May issue of Russkiy Vestnik, Solovyov continues harping on the same string of the «report» of Hodgson, Myers and Co., the report which, in effect, ought to raise my sister to the degree of a woman of genius, especially in the eyes of people like him,  not considering shaming to deceive and be hypocritical for public benefit.  If he had the task of «saving the Parisian theosophists from the evil deceptions of the thief of souls,» H.P. Blavatsky herself had goals incomparably higher and more benevolent: the salvation of the whole of Western Europe, perhaps of the whole world, from the influx of materialism, from  the deceptions of atheists, who do not believe in anything spiritual, who deny immortality and righteous retribution. A man holding Loyola’s rules like him would have to bow before people who are not embarrassed by a «little lie» for the sake of great good.


This is simple logic!


So, I positively come to the conclusion that Mr. Solovyov, not knowing those aspects of 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 the sake of the public itself.  He condemns in her his own manner of «influencing the masses”, probably out of habit not to confess his real feelings…


Involuntarily having come to this conclusion, I, from now on, abolish all feeling of indignation against him and even more cold-bloodedly I will try only to restore the truth from the point of view not so much of my own but of people who, in these matters, should rightly belong to authority.


Thus, I must attach a document that clearly proves the lie of Mr. Hodgson to the page XIII of the chapter of his work, or «pamphlet«, as he replaces everywhere the word article (without translating it for some reason from English, although it has a completely different meaning in Russian). Here are his words:


» Mr. Damodar and Mr. Bavaji  are the chief persons who, according to their own experience, (except for Blavatsky), affirm the existence of the brotherhood in Tibet.»


This is what Hodgson says, and Mr. Solovyov is following him.


And here is what you can read in The Boston Courier, July 18, 1886. This is an official newspaper, which does not belong to the Theosophical Society on any side.


«We, the undersigned, were unspeakably surprised to read the» Report of the Psychical London Society «on Theosophy.  We dare to say that the existence of the Mahatmas, otherwise the Sadhu, is in no way premeditated by Madame Blavatsky and no one else.  Our great-great-grandfathers, who lived and died long before the birth of m-me Blavatsky, had complete faith in their existence and psychic powers, knew them and met them.  And at the present time there are many persons in India who having nothing to do with the Theosophical Society are in constant communication with these Superior Beings.  We have many means to prove these reliable facts; but we have neither the time nor the wish to prove this to the Europeans …

Let Mr. Hodgson and his «committee» — if they look seriously at the matter — look for the truths deeper, and then they, perhaps, will find that they hurried and made a very erroneous conclusion.

Of course, Hodgson will not shake our beliefs at all; but only he and his committee showed great ignorance and utter ignorance of the history of India and the Hindus! … It seems to us that the notorious «Society for Psychical Research» did not satisfy the single hope of the mystics who placed their hope in its discovery; but it has never done before a grosser error, like its Report on the Theosophical Society. »


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


On pages 250 and 261 I find witty remark of Mr. Solovyov about my lies.  He finds that, referring to the testimony of Sinnett, my sister’s biographer, quite impartially, that is, declaring what I think of them as incorrect and what is certainly false, I «punish” myself (I appreciate the delicate remark of Gogol’s expression!), like a non-commissioned officer’ wife in the «Inspector» … It seems to me that the use of such a comparison with respect to a person who is much older than him, and besides being a woman, is not so much acrimonious to me but degrades good manners of the «brilliant Russian writer».  This, however, is a matter of taste, but since he found it possible to apply it to me, so I’m allowed to tell him that it was he who, with this Gogol phrase, flogged himself, and according to his deserts!


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


It’s peculiar! .. Peculiar and — typical!


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


Having begun the story of 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 that time, because the stories about it told by my sisters were very confused and inconsistent.  «She forgot so much and mixed up,» I say, «and, as in our conversations in recent years (that is, twenty years later, after her second and final departure from Russia) it turned out that she wanted to purposely hide the period that I prefer now to tell nothing about those years»… The word — now — it is that related to what I expressed before — in a pamphlet written by me in 1881, that is before I saw my sister in twenty years of separation (from 1864  to 1884).  Here are my words:


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


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


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


That’s all my guilt before Mr. Solovyov, but I hope it would not disgrace me in the opinion of other, impartial people.


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


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


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


Was she eager and did she say about it to Mr. Solovyov?!?  Lord have mercy, but in that case she was «absolutely, in general, or at that time» — speaking in the style of the author of “The Gorbatovs”[1], — an inveterate idiot or completely crazy.  Was Solovyov then a chief of the secret police? ..On this side, his activities are completely unfamiliar to me!


Let’sjump to page 261of  the May issue of Russkiy Vestnik and read the last lines on it:


«It’s a real scandal in London (due to the «report» of Hodgson?).  HP Blavatsky is staying in Würzburg and keeping silent (if the writer cherished the truth, he would say: she is writing her European-known work The Secret Doctrine both days and nights). »  «But the Theosophists,» he continues, «expect that now she will rise and, with the help of the Mahatmas Morya, Koot Hoomi and their «chelas», will strike with such a response that all psychists will disappear from the face of the earth …»


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


«Yes!  So it will be! »


Well, it is clear that after that promise, everyone was waiting for the defeat of the perjurers Hodgson, Myers and Co..  And now he has forgotten all this and is laying his own intentions on the Mahatmas … What an amazing man!


No, I should positively, according to Mr. Solovyov, be exiled, although in places not so remote!


On page 263, he solemnly accuses me of deliberately declaring «nonsense» (and all at the instigation of the vicious Theosophical Society, please, mind!), assuring that the letter from Mrs. Coulomb herself, where she swore, that “she didn’t speak about any deceptions” was found in Blavatskaya’s papers.


«Everyone will easily understand,» he continues, «that if such a letter really existed, and it would be genuine, it would not have lied in the papers of Blavatsky until her death …»


After reading that «strict reprimand» for the inherent spread of «nonsense«, I got sad … I brought my article in Novosti into the light of day to check what «nonsensical letter» of my own composition I published there? .. I am looking for: what kind of letter was there, of which those frivolous Theosophists took advantage only after the death of my sister? .. There is no such a thing! .. I collate cited by me letter in my translation … and with a light heart I see it cited in almost all defensive articles written at the very time of the incident … Thank God: once again Mr. Solovyov … was mistaken! ..


It is of course, — errare humanum est [[2]], — and to Mr. Solovyov, apparently, from this side, indeed, «nothing human is alien» — nevertheless, it is a little  compromising to the historical narrator to carelessly treat materials.  He ought to have read, well, at least one exculpatory article in defense of the person on whom he is so generously pouring only accusations under the guise of «her biography» … Instead of asking me to send his letters back, he would have asked me for some books.  I would have lent him them and even translated them with pleasure … He would have seen then, on the first page of the pamphlet published by the investigative commission, in Madras in 1885, the very letter about which, according to his unceremonious statement, I said «nonsense»».


Since he himself – what a pity – did not cite it, and some readers of Russkiy Vestnik, perhaps, didn’t read the paper Novosti, so let me be allowed, in my sister’s justification and to my pleasure, translate it again.


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


«… Perhaps I said something in my anger, but I swear by all that is sacred to me, that I never uttered the words: deception, secret moves, traps; further, that my husband helped you, in whatever way.  If my tongue uttered these words, I pray the Almighty to pour on my head the worst curses in nature. »


About at the same time she wrote to Olcott.


«… I never spoke about any deceptions!  I never said that my husband was an accomplice of the madame.  Why, I, at least, would be a fool if I blamed my husband, being the only person I love on earth, for assisting in such humiliating things!»


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


Who says nonsense — Mr. Soloviev?


In the May volume of «Russkiy Vestnik» there are still two notes to which I must object.  (Page 265).  HPB did not pretend to be a widow, but she was recognized as such by the Tiflis authorities, which sent her a certificate in 1884, where she was called a «widow of Dsd. [[3]]  N.V. Blavatsky».  Not being with him in relations for more than twenty-five years, she completely lost sight of him and did not know as we didn’t, whether he is alive or dead.  This is the fault of the Tiflis police, and not hers.


(Page 266).


«What she gave to the Theosophical Society is unknown!», Mr. Solovyov exclaims.


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 gave everything that she received for her English books during her lifetime to the Society; she spent for herself exclusively only what she earned publishing fiction in Russian and other foreign journals.  In addition to her work during her lifetime, she still bequeathed to the Theosophical Society all her separate editions, all the income from her books for all time. If we take into account that some of them (like «Isis» and «The Secret Doctrine») are very expensive and sold very quickly;  that for 15 years the first book had 18 editions (3,000 copies each), and the second one, published three years ago and is still incomplete (the third part is now being published), has already issued in the third edition and is being prepared completely for the fourth edition, then the exclamation of Mr.  Solovyov will, like much in his article, appear to be unfounded.





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


I have to say to him one thing: if he was interested in her faits et gèstes [[4]], then he should not let her go away without asking her personally about everything  on that memorable December evening when she showed up to him in a vision… Why  did he miss the opportunity to grab more firmly the folds of her «black robe» and not to let her «astral body» go back to India – since it could speak…


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


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

Your Vs. Solovyov».


Well, what tricks happened to Vsev. Sergeevich! .. There he wasn’t blinded by any «portrait» of HP Blavatsky, and I think it was inconvenient for her to hypnotise him across the ocean!  Well then, she surely visited him… And such a wonderful «fact» he, all of a sudden, in his memories of acquaintance with her, forgot to mention!.. Well, am I right, calling his memory very peculiar?..  It’s good that his letter helped me to restore this gap in his acquaintance with her.


Then he also wrote to me on March 7, 1885:


«There recently was a young Gebhard who returned from India.  He told me that HPB was feeling very bad.  Then we received a circular from Olcott, announcing a miracle that happened to her (her recovery).  But, in any case, in my opinion, her days are numbered.  Awfully early! .. And she is not old, and most importantly — her mind is clear and literary talent is in full development … Well, why talk about this!..»


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


May 3, Sunday.


«Dear Helena Petrovna, I do not know how to express to you, to what extent I am glad that you are back in Europe! — it seems to me that you are closer and that a rendezvous is possible.  However, your departure from India did not seem a news to me: at the very first tidings of your moving through Asia [[5]], A. began to assure me that you would inevitably get any trouble with the British and that you would leave.

Do you remember, I told you, that the time is coming for the Russian and the Hindu to become friends?  It seemed to you that it would not be soon.  But you see – apart from human desires and plans, the inevitable historical destinies do their job … I cannot get Russkiy Vestnik here, but I was informed long ago from Moscow, that your Blue Mountains should appear soon.  That’s right, they have already been published.  Now it’s high time to write about India … Get well!!!  Drop a word.  I will write to you, being free from work, and often.

Yours sincerely devoted

Vs. Solovyov».


At the same time, Mr. Solovyov in almost every letter informed me of my sister in a friendly manner and «about her affairs in Paris,» although that time he was busy, very busy and, in extremely reduced circumstances.  I mention this not without purpose: on page 160 (Sept., Russkiy Vestnik), he gives readers the opportunity to assume that he was so generous that – quand même, despite everything — helped my sister in her temporary need  …


«In a few days,» he says, «at the most critical moment for herself, Helena Petrovna received a» certain amount of money from an unknown friend «and, of course, wanted to know — who had come to her help? .. She wrote to m-me de Monsieur… etc.»

“Of course, m-me de Morsier could not tell her anything»…


It’s a pity!  «Some amount», probably, would have been returned to the «unknown friend» long ago, if my sister or I could have guessed his identity — but it was quite impossible to suspect Mr. Solovyov’s generosity in this: his simultaneous letters to us, from the 3rd, 18 and 19 May 1885 equally tell of his own extreme, at the time, impoverishment … All the letters I have before my eyes: I, as soon as I read this indirect confession — immediately turned to them, and I see  in his letter to me such details about who and how «robbed» the poor Mr. Solovyov (and without that being already according to his expression, «tout à fait à sec» [[6]]), that I was completely touched by his virtuous generosity! .. How could he endure so long — magnanimously  waiting for the death of his unconscious debtor — to finally give the world an example of such a classic exploit, when she could no longer either to repay, or to thank him?


But, obviously, «feats of magnanimity» are not uncommon for Mr. Solovyov!  Here is another one: a letter to my sister from May 18, 1886. If you take into account that it was written by him precisely in those days when, having endowed his enemy with «some amount», he immediately became convinced (for the tenth time!) in her criminality (which he states on page 163: «Before me there was a massacre of some two grandiose «poissards»[[7]]», etc.), this letter is positively a feat.  So I give it here as completely as possible.


Monday, May 18, 1885

Paris.  Rue Pergolese 48.


«Dear Helena Petrovna, what does this mean?  I wrote to you twice and I myself dropped the letters to the post office.  I received one letter from you in which you informed me about your arrival in Torre del Greco.  Today, m-me de Morsier told me that you had not received my letters.  I immediately sent you a telegram;  I have registered the letter! .. It is inconceivable where our letters disappear! .. But, in any case, you have no right to doubt my sincere attitude to you.  I am not changing — it’s not in my nature!  «I am very ill too, dear HPB, I have a severe liver disease, and no one has helped me here.  Misfortunes and troubles are beyond count …

Believe that I’m doing my best to come to you if only I have a week’s time and enough strength.  But in my position it’s so difficult, I’m so tightly constrained, that I’m very much afraid that it will remain a dream … What should I do? .. I have no right to live my life … I have a dream to spend this spring in Italy — then I would, so to speak, accidentally (?!) meet with you… «.


Here are details of how he was deceived and robbed, and then further:


«In general, I was greatly disappointed in the local people.  Any relationship, at first pleasant, invariably ended in all sorts of exploitation and a gross encroachment on my pocket …

Today there was a meeting with Mohini at m-me de Morsieu’s.  Mohini was talking to Richet (?!);  but they do not understand and cannot understand each other.  Tomorrow I am having a meeting.  Mme de Morsier arranged it without asking me beforehand- and suddenly your duchesse turns to me and asks a permission to come … I had to bow to her with a sweet smile.  But how it pleases me — you can judge!  — Yes it’s all nonsense, everything here is un mauvais quart d’heure à passer, rien que ça [[8]]! ..The trickery of your enemies regarding the study of phenomena may be a trifle.  But force must be countered with force!  I must see you!  But I have one head, two arms, two legs, a very sick body, and besides karma binds me in all directions … What can I do about it?!  Please write at least something.  Get well, this our heartfelt desire for you.

Yours, Vs. Solovyov».



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


Are these the very letters with which he contemptuously informed Blavatsky that – he «did not believe any of her Mahatmas and phenomena«?  — the letters about which he speaks so confidently at the end of XVI chapter of his work?  Where is in them an excuse for HPB to ask him, even for the sake of their friendship, not to leave the Society?  In the letters he does not even express in the slightest intention  to leave it … It’s strange! .. Or have those strict and mocking letters of an incorruptible «priest of truth» to the unworthy even his pity, a deceptive «priestess», the goddess of the pagans, evaporated? .. For, judging by the dates, at the time Blavatsky did not receive any other letters… Did not her «shells» play a cruel joke with him?.. Anything can happen in nature.

But, as for the funny story of Mr. Solovyov about the error in spelling by a «little Hindu» Bawaji, I must declare my unshakable confidence that if in fact he, «wrote at the instigation of Blavatsky instead of «blessed are the believers«-«blessed are the liars»» – he did so at her own will … She could easily play such a joke on Mr. Solovyov!  Several letters from her, at that time, testify that she had already noticed some foible in his speech; because she complains to me about some troubles that occurred due to his not quite true testimony and talkativeness (she then considered these manifestations of hypocrisy on his part to be only frivolous talkativeness).  Addressing this hint, about the bliss of the liars, directly to Mr. Solovyov, she probably wanted to hint him and laugh at him.  He chose not to understand her irony!






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


«Helena Petrovna,» he says, «has changed in her face and snatched the thing from me .  I gave a meaningful grunt (oh, Mephistopheles!), smiled and began to speak of a quite another thing… «.


Willing to give Solovyov another chance — «to grunt meaningfully» and … «begin to speak of a quite another thing«, we remind him of one of his — also «meaningful» – letters sent to London:


6/18 August 1884

Paris.  Rue Pergolese.


«Dear Helena Petrovna, I did not write to you because there was something wrong in a small house with a garden.  Now somehow things calmed down.  Karma is cruel!.. At some grave moment, a non-existing bell was clearly and loudly ringing on the table, and a sudden thought about you flashed through my mind and heart …» and so on.


Which bell was it, that in difficult moments of life consoled Mr. Solovyov?!


Probably a distant relative of the «little silver thing» he lifted in Würzburg? .. It’s funny!


He amusingly continues to talk about a bottle of bigarade oil, which my sister wanted him to think that the Mahatma sent him some rose oil from Tibet as a present, and she adroitly dropped it in his pocket.  But Mr. Soloviev is an old sparrow!  A d’autres [[9]]! .. The clumsy, fat woman (who also barely moved her hands and feet swollen with rheumatism, according to his own testimony) — even though she acted with the quickness of a pickpocket, could dupe him by no means!.. Here again, the poor one, played the fool! .. What can one do: do not encroach on such vigilant and sensitive people! .. And, by the way, do not give them the keys to your cherished boxes…


Poor, witty Helena Petrovna!  She herself sent Mr. Solovyov to look for a portrait;  she herself gave him the key to where she hid (badly hid!) envelopes, for the falsified by her the Mahatmas’ letters, and she thus gave herself away to the whole world (although not as a clever liar, but as a born fool) — for, Mr. Solovyov, having waited exactly  seven years until her death, mercilessly told about all the stupid things she had committed …


But if, in Chapter XIX, Mr. Solovyov exposes my sister as a deceiver and an idiot, then we must do justice to him, that he did not spare himself either!  I am sure that many honest people who read his stories about how he wriggled, being cunning, flattered and deceived in order to catch another person in wrongdoings no worse than his own; Mr. Solovyov himself in all his splendour  intelligence, ingenuity and nobility has become incomparably more antipathic than the one whom he wished to put to execution.  One shouldn’t, however, forget that he is inclined to … fantasy! ..


After reading his righteous speech (page 234): «It’s time, at last, to finish this comedy … Is it really not clear to you that in Paris (does he mean June 1884?) I was convinced of the falsity of your phenomena?» etc.; having read it and compared these indignant speeches with what he did when he returned to Paris — namely, remembering his letter of October 8, 1885,  the only thing you have to do is to lift your hands with surprise! .. Willy-nilly, I should again remind the readers of this letter that I already quoted several times, concerning Mr. Solovyov’s diligent convicting  Professor S. Richet, «in the reality of the phenomena» and the personal psychic power of HP Blavatsky.


Here is its beginning:


On the 8th of October.  1885



«Dear Helena Petrovna, what is better: to write in vain or be silent and act for the benefit of your correspondent? .. I made friends with m-me Adam [[10]], told her a lot about you, she got very interested and told me that her  Revue is open not only for theosophy, but also for the protection of you personally, if necessary. I praised m-me de Morsier to her, at the same time there was another person who spoke in your favour in the same tone, and m-me Adam wished to get acquainted with m-me de Morsier, who is staying in Paris as an official mediator between me and Nouvelle  Revue.  Yesterday, the acquaintance of these ladies took place, our Emilia (de Morsier) is in full delight … In any case, it’s very good.  Today I spent the morning with Richet and again spoke a lot about you, in relation to Myers and the Psychic Society.  I can positively say that I have convinced Richet in reality of your personal power and the phenomena (?) coming from you … » etc., already known to our readers, which triumph would be, to the ruin of the psychists when he, Mr. Solovyov,  is able to answer Richet the third (?) question «in the affirmative» …


«Yes, it will be so!  — he finishes this meaningful letter — for, you did not play me like a pawn, did you?! .. I’m leaving the day after tomorrow for Petersburg … something should happen?!  Yours, cordially faithful,

Vs. Solovyov».


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


«Would have Mr. Solovyov really written such a letter to my sister, on his return from Wurzburg, if that what he is now writing really had happened between him and her there?!»


Do the readers agree with me that, despite all the shamelessness of hypocrisy in which Mr. Solovyov himself confesses, it is difficult to imagine that after full rupture, after all the stupid filth that he ascribes to my sister (Bavaji’s instigation, caught envelopes and a bell, dropping bottles with oil in pockets and the like of absurdity), he would take the shamefully liberty of convincing such people as Richet and m-me Adam in her favour?  The European-known people who at any given time can publically ask him how he dared to fool them?.. And on the other hand, if we assume that he invented all that and did not convince them of rightness and «real power» of HP Blavatsky, it is she, Blavatsky, who, as it were, accepted such a letter of the person who humiliated, exposed her and just mixed her with dirt and immediately made her happy with the notice that he had turned two of the foremost people of Europe to friendship and belief in her?!.


Is it compatible?  Is it possible?!  Does this letter (from October 8, 1885) serve as irrefutable evidence that everything he told on two hundred pages of Russkiy Vestnik of October is his later fiction for fun and new fooling the public?


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


I suppose it’s too much to object page 241, where it is alleged that HPB beat and tyrannized Bawaji (as previously reported that she tyrannized Colonel Olcott too)… In Mr. Solovyov’s article, there are many such pages, which (as one person who is quite close to him, recently wrote to me,) «one would really like to turn with a pair of tweezers«…


To such … inconvenient pages belongs Page 246 of the 20th chapter.


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


But I certify that my sister would never have said such a stupidity!


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



16th of May.



«Solovyov accuses me now that I offered myself to him as a spy of the Russian government in India … If a person in his right mind thinks about such a charge seriously, he will see its nonsense.  I have been publicly accused of spying for Russia and they make this having the goal and the direct motive of all the false (supposedly) phenomena and the «Mahatmas invented by me!»  I, almost dying, was sent out of India because of such a ridiculous accusation, which, despite its absurdity, could be ended for me by prison and exile only because I am Russian and, I was already a victim of that slander, not knowing a thing in politics, — and I will offer myself a spy! .. And … to whom?  — To Solovyov!!.  To him, — knowing him for uncontrollable talker and gossip! .. Well, do I want to be hung, or what?!.  Why, I would close to myself forever entering India by this.  After all, he, spreading these rumours about me, plays directly into the hand of England and ruins me for nothing, for no reason!  After all, he himself, in the course of five weeks (starting with hints from Paris!), persuaded me daily (N [adezhda] [[11]] and Ts [orn] [[12]] — they know) to return to Russian citizenship, to use all my influence on the Hindus against the British and for the Russian.  He told that it was a noble, great cause and that it would prove my patriotism!  He asked and begged to put on paper all that I can do in the respect for Russia in India, and that he himself will present that paper, or «project,» in Petersburg … I replied to all his words that I was ready to die, to lay my life and soul down for Russia;  that there was no Russian citizen in Russia, more committed to the Sovereign and homeland than I was, a citizen of America;  but that I was incapable of the matter, knowing not a thing in politics, and only would risk my neck and hundreds of Indians if I had decided to do so.

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

And does he have a brass forehead[13]  to lay his words on me?

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


Are these words prophetic? Is not the present effort of Mr. Solovyov to show me to my friends a liar, a juggler, a traitor and so on, — an attempt to stab me morally? .. But, for the happiness of honest people, such gentlemen have bad knives, grinded by themselves!


Mr. Solovyov states that while he was in Russia, «the most outrageous story caused by the victim of Don Juan’s inclinations of Mohini» was played out (page 251).  I affirm and, if there was not a shortage of space and time, I would have named dozens of witnesses to it, that no one, but Mr. Solovyov himself, had brewed all that mess in Paris with the help of his «hypnotized» — as people, close to him and know their relationship call her — victim, m-me de Morsier, and no one, but he himself (and not Blavatsky), played a «very bad role» in that story.  I will tell, in brief, everything that I know about it for sure; but, first of all, I should cite two more letters of Mr. Solovyov to fully describe his relationship to persons involved in the new gossip, being not really played out, since Miss L. was just a dreamer, and Mohini was not guilty before her at all.  Here are two letters of Mr. Solovyov.


Monday.  Evening.  (Without date).


«Dear Helena Petrovna.

Mohini is a very clever man, and I believe that he will be honoured by his teacher with great praise for the stay in Paris.  To arrange something really good and serious with the local gentlemen is of no human abilities; but he has done what could be done.

Today at Morsier’s (it was the last meeting) he has been magnificent!  He spoke so well, cleverly and, most importantly, to the point, that I really wanted to kiss his Brahmin’s inaccessibleness with my lips, spoiled by wine drinking, meat-eating and sinful kisses.  Although I am known here as a skeptic who struggles with every sort of occultism (?!) and even with you, but still, since it is also known that I am your compatriot and devoted to you, as «Helena Petrovna,» my words may seem biased  and not make a proper impression.  Meanwhile, Mohini is something like a small infallible Pope, in whose mouth there is no lie or bias.  In view of this, I asked him to tell us everything he knows about you and give you a testimonial.  He proceeded to do this perfectly well and began to make a strong impression.  But since he was going to leave with the evening train, I, looking at the clock, was convinced that I had to interrupt immediately the started conversation, to rush for his things being at my place, to feed him and rush to catch the train — or it would be late … Suddenly something strange happened to me!  I got all cold (they touched my hands — like ice!) Head went around, I closed my eyes; something was passing on from me to the present there somnambulist, Edward, due to which he began to snore — and I, with my eyes closed, — saw you and felt (?!) that you wanted Mohini to stay until the morning train …

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

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

I’m looking forward to hearing from you, be healthy and strong.

Yours, Vs. Solovyov».


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


«Dear Helena Petrovna, Bavaji is now with us and in an hour A. will take him to the station to leave for Wurzburg.  My head literally goes around from various big and small affairs (??).  I’ll send a letter in French concerning Mashka tomorrow.  As for m-lle L. (the same Englishwoman who had so severely slandered Mohini, V.Z.) — your warning came too late [[14]];  but do not worry: after recommending herself as a friend of Sinnett, the person took possession of de Morsier, and I found her treating Morsier, as some miracle and a holy one …

I did not shoot any Mephistophelian glances, but told her not to make much of that theosophist, because she wanted to seduce a chela, who, however, was at the height of his calling and mission.  So, you see, the reputation of Mohini does not suffer at all and there cannot be any trouble for you (?!);  moreover, de Morsieu reacted to the unsuccessful seduction extremely leniently (?!).

And then Bawaji told her the whole story; but without me, and I do not know how he did it … Imagine!  Cette pauvre enfant [[15]] — an old girl, under forty, with yellow, painted hair and a face representing a kind of box with powder, which is pouring down! .. Of course, no one will suspect that poor Mohini when looking at her.

I’ll send you Isis on one of these days … We’re sending you our warmest regards.  Be healthy, do not torment yourself for nothing and do not torment poor Bavaji, who can go crazy in cold Germany.

Yours sincerely devoted

Vs. Solovyov».


How that 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 to Madame de Morsier that «Mohini remained at the height of his mission» consistent with the trivial abuse and the words about the poor Hindu, as though my sister reprimanded him in Mr. Solovyov present, about which he speaks  on page 249, October R. V..


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


Amazed and shocked readers expect that he is returning to Paris and finally executing the criminal!  He describes it in his article in such a way, that readers are more amazed by courage of Blavatsky, whom he tells about further (p. 251):


«She did not want to admit that our relations were finished, that I had said goodbye to her forever …  She counted on my pity for the sick and old woman, finally, on my «politeness» (?!).  Well, how can I not answer when she is complaining about her suffering and appealing to my heart?.. However, I found that it was too much … I stopped responding to her letters… «.


What incorrupt rigor!  What an inexorable sentence! .. We would have the right to consider Mr. Solovyov, judging by his «Modern Priestess of Isis», for the unyielding husband of honour in relation to truth, for the true priest of truth, if … if  small, gray sheets of postal paper would not give away him and his jokes completely! ..

Yes!  He is more kind in deeds than in words, that forgetful Mr. Solovyov: I do not know what exactly he thought about my sister, but his letters (as seen from the above) were written to her in a very frivolous friendly style and he conscientiously tried to find for her useful friends in the sphere of science and literature — convincing Charles Richet, m-me Adam, and probably many other persons, in her psychic powers.

Farceur [[16]]!.. It is now that he came up with playing the judge and the executioner.




Now it’s time to start speaking on behalf of myself, that is, not to refute only Mr. Solovyov’s falsity by using his own letters, but to tell the real truth, known not to me alone, and almost completely written down in our letters and diaries.

When, in the autumn of 1885, Mr. Solovyov came to Petersburg, he, as a deeply devoted friend (as he showed himself during the almost two-year intensive correspondence with me and my two elder daughters, not to mention his devotion to my sister) visited us every day. His correspondence — about all sorts of interesting subjects, mainly about literature, about poetry and their best representatives, — was very interesting to my daughters;  he himself was even more interesting to all of us with his live stories, his original mystical views on everything in the world and his good-natured sincerity, sometimes reaching extremity.  He got the last feature so well into his habit that he positively fascinated us with his truthfulness … But most of all, we must admit that we were attracted to him by his «misfortunes», his undeservedly difficult situation in the family, the bad, «unjust», as we thought  then, relationship to him of all those close to him in blood and the romantic details of his then existence, which was presented to us from the most sublime, sympathetic side … In a word, Vsevolod Sergeevich easily occupied in our family, which had just moved to St. Petersburg from the south  and was sad for lack of family or friend connections, — a place of a very close and dear friend.


There for the first time we began to hear from him questionable, even unfriendly testimonials about my sister and her work.  To prove the extent to which this change was unexpected, I quote a few lines from Elena Petrovna’s letter proving that for her such volte-face [17] of Mr. Solovyov was a surprise too — ergo [[18]] his break with her and  all the entertaining «scenes» of his stay in Würzburg are the fruits of his later, novel works.  In response to my astonished reports on what I first heard from him, she wrote to me on February 2, 1886.


«You are an amazing subject, Vera Petrovna!  Well, why shall I answer you with «abuse»? .. Because you, according to your inner understanding and conscience, tell me what you think? .. It would not be, certainly, in the theosophical way on my part.  But it is my direct duty to answer and I must answer with «abuse» at the address of those who lie to you, turning you against myself and those who are not guilty of anything and love you more than you think they do [[19]] …


In your short letter, a new and unattractive light shines through, in which Theosophy, and I, and Mohini, and even some good Christians are presented to you … Well, so listen to my song too — and do not take a sin upon your soul  , — to condemn people for slander, without any investigating … ».


Then a long description of the scandal with Miss L. and Mohini comes, indicating the real source of these gossips and the main «exaggerator» of them.  But none of us believed the last statement of my sister.  In our opinion, 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 is leaving the Society because he got convinced of its anti-Christianity.  — Three lies! .. Never has the Society stood so firm as now … (details) … Who told you about the disintegration of the Theosophical Society? .. Was it Solovyov?!.  De Morsier described him in such a way, didn’t she? .. Is the society against Christianity?  It is so against it, that members of the Anglican church, liberals, join it, but the Christians who are zealous;  Lady Caithness is writing a book: «Christian Theosophy»;  m-r Bannon is writing another book: «Christ in Theosophy», etc. And as for the fact that Vsev. Sergeyevich broke up with the Society because he found it not Christian, I’ll tell you that he probably made that discovery in your living room … Neither I nor anyone here (in Wurzburg) has heard from him anything like that.  And if it were, it would surely have been heard … He could not keep silent, if only he thought that way… «.



(I ask you to note how I got caught in the middle and had to take the rap! … I also ask you to note the further testimony of HPB, about farewells in Wurzburg, and take into account that my sister could not lie, even if she wanted, for there were other witnesses who unanimously confirmed to me what she wrote).


«We were parting with him as close relatives almost with bitter tears … I have not heard a word, except for vows to intercede for me in Russia (sic!), to help in everything.  And now he suddenly became silent!  For no reason, it started already in St. Petersburg… You do not know due to the innocence of your soul, but I know: he just got scared of the abuse of the Psychic Society! .. You see, it mentioned Gentilhomme’e de la Chambre [[20]] who was either lying or hallucinating … But will you read the attached letter to me, written just before he left Paris.  «I’m sure that will come true!»  You did not play me as a pawn, did you?»he writes … He evidently just got angry that what he expected had not happened yet, that’s an excuse:» anti-Christianity «! .. Ah, Vera, Vera!  You are a clever woman, but you allow yourself to be fooled … Sin is on Vsevolod Sergeyitch!  A double sin: both for slander, and for it’s not him to throw a stone at Mohini, if there was really something! .. All his good intentions disappeared, as soon as what he expected to happen in two or three-month period, had not happened… The very letter of his will prove to you that it is not because he took a dislike to me, that my society is «anti-Christian»! .. Look deeper … As for my anti-Christianity, you know it.  I am an enemy of Catholic and Protestant church excesses; the ideal of the crucified Christ brightens for me every day more clearly and purer, and as for the Russian Orthodox church — let them hang me — I will not go against it!  Russia is so dear to me, my heart is so sad for my motherland, for I would give my soul into bondage for ten thousand years for it.  But I do not want to be a hypocrite.  That’s the whole truth for you, every indignation and pain in me soul.  And I have suffered a lot for these ten years! .. I have redeemed past sins with good deeds, as far as I could, — I hope that I will appear with a blank sheet, if my agony is taken into account;  but … as a sinful person I would like to be condemned here and not without an appeal! .. I would not like to die, leaving a muddy spattered name …»


In recent years Elena Petrovna finished her letters with such an yelling cry from the depths of her painful soul.  I am sure that many readers will understand that a moral duty to whitewash her memory, as far as possible, from the malicious and deceitful censures of unscrupulous enemies, awakens in me with renewed vigour when reading such letters of my sister and I should, for her and for myself, satisfy this just desire.


Nevertheless, although the feeling of pity for the moral and physical suffering of my sister often tormented me, but I never thought for a minute that mine and the whole family indignation against her, distrust and prejudice against our common loved ones with her, had been aroused by either fiction, or by on the fly caught outbursts of their anger, just as skillfully excited (in Wurzburg) against me, as in St. Petersburg my anger was excited against them.  And it was not excited for anything else, but to force me and my family to blurt out in the moments of extreme excitement — and to give him an opportunity to increase the accumulation of information that Mr. Solovyov called so picturesque his «baggage«…


«At that time there was some misunderstanding between Mrs. Ygrek and Helena Petrovna,» he surely informs his readers (October, Russkiy Vestnik, p. 252).


But he does not inform them who created that misunderstanding.  Who needed it to be stirred up and supported by all sorts of untruths that reached even the assurances that both my sister and another person close to me claimed that I had concealed the money of our deceased father[21]. To justify my then madness, I can say the only thing: I was so good incited that I couldn’t even realize that neither my sister nor any of the relatives could say this, for they knew that my father had died while living away from me, with his other children in Stavropol, a thousand miles from Tiflis, where I lived without break.


And then, when I got to half-madness, and my children flew to an extreme degree in rage for me, — everything was carefully taken into account and everything that could come off our tongues ​​in the most extreme exaggerated sense of irritation was recorded. Those letters belong to that kind of «baggage» of Mr. Solovyov, which he now published under the transparent cover of the nickname given to me by him, the letter «Y».  Not only that all our conversations were recorded, but they were immediately transmitted to à qui de droit[22], exactly in the same manner as all that was said and did not said in Würzburg was transmitted to us, with the most cold-blooded consideration set us against HPB.  Here is an excerpt from my sister’s letter of March 28, 1886, directly indicating it. At the beginning of it, she exhausts all her eloquence in order to correct the evil effect on me by my slandering on people close to us, in order to reconcile us, urging us not to blame each other with angry speeches and letters.


«It’s sinful, Vera,» she says, «and it’s just terrible for me! .. After all, it’s necessary to tell the truth: they got angry with you because of me!  I’ve done something stupid.  Grumbling and angry with you, I sent Solovyov’s letter to me there, which he begins in the most mysterious way: «After what has happened, we have nothing more to talk with you about!» — and he ends with some hints to things that were twenty and thirty years ago.  .. Where did he hear all this? .. Let’s say that there are people in Petersburg who know something and could tell him — but not in such details, Vera!  I’m not angry with you, I understand your irritation; but she is more to me than just a relative, she is a friend of my life, and she was indignant for me, having learned that all the nightmares of my youth with which I tortured myself now became the property of the m-me de Morsier salon, and they were picked up by Solovyov  in your house! To be honest: no the  Coulombs, no psychiatrists, no one has done me as much harm as those Solovyov’s gossip! .. For fifteen years I have been working tirelessly for the benefit of people, doing good to anybody with anything I could;  I tried to get the forgiveness of my sins through deeds.  How many women and men I saved from debauchery, drunkenness, all sorts of sins, turning them to believe in immortality, in the spiritual side of being; and now I’m standing spattered — more!  Covered with a thick layer of mud and by whom? .. Solovyov, he, he — with his grave sin in his soul — he first is throwing a stone at me! … You say: «recklessness.»  A good recklessness!  He has killed me, sold me like Judas, because «onhait toujous ceux à qui l’on fait du mal sans raison» [[23]] — he has no other reasons for hatred for me! .. He has gossiped, ruined and began to hate even more! »


Well, that’s how Mr. Solovyov took advantage of our trust in the moments when he excited and irritated us against my sister.  All this would be buried forever — if he himself did not want to force me to confess myself and unwillingly to surrender to the Russians not only myself, but all his actions, intrigues and falsity.


If his skillful maneuvers could drive me, a woman incomparably more cold-blooded than my sister was, to the oblivion of reason — what’s so surprising that she, who was distinguished by sincerity and quick temper all her life, wrote crazy letters to him? .. In the letter, cited in chapter XXII, I recognize her hot temper, which reached, in moments of excitement, insanity.  I recognize her … But at the same time — I recognize this letter as well … It is the same letter that made so much noise in Paris and turned away many of the Theosophists from Blavatsky, like an ardent m-me of Morsier, who believed his French translation, which had never been shown to me neither by Mr. Solovyov nor anyone else [[24]], but the sense of which was conveyed to me by many of its readers, when I stayed at my sister’s next summer.  The main point of this translation, they told me (please note that I do not affirm the full truth of these statements, for, I repeat — no one wanted to show me a French letter) — was that «Blavatsky denied the Mahatmas and confessed that she invented their existence«.


This fact mainly angered the Parisians against HP Blavatsky; but, as readers see, there is nothing of the kind in her letter — in her Russian letters.  Where did it come from in the French translation — and even in a certified one? .. «The Mystery is great» — between Mr. Solovyov and Mrs. Morsier …

I will return to this episode when I speak about the November issue of Russkiy Vestnik;  now it is time to cite the last letter, — really the last one of Mr. Solovyov to my sister.  It is written in response to the information given on pages 255 – 259 of Russkiy Vestnik for October.

(Without date).


«Helena Petrovna!  You are too smart a woman to indulge in a frenzy of madness, in which you wrote your letter yesterday, entitled «confession«.  If I really were your personal enemy, I would now triumphantly expect your appearance in Paris (?!) or London (?!?) and would be coolly present at your death (!?!), which can be harmful to me in no way now, for while I was acquainted with you, I acted consciously.  Every my step taken in relation to you, every word I have spoken to you or written, directly points to my goal (?!), in which for me, as for a Russian man and a Christian, there is no dishonour! »


(Up to the last phrase, underlined by me, all the italics were added by Mr. Solovyov himself).


«As you know, I have reached my goal — not in vain I had been staying in stinking Würzburg for 6 weeks!  — Do you really think that I can be frightened by insolent slander and lies and that I have not been prepared for you, just in case — for I have always been waiting anything from you, — a fair amount of surprises (?!?).  It is you yourself who are only your own worst enemy and you do not know what you are doing and what you are aiming at;  — I know perfectly well what I’m doing and what will happen, although your Mahatmas do not incite me … After all, my head is cold, as you yourself said;  well, and you have a hot one up to incomprehensibility and when it burns, you do not see anything (sic).

Do you want a scandal?  You had few of them, did you?!  Well, — please, welcome!  And let’s start.

In the story of Mohini with Miss L. — who is pregnant with him (this indication turned out to be a lie — if you do not assume that she is still eight years pregnant, V. Zh.), I did not take any part, it’s not over my  parts. I was in Russia all the time … »


(Here again I must interrupt this remarkable message to remind readers of Mr. Solovyov’s letter, where he informs my sister that her request, not to spread the gossip, came «too late.» He really was in Russia when they played out the consequences of those gossip, but of their creators, indisputably, he was one of the main).


«… I knew the story from the letters of m-me de Morsier.  Then Miss L. appealed to my honour, asking me to tell the truth about opening her letter by you.  I had to tell the truth and said, and I certainly confused nothing [[25]] — the fact of their ties is proved and there is no doubt.  All documents are in the hands of lawyers.  You are expected only one thing — to write that Miss: «Being confident in the honesty of Mohini and not having in hand any evidence of the contrary, I badly spoke of you.  If Mohini deceived me and acted dishonourably, I ask you to excuse me and, in that case, of course, I consider it my direct duty to take back all my accusations against you.»  — That’s all.  There is absolutely nothing humiliating for you, — on the contrary, to write such a letter is worthy!  It’s a direct duty if you respect yourself! .. Write — and the scandal will be avoided, and you can peacefully return to your literary works, to which I really sincerely wish every success, until they get off the literary ground (?!).  I have nothing more to say to you.  I am not your enemy at all, I wish you all the best, and most importantly — peace of mind away from all these troubles.  If you liken yourself to a boar and want to bite — please!  — traps are ready.  Excuse me for the tone — it’s yours, not mine.

Vs. Solovyov».



That was a farewell letter of Mr. Solovyov to my sister.


Evidently, the traps were so badly set by her former «devoted till the coffin friend»;  for my sister was several times in Paris, where she was always greeted with honour, joyfully welcomed and seen off by many of her faithful friends to this day;  in London, she lived the last five years of her life, surrounded by complete respect, honour and even the enthusiastic worship of many people who are incomparably superior by mind and knowledge than some of her «accusers».  Actually, the awareness of these facts irritated their morbid self-esteem that they forgot all decency and every kind of reason, in embittered testimonies.  Besides Mr. Solovyov, there are two or three intemperate enemies of Blavatsky abroad …And it was precisely those who, like him, imagined that the Society really needed them and that no «Master» could think that they were useless for it;  in a word those who hoped to play a major role in it and were mistaken in their calculations!


So, despite Solovyov’s statement (p. 261) that he and m-me Morsier «understood well that there was no need to wait for the appearance of Blavatsky in Paris or London,» the facts proved that they were mistaken in that, as being wrong in so many other things.  As, for example, he was mistaken, asserting that Bavaji (the Hindu, hinting at him about the bliss of «the lying ones«) was afraid to death of «Blavatsky» who «beat him», and he did not dare to say a word against her; meanwhile, Bavaji, as soon as the slander on Blavatsky spread, as if she «renounced the Mahatmas,» he got so angry that immediately left her and even temporarily moved to the camp of her opponents.


[1] “The last Gorbatovs”, Vs. Solovyov. Trans.

[2] To err is human (Lat.)

[3] A valid state councilor.  — Ed.

[4] Adventures, activities. – Ed.

[5] The case of the general Komarov at Kushka.

[6] Quite without a penny.  — Ed.

[7] boisterous woman (Fr.) – Ed.

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


[9] I am nobody’s fool! (Fr.) – Ed.

[10] 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 person she had seen only twice «and who» at first sight did not inspire her to be sympathetic «…

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

[12] Mr. Tsorn, secretary of the Theosophical Society in Odessa.  — Ed.

[13] front d’airain (Fr.) extreme shamelessness

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


[15] That unfortunate child (Fr.).  — Ed.

[16] A wag (Fr.) – Ed.

[17] an abrupt change

[18] Hence (Lat.)

[19] This in response to my questions about my sister: did one very close person tell me about the «horrors and slander» that Mr. Solovyov told me about … But since this is a matter that does not directly concern my sister, then  I will skip further about it.


[20] Talented nobleman (Fr.).  — Ed.

[21]  I have a proof that Mr. Solovyov said this — in his own letter.  V. Zh.


[22] Fr. To the proper person

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


[24] In this case, Gebhard’s mistake in writing to m-me Morsier, as if I read from Mr. Solovyov’s translation of my sister’s letter, is understandable: it is based on my firm belief that the original does not resemble the translation.  But I am unspeakably surprised by the mocking reproaches of Mr. Solovyov that I reported about it myself.  If I had read the translation, I would not have wondered at the distortion in it, but would directly point to it.  Who, finally, knows better than Mr. Soloviev himself that I would have at once refuted that unintended false testimony?  He, to whom m-me Morsier showed all her letters, could not help reading the following letter to her, written by me from Elberfeld, in June 1886;  fortunately, I kept a copy and can quote from it excerpts relating to the case, for those wishing to be convinced of the fact.  Here they are, in translation.

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

So that there will be no further misunderstandings about those words, but I ask you to take note of my personal opinions and testimonies about that unlucky affair: 1) I read my sister’s original letter and assert that there were no confessions in deceptions, tricks  or renunciation of the Mahatmas.  Reading it I got positively convinced that the meaning of the translation, made in Paris, differs from the real text.  2) I have always maintained that comparing the letter with the translation would lead to the desired clarification of the error;  but unfortunately, Mr. Solovyov refuses to send me a copy of the letter and thereby deprives me of the opportunity to settle the matter peacefully, finding out a misunderstanding … 3) In my sincere and profound conviction, the original letter of Madame Blavatsky to Mr. Solovyov  could never give rise to accusations (in renouncing the existence of the Mahatmas), of whom she became a victim …

If you do not think that I’m right, pointing to an erroneous translation, I would be extremely obliged to you if you send a certified copy of it.  Your and Solovyov’s refusals to compare copies of  the letter and its translation can only intensify unpleasant conclusions, that there is a deliberate malice in their essential discord.

I ask you to accept the assurance of, etc.

  1. Zhelikhovskaya.


Why does not Mr. Solovyov cite on the pages of Russkiy Vestnik this letter of Mrs.»Ygrek»? .. And besides the translation from the letter of Madame Blavatsky? .. The same invisible translation, which is so well kept by Mme de Morsier and is not shown to anyone, as will be told below.


[25] The eyewitnesses of the scene of reading the letter tell about it quite differently: the letter was not opened by Blavatsky, they say, but it arrived in a torn, tortured form, with Miss L.’s photographic card falling out of it. And Blavatsky never blamed or condemned Mohini in such terms, in which Solovyov describes the scene.