Solovyoff and His Letters
(From Fall 2004 Supplement to Fohat)
In the following examination of "Letter 11" and "Letter 12" of The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky, an attempt will be made to give a few cursory reasons for the doubting of their authenticity. These letters were introduced by Vsevolod Solvyoff in his Russian work A Modern Priestess of Isis and appeared in English a short time later, in 1895, in a work translated by Walter Leaf of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR). This book was very important to the SPR as they felt it corroborated Hodgson's report of 1884 to the SPR. That much or all of Hodgson's report lies wholly discredited today should be kept in mind. It cannot be denied by any credible investigator that Hodgson's investigative techniques lacked anything approaching rigor and his arguments owe more to sophistry than to truth.
The letters to be examined in this essay lie in that category of letters designed to show the following, according to Walter Leaf's introduction:
(1) that at one time, in spite of her subsequent vehement denials of the fact, Madame Blavatsky was a professed and thorough spiritualist in the ordinary sense of the word. She therefore adopted the "theosophical" attitude of hostility to spiritualism only after 1874, and had recourse to deliberate falsehood to conceal the fact. (2) At this period she is entirely silent as to the Mahatmas who guided her action; her guardian and teacher is the "pure spirit" John King, well known at the séances of Williams and other professional mediums in both hemispheres; he is her "only friend" and thus occupies the place later taken by Morya and Koot Hoomi. (p. x)
This then is Solovyoff's theory, but what is the Theosophical line on the same period?
Olcott in his Old Diary Leaves came across a note in Blavatsky's MSS that seems to outline her reason for coming to America:
I was sent from Paris to America on purpose to prove the phenomena and their reality, and show the fallacy of the spiritualistic theory of spirits. . . . I had to keep alive the reality, the genuineness and possibility of such phenomena, in the hearts of those who from Materialists had turned Spiritualists, but now, owing to the exposure of several mediums, fell back again, returned to their scepticism. (pp. 13-14)
Blavatsky performed phenomena quietly, allowing it to be attributed to the mediums who were present for the purpose of attracting people's attention (especially doubting Materialists) and at the same time was to provide answers contrary to the "spiritualistic theory" as to what caused this phenomena. We see here an approach that encompasses both Spiritualism and Materialism to the end of showing the fallacy of each. This is really quite brilliant.
Olcott also provides for us a Theosophical explanation as to why Blavatsky used the so-called spirit, John King. He writes, again in Old Diary Leaves, about Blavatsky's ongoing use of this entity:
I thought it a veritable John King then, for its personality had been as convincingly proved to me, I fancied, as anybody could have asked. But now, after seeing what H.P.B. could do in the way of producing mayavic (i.e., hypnotic) illusions and in the control of elementals, I am persuaded that "John King" was a humbugging elemental, worked by her like a marionette and used as a help towards my education. Understand me, the phenomena were real, but they were done by no disincarnate human spirit. (p. 11)
So the Theosophical explanation at this time is that Blavatsky was never a spiritualist, despite what others claimed, and that she was interested in defending the phenomena, not for the sake of the Spiritualists who already believed in the phenomena, but for the Materialists who did not. It is easy to see why some researchers are unsure of Blavatsky's position on spiritualism when those closest to her at that time were deceived. Blavatsky had to open people's minds up slowly; people would have turned away had she come out with seemingly outlandish theories describing elementals and elementaries. When introducing any new subject it is necessary to go slow, building the complex from the simple. In this case, Blavatsky was not even introducing a new subject onto a clean slate. She first had to establish that there might be problems with the old theory so that minds might open to accept possible new theories.
Sometimes, when you are reading the claims of others, it is helpful to ask yourself what variety of meanings could be attributed to a claim. I am unaware of any attempts by Theosophists to verify what is meant by the following statement by Walter Leaf in his introduction to A Modern Priestess. Leaf writes, "The correspondence with Mr. Aksákoff is further guaranteed by the name of the recipient . . ."(pp. ix-x) I do not believe anyone doubts that there was correspondence between Aksakoff and Blavatsky; the question is whether the letters that appear in A Modern Priestess are the same letters that Aksakoff received. If there is confirmation in writing on Aksakoff's part, is the confirmation to the effect that he supplied Solovyoff with the letters, or that the letters as they appear in A Modern Priestess are accurate. The reason that this has to be brought up is that Beatrice Hastings in her "Defence" series has shown how on numerous occasions, the SPR has avoided using information that would hurt their case, and has misrepresented other evidence. Leaf actually adds a proviso to Aksakoff's guarantee. He writes that "indeed, the letters in question need little guarantee beyond the evidence of style which they carry with them." (p. x) Is this proviso to forestall any arguments arising out of a possible "change of mind" on Aksakoff's part?
Let's look at the letters themselves for further clues. In "Letter 11", Aksakoff sent a letter in French to a friend of Blavatsky's, Andrew Jackson Davis. Not being good with the French language, he coincidentally asks Blavatsky to read and translate it to him. Here is what she apparently writes back to Aksakoff:
In this letter you write: "I have heard of Madame Blavatsky from one of her parents [it must refer to a conversation with her father that was at least a few years old as her mother had died when she was a little girl - ed], who spoke of her as a rather strong medium. Unfortunately, her communications reflect her morals, which have not been very strict." Whoever [???? - It could only be her father - ed] it was who told you about me, they told you, the truth, in essence, if not in detail. (p. 44)
As I pointed out, the only parent that Aksakoff could be referring to is Blavatsky's father who had already been dead over a year at this time. Blavatsky's mother died while she was a child and referring to a child as a medium with lax morals makes no sense. If it was clearly her father, why didn't she say, "What my father told you was true", rather than the awkward phrase she used? Why also would a European family of nobility be going about telling complete strangers about a family member's lax morality and her practice of mediumship? This does not seem credible, especially coming from the father. Also, who would write to another person "her communications reflect her morals"? What does that even mean? At this point, she had written one letter to Aksakoff, a business letter from an author pitching a proposal. I fail to see where any morality is reflected in the letter at all, unless he believes the claims of phenomena that Blavatsky described were lies -- a strange and unjust starting point for someone who investigates psychic phenomena and who has been told by a "parent" of Blavatsky that she is a strong medium. Finally, why would anyone, let alone Blavatsky, just up and confess to charges that have not been spelled out to her? Clearly they were not spelled out in the letter she was reading to Mr. Davis as she later supposedly writes:
do not deprive me of the good opinion of Andrew J. Davis. Do not reveal to him that which, if he knew it and were convinced, would force me to escape to the ends of the Earth. (p. 46)
Why then say in effect that 'everything that you heard about me is true'? Are we now to believe that the genius behind The Secret Doctrine is an irrational flake?
Clearly, this entire passage was designed to attack the morality of Blavatsky, especially her early years, so that Solovyoff could point to the following passage, "I have only one refuge left in the world -- it is the respect of the spiritualists of America who despise nothing so much as "free love."(p. 46) From "free love" we can move to the salacious allegations of children out of wedlock and so much more -- how convenient. Again, not knowing what Aksakoff knew, why would she offer up further details? It makes absolutely no sense at all. Can anyone see how Walter Leaf could mistake this irrational rambling of an apparent madwoman for the "style" of Blavatsky?
It is also in this letter that Blavatsky accuses herself of being "a 'spiritist' and a 'spiritualist' in the full significance of these two terms" (p. 45). I guess Blavatsky, at this point, had enough foresight to know that years later people would try to equivocate on the meaning of 'spiritist' and 'spiritualist' so, for our future benefit, she added for us "in the full significance of these two terms." What utter rot. We are to believe that Blavatsky is writing this very emotional letter and she is going to worry about being misunderstood on the point of being a 'spiritist' by someone she seemingly expects to have no further relationship with? It boggles the mind.
Contrast "Letter 11" with "Letter 13", a letter that Blavatsky sent to her relatives dated 1874. Blavatsky writes of her feelings on Spiritualism to her family in a manner that any student of Theosophy would recognize immediately as true of Blavatsky's beliefs at the end of her life as they obviously were in 1874. Even if this letter was never written, a few years later she explained all in Isis Unveiled. No one is seriously going to suggest -- at least no one that is not an historian -- that with no influences other than Spiritualists and Materialists, this grand philosophy suddenly popped into her head? It has taken many people years to understand Theosophy even at a naive level, yet we are to believe that Blavatsky dreamed it up on an afternoon in 1875 when she had nothing better to do?
"Letter 12" demonstrates to us more of the same that was evident in "Letter 11". Blavatsky is here made to write the following nonsense:
I would have my fortune secured if I wasn't carrying unfortunately my accursed name of Blavatsky. I do not care to risk signing my name to any book. It might raise reminiscences too dangerous for me. I prefer to lose $12,000 which is what is offered me -- the editors offer me 12 cents per copy, and they guarantee to sell 100,000 copies. These are the bitter fruits of my youth devoted to Satan, his pomps and works! (p. 49)
The scary thing is that there are historians out there who will actually try to pass this off as true. It does not even read as entertaining fiction. Just a few short years later Blavatsky finds it okay to put her name to Isis Unveiled and risk the dangers that this might entail and this was at a time when her reputation was carrying the fledgling Theosophical Society on its back. Why risk it? In 1874 she was penning articles and Letters to the Editor, not trying to hide in obscurity. If the name was so bad, why didn't she just change it? There are so many internal inconsistencies with this passage that one hardly knows where to begin. Then, to top it all off, Blavatsky is made to casually remark that she was a Satanist at one time, or at the very least a hedonist. It would seem to me that even reformed Satanists and hedonists wouldn't want to be spreading that around, especially to someone they were trying to work for.
Solovyoff must be the greatest Blavatsky historian of all time. This person comes up with, again and again, her self-incriminating anecdotes and letters like no one else. Even the Coulombs would have been jealous. The fact that he has riches whereas others have nothing, seems lost to the world of Blavatsky's detractors. He wrote it, it must therefore be true.
It is not true, and anyone who took the time to look carefully at these letters would quickly realize this. If the short time spent on putting this article together is any indication, then books could be written on how untrustworthy this material is. It may not be fun but Theosophists have to go back to this so-called 'source' material and show it up for what it really is -- a pack of lies. Only after this work is done and Blavatsky's name is cleared for all time will we be able to bring to humanity the truly magnificent works of H.P. Blavatsky. Humanity needs them and it is our duty to do everything we can to make people pay attention. That duty is the fruit of Universal Brotherhood.
R.Bruce MacDonald
RETURN TO COMMENTS ON LETTERS OF HPB, VOL. I