The Fall, 2004 issue of FOHAT contains an
editorial and 3 letters from readers
criticizing John Algeo for including in Volume
I of the LETTERS OF H.P. BLAVATSKY the
"spy letter" (Letter No. 7) and nineteen
"Solovyov letters" (especially letters No. 12,
17, 53, 69 and 76). These letters are considered
by the editor and 3 readers to be frauds or
at least partial fabrications.
Ramon Sordo of Mexico writes:
"I think that these letters should be taken
out of the collection...."
Elinor Roos comments:
"In my opinion Letter 7 must have been
fabricated and should never have been
published."
Karin D. Smith remarked:
"Don't we have a duty to our readers and fellow
Theosophists to search for the truth, and if
not available, then to ignore those letters,
consider them inauthentic, and therefore
not include them in HER collected letters?"
Sordo also writes:
"...are we to expect published in the next
volumes the forgeries of Monsier et Madame
Coulomb?"
Roos remarks:
"...there are still more volumes of THE LETTERS
OF H.P. BLAVATSKY pending, and one wonders what other
questionable letters - even more discreditable
to H.P.B. than this one [No. 7] - might he
[Dr. Algeo] not be tempted to publish...."
And Smith comments:
"I truly hope that John Algeo and the editors will
be more careful in their choice of material
especially when they come to the era of the Coulombs."
As a member of the editorial board for the letters,
I could not disagree more with the view of
these writers to, in effect, censor these
specific letters and not publish them.
Readers should have easy access to these
letters. A reader can then decide whether
he/she believes a certain letter is a forgery
or not.
As far as I know, all of the Blavatsky-Coulomb
letters will be included in future volumes,
and IF they were excluded I would not want to
be a member of the editorial team.
Jean Overton-Fuller in her Blavatsky biography
believes OTHER Blavatsky letters are forgeries.
Should we therefore exclude those too from
future volumes???
I also strongly disagree with the following
editorial comments:
"One could conclude...that the powers of
Wheaton and Adyar are trying to introduce
a perverted understanding of Blavatsky
into the world...."
"There are very good political reasons
for including those letters. Adyar and
Wheaton embrace a brand of 'theosophy'
that is built upon the work of Annie Besant,
Charles Leadbeater, and their worshipping
followers."
"Adyar and Wheaton have to believe, and they
have to ensure that their members believe in
the sainthood of at least Besant. This
sainthood cannot be guaranteed if Blavatsky,
Judge and their interpretations of the Masters
are not made suspect. The easiest way to
accomplish this is to attack the reputations
of these two founders of the society and
attribute to them base, political motives,
to make them as ethical as a Jesuit. Adyar
and Wheaton obviously want these letters
included in these collections and you can
be sure that they will not be the last of
their type. There will be other letters
of the same ilk in future volumes. If
you are members of these organizations, do
not let your leadership get away with this."
All I can say is "Flapdoodle"!
In light of this kind of "reasoning",
I ask the editor of FOHAT: do you therefore
ascribe the same base motives to the late
John Cooper? I ask you this question
because Cooper ALSO included these
"fraudulent" letters in his "edition" of HPB's
letters. See Cooper's dissertation for proof
of my statement.
And I must also have the same base motive
since I agreed with both Algeo and Cooper
that these letters should be included in
the published volume.
Daniel H. Caldwell
http://blavatskystudycenter.org
Yahoo! Groups Links
