Michael Gomes on V.S. Solovyov
May 07, 2006 11:12 AM
Why should anyone except a slanderer consider Soloviof a
legitimate source of historical information?
But -- why using Soloviof as a source if you are not
Again Carlos commented:
So if Daniel, Katinka, Algeo, P. Johnson and others want
to look like scholars, they must first of all examine their
sources, then admit that V. Soloviof, Eleanor Sidgwick and
Alexis/Emma Coulombs are all liars, and finally start to
stick to facts.
Three good examples these people could follow are Leslie Price,
Michael Gomes and Ernest Pelletier -- who have different
positions/opinions, but all respect facts and examine their own
Now let us take one of these "good examples" that Carlos mentions.
Michael Gomes gives the following estimation concerning Solovyoff:
Although he LATER claimed that he was playing the role
of the docile inquirer, Solovyov's name appears in
a number of letters to the press [in 1884 for example]
testifying to the VALIDITY of Theosophical phenomena.
The publication of Richard Hodgson's damning report of H.P.B.
in the December 1885 Proceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research, and the attendant ridicule it brought
to the adherents of Theosophy, must have caused him to RECONSIDER
his position, for HIS ATTITUDE toward her RADICALLY CHANGED. . . .
Caps added. Quoted from Gomes' Introduction to Beatrice Hastings'
Now compare the above with what I wrote in ESOTERIC WORLD OF MADAME
...At first, relations between the two were friendly but Solovyov
turned against HPB and wrote a book . . . in which he attempted to
portray HPB as a fraud....
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application