Why should anyone except a slanderer consider Soloviof a legitimate source...?
May 09, 2006 07:37 AM
A simple YES, you would be a "slanderer" or NO, you would not be
a "slanderer" will be a sufficient answer to the following
questions/examples. Looking forward to your answer.
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 a slanderer?
Let us suppose, I have written an article or maybe even a chapter
for a possible book on HPB and Theosophy and in the course of my
narrative, I write:
In the latter part of 1877, H.P.B. told others that she was planning
to go to the East. She wrote to a Russian correspondent Mr. Aksakov:
"We have now a multitude of corresponding fellows in India, and are
proposing next year to set off for Ceylon and to settle there, as
headquarters of our society." (A Modern Priestess of Isis, p. 277.)
Or let us suppose that in my essay or book I wrote:
H.P.B. writes about her first book ISIS UNVEILED as follows:
"Well, my book has appeared at last. My darling was born last
Saturday, September 29th, but a week ealier my publisher had sent
pre-publication copies to the editors of all the papers. I am
enclosing herewith the review in the New York Herald...." (letter
by H.P.B. to N.A. Aksakov from V.S. Solovyov's A Modern Priestess of
Isis (London, 1895).
Carlos, am I a "slanderer", by YOUR OWN definition by using
Soloviof's book in these examples as "a legitimate source of
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application