Theos-Talk Archives (October 1998 Message tt00003)

Following the very interesting discussions of Tony, Daniel, Dallas and other
Blavatsky students about reprints, new editions, errors and falsifications
in our literature I would like to share the following information about a
perhaps minor but nevertheless noteworthy discrepancy of the present
available "version" of: Countess Constance Wachtmeister's (et al.)  book
"REMINISCENCES OF H.P. BLAVATSKY", Quest ed. of 1976.
On p. 58 we can read Mrs.Wachtmeister's statement:

"One day we were greatly surprised by a visit from Mrs. Kingsford and Mr.
Maitland. They were in Ostend for a few days on their way to Paris, and were
staying at a hotel opposite our house... I gave up my room to Mrs.
Kingsford, and they spent a fortnight with us."

Not long ago the Lucifer vol. no. 78, Feb. 1894 came in for our growing
Archives. Studying this vol. for "new" information I found on p. 517 the
following letter of Edward Maitland:

" Correspondence.
COUNTESS WACHTMEISTER'S "REMINISCENCES OF MADAME BLAVATSKY."
To the Editor of LUCIFER.

SIR, - On p. 70 [sic] of this book is an account of a visit paid by Mrs.
Kingsford and myself to Mesdames Blavatsky and Wachtmeister at Ostend in
October, 1886, in which it is stated - with a considerable amount of
circumstantiality - that we "spent a fortnight with" them. I shall be glad
of your permission to correct the mistake made herein. Our visit lasted for
*three days* [italics] exactly, as we went to them Oct. 5th and left - after
a sojourn every whit as pleasant as Madame Wachtmeister describes it - Oct.
8th. As I write with my travelling note-book before me, and also the hotel
bills showing where we stayed up to and after those dates, it is impossible
that my memory should play me false in the matter. - Yours truly, EDWARD
MAITLAND.
Thurloe Square Studios, S.W., Feb. 3rd, 1894."

Reading this clarification some questions come to my mind:

1. Is Mr. Maitland's clarification true or false?
2.And why is his clarification, whether true or false ignored by the present
publisher?

One would assume that such an information, known for more than hundred years
would be worth to be mentioned in a footnote.

Does anyone have more on this subject?

Frank