Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01032)

Carlos sometime ago on Theos-Talk wrote:

======================================================

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?

==========================================================

So it would appear that Carlos wants Theos-Talk readers to know that 
no one but a slanderer would use the HPB letters in the Soloviof 
volume as a source of historical information.

But I ask:

Does Carlos consider the following people as slanderers?
  
The following individuals use the Soloviof book as "a legitimate 
source of historical information".

Michael Gomes in his book THE DAWNING OF THETHEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT 
quotes from two of the HPB letters found in the Solovioff volume.

In each instance, Mr. Gomes attributes what is said in these two
letters to H.P.B.

For example, Mr. Gomes writes (p. 185):

"She wrote to Alexander Aksakov in October 1877..."

and goes on to give a quote from one of the HPB letters in the 
Soloviof volume.

Nowhere when quoting H.P.B.'s words from this letter, does Mr. Gomes
warn the reader of his book that he is quoting from false letters.

Boris de Zirkoff in his writings does the same thing. He quotes
H.P.B.'s words from various letters to Askakoff as found in the 
Soloviof volume. The very letters Mr. Aveline considers false. And no 
where does Mr. de Zirkoff in these instances warn the reader that he 
is quoting from the Soloviof volume that contains fake HPB letters.

In her HPB biography, Sylvia Cranston also quotes from one of these 
HPB letters as found in the Soloviof book. She quotes as though the 
words in the letter are HPB's. And nowhere does she warn the reader 
to beware of this letter or the similar letters from Aksakoff as 
being false. 

In other words, we find these three individuals using the Solovioff 
book as "a legitimate source of historical information".

SUMMARY:

Gomes, de Zirkoff and Cranston are quoting from HPB letters in the 
Solovioff volume that Carlos and his team now want to REMOVE from the 
future "abridged" volume of HPB's letters.

So does Carlos really believe in his own pronouncement which reads:

======================================================

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?

==========================================================

Daniel
http://hpb.cc