Alexander Wilder was a great scholar of ancient
philosophies and civilizations, and that is why he was commissioned to edit the
work "Isis Unveiled", and
in this article he narrates two discussions he had with Blavatsky regarding
that work.
The understanding had been reached
that Mr. Bouton should publish Madame Blavatsky's manuscript of Isis
Unveiled. It was placed in my hands by him with instruction to abridge it
all that I thought best. It was an undesirable task, but I did it with
scrupulous regard to the interest of the publisher, and to what I esteemed to
be just to the author.
I was introduced to her about this
time. She spoke of what I had done, with great courtesy, employing her favorite
term to characterize what I had thrown out. She was about to begin a revision
of the work, and asked me to indicate freely wherever I considered it at fault
or not well expressed.
It is hardly necessary to say that
this was a delicate matter. Authors are sensitive even to morbidness, and prone
to feel a criticism to be an exhibition of unfriendliness. Nevertheless, I
faced the issue, and pointed out frankly what I considered fault of style, and
also the importance of explaining her sources of information.
She was frank to acknowledge her own
shortcomings, but pleaded that she was not permitted to divulge the matters
which I urged. We compared views, ethnic and historic, often not agreeing. I
took the pains to embody many of these points in a letter, to which she made
the following reply:
« August.
Dr. A. Wilder,
My dear Sir:
Your kind favor at hand only to-day, for my friend Mr. Marquette has
proved an inaccurate postman, having some sunstruck patients to attend.
There are many parts in my Book that I do not like either, but
the trouble is I do not know how to get rid of them without touching facts
which are important, as arguments. You say that when I prove something, I prove
it too much. There again you are right, but in such a work — (and the first one
of some importance that I ever wrote, having limited myself to articles) in
such a work when facts crowd and elbow each other in my brains, really one does
not know sometimes where to stop.
Your head is fresh, for your read it for the
first time. Therefore you see all the faults and shortcomings, while my
overworked brains and memory are all in a sad muddle, having read the
manuscripts over and over again. I am really very, very thankful to you
for your suggestions. I wish you made more of them.
Do you think the Phoenicians were an Ethiopian race? Why? They have
certainly mingled much with them, but I do not see well how it can be. The Phoenicians
were the ancient Jews I think, whatever they have been before. Josephus admits
as much, unless it is a hoax to escape other accusations. The biblical mode of
worship and the bloody sacrifices in which the Patriarchs and other
"chosen ones" delighted are of a Phoenician origin, as they belonged
in days of old to the Bacchic and Adonis Phoenician worship. The Adonis is
certainly the Jewish Adonai. All the Phoenician deities can be found in Joshua
as well as their temples. xxiii, 7.
Herodotus traces the circumcision to them. The little bulls of the Jews
— the Osiris-Bacchus-Adonis — is a Phoenician custom. I think the Phoenicians
were the Canaanites. When settled in Jerusalem they appear to have become
friends. The Sidonian Baal-Adonis-Bal is closely related to their Sabean
worship of the "Queen of Heaven." Herodotus shows that the Syrians —
the Jews of Palestine — lived earlier on the Red Sea and he calls them Phoenicians.
But what puzzles me is to reconcile the type. The Jews appear to have never
intermarried among other nations — at least not to the extent to change their
type. They have nothing Ethiopian about them. Will you tell me your
reasons and oblige?
You told me in a previous letter that the Ethiopians have anciently
dwelt in India. In Western India there is in a temple the statue of Chrishna [Krishna]
and he is a splendid black Ethiopian with woolly hair, black lips and flat
nose.
I trace every or nearly every ancient religion to India because of the Sanskrit
names of the gods of every other nation. If you trace them etymologically you
are sure to find the root of every god (of the Aryan family) in Sanskrit, and
many of the Semitic gods also, and that before the Aryans broke up towards the
South and North.
Every Slavonian Deity can be traced back to India, and yet the
word Bog, the Russian word for God, a derivation from Gosped,
gosped in Hospodar or gospodar, "the Lord" seems to come right from
the Babylonian Bel, Baal, or Bal. In Slavonian and Russian Bjeloybog
means literally White God, or the God of the Day, — Good. Deity, as Teherno-bog
is Black God — the Evil, Night-Deity. The Tyrian god was Belus — Babylonian
Bel, and Bok means Light and Boga the sun. I derive Bacchus from
this — as a Sun god.
I suppose we ought in the derivation of the names of all these gods,
take in consideration the aspiration. The Semitic S generally softens to
Ah, in the Sanskrit. The Assyrian San becomes in Sanskrit Ahan; their
Asuria is Ahura. As is the sun-god and Ar is a sun-god. Assur is a
Syrian and Assyrian sun-god; Assurya is one of the names of the Sun, and Surya
in Sanskrit is the Sun (see M. Miller).
It was the rule of Bunsen to soften the
S to u. Now As means life and Asu Spirit, and in India, even in Tibet,
the life principle, the great agent of Magic, the Astral light by which the
Lamas and Siamese priests produce their wonders is written Akasa,
pronounced Ahaha. It is the life-principle, for it is the direct
magnetism, the electric current proceeding from the Sun, which is certainly a
great Magnet as the ancients said, and not as our modern scientists will have
it.
I have studied some of the old Turanian words (beg pardon of philology
and Science) in Samarkand with an old scholar, and he told me that he traced
somehow the deities of every subsequent nation a great deal further back than
the Aryan roots before the split of the nations. Now Max Muller does not
concede, it seems to me, anything positive or exact as roots beyond the old Sanskrit,
and dares not go further back. How do you account for that?
You say that the Chaldeans were a tribe of the Akkadians, come from
Armenia. This is Rawlinson's views. But did you trace the primitive Akkadians
back?
I have been living for a long time at the very foot of Mount Ararat, in
Erivan, where my husband was governor for twenty-five years, and we have
profound scholars among some Armenian Monks in the Monastery of Etchmiadjene,
the dwelling-place or See of the Armenian Patriarch (the Gregorian). It is but
a few verstes from Erivan.
Abieh, the well-known geologist and archeologist of
the Russian government, used to say that he got his most precious information
from Nerses, the late Patriarch. In the garden of the very house we lived in
was an enormous column, a ruin from the palace of Tyridates, all covered with
inscriptions, about which the Russian government did not care much. I had them
all explained by a monk of Nerses. I have reasons to think the Akkadians came
from India.
The Bible mandrakes were never understood in their Cabbalistic
meaning. There is a Kabala older than the Chaldean. Oannes has never been traced
to his origin; but, of course, I cannot, at least I must not, give to
the world its meaning. Your article on the Androgynies is splendid. I did not dare
write it in my book. I think the Amazons were Androgynies and belong to one of
the primitive cycles. You do not prove them historically, do you?
I will certainly adopt your suggestion as to Job. I see you have
more of Cabbalistic intuition than I thought possible in one not
initiated. As to the chapter of explanation about the Hierophants, the
Florsedim and others, please suggest where it ought to come in and what it
should cover. It seems to me that it will be difficult for me to explain what I
am not allowed to, or say anything about the exoteric part what
intelligent people do not already know.
I am a Tibetan Buddhist, you know, and pledged myself to keep certain
things secret. They have the original book of Yasher and some of the
lost manuscripts mentioned in the Bible, such as the Book of War, as you
knew, perhaps, in the old place. I will write to General Kauffman one of
these days to Teschkent, where he is General Governor for the last ten years,
and he can get me all the copies and translations from the old manuscripts I
want. Isn't it extraordinary that the government (Russian) does not care more
about them than it does?
Whereto do you trace the lost tribes of Israel?
I suppose I gave you the headache by this time, so I close; I will
forward you Saturday the last chapters of the Second Part if I can, but this
part is not finished yet and I want your advice as to how to wind it up.
Truly and respectfully yours,
H. P. BLAVATSKY. »
Note. — Perhaps there should be some
reply made here to these inquiries, though it seems hardly in keeping. It is
true that Herodotus states that the Phoenicians came from the country of the
Red or Erythrean Sea, which washes Arabia.
Mr. J. D. Baldwin classifies them as
"Cushites," in which race he includes the Arabians and the dominant
dark people of India, but not the African tribes. The Cushites of Asia are the
Ethiopians of classic times. Although the Phoenicians were styled Kaphts by the
Egyptian, and the Philostians are said to have migrated from Kaphta, it has
been quite common to identify the Phoenicians with the Canaanites of the Bible.
Whether anciently the Jews were of the same people, there must have been a
close relation, and we find in the Bible that no exception was taken to
intermarriage till the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Probably the type was
established subsequent to that period. "Ephraim is a Canaanite," says
the prophet; "deceitful balances are in his hand, and he loveth to
oppress."
I think that Godfrey Higgins and
Moor in the "Pantheon" denominated the figure a "Buddha"
and black, that Mme. Blavatsky describes as Krishna. True, Krishna had another
name, and this term signifies black. But when India is named, it is not
definitely certain how far it extended, or differed from the Asiatic Ethiopia.
The Akkadians may have come from that part of Asia; the term signifies
Highlands. But the Chaldeans, their supposed successors, are called Kasdim. In
the Bible Xenophon wrote of Chaldeans, natives of Armenia.
~ * ~
The ensuing autumn and winter I
delivered a course of lectures in a medical college in New York. This brought
me from Newark several times each week and gave me an opportunity to call at
the place on West Forty-Seventh Street if there was occasion.
During the season previous Baron de
Palm had died in Roosevelt Hospital. He was on intimate terms with the family
group in West Forty-Seventh Street, and had received necessary attentions from
them during his illness. Whatever he possessed of value he bestowed upon them,
but with the pledge or condition that his body should be cremated.
This was a novel, not to say a
shocking idea, to people generally. There was but one place for such a purpose
in the United States. Dr. Francis Le Moyne had constructed it at Washington, in
Western Pennsylvania. He was an old-time abolitionist, when this meant social
proscription, and in 1844 was the candidate for the Liberty Party for
Vice-President. He had advanced views on the disposal of the dead and had built
the crematory for himself and family. The arrangements were made for the
cremation of the body of the deceased Baron, as soon as winter had come to
permit its transportation from New York. Colonel Olcott had charge of the
matter. Being a "newspaper man" and rather fond of display, he
induced a large party to go with him to see the first cremation in America.
This was the introduction of this practice into this country.
During his absence I called at the
house on Forty-Seventh Street, but my ringing was not answered. I then wrote a
note stating my errand. Madame Blavatsky answered at once as follows:
« My Dear Doctor:
Now, that's too bad, but I really think you must have rung the wrong
bell. I did not go out of the house for the last two months, and the servant is
always in the kitchen until half-past nine or ten. Why did you not pull all the
bells one after the other? Well, you must come Monday — as you have to come to
town, and stop over till Tuesday. You can attend your College and sleep here
the same, can't you? And Olcott will be back to talk your law business with
you; but if you want something particular, or have some law affairs which are
pressing, why don't you go to Judge, to 71 Broadway, Olcott's and Judge's
office.
Judge will attend to anything you want. He is a smart lawyer, and a
faithful true friend to all of us. But of course you know better yourself how
to act in your own business. Olcott will be home by Friday night I think. I
could not go, though they expect me there to-day. To tell you the truth, I do
not see the fun of spending $40.00 or $50.00 for the pleasure of seeing a man
burnt. I have seen burnings of dead and living bodies in India sufficiently.
Bouton is an extraordinary man. He says to Olcott that it is for you to
decide whether it will be one or two volumes, etc., and you tell me he needs no
estimate of yours!
He told you "how to go to work." Can't you tell us what he
told you? It is no curiosity, but business. As I am adding all kind of esoteric
and other matter in Part II, I would like to know what I can write, and on what
subjects I am to shut my mouth. It is useless for me to labor if it is all to
be cut out. Will you please, dear doctor, tell me what I have to do?
I am of your opinion about Inman; but facts are facts. I do not
go against Christianity, neither against Jesus of Nazareth. I simply go for the
skulls of theologians. Theology is neither Christianity nor religion. It is
human and blasphemous flapdoodle. I suppose any one understands it. But how can
I make a parallel between heathen or pagan worship and the Christian unless I
give facts?
It is facts and scientific discovery which kills exoteric and fetish-worshiping
Christianity, not what Inman or I can say. But laying Inman aside, read
"Supernatural Religion" which had in less than 18 months six editions
in England. The book is written by a Bishop, one of the most learned
Theologians of the Church of England. Why he kills divine Revelation and
dogmas and Gospels and all that.
Believe me, Dr. Wilder, a little and cowardly abuse will kill a book; a
courageous and sincere criticism of this hypocritical, lying, dirty crew —Catholic
Clergy— will help to sell the book. I leave the Protestants and other Christian
religions nearly out of question. I only go for Catholics.
A pope who calls
himself the Vicegerent of God on earth, and openly sympathizes with the Turks
against the unfortunate Bulgarian Christians, is a Cain — a fiend; and if the
French Liberal papers themselves publicly abuse him, Bouton must not fear that
the book will be prevented in its sale because I advise the old Antichrist, who
has compared himself for the last two years with all the Prophets of the Bible
and with the "slain Lamb" himself — if I advise him moreover, to
compare himself, while he is at work, to Saul; the Turkish Bashi-Bazook
to David; and the Bulgarians to the Philistines. Let him, the old cruel Devil
promise the Bashi-Bazook (David) his daughter the Popish Church (Michal) in
marriage if he brings him 100 foreskins of the Bulgarians.
(Cid's note: here
Blavatsky is referring to Pope Pius IX who was later beatified by John Paul II,
but who was not a saint and that is why Blavatsky metaphorically qualifies him
as being a devil and the antichrist.)
I have received letters from home. My aunt sends me a piece of poetry by
the famous Russian author and poet — J. Tourgeneff. It was printed in all the
Russian papers, and the Emperor has forbidden its publication from
consideration (and politics I suppose) for old Victoria. My aunt wants me to
translate it and have it published here in the American newspapers, and most
earnestly she appeals for that I cannot write poetry. God knows the trouble I
have with my prose. But I have translated every line word for word
(eleven quatrains in all). Can you put them in verses so as to preserve the
rhyme and rhythm, too?
It is a splendid and thrilling thing entitled "Crocket at
Windsor," the idea being a vision of the Queen, who looks upon a crocket
game and sees the balls chased by the mallet, transformed into rolling heads of
women, girls and children tortured by the Turks. Goes home; sees her dress all
covered with gore, calls on the British rivers and waters for help to wash out
the stain, and hears a voice answered, "No, Majesty no, this innocent
blood," —You can never wash out— nevermore," etc.
My dear Doctor, can you do me a favor to write me half a page or so of a
"Profession of faith," to insert in the first page or pages of Part
II?
Just to say briefly and eloquently that it is not against Christ or the Christ-religion
that I battle. Neither do I battle against any sincere, true religion,
but against theology and Pagan Catholicism. If you write me this I will know
how to make variations on this theme without becoming guilty of false notes in
your eyes and the sight of Bouton. Please do; you can do it in three minutes. I
see that none of your symbologists, neither Payne Knight, King, Dunlap, Inman,
nor Higgins, knew anything about the truths of initiation. All is exoteric
superficial guess work with them.
'Pon my word, without any compliment, there's Taylor alone and yourself,
who seem to grasp truth intuitionally. I have read with the greatest
pleasure your edition of the "Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries!" You
are right. Others know Greek better, but Taylor knew Plato thousand times
better; and I have found in your short fragments much matter which for the life
of me I do not know where you could have learned it. Your guesses are so
many hits right on the true spot. Well, you ought to go East and get
initiated.
Please come on Monday. I will have a bed ready for you Sunday, Monday,
and Tuesday, and I will be expecting you to dinner all these days. If you
cannot come until Monday, do tell me what instructions Bouton gave you, and
what are the precise orders for mutilations, will you?
Esoterically yours in true Platonism,
H. P. BLAVATSKY. »
(The Word, June 1908,
p.148-155)
OBSERVATIONS
You can see that Blavatsky loved to discuss these issues and surely that
was one of the reasons why she felt a great appreciation for Dr. Alexander
Wilder, because he was a very intelligent and very knowledgeable man who could
dialogue with deep and interesting way about it.
And these letters show that Blavatsky did know a lot about these
matters, and consequently they collapse the defamations of her enemies who
accused her of being a ignorant woman who copied everything from others.
FACSIMILE
Below we reproduce in facsimile the first and last pages of the second letter.
(The Word, July 1908, p.212-213)
No comments:
Post a Comment