Trying to Clarify Carlos' Specific Statement about Using Soloviof's Book
- Trying to Clarify Carlos' Specific Statement
about Using Soloviof's Book
Carlos, sometime ago you 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 Carlos, are you saying that any writer who uses Soloviof's book
as a legitimate source for historical information is a "slanderer"?
For example, if some writer (let us say Paul Johnson or John Algeo
or ....) wrote a book which contains the following two quotes or
similar quotes from Solovyoff's book, would you consider the writer
to be a "slanderer"?? Please refer to your own words ABOVE.
Now the two quotes:
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.)
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).
So if some writer wrote a book which contains the ABOVE two quotes
or similar quotes from Solovyoff's book (that is, they are
USING Soloviof as a legitimate source of historical information by
quoting HPB's letters in MODERN PRIESTESS OF ISIS), would
you consider the writer to be a "slanderer"??
Again I ask this in light of your own words which I quoted at the
very first of this posting.
I am trying to clarify and understand exactly what you mean in your
statements as given.