Blavatsky Collected Writings Volume 4 Page 42

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS*

[The Theosophist, Vol. III, No. 6, Supplement, March, 1882, pp. 6-8]

“J.K.” — Your letter headed “Under which ‘adept’ Theosophist?” will not be published, for the following reasons:
(1) Personal abuse to the address of the editor, however amusing to the latter, does not interest the general reader.
(2) Our journal is not concerned with, and carefully avoids everything of a political character. Therefore, such vilifications as contained in the said article, namely, a low and vulgar abuse of Russia, its “barbarian moujik” and the “worthy countrywoman of Ignatieff”; and especially the
––––––––––
* [In Letter XLVII, p. 273, of The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, Master M. specifically states that these “Answers” were written by himself. They are reprinted here for the sake of completeness.—Compiler.]
––––––––––

 

Page 43

mention of the “red cock” crowing over “the Jew’s house”—cannot find room in its columns. But such matter would be received, most likely, with cheerful welcome in those of a third-class Jewish, Russophobic organ in Germany.
(3) For that same reason we must decline to allow the author of “The Adeptship of Jesus Christ,” to soothe his ruffled feelings by expatiating upon “the political object” of the Theosophical Society; “which is to place the English under the Hindoos, and to bring the Hindoos under the Russian rule” (!!!), as the absurd accusation comes two years too late and would not interest even our Anglo-Indian readers.
(4) A lady medium respected and beloved by all who know her, is called in it our “spy,” and “general informant” which is a gratuitous calumny and a glaring untruth.
(5) British and American laws having provided against the violation of the postal enactments intended to secure the purity of the mails, the Journal would risk to pay the penalty for sending indecent matter by book post. The coarse paragraph in the said article, which relates to the proposed visit of the “handsome widow’s son” to the Indian “theosophical dovecot” and the supposed “flutter in it,” among the fair and dark sisters “whom the writer proposes to initiate” into the higher mysteries, etc., etc., comes directly under that law.
(6) The Theosophist devoted to Oriental Philosophy Art, Literature, Occultism, Mesmerism, Spiritualism and other sciences, has not pledged itself to reproduce burlesque parodies, or circus-clown poetry. Therefore, such grotesque bits of prose and poetry as:

“Stay your all answering horse laugh, ye natives and Anglo-Indians, remember he laughs best who laughs last !” [or]
“Then tremble, pretenders, in the midst of your glee,
For you have not seen the last of J. W. nor me.”*

—are not fit to appear in a serious article.
(7) The Theosophist publishes only articles written and sent by gentlemen.
––––––––––
* J. W. is Mr. Wallace, whom we have the honour to answer further on.
––––––––––